Loading...
11/07/2005 - City Council Special AGENDA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 7, 2005 5:30 PM EAGAN ROOM-EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER 1. ROLL CALL AND AGENDA ADOPTION II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD III. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS POLICY 6.15 p.m. IV. JOINT MEETING WITH THE APRC ~a. 2020 Parks Vision Follow-up b. Discussion of 2006 Park Dedication Fees V. OTHER BUSINESS VI. CLOSED SESSION VII. ADJOURNMENT Agenda Information Memo November 7, 2005 Special City Council Meeting III. EXTERIOR DESIGN STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIALANDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT - CITY OF EAGAN ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED: To discuss draft ordinance regarding exterior design standards for commercial/industrial development. To direct staff to modify draft document and/or proceed with the Ordinance Amendment process based on discussion at the Special Council meeting. FACTS: ➢ This item is before the Council for the purpose of a checkpoint review/comment before formal APC consideration and a Public Hearing on an amendment is scheduled. ➢ The topic of exterior finish materials for commercial development was brought before the City Council in the fall of 2004. During that workshop, the Council reviewed a number of photos that displayed like-businesses in different cities. ➢ Upon review of the photos, the Council was struck by the disparity of window signage and directed staff to work with the Advisory Planning Commission to determine reasonable yet suitable window signage standards for the City. That exercise expanded to also incorporate temporary signage and these modifications to the Sign Ordinance were adopted by Council action on June 21, 2005. ➢ Subsequent to the successful conclusion of the temporary/window signage ordinance review and approval, attention again has been turned to the issue of commercial/industrial exterior materials. The genesis of the finish material discussion came about primarily for three reasons: 1. The City has operated for years with an undefined (and not codified) commercial exterior material standard of "brick or better". 2. It has not been unusual for council members, commission members and staff to hear the citizenry ask why another city got a higher quality architectural finish restaurant/store than Eagan. 3. The City Council, Advisory Planning Commission and staff are often told by an applicant/developer that one "benefit" of a proposed Planned Development is "higher quality" building finishes. Mandatory quality finish materials/architecture will result in a development demonstrating other public benefits to justify a PD zoning. ➢ The initial point of discussion with the APC was whether or not the City of Eagan should expect a high quality finish on commercial and industrial development simply as a matter of course. The commission believes Eagan's maturity and standing in the metropolitan area warrants high quality finish materials as a given. ➢ Planning staff has worked with the Planning Commission at several workshops to review and discuss the merits and advantages of existing standards imposed by Eagan in Cedar Grove and other metro cities (including Bloomington, Maple Grove and Woodbury). ➢ Staff has had informal discussions with several developersibuilders regarding quality finish materials and the response has been that the development community is generally supportive of higher standards provided the City's expectation is clearly defined and consistently applied. Developers have also indicated that the consistent application of high quality standards will protect their investment. ATTACHMENTS (2): Draft ordinance language on pages A_ and4 Chapter 11, Section 11.70, Subd. 21, 3 on pages and. Exterior surface materials of buildings shall be subject to the following: (1) Classes of materials. For the purpose of this subsection, materials shall be divided into class I, class II, class III and class IV categories as follows: Class 1 a. Brick b. Natural stone c. Glass d. Copper panels e. Other comparable or superior materials (as approved by City Council) Class II a. Specialty concrete block such as textured, burnished block or rock faced block b. Masonry stucco c. Other comparable or superior materials (as approved by City Council) Class III a. Exterior finish installation system (EFIS) b. Architecturally precast 'textured concrete panels c Opaque panels' d. Ornamental metal Class IV a. Smooth concrete block b. Smooth scored concrete block c. Smooth concrete tip up panels d Ceramic e. Glass block fWood g. Other comparable or superior materials (as approved by City Council) (2) Buildings shall incorporate classes of materials in the following manner: a. Office and commercial buildings shall use at least three (3) class I materials and must be composed of at least sixty-five (65) percent class I materials; not more than thirty-five (35) percent class II or 3 class III material and not more than ten (10) percent class IV materials. b. Any building fagade exceeding forty (40) feet in width shall be designed with multiple planes, multiple sections of coordinating materials, or both, to add visual interest. C. Industrial and Business Park buildings located within eight hundred (800) feet of the right-of-way of any freeway, highway or county road shall use at least two (2) different class I or II materials and be composed of at least sixty-five (65) percent class I or class II; not more than thirty-five (35) percent of class III or class IV materials. Not more than ten (10).percent of the building shall be class IV materials.: d. Industrial and Business Park buildings located further than eight hundred (800) feet of the right-of--way of any freeway, highway or county road shall meet th&perform I ance standards outlined in Chapter 11, Section 11. Subd. 21, 3- LAND USE REGULATIONS (ZONING) § 11.70 3. Industrial and General Business District architectural standards. a. Policy statement. All buildings in light industrial (I-1), general industrial (I-2) and general business (GB) districts shall be designed to accomplish the goals and objectives of the city land use Comprehensive Guide Plan. Exterior building materials shall be attractive in appearance, durable and compatible with adjacent structures and consistent with the city's standards for the district in which it is located. b. New construction. i. No less than 75 percent of the exterior, exposed walls of any newly constructed building in light industrial (I-1), general industrial (I-2) or general business (GB) districts shall be constructed of a vertical finish made of noncombustible, non-degradable, and low maintenance con- struction material, including, but not limited to, face brick; natural stone; specially designed precast concrete or synthetic stucco or com- parable material (e.g., dryvit) units, provided the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture; smooth, painted or decorative concrete block, provided the block is scored at least twice. ii. Twenty-five percent or less of the exterior, exposed walls of any newly constructed building in light industrial (I-1), general industrial (1-2) or general business (GB) district may be constructed of any of the following materials: metal, including but not limited to steel, sheet or corrugated aluminum, or iron; vinyl; plain concrete block; or any other material not within the standards set forth in paragraph b.i. Any metal surface or siding as permitted herein shall be coated or anodized with a non-reflective, glare-free finish. iii. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, exterior, ex- posed walls of any accessory structure to a building in light industrial (1-1), general industrial (1-2) or general business (GB) district may be constructed of the following material: metal, including steel, sheet or corrugated aluminum or iron; vinyl; plain concrete block; or any other material not within the standards set forth herein, provided a condi- tional use permit is first obtained from the city. C. Expansion or enlargement of metal-sided buildings. i. In the event any building, which is an existing, nonconforming metal-sided building under this subdivision on the effective date of this ordinance, is enlarged or expanded and the expansion is less than 10,000 square feet and 50 percent in size by total square feet of the existing, nonconforming metal building, the expansion structure need not comply with the provisions of this subdivision, but any exterior, exposed side or surface of the expansion structure shall be constructed of identical material and color to the existing, nonconforming building. Supp. No. 10 CD11:139 5 § 11.70 EAGAN CODE In the event the expansion or enlargement is at least 10,000 square feet or 50 percent in size by total square feet of the existing, noncon- forming metal building, whichever is greater, the provisions governing nonconforming structures or uses in this chapter shall govern. ii. For purpose of this subdivision, the total square feet of the existing nonconforming building shall be determined as the total size of the existing building as existed on June 1, 1995. The total square feet or percentage of any and all expansions to an existing nonconforming building as of June 1, 1995, shall be aggregated for purposes of calculating the size or percentage of the total expansion to the original building existing on June 1, 1995. Agenda Memo November 7, 2005 Special City Council Meeting IV. JOINT MEETING WITH THE APRC A. 20/20 PARKS VISION FOLLOW-UP ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To review the draft 20/20 report and provide input and direction on how this document can best serve the community's future needs. FACTS: • The APrC has been working with CEHP since November, 2004 to create a guide and vision for the city's park, recreation and open space needs over the next fifteen years.. • Several public forums strategic group meetings have been held to solicit input from the community during the information gathering phase of the project. Residents were also offered several other options to share their ideas and concerns including e-mail, dedicated phone line and personal contact. • The City Council has been brought up to date on the process at earlier workshops during the consultant's review. • A full draft of the 20/20 report was distributed to council members on November 1 to allow the opportunity to review as much of the information as needed. • The APrC will present a brief Power Point presentation to serve as a guide to identify the key elements of the document and share issues that will need to be addressed in the future. ATTACHMENTS: • Draft documents distributed to council members on November 1, 2005. Agenda Memo November 7, 2005 Special City Council Meeting IV. JOINT MEETING WITH THE APRC B. Discussion of 2006 Park Dedication Fees ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To review information pertaining to 2006 park and trail dedication fee proposal and provide input to APrC. FACTS: • The APrC annually reviews park and trail dedication fees and makes a recommendation to the City Council for consideration. • During the past several years the review has incorporated fees from other metro communities to provide a basis of comparison. The comparison has shown Eagan in the lower quadrant as dedication fees have been steadily increasing in many other communities. • A more extensive review and comparison has been completed this year and demonstrates that if the City of Eagan attempts to become more in line with other metro communities the net result is significant increases in several areas. • The comparisons are included with the cover memo to better illustrate the city's current position and where new fees might need to change. • The APrC has this item scheduled on their November 14 agenda for recommendation to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: • Cover memo attached as pages - • Proposed 2006 park and trail dedication fees attached as page. • Comparison information attached as pages - I Le City of EaEd~ MEMO TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINSTRATOR FROM: JULI SEYDELL JOHNSON, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION PAUL OLSON, SUPERINTENDENT OF PARKS DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 2005 SUBJECT: 2006 PARKS AND TRAILS DEDICATION RATES Background Each year, Parks and Recreation staff, along with the APrC, analyzes Parks and Trails Dedication fees. The analysis includes the review of various elements including the fee schedule of other metropolitan communities. A recommendation is subsequently made to the City Council for review and adoption as a required fee for developments occurring in the upcoming year. The APrC is presenting herein a preliminary 2006 dedication fee schedule for review and comment of the City Council. Park dedication fees are the primary source of funding for the Park Site Fund which provides financial support for the Departmental Capital Improvement Program. With the City now at nearly 95% of "build-out" and over 50% of the remaining space being zoned Industrial, park dedication fee revenue will continue to decrease. Given this scenario, it becomes even more prudent to implement a fee schedule that reflects current circumstances. Park dedication fees are tied fundamentally to the value of the acquisition of raw land. City policy language states: "Said fee shall be determined by the average market value of undeveloped residential property by zoning classification, served by major utilities, divided by the number of units per acre which shall provide the equivalency of twelve acres (of park land) per thousand acres". Trail dedication fees are instead tied to the inflating cost of construction materials and services. Statutory Compliance In 2004, at the behest of developers, new State legislation was approved regarding parks and trails dedication. Upon review, the City Attorney determined that the City has been and is in compliance with the new legislation even prior to its implementation. The new legislation covered five issues: 1. " Upon request, a municipality must explain the basis of its fees 2. "Developers have the right of appeal if a dispute arises over a specific fee imposed by a municipality 3. "Connection between the fees or dedication required and the municipal purpose sought to be achieved by the fee or dedication "(must exist). 4. "Procedure under which a developer may challenge a proposed fee in lieu of dedication "(must exist). 5. "The basis for calculating the amount to be dedicated or preserved must be established by ordinance " Discussion As part of the review process, the APrC considered information pertaining to the park and trail dedication fees charged by thirteen other metropolitan communities including the nearby Cities of Bloomington, Apple Valley, Burnsville and Inver Grove Heights (see attachments). In most categories, Eagan fees lag far behind what will be referred to as the 2005 Metro Survey Average (MSA). In the four categories considered to be residential in nature, single and the various multiple combinations, Eagan fees are approximately 40% below the MSA. Commercial/Industrial fees tend to be more in-line with the MSA, although an increase for 2006 may be necessary to maintain that level. It is important to note that Eagan is the only City in the MSA that segregates park and trail dedication fees, all others in the MSA have one, combined, fee. For the purpose of general comparison, the Eagan trail and park fees have been added together. Another important element of the APrC review was a survey of the current value of undeveloped land in each of the zoning classifications. As stated earlier, in principal park dedication fees are tied to land value. Consequently, staff conducted a random survey of approximately 2500 properties located throughout the City. In general, the assessed valuations used to determine the 2005 dedication fees were significantly below the level identified in the survey. While establishing a direct link between the fees and property values, especially market values, is difficult at best, the current deviation is substantial enough to justify consideration of a substantial increase in fees. This is evidenced even more by the fact that the survey included assessed values versus market value, which is significantly higher than assessed value. Nevertheless the values determined in the survey were not used by the APrC in computing the proposed 2006 fees. Had they done so, the 2006 proposed in crease in fees would have been even greater. The APrC believes the approach used in developing the data, and the data itself, should be incorporated more fully in the 2007 APrC process for determining parks and trails dedication fees. APrC Proposal The APrC proposes that the combination of new 2006 park and trail dedication fees be equivalent to the 2005 Metro Survey Average in each of the zoning category, with an additional 10 % added to account for the pending 2006 adjustments of the survey communities (yearly increase in the MSA averaged +16.3% from 04 to 05). The Eagan trail and park dedication fees 10 would remain segregated, but are added together for the sake of comparison; 10% for trails, with the balance of the increase needed to achieve the MSA being made in park dedication fees. Although the APrC proposal reflects substantial increases in our parks and trails dedication fees in most categories, the APrC believes that the proposal is appropriate for the following reasons: 1. Eagan's fees lag substantially behind the fees charged by peer cities. 2. Eagan prides itself at being more than average. The APrC, along with staff and the City Council have partnered together to position Eagan as one of the most successful and emulated Park and Recreation Departments in the metropolitan area. In the recent survey of resident satisfaction, over 90% of residents gave high marks to the Department, including Park Maintenance, in which the Capital Improvement Program resides. To continue to achieve the self-established standard of excellence and meet the expectation of residents, financial resources will be required. 3. In terms of a product, the law of supply and demand predicts that as supply decreases, demand, and subsequently value, will increase. Such is the case with land within the City. Likewise, as demand for park based services increases and demographics dictate change, the cost to improve the infrastructure and meet the demand will continue to escalate. To this end, the APrC is suggesting that as the remaining land in Eagan is developed, the primary source of funding for system improvements will subsequently dwindle. Therefore, a substantial, but fair and equitable dedication fee increase is necessary and appropriate at this time. l 1 (D Nt (O O r 0) T- T- o Lo L(7 It ~f M p M M cM M O O O- 11 69 64 69 Ef? 64 651 N y > + Q ~ 0 Q~'a y N k t A~ a b 3:¢Lb , Li od L ~ ~ • r~~~5~ ~ far ~ ; O W U') W W r- W O W I` W r- W Nrl- O m O T.- N O c-- N O e- N N r- M T- M U) M M (D a O N N O N N O N T- O N V-- N r- M 0 V- (D a) N NON NON ~6,:~ (V ~4"), N LA ~(D V- U6 E C E9 II 64 II ER E!? II d4 ER 11 69 69 tt? 6c* EA ER 64 Q O O ~ ~ 11 - II - it - II _ II II 11 II ~ CL 2 T co -Fa ca -ru # O R v N,.~_ ~ F ~ N (0O caO m0 c6 O m O C N LLJ a = a. H IZ I-- 0- F - a o 0- I- F- a- F- F- .0 G D f- v v m C oa ` O m m a C a) E co N rn E a E cu :3 0 V co U- H Q U rn ~ca, Sao jc Nt N N„__ LL o ; c:.. 0 0, O m co U •D Q N m = N _ r O O U O = O O O O m -0 L M r C C U co 7 c .O C a) O co :3 U) E E E E E rn C O c Q U E E U- Fp oQo~oooooQ a)~ C a) CD L' Lo Z}Z U Z U N U-0000 Z O to a) m a) vim T Q, > U a) t4 U O V i a) 3 0 'a N co Y : 0) 0 0 0 0 0 O M U CD C'Cfl O O (o tor.M.00 ADOoUI> O O O CO O L - A •a O V 11- > M r co co U) CD'U~- O CA r O cA O U cc C: a) O II C C C d'd ~ CD CD U) U)1-CD M U) Q LL x a) ~ m E C CD v of .s X 3 O c Q (o a NLt Lx p O 0- a- Q O O O p w C> (n C Nr y U a) a) v6J O N - p a) N " ~ >OOOCD N - L. O co C5 - 0 U d i+ O- p cc O ce) C j p CU B CL C 3 CL ~ r ~ ` . O v e- to E E a) C0 O (n ' U) ' O O U') O O O O N O a) CD; in O o o cA O O O S O O O CD !n O Q- O CL c a) > M. o ;o. . CD LO M U') o u> r o a E -D U X 'E X E a) is I "t x~ CD c0: co co CD d o I` ti CD M Ca co O C O 69 O tli fl N Q. E U) (V O U LL a) (9 - to a) o > 'C C L Co a) (a a) © N C w to rn - t to to ~O M 1- O O,N I-- O}O O O O O C Q Z-6 U 3 U y_ ~N 0 O) r U) 0 0j' CD M O E U) O O U) O O O r:O M d- r tr-O V I` O O 7vVa UZ7 0 3 C C .N N 't N M M N c'M I N et e) M N M "a ~ N a) ~O' a) y~ L p O- a) Q' cc O D co ` Io U) U) ca ku N G V C U) U N 0 U) 0 U UO a Q' co U a) a)-6 a) V. O =p O C a_ O M t-- 00 i 0 ~ O' 0 0 0 0 O CA p U O Q W U O O C a) a CO { O CDcf) O OO) N(OU.) OOU) O O C O " O"" UO O 6- to o v 0) r- (v f~ O 7 P O r U Q C O is N C to T _ _ cu 4w N tOCN V' M N N'M'N erFC M N M Cj co (D 3 to $ UO H 6.4 = M C Q C V U (D Q N e :3 to a C O 'a V C3, c a) c to ai 0 -Fu O t3 a) cc O M•f.- O C) r OO'OOO O r r C O x w co CD~U) O OWN N O~U.)?O O o O M U C 'D a) x O Y 0)) ~ o N O C cc O r~ N N ti a C "IL I" C V N a_ Q x N ON'I CMMNMNI'tMMN 0 io•'a Z7 , to N O Qc E LA to x E Q O Q N 'r°-. E p Q N M M +O+ N co a) co U ro V 0 0 O co U w C U,- - co p w o- a) a) 0) M CD (D k -C 10 (U 'a ov,roocoUO o)o,oooom (Dovvi~ a)oo0 m Oo O O D N 00000 O o O K p) U vi ` xy: C C O O to d• +N N `7 I- C) 19t r` O r = co to N N N' N IT M N N M. N" C M N M ~•::i? : A O O C4 O'' L N O Co co s a- Q._ Q O U L C O O Q O co 0 0 O Co t QT E a) E CD c c 0 e% wQE~E>_u) w'a yo p c c O (i) c a)U ccU.L- y-O0•0 rnCU N rn. to m w Q y) tC) x x to a) c n S.. L W Q 0 (D w ~c = ~O m 2 o $ p oa4 E j ) W `m a) o a) o a = > 2,- mCa-) 2-(Dcxo~C7 >oOOQU.oLL°ooo0pyo 2 2 CO FL-LL >O d C O o c N c~ a E` °:Q CQ m °M > cm a) 0 uj c Q CO o E 3 to > Co [ O> pl ¢ m v ui cfl ¢¢m m, mmww52IdCL 'S Q Z C co i3 C5 Q O f` r M O CA 0 0 0 CO O O ZCDCOcMNM WMLO LO LO etLO N fl ~ Z rn '_r r OOMN OOMOOOf"O QOr`r(MO d•d'000OCo OC)NNMO~-ONO~r- ZcD(6 MNM t6 c,5t6 ui6 co fl T N o N O 0. r c OOr`0)r0MML000) a MticT OMO r- ;r OOOCDO NO COrMOCO V'NOco'IT N(DO(oNM.6MCO~Ooi .6 d 1-10 C m "t_ L V: ti Cn CA M O CA 0 0 0 CD O t~ a U 0C>NCONCM 0MLO h0Nw C.G,. to (of,-zmO~-NM~tO o i l0 F O Cr) O) O O) 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ N r O r r r r V tAO)CAO)O)CAOOOOp O]'- V .3~ Z ' `a f000C0co M0 d NT 000N O fi M 0 N LO N M m M CO I~ 0 V- M O O O O O CD CO O O M~ O X N C4 r r Vce) Co Co Co O N V. 11' CD 00 0 ~ N II C LL Co CO CO O O M M O r r r N CL) L C] U) cc Q 1 OCDI- rnNO co 'IT 0tn0cn00 'd C = ODOOiCd)NM I-~ 66r-,6c)6 G? LO OOOMco CD cMNI~ CO 4) N r r r OLO to 0CD 0wOD rnrnal>7~ - >-r r r r T r r r r T r ~ C>) > N F- ,~'CA(D1`:0 (AO.NMV,OQ > O C A t n: O. M O O O. 0 0 0 O; N Q OO(3) 0)(3)000OCo OF~ Cp > r f r. e-- r r N N N N N NU M' O Co I, Co 0 0 T N M d• O (04 Q } ) CA (3) M 0) CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 CA CO r~- O 6 O T N M 4 > QO mmm000A o00ooQto k 00 U) 001- w0(OCDt- ti N I, ti T M CD CD r WIfT N ~Ot~titiOOCOM~t~1~CA T r r T T NMOtiMNtiOCDCD~O tiNOti Nlet 0w0I-MO O r- Co ti Co Co co co d Iqr ti CA r r r r r Or Cl)CO 01-~tI-C0000 r000LO00LOrI- N CD Cy! 't CA 't m o N 0 O 'IT N O O M O O D I- I- M T T r M CD ti CD Co N N N O Co m O M O N M M et r- M T- M O O) r r T r r r r r r N { 46 N M M M M M M M F'- Co0Nco ONMOco M(A t ' r000000 wMO w N NI~OttOMf~CAONrO 000 0 I~f~CD0m r I-co M0NNN`d•OCDm w0NMM~M01-0> N ~ r T r r r r T V- N M M M M M O N 0 Q (OD qt u7CDti;OOOM t7 O' V*:O0f- W OOH-NM'-T O Q O C) M. Cj CA.CACD OO OOOO' CAOOO(A(AOOOOO O C M0)C*0) CACA0Co Co 000 N N "IC N! (A000(A(A00000 O r r r e- N T m r r m r N CV N N CV CV (o ca V r 4Q Q EAGAN COMPARATIVE SF DP TH/ Q AND 2,890 AND 2,890 AND 2,890 BLMTN 4,800 BLMTN 4,100 BLMTN 4,100 APVL 4,584 MPLGR 4,000 MPLGR 4,000 MPLGR 4,000 PRLK 3,750 PRLK 3,750 PRLK 3,750 APVL 3,509.63 APVL 3,509.63 BRKPK 3,400 BRKPK 3,400 BRKPK 3,400 EDPR 3,400 EDPR 3,400 EDPR 3,400 PLYM 3,400 PLYM 3,400 PLYM 3,400 INVGVHTS 2,750 BNSVL 3,222 BNSVL 2,990 BNSVL 2,288 INVGVHTS 2,750 INVGVHTS 2,750 _ IA i''94j91,'f~CT ~ fib. ~li~ F`^ 'j e' 3 ^'f-~~ ^~-•---r~t^ BLNI 2,057 BLN 2,057 BLN 2,057 WDBY 2,000 WDBY 2,000 WDBY 2,000 APT/ MULT COMM ' IND AND 2,890 AND N/A AND N/A MPLGR 4,000 APVL 54,362: BLMTN 17336: PRLK 3,750 BLMTN 2.6,005: EDPR 7,500 BRKPK 3,400 BNSVL 8,500 PLYM 7,100 EDPR 3,400 EDPR 7,500 BRKPK 6,600 PLYM 3,400 MPLGR 7,500 BNSVL 6,500 BLMTN 3,300 PLYM 7,100 PRLK 6,400 BNSVL 3,162 BRKPK 6,600 MPLGR 5,950 APVL 2,841.13 PRLK 6,400 u:,'~ INVGVHTS 2,750 APVL 4,356 HolmIllIMSIM BLN 6,050 BLN 4,114 BLN 2,057 INVGVHTS 5,000 INVGVHTS 4,000 WDBY 2,000 WDBY 3,000 WDBY 3,000 1 S' Percentage of Increase from 2004 to 2005 By Category By City Single Townhome Apartment/ Commercial/ Family Duplex Quad Multi Commercial Industrial Blaine 10.0% 10.0% _ 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% Bloomington 6.6% 7.9% 7.9% 10.0% N/A N/A Burnsville 4.1% 38.6% 37.7% 40.1% 13.3% 30.0% Eagan 5.5% 5.5% 10.0% 10.0% 5.9% 5.9% Eden Prairie 21.4% 21.4% 21.4% 21.4% 0.0% 0.0% Inver Grove Heights 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 25.0% 33.0% Maple Grove 33.0% 33.0% 33.0% 33.0% 36.3% -17.6% Plymouth 21.4% 21.4% 21.4% 21.4% 4.4% 4.4% Prior Lake 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 28.0% 28.0% Woodbury 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% g:lparks05Uncrease from 2004 to 2005