10/24/2000 - City Council Special
AGENDA
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY
OCTOBER 24, 2000
5:00 P.M.
EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. ROLL CALL & AGENDA ADOPTION
II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD
III. REVIEW THE NEW MINOR SUBDIVISION
REGULATIONS
IV. REVIEW MVTA PILOT KNOBIYANKEE DOODLE
ROAD TRANSIT SITE FINAL DEVELOPMENT
V. DIRECTION RE: CONSULTANT RFP PROCESS
VI. DIRECTION RE: CITY ADMINISTRATOR REVIEW
PROCESS
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
•fynr~:
+ 47f 7:J fff.
MEMO
city of eagan
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: OCTOBER 249, 2000
SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETINGIFUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2000
A Special City Council meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, October 24, from 5:00 - 6:15 p.m. The purpose
of the meeting is to review the recent Minor Subdivision Ordinance, streetscaping alternatives for the MVTA
Park N' Ride site at Pilot Knob and Yankee Doodle Road and to receive direction regarding both the
consultant's RFP process and the City Administrator's review.
REVIEW THE NEW MINOR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
In response to several requests from the public, the City Council directed staff to work with the
Advisory Planning Commission to create a Minor Subdivision Ordinance. This Ordinance was adopted
by Council action on May 2, 2000. To date, six Minor Subdivision applications have been received and
processed. Several weeks ago, the Council requested that a review of the Minor Subdivision Ordinance
be placed on a future Special Council meeting agenda. In addition to the Ordinance, attached is a copy
of the Council Packet cover sheets, Location Maps, and CC -minutes associated with each of the six
Minor Subdivision applications processed for your review, please refer to pages through.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To provide staff direction regarding the Minor Subdivision Ordinance.
REVIEW MVTA PILOT KNOB/YANKEE DOODLE ROAD TRANSIT SITE FINAL
DEVELOPMENT
City staff has been working with the MVTA on the final design of the Transit Hub to be located at the
present Park & Ride lot on the southeast quadrant of Pilot Knob and Yankee Doodle Roads. Previous
discussion involved the potential location and design of a "clock tower" feature for the development.
The MVTA's architect will have a color rendering of the building and this feature for the Council to
review on Tuesday night. Additionally, to provide the City with flexibility for future street-scaping in
this corridor, the MVTA has agreed to provide the City an easement covering approximately 1,750 SF
of the Hub property at the northwest corner of the site, diagram on page
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To provide staff direction regarding the MVTA Transit Hub.
DIRECTION RE: CONSULTANT RFP PROCESS
As a part of an Additional Information memo that was distributed to the City Council on October 6, was a
memo entitled "Consultant Selection Process" that provides historical background along with options for
Council consideration as to how the City should address professional consulting services.
A copy of that memo is attached on pages through for your review.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To provide direction regarding the consultant selection process.
DIRECTION RE: CITY ADMINISTRATOR REVIEW PROCESS
At the September 14, 1998 Special City Council meeting, it was suggested that the City Administrator's
performance review be looked at every other year which places the review in a time frame for fall 2001.
Enclosed is a memo that provides some history, the process and the options for who will conduct the City
Administrator's review. A copy of that memo and a copy of the September 14, 1998 Special City Council
minutes and the evaluatio format that was used in 1999 for the City Administrator's review is enclosed on
pages through
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To provide direction regarding the City Administrator's review.
/s/ Thomas L. Hedges
City Administrator
ORDINANCE NO. 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA, AMENDING EAGAN CITY
CODE CHAPTER THIRTEEN ENTITLED "SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (PLATTING)" BY
AMENDING SECTION 13.11 REGARDING MINOR SUBDIVISIONS; AND BY ADOPTING
BY REFERENCE EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 13.99.
The City Council of the City of Eagan does ordain:
Section 1. Eagan City Code Chapter 13 is hereby amended by adding Section 13.11, to read as
follows:
Section 13.11 Minor Subdivisions.
Subd I. Qualification. To qualify as a minor subdivision, the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
A. The application shall involve the division of one (1) platted lot into not more than two
(2) lots, both of which meet all minimum dimensional requirements of the Zoning
Code.
B. The proposed lots shall have access to an improved street(s) and shall connect to
municipal sewer and water facilities.
C. The subdivision shall meet all dedication and other requirements of the City Code.
D. A lot shall not previously have been the subject of this minor subdivision ordinance.
Subd 2. Submission information.
A. Completed application form.
B. Application fee as established by City Council.
C. Escrow deposit as determined by the City Council.
D. Legal description and up-to-date survey.
E. Certified list of names and addresses of contiguous property owners.
F. Final Plat Drawing prepared by a registered land surveyor.
G. Grading/Drainage/Erosion Control Plan incorporating the following information as
may be applicable*:
I i
1. Existing (dashed) and proposed (solid) contours at two (2) foot intervals to
mean sea level datum, extending fifty (50) feet beyond the subject parcel.
2. Building footprints (existing and proposed) with pad elevations and unit type.
3. Ponds, wetlands, lakes, streams, marshes (proposed elevation of NWL, HWL
and OHW elevation, proposed wet and dry storage volume, area drainage and
boundaries).
4. All storm sewer lines, including irilets/outlets at ponds.
5. Erosion/sediment control structures.
6. Existing trees to remain.
7. Delineated edge of all wetlands and location of boundary markers.
H. Utility Service Plan incorporating the following information as may be applicable*:
1. Street name(s).
2. Existing utilities (type, size, elevation, location).
3. Proposed utility service.
1. Street Access Plan incorporating the following information*:
1. Existing and proposed driveway access locations.
* Plans may be combined into a single drawing.
Subd 3. Processing.
A. Staff review. Within ten (10) working days after the minor subdivision application has
been received, the City shall complete the initial review to determine if all required
information has been filed. If it has not, the petition shall be so informed. When the
provisions of this section 13.11, subdivision 2 have been completed, the City
Administrator shall schedule the minor subdivision for a regular Council meeting.
B. Public hearing. the City Council shall hold a public hearing on the advertised date and
time and afford all interested persons an opportunity to be heard. Within one hundred
and twenty (120) days of delivery of an application submitted in compliance with this
chapter, the Council shall prove or deny said minor subdivision, unless the sudivider
gives written consent, wherein the Council shall have additional time to either approve
4
or deny said minor subdivision. This provision is intended to be in full compliance with
Minn. Stat. §462.358. Final approval shall be for a period of two (2) years or longer, as
specified by the Council. Upon expiration of the time limit, all approvals for minor
subdivision that have not been recorded with the County shall be null and void, and a
new petition and processing shall be necessary to revalidate the minor subdivision
unless the Council shall grant an extension of time prior to the expiration date.
C. Recording of minor subdivision. It shall be the responsibility of the subdivider to file
the minor subdivision with the County Recorder within sixty (60) days from approval
by the Council, unless a time extension has been granted by the Council. Failure to
record the subdivision within the sixty (60) day period shall render the subdivision
approval by the Council null and void until a new application ahs been processed and
approved by the City, unless the Council has granted an extension of time in which the
subdivision shall be recorded.
D. Proof of recording. The City shall not issue building permits or commence
construction under public utility or street contracts on the subdivided property until
such time as the City Clerk has been satisfied that the minor subdivision as been
recorded with the county recorder.
Section 2. Eagan City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable
to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation"' and Section 13.99, entitled "Violation a
Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its adoption and publication
according to law.
ATTEST: CITY OF EAGAN
City Council
By: Maria Karels B :Patricia E. wads
Its: Deputy Clerk Its: Mayor
Date Ordinance Adopted: May 2, 2000
Date Ordinance Published in the Legal Newspaper: May 11. 2000
Date of Advisory Planning Commission Hearing: March 28, 2000
I i
Agenda Information Memo
August 1, 2000, Eagan City Council
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. VACATION OF PUBLIC DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS (LOT
30 BLOCK 3, BLACKHAWK GLEN 2"D ADDITION), AND MINOR
SUBDIVISION (BLACKHAWK GLEN 4TH ADDITION) - DOUG HOSKIN
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
A. To approve the Vacation of public drainage and utility easements within Lot 30, Block 3,
Blackhawk Glen 2d Addition (3640 Birchpond Road), and authorize the Mayor and City
Clerk to execute all related documents.
B. To approve a Minor Subdivision (Blackhawk Glen 4th Addition) of approximately of four
acres to create two single-family lots on property located at 3640 Birchpond Road, currently
platted as Lot 30, Block 3, Blackhawk Glen 2nd Addition, located in the SWV4 of Section 16.
FACTS:
• This item was before the Council for consideration at the July 18, 2000 meeting. Due to
inaccurate depiction of the required easements and associated grading, action was continued
to the August 1, 2000 meeting to allow the applicant to revise the plans.
• City staff has reviewed the revised plans and finds them acceptable.
• The subject site is located at 3640 Birchpond Road, and is currently platted as Lot 30, Block
3, Blackhawk Glen 2nd Addition. The applicant is proposing to vacate existing drainage and
utility easements within the subject site, and to subdivide the property into two parcels.
• The site contains an existing single-family home that was constructed in 1989. A large
portion of the site contains a pond, and there is a storm sewer located just south of the
existing residence.
• On June 20, 2000, the City Council received the petition for the vacation, and set a public
hearing for July 18, 2000 to consider vacating said drainage and utility easements. The
public hearing for the proposed minor subdivision was scheduled concurrently for July 18,
2000, and then continued to the August 1, 2000 meeting.
• The purpose of the proposed vacation is to delete a portion of the existing drainage easement
for the pond to allow the subdivision of the property and construction of an additional house
on the southwest corner of the site.
• The easements to be vacated were originally dedicated as part of the Blackhawk Glen 2nd
Addition development for drainage and utility purposes. The easements accommodate
existing storm sewer lines and a drainage pond.
• Drainage and utility easements necessary to accommodate any planned or existing utilities,
ponding or drainage ways will be dedicated as part of the new plat.
(G
• The site is surrounded by single-family residential uses that are zoned R-1 and guided D-I.
• The proposed minor subdivision satisfies the requirements for the R-1 zoning district. There
is some concern about the depth of the buildable area of Lot 2, between the required setback
from Birchpond Road and the required drainage easement for the pond.
• A walkout house is proposed for Lot 2, and the site plan shows a reasonable building
configuration that satisfies required setbacks and does not encroach into required easement
areas.
• The grading plan shows that a majority of the side and rear yards of Lot 2 are proposed to be
graded at the city's maximum slope of 3:1 for maintained areas and a retaining wall is
proposed to achieve the 3:1 slope in a portion of the rear yard.
• All notices have been published in the legal newspaper and sent to all potentially affected
private utility owners informing them of this public hearing for the proposed vacation.
Notices have also been published and mailed to contiguous property owners informing them
of the proposed minor subdivision. No objections to either the proposed vacation or minor
subdivision have been received to date.
• The vacation request has been reviewed by the Engineering Division and found to be in order
for favorable Council action.
ATTACHMENTS:
Location map, page
Proposed Easement Vacation and Legal Description, pages and
Revised Plat and Site/Grading Plan, pages through
Planning Report, pages through
I i
Eagan Boundary
?arul Area
Location Maps`r"
ttullding Footprint
Ile,
All. 1b
a s
t:..yr 7y ' i
a i + rt ,
A.nIUnY DEAD J y a a 1 r } l e
* .a ! Z * ti v
Sub ect Site + s 1 } '
* s d;, S
A.MYIIV DEAD
REP ti Do
as me "I ar t• j ; ar
, ° 1 1 #
Cola? ( 3 'i ' 7 .y a a. S 9 { 't
s~ 1 i eD.wDV eT. 1 ~ t q
Cy 4
.__D" LAMB - • ' ° !
Ad I am
S: I t d ; !r ? t
'd ]41 v ]9 ,s 1• L ~v..r~ s s i i 1 'f r Y f M i{
EVLLO
AD 4
J 'A
-w AD
f .1 ?r' k- Ls no.
JIB
%OR 4
tern s '6
AN
enVEO BELL ROAD
r a, AL
.4 ,m
p E r a ntve.la+ w~
J. a
1000 0 1000 2000 Feet
Development/Developer: Doug Hoskin; 3640 Birchpond Road
Application: Minor Subdivision
Case No.: 16-MS-01-06-00
Map Prepared using ERSI AreVI.w 3.1. Parcel bass map data provided N
by Dakota County Land Survey Depanmerd and I. current as of Juno 2000.
~j WE
City of Eagan THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY +
e...r...uy D...l.pins.t..part...nt The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this Information and are S
not responsible for errors or emissions.
{
EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES; AUGUST 1, 2000
PAGE 4
PUBLIC HEARINGS
EASEME VACATION (PINES EDGE 4TH ADDITION)
City Administrator Hedges pr vided an overview on this item." Director of Public Works Colbert
gave a staff report.
Mayor Awada opened the public h ing to anyone g to speak. There being no one, she
closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Carlson moved, Counc' ember,>akken seconded a motion to approve the
vacation of public drainage and utility easement o Loth , Block 1, Pines Edge 4th Addition and authorize
the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related docu nts. Aye: 5 Nay: 0
RIGHT-OF-WAY AG NT ORDINANCE
City Administrator Hedges provided a overview o this item. Director of Public Works Colbert
gave a staff report.
Mayor Awada opened the public aring to anyone wis to speak. There being no one, she
closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Carlson move , Councilmember Bakken seconded a motion to approve the
revised Right-of-Way Management P ogram and related City Ordinance. Aye: 5 Nay: 0
Director of Public Works lbert thanked the representatives from NSP, DEA, People's Natural
Gas and Koch Refinery for their ' put on this ordinance. He also thanked Public Works Coordinator Tom
Struve for his efforts.
OLD BUSINESS
MINOR SUBDIVISION, BLACKHAWK GLEN 4TH ADDITION - DOUG HOSKIN
3640 BIRCHPOND ROAD
AND EASEMENT VACATION, LOT 30, BLOCK 3, BLACKHAWK GLEN 21''o ADDITION
City Administrator Hedges provided an overview on this item. Director of Public Works Colbert
gave a staff report.
George Bohlig, 1680 Blackhawk Cove, said that he helped develop these lots and explained why
covenants were not placed on this lot preventing a lot split. He urged the City Council to consider the
fact that it was intended that the lots in this development be large and have covenants preventing their
subdivision. He added that the neighbors bought homes in this development with that understanding.
Barry Morgan, representing Doug Hoskin, stated that Mr. Hoskin bought the lot with the
intention of subdividing it. He added that this is a buildable lot, which meets all the requirements of the
Minor Subdivision Ordinance. He further added that there would be minimal impact to the adjacent
residents.
q
i t
EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES; AUGUST 1, 2000
PAGE 5
Dick Reid, 3690 Birchpond Place, stated that the minimums seem very small and said that the
Council would be inundated with requests for lot splits of larger parcels. He added that subdivision of
lots should not be allowed in an area that is already established with homes.
Joan Bohlig, 1680 Blackhawk Cove, noted that the spacing of the homes on these two lots would
not be the same as the other homes in the neighborhood. She said that Mr. Hoskin has his home listed for
sale and would not be living in the neighborhood to experience the repercussions of this action. She
stated that allowing this lot split would set a bad precedent.
Doug Hoskin, property owner, said that it was pure speculation that he would sell his lot and
leave the neighborhood. He added that the lot conforms to the ordinance requirements.
Councilmember Carlson stated that the ordinance was developed for a specific reason, which was
not intended to allow everyone to subdivide property in a quick and easy fashion. She noted that the
property owner stated that the large lot size was what attracted him to the area and said that the large lot
sizes are conducive to this neighborhood. She stated that the lot was not intended for future subdivision.
She added that he is taking one of the larger lots and subdividing it so that it will become two of the
smaller lots in the development. She said that the intent for this lot was that it would be available for
ponding and drainage.
Councilmember Blomquist stated that she remembered that this lot size was intended to be large
to accommodate storm water storage and drainage. She further stated that the easements to be vacated
were originally dedicated as part of the Blackhawk Glen 2nd Addition development for drainage and
utility purposes. She noted that the easements accommodate existing storm sewer lines and a drainage
pond. She further noted that the only way the lot could be split into another buildable lot was to add fill.
She questioned why the Council would approve the vacation of additional land that could be utilized for
drainage in light of the recent flood.
Councilmember Blomquist moved, Councilmember Masin seconded a motion to direct the
preparation of Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Resolution of Denial for the Vacation of public drainage
and utility easements within Lot 30, Block 3, Blackhawk Glen 2nd Addition (3640 Birchpond Road), and a
Minor Subdivision (Blackhawk Glen 4th Addition) of approximately four acres to create two single-family
lots on property located at 3640 Birchpond Road, currently platted at Lot 30, Block 3, Blackhawk Glen 2nd
Addition, located in the SW 1/4 of Section 16 for consideration at the August 15, 2000 City Council meeting.
Councilmember Masin expressed her opposition to retaining walls.
Mayor Awada stated that the minor subdivision process was created by the Council to make it
easier for lots to be subdivided that were in conformance with the existing character of the neighborhood.
She added that the City Council should review the ordinance.
Councilmember Carlson suggested the ordinance be placed on a special City Council agenda as
soon as possible. She added that the notification process and development signage should be discussed
in addition to language that states a lot split must be in conformance with the character of the existing
neighborhood.
A vote was taken on the motion. Aye: 5 Nay: 0
Mayor Awada moved, Councilmember Blomquist seconded a motion to direct the review of the
Minor Subdivision Ordinance at a future work session. Aye: 5 Nay: 0
RECONSIDER CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE MINOR SUBDIVISION OF
VERDANT HILLS 2ND ADDITION - KEN GREENE
Agenda Information Memo
July 18, 2000 Eagan City Council Meeting
B. MINOR SUBDIVISION (GARDENWOOD PONDS 5TH ADDITION)
RAY BRANDT
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve a Minor Subdivision (Gardenwood Ponds 5th Addition) located south of
Wescott Road between Stony Point Road and Hyland Court in the NE'/4 of Section 23.
FACTS:
> The property is currently platted as Lot 11, Block 1, Gardenwood Ponds 2nd Addition.
> The lot is occupied a single family residence (the property owner's) which was
located to allow it to be subdivided in the future.
> The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 28,989 square foot subject property into
16,455 and 12,534 square foot lots.
> The site is surrounded on all sides by single family residential uses zoned R-1, Single
Family Residential and PD, Planned Development.
> The proposed subdivision will not result in the creation of any non-conforming
setbacks.
ISSUES:
> Due to the existence of a utility easement and odd shape, some concern exists in
regard to the buildable area of Lot 2. To ensure that proposed building pad of Lot 2 is
suitable for new home construction, an example house plan must be submitted which
demonstrates its buildability.
ATTACHMENTS (2):
Staff report, pages _ through
Michael and Linda Scheller correspondence, pages through
II
I i
Eagan Boundary
y
Street Centerline
Locate on Map /areol Area
Eullding Footprint
• i a ?a
f • • 1 tl - • ~
•a Sub'ect Site a + e
J F
/ e aaa a / • a
s i / • 1
IF
t / + • •
f ! ? •
f i • a ? e r~ 11
r • r
Is'
0 IF
. ~ 1
,i ea a a / 1 '1
• a•e, ¦ f r s e s 1•
+rr - t { as / a +
t t
• _ 16
E r ~ a~?~'~ 1 • +
as
1 • ~ 1'
T--L-jQ 4b
• J T"•~ ~ t • t, ~ r • ~
'gy'p D • • ? )
J%L
1000 0 1000 2000 Feet
Development/Developer. Gardenwood Ponds 5th Addition
Application: Minor Subdivision
Case No.: 23-MS-02-06-00
Mp Frepaed using EM Newlaw 11. Peal tae nap dreg PraAded N
by Oskora Ca+ty Lad Sirvy Ospsrtrrut and is aa1 1 a d Jassy m00.
City of Eagan THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY K+e
C•e..weery Mwr•pw.••t o•p•rtn.••e The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this Information and are S
not responsible for offers or omissions.
EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES; JULY 18, 2000
PAGE 5
Mr. Greene noted that he installed all the required improvements to the three lots, but was only
dividing one lot at this time. He further noted that he would be unable to do a minor subdivision on the
remaining two lots and would have to go through the regular subdivision process. He stated that he would be
willing to file covenants against this lot.
Joe Henry, future owner of Lot 2, stated that even if Mr. Greene did not file any covenants for this lot he
had instructed his builder to construct his home according to the covenants for Verdant Hills 1st Addition. He
added that he met with the architectural control committee for the Verdant Hills homeowners group last
evening and said he is diligently working with the neighbors.
Mr. Edinger reiterated their concern that the remaining two lots be subdivided and that all the lots be
subject to the same covenants as Verdant Hills 151 Addition.
Councilmember Blomquist stated that the City Council does not make rulings on covenants.
Mr. Greene said that it may not be prudent to divide the remaining 2/3's of the lot. He added that the
covenants should not be applicable to his existing house and buildings.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Awada closed the public hearing and turned the
discussion back to the Council.
Councilmember Carlson stated that Mr. Greene could subdivide the remaining 2/3's of the lot;
however, he would need to go through the regular subdivision process, which is lengthy and costly. She added
that the City Council could not require Mr. Greene to further subdivide his property.
A vote was taken on the motion. Aye: 4 Nay: 0
MINOR SUBDIVISION, GARDENWOOD PONDS FIFTH ADDITION
BRANDT ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, 902 HYLAND COURT
City Administrator Hedges provided an overview on this item. Senior Planner Ridley gave a staff
report.
Mayor Awada opened the public hearing to anyone wishing to speak.
Saleem Raza, property owner, mentioned that the foundation size of his house would be 1,008 square
feet.
Councilmember Carlson asked if a driveway could be installed over an easement. Mayor Awada stated
that it could be, but added that the property owner would be responsible for its removal if necessary. She asked
about the average foundation size of the lots in Stony Point. Councilmember Carlson noted that the size ranged
between 2,500 and 3,000 square feet and homes had both two and three car garages.
Mr. Raza stated that the proposed two-story house would be 2,016 square feet with additional square
footage after his basement is finished.
Dean Wernicke, 971 Stony Point Road, said that the property owners were told that this lot was going to
remain an outlot. He expressed concern over the lack of privacy and noted that the house would run along the
back of his house. He also expressed concern with the potential for water problems due to the fact that the lot
will be graded toward his house.
Sue Wernicke, 971 Stony Point Road, stated that this was the first time the property owners had seen the
proposed house layout. She added that they were surprised that the builder had sold this lot.
13
I i
EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES; JULY 18, 2000
PAGE 6
Kevin Cairns, 964 Stony Point Road, added that this would set a precedent for subdivision of other large
lots on Stony Point Road. He further added that the lot is irregularly shaped and much of it is unbuildable. He
submitted a petition signed by the property owners in opposition to the minor subdivision.
Mr. Raza said he bought the property because it was an oversized lot and he had intended to subdivide
it. He further said that his property is about 30 feet from Mr. Wernicke's house. He mentioned that he installed
a privacy fence around his property.
Mrs. Wernicke commented on the lack of privacy. She said that the property owner has not maintained
his vacant lot appropriately and added that the City received a number of complaints regarding the growth of
weeds.
Mr. Cairns stated that Mr. Raza had no intention of subdividing the property when he bought it.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Awada closed the public hearing and turned the
discussion back to the Council.
Councilmember Carlson asked if an outlot that had been deemed unbuildable could be resold to
another developer, be attached to another lot and then be considered buildable. Mayor Awada questioned why
this outlot was not subdivided as a lot. Director of Public Works Colbert provided an explanation. Senior
Planner Ridley stated that there was no condition in the development agreement with regard to the future
development of Outlot B.
Councilmember Carlson said that the intention from the beginning was not to subdivide the lot. She
added that the fence is literally in the adjacent neighbors' front yard. Councilmember Masin said that after the
lot is subdivided it will still match the other lot sizes in the Northbridge development, but noted that the house
will be smaller than the other houses.
Mr. Raza said that he had asked Mr. Wernicke if he would prefer the fence be removed and Mr.
Wernicke indicated he did not want it taken down.
Mayor Awada stated that if the developer had thought he had a buildable lot he would have
subdivided it with the original plat. She added that the intent was for this to be one buildable lot and not two.
She further added that if the lot were to be subdivided it would meet the absolute bare minimums. She noted
that there are very few homes built with a 1,000 square foot foundation in the area and said that the house, with
a 2-car garage and small foundation, would not fit in with the character of the existing neighborhood.
Councilmember Carlson reiterated that the original intention was that this would be one large lot. She
added that she was concerned that the approval of the Minor Subdivision process would raise such issues. She
stated that she would be voting against this item. Mayor Awada concurred and said that if the lot was larger
and the building pad was larger it would be acceptable.
Councilmember Blomquist raised concerns about the high wires over the driveway and the electrical
field they would emit.
Mr. Raza noted that most all the houses on the cul-de-sac are split-levels and the average size is about
2,200 square feet. He further noted that when all three levels of his house are finished there will be 3,024 square
feet.
Councilmember Carlson said that the City Council could not tell Mr. Raza how big his house needed to
be, but added that the intention for this lot was for it to remain as one parcel. She further said that the neighbors
bought homes in this area with that expectation.
Councilmember Blomquist stated that the Minor Subdivision should be denied because the lot is too
small for the proposed house and the driveway is located under NSP high wires, which create an electrical field.
4
EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES; JULY 18, 2000
PAGE7
Councilmember Blomquist moved, Councilmember Carlson seconded a motion to direct the preparation
of Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Resolution of Denial for the Minor Subdivision (Gardenwood Ponds 51h
Addition) located south of Wescott Road between Stony Point Road and Hyland Court in the NE 1/4 of Section 23
for consideration at the August 1, 2000 City Council meeting. Aye: 4 Nay: 0
VACATION, PUBLIC DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS IN BLACKHAWK GLEN 2ND ADDITION
(LOT 30, BLOCK 3) AND MINOR SUBDIVISION, BLACKHAWK GLEN 4TH ADDITION - DOUG HOSKIN -
3640 BIRCHPOND ROAD
City Administrator Hedges provided an overview on this item. Senior Planner Ridley gave a staff
report on the minor subdivision. Director of Public Works Colbert gave a staff report on the vacation.
Mayor Awada opened the public hearing to anyone wishing to speak.
Lance Elliott, representing Doug Hoskin, stated that they did not have the final grading plan prepared.
Director of Public Works Colbert stated that staff would feel more comfortable receiving a copy of the final
grading plan.
Mr. Elliott requested a two-week continuance to August 1, 2000 of the vacation of public drainage and
utility easement in Blackhawk Glen 2nd Addition (Lot 30, Block 3) and minor subdivision, Blackhawk Glen 4th
Addition - Doug Hoskin - 3640 Birchpond Road.
Councilmember Blomquist expressed concern about the proximity of the house to the pond.
Mr. Elliott stated that the proposed house elevation was six to eight feet above the water level following
the flooding last week.
Dick Reid, 3690 Birchpond Place, expressed concern about the precedent approving this minor
subdivision would set.
Bart Schmidt, 3625 Birchpond Road, stated that he was not noticed.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Awada closed the public hearing and turned the
discussion back to the Council.
Senior Planner Ridley said that the minor subdivision ordinance states that notification is required for
all contiguous property owners.
Councilmembers concurred that the ordinance should be amended to expand the notification
requirement.
Senior Planner Ridley stated that he would verify if a development sign was posted on this property.
The meeting was recessed at 8:25 p.m. and reconvened at 8:30 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 10 ENTITLED "PUBLIC PROTECTION, CRIMES AND
OFFENSES" AND CHAPTER 11 ENTITLED "LAND USE REGULATIONS (ZONING)" OF THE EAGAN CITY
CODE ESTABLISHING RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE REGULATIONS
Mayor Awada said that she thought that residents might have forgotten that this item was scheduled
for this evening due to the flood. She suggested that input be taken at tonight's meeting and the item be
Agenda Information Memo
July 18, 2000 Eagan City Council Meeting
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. MINOR SUBDIVISION (VERDANT HILLS 2ND ADDITION)
KEN GREENE
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve a Minor Subdivision (Verdant Hills 2nd Addition) located south of
Woodland Court and east of Wescott Woodlands in the NE 1/4 of Section 14.
FACTS:
> The property is currently platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Verdant Hills.
? The site is surrounded on all sides by single family residential uses that are zoned R-
1, Single Family Residential and designated D-I, Single Family Residential (0-3
units/acre).
> The site is occupied by the applicant's residence and was configured to allow it to be
subdivided in the future. The residence is presently served by well and sanitary septic
systems and will be required to hook up to municipal water and sewer as a condition
of subdivision approval.
> The applicant is proposing to subdivide the subject 52,137 square foot property into
32,347 and 19,970 square foot lots.
> The proposed subdivision will not result in the creation of any non-conforming
setbacks (including accessory building setbacks).
> The subject site lies within Airport Noise Zone IV. As a result, new construction must
incorporate sound attenuation standards.
ATTACHMENTS (1):
Staff report, pages _ through _
l(r
t
Location Map
~-61 so
• j
LIZ)> 110
D
~
O p o
s t
FT
Verdant Hills
Rezoning and Preliminary Subdivision N
Case No. 14-RZ-16-06-97; 14-PP-17-06-97 E
c, a"- C --w ty Mwl..wmw1 DspaI .wX00 G X00 ,100 7+C0
17
I f
EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES; JULY 18, 2000
PAGE 4
PUBLIC HEARINGS
MINOR SUBDIVISION, VERDANT HILLS 2ND ADDITION - KENNETH GREENE
3582 WOODLAND COURT
City Administrator Hedges provided an overview on this item. Senior Planner Ridley gave a staff
report.
Councilmember Carlson moved, Mayor Awada seconded a motion to approve a Minor Subdivision
(Verdant Hills 2nd Addition) located south of Woodland Court and east of Wescott Woodlands in the NE 1/4 of
Section 14 subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with these standard conditions of plat approval as adopted by
Council on February 3, 1993:
Al, B1, El
2. Architectural designs and construction methods for new construction shall incorporate sound
attenuation standards sufficient to achieve an interior sound level of 45 dBA. This will require
an inside noise level reduction of at least 20 dBA.
3. Proposed Lot 2 shall be subject to a cash park dedication of $1,272.
4. Proposed Lot 2 shall be subject to a cash trail dedication of $168.
5. Proposed Lot 2 shall be subject to a cash water quality dedication of $2,091.
6. The existing house on Lot 1, Block 1 shall be connected to the City sanitary sewer and water
main systems prior to building permit issuance for Lot 2.
7. All well and septic systems within the subdivision shall be abandoned in accordance with City
and Dakota County standards prior to building permit issuance for Lot 2.
Mayor Awada opened the public hearing to anyone wishing to speak.
Rob Edinger, 3590 Woodland Court, said he was representing the Verdant Hills homeowners. He
further said they had purchased property from Ken Greene and were lead to believe that this property was
going to be divided into three parcels. He stated that they would like assurances that the remaining lot split will
occur. He added that they are landlocked in an area of single-family homes. He also requested that an
assurance be made that the covenants for this lot will be the same as the covenants for Verdant Hills 1st
Addition.
Ken Greene, applicant, stated that he filed the covenants with the deed for Verdant Hills 1st Addition
and they would apply to this subdivision as well.
City Attorney Dougherty stated that typically the City does not get involved with covenants. He added
that when a plat is filed the covenants only apply to the lots contained in that plat. He further added that the
covenants may not apply to the subdivided lot.
EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES; JULY 18, 2000
PAGE 5
Mr. Greene noted that he installed all the required improvements to the three lots, but was only
dividing one lot at this time. He further noted that he would be unable to do a minor subdivision on the
remaining two lots and would have to go through the regular subdivision process. He stated that he would be
willing to file covenants against this lot.
Joe Henry, future owner of Lot 2, stated that even if Mr. Greene did not file any covenants for this lot he
had instructed his builder to construct his home according to the covenants for Verdant Hills 15t Addition. He
added that he met with the architectural control committee for the Verdant Hills homeowners group last
evening and said he is diligently working with the neighbors.
Mr. Edinger reiterated their concern that the remaining two lots be subdivided and that all the lots be
subject to the same covenants as Verdant Hills 1st Addition.
Councilmember Blomquist stated that the City Council does not make rulings on covenants.
Mr. Greene said that it may not be prudent to divide the remaining 2/3's of the lot. He added that the
covenants should not be applicable to his existing house and buildings.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Awada closed the public hearing and turned the
discussion back to the Council.
Councilmember Carlson stated that Mr. Greene could subdivide the remaining 2/3's of the lot;
however, he would need to go through the regular subdivision process, which is lengthy and costly. She added
that the City Council could not require Mr. Greene to further subdivide his property.
A vote was taken on the motion. Aye: 4 Nay: 0
MINOR SUBDIVISION, GARDENWOOD PONDS FIFTH ADDITION
BRANDT ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, 902 HYLAND COURT
City Administrator Hedges provided an overview on this item. Senior Planner Ridley gave a staff
report.
Mayor Awada opened the public hearing to anyone wishing to speak.
Saleem Raza, property owner, mentioned that the foundation size of his house would be 1,008 square
feet.
Councilmember Carlson asked if a driveway could be installed over an easement. Mayor Awada stated
that it could be, but added that the property owner would be responsible for its removal if necessary. She asked
about the average foundation size of the lots in Stony Point. Councilmember Carlson noted that the size ranged
between 2,500 and 3,000 square feet and homes had both two and three car garages.
Mr. Raza stated that the proposed two-story house would be 2,016 square feet with additional square
footage after his basement is finished.
Dean Wernicke, 971 Stony Point Road, said that the property owners were told that this lot was going to
remain an outlot. He expressed concern over the lack of privacy and noted that the house would run along the
back of his house. He also expressed concern with the potential for water problems due to the fact that the lot
will be graded toward his house.
Sue Wernicke, 971 Stony Point Road, stated that this was the first time the property owners had seen the
proposed house layout. She added that they were surprised that the builder had sold this lot.
I q
Agenda Information Memo
August 15, 2000 Eagan City Council Meeting
D. MINOR SUBDIVISION (KONOLD ADDITION)
BRUCE KONOLD
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve a Minor Subdivision (Konold Addition) located north of Lone Oak Road
and west of Pilot Knob Road in the SE 1/4 of Section 4.
FACTS:
? The property is currently platted as the south 208 feet of Lot 6, Zehnder Acres.
? The site is surrounded on the north, east and west by single family residential uses
that are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and designated D-I, Single Family
Residential (0-3 units/acre) and on the south by Pilot Knob Elementary School.
? The subject site is presently occupied by a single family dwelling. While, the lot in
question is considered "oversized" (being more than twice the size of the minimum
R-1 district lot size requirement), it is comparable in size to most single family lots in
the area.
? The subject site lies in an area characterized by "oversized" lots. The subdivision's
proposed lots do however, satisfy minimum R-1, zoning district area requirements
and are similar in size to those within a pending development proposal to the north.
? The applicant is proposing to subdivide the subject property into 24,415 and 17,168
square foot lots.
? The proposed subdivision will not result in the creation of any non-conforming
setbacks.
? The subject site lies within Airport Noise Zone IV. As a result, new construction
must incorporate sound attenuation standards.
ATTACHMENTS (2):
Staff report, pages _ through
Anne Maag correspondence, page
oCn
Eagan Boundary
Location Map =~tcrrNrlln.
Par~N Ana
Building Pootpdnt
46
I Fit]
FIF
i s
i % • L
r e ? ~ 't P)
a ~ . •i ~ „ tom. ~
11, IF J, a,
10
_ +B • • ! V '0~
Sub ect Slte
B -
4W 44 der 0
#W loll
a
16
Ala do% i Y
¦ an
r l®® / f GEMN
1000 0 1000 2000 Feet
_Development/Developer: Konold Addition
Application: Minor Subdivision
Case No.: 04-MS-04-07-00
Mp NMp.ed u4q BZ4 hcN.r, 31. P.rv.1 bm ddar*40 PVWC W N
M Dtltott Carty tad Sutiy Cspar•rrt are! h amra s X04
City of Eagan THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY w e
e.w-•alt7 e.v.r.potoof *•pasl n .t The city of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this Information and are
..t responsible for errors or emissions.
I I
EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES;Si 15, 2000
PAGE6
Councilmember Bakken moved, Councilmember Carlson seconded a motion to approve a
Variance of approximately 6 feet to the required thirty-foot setback from a public right-of-way for a
garage addition at 607 Eden Circle, legally described as Lot 5, Block 4, Coventry Pass, located in the NE 1/4
of Section 34 subject to the following conditions:
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 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. The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning construction.
3. The proposed addition shall be constructed using materials to match the existing
structure.
Councilmember Blomquist requested that the reasons supporting a hardship, such as the negative
impact to the roofline, security concerns and loss of visibility from the laundry room, be included in the
record.
Councilmember Bakken stated that these reasons are not considered legal hardships. He said that
he was comfortable approving the variance because it was in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood.
A vote was taken on the motion. Aye: 5 Nay: 0
MINOR SUBDIVISION - BRUCE KONOLD (KONOLD ADDITION)
City Administrator Hedges provided an overview on this item. Senior Planner Ridley gave a
staff report.
Councilmember Bakken moved to open the item for public input. All voted in favor.
Bruce Konold, applicant, stated that one of their neighbors subdivided one lot into two. He
added that the two subdivided lots would each be larger than some of the other lots to the west and south
and would be consistent with the neighborhood.
Kelly Storla, 1431 Lone Oak Road, expressed his opposition to the lot split and said he was
concerned about how this would affect the aesthetics of the neighborhood. He further said that this
would diminish the property values. He added that this would be inconsistent with the rest of the
neighborhood. He further added that it would take a great deal of effort to wedge a home onto the new
lot. He expressed concern with a road across an existing yard and added that this would present safety
issues due to headlights blinding oncoming cars. He also expressed concern about the potential of Lone
Oak Road becoming a four-lane roadway and the proximity of the new driveway to the road. He stated
that he was concerned that the Konolds may sell their home and not be around to bear the impact of the
lot split.
Gail McMahon, 1429 Lone Oak Road, stated that she shares a driveway with the Konolds. She
mentioned that she outlined her concerns in a letter to the City Council, which included access to the
newly created lot, safety, traffic, headlight glare, water runoff, change in housing density and aesthetic
issues. She stated that the Konolds have renters in their house who also utilize the shared driveway. She
also said she had heard that the Konolds were planning to move. She added that they did not approach
the neighbors with this proposal.
Another resident expressed their opposition to the lot split.
• EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES; AUGUST 15, 2000
PAGE 7
Bruce Konold, applicant, stated that they do not have any definitive plans to sell their home. He
added that the size of the two lots would be consistent with four other properties in the area. He added
that they respect their neighbors' opinions. He further added that they had mentioned the potential of a
lot split several years ago and the previous owner of the property had also discussed the potential of a lot
split.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Awada closed the public hearing and turned the
discussion back to the Council.
Councilmember Blomquist said she was concerned about the shared driveway and the headlight
glare. She added that it appears as if this house will have to be wedged onto the lot in order to meet the
setback requirements. She expressed concern about the Konolds utilizing their home as rental property,
which was originally built to accommodate the previous owner's mother. She stated that the concern
always exists that a mother-in-law apartment will be changed into rental property. Councilmember
Carlson concurred. She added that this subdivision of this lot was not meant to occur. She further
expressed concern with safety and headlight glare. She stated that it is a matter of time before the County
improves Lone Oak Road and the driveway would be intrusive and an eyesore for the neighborhood.
Councilmember Masin moved, Councilmember Blomquist seconded a motion to direct the
preparation of Findings of Fact, Conclusions and a Resolution of Denial for the Minor Subdivision
(Konold Addition) located north of Lone Oak Road and west of Pilot Knob Road in the SE 1/4 of Section 4
for consideration at the September 5, 2000 City Council meeting.
Councilmember Blomquist stated that the reasons supporting denial included safety issues
related to Lone Oak Road, the use of the Konold property as rental property and the extra traffic that will
be generated in the area and the potential for expansion of Lone Oak Road.
A vote was taken on the motion. Aye: 5 Nay: 0
OLD BUSINESS
REQUEST TO RECONSIDER - SALEEM RAZA
MINOR SUBDIVISION
City Administrator Hedges pro 'ded an overview on this item.
Mayor Awada stated that she visite the site and added that most of the lots in the neighborhood
are smaller than what Mr. Raza is proposing t create. She further added that the existing houses are
approximately the same size as the one being p oposed by Mr. Raza. She noted that the overhead power
lines are on the existing lot.
Mayor Awada moved, Councilmember BI quist seconded otion to reconsider the denial of
the Minor Subdivision request of Ray Brandt for a 2 989 square fo lot located south of Wescott Road
between Stony Point Road and Hyland Court in the 1/4 of Sec ' n 23 at the September 5, 2000 City
Council meeting.
Councilmember Blomquist expressed concern wi ow the buildable area of the lot forces the
home to be laid out. She stated that Mr. Raza is building e garage in the back of the house and there
will be no windows on that side of the house. She corn en d that the overhead power lines will hang
over the driveway and she mentioned that there can as in ch as 20 feet sag in the lines between the
summer and winter months.
Mayor Awada reiterated that the overhead lines are on e existing lot. Councilmember Masin
stated that she too visited the site and said that she believed there would be enough room on the site to
accommodate the house; however, she added that it would still be very close to adjacent property owner.
C.71~
I i
Agenda Information Memo
October 3, 2000 Eagan City Council Meeting
E. MINOR SUBDIVISION (TURNOUIST ADDITION)
BRIAN TURNOUIST
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve a Minor Subdivision (Turnquist Addition) located north of Oak Pond Road
and west of Oak Pond Circle in the SE'/4 of Section 26.
FACTS:
> The property is currently platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Oak Pond Hills Second Addition.
> The site is surrounded on the north, east and south by single family residential uses
that are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and designated D-I, Single Family
Residential (0-3 units/acre) and on the west by the Trapp Farm Park.
> The subject site is presently occupied by a single family dwelling. While the lot in
question is considered "oversized" (being more than four times the size of the
minimum R-1 district lot size requirement), it is comparable in size to most single
family lots in the area.
? The subject site lies in an area characterized by "oversized" lots. The subdivision's
proposed lots do however, satisfy minimum R-1, zoning district area requirements
and are similar in size to those within existing development to the east.
> The applicant is proposing to subdivide the subject property into 32,457 and 21,780
square foot lots.
> The proposed subdivision will not result in the creation of any non-conforming
setbacks.
ATTACHMENTS (1):
Staff report, pages _ through _
t afan lowdary
Location Map s `Area "ftdhw
Parcel Area
Sulldinf.ostpAnt
¦
1 a • a i ! 7 • ! y
~ t 1
%
¦
d • ' 1 r • to • r
t
Subject Site + + s saw
a r r l~ r~
1Z
• R f 17~ •t rr/
Map
• E . • i ? ? 7sf~ ! 7 1
• r
•
~ :1 dr f•?'~ ; aura / li r ~ :r ~
? • 1 •
l
¦r;
• • tf
• • 'V1
r i
a r /
• /
now
•o
1000 0 1000 2000 Foe
Development/Developer. Turnquist Addition
Application: Minor Subdivision
Case No.: 26-MS-05-08-00
Sy h•O•nd •tlry •RSI AKVNw 7.1. hn•I MM map "t• pwWd N
Deb" cm"= •wwy Depann•nt ¦M It cwnM at of Aulwt 2000.
THIS MAP Is INTENDED •OR RI.IRINCS USE ONLY W E
City of Eagan
M I N N E S O T A TUs City .f Ua.ui and Dakota County do not guarantee the "curacy of this information and are S
C•,w¦ 1y o-empan¦t.•••wr•¦t net rogo.sDls far offers or isloolosle"G.
I I
Agenda Information Memo
October 3, 2000, Eagan City Council
F. MINOR SUBDIVISION (HELEN KENNEDY ADDITION) - HELEN
KENNEDY
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve a Minor Subdivision (Helen Kennedy Addition) of .82 acres to create two single-
family lots on property located at 3300 Heritage Lane, currently platted as Lot 11, Block 1,
Letendre Addition, located in the SW'/4 of Section 9.
FACTS:
• The subject site is located at 3300 Heritage Lane, and is currently platted as Lot 11, Block 1,
Letendre Addition. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into two parcels.
• The site contains an existing single-family home, constructed in 1955, with a swimming pool
in the rear yard. The topography slopes down from the existing home to the east where a new
house would be constructed.
• The site is surrounded by single-family residential uses that are zoned R-1 and guided D-I.
• The proposed minor subdivision satisfies the lot requirements for the R- 1 zoning district.
• The site plan shows that setbacks can be accommodated for both the existing house, which
will remain on Lot 1, and a new house to be built on Lot 2.
• The grading plan shows a retaining wall off the northwest corner of the structure proposed for
Lot 2. All grading is within city standards for minimum and maximum slope.
ATTACHMENTS:
Planning Report, pages through
~9 ~0
Began Boundary
~.areol Area
Location Map treat
Building
Footprint
i~ , • ,it
As r
- I ? 1 t
®
1
Sub ect Site
oil
IBM
7-1- 1 mue
i WED
i! ..J
4C
x
OOD
1000 0 1000 2000 Fast
Development/Developer: Helen Kennedy
Application: Minor Subdivision
Case No.: 09-MS-06-09-00
Map /"par" ssba Sant AW41w 3.1, pared sou Sup au pro.ldad N
Oy UhM Cssmy Land $WVQV Og "Farm and Ia ewram as s/ As fuat 3000.
THIS MAP IS INTEND50 FOR REFIRRNCE USI ONLY w 8
City of Eagan
U I N N E S 0 f A The City of Ragas and Dakota Canty do net guarantee the accuracy of this Information and are s
as.at.seltr es.alspiesei esp.raa...a net responsible far errors or emissions.
I I
612 339 7433
Sent By: LSA Design, Inc.; 612 339 7433; Oct-2-00 12:50; Page 2/2
\CORK\C\LSA Cork\0002 Eagan\0002.14\SO\0002CLOCKEASE.dwg Mon Oct 02 11:38:59 2000
EXI$T1NG PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED 100' R.O.W.
36" II. ORNAMENTAL 20'-0" PARKING
FENCE SETBACK
pOSTiNG SIDEWALK
YANKEE DOODLE ROAD
PROPOSED EASEMENT
AREA =1743 SQUARE FEET - -
SON BY MVTA -
PYLON SIGN
EXISTING SIDEWALK i
PROPOSED 111111fillill
/
BUILDING
15.D00 sr. PARKING
RETAIL RAMP ABOVE
,;h f 'J
~IVIIIIIIIy/
O
W N
M TRANSI
o
z
SCALE IN FEET
0 65 130 260
PARKING RAMP
ABOVE
0 0' PARKING SETBACK
PYLON SIGN
PROPOSED 100' R.O.W.
EXISTING PROPERTY UNE
rim Eagan Transit Station mi ~1° By: Sheet Number
won= Checked By:
File wame:
WIND IL TM~dA WW*NC PROPOSED EASEMENT
IMnnwpob, AN! Date: cowwur=
e"0t
D t S G l1 01'.'°.•7' FOR CLOCK TOWER 10/2!00
F.x 012.3]Y.74W
MEMO
city of eagan
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 2000
SUBJECT: CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS
Per your request, I have compiled information regarding our past and present policies and
procedures for selecting consultants. The term `consultant' as applied in the City of Eagan has
traditionally covered Fiscal, Legal and Engineering Services. At times, more specialized areas
such as Auditing Services, Banking Services, Insurance Broker Services, Architectural Services
and Telecommunication Services have been included in the discussion of this subject. The
engaging of consultants to provide services varies over the continuum from a limited time project
perspective (architectural) to an indefinite time or more of a retainer concept (fiscal, legal,
engineering).
While it is not legally required, the City has typically used some type of competitive process to
select and retain each of the various types of consultants. The selection criteria have included
some combination of service delivery quality and cost. The quality of service delivery is quite
subjective and includes such things and the chemistry of the relationships and can vary widely
depending on the particular set of circumstances. The cost is certainly more objective, although
it can often be difficult to determine total cost and to provide for a fair comparison among firms.
Decisions to proceed through a new selection process have typically come about in one of two
ways. First, it may result from a predetermined calendar, stating that regardless of
circumstances, the City is going to undertake the exercise at a specific date. Second , it may
result from the City Council or staff reaching a conclusion that existing consultants are not
performing satisfactorily or that the cost has become too high and is probably outside the market.
The notion of not performing satisfactorily certainly can be subjective in some cases and can
result from a wide variety of situations. It also might simply demonstrate a need by the City for
service that is outside of the consultant's specialty or area of expertise.
Given the City's philosophy of staffing on the lean side in combination with the rapid growth
and expanding service delivery needs, staff has been reluctant to go through the formal
scheduled selection process unless something seems clearly out of line with existing consultants.
Historically, the selection process became more formalized and calendar-driven in the late 1980s.
At the organizational meeting on'January 20, 1987, a motion was passed on a 3-2 vote to direct
the City Administrator to prepare a request for proposal for each of the consultants for 1988 and
that the RFPs be submitted to the City Council for review, including proposed timetables. Staff
meetings were held during 1987, however the process was not completed. At the January 19,
1988 organizational meeting, the City Council directed the completion of Statement of
Qualifications to be submitted to the City Council for review at the February 2, 1988 meeting.
The following is a historical record beginning in the late 1980s of the practice of engaging
consultants.
Engineering Services
Following an extensive process, the City Council at its meeting on March 15, 1988 appointed
three firms (Bonestroo-Rosene-Anderlik and Associates, Inc., Orr-Schelen-Mayeron and
Associates, Inc. and Short-Elliot-Hendrickson, Inc.) to comprise a group to assist the City with
"regular engineering" services. Those firms were selected through a Statement of Qualifications
and interview process. Other specialty firms and retained services firms were not formally
interviewed but were approved on the basis of their Statements of Qualifications.
The process was repeated in 1993 with the City Council on June 15, 1993 appointing three firms
(Bonestroo-Rosene-Anderlik and Associates, Inc., Maier-Stewart and Associates, Inc. and Short-
Elliot-Hendrickson, Inc.) to comprise a group to assist the City with "regular engineering"
services. Again, a number of firms available to provide technical/specialty engineering services
were authorized through the Statement of Qualifications process without formal interviews. To
this day, the firms remain basically the same, although there have been some name changes
through merger and acquisition.
Legal Services
Following an extensive process, the City Council on May 3, 1988 appointed the Hauge, Eide &
Keller firm for prosecution services and the McMenomy and Severson firm as City Attorney for
general legal services. The firm Faegre & Benson was retained as the City's bond firm, and
Ratwick, Rozak, Maloney & Bartel was retained as a firm specializing in personnel matters. The
City Council action removed Hauge as the City's general legal consultant and replaced that firm
with the McMenomy firm.
The process was repeated in 1994 with the same results approved by the City Council at its
meeting on May 3, 1994. Some of the firms have changed names but the arrangements and
services have been consistent.
At the Special City Council meeting on August 29, 2000, the Council directed staff to complete
an in-depth analysis of the legal services budget and review the option to change to an in-house
attorney. This study will be completed in 4th quarter 2000 and submitted to the Council for
review; consideration of RFP solicitation for legal services should be delayed until the study is
complete.
3~
Fiscal Services
The request for a Statement of Qualifications was first formally made in 1988 with the City
Council on July 5, 1988 approving Springsted as the City's Fiscal Consultant. That action
replaced Miller and Schroeder Financial in that position.
The process was repeated in 1995 and the Springsted firm was retained in official action of the
City Council at its meeting of June 6, 1995. The agreement was modified to be for an indefinite
period of time and was made with the understanding that the City is free to use other firms at its
sole discretion, if it is determined that it is in the City's best interest to do so.
Auditing
A formal policy of soliciting RFPs at least every six years was adopted January 19, 1988. A
three-year contract is entered into with the option to extend one year at a time for three additional
years. The RFP process has been required, although changing firms is not mandatory, so the
incumbent firms can participate. This was instituted prior to the more formalized approach to
legal, fiscal and engineering services. Formal requests were made in 1983, 1989, and 1995. The
process has been carried out in the referenced year to be effective with that year-end audit.
Bank-inp, Services
This process also began independent of the more formal system implemented in 1988. Formal
requests for banking services were made in 1985, 1988 and 1992. The RFP process has been
essentially discontinued because of the special arrangement between the 4M Fund sponsored by
the League of Minnesota Cities and US Trust that allows for free checking with US Bank. The
services are high quality and the cost is low compared to any other provider. Given the amount
of daily transactions carried out through and dependent on the banking system and the Federal
Reserve, it is not practical to consider changing this relationship unless something is seriously
out of line.
Insurance Broker
This process began in 1989 for the insurance year starting July 1, 1989. Formal requests were
done in 1989, 1993 and 1996. The service period has typically been for three years although
there have been some one year extensions. Very few firms have the capacity to handle large
municipal accounts and have a relationship with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust
that benefits Eagan. The fee arrangement has been changed from a commission basis to a
standard monthly fee. This change has basically removed cost as a consideration in soliciting
Statements of Qualifications.
Overview
Type of Years of Year due for Obligated Incumbent Notes
Service Requests/ review to Change Firms May
RFPs Firms? Paricipate?
Engineering 1988 1998 No Yes
1993
Legal 1988 2000 No Yes Full Legal Services
1994 study underway; will be
available for Council
review 4`h quarter 2000.
Fiscal 1988 2000 No Yes City is free to use other
1995 firms at its sole
discretion.
Auditing 1983 2000 No Yes
1989
1995
Banking 1985 discontinued No Yes RFP process basically
1988 discontinued; special
1992 arrangement with 4M
Fund and the League of
MN Cities.
Insurance 1989 2001 No Yes Few firms have the
1993 capacity to handle such
1996 a large account; monthly
fee has eliminated cost
as factor in Statement of
Qualifications.
Other Consultant Services
When the Council adopted the Professional Consulting Services Policy, it was intended to cover
all consultant services. At the last review, the aforementioned services comprised the totality of
consultant services for the City. As the city has engaged in privatization efforts, other
contractual services not itemized here have been enlisted by the City (i.e. snow removal). The
City Council may want to consider adding these services to the RFP process if it elects to
continue with regular RFPs.
For five years, the City of Eagan has contracted with The Wallace Group for public relations
services including the Eagan business newsletter, press releases and other services. The annual
appropriation for these services totals approximately $25,000-$30,000. While this service has
not been competitively subjected to the RFP process, the Council may want to consider creating
an RFP for this service.
Goals and Action Plan 2000
Goal #4: "To foster a healthy participatory governing process to align the efforts of the City
Council with the expectations of the citizens and needs of the staff."
Citizen Participation Objective: "Review all city consultants."
Status: "Ongoing by senior management staff." (50% completion)
Options for Council Consideration
The City Council policy regarding Professional Consulting Services passed on March 19, 1991
grants boundless flexibility and autonomy to the City Council in the solicitation of consultant
services. The policy states that the Council is not obligated to change consultants nor be
constrained to the lowest responsible bid, but does state that RFPs should be utilized whenever
consulting services are retained under the following circumstances:
1. A new or previously undefined service, the cumulative value of which exceeds $15,000
in any twelve month period.
2. A regularly retained service (legal, planning, etc.) at least once every 3-5 years.
3. A significant individual project, the service for which exceeds $100,000, if not previously
identified in the current scope of work for the RFP for that retainer.
At the Council's pleasure, I offer the following options (or combination of options) for action at
this time:
1. Adhere to the previously scheduled 3-5 year review timeline. If the Council prefers this
option, please prioritize the services that should come up for review and establish a
timeline for completion.
2. Select the highest priority services to come up for RFP solicitation and review, establish a
timeline for completion and abandon the 3-5 year review timeline for remaining services.
Services not specifically reviewed by request would not come up again for RFP
solicitation unless the Council or staff determine a review of the service delivery is
necessary.
3. Abandon the 3-5 year scheduled review in favor of review on an "as needed" basis as
determined by either the Council or the staff.
4. Delay consideration of all RFPs/Consultant Selection until 1 S` and 2nd quarters 2001.
5. Add any other services not currently subject to the RFP process to the list of services to
be scheduled for consideration.
6. Other action as determined by the Council.
I i
The City staff remain committed to delivering the highest quality, lowest cost service possible
for the citizens of Eagan. The RFP solicitation and review process can be a useful tool but also
utilizes considerable staff time and resources; it would be infeasible to solicit RFPs for all
contracted City services simultaneously. Upon your decision, we will proceed accordingly.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
C~\ A --I
City Administrator
f•,••ir iii::.
f ~vi:•i:$ ii: i i4i:
/r/~:::•::;:; :•r.5;:ti<:::i•#i%+<iiii:'t't!:
MEMO
-city of eagan
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: OCTOBER 13, 2000
SUBJECT: CITY ADMINISTRATOR PERFORMANCE REVIEW PROCESS
Per direction of the City Council, the following research and information for conducting the
performance review for the City Administrator has been prepared.
HISTORY
The last performance review of the City Administrator occurred in 1998. At the August 18, 1998
Special City Council meeting, the City Council referred the review process to the personnel
committee, a two-person subcommittee of the City Council. The review was discussed at the
September 14, 1998 Special City Council Meeting (minutes attached as Attachment A). The
Council determined that a review every other year would be appropriate.
THE PROCESS
The City Council should make two choices regarding the City Administrator's Performance
Review:
1) Who will conduct the review?
2) What format will be used?
OPTIONS FOR WHO WILL CONDUCT THE REVIEW
Personnel Committee
The review conducted in 1998 was handled by the two-member personnel committee. The
current personnel committee members are Councilmembers Bakken and Carlson.
Full Council
The full City Council as a governing body may conduct the review. This format requires that the
evaluation is open to the public according to Minnesota's Open Meeting Law.
3S-
Independent Consultant
Dakota County is currently conducting a review of the County Administrator and has contracted
the process to an independent third party. Any number of consultants could likely conduct the
process if it is the pleasure of the Council to pursue this option.
OPTIONS REGARDING WHAT FORMAT TO USE
There are several approaches and/or combinations of approaches that are options for the Council.
Skills/Competencies Review
In the past, the Council has used a format to evaluate eight defined "skill sets" that the City
Administrator should demonstrate (the form is attached as Attachment B). These skills have
included organizational management, fiscal/business management, program development and
follow-through, relationship with the mayor/council, long range planning, relationship with
public/public relations, intergovernmental relations and professional/personal development. This
format involves a written evaluation and subsequent oral review.
Goals/Outcomes Review
One alternative review format is to evaluate the position based on the outcomes related to the goals
set by the Council. The Council would evaluate the City Administrator's performance in the areas
determined to be priorities for the Council as part of the Goals 2000 system. This process would
focus on the work product and its management as created by the City Administrator; it could also be
combined with a skills review if desired.
Interviews/Consensus-Building Review
This format requires independent third-party involvement (i.e., a consultant) and would involve a
series of interviews with the City Administrator, the Mayor and Council, and the Human Resources
Director. The format is developed through a group process to determine the measures that ought to
be used to evaluate the position. The County Administrator review being conducted by a consultant
is a two-phase process, with group discussion components built into several parts of the progression.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED
Provide direction on what procedure the City Council wants to pursue with regard to the City
Administrator's Performance Review. The format and process chosen will determine the timeline
for completion.
q\Avl" ft_~ -
City Administrator
ATTACHMENT A
MINUTES OF THE
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE EAGAN CITY COUNCIL
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 14, 1998
A special meeting of the Eagan City Council was held on Monday, September 14,
1998 at 5:00 p.m. in the lunchroom of the Eagan Municipal Center Building. Mayor
Egan and Councilmembers Awada, Blomquist, Masin and Wachter were all present.
Also present was City Administrator Hedges.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S PERFORMANCE REVIEW
City Councilmember Awada reported that the Personnel Committee has
completed the performance review for the City Administrator. City Councilmember
Masin questioned the process the Personnel Committee used for the performance review
stating that the Personnel Committee should not have met with the City Administrator
prior to sharing results of the performance review with the entire City Council and,
further, that the performance review should be based on a list of goals agreed to by the
City Council and the City Administrator. City Councilmember Awada stated that the
City Council did discuss different methods for reviewing the City Administrator's
performance and the decision was to conduct the performance review in the same manner
as his last performance review several years ago.
After further discussion, it was agreed that the process for considering the City
Administrator's performance review will be looked at in 1999 and that a review every
other year would seem adequate and appropriate given the tenure of the City
Administrator.
City Councilmember Awada and Mayor Egan, who comprised the Personnel
Committee, went through each category that was used in the performance review and
discussed accommodations, constructive suggestions and the overall rating given by the
City Council. City Councilmember Awada stated that the City Administrator received a
high rating composite for the categories used in the performance review. City
Councilmember Masin praised the Administrator for his work with the City Council
during the past year given the complexities of the issues the City Council has been
dealing with. City Councilmember Blomquist agreed with City Councilmember Masin,
providing high compliments on the City Administrator's performance.
City Councilmember Wachter expressed his appreciation for the high work ethics,
standards and energy the City Administrator gives to the City. City Councilmember
Masin stated that several of the comments in the category of constructive remarks reflect
more on the responsibility of the City Council and suggested that in the future the City
Council perform an evaluation of their own performance as a governing body.
I i
Page 2/Special City Council Minutes
September 14, 1998
After City Councilmember Awada's completion of the performance review
material, Mayor Egan echoed comments made by the other City Councilmembers and
complimented the City Administrator for his performance. The City Administrator was
excused from the Special City Council meeting allowing the City Council to discuss his
compensation package.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:25 p.m.
TLH
Date City Administrator
ATTACHMENT B
CITY OF EAGAN
Evaluation of Chief Executive Officer
Explanations and Directions Performance Evaluation as Team Building
sssssssssss•sasssssssssssssssssssssssssssss*5ssssssssss
Evaluation as Team Building
If evaluation is to be, in the truest sense, a means of team building, certain conditions must prevail.
The two processes must be compatible and interrelated in the following ways:
1. Evaluation is basically a means, not an end in itself.
2. The trust level between the evaluatee and evaluators must be high.
3. The roles each are to fulfill must be clearly indicated and accepted.
4. Responsibilities are matched with predetermined standards of performance.
Definition of Roles
A. City Council
1. Conduct annual assessments of performance of the Chief Executive Officer
(CEO).
2. Respect the prerogatives of the CEO insofar as operation management function
of the organization is concerned and the policy function of the Council.
3. Make assessments in general terms except in instances where specific
improvements are needed or when explicit commendations are due.
B. Chief Executive Officer
1. Accepts the prospects of annual evaluation.
2. Understands the scope and thrust of the evaluations.
3. Expects the evaluations to adhere to the established procedures for evaluating
the performance of the CEO.
Pre-determined Performance Standards
A performance standard is defined as a condition that will east when a responsibility or function is
successfully performed. It is essential that a performance standard be established, at the outset, for
each of the eight major areas of responsibility of the CEO. This is necessary in order to we the
rating scale effectively.
Maior Areas of Responsibility
It should be reiterated that in determining the appropriate level of expectations, actual performance
must be measured in relation to the indicated standard of performance.
I i
Maior Areas of Urpon_ bil_ity (continued).
Eight major areas of responsibility as the basis upon which assessments are to be made. Descriptors' .
as provided under each to clarify the meaning and content of the area. However, the evaluation is
made of the major area.
Retinf Svmbole
Rating symbols are used to make the assessments; and these symbols fall into three main categories
E s Exceeds Expectations (pWarzaanc• has been above reasonable expectations)
M - Meets Expectations (performance has attained a level of reasonable expectations)
B s Below Expectations (performance has been below reasonable expectations)
To allow for further refinement of these aaseasneats, each of the three categories can be indicated
with a or symbol. This allows for a continuum of nine rating categories from B- which
indicates the lowest rating to E+ which indicates truly exemplary perfannL w.
As indicated earlier, without more precise definition of the term 'expectations', it is possible that
ambiguity will result in the vu of the term In order to help avoid this possibility, the concept of
performance standards is used.
It will be noted that in connection with each major area, a performance standard is stated, including
the conditions that have to be met in order to deride the extent to which 'expectations' have been
met.
-14Q
EIGHT MAJOR AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY
L Organizational Management
U. Fiscal/Business Management
M. Program Development and Follow-Through
IV. Relationship With the Mayor/Council
V. Long Range Planning
VI. Relationship With Public/Public Relations
VII. Intergovernmental Relations
VIII. Professional/Personai Development
~l
I i
RAID G RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE STANDARD
E+ L Organizational Management Organisational Management WW be
considered effective when a
majority of the conditions have been
succeufully fulfilled.
E- .
Plans and organizes the work that a. Well qualified pr om dv
M+ goes into providing services persons are reaidted and
established by past and current anpioyed
M decisions of the Coundl.
b~ Employees are appropriately
M. Plans and organizes work that placed contributing to a high
carries out poTh i adopted by the retention rate.
B+ Coundl and developed by Staf.
_
Supervisory techniques modvate
B Plants and organizes responses to Jvigh pa formarue
public requests and complaints or
B- areas of concern brought to the d Complaints to Council are not
attention of Staff by Council and common.
Staff.
e. The organisation is waare of
£luaiuatiorv and keeping up with new trends in technology.
current technology.
Selecting, leadin& direeting, and
developing staff mwnbers.
Coma, er.ts: Observations of Evaluators: (use this space aLso to indicate the impact upon the
teamwork factor)
S resticns for Imrrovement: GSpecific area(s) that need strengthening)
Commendations (Area(s) of performance calling for prais lcommendation)
Comments of the CEO: G;erponses to any of the evalnationa/commeatvsuggestiona/commendations.)
ZjI)
R4TINTG RESPONSIBflITY PERFORMANCE STANDARD
E+ U. FiscaMusiness Management FiscallBusiness Management will be
considered effective when a
majority of the conditions have been
successfully fulfi led.
l-
Plans and organises the preparation a. Budget preparation and
M+ of an annual budget with vumaganent are thorough and
documentation, etc that conforms to effective.
M guidelines adopted by the Coundl
h Cost-effective measures on
_M- Plant, organizes, and adnninista-s persistently pursued
the adopted budget with approved
revenues and expenditures e. YInandal reporting Is timely and
readily wde-standabtc
_ Plan4 organises and supervises most
economic utilisation of d Physical fadUb s snanaganent
B. manpou hnat is of idenL
Plans and organises a system of
reports for Cow=U that provide
most up-to-date data available
concern ng espenditures and
revcnuC.
Plans and organises maintenance of
City-owntd fadUdas, buildings
and/or equipment
Co-m.-rents: Observations of Evaluators: (use this space also to indicate the impact upon the
mA factor)
Suggestions for Im rovement: (Specific area(s) that need strengtheninzJ
Commendations: (Area(s) of performance calling for praiaeJcommendstion)
Comments of the CEO: (Responses to any of the svaluationa/oommeatarsuggestiondaommeadationa.)
14
ICJ
RATING RESPONSIBII.ITY PERFORMANCE STANDARD
E+ III. Program Development and Follow Program planning techniques cad
Through. procedures will be considered
E effective when a majority of the
conditions have been succecrf47
tu=ed.
M+ Plans and organizes ongoing a. Ongoing programs and sa lien
programs and sc & ius to City are fully responsive to the Cit 's
M SoucvunML needs
M. Plans and organises work Inoolved b` Monitoring proeethsru are in
to researching programs suggestions place and funcdoning well
+ by Council and Staff and the
rrporring of the results of analysts c. Measurable outcomes (to the
a2c t possible are used to
Maintains knowledge of airrrnt and deco-nine success in pvvgmm
8- is wvative treads in the area of pianrdntg.
sv ices bdng prodded by local
govern n c'a , and incorporates that . d. The CEO can be depended upon
knowledge in program suggestions to fotio:o through.
and research.
a Makes most effective use of
Plans and organises work assigned available Staff talent
by the Council so that it is completed
with dispatch and of heresy.
Plan.; organises and supo-tises
implementation of programs
adopted or approved by the Council.
Comments: Observations of Evaluators: (use this space also to indicate the impact upon the
teamwork factor)
Suggestions for Imflrovement: (Specific area(s) that need strengthening)
Commendations: (Area(s) of performance calling for praiu/wmmendation)
Comments of the CEO: allspoasea to any of the evalustionatoommentatauggestionalcommeadations.)
4~
RATE G RESPONSIBi ITY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
E+ W. Relationship with Mayor and Relations with the Mayor/Council
Council will be considered effective when a
majority of the conditions have been
successfully fulfilled.
Arafntains effective communication. c. Mataial; reports, presattctions
both verbal and unittc% with and recom n.aa4ations are
CorisidL dka.* and convlndngly midi
_M
Maintains avaLlabWty to Coundl, b: Conunundtations are made in a
either personally or through tirr+rly, forthright, and open
designated subordinates manna.
B+ Establishes and maintains a star c. Responses to
system 8espo requests are made
B of reporting to Coundl arrrait plans promptly and completely.
and acuities of the Staff. B- d Recommendations appear to be
Plans and organises materials for thoroughly rwsearched.
presentations to the Counter atther
verbally or written, in the most e. Adequate information is
concise, clear, and eompreh . ue provided to Council to make
maAner possible. decisions.
f. A system is in place to report to
Council currait plans, -eduities
events of the City.
Comments: Observations of Evaluators: (use this space also to indicate the impact upon the
teamwork factor)
Suggestions for Improvement: (Specific area(s) that need strengthening)
Commendations: area(s) of performance calling for praiselcommendation)
Comments of the CEO: Mesponses to any of the evaluationstcor rtatsuggestions/commendations.)
Z/s
I i
RATWG RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE STANDARD
E+ V. Long Range Plaaning Strategic planing will be
considered effective when a
majority of the conditions have been
succeisft2lly fulfilled.
jdah&tains a knowkdge of nao a. A weg-COMOV&Cd Zongrw&ge
Mt technologic , sysumA methods, etc. ( otcgk) plan to as randy to
in relation to City w- ccs operation.
M
raps Council adsised of new and a Annual operational plans are
M. impending LegLeation and carried out by Staff manbers.
developments in the area of public
+ Policy. C. An on-going monitoring prouu
- it IA opa+at3on io attain QUQZLt-V
B Plans and organise: a paces of awn in program and
pogram plug in arisidpaion of pject u
B, future aced, and problans
d Program aaluaslon and
EstabZtshes and maintains an personnel evaluation are biter.
ouxzrenrss of developments related with the sirategtc
occurring within other cities or other planning process
jurisdictions that may have an
impart on City actM4es. a Legisiad a knowledge is currant
and complete.
Plans, orjanlses and maintains a
process for establishing comnnunity
goals to be approved or adopted by
Coundl and monitoring and status
rcportvng.
Comment.: Observations of Evaluators: (use this space also to indicate the impact upon the
t-nmork factor)
Surrestions for Improvement: (Specific area(s) that need strengthening)
Commendations: (Area(s) of performance Calling for praise commendation)
Comments of the CEO: allsponses to any of the evaluations/oommentvsugestionsleommendationa.)
RATfl G RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE STANDARD
E+ VI. Relationship with Public/Public Communication services will be
Relations. considered effective when a
E majority of the conditions have been
successfully fulfilled.
Plans, organizes and maintains a. Contacts with the media are
M+ training of employees iri contact with timely and a edlUe.
the public either by phone or in
person. b. Publication are varied and
consistartly wellreccived by the
_M. Zhsures that an attitude and feeling cit3zens.
of helpfulness, courtesy, and
B+ suety to plc perception exists a Feedback from the public and
in employers coming in contact with the eommunlty kada ship is
B the publsc pestttve:
1ata.blishrs and m rL.tains an image d City has food Image With
B- of the City to the eomrruinfty that comparable organizations.
r eprescLts sauce, vitality and
pro fessionallsrrz
Establishes and maintains a Batson
with private non governmental
agvuzes, organizations and groups
involved In areas of concern that
relate to ser%ices or acdrides of the
City.
Comments: Observations of Evaluators: (use this space also to indicate the impact upon the
teamwork factor)
Suggestions for Improvement: (Specific area(s) that need strengthening)
Commendations: (Area(s) of performance c&Ui g for pr aiseJconimendatiov)
Comments of the CEO: Mesponses to any of the evaluationavcommeatelsuggestiondoommendations.)
~7
RA7WG RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE STANDARD
E+ VIL Intergovernmental Relations Intergovernmental relations will be
considered effective when a
majority of the conditions have been
sruccearfally fulfilled.
Afainsadns awareness of d Suffidart activity With
M+ developments and plans in other murddpal and professional
Jurladict ons that may relate to or orgaaisatioma
M affect City go& 'nmoit
bl Regarded as Zeader by municipal
M. FztabZishes and maintains a Uaison orfsdais. .
with other governncstal
D+ jurisdictions in those areas of service e: Provides ezampies of good ideas
that Lmprvve or enhance the CUs JS om otherf uoisdtctions
progra:r+& d Positive relationship with
& lda3nsaims eoomrnunicadons with surrounding eiders
govaiunental Jurisdictions with
which the City is imvolsxd or s. Good cooperation with County
interfaces and State agersdes.
Comments Observations of Evaluators: (use this space also to indicate the impart upon the
• tenmwork factor)
Su f2ert ors for Imvrovement: (Specific area(s) that need rbengthening)
Commendations: (Area(s) of perform&nze calling for praise/commendation)
Comments of the CEO- Gissponsea to any of the evaluation Vcommentdsuggesdona/commendations.)
7'O
RATII`'G RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE STANDARD
E+ VIIL ProfessionallPersonal Professional and personal
Development competencies will be considered
E effective when a majority of the
conditions have been successfully
fulfilled,
M+ AfaWalm auvro ss and value of a. lfanaganvLt techniques shoo
broadaLing p ofesstonal and e&Idences of Inraovad r4
M personal development imagination, and dedst mess
M. Denwnstrates imaginative h Synergetic techniques are
leadership iri& fostered
B+
Ability to build eohesivene s in t verbal comma icatlon is
B Stag co
B- Dedsiaciess in kadership
perfornance.
Effedivcn.ess in verbal
communications.
Cornx ents: Observations of Evaluators: (use this space also to indicate the impact upon the
teamwork factor)
SuePes:ions for Imarovernent: (Specific area(s) that need strengthening)
Commendation,: (Area(s) of performance calling for praise/commendation)
Comments of the CEO: (Responses to any of the evaluationa/commentdsuggestiondcommendations.)