The URL can be used to link to this page

07/07/2009 - City Council Regular AGENDA EAGAN CITY COUNCIL EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER BUILDING JULY 7, 2009 6:30 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ' 11. ADOPT AGENDA III. RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS IV. CONSENT AGENDA (Consent items are acted on with one motion unless a request is made for an item to be pulled for discussion) fa A. APPROVE MINUTES Rib B. PERSONNEL ITEMS t) C. APPROVE Check Registers Q, la D. APPROVE 2009 - 2010 Amusement Device License renewals x.13 E. APPROVE Massage Therapy Establishment License for Body Wellness and Beyond, Inc., 4141 Old Sibley Memorial Highway, 304) I~} F. ACCEPT $2,000 donations for the both the Police Department and the Fire Department from Wal-Mart -Pig G. DIRECT preparation of an ordinance amendment to Chapter 5 regarding premises licenses f A0 H. APPROVE an amendment to the 2009 General Facilities Renewal and Replacement Budget P.17 I. SCHEDULE public hearing to consider transfer of City parcel to Metropolitan Council for Cedar Grove Transit Station P.18 J. APPROVE extension of Preliminary Subdivision for Sumac Ridge P -W K. APPROVE extension of Preliminary Subdivision of Lindstrom Acres 2"d Addition P. 2l~{ L. APPROVE changes to the standard conditions of plat approval p M. APPROVE purchase of four acres for Fire Station relocation at Yankee Doodle Road and Wescott Woodlands f. al N. AUTHORIZE Feasibility Report for Project 1012 (Fire Station relocation and Duckwood Drive - Street and Utility Improvements) J .310. AUTHORIZE Environmental Assessment Worksheet preparation by SRF for Fire Station relocation and street and utility improvements Pia P. ACCEPT Findings of Fact, approve Wetland Bank Application and authorize preparation of Plans and Specifications for Contract 09-06 (Wandering Walk Park) Q. RECEIVE bids and award Contract 09-08 (2009 City-Wide Sidewalk and Trail Improvements) e4i R. APPROVE final acceptance and authorize City maintenance of Contract 06-01 (TH 149 - Street and Utility Improvements) 19gCS. APPROVE final payment and authorize City maintenance of Contract 08-08 (2008 City-wide Trail Improvements) T. APPROVE Change Order No. 2 for Contract 08-02 (Lone Oak Lift Station - Sanitary Sewer Improvements) . U. APPROVE No Parking Resolution - Northwest Parkway (between TH 149 and Lone Oak Parkway) t5a V. ACCEPT Agreement with St. Paul Police Department to investigate internet crimes against children P 11W. APPROVE Massage Therapy Establishment License for T-Squared Massage and Bodyworks, 4141 Old Sibley '79X. APPROVE Resolution for Dakota Traffic Safety Grant OSbY. APPROVE agreement with MN State Patrol to work traffic on Pilot Knob Road V. PUBLIC HEARINGS i.5 A. FEE SCHEDULE AMENDMENT -Amend the 2009 Fee Schedule by adding a permit fee for outdoor events with amplified sound. VI. OLD BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS A. INTERIM USE PERMIT -Maggie Mell -An Interim Use Permit to allow boarding of up to 7 horses located at 4085 Lexington Ave. S. in the SE % of Section 22. T. ) SIB. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT - Town Center 100 - MFC Properties - A Planned Development Amendment to allow an outdoor dining patio and detached trash enclosures located at 1248-1272 Town Centre Dr. Lots 3 & 4, Block 1, town Centre 100 Sixth Addition and Lot 1, Block 1, Town Centre 100 20th Addition in the NE % of Section 15. r• rZ5-C. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT - Town Centre Plaza - A Planned Development to allow building tenant signage located at 1185 Town Centre Drive on Lot 1, Block 1, Gatewoods Addition. P~ ~s D. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - An Ordinance Amendment to the City Code Chapter 11 relative to mechanical screening. 42 X05 E. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - City Code Chapter 11.07 regarding temporary outdoor events, Chapter 10.31 regarding permits for outdoor amplified sound. VIII. LEGISLATIVE / INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UPDATE IX. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY A. CALL TO ORDER B. ADOPT AGENDA C. CONSENT AGENDA D. OLD BUSINESS E. NEW BUSINESS CEDAR GROVE REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT- Consider Settlement in the Matter of the Acquisition of the Delta Development Property located at 3902 Cedarvale Drive P 2. CEDAR GROVE REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT - Schedule Public Hearing regarding sale of City property to Doran Development for Phase I Apartment Project F. OTHER BUSINESS G. ADJOURN X. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA XI. VISITORS TO BE HEARD (for those persons not on agenda) XII. CLOSED SESSION XIII. ADJOURNMENT 4111b~ My of Eajan TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: JULY 2, 2009 SUBJECT: AGENDA INFORMATION FOR JULY 7, 2009 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ADOPT AGENDA After approval is given to the July 7, 2009 City Council agenda, the following items are in order for consideration. 1 Agenda Information Memo July 7, 2009 Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA The following items referred to as consent items require one (1) motion by the City Council. If the City Council wishes to discuss any of the items in further detail, those items should be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed under Old or New Business unless the discussion required is brief. A. APPROVE MINUTES ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve the minutes of the June 16, 2009 regular City Council meeting and the minutes of the June 9, 2009 Special City Council meeting as presented or modified. ATTACHMENTS: • Minutes of the June 16, 2009 regular City Council meeting are enclosed on pages through (P-. • Minutes of the June 9, 2009 Special City Council meeting are enclosed on pages through. I, MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE EAGAN CITY COUNCIL Eagan, Minnesota June 16, 2009 A Listening Session was held at 6:00 p.m. prior to the regular City Council meeting. Present were Mayor Maguire, Councilmembers Fields, Tilley, Bakken and Hansen. There were no visitors who wished to be heard. A regular meeting of the Eagan City Council was held on Tuesday, June 16, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center. Present were Mayor Maguire, Councilmembers Fields, Tilley, Bakken and Hansen. Also present were City Administrator Tom Hedges, Community Development Director Jon Hohenstein, City Planner Mike Ridley, Public Works Director Tom Colbert, City Attorney Mike Dougherty and Administrative Secretary / Deputy Clerk Mira Pepper. AGENDA City Administrator Hedges noted that an item will be added under the Administration Agenda and there will be a Closed Session to discuss pending litigation. Councilmember Tilley moved, Councilmember Fields seconded a motion to approve the agenda as presented. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS Dorothy Peterson was recognized for her nine years of volunteer service to the Advisory Parks Commission. The Showcase Eagan Coordinating Committee was recognized for a successful 2009 Showcase Eagan event. CONSENT AGENDA Item I was pulled for discussion. Councilmember Tilley moved, Councilmember Fields seconded a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 A. It was recommended to approve the minutes of the June 2, 2009 regular City Council meeting as presented. B. Personnel Items. 1. It was recommended to approve the hiring of a full time Skate School Coordinator at the Civic Arena. C. It was recommended to ratify check registers dated May 29, 2009, and June 4, 2009 as presented. D. It was recommended to approve 2009 - 2010 Massage Therapy Establishment License renewals for the following: • The Bodywork Studio, 3352 Sherman Court #103 • Solimar Wellness Spa, 1121, Town Centre Drive • Lifetime Fitness, 1565 Thomas Center Drive • Keep In Touch Massage, 3424 Denmark Avenue • Tranquility For You, 1960 Cliff Lake Road, Suite 124 • Cole's Salon, 2131 Cliff Road • Affordable Therapeutic Massage, 4120 Lexington Way, Suite 170 • Massage Envy, 3250 Denmark Avenue, Suite 108 • Cole's Salon, 3450 Pilot Knob Road 3 City Council Minutes w June 16, 2009 /C1 F Page 2 E. It was recommended to approve 2009 - 2010 amusement device license renewals for the following: • Coinstar Entertainment Services • Theisen Vending • Awe Vending and Amusement F. It was recommended to approve 2009 - 2010 Body Art License Establishment renewal for Leroy Jones, The Canvas Tattoo Studio II, 4130 Blackhawk Road, Suite 113. G. It was recommended to approve a Tree Maintenance Contractor License for Castle Rock Contracting and Tree Service. H. It was recommended to approve the fireworks permit for RES Specialty Pyrotechnics Inc. and waive the license fee as requested by the July 4th Funfest Committee. 1. Off-Sale Liquor License - Supervalu, Inc. PULLED FOR DISCUSSION. J. It was recommended to retain Springsted, Inc. to complete a comprehensive user rate study for water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, water quality and street lighting utilities. K. It was recommended to approve an amendment of the Development Deposit Agreement with Revestors for Red Pine Crossing regarding timing of the payment of the contract administration fee. L. It was recommended to approve a one-year extension of the Preliminary Subdivision approval for Sammy Sweet Cheeks, consisting of two single-family lots on approximately 1.0 acre located at 2888 Sibley Hills Drive. M. It was recommended to approve a modification of the conditions of approval related to outside displays for the Planned Development Amendment for Home Depot located at 3220 Denmark Avenue to reinsert condition #3. N. It was recommended to accept a partnership contribution of $2,500 and 1,300 trick or treat bags from Genisys Credit Union as a partner for the 2009 Halloween Hodgepodge event. 0. It was recommended to accept a partnership contribution of $1,500, pedometers to be given away for Health and Wellness Night and volunteer support from Rasmussen College as a partner for the 2009 Eagan Market Fest event. P. It was recommended to accept an advertising sponsorship from Thisweek Newspapers and Thisweek Live fro the 2009 Eagan Market Fest event. Q. It was recommended to authorize the preparation of specifications and advertisement for bids for replacement fitness equipment for the Eagan Community Center. R. Removed from agenda. S. It was recommended to receive the bids for Contract 09-11 (City owned and Maintained Traffic Signals - Painting / Reconditioning) and award the contract to Hiller Bros Construction for the Base Bid in the amount of $14,150.00, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. T. It was recommended to approve Change Order No. 1 to Contract 09-01 (Citywide Street Improvements) and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. U. It was recommended to approve the purchase of the "cityofeagan.org" and "city-of-eagan.com" domains and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the necessary documents to transfer the domains to the City. 1. Discussion was held regarding an on-sale liquor license for SuperValue, Inc. dba Cub Liquors. Dave Perrier expressed concern over the number of liquor licenses issued in the City and concern that landlords are controlling who gets the spaces where liquor stores are allowed. Kory Krause expressed his opposition to the proposed Cub liquor store and the large number of liquor stores already located in the City. The owner of Amber Liquor noted that the proposed Cub Liquors will only be 200 yards from his store. His attorney had earlier submitted a letter which questioned zoning ordinance requirements in regard to the proposed store. City Attorney Dougherty addressed the City Council Minutes DRAFT June 16, 2009 Page 3 ordinance concerns, explaining that the specifics of the building and site design had been approved as part of the Planned Development for the entire site. Councilmember Fields moved, Mayorr Maguire seconded a motion to approve an on-sale liquor license for SuperValue, Inc. dba Cub Liquors, 1016 Diffley Road, Suite 800. Aye:5 Nay:0 2008 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT City Administrator Hedges introduced this item regarding the 2008 Annual Financial Report. Matt Mayer and Janel Bitzan of Kern, DeWenter, Viere, Ltd. made a presentation. Councilmember Fields moved, Councilmember Hansen seconded a motion to receive and accept the 2008 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no Public Hearings. OLD BUSINESS AMENDMENT TO 2009 GENERAL FUND OPERATING BUDGET City Administrator Hedges discussed this item regarding an amendment to the 2009 General Fund operating budget. It was noted that a detailed presentation had been made at the June 9 City Council workshop. Councilmember Tilley moved, Councilmember Hansen seconded a motion to amend the 2009 General Fund operating budget by reducing both revenues and expenditures by $592,000. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 NEW BUSINESS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - CHAPTER 10, SECTION 10.11, SUBD. 7(c) POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS OR DANGEROUS DOGS City Administrator Hedges discussed this item regarding an ordinance amendment to Chapter 10, specifically as it relates to dangerous dog hearings. Councilmember Fields moved, Councilmember Tilley seconded a motion to approve an ordinance amendment to Chapter 10, specifically as it relates to dangerous dog hearings and direct the City Attorney to publish the amendment in the legal newspaper. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 LEGISLATIVE / INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UPDATE There were no items for discussion. The regular City Council meeting was recessed at 7:55 p.m. to immediately convene a meeting of the Economic Development Authority. DRAFT City Council Minutes ' June 16, 2009 Page 4 The meeting was reconvened a 8:00 p.m. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA Mayor Maguire moved, Councilmember Tilley seconded a motion to cancel the special City Council meeting for July 14 and schedule a special City Council meeting for July 28, 2009. VISITORS TO BE HEARD There were no visitors who wished to be heard. The regular City Council meeting was recessed at 8:03 p.m. to immediately convene a Closed Session to discuss the Cedar Grove acquisition litigation. The regular City Council meeting and Economic Development Authority meeting was reconvened at 9:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember moved, Councilmember seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Date Administrative Secretary / Deputy Clerk MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 2009 5:30 P.M. EAGAN ROOM - EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER City Council members present: Mayor Maguire, Councilmember's Bakken, Fields, Hansen and Tilley. City staff present: City Administrator Hedges, Assistant to the City Administrator Miller, Public Works Director Colbert, Superintendent of Streets Struve, Community Development Director Hohenstein, Chief Financial Officer Pepper, Fire Chief Scott, City Engineer Matthys, Police Chief McDonald, Support Services Manager Klein, and Communications Director Garrison. 1. ROLL CALL AND AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Maguire called the meeting to order. City Administrator Hedges requested that an item be added to Other Business to discuss a proposed change to the Ethan Allen planed development. Councilmember Fields moved; Councilmember Tilley seconded a motion to adopt the agenda as amended. Aye: 5, Nay: 0 II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD There were no visitors to be heard. III. REGIONAL ROADWAY VISIONING STUDY UPDATE City Administrator Hedges introduced the item noting that in 2006-2007, Eagan joined with Inver Grove Heights and Dakota County to complete a joint "North-South Corridor Travel Demand Study" to perform a preliminary analysis for a variety of roadway options in the north- central portion of Dakota County and considered a consolidated regional and county perspective broader than the local roadway system needs of each City. Hedges added that the next phase of the study has been expanded to involve the cities of Mendota Heights and Sunfish Lake, along with MnDOT, the Met Council, and the Federal Highway Administration. Public Works Director Colbert introduced Marie Cody, SRF Consultant, who provided a background of the study, discussed major stakeholders, highlighted the study process and goals, and gave an overview of the work completed to date. Ms. Cody also commented on plans for the June 24, 2009 open house at which the study will be highlighted. The City Council discussed the study and transportation needs in the community. The Council discussed the impact of transit on the study, including whether transit will be available 7 Special City Council Minutes June 9, 2009 Page 2 by the 2030 timeframe outlined in the study. At the request of Mayor Maguire, Ms. Cody noted she would seek clarification on the transit assumptions of the study. IV. RECEIVE UPDATE ON EAGAN EMERGENCY PLAN AND EAGAN EMPLOYEE PERSONAL SECURITY PLAN / UPDATE ON FEMA TRAINING EVENT City Administrator Hedges introduced the item, noting that the City has an emergency plan that would be relied upon in the event of a disaster. Police Chief McDonald introduced the City's Emergency Manager, Jeremy Klein, who provided a summary of the updates that are being proposed to the emergency plan. Klein also updated the Council on the upcoming emergency management exercise that will take place in Emmetsburg, Maryland the week of August 24, 2009. Hedges noted that thanks to grant funding, the entire cost for the week-long training is only $96/person. The City Council discussed the City's emergency plan and the future formation of an Employee Security Team. Hedges noted that a future closed session could be scheduled for the purpose of discussing the City Council's security. V. RECEIVE UPDATE ON THE 2009 GENERAL FUND BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS AND ON THE 2010 GENERAL FUND BUDGET City Administrator Hedges introduced the item, noting the impact of the State budget deficit on the City of Eagan's 2008-2010 operating budgets. Hedges reviewed the history of Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHC), and its impact on the budget. He also reviewed the status of the 2009 budget, including a revised revenue forecast. Hedges added that the Council has the opportunity to levy back any lost MVHC for both calendar years 2008 and 2009 should they so choose. Hedges reviewed recommendations that staff had suggested through an all-employee budget savings survey. The City Council discussed the City's current fund balance, and other recommendations to address the budget situation for 2009 and 2010. The Council reviewed recommendations of the management team, and suggested further looking at the following suggestions: revisiting the DCC allocation formula (Council support for non blended rates), hiring a volunteer coordinator position, review of non-essential services for volunteer possibilities, student workers from local community colleges and technical schools, wage freeze for union and non-union employees, software licensing changes, phased and early retirement, voluntary reductions in hours, capital replacement of vehicles, and additional revenue opportunities. The City Council discussed the budget payment for the DCC. It was suggested that the DCC budget be temporarily placed on hold at the June 18 DCC Board meeting in order to further look at the process to determine the funding allocation formula from each City towards the DCC. The Council directed that an item be placed on the June 16 City Council agenda to amend the 2009 budget by reducing revenues and expenditures by $592,000 and shifting or reallocating a portion of the tax levy in the amount of $710,500 from Renewal & Replacement and Street Reconstruction in order to balance the 2009 budget. Special City Council Minutes June 9, 2009 Page 3 VI. OTHER BUSINESS City Administrator Hedges noted a request received for a proposed change to the Ethan Allen Planned Development. The Council noted they are favorable to the modifications proposed to Building DD. City Administrator Hedges announced that a closed session would be held to discuss negotiations for a Fire Campus/Facility site. The City Council adjourned to closed session at 8:05 p.m. VII. ADJOURNMENT The City Council adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. 9 Agenda Information Memo July 7, 2009 Eagan City Council Meeting B. PERSONNEL ITEMS There are no Personnel items at this time. l~ Agenda Information Memo July 7, 2009 Eagan City Council Meeting C. RATIFY CHECK REGISTERS ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To ratify the check registers dated June 11, 2009, June 18, 2009 and June 25, 2009 as presented. ATTACHMENTS: • Check registers dated June 11, 2009, June 18, 2009 and June 25, 2009 are enclosed without page number. Agenda Memo July 7, 2009 City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA: D. 2009 - 2010 Amusement Device License renewals ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve 2009 - 2010 Amusement Device License for Lieberman Companies. FACTS: • Harold Lieberman, on behalf of Lieberman Companies, has applied for the renewal of their Amusement Device License. They will be operating amusement devices at the following locations: • Joe Sensors Sports Bar, 3010 Eagandale Road • Old Chicago, 1312 Town Centre Drive • Cherokee Sirloin Room, 4625 Nichols Road • Jake's City Grill, 1288 Promenade Place • CiCi's Pizza, 1292 Town Centre Drive • Valley Lounge, 3385 Sibley Memorial Highway • All requirements of the application have been met and the license fee has been paid. • Staff deems the application in order for approval. ATTACHMENTS: None. The application is available for review in the Administration Department. I~ Agenda Memo July 7, 2009 City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA: E. Massage Therapy Establishment License - Body Wellness and Beyond, Inc. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve Massage Therapy Establishment License for Kimberly Dwyer, Body Wellness and Beyond, Inc., 4141 Old Sibley Memorial Highway, (Office 304) FACTS: • Kimberly Dwyer has applied for a license to operate a massage therapy establishment at 4141 Old Sibley Memorial Highway. • All requirements of the application have been met and the fee has been paid. • The Police Department conducted a background investigation on Ms. Dwyer within the past year when she applied for a therapist license and there were no concerns. ATTACHMENTS: • None. The application is available for review in the Administration Department. I-~ Agenda Information Memo July 7, 2009, Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA F. Acceptance of a $4,000 donation from Eagan Walmart ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve acceptance of a $4,000 donation from Eagan Walmart FACTS: • On June 17, 2009, the Eagan Walmart hosted a "Grand Re-opening Ceremony" at the store. Store officials were celebrating the completion of a recent interior remodeling initiative. • As part of the ceremony, Walmart recognized various non-profit organizations with cash donations. • The Eagan Police and Fire Departments were each presented a check for $2,000. • The funds obtained from Walmart will be used to purchase safety/rescue equipment. • Thank you correspondence was sent to the Walmart Store Manager. NO ATTACHMENTS I~' Agenda Information Memo July 7, 2009, Eagan City Council Meeting G. DIRECT PREPARATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 5 REGARDING PREMISES LICENSED ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED: To direct the City Attorney's office to prepare an ordinance amendment to Chapter 5 regarding premises licensed. FACTS: ➢ Due to proposed changes to City Code Chapter 11.07 regarding temporary outdoor events and Chapter 10.31 regarding permits for outdoor amplified sound, changes to Chapter 5.07, premises licensed for the sale of alcoholic beverages, is also necessary to include the new language. ➢ The ordinance amendment affecting Chapter 5.07 will also incorporate language addressing outdoor seating and the temporary extension of on-sale liquor licenses to include other areas of licensed premises such as a parking lot. ATTACHMENTS (0): /S Agenda Information Memo July 7, 2009 Eagan City Council Meeting H. APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2009 GENERAL FACILITIES RENEWAL & REPLACEMENT BUDGET ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve an amendment to the 2009 General Facilities Renewal & Replacement Budget. FACTS: • In late 2008, the City Council approved the 2009 Budget for the General Facilities Renewal & Replacement Fund. • The surface of the trail in Berry Patch Park has become broken and uneven and is disintegrating in several places. The City's Street Department has made numerous attempts to patch/repair sections with limited success. Original plans were for the Street Department to internally complete an overlay of the trail in 2009; however, it has now been determined that it would not be feasible for City crews to undertake the overlay project given the trail condition and the need for specialized equipment. • A cost of $15,644 to contractually complete an overlay has been obtained through bidding the project as an alternate in a recent bid package of bituminous projects. The engineer's estimate for the project was approximately $20,500. Including a small contingency, it is the staff recommendation that the 2009 General Facilities Renewal & Replacement Budget be increased by $16,500 to provide for completion of this overlay. • Financing the trail improvement is consistent with the intent for the use of the City's General Facilities Renewal & Replacement Fund, although this specific project was not previously budgeted for 2009. • To protect the City's investment in the trail and to alleviate potential hazardous conditions for users, it is staff's recommendation that the work be undertaken in 2009. • There is an adequate balance in the fund to provide the necessary 2009 funding for this project. Use of the money in 2009 will be taken into consideration in preparation of the 2010 budget for this fund. ATTACHMENTS: (None) Agenda Memo Eagan City Council Meeting July 7, 2009 1. SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER TRANSFER OF CITY PROPERTY TO MET COUNCIL FOR CEDAR GROVE TRANSIT STATION ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To schedule a public hearing on August 3, 2009 to consider the transfer of City owned property in the Cedar Grove Redevelopment District to the Metropolitan Council for the Cedar Grove Transit Station. FACTS: • The City has worked in cooperation with the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority, Metropolitan Council, Dakota County and MnDOT to coordinate the development of the Cedar Grove Transit Station. The Station is to be located in a portion of the right of way of Cedar Avenue that is being transferred to the Met Council to facilitate the project. The City has previously approved the Planned Development and Preliminary Plat to create the development parcel on which the Transit Station will be located. • In finalizing the property documentation necessary to process the Final Plat for the project, it was found that title for a parcel of property previously owned by the City and incorporated into the Cedar ROW at the time the freeway was built had not been fully transferred to MnDOT at that time. In order to provide clear title for the Transit Station Plat, it is necessary to complete the transfer at this time. • In order to transfer publicly acquired property for non-City development or use, it is necessary to hold a public hearing to consider the sale. Staff is requesting that a hearing be scheduled for August 3, 2009 to permit adequate time to publish notice for the hearing. ATTACHMENTS: • None Agenda Information Memo July 7, 2009, Eagan City Council J. EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL (SUMAC RIDGE) ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve a one-year extension of the Preliminary Subdivision approval for Sumac Ridge, consisting of 6 single-family lots on approximately 3.0 acre located at 4395 Dodd Road the NW '/4 of Section 25. FACTS: ➢ The City Council approved the Preliminary Subdivision on July 17, 2007. ➢ A one-year extension of time to record the subdivision was granted in 2008. ➢ The applicant is requesting another one-year extension at this time to allow housing market conditions to improve before proceeding with development of this site. Please see attached letter from applicant. ATTACHMENTS (2): Location Map, page / Letter from Patrick Juli , page Q /d Eagan Boundary Parcel Area Location Map oParkArea - Building Footprint • ~ ! ~ • r R • ~ ~ 17 4 t air Mae ` 1 + ti r *i j ell- •.,.~aor v+r .y• ~ ~ fey • p.e,AAL No. 7e (19~l.aY f . » +rn + I E ~ r y • + s r . art p • r ■ ~ f ■ ■ » qa i ~ . ■ `s ° ■ •r ~Iwo Subject Site t y ' / I ` , ■ + ' ` + 110 101 • r■ a• i 1 ti r ° it - IPE 'd6 1= b: 1 d r C , + ~05&i 51A r` ~ ~ ~ r♦ ♦ ~ r .apt' ~ ti ■rr .3r 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet Development/Developer. 4395 Dodd Road 1 Map Prepared using ERSI ArcVlew 3.1. Parcel base map data provided N by Dakota County Office of GIS and is current as of April 2005. THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY City of Ea jaIl W E The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this information and are S Community Development Department not responsible for errors or omissions. Patrick Julik Cascade Partners, LP 3120 South Loop Road Burnsville, Minnesota 55306 June 29, 2009 Dept. of Community Development City Of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 RE: Request Extension of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for Sumac Ridge Dear Council and Staff, This letter is a request to extend the Preliminary Plat Approval for Sumac Ridge, formerly 4395 Dodd Road. We are requesting the extension based on the existing lot inventory and lot absorption rate in the Eagan area, we believe that it is prudent to delay the development of Sumac Ridge for one construction season to allow market conditions to stabilize and improve. We believe that the market conditions will improve in Spring '10. As such, we are requesting a one- year extension of the Preliminary Plat approval. We have filed for Final Plat approval and will satisfy the remaining requirements for Final Plat Approval by Spring 10. I respectfully thank Council for considering the Preliminary Plat extension. Sincerely, Patrick J. Julik Cascade Partners, LP Agenda Information Memo July 7, 2009, Eagan City Council K. EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL (LINDSTROM 2ND ADDITION) ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve a one-year extension of the Preliminary Subdivision approval for Lindstrom 2°d Addition, consisting of two single-family lots on approximately 3.76 acres located at 2950 and 2953 Skyline Drive legally described as part of Lot 13, Zehnder Acres and Lot 1, Block 1, Lindstrom Acres. FACTS: ➢ The City Council approved the Preliminary Subdivision on July 15, 2008. ➢ The applicant is requesting an extension of time to record the final subdivision to November 1, 2009. ➢ This extension request is due to difficulties in obtaining the partial land release from his mortgage company. Please see attached letter from applicant. ATTACHMENTS (2): Location Map, pagecAa Letter from Bill Reilly, page ~-l Eagan Boundary Right-of-way Location Map Parcel Area Park Area Building Footprint fP 4 a 0 o p a 9 o D ° ~ ° °Q O p o•.e. n °e _ Q 0 q° tl t? q t~ ~ ~ ° ° v g a o a° o n p o° 6• a° m° D °H n a ° fl °0 0~° °=6 c~ ° F p g d•°_ • • g n do 1,, , a Subject Site o Q° o o - - q d O b p•0 O Q gg a o a ao, d O 0 a O a a 0 I D ° 6 o d° i D D O 4c a 0 ~ ~ ~ GD6 D d pry ° ° Q A, 0. ° U Da O° q p a 9 D (3 n Pa °fla r~°e ~o - do 0O p•a a v Cj eo v o ° o v 0 0 0 17 0 o a /~~j ) D 0 D C JJ O ~ ° ~ Q o _ ~ y. sr 0 A c~ D fl A a FJ a A a C;' E P D 4 I ra `f Q 4 O E~ V d 40 ° B Op a~® o 0 Vie,: ~ D oc p . $ o~ s co .ou~ouo ® r bpD~ - - R r_zzz 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet Development/Developer. Lindstrom 2nd Addition Application: Preliminary Subdivision Case No.: 04-PS-02-05-08 as N My of Eap THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY W C The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this information and are 5 C°lnmunity D•v°i°prrr°nt D°p°rtm°nt not responsible for errors or omissions. / Bill Reilly 2950 Skyline Drive Eagan, MN 55121 952-412-7825 June 16, 2009 City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 To whom it may concern: Please accept this letter as my formal request for an extension to complete the Lindstrom Acres 2"d Addition Subdivision. I am in the process of submitting a "Partial Land Release" application for the third time to my mortgage company. The mortgage company that I use, Aurora Loan Services (a division of Lehman Brothers) has been in bankruptcy reorganization for the past year and were part of the Federal Bailout plan proposed in 2008. As a result, it's been nothing short of a nightmare trying to work with these people and getting them to see the partial land release application all the way through. My contacts there seemed to change every month and I basically had to start from scratch and re-explain what I was trying to accomplish every time I picked up the phone. The powers that be at Aurora are assuring me that they are back on track now and that I won't have to deal with the lack of follow through and account support this time around. Therefore, I will be resubmitting the "Partial Land Release Request" application to them this week (for the third time) and expect an answer from them within the next 60-90 days. As of now, my preliminary subdivision approval is set to expire on July 15th, 2009. My request is to have this expiration date extended to November 1St, 2009. This should give me and my mortgage company plenty of time to finalize the "Partial Land Release" details and agreement. Sincerely, Bill Reilly a3 Agenda Information Memo July 7, 2009, Eagan City Council Meeting L. STANDARD CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL - CITY OF EAGAN ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To Approve updates to the Standard Condition of Plat Approval. REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: Majority of Council Members Present FACTS: ➢ The City Council directed an update of the Standard Conditions of Plat Approval at their regular meeting of April 7, 2009. ➢ The City adopted Standard Conditions of Plat Approval as a way to efficiently convey the array of typical conditions placed on plat (subdivision) approval. ➢ The Standard Conditions of Plat Approval were first adopted by the City Council on September 15, 1987. ➢ The City Council approved revisions on July 10, 1990, and February 2, 1993. ATTACHMENTS: (1) Draft Standard of Conditions of Plat Approval Update on pages G~ through_. oC~ STANDARD CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL A. Financial Obligations 1. This development shall accept its additional financial obligations as defined in the staff's report in accordance with the final plat dimensions and the rates in effect at the time of final plat approval. B. Easements and Rights-of-Way 1. This development shall dedicate 10-foofidrainage and utility easements centered overall lot lines and, 10- t= -zramage and utility easements adjacent to all public right-of-w',)':<';" -dition, where necessary to accommodate existing or propos:d utilities fox drainage ways within the plat. The development sha11::&Jicate easemeri ; f sufficient width and location as determined nec s.W-N by engineering slai dards. 2. This development shall dedicate rukade, or financiai y: guarantee the acquisition costs Q page, pond iti",_ : end utility easements in addition to public street rights=4fa; as require;,by the alignment, depth, and storage capacity of a}I'x quir d public U'611 tiffs and streets located beyond the boundaries of this':6lAt as to ,$gvice or accommodate this develuPzi1'eli 3. This opmrnt>ashall dede to all public right-of--way and temporary slope a enl -311 t i Ana evelopment of adjacent roadways as rei d by e .pl~rupriteuris final agency. ~4 This de 15finent shall dedica e adequate drainage and ponding easements to in accoiance wi . , [ementPlan. ments set forth in the latest version of the t 's Storm `>t er M ineefper-ate the ~ ~°a high . , `~'j~~wee (3) feet as fieeessitMed by stefm water- storage rega~ . C. Plans and Specif Mions 1. All public and private streets, drainage systems, and utilities necessary to provide service to this development shall be designed and certified by a registered professional engineer in accordance with City adopted codes, engineering standards, guidelines, and policies prior to application for final plat approval. 2. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion, and sediment control plan must be prepared in accordance with current City standards prior to final plat approval. QS_ 3. This development shall ensure that all dead-end public streets shall have a permanent cul-de-sac or temporary cul-de-sac on stub streets to be removed upon further extension, constructed in accordance with City engineering standards. This development shall dedicate, provide, or financially guarantee the acquisition costs of street easements or public street right-of-ways as required by the alignment of the cul-de-sac located within or beyond the boundaries of this plat as necessary to service of accommodate this development. 4. A separate detailed landscape plan shall ` e. submitted overlaid on the proposed grading and utility plan. The,;rjrj ricial guarantee for such plan shall be included in the Developme, ' tract and shall not be released until one year after the date of City"e 'tiYi t1;lP~ampHance. A Public Improvements 1. If any improvements are i6 instal under ' z ty contract, the appropriate ublic ' rovemen ie >etttl associated: C,wract must be approved by Coin ` Ilion prior tY :q41' )I at approval. , E. Permits 1. This cep t shall b ~:cspuna~~le fp;,the acquisition of all regulatory agen"~ermits`uired bjtfected ag y prior to final plat approval. F. Par",nd Trails l)gdi.c; #iptu,. Thin" d .Qlopnfe , - shall f AfW, park and trail dedication requirements as recommN acJ h~'fi,~, Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission and as approved,;t:a.ctio►1#~e City Council astierr G. Tree Preservation 94d Mitigation 1. This eJ a Xnt shall be responsible for preparing a tree reservation and mit iris for any removal in excess of the allowable limits. Mitigation shall be in the form of replacement trees, cash equivalent, or a combination thereof in accordance with the recommendation of the Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission and as approved by the action of the City Council. G. Water- Quality Dedienties 1. This development shall resftensibl for- provided as dedie ie pending, or- a eembination thereof in aeeeFdanee with the er-iter-ia identified in the City's Water- Quality Management Plan, as rveenmnended by the z lu v love n L r n approved by Ge ; l et V ll. C~(p H. Stormwater Management and Water Quality Protection 1. This Development shall manage stormwater and protect water quality by meeting requirements for standard designs, minimizing impervious surface area and maximizing infiltration and retention, acceptable complementary stormwater treatments, stormwater treatment ponds, regional ponds, and maintenance of private stormwater facilities in accordance with the current City post construction regulations and as recommended by the Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission and as approved by action of the City Council. HI. Other 1. All subdivision, zoning, and other: ozdiiiaaGs affecting this development shall be adhered to, unless sp i ically grdit, W a Variance by Council action. 1 _ Advisory Planning Commission Cit-V Council s Approved: August 25, 1987 September 15 `1987 Rc~ is.ed: July 10,1990 Ieiscd: February 2, 1993 is Revised: July 7, 2009 G:Engineering/Forms/Standard Conditions of Plat Approval a-7 Agenda Information Memo July 7, 2009 Regular City Council Meeting M. PURCHASE OF FOUR ACRES FOR FIRE STATION RELOCATION ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve purchase of four acres of land at the intersection of Yankee Doodle Road and Wescott Woodlands Drive for the purpose of a future relocation site for Fire Station Two. FACTS: • A previous fire station study identified the need to relocate Eagan Fire Station Two to a location near the intersection of Yankee Doddle Road and Lexington Avenue. • The current Fire Station Two was constructed in 1971 and is located at 2980 Lone Oak Circle. • Fire Station Two accounts for approximately 48% of the city's fire/rescue calls, yet due to its current location it has the slowest response times. • The average volunteer firefighter responding to Station Two must travel through six semaphore intersections and a distance greater than two miles to reach the fire station for an emergency response. • The new location would place the fire station in an area near the volunteer firefighter homes, which will improve response times. • The four acres is currently owned by the Rahn family and is part of the prior Carriage Hills Golf Course site. • If this action is approved, staff will bring back funding source options at a later council meeting. The purchase terms can be discussed at a closed session if so desired. ATTACHMENTS: • Enclosed without page number is a copy of the proposed purchase agreement. Agenda Information Memo July 7, 2009 Eagan City Council Meeting N. PROJECT 1012. FIRE STATION RELOCATION & DUCKWOOD DRIVE STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Authorize the preparation of a Feasibility Report by the City Engineer for Project 1012 (Fire Station Relocation & Duckwood Drive - Street & Utility Improvements). FACTS: • The City of Eagan has negotiated the acquisition of a 4-acre parcel at the northeast corner of the property formerly known as the Carriage Hills Golf Course. With the City Council's approval, a new fire station will be constructed on this parcel located southwest of the intersection of Yankee Doodle Road (County Road 28) andWescott Woodlands. • In order to provide adequate access and utility services to the site, street and utility improvements should be considered adjacent to the proposed parcel, as well as the extension of Duckwood Drive to Wescott Woodlands. • Based on the potential assessable benefit to other adjacent properties in the area (namely the former Carriage Hills Golf Course) for the connection of Duckwood Drive to Wescott Woodlands and the installation of a new street and associated utilities with access to the new fire station, it would be appropriate for the City Council to authorize the preparation of a Feasibility Report to determine the scope, cost, schedule, and method of financing for the construction of these public improvements for presentation at a subsequent public hearing. • The City would be obligated to cover the cost of preparation of a feasibility report for this project, if the project is not ultimately approved by the City Council. With project approval, the preparation costs for the feasibility report would become part of the assessable project costs. ATTACHMENTS: • Location map, page. d W K Q NORTH m J O U YANKEE DOODLE RD. FUTURE FIRE SAFETY CAMPUS L-- 4 PROPOSED PUBLIC STREET oo~FN~~+ _I J - D ' Z NALD ROSE COURT ` O O U LU 7BLUE DUCKWOOD DR IVE STREET EXTENSION DUCKWOOD DR. -i/ BIRCH STREET HUMMINGBIRDLANE , O I u a LL 2 Fire Safety Campus City of Ea p 5-19-09 Duckwood Drive Street & Utility Improvements IF Engineering Department Agenda Information Memo July 7, 2009 Eagan City Council Meeting 0. AUTHORIZE CONTRACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) - CITY OF EAGAN ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: ➢ To DIRECT staff to execute a contract with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. to complete an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the 120 acre site located at 3535 Wescott Woodlands. FACTS: ➢ The approved use of the former Carriage Hills Golf Course property for up to 480 residential housing units triggers the need for a mandatory EAW. ➢ In association with the proposed fire station relocation and the work required for the Duckwood Drive extension, it is necessary to complete this environmental review prior to any development activity taking place on the property. ➢ The Scope of Services document provided by SRF is attached. ATTACHMENTS: (1) Scope of Services document, pageza_ through. 31 CONSULTING GROUP, INC. MINNEAPOLIS FARGO ENGINEERS ( PLANNERS I DESIGNERS MADISON January 15, 2009 Mr. Mike Ridley City Planner CITY OF EAGAN 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122-1897 Dear Mike: SUBJECT: PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR CARRIAGE HILLS SPECIAL. AREA EAW AND TRAFFIC STUDY, EAGAN, MN Based on your request, we are pleased to submit this proposal to provide professional services for traffic studies and preparation of an EAW for the anticipated redevelopment of the Carriage Hills Special Area. SCOPE OF SERVICES We propose to carry out the work as described in the enclosed Scope of Services sununarized as follows: 1. Project Initiation and Coordination: Includes project management and EAW public meeting.. 2. Environmental Analysis: Conduct analysis needed for completion of EAW. Assumptions discussed below.. 3. Water Resources Analysis: Qualitative analysis of stormwater treatment requirements and potential wetland impacts based on information provided by the site developer. 4. Noise Analysis: Monitoring of existing conditions and qualitative analysis of noise generated by addition traffic resulting from the redevelopment. 5. Traffic Analysis: Estimation of traffic generated by the redevelopment, directional splits during AM and PM peak periods, and resulting traffic volumes and operational impacts on adjacent streets. 6.. Preparation of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet: Completion of a draft EAW, revision following review by the City, distribution of EAW, preparation of response to comments and Findings of Fact leading to the possible Negative Declaration of Need for an EIS by the City. www.srfconsul Ling. com One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 750 Minneapolis, MN 55447-3443 763.475.0070 Fax: 763.475.2429 An Lqual Opportunity Employer 3a Mr. Mike Ridley -2- January 15, 2009 ASSUMPTIONS I . Environmental analysis will be based on information readily available in public databases and from the City of Eagan or the developer,. No data collection or special studies other than those clearly identified in the Scope of Services spreadsheet (attached) will be provided. 2.. Given that the development plan is in the concept phase. EAW analysis will be qualitative in nature based on the best information available at this time. 3. City will assist in timely collection of information needed to complete the EAW and will provide timely review of draft products to facilitate the project schedule as agreed upon in this contract. Delays in the provision of information or review of draft products will result in schedule delays. SCHEDULE We will complete this work within 6 months of receipt of written authorization to proceed, generally stated as follows: ■ Notice to Proceed January 31, 2009 ■ Draft EAW for, City Review . February 27, 2009 ■ City comments, revisions, approval to publish March 13, 2009 ■ Publication Notice to EQB Monitor March 16, 2009 ■ Publication in EQB Monitor March 23, 2009 ■ EAW Public Meeting possibly April 7? ■ Public Comment period ends April 23, 2009 ■ Draft Response to Comments, Findings of Fact May 15, 2009 ■ Negative Declaration by City end of May 2009 BASIS OF PAYMENT/BUDGET We propose to be reimbursed for our services on an hourly basis for the actual time expended.. Other direct project expenses, such as printing, supplies, reproduction, etc.., will be billed at cost, and mileage will be billed at the current allowable IRS rate for business miles. Invoices are submitted on a monthly basis for work performed during the previous month. Payment is due within 30 days. Based on our understanding of the project and our scope of services, we estimate the cost of our services to be $43,500, which includes both time and expenses. 33 Mr.. Mike Ridley -3- January 15, 2009 CHANGES IN THE SCOPE OF SERVICES It is understood that if the scope or extent of work changes, the cost will be adjusted accordingly. Before any out-of-scope work is initiated, however, we will submit a budget request for the new work and will not begin work until we receive authorization from you. NOTICE TO PROCEED A signed copy of this proposal or a separate letter of authorization, either mailed or faxed to our office, will serve as our notice to proceed. Our fax number is 763-475-2429. We sincerely appreciate your consideration of this proposal and look forward to working with you on this project. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. APPROVED: (signature) Beth A. Bartz Principal Name BAB/smf Title Attachment: Scope of Services Date This cost proposal is valid for a period of 90 days. SRF reserves the right to arlju.st its cost estimate after 90 days from the date of'this proposal. SRF P09050 H:1Plannin.-Wroposnls\Belb\PO9050 Eagan Carriage Hills EAW doe 3~- 1115/2009 WORK TASKS AND PERSON-HOUR ESTIMATES PAGE 1 CLIENT: CITY OF EAGAN CONSULTANT: SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. PROJECT: CARRIAGE HILLS SPECIAL AREA EAW SUBCONSULTANT: Eagan, MN --ESTIMATED PERSON-HOURS-- TOTAL TASK NO. WORK TASK DESCRIPTION PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATE SR. PROF. PROF, TECHNICAL CLERICAL TOTALS FEE 1.0 PROJECT INITIATION AND COMMUNICATIONS 1.1 Initial meeting with City staff to discuss project details, schedule and 8 0 0 2 0 0 10 roles for preparing EAW. Revise Scope of Work to reflect updated information and guidance from City. 1.2 Ongoing communications and coordination with City during 4 0 0 8 0 0 12 preparation of EAW. 1.3 Initiate communication with appropriate local and state resource 0 0 0 4 2 2 8 agencies to obtain information and seek input. Department of Natural Resources Dakota County Public Works Dakota County Planning and Parks Minnesota Pollution Control Agency r, State Historic Preservation Office W Watershed District 617 Other Agencies as appropriate 1.4 Conduct public meeting during public comment period. Includes 8 8 0 4 20 2 42 preparation of handout, display materials, brief presentation, and meeting summary. Assumes City staff will provide meeting location and notices. SUBTOTAL - TASK 1 20 8 0 18 22 4 72 $7,990 2,0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 2.1 Review and analyze information/plans provided by developer and/or 2 4 0 16 0 0 22 City of Eagan to obtain background Information on: Project description Project magnitude data On-site wells (existing and proposed) Capacity of City sanitary sewer system Square footage of residential development and associated parking Anticipated water use requirements (including irrigation) City opinion of conformance to local plans Requirements for additional Infrastructure and public services Planned related developments Stationary source data Soils data Emergency service impacts SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS MINNEAPOLIS, MN 111 5120 0 9 WORK TASKS AND PERSON-HOUR ESTIMATES PAGE 2 CLIENT: CITY OF FAGAN CONSULTANT: SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. PROJECT: CARRIAGE HILLS SPECIAL AREA EAW SUBCONSULTANT: Eagan, MN --ESTIMATED PERSON-HOURS**- TOTAL TASK NO. WORK TASK DESCRIPTION PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATE SR. PROF. PROF. TECHNICAL CLERICAL TOTALS FEE 2.2 Research and compile information on: 2 2 0 16 0 0 20 - Vegetative cover Soils, geology and groundwater Solid waste generation Adjacent land uses - Neighborhood and community concerns - Known or potential contamination Wetlands (assumes no fill in existing wetlands) Permits and approvals 2.3 With input obtained from DNR Natural Heritage database, identify 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 vegetation, fish and wildlife impacts and measures to minimize harm. 2.4 Based upon development plans, determine sources and quantity of 0 2 0 2 0 0 4 rA i wastewaters and discharge provisions; determine type, amount, and 4X`v composition of solid waste. Provide discussion of source separation. 2.5 Address cultural resource issues based on SHPO file search. 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 2.6 Provide qualitative discussion of air quality impacts resulting from 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 traffic generated by residential development 2.7 Summarize traffic information from Task 5.0. 0 2 D 2 0 0 4 2.8 Address soils, excavation and fill. 0 2 0 2 0 0 4 2.9 Identify construction impacts including air, noise, visual, water 0 2 0 2 0 0 4 quality, erosion, detours, access, utilities and disposal of excavated material. SUBTOTAL -TASK 2 6 14 2 44 0 0 66 $6,520 3.0 WATER RESOURCES ANALYSIS 3.1 Summarize changes in impervious surface resulting from the 0 8 0 12 2 D 22 proposed development and identify potential water quality and drainage impacts and mitigation for inclusion in the EAW document. Coordinate with project staff to determine conformance with City storm water management plan. (Assumes no major issues.) Evaluate the erosion control issues and proposed control measures for the site with regards to the appropriate agency requirements. 3.2 Conduct field review of site to identify wetlands and confirm no 0 0 16 0 4 0 20 wetland impacts resulting from proposed development. SUBTOTAL - TASK 3 0 8 16 12 6 0 42 $4,310 SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS MINNEAPOLIS, MN 1/1512009 WORK TASKS AND PERSON-HOUR ESTIMATES PAGE 3 CLIENT: CITY OF EAGAN CONSULTANT: SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. PROJECT: CARRIAGE HILLS SPECIAL AREA EAW SUBCONSULTANT: Eagan, MN --ESTIMATED PERSON-HOURS**- TOTAL TASK NO. WORK TASK DESCRIPTION PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATES PROF. PROF. TECHNICAL CLERICA TOTALS FEE 4.0 NOISE ANALYSIS 4.1 Monitor existing noise levels at 5 locations for daytime and nighttime 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 peak periods. 4.2 Qualitatively address potential noise increases due to residential 0 8 0 0 0 0 8 traffic increases. Recommend traffic noise mitigation measures for development located near Yankee Doodle Road. SUBTOTAL - TASK 4 0 a 0 10 0 0 18 5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 0 20 0 50 24 4 98 5.1 Collect a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning movement counts at the following intersections: Yankee Doodle Road and Lexington Avenue South Yankee Doodle Road and Wesscott Woodlands/Columbia Drive Lexington Avenue South and Duckwood Drive Lexington Avenue South and Wescott Road 5.2 Analyze a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic operations at the key intersections listed in Task #1 under existing conditions. 5.3 Estimate the new total trips that will be generated in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and on a daily basis by the proposed residential development and all potential adjacent developments, based on current ITE trip generation rates. 5.4 Distribute and assign the a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips generated by the proposed residential development and all potential adjacent developments to the existing roadway system and street intersections. 5.5 Determine existing neighborhood travel patterns shifts, if any, based on new roadway connections proposed as part of the new development. 5.6 Analyze a.m. and p.m. peak hour intersection operations at the key intersections listed in Task #1 for future build (one year after construction) conditions. This will include a review of the potential access points for the proposed development and their respective impacts to adjacent roadways and neighborhoods. SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS MINNEAPOLIS, MN 1/1512009 WORK TASKS AND PERSON-HOUR ESTIMATES PAGE 4 CLIENT: CITY OF EAGAN CONSULTANT: SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC, PROJECT: CARRIAGE HILLS SPECIAL AREA EAW SUBCONSULTANT: Eagan, MN ""'ESTIMATED PERSON-HOURS-- TOTAL TASK NO. WORK TASK DESCRIPTION PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATE SR. PROF. PROF. TECHNICAL CLERICAL TOTALS FEE 5.7 Determine what improvements, if any, are needed to accommodate the proposed development with acceptable levels of service. 5.8 Review the site access as well as any other related internal or site specific traffic issues, including access management strategies. 5.9 Prepare a draft memorandum describing the results of the traffic analysis and any recommendations. 5A0 Make revisions as appropriate based on City review and prepare a final memorandum. SUBTOTAL -TASK 5 0 20 0 s0 24 4 98 $1,800 ~V 6.0 PREPARE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ClIze, 6.1 Prepare graphics to illustrate findings 0 2 0 4 20 0 26 Project Location Map USGS Map Master Site Plan (site map provided by City) Traffic Analysis 6.2 Prepare a draft EAW based on results of environmental and design 2 4 0 32 0 4 42 studies. Submit to City for review. 6.3 Meet with City to discuss comments and revise EAW based on City 4 0 0 8 0 2 14 comments, 6.4 Prepare copies of EAW for distribution: distribute EAWs and publish 0 0 0 4 0 4 8 notices of availability, as required by state rules. 6.5 Review public comments. Meet with City and assist with 4 2 0 16 0 4 26 preparation of responses to substantive comments for review by the City. Revise as necessary. (Assumes minimal comments.) 6.6 Prepare Findings of Fact and Record of Decision as bans for City 2 2 0 8 0 2 14 decision on the need for an EIS. 6.7 Attend one City Council meeting. 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 6.8 Distribute Record of Decision in accordance with state rules. 0 0 0 4 0 2 6 SUBTOTAL -TASK 6 116 10 0 76 20 18 140 $8,820 SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS MINNEAPOLIS, MN 1/15/2009 WORK TASKS AND PERSON-HOUR ESTIMATES PAGE 5 CLIENT: CITY OF EAGAN CONSULTANT: SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. PROJECT: CARRIAGE HILLS SPECIAL AREA EAW SUBCONSULTANT: Eagan, MN "'ESTIMATED PERSON-HOURS'""' TOTAL TASK NO, WORK TASK DESCRIPTION PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATE SR. PROF. PROF. TECHNICAL CLERICAL TOTALS FED TOTAL ESTIMATED PERSON-HOURS 42 68 18 210 72 26 436 $13,010 AVERAGE HOURLY BILLING RATES $170 $125 $115 $80 S85 $70 ESTIMATED LABOR AND OVERHEAD 57,140 $8,500 $2,070 516,800 $6,120 $1,820 $42,450 ESTIMATED DIRECT NON-SALARY EXPENSES $905 TOTAL ESTIMATED FEE $43,355 SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS MINNEAPOLIS, MN 1/1512009 WORK TASKS AND PERSON-HOUR ESTIMATES PAGE 6 CLIENT: CITY OF EAGAN CONSULTANT: SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. PROJECT: CARRIAGE HILLS SPECIAL AREA EAW SUBCONSULTANT: Eagan, MN --ESTIMATED PERSON-HOURS TOTAL TASK N WORK TASK DESCRIPTION PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATE SR. PROF. PROF. TECHNICAL CL RICA TOTALS FF ESTIMATE OF DIRECT NON-SALARY EXPENSES: MILEAGE: 500 Miles @ $0.560 $280 REPRODUCTION: Copy Duplication $400 COMMUNICATION: Mailing/Postage/Deliveries 5100 DNR Natural Heritage Database $125 ESTIMATED DIRECT NON-SALARY EXPENSES $905 SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS MINNEAPOLIS, MN 1 11 512 0 0 9 WORK TASKS AND PERSON-HOUR ESTIMATES PAGE 7 CLIENT: CITY OF EAGAN CONSULTANT: SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. PROJECT: CARRIAGE HILLS SPECIAL AREA EAW SUBCONSULTANT: Eagan, MN ""'ESTIMATED PERSON-HOURS-- TOTAL TASK NO. WORK TASK DESCRIPTION PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATE SR. PROF. PROF. TECHNICAL CLERICAL TOTALS FEE DOLLAR SUMMARY BY TASK 1.0 PROJECT INITIATION AND COMMUNICATIONS $3,400 $1,000 $0 $1,440 51,870 $280 $7,990 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 51,020 $1,750 $230 S3,520 $0 SO $6,520 3.0 WATER RESOURCES ANALYSIS 50 $1,000 $1,840 $960 $510 50 54,310 4.0 NOISE ANALYSIS SO 51,000 $0 $800 $0 $0 S1,800 5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS $0 $2,500 $0 S4,000 $2,040 5280 58,820 6.0 PREPARE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET $2,720 51,250 50 $6,080 $1,700 $1,260 $13,010 ESTIMATED LABOR AND OVERHEAD 542,450 ESTIMATED DIRECT NON-SALARY EXPENSES $905 TOTAL ESTIMATED FEE 543,355 SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS MINNEAPOLIS, MN Agenda Information Memo July 7, 2009 Eagan City Council Meeting P. CONTRACT 09-06, WETLAND BANK PLAN WANDERING WALK PARK ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Accept Findings of Fact, Approve Wetland Bank Application and Authorize Preparation of Plans & Specifications for Contract 09-06 (Wandering Walk Park). FACTS: • Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Rules (MN Rules Ch. 8420.0700 to 8420.0760) provide standards for establishing and administering the state's wetland banking system, as authorized by MN Stats. §103G.2242. Subject to these rules, a Wetland Bank account holder may deposit or withdraw wetland credits to replace present or future wetland impacts. • On May 15, 2002, the City of Eagan established an account in the MN Wetland Bank when it bought 3.5 acres of credits at a 27.5-acre Wetland Bank site in Eureka Township, Dakota County. The City withdrew 1.56 acres of credits on December 31, 2002 to replace wetland impacts associated with creating Central Park Pond. The City withdrew 0.49 acres of credits on June 16, 2003 as an "on-loan" replacement for wetland impacts associated with constructing Hunt Drive to access the Terra Glenn subdivision near the Central Maintenance Facility. The developer of Terra Glenn has since replaced these credits to the City's Wetland Bank account. Presently, the City has 1.99 acres of Wetland Bank credits. • During a 2003 workshop, the City Council expressed interest in acquiring additional Wetland Bank credits. The 2007 Water Quality and Wetland Management Plan (WQWMP) prioritized completing a wetland assessment in parks and other dedicated open space to identify potential banking and mitigation sites within the City. After completing this inventory, City staff presented to the Advisory Parks Commission (APrC) two proposed Wetland Bank sites, one in Bridle Ridge Park and one in Wandering Walk Park. On April 14, 2008, the APrC unanimously agreed to pursue plans for these two locations. • On May 6, 2008, the City Council directed a state-required Wetland Bank Plan application be prepared for its future consideration. Additional site analysis has since indicated soils at Bridle Ridge Park to be unfavorable for wetland creation, so staff developed plans only for Wandering Walk Park. • At a neighborhood meeting February 26, 2009 at the Daniel and Corinne Thill home, staff discussed the proposed project with residents adjacent to Wandering Walk Park. Despite blustery snowfall, 21 residents attended-representing between one-third and one-half of adjacent homeowners. The meeting's purpose was to provide residents the opportunity to guide staff's efforts to propose a plan that would be consented by the neighborhood and would fulfill the City Council's directive. • The proposed Wetland Bank site in Wandering Walk Park would provide about 3 acres of credits through berm construction, grading and soil compaction, and stormwater rerouting. If approved, all staff, consultant, and construction costs would be paid through the City's Lakes and Wetlands Program and the Water Quality Capital Improvement Plan. • On March 16, 2009, the APrC recommended the City Council to accept the application and formally request public comment on it. On April 7, 2009 the City Council accepted the application and authorized a 30-day public comment period before it made a decision whether or not to create a Wetland Bank site in Wandering Walk Park. • As required by state law, an interagency wetland technical evaluation panel has issued Findings of Fact and made recommendations to the City on the project (see Attachment). With approval of the plan, construction of the site should be completed this year. ATTACHMENT: • Technical Evaluation Panel Findings of Fact, Pages and. Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Wetland Bank Application- • r Plan Supplement Technical EvalLiation Panel • • Fact~ • • Official Review PART B: WETLAND BANK PLAN SUPPLEMENT Project Name: Wander Walk Park - Wetland Bank Date of TEP Site Visit: N/A Application No.: 09040801 Date of TEP Meeting: May 26, 2009 Date PART B Received: April 8, 2009 Date Notice of Application Sent: April 8, 2009 List TEP Members Present at PART B Meeting: Ken Powell - BWSR Eric Macbeth - City of Eagan Brian Watson - Dakota SWCD Was COE Representative Present? ❑ Yes ® No (if yes, Name) Appendix 1: Design and Construction Plans 1. Have all components of Appendix.l been adequately addressed and submitted? ® Yes ❑ No ® Definition of Existing Conditions. ® Design Report. .......Report Author Bonestroo Report Date: April 2009 ® Construction plans and Specifications ....................Designer Name: John Smyth and Paul Bockensted Plan Date: April 2009 ® Construction Inspection and Certification Plan...... Inspector Name: John Smyth and Paul Bockensted If no, explain: 2. Is designer a professional engineer registered in Minnesota? ® Yes ❑ No 3. Have BWSR Technical Services staff reviewed Appendix 1 and provided comments to the TEP? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ NA Appendix 2: Vegetation Estabiishment and Management Plan 4. Have all components of Appendix ,2 been adequately addressed and submitted? ® Yes ❑ No ® Site Preparation. ® Seeding/Planting Methods. ® Seed Mixes and Plant Materials. ® Vegetation Maintenance. ® Seeding/Planting Zone Map. ® Schedule of Activities. If no, explain: 5. Have BWSR Technical Services staff reviewed Appendix 2 and provided comments to the TEP? ® Yes ❑ No ❑ NA Appendix 3: Summary of Existing Wedands and Credits Expected 6. Have. all components of Appendix 3 been adequately addressed and submitted? ® Yes ❑ No ® Wetland Delineation Delineator Name: Robert Keizer Report Date: October 22, 2007 ® Existing Wetland Map TEP Concurrence? ® Yes ❑ No ® ' Wetland Credit Areas . : TEP Concurrence? ® Yes ❑ No ® Summary Table. If no, explain: Appendix 4: Monitoring Plan 7. Has the applicant submitted a monitoring plan that meets all requirements of Appendix 4? Yes ❑ No 8. Has the applicant specified a date by which a monitoring report will be submitted? ® Yes No If yes, identify date: NOTE. A response of 'Wo'may signal an incomplete application. Approval of both Part A and Part B constitutes an approved Wetland Bank Application. TEP RECOMMENDATION: [Recommend for approval ❑ Recommend for denial ❑ Request additional.information 0510 q SW resentative /(Date) BWSR Representative (Date) /V oh 7/ LGU p tative (Date) DNR Representative (if applicable) (Date) RPVicPA A1/77/06 If TEP recommendation is not unanimous, note dissenting votes with an asterisk and explain. Provide additional TEP comments and recommendations on a separate sheet and attach to this finding of fact form. mm BWSR staff reviewed Wetland Bank Application - Part B (Application) which was noticed by the City of Eagan on April 8, 2009. BWSR submitted comments to the City of Eagan on May 4, 2009. Bonestroo and Associates, on behalf of the City of Eagan, provided a response'to BWSR comments on May 13, 2009. The TEP met on May 26, 2009 to review BWSR comments and Eagan's response. The TEP reviewed the possibilities of raising the berm height one foot and moving emergency spillway to the side of the berm rather than through the center which was BWSR engineer recommendation. The City expressed concerns about the loss of trees if an emergency spillway is placed to the side of the berm and the berm is raised one foot. Based on meetings conducted by the City with residents located near the proposed wetland bank site, the loss of trees is a significant concern to the local residents. The TEP supports a design in which the principle outlet is sized to accommodate the 100-year event. Need and location of emergency spillway at discretion of City engineer. Ultimately, the City is responsible for maintaining the wetland bank site and repairing any damages that may occur to the berm and control structures. The TEP asked Bonestroo to coordinate with the Corps of Engineers to acquire its input and acceptance of this wetland bank proposal. Corps representative Barbara Walther indicated it does not accept wetland banks less than 5 acres in size. Constriction of this wetland bank is scheduled for the fall of 2009. "I'sYO 1 n__.......__ L...1. 00 L.........d ~......6..nt/:..b\ .i..n D .1 nf7 Rpmkp(1 03/27/06 Agenda Information Memo July 7, 2009 Eagan City Council Meeting Q. CONTRACT 09-08,2008 CITY-WIDE TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Award Contract 09-08 (2009 City-Wide Trail Improvements), to Aslakson's Blacktopping, for the Base Bid in the amount of $208,411.25, and the Alternate Bid in the amount of $15,961.77, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. FACTS: • Contract 09-08 provides for the construction of a new trail improvement adjacent to Towerview Road (Pilot Knob Park - Pilot Knob Rd. north Side, 560 FT). • Contract 09-08 also provides for the maintenance overlay of existing bituminous trails in the following locations: ■ Johnny Cake Ridge Road (Cliff Rd to 735' South) East Side (735 FT) ■ Johnny Cake Ridge Road (Apple Valley to 2965' North) East Side (2965 FT) ■ Cliff Road (Ridge Cliffe Dr. - Beacon Hill Rd.) South Side (600 FT) • Cliff Road (Stonecliffe Dr. - Thomas Ln.) South Side (1660 FT) ■ Cliff Road (Thomas Center Dr. - Thomas Lake Rd.) North Side (930 FT) ■ Berry Ridge Road (Pilot Knob Rd. to 1960' East) Both Sides (1960 FT) ■ Berry Patch Park In Park (1465 FT) ■ Diffley Road (Lexington Way - Lexington Ave.) North Side (710 FT) ■ Diffley Road (Countryside Dr. - TH 3) North Side (1310 FT) ■ Dodd Road (Cliff Rd - Atlantic Hills Dr.) East Side (2200 FT) ■ Dodd Road (Diffley Rd - Hackmore Dr.) East Side (1200 FT) ■ Hackmore Drive (Dodd Rd. - Hawthorne Woods) South Side (795 FT) ■ Lone Oak Road (Pine Ridge Dr. to 360' East of Woodlark Ln.) South Side (665 FT) ■ Towerview Road (Woodlark Ln. to Pilot Knob Park) North Side (830 FT) • Yankee Doodle Rd (Coachman Rd. - Central Pkwy.) North Side (1970 FT) • The new trail segment rated high in accordance with the City's Trail Policy and was included as part of the approved 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Program, primarily due to its interconnection with existing trail loops, location within a higher density neighborhood or safety benefit. The alternate bid would address the significant need for the resurfacing of the existing trail within Berry Patch Park. • The trail segments to receive an overlay currently have surface maintenance or drainage concerns. • On May 19, 2009, the Council approved the plans and authorized the advertisement for solicitation of competitive bids for Contract 09-08. • At 10:30 a.m. on June 25, formal bids were received for this project. A copy of the bid summary is enclosed. • The low base bid is 15.6% under the Engineer's Estimate, while the alternate bid (Berry Patch Park trail overlay) is 21.9% under the Engineer's Estimate. The funding for the alternate bid would be addressed by the City Council's approval of an amendment to the 2009 General Facilities Renewal and Replacement Budget. • All bids have been reviewed for compliance with the bid specifications and accuracy on unit price extensions and summations. The base bid, and alternate bid (Add $15,961.77), from Aslakson's Blacktopping, has been reviewed by the Engineering Division and found to be in order for favorable Council action. ATTACHMENTS: • Bid Summary, pagef(4-. 45-1 BID SUMMARY - CITY CONTRACT 09-08 CITYWIDE TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS Bid Date/ Time: 10:30 a.m., Thursday, June 25, 2009 Contractors Total Base Bid 1. Aslakson's Blacktopping $ 208,411 2. Bituminous Roadways, Inc. $ 240,161 3. Paragon Paving $ 267,519 4. Northwest Asphalt, Inc. $ 290,012 5. McNamara Contracting, Inc. $ 322,400 Low :Base Bid Engineer's 'Yo Under Estimate Eng Estimate $ 208,411 $246,850 -15.6% Add Alt. Bid Alternate Engineer's % Under Bid Estimate Eng Estimate Berry Ridge Park $15,962 $20,440 -21.9% G:Projects.&Contracts/09-08Bid Summary Results Agenda Information Memo July 7, 2009 Eagan City Council Meeting R. CONTRACT 06-01, TH 149 RECONSTRUCTION & UPGRADE (TH 55 - ALBANO TRAIL) ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve the final acceptance of Contract 06-01 (TH 149 Reconstruction & Upgrades) from Park Construction Co., including certain improvements for perpetual City maintenance subject to warranty provisions. FACTS: • Contract 06-01 provides for the upgrade of a 2.7 mile segment of Trunk Highway (TH) 149, beginning north of TH 55 and terminating in Inver Grove Heights at Albano Trail (south of Rich Valley Blvd/Co. Rd. 71). The upgrading of TH 149 to a 4-lane divided roadway includes a new traffic signal at the intersection of Wescott Road, dedicated turn lanes at various street intersections, and a trail along the east side of TH 149, between TH 55 and Wescott Road. • These improvements have been completed, inspected by representatives of MnDOT and the Public Works Department, and found to be in order for favorable Council action of acceptance for perpetual maintenance subject to warranty provisions. • The City of Eagan received a "Merit Award" from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and the Minnesota Asphalt Pavement Association (MAPA) for the construction quality of this major transportation improvement. 17 Agenda Information Memo July 7, 2009 Eagan City Council Meeting S. CONTRACT 08-08, CITYWIDE TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve the final payment for Contract 08-08 (Citywide Trail Improvements) in the amount of $9,187.21 to McNamara Contracting, Inc., and accept the improvements for perpetual City maintenance subject to warranty provisions. FACTS: • Contract 08-08 provided for the construction of new and overlay of old trail segments and the installation of new sidewalk, including utility relocations and retaining wall construction, in six general areas within the central portion of the City. The sidewalk or trail improvements are adjacent to the following collector street segments: o Silver Bell Road (Cedar Grove Parkway to Blackhawk Road - north side) o Coachman Road (Yankee Doodle Road to 850 feet south - east side) o Federal Drive (Yankee Doodle Road to Royal Oak Circle - west side) o Elrene Road (Bridle Ridge Road to Canter Glen Drive - west side) o Northview Park Road (Braddock Trail to Elrene Road - south and east sides) • These improvements have been completed, inspected by representatives of the Public Works Department, and found to be in order for favorable Council action of final payment and acceptance for perpetual maintenance subject to warranty provisions. 4-e Agenda Information Memo July 7, 2009 Eagan City Council Meeting T. CONTRACT 08-02, LONE OAK LIFT STATION CHANGE ORDER NO.2 ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve Change Order No. 2 for Contract 08-02 (Lone Oak Lift Station - Sanitary Sewer Trunk Improvements) and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. FACTS: • Contract 08-02 provides for the replacement and upgrade of the existing sanitary sewer lift station (NG.1) located southwest of the intersection of Lone Oak Road (County State Aid Highway No. 26) and Poppler Lane. • This change order provides for the following: o A temporary street patch was required as an emergency response to accommodate settlement of Lone Oak Road (County State Aid Highway 26) during the construction of the lift station replacement. The patch was constructed to avoid a long term lane closure throughout the winter season. (ADD $1,377.50) o Replacement of existing curb and gutter and construction of a full-depth street patch on the settled portion of Lone Oak Road is needed to restore this County State Aid Highway to its previous condition prior to the construction activity for the new lift station. Dakota County Transportation Department staff have concurred with the design of the street patch. (ADD $5,756.00) • The change order has been reviewed by the Engineering and Utility Divisions and found to be in order for favorable Council action. • The change order provides for a total ADD of $7,133.50 (1.0% of original contract). 100% of the costs will be financed through the City's Sanitary Sewer Trunk Fund. 7-7 Agenda Information Memo July 7, 2009 Eagan City Council Meeting U. NORTHWEST PARKWAY NO PARKING ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve a resolution to prohibit parking on Northwest Parkway between Highway 149 and Lone Oak Parkway and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. FACTS: • Northwest Parkway is an east-west collector roadway in northeastern Eagan scheduled for street overlay improvements in the 2009 construction season under City Project 972, approved by the City Council December 1, 2008. • It is desirable for the City to obtain the use of Municipal State Aid funding to reimburse the construction costs of this proposed street rehabilitation. • The design of Northwest Parkway meets the State Aid standards for a collector roadway without on-street parking. • While on-street parking currently is not an issue on Northwest Parkway, Minnesota Rules Chapter 8820 (State Aid standards) requires the submittal of a City Council resolution prohibiting parking on all State Aid designated roadways where parking lanes are not provided. • No Parking signs will be installed upon the Council's approval of this resolution to inform motorists of the parking restriction. ATTACHMENTS: • Resolution, page ~JU CITY OF EAGAN A RESOLUTION RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON Northwest Parkway Trunk Highway 149 to Lone Oak Parkway THIS RESOLUTION, passed this 7th day of July, 2009, by the City of Eagan in Dakota County, Minnesota. The Municipal corporation shall hereinafter be called the "City", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the "City" has planned the street overlay improvement ofNorthwest Parkway, from the intersection of Trunk Highway 149 to Lone Oak Parkway in the City of Eagan, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the "City" will be expending Municipal State Aid Funds on the planned improvement of Northwest Parkway; and WHEREAS, this roadway does not provide adequate width for parking on both sides of the street; and approval of the proposed construction as a Municipal State Aid Street project must therefore be conditioned upon certain parking restrictions. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the "City" shall ban the parking of motor vehicles on Northwest Parkway between Trunk Highway 149 and Lone Oak Parkway at all times. DATED this 7th day of July, 2009. Mike Maguire, Mayor ATTEST: Maria Peterson, City Clerk CERTIFICATION State of Minnesota County of Dakota City of Eagan I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of a Resolution presented to and adopted by the City Council of Eagan at a duly authorized meeting thereof held in the City of Eagan, Minnesota, on the 7th day of July, 2009, as disclosed by the records of said City in my possession. Maria Peterson, City Clerk 151 e:\resolutions - state. county. city\no parking\northwest parkway.doc Agenda Information Memo July 7, 2009, Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA V. Approve a Joint Powers Agreement with the St. Paul Police Department to join a multi agency task force that combats internet crimes where children are victims ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve a Joint Powers Agreement with the St. Paul Police Department allowing Eagan Police Officers to cooperatively work with other law enforcement agencies to investigate internet crimes related to juveniles. FACTS: • The St. Paul Police Department is the recipient of a federal grant from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). • The purpose of the grant is to provide law enforcement with funding to combat internet crimes where children are the victims. Equipment, training, and personnel expenses are available to the city if Eagan Police Officers assist in the investigation, prosecution, and prevention of illegal exploitation of children via the internet. • By entering into this agreement, the Eagan Police Department will work with personnel from other Minnesota Law Enforcement Agencies by exchanging data and identifying suspects involved in internet crimes related to children. • Approval of this agreement will allow the City to access approximately $500,000 in grant funds that can be used for enforcement, prevention, and education. • The agreement was reviewed by City Attorney's Office. • Eagan's participation is contingent upon approval of the agreement by St. Paul Officials. ATTACHMENTS A copy of the agreement is attached on pages to. sa Minnesota Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Multi-Agency Law Enforcement Agreement This Multi-Agency Law Enforcement Agreement, and amendments and supplements thereto, (hereinafter "Agreement") is between the City of Saint Paul, acting through its Police Department (Grantee) and City of Eagan, acting through its Police Department (hereinafter "Undersigned Law Enforcement Agency") both which are empowered to enter into joint powers agreements pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 471.59, Subd. 10 & 12, and is further empowered to enter into this Agreement by Minn. Stat. § 626.76; and Whereas, the Grantee is the recipient of a federal grant (attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A) disbursed by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ("OJJDP') in Washington, D.C.; Whereas, the purpose of the grant funds is to provide law enforcement agencies funding for equipment, training, and expenses, including travel and overtime funding, which are incurred by law enforcement in connection with and for the investigation, prosecution, and prevention of the illegal exploitation of children which occurs through the use of computers ; and Whereas, the parties are desirous to enter into this agreement and work and cooperate as a multi-agency task force intended to investigate and prosecute crimes committed against children and the criminal exploitation of children that is committed and/or facilitated by or through the use of computers, and to disrupt and dismantle organizations engaging in such activity; and Whereas, the parties agree to utilize applicable state and federal laws to prosecute criminal, civil, and forfeiture actions against identified violators, as appropriate; and Whereas, the OJJDP Internet Crimes Against Children ("ICAO") Grant Manager has been established to oversee the operation of the grant fiends awarded to Grantee; and Whereas, the Grantee desires to provide funding to the Undersigned Law Enforcement Agency for training and provide equipment which is purchased by Grantee with grant funds to the Undersigned Law Enforcement Agency for its investigation, prosecution, and prevention of the illegal exploitation of children which occurs through the use of computers within the Undersigned Law Enforcement Agency's jurisdiction. Now Therefore, the parties agree as follows: The parties to this Agreement approve, authorize, and enter into this Agreement with the purpose of implementing the objectives of the OJJDP grant objectives to combat Internet Crimes Against Children, to wit: prevention, education and 1 ~f~ enforcement and pursuant to the following: 1. The Undersigned Law Enforcement Agency shall adhere to the OJJDP ICAC Operational and Investigative Standards (attached to this Agreement as Exhibit B), in addition to state and federal laws, when conducting operations relative to ICAC; and 2. All personnel of the Undersigned Law Enforcement Agency who are assigned to any ICAC investigation within its jurisdiction or assist any outside jurisdiction in an investigation that is in part within the Undersigned Law Enforcement Agency's jurisdiction shall be a licensed peace officer or found by the Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training to have comparable qualifications. 3. All police officers of the Undersigned Law Enforcement Agency who are assigned to any ICAC investigation within its jurisdiction or to assist any outside jurisdiction in an investigation that is in part within the Undersigned Law Enforcement Agency's jurisdiction shall not be deemed to be an employee of Grantee or the Minnesota ICAC program and is and shall be deemed at all time as an employee of the Undersigned Law Enforcement Agency. The police officer of the Undersigned Law Enforcement Agency who is assigned to any ICAC investigation within its jurisdiction or to assist any outside jurisdiction in an investigation that is in part within the Undersigned Law Enforcement Agency's jurisdiction shall continue to be employed by the Undersigned Law Enforcement Agency and all services, duties, acts or omissions performed by the officer will be within the course and duty of his/her employment with the Undersigned Law Enforcement Agency, and therefore, are covered by the Workers' Compensation programs of and will be paid by and entitled to fringe benefits by the Undersigned Law Enforcement Agency. 4. Each party hereto agrees that it will be responsible for its own acts and/or omissions and those of its officials, employees, representatives and agents in carrying out the terms of this Agreement and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law. A party shall not be responsible for and the other party shall indemnify and hold the party harmless for the acts and/or omissions of the other party and the results thereof. It is understood and agreed that each party's liability shall be limited by the provisions of 2 Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 (Tort Liability, Political Subdivisions) or other applicable law. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall waive or amend, nor shall be construed to waive or amend any defense or immunity that either party, or their respective officials and employees, may have under said Chapter 466, or any common-law immunity or limitation of liability, all of which are hereby reserved by the parties hereto 5 The Undersigned Law Enforcement Agency has the sole discretion in determining whether its personnel will attend training or participate in any investigation conducted under the ICAC grant program. 6. If the Undersigned Law Enforcement Agency intends to conduct any ICAC related operations for which it desires funding assistance from Grantee, the Undersigned Law Enforcement Agency shall first request assistance in writing to the Grantee for presentation to the OJJDP ICAC Task Force Board of Directors. 7. The Undersigned Law Enforcement Agency must first submit a written request for funds and receive approval for the funds from the Grantee to receive any funds from the Grantee. 8. The Undersigned Law Enforcement Agency must supply original receipts to be reimbursed on pre-approved requests. 9. The Undersigned Law Enforcement Agency shall maintain accurate records pertaining its prevention, education, and enforcement activities on the form(s) provided by the Grantee, to be collected and forwarded monthly to the Grantee or its designee for statistical reporting purposes. 10. The Undersigned Law Enforcement Agency shall participate fully in any record-keeping audits required by the 4JJDP. 11. The Undersigned Law Enforcement Agency shall make a reasonable good faith attempt to be represented at any scheduled regional meetings in order to share information and resources amongst the multiple entities. 12. The Undersigned Law Enforcement Agency shall be solely responsible for forwarding information relative to investigative targets and victims to the 3 ICAC data system pursuant to the OJJDP guidelines. 13.The Undersigned Law Enforcement Agency shall return to the Grantee in a timely manner all investigative equipment acquired from the Grantee in the event that: future federal funding is no longer available, the Agency decides to dissolve its binding relationship with the Minnesota ICAC Task Force and the Saint Paul Police Department, or the Agency breaches the Agreement. (The rest of this page is intentionally left blank) 4 Terms of this agreement: This agreement shall be effective upon signatures. Nothing in this agreement shall otherwise limit the jurisdiction, powers, and responsibilities normally possessed by an employee as a party to this Agreement. John M. Harrington, Chief of Police Date Saint Paul Police Department Assistant St. Paul City Attorney Date Director of Office of Financial Services Date CITY OF EAGAN, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation Mayor: Mike Maguire Date Attest by City Clerk: Maria Petersen Date Agencies certifies that the appropriate person(s) have executed the Agreement on behalf of the Agency and its jurisdictional government entity as required by applicable articles, laws by-laws, resolutions, or ordinances. 5 Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of the Assistant Attorney General WashinVam D.C. 20531 September 26, 2007 Chief John M. Harrington City of Saint Paul. 15 West Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Chief Harrington: On behalf of the Attorney General, it is my pleasure to inform you that the Office of Justice Programs has approved your application for finding under the OJJDP FY 07 Building JCAC Forensic Capacity in the amount of $200,000 for City of Saint Paul. Enclosed you will find the Grant Award and Special Conditions documents. This award is subject to all administrative and financial requirements, including the timely submission of all financial and programmatic reports, resolution of all interim audit findings, and the maintenance of a minimum level of cash-on-hand. Should you not adhere to these requirements, you will be in violation of the terms of this agreement and the award will be subject to termination for cause or other administrative action as appropriate. if you have questions regarding this award, please contact: - Program Questions, Jacqueline O'Reilly, Program Manager at (202) 514-5024; and - Financial Questions, the Office of the Comptroller, Customer Service Center (CSC) at (800) 458-0786, or you may contact the CSC at ask.oo@usdoj.gov. Congratulations, and we look forward to working with you. Sincerely, Regina B. Schofield Assistant Attorney General Enclosures EXHIBIT EA Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs PAGE 1 OF 3 Office of Juvenile Justice Cooperative Agreement and Delinquency Prevention 1. RECIPIENT NAME AND ADDRESS (IncWding Zip Code) 4. AWARD NUMBER: 2005-MC-CX-K008 City of Sams Paul 15 Wed XeI1M Boulevard 5. PROJECT PERIOD: FROM 011012005 TO 12/312009 SL Paul, MN 55102 BUDGET PERIOD: FROM 01101/2005 TO 12131/2009 6. AWARD DATE 0926/2007 7. ACTION IA. GRANTEE 13LSNENDOR NO. 8. SUPPLEMENT NUMBER Supplemetual 4160OS521 02 9. PREVIOUS AWARD AMOUNT S 950,000 3. PROJECT TITLE 10. AMOUNT OF THIS AWARD S200,000 Minuesda Compute Forcosics Mamagcrnpd Initiative 11. TOTAL AWARD $1,150,000 11 SPECIAL CONDITIONS THE ABOVE GRANT PROJECT IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO SUCH CONDITIONS OR LIMITATIONS AS ARE SET FORTH ON THE ATTACHED PAOH(S} 13. STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR GRANT This project is auppotVA under Pub. L. No. 110-S, embedded secs. 101-104; Pub. L. No. 109-108,119 Stat. 2290, 2230.42 U.S.C. 3760 -3762a as in effect on SepL 30.2006 (PY 2007 "Byrne Discretionary") li. METHOD OF PAYMENT PAPRS AGENCY APPROVAL GRANTEE ACCEPTANCE 16. TYPBD NAME AND TITLE OF APPROVING OFFICIAL 18. TYPED NAME AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED GRANTEE, OFFICIAL Region B. SchoWd John M. Hntrington Assistant Attorney Gcnenl Chief of Police 17. SIGNATURE OF APPROVING OFFICIAL. 19. SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED RECIPIENT OFFICIAL 19A. DATE AGENCY USE ONLY 20. ACCOUNTING CLASSIFICATION CODES 21. D607T00031 FISCAL FUND BUD. DIV. YEAR CODE ACT. OFC REG. SUB POM3 AMOUNT X B D6 70 00 00 200000 OJP FORM 4001112 (REV. 5-87) PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. OJP FORM 40002 (REV. 4.88) Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs AWARD CONTINUATION Office of Juvenile SHEET PACE 2 of 3 Justice and Delinquency Cooperative Agreement Prevention PROJECT NUMBER 2005-MC-CX-KO08 AWARD DATE 09/20007 SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. The recipient agrees to comply with the financial and administrative requirements set forth in the current edition of the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) Financial Guide. 2. The recipient acknowledges that faihue to submit an acceptable Equal Employment Opportunity Plan (if recipient is required to submit one pursuant to 28 C.F.R. Section 42.302), that is approved by the Office for Civil Rights, is a violation of its Certified Assurances and may result in suspension or termination of funding, until such time as the recipient is in compliance. 3. 771e recipient agrees to comply with the organizational audit requirements of OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations, as further described in the current edition of the OJP Financial Guide, Chapter 19. 4. Recipient understands and agrees that it cannot use any federal funds, either directly or indirectly, in support of the enactment, repeal, modification or adoption of any law, regulation or policy, at any level of government, without the express prior written approval of OJP. 5. The applicant budget is pending review or approval. The recipient may not obligate, expend or draw down any grant funds until the Office of the Comptroller, Office of Justice Programs has issued clearance of the application budget, and a Grant Adjustment Notice has been issued removing this special condition. 6. The Project Director and key program personnel designated in the application shall be replaced only for compelling reasons and with the concurrence of OJP. OJP will not unreasonably withhold concurrence. All successors to key personnel must be approved, and such approval is contingent upon submission of appropriate information, including, but not limited to, a resume. Changes in other program personnel require only notification to OJP and submission of resumes, unless otherwise designated in the award document. 7. The recipient agrees to submit quarterly financial status reports to the Office of Justice Programs using Standard Form SF 269A on the Internet at https://grants.ojp.usdoj.gov . These reports shall be submitted on-line not later than 45 days after the end of each calendar quarter. The final report shall be submitted not later than 90 days following the end of the grant period. 8. The recipient shall submit semiannual progress reports. Progress reports shall be submitted within 30 days after the end of the reporting periods, which are June 30 and December 31, for the life of the award. These reports will be submitted to the Office of Justice Programs, on line-through the Internet at hnps://gmats.ojp.tisdoj.gov/. 9. Approval of this award does not indicate approval of any consultant rate in excess of $450 per day. A detailed justification must be submitted to and approved by the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) program office prior to obligation or expenditure of such funds. 10. The recipient agrees to comply with the ICAC Task Force Program Standards as established by the ICAC Task Force Advisory Board and approved by OJJDP. 11. The recipient agrees to forward reports of ICAC Task Force Program Monthly Performance Measures to the OJJDP- designated site. OJP FORM 4000/2 UtEv. 4-88) 60 Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs AWARD CONTINUATION Office of Juvenile SHEET PAGE 3 OF 3 Justice and Delinquency Cooperative Agreement Prevention PROJECTNUMBER 2005-MC-CX-10008 AWAMDATE 09/26aOO7 SPECIAL CONDITIONS 12. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has elected to enter into a Cooperative Agreement rather than a grant with the recipient. This decision reflects the mutual interest of the recipient and OJJDP in the operation of the project as well as the anticipated level of Federal involvement in this project OJJDP's participatory role in the project is as follows: a. Review and approve major work plans, including changes to such plans, and key decisions pertaining to project operations. b. Review and approve major project generated documents and materials used in the provision of project services. Provide guidance in significant project planning meetings, and participate in project sponsored training events or confemoces. ON FORM 4000/2 (REV. 4-88) ~e ! LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE .;s Internet Crimes Against Children Program OPERATIONAL AND INVESTIGATIVE STANDARDS EXHIBIT ICAC Program Operational and Investigative Standards FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES ONLY Page 1 of 15 ~2 LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE Definitions As used herein, the following definitions shall apply: "OJJDP" is the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. "NCMEC" is the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "CEOS" is the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. "ICAC" is the Internet Crimes Against Children program composed of Task Forces and Affiliates. "TASK FORCE" is defined as an ICAC law enforcement agency designated by OJJDP to act as a State and/or Regional Task Force. "AFFILIATE" is defined as a law enforcement agency that is working in partnership with a Task Force and has agreed in writing to adhere to ICAC Operational and Investigative Standards. "PARTNER" is defined as an agency assisting a Task Force absent a written agreement. "NATIONAL INITIATIVE" is defined as any investigative proposal that relies on the cooperation and resources of all Task Forces or mandates action by OJJDP. "CVIP" is the Child Victim Identification Program operated by the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. "CYBERTIPLINE" is a reporting mechanism for cases of online child sexual exploitation and enticement operated by the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. For the purposes of this program, crime is defined as any offense that involves the exploitation of children facilitated by technology. Investigative interest is established when there is reasonable suspicion that a screen name or other potentially identifiable entity has committed a crime or that entity is engaged in a sequence of activities that is likely to result in the commission of a crime. A proactive investigation is designed to identify, investigate and prosecute offenders, which may or may not involve a specific target, and requires online interaction and a significant degree of pre-operative planning. ICAC Program Operational and Investigative Standards FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES ONLY Page 2 of 15 J LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE A reactive investigation involves the investigation of a complaint of a crime. Reasonable suspicion is established when sufficient facts exist to lead a law enforcement officer to believe that an individual or organization is involved in a definable criminal activity. ICAC Program Operational and Investigative Standards FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES ONLY Page 3 of 15 Inli "T LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE 1. Oversight 1.1 Each ICAC agency shall have supervisory systems and procedures, which shall provide for observation, documentation, and periodic review of ICAC activity. Such system should comply with the principles of quality case management and ensure that ICAC activities comply with both agency and ICAC Standards. 1.2 Task Forces shall submit all proposed national initiatives to OJJDP prior to project initiation. 1.3 OJJDP may suggest amendments to the original proposal following consultation with the presenting Task Force and other federal, state, and local entities. ICAC Program Operational and Investigative Standards FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES ONLY Page 4 of 15 109 LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE 2. Selection and Retention of ICAC Task Force Personnel 2.1 Managers and supervisors should evaluate prospective ICAC candidates for work history that indicates prior investigative experience, court testimony skills, ability to handle sensitive information prudently, and a genuine interest in the protection of children. 2.2 Given the graphic nature of evidence routinely encountered in ICAC related cases, the mental health of investigators working such cases is a great concern. Task force supervisors at all levels are encouraged to make reasonable efforts to ensure that all assigned officers remain fit for duty in accordance with applicable departmental policies and procedures. ICAC Program Operational and Investigative Standards FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES ONLY Page S of 15 4o P LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE 3. Training 3.1 All Investigators will be supplied with appropriate training consistent with the ICAC Operational and Investigative Standards. 3.2 ICAC Task Force Commanders are responsible for ensuring that the individuals nominated for ICAC sponsored training are employed by agencies that have agreed in writing to adhere to the ICAC standards of investigation and that any prerequisite requirements for the training session have been met. 3.3 ICAC task forces may give regional training. The training shall comply with current ICAC standards. Any subsequent support required as a result of the regional training shall be the responsibility of the task force providing the training. ICAC Program Operational and Investigative Standards FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES ONLY Page 6 of 15 ~Q l LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE 4. Case Management 4.1 Case Predication and Prioritization 4. 1.1 Cases maybe initiated by referrals from the CyberTipline, Internet service providers, or other law enforcement agencies, and by information gathered through subject interviews, documented public sources, direct observations of suspicious behavior, public complaints, or by any other source acceptable under agency policies. 4.1.2 ICAC supervisors are responsible for determining investigative priorities and selecting cases for investigation. Assuming the information is deemed credible, that determination should begin with an assessment of victim risk and then consider other factors such as jurisdiction and known offender behavioral characteristics. The following prioritization scale shall be considered: a) A child is at immediate risk of victimization b) A child is vulnerable to victimization by a known offender c) A known suspect is aggressively soliciting a child(ren) d) Manufacturers, distributors or possessors of images that appear to be home photography with domiciled children e) Aggressive, high-volume child pornography manufacturers or distributors who either are commercial distributors, repeat offenders, or specialize in sadistic images f) Manufacturers, distributors and solicitors involved in high-volume trafficking or belong to an organized child pornography ring that operates as a criminal conspiracy g) Distributors, solicitors and possessors of images of child pornography h) Any other form of child victimization. 4.2 Record Keeping 4.2.1 ICAC agencies shall be subject to existing agency incident reporting procedures and case supervision systems. At a minimum, a unique identifier shall be assigned to each ICAC case. 4.2.2 All affiliated agencies will report their activity to the respective Task Force Commander by the 10th of each month using the ICAC Monthly Performance Measures Report. 4.2.3 Task Forces will compile and submit their monthly performance measures report to the OJJDP designated location before the end of the following ICAC Program Operational and Investigative Standards FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES ONLY Page 7/o^f 115 4~ V LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE calendar month. This monthly report does not replace the semi-annual progress report required by the Office of Justice Program's Financial Guide. 4.2.4 ICAC Case Tracker - Task Forces will compile and submit information on all cases referred for either state or federal prosecution. Information is required for all cases referred by the grant receiving agency, as well as all affiliates that received more than $20,000 a year. This report is on-going and begins with the prosecutorial agency the case is referred to and continues through the final disposition of the case. This on-going quarterly report will be due within five (5) business days of the start of the quarter and does not replace either the semi-annual progress report required by the Office of Justice Program's Financial Guide nor the quarterly statistical performance measures report (see 4.2.3 above). The report is submitted to icaccasetracker(a~usdoj.gov and copied to the ICAC Program Manager assigned to the task force. 4.3 Undercover Investigations 4.3.1 Carefully managed undercover operations conducted by well-trained officers are among the most effective techniques available to law enforcement for addressing ICAC offenses. Undercover operations, when executed and documented properly, collect virtually unassailable evidence regarding a suspect's predilection to exploit children. 4.3.2 ICAC supervisors are responsible for ensuring that ICAC investigators receive a copy of the ICAC Operational and Investigative Standards. 4.3.3 ICAC investigations shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the principles of law and due process. ICAC investigators are encouraged to work in conjunction with their local, state or federal prosecutors. 4.3.4 The following minimum standards apply to ICAC investigations: a. Only sworn, on-duty ICAC personnel shall conduct ICAC investigations in an undercover capacity. Private citizens shall not be asked to seek out investigative targets, nor shall they be authorized to act as police agents in an online Undercover capacity. b. ICAC personnel shall not electronically upload, transmit, or forward pornographic or sexually explicit images. c. Other than images or videos of individuals, age 18 or over, who have provided their informed written consent, and at the time consent was given were employed by a criminal justice agency, no actual human images or videos shall be utilized in an investigation. Employee is defined as a salaried or compensated individual. ICAC Program Operational and Investigative Standards FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES ONLY Page 8 of 15 61 LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE d. During online dialogue, undercover officers should allow the investigative target to set the tone, pace, and subject matter of the online conversation. Image transfer shall be initiated by the target. e. Undercover online activity shall be recorded and documented. Any departures from this policy due to unusual circumstances shall be documented in the relevant case file and reviewed by an ICAC supervisor. 4.4 Evidence Procedures 4.4.1 The storage, security, and destruction of investigative information shall be consistent with agency policy. Access to these files should be restricted to authorized personnel. 4.4.2 The examination of computers and digital media shall be consistent with agency policy and procedure. 4.4.3 Child pornography is contraband and should be maintained pursuant to each agency's policies regarding such. It is recommended that absent a court order specifically ordering otherwise, evidence containing child pornography shall not be released to any defendant or representative thereof. 4.4.4 The transfer of evidence containing child pornography among law enforcement shall be done in a secure manner. Methods of transfer may include hand-delivery, transmission of digitally protected files, delivery via a service which tracks the shipment, or other methods consistent with agency policy and practices. 4.5 Workspace and Equipment 4.5.1 ICAC computers and software shall be reserved for the exclusive use of agency designated ICAC personnel. When possible, undercover computers, software, and online accounts shall be purchased covertly. No personally owned equipment shall be used in ICAC investigations and all software shall be properly acquired and licensed. 4.5.2 ICAC personnel shall not use ICAC computers, software or online accounts for personal use. 4.5.3 Absent exigent or unforeseen circumstances, all ICAC online investigations shall be conducted in government workspace as designated by the agency. Exceptions must be approved in advance by an ICAC supervisor. ICAC Program Operational and Investigative Standards FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES ONLY Page 9 of 15 T) LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE 5. Information Sharing 5.1 Conventional boundaries are virtually meaningless in the electronic world of the Internet and the usual constraints of time, place, and-distance lose their relevance. These factors increase the possibility of ICAC agencies targeting one another, investigating the same subject, or inadvertently disrupting an ongoing investigation. To foster coordination, collaboration, and communication, each ICAC agency shall contribute case information on all active investigations (local, interstate, reactive and proactive) to a common database as designated by OJJDP currently, referred to as the ICAC Data Exchange. 5.2 If any common target is identified, the initiating ICAC agency is responsible for contacting the other law -enforcement agency targeting the suspect. 5.3 Initiating ICAC agencies should also consider contacting other local, state, and federal agencies which may be involved in similar investigations. ICAC Program Operational and Investigative Standards FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES ONLY Page 100 of 15 1 LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE 6. Victim Identification 6.1 Identifying child victims is a critical element of the ICAC Program. DOJ and OJJDP require all Task Forces to submit child victim images to the CVIP as a means to improve child victim identification. Absent exigent circumstances, child victim images will be sent to the CVIP consistent with NCMEC guidelines. In addition, ICAC agencies are encouraged to collaborate with NCMEC to identify children depicted in child pornography. 6.2 A focus of the ICAC Program is to protect children. In circumstances where reporting of child abuse is not required under existing laws, ICAC agencies are strongly encouraged to report instances in which a child may be at risk for abuse or exploitation. 6.3 Absent exigent circumstances, victim identifying information should be protected from public disclosure. IC4CProgram Operational and Investigative Standards FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES ONLY Page 11 of 15 -7 a LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE 7. Victim Notification [New section to be drafted in 2009 about JUSTICE FOR ALL Act Provisions that govern victim notification.] ICAC Program Operational and Investigative Standards FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES ONLY Page 12 of 15 73 LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE 8. Best Practices for Interacting with Potential Child Victims and their Non- Offending Family Members [To be developed in 2009.] ICAC Program Operational and Investigative Standards FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES ONLY Page 13~of 15 l4 LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE 9. Community Education and Crime Prevention 9.1 Prevention education activities are a critical component of the OJJDP ICAC Program. ICAC agencies should foster awareness and provide practical, relevant guidance to children, parents, educators, librarians, and other individuals concerned about child safety issues. 9.2 Presentations to school staff, parents, and community groups are excellent ways to promote awareness. These presentations shall not depict identifiable victims, not otherwise in the public domain; nor shall they use pornographic or sexually explicit images. Presenters shall not discuss confidential investigative techniques. 9.3 No member of an ICAC Task Force may endorse any product or service without the express consent of an OJJDP Program Manager. While appearing at public presentations, ICAC members may indicate a preference for a product or service, but to avoid an implicit endorsement, such ICAC members should indicate adequate alternatives. ICAC Program Operational and Investigative Standards FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES ONLY Page 14 of 15 LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE 10. Media Relations and Releases 10.1 Media releases relating to prosecutions, crime alerts or other matters concerning ICAC operations shall not include information regarding confidential investigative tecbniques and should be coordinated (when applicable) with other Task Force participants, Federal law enforcement agencies, and State and local agencies involved in the investigation consistent with sound information management and media relations practices. 10.2 ICAC Commanders (or their designees) may speak to members of the media about their own departments' ICAC-related activities according to their own agency's guidelines. No individual affiliated with the ICAC program may speak on behalf of the ICAC Program as a whole. 10.3 ICAC Commanders should inform their OJJDP Program Managers if approached by national media outlets about the ICAC Program (as opposed to media seeking information about local activities) so that a coordinated national response can be prepared by OJP. 10.4 Information provided by ICACs to the media shall be consistent with the guidance below: Purpose of the ICAC Program The mission of the Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force program is to assist state and local law enforcement agencies in developing an effective response to cyber enticement and child pornography cases. This support encompasses forensic and investigative components, training and technical assistance, victim services, prevention and community education. Background on the ICAC Program The Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) program is a national network of fifty-nine coordinated local task forces and their 1,800 local and regional affiliated agencies engaged in both proactive and reactive investigations, forensic examinations, effective prosecutions and community education.1 The ICAC Program was developed in response to the increasing number of children and teenagers using the Internet, the proliferation of child pornography, and the heightened online activity by predators searching for unsupervised contact with underage victims. By helping state and local law enforcement agencies develop effective and sustainable responses to online child victimization and child pornography, the ICAC program delivers national resources at the local level. The ICAC program actively protects children who use the Internet by proactively investigating the on-line sexual exploitation of children by predators. Because ICAC practitioners understand that arrests alone can not resolve the problem of on-line victimization, the ICAC program is dedicated to training law enforcement and educating parents and youth about the potential dangers online and offering safety tools. ICAC Program Operational and Investigative Standards FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES ONLY Page 15 of 15 7Cp Agenda Memo July 7, 2009 City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA: W. Massage Therapy Establishment License - T-Squared Massage and Body Works ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve Massage Therapy Establishment License for Tim Turner, T-Squared Massage and Body Works, 4141 Old Sibley Memorial Highway, (Office 303) FACTS: • Tim Turner has applied for a license to operate a massage therapy establishment at 4141 Old Sibley Memorial Highway, (Office 303). • All requirements of the application have been met and the fee has been paid. • The Police Department conducted a background investigation on Mr. Turner within the past year when he applied for a therapist license and there were no concerns. ATTACHMENTS: • None. The application is available for review in the Administration Department. Consent Agenda Information Memo July 7, 2009, Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA: X. Grant Resolution for Dakota Traffic Safety Grant ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approval of a resolution allowing the City of Eagan to continue its participation in the Dakota Traffic Safety Program through 2010. FACTS: • The grant allows the city to obtain reimbursement for personnel overtime expenses to participate in saturation patrols to detect impaired driving in Dakota County. • The grant is shared by all law enforcement agencies in Dakota County. • Throughout the year, police officers from each participating agency work together to target an area in the county that has been identified as having the potential for an increased incidence of drunk driving violations. • The City of Eagan has participated in this initiative since 2005. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Resolution on page l CITY OF EAGAN RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF EAGAN TO ENTER INTO A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE DAKOTA COUNTY TRAFFIC SAFETY GROUP October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010 WHEREAS, the City of Eagan desires to participate in the Dakota County Traffic Safety Group Grant Project. WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota requires a resolution of the City Council to participate. WHEREAS, the City has entered into previous grants to provide increased traffic enforcement and educational activities. WHEREAS, the City has partnered with other Dakota County law enforcement agencies to increase traffic safety in the community. WHEREAS, the City will partner with the 11 other government entities in Dakota County to increase traffic safety. WHEREAS, the City Councilors of the City of Eagan have duly considered this matter and believe that it is in the best interests of the City to enter into a grant agreement with the OTS through the DCTSG to provide enhanced traffic enforcement. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper City officers be and hereby are authorized to execute such agreement and any amendments, and thereby assume for and on behalf of the City all of the contractual obligations contained therein. ADOPTED this 7th day of July, 2009 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Consent Agenda Information Memo July 7, 2009, Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA: Y. Approve agreement with MN State Patrol to work traffic on Pilot Knob Road ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approval of Grant Contract with the State of Minnesota to perform traffic enforcement in an initiative termed Highway Enforcement of Aggressive Traffic (HEAT) FACTS: • The State of Minnesota (through the State Patrol) is administering a speed enforcement grant called Operation HEAT • The State Patrol is the fiscal agent • The State Patrol has asked the Eagan Police Department to participate on enforcement in the targeted area which is Pilot Knob Road south from Interstate- 35E to the City's southern border • Pilot Knob Road has been designated as a targeted area by the federal government • The State Patrol has awarded the Eagan Police Department $7,315.00 for overtime expenses for Eagan Officers to work this detail during July 1-14th and August 12-19t" • The city of Eagan will be reimbursed for all overtime up to the grant award amount and will not have to provide any unreimbursed enforcement action • The State of Minnesota requires the City of Eagan to provide three signed copies of the grant ATTACHMENTS: Grant Contract on pages ~v STATE OF MINNESOTA GRANT CONTRACT This grant contract is between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Public Safety State Patrol Division, 444 Cedar Street Suite 130, St. Paul, MN 55101-5130 ("State") and the Eagan, Police Department, 3830 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan, MN 55122 ("Grantee"). Recitals 1 Under Minn. Stat. § 299A.01, Subd 2 (4) the State is empowered to enter into this grant contract. 2 Federal funds for this grant contract are provided from U.S. Department of Transportation's State and Community Highway Safety Program, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number 20.609. 3 The State is in need of coordinated saturations as part of the Highway Enforcement of Aggressive Traffic (HEAT) speed control enforcement. 4 The Grantee represents that it is duly qualified and agrees to perform all services described in this grant contract to the satisfaction of the State. Grant Contract 1 Term of Grant Contract 1.1 Effective date: July 1, 2009, or the date the State obtains all required signatures under Minnesota Statutes Section 16C.05, subdivision 2, whichever is later. Once this grant contract is fully executed, the Grantee may claim reimbursement for expenditures incurred pursuant to Clause 4.2 of this grant contract. Reimbursements will only be made for those expenditures made according to the terms of this grant contract. 1.2 Expiration date: September 30, 2009, or until all obligations have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first. 1.3 Survival of Terms. The following clauses survive the expiration or cancellation of this grant contract: 8. Liability; 9. State Audits; 10. Government Data Practices; 12. Publicity and Endorsement; 13. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue; and 15. Data Disclosure. 2 Grantee's Duties The Grantee, who is not a state employee, will: Perform the duties and tasks specified in the Highway Enforcement of Aggressive Traffic (HEAT) Grantee's Duties, Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated into this grant contract. Grantee will comply with the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133. Federal Audit Requirements is attached and incorporated and made part of this grant contract. See Exhibit B. 3 Time The Grantee must comply with all the time requirements described in this grant contract. In the performance of this grant contract, time is of the essence. 4 Consideration and Payment 4.1 Consideration. The State will pay for all services performed by the Grantee under this grant contract as follows: (1) Compensation. The Grantee will be reimbursed an amount not to exceed $73 15.00 for officer overtime rates, including fringe benefits, incurred in providing services pursuant to Clause 2 of this grant contract. Invoices for reimbursement must be submitted using the HEAT Invoice. All invoices for reimbursement must be supported by written documentation. (2) Travel Expenses. Reimbursement for travel and subsistence expenses actually and necessarily incurred by the Grantee as a result of this grant contract will be paid in the same manner and in no greater amount than provided in the current "Commissioner's Plan" promulgated by the commissioner of Employee Relations which is incorporated into this grant contract by reference. The Grantee will not be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses incurred outside Minnesota unless it has received the State's prior written approval for out of state travel. Minnesota will be considered the home state for determining whether travel is out of state. MSP (11/06) Q/ 1 No reimbursement shall be made for salary costs incurred in traveling to and from saturation events. (3) Matching Requirements. (If Applicable.) Grantee certifies that the following matching requirement, for the grant contract, will be met by the Grantee: .00. (4) Total Obligation. The total obligation of the State for all compensation and reimbursements to the Grantee under this grant contract will not exceed $7,315.00. 4.2 Payment (1) Invoices. The State will promptly pay the Grantee after the Grantee presents an itemized invoice for the services actually performed and the State's Authorized Representative accepts the invoiced services. Invoices must be submitted timely and according to the following schedule: Itemized invoices will be submitted within 30 days after each saturation event to the State's Authorized Representative. Final invoice ertaining to the first state fiscal year of this grant contract must be received by July 31, 2009. Reimbursements from the second state fiscal year may commence on or after July 1, 2009. The final invoice pertaining to the second state fiscal year of this grant contract must be received by October 31, 2009. Expenditures for each state fiscal year of this grant contract must be for services performed within applicable state fiscal years Every state fiscal year begins on July 1 and ends on June 30. (2) Federal funds. (Where applicable, if blank this section does not apply) Payments under this grant contract will be made from federal funds obtained by the State through Title 23 CFDA number 20.609 of the State and Community Highway Safety Act of 1966. The Grantee is responsible for compliance with all federal requirements imposed on these funds and accepts full financial responsibility for any requirements imposed by the Grantee's failure to comply with federal requirements. 5 Conditions of Payment All services provided by the Grantee under this grant contract must be performed to the State's satisfaction, as determined at the sole discretion of the State's Authorized Representative and in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. The Grantee will not receive payment for work found by the State to be unsatisfactory or performed in violation of federal, state, or local law. 6 Authorized Representative The State's Authorized Representative is Lt Bruce Brynell 3489 Hadley Avenue North Oakdale, MN 55128, (65) 779-5913, or his/her successor, and has the responsibility to monitor the Grantee's performance and the authority to accept the services provided under this grant contract. If the services are satisfactory, the State's Authorized Representative will certify acceptance on each invoice submitted for payment. The Grantee's Authorized Representative is Lt Duane Pike Eagan, Police Department, 3830 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan,MN 55122 (651) 675-5806. If the Grantee's Authorized Representative changes at any time during this grant contract, the Grantee must immediately notify the State. 7 Assignment, Amendments, Waiver, and Grant Contract Complete 7.1 Assignment. The Grantee may neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this grant contract without the prior consent of the State and a fully executed Assignment Agreement, executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved this grant contract, or their successors in office. 7.2 Amendments Any amendment to this grant contract must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original grant contract, or their successors in office. 7.3 Waiver. If the State fails to enforce any provision of this grant contract, that failure does not waive the provision or its right to enforce it. 7.4 Grant Contract Complete. This grant contract contains all negotiations and agreements between the State and the Grantee. No other understanding regarding this grant contract, whether written or oral, may be used to gp 2 MSP (11/06) bind either party. 8 Liability The Grantee must indemnify, save, and hold the State, its agents, and employees harmless from any claims or causes of action, including attorney's fees incurred by the State, arising from the performance of this grant contract by the Grantee or the Grantee's agents or employees. This clause will not be construed to bar any legal remedies the Grantee may have for the State's failure to fulfill its obligations under this grant contract. 9 State Audits Under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 5, the Grantee's books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices relevant to this grant contract are subject to examination by the State and/or the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from the end of this grant contract. 10 Government Data Practices The Grantee and State must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, as it applies to all data provided by the State under this grant contract, and as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the Grantee under this grant contract. The civil remedies of Minn. Stat. § 13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this clause by either the Grantee or the State. If the Grantee receives a request to release the data referred to in this Clause, the Grantee must immediately notify the State. The State will give the Grantee instructions concerning the release of the data to the requesting party before the data is released. 11 Workers' Compensation The Grantee certifies that it is in compliance with Minn. Stat. § 176.181, subd. 2, pertaining to workers' compensation insurance coverage. The Grantee's employees and agents will not be considered State employees. Any claims that may arise under the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Act on behalf of these employees and any claims made by any third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of these employees are in no way the State's obligation or responsibility. 12 Publicity and Endorsement 12.1 Publicity. Any publicity regarding the subject matter of this grant contract must identify the State as the sponsoring agency and must not be released without prior written approval from the State's Authorized Representative. For purposes of this provision, publicity includes notices, informational pamphlets, press releases, research, reports, signs, and similar public notices prepared by or for the Grantee individually or jointly with others, or any subcontractors, with respect to the program, publications, or services provided resulting from this grant contract. 12.2 Endorsement. The Grantee must not claim that the State endorses its products or services. 13 Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue Minnesota law, without regard to its choice-of-law provisions, governs this grant contract. Venue for all legal proceedings out of this grant contract, or its breach, must be in the appropriate state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota. 14 Termination 14.1 Termination by the State. The State may cancel this grant contract at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 days' written notice to the Grantee. Upon termination, the Grantee will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed. 14.2 Termination for Insufficient Funding. The State may immediately terminate this grant contract if it does not obtain funding from the Minnesota Legislature, or other funding source; or if funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow for the payment of the services covered here. Termination must be by written or fax notice to the Grantee. The State is not obligated to pay for any services that are provided after notice and effective date of termination. However, the Grantee will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed to the extent that funds are available. The State will not 3 3 MSP (11/06) be assessed any penalty if the grant contract is terminated because of the decision of the Minnesota Legislature, or other funding source, not to appropriate funds. The State must provide the Grantee notice of the lack of funding within a reasonable time of the State receiving that notice. 15 Data Disclosure Under Minn. Stat. § 270C.65, and other applicable law, the Grantee consents to disclosure of its social security number, federal employer tax identification number, and/or Minnesota tax identification number, already provided to the State, to federal and state tax agencies and state personnel involved in the payment of state obligations. These identification numbers may be used in the enforcement of federal and state tax laws which could result in action requiring the Grantee to file state tax returns and pay delinquent state tax liabilities, if any, or pay other state liabilities. 1. ENCUMBRANCE VERIFICATION 3. STATE AGENCY Individual certifies that funds have been encumbered as required by Minn. Slat. 16A.15 and 16C.05. By: (with delegated authority) Signed: Title: Date: Date: Grant Contract No. 50000005986 2. GRANTEE The Grantee certifies that the appropriate person(s) have executed the grant contract on behalf of the Grantee as required by applicable articles, bylaws, resolutions, or ordinances. By: Title: Date: By: Title: Date: Distribution: DPS/FAS Grantee State's Authorized Representative MSP (11/06) 4 Agenda Information Memo July 7, 2009 Eagan City Council Meeting PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Amendment to 2009 Fee Schedule ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To adopt a resolution approving an amendment to the 2009 Fee Schedule establishing a permit fee for outdoor electronic sound system/audio equipment use after 10:00 p.m. FACTS: • The Council approved the 2009 Fee Schedule on December 16, 2008. • At the May 5, 2009 City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment with regard to outdoor events with music after 10 p.m. • The Council will review the draft ordinance for a permit for outdoor electronic sound system/audio equipment use after 10:00 p.m. at the July 7, 2009 City Council meeting. • A fee of $75.00 is proposed to cover staff time for review of these permit applications. • Per Minnesota Statutes 462.353, the adoption of the annual fee schedule or amendment thereto requires publication at least 10 days prior to a public hearing. A notice for this meeting was published on Friday, June 26, 2009. ATTACHMENTS: (2) A copy of the proposed changes are attached on pages &P. A copy of the resolution is attached on page. 8~ 4b~ City of Eagan 2009 Fee Schedule INSPECTION FEES/PERMITS (cont'd) Other building inspections fees: Fee Acct Code Electrical permits Issued by the State Plan review 65% of building permit fee 0720.4222 Demolition permit $88.50 0801.4093 Day Care 50.00 1201.4216 Moving permit - building 90.00 plus cost of damage/ 0801.4093 repairs. $2,000 escrow required. 9001.2257 Outdoor electronic sound system/audio use after 10 p.m. permit 75.00 0720.4115 Sign permit 2.50 per square foot 0720.4089 Pylon signs >7' tall 130.00 Sign permit - investigation fee (applies when work Double sign permit fee commences before permit issuance) Temporary sign permit (up to 10 days in a 60-day period) 25.00 0720.4089 Wind energy, radio and TV tower permit Based on value-see building 0801.4092 permit fee schedule Underground storage tank installation/removal 70.00 0801.4088 Building permit investigation fee 50% of plan review fee 0801.4085 (applies to approved permits abandoned by applicant) Building/Plumbing/Mechanical permit investigation fee Double the base fee permits, p.9 (applies when work commences prior to permit issuance) Lot transfer or address change fee 50.00 0720.4222 Replacement building permit field card 5.00 0801.4230 Duplicate certificate of occupancy 5.00 0801.4230 Certificate of occupancy research fee 20.00 0801.4230 Commercial driveway construction in City ROW 50.00 Commercial utility connection in City ROW 50.00 Escrow to be determined on case-by-case basis Re-inspection fee 50.00 per hr. - 1 hr minimum 0801.4242 After-hours/weekend inspection fee 50.00 per hr. - 2 hr minimum 0801.4242 Address change after building permit issued 50.00 0201.4230 Permit refunding fee 50.00 permits, pp. 8,9 State of MN contractor license verification 5.00 0201.4230 Street name change application 100.00 + out-of-pocket City costs 0201.4230 10~ RESOLUTION CITY OF EAGAN APPROVING AMENDMENT TO THE 2009 FEE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, various sections of the City Code provide for fees to be established by City Council resolution; and WHEREAS, the City desires to recover certain user related costs through fees and reimbursement; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the fees as listed in the attached shall be effective immediately: Motion by: Seconded by: Those in Favor: Those Against: Date: July 7, 2009 CITY OF EAGAN CITY COUNCIL By: Its Mayor Attest: Its Clerk CERTIFICATION I, Maria Petersen, City Clerk of the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, in a regular meeting thereof assembled this 7t' day of July, 2009. Maria Peterson, City Clerk Agenda Information Memo July 7, 2009, Eagan City Council Meeting VII. NEW BUSINESS A. INTERIM USE PERMIT - MAGGIE MELL ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve (OR direct findings of fact for denial) an Interim Use Permit to allow boarding of up to seven (7) horses for Maggie Mell located at 4085 Lexington Avenue South, subject to the conditions listed in the APC minutes. REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: Majority of Council Members Present FACTS: ➢ A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to board up to 9 horses was heard by the City Council on May 19, 2009. The Council tabled the CUP permit and recommended the applicant apply for an IUP. The applicant has done so and subsequently has withdrawn the CUP request. ➢ The 5 acre property is unplatted and a single family home and attached garage are present on the site. Also present are a barn and two run-ins. ➢ The property is wooded, with steep terrain that generally slopes toward Patrick Eagan Park to the west. ➢ The proposal has been reviewed and a site visit was conducted by: ■ A Resource Conservationist with Dakota County Soil & Water Conservation District. ■ Eagan Animal Control. ■ City Parks & Recreation, Planning and Water Quality staff. ➢ The DNR has reviewed the proposal and is not opposed to the request. ➢ City Code does not have codified standards for either the boarding of horses or the riding stable. Consultation with the aforementioned agencies, as well as with an Agriculture Extension Educator with the University of Minnesota Extension service provided information for review of the request and conditions of approval. (W9 ➢ Since the CUP review, the applicant has revised the Site Plan to move the compost area, so that it is outside the Shoreland Overlay district. It is proposed to be located in the upper paddock. ➢ The applicant proposes to section off the lower paddock into thirds to assist with a reduction of runoff from the site and erosion of the property. ➢ Erosion control and manure management were specifically reviewed by the Dakota County Resource Conservationist and deemed acceptable. Suggested conditions of approval will allow public agencies on-going access to the site for monitoring compliance with the manure management plan. ➢ The Advisory Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 23, 2009 and is recommending approval of this Interim Use Permit. ISSUES: ➢ Mr. Ramstad provided additional correspondence including a letter from his attorney as the City Council packet was being finalized on July 1, 2009. The correspondence is among the attachments noted below. The City Attorney's office is reviewing both letters and will provide a response to the issues raised. The responses will be distributed to the Council on July 6, 2009. ➢ Two residents spoke at the Public Hearing; both residents spoke in opposition. A letter with suggested conditions of approval was handed out by one of the neighbors who spoke. ➢ Planning staff has reviewed Feedlot requirements with the Dakota County Resource Conservationist. After the APC packet was prepared, City staff was notified that the County would be issuing a feedlot permit because the site had been void of horses for more than 10 years. Because there were horses on the property at one time, this is considered a feedlot resuming operations, which is an allowed use, even within a Shoreland area. The County has prepared a draft permit and it is included as an attachment. The permit is in draft form because it is being reviewed by the MPCA. Changes are not anticipated since the permit is based on MPCA recommendations. The County will not formally issue the permit until after the Local Governmental Unit gives their approval. ➢ Based on review of the proposal and suggested conditions of approval by Dakota County, the DNR, staff from various City Departments and consultation with the City Attorney, it was concluded that seven or fewer horses on the site can be managed appropriately. ➢ It has been acknowledged that a portion of a fence located on the west side of the applicants' property encroaches into Patrick Eagan Park. Concern has been raised by one of the neighbors both about the encroachment itself and about run off from the horse operation into the park at this location. At the Advisory Planning Commission, the issue of whether to permit the encroachment to remain or require relocation of the fence was discussed. The APC addressed the encroachment by recommending a condition of approval that the applicant enter into an encroachment agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. Based on correspondence enclosed in the packet, it is expected that this issue will be raised again on Tuesday evening for Council consideration. 60 DAY AGENCY ACTION DEADLINE: July 19, 2009 ATTACHMENTS (11): Location map on page _ 9 ( . Draft June 23, 2009 APC minutes on pages ~ through. Staff report on pages hrough laD, Draft County Interim Petit on pages through 3 . Ramstad attorney letter dated July 1, 2009 on pagesk'hrough 001. Ramstad letter dated July 1, 2009 on pages through Ramstad e-mail correspondence from June 29, 2009 on pages through Ramstad handout dated June 23, 2009 on pages1?_79,through City Attorney response memo dated June 23 2009 on pages through 1 14 Ramstad letter dated June 22, 2009 on pagesaithrough. Ramstad suggested conditions of approval on pages L5CAhrough I SC.Q q 0 Fagan Boundary Right-of-way Location Map Parcel Area 0 Park Area Building Footprint . ~ O P ® 94 ~ ~ O® Q P ~ 0 0 p. a. m 8 ® tQ 14 v ® I v v ~@ as v 91 a P ®m Sub'ect Site y a ® 1 111, ®8 ' r I BMW i Em® ~ ~ ® v as , e ~ o 4 d. $ a m ~ YL TO- ® ® d ® t 0 21--q -1 1-1 1 AM A. eel 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet Development/Developer: Mell Application: Interim Use Permit Case No.: 22-IN-02-05-09 N THIS MAP IS INTEN ED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY w E City of Eajan The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this information and are not responsible for errors or omissions. S V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Maggie Mell - IUP Applicant Name: Homeowner Location: 4085 Lexington Ave S; Application: Interim Use Permit An Interim Use Permit to allow boarding of up to 9 horses. File Number: 22-IN-02-05-09 Planner Thomas introduced this item and highlighted the information presented in the City Staff report dated June 17, 2009. She noted the background and history and explained information received from a concerned neighbor and a response from the City Attorney. She clarified the application was revised to allow boarding of up to 7 horses. Vice Chair Keeley opened the public hearing. Jenny Ramstad, 4139 Lexington Way, discussed the history of horses on the property and concerns with potential odors from the property and affects it may have on her mother who has chemical sensitivity issues. Pete Ramstad, 4139 Lexington Way, distributed and discussed each of the following concerns: 1. The City Code requires that the property be in compliance with the City Code before an IUP can be issued. 2. The City Code required that this property be platted before it was sold. 3. The new shelter that was built this spring not only was built without a building permit, but it is also not in compliance with the zoning ordinance. 4. The barn, while in compliance with zoning provisions when it was built, is no longer in compliance, and is now a nonconforming structure. 5. There is substantial encroachment of the lower fenced in area onto Patrick Eagan Park. 6. The City Code clearly prevents grazing operations in the lower paddock area. 7. This is clearly a feedlot. City Attorney Bob Bauer addressed Mr. Ramstad's concern and referenced a Memorandum dated June 23, 2009, from City Attorney Michael Dougherty. Planner Thomas discussed Mr. Ramstad's concerns and provided further information addressing those concerns surrounding the feedlot status. There was discussion on miniature horses and if they count as one unit. Maggie Mell, Applicant, explained that each miniature horse counts as one unit; however the miniature horses are for sale and will not be on the property in the near future. There was discussion regarding the encroachment of the fence onto the adjacent Park property. A condition of approval was added to address liability concerns. There being no further public comment, Vice Chair Keeley closed the public hearing and turned the discussion back to the Commission. Member Dugan moved, Member Heaney seconded a motion to recommend approval of an 6~ Interim Use Permit to allow boarding of up to seven horses on property consisting of approximately 5 acres located at 4085 Lexington Avenue South, in the SE % of Section 22, subject to the following conditions as amended: 1. The Interim Use Permit shall be recorded at Dakota County within 60 days of approval by the City, and proof of recording shall be submitted to the City. 2. The permit shall terminate in three years (July 7, 2012). 3. The Interim Use Permit shall be subject to an annual administrative review. The purpose of such review shall be to determine that the conditions of the permit are within compliance. The Interim Use Permit may be revoked for failure to comply with any condition of the permit following notice of the noncompliance and a hearing by the City Council with all interested parties being given an opportunity to be heard. 4. The premises shall be open for inspection by City and County agents and they shall be allowed access to inspect the premises. 5. The applicant shall meet all state environmental and water quality standards. 6. There shall be no more than 7 horses on the site for the purpose(s) of boarding and personal use. 7. No signage shall be displayed for advertising of the boarding facility. 8. The applicant shall maintain the existing fences to contain the horses and to prevent the animals from escaping onto neighboring properties or injuring the public. 9. No horses shall be buried on the property. 10. The applicant shall adhere to the MPCA guidelines for manure management. The composting shall occur outside the Shoreland Overlay district as identified on the Site Plan received June 10, 2009. The manure shall be picked up weekly and removed from the site on a biannual basis. 11. There shall be no additional removal of trees or vegetation of any kind on the property. 12. The applicant shall section off the lower, paddock into thirds to reduce overgrazing and erosion of the property. An electrical fence shall be in place according to the maintenance plan in the narrative received June 8, 2009. 13. The applicant shall take and maintain measures to eliminate soil erosion from the subject property onto adjacent property. 14. Applicant must enter into an Encroachment Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. A vote was taken. All voted in favor. Motion carried: 7-0. q3 PLANNING REPORT CITY OF EAGAN REPORT DATE: June 17, 2009, CASE: 22-IN-02-05-09 revised June 23, 2009 APPLICANT: Maggie Mell HEARING DATE: June 23, 2009 PROPERTY OWNER: Maggie Mell APPLICATION DATE: May 20, 2009 REQUEST: Interim Use Permit PREPARED BY: Sarah Thomas LOCATION: 4085 Lexington Avenue S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: LD, Low Density ZONING: A, Agricultural SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of an Interim Use Permit to allow boarding of up to seven horses located at 4085 Lexington Avenue South, in the SE'/4 of Section 22. AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.50, Subdivision 6 states: The Council may issue interim use permits for an interim use of property if: A. The use is deemed to be temporary in light of the Comprehensive Guide Plan designation for the property site on which the use is located and the use conforms to the bulk and performance standards of the zoning regulations herein; B. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty; C. Permission of the use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future; and D. The user agrees to any conditions that the Council deems appropriate for permission of the use; and E. The use meets the standards set forth in the zoning regulations herein governing conditional use permits. F. The city determines that the property is in compliance with City Code. City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.50, Subdivisions 4C and 4D provide the following. ql-- Planning Report - Mell NP June 23, 2009 Page 2 Subdivision 4C states that the Planning Commission shall recommend a conditional use permit and the Council shall issue such conditional use permits only if it finds that such use at the proposed location: A. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City. B. Will be harmonious with the general and applicable specific objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and City Code provisions. C. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area, nor substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. D. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools. E. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be hazardous or detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. F. Will have vehicular ingress and egress to the property which does not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic on surrounding public streets. G. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. H. Is appropriate after considering whether the property is in compliance with the City Code. Subdivision 4D, Conditions, states that in reviewing applications of conditional use permits, the Planning Commission and the Council may attach whatever reasonable conditions they deem necessary to mitigate anticipated adverse impacts associated with these uses, to protect the value of other property within the district, and to achieve the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. In all cases in which conditional uses are granted, the Council shall require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary as proof that the conditions stipulated in connection therewith are being and will be complied with. BACKGROUND The applicant applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a riding arena and a CUP for the boarding of horses. The items were heard by the City Council on May 19, 2009. The City Council approved the CUP for the riding arena and tabled the CUP for the boarding of horses to allow the CUP and the suggested Interim Use Permit (IUP) to be on the same agenda. `V Planning Report - Mell IUP June 23, 2009 Page 3 Since the City Council meeting the applicant has met with a concerned neighbor to discuss the request and has reduced the density of horses and made other changes to reduce the intensity of the request. The revised narrative (attached) explains the modifications to the original request. EXISTING CONDITIONS The properly consists of approximately 5 acres and much of the property is wooded with steep terrain. A single family home with an attached garage is present on the site. The site was originally developed to accommodate and had horses for a period of years; however it is unknown exactly how many years it has been since horses have been housed on site. Two fenced paddocks exist on the property, one in the front yard, approximately 0.25 acres and a larger paddock in the rear yard, approximately 0.5 acres. A paddock is defined as a small, usually enclosed field near a stable or barn for pasturing or exercising animals. A three-stall barn and two run-in's (a three- sided structure for shelter from the weather) also exist. Patrick Eagan Park shares the west property line of the subject site. To the north and south are single family homes and to the east is Lexington Avenue and is screened by wooded areas. SURROUNDING USES The following existing uses, zoning, and comprehensive guide plan designations surround the subject property: Existing Use Zoning Land Use Designation North Single Family home R-1, Residential Single Family LD, Low Density South Single Family home R-1, Residential Single Family LD, Low Density East Lexington Ave R-O-W West Patrick Eagan Park P, Park P, Park and Recreational Open Space EVALUATION OF REQUEST Proposal - The applicant is requesting approval of an IUP to allow a boarding facility on this agricultural property. The applicant originally proposed ten horses and is now proposing seven horses in total to be allowed with the boarding facility. The applicant currently owns five horses. Compatibility with Surrounding Area - The proposed use is as a boarding facility. A boarding facility is an allowed use within the A zoning district via a CUP; however, the property is also located in a Shoreland Overly district which prohibits animal feedlots. The property slopes to the rear toward the existing paddock and Patrick Eagan Park. City staff shares concern in relation to potential overgrazing that could cause erosion and runoff into the park. These concerns are addressed throughout the report and conditions of approval. 9~ Planning Report - Mell IUP June 23, 2009 Page 4 Site Plan - The proposed Site Plan identifies both the front and rear paddock areas and an approximate shoreland boundary. The rear paddock, within the Shoreland overly district, will be sectioned off to promote vegetative growth. The upper paddock, outside the Shoreland overly district, is the proposed location for the 5,400 sq. ft. riding arena which was approved by the City Council on May 19, 2009. Adjacent to the arena is the manure compost area as identified on the Site Plan. MPCA - Staff has worked with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District (S WCD) to gain a better understanding of pasture and manure management for recreational horse owners. Research was also conducted through the Department of Natural Resources, University of Minnesota Extension Service and the MN Department of Agriculture. A Feedlot Registration form is required by the MPCA for properties having more than 10 animal units within the shoreland area, however the applicant is proposing a maximum of 7 horses. The City of Eagan does not have codified standards for approval or criteria for review of feedlots, which is also undefined by the City of Eagan Ordinance. Expansion - The MPCA prohibits new feedlots within 1,000 feet of Department of Natural Resources (DNR) protected lakes, however expansion of existing feedlots under 1,000 animal units is allowed as long as the expansion is not located closer to the ordinary high water level than any existing portion of the animal feedlot or manure storage areas; which is the case here. From aerial photographs, it appears that the current grazing area (the barn where the horses are stabled) is approximately 790 feet from the edge of McCarthy Lake, which is a protected lake. The proposed location of the riding arena is east of the existing barn and paddock area. City staff has researched the existence of the current grazing area and the number of years with or without animals as it pertains to this parcel. Because operations containing nine or fewer horses (in a shoreland zone) are not required to be permitted or registered with Dakota County or the State, the county Conservationist stated that jurisdiction lies with the City. Therefore, City staff has determined that the proposed use is not for a feedlot, as defined by the MPCA, since the applicant proposes a maximum of 7 horses. Manure Management - There are many MPCA rules for manure management and where potential manure stockpiles can be placed. The MPCA provides a form with a good overview of those rules. Specific to this site, a few of the most important rules are: • Stockpiles are prohibited on land with greater than 6% slope. (Much of the property has greater than 6% slopes.) • The same stockpile site cannot be used from year to year. All of the accumulated manure is required to be removed from the site at least once per year and spread on cropland at agronomic rates as fertilizer. 97 Planning Report - Mell [UP June 23, 2009 Page 5 During a site visit to the property, the applicant identified the original location where the proposed stockpiles would be located. This location is adjacent to the existing barn, on the north side and is on one of the highest points of this area of the property. With the revised application, the applicant has proposed to move the compost area, so that it is outside the Shoreland Overlay district. The applicant is also proposing to compost within a manure containment system. Manure will be picked up weekly and the composting will occur within the container. The portable manure container will be removed from the property biannually. Number of Animal Units - There does not appear to be a definitive answer as to how many horses are allowed per acre or per grazable area. Research conducted found that the suggested numbers range between one half acre to two acres per horse. The City of Eagan's Animal Control Officer had reviewed the original proposal for 10 horses and, in her opinion, the site would be able to support the ten horses through the suggested conditions of approval. City policymakers should determine if 7 horses are appropriate for the 5 acre site so as not to have a detrimental effect upon the adjoining park and surrounding residential properties. Animal Mortality -The applicant has contacted a veterinary hospital to provide proper pick- up and disposal of any deceased animal. No burial will occur on the property. DNR - The original request was inadvertently not noticed to the DNR prior to the APC meeting; however since the APC meeting the DNR has reviewed the request. The DNR is not opposed to the request. According to the DNR contact, "The DNR is concerned about the quantity of Minnesota waters whereas MPCA deals with the quality. Runoff and buffers are important if soil is not stable, but these are mostly MPCA issues". Lot size - According to County records the property consists of 5 acres which is the minimum requirement for a lot size within the Agriculture (A) zoning district. 5 acres is also the minimum lot size required for the keeping of animals. Because the property is adjacent to Lexington Avenue, which is a County Road, right-of-way or easements may be dedicated to the County at some point in the future, which may slightly decrease the size of the property. It is not the intention to remove this property from the Ag zoning district or restrict the keeping of animals due to this technicality. Signage - No signage is proposed. This is included as a condition of approval to keep unnecessary traffic off of the site. As the applicant states in the narrative, "We do not want people driving in knowing horses are here, from the road a passerby would never know. Privacy is important to us... it is to remain a home first and foremost". Grading/ Topography - The property slopes to the west where the approximate 0.5 acre paddock is located and toward Patrick Eagan Park. Planning Report - Mell IUP June 23, 2009 Page 6 Erosion Control - In order to reduce runoff from the site and erosion of the property, the applicant has proposed to section off the lower paddock into thirds. The site should be inspected on an annual basis to ensure erosion is not occurring. If erosion into the park becomes occurs, additional steps may be necessary to resolve the issue. Access - Access exists and would remain from Lexington Avenue. No additional parking is proposed as the only additional traffic would consist of an occasional trailer used for transporting the horses. Additional Information - Peter Ramstad, an adjacent property owner, submitted a letter to City Administrator Tom Hedges. The letter posed questions and asked that the City Attorney provide a response. These documents have been attached to the report for your information. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION The applicant is requesting approval of an Interim Use Permit to allow the boarding of up to seven horses for a three year term. Planning staff has reviewed appropriate requirements with the Dakota County Resource Conservationist. Because operations containing nine or fewer horses (in a shoreland zone) are not required to be permitted or registered with Dakota County or the State, the county Conservationist stated that jurisdiction lies with the City. And because of this city staff has determined that the site is not considered a feedlot. Further, based on review of the proposal and suggested conditions of approval by Dakota County, the DNR, staff from various City Departments and consultation with the City Attorney, it appears the site can accommodate seven horses if be managed appropriately. City policymakers should determine if seven horses are appropriate for the 5 acre site so as not to have a detrimental effect upon the adjoining park property and residential areas. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED To recommend approval of an Interim Use Permit to allow boarding of up to seven horses on property consisting of approximately 5 acres located at 4085 Lexington Avenue South, in the SE %4 of Section 22. 1. The Interim Use Permit shall be recorded at Dakota County within 60 days of approval by the City, and proof of recording shall be submitted to the City. 2. The permit shall terminate in three years (July 7, 2012). lq t Planning Report - Mell lUP June 23, 2009 Page 7 3. The Interim Use Permit shall be subject to an annual administrative review. The purpose of such review shall be to determine that the conditions of the permit are within compliance. The Interim Use Permit may be revoked for failure to comply with any condition of the permit following notice of the noncompliance and a hearing by the City Council with all interested parties being given an opportunity to be heard. 4. The premises shall be open for inspection by City and County agents and they shall be allowed access to inspect the premises. 5. The applicant shall meet all state environmental and water quality standards. 6. There shall be no more than 7 horses on the site for the purpose(s) of boarding and personal use. 7. No signage shall be displayed for advertising of the boarding facility. 8. The applicant shall maintain the existing fences to contain the horses and to prevent the animals from escaping onto neighboring properties or injuring the public. 9. No horses shall be buried on the property. 10. The applicant shall adhere to the MPCA guidelines for manure management. The composting shall occur outside the Shoreland Overlay district as identified on the Site Plan received June 10, 2009. The manure shall be picked up weekly and removed from the site on a biannual basis. 11. There shall be no additional removal of trees or vegetation of any kind on the property. 12. The applicant shall section off the lower paddock into thirds to reduce overgrazing and erosion of the property. An electrical fence shall be in place according to the maintenance plan in the narrative received June 8, 2009. 13. The applicant shall take and maintain measures to eliminate soil erosion from the subject property onto adjacent property. /ton Eagan Boundary Pightof-way Location Map Parcel Area Park Area ® Building Footprint P ® 0 0 + ~ /r A a • r i ■ s ~ • r r r r . AL -v r s ■ ~s Ila r■ • a. r +r ! r r s• o e ► a lr ~ a ■ Sub'ect Site ♦ M R a► i - LOU Vi' ~r • A A ~ ■ 11 f®i 1 ♦ r o . ® r t Oes r ~ A • t. a r ~ 1n ® ■ • 1~ A w► r f + ® ® of Fr t® + s ~ e ! 4 a ~ ~ r • s • L wa r r b ! / IN L a ` y r r ~s • r s r ■ ~ a rr r s 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet Development/Developer: Mell Application: Interim Use Permit Case No.: 22-IN-02-05-09 U N THIS MAP IS INTENDED FO REFERENCE USE ONLY w E City of Evan The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this information and are not responsible for errors or omissions. S ,,...........k Current Zoning and Comprehensive Guide Plan Moil Land Use Map Interim Use Permit 22-IN-02-05-09 ~ r 7 ~ ■ r Zoning Map* • ■ • ■ ■ • 1 ■ ■ Current Zoning: ■ • e r P A Agriculture P P °m Location A ■ o PF z ~w 's s PD aob o $Do 1206 r.0 PP PF Comprehensive Guide Plan Land Use Map . ■ ~ r e ■ + e Current Land Use Designation: P P - ; P LD Low Density Location io ti r ti • S P e z ~ e ~r f Y LA t t► • P pi QP QP aoo b o00 +sos r..t ~ • 4 Paroa1 base MOP lalormanoa Prer/Md by AVAMtz *MMy La" a1.ray DpaRmaot Daaabar 2001. N Zonkw hdormaaoa ma/ota/.ad by My Sttl►. W City Of F,a~BIl ~ THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY r~.e rr:►v of Eanan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this Information. S RECEIVED JUN 10 2009 LA so ~ m LL 0 LL L' SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 15 ACRES OF THE EAST I/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 I N 89042'31"W 661.25 (MEAS.) N89043 16 W 661.21 (PER DEED) 441.88 - \ 33 LL \ I _ O LL W A W Q N W ' 10 W W I.- \ . PR0P0SE0 LL Z a cli t- o (0 y N Y` 1 929 ~2 O O W N 1 C LLJ 00 r /1 ~S _ Z d c,-60L?- _j w F to o 0 _ tow \ > h w x ~n \ O 4' Ma~nwtc. Gew (n (n i A ! ri ( ; 70 33 1 9g3. 0,... c3 a A'-3'5 0 is E #J. \RON" S 89° 55'36" E 300.00 4 F,\\ w~ ,,~1 \ N rn -6h -v ai 1 \ O 33 l i °o z f S 89-55'36"E 361.64 (MEAS.) &,I-;pN 01cc 361,60 (PER DEED) 1 d v Q ~i.,t[ n l 1 `T b 10 to I 0 tbY+~d}tp, l~ t t`ttYtO+`~, S J I I L' ~r3 ?~I f k 1 j i Fat `4 C'#~' HP y.Yr1 (f r Wr, 4 ! "rSAiii. 'lr k..` 1 4;.: - •3•'Y+i" ~~".y~•'~~rtx" }•?i~~,*a'~~'~•t`,R.L a+,~ , ,r.3` ~ti'L i. v ~,.~51s *h,~,°~-.yi-~: LI~,y•Ya~.... 1 n. 4i~ "+E;. r~,~ - ~ ~ ~ i~ .l} `'!~,r~ :i.~[a~?I" ~ 4 t:':°z'~J'~ e i;~:'~~~' ~C„ j i"";. r'C ~ aR, ~~N~~~ s ry'~e,. Yn,•, k t,,t' ;..,4 tY l '~f1 lye, ~ 4`.,h ! q F.~ ±"~4 "'a. z ~ ~ r x rr ~t+ f t -,vt' ! ~k k -`i E `b ~+t~`R i ~ T'~''° -n r ct-'l. `k'" 'r w•. 4.' r ~ t a .."q,Uc ~,c s d r 1f h F N-. y, , ~ ~ ~ / m '7 t jou5JQi V a'4v`rt i } ~"^h' ,'r .'r a -S,m x's + .a. ' { TT^k^ X1'1 f `rf' 4 RtL ,gym 1' _ s ~ 7 s ~ S 't 4 {r 1,~ ~ vz E r t ~r' t L !w+ Iva' - a R'• - ~5 r„1 jtxiC k Barn i Park 1t 4 k t;` k ; , } r r Rass 7.1 k Wark nie t BARN f ti~ ~ j ~l rr~l l l ~ i 1 ~ r~~ f~i~ ll~f~'f~~ r s f . ~ ~ M 7'y ~~we" ~'2~ ~~y f .1~ £ 1r- ~ R r,~4~.,_ `iea ~y CLEARING E= /0(,0 A4, G k. I 3-15-09 ~e v ~ Se b City of Eagan, RECEIVED JUN 0810 Please let me introduce my family. We are a family of 6 and have lived in Eagan for 8-years. We moved from a house in Eagan just 2.5 miles away from this home when we found this hidden gem of a property. We have 4-children from ages 10-14 and are very active in the community. We are true horse enthusiasts, riding both dressage and western pleasure. My children are very active in sports and 4-H with the Dakota County Wranglers. I am a stay-at-home mom who has turned my love of horses into a business called The Haughty Horse. This is an internet only business that I developed to fill a void in the horse world. I sell bright, unusual horse tack. Horse tack consists of everything a rider needs to ride a horse; halters, bridles, saddle pads ...etc. I am a former broadcast journalist, an interior designer and owner of a retail store in Minneapolis. My husband, John Schonberg, works as a portfolio manager for River Source, a division of Ameriprise Financial. In addition to thehaughtyhorse.com I am currently working with the Dakota County Sheriff's Mounted Patrol. I volunteer my time for search and rescue, search and recovery, National Night Out, parades, escorts, crowd control and any other work where horses can help with needs in Dakota County and surrounding communities. Just last year there were six suicides and many lost children in Lebanon Hills. This property on Lexington is a dream come true for our family. We have a few horses that we own and train. Our plan for this property is quite simple. We want this property to always be our home. This is where we reside full time and we want its integrity to remain as such. We love the privacy and want to keep it that way. It is very important to us that our children have a safe, quiet environment to play and grow. We plan to be here at this home for a very long time. We want to raise our children here and live here long enough to retire in this peaceful environment. The reason for this interim use permit is a simple one. My daughter would like to allow a couple of her friends, who also own horses, to reside or "board" here at our home. We would need the permit so that the City of Eagan is aware that we would in the future have a couple of horses that are not owned by us on our property. Our family does not wish for this to be a mega "boarding" facility. We would like to invite these two families to keep their horses here come spring or early summer. Owning AD F horses is a wonderful opportunity and an enormous responsibility. But riding alone is quite frankly, pretty boring for the rider. I would like to see my daughter have one or two frie'iids`t`tilde-with- i hereon our property. (Please insert riding arena narrative here.) Our plans are for a 60x90 arena so I can ride daily. It is April 15` and snowing. An arena clearly is a must on horse properties in Minnesota. Because we don't wish to be a boarding facility we don't ever plan to hang signs on the street, we have no plans to advertise, draw crowds, and be open to the public because for us this is our private home. We do not want people driving in knowing horses are here. From the road a passerby would never know. We definitely want to keep it that way. Privacy is important to us. We also don't plan to have lots of traffic in and out of our driveway because it is to remain a home first and foremost. An occasional trailer will come in and out to transport our horse(s) to and from my Mounted Patrol activities and my daughters' summer shows. We understand how unusual it is to have property zoned agriculture in the heart of Eagan. We also know the original owner/builder quite well as he trains both myself and my daughter in dressage. We understand that there have been no prior guidelines in Eagan for such property use. Many properties are not zoned agriculture. We are very sensitive to the needs of our immediate neighbors. That is why we plan to keep the integrity of the property the same. Horses are herd animals which means they are better kept in small groups. They remain calm and are happy, content and easier to manage if kept in a herd. It is better for horses to have space to roam. Too many horses can overcrowd them and give them less grass to graze on during the day. Some horses prefer stalls, some do not. It is not normal to keep horses stalled. Horses pace, feel trapped and are like "caged animals" when kept in a stall. Some people will add a cow or sheep for a horse for company even. We have no plans or desires for any such animals. This is not a hobby farm. If horses do not have hours of adequate exercise in a day they can "founder" or have swollen muscles and joints. A horse is of no use with bad legs. Therefore, it doesn't matter how many stalls a property has. We use stalls for injuries, sickness, quarantine, vet visits, teeth floating, spring shots, de-worming or show prep primarily. If horses need shelter from hail storms, wind or sun it is a common practice to use a run-in shed (a three-sided non-permanent structure that allows the horse to stand under for protection). It is similar to a bus shelter. The property has a 10 by 20 shelter in the back paddock. Horses are self insulators. That means they grow thick coats beginning in the fall for winter protection. They gain weight for winter self maintenance. Even snow on a horses' back is. a layer of protection for the horse. It is an insulator. Come spring horses "shed-out". This means they shed their coats for spring and summer warmer months. Their coat then turns to a much shorter pile. This property comes with a 3-stall barn. It has a large hay loft, a trainer's room and tack areas. We currently have 4-of our horses here. One of ours is in training at another facility off of the property. That means we currently own 5-horses. The property essentially will remain in status quo. We would just like the option to allow a couple of other 4-H friends who also own horses to join ours. *The paragraphs in this revised narrative with asterisks are new. We have made revisions to try to meet the concerns of our neighbor Pete Ramstad. We have put a tremendous effort into these new challenges and have tried to meet him half way and work with his concerns. *As a new condition for an IUP we have decided to lower the request of horses to 7- animal units. Seven horses in total would reside on the property. To work with our neighbor, Mr. Pete Ramstad, we have agreed to house 5-horses in the lower paddock and 2-horses in the upper paddock. The upper paddock will be reduced in size when a future riding arena is complete. As a result of this change, the existing upper run-in shed will need to be updated and repaired. No other permanent structures will be added as part of the IUP. Also as a new requirement we have agreed that there shall be no more than two boarding clients. Each client can board multiple horses that they own personally. 00'&*Our plan for the lower paddock area will include sectioning off the lower half to one-third of that paddock to control horse access. The paddock will be divided using electrical fencing. This division and will allow for vegetative growth. This division will reduce overgrazing and erosion of the property. A maintenance plan of timely rotations including 2-weeks on and 2-weeks off will allow vegetative growth. These horses get daily exercise by being ridden or lunged on a long lunge line. When they are in their paddock they are usually eating a supplemented meal, resting or sleeping. /0 *If there is a case of a deceased animal on the property another condition will be that we do not bury the animal on our property. Therefore our large animal veterinarian Cleary Lake Veterinary Hospital will guide us to proper pick-up and disposal of our beloved animal. We also plan to compost for manure management Horse manure with age turns to black dirt This dirt we will then use as mulch and ground fill and gardening beds around our 5-acre property. This will provide us with a free, easy source of compost which is a valuable addition to our paddock grasses, gardens and yard. It is also great for our horseless neighbors. Ultimately it will make our property more pleasing to look at for us and for our neighbors. *On a small farm composting horse manure can be quite effective and manageable. Manure is picked up already on a daily basis at our home both in the paddock and stalls. Manure pick-up is as simple as a stall fork and a bucket (similar in size to a round plastic party tub with 2-handles purchased at Target). This daily pick-up reduces the chance of flies breeding in hot summer months, odors and the chance of manure contamination runoff. Since we have a small amount of horses composting isn't difficult. Currently the manure is on a high area outside the barn. We have agreed to change the location to a new spot out of the water shed district to an area near the upper paddock area. All manure will be picked up from the paddock areas weekly and added to the composting system. We will incur a new cost of renting a specialized portable manure containment system being made for us by NBW Horse Farm Service. This is a monthly cost of $300. Ours will be specially sealed to stop any leakage from the container. This is a 4-sided "dumpster like" container that is used at Canterbury Farms. The material in the container will be removed from the property twice yearly. *For all neighbors within 350 feet, who request it, advanced 24-hour will be provided before any pesticides or poisons are used on the property. *After speaking to two large animal Equine Veterinarians about soil Ph, their similar response was that horse manure, made up of grass, hay and grain will aid in the production of grass growth and "couldn't be a more natural aid and fertilizer for the soil." They also said that "22-gallons" of urine is not an accurate estimation unless each horse's urine supply is measured. They agreed that horse urine will not upset soil, ,f ph and that they are not aware of any such test. They did say however that a "much greater concern should be both deer and raccoon feces/urine, not that of any horse." Much research has been done by my husband and me with our best efforts and intentions. This IUP certainly guarantees that The City of Eagan will be able to make regular checks and balances on us and our property. That is why an IUP keeps the checks and balances on the individual owners instead of the property. We feel a fair reasonable term for the IUP would be three years. *Our immediate and closest proximity neighbors the Vogt's and the Spring's have spoken twice at both planning and council meetings in support of our plans. They have welcomed these new horses and my family with amazing support! They want these horses to reside at 4085 Lexington Ave. S. They would like to see the tradition of equine friends continue and they are pleased that this home now has a family who love it and the property equally. Our love of this property was because of its beauty, the wonderful amount of trees, its proximity to Patrick Eagan Park, its zoning, the serene environment, etc. Trust that we do not want to change any of that! Sincerely, Maggie Mell *additional information l2 Something to consider: In a side note that is not involved with this permit, I would like to propose to the city to allow me to ride in Patrick Eagan Park. It is a beautiful park that reminds me much of Lebanon Hills where I currently ride. After speaking to many female Eagan residents there seems to be a safety fear of local women walking or jogging alone thru Patrick Eagan Park. I would like to propose to volunteer my time and patrol the park as often as you would like. This would mean I would take a walk along the trails either in or out of uniform and check the trails on horseback. The Dakota County Sheriffs Mounted Patrol does just this for Lebanon Hills during the parks open riding season. The goal is to patrol for the safety of Dakota County residents. We also can check for dogs on leashes, lost walkers, trailer entrance fee etc. If The City of Eagan would ever be interested in something like this please feel free to speak to me. Lebanon Hills charges $5.00 a rider or a season permit saddle tag. This adds revenue to Dakota County Parks. Patrick Eagan has a wonderful setting for horses. There is a common misconception that horses' hooves erode a walking path. Well this is just not the case. Horses do not impact the ground any differently than people or June 9, 2009 Mr. Tom Hedges, City Administrator JUN I a ~Q City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 RE: Mell Boarding IUP Application Dear Mr. Hedges: With the decision of the City Council to move towards an Interim Use Permit for the Mell Boarding project, it starts the process over. One advantage of this "restart" is that is also provides a fresh opportunity for all involved to look at the key issues and hopefully find common understanding. There were some key questions that I had regarding the process that I felt would be most appropriate for the City Attorney to clarify. I had tried to raise these issues at the City Council meeting, but that is not a good forum for dialog on issues that may be seen by many as technical. On the pages that follow, I have summarized my questions into three specifics areas: • Requirement to plat the land under provision 13.02 • Minimum lot size requirement for horses under provision 10.12 • Feedlot definition under provision 10.65 In sending this letter, I am hoping that I can either receive a formal response to my questions, or have the opportunity to dialog directly with the City Attorney. Thank you in advance your help in this regard. Sincerely, Pete Ramstad 4135 Lexington Way Eagan, MN 55123 Contact Info: Home: (651) 681-1772 Cell: (952) 380-6967 e-mail: PRamstad(a comcast.net W k L/ Question #1 I would tike to understand why provisions of Sec. 13.02 did not apply in the sale of this land. When this question was raised at the City Council meeting, the City Attorney correctly stated that there were significant allowances for properties that predated the ordinance. I agree with that. However, I went to the Dakota County Recorders office and did the research on the history of the land. Here are the relevant facts: 1) The lot is defined by metes and bounds per the legal description 2) The lot is just over five acres 3) The lot is less than 300 feet wide 4) The Vogts did sell the land to the Springs until 1985. (Warranty deed dated June 17, 1985. Dakota county document #694308) Here is the relevant extract of the city ordinance. Sec. 13.02. Jurisdiction. Subd. 1. Filing of conveyance of land No conveyance of land to which these regulations are applicable shall be filed or recorded with the county recorder's office if the land is described in the conveyance by metes and bounds or by reference to an unapproved registered land survey made after April 21, 1961, or to an unapproved plat made after such regulations became effective. The foregoing provision does not apply to a conveyance if the land described: A. Was a separate parcel of record as of December 21, 1954; or B. Was a separate parcel of not less than 2 1/2 acres in area and 150 feet in width on January 1, 1966; or C. Was a single parcel of land of not less than five acres and having a width of not less than 300 feet, on July 1, 1980. D. Is a single parcel of commercial or industrial land of not less than five acres and having a width of not less than 300 feet and its conveyance does not result in the division of the parcel into two or more lots or parcels, any one of which is less than five acres in area or 300 feet in width. E. Is a single parcel of residential or agricultural land of not less than 20 acres and having a width of not less than 500 feet and its conveyance does not result in the division of the parcel into two or more lots or parcels, any one of which is less than 20 acres in area or 500 feet in width. Mg A I thought that his is very relevant to the Mell project, because I believe that the issues of determining the proper land use would be much more appropriate within the context of a zoning and variance discussion, rather than an CUP or IUP. Many of the issues deal with horses on a small lot within a shoreland district, not necessarily the issues unit to boarding. Once the zoning and variance issues are addressed for the property as a whole, then it would be appropriate to consider an IUP or a CUP. Now, I wonder what are the implications of having to consider variance and other issues for the lot, after one CUP for the lot is already been approved. Does this not "prejudice" the variance decisions that need to be made? There are at least two important variances relevant to this property that must be considered during the platting process. In light of the facts above and the documents which I have attached, does the City Attorney still believe that 13.02 did not apply to this land? A individLISI (9) to intTenuts S±Ai"_ )F KINNE$OTA ~ CLL'nv' 7' C2NOta tS 694, m3i is R No delinquent taxes and transfer entered; Certificate C r>it° c! CC.:; n`: ?e ardR~ of Real Estate Value ( ) filed ( -)not required Certificate of Real Estate; Value No. E on er: 1= : ?for sha. . 19--> ---1:s ;,ir.cygs• i day oy at=2 / l r~ :sr tli_y5b St_•11~^•;'d : County Auditor iAPXI_~4 N. I by 114.1 C i:pty' i- . jv Deputy STATE DEED) TAX DUE HEREON: $ 11.00 /~s CDs .qty Date: L 7 , 19 B5 ibZg (reseed for datd) FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, DALE F VOGT and DORIS L VOGT husband and wife Grantor (s), ]msttat ttewd hereby convey (s) and warrant (s) to ERIC P. SPRING and DEBORAH A. SPRING, J husband and wife , Grantees as joint tenants, real property in Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: i That part of the E1/2 of the E1/2 of the SE1/4 of Section 22, Township 27, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as commencing at the Southeast corner of said I SEl/4; thence North 0°04'24" East, assumed bearing, along the East line of said SE1/4 1110 feet; thence North 89°55'36" West 300 feet; thence North 0°04'24" East ! 140.66 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence North 0°04'24" East 109.34 feet; thence South 89°55'36" East 300 feet to the East line of said SE1/4; thence North 0°04'24" East along said East line 268.37 feet to the South line of the North 15 acres of the El/2 of the NE1/4 of the SE1/4; thence North 89°43'16" West along said South line of the North 15 acres 661.21 feet to the West line of said E1/2 of the East 1/2 of the SE1/4; thence South 0°07'52" Weat along said West line 380.08 feet to its intersection with a line that bears North 89°55'36" West from the point of beginning; thence South 89°?5'36" Fast 361 fe%t it~o the actual point of beginning. 1 1, more sped is needed, inn owe on iCk)- j together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto, subject to the following exceptions: Dale F Vo . ~I n. tL...:i i.i~' 11an1ti ~1F•I•• :~j i; Doris Vo& STATE OF MINNESOTA Ss. DAKOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of J .4 e 19-15- by ,Grantor(s). fa/ DALE F. VOGT and DORIS L• VOGT, husband an wi NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL (OR OTHER TITLE Oa RANx5 91GNATtntE or TERNOO ~e GA OWLIMOMENT ~~met shonlQ M smt to Ge R °r Off)'. tbu PAUL K HAUGE Is Mr em-ftwoft AW 16Mi"iwOct16 im - ERIC P. SPRING and DEBORAH A. SPRING 4065 Lexington Avenue South Eagan, Minnesota 55123 THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAlTED aY (NAME AND ADDRESs)7 Paul H. Hauge / . HMGE, SMITH 6 EIDE, P.A. 3908 Sibley "femorial Highway C (Lit?(~ Eagan, MN 55122 (612) 454-4224 /C•L2~~r~ j ~u /17 i _ 5_1 ~e~ . Question #2 1 do not understand the interaction between Section 10.12, and the definitions of land uses under the zoning provisions of Chapter 11 as it was described by the city attorney. When I raised this issue at the City Council meeting, I understood the city attorney to say that 10.12 was not relevant, as the uses permitted under the Ag zoning district in Chapter 11 would have precedent over Chapter 10. However, within Chapter 11.30, "Agricultural Use" is a defined term, as follows: Agricultural use means the commercial use of land for the production for sale of agricultural products as defined in Minnesota Statutes chapter 273, as may be amended. My initial review of the Minnesota Statue cited did not seem to have anything related to the personal use of horses on the property. Rather, they seemed to define the standards of agricultural use necessary for certain property tax provisions, etc. I do not understand where in Chapter 11 the right to keep horses on the property is specifically established at all. But even if it is established in Chapter 11 that horses are a permitted use, there would still be a conflict between that right (if it exists) and the more restrictive provisions of Section 10.12. 1 can accept that when there are conflicts between the chapters, that there must be a process to have them resolved, and the language within Chapter 11 shown below seems to clarify that: Sec. 11.40. General provisions. Subd.I Application. B. Where the conditions imposed by any provisions of this chapter are either more restrictive or less restrictive than comparable conditions imposed by any other law, Code provision, statute, resolution or regulation of any kind, the regulations which are more restrictive or which impose higher standards or requirements shall prevail. Finally, there have not been any horses on the lot for more than a decade. Is there not at some point in a time that the grandfathered use is lost? I would like to get a better understanding from the City Attorney for his advice to the City Council that Chapter 11 overrides Chapter 10 in this context, and why the provisions of 10.12 are not relevant in this specific situation. ll~ ~f 7 f Question #3 There have been some questions related to feedlots. In asking the question here, I am only trying to address the concerns that I have based on the provisions that have been adopted into the Eagan ordinances, and therefore appropriately addressed at the city level, specifically Section 11.65. The City Attorney noted at the City Council meeting that there is not a definition of "feedlot" within the city ordinances. What I am not clear about is who establishes the definition when the code is not specific? At one point, I thought that he said that this (the definition of feedlot) would be something for the City Council to decide. My specific question is this: Who determines the definition? City Attorney, City Administrator, City Council? Also, has the City Attorney provided any specific guidance on the appropriate definition of "feedlot" for use within this context? 1~ RECEIVED JUN 121009 Sarah Thomas We answer the three questions posed as follows: 1. Applicability of City Code Section 13.02. We have not researched when the initial tract was subdivided and created. As we understand, the property contains 5.01 acres. If the property did not meet the requirements, the City was not advised by the Dakota County Recorder's office of the conveyance. Nevertheless, the property is now being platted prior to obtaining any building permit thereby making this issue moot. If the property now contains less than 5.01 acres of a result of any right-of-way dedication, the City typically would not penalize the property owner to claim that they no longer have five acres as a result of a right-of-way dedication. 2. Interaction between Section 10.12 of City Code and Chapter 11. Section 1.0.12, subd. 2 allows farm animals to be kept in property that is zoned "agricultural" containing not less than five acres. As noted above, if as a result of platting the property now contains less than five acres because of right-of-way dedication, we do not penalize a property owner as a result of dedication to the land for a public purpose. City Code Section 11.60, subd. 3, defines the permitted uses in an agricultural district. The intent of the agricultural district is for agricultural uses and related activities. Under City Code Section 11.60, subd. 3(c), conditional uses include boarding stables and riding stables. As such, the City, through its Zoning Code, has determined that horse-related activities can be a conditional use. In this instance, the Council has requested, and the property owner has agreed, to apply for an interim use permit. 3. Definition of "Feedlots." There is no definition of "feedlots" in City Code. In the staff report, staff has contacted the MPCA and it provides regulation of feedlots when there are more than 10 horses. The staff has. also discussed this matter with the Dakota County Resource Conservationist. The County has opined that because operations containing nine or fewer horses are not required to be permitted or registered with Dakota County or the state, jurisdiction will lie with the City. As such, it is a legislative decision by the City Council whether to issue an interim use permit to allow the boarding of the seven horses at the property. Robert B. Bauer Severson, Sheldon, Dougherty & Molenda, P.A. 7300 West 147th Street, Suite 600 Apple Valley, MN 55124 Office (952) 432-3136 Fax (952) 432-3780 Direct (952) 953-8847 S Severson, Sheldon, Dougherty & Motenda, P.A. EVERSO SHELDON Attorneys I Advisors Confidentiality Notice: This message and any attachments contain confidential information intended only for use by the named addressee(s) and may contain legally privileged and/or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, retain or take any action In reliance on the contents of this message or any attachments. If you received this email in error, please notify us Immediately by telephone at 952-432-3136, or by reply email, and immediately destroy and delete this email message and any attachments from your system. Thank you. Electronic Transactions Disclaimer: Disclaimer Regarding Uniform Electronic Transactions Act ("UETA"). Minn. Stat. 325L.01-325L.19. If this communication concerns negotiation of a contract or agreement, UETA does not apply to this communication. Contract formation In this matter shall occur only with manually-affixed original signatures on original documents unless otherwise specifically agreed in writing. D Ilk/ RECEIVED JUN 2 5 2009 BY: C O U N T Y DAK-INT 100220001276-060709 DRAFT Interim Permit for the Correction of a Pollution Hazard at an Animal Feedlot or Manure Storage Area Having a Capacity of 999 Animal Units or Less Owner(s) Name(s): Maggie Mel] Legal Name of Facility: Hidden Horse Stables Address: 4085 Lexington Ave. S, Eagan, MN 55123 Location: SE SE Section 22 T27N R23 W (City of Eagan) Animal Type(s): Horses Maximum Animal Unit Capacity: 7 Types of Animal Holding Areas: Total confinement barn, partial confinement barn & open lot. Type(s) of Manure Storage Areas: Permanent manure stockpile. Pollution Hazard(s) Identified at Facility: Feedlot located in shoreland resuming operation. ISSUANCE DATE: 7-6-2009 EXPIRATION DATE: 7-6-2011 Upon issuance this permit provides authorization to operate the existing facilities described in the owner's permit application and related submittals while plans are developed and implemented to eliminate the pollution hazards identified at the facility. This permit covers owners and operators of animal feedlots and manure storage areas meeting the criteria in Minn. R. 7020.0405, subpart 1, Item C. The owner of the facility covered under this permit shall comply with the planning, design, construction, notification and operation requirements of Minn. R. parts 7020.2000 to 7020.2225, and all applicable requirements in Minn. Stat. chs. 115 and 116, as amended, and Minn. R. chs. 7001, 7020, 7050 and 7060. The owner shall also comply with the schedules and requirements listed in the General Conditions and the Site Specific Conditions on of this permit. If construction at the facility will disturb one acre or more, the owner must follow all applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) described in MPCA fact sheet Storm-water control requirements atfeedlot construction sites, dated March, 2003. This permit shall become effective on the issuance date identified above, and supersedes any previous Minnesota Pollution Control Agency feedlot permit that was issued to this facility. A copy of this permit must be kept on file at the facility at all time ermit expires at midnight on the expiration date identified above. J~f hA Signature: 'YL Tom Berr7Dako ou nty Feedlot Officer Interim Permit DAK-INT t00220001276-060709 7-6-2009 1 a l Page 1 of 3 Minn. P. 7020 INTERIM PERWr I. GENERAL CONDUIONS: TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMITS (7001.0150, subp. 3) A. The agency's issuance of a permit does not release the permittee from any liability, penalty, or duty imposed by Minnesota or federal statutes or rules or local ordinances, except the obligation to obtain the permit. B. The agency's issuance of a permit does not prevent the future adoption by the agency of pollution control rules, standards, or orders more stringent than those now in existence and does not prevent the enforcement of these rules, standards, or orders against the permittee. C. The permit does not convey a property right or an exclusive privilege. D. The agency's issuance of a permit does not obligate the agency to enforce local laws, rules, or plans beyond that authorized by Minnesota statutes. E. The permittee shall perform the actions or conduct the activity authorized by the permit in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the agency and in compliance with the conditions of the permit. F. The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain the facilities and systems of treatment and control and the appurtenances related to them which are installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit. Proper operation and maintenance includes effective performance, adequate funding, adequate operator staffing and training, and adequate laboratory and process controls, including appropriate quality assurance procedures. The permittee shall install and maintain appropriate backup or auxiliary facilities if they are necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit and, for all permits other than hazardous waste facility permits, if these backup or auxiliary facilities are technically and economically feasible. G. The permittee may not knowingly make a false or misleading statement, representation, or certification in a record, report, plan, or other document required to be submitted to the agency or to the commissioner by the permit. The permittee shall immediately upon discovery report to the commissioner an error or omission in these records, reports, plans, or other documents. H. The permittee shall, when requested by the commissioner, submit within a reasonable time the information and reports that are relevant to the control of pollution regarding the construction, modification, or operation of the facility covered by the permit or regarding the conduct of the activity covered by the permit. 1. When authorized by Minnesota Statutes, sections 115.04; 115B.17, subdivision 4; and 116.091, and upon presentation of proper credentials, the agency, or an authorized employee or agent of the agency, shall be allowed by the permittee to enter at reasonable times upon the property of the permittee to examine and copy books, papers, records, or memoranda pertaining to the construction, modification, or operation of the facility covered by the permit or pertaining to the activity covered by the permit; and to conduct surveys and investigations, including sampling or monitoring, pertaining to the construction, modification, or operation of the facility covered by the permit or pertaining to the activity covered by the permit. J. If the permittee discovers, through any means, including notification by the agency, that noncompliance with a condition of the permit has occurred, the permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize the adverse impacts on human health, public drinking water supplies, or the environment resulting from the noncompliance. K. If the permittee discovers that noncompliance with a condition of the permit has occurred which could endanger human health, public drinking water supplies, or the environment, the permittee shall, within 24 hours of the discovery of the noncompliance, orally notify the commissioner. Within five days of the discovery of the noncompliance, the permittee shall submit to the commissioner a written description of the noncompliance; the cause of the noncompliance; the exact dates of the period of the noncompliance; if the noncompliance has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance. L. The permittee shall report noncompliance with the permit not reported under item K as a part of the next report which the permittee is required to submit under this permit. If no reports are required within 30 days of the discovery of the noncompliance, the permittee shall submit the information listed in item K within 30 days of the discovery of the noncompliance. M.. The permittee shall give advance notice to the commissioner as soon as possible of planned physical alterations or additions to the permitted facility or activity that may result in noncompliance with a Minnesota or federal pollution control statute or rule or a condition of the permit. N. The permit is not transferable to any person without the express written approval of the agency after compliance with the requirements of part 7001.0190, or 7020.0405, subpart 4 if applicable. A person to whom the permit has been transferred, or reissued, shall comply with the conditions of the permit. 0. The permit authorizes the permittee to perform the activities described in the permit under the conditions of the permit. In issuing the permit, the state and agency assume no responsibility for damage to persons, property, or the environment caused by the activities of the permittee in the conduct of its actions, including those activities authorized, directed, or undertaken under the permit. To the extent the state and agency may be liable for the activities of its employees, that liability is explicitly limited to that provided in the Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes, section 3.736. Interim Permit DAK-INT 100220001276-060709 7-6-2009 Page 2 of 3 II. SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS A. Pollution Hazards 1. The feedlot listed on page 1 of this Interim Permit resuming operation has.been identified as creating a potential pollution hazard to McCarthy Lake. 2. This permit provides authorization to operate the existing feedlot while a written description is developed that specifies how the feedlot and manure will be managed to comply with all MPCA feedlot and manure requirements. 3. The owner shall minimize the pollution hazards at the facility until the written description is approved, established, and fully operational. B. Plans and Schedules 1. The written description, as described in part A.2, shall be developed and submitted to Dakota County by July 31, 2009. C. Operation and Maintenance 1. Operation of the facility shall be in accordance with and limited to the operation described in the permit application and the written description of feedlot and manure management. 2. Any discharge of manure from the facility as the result of permanent manure stockpile overflow, or from any other source shall be reported to Dakota County. This report shall be made to Dakota County or to the MPCA Duty Officer (1-800422-0798) within 24 hours of the discharge. The permittee shall take immediate measures within reason to contain and recover the discharge and to prevent the discharge from reaching surface waters. D. Reporting 1. No later than 10 days following each required submittal date identified in part B.1, the Permittee shall submit either a report of progress or, in the case of specific actions being required by identified dates, a written notice of compliance or noncompliance. In the latter case, the notice shall include the probability of meeting the next scheduled requirements. The reports shall be submitted to: Brad Becker Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District 4100 22& Street West, Suite 102 Farmington, MN 55024 3 BEST & FLANAGAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-4690 Telephone 612 339 7121 Facsimile 612 339 5897 www.bestlaw.com Direct: 612-349-5653 RECEIVED JUL 0 12009 Email. gsoule@bestlaw.com July 1, 2009 Mr. Michael G. Dougherty City Attorney for the City of Eagan 1Callr•r cl:,rr :111," r). B:,rnanl Severson, Sheldon, Dougherty & Molenda, P.A. drip 7,~po West s47cn Street Suite #6oo Mm,;a F. Ranpr Apple Valley, MN 553.24 .lobo A. B",ton, h'. Juror: C. Dirarlr. II.•11,•I111ME: Mell Boarding IUP Application 1tnle•„ 1.. NrBrr..h. Your File No. 2o6-28906 ~,•.,n D. r [N. Ch:"irs C. Br•rq"ia E. Jo \I. t.llr"',•,. E Dear Mr. Dougherty: o.rph Lal'ar r Gregory I). Grade C"th\ F:. Gatlin 141tri,•k It. II,•"n,•::, I am writing this letter on behalf of our clients, Peter and Janice Ramstad. I was engaged by Mr. and '`""III„ ,\•"Ili`"" Mrs. Ramstad shortly after the Eagan Advisory Planning Commission recommended the above D;mirl R.'I\.wn Daniel 10\: v°'••..o referenced project for approval, notwithstanding the concerns that Mr. Ramstad raised at the David J./."bkr si-ii 1t. 1:1„err Planning Commission's public hearing and at the City Council meeting where the CUP was initially Poll, I: C. r""'inl,"ru .11 8,,.:.. G considered. In representing Mr. and Mrs. Ramstad, I am advising them on some key aspects of the Alan. h:. Sla•an•" but this should not in any way Prevent direct engagement between the City staff and Mr. Barbara NI. 8....: project, tY t::ltl,rrillr• J. (:,,l:rtll,•)and Mrs. Ramstad regarding these issues and there is no need to route all communications through Smith Crippr" 11;u1i-ii 1). me regarding this matter. David 11. ,1"lu,rnn Chri<taplu•r D..I"ha."" Ji11 B. I:mn In my discussions with Mr. Ramstad, he has a number of objections to this project that are based on 1)""„ I ~:1111"" the City Code. While Mr. Ramstad has significant experience in le ai matt ers he is not an attorne :1-11-\. tirhrmrl. tY legaI matt Ilradh•, I: 1\ illi°"'. we has asked me to review his concerns regarding the project and ensure that they are relevant to C\whia L. Ilv;wnc I)ilri.l C. \IIIr1111\ the City's evaluation. For those issues that I think present a reasonable legal basis for concern, he Iil•1"''°'. t:1,:lrh' has asked me to summarize those issues in this letter. h:hcard 1'. Shell Jnhll D. .•i".•r In my discussions with Mr. Ramstad, he also reaffirmed that the Ramstads are not opposed to Fiw J"Drnr Donal having horses on the applicant's property, subject to a reasonable set of conditions. These 1)"1111i. `.''""•.11. conditions would include limiting the number of horses in the lower (western) paddock area to Kathleen }I. Dulc K:It11 1 i,1 three horses. As I understand the situation, that is the number of horses that is currently kept Said, 1'. li"Irr there, and consistent with the number of horses that were maintained there when the original Brigid )1. Go'owner of the property built the home and barn (approximately 1987). Mr. Ramstad also notes that 11 I!nIl I.. 01` 1 , this would be entirely consistent with the letter that was provided by the City to the applicant's KrWill I.. h-wr-ii realtor in October, 2oo8 before they purchased the property. uF,'ul S<Fa. J,I i R. Carroll R,lbrrt L C-h*, Richard I'rtr•l•uI I and 11.:\ddin;ro.ll FM Vnen 11136 aL - Mr. Michael G. Dougherty July 1, 2009 Page 2 of 9 Mr. and Mrs. Ramstad are concerned with the proposed boarding permit. They are concerned with it because making the property a commercial operation does not seem consistent with the neighborhood land use, and because it would represent a substantial increase in the density of horses that would likely be kept on the property. While not opposed to the existing horses on the property, they note that there have been important changes to the relevant ordinances and regulations that govern the property, in particular both shoreland and feedlot regulations that restrict such use. At their request, I have summarized a number of the most relevant issues as they relate to the City of Eagan considering the applicant's request for a boarding IUP. 1. Authority to issue an Interim Use Permit In his letter to Ms. Sarah Thomas (June 21, 2009) and at the most recent public hearing, Mr. Ramstad raised his concern with issuing an IUP for a property where there are violations of the City Code on the property. I note that Mr. Ramstad proactively tried to raise this issue of the City's authority as quickly as he became aware of it through his letter, and that his specific questions were not addressed in any response he has received, so we are not aware of the City's position on these issues. The authority to issue an IUP is provided under City Code Section 22.50, subd. 6(C) and defines the specific criteria that must be satisfied. 1 concur with Mr. Ramstad when he notes that the sixth criterion is very relevant. Inexplicably, this condition was omitted from the Staff Planning Report. Putting the introduction of paragraph (C) with the sixth element of the criteria list of that paragraph makes the requirement of the Code very clear: The Council may issue interim use permits for an interim use of property if the City determines that the property is in compliance with the City Code. The fact that the property is not in compliance with the City Code is undisputed. Specific examples that are acknowledged by the City staff would include, but are not limited to: (i) an encroachment onto Patrick Eagan Park; and (ii) the building of the new shelter without a building permit. Additionally, we believe that the property must be platted before an [UP can be considered by the City. The approach that the City would appear to be taking is that any existing violations can be addressed by having conditions that in effect result in the property coming into compliance if the conditions are met. However, clearly these criteria are prerequisites or preconditions of any legal Council action, not conditions subsequent. Quite simply, the "conditions subsequent" strategy of the City is not supported by language that is contained within City Code. The ordinance is quite specific and the result is that the City must determine that the property is in compliance rp for to the Council action to approve an IUP. The requirement is that the applicant bring the property into compliance before the City Council can consider issuing an IUP. In addition, some of the violations are a direct result of the applicant's own actions. Finally, satisfying the platting requirement will create a parcel of less than 5 acres, creating additional violations of the Agricultural District zoning requirements and of the Public Protection Chapter (Section 10.12) of the City Code. Therefore it is even more critical that these conditions be ) QS- Mr. Michael G. Dougherty July 2, 2009 Page 3 of 9 satisfied before Council will be in a position to adequately consider the relevant issues associated with the IUP. I would note that this is not in any real way a hardship on the applicant. The property must be platted, and building permits must be obtained. The horses cannot be boarded until such time as these conditions are addressed. It does change the order of the administrative review processes, but this is quite appropriate in this situation, as one of the positive outcomes of following the proper procedure sequence is that the Council will need to consider the necessary variances to maintain the Agriculture district zoning that is a precondition of the application, as the proposed interim use is not allowed except in Agriculture districts. 2. Newly Constructed Run-In Shelter (Accessory Structure) In the letter of June 23., 2009 to Ms. Thomas, Mr. Ramstad noted that it was his belief that the shelterthat the applicant built in the lower (western) paddock was not only in violation of the City Code due to not having a building permit, but was also not in compliance with the zoning ordinance. I have reviewed your memo to Mr. Hedges of June 23, 2009. In that memo you make two points in response to Mr. Ramstad's concerns regarding the legality of the shelter. First you suggest that the issue is rendered moot by the City's requirement that Ms. Mell obtain a building permit prior to the issuance of the IUP. However, neither obtaining a building permit nor the requisite platting of the property were included as conditions of the IUP in either the Staff Report or the recommendation of the Planning Commission. There seems to be an assumption that they are not required because they were included as conditions of the previously issued CUP for the riding area. However, just because they were required conditions of a separate CUP does not satisfy the requirements of the separate IUP. As a result, your memo to Mr. Hedges is not consistent with the conditions as stated on the staff report or as provided in the recommendation for approval by the Planning Commission. Of a more fundamental concern however is your contention that, "So long as the building is associated with the main use of the property, it would not be characterized as an accessory structure." This confused Mr. Ramstad, as both the initial CUP Staff Report and the Agenda Information Memo prepared by the staff for the CUP review by the Council referred to the shelter as an accessory structure. Upon review of the issue, I do not believe it is the correct interpretation of the City Code in general, and in these facts and circumstances in particular. The applicant was very clear about the primary or main use of the property. In the initial application, Ms. Mell states, "Our plan for this property is quite simple. We want this property to always be our home. This is where we plan to reside full time and we want its integrity to remain as such." Later in the application, she states that there should not be any concern over traffic in the driveway "because it is to remain a home first and foremost." The emphasis by the applicant on residential use as the primary use is consistent with the City Code, and confirms the status of the shed as an "accessory structure." According to the definition of "agricultural use" in Section 3.1.30, Ms. Mell does not intend any "agricultural use" of the /CXP Mr. Michael G. Dougherty July 1, 2009 Page 4 of 9 property, since pursuant to the City Code definition and Minnesota Statutes Section 273.112(6), that would require that the property "be devoted to the production for sale of agricultural products." Ms. Mell has no apparent intention to so devote her property. Instead, she appears to be using her property not for "agriculture" (one of the permitted uses for an Agricultural district pursuant to Code Section 11.6o(B)), but as a "single-family detached dwelling," another permitted use. Accordingly, the residence is the primary or principal building on the property, meaning that the shed is one of the accessory structures. Finally, City Code Sec. 12.40, subd. 3(B) states that there shall be no more than one principal building on one lot except when approved as part of a planned development. Therefore, any interpretation that results in this shelter being defined as a principal structure would immediately raise yet another significant zoning violation, as this would result in multiple principal buildings on a single lot. Given that this is unquestionably an accessory structure under your ordinances, it is equally clear that this is a zoning violation in two respects. First, according to Section 11.40(5)(Co(2), no more than two accessory structures are permitted when a detached single-family use is the primary use, as in the present case. The applicant already has three accessory structures (barn, shed in upper paddock, and recently approved riding arena). Therefore, the shelter in the lower paddock violates this requirement.' The second way in which the shelter violates "accessory" regulations is its size. Your memo notes that you have no information as to the size of the structure. The information regarding the size of the structure comes from the initial application submitted by Ms. Mell on March 15, zoog, where she indicates that the shelter is 10 x 20 (zoo square feet). City Code Sec 22.65, subd. 9 (D)(2) indicates that the accessory structure shall not exceed 15o square feet in area if located within the shoreland overlay district. 1 It appears that the city concluded that this property was exempt from the general requirements as it was within an A district as is reflected in the staff report However, the exception that is provided within City Code Section 11.40, subd. 5(B) defines an exemption for farming operations, a defined term under City Code Section 11.30. One of the requirements is that farming occur on a farm, which by definition in the Code requires an area of at least ten acres. Given that this property does not qualify for the farming exception, and that the primary use of this property is single family detached dwelling for reasons described above, the provisions of City Code Section 11.40, subd. (5)(C) apply, including subparagraph 2 which states: No building permit shall be issued for more than two detached accessory buildings for each single family dwelling. The barn is clearly an accessory structure, and there is a preexisting shelter in the upper paddock area, so the maximum of two accessory structures existed on the property before the illegal shelter was built. Furthermore, the arena is also an accessory building, and as a result it must have a significant number of variances approved before a building permit can be properly issued. As I understand the situation, the CUP was presented to the City Council under the assumption that no variances would be required. I I a7 Mr. Michael G. Dougherty July 1, 2009 Page 5 of g This is clearly a non-conforming structure under the Code, and given that it was built by the applicant without a building permit, it is also clearly illegal under the Code. This noncompliance (which by itself would disallow the approval of the IUP) can only be resolved by removal of this illegal structure. This is very relevant to the issues that are before the Council. This is yet another example of how the property is not in compliance with the City Code. Even beyond that, however, is that this illegal structure is directly relevant to the questions regarding the quantity of horses that should be allowed under any permit, or even if a permit should be issued at all. In both the application and in statements at public hearings, Ms. Mell has made multiple references to the importance of shelter for the horses. She has made particular reference to this new shelter, as she described in detail (in both the application and public hearing) why it is more appropriate than the barn as a shelter. But given that this building is illegal, she has absolutely no legal structure to shelter any horses other than the three personal horses that she maintains on the property now, where the shelter requirements can be reasonably accommodated within the existing three-stall barn (as was the practice of the initial owner). The fact that an illegal structure exists is solely the responsibility of the applicant who built it without obtaining a building permit, and is directly relevant to the issue before the Council. Therefore the City should not allow consideration of an IUP for the boarding of horses until this illegal structure has been removed. 3. Inconsistencies with Public Protection Chapter of City Code As you are aware, Eagan provides governance over horse management through the public protection section of the City Code, Section 10.12. Mr. Ramstad attempted to raise concerns regarding the implications of the proposed permit at the point where the CUP was being considered by the Council and later in a follow-up letter to Mr. Hedges. To summarize the issue, the concern is that the property contains a section that was dedicated to Dakota County for a public right-of-way for Lexington Avenue. For proper context, this occurred long before the applicant purchased the property and there have not been any horses on the property for more than ten years. When the property is platted as required by City Code, it will contain less than five acres. (Mr. Ramstad has also indicated that he believes that Section 13.02 required that the property have been platted before it was sold, but I have not had the opportunity to research those issues yet. As you note in your memo, there seems to be no question about the necessity of platting, and therefore, in this letter I am only addressing the implication of the platting once it occurs.) City Code Section 3.0.12, subd. 2 states that it is unlawful for any person to keep or harbor any animal, not in transit except for certain situations. The only exception that is relevant here is paragraph (1): "farm animals kept in that portion of the City zoned agricultural and containing not less than five acres". When Mr. Ramstad raised this at the City Council meeting, I am told that you responded that the uses described in the zoning ordinance would take precedence over the provisions of 10.12. One low Mr. Michael G. Dougherty July 1, 2009 Page 6of9 Council member specifically asked, "Does that mean to say that this provision that is contained within a different section of the Code is overridden in essence by the permissive uses in the Ag zone?" to which you responded "Yes" and there was no further discussion on the topic. in effect, any such advice to the Council is in effect stating that that the zoning chapter takes precedent over the chapter with the title, "Public Protection, Crimes and Offenses". Mr. Ramstad wrote a letter to Mr. Hedges (June 9, 2oog) asking specifically for a clarification of your position on this matter, referencing City Code Section 11.40, subd. 1 which states that the zoning chapter is only the minimum standards. Furthermore that section states in paragraph (B) that: "Where the conditions imposed by any provisions of this chapter (referring to Chapter 11) are either more restrictive or less restrictive than comparable conditions imposed by any other law, Code provision, statute or regulation of any kind, the regulations which are more restrictive or which impose a higher standards or requirements shall prevail." I do not see any legal basis for the advice provided to the Council that the application of Section 10.12 is somehow superseded or trumped by the zoning chapter, particularly since Section 10.12 provides a more stringent requirement and is contained in a different chapter. Mr. Bauer's response to Mr. Ramstad's letter in an e-mail reached the same conclusion that there should be no concerns about Section 10.12 in considering the IUP, but with a different rational by stating, "We do not penalize a property owner as a result of dedication to the and for a public purpose." In reviewing the City Code, I do not see any provision for granting such exceptions. I also wonder about positioning the enforcement of public protection regulations as "punishment" for those who do not meet the minimum requirements that the Council had previously determined are appropriate. It would seem that those that are being punished are those who are not getting the benefit of the public protection that the chapter is intended to provide. More critically, Mr. Bauer's response does not provide any legal basis for his opinion. He does not cite any authority that allows the City to selectively enforce the provisions 0f10.22 based on the history of the parcel, and I do not see any in the Code. In addition, the concept of a property owner needing to address the consequences of having smaller lots due to dedication of a public right-of- way is well grounded in the other language of the Code. City Code Section 11.30 contains a defined term for "Lot area" that specifically excludes any area that has been dedicated as public thoroughfare or road, clearing indicating that property owner looses the benefits of lot size for any property that is used as a public right-of-way. So for all zoning and subdivision related issues, the definition makes it clear that the intent is that the area within such right-of-way not be considered in determining the lot size. This definition of area should also be applied to Section 10.3.2, absent a contrary provision elsewhere. For purposes of clarification, Mr. Ramstad is only addressing this issue at this point in the context of the UP decision that needs to be made. He raises these concerns to indicate that this property is in violation of the current horse ordinances that exist. This violation arguably outlaws the use of air lad Mr. Michael G. Dougherty July 3., 2009 Page 7 of 9 horses on the property. At the very least, it would prevent the Council from granting a potential [UP significantly expanding the use. In addition, these factors should be considered with the other attributes of the lot. While the lot after it is platted will be just under five acres, Mr. Ramstad notes that a very small percentage of those areas will be available for the horses (well under an acre). In addition, the land is steeply sloped, and there is no legal access to any horse riding options that border the property. All of these factors, in addition to the violation of the legal requirements of 3.0.3.2, must be considered in determining whether this is an appropriate, or even legally permissible, additional use of this property. City Code Section is.5o, subd. 4 provides the authority to issue conditional use permits. It makes it clear that the Council shall issue permits only if it finds that such use at the proposed locations will be harmonious with the general and applicable specific objectives of the Code provisions. Clearly the boarding permit is not harmonious with the specific Code provision that requires a minimum of five acres on the parcel to maintain horses. Combined with the other attributes of the property noted above, there can be no reasonable justification for approval of a boarding permit to significantly increase the horse density on this property. 4. Issues relating to feedlots I know that there have been discussions at various points about feedlots as to definition, permit requirement, etc. I certainly can understand that this is an issue that does not often come before the City. Based on the comments of Sarah Thomas at the Planning Commission hearing, it appears that the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District, operating under the authority of the Delegated Feedlot Officer Program of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, has determined that a feedlot permit is required, and I do think that brings some clarity to the situation. I also think that it is substantial new information that requires a "fresh look" at the entire project to determine what the right approach going forward on a comprehensive basis might be. One of the immediate implications of the feedlot permit being required is that it determines clearly that this is a feedlot according to state statue. At the City Council meeting you noted that "feedlot" is not a defined term under the City Code, and under such situations is it appropriate to look to other authorities for guidance on the definition. While the shoreland ordinance is governed under DNR Rule 63.20, that rule refers often to the MPCA definition explicitly when referring to feedlots in shoreland areas. In addition, the MPCA Rule 7020 specifically incorporates by reference the DNR Protected Waters and Wetlands Maps. So it is clear that the DNR defers to the MPCA rules regarding the definition of a feedlot, and under the MPCA rules and definitions this is a feedlot. It is important to note that the definition of feedlot under MPCA Rule 7020.0300 provides that there is no minimum size to qualify as a feedlot and to be subject to the feedlot regulations. Feedlots that do not require permits are still regulated by the MPCA. There is a minimum size to require a permit that varies based on a number of different parameters. Now it has been determined that even though the feedlot is less than ten horses, it will require a permit in this particular set of facts and circumstances. Mr. Michael G. Dougherty JUIy 1, 2009 Page 8 of 9 But the issue for the City is not whether the property qualifies for an MPCA feedlot permit, but rather that the City Code has an absolute prohibition against both feedlots and grazing operations over that portion of the Mell property located within the Shoreland Overlay District. Therefore, the City cannot grant a boarding permit that will increase the density of the feedlot operations within the District. It is also important to note that the City must take responsibility for consideration of the UP within the context of its own Code when those ordinances are more restrictive than the state or county requirements. Mr. Ramstad is concerned that the apparent implication from the most recent public hearing is that if a feedlot is acceptable at the county level, it is reasonable to assume that it is acceptable for the City to not be concerned about the issue when considering the IUP. Quite simply, given that most of the property is within the shoreland overlay district, the City must consider the application forthis boarding permit in the context of City Code Section 11.65, subd g(M)(2)(b) which states that, within such a district: "Animal feedlot and grazing operations shall be prohibited." The proposed IUP is for a boarding permit that will clearly increase the intensity of the already existing, nonconforming animal feedlot and unquestionably will be a grazing operation. Given this provision of the Code, there is no legal authority for the City to grant this IUP. In addition, now that it is clearly established that this is a feedlot that is governed by the state regulations, the provisions of City Code Section 11.60, subd 3(4)(C) become relevant. With the IUP request for a boarding permit, Ms. Mell is requesting to make the existing operation a commercial operation, and as a result, the application would require a separate conditional use permit as this would clearly be a commercial feedlot as regulated by state statue. No such permit application has been received, and it would be required legally, in addition to the boarding permit, for the operations that the applicant is proposing. 5. No Expansion of Nonconforming Use As noted in a number ofthe earlier paragraphs of this letter, the construction of the shed within the Shoreland Overlay District and the additional horse capacity in this portion of the property, violates a myriad of City ordinances. Even the presence of the existing barn violates the Shoreland Overlay District, in that it is greater than 15o square feet in addition to the accessory structure ordinance as described above. Given the fact that the prior grazing/horse raising use for this property was abandoned for a period greater than io years, it is certainly questionable, at best, whether new permits or approvals by the City to allow boarding use are permissible. According to Section 11.40(9), any nonconforming structure or nonconforming use shall be deemed abandoned when any nonconforming structure or any nonconforming use is discontinued for a period greater than one year. In the present case, we have a discontinuance of use of more than 1o years. Even assuming that the nonconforming structure and use have not been abandoned, it is certainly true that the use and structure cannot be expanded. This requirement is also stipulated in Section 11.40(9). The construction of the shelter creates the circumstance whereby five horses, rather than 01 Mr. Michael G. Dougherty July 1, 2.009 Page 9 of 9 three, can be boarded within the paddock inside of the Shoreland Overlay District, thereby expanding the nonconforming use inappropriately and illegally. Conclusion I realize that there are a significant number of complicated issues that we have raised in this correspondence. Let me summarize these issues: A. Current violations must be corrected before consideration of IUP. Violations include: (i) not platted; (ii) encroachment into park; (iii) no building permit for shelter; (iv) area below 5 acres (after platted); and (v) accessory structure limits violated. B. Illegal Accessory Structure. Because the primary use is residential, not agricultural (per Code definition), accessory structures are limited to two (in general) and each must be less than 3.5o square feet, when located within a shoreland district. C. Violates Section 10.12 of Public Protection Chapter. Platted area of less than 5 acres disallows horse use, let alone expansion. Zoning code does not supersede public protection ordinance. There is no de minimus exception to the 5 acre requirement. D. Feedlot. Section 11.15(9)(M)(2)(b) prohibits feedlots in Shoreland Overlay District. For City purposes, status as feedlot is determined by MPCA definition, and the County has concluded that this is a feedlot and will require a feedlot permit. Continued presence of new shelter would expand feedlot use (from 3 to 5 horses), which is illegal in Shoreland Overlay District. E. No Expand Nonconforming Use. Existing feedlot/horse use is illegal (accessory structure, public protection ordinance, feedlot in Shoreland District). Grant of proposed UP would illegally expand nonconforming use. For all of the above reasons, we respectfully request that the City deny the requested UP and require removal of the shelter constructed without obtaining a building permit. I would be happy to discuss these issues with you at your convenience. T ry trul o rs, G e D. oule G S/tlf c : Mr. and Mrs. Peter M. Ramstad Sarah Thomas, City of Eagan 009410/92090311091616_2 RECEIVED JUL 011009 July 1, 2009 City Council Members City Of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Dear Council Members: Over the last few weeks, I have had the opportunity to explore many different issues relative to the Mell Boarding Permit application. I searched out many different avenues to explore this issue from a variety of perspectives, and I discovered many different issues that I believe are relevant to the legality and propriety of this project. I am appreciative of the time that the city staff invested in responding to my requests. As a result, I thought that I would take this opportunity to summarize the key issues that are most important to my wife and I. They are as follows: • We absolutely do not object to horses on the property as they have been there in the past. Our concern is taking a property that was designed for the private use of horses by the owners of the home and making it into a commercial operation. The proposed increase in the density of horses, from the three (as with the original owner) to seven (as proposed) is not reasonable for a lot with less than one grazable acre that is surrounded by R-1 property and a park. • As a part of reviewing this project, I had identified a number of issues that I thought were potentially relevant from a legal perspective. We have had those issues addressed by Greg Soule of Best & Flanagan LLP, an experienced and qualified attorney who specializes in land use issues. Based on his review, which he described in a nine-page letter directly to the city attorney, we believe that the proposed Boarding Permit would violate quite a number of City ordinances. Any approval, even if legally possible, at all, would require a number of significant variances and exceptions to established City Code provisions. I do think that these legal issues merit your careful consideration. • We are concerned about the encroachment onto Patrick Eagan Park. The fence can easily be moved, as it is made of a vinyl type material. In addition, the concept of providing an encroachment agreement that provides permission to encroach on any portion of Patrick Eagan is a concern. We believe that the right policy is to defend Patrick Eagan Park, by requiring that a few fence posts be moved, not to grant a license to use Patrick Eagan as part of a commercial feedlot. 133 • We are very concerned about the management of the animal waste (manure and urine). We are pleased that Ms. Mell has indicated that the manure management area be established outside of the shoreland district for McCarthy Lake. Given that this is required by MPCA rules, we assume that this will be implemented with or without a boarding permit. We are concerned however that there are few other details or specifics contained within the plan. We are particularly concerned about the lack of an undisturbed turf buffer to protect the park and properties that adjoin the feedlot. After careful study and evaluation, I feel comfortable in asking that the City not approve the proposed Boarding Permit. Thank you for your work and the work of the city staff on this application. Sincerely, Peter M. Ramstad ~r Sarah Thomas From: Jon Hohenstein Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:28 AM To: Ramstad, Pete (Home); Juli Johnson Cc: Sarah Thomas; Mira Pepper; Tom Hedges; Mike Ridley Subject: RE: Deed restrictions on Patrick Eagan Park Pete, Thanks forgetting in touch with the City again. As with your previous request for documents, it is necessary for you to use the formal data request process as you did for the documents you requested of Sarah Thomas recently. Since Sarah has helped you with that already, we've asked her to work with you to process this request as well. In the meantime, please share with Sarah the specific location of the structure outside the paddock area, so we can look into your question in that regard. As you are aware, the Planning Commission considered the issue of the fence location and added a condition requiring the applicant to enter into an encroachment agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. If the Council approves the application with that condition in place, the City Attorney will consider any legal covenants or limitations that may apply in determining whether the agreement is acceptable. If no agreement is executed, the fence would need to be moved back to the property line. The Council can consider the background and testimony in determining whether to retain or modify the recommended condition. Because of the point we are at in this application review process at which the Commission has recommended a condition in regard to this issue, it would not be appropriate for staff to interject an opinion on it one way or the other. We will share your email and this response with the Council as background to next Tuesday's meeting and you may raise the concerns with them as to whether relocation of the fence would be preferable to the encroachment agreement. We'll plan to see you next Tuesday. Jon Jon Hohenstein I Director of Community Development I City of Eagan City Hall 13830 Pilot Knob Road I Eagan, MN 55122 1651-675-56531651-675-5694 (Fax) I ihohenstein0-citvofeagan.com } O Eano THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers. 4From: Ramstad, Pete (Home) [ma ilto: PRamstad@comcast. net] Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 3:36 PM To: Juli Johnson; Jon Hohenstein Cc: Sarah Thomas Subject: Deed restrictions on Patrick Eagan Park I was not sure who to ask, but I figure that the answer to my questions is somewhere in either Community Development or the Parks Department, so I thought that I would start with each of you. I wanted to ask about how I could get copies of the documents that define the specific restrictions that the City of Eagan accepted in the creation of Patrick Eagan Park. I know from my work on the golf course a few years ago that there were issues related to the DNR based on the source of funds used to create the park. I also know that there have been acquisitions that used funds from outside sources such as the Trust for Public Land. Typically these acquisitions have 1 I~ covenants that the City must comply with. I am asking for a copy of the relevant documents that describe any contractual or other covenants that might have implications for how the City of Eagan can use the park. I would also like to know who built the relatively new structure outside of the fence line (outside of the paddock area) that clearly is an attempt to slow the erosion that was already occurring onto the park land. Did the city built it? Did the city provide authorization to have it built? If yes, is there continuing authorization for such structures? If no, should it be removed? I continue to be surprised by the City's reluctance to address the encroachment issue by requiring Mell to simply install new posts which would be easy to do, and they have indicated that they are willing to do. I do believe that there are significant concerns with erosion on this property, as it noted in both staff reports. However, I do not think that it would be difficult to move the fence. Keep in mind that the fence is just made of vinyl runners than can easily be relocated. To move the fence would only require that the applicant install a few new fence posts. I would agree completely that the old fence posts be kept in the ground. They could be left as is, or simply cut with a chain saw at ground level. Also, given that the fence is old, and some of the posts have already started to rot, this will have to happen at some point soon either way, and now would seem like the right time to do this. I also think that the consequences of asking them to install a few new posts in an aging fence is overstated, and the benefits are understated. I note that the recommendations from the University of Minnesota that was consulted by the planning department recommended a buffer to separate the paddock area which certainly will have significant urine and manure deposits. University research says that the average horse produces about fifty pounds of manure and over two gallons of urine a day. However, the site plan that was submitted did not provide any buffer. It segmented the paddock area in vertical strips aligned with the significant slope of the property with no buffer. The result is that the seven horses will be placed into one-third of the paddock, and each one-third area will drain directly into the park. If the posts were relocated, then the plateau that is actually the park land would provide a natural area for a turf buffer from the feedlot, a significant benefit to the park and lake. I had a professor from the University of Minnesota Extension Department (head of the turf research institute), and he confirmed that a turf buffer would be a good strategy to protect the park from the potential adverse impacts of the feedlot. In addition, such a buffer is even more critical given the steep slope that it at the end of the current fence line and the type of soil that is present on the property. I am also not sure if you have had an opportunity to physically tour the area involved, so I have attached a picture. This picture I took while standing in park property shows the estimated property line, using the best methods I had available to me. I used a survey telescope/level to line up the corner on my land with the point which had been marked on the fence by the Mell surveyors. The picture is accurate, but a bit of an optical illusion. The encroachment is clearly much more significant (easily 15 to 20 feet) on the far (or north) side of the paddock area, but does not look as such due to the perspective of the picture. You can also see in the picture one of the posts that has completely rotted away in the existing post in the far left (north west) corner of the paddock. As I talk with other Eagan residents about this project, the absolute indifference to the encroachment onto Patrick Eagan Park when large amounts of manure and urine are involved is one of the areas that concerns them the most. They cite how often the city has to enforce rules about setbacks, putting decks in precise locations, limiting options as they run counter to the set back requirements, etc. They wonder why the same concern is not provided to the city's own property. This concern is amplified by the fact that the encroachment is in the form of boarding horses on land that slopes directly into the park. I want to confirm with each of you that it your professional opinion that it is the best for the City of Eagan and for Patrick Eagan Park that the city specifically grant Mell granted a right to operate on a portion of Patrick Eagan that is owned by the city, and that the animals (horses) be allowed full access up to the fence line (well within the park and on a significant ledge) without any buffer of any type. This would seem to be even more of an concern now that it has been established that this property will require a feedlot permit to operate and I am hoping that this information may be a basis for you to revisit your previous decision. I want to make sure that I am not misrepresenting your opinions on this matter. I must admit that given the many other options available to the city, that I have a hard time seeing how this is the best alternative available. I was pleased when the applicant's husband indicated that they were willing to make the change during our meeting together downtown. I do not understand why the city does not think that it is a good strategy to pursue. Any additional perspective you can provide would be appreciated. Thank you. I~ Pete Ramstad (952) 380-6967 PRamstad(o)comcast. net Mr. Ramstad, Thank you for your question regarding the encroachment of Patrick Eagan Park from the Mell's property. Yes, the City is aware of the encroachment. However, because of the location of the encroachment and the type of soil/fill on which the berm and fence are situated, it is the City staffs' recommendation to leave the area "as is". The potential to cause erosion and other damage within the park outweighs the minimal benefit or relocation. Horses are not allowed in Patrick Eagan Park. This has been communicated to the Mells. As for the boarding of the horses within the private property, concerns about erosion and waste management potentially affecting neighboring properties have been fully addressed. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. Sincerely, Juli Seydell Johnson Juli Seydell Johnson I Director of Parks & Recreation I City of Eagan 0 City Hall 13830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 1651-675-5500 651-675-5012 (Fax) I isiohnsonecityofeaaan.com THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers. From: pramstad@comcast.net [mailto:pramstad@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 11:36 AM To: Juli Johnson Subject: Mell encroachment onto Patrick Eagan Park Juli - I wanted to follow-up with you regarding the Mell CUP application. One area of concern that I have is the encroachment of the lower paddock area onto Patrick Eagan Park. 3 1,31 I raised this concern at the City Council meeting (May 26th). When the question was summarized to Mike Ridley, he explained that the city, specifically the parks department was aware of the encroachment and did not have any concern with the encroachment. I also came away with the understanding that there were no concerns about this project from the perspective of the parks department. If you would like to see this part of the discussion the video, it lasts about two minutes, starting at about 1:34:40 into the meeting, and going until about 1:36:40. (Saves you the time of looking through the entire video!!) I would like your confirmation that the parks department has no concern over the encroachment or with the application to have nine horses on the property as proposed. Thank you. Pete Ramstad PRamstad(a-comcast.net (952) 380-6967 4 139? RECEIVED JUN 2 3 2009 Concern #1 The code requires that the property be in compliance with the city code before an IUP can be issued. Section 11.50, Subdivision 6 of the City Code, relative to the criteria for issuing an IUP: C. Evaluation criteria. The council may issue interim use permits for an interim use of property if: 1. The use is deemed to be temporary in light of the Comprehensive Guide Plan designation for the property site on which the use is located and the use conforms to the bulk and performance standards of the zoning regulations herein; 2. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty; 3. Permission of the use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future; 4. The user agrees to any conditions that the council deems appropriate for permission of the use; 5. The use meets the standards set forth in the zoning regulations herein governing conditional use permits; and 6. The city determines that the property is in compliance with the City Code. I note that criteria #6 was omitted from the staff report for this IUP. I also note that the compliance is required before the IUP is issued, and does not provide the option to have the condition that the property be brought in compliance with the code as a result of one or more of the conditions. Specific question for the attorney: Is there any legal basis that allows the city to issue an IUP if the property in not in compliance with the city code. 29 Concern #2 The code required that this property be platted BEFORE it was sold. Section 13.02 provides a required to platted before it is conveyed unless is qualifies for certain exceptions. I provided specific documentation based on research that I did at the Dakota County Recorder's office that provided specific proof that the lot in question did not exist as a lot of record until after 1985. Implication # 1: This property is clearly not in compliance with the city code section 13.02 Implication #2: When the property is platted, it will be less than five acres. As a result, it will require a variance to maintain the Ag zoning designation. If the city code had been followed, all of the issues with land use would have been addressed before the applicant purchased the property. If the city proceeds to issue an IUP without the platting being completed, they have my due process rights to a public hearing on the relevant issues associated with the variance. In effect, you are implicitly approving the variance before the public hearing. SOLUTION: I recommended to the city and continue to suggest that the right way to resolve this issue is to wait until the land is platted, and consider the CUP and IUP in conjunction with the plat and required variances. To put the CUP and ]UP ahead of the required platting discussion is not good policy, in particular when it is clear that both the CUP and IUP will require zoning variances. 1 Lf0 Concern #3 The new shelter that was built this spring not only was built without a building permit, but it is also not in compliance with the zoning ordinance. Section 11.65, Subdivision 9 D. Accessory structures. Accessory structures in shoreland districts shall satisfy minimum structure setbacks required in this section and comply with the following: 1. The accessory structure shall not exceed ten feet in height, exclusive of safety rails; 2. The accessory structure shall not exceed 150 square feet in area. 3. Detached decks shall not exceed eight feet above grade at any point; and 4. The accessory structure shall not be used for human habitation nor shall it contain water supply or sewage treatment facilities. Observation #1 The new shelter area is clearly over 150 square feet and within the shoreland overlay district. The staff report failed to note that it has neither a building permit or is not in compliance with the zoning provisions. This is another area where the property is not in compliance with the city code. Implication # 1 This property is not in compliance with the city code. In addition, it requires more than a building permit to get it into compliance, it will also require a variance. Implication #2 The shelter that this illegal structure is intended to provide was a critical part of the analysis of both the applicant and the animal control officer in determining that the land is appropriate for horses. It is poor policy and bad precedent for the city to allow an illegal structure to be built, and then have the benefits of that structure be considered when evaluating the fact that the lot as the appropriate shelter for the horses. In considering the number of horses that are appropriate for this lot (a critical issue for this IUP, the applicant should not be provided the benefit of the illegal structure. /4l Concern #4 The barn, while in compliance with zoning provisions when it was built, is no longer in compliance, and is now a nonconforming structure. In addition to not meeting the requirements of the code provision above, even if the barn was not in a shoreland district, it does not meet the fifty foot setback requirement for barns of this size. Section 11. 40, Subdivision. 9. Nonconforming structures and uses. A. Policy. It is the policy of the city that nonconforming structures and nonconforming uses in time be eliminated due to obsolescence, exhaustion or destruction so as to insure a uniform use of and within the districts established within this chapter. B. Expansion of use. The expansion of an existing nonconforming use shall not be permitted, and no land shall be used by any person or in any manner which is not in conformity with this chapter. E. Abandonment. Any nonconforming structure or nonconforming use shall be deemed abandoned and thereafter shall be discontinued, when any nonconforming structure is not used or any nonconforming use is discontinued for a period greater than one year for any reason. Issue #1: Clearly this is an "expansion of use" of the barn. The barn is a critical part of the total site layout for the storage of feed and supplies, grooming of the horses, shelter when the horses need treatment, etc. Given that the IUP is clearly an "expansion of use" (that is why it requires a permit), the IUP must be denied. Issue #2: Given that the entire property has been vacant for more than two years, and given that the barn has only been used for general storage for the past decade, then there are also issues of abandonment that need to be considered with horses at all using the barn as a barn. l y-~ Concern #5 There is substantial encroachment of the lower fenced in area onto Patrick Eagan Park. The fence was installed in such a way that it encroaches significantly on to Patrick Eagan Park. This was done by the original owner. However, the initial application did not accurately represent the position of the lower fenced in area on to Patrick Eagan Park. For reasons that have not be adequately explained to me, the city staff has taken the position that keeping the encroachment is better due to the fact that it will help prevent erosion. There are multiple concerns with this: Issue #1: Bad strategy from an erosion control perspective Experts that I have had visit the site (from the University of Minnesota - Extension service) strongly recommended a turf area buffer. (A turf buffer is also strongly recommended in the expert that the city contacted as well, and yet the city seems to have approved a plan without any form of turf buffer). In fact, given that the edge of the area is on a significant ledge, the best thing to prevent erosion of the ledge/slope is to keep horses off of the ledge! The fence is made of a flexible, vinyl type material. It could easily be relocated with the simple installation of new posts. The fence is near the end of its economic life anyway, and at least one post has totally rotted away. It is relatively simple to install new posts, and continue to use the same fencing materials. The old posts could be left in place, or simple cut down to ground level. The net result would be compliance with the property boundaries and actually improved erosion control. A structure has been placed on the Patrick Eagan side of the fence clearly to prevent erosion control. I do not know if the city did this or approved of it. It appears to be relatively recent, as the labels on the large wooden beams are still in tact, and did not appear to be significantly weathered when I last saw them. Issue #2: Terrible precedent for the city When I talk with multiple citizens, they are shocked that the city would allow this, and even seems to endorse it. They find it difficult to understand why the city would get so fussy about certain setback variances and then just allow such an encroachment on one of the "crown jewels" of Eagan. lq13 Issue 43 Violation of City Code This is clearly yet another violation of the City Code. In addition, I do not believe that the city staff has the authority to simply "approve" granting the rights to use Patrick Eagan Park without additional processes and approvals. To help provide insight into this issue, I have attached a picture that I took while standing on park property. From my property, I used surveying equipment that I own to provide a realistic estimate of the what I believe is the actual amount of encroachment. At its apex, I estimate it to be about 16 feet, but potentially a bit more. Concern #6 The city code clearly prevents grazing operations in the lower paddock area. This restriction is part of the shoreline overlay district ordinance. The staff report even refers to the lower paddock (within the shoreland district) as a "grazing area". In addition, the report notes that the city staff is concerned "in relation to potential overgrazing". Given that grazing operations are not permitted per the city code, I do not understand how the city can possibly consider this application. Concern #7 This is clearly a feedlot. The MPCA definitions about feedlots are clear, and it is clear that there is no concept of minimum size to be a feedlot. It is true that there is a minimum size to require registration, but MPCA rule 7120 and other MPCA documents make it clear that there is no minimum size requirement. So it is accurate to say that "this is not a feedlot that requires a permit", but the city staff has made a significant error when they say, quoting directly from the report: "The City staff has determined that the proposed use is not for a feedlot, as defined by the MPCA, since the applicant proposed a maximum of seven horses. " Likewise, the Mr. Bauer is very careful in his language, only referring to information that he has received from the city staff, not expressing a specific legal opinion himself Questions for Mr Bauer: Has Mr. Bauer review the MPCA rules regarding feedlots? (Rule 7120) It is his professional legal opinion that the MPCA does not provide regulation of feedlots when there are less than ten horses on the property? The specific form of the question is important, and I believe that it is one that I would like a specific response to. 1T RECEIVED JUN 2 3 2009 S Severson, Sheldon, Dougherty & Molenda, P.A. EVERSON SHELDON ® Attorneys Advisors MEMORANDUM TO: Tom Hedges, City Administrator FROM: Michael G. Dougherty, City Attorney DATE: June 23, 2009 RE: Mell Boarding IUP Application Our File No. 206-28906 This memo is being written in response to your request that our office address issues raised by Mr. Pete Ramstad in his letter of June 21, 2009 addressed to Ms. Sarah Thomas regarding the above matter. This memo is centered upon the concerns raised by Mr. Ramstad as to whether the City determines that the Mell property is in compliance with City Code. The first concern, which has been previously addressed, relates to the issue of whether the property had to be platted before it was sold. First and foremost, this concern, for all practical purposes, is rendered moot by the City's condition that the property be platted prior to the issuance of the IUP. Moreover, Mr. Ramstad's reference to City Code Section 13.02 is misconstrued. Section 13.02 provides for the application of the subdivision regulations to any parcel of property that did not exist as a prior lot of record. Whether the Mell property was created before or after the effectiveness of the subdivision regulations is not determinative of whether the Mell property had to be platted. There is neither a statutory nor code requirement that the subdivision of property necessitates the platting of the property. Section 13 of the Code is designed to prohibit the subdivision of parcels into two or more lots without City approval. City approval may be obtained without a requirement for platting. Nevertheless, as earlier noted, the City is now requiring platting. Mr. Ramstad's second concern is about the lack of a building permit for the shelter that was built this spring. This concern, similar to the first, is rendered moot by the City's requirement that Mell obtain a building permit prior to the issuance of the IUP. The City does not condone the construction of any structure without the required building permit. However, this is not the first instance of such having been done. The City has in the past required property owners to obtain all necessary permits and in this instance has additional leverage over the property owner. X4-7 The last concern addressed herein is the issue raised by Mr. Ramstad about the accessory building being located within a shoreland overlay district and exceeding 150 square feet in size. City Code Section 11.65, subd. 9(D) states that accessory structures in shoreland districts shall not exceed 150 square feet in area. I have no information as to the actual size of the shelter building, but, nevertheless, do not believe that the shelter is an accessory structure. Under Section 11.30, the term "accessory" means a subordinate use which is reasonably necessary and incidental to the conduct of the primary or main use. The Mell property is zoned A, Agricultural which zone allows for the keeping of horses as a primary or a main use. Similarly, riding and boarding stables are main uses of agricultural properties subject to obtaining a conditional use permit. Therefore, structures associated with the keeping of horses may exist on the Mell property without the presence of any residential structure. So long as the building is associated with a main use of the property, it would not be characterized as an accessory structure. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to be in contact with me. MGD/j It cc: Jon Hohenstein, Community Development Director Mike Ridley, City Planner Sarah Thomas, Planner I~ RECEIVED JUN 2 2 2009 June 21, 2009 Ms. Sarah Thomas City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 RE: Mell Boarding IUP Application - Planning Report Dear Ms. Thomas: I had the opportunity to pickup a copy of the planning report for the Mell IUP application late Friday. I can appreciate that additional time has gone into addressing some of the issues that I raised before, and I appreciate that. At the same time, I still have some concerns. As I reviewed the report, I decided to review each section in detail. As you will recall, with the initial CUP application, under the section of "Authority For Review", one of the criteria from the city code was not listed. I specifically raised this issue to you after the initial public hearing, and you indicated that this was "because we are using an old word processing file" or words to that effect. Yet I note that it was -not included in the CUP criteria in this version either. As a result, I also referenced the city code to ensure that all of the criteria for an Interim Use Permit issues were listed correctly. In this section, you list five items, but the ordinance contains six, and the missing one is potentially significant: • The city determines that the property is in compliance with the City Code As I read the report further, I noted that the references to the property not being in compliance with the City Code were not included. Specifically, in the previous report the city staff noted that there was no building permit for the shelter that was built this spring. While the previous report did not note it, I specifically discussed with both yourself and Mr. Ridley that in addition to lacking a building permit, the structure does not comply with the code requirements that restrict the size of accessory buildings within a shoreland overlay district, even in A district zoning. Clearly this building is over 150 feet and within the district. I have also raised concerns and provided specific documentation to indicate that the property is not in compliance with Section 13.02 which required that the property be platted before it was sold. ~~9 As I read the IUP criteria, it would appear that the ordinances do not allow an IUP to be issued when the property is not in compliance with the city code. Do you agree? Or is it the opinion of the City Staff that the property is in compliance with the city code? I have long felt that the best way to approach this issue was in conjunction with the platting process. Given that the property requires multiple variances just to maintain the A district zoning, and given that the applicants need to get the property platted in order to comply with the previously issued CUP, I might suggest that the city staff recommend to the applicant that the right time to pursue the IUP is not now, but at the time the plat application is submitted. I am also letting you know this in advance of the meeting Tuesday, because if the concerns I raised above are valid, then I think that there would be no choice but for the Planning Commission to recommend denial of the IUP. However, if this issue can be considered before the meeting, I am hoping that you can talk with the applicant, explain the situation, and encourage them to table the application until the application for the plat is submitted. I also feel that such an approach would protect my due process rights in this matter. I do not believe that it is appropriate to issue CUPs or IUPs that are strictly based on the A zoning district designation when the property must be platted, and the property will require variances in order to maintain that status. To issue IUPs (or the previous CUPS) is in effect determining that the variances will be granted, even before the proper process has been followed. (I did not raise this at the initial public hearing on the CUPs, and I do not believe that my position on this issue was understood by the City Council). To help facilitate positive discussions, I also thought that it would be helpful to clearly state my position with the City on these matters on a comprehensive basis. To that end, I have attached a set of recommended conditions for the A zone variance and/or IUP that is being considered. From my perspective, most of the issues relate to horses and the property, and not the boarding of horses. As a result, I think that many of these conditions would be more appropriate for the zoning variance discussion that needs to occur when the land is platted. If we were to get aligned on that, I do not see that the incremental addition of the IUP boarding issues would be significant. This is one of the reasons that I have felt so strongly that the platting should occur first. Attached you will find a framework for these conditions. It is an updated version of the document that I shared with John Schonberg a few weeks ago. For each condition, I have listed the reasons behind the suggestion and my understanding of where the issue stands. I would note that if the property was platted with the conditions that I have described, it would result in the Mell's having more horses on the property than ever in its history, and more than would be allowed under every horse ordinance that I have been able to research from other Minnesota cities. If these conditions were part of the comprehensive approach to the property, then I think that we could find the right compromise for the neighborhood given the Mell's desire to keep horses on the property, history of the land and its use (including the fact that there have been no horses for over a decade), the legal issues involved, and the significant medical conditions that impact my family. /,90 I very much would like to hear from you later today regarding the concern that I have raised about the option to issue an IUP when there are existing zoning violations. If that is not a concern of the city staff and/or the city attorney, I am requesting a specific written opinion from the city attorney with an explanation so that I have time to fully prepare for the public hearing scheduled for Tuesday. Sincerely, Pete Ramstad 4135 Lexington Way Eagan, MN 55123 Contact Info: Home: (651) 681-1772 Cell: (952) 380-6967 e-mail: PRamstad(2~comcast.net CC: Tom Hedges Mike Ridley IS7I Recommended Rationale Current Status Condition (#1) Manure Storage Location All Manure Storage Areas (as defined There is no existing manure storage It appears that all issues relating to location of the by the MPCA rule 7020), including the facility on the site that meets MPCA manure storage area have been appropriately proposed composting bin structure shall regulations. MPCA rules do not allow addressed within the lUP. be located outside of the McCarthy for the construction of a new manure Lake shoreline district. storage area within a shoreline district. (#2) Manure Management Practices There is a clear need for a complete The applicants have already indicated that they are All manure shall be picked up from manure management plan before this is willing to have the manure transported off-site on both paddock areas at least weekly. All finalized. Brad Becker also has their application twice per year. I do not know if it manure stored should be removed from indicated that transportation offsite is was a clerical error, but I did note that the manure the site three times per year. I would likely a critical requirement. The timing pickup was only stated as a condition once every suggest in the last week of March, June of three pickups per year is to limit the other year. For the reasons noted, and the very and September. organic materials that are concentrated significant concerns over gas fumes, I believe that with greatest potential for gas three times per year, on the specific schedule noted is accumulation, as there is greatly reduced appropriate. amounts of gas produced in the winter months. m n M C M 0 c z N N N O O co Recommended Rationale Current Status Condition (0) Pesticide/Poison Usage For all neighbors within 350 feet who We acknowledge that some use of The updated application indicated that they were request it, advanced 24-hours notice certain pesticides or poisons might be willing to do this, but the recommended conditions will be provided before any pesticides required on the land. We also know that from the planning staff did not include this as a or poisons (for flys, rodents, weeds, this is a significant concern for the condition. etc.) are used on the property. (adapt horses as it is for us and expect that great language from EPA disclosure notice care will be taken. Advance notification Given that it is important, and the applicant is requirements) will provide the opportunity for us to be willing, I believe that it should be a recommended aware and take additional precautions to condition. protect our health. V1 (#4) Horse Density U1 There shall be no more than five horses By every standard this is a marginal Five horses is significantly more than many horse in total on the property. There shall be horse lot. It has less than one grazable experts believe is appropriate for a lot with these no more than three horses in the lower acre. The barn does not meet the set attributes. It is significantly greater than any number (western) paddock area, not counting back requirements. The new shelter area of horses that would be allowed on private home those that are being ridden or groomed. does not meet the zoning requirements horse facilities at for every Minnesota city that I for accessory structures within a researched where I could find a horse ordinance. shoreland overlay district. Most of the cities that have standards, set the standards not on the gross acreage, but on the number of grazable and/or fenced in acres, and these ordinances would not allow any horses, notwithstanding that the property as a whole has a total of about five acres. Recommended Rationale Current Status Condition (#5) Boarding Capacity There shall be no more than two This is a necessary condition to control I do not understand the findings of the city staff as it boarding clients. Each client can board the amount of parking required and relates to the fact that the only additional traffic will multiple horses that they own traffic. This limit is also consistent with be related to transporting the horses. I believe that it personally. the purpose proposed in the application. is the intent of the application that the people boarding the horses will visit frequently and ride The current application would allow for them. all of the horses to be boarding clients. Therefore, the number of boarding clients is a reasonable conditions given the very limited access and parking available on the facilities. (#6) Patrick Eagan Encroachment It is entirely reasonable that the encroachment onto Patrick Eagan park is In conversations with me, the applicant has made it The fence on the west side of the rectified, and a very bad precedent for clear that if this is requested by the city, that they property is moved such that it is located the city if it is not rectified. The fence is would comply. However, I do note that they did not on the lot with a five foot setback. The nearing the end of its economic life put this into their revised application. fence should be constructed so that anyway. The five foot set back is so that there is not a gate onto Patrick Eagan there is a minimal buffer zone between Given that the fence is just a flexible, plastic system, Park. The setback area should be the fence and the park property to it can easily be adapted with the simple installation maintained with turf. prevent urine or manure from being of a few new posts. Moving the fence to its proper deposited directly onto the park property location is actually helpful to controlling erosion, as by horses defecating onto the park. The it will prevent horses from being on the border of the slope just beyond the fence makes this a ledge. reasonable condition as well. Recommended Rationale Current Status Condition (#6) Odor (VOC Gas) Control There shall be no measured events of There are four gases that are produced Given the very significant nature of how toxic the hydrogen sulfide, ammonia or methane by manure and manure composting, gases noted are for the immediate neighbor, and that is measurable for a continuous 30 three of which are listed as conditions, given that the city ordinances provide authority for minute period from a monitor located including both gases that have odors. It conditions on odors, this is a reasonable way to 100 or more feet from the border of the is reasonable to expect that the manure accomplish this goal. property. The standard for this management practices result in all measurement shall be events that are measurable levels of manure gases to be To date, there has been some occasional buildup of more than 400% greater than the contained within 100 feet of the hydrogen sulfide gas on the property boundary near published ambient background levels. property. the area where the manure is currently stored. I am not aware of any event to date that would have violated the proposed standard. (#7) No Use as a Stable The property shall not be used as a Stables are regulated separately under Applicant indicated in meeting that this was not a Stable as defined in the Eagan Code the Eagan ordinances, and this site concern. 6.41. would not be appropriate for stable related activities. Recommended Rationale Current Status Condition (#8) Restrict Potential A District Uses Makes formal the realization that this is Applicant indicated in a meeting that this was not a Other than the barn and the newly built a single family home that can have concern. run-in, no new accessory structures horses, but does not get the other within the shoreland district. No potential benefits/uses of an "A" district additional "A" uses of the land other zoning. than boarding horses beyond R-1 uses, except as specifically defined in the variance request. Agenda Information Memo July 7, 2009, Eagan City Council Meeting B. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT - TOWN CENTRE 100 (TOWN CENTRE SHOPPES) ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve a Planned Development Amendment to allow detached recycling enclosures at the three buildings of Town Centre Shoppes, legally described as Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Town Centre 100 Sixth Addition and Lot 1, Block 1, Town Centre 100 20t' Addition, subject to the conditions listed in the APC minutes. To recommend approval of a Planned Development Amendment to allow an outdoor dining located at 1260 Town Centre Drive (Sambol restaurant), legally described as Lot 3, Block 1, Town Centre 100 Sixth Addition, subject to the conditions listed in the APC minutes. REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: At least three votes FACTS: ➢ Town Centre Shoppes consists of approximately 45,000 sq. ft. of retail space and was constructed in 1988-1989. ➢ The three buildings, along with the Walgreen's, have shared parking and access. Sambol Restaurant occupies the east end of Building C. ➢ MFC Properties remodeled the three buildings in 2008, adding a drive-through service lane to the west side of Building D, updating the exterior building facades, modifying the parking areas, and replacing some of the landscaping. ➢ The dining patio has already been completed of the northeast corner of Building C. The area is surrounded by decorative fencing with planters and provides 14 additional seats. ➢ The recycling enclosures will consist of a 12' x 12' enclosure adjacent to the rear of each of the three buildings, constructed of durable galvanized steel construction and painted to match the principal building in color. ➢ Contrary to the information in the staff report, the enclosures will not have a roof, and will be placed on the existing bituminous surface. Neither of these changes affect compliance with the design standards in the City Code. ➢ The proposed recycling enclosures deviate from typical City Code standards in that they are detached and constructed of a material not found on the principal building. ➢ The site provides sufficient parking for both proposed improvements. ➢ The Advisory Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 23, 2009 and did recommend approval. 60-DAY AGENCY ACTION DEADLINE: July 19, 2009 ATTACHMENTS ~3~ ~ Location Map, page t June 23, 2009 APC minutes, pages S thre tg Planning Report, pages through Eagan Boundary Right-of-way Location Map Parcel Area Park Area Building Footprint v p 4 I = "1 P po n t~ d 0 ~ 9 0 fl J,9 i Subject Site C~ Cb - oo na all oa o©o omo O 00 oa Q 0 Q ,o ©o L~ ° ° n a o U a Q 6 4 0 D cEi~ Do. ~g oc Q a P . Ga r~~^~ G7 [7 • O CS a a p S OD 13 f d q fl p D o po ~ v ~~d i ~ 4 • o d s 0 9 ' p' Q 4 ° ' > t! 1b c3 _ 1 !f\ G_ IN Q (a d 100D 0 1000 2000 Feel Development/Developer: MFC Properties Application: PD Amendment Case No.: 15-PA-06-05-09 N THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY w E City of Eap The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this information and are not responsible for errors or omissions. s Community Devolepmwnt Department C. Town Centre 100 Applicant Name: MFC Properties 15 L.P. Location: 1248-1272 Town Centre Drive; Lots 3 & 4, Block 1, Town Centre 100 Sixth Addition and Lot 1, Block 1, Town Centre 100 20th Addition Application: Planned Development Amendment A Planned Development Amendment to allow an outdoor patio and detached trash/recycle enclosures. File Number: 15-PA-06-05-09 Planner Dudziak introduced this item and highlighted the information presented in the City Staff report dated June 16, 2009. She noted the background and history. Applicant Chad Sande stated he was available for any questions. Vice Chair Keeley opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Vice Chair Keeley closed the public hearing and turned the discussion back to the Commission. Member Filipi moved, Member Heaney seconded a motion to recommend approval of a Planned Development Amendment to allow detached recycling enclosures at the three buildings of Town Centre Shoppes, legally described as Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Town Centre 100 Sixth Addition and Lot 1, Block 1, Town Centre 100 20th Addition in the NW%4 of Section 15, subject to the following conditions: 1. A Planned Development Amendment Agreement shall be executed and recorded at the Dakota County Recorder's Office prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. A building permit is requires prior to construction of the enclosures. 3. The enclosures shall be located as shown on the Site Plan dated May 20, 2009. A vote was taken. All voted in favor. Motion carried: 7-0. Member Filipi moved, Member Heaney seconded a motion to recommend approval of a Planned Development Amendment to allow an outdoor dining located at 1260 Town Centre Drive (Sambol restaurant), legally described as Lot 3, Block 1, Town Centre 100 Sixth Addition in the NWY4 of Section 15, subject to the following conditions: 1. A Planned Development Amendment Agreement shall be executed and recorded at the Dakota County Recorder's Office prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. The outdoor seating shall be contained within the fenced area as shown on the Patio Plan dated June 4, 2009. 3. The outdoor dining patio shall not obstruct pedestrian movement. 4. A separate building permit is required for the site renovations and for a sewer access charge (SAC) redetermination. A vote was taken. All voted in favor. Motion carried: 7-0. Member Heaney left the Advisory Planning Commission meeting. 6,~S7 PLANNING REPORT CITY OF EAGAN REPORT DATE: June 16, 2009 CASE: 15-PA-06-05-09 APPLICANT: MFC Properties 15 L.P. HEARING DATE: June 23, 2009 PROPERTY OWNER: MFC Properties 15 L.P. APPLICATION DATE: May 20, 2009 REQUEST: Planned Development Amendment PREPARED BY: Pamela Dudziak LOCATION: 1248-1258 & 1260-1272 Town Centre Drive 3436-3450 Denmark Avenue COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: SA, Special Area ZONING: PD, Planned Development SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a Planned Development Amendment allow detached trash recycling enclosures at the three buildings of Town Centre Shoppes, and an outdoor dining patio at Sambol restaurant located at 1298 Town Centre Shoppes, legally described as Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Town Centre 100 Sixth Addition and Lot 1, Block 1, Town Centre 100 20'h Addition in the NW'/4 of Section 15. AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW Chapter 11, Section 11. Subdivision 5 states, in part, 1. The provisions of this chapter may be amended by the majority vote of the council, except that amendments changing the boundaries of any district or changing the regulations of any district may only be made by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of all members of the council. 2. The Council shall not rezone any land in any zoning district or make any other proposed amendment to this chapter without first having referred it to the planning commission for its consideration and recommendation. BACKGROUNDIHISTORY The subject buildings are part of a four building retail strip, anchored by the new Walgreen's store (completed in 2007), that wraps around the southeast intersection of Town Centre Drive & Denmark Avenue. The three Town Centre Shoppes buildings were constructed in 1988 and 1989. In 2008, MFC Properties remodeled the three buildings, adding a drive-through service lane to the west side of A00 Planning Report - June 23, 2009 Town Centre Shoppes Page 2 Building D, updating the exterior building facades, modifying the parking areas, and replacing some of the landscaping. The 2008 improvements increased green space by approximately 1,200 sq. ft. EXISTING CONDITIONS The property is currently zoned PD and is guided Special Area - Retail Commercial. The three Town Centre Shoppes buildings contain retail and service tenants in a total of approximately 45,000 sq. ft. The three Town Centre Shoppes buildings, along with the Walgreen's, have shared ingress/egress and shared parking. Access to the site is provided from Denmark Avenue and from Town Centre Drive in a total of four locations. Sambol restaurant occupies the east end of Building C. SURROUNDING USES The following existing uses, zoning, and comprehensive guide plan designations surround the subject property: Existing Use Zonin Land Use Designation North Retail/Commercial PD, Planned Development SA - Special Area South CDA Offices and Multi- PD, Planned Development SA - Special Area Family Residential East Retail/Commercial R-1, Single Family SA - Special Area West Retail/Commercial PD, Planned Develo ment SA - S ecial Area EVALUATION OF REQUEST Description of Proposal - The applicant is proposing to construct detached enclosures for the storage of recyclables behind each of the three buildings. Trash storage is located within the buildings, but the applicant has indicated that the indoor area is not large enough to accommodate additional containers for recyclables. Recycling containers currently sit in the open behind the buildings. Three enclosures are proposed to be constructed of galvanized steel decking with a shed type roof approximately 10' in height. The enclosures would have gate style doors, and will be placed on a concrete slab and painted to match the newly remodeled buildings. According to the applicant "the trash recycle enclosures will improve the look to the back of the buildings and screen the dumpsters and carts." The enclosures will displace two parking stalls each. Sambol is a Class I restaurant, with sit-down dine-in service. Eighty-four (84) seats are provided for dining in. The proposed outdoor seating would provide 14 additional seats (three 4-seat tables and one 2-seat table) occupying approximately 300 sq. ft. Sambol has an on-sale wine and beer license. The proposed dining patio is located in the large sidewalk area off the northeast corner of Building C. A decorative wrought iron fence encloses the space, and several planters are located around the perimeter of the dining area. Lighting for the area is located on the building. Planning Report - June 23, 2009 Town Centre Shoppes Page 3 Recycling Enclosures -City Code requires that the enclosures be constructed of materials to match the principal building, placed on an impermeable surface, between 6' and 10' in height and with gates or doors having 90% opacity. In addition, City Code typically requires such enclosures to be attached to the principal building in commercial zoning districts. The 12' x. 12' (144 sq. ft.) size, and presence of a roof on these enclosures requires that a building permit be obtained prior to their construction. Typically, trash and recyclables enclosures would be constructed of a durable masonry material to match the building. This building has a brick base, however, the brick is not present on the rear elevations where the enclosures will be located. While the galvanized steel decking material is not found on the principal building, it is a durable material and will be painted to match the color of the principal building. Outdoor Dinin Patio - There are no specific ordinances pertaining to outdoor seating in the City Code. Because this proposal involves an outdoor use and additional modifications to the site not anticipated in the 2008 remodel, the PD Amendment is necessary. The additional patio seating can affect parking, and may entail additional Sewer Access Charges. The tables were placed and the fence for the patio was A x installed before the applicant knew a PD Amendment would be necessary. The dining patio leaves sufficient sidewalk width between the fence and the parking lot for pedestrian movement and does not interfere with the ramp that provides a pedestrian path between Buildings C and D. On the east side, the fence is placed close to the curb adjacent to the drive-through lane and discourages pedestrian traffic in that location. Parking - There is sufficient parking on site to support five stalls for the patio dining, and to convert 6 stalls for construction of the recycling enclosures. Approximately 285 parking stalls are provided on the site for the three buildings. This number exceeds the minimum City Code requirements for the site, which total 210 stalls for the 45,000 sq. ft. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION In summary, MFC Properties proposes to construct recycling enclosures at three buildings on the southwest corner of Denmark Avenue and Town Centre Drive, and add outdoor patio dining at 1260 Town Centre Drive for Sambol restaurant. The site provides sufficient parking for both proposed improvements. Site modifications for the dining patio have already been completed and consist of decorative fencing with planters. Sambol currently has 84 seats and would add another 14 seats outdoors. The recycling enclosures consist of installing concrete pads and constructing a 12' x 12' roofed enclosure adjacent to the rear of each of the three buildings. The proposed trash recycling /Oa' Planning Report - June 23, 2009 Town Centre Shoppes Page 4 enclosures deviate from typical City Code standards in that they are detached and constructed of a material not found on the principal building. However, the enclosures will be of durable galvanized steel construction and painted to match the principal building in color. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED To recommend approval of a Planned Development Amendment to allow detached recycling enclosures at the three buildings of Town Centre Shoppes, legally described as Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Town Centre 100 Sixth Addition and Lot 1, Block 1, Town Centre 100 20th Addition in the NW'/4 of Section 15. 1. A Planned Development Amendment Agreement shall be executed and recorded at the Dakota County Recorder's Office prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. A building permit is requires prior to construction of the enclosures. 3. The enclosures shall be located as shown on the Site Plan dated May 20, 2009. To recommend approval of a Planned Development Amendment to allow an outdoor dining located at 1260 Town Centre Drive (Sambol restaurant), legally described as Lot 3, Block 1, Town Centre 100 Sixth Addition in the NW'/4 of Section 15. If approved the following conditions shall apply: 1. A Planned Development Amendment Agreement shall be executed and recorded at the Dakota County Recorder's Office prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. The outdoor seating shall be contained within the fenced area as shown on the Patio Plan dated June 4, 2009. 3. The outdoor dining patio shall not obstruct pedestrian movement. 4. A separate building permit is required for the site renovations and for a sewer access charge (SAC) redetermination. Eagan Boundary Right-of-way Location Map OPrrkkeAreeaaa Building Footprint ag j Q 7-,1 i J ® v © \ Subject Site CD o L _ o ~ - o o . 'r o°o 6 I g ~ ` 1 a!} P 4 o °Bo p o m can D=a 9 1F L\ CPJ d O 4 D© 0 o© 4 m. , q o o. Q A 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet Development/Developer: MFC Properties Application: PD Amendment Case No.: 15-PA-06-05-09 /(P N q q THIS MAP IS INTE DED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY w E l ij y of Eapn The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this information and are not responsible for errors or omissions. S Community Dovolopmont Dopartmont Current Zoning and Comprehensive Guide Plan Land Use Map Town Centre Shoppes PD Amendment 15-PA-06-05-09 Zoning Map PD PD o * Location COUNT/ ROAD N0.2g ANKEE Current Zoning: ® PD PD Planned Development ® 1 CsC PD at o®t tt D a P y d CSC ® t g mill • OEM" see o goo 1200 Feet _1ZTrTT7 D V 71 Fir Comprehensive Guide Plan ;V SA Land Use Map . ® ° kNI LLocationloo COUNTY ROAD N0.211 (YANKEE ~ . ~ ® Current Land Use Designation: I " SA fib SA SA ® SA SA ® SA no one ®1 ®i Special Area oak. ' e P SA t~ I ® per ® ■ a e goo o geo 1200 Feet Paroel been p htflam on provided by Dakota County Land Survey Depertn ent Deember 2005. N Zoning Inlortnatien maintained by City SUM City of Eap W E THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this Information. S t , 4Y7 ' I' x i C ~ ode , y Vw. l r . : rats--4;r`" • :.w,W.,.""~.~. _:r.. w- - 1 jkV TOWN CENTRE DRIVE TOWN CENTRE DRIVE li i Fit a ~ r o F 1 1 1115 I ' , _ I( ~i < OUTD Ot V_ DINING °A i. t~( 1:,+ I,~•~I I I t L i I k a~( 1 PATIO - - - 4 ter' ` I BUILDING ~ ?!!I BUILDING B ; SA M Boy' \N WALLGREENS ev\~,O ~Lyo~o n r I ~ r• r i ~ M1 - -L TRASH RECYCLE ENCLOSURES - r- f ~ p r TOWN CENTRE S H O PPES r I I - D Z - o MFC PROPERTIES CORPORATION D m N i i d - ' y WWW.MFCPROPERTIES,COM 1- 651-452-3303 L~ Yankee Square Office 11 3470 Washington Drive Suite 102 i I Eagan, MN 55122 pE~MA~K A`~E~vE t t JA. I BUILDING A (,,77 y 1 1 Ole .0e 100, O QGQ GQ -.3arcS R~ ~ !C r~ IIIII f~~~ 3 p r----------cr--- \ P P- PLAnr5rS 3 cb- PIa ct 1 Ol TebSeS BUILDING ~ 7WD P~Att , GP tGP RECYC~ En1Ll.~St~t2~ RECEIVED JUN - 4 ~II~I r----------- ----c3 -----------------\0 1 I 42 GA T E L:91,'~'inq on / \ ' - 24 5. BUILDING 300 Sir .30~ C GP s GP r~ RECYCL1=' FNt,~SUl2~ /70 SITE PLAN -7 RECEIVED JUN - 4 2IM9 TOWN CENTRE SHOPPES TRASH / RECYCLING ENCLOSURES C~ z m z 0 r cn ° Trash Enclosure m MFC Properties 6-1-0C) RECEIVED JUN-41009 . TOWN CENTRE RESTAURANT SAMBOL AMERISTAR FENCE CO- J V O II m -429 JUy z n RECEIVED m PHONE [6511 452-3303 VFC FAX: (6511 452-33B2 www.mfcproperties.com PROPERTIES CORPORATION MEMORANDUM DATE: June 16, 2009 TO: Mike Ridley City of Eagan FROM: Bruce Miller and Chad Sandey MFC Properties Corporation RE: Town Centre Shoppes Planned Development Amendment MFC Properties Corporation is requesting a PD Amendment to allow for the construction and installation of an outdoor patio dining area for Sambol Restaurant located at 1260 Town Centre Drive. In addition to the outdoor patio dining area request, we are also seeking approval for the construction of three (3) detached exterior trash / recycle enclosures behind buildings A, C and D. Town Centre Shoppes consists of four separate buildings, buildings A, B, C and D. MFC Properties Corporation owns buildings A,C and D and Walgreen's owns its own facility, building B. The outdoor patio dining area will be defined with a black three rail, wrought iron fence approximately 48" tall with a gate for emergency egress. The Sambol patio area will be located to the east of the entry vestibule on the large concrete sidewalk area. The patio area will house three (3) four seat tables and one (1) two seat table for a total capacity of 14. The fenced in area will not interfere with walking traffic on the sidewalk. The outdoor patio dining areas will be an attractive addition to Town Centre Shoppes, it will create a nice outdoor dining atmosphere. The Sambol restaurant owner plans on installing five (5) hanging planters on the fence and one large potted plant for the patio. The patio area will provide the restaurant an additional amenity to their customers. The patio area will have no impact on city services. The three (3) trash recycle enclosures are being proposed in order to house the 8 yd. cardboard recycle dumpsters and miscellaneous recycling carts which currently sit neatly behind the buildings. The existing building design does not provide enough room in the existing trash enclosures for cardboard recycle dumpsters and carts. RECEIVED JUN 17 2009 1~3 Memo - City of Eagan Town Centre Shoppes - PD Amendment Page 2 The proposed enclosures would be constructed of galvanized tube steel and galvanized steel decking approximately 12'x12' and have a shed type roof approximately 10' tall sloping to 8' to the rear. The four corners of the proposed enclosure would be on post footings. The enclosures would have gate style doors and would be painted the same color as the newly renovated buildings at Town Centre Shoppes. The construction of the trash recycle enclosures will improve the look to the back of the buildings and screen the recycle dumpsters and carts. It will make the property more desirable and attractive. The uses of the surrounding properties include retail, restaurant and office. I:\MFC 15 LTD\MEMO-CityofEagan(Narrative-TCS Outdoor Seating).doc 1~y- Agenda Information Memo July 7, 2009, Eagan City Council Meeting C. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT - TOWN CENTRE PLAZA ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED: The applicant is requesting approval of a Planned Development Amendment to permit tenant building signage and modifications to the monument sign for the office building at 1185 Town Centre Drive, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Gatewoods Addition, in the NE'/4 of Section 15, subject to the conditions listed in the APC minutes. REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: At least three votes FACTS: ➢ The building contains a 45,000 sq. ft. multi-story office building constructed in 2000. The site has access from Town Centre Drive and O'Leary Lane. ➢ Two monument signs were approved in lieu of building wall signage with the initial development. Only the Town Centre Drive monument sign was constructed. ➢ A PD Amendment was approved in 2004 permitting tenant name signage on the Town Centre Drive monument sign, and eliminating the O'Leary Lane monument sign. ➢ There are no existing building mounted signs. ➢ The proposal is to add signage on the south and east elevations of the building as follows: a) 1 building name sign on south elevation b) 4 tenant names signs on south elevation c) 1 tenant name sign on east elevation ➢ In addition, the applicant proposes to eliminate the tenant name panels from the existing monument sign and redesign it with the building name identification and the property address. ➢ The applicant's narrative indicates the owners believe that without the ability to offer tenant building signage they are at a competitive disadvantage in leasing as compared to other similar office buildings in the area which do have tenant building signage. ➢ The Advisory Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 23, 2009 and did recommend approval. 60-DAY AGENCY ACTION DEADLINE: July 19, 2009 ATTACHMENTS (Nthre_ Location Map, pages June 23, 2009 APC mi ute pages through Planning Report, pages 't through Fagan Boundary Pight-of-way Location Map Q Parcel Area Park Area Building Footprint v B Q Subject Site Air- . lam. EBB ~8 08° O O® ° GT Ems OLD Big a' 1'0 9 a ~ I► 4`~.. El Bo{j~~ ~gyge B I 64. ~ - b 9 1000 0 1000 20M Feel Development/Developer: Town Centre Plaza Eagan, LLC Application: PD Amendment Case No.: 15-PA-04-05-09 N THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY City of Wan The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this information and are ..s .nennneihlP fnr Prrors or omission.. D. Town Centre Plaza Applicant Name: Town Centre Plaza Eagan, LLC Location: 1185 Town Centre Drive; Lot 1, Block 1, Gatewoods Addition Application: Planned Development Amendment A Planned Development to allow building tenant signage. File Number: 15-PA-04-05-09 Planner Dudziak introduced this item and highlighted the information presented in the City Staff report dated June 11, 2009. She noted the background and history. The applicant was available for questions. Vice Chair Keeley opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Vice Chair Keeley closed the public hearing and turned the discussion back to the Commission. Member Keeley stated concern about visual clutter with the additional building signage. Member Filipi moved, Member Daley seconded a motion to recommend approval of a Planned Development Amendment to permit tenant building signage and modifications to the monument sign for the office building at 1185 Town Centre Drive, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Gatewoods Addition, in the NE'/4 of Section 15, subject to the following conditions: 1. An Amendment to the Planned Development Agreement shall be executed and recorded against the property at the Dakota County Recorder's office. Recording of the Agreement must be completed prior to issuance of a sign permit. 2. A sign permit must be obtained prior to refacing the monument sign, and prior to installation of each building sign. 3. The monument sign location shall not change, and the brick base to match the building shall be retained. The monument sign not exceed 7 feet in overall height, and the sign face shall not exceed 4 feet in height and 12 feet in width. 4. The monument sign message area shall consist of the building name and address, in dark bronze aluminum characters mounted on a beige background. 5. Building signage shall consist of one building identification name above the main entrance on the south elevation; four tenant names on the south elevation and one tenant name on the east elevation, per the approved Sign Plan dated May 15, 2009. 6. All building signage shall consist of non-illuminated reverse channel letters in dark bronze, individually mounted to the building. 7. Major products or services offered by a tenant may be included in a tenant's sign, provided it conforms to the same style as the other building signs in color, type, size and font. 8. Building signs including corporate logos, emblems and shields are not permitted. A vote was taken. All voted in favor. Motion carried: 6-0. Member Heaney returned to the Advisory Planning Commission meeting. IT7 PLANNING REPORT CITY OF EAGAN REPORT DATE: June 11, 2009 CASE: 157PA-04-05-09 APPLICANT: Town Centre Plaza Eagan, LLC HEARING DATE: June 23, 2009 PROPERTY OWNER: Town Centre Plaza APPLICATION DATE: May 20, 2009 Eagan, LLC REQUEST: Planned Development Amendment PREPARED BY: Pamela Dudziak LOCATION: 1185 Town Centre Drive COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: SA, Special Area ZONING: PD, Planned Development SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a Planned Development Amendment to permit tenant building signage and modifications to the monument sign for the office building at 1185 Town Centre Drive, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Gatewoods Addition, in the NE 1/4 of Section 15. AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW PD Amendment: Chapter 11, Section 11.50, Subdivision 5 states, in part, 1. The provisions of this chapter may be amended by the majority vote of the council, except that amendments changing the boundaries of any district or changing the regulations of any district may only be made by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of all members of the council. 2. The Council shall not rezone any land in any zoning district or make any other proposed amendment to this chapter without first having referred it to the planning commission for its consideration and recommendation. BACKGROUND/HISTORY In April 2000, a Final Plat for Gatewoods Addition was approved establishing a 1.8 and 3.2 acre lots upon property previously platted as Outlots B and C, Town Centre 13th Addition. A Final Planned Development was approved to allow a 45,110 sq. ft. office building upon the 3.2 acre site. The development consisted of a multi-story office building. 1-7e Planning Report - Town Centre Plaza June 23, 2009 Page 2 With the initial development, two monument signs were approved in lieu of building wall signage. One sign was to be placed at the O'Leary Lane entrance to the site, and the other was placed at the Town Centre Drive entrance to the site. The Town Centre Drive sign was constructed, the O'Leary Lane sign was not. A PD Amendment was later approved in 2004 permitting tenant name signage on the Town Centre Drive monument sign, and eliminating the O'Leary Lane monument sign. EXISTING CONDITIONS The site is located at the northwest comer of Town Centre Drive and O'Leary Lane. There are two entrance drives, one at Town Centre Drive on the south side of the property and the other at O'Leary Lane on the northeast side of the property. The front door of the two-story office building faces Town Centre Drive to the south. Only one of the two allowed monument signs was erected during building construction; it is located at the Town Centre Drive entrance. This existing monument sign contains tenant name panels as permitted in the 2004 PD Amendment. There are no existing building mounted signs. SURROUNDING USES The following existing uses, zoning, and comprehensive guide plan designations surround the subject property: Existing Use Zoning Land Use Designation North Culver's restaurant PD, Planned Development SA, Special Area East Eagan Counseling Clinic LB, Limited Business SA, Special Area South Waterford Apartments PD, Planned Development SA, Special Area West Access Lifts, Inc. PD, Planned Development SA, Special Area EVALUATION OF REQUEST Description of Proposal - The applicant is proposing to add building signage on the south and east elevations. In addition, the applicant proposes to eliminate the tenant name panels from the existing monument sign and redesign it with the building name identification and the property address. The applicant's narrative indicates that they "need the ability to offer our tenants the ability to display their business name on the building." Without that ability, the building owners believe they are at a competitive disadvantage in leasing as compared to other similar office buildings in the area and fear tenants will leave for other buildings and create "undue hardship for the building's ownership group and considerably devalue the building." Sign Code Requirements - The Sign Code typically allows each tenant within a multiple tenant building to have one business name sign on the front elevation. The end units in a multi-tenant building would be allowed two elevations with business name signage, generally the front entrance and the side of the building. I p I Planning Report - Town Centre Plaza June 23, 2009 Page 3 The monument sign size and location comply with typical City Code standards which permit up to 7' in height, with a 4' maximum sign face, and a minimum 10' setback. Monument sign - The brick base of the monument sign will remain, and the body of the sign will be painted beige, with flat cut out aluminum letters in dark bronze attached. A dark bronze aluminum cap tops the sign. The overall height of the monument sign is 6'10", and the message area is 3'10" in height by 12' in width. No changes to the sign location are proposed. The exterior of the sign will continue to be lit with external indirect ground lights. Landscaping around the base of the sign remains the same. Building SignaQ - Five signs are proposed on the south elevation - one building name sign above the main entrance, and four tenant name signs. One tenant name sign is also proposed on the east elevation. The building signs will consist of non-illuminated reverse channel aluminum letters in dark bronze. Each of the tenant name signs would be up to 45 sq. ft. with an 18" maximum letter height. The building name sign proposes letters 2' in height and a total of 70 sq. ft. No building signage is proposed on the north or west elevations. The proposed tenant building signage is limited to four signs on the front and one on the east side. Thus, not every tenant will have a building sign. The inclusion of the building name signage allows the owner to "landmark" the building, which is beneficial to smaller tenants within the building. The applicant submitted the sign criteria they intend to use with the tenants. The criteria indicate building signs may consist of the "tenant's proper name, and major product or services offered by the tenant. Corporate logos, emblems and shields would also be permitted, provided they are confined within the designated sign area." While City Code typically permits product names and corporate logos, emblems or shields, the proposal for all signs to be bronze aluminum characters with a consistent design in font, color and material, is not conducive to the inclusion of corporate logos, emblems and shields which typically consist of unique fonts and colors and shapes. Therefore, corporate logos, emblems and shields should not be permitted, and building signage should be limited only to the tenant's name. Major products or services offered by a tenant may be included in a tenant's sign, provided it conforms to the same style as the other building signs in color, type size and font. Compatibility with Surrounding Area - The proposed monument sign is a return to the classic understated design of the original monument sign. The addition of tenant name signage to the building is a deviation from the stipulations of the original Planned Development. However, tenant name signs have been permitted on other similar office buildings, and the proposed signs are reflective of the high quality of this development and consistent in design. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION In summary, the applicant is proposing tenant building signage and modifications to the monument sign for the office building at 1185 Town Centre Drive. The applicant indicates the ability to offer building signage to tenants is necessary for their building to remain competitive in Ivu Planning Report - Town Centre Plaza June 23, 2009 Page 4 leasing. The proposal includes branding the building as "Town Centre Plaza" and permitting a limited number of tenant name signs on the building. Building signage would be uniform in design and size. In addition, the monument sign would be redesigned to eliminate the tenant name panels and replace them with a building name identifier and the property address. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED To recommend approval of a Planned Development Amendment to permit tenant building signage and modifications to the monument sign for the office building at 1185 Town Centre Drive, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Gatewoods Addition, in the NE'/4 of Section 15. If approved the following conditions shall apply: 1. An Amendment to the Planned Development Agreement shall be executed and recorded against the property at the Dakota County Recorder's office. Recording of the Agreement must be completed prior to issuance of a sign permit. 2. A sign permit must be obtained prior to refacing the monument sign, and prior to installation of each building sign. 3. The monument sign location shall not change, and the brick base to match the building shall be retained. The monument sign not exceed 7 feet in overall height, and the sign face shall not exceed 4 feet in height and 12 feet in width. 4. The monument sign message area shall consist of the building name and address, in dark bronze aluminum characters mounted on a beige background. 5. Building signage shall consist of one building identification name above the main entrance on the south elevation; four tenant names on the south elevation and one tenant name on the east elevation, per the approved Sign Plan dated May 15, 2009. 6. All building signage shall consist of non-illuminated reverse channel letters in dark bronze, individually mounted to the building. 7. Major products or services offered by a tenant may be included in a tenant's sign, provided it conforms to the same style as the other building signs in color, type, size and font. 8. Building signs including corporate logos, emblems and shields are not permitted. l~ 1 Eagan Boundary Rightofxray Location Map 0 parcel Area Park Area Building Footprint V Mir 911 r fl n J* W- ilk 00 o a a * 10 Sub'ect Site _ ~ ~ ~6ry 101111 INS ® r i ~ o ea r ` ovao a e f as d a a' e9' d ® q ' mo-®®9 e ® e o 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet wwnm~ Development/Developer: Town Centre Plaza Eagan, LLC Application: PD Amendment Case No.: 15-PA-04-05-09 N THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY W E City of Equ The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this information and are not responsible for errors or omissions. S Current Zoning and Comprehensive Guide Plan Land Use Map Town Centre Plaza PD Amendment 15-PA-04-05-09 -0o Zoning Map " . PD o o A t~ ~ P i ® ® D Fw" \D N0.26 (YANKEE DOODLE ROAD) Location Current Zoning: ® PD LB R4 PD Planned Development PD B Om 191 909 D P 4% 47,4 ~ opO R4 TWO% 0 iq P 0~p ° R 9 Om ROfl, o one ~ ~ °~s Soo 0 Soo 1200 F..t Comprehensive Guide Plan SA D ° P SPIN 0 Land Use Map s a Location IL M0 no.20 (TANKEE DOODLE ROAD) ® SA SA Current Land Use Designation: A HD S SA SA BmB BmB® B~ ® - D Special Area ~,~f HD MW N ®~Zrib 110 ao 10% o~ o D 9 LM1T b HD m a a e Sf~~ _8 600 0 000 1200 F..1~ Pan:.l b... map Intorrnatlon proHdad by Dakota County Land furTay Daparlmant Dscm6er 2005. N ZDnlnV Intormatlon maintained by City Stan. THIS MAP (S INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY '01P'Citv of Wan W E A♦ I Y, m. pool S 3A. l~c16 ttg 77-1 s fi, h a''1 39 - is a e . ti ~w 3 4 S ' s • zas 3- f_ 4 b { 1 z r. r s . • 1n~+r r„, "s Y~ . d✓ a.... - Y t ~ar 1 .r.. PTO ENTRE AZA I 1 y i \ A r-, i L--.------------~ .Onwatrwte~K.aar7le~w SZ-F 1' ~ J , J oO o _ - - - - : - ~ - - - - - f - T - - I , - - To w u ua IUTRe: D2t V~ - _ - - ~ - Ts ~St ca ! / ell ip 1 ~ A ,..s,sOM,n y,~pt uRTw TWt TM M1M YY4 _ M8QN6 ..qi we V~ ~.1VI, Ci.,wC,W MM MfCFKaT,QI OR IIKR,)W O.O®F. ,q, MN~.IlL,R,M.g1. vv0 calaw ]IlOM)M«hp nu~~lM.PIT ww OWN AAT,LLG MAA 8~~. ].r a n. r s r~.,awr. e,. n,~,w)eeou »a w Me,~ pf ~ ..i,a.~. RECEIVED MAY 2 0 2009 SPECTRUM SIGN SYSTEMS. INC 34'-5" Cons Gateway Circle, Suite 2 Centerville, MN 55038 651.429.6100 o- r ia.. 651.429.6190 an. CENTRE P L AZ A, wwwspectrurrlslynscom 1-0.1 TOWN- Palatino Semi Bold Letter Font i'ROIECT Scale: 1/4" a 1'-0" i Town Centre Plaza Furnish Fj Install (1) 24" Non-Illuminated Channel Letter Set Exhibit AA Client Information Gaughan Companies ( TBD WE 45 Sq. Ft) i ! Attn: Julie Smith 56 East Broadway -6" I FUTURE TENANT Pho et 651e-255-5552 Scale: l/4" -1'-0" Jobsite Proposed Locations For (5) 45 59. Ft. Letter Sets 1185 Town Centre Drive Eagan, MN Date 5-15-09 DESIGNER R7M This dmdnp Is the esclusin propatyd Spectrum Sign Systems,lncit Is not to be produced or duplicated without the written Q , TOWN CENTRE PlA2A mmnorSpe tru nAensysto m ine B Dbftutkm of this dRMdn9 lorthepurpose 0 v 1i dnS the sign • one other n1 • x thanSpeect t um SI n System%lnc is strictly proSbited.lrsrrch an event occurs . S~parrctsbuned Slg,000A1)peroocrarerrsa Customer Approval 4 W1144, rw w xz, ' Date Full South Elevation -4 = Future Tenant Sign (NTE 45 Sq. Ft & 18" Max Letter Height East Elevation RECEIVED MAY 2 0 2009 SPECTRUM SIGN SYSTEMS. INC 2025 Gateway Orde, Suite 2 Centerdle, MN 55038 651 A29.6100 nn rrt 651.429.6190 r- TBD WE 45 Sq. Ft.) www.spectrurri-signs.com PROJEC' Town Centre Plaza -6 11 " I FUTUR T NANT 1 Exhibit B Client Information Scale: lR" a 1'-0" a Gaughan Companies Attn: Julie Smith y j 56 East Broadway $ Forest Lake, MN Phone 651-255-5552 Jobsite 1185 Town Centre Drive Eagan, MN s Side View Date 2 ~ 5-15-09 H r)t{SIGNER RJM Reverse Channel Aluminum Letters 7Ms arawMgbtheerRhrsiva properryoi Finished #313 Dark Bronze spactmm sron srt.ms irrcnhnocm b. produced or duplicated without the written amentofspecWmSIPSyste want Dbhibudon of this drawing forthe purpora the Furnish & Install 45 Sc1' t SpFt. Non-Illuminated Channel Letter Sets than han Spcttectrurom Slgnign bySysams, Inc.bnryuneo .090 Aluminum Face s F4 strlcdyprohibitedgsuchanevemac urs 11 Spectrum Sign Systems will be 1 rdmbuned S1,90000peroccNrsnas k .063 Aluminum Return a Customer Approval S Building Background Date t a _ \ l a 4 D ) 1 . 73 IB ' ~T~ ~ g2 lB J 62 7 5D 42 ~ 310 ' '+.f-:?* s:,. r,~ - - •a'r~ •o• ~y.s,.' ~..~s. ^ ~^.7-. ~•,r~ ^ 1:r ~-aTi.--~ • i.y: 9 T.. ~ Z.. :'.1,+. ~ • 'p :.C•'.+.sr S` r . `.x ,'1': ~7:. f-:`': .t'>a` 1~a "J~'°~ 1 .r 1---- ----------1 - - _-rr.w.nr _ -_'"e o--~y°.°.°~•.--t=="....~-_' 0-'ti.... .gyn.. :..~"~r m.~ ~ µ W eavnw ' 1 ~2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 38 42 5B 62 _ ~B1 82 1 t 1 :yPkr. '+o ~ ,.cpp 'A7 rc51;u: :i::w rsrc t•3gn !!'.!'gj$l •..f i. :x• _ +i way.\. _7d. 't•1..: :i~- _ :?ti: 4.•• ,~:4r:` .Y^. .s\ I.r. -fie -_-=sue-~ 1 . 1 1 r. 1 1 - 1 -1-- w•n'~°w _'_r__- --YNVI~ 1 6 j IUIM B(yA1g1 j ~ AA -•rw r A.wr•m.~-r ~ r~ D77711OP6N .~.rOr.6 .aA.rvre nwen w1w iii .e~e* e+ar.. n.•. n.• .•N .era. f ...o.m.nw ew wn•e..r e.• .e. r+•~ra+.+.•~w+• r..•,•w TO7N X-- CENTRE PLAZA EXTERIOR ~ .+v.~ e'+~ I+o6w.lr o..er .em:., row eatna r7AU~ uc ELEVATIONg + Y1t~.:rw •.e wel w.•eu.r me K ME®R 6t.1UR aN - 6 m.n.w+.e..h.,ro n•+u•e. rn.w J(!! :~nR~ re•RCe veaw nr W or M • •R a rwr~rnr F"" "a 66!1"!"77 J MAK 7 _ I" a "1"5!57+ e•R :M+:0. (/Vf t I 1 1 I I 1 r•.r ma iD"~ L~u~~ r 1 RiK 0"l..r..~ Emi - ~M:-e f TARIIq EV R09 FQ11K - w p1 3 ^ I ELVATKN Ml Gm V r. . D.4 tom/ ' ! ElvARgl Y. •!TA1'•'y !l'~ 5.T 5B 1 ♦ D[IK • 1 1 L 1 wriwwew...r wrswr... '~~r nw- I • COI•Ell f1F,K `1 r Ari wr.r! M w r. . 1 Cel11N ORK i q HlVATCN A-1 r. f wv~s.-iAr r[r r Rwr.f lu.l N. R.rl A DIMLQEr. r+ewe.' 1 rra.e. ee.rwera reawlwn ow iwwonrru eie®s.. w fow cBmE M1ltA lie. .w a.wa"~iiMOr r.:.eser: "1b fwl.rw TGLLN GENTM PLAZA EMEWOR nv.n•o!r ra uear.. over LLEvATIONB rse+n^~ia~ifsa n.~ MORIOEIRi~lT.1UIIE7M r•a.wt.an. rn.w/•v ..n. r. uu a ..r n.lt s M..f.V..A !I. NIL MHlOIA'MN !0l.TgW FM J: EA6•M, llRtblOIA war wr,w. m •W!m fA1rN0. NW!!!!1 . 1 SPECTRUM SIGN SYSTEh1S, INC 12!-0" j 2025 Gateway ClrcleSulte 2 i Centerville, MN 55038 I 651 A29.6100 (r, to, I 65,A29.6190F- 1 wwwapectrum-signs.com Aluminum Top Finished lp" To Match Dark Bronze y I'IiOJr-(" a. Town Centre Plaza Exhibit C lo- I T DTz C E N~ k R Flat Cut Out Aluminum Finished Dark Bronze ) Client Information 31-10" 10" I PLAZA. Gaughan Companies 6-11" l .f Attn: Julie Smith e Repaint Existing Monument 56 East Broadway 6"/ 4" Z ■ 1:185 Town Centre] Drive To Match Beige % Forest Lake, MN Phone 651-255-5552 pp Jobsite 2-3 Existing Masonry Base d 1185 Town Centre Drive grade Eagan, MN Scale: 12" =1'-0" 1 Furnish & Install (2) 1076" Flat Cut Out Aluminum Letter Sets Onto Existing Double Face Monument Sign Data 5-15-09 DISi;;NEI~. Side View RJIM O _ v . This drawing is the exclusive pmp@M of Spectrum Sign Systems,Mcit Is not to be Y _ :.y~r ` 1/4" Flat Cut Out Aluminum pmduced or duplicated without the wrlnm Z Finished To Match Dark Bronze mnsmaofspectrumsign Systems,lnc. Distribution ofthisthaffring rorthopurpose dmromxtYrp the sign by nyons other than Spectrum Sign Systsms,bre-Is M strictly prohibited If such an event occurs Z Spectrum Sign Systems YA be -'I Stud Mount Hardware reimbursed SIAOOAOperootu-"wen, Cn Z Monument Background Customer Approval r A Z Data Existing Sign Proposed Sign y0 5 a May 18, 2009 'rAUGHAN O M P A N I E S. City Of Eagan Companies 6 Fa st au Bghanroadwway ay Suite 200 3830 Pilot Knob Road Forest Lake, MN 55025 Eagan, MN 55122 office 651.464.5700 fax 651.464.5757 www.gaughancompaniesxom To Whom It May Concern: Gaughan Companies represents the ownership group that has recently acquired the property located at 1185 Town Centre Drive, Eagan. The building is approximately 44,000 square feet and consists of medical office tenants. During our due diligence process we conducted tenant interviews with each of the tenants in the building. The majority of the tenants stated that they had a need to have signage on the building. With the emergence of several new office buildings in the area, many of which are designed for the office needs of medical tenants, it. has become clear to us that we need the ability to offer our tenants the ability to display their business name on the building. The businesses are long term tenants that provide necessary medical services to the residents of Eagan and the surrounding communities. These medical providers feel that the new buildings, that are allowed to offer building signage, have created an unfair advantage. One tenant who had occupied a significant amount of space has recently moved out of the Town Centre Plaza building and into one of the newer buildings for just that reason. Gaughan Companies believes that without the ability to offer building signage to the remaining tenants that there will be others that follow which would create undue hardship for the building's ownership group and considerably devalue the building. We respectively request that The City of Eagan approve our request to provide this service for our tenants. It is the philosophy of the Gaughan Companies to build strong, long-lasting relationships not only with our tenants but also with the city personnel in which our properties are located. We take great pride in the upkeep and maintenance of our buildings and know that responsible ownership is a significant concern in every city. We make every effort to ensure all of our properties are well maintained and code compliant. Respectfu %AL lly, Oulie Nash Smith Gaughan Companies 651-255-5552 651-775-3371 LI !h City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Legally Described: Lot 1, Block 1, Gatewood's Addition Address: 1185 Town Centre Drive PIN: 10-28900-010-01 Zoning: PD Planned Development Land Use: Multi Tenant Medical / Office Building Surrounding Property Zoning and Uses: North - Culvers Restaurant - zoned PD, Designated SA, Special Area under the comprehensive guide plan. South - Waterford Apartments, Zoned PD, Designated SA, Special Area under the Comprehensive guide plan. East - Eagan Counseling Clinic, Zoned LB, Limited Businesss, designated SA Special Area under the comprehensive guide plan. West - Access Lifts, Inc., Zoned PD, Designated SA, Special area under the Comprehensive guide plan. Request: We are requesting an amendment to the PD Agreement allowing Building & Tenant Identification Wall Signs and a renovation of the existing monument sign. We anticipate a Fall Completion of the Building ID and Monument Signs and will begin to work with Tenants upon city approval. Wall Signs: We propose (1) 70 Square Foot Building Identification sign and (4) 45 Square Foot Tenant ID Signs on the South Elevation and (1) 45 Square Foot Tenant ID Sign on the East Elevation (Exhibit A). All signs will be uniform in fabrication, finish and installation method (Exhibit B) The proposed signs are non-illuminated. Please see the attached written sign criteria. There are currently no wall signs on the building. Monument Sign: We propose to remove all tenant ID Plaques off the existing monument, patch and repaint the background and cap. Fabricate and install new '/4" plate aluminum letters / address numbers blind stud mounted into the EFIS background. (Exhibit C) The structure and area of the monument sign will not change. The impact on the subject property: 1) Allows ownership the ability to offer the same Tenant sign opportunities as other buildings in the area. (Please see the attached letter provided by the landlord dated 5/18) 2) Allows ownership the opportunity to landmark the building and building entrance, which are beneficial to clients, patients and smaller uses in the building. The existing nameplates are not readable from an acceptable distance. 3) Allows current designated and future tenants the ability to display their business name and compete with adjacent providers. We do not believe there will be any significant impact on the surrounding land uses. City Services Impact: There will be no impact on City services as the monument structure will not be altered. ~~a Town Centre Plaza, Eagan, MN Sign Criteria 5/14/09 1 of 2 Pages GENERAL #1) Tenant at Landlords option may display an exterior sign. All such signs shall be subject to the requirements and limitations as outlined hereafter. The furnishing and installation of a sign and the costs incurred shall be the responsibility of the Tenant. #2) Tenant's sign shall consist of identification; copy is restricted to the Tenant's proper name and major product or services offered therein. Corporate logos, emblems and shields are permitted provided they are confined within the designated sign area and approved by Landlord. #3) Tenant will be allocated an area on the exterior fagade of the building by the landlord to identify their business consistent with Exhibits A & B attached hereto. Sign area shall not exceed 45 Square Feet. Sign placement is limited to the South & East elevations of the building. #4) No sign shall be placed in final position without the written approval of the landlord in addition to a City of Eagan sign permit. #5) Upon expiration or early termination of the Lease Term, Tenant shall remove the Sign and repair all damages to the building caused thereby at his/her own expense. Repair work to be completed in workman like manner and must be done to landlords satisfaction. SIGN SPECIFICATIONS Tenant signs shall consist of reverse channel non-illuminated letters (Exhibit B) as described below. All signs shall be fabricated and installed in compliance with specifications outlined as follows and with all applicable codes. CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS Letters faces are fabricated .090 aluminum with .063 returns, 2" return depth. Finish color is Matthews #313 Dark Bronze. Letters to have Clear Lexan backs. Letters (sign area) shall not exceed 18" in height including ascenders and descenders. Letters shall be blind stud mounted into building background. Tenant sign shalt be placed in area designated by landlord. 1q3 RECEIVED MAY 2 0 2009 SIGN CRITERIA 5/14/09 Page 2 of 2 PROHIBITED SIGNS #1) The following types of signs or sign components shall be prohibited. a) Illuminated signs. b) Paper or cardboard signs, stickers utilized as signs. c) Signs of temporary character or purpose. Auxiliary signage used for grand openings or special events is subject to landlord and municipal approval. d) Moving, flashing or flickering lights. e) Signs, pictures, or paintings within the demised premises, as described in this section, if visible from outside without the prior written permission of the landlord. SIGN APPROVAL PROCEDURE Tenant shall submit to Landlord (2) sets of drawings and specifications. The drawings shall clearly show location of sign on the fagade, construction and attachment detail. Landlord will provide written approval or disapproval within seven working days of receiving drawings and specifications. Landlord approval is subject to the approval of The City of Eagan. f~ Agenda Information Memo July 7, 2009, Eagan City Council Meeting D. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - CITY OF EAGAN ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve an Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 11, specifically as it relates to the screening of building and ground-mounted mechanical equipment and direct the City Attorney to publish the amendment in the Legal Newspaper. REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: Majority of Council Members Present FACTS: ➢ The City adopted mechanical equipment screening standards in 2006 and application of the standards has generally been successful; however, as with the applying any new ordinance standard, idiosyncrasies are discovered and staff has kept track and noted areas that need attention. ➢ At their regular meeting of June 2, 2009, the City Council directed staff to process the amendment through the Public Hearing process. ➢ As an amendment to Chapter 11, the APC held a Public Hearing on June 23, 2009 and they are recommending approval of the amendment. ATTACHMENTS: (3) r q Draft June 23, 2009 APC minutes on pa 1 Staff report on pages through N . Draft Ordinance on pages q through. 1 (15 G. Mechanical Screening Applicant Name: City of Eagan Application: Ordinance Amendment An Ordinance Amendment relative to mechanical screening. File Number: 01-OR-06-06-0 Planner Thomas introduced this item and highlighted the information presented in the City Staff report dated June 18, 2009. She noted the background and history. Vice Chair Keeley opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Vice Chair Keeley closed the public hearing and turned the discussion back to the Commission. Member Filipi moved, Member Daley seconded a motion to recommend approval of an Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 11 to amend the screening requirements for building mounted mechanical equipment. A vote was taken. All voted in favor. Motion carried: 7-0. VI. VISITORS TO BE HEARD (FOR THOSE NOT ON AGENDA) There were no visitors to be heard for items not on the agenda. VII. OTHER BUSINESS 1. Set Advisory Planning Commission workshop date City Planner Ridley stated a Planning Commission Workshop would be held on Thursday, July 9 2009, at 5:30 p.m., if necessary. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Member Heaney moved, Member Filipi seconded a motion to adjourn the Advisory Planning Commission meeting at 8:45 p.m. A vote was taken. All voted in favor. Motion carried 7-0. Respectfully Submitted by: Tom Heaney APC Secretary Camille Worley Recording Secretary l54 PLANNING REPORT CITY OF EAGAN REPORT DATE: June 18, 2009 CASE: 01-OR-06-06-09 APPLICANT: City of Eagan HEARING DATE: June 23, 2009 PROPERTY OWNER: City of Eagan APPLICATION DATE: May 20, 2009 REQUEST: Ordinance Amendment - Screening PREPARED BY: Erik Slettedahl and of Mechanical Equipment Sarah Thomas LOCATION: City-wide COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: N/A ZONING: N/A SUMMARY OF REOUEST To amend the Ordinance as it pertains to the screening of mechanical equipment. AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.40, Subdivision 5 states, in part: 1. The provisions of this chapter may be amended by the majority vote of the council, except that amendments changing the boundaries of any district or changing the regulations of any district may only be made by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of all members of the council. BACKGROUNDIHISTORY The City adopted mechanical equipment screening standards in 2006 that established new standards for screening of both rooftop and ground mounting mechanical equipment. The purpose of the ordinance was to establish consistent standards for both new and existing uses that would enhance the appearance of the commercial, industrial and public areas within the City. Since the adoption of the ordinance, City Staff has encountered several issues regarding the enforcement of these standards, particularly relating to screening requirements for replacement mechanical units. The most significant issues were related to internal logistics on enforcement and concerns from contractors about the extraordinary costs associated with construction of physical screens. As a result, City Staff has met several times internally and received feedback from contractors and architects to determine possible solutions that would still meet the intent of the ordinance but offer a more cost efficient, logistically easier to enforce, and better defined screening method. 197 Planning Report - Mechanical Screening June 23, 2009 Page 2 At their regular meeting on June 2, 2009, the City Council directed staff to prepare an amendment relating to the mechanical equipment screening and have the Advisory Planning Commission (APC) hold a Public Hearing and make a recommendation. ANALYSIS The resulting draft ordinance was designed to add more specific language to the requirements and attempts to establish separate standards for new development, major remodels, and replacement equipment. Sections D (1-11) are also included with the draft ordinance as they were inadvertently deleted with the building materials ordinance amendment earlier this year. Replacement Equipment The most significant change in the draft ordinance relaxes the standards for replacement equipment by requiring at minimum, the replacement units are painted an earth tone color compatible with the exterior trim or siding on the principal structure. While ideally, a physical screen would offer the best visual appearance to screen replacement units, the current ordinance only requires screening of each visible replaced unit, not the entire set of visible units on a structure. The requirements were logistically difficult to enforce, somewhat haphazard, and expensive for the property owners. The painting requirement is designed to allow for an easier method to establish design consistency on a particular building while still reducing the visual impact of larger and visible mechanical units. New Construction and Major Remodel Screening requirements for visible equipment on new construction in the draft ordinance are redefined to offer less ambiguity from the current standards. All new construction will require a minimum 30" parapet wall and a physical screen when not all equipment can be hidden by a parapet design. In addition, the draft ordinance includes a more defined description of what constitutes a major remodel. Draft ordinance language is attached that represents the modifications to the Ordinance as proposed by City staff. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED To recommend approval of an Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 11 to amend the screening requirements for roof-mounted mechanical equipment. OR ORDINANCE NO. 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA, AMENDING EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER ELEVEN ENTITLED "LAND USE REGULATIONS (ZONING)" BY AMENDING SECTION 11.70 REGARDING SITE DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS AND SCREENING OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. The City Council of the City of Eagan does ordain: Section 1. Eagan City Code, Chapter 11, is hereby amended by adding Section 11. 70, Subd. 21(D) to read as follows: D Site design and development requirements. All multi-family, commercial and industrial uses shall be designed and developed in accordance with the following: 1 Landscaping All yards shall be landsc Ned or be left in a natural state. If any yards are to be landscaped they shall be landscaped attractively with lawn, trees, shrubs etc Any areas left in a natural state shall be properly maintained in a sightly and well-kept condition Yards adjoining any residential district shall be landscWed with buffer planting if this is not provided in the natural state. Plans of such screens shall be submitted for approval as part of a site plan and installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any land in the district. In the event this requirement cannot be met because of climate, a bond shall be required to insure compliance within a reasonable time. The design shall make use of all land contained in the site. All of the site plan shall be related to the multiple use i.e., either parking, circulation recreation, landscaping, screening, building storage, etc. 2 Drainage The drainage of stormwaters shall be provided for either on the site or in a public storm sewer. 3 Curbs Interior curbs shall be constructed within the property to separate driving and parking surfaces from landscaped areas. Interior curbs required by this section shall be concrete construction. 4 Walkways Surfaced walkways shall be provided from parking areas, loading zones and recreation areas to the entrances of buildings. 5 Surfacing All interior driveway parking areas, loading areas, etc., shall be of blacktop or concrete construction. 6 Burying utilities All utilities including electrical and telephone lines, shall be buried in all new subdivisions as required by chapter 13 of the Code unless otherwise approved by the council. 7 Enclosure of trash and recyclables containers. All trash and recyclables containers stored outside in the R-4 LB NB GB CSC RD I-1 I-2 PF and BP zoning districts shall be stored within an enclosure subject to the following standards: 1 a The enclosure shall have an impermeable floor surface. b The enclosure shall be attached to the principal building in the limited business (LB) neighborhood business (NB), general business (GB), community shopping center (CSC) and research and development (RD) zoning districts. C. The enclosure may be detached from the principal building in the residential multiple (R-4) limited industrial (I-1), general industrial (I-2), business park (BP) and public facility (PF) zoning districts. d The enclosure shall satisfy principal structures setbacks required for the applicable zoning district. e. The enclosure shall be constructed of materials to match the exterior of the principal structure with gates or doors having at least 90 percent opacity. f. The enclosure shall be of sufficient size to enclose all trash and recyclables containers and shall be not less than six feet and not more than ten feet in heiP-ht. g g The above protisions apply in addition to the provisions of chapter 10 of this Code which r~gLjlate the storaLe. deposit, and disposal of refuse on all properties. 8 Lighting (fin-site lig Ig iting shall be provided as is necessary for security, safety and traffic circulation. Such illumination shall be indirect and diffused or shielded. Lighting shall not be'directed upoii pnblic rights-of-way or adjacent properties and the sourceof light shall not be visible from off the property. 9 Natural features The site shall show due regard for all natural terrain features, such as trees. watercouises, historic areas or similar conditions. 10 Public safety. All site and buildingplans for multiple dwellings shall be reviewed b"tho fire and Ro ice departments. Plans shall be reviewed for fire warning and protectiOn systems public safety, vehicular access and concerns related to public safety. 11 Multiple-family dwelling complexes Multiple-family dwelling complexes shall have a minimum recreation area equal to 200 square feet for each dwelling unit containing two or fewer bedrooms and 100 additional square feet for each dwelling unit containing more than two bedrooms. Said recreation area shall be a minimum of 100 feet from M ponding area. 12. Screening of mechanical equipment. f " shall apply meehaniea4 equipmen4 installed with any new e n. to vvl4eh it s meehanieal equipment whieh is Y building remodeled er expanded- 2 O~ 0~ (a) All r-eef meui4°'l ground meeh^^seal- equipfnepA shall et-beVisible- f. the gr-eund level of any adj ^t pr-opet4y or- s4feet that is of eqi (b) All mee-h al equipment " l'^71 be °'l as set foi4h here (E) All sEre must be nte-gr• Tated ar-ehiteetur-ally iNith the L,,~vuilding!s exterief ~fffa_e `fit `"nl. Ser-eening isti "y_ f ^a et ;.,t°.,r,-nt ar-ehiteE ll with the building, a°c-ss he buildiRg's exterior- sur= cc (d) A' ser-eening, whether- to eever- nd re°fl„ .,+°a ^1,.. „l or- equipment, sha4l be at least as high the meehanieal equipment itselfl. (e) Ser-eeming shall be kept in a state ef good r-epaif. (f) Ground mounted fnee a .,1 , uipment shall be fu l~ - ne t„ a the Wit matefi;ls-that -ref same shall be lsei}stya4tM of the nateri eeler- as the ~ af} (b) D ^f „'t°`l m°"}' al ;S;T.,,,o.,r `,h.,ll be " Teen ed by either- lik zziHi~s czriiz'et-ef of t~ e'- FHN o az f - icrrr {4icrant l.'er6xa1+t tcT Z 't any :view .+f the eeh....... nl r.t frnm nc °.:1',::1;,:::°..... th e n 1 ,l l 't " ll must be of the e zrteetufa4 desip as tl, tl `l nf+he bUil, in j ,ter be ifAe .rat°'l ifAe the ar-A eet„r° of vurivl-~}~`--72i Yr`-Sere dial equipmefl4 mtt4 be eeastpa6tad of building materials of equal dufAilivy,- eel6r- and maintemanee Fequir-ements as the building itself, fb) Prier- -t bull 1 t2~E6i~stmeAefier- the isS anee of n building oF rrieehmie al PeRin its nll m2E1 iEal-eq~ti er and proposed ser-eenin g 1 shall i %ed.epiEte`a tl,° 1.,,;1' if flg site Plafl anEVer- building i1 g a. Purpose. The intent of this section is to promote consistent and high standards of design and construction for the commercial, industrial, and public uses in the City. These standards are set forth in order to enhance the visual appearance of the commercial, industrial, and public areas within the City by ensuring the high quality of development, redevelopment and compatibility with evolving architectural or planning themes that contribute to a community image of quality. b. General Requirements. The following requirements apply to all building and ground mounted mechanical equipment: 3 c)I (i) All mechanical equipment shall be designed and located so as not to disrupt or detract from the visual theme and appearance of the subject building. (ii) All mechanical equipment, whether located on a roof, side of a structure or on the ground shall be entirely screened from public view and from the ground level of any adjacent property or street that is of equal grade with the subject building. (iii) Prior to any building construction or the issuance of a building or mechanical permit all mechanical equipment and proposed screening shall be depicted on the building's site plan and/or building elevation dra zings. d (iv) Screening and finishes shall be kept in a state of good repair an condition. (v) All building mounted mechanical equipment on now buildings or newly located equipment on existing buildings shall be set back from the 'edge of the roof a minimum of 20 feet. ~vD All existing mechanical equipment shall be identified on a Proposed site Plan. C. Requirements for Nev> ConstnictionsorMajor Remodels. The following additional requirements shall apply to mechanical equipment installed with am, new construction. or maior remodel of existing structure: (i) Where 5011/o or more of a building's long side or front facade area, whichever is longest,' is resurfaced with new exterior materials; or 50 or more linear feet of the roofline is altered; or the roofline of any end cap of a multi-tenant commercial building is altered, the following requirements shall apply: 1 A parapet wall at least 30 inches in height as measured from the roof line shall be constructed on the perimeter of the roof. 2 A physical screen shall be used in combination with the parapet wall if all of the mechanical equipment cannot be fully screened by aparapet design. iii) When 45% or more of the existing exterior mechanical equipment serving any structure is replaced at one time, a parapet wall or physical screen shall be used to fully screen all new and existing mechanical equipment. 4 "1p3., (iii) When circumstances exist for a new construction of major remodel that trigger both of the requirements of this subsection the requirements set forth above which will most completely screen the mechanical equipment shall apply. d. Requirements for Replacement and Retrofit of Equipment. When the existing mechanical equipment is replaced or new equipment is installed and associated with improvements or retrofits, the new or replaced mechanical unit associated with an existing principal structure that is not fully screened from public view may be painted as an alternative to screening to meet the intent of this ordinance Painting of mechanical units shall meet the following requirements: (i) Paint color shall be earth tone and compatible with existing trim or siding color on principal structure: (ii) Paint color shall be consistent with other painted equipment complying with the requirements and intent of this section (iii) Paint shall be durabic and applied with an even and professional appearance: - e. Physical Screening Requirements. For purposes of this section a physical screenshall be defined as a`separate screening structure that surrounds a rricchaiucal unit(s) and screens` it ° from ' public view. When ph s~ical screenin ; is required, the following shall apply: Cj) The physical screen shall be visually integrated with the principal structure perms of materials color, shape and size Where individual tenant equipment is provided a continuous screen is required. ii Screeningg material consisting of wood is not inte rated architecturally with the building unless the building's exterior surface material consists of 75 percent or more of wood. Ail screening material shall be at least as tall as the mechanical equipment itself and extend down to top of curb unless a sight line analysis is provided that shows compliance with this section. f. Ground Mounted Mechanical Equipment. (i) Ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened by either a masonry wall or opaque landscaping. (ii) All landscaping screens must consist of plant material that remains fully opaque year-round. 5 a03 (iii) Masonry walls shall be constructed of the same material and shall be the same color as the principal structure's building- surface material. Ps. Exemptions: Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, the following mechanical equipment is exempt from the provisions of this section. (i) All roof mounted mechanical equipment under eight inches in diameter. (ii) Certain painted or metallic finishes and unit shapes that are determined by the City to ineet the intent and purpose of this Chapter. Section 2. Eagan City Code Chapter l entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including 'Pen pity for Violation' and Section 11.99, 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 Petersen By: Mike Maguire Its: City Clerk Its: Mayor Date Ordinance Adopted: Date Ordinance Published in the Legal Newspaper: Date of Advisory Planivng Commission Hearing: 6 Agenda Information Memo July 7, 2009 Eagan City Council Meeting E. ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS - CITY OF EAGAN ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED: To APPROVE an amendment to Chapter 10, Sec. 10.31, as it pertains to noisy parties or gatherings and electronic sound system/audio equipment use to require a permit for outdoor electronic sound system/audio equipment use after 10:00 p.m. To APPROVE an amendment to Chapter 11, Sec. 11.70, as it pertains to Temporary Outdoor Events. FACTS: ➢ Outdoor events with musical entertainment have occasionally generated complaints to City Staff from residents expressing their need to have reasonable sound limitations after 10 P.M. ➢ At the May 5, 2009 City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment with regard to outdoor events with music after 10 p.m. ➢ The proposed amendment will require a permit be obtained (subject to City Council approval) for any event with outdoor electronic sound system/audio equipment use between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Noise standards are proposed to be 55 decibels at 1/4 mile radius and 50 decibels at %2 mile radius from the property line where the sound is being permitted. ➢ The application and permit fee would be filed with the Community Development Department, and applicants would be charged a permit fee of $75.00 to cover the City's costs. ➢ Additionally, a reference to the Chapter 10 amendment is proposed in Chapter 11 under the Temporary Outdoor Events (Section 11.70). Any amendment to Chapter 11 requires a Public Hearing before the APC. ➢ The APC held a Public Hearing on June 23, 2009 and they are recommending approval of the ordinance amendment to Chapter 11. ATTACHMENTS: (2) Staff report and draft Chapter 10 ordinance is attached on page3acte through Draft APC Minutes, staff Memo and Chapter 11 ordinance is attached on page5al3 through <Z~. 0 OG- PLANNING REPORT CITY OF EAGAN REPORT DATE: June 25, 2009 CASE: 01-OR-07-06-09 APPLICANT: City of Eagan HEARING DATE: July 7, 2009 PROPERTY OWNER: City of Eagan APPLICATION DATE: June 17, 2009 REQUEST: Amendment to Chapter 10 PREPARED BY: Mary Granley LOCATION: City-wide COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: N/A ZONING: N/A SUMMARY OF REQUEST To amend Chapter 10, Sec. 10.31 as it pertains to noisy parties or gatherings and electronic sound system/audio equipment use to require a permit, subject to City Council approval, for outdoor electronic sound system/audio equipment use after 10:00 p.m. BACKGROUND The City adopted noise standards in 2001 that determined a violation of the ordinance exists when any electronic sound system or audio equipment is operated in a manner in which it is plainly audible at a distance of fifty (50) feet or more. Outdoor events with musical entertainment have occasionally generated complaints to City Staff from residents expressing their need to have reasonable sound limitations after 10 p.m. COUNCIL DIRECTION At their regular meeting on May 5, 2009, the City Council directed staff to prepare an Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 10 pertaining to noisy parties or gatherings and electronic sound system/audio equipment use after 10 p.m., and to cross reference those changes in Chapters 5 (Liquor Licensing) and 11 (Temporary Outdoor Events). The Advisory Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on June 23 and recommended approval of the amendment to Chapter 11. SURVEY Event organizers and residential representatives provided feedback to City Staff on possible solutions that would help meet the needs of residents, yet allow the events to continue within aocp Planning Report - Outdoor Electronic Sound System/Audio Equipment Use After 10 p.m. July 7, 2009 Page 12 limitations. City Staff surveyed other cities on their requirements for outdoor events with noise, and staff from the City Attorney's office, Fire, Police, Administration, and Community Development Departments met to review the information and provide input. ANALYSIS The resulting draft ordinance was designed to require a permit be obtained (subject to City Council approval) for any event with outdoor electronic sound system/audio equipment use between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., and that the electronic sound be limited to 55 decibels at'/4 mile radius and 50 decibels at'/2 mile radius from the property line where the sound is being permitted. Other factors regarding the event that would be reviewed under the permit include the location and surrounding land uses; a site plan and description of the event facilities and amplification equipment; the event date, day of the week, and times; the duration, volume, frequency and type of sound to be generated; and contact information on the applicant and on-site contact person, who are both responsible for compliance with the ordinance and reducing the sound to a level at or below the maximum allowed as directed by enforcement personnel. The draft ordinance also states that the City Council may impose additional conditions upon the issuance of the permit to ensure that the sound generated does not disturb the public. Furthermore, it states the Council shall not issue a permit to any person who has failed to comply with the terms of a previous permit or similar permit issued by another municipality within the last five years. The application and permit fee would be filed with the Community Development Department. Applicants would be charged a permit fee of $75.00 to cover the City's costs associated with the time needed for permit review, coordination with the Police Department, and meeting(s) with the applicant. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED To Approve an Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 10 to amend the requirements for noisy parties or gatherings and electronic sound system/audio equipment use after 10 p.m and direct the City Attorney's office to prepare and publish the amendment in the Legal Newspaper. QC~7 ORDINANCE NO. 2ND SERIES MINNESOTA AMENDING EA AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAGAN, CITY CODE CHAPTER TEN ENTITLED "PUBLIC PROTECTION, CRIMES AND OFFENSES" BY AMENDING SECTION 10.31 REGARDING NOISY PARTIES OR GATHERINGS AND ELECTRONIC SOUND SYSTEM/AUDIO EQUIPMENT; AND BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 10.99. The City Council of the City of Eagan does ordain: Section 1. Eagan City Code Chapter Ten is hereby amended by changing Section 10.3 1, Subd. 2 to read as follows: Sec. 10.31. Noisy parties or gatherings and electronic sound system/audio equipment. Subd. 2. Electronic sound system/audio equipment. A. No person shall use or operate any electronic sound system or audio equipment including, but not limited to, any compact disc player, cassette tape player, AM-FM radio, citizen band radio, paging system, or any other device designed to produce or reproduce audio sound; in such an unreasonably loud manner that it disturbs the peace, quiet, and comfort of others or interferes with the right of another to use peacefully his/her property or public property without disturbance. B. It shall be presumed that a violation of this section has occurred when any electronic sound system or audio equipment is operated in a manner in which it is plainly audible at a distance of 50 feet or more. C. When sound violating this section is produced by an electronic sound system or audio equipment that is located in or on a vehicle, the vehicle's owner is guilty of the violation, provided that if the vehicle's owner is not present, the person in charge of the vehicle at the time of the violation is guilty of the violation. D. This section shall not apply to sound produced by the following: 1. Amplifying equipment used in connection with activities for which a permit has been granted or in connection with activities of any organized school, church, civic, or other event or activity open to the public and occurring between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.; C3 7 DRAFT 2. Anti-theft devices; 3. Church bells, chimes or carillons, school bells, or emergency civil defense warning signals; and 4. Authorized emergency vehicles or other vehicles required by law to be equipped with sound devices. Section 2. Eagan City Code Chapter Ten is hereby amended by adding Section 10.3 1, Subd. 3 to read as follows: Sec. 10.31. Noisy parties or gatherings and electronic sound system/audio equipment. Subd 3 Permit required for outdoor electronic sound system/audio equipment use after 10: 00 p.m. A Between the hours of 10.00 m and 7:00 a.m. no person shall use or operate any electronic sound system or audio equipment to produce or reproduce audio sound outdoors unless such person first obtains a permit from the City Council prescribed herein complies with all provisions of this Subdivision and the terms and conditions set forth in the permit. For purposes of this Subdivision the term "electronic sound system or audio equipment" shall include any device designed or commonly used to intentionally produce amplify or reproduce sound. B Permit application No permit shall be issued to an applicant unless a written application meeting the requirements set forth below and accompanied by payment of the permit fee established in the City's fee schedule is filed with the City Clerk. The permit application shall contain the following: 1 The location for which the permit is sought ("permitted location"); 2 The dates and times for which the permit is sought, 3 The name address and telephone number of the applicant and the on-site contact person named by the applicant to implement the permit and act as the on-site contact for City officials during the event for which the permit is sought. The applicant and the contact person shall be responsible for compliance with the terms and conditions imposed by the permit and by this Code; aoj 4 A description of the facilities and the electronic sound system or audio equipment to be used for which the permit is sought; 5 A statement from the applicant as to whether the applicant or contact person has been issued a similar permit for the outdoor use of electronic sound system or audio equipment within the last five wears by this City any other municipality, or any other government entity with authority to issue such similar permit. The statement shall contain contact information for the permitting entity or entities and a statement as to whether the applicant or contact person was or was not in violation of any term or condition of said permit; and ® 6 Such other and further information as the application form may require in order to carryout the purposes of this Subdivision. C Procedure The City Council shall consider all of the following criteria when determining whether to issue a permit upon application: 1 The volume frequency and type of sound to be generated; 2 The day of the week and duration of the sound to be generated; 3 The character and nature of land uses underlying and adjacent to the land upon which the electronic sound system or audio equipment will be used; and 4 Whether the applicant or contact person has complied with the terms of a previous permit or similar permit issued by another municipality or government agent. D The City _Council shall not issue a permit to any person who has, during the last five years failed to comply with the terms and conditions of any previously issued electronic sound system or audio equipment permit of this City or any similar permit issued by any other municipality or government entity. The City Council may deny the permit if the proposed use of electronic sound system or audio equipment will adversely affect surrounding, properties. E The City Council may impose conditions upon the issuance of any permit that are reasonably related to ensure that the sound generated by the permitted electronic sound system or audio equipment does not unreasonably disturb the persons and property surrounding the permitted location. a~~ F The applicant or contact person shall maintain the permit on the permitted premises at all times during which the permitted electronic sound system or audio equipment is in use. The permit shall be presented to any City official or law enforcement officer upon demand. G Sound measurement and restriction. No sound produced under the permit shall exceed the maximum allowable sound pressure level as measured at locations 1/4 mile and %2 mile from the property line of the permitted location The maximum allowable sound pressure level at a location 1/4 radius mile from the property lines of the permitted premises is 55 decibels The maximum allowable sound pressure level at a location '/2 radius mile from the property lines of the permitted premises is 50 decibels The measurement of sound pressure levels shall be made with a Type I or Type II decibel meter, as defined by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Specifications Section 1.4-1971, using the A- weighted fast response scale. The decibel meter microphone shall be placed three to five feet above ground level and positioned so as to not create any unnatural enhancement or diminution of the measured sound pressure level. H Exclusions This subdivision shall not apply to sound produced by the following: 1. Anti-theft devices; 2 Church bells chimes or carillons school bells, or emergency civil defense warning signals; 3 Authorized emergency vehicles or other vehicles required by law to be equipped with sound devices; and 4 This Subdivision shall not apply to residential properties, provided Subdivision 2 herein shall apply. I Permit enforcement A City law enforcement officer or City official, upon measurement of sound pressure levels exceeding the maximum allowed sound pressure level may direct the on-site contact person to reduce the sound level emitting from the electronic sound system or audio equipment to a sound level that is at or below, the maximum allowed sound level. It is unlawful for the applicant or the contact person to fail to comply with such an order. Failure to comply with such an order may result in immediate cessation of noise amplification and revocation of the permit. J Any violation of this Subdivision or a violation of any condition of the permit issued under this Subdivision shall be deemed unlawful. DRAFT Section 3. Eagan City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including 'Penalty for Violation"' and Section 4.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its adoption and publication according to law. ATTEST: CITY OF EAGAN City Council By: Maria Petersen By: Mike Maguire Its: City Clerk Its: Mayor Date Ordinance Adopted: Date Ordinance Published in the Legal Newspaper: a~a F. Temporary outdoor events Applicant Name: City of Eagan Application: Ordinance Amendment An Ordinance Amendment relative to temporary outdoor events. File Number: 01-OR-04-05-09 City Planner Ridley introduced this item and highlighted the information presented in the memorandum dated June 17, 2009. He noted the background and history. Vice Chair Keeley opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Vice Chair Keeley closed the public hearing and turned the discussion back to the Commission. Member Supina moved, Member Piper seconded a motion to recommend approval of an Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 11, Sect 11.70 to modify the Temporary Outdoor Event Section of the City Code. A vote was taken. All voted in favor. Motion carried: 7-0. ~3 City of EaRan ma To: Chair Chavez and Advisory Planning Commission Members From: Mike Ridley, AICPW/ City Planner Date: June 17, 2009 Subject: Ordinance Amendment - Temporary Outdoor Events Background Earlier this year, the City Council directed staff to prepare an amendment to the City Code that would speak to outdoor events that included amplified sound. A number of communities were surveyed regarding their regulations for similar events and City staff from various departments worked the City Attorney to create said ordinance. Request The ordinance amendment before you reflects a reference in Chapter 11 to the amendment entitled "Noisy parties or gatherings and electronic sound system/audio equipment" that will reside in Chapter 10. Amendments to Chapter 10 do not require an APC Public Hearing or action. I have attached the draft amendment language for Chapter 11 and also the Noisy parties or gatherings and electronic sound system/audio equipment ordinance amendment language to be considered by the City Council for adoption into Chapter 10. Summary The primary amendment will reside in Chapter 10; however, a reference to the new ordinance will be made in Chapter 11. That reference requires an amendment to Chapter 11 which is before you this evening. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED To recommend approval of an Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 11, Sect 11.70 to modify the Temporary Outdoor Event Section of the City Code. aL4 ORDINANCE NO. 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA, AMENDING EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER ELEVEN ENTITLED "LAND USE REGULATIONS" BY AMENDING SECTION 11.70 REGARDING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS; AND BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99. The City Council of the City of Eagan does ordain: Section 1. Eagan City Code Chapter Eleven is hereby amended by changing Section 11.70, Subd. 22 to read as follows: Subd. 22. Outdoor display, outdoor storage, temporary outdoor events and seasonal outdoor sales by businesses. C. Performance standards and noncompliance. 3. Standards for temporary outdoor events. Temporary outdoor events shall be subject to the following standards: a. Adequate off-street parking shall be provided ensuring that no obstruction or interference occurs with existing traffic patterns. b. No portion of the sale or event shall take place within any public right-of-way. A minimum of ten feet setback shall be maintained from all property lines and no portion of the use shall take place within 100 feet of any property line of any residential use or residential zoned property. C. The site shall be kept in a neat and orderly manner and the display of items shall not cover more than five percent of the total lot as to not interfere with pedestrian safety, vehicular movement, emergency access and existing business activities. d. All signs for the event shall comply with City Code sign regulations. alb e. Tents and temporary membrane structures having an area in excess of 200 square feet and canopies in excess of 400 square feet shall be subject to a building permit. f. The owner and/or operator of the sale or event shall have the written permission of the fee owner of the property on which the sale or event is located to use the specific site. g. Hours of operation shall be subject to this chapter's regulations governing hours of operation for commercial business. h. No parking shall be permitted on any adjacent parcel without the prior written permission of the adjacent parcel owner. i. The owner and/or operator of the sale or event shall obtain a permit for the outdoor use of electronic sound system or audio equipment in accordance with Chapter 10 of this Code if the use of such equipment will occur after 10:00 P.M. Section 2. Eagan City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including 'Penalty for Violation"' and Section 11.99, 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 Lynn Petersen By: Mike Maguire Its: City Clerk Its: Mayor Date Ordinance Adopted: July 7, 2009 Date Ordinance Published in the Legal Newspaper: Date of Advisory Planning Commission Hearing: June 23, 2009 0 )Le AGENDA CITY OF EAGAN REGULAR MEETING OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER JULY 7, 2009 A. CALL TO ORDER B. ADOPT AGENDA C. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve EDA Minutes D. OLD BUSINESS E. NEW BUSINESS 1. CEDAR GROVE REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT - Consider Settlement in the Matter of the Acquisition of the Delta Development Property located at 3902 Cedarvale Drive 2. CEDAR GROVE REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT - Schedule Public Hearing regarding Sale of City Property to Doran Development for Phase I Apartment Project F. OTHER BUSINESS G. ADJOURN al -7 Agenda Information Memo Eagan Economic Development Authority Meeting July 7, 2009 NOTICE OF CONCURRENT ACTIONS The Council acting as the Board of Commissioners of the Economic Development Authority ("EDA") may discuss and act on the agenda items for the EDA in conjunction with its actions as a Council. A. CALL TO ORDER ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To convene a meeting of the Economic Development Authority to run concurrent with the City Council meeting. B. ADOPT AGENDA ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To adopt the Agenda as presented or modified. C. CONSENT AGENDA ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve the Consent Agenda as presented or modified. • MINUTES - The minutes of the June 16, 2009 EDA meeting are enclosed on pages ctl oZ~ MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE EAGAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Eagan, Minnesota JUNE 16, 2009 A meeting of the Eagan Economic Development Authority was held on Tuesday, June 16 2009 at the Eagan Municipal Center. Present were President Maguire, Commissioner Fields, Commissioner Bakken, Commissioner Tilley and Commissioner Hansen. Also present were Executive Director Hedges, Community Development Director Hohenstein and City Attorney Dougherty. ADOPT AGENDA Commissioner Tilley moved, Commissioner Fields seconded a motion to approve the agenda as presented. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Tilley moved, Commissioner Fields seconded a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 1. It was recommended to approve the minutes of the April 7, 2009 EDA meeting as presented. OLD BUSINESS There were no Old Business items. NEW BUSINESS CEDAR GROVE REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AUTHORIZATION OF UPDATE OF REDEVELOPMENT AREA AUAR Community Development Director Hohenstein discussed the Alternative Urban Areawide Review of the Cedar Grove Redevelopment District, noting that an update had been authorized in 2007 but due to the development and financial markets tightening during 2008, the update was put on hold. Commissioner Fields moved, Commissioner Tilley seconded a motion to authorize preparation of Update of Alternative Urban Areawide Review for the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 Commissioner Tilley moved, Commissioner Fields seconded a motion to recess the meeting at 8:00 p.m. to an executive session to discuss the possible acquisition of properties located in the Cedar Grove Redevelopment District. Aye: 5 Nay:0 a.l The regular EDA meeting was reconvened at 8:55 p.m. OTHER BUSINESS CEDAR GROVE ACQUISITION LITIGATION Commissioner Bakken moved, Commissioner Fields seconded a motion to direct the City Attorney to file a petition to the Minnesota Supreme Court to hear an appeal of the decision of the Minnesota Court of Appeals with regard to the Cedar Grove acquisition litigation. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 It was noted that a statement with regard to the action would be posted on the City's website. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Tilley moved, Commissioner Bakken seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 Date Thomas Hedges, Executive Director aav Agenda Memo Eagan Economic Development Authority Meeting July 7, 2009 1. CONSIDER APPROVAL SETTLEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF DELTA DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve a Stipulation of Settlement to complete the purchase of the former Delta Development property in the Cedar Grove Redevelopment District and authorize the EDA officers and City Attorney to execute the Stipulation and any related documents. FACTS • As part of its efforts to acquire and assemble property for the development of the Cedar Grove Redevelopment District, the City, through the EDA, approved the acquisition of certain properties in the District by eminent domain. • Delta Development, the owner of the property at 3902 Cedarvale Drive, initially objected to the acquisition, but later withdrew the objection. The district court issued an order to grant title to those properties to the EDA and to appoint a condemnation panel to determine the value of those properties. • Hearings to resolve the difference between the appraisals of the City and those of the property owners were held and the City deposited funds to cover the amount of the determination. Delta commenced an action to appeal the eminent domain panel award, but the City Attorney has also engaged in negotiations with the owners' attorneys for possible settlement. • The City Attorney has reached a tentative settlement with Delta to purchase the property for a total of $723,000. This amount represents the initial deposit of $705,000 plus an additional $18,000. The relocation claim for Delta's business has been handled separately. • Because this matter is in pending litigation, should the EDA desire to discuss the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement before taking action on the item, the Authority should recess to a closed session. At such time as the EDA determines the information presented to be in order, the action above is in order. ATTACHMENTS: • Location map on page c~a~ _ • Stipulation of Settlement on pages a~throughag*'Ae. aal <•j f / ~A~ !r' j,~ ~l j,ra f / / f i~j j j ~fj% \J\ ~_J j ( 1~ i iSyni~n~itsr!?►rr 4 i It Area Grove RedeVelOPm Cedar j j SA Ct Site ,j .~-S- j N j!;v \5~ j t= ~7 f= \~~1>1 fL 4 t:300 F ilillooo~ a .u, { ' `ate olbwa a Redevelopment Area Cedar GrOV {e priVe Site LoCati°n 3902 Ceda~a STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT Irma L. Parranto and Mark S. Parranto, as Co- Case Type: Condemnation Trustees of the Jean E. Parranto Testamentary Case No. 19HA-CV-08-3641 Trust Share B, STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT Appellants/Respondents, ORDER FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT AS IT RELATES TO V. APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IRMA L. PARRANTO AND MARK S. Eagan Economic Development Authority, a PARRANTO, AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE Minnesota municipal corporation, JEAN E. PARRANTO TESTAMENTARY TRUST SHARE B Respondent/Petitioner. WHEREAS, the above-entitled action is a condemnation action whereby the Eagan Economic Development Authority (hereinafter "EDA") acquired fee title to the property legally described as: Lots 1 - 6, Block 1, Cedarvale Office Park. Together with and subject to a non-exclusive easement for ingress, egress and foot travel over and across portion of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, said portions being more particularly described as those portions of said Lots located within an area 14 feet in width lying between the most northerly line of the watermain easement and the most southerly line of the sanitary sewer easement as the same appear on the said plat of Cedarvale Office Park (identified as Parcel "5" on the EDA's condemnation Petition) (hereinafter the "Property") that is owned by Appellants/Respondents Irma L. Parranto and Mark S. Parranto, as Co-Trustees of the Jean E. Parranto Testamentary Trust Share B (hereinafter the "Parranto Trust"); and WHEREAS, the EDA and the Parranto Trust appealed the award issued by the condemnation commissioners and have now reached a settlement on the amount of just compensation to be paid by the EDA to the Parranto Trust for the acquisition of fee title to the Property. Page 2/STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT ORDER FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT AS IT RELATES TO APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IRMA L. PARRANTO AND MARK S. PARRANTO, AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE JEAN E. PARRANTO TESTAMENTARY TRUST SHARE B NOW, WHEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises herein set forth, the EDA and the Parranto Trust expressly agree to the following: 1. SETTLEMENT OF ACTION. The EDA and the Parranto Trust stipulate that the above-entitled matter has been fully-compromised and settled as to the Property owned by the Parranto Trust. 2. PAYMENT BY THE EDA. The EDA shall pay to the Parranto Trust total compensation of $723,000.00 as and for any and all damages arising out of or relating to the taking of the Property. Payment shall be made as follows: $705,000.00 - which has been previously paid by the EDA to the Parranto Trust (the EDA has also paid all statutory interest and appraisal fees) $ 18,000.00 - to be paid by the EDA within 30 days after final approval 3. FINAL CERTIFICATE/DISCHARGE OF Lis PENDENS. The City will file its Final Certificate and release the Property from any Lis Pendens. SEVERSON, SHELDON, DOUGHERTY & MOLENDA, P.A. Dated , 2009 By: Robert B. Bauer, #227365 7300 West 147th Street, Suite 600 Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 (952) 432-3136 Attorneys for Respondent/Petitioner Eagan Economic Development Authority Dated , 2009 Irma L. Parranto Co-Trustee of the Jean E. Parranto Testamentary Trust Share B aaq Page 3/STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT ORDER FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT AS IT RELATES TO APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IRMA L. PARRANTO AND MARK S. PARRANTO, AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE JEAN E. PARRANTO TESTAMENTARY TRUST SHARE B Dated , 2009 Mark S. Parranto Co-Trustee of the Jean E. Parranto Testamentary Trust Share B LeVANDER, GILLEN & MILLER, P.A. Dated , 2009 By: Daniel Beeson, # 633 South Concord Street, Suite 400 South St. Paul, Minnesota 55075 (651) 451-1831 Attorneys for Appellants/Respondents Irma L. Parranto and Mark S. Parranto, as Co-Trustees of the Jean K Parranto Testamentary Trust Share B ORDER Based on the afore-mentioned Stipulation, it is hereby Ordered that: 1. The above-referenced action is hereby settled as to the Property owned by Appellants/Respondents Irma L. Parranto and Mark S. Parranto, as Co-Trustees of the Jean E. Parranto Testamentary Trust Share B, without an award of costs and disbursements to any party. 2. The EDA is the fee owner of the property legally described as: Lots 1 - 6, Block 1, Cedarvale Office Park. Together with and subject to a non-exclusive easement for ingress, egress and foot travel over and across portion of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, said portions being more particularly described as those portions of said Lots located within an area 14 feet in width lying between the most northerly line of the watermain easement and the most southerly line of the sanitary sewer easement as the same appear on the said plat of Cedarvale Office Park (identified as Parcel "5" on the EDA's condemnation Petition). ~S Page 4/STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT ORDER FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT AS IT RELATES TO APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IRMA L. PARRANTO AND MARK S. PARRANTO, AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE JEAN E. PARRANTO TESTAMENTARY TRUST SHARE B 3. The EDA shall pay to the Parranto Trust the amount set forth in paragraph 2 above and at the time and according to the terms as set forth in paragraph 2 above. 4. The EDA shall file its Final Certificate relating to the Property, and release the Property from any Lis Pendens. Dated: , 2009 Judge of District Court as l p Agenda Memo Eagan Economic Development Authority Meeting July 7, 2009 2. CEDAR GROVE REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT - SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE SALE OF PROPERTY TO DORAN DEVELOPMENT FOR PHASE I APARTMENT PROJECT ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To schedule a.public hearing on August 3, 2009 to consider approval of a purchase agreement for the sale of City owned property in the Cedar Grove Redevelopment District to Doran Development for redevelopment purposes. FACTS: • At its meeting on March 16, 2009, the City Council and EDA approved a Preliminary Concept Plan for Phase I presented by the Doran Pratt partnership for the redevelopment of the core area of the Cedar Grove Redevelopment District. At the same meeting, the EDA and Doran Pratt entered into a Master Real Estate Purchase Agreement defining the general terms under which property within the development would be sold on a project by project basis as phase development plans are approved. The individual purchase agreements are to be brought forward in parallel with development plans, so they can be implemented upon approval of specific projects. • Subsequently, on June 17, 2009, Doran Development submitted a development application reflecting the uses defined by the preliminary concept plan and incorporating a central gathering/park space as directed by the City Council. That application is under review at this time and will be scheduled for Commission and Council review when financing for one or more of the elements within the plan is secured. • At this time, Doran Development is working with development partners to proceed on with the hotel and senior housing elements of the project and they are pursuing financing for the apartment project, which they intend to build and operate themselves. To that end, they have negotiated a purchase agreement with City staff under the Master Real Estate Purchase Agreement for the apartmfnt site, which is in order for consideration by the EDA. a• • In order to sell publicly acquired property for private development or use it is necessary to hold a public hearing to consider the sale. Staff is requesting that a hearing be scheduled for August 3, 2009 to permit adequate time to publisl notice for the hearing. ATTACHMENTS: • None aa~ Agenda Information Memo Eagan Economic Development Authority Meeting July 7, 2009 F. OTHER BUSINESS There is no other business to come before the EDA at this time. G. ADJOURNMENT ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To adjourn the Economic Development Authority meeting. a~~