11/21/2000 - City Council Regularks t
AGENDA
EAGAN CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING
EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER BUILDING
NOVEMBER 21, 2000
6:30 P.M.
I. ROLL CALL & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II. ADOPT AGENDA & APPROVAL OF MINUTES
III. VISITORS TO BE HEARD (10 MINUTE TOTAL TIME LIMIT)
IV. RECOGNITIONS & PRESENTATIONS
V. COMMENTS BY CITY COUNCIL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR & DEPARTMENT HEADS
VI. STORM UPDATE
VII. COMMUNITY CENTER/CENTRAL PARK UPDATE
VIII. CONSENT AGENDA
,p,3 A. PERSONNEL ITEMS
VP B. 2001 LICENSE RENEWALS for tobacco, trash haulers, stable, tree contractors and fertilizer
C. FINDINGS of fact and resolution for denial, Woodhaven Villas
ei 5 D. APPROVE renewals of existing liquor licenses for 2001, subject to a review of applications, payment
of fees and Police Department investigations as necessary.
arE. APPROVE Purchase Agreement for sale of surplus City property (Parcel 022-08 in Section 36)
yF. APPROVE assignment of acquisition agreement, Wispark Corporation
IX. 6:45 - PUBLIC HEARINGS
pd A. CONSIDER revisions to Business Subsidy Policy
P q// B. VARIANCE, Casper's Cherokee Sirloin Room, Variance request to the number of parking stalls
required by Code for Lot 2, Block 1, Durning's Subdivision, located at 4625 Nicols Road in the
NW'/ of Section 31.
eC. PROJECT 779, Dodd Road (Diffley to Wescott — Streets, Utilities and Trails)
}21 D. PROJECT 750R, TH 55/Blue Water Road, (Access Modifications & Street Improvements)
�
' O� E. SIGN policy discussion, including election signs
X. OLD BUSINESS
play A.
130Bpl‘ic.
UPDATE on Interim Use Permit for SMC Compost Services
PRELIMINARY subdivision — Tri -Land Surveying Company, Inc; a Preliminary Subdivision
(Kennerick Addition) of 8.61 acres to create 17 single family lots and one outlot, legally described
as Lot 4 and part of Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Zehnder Acres, located north of Lone Oak Road, west of
Pilot Knob in the SE V4 of Section 4.
REVIEW proposed 2001 General Fund and Enterprise Fund budget revisions
XI. NEW BUSINESS
fi t) ? A. ORDINANCE Amendment — City of Eagan; an Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 11, Section
11.20, Subd. 4 Entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning)" addressing Home Occupation
Regulations.
P I ga, B. ORDINANCE Amendment — City of Eagan; an Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 11, Section
11.20, Subd. 10 Entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning" to establish Minimum Green Area
Requirements in Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts.
f
86C.ORDINANCE Amendment — City of Eagan; an Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 11, Section
/ 11.10, Subd. 13 Entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning)" amending Off -Street Parking Supply
Requirements for Retail Commercial Uses.
D. ORDINANCE Amendment — City of Eagan; an Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 11, Section
11.10, Subd. 13 Entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning)" to establish Minimum Dimensional
Requirements for Off -Street Parking Stalls.
XI. LEGISLATIVE/INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UPDATE
XII. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA
XIII. VISITORS TO BE HEARD (for those persons not on agenda)
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
XV. EXECUTIVE SESSION
The City of Eagan is committed to the policy that all persons have equal access to its programs, services, activities, facilities and
employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation, or
status with regard to public assistance. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities will be provided upon advance notice of at least
96 hours. If a notice of less than 96 hours is received, the City of Eagan will attempt to provide such aid.
MINUTES O ki REGULAR MEE'tilt OF THE
Eii.4AN CITY COUNCf:''
agan, M innesota;;
6r r 17,2Q(
A regular meeting of the Eagan City Co uncfi4ia field Tuesday, October 17, 2000 at 6:30 p.m.
at the Eagan Municipal Center. Present were Mayor Awada and Councilmembers Masin, Blomquist,
Carlson and Bakken. Also present were City Administrator Tom Hedges, Senior Planner Mike Ridley,
Director of Public Works Tom Colbert, and City Attorney Mike Dougherty.
City Administrator Hedges added under Recognitions emu r r esentations a Resolution proclaiming
Tuesday October 23, 2000 as "Domestic Violence ention Dt3
Due to the number of residents 8 tesegardi it drainage issue, the Council agreed to
move the setting of a date for review of the July 7 8 Stofiiiibrainage Study Report Findings from the
Administrative Agenda to earlier in the meeting.
City Administrator Hedges also stated that under Recognitions and Presentations the National Red
Ribbon Week item will be continued to the next meeting. He further stated that under New Business, item
B regarding a rezoning and preliminar)f$i idixision for Manley Brothers Construction, the applicant has
requested a continuation until the next
Councilmember Blomquist moved, Rounciltiiii Qi Masin seconded a motion to approve the
agenda as amended. Aye: 5 Nay: 0
MINUTES OF TI g..oefoO '3, 2000 REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Awada requested that on page six, fifth paragraph, the last sentence be revised to read:
Mayor Awada stated that the project was originally discussed when there was an option by Duke Weeks to
purchase and develop the Perron property along with their land as a single plat, and that the assessment
would be reevaluated since that option has expired.
Councilmember Blomquist rk testoC :o 13x gt i graph 6, the last sentence be revised to
read: Councilmember Blomquist stated that some gfglifrbilidott: talking of hiring their own
engineering firms and that the City should be therci tibrking witb;Shem.
Councilmember Masin stated that on paik;3c paragra', that she had made the statement
regarding campaign signs rather than Councilmem6ei Bakken:;
Motion was made by Bakken, seconded by Carlson to approve the minutes as amended. Aye: 5
Nay: 0
MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 26, MD SPECIAL MEETING
Councilmember Carlson m ,,Cp19glmember Bien seconded a motion to approve the
minutes as presented. Aye: 5
MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 3 25194 SPECIAL MEETING
Councilmember Blomquist moved, Councilmemb:fakken seconded a motion to approve the
minutes as presented. Aye: 5 Nay: 0
Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2000
Page 2
V](SITORS TO BE HEAki
Meg Tilley, representing the Girl trgops of F a *4 fiated that the girls were present to
present a donation to the Eagan Foundation fiigrMiii$',tif. Each girl introduced herself,
identifying the troop to which she belongs. Megkil:'Sol?,iitrii'ier described the fund raising event that had
been held. A total of $5,182.18 was presented to the City.
Margaret Schreiner of the Eagan Foundation updated the Council on funds that have been raised
and on the status of the Unmet Needs Copggritte;•:
Mayor Awada thanked the Girl Scouts for efforts ;enerous donation:
SCHEDULE DATE FOR JULY 7 8 STeRati DRAIl E STUDY REPORT FINDINGS
City Administrator Hedges stattfcj: t:itkilf Fitir;00giti8er 20, the SBA will be leaving the City.
After that date there will be an 800 phone number available 'ffe further stated that storm debris pick up
will continue through the end of November. He went on to state that the engineering analysis regarding
the storm drainage should be complete in the next couple of weeks. Director of Public Works Colbert
suggested that a combined general meeting for all affected neighborhoods be held on November 9th and
eight or nine smaller group meetings be held for individual neighborhoods. He suggested that a lottery
system be used in deciding the order of i #0 1..0ller meetings. Mr. Colbert further suggested that the
following dates be considered for the slii le eei u November 20, November 27, December 11, and
December 18. He stated that notices will be s t :tp,the meeting and that currently there are 1800
names on the City's list. He asked the public :,Xplease let ii ity know if anyone is overlooked.
Councilmember Masin stated she feej.tb,sosl<rdtiijs�iteed information prior to November 9, as
they have already been made to wait tao:t4rt ;:;;$$tezfeitther stated she felt that the input from individual
residents regarding their experiences vgdirlitiShivide important information. She stated this issue should be
considered the single most important issue in Eagan at this time.
Councilmember Carlson stated she did not feel a meeting prior to November 9 would be beneficial
as there will be no substantial information until the report is completed. She stated she did not want to
provide false information and that the::p; 15:i1..tad.l v,,Rppn for comments and the issue had been
addressed at every Council meeting.
Mayor Awada stated that until the Counii facts ag7fl:serious engineering information they
cannot provide information to residents. She stattere are s that have problems and each one has
to be addressed individually. She suggested the ttlings not:,tteld until the report is completed.
Councilmember Blomquist stated that sometimes it is for people to talk in a public setting
and that a more private meeting with no cable television should be arranged. She also stated that she felt
the Council as a group should listen to the residents.
Councilmember Bakken stated that he has had manmaistructive conversations with residents
during the past weeks and that they are ready for substantiali$svers but he does not want to see the
Council put in a position to provide faj .inf'prmation. He stl tiA he felt the meetings should not be held
until the engineering report is complti:;:
Councilmember Carlson suggested that it could bq beneficial for the residents to put their
questions and concerns in writing prior to the meetings and:* staff could provide answgrs at the meeting.
Councilmember Masin asked for feedback from the audience.
Lisa Germond stated she would have liked information earlier but understands that it has taken
time to complete the analysis of all the affected areas.
Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2000
Page 3
Connie Bauman questioned why** firm Bonestroo, RoS i Anderlik is being used to conduct
the analysis. Public Works Director Colbifii, .Lated that Bonestr*;$tas all the background information on
the storm sewer system, as they have had d4: 6 �x rience, y0agan. Mr. Colbert further stated that
the firm is being overviewed by City staff. 1 �s t gli i iiib state that she had seen
Councilmembers Blomquist and Masin out in the stlifl:aCfed areas but had not seen Councilmembers
Bakken and Carlson.
Joe Girman and Marianne Mobil expressed their concem regarding the City's disaster plan. Ms.
Mobil stated she felt the Council should lygvR l iR the neighborhoods to see the human side of the
disaster. She stated she felt the Council 1:rpi;yld have been knocking on doors to
talk with residents. She stated the only time she gavir. {q CAtificikt{ was when the Channel 4 News crew
was on the site.'''
Brandy Grogan asked who mad the cbe$ *which lioigif s to sandbag. Mayor Awada stated that
the neighborhoods did the sandbagging N.2 further stated that she had been in 30
different neighborhoods following the storm.'
Bob Salburn expressed his concern regarding the number of patrol cars that were out during the
disaster. He stated he had witnessed looting. Mayor Awada agreed that there had not been enough Police
on duty.
City Administrator Hedges stag. t 1.gAnd Police Chief would be willing to meet with
residents and were open to input that wot kkii,1 1* s vv response to future disaster situations.
Councilmember Masin suggested thgi, website be y7 with information for residents and
serve as a place for residents to provide dialclitbt L•'�*:
Councilmember Blomquist st04iefelt meeting dates should be set, one for the results of
the engineering analysis and a second brie for the Council and staff to hear the human side of the issue.
Mayor Awada stated she would like to defend Councilmembers Bakken and Carlson, as they had
worked the entire week after the storm
Councilmember Blomquist *t :discuss the City's Disaster Plan. Mayor
Awada stated that meetings should bt{'ftel 'ihTh 0juncilmember Carlson agreed that the
Council and staff should meet with only one neigbbctFhood at atipte.
City Administrator Hedges stated that st jvould wire any input that would help improve
future disaster plans and that he was willing to mei'CCivith resiciaii collectively or individually.
City Administrator Hedges recommended that an informal meeting be scheduled for October 30
at St. John Newman Church. Councilmember Bakken clarified that this meeting would not take the place
of the smaller neighborhood meetings.
Councilmember Blomquist moved, Councilmembet cken seconded a motion to schedule a
meeting for October 30, 2000 at 5 Nay: 0
Angela Vaitkunas, 4158 Ram fp t'6 .Council review City Ordinance 10.12
regarding domestic animals. She explained that she had received a ticket and.is scheduled to appear in
court because she owns a rabbit that she keeps in her home/fie Council directed staff to investigate the
matter and place Ordinance 10.12 of the City Code on a fuiWAgenda for review.
Mayor Awada moved, Councilmember Masin seconded a motion to bring Ordinance 10.12 of the
City Code back to the Council for review. Ayes: 5 Nay: 0
Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2000
Page 4
RECOGNMONS AND PRESE*'1ATIONS
CERTIFICATION OF MNDATI( f R PARTICIPATION
MA ?I
IN M~,t;' ?$;WEEK
Jamie Verbrugge discussed a certificate of commendation to that had been presented to the City
for participating in Manufacturer's Week.
RESOLUTION DQM ,Ea. 1C,NIQl. PREVENTION DAY
Carol Jensen, representing the Eagan Wongei bf`I ilained the organization's involvement
in the prevention of domestic violence. Mayor Awgifilead the gilliblution proclaiming October 23, 2000
as "Domestic Violence Prevention Day
COMMENTS BY CITY COUN(fL, AtjS; 1S iTOR DEPARTMENT HEADS Mayor Awada discussed a recommendation by the Metropolitan Council that Eagan's
Comprehensive Plan Update not be approved. She explained that the Metropolitan Council feels 2000
additional apartment units be built in Eagan. Mayor Awada stated she is not in favor of the increased
number of apartments. She stated the Metropolitan Council will vote in November but feels they do not
have a legitimate case to deny Eagan's:giprehensive Plan. She further explained that should the
Comprehensive Plan be denied, the issiio ij men go to an Administrative Law Judge and could
ultimately end up in district court.
Councilmember Bakken explained t i to audience of the Metropolitan Council. He stated
he is not in agreement with their expectation ,F,l~ p.
Mayor Awada stated that the c#j iirtiliian Council is attempting to take over zoning authority.
Councilmember Masin stated the Metropolitan Council has no intention of taking away local
authority.
Councilmember Carlson state I,Ihat Ea an has more than exceeded the Metropolitan Council's
recommendation. She suggested that I;ck ;Mcjk iit:8;Oge uch as Mendota Heights to see what their
ratios are. She stated Eagan is curreiitjy a i�'�:"
CONS$' AGE1f
A. Personnel Items
Item 1. It was recommended to approve the hiring of Andi Galatowitsch as a Clerical Technician III in the
Fire Department.
Item 2. It was recommended to approve the hiring of Marci3.Weitzel as a seasonal park attendant.
Item 3. It was recommended approve the hiring of Kristin L Z& as a seasonal skating instructor.
Item 4. It was recommended to appi d f9'r r}b d lir 3 Cstra andJoe Pontrelli as seasonal civic
arena supervisors.
Item 5. It was recommended to approve the hiring of MarAi7den as a seasonal civic arena custodian.
Item 6. It was recommended to approve the hiring of Jeff Wright, Lindsay Kropennicki, Lori Jorgenson,
Jordan Bailey and Steve Polkowski as seasonal skateguards for the civic arena.
Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2000
Page 5
Item 7. It was recommended to approve tbbbiring of Elisa Swenson, bale Skogstad, Sean Cosgrove, Katie
Nelson and Jennifer Wright as seasonal cdpo6scions workers foeggiiiivic arena.
Item 8. It was recommended to approve the ajsp0,3>it ,i `f3A31y Duffy as a Deputy City Clerk.
B. Final Plat (Gopher Eagan Industrial Park 5 Addition) Twin City Wire MFI, Inc. It was
recommended to approve a Final Plat (Gopher Eagan Industrial Park 5 Addition) to allow the
adjustment of a shared side lot line between Lot 1, Block 1, Gopher Eagan Industrial Park 2 Addition
and Lot 1, Block 1, Gopher Eagan Ire *c 4 `b,Ad4,0.4p,J,ocated north of Yankee Doodle Road
and east of Highway 149 in the
C. Final Subdivision (Orchard Heights) Gonvea 'e elopmerit: i was recommended to approve a Final
Subdivision (Orchard Heights) to create 11 siramily 1o00 b 4.43 acres of property located north of
Black Oak Drive and south of Hwy. S;:iltfh,>k,?L.of $gotfoii ::12.
D. Schedule Public Hearing For Revisions to the Business'Slibsidv Policy. It was recommended to
schedule a public hearing on Tuesday, November 21, for the purposes of reviewing and adopting
proposed changes to the City of Eagan Business Subsidy Policy.
E. Engagement Letter for Auditing Services, Kern. Dewenter, Viere, Ltd. For the Year Ending December
31 2000. It was recommended to qve the engagement letter with Kern, DeWenter, Viere, Ltd. to
;eiic$
provide auditing services for the yi2„p; DCGgmber 31, 2000.
F. Project 775. Advent United Methodist C)ttitchFinal' ilissirient Roll. It was recommended to approve
the Final Assessment Roll for Project 77 Advent Ljpior#gOhodist Church/Patrick Eagan Park
Parking Lot and Utility Improvements) g.ittR X> }ti:iiifification to Dakota County for collection.
G. Contract 00 -09A, Well House RE iofiil #1,2,3,4 &6). It was recommended to approve change
Order #1 to Contract 00 -09A (Well House Re- roofing #1,2,3.,4 6) and authorize the Mayor and
Deputy Clerk to execute all related documents.
H. Approve Telecommunications Lease Agreement. It was recommended to approve the
telecommunication lease agreemept j §../Aoci.c. nL�c for an antenna installation on the Deerwood
Reservoir and authorize the May Qt;_p igikb ;fi�o k8 :all related documents.
I. Proiect 750R, TH 55 Blue Water Road Act Modific3Ons Street Improvements. It was
recommended to receive the revised draft feagtbility report tir Project 750R (TH 55 Blue Water Road
Access Modifications and Street Improvenl and scljo Bile a public hearing to be held on
November 21, 2000.
J. Contract 99 -07, Safari Reservoir Refurbish Repaint. It was recommended to approve the final
payment for Contract 99 -07 (Safari Reservoir Refurbish and Repaint) in the amount of $20,980.00 to
TMI Coatings, Inc., and accept the improvements for perpetual City maintenance subject to warranty
provisions.
K. Contract 00 -10, Wescott Road Et .1Suurface Treatment ette- Striping. It was recommended to
approve the final payment for C %Nipie ;:I (W7 1sad et al Surface Treatment and Striping) in
the amount of $35,103.77 to Ro §3iii Lfirg•'> ilx it •I c. and accept the improvements for
perpetual City maintenance subject to warranty provisioBs...
L. Proiect 98 -V, Faithful Shepherd School. It was recomrti Ied to acknowledge the com pletion of
Contract 98 -V (Faithful Shepherd School Street and Utility Improvements) and authorize perpetual
City maintenance subject to warranty provisions.
Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2000
Page 6
M. Proiect 99 -D, Kwik Trip Eagan. It vi3S recommended to acknowledge the completion of Contract 99-
D (Kwik Trip Eagan Addition Stread: Utility Improven ff,,+e and authorize perpetual City
maintenance subject to warranty prov`lsibt,s
N. Proiect 99 -E. Oakview Center. It was recomiiienidiirdii'Ecknowledge the completion of Contract 99 -E
(Oakview Center Street and Utility Improvements) and authorize perpetual City maintenance subject
to warranty provisions.
O. Contract 00 -07, Trunk Highway 13 i}iA4041 ty -,j ape Upgrade. It was recommended to approve
Change Order No 1 to Contract 00.4)* 3, J jc c i td Divided Four -lane Upgrade) and
authorize the Mayor and Deputy City Clerk fo iite af1 i documents.
P. Approve Resolution Approving Application fc S wful Gaittiiiips Permit for the Gypsy Booster Club
to Hold Raffles on November 18 a rk51,194. s G cs School. It was recommended to
Q�$�,�,5.. alt
approve the resolution supporting ti 11boSfoi _ilia iplication for a lawful gambling permit to
hold raffles on November 18 and 10 at on's Gql iiissfics School.
Q. Approve Registration of City of Eagan Webpage. It was recommended to authorize the City Attorney
to proceed wit the coordination of registering the City's webpage.
R. Final Plat (Young's Addition) ClOon Harrington. Inc. It was recommended to approve a Final
Plat (Young's Addition) consistine:iJ";g f1bt 1.1 acres located between Hwy. 13 and Old Sibley
Memorial Hwy. In the SW 1 /4 of Section 1
Councilmember Bakken moved, Counci mber Carls 3soi4nded a motion to approve the Consent
Agenda. Aye: 5 Nay: 0
::f $'I.IC HEARINGS
ROBERT O'NEILL HOMESTEAD (LOT 5)
RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION
Mayor Awada opened the pu114. hearing regarding the vacation of public right -of -way on Lot 5,
The Robert O'Neill Homestead (ParR4j #1 #3 1 .1
City Administrator Hedges provided an ft view of #0 item. Director of Public Works Colbert
gave a staff report.
A representative of People's Natural Ga's fiiequired as t 'i: he location of the vacation in relation to
the vacant land in the area. Upon clarification by Director of'F'iilic Works Colbert, he stated there were no
concerns.
There being no public comment, Mayor Awada closed the public hearing and turned the
discussion back to the Council.
Councilmember Bakken moved, Councilmember C'titfson seconded a motion to approve the
vacation of public right -of -way on I x3 i pbgtk; pi }i:komestead (Parcel 10- 53320- 053 -00) and
authorize the Mayor and Deputy CO 'jit t 310:4 Cd documents. Aye: 5 Nay: 0
Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2000
Page 7
OLD BUSINESS
CONDITIONAL USE PERli'f FIcA, O MEGA EXCAVATING
City Administrator Hedges provided an oveiew'on this item. Senior Planner Ridley discussed
the background of the issue stating the applicant is asking for clarification on the conditions of his
conditional use permit.
The Council took a ten minute break at 9:00 p.m.
report.
Mark Pieper, applicant, stated *I C 3 q. He went on to explain what
he felt the definition of "truck terminal" aiicl:t i:::4iiicr i)f his conditional use permit. He
explained that his business falls under that definitiog ocl should;tiGtt a restricted.
City Attorney Mike Dougherty stated thatf:':nditiona ;t3 permit issued in 1979 is still in effect
on the property and it does allow a truck }y�►}pyt:;
Senior Planner Ridley noted that staff wants to cl'an'fy what is stored on the property is
allowable under the conditional use permit.
Mr. Pieper stated he has large equipment such as snow plows and other truck equipment stored on
the property that he uses in his business.
Senior Planner Ridley suggested: :iIi 41& t lg,made by Mr. Pieper of what is actually stored on the
property.
Councilmember Carlson moved, C ilmem er• seconded a motion to direct staff to
provide a list of truck related items that is s44#4.};Ssg*Ilfdpetgy'located at 4841 Biscayne Avenue, legally
described as Lot 4, Block 1 Halley's ditiOii'rbtbe :S1✓ 1 /4 of Section 36 to be attached to the minutes.
Aye: 4 Nay: 1 (Councilmember Mash: k3sed)
CONFIRMATION OF FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND RESOLUTION OF
DENIAL CRANE CREEK ADDITON
City Administrator Hedges prq►'ida1: *R yiey.sy item. Senior Planner Ridley gave a staff
report. The Council agreed to have t30d grddyf ;i#it#:,:?; #;4sory Planning Commission for a public
w"
hearing and then brought back to Council for ievie
Councilmember Bakken moved, Councilember Mai; seconded a motion to continue the
review of a Final Plarmed Development and Pre1m"l ary SubcfOion request of Wensmann Realty to allow
the construction of 64 townhomes (within 17 buildings) upon) §.7 acre site located south of Trunk
Highway 55 and east of Rita Court (within the northeast of Section 12) to a future date. Aye: 5 Nay: 0
COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN, NDMENT FRAUENSHUH
City Administrator Hedges proyaiied.apoverview of iiiis issue. Senior Planner Ridley gave a staff
Richard Wicka, applicant, provided a brief history .g the property and plans for an upscale
apartment complex. He stated that a neighborhood meetin been held.
Mayor Awada asked for comments from the audience.
Marilyn Bater stated she is in favor of the land use amendment.
Fagan City Council Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2000
Page 8
Virginia Brown stated she is opfsA e:d to the amendment sii$•expressed concern over the density of
the project as well as parking issues. She S1fif d there was not erg} iih specific information on the proposal
provided.
Councilmember Carlson stated she is iii3tiNtMaittiCiNvith approving the land use amendment
until a definite plan for the property is submitted. Mayor Awada and Councilmembers Bakken and
Blomquist agreed.
City Attorney Dougherty stated tbal..abe.proposed amendment would have to be sent to the
Metropolitan Council for review.
Mr. Wicka requested the issue be continue :ler:allow tirif 'pr him to bring back a plat and definite
design for the property.
Mayor Awada moved, CounciligWg:RailstiflEle40 motion to accept the applicants request
to continue the Comprehensive Guide PIKf'Aifiendmenf'[o a ion=specific date. Ayes: 4 Nay: 1 Bakken
opposed.
CEDAR INDUSTRIAL PARK TRAFFIC STUDY
City Administrator Hedges proe4Atpd an overview of this item. Director of Public Works Colbert
introduced Marie Cote, SRF Consultaiii4; :iwQ ,provided a detailed summary of the traffic study.
Mayor Awada asked what the funding,soutte4 iiitfI tt.for the recommended improvements. Mr.
Colbert stated that MNDOT had recognized *kneed for the SiLv Bell signal improvements but had not
provided funding. He further stated he felt dig; a eT; 4aitind the project as part of the Highway 13
project.
Councilmember Blomquist moved, Councilmember Masin seconded a motion to receive the
Traffic Study for the Cedar Industrial Park. Aye: 5 Nay: 0
EASEMENT VACATION', CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND FINAL PLAT (SPACE
CENTER AIR CARGO) SPACE CENTER AIR CARGO, INC.
City Administrator Hedges j3i6''t6etl461.1044WkiiI4li issue. Senior Planner Ridley gave a staff
report.
Mayor Awada and Councilmembers agrp;ihey wergipc►t comfortable with this proposal due to
safety, traffic, and environmental issues.
There were numerous residents in the audience who acknowledged they were present to oppose
the proposal.
Chas Arend, applicant, stated he did not understand to the project. He discussed the
proposed I -1 uses and the surrounding I -1 uses. He stated digifoject had been brought forth in good faith
and at no time during the review process did he think traffic t been an issue.
Mayor Awada explained thfidcYlfjginally Zoned, there was not the amount of
development in the area and the traffic was not a proble She'stated that the amount of added traffic from
this proposal would only add to the current traffic problemS:::i:
Councilmember Blomquist discussed the history orthe area and stated that the original use was
not a desired use. She further stated that MNDOT took away entrances to the properties in the area when
Highway 13 was constructed and there havebeen no proper entrances to the property since.
Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2000
Page 9
City Attorney Dougherty stated lit the existing easement** the property that are being
requested to be vacated would cause som4igIsting storm seweryjpg4 to be removed and the Council
should consider if they want these pipes reciiO4...1! the easetiOgire not vacated, the plat cannot be
approved.
•.•:•:•:.:00::•••
Mayor Awada moved, Councilmember Carlson seconded a motion to deny the Vacation of Public
Drainage and Utility Easements on Outlots 2 and 3, Silver Bell Addition (Parcels 10-68060-020-00 10-
68060-032-00). Aye: 5 Nay: 0
report.
Councilmember Carlson stated ti is is too great for the area. She stated
she felt the issue should be denied based on safety and wef. Mayor Awada further stated that
because specific tenants have not been identified, tigf has ns■.N to predict traffic generation from the
proposed development.-
Mayor Awada moved, Councilfigfiitiitarlsoit:iiiiiOgeli a motion to deny a Final Plat (Space
Center Air Cargo) establishing a 14.9 acre lot upon property currently platted as Outlots 2 and 3, Silver
Bell Addition (within the SE 1/4 of Section 18) based on existing drainage and utility easements on the
property. Aye: 5 Nay: 0
Mayor Awada moved, Council Carlson seconded a motion to deny a Conditional Use
Permit to allow the establishment of a iiii upon a 14.9 acre site (Outlots 2 and 3, Silver Bell
Addition) located northwest of KennebeCNiigkfq4.4;est of Freightmasters based on the lack of road
improvements. Aye: 5 Nay: 0
FINAL SUBDIVISION (WAORI ADDITION) CEDAR WOOD
....1440134MI■it LLC
City Administrator Hedges pi;9i'ded an overview on this item. Senior Planner Ridley gave a staff
The applicant was present to answer questions.
Mayor Awada moved, Counir 1440 a motion to approve a Final Subdivision
to create 17 single-family lots, on 8.3neig:iiiiSilikE4f004.1den Drive and west of Richard Lane in
the NE 1 4 of Section 33. Aye: 5 Nay: 0
NW
BUS416S
REZONING PRELIMINARY SUBDINUON (PERRON ACRES)
MANLEY LAND COMPANY
City Administrator Hedges prOvided an overview of this item. Senior Planner Ridley gave a staff
report.
Wayne Tower of Pioneer Engineering discussed thetpArposed plat.
George Westlund expresse4:507;WW....And stated he feels the project is premature
until Dodd Road is improved.
Councilmember Blomquist stated she has concernOgr the size of building pads and houses. She
stated she felt the lots should be estate size lots.
Councilmember Carlson questioned the right-of-way dedication. Public Works Director Colbert
explained the adequacy of the proposal.
Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2000
Page 10
Councilmember Carlson moved,, ouncilmember Bakkeii iconded a motion to approve a
Rezoning of approximately 10.7 acres from:# (Agricultural) to j :1;Single Family) located east of Dodd
Road and south of Coventry Parkway in the: ,1,t 1 /s of St gt:14. Aye: 3 Nay: 2 Councilmembers
Masin and Blomquist opposed due to the siie"q .Xik:Or Wpcern over possible water runoff.
Mayor Awada moved, Councilmember Masin seconded a motion to deny a Preliminary
Subdivision (Perron Acres), with a variance to allow two lots less than 85 feet in width, on property
located east of Dodd road and south of Coventry Parkway in the southeast 1 A of Section 24 due to the
zoning of the property. Ayes: 3 Nay: t:. k vstAtia ,!C9 Carlson was out of the room.
report.
The applicant was present to answer questions.
Aye: 5 Nay: 0
it
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISIONF'ARI AW:$AGAN 3 ADDITION)
City Administrator Hedges provided an overviel d is item. Senior Planner Ridley gave a staff
Councilmember Bakken move$i:Councilmember Blomquist seconded a motion to approve a
Preliminary Subdivision (Safari Heights} A•tlktttn) located north of Cliff Rod and west of Thomas
Center Drive in the southwest 1 /4 of Section�2$' ifi i .Aillowing conditions:
1. The developer shall comply with these s{ dards concjjticxtS ig plat approval as adopted by Council on
February 3, 1993:
B1 through 4, C 1, 2 an4 3}1' aiicl E
2. The existing 11/2" copper water service lines, that will not be utilized by this development but are
stubbed to this site from Thomas Center Drive, shall be abandoned in accordance with City standards.
3. The developer shall be responsib}s .tklgnsai improvements at the Thomas Center Drive
Beacon Hill/Cliff Road intersect i o: 3 inhig4:0 0 ted 4, uthbound right -turn lane, including
pavement markings and signal loop ae1& 6r fgdfsiiirgi:
4. The Final Plat shall provide drainage utilit;$sement g67 Pond BP -39 up to three feet above its
calculated high water level.
5. The developer shall dedicate public sidewalk easement cOging the sidewalk along Thomas Center
Drive.
6. The development shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits from regulatory agencies,
including Williams Brothers Pipeline and Dakota Count ,gior to final plat approval.
7. An association shall be created (and recorded with the frtiiihubdivision) and Lot 2, Block 1 shall be
conveyed to such association. s
8. The developer shall provide evidence that Lot 1, Block 1, Life Time Fitness Addition has granted cross
parking easement to Lots 2 through 6.
9. This proposal shall be subject to a cash trails dedication at the time of the fast building permit.
Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2000
Page 11
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION OW CTRUM ADDITIUI4) PARKING ASSOCIATES, INC.
City Administrator Hedges providb p. wwrview 4:tggilem. Senior Planner Ridley gave a staff
report.
Councilmember Carlson moved, Councilmember Bakken seconded a motion to approve a
Preliminary Subdivision (Spectrum Commerce Center) to create three lots and one outlot, with a
Variance to the minimum lot size for Lot 1 to be 1.42 acres, on approximately 27 acres located
between Hwy. 55 and Blue Water Rgatkjw .k tic1p 2 subject to the following conditions:
1. The developer shall comply with these standard8 {nditions:;1; lat approval as adopted by Council on
February 3, 1993: Al, B1, B2, B3, B4, Cl, Ce"C4, D1, E1'������•
2. The property shall' be platted.
3. The developer shall acquire the .03 -acre "Reiling tr prior to final subdivision approval.
pipe from the pond.
4. In accordance with NURP standards, a stormwater treatment pond should be created to accommodate a
minimum wet -pond volume of 5.1 acre -feet. The pond should have a maximum depth of 10 feet, a 10:1
aquatic bench, and an outlet skimmer according to City design standards.
5. The developer shall extend all inle'l i *k ting and new) to the normal water level of the pond to
help prevent erosion.
6. An outlet skimmer in accordance with C engineerip.,aia 14 rds shall be constructed on the outlet
7. The relocated water main shall be7'oi':dtedin accordance with City engineering standards, including
providing adequate cover over the water main.
8. Access for future development on,j..ot 3 shall not be located less than 300 feet from the Blue Water
Road and Hwy. 55 intersection.
9. This development shall accept th* t i ioi.. tr ponsibilit and costs of $3,478.00 per net
developable acre for AUAR Mitigaiivetr ffc'1'iliiiitiWeitlCrits as identified in the Final AUAR
document approved by the City Council on c igber 20, 1t943. The financial obligation will be placed
in an escrow account with the City to be use4seiely for fikticing the AUAR improvements and any
unused amount will be returned to the payersk.", n full d4'ii ppment of the AUAR properties.
10. Blue Gentian Road from Blue Water Road to Highway 55'ii'Iust be approved by the City Council prior
to Final Subdivision approval.
11. The owner shall waive the right to object to any assessments for the construction of Blue Gentian Road
and associated public improvements.
12. The developer must obtain all necessary permits from Miii3OT for any work within the Hwy. 55 right-
s
of -way.
13. This development shall dedicate 40 feet of one -half right 9f way for the south half of Blue Gentian
Road and preserve an additional 40 feet of land for righfii;i -way purposes for the north half of Blue
Gentian Road for acquisition by the City.
14. Prior to final subdivision approval or commencement of any grading or construction activity, the
applicant shall submit a Tree Preservation Mitigation Plan that shows the fulfillment of mitigation
requirements according to the City's ordinance.
Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2000
Page 12
the City.
2000.
15. Prior to final subdivision approval, thti rplicant shall prov. ::revised landscape plan, prepared by a
registered landscape architect, and revf to .scic iiftEiluirements and show additional
information as indicated in the planning
16. This development shall be responsible for cash park and trail dedications, payable at the time of
building permit issuance at the rate then in effect.
Aye: 5 Nay: 0
ADMINISTRj AGA
ADVISORY Yd I COMCIASION
City Administrator Hedges disdil i#•'aevefii i iiran Advisory Youth Commission.
Mayor Awada expressed concern over the amount of staff that would be required at a time with
City staff is overloaded. She further stated there is also a lack of interest on the part of the youth at this
time.
Councilmember Bakken agree#. AQayor Awada and suggested that any interested youth could
participate in existing commissions.
Councilmember Masin stated that th jtouth are'ifit'irlost.jmportant asset iri the community and
they need to made a part of the community.
Councilmember Carlson stateki0grbtiiready available opportunities for the youth.
Mayor Awada suggested the project be put off for a year.
YOUTH PARTICIPATION AT NLC CONFERENCE
City Administrator Hedges a1 po o, ti go .y9 rticipation at the NLC Conference to be
held December 5 -9, 2000 in Boston.
Councilmerriber Masin stated she felt thioliuth shoOkarticipate in the conference and resources
should be sought. City Administrator Hedges sti that in tWliast the high school had matched funds.
He stated he would contact the school to discuss ltr Q3)ossibil
3811 ALDER LANE
City Administrator Hedges stated that the City had been contacted by Amanda Heu of 3811 Alder
Lane expressing interest in selling that property, which is located near the Cedar /13 redevelopment area, to
The Council agreed to have,,Si .ptucpe Hof the property.
Mayor Awada moved, Counciiiiiii tli�i' Cgsoir'stcoiided a motion to allow staff to negotiate the
purchase of 3811 Alder Lane, Eagan, MN. Aye: 5 Nay: Q.:
LARRY WENZEL DEt�OPMENT
It was acknowledged that a letter had been received from Mr. Wenzel's attorney dated October 11,
Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2000
Page 13
Date
TELECOMMIXACATIONS LEASE eitEEMENT
Public Works Director Colbert gaVi cp#ATyiew
Mayor Awada moved, CouncilmemberCafiii if'sil'kbnded a motion to approve the Co- locate
telecommunication lease agreement with Quest, Inc. for an antenna installation on city park property
located at 1689 Highline Trail and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents.
Aye: 5 Nay: 0
VISITORS 011ie K�At
Daryle Peterson commended Councilmen Masin atakAlomquist on their opposition to the
Perron Acres rezoning. He stated that tltr ,C4x 1*1. repr, ij'the citizens, not market forces. He
went on to discuss his opposition to the 5 1� K tes.: c3 14:: .dada explained that if a developer meets
the requirements of the zoning ordinance he has the ght to ilk$' elop.
Kevin Manley (developer of Perron development) stated that he is not only a developer, but a
resident of Eagan and is proud of his previous development as well as the proposed development. He
stated that large lots are not what everyone is looking for and that it is ultimately the homeowners' decision
if they like the smaller lots or not. He sf d: jf residents are looking for Large acreage they will look
elsewhere.
Leonard Perron, owner of the proper c (propb§ k t?etl6n development) stated he has a right to sell
his property and has been depending on the sif :for his ret stated that it really hurt him when
Councilmembers Blomquist and Masin voted*** pdG
'isi'Ilf OURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m. to an Executive Session to discuss pending litigation.
If you need these minutes in an alternative form such atiliak.ie print, grAidle, audio tape, etc., please contact the City of
Eagan, 3830 Pilot knob Road, Eagan, MN 55122, (65;1.b81- 4600,:D phone: (651) 454- 8535).
The City of Eagan is committed to the policy that all persons have eeiiiiitaccess to its programs, services, activities,
facilities and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, sexual
orientation, marital status or status with regard to public assistance.
r•.
City Clerk
MINUTES OR: A ws OF THE
}SWAN AN CITY COUNC ji!i5 iii
.agan, Minnesota ti•:..
:..}glovember 6, 2000;
A regular meeting of the Eagan City Coiil! (Cy# dk. t 'Cis;' i$day, November 6, 2000 at 6:30 p.m. at the
Eagan Municipal Center. Present were Mayor Awada'111etlmembers Masin, Blomquist, Carlson and Bakken.
Also present were City Administrator Tom Hedges, Senior Planner Mike Ridley, Director of Public Works Tom
Colbert, and City Attorney Mike Dougherty.
Councilmember Masin moved, Councilmembe>:.• ,,lson secdAi
presented. Aye: 5 Nay: 0
MINUTES OF THE.44CIQ$ C ,2Q()6t GULAR MEETING
Councilmember Masin pointed out two typographical diYors on page two and she also stated that on page
seven, regarding the motion to direct staff to provide a list of truck related items that are stored on the property
located at 4841 Biscayne Avenue, she voted nay and the minutes reflect a 5 -0 vote. Mayor Awada directed the
Recording Secretary to review the video tape of the October 17 meeting for verification.
Mayor Awada moved, Councilme*g*Icen seconded a motion to continue the approval of the minutes
until the November 21, 2000 Council meeting:: ;0:. Nay: 0
MINUTES OF THE O0 BEBER Z4; t $tf0 SPECIAL MEETING
Mayor Awada moved, Councilmember gcitii%d'A'motion to approve the minutes as presented.
Aye: 5 Nay: 0
MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 30, 2000 SPECIAL MEETING
a motion to approvb the agenda as
Councilmember Masin stated she felt there should be answers to the questions listed in the section titled
Community Input. City Administrator Hedges stated that staff has a list of the residents who attended the meeting
and that a list of the questions and answer gt+i. 3*WW1cr.Aob. ident. Councilmember Carlson stated she also
felt there should be answers to the questions P? 7i*,2b Ar future reference.
Mayor Awada moved, Councilmember Carlsallecondedg.iiiotion to continue the approval of the minutes.
Ayes: 5 Nay: 0
VISITORS TO BE Iir'RD
Mary Teske, Clark Street, expressed concern over the accuracy of the City's zoning map that will be
submitted to the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the FAA. She stated there is not an accurate reflection of
the multi family zoning districts. She further stated the map is noI cgnsistent with maps from neighboring cities.
Assistant City Administrator Verbrugge stated he had dWilssed the mapping issue with the City's GIS
Specialist and that all residential areas ai.$ictt ,f0$atb r., 33r,4tted that corrections will be made to the map
before it is submitted to the FAA. He fu i :t cif affect the determination for funding.
Councilmember Bakken asked if the corrected map coiOgi a completed and handed out at the public
hearing. City Administrator Hedges stated an addendum could Ii$iitepared.
Bill Komack, expressed his concern over the lack of affordable housing in Eagan. He stated there are many
people who work in the City but cannot afford tcr live here. He asked the Council to reconsider their position with
the Metropolitan Council regarding the Comprehensive Plan.
Leanne Skelia stated she supports the comments made by Mr. Komack.
November 6, 2000
Page 2
A. personnel Items
Pat Thomas, a member of the Focus Cot i t*e j L l;3 i+ilopment for the Community Park, stated she
was not sure if voters understood when they voted6WiiiiteAliPitiat part of the property would be taken for the
Ring Road project. Mayor Awada stated that she felt the public was well aware of the project. City Administrator
Hedges stated that other focus groups had expressed concern over the Central Parkway issue. He stated that the
issue will be discussed at the November 15 and 17 meetings.
Meg Tilley, representing the Eagan 'o'' eft ate on the Flood Relief Program and
provided a handout to the Council.
RECOGNITIONS AM PRESEN'.tATIONS
NA'I "t •L I limi WEEK
Katie Gray and Erica Holnsten presented a brief update to the City Council regarding the "Red Ribbon
Campaign" and other activities of the Eagan High School Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD).
COMMENTS BY CITY COUNCIL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR DEPARTMENT HEADS
City Administrator Hedges inform. ijtons that election coverage would be held on Channel 16 on
Tuesday evening, November 7
Councilmember Masin provided contact.diformation &osIe having suggestions regarding the
celebration of the millennium.
fiiii::;ttiiq§ENT AGENDA
Item 1. It was recommended to accept the letter of resignation from Barb Hand, Account Clerk/Deputy Clerk.
Item 2. It was recommended to approve a #i t c f or ;a seasonal skate guard for the civic arena.
Item 3. It was recommended to approve the hiring ofg• tin Webax.e,1 a seasonal civic arena supervisor.
B. Temporary on -sa le liquor license for the southweg4ea YM j 'or November 11,2000 and waive the
application fee. It was recommended to approve a tetnporarysrt ;sale liquor license for the Southwest Area
YMCA for November 11, 2000 and to waive the application fee
C. Lawful gambling exemption permit for the Burnsville Rotary to conduct raffles at Royal Cliff. It was
recommended to approve a lawful gambling exemption permit for the Burnsville Rotary to conduct raffles at
Royal Cliff on December 2, 2000.
D. Lawful gambling exemption permit nesota South'Metro Chapter Deer Hunters Association to
Q o• o. a la gambling exemption Conduct Raffles at Royal Cliff. It v�:��$ol}�:{,:s• lawful g g p pe rmit for the
Minnesota South Metro Chapter De if4'Iirfitdit•A c giifoi# M: nduct raffles at Royal Cliff on February 23,
2001.
E. gxtension.of snow grooming contract with Dakota County.'' ias recommended to approve an amendment
extending the term of the Snow Grooming Contract with Dakota County for cross country trails and the tubing
hill through May 1, 2001, authorizing the signature of the City Clerk.
F. Gun Club Lake WMO grant application for Nichols Meadow Habitat Restoration Program. It was
recommended to support the application by the Gun Club Lake Watershed Management Organization for a
Clean Water Partnership Grant.
Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes
November 6, 2000
Page 3
G. Purchase Agreement, 3811 Alder Lane. It 4 14: rove a purchase agreement in the amount of
$145,000 for the Heu residential property at 3$3 di s iil :eF$ authorize the City Attorney and City
Administrator to execute the necessary documents.
H. chedule Cedar /13 Concept Refinement Open House for November 28. 2000. It was recommended to schedule
a Redevelopment Concept Refinement Openfriouse for the Greater Cedarvale Area for Tuesday, November 28,
5:00 7:00 p.m. at the offices of Vision ijii i446.TQ¢. *11 ;;Memorial Highway.
I. Contract 00 -02, Hilltop Estates Vienna Woods. We-fatless ParNgeet rehabilitation. It was recommended to
approve the final payment for Contract 00-02 (Hilltpg.states, Vienna Woods, Wilderness Park Street
Rehabilitation) in the amount of $26 ,544.47 to KeSp :3 ra Contf tg, Inc. and accept the improvements for
perpetual City maintenance subject to w 13fd sio4
J. Contract 00 -09D. Change Order 1. It was recommended to approve Change Order #1 to Contract 00 -09D
(Coachman Water Treatment Facility Reroofing) and authorize the Mayor and Deputy City Clerk to execute
all related documents.
K. Completion of Fire Administration Corction Project. It was recommended to approve the completion of
principal construction and contracting O f :jai e.A iministration facility.
L. Project 960BB, Gardenwood Ponds 2° Additpx. ii i%ics ;r Ci Cimended to acknowledge the completion of
Contract 96 -BB (Gardenwood Ponds 2 Add tl n Street >4.j jity Improvements) and authorize perpetual
City maintenance subject to warranty provisiCi4y
M. Project 98 -EE, Eagan Woods Office P :0 fic &dition. It was recommended to acknowledge the completion of
Contract 98 -EE (Eagan Woods Office park 2 Addition Street Utility Improvements) and authorize
perpetual City maintenance subject to warranty provisions.
N. Project 99 -A. Gardenwood Ponds 4 Addition. It was recommended to acknowledge the completion of
Contract 99 -A (Gardenwood Ponds 4 Acl�lul9n ,�geet and Utility Improvements) and authorize perpetual City
maintenance subject to warranty provisj;
O. License Renewals for-the Year 2001, Trash Haul* Yee Cont#e4or and Tobacco Licenses. It was
recommended to,approve the license renewals fora year 20( #rash hauler, tree contractor and tobacco
licenses.
Councilmember Masin asked for comment on item A 1. 12esignation/Account Clerk/Deputy Clerk. City
Administrator Hedges stated that Barb Hand had submitted her resignation. He thanked Ms. Hand for her service to
the City and stated she would be missed.
Councilmember Masin asked for comment on item F. A wove Gun Club Lake Watershed Management
Organization grant application. City Administrator Hedges addreAl the issue.
Councilmember Masin asked fo! i..:; $C# Qdule Cedar /13 Concept Refinement Open House
for November 28, 2000. City Administrat 'P2edfellifgaiiIntidfssue.
Councilmember Masin asked for comment on item K. ove Completion of Fire Administration
Construction Project. City Administrator Hedges addressed the f5sile.
Councilmember Carlson asked for clarification on item R. Project 742, approve Assessment Agreement
(Wescott Woodlands Vinge), regarding if the property owners had responded to the deferment agreement. Public
Works Director Colbert stated that the property owners have until November 15" to respond.
VACATE PUBLIC DRAINAGE UTILITY EASEMENT (MURPHY FARM, LOT 2, BLOCK 2)
Mayor Awada opened the public heititt of a public drainage and utility easement on
Murphy Farm, Lot 2, Block 2.
City Administrator Hedges introduced this itegx:tublic Wgtks Colbert gave a staff report.
There being no public comment, Mid- ;i? *t jx lc hearing and turned discussion back to the
Council.
Council.
Councilmember Bakken moved, Councilmember Carlson seconded a motion to recommend approval of the
vacation of a portion of a public drainage and utility easement on Lot 2, Block 2, Murphy Farm (Parcel 10- 49500-
020-02) and authorize the Mayor and Deputy City Clerk to execute all related documents. Ayes: 5 Nay: 0
CERTIFIC* W E ;,DELINQUENT UTILITIES
Mayor Awada opened the public hearingwardiiif i 1:iQ:tdtification of delinquent utilities accounts to
Dakota County for collection with property taxes;:,:
City Administrator Hedges discusted.$l s.;lfCp i $t ring there are approximately 212 utility bill accounts with
delinquent payments.
There being no public comment, Mayor Awada closed the public hearing and turned discussion back to the
Councilmember Carlson moved, cke caF piper.$ ken seconded a motion to approve certification of
delinquent utility accounts to Dakota Cot tyji i J p *1 rty taxes. Aye: 5 Nay: 0
CERTIFICATIa :bF FAI#EALARMS
Mayor Awada opened the public hearing reg rd ng certi* ion of delinquent false alarm accounts to
Dakota County for collection with property taxes. giliii
City Administrator Hedges discussed this item, stating the City currently has approximately 5 false alarm
bill accounts with delinquent payments.
There being no public comment, Mayor Awada closed pf:oublic hearing and turned discussion back to the
Council.
Councilmember Carlson moved' Seconded a motion to approve certification of
delinquent false alarm accounts to Dakota". oiiii�y'fof hli titriit' property taxes. Ayes: 5 Nay: 0
OLD BUSIN$
REVIEW COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN RESPONSE TO METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
City Administrator Hedges discussed this item and introduced Greg Ingraham of Ingraham and Associates
to answer questions of the Council. He also introduced Jim Uttley representing the Metropolitan Council.
Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes
November 6, 2000
Page 5
Mayor Awada moved, Councilrnembei' n seconded g 4b" n to ratify the staff response to the
Metropolitan Council Review Record and direct '1:6 t :tense to the Metropolitan Council and copy
our legislative delegation and the House Committee ftiitl i tiunent Affairs; and allow the Met Council staff a
30 day continuance for additional review time.
Councilmember Masin asked Mr. Ingraham to discuss the sand, gravel and dolostone deposits and the new
flow increase to Seneca.
Mayor Awada asked Mr. Uttley if he had review 4 jjie'CSfy .:jii pone. Mr. Uttley stated he had not yet
read the response. He requested more time to review anrl'kiiicuss Eaiitys response before it is submitted to the
Metropolitan Council. Mayor Awada and the Council ajd they wore4:Comfortable with allowing the additional
time
Councilmember Blomquist stated she is concerned ttiai:eiii City will lose some of its current affordable
housing due to previous flooding problems.
Mr. Uttley introduced Michael King of the Metropolitan Council who will be working with the communities
of Dakota County.
Councilmember Carlson asked if staff iit. wed the density in Mendota Heights as she had requested.
Mr. Uttley stated that Mendota Heights' plan had 'iiot jta feed pproved by the Metropolitan Council.
Councilmember Bakken asked about the j#, bjected i g.g ig:air traffic over higher density areas. Mr.
Uttley stated that higher density housing areas are. L a1 y d*1 e3:fififincreased air traffic because multi family
housing usually has more insulation. Counccl> pbi iiiiiklt stated that air traffic should be more evenly
distributed. Mr. Uttley stated he could get itional regarding this issue for the Council.
Councilmember Blomquist invited a representative of the Metropolitan Council to attend the information
meeting regarding the July storm flood damage on November 9. She stated that input from the Metropolitan Council
could be helpful. Mr. Uttley stated there will be a Metropolitan Council staff person in attendance at the meeting.
Elaine Aire, Interlachen Drive, stiiii ii ;iiiijig iu &}>r {t# affordable housing in Eagan. She stated she
believes that people who are employed in Eagan shoulli ke'ablnaff$rd housing in Eagan. She asked Mayor
Awada, Councilmembers $akken and Carlson why thq,ft•.:ooted agai (rezoning for higher density housing. She
stated they are not only hurting Eagan, but Dakota Cotfiitijt as
Councilmember Carlson stated that the City of Eagan mend exceeds the Metropolitan Council's
recommended percentage of multi family housing.
Mayor Awada stated that an effort had been made to balance the housing stock in Eagan compared to ten
years ago.
Councilmember Carlson stated that the City does not hai fie jurisdiction to dictate pricing of homes, as it
is a matter of supply and demand. r s
Ms. Aire asked Councilmember Bakken to• eicplhif lifs ifiment that was quoted in the St. Paul newspaper
regarding the reading of the Metropolitan Council report causin lin damage. Councilmember Bakken stated he
was attempting to bring some humor to a tense time in the meetii :Aid that he simply meant thht he did not agree
with the report: He stated he feels the City of Eagan has made an effort to provide affordable housing.
Laura Hedlund stated she is ashamed tosay she is a resident of Eagan. She stated she feels Eagan needs
more diverse housing. She further stated that Eagan is losing out on opportunities regarding livable communities
grants. She urged the Council to become more reasonable with the Metropolitan Council.
out that theatS from the Metropolitan Council are very
Jack Conrad, 7782 Sunset Drive, stated he feels there is a real need for affordable housing in Eagan.
A vote was taken on the motion. Aye: 5 Nay: 0
JULY STORM UPDATE, CONSIDER•I' ##3a:,.,ti,.c#RING ANALYSIS AND SCHEDULE
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL DATES FOR STORM WrIVAGOPORT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS
City Administrator Hedges provided a review Afbe currentggttus of the July 2000 storm recovery. He
stated that the Council needs to consider reta A ;Qrltlent iOting engineer to review the City's Storm
Drainage Report and schedule the 10 special: pditta eetii•;•fd :**the follow -up neighborhood meetings to
consider proposals/options.
Councilmember Carlson suggested that a chronology of events be placed on the City's website.
Councilmember Carlson moved, Councilmember Bakken seconded a motion to direct staff to solicit
proposals and bids from consulting engineeRWRis that have not previously worked in the City of Eagan,
including Bolten and Menk and BRW.
Mayor Awada moved, Councilmember Bj{gken sec6tstleamotion to approve the following special meeting
dates: November 20, November 27, December 1 }Vecemker,; 4 Aye: 5 Nay: 0
Mayor Awada moved, Councilme i tiit•Seconded a motion to approve the following special meeting
dates in 2001: January 8, January 22, Janus 29, February 5, February 12, February 26, 2001. Aye: 5 Nay: 0
Mayor Awada cancelled the November 21, 2000 special meeting. The agenda item will be placed on a
regular Council meeting agenda.
Neil Haoadly, 1750 Meadowlark; *SLat;}tkik,' l,families in his neighborhood, ten of which had
excessive water in their basements, had ba irkilip#fdir c :t .1* July storm flood damage. He stated that he
had requested that the City check on the storm sewer s em in theaiea but was not aware that had been done. He
also expressed concern over the adjacent areas that usq ip same soWWr system. Public Works Director Colbert stated
that the area had been reviewed and options will be acgt4sed at tridlijovember 9, 2000 meeting.
City Administrator Hedges explained what to expect at ft .:November 9 meeting, stating there will be
television monitors and the meeting will be broadcast on cable television. He stated there will be a brief introduction
and then the actual report will be reviewed which consists of 70 pages. He also stated that an executive summary of
the report will be handed out at the meeting and the complete report will be available on the City's website and also
available at City Hall and the library.
The Council took a five minute break at 9:05 p.m.
CONSIDER SCHEDULE FOR iiiii i! 4 SULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES
City Administrator Hedges discussed this item, statingfa schedule needs to be set for the selection of
professional consulting engineering services which has been autMzed by the City Council.
Councilmember Masin stated she would like to see this completed by the end of the year. Councilmember
Carlson stated she felt the selection should be done after the first of next year because the Council needs to devote
time to the flood meeting issues. Councilmember Blomquist stated she felt that during the flood meeting process,
much could be learned about the engineering firms. Mayor Awada also agreed that the selection of consulting
engineers should be done after the first of next year.
Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes
November 6, 2000
Page 7
Councilmember Blomquist asked wha .3 s currently ww% :'the City. Public Works director Colbert
stated the firms currently working with the City diitVA $1 t0i; 3 and Howard R. Green.
Mayor Awada moved, Councilmember Blomquist seconded a motion to 1) direct staff to solicit RFP's for a
second opinion on the Storm Study Report with staff making the selection to be brought to the Council for
ratification, and 2) continue consideration of soliciting consulting engineering services until after the last
neighborhood storm study meeting. Aye: 5 L,�.I�
REZONING AND PRELIMINARY SUBDION —11¢ TLEY BROS. CONSTRUCTION
City Administrator Hedges introdua gAithi re i ;f1l rezon of approximately 1.09 acres from R-
1 (Single Family) to 1.09 acres from R -1 (Sirigle Family to P6 2 fined Development), a Preliminary Subdivision
and Preliminary Planned Development (Woodhaven Villas) to create six single family zero lot line lots, located on
south Robert Trail, south of Diffley Road and north of Eastwood Court in the NE '4 of Section 25. Senior Planner
Mike Ridley gave a staff report.
Councilmember Carlson moved, OptittNijmember Bakken seconded a motion to open the floor for public
comment. Aye: 5 Nay: 0
Luke Wahl of Lakewood Court presentecf*petitiOINSANIsitig the proposed rezoning.
Mayor Awada moved, Councilmember 1)1 i t i iic#e>3 2 motion to direct staff to prepare Findings of
Fact for denial of a rezoning of approximatpl ;ti Mres:from R -1 (Single Family to PD (Planned Development), a
Preliminary Subdivision and Preliminary Ptut3•Development (Woodhaven Villas) to create six single family zero
lot line lots, located on South Robert Trail, south of Diffley Road and north of Eastwood Court in the NE '4 of
Section 25. Ayes: 5 Nay: 0
COMMENTS REGARDNG MAC PART 150 DOCUMENT
Assistant City Administrator Ve> ge l illgarding comments recommended by the
Airport Relations Commission concerning the MetroppktYrrAWdifstonunission Draft FAR Part 150 Study
Document for Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airpigi: The FAnsart 150 Study identifies noise impacts at the
airport and makes reeommendations for mitigating tha§ 3rnpacts.
Councilmember Masin moved, Councilmember Carlson minded a motion to approve the comments
recommended by the Metropolitan Airports Commission Part 150 Study Document and direct staff to submit those
comments as part of the official public record. Aye: 5 Nay: 0
ORCHARD HEIGHTS 2 ADDITION (INVER GROVE HEIGHTS JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT)
City Administrator Hedges introduced this item regardit Cite Orchard Heights 2nd Addition development
proposal in Inver Grove Heights. Public ,s or:Gplboi ?rpvided a review of the proposal.
Councilmembers Carlson and Bakken expressea•cbiic Ever drainage from the site. Councilmember
Blomquist stated she is not in favor of the project. CouncilmeiQl'tBakken suggested the possibility of an
annexation of the property to oversee the services provisions. I4 Awada stated that when the agreement was
signed the. City agreed to provide services and this issue should tie brought up after the first of next year and hold a
joint discussion with Inver Grove Heights. Councilmember Bakken expressed concern over the long term
maintenance of the project. The Council agreed that the lot sizes need to be more conducive to the area.
Councilmember Masin moved, Councilmember Blomquist seconded a motion to denythe Orchard Heights
2n Addition development proposal in Inver Grove Heights and consider a joint meeting with the Inver Grove
Heights City Council. Aye: 4 Nay 1. Mayor Awada opposed.
Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes
November 6, 2000
Page 8
Tom Gonyea, developer of the area dis which is designed for the site
LEGISLATIVE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UPDATE
ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES 2001 LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES
City Administrator Hedges review ec4314061 I t 4, M 2001 Legislative Priorities. He asked
the Council to list their top five priorities from AMMpo3}i"Q.' •pnbtifi* jst provided and submit to him.
ADMINISTR DIVE AC ipA
City Administrator Hedges asked thiZi ebt tlC a ng date be set for the Dodd Road information
meeting. L
Mayor Awada moved, Councilmember Masin seconded a motion to set a special Council meeting for
November 13, 2000 at 6:30 p.m. for the Dodd Road information meeting. Aye: 5 Nay: 0
_.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
Date
If you need these minutes in an altemative form such as large print, Braille; audio tape, etc., please contact the City of Eagan,
3830 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan, MN 55122, (651) 681 -4600, (TDD phone: (651) 454- 8535).
The City of Eagan is committed to the policy that all persons have equal access to its programs, services, activities, facilities and
employment without regard to race, color, crel.;eligion, national origin, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status or
status with regard to public assistance.
City Clerk
city of eagan
MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: NOVEMBER 16 2000
SUBJECT: AGENDA INFORMATION FOR NOVEMBER 21, 2000 CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
ADOPT AGENDA/APPROVE MINUTES
MEMO
At the November 6, 2000 regular City Council meeting, the City Council directed the Recording
Secretary to review the video tape of the October 17, 2000 meeting to verify a motion. A memo
from Recording Secretary McGarvey is enclosed on page f>1 noting her findings after
reviewing the tape.
After approval is given to the November 21, 2000 City Council agenda and the minutes of the
November 6, 2000 and the October 17, 2000 regular City Council meetings, the following items
are in order for consideration.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
FROM: MIRA MCGARVEY, RECORDING SECRETARY
DATE: NOVEMBER 15, 2000
RE: MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 17, 2000 COUNCIL MEETING
As instructed at the November 6, 2000 City Council meeting, I researched the video tape
of the October 17, 2000 Council meeting. A mistake was made in recording the vote on a
motion regarding the Conditional Use Permit clarification for Mega Excavating.
Councilmember Masin voted against the following motion:
Councilmember Carlson moved, Councilmember Bakken seconded a motion to direct
staff to provide a list of truck related items that is stored on the property located at 4841
Biscayne Avenue, legally described as Lot 4, Block 1 Halley's Addition in the SE', 4 of
Section 36 to be attached to the minutes.
The amended vote should read: Aye: 4 Nay: 1
/mm
a
Agenda Information Memo
November 21, 2000 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. PERSONNEL ITEMS
Item 1. Temporary Building Inspector-
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve the hiring of Don Hadd as a temporary building inspector.
Item 2. Police Officer-
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve the hiring of Robert Rollins as a police officer contingent upon successful
completion of the required psychological, physical, physical agility and drug testing.
Item 3. Resignation Part -time Clerical Tech III/Community Development-
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To accept the letter of resignation from Amanda Boudreau, part-time Clerical Technician III in
the Community Development Department.
3
Agenda Information Memo
November 21, 2000 Eagan City Council Meeting
B. 2001 LICENSE RENEWALS FOR TOBACCO, TRASH HAULERS, STABLE,
TREE CONTRACTORS AND FERTILIZER
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve the license renewals for the year 2001 for tobacco, trash haulter, stable, tree
contractor and commercial fertilizer.
FACTS:
The City annually licenses parties doing business in the above referenced
categories. These licenses are in order for review by the Council at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
List of licensees requesting renewal is on pages S through g
Duckwood #66
3575 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN
Stuart Anderson's Cattle Company
1288 Promenade Place
Eagan, MN
Food and Fuel (formerly Total)
4206 Nicols Road
Eagan, MN
Valley Lounge
3385 Sibley Memorial Highway
Eagan, MN
LaFonda' s
3665 Sibley Memorial Highway
Eagan, MN
Cub Foods
1940 Cliff Lake Road
Eagan, MN
Silver Bell Liquor
1983 Silver Bell Road
Eagan, MN
Triangle Rubbish
1881 S. Lexington
Mendota Heights, MN
Superior Services
1375 7 Avenue
Newport, MN
Clean Sweep Inc.
14051 Clearview Drive
Shakopee, MN
2001 TOBACCO LICENSE RENEWALS
2001 TRASH HAULER LICENSE RENEWALS RESIDENTIAL
2001 TRASH HAULER LICENSE RENEWALS CONSTRUCTION/DEMO
Lanxang Oriental Food
3904 Beau D'Rue Drive
Eagan, MN
PDQ #214
4198 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN
Food and Fuel (formerly Total)
2000 Rahncliff
Eagan, MN
Cedarvale Lanes
3883 Beau D'Rue Drive
Eagan, MN
Houlihan's Restaurant
1294 Promenade Place
Eagan, MN
Jensen's Supper Club
3840 Sibley Memorial Highway
Eagan, MN
BFI
4325 E. 66 Street
Inver Grove Heights, MN
BFI
4325 E. 66 Street
Inver Grove Heights, MN
Henningsen Construction
13926 Duluth Court
Apple Valley, MN
Waste Technology
4232 Hanson Court
Crystal, MN
Superior Services
1375 7 Avenue
Newport, MN
Diamond T Ranch
4889 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN
S &S Tree Horticultural Specialists
6214 Concord Blvd.
Inver Grove Heights, MN
Guaranteed Spray
9919 Valley View Road
Eden Prairie, MN
Armor Waste
3291 Terminal Drive
Eagan, MN
Superior Services
1375 7` Avenue
Newport, MN
2001 TRASH HAULER LICENSE RENEWALS COMMERICAL
Triangle Rubbish BFI
1881 S. Lexington 4325 E. 66 Street
Mendota Heights, MN Inver Grove Heights, MN
2001 STABLE LICENSE RENEWALS
2001 TREE MAINTENANCE CONTRACTOR LICENSE RENEWALS
2001 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER APPLICATOR LICENSE RENEWALS
6
Agenda Information Memo
November 21, 2000 Eagan City Council Meeting
C. CONFIRMATION OF FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL WOODHAVEN VILLAS
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To confirm the Findings of Fact, Conclusions Resolution of Denial of the
Preliminary Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision request of Manley
Brothers Construction to allow 6 single family residential lots upon approximately 1.1
acres of land located south of Diffley Road and west of Highway 3 in the northeast 1 /4
of Section 25.
FACTS:
D At its regular meeting of November 6, 2000, the City Council directed staff to prepare
Findings of Fact, Conclusions Resolution of Denial regarding the Preliminary
Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision request of Manley Brothers
Construction to be considered at the November 21, 2000 regular Council meeting.
BACKGROUND /ATTACHMENTS: (3)
Findings of Fact, Conclusions Resolution of Denial, pages 2'
through
Applicant correspondence, page /3
Applicant reconsideration request, page
7
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF EAGAN, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
In Re: Application of Manley Brothers FINDINGS OF FACT,
Construction for a Preliminary Planned CONCLUSIONS AND
Development and Preliminary Subdivision RESOLUTION
for Woodhaven Villas
This matter came before the Eagan City Council at its meeting of November 6, 2000. The
Council received and considered the September 19, 2000, Planning Report; input from City staff;
minutes of the public hearing held by the Advisory Planning Commission on September 26,
2000; evidence from the neighboring residents, together with all existing files, records and prior
proceedings and material as presented to the Council. No one represented or appeared on behalf
of Manley Brothers Construction at the public hearing held by the Advisory Planning
Commission or at the meeting of the City Council on November 6, 2000.
Based upon all the files, records and input which was presented at the meeting, the City
Council makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Resolution.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The application by Manley Brothers Construction (the "Applicant for the
Preliminary Subdivision and Preliminary Planned Development for Woodhaven Villas (the
"Project is properly brought before the Eagan City Council.
2. The Applicant presently owns approximately 1.1 acres of land generally described
as a portion of Lot 6 and Lot 7, Auditor's Subdivision #42 and a portion of Lot 2 and Lot 3,
Auditor's Subdivision #43 (the "Property which land is vacant.
3. The proposed Subdivision consists of the creation of six (6) lots, ranging from
4,171 square feet to 6,605 square feet in size. Five of the six lots have no setback from the side
8
lot line(s). The lots are proposed to be accessed from a 20 -foot wide private drive. The only
access to the Property is to and from State Highway 3. The Applicant's proposal is more
particularly shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein.
4. The Property is designated D -II, Mixed Residential (0 -6 units /acre) under the
Eagan Comprehensive Guide Plan.
5. The Project would result in a density of 5.5 units per acre.
6. The Property is designated R -1, Single Family Residential, under the City's
Zoning Ordinance.
7. In considering the rezoning request to a Planned Development District, the
Planning Commission and Council, in the interest of carrying out the intent and purpose,
determines whether the proposed planned development:
(a) Better adapts itself to the physical and aesthetic setting and that of
surrounding lands than does the development of the Property as R -1, Single Family
Residential; and
(b) Benefits the community at large, to a greater degree than would development
of the Property as R -1, Single Family Residential.
8. The minimum requirement for lots zoned R -1 are as follows:
(a) Each lot shall have an area of 12,000 square feet;
(a) Each lot width shall be 85 feet; and
(a) Each building shall have a side yard setback of 10 feet from the adjoining lot.
9. None of the proposed lots meet the minimum lot area requirements.
10. Proposed lots 2 through 6 do not meet the side yard setback requirement.
11. Lot sizes in a neighboring subdivision average approximately 15,000 square feet.
9
12. In order to grade the Property for the Project, the Applicant would need to
construct a 6 to 18 foot high retaining wall at the entrance to State Highway 3.
13. Access to the six -lot subdivision is proposed from a single 20 -foot wide private
drive, intersecting on the inside edge of a curve of State Highway 3.
14. The City Code requires that no more than 40 percent of the significant trees on the
Property be removed as part of the Project.
15. The proposed Project results in the removal of 75 percent of the significant trees
on the property.
16. Applicant's drainage plans direct runoff to the North toward an existing residence.
17. The City Code requires that all subdivisions meet the applicable City Code
provisions and the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
18. The City Code requires that approval of a subdivision be made on a determination
that the physical characteristics of the site are suitable for the type of development contemplated
and that the site if physically suitable for the proposed density.
19. The Advisory Planning Commission recommended denial of the Project due in
part to drainage concerns, the undersized lots and poor use of the Property.
20. This matter was originally placed on the City Council Agenda for its meeting of
October 17, 2000, but was continued at the request of the Applicant to the meeting of November
6, 2000.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The matter is properly brought before the Eagan City Council.
2. The physical characteristics of the Property do not support the creation of five
additional lots.
164
3. The rezoning of the Property to support the Project would not better adapt itself to
the physical and aesthetic setting of the Property and would not benefit the community at large.
4. The character of the adjacent properties would be adversely affected by the
approval of the Project.
5. The Applicant has provided no evidence or reason for the City to vary its Code
requirements for lots in the R -1, Single Family Residential District.
6. The Project may create a hazardous situation on State Highway 3, by the
introduction of significant levels of vehicles ingressing and egressing the site, with poor visibility
on a curve.
7. The Property continues to enjoy a viable use as R -1, Single Family Residential.
8. By the greater weight of the record, and the information presented, it is hereby
determined by the City Council of the City of Eagan that approval of the Project is not
warranted.
RESOLUTION
The City Council of the City of Eagan does hereby resolve that the Applicant's requests
for a Preliminary Planned Development to allow the creation of six single family residential lots
and the Preliminary Subdivision, to be known as Woodhaven Villas, is hereby denied.
Dated at Eagan, Minnesota this day of 2000.
CITY OF EAGAN
1/
By: Patricia E. Awada
Its: Mayor
By: Holly N. Duffy
Its: Deputy Clerk
N b ,1
Wnn .-on
N
m
Q N W
om�MM
C y o°
ustPz
1
ST ATE TRU NK HIGH N
0
t
G
N ►j
4.
a °a
J Z
1 i
2
ts
v
a a
o°
o cc Zi
ir
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION
November 13, 2000
RE: Case 25- PS- 08 -06 -00 Woodhaven Villas
Bob Kirmis
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
Dear Bob Kirmis:
I would like to respond to the letter that you received on September 26, 2000 from Steve
Laddusaw and Gail Marback.
First, I would like to state that like the Hawthorne Woods development no two homes in
our new development would be alike. In addition, the numerous references to our project
as multi family dwellings are inaccurate. In fact, all homes will be detached single
family homes with three car attached garages each architecturally unique and stunning.
Building these homes as proposed, I feel, would actually increase the property values of
the homes in Hawthorne Woods by providing a buffer between the homes in Hawthorne
Woods and Highway 3.
The dollar value of our homes will range from $249,900.00 $299,900.00. To say that
developers "will tell you anything to get their way" is as unfair of a statement as if a
developer would paint all homeowners with the same broad stroke by stating that all
homeowners protest development even if it is good for the community.
Bob, you have seen our developments and you know that we take pride in what we build
and sell. We do not just "put in what will sell the fastest." It is true that the homes at
Woodhaven will be slightly less expensive than the homes in Hawthorne Woods.
However, these homes will be considerably more expensive than any other homes on
Highway 3. The land we will be building these homes on is not as desirable as the land
that the homes in Hawthorne Woods are built on because it is situated on Highway 3. To
compare these homes to the homes in Hawthorne Woods would be as absurd as me
comparing my home to the homes in Hawthorne Woods and complaining that the homes
in Hawthorne Woods are not as valuable as mine therefore bringing my property values
down.
Unlike some other developers, we live in this community and want to build a beautiful
development. By developing this land and building these homes as planned we will not
only keep the Hawthorne Woods Association beautiful but we will actually enhance their
property value and give additional people the opportunity to live in the sought after
community of Eagan.
Sincerely,
Kurtis L. Manley
Vice- President
Manley Brothers Construction, Inc.
/3
646 Lexie Court
Eagan, MN 55123
November 14, 2000
RE: Case 25- PS- 08 -06 -00 Woodhaven Villas
Bob Kirmis
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
Dear Bob Kirmis:
I am writing to request reconsideration on the above referenced matter on January 16,
2001. Please respond to the address listed above with a confirmation of this request.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
J., �z
Kurtis L. Manley
Vice- President
Manley Brothers Construction, Inc.
/r
Agenda Information Memo
November 21, 2000 Eagan City Council Meeting
D. CONSIDER APPROVING RENEWALS OF EXISTING LIQUOR LICENSES
FOR 2001
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve the renewals of existing liquor licenses for 2001, subject to review of
applications, payment of fees and Police Department reviews.
FACTS:
The liquor license renewals for the year 2001 include the following:
These renewals are in the process of completion and should be approved subject to
review and recommendation by the Eagan Police Department, payment of fees and
submittal of required documents.
ATTACHMENTS:
(11) ofd sale liquor
(23 restaurants and 2 hotels 25 total) on -sale liquor
(11) on -sale wine and beer
(7) on -sale beer
(18) off -sale beer
Liquor license renewals on pages g through a D
2001 Renewal Off -Sale Liquor
Licensee Name
Applebaum Companies, Inc.
Brar Enterprises, Inc.
Byerly Beverages Inc.
Cellars Wines/Spirits/Eagan Inc
Haskells, Inc.
Liquor Shoppe Inc. of Eagan
MGM Spirits Express, Inc.
MME, Inc.
Perrier Associates, Inc.
Sidco, Inc.
United Penn Lake, Inc.
DBA Name
Big Top Liquors
Blackhawk Liquor
Byerly's Wines Spirits
Cellars Wines Spirits
Haskell's
Liquor Shoppe
MGM Liquor Warehouse
E M Liquor
Great Northern Spirits
Big Top Wines Spirits
Silver Bell Liquor
/AC
Site Address
3900 Beau d'Rue Drive
4130 Blackhawk Road
1299 Promenade Place
2113 Cliff Road
2260 Cliff Road
4250 Lexington Ave. Sou
4182 Pilot Knob Road
1444 Yankee Doodle Roa
1960 Cliff Lake Road #1
1282 Town Centre Drive
1989 Silver Bell Road
2001 Renewal On -Sale Liquor
Licensee Name
Al Baker Company
Ansari Corp.
Apple America Ltd. Partnership
ARG Enterprises, Inc.
Casper's Cherokee Sirloin Roo
Cedarvale Bowl, Inc.
Chili's of Minnesota, Inc.
Cliff Corporation
Cooper's Restaurant, Inc.
Cuz, Inc.
Don Pablo's Operating Corp.
GRME, LLC
Hall Convention Center, Inc.
HGIE, LLC
Jensen's Supper Club, Inc.
Joe Senser's of Eagan, Inc.
Latt, Inc.
LeCarnassier LLC
Lost Spur Golf Course, Inc.
Sidney's of Eagan, Inc.
Sodexho Marriott Management,
Starks I, Inc.
T.C.B.H., Inc.
Wadsworth Old Chicago, Inc.
Wheatstone Restaurant Group,
DBA Name
Al Baker's
Mediterranean Cruise Cafe
Applebee's Neighborhood Bar
Stuart Anderson's Cattle Comp
Cherokee Sirloin Room
Cedarvale Lanes/Fitz's Bar
Chili's Southwest Bar Grill
Doolittles
Cooper's Restaurant
LaFonda's
Don Pablo's
Green Mill Eagan
Royal Cliff
Hilton Garden Inn Eagan
Jensen's Supper Club
Joe Senser's Sport Bar Grill
Valley Lounge
Red Robin
Lost Spur Golf Course
Sidney's Restaurant
River Park
Starks Saloon
Holiday Inn
Old Chicago Pizza
Houlihans
Site Address
3434 Washington Drive
3945 Sibley Memorial Hi
1335 Town Centre Drive
1299 Promenade Place
4625 Nicols Road
3883 Beau D'Rue Drive
3625 Pilot Knob Road
2140 Cliff Road
4185 South Robert Trail
3665 Sibley Memorial Hi
1280 Promenade Place
1940 Rahncliff Court
2280 Cliff Road
1975 Rahncliff Court
3840 Sibley Memorial Hi
3010 Eagandale Place
3385 Sibley Memorial Hi
1230 Town Centre Drive
2750 Sibley Memorial Hi
3330 Pilot Knob Road
3400 Yankee Drive
3125 Dodd Road
2700 Pilot Knob Road
1312 Town Centre Drive
1294 Promenade Place
/7
2001 Renewal On-Sale Wine Beer
Licensee Name
Chung Wong, Inc.
Chungs, Inc.
Diamond T. Ranch, Inc.
FHF, Inc.
Fratelli Tre, Inc.
J R Group, Inc.
Magic Thai Cafe Corporation
Sri Krishna, Inc.
The Restaurant Company
Village House II, Inc.
Young Tae Lim
DBA Name
Site Address
2139 Cliff Road
1960 Cliff Lake Road #1
4889 Pilot Knob Road
1304 Town Centre Drive
1665 Yankee Doodle Roa
1438 Yankee Doodle Roa
1258 Lone Oak Road
1260 Town Centre Drive
1345 Town Centre Drive
1272 Town Centre Drive
1989 Silver Bell Road
Hong Wong Restaurant
Anna Chungs
Diamond T. Ranch
Hunan Garden
Carbone's Pizzeria
Italian Pie Shoppe Winery
Magic Thai Cafe
Madras Palace Restaurant
Perkins Restaurant Bakery
Que Viet
Hoban Korean Restaurant
2001 Renewal On -Sale Beer
Licensee Name
Davanni's Inc.
Dragon Palace Restaurant
Parkview Golf Club, LLC
Patricia Boudrea
Pizza Hut of America, Inc.
Ray Rahn
West End Hunting Club
DBA Name
Davanni's Pizza
Dragon Palace Restaurant
Parkview Golf Course
Piccolo's Pizzeria
Pizza Hut #401023
Carriage Hills Country Club
West End Hunting Club
9
Site Address
1960 Cliff Lake Road
1466 Yankee Doodle Roa
1310 Cliff Road
4162 Pilot Knob Road
1325 Town Centre Drive
3535 Wescott Woodlands
700 Gun Club Road
2001 Renewal Off -Sale Beer
Licensee Name
Avanti Petroleum, Inc.
Bill McGuire
Fleming Companies, Inc.
Holiday Stationstores, Inc.
Holiday Stationstores, Inc.
Holiday Stationstores, Inc.
Hussein Ansari
Kwik Trip, Inc.
PDQ Food Stores, Inc.
Speedway SuperAmerica LLC
Speedway SuperAmerica LLC
Speedway SuperAmerica LLC
Speedway SuperAmerica LLC
Super Valu Holdings, Inc.
Tom Thumb Food Markets
Twin Cities Stores, Inc.
Twin Cities Stores, Inc.
Twin Cities Stores, Inc.
DBA Name
Total
McG's
Rainbow Foods
Holiday Stationstore #68
Holiday Stationstore #247
Holiday Stationstore #232
Cedarvale Texaco
Kwik Trip #662
PDQ #214
SuperAmerica #4049
SuperAmerica #4182
SuperAmerica #4464
SuperAmerica #4335
Cub Foods
Tom Thumb #273
Oasis Market Store #594
Oasis Market Store #518
Oasis Market Store #576
Site Address
2000 Rahncliff
1969 Silver Bell Road
1276 Town Centre Drive
1065 Diffley Road
3615 Pilot Knob Road
4595 Nicols Road
3830 Sibley Memorial Hi
3145 Dodd Road
4198 Pilot Knob Road
4200 Sibley Memorial Hi
1406 Yankee Doodle Roa
2250 Cliff Road
1379 Town Centre Dr.
1940 Cliff Lake Road
1815 Diffley Road
1286 Lone Oak Road
3390 Coachman Road
3150 Dodd Road
a•
Agenda Information Memo
November 21, 2000 Eagan City Council Meeting
E. SALE OF SURPLUS CITY PROPERTY, PARCEL 10- 03600- 022 -08
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve a purchase agreement for the sale of parcel
10- 03600 022 -08 and authorize the Mayor and Deputy City Clerk to execute all related
documents.
FACTS:
In 1994, Project 673R provided for the installation of new streets and utilities along
the new Red Pine Lane from State Highway 3 to the elementary school. As part of
that project, the City had to acquire ponding and utility easements across parcel 022-
08 in the northeast quarter of Section 36. Although the parcel consisted of
approximately 5 acres, the proposed utility easements totaled 3.33 acres.
Through negotiations with the owner in 1995, the City was able to acquire the entire
parcel for $35,000. An appraiser retained by the City determined that the City would
probably pay more than that for just the easements if it proceeded with condemnation.
With the negotiated acquisition of the entire parcel, the City planned to ultimately
combine it with the adjacent property to the south (owned by Gene Deb Finch)
ultimately retaining the necessary easements.
The Finch parcel, represented by Ed McMenomy, has now expressed an interest in
acquiring the City's parcel at this time and has offered to reimburse the City its
original purchase price. This would essentially allow the City to have acquired the
3.33 acres of utility easements for only the holding costs of the original land
purchase.
The City Attorney's Office has stated that the City is free to sell this land for a
reasonable price to any individual. It would be most beneficial to sell to the adjacent
parcel as was originally intended, thereby relieving the City from the burden of
owning a potential 5 acre landlocked parcel when only drainage and utility easements
are needed.
ATTACHMENTS:
Location map, page g
Parcel map, page a3
DI
PROPOSED EASEMENT
PINE WAY
1 20th ST.
11 -16 -00
G: Ea semen tTracking /POND_LP -27
l
CLIFF it
ROAD
1 20th ST. W.
ROSEMOUNT
U
1-
W
U
W
J
D
0
INE WAY
City of Eagan
PROPOSED EASEMENT LOCATION
ev 2? POND LP -27
c a
c
L?
X e1
1
v
I
6
i
JP
b+l
i "e
2 E id
re$
Ila
araf y�
4y
1
P
0 L3
S d
e
1 e _a
r
s
Q 'V s r
4 1
?3
Y
J
ilt :1E1 i. 1 ;t i il
1 £i t It-1 Say E
d: s- ega -wn n 1 s E.
a -D
44 ili
e a�' i..t s z.„ f s3S it
>i i it
3y. y s
5
e ie5 2--.1 1��.1. =i: 5=52 i
3 i i .SSSi ao£�� E
i ita °I;IX1 i'Ca1i111 a 1
3 11= U fled is:
�..s ai$SEEEE= a a en s s ea
y hit t 1¢ SIN 2 8 t 2$ i0
t WI E W W, :a0 1 Q
s Z
O s SS P aa3 y
R£r i 3311s Rif= S x
tt ic .s i i EEEEE£E Yyy �E 2
S�uA ii£££.X29 iS ►£3i ;£i
Agenda Information Memo
November 21, 2000 Eagan City Council Meeting
FACTS:
F. ASSIGNMENT OF ACQUISITION AGREEMENT WISPARK CORP
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
Consent to the Assignment of the Acquisition Agreement from Wispark to Grand Oak Master,
LLC.
Earlier this year, the City entered into an Acquisition Agreement Wispark Corp to assure that
Wispark Corp would be obligated to reimburse the City for all costs associated with
acquisition of the Imre property.
Greg MiIIer and other investors are parting company with Wispark and have created Grand
Oak Master, LLC.
Grand Oak Master, LLC. has a tentative Purchase Agreement with Mrs. Imre; however, as a
condition of closing, Mrs. Imre has requested that the City approve the Assignment of the
Acquisition Agreement from Wispark to Grand Oak Master, LLC.
ATTACHMENTS (1):
November 13, 2000 Memo from City Attorneys office, page as.
RE:
Mike,
SEVERSON, SHELDON,
DOUGHERTY MOLENDA, P.A.
SUITE 600
7300 WEST 147TH STREET
APPLE VALLEY, MINNESOTA 55124 -7580
(952) 432-3136
TELEFAX NUMBER (952) 432 -3780
E -MAIL ssdmatty @pconline.com
TO: Mike Ridley, Senior Planner
FROM: Robert B. Bauer, Assistant City Attorneys s'
DATE: November 13, 2000
City of Eagan v. Mary E. Imre, et. al.
Imre/Wispark Condemnation
Court File No. CO -00 -9200
Our File No. 206 -17921
As you may be aware, Greg Miller and his investors are breaking away from Wispark and have
created Grand Oak Master, LLC. This entity intends to acquire certain properties from Wispark,
including the Grand Oak development in Eagan.
Grand Oak Master, LLC has a tentative Purchase Agreement with Mrs. Imre and it would appear
that the City will not need to continue its present eminent domain action. However, as a
condition to closing, Mrs. Imre has requested that the City approve the Assignment of the
Acquisition Agreement from Wispark Corporation to Grand Oak Master, LLC. Accordingly,
would you please place this as a consent agenda item for the City Council to approve the
Assignment and the execution of the same by the Mayor and Clerk. Should you have any
questions concerning this, please feel free to give me a call.
Agenda Information Memo
November 21, 2000 Eagan City Council Meeting
A. CONSIDER REVISIONS TO BUSINESS SUBSIDY POLICY
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve the recommended revisions to the Business Subsidy Policy passed on January
4, 2000.
FACTS:
Minnesota Statutes 116J.993- 116J.995 require that all government units providing
business subsidies after August 1, 1999 must prepare a business subsidy policy.
A public hearing is required to formally adopt the policy and changes to the
policy.
City staff prepared the policy with the assistance of Sprinsted Incorporated.
The policy is provided as additional information to any business requesting the
City of Eagan Development and Business Assistance Policy, adopted by the City
Council in December 1999.
2000 MN State Legislature made changes to the Business Subsidy Law and the
Bond Counsel and Financial Consultant have recommended we incorporate those
changes into our existing policy.
ATTACHMENTS:
Enclosed on pages 7 through 3g is a copy of the recommendations from Faegre
and Benson and a copy of the Business Subsidy Policy is enclosed on pages 3?
through Lis
a6
TO:
Jamie Verbrugge
City of Eagan
FROM: Steve Rosholt
CC: Sid Inman
DATE: November 15, 2000
SUBJECT: Business Subsidy Guidelines
FAEGRE BENSON LLP
MINNEAPOLIS
M E M O R A N D U M
This Memorandum is to outline some of the recent changes to the Business Subsidy
Act and to suggest possible conforming modifications to the existing City of Eagan Business
Subsidy Policy.
The most significant amendments to the Business Subsidy Act by Chapter 482, Laws
of 2000 and corresponding suggested Policy modifications are as follows:
a. Case-by-case Criteria Not Permitted.
Law Change: The amendment states that criteria may not be adopted
on a case -by -case basis. Rather, the criteria must set forth "specific minimum
requirements which must include a "specific wage floor The wage floor is the
only mandatory criteria and it may be stated as a dollar amount or a formula.
Suggested Policy Changes: (i) In paragraph A(1)(a), insert the words
"Except for the minimum requirements set forth under paragraph D" before the
sentence "Each project will be evaluated on a case -by -case basis. (ii) I also believe
paragraph D (2) needs to be modified because "prevailing wage" has an uncertain
meaning. If the term is meant in a general sense, it fails to meet the dollar amount or
formula derived dollar amount requirement. If it is intended to refer to prevailing
wage determinations made by the Secretary of Labor, I believe those determinations
are primarily for construction and related trades and do not cover the full range of
manufacturing and service jobs. One alternative is to require that wages per job be a
specific dollar amount or a percentage of the State's minimum wage.
a�
MI:684628.01
b. Public Purpose:
Law Change: Where job retention is a goal, the job loss must be
"specific" as well as demonstrable, but is no longer required to be "imminent
Suggested Policy Change: Paragraph A (1)(c) should be revised by
substituting "job loss is specific and demonstrable" for "demonstrates that the loss of
jobs is imminent
c. Wage and Job Goals.
Law Change: The amendment clarifies that jobs need not be a goal so
long as there is a public hearing. If jobs are not a goal, the wage and job goals may be
set at zero.
Suggested Policy Change: At paragraph D(2) substitute "If the creation
or retention of jobs is a goal" for "If the project results in the creation of any jobs
d. Deviations.
Law Change: The amendment clarifies that the City may deviate from
its criteria so long as it documents the reasons and includes a copy in its annual report
to DTED.
Suggested Policy Change: Insert the words "Except for deviations
permitted by law" at the beginning of Paragraph D. Given the ability to deviate from
criteria, the City may want to consider making its existing criteria more specific.
-2-
city of eagan
BUSINESS SUBSIDY
POLICY AGREEMENT
Adopted 01/04/00
a9
BUSINESS SUBSIDY CRITERIA
The following business subsidy criteria are intended to satisfy the requirements of
Minnesota Statutes §§1161993 through 116J.995. The term `.`city" means the City of
Eagan. The term "project" means the property with respect to which business subsidy is
provided.
A. Project Review and Evaluation Policy
1. The City recognizes that the creation of good paying jobs is a desirable goal that
benefits the community. Nevertheless, not all projects assisted with subsidies
derive their public purposes and importance solely by virtue of job creation. In
addition, the imposition of high job creation requirements and high wage level
requirements may be unrealistic and counter productive in the face of larger
economic forces influencing, and the financial and competitive circumstances of,
an individual business. In determining the requirements for a project under
consideration for a business subsidy, the determination of the number of jobs to
be created and the wage levels therefore will be guided by the following
principles and criteria:
a. Each project will be evaluated on a case by case basis. The evaluation
will take into consideration the project's importance in and benefit to the
community from all perspectives, including created or retained jobs.
b. If a particular project does not involve the creation of jobs, but is
nonetheless found to be worthy of support and subsidy, assistance may be
approved without any specific job or wage goals if permitted by applicable
law.
c. In cases where the objective is the retention of existing jobs, the recipient
of the subsidy will be required to provide evidence that demonstrates that
the loss of those jobs is imminent.
d. The setting of wages and job goals will be informed by (i) prevailing wage
rates, (ii) local economic conditions, (iii) external economic forces over
which neither the City nor the recipient of the subsidy has control, (iv) the
financial resources of the recipient and (v) the competitive environment in
which the recipient's business exists.
2. The City retains the right to approve the projects and business subsidies which may
vary from the principles and criteria set forth herein in order to retain the flexibility
necessary to respond to all proposed projects because it is not possible to anticipate
all the needs and requirements of every type of project and the ever changing needs
of the community.
30
B. Project Review and Evaluation Procedure
The City will consider one or more of the criteria listed in Section C below in
determining whether to provide financial or other assistance to a project as a business
subsidy. In applying the criteria to a specific project, the following will apply:
1. The City may consider the requirements of any other business subsidy received,
or to be received, from a grantor other than the City.
2. If the business subsidy is a guaranty, the amount of the business subsidy may be
valued at the principal amount of the guaranteed payment obligation.
3. If the business subsidy is real or personal property, the amount of the subsidy will
be the fair market value of the property as determined by the City.
4. If the business subsidy is received over time, the City may value the subsidy at its
present value using a discount rate equal to an interest rate that the City
determines is fair and reasonable under the circumstances.
As used herein, "benefit date" means the date the business subsidy is received. If the
business subsidy involves the purchase, lease, or donation of physical equipment, then
the benefit date occurs when the recipient puts the equipment into service. If the business
subsidy is for improvements to property, then the benefit date refers to the earliest date of
either: when the improvements finished for the entire project; or when a business
occupies the property.
C. Project Review and Evaluation Criteria
The project review and evaluation criteria are the following:
1. Jobs and Wages
a. New Jobs. The minimum net number of direct full time equivalent jobs to be
created or retained by the proposed project for a period of at least two years from
the estimated benefit date.
b. Payroll. The minimum annual net payroll (including employer contributions for
health benefits) to be generated at the end of the third anniversary date of the
estimated benefit date.
2. Tax Base
a. Increase in Tax Base. The net increase in property taxes estimated to be
generated by the project in the first full year of operation.
3. Land Use
a. Compliance with Comprehensive or Other Plans. Whether, apart from any
needed services to the community described in section 5 below, the project is
more compatible with the comprehensive plan than other permitted uses for the
property. For example, the project may involve a "clean" industry such as a
technology or service business that is preferred over other permitted uses.
b. Marginal Property. Whether the project is located on property which needs but is
not likely to be developed or redeveloped because of blight or other adverse
conditions of the property. For example, property may be so blighted that the cost
of making land ready for redevelopment exceeds the property's fair market value.
c. Design and/or Other Amenities. Whether, as a result of the business subsidy, the
project will include design and/or amenity features not otherwise required by law.
For example, the project may, at the request of the City, include landscaping,
open space, public trails, employees' work out facilities or day care facilities that
serve a public purpose but are not required by law.
4. Impact on Existing and Future Public Investment
a. Utilization of Existing Infrastructure Investment. Whether and to what extent (a)
the project will utilize existent public infrastructure capacity and (b) the project
will require additional publicly funded infrastructure investments.
b. Direct Monetary Return on Public Investment. Arrangements made or to be made
for the City to receive a direct monetary return on its investment in the project.
For example, the business subsidy may be in the form of an interest bearing loan
or may involve a project sharing arrangement.
3.2
5. Economic Development
a. Leveraged Funds. For every dollar of business subsidy to be provided for the
project, the minimum amount of private funds which will be applied towards the
capital cost of the project.
b. Spin Off Development. The dollar amount of non subsidized development the
project is expected to generate in the surrounding area and the need for and
likelihood of such spin off development.
c. Growth Potential. Based on recipient's market studies and plans for expansion,
whether and to what extent the project is expected within five years of its
completion, be expanded to produce a net increase of full time equivalent jobs and
of payroll, over and above the minimum net increase in jobs and payroll described
in section 1 above.
6. Quality of Life
a. Community Services. Whether the project will provide services in the community
and the need for such services. For example, the project may provide health
services, retail convenience services such as a nearby grocery store, or social
services needed in the community.
7. Other
a. Other Factors. Depending on the nature of the project, such other factors as the
City may deem relevant in evaluating the project and the business subsidy
proposed for it.
33
D. Criteria Required For All Projects
All projects must comply with the following criteria:
1. But For Test. There is a substantial likelihood that the project would not go forward
without the business subsidy. This criterion may be met based solely on
representations of the recipient of the business subsidy.
*2. Wage Policy. If the project results in the creation of any jobs, the wage for each part-
time and full -time job created must be, within two years of the date assistance is
received (as defined in the Act), at least equal to the prevailing wage for like or
similar jobs within the area or such greater amount as the City may require for a
specific project.
3. Economic Feasibility. The recipient must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City
that it has adequate financing for the project and that the project will be completed in
a timely fashion.
*4. Compliance with Act. The business subsidy from the City must satisfy all
requirements of the Act.
These are the only provisions in this business subsidy criteria document which are required by law.
Adopted by:
Date of Adoption:
Date of Public Hearing:
3V
This Business Subsidy Agreement (this "Agreement is made as of the day of
2000, between the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota (the "Grantor
and [name of business], a Minnesota corporation (the "Recipient In order to satisfy the
provisions of Minnesota Statutes, §116J.993 through 1161995 (the "Act the
Recipient acknowledges and agrees as follows:
1. Description of the Business Subsidy
BUSINESS SUBSIDY AGREEMENT
(a) The Project. The Recipient will be undertaking the following project within the
area of the Grantor: [Insert project description] (the "Project
(b) Type of Business Subsidy. The Business Subsidy consists of the following
assistance to the Recipient for the Project: [Grant, contribution of property or
infrastructure, low- interest loan, reduction or deferral of a tax or fee, guarantee, or
preferential use of governmental facilities, etc.] (the "Business Subsidy
(c) Amount of the Business Subsidy. The amount of the Business Subsidy granted to
the Recipient under this Agreement is [which is the difference between
the fair market value of the property to be sold to the Recipient (the
"Development Property") and the purchase price paid by the
Recipient for the Development Property]. [Bracketed language to be used if
subsidy is not a forgivable loan]
(d) Type of Tax Increment Financing District. The Tax Increment District in which
the Project is located is a [type of district; e.g., "redevelopment district within
the meaning of the Tax Increment Financing Act, Minnesota Statutes, §469.174
through 469.179. [Section to be deleted if assistance is not TIF]
2. Public Purpose for the Business Subsidy. The public purpose of the Business Subsidy
is to encourage the construction of necessary improvements and to redevelop blighted
areas and replace structurally substandard buildings. [This section should reflect the
public purpose of the actual project]
3. Why the Business Subsidy is Needed. The Business Subsidy is needed because the
Project is not economically feasible for the Recipient to undertake without the
Business Subsidy.
4. Goals for the Business Subsidy.
(a) The Recipient agrees that it will meet the following goals (the "Goals
(i) it will create at least jobs in connection with the Project, of which
will be full -time jobs and will be part-time jobs;
(ii) it will retain at least jobs in connection with the Project, of which will
be full -time jobs and will be part-time jobs;
(iii)the hourly wage of the new jobs will be at least per hour;
3 s
within two years from the date the Business Subsidy is received by the Recipient
(the "Benefit Date
(b) As used herein `Benefit Date" means the date the Business Subsidy is received.
If the Business Subsidy involves the purchase, lease, or donation of physical
equipment, then the Benefit Date occurs when the Recipient puts the equipment
into service. If the Business Subsidy is for improvements to property, then the
Benefit Date refers to the earliest date of either: when the improvements are
finished for the entire Project; or when the Recipient occupies the property.
5. Continued Operations. The Recipient agrees to continue its operations at the location
of the Project for at least five years after the Benefit Date.
6. Financial Obligation of the Recipient if Goals Not Met.
(a) The Recipient agrees that if the Goals are not met in their entirety, the Recipient
will repay all of the Business Subsidy to the Grantor plus interest "Interest set
at the implicit price deflator defined in Minnesota Statutes, §275.70, Subdivision
2, accruing from and after the Benefit Date, compounded semiannually.
(b) If the Goals are only met in part, the Recipient agrees to repay a portion of the
Business Subsidy (plus the Interest) determined by multiplying the Business
Subsidy by a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of jobs in the Goals
which were not created at the wage level set forth above and the denominator of
which is [Insert the number of jobs set forth in the goals.]
7. Reporting Requirements.
(a) The Recipient agrees to:
(i) report its progress on achieving the Goals to the Grantor until the Goals are
met, or the Business Subsidy is repaid, whichever occurs earlier;
(ii) include in the report the information required in 116J.994, subdivision 7 of
the Act on forms developed by the Minnesota Department of Trade and
Economic Development; and
(iii)send completed reports to the Commissioner of the Department of Trade and
Economic Development and the to the Grantor no later than March 1 of each
year commencing March 1, 2000, and within 30 days after the deadline for
meeting the Goals.
(b) If the Grantor does not receive the reports, it will mail the Recipient a warning
within one week of the required filing date. If within 14 days of the post marked
date of the warning the reports are not made, the Recipient agrees to pay to the
Grantor a penalty of $100 for each subsequent day until the report is filed up to a
maximum of $1,000.
34
8. Forgivable Loan. The Recipient acknowledges that the Business Subsidy is a loan
and that it must repay the Business Subsidy; provided, however the Recipient's
obligation to repay the Business Subsidy will be forgiven upon and the to the extent
of its successful compliance with the Goals. [Use with Grants]
9. Parent Corporation. The name and address of the Recipient's parent corporation is as
follows:
10. Multiple Recipients. The Grantor acknowledges that the Business Subsidy benefits
more than one recipient. Recipient's proportionate share of the Business Subsidy is
which represents a reasonable estimate of Recipient's share of the total
benefits. [Use if multiple recipients]
11. Other Grantors. The following is a list of all financial assistance to be provided by all
grantors for the Project: [Insert List]
12. Term of Agreement. This Agreement will be in full force and effect until the earlier
of the Recipient meeting all of its obligations hereunder or the provisions of the Act
no longer apply to the Grantor, the Recipient or the Project, in which case this
Agreement will be terminated.
37
The Grantor and Recipient have executed this Agreement as of the date written above.
Grantor:
City of Eagan
By
Its
By
Its
Recipient:
[Name of Recipient]
By
Its
38
city of eagan
BUSINESS SUBSIDY
POLICY AGREEMENT
Adopted 01/04/00
39
BUSINESS SUBSIDY CRITERIA
The following business subsidy criteria are intended to satisfy the requirements of
Minnesota Statutes §§1161993 through 1161995. The term "city" means the City of
Eagan. The term "project" means the property with respect to which business subsidy is
provided.
A. Project Review and Evaluation Policy
1. The City recognizes that the creation of good paying jobs is a desirable goal that
benefits the community. Nevertheless, not all projects assisted with subsidies
derive their public purposes and importance solely by virtue of job creation. In
addition, the imposition of high job creation requirements and high wage level
requirements may be unrealistic and counter productive in the face of larger
economic forces influencing, and the financial and competitive circumstances of,
an individual business. In determining the requirements for a project under
consideration for a business subsidy, the determination of the number of jobs to
be created and the wage levels therefore will be guided by the following
principles and criteria:
a. Each project will be evaluated on a case by case basis. The evaluation
will take into consideration the project's importance in and benefit to the
community from all perspectives, including created or retained jobs.
b. If a particular project does not involve the creation of jobs, but is
nonetheless found to be worthy of support and subsidy, assistance may be
approved without any specific job or wage goals if permitted by applicable
law.
c. In cases where the objective is the retention of existing jobs, the recipient
of the subsidy will be required to provide evidence that demonstrates that
the loss of those jobs is imminent.
d. The setting of wages and job goals will be informed by (i) prevailing wage
rates, (ii) local economic conditions, (iii) external economic forces over
which neither the City nor the recipient of the subsidy has control, (iv) the
financial resources of the recipient and (v) the competitive environment in
which the recipient's business exists.
2. The City retains the right to approve the projects and business subsidies which may
vary from the principles and criteria set forth herein in order to retain the flexibility
necessary to respond to all proposed projects because it is not possible to anticipate
all the needs and requirements of every type of project and the ever changing needs
of the community.
B. Project Review and Evaluation Procedure
The City will consider one or more of the criteria listed in Section C below in
determining whether to provide financial or other assistance to a project as a business
subsidy. In applying the criteria to a specific project, the following will apply:
1. The City may consider the requirements of any other business subsidy received,
or to be received, from a grantor other than the City.
2. If the business subsidy is a guaranty, the amount of the business subsidy may be
valued at the principal amount of the guaranteed payment obligation.
3. If the business subsidy is real or personal property, the amount of the subsidy will
be the fair market value of the property as determined by the City.
4. If the business subsidy is received over time, the City may value the subsidy at its
present value using a discount rate equal to an interest rate that the City
determines is fair and reasonable under the circumstances.
As used herein, "benefit date" means the date the business subsidy is received. If the
business subsidy involves the purchase, lease, or donation of physical equipment, then
the benefit date occurs when the recipient puts the equipment into service. If the business
subsidy is for improvements to property, then the benefit date refers to the earliest date of
either: when the improvements finished for the entire project; or when a business
occupies the property.
Y/
C. Project Review and Evaluation Criteria
The project review and evaluation criteria are the following:
1. Jobs and Wages
a. New Jobs. The minimum net number of direct full time equivalent jobs to be
created or retained by the proposed project for a period of at least two years from
the estimated benefit date.
b. Payroll. The minimum annual net payroll (including employer contributions for
health benefits) to be generated at the end of the third anniversary date of the
estimated benefit date.
2. Tax Base
a. Increase in Tax Base. The net increase in property taxes estimated to be
generated by the project in the first full year of operation.
3. Land Use
a. Compliance with Comprehensive or Other Plans. Whether, apart from any
needed services to the community described in section 5 below, the project is
more compatible with the comprehensive plan than other permitted uses for the
property. For example, the project may involve a "clean" industry such as a
technology or service business that is preferred over other permitted uses.
b. Marginal Property. Whether the project is located on property which needs but is
not likely to be developed or redeveloped because of blight or other adverse
conditions of the property. For example, property may be so blighted that the cost
of making land ready for redevelopment exceeds the property's fair market value.
c. Design and /or Other Amenities. Whether, as a result of the business subsidy, the
project will include design and /or amenity features not otherwise required by law.
For example, the project may, at the request of the City, include landscaping,
open space, public trails, employees' work out facilities or day care facilities that
serve a public purpose but are not required by law.
4. Impact on Existing and Future Public Investment
a. Utilization of Existing Infrastructure Investment. Whether and to what extent (a)
the project will utilize existent public infrastructure capacity and (b) the project
will require additional publicly funded infrastructure investments.
b. Direct Monetary Return on Public Investment. Arrangements made or to be made
for the City to receive a direct monetary return on its investment in the project.
For example, the business subsidy may be in the form of an interest bearing loan
or may involve a project sharing arrangement.
5. Economic Development
a. Leveraged Funds. For every dollar of business subsidy to be provided for the
project, the minimum amount of private funds which will be applied towards the
capital cost of the project.
b. Spin Off Development. The dollar amount of non- subsidized development the
project is expected to generate in the surrounding area and the need for and
likelihood of such spin off development.
c. Growth Potential. Based on recipient's market studies and plans for expansion,
whether and to what extent the project is expected within five years of its
completion, be expanded to produce a net increase of full time equivalent jobs and
of payroll, over and above the minimum net increase in jobs and payroll described
in section 1 above.
6. Quality of Life
a. Community Services. Whether the project will provide services in the community
and the need for such services. For example, the project may provide health
services, retail convenience services such as a nearby grocery store, or social
services needed in the community.
7. Other
a. Other Factors. Depending on the nature of the project, such other factors as the
City may deem relevant in evaluating the project and the business subsidy
proposed for it.
�j3
D. Criteria Required For All Projects
All projects must comply with the following criteria:
1. But For Test. There is a substantial likelihood that the project would not go forward
without the business subsidy. This criterion may be met based solely on
representations of the recipient of the business subsidy.
*2. Wage Policy. If the project results in the creation of any jobs, the wage for each part-
time and full -time job created must be, within two years of the date assistance is
received (as defined in the Act), at least equal to the prevailing wage for like or
similar jobs within the area or such greater amount as the City may require for a
specific project.
3. Economic Feasibility. The recipient must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City
that it has adequate financing for the project and that the project will be completed in
a timely fashion.
*4. Compliance with Act. The business subsidy from the City must satisfy all
requirements of the Act.
These are the only provisions in this business subsidy criteria document which are required by law.
Adopted by:
Date of Adoption:
Date of Public Hearing:
11
This Business Subsidy Agreement (this "Agreement is made as of the day of
2000, between the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota (the "Grantor
and [name of business], a Minnesota corporation (the "Recipient In order to satisfy the
provisions of Minnesota Statutes, §§116J.993 through 1161995 (the "Act the
Recipient acknowledges and agrees as follows:
1. Description of the Business Subsidy
BUSINESS SUBSIDY AGREEMENT
(a) The Project. The Recipient will be undertaking the following project within the
area of the Grantor: [Insert project description] (the "Project
(b) Type of Business Subsidy. The Business Subsidy consists of the following
assistance to the Recipient for the Project: [Grant, contribution of property or
infrastructure, low- interest loan, reduction or deferral of a tax or fee, guarantee, or
preferential use of governmental facilities, etc.] (the "Business Subsidy
(c) Amount of the Business Subsidy. The amount of the Business Subsidy granted to
the Recipient under this Agreement is [which is the difference between
the fair market value of the property to be sold to the Recipient (the
"Development Property and the purchase price paid by the
Recipient for the Development Property]. [Bracketed language to be used if
subsidy is not a forgivable loan]
(d) Type of Tax Increment Financing District. The Tax Increment District in which
the Project is located is a [type of district; e.g., "redevelopment district within
the meaning of the Tax Increment Financing Act, Minnesota Statutes, §469.174
through 469.179. [Section to be deleted if assistance is not TIF]
2. Public Purpose for the Business Subsidy. The public purpose of the Business Subsidy
is to encourage the construction of necessary improvements and to redevelop blighted
areas and replace structurally substandard buildings. [This section should reflect the
public purpose of the actual project]
3. Why the Business Subsidy is Needed. The Business Subsidy is needed because the
Project is not economically feasible for the Recipient to undertake without the
Business Subsidy.
4. Goals for the Business Subsidy.
(a) The Recipient agrees that it will meet the following goals (the "Goals
(i) it will create at least jobs in connection with the Project, of which
will be full -time jobs and will be part-time jobs;
(ii) it will retain at least jobs in connection with the Project, of which will
be full -time jobs and will be part-time jobs;
(iii)the hourly wage of the new jobs will be at least per hour;
within two years from the date the Business Subsidy is received by the Recipient
(the "Benefit Date
(b) As used herein "Benefit Date" means the date the Business Subsidy is received.
If the Business Subsidy involves the purchase, lease, or donation of physical
equipment, then the Benefit Date occurs when the Recipient puts the equipment
into service. If the Business Subsidy is for improvements to property, then the
Benefit Date refers to the earliest date of either: when the improvements are
finished for the entire Project; or when the Recipient occupies the property.
5. Continued Operations. The Recipient agrees to continue its operations at the location
of the Project for at least five years after the Benefit Date.
6. Financial Obligation of the Recipient if Goals Not Met.
(a) The Recipient agrees that if the Goals are not met in their entirety, the Recipient
will repay all of the Business Subsidy to the Grantor plus interest "Interest set
at the implicit price deflator defined in Minnesota Statutes, §275.70, Subdivision
2, accruing from and after the Benefit Date, compounded semiannually.
(b) If the Goals are only met in part, the Recipient agrees to repay a portion of the
Business Subsidy (plus the Interest) determined by multiplying the Business
Subsidy by a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of jobs in the Goals
which were not created at the wage level set forth above and the denominator of
which is [Insert the number of jobs set forth in the goals.]
7. Reporting Requirements.
(a) The Recipient agrees to:
(i) report its progress on achieving the Goals to the Grantor until the Goals are
met, or the Business Subsidy is repaid, whichever occurs earlier;
(ii) include in the report the information required in §116J.994, subdivision 7 of
the Act on forms developed by the Minnesota Department of Trade and
Economic Development; and
(iii)send completed reports to the Commissioner of the Department of Trade and
Economic Development and the to the Grantor no later than March 1 of each
year commencing March 1, 2000, and within 30 days after the deadline for
meeting the Goals.
(b) If the Grantor does not receive the reports, it will mail the Recipient a warning
within one week of the required filing date. If within 14 days of the post marked
date of the warning the reports are not made, the Recipient agrees to pay to the
Grantor a penalty of $100 for each subsequent day until the report is filed up to a
maximum of $1,000.
8. Forgivable Loan. The Recipient acknowledges that the Business Subsidy is a loan
and that it must repay the Business Subsidy; provided, however the Recipient's
obligation to repay the Business Subsidy will be forgiven upon and the to the extent
of its successful compliance with the Goals. [Use with Grants]
9. Parent Corporation. The name and address of the Recipient's parent corporation is as
follows:
10. Multiple Recipients. The Grantor acknowledges that the Business Subsidy benefits
more than one recipient. Recipient's proportionate share of the Business Subsidy is
which represents a reasonable estimate of Recipient's share of the total
benefits. [Use if multiple recipients]
11. Other Grantors. The following is a list of all financial assistance to be provided by all
grantors for the Project: [Insert List]
12. Term of Agreement. This Agreement will be in full force and effect until the earlier
of the Recipient meeting all of its obligations hereunder or the provisions of the Act
no longer apply to the Grantor, the Recipient or the Project, in which case this
Agreement will be terminated.
9 2
The Grantor and Recipient have executed this Agreement as of the date written above.
Grantor:
City of Eagan
By
Its
By
Its
Recipient:
[Name of Recipient]
By
Its
z,r
Agenda Information Memo
November 21, 2000 Eagan City Council Meeting
B. VARIANCE (OFF- STREET PARKING SUPPLY)
CHEROKEE SIRLOIN ROOM
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve a 48 stall Variance from the off street parking supply requirement for a
restaurant located at 4625 Nicols Road in the NW 1/4 of Section 31.
FACTS:
The Cherokee Sirloin Room was constructed in 1979. The building measures 10,088
square feet in size and includes 384 seats. The two -story seasonal patio measures
1,085 square feet in size and includes 73 seats. In total, 105 off street parking stalls
are provided on site.
According to the City Code, a restaurant must provide at least one parking space for
each three seats based on capacity design.
In the spring on this year, the Cherokee Sirloin Room constructed a two -story
seasonal patio without obtaining a building permit as required.
Prior to deck construction, the restaurant failed to satisfy the off street parking
requirements of the code for the number of seats provided (for 384 seats, 128 stalls
are required and only 105 stalls are provided). This condition is considered a legal
nonconformity and has a right to continue indefinitely under the terms of the
restaurant's original approval.
No off street parking stalls were removed as a result of the seasonal patio
construction.
The seasonal patio adds 73 seats to the restaurant's seating capacity increasing the
number of required off street parking stalls from 128 to 153.
While a building permit application has been received, issuance is being withheld (by
the Inspections Division) pending positive action on the requested variance. If the
variance is not approved, the permit will not be issued and staff will request that the
seasonal patio be removed.
The applicant has indicated that he has an agreement (not recorded) with property
owners to the north and south to utilize such properties for overflow parking on
evenings and weekends, however, the City Code does not recognize this off -site
parking as providing required off street parking for this restaurant.
�F
According to the applicant, the seasonal patio was added in an attempt to increase
business in the summer months and that the hardship for the requested variance is
based on a number of factors as summarized below:
1. The seasonal patio will be used only from May to September and that within that
time only 25 percent of the patio seats are in use.
2. Although not recorded with the property, an agreement exists with the adjacent
property to the north (former Hardees Restaurant) allowing overflow parking on
such site.
3. The restaurant leases parking from the adjacent office building to the south on
evenings and weekends.
4. The seasonal patio construction did not result in the loss of any existing off street
parking stalls.
ATTACHMENTS (1)
Staff report, pages through,c7.
so
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW
PLANNING REPORT
CITY OF EAGAN
REPORT DATE: November 8, 2000
APPLICANT: Casper's Cherokee Sirloin Room
PROPERTY OWNER: Richard Casper
REQUEST: Variance (off street parking requirement)
LOCATION: 4625 Nicols Road
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: LB, Limited Business
ZONING: LB, Limited Business
CASE: 31- VA- 11 -10 -00
HEARING DATE: November 21, 2000
PREPARED BY: Bob Kirmis
Casper's Cherokee Sirloin Room located south of Cliff Road and west of Nicols Road is
requesting approval of a Variance from the off street parking supply requirement for a
restaurant. Specifically, the applicant is proposing to provide a total of 105 off street parking
stalls, 48 less than the 153 stalls required by code.
City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.40, Subdivision 3C states that the Council may grant a
variance and impose conditions and safeguards therein if:
1. The Council shall determine that the special conditions applying to the structures or land in
question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply
generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located, and that the
granting of the application is necessary for the applicant.
2. The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to the intent of this Chapter and
the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
3. That granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is
necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.
Planning Report Cherokee Sirloin Room Variance
November 21, 2000
Page 2
BACKGROUND
In the spring on this year, the Cherokee Sirloin Room constructed a two -story seasonal patio
without obtaining a building permit as required. Because a permit was not obtained, staff was
not provided an opportunity to evaluate the adequacy of the restaurant's off street parking supply
(and the impact such patio would have on off street parking).
In an attempt to "legalize" the previously constructed patio, a building permit application has
been received and a parking evaluation has been conducted. The investigation of the site's off
street parking supply has revealed the following:
Prior to deck construction, the restaurant failed to satisfy the off street parking
requirements of the code for the number of seats provided (for 384 seats, 128 stalls are
required and only 105 stalls are provided). This condition is however, considered a legal
nonconformity and has a right to continue indefinitely under the terms of the restaurant's
original approval.
No off street parking stalls were removed as a result of the seasonal patio construction.
The seasonal patio adds 73 seats to the restaurant's seating capacity increasing the
number of required off street parking stalls from 128 to 153.
While a building permit application has been received, issuance is being withheld (by the
Inspections Department) pending positive action on the requested variance. If the variance is not
approved, the permit will not be issued and staff will request that the seasonal patio be removed.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
According to the City Code, a restaurant must provide at least one parking space for each three
seats based on capacity design.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Cherokee Sirloin Room was constructed in 1979. The building measures 10,088 square feet
in size and includes 384 seats. The two -story seasonal patio measures 1,085 square feet in size
and includes 73 seats. In total, 105 off street parking stalls are provided on site.
The site is bounded on the north, south and east by commercial uses and on the west by Cedar
Avenue. Access to the site is provided from the east via Nicols Road.
Planning Report Cherokee Sirloin Room Variance
November 21, 2000
Page 3
The applicant has indicated that he has an agreement (not recorded) with property owners to the
north and south to utilize such properties for overflow parking on evenings and weekends,
however, the City Code does not recognize this off -site parking as providing required off street
parking for this restaurant.
APPLICANT'S ESTIMATE OF HARDSHIP
According to the applicant, the seasonal patio was added in an attempt to increase business in the
summer months and that the hardship for the requested variance is based on a number of factors
as summarized below:
1. The seasonal patio will be used only from May to September and that within that time
only 25 percent of the seats are in use.
2. Although not recorded with the property, an agreement exists with the adjacent property
to the north (former Hardees Restaurant) allowing overflow parking on such site.
3. The restaurant leases parking from the adjacent office building to the south on evenings
and weekends.
4. The seasonal patio construction did not result in the loss of any existing off street parking
stalls.
EVALUATION OF REQUEST
Through "grandfather" rights, the restaurant in question is legally allowed a 23 stall parking
deficit (128 stalls required and 105 stalls provided). The applicant has requested a variance to
allow this deficit to be increased to 48 parking stalls.
In consideration of this matter, the following should be noted.
Due to site area limitations, no additional off street parking stalls can be provided on site.
The applicant has offered to close a portion of the interior dining room (and equivalent
number of seats) at such time when the seasonal patio is open thereby not increasing the "pre
patio" parking demand. Staff however considers such option problematic from an
enforcement standpoint.
The fact that the Cherokee Sirloin Room utilizes the Hardee's Restaurant site and adjacent
office building property to the south demonstrates an existing parking shortage
313
Planning Report Cherokee Sirloin Room Variance
November 21, 2000
Page 4
While it is acknowledged that the restaurant leases off street parking spaces, there are no
guarantees that such arrangement will exist indefinitely, and further, the City has no control
over these private arrangements.
SUMMARY /CONCLUSION
The applicant is requesting a variance from the off street parking supply requirement for a
restaurant, specifically proposing a total of 105 off street parking stalls, 48 less than the 153
stalls required by code.
A determination as to whether the applicant has adequately demonstrated hardship is considered
a policy matter to be determined by City Officials.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED
To approve a 48 stall Variance from the off street parking supply requirement for a restaurant
located at 4625 Nicols Road.
If the variance is not approved, the City Council should direct the removal of the structure.
Location Map
Eagan boundary
Shoat C.nt.rlln.
Parcel Area
Ing Building Footprint
I CI i
wai
wm,.....,m22:0
CligiGGGOzz n Qi
.1i mJ La
iv-mu T
1000
0
1000
2000 Feet
Development/Developer: Richard S. Casper (Cherokee Sirloin Room)
Application: Variance
Case No.: 31 VA- 11 -10 -00
Ci ty of Eagan
MINNESOTA
Community Dewlepment Department
The
prep�d tai ERBNcVlewal. Parcel 1 e mop data provided
Catrsy Land Survey Copartner* and is arrant as dhows/ 20:0.
THIS MAP 1S INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY
an and Dakota County do not guarantor' the accuracy of this Information and are
not r.sponsibls for errors or omissions.
N
W+
S6.
SITE PLAN
4625 Nicols Road Eagan, MN 55122 454 -6744
Project Description
First, we give you our reasons for adding a deck; and secondly, try to explain to you why
we have enough parking.
We decided to add a deck because we have a seasonal business where most of our trade
occurs during the winter months with December being the busiest time of year for us. We
also specialize in company parties, most of which occur during the winter months due to
the fact that most people take their vacations during the summer. Lastly, our summer
business has struggled because.many people eat lighter foods in the summer and prefer to
grill at home. With these facts in mind, we felt that an outside deck might help our
summer business.
Some facts on our parking:
1. We only use the deck from May to September and of that time only about 25% was
actually in use.
2. Our lunch trade is slow and the restaurant is hardly ever filled, only in rare times
when we have a company party. We have even started a $4.95 lunch buffet to help
increase business.
3. We share the parking lot with the Hardees business and have a cross easement for
parking.
4. We have a lease with the office complex next to us, which allows us to use their
parking lot during weekend and evening hours.
5. The present deck did not use any of our present parking stalls.
An idea may be to keep the current parking situation as it is, and then re- evaluate it in
twelve months. We are open to any and all suggestions to make this project work for both
of us. Thank you for considering this request.
C:\S MC\ Word\EaganparkingProject. doc
10/26/00
S7
t) Printed on recycled paper.
APPLICANT CORRESPONDENCE
Agenda Information Memo
November 21, 2000
C. PROJECT 779R, DODD ROAD DIFFLEY RD TO WESCOTT RI)
STREET UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve Project 779R (Dodd Road, Diffley to Wescott— Street,
Utility Trail Improvements) and authorize the preparation of detailed final plans and specifications for
a specific option.
FACTS:
On June 5, 2000, the City Council authorized the preparation of a feasibility report considering the
urban upgrade of Dodd Road between Diffley Road and Wescott Road, including off -street
bituminous trails.
This portion of Dodd Road is designated as a Municipal State Aid route and a minor collector
providing access from the adjacent developments in the east central portion of Eagan to the arterial
transportation system.
The urban upgrade of Dodd Road was programmed for 2001 in the City of Eagan's 5 -Year Capital
Improvement Program (2001- 2005).
On July 20, an informational open house was held with interested property owners to review the CEP
concept proposal for the upgrade of Dodd Road. The open house generated a number of comments
and follow -up letters that have been shared previously with the City Council.
On September 5, the draft feasibility report for Project 779 was presented to the City Council and a
future Council workshop date was scheduled as well as a Public Hearing for November 21 to
formally present and discuss the report with the neighborhood.
On September 26, the City Council held a special workshop with interested residents of the Dodd
Road area regarding the draft feasibility proposal to upgrade Dodd Road to urban design standards.
With more than 75 citizens in attendance, the Council summarized and identified approximately 5
street/trail options and 6 research issues for further evaluation and incorporation into a new revised
feasibility report.
On October 3, the City Council ratified the summary of the options and issues from the September 26
workshop by defining the scope of study and directed the preparation of a revised feasibility report
for Project 779R.
An informational neighborhood meeting was held on November 13 at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall where
the revised feasibility report was presented to the property owners. While there are 8
residential/agricultural parcels and 2 industrial parcels proposed to be assessed, 35 persons
representing 22 properties attended the informational meeting. The residents in attendance requested
changes to the revised feasibility report for its presentation at the public hearing.
The revised feasibility report has been completed consisting of 6 street improvement options, both
rural and urban, some with off -street trails, and associated utility improvements and is being
presented to the City Council for their consideration of approving a project after the close of the
public hearing.
All notices have been published in the legal newspaper and sent to all affected property owners
informing them of this public hearing.
ATTACHMENTS:
Feasibility Report, included under separate cover.
Project Information Summary, page
Informational Neighborhood Meeting Minutes, ages through 6 y.
Letters from Property Representatives, ages through
Petition from property owners, page 7 n
Residents' recommendation per Alane Roundtree, page /a
Sg
Preliminary Project Schedule
1998
June 5, 2000
September 26,
November 13,
November 21, '0
March, `01
May, '01
June, `01
Fall, '01
Fall, '01
June, '02
Summer, '02
May 15, `03
Preliminary Costs
320,120
172,450
$1,879,360
136,600
$1,716,810
57,200
99,390
$1,879,360
$2,371,930
$2,209,380
730,730
229,890 (11
$2,142,040 (89
DODD ROAD DIFFLEY ROAD TO WESCOTT ROAD
PROPOSED STREET IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT 779
Project First Identified In 5 Year Capital Improvement Program
City Council Authorizes Feasibility Report
00 Special City Council Meeting
00 Informational Neighborhood Meeting
0 Public Hearing Council Orders or Denies Project
(Schedule Continues if Project Approved Option A, C, or D)
Approve Plans Specifications
Award Contract
Construction Begins
Substantial Construction Completed (Option A or C)
Construction Completed (Option D)
Final Construction Completed (Pave Wear Course Option A or C)
Final Assessment Public Hearing (Option A or C)
1s Installment Payment Due With Real Estate Property Taxes
Feasibility Report
Storm Sewer Improvements (Option A or C)
Utility Adjustments (Option A or C)
Urban Street Trail Improvements (Option A)
Rural Maintenance Overlay (Total Option B)
Urban Street Sidewalk Improvements (Option C)
Storm Sewer Improvements (Option D)
Utility Adjustments (Option D)
Rural Overlay Shoulder Improvements (Option D)
Proposed Total Project Cost Urban (Total Option A)
Proposed Total Project Cost Urban (Total Option C)
Proposed Total Project Cost Rural (Total Option D)
Proposed Assessed to Property Owners w /Access (Option A or C)
Proposed Financed by the City of Eagan (Option A)
Proposed Special Assessments
Proposed Assessments:
$71.86 per front foot of frontage for Residential (8 residential parcels)
$165.00 per front foot of frontage for Industrial (2 parcels)
Prepayment option (with no interest) available for 30 days after Assessment Hearing
Any unpaid balance is certified to county to be collected with property taxes over 15 years
Interest rate is calculated on any remaining unpaid balance at the end of each year
Assuming no prepayment, annual cost assuming 7.0% interest would be:
Residential Parcel
$11.50 /front foot per year 1 year $0.96 /front foot per month 1' year
$5.13 /front foot per year 15 year $0.43 /front foot per month 15 year
Example: Total Assessment 250 front feet x $71.86 $17,965
Annual Cost 1s Year 250 x $11.50 $2,875 ($240 /month)
Annual Cost 15 Year 250 x $5.13 $1,283 ($108 /month)
Sy
DODD ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
PROPOSED STREET IMPROVEMENTS DIFFLEY ROAD TO WESCOTT ROAD
CITY PROJECT 779R
NOVEMBER 13, 2000
Attendance: Tom Hedges, City Administrator; Bea Blomquist Sandy Masin,
Councilmembers; Meg Tilley, Councilmember Elect; Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works,
Russ Matthys, City Engineer; Mark Hanson, Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik Associates; 32
persons representing 23 properties.
A. Welcome and Introduction
Meeting began at 6:30 p.m. with an introduction by Russ Matthys, City Engineer.
B. Presentation of Project Details
Russ explained the purpose of the meeting and that the format would be a
presentation of a Feasibility Report by Mark Hanson of Bonestroo, Rosene,
Anderlik Associates. He also explained that the City Council would be
making any decisions from this report. Russ asked the audience to allow Mark to
complete his presentation, saving all questions until the end. He reiterated that
the purpose of this meeting was to prepare the neighborhood for the Public
Hearing.
C. Questions /Comments
1. We want the Engineering Department's recommendations. We will present
the facts, including advantages and disadvantages, to the street options with this
presentation.
2. In 1998, CIP called for overlay. Was that not an engineering
recommendation? That was based on the condition of the street surface and the
City's Pavement Management Program.
3. Aren't cars being counted twice by having counters near both Wescott and
Diffley? No. The counters are location specific and are relevant for design
purposes at each location.
4. How do you get to 6000 ADT for 2020? This is based on the State Aid design
process and is only an estimate.
5. What is implication of 6000 ADT? Rural vs. urban. 20 -year projection is
handled by 2 -lane road. We will give recommendations from projected traffic
numbers and City design standards, i.e. urban with trails for collector roads.
6. Could recommendation be to do nothing? We were asked to look at an
upgrade of the existing street.
1
60
7. Show me documented proof of request for upgrade. We have it, and even if it
was only one request, the Feasibility Report preparation was a request of City
Council.
8. How does this proposed storm sewer differ from other storm sewers within
the City's system especially where flooding occurred? It is to City's design
standards. It would provide for the drainage of a 1% rainfall. We don't design
beyond the standard. Bradford Place would have an additional storm sewer
system added to the existing storm sewer to limit street ponding in greater than
1% rainfall.
9. You aren't accounting for the difference in hard surface vs. green area for
urban and rural designs. Feasibility Report is showing difference between
urban section vs. rural section as it relates to the percentage increase of
impervious surface area for the entire drainage area.
10. July storm review said older neighborhoods had problems. Why are the new
ones having problems? When was the last time cul -de -sac reviewed? The
standard in the 50's and 60's was not as high for a 1% rainfall event. The newer
design standard has increased the rainfall amount for a 1% rainfall event today.
11. What standard was increased and when? 1990. That was the last storm sewer
Comprehensive Plan update by the City.
12. Will codes be increased again? And should we wait to do the improvements
until then? Proposed Standards to be used for project are same as in your area
neighborhoods. Problems were at large area drainage districts. Dodd Road is not
a large drainage area."
13. Why would curb and gutter be recommended from our Engineers
standpoint? It is to maintain consistency with other roads built at City Standards.
14. Feasibility Report drainage analysis is suspect. You do not take into affect
the grass areas that soak up water? I will break up this area with you if you
like.
15. I own land on JP -23. I have lost a lot of my land so developer can build more
pond lots. Don't forget I have mature trees that could be put into danger.
16. What is the back up of City's Lift Station? Portable. Standby generator with
early alarm system.
17. What traffic count would make you go to 3 lanes? Near 8,000 9,000 ADT.
18. Where did Option D come from? Out of September 26 workshop with Council.
Width meets State Aid standards.
2
6/
19. Where did $57,200 for storm sewer come from Option D? Adjusting existing
culverts.
20. Why isn't the resident option shown in the assessment rates? This is a draft
report. We will include Option E in the Final Report."
21. When you talk about a 100 -acre pond, what does that mean? That is direct
drainage acreage going to pond.
22. You are presenting skewed advantages /disadvantages in report.
23. Our Rural Advantage says:
Equally impact both sides of road by centering section
Less intrusive
Increases safety.
We will get the resident's rural advantages added to report.
24. What will be directive at Public Hearing? Explained procedure of Public
Hearings.
25. We know current sewer and ditches can handle 9" rainfall. With added
water, how many inches can the pond handle? What are the obligations?
We have shown that the change is relatively insignificant.
26. Why curb and gutter? Please articulate. That is the way the entire city is built
based on the City's standards.
27. Dodd Road is definitely a unique road.
28. Dodd is beautiful to walk on. After improvements, it won't be beautiful.
29. Imagine if we put all this effort into speed limit and stop signs.
30. What are criteria for intersection improvements? How are service levels
developed? Volume of traffic, turning counts, accidents, etc.
31. Isn't this project driven for pedestrian safety concerns? Yes.
32. We don't have to accommodate pedestrians from two cul -de -sacs for 1.2
miles of reconstruction.
Meeting ended at approximately 9:30 P.M.
G:RM /MISC /Minutes Dodd Road
g3.2_
NAME
1. R M E Gc.N ,v E'
,c 5 DO rd Set/1 2.
9.
19.
20.
DODD ROAD UPGRADE (DIFFLEY WESCOTT)
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2000, 6:30 P.M.
ADDRESS
‘+'D LCe £L-1/E
13.
14.
15. at d- On V
16. V D k lt G Zor
17.PG
18. JOHN /3uE60 CAC_
G:FORMS /SIGN .Sheet
INFORMATIONAL MEETING
113 .b rad vd (1.
jO2 td /t9 T
9f77 gme4 l j
6q -(-A.t,.ek.4.411
0
SSG 90 a:4
ei )0A)
6Qv Hase,« C
1/4 3 DCW ieoi)
/413A- L� 4,5,
/5 5 0ocf cifKc[
z/o 7- Dci(4 ec(
c60,,,:b471,e
x{07 7 �23k
0 1/3 arad Arc4 air.
`IIGa Saco) CCu,t1
_390F
NAME
21. 1,,4"►
22. ad Con rt4
23.0/S flittO
24.
25. 6
26. �-e
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
6
ADDRESS
y u V z Fes, .11/4,(1 4,-
78 Z \S J? t- Drives
tr i i_�•'��
05 G292S c-e- (24)
54 bOD I-2.-( p
1,40y FX fr,,,a,,e C�
`7�4 ggiu F6 4 4) C(2
November 12, 2000
Re: Project 779 Dodd Road Upgrade (Diff ley- Wescott)
Dear City Council,
We are writing to express our thoughts on the Dodd Road Upgrade being considered by the City.
First, we'd like to express our deep disappointment in the Eagan City Council for spending city
dollars on a proposal to widen Dodd Road based solely on a handful of requests for trails along
this roadway. It is our belief that road work should be done when either the road surface has
deteriorated, or when the level of traffic dramatically changes which necessitates a change in the
roadway to adequately and safely accommodate the increased traffic.
Second, while we do not claim to be experts on the methods used regarding who is assessed when
improvements are made, it seems grossly unfair that such a small number of residences (and
commercial addresses) are being asked to shoulder these costs. Many of the citizens facing
assessment (we don't know any of them personally) are at a minimum 15+ year residents of
Eagan. Our greatest fear is that an increasing tax burden will be too much for these residents.
Some may sell their property and then the possibility of subdividing some of these properties
could mean a complete change in the landscape and remaining rural beauty of this part of our
city. How many of the citizens requesting trailways are willing to put their own money up to see
this project happen?
Third, we are extremely wary of adding more road surface and possible sewer /drainage changes.
After this summer's flood, and the continuing research regarding Eagan's infrastructure, we feel
further development (before we know this proposed project impact regarding drainage and
runoff) would be irresponsible. The storm runoff area that borders our property (adjacent to
Dodd) completely filled with water and onto our property...any additional rain or runoff could
have added us to the storm victim list.
Fourth, our option of choice regarding this project would be that the city council agree that they
need further information regarding its impact related to runoff and drainage before they move
forward on this project. If (and only if) the City then deems a road change necessary based on
increased traffic and safety concerns, our choice would be for OPTION D listed in the Project
779 Upgrade outline which would call for a Bituminous overlay and paved shoulder.
S• cerely
4
Karen and Steve DeBaun
4081 Foxmoore Court
Eagan, MN 55123
(651) 681 -1672
6S
Mr. Tom Colbert
Public Works Director
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55121
November 1, 2000
Dear Mr. Colbert,
I am enclosing a copy of the study I completed on the history of the Dodd Road. A
bibliography of my reference sources is available upon request.
As I informed Mr. Matthys at our meeting this past Monday, our request for National
Register status for this portion of Dodd Road has been denied. However, Mr. Scott Anfinson
of the State Historic Preservation Office continues to be supportive of our efforts to seek
state and county recognition for Dodd Road. We are presently working with Mr. Mark
Anderson of the MNDOT Projects Enhancements Department. Mr. Anderson is helping us
to coordinate the project development and apply for ISTEA funds for a historical marker or
markers. I understand that the roadway authority, in this case, the City of Eagan would be
encouraged to manage the project. We look forward to your support of our efforts.
The Dodd Road Bur Oak has been nominated to the National Register of Historic Trees.
We hope to hear from the American Forest Committee in the very near future. We will
continue to keep you appraised of our progress. Please feel free to contact me with any
questions.
Sincerely,
Alane Roundtree
640 Brockton Curve
Eagan, MN 55123
Te 651 -687 -9919
Cc: Mr. Tom Hedges, City Administrator
46
Russ Matthys
City Engineer
Eagan Municipal Center
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN, 55122
Todd and Jenny Laddusaw
4390 Livingston Drive
Eagan, MN 55123
Dear Mr. Matthys,
We are writing in response to the proposal to expand Dodd Road between Diffley and Wescott. My wife
and I have both been employed at West Group, and have traveled Dodd Road innumerable times. The
thought of making this beautiful stretch of Eagan into something approximating Wescott is disheartening,
given the quiet, non suburban feel of this road.
While Dodd carries a fair amount of traffic, I have never experienced any delays traveling to or from West.
Certainly improvements could be made at intersections and the stop signs at both ends of this stretch,
including turn lanes and better lighting. Perhaps a curb and guardrails could be added to address some
citizens concerns regarding the steep drop offs along the road in certain areas. These changes would
improve the quality of the road without destroying trees and atmosphere needlessly.
We vigorously oppose the current plans and give our support to the residents directly impacted by this
project. Their quality of life and property values would be negatively impacted for a project with little
benefit to the public, not to mention the use of our tax dollars.
We encourage you to help find a sensible solution.
Kindest regards
Todd and Jenny Ladduaw
cc
Mayor Pat Awada
RECEIVED
Otfi 0 41000
6 7
77?
November 4, 2000
TO:
Mayor Pat Awada and Members of the City Council
Tom Hedges, City Administrator
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
RE: Project 779R, Dodd Road Upgrade
First and foremost, thank you for this opportunity to comment and provide input into the
proposed Dodd Road improvement project. We commend you and your staff for your
communication and commitment to keeping area residents informed.
We think your recent decision to direct staff to explore all alternatives was both wise and
appropriate. To that end, we look forward to reviewing the revised feasibility report and
examining the "research issues" (as defined by Mr. Colbert in his October 4 letter) at
your upcoming informational meeting on November 13. We have confidence in your
staff, and trust their judgment in developing objective and relevant information.
From a personal perspective, our family drives on this road every day. We use the road
to bring our children to daycare; we use it in travel to and from shopping centers and
commercial districts; we regularly walk and bicycle through the area; and we travel it as
we visit friends in adjacent neighborhoods. We do not feel the roadway is safe: indeed,
in our opinion, it does not meet the fundamental safety and road standards that our City
has created... and our residents have come to expect. Simply compare this portion of
Dodd Road to other collector and neighborhood roads surrounding it.
Our preference and recommendation is that you consider either one of two options:
Option A or Option C. While Option A is our preferred choice, we understand and
appreciate the range of variables you must consider when making decisions about
roadway design and their resulting impact on the abutting property owners. If Option A
proves to be too intrusive and cost prohibitive to the adjacent neighbors, we would
certainly support Option C. We also use Elrene Road, and believe that this portion of
Dodd if designed in that manner would be a vast improvement to the current
conditions and state of the roadway. In short, we can support either alternative.
However, Option B (the "do later and Option E (the "do nothing proposals are
thoroughly unacceptable to us. Furthermore, we cannot support Option D because it
68'
lacks an off road trail. We believe it is safer to have an off road trail than bike /safety
lanes within the roadway. Although City staff may have facts and experience that can
show whether one alternative is safer than another, we strongly prefer the trail to be off
the roadway surface.
With great interest, we have read the signs and informational messages that have been
placed by the residents who live along this portion of Dodd. We recognize and
acknowledge that the impact of the proposed roadway improvement does not affect our
property in a similar manner Nonetheless, we want to make a strong comment about one
of the messages contained in the sign(s): this particular message refers to `your tax
dollars at work." Frankly, we firmly believe that improvements to Dodd Road will be an
effective and responsible use of our tax dollars, we would support these expenditures. and
encourage you to make this investment by selecting either Option A or Option C.
Thank you for considering our position. If we can answer any questions, please let us
know. Finally, thank you again for your communication efforts. We applaud you and
your staff for a job well done.
Sincer ly,
4
D e and Mary Unmacht
4(72 Prairie Ridge Road
651- 686 -6670
dmunmacht@,aol.com
doddroad
69
Virginia Discenza
From: Pat Rita Mudd [rmudd @prodigy.net]
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 9:16 PM
To: citycouncil @ci.eagan.mn.us
Subject: Dodd Road Upgrade
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am writing to you on behalf of my wife and I to express our support for the Dodd Road Upgrade. We live at
3900 Stonebridge and are frequent walkers and bicyclist.
We find the current layout to be very hazardous due to the lack of road space, curbs and side walks. We fully
support the improvement of the roadway to conform to the City Standard and ask that you not be swayed by
the overly vocal few who live on the right of way. We believe it is the best interest of all residents in the general
vicinity of Dodd Road to proceed immediately with the full upgrade of the roadway and sidewalks.
Thank you for the opportunity to express our views on this matter.
Sincerely,
Pat and Rita Mudd
3900 Stonebridge Drive, North
Eagan, MN 55123
11/13/2000
96
Page 1 of 1
Virginia Discenza
From: Robert_J_Kiner @bluecrossmn.com
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 11:37 AM
To: citycouncil @ci.eagan.mn.us
Subject: Feedback on Dodd Road Upgrade Proposal
Please forward this email to all the Eagan city council members before
Friday, Nov 17th. Thank you.
My name is Bob Kiner, and I live at 729 Bradford Circle. Please
consider
my feedback on the Dodd Road Upgrade proposals. I know you're very
busy,
so I will keep this email brief. You are all in tune with the issues,
so I
believe that you are most interested in the options I support versus my
reasons for supporting them.
My first choice is: Option C Modified city standard (Councilmember
Carlson's proposal).
My second choice is: Option A City standard (two lane only, two
trails,
turn lanes at Diffley, Elrene Wescott).
At the last meeting, the opposition was very vocal making it difficult
for
the other citizens to show their support. I hope that this email will
show
you that there is definitely a large number of citizens who DO SUPPORT
this
upgrade project. I also hope that you value written input from citizens
as
much as verbal input at the public hearings.
My top 3 reasons for supporting the above options:
The many people living on Bradford Place, Bradford Circle, Welland Ct,
Jacob Ct, Ethan Drive and Granite Drive are TRAPPED. There are 14 kids
and
many active adults on Bradford alone. All of these Eagan residents do
not
have the option of walking, biking or jogging. The only SAFE way to
travel
outside our neighborhood is by car.
Dodd Road is not SAFE for pedestrians and bikers. I challenge you all
to
take one walk up the Dodd Road hill just north of Bradford Place. Ask
yourself how safe you feel when neither you nor the driver can see each
other approaching until the very last minute. You'd best pray that the
driver doing 40 or 50 mph isn't on his cell phone at the time.
Every other city of Eagan resident can walk to a park safely from their
homes. Is the intent to leave us out in the cold? We pay taxes, too!
I
have two small children and would love to walk with them up to Bridle
Ridge
park on Elrene. It is not the same when you have to load up the car
just
to take a nice walk. When I built my house 10 years ago, this upgrade
was
on the "5 year plan Please do it now while we still can walk!
Response to the opposition comments:
There seems to be two major issues from those opposed to this project:
tree destruction assessments. I understand their feelings about the
trees. I'm a nature lover and don't want to see any trees destroyed.
That
is why the majority of us would like to see the modified city standard.
I
know that building a road must conform to standards, but please do
everything that you can to save the large trees, especially the old oaks
just south of Bradford Place.
The assessments is a different story. The assessments proposed are no
more
than every other city of Eagan resident has already paid. The Dodd road
property value has increased immensely and will go up even further when
they sell to developers. These people use city streets and haven't paid
a
dime. The assessments are fair and practical.
I understand the oppositions' feelings, and they have every right to be
heard. However, the road is just completely unsafe. A little money and
a
few trees far outweigh the consequences. Virtually no one can use the
road
unless you're in a vehicle. Those that do risk life and limb. It
hasn't
happened yet, but how many Eagan pedestrians need to be killed before
the
council does the right thing.
Thank you very much for your time,
Bob Kiner
prn eck rt ri of
We, the undersigned residents of Eagan, are in favor of creating an off- -road bike path
walking trail along Dodd Road, north of Diffley Road, for the safety of our residents.
o rd� J
R ead ?mprbve fr
NAME
}i1
1.1
4/ Lod x44
{5
r r iiix.' W
(1 1 0µ 451)
C
&,t kika-4/v
ADDRESS
45
z -/5 q
W62 taco6
TS
41 HINAJDr.wk
4 4 15() n ar
qu,5 tillifrJpg4ve. /G?
4tt'lo temArk 15uilL)
4tkie
L /7Y /,4,n
4
GA
G f tan lived
0 -14‘41,1 ofive.
)n
L f Ci 11/14/2000
y 7q 3 U L r 4
FEEDBACK ON DODD ROAD IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS
A. CITY STANDARD (PRIME)
NEGATIVES:
1. Recommends curb and gutter which will result in drainage
and flooding problems
2. Intrusive on properties
3. Requires condemnation; temporary and permanent construction
zone easements
4. Negative impact on environment; including wetlands and
loss of habitat for wildlife
5. Extensive loss of historical and significant trees
6. Requires extensive grading and altering of the topography
7. Requires retaining walls
8. Excessive cost to taxpayers
B. BITUMINOUS OVERLAY ONLY
POSITIVES:
1. Original recommendation by CIP Staff for Dodd Road
2. Least intrusive to surrounding properties
3. Minimal cost
4. Maintains rural character
5. Conserves historic and significant trees
6. Preserves historic alignment of the roadway
7. More cost effective street maintenance; easier to plow
8. Requires NO condemnation
9. Maintains existing excellent drainage system by preserving
the drainage ditches
10. Preserves the protected and dedicated drainage and utility
easements on the west side of Dodd Road
C. MODIFIED CITY STANDARD (COUNCIL MEMBER CARLSON'S PROPOSAL)
NEGATIVES:
1. Recommends curb and gutter which will result in drainage
and flooding problems
2. Intrusive on properties
3. May involve condemnation for temporary or permanent
construction zone easements
4. Will result in loss of significant and historical trees
5. Ten foot safety lane is excessive; exceeds state aid
standards (even freeways don't have this!)
6. Will result in increased motorist speed; cars go too fast
already!
7. Negative impact on environment; wetlands, habitat, trees
8. Requires extensive grading and altering of the topography
9. Requires retaining walls
10. Excessive cost to taxpayers
D. BITUMINOUS OVERLAY RURAL SECTION WITH 2 12 FOOT LANES
AND AN 8 FOOT SAFETY LANE /0/e grarhAvda..S DL/E.P29/( H.G
w/ rH QA (/EO °u-b Ot ,eS
POSITIVES:
1. Adequate design without being excessive
2. Eliminates the negative effects of an over designed
road system while meeting State Aid Geometric Design
Standards
3. Increases safety for pedestrians
4. Less intrusive to adjacent properties
5. Maintains rural character of the roadway
6. Conserves historic and significant trees
7. More cost effective street maintenance; easier to plow
8. Requires no condemnation
9. Maintains existing excellent drainage system by preserving
the drainage ditches
10. Equally distributes impacts to residents along both
sides of the road
11. Minimal cost to taxpayers
12. Maintains the integrity of the existing landscape
thereby preserving the environment
13. Protects property values
�a�
Agenda Information Memo
November 21, 2000
D. PROJECT 750R, TH 55 BLUE WATER ROAD
ACCESS MODIFICATIONS STREET IMPROVEMENTS
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve Project 750R (TH 55 /Blue Water Road
Access Modifications and Street Improvements) and authorize the preparation of detailed final
plans and specifications.
FACTS:
On September 14, 1998, the City Council directed staff to prepare a feasibility report
considering the installation of a new traffic control signal at the intersection of TH 55 and
Blue Water Road, along with the modification of various accesses and the construction of a
frontage road on the south side of TH 55 in response to an Access Management Study for
State Highway 55 jointly performed by MnDOT and the City of Eagan (Project 739).
On October 20, 1998, the City Council approved a resolution authorizing staff to submit an
application for MnDOT funding participation for Project 750 through the Local Initiative
Agreements Program. Funding has been approved in the amount of $410,400 for the 2001
fiscal year (July 1, 2000, to June 30, 2001) for the signalization and access modifications.
The cost for the frontage road would be the full responsibility of the City.
On March 6, 2000, a Public Hearing for Project 750 was held to formally present and discuss
the report with the public. The City Council continued the hearing until May 16 to allow
staff time to obtain preliminary appraisals. On May 16, the project was cancelled due to the
lack of appraisal information and a specific date for another continuance.
On August 15, the City Council scheduled a new Public Hearing for September 19. During a
meeting with the affected property owners on August 17, objections were repeated to staff
regarding the extent of the proposed frontage road and related assessments. Subsequently, a
meeting was held with MnDOT and City representatives on August 29, in which it was
determined that a major portion of the proposed frontage road was not necessary for service
nor eligible for MnDOT funding.
On September 5, the City Council canceled Project 750 and the Public Hearing scheduled for
September 19 and authorized the preparation of a revised feasibility report for Project 750R.
On October 17, the revised feasibility report for Project 750R was presented to the City
Council and a Public Hearing was scheduled for November 21 to formally present and
discuss the report with the neighborhood.
An informational open house was held on November 14 from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. at City Hall.
Of the 6 Industrial parcels notified about potential assessments, 2 persons representing 4 of
the properties attended the informational meeting.
All notices have been published in the legal newspaper and sent to all affected property
owners informing them of this public hearing.
93
ISSUES:
Since all of the parcels that are proposed to be assessed currently have access to TH 55, the
benefit value of the improvements is limited to the benefit the properties would receive from
the proposed access to a signalized full access on TH 55. A recent agreement between the
City of Eagan and Wal -mart (Sam's Club) established a value range of $50,000 to $87,500
per parcel for access to a signalized intersection.
Kim Imre, representing TMI Coatings and Triangle Office Park, is concerned about the
proposed closure of the median directly south of their property (first current median opening
directly west of TH 55 /TH 149 intersection) without any proposed options for alternatives to
the large truck movement from their property to southbound TH 55. She is requesting that an
option for said truck movement be included as part of the improvements if the median
closure remains a part of the project. The MnDOT funding currently available for said
project is contingent on all of the proposed median and access closures being completed.
ATTACHMENTS:
Feasibility Report, pages '7 S through 9S
Project Information Summary, page Q9
Open House Minutes, pages through /Q/
Letter from Property Representative, page /42 D3,
/7y
REVIEWED BY:
City of Eagan
Department of Public Works
Date: i 1 14 co
a
City of Eag
Finance Department
Date:
It `15
4
city of Qagen
FEASIBILITY STUDY AND REPORT
SRF No. 0983201
FOR
TH 55 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD
WEST OF TH 149
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
CITY PROJECT NO. 750R
November 2000
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly Licensed
Professional Engineer under the laws of the State
of Minnesota.
Date: P/ 20 0 0 Reg. No. 21364
!CONSULTING G ROUP, INC.
One Carlson Parkway, Suite 150, Minneapolis, MN 55447 -4443 (612) 475 -0010
Transportation Civil Structural Environmental Planning Traffic Landscape Architecture Parking
November 14, 2000
Honorable Mayor and City Council
CITY OF EAGAN
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
Dear Mayor and Members of the Council:
SUBJECT: TH 55 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST OF TH 149
CITY OF EAGAN PROJECT No. 750R
Enclosed please find the Feasibility Report for the proposed frontage road improvements to serve
the area south of TH 55 between Lexington Avenue and Commers Drive.
The project proposed herein is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plans, and is feasible
from an engineering standpoint.
We would be pleased to meet with the City Council, staff and other interested parties to review
any aspect of this report.
Sincerely,
SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC.
G0
Matthew D. Hansen, P.E.
Senior Associate
es R. Dvorak, P.E.
ice President
MDH/JRD/bls
Enclosure
CONSULTING GROUP, INC.
SRF No. 0983201
One Carlson Parkway Nort uite 150, Minneapolis, MN 55447 -4443
Telephone (763) 475 -0010 Fax (763) 475 -2429 http: /www.srfconsulting.com
An Equal Opportunity Employer
TH 55 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST OF TH 149
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
CITY PROJECT NO. 750R
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3
A. Street Improvements 3
B. Storm Sewer Improvements 4
IV. RIGHT -OF -WAY AND EASEMENTS 5
V. PERMITS 6
VI. ESTIMATED COSTS 7
Table 1 Estimated Costs 7
VII. AFFECTED PROPERTIES 8
VIII. ASSESSMENTS 9
A. Assessment Summary 9
Table 2 Proposed Assessments 9
B. Assessment Financing Options 10
IX. REVENUE SOURCES 11
X. PROJECT SCHEDULE 12
APPENDIX
Detailed Preliminary Estimate of Construction Costs
Assessment Calculations
Figure 1 Project Location Map
Figure 2 Proposed Street and Storm Sewer Improvements
Figure 3 Proposed Street and Storm Sewer Improvements
Figure 4 Proposed Street and Storm Sewer Improvements
Figure 5 Proposed Typical Section
Figure 6 Parcel Map
Page No.
I. INTRODUCTION
Preparation of this Feasibility Study was authorized by the City Council for the construction of
new frontage roads to serve the commercial and industrial properties along the south side of
TH 55 between Lexington Avenue (Dakota County Road 43) and Commers Drive. The project
is located near the I -35E I -494 interchange in the northeast corner of Eagan (see Figure 1).
The proposed frontage roads on the south side of TH 55, and the access modifications to the
existing highway median are consistent with recommendations made in two recent planning
documents; the Grand Oaks Business Park AUAR (Alternative Urban Area -wide Review), and
the TH 55 Access Management Plan.
In the Fall of 1998, the City of Eagan and Mn/DOT commissioned SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
to perform a traffic engineering access management study to determine the best number, type
and location of access points to TH 55 within the City of Eagan. The TH 55 Access
Management Plan examines how access to TH 55, in the project area, can be managed to
enhance safety and improve mobility while maintaining adequate access to current and future
adjacent properties.
This report identifies the street and storm sewer improvements necessary to serve the adjacent
properties.
II. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
City Project No. 750R, as outlined herein, is feasible from an engineering standpoint. The
proposed roadway and storm sewer improvements are consistent with current City standards.
The total cost of this project is estimated to be $972,150.
It is recommended that the Council consider the project for the following reasons:
This project is necessary based on recommendations made in the TH 55 Access Management
Plan. The project will improve traffic flow and safety by consolidating turning movements
and conflicts for vehicles accessing businesses on the south side of TH 55.
The proposed improvements to TH 55 were identified as part of a Traffic Congestion
Mitigation Plan in the Grand Oaks Business Park AUAR.
Mn/DOT supports the proposed improvements, and will participate in the project funding
through the Local Initiative Cooperative Agreements Program.
This project is cost effective in that constructing the frontage roads and median modifications
will result in a considerable reduction in local traffic congestion and will add value to the
adjacent individual properties.
The frontage roads construction and median modifications would best be carried out as one
improvement project and one Contract.
It is recommended that the City Council receive the Feasibility Study and schedule a public
hearing for the proposed project area.
�9
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Currently, businesses along the south side of TH 55 between Lexington Avenue and
Commers Drive have direct access to and from TH 55. In addition to the full access provided at
Lexington Avenue and Commers Drive (TH 149N), there are four (4) median openings
(providing full access) and two (2) driveway locations (with right in/right -out access) along this
0.8 mile segment. The previously mentioned AUAR Mitigation Plan and TH 55 Access
Management Plan recommend construction of a frontage road along the south side of TH 55 to
consolidate traffic entering and exiting TH 55 in this area.
Under City Project No. 750R, it is proposed to construct a frontage road across from Blue Water
Road approximately 200 feet easterly and 530 feet westerly (see Figures 2 and 3), and to extend
the existing frontage road (Commers Drive) from TH 149 approximately 200 feet westerly (see
Figure 4) within existing and proposed right -of -way. It is proposed to construct the frontage
roads as 32 foot two -lane undivided roadways with curb and gutter (see Figure 5).
In addition to the construction of frontage roads, the proposed improvements include closing
three (3) median openings on TH 55 between Lexington Avenue and TH 149N. It is proposed to
construct curb and gutter and raised concrete median at the three locations shown in Figures 2, 3
and 4. Driveway modifications are also proposed at the entrance to Parcel A (see Figure 6) to
restrict vehicles to right -in access only from TH 55.
Traffic signals are currently in place at the TH 55/Lexington Avenue intersection and
TH 55/TH 149N intersection. In addition to these two signals, the Access Management Plan
recommends installation of a new traffic signal at the TH 55/Blue Water Road intersection.
However, Mn/DOT will not approve a signal at this location until specific traffic warrants are
met. Costs for this proposed traffic signal ($214,500) have been included in the project even
though it may not be constructed at the same time as the roadway improvements.
The estimated cost for roadway and signal improvements is $906,850.
B. STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
City Project No. 750R lies within drainage district F as defined in the Eagan Comprehensive
Storm Water Management Plan (1990). Storm water runoff from this area is generally conveyed
to O'Neil Pond (Basin FP -1) via ditches and storm sewer culverts.
Minor adjustments to existing catch basins and storm sewer in TH 55 are proposed due to the
median reconstruction. Storm sewer is proposed to collect runoff from the frontage roads and
discharge to existing storm sewer within TH 55 as shown in Figures 2, 3 and 4.
The estimated cost for storm sewer improvements is $65,300.
0
IV. RIGHT -OF -WAY AND EASEMENTS
Most of the street and storm sewer improvements proposed in this report are anticipated to be
constructed within the existing TH 55 right-of-way. Some additional right -of -way will be
required from Parcels C, D and G as follows:
Parcel C 13,520 sq. ft. permanent right -of -way
Parcel D 8,690 sq. ft permanent right -of -way
Parcel G 5,460 sq. ft. permanent right -of -way
Total 27,670 sq. ft.
The total area of proposed right -of -way is approximately 27,670 sq. ft., and costs for this
right -of -way acquisition ($83,000) have been included in the project cost estimate.
Mn/DOT approval will be required for proposed construction within State right -of -way. Any
temporary easements required to complete the project, such as those needed for grading or
driveway reconstruction, will be identified and obtained during final design.
ga,
V. PERMITS
Permits for the improvements proposed under City Project No. 750R will be required from the
following agencies:
Minnesota Department of Transportation (permit to work within right —of —way)
sR3 6
VI. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated cost of City Project No. 750R is summarized below in Table 1. The total project
cost is based on preliminary construction costs (including 10 percent contingencies), plus an
additional 30 percent for legal, administrative, engineering design, inspection, contract
administration and capitalized interest. A detailed estimate of the preliminary construction cost
is included in the Appendix.
TABLE 1
ESTIMATED COSTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 750R
TH 55 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST OF TH 149
Street and Storm Sewer Improvements Estimated Cost
Frontage Road Construction $405,350
TH 55 Median Modifications $352,300
TH 55/Blue Water Road Traffic Signal $214,500
Total Project Cost $972,150
Parcel
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
N
0
R
S
T
U
VII. AFFECTED PROPERTIES
The properties in the area that are affected by the proposed improvements and require
notification of the public hearing are listed as follows (see Figure 6 for Parcel Map):
Property Owner
Atlas of MN, Inc.
K.W. McKee, Inc.
K.W. McKee, Inc.
Atlas of MN, Inc.
Atlas Investment Company
Metro Council Envir.Serv.
TP Universal Exports
Eagan Business Commons
Eagan Business Commons
Atlas of MN, Inc.
Atlas of MN, Inc.
J. and J. Bhakta
Eagan Properties Realties
Parking Associates LLC
Parking Associates LLC
WI SPARK Corporation
Mary Imre
Mary Imre
Mary Imre
TMI Coating Inc.
Property Description Key:
[1] Robert O'Neill Homestead
[2] Eagan Business Commons
[3] Section 2, T27N, R23W
[4] Grandoak 2
Property I. D.
10- 53320- 081 -00
10- 53320- 082 -00
10- 53320- 071 -00
10- 53320- 072 -00
10- 53320- 053 -00
10- 53320- 054 -00
10- 53320- 040 -00
10- 22402 032 -01
10- 22402 031 -01
10- 53320- 080 -00
10- 00200 020 -29
10- 00200 010 -29
10- 00200 -010 -31
10- 00200- 010 -28
10- 00200 020 -28
10- 30801 010 -02
10- 53320- 061 -00
10- 53320- 062 -00
10- 53320- 061 -00
10- 53320- 052 -00
Property Description
Part of Lots 7 and 8 [1]
Part of Lots 7 and 8 [1]
Part of Lots 7 and 8 [1]
Part of Lots 6 and 7 [1]
Part of Lot 5 [1]
Part of Lot 5 [1]
Part of Lot 4 [1]
Part of Lot 3 Block 1 [2]
Part of Lot 3 Block 1 [2]
Part of Lots 7 and 8 [1]
Part of SE 1/4 of NW 1/4 [3]
Part of SE 1/4 of NW 1/4 [3]
Part of SW 1/4 of NW 1/4 [3]
Part of NW 1/4 [3]
Part of NW 1/4 [3]
Part of Lot 1, Block 2 [4]
Part of Lot 6 [1]
Part of Lot 6 [1]
Part of Lot 6 [1)
Part of Lot 5 [1]
Address
2767 Highway 55
2785/2787 Highway 55
2795 Highway 55
2811/2813/2815 Highway 55
Unassigned
2861 Highway 55
2875 Highway 55
2915 Commers Drive
2915 Commers Drive
2755 Highway 55
Unassigned
2745 Highway 55
Unassigned
Unassigned
Unassigned
2755 Blue Water Road
2826 Highway 55
Unassigned
2826 Highway 55
2850 Highway 55
VIII. ASSESSMENTS
A. ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
For assessment purposes, City Project No. 750R is split into two components. Costs associated
with improvements to the TH 55 median, and the proposed signal at TH 55/Blue Water Road, are
proposed to be paid by a combination of Mn/DOT cooperative agreement funds and City funds.
Costs associated with construction of the frontage roads are proposed to be assessed to adjacent
properties in accordance with the City's Special Assessment Policy and as shown in Table 2
below.
TABLE 2
PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 750R
Proposed Proposed Total
Parcel Property Frontage Assessment Rate Assessment
A 326 ft. $157.17 51,240
B 176 ft. $157.17 27,665
C 367 ft. $157.17 57,680
D 951 ft. $157.17 $149,470
E 543 ft. $157.17 85,345
G 216 ft. $157.17 33,950
TOTAL $405,350
(1) See Appendix for proposed assessment rate calculations.
g6
B. ASSESSMENT FINANCING OPTIONS
At the time of the assessment hearing, property owners will have the option of paying any
portion of the assessment following the assessment hearing or including the assessment as part of
their property tax statement. If the assessment is included on the property tax statement, the
assessment will be spread over a 15 -year period at an interest rate determined by the bond sale
financing this improvement. The following payment schedules would result based on a
7.0 percent interest rate for the proposed assessments:
ASSESSMENT $30,000
ASSESSMENT $100,000
7
Principal/Year
Interest/Year
Cost/Year
Cost/Month
First Year
$2,000
$2,100
$4,100
$342
Second Year
$2,000
$1,960
$3,960
$330
Fifteenth Year
$2,000
140
$2,140
$178
B. ASSESSMENT FINANCING OPTIONS
At the time of the assessment hearing, property owners will have the option of paying any
portion of the assessment following the assessment hearing or including the assessment as part of
their property tax statement. If the assessment is included on the property tax statement, the
assessment will be spread over a 15 -year period at an interest rate determined by the bond sale
financing this improvement. The following payment schedules would result based on a
7.0 percent interest rate for the proposed assessments:
ASSESSMENT $30,000
ASSESSMENT $100,000
7
Principal/Year
Interest/Year
Cost/Year
Cost/Month
First Year
6,667
7,000
$13,667
$1,139
Second Year
6,667
6,533
$13,200
$1,100
Fifteenth Year
6,667
467
7,134
595
B. ASSESSMENT FINANCING OPTIONS
At the time of the assessment hearing, property owners will have the option of paying any
portion of the assessment following the assessment hearing or including the assessment as part of
their property tax statement. If the assessment is included on the property tax statement, the
assessment will be spread over a 15 -year period at an interest rate determined by the bond sale
financing this improvement. The following payment schedules would result based on a
7.0 percent interest rate for the proposed assessments:
ASSESSMENT $30,000
ASSESSMENT $100,000
7
IX. REVENUE SOURCES
Revenue to cover the cost of City Project No. 750R is expected from a combination of
assessments, Mn/DOT funds and City funds and is estimated as follows:
Mn/DOT
Cooperative
Project Assessment Agreement City
Cost Revenue Funding Contribution
Street and Storm Sewer
Frontage Road $405,350 $405,350 -0- -0-
TH 55 $352,300 -0- $255,100 97,200
Traffic Signal $214,500 -0- $155,300 59,200
Total Balance $972,150 $405,350 $410,400 $156,400
According to the Mn/DOT Cooperative Agreement office, funding has been set aside to cover up
to $410,400 of the project costs associated with TH 55 improvements. The City's Major Street
Fund will finance the estimated project cost deficit of $156,400.
X. PROJECT SCHEDULE
The proposed schedule for City Project No. 750R is as follows:
Present Draft Feasibility Report to City Council, and Order a
Public Hearing
Hold Neighborhood Information Meeting
Hold Public Hearing; Authorize Preparation of Plans
and Specifications
Approve Plans and Specifications
Mn/DOT Cooperative Agreement Plan Approval
Advertise for Bids
Open Bids
Award Contract
Construction Complete
Hold Assessment Hearing
First Payment Due with Real Estate Taxes
77 12
October 17, 2000
November 2000
November 21, 2000
February 2001
February 2001
March 2001
April 2001
April 2001
October 2001
February 2002
May 2003
APPENDIX
Preliminary Cost Estimate
Assessment Calculations
Figure 1 Project Location Map
Figure 2 Proposed Street and Storm Sewer Improvements
Figure 3 Proposed Street and Storm Sewer Improvements
Figure 4 Proposed Street and Storm Sewer Improvements
Figure 5 Proposed Typical Section
Figure 6 Parcel Map
ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION
2021.501 MOBILIZATION
ESTIMATED
UNIT UNIT PRICE OUANTITY
LS 110,000.00
EA $8,000.00
SO YD
LIN FT $3.00
us
0.5
1,580.0
1,150.0
3,270.0
1,640.0
70
*40.0
TOTAL
AMOUNT
*5,000
$4,000
$4,740
$3,450
s22,8e0
2031.501 FIELD OFFICE TYPED
2104.503 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
2104.513 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
2105.501 EXCAVATION
CU YD $7.00
_COMMON
2105.522 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (u)
2211.503 AGGREGATE BASE (CV) CLASS 5*
CU YD $8.00
$13,120
$15,400
$20.00
CU YD uoo�on
2340.508 TYPE *1 a COURSE MIXTURE
t $35.00
TvPs�lo�oscou��M:xfiRE
1 *uo.00
660.0
*21.780
2531.501 CONC CURB AND GUTTER DES B618
uwpT *11.00
3,600.0
$500
2531.503 CONCRETE MEDIAN
SO YD *25.00
20.0
2531.507 7' CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT
SO YD $40.00
450.0
118,000
2564.552 TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS $20,000.00
0.25
$5,000
2573.502 SILT FENCE HEAVY DUTY
UN FT $2.50
1.e000
$4,000
2575.501 SEEDING
ACRE r $2,500.00
1.7
m4.250
SUBTOTAL
n193,130
CONTINGENCIES (10%)
n19,313
SUBTOTAL
n21e/443
INDIRECT COSTS (30%)
$63,733
PERMANENT RIGHT-OF-WAY
SO FT $3.00
27,670.0
m83.010
TOTAL FRONTAGE ROAD STREETS
%359.186
2501.515 1u^nC PIPE APRON
EA $680.00
6.0
$4,080
oono.wn18' lRC PIPE SEWER DES nooe
LIN FT $30.00
550.0
n1*.500
2506.502 CONST DRAIN STRUCTURE DESIGN CC
EA $1.300.00
9.0
$11J00
SUBTOTAL
$32.280
CONTINGENCIES (10%)
$3,228
SUBTOTAL
$35,508
INDIRECT COSTS (30%)
$10.652
TOTAL FRONTAGE ROAD STOAM
$*6.160
2021.501 MOBILIZATION
LS $10,000.00
0.5
$5.000
2031.501 FIELD OFFICE TYPE
EA $8,000.00
0.5
$4.000
o1o*.503 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
SO YD $3.00
3,225.0
$9,675
210*.513 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
LIN FT o3/00
3,1e0.0
$9,360
2211.503 AGGREGATE BASE (CV) CLASS 5A
CU YD *uo,oV
400.0
*u.mm
2340.508 TYPE 41 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE
t $35.00
80.0
$2,800
2340s1* TYPE u1 BASE COURSE MIXTURE
t $33.00
110.0
*3,630
2531.501 Como CURB AND GUTTER DES o*u*
LIN FT $15.00
3.700u
$55,500
2531.503 CONCRETE MEDIAN
SO YD 825.00
4.800.0
m120.000
2564.552 TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS $20,000.00
0.75
$15.000
SUBTOTAL
*232.965
CONTINGENCIES (10%)
$23,297
SUBTOTAL
$256.262
INDIRECT COSTS (30%)
$76.878
TOTAL Th 55 STREETS
$333.1*0
2565s11 FULL T ACT T TRAFRC CONTROL SIGNAL
SIG SYS $150.000.00
1.0
$150,000
SUBTOTAL
%150.000
CONTINGENCIES (10%)
$15,000
SUBTOTAL
$165,000
$49,500
�mn�Too�ax�m
TOTAL vmssawsm��
�n�sno
oeo�s
uwFT $oo�u
�ou�
$o/xm
oanosnonomSTonmwGTnu�TuRsDs�owoo
Ea *x�00
ao
$1o�oo
SUBTOTAL
:nu�m�
�n*J*o
SUBTOTAL
-|wonsoT�cooTe�om)
��*g�
TOTAL
�g��
TOTAL �p��
,coTe�,xLo
DATE 11/14/00
pnsu�w�vs�wmco+no�r�cno COSTS r*���n�o�x�����opr*1m
CITY OF EAGAN PROJECT NO. 750R
ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS
Assessments for City Project No. 750R are assigned on a frontage basis to six (6) parcels in the
project area. Assessment rates are computed as follows:
Parcel Frontage 011 TH 55
A 326 ft.
B 176 ft.
C 367 ft.
D 951 ft.
E 543 ft.
G 216 ft.
TOTAL 2,579 ft.
The proposed assessment rate for the frontage road street improvements is computed as follows:
Estimated Street Costs $359,186 $139.27 per front foot
Total Frontage 2,579 ft.
The proposed assessment rate for frontage road storm sewer improvements is computed as
follows:
Estimated Storm Sewer Costs $46,160 $17.90 per front foot
Total Frontage 2,579 ft.
Therefore, the total proposed assessment rate is the sum of the street and storm sewer rates, or:
$139.27/ft. $17.90/ft. $157.17/ft.
BLUEBILL DR.
MENDOTA
HEIGHTS
EAGAN
ALDRIH DR.
YANKEE DOODLE
xCONC ABBET RAY
w4.
54. ern' 63
NOR T/4ESS
14 4RKW m
K£EFE
GEMINI RD.
MENDOTA
HEIGHTS
53. CLAREMONT OR
54.BEDFORO CT.
55.STOCKBRIDGE RD.
56. MORSON CIR.
57. WINTHROP CT.
PROJECT
LOCATION
�a gyp.
6O
J O'
.L RD. f'
413R THW000
RIDGE TR.
)OD LA.
)0D PT.
:E PT.
O, P
43 CULLEN ST.
WACOH WHEEL
DR.
Z
J
MEDALLION
fla.Mf
h•
C4 a.
F �k
DE (Oq 4 F=
N4 b4� q-4 kEO
4A G 'I r
4e. tie o� V g5
QJ ii. u
c.�, 7 APACHE'
LA. cc
i
J
W A
OUAILB RIDGE o
r z
LA.
DR. HUBER
DR.
SUN-
FISH
LAKE
MENDOTA
HEIGHTS RD.
T27N
R23W 11 �1 6
SRF
Consulting Group, Int.
Job •0963201 TAe.
CITY OF EAGAN
C.P. NO. 750R
TH 55 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD
WEST OF T.H.149
PROJECT LOCATION
//.'14 /00
1
2.0
PROPOSED FRONTAGE ROAD
16'
8618 C &G
w.
3.0/
2" BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE
3" BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE
8" CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE
16'
B618 C &G
VAR.
4'
2.0/.
R/W
SRF
[Consulting Gam.
J
Jab 303/ ".r3•20'
CITY OF EAGAN
C.P. NO. 750R
TH 55 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD
WEST OF T.H.149
TYPICAL STREET SECTION
FIGURE
5
l/ /N/00
J
9?
PARCEL MAP
HIGHWAY 55 BLUE WATER ROAD
PROPOSED ACCESS MANAGEMENT SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD
PROJECT 750R
Preliminary Project Schedule
1998
September 14, `98
October 17, 2000
November 21, '00
February `01
April `O1
May `01
October '01
November '01
February, '02
May 15, `03
Preliminary Costs Feasibility Report
$405,350
$352,300
$214,500
$972,150
$405,350 (42
$566,800 (58
Proposed Special Assessments
Estimated $30,000 Assessment
$5,675 per year l year
$3,960 per year 2 year
$2,140 per year 15` year
Project First Identified In 5 Year Capital Improvement Program
City Council Authorizes Feasibility Report
Present Feasibility Report to City Council/Order Public Hearing
Public Hearing Council Orders or Denies Project
Approve Plans Specifications
Award Contract
Construction Begins
Construction Completed
Final Cost Report
Final Assessment Public Hearing
1 Installment Payment Due With Real Estate Property Taxes
Frontage Road Construction
TH 55 Median Modifications
TH 55/Blue Water Road Traffic Signal
Proposed Total Project Cost
Proposed Assessed to Property Owners
Proposed Financed by the City of Eagan
Proposed Assessment: $157 per front foot of property frontage (6 Industrial parcels)
Prepayment option with no interest available for 30 days after Assessment Hearing
Any unpaid balance is certified to county to be collected with property taxes over 15 years
Interest rate is calculated on any remaining unpaid balance at the end of each year
Assuming no prepayment, annual cost: (Assumed 7.0% Interest)
$473 per month 1 year
$330 per month 2 year
$178 per month 15 year
Attendance: Russ Matthys, City Engineer; Matt Hansen, Consulting Engineer (SRF); 2 people
representing 2 properties (see attached sign -in sheet).
Questions /Comments
CITY PROJECT NO. 750R
INFORMATIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN HOUSE
TH 55 FRONTAGE ROAD
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2000, 4:00 6:00 P.M.
Jim Deleo Phillippi Equipment Company: How can City justify the proposed
assessment amount when property already has access to signalized intersection
on TH 55? Feasibility report only represents cost estimate, calculated according to
City's Assessment Policy. Assessment amounts would be capped by actual benefit
value to property. Real estate appraiser would have to justify assessment benefit
value amount.
Gary Santoorjian Dart Transit: Parcels already have access to TH 55. How
can Dart be assessed for only changing access to TH 55? Currently, parcels don't
have access to a signalized intersection on TH 55. They would be provided access to
a future signalized intersection through the proposed improvements.
Jim Deleo Phillippi Equipment Company: What changes have occurred to
project since previous public hearing? Street improvements no longer connect the
intersection of TH 55/Blue Water Road and TH 55/TH 149. Two cul -de -sacs would
now provide access to TH 55 for the Dart parcels and the currently proposed Atlas
Addition development. Driveway width for TP Universal Exports has been widened
for large turning movements of crane /trailer vehicles.
G:RMATTHYS/M1SC/Minutes TH55 Frontage Rd.
NAME ADDRESS
Lez 2605 I`�� s�� f �i o
1. f r✓�
2. vetvy Sckvt' 0o 6c,K vS
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
TH 55 BLUE WATER ROAD
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2000, 4:00 6:00 P.M.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
G: FOR MS /SIGN -I N. S hee t
INFORMATIONAL MEETING
D
V L3
March 2, 2000
Mr. Russ Matthys, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Eagan
Municipal Center
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122 -1897
Re: Project 750, Highway 55 and Blue Water Road
Access Management and South Frontage Road Improvements
Dear Mr. Matthys:
Thank you for your letter dated February 15, 2000 regarding the proposed above
referenced project.
As a property owner I will be adversely affected by the proposed project. Therefore, I
strongly object to the proposed improvements on behalf of my tenants and myself. We
object not only on the grounds of the existing access that will be eliminated, but also how
the proposed future development of our land will be affected by this road access change.
TMI Coatings and other tenants currently use the access as outlined in the attachment as a
critical part of their operations. Consequently, its elimination could significantly impact
their operation and the value of my property.
In addition, since all or a significant portion of my property is considered for future
redevelopment or additional development, I am concerned as to how the access changes
will affect these properties.
In summary, I welcome the opportunity to work with you to improve overall traffic
conditions in the area. However, I am not aware of any consideration the design has for
the current hardship that would be-imposed on my tenants, or the access that will be
required for future development or redevelopment of the land.
Sincerely,
Mary E
Property Owner
TRIANGLE OFFICE PARK
IMRE DEVELOPMENT
2805 Dodd Road Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone (612) 452 -6100 Fax (612) 452 -0598
P.iwOTil YEW n rrb p cnyaO ver �Vt llt� Y 149 a LEXINGTON AVE.
Meet At the LARGEST CLOVERLEAF IN MINNESOTA!
RECEIVED
MAR 0 3 2000
-14
,w
City of Eagan
Existing Cover Types
Grand Oak Business Park AUAR
Fxisa
+G v
/D3
Agenda Information Memo
November 21, 2000 Eagan City Council Meeting
E. SIGN POLICY DISCUSSION, INCLUDING CAMPAIGN SIGNS
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
Provide direction to Staff regarding Sign Ordinance and Sign Policies.
FACTS:
Earlier this year, the City Council directed staff to schedule this item as a Public Hearing on the
November 21, 2000 Regular Council Agenda.
The City Attorney's office has requested that a clarification be made that the City's ability to
regulate signage must be based on reasonable time, place, and manner standards. As such,
regulations placed on campaign signs must be applied to all signage within the City.
Other than a number of billboards (at specific locations), the Sign Ordinance does not allow off -site
signage.
Campaign signage has been a topic of discussion for the City Council in 1996 and 2000. In 1996, the
Council adopted a campaign sign policy that provided more liberal standards specifically for
campaign signs as compared to other signage that is exempt from permitting and fees (i.e. For Sale,
For Lease, For Rent). In 1998, this policy was updated by the Council to include enforcement of
County restrictions by City forces.
In both 1996 2000, City staff researched the campaign sign issue and gathered extensive
information. In 1996, the Advisory Planning Commission recommended specific changes to the City
Council. All of this information is attached.
The combination of the City's Campaign Sign Policy and the longer than normal campaign season
has resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of calls regarding `the proliferation' of signs and
sign placement requirements. These calls and others have resulted in an inordinate amount of staff
time being spent verifying sign placement issues, notifying candidates of illegal sign placement,
manual removal of signs, contact with the candidate's campaign headquarters for retrieval of signs,
etc.
ATTACHMENTS: (4)
Eagan Campaign Sign Policy, page A through /a.
1996 Campaign Sign Study, page D through
2000 Campaign Sign Matrix, page through
Summary of 2000 enforcement demand, page /23.
A) V
CITY COUNCIL POLICY
SUBJECT: ELECTION SIGNS
FORMATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
DATE ADOPTED: AUGUST 18, 1998
Election signs shall be prohibited on any street between the curb and
the trail or sidewalk. In areas where there are no trails or sidewalks,
signs must be at least 10 feet from the curb line. In addition, signs
cannot create any visual obstruction or other safety hazard. There
will be no prohibition against signs being on public property and no
limit to the number of signs per parcel.
City staff shall enforce this policy, Dakota County regulations and
state law relating to election signs. Violations of Dakota County
regulations will also be enforced by Dakota County staff. Signs
removed by City staff will be held for a period of 10 days and may be
picked up by the candidate at no cost.
City staff shall inform all prospective candidates of this policy and all
prospective candidates shall be responsible for compliance
with this policy.
/o5'
-ri
CITY OF EAGAN
Subd. 7. Exemptions. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, the following
signs are exempt from the permit or fee provisions of this section. No exempt sign shall
exceed 16 square feet of area except where stated below:
A. For sale, lease, or rent signs of real estate when located on the property
advertised, and when under 16 square feet in total copy area.
B. Church, hospital, or school directional signs, Tess than six square feet in total
copy area.
C. One on- property church sign for each church site.
D. Signs warning of hazardous conditions.
E. Simple information signs, such as "exit," "loading dock," etc.
F. Simple nameplate signs on or over the entrance to a place of business or used to
identify the parking area of a place of business. Not to exceed three square feet
in gross area.
G. Signs erected by a recognized unit of govemment having jurisdiction in the city, or
a school district within the boundaries of the school district.
Political signs for a period of up to ten days after an election, provided such signs
contain the name and address of the individual responsible for erecting and
removing the sign.
I. Temporary signs for special civic events or garage or neighborhood sales, for a
period not to exceed 20 days.
J. Temporary signs for special business sales. There shall be no more than three
such signs on any lot, with a combined area of Tess than 25 square feet.
Temporary business signs shall be limited to a period of ten days out of any
calendar month. The ten days are counted sequentially from the day of
installation of the first temporary sign to the removal of all temporary signs.
/0 6
city of eaaan
TO: Mayor Egan and City Councilmembers
FROM: Shannon Tyree, Planner
DATE: February 21, 1996
SUBJECT: Election signs.
INTRODUCTION
Attached is a copy of the election sign memo prepared for the Advisory Planning
Commission members for a workshop meeting held February 8, 1996. Following is a
summary of the APC's discussion and recommended action.
ISSUES
The Planning Commission identified several issues related to election signs and signs
in general. The issues raised at the workshop specific to election signs were as follows:
Election signs should not be located in the public right of way or on public
property.
Signs should be allowed to be erected 90 days prior to an election and allowed to
remain up to 10 days after an election.
The City should establish procedures for removal of signs in violation. Those
procedures should be given to the candidates with other campaign information.
The City should uniformly enforce the sign rules throughout the campaign.
A $10 charge per sign should be required for release of any signs removed and
stored by the City.
PROPOSAL
The Planning Commission members have discussed the issues associated with
campaign signs and have recommended that an ordinance be drafted to address these
five issues.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED
Staff is requesting your comments and direction in order to formulate an amendment to
the election sign ordinance and any related ordinances.
/67
MEMO
city of eaaan
TO: Advisory Planning Commission Members
FROM: Shannon Tyree, PlangeK•
DATE: February 6, 1996
SUBJECT: Election Signs
Introduction
Because of issues and concems raised during the 1994 election the City Council
requested staff to invesigate and review the ordinance related to election signs and to
possibly amend the current ordinance. In order to do so, staff is requesting the Advisory
Planning Commissions comments and direction on the matter.
Background
On November 7 and 8, 1994, a large number of signs were installed along streets and
on property where polling places were located. After receiving complaints from the
community and the election judges, three candidates had their signs removed by the
Police department. The signs removed were within 5' of the curb, and were either
removed or were laid down when the truck became too full. The signs were located on
Dakota County right of way and in violation of the County's resolution prohibiting election
signs in its right of way. Also, some signs removed were located within 100' of a polling
place. This is a violation of the Minnesota Election Laws Fair Camoaian Practices which
prohibits signs to placed within 100 feet of the polling place; and anywhere on public
property which is a polling place. In some cases the signs were causing a hazard by
reducing visibility.
Because of this incident, a number of questions were raised related to the difference
between the City and County's rules, enforcement of the rules, the procedures for signs
in violation, and election day procedures.
Current Rules:
Eaaan Code Reaulations
City Code Section 4.20 Subd. 7. Exemptions is the only reference in the City Code
related to election signs. It reads:
/0
MEMO
"Political signs for a period of up to ten days after an election,
provided such signs contain the name and address of the
individual responsible for erecting and removing the sign."
Political signs are addressed in the exemptions category and are not required to obtain
a sign permit. Exempt signs are limited to 16 square feet in size unless otherwise stated.
Because no specific sign size was specified, exempt signs have a maximum size of 16'.
However during a state general election there is no size provision and signs can be as
large as the largest commercial or business sign permitted by the City.
The City's policy on signs has been to allow them on public property as long as no
hazards are created (sight lines, etc.) and to allow them on private property with the
owners permission. Several examples of major city streets where signs can be located
are: Wescott Rd., Blackhawk Rd., Wildemess Run Rd., Dodd Rd., Rahn Rd., Elrene Rd.,
and Nicols Rd.
Dakota County Rules
In 1990 Dakota County adopted (by resolution) a policy prohibiting private signs placed
in Dakota County right of way. County Roads affected by this ordinance in Eagan are:
Lone Oak Rd CR 26
Yankee Doodle Rd CR 28
Diffley Rd CR 30
Cliff Rd CR 32
Pilot Knob Rd CR 31
Lexington Ave CR 43
1. The County Highway Department is directed to actively pursue removing any
private sign placed along County roads and within the right of way that are within 30' of
the edge of the traveled lanes.
2. The Highway Department is directed to actively pursue removing any private signs
in the road right of way and beyond thirty feet from the edge of the traveled lanes when
the adjacent owner requests the removal.
3. The County Auditor is to give copies of this sign restriction policy to all persons
filing to run for office in Dakota County or for State offices and also to mail copies of this
policy to City Clerks or Administrators and School District Superintendents requesting that
they provide copies of this policy to persons filing at those locations.
4. Signs that are removed from the road right of way will be stores at the highway
shop for a reasonable period and retumed to owners requesting the signs for a $5.00
handling fee per sign.
State of Minnesota Election Laws
The Minnesota Election Laws Chapter 211B Fair Camcaion Practices which states:
"In any municipality that regulates the size of noncommercial
signs, notwithstanding the provisions of that ordinance, all
noncommercial signs of any nature may be posted from
August 1 in a state general election year until 10 days
following the state general election."
/0 9
The statute does not address placement or manner of signs, only the length of time signs
may be posted in general election years.
A state general election is defined by MN Election Laws 200.02 Definitions. "General
Election means an election held at regular intervals on a day determined by law or
charter at which voters of the state or any of its subdivisions choose by ballot public
officials or presidential electors."
The state does not permit election signs in its right of way.
Election Dav Rules
In addition, the Minnesota Election Laws are more specific about election day activities.
In the case of election day, the 1995 Minnesota Election Laws 211 B.11 Election Day
Prohibition Subd. 1 states:
A person may not display campaign material, post signs, ask,
solicit, or in any manner try to induce or persuade a voter
within a polling place or within 100 feet of the building in
which a polling place is situated, or anywhere on the public
property on which a polling place is situated, on primary or
election day to vote for or refrain from voting for a candidate
or ballot question.
If signs are located nearer than 100 feet to a polling place prior to election day, those
signs must be removed according to the above referenced statute.
Analysis
Fourteen cities were surveyed (Apple Valley, Bumsville, Farmington, Lakeville, Inver
Grove Heights, Mendota Heights, Rosemount, South St. Paul, West St. Paul,
Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina, Plymouth, Woodbury) and examples of what each
ordinance permits are listed in for your reference (see attachment).
Cities which list a maximum sign size also state in its ordinance that the size
limitation is as prescribed by state statute. Meaning that for general elections
between August 1 and 10 days following they do not limit the size.
Under state statute the Cities cannot regulate campaign signs size or type
between August 1 and 10 days following. Cities listing specific time periods may
be attempting to regulate elections other than state general elections (Le. primary
elections or school board elections)
None of the City's surveyed permit signs to be located on public right of way or on
public property.
Only four of the Cities ordinances refer to the Minnesota Election Laws.
West St. Paul has no specific ordinance in its Code regulating election signs.
//o
Issues
The City's current ordinance only addresses when the signs have to be removed,
and does not address placement or manner. Should the City adopt regulations
such as maximum height and size for non general elections?
Eagan is the only city in Dakota County that permits signs to be located on public
right of way. The County does not allow election signs in its right of way. This
causes confusion because of the inconsistency. Should Eagan adopt an
ordinance restricting signs in city public right of way?
Eagan is also the only community surveyed that allows signs to be located on
public property as long as no sight hazards are created? Should election signs be
restricted to private property?
if the City continues to permit signs in public right of way should there be a
setback regulating the distance form the edge of the street (curb or pavement).
Rosevillle is in the process of adopting a standard 15' setback from any city right
of way. Apple Valley has an 18' setback from the gutter or edge of the roadway.
Currently candidates in Eagan may place as many signs as they wish on a parcel.
The City of Edina limits the number to one per frontage and Eden Prairie limits one
per lot or parcel. Should the number of signs be limited?
Summary
To be consistent with Dakota County's resolution and to avoid situations in the future, like
those that occurred in 1994, not allowing signs in the City right of way may avoid
I confusion and eliminate sight line hazards all together. The majority of the communities
in Dakota County and others surveyed in Hennepin County also prohibit the placement
of signs within the public right of way and in public property.
Once a new ordinance is adopted a summary for all candidates outlining the local, county
and state laws can be assimilated in order for candidates to be clear on where their signs
can be posted, for what length of time, size, etc...
Staff is recommending that the City define and outline the procedures for signs which are
in violation of the election sign ordinance or the Minnesota Election Laws. Those
procedures could be given to all candidates when filing for office. By doing so candidates
will have an understanding of what will happen If their signs are in violation.
Following is a list of options for the Planning Commission to consider.
1) Keep the existing election signs ordinance Ch. 4.20 Subd. 7.H. as is, which
basically restricts time and manner.
2) Amend the ordinance to restrict other elements (i.e. placement, and manner).
3) Adopt by reference applicable provisions of M.S. 211B. Fair Campaign Practices.
Regardless of any change to the ordinance, this would be an appropriate time to identify
specific procedures for removal, storage and replacement of signs in violation prior to
election day and on election day.
Requested Action
At this time staff is requesting comments and general direction from the Advisory
Planning Commission in order to formulate an amendment to the election sign ordinance
and any related ordinances.
Half the min.
required setback.
Not in drainage
easement
Not closer than
100' of the prop.
on which a
polling place is
located
Half the min.
required setback.
Not in drainage
easement
Public Right
of Way
No
ON
saA
O N
oN
n
oN
ON
oN
ON
sal
ON
ON
oN
oN
O N
ON
w
O
u
Private prop.
Private prop.
Any district
O
a
a
O V
a
A 'v
a
All districts
Any district
vi
en
Fs 91
co
c
u
0.
44.
i_
'a d es
V) i
03
0 'L
0 C
65 days prior
5 days after
10 days afte
60 days prior
7 days after
"Remain no
longer than
65 cal. days
No sooner
than 6 mo.'s
in "R" "E"
30 days after
20 days after
90 days prior
10 days after
iafte &Cep L
joud step 06
a11!AS m8
Eagan
Farmington
L akeville
r.+
Q
3unoWBSO'1
South St.
Paul
V
'J
G c,, o
1 N S 1
Y
U
ea
at
S1
O M
ON
ON,
ON
ca
v a
014
ON
om I
off
a
0
g
a
u
cn
w
o
Private property
Private property
Any district
I Private property
z
b
X
3'S 9
3's Z£
7 days after
August 1
10 days after
r6o days prior
7 days after
1 10 days after
100 days prior
10 days after
cs
1,
IL
o
Vo
au!eid u3P3
e
a
tpnouuCld a
k
A.m9PooM
/19
EAGAN SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES; FEBRUARY 27, 1996
PAGE 3
information they would like to express to the Council, that they feel free to come to the Council meetings. He added
that when making his decision, he put himself in the position of a potential home buyer in that area, and he wouldn't
want to see a green pond. Chair Markel, indicated that a lot of money is being invested in Blackhawk Lake, and
the commission feels the city needs to do everything possible to maintain that water quality. The commission is
trying to protect that resource at the least possible cost. Another APRNRC member indicated the commission
looked at the cost of the bypass versus the cost of other potential cleanup that could be done at Blackhawk Lake.
He indicated that in addition to answering questions for the Council, an APRNRC representative could bring
feedback back to the commission for future decision- making.
Councilmember Awada stressed that the commission's recommendation made sense from their standpoint
and objectives. It is the commission's job to protect those resources. The Council needs to take other things into
consideration is well when making decisions. Mayor Egan added that Rich Brasch represented the commission's
interests very well. Most of the Councilmembers looked at the quality of housing there and fett there are things that
can be done to improve Blackhawk Lake, but there is Ntt le that can be done with a stagnated pond. Discussion
followed concerning the goals of the APRNRC and whether they are realistic and on -One with the Council's goals.
WATER RESERVOIR ANTENNA INSTALLATION LEASE AGREEMENTS
Director of Public Works Colbert indicated he has been inundated with requests to install more antennae
on the city's water towers. He would like some direction as to how many of these the Council wants, what fees
and /or other rate structure should be established for antenna installations, and to what extent the Council wants
these to be encouraged or simply allowed. He pointed out that the Council just approved an extensive logo
application on the Deerwood reservoir.
Councilmember Awada stated she feels this is the wave of the future, and there will be more and more of
these requests. She feels the city should take advantage of this revenue source. Councilmember Wachter
concurred, suggesting that perhaps this revenue could be earmarked for the Holz Farm. Councilmembers indicated
a preference to having these on the reservoirs rather than having them free standing. They also indicated a lack
of knowledge as to what is appropriate to charge. Councilmember Hunter suggested the city should charge $1,000
per month. Director of Public Works Colbert indicated that several companies felt that was too high and wanted
to negotiate a lower price. He feels that in some situations, companies will opt to build a free standing antenna if
the price is too high. This happened when U.S. West decided to build a free standing antenna. Staff tried to point
out the benefits of having the antenna on the reservoir, but he didn't feel the Council shared that preference, and
the Council gave them the permit to build a free standing tower. Councilmember Wachter pointed out that the
Council has more information now and are better able to indicate a preference. He feels the reservoirs are an ideal
location for them and are not objectionable. He feels people will accept them more on the reservoirs.
Mayor Egan expressed a concem about adopting and implementing a policy at the same time. Director
of Public Works Colbert questioned how the location on the reservoir should be handled and how these requests
should be prioritized. Discussion followed conceming whether or not they should be allowed on the logo. The
consensus of the Council was to minimize the antennae on the logo, but if there are conflicts, compatible paint will
be required. The consensus of the Council was also to encourage antennae on the reservoirs rather than free-
standing. Director of Public Works Colbert reminded the Council that the auxiliary structures around the reservoir
need to be considered as well. The Council consensus was to require screening for any auxiliary structures in
residential areas. Director of Public Works Colbert indicated that the city has previously been able to negotiate for
phones and auxiliary storage buildings as part of the agreement. He also indicated the Council can consider a flat
rate per panel. Considerable discussion followed concerning what to charge. The consensus was to charge $1,250
per year per panel, that they be allowed on all reservoirs, that compatible paint be used for any antennae placed
on the logo or lettering, that there be adequate screening for accessory structures, that the leases be for five years,
with an option to renew, and that there be a termination clause in the lease.
ELECTION SIGNS
Administrator Hedges distributed a letter from Gary Morgan that was received relative to this issue. Mayor
Egan indicated he would like to bring Eagan into conformance with other cities and Dakota County. He feels signs
should be out of the public right -of -way and beyond the boulevard. He doesn't see any harm in restricting their use
on public property. Councilmember Awada noted that that will eliminate signs on any public property such as the
0
EAGAN SPECIAL. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES. FEBRUARY 27, 1996
PAGE 4
corner of Pilot Knob Road and Yankee Doodle Road, which has traditionally had a lot of signs. Mayor Egan
indicated that perhaps zones could be established to allow them in areas where people have traditionally put a lot
of signs. Shannon Tyree, Planner, noted that both Pilot Knob Road and Yankee Doodle Road would be governed
by Dakota County. She reviewed a letter from the Dakota County Attorney's office that city police departments are
authorized to enforce county ordinances within the municipality, including enforcement of ordinances on election
signs. Councilmember Awada stated that as a candidate, it is nice to be able to put signs on public property, rather
than having to get permission from each individual property owner. Planner Tyree reviewed typical right -of -way
areas along highly traveled roads in Eagan. Finance Director VanOverbeke stated that most people think if they
put their signs on the other side of the bike path, it is outside the right -of -way. Usually, it is still within the county
right -of -way, but the city doesn't typically remove them. Then, right before the election, someone could place 15
signs next to the curb. The city would remove those signs because they are within the right -of -way, but actually
the city is selectively deciding where the right of-way is just by where the bike trail is, and technically, all of the signs
are in the right -of -way. There has been inconsistent application of the law because it isn't really known where the
right -of -way is.
Councilmember Awada questioned whether this is really s problem. Councilmember Hunter suggested the
city adopt a policy that election signs must be three feet from the bike trail. Councilmember Awada noted there
aren't bike trails on every street. Councilmember Awada stated she feels the county should enforce their ordinance
and the city should set a distance from the curb for city streets. Discussion followed concerning what other cities
do on this issue. Councilmember Awada noted that occasionally there are complaints about the number of signs,
but she would rather see them on main roads than in the neighborhoods. Planner Tyree noted that there is also
the issue of public property. Some people feel that public property is for their use. Councilmember Awada
suggested signs be allowed in the public right -of -way unless it obstructs visibility. Mayor Egan referred to the letter
from Gary Morgan, noting he doesn't feel there was any intentional singular treatment in the case of his signs during
the last election. His signs were clearly in violation. He doesn't feel there is a major problem with the current
enforcement. Councilmember Awada suggested signs be allowed no closer than 10 feet from the curb for any
public right -of -way. Councilmembers concurred. Awada added that the county should enforce their own ordinance
within the City of Eagan, and the Police Department will enforce the city's rules on county roads. Director of Public
Works Colbert suggested the ordinance state that it be outside the bike trail, but no closer than 10 feet if there is
no bike trail. The Council agreed to that. Councilmember Awada stressed that the 100 foot from a polling place
rule should be enforced.
Discussion followed concerning charging parties to get confiscated signs back. Finance Director
VanOverbeke suggested the city could hold the signs for 10 or 20 days and then destroy them. Councilmember
Hunter suggested they should be held until after the election. He feels it should be somewhat punitive. After some
discussion, it was felt that not much would be gained by holding them until after the election. Finance Director
VanOverbeke indicated he will prepare an policy according to the Council's direction and have the City Attorney
make sure it isn't in conflict with our ordinance.
The meeting adjourned at 9:28 p.m.
February 27, 1996
Date City Clerk
//6
0006
DLP
CITY COUNCIL POLICY
SUBJECT: ELECTION SIGNS
FORMATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
DATE ADOPTED: MAY 3, 1996
It is requested that election signs not be placed on any street between the curb and trail or
sidewalk. In areas where there are no trails or sidewalks, signs should be at least 10 feet from
the curb line. In addition, signs cannot create any visual obstruction or other safety hazard
There will be no prohibition against signs being on public property and no limit to the number
of signs per parcel.
City staff shall only enforce state law relating to election signs. Violations of Dakota County
regulations shall be enforced by Dakota County staff. Signs removed by City staff will be held
for a period of 10 days and may be picked up by the candidate at no cost.
City staff shall inform all prospective candidates of this policy and all prospective candidates
shall be responsible for voluntary compliance with this policy.
If yes, do you differentiate
between street/highway
rights of way and public
space such a City Hall, Fire
Stations and Parks?
2. Do you limit the
number or location of
signs on public
property? Yes /No
If yes to either, do the
limitations apply to any
campaign signs other than
elections for City offices?
(e.g. School Board or State
Offices)
If yes as to the locations,
please explain.
If yes, as to the number,
how many are allowed?
1. Does your City limit
the number and /or
location of campaign
si ns? Yes No
Not Allowed
Yes
(Applies to
garage sale,
political and
promotional
signs.)
N/A
Coco
a 3
_F 4
a-
N/A
Yes
Not allowed on public
Property.
Yes
Yes All campaign
si ns
=c 3 8 2
max. g a
3 '8 o d c
g p d Q
N/A
Yes
N/A
(Actual policy states
signs need to be dear of
public right of way.)
No
N/A
Z
N
as-q
*li b
2.
N/A
No
N/A
Z
O
N/A
Z
D
N/A
No
Placement of signs in public
right of way is prohibited.
Yes
N/A
square must maintain a 10
feet setback. Shall comply
with fair campaign practices
act in State of MN Statutes
Chapter 2118
N/A
Yes
Out of public right of way.
Yes to location.
Limitations apply to all
election si ns.
(boulevard area). State
statutes also apply.
N/A
Yes
//8
c
H
R
O 3
7 m
a
ro
3
R
fl a
ro N
01
d N
eoo
01
atc
8 N
3
3 z
0
O
3
m
n
01
co
C A
H S
s
H
01
m
a
Pr si
0
4 c
RI
n
R
d
R
3
m?
R
d
YI
01
7
3
z
/i9
Ix
0
m
c
0+
E
ao
c
3
N
4
A
01
Pr
c.
c
A
01
0
01
8. Do you apply
regulations to campaign
signs that are not
applied generally to all
signs e.g. "for sale" or
"garage sale" signs?
Yes /No
7. Do you enforce State
or County regulations in
your community?
Yes /No
E0 O MP
CZUM
S g g
v 7 0
nO
2g n
F
F
1 93
li
rD
if
No However, we
work together by
providing letters from
the State/County and
contacting candidates
when State/County
contacts us.
N Q. O G
1O uJ (D
C
a a`
g g4
fi
�4
6
O
O
ii
g
Yes/With regard to
location near polling
ace.
1
For Sale" and "Garage
Sale" signs are only allowed
on the property that is the
subject of the sale.
Campaign signs are allowed
on all private property with
the consent of the
landowner.
U
a%
O�
Yes
Yes, we enforce all
ulations.
r N N N
4 w ad
so 4 r
se t6 g
N
0
CD
y 0
fp
O
3
O
7
c
1
7
U
f0
m
11. Do you have any
limitations on the size of
campaign signs?
Yes /No
10. Is there any first
come first served
allocations/ limitation at
any high priority
locations? Yes /No
1
9. Do you have any type
of limit per candidate on
the number of signs
allowed in total not
related to location?
Yes /No
„ucaajun
If yes, what is the
difference and has your City
ever been challenged on
that issue?
Yes, but state
law supercedes
g
Timeframes are
different, also other
types of signs have
size regulations
No /State Regulations
N/A
Yes
N/A
Yes/Five Square feet
maximum except on
designated collector or
arterial streets where up to
32 square feet maximum is
permitted.
No /Must have permission of
property owner.
N/A
6
N/A
According to state statue,
all noncommercial signs
(political campaign signs) of
any size may be posted
from August until 10 days
following the state general
election.
More people call and
complain about campaign
signs when the signs are
placed incorrectly or over
the time limit than they do
about garage sale signs.
Enforcement is handled on a
complaint basis.
1 .2/
rr
m
O
i
If yes, from whom and
what is the nature of the
complaints.
12. Do you get many
election sign complaints
and whom do they
typically come from?
Yes /No
Most relate to
encroachment at
Intersections.
g
From dtlzens usually
that signs are on
public property or In
the dear view triangle.
Yes
Candidates or their
campaign
managers/signs in the
road right of way.
Yes
Mostly from
candidates of the
election.
Only If signs are located
in the street right of
way. Complaints will
come from a variety of
sources (i.e. residents,
ooundl members, the
opponent, dty staff,
etc.)
(See Below)
Almost on a daily basis once
the campaign signs go up. The
complaints come mostly from
residents and mostly about the
number of signs on public
property. Also get complaints
from candidates (or reps).
Yes
/0L2
c
m
Ul
et
0
c
ao
c
3
N
A
00
Z
a
0
Q
Z
0
U
d z
X CA
Q a w
a X X
F a
z L
o Q
a cn v
C v'
F N V) M
0 0 kn it
.rf M kA
2 N 2
00
W F
x W
Q U
c4 v)0
w
0 0 0 14O
M M GL
VD VD
s x 2Z
a
N M in V)
V) V) V) C/) 0/) V) C/) W
c4 v w VD VD W Et E 04
U U U U U U co
U E--
wv) LT4 M N N 0 "D N V) Z U
O
Ua'Z
00 C
OZ A U p
a a w Z O F
Z �w H F w E-0v) a 0 W
n O w Q W `4 a 0 P4O
O a E- 0. w D
O Z w Z cA a p Q w
o Z O o w 2 Q Q
Z ZL 3 z1-.,( z z a2
v) v) 0 v)� w U a n Ufx
Agenda Information Memo
November 21, 2000, Eagan City Council
X. OLD BUSINESS
A. SMC COMPOST SERVICES
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To review and comment on the information provided regarding SMC's intention to relocation of
a portion of its compost facility which is located north of Yankee Doodle Road at Elrene Road in
the SW 1 /4 of Section 12.
FACTS:
The compost facility has operated in this location since 1992. The site consists of three
parcels, Outlots G, H, and I, Gopher Eagan Industrial Park.
Outlot I is owned by the City and the City has plans to make use of that parcel for future park
development.
In May of 2000, the City renewed SMC's Interim Use Permit for one year.
Because of the City's park plans for Outlot I and the proximity of the compost site to
residential developments south of Yankee Doodle Road, the Council requested that SMC
start planning what additional land area they will occupy when they are required to vacate
Outlot I.
SMC has provided plans identifying property north and east of the existing compost site (Lot
1, Block 1, Gopher Eagan Industrial Park 3 Addn.) for their future use. This eastern portion
of this lot contains Resource Plastics, the plastics recycling facility that was constructed in
1997.
It is not SMC's intention at this time to relocate the entire compost facility. SMC plans to
continue to utilize Outlots G and H, but is proposing to relocate a portion of the compost
facility from Outlot I north and east to Lot 1.
Lot 1 is located further from the residential developments south of Yankee Doodle Road.
This site is also set back from Yankee Doodle Road, so the windrows and materials would
not be as visible to passing traffic and nearby residents. However, since SMC intends to
continue utilizing Outlots G and H, noise and odors produced by the facility will not be
eliminated entirely, but they won't be in as close proximity to the residences.
City Engineering and Parks staff have reviewed the site. Parks staff indicated that
coordination in grading activities will be necessary between the City and SMC at the time the
City develops the adjoining "North Park" property. Engineering indicated that this site will
require special attention to ensure that proper erosion control and water quality measures are
implemented.
The applicant is looking for feedback from the Council on their plans to pursue this site for
their future use. The applicant has not yet prepared detailed engineering plans for use of Lot
1, but will need to do so for their application to renew their interim use permit next spring.
ATTACHMENTS:
Location Map, page 425
Letter and Plans from SMC, pages j through
Location Map
Eagan Boundary
Street Centerline
Parcel Area
Building Footprint
d]
IMOD
own
Minn
N EI
lormairkS
MI
MI
1111k.
o a
Imollio
MEM
®1
a
e,
li
MI =CM MI
in ot
®0
WI
uJ��
®0
Sub
ect Site
WV
to o
a ®a■®
wvill
Me i s:
Sir
V41
ralinlillt il l
Lot 1
Ak
VIvitta&
in
Now
NNW
ill
Outlot
I
Outlot
H
Outlot
G
oall®®
NMI
MEM
i wig
im
IPPRIN
4203
iaif
bmmillIili
'w
I asa a�� etiaa.
i
iv
R
lee k.k.
®m®
•U i 111111�
I i W,tpLIj
fil
0
7/M
M d
lit
1000 0 1000 2000 Feet
Development /Developer: SMC Compost Service
4
City of Eagan
t; rv E S O T A
Community Development Department
Map Prepared using ERSI ArcView 3.1. Parcel base map data provided
by Dakota County Land Survey Department and is current as of August 2000.
THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY
The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this Information and are
not responsible for errors or omissions.
N
N' E
S
SMC
cowasr a wood WNW
Phone (507) 388 -3122 1905 Third Avenue, P.O. Box 3069, Mankato, Minnesota 56002 -3069 Fax (507) 625 -4907
October 24, 2000
City of Eagan Minnesota
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan MN 55122 1897
Dear Sirs:
Southem Minnesota Construction Co., Inc. Compost Services (SMC) proposes to relocate a portion of the compost
facility located at Yankee Doodle Road and Irene. The portion of the operation SMC would like to relocate is that
which is on the City of Eagan property designated for future use as part of a city park. SMC would like to move this
to the Outlot A of the Gopher Eagan Industrial Park Second Addition.
By moving the operations to this location the actual composting of leaves and grass would further be distanced
from local residents.
Lot 1 would be used for windrowing of yardwaste and piling of trees and brush.
Outlot G would be used for storage of finished products (compost, black dirt, landscape mulches, etc.)
Outlot H would be used for the office and parking, also small piles of specialty landscape mulches and
compost would be stored.
Thank you for your consideration, if you have any questions feel free to call me at (507) 388 -3122.
Respectfully,
Michael L. Guillemette
Solid Waste Manager
MLG:smh
Southern Minnesota Compost
A Division of SMC
M Equal Opportunity Employer
SMC
II 1� `'-1
,i„,„„,,,, i ,f rifr I l f`
1 .i 4R i I t i
I UI II I ff r
tlt
1 I'tt�l n ll\1\\
r I�� IIIk1Ij�I il A
i I� .0!�,\ \��r
11j 1 111�\\\\ ,14, \i\.�y\`_,►�. Itk‘ It V\\ Ny\\
\l y k i
1
�1� i j(
r1 c
\\\\\i‘\1\1\\\f‘i\i")‘,1\1111
I ll l 1114
illiallar
fo 3„�,
SV 1►
0
Z
W
0
W
J
!I
I!I
\.ii E
I
i
2
z
Z
1
0 0
Q Z
W C
W Q
IZ 0-
0
c i ii II/ iirl�'rii���ii
1 1 l l i /////////1//// i V/ ,1 1
1 1 /1 ;i"I
w
IY
IQ
L
avoei
3N3813
r
99°is i OON
p Z i
r. r
CA
W t
U.-. Ni+i'i l- ti I.
U
J. /1A
V VIV
i
iI(7V
%1�1 V 1
Ci
c 1
00'OLSI- j i
•33S JO 4i1 3S 3141 JO 3w/3 3141
2t)
1E
a0
z
M.91',ZO.00N
9£ Zit
t/1 MS 3141 MT7111 JO 31in 3
i1- 1 9
0 45 7
1 0 O S 11 z n
^r•I
I O
611-/1\ 1 1 A 11
1 V I(_v1 n.21 41
11
j 00'Stit L6l
M.11.L0.00N 4 r y
I, 1V }41,,Art I
1 I
a,
�a3 �s
‘4,,; ��4
8M5•'� b,s,�••
N0
st
yj
T.
Ai 44
I a
a Z 1 '03S JO t i t MS 3141 4O 1 31(1 M
12 'A.>S.>0.0051 t >t
-,4
40) b+' �N 14 �qkq iIi j
1 ela. 4° j e ti 1 o L b� sao
z
in
-.1,/.., Q 1 --=.4 O --=.4 `1,+ 1- i'1.,
1
si r �'''I ro 1W ,91e r
I`� v`1 W
',ph 1 Z c., n 1 I
C 1 l
'p ttt'Ot>t i 1
40'CLt 1 el>J N 'ON )IMVd 1VN .$f10N1 k13.1.1433 TIVONVOY3 JO 3Nn 3 it
09• II
I h
F 3.9Z.L0.0ON
•'1.1V/
4 1 �J 1 1 1In g ..":1 1 V
y
.rs h.
Agenda Information Memo
November 21, 2000 Eagan City Council
B. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (KENNERICK ADDITION) TRI -LAND
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve a Preliminary Subdivision (Kennerick Addition) to create 17 single family lots and
one outlot on 8.63 acres located northwest of Pilot Knob and Lone Oak Roads in the SE 1 /4 of
Section 4, subject to the conditions listed in the APC minutes.
FACTS:
The Council considered a similar subdivision proposal for this site in June of this year, at
which time the applicant requested a continuance of his application to be able to revise the
application in response to issues and concerns that had been raised. The proposal has since
been revised and incorporates several changes to the plans. The modifications include:
1. a reduction in the number of lots from 20 to 18 (including the outlot);
2. an increase in the average lot size from 16,199 to 18,124 square feet;
3. refined grading, drainage and water quality plans; and
4. a future street connection to the north.
The subject site consists of five parcels. The property is wooded with large variations in
topography, and contains two existing single- family homes. There is an existing
pond /wetland to the west of the development site.
The site is located within Airport Noise Policy Zone 4, and single family residential
development is considered a conditional use within Zone 4.
The property is zoned R -1, Single Family Residential, and the applicant proposes to create 17
lots for single family development; two of the lots (Lot 1 and 14) will contain existing
homes. One outlot is also proposed, which meets R -1 lot requirements and could be replatted
as a lot for future construction of a single family home.
Access to the site is proposed via Vincent Court, a public street to be constructed north and
west from Lone Oak Road into this development. Vincent Court is configured as a temporary
cul -de -sac, designed for future extension to the north.
Tree removal is 28% of significant woodlands on the site, which is less than the 40% removal
allowed by City Code.
A new storm water basin is proposed to be constructed on Lot 8 Zehnder Acres (located
southwest of the development site) southeast of the existing pond/wetland (Pond HDP -1)
which is located west of the site. Storm drainage would then flow from this constructed
basin into Pond HDP -1.
Pond HDP -1 does not currently have a pipe outlet for drainage control, or public easement for
ponding purposes. On October 3, 2000, the City Council authorized preparation of a
feasibility report for a trunk storm sewer improvement that would include installation of a
storm sewer pipe outlet from Pond HDP -1 to Pond HP -11 (to the northwest near Skyline
Road) and acquisition of easements. Results of the feasibility report are not yet available.
The Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed this revised subdivision proposal
on October 16, 2000, and recommended approval.
/30
The Advisory Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 24, 2000, and
recommended approval of the Preliminary Subdivision.
ISSUES:
As directed by the City Council in June, the applicant hosted an informational meeting with
neighboring residents on October 10, 2000, to discuss the modifications in the subdivision
plan. Neighboring residents acknowledged improvements in the plans with regard to the lot
count and lot sizes. However, concern remained about the impact to Pond HDP -1, the
potential costs of assessments related to the trunk storm sewer improvement, and the
aesthetics of the new stormwater basin that is proposed to be constructed.
Correspondence from residents concerning the initial subdivision proposal is attached. Staff
has not received any new written correspondence from surrounding neighbors concerning this
revised proposal.
ATTACHMENTS:
October 24, 2000 and April 20, 2000 APC Minutes, pages /3Qthrough /3 V
June 20, 2000 City Council Minutes, pages i3Slhreuglr
Staff report, pages /3 4 through
Correspondence, pages L5Zthrough
/3/
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EAGAN ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
OCTOBER 24, 2000
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION TRI -LAND SURVEYING COMPANY, INC.
Chair Heyl opened the first public hearing of the evening regarding a preliminary subdivision (Kennerick
Addition) of 8.61 acres to create 17 single family Lots and one outlot, legally described as Lot 4, and part of
Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Zehnder Acres, located north of Lone Oak Road, west of Pilot Knob Road in the SE ''A
of Section 4.
Planner Dudziak introduced this item and highlighted the background and history, the existing conditions
and the surrounding uses of the subject property. She stated this proposal had a public hearing with the
Advisory Planning Commission in April, and was considered by the City Council in June. In response to
concerns and issues raised during the'public hearing and at the Council meeting, the developer requested a
continuance of his application. The developer has since revised the plans to incorporate some changes to
the plans.
There were six residents who spoke expressing their concerns regarding lot sizes, impact on the wildlife in
the area, impact on the existing pond, decrease in property values, and the overall beauty of the area.
There being no further comment, Chair Heyl closed the public hearing and brought the discussion back to
the Commission.
Brad Swenson, applicant, addressed the concerns of the residents, including the history of the pond, the
density of the proposed development and smaller lots adjoining the property.
Member Tilley questioned the wetland delineation. Mr. Swenson stated there will be another pond
incorporated within the wetland area.
3:L
Advisory Planning Commission
October 24, 2000
Page 2
Design Engineer John Gorder stated that the feasibility study for the area was authorized on October 3 and
it usually takes three to four months to complete at which time the City Council will schedule a public
hearing. He also discussed erosion control plans.
Member Segal asked about letters of opposition that had been filed by Gail McMahon, owner of the subject
property, and questioned the purpose of the proposed outlot. Mr. Swenson explained that Ms. McMahon
had opposed an earlier version of the plan but that she is in agreement with the current proposal. He
explained that the outlot will still be owned by Ms. McMahon who may choose to develop it at a future
date.
Ms. McMahon was present and confirmed the statements made by Mr. Swenson.
Member Segal asked if the proposed Outlot A would be a buildable lot. Planner Dudziak stated it was
buildable but would have to be platted at the time of development.
Member Nosbush asked about the drainpipe that will have to be constructed across multiple properties.
Design Engineer Gorder explained that the outlet pipe to be constructed between the two ponds is in the
City's Capital Improvement Plan and would need to be constructed irrespective of Mr. Swenson's project.
Chair Heyl stated that the developer has decreased the size of the proposed development by two lots since
its original review by the Commission and meets the City requirements. She explained that condition
number six in the planning report regarding the public improvement project providing for a pipe outlot
from, and acquisition of ponding easement over, HDP -1 must be approved by the City Council prior to
final subdivision approval. She further stated that the proposed development is within the City guidelines
for tree preservation.
Member Tilley stated she is pleased that the size of the lots has increased but does not feel the project is
ready for approval.
Chair Heyl asked if potential buyers would be notified of the airport noise. Mr. Swenson stated that the
issue would be included in a disclosure statement.
Member Segal stated he understands the concerns of the residents but the proposed development meets City
requirements and the developer has a right to develop the property.
Member Huusko moved, Member Segal seconded a motion to recommend approval of a Preliminary
Subdivision (Kennerick Addition) to create 17 lots and one outlot on 8.63 acres located northwest of Pilot
Knob and Lone Oak Roads in the SE 1/4 of Section 4 subject to the following conditions:
1. The developer shall comply with these standards condition of plat approval as adopted by Council
on February 3, 1993: Al, B1, 2,3,4, C1, C2, C3, D1, and El.
2. The property shall be platted.
3. Architectural designs and construction methods for new construction within the development shall
incorporate sound attenuation standards sufficient to achieve an interior sound level of 45 dBA as
compared with a noise level of 65 DNL.
4. The developer shall verify compliance with required setbacks for the existing structures on Lots 1
and 14 prior to final subdivision approval.
5. The developer shall be subject to stringent temporary and permanent erosion control requirements
in accordance with City standards. Erosion control measures shall be properly installed and
effectively maintained (particularly to the west of the proposed cul -de -sac where the topography is
steep) throughout the development process to prevent and minimize soil loss and impacts to down
gradient resources and water quality.
/33
Advisory Planning Commission
October 24, 2000
Page 3
6. A public improvement project providing for a pipe outlet from, and acquisition of ponding
easement over, HDP -1 shall be approved by the City Council prior to final subdivision approval
for this development.
7. This development shall meet the City's water quality requirements by creating a stormwater
treatment basin with a minimum wet -pond volume of 0.44 acre -feet covering an area of 0.22 acres.
The stormwater treatment pond shall be constructed according to NURP standards with a
maximum depth of 6 feet, a 10:1 aquatic bench, and an outlet skimmer according to City design
standards.
8. With the exception of the area adjacent to the constructed stormwater treatment pond, a minimum
30 -foot wide buffer of natural, undisturbed vegetation outside the boundary of the wetland shall be
maintained before, during, and after construction.
9. The existing house on Lot 14 shall be connected to the City utility system (sanitary sewer and
water main) as part of this subdivision
10. All well and septic systems within the subdivision shall be abandoned in accordance with City and
Dakota County standards.
11. The developer shall be responsible for obtaining public street easement over Parcel 051 -00 to
allow for the extension of the public street prior to final subdivision approval for this development
in a form and text approved by the City Attorney.
12. To ensure the protection of preserved woodlands /trees; individual lot tree preservation plans shall
be required for lots 2 -9, 11 -13, and 15 -17 at the time of building permit application.
13. Tree protective measures (i.e. orange colored silt fence or 4 foot polyethylene laminate safety
netting) shall be installed at the Drip Line or at the perimeter of the Critical Root Zone, whichever
is greater, of significant trees /woodlands to be preserved.
14. The applicant shall contact the City Forestry Division and set up a pre construction site inspection
at least five days prior to the issuance of the grading permit to ensure compliance with the
approved Tree Preservation Plan and placement of the tree Protection Fencing.
15. This development shall be responsible for a cash parks dedication and a cash trails dedication for
Lots 2 -13 and 15 -17.
A vote was taken on the motion. Aye: 6 Nay: 1. Member Tilley opposed.
/3
EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES; JUNE 20, 2000
PAGE8
report.
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION VARIANCE, TRI -LAND SURVEYING COMPANY, INC.
(KENNERICK ADDITION)
Councilmember Carlson abstained from participating in discussion and voting on this item.
City Administrator Hedges provided an overview on this item. Senior Planner Ridley gave a staff
Mayor Awada stated that this property is zoned R -1 and the developer has the right to develop it for
single- family use. She said that the Council has authority over certain aspects of the development such as the
layout of the subdivision, the size of the lots and access. She added that the Advisory Planning Commission
had pointed out that the density and lot size of this subdivision does not match the surrounding area. She
concurred with the APC's position. Councilmember Masin asked if this property was discussed as part of
the Comprehensive Guide Plan review. Senior Planner Ridley noted that this property is zoned and guided
consistently.
Councilmember Bakken stated that he concurred with the findings of the APC and added that he
was not comfortable with the plat as shown. He expressed concern about the lack of access to the north.
Councilmember Bakken moved, Mayor Awada seconded a motion to direct the City Attorney to
prepare Findings of Fact for denial.
Mayor Awada noted that another option would be for the developer to request a continuance and
appear before the APC with a revised plat.
Brad Swenson, developer, stated that he has contracts with the property owner that will expire in
June. He explained that he needed to wait until the end of May to proceed with his application in order for
the wetland delineation to be completed. He requested a continuance from the Council.
Councilmember Bakken withdrew his previous motion and moved continuance of the item.
City Attorney Sheldon stated that the applicant should meet with Senior Planner Ridley and
determine the date the item should be continued to. Mayor Awada stated that the plat would need to be
considered by the APC again.
Councilmember Masin asked if it would be possible for the developer to hold another neighborhood
meeting. Mr. Swenson indicated that a neighborhood meeting would be held. Councilmember Masin
inquired about the ponding issue. Director of Public Works Colbert explained that trunk area storm water
improvements would be required with this development. Councilmember Blomquist stated that it would be
important to consider the amount of the trunk area storm sewer assessments to the residents in the area. She
added that the developer does have the right to develop this property. Councilmember Masin noted that the
two main concerns appear to be the amount of the assessments and the aesthetic compatibility to the
surrounding area. She suggested the residents form a cooperative and buy some of the available land.
Mayor Awada told the developer that she did not think it would be feasible to get 19 lots in this
development and stated that the Council will be looking to ensure that the development is compatible with
the surrounding area. Discussion occurred regarding notification to the residents about the future of this
proposal. Senior Planner Ridley noted that residents would be re- noticed even if the development does not
go forward.
Mayor Awada seconded Councilmember Bakken's motion to continue this item. A vote was taken
on the motion. Aye: 4 Nay: 0
A resident of 1455 Lone Oak Road clarified that the residents do own the property that the pond is
located on. /3
PROPERTY OWNER: Eileen Kennedy
Kenneth M. Erickson
Carol Erickson
Gail McMahon
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW
Subdivision:
PLANNING REPORT
CITY OF EAGAN
REPORT DATE: October 19, 2000 CASE: 04- PS- 09 -04 -99
APPLICANT: Tri-land Surveying HEARING DATE: October 24, 2000
REQUEST: Preliminary Subdivision
LOCATION: Northwest of Lone Oak and Pilot Knob Roads
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: D -I, Single Family Residential
ZONING: R -1, Single Family Residential
PREPARED BY: Pamela Dudziak
Triland Surveying Company, Inc. is requesting approval of a Preliminary Subdivision
(Kennerick Addition) to create 17 lots and one outlot on 8.63 acres located northwest of Pilot
Knob and Lone Oak Roads in the SE% of Section 4.
City Code Section 13.20 Subd. 6 states that "In the case of platting, the Planning Commission
and the Council shall be guided by criteria, including the following, in approving, denying or
establishing conditions related thereto:
A. That the proposed subdivision does comply with applicable City Code provisions and the
Comprehensive Guide Plan.
B. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision complies with applicable
plans of Dakota County, State of Minnesota, or the Metropolitan Council.
C. That the physical characteristics of the site including, but not limited to, topography,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, water storage
/36
Planning Report Kennerick Addition
October 24, 2000
Page 2
and retention are such that the site is suitable for the type of development or use
contemplated.
D. That the site physically is suitable for the proposed density of development.
E. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvement is not likely to cause
environmental damage.
F. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause
health problems.
G. That the design of the subdivision or the improvements will not conflict with easements
of record or with easements established by judgment of court.
H. That completion of the proposed development of the subdivision can be completed in a
timely manner so as not to cause an economic burden upon the City for maintenance,
repayment of bonds, or similar burden.
I. That the subdivision has been properly planned for possible solar energy system use
within the subdivision or as it relates to adjacent property. (Refer to City Handbook on
Solar Access).
J. That the design of public improvements for the subdivision is compatible and consistent
with the platting or approved preliminary plat on adjacent lands.
K. That the subdivision is in compliance with those standards set forth in that certain
document entitled "City of Eagan Water Quality Management Plan for the Gun Club
Lake Watershed Management Organization" which document is properly approved and
filed with the office of the City Clerk hereinafter referred to as the "Water Quality
Management Plan". Said document and all of the notations, references and other
information contained therein shall have the same force and effect as if fully set down
herein and is hereby made a part of this Chapter by reference and incorporated herein as
fully as if set forth herein at length. It shall be the responsibility of the City Clerk to
maintain the Water Quality Management Plan and make the same available to the
public."
BACKGROUND/HISTORY
The proposed subdivision consists of five parcels, two of which contain existing single family
homes. Most of the homes surrounding the development site were built in the 1950s and 1960s,
with only a few constructed in the 1970s and 1980s. Prior to 1970 when this area initially
developed, Eagan was a rural town with a population of less than 10,000. The 1 -3 acre lots in
this area are typical of the development pattern at that time. As developable land becomes more
/3
Planning Report Kennerick Addition
October 24, 2000
Page 3
scarce and more costly, the City is likely to see more proposals like this one for infill
development and redevelopment in these less densely developed areas of the City.
This proposal had a public hearing with the Advisory Planning Commission in April, and was
considered by the City Council in June. In response to concerns and issues raised during the
public hearing and at the Council meeting, the developer requested a continuance of his
application. The developer has since revised the plans to incorporate some changes to the plans.
First, the number of lots has been reduced from 20 to 18 (including the outlot), and the average
lot size (including the outlot) has increased from 16,199 to 18,124 square feet. Second, the
grading, drainage and water quality plans have been redesigned and refined. Lastly, the plans
show a future street connection to the north.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The site is moderately to heavily wooded with large variations in topography, and contains two
existing single family homes. One of the existing houses is located on the southeast corner (built
in 1966) and the other in the south central part of the site (built in 1959). There is an existing
pond to the west of the development site.
SURROUNDING USES
The following existing uses, zoning, and comprehensive guide plan designations surround the
subject property:
North Single family homes; zoned R -1 (Single Family Residential); guided D -I (Single
Family Residential)
South Pilot Knob Elementary School/Timberwood Village Townhomes; zoned P (Public)/PD
(Planned Development); guided PF (Public Facilities)/D-111 (Mixed Residential)
East Single family homes; zoned R -1; guided D -I
West Single family homes and pond; zoned R -1; guided D -I
EVALUATION OF REQUEST
Compatibility with Surrounding Area The proposed single family use is consistent with the
development of surrounding properties.
Airport Noise Considerations The City of Eagan considered airport noise as a factor in its
Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan. The Metropolitan Council has adopted an Aviation Chapter
in the Metropolitan Development Guide that anticipates the impacts from the continued operation
of the airport at its current location. The noise policy contours in Eagan place the subject property
within Noise Zone 4.
/38
Planning Report Kennerick Addition
October 24, 2000
Page 4
Within this area, infill single family residential development would be conditional. To approve
such development in this area, the City Council would need to make acceptable findings concerning
the following:
1. Specific nature of the proposed use, including the extent of outdoor activities.
2. Relationship of the proposed use to other planning considerations, including adjacent land
use activities, consistency with overall comprehensive planning and relation to other
metropolitan systems.
3. Frequency of exposure of proposed uses to aircraft overflight.
4. Location of proposed use relative to aircraft flight tracks and aircraft on- ground operating
and maintenance areas.
5. Location, site design and construction restrictions to be imposed by the community of the
proposed use with respect to reduction of exterior to interior noise transmissions and
shielding of outdoor activities.
6. Method community will use to inform future occupant of proposed building of potential
noise from aircraft operations.
7. Extent to which community restricts the building from having facilities for outdoor activities
associated with the use.
8. Distance of proposed use from existing or proposed runways, parallel taxiways or engine
run -up areas.
With respect to the factual aspects of the findings, the property lies approximately 2.5 miles
southeast of the nearest runway at the airport. On an annual average, approximately half of all
arrivals and departures can be expected to use the runways to and from the southeast. Upon
completion, approximately one -third of all arrivals and departures are expected to use the north-
south runway. At current traffic levels, the airport handles approximately 510,000 operations
annually. Because of the relationship of the property to the current departure and arrival procedures
and the runway centerlines, a significant portion of the departures and arrivals will track over or
near the property. The property is approximately three miles from the engine maintenance and run
up area. (Issues #3, 4 and 8)
While the Stage III airline fleet, federally mandated by the year 2000, will create less noise per
operation than the current fleet, the future net effect of such reductions is not certain. As such,
regional policy requires that cities take current noise levels into account until such time as
reductions in actual noise result in a reduction of the policy contours.
/3
Planning Report Kennerick Addition
October 24, 2000
Page 5
As part of its updated Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan, the City will depict the Metropolitan
Council's noise policy contours on its land use and zoning maps. This will serve as notice to future
occupants of the potential noise from aircraft operations. (Issue #6)
If the City determines that findings concerning these conditions support the approval of this
application for in -fill development, architectural designs and construction methods for new
construction within the development should incorporate sound attenuation standards sufficient to
achieve an interior sound level of 45 dBA as compared with a noise level of 65 DNL (based on
the inside boundary of the noise zone). This would require an inside noise level reduction of at
least 20 dBA (DNL level minus required dBA level). (Issue #5)
Lots The proposed subdivision creates 18 parcels, two of which will contain the existing
residences (Lots 1 and 14), and one outlot. The proposed outlot is located between Lots 13 and
14, however, with the lot line between them angled to accommodate the existing house and
satisfy required setbacks, the configuration of Lot 14 and the outlot is somewhat odd.
The R -1 zoning standards require a minimum lot width of 85 feet (at the front setback line), and
a minimum lot area of 12,000 square feet. City Code also requires a minimum street frontage of
50 feet. Lots 1 -17 all satisfy these minimum dimensional requirements. Since the outlot also
meets these City Code requirements, it could be platted as a lot and a home could be constructed
on it in the future.
The average lot size is 1 8,124 square feet; the median lot size is 15,376 square feet. Both of
these calculations include the outlot.
Density The proposed development has a gross density of 2.09 units per acre (including the
outlot), and a net density (excluding right -of -way) of 2.4 units per acre.
Setbacks The R -1 zoning district requires minimum setbacks as follows: 30 feet from a public
right of way, 10 feet from side lot lines (5 feet for the garage), and 15 feet from the rear lot line.
All of the lots appear to be able to satisfy these minimum setbacks, including the existing
structures on Lots 1 and 14. The developer will need to verify the compliance of the setbacks of
existing structures from new lot lines prior to final subdivision approval.
Grading The preliminary grading plan is acceptable with modifications. The site is moderately
to heavily wooded and generally slopes to the west with large variations in topography. Due to
the large variations in topography, the developer will be subject to stringent temporary and
permanent erosion control requirements in accordance with City standards. Such erosion control
measures shall be properly installed and effectively maintained (particularly to the west of the
proposed cul -de -sac where the topography is steep) throughout the development process to
prevent and minimize soil loss and impacts to down gradient resources and water quality.
Storm Drainage The preliminary storm drainage plan is acceptable with modifications. Storm
water runoff from the development will drain via public storm sewer to a new storm water basin
/y
Planning Report Kennerick Addition
October 24, 2000
Page 6
on Lot 8, Zehnder Acres (owned by developer) and subsequently to Pond HDP -1 (as designated
in the City Storm Water Management Plan 1990). Pond HDP -1 currently does not have a pipe
outlet for drainage control or public easement for ponding purposes. A storm sewer pipe outlet
from Pond HDP -1 to Pond HP -11 to the northwest (near Skyline Road) is identified as a trunk
storm sewer improvement in the City's current Capital Improvement Program. On October 3,
2000, the City Council authorized the preparation of a feasibility report (City Project No. 806)
that will outline the scope, financing and schedule of this trunk storm sewer improvement. Final
subdivision approval for this development is contingent upon approval by the City Council of a
public improvement project providing for this pipe outlet and acquisition of ponding easement
over HDP -1.
Wetlands/Water Quality This development is located in the City's H- watershed, which is in the
northwest corner of Eagan but which is not associated with any high priority waterbody.
Nevertheless, the development must meet the City's water quality requirement to treat
stormwater runoff from the site. The development proposes to do so by directing stormwater to a
treatment basin to be constructed adjacent to a natural wetland (City Pond HDP -1). Under the
previous proposal reviewed by the Advisory Parks Commission on April 17, 2000, the wetland
was to be excavated to accommodate the stormwater. However, with changes to the Minnesota
Wetland Conservation Act that became effective August 1, 2000, such excavation in this type of
wetland is now regulated similarly as draining and filling activities.
Requirements for volume and area of water quality treatment ponds are based on the impervious
proportion of proposed developments (i.e., land covered by buildings, parking lots, driveways,
and walks). With an impervious fraction of 18 percent, a minimum wet -pond volume of 0.44
acre -feet covering an area of 0.22 acres would be needed to treat the stormwater generated by this
development. The stormwater treatment pond should be constructed according to NURP
standards with a maximum depth of six feet, a 10:1 aquatic bench, and an outlet skimmer
according to City design standards.
A 0.6 -acre natural wetland is located to the southwest of the planned subdivision. This Type 5
wetland falls under the jurisdiction of both the Wetland Conservation Act of Minnesota (WCA),
administered locally by the City, and Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, administered
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Any proposals to drain, fill, or excavate these types of
wetlands need to meet the provisions of these laws. This development is now proposed not to
impact the wetland by excavating. However, to meet its water quality requirement to treat
stormwater runoff from the site, this development would need to disturb some of the area
alongside the wetland where the stormwater treatment basin is to be constructed. With the
exception of this area, a minimum 30 -foot wide buffer of natural, undisturbed vegetation outside
the boundary of the wetland shall be maintained before, during, and after construction.
In several areas of this development, the topography of the site requires proper installation and
effective maintenance of erosion control practices to prevent and minimize soil loss and impacts
to down gradient resources and water quality.
Planning Report Kennerick Addition
October 24, 2000
Page 7
Utilities The preliminary utility plan is acceptable with modifications. Sanitary sewer and
water main is available in the northwest corner of the site to serve the development.
The existing house on Lot 14 is currently served by well and sanitary septic systems. This house
should be connected to the City sanitary sewer and water main systems as part of this
subdivision. All well and septic systems within the subdivision should be abandoned in
accordance with City and Dakota County standards.
Access /Street Design Public street access is proposed via Vincent Court, a 1000 -foot long
street (with a temporary cul -de -sac) to be constructed north and west from Lone Oak Road as
part of this development. The street will be configured for future extension north to serve and
connect with possible future development of property to the north. The future street extension
will provide a north -south connection between Skyline Road and Lone Oak Road.
Easements/ Permits Right -of -Way Dakota County is requiring the dedication of an additional
25 feet of public right -of -way along Lone Oak Road (County Road 26), as shown on the
preliminary plat.
The developer is proposing to extend the public street for the development over the east 20 feet
of Parcel 051-00 within an existing private road easement. The developer shall be responsible
for obtaining public street utility easement over Parcel 051-00 to allow for the extension of the
public street and water main.
Tree Preservation A tree inventory submitted with this application indicates that there are
111,317 square feet of significant woodlands on site. Species composition of the woodlands is
primarily comprised of softwood deciduous trees (elm, cottonwood, boxelder and ash).
The development as proposed will result in the removal of 31,430 square feet of significant
woodlands (28% of the total). According to the City of Eagan Tree Preservation Ordinance
allowable tree removal for this type of development proposal (single phase, multiple -lot, single
family residential) is set at 40% of the total significant vegetation. With a proposed removal less
than the allowable amount, there is no required tree mitigation for this proposal.
Recognizing that the application proposes to perform site preparation for the entire site at the
time of initial development, there is to be no additional woodland/tree removal with the
construction of each individual lot. If additional removal is requested at the time of individual
lot development, all woodland/trees removed will be required to be mitigated per City of Eagan
Tree Preservation Ordinance Tree Replacement Schedule.
To ensure the protection of preserved woodlands /trees, individual lot tree preservation plans
should be required for lots 2 -9, 11 -13, and 15 -17 at the time of building permit application. Tree
Protective measures (i.e. orange colored silt fence or 4 foot polyethylene laminate safety netting)
should be installed at the Drip Line or at the perimeter of the Critical Root Zone, whichever is
greater, of significant trees /woodlands to be preserved. In addition, the applicant should contact
/y1
Planning Report Kennerick Addition
October 24, 2000
Page 8
the City Forestry Division and set up a pre construction site inspection at least five days prior to
the issuance of the grading permit to ensure compliance with the approved Tree Preservation
Plan and placement of the Tree Protection Fencing.
Parks and Recreation Lots 2 -13 and 15 -17 are subject to a cash parks dedication and a cash
trails dedication, payable prior to release of the final plat for recording, at the rate in effect at that
time. The dedication amounts based on the 2000 fee schedule are $1,272.00 per lot for parks,
and $168.00 per lot for trails.
SUMMARY /CONCLUSION
Tri-land Surveying is requesting approval of a Preliminary Subdivision to create 17 single
family lots and one outlot on 8.63 acres. This proposal was before the Advisory Planning
Commission earlier this year, and since that time the proposed subdivision has been modified in
several ways. First, the number of lots has been reduced from 19 to 17; the outlot remains.
Second, as a result of the reduction in lots, the average lot size has increased from 16,199 to
18,124 square feet. Third, the proposed street is shown as a temporary cul -de -sac and is designed
for future extension to the north. And finally, the grading, drainage and water quality plans have
been revised; storm drainage and water quality ponding no longer include excavation of the
adjacent wetland.
Prior to final subdivision approval, a public improvement project providing for a pipe outlet
from, and acquisition of ponding easement over, Pond HDP -1 must be approved by the City
Council. Also, the developer will need to obtain a public street easement over Parcel 051 -00 for
the west half of Vincent Court at Lone Oak Road.
Single family development is a conditional use within Airport Noise Policy Zone 4 and in order
to approve the Preliminary Subdivision, the Advisory Planning Commission and City Council
would need to determine acceptable findings relative to the eight items listed in this report
regarding airport noise compatibility and make a statement to that effect.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED
To recommend approval of a Preliminary Subdivision (Kennerick Addition) to create 17 lots
and one outlot on 8.63 acres located northwest of Pilot Knob and Lone Oak Roads in the SE1/4 of
Section 4. If approved, the following conditions should apply.
1. The developer shall comply with these standards conditions of plat approval as adopted by
Council on February 3, 1993: Al, B1, 2, 3, 4 Cl, C2, C3, D1, and El.
2. The property shall be platted.
Planning Report Kennerick Addition
October 24, 2000
Page 9
Airport Noise Considerations
3. Architectural designs and construction methods for new construction within the
development shall incorporate sound attenuation standards sufficient to achieve an interior
sound level of 45 dBA as compared with a noise level of 65 DNL.
Setbacks
4. The developer shall verify compliance with required setbacks for the existing structures on
Lots 1 and 14 prior to final subdivision approval.
Grading
5. The developer shall be subject to stringent temporary and permanent erosion control
requirements in accordance with City standards. Erosion control measures shall be properly
installed and effectively maintained (particularly to the west of the proposed cul -de -sac
where the topography is steep) throughout the development process to prevent and minimize
soil loss and impacts to down gradient resources and water quality.
Storm Drainage
6. A public improvement project providing for a pipe outlet from, and acquisition of ponding
easement over, HDP -1 shall be approved by the City Council prior to final subdivision
approval for this development.
Wetlands/Water Ouality
7. This development shall meet the City's water quality requirements by creating a stormwater
treatment basin with a minimum wet -pond volume of 0.44 acre -feet covering an area of 0.22
acres. The stormwater treatment pond shall be constructed according to NURP standards
with a maximum depth of 6 feet, a 10:1 aquatic bench, and an outlet skimmer according to
City design standards.
8. With the exception of the area adjacent to the constructed stormwater treatment pond, a
minimum 30 -foot wide buffer of natural, undisturbed vegetation outside the boundary of the
wetland shall be maintained before, during, and after construction.
Utilities
9. The existing house on Lot 14 shall be connected to the City utility system (sanitary sewer
and water main) as part of this subdivision.
10. All well and septic systems within the subdivision shall be abandoned in accordance with
City and Dakota County standards.
Planning Report Kennerick Addition
October 24, 2000
Page 10
Easements/Permits/Right-of-way
11. The developer shall be responsible for obtaining public street easement over Parcel 051 -00
to allow for the extension of the public street prior to final subdivision approval for this
development in a form and text approved by the City Attorney.
Tree Preservation
12. To ensure the protection of preserved woodlands /trees, individual lot tree preservation plans
shall be required for lots 2 -9, 11 -13, and 15 -17 at the time of building permit application.
13. Tree Protective measures (i.e. orange colored silt fence or 4 foot polyethylene laminate
safety netting) shall be installed at the Drip Line or at the perimeter of the Critical Root
Zone, whichever is greater, of significant trees /woodlands to be preserved.
14. The applicant shall contact the City Forestry Division and set up a pre construction site
inspection at least five days prior to the issuance of the grading permit to ensure compliance
with the approved Tree Preservation Plan and placement of the Tree Protection Fencing.
Parks and Recreation
15. This development shall be responsible for a cash parks dedication and a cash trails
dedication for Lots 2 13 and 15 17.
s
A. Financial Obligations
C. Plans and Specifications
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL
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 -Wav
1. This development shall dedicate 10 -foot drainage and utility easements
centered over all lot lines and, in addition, where necessary to accommodate
existing or proposed utilities for drainage ways within the plat. The
development shall dedicate easements of sufficient width and location as
determined necessary by engineering standards.
2. This development shall dedicate, provide, or financially guarantee the
acquisition costs of drainage, ponding, and utility easements in addition to
public street rights-of-way as required by the alignment, depth, and storage
capacity of all required public utilities and streets located beyond the
boundaries of this plat as necessary to service or accommodate this
development.
3. This development shall dedicate all public right -of -way and temporary slope
easements for ultimate development of adjacent roadways as required by the
appropriate jurisdictional agency.
4. This development shall dedicate adequate drainage and ponding easements
to incorporate the required high water elevation plus three (3) feet as
necessitated by storm water storage volume requirements.
1. All public and private streets, drainage systems and utilities necessary to
provide service to this development shall be designed and certified by a
registered professional engineer in accordance with City adopted codes,
engineering standards, guidelines and policies prior to application for final
plat approval.
2. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion, and sediment control plan must be
prepared in accordance with current City standards prior to final plat
approval.
3. This development shall ensure that all dead -end public streets shall have a
cul -de -sac constructed in accordance with City engineering standards.
D. Public Improvements
H. Other
LTSIS
STANOARO.CON
4. A separate detailed landscape plan shall be submitted overlaid on the
proposed grading and utility plan. The financial guarantee for such plan
shall be included in the Development Contract and shall not be released
until one year after the date of City certified compliance.
1. If any improvements are to be installed under a City contract, the appropriate
project must be approved by Council action prior to final plat approval.
E. Permits
1. This development shall be responsible for the acquisition of all regulatory
agency permits required by the affected agency prior to final plat approval.
F. Parks and Trails Dedication
1 This development shall fulfill its park and trail dedication requirements as
recommended by the Advisory Parks, Recreation and Natural Resource
Commission and approved by Council action.
G. Water Quality Dedication
1. This development shall be responsible for providing a cash dedication,
ponding, or a combination thereof in accordance with the criteria identified
in the City's Water Quality Management Plan, as recommended by the
Advisory Parks, Recreation and Natural Resource Commission and
approved by Council action.
1. All subdivision, zoning and other ordinances affecting this development shall
be adhered to, unless specifically granted a variance by Council action.
Advisory Planning Commission City Council
Approved: August 25, 1987 September 15, 1987
Revised: July 10, 1990
Revised: February 2, 1993
FINANCIAL OBLIGATION Kennerick Addition
There are pay -off balances of special assessments totaling -0- on the parcels proposed
for platting. The pay -off balance will be allocated to the lots created by the plat.
At this time, there are no pending assessments on the parcels proposed for platting.
This estimated financial obligation is subject to change based upon the areas, dimensions
and land uses contained in the final plat.
Based upon the study of the financial obligations collected in the past and the uses
proposed for the property, the following charges are proposed. The charges are
computed using the City's existing fee schedule and for the connection and availability of
the City's utility system.
IMPROVEMENT USE RATE QUANTITY AMOUNT
Sanitary sewer trunk S.F. $900 /lot 15 lots $13,500
Water trunk S.F. $940/lot 15 lots $14,1000
Storm sewer trunk S.F. .086 /sq ft 326,700 Sq. Ft. (1)$28,096
TOTAL $55,696
(1) Credit not given for Ponding Areas. Credit will be given when the ponding areas are
known.
Pfg
WirCr
11 rim J an 1
t
d FOSQ�O, Imo
EN X60 ■i!G
v W A! 1PNA
n
0
v
�iO:G:000GGOGCGG GG17ied
r•
IP
C�oaA���■
itt:■1*
Gamtlitki an L E
1
e
1
1
I
Ir
chna
4
r
4
ove
We
VFP ya m
SW
o v a.' VI
,�p'k4
PENN 44
in tam
1 ;t1;'
K3
nin
MCI
Uri
I
In
0
1000
1000
IN
2000 Feet
Development/Developer: Kinnerick Addition
Application: Preliminary Subdivision
Case No.: 04-PS -09 -0499
Mop Primed tarp EPSl Arc .w 11. Ansel bre mop d.a prodded
ty Mans CaseylaxlSwayDrp.trj.ntadIsaa *ss
THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY
The City of Eagan and Dakot do net yaarante• the accuracy of this Information and ere
not rospen MF for errors or emissions.
City of Eagan
Cosiesmally a.vS1. ..t Department
Location Map
Sagan Boundary
!Brent Centerline
Parcel Area
Building Pootpelnt
Current Zoning and Comprehensive Guide Plan
Land Use Map
Kennerick Addition
Case No. 04 -OS -09 -04-99
Current Zoning:
Zoning Map
R -1
Single Family Residential
N.
N.
,IN F..t
ass■■ ■EREDli■i■
R,
1
MINE
ENE
0.1! nun NM Mr IQ 111 0
Mar atio- Ins es 1
AL,IE HMI Location r
i 0 11iO1 r 111 mi n
141 Ilitirt" �■■.t. Isis
I eat al
i ■i■ �a�ioo 8J
1.1
ovzuwo
gi
/i�' \1
1
F,
Comprehensive Guide Plan
Land Use Map
Current Land Use Designation:
D -1
Single Family Residenial
N.
N.
1311 •..t
Effl ■■■irasu-
k im
8W
NI
anissm■■■•s■■■
1
Vida* fiC CC
Lao
EWE
AID
MAT
iha
17
N
CA
CA
aormalmw
City of Eagan
Community Development Department
Pans' base Neap IetatNean. l provided by Dakota C.Nty laetl Survey Department 1/03/00.
Seeing Iel.nnar.e provided by Lawrence Weep 1990 eM apdat d by City Stan.
THIS MAP IS NTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY
The City of Eagan and D a Coun not guarantee the accuracy of this Information.
W� E
5
0
C100 el On 2 4
atCP A Col IQ
MS all SWIM
K
r
0
O
OS
O
I WNW OWN" NAT OSCPLATCA
MA SIAM PON M LAO O M Or*
NO 12012
r
L
8
9t
92
g
0
I I
I 1
I_
0
gi 0I
zi
Li
3 .O7.10A0 J Ma
L
MAO
or
r 1
i
O
O i
vl
Ag $4
39
L 3 0101
AN 2
KENNERICK A ON
PRELIMINARY PLAT
L3,
a
Iny
Oh NI J
A 0201 t
t
a
k� I
01
a !1
r
4
r
L
r
I al
kl
L
TRILAND SURVEYING COMPANY, INC.
PO 101 aO11. PAPA 1ws1OTA 65112
g1-4O$ -7000
'J
r
'(1*,
is
r 1
1 t 1
a A i -.41 Y
1 t 1
r 1
ii 3 O I 1 p
I
r 1
AO J
OM'Kr7
COUNTY RD. #31(PILOT KNOB ROAD) g
J
PRELIM. SUBDIVISION
—m))1 mull 1\
r 1\\\\ 1/ 11( 1 1 s c
1 i
I I ll) lyya'�` I
I 1 r
5
k.
e 1 �'�n
.1\ �4 r te
J 1 1 1
1 >7 \I 1
i r.os� 0 ti_ -r_
1 1 I v, L 1 III
I 1
.L— 'r_ 1
1 1--
—gig. Nis
1
A
N
1 A
1 1
1 h
r te VI
l V
1 1
L.
a �O1a IIOI Ar AOL7
um n� u� a ni nAa
r". 0
I -L
1 I`\
0
r I 1 I \x,
i 1
c'1
O
fk Z 1
1 c
r
r
11 y .41- 1
\1 1 1 1 1 �i
Illy- /o,-"..
I l i
0 1 ‘I N
i:dmate: V
WI
�����lr =W- +W 1
il
i 1 S r....1
\I 1 1 1..\ ,1_
1 T. 1 i \n, /..r+ /d\
I A 1 I
I— 1
a♦ L
Pi
N
KENNERICK ON
PRELIMINARY PLAT
Existing Conditions
COUNTY RD. #31(PILOT KNOB ROAD) g
II
p
I P 1
I
1
I
TRILAND SURVEYING COMPANY. INC.
PO 601 x066. MAP 1, If/O0 ?A 11121
113- 461 -7•8O
i
N
EXISTING CONDITIONS
1 wesr WWV nrr eU wry stveas
u°w' 1 runs.a O ir m ei w i s s�'i'
v rroou
m+r
53
KENNERICK a ITION
PRELIMINARY PLAT
Site Layout
a.m..
Imsnr rua.e
TRILAND SURVEYING COMPANY, INC.
1'O SOS MA URA ueoeta NL
1111.4614100
N
O
a
SITE PLAN
coca i
\\\1111111111 t g 1
1 1
I I, I l r 11
l C
•1
1 1 1
1
L,� I
1 _I 1 .7----\\ \k .4.--
i
'Y Wi z=
I
1 11 D I I I
11 X \.1� ��I
\Ii I —.1 I\
Uj f 1 N.
S.
I I
I
1 i q 1 i re i
-"D'/ f\
3
Cv7 nor AUK WAIL MK
wnvoi sr •�a��t D
WAS
M IO• 011 MR
a S•a6n
ti N 2i
Po.
I I 1 1
T. 1
KENNERICK ON
PRELIMINARY PLAT
Grading Plan
G.
414.er411
1
I 1
1 I
COUNTY RD. #31(PILOT KNOB ROAD) g
TRILAND SURVEYING COMPANY; INC.
PO 602 MX COCOA IOORwTA 66122
6u- 462 -7660
1
I
1 I
I I
GRADING PLAN
DA
ItVQ{ F
KENNERICK ITtON
PRELIMINARY PLAT
TRILAND SURVEYING COMPANY, INC.
PO DIM MOO, uuR Owo0Th GNU
7 Utility Plan
i
S
Os
1
q
8 r -1
E I y
1. 1
1 1
L_J
1
1
1
r
1 1
L_
i ce N.
tN.
i
N
V
4
H
2
0t
to
01
N
to
m
,z. I 1
I 1 I I
1 1 1
COUNTY RD. #31(PILOT KNOB ROAD) g
UTILITY PLAN
1
t
r I
i
1
1
II Z) V)
\\1 1 I 1 I I I I I I 1 �yQ .'s (.11
CD 0
i \lI/) /1 /1 1 i f f
1 f \If i yQ Q f 1 1 3 0 a 1 I I 1 1 1)yy i��� I 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 r i t�l�tilc=.7":,.....k T I •1 CD CL
0 N. I I 1 1 11 i i t :I:
1 \/1
I I \�N�
-a
I 1
1
I
I \m.`\ -I
i
1 I I I 1
I D
-1UI 0 r I 1\ If
0 1
1
A I I I II�
1 of
c
1 \A g\ T I
1
1
J I
1
1 /sr.OS/ y -r
1 i L 1
1
I r
1
I
1
1
1
1 A
1
I V
I .4
I 1 1
1 ,.1
1
1v2
,a
i/I 1
OS
1 1
1/
.e II
awry 11YT w. fun .uremR
s .n Avg w~ a�rra
WO fw[+a
VOA 7K Laws v The VAR
womt
O
a7a Melt
I
y
I I
1 J
KENNE' ITION
PRELIMINARY PLAT
Tree Preservation Plan
TRILAND SURVEYING COMPANY, INC.
Po 22030, MAR rww a
er* Bai
112-452-7160
w
0
n
COUNTY R0. #31(PILOT KNOB ROAD) g
OAR
%IN MA
Di t
i til
;1
1 rJ__ '•I
1 1 1 I r
1 I M .....1
I 1 I
t 1 1 1 1
I.-
t
cA
CD
O
c
CD Q.
a
0
CT N
N M
cn OD
o
CD
IZ
U 1
TREE PRESERVATION
I
C)
z
0
u.�
ONL-!9 19
12t,; tllonaAw VV V3 'KOa SOS Od
3■1 '1 11Vd1103 0M1J.3AW )S 0011111
040••11 ...3.s a 11013.0•
1Vld A VNIWl1321d
14011100V )I31a314N3)1
Rw w
•4010001 Lt10111 w t ■o
»u 10112. iON l•5 o/n
1P I 1 ew wors
M non VD P COWAN w. �IOiO__D
104•11.01t6 WU IN 41041 ii1107 MOO.;
U
0
8 (ovoa eoNN 101
d)1 c# '0a AINf103
(I
nth I (WOW I
TV
4
J
lAv..loreas Pao,.
QQl
7<
OM
0
J
1
1
4 I
I_J
0
J
C c? C '1
1 f
9 1
1
i
50
0
LAJ
v
el O N
�7 N
n at g
15:2 t r6
d r.-. u
(o
t
i 40. ex
LC' 16
el ed gr NN
E 11 5 .5 9 0 0
x tt i
p
V
5 -2 -2000
Dear Council Members,
I am writing you about the proposed Kennerick Addition located off of Lone Oak road. I am one of seven
homeowners who are located on the pond. I attended the council meeting on April 25th. As I stated at the
meeting I believe the current proposed development has problems that need to be addressed. I would also
like to suggest some possible solutions.
Problems
1) Density- The proposed number of lots does not fit with the existing natural environment. Under the
developer's current plan, wooded lots will be lost to clear cutting and the natural beauty will be replaced by
non distinct suburban lots.
2) Cul -de -sac- With a cul -de -sac it would seem to be a fire hazard with only one escape.
3) Without proper planning our pond would be lost or changed from its natural state.
4) Any alterations or said "improvements" should be the financial responsibility of the developer.
Possible Solutions
1) Cut the proposed number of housing sites from 19 to 10, you will have a more distinctive development
more fitting with the current housing and its natural environment.
2) Use the pond for all drainage, from Lone Oak and new development with fewer houses.
a. I have noticed that currently the pond is fed from the north by a spring or runoff.
b. The pond should easily accommodate additional water from streets of new development.
My hope is that all concerned would take into consideration how unique these lands are before
development. Thank you for your time concerning this matter.
Sincerely,
Chris Marshall
Chris Brenda Marshall
1449 Lone Oak Rd.
Eagan, MN 55121
651-456-0373
To: Mayor Pat Awada
From: Anne Doblar
1441 Lone Oak Road
Eagan, MN 55121
.651- 454 -5038
Re: Kennerick Development
Dear Mayor Awada:
May 6, 2000
I want to bring to your attention an issue which will be coming before you on the
May 16th City Council Meeting agenda. This point of order is for a new housing
development called the Kennerick Addition. Initially, I want to make you aware of the
fact that the Eagan Planning and Zoning Commission has already voted against this
project.
I presently live in the Zehender Acres Addition in the house which my parents built in
1966. This proposed property development is to the immediate east of my property (see
attached maps). Because this property does not have an existing sewer and water system,
there seems t� be some question as to where and how the drainage of this addition should
be handled. Directly behind my house and as part of my property is a privately owned
pond. This pond is at a grade level which is much lower than the Kennerick Addition and
is a protected wet land which is owned by each property owner adjacent to it (see attached
map). The developer of the Kennerick Addition, Bradley Swenson, has tentatively
acquired the property opposite the pond which gives him a small portion of ownership in
the pond (see attached map). With this small portion, Swenson plans on land falling all
the trees on the hill adjacent to the pond area so that he can bring in heavy equipment to
dredge out his portion of the pond to make it a holding reservoir for all the drainage water
to be routed into from the Kennerick Addition. Of course, he is going to have the city
assess each of the property owners in the Zehnder Acres Addition a pond "improvement"
tax so that he doesn't have to pay for it himself.
I want to make you aware of how strongly opposed myself and my neighbors are to this
project infringing upon our property and privacy. First off, the Kennerick Addition is a
SEPARATE addition from the Zehnder Acres Addition. When our houses were built
there were no taxes assessed onto the property holders in the Kennerick Addition
therefore why should we now have to absorb the cost of the Kennerick Addition being
built? Furthermore, since this is a privately owned pond I find it presumptuous of Mr.
Swenson to assume that the property owners of this pond would willingly allow him
access to our property so that he could use it as a drainage system for his Addition thus
/s9
creating many more problems for our own Addition. This is my back yard. Think how
you would feel if someone decided to dig a hole in your back yard and fill it with dirty
water from somewhere else. This pond also sits on a sand basin. Any disruption of this
basin could cause the pond to permanently dry up. Not to mention the fact that, being a
protected wet land, it is illegal to change or alter it. All of these considerations
Mr. Swenson obviously does not care about.
I also want to draw your attention to the Kennerick Addition itself. This addition would
sit on a densely wooded area of land. All these trees would need to be cleared for this
addition to be built. I believe that Eagan has a policy with its contractors as to the ratio of
how many trees are removed to how many trees will be replaced. I see nothing to
indicate that Mr. Swenson plans on replacing any of these hundred year old trees.
Furthermore, the density of this housing project is far greater than any area around it. He
has used the minimum lot size allowable to fit as many homes as possible into this
addition.
It is quite clear to me that Mr. Swenson has one thing in mind and that is to make money.
He obviously does not care about the community or its long time residents which is
shown in his obvious disregard for the members of the Zehnder Acres Addition by his
plans to destroy our pond as well as his desire to jam as many houses as possible into the
Kennerick Addition. I could go on with many, many more problems and objections that I
have to this housing project but I am sure you will be able to review the minutes from the
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting as well as hear the input from the other
concerned neighbors in my community.
Please help my neighborhood by concurring with the Planning and Zoning Commission
and voting down this housing project. Mr. Swenson needs to solve the problems of the
Kennerick Addition WITHIN that addition and not by destroying another neighborhood
in the process. Make him be held accountable to the high standards of quality of life that
Eagan stands for and listen to the voice of the residents of Eagan.
Thank you for your consideration on this matter.
Sincerly,
Anne Doblar
City of Eagan
Planning Department
Municipal Center
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
To Whom It May Concern,
Sincerely, 6
Gail McMahon
1429 Lone Oak Road
651- 454 -5604
1999
May 19` 1999
I would like to inform you that a potential development in the northwest section of
Eagan, to be called "Hidden Oaks Addition being proposed by Brad Swenson of
TriLand Companies, encompasses land on which an active red tailed hawk nest sits. I
have learned from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service at Fort Snelling that red tailed
hawks are a federally protected species of birds through the Migratory Birds Treaty Act,
an International Treaty between North, South, and Central American countries. It violates
federal law to destroy an active nest.
Although the red tailed hawk is a migratory species, this particular family has
maintained it's nest year round through the past several mild winters. I am able to see the
hawks sitting in their nest throughout the winter from my windows. Although leaf
coverage prevents me from seeing the hawks in their nest during the summer months, it is
a unique experience to be able to watch and listen to the parent birds train their young to
hunt each spring. There have been as many as eight of these huge birds sitting in the tree
right outside my living room windows during the summer. It is an incredible sight.
I do not know specifically where the tree with the red tailed hawk's nest sits in
relation to the proposed development, but I fear that the tree may fall within the area of
the proposed cul -de -sac in the planned development. I believe that the tree should be
singled out within the survey so that it is protected.
I have lived in Eagan for 13 years, having last lived in Stacy, Minnesota. Even
though I lived on several acres at that time, I did not get to enjoy as much wild life as I
have living here in Eagan, most likely because of my close proximity to the Mississippi and
Minnesota River Valleys. I believe it would be a great loss for Eagan to lose its red tailed
hawks.
cc: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Migratory Birds Div., Fort Snelling
DNR, State of Minnesota
Brad Swenson, TriLand Companies
John Roach, Attorney at Law
Todd Chase and Mitsy Lutz
1459'/2 Lone Oak Road
Eagan, MN 55121
Mayor Pat Awada
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55121
May 26, 2000
Dear Mayor Awada,
We are writing to you to voice our concern about the proposed Kennerick Addition near the
intersection of Lone Oak Road and Pilot Knob Road. We live in the neighborhood being
affected, specifically along the pond.
The plans for this development calls for 19 houses to be situated on approximately 8% acres,
with each lot just meeting or barely exceeding the Eagan minimum lot size requirement of
12,000 square feet. Yes, this meets the requirement, but it violates the ambiance of the existing
neighborhood. Our neighborhood consists of lots of approximately 1 acre each. We share the
neighborhood with many of our wild friends deer, geese, ducks, foxes, egrets, owls just to
name a few.
Many of these creatures will be displaced because of this development. The wooded view from
many of the current homes is also at jeopardy. A development of any size can only negatively
impact a natural area. We are asking for consideration to allow the development, but for it to be
in harmony both with the natural surroundings, and with the existing neighborhood.
Additionally, we have a pond that would be at risk by the Kennerick Addition. Discussions have
indicated the pond may need to be enlarged to accommodate the increased run -off from the
development. Ponds are a delicate ecosystem and a careful balance must be maintained. The
very process of trying to enlarge the pond may result in the opposite. If the pond "bottom" is
damaged, the water may drain away.
There is concern for the other extreme of the pond flooding of existing homes located around
the pond from the increased run -off. To address this, there is discussion about installing a
drainpipe. If a drainpipe is deemed necessary, the cost should be borne by the developer, since
he is the one receiving the financial gain from the development. An alternative is for the cost of
the assessment be spread across the new homeowners in the development. Currently, the
existing homeowners do not have a problem with excessive water in the pond. At the least, the
current area homeowners should not have to bear the cost of an assessment which is not
needed per status quo. If the change is creating the need for the drainpipe, the one inducing
the change should fund the cost.
By turning this neighborhood into a development, you are approving the destruction of a way of
life, not only for the human residents, but also for the wildlife that we must respect. We have a
unique quality of life in our neighborhood. We are close to the hustle and bustle of city life, yet
we have the feel of being in the country. People seek this out. There is a need and a demand
for neighborhoods like this in Eagan.
The argument of trying to control urban sprawl by increasing the density of a neighborhood does
not make sense. The more dense you allow this neighborhood to be, the more you drive
current citizens away. By compressing 19 homes into this neighborhood, this development
would reinforce urban sprawl, rather than counteract it. Why not let the neighborhood maintain
the look and feet' it has with 1 -acre Tots? Because of tax revenue, right? The more houses,
the more tax dollars for Eagan. Why not leave as part of your legacy to Eagan a neighborhood
which is different from every other development? This would be a neighborhood sought out for
it's unique country feel.
We ask you to make your decision with your environmental conscience and to respect the
current residents. We ask you not to base your decision on the tax revenue several more
houses will provide. The impact of this decision is forever.
Best regards,
Todd Chase and Mitsy Lutz
651 -454 -5413
'55L4+4c
TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Of Eagan
FROM: Dale and Suzanne Naatjes 1455 Lone Oak Lane Eagan, Minn. 55121 (651) 452 -2087
SUBJECT: Kennerick Addition Preliminary Subdivision. City Case No. 04- PS- 09 -04 -99
DATE: June 9, 2000
Dear Members of the Development Department:
We are submitting this letter to voice our opposition to the proposed Kennerick Addition comprising Lot 4, and parts
of Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 of Zender Acres which is planned for our neighborhood. The proposal for this development
was heard by the Eagan Planning Commission on April 25, 2000. At that time many residents of the neighborhood,
including us, expressed various concerns regarding the proposed development. In consideration of this
development, it should be noted that it impacts a unique area within the City of Eagan. The area proposed for
development has a wetland area including a pond as a boundary. Of special concern to us is that this wetland and
pond is legally a part of our property which is a part of Zender acres. The proposed development would, in its
present form, entail modifications to the wetland and pond, which are potentially detrimental to us in terms of both
actual and aesthetic property values. Additionally it advances the prospect of encumbering us with an assessment
for a "public improvement" in the form of a pond outlet pipe necessitated by the increased storm water runoff
resulting from the development.
The area proposed for development, and the adjacent wetland, is special and unique in that it comprises a wildlife
habitat and large area of trees presently absent of housing. The pond is located to the rear of our residence. Our
view across the pond is currently unspoiled by the presence of any buildings. The attached photograph depicts the
natural beauty of the area, which the development would disrupt. Toward the left side of this scene, the area of the
cul -de -sac indicated in the proposal, deer frequently emerge for their walk down to the pond. Ducks of several
varieties and a pair of geese make the pond their home as does a muskrat family. Eagles and Hawks habituate the
area, roosting confidently in the trees above the pond, now remote from any housing. We believe that this
undeveloped area is an asset not only to our neighbors and us but to the City and County as well and should not be
fundamentally changed, as would be the case if the development were to proceed as proposed.
The developer has indicated his intention to make changes to the wetland area to accommodate additional runoff.
His statements in this regard have been contradictory. At an introductory neighborhood meeting he indicated his
intention to develop, as a residential property, a part of Lot 8 of Zender Acres, which is not defined as part of the
proposed development. This property is located immediately across the pond from our house and those of the other
residents of Lone Oak Lane. Development of this lot, in addition to the proposed development would leave little
intact of what is now the natural area above the Southeast side of the pond. When pressed by the planning
commission to provide details of his plans for the pond, the developer indicated that this property would be used to
accommodate a "holding pond" for storm water runoff from Lone Oak Road. Although use of this property as a
holding pond only would probably be beneficial we regard the presence of a residence at this location with the
same distaste as the actual development under consideration, since it would spoil what is now a lovely natural view.
It should be noted that this property, and the area proposed for the location of the cul -de -sac homes of the
development, are adjacent to very steep gradients rising from the pond. In conjunction with removal of trees to
provide for development, erosion of soil into the pond to the point of its destruction would appear to be a distinct
possibility.
Apart from our intense concerns regarding the wetland and pond, we also feel that the density of the proposed
development is inappropriate for its designated location that is surrounded by properties with significantly larger
sized lots. The specious rationale provided by the developer for the proposed development style is that "no one can
afford more expensive homes"
Many troubling questions related to this development remain unanswered either by the developer, or by the City
planners and Engineers:
/6
I. Who would bear the cost of a pond overflow pipe? Should the neighboring residents be asked to pay for a
"Public Improvement" necessitated by a development that diminishes the actual and aesthetic value of their
properties?
2. What is the actual "wetland delineation" associated with our pond? Will it be determined before any final
approval decision by the city council? Will the City conduct a study to determine whether the delineation
submitted by the developer is valid?
3. What is the actual City storm water drainage plan for the impacted area? The developer claims to know
however the City engineering office has neither confirmed nor refuted his definition.
4. What is the developer's actual intention for development of the part of lot 8 of Zender Acres (which is not a
parcel defined within the proposal) that he now says would be converted to a holding pond? Can use of this
parcel as a holding pond (potentially beneficial as an improvement over the present implementation for runoff
from Lone Oak Road which results in the depositing of eroded soil into the pond) to the exclusion of
development as a residence, be made a condition for approval of the overall development?
5. Will engineering studies be provided to indicate that erosion of the steep slopes above the pond will not occur in
the absence of retaining structures which those of us who now view only trees across our pond would find
extremely objectionable?
6. What responsibility would the developer have for the disappearance or relocation of the pond as a consequence
of his activities to "expand the wetland He indicated in discussion with Lone Oak Lane residents that
disruption of the pond could result in disappearance of the pond water into the soil. We suggest that
installation of a pond (clay) liner cost to be borne by the developer be made a condition of approval of the
development and that the developer assumes liability for destruction of or relocation of the pond.
We would view approval of this ill- conceived development with profound regret. We and the other residents of the
adjacent area would lose an important part of what we valued in our properties when we purchased them as well as
tangible financial loss in resale. The City would lose the chance to preserve in tact a unique natural area, which is
an asset to Eagan as well as the neighboring residents.
/7
June 13, 2000
Mayor Pat Awada
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
Dear Mayor Awada,
We are writing to make you aware of our concerns regarding the proposed Kennerick
Addition off of Lone Oak Road. Our home borders the south,side of the proposed
development and for many years we have enjoyed the wooded area, privacy and
wildlife, which includes numerous deer, rabbits, fox, ducks, geese and a Red- Tailed
hawk family. The Kennerick Addition threatens all of this and more. In addition to the
affect this development will have on these things, there is a protected wet land to the
west of us, which will be adversely impacted by the development. The developer, Mr.
Swenson, plans to have each of the existing property owners be assessed for any costs
to "improve" the wetland /pond the developer plans to dredge the pond and make a
holding reservoir for all the drainage water that runs off from the development). We
are strongly opposed to this because we don't see this as an improvement and therefore
don't feel that we should have to pay for it.
Furthermore, the development proposes that each new home be built on lots that
measure only about 12000 square feet. A number that the city acknowledges as the
absolute bare minimum they will allow for a residential home. This aggressive density
is not in keeping with the existing established, mature neighborhood. The majority of
existing homes sit on lots that are one -half acre or greater. It is very obvious that Mr.
Swenson is in this for one reason to make money, with little or no regard to our
neighborhood.
We hope that we can count on your support and that you will send a message to Mr.
Swenson by voting NO against the development just as the Eagan Planning and
Zoning Commission did. The time has come to make developers accountable for
creating developments that complement the existing neighborhoods and that do not
have such an adverse impact on the community, its vegetation and wildlife as this
proposal does.
Sin erely,
nn
ynn and Kelly Storla
Kelly and Lynn Storla f� ,/.7" r r
1431 Lone Oak Road
Eagan, MN 55121 1
June 16, 2000
Mayor Pat Awada
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
Dear Mayor Awada,
1. C► 9
I am writing to you to voice my concerns over the proposed Kennerick Addition
development involving sections of Zehnder Acres in the northern part of Eagan. While I
am one of the land owners who has had to sign on to the project, I have concerns
regarding future assessments that may come about as a result of changes to the pond that
lies to the west of the development.
The pond in question is a federally designated wetlands area that will be affected
by water runoff from the new development. In order to accommodate the increased
runoff, Tri-land Surveying Company, Inc., the developing company, is having an
environmental assessment done that will suggest needed changes to the pond area.
Discussion at the first public meeting regarding this proposed development included
reference to upcoming assessment costs. It was indicated that these assessment costs
may be incurred not only by the new tenants in the development, but also by all those
homeowners whose land currently drains into the pond. This would include my home
and land.
When the city was contacted by neighbors, they were told that all assessment
costs for similar projects were calculated according to square footage of a homeowners
lot. Since I will have one of the largest lots in the development, my costs could be
greatest, yet I am not benefiting from these changes. In fact, I stand to incur many costs
related to changes that will be made to my lot during the development process, that I
already don't know how I will pay for.
In the past 14 years, my property has not created any problems to the pond. I
have been very conscious of potential damage to the beauty of the pond and surrounding
area which I have considered a great asset to living in Eagan. I have not even chemically
fertilized my yard for fear of runoff damage. Therefore, any changes that occur now will
be strictly as a result of the new development. I believe that the developer should be
responsible for all costs for any changes that occur in the wetlands area. If he then wants
to incorporate that cost into the price of the lots he is selling, he is able to do that. The
cost of the assessments will put me out of my home. I am a single person without much
play in my financial picture at the present time. Assessment costs would definitely create
a hardship for me.
As a constituent of yours, I also must express my concern to you regarding the
proposed housing density of the development, which has continued to increase
throughout my dealings with Tri-land Surveying Company, Inc. I believe that as an
elected official for Eagan, you would be interested in the esthetics of the area as much as
I am. While the developer has met Eagan's minimum requirements for lot size,
decreasing the number of lots by even a few would make a big difference to myself and
probably my surrounding neighbors as well. It could make a difference to the wildlife
and ecological balance of the area. I urge you to recognize the issues I am presenting
and hope they can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.
Sincerely,
L
Gail McMahon
1429 Lone Oak Road
Eagan, MN 55121
651 -454 -5604
Agenda Information Memo
November 21, 2000 Eagan City Council Meeting
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. CITY CODE AMENDMENT (HOME OCCUPATIONS)
CITY OF EAGAN
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve an Amendment to Chapter 11 (Zoning Regulations) of the City Code
addressing home occupation requirements and direct the City Attorney to prepare an
amendment suitable for publication.
FACTS:
This effort was initiated by the City Council and reflects code modifications
recommended by the APC.
Currently, the Eagan City Code allows home occupations in R -1, R -2, R -3, R -4, and
R -5 zoning districts (as permitted uses). Home occupations, as defined by the City of
Eagan, refers to any gainful occupation which meets certain criteria. Specifically, the
occupation must satisfy the following requirements:
Engaged in only by persons residing in that dwelling.
Conducted within the principal structure (only when evidence of the
occupation is not visible from the street).
Signage prohibited.
Stock and trade storage prohibited on the premises.
Over the counter retail sales prohibited.
Entry to the home occupation is gained from within the structure.
After reviewing home occupation standards utilized by a number of area metropolitan
communities and considering various amendment alternatives, the APC prepared a
draft amendment incorporating the following provisions:
The draft amendment defines a home occupation as
Any occupation or profession engaged in by the occupant of a residential
dwelling unit which is clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of
the premises, does not change the character of said premises and satisfies the
requirements of this Code.
/9?
The draft amendment establishes home occupations as permitted accessory uses in all
residential zoning districts subject to the following conditions:
1. The occupation shall be clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the
dwelling unit for residential purposes and shall not change the character
threreof.
2. No more than three (3) persons shall be engaged in the home occupation, one
(1) of whom resides outside of the dwelling.
3. No home occupation activity shall be allowed within a detached or attached
accessory building or garage.
4. Evidence of the home occupation shall not be visible from the street.
5. No signs shall be present other than those permitted in R zoning districts.
6. Over the counter sales shall not be involved.
7. Entrance to the home occupation shall be gained from within the principal
structure.
8. The home occupation shall not utilize more than three (3) off street parking
spaces for the occupant and visitors.
At the regular meeting on October 24, 2000, the Advisory Planning Commission held
a public hearing to consider the Amendment and recommended approval.
ATTACHMENTS (2)
Minutes of the October 24, 2000 APC meeting, page 97
Draft City Code Amendment, pages /2b through /g/
/93
Advisory Planning Commission
October 24, 2000
Page 4
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CITY OF EAGAN
Chair Heyl opened the next public hearing of the evening regarding an Ordinance Amendment to Chapter
11, Section 11.20, Subd. 4 Entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning)" addressing Home Occupation
Regulations.
Planner Kirmis introduced this item and highlighted the planning report dated October 4, 2000. He stated
the City Council has requested the Advisory Planning Commission evaluate the City's existing home
occupation requirements in regard to recent trends toward the establishment of home office type uses and
whether the ordinance should provide more flexibility for people to operate small businesses out of their
homes. This issue is considered particularly relevant in recognition of recent technological advances in the
communication industry, which allow more and more persons to work out of their homes.
There being no public comment, Chair Heyl closed the public hearing.
Member Nosbush asked if the amendment would apply to residents who live in apartments. Mr. Kirmis
stated it would apply to all zoning districts.
The Commission held a discussion regarding the definition of "over the counter retail sales" (item f of the
amended ordinance).
Member Segal moved, Member Steininger seconded a motion to amend Chapter 11, Section 11.20 Subd.4
entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning)" addressing Home Occupation Regulations.
A vote was taken on the motion. Aye: 6 Nay: 1. Member Kaess opposed.
/�9
Home occupation means an
PROPOSED
HOME OCCUPATION RELATED
CODE MODIFICATIONS
Section 11.03 (definitions) Amend home occupation definition to read as follows:
Draft 9/10/99
occupation or profession engaged in by the
occupant of a residential dwelling unit which is clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use
of the premises, does not change the character of said premises and satisfies the requirements of this
Code.
Section 11.20 Subd. 4.0 (Estate District Accessory Uses) Amend to add the following:
9. Home occupations as defined in section 11.03 and subject to the following conditions:
(a) The occupation shall be clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the
dwelling unit for residential purposes and shall not change the character thereof.
(b) No more than three (3) persons shall be engaged in the home occupation, one
(1) of whom resides outside of the dwelling.
(c) No home occupation activity shall be allowed within a detached or attached
accessory building or garage.
(d) Evidence of the home occupation shall not be visible from the street.
(e) No signs shall be present other than those permitted in R zoning districts.
(f) No home occupation shall involve over the counter sales.
(g) Entrance to the home occupation shall be gained from within the principal
structure.
g0
fh) The home occupation shall not utilize more than three (3) off street parking
spaces for the occupant and visitors.
Section 11.20 Subd. 5.A.6 (Residential Districts Permitted uses) Amend to read as follows:
6.
Reserved.
Section 11.20 Subd. S.C. (Residential Districts Permitted accessory uses) Amend to add the
following:
9. Home occupations as defined in section 11.03 and subject to the following conditions:
(a) The occupation shall be clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the
dwelling unit for residential purposes and shall not change the character
threreof.
(b) No more than three (3) persons shall be engaged in the home occupation, one
(1) of whom resides outside of the dwelling.
(c) No home occupation activity shall be allowed within a detached or attached
accessory building or garage.
(d) Evidence of the home occupation shall not be visible from the street.
(e) No signs shall be present other than those permitted in R zoning districts.
(f) Over the counter sales shall not be involved.
(g) Entrance to the home occupation shall be gained from within the principal
structure.
(h) The home occupation shall not utilize more than three (3) off street parking
spaces for the occupant and visitors.
/8/
Agenda Information Memo
November 21, 2000 Eagan City Council Meeting
B. CITY CODE AMENDMENT (GREEN AREA REQUIREMENTS)
CITY OF EAGAN
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve an Amendment to Chapter 11 (Zoning Regulations) of the City Code
establishing minimum green area requirements in commercial and industrial zoning
districts and direct the City Attorney to prepare an amendment suitable for publication.
FACTS:
Initiated by the City Council, the draft amendment is the result of recommendations
offered by a "Green Space Committee" (a subcommittee comprised of various
members of the Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission, the Advisory Planning
Commission, City Staff and Eagan citizens), the APrC, the APC and the City
Council.
The initial charge of the Green Space Committee was to identify various performance
standards that could be applied to new commercial/industrial developments
(including redeveloped sites) that would reduce the percentage of impervious surface
lot coverage associated with such development without compromising the function of
the use or placing an unreasonable financial burden on developers.
The attached draft amendment has been subject to informal consideration by the City
Council.
The City Code does not presently include a minimum green space requirement. This
amendment would establish a minimum green area requirement of 30 percent in
commercial zoning districts and 25 percent in industrial zoning districts.
At the regular meeting on October 24, 2000, the Advisory Planning Commission held
a public hearing to consider the Amendment and recommended approval.
ATTACHMENTS (2)
Minutes of the October 24, 2000 APC meeting, page hr.3
Draft City Code Amendment, pages through //(,S
Advisory Planning Commission
October 24, 2000
Page 5
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CITY OF EAGAN
Chair Heyl opened the next public hearing of the evening, combining discussion of the following
Ordinance Amendments:
An Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 11, Section 11.20, Subd. 10 Entitled "Land use Regulations
(Zoning)" to establish Minimum Green Area Requirements in Commercial and Industrial Zoning
Districts.
An Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 11, Section 11.10, Subd. 13 Entitled "Land Use Regulations
(Zoning)" amending Off Street Parking Supply Requirements for Retail Commercial Uses.
An Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 11, Section 11.10, Subd. 13 Entitled "Land Use Regulations
(Zoning)" to establish Minimum Dimensional Requirements for Off Street Parking Stalls.
Planner Kirmis introduced these items and highlighted the planning report dated October 4, 2000.
There being no public comment, Chair Heyl closed the public hearing.
Chair Heyl stated that the proposed ordinance amendments had been discussed in committee meetings with
the City Council.
Member Nosbush asked for clarification regarding the required number of parking stalls.
Member Steininger stated he felt the City should not require developers to provide extra green space.
Member Huusko agreed. Member Kaess stated that a private business should not have to provide parks for
the City. Member Steininger stated that the City as a whole would not benefit from the extra green space
and he would rather see each development reviewed on a case by case basis.
Member Anderson stated he agreed with Member Steininger and suggested that perhaps the requirement
for greenspace be 5
Member Tilley stated she does not feel the proposed amendment is requiring too much greenspace.
Member Steininger moved, Member Huusko seconded a motion to deny an Ordinance Amendment to
Chapter 11, Section 11.20, Subd. 10 Entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning)" to establish Minimum
Green Area Requirements in Commercial and industrial Zoning Districts.
A vote was taken on the motion. Aye: 3. Nay: 4. Members Tilley, Nosbush, Heyl, Segal opposed.
Member Steininger moved, Member Huusko seconded a motion to approve an Ordinance Amendment to
Chapter 11, Section 11.10, Subd. 13 Entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning)" amending Off -Street
Parking Supply Requirements for Retail Commercial Uses
A vote was taken on the motion. All voted in favor.
Motion was made by Steininger, seconded by Segal to approve an Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 11,
Section 11.10, Subd. 13 Entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning)" to establish Minimum Dimensional
requirements for Off -Street Parking Stalls.
A vote was taken on the motion. All voted in favor.
There was no further business.
Member Steininger moved, Member Segal seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:35 p.m.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE EAGAN CITY CODE
(LAND USE REGULATIONS) TO ESTABLISH MINIMUM GREEN AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING
DISTRICTS
Section 11.03 (Definitions) Add the following definition.
Green area means land comprised of some type of "pervious" surface (which is capable of
water penetration) including wooded areas, turf areas, landscaped areas, waterbodies, pervious
walkways and/or pervious parking lots. Green area does not include areas of building rooftops.,
hard surface parking lots, hard surface roads, hard packed gravel areas, and impervious
walkways.
Section 11.20 Subd. 15 (Area standards and requirements) Add minimum green area requirement
for commercial zoning districts.
Subd. 15. Area standards and requirements.
1
Draft 10/4/00
A. The following area standards and requirements for commercial districts shall be met, and no
improvements shall be placed on such lands unless the lands to be so used or improved shall
meet the following minimum area and dimensional requirements, unless otherwise approved
under a planned development:
LB
NB
GB
CSC
RSC
RB
Minimum Building Setbacks:
Along major, minor,
arterial, state or interstate
hwy.
See section 11 10, subdivision 6 -C for all commercial districts
Along public streets
30 ft.
30 ft.
30 ft.
30 ft.
30 ft.
30 ft.
Side lot line
10 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
Rear lot line
20 ft.
Adjacent to residential or
agricultural district
30 ft.
30 ft.
50 ft.
50 ft.
50 ft.
50 ft.
Minimum Parking Setbacks:
Along public street
20 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
Side or rear lot line
5 ft.
5 ft.
5 ft.
5 ft.
5 ft.
5 ft.
Adjacent to residential or
agricultural district
20 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
Maximum Building Coverage of
Lot
20%
20%
35%
30%
30%
30%
Maximum Building Height
30 ft.
20 ft.
35 ft.
35 ft.
35 ft.
Minimum Retail Floor Area (initial
bldg.)
20,000
sq. ft.
100,000
sq. ft.
Minimum Green Area
30 percent
30 percent
30 percent
30 percent
30 percent
30 percent
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE EAGAN CITY CODE
(LAND USE REGULATIONS) TO ESTABLISH MINIMUM GREEN AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING
DISTRICTS
Section 11.03 (Definitions) Add the following definition.
Green area means land comprised of some type of "pervious" surface (which is capable of
water penetration) including wooded areas, turf areas, landscaped areas, waterbodies, pervious
walkways and/or pervious parking lots. Green area does not include areas of building rooftops.,
hard surface parking lots, hard surface roads, hard packed gravel areas, and impervious
walkways.
Section 11.20 Subd. 15 (Area standards and requirements) Add minimum green area requirement
for commercial zoning districts.
Subd. 15. Area standards and requirements.
1
Draft 10/4/00
A. The following area standards and requirements for commercial districts shall be met, and no
improvements shall be placed on such lands unless the lands to be so used or improved shall
meet the following minimum area and dimensional requirements, unless otherwise approved
under a planned development:
Draft 10/4/00
Section 11.20 Subd. 20 (Area standards and requirements) Add minimum green area
requirement for industrial zoning districts.
Subd. 20. Minimum area requirements. The following table sets forth the minimum area and
size requirements for property development in the RD, BP, I -1, and I -2 districts.
2
8s
R -D
B -P
1 -1
1 -2
Minimum Building Setbacks:
Along major, minor,
arterial, state or interstate
hwy.
See section 11.10, subdivision 6-C for
all commercial districts
Along public streets
40 ft.
40 ft.
40 ft.
40 ft.
Side lot line
20 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
Rear lot line
20 ft
20 ft.
20 ft
20 ft
Adjacent to residential or
public guided property
50 ft.
50 ft.
100 ft.
100 ft.
Minimum Parking Setbacks:
Along public street
20 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
Side or rear lot line
5 ft.
5 ft.
5 ft.
5 ft.
Adjacent to residential or
public guided property
50 ft.
50 ft.
100 ft.
100 ft.
Max mum Building Coverage of
Lot
20%
40%
35%
35%
Maximum Building Height
45 ft.
45 ft.
50 ft.
50 ft.
Minimum Green Area
25 percent
25 percent
25 percent
25 percent
Draft 10/4/00
Section 11.20 Subd. 20 (Area standards and requirements) Add minimum green area
requirement for industrial zoning districts.
Subd. 20. Minimum area requirements. The following table sets forth the minimum area and
size requirements for property development in the RD, BP, I -1, and I -2 districts.
2
8s
Agenda Information Memo
November 21, 2000 Eagan City Council Meeting
C. CITY CODE AMENDMENT (OFF STREET PARKING SUPPLY)
CITY OF EAGAN
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve an Amendment to Chapter 11 (Zoning Regulations) of the City Code
amending off street parking supply requirements for retail commercial uses and direct the
City Attorney to prepare an amendment suitable for publication.
FACTS:
Initiated by the City Council, the draft amendment is the result of recommendations
offered by a "Green Space Committee" (a subcommittee comprised of various
members of the Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission, the Advisory Planning
Commission, City Staff and Eagan citizens), the APrC, the APC and the City
Council.
The initial charge of the Green Space Committee was to identify various performance
standards that could be applied to new commercial/industrial developments
(including redeveloped sites) that would reduce the percentage of impervious surface
lot coverage associated with such development without compromising the function of
the use or placing an unreasonable financial burden on developers.
The attached draft amendment has been subject to informal consideration by the City
Council.
This amendment would change the off street parking requirement for retail commercial
uses from one space for each 150 square feet of floor area up to 20,000 square feet (and
one space for each 200 square feet of floor area thereafter) to the following:
A. Floor area up to 10,000 square feet one space per two hundred square
feet.
B. Floor area between 10,001 and 30,000 square feet one space per two
hundred fifty square feet.
C. Floor area thereafter one space per three hundred square feet.
At the regular meeting on October 24, 2000, the Advisory Planning Commission held
a public hearing to consider the Amendment and recommended approval.
/F6
ATTACHMENTS (2)
Minutes of the October 24, 2000 APC meeting, page /err
Draft City Code Amendment, pages AA? through
/S?
Advisory Planning Commission
October 24, 2000
Page 5
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CITY OF EAGAN
Chair Heyl opened the next public hearing of the evening, combining discussion of the following
Ordinance Amendments:
An Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 11, Section 11.20, Subd. 10 Entitled "Land use Regulations
(Zoning)" to establish Minimum Green Area Requirements in Commercial and Industrial Zoning
Districts.
An Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 11, Section 11.10, Subd. 13 Entitled "Land Use Regulations
(Zoning)" amending Off -Street Parking Supply Requirements for Retail Commercial Uses.
An Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 11, Section 11.10, Subd. 13 Entitled "Land Use Regulations
(Zoning)" to establish Minimum Dimensional Requirements for Off-Street Parking Stalls.
Planner Kirmis introduced these items and highlighted the planning report dated October 4, 2000.
There being no public comment, Chair Hey' closed the public hearing.
Chair Heyl stated that the proposed ordinance amendments had been discussed in committee meetings with
the City Council.
Member Nosbush asked for clarification regarding the required number of parking stalls.
Member Steininger stated he felt the City should not require developers to provide extra green space.
Member Huusko agreed. Member Kaess stated that a private business should not have to provide parks for
the City. Member Steininger stated that the City as a whole would not benefit from the extra green space
and he would rather see each development reviewed on a case by case basis.
Member Anderson stated he agreed with Member Steininger and suggested that perhaps the requirement
for greenspace be 5
Member Tilley stated she does not feel the proposed amendment is requiring too much greenspace.
Member Steininger moved, Member Huusko seconded a motion to deny an Ordinance Amendment to
Chapter 11, Section 11.20, Subd. 10 Entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning)" to establish Minimum
Green Area Requirements in Commercial and industrial Zoning Districts.
A vote was taken on the motion. Aye: 3. Nay: 4. Members Tilley, Nosbush, Heyl, Segal opposed.
Member Steininger moved, Member Huusko seconded a motion to approve an Ordinance Amendment to
Chapter 11, Section 11.10, Subd. 13 Entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning)" amending Off -Street
Parking Supply Requirements for Retail Commercial Uses
A vote was taken on the motion. All voted in favor.
Motion was made by Steininger, seconded by Segal to approve an Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 11,
Section 11.10, Subd. 13 Entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning)" to establish Minimum Dimensional
requirements for Off Street Parking Stalls.
A vote was taken on the motion. All voted in favor.
There was no further business.
Member Steininger moved, Member Segal seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:35 p.m.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE EAGAN CITY CODE
(LAND USE REGULATIONS) AMENDING OFF STREET PARKING SUPPLY
REQUIREMENTS FOR RETAIL COMMERCIAL USES
Section 11.10 Subd. 13 (Required off street parking) Change off street parking supply requirements
for retail commercial and office uses.
Subd. 13. Requir-ed &Off- street parking.
A. Spaces required. The following minimum parking spaces shall be provided and maintained by
ownership, easement or lease, for and during the life of the respective uses hereinafter set forth.
Where a specific requirement is not stated, the council shall determine the adequacy of parking
when approving a site plan.
1. Single family dwelling. At least two parking spaces for each dwelling unit. A garage will
fulfill this requirement.
2. Two family dwellings. At least two parking spaces for each dwelling unit. A garage will
fulfill this requirement.
3. Multiple dwellings, including townhouses, apartments and condominiums.
A. No detached garages shall be permitted. All garages shall be attached or
underground.
B. On all buildings at least one enclosed or underground garage space per unit and at
least one outdoor parking space per unit shall be provided.
4. Motel. At least one space for each dwelling unit or lodging room, plus one additional space
for each eight units. Additional spaces shall be required for liquor or restaurant facilities.
5. Church, club. At least one parking space for each 3and 1/2 seats based on the design capacity
of the main assembly hall.
6. Hospital. At least 11/2 parking spaces for each patient bed.
Draft 10/25/00
7. Sanitarium, convalescent home, rest home, nursing home or institution. At least one parking
space for each six beds for which accommodations are offered, plus one additional parking
space for each 15 beds.
8. Medical or dental clinic. At least three parking spaces for each staff doctor practicing on the
premises at any one time or one space for each 150 square feet of gross floor area, whichever
is greater.
9. Theater. At least one parking space for each three seats.
1
/89
13. Retail store.
Draft 10/25/00
10. Drive -in food establishment. Said parking space requirement shall be determined by the
council when reviewing the site plan, and shall be based upon prior experience.
11. Bowling alley. At least five parking spaces for each alley, plus additional spaces as may be
required herein for related uses such as a restaurant.
12. Motor fuel station. At least four off street parking spaces plus two off street parking spaces
for each service stall.
A. Floor area up to a total floor area of 10,000 square feet one space per two hundred
square feet.
B. All floor area between 10,001 and 30,000 square feet one space per two hundred
fifty square feet.
C. All floor area thereafter one space per three hundred square feet.
14. Restaurants, cafes, bars, taverns, nightclubs. At least one parking space for each three seats
based on capacity design.
15. Banks, savings and loan. At least one parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor
area plus five stacking spaces for each drive -in window.
16. Offices. At least one parking space for each 150 square feet of net leasable floor area.
17. Furniture store, appliance store, wholesale and warehouse up to 6,000 square feet. At least
one parking space for each 400 square feet of gross floor area.
18. Manufacturing, fabricating or processing of a product. Said parking requirements shall be
determined by the council when reviewing the site plan, and shall be based upon prior
experience.
2
/90
Agenda Information Memo
November 21, 2000 Eagan City Council Meeting
D. CITY CODE AMENDMENT (OFF STREET PARKING STALL
DIMENSIONS) CITY OF EAGAN
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve an Amendment to Chapter 11 (Zoning Regulations) of the City Code
establishing minimum dimensional requirements for off street parking stalls and direct
the City Attorney to prepare an amendment suitable for publication.
FACTS:
Initiated by the City Council, the draft amendment is the result of recommendations
offered by a "Green Space Committee" (a subcommittee comprised of various
members of the Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission, the Advisory Planning
Commission, City Staff and Eagan citizens), the APrC, the APC and the City
Council.
The initial charge of the Green Space Committee was to identify various performance
standards that could be applied to new commercial/industrial developments
(including redeveloped sites) that would reduce the percentage of impervious surface
lot coverage associated with such development without compromising the function of
the use or placing an unreasonable financial burden on developers.
The attached draft amendment has been subject to informal consideration by the City
Council.
The City Code presently does not include dimensional requirements for off- street
parking stalls. The draft amendment would establish a minimum requirement of 19
feet in depth and 10 feet in width for all off street parking stalls except those devoted
to use by the handicapped.
At the regular meeting on October 24, 2000, the Advisory Planning Commission held
a public hearing to consider the Amendment and recommended approval.
ATTACHMENTS (2)
Minutes of the October 24, 2000 APC meeting, page
Draft City Code Amendment, page /9'3
/9/
Advisory Planning Commission
October 24, 2000
Page 5
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CITY OF EAGAN
Chair Heyl opened the next public hearing of the evening, combining discussion of the following
Ordinance Amendments:
An Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 11, Section 11.20, Subd. 10 Entitled "Land use Regulations
(Zoning)" to establish Minimum Green Area Requirements in Commercial and Industrial Zoning
Districts.
An Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 11, Section 11.10, Subd. 13 Entitled "Land Use Regulations
(Zoning)" amending Off Street Parking Supply Requirements for Retail Commercial Uses.
An Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 11, Section 11.10, Subd. 13 Entitled "Land Use Regulations
(Zoning)" to establish Minimum Dimensional Requirements for Off Street Parking Stalls.
Planner Kirmis introduced these items and highlighted the planning report dated October 4, 2000.
There being no public comment, Chair Heyl closed the public hearing.
Chair Heyl stated that the proposed ordinance amendments had been discussed in committee meetings with
the City Council.
Member Nosbush asked for clarification regarding the required number of parking stalls.
Member Steininger stated he felt the City should not require developers to provide extra green space.
Member Huusko agreed. Member Kaess stated that a private business should not have to provide parks for
the City. Member Steininger stated that the City as a whole would not benefit from the extra green space
and he would rather see each development reviewed on a case by case basis.
Member Anderson stated he agreed with Member Steininger and suggested that perhaps the requirement
for greenspace be 5
Member Tilley stated she does not feel the proposed amendment is requiring too much greenspace.
Member Steininger moved, Member Huusko seconded a motion to deny an Ordinance Amendment to
Chapter 11, Section 11.20, Subd. 10 Entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning)" to establish Minimum
Green Area Requirements in Commercial and industrial Zoning Districts.
A vote was taken on the motion. Aye: 3. Nay: 4. Members Tilley, Nosbush, Heyl, Segal opposed.
Member Steininger moved, Member Huusko seconded a motion to approve an Ordinance Amendment to
Chapter 11, Section 11.10, Subd. 13 Entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning)" amending Off Street
Parking Supply Requirements for Retail Commercial Uses
A vote was taken on the motion. All voted in favor.
Motion was made by Steininger, seconded by Segal to approve an Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 11,
Section 11.10, Subd. 13 Entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning)" to establish Minimum Dimensional
requirements for Off Street Parking Stalls.
A vote was taken on the motion. All voted in favor.
There was no further business.
Member Steininger moved, Member Segal seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:35 p.m.
/?.2
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE EAGAN CITY CODE
(LAND USE REGULATIONS) TO ESTABLISH MINIMUM DIMENSIONAL
REQUIREMENTS FOR OFF STREET PARKING STALLS
Section 11.10 Subd. 13 (Required off street parking) Add a minimum stall dimension requirement.
B. Dimensional Requirements. Excepting those stalls devoted to the handicapped, all required off-
street parking stalls shall be not less than nineteen (19) feet in depth and ten (10) feet in width.
1
/93
Draft 10/4/00