Loading...
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