03/22/1994 - City Council SpecialAGENDA
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 1994
5:00 P.M.
EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER LUNCH ROOM
I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA
II. SOUTH DODD ROAD DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
III. PROPOSED UTILITY RATE INCREASE
IV. DISCUSSION /PCI INFORMATION FOR PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS
V. CAPONI ART PARK /LAND ACQUISITION
VI. NEW CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
MEMO
city of eagan
MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: MARCH 18, 1994
SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR TUESDAY, MARCH 22,
1994
A special City Council meeting is scheduled for 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, March 22, in the
Municipal Center Lunch Room, for the specific purpose of continuing review of the South
Dodd Road development options. The agenda will also include items that were deferred
at the March 15 work session that immediately followed the regular City Council meeting.
SOUTH DODD ROAD DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
This item was briefly heard at the March 8 work session and is a part of the staff
presentation, memos were distributed by both the Director of Community Development
a d Director of pyblic Works. For an additional copy of those memos, refer to pages
through ( .
PROPOSED UTILITY RATE INCREASE
A proposed utility rate increase was given consideration at the February 28 regular City
Council meeting. There were questions directed to the City staff at that meeting as well
as a subsequent meeting that was held on March 15. The City Administrator and Director
of Finance will present additional information at the meeting on March 22 to address the
cash position of the public enterprise fund and the impact if the percentage is decreased
or there is no increase proposed for 1994.
DISCUSSION /PCI INFORMATION FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
At a recent City Council meeting, there was a request that a general discussion be held
at a work session on how staff should present results of the pavement condition index
(PCI) to the City Council for future street reconstruction projects. PCI rankings generally
consist of 0 35 reconstruction required, 35 - 55 suggests patch /repair and /or overlay
and finally, 55 - 100 is considered routine requiring either crack seal or seal coat. The
1
understanding as to how PCI data should be presented by staff and used by the City
Council in the decision making process and whether further detail presentation/
workshops would be beneficial in understanding the full scope of engineering analysis for
pavement management.
Discussion has been ongoing regarding the future use of Remo Caponi's property, a
seven acre parcel located between the Lexington /Diffley athletic complex and the Caponi
Art Park. There have been meetings and telephone conversations between the City
Council and Tony and Remo Caponi and more recently at the workshop on February 28,
a brief discussion by the City Council and Director of Parks and Recreation about the
proposed use of the property. It should be noted that City Councilmembers Awada and
Masin will be holding their periodic meeting with Mr. Caponi on Tuesday, March 22,
preceding the Special City Council meeting.
A public policy question, simply stated, is whether the City should acquire the Remo
Caponi property for 1) parkland to add to the City's present inventory of passive parkland
area or 2) to hold the property for a specified period of time and sell it to Mr. Caponi for
the foundation to be added as a part of the Art Park holdings.
The City Administrator will review a discussion the Steering Committee has had with
Thorbeck Architects on the new City Council Chambers. This item is scheduled on the
workshop for general discussion.
There are no Other Business items at this time.
City Administrator
TLH /jeh
CAPON! ART PARK /LAND ACQUISITION
NEW CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
OTHER BUSINESS
MEMO
city of eagan
TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
THOMAS L HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: PEGGY A. REICHERT, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: MARCH 8, 1994
SUBJECT: SOUTH DODD ROAD AREA LAND USE POLICY
Introduction: The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a companion piece of
information to that provided by the Director of Public Works, Tom Colbert. This
memorandum will lay out several general land use policy and associated assessment
policy options for the City Council to consider.
Existing Conditions & Land Use Policy: There are currently 15 homes located on the
west side of Dodd Road south of Cliff Road to the Rosemount border. The area is
currently zoned Agricultural which allows five acre minimum lot sizes. The area is
developed, however, with some five acre lots and some smaller lots in the one -half to one
acre range. The City's Land Use Plan guides this area for D -I Single Family Residential
in a 0-3 units /acre range. In addition, the City's policy to date has stated that the entire
City of Eagan would develop with full urban services at urban densities.
On the east side of Dodd Road, urban development through subdivision has occurred to
the north side of Fitz Lake. The issue now is whether the south side of Fitz Lake should
be permitted to further subdivide at urban densities and whether the area of Dodd
Road should also continue to be considered a part of the City's urban service area.
Alternative Policy Approaches: To assist the City Council in considering Its policy
options, staff has laid out four basic alternative options. In addition, we have attempted
to set forth a rough listing of the pros and cons of each option from the perspective of
the City as a whole, as well as the individual property owners who would be affected by
the policy.
3
Option 1 - Establish A Rural Service Area In Eagan: Under this option, the west side
of Dodd Road, south of Cliff Road, as well as the east side of Dodd Road, south of Fitz
Lake, would be designated rural. This area would be eliminated from the City's urban
service area. The Metropolitan Council has been contacted and this is a policy option
that they would permit the City Council to implement. Under this option, no further
subdivision of this property into any lots smaller than five acres would be permitted.
Private on -site sewage and water systems would continue to prevail City utilities would not
be designed to ever provide service to this area. No assessments would be placed on
the property. The area would be permanently "rural.
Pros:
1. Those property owners who currently live there would seem to be able to maintain
their desired lifestyle without increased costs of utilities.
2. Less traffic on Dodd Road.
Cons:
1. The area is already subdivided to a large degree into lots smaller than five acres.
2. The risk of septic tank failures and health problems with private water supply
systems that could not be addressed with public utilities in the future.
3. To serve existing platted property to the north, as well as the east side of Trunk
Highway 3 will require extension of a water loop for which the City could not
recover costs through assessments.
4. On -site sewage at the existing density is not a Tong -term environmentally suitable
method of waste disposal.
5. Dodd Road north of Fitz Lake will still need to be upgraded to accommodate the
platted property existing in that area.
6. Loss of cost recovery for previously developed trunk, sewer, water, and storm
drainage systems in the City designed to serve this area (200,000 +).
7. Potential new school on the east side of Trunk Highway 3 will create development
pressure in this area and increase traffic on Dodd Road even south of Fitz Lake so
that upgrading Dodd Road may be necessary in the future.
8. The rules are changed midstream and Dr. Fitz, who has invested significant time
and monies in the expectation of subdividing his property will not be able to
proceed.
9. Option for future subdivision of property is precluded "forever."
Option 2 - Establish a Rural Service Area On The West Side of Dodd Road South
of Cliff Road and South of the Waterview Subdivision South of Fitz Lake: Waterview
is allowed to develop at R -1 densities, but the rest of the area is maintained as rural.
Pros:
1. Dr. Fitz's property is developed as he has originally proposed.
2. Traffic increases to Dodd Road from the Waterview development would be
insignificant in that upgrading of Dodd Road south of Fitz Lake would not be
required until such time as development on the east of Trunk Highway 3 demanded
the entire upgrading of Dodd Road.
3. Allows for the loop water main to be extended through Waterview at this time and
to complete the system and pay for it in part as lateral assessments.
4. Retains the west side of Dodd Road in its "unique, semi- rural" nature.
Cons:
1. Traffic increases from the 24 Tots in the Waterview Addition, some of which will go
south on Dodd Road.
2. The permanent water loop through Waterview must be installed now.
3. Eliminates the cost recovery of the trunk, sewer, water, and systems planned
previously for the Dodd Road area (approximately $220,000).
4. See the Cons in Option 1 which generally continue to apply in this case.
Option 3 • Retain The Current Policy of a Full Urban Service Area and Subdivide at
R -1 Lot Densities:
Pros:
1. Proximity to the park and the potential cul- de-sac layout on the west side of Dodd
Road would create potentially valuable lots that could absorb the somewhat higher
than normal utility cost per acre that would be required.
2. Retains the potential for property owners to subdivide when they wish.
3. Utilities will increase the value of the land.
4. Provides the option to provide sanitary sewer and water facilities when needed in
the case of public health problems.
5. Proper redevelopment of the area could reduce the number of individual driveways
onto Dodd Road, thereby improving the safety of that street.
6. Trunk area assessments would provide cost recovery of City investment in the
sewer, water, and storm drainage systems.
Cons:
1. Further development on the west side of Dodd Road will require more cooperation
among property owners than may be typically necessary to maximize the efficiency
in street and lot layouts.
2. Those property owners who do not wish to subdivide at this time will pay increased
costs to maintain their large lot lifestyle.
3. The existing development pattern precludes maximizing R -1 density layouts.
4. The imposition of trunk area assessments may increase pressure for development
on those who cannot afford the carrying costs of large lot living.
Option 4 - Maintain a Full Urban Service Area. But Require Estate Zoning at 20,000
Sq. Ft. /Acre:
Pros:
1. Existing development will probably require that many Tots are larger than 12,000
square foot R -1 lot area minimum requirements.
2. Marginal reduction in traffic impact on Dodd Road.
Cons:
1. Many of the Tots in Waterview already exceed R -1 minimum area requirements.
2. Waterview may loose 4-6 lots from its 24 lot subdivision.
3. Resulting decrease in overall density would appear to have a marginal impact on
the overall density in the area and the accompanying traffic.
4. Increase the utility cost per lot; and therefore, makes the Tots more expensive.
MEMO
_city of eagan
TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL C/O THOMAS L HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: THOMAS A COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: MARCH 8, 1994
SUBJECT: S. DODD ROAD & FARM ROAD
UTILITY EXTENSION /DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Watermain
BACKGROUND
On December 21, 1993, a preliminary plat was presented to the City Council for
consideration of subdividing property owned by Dr. Fitz on the south side of Fitz Lake
known as the Waterview Addition. Also on that evening, a public hearing was scheduled
to consider the extension of utilities to service this proposed development if it were
approved. As a result of concerns expressed by property owners residing along Dodd
Road, the City Council did not approve the Waterview Addition preliminary plat and
canceled the public hearing for the extension of utilities. The Council then directed the
departments of Public Works and Community Development to review the appropriateness
of this area (Dodd Road south of Fitz Lake) developing to the densities identified in the
Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan and anticipated by the previous extension and
improvement of public streets and utilities. This memo will address the issue pertaining
to the public infrastructure system.
CURRENT CONDITIONS
In 1992, an 8" subtrunk watermain was constructed in Dodd Road south from Cliff Road
to McFadden Trail (Lakeview Trail Addition) which borders the north side of Fitz Lake
under Project 635. A lateral benefit assessment was levied against all adjacent properties
fronting on Dodd Road, however, trunk area watermain was not assessed to abutting
Dodd Road property owners but deferred until such time that the property would develop
or make a direct connection. Figure "A" shows the location of the watermain and the
property assessed for lateral benefit under this project. Figure "B" shows the remainder
of the City's trunk water system according to the most recent Comprehensive Water
Distribution Plan.
1
Sanitary Sewer
Under Project 635 (Lakeview Trail Addition) completed in 1992, sanitary sewer was
extended to the intersection of Dodd Road and McFadden Trail as shown on Figure "C ".
No lateral benefit or trunk area sanitary sewer assessments were levied to any existing
parcels beyond the Lakeview Trail development boundaries.
Storm Sewer
With the development of the Lakeview Trails Addition, a controlled elevation outlet for Fitz
Lake has been provided through Manor Lake and into the City's trunk system. Figure 'D"
shows the subdrainage districts and the drainage divide south of Fitz Lake in relationship
to the area in question.
Streets
A dust control bituminous overlay was constructed in 1988 on Dodd Road from Cliff Road
to 120th Street (Rosemount border) and Farm Road from Dodd Road to TH 3. There
currently does not exist any concrete curb and gutter or storm sewer system to handle
street drainage. This overlay was constructed in response to the property owners'
complaints pertaining to traffic dust and a "washboard" surface. It was not a structural
overlay and was recognized to be a temporary (7 -10 years) surface treatment which was
assessed to the adjacent property owners.
A question has been raised as to whether to allow continued development along the S.
Dodd Road corridor south of Fitz Lake in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Land
Use Plan which would require the eventual staged construction of public utilities and street
improvements and related assessments against benefitting properties. The following is
a discussion pertaining to each system.
Watermain
ISSUES
As shown on Figure "B ", an 8" subtrunk watermain is intended to be extended south on
Dodd Road to Farm Road and then looped easterly to the southerly extension of Weston
Hills. The design and construction of the trunk water system to date in Section 36 has
been based on the premise that there would be a southerly looped connection near Farm
Road. To properly service the planned build -out development east of TH 3, this
watermain loop must be constructed somewhere between Fitz Lake and Farm Road /Gun
Club Road. The Waterview Addition feasibility report (Project 666) proposed to
temporarily construct a watermain along the west side of TH 3 adjacent to Fitz Lake as
an interim connection until development along Dodd Road occurred at which time the
ultimate design loop would be accomplished. If further development along Dodd Road
is not to be considered, this watermain connection should be constructed within Dodd
Road at the present time in accordance with the ultimate design.
2
8
Sanitary Sewer
Sanitary sewer to service the area along Dodd Road south of Fitz Lake would be serviced
by a sewer extension along the west side of TH 3 adjacent to Fitz Lake as proposed
under Project 666 (Waterview Addition) and shown by Figure "E ". This figure also shows
how this TH 3 extension would provide service to all of the property east of TH 3 as well.
Sanitary sewer to the S. Dodd Road area would be serviced through extensions from the
Waterview Addition. To service the low lying elevations along Farm Road, a lift station
and force main would have to be installed at the Farm Road intersection. If the Waterview
Addition were not approved, it would be difficult to provide sanitary sewer to the S. Dodd
Road property without having to acquire public easements to connect to the TH 3
crossing.
Storm Sewer
Most of the property south of the proposed Waterview Addition lies within the Farm Road
drainage district (L -39) as shown on Figure "D ". Any further development would require
concurrence from the Dakota County Park's system to handle the increased runoff
associated with that development. The surface water runoff from the Waterview Addition
can be readily handled by the Fitz Lake outlet.
Streets
The present Dodd Road dust control overlay is nearing the end of its life expectancy and
the City will start to incur increasingly expensive bituminous patching maintenance
requirements. With continued development in this sector, traffic will increase thereby
accelerating the need for major street repair. While it would be appropriate to install City
streets to current standards (curb and gutter, storm sewer, structural capacity, etc.), it is
premature without the installation of utilities along Dodd Road.
FINANCES
The area west of TH 3 south of the Lakeview Trail Addition consists of approximately 90
acres of parcels ranging from approximately 1/2 acre to 5 acres and zoned Agricultural,
R -1, and Commercial. The ultimate potential trunk area assessment revenue from
maximum development and also the estimated cost to provide and extend trunk utilities
would be as follows:
Utility Revenue C.Q.at
Sanitary Sewer $115,000 $200,000
Watermain $120,000 $80,000
Storm Sewer $230,000 $120,000
Any excess revenue over project costs would reimburse financing shortages for previous
downstream trunk improvements. Revenue shortfalls would be made up by the City's
trunk fund. In addition to these trunk costs, it is anticipated that 100% of the individual
9
laterals and services would be assessed to the adjacent benefitting properties.
If trunk utilities were installed to service only the development of the Waterview Addition
at the present time, with trunk area assessments being collected only from that
subdivision, the following costs are estimated:
Utility Revenue Cost
Trunk Sanitary Sewer $19,000* $130,000*
Trunk Water Main $27,000* $40,000*
Trunk Storm Sewer $24,000 NA
* Approximately 50% of this cost can be allocated to the property east of TH 3.
Additional revenue would be dependent upon the extent of additional property area
assessments east of TH 3.
There are numerous different scenarios of costs vs. assessment revenue depending upon
the extension of the trunk utility and the determination of property to be assessed for any
particular utility extension.
SUMMARY
The Waterview Addition can easily be serviced with all utilities by extending the trunk
sanitary sewer and watermain southerly along the western edge of TH 3 adjacent to Fitz
Lake. However, the cost will exceed the assessment revenue generated by this
development by approximately $123,000 *. If it is determined that no further development
will occur along Dodd Road, the Public Works Department strongly recommends that the
southerly extension of watermain along TH 3 be relocated to Dodd Road to complete the
master plan looping requirement. If this happened, it is also recommended that
properties along Dodd Road be assessed a lateral benefit from this trunk water main
similar to Dodd Road parcels north of the Lakeview Trail Addition. Trunk area
assessments could be deferred until connection or development.
If, in addition to no development along the S. Dodd Road corridor, the proposed
Waterview Addition would not develop as well, the watermain looping along Dodd Road
would still be required as discussed above. However, the southerly extension of the trunk
sanitary sewer along the west side of TH 3 would probably be relocated to the east side
of TH 3 minimizing short-term trunk construction costs but significantly increasing trunk
costs at a later date if the S. Dodd Road area were ever deemed in need of sanitary
sewer service.
In summary, while the extension of trunk utilities and related service to the S. Dodd Road
area is still somewhat flexible, previous design and construction has precommitted a
certain amount of utility construction (watermain) that must still occur in this area to
provide a looped benefit for the greater southeast Eagan development. To what extent
trunk area assessments should be levied to finance whatever amount of trunk utility
extensions are required is a matter of policy for the City Council with the understanding
that any unassessed costs will be the obligation of the City's major trunk funds.
I would like to have the opportunity to explain these options and further clarify these
issues in a presentation at the appropriate time.
Respectfully submitted,
irector of Public Works
TAC /jj
Attachments: Figures "A -E"
5
+Nunn t "'1' !!411% 1 n i l •
0
012 -28
D11-28
MOM
020 -28 p
Lakeview Trail Addition
AV
1 1 1 2 3 4
027-25
0 10 8
_
N V RIiiii /
010 -26 0 j 1 mg" 4:r pp
Water Main — Lakeview Trait /Dodd Road FIGURE "
Project No. 635
Eagan, Minnesota am" �, ASSESSMENT BOUN
Sods In led
maiitilta as s•
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Da kota •
County
PC
GM OM MIND
Trunk Utility Improvements
Project No. 635 .
Eagan. Minnesota
Nrnt► w • __• - -• - -•
41 :1. 1111. 1111M1 11.111.11.1111.1
1
Ltd eview Troll
dition
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Existing Trunk Main
-- Proposed/Future Trunk Main
Lakeview Trail Addition —Trunk Water Main
• FIGURE '8"
t3
1
.1;;J toe �e
Manor lake
Weston Hilk
Addition
1
m
0
J • 1.
050-28
010 -51
Lakeview Trail Addition
Sanitary Sewer Layout
Project No. 635
Eagan. Minnesota
FIGURE "C"
l
,.o
,... Is OW
FIGURE "
C
$
OPTION A
T.H. 3 UTILITY EXTENSION
w /AREA B SERVED BY GRAVITY
EAGAN, MINNESOTA FIGURE "E"
WATERVIEW ADDITION, CITY PROJ. No. 666 j
Taft as
LEGEND
Service Area Boundary
0./08/1994 0914 D.R.BMIKNEAPOLIS
DOHERTY
i
RUMBLE
St BUTLER
(1tOrldr!.K►NA A'1w % 7AT"rA
Attaeneys ft Law
March 8, 1994
7lll►I;dt mi F....n
I' %.ruhIdU, owl
Minn..rr d6. hhn►r'uI4' 4M7 4 i
Alephone ($4.1 Vin
Fa VOV 4U• ON
Wr Writ. Jowl d4l uurn(rr
Mayor Tom Egan and
City Council Members
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, Minnesota 55122 -1897
ttlp)MI,wx -.rr twWW lad.•1 r.nn
V) NM :nra►II Slum
'%NuII 1.IhI \hnnwd.I'•'.!1) 4 ' 1
ki•I4..r (..1' !it
FAX 0121 711 9111
340-5571
Mgpudrr Falldiw);
1112'MSImti,NW
W+ hhO im.1)1 .91 k.32a1
kdrldr.nr IMZNIMLItly
I4' (.'ILh MA Mnh
P. 02
217Ulhw'7►law IW ra,
1300 tierenkrath
I itvi t Culamdtteaff/Ara
Trtvyla.n (3D3) J2.620)
SU CIO) 572 On
Wyly Midoworolim 441 ire
Re: 17.7 Acres of Land Owned by Clarence and Donna Fitz
Dear Mayor Egan and Council Members:
Clarence and Donna Fitz have asked me to write this letter on their
behalf . They are long -time property owners in the City of Eagan and, now
that the urbanization of Ragan has reached their doorstep from the north,
wish to develop their property in a manner consistent with the Eagan
Guide Plan and existing development patterns.
1 have reviewed the Eagan Guide Plan and zoning map, staff reports, prior
special assessment rolls for the property, Planning Commission and City
Council minutes, and a feasibility report for utility extensions to serve
the property. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the
rezoning. The rezoning staff report of November 17, 1993, states: "The
proposed rezoning to R - 1 is consistent with the Guide Plan.' The
engineering report of November 11, 1993, states: 'The project infeasible
from an engineering standpoint and is in accordance with the objectives
established in Eagan's Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer and Water Plans."
The property lies to the east of Dodd Road. To the north and east of the
property is single - family development at densities consistent with, in
fact more dense, than is requested by the preliminary plat submitted
along with the rezoning request. To the south lies land guided for
similar density (D -II), zoned R - and currently developed, in part, for
trucking uses and zoned GB. West of Dodd Road, abutting Lebanon Hills
Regional Park, lies some land guided D - 1, which can be zoned accordingly
with Dodd Road as the zoning district line. Thus, the proposed rez oning
complies with the Guide Plan east of Dodd Road, the zoning to the south,
as well as development patterns and recent zoning undertaken to
accommodate single - family detached urban - scale development to the north.
Moreover, the land is mature for development, in that the land to the
north has recently developed and utilities can be readily extended to
serve the Fitz property.
The request by Dr. and Mrs. Fitz, to rezone their property is perfectly
consistent with other land owners' requests approved by Eagan as Eagan
has developed over the years, and, in particular, it is consistent with
the relatively recent development of Lakeview Trail Addition. In 1989
the City assessed the Fitz property nearly $6,000, more than half of
( '2
03 -08 -94 09:13A3i P002 M14
•■
rt
4
r
03/08/1994 09:14 D.R.BMIMEAPQ-IS
i./ V HERTY
RUMBLE
& BUTLER
PKOItSFIONAI. ASSOIIATION
which was for sanitary sewer trunk availability. All of these factors
indicate that the property is ripe for R - 1 density development. When it
is timely, a property owner ie entitled to have its property zoned in a
manner consistent with the Guide Plan, particularly when the requested
rezoning reflects existing development patterns and zoning actions
previously taken on adjacent properties. indeed, a portion of the Fitz
property is already zoned R -1, as is requested for the remainder of the
parcel.
For these reasons, we urge the City Council that rezoning to R -1 is both
lawful and consistent with Eagan past practice and policy, as well as a
legal right of Dr. and Mrs. Fitz at this point in tune. Developed
property to both the south and the north is zoned R - and the Guide Plan
contemplates exactly that zoning.
Sincerely yours,
David C. Sellergren
DCS /eka
cc: Clarence and Donna Fitz
DCI 47144
Mayor Tom Ragan and
City Council Members
March 8, 1994
Page 2
P.03
TOTAL P.03
03 -08 -94 09:13AM P003 #14
1
city of eagar
TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: PEGGY A. REICHERT, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: MARCH 10, 1994
SUBJECT: PROPOSED POLICY REGARDING PROVISION OF CITY SERVICES TO
ADJACENT MUNICIPALITIES
INTRODUCTION
The City of Inver Grove Heights is in the process of reviewing and approving a Preliminary
Plat for Coventry Pass 5th Addition. This plat would be an extension of the Coventry
Pass development within the City of Eagan located east of Dodd Road, just south of
Wescott. The City of Inver Grove Heights would not be providing drainage or utilities
(sewer and water) to this subdivision. They are assuming that sanitary sewer and water,
and potentially other services such as fire protection, would be provided through the City
of Eagan through a Joint Powers Agreement. The Coventry Pass 5th Addition
encompasses 57-1/2 acres and 127 single family lots. City Department Directors
discussed this issue at their meeting of March 8 and concluded that there were significant
policy issues involved that should be raised immediately with the City Council. The
purpose of this memorandum, therefore, is to summarize our discussion this past week
and to offer some observations from the staff's perspective for consideration by the City
Council.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
lntercommunity Joint Powers Agreements for providing public services are not new for
Eagan. There presently are four such agreements in effect:
1. Inver Grove Heights for Eagan to provide sanitary sewer and water service to 389
trailer park units and single family lots in Emerald Hills Trailer Park (entered into
7/20/72).
MEMO
2. Burnsville for them to provide sanitary sewer and water to 69 lots in River Hills 9th
Addition (entered into 7/15/74).
3. Burnsville for them to provide storm drainage outlet for 40 acres west of Slater
Road (entered into 3/15/82).
4. Apple Valley for Eagan to provide sanitary sewer only for 139 lots in the Briar Oaks
of Apple Valley Addition (entered into 8/5/86).
With the exception of Inver Grove Heights, all developments were consistent with both
communities Comprehensive Plans for the proposed density of developments and were
beneficial in allowing the orderly progression of developments.
The City's Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Policy Plan has made provisions to provide
gravity sanitary sewer service to various land uses in Inver Grove Heights and Apple
Valley even though Inver Grove Heights is outside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area
(MUSA) boundary.
The City's Comprehensive Water Supply and Distribution System Plan was designed to
provide service only within our corporate boundary with the exception of the Emerald Hills
Trailer Court area in Inver Grove Heights.
The City's Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan has made provisions to
provide coordinated drainage between communities in accordance with the Gun Club
Watershed Management Organization (WMO). Our policy requires every city pond to
have a controlled outlet provided to handle the 100 year storm with a three foot freeboard
bounce (factory of safety) to protect structures. Portions of all surrounding communities
have opportunities to drain into Eagan's system with proper ponding and outlet control.
In the past, Inver Grove Heights has declined to participate in financing Eagan's system
to service the proposed Coventry Pass 5th Addition.
CURRENT PROPOSAL
The Coventry Pass 5th Addition has been under informal discussions between the City
of Eagan and the developer, Ron Helmer, as well as Inver Grove Heights' staff for the
past year and a half. Most of the discussions have been of a technical nature regarding
storm drainage, sewer service, snow plowing, etc. In April 1993, Jon Hohenstein wrote
a letter on behalf of the City to the Director of Development and Protective Services in
Inver Grove Heights outlining some of the possible aspects of a Joint Powers Agreement
to provide water and sewer service (attached). At that time, it was noted that a Joint
Powers Agreement would be necessary and would need to be further explored. Mr.
Helmer has also been in contact with the Public Works Director regarding various
engineering details. While a Joint Powers Agreement would be necessary if the City were
to provide services to property within the City of Inver Grove Heights, the basic policy
question of whether the City of Eagan should, in fact, extend services to adjacent
municipalities has not been fully discussed amongst staff heretofore and certainly not with
the City Council.
POLICY ISSUES
The basic policy question is, "Should the City of Eagan extend services to portions of
adjacent communities through Joint Powers Agreements ?" or "Should the City of Eagan
provide services only to areas within its municipal borders ?" If areas outside the City
desire to develop because of their proximity to the City of Eagan or their inability to be
serviced by their own community, then should these areas in fact be detached from their
current municipality and annexed to the City of Eagan?
URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY
There are several reasons why the Department Directors have raised this question at this
point for consideration by the City Council. First, the area in Inver Grove Heights to be
developed is extremely detached from its core urban service area and is not planned to
be serviced with drainage or utilities. The sole reason for developing at this time is that
it is proximate to the Coventry Pass development in Eagan. The area looks and feels like
a part of the City of Eagan because it is on the western side of Highway 55/149 and the
Soo Line Railroad tracks. Inver Grove Heights has amended its Comprehensive Plan to
include this in its urban service area pending approval by the Metropolitan Council. Inver
Grove Heights does not plan to accommodate further urban density development to the
east of Coventry Pass. They plan to keep it in large lot zoning. The Metropolitan Council
has not yet taken final action on this amendment of the MUSA boundary. Thus far the
City of Eagan has not commented on this MUSA boundary amendment.
UTILITY SERVICE & DRAINAGE
Secondly, this is a significant size development of 127 homes. While sanitary sewer and
water lines can be extended from the systems in Eagan, providing these services will
necessitate additional administrative efforts on behalf of the City of Eagan. At a minimum,
separate billing systems will need to be established and administered distinct from our
normal billing practices. Storm drainage and water quality for the area are planned to be
handled in a different manner than if the property were part of the City of Eagan. There
would be no controlled outlet for the major ponding area proposed. Inver Grove Heights
presently has no storm water utility fee or water quality program.
PARK SERVICES
Third, the City of Inver Grove Heights is not providing neighborhood park services to this
side of Highway 55/149. Obviously, this neighborhood will be using the park within the
City of Eagan. We do not charge directly to residents outside the City of Eagan to use
our parks other than program participation fees. Maintaining and operating City parks is
paid for by the general taxes in the City of Eagan. Conceivably, there could be a special
annual parks service fee charged to Inver Grove Heights through a Joint Powers
Agreement, but this hasn't been raised in any previous discussions.
PUBLIC SAFETY
Fourth, as the attached letter from Fire Chief Nelson dated March 3, 1993 indicates, there
are special provisions that will be necessary to be taken if the City of Eagan is to provide
fire service to this area. Finally, there would need to be special provisions if the City of
Eagan is to provide police service to this area. At this point, Inver Grove Heights intends
to provide its own police service to this area.
STREET MAINTENANCE
Presently, Eagan provides snow and ice control through contractual services to our
Coventry Pass Addition. If Inver Grove Heights were to provide their own operational and
structural maintenance, it could result in different levels of service in what would appear
to be one neighborhood possibly creating confusion and complaints.
TRAFFIC
MnDOT has not yet approved the proposed access to Trunk Highway 149/55 and the
Soo Line Railroad has not yet approved a crossing of their tracks. If not possible, this
development will put an additional 1200+ trips per day through the local residential area
of Eagan's Coventry Pass development. It is significant that there was no Trunk Highway
3 access condition placed on the Coventry Pass 5th Addition preliminary report in the
Inver Grove Heights staff report.
In summary, it is much more complicated to provide services to these 127 homes within
the City of Inver Grove Heights than it is to provide services to a comparable number of
homes normally located within the municipal boundaries and under the jurisdiction of the
City of Eagan.
CENTRAL ISSUE
The question is, "What is the benefit to the residents and business owners within the City
of Eagan in providing services to this property in the adjacent municipality ?" For all
intents and purposes, residents within this Coventry Pass 5th Addition will be living within
the corporate environment of the City of Eagan, although they will technically be located
in Inver Grove Heights. They could be viewed as non - voting citizens of the City which is
providing them with most of their public services. At the same time, the City of Eagan will
not have the benefit of the general property taxes to support our general overhead and
operating costs of services that are not directly billed to homeowners such as parks and
public safety services. It is conceivable that a certain surcharge may be imposed on
services to this area through a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Inver Grove
Heights. At this point, we have not had any specific discussions about the nature of that
Joint Powers Agreement with the staff in Inver Grove Heights. Inver Grove Heights' staff
have commented to Eagan staff on an informal basis that they can, from one perspective,
certainly see the rationale for simply detaching and annexing this land area to Eagan. In
fact, there was a minor swap of land completed last year, but it affected only a very small
piece of property of less than two acres. Inver Grove staff, however, anticipates that the
detachment annexation issue would be a larger issue with the City Council and would not
be viewed favorably.
I have notified Inver Grove Heights Community Development Director, Tom Link, that we
will be raising this issue with the City Council and seeking some direction. He
appreciated the notice, but added that this could come as quite a surprise. He indicated
that our comprehensive plans had always shown that sanitary sewer could be provided
to some parts of Inver Grove Heights through Eagan.
In addition, because this plat has been in the works for over a year without raising any
major issues, Eagan staff is somewhat concerned about how we raise these issues about
providing services outside the City at this time. However, we do not feel that any absolute
commitments were ever made to either the developer or the City of Inver Grove Heights
such that discussion of City policy at this point is still appropriate and also necessary.
There are other areas in Inver Grove Heights and Rosemount that could become a
subject of this same question in the near future, one such area is east of Weston Hills
SUMMARY /CONCLUSION
In conclusion, there are quite a few issues involved in providing urban services to a
portion of Inver Grove Heights adjacent to Eagan. There are specific issues related to the
design of this specific plat such as street design and access that have not been resolved.
More significantly, there are issues with providing ongoing public services beyond utilities
and storm drainage such as police and fire protection and neighborhood parks. These
are services that are normally paid for through general property taxes which will not be
available to Eagan in this instance. Negotiating a mutually acceptable Joint Powers
Agreement between the two cities for these services that adequately addresses these
issues and a cost allocation methodology may not be a quick and simple matter.
The central issue for the Council to consider is, "What is the benefit to the residents and
business owners within the City of Eagan in providing services to this property in an
adjacent municipality ?" If it is determined that there is some benefit such as insuring
compatible land use adjacent to Eagan, the next question is, "Under what circumstances
should the services be provided ?" While a Joint Powers Agreement may be feasible, a
more straightforward approach for the long run may well be detachment and annexation
of this area by the City of Eagan. Because this question is going to come up in the near
future with property adjacent to Weston Hills, as well as potentially in northern
Rosemount, staff believes that the City Council needs to consider this issue at this time
and come to some policy determination.
The City of Eagan is also being asked to comment on MUSA boundary amendments
proposed by the City of Inver Grove Heights for review by the Metropolitan Council. Staff
is looking for some policy direction on our comments there as well. We will be available
at the Council meeting to address further questions and concerns.
Director of Community Development
PAR /js
i
�'✓ city oFocigcin
April 16, 1993
MR TOM LINK
DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT & PROTECTIVE SERVICES
CITY OF INVER GROVE HEIGHTS
8150 BARBARA AVE
INVER GROVE HEIGHTS MN 55077
RE: RON HELMER DEVELOPMENT
TH #149 & TH #3
Dear Tom:
THOMAS EGAN
Moves
PATRICIA AWADA
SHAWN HUNTER
SANDRA A. MASIN
THEODORE WACHTER
Councl Members
THOMAS HEDGES
City Admwrutrotor
EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE
city Cleitt
As you are probably aware, Ron Helmer of R.H. Development has contacted the City of
Eagan relative to the development he is proposing along our common boundary. In that
regard, we have provided him with the attached memoranda and plat diagrams for adjacent
properties. I would appreciate it if you would review these memos and contact me if you
have any questions or concerns regarding them. In addition, Mr. Helmer asked that the City
tentatively identify certain costs associated with the costs of sewer and water service, snow
and ice removal, and fire service.
In regards to snow and ice control, the City of Eagan currently contracts this service with
a private vendor for the streets within Eagan in the vicinity of this proposed development.
Therefore, rather than have Eagan provide snow and ice control services through a Joint
Powers Agreement with Inver Grove Heights, it is felt that those services could be provided
by your community either directly or through a similar contractual service.
In relationship to providing sanitary sewer and water service, the City of Eagan has the
capacity and elevation available to extend our facilities into Inver Grove Heights to service
this development. However, the installation and maintenance should be the responsibility
of Inver Grove Heights. There will have to be a Joint Powers Agreement to address the
issues of reimbursing the City of Eagan for water supplied and sewage collected from this
system. One option would be to have Inver Grove Heights do the meter readings and
billings and reimburse the City of Eagan for recorded flows (at Eagan's rates) less a
reasonable fee for administrative costs to cover meter reading, billing, collection, etc.
MUNICIPAL CENTER
3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD
EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122 -1897
PHONE: (612) 681 -6600
FAX: (612)681.1612
TDD: (612)1518535
THE LONE OAK TREE
THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY
Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer
MAINTENANCE FACILITY
3501 COACHMAN POINT
EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122
PHONE: (612) 68141300
FAX (612) 681.4360
TDD: (612)134.8335
If Mr. Helmer resolves the MUSA extension issues and chooses to move forward on this
matter, it would be necessary to address the issues above between the two cities. To the
extent necessary, we would need to prepare a Joint Powers Agreement to insure that all
mutual responsibilities are adequately addressed. If you have any questions in this regard,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
n Hohenstein
Acting Community Development Director
JH /js
cc: City Administrator Hedges
Fire Chief Nelson
Public Works Director Colbert
Ron Helmer, R.H. Development, 7600 Parklawn Ave., #223, Edina, MN 55435
TO: PEGGY REICHERT, COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
TOM COLBERT, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
FROM: JIM STURM, CITY PLANNER
DATE: MARCH 18, 1994
RE: DODD ROAD SUBDIVISION ANALYSIS
Background:
The purpose of this memorandum is to explain the design criteria, thought process and
concept plans of the two subdivision options on the west side of Dodd Road, south of
Cliff Road. Currently, there are fifteen homes on individual parcels varying in size from
less than one acre to over five acres. The zoning is Agricultural and the Land Use Guide
Plan designates the area D -I, 0 - 3 units per acre.
Design Criteria:
G All existing homes should remain; however, the driveways may need reorientation.
G All lots created would not require variances (additional lots could be created if
minor lot deviations were allowed).
• All street grades must meet code requirements.
• There shall be minimal disturbance to the woodlands.
• There shall be no wetland encroachment.
O The lots west of the redlines may require ejector pumps for sanitary sewer. Also,
manholes would be required approximately 400' apart.
Option 1 - Individual Lot Subdivision
Rezoning to R -1 and platting could occur as property owners subdivide their own
property. Lots would be as small as 12,000 square feet; however, this would probably
only occur if new streets were constructed. With this option, it appears that most of the
existing parcels would be subdivided with an east /west orientation, having direct utility
connections and driveways onto Dodd Road. This would also preserve the views to the
park from the existing homes. The concept plan creates twenty -two new lots.
Pros
No ejector pumps necessary
No new streets
Less density
Less grading
No wetland impact
Less traffic
Rezoning and platting would only occur if two or more property owners were involved.
With this scenario, lots could also be as small as 12,000 square feet. The concept plan
does not designate estate -size lots that require a 100 foot minimum width and 20,000
square foot area. Given the varied locations of the existing homes, it appears several cul-
de -sacs extending westerly from Dodd Road with one loop road may be the most efficient
way to subdivide the property. If roads were constructed in a north /south orientation,
there would be excessive grading and streets having homes with both front yards and
back yards on them. This would also get create lots that would be best suited for a tuck -
under style home which is undesirable from a marketing /building perspective. The
concept plan creates forty -nine to fifty -one new lots.
Pros
Sanitary sewer for all lots
More tax revenue
Creation of small neighborhoods
Less driveways on Dodd Rd.
No further subdivision
These are only two options of how this approximate sixty -two acre area could be
subdivided. In both, though, there was an attempt to be as sensitive to the existing
conditions as possible while creating a subdivision that was economically feasible. If I can
be of additional assistance, please let me know.
•
1 7F4IP*
City Planner
JS /js
Cons
Option 2 - Area wide Subdivision
Not efficient layout
Direct driveways onto Dodd Rd.
May subdivide further in future
Would still need sanitary/storm sewer
Less tax revenue
Cons
No established setback
More traffic
More tree removal
May need ejector pumps
More grading
More impact on water quality
EXISTING CONDITIONS
fa
it
ma x. ✓^ -
-'
' INDIVIDUAL LOT SUBDIVISION
AREA -WIDE SUBDIVISION