Loading...
05/18/1994 - City Council SpecialAGENDA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING Wednesday May 18, 1994 5:00 p.m. Eagan Municipal Center Building L ROLL CALL & ADOPTION OF AGENDA II. DISCUSSION /DIRECTION REGARDING PYLON SIGNS POLICY (approximately 15 -20 minutes) III. DISCUSSION /DIRECTION REGARDING ASSESSMENT POLICY FOR FOUR (4) PENDING PROJECTS (approximately 20 -30 minutes) IV. FINAL REVIEW OF POLICE FACILITY PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS & PHASE I OF SITE DEVELOPMENT (approximately 20 minutes) V. OTHER BUSINESS VI. ADJOURNMENT city of eagan TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: MAY 13, 1994 SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING/WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 1994 At a recent regular meeting of the City Council, a special workshop was scheduled for 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, May 18. The purpose of the meeting Is to provide City Council direction on 1) pylon signs policy, 2) review assessment policies for four (4) public improvement projects and 3) final review of the police facility plans and specifications and Phase I of the site development before the plans and specifications are approved at the regular meeting later that evening. PYLON SIGNS POLICY The Director of Community Development has reviewed the pylon signs policy as directed and is looking for consensus on the part of the City Council on the matter. Enclosed and referenced as pages 3 through As is a copy of a memo from the Community Development Department regarding this item. ASSESSMENT POLICIES /PENDING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Director of Public Works Colbert would like an opportunity to review and receive direction on the assessment policies for four (4) public improvement policies. Each project has its uniqueness and potential issues on how the special assessments are levied to the adjoining property owners. For additional information on this item, refer to a memo prepared by the Director of Public Works enclosed on pages a through32, POLICE FACILITY & PHASE 1 SITE DEVELOPMENT At the last work session, plans for the new police facility were reviewed briefly by Dewey Thorbeck. Since the final plans and specifications will be presented as a Consent item at the regular meeting on Wednesday, May 18, for approval and direction to proceed with the preparation of construction documents, it seemed appropriate to spend a few minutes for a final review. Also, Phase I of the site development is critical for construction of the police facility. That phase of site development is basically the footprint and surrounding area for the new police building, while Phase II, which will be presented to the City Council at a later date, is the new ring route, parking and the overall site development for the municipal center /police department facility. MEMO The Steering Committee has begun meeting to further plans for both levels of the municipal center remodeling. Also, contingency plans are being considered on how the City offices will conduct business once the police department relocates to the new facility in May, 1995 and the remodeling begins in the old police department space. OTHER BUSINESS There are no items under Other Business at this time. /S/ Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator MEMO TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR THRU: PEGGY REICHERT, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM KRISTY MARNIN, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: MAY 12, 1994 SUBJECT: FREEWAY PYLON SIGNAGE INTRODUCTION MEMO city of eagan The purpose of this memo is provide background information and options for dealing with requests for deviations from the current pylon sign standards. From time to time, the City has received requests to increase the maximum pylon height and sign face size standards for properties adjacent to freeways, with visibility frequently listed as the reason for needing the variance. This issue was raised again recently with the Cracker Barrel Restaurant and Hampton Inn developments proposed at the southwest corner of I -35E and Lone Oak Road. (Both developments have requested pylon signs in excess of the 27 foot height and 125 square foot sign area maximums. Cracker Barrel has requested a 60 foot tall sign with 150 square feet of sign area and Hampton Inn has requested a 40 foot tall sign with 200 square feet of sign area). As ` such, the City Council directed staff to review pylon sign standards and present options for possible changes to the standards. To this end, staff has compiled background information on: existing Eagan pylon sign standards, other metro cities' pylon sign standards, previously granted variances to Eagan's pylon sign standards, street graphics design factors, and MnDOT's freeway franchise signage program. An analysis of this information is also provided and options for dealing with pylon sign standards deviations were developed based on this analysis. BACKGROUND Fagan Pylon Sign Standards The Eagan Sign code currently allows pylon signs to be 27 feet in height with 125 square feet of signage area in lieu of a ground sign. However, in the case of property adjacent to a freeway, a pylon sign en a free- standing ground sign are both allowed if the ground sign is located on the side of the property opposite the freeway. Any pylon sign over 7 feet tall requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Pylons must be a minimum of 300 feet apart when located on the same side of the street. This may preclude pylon signs on every lot, especially in commercial areas where fast food restaurants tend to cluster in narrow lots. Several years ago, there was a draft of a new sign code that would have allowed a pylon sign on every lot with a height limit of 20 feet and signage area maximum of 100 square feet; however, this revised sign code was not adopted by the City Council. The portion of the Eagan Sign Code entitled "Major Complex" states, When an area identification is required, such as for a shopping center, major apartment complex or major industrial building, up to one free - standing pylon sign may be allowed for each major adjacent street. The Council shall determine the maximum size after reviewing the applicable condiitions, Including the terrain, safety factors, etc. ". The code contains no definition of "major complex". The 35 foot sign identifying the 170 acre Town Centre area along I -35E on the Pizza Hut lot is one example of a "Major Complex" sign. This sign does not list any tenants in the strip center or individual property owners. However, there are other pylon signs in the City that list tenants in strip centers. Two examples are the Eagan Auto Mall sign along Pilot Knob Road, which has approximately 120 square feet of sign area and is approximately 26 feet tall, and the 27 foot tall Rahncliff Crossing sign with approximately 145 square feet of sign area. Selected Metro Cities' Pylon Height Standards The fofowing is a sample of allowable pylon heights from several metropolitan cities. Apple Valley Allows pylon signs to be 24 feet in height; allows 28 foot height for a major anchor. (See Appendix A) Bloomington: Allow pylons signs to be 6 feet above the highest outside wall of any building in commercial districts. if the building in question is a shopping Center (defined as "a complex that contains a number of retail uses, including a grocery store, a drugstore, and at least one specialty store") the sign code allows for the pylon to be 30 feet above the roof line if, and only If, no additional signage is attached to the building. Brooklyn Park: Allows pylon signs to be a maximum of 25 feet above grade. Burnsville: Pylon sign standards are determined by the classification and allowable speed (mph) on the abutting street (See Appendix B). 2 Eden Prairie: Allows pylon signs to be a maximum of 20 feet in height. Edina: Allows 20 foot pylon signs in its most intense commercial district (Southdale area). In all other area, 8 feet is the maximum height for pylon signs. Lakeville: Allows a 20 foot maximum height on pylon signs; however, they do allow increased height with a CUP. The highest pylon sign allowed to date has been 60 feet in height. Minnetonka: Pylon signs are regulated by the size of building in the commercial district as follows: Building Area Sign Height less than 20,000 square feet 20,000 to 100,000 square feet 100,000 to 400,000 square feet greater than 400,000 square ft 15 feet in height 18 feet in height 24 feet in height 30 feet in height Plymouth: Allows pylon signs to be a maximum of 36 feet in height in its industrial, shopping and service business districts, and a maximum of 16 feet in height in its office district. Shakopee: Allows pylon signs to be a maximum of 20 feet in height. Woodbury: Allows pylon signs to be a maximum of 30 feet in height in its freeway business district. Pylon Sign Standard Variance Since 1981, six applications requesting variances to the pylon sign standards have been reviewed by the City Council. All six applications each requested 23 foot variances to increase the height of the pylon from 27 feet to 50 feet. Two of these requests were approved and four were denied. Following is a brief description of these applications and Council action taken. • Amoco Oil Company • Diffley and Cedar (southeast comer) Subject site is directly adjacent to Cedar Avenue (TH 77). Variance request of 23 feet to allow a 50 foot pylon sign (sign area within code standard); applicant submitted a "site distance survey" indicating a 50 foot sign is needed to see the sign from the freeway (Cedar). 3 s Approved by City Council on 11 -4-81; minutes noted reason for approval as a hardship due to the depression of the freeway. • RHC Associates (Target) - Cliff and I -35E (northwest corner) Subject site is directly adjacent to 1 -35E. Variance request of 23 feet to allow a 50 foot pylon sign and a variance of 118.36 square feet per side to allow 243.36 square feet sign area per side; applicant listed visibility from the freeway as the reason for the request. Denied by City Council on 11- 15-88; minutes did not state a reason for the denial. • Crown Coco, Inc. (EZ Stop) - Diffley and Cedar (northeast comer) Subject site is directly adjacent to Cedar Avenue (TH 77). Variance request for a 50 foot pylon sign (sign area within code standard); applicant listed visibility and need to be competitive with 50 foot Amoco sign south of the subject site, and also submitted a "sate distance survey" done by the same company that did one for Amoco (see above). Approved by City Council on 1 -3-91; minutes noted reasons for approval as follows: 1) City Code allows a pylon sign at this location, and 2) a variance to the maximum sign height is necessary for visibility for the site. (NOTE: a similar application was submitted in 1990 that requested, in addition to the height variance, a 126 square foot variance to the pylon sign size. This application was denied by the City Council on 8 -7 -90; no reasons were specifically listed for the denial, but the minutes alluded to Amoco's sign indicating that gas was available at the exit (and people might choose EZ stop once off Cedar Avenue) and the absence of a hardship.) • Nordquist Co. Inc. (McDonald's) - 4565 Erin Lane Subject site is not directly adjacent to Cedar Avenue (TH 77) or any other freeway. Variance request for a 50 foot pylon sign (no Information re: sign size, but since no variance was requested, It is assumed that sign size was within code standard); applicant listed visibility from Cedar and Amoco's 50 foot sign as reasons for the request Denied by City Council on 2- 18 -92; minutes noted reasons for denial as follows: 1) no case for hardship presented, and 2) concems regarding setting a precedent by 4 6 permitting a pylon sign over the allowed height limit on property not abutting a freeway. (NOTE: a similar request was submitted and denied by the City Council on 5- 18 -82, with the Council indicating concerns about the precedent of a pylon sign in excess of the allowed height on property not abutting a freeway.) Street Graphics Design Factors As noted in the above examples, the frequent contention for the need for a variance to the pylon sign height standards is visibility. The book Street Graphics and the Law (Mandelker, Daniel R. and William R. Ewald. Washington D.C.: APA Planners Press, 1988) addresses this issue by offering a concept and system for sign standards that would allow people, particularly those moving in vehicles, to be able to see and read signs. One position discussed in this document is the affect of vehicle speed on the ability to comprehend signs. (The Burnsville code follows the idea of this concept by Increasing pylon sign size and height based on speed and street category—see Appendix B). Appendix C Is a copy of an exhibit from Street Graphics and /he Law demonstrating that a sign 25 feet tall with a 120 square foot sign area would be appropriate in scale to be seen from a vehicle traveling at 50 mph, assuming clear visibility of the sign. The exhibit does not reference sign proportion at freeway speed. The sign height and size at the speeds depicted do not increase equally; therefore, determining the appropriate proportion at vehicle speeds of 55 mph or greater is difficult. For reference and comparison, the proposed Hampton Inn and Cracker Barrel signs have been added to the exhibit. MnDOT Freeway Franchise Signage Several years ago, MnDOT established criteria allowing freeway franchise signage in outstate Minnesota. This program was aimed at directing state highway travelers to available lodging, food and gasoline through the use of logo signage. Initially this program was not available to metro area cities. In 1993, legislation was approved that expanded the State Freeway Franchise Signage Program to the freeways and limited access highways in the Twin Cities metro area MnDOT is currently in the process of establishing criteria for eligible metro area freeway exits for franchise signs. There are approximately 500 sites available in Minnesota, but no criteria have yet been created to determine exact placement of these signs in the Twin Cities metro area. Rich Feneis of Minnesota Sign Logo, the firm which currently has the State contract for franchise signage, has informed staff that criteria for exact placement of these signs would 5 be established within the next 30 days. He will be contacting the City when he has the information regarding placement. ANALYSIS The above background information indicates that there is no universal standard for determining appropriate pylon sign standards. Eagan and other metro area cities have developed a variety of standards for pylon signs, ranging from simple above grade height limitations to height limitations based on building height, zoning district or street speed and cIassification. Although there are a variety of standards between cities, Eagan's standards are in line with the standards of those of the cities polled (i.e., maximum sign heights are all fairly close with the exception of Bloomington and Plymouth). Deviations from these standards are also handled in a variety of ways between cities, from variances to CUPs to requiring that it be part of a Planned Development. In Eagan, deviations from the pylon sign standards require a variance. As indicated in the background information, pylon sign standard variances have been reviewed on a case -by- case basis and granted if the City Council determined that the applicant demonstrated a hardship, primarily due to visibility from the freeway. Each of the two variances granted allowed one 50 foot pylon with a sign area not exceeding 125 square feet. One of the difficulties encountered with reviewing variances based on hardship is that what constitutes a hardship is not clearly defined, nor is it easy to clearly define because it is subjective rather than objective. For example, if a pylon sign built to the current standards is visible to northbound freeway traffic, but is not visible (until you have driven beyond the freeway exit) to southbound freeway traffic because of a bridge overpass, does this constitute a hardship? Is it reasonable to allow freeway business signage to be of such height and size as to be visible from all directions, and from great distances? If a freeway overpass is determined to be a hardship, then the potential exists for a proliferation of requests for variances to the pylon standards. The implications of such a determination are addressed following the "Options" discussion below. Also reviewed in the background information was the method for determining sign height and size standards developed by the American Planning Association (APA) and American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), which is based on the concepts of perception and comprehension of sign Information. This method could be used to develop new pylon sign standards in Eagan by providing guidelines which increase sign height and size to improve visibility to properties located adjacent to roads with higher speeds (eg., freeways). Another opportunity to deal with visibility and identification of commercial businesses from the freeway is the MnDOT freeway franchise signage program. This program could be used to supplement the currently allowed pylon signs by providing business identification along the freeway which should provide ample opportunity for those unfamiliar with the area to exit the freeway at the proper location. 6 The City has already made a clear distinction relative to signage between freeway fronting property and non - freeway fronting property by currently allowing both a pylon sign And a ground sign only on property adjacent to a freeway. Valid reasons for this distinction include property values of freeway fronting property and the transient users of businesses on freeway fronting property. Freeway fronting commercial property sells for a premium rate and generally is taxed at a greater rate than commercial property without freeway frontage due to good visibility and access. This property is purchased by users who need freeway visibility because they depend largely on transient customers. Local customers of freeway fronting businesses will quickly know where the given business Is located, but the business requires adequate signage to attract non -Eagan interstate travelers passing through town that could just as well stop and spend their money in St. Paul, Little Canada, Burnsville, or Lakeville. Money spent in Eagan benefits the business owner and the City as a whole. Given the background information and the current distinction given to freeway fronting property relative to signage, three primary options are available to the City: Primary Options 1. Maintain the current pylon sign standards, and continue to review variance requests based on hardship; 2. Develop new pylon sign standards applicable to freeway fronting property, maintain the current pylon sign standards for all other property, and continue to review variance requests based on hardship; and 3. Develop new pylon sign standards for all property, and continue to review variance requests based on hardship. Before proceeding with a discussion of secondary options, the Council should consider its objective for pylon signage standards (and potential deviations from these standards). Is it to promote freeway businesses? Is it to alleviate visual pollution? Or is it a combination of these objectives? For the purposes of this memo, staff will present secondary options which advance both of these objectives. Secondary Options IA. Maintain the current pylon sign standards and actively promote the use of MnDOT freeway franchise signage. 7 9 PROS: • meets the objective of providing identification of freeway, and possibly non - freeway, fronting businesses through MnDOT signage directly on the freeway • meets the objective of limiting the expansion of visual pollution by maintaining the current pylon standards CONS: • the rules and availability of freeway franchise signage are unknown at this time 18. Maintain the current pylon sign standards and do not allow the use of MnDOT freeway franchise signage. PROS: • meets the objective of limiting the expansion of visual pollution both on private property and the freeway itself by maintaining the current pylon standards and discouraging additional freeway signs CONS: • does not meet the objective of promoting freeway businesses • the City may not have any control over limiting MnDOT freeway franchise signage 2A. Develop new pylon sign standards applicable to freeway fronting property which Increases sign height and /or size based on location adjacent to the freeway and maintain the current pylon sign standards for all other property. PROS: • meets the objective of providing identification of freeway fronting businesses through increased sign size and /or height standards for such businesses (assuming that increased size and height increases visibility), recognizing that these businesses often cater to transient customers CONS: • does not meet the objective of limiting visual pollution since sign standards would be increased in height and /or size • non - freeway fronting businesses may feel that freeway fronting businesses are given an unfair advantage relative to signage 2B. Develop new pylon sign standards applicable to freeway fronting property whereby pylon sign height and /or size is increased if two or more businesses place their signs on one pylon and maintain the current pylon sign standards for all other property. PROS: • meets the objective of providing identification of freeway fronting 8 /d businesses through increased sign height and /or size • although sign height and size is greater, may also assist in the objective of limiting visual pollution by limiting the overall number of pylon signs by requiring businesses to combine their signs on one pylon CONS: • non - freeway fronting businesses may feel that freeway fronting businesses are given an unfair advantage relative to signage Additional sub - options available for secondary options 2A and 2B would be the promotion or prohibition of freeway franchise signage. See the discussion relative to the pros and cons of freeway franchise signage under secondary options 1A and 1B above. 3A. Develop new pylon sign standards for all property which increases or decreases the sign height and /or size based on zoning, building height or street speed /dassfication. PROS: • although it may not directly promote freeway fronting businesses through increased sign height /size for such businesses, it may provide identification to all businesses more equally based on location (street speed/classification) or use (zoning, building height) CONS: • may not meet the objective of limiting . visual pollution in all areas, since some may see increased sign height and size and others may see decreased sign height and size As with secondary options 2A and 2B, additional sub - options are available for 3A relative to freeway franchise signage. See the discussion regarding the pros and cons of freeway franchise signage under secondary options 1A and 1B above. Also, variances are still a possibility under each of these options. As a matter of policy, the Council could decide to strictly limit the granting of "variances under any of the above primary and secondary options by requiring the applicant to demonstrate an indisputable hardship. A hardship, as currently discussed in the City Code, is a special condition that applies to the land that is peculiar to that land or adjacent land, and that is not merely an inconvenience to the applicant for the variance. Because a hardship Is "unique" to the land or situation, developing specific criteria to judge exactly what constitutes a hardship may prove difficult. For example, as noted in the review of past pylon sign variance requests, the hardship claimed by each applicant was (lack of) visibility from the freeway. If a freeway overpass is determined to be a viable hardship because it blocks visibility from one 9 1/ freeway direction, a proliferation of variance requests could be anticipated given the number of overpasses in the City. Considering that Eagan has 12 freeway interchanges with overpasses, and nine of these interchanges have four quadrants and three have two quadrants, a minimum of 42 cases of hardship could be presented. This assumes only one freeway fronting business per quadrant would request a variance to the sign standards. In addition, bridge overpasses are a common feature of a freeway system. As such it would be difficult to consider an overpass as a 'unique" characteristic to freeway fronting property. CONCLUSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS There is no absolute standard for determining appropriate sign standards, but when compared to other metro area cities, Eagan's current pylon sign standards do not stand out as being particularly short or small. In other words, the current standards do not appear to be uniquely restrictive. However, a case can be made for freeway fronting properties having special signage needs. Also, the opportunity exists to provide freeway fronting businesses with the desired identification, through the use of MnDOT's freeway franchise signage program, without changing the current standards. This memo has briefly outlined a few of the options available for developing new pylon sign standards, if so desired. Since 1981, only six applications (plus the two pending applications) have been received by the City requesting variances to the pylon sign standards. This would appear to indicate that most developers and property owners have found the current pylon sign standards to be acceptable. As such, primary option 1 may be appropriate. Of the two applications approved for variances to the pylon sign standards, both were allowed an increase in height to 50 feet, but were limited to the 125 square feet of sign area standard. Both of these variances were granted for signs located on the east side of Cedar Avenue (TH 77) at Diffley Road. As such, although this height is apparently acceptable to the property owners at that location, it is difficult to know if a 50 foot pylon sign is too tall or too short for the desired visibility at other freeway fronting property locations (i.e., would increasing the pylon sign height standard to 50 feet for freeway fronting property satisfy visibility concerns, or would applicants continue to request even Miler signs ?). Also, 50 feet is taller than any other metro area city polled allows as the standard pylon height. As such, although primary option 2 may be appropriate, the exact standard to be developed needs to be determined. Also, of the applications received for variances to the pylon sign standards, only one has been for a property that did not directly abut freeway right-of-way, and that request was denied partly for that reason. This would appear to indicate that the current pylon sign standards are acceptable for non- freeway fronting property. Therefore, primary option 3 is not appropriate. 10 /02 RECOMMENDATION Based on the background information compiled and the above analysis, conclusions and observations, staff recommends maintaining the current pylon signs standards and promoting the use of MnDOT's freeway franchise signage program. In this manner, the City can hopefully avoid a proliferation of tall, large pylon signs along its freeway corridors, yet provide identification of freeway fronting businesses from several directions. However, as noted in the above text, a case can be made for freeway fronting properties having somewhat special signage needs. Should the Council decide these special needs warrant an increase In the pylon sign standards, staff recommends that the height and size be increased based on an objective criteria such as street speed /classification as developed by the APA/ASLA and also used by the City of Burnsville, and that these increased pylon sign standards be applicable only to property that directly abuts the right - of-way for 1-494, l-35E and TH 77 (Cedar Avenue). Community Development Director Attachments 11 /-3 6 .4 - J.)7 � 7 t �� ✓1 �� �,.t, nior Planlr CITY OF APPLE VALLEY MAJOR ANCHOR SIGNS APPENDIX A 1. Major Anchor signage: One major anchor /center sign may be permitted to identify tenants or building occupants in ,excess ` of 50,000 square feet, subject to the provisions below. Shopping center signage: Two major anchor /center signs may be permitted for a center in excess of 150,000 square feet, subject to the provisions below. 2. AS major anchor/center sign structures are subject to a conditional use permit, as provided in Section A1.72 of the City Code, and site plan approval by the City Council. The following criteria shall apply to all major anchor /center signs: a. The property on which the sign is to be located shall be zoned RB or SC and the sign shall abut County Road 42, County Road 28, or a portion of the Downtown Ring Route. b. The major anchor /center signs(s) shall be the only freestanding sign(s) permitted for the business or center. Such signs may be placed on any lot within the planned unit development or subdivision provided the sign applicant controls the land by easement or title. c. A maximum of 75 percent of the sign structure exterior face shall be encased In the same style and color brick, or other approved exterior material, used on the face of the principle building. A minimum of 25 percent of the exterior face of the sign structure shall be encased a brick, tile, glass or steel rail similar in design and color to the city's downtown streetscape improvements. This material shall be concentrated between the finished ground grade and 42 inches above said grade. d. The sign shall be set back a minimum of 13 feet from the property line, pathway easement or public street right-of-way line. Such signs may be no closer than 300 feet to the nearest freestanding sign on the same side of the right-of-way, nor closer than 50 feet to a comer intersection of two right-of-way lines. e. The maximum height of the sign structure shall be 28 feet above finished grade. Architectural design details, similar to the design of the principle building, may extend 5 feet above the maximum height of the sign. Sign area shall not exceed 180 square feet per side of the sign (2 sides maximum). f. AN signage shall have Individual, Internal backlit letters and symbols. Additional sign fighting may be ground lighting, the source of which Is concealed from view. g. Landscaping plans for the area around the base of the sign shall be completed and reviewed as part of the conditional use permit /site plan approval process. CITY OF BURNSVILLE PYLON SIGN STANDARDS MI Classification* Speed (MPH) Area (sa,ft). Height (ft.) Collector 30 25 16 35 50 20 40 100 24 Thoroughfares, Minor and Intermediate Arterials 30 50 18 35 100 22 40 125 24 45 150 26 50 175 28 Principal Arterials and Above 55 200 32 APPENDIX B APPENDIX C • • I I at Mal (:t +hi i kid the I ow .?' 50 AIM O�• umeirommeopy 4JAIIW 50 WO' Jo MFW (avA Mae LAM' ROo) altstNa nwNOuvrs O 1*44 /c oxmvt Hewer iwo Sag Fae iwc MEMO city of eagan TO: THOMAS L. HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: THOMAS A. COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: MAY 12, 1994 SUBJECT: MAY 18 COUNCIL WORKSHOP DISCUSSION AREA-WIDE ASSESSMENT OPTIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS) As the City continues to mature, several public improvements are either designated on the five -year CIP or being petitioned for which require transportation improvements which are beyond the typical scope of our community's early growth. I would appreciate an opportunity to briefly review the details of each project and the assessment options available with the City Council at their workshop on May 18 to hopefully receive some direction as to how to prepare the feasibility report and its assessment roll to be presented to the affected property owners, businesses, and /or developers. The attached are individual fact sheets associated with each improvement which will be used for the basis of discussion. If any additional information is needed prior to the workshop, please let me know and I will immediately respond. I sincerely appreciate the time and opportunity to discuss these issues with you and the City Council. Respectfully submitted, Thomas Colbert S` cc: Mike Foertsch, Asst City Eng. Gene VanOverbeke, Dir. of Finance Attachments TAC /je /7 ISSUES PROJECT #673 T.H. 3 AND SCHOOL ROAD ACCESS (FORMERLY FARM /GUN CLUB ROAD) 5/12/94 BACKGROUND /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT With the recent passage of the L.S.D. #196 Bond Referendum, a new 700 student elementary school will be constructed east of Highway 3 and north of Gun Club Road. Early engineering studies indicated that the improvement of the Gun Club /Farm Road intersection with T.H. 3 was not feasible to provide the required signalized interchange for school access and the primary access to the southeast quarter of Section 36 and its future development potential. The elevation differential of T.H. 3 and the railroad crossing combined with the highway curve and its super elevation made the improvement unfeasible at this location. Subsequently, another new access was investigated approximately 1 /4 mile north near the platted but unimproved Carol Avenue public right - of -way south of the recently approved Waterview .Addition and crossing Parcel 010 -82, presently owned by Gene and Deb Finch along the north end of the Halley's First Addition The exact alignment of this new access road to serve the school, Pines Edge Addition and other future development has not been defined. With the approval of the Weston Hills development in 1992/93, it was determined that no further development could occur without an approved second access to T.H. 3. This new railroad crossing and access to T.H. 3 will require significant reconstruction of T.H. 3 to provide left /right turn lanes and bypass lanes along with the signal on T.H. 3 and another one at the railroad crossing. In addition, because this will serve as the main access for the southeast quarter of Section 36 along with a new elementary, it is anticipated that this access road will have to be oversized beyond the typical local residential street. The costs associated with this major intersection alone could be in the range of $500,000- $700,000. * The main issue is how to finance the cost of this intersection improvement providing access for pending (school, Pines Edge) and future development. The City Is pursuing the maximum MnDOT contribution, the amount of which•has not yet been determined and will not be available until July of 1995. OPTIONS 1. Assess a portion (up to 100%) of the City's cost on an area -wide basis to all properties in the southeast quarter of Section 36. 2. Same as #1 only use a differential factor to take into consideration different land uses (i.e. public facilities /school, industrial, ag /residential) /s/ PAGE TWO MAY 12, 1994 3.. If the signal is required because of the school, allocate all City costs associated with the signal to the school only and remaining (or percentage) of roadway costs on an area basis under Option 1 or 2. 4. Have the City's Major Street Fund finance a portion (or all) of the costs for the T.H. 3 intersection /signalization and /or oversizing of the access road. • JUSTIFICATIONS 1. Previous developments taking direct access. from T.H. 3 have had to bear the responsibility of all lane widening ` (turn - lanes, etc.) to meet MnDOT's requirements for new access. 2. Historically, the City has recognized that signals serve the community at large and have been financed by the Major Street Fund. 3. The signal at this location is required because of the new school only. 4. No further development can occur in the southeast quarter of Section 36 without an improved access to T.H. 3. This access will function as a minor neighborhood collector. /7 1 1 LJ r -J 1 1 1. RECONSTRUCT T.H. 3 TO PROVIDE ACCEPTABLE GRADE BETWEEN NEW R/R -XING AND T.H. 3 )R PROPOSED SCHOOL ROAD (SEE PROFILE) _TERNATE ALIGNMENT >TEN 1d?tiAllf Y� ? oN + i 1 L_J L_J L _J I I i - - -1 r �J li • L J ' e4sCAYNE AV i AT ^ te . 1 Ny. � `' 1 ,, 1 • ,, • s • • • • • ` x , , , - t 9fit / • • -- "NEW _ •t` t I - -E - 1LEMENTARY SCHOOL • ,1 • • n u u - L J • 1/ • . •4[ Y 1 4 40. I s �0 W �% < /y� ABANDON & VACATE ABANDON ROAD ACCESS \ J `fiON \ _ „,..,...— IN sigl*. iii JO ■ r.“F\ p g le /114/ft I . 11111 p1111111i 4* 1602 .. . 1611viiirlitr, VII• um • le i II 111"1:411F1544 0 . 1 I li Iffir4T44$ On, dir 4 CLIFF v/ CITY OF ROSEMOUNT BACKGROUND PROJECT #661R SIBLEY TERMINAL INDUSTRIAL PARK (RECONSTRUCTION) 5/12/94 Since 1990, the City has been rehabilitating and strengthening the streets within all of our industrial parks (Eagandate Center Industrial Parks, Cedar Industrial Park, etc.) under the City's Five -Year Capital Improvement Program. The Sibley Terminal Industrial Park is the last commercial /industrial area and is scheduled for 1994. Portions of the streets within this area are severely deteriorated and need to be reconstructed while other portions within this industrial park would benefit from a structural overlay extending the life expectancy and minimizing future reconstruction costs. At a public hearing on April 19,- the estimated front foot assessment rate was $33.45. Based on objections received, the City Council reduced the scope of the project to that portion of Yankee Doodle Road from T.H. 13 to Terminal Drive only and rescheduled Terminal Drive for reconsideration in 1996. A revised feasibility report has been prepared. The assessable portion of the cost to reconstruct Yankee Doodle Road will result in an assessment rate of $69.40 per front foot to abutting properties. Traffic counts taken in April, 1994 indicate that the majority of the industrial park, Dun & Bradstreet building and R.L. Johnson 2nd Addition use this portion of Yankee Doodle Road for their primary access to T.H. 13 at its signalized intersection. Historically, street rehabilitation costs have been done on a "neighborhood basis" so that all property owners within the subdivision share equally in the costs of the improvement. ISSUES By dissecting a neighborhood industrial park improvement, how should the improvement costs be spread? SHEMIN 1. Assess the cost of the improvement to the adjacent property owners only. 2. Assess a portion of the cost of Option 1 to adjacent property owners only and spread the remainder on an area -wide basis. as PAGE TWO MAY 12, 1994 3. If Option 2, spread the area -wide benefit cost on a basis of: • Building size ratio • Lot size ratio • Lot frontage ratio • Estimated trip generation with weight factor for different types of vehicles and land use (Le. office, passenger vs. industrial truck traffic) 09 (.4 BACKGROUND In 1979, the construction of the new Cedar Freeway and the relocation of T.H. 13 resulted in the Cedarvale Shopping area being Left with reduced exposure and access. In 1993, a consortium of Cedarvale merchants donated $4,000 to the City of Eagan to prepare a study and feasibility report to improve access to this commercial /retail area Investigations and discussions with MnDOT revealed that no additional access points can be provided. Subsequently, a study was done to improve the existing access, the Intersection of Silver Bell Road with T.H. 13. Various alternatives were identified, presented to interested Cedarvale merchants and the City Council and a final design alignment was pursued with a feasibility report and related cost estimate. The proposed improvement relocates Cedarvale Boulevard to the existing Silver Bell Road, Beau de Rue Drive intersection resulting in the acquisition and removal of The Express Donut Shop along with signal`bzation improvements and channelization of the Silver Bel Road intersection with T.H. 13. The estimated cost of the improvements and right - of-way acquisition is approximately $800,000. ISSUES 1. How much of the improvement should be considered community wide and financed by the City? How much should be financed by special assessments? How much should be financed by an "internal" TIF? 2. How should any assessable costs be allocated? • PROJECT #656 CEDARVALE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS 5/12/94 Against non - residential property only south of T.H. 13 All non - residential zoned properties within one -half mile radius Option #1 with a diminishing factor based on distance from the intersection Improvement Assessment based on pro -rated building size, lot size, estimated traffic generation or any combination thereof c,26 CEDAFIVALE ACCESS EAGAN,. MINNESOTA ASSESSABLE PROPERTIES jiAP NUMBER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 11 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 3S 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 BUSINESS NAME • TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ■ 569,792 TESSERACT SILVER BELL PLAZA U -HAUL SUPERIOR COLLISION SHERWIN WILLIAMS NOTEC TRANSMISSION MEDITERRANEAN CRUISE VACANT CROWN AUTO NOUSE OF WING SINCLAIR ACE HARDWARE VACANT VACANT SARA'S SELF SERVE LAUNDRY VALLEY BIKE AND SKI GOODYEAR COLONIAL PRIDE CAR WASH KINDER KOLLEGE AWR SICK KID KARE/VACCUMS CEDARVALE MALL Occupied - 91,700 Vacant - 39,300 FIRST STAR BANK CEDARVALE OFFICE PARK Occupied - 13,500 Vacant - 1,200 NORWEST BANK PERKINS VACANT SURPLUS WAREHOUSE NULLS /MEADOWBROOK /ARIENS EXPRESS DONUTS TWIN CITY POULTRY CEDARVALE LANES MCDONALDS SILVER BELL CENTER MEI COPIERS FAX INSTANT TESTING CO. EAGAN PET CLINIC GLEASONS GYMNASTIC AREA RUG/D.P.PNOTO /LUMBER CEDARVALE HIGHLANDS Sroadway Piste Lei Xing State Farm Insurance Excel 1 -Nour Nartinizing Dry Cleaners Realty Designs Lone Oak Mailing Emerald Services Ramstsd, Theisen i Kennedy Law Cedarvale Chiropractic Phones Plus Digital Data Lakeland Dental Motor Vehicle Lfseense Board Sonestroo Dyan's World of Donee 810 TOP 3,200 SQUARE FOOTAGE P10 NUMBER 21,000 103.000 1,549 12,255 4,500 2,640 3,000 2,200 7,080 1,904 1,247 5,000 3,042 1,945 1,520 4,000 6,494 2,562 3,328 9,130 5,500 131,000 13,811 14,700 9,720 4,238 3,024 23,850 9,554 1,421 15,679 28,030 4,564 40,000 3,600 4,800 1,980 3,218 1,068 24,439 25,000 10- 48500- 010 -01 10-01800-012-75 10- 01900- 010 -03 10-13700- 010 -01 10- 13700- 020 -01 10-13700-040-01 10- 13700 - 050 -01 10- 13700- 060 -01 10- 13700- 070 -01 10- 01900-100-08 10- 01900-010 -08 10 -01900 -020 -08 10-01900-030-08 10- 01900- 040 -08 10-01900 - 050 -08 10-01900 - 080 -08 10- 01900 - 070 -08 10-01900-090-08 10- 01900 - 020 -07 10- 01900 - 080 -06 10- 01900- 011 -07 10- 01900 - 051 -06 10 -01900 - 010 -06 See Attached 10- 16901 - 040 -01 10- 16901 - 030 -01 10- 16901- 020 -01 10- 01900 - 050 -04 10- 01900 - 020 -04 10-01900 - 010 -04 10-01900-030-04 10- 16901- 010-01 10- 01700- 020 -54 10-68100- 010 -01 10- 13520- 020 -01 10- 13520 - 010 -01 10- 01900 - 020 -12 10- 01900- 030 -12 10- 01900 - 011 -01 10- 01900- 012 -11 10- 01900- 010 -10 10- 01900 - 020 -10 CEDARVALE ACCESS EAQAN, MINNESOTA PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS BACKGROUND ISSUES PROJECT #669 YANKEE DOODLE CORRIDOR /RING ROAD 5/12/94 Recently, the City Council commissioned a traffic study to evaluate the Yankee Doodle Road corridor from Federal Drive to Lexington Avenue and its intersection with Pilot Knob Road and the I -35E interchanges. An interim report has been completed identifying an estimated cost of approximately $11 million for improvements to increase the capacity on Yankee Doodle Road and to provide a Ring Road concept around this major community intersection. Of the $11 million estimated cost, approximately $8 million has been identified as the responsibility of the City of Eagan to be financed through equal contributions ($2.8 million) from the Major Street Fund, a citywide property tax levy and special assessments. An appraiser has been retained by the City of Eagan to research the potential for identifying added value to properties within a project area associated with this roadway improvement. The preliminary findings indicate there is some basis for sustaining special assessments and identifying a value added benefit. Within the coming month, City staff will be presenting the results of this interim report to Interested property owners and businesses to review the concept and need for the proposed improvements. In order to prepare a formal feasibility report for formal Council action to initiate this project, a method of financing must be defined. It is recognized that these improvements will provide a better overall transportation system for the community. Subsequently, approximately 70% of the costs will be financed through City funds (Major Street Fund) and citywide levy. However, the remaining 30% to be levied as special assessment needs to have a defined benefitted area and method of allocation. This is a truly unique project and the largest public improvement to be undertaken by the City of Eagan. Present City assessment policy does not adequately address this method of special assessment financing. OPTIONS 1. Spread the special assessments to all non - residential zoned and guided property within a one -half mile radius of any proposed improvement. Option #1 but limit it to direct access to proposed improvements. A combination of frontage assessments and area -wide assessments according to Options 1 and 2. �9 PAGE TWO MAY 12, 1994 4. Assessments pro-rated based on building size. 5. Assessments pro-rated based on land size. 6. Assessments pro -rated based on estimated /projected traffic generation volumes. 7. Apply a weighted factor for different types of land uses in concert with traffic generation, building or land area ratios. Provide a differential weight factor between vacant and existing developed properties within project study area. 3 d i il 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 g O U - 2 4 - gc cc 0 0 W .1 O 8 0 W Z W W a LL W O z W C co O W a O J W I 0 z 0