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