No preview available
 /
     
10/06/2005 - City Council RegularAGENDA EAGAN CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER BUILDING October 6, 2005 6:30 P.M. I. ROLL CALL & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ADOPT AGENDA (At approximately 8:00 p.m. the Council will take a short recess) M. RECOGNITIONS & PRESENTATIONS p a A. OATH OF OFFICE — New Police Officers, Daniel McCarty and Brian Caron IV. CONSENT AGENDA i3 A. APPROVE MINUTES 'g B. PERSONNEL ITEMS 9 C. CHECK REGISTERS /0D. APPROVE Resolutions to Issue and Sell under competitive bid on November 1 $5,160,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2005A; $3,840,000 General Obligation Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2005B; and, $1,550,000 General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 2005C. 13 . SET public hearing date for November 1, 2005 to certify delinquent utility bills c6F. SET public hearing date for November 1, 2005 to certify delinquent false alarm bills . 7 G. SET public hearing date for November 1, 2005 to certify delinquent weed cutting bills Pas H. APPROVE licensee name on the liquor license from Madigan Companies, Inc. to Madco Incorporated p2 9 I. EXTEND terms of Gun Club WMO members to April 1, 2006 '0,30 J. APPROVE final acceptance of Project 03-H, Kennerick 2°d Addition b 3 a K. AUTHORIZE the issuance of Request for Proposals for an Electronic Document Management System and authorize r the advertisement for bids 03 3 L. APPROVE fmal acceptance of Project 04-D, Sugar Bluffs 3 cM. ACCEPT assessment roll and schedule fmal assessment public hearing (November 1, 2005) for Project 911 •7 (Berkshire Ponds, Safari 2°d Addition — Street Overlay Improvements) 0 36 N. ACCEPT assessment roll and schedule final assessment public hearing (November 1, 2005) for Project 915 (Ridgecliff, Covington Lane, Galaxie Avenue — Street Overlay Improvements) 1p 37 0. APPROVE Change Order #3, Contract 05-03 (Well #21) gr 3a P. APPROVE change in dog license fee p39 Q. APPROVE Application for Exempt Permit for Faithful Shepherd Catholic School V. / PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 ill A. VARIANCE — Steven Marstad — A Variance request to construct an accessory garage that exceeds all the requirements of accessory buildings at 1740 Cliff Road in the NE '/ of Section 32. 194 yB. PROJECT 914 — Final Assessment Hearing, Thomas Lake Heights (Street Overlay Improvements) C. PROJECT 916 — Final Assessment Hearing, St. Francis Woods (Street Overlay Improvements) Pp1 6 D. EASEMENT VACATION — Vacate Public Drainage and Utility Easement (LaQuinta Inn) ip (II. OLD BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS y� g O A. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT — Chapter 6, Other Business Regulation and Licensing — regarding Massage //' Therapy Establishment and Massage Therapist Licenses gSB. PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT- Diffley Marketplace - Diffley Ventures - A Preliminary Planned P Development to allow a commercial retail development including a grocery store, two multi -tenant retail buildings and two future commercial retail buildings upon 10.64 acres located on Outlot A, Lexington Pointe Thirteenth Addition and Outlot A, Lexington Pointe Seventh Addition in the NW '/, of Section 26. a VC. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- Ramona Rodriguez — A Conditional Use Permit to exceed the 25% maximum impervious surface allowed for shoreland overlay of Carlson Lake to allow a four season porch located at 1325 Carlson Lake Lane in the NE ''A of Section 27. at ii.D. COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT- Oak Hills Church — A Comprehensive Guide Plan (//J' Amendment to change the land use designation from (QP) Quasi -Public to (LD) Low Density upon .94 acres to create 2 single family lots located at 1570 Yankee Doodle Road in the NW ''A of Section 16. P305 E. COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT- Delta Development Inc.- A Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from (IND) Industrial to (MD) Medium Density located at 4101 Old Sibley Memorial in the SW '/, of Section 19. J2 3 /9 F. REZONING, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT- La Quinta Inns, Inc.- A Rezoning from (T) Transitional to (PD) Planned Development. A Planned Development to change approved use from restaurant to hotel. A Final Planned Development to build a 152 room hotel on 2.88 acres located on Outlot C, Eagan Woods Office Park in the NE ''/ of Section 04. 193 502G. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT- Microtel Inn- A Planned Development Amendment to expand parking for use of a Park -n -fly located 3000 Denmark Ave in the NE '/, of Section 10. VIII. LEGISLATIVE/INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UPDATE NEW RUNWAY/AIRPORT UPDATE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA A. Comments by City Council, City Administrator, and Department Heads XI. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (There are no items to be considered at this time) The Council acting as the Board of Commissioners of the Economic Development Authority ("EDA') may discuss and act on the agenda items for the EDA in conjunction with its actions as a Council. A. CALL TO ORDER B. ADOPT AGENDA C. APPROVE MINUTES D. OLD BUSINESS E. NEW BUSINESS F. OTHER BUSINESS G. ADJOURNMENT XII. VISITORS TO BE HEARD (for those persons not on agenda) XIII. CLOSED SESSION XIV. ADJOURNMENT The City of Eagan is committed to the policy that all persons have equal access to its programs, services, activities, facilities and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation, or status with regard to public assistance. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities will be provided upon advance notice of at least 96 hours. If a notice of less than 96 hours is received, the City of Eagan will attempt to provide such aid. 4/ City of Eakall Nano To: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCILMEMBERS From: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES Date: SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 Subject: AGENDA INFORMATION FOR OCTOBER 6, 2005 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ADOPT AGENDA After approval is given to the October 6, 2005 City Council agenda, the following items are in order for consideration. / Agenda Information Memo October 6, 2005 Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA The following items referred to as consent items require one (1) motion by the City Council. If the City Council wishes to discuss any of the items in further detail, those items should be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed under Old or New Business unless the discussion required is brief. A. APPROVE MINUTES ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve the minutes of the September 20, 2005 regular City Council meeting as presented or modified. ATTACHMENTS: • Minutes of the September 20, 2005 regular City Council meeting are enclosed on pages through '7. 3 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE EAGAN CITY COUNCIL Eagan, Minnesota September 20, 2005 DRAFT A Listening Session was held September 20, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. prior to the regular City Council meeting. All members of the City Council were present (Councilmember Carlson arrived at 6:20 p.m.). Rod Smith discussed damage caused by a recent storm and questioned the City's policy in regard to clean up of trees and debris after a storm. Public Works Director Colbert discussed the current City policy. Mayor Geagan and the Council agreed that the Public Works Committee should review the current policy and directed staff to conduct a survey of area cities. Henry Jandewerth expressed concern over the construction of sidewalks adjacent to his property as well as the removal of trees. Mayor Geagan and Council also agreed to have this issue reviewed by the Public Works Committee. A regular meeting of the Eagan City Council was held on September 20, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center. Present were Mayor Geagan, Councilmembers Fields, Tilley Maguire and Carlson. Also present were City Administrator Tom Hedges, Community Development Director Jon Hohenstein, City Planner Mike Ridley, Public Works Director Tom Colbert, City Attorney Mike Dougherty and Administrative Secretary / Deputy Clerk Mira Pepper. AGENDA Councilmember Fields moved, Councilmember Tilley seconded a motion to approve the agenda as presented. Aye: 5 Nay:0 CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Maguire moved, Councilmember Tilley seconded a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 A. Minutes. It was recommended to approve the minutes of the September 6, 2005 regular City Council meeting and the August 23, 2005 special City Council meeting as presented. B. Personnel Items. 1. It was recommended to approve the hiring of Jennifer Estevez as a Fitness Instructor and Terri Elfner as a Fitness Instructor/Fitness Attendant at the Eagan Community Center. 2. It was recommended to approve the Electronic Mail — Data Practices and Records Retention Policy for City of Eagan employees, and include the policy in the City's Basic Personnel Policy. 3. It was recommended to ratify the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City of Eagan and the Dispatchers Bargaining Unit for the years 2005 to 2007. 4. It was recommended to approve the hiring of Kristin Rogers for a one year assignment as Administrative Coordinator for the Campus Facilities in Parks and Recreation. C. Check Registers. It was recommended to ratify the check registers dated September 8, 2005 and September 15, 2005 as presented. D. D.A.R.E. Agreement. It was recommended to approve the ISD 196 D.A.R.E. and Police Liaison Agreement for the 2005 -2006 School Year. E. Dakota Impaired Driving Project Resolution. It was recommended to accept the Eagan Police portion of a county-wide grant for reimbursement of overtime activities directed toward DUI and seatbelt enforcement. F. Policy Relating to Sale of Surplus City Property. It was recommended to approve a policy regulating the sale of surplus City property. G. Project 912. It was recommended to receive the Final Assessment Roll for Project 912 (Denmark Avenue / Deerwood Drive / Windcrest — Street Overlay) and schedule a public hearing to be held on October 18, 2005. H. Project 913. It was recommended to receive the Final Assessment Roll for Project 913 (Walden Heights / Twin View Manor / Hillcrest Additions — Street Overlay) and schedule a public hearing to be held on October 18, 2005. I. Project 878. It was recommended to receive the Final Assessment Roll for Project 878 (Cinnamon Ridge — Street Overlay) and schedule a public hearing to be held on October 18, 2005. J. Project 786. It was recommended to receive the Draft Feasibility Report for Project 786 (Denmark Avenue, Wescott Road to Crestridge Lane — Street and Sidewalk Improvement) and schedule a public hearing to be held on October 18, 2005. 9 Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes September 20, 2005 Page 2 () RAFT K. LED Signal Lighting Retrofit Agreement. It was recommended to approve an agreement with the City of St. Paul to retrofit City of Eagan owned and/or maintained traffic signal systems with light - emitting diodes (LEDs). L. Storm Water Management Plan. It was recommended to approve a resolution of support for the draft Lebanon Hills Storm Water Management Plan (Plan) and direct staff to forward with a cover letter incorporating suggestions for minor revisions and additions. M. Policy — Housing Improvement Districts. It was recommended to approve a policy pertaining to he creation of Housing Improvement Districts to assist with certain improvements of association managed residential property. N. Schedule Hearing — Revocation of CUP. It was recommended to schedule a hearing on November 1, 2005 to consider revocation of a Conditional Use Permit for Magnum Towing (Kevin Mellon), 4871 Biscayne Avenue. O. Ordinance Amendment. It was recommended to authorize preparation of an Amendment to City Code Chapter 11, Permitted Uses in Park Zoning Uses. P. Extension for Recording Final Plat. It was recommended to approve a 60 -day extension of time to record the fmal plat for Corporate Woods, located on the northwest corner of Pilot Knob Road and Buffet Way in the NE 'A of Section 4. Q. Off -Sale Liquor License. It was recommended to approve the off -sale liquor license for Madigan companies, Inc. dba Cedar Grove Liquor. R. Final Subdivision. It was recommended to approve a Final Subdivision (Tan Me Industrial Park 2 ° Addition) of approximately 2.58 acres to create two lots on Lot 2, Block 1, Tan Me Industrial Park located in the SE 'A of Section 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS PROJECT 937, LONE OAK PARKWAY TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS City Administrator Hedges introduced this item regarding trail improvements for Lone Oak Parkway. Traffic Engineer Tim Plath gave a staff report. Mayor Geagan opened the public hearing. Tina Morin, representing Northwest Airlines, expressed opposition to the proposed trail improvements due to assessments that would be levied based on NWA current financial situation. Darrin Dufresne, representing CSM, stated that his company has no interest in participating in the trail improvements along the east side of Lone Oak Parkway as presented preferring instead the west side adjacent to the Postal service building with City participation. He also stated that they would be interested in a private contract for trail installation along Lone Oak Drive. Public Works Director Colbert noted that the trail installation along Lone Oak Drive was already approved for installation as a public improvement at the July 19 public hearing. There being no further public comment, Mayor Geagan closed the public hearing and turned discussion back to the Council. Council discussed sidewalk improvements along the west side of Lone Oak Parkway. Colbert stated that a trail could be installed privately under a private development agreement that would have to be negotiated with CSM. It was the consensus of the Council to deny Project 937 as presented. Councilmember Carlson moved, Councilmember Tilley seconded a motion to deny Project 937 (Lone Oak Parkway — Trail Improvements). Aye: 5 Nay: 0 OLD BUSINESS CONTRACT 05 -08, LONE OAK DRIVE TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS City Administrator Hedges introduced this item regarding trail improvements for Lone Oak Drive. Traffic Engineer Plath gave a staff report. Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes September 20, 2005 Page 3 Dan Dufresne, CSM, stated his company would be interested in constructing the trail along the west side of Lone Oak Drive from Lone Oak Road to Lone Oak Parkway including the west side of Lone Oak Parkway with financial assistance from the City. Council directed staff to work with Mr. Dufresne in regard to a private contract. Councihmember Maguire moved, Councilmember Tilley seconded a motion to table indefmitely consideration of plans and specifications for Contract 05 -08 (Project 922 — Lone Oak Drive Trail Improvements). Aye: 5 Nay: 0 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE TASK FORCE City Administrator Hedges introduced this item regarding the appointment of 3 citizen representatives to the Water Quality Management Plan Task Force, stating that 18 applications had been submitted. Ballots were provided to the Mayor and Council. After three rounds of voting, the following citizens were appointed to the Water Quality Management Plan Task Force: Paul Leeder, Barbara Naramore and Tim Callister. Councilmember Tilley moved, Councilmember Fields seconded a motion to ratify the vote to appoint Paul Leeder, Barbara Naramore and Tim Callister to the Water Quality Management Plan Task Force. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 NEW BUSINESS PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (ESMERALDA ADDITION) — CHARLES HANF RAFT City Administrator Hedges introduced this item regarding a Preliminary Subdivision of .62 acres to create two single family lots and a Variance to lot width for property located at Lot 1, Block 1, Pilot Knob Heights Fourth Addition. City Planner Ridley gave a staff report. Charles Hanf, applicant, discussed the proposed subdivision and plans for a one story home on the newly created lot. Three area residents spoke in opposition to the proposed subdivision expressing concem over the view of the adjacent pond being obstructed, decrease in property values, and the lack of a hardship on the part of the applicant. After discussion by Council, it was suggested that the applicant meet with the neighboring property owners and work with staff to prepare a more detailed plan for the site. Councilmember Fields moved, Councilmember Carlson seconded a motion to continue consideration of a Preliminary Subdivision of .62 acres to create two single family lots and a Variance to lot width for property located at Lot 1, Block 1, Pilot Knob Heights Fourth Addition to the November 1, 2005 City Council meeting. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 APPEAL OF STAFF DECISION — IDENTIGRAPHICS City Administrator Hedges introduced this item regarding an appeal made by Identigraphics relating to standards for canopy signage at the Amoco (changing to Marathon) station at 1286 Lone Oak Road. City Planner Ridley gave a staff report. Tom Nelson, representing Identigraphics, discussed the proposed signage, including an LED price box. Council, after discussion regarding the lack of City Code regulation for canopy signage, the City Attorney was directed to review the City Code and provide information at a future meeting. Councilmember Fields moved, Councilmember Tilley seconded a motion to continue consideration of standards for canopy signage to the November 1, 2005 City Council meeting. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes September 20, 2005 Page 4 NEW RUNWAY / AIRPORT UPDATE CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION OF THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION REGARDING COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES FOLLOWING THE OPENING OF RUNWAY 17/35 Assistant to the City Administrator Miller discussed the recommendation of the Airport Relations Commission in regard to communication strategies following the opening of Runway 17/35. Councilmember Carlson recommended a letter be sent out to Eagan residents just prior to the opening of the new runway to recap the City's communication activity in relation to the opening. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA 1. Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and the Department of Public Safety, Minnesota Homeland Security and Emergency Management (HSEM) City Administrator Hedges discussed a recommendation by the City Attorney's office to formally authorize the. Mayor and City Administrator to execute an agreement with the Department of Public Safety, Minnesota Homeland Security and Emergency Management should the City be asked to provide assistance to the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. Councilmember Fields moved, Councilmember Tilley seconded a motion to authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to execute future Intergovemmental Agreements between the City and the Department of Public Safety, Minnesota Homeland Security and Emergency Management, in conformance with the enclosed Exhibit "A ", for aid and assistance in connection with Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 Mayor Geagan discussed Hurricane Katrina relief plans that are in progress. The City Council meeting was recessed at 8:20 p.m. to immediately convene a meeting of the Economic Development Commission. The regular City Council meeting was reconvened at 8:25 p.m. VISITORS TO BE HEARD Kevin Mellon of Magnum Towing expressed concem that he had not been notified that an item was on the agenda regarding his business. He also requested that an investigation be conducted regarding an employee of the City and a local development company. Mayor Geagan stated there has been no improper activity by any City employee regarding the southeast development area. Councilmember Carlson clarified that any City action relative to southeast Eagan was based on direction given by the City Council. Councilmember Maguire moved, Councilmember Tilley seconded a motion to adjourn the regular City Council meeting at 8:40 p.m and convene a closed session to discuss pending litigation involving MAC and Tom King vs. the City of Eagan. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 Date Administrative Secretary / Deputy City Clerk If you need these minutes in an alternative form such as large print, Braille, audio tape, etc., please contact the City of Eagan, 3830 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan, MN 55122, (651) 675 -5000, (TDD phone: (651) 454- 8535). The' City of Eagan is committed to the policy that all persons have equal access to its programs, services, activities, facilities and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status or status with regard to public assistance. Agenda Information Memo October 6, 2005 Eagan City Council Meeting B. PERSONNEL ITEMS Item 1. Dental Insurance Request for Proposal — ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To authorize the issuance of a request for proposal for dental insurance through an informal cooperative brokered by CBIZ Benefits and Insurance Services in Minneapolis. FACTS: • CBIZ works with other metro cities, offering a group administrative rate for going out to market together for dental insurance. Those cities include Apple Valley, Burnsville, Rosemount, Stillwater, Ramsey, Plymouth, St. Louis Park, and Minneapolis. • The City of Eagan currently offers preventative dental insurance exclusively through the two medical insurance carriers. This RFP asks that dental insurance be bid as a separate plan. • The concept of a dental plan separated from medical insurance has been discussed with the City's Health Insurance Committee. There is an understanding that the City's total cost cannot increase as a result of this process. • The RFP ask for bids to include a preventative plan which would require 100% participation, with a voluntary option to buy additional insurance for basic and restorative services. • It is the expectation that the pricing for a separate preventative dental plan would be comparable to the rate the City currently pays through the medical plans. Should the rates not meet financial expectations; a determination would be made whether this approach is feasible or not. ATTACHMENTS (0): Due to the length of the RFP and technical nature, it is not included with the agenda packet. If any member of the City Council would like to review a copy of the RFP, please contact the City Administrator's office. st Agenda Information Memo October 6, 2005 Eagan City Council Meeting C. RATIFY CHECK REGISTERS ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To ratify the check registers dated September 22, 2005 and September 29, 2005 as presented. ATTACHMENTS: • Check registers dated September 22, 2005 and September 29, 2005 are enclosed without page number. Agenda Information Memo October 6, 2005 Eagan City Council Meeting D. Approve Resolution to Issue and Sell under competitive bid on November 1 $5,160,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2005A; $3,840,000 General Obligation Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2005B; and, $1,550,000 General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 2005C. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve a resolution to issue and sell: • $5,160,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2005A; • $3,840,000 General Obligation Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2005B; • $1,550,000 General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 2005C. FACTS: • The City has completed a number of special assessment projects for which permanent financing is appropriate (Series 2005A). • The projects, which are listed in the resolution, were assessed within the past two years. • In addition, due to a favorable interest rate environment, the City's fiscal advisor, Springsted, has recommended the City refund (i.e., refinance) its 1993B General Obligation Water Revenue Bonds (new Series 2005B) and its 2000A General Obligation Improvement Bonds (new Series 2005C). • Funds for repayment of the 2005A and 2005C bonds come from collection of special assessment receivables. Funds for repayment of the 2005B bonds come from water utility revenues. No tax levy is required for any of these bonds. • Because interest rates on the two refunding issues will be lower than the old debt, Springsted estimates the present value savings to the City will exceed $250,000. • Through Springsted, the bond ratings agencies have been invited to visit Eagan and meet with the Mayor and staff in the latter part of October to review the possibility of upgrading our bond ratings. • The sale is scheduled to take place through competitive bids on November 1. Bids will be presented for acceptance at the November 1 regular City Council meeting. ATTACHMENTS: • Enclosed on pages // through e a is a resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of all three bonds. • Enclosed without page number is a copy of the sale recommendations letter provided by Springsted. Attachments to the sale recommendations letter consist of detail financial analyses of the bond issues. They are not included herein but are available in the Finance Department upon request. /b Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City Council of the City of Eagan, Minnesota, was duly held in the City Hall, in said City on Tuesday, October 4, 2005 at 6:30 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: and the following were absent: moved its adoption: follows: * ** Extract of Minutes of Meeting of the City Council of the City of Eagan Dakota County, Minnesota Member introduced the following resolution and RESOLUTION TO ISSUE AND SELL $5,155,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2005A, $3,840,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION WATER REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2005B AND $1,550,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2005C BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eagan, Minnesota, as 1. The City Council deems it necessary and expedient to issue and sell $5,155,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2005A, to provide financing of estimated costs in the minimum amount of $5,103,450, including contract price, construction interest and legal, fiscal and miscellaneous costs for certain local improvements of the City pursuant to the authority of Chapter 429, Minnesota Statutes, consisting of street, sewer, water and storm sewer improvements, and also to provide additional interest in the amount of $51,550 in the form of obligations as authorized by Section 475.56, Minnesota Statutes, consisting of bonds maturing in 2007. The City Council has made all necessary investigation and hereby finds and determines as follows: a. The City Council has held a public hearing after due notice regarding each such improvement and has ordered in each such improvement. b. Contracts for the construction of each such improvement will be entered into within the time prescribed by law. c. Each such improvement will be a special benefit to property in the City and that the total cost of such improvements is at least the amount set forth above. d. Special assessments for each such improvement may and will be levied on the benefited property in an amount equal to at least 20% of the cost thereof. 2. The City Council also deems it necessary and expedient to issue and sell $3,840,000 General Obligation Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2005B, to refund the City's outstanding General Obligation Water Revenue Bonds, Series 1993B. 3. The City Council also deems it necessary and expedient to issue and sell $1,550,000 General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 2005C to refund a portion of the City's outstanding General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2000A. 4. Sealed proposals for such Bonds will be received until 12:00 o'clock Noon on Tuesday, November 1, 2005 at the offices of Springsted Incorporated. The City Council will meet at the City Hall at 6:30 o'clock P.M. on the same day for the purpose of considering the proposals and negotiating the sales of the Bonds. The terms of the Bonds and the sale thereof shall be as set forth in the Terms of Proposal attached hereto as Exhibit A, which are hereby approved. 5. The City has retained Springsted, Incorporated, an independent financial advisor, in connection with the sale as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subd. 2(9), as amended. Adopted by the City Council on this 4th day of October, 2005. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was made by Councilmember , seconded by Councilmember , and upon vote being duly taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: /c2 2 and the following voted against the same: and the following were absent: WHEREUPON, said Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted the 4th day of October, 2005. /3 3 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) SS. CITY OF EAGAN ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No. is a true and correct copy of the Resolution as adopted by the City Council of the City of Eagan on the 4th day of October, 2005. MI:1251757.01 City Clerk /Y 4 September 30, 2005 Mr. Tom Pepper Chief Financial Officer City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Re: Recommendations for the Issuance of: $5,155,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2005A $3,840,000 General Obligation Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2005B $1,550,000 General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 2005C Dear Mr. Pepper: We have enclosed an electronic copy of our recommendations for the above - captioned issues for distribution to Council members and City staff prior to your meeting on Thursday, October 6, 2005. We will also be enclosing under separate cover contract amendments for services relating to continuing disclosure and arbitrage rebate to include these issues. If the City wishes to continue to engage Springsted for this servicefor these new issues, please sign the amendments and return them to us. if you should have any questions pertaining to the enclosed documents, or if you require additional copies, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Jonathan P. Commers Project Manager ss Enclosures Springsted Springsted Incorporated 380 Jackson Street, Suite 300 Saint Paul, MN 55101 -2887 Tel: 651 - 223 -3000 Fax: 651 - 223 -3002 www. springsted.com Pu lit Sector Advisors Presented to: Honorable Pat Geagan, Mayor Members, City Council Mr. Tom Pepper, Chief Financial Officer City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Study No.: E1230L3 SPRINGSTED Incorporated September 30, 2005 Recommendations For City of Eagan, Minnesota $5,155,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2005A $3,840,000 General Obligation Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2005B $1,550,000 General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 2005C /6 Springsted RECOMMENDATIONS Re: Recommendations for the Issuance of: $5,155,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2005A ("the Improvement Bonds') $3,840,000 General Obligation Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2005B ('the Water Refunding Bonds') $1,550,000 General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 2005C ('the Improvement Refunding Bonds') (Collectively, "the Bonds" or "the Issues') We recommend the following for the Bonds: 1. Action Requested To establish the date and time of receiving bids and establish the terms and conditions of the offering. 2. Sale Date and Time 3. Method of Sale 4. Authority and Purpose for the Bond Issues 5. Term Bonds / 7 Tuesday, November 1, 2005 at Noon, with consideration for award by the City Council at 6:30 P.M. that same day. The Bonds will be sold using a competitive bidding process. In the interest of obtaining as many bids as possible, we have included a provision in the attached Terms of Proposal for underwriters to submit their bid electronically through the electronic bidding platform of PARITY ®. In addition, physical bids (by phone or fax) will be accepted at the offices of Springsted. The Bonds are authorized pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475. The Improvement Bonds and Improvement Refunding Bonds are also authorized pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. The Water Refunding Bonds are also authorized pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 444. We have included in the Terms of Proposal for each of the Issues a provision to permit the underwriters bidding on the bonds to combine multiple maturities into a single term bond, subject to mandatory City of Eagan, Minnesota September 30, 2005 6. Principal Amount of the Offerings 7. Repayment Term 8. First Levy and Levy Cycle / 8' redemption on the same maturity schedule provided in the Terms of Proposal. The advantage to the underwriter is that it provides them the flexibility to create a large block of bonds that are more attractive to bond funds and certain pension funds that deal with only larger blocks of bonds. This, in turn, is a benefit to the Council since selling the larger blocks of bonds can improve marketability, allowing the underwriters to lower their costs and the interest coupons. Since the bonds are being awarded on a competitive bid basis and awarded on the lowest true interest cost, the Council will award the bonds to the best bid regardless of whether term bonds were chosen or not. Improvement Bonds: $5,155,000. Water Refunding Bonds: $3,840,000. Improvement Refunding Bonds: $1,550,000. The Improvement Bonds will mature annually February 1, 2007 through 2021. Interest will be payable semi - annually each February 1 and August 1, commencing August 1, 2006. The Water Refunding Bonds will mature annually December 1, 2006 through 2010. Interest will be payable semi - annually each June 1 and December 1, commencing June 1, 2006. The Improvement Refunding Bonds will mature annually February 1, 2007 through 2014. Interest will be payable semi - annually each February 1 and August 1, commencing August 1, 2006. Assessments for the repayment of the Improvement Bonds and Improvement Refunding Bonds were filed in the year 2004 and earlier. Assessment income collected in calendar year 2005 and the first half of 2006 will fund the August 1, 2006 interest payments. Surplus first -year collections, combined with second - half collections, will fund the February 1, 2007 principal and interest payments. Thereafter, each year's first - half collection of assessments and taxes will be used to pay the interest payment due August 1 in the year of Page 2 City of Eagan, Minnesota September 30, 2005 9. Prepayment Provisions 10. Credit Rating Comments 11. Federal Treasury Regulations Concerning Tax - Exempt Obligations (a) Bank Qualification (b) Rebate Requirements i q collection. Second -half collections of assessments and taxes plus surplus first -half collections will be used to pay the February 1 principal and interest payment due in the following year. The Water Refunding Bonds will be repaid with net revenues of the City's water utility system. The City may elect on February 1, 2016, and on any date thereafter, to prepay the Improvement Bonds due on or after February'1, 2017, at a price of par plus accrued interest. Due to their short duration, the Water Refunding Bonds and the Improvement Refunding Bonds will not be subject to prepayment in advance of their maturity. An application will be made to Moody's Investors Service and Standard and Poor's for ratings on the Bonds. The City's current general obligation credit rating is "Aar by Moody's and "AA" by Standard and Poor's. Under Federal Tax Law, financial institutions cannot deduct from income for federal income tax purposes, income expense that is allocable to carrying and acquiring tax - exempt bonds. There is an exemption to this for "bank qualified" bonds, which can be so designated if the issuer does not issue more than $10 million of tax exempt bonds in a calendar year. Issues that are bank qualified receive slightly lower interest rates than issues that are not bank qualified. The Issues are designated as bank qualified. All tax - exempt issues are subject to the federal arbitrage and rebate requirements, which require all excess earnings created by the financing to be rebated to the U.S. Treasury. The requirements generally cover two categories: bond proceeds and debt service funds. There are exemptions from rebate in both of these categories: Page 3 City of Eagan, Minnesota September 30, 2005 (c) Bona Fide Debt Service Fund Bond proceeds, defined generally as both the original principal of the issue and the investment earnings on the principal, have 6, 18 and 24 month spend down exemption periods. If all of the proceeds are expended during one of those exemption periods, the issuer is exempt from rebate and may retain the excess earnings. The financing is expected to meet one of the spend down exemptions, in which case no rebate of construction fund interest earnings will be required. The City should be aware that this test is an "actual" test, not one of "reasonable expectations" and you will need to determine if the spend down was met or if rebate may be required. In any event, Bond proceeds, if any, not set aside for project expenditures may still be subject to rebate. Proceeds of the Water Refunding Bonds and the Improvement Refunding Bonds will be expended within ninety days of settlement and are therefore not subject to rebate restrictions. However, proceeds of the Improvement Bonds will be subject to rebate. Springsted currently provides arbitrage rebate services for the City under a separate contract. An amendment to that contract adding the Improvement Bonds has been provided to City staff. The City must maintain a bona fide debt service fund for the bonds or be subject to yield restriction. This requires restricting the investments held in the debt service fund to the yield on the bonds and/or paying back excess investment earnings in the debt service fund to the federal government. A bona fide debt service fund is a fund for which there is an equal matching of revenue to debt service expense, with carry over permitted equal to the greater of the investment earning in the fund during that year or 1/12 the debt service of that year. With issues having special assessments pledged as a source of repayment, such as the Improvement Bonds and Improvement Refunding Bonds, additional diligence should be exercised in monitoring the debt service fund due to the potential accumulation of Page 4 City of Eagan, Minnesota September 30, 2005 (d) Economic Life The average life of the Bonds cannot exceed 120% of the economic fife of the projects to be financed. (e) Federal Reimbursement Regulations 12. Continuing Disclosure a i assessment prepayments which could cause the fund to become non -bona fide. The economic life of the uses of the Improvement Bonds is twenty years, and the average life of the Improvement Bonds is 7.04 years. The average life of the Water Refunding Bonds is 3.061 years, and that of the refunded bonds is 3.102 years. The average life of the Improvement Refunding Bonds is 4.657 years, and the remaining useful life of the Series 2000A projects is 14.50 years. Each of the Issues meet the economic life requirements. Federal reimbursement regulations require the City to make a declaration, within 60 days of the actual payment, of its intent to reimburse itself from expenses paid prior to the receipt of bond proceeds. It is our understanding the City has taken whatever actions are necessary to comply with the federal reimbursement regulations in regards to the Improvement Bonds. Non -bond funds can be used to repay expenditures made prior to receipt of bond proceeds. The Bonds are subject to continuing disclosure requirements set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC rules require the City to undertake an annual update of certain Official Statement information and report any material events to the national repositories. Springsted currently provides continuing disclosure services for the City under a separate contract. An amendment to that contract adding these Issues has been provided to City staff. Page 5 City of Eagan, Minnesota September 30, 2005 13. Attachments The Improvement Bonds Proceeds of the Improvement Bonds will represent a portion of a significant financing of projects in the City. In addition to the sale of the Improvement Bonds, the City is using prepaid assessments of $4,168,702 and a City contribution of $16,068,498, in order to finance projects estimated at $25,306,109 in total. In all, thirty-three projects in the City will be financed with these funds. Page 9 shows the sources and uses of funds, including the sources of funding described here, project costs, costs of issuance and allowance for discount bidding. The City has filed assessments since 2001 that will be used in part to repay the Improvement Bonds. These assessments have remaining terms of between two and fifteen years, and interest rates between 4.50% and 7.00 %. The aggregate assessment income projected for the City is shown on page 10, In pages 11 through 20 following, the detail of the assessment streams are shown, grouped by term and interest rate. In each case, we have used the City's assumption that principal will be repaid evenly through the term of the assessments. Our recommended principal structure is shown on page 21. Principal repayment has been structured around projected assessment income to provide a relatively level projected annual revenue surplus. Page 21 shows the following information regarding the Bonds: • Columns 1 through 4 show the annual principal payments, estimated interest rates and projected total principal and interest payments, given the current market environment. • Column 5 outlines the required 105% overlevy mandated by State statute, which is in place to protect the City and bondholders in the event of delinquencies in collection of special assessments or taxes for the repayment of the Bonds. • Column 6 reflects the projected assessment income from all projects, as shown in the aggregate assessment schedule on page 10. • Column 7 shows the projected levy surplus, and represents the difference between columns 5 and 6. as DISCUSSION Improvement Bonds • Sources and Uses • Assessment Income Schedules • Debt Service Schedule • Terms of Proposal Water Refunding Bonds • Refunding Schedules . Terms of Proposal Improvement Refunding Bonds • Refunding Schedules . Terms of Proposal Page 6 City of Eagan, Minnesota September 30, 2005 The Water Refunding Bonds Proceeds of the Water Refunding Bonds will be used to refund the December 1, 2006 through 2010 maturities of the City's General Obligation Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1993B ("the Series 1993B Bonds'). The Series 1993B Bonds have a prepayment date (or "call date') of December 1, 2005, on which the City intends to retire bonds prior to their scheduled maturity. The Water Refunding Bonds are being issued to execute a "current" refunding, which is a method of refinancing where the City prepays principal within ninety days of the settlement of the Refunding Bonds. Proceeds of the Series 1993B Bonds were used to refund the 2000 -2010 maturities of the City's General Obligation Water System Bonds, Series 1900A, dated November 1, 1990. The City will make the principal and interest payment as scheduled for the Series 1993B Bonds on December 1, 2005. On the same date, proceeds of the Water Refunding Bonds will be used to prepay all remaining principal on the Series 1993B Bonds. Thereafter, the City will begin making payments on the Water Refunding Bonds. Based on current interest rate estimates, the refunding is projected to result in future value savings of approximately $179,000, with a net present value benefit to the City of approximately $164,000. These estimates are net of all costs associated with the refunding. After the refunding, the City will pay essentially level debt service through fiscal year 2010. We have attached a set of schedules that summarize the refunding statistics and the projected savings resulting from the sale of the Water Refunding Bonds. These schedules include the following information: • Preliminary Feasibility Summary: indicates the sizing of the Water Refunding Bonds, savings data and bond data — page 22. • Prior Original Debt Service: shows the total existing debt service requirements on the Series 1993B Bonds without a refunding — page 23. • Debt Service to Maturity and to Call: shows the debt service to call and to maturity on the Series 1993B Bonds — page 24. • Debt Service Schedule: shows the new projected debt service on the Water Refunding Bonds based on current estimated interest rates — page 25. • Debt Service Comparison Schedules: shows a comparison of the debt service requirements of the Water Refunding Bonds versus that of the Series 1993B Bonds, and a computation of the present -value savings to the City — page 26. The Improvement Refunding Bonds Proceeds of the Improvement Refunding Bonds will be used to refund the February 1, 2007 through 2014 maturities of the City's General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2000A ( "the Series 2000A Bonds'). The Series 2000A Bonds have a prepayment date (or "call date ") of February 1, 2006, on which the City intends to retire bonds prior to 093 Page 7 City of Eagan, Minnesota September 30, 2005 their scheduled maturity. The Improvement Refunding Bonds are being issued to execute a current refunding, and will be used to realign debt service payments with current City projections of assessment income. Proceeds of the Series 2000A Bonds were used to finance a portion of eighteen improvement projects throughout the City. The City will use available assessment income to make the principal and interest payment as scheduled for the Series 2000A Bonds on February 1, 2006. On the same date, proceeds of the Improvement Refunding Bonds, plus $330,000 of additional assessments, will be used to redeem all remaining principal on the Series 2000A Bonds. The City will initiate its payments on the Improvement Refunding Bonds on August 1, 2006. The Improvement Refunding Bonds have been structured around current City projections of assessment income, and extended one year to align debt service with projected assessment income receipts. After the refunding, the City will pay debt service at levels allowing a small cumulative surplus, until the final maturity of the Improvement Refunding Bonds on February 1, 2015. Based on current interest rate estimates, the sale of the Improvement Refunding Bonds is projected to generate future value savings of approximately $138,000, with a net present value benefit to the City of approximately $86,000. These estimates are net of all costs associated with the refunding. After the refunding, the City will pay declining debt service through fiscal year 2014. We have attached a set of schedules that summarize the refunding statistics and the projected savings resulting from the sale of the Improvement Refunding Bonds. These schedules include the following information: • Preliminary Feasibility Summary: indicates the sources and uses of the Improvement Refunding Bonds, savings data and bond data - page 27. • Prior Original Debt Service: shows the total existing debt service requirements on the Series 2000A Bonds without a refunding - pages 28. • Debt Service to Maturity and to Call: shows the debt service to call and to maturity on the Series 2000A Bonds - pages 29. • Debt Service Schedules: shows the new projected debt service on the Improvement Refunding Bonds based on current estimated interest rates, projected assessment income, and the resulting cumulative surplus, without and with the 105% overlevy requirement discussed above - pages 30 -31. • Debt Service Comparison Schedule: shows a comparison of the debt service requirements of the Improvement Refunding Bonds versus that of the Series 2000A Bonds, and a computation of the present - value savings to the City - page 32. The success of any refunding transaction is in a large part dependent upon market conditions at the time the refunding bonds are sold. Springsted will continue to monitor the market prior to the sale date and will keep you apprised of any change in conditions which might impact the success of the refundings. Respectfully submitted, SPRINGSTED Incorporated ss Provided to Staff: Rebate and Continuing Disclosure Contract Amendments dz Page 8 Agenda Memo October 6, 2005 Regular City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA: E. Set Public Hearing Date to Certify Delinquent Utility Bills ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: FACTS: Set public hearing date for November 1, 2005 to certify delinquent utility bills • The City reviews and considers delinquent utility balances for certification to property tax statements for collection on a semi - annual basis. ATTACHMENTS: None as Agenda Information Memo October 6, 2005, Eagan City Council Meeting F. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR NOVEMBER 1, 2005 TO CERTIFY DELINQUENT FALSE ALARM BILLS ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To set a public hearing for November 1, 2005 to consider the final assessment of the delinquent false alarm bills and certify them to Dakota County for collection with property taxes. FACTS: D On a semi - annual basis, the City reviews and considers delinquent false alarm balances for certification to property tax statements for collection. D The City currently has 8 delinquent accounts in the amount of $1,430. Additional information will be provided at the time of the public hearing. ATTACHMENTS (0): 06 Agenda Information Memo October 6, 2005, Eagan City Council Meeting G. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR NOVEMBER 1, 2005 TO CERTIFY DELINQUENT WEED CUTTING BILLS ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To set a public hearing for November 1, 2005 to consider the final assessment of the delinquent weed cutting bills and certify them to Dakota County for collection with property taxes. FACTS: ➢ On a semi -annual basis, the City reviews and considers delinquent weed cutting balances for certification to property tax statements for collection. ➢ The City currently has 2 delinquent accounts in the amount of $368.10. Additional information will be provided at the time of the public hearing. ATTACHMENTS (0): 029 Agenda Information Memo October 6, 2005, Eagan City Council Meeting H. APPROVE LICENSEE NAME ON THE LIQUOR LICENSE FROM MADIGAN COMPANIES, INC. TO MADCO INCORPORATED ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve the licensee name change on the off -sale liquor license from Madigan Companies, Inc. to Madco Incorporated. FACTS: > On September 20, 2005, the City Council approved an off -sale liquor license for Madigan Companies, Inc. > The owner, Patrick Madigan, indicated that the licensee name, Madigan Companies, Inc., had been approved for use by the Secretary of State's Office. However, staff was later informed that the name was not acceptable because it was too similar to another business. > The owner has received approval for the new name and is requesting a change on the off - sale liquor license from Madigan Companies, Inc. to Madco Incorporated. > Staff finds no reason for denial of the name change. ATTACHMENTS (0): Agenda Memo October 6, 2005 Regular City Council meeting CONSENT AGENDA: I. Extension of terms of Gun Club WMO members to April 1, 2006 ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Extend terms of Gun Club WMO to April 1, 2006 FACTS: ATTACHMENTS: None • Currently the Gun Club WMO, consisting of four members, have terms expiring January 1, 2006. • In an effort to be consistent with other advisory commission appointments, staff is requesting the WMO terms be extended to April 1, 2006 a 9 Agenda Information Memo October 6, 2005 Eagan City Council Meeting J. PROJECT 03-11, KENNERICK 2ND ADDITION ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To acknowledge the completion of Contract 03 -H (Kennerick 2nd Addition — Street & Utility Improvements) and authorize perpetual City maintenance subject to warranty provisions. FACTS: • Kennerick 2nd Addition is 17 -lot single - family subdivision constructed west of Pilot Knob Road and north of Lone Oak Road in northwest Eagan. This development required the construction of public streets, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and water main performed privately by the developer under the conditions of the development contract agreement. • The improvements have been completed, inspected by representatives of the Public Works Department and found to be in order for favorable Council action for acceptance for perpetual maintenance subject to warranty provisions. ATTACHEMENTS: • Location map, page ,3 1 30 Kennerick 2 nd Addition INTERSTATE 494 MENDOTA HEIGHTS City of bpi Engineering Department Kennerick 2nd Addition Location Map 9-30-05 Agenda Information Memo October 6, 2005, Eagan City Council Meeting K. AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR AN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To authorize the issuance of Request for Proposals for an electronic document management system and authorize the advertisement for bids. FACTS: ➢ In an effort to better manage the large volume of City records created in the course of business, staff has been exploring a variety of options for storage and retrieval of such documents. Currently, the majority of City records are maintained as paper documents that are stored in filing cabinets. A much smaller number of records are being stored electronically on individual personal computers or on the City's network. A more efficient and reliable method for document management is the goal for all departments City -wide. ➢ To achieve this goal, an Electronic Document Management System (EDMS), also known as a document imaging system, is the preferred alternative to continuing with paper filing and other storage practices presently being used. Some of the benefits of an EDMS include reducing the amount of storage space, ease of document retrieval, improving disaster recovery of important documents and ensuring consistent and proper filing procedures. ➢ The City purchased and installed a document management/imaging system (the Minolta MIMS 3000) in 1998. MIMS was one of the first systems on the market. This system is no longer supported by the vendor due to the technological changes that have occurred in the area of document management systems. The newer systems that are available today are much more user friendly and have significantly more features and benefits than the system purchased in s� 1998. In addition, there are a great number of cities that are using this technology now so much has been learned about the differences between the equipment on the market. ➢ A committee consisting of representatives from all City departments was formed to investigate and discuss various solutions for records management. The committee has met on several occasions during the past couple of years and members have visited with staff from other cities that have implemented document management solutions. In addition, staff has attended various vendor demonstrations showcasing the latest technology. ➢ The committee determined that a new document management system would be beneficial in managing the City's records. Following the committee's commitment to this endeavor, the request to purchase a new system was discussed with department heads and it was determined that an EDMS is the best course of action to pursue. ➢ At this time, staff is requesting permission to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit bids for an Electronic Document Management System. ➢ Financing for the potential purchase is included in the recently approved 2006 Part II CIP. ➢ Due to the technical nature and length of the Request for Proposal, it is not being included with the agenda packet. If any member of the City Council would like to review a copy of the RFP, please contact the City Administrator's office. ATTACHMENTS (0): Agenda Information Memo October 6, 2005 Eagan City Council Meeting L . PROJECT 04 -D, SUGAR BLUFFS ADDITION ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To acknowledge the completion of Contract 04 -D (Sugar Bluffs Addition — Utility Improvements) and authorize perpetual City maintenance subject to warranty provisions. FACTS: • Sugar Bluffs Addition is 4 -lot single - family subdivision constructed along the east side of Thomas Lake Road north of Cliff Road in southern Eagan. This development required the construction of public storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and water main performed privately by the developer under the conditions of the development contract agreement. • The improvements have been completed, inspected by representatives of the Public Works Department and found to be in order for favorable Council action for acceptance for perpetual maintenance subject to warranty provisions. ATTACHEMENTS: • Location map, page 3 33 City of Eaftall Engineering Department Sugar Bluffs Addition Location Map 9/30/05 Agenda Information Memo October 6, 2005 Eagan City Council Meeting M. PROJECT 911, BERKSHIRE PONDS/ SAFARI 2 - STREET OVERLAY FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Receive the Final Assessment Roll for Project 911 (Berkshire Ponds/ Safari 2nd Additions — Street Overlay) and schedule a public hearing to be held on November 1, 2005. FACTS: • Project 911 provided for the bituminous overlay of streets within the Berkshire Ponds/ The Safari 2 Additions neighborhood, which include Covington Lane, Berkshire Drive, Berkshire Court, Berkshire Way, and Skyview Court, in southwest Eagan. The street resurfacing was completed as outlined and discussed in the feasibility report. • This project, constructed under Contract • 05 -02, has been completed, all costs tabulated and the final assessment roll prepared. The assessments are based upon the City of Eagan's Special Assessment Policy for all such assessable properties. • This roll is now being presented to the Council for their consideration of scheduling a public hearing to formally present the final costs to be levied against the benefited properties. • An informational neighborhood meeting will be scheduled prior to the final assessment hearing with the affected property owners and address any concerns. • The final assessments are less than the estimate contained in the feasibility report presented at the public hearing held on February 1, 2005. 35 Agenda Information Memo October 6, 2005 Eagan City Council Meeting N. PROJECT 915, RIDGECLIFFE/ COVINGTON LN./ GALAXIE AVE — STREET OVERLAY FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Receive the Final Assessment Roll for Project 915 (Ridgecliffe Additions/ Covington Lane/ Galaxie Avenue — Street Overlay) and schedule a public hearing to be held on November 1, 2005. FACTS: • Project 915 provided for the bituminous overlay of numerous streets within the Ridgecliffe/ Berkshire Ponds Additions, Galaxie Avenue (Berkshire Lane to Cliff Road), Covington Lane (Safari Trail to Johnny Cake Ridge Road) neighborhood, in southwest Eagan. The street resurfacing was completed as outlined and discussed in the feasibility report. • This project, constructed under Contract 05 -02, has been completed, all costs tabulated and the final assessment roll prepared. The assessments are based upon the City of Eagan's Special Assessment Policy for all such assessable properties. • This roll is now being presented to the Council for their consideration of scheduling a public hearing to formally present the final costs to be levied against the benefited properties. • An informational neighborhood meeting will be scheduled prior to the final assessment hearing with the affected property owners and address any concerns. • The final . assessments are less than the estimate contained in the feasibility report presented at the public hearing held on December 13, 2004. Agenda Information Memo October 6, 2005 Eagan City Council Meeting ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve Change Order #3 to Contract 05 -03 (Well #21) and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. FACTS: • Contract 05 -03 provides for the drilling and development of Well #21 located adjacent to Well #11 at 3616 Ashbury Rd. During the drilling of this well, the well log revealed a geology that will not support the development of the Jordan well as originally planned. The structural roof of the aquifer confining limestone layer is fractured and thinner than anticipated. Continuing with the specified development of the well as planned could very likely result in its collapse and failure. • Change Order #3 provides for a modification to replace the original development of an open hole through blasting and bailing at the bottom of the well with a 100' screen into this soft sandstone formation. It also provides for an extension of the completion date to Oct. 15. (DEDUCT $48,040) ISSUES: O. CONTRACT 05 -03, WELL #21, CHANGE ORDER #3 • By eliminating the typical blasting and baling operations form this well's development, the noise or vibration impact to the neighboring residential properties will be significantly reduced from what was originally anticipated. However, it will result in an estimated 33% reduction in the anticipated production of the well's capacity to approximately 1,000 gallons per minute. This will not have an impact on the ability to provide an adequate water supply for the community as this well was being developed in advance of its need primarily to minimize its development impact on the future developing residential properties. 3? Agenda Information Memo October 6, 2005 Eagan City Council Meeting P. Approve change in dog license fee. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: • To approve a change in the dog license fee for 2006 -2007 from $14 for a two - year license to $18 for a two -year license. FACTS: • Because of the lead time required in printing dog license renewals /tags, staff is reviewing this fee outside the normal timeframe of the City's annual Fee Schedule revision each December. • In late -2003, Council directed staff to identify those fees that were below the median of comparable cities and re- establish them near the median. The dog license fee was one of those identified for an increase, but the two -year license renewal process had just been completed, so the first opportunity to increase the fee is now. • The $14 fee has been in effect for eight years. The proposed fee of $18 calculates to a 3.2% annual increase over that period. • The median fee among comparable cities for unaltered dogs is $20 for two years. Many cities offer lower fees for spayed/neutered dogs. It is staffs conclusion that a two- tiered fee structure does not provide significant benefit and only adds to the administrative recordkeeping costs. Accordingly, staff is proposing a single fee that is slightly below the median license fee for unaltered dogs. ATTACHMENTS: None 3g Agenda Memo October 6, 2005 Regular City Council meeting CONSENT AGENDA Q. Adopt Resolution approving Application for Exempt Permit for Faithful Shepherd Catholic School ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve an application for Exempt Permit for Faithful Shepherd Catholic School to hold a raffle on January 28, 2006 at 3355 Columbia Drive. FACTS: • Faithful Shepherd Catholic School has applied with the Minnesota Gambling Control Board for an exempt permit to hold a raffle • This event has been approved in previous years • All requirements of the application have been met and staff deems the application in order for approval ATTACHMENTS: • A copy of the resolution is attached as page 90 . 39 WHEREAS, the Faithful Shepherd Catholic School has applied for an Exemption from Lawful Gambling Permit; and WHEREAS, the Eagan Police Department has reviewed the application and has not identified any reason to deny; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, hereby approves the Exemption from Lawful Gambling Permit for the Faithful Shepherd Catholic School to conduct a raffle on January 28, 2006 at 3355 Columbia Drive in Eagan. Motion by: Seconded by: Those in Favor: All Those Against: None Date: October 6, 2005 RESOLUTION CITY OF EAGAN APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM LAWFUL GAMBLING PERMIT FAITHFUL SHEPHERD CATHOLIC SCHOOL CERTIFICATION CITY OF EAGAN CITY COUNCIL By: It's Mayor Attest: It's Clerk I, Maria Petersen, Clerk of the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, in a regular meeting thereof assembled this 6th day of October, 2005. Maria Petersen, City Clerk Agenda Information Memo October 6, 2005 Eagan City Council Meeting V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIANCE — STEVE MARSTAD ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve (Or direct Findings of Fact for Denial) a Variance to the exceed the allowable 576 square feet detached accessory structure limits for a new detached garage on property located at 1740 Cliff Road in the NE 1 /4 of Section 32; subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: Majority of Council Members Present FACTS: > The applicant is requesting approval to build a 1,200 square foot detached accessory structure which is more than double the size that is permitted by code (576 square feet). > According to the Site Plan the attached garage is 980 square feet and the house foot print is 1,863 square feet, the lot is approximately two acres in size. > The attached garage and proposed garage total 2,180 square feet which is larger than the footprint of the house. According to the definition "accessory use means a subordinate use that is located upon the same lot on which the primary use is situated and which is reasonably necessary and incidental to the conduct of the primary or main use." > The proposed detached garage and existing garage footprint exceed the house footprint; therefore, the house becomes accessory to the garage because it would be subordinate to the garage (based on footprint not finished area). > City Policy makers will need to consider the City Attorney's comments, determine if an adequate hardship has been presented and that the factors for considering a variance are applicable. ISSUES: > The City Attorney is concerned that approving the requested Variance will in essence be approving a rezoning changing the land use from residential to a category that allows storage as a principal use. 60 DAY AGENCY ACTION DEADLINE: November 14, 2005 ATTACHMENTS (1): Staff report on pages l'ehrough / 4/ PLANNING REPORT CITY OF EAGAN REPORT DATE: September 22, 2005 APPLICANT: Steven Marstad PROPERTY OWNER: Same REQUEST: Variance LOCATION: 1740 Cliff Road COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: LD, Low Density Residential ZONING: R -1, Single Family Residential SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a Variance to the exceed the allowable 576 square feet detached accessory structure limits for a new detached garage on property located at 1740 Cliff Road in the NE ' /4 of Section 32. AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW CASE: 32- VA- 10 -09 -05 HEARING DATE: October 6, 2005 APPLICATION DATE: Sept. 15, 2005 PREPARED BY: Sheila Cartney City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.50, Subdivision 3, B., 3, states that the Council may approve, approve with conditions or deny a request for a variance. In considering all requests for a variance, City Council shall consider the following factors: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property have no control. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Code would deprive the applicant property use commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the provisions of this Code. c. That special conditions or circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. d. That granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Planning Report — 1740 Cliff Rd October 6, 2005 Page 2 e. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Code or to property in the same zone. CODE REQUIREMENTS Chapter 11.40 Subdivision 5 C 4 states when an attached accessory use is present on the site, the total floor area of all detached accessory structures shall not exceed 576 square feet. Chapter 13.02 Subdivision 3, states no building permits shall be granted for the erection of any building or structure upon lands which are not platted in accordance with the requirements of this section or which was platted as an outlot. BACKGROUND/HISTORY The subject site is not platted. The single family home was built in 1970. EXISTING CONDITIONS There is an existing single family home with attached garage. According to the Site Plan the attached garage is 980 square feet and the house foot print is 1,863 square feet, the lot is approximately two acres in size. APPLICANT'S ESTIMATE OF HARDSHIP The applicant would like to house snowmobiles, ATV, sports car, boat and future motorhome in the proposed garage. The applicant's narrative did not specifically address a hardship other than the need for more storage space. EVALUATION OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to build a detached accessory structure larger than 576 square feet. The proposed building is 1,200 square feet. The garage will meet setbacks and architectural standards. The building coverage is about 3 percent for the site including the proposed garage. The existing house footprint is 1,863 square feet and the attached garage is 980 square feet, the attached garage and proposed garage total 2,180 square feet which is larger than the footprint of the house. According to the definition "accessory use means a subordinate use that is located upon the same lot on which the primary use is situated and which is reasonably necessary and incidental to the conduct of the primary or main use." The proposed detached garage and existing garage footprint exceed the house footprint; therefore, the house becomes accessory to 9 3 Planning Report — 1740 Cliff Rd October 6, 2005 Page 3 the garage because it would be subordinate to the garage (based on footprint not finished area). Because the proposal will result in the footprint square footage of the living space becoming subordinate to the footprint square footage of attached and detached storage, the City Attorney is concerned that approving the requested Variance will in essence be approving a rezoning changing the land use from residential to a category that allows storage as a principal use. It is up to City Official's to determine the appropriateness of this request and the precedent it may set. SUMMARY /CONCLUSION The applicant is requesting to build a 1,200 square foot detached garage. There is an approximately 980 square foot attached garage present; therefore, limiting the detached garage to a maximum of 576 square feet. The applicant's hardship is the need for more indoor storage. City Officials should determine.the appropriateness of the proposal that will result in the living space being subordinate to the garage /storage space. Because the proposal will result in the footprint square footage of the living space becoming subordinate to the footprint square footage of attached and detached storage, the City Attorney is concerned that approving the requested Variance will in essence be approving a rezoning changing the land use from residential to a category that allows storage as a principal use Should the Variance be approved, the applicant will be required to plat the property before a building permit can be issued. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED To approve a Variance to allow a 1,200 square foot detached accessory structure on property located at 1740 Cliff Road, subject to the following conditions: 1. The property shall be platted. 2. If within one year after approval, the variance shall not have been completed or utilized, it shall become null and void unless a petition for extension has been granted by the council. Such extension shall be requested in writing at least 30 days before expiration and shall state facts showing a good faith attempt to complete or utilize the use permitted in the variance. 3. The accessory structure shall meet all other zoning code and building code requirements. 4. The accessory structure is limited to 1,200 square feet. 5. No other accessory structures shall be allowed. September 14, 2005 Re: Information requested by City of Eagan for Variance request to build accessory garage at 1740 Cliff Rd, Eagan, MN. Legal Description: That part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 27, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the north line of said Section 32, distant 660.00 feet West of the northeast comer thereof; thence South at a right angle 510.50 feet; thence West at a right angle 171.00 feet; thence North at a right angle 510.50 feet to the north line of said Section 32; thence East along said north line 171.00 feet to the point of beginning Subject to C.S.A.H. No. 32 Area Tabulation: Total Property 2.00 acres Dedicated Road R/W C.S.A.H. # 32 (Cliff Rd) - -- 12,762 Sq. Ft. Balance of Property 74,940 Sq. Ft. Variance Request: Applicant wishes to construct a accessory garage to house snowmobiles, ATV, sports car, boat, and future motorhome. Items are currently stored at other facilities at great expense to owner. Garage would be 1200 Sq. Ft. and would meet or exceed all of the requirements of Eagan including setbacks, wall heights, and matching existing home. Foundation and garage construction will be designed by structural engineer and outside walls will match rough sawn cedar of existing home. Roof materials will also match existing home. Garage will have two windows and one service door on the East side, and one overhead garage door on the North side. Applicant would like to start construction this fall but if approval process takes too long, would delay construction until spring. Existing Land Use: Single Family Residential Steve Marstad REr IVFD SEP 1 5 7005 4' .tait 1:3 B d 1 J a :' r ttlr*Or wv -' fi 1.0 irk f w Vi v.„,4 � t � u�u tlean-71. s r .1f Jc 4 414..0) w' kc. rar,rt tn von 4I gi Egi Ili 11 ® as �' is luc lsn ilmi fia ft, iSt 4t gE Lip --' V ® ®® ®® �•�$' V 811° lb ® ®® P OO �V �Q��� t . ity ® e ®pAtw 44 a la ail v re: Qp, ���'`'a �� r te, CV 0 � tits my 4 ntria Mall EN : AND,r 4 41" ra L4t, ,la i 4 ' fiPpp� poaoo a �e ae!,' 4�a��'o I l �p Lt ai = =o % ; —: : Pad 4 0 . City of Cap Community Davolopmant Department Development/Developer: Steven Marstad Application: Variance Case No.: 32- VA- 10 -09 -05 Location Map 1000 0 Map Prepared using ERSI ArcVlew 3.1. Parcel base map data provided by Dakota County Office of GIS and is current as of April 2005. 1000 THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this information and are not responsible for errors or omissions. Eagan Boundary N Right - of-way Parcel Area Park Area - Building Footprint 2000 2000 Feet S Current Zoning and Comprehensive Guide Plan Land Use Map Steven Marstad Variance Case No. 32- VA- 10 -09 -05 Zoning Map Current Zoning: R -1 Single family residential 600 0 000 1200 Feet Comprehensive Guide Plan Land Use Map Current Land Use Designation: LD Low Density Residential 600 666 1200 F..t ]U ♦ ! i � iiiiii ;iu 4%4 , tAlk i r MR AID HIGHWAY NO. 32 ( CLIFF ROAD ) M � + `111 � iv ■ ...... /A sw • 1 0 • • • •• obit Ee STATE : iI tall sum I0111 w i s It • •• ino • I al 1 EB se A City of Eagan Community Development Department 1 f , Parcel base map remotion • ruby Dakota County Land Survey Departmett June 2003. ng Information maintained byClty Stan THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this information. WE qk Agenda Information Memo October 6, 2005 Eagan City Council Meeting ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve the Final Assessment Roll for Project 914 (Thomas Lake Heights — Street Overlay Improvements) and authorize its certification to Dakota County for collection. FACTS: • Project 914 provided for the bituminous overlay of the streets within the Thomas Lake Heights/ Trails of Thomas Lake neighborhood, adjacent to Thomas Lake Road, south of Diffley Road. • The Final Assessment Roll was presented to the City Council on September 6, 2005, with a public hearing scheduled for October 6 to formally present the final costs associated with this public improvement to the affected benefiting properties. • The final assessment cost is about 28% less than the estimated benefit amounts that were presented at the original Public Hearing December 6, 2004. • All notices have been published in the legal papers and sent to all affected property owners informing them of this public hearing. No written objections have been received to date. An informational meeting was held on September 29 to address all property owners' questions or concerns and provide any additional information of interest. Of the 260 parcels (28 R -1 Single - Family, 232 Townhomes) being assessed, no one attended the meeting. ATTACHMENTS: B. PROJECT 914, THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS STREET OVERLAY IMPROVEMENTS FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING • Final Assessment Report, pages cO through 6 9. PROJECT HEARING DATES NUMBER - 914 ASSESSMENT - October 6.2005 NAME - Thomas Lake Heights/Trails of Thomas Lake IMPROVEMENT - December 6. 2004 Mill and Overlay IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLED AND /OR ASSESSED F.R =Feasibility Report SANITARY SEWER ❑ Trunk ❑ Lateral ❑ Service ❑ Lat. Benefit/trunk WATER ❑ Trunk ❑ Lateral ❑ Service ❑ Lat. Benefit/trunk ❑ WAC SERVICES ❑ Water & San Sewer CONTRACT NO. OF INTEREST AMOUNT CITY NO PARCELS TERMS RATE ASSESSED FINANCED $71 340 F.R. $12050 F.R. 05 -01 260 5 Year 4.50% $51,685.16 $103,487.13 COMMENTS: FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING FINAL F.R RATE RATE UNITS 60 STORM SEWER ❑ Trunk ❑ Lateral ❑ Lat. Benefit/trunk STREET ❑ Gravel Base ❑ Surfacing Single Family $255.87 $353 /Lot Townhouse 191.90 $265 /Unit ❑ C/I Equiv. ❑ Trail/Sidewalk STREET LIGHTS ❑ Installation ❑ Energy Charge FINAL F.R RATE RATE UNITS city of eagan MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Gerald R. Wobschall DATE: September 1, 2005 SUBJECT: Final Assessment Roll Project No.914 Thomas Lake Heights/Trails of Thomas Lake Street Overlay MEMO The City Council at the conclusion of the public hearing on December 6, 2004 ordered Project 914. According to the feasibility report, the following improvements were to be constructed and/or assessed. The improvements are mill and overlay of existing streets and replacement of curb and gutter. In the feasibility study, it was proposed to assess the improvements using lot unit methods for single - family and townhouse properties. This assessment roll is prepared using the lot unit methods presented at the public hearing. Construction of the improvements was accomplished under Contract No. 05 -01, which is complete. The assessment hearing is scheduled for October 6, 2005. The following information was used in the preparation of the assessment roll. I. PROJECT COST The construction cost of $121,162.48 includes the amount of $119,964.32 paid to the contractor for construction of the following detailed improvements and $1,198.16 for street signage. Other costs which consist of engineering, design, contract management, inspections, financing, legal, bonding, administration, and other totaling in the amount of $34,009.81 were incurred resulting in an improvement and project cost of $155,172.29. The detail of these other costs is provided on Schedule I and they are allocated to the improvements constructed in order to determine the cost of each improvement. CONSTRUCTION OTHER IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY IMPROVEMENT COST COSTS COST REPORT Street resurfacing $80,715.15 $22,656.41 $103,371.56 $142,680 Curb repair 40,447.33 11,353.40 51,800.73 53,510 TOTAL $121,162.48 $34,009.81 $155,172.29 $196,190 / II. ASSESSMENTS A. TRUNK ASSESSMENTS No trunk assessments for utilities were proposed in the feasibility report, therefore, none are proposed in this assessment roll. B. STREET IMPROVEMENTS 1. Street Overlay The cost of the street overlay improvement was computed using the following unit prices and quantities: UNIT EXTENDED ITEM UNIT QTY PRICE COST Mobilization LS. 1 $250.00 $250.00 Mill bituminous surface Sq. Yd. 7,192 .80 5,753.60 Bituminous mat. for tack coat Gal. 1,050 1.00 1,050.00 Type 41 Wear Course Ton 1889.97 32.85 62,085.51 Traffic control L. S. 1 350.00 350.00 Adjust water valve box Each 3 100.00 300.00 Adjust manhole casting Each 30 275.00 8,250.00 Repair gate valve top section Each 8 175.00 1,400.00 Striping L.F. 177 .44 77.88 Traffic control signs L.S. 1 1,198.16 1,198.16 SUBTOTAL $80,715.15 Other costs @28.07% 22,656.41 Mill and Overlay Cost A. Low Density Residential Property Assessment Rate 1. Computation of Lot Equivalents A. There are 28 single family parcels and 232 townhouse units lots proposed assessment. The lot equivalents are computed in the following manner: Residential Lot Property Class Lots Weighting Factor Equivalents Single Family Residential Property 28 100% 28 Townhouse 232 75% 174 Total 260 202 3 $103,371.56 The assessment rate for the single family residential property classification was computed using: TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COST Curb and Gutter Replacement ASSESSABLE UNITS $103,371.56 202 Lot Equivalents IMPROVEMENT RATE $511.74/ Lot ASSESSMENT RATE SINGLE FAMILY $255.87 2. Curb and Gutter replacement IMPROVEMENT Mill and Overlay TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COST ASSESSABLE PORTION X 50% The assessment rate for the townhouse property classification was computed using: ASSESSABLE PORTION $103,371.56 51,800.73 $155,172.29 5,3 IMPROVEMENT RATE $511.74/Lot Equivalent ASSESSMENT RATE SINGLE FAMILY $255.87/Lot ASSESSMENT RATE TOWNHOUSE X 75% $191.90/Lot Equivalent The cost to replace damaged curb and gutter amounted to $40,447.33 and other costs in the amount of $11,353.40 were allocated resulting in a replacement cost of $51,800.73. The City's Major Street Fund will finance the curb and gutter replacement. C. ASSESSMENT SPREAD The special assessments are spread to the abutting and adjacent parcels. D. ASSESSMENT TERMS The assessments for this project have a term of 5 years with interest charged at an annual interest rate of 4.50 % on the unpaid balance. III. CITY REVENUES /(RESPONSIBILITIES) CITY'S ASSESSMENT (RESPONSIBILITY) $51,685.16 $(51,686.40) (51,800.73) $51,685.16 $103,487.13 The following funds will provide financing for the listed improvements. Major Street Fund $103,487.13 Gerald R. Wobschall Reviewed Reviewed Finance' artment Public Works Dep nt ze - CD Dated Dated Thomas A. Colbert, Director of Public Works Mike Dougherty, City Attorney Sue Sheridan, Accountant 1 GRW 5y 5 Combined Assessment Roll SA_NBR 10P914 PID 10- 75865 -010 -01 10- 75865 -010 -02 10- 75865 -020 -01 10- 75865 - 020-02 10- 75865 -030 -01 10- 75865 -030 -02 10- 75865 -040 -01 10- 75865 -040 -02 10- 75865 -050-01 10- 75865 - 050 -02 10- 75865 -060 -01 10 -75865 -060 -02 10- 75865 -070 -01 10- 75865 -070 -02 10- 75865 -080 -01 10- 75865 - 080 -02 10- 75865 -090 -01 10- 75865 - 090 -02 10- 75865 - 100 -01 10- 75865 -100 -02 10- 75865 -110 -01 10- 75865 -110 -02 10- 75865 -120 -01 10- 75865 - 120 -02 10- 75865 -130 -02 10- 75865 - 140 -02 10- 75865 -150 -02 10- 75865 -160 -02 10- 75865 -170 -02 10- 75865 -180 -02 Tuesday, September 06, 2005 Addition Name THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE Assessment $191.90 $191.90 $191.90 $191.90 $191.90 $191.90 $191.90 $191.90 $191.90 $191.90 $191.90 $191.90 $191.90 $191.90 $191.90 $191.90 $191.90 $191.90 $191.90 $191.90 $191.90 $191.90 $191.90 $191.90 $191.90 $191.90 $191.90 $191.90 $191.90 $191.90 cc Estimated Assesment Under (Over) Estimate $265.00 $73.10 $265.00 $73.10 $265.00 $73.10 $265.00 $73.10 $265.00 $73.10 $265.00 $73.10 $265.00 $73.10 $265.00 $73.10 $265.00 $73.10 $265.00 $73.10 $265.00 $73.10 $265.00 $73.10 $265.00 $73.10 $265.00 $73.10 $265.00 $73.10 $265.00 $73.10 $265.00 $73.10 $265.00 $73.10 $265.00 $73.10 $265.00 $73.10 $265.00 $73.10 $265.00 $73.10 $265.00 $73.10 $265.00 $73.10 $265.00 $73.10 $265.00 $73.10 $265.00 $73.10 $265.00 $73.10 $265.00 $73.10 $265.00 $73.10 Page 1 of 9 Combined Assessment Roll SA_NBR PID 10- 75865 - 190 -02 10- 75865- 200 -02 10- 75865 -210 -02 10- 75865 -220 -02 10- 75865 -230 -02 10- 75865 -240-02 10- 75865 -250 -02 10- 75865 -260 -02 10- 75865 -270 -02 10- 75865 - 280 -02 10- 75865 -290 -02 10- 75865 -300 -02 10- 75865 -310 -02 10- 75865- 320 -02 10- 75865 -330 -02 10- 75865 -340 -02 10- 75865 - 350 -02 10- 75865 - 360-02 10- 75865 - 370 -02 10- 75865 -380 -02 10- 75865 - 390 -02 10- 75865 -400 -02 10- 75865 - 410-02 10- 75865 - 420 -02 10- 75865- 430 -02 10 -75865 -440 -02 10- 75865 - 450-02 10- 75865- 460-02 10- 75865 -470 -02 10- 75865 - 480 -02 Tuesday, September 06, 2005 10P914 Addition Name THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE THE TRAILS OF THOMAS LAKE Estimated Assessment Assesment Under (Over) Estimate $19t90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.9D $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10. $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $19190 $265.00 $73.10 56 Page 2 of 9 Combined Assessment Roll SA_NBR PID 10- 75950 -010 -01 10- 75950 -020 -01 10- 75950 -020 -02 10- 75950 - 020 -03 10- 75950- 030 -01 10- 75950 -030 -02 10- 75950 -030 -03 10- 75950 -040 -01 10- 75950 -040 -02 10- 75950 -040 -03 10- 75950 -050 -01 10- 75950 -050 -02 10- 75950 - 050 -03 10 -75950 -060 -01 10- 75950 - 060 -02 10- 75950 - 060 -03 10- 75950 -070 -01 10- 75950 - 070 -02 10- 75950- 070 -03 10- 75950 -080 -01 10- 75950 - 080 -02 10- 75950 - 080 -03 10- 75950- 090 -02 10- 75950 -090 -03 10- 75950 - 091 -01 10- 75950- 100 -01 10- 75950- 100 -02 10- 75950 - 100 -03 10- 75950 - 110 -01 10- 75950 - 110 -02 Tuesday, September 06, 2005 10P914 Addition Name THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS Assessment $255.87 $255.87 $191.90 $191.90 $255.87 $191.90 $191.90 $255.87 $191.90 $191.90 $255.87 $191.90 $191.90 $255.87 $191.90 $191.90 $255.87 $191.90 $191.90 $255.87 $191.90 $191.90 $191.90 $191.90 $255.87 $255.87 $191.90 $191.90 $255.87 $191.90 5� Estimated Assesment $353.00 $353.00 $265.00 $265.00 $353.00 $265.00 $265.00 $353.00 $265.00 $265.00 $353.00 $265.00 $265.00 $353.00 $265.00 $265.00 $353.00 $265.00 $265.00 $353.00 $265.00 $265.00 $265.00 $265.00 $353.00 $353.00 $265.00 $265.00 $353.00 $265.00 Under (Over) Estimate $97.13 $97.13 $73.10 $73.10 $97.13 $73.10 $73.10 $97.13 $73.10 $73.10 $97.13 $73.10 $73.10 $97.13 $73.10 $73.10 $97.13 $73.10 $73.10 $97.13 $73.10 $73.10 $73.10 $73.10 $97.13 $97.13 $73.10 $73.10 $97.13 $73.10 Page 3 of 9 Combined Assessment Roll SA_NBR 10P914 PID 10- 75950 -110 -03 10- 75950 -120 -01 10- 75950 - 120 -02 10- 75950 -120 -03 10- 75950 - 130-01 10- 75950 - 130-02 10- 75950 - 130-03 10- 75950 - 140-01 10- 75950 - 140-02 10- 75950 -140 -03 10- 75950- 150 -01 10- 75950 -150 -02 10- 75950 - 150 -03 10- 75950 -160 -01 10- 75950- 160 -02 10- 75950 -160 -03 10- 75950 -170 -01 10- 75950 - 170 -02 10- 75950 - 170 -03 10- 75950 - 180 -01 10- 75950 -180 -03 10- 75950 - 190 -01 10- 75950 -190 -03 10- 75950 -200 -01 10- 75950 -200 -03 10- 75950 -210 -01 10- 75950 - 210 -03 10- 75950 -220 -01 10- 75950 - 220 -03 10- 75950- 230 -01 Tuesday, September 06, 2005 Addition Name THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS Estimated Assessment Assesment Under (Over) Estimate $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $255.87 $353.00 $97.13 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $255.87 $353.00 $97.13 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $255.87 $353.00 $97.13 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $255.87 $353.00 $97.13 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $255.87 $353.00 $97.13 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $255.87 $353.00 $97.13 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $255.87 $353.00 $97.13 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $255.87 $353.00 $97.13 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $255.87 $353.00 $97.13 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $255.87 $353.00 $97.13 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $255.87 $353.00 $97.13 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $255.87 $353.00 $97.13 58 Page 4 of 9 Combined Assessment Roll SA_NBR 10P914 PID 10- 75950 - 230 -03 10- 75950 -240 -01 10- 75950 - 240 -03 10- 75950 -250 -01 10- 75950 -250 -03 10- 75950 - 260 -01 10- 75950 -270 -01 10- 75950 -280 -01 10- 75951 -010 -01 10- 75951 -010 -02 10- 75951 -020 -01 10- 75951 -020 -02 10- 75951 -030 -01 10- 75951 -030 -02 10- 75951 - 040 -01 10- 75951 - 040 -02 10- 75951 - 050 -01 10- 75951 -050 -02 10- 75951 - 060 -01 10- 75951 -060 -02 10- 75951 - 070 -01 10- 75951 - 070 -02 10- 75951 - 080 -01 10- 75951 - 080 -02 10- 75951 - 090 -01 10- 75951 -090 -02 10- 75951- 100 -01 10- 75951 - 100 -02 10- 75951 -110 -01 10- 75951 - 110 -02 Tuesday, September 06, 2005 Addition Name THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND Estimated Assessment Assesment Under (Over) Estimate $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $255.87 $353.00 $97.13 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $255.87 $353.00 $97.13 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $255.87 $353.00 $97.13 $255.87 $353.00 $97.13 $255.87 $353.00 $97.13 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $1 91.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 5 9 Page 5 of 9 Combined Assessment Roll SA_NBR 10P914 Under Estintated (Over) PID Addition Name Assessment Assesment Estimate 10- 75951 - 120 -01 THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 10 -75951 -120 -02 THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 10- 75951 -130 -01 THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 10- 75951 -130 -02 THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 10- 75951 -140 -01 THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 10- 75951 - 140 -02 THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 10 -75951 -150 -01 THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 10 -75951 -150 -02 THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 10 -75951 -160 -01 THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 10- 75951 - 160 -02 THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 10- 75951 -170 -01 THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 10- 75951 -170 -02 THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 10- 75951 -180 -01 THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 10- 75951- 180 -02 THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 10- 75951 - 190 -01 THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 10- 75951 -190 -02 THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 10- 75951 -200 -01 THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 10- 75951 -200 -02 THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 10- 75951 - 210 -01 THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND $191.90 $265.00 $73.1D 10- 75951 -210 -02 THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 10- 75951 -220 -01 THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 10- 75951 -220 -02 THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 10- 75951 - 230 -01 THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 10- 75951 - 230 -02 THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 10- 75951 -240 -01 THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 10- 75951 -240 -02 THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 10- 75951 -250 -01 THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 10- 75951 -250 -02 THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 10- 75951 - 260-01 THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 10- 75951 - 260 -02 THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 Tuesday, September 06, 2005 60 Page 6 of 9 Combined Assessment Roll SA_NBR PID 10- 75951 -270 -01 10- 75951 - 270 -02 10- 75951 - 280 -01 10- 75951 - 280-02 10- 75951 -290 -01 10- 75951- 290 -02 10- 75951 -300 -01 10- 75951 -300 -02 10- 75951 -310 -01 10- 75951 -310 -02 10- 75951 - 320 -01 10- 75951 -320 -02 10- 75951 -330 -01 10- 75951 -330 -02 10- 75951 -340 -01 10- 75951 - 340 -02 10- 75951 - 350 -01 10- 75951 -350 -02 10- 75951 -360 -01 10- 75951 -360 -02 10- 75951 - 370 -01 10- 75951 - 370 -02 10- 75951 -380 -01 10- 75951 -380 -02 10- 75951 - 390 -01 10- 75951- 390 -02 10 -75951 -400 -01 10 -75951 - 400 -02 10 -75951 -410 -01 10- 75951- 410 -02 Tuesday, September 06, 2005 10P914 Addition Name THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND Estimated Assessment Assesment Under (Over) Estimate $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $19t90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $19t90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $19190 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $19t90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 Page 7 of 9 Combined Assessment Roll SA_NBR PID 10 -75951 -420 -01 10 -75951 -420 -02 10 -75951 -430 -01 10 -75951 430 -02 10 -75951 -440 -01 10 -75951 -440 -02 10- 75951450 -01 10 -75951 450 -02 10 -75951 -460-01 10 -75951 - 460 -02 10 -75951 470 -01 10- 75951- 470-02 10- 75951 -480 -01 10 -75951 - 480 -02 10 -75951 -490 -01 10 -75951 490 -02 10- 75951 - 500 -01 10- 75951 -500 -02 10- 75951 - 510 -01 10- 75951 - 510 -02 10- 75951 - 520 -01 10- 75951 -520 -02 10- 75951 -530 -01 10- 75951 -530 -02 10- 75951 -540 -01 10- 75951 -540 -02 10- 75951 - 550 -01 10- 75951 -550 -02 10- 75951 -560 -01 10- 75951 -560-02 Tuesday, September 06, 2005 10P914 Addition Name THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND Estimated Assessment Assesment ‘0? Under (Over) Estimate 5191.90 5265.00 $73.10 $191.90 5265.00 573.10 5191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 5265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 5191.90 5265.00 $73.10 $191.90 5265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 5265.00 573.10 5191.90 5265.00 $73.10 $191.90 5265.00 $73.10 $191.90 5265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 573.10 $191.90 $265.00 573.10 5191.90 $265.00 573.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 5191.90 5265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 5191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 5265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 573.10 5191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 573.10 Page 8 of 9 Combined Assessment Roll SA_NBR 10P914 PID 10- 75951 - 570 -01 10- 75951 -570 -02 10- 75951 - 580 -01 10- 75951 -580 -02 10- 75951- 590 -01 10- 75951 -590 -02 10- 75951 -600 -01 10- 75951- 600 -02 10- 75951 -610 -01 10- 75951 -610 -02 10- 75951 -620 -01 10 -75951 -620 -02 10- 75951 -630 -01 10- 75951 - 630 -02 10- 75951 -640 -01 10- 75951 - 640-02 10- 75951 - 650 -02 10- 75951 -660 -02 10- 75951- 670 -02 10- 75951 -680 -02 Summary for 'SA_NBR Sum Tuesday, September 06, 2005 Addition Name THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND THOMAS LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND = 10P914 (260 detail records) Estimated Assessment Assesment $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $1 91.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $191.90 $265.00 $73.10 $51,685.16 63 $71, 364.00 Under (Over) Estimate $19,678.84 Page 9 of 9 s N W EI • NO SCALE G:Feosibility Reports2005 \Aroj914Thomas_Lake \Assess_Map City of Egli Engineering Department DIFFLEY ROAD Thomas Lake School IND. SCHOOL DIST. NO. L96 LEGEND Thomas Lake Heights / Trails of Thomas Lake Additions Street Improvements / Area Assessment Map Project 914 4271 Fig. 1 43 4: • $ 191.90 / Unit Assessment * $ 255.87 / Lot Assessment M = = Assessment Area Street Overlay 9 -27 -05 Agenda Information Memo October 6, 2005 Eagan City Council Meeting FACTS: ATTACHMENTS: C. PROJECT 916, ST. FRANCIS WOODS 1 sT / 3 RD -5 TH STREET OVERLAY IMPROVEMENTS FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve the Final Assessment Roll for Project 916 (St. Francis Woods 1 3 `a - 5 th Additions — Street Overlay Improvements) and authorize its certification to Dakota County for collection. • Project 916 provided for the bituminous overlay of the streets within the St. Francis Woods 1 St/ 3rd 5th Additions neighborhood, south of Duckwood Drive, west of Lexington Avenue. • The Final Assessment Roll was presented to the City Council on September 6, 2005, with a public hearing scheduled for October 6 to formally present the final costs associated with this public improvement to the affected benefiting properties. • The final assessment cost is about 25% less than the estimated benefit amounts that were presented at the original Public Hearing November 16, 2004. • All notices have been published in the legal papers and sent to all affected property owners informing them of this public hearing. No written objections have been received to date. An informational meeting was held on September 29 to address all property owners' questions or concerns and provide any additional information of interest. Of the 91 parcels (58 R -1 Single - Family, 33 Townhomes) being assessed, one resident attended the meeting. City staff provided information to the resident's satisfaction. • Final Assessment Report, pages 6 through 95: 6,s PROJECT HEARING DATES NUMBER - 916 ASSESSMENT - October 6, 2005 NAME - St. Francis Woods 1s -3` and 5th IMPROVEMENT - November 16, 2004 Mill and Overlay IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLED AND /OR ASSESSED F.R= Feasibility Report SANITARY SEWER ❑ Trunk ❑ Lateral ❑ Service ❑ Lat. Benefit/trunk WATER ❑ Trunk ❑ Lateral ❑ Service ❑ Lat. Benefit/trunk ❑ WAC SERVICES ❑ Water & San Sewer CONTRACT NO. OF INTEREST AMOUNT CITY NO. PARCELS TERMS RATE ASSESSED FINANCED $51,715 F.R. $100.175 F.R. 05 -01 91 Units 5 Year 4.50% $38.795.49 $89,168.42 COMMENTS: FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING FINAL F.R RATE RATE UNITS 66 STORM SEWER ❑ Trunk ❑ Lateral ❑ Lat. Benefit/trunk STREET ❑ Gravel Base ▪ Surfacing Single Family $503.55 $672 /Lot Townhouse Unit Direct Access 377.67 504 /Unit Indirect Access 58.39 70 /Unit ❑ C/I Equiv. ❑ Trail/Sidewalk STREET LIGHTS ❑ Installation ❑ Energy Charge FINAL F.R RATE RATE UNITS city of eagan MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Gerald R. Wobschall DATE: September 1, 2005 SUBJECT: Final Assessment Roll Project No. 916 St. Francis Woods 1- 3rd /5th Additions Street Overlay MEMO The City Council at the conclusion of the public hearing on November 16, 2004 ordered Project 916. According to the feasibility report, the following improvements were to be constructed and/or assessed. The improvements are mill and overlay of existing streets and replacement of curb and gutter. In the feasibility study, it was proposed to assess the improvements using a lot unit method for single - family properties. This assessment roll is prepared using the lot unit method presented at the public hearing. Construction of the improvements was accomplished under Contract No. 05 -01, which is substantially complete. The assessment hearing is scheduled for October 6, 2005. The following information was used in the preparation of the assessment roll. I. PROJECT COST The construction cost of $99,147.48 includes the amount of $98,047.38 paid to the contractor for the construction of the following detailed improvements and $1,100.10 for street signage. Other costs which consist of engineering, design, contract management, inspections, financing, legal, bonding, administration, and other totaling in the amount of $28,816.43 were incurred resulting in an improvement and project cost of $127,963.91. The detail of these other costs is provided on Schedule I and they are allocated to the improvements constructed in order to determine the cost of each improvement. CONSTRUCTION OTHER IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY IMPROVEMENT COST COSTS COST REPORT Street resurfacing $60,1 18.23 $17,472.89 $77,591.12 $103,340 Curb repair 39,029.25 11,343.54 50,372.79 48,460 TOTAL $99,147.48 $28,816.43 $127,963.91 $151,980 67 ' II. ASSESSMENTS A. TRUNK ASSESSMENTS No trunk assessments for utilities were proposed in the feasibility report, therefore, none are proposed in this assessment roll. B. STREET IMPROVEMENTS 1. Street Overlay The cost of the street overlay improvement was computed using the following unit prices and quantities: UNIT EXTENDED ITEM UNIT QTY PRICE COST Mobilization LS. 1 $250.00 $250.00 Mill bituminous surface Sq. Yd. 5,112 .80 4,089.60 Bituminous mat. for tack coat Gal. 850 1.00 850.00 Type 41 Wear Course Ton 1,384.43 32.85 45,478.53 Traffic control L. S. 1 500.00 500.00 Adjust water valve box Each 5 100.00 500.00 Adjust manhole casting Each 21 275.00 5,775.00 Repair gate valve top Each 9 175.00 1,575.00 Install traffic signs . L.S. 1 1,100.10 1,100.10 SUBTOTAL $60,118.23 Other costs @29.06% 17,472.89 Mill and Overlay Cost $77,591.12 a. Low Density Residential Property Assessment Rate with Direct Access The assessable cost and the assessment rates for the low- density residential property classification was computed using: 1. Computation of Lot Equivalents A. There are 58 single family parcels and 24 townhouse units lots proposed assessment. The lot equivalents are computed in the following manner: Residential Lot Property Class Lots Weighting Factor Equivalents Single Family Residential Property 58 100% 58 Townhouse 24 75% 18 Total 82 76 r 3 2. Low Density Residential Property Assessment Rate The assessable cost and the assessment rates for the low- density residential property classification was computed using: TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COST $77,591.12 IMPROVEMENT COST $76,540.18 ASSESSABLE COST $38,270.09 ASSESSMENT RATE $503.55 b. Low Density Residential Property Assessment Rate with Indirect Access The assessable cost and the assessment rates for the low- density residential property classification was computed using: 1. Computation of Lot Equivalents There are 9 townhouse units with indirect access proposed for assessment. The lot equivalents are computed in the following manner: Property Class Single Family Residential Property Townhouse Total 2. Indirect Access Low Density Residential Property Assessment Rate The assessable cost and assessment rate for the low- density residential indirect access to the improvement was computed using: TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COST $77,591.12 IMPROVEMENT COST $1,050.94 ASSESSABLE COST $525.47 IMPROVEMENT UNITS 7,283/7,383 ASSESSABLE PORTION X 50% ASSSESSABLE UNITS 76 UNITS ASSESSABLE PORTION 75% IMPROVEMENT UNITS 100/7,383 ASSESSABLE PORTION X 50% ASSSESSABLE UNITS 9 UNITS 64 Residential Lots 0 9 9 Weighting Factor 100% 100% IMPROVEMENT COST 76,540.18 ASSESSABLE COST $38,270.09 ASSESSMENT RATE $503.55/LOT ASSESSMENT RATE $377.67/UNIT property classification with Lot Equivalents 0 9 9 IMPROVEMENT COST $1,050.94 ASSESSABLE COST $525.47 ASSESSMENT RATE $58.39/UNIT 3. Curb and Gutter replacement The cost to replace damaged curb and gutter amounted to $39,029.25 and other related costs in the amount of $11,343.54 were allocated resulting in a replacement cost of $50,372.79. The City's Major Street Fund will finance the curb and gutter replacement. C. ASSESSMENT SPREAD The special assessments are spread to the abutting and adjacent parcels. D. ASSESSMENT TERMS The assessments for this project have a term of 5 years with interest charged at an annual interest rate of 4.50 % on the unpaid balance. III. CITY REVENUES /(RESPONSIBILITIES) IMPROVEMENT Mill and Overlay Curb and Gutter Replacement TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COST $77,591.12 The following funds will provide financing for the listed improvements. Major Street Fund 50,372.79 $127,963.91 Gerald R. Wobschall Reviewed ( Public Works Department q -LB -o Dated Review Finance ► epartment Dated cc: Thomas A. Colbert, Director of Public Works Mike Dougherty, City Attorney Sue Sheridan, Accountant I GRW 20 ASSESSMENT $38,795.49 CITY'S (RESPONSIBILITY) $(38,795.63) (50,372.79) $(89,168.42) $89,168.42 Combined Assessment Roll SA_NBR 10P916 PID 10- 65900 -010-01 10- 65900- 020 -01 10- 65900 - 030 -01 10- 65900 -040 -01 10- 65900- 050 -01 10- 65900 -060 -01 10- 65900 - 070 -01 10- 65900 -070 -02 10- 65900 -080 -01 10- 65900 -080 -02 10- 65900- 090 -01 10- 65900 -090 -02 10- 65900 -100 -01 10- 65900 -100 -02 10- 65900 - 110 -01 10- 65900- 110 -02 10- 65900 -120 -01 10- 65900 - 120-02 10- 65900 -130 -01 10 -65900 - 130-02 10- 65900 -140 -01 10- 65900 - 140 -02 10- 65900 - 150 -01 10- 65900 - 150 -02 10 -65900 -160 -01 10- 65900 -170 -01 10- 65900 - 180-01 10- 65900 -190 -01 10- 65900 - 200 -01 10- 65900 - 210 -01 Wednesday, September 07, 2005 Addition Name ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD Under Estimated (Over) Assessment Assesment Estimate $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 Page 1 of 4 Combined Assessment Roll SA_NBR PID 10 -65900 -220 -01 10- 65900 -230 -01 10 -65900 -240 -01 10 -65900 -250 -01 10- 65900 -260 -01 10- 65900 -270 -01 10- 65900 -280 -01 10 -65900 -290 -01 10 -65900 -300 -01 10- 65901- 010-01 10- 65901 -010 -02 10- 65901 -020 -01 10 -65901 -020 -02 10- 65901 -030 -01 10- 65901 -030 -02 10- 65901 -040 -01 10- 65901 -040 -02 10- 65901 -050 -01 10 -65901 -050 -02 10- 65901 -060 -01 10- 65901 -060 -02 10- 65901 -070 -01 10- 65901- 070 -02 10- 65901 -080 -02 10- 65901 -090-02 10- 65901 -100 -02 10- 65901 -110 -02 10 -65901 -120 -02 10- 65902 -010 -01 10- 65902 -010 -02 10P916 Wednesday, September 07, 2005 Addition Name ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD ST FRANCIS WOOD 2ND ST FRANCIS WOOD 2ND ST FRANCIS WOOD 2ND ST FRANCIS WOOD 2ND ST FRANCIS WOOD 2ND ST FRANCIS WOOD 2ND ST FRANCIS WOOD 2ND ST FRANCIS WOOD 2ND ST FRANCIS WOOD 2ND ST FRANCIS WOOD 2ND ST FRANCIS WOOD 2ND ST FRANCIS WOOD 2ND ST FRANCIS WOOD 2ND ST FRANCIS WOOD 2ND ST FRANCIS WOOD 2ND ST FRANCIS WOOD 2ND ST FRANCIS WOOD 2ND ST FRANCIS WOOD 2ND ST FRANCIS WOOD 2ND ST FRANCIS WOOD 3RD ST FRANCIS WOOD 3RD Under Estimated (Over) Assessment Assesment Estimate $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $503.55 $672.00 $168.45 $377.67 $504.00 $126.33 $377.67 $504.00 $126.33 Page2of4 112-- Combined Assessment Roll SA_NBIZ 10P916 PID 10- 65902 - 020 -01 10- 65902 -020 -02 10- 65902 -030 -01 10- 65902 - 040 -01 10- 65902 -040 -02 10- 65902 -050 -02 10- 65902 - 060-02 10- 65902- 070 -02 10- 65904 - 010 -01 10- 65904- 010 -02 10 -65904 -020 -01 10- 65904 -020 -02 10 -65904 -030 -01 10- 65904 -030-02 10- 65904 -040 -01 10- 65904 - 040 -02 10- 65904 -050-02 10- 65904 - 060 -01 10- 65904 - 060 -02 10- 65904- 070 -01 10- 65904 - 070 -02 10- 65904 - 080 -01 10- 65904 -080 -02 10- 65904- 090 -01 10- 65904 - 090 -02 10- 65904 -100 -01 10- 65904 - 100 -02 10- 65904 -120 -02 10- 65904 - 130 -02 10- 65904 -140 -02 Wednesday, September 07, 2005 Addition Name ST FRANCIS WOOD 3RD ST FRANCIS WOOD 3RD ST FRANCIS WOOD 3RD ST FRANCIS WOOD 3RD ST FRANCIS WOOD 3RD ST FRANCIS WOOD 3RD ST FRANCIS WOOD 3RD ST FRANCIS WOOD 3RD ST FRANCIS WOOD 5TH ST FRANCIS WOOD 5TH ST FRANCIS WOOD 5TH ST FRANCIS WOOD 5TH ST FRANCIS WOOD 5TH ST FRANCIS WOOD 5TH ST FRANCIS WOOD 5TH ST FRANCIS WOOD 5TH ST FRANCIS WOOD 5TH ST FRANCIS WOOD 5TH ST FRANCIS WOOD 5TH ST FRANCIS WOOD 5TH ST FRANCIS WOOD 5TH ST FRANCIS WOOD 5TH ST FRANCIS WOOD 5TH ST FRANCIS WOOD 5TH ST FRANCIS WOOD 5TH ST FRANCIS WOOD 5TH ST FRANCIS WOOD 5TH ST FRANCIS WOOD 5TH ST FRANCIS WOOD 5TH ST FRANCIS WOOD 5TH Under Estimated (Over) Assessment Assesment Estimate 93 $377.67 $504.00 $126.33 $377.67 $504.00 $126.33 $377.67 $504.00 $126.33 $377.67 $504.00 $126.33 $377.67 $504.00 $126.33 $377.67 $504.00 $126.33 $377.67 $504.00 $126.33 $377.67 $504.00 $126.33 $377.67 $504.00 $126.33 $377.67 $504.00 $126.33 $377.67 $504.00 $126.33 $377.67 $504.00 $126.33 $377.67 $504.00 $126.33 $377.67 $504.00 $126.33 $377.67 $504.00 $126.33 $377.67 $504.00 $126.33 $377.67 $504.00 $126.33 $377.67 $504.00 $126.33 $58.39 $70.00 $11.61 $377.67 $504.00 $126.33 $58.39 $70.00 $11.61 $377.67 $504.00 $126.33 $58.39 $70.00 $11.61 $377.67 $504.00 $126.33 $58.39 $70.00 $11.61 $377.67 $504.00 $126.33 $58.39 $70.00 $11.61 $58.39 $70.00 $11.61 $58.39 $70.00 $11.61 $58.39 $70.00 $11.61 Page 3 of 4 Combined Assessment Roll SA_NBR 10P916 Under Estimated (Over) PID Addition Name Assessment Assesment Estimate 10- 65904- 150-02 ST FRANCIS WOOD 5TH $58.39 $70.00 $11.61 Summary for 'SA_NBR' = 10P916 (91 detail records) Sum $38,795.49 $51,702.00 $12,906.51 Wednesday, September 07, 2005 Page 4 of 4 1234 237 121 • 1220 3610 • 0 • 3614 0 3658 • 630 1239 1233 1227 1 • • • ICKER 1243 • 1241 1235 • • • N ANGER 1236 1230 • 3679 G: Feasibility Reports2005 \Proj913 \Assess_Map • $ 503.55 / Lot * $ 377.67 / Unit 100 f.f. Allocated to (A) 9 Units 9 -27 -05 City of Cap Engineering Department St. Francis Woods 1st-3rd/5th Additions Street Improvements / Area Assessment Map Project 916 Fig. 1 Agenda Information Memo October 6, 2005 Eagan City Council Meeting FACTS: D. La QUINTA INN (EAGAN WOODS OFFICE PARK 2 " ADDITION) EASEMENT VACATION ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Close the Public Hearing and continue consideration of the vacation of public drainage & utility easements within Outlot C, Eagan Woods Office Park 2 Addition to be concurrent with Final Plat approval for La Quinta Addition. • On August 31, 2005, City staff received a memo from Brian Bourassa of McCombs Frank Roos & Associates, Inc., on behalf of La Quinta Inns and Suites, requesting the vacation of all of the existing drainage and utility easements on Outlot C, Eagan Woods Office Park 2 ❑d Addition, southwest of the intersection of Buffet Way and Pilot Knob Road. • 10' wide easements were dedicated as part of the Eagan Woods Office Park 2" Addition plat as the typical side lot easements for drainage and utility purposes. • The purpose of the request is to allow La Quinta Inns and Suites to construct a new 152 unit hotel on Outlot C and the adjacent parcel to the south. The configuration of the proposed hotel would encroach upon some of the existing drainage and utility easements. • La Quinta will replat Outlot C and the adjacent parcel as the La Quinta Addition for development of the site. 10' wide side lot easements for drainage and utility purposes will be dedicated as part of the new plat, as is typical. • The vacation of the existing drainage and utility easements would clean up the proposed plat by avoiding an underlying recorded dedication. • Notices were published in the legal paper and sent to all potentially affected and/or interested parties for comment prior to the public hearing. Notices were sent to all the potentially impacted private utility companies. No objections to the proposed vacation, with the replacement by the new dedicated easements, have been received as of the date of this report. • The request has been reviewed by the Engineering Division and found to be in order for consideration by the Council. ISSUES: • Favorable consideration of the vacation of these easements is dependant upon the rededication of replacement easements which are proposed as part of the final plat of the La Quinta Addition anticipated for Council's consideration on Oct. 18. Therefore, it would be premature to grant approval at the close of the Public Hearing. ATTACHMENTS: in in • Location Map, page • Legal Description, graphic, page. • Petitioner's Letter, page '�6 G: \Vacations \LaOuinta LOC City of Ea in Engineering Department INTERSTATE 494 .Outlot C - Eagan s Office Park 2nd ( La Quinta Inn ) Proposed Easement Vacation - Location Map MENDOTA HEIGHTS 9/1/05 1 A i K � BLOCK 1 0 LOT 1 60 I= _. .III .. IN - NMI SCALE IN FEET ApN ms .ntEe+n.ero 120 BUFFET OUT;-OT B LOT 1 — BENCH MARK TOP NUT muse ELEV.-88112 FT Easement Vacation Description 1 All the drainage and utility easements in Outlot C, as dedicated in the plat of Eagan Woods Office Park 2n Addition, as recorded July 27, 1999 as Document Numbers 1624818 and 403921 in the office of the Dakota County, Minnesota Recorder. 1 1 Revisions No Dub ny amok. Dtgbeteftg Stergeng FRA �' • Arm /Nepy�Yw�M Hea9 91! Await N.ei .916 Ne Emit Roos f—Mak esiolbasges nnoae6.. Inc. /e Client LA Quints Properties, Inc. Sheet Title Exhibit 'B' 1 Sheet Revision MFRA RLE NO.:15519 MFRA McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. MEMORANDUM DATE: August 31, 2005 TO: City of Eagan FROM: Brian J. Bourassa, P.E. SUBJECT: Petition to Vacate Easement ' agan Woods Office Park 2 Addition An Equal Opportunity Employer Attached please find the following items related to the above referenced Easement Vacation: • Exhibit A — Easement Vacation Description • Exhibit B — Sketch • Processing Fee = $300.00 In order to allow for development of the Proposed La Quinta Inns & Suites Hotel, it is required that the existing drainage and utility easements within Outlot C of Eagan Woods Office Park 2 " Addition be vacated. The proposed La Quinta Inns & Suites Hotel Project involves the consolidation of two parcels of land (Outlot C and a Transitional parcel located to the south). The parcel consolidation places the existing drainage and utility easement (previously boundary easements for Outlot C) in the central area of the site. Therefore, it is necessary to vacate the existing drainage and utility easements. The proposed Plat (La Quinta Addition) will establish new drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of the site which will accommodate the City's requirements. 99 Engineering Planning Surveying 14800 28th Avenue North, Suite 140 • Plymouth, Minnesota • 55447 phone 763/476 -6010 • tax 763/476 -8532 • e- mail: mfraigmfra.com Agenda Information Memo October 6, 2005, Eagan City Council Meeting ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve an ordinance amendment to Chapter 6, Other Business Regulation and Licensing — regarding Massage Therapy Establishment and Massage Therapy Licenses. A. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT — CHAPTER 6, OTHER BUSINESS REGULATION AND LICENSING — REGARDING MASSAGE THERAPY ESTABLISHMENT AND MASSAGE THERAPY LICENSES FACTS: VII. NEW BUSINESS • At the June 7, 2005 Listening Session Rebecca Guthrie, massage therapist teacher, requested the Council consider allowing massage therapists to conduct business out of their homes and Council directed staff to place the item on a future workshop agenda. D Ms. Guthrie presented a proposal providing for Business Regulation and Licensing for Therapeutic Massage in the City of Eagan, Minnesota. D At the September 12, 2005 Special City Council meeting staff research was presented to the City Council and direction was given to have the City Attorney's Office prepare an Ordinance Amendment allowing for "off -site /call out" massage therapy by massage therapists licensed in Eagan and providing for students of massage therapy to provide massage therapy as part of school's program or course work under certain conditions. D Also, the City Council specifically directed that the City would not allow therapists to conduct business out of their homes as a licensed establishment. ➢ Eagan has amended its Code provisions covering Massage Therapy and Massage Therapist Establishments a number of times over the years primarily to reflect changes in the industry and in response to requests of practitioners. The most recent discussions centered on the cost of doing business in Eagan compared to other cities. Previous to that, education/training requirements for therapists were changed and the provision to allow temporary off -site massage therapy was added. Provisions pertaining to enforcement have not been revised since the first adoption of the licensing requirements. D Eagan currently has 70 licensed therapists and 9 licensed therapy establishments. D Eagan Licensed Establishments have been sent a copy of the proposed ordinance amendment and noticed of the action scheduled for this meeting. D Ms. Zoe Vaughter, Department Chair Massage Therapy, at Bryman Institute was in attendance at the September 12 Eagan City Council meeting and has been asked to review the proposed ordinance amendment from the perspective of student massage therapy. At the time of the packet preparation Ms. Vaughter has not responded. ATTACHMENTS (1): D Enclosed on pages K./ through g y is a copy of the proposed ordinance amendment to Chapter 6 of the Eagan City Code. DRAFT 9.26.05 ORDINANCE NO. 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA, AMENDING EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER SIX ENTITLED "OTHER BUSINESS REGULATION AND LICENSING" BY AMENDING SECTION 6.39 REGARDING MASSAGE THERAPY ESTABLISHMENT AND MASSAGE THERAPIST LICENSES; AND BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 6.99. The City Council of the City of Eagan does ordain: Section 1. Eagan City Code Chapter Six is hereby amended by changing Section 6.39, Subd. 2, to add the following definition: D. Student of Massage Therapy means a person who is enrolled in and attends classes at a school, college, university or other institution that is approved by the American Massage Therapists Association or other similar reputable massage association or accredited by a recognized educational accrediting association or agency or is licensed by the state or local government agency having jurisdiction over the school. Section 2. Eagan City Code Chapter Six is hereby amended by chancing Section 6.39, Subd. 4.F., to read as follows: F. Exception. This section shall not apply to a health care facility (1) owned by a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the state, or (2) owned by the state or any of its agencies, or (3) licensed by the state. This section shall not apply to a school, college, university or other institution which provides a program of study or course work in massage therapy or therapeutic massage provided: (1) the school, college, university or institution meets the criteria set forth in the definition of student of massage therapy herein; (2) the massage therapy is provided during and as part of a course or clinical component of the school's program or course work; and (3) the person is supervised by an instructor while providing or performing massage therapy. Section 3. Eagan City Code Chapter Six is hereby amended by chancing Section 6.39, Subd. 5 by adding item E to read as follows: E. Exception. A massage therapist license shall not be required for any student of massage therapy meeting the definition as set forth herein, provided (1) the massage therapy is provided during and as part of a course or clinical component of the school's program or course work; and (2) the massage therapy student is supervised by an instructor while providing or performing massage therapy services. A notice, which advises the public that the person who may provide massage therapy services is a student of massage therapy and is not licensed by the City, shall be posted in a conspicuous location in the room in which the massage therapy is provided. g�z DRAFT 9.26.05 Section 4. Eagan City Code Chapter Six is hereby amended by changing Section 6.39, Subd. 6, to read as follows: A. Notwithstanding the provision regulating a massage therapy establishment license residential premises other than the licensed premises upon the issuance of a temporary off .. be on a form provided by the City, shall be completed with all information requested B. A temporary off site permit shall be subject to the following requirements: 1. Thc off site massage therapy shall be conducted only at the premises under the 2. Thc permit shall be subject to all provisions of this Section geverning—lieenserl massage therapy establishments and licensed massage therapists. 3. The permit may be issued only for short term (not to exceed seven consecutive days) promotional or contract events. A copy of the contract must be provided at the time year. Subd. 6. Off -site /Call -out Massage Therapy. A. Notwithstanding the provisions regulating a massage therapy establishment license hereunder, a massage therapist licensed by the City and who operates or is employed by a massage therapy establishment licensed by the City may provide massage therapy at a location within the City other than the premises of the licensed massage therapy establishment. All massage therapy permitted under this provision must comply with all of the provisions of this Section governing licensed massage therapy establishments and licensed massage therapists. Section 5. Eagan City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including 'Penalty for Violation ' and Section 6.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim. Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its adoption and publication according to law. c23 DRAFT 9.26.05 ATTEST: CITY OF EAGAN City Council By: Maria Petersen Its: City Clerk Date Ordinance Adopted: Date Ordinance Published in the Legal Newspaper: By: Pat Geagan Its: Mayor Agenda Information Memo October 6, 2005, Eagan City Council B. PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (OUTLOT A, LEXINGTON POINTE 13 ADDITION AND OUTLOT A LEXINGTON POINTE 7 ADDITION) — RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve (OR direct Findings of Fact for Denial) a Preliminary Planned Development for a retail commercial development (Diffley Marketplace) consisting of a 43,175 sq. ft. grocery store, two 10,000 sq. ft. multi -tenant retail buildings, and two other retail buildings upon 10.94 acres located south of Diffley Road and east of Lexington Avenue, legally described as Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 13 Addition and Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 7th Addition, in the NW '/4 of Section 26, subject to the conditions listed in the supplemental staff memo dated September 27, 2005. To approve (OR direct Findings of Fact for Denial) a Final Planned Development for a 43,175 sq. ft. grocery store, and two 10,000 sq. ft. multi -tenant retail buildings upon 10.94 acres located south of Diffley Road and east of Lexington Avenue, legally described as Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 13 Addition and Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 7 Addition, in the NW 1/4 of Section 26, subject to the conditions listed in the supplemental staff memo dated September 27, 2005. REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: At least three votes. FACTS: ➢ The property consists of two outlots located south of Diffley Road between Daniel Drive and Walgreen's. The property is currently zoned PD, Planned Development and has a land use designation of RC, Retail Commercial. ➢ The applicant is proposing a Preliminary PD consisting of a grocery store on the west end of the site, two multi tenant retail buildings on the central portion of the property, and two unspecified commercial retail uses east of that with a storm drainage pond on the far east end of the site. ➢ The proposal met most of the typical NB, Neighborhood Business zoning standards. ➢ Deviations were requested for parking stall size in the grocery store lot, building height for a portion of the grocery store, and the pavement setback on the west side. Staff identified some needed modifications to the Site Lighting and Landscape Plans. ➢ The development is designed to accommodate future subdivision of the land into separate parcels for each building. ➢ The proposal includes several amenities including a unified signage plan and pedestrian connections through the development to the adjacent neighborhood and trails. ➢ During the public hearing, residents raised concerns about the scale of the development, screening, green space, hours of operation, traffic and related issues such as truck deliveries, g`C safety of children and the proximity to the schools. (See the attached APC minutes and correspondence for more details about resident concerns.) > The APC held a public hearing on August 23, 2005, and recommended denial of the Planned Development Amendment and the Final Planned Development. > The APC's reasons for the recommendation of denial were the scale of the development, access and traffic, building height of the grocery store, Class II restaurants, and hours of operation. > Since the APC meeting, the applicant has been reviewing the proposal, making revisions to the plans and preparing additional information to address the concerns raised during this process. The applicant tells staff they also have met several times with area residents during this time. > The applicant has submitted a traffic study and a narrative update explaining the modifications to the development plans and addressing issues such as store operation, scale of the development, traffic, parking, etc. A separate staff memo has been prepared to provide additional information for the City Council regarding traffic issues. > A revised plan was submitted to staff on September 26, 2005 for City Council consideration. A separate staff memo has been prepared evaluating the proposed revised plans and identifying modifications to the conditions of approval based on this revised set of plans and additional information. ISSUES: > Because the Planned Development establishes zoning for the property, the acceptability of the proposed Preliminary PD and Final PD is a policy matter to be determined by City officials. > The Preliminary PD is proposed for the entire site consisting of the grocery story, two multi - tenant retail buildings, and two other commercial uses, one of which is proposed to be a bank or financial institution with drive- through service. > The Final PD is proposed for the grocery store and two multi -tenant retail buildings only. > Per Councilmember request, the highest point of the Walgreen's building is 29 feet, the roof line is 24 -26 feet in height. The proposed grocery building is 24 -27 feet in height; only the entrance feature is taller at 36'4 ". The difference of the finished floor elevation between the two sites is less than two feet. 60 -DAY STATUS: Deadline is November 30, 2005 (initial 60 days extended by applicant) ATTACHMENTS: (7) Memo from Planner Pam Dudziak summarizing plan modifications, pages g through Memo from Assistant City Engineer John Gorder re arding traffic, page, through 7 Revised Narrative explaining modifications, pages through/ Revised Development Plans, pages /63 through Correspondence received since the APC packet, pages // through/ g/ August 23, 2005, APC Minutes, pa es / through / 79 Staff report, pages l� through d$// ?:6 4 City of Eaaall Mao To: Jon Hohenstein, Community Development Director Mike Ridley, City Planner From: Pamela Dudziak, Planner Date: September 27, 2005 Subject: Diffley Marketplace Reliance Development has submitted revised plans and additional information to address issues raised during the public hearing. Since the APC meeting in August, Reliance has met several times with area residents and made some modifications to the development plans. This memo highlights the substantive changes and provides an edited list of conditions of approval based on the revised set of plans. SUMMARY OF MODIFICATIONS Proposal/Uses In the narrative update, Reliance clarifies that the Phase I consists of a 42,600 sq. ft. grocery store and two 10,000 sq. ft retail buildings. Phase II consists of a 5,000 sq. ft. financial institution (such as bank or credit union) with drive through service, and a 4,000 sq. ft. restaurant with drive through service. In the initial Preliminary PD submittal, the grocery store was proposed as 43,175 sq. ft.; the developer has refined the store plan and clarified that the actual store size is 42,600 sq. ft. Also, approval for the drive- through service for Phase II was not part of the Preliminary PD initially, but was to be subject to a PD Amendment at such time as specific users were identified for those two sites. The developer is requesting that approval for the drive - through facility be incorporated into the Preliminary PD at this time. The developer addresses the issue of compatibility and scale in the updated narrative, which is provided as an attachment in the packet. The narrative states "this grocery concept is much smaller than a typical 65,000 sq. ft. commercial grocery store and is consistent with the intent of the land use plan .... Proximity to homes is important so that shopping is convenient." The applicant has also provided an additional packet for the Council about the proposed grocery store provided by Radermachers, the grocery store owner /operator. 0-7 The applicant is requesting approval for three Class II restaurants within the two 10,000 sq. ft. retail buildings. They applicant anticipates these uses would include such things as a sandwich shop, pizza delivery and coffee shop. One drive- through is proposed on the east end of the easterly retail building, the other two potential Class II restaurants would not have drive - through service. While the developer is proposing a number of drive- through facilities and Class II restaurants with the Preliminary Planned Development, the developer is also proposing to eliminate certain Class II restaurants from this development: McDonald's, Burger King, KFC, Wendy's, Taco Bell and Arby's. Hours of Operation City Code restricts the hours of operation of any retail business or restaurant within 200 feet of any residential use to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 1:00 a.m. The applicant is proposing to adjust the hours of operation to 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. (midnight). Setbacks The initial proposal complied with NB zoning district setbacks, with the exception of the pavement setback on the west side, adjacent to Walgreen's. A 20 -foot setback of parking from the residential property to the south was provided. In order to improve the buffer to the residential property to the south, the developer is proposing to increase the setback between the parking lot and the south property line by 5 feet, eliminating the need for some retaining walls and allowing more green space to install landscape screening materials. However, the increased setback on the south side results in a reduced parking setback from Diffley Road on the north side of the property. The revised parking setback from Diffley Road is 15 feet. The trash enclosures on the two retail buildings in Phase I have been redesigned to meet the 30 foot setback from residential property to the south. Landscaping The revised plans included a revised Landscape Plan, however, staff was unable to complete a detailed review of the revised landscape plan for the Council packet. The landscape plan appears to provide better screening along the south side of the property than the original plan and utilizes some oversized trees (8' and 12' evergreen trees versus our standard 6' height). It appears that some different tree and shrub species have been selected that may be more suitable to the growing conditions on the site. Staff will complete a more detailed review of the landscape plan and work with the developer to ensure that the conditions in the initial staff report are satisfied for the Planned Development Agreements. gS Parking The parking counts for the grocery and two retail buildings in Phase I meet code requirements. The developer is requesting approval of reduced parking stall size for the grocery store. The proposed stall sizes are 9.5' x 19' for double - loaded stalls, and 9.5' x 18' for single - loaded parking. The City Code standard is 10' x 19'. Traffic See separate memo to Public Works Director Tom Colbert, prepared by Assistant City Engineer John Gorder dated September 23, 2005. The site circulation has been redesigned to provide a dedicated service drive, with no direct parking stalls, to the Walgreen's from Diffley Road. Signs The developer is proposing three free - standing signs along Diffley Road. The City Code would allow five monument signs up to 7 feet in height. The developer has reduced the height of the proposed main shopping center sign from 20 feet to 18 feet, and is proposing two 10 -foot monument signs for each of the buildings in Phase II. The developer has eliminated the entrance monument at the Daniel Drive access in the revised plans. Site Lighting A revised Site Lighting Plan was submitted, however, staff was unable to complete a detailed review of the changes. The developer has indicated they adjusted some of the fixtures and placement to better shield residential properties from glare. Staff will complete a detailed review to ensure the changes called for in the initial staff report have been accomplished prior to execution of the Planned Development Agreements. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED To approve (OR direct preparation of Findings. of Fact for Denial) a Preliminary Planned Development for a retail commercial development (Diffley Marketplace) consisting of a 42,600 sq. ft. grocery store, two 10,000 sq. ft. multi- tenant retail buildings, one Class II restaurant and one financial institution both with drive through service, upon 10.94 acres located south of Diffley Road and east of Lexington Avenue, legally described as Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 13 Addition, in the NW 1 /4 of Section 26. If approved the following conditions shall apply: 1. A Final Planned Development Agreement shall be executed for each Phase of the development. The following plans are necessary for the Final Planned Development Agreement: • Final Site Plan • Final Building Elevations • Final Site Lighting Plan • Final Landscaping Plan • Final Signage Plan 49 2. The property shall be platted prior to issuance of any building permits. Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 7th Addition, a 0.15 acre parcel adjacent to Daniel Drive) shall be included in the plat combining the two existing outlots that comprise this site into a single parcel. The platting shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits. 3. Uses permitted within the NB zoning district shall be permitted within the two Phase I retail buildings. Only three Class II restaurants, with one drive - through service shall be permitted in the Phase I retail buildings. Any additional Class II restaurants in the Phase I retail shall require a Planned Development Amendment. 4. The following Class II restaurants shall be prohibited: McDonald's, Burger King, KFC, Wendy's, Taco Bell and Arby's. Any use that is requires a 5. The approved use for the Phase II development shall be one Class II restaurant with drive through service and one financial institution with drive through service. be only retail sales. Phase II development will require Final Planned Development approval for each building. Each Final Planned Development application will require a Site Plan Review by the City Council. 6. Any use in Phase II other than the uses specified retail sales will require an amendment to the PD. 7. Class II restaurants in the -Phase I retail shall require a Planned Development Ames. 8. Future development on the east end of the site shall be subject to the minimum setback requirements in the NB zoning district, except that any proposed buildings in the future phase(s) shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the residential property to the south, and parking may be set back 15 feet from Diffley Road. 9. With future subdivision, cross - easements will be needed for ingress /egress and parking in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. 10. 11. The trash enclosures shall be relocated or redesigned to meet the 30 -foot setback from the south property line. 12. The development shall provide a service drive dedicated to through movements and without direct parking stalls, from the existing access onto Diffley Road to the Walgreen's property. 13. This development shall dedicate 10' drainage and utility easements centered over all common lot lines and adjacent to private property or public right -of- way. 90 14. This development shall dedicate all public right -of -way and temporary slope easements for ultimate development of adjacent roadways as required by the appropriate jurisdictional agency. 15. This development shall dedicate adequate drainage and ponding easements to incorporate the required high water elevation necessitated by City storm water storage volume requirements and area acceptable to the City Engineer. 16. All public streets and utilities necessary to provide service to this development shall be designed by a registered professional engineer in accordance with City Codes and engineering standards, guidelines and policies. 17. To ensure that Walgreen's will retain access to Diffley Road with future subdivision of the subject site, the developer shall provide a copy of the access easement affording Walgreen's access to Diffley Road for review and approval by the City Attorney prior to release of the plat and Planned Development agreements for recording. 18. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion, and sediment control plan must be prepared in accordance with current City standards prior to final plat approval. 19. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted on the proposed grading plan. The financial guarantee shall be included in the Development Contract and not be released until one year after the date of installation. 20. City water quality requirements shall be met primarily through construction of an on -site pond on the east end of the parcel. This pond shall have a minimum treatment volume of 1.5 acre -feet and a maximum depth of 10 feet. To account for the 1.04 acres of the site that drain off site to city streets without stormwater treatment, cash in lieu of ponding shall be paid at the rates in effect at the time of payment. 21. The applicant shall submit a revised Tree Mitigation Plan that shows the mitigation plantings separate from the Landscape Plan. This revised plan shall be submitted to City staff for review and approval by the City Forester prior to inclusion in the Preliminary PD Agreement. 22. The proposed Grading Plan must be revised to incorporate berming along Diffley Road. 23. The developer shall review the Landscape Plan and revise it as necessary to address the following issues: a. Selection of plants and use of taller narrower evergreen materials along the south boundary for solid screening and appropriate size and tolerance for growing conditions. b. Potential conflicts between parking lot island trees and site lighting. c. Designation of mitigation plantings in addition to landscape plantings. d. Added shrub and/or perennial beds along Diffley Road. 24. The site lighting plan shall be reviewed and calculations clarified or lighting modified to better achieve the IESNA recommended standards and reduce light spillover onto adjacent residential property. 25. Additional shielding or adjustments in the proposed lighting shall be made to achieve the 1.0 foot -candle or less at all points along the development where it abuts residential property. q/ 26. The proposed grocery building elevations shall be modified to utilize brick as the primary exterior material rather than EIFS. 27. There shall be no signage on the cart corrals, and all shopping carts should be retrieved from the corrals and stored within the building overnight. 28. Awnings on the two retail buildings shall be a canvas or Sunbrella material and shall not be illuminated and shall contain no signage. 29. Hours of operation for the grocery store and other commercial businesses shall be restricted to between 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. (midnight). p-.m.., To approve (or direct preparation of Findings of Fact for Denial) a Final Planned Development for a retail commercial development (Diffley Marketplace) consisting of a 43,175 sq. ft. grocery store, two 10,000 sq. ft. multi -tenant retail buildings, upon 10.94 acres located south of Diffley Road and east of Lexington Avenue, legally described as Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 13 Addition and Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 7 Addition, in the NW t /4 of Section 26 subject to the following conditions: 1. A Final Planned Development Agreement shall be executed for each Phase of the development. The following plans are necessary for the Final Planned Development Agreement: • Final Site Plan • Final Building Elevations • Final Site Lighting Plan • Final Landscaping Plan • Final Signage Plan 2. The property shall be platted prior to issuance of any building permits. Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 7 Addition, a 0.15 acre parcel adjacent to Daniel Drive) shall be included in the plat combining the two existing outlots that comprise this site into a single parcel. The platting shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits. 3. Uses permitted within the NB zoning district shall be permitted within the two Phase I retail buildings. Only three Class II restaurants, with one drive- through service shall be permitted in the retail buildings. The following Class II restaurants shall be prohibited: McDonald's, Burger King, KFC, Wendy's, Taco Bell and Arby's. Any additional Class II restaurants in the Phase I retail shall require a Planned Development Amendment. 5. The trash enclosures shall : = - . . - : meet the 30 -foot setback from the south property line. 6. The development shall provide a service drive dedicated to through movements and without direct parking stalls, from the existing access onto Diffley Road to the Walgreen's property. q02 7. This development shall dedicate 10' drainage and utility easements centered over all common lot lines and adjacent to private property or public right -of -way. 8. This development shall dedicate all public right -of -way and temporary slope easements for ultimate development of adjacent roadways as required by the appropriate jurisdictional agency. 9. This development shall dedicate adequate drainage and ponding easements to incorporate the required high water elevation necessitated by City storm water storage volume requirements and area acceptable to the City Engineer. 10. All public streets and utilities necessary to provide service to this development shall be designed by a registered professional engineer in accordance with City Codes and engineering standards, guidelines and policies. 11. To ensure that Walgreen's will retain access to Diff ley Road with future subdivision of the subject site, the developer shall provide a copy of the access easement affording Walgreen's access to Diffley Road for review and approval by the City Attorney prior to release of the plat and Planned Development agreements for recording. 12. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion, and sediment control plan must be prepared in accordance with current City standards prior to final plat approval. 13. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted on the proposed grading plan. The financial guarantee shall be included in the Development Contract and not be released until one year after the date of installation. 14. City water quality requirements shall be met primarily through construction of an on -site pond on the east end of the parcel. This pond shall have a minimum treatment volume of 1.5 acre -feet and a maximum depth of 10 feet. To account for the 1.04 acres of the site that drain off site to city streets without stormwater treatment, cash in lieu of ponding shall be paid at the rates in effect at the time of payment. 15. The applicant shall submit a revised Tree Mitigation Plan that shows the mitigation plantings separate from the Landscape Plan. This revised plan shall be submitted to City staff for review and approval by the City Forester prior to inclusion in the Preliminary PD Agreement. 16. The proposed Grading Plan must be revised to incorporate berming along Diffley Road. 17. The developer shall review the Landscape Plan and revise it as necessary to address the following issues: a. Selection of plants and use of taller narrower evergreen materials along the south boundary for solid screening and appropriate size and tolerance for growing conditions. b. Potential conflicts between parking lot island trees and site lighting. c. Designation of mitigation plantings in addition to landscape plantings. d. Added shrub and/or perennial beds along Diffley Road. 18. The site lighting plan shall be reviewed and calculations clarified or lighting modified to better achieve the IESNA recommended standards for light levels and uniformity necessary for security and safety, and to reduce light spillover onto adjacent residential property. 9� 19. Additional shielding or adjustments in the proposed lighting shall be made to achieve the 1.0 footcandle or less at all points along the development where it abuts residential property. 20. The proposed grocery building elevations shall be modified to utilize brick as the primary exterior material rather than EIFS. 21. There shall be no signage on the cart corrals, and all shopping carts should be retrieved from the corrals and stored within the building overnight. 22. Awnings on the two retail buildings shall be a canvas or Sunbrella material and shall not be illuminated and shall contain no signage. 23. Hours of operation for the grocery store and other commercial businesses shall be restricted to between 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. consistent with the City zoning ordinance. 9Y 4 , 11 '' City of Eaall Meo To: Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works From: John Gorder, Assistant City Engineer Date: September 23, 2005 Subject: Diffley Marketplace — Traffic Issues and Impacts on Diffley Road This memo is to provide further background and information regarding traffic issues and impacts associated with the proposed Diffley Marketplace development proposal. Please refer to the planning report prepared for this development proposal for additional information. Also, please see the attached aerial photo of the area for reference. Access to Diffley Road Diffley Road in this area currently has an average daily traffic of approximately 14,000 vehicles, and operates at a high level of service (AB). Access management along Diffley Road is crucial in maintaining this high level of service. The existing direct access to Diffley Road (referred to in this memo as the Walgreens entrance) is proposed to be maintained with this development and is slightly less than one - quarter mile (-1,200 feet) from Lexington Avenue. Daniel Drive intersects Diffley Road approximately one - eighth of a mile (-600 feet) east of the Walgreens entrance; about three - eighths of a mile from Lexington Avenue, along the east edge this property. The close proximity of these access/ street locations do not meet County spacing guidelines from Lexington Avenue for full vehicle turning movements (one - quarter mile spacing between full access points) for both intersections. Full turning movements at both of these intersections, as currently configured, will not be allowed by Dakota County. The Dakota County Plat Commission has indicated that the City, Developer, School District 196, and County staff work together to best determine traffic patterns and which access points onto Diffley Road need to be maintained as full or modified to possible right -in/ right -out intersections. The City and County have met with School District representatives to discuss their access needs at Northview Elementary School, north of Diffley Road across from this site. The School District indicated that modification of Diffley Road near their westerly entrance (directly across from the Walgreens entrance) is potentially acceptable, but that they wish to maintain their entrance across from Daniel Drive with full turning movements to provide adequate circulation for the school's purposes. The County Transportation Department has indicated that full turning would be allowed at the existing Walgreens entrance only if Daniel Drive is connected or re- aligned via public street (with acceptable geometry) through the development site to the Walgreens entrance location. This option is not the preference of the developer, and would likely meet with opposition of the adjoining Wildflower residents, who wish to maintain as much traffic as possible to the northern portion of the site. 9' Daniel Drive — Development/ Access Impacts While maintaining full movement at Daniel Drive meets the County access spacing guidelines and the needs of the School District and the adjoining residents to the south, it impacts Daniel Drive significantly. Maintaining full turning movements at Daniel Drive while restricting the Walgreens entrance would have an impact to the amount and distribution of traffic from the proposed development, as follows: Daniel Drive Daily Est. Traffic Current (2004) 1,400 Walgreens entrance right -in/ right -out 4,150 Walgreens entrance 3 /4 intersection 3,300 The traffic estimated on Daniel Drive with a' /o intersection (left turns inbound allowed) at Walgreens would be similar to current traffic levels on Beryl Road. north of Turquoise Trail (3,361 ADT), Berry Ridge Road east of Hilltop Lane (3,145 ADT), and Beaver Dam Road south of Diffley Rd. (3,145 ADT). The traffic estimated on Daniel Drive with right -in/ right -out intersection at Walgreens would be similar to current traffic levels on Blackhawk Road, south of Silver Bell Road (4,158 ADT) and Blue Cross Road, south of Silver Bell Road (4,285 ADT). Allowing a 3 /4 intersection at the Walgreens entrance would require a Dakota County variance from their spacing guidelines. Such a variance request would need to come from the City, and should be directed by the City Council, if they see fit to reduce the amount of increased traffic on Daniel Drive. Daniel Drive was widened to 44 feet between the development's Daniel Drive entrance and Diffley Road (about 300 feet) to provide for three lanes of traffic (southbound and northbound — left/ through and right turns) in anticipation of increased commercial traffic when this site develops. Dakota County estimates that the Daniel Drive leg of its intersection with Diffley Road currently operates at a level of service F during the a.m. peak hour. City staff is not aware of any complaints from motorists experiencing delays, perhaps because of the interconnection of streets in the area that provide alternatives for access to County roadways, such as Braddock Trail and Lexington Pointe Parkway. Pedestrian Safety The adjacent residents have raised concerns regarding pedestrian safety for children on Diffley Road with the increased traffic generated by development. As background, the School District busses nearly 100 percent of all students at Northview Elementary, and 100 percent of all students south of Diffley Road. The only exceptions are a few students that live in the apartments along Lexington Avenue, north of Diffley Road. Also, pedestrian crosswalks at the signalized intersections of Lexington/ Diffley and Braddock Trail/ Diffley are available to any non - school children pedestrians in the area. Summary • Dakota County will not allow full accesses at both intersections (Walgreens, Daniel Drive) onto Diffley Road. The County would allow the full access at the Walgreens entrance, but only with realignment or public street connection with Daniel Drive. Since Daniel Drive is a City street that fully meets the County spacing guidelines, the one full access location onto Diffley Road should be at Daniel Drive. 96 • With Daniel Drive as the logical option for full access, this development proposal will substantially increase traffic at Daniel Drive's intersection with Diffley Road, increasing the average daily traffic from its current 1,400 vehicles to as many as 4,100 vehicles. Daniel Drive was constructed to accommodate the increased traffic, but the adjacent property to the east was developed with single - family homes (Lexington Meadows) with direct driveway access to this portion of Daniel Drive. The acceptability of this increased traffic on a residential street should be a matter decided by the City Council. Signalization of this intersection would occur only as actual traffic would warrant. • Bussing of school children to Northview Elementary and pedestrian crosswalks at existing signalized intersections provides for safe alternatives for pedestrians crossing Diffley Road in the area. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like further information for the upcoming October 6 City Council meeting. Encl: Diffley Marketplace Planning Report Aerial Photo C: Russ Matthys, City Engineer (w /out enclosures) Tim Plath, Transportation Engineer (w /out enclosures) John Trautz, Reliance Development (w /out enclosures) 9� September 23, 2005 Ms. Pamela Dudziak, Planner City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 -1897 RE: Diffley Marketplace Eagan, MN Landform Project No: REL05018 Dear Ms. Dudziak, Uses /Scale OFFICE: 612.252.907 hAL rrrZAI LANDFORM MINNEAPOLIS-PHOENIX On behalf of Reliance Development Company, LLP, the Applicant, Landform is pleased to submit these revised plans for Preliminary PD, Final PD, and Final Plat approval of the 10.94 -acre retail /commercial development located adjacent to Walgreens and east of the intersection of Lexington Avenue and Diffley Road in Eagan, Minnesota. The parcel is bordered on the north by Diffley Road, on the west by Walgreens, on the south by a residential neighborhood, and on the east by Daniel Drive with residential across the street. We are asking for Preliminary PD approval of all five lots and Final PD approval of lots 1 -3. The site is currently zoned PD - Planned Development, and existing land use is RC - Retail Commercial. Phase I will consist of two 10,000 square foot retail buildings and a 42,600 square foot grocer. Phase II is planned to consist of a 5,000 square foot financial institution with drive through and a 4,000 square foot restaurant with drive through. In the Retail Commercial land use designation identifies shopping centers, supermarkets, restaurants, etc. as potential uses in the Land Use Plan. The property is zoned as Planned Development. Staff has suggested that the underlying zoning should be Neighborhood Business. The land use plan suggests that the scale of a development in Neighborhood commercial should be designed at a scale compatible with nearby residential uses. The proposed plan was designed with this in mind. The retail real estate industry clearly characterizes a development of this nature as a neighborhood grocery anchored shopping center. This grocery concept is much smaller than a typical 65,000 square foot commercial grocery store and is consistent with the intent of the land use plan. The grocery store is an exciting new fresh market style concept. It's family owned and operated and caters to young families with busy lifestyles. Proximity to homes is important so that shopping is convenient. Please see the attached presentation information prepared by Radermachers. 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 5 0 Fl j$T e1 VENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403 A 2.252.9077 www.landform.net In the adjacent multi- tenant retail buildings you would typically find uses such as a sandwich shop, pizza delivery, coffee shop with drive through, movie store, florists, salons, dry cleaners, off -sale liquor stores, etc. The applicant is requesting approval of 3 class II restaurants total for both retail buildings. We believe a sandwich shop, pizza delivery, coffee shop or similar uses are likely tenants for this building, all of which are considered class II restaurants in the zoning code. The parking field is adequate to handle the peak parking demand for these uses. The developer understands the concerns of the residents as it relates to certain fast food restaurants and is proposing to eliminate the following restaurant uses in the development: McDonald's, Burger King, KFC, Wendy's, Taco Bell and Arby's. The applicant is requesting Preliminary PD approval of all 5 lots as depicted in the site plan. Hours of Operation The applicants have agreed to limit the hours of operation to 6am- midnight for the development. The grocery store will have during that time, however the bulk of the deliveries will be in the moming hours. Primary receiving hours for the grocery store are 6am -noon. (For more information on the grocery store operations see attached Rademacher's package.) Delivery hours for the retail buildings will be 6 am to 6 pm. Subdivision /Lots We are currently working with the County to incorporate Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 7th Addition into the plat. Setbacks The Planned Development zoning district does not have setback requirements. We have shown the Neighborhood Business district setbacks below and how they relate to our proposed development. Required Provided Required Provided Bldg. Setbacks Bldg. Setbacks Parking SB Parking SB Front Yard (Diffley Rd.) 50' 55'+ 20' 15' Side Yard 10' 40'+ (West Side) 5' 5' Rear Yard 20' N/A 5' N/A Adjacent to Residential 30' 43' Min. (Varies) 20' 25' Min. (Varies) If we simply followed the Neighborhood Business setbacks, the parking lot would be 20 feet from the residential neighborhood on the south. Since we are zoned as a planned 99 development we are using the flexibility allowed in this zoning district to propose an increased setback where able along the residential property on the south. This allows us to extend the existing berm at the south property line into the commercial property and put in additional screening on top of the berm. Green Space In a typical Neighborhood Business District the green space would be required to be 30%. We are proposing 32% green space, which exceeds ordinance requirements. Parking The zoning code requires 359 parking stalls based on the proposed uses for the development. We are providing 359 stalls. We are requesting PD flexibility to allow 9.5'x19' parking stalls where there is no curb for vehicle overhang and 9.5'x18' stalls where there is curb vehicle overhang for the grocery store parcel only. We believe this is justified since typical Supervalu grocery store standards are 9.5'x19' without vehicle overhang. Traffic Currently, the county is suggesting that the fullturn intersection from Diffley accessing the development should be restricted to a 5/8 access (right in/right out for the development and right in /right out/left in for the school) and the Daniel/Diffley intersection would remain unchanged. We can accept these conditions, although we think there is an opportunity to significantly improve access for the development and the surrounding neighborhoods. Residents along Daniel are interested in reducing traffic counts along the road. Traffic counts will go up with the new development but, given the access the county is insisting on, traffic counts will rise more than they need to. We commissioned a traffic study prepared by Benshoof and Associates. Their conclusions were to do one of two things (a) install a traffic signal at our Diffley access point, restrict Daniel/ Diffley to a 3/4 access pont intersection ant to remove the developments access on to Daniel or (b) to restrict our Diffley access to a 3/4 tum movement intersection and install a light at the Daniel/Diffley intersection. We are requesting that our development receive city council approval with access consistent with county guidelines with the understanding we would like to pursue better conditions with the county. It is important that the city join us in this pursuit. Signs The development is allowed five freestanding monument signs that are 7 feet in .height. We propose limiting the number of signs to 3 but allowing the height to be (a) 18 feet in height and 100 sq. ft. of sign area for one shopping center sign and (b) 10 feet in height and 60 sq. ft. of sign area for two monument signs. The two shorter signs would be for Lots 4 and 5 where we anticipate single tenant building occupants. /or) Amenities The amenities that this development brings to the community are detailed below: • We are bringing in a new exciting Rademacher's Fresh Market grocery concept. This is a fresh food concept that focuses on quality customer service and excellent perishable departments such as deli, meat, produce and baked goods. This will be an excellent addition to Eagan and the adjoining neighborhood. • We have provided pedestrian circulation by the use of trails and sidewalk connections through the site. • We have designed a very appealing front entry to the development. We have incorporated the pedestrian access with charming landscaping and plaza areas where you can stroll through or sit down and enjoy the outdoors. • The architecture of the buildings is very attractive. The grocery store has incorporated small windows towards the top of the building walls to break up the uniformity of the building wall. They have also incorporated an architectural front entry to the building that really makes it stand out. • We have provided extensive landscaping and screening adjacent to the residential property. Along 450 feet of the residential property near the grocery store, we are proposing to install 12' tall evergreens to provide additional screening to those residents closest to the grocery building where only 6' tall trees are required. Revisions We have made the following changes to our plans since our last submittal: • We provided a dedicated service drive without parking stalls for the drive from main entrance to Walgreen's. • We have moved the trash enclosures to comply with the requested 30' building setbacks. • We confirmed that we are providing a 5' setback from the property line to the curb for the grocery service area on the west side of the parcel. • We revised our landscape plans to account for mitigation trees separate from the required landscaping. • We revised the type and quantity of landscape screening along the residential property. • We revised the grading to include berming along Diffley. • We revised the site lighting plan to avoid conflicts with trees and to better comply with City standards. • We added shrub and berm screening along Diffley. /o/ We respectfully request approval of the Preliminary PD, Final PD, and Final Plat for the 10.94 -acre retail/commercial parcel, Diffley Marketplace. Please feel free to contact me at 612.252.9070 with any questions that may arise or if any additional information is requested. Thank you. Sincerely, LANDFORM* /Vicki J. VaDell V /vjv COPY: File John Trautz, Reliance Development Company, LLP Paul and Steve Rademacher Peter Hilger, Portfolio Design Services *Landform Engineering Company doing business as Landform. �'. 1.11. .\11 •:Ill 10100001. 11)))))) 0.10011 1 ir. /010 11)6/0 00 011 0111' N0. 1.1 1:1/1.8/ \�mjlin�m1 . A 1!',iiQl!III 0 111111111 i !I L;.lii POTENTIIAAL 1V 1. 10 FUTURE IOT J t I., , OtT314 133,11143 CLORE s114.50'50" F azi NOTES Ta',V ,0)vc-sl,' o1ff,1,333,0, 63:8 PARKING SUMMARY' =/ESO 3iPARKING SUMMARY GIME- LOT O On 3 CZE AREA SUMMARY ")vsi" n OD 50 I 6 2005' FUT i L__ • Lla�awgwl tike REVISED QTY 5UNMI1'TAL 0827/05 DI FFLEY MARKETPLACE t assn, MN AIL LANDFORM MIONO•POL IS • 1•140[111/3 044.40 WOO DRRALL.UE WE PIM r'..' .1.11 \0. :9) (1INFLEY ltuan) 0:1A0711 ('0. 7:11:1/1 /161/7' 01' IC -I) .11. 1' S0. 1:fa \"89"52.. 1'f81.81 ,nu 1 +.1,110 SIF GNI/FF:14'1 IJUII.I)IN(: I I 1 9'/ • 3 IU.000 Hl'II.I)IN'': A F. Y. E. =IU. 00 1191.7-, 5'89°06'2 rY*SITE PLAN NO1E:3PrAL IA.33 PARKING SU44ARYA I IDT I mpg LOT r,ilrili 1111 11 — 0--- QW •09DIT hOIAS AnAtovremay PLEASED CITY SUBMNTAL 00/23/05 DI FFLEY MARKETPLACE t ognn, MN Ac, LANDFORM OVA., AYE AN AROADWW ARU SITE RAH 'RALE IN rt. (rte C2.1 10.000 OF RETAIL BUILDING 8 F.F.E. 982.00 1 PARNING 9UMN.ARY '=='M.. .BZIE /B1 SCAM Owe oneeprov Rowe 81.1•41.17 OINVE101.1% MAKAPOU I/1 0f **von Kororommer Rfr' _911 REVISED CITY SUEMrrTAL 09/73/03 rkoAct DI FFLEY MARKETPLACE E:eagaa az, MN AtIL LANDFORM AAAAA L 11 PHOENIX traiSEr MN". NAME EMARDED FAST AREA STE KAN (MADE I) C2,2 ACASJOVERALL LUMINAIRE SCHEDULECARE ElIER LUMINAIRE STATISTICS ,EERGENERAL T.. .... 0 (DIFFLE) 110!)) 1,1110TA CO. 1111.10 Itila I 7OF 0,11 .1111, NO. 13.1 SITE LIGHT PETAL -SINGLE MOUNT • 1 , . 1 -- I r ' , -I ' --1 GOVIZARM0112. 4 0 ramot*......• :=••••••"' (c?ity of !moan MILIN01} 11.1519011111SURY CIERIIIV.ArEN REVISEI2 CRY SUIMARTAL OR/23/05 DIFFLEY 1aa". 1,11.2,1 VRET LANDFORM /11.1.•P01.11,11.1111( E2C061.10 it11.000.• OvERAM. UGHIVIG RAN E2.0 1'..'1.4.10. SO. 20 1111££LEl ItO.1U) 0.100/:! CO. ROAD 010117 07 6.11- N.10 All. 1.(11 • E NOTES OTREE PROTECTION FENCE y_ E33'A TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS1 ,0011) NIJ OU WAD: IN MT 4 �WTiE AVENIE AM MKNIOLA Met C?ItVot •096/1 REVISED CRY SUSAMTTAL 09/79/03 DI FFLEY MARKETPLACE E etacs MN AL, LANDFORM OVERALL TREEREAOVAL AND/RESERYAl104 MN L1.0 O.IA'OT I EH. It 0.1 N11:UIT rr/' 11.11' .N: I!' \Ir. r:f:1 •1 1 i'! A 4ARiPL1N7 SCHEDUIE- --'-_StiDAD SEas.Sais'.+-.""-.^+&s E ,i NOTES lmZ6'+.'gL:11_ _,, :'1 G LANDSCAPE NOTES NOTE: THIS SHEET FOR REFERENCE ONLY. I CONTRACTORS TO USE SHEETS 12.2 AND 12.3 FOR INSTRUCTION AND BIDDING PURPOSES. I. AM LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTSC FALSSE^.0�;52o OO 1 IC a ITO VP MANOLIEflt OMR ICE. arr C1)5, wgen ItLITION MEET REVISED CITY SUBMITTAL OB/2'yQ DI FFLEY MARKETPLACE AttL, LANDFORM OVEXYLANA UNIMCAIT RAN L2.0 :10 (010040? 14o.401 0.4 4 On CO. 001111t14111 00 NAY .11.41 t..13 4.7,r.v )11 • • Dli r -F-71 10... 1,11.11. ;WO B1,11.,ING B I Fr,. 10..2.0 164 PE 9,00 12420ITICATION PLANT 3CH0DULE1 Ill 50 I SCALE IN FEET SSEEZ=EZEM21/41 ••••• “.•.• '••• "r Mr,. 1 r•M NOTE: THIS SHEET FOR REFERENCE OFLY.1 CONTRACTORS TO USE SHEETS L2.2 AND L2.3 FOR INSTRUCTION ! AN7 BDOINC PURPOSES. ,761.ANDSCAPE NOTES EF-• 05344MCATION _MILSME_ glypiewr :az= cAnCokr C .:771 mcsma 0_L CCi4JuS TEE Ci?Lv sag., CINISON1411.0C, Ft.SC-IWINOOR CES/119,A9011 0045500 GMT' SUDINTIAL 09123105 DIFFLEY MARKETPLACE MAR 1/0 Z.0016 OVIDULL 'TREE 4111GAMON FLAN L2.1 O. ( LEI 1-Z0.111) DAKOn cO. ROAD 131U117' DI .11.IP NO. I? -_=g659:ffeatzs-A 7 12.60U 1 itocEn twitinm; E (g) II/.11011 RETAIL HUII.DING A IsLANDSCAPE NOTES LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS Re., v..* 4•••.,...13 PLANT SCHEDULE 610.2,7.-.....01) 1)TT,-0-T1)amTss- T.7.-SPLANT SCHEDULE Cs- 011h.1111.NIAI TM, ) 7 „ I/ 311 00 WALE IN FlArr rwort.1,0,i pettEsNoa, -• = l_e_477-kl_ 4 c?b,0 of •ogon leMpl HISTORY fit0.11.RIAMAGER REVISED GUY SUDMITTAL 0 DI FFLEY MARKETPLACE 2.asa rx. 1,11,1 LANDFORM MINNEAPOLIS .•110[141K ::: -71 • :3 .1 1120.71ELN MAXIMO MDT AREA LANDSCAPE L2.2 (z\ Nu SCALE w FEET 10.000 ."F' RETAIL. WILDING 0 F. F: E. ANZ. 00 ".LANDSCAPE NPq UDREYENTS -6___�.�--y.��..:... Egal-0 PLANT SCHEDULE' -...—...S. ri— Z13 € "'-TMao mu. ..,,.! w.oi.n*. ,,...� ,.v. "`"'� _. �.s+ _=n_ 41149i_n^w._ 0 Mows Ownitplunt Qof wgon REVISED CRY SUDMITTAL GR?.3/g DI FFLEY MARKETPLACE t.agaa-�, .[v1r LANDFORM II •NOIIIii.1 1203.1.6 maxcron 1.1.1.216 ENLARGED FAST AREA LANDSCVF RM L2.3 David and Sharon Giel 990 Trillium Court Eagan, MN 55123 (651) 452-5177 September 27, 2005 Mayor Pat Geagan Council Member Peggy Carlson Council Member Cyndee Fields Council Member Meg Tilley Council Member Mike Maguire Re: Reliance Development - Diffiey Marketplace Plan Development Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members: We reside in the Wildflower Neighborhood south of the proposed above - referenced development and are writing to express our strong objections to the proposal, which is on the City Council agenda for October 6, 2005. As you are aware, the Advisory Planning Commission (the "Commission") soundly rejected this proposal on August 23, 2005. The motion adopted by the Commission reflects many of our concerns. We are aware that the developer has proposed some minor changes to that proposed plan, mostly dealing with landscape modifications and increased setbacks in a few areas. Sadly, from our perspective, the developer has had plenty of time and has failed to address any of our major concems or those of the Commission in its rejection of the plan. SCALE: The first reason cited in the Commission's recommendation to reject the plan is that it is not at a scale compatible with nearby residential uses. The August 23 Planning Department staff report to the Commission (page 4) states that, with reference to neighborhood compatibility, "Neighborhood commercial development should be designed at a scale compatible with nearby residential uses." A 42,600 square foot store is not compatible with homes of 2,000 to 2,500 square feet. We also note in the Eagan zoning code (Section 11.40, Subd. 1. Application), "In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this chapter shall be held to be requirements for the promotion of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare." A 42,600 square foot retail building so far out of scale with a neighborhood of single-family homes, churches, and schools would negatively impact the safety and general welfare of the residents in the area. By way of comparison, the proposed 42,600 square foot grocery store is almost three times larger than Walgreens pharmacy, which already exists adjacent to the proposed development. The grocery store would be larger than Best Buy 16Z September 27, 2005 Page 2 stores in Apple Valley and Burnsville and almost as large as the Best Buy just approved for Eagan. It is 75 to 80 percent of the size of Byerlys. Each of these retail stores is in a commercial shopping district. Clearly, this store is not in scale with its residential surroundings. The Best Buy project on Yankee Doodle Road, just approved by the council, will total 59,000 square feet, while the project directly adjacent to our neighborhood, on about the same size lot, will be almost 72,000 square feet. What possible city planning rationale would allow a development abutting some of our neighbors' back yards to be larger than the one being developed in the heart of one of Eagan's main shopping areas? We also note that the three grocery stores already in Eagan are all located in close proximity to 35E. That makes sense to us. The high volume of automobile and truck traffic, along with the noise, lighting and odors associated with a large grocery store are much better dealt with in an area near a freeway than in a residential -area. - TRAFFIC: Our second major concern is traffic. The Commission also cited this issue in its rejection of this project. This project will generate 5,900 new car trips around our neighborhood each day, and 75 percent of the new traffic will be generated by the grocery store, which is inappropriately Targe, and by fast food restaurants, of which there is no shortage in Eagan that we are aware of. Neither Diffley nor Lexington are main arterial roads. Eagan's Transportation Plan, dated February 22, 2001, proposes both Diffley and Lexington as "B" minor arterials. Diffley narrows to one lane a few blocks east of Lexington, and Lexington narrows to one lane, with two left turn lanes, just south of Diffley. The added traffic brought on by this development (which is highlighted in the Planning Department report on this project). will create a substantial negative impact on all residents in the area as residents try to enter or leave their neighborhoods. This high level of traffic will also impact emergency vehicle access to our neighborhood. There is a major conflict between the preferences of the developer and Dakota County traffic control policies regarding traffic control on Diffley. The developer wants to keep full right and left tums available at the current service road access point on Diffley between Lexington and Daniel Drive, with the addition of a stoplight at this entry. We understand that the county's position on this issue is that if this land is developed as proposed, the current service road access must be limited to right in/right out traffic, with the Daniel/Diffley intersection remaining full access, including the addition of a stoplight when conditions warrant one. In other words, unless county policy changes, this project will place tremendous additional pressure on Daniel Drive, as outlined in the Planning Department report. /13 September 27, 2005 Page 3 OTHER ISSUES CITED: Other reasons cited when the Commission rejected this proposal, and to which we concur, were: (1) excessive building height, (2) an excessive number of Class II restaurants being requested, and (3) extended hours of operation being sought. Here again the developer has failed to offer any modifications to address the concerns of the Commission and the neighbors. To summarize, the Commission cited five reasons for rejecting this proposal. Despite numerous meetings with neighborhood residents and some changes in the proposal, the developer has not made one concrete change that addresses any of these five concerns. The Commission and most of the neighbors obviously agree on what needs to change to make this project compatible with the neighborhood. The developer has chosen to ignore the obvious and react instead with cosmetic changes in landscaping and minor setback improvements. While the Commission vote was overwhelming against this project, the minority in favor of the project included the Commission Chair, Carla Heyl, and Commissioner; Duey Bendt—However,-we don't -think -the -issues they-_ citedto defend the proposal hold up to scrutiny. They defended the project because (1) this area has been zoned commercial since 1976, and, therefore, the neighbors had no right to expect anything but a Targe commercial development; and (2) if there is an increase in traffic, that was planned for when the roads were built. With respect to (1) above, the Eagan City Council has in the intervening years approved single family, low-density residential development on about 145 acres of the original 170 -acre "commercial" site originally set aside in 1976. If the area was intended to be a major commercial center, why would single-family homes be approved to cover over 85% of the area? We don't think we should be punished by a designation put on this property in 1976, especially when so much has changed in the intervening years. Regarding (2) above, we previously noted that Diffley narrows to a single lane just east of Lexington and Lexington narrows to one lane just south of Diffley. It is hard to believe that these roads were intended to carry heavy traffic volume with this lane change so close to the intersection of Diffley and Lexington. In conclusion, rejecting this proposal was an easy choice for the Commission, and it should be an easy decision for the City Council as well. Please reject this plan and force the developer to return with a plan that includes a much smaller grocery store and fewer Class It restaurants and drive-throughs; in other words, a plan developed in actual consultation with all of the interested neighbors. Sincerely, David Giel Sharon Giel //y September 20, 2005 Mayor Pat Geagan Council Member Peggy Carlson Council Member Mike Maguire Council Member Cyndee Fields Council Member Meg Tilley City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122-1897 Re: Reliance Development, "Our mission is to generate opportunity for ourselves..." Diffley Marketplace Plan Development Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members, In explaining their reasons to deny approval of the Diffley Marketplace Planned Development (PD), the City's Advisory Planning Commission members voiced the same concerns as area residents. "Scale of the development" is not compatible with adjacent and nearby residential developments, the "size of the grocery store" is not compatible with adjacent and nearby residential developments, "hours of operation of the grocery store" are not compatible with adjacent and nearby residential developments and "access will be problematic". Please understand that there is substantial concern about the `scale' of development in the community. Clearly the significant number of letters of concern to the Planning Department prior to the August 23`d Advisory Planning Commission meeting and the large turn out of people at the commission meeting speaking in opposition to the development are evidence of that. It was also the simple fact that the majority of Planning Commission members found no compelling reason to recommend approval of the PD that resulted in the 5-2 disapproving vote. We are writing to request that the City Council follow the lead of the City's Planning Commission and not approve the PD when it comes before the City Council on October 6, 2005. Plans for the development of the vacant land ('Outlot A', Lexington Pointe 13th Addition) east of Walgreens and north and west of the Wildflower Subdivision near the intersection of Lexington Avenue and Diffley Road have progressed "rapidly" since area residents `first' learned of the proposed development in late June. Significantly beyond the "preliminary" stage indicated by Reliance Development Company in their June 23, 2005 invitation to a small group of area residents to attend a neighborhood informational meeting about the development. According to the Reliance invitation letter, "the purpose of the meeting was to hear your (i.e., our) thoughts about how to develop the commercial property", however, based on the developer's presentation and the plans and building drawings displayed at the July 6, 2005 meeting, the plans for "Diffley Marketplace" were already well beyond any "important input" from the neighborhood. While unwilling to publish minutes of the meeting, John Trautz, President Reliance Development, did include a letter with Reliance's "Planned Development" (PD) submittal to the City's Planning department claiming the "meeting went well" and the "primary concerns" of the residents have been addressed. The Wildflower homeowners who attended the meeting that reviewed the Reliance letter thought it was at least self-serving, if not intentionally misleading. Reliance characterized the spontaneous reaction of attendees expressing concerns about "through traffic, green space and bike/pedestrian safety" as the "primary concerns" of the neighborhood. Reliance even claimed in their letter to the City that they had made "significant revisions to plans" to accommodate "the concerns expressed by the residents..." Prior to the close of the meeting, Reliance representatives Page 1 // RECEIVED SEP 2 3 2005 were told that the information they presented was rather overwhelming and that the comments of those attending should not be construed as the only concerns likely to be raised about the development. During the neighborhood meeting, the developer did hear that a `primary concern" of area residents is that the PD, especially the grocery store, is not planned at a scale compatible with the nearby residential uses. The size of the grocery store building, the scale of the grocery operation and the overall intensity of the development is beyond what area residents envisioned. This concern has not been addressed by Reliance in any subsequent `revised plans' for the development and the size of the grocery is now a "policy matter to be decided by public officials" according to the Planning Department's Planning Report. The developer was also told that there should not be a roadway along the 60 -foot south edge of Outlot A based on conditions of the PD approved by the City in 1998 for the development of the Walgreens property west of Outlot A. There is no mention of this "primary concern" in the Reliance PD submittals to the City and this issue is not addressed in the Planning Report. Numerous traffic concerns were mentioned at the neighborhood meeting, however, just diverting the `through road" does not address a number of other site and community wide traffic concerns expressed by residents. Attendees expressed a strong concern that a development of the scale proposed will seriously affect traffic on Daniel Drive, Lexington Avenue and Diffley Road, as well as other streets throughout the surrounding community. Most, if not all, of the comment letters received by the Planning Department from area residents expressed concerns about the "symptoms" of the scale of the proposed development; increased traffic, concern for the safety of our children, hours of operation, height of the building, screening, noise, crime, odors, etc. The City Council must address the causes of these community concerns: the scale of the development and the size of the grocery store. The PD calls for the construction of.a 42,600 SF, grocery store immediately east of the Walgreens property, 2 - 10,000 SF buildings slated for uncommitted "retail", a 4,000 SF "fast food" restaurant with drive thru service and a 5,000 SF "bank or savings & loan" with drive up service. Construction would also include parking for 360 cars, a "service road" along most of the south boundary of the lot 20 feet from adjacent residential properties and a storm water retention pond. Keep in mind that the "unbuildable" 60 `strip' of the property west of Wildflower homes and the area designated for the retention pond account for more than 2 acres of the 10.94 -acre site. With a "contrarian" point of view, the Advisory Planning Chair seemed to be admonishing residents because of their concerns about the scale of development because "the property has been zoned for commercial uses since 1976". In 2005, more than 1,100 of the 1,153 -acre "Lexington South" PD is low-density, R-1 residential, parks, quasi -public (e.g., churches), athletic fields and R -2/R-3 multi- family residential. What commercial development there is in the area is limited in size, scale and hours of operation. The subject site was part of what was the mostly residential, 1,153 -acre "Lexington South Planned Development Agreement" which was approved by the City of Eagan in 1976. While primarily residential, the PD Agreement did call for the establishment of a mixture of Limited Business, General Business and Commercial Shopping Center uses upon nearly 170 acres of land south of Diffley Road and east of Lexington Avenue. According to PD Agreement exhibits, the property would have been bordered on the south by a 'new' east/west road along "Walnut Ridge" and on the Page 2 / east by a road that connected to Diffley Road at what is now Daniel Drive and to the new Walnut Ridge road more than % of a mile east of Lexington Avenue. The 170 -acre commercial development was supposed to have been completed by 1985. In 1986, a PD amendment was proposed for the 48 acre, multi -phase "Eagan Center" Planned Development that the subject site was a part. While a small scale, multi -tenant retail/service strip center with a gas station/convenience store was built, a PD Agreement for the Eagan Center project was never formally executed. The Eagan Center PD includes the residential property to the south of the subject site and anticipated additional commercial development to the south that is now residential (i.e., the Wildflower subdivision). Therefore, conceptual land uses presented as part of the Eagan Center PD should not be considered applicable (i.e., "This is what was going to be there if it were approved") to the Diffley Marketplace PD as indicated in the Planning Department's report. In 1998, the Walgreens store at the southeast corner of Lexington Avenue and Diffley Road received approval. Conditions of note to the Walgreens PD include; a building at a scale compatible with nearby residential properties, 10 -foot wide parking stalls and a maximum building height of 29 feet. Also noteworthy is the fact that the Walgreens building is nearly 250 feet from adjacent residential properties and Walgreen's is only open from 8:OOam to 10:OOpm. Therefore, since 1976, the City of Eagan City Council has approved residential development on about 145 acres of the original 170 -acre "commercial use" site for single family, low-density use. To date, only about 10 acres south of Diffley Road along Lexington Avenue has been developed for retail/service use and these are "low intensity" retail/service uses, with limited business hours. In addition to the "neighborhood" Walgreens store, retail/service development includes; a day care center and a multi tenant retail/service building with a small liquor store, sandwich shop, take- out/delivery pizza shop, pet clinic, chiropractor, nail salon, insurance broker and a small gas station/convenience store. The scale of these developments and the scale of the existing retail/service development on the northwest corner of Lexington Avenue and Diffley Road reaffirmed the residential focus and character of the surrounding area and should be the guide for any development on Outlot A. The proposed Diffley Marketplace PD, especially the grocery store, is simply not "Neighborhood Business" and is out of scale and character with the existing community. Outlot A is designated "Retail Commercial" (RC) according to the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan (CGP), adopted in 2001. The Comprehensive Guide Plan indicates that: "Neighborhood commercial development should be designed at a scale compatible with nearby residential uses. Sidewalks and trails should be provided to connect these smaller commercial developments to surrounding neighborhoods. Larger commercial developments oriented toward community -wide or regional market require greater buffering where adjacent to lower intensity uses". The Wildflower subdivision is by CGP definition, "Low Density Residential (0-4 units per acre)" and only Agriculture and Large Lot Residential are lower intensity land use designations. At nearly 43,000F, the proposed grocery store will be almost 3 times bigger than the existing Walgreens store (15,120SF). Portions of the proposed building are shown to be 36 feet above grade, which exceeds the maximum height limit of 30 feet for a "neighborhood business" building. To be in strict compliance with NB District zoning requirements, the maximum allowable height at the front of Page 3 /17 the store should not exceed 28`-6" because of the 3 foot grade differential around the building. The new 37,000 SF Kowalski's Market building in Lakeville is no more than 30 feet high. Consider the new Best Buy store approved for the former Red Robin/Mann Theater site on Yankee Doodle Road. With no adjacent residential properties, a 45,000 SF building in that location seems acceptable, however, the Best Buy building would probably be an impossible sell at Lexington and Diffley. Please don't lose sight of the fact that Best Buy and the Radermachers grocery store are comparable retail operations and both the "big box" Best Buy and the "big box" Radermachers are comparable buildings and neither facility is compatible with a residential neighborhood. During the developer's neighborhood meeting in early July, the Radermachers grocery store was described by the proprietors and the developer as "upscale", similar to a "Kowalski's or Byerly's without the high prices". While, the Radermachers currently own and/or operate a couple of SuperValu grocery stores, a Cub Foods store and other retail sales businesses, the "upscale" grocery store promised would be a "new venture" for Radermachers. At the Advisory Planning Commission meeting, the Radermachers indicated that the new store would not be like a Kowalski's or Byerly's. Paul Radermacher indicated that the proposed store would have a "center of the store, dairy and frozen foods" focus, like a SuperValu or Cub Foods store. So what happened to the "upscale" grocery store promised by Reliance and Radermachers? What's the "benefit" of another Cub Foods store to Eagan? There already is a Cub Foods, a `Rainbow' and Byerly's easily accessible and we understand that Kowalski's has expressed interest in locating one of their "upscale" Markets in Eagan. We have honestly never thought Eagan needed another grocery store, certainly not at Lexington Avenue and Diffley Road. At the neighborhood meeting, Radermacher representatives indicated that the store would be open from 6:00 AM to Midnight initially, but they intend to ask for the City Council's approval to operate 24/7. Walgreens is only open from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Any "neighborhood" development on Outlot A should be obligated to follow Walgreens' lead. Neighborhood store hours of 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. need to be made a "non -amendable" condition of any PD. In addition, according to store representatives, the grocery store is expected to draw from a "3 -mile radius" and generate "15,000 customer trips a week to the site" (i.e., 30,000 vehicle trips in/out). These statistics alone indicate the proposed store is not a "Neighborhood Business" scale grocery store. Deliveries are expected through out the week with the heaviest truck traffic expected on Monday morning (6:00 AM to 10:OOAM). According to Radermachers representatives, "30 trucks, including approximately 10 semi trailers and 20 'UPS' like "box trucks" could be expected on-site from early Monday morning and through out the day. Deliveries would not be limited to Mondays and delivery trucks would be entering and leaving the site to a "lesser extent through out the week". The traffic data included in the Planning Report identified averages for the number of vehicle trips per day (in/out) to the site. Based on the Planning Report data, traffic on Lexington Avenue and Diffley Road will increase about 50% on an average daily basis. Unfortunately, average traffic flow does not exist. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is derived by adding the experiential peak and off-peak traffic counts for a 24-hour period to arrive at an average daily count. Roadways seeing less than the maximum ADT can be extremely congested during peak hours (e.g., Yankee Doodle Road and Pilot Knob Road in northeast Eagan). Trips to grocery stores tend to exceed daily averages rather significantly on "peak" shopping days. 40- 45% of the average weekly grocery store traffic will be seen on Fridays and Saturdays. That's roughly 6,500 -7,000 vehicle trips on those days for the grocery store alone, not the 4,700 trips Page 44 // estimated in the Planning Report. Keep in mind that traffic in Lexington Avenue and Diffley Road area on weekends is currently very light compared to weekdays. This again is simply a reflection of the residential focus and character of the surrounding community. Assuming a significant portion of the "pass by" traffic during the work week is going to and from work, on a Saturday most of the 11,000 in/out trips (ADT) to development will be "new". Its not about the carrying capacity of the roadway, it's the impact to the quality of life in the adjacent neighborhoods. The grocery store is clearly not at a scale compatible with the nearby residential uses and should not be approved as currently proposed. Subject to scale appropriate development, greater buffering (i.e., additional separation, plantings, landscaping, etc.) also needs to be provided as indicated by the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan. According to the Eagan Planning Department's "Planning Report - Walgreens", dated July 28, 1998: Walgreens representatives, in reference to potential concerns about a roadway in the 60' strip on the south edge of Outlot A (north of the Wildflower subdivision), proposed to construct its service road along Diffley Ave. The Planning Report indicates: "It should be noted that Outlot A includes a 60 foot wide strip of land located directly east of the Lexington Center. Such strip was originally intended to accommodate a segment of a "detached" frontage road that was planned to provide access to commercial uses that were anticipated to occupy the subject property (per the Preliminary PD). Recognizing the possible adverse impacts of such a roadway location upon the adjacent single family residential uses (to the south) the applicant has proposed a northerly shift of the "frontage" road (alongside Diffley Road)." No specific development plans regarding future use(s) of the outlot have been provided. The outlot is, however, configured such that future development and access can be reasonably provided (i.e., without a "frontage" road in the 60 foot strip). To avoid tax forfeiture, the narrow strip of Outlot A which borders the Lexington Center will not be allowed to be established as an independent lot, As a result future development of Outlot A should give consideration to conveyance of the strip to adjacent parcels" (i.e., because it served no useful purpose in the future development of Outlot A with the service road along Diffley Road). As part of its plan review, the Planning Department indicated in the Planning Report that: "The developer is proposing to vacate the existing 60' wide drainage & utility easement along the south edge of Outlot A, platted with Lexington Pointe 10`h Addition. This easement provided designation for a planned roadway to be constructed with future development of the site. With the proposed development of a frontage road along Diffley Road, this roadway designation is not needed and therefore the drainage and utility easement could be vacated." The drainage & utility easement was `vacated' by Council action on the Final Subdivision. No service road should be built on the vacated easement along the south edge of Outlot A and no road can be built on the 60 foot wide strip east of Lexington Center per conditions of the Walgreens PD. As a result, the proposed connection to the "Walgreens" entrance off Lexington Ave. should be reconsidered. According to the City's current Comprehensive Guide Plan, "Retail Commercial uses tend to generate substantial amounts of customer traffic". At the neighborhood meeting, John Trautz indicated that Reliance Development has not conducted any comprehensive traffic studies and was not planning to conduct such surveys before the anticipated start of construction in "October, 2005". Residents along Page 5 /19 Daniel Drive will be impacted most by the increased traffic entering and leaving the site at Daniel Drive, however, all Eagan residents using Diffley Road and Lexington Ave. will be impacted by the increased traffic generated by the development. A comprehensive traffic study seems to be a wise and reasonable request. We understand that the Dakota County will not allow full access at, or the signalization of, the Diffley Marketplace `main' entrance off Diffley Road. We understand that the County was very logical in explaining its reasons for not allowing the "private entrance" to the development to be a signalized or four way stop intersection. After meeting with Dakota County and City representatives, John Trautz's comment was, "The county isn't very flexible regarding traffic issues so I need to huddle with the city to figure out how to push them to do things that are satisfactory to the city, the neighbors and to me". We believe the County's position is based on well established design standards for effective traffic management and is in the best interest of the surrounding community. There really isn't anything further the City should do...or can do to make it more "satisfactory" to anyone but the developer and that is not the objective of a PD. Reliance's opinion that the county's position will force more than 4,100 vehicles per day to Daniel Road is not a consequence of the County's position; it is solely the result of the size of the grocery store and the scale of the development. Prior to approval of any PD, a comprehensive traffic study should be undertaken by the developer and any "negotiations" with the City or County should involve area residents. Again, please follow the lead of the City's Planning Commission and do not approve the PD when it comes before the City Council on October 6, 2005. We recommend that the City Council request that the developer bring in the "upscale" grocery store as originally promised at a scale compatible with the nearby residential properties (i.e., less than 30,000GSF) or find another tenant of suitable scale. The developer should also be directed to work with the surrounding community on issues of substance, not the just the size of evergreen trees, without conditional 'side deals' or veiled threats. These concerns should not be construed as anti -development. Our purpose in writing is to ensure that the any development of Outlot A is compatible with the adjacent neighborhood and surrounding community. Prior to the October 6 City Council meeting, we invite each of you to come to the Wildflower neighborhood, walk the area and the PD property and discuss our concerns. We'd be happy to arrange a `tour' at your convenience. Sincerely, i Tom and Sandy Kukulski 997 Trillium Court 905-0470 (s.kukulski(a�worldnet.att.net) Page 6 Sao Pamela Dudziak From: Baird, Doug F[mailto:Doug.Baird@district196.org] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 10:54 AM To: City Council Subject: Please forward this e-mail to the mayor and city council I am writing about my concerns regarding the proposed "Diffley Marketplace development." The matter has been postponed past the council's Oct. 6th meeting but I still think your consideration of the city planning recommendation that the development not go through is a solid position. Although I don't live direclty behind the proposed site (Trillium ct) I do live on Coneflower ct in the development. I would just like to point out a few concerns: - The site is too big for the neighborhood. If you want to compare the Rodemacher's store to the size of a Best Buy I would challenge you to point me to a place where a Best Buy is located that close to back yards and residential. It doesn't happen. - The traffic set up is not appropriate for the area unless Dakota county and Eagan plan on redeveloping the roads at significant cost to the city. The first fatality will be publicized with these concerns pointed out. - Juveniles congregating in the current strip mall along Lexington and Diffley (at night smoking various substances and making crude remarks to residents who live nearby) will increase this issue greatly. -Logistics will deter from the communities ability to navigate to the elementary school, residential park access etc... (ie. People will get hurt) - the night hours, high sodium parking lot lights, etc.. Will directly impact the citizens that live just feet away from where they are proposing such a development. Thank you for your time to read our concerns. Pamela Dudziak From: Tracie Hughes [mailto:traciehughes@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 10:17 AM To: City Council Subject: Diffley Marketplace I am a resident of Eagan and am directly affected by the proposed Diffley Marketplace development. I felt the need to forward my concerns to the members of the City Council in hopes that our concerns, as a neighborhood, will be considered in our best interest. We have had neighborhood meetings regarding our concern of this development and have all agreed that traffic is our main issue. For us, the Daniel Drive residents, we see absolutely no reason for traffic to empty onto our RESIDENTIAL street. I understand the county is limiting access to Diffley and Lexington due to the high traffic volumes and other issues, I think what we need to look at here is the size of the development and the impact it has on our property and family/neighborhood safety. This project is simply too big for the location the developer wants to build on. Our quality of life as residents of the fine city of Eagan will be decreased a great deal if our front yards are turned into busy commercial streets. As a Mother, a Daycare Provider, an upstanding member of this community and as a voter, I beg of you to take the time to consider what this project will do to this neighborhood, it's safety and it's families. Thank you so much for your time. Tracie Hughes traciehughes(c�comcast.net Original Message From: Ramesh Mannamk [mailto:ramkun@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 7:46 AM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: Mike Ridley; Jon Hohenstein; Mira Pepper Subject: RE: Change of Council Meeting Date - Diffley Marketplace Proposal Dear city council members, I request you to not allow any more extensions to the developers. I have cancelled or rescheduled my appointments twice already so as to be able to attend the hearing. Thanking you Ramesh >Dear Resident, >In response to concerns raised by the Advisory Planning Commission and >neighbors regarding the Diffley Marketplace proposal, the developer has >been working to respond and prepare additional information for the City >Council. The development proposal was previously rescheduled from the >September 6th to the September 20th City Council meeting. To complete >the work, the developer has requested additional time and asked that the >item be rescheduled to the October 6th City Council meeting. The City >has concurred with this request and the item is now scheduled for the >City Council meeting on Thursday, October 6th. >Your e-mail comments are appreciated, they have been forwarded to the >City Council and also will be included with the Council background on >the application for the Thursday, October 6th, City Council meeting. >lf you have any questions in the meantime, please contact Planner Pam >Dudziak at pdudziak@cityofeagan.com. >Pamela Dudziak >Planner, City of Eagan >3830 Pilot Knob Road >Eagan, MN 55122 >Ph: 651-675-5691 >Fax: 651-675-5694 /a3 Pamela Dudziak From: Lois Pallmeyer [mailto:prlois@gloriadeistpaul.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 10:47 AM To: City Council Cc: john.barnicle@gsa.gov Subject: Lexington Market Dear Eagan Council Members, While I know you have received many complaints and concerns about the proposed grocery store for Dif ley Road, I'm a neighbor who is in favor of the development. I love the idea of being able to walk to a neighborhood grocery store. If a coffee or sandwich shop opened up nearby, that would even be better. I hope the plan anticipates pedestrian access to the shops, from the residential sides, as well as the athletic fields and schools on the west and north. Yes, I understand that such a development could increase traffic on my street. That would be true if we developed the corner in any way — with a park, a church, a school, a bookstore, a gas station, etc. No matter what was built on the corner, the traffic on Daniel Road might increase. However, the corner was designated for commercial development long before I moved in to the neighborhood, and my understanding is that it will be developed eventually. If we will have a business moving into the corner, I would most like to see it be a business that I could see myself using. A grocery store sounds great. We all need groceries every day. We all currently shop for groceries somewhere. Right now, I have to drive out of my neighborhood every time I shop. Wouldn't it be wonderful if I wouldn't have to drive for groceries next summer? One less car in the Daniel Drive traffic jam! Thank you for your work on behalf of all of us. Sincerely, Lois Pallmeyer 4278 Daniel Drive Eagan, MN /ay Pamela Dudziak Original Message From: Tio, John D [mailto:iohn.d.tio(a)Imco.com] Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 9:33 AM To: City Council Subject: Proposed grocery store (Diffley Marketplace) development at Diffley Rd and Daniel Dr. Please forward this message to: Mayor: Pat Geagan Council Members: Peggy Carlson Cyndee Fields Meg Tilley Mike Maguire This e-mail is to express my conditional support for the proposal to develop the parcel on the corner of Diffley Rd and Daniel Dr by building the Diffley Marketplace which will include a grocery store. My family has lived at 4378 Braddock Trail since the fall of 1991. The initial draw to this location in Eagan was the reputation of the school district and its proximity the schools. We have watched the surrounding fields develop into homes, businesses, and play fields. The area around Northview Elementary school has grown into a neighborhood center with churches, daycare centers, and shopping. The addition of a grocery store will contribute to the future vitality of the area. Many essential services will then be within walking distance of the residents. As transportation costs continue to rise, the value of a grocery store in the area will improve the livability of the area. In anticipation of this growth around the Lexington and Diffley intersection the city and county appropriately planned for the eventual traffic volume and safe controlled access to expected businesses. Any retail business development in the area will include increases in traffic on Diffley and Daniel. My concerns center on lighting and noise. When the Holiday Station opened on the corner of Lexington and Diffley the amount of lighting installed illuminated much more of the area than just that directly adjacent to the store. In fact so much light was added that the facade of Sts. Martha and Mary Church across the street was and is complete illuminated. I request that the amount and type of lighting for the new building and parking area be limited to just that amount needed for the convenience and security of the patrons during business hours. Extra light must not be allowed to illuminate the adjacent properties. This is light pollution and has a negative impact on the environment. When the business is not open the parking lot lights should be reduced to a minimum. I also request that a separate review of the lighting of the Goat Hill skating area be made during the coming winter. The timing of the lights should be limited to the hours when skating is allowed. It seems that this has not been the case in the past. has Noise from patrons arriving and departing is a natural consequence of the new business. Noise from delivery and trash removal vehicles can and should be controlled. Early morning deliveries should not be allowed. Delivery of merchandise and removal of trash and recyclable materials should be limited to between the hours of 9 AM and 8 PM. This is not unreasonable and will limit the negative impact of the additional noise on the neighbors. The rights of the residences that moved into the area expecting the quiet neighborhood to exist into the future should be respected. When they moved into their homes, no plans existed for the commercial property along Diffley Rd. Now that this development is being planned, please consider the needs of the residence in the larger area, but do not ignore the rights of those adjacent to the new buildings. I support the creation of the Diffley Marketplace with these reasonable restrictions. Sincerely, John D Tio 4378 Braddock Tr 651-681-0046 /a6 yet etvec! u'•e-jos' September 8, 2005 To: City Council Members From: Tracie and Michael Hughes 4225 Daniel Drive, Eagan 651-905-0943 Re: Diffley Marketplace Proposal Dear City Council Members, We are writing this letter today to share concerns we have surrounding the development of the Diffley Marketplace project. We understand that this project is going to happen, but what we hope to accomplish is to work WITH the City and the Developer to find ways to make this project less invasive to our personal property and safe for the children and families that live in the neighboring area. The most important issue I feel I need to address is the safety of such a large project so close to a single-family neighborhood AND elementary school. The current proposal wants to empty the parking lot onto Daniel Drive, which is a residential street. The people in this neighborhood were promised that the area on Daniel Drive where this exit is supposed to be put in would be "curbed up" and never used, that did NOT happen. Because the city didn't not plan properly, we are looking at thousands of cars emptying out onto our street (our RESIDENTIAL street), near where our children play and our homes are located. 6 out of the 7 homes directly located to this exit have multiple children under the age of 10, with2 daycares located within one block of this area. I think the city needs to take a SERIOUS look at this proposal and what it's going to do to this neighborhood. If this happens, my children will not be able to play in their own front yards. Traffic flow is another serious concern for this area. I have been fighting for changes on Daniel Drive for years now. We have a huge problem with speeding and traffic accidents on Daniel Drive already. This parking lot exit is only going to make matter MUCH, MUCH worse! I have photos of 3 separate accidents on Daniel Drive that I alone have witnessed in less than a 4 year period. What's going to happen when I can't get out of my neighborhood because of traffic congestion? How will traffic be eased on Diffley, especially in the mornings with the heavy High School traffic backing up? I realize that the developer is doing some traffic studies, but what about the city? I'm also concerned about an increase in loitering and vandalism. In the last year we have had an increase in property damage and other incidences in our neighborhood and I only see this project and the exit onto our street as a way to increase these problems. Will there be more police presence in our neighborhood to handle these potential issues? And, although it doesn't directly affect me, I would hope that the City Council would take into consideration the properties located directly behind this development and their privacy and safety. The Wildflower neighborhood is facing some huge concerns regarding the development of this property and the fact that the developer is trying to push the limits on size and what it can pack into this property. The fact that this developer wants to build beyond city requirements for height and is pushing it's hours of operation further and further beyond what was initially proposed is a huge concern for everyone involved and connected to this project. In closing, I would hope that the City Council will seriously consider the safety of it's citizens, their families and their properties. I realize that the bottom line, financially, is usually what wins out in situations such as this, but I would hope that you fine members of the City Council will go to bat for us, the citizens of Eagan, who supported and elected you to stand up and protect us. Sincerely, Tracie Hughes Pamela Dudziak From: Moriarity, Margaret A [mailto:MMORIARI@Fairview.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 9:24 AM To: City Council Subject: Mayor Geagan and Eagan City Council Members: Just a quick note to share my opinion w/you all regarding the proposed grocery store for Diffley Rd between Daniel Drive and Lexington Ave. I am opposed to a grocery store in that location for 2 reasons: TRAFFIC and PEDESTRIAN SAFETY. Again I am reminded of how terribly congested that area is during the week what with 3 schools within 1/2 mile of each other. This is the ONLY area in Eagan where there are 3 schools located so closely to each other. Adding grocery store traffic to this area would put an unacceptable level of traffic to to this already congested area. Just doing a rough estimate -- there are approximately 3500-4000 students (I think I am a bit low in that estimate) that are making a trip to one of those 3 schools on any given morning between 630 AM (eagan high) and 830 AM (northview), and then again between 2 PM and 3:30 pm. Those students are either going by bus, rides w/friends/parents, or driving themselves. Just try to turn on to Diffley Rd from the Walgreens lot when the high school kids are driving to school there. The traffic is sometimes backed up from Braddock all the way back to Lexington! The busses going into Northview Elementary have a tough time turning left into the lot in the morning. The DHMS traffic is just a conjested along Diffley and Lexington. Of greater concern, however, is the pedestrian traffic most of which are students. While there are lights at 2 intersections near by, I continually see students crossing from the northview elementary area (DHMS and EHA kids, not elementary school kids) across Diffley to the Daniel Drive and Braddock Trail area -- both an uncontrolled intersections. Adding grocery store traffic to the bus and school traffic is just asking for a disaster to happen. Give us a neighborhood coffee shop, a movie store, a dry cleaner, etc in that proposed mall. Any are fine and won't greatly impact traffic there. Please please please do not approve the grocery store there, for the safety of all the kids that attend those schools in that area. Thanks so much for your careful attention to this matter. Have a good week. Sincerely, Peggy, Bob, Garrett and Jessica Boldt 651-686-5169 952-924-8032 (Peg at work) 4310 Trenton Trail /a 9 Pamela Dudziak Original Message From: Soma Narasimhulu jmailto:soma55123(a yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 11:09 AM To: City Council Cc: s.kukulski@worldnet.att.net Subject: proposal of commercial development in our neighbourhood Greetings This letter is with reference to the recent proposal of commercial development (Rademacher's grocery store and other commercial ventures) in our neighbourhood. We have been residing at Wildflower association (1013 Trillium Ct, Eagan, MN) for the last 6 years. Ours is a residential neighbourhood with a very large number of growing children. The proposed commercial development around our neighbourhood will have a serious negative effect on our surroundings and also our livability, through increased noise and traffic. Most of the children in our neighbourhood walk to school. With the kind of traffic that will follow this commercial development It will completely disrupt our normal lives by endangering the safety and security of children growing in our community. I hope you will give a serious thought to our concerns and disapprove the proposed commercial venture or at least scale it down. We really appreciate your help with regard to this. Sincerely Soma B Narasimhulu 1013 Trillium Ct Eagan MN 55123 Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.vahoo.com /30 1002 Trillium Court Eagan, MN 55123 August 28, 2005 The Honorable Pat Geagan, Mayor City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Dear Mayor Geagan: I was heartened to learn that Eagan's Advisory Planning Commission voted 5 - 2 against recommending approval for Diffley Marketplace as it is currently proposed. As one of countless homeowners in the predominantly residential area directly and permanently affected by the proximity of its commercial development, please add my voice to those who object to the current proposal in terms of its overall size, elevation, traffic, hours of operation, and easements as they are presently planned by the builder. His proposed construction development is categorically incompatible with the surrounding area. Thank you for your kind attention and for your thoughtful and far-reaching consideration, most especially on September 6th, regarding the concerns and objections both of nearby residents and of the Advisory Planning Commission. cc: Tom Kukulski Tim Meekin Sincerely, ../y/Am ida,)2044,;?, Mrs. Sandra L. Anderson (651) 994-0996 /3/ RECEIVED SEP 6- 2005 August 30, 2005 Pat Geagan, Mayor City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Dear Mr. Geagan: I am a property owner directly affected by the proposed Diffley Marketplace development. Our lot is immediately adjacent to the proposed grocery store parking lot. My husband and I are opposed to the development, specifically the 43,000 square foot grocery store, because it is not in scale with the size of the lot or the community's needs. The proposed plan will cause an increase in traffic around the neighborhoods. The Planning Commission acknowledged that Daniel Drive, a residential street, is not a good fit for the scale of this proposed development. Pedestrian and child safety is a concem due to the potential of traffic tripling from 1,400 vehicles per day to 4,150 on Daniel Drive alone. The main entrance to the development is right across the highway from the elementary school's main entrance. The proposed hours of operation of the store are not compatible with the location. Public hours proposed by the developer are from 6 am. to 1 am. Stocking activity will be present 24 hours a day. The activity, noise and lights will be very disruptive to our quality of life. There is little or no buffer between our home and the proposed parking lot. The developer has proposed 4 -foot arborvitaes along the property line which will not be an adequate buffer for noise or lighting. The height of the building exceeds the 30 -foot maximum height allowed by the city code. With the added 4 feet of excavation to the land, the building will be obstructing our view from our backyard. Our view will be of a 35 -foot high store wall just 50 feet from our property line. This is too close. I hope that you and the city council members will find this development is not in the community's best interest. Sincerely, pec CIVIA Lucy Cum 1001 Trillium Court Eagan, MN 55123 /3a RECEIVED SEP 2- Y005 Pam Dudziak From: Christine Hansen [mailto:engmajor@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 7:41 PM To: City Council Subject: diffley marketplace Dear Mayor and City Council members: I live at 4221 Daniel Drive with my husband and two school-age children. We are looking with some alarm at the plans for Diffley Marketplace, particularly in the area of traffic flow and direction. The plan as it stands would dump thousands of cars and large trucks a week onto our residential street. I'm asking the council to carefully consider how the current plan will affect our neighborhood. The intersection of Daniel and Diffley is already a busy artery into the developement, with commuters, elementary, middle and high school traffic, and children walking to Northview. Adding high-volume businesses and a neighborhood unfriendly traffic design, seems short sighted at best, and tragic at worst. I have always accepted that these lots would be developed. I also know that the developer does not have my best interests at heart, now would I expect that. I do expect my local government to respect and respond to legitimate neighborhood concerns regarding safety and quality of life. This plan is simply too big for the space they want to squeeze it into. I know that we are all eagar to increase the tax base, but with a bit of patience I know that a compromise appropriate to the neighborhood can be found. I have watched other developments proceed with accomodation to the neighbors, and hope to see that trend continued here. Thank you for your attention, Christine Hansen Please forward to Mayor Geagan and all council members. /33 Pam Dudziak Original Message From: Ramesh Mannamk jmailto:ramkuna,hotmail.comj Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 8:27 AM To: City Council Cc: s.kukulski@worldnet.att.net; t.meekin@comcast.net Subject: Proposed commercial development near intersection of Diffley and Lexington roads Please forward this email to all members of Eagan city council. Thanks Ramesh mannamkunnath Sunita Raghavan Dear city council members, We recently learnt about plans submitted by a development company for the southeast corner of Diffley and Lexington roads. We reside about 1/4 mile from the proposed development at 4393 Braddock trail. The following are our objections to the plan as proposed: 1. A large-scale operation such as the one proposed does not fit into the existing neighborhood profile. . All the surrounding houses are well-established single family residential units, who enjoy it here. The proposed plan will reduce the quality of life through higher crime rate in the neighborhood, less safe streets due to the increased traffic, produce more smoke and noise pollution. 2. We have not seen any traffic alleviation plans. But existing road infrastructure will not support the proposed traffic. Access via Daniel drive will produce significantly additional traffic on Daniel drive and Braddock Trail at all times of day. Eventually we fear this would necessitate a traffic light at the intersection of Daniel and the access road — thereby restricting our free movement. Also this will not fit the character of adjacent single family homes. 3. We were told Walgreens was approved upon the condition that service roads would not be added or altered. We purchased our residence with that understanding. We expect the city to stand by its agreements. 4. My daughter goes to Northview elementary school and I'm afraid she cannot walk to school on her own if the business is allowed to proceed. She also goes with her friends to the playfields located directly opposite side of both roads. Her free access to these facilities will be severely restricted. 5. The neighborhood does not need a 24-hour grocery store. Cub foods, Rainbow foods stores are within short driving distances. 24 hr gas stations/convenience stores are at even shorter driving/walking distances. 6. What we need is a community resource that brings the neighboorhood together. The ballparks and playfields doing their part. We should add something that complements these resources. Based on the above, we implore the planning commission to soundly reject the proposed plans. We can be reached at 651-681-0976 (home) or 612-819-5498 (cell). Sincerely Ramesh Mannamkunnath Sunita Raghavan /3 y Pam Dudziak Original Message From: nate kevinjmailto:kellvsuetonv(avahoo.comj Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 5:08 PM To: City Council Cc: s.kukulski@worldnet.att.net Subject: To the mayor and all council members. Children and Pedestrian Safety. Please forward this message to the mayor and all council members. Hello and thank you for your time. We are concerned parents who live on Daniel Drive. Daniel Drive is a high traffic street, with many who drive at speeds around 45 mph. Police patrols and electronic speed signs have not seemed to make a big difference. Many of the residents on Daniel Drive are children. If the traffic is allowed to increase due to the Marketplace Proposal I'm afraid that one of our neighborhood children will be seriously injured or killed. This is a family neighborhood and allowing such a large-scale project does not fit with our needs. Our children must walk on Daniel Drive to get to the bus stop, walk to school and fetch the occasional ball that rolls into the street. Crossing Daniel Drive to Northview Elementary is already dangerous enough for the parents who are driving vehicles. Please do not forget about the young people who walk across the Daniel Drive/Diffley intersection daily from Dakota Hills Middle and the Eagan High School to get to their homes. These children do not go to the stoplights to cross the street. They most definitely take the short cut by Daniel Drive; and do not have the foresight to see the dangers. The proposed project will increase our street's traffic to enormous proportions. Please do not allow this to happen. We have faith that as our elected officials you will use this privilege for the good of our community; and that you will speak for the youngest members of our community when you vote no to this large of a project. We look forward to seeing you on September 6. Thank you again, The Chan Family 4266 Daniel Drive /3S Pam Dudziak Original Message From: Sackmaster, Mark jmailto:Mark.Sackmaster c(�chsinc.comj Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 3:21 PM To: City Council Subject: Lexington/Diffley Development Dear Mayor and Council Members, My name is Mark Sackmaster, my wife and I live at 1009 Trillium Court with our 8, 6 and 4 year old children. We border to the south of the proposed new development. I picked this lot over the advice of the my builder at the time. We expected development and looking around Eagan at similar areas thought we would have no issues. Unfortunately, this development consists of a rather large grocery store that would be very invasive to our property. As you can imagine with three young children my #1 concern is for their safety. This development at the scale proposed will definitely have a negative impact on the safety of the children in my family as well as the rest of the neighborhood. I would ask for a much larger setback from the residence as it relates to the proposed driveway and parking lot up against our lots. I would also like to see many more plantings than currently proposed to screen us and to discourage too much traffic through our yards. Walgreen's did an excellent job with pines. As it stands now I mow a path to the Marathon station for my neighbors and my family to use, we love the convenience. The 42,000+ square feet scares me in that in would bring too much traffic to an area tha is already imposible to get out of at certain times during the day. A left off of Lexington Point is a disaster right now and will get much worse with this development. This intersection is of minor importance compared to the 2 in front of the school across the street. The hours of operation are also a major concern as we will see and hear trucks all day and night out of that store. 24/7 for a "neighborhood" store is almost as shocking as the size of the building for a "neighborhood" store. There are already issues with teenagers back by the strip mall already in place and this will definitely increase that problem. We already have 3 grocery stores within a few miles that are 24/7, do we need another? I would also ask that you pin down the developer on what else he intends to put into this development. There are 2 scools very close and there will be many diverse problems depending on what eventually goes in. I would like to address them before the developer gets too far down the road. I want to emphasize that the store idea sounds good, but the scale is way to out of whack for the surrounding enviroment. Thank you for your time. Regards Mark Sackmaster 1009 Trillium Court Eagan, MN 55123 651-681-8281 or work 651-355-3718 Please pass this along to the Moayr's office. /3C Pam Dudziak Page 1 of 2 From: ekeegan@comcast.net [ma ilto:ekeegan@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 10:33 AM To: City Council Subject: Diffley Marketplace For the Mayor of Eagan and Members of the City Counsil: I would like once again to voice my concerns over the proposed development of Diffley Marketplace. Last night around 5:30 or so I was at Walgreens and I counted no less than seven children on bikes and at least as many walking in the general vacinity. Also, another area I would like to point out is the proximity of the school to unhealthy fast food restaurants, of which the developers propose. This particular item was brought to the forefront as I was listening to Public Radio on the way home from work. Do we need more class two restaurants? The developer mentioned a sandwich shop and a pizza place. Are they so unfamiliar with this area that that are not aware of the pizza place and sandwich shop south of Walgreens within walking distance of the proposed newer development? One of the panel members brought up an excellent point. There is no way this Rademacher's store will be competitive in this neighborhood with reduced hours; so this means they will eventually revert to their initial proposal of 24/7. One of the speakers in the public arena mentioned that the planning stages of this development started last summer and the public was to be included in the discussion yet no one was informed. I feel that all the neighbors have a right to help decide what is built in their proximity. We cannot change the texture of this area; nor should we want to. If I had chosen to live by a grocery store and tons of fast food places, I certainly would not have picked this particular area of Eagan in which to live. Why are we not looking at something that Eagan doesn't have? We have fast food places, too many to count. We have grocery stores, Walmarts, Targets. Holiday sells food, Walgreen's sells food and Oasis sells food. We don't have any upscale shopping centers like a Galeria in Edina. Something that would fit in with the scale of the allotment. We do not want the extra traffic nor the element that would attract a medium priced grocery store and fast food eateries. The loitering, lighting, traffic, noise and crime would be on the rise. This is a fact. Just look at the statistics and look around neighborhoods that provide such types of "amenities". 100% tree removal??? Don't you feel this is really absurd? There has not been a care given to our environment and the detriment of the school children is totally out of scale. /3 This entire proposal is preposterous. I felt the developer was ill-prepared, as was Mr.Rademacher. Why in the world would I want a tour of a grocery store? This is not an upscale grocery store that would offer state-of-the-art and care in merchandising. The lighting, the size, the idea. All of this is wrong! The truck delivereries!! Wrong! Liz Keegan 990 Kensington Trail #205 Eagan, MN 55123 651-452-8829 8 Page 2 of 2 r^ece; v ed via & kW ; l 8q/o,- Eagan City Staff, thank you for forwarding this letter to the Mayor and to all City Council members— RE: In favor of proposed Diffley Marketplace project Mr. Mayor and City Council Members: We are long time residents of the Lexington Pointe neighborhood and are very excited to see the proposed development of the Diffley Marketplace. Some would have you believe that our neighborhood is a quiet, out of the way part of Eagan where there is no traffic to speak of and where no large civic events occur. This is simply not the case. We would suggest that the Lexington Diffley area of Eagan has developed into the cultural center of Eagan. Consider the amenities that exist within six blocks of this proposed development along Diffley Road, and the number of Eagan residents who utilize these amenities, such as the Lexington Diffley athletic fields, Goat Hill Park, Northview Elementary fields, Northview Athletic Complex, Wildcat Football Stadium, and of course, the Dakota Hills Middle School/ Eagan High School complex, which is one of the largest such facilities in the State of Minnesota. Events such as EAA athletic contests, softball tournaments, dance recitals, daily school activities, theatrical performances, concerts, art festivals, and Minnesota State High School League sporting events occur in this area of Eagan on a regular basis. The traffic generated by these events is considerable but an expected byproduct of such facilities. When I was a teenager attending Apple Valley High School in the 1970's, we lived off of 132"d Street and Findlay Way. Our neighborhood was fighting the proposed development of the Minnesota Zoo because we thought we would be overrun by vehicles trying to find a parking place, similar to living along Snelling Avenue during the State Fair. How crazy was that? When my wife and I were married in the early 1980's, we started out at the Carriage Hills Condominiums near Yankee Doodle and Lexington. Both roads were single -lane county roads, I -35E was years away, and the closest retail was the Tom Thumb store in Yankee Square. We think most would agree that a lot of development has occurred in Eagan since those days, that the Eagan City Council has overseen this development in an extraordinary manner, and that Eagan has developed into one of the most desired suburban locations in the Twin Cities. When we moved into the Lexington Pointe neighborhood in the early 1990's, some residents were opposing a nearby development of single family homes and /3 9 a storm water drainage pond because it would reduce the size of the wooded area adjacent to them. The homes were built and have enhanced the neighborhood considerably. In the following years, the McDonald's/ Holiday Gas Station development was proposed followed soon after by the Walgreen's project. Both were opposed aggressively by adjacent homeowners, but were eventually built and have proved to be great additions to our neighborhood. Most would agree that the concerns raised by homeowners during the development of these projects proved to be unfounded. It is understandable that some property owners adjacent to the Diffley Marketplace parcel of land will be apprehensive about any proposed development. We would ask, however, as you consider this project, you remember that special interest groups do not always represent the desires or interests of the majority. We enjoyed the opportunity to attend the recent Planning Commission meeting, and were impressed by the professional and thorough approach taken by the commission members, applicants, and residents in attendance. As homeowners in the affected area, we were satisfied that the commission did a great job summarizing the positive and negative aspects of the project. Without going into all of the details discussed, we found ourselves in total agreement with the analysis presented by Chairperson Carla Heyl of the Planning Commission, highlighting the positive aspects of the proposal and acknowledging that valid concerns would be addressable. We agree that regardless of the negative aspects, this development will prove to be another great addition to the Lexington Diffley neighborhood. We do find ourselves in agreement with one concern expressed by many homeowners, that being access to the proposed development will be problematic. As discussed in the meeting, proper access to the development will come from Diffley Road, either at the current Walgreen's service road or at Daniel Drive. The county will likely require one of these access points to be closed to left turn traffic, similar to the existing access point between Walgreen's and the Marathon/Lexington Centre strip mall. We are comfortable with either of these alternatives for access to the proposed development, but would also like to offer a more creative potential solution. We would suggest that Patrick Road be extended behind Lexington Centre, behind Walgreen's, and possibly along the back side of the proposed development. This may provide some additional buffer between the adjacent homes and the retail buildings. Patrick Road could continue eastbound, then hook to the north and intersect with Diffley Road at the same location as the current Diffley Road/Daniel Drive intersection. Daniel Drive would terminate at the new Patrick Road, rather than continuing to Diffley Road as it does currently. Please reference the attached map. Po) Furthermore, the new Patrick Road could continue northbound along the eastern edge of Northview Elementary, then turn east, providing a second access point to the Dakota Hilis Middle School/ Eagan High School complex. If done properly, this new Patrick Road would divert some of the heavy school - related traffic from Braddock Trail. It would also provide signaled traffic lights at the new Patrick Road/Diffley Road intersection. This new signaled intersection and access road to Dakota Hilis Middle School and Eagan High School would provide a badly needed pedestrian crossing and sidewalk access for many students who walk to Dakota Hills Middle and Eagan High School and cross Diffley Road at this point every day. The new Patrick Road would improve traffic and pedestrian access for existing retail, proposed retail, and school access points, while diverting existing and potential traffic away from roads that are considered primarily residential. We would urge the Eagan City Council to consider the positive aspects of the proposed Diffley Marketplace project and vote in favor of this development on September Ern Thank you for your consideration! Gregg & Sally Linnell 4240 Daniel Drive Eagan, MN 55123 651-454-6278 Iinn08@comcast.net /Y� Page 1 of 1 Pam Dudziak From: Pam Dudziak Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 3:08 PM To: Pam Dudziak Subject: FW: Diffley Market Place Development From: Mira Pepper Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 1:39 PM To: 'desfam3@netzero.net Subject: RE: Diffley Market Place Development Your message has been forwarded to the Mayor and City Council as well as the Community Development Director. Thank you for your comments. From: desfam3@netzero.net [mailto:desfam3@netzero.net] Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 10:56 AM To: City Council Cc: s.kukulski@worldnet.att.net Subject: Diffley Market Place Development Please forward this message to the Mayor and all City Council Members. This is a brief note to communicate to the City Council the serious concerns my family has w/ the proposed development of Diffley Market Place. We agree w/ the Planning Commisions findings that the proposed size, scale and "minimum set back" is not compatible w/ the existing residential neighborhoods. Current access roads will be probematic w/ the tripling of traffic on Daniel Drive alone. With the nearby school and demographic of the neighborhood, safety is a significant concern. The 24/7 nature of the grocery business located w/in 50 ft of neighboring property lines is not compatible to the neighborhood. The current development is seeking exceptions to existing codes to make the development even less desirable to the existing single family residents. While we understand the property will be developed for commercial uses someday, the current proposed development falls short of being a neigborhood compatible development. We request the board follows the recomendation of the planning commision and not approve the proposed devlopment of Diffley Marketplace. Please feel free to contact us w/ any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Jim and Vicki Desmond 986 Trillium Ct. Eagan, 651 683-9568 08/29/2005 Page 1 of 1 Pam Dudziak From: Pam Dudziak Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 3:06 PM To: Pam Dudziak Subject: FW: Diffley Marketplace From: Mira Pepper Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 9:12 AM To: 'Bree Kerrick' Subject: RE: Diffley Marketplace Your message has been forwarded to the Mayor and City Council as well as the Community Development Director. Thank you for your comments. From: Bree Kerrick[mailto:bree.kerrick@exactsoftware.com] Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 8:49 AM To: City Council Subject: Diffley Marketplace As a Citizen of Eagan residing on Lexington Pointe Parkway, I am concerned about the proposed Diffley Marketplace going before the council on September 9th From reading the Planning Report, there are several areas that seem outside of the community guidelines and zoning restrictions. First, I am apprehensive about what this will do to traffic on the nearby Daniel Drive and Lexington Pointe Parkway. Estimates in the Planning Report estimate it will double the traffic in the area, and that will seriously change the neighborhood, and create a hazard for the many children who reside on those streets Second, the current plans show the grocery store being considerably higher than current city zoning guidelines allow, changing the 'landscape' of the area. And third, it seems considerably out of proportion with the low-density residential area surrounding it, with estimates that it will have a citywide draw of 15,000 customer trips per week, and 30 truck deliveries per day. This will jeopardize the character and safety of the surrounding residential area, adding additional traffic, noise pollution and Tight pollution to the area. The Advisory Planning Commission voted this proposal down 5 against to 2 four. I encourage you to vote with them; deny this proposal and preserve our neighborhood. Thank you for your attention to this matter! Sincerely, Bree Kerrick 4332 Lexington Pte Pkwy Eagan, MN 55123 651-452-1654 08/29/2005 Pam Dudziak From: Pam Dudziak Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 12:27 PM To: Pam Dudziak Subject: FW: Diffley Marketplace Proposal Original Message From: Mira Pepper Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 10:08 AM To: 'tpaetznick@mmm.com' Subject: RE: Diffley Marketplace Proposal Your message has been forwarded to the Mayor and Council as well as the Community Development Director. Thank you for your comments. Original Message From: tpaetznick@mmm.com [mailto:tpaetznick@mmm.com] Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 9:42 AM To: City Council Cc: s.kukulski@worldnet.att.net Subject: Diffley Marketplace Proposal Please forward my comments to the mayor and city council members. rd like to express my concern about the placement of the entrance on Daniel Drive to this new marketplace. I've never seen a commercial development have a primary entrance/exit that resides in a residential area. Not only that, it's the primary path for our children who attend Northview Elementary School. There is only room for about 5 cars to wait for passage onto Diffley and I cannot figure out how we will manage the increase of approximately 2000 cars per day onto that small area of road. THE INCREASED TRAFFIC WILL MOST CERTAINLY POSE A THREAT TO OUR CHILDREN! The only safe choice is to make the main entrance/exit be from Diffley and not have any entrance/exit onto Daniel. In addition, I would request the trees on the south end of the development be retained to buffer the increased noise and light from our homes. I hope you will consider my concerns regarding this new development. Teresa A. Paetznick IT IB Sales & Mktg Applications Tel: 651-733-0033 eMail: tpaetznick@mmm.com /%� Pam Dudziak From: Pam Dudziak Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 11:54 AM To: Pam Dudziak Subject: FW: Diffley Marketplace development (Reliance) From: Mira Pepper Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 1:49 PM To: 'westenberg@aol.com' Subject: RE: Diffley Marketplace development (Reliance) Page 1 of 2 Your message has been forwarded to the Mayor and City Council as well as the Community Development Director. Thank you for your comments. From: westenberg@aol.com [mailto:westenberg@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 1:40 PM To: City Council Cc: Pam Dudziak Subject: Diffley Marketplace development (Reliance) August 25, 2005 To: City Council Members From: Janet and Enrico Westenberg 4241 Daniel Drive, Eagan Re: Proposed commercial development of vacant land East of Walgreens and South of Diffley Road by Reliance Development Company Dear City Council Members, We would like to share with you some serious concerns we have regarding the proposed commercial development of vacant land East of Walgreens and South of Diffley Road by Reliance Development Company. My husband and I and our two small children (2 and 5 years old) live on Daniel Drive, just to the East of this proposed development. We were present at the August 23 city planning commission meeting to find out about the proposal. As we understood it, there was to be a stage I development that would consist of a large Rademacher?s grocery store and three restaurants (one with drive-through). Stage II would put two more buildings on this lot and make this more crowded than the Best Buy development on Yankee Doodle that we?re told is of a similar lot size. Many of the residents around this proposed development stepped up to convey their numerous concerns and opposition, and the proposal failed to pass that night. However, we were told that the proposal now comes before City Council Members for approval. Here are our main concerns: 1. The proposed development is too large for the site in such close proximity to single family homes. It was estimated that the store would double the daily traffic to 11,000 (quadruple with drive-through). We were told that the grocery store itself would be 80 percent the size of Byerly?s 08/29/2005 Page 2 of 2 and would even require variances with respect to height and parking space width. We were presented with the pitch that the storeowners are a small family business that cares about people, according to a non-resident employee. However, Rademacher is closely tied to the giant Supervalu (their Jordan store is even listed as Rademacher Supervalu in the yellow pages), and they intend to erect the largest box possible right up to residential property with the minimum 20 feet setback. Keep in mind that all comparisons made by the developer to other ?similar? projects do not involve single-family homes, school, and residential streets within such close proximity. This is a residential neighborhood with an elementary school directly across the street. There are constantly children in the area going to sports events at the school and to after hours activities that are ongoing at Northview. That?s not to mention school that goes on nine months out of the year. Many of these children are walking from Daniel Drive and from the Wildflower neighborhood. Daniel Drive already has its share of speeders, drag racing and accidents. Such an increase in traffic this large WILL present even more hazard to our children and significantly reduce the quality of life in our neighborhood. We know the county will not proactively act upon increased traffic on Diffley or Lexington, so I hope that it would not have to come to an accident before awareness is raised about traffic around the school. 2. Regardless of what development is put there, access should not come through Daniel Drive! During the meeting, there was a lot of concern over the increase in traffic. The way the developers proposed to address this was to restrict access from the Diffley Road entrance (the current Walgreens entryway) and allow access to come through Daniel Drive. This is a residential street with single-family homes directly beside this proposed access way! I know of no other commercial development in the area that allows access to its establishments via a residential street with single-family homes lining the way. This would destroy this residential neighborhood. 3. This proposal is being considered without any study of how such a large commercial development would affect traffic and quality of life in this neighborhood. Unlike the Best Buy on Yankee Doodle, this development is being proposed in what is currently a residential neighborhood. The statement has been made to us that we can?t complain because we knew the lot was zoned commercial. However, when we purchased our house we were never told that access would come through Daniel Drive and that a large store and up to 5 other establishments would be placed on this one lot. This development will negatively impact all its surrounding residents in terms of safety, quality of life, and property values. Dear City Council Members, I plead with you to reject this proposed development. Many Eagan voters will not be happy with their city officials if they would allow such a large commercial development to be built next to their homes. Please help us to ensure that whatever is built here maintains the quality of life for the people in our neighborhood. So far, I believe Eagan has done a wonderful job carefully balancing commercial and residential growth. One of the reasons my family moved here was to get away from the city and to have a better quality of life. Allowing this development to go through would destroy our quiet, safe neighborhood. Sincerely, The Westenberg Family 4241 Daniel Drive, Eagan 08/29/2005 P71 Pam Dudziak From: Pam Dudziak Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 11:53 AM To: Pam Dudziak Subject: FW: Reliance Development Company Original Message From: Margaret Burns[mailto:margaretburns@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 2:06 PM To: Jon Hohenstein Subject: Reliance Development Company August 25, 2005 Dear City Planners and City Council Members, I wanted to address my concern of the proposed development by Reliance Development Company on the land east of Walgreen's and south of Diffley across from Northview Elementary. I was unable to attend the meeting on Tuesday night but I wanted to make my concerns known. Let me start by saying that my family and I have lived on Daniel Drive for the past 13 years. Our neighborhood and Daniel Drive were never zoned nor intended to be an outlet or exit for a massive retail development. As I'm sure everyone is aware this proposal would flood our street with traffic. Now this was never the way Daniel Drive was intended or designed. This street is a residential street not an exit for an additional 2142 cars a day. Can you imagine having your 4 year-old try to bike down the street with an extra 2000 cars a day. It's absolutely ridiculous. I have never seen any other city or city development where the outlet for a retail development exits out on to a residential street. Now I'm not against a new development going in on the proposed site. However there needs to be a better way to bring people in and out of the development then to bring them through a residential neighborhood. I also understand the residents in the Wild Flower development are concerned about this development. However when they built their homes they knew that this was zoned for future commercial development. We on the other hand were never told there would be a development that would exit on to Daniel and put 2000 cars a day speeding past our homes. If this developer wants to proceed with their plans they need to come up with a way to have traffic enter and exit out on Diffley Road and or Lexington Avenue and not dump out on a residential street where many little kids play every day. Thank you for your time and I'm sure you will come up with a plan that is not as disruptive and maniacal as the one proposed. Dan Burns 4244 Daniel Drive Eagan, MN 55123-1944 651-452-7282 (home) 952-703-3519 (work) dburns@sdallc.com Pam Dudziak From: Margaret Burns [margaretburns@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 1:51 PM To: Mike Ridley; Pam Dudziak; Mike Maguire; Pat Geagan; Cyndee Fields; Meg Tilley; Peggy Carlson; Webmaster Cc: Dan Burns Subject: Reliance Development Company August 25, 2005 Dear City Planners and City Council Members, I wanted to address my concern of the proposed development by Reliance Development Company on the land east of Walgreen's and south of Diffley across from Northview Elementary. I was unable to attend the meeting on Tuesday night but I wanted to make my concerns known. Let me start by saying that my family and I have lived on Daniel Drive for the past 13 years. Our neighborhood and Daniel Drive were never zoned nor intended to be an outlet or exit for a massive retail development. As I'm sure everyone is aware this proposal would flood our street with traffic. Now this was never the way Daniel Drive was intended or designed. This street is a residential street not an exit for an additional 2142 cars a day. Can you imagine having your 4 year-old try to bike down the street with an extra 2000 cars a day. It's absolutely ridiculous. I have never seen any other city or city development where the outlet for a retail development exits out on to a residential street. Now I'm not against a new development going in on the proposed site. However there needs to be a better way to bring people in and out of the development then to bring them through a residential neighborhood. I also understand the residents in the Wild Flower development are concerned about this development. However when they built their homes they knew that this was zoned for future commercial development. We on the other hand were never told there would be a development that would exit on to Daniel and put 2000 cars a day speeding past our homes. If this developer wants to proceed with their plans they need to come up with a way to have traffic enter and exit out on Diffley Road and or Lexington Avenue and not dump out on a residential street where many little kids play every day. Thank you for your time and I'm sure you will come up with a plan that is not as disruptive and maniacal as the one proposed. Dan Burns 4244 Daniel Drive Eagan, MN 551 23-1 944 651-452-7282 (home) 952-703-3519 (work) dburns@sdallc.com Page 1 of 2 Pam Dudziak From: westenberg@aol.com Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 1:40 PM To: City Council Cc: Pam Dudziak Subject: Diffley Marketplace development (Reliance) August 25, 2005 To: City Council Members From: Janet and Enrico Westenberg 4241 Daniel Drive, Eagan Re: Proposed commercial development of vacant land East of Walgreens and South of Diffley Road by Reliance Development Company Dear City Council Members, We would like to share with you some serious concerns we have regarding the proposed commercial development of vacant land East of Walgreens and South of Diffley Road by Reliance Development Company. My husband and I and our two small children (2 and 5 years old) live on Daniel Drive, just to the East of this proposed development. We were present at the August 23 city planning commission meeting to find out about the proposal. As we understood it, there was to be a stage I development that would consist of a large Rademacher?s grocery store and three restaurants (one with drive-through). Stage II would put two more buildings on this lot and make this more crowded than the Best Buy development on Yankee Doodle that we?re told is of a similar lot size. Many of the residents around this proposed development stepped up to convey their numerous concerns and opposition, and the proposal failed to pass that night. However, we were told that the proposal now comes before City Council Members for approval. Here are our main concerns: 1. The proposed development is too large for the site in such close proximity to single family homes. It was estimated that the store would double the daily traffic to 11,000 (quadruple with drive-through). We were told that the grocery store itself would be 80 percent the size of Byerly?s and would even require variances with respect to height and parking space width. We were presented with the pitch that the storeowners are a small family business that cares about people, according to a non-resident employee. However, Rademacher is closely tied to the giant Supervalu (their Jordan store is even listed as Rademacher Supervalu in the yellow pages), and they intend to erect the largest box possible right up to residential property with the minimum 20 feet setback. Keep in mind that all comparisons made by the developer to other ?similar? projects do not involve single-family homes, school, and residential streets within such close proximity. This is a residential neighborhood with an elementary school directly across the street. There are constantly children in the area going to sports events at the school and to after hours activities that are ongoing at Northview. That?s not to mention school that goes on nine months out of the year. Many of these children are walking from Daniel Drive and from the Wildflower neighborhood. Daniel Drive already has its share of speeders, drag racing and accidents. Such an increase in traffic this large WILL present even more hazard to our children and significantly reduce the 08/25/2005 Page 2 of 2 quality of life in our neighborhood. We know the county will not proactively act upon increased traffic on Diffley or Lexington, so I hope that it would not have to come to an accident before awareness is raised about traffic around the school. 2. Regardless of what development is put there, access should not come through Daniel Drive! During the meeting, there was a lot of concern over the increase in traffic. The way the developers proposed to address this was to restrict access from the Diffley Road entrance (the current Walgreens entryway) and allow access to come through Daniel Drive. This is a residential street with single-family homes directly beside this proposed access way! I know of no other commercial development in the area that allows access to its establishments via a residential street with single-family homes lining the way. This would destroy this residential neighborhood. 3. This proposal is being considered without any study of how such a large commercial development would affect traffic and quality of life in this neighborhood. Unlike the Best Buy on Yankee Doodle, this development is being proposed in what is currently a residential neighborhood. The statement has been made to us that we can?t complain because we knew the lot was zoned commercial. However, when we purchased our house we were never told that access would come through Daniel Drive and that a large store and up to 5 other establishments would be placed on this one lot. This development will negatively impact all its surrounding residents in terms of safety, quality of life, and property values. Dear City Council Members, I plead with you to reject this proposed development. Many Eagan voters will not be happy with their city officials if they would allow such a large commercial development to be built next to their homes. Please help us to ensure that whatever is built here maintains the quality of life for the people in our neighborhood. So far, I believe Eagan has done a wonderful job carefully balancing commercial and residential growth. One of the reasons my family moved here was to get away from the city and to have a better quality of life. Allowing this development to go through would destroy our quiet, safe neighborhood. Sincerely, The Westenberg Family 4241 Daniel Drive, Eagan 08/25/2005 /5/ Pam Dudziak From: Sue Meyer [smeyer@smm.org] Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 3:20 PM To: Pam Dudziak Subject: Diffley Marketplace Development Dear Ms. Dudziak: I would like to join a number of my fellow residents of Cambridge Court Condominiums in expressing my views about the proposed Diffley Marketplace development. One of the aspects that appealed to me about this neighborhood 8 years ago when I was looking for a condo, was the peace and quiet of the area. I noticed that this changed with the construction of the Walgreens store, and had continued to change as more and more young people hang out in the parking lot by the trip of shops just south of Walgreens. AS more development for the sake of using the land happens, the appealing quality of the neighborhood diminishes. I wonder if the Eagan council members and planning commission have also considered that there is an elementary school located on the north side of Diffley across from the proposed location of Diffley Marketplace. Has the safety of the children walking, biking and being driven to school been discussed, especially with the projected increase in traffic? I am also concerned with the environmental impact of developing this plot of land. This location is also located in an area that is at the top of one of the tallest hills in Eagan, meaning that when it rains, the storm water run-off all heads down hill. The collection ponds at the Lexington-Diffley athletic fields seem to handle the load they receive now. Has anyone considered the effect of adding how many square feet of impervious surfaces - black top, sidewalks and roofs? Is the developer considering using more environmentally friendly practices in their project? I stand in agreement with a number of my neighbors in feeling that we really do not need another grocery store and other retail buildings n this neighborhood. I do understand that this land will eventually be developed. I trust that the people I have voted for in good faith will carefully review all aspects of any development and make decisions for the good of the people that live in the affected neighborhoods as well as the entire city of Eagan. Thank you for your consideration of my opinion. Sue Meyer School Outreach Residency Programs Science Museum of Minnesota /5"-„ August 17, 2005 City of Eagan Department of Community Development 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 RE: Diffley Marketplace / John Trautz Development Dear Planning Commission: I reside, with my wife and children, in the Wildflower Development, directly south of the proposed Diffley Marketplace development. I have several concerns about this proposal. I will be brief. What I have seen of the plans indicates that Rademacher's wishes to build a relatively large grocery store on this site. I am concerned about the scale of this proposed project --situated as it is in a largely residential area, and across the street from an elementary school. I believe the site is appropriate for a grocery store, and I know that I and other residents of the area would actually welcome a small, upscale grocery store in this area --given the paucity of such stores in the vicinity. However, I wonder whether the Rademacher's proposal is unrealistically large for the site and for the area. I am not an expert in these matters, but would encourage the Planning Commission to consider the possibility that the size of this proposal would overburden the area with traffic and would result in a decline in local property values and the livability of the area. We are nearing the end of new development opportunities in Eagan. Anything that we consider at this point should be a clear enhancement to our community, not something that is merely mediocre or a compromise. My second concern is with the esthetics of the project. Since purchasing my home in Eagan 11 years ago --with the notion that I was buying a property in an "upscale" community similar in stature to Edina or Woodbury --I have been disappointed with the general lack of architectural creativity and ambiance in new commercial building projects in this city. Town Center is an eyesore, and the area north of Yankee Doodle anchored by Byerly's, is in my estimation, a minimally pleasing project with few of the landscaping or architectural features that enhance a community. Comparing that area with Woodbury's recent building projects is illustrative of this. More to the point, I drive by the Rademacher's store in Jordan on a daily basis. That store is nothing more than a large, ugly, block structure sitting squatly in a parking lot. Given what I have seen of these building projects in Eagan, I fear that the Eagan Planning Commission lacks the backbone and vision necessary to demand of the builders, that they put something in our community that is fitting and adds to the area (something akin to a Kowalski's). Again, my fear, and the fear of my neighbors, is that this project will ultimately detract from the ambiance of our community and will degrade, rather than enhance, home values. We deserve better than that, and I would encourage the planning commission and department of development to expect and demand only the very best from the developers and builders of this project. Sincerel Gregory'(. Hanson 982 Trillium Court, Eagan, Minnesota 55123 (612) 203-1989 /S3 Page 1 of 2 Pam Dudziak From: Sackmaster, Mark [Mark.Sackmaster@chsinc.com] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 12:32 PM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: Mike Ridley; Jon Hohenstein Subject: Diffley/Lexington proposed development Dear Ms. Dudziak, Mr. Ridley and Mr. Hohenstein, My name is Mark Sackmaster. My wife, three children and I own the home at 1009 Trillium Court, which is directly behind the proposed grocery store. I have been out of town too much lately and will be out of town on business for the meeting on the 23rd. I would like to take a minute or 2 of your time to let you know our thoughts on this proposed development. We embrace the idea of a "neighborhood" grocery store focused on delivering healthy fresh food. The concept sounds very good to us. Part of the reason we bought where we did is because we were told that the empty lots behind us would be used for something similar to the strip mall usage just east of our development. We have been very pleased with the addition of the Walgreen's behind us and hope that the same result will occur with our new neighbors. I am not sure how much influence we can have on what goes behind us with this project, but in Walgreen's case they did exactly what I asked them to do with the plantings to their west and south. I have some concerns with the project as proposed. 1.) The size of the grocery store does not appear to be anywhere near to the scale of the surrounding environment. Nor have I seen anything near this size backing up to a residential neighborhood in this City. A "neighborhood" store should not have to be this big. 2.) They would like to be open 24/7. This does not seem necessary for a "neighborhood" grocery. Plus it will add to late night problems with teenagers behind our residences. Also, I assume we will have a tremendous noise problem all night long. This is probably the biggest concern I have. 3.) The traffic off Lexington Point Parkway is already a disaster and this will surely add to the problem of getting out of our neighborhood. 4.) The uncertainty of the future development to the east of the grocery store. Eagan has been a tremendous place for my family to live and much of the reason for this is the way it has been developed with families in mind. I am sure that this will continue with this development. I apologize for the tardiness of this communication and hope that you will take my families thoughts and concerns into mind while planning this development with the developer and his tenants. If you have any questions of me can be reached at this email or sack4444@aol.com. Tank you for your time and consideration. Regards Mark Sackmaster 1009 Trillium Court Eagan, MN 55123 H# 681-8281 W# 355-3718 C# 270-1293 08/19/2005 /Sy Page 1 of 1 Pam Dudziak From: Kristi Hassett [kristihassett@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 2:04 PM To: Pam Dudziak Subject: Commercial Development Hello - I am writing concerning the proposed commercial development by Reliance Development Company of the vacant land east of Walgreens and South of Diffley. My main concerns are two: I would like to see the grocery store hours more restricted rather than a 24/7 format. There are many young families in the neighborhood and the amount of increased noise/traffic in the neighborhood would be unsatisfactory. Also, I would like to see the exit to the parking lot on Diffley, not Daniel Drive. There are many small children on this street in addition to three schools in a two block radius. The increased traffic on a residential street would not be desired. Please forward my concerns for consideration. Thank you. Kristi Hassett 4237 Daniel Drive Eagan, MN 55123 08/19/2005 /SS August 16, 2005 Pamela Dudziak Project Planner City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122-1897 Re: Reliance Development Diffley Marketplace Plan Development "Our mission is to generate opportunity for ourselves..." Dear Ms Dudziak, We are writing to express our concern about the proposed development of the vacant land ('Outlot A', Lexington Pointe 13t Addition) east of Walgreens near the intersection of Lexington Avenue and Diffley Road in Eagan. Our primary concerns are the `size' of the grocery store (i.e., physical size of the building, its proximity to adjacent residential properties and the `scale' of the store operations) and the intensity of the development planned for the site (more than 73,000 SF of retail sales, numerous `roads', traffic and parking for 360 cars on less than 9 acres of `buildable' land). We believe that the grocery store is driving the intensity of the entire development so we have limited our comments to specific concerns about the grocery store. Building Size: We understand that Outlot A is designated "Retail Commercial" (RC) according to the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan (CGP), adopted in 2001 and RC is a land use category and not a zoning requirement. While "Supermarkets" are not specifically identified as "intended uses" in the City's Zoning Ordinances for Neighborhood Business (NB) Districts, we understand that the Planning Department considers grocery stores; "retail sales", which is allowed under the NB zoning guidelines. "Supermarkets" are examples of commercial uses allowed under the RC land use category in the CGP, however, the guide indicates: "Neighborhood commercial development should be designed at a scale compatible with nearby residential uses." The Wildflower subdivision, is by CGP definition; "Low Density Residential (0-4 units per acre)" and only "Agriculture" and "Large Lot Residential" are lower intensity land uses. At 43,175 SF, the proposed grocery store would be almost 3 times bigger than the adjacent Walgreens store (15,120 SF) and would be more appropriate in a General Business (GB) District development. Portions of the new building are shown to be 35 feet above grade, which exceeds the maximum height limit of 30 feet for a "neighborhood" compatible building. To be in compliance with Neighborhood Business District zoning requirements, the maximum allowable height at the front of the store should not exceed 28`-6" because of the 3 foot grade differential around the building. To illustrate the point further, consider the "big box" Best Buy store proposed for the former Red Robin/Mann Theater site off Pilot Knob Road. With no adjacent residential properties, the 45,000 SF building may be acceptable in that location, however, I believe that a 'Best Buy' building would be an impossible sell at Lexington and Diffley. So please don't lose sight of the fact that both the "big box" Best Buy and the "big box" Radamachers are comparable retail operations and neither facility is compatible with a residential neighborhood. Page 1 / S6 • Proximity to Adjacent Residential Properties According to the Eagan Planning Commission's "Planning Report - Walgreens", dated July 28, 1998, Walgreens representatives, in reference to potential concerns about a roadway in the 60' strip on the south edge of Outlot A (east of Lexington Center and west and north of Wildflower), proposed to construct its service road along Diffley Ave. The Planning Report indicates: "recognizing the possible adverse impacts of such a roadway location upon the adjacent single family residential uses (to the south) the applicant has proposed a northerly shift of the "frontage road" (alongside Diffley)." The Planning Report also indicates: "Future development of Outlot A should give consideration to conveyance of the strip to adjacent parcels." As part of its plan review, the Planning Department indicated in the Planning Report that: "The developer is proposing to vacate the existing 60' wide drainage & utility easement along the south edge of Outlot A, platted with Lexington Pointe 10th Addition. This easement provided designation for a planned roadway to be constructed with future development of the site. With the proposed development of a frontage road along Diffley Road, this roadway designation is not needed and therefore the drainage and utility easement could be vacated." We believe vacation of the 60' drainage & utility easement was approved, in effect, with the approval of the Walgreens PD and no "roadway" should be constructed within 60 feet of the south edge of Outlot A. Area residents said NO to an east -west roadway along the south edge of the property in 1998 and area residents expect the Planning Commission to protect our properties now. For the Planning Department to claim that, the proposed road along the south edge of Outlot A is a "private road" and not restricted as part of the Walgreens PD agreement, seems a bit disingenuous. • Scale of Store Operations According to Radamacher representatives at the "neighborhood meeting" held by Reliance Development on July 6, 2005, the store is expected to draw from a "3 -mile radius" and Radamachers anticipates "15,000 customer trips a week to the site" (which does not include increased traffic. generated by the other businesses). Deliveries are expected through out the week with the heaviest truck traffic expected on Monday morning (6:00 AM to 10:OOAM). Radamachers representative indicated that "30 trucks, including approximately 10 semi trailers and 20 'UPS' like "box trucks" could be expected on-site on a typical Monday. Deliveries would not be limited to Mondays and delivery trucks would be entering and leaving the site to a "lesser extent through out the week" according to the Radamacher representatives. Radamacher representatives also indicated that the proposed store would be open from 6:00 AM to Midnight initially, and that Radamachers intends to ask for the City's approval to operate 24 hours, 7 days a week. We understand that 24/7 operation is not allowed by zoning ordinance but could be approved by the City Council. We understand that 24/7 operation is "essential" in the very competitive grocery business and Radamachers cannot compete with the Rainbows, Kowalski's and Page 2 /S7 Page 1 of 1 Jon Hohenstein From: Mira Pepper Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 1:56 PM To: 'Tracie Hughes' Subject: RE: Diffley Marketplace. Your message has been forwarded to the Mayor and City Council as well as the Community Development Director. Thank you for your comments. From: Tracie Hughes[mailto:traciehughes@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 1:32 PM To: City Council Subject: Diffley Marketplace. I realize that you probably have been overloaded with e-mails and information regarding this subject. I just have some concerns that I would like to pass on to the City Council for consideration before the October 6th meeting. Through neighborhood meetings and communications, the residence of Daniel Drive have been working together in our approach to the Diffley Marketplace proposal. Some things that have been shared with me concem me enough to bring it to your attention. Certain Council members have been contacted by members of our neighborhood. Some willing to listen and others who have already made up their minds before hearing any information brought to them on October 6th. There have been some conflicting facts that concem me about decisions being made prior to the meeting on the 6th. No one seems to know what purpose the Daniel Drive access is to serve. One council member stated that it was always meant to be a main access point, yet the city engineer stated the opposite. Who are we supposed to believe and who has the correct information? As Eagan residents, we need to know who we can go to for the right and proper information. A council member has also been quoted as saying "Doesn't the Daniel Drive access point ONLY affect 2 houses?" My question to you is how many residents of Eagan does something need to affect for it to be an issue to the City Council? And has anyone considered the fact that traffic will go both north and south on Daniel Drive and affect everyone in this neighborhood. The same council member was also quoted as saying thatshe "legally didn't think she had the right to tell the developer how to use this property since he was the owner and that he should be able to use it how he sees fit." If that is so, how come the City of Eagan can tell my neighbor that he cannot build a storage shed/garage behind his property? Isn't that his property and isn't the City telling him how to use it? Once again, thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Tracie Hughes 4225 Daniel Drive 651-905-0943 traciehughes@comcast.net 9/29/2005 /57 Page 1 of 2 Jon Hohenstein From: neil-rad©comcast.net Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 7:22 AM To: Jon Hohenstein Subject: Diffley Marketplace Comments To: Please forward to all Eagan City Council Members and Mayor while I am looking forward to the development of Diffley Marketplace, I have some serious questions, comments, and concerns I strongly ask you consider before voting to proceed with this planned development. The following is a list of concerns and objections as a homeowner and parent of 2 children in the very nearby schools in the direct adjacent neighborhood: 1) TRAFFIC/School Proximity is problematic: Serious concern here to limit size and scope of traffic from the new development to be reasonable with the nearby area. We have 3 schools that directly affect the traffic flow on Diffley: a) Northview elementary (directly across the street): Currently adding on a school expansion, also includes a large number of baseball fields, football and soccer fields/games also held at Northview with very heavy usage in that the parking often goes across the street into the current frontage road to Walgreens (within the proposed development). In addition to the kids that are bused there, there is still a substantial amount of car, bicycle and children foot traffic due to: an early AM daycare drop off, children walking and biking to school from neighborhoods to the south, parents dropping off kids to school in car lines on regular and more on rain days, and early am activities such as regular band practices before school starts. To say that the kids are all bused there is NOT TRUE. There are lines off Diffley, Daniel Drive area to enter the school every morning, none of which are buses, which use the west entrance. This is already a safety issue, added more or excessive traffic from the new proposed development would make it worse, not improve it. b) Dakota Hillsa Middle School (DHMS): has a larger enrollment vs the elementary. Auto traffic runs peak from 7:25 to 7:55am, and consistently backs up on Diffley from Braddock Trail stoplight. In addition to busses and parent drop offs, we also have children walking and biking to and from school. c) Eagan High School: (EHS) is much larger is size, with Auto traffic runs peak from 7:00 - 7:35am, with significant traffic backups from Braddock Trial (stoplights) back thru the Diffley / Daniel Drive intersection. d) New intersection essestially created from the exit from the proposed development onto Daniel Drive. This would result in 2 major intersections very close (with feet of each other), similar to 5 corners. Can a study / reasonable projection be made to assess the Daniel Drive and Diffley impact? Suggest the planned development be scaled back accordingly. 2) 100% tree removal of the large mature trees on the east side of development, not consistent with saving the greenery, preserving a portion of trees was ignored instead of maintaining or improving with the nearby area with some buffer on the east side. 3) The Proposed Grocery Store at 43,175 sq ft at 3x the size of Walgreens is grossly oversized. I suggest a more reasonable and appropriate size for the location and impact area, say maximum up to 30,000 square feet. 4) Development proposed to support a total of 360 parking cars, which is highly excessive for that small strip of land 9/29/2005 /S,9 Page 2 of 2 5) If outlet is set to divert traffic on to Daniel Drive without a traffic study, something is wrong. this Road already services almost an entire set of neighborhoods, and will only get excessive with regular traffic, directly in line with bus routes and local congested traffic from all THREE schools as mentioned above. This is a heavy convergence of children in this area, which makes it very unique. 6) A southern service road 20 feet from Wildflower residences is very inappropriate (and I don't even live there). I the planning commission member indicated, proposal would have traffic from Walgreens to thru the parking spaces?? the existing frontage road acts as a safety buffer to the 4 lane traffic on Diffley Ave, and it should stay AS IS for safety reasons. 7) Two add'l 10,000 size retail buildings (or 20,000) also seem way too large for the planned development, again, suggest downsizing of the project to help lower the traffic and # of parking slots needed. 8) Lumping in 3 Class 2 Restaurants is not appropriate (like writing a blank check), if 1 �r 2 "end up" with high volume fast food, major impact to the small area in excess of original plan. 9) Suggest a significant downsizing with ample buffering and safety provisions, with preservation of trees and consideration to local surroundings. Conclusion: Scale of proposed project is not compatible with nearby neighborhood, including impact from all 3 schools. We live in the neighborhood behind Wildflower at 4406 Braddock Trail, with Daniel Drive inlet street and schools/kids/bikes as a major concern our family and kids, and the many other children in the area. Sincerely, Neil and Jodi Radermacher 651-452-3730 9/29/2005 /6a Diffley Marketplace Development Jon Hohenstein From: Mira Pepper Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 8:30 AM To: 'MoIIe.Tubbs@wellsfargo.com' Subject: RE: Diffley Marketplace Development Page 1 of 2 Your message has been forwarded to the Mayor and City Council, as well as the Community Development Director. Thank you for your comments. From: MoIIe.Tubbs@wellsfargo.com [mailto:Molle.Tubbs@wellsfargo.com] Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 7:41 PM To: City Council Cc: s.kukulski@worldnet.att.net Subject: Diffley Marketplace Development Please forward to: Mayor Pat Geagan Council Members: Peggy Carlson Cyndee Fields Meg Tilley Mike Maguire I am writing today to express my concems regarding the Diffley Marketplace Development. I live on the corner of Lexington Pointe Parkway and Pointe Way. I have lived in my home for the past 7 years and have continued to make huge improvements in both my land and home. As a homeowner in the neighborhood that will be affected by this development I need to state that 1 am very apposed to a development of this size being built. My main concem is the increase in traffic, our neighborhood already has an issue with speeding on Lexington Pointe Parkway - the speed limit is rarely adhered to and even less patrolled by our local law enforcement. If this traffic is increased by this development I foresee this already ongoing issue to increase severely. This is neighborhood that was not built to handle any more traffic than it's homeowners bring to it's streets every day. It was not built to handle shoppers coming and going from a grocery store. This is a neighborhood street with very young children, families and pets walking on its roads during all hours of the day and evening. I often say I am on the walking path of Eagan living on my comer - this should not be taken away from the residents of our neighborhood due to the safety concerns and issues that will come with increased traffic. In addition to the traffic issues on Lexington Pointe Parkway - there are safety issues on Lexington Ave.. Already there are too many turn offs to streets, parks and businesses from this area of Lexington Ave.. When the park empties from an event it is already dangerous for cars, bikes and walkers to be in this area - I would imagine it would be like this at all times with the size of property that is being proposed. What will happen when the park empties and the traffic increases? I would like to request you vote NO to the Diffley Marketplace Development - please listen to your concemed citizens! Thank you for your time and consideration, A concemed Eagan resident, Molle Tubbs 979 Pointe Way Eagan, MN 55123 651-406-8113 www.molle.tubbs@wellsfargo.com 9/30/2005 City of Eagan Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 2 Applicant Name: Diffley Ventures, LLC. Location: Outlot A, Lexington Pointe Thirteenth Addition & Outlot A, Lexington Pointe Seventh Addition Application: Preliminary Planned Development A Preliminary Planned Development to allow a commercial retail development including a grocery store, two multi -tenant retail buildings and two future commercial retail buildings upon 10.94 acres. File Number: 26 -PD -04-07-05 Member Dugan stated he would be abstaining from voting on this item. Planner Dudziak introduced this item and highlighted the information presented in the City Staff report dated August 18, 2005. She noted the background and history. She pointed out the following typos in the conditions of the staff report: the hours of operation should be 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., and the trash enclosures shall be relocated or redesigned to meet the 30 -foot setback. John Trautz, Diffley Ventures, LLC addressed the folloiiving°items of concern: Condition 6 _ The applicant requested allowance for three `Class 11Restaurants, one with a" drive through to accommodate a coffee shop. Condition 28 The applicant requested an opening h©ur;n600 a.m., ratheihara 7:00 a.m. for a grocery store and coffee shop use. Traffic The applicant requested"tiie access on DiffleyRoad remain as a full access to relieve traffic from Daniel Drive. If restriction is needed, the applicant prefers restriction at Daniel Drive. Square Footage Mr. Trautz explained typical square footage of a grocery store and stated the proposed store is50% smaller thaia typical.-CuqFoods store. He also requested additional buildind°height to add an rchitectura°l feature at the entrance. He displayed building materials and color renderings. Paul Radermacher, Radermacher Holdings explained his family-owned grocery business and displayed the site plan. Vicki VanDell, Landform, Consulting Engineer for the developer explained changes to the site plan including parking, green space, and square footage of the grocery store. Chair Heyl opened the public hearing. Dave Giel 990 Trillium Court stated concern with the size of the grocery store, increase in traffic, signage, and building height. Approximately 70 residents raised their hands, sharing the concern for the size of the grocery store and increasing traffic. Approximately 20 residents raised their hands, sharing the concern for the signage. City of Eagan Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 3 Karen Entzion 977 Trillium Court stated support for the proposal; however, she stated concern for setbacks and green space. She recommended screening of the rooftop mechanical equipment and lighting controls. She explained that the coffee shops she patronizes do not have a drive through; however, she would favor a coffee shop drive through if no other fast food restaurants were allowed in the development. She stated many neighboring residents will walk to the store; therefore the proposed amount of parking is not needed. She lastly stated the stores should open at 7:00 a.m. Approximately 13 residents raised their hands, stating they reside directly behind the proposed development. Approximately 35-40 residents raised their hands, sharing the concern about the landscaping and green space. Approximately 45-60 residents raised their hands, sharing the concern about the lighting. Approximately 25-35 residents raised their hands, sharingthe concern about the hours of operation. Approximately 15 residents raised their hands, sharing their preference fora- 7:00 a.m. versus 6:00 a.m. open time. Approximately 25-35 residents raised their hands, sham_the concern about the 1:00 a.m. closing time. Approximately 60-70 residents raised their hands, ;sharing theLLconcern for the odors created by a fast food restaurant. Zero residents raised:Their hands.when ChairHey! asked how many residents would visit a fast food restaurant`in the neig iborhood. Tracie Hughes 4225 Daniel`Drive stated concern for increasing traffic and safety of children who may walk to thenearby elementary school. Janet Westenberg 4241 Daniel Drive -also stated concern with traffic around the elementary-school. Approximately 45-60 residents raised their hands, sharing the concern for the safety of children traveling=tow and from school. Shivshankar Venkataramani 969 Wildflower Court stated concern for the amount of trucks that will be traveling to and from the grocery store. Approximately 45-65 residents raised their hands, sharing the concern for the truck and delivery traffic. Giri Alwar 964 Trillium Court stated concern about a negative impact on property values and quality of life. Approximately 45-60 residents raised their hands, sharing the concern for property value. /&3 City of Eagan Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 4 Tom Hair 990 Kensington Trail #203 stated a general concern for elderly mobility and stated the proposal would be convenient for those who cannot drive. Approximately 15-20 residents raised their hands, stating they would walk to a grocery store or food establishments. Charlie Rogers 4213 Daniel Drive stated concern for storage of lawn equipment, another pond to breed mosquitoes, and loitering children. Roger Thompson 1005 Trillium Court stated concern for the height of the proposed buildings, grading, and year-round screening. Approximately 20-25 residents raised their hands, sharing the concern for the height of the buildings. Tom Kukulski 997 Trillium Court stated the floor elevation of the -grocery store is the same as his deck and his lower level is even lower, so. hewould be, looking at the proposed development from a hole. Julie Vigness Pint 580 Chapel Lane stated she is of a resident of the neighborhood, however supports the development because she nks it would be an assetio the community and stated the Radermacher has a reputetion`for operating good family -run stores. David Berdahl 993 Trillium Court stated concernthat even if theoperational hours are µ restricted, traffic will be present 24 hours bite a da -to deliveries. Lloyd Johnson, Super Value, would be distributor to the - proposed store explained aspects of the grocer store in -regard to sizeand that the size of the building is dictated by what space they need to carr the necessary products to serve the customers effectively. Paul Danielson 972 Trillium Court stated the property was zoned Planned Development when he;:purchased hismhome'He stated concern for setbacks and that the 20 feet required Jo the residential is not enough with the sidewalk and retaining wall also in that 20 feet lHe_also stated concern about revised plans mentioned by the applicant that the residents didnot see, that he wants a development compatible with the neighborhood and asked if there had been consideration to making a one-way drive lane from Patrick Road north into the. development. Brian Everts 981 Wildflower Court stated concern for the traffic, including after school activities. He mentioned that a walkway was originally proposed then abandoned. There being no further public comment, Chair Heyl closed the public hearing and turned the discussion back to the Commission. The Advisory Planning Commission, City Staff and applicant responded to the following issues: Size/Height City Planner Ridley stated the proposed development site is similar to the size of the Best Buy site on Yankee Doodle Road. A City of Eagan Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 5 Member Bendt stated disagreement with the height of the front elevation. Chair Hey' explained that the City asks for unique and architecture, therefore she is not opposed to the height of the front elevation. Member Matthees stated the front elevation does not face the residential property, therefore she is not opposed to the height. Member Gladhill stated architectural features and height requirements can work together. He stated the scale is inappropriate for a neighborhood business and the traffic is going to increase greatly and become more dangerous. Member Chavez stated opposition to the scale of the development Traffic/Access Assistant City Engineer John Gorder stated all traffic information isincluded in the staff report. He stated the applicant accurately reflected theFconcerns ofIh'e,,County, which has indicated that both access points on Diffley Road can not be full accesses. Member Keeley stated concern with lack of adequate stacking on Daniel Drtee Member Gladhill stated the access is troublesome for a:development such as this. Elementary School Assistant City Engineer John Gorder statedli*Walgreen's Diffley Road access is the best option. He stated the school has indicated'" 100%xof the children are bussed, with the exception to those who reside in the apartments north.on Lexington Avenue. He explained that signalization rs a, possibility ifftte traffic warrants it. Drainage and Utility -Easement` Assistant City Engineer J ,hn Golder explainedwthe intention was to reserve the property for a possible public street inFthe future The. easement was vacated at the time of the Walgreen'sdevelopment. Foe stated the City has not studied stacking at Daniel Drive. Setbacks PlannerrDudziak stated the7buildings do meet the 30 foot setback required in NB, NeighborhCdia,Business zoning, and the parking and pavement areas do meet the minimum 20-footsetback from the public right-of-way and residential property. Green Space/Screeninq Ms. VanDell describedathe proposed 15 -foot high arborvitae and other trees for screening and showed cross-section drawings of how the landscaping would be placed relative to the berm and between the development and residential properties. Member Gladhill stated the screening is minimal and is not adequate, when considering the concrete block that will face the residential development. Mechanical Equipment Screening Mr. Trautz stated the rooftop units would be in the center of the building and a two- to three-foot parapet is proposed for screening on the retail units. He stated a two -foot parapet for screening is proposed for the grocery store. /6$ Odor City of Eagan Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 6 Mr. Trautz explained that the grocery store wouldn't generate odors but the ventilation is directed upward. He stated a sandwich shop and coffee shop will do little to no cooking so odors will be minimal. Signage Mr. Trautz explained that the sign request is for three monument signs and one shopping center. Member Gladhill stated four pylon signs are not needed. Lighting Ms. VanDell displayed a lighting plan that includes 25 foot maximum height lighting poles throughout the parking lot with shorter lighting poles closer to the residential properties. She stated lighting controls will be in place to minimize light spillover. Hours of Operation Mr. Radermacher stated it is more important to have a 6-0.0 a.m opening than a 1:00 a.m. closing and they could live with a 12:00 midnight time. Member Gladhill asked if restocking will occur overnight. Mr. Radermacher explained that some employeesWwll remain in the store overnight (stocking and baking and some meat department staff; however, deliveries would only be accepted during regular businesstours. Number of Trucks and Hours of Delivery Mr. Trautz stated deliveries are limited to the from Mr. Radermacher statedAhetrcks will access the grocery store from the rear and exit the opposite way, not requiring:Wturn around. He stated the hours of delivery are typically between 8`AM 7 2 PM =rid that deliveries are not accepted outside of normal business hours. He also stated Wednesday ar d Sundays are light delivery days. oor for the two small establishments. Parking Stall"s Mr. Trautz stated that in:their experience, nine foot wide parking stalls are adequate, 9.5' stalls are, roomy and tenrfoot stalls are generously wide. Screening Ms. VanDell'explained the screening plan and discussed that the existing aspen trees atop the existing: berm will not be removed. Member Chavez stated the scale of the development, not the uses, concerns him. Member Hansen stated the application does not meet the requirements of a Preliminary Planned Development. Chair Heyl opined that many concerns have been addressed and that the property has been zoned for commercial uses since 1976. She referenced the City's retail study that acknowledged this area specifically as a commercial node due to its location at Lexington Avenue and Diffley Road which are two major county roads that anticipated and planned for commercial retail traffic. She stated her opinion that ten foot parking spaces are not needed and the height of the building is not an issue of concern for her because it is only a minor portion of one building that will only serve to enhance that building's attractiveness. She stated there could be more give and take on the issue o City of Eagan Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 7 neighbors . She also stated the proposed grocery will serve an underserved area of Eagan and that it will provide a different nitch than Rainbow and Cub Foods, which makes it a good addition to Eagan in general. She stated there are other schools and daycare facilities on major commercial roadways (Faithful Shepherd School on Yankee Doodle Road, numerous daycare facilities on county roads, etc.). She stated truck traffic and hours of operation could be controlled with a condition, however would recommend a 6:00 a.m. open for early customers and a closing time of midnight. Member Bendt moved, Member Heyl seconded a motion to recommend approval of a Preliminary Planned Development for a retail commercial development (Diffley Marketplace) consisting of a 43,175 sq. ft. grocery store, two 10,000 sq. ft. multi -tenant retail buildings, and two other retail buildings upon 10.94 acres located south of Diffley Road and east of Lexington Avenue, legally described as Outlot 4, Lexington Pointe 13th Addition and Lexington Pointe 7th Addition, in the NW 1/4 of Secti65 26 subject to the following conditions as amended: 1. A Final Planned Development Agreement shall be executed for each Phase of the development. The following plans are necessaryfor the. Final Planned Development Agreement: • Final Site Plan • Final Building Elevations • Final Site Lighting Plan • Final Landscaping Plan • Final Signage Plan 2. The property shall be platted prior to issuance of any building Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 7th Addition, a 0.1'5Lacr «parcel adjacent: Daniel Drive) shall be included in the plat combining the twoexisting b tlots that"comprise this site into a single parcel. The platting shall be completed prior`ossuance of any building permits. 3. Uses permitted within the N .;zoning district shall be permitted within the two Phase 1 retail buildings. Any use that s requires a conditional use permit in the NB zoning district shall not be permitted, and will require an amendment to the PD in lieu of a conditional use permit 4. The approved=-use;for the- Phase 11 development shall be only retail sales. Phase 11 development will require Fin tElanned Development approval for each building. Each:Final Planned -Development' application will require a Site Plan Review by the City Council. 5. Any use. intPhase 11 other than retail sales will require an amendment to the PD. 6. Only three:Blass 11 restaurants, with one drive-through service, shall be permitted within the Ph -1k] multi -tenant retail buildings. Any additional Class 11 restaurants in the Phase 1 retellshall require a Planned Development Amendment. 7. Future development on the east end of the site shall be subject to the minimum setback requirements in the NB zoning district, except that any proposed buildings in the future phase(s) shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the residential property to the south. 8. With future subdivision, cross -easements will be needed for ingress/egress and parking in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. 9. Phase 11 development on the east end of the site shall be subject to the minimum setback requirements in the NB zoning district, except that any proposed buildings should be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the residential property to the south to be consistent with the concept plan for the future phase(s) and with the building setback established by Phase 1. 10. The trash enclosures shall be relocated or redesigned to meet the 30 -foot setback from the south orooerty line. City of Eagan Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 8 11. The development shall provide a service drive dedicated to through movements and without direct parking stalls, from the existing access onto Diffley Road to the Walgreen's property. 12. This development shall dedicate 10' drainage and utility easements centered over all common lot lines and adjacent to private property or public right-of-way. 13. This development shall dedicate all public right-of-way and temporary slope easements for ultimate development of adjacent roadways as required by the appropriate jurisdictional agency. 14. This development shall dedicate adequate drainage and ponding easements to incorporate the required high water elevation necessitated by City storm water storage volume requirements and area acceptable to the City Engineer. 15. All public streets and utilities necessary to provide service to this development shall be designed by a registered professional engineer in accordance with City Codes and engineering standards, guidelines and policies.------ -- 16. To ensure that Walgreen's will retain access to Diffley Roawith future subdivision of the subject site, the developer shall provide a copy of tthe7access easement affording Walgreen's access to Diffley Road for review andapproval by the City Attorney prior to release of the plat and Planned Development agreements for recording. 17. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion, and sediment control plan must -be_ prepared in accordance with current City standards prior=- final plat; approval. 18. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted on theproposed grading plan. The financial guarantee shall be included in the Development Contract and not be released until one year after the date of installation.--:, 19. City water quality requirements shall b met primarily through construction of an on- site pond on the east end of the parcel -This-:pond shall ha a minimum treatment volume of 1.5 acre-feet and a maximum dept rof:10 feet. To account for the 1.04 acres of the site that drain off site to city streets without stormwater treatment, cash in lieu of ponding shall bepaid at the rates"in effect at the time of payment. 20. The applicant shall' submit- a revised Tre'Mitigation Plan that shows the mitigation plantings separate separeCfrom thejLandscape Plan. This revised plan shall be submitted to City staff for review"and approval by the City Forester prior to inclusion in the Preliminary PD Agreement. 21. The proposed grading Plan must b& -revised to incorporate berming along Diffley Road. 22. The shall review the°andscape Plan and revise it as necessary to address_the following issues a. Selection of plants and use of taller narrower evergreen materials along the south boundarj fotsolid screening and appropriate size and tolerance for growing conditions. b. Potential conflictsLbetween parking lot island trees and site lighting. c. Designation of`:mitigation plantings in addition to landscape plantings. d. Added shrub and/or perennial beds along Diffley Road. 23. The site lighting plan shall be reviewed and calculations clarified or lighting modified to better achieve the IESNA recommended standards and reduce light spillover onto adjacent residential property. 24. Additional shielding or adjustments in the proposed lighting shall be made to achieve the 1.0 foot-candle or less at all points along the development where it abuts residential property. 25. The proposed grocery building elevations shall be modified to utilize brick as the primary exterior material rather than EIFS. 26. There shall be no signage on the cart corrals, and all shopping carts should be retrieved from the corrals and stored within the building overnight. 27. Awnings on the two retail buildings shall be a canvas or Sunbrella material and shall 8, City of Eagan Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 9 28. Hours of operation for the grocery store and other commercial businesses shall be restricted to between 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., consistent with the City zoning ordinance. A vote was taken: Aye: Chair Heyl and Member Bendt. Nay: Members Chavez, Dugan, Hansen, Matthees, and Gladhill. Motion failed 2-5. Member Dugan abstained from voting on this item. Member Bendt moved, Member Heyl seconded a motion''to recommend approval of a Final Planned Development for a retail commercialdevelopment (Diffley Marketplace) consisting of a 43,175 sq. ft. grocery store, two10,000 sq. ft. multi - tenant retail buildings, upon 10.94 acres located soutl kof Diffleoad and east of Lexington Avenue, legally described as Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 13th Addition and Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 7th Addition, in the NW 1/4 of Section 26 subject to the following conditions as amended: 1. A Final Planned Development Agreement shall.be=executed for each Phase of the development. The following plans are necessary for the Final Planned Development Agreement: • Final Site Plan • Final Building Elevations • Final Site Lighting Plan • Final Landscaping• Plan • Final Signage Plan: m 2. The property shall be platted prior to issuance of.any building permits. Outlot A, Lexington Pointe,71' Addition, a 0.15 acre°parcel adjacent to Daniel Drive) shall be included in the plat-. combining:the_two existing outlots that comprise this site into single,parcel Theplatting shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits;. 3:` manly two Class 11 restaurants both without drive-through service, shall be permitted within the Phase 1 multi -tenant retail buildings. Any additional Class II restaurants in the Phase I retail shall require a Planned Development Amendment. 4. Uses permitted within the NB zoning district shall be permitted within the two Phase I retail=buildngs. Any use that is requires a conditional use permit in the NB zoning district shall not be permitted, and will require an amendment to the PD in lieu of -6 conditional use permit. 5. The trash enclosures shall be relocated or redesigned to meet the 30 -foot setback from the south property line. 6. The development shall provide a service drive dedicated to through movements and without direct parking stalls, from the existing access onto Diffley Road to the Walgreen's property. 7. This development shall dedicate 10' drainage and utility easements centered over all common lot lines and adjacent to private property or public right-of-way. 8. This development shall dedicate all public right-of-way and temporary slope easements for ultimate development of adjacent roadways as required by the appropriate jurisdictional agency. %69 City of Eagan Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 10 9. This development shall dedicate adequate drainage and ponding easements to incorporate the required high water elevation necessitated by City storm water storage volume requirements and area acceptable to the City Engineer. 10. All public streets and utilities necessary to provide service to this development shall be designed by a registered professional engineer in accordance with City Codes and engineering standards, guidelines and policies. 11. To ensure that Walgreen's will retain access to Diffley Road with future subdivision of the subject site, the developer shall provide a copy of the access easement affording Walgreen's access to Diffley Road for review and approval by the City Attorney prior to release of the plat and Planned Development agreements for recording. 12. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion, and sediment control plan must be prepared in accordance with current City standards prior to.final plat approval. 13. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted on the proposedmgrading plan. The financial guarantee shall be included in the Development Contract and not be released until one year after the date of installation. 14. City water quality requirements shall be met primarily through construction of an on-site pond on the east end of the parcel. This pond shall have a minimum treatment volume of 1.5 acre-feet and a maximum depth of 10 -deet. To account for the 1.04 acres of the site that drain oft:Site to city streets without,stormwater treatment, cash in lieu of ponding shall be1Paid at therates in effect time of payment. 15. The applicant shall submit a revised Tree Mitigation Plan that shows the mitigation plantings separate from the Landscapelan. This revised plan shall be submitted to City staff for review,.and approval byvthe City Forester prior to inclusion in the Preliminary PDAgreement. 16. The proposed Grading Plan must be revise&taincorperate berming along Diffley Road. 17. The developer shafeview the Landscape Plan and revise it as necessary to address the following issues: a. Selectionolants arid use of taller narrower evergreen materials along the south boundary for solid, screening end appropriate size and tolerance for growing conditions �' b.F._Poteiitial conflicts between parking lot island trees and site lighting. c ` Designation -of mitigation plantings in addition to landscape plantings. 42:. Added shrubtna d/or perennial beds along Diffley Road. 18. Theu:site lighting plan shall be reviewed and calculations clarified or lighting modified to better achieve the IESNA recommended standards for light levels and uniformity necessary for security and safety, and to reduce light spillover onto adjacent residential property. 19. Additional shielding or adjustments in the proposed lighting shall be made to achieve the 1,.0 footcandle or less at all points along the development where it abuts residential property. 20. The proposed grocery building elevations shall be modified to utilize brick as the primary exterior material rather than EIFS. 21. There shall be no signage on the cart corrals, and all shopping carts should be retrieved from the corrals and stored within the building overnight. 22. Awnings on the two retail buildings shall be a canvas or Sunbrella material and shall not be illuminated and shall contain no signage. 23. Hours of operation for the grocery store and other commercial businesses shall be restricted to between 600 a.m. and 12:00 a.m., - - - • - ordinance. /70 City of Eagan Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 11 A vote was taken: Aye: Chair Heyl and Member Bendt. Nay: Members Chavez, Dugan, Hansen, Matthees, and Gledhill. Motion failed 2-5. Member Gledhill moved, Member Chavez seconded a motion to recommend denial of a Preliminary Planned Development for a retail commercial development (Diffley Marketplace) consisting of a 43,175 sq. ft. grocery store, two 10,000 sq. ft. multi -tenant retail buildings, and two other retail buildings upon 10.94 acres located south of Diffley Road and east of Lexington Avenue, legally described as OutloteA`Lexington Pointe 13th Addition, in the NW '/4 of Section 26 due to the following reasons: 1. Scale of the proposed development is not compatible -with nearby residential 2. Access will be problematic 3. Building height exceeds allowed code 4. Conditional use of Class II restaurant is not appropriate for this site. 5. Proposed hours of operation are not compatiblewith this location and the -,hours of operation extend beyond the hours the business is2open to.the public. z A vote was taken: Aye: Members Chavez, Dugan, Hansen Matthees and Gledhill. Nay: Chair Heyl and Member Bendt. Motion carried 5-2. Member Dugan abstainecLfronvvo ing on this item. MemberBendt moved, Member seconded a motion to recommend approval of a Final PlanneaDevelopment`for a retail commercial development (Diffley Marketplace) consisting`of a 43,175 sq.kftgrocestore and two 10,000 sq. ft multitenant retail buildings upon10.94 acrestocated south of Diffley Road and east of Lexington Avenue, legally described as Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 13th Addition and Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 7th Addition, in the ,NW 1/4 of Section 26 subject to the following conditions as amended: 1. A Final Planned Development Agreement shall be executed for each Phase of the development. The following plans are necessary for the Final Planned Development Agreement: • Final Site Plan • Final Building Elevations • Final Site Lighting Plan • Final Landscaping Plan • Final Signage Plan 2. The property shall be platted prior to issuance of any building permits. Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 7th Addition, a 0.15 acre parcel adjacent to Daniel Drive) shall be included in the plat combining the two existing outlots that comprise this site into a /7/ City of Eagan Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 12 single parcel. The platting shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits. 3. Only three Class II restaurants, one with drive-through service, shall be permitted within the Phase I multi -tenant retail buildings. Any additional Class II restaurants in the Phase I retail shall require a Planned Development Amendment. 4. Uses permitted within the NB zoning district shall be permitted within the two Phase I retail buildings. Any use that is requires a conditional use permit in the NB zoning district shall not be permitted, and will require an amendment to the PD in lieu of a conditional use permit. 5. The trash enclosures shall be relocated or redesigned to meet the 20 -foot setback from the south property line. 6. The development shall provide a service drive dedicated to through movements and without direct parking stalls, from the existing access onto Diffley Road to the Walgreen's property. 7. This development shall dedicate 10' drainage and utilityaesements centered over all common lot lines and adjacent to private property or public right-of-way. 8. This development shall dedicate all public right-of-way and temporary slope easements for ultimate development of adjacentroadways as required by the appropriate jurisdictional agency. 9. This development shall dedicate adequate,drainage and ponding easements to incorporate the required high water elevationecessitated by City storm`water storage volume requirements and area acceptable;,. to, the City Engineer 10. All public streets and utilities necessary to provide service to this development shall be designed by a registered professional engineer inaccordance with City Codes and engineering standards, guidelines: and policies. 11. To ensure that Walgreen's will retainuaccessto Diffley Road with future subdivision of the subject site, the developer shallprovide aEcopy of the access easement affording Walgreen's access to Diffley`Road for review and approval by the City Attorney prior to release of�the plat and -Planned Development agreements for recording. 12. A detailed grading,: Jrainageerosion, and:sediment control plan must be prepared in accordance with current City ;standards priorto final plat approval. 13. A detailed landscape plan shall be submiitted on the proposed grading plan. The financial guarantee shall be,.included in the Development Contract and not be released until onear after the date of installation. 14. Citiswater quality requirements shall be met primarily through construction of an onsite:pond on the easend of the parcel. This pond shall have a minimum treatment volume'of 1.5 acre-feet and a maximum depth of 10 feet. To account for the 1.04 acres of the -site that drain off site to city streets without stormwater treatment, cash in lieu of ponding shall ;be paid at the rates in effect at the time of payment. 15. The applicant shall submit a revised Tree Mitigation Plan that shows the mitigation plantings separate from the Landscape Plan. This revised plan shall be submitted to City staff for review and approval by the City Forester prior to inclusion in the Preliminary PD Agreement. 16. The proposed Grading Plan must be revised to incorporate berming along Diffley Road. 17. The developer shall review the Landscape Pian and revise it as necessary to address the following issues: a. Selection of plants and use of taller narrower evergreen materials along the south boundary for solid screening and appropriate size and tolerance for growing conditions. b. Potential conflicts between parking lot island trees and site lighting. c. Designation of mitigation plantings in addition to landscape plantings. d. Added shrub and/or perennial beds along Diffley Road. City of Eagan Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 13 18. The site lighting plan shall be reviewed and calculations clarified or lighting modified to better achieve the IESNA recommended standards for light levels and uniformity necessary for security and safety, and to reduce light spillover onto adjacent residential property. 19. Additional shielding or adjustments in the proposed lighting shall be made to achieve the 1.0 foot-candle or less at all points along the development where it abuts residential property. 20. The proposed grocery building elevations shall be modified to utilize brick as the primary exterior material rather than EIFS. 21. There shall be no signage on the cart corrals, and all shopping carts should be retrieved from the corrals and stored within the building overnight. 22. Awnings on the two retail buildings shall be a canvas or Sunbrella material and shall not be illuminated and shall contain no signage. 23. Hours of operation for the grocery store and other commercial businesses shall be restricted to between 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., consistent -with the City zoning ordinance. A vote was taken: Aye: Chair Heyl and Member Bendt. Nay: Members Chavez, Dugan, Hansen, Matthees and Gladhill. Motion failed 5-2. Member Dugan abstained from voting:on_this item. Member Gladhill moved, Member Chavez seconded aitioti8n to recommend denial of a Preliminary Planned Development for a retail commercial development (Diffley Marketplace) consisting of a 43,175 sq. ft. grocery store, two 10,000 sq. ft. multi -tenant retail buildings and unspecified future commercialietail upon 10.94 acres located south of Diffley Road and east.of Lexington Avenue, legally described as Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 13th Addition andNtlot A,"Lex ngton=,Pointe 7th Addition, in the NW 1/4 of Section 26 due to the following, reasons • 1. Scale of the proposed develop t ent is not compatible with nearby residential 2. Access.will be problematic 3. Building.: height exceedsLLallowed code 4. Conditional:.use of Class 'll restaurant is not appropriate for this site. 5. Proposed hours of operation are not compatible with this location and the hours of operation extend beyond the hours the business is open to the public. A vote was taken: Aye: Members Chavez, Dugan, Hansen, Matthees, and Gladhill. Nay: Chair Heyl and Member Bendt. Motion carried 5-2. Member Dugan abstained from voting on this item. Member Gladhill moved, Member Chavez seconded a motion to recommend denial of a Final Planned Development for a retail commercial development (Diffley Marketplace) consisting of a 43,175 sg. ft. grocery store and two 10.000 sq. ft. multitenant retail City of Eagan Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 23, 2005 Page 14 buildings upon 10.94 acres located south of Diffley Road and east of Lexington Avenue, legally described as Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 13th Addition and Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 7th Addition, in the NW 1/4 of Section 26 due to the following reasons: 1. Scale of the proposed development is not compatible with nearby residential 2. Access will be problematic 3. Building height exceeds allowed code 4. Conditional use of Class II restaurant is not appropriate for this site. 5. Proposed hours of operation are not compatible with this location and the hours of operation extend beyond the hours the business is open to the public. A vote was taken: Aye: Members Chavez, Dugan, Hansen, Matthees, and Gladhill Nay: Chair Heyl and Member Bendt. Motion carried 5-2. Member Dugan abstained from voting on this item /'751 PLANNING REPORT CITY OF EAGAN REPORT DATE: August 18, 2005 APPLICANT: Diffley Ventures, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: Diffley Ventures, LLC REQUEST: Planned Development Amendment CASE: 26 -PD -04-07-05; 26 -FD -12-07-05 HEARING DATE: August 23, 2005 APPLICATION DATE: August 2, 2005 PREPARED BY: Pamela Dudziak LOCATION: South of Diffley Rd./East of Lexington Ave. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: RC, Retail Commercial ZONING: PD, Planned Development SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a Preliminary Planned Development Amendment for a retail commercial development (Diffley Marketplace) consisting of a 43,175 sq. ft. grocery store, two 10,000 sq. ft. multi -tenant retail buildings, and two other retail buildings upon 10.94 acres located south of Diffley Road and east of Lexington Avenue, legally described as Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 13th Addition and Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 7th Addition, in the NW 1/4 of Section 26. The applicant is also requesting approval of a Final Planned Development for Phase I construction consisting of the grocery store and two multi -tenant retail buildings, with multiple buildings on one lot. AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW Chapter 11.20, Subd. 8, B., Determination, states: "In considering any petition for such district, the Planning Commission and the Council in the interests of carrying out the intent and purpose of this Subdivision, shall determine whether or not such planned development will: (1) better adapt itself to its physical and aesthetic setting and that of surrounding lands than does development of the underlying zoning district; (2) be feasible for the owner and developer economically to complete according to proposed plans; (3) benefit the community at large to a greater degree than would development of the underlying zoning district." Planning Report — Diffley Marketplace August 23, 2005 Page 2 BACKGROUND/HISTORY Zoning and Subdivision — The subject property was originally part of the more than 1,100 -acre Lexington South Planned Development, which was approved in June of 1976. The PD called for the establishment of a mixture of limited business, general business and commercial shopping center uses upon the subject property. In 1986, the Lexington South PD was amended and the subject site was included in the multi -phase Eagan Center Planned Development. The Eagan Center proposal included the 20,000 square foot Lexington Center retail strip center that currently lies southwest of the subject site. Conceptual development plans for the development called for the future establishment of a motor fuel station, an unspecified commercial use and a drive-through bank directly north of the retail strip center. Ultimately, only the retail center was constructed. A PD Agreement for the Eagan Center project was never formally executed. In April of 1992, this site along with the Walgreen's property to the west was incorporated into the Lexington Pointe Eighth Addition, which included 167 single-family residential lots and four commercially zoned outlots (along Diffley Road and Lexington Avenue). At the time of subdivision consideration, no specific plans were brought forward for the development of the outlots. In 1998, the Walgreen's store received zoning approval and a separate parcel was created for the Walgreen's development, leaving the remnant 10.79 acre outlot, which is the subject site of the current proposal. A drainage and utility easement had been established over the southerly 60 feet of the outlot south of Diffley Road, adjacent to the residential properties. The easement provided designation for a planned roadway to be constructed with future development of this site. However, with the construction of a frontage road along the northern portion of the property with development of the Walgreen's, the southerly alignment was not needed. Consequently, the easement was vacated with the final subdivision approval in December 1998 of Lexington Pointe 13th Addition. Comprehensive Guide Plan — In May of 1994, the City Council accepted a Commercial Land Use Study that identified the subject site as a neighborhood commercial node. The current RC land use designation was established upon this property in February 2001, with the adoption of the Comprehensive Guide Plan update. The RC land use designation is intended to provide "areas for a variety of retail related uses [such as] shopping centers, supermarkets, drugstores, department stores, convenience center/gas stations, restaurants, hotels and other businesses offering goods and services." EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject site consists of two outlots totaling 10.94 acres. The site is bounded by Diffley Road to the north, Walgreen's and Eagan Center to the west, single-family residential development to /76 Planning Report — Diffley Marketplace August 23, 2005 Page 3 the south, and Daniel Drive to the east. The bulk of the site is encompassed in Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 13th Addition, 10.75 acres. Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 7th Addition comprises a small portion of the east end of the site, adjacent to Daniel Drive. There is an existing driveway across the property that accesses Diffley Road and serves the Walgreen's to the west. The site is open, with a cluster of trees at the east end. SURROUNDING USES The following existing uses, zoning, and comprehensive guide plan designations surround the subject property: EVALUATION OF REQUEST Compatibility with Surrounding Area — With the adoption of the Commercial Land Use Study in 1994, this site was identified as a Neighborhood Commercial Node. The study set forth the following policies for such commercial nodes. ➢ Neighborhood Commercial nodes should be developed as complete centers to create a relatively compact node in order to avoid proliferation of scattered single -use commercial sites. > Neighborhood commercial nodes should be planned such that the majority of the City lies within an assumed one -mile service radius. Interstate freeways and principal arterials are considered to be a barrier to this radius. Establishment of a new Neighborhood Commercial nodes should be considered only when they do not overlap an existing Neighborhood Commercial node's service area and when the population and/or employment density can support this additional node. > Because of the frequent short-term trips associated with a Neighborhood Commercial node, transportation access needs will be medium to high. Therefore, these nodes should be located next to minor arterials or community collectors. The 48 -acre 1986 Eagan Center PD, contemplated uses such as a motor fuel station, unspecified commercial use and a drive-through bank. The Eagan Center PD included the residential property to the south of the subject site and anticipated additional commercial development to the south that is now residential. In 1998, the Walgreen's proposal was deemed consistent with the Eagan Center PD. /7% Existing Use Zoning Land Use Designation North School P, Public QP, Quasi -Public East Single-family residential PD, Planned Development LD, Low Density Residential South Single-family residential PD, Planned Development LD, Low Density Residential West Walgreen's/ Eagan Center PD, Planned Development RC, Retail Commercial EVALUATION OF REQUEST Compatibility with Surrounding Area — With the adoption of the Commercial Land Use Study in 1994, this site was identified as a Neighborhood Commercial Node. The study set forth the following policies for such commercial nodes. ➢ Neighborhood Commercial nodes should be developed as complete centers to create a relatively compact node in order to avoid proliferation of scattered single -use commercial sites. > Neighborhood commercial nodes should be planned such that the majority of the City lies within an assumed one -mile service radius. Interstate freeways and principal arterials are considered to be a barrier to this radius. Establishment of a new Neighborhood Commercial nodes should be considered only when they do not overlap an existing Neighborhood Commercial node's service area and when the population and/or employment density can support this additional node. > Because of the frequent short-term trips associated with a Neighborhood Commercial node, transportation access needs will be medium to high. Therefore, these nodes should be located next to minor arterials or community collectors. The 48 -acre 1986 Eagan Center PD, contemplated uses such as a motor fuel station, unspecified commercial use and a drive-through bank. The Eagan Center PD included the residential property to the south of the subject site and anticipated additional commercial development to the south that is now residential. In 1998, the Walgreen's proposal was deemed consistent with the Eagan Center PD. /7% Planning Report — Diffley Marketplace August 23, 2005 Page 4 In 2001, the City updated its Comprehensive Guide Plan. In so doing, the City applied a RC, Retail Commercial land use designation to this property. The RC designation is consistent with past retail and commercial designations for the property in both the Comprehensive Guide Plan and in the various Planned Developments. The RC designation states that compatibility considerations vary with the type and scale of development. Specific considerations include the following: ➢ Neighborhood commercial development should be designed at a scale compatible with nearby residential uses. ➢ Sidewalks and trails should be provided to connect these smaller commercial developments to surrounding neighborhoods. ➢ Larger commercial development oriented toward community -wide regional markets requires greater buffering where adjacent to lower intensity use. Such developments should also include unifying design elements to achieve an overall cohesive appearance. • With regard to access, retail commercial uses tend to generate substantial amounts of customer traffic and require visibility and convenient access and therefore, should be located along arterial or collector roads. ➢ Physical suitability of the land varies with the type and scale of development, but generally flat open sites with few physical constraints are desired because retail commercial uses tend to have larger building footprints and high parking needs. Because this site has been considered a neighborhood retail node and it is adjacent to single- family residential development, the proposal will be evaluated based on the NB, Neighborhood Business zoning standards. Summary of Proposal — Diffley Ventures, LLC is proposing a Preliminary Planned Development for the entire 10.94 acre site. The proposal consists of a 43,175 sq. ft. grocery store, two 10,000 sq. ft. multi -tenant retail buildings, and two additional unspecified commercial retail uses. The preliminary site plan notes possible bank and fast food restaurant, both with drive through service. The applicant is requesting simultaneous approval of a Final Planned Development for the grocery store and two multi -tenant retail buildings, which constitute Phase I of the development. Access to the site is proposed in four locations — directly to Diffley Road in the location of the existing Diffley Road access, to Diffley Road via Daniel Drive to the east, and to Lexington Avenue via two connections through the Eagan Center development. A storm drainage pond is proposed on the east end of the site. Pedestrian walkways are proposed to connect to the trail on Diffley Road, to Daniel Drive, and to Trillium Court via a trail easement between houses. Pedestrian walkways are proposed throughout the development. The applicant's narrative states that "the site has been designed with the community in mind and includes amenities such as walking trails, outdoor dining areas, free-standing monument walls and attractive landscaping." Retail uses for the two Phase I retail buildings are not specified. The NB zoning district permits uses such as salons, copy centers, florists, gift shops, hobby shops, and off -sale liquor stores and such uses would be considered permitted in Phase I here. Conditional uses in the NB zoning district include veterinary clinics, daycare facilities, Class II restaurants and on -sale liquor. Class /78 Planning Report — Diffley Marketplace August 23, 2005 Page 5 II restaurants may include sandwich shops or delis or coffee shops, with or without a drive- through. Because of concerns about peak parking demand, staff suggests only two such restaurants be permitted in the Phase I retail buildings, and both without drive-through service. Any additional Class II restaurants in the Phase I retail would require an amendment to the PD. For Phase II, the Preliminary PD should permit only retail sales and each Final PD for Phase If should be subject to a Site Plan review and approval by the City Council. Any use other than retail, or which includes drive-through service or is otherwise a conditional use in the NB zoning district, will require an Amendment to the Planned Development, including the two uses identified in this proposal (bank and fast food restaurant with drive through service). Subdivision/Lots — The applicant is proposing three buildings on a single parcel with Phase I construction. The applicant has a pending application to replat Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 13th as a lot, which is 10.79 acres in size. Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 7th Addition (a 0.15 acre parcel adjacent to Daniel Drive) should be included in the plat and the two existing outlots that comprise this site combined into a single parcel. Phase I consists of the grocery store and the two multi -tenant retail buildings. The entire development is designed to accommodate future subdivision of the land into separate parcels. The developer has indicated that their intention is to proceed with the subdivision as soon as possible, however, by allowing the three Phase I buildings to proceed concurrently will shorten the overall construction period and therefore, the impact construction activity has on the surrounding area. Setbacks — The Planned Development district does not establish minimum setback requirements. As a basis for comparison, the NB zoning district establishes the following building and parking setback requirements: Building Setbacks Parking Setbacks Front Yard (Diffley Rd.) 50 feet 20 feet Side Yard 10 feet 5 feet Rear Yard 20 feet 5 feet Adjacent to Property Guided for Residential Use 30 feet 20 feet The site plan also shows lot lines for future subdivision. The proposed setbacks are evaluated in this report based on both the current parcel boundaries and the potential future lot lines. The current parcel boundary establishes the site perimeter, and there are no internal lot lines between buildings. With future subdivision, the property would be subdivided to create a separate parcel for each building. Proposed building setbacks for Phase I meet or exceed the required minimums. The proposed setbacks, based on the future parcel boundaries, are listed below. /99 Planning Report — Diffley Marketplace August 23, 2005 Page 6 Grocery Store Front (from Diffley Rd.) +50' Side (west) 45'(from Walgreen's) Side (east) +290' Rear (Adj. to Resid.) —50' Retail Bldg. A Retail Bldg. B +210' +210' 38.33' 16.63' 13.38' 23.17' 46.96' 43.51' Future development on the east end of the site should be subject to the minimum setback requirements in the NB zoning district. This would be consistent with the concept plan for the future phase(s) and with the building setback established by Phase I. The trash enclosures on the south side of retail Buildings A and B do not satisfy the minimum setback of 20 feet from the south property line. This is a deviation from typical City Code standards. The trash enclosures should be relocated or redesigned to meet the 20 -foot setback from the south property line. The minimum required parking setback of 20 feet from Diffley Road and from adjacent residential property is noted on the site plan. The plans appear to meet or exceed the 20 -foot minimum from both the north (Diffley Road) and south (residential) property lines. The minimum 5 foot setback does not appear to be satisfied on the west side (adjacent to Walgreen's) with service drive less than 5 feet from the side lot line.. Also, the design of the site with shared parking and internal circulation between the parking areas results in zero pavement setbacks between the internal parking lots, with drive lanes located across future property lines. With future subdivision of this property, cross -easements will be needed for ingress/egress and for parking. These reduced setbacks in the side yards is a deviation from typical City Code standards, particularly on the west side where a shared drive aisle with Walgreen's is not proposed. Green Space — Commercial zoning districts require a minimum of 30% green space. With 32.4% green space, the proposed site plan satisfies this requirement. Parking — The proposed Phase I development satisfies the minimum parking requirements overall. The grocery store site is a few stalls short, and the two retail buildings are a few stalls over the minimum number required. However, the proposed parking stalls for the grocery store do not meet minimum size requirements; the grocery parking stalls are 9.5 feet wide rather than 10 feet required by City Code. This is a deviation from City Code standards. The required parking stall depth of 19 feet and two-way drive aisle width of 24 feet are satisfied. The City Code requires that parking be provided at a ratio of one stall for each 200 sq. ft. of floor area for retail buildings up to 10,000 sq. ft. For retail stores over 10,000 sq. ft. the ratio of One stall for each 250 sq. ft. of floor area between 10,000 and 30,000 sq. ft. and one stall for each 300 sq. ft. of floor area above 30,000 sq. ft. is applied. Using these ratios, the required and proposed parking amounts are as follows: Grocery Store (43,175 sq. ft. retail) Bldg. A (10,000 sq. ft. retail) Bldg. B (10,000 sq. ft. retail) Required Proposed 174 stalls 171 stalls 50 stalls 58 stalls 50 stalls 55 stalls /SD Planning Report — Diffley Marketplace August 23, 2005 Page 7 With regard to the proposed parking stall size, the dimensional requirements for parking stall and drive aisles were added to the City Code in 2000. Prior to that, a 10 -foot wide standard was applied in high turnover areas, such as retail parking lots, and stalls as narrow as 9 feet were allowed in low turnover parking lots, such as employee parking at a warehouse or office building. The acceptability of the proposed 9.5' wide parking stalls is a policy matter to be determined by City officials. Grading/ Storm Water Drainage — The site was graded with previous development, and is relatively flat and open with drainage mainly to the north and east. The entire site lies within Drainage District J (as designated in the City Storm Water Management Plan —1990). Storm water runoff from the development will drain to a new storm water pond in the eastern portion of the site before discharging to existing storm sewer within Daniel Drive. Post -development storm water runoff discharge rates are proposed not to exceed pre -development rates. Utilities — Lateral sanitary sewer of sufficient size, depth and capacity is available to the north within Diffley Road for connection by development of this site. Water main is also available within Diffley Road to serve the site. Wetlands/Water Quality — City water quality requirements shall be met primarily through construction of an on-site pond on the east end of the parcel. This pond shall have a minimum treatment volume of 1.5 acre-feet and a maximum depth of 10 feet. To account for the 1.04 acres of the site that drain offsite to city streets without stormwater treatment, cash in lieu of ponding shall be paid in the amount of $9,528.00. Streets/ Access/ Circulation — Access to the development is proposed in four locations: two onto Lexington Avenue (County Road 43) via Patrick Road and the Walgreen's/ Oasis Market convenience store service drive; one directly onto Diffley Road (County Road 30) and one onto Daniel Drive. The existing direct access to Diffley Road (currently serving only the Walgreen's store) is proposed to be maintained with this development and is slightly less than one-quarter mile from Lexington Avenue. Along the east edge of the property, Daniel Drive intersects Diffley Road approximately one-eighth of a mile east of this entrance, and is about three-eighths of a mile from Lexington Avenue. The close proximity of these access locations do not meet County spacing guidelines from Lexington Avenue for full vehicle turning movements (one- quarter mile spacing between full access points) for both intersections. Full turning movements at both of these intersections as currently configured may not be allowed by Dakota County. Since this development is contiguous to a County road, the County Plat Commission has review authority over access to Diffley Road and Lexington Avenue. The County is responsible for maintaining mobility while providing for adequate property access on Diffley Road. The Plat Commission has indicated that the City, Developer, School District, and County staff work together to best determine traffic patterns and which access points onto the County roads need to be maintained as full or modified to possible right turns only or three-quarter (right turns and left turns in only) intersections. The City and County have met with School District representatives to discuss their access needs at Northview Elementary School, north of Diffley Road across from this site. The School District indicated that modification of Diffley Road near their westerly /8/ Planning Report — Diffley Marketplace August 23, 2005 Page 8 entrance (directly across from the existing Walgreen's entrance) is acceptable, but that they wish to maintain the entrance across from Daniel Drive with full turning movements to provide adequate circulation for the school's purposes. If the modification of the westerly Diffley Road entrance (existing Walgreen's entrance) to right - in/ right -out only movements, or to a 3/4 intersection (no left turns out) is required by the County, it would direct more outbound traffic from this development to Daniel Drive than if the intersection were allowed to remain as a full -movement intersection. Daniel Drive currently handles approximately 1,400 vehicles per day (2004 count) just south of the intersection. It is estimated that approximately 11,000 vehicle trips per day (in/out — Source: Institute of Traffic Engineer's 6th Edition) will utilize the ultimate proposed development of the site. Approximately one-half (-5,100) are estimated to be vehicles already traveling on Diffley Road and Lexington Avenue (termed as pass by traffic), with the remainder (-5,900) being new traffic generated by the proposed development of the site. Daily (24-hour) traffic generation per proposed land use is estimated as follows: 42,000 SF Grocery Store 4,700 (1,900 pass by, 2,800 new) 1,800 SF Coffee Shop 900 (700 pass by, 200 new) 1,500 SF Fast-food w/out drive thru 1,100 (500 pass by, 600 new) 16,700 SF General Retail 700 (200 pass by, 500 new) 4,000 SF Fast-food w/ drive thru 2,000 (1,000 pass by, 1,000 new) Bank wl 4 drive -up windows 1,600 (800 pass by, 800 new) With the current access configurations to Diffley Road and Lexington Avenue, it is estimated that the traffic will be distributed to the various access locations as follows: Access Diffley Road/Northview Elementary (west entrance)* Diffley Road/ Daniel Drive/ Northview Elementary (east entrance)** Distribution Trips/ 24 hrs 50% 5,500 10% 1,100 Lexington Avenue/Patrick Road (south entrance) 30% 3,300 Lexington Avenue (Walgreen's/ Oasis — north entrance) 10% 1,100 *Assumes full turning movements at this entrance intersection **Total estimated traffic on Daniel Drive (just south of Diffley) would be 2,500 vehicles/ 24 hours (1,400 existing) Planning Report — Diffley Marketplace August 23, 2005 Page 9 If the existing direct access onto Diffley Road were modified to right-in/right-out movements only, the estimated traffic distribution is estimated as follows: Access Diffley Road/Northview Elementary (west entrance)* Diffley Road/ Daniel Drive/ Northview Elementary (east entrance) Distribution Trips/ 24 hrs 35% 3,850 25% 2,750 Lexington Avenue/Patrick Road (south entrance) 30% 3,300 Lexington Avenue (Walgreen's - north entrance) 10% 1,100 *Assumes right -in/ right -out turning movements at this entrance intersection **Total estimated traffic on Daniel Drive (just south of Diffley) would be 4,150 vehicles/ 24 hours (1,400 existing) Internal circulation is provided between existing uses and the proposed development via private service drives, as shown on the preliminary site plan. The developer should provide evidence of private ingress/ egress easement with the existing developments (Walgreen's, Lexington Center), for review and approval of the City Attorney, to allow for this circulation. The new service drive to Walgreen's through the site is proposed with parking spaces directly served from it, which will result in conflicts between vehicles traveling through the site and vehicles entering and existing the parking spaces. The development should provide a service drive dedicated to through movements and without direct parking stalls, from the existing access onto Diffley Road to the Walgreen's property. Easements/ Permits/ Right -of -Way — This development should dedicate 10' drainage and utility easements centered over all common lot lines and adjacent to private property or public right-of- way. This development should dedicate all public right-of-way and temporary slope easements for ultimate development of adjacent roadways as required by the appropriate jurisdictional agency. This development should dedicate adequate drainage and ponding easements to incorporate the required high water elevation necessitated by City storm water storage volume requirements. To ensure that Walgreen's will retain access to Diffley Road with future subdivision of the subject site, the developer should provide a copy of the access easement affording Walgreen's access to Diffley Road for review and approval by the City Attorney prior to release of the plat and Planned Development agreements for recording. Cross easements for parking will need to be established with future subdivision. / 83 Planning Report — Diffley Marketplace August 23, 2005 Page 10 Tree Preservation — A tree inventory submitted with this application indicates that there are forty- three (43) significant trees in the inventory for the entire site (detached home area plus attached home area). These trees are primarily Boxelder (18 trees, 42% of the total), Willow and Aspen (14 trees, 32% of total). The balance is comprised of Chinese Elm, Cottonwood, Pine, Crabapple and one silver maple (48" diameter). The development as proposed will result in the removal of all 43 significant trees. According to the City of Eagan Tree Preservation Ordinance allowable tree removal for this development is set at 30%. The applicant has submitted a Tree Mitigation Plan that indicates the fulfillment of required tree mitigation through the installation of sixty-four (64) Category B trees. The applicant should submit a revised Tree Mitigation Plan that shows the mitigation plantings separate from the Landscape Plan. This revised plan should be submitted for inclusion in the PD Agreement. Parks and Recreation — This development will be responsible for cash park and trail dedications payable at the time of building permit issuance at the rates then in effect. The 2005 rates for commercial development are $5,218 per acre for parks and $1,137 per acre for trails. Landscaping — The Landscape Plan shows a variety of plantings. Along Diffley Road, landscape features are provided at the main entrance into the site, at the west end of the site near the sidewalk connection to the Diffley Road trail, and also at the east end of the site midway between the main entrance and the pond. Within the site, significant landscape features are designed along the main entrance, and at the internal intersection at the main entrance into the site. A row of ornamental trees is proposed within the median that separates the north and southbound lanes of the main access to/from Diffley Road. A landscaped courtyard is proposed between the two retail buildings and at the east end of the easterly retail building. Deciduous and overstory shade trees are proposed along the west edge of the development (Red Maple and River Birch), and along Diffley Road (Red Maple). Within the development, shade trees (Honeylocust) are proposed in the islands east and west of the two retail buildings. Along the south side of the property, a mix of trees are proposed (Fat Albert Spruce, Showy Mountain Ash clump, Balsam Fir). A mix of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs are proposed around the pond at the east end of the site. Ornamental crabapple trees are proposed in the yard area south of the retail buildings, and alternating with Fat Albert Spruce along the south boundary of the eastern portion of the site. Staff has several comments and concerns regarding the proposed landscape plan. The City's landscape ordinance requires screening of all parking lots from public rights of way. Screening is to be provided to a 3-4 height and 75% opacity at maturity. Berming, fencing and landscaping may all be utilized to accomplish screening. The landscape plans shows little screening from Diffley Road. The grading plan shows the parking lots adjacent to Diffley Road are proposed to be level to 2 feet above Diffley Road. With these flat grades, a 2-3 foot high /8 � Planning Report — Diffley Marketplace August 23, 2005 Page 11 berm should be placed in the 20 -foot setback area to provide some screening. Some landscape beds with some shrubs and perennials flowers or grasses atop such a berm can enhance the site appearance and provide additional screening. The grading plan should be revised to incorporate berming, and the enlarged landscape plan sheets should be revised to show the grading contours. Within the islands in the grocery store parking lot, a mix of spirea and spruce shrubs combined with crabapple trees are proposed. Staff is concerned about conflicts with the ornamental trees, which achieve a height of 20 feet, and the site lighting, which is proposed on 25 -foot poles, within the islands. Staff is concerned that when leafed out, the canopy of the trees will interfere with the site lighting and create dark spots within the parking lot. The developer should have the landscape architect and lighting consultant review this to make sure the two plans are compatible. In addition, staff is concerned about long-term maintenance of the shrub materials in the islands specifically in regard to damage from snow storage and interference with vehicle doors. Staff questions the choice of plant materials for the south boundary of the site. With the site adjacent to residential neighborhood, particular attention and care should be taken in selecting plant materials that will provide a fairly solid screen and buffer and are suitable to the growing conditions of the site. On the west end of the site, the available planting space is reduced by a pedestrian walkway adjacent to the parking lot and the use of a retaining wall. In addition, trees on the adjacent residential properties will cast shade on the southern portion of the development site. An upright or columnar species of evergreen that tolerates shade, such as arbor vitae, may be considered in place of the Dwarf Siberian Spruce. On the east end of the site, staff is concerned that the Fat Albert Spruce are a poor choice for this location as they require full sun and achieve a mature width of 20 feet. The Balsam Fir that is utilized elsewhere on the site may be a suitable alternative to the proposed Fat Albert Spruce as it is more shade tolerant and achieves a slightly narrower mature width. Along the southwest "tail" of the site, the landscape plan shows a mix of Fat Albert Spruce and Balsam Fir, both evergreen trees. This area provides a 20 -foot space between the drive lane and the property line, which should be able to accommodate both of these species. Given the height of the building and relatively flat grades, this green space area between the proposed grocery store and the residences to the south should be heavily landscaped with taller evergreen materials to achieve suitable screening between these different uses. The Landscape Plan also shows the tree mitigation plantings, which are proposed to be about half of the trees along the south boundary. Since the tree preservation ordinance requires that mitigation plantings be in addition to required landscaping, and screening is required between the commercial and residential uses, this is an unsuitable location for mitigation plantings. Staff suggests additional trees be placed along Diffley Road or around the pond for mitigation purposes. The developer's landscape architect should review the plan and revise the designated mitigation plantings and add additional trees as necessary and to satisfy both the landscape and tree preservation ordinance requirements. The developer should have the landscape architect review the Landscape Plan based on the above comments and submit a revised plan that addresses these issues. /85 Planning Report — Diffley Marketplace August 23, 2005 Page 12 Building Height — The City Code defines building height as "the vertical distance from the average [grade] around the exterior building foundation to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof." The NB zoning district allows a maximum structure height of 30 feet. The bulk of the proposed grocery store is 24 feet high. The front (east) elevation includes vertical features that extend up to 36 feet in height; the west elevation extends to 26'8" in height. These measurements are taken from the finished floor elevation, not the average grade as is required by the definition. Using the average grade, the building height would be greater. The vertical features on the proposed grocery store provide visual relief in the facade by varying the roof line, creating visual focal points and highlighting the entrance. The bulk of the building is within the 30 -foot height standard, however, some portions of the building do exceed the 30 foot height maximum. These areas of excess building height are a deviation from typical NB code standards. The acceptability of the proposed height deviation is a policy matter to be determined by public officials. The proposed retail buildings are 25.25 feet in height, measured to the highest roof point. These two buildings also incorporate similar cornice features that are proposed with the grocery store architecture. Building Elevations/Exterior Materials — The proposed grocery building utilizes primarily EIFS in two colors, and is accented by two colors of CMU and two colors of architectural concrete brick. The materials colors have names such as ("Sahara," "Spanish rose," "natural gray," "hickory," and "champagne"). Metal coping is also in two colors, "almond" and "sierra tan," and a standing seam metal canopy is "almond." The building architecture utilizes vertical and horizontal architectural elements for interest. The front of the proposed grocery includes an outdoor seating area. The Walgreen's building is primarily brick, and the two proposed retail buildings are primarily brick. While the City Code does not specific architectural requirements for commercial development, as one measure the City's Cedar Grove District, requires 60% of each facade to consist of brick, stone, or glass as primary materials. The proposed grocery building elevations should be modified to utilize brick as the primary exterior material rather than EIFS. The brick should match the brick utilized on the two retail buildings. The proposed retail buildings are brick and stucco with rock face block base and burnished block accents. All four elevations utilize the same finish materials. The front elevation also includes glass storefront windows. The flat building face is visually broken up by the use of different colors of materials, and awnings above the storefront windows. The rear (south) elevations include service doors to the individual tenant bays. Awnings are shown on the front and side building elevations, but no material is specified. Awnings should be a canvas or Sunbrella material and contain no signage and should not be illuminated. /S6 Planning Report — Diffley Marketplace August 23, 2005 Page 13 Phase II buildings should utilize the same brick as the Phase I buildings, and should consist of at least 60% brick and glass similar for architectural consistency with the Phase I buildings. Roof lines and architectural elements utilized in Phase I should carry over with Phase II construction. Hours of Operation — The City Code restricts the hours of operation of any retail business or restaurant within 200 feet of any residential use to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 1:00 a.m. Loading and Service Areas — Loading docks for the grocery store are on the west side of grocery building. This location is consistent with the City ordinance which requires that loading areas be on the side or rear of a building and screened from public rights-of-way and adjacent residential properties. Trash Storage — Trash service for two retail buildings is proposed on south side of buildings. This location results in a potential conflict with adjacent residential properties. Also, the trash enclosures encroach into the required rear yard setback. The trash enclosures should be relocated to meet setback requirements and limit service activity near residential property. Cart Storage — A shopping cart storage area is shown in the entry vestibule of the building. Cart corrals are proposed within the parking lot. There should be no signage on the cart corrals, and all shopping carts should be retrieved from the corrals and stored within the building overnight. Signage — The applicant proposed four pages of written sign standards. These standards are included in the exhibits to the report. The prohibitions on signs include items such as no exposed neon or flashing or blinking signs, no internally illuminated can or box signs, no signs painted directly on the exterior of the walls, doors windows or other surfaces, no signs upon the roof, and paper signs, stickers, banner or flags are prohibited. Further specifications state building signage shall be individually lighted channel letters, the size of signs is subject to City ordinance and limited to 20% of the building facade, and each tenant is permitted one exterior building sign per street frontage. Regarding the free-standing signs, a total of four free-standing signs are proposed. A 20' freestanding monument west of the Diffley Road access and shared by the grocery store and two retail buildings, two 10' signs on the east end of the site along Diffley Road for the future phase and one 6' monument sign at the Daniel Drive entrance to the development. The City's sign ordinance allows one monument sign (up to a height of 7') per building. A shopping center is also allowed an area identification sign in addition. There are ultimately 5 buildings proposed with this development, and four free-standing signs are proposed. By definition in the City's sign ordinance, three of the signs (the 20' and 10' tall signs) are considered pylon signs and therefore, would require a conditional use permit or specific approval as part of the Planned Development in lieu of a conditional use permit. The sign package proposes one shared free-standing sign, a 20 -foot monument style pylon sign shared by the grocery store and two Phase I retail buildings, at the main entrance onto Diffley Road. It also proposes two monument signs for future Phase 2 buildings, both exceeding the /8 7 Planning Report — Diffley Marketplace August 23, 2005 Page 14 allowable monument sign height. The acceptability of the proposed sign package is a policy matter to be determined by City officials. The brick monument supports for all of the free-standing signs should match the brick utilized on the two retail buildings and grocery store. The developer should submit plans showing the elevations and dimensions of each of the three types of free-standing signs to be incorporated into PD Agreements. All free-standing signs must be set back a minimum of 10 feet from all property lines. A cross -easement for the 20 -foot shared sign will need to be executed upon subdivision of the property. Site Lighting — Site lighting is proposed to be accomplished through free-standing pole -mounted lighting. Some building mounted lighting is also proposed. Four different fixtures and mounting heights are proposed for the free-standing lights. All proposed fixtures are metal halide. • A — Single fixture (400 watt) • B — Double back -to back (400 watt) • C — Single fixture (400 watt) • D — Single fixture (250 watt) • E — Building Mounted (400 watt) 25 feet 25 feet 15 feet 10 feet 8 feet The 15 and 10 foot mounting heights are proposed on the southerly portion of the site, closer to the residential area, while the 25 foot mounting heights are proposed on the northerly part of the site. Lighting on the north end of the site along the northerly drive lane adjacent to Diffley Road utilizes the A fixture (400 watt, 25 feet). Parking lot lighting uses primarily the B fixtures (400 watt double, 25 feet) Lighting on the south boundary of the drive aisle and along the western portion of the site is the C fixture (400 watt, 15 feet). The D fixture (250 watt, 10 feet) is proposed behind the retail building. All C fixtures adjacent to residential property are noted "apply house -side shield." The E fixtures (building mounted, 8 feet) are proposed on all three buildings. One of the difficulties in evaluating this site lighting plan is that the statistics are combined over the various parking lots. Generally, the parking lots serving Retail Buildings A and B are lower than those in the grocery store parking lot. However, the lighting calculations are not broken out lot by lot. The developer should review the Site Lighting Plan and clarify the calculations for each of the lots, and make modifications to the site lighting to achieve sufficient levels and uniformity of light for safety and security. The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (2003) manual suggests that for supermarkets, the average light level should be at least 3 footcandles and with average -to - minimum uniformity ratio not greater than 4:1. While the proposed average light level satisfies this standard (5 footcandles), the average -to -minimum ratio of 5.6:1 is greater than the recommended 4:1 ratio, suggesting greater light variation throughout the site. However, since the site calculations are for all the parking areas combined, this might not be an accurate representation of the actual uniformity of lighting within each parking lot. The site lighting plan should be reviewed and calculations clarified or lighting modified to better achieve the IESNA recommended standards. /56 Planning Report — Diffley Marketplace August 23, 2005 Page 15 Typically, minimum light levels of 0.5 footcandles are acceptable within parking lots, and maximum light levels of not more than 1 footcandle are acceptable at the property line. The minimum light level proposed is 0.9 footcandles. The 0.9 footcandle level is found within one of the parking lots for the retail buildings, where the maximums are 4.3 and 8.0 footcandles. In the grocery store parking lot, light levels appear to be higher overall, and range from 4.2 to 13.1 footcandles. The maximum light level noted on the site lighting plan is 15.2 footcandles. Light levels along the northern property line are primarily less than 1.0 footcandles, although a segment that borders the grocery store parking lot shows levels up to 1.8 footcandles. Along the southern property line, abutting the residential property, light levels are 0.0 to1.2 footcandles at the property line. In one location along the western "tail" of the property, light levels are 2.5 footcandles adjacent to the residential property. Additional shielding or adjustments in the proposed lighting should be made to achieve the 1.0 footcandles or less at all points along the development where it abuts residential property. Correspondence — Staff has received many e-mails and other correspondence regarding this proposed development, which are attached with this report. A few support commercial development; most are opposed to this proposal or some aspect of it. A few of the common concerns include the amount of traffic the development would generate, traffic circulation patterns impacts to Diffley Road and Daniel Drive, safety concerns for children because of the nearby elementary school, the size and scale of the proposed development - particularly the grocery store, hours of operation, and the location service drive adjacent to the residential properties. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION The applicant is requesting approval of a Preliminary Planned Development Amendment for a retail commercial development (Diffley Marketplace) consisting of a 43,175 sq. ft. grocery store, two 10,000 sq. ft. multi -tenant retail buildings, and two other retail buildings upon 10.94 acres located south of Diffley Road and east of Lexington Avenue.. The applicant is also requesting approval of a Final Planned Development for Phase I construction consisting of the grocery store and two multi -tenant retail buildings, with multiple buildings on one lot. The subject site is considered a neighborhood commercial node. Policies governing development of neighborhood commercial nodes and Retail Commercial property are set forth in the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan and past studies and Planned Developments pertaining to this property. The site also has a previously approved designation of Planned Development which includes a previously approved concept plan. The suitability of the proposed development and its compatibility with the surrounding area is a policy matter to be determined by City officials. The proposed development largely complies with typical City Code standards and includes amenities such as significant pedestrian connections and uniform landscaping, architecture and signage plans. Some deviations to parking (number and size of stalls), setbacks (pavement on the west side), and building height (grocery store architectural element) are requested. Modifications to the Landscape Plan are necessary. Staff also suggests modifications to the /g9 Planning Report — Diffley Marketplace August 23, 2005 Page 16 exterior materials of the grocery store to utilize more brick, and to the Site Lighting Plan to clarify calculations and limit light spillover. An overall sign package is proposed that would limit the number of free-standing signs and create a uniform design for the free-standing and building mounted signs. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED To recommend approval of a Preliminary Planned Development for a retail commercial development (Diffley Marketplace) consisting of a 43,175 sq. ft. grocery store, two 10,000 sq. ft. multi -tenant retail buildings, and two other retail buildings upon 10.94 acres located south of Diffley Road and east of Lexington Avenue, legally described as Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 13th Addition, in the NW t/o of Section 26. If approved the following conditions shall apply: 1. A Final Planned Development Agreement shall be executed for each Phase of the development. The following plans are necessary for the Final Planned Development Agreement: > Final Site Plan > Final Building Elevations > Final Site Lighting Plan > Final Landscaping Plan • Final Signage Plan 2. The property shall be platted prior to issuance of any building permits. Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 7th Addition, a 0.15 acre parcel adjacent to Daniel Drive) shall be included in the plat combining the two existing outlots that comprise this site into a single parcel. The platting shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits. 3. Uses permitted within the NB zoning district shall be permitted within the two Phase I retail buildings. Any use that is requires a conditional use permit in the NB zoning district shall not be permitted, and will require an amendment to the PD in lieu of a conditional use permit. 4. The approved use for the Phase II development shall be only retail sales. Phase 11 development will require Final Planned Development approval for each building. Each Final Planned Development application will require a Site Plan Review by the City Council. 5. Any use in Phase II other than retail sales will require an amendment to the PD. 6. Only two Class II restaurants, both without drive-through service, shall be permitted within the Phase I multi -tenant retail buildings. Any additional Class 11 restaurants in the Phase I retail shall require a Planned Development Amendment. Planning Report — Diffley Marketplace August 23, 2005 Page 17 7. Future development on the east end of the site shall be subject to the minimum setback requirements in the NB zoning district, except that any proposed buildings in the future phase(s) shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the residential property to the south. 8. With future subdivision, cross -easements will be needed for ingress/egress and parking in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. 9. Phase II development on the east end of the site shall be subject to the minimum setback requirements in the NB zoning district, except that any proposed buildings should be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the residential property to the south to be consistent with the concept plan for the future phase(s) and with the building setback established by Phase I. 10. The trash enclosures shall be relocated or redesigned to meet the 20 -foot setback from the south property line. 11. The development shall provide a service drive dedicated to through movements and without direct parking stalls, from the existing access onto Diffley Road to the Walgreen's property. 12. This development shall dedicate 10' drainage and utility easements centered over all common lot lines and adjacent to private property or public right-of-way. 13. This development shall dedicate all public right-of-way and temporary slope easements for ultimate development of adjacent roadways as required by the appropriate jurisdictional agency. 14. This development shall dedicate adequate drainage and ponding easements to incorporate the required high water elevation necessitated by City storm water storage volume requirements and area acceptable to the City Engineer. 15. All public streets and utilities necessary to provide service to this development shall be designed by a registered professional engineer in accordance with City Codes and engineering standards, guidelines and policies. 16. To ensure that Walgreen's will retain access to Diffley Road with future subdivision of the subject site, the developer shall provide a copy of the access easement affording Walgreen's access to Diffley Road for review and approval by the City Attorney prior to release of the plat and Planned Development agreements for recording. 17. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion, and sediment control plan must be prepared in accordance with current City standards prior to final plat approval. 18. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted on the proposed grading plan. The financial guarantee shall be included in the Development Contract and not be released until one year after the date of installation. /9i Planning Report — Diffley Marketplace August 23, 2005 Page 18 19. City water quality requirements shall be met primarily through construction of an on-site pond on the east end of the parcel. This pond shall have a minimum treatment volume of 1.5 acre-feet and a maximum depth of 10 feet. To account for the 1.04 acres of the site that drain off site to city streets without stormwater treatment, cash in lieu of ponding shall be paid at the rates in effect at the time of payment. 20. The applicant shall submit a revised Tree Mitigation Plan that shows the mitigation plantings separate from the Landscape Plan. This revised plan shall be submitted to City staff for review and approval by the City Forester prior to inclusion in the Preliminary PD Agreement. 21. The proposed Grading Plan must be revised to incorporate berming along Diffley Road. 22. The developer shall review the Landscape Plan and revise it as necessary to address the following issues: a. Selection of plants and use of taller narrower evergreen materials along the south boundary for solid screening and appropriate size and tolerance for growing conditions. b. Potential conflicts between parking lot island trees and site lighting. c. Designation of mitigation plantings in addition to landscape plantings. d. Added shrub and/or perennial beds along Diffley Road. 23. The site lighting plan shall be reviewed and calculations clarified or lighting modified to better achieve the IESNA recommended standards and reduce light spillover onto adjacent residential property. 24. Additional shielding or adjustments in the proposed lighting shall be made to achieve the 1.0 footcandle or less at all points along the development where it abuts residential property. 25. The proposed grocery building elevations shall be modified to utilize brick as the primary exterior material rather than EIFS. 26. There shall be no signage on the cart corrals, and all shopping carts should be retrieved from the corrals and stored within the building overnight. 27. Awnings on the two retail buildings shall be a canvas or Sunbrella material and shall not be illuminated and shall contain no signage. 28. Hours of operation for the grocery store and other commercial businesses shall be restricted to between 6:00 a.m. and 1:00 a.m., consistent with the City zoning ordinance. Planning Report — Diffley Marketplace August 23, 2005 Page 19 To recommend approval of a Final Planned Development for a retail commercial development (Diffley Marketplace) consisting of a 43,175 sq. ft. grocery store and two 10,000 sq. ft. multi - tenant retail buildings upon 10.94 acres located south of Diffley Road and east of Lexington Avenue, legally described as Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 13th Addition and Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 7th Addition, in the NW Y4 of Section 26. If approved the following conditions shall apply: /93 Planning Report — Diffley Marketplace August 23, 2005 Page 20 1. A Final Planned Development Agreement shall be executed for each Phase of the development. The following plans are necessary for the Final Planned Development Agreement: > Final Site Plan > Final Building Elevations > Final Site Lighting Plan > Final Landscaping Plan > Final Signage Plan 2. The property shall be platted prior to issuance of any building permits. Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 7th Addition, a 0.15 acre parcel adjacent to Daniel Drive) shall be included in the plat combining the two existing outlots that comprise this site into a single parcel. The platting shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits. 3. Only two Class II restaurants, both without drive-through service, shall be permitted within the Phase I multi -tenant retail buildings. Any additional Class 11 restaurants in the Phase I retail shall require a Planned Development Amendment. 4. Uses permitted within the NB zoning district shall be permitted within the two Phase I retail buildings. Any use that is requires a conditional use permit in the NB zoning district shall not be permitted, and will require an amendment to the PD in lieu of a conditional use permit. 5. The trash enclosures shall be relocated or redesigned to meet the 20 -foot setback from the south property line. 6. The development shall provide a service drive dedicated to through movements and without direct parking stalls, from the existing access onto Diffley Road to the Walgreen's property. 7. This development shall dedicate 10' drainage and utility easements centered over all common lot lines and adjacent to private property or public right-of-way. 8. This development shall dedicate all public right-of-way and temporary slope easements for ultimate development of adjacent roadways as required by the appropriate jurisdictional agency. 9. This development shall dedicate adequate drainage and ponding easements to incorporate the required high water elevation necessitated by City storm water storage volume requirements and area acceptable to the City Engineer. 10. All public streets and utilities necessary to provide service to this development shall be designed by a registered professional engineer in accordance with City Codes and engineering standards, guidelines and policies. /9y Planning Report — Diffley Marketplace August 23, 2005 Page 21 11. To ensure that Walgreen's will retain access to Diffley Road with future subdivision of the subject site, the developer shall provide a copy of the access easement affording Walgreen's access to Diffley Road for review and approval by the City Attorney prior to release of the plat and Planned Development agreements for recording. 12. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion, and sediment control plan must be prepared in accordance with current City standards prior to final plat approval. 13. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted on the proposed grading plan. The financial guarantee shall be included in the Development Contract and not be released until one year after the date of installation. 14. City water quality requirements shall be met primarily through construction of an on- site pond on the east end of the parcel. This pond shall have a minimum treatment volume of 1.5 acre-feet and a maximum depth of 10 feet. To account for the 1.04 acres of the site that drain off site to city streets without stormwater treatment, cash in lieu of ponding shall be paid at the rates in effect at the time of payment. 15. The applicant shall submit a revised Tree Mitigation Plan that shows the mitigation plantings separate from the Landscape Plan. This revised plan shall be submitted to City staff for review and approval by the City Forester prior to inclusion in the Preliminary PD Agreement. 16. The proposed Grading Plan must be revised to incorporate berming along Diffley Road. 17. The developer shall review the Landscape Plan and revise it as necessary to address the following issues: a. Selection of plants and use of taller narrower evergreen materials along the south boundary for solid screening and appropriate size and tolerance for growing conditions. b. Potential conflicts between parking lot island trees and site lighting. c. Designation of mitigation plantings in addition to landscape plantings. d. Added shrub and/or perennial beds along Diffley Road. 18. The site lighting plan shall be reviewed and calculations clarified or lighting modified to better achieve the IESNA recommended standards for light levels and uniformity necessary for security and safety, and to reduce light spillover onto adjacent residential property. 19. Additional shielding or adjustments in the proposed lighting shall be made to achieve the 1.0 footcandle or less at all points along the development where it abuts residential property. 20. The proposed grocery building elevations shall be modified to utilize brick as the primary exterior material rather than EIFS. /9s Planning Report — Diffley Marketplace August 23, 2005 Page 22 21. There shall be no signage on the cart corrals, and all shopping carts should be retrieved from the corrals and stored within the building overnight. 22. Awnings on the two retail buildings shall be a canvas or Sunbrella material and shall not be illuminated and shall contain no signage. 23. Hours of operation for the grocery store and other commercial businesses shall be restricted to between 6:00 a.m. and 1:00 a.m., consistent with the City zoning ordinance. / 96 FINANCIAL OBLIGATION- Diffley Market Place Preliminary Planned Development 26 -PD -04-07-05 There are pay-off balances of special assessments totaling $17,524 on the parcel proposed for platting. The pay-off balance will be allocated to the lots created by the plat. At this time, there are no pending assessments on the parcel proposed for platting. This estimated financial obligation is subject to change based upon the areas, dimensions and land uses contained in the final plat. Based upon the study of the financial obligations collected in the past and the uses proposed for the property, the following estimated charges will be collected at time of subdivision or connection to the City's utility system. The charges will be computed using the rates in effect at time of connection or subdivision. IMPROVEMENT USE RATE QUANTITY AMOUNT Water Trunk C/I $2,350/Ac 11 Ac $25,850 Sanitary Sewer Trunk C/I 2,235/Ac 11 Ac 24,585 WAC C/I 3,705/Ac 11 Ac 40,755 Water Lateral CII 7.00/F.F. 1,100 F.F. 7,700 Sanitary Sewer Stub C/I 1,497/Service 2 Services 2,994 Storm Sewer Lateral C/I 34.90/F.F. 1,100 F.F. 38,390 Water Services C/I 2,506/Service 2 Services 5,012 Total $145,286 /97 Location Map Eagan Boundary N Parcel Area Park Area Building Footprint A" ■ Li �.�8��7� 1 ,� r rO:- i� no Sy. 'r€` S O�OO":"11et _��4 Ilion Z�d �: 0 II 1 io xr�.7 -s SQ -/ Z!35 • a ... aural `zr' n'T. _ 171kaitTeag pig _ It' SubjectSite 01111 int." eerain ro ►`' ©•G - 6aQ��Q ` Qo�r�c��7 'A DP lcii Kp , 1115 6.. . ..,,,,,,, ....,,,., � ..... A • �a4 AldS 17,'x7 � ` R •..11:1 vve,Kr 1 ,s,11._ •'4`^.1.1.9 4 w Rell�n�ri Au, r i .lr Iia t a , P' ■ i ■ r1��'�'J�►7�yr"jD : I J Qac ei •1 NT*4 (i `'P,I �J�V r ]u r]. ri. t IN r.■ Fa i A: Q1A ..., r'r� au kJLJ L/,-. L. �r L7t'Y ,,,,I F rr�`j'f► u .1111.1 De s ` r f' 2;ZZ G0l7GILi , an Elia , ; ia!! 12=70U FIN rfr ry,t4ii NtippAy,4•vll trpinnn O+° �' 7 ►• L �j K irOG; �� N;LLi.1",.4.-+� �� V yr t7 oC��L� --©� wi n L �C ���a p`� J, rri al.) does Ba a. » �''A� kC �o;a o 11 4* o >>> <Ili �� f �� . ` t as o�e����� Q� �i:^ ♦ `�Al tin 1 ■ V "s a1 . 1,-- s1 MCI i'2E1 ri !Ll r1rb IB 1W/ELI 1 rs®p �_� v� Ar A - ^n �` C►�y1 ,i r,�� r .4- sl 1 r � 1 �IJ ri�1 l N I1 A ■ / t �. � ��la I m l.ora LI!F1 1 • P ` ir ui .� in mi, inn _1 n LIECEM TZco ��0 �:; la aiiI- fro -mei Ci �/ Li CIV 4 1`1 iJ L9� Y . 1 Litt 1 I` Ilro`IY.JVr411■r•Q v LEINI of aZ;7p 4•>> k 441 . d co a � s ; o eV:nin �` 4w5. El p r .°' a I t�� �,LF.'t'yp, - c"__. .� � ""I2... �' yam• rv++Y�S ,' �' �� P4, iF w f $ FourB . C, A A � *� s���,. r �_� �•'�sC � �� � 11:744114 vs., �Q o 44 18w• cam. .�Q� a m At.) �de ,ate, Ae y r, ovv A sem, a •,E�.� Glow koi�...-- ae.e...[ s--_,- .r� �.. ; ®1�,aisior`4 auto`t9 q. ��_��..» �� oea. 1 ir ,,,,,.,,zr *444� iA , 1 3'il WrAla P418�i>Oaf VII. 6 . e! �'t 11111141 I'�01 a I 1 Ze4 42 i . !I. !.,, . , at . „..40 Wr CI In r 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet Development/Developer: Diffley Ventures, LLC Application: Final Plat; Preliminary PD; Final PD Case No.: 26 -FP -14-07-05; 26 -PD -04-07-05; 26 -FD -12-07-05 Cityof Ekon Ekon Community Development Department imt# Ing ERSIce of w 91. Parcel base map data provided • only Office of GIS and is current as of Apt 2005 THI AP 1S INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY The City of Ea • ota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this information and are not responsible for errors or omissions. W E Current Zoning and Comprehensive Guide Plan Land Use Map Diffley Ventures, LLC Prelim. and Final Planned Development Case Nos. 26 -PD -04-07-05; 26 -FD -12-07-05 City of Eagan Community Development Department Parcel base map info on pro' ming In �wrnty L talned b d Survey Department Jute 2003. ity Stat THIS MA S INTENDED FO = ERENCE USE ONLY The City of Eagan and Dakota guarantee the accuracy of this information. 7 Zoning Map LD -r dn��� Land Use Map •liti ,A R'7`lictrig' PF QP PFp t,tik4 tip IIPF Location :Current Zoning: 1ki, 11. in CPn 41111111Kik_ 1 AIR Current Land Use Designation: - Panned Development PD ' .4 r 111 IIIIIIIIIIL 4,4 00 4:Iii‘111111 III 1 11 1►p e, Retail Commercial ����r�` @ Imikii I ■ ac=` ' 40iiik,, a. <%11111 simp �� � i ' L tum IIIupta_zi iii l r fI1i1 11111114.01.1111:1 ,� ri/1111 W-5 m1..■■■■ Allo VIII. ,.t 44p EIR■■a II■�� ii *j,r.1.12 IrL' _____i. Mil el iirbaal _ rim _ __ ir' cz am sat ■dasimumill _____rim�.-�ah -w _ -. low-- i. __ ■II�����Ilil.. 600 0 600 1100 Feet rAfinIIfl :� A !gflfi.1r,.lr,■'ll' I I I I 1 \ I yi - 1/ City of Eagan Community Development Department Parcel base map info on pro' ming In �wrnty L talned b d Survey Department Jute 2003. ity Stat THIS MA S INTENDED FO = ERENCE USE ONLY The City of Eagan and Dakota guarantee the accuracy of this information. 7 Comprehensive Guide Plan LD -r dn��� Land Use Map ekZi QP t,tik4 tip LD lir-- k Location in CPn 41111111Kik_ 1 AIR Current Land Use Designation: ilisswv ,e p P1IIIIIIIIIIIIIWi 4 I. 10 4 RCP 111 41*A III 1 11 1►p e, Retail Commercial @ Imikii I ■ ac=` ' a. <%11111 IIIIk �� � i ' L tum IIIupta_zi iii l r fI1i1 11111114.01.1111:1 ,� W-5 m1..■■■■ Allo VIII. ,.t o� i��� ------AN�=/It ���. _____i. Mil _ _ __ ir' :m2 ■dasimumill 600 D 600 ,100 F..t Blt A rAfinIIfl rI P , City of Eagan Community Development Department Parcel base map info on pro' ming In �wrnty L talned b d Survey Department Jute 2003. ity Stat THIS MA S INTENDED FO = ERENCE USE ONLY The City of Eagan and Dakota guarantee the accuracy of this information. 7 EX EX ISTING CONDITIONS 5 • f Ilk ii ff if :i} NVld 311S 11d1:13/1O 01 414 116). :C7 m m ,07-0.9' 10 C =71 9./6 108.11..1 X00`04..8 "E Z1-1. 16 rnn1� .1.a'i.1.•nu1 44111.11 . 1 WEST S DE SITE PLAN nip ',`I`'� : 1 ? -mid ii1I • 1 v 4t24.' I 11 1.3) it I.JC" 11$ k u.tc i.zli 1651 NE ;1111c1 AlIS AOIS _LSV3 g 0 2 =0 GRADING PLAN 5 '7*4 t 411 ti 1 ■ : VIlop. GRADING (WEST) >-§§§d|| 1 11 ■ •§ |■ill |ii \\ ) GRADING (EAST) iE io 5 trs{ev /() 1 t nil IP UTILITIES (WEST) r.Kol 0=1 • r grrl 2P,.< // • 0 t 114 0 ;1111 ci f 041. ggi '•• NTH SNI1Hell 3111S II! it ;1111 ; A . _ _ _ _ . . ___, e — - - 4 '' ' \ 9 _ _ _ _ a I z Ndld NOILVAU3Sald 331:11 : ,x(11 F 3 LANDSCAPE PLAN ; LANDSCAPE PLAN (WEST) 11; 111 110 •f! 10 IL 2 2 d 111' I t C / 0 • a 1 11 !i (1SV3) NVid 3dV3SCINV1 0 7 104 If /8 Pi— I • I • 1 I - 1 • 1 • I • 1 I. l 1_ ^ 1 • 1 ^ 1 • 1 A D >b Z — — • a I:: I B \ 4 e I::I secs I.•..I - r e i � ; I. ••• •I • ` e 1 .. .. §S# 111 .. NE is il L • • IIII 1' - _ III III- se EILEVATIONS—GROCERY 1 N w.111..r RCA.. 1.111143,107014 Ave,. s. EAGAN. MN ^— aISIBw �c+neenae 1 13§3§•§1§1.11§1 NOT FOR CONDTRJGTbN .-.._.��-�.a I PI�l'WRY mf1o.OR E..YA1i�PD 1 • 1 • - ..........m.. I .. 1 • 1 1 1 • -1 C.ner -.m .. a. RS 1 • I I /8 Pi— 1 ELEVATIONS-GROCERY(CONT.) 2 6 99 11 III JU 111 !I II RR II 44 111 9 1 PI tE R1 41 X16 II !f 11 q q q • IC:I u 0 E5 t "1 11 1 11 1 11 I i i RADERMI GFER's owut ROAD . Lsmnrt0N Lvt t 1346Ahl, MN PIdYWRT eneRIViR e,svamw ora reenlc 1 e+orennen PRPJi14R' NOT FOR CONSTIWTON -41 wl,....13..1.0•2•11.41• OWL 0 sveraropagadpeowoornewm IMI:11116101.05 Iht twa IIIVLINIVS SI -311104Y SDIAMIS mrsaa 011011).10c1 -L ----"C tam am, avou A.31.3.41a NYVNVVV3 MYILLIANYNI A31.1.31C1 adaht SNOLLVATIZ =MI= NVId110711 I 6 FLOOR PLAN 1:1 11 Al ° j2 e9{1r 'ins' 0 Ubil I I, i1ro H MI iire_il 0 e..g. ,.., l'41 - IIIII1:0 'Pfeil e, s 11:1:1 Ilia elilril ' 1 il Hrei 1 pp f S Or 1 1 Illig .0 rg: 1111 `I 1 -• it $ 1111;2;1ro ,1 9 :rig!' ° . oil - 1 .:Q " I 1121to I'l RIILS:.1 0 e ti' Ill 1 ro 1 0 11,f09 : - , - .• .. FRONT ELEVATION 8 >•I tu 1111131:1—SNOL1VAT13 EXTERIOR MATERIAL SCHEDULE i 1 q 1 1 11 COMM DECORATIVE LICIAIT FIXEIRE 1 111 K11 he ; Q N 1 4 3 11 ,1i ' :.1 11 r t a t t 1 RI Egi iii ith zgiR HIM i i r" i 2y M§11 II gli 1 13 II li I g g i IR lel SISTIMICIS 0101; RAANARLVAseeurvAmi WO) WM 51UCC0 ORD COLOR) •••-• . g 1 i ! IP l. Mil 1 Il iii gg. 3S t t t t t „gillipi miiiiiiimiciininmotddiati L. it, 1 qi[4,11 t II lailikhtltiOiVii g 0 g 2 r g ig R 11 it i 9 s e es a s SIDE ELEVATION RECEIVED JUL 20 2005 • c ti r _ LJ .b ,OL � n 0W8 ELEVATIONS MONUMENT irs 0 LJ Lf 7 117 Diffley Marketplace Sign Plan WALL SIGNS General Requirements A. All wall signs shall conform to city ordinance as well as the criteria provided herein. B. All sign transformers, ballast boxes, "J boxes", electrical connections and decals shall be concealed inside a raceway. Raceway color must match sign band. Manufacturer's names, stamps and decals shall not be exposed. C. No exposed neon or incandescent bulbs or flashing, blinking, rotating or moving signs or makers shall be permitted. D. No Store Front Sign or other signing on the Premises shall be of a type wherein the signing is housed or contained within an illuminated or non - illuminated sign can or box mounted on the exterior of the sign area, unless expressly approved by the Landlord in writing. E. Small-scale signs stating store hours, which are neatly lettered on the glass of the storefront, shall be permitted subject to the Landlord's approval. Any non -customer door for receiving merchandise may have the name of the Tenant in two inch (2") block letters. Address signs shall be composed of four -inch (4") high (maximum) Helvetica style white letters centered on the transom glass above the door. F. No sign shall be painted on the exterior of the walls, doors, windows or any other surface of the Demised Premises, nor erected, maintained or suffered to remain on the roof or parapet of the Premises. G. No sign shall be erected until written specifications and drawings of such sign are first approved in writing by Landlord. Such specifications and drawings shall show the size, construction, materials, colors, script, name of sign manufacturer and proposed location of such sign in conformity with the requirements stated herein and shall include a cross section drawing. H. Each party's customary signature or logo, hallmark, insignia or other trade identification will be allowed within the guidelines set forth. All signs erected by Tenant pursuant to the provisions hereof shall be erected at Tenant's own risk and expense (including final electrical connections and time clock), shall be in accordance with applicable law, and shall concern only the business of the Tenant. Tenant shall secure g))' RECEIVED JUL 20 2005 (95 and pay any necessary permits and fees. Tenant shall maintain said signs in a good state of repair and save the Landlord harmless from any Toss, cost or damage as a result of the erection, maintenance, existence and removal of the same, and Tenant shall repair any damage which may have been caused by the erection, existence, maintenance or removal of such signs. Upon vacating the Premises, Tenant shall remove all such signs and repair all damage cause by such removal. The contractor, materials and methods for repair must be approved in writing by the Landlord in advance of the work. J. All electrical hook-ups shall be performed by a licensed electrician, approved by Landlord and installed in accordance with all governmental requirements. K. Any damage caused to Landlord's work by signage installation shall be repaired by the Landlord and charged to the Tenant. L. Public safety decals or art work on glass in minimum sizes to comply with applicable code, subject to the approval of Landlord, may be used, as required by building codes or other governmental regulations. M. Paper signs, stickers, banners or flags are prohibited. II. Specific Requirements A. Type 1. Individually lighted channel letters with translucent front mounted on raceway that matches the exact exterior wall color on which raceway is mounted. Must be approved by Landlord prior to installation. 2. Can signs are only permitted if approved by Landlord. B. Size — Subject to city ordinance and Landlord approval. The tenants will be allowed exterior building signage (one wall sign per street frontage) based on the following: the total area of all wall signs affixed to a building wall shall be the lessor of 20% of the total area of that wall or the area allowed by City code. C. Base line and center line of sign to be located by Lessor's Architect. D. Colors and Materials 1. Rohm & Haas plex faces: #2146 Ivory, 2108 Green, 2048 Red, 3016 Yellow, 2119 Orange or other colors with Landlord's pre - approval with black trim caps and matte black returns. 2. Double neon tubing in color to match plex face, individually gas filled to ten (10) MM of pressure. 3. Sign letter shall be aluminum channel frame (minimum .090) with flat or molded plastic face and mounted with concealed fasteners. Channel frame shall be painted to matte black. All letters shall be illuminated with neon tubes powered by normal factory transformers installed in the letter. A conduit for electric will be provided by Landlord's contractor. All letters shall be approved by Underwriter Laboratories and carry a seal of approval. 4. Upon sign installation, all penetrations made to the exterior of the building must be caulked with a polyurethrane based product called Sonnelastic 150 or Sonneborn NP1. Any alternative products must be approved by Landlord. 5. Signs shall be attached to building with stainless steel bolts. 6. As part of Tenant's electrical work, Tenant shall install a seven- day timing device to control the canopy sign so that hours of illumination can be controlled in accordance with the overall shopping center policy. F. Three (3) completed set of full size sign drawings with detailed dimensions must be submitted to the Landlord for approval before fabrication. Tenant's sign drawings must include the following: 1. Provide a complete listing and verbal description of every sign to be erected on the Premises. 2. Provide elevation views of storefront showing all signs (drawn to accurate scale) with dimensions of heights of letters and length of signs. 3. Provide a cross section view through sign letter and sign panel showing location of sign relative to the storefront line, mounting height, and the dimensioned projection of the face of the letter from the face of the sign panel. Landlord shall not be responsible for the cost of re -fabrication of signs fabricated, ordered or constructed that do not conform to the sign criteria and the local sign ordinances. This sign criteria may be amended from time to time by Landlord. FREESTANDING SIGNS A. Developer will be allowed to construct a total of four (4) freestanding signs in the development: 1. 20' freestanding monument sign to be located on Lot 2. The upper half of the sign will be allocated to Lot 1 and the lower half to Lots 2 and 3. 2. Two 10' signs will be allocated to Outlot A. It is intended that Outlot A will eventually be 2 separate Tots and one sign will be allocated to each lot. 3. 6' freestanding monument sign shall be put at the entrance to the development on Daniel Drive. B. All freestanding signs shall conform to city ordinance as well as the criteria provided herein. C. No exposed neon or incandescent bulbs or flashing, blinking, rotating or moving signs or markers shall be permitted. aas July 20, 2005 ,AL llr LANDFORM MINNEAPOLIS -PHOENIX Ms. Pamela Dudziak, Planner & Mr. John Gorder, Asst. City Engineer City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122-1897 RE: Diffley Marketplace Eagan, MN Landform Project No: REL05018 Dear Ms. Dudziak and Mr. Gorder, On behalf of Reliance Development Company, LLP, the Applicant, Landform is pleased to present the attached application and plans for Preliminary PD, Final PD, and Final Plat for approval of a 10.94 -acre retaiVcommercial development located adjacent to Walgreens and east of the intersection of Lexington Avenue and Diffley Road in Eagan, Minnesota. The parcel is bordered on the north by Diffley Road, on the west by Walgreens, on the south by a residential neighborhood, and on the east by Daniel Drive with residential across the street. The site is currently zoned PD - Planned Development, and land use is RC - Retail Commercial. Site The proposed use for this site is retail / neighborhood business. Reliance Development's intention is to introduce convenience without compromising aesthetics, and is presenting the City with plans that reflect numerous comments from neighboring residents who had some concems. The proposed anchor for this development is a new style of fresh food grocer owned by the Rademacher Family. Reliance is also proposing two 10,000 SF retail strip buildings, and there is potential for a future bank and some type of quick -serve restaurant. We are aware that a bank or quick -serve restaurant with a drive-through requires a Conditional Use Permit prior to building, however we are not applying for that at this time. It is the Developer's request to get Preliminary PD approval for the entire parcel, and Final PD approval for the grocer and two retail buildings. The parcel is comprised of two outlots: Outlot A Lexington Point Thirteenth Addition, and Outlot A Lexington Pointe Seventh Addition. It is our intent to get Final Plat approval to convert Outlot A Lexington Pointe Thirteenth Addition into Lot 1 Block 1 Diffley Marketplace. The other outlot would remain as is. 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 IR' T AVE UE XORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403 OFFICE. 612.252.9070 www.tandform.net RECEIVED JUL 2 0 2005 The site has been designed with the community in mind and includes amenities such as walking trails, outdoor dining areas, free standing monument walls, and attractive landscaping. As previously mentioned, we have taken resident comments very seriously and have made every effort to encorporate those comments into the site plan. Existing Drainage The site is currently vacant with exception to a bituminous road that leads from Diffley to the Existing Walgreens. A majority of the drainage seems to be directed toward a few low spots on site and then eventually makes it's way to the storm sewer on Daniel Drive or Diffley Road. A small portion of the site drains south to existing catch basins that link to the storm system along Lexington Avenue. Hydrology / Rate Control We have proposed one NURP pond on the east side of the property for water quality and rate control. The City of Eagan requires that we meet NURP standards and that we grade no steeper than 3.5:1. If our 10' bench is not factored in, the pond has an average depth of 4.01. If the bench is factored in, the average pond depth is 3.84' (see attached calculations). The attached HydroCAD calculations show that the 2 -Yr, 10 -Yr, and 100 -Yr runoff rates have been reduced from existing due to this pond. These reduced rates include the areas that drain off-site. The summary table for this development is below: An 8" orifice was needed to match the 2 -Yr proposed runoff to existing. This was achieved by placing a baffle wall in the center of the outlet strucure with an 8" orifice at an invert the NWL (871.50). The 2 -Yr HWL was modeled to be 972.62. The top of the baffle wall was then set at 972.75 to let the 10 -Yr and 100 -Yr runoff flow over the wall and into the 15" RCP outlet pipe which would then control the flow. Water Quality Our pond has been designed based on runoff from a 2.5" rainfall, with a 10' bench from the normal water down. Our required pond volume is 65,859 CF; we are providing a cumulative pond volume of approx. 76,515 CF (see attached calculations). At this size, the pond will also serve as an attractive focal point for this development, as well as a buffer between the commercial uses and the residents across Daniel Drive. We are proposing a submerged outlet pipe to skim floatables. This outlet pipe will connect to an overflow pond outlet control structure. A 15 -inch pipe will connect this structure to 3„,l Runoff, cfs Runoff, cfs Event Existing Proposed 2 -year 2.73 2.61 10 -year 13.09 11.92 100 -year 25.62 17.87 An 8" orifice was needed to match the 2 -Yr proposed runoff to existing. This was achieved by placing a baffle wall in the center of the outlet strucure with an 8" orifice at an invert the NWL (871.50). The 2 -Yr HWL was modeled to be 972.62. The top of the baffle wall was then set at 972.75 to let the 10 -Yr and 100 -Yr runoff flow over the wall and into the 15" RCP outlet pipe which would then control the flow. Water Quality Our pond has been designed based on runoff from a 2.5" rainfall, with a 10' bench from the normal water down. Our required pond volume is 65,859 CF; we are providing a cumulative pond volume of approx. 76,515 CF (see attached calculations). At this size, the pond will also serve as an attractive focal point for this development, as well as a buffer between the commercial uses and the residents across Daniel Drive. We are proposing a submerged outlet pipe to skim floatables. This outlet pipe will connect to an overflow pond outlet control structure. A 15 -inch pipe will connect this structure to 3„,l the existing storm sewer stub left at the southeast corner of the property. In a 100 -year event, the pond will bounce to a 974.6, this is where we have chosen to place our overflow structure rim, but we also provide an additional foot of freeboard above the 100 -year high water elevation. In the case that a storm event would exceed a 100 -year event, the pond would overflow at a freeboard elevation of roughly a 975.6 and flow into Daniel Drive. We respectfully request approval of the Preliminary PD, Final PD, and Final Plat for Diffley Marketplace. Please feel free to contact me at 612.252.9070 with any questions that may arise or if any additional information is requested. Thank you. Sincerely, LANDFORM: Matthew R. S /mrs COPY: File John Trautz, Reliance Development Company, LLP Steve Rademacher Peter Hilger, Portfolio Design Services 'Landform Engineering Company doing business as Landform. 08" 3! Reliance Development Company July 20, 2005 Pamela Dudziak City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Rd Eagan, MN 55122-1897 RE: Neighborhood Meeting for Proposed Diffley Marketplace Dear Pam, In addition to the plans we have submitted to you to begin the city approval process, I wanted to send separate correspondence regarding the neighborhood meeting we held on July 6, 2005. I believe our plans significantly address the concerns expressed by the residents that attended the meeting. The meeting was held at the library near city hall. About 40 people were in attendance. Twenty-two residents signed our "Guest Sign In" sheet. In attendance was a member of the Wildflower Neighborhood Organization who presented me with a variety of materials including a "Position Statement for Preliminary Subdivision", "Screening Specifications" and minutes of the July 28, 1998 Planning Commission. I thought the meeting went well with quite a few good comments from the meeting attendees. There concerns were primarily about traffic, green space and bike/pedestrian safety. As a result of these concerns, we made significant revisions to our plans. The primary changes are as follows: 1. There was concern about traffic along the driveway at the south end of our site and at the Daniel St. access point. The long driveway along the south end of the development was thought to promote cut through traffic between Daniel and Lexington and excessive speeds. Our response was to significantly modify the driveway so that it was integrated into the site. We believe this will make it undesirable to use the driveway as a cut through and, because of the driveways current circuitous path, it would slow traffic down. 2. Bike/pedestrian path safety from the Wildflower development into the commercial site was also a concern. We believe that the re-routing of the southerly driveway and clearly marked paths throughout the development significantly addresses that issue. Reliance Development Company, LLP. 1000 Rand Tower 527 Marquette Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55402-1327 Telephone (612) 338-1000 Facsimile (612) 338-8971 �a9 Page Two Pamela Dudziak July 21, 2005 3. The amount of green space and screening between the Wildflower development and Diffley Marketplace was the final primary concern. The site has 30% green space which is as much as we've seen in the metropolitan area. The plans submitted to you earlier show significant landscaping and berming which should satisfy the need for adequate screening. I look forward to meeting with you soon to discuss our plans. July 26, 2005 John C. Trautz Reliance Development Company 1000 Rand Tower 527 Marquette Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55402 RECEIVED JUL 2 9 2005 EAGAN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT RE: Neighborhood Meeting for Proposed Diffley Marketplace Dear Mr. Trautz, The Wildflower Homeowners Association (WI -IA) has obtained copies of Reliance Development Company's application and plans for Preliminary PD, Final PD and Final Plat approval for the Diffley Marketplace development. In addition to the PD submittal, the WHA also obtained a copy of your letter, dated July 20, 2005 to Pamela Dudziak, Planner, City of Eagan, regarding the "neighborhood" meeting held on July 6, 2005. The content of your letter or the lack thereof, is the reason I am writing. The Wildflower residents who attended the meeting that have reviewed the letter thought it was self-serving and misleading. For Reliance to characterize the comments of attendees "about traffic, green space and bike/pedestrian safety" as the "primary concerns" of the neighborhood seems intentionally misleading. To suggest to the City that Reliance made significant revisions to plans to accommodate "the concerns expressed by the residents..." seems equally self-serving and misleading. The purpose of the neighborhood meeting was supposed to be "...to hear our thoughts about how to develop the commercial property...", however, your presentation and the plans and building drawings displayed at the meeting indicated that Reliance is more ready for construction than in need of "important input" from the neighborhood. A few days after the meeting, I called Sarah Leschinsky in your office to request a copy of the "Guest Sign -In" sheet and minutes of the meeting. Ms. Leschinsky indicated that Reliance "did not intend to publish minutes for the meeting" and that the attendees list was only "so we (i.e., Reliance) would know who from the neighborhood attended the meeting". While reluctant to publish meeting minutes, it seems disingenuous of Reliance to send a letter to the City's Planning department claiming the "meeting went well" and the "primary concerns" of the residents have been addressed. More to the point, prior to the close of the meeting I indicated that the information Reliance had presented was rather overwhelming and that the comments of those attending should not be construed as the only concerns likely to be raised about the development. I also indicated that a primary concern of area residents, especially Wildflower homeowners immediately south of the proposed development, is that the grocery store is not planned at a scale compatible with the nearby residential uses. The size of the building (42,000 SF) and the scale of the operation (citywide draw, 15,000 customer trips per week, up to 30 truck deliveries a day, 24/7 operation) is certainly beyond what many Wildflower homeowners envisioned. This concern was not addressed in your revised plans and comment letter to the City. a3. I also indicated that a roadway along the south edge of Outlot A is not allowed based on conditions of the PD approved by the City in 1998 for the development of the Walgreens property west of Outlot A. Again, there is no mention of this primary concern in the Reliance submittals to the City. Traffic issues were a concern mentioned numerous times at the meeting, however, eliminating the `through road" does not address a number of other site and community wide traffic concerns expressed by residents. Certainly, a development of the scale proposed will seriously affect traffic on Daniel Drive, Lexington Avenue and Diffley Road, as well as other streets throughout the surrounding community. A comprehensive traffic study seems to be a wise and reasonable request. To be clear, it is the Wildflower Homeowners Association's position that: 1. The PD is not at a scale compatible with the nearby, low-density, residential uses. Subject to scale appropriate development, greater buffering (i.e., greater set back distances, plantings, landscaping, etc.) also needs to be provided as indicated by the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan. 2. A roadway cannot be built within 60 feet of the south edge of `Outlot A' (i.e., on the vacated drainage and utility easement formally designated for a roadway). Therefore, plans for a roadway connecting the site to Daniel Drive and Patrick Road and subsequently the connection of that roadway to the Lexington Center/Walgreens entrance off Lexington Ave. need to be reconsidered. 3. Prior to approval of any PD for `Outlot A', a comprehensive traffic study should be done to allay the fears of area residents about the affect the proposed development will have on our lives and surrounding community. I look forward to your response. The favor of a timely reply is appreciated. Sincerely, Tom Kukulski Architectural Committee Wildflower Homeowners Association 997 Trillium Court 905-0470 Cc: Ms. Pamela Dudziak, Planner (City of Eagan), Mr. John Gorder, Asst. City Engineer (City of Eagan), Mr. Tim Meekin, President WHA a�a Proposed Eagan Development "Diffley Marketplace" Page 1 of 1 Pam Dudziak From: Bonifacio, Frank [frank.bonifacio@thomson.com] Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 1:47 PM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: 's.kukulski@worldnet.att.net' Subject: Proposed Eagan Development "Difey Marketplace" Dear Miss Dudziak, My name is Frank Bonifacio and my family and I have been residents of Eagan since moving to Minnesota in August 1999. I'm fortunate to live and work in our great city. I love Eagan and invest in my community by buying local and volunteering many hours each year to local youth organizations. While I support efforts and applaud Eagan's outstanding reputation for insisting on balanced residential/business community developments, I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed development on Diffley Avenue by the Reliance Development Company. The location of the development would be directly across the street from Northview Elementary School and adjacent to residential neighborhoods. I am not aware of a traffic study that has been conducted to determine the impact to current traffic patterns. It is critical that we understand the estimated increase in traffic and the related risk to residents, students, faculty, other groups utilizing Northview for after school and evening activities This includes foot, bike, and auto traffic. In addition, I am not aware of any development of its kind in Eagan where the proposed size development resides next to an elementary school and single family home neighborhoods. The proposed size of the grocery store appears too large for the available space and is out of scale with the existing businesses in the adjacent development. If such a development exists, what was resulting impact to the community and how did the development company and businesses address resident concems before, during, and after development? I also have concerns about features and operations such as; building height, set backs, buffering, lighting, rooftop equipment, access roads, hours of business operations, trucking traffic, waste collection, etc. These issues must be addressed to ensure that Northview and adjacent neighborhoods are minimally impacted by the development. As a resident of Eagan and a member of the Wildflower Homeowners Association (Wildflower) directly impacted by the development, I expect that the Reliance Development Company and the potential businesses will work with neighboring communities similar to how Walgreen's and other businesses worked with Wildflower to create a balanced development where residents make it a priority to support local business. I look forward to the upcoming Planning Commission and City Council meetings where this proposed development will be reviewed. Sincerely, Frank Bonifacio 985 Coneflower Court Eagan Cc: Tom Kukulski Wildflower Homeowners Association Architectural Committee 08/08/2005 X33 Page 1 of 1 Pam Dudziak From: tapaetznick@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 10:18 PM To: Pam Dudziak Subject: Concerns regarding Diffley Development Pamela, I wanted to share my concerns with you regarding the new development on the corner of Diffley and Lexington. My primary concern is with the access road off of Daniel Drive. It's my understanding that the current access road off of Diffley will be removed and this will be one of the primary access points. The increased traffic on this road, where our children walk to school is of great concern. Why remove the access road off of Diffley? I'd like to strongly suggest that those plans be reconsidered and NO access point be hosted on Daniel Drive. The increased traffic will surely increase safety concerns and also decrease the value of our homes. Please share my concerns with the Plannng Commission and City Council as you review this issue further. Regards, Teresa Paetznick 4410 Braddock Trail Eagan, MN 55123 08/10/2005 �3'f Page 1 of 1 Pam Dudziak From: plstopfer@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 10:00 AM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: s.kukufski@worldnet.att.net Subject: Comments on the Reliance Development Proposal Dear Ms. Dudziak: We live in the Walnut Ridge development and have a child attending Northview Elementary School. We wanted to pass along our comments regarding the proposed development of the commercial property along Diffley Road by Reliance Development Company. While we welcome additional commercial development in this area, we feel that the proposed Rademachers grocery store is too large for the area given the surrounding residential neighborhoods and the public school located across the street. We are fully supportive of a smaller scale grocery store, similar in size to Walgreens. Our concerns with a large grocery store include: - Increased traffic levels in the area and the inability of existing roads to effectively handle it. We already have difficulty coming out of our development on Lexington Point Parkway and turning left (south) onto Lexington. - Increased traffic levels that put children going to and from Northview school at risk for injury. - Increased traffic levels that further increase noise levels in the neighborhoods. - The larger size building is out of character with the other commercial buildings in the immediate area. - Diminished property values of surrounding neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and attention to our comments. Pete & Lisa Stopfer 4350 Jennifer Ct a3� 08/10/2005 August 8, 2005 Ms_ Pamela Dudziak Eagan Planning Department 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan MN 55122 Dear Ms. Dudziak, We are residents of the Wildflower Neighborhood southeast of the intersection of Lexington and Diffley and are writing to express our concerns about the development proposed on the land east of Walgreens. Our major concern is, of course, the size of the proposed grocery store. At over 43,000 square feet, this building is the size of a typical Best Buy store and is actually larger than the existing Best Buy stores in nearby Apple Valley and Burnsville. It would occupy almost 80 percent of the square footage of the Byerly's store. Certainly this size structure is not compatible with a low-density residential neighborhood only a few feet away. We have spent some time reviewing the Eagan zoning regulations. We realize that this parcel is zoned for Planned Development and is not strictly governed by the requirements that apply to other zoning designations. But we understand that the relevant portions of other zoning provisions are at least considered when reviewing a proposal for a site zoned PD. It appears to us that the zoning code establishes a hierarchy that restricts development options on sites close to residential neighborhoods and expands those options in areas where nighborhood impact is less of a concern. For example, a Limited Business District, defined in part as "areas that are particularly exposed to residential neighborhoods," does not appear to allow retail sales. (See Subdivision 10, B. 8, which permits "offices of a general nature where the operations do not include retail sales or warehousing from the site.") A Neighborhood Business District is the next step on the hierarchy. These districts are defined as "small business areas generally located adjacent to or in close proximity to residential neighborhoods that are intended to provide daily retail goods and services." The permitted uses include a variety of what are generally understood to be small businesses — bakeries, barbershops, etc. Indeed, the only specific mention of grocery sales is at Subdivision 11, B. 22 — "specialty food stores" - which we suppose would include stores like a Von Hanson's meat market, not a 43,000 square foot Rademacher's. Financial institutions are permitted but only "without drive-through facilities" (Subdivision 11, B.8). The next two steps on this hierarchy, General Business District and Community Shopping Center District, provide less restrictions on commercial operations, but we note that only the CSCD includes retail sales as a permitted use without restriction. It seems clear to us that the zoning regulations envision strict development controls on commercial land that is immediately adjacent to residential neighborhoods. We would argue that this site is "particularly exposed to residential neighborhoods," and should be treated as a Limited Business District. Without question it qualifies as a Neighborhood Business District in that is "located adjacent to or in close proximity to residential neighborhoods." In order to comply with the clear intent of our zoning code, the size of the proposed grocery store should be substantially reduced to make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. We have many other concerns about this project, including: 4.36 a. Traffic Volume. Rademacher's expects 15,000 customers per week. When fully developed the site will also include a number of other commercial entities that will depend on customer visits. We hope the planning department is looking at the impact this volume of traffic will have on the Diffley/Lexington intersection and on the surrounding neighborhoods. Like many Eagan neighborhoods, we have limited access to our arterial streets. We are afraid the growth in traffic volume on Lexington is likely to force us into driving east, further into a residential area, to access a main street. It is already difficult at certain times of the day to enter Lexington from Lexington Pointe Parkway, especially to make a left turn, and even more difficult during inclement weather. b. Continuous Operation. We understand that Rademacher's will be seeking permission to operate 24 hours, seven days a week, although initially they will operate 18 hours, seven days a week. Continuous operation of a high-volume retailer does not belong in a residential neighborhood. c. Lack of Green Space. The proposed development includes, in addition to the grocery store, another 29,000 square feet of commercial development and 360 parking spaces. This just seems to be a very intensive development with limited consideration for preserving green space. In order to accomplish adequate green space, the grocery store would have to be significantly scaled back. d. Service Road. While the developer has made some changes in response to concerns about the proposed "service road" becoming a through road between Patrick Road and Daniel Drive, we are still concerned about having a roadway so close to the neighbors to the south of the road. We understand there may have been prior action taken by the City Council when Walgreens was developed to vacate this easement and create the current service road access to Walgreens. We would like to have this question addressed prior to giving approval of an additional roadway into and out of the development that would abut properties in the neighborhood. e. Other. We have a variety of other concerns and trust that the Planning Department is reviewing the developer's plans to make sure the project includes adequate setbacks, height restrictions, buffering, lighting and signage controls, etc. We note that the City Council is currently wrestling with a proposed development on Yankee Doodle Road that would include a new Best Buy. That development, to be built in Eagan's main commercial district, would have about 12,000 fewer square feet than the one proposed for a few feet from our neighbors' backyards. Both parcels are 10 acres, more or less, yet the one being proposed adjacent to a neighborhood has more total square footage of commercial space. We would appreciate having our comments made available to the members of the Advisory Planning Commission and the City Council. Sinc rely, David and Sharon Giel 990 Trillium Court Eagan MN 55123 (651-452-5177) Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl A. Dubbels [cheryl.dubbels@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 7:52 AM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: Mike Ridley; Jon Hohenstein; s.kukulski@worldnet.att.net Subject: Proposed Commercial Dev. on Diffley and Lexington Ms. Dudziak and Associates: We live in the neighborhood just south of the Wildflower neighborhood development. Recently we received a letter from Tim Meekin, president of the Wildflower Homeowners Ass., in regards to the new development apparently in process going in just to the north of them off of Diffley and Lexington. I must admit as my husband and I read their letter of concern we actually were very glad to hear that that land is finally being developed. The idea of a grocery store, bank etc. sounds wonderful for our area and I'd much prefer having that land tastefully developed as opposed to the tall weeds, rodents and garbage that currently reside there. I know his purpose for the letter was to draw us into action and to slow the process due to their neighborhood concerns. Unfortunately, I'm not able to agree with them and look forward to that development going in as soon as possible. The only concerns I can echo on their behalf is that this is done tastefully with those neighbors' homes protected from direct traffic concerns and any ill affects of having such establishments near by. I believe we all were quite aware that that land would eventually be commercially developed and I am quite relieved to hear that these are the establishments interested in going in. I even welcome one more "quick serve" restaurant (especially if it's a coffee shop as rumored). It's wonderful to know we will have more places to take our walks to. I would agree with them that having the grocery store opened 24 hours might be a red flag because of the late night traffic and "hanging out" issues, like the ones that often occur up at the corner by the Oasis and Walgreens. Keeping the neighbors in mind it would be preferable to close by ten or midnight to try to avoid inviting those issues to re -occur. Any business done between midnight and six, for instance, would probably not be enough to make or break them financially and a decision to close earlier would assure the neighbors that the developers/business owners do have their best interest in mind. They talked about their concern over the proposed service road going in behind the site between their neighborhood and the proposed development. My guess is they will either have to deal with a parking situation or a road right there regardless and that maybe the road would be the lesser of the two evils. That's not for me to determine obviously, but I would like to see that Wildflower neighborhood is completely separated from this road or development by nice landscaping with sufficient bushes and/or trees to give them a barrier from the development. Their concern over losing the "informal" path cutting through the weeds to Northview Elementary School I find to be a concern in the opposite manner. Cutting through the weeds has actually been trespassing and unsafe. It has created the temptation for kids to attempt to cross Diffley right there instead of at the appropriate corner where there are stop lights. A more formal path might become appropriate with the development going in just to accommodate walks to the grocery store or other establishments, but it's still not a safe place for kids to cross Diffley in order to get to school. Though I do understand their concerns, I am very excited about the new development. There are always concerns when changes begin to occur and they must be addressed, but it shouldn't stop us from moving forward and welcoming these changes into our neighborhoods if they are tastefully and considerately done, which I'm sure they will be. The Walgreen's was probably a concern when it first went in but has been a wonderful asset to our neighborhoods. Certain establishments draw the wrong kind of crowds or situations to occur in and near neighborhoods, but I don't feel like these will do that. Thank you for your time and your consideration of the concerns we have for our homes, children and neighborhoods, as well as, the care taken in developing the city of Eagan to be a great place to raise a family. Respectfully, Steve and Cheryl Dubbels 08/11/2005 Page 1 of 1 Pam Dudziak From: desfam3@netzero.net Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 5:39 PM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: s.kukulski@worldnet.att.net Subject: Diffley Market Place Dear Pam, Just a brief note to express our very serious concerns regarding the size,scale and scope of the proposed Diffley Market Place development. In our opinion the anchor store of over 43,000 square feet does not meet he definition of a "neighborhood" grocery store. It was also stated that although the store would initially "only" be open from 6:00 am to midnight, the intent is to apply for a licence to operate 24/7 shortly after opening. Is it standard policy of the City of Eagan to approve a 24/7 43,000 square feet building, w/ 15,000 "trips" weekly and 70 plus deliveries w/in 20 feet of residential property lines? Not to mention noise, quality of life issues our family has come to love as a resident of Eagan. We welcome a development that is more respectful and in scope w/ the quality of life for the Wildflower neigborhood. Thank you in advance for addressing our concerns. Sincerely, Jim and Vicki Desmond. 986 Trillium Ct. 08/12/2005 a39 Page 1 of 2 Pam Dudziak From: Peterson, Lorie [LPeterson@archinsurance.com] Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 9:04 AM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: s.kukulski@worldnet.att.net Subject: Diffley Marketplace Development Pamela: I am writing to provide feedback for the pending development project (Diffley Marketplace) which is to be proposed to the Eagan Planning Commission later this month. I am a homeowner in the Wildflower development which is adjacent to this new development. First let me point out that I have always anticipated this area to be developed commercially and quite frankly am looking forward to the development of this property. At this time I am not opposed to the proposed development but, have a few concerns relating to the construction of the project and increased traffic to the area that could potentially impact my family and my neighborhood. • The increased traffic on Diffley with the schools so close is a big concern of mine. There is already a lot of traffic on Diffley in the morning with rush hour, school drop off, retail/food businesses in the area, etc... The additional traffic to the area will need to be carefully considered for safety to our families. • • The surrounding schools add some additional challenges due to the regular, informal foot and bike traffic to and from all of the schools just north of the development area. I have children who attend DHMS and EHS. As inuch as I encourage my children to use the controlled intersections to cross Diffley as they ride or walk to and from school, as most teenagers do...disregard their parents and take the path of least distance. Typically, they use the short cuts up past Northview, across Diffley and through or around this porposed development site. There is also regular foot and bike traffic to at many other times in order to attend sporting events at EHS and at other recreational fields behind Northview. A couple of ideas that I had to improve the safety of this area: • Consider a lighted flashing crosswalk or walking overpass bridge over Diffley that will increase the safety of our children and families as they cross Diffley to and from school, athletic events and other activities. • During construction, I would like to see these properties secured with fencing to keep children and young adults off of equipment, away from holes in the ground etc... • Once complete, taking steps to reduce thefts in our surrounding neighborhood by patrolling to prevent lingering cars/traffic in parking lots, appropriate lighting, etc... Those of us who are homeowners in the Wildflower neighborhood love it there and many have been homeowners since the development began. Our properties have appreciated in value considerably over the years and many of us do not want to move from this great neighborhood. Whatever can be done to reduce a negative impact on our neighborhood would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Lorie Peterson 651.452.6647 Home 651.855.7174 Office 612.360.8173 Cell Our Motto: Arch Insurance Group will serve select businesses and will be known for the strength of our underwriters 08/12/2005 ado Page 1 of 1 Pam Dudziak From: Kristin.Dunmead [Kristin.Dunmead@target.com] Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 11:58 AM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: s.kukulski@worldnet.att.net Subject: Proposed Commercial Development in the Wildflower Neighborhood and Surrounding Areas Ms. Pamela Dudziak- I writing to you because 1 have some concerns about the proposed Commercial development(Diffley Marketplace) near my neighborhood near the intersection of Diffley and Lexington Roads. I am concerned with the following items within this proposal: -The fact that a service road will be extended to Daniel drive- causing a lot of traffic right in my neighborhood. With Cars constantly coming and going off of our neighborhoods side street, and a school right across the street, I think this would be a dangerous place to extend a service road to re-route traffic. The traffic would cause a lot of noise and disruption to our neighborhood. -Also the fact that there will be so much more added traffic and with a School right across the street there is a Children's safety issue. Many children bike or walk to the school, so I think there needs to be some sort of research done on this before connecting this service road to Daniel which is directly across from the entrance to the school. - The size of the proposed grocery store(and parking spaces) sounds enormous for the amount of space in that area. - The fact that the grocery store will be operating 24/7 in a residential area. I am concerned about the amount of noise from deliveries- considering how close this will be to some of the residents houses. Thank you for listening to my concerns, Please forward this info onto the appropriate people. Thanks, Kristin Dunmead and Christopher Kimm 4394 Braddock Trail Eagan, MN 55123 651-405-0013 Kristin Dunmead Designer -Children's Boys' Active & Outerwear/Swim Target Corporation ft 612.696.0749 TPS 1775 Kristin. Dun mead CaTarget.com 08/12/2005 Page 1 of 1 Pam Dudziak From: Tracie Hughes [traciehughes@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 1:21 PM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: t.meekin@comcast.net Subject: Re: Diffley Marketplace Proposal This letter is to express my concern regarding the proposed Diffley Marketplace project. I knew eventually that commercial property would end up on this site, but never in my wildest dreams did I imagine the huge impact this particular project would have on our neighborhood. I run an inhome daycare 4 houses in on Daniel Drive from Diffley. My property will have a front row seat to the increased traffic, air and noise pollution, not to mention the eye sore I will be looking at out my front window everyday. I am concerned about my business, my property value and my child's safety. Not only will this project inpact me personally, it could potentially inpact my business. I cannot see a lot of people being very happy dropping their children off at a daycare 2 doors down from a parking lot exit. I cannot BELIEVE that the city of Eagan would allow this to happen right across from an elementary school, in the heart of a neighborhood HEAVILY populated with children. With the school budgets being cut, more and more children are forced to either walk further to bus stops OR forced to walk all the way to the schools. Any wrong decisions made here could seriously impact the safety of our children. For 5 years now I've been trying to find a way to get traffic slowed down on my street and now the city is potentially allowing the problem to get worse, not better. In the 5 years I've lived here I have witnessed 4 accidents in front of my house alone. This is NOT a solution...it's MORE of a problem. Other concerns I have are regarding the rumour of having a 24/7 store open not 100 feet from a residential back door. And if there is a fast food restraunt opened on the property, what processes will be put into effect to ensure that my house doesn't end up smelling like a fryer if I want to open my windows. Will there be more police officers hired to patrol my neighborhood with the likeliness of an increase in traffic, crime and loitering? I realize that decisions made by the City of Eagan are hugely based on the financial bottom line. But with out your residents backing up these businesses, there won't be a finacial bottom line to count on. You need to seriously consider the needs of your residents and their families. Thank you. Tracie Hughes 4225 Daniel Drive Eagan 651-905-0943 traciehughest comcast.net 08/15/2005 Page 1 of 1 Pam Dudziak From: Svetlana [superslitana@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 10:49 AM To: Pam Dudziak Subject: Reliance Development Company Proposal Dear Ms. Dudziak, My name is Svetlana Melamed, and I will be a senior this fall at Eagan High School. I am writing on behalf of my family to express our concerns over the proposed development of the lot adjacent to our neighborhood. While we understand that Reliance Development has every right to put this land to commercial use, we feel that this project is too large for a residential area such as Wildflower. One of the things I love best about our neighborhood, and Eagan in general, is the spaciousness and feeling of security; I played with my friends in the tree fort on the path next to Trillium Court when I was younger, and my eight-year-old brother now does the same. Kids bike up and down that path, and Diffley Road, from the start of spring until the first snow. A grocery store as large as Rademacher's, as well as the four other buildings planned and the parking lot, would jeopardize this security with the noise and traffic they would bring. With my younger brother enrolled in third grade at Northview Elementary School, we are also very concerned about the impact of such development on the school. Constant traffic would pollute the area we send our kids to learn, and the increased noise would make concentration in school harder. It would no longer be safe for students to walk to and from school along the path out of our neighborhood to Diffley Road. This level of development is completely unsuited to the lifestyle Wildflower residents lead, and many of them, my family included, moved here expressedly to obtain such a lifestyle. We hope that you will take our concerns into account and help us keep our neighborhood safe and secure. Thank you for your attention. Roman, Irina, and Dennis Melamed 08/15/2005 Svetlana, Page 1 Pam Dudziak From: Leo Rickertsen [Ieoink@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 5:51 PM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: s.kukulski@worldnet.att.net Subject: Diffley Marketplace proposal Importance: High Dear Pamela and members of the Planning Commission and City Council, I live at 4221 Daniel Drive, having built the home there in 1995. My family (wife, two children 7 and 11) has lived here these ten years always knowing that the area south of Diffley and east of Lexington would be developed. However, we were also of the understanding that it would be neighborhood -friendly, safe and scaled to the area. When Walgreens came as an anchor, I attended the city council meeting where we expressed our concerns about the service road running east -west across the southern edge of the development and abutting Wildflower. left that meeting content that the city had agreed to not develop that service road because of the traffic, pedestrian safety and noise it would create. The northern service road was the agreed upon alternative, and was duly built. I distinctly remember that agreement, and expected the city would do the right thing. When I attended the Reliance Development Company presentation, I Teamed that "there was nothing in the title search" alluding to that agreement. I had the sinking feeling that it was all about what was legal rather than what was right...about what makes most sense for the developer and not thoughtful about the community surrounding it. The develop said that the service road so that fire equipment could have access completely around buildings. This is certainly possible without adding the Daniel Drive entrance. There are already two directions for entrance—one more than the elementary school across the street. I use this opportunity to ask the city council to exercise its authority by watching out in my behalf as an Eagan resident. Promises were made. Residents came and offered ideas in good faith. We live here. Our quality of life is here. We were assured that this quality is important. Daniel Drive as it enters Diffley is already a busy intersection. Several residential developments funnel to this street. Indeed on school mornings, traffic headed east to tum left on Braddock routinely backs up beyond Daniel Drive, creating potential gridlock as drivers attempt to cross through this line to attain west -moving Diffley traffic. To use Daniel Drive, a residential street, as egress for thousands of additional vehicles each day can only lower the quality of life and increase risk of accidents. Service trucks and distracted shoppers would be crossing the walkways of children going to Northview Elementary and Eagan High Schools. I am worried that during rush hours, traffic will back up from the stop sign on Daniel Drive as motorists attempt to enter onto Diffley. Having lived here ten years already, I am well aware of the foot traffic, 50 -mile -per hour crossing traffic and Northview Elementary pick-ups and drop offs as they all occur simultaneously. Adding thousands more vehicles onto Diffley will create back-ups from that stop sign, furthering the frustration that now occurs as motorists and pedestrians attempt to enter or cross Diffley. Frankly, I think it is poor planning to have a major shopping area direct its traffic onto anything smaller than a suburban arterial. That's what Diffley and Lexington are for. I can't think of any nearby community that has a store nearly the size of Byerly's and the traffic of (possibly—which I read as "likely") a "fast food" enterprise that directs such an increase onto a residential street—not even in St. Paul which has far fewer options. To have so much additional traffic directed to Daniel Drive invites frustration and blight out my front door. You are elected as my advocates for proper community development that enhances (or at least respects) neighborhood. I ask that you respond to this neighborhood's concerns by not permitting traffic to enter Daniel Drive from these proposed businesses and by providing the green space, tall trees and other landscape enhancements to make this area of commerce a welcome, attractive and neighborhood -enhancing addition. Sincerely, Leo Rickertsen 08/15/2005 ,PYz, Page 1 of 1 Pam Dudziak From: Christine Hansen [engmajor@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 4:33 PM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: s.kukulski@worldnet.att.net Subject: Diffley Marketplace Dear Pamela: I live at 4221 Daniel Drive with my husband and two school-age children. We are looking with some alarm at the plans for the Diffley Marketplace, particularly in the area of traffic flow and direction. I'm asking you, the committe, and the city council to carefully consider how the current plan will affect our neighborhood. It seems unwise and dangerous to direct traffic onto the residential street of Daniel Drive. The intersection of Daniel and Diffley is already busy, with commuters, high school traffic and children walking to Northview; adding high volume businesses, coupled with a neighborhood unfriendly traffic design, seems a bit short-sighted at the very least, and tragic, at worst. I have always accepted that those lots would be developed. I also know that the developer does not have my best interests in mind, nor would I expect that. I DO expect my local government to respect and respond to legitimate neighborhood concerns regarding safety and quality of life. I have watched other developments proceed with accomodation to the surrounding neighborhoods, and hope to see that trend continued here. Thank you, Christine Hansen 08/15/2005 Page 1 of 1 Pam Dudziak From: Schoeberltkk@aol.com Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 11:15 PM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: s.kukulski@worldnet.att.net Subject: Reliance Development Company Proposal Dear Pamela, I am writing in response to you regarding the Reliance Company proposed Development plans on the vacant land east of Walgreens and South of Diffley. We knew when we purchased our home on 4217 Daniel Drive that this was developed for commercial use, however we feel the current plans are not in the best interest of our residential neighborhood. Here are our concerns: 1. First of all I have safety concerns about the current traffic situation right now, and I am very worried about what is going to happen when we have a strip mall with a grocery store in it. The street in front of our house is very heavy with traffic throughout the day. It is used as a through street to the many connecting neighborhoods. We live at the intersection of Diffley and Daniel Dr. and the traffic is very steady throughout the day. In the morning and afternoon during rush hour it is even worse. Probably the worst time is during the school year when you have traffic to Eagan High School, Dakota Hills and Northview Elementary. It is very dangerous to try and get out on Diffley, I am waiting for a serious accident to occur. There is no light there (we have been told there never will be) and no crosswalk. Where is all this increased traffic going to go ? We have been told to expect 15,000 customer trips weekly to the store plus 20-30 daily truck deliveries. We don't think a residential street should be used to access this development. We think there should be controlled intersections (stoplights/stop signs) to access a development like this for obvious safety reasons. Where else in Eagan do you have retail development mixed in with neighborhoods ? 2. Another concern I have is the service road that would connect to Daniel Drive and Patrick Road. I see an unsafe situation for cars and pedestrian/bicycle traffic. It will turn out to be a drag strip for high school kids going to EHS and a major traffic jam because cars will cut through it on their way to EHS. Especially if there is a Coffee shop there. As it is now cars are lined up on Daniel Dr. trying to get out on Diffley. How would cars get in and out of this service road with the current traffic situation ? Has a traffic study been conducted ? If so, have they conducted it during the school year, during rush hour AM & PM and during the summer when there is increased pedestrian/bicycle traffic ? Can the planning commission approve this without conducting a complete traffic study? Are semi trucks and UPS sized delivery trucks appropriate traffic for a residential neighborhood ? As it is now Daniel Drive is a heavy traffic area, and it is not safe for kids to walk or bike near. Kids should be able to play in their front yard and driveway and not worry about dangerous traffic. 3. I am concerned also about a 24/7 store this close to area residents. The lighting from the parking lot and vehicle headlights will be a nuisance to neighboring homes. Our neighborhood will no longer be dark and quiet. What will prevent kids from hanging out their at night ? 4. Has any thought gone into the safety concerns of having an easily accessible pond with this development. Kids seem to be attracted to water, and there are a lot of little children that will have easy access to this water. What about the smell from the water, and the mosquitos that it will attract. Has any thought gone into these matters ? Thank You for your time. Kathy & Tom Schoeberl 4217 Daniel Dr. 651-454-0650 Liq 08/15/2005 1002 Trillium Court Eagan MN 55123 August 11, 2005 Ms. Pamela Dudziak Community Development Department 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Dear Ms. Dudziak: As a homeowner residing in the extreme northwest section of the Wildflower Development, I am quite concerned with the Dif ley Marketplace project as it is currently proposed. Specifically, the location of the proposed service road computes to an unacceptable distance of approximately 20 feet from residential property lines. Moreover, Rademacher's planned petition for "24/7" hours of operation ensures noise and traffic from customers and service/supply trucks concurrent with those hours. In addition, the proposed square footage of both Rademacher's and Best Buy is incongruent with existing residential and business establishments. Finally, the number of small children within our community is staggering. I'm sure you agree that their safety and security is especially crucial when commercial development is proposed directly adjacent to their neighborhood and indeed between their neighborhood and school. I sincerely hope that these matters can be reconciled and that approval by the City of Eagan for Diffley Marketplace is made contingent upon the satisfaction of those property owners directly and permanently affected by such commercial development. Thank you for your kind attention. cc: • Tom•Kukulski Sharon Giel Tim Meekin Sincerely, 7r/A4... • Mrs. Sandra L. Anderson (651) 994-0996 Y� Page 1 of 1 Pam Dudziak From: Dan & Charlene Benedict [dkb123@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 8:13 PM To: Pam Dudziak Subject: Proposed Project - Diffley We're writing to address our concerns with the proposed development of the Diffley Marketplace. We made a very conscientious decision when purchasing our home to select a neighborhood with parks, schools and an environment that had limited safety risks. We chose Wildflower development because of it's limited access and it's inclusion of the prior mentioned. My husband and I, along with a large turnout of the neighbors in the middle of winter, voiced our concerns against McDonalds being built on Lexington and felt the previous administration was somewhat underhanded in the tactics used in passing the proposal. We're asking for the Planning Commission and the City Council to listen to the community that is directly impacted by the outcome of this vote. The first two definitions we found for neighborhood were: 1. A district or area with distinctive characteristics: a neighborhood of fine homes; an ethnic neighborhood. 2. The people who live near one another or in a particular district or area: The noise upset the entire neighborhood. It's ironic, the second sentence showing the word in context, is our concern. If approved, the end result is an unacceptable increase in the volume of traffic and noise. There are safety factors to be considered. However, there's not much to discuss. Simply said, the increased risk cannot be eliminated. It's not a fair trade to the neighborhood. As with most developers, this one has chosen to tag itself "Diffley Ventures, LLC. It is a misnomer. They are not part of the Diffley community , nor is their best interest for the neighborhood. Please voice our concerns to the Planning Commission and ask for a "NO" vote on this project. Respectfully - Dan & Char Benedict 973 Wildlfower Court a�� 08/16/2005 Pam Dudziak From: Neese, Catherine M. [CMNeese@fedins.com] Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 4:48 PM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: s.kukulski@worldnet.att.net Subject: proposed development at Diffley & Lexington - Diffley Marketplace We are writing to express our concerns regarding the above proposed development. We reside at 4224 Daniel Dr and have lived there for 13 years. Our concerns are noise, traffic volume & safety of area residents. We are concerned about the number of proposed buildings & the size of the buildings. In 'particular, the proposed size of the grocery store is not at a scale compatible with the residential area & we feel it should not be approved as proposed. It is much too large. We are also extremely concerned about the level of traffic such a commercial development would generate, particularly if the grocery is allowed to operate 24/7. As you are aware, Northview Elementary is directly across from the site & the middle school & high school are also within close walking distance. Many neighborhood children walk or bike to school & the increased traffic volume will create a dangerous situation for them as they attempt to cross Diffley at Daniel Dr. If the development is approved as proposed, it would be imperative that a traffic light signal be installed at the intersection of Diffley & Daniel. This signal would also be necessary for area residents, such as us, to get pulled out from Daniel onto Diffley. When school is in session, it is already very difficult to pull out on to Diffley from Daniel & we cannot imagine what it would be like if the development goes in as proposed. We are also opposed to the proposed service road running behind the buildings & coming out onto Daniel drive. Daniel Dr is a residential street, not a thorough -fare for commercial business traffic. We will fear for our neighborhood children's safety & the safety of area residents as they drive to & from their homes. We also will fear for the safety of area pedestrian traffic. Please take our concerns into consideration. Thank you. Brian & Cathy Neese 4224 Daniel Dr Eagan This e-mail and its attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may contain privileged, confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, displaying, copying, or use of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please inform the sender immediately and delete and destroy any record of this message. Thank you. Pam Dudziak From: Polonia Odahara Novack [polonia@mac.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 6:34 AM To: Pam Dudziak Subject: Diffley Marketplace RE: Diffley Marketplace Applicant Name: Diffley Ventures, LLC. Location: Outlot A, Lexington Pointe Thirteenth Addition & Outlot A, Lexington Pointe Seventh Addition Application: A Preliminary Planned Development to allow a commercial retail development including a grocery store, two multi -tenant retail buildings and two future commercial retail buildings upon 10.94 acres. File Number: 26 -PD -04-07-05 Dear Ms. Dudziak: I respectfully submit this letter in opposition to the planned development as it is referenced above. Given the space and infrastructure requirements a retail grocery store demands, it is impossible to imagine the concept of placing a grocery store within the context of our neighborhood on the site proposed. Please be assured, I am not in opposition to the site being developed. It is the absurdity of a grocery store on this particular site that has me, as well as many other residents in our neighborhood, deeply and profoundly concerned. We look forward to attending the Planning Commission meeting on August 23, 2005. Sincerely, Polonia Novack 990 Kensington Trail Eagan MN 55123-1969 651-261-1834 polonia@mac.com ��U Pam Dudziak From: westenberg@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 5:13 PM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: skukulski@worldnet.att.net Subject: Reliance Development concerns (Aug 23) Lexington/Diffley August 16, 2005 To: Pamela Dudziak, City Planner From: Janet and Enrico Westenberg 4241 Daniel Drive, Eagan 651-994-1822 Page 1 Re: Proposed commercial development of vacant land East of Walgreens and South of Diffley Road by Reliance Development Company Dear Ms. Dudziak, I am writing to express some concerns that I have regarding the development of the vacant land East of Walgreens and South of Diffley Road by the Reliance Development Company. My husband and I and our two small children (2 and 5 years old) live on Daniel Drive, just to the East of this proposed development. My main concern is the number of buildings being proposed for this area. I feel as if the developer wants to eke out as much money from this site as possible. And who could blame anyone for that? However, I live here and I want to preserve the quality of this neighborhood for my children. Currently, this whole area is very residential. There are a LOT of children that live on my street. They are often biking, skating, walking dogs, and even playing baseball on Daniel Drive?there are no sidewalks on our street. If there is a large increase in traffic in this area, it WILL be a hazard for the children here. I am also concerned about a traffic increase around the elementary school. My daughter will start Kindergarten this Fall. While she will ride the bus, I know there are a lot of older neighborhood kids that walk to Northview elementary. I see them during the school year crossing Diffley Road at Daniel Drive. That road will only become more dangerous for children with the increase of traffic. Another great concern I have is with the proposed 24-hour supermarket. For the most part, my street is a quiet residential street. Occasionally we have the stray speeder barreling through at 1 a.m. in the morning. I hear those cars, but it is an isolated affair. I believe with a 24-hour establishment in our neighborhood, we will have more traffic issues at night and perhaps problems with loitering or noises from supply and service trucks. I don?t think anyone would want that in their neighborhood at perhaps 2 in the morning. In conclusion, I am very concerned about how this development will impact my neighborhood. We are already facing the increase of noise from air traffic coming from the new runway at the airport. Now we are facing a large commercial development right next to us. Something on a smaller scale without 24-hour business would help to preserve the quality of my neighborhood. Ms. Dudziak, I hope you will convey my concerns to the city and appropriate parties. Sincerely, Janet Westenberg?Eagan Resident 08/17/2005 �s� Page 1 of 1 Pam Dudziak From: ekeegan@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 6:14 PM To: Pam Dudziak Subject: Proposed Rademacher's Store Dear Ms. Dudziak, I am a homeowner at Cambridge Courts and I would like to go on record disagreeing with the proposed Rademacher's 24/7 store. This is a residential neighborhood with just a smattering of businesses. The traffic flow along Diffley & Lexington is disconcerting as it is right now. Sometimes I have to wait 8 or so minutes to take a left on Lexington in the morning. The traffic getting home on Lexington is chaotic. The backup traffic is such that I am amazed I have not had someone ram into me as I am taking a right into Cambridge• Courts. The size of the store will totally change the texture of this neighborhood. Also, why do we need another grocery store? What could possibly be the justification? We have a Cub on Cliff, a Rainbow at Town Centre and a Byerly's. Plus there are foodstuffs at Holiday Gas Station and Oasis. I find this to be a total invasion of my privacy and comfort level that I presently feel in my neighborhood. What about the noise pollution, lighting at all hours of the night not to mention speeding cars and horns? Why would I want to continue to live here? Please relay this message so I can be heard. I will also be at the meeting. Liz Keegan 990 Kensington Trail #205 Eagan, MN 55123 651-452-8829 08/17/2005 Pam Dudziak From: neil-rad@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 7:27 PM To: Pam Dudziak Subject: Concerns for Proposed Development by Reliance near Wildflower To: City Planning Commission :Page 1 when I first of some activity to develope the strip of land east of Walgreens and south of Diffley, I was hopeful for a small strip or outlet similar to the south of Walgreens (with a couple business) when I reviewed the detail proposed plan by Reliance Delvelopment Company, I was seriously taken aback!!! The following is a list of concerns and objections as a homeowner and parent of 2 kids in the very nearby schools in the direct adjacent neighborhood: 1) The Proposed Grocery Store at 43,175 sq ft at 3x the size of Walgreens is grossly oversized. 1/3 of that size is more reasonable and appropriate for the location and impact area. 2) Development to support a total of 360 is highly excessive for that small strip of land 3) Strong concern due to the close proximity / accross the street from Elementary School 4) Direct line of major/daily traffic lineup for both Dakota Hills Middle and Eagan High School. The cars already back up from the Braddock stoplight back past Daniel Drive and the Elementary School. 5) Excessive traffic load directly in the Daniel Drive inlet street (already busy) from a development of that size. 6) Safety of additional traffic on both Diffley and Daniel Drive intersection? 7) If outlet is set to divert traffic on to Daniel Drive without a traffic study, something is wrong. this Road already services almost an entire set of neighborhoods, and will only get excessive with regular traffic, directly in line with bus routes and local congested traffic from all THREE schools. 8) A southern service road 20 feet from Wildflower residences is very inappropriate (and I don't even live there). the existing frontage road acts as a safety buffer to the 4 lane traffic on Diffley Ave, and it should stay AS IS for safety reasons. 9) If the West elevation is raised, will this force watershed into the East end, and overflow sewers already in balance? 10) Eagan, City of Trees, should preserve the large tree base on the East end and some reasonable % of add'l trees on the parcel of land. With an excessive size of the proposed development and parking stalls, this will not be possible and regrettable. 11) In addition to Auto traffic issues, there is MAJOR bike and foot traffic in the Daneil Drive / Diffley area. this intersection with TREE nearby schools is of a MAJOR safety concem. 12) Two add'l 10,000 size retail buildings (or 20,000) also seem way too large for the planned development 13) Suggest a significant downsizing with ample buffering and safety provisions, with preservation of trees and consideration to local surroundings. 14) The smaller 4-5000 ft sizes are more in line with what the locality could support in that small strip of land, while preserving safety and other concerns. We live in the neighborhood behind Wildflower at 4406 Braddock Trail, with Daniel Drive inlet street and schools/kids/bikes as a major concern our family and kids, and the many other children in the area. Sincerely, Neil and Jodi Radermacher 0-53 651-452-3730 08/17/2005 Pam Dudziak From: Katrina Roman [katrinagerenz@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 8:15 PM To: Pam Dudziak Subject: Concern about proposed development Dear Ms. Dudziak, As a new homeowner in the Wildflower neighborhood, I was very disappointed to hear about a new development planned for the land east of Walgreens on Diffley (Radiance Development Company). From the information I have received, it appears that the development is not appropriate for the surrounding family communities and school, and studies have not been done to investigate the effects of the increased noise, traffic, and safety issues such a large developement will bring. While I understand this land will eventually be developed, I think a better job can be done to find appropriately sized organizations to fill the space. See below for additional concerns. 1. The large size of the proposed grocery stores seems too big for the space. Why so big? Second, why does Eagan need another grocery store? We already have Rainbow, Byerlys and Cub. Third, why a grocery store? Why can't we attract businesses with a lower volume of traffic to the area? 2. The grocery store eventually intends in the future to operate 24/7. I am concerned that my nice, quiet neighborhood will be much noiser at night with a continual operation. 3. Increased traffic is a large safety issue for the children at the nearby school and the large number of children that live in the area and ride bikes on the bike paths. 4. The developer wants to tear out the existing service road and build a new road that would run up against the Wildflower neighborhood. The existing service road was part of the original agreement when Walgreens was built so that a service road running along the Wildflower neighborhood would be avoided. Agreements that were made in the past should be honored over the needs of new developers. I strongly encourage you to consider my concerns and the concerns of my neighbors. I hope that the development can either be voted down or scaled back considerably to accomodate the existing residents. Thank you, Katrina Gerenz 964 Coneflower Court Eagan, MN 55123 Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messengermsn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ �s� Pam Dudziak From: Dan Seiner [dan@selner.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 9:19 PM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: s.kukulski@worldnet.att.net Subject: Diffley Marketplace Development Pamela, I am writing to you to express my concerns about the proposed development of the Diffley Marketplace by Reliance Development Company near the intersections of Lexington Avenue and Diffley Road. As a resident of the nearby Wildflower development, I am very concerned about the increased traffic, noise and safety that would negatively affect our neighborhood. Additionally: 1. The proposed grocery store would be out of scale to the other nearby commercial buildings at nearly triple the size of the Walgreens, which, by itself, dwarfs all other commercial buildings in the area. 2. The grocery store, if allowed to operate 24 hours per day would negative affect the safety of our neighborhood in that crime and vandalism within our neighborhood would be much more accessible to those who would commit such crimes. 3. This development would prevent the foot and bike traffic between the Wildflower, Walnut Ridge and adjoining neighborhoods to the 3 schools across Diffley Road (Northview Elementary, Dakota Hills Middle School and Eagan High School) not to mention foot and bike traffic to Northview Park. Our children's foot and bike traffic through this proposed development would be unsafe with all of the potential car and truck traffic through the development. 4. There already is a service road along Diffley Road that was approved when the Walgreen's was built. This service road is proposed to be removed and replaced by a service road right next to homes. This would clearly be unsafe and unsightly to the neighborhood. The current service road is sufficient to carry traffic to commercial development which fits in size and variety to the rest of the commercial buildings in the area. I strongly urge you to not approve Diffley Marketplace as currently proposed. Please consider the needs of we, the affected residents and approve only a development plan that fits with the surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods. One-story commercial office space, such as dental and chiropractic clinics, "Caribou", professional offices, dry cleaner, and other types of use are much more fitting for this area. Thank you for considering these comments. Sincerely, Dan Seiner Page 1 of 1 Pam Dudziak From: kwangensteen@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 9:31 PM To: Pam Dudziak Subject: Commercial Development by Reliance Development Company Dear Ms. Dudziak: We strongly oppose the development proposed by the Reliance Development Company because the size and density would intrude two severly on surrouding residential neighborhoods and also create safety and traffic problems. We respectully request that the proposal be rejected for the following reasons: The proposed development would have residential areas on two sides and an elementary school directly across the street. The amount of noise, traffic and nighttime illumination of such a large development would be a nuisance to surrounding residents. Even more seriously, the increased traffic would pose a real danger to schoolchildren attending Northview Elementary, particularly those walking to and from school (and to and from after-school activities on adjacent fields). The extra traffic would also be an unfair burden on all residents living southeast of the Diffley/Lexington intersection. Egress from those areas (via Lexington Point and Daniel) is difficult at times right now. We believe the added traffic would create further congestion necessitating the need for traffic lights at those intersections. All existing commercial development in the area (i.e., Walgreen's, McDonald's, Holiday and surrounding strip malls) already serves existing needs for the area, and that any future development should be of comparable size and scope. The proposal, however, would draw business from a much larger area. The character and layout of the neighborhood (particularly the near proximity of an elementary school and single family residences) will be destroyed with a development of such a large scale. Other large grocery stores in the community --such as Rainbow, Byerlys and Cub --are located in larger commercial zones suitable for development of such a scale, unlike the proposed location. In summary, we respectfully ask that the development in the size and scope proposed not be approved. Sincerely, Mark R. Jensen Kari J. Wangensteen 4343 Matthew Court Eagan, MN 55123 asp 08/17/2005 Pam Dudziak From: Giri Alwar [galwar@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 9:54 PM To: Pam Dudziak Subject: Proposed development at Lexington Ave and Diffley Road - Concerns Pamela, I am a resident of 964 Trillium Court in Eagan in the Wildflower Neighborhood. I am writing to you about the proposed commercial development on the land immediately behind our neighborhood along Diffley Road and Lexington Avenue (adjacent to Walgreens). I understand that the city will hold public hearings on August 23rd which I plan to attend along with other neighbors. I have numerous concerns about this development which I would like to share with you in this email. These concerns would directly affect the livability of our neighborhood and would perhaps adversely affect our property values. Please pass along my concerns to the planning commission members: 1. Traffic/Noise: One of the main concerns that I have is the amount of traffic that is bound to increase around our neighborhood. Specifically, I am concerned about delivery trucks arriving at night to unload and the noise that they would create which would seriously disturb the peace and quiet of our neighborhood especially in summer when windows are open. We already have increased traffic after construction of Walgreens. I understand that there is a service road that has been proposed to pass behind our neighborhood. This is a bad idea and I want to seriously object to any traffic this close to our neighborhood. Traffic can easily enter off Diffley Road itself and Lexington Ave through the existing strip mall. 2. Lighting: I am very concerned about the lighting that will invariably result from the development. I am concerned that our neighborhood will be constantly bathed in light from here on out. This would be further aggravated by the presence of any 24/7 stores such as a grocery or other retail store in this development. I have seen other homes in other neighborhoods suffer from increased lighting and I want to avoid this situation in our neighborhood. 3. Smell: I am concerned about the constant smell that would invariably result from any restaurants that are likely to be added to this development. All restaurants vent their smell through their roof and their strong smell carries downwind. For instance, who would want to constantly smell fries outside our house? I am very concerned that we may not be able to open our windows in summer and breathe fresh air. 4. Increased criminal activity: I am concerned about the potential increase in vandalism and the like as bored youngsters now have easy access to our neighborhood through the development. I understand that this parcel of land is zoned commercial. It would be better if the new development consisted solely of small commercial buildings (office space or strip mall type) which would empty out in the evening as opposed to large grocery or other retail stores. I hope the planning commission takes the residents' concerns seriously and addresses them in our favor. We were here first and we would very much like to preserve our quality of life and investment in our houses. If you need to contact me, I can be reached through email at galwar@gmail.com or by phone at (651)681-0474 Thank you. Giri Alwar 964 Trillium Court Eagan, MN 55123 Page 1 of 2 Pam Dudziak From: Only1bjs@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 10:02 PM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: s.kukulski@worldnet.att.net Subject: Proposed development on Diffley involving Wildflower homeowners Dear Pamela Dudziak: I was told that you are the person to address my concerns about the proposed commercial development on Diffley (cross street is Lexington Avenue) I believe it is to be called Diffley Marketplace. Let me first tell you that I live at 989 Trillium Court and my property backs up to the land that is to be developed. I have lived in my home for 10 years and take an active interest in how my property, property value, and lifestyle will be impacted by the way the land is developed around me. I will be unable to attend the August 23rd meeting because of work. I was at the meeting that Reliance Development company held with the Wildflower homeowners and although we had concerns, I felt we were not really heard. Some concerns that I have include Rademacher's grocery store that will not only be very large in size but they are asking that they be approved to be open 24 hours a day 7 days a week. This store is not in a business locale as other grocery stores. Examples would include Byerly's in the Promenade, Rainbow in Town Center, and Cub Foods in Cliff Lake Center. Rademacher's will be in a neighborhood where lights and traffic will have an impact. Walgreen's, on the corner of Lexington and Diffley, closes each night. We appreciate that! When Walgreen's was approved it was the intention that the current service road parallel to Diffley would be in place of any proposed road on the southern border of the site adjacent to the Wildflower neighborhood. Since my property backs up to the road that Reliance is now proposing I would like to tell you how strongly I oppose such a road! Delivery trucks will be using it frequently and so will the kids who are on their way to high school and want to take a short cut. There are children who play in backyards that if a ball is thrown into that area could get hit by a car. Safety and noise from trucks pose a big problem. We asked, at the meeting that Reliance held with the homeowners, that they look into the effects this development would have on traffic since the Middle School and High School, when m session, increases traffic in our area. We were told that they would not have the time to assess that aspect of the development as they were hoping to break ground in October. I am sure you are aware already how the design of the streets on Lexington and Diffley have poor access into the Walgreen's center, the strip mall, and the ball fields across the street. The other concern is the street that is on the East side of the proposed development. It has no stop sign or light and has the potential to be a hazard. I would like to encourage the city to take a look at what the 08/17/2005 asp Page 2 of 2 increased traffic will do to the area especially when school is in session. Lastly, I would like to ask that just for a moment you pretend that this development is going in behind your home. The impact that these above mentioned things will have on a neighborhood are very real to us. Please take to heart our concerns and help develop this property in the best possible way that would be compatible with single family residential neighborhoods. Sincerely, Brenda J. Stamper 989 Trillium Court Eagan, MN 55123 08/17/2005 sm, Page 1 of 2 Pam Dudziak From: sd_melroe@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 10:54 PM To: Pam Dudziak • Cc: s.kukuiski@worldnet.att.net Subject: proposed development on Diffley Road Ms. Dudziak, I am writing to share my thoughts on the proposed development next to Walgreen's on the south side of Diffley. Let me first comment that Walgreens has been a great addition to the community, filling a void and being a considerate neighbor. I have more reservations with the current proposal. At a minimum, I see three critical pieces of information that need to be collected and shared to make an objective decision about the proposed Diffley Marketplace development. 1. A quantitative and observational traffic study to understand the impact of safety around the Lexington/Diffley intersection, the Braddock Trail/Diffley intersection, and, most importantly, around entrances to Northview Elementary School. 2. Property value trends for other residential developments that have retail developments in their backyards. 3. What market research information warrants squeezing so many building into that space? It seems that the primary needs of the local community are met and those that are unmet could require a different mix of tenants. Failure to objectively collect and examine these data will do the community a disservice. I suspect that Wildflower is one of the fasting -appreciating residential developments in Eagan. We are continually contacted by realtors that want our homes, because they are in demand! There are reasons for that and, as a home owner and taxpayer of Eagan, I would be disappointed if the city did not put its current residents first. Eagan is growing and that is great. I ask that time and patience be used to identify a solution that works for all stakeholders. My concerns: 1. SAFETY I lose track of the near misses and accidents that I observe in a school year during morning drop offs at the elementary school. How will this be managed with another 15,000+ "customer trips" across the street? There are no priorities over safety. In addition to the traffic safety, what additional influences and risks will be right across the street from the elementary school and up the hill from the middle and high schools? 2. DEPRECIATED PROPERTY VALUE & ANNOYANCES How might the following items be addressed via design changes? * Minimize patron traffic noise affecting the elementary school and our neighborhood. Most importantly here is the elimination of service roads adjacent to Wildflower. * Minimize delivery truck, HVAC noise affecting the school and neighborhood. * Improve the aesthetics of the plan, incorporating more green space and more space around our neighborhood. Reduce the concrete -per -square -inch of the design. ago 08/17/2005 Page 2 of 2 * Reduce the size of the grocery store to that of a neighborhood store. * Minimize the sight and smell of semi trucks, equipment, and dumpsters that will be outside our neighbors' windows. * Maintain hours of operation consistent with a neighborhood store; this does not warrant 24/7 operation. 3. LONG TERM VIABILITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT Why is this type of development the right thing for that space? for this community? What will differentiate Rademacher's from Cub, Rainbow, and Byerly's? How will they be set up for success? There are not many alternative businesses that could fill that large space in the future. What is the reason for being for the other proposed tennants? How closely will they be examined, given the close proximity to the school? My big question: What is the process that the city will use for reaching a decision? We are fortunate to live in a thriving, growing metropolitan area. As a resident of Wildflower, I feel tremendously fortunate to have a neighborhood overflowing with small town atmosphere and to have my children attend schools that place safety and responsibility as priorities. Will this proposed development be approached with openness and creativity to find a win-win solution for everyone? I hope that the committee is willing to step back and re-evaluate options before proceeding. As a trained facilitator for problem solving and process improvement, I beleive this is an opportunity with possible solutions, given further refinement and openness of all parties. Some ideas for getting there: (1) Engage representatives for all stakeholders (residential neighbors, current businesses, school, developer, city, proposed businesses) in a facilitated creative -problem solving process. (What are the key facts, what are the key problems, what are the range of solutions, what are the criteria for selection...) (2) Capture overall concerns with the current proposal and converge on the primary concerns for redesign. (3) Break the proposal into chunks (e.g., Rademacher's, 4 retail buildings, service road) and conduct a PPCo on each. What are the Pluses? Potential in the future? Concerns? How might we overcome each concern? Involvement in the problem definition and solution identification is the strongest vehicle for shared commitment. Sincerely, Shelly Melroe, Balanced Excellence, LLC - Principal Consultant home: 957 Wildflower Ct. Eagan, MN 55123 651-452-7591 08/17/2005 Pam Dudziak From: Soma Narasimhulu [soma55123@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 10:59 PM To: Pam Dudziak Subject: s.kukulski@worldnet.att.net Hello Ms Dudziak This letter is with reference to the recent proposal of commercial development(Rademacher's grocery store and other commercial ventures) in our neighbourhood. We have been residing at Wildflower association (1013 Trillium Ct, Eagan, MN) for the last 6 years. Ours is a residential neighbourhood with a very large number of growing children. The proposed commercial development around our neighbourhood will have a serious negative effect on our surroundings and also our livability, through increased noise and traffic. Most of the children in our nighbourhood walk to school. With the kind of traffic that will follow this commercial development It will completely disrupt our normal lives by endangering the safety and security of children growing in our community. I hope you will give a serious thought to our concerns and disapprove the proposed commercial venture or atleast scale it down. Thanking you Sincerey Soma B Narasimhulu Sumalini Soma 1013 Trillium Ct EAGAN MN 55123 Yahoo! Mail for Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail Pam Dudziak From: Ramesh Mannamk [ramkun@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 11:24 PM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: s.kukulski@worldnet.att.net; t.meekin@comcast.net Subject: Proposed commercial development at southeast corner of Diffley and Lexington roa Dear Ms. Pamela Dudziak, We recently learnt about plans submitted by a development company for the southeast corner of Diffley and Lexington roads. We reside about 1/4 mile from the proposed development at 4393 Braddock trail. The following are our objections to the plan as proposed: 1. A large-scale operation such as the one proposed does not fit into the existing neighborhood profile. . All the surrounding houses are well-established single family residential units, who enjoy it here. The proposed plan will reduce the quality of life through higher crime rate in the neighborhood, Tess safe streets due to the increased traffic, produce more smoke and noise pollution. 2. We have not seen any traffic alleviation plans. But existing road infrastructure will not support the proposed traffic. Access via Daniel drive will produce significantly additional traffic on Daniel drive and Braddock Trail at all times of day. Eventually we fear this would necessitate a traffic light at the intersection of Daniel and the access road — thereby restricting our free movement. Also this will not fit the character of adjacent single family homes. 3. We were told Walgreens was approved upon the condition that service roads would not be added or altered. We purchased our residence with that understanding. We expect the city to stand by its agreements. 4. My daughter goes to Northview elementary school and I'm afraid she cannot walk to school on her own if the business is allowed to proceed. She also goes with her friends to the playfields located directly opposite side of both roads. Her access to these facilities will be severely restricted. 5. The neighborhood does not need a 24 hour grocery store. Cub foods, Rainbow foods stores are within short driving distances. 24 hr gas stations/convenience stores are at even shorter driving/walking distances. Based on the above, we implore the planning commission to soundly reject the proposed plans. We can be reached at 651-681-0976 (home) or 612-819-5498 (cell). Sincerely Ramesh Mannamkunnath Sunita Raghavan X6 3 Page 1 of 2 Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl Danielson [mommn2k@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 11:47 AM To: Pam Dudziak Subject: Diffley Marketplace Pam, We are writing to express our thoughts on the proposed development of Diffley Marketplace located at the southeast corner of Diffley Road and Lexington Avenue. We live in the Wildflower development (972 Trillium Court) and have the potential to be impacted by this development. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposed development plan. First of all, we want to thank the developer for extending time to meet with our neighborhood and hear our concerns. Their willingness to listen has greatly been appreciated. Our concerns are as follows: 1) It appears that the proposed setback from the Wildflower development may not be compatible with the surroundings. As shown on the development plan, they are proposing a 20 -foot setback from their south property line. This seems quite close for this type of land use next to a single-family (SF) residential development. Typically, there is a transition from commercial/retail to SF that provides buffering whether it is a street or some other type of housing. 2) The potential for "fast-food" land use on this parcel seems incompatible adjacent to single- family residential. We understand that this is allowed within the current zoning codes; however, if the developer wants to work with the neighborhood, this is a concession that they could impose on themselves. Maybe a deed restriction put in place to limit this type of use would be appropriate. Our main concern is the potential odor. We recognize that the definition of "fast food" these days is debatable; however, I think everyone would recognize that a "hamburger -type" fast food is different than a "coffee shop" or other type of use. We again recognize that some type of food service could be placed on the parcel, however, we feel it needs to be compatible with SF development. 3) The overall scale of the development is a concern. We think the developer has developed a plan that fully utilizes property. They have left virtually no piece of ground undisturbed. The only significant existing feature they intend to preserve is a large tree in the northeast corner. However, this tree appears to be show within the boundary of the detention pond which may have great difficulty surviving the changed site conditions. However, not all developments need to be at the maximum possible development capacity. Again, size and surrounding compatibility should drive the site planning process not the maximum gross square footage . 4) Site Lighting and visibility of roof -top units is a concern. Every home that abuts the development and to some degree all homes on Trillium Court will be visually impacted by the vertical scale of this development. Attention to screening of lighting and roof -top units needs to be addressed. In addition to the roof -top units and site lighting, even the south side architecture will be seen from the neighborhood. Any attempt to creatively bring 4 -sided architecture to this development would be appreciated. 5) The size of the proposed grocery store is larger than we anticipated on this parcel. To put 08/17/2005 Page 2 of 2 this to scale, we understand the proposed Best Buy on Yankee Doodle Road would be of similar size to the proposed grocery store. However, the proposed Best Buy is adjacent to a multi -story office building and in an area of the City where there is no SF residences within several blocks of the area. Again, is this compatible with our neighborhood? We also question the hours of operation of such a facility. Does a neighborhood grocery store need to be open 24 hours a day? We knew when we bought our lot and built our home that development would exist on this parcel. We welcome a thoughtfully designed and compatible development adjacent to our neighborhood. We think there is a way for the developer to get what he needs from the property while still being compatible to the neighborhood. We believe that there needs to be some more progress to meet the needs and demands that building adjacent to a single-family neighborhood should be afforded. It may be helpful as part of your staff presentation to educate us on the zoning requirements and comprehensive land use plan for this parcel. There has been a lot of confusion in our neighborhood on what are the requirements for this parcel. As we understand, this is a "Planned Development". By nature of a PD, the process should be a give and take to make the development unique and acceptable to the community. This is what we all should expect from our community, not simply meeting the basic requirements. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed development and look forward to Diffley Marketplace becoming a model development for the community; one compatible with the neighborhood and representative of a collaborative process with the City, residents and developer. Paul and Cheryl Danielson 972 Trillium Court Eagan, MN 55123 mommn2k@comcast.net 08/17/2005 a6S Parn Dudziak From: Chris Neumann [cneum22@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 2:28 PM To: Pam Dudziak Subject: Letter Concerning Diffley Marketplace Development Attachments: 407666939-Diffley Marketplace Proposed Development_planning commission.doc Diffley Marketplace Proposed D... Hi Pam - Attached is a letter regarding the proposed development at the corner of Diffley and Lexington. Our four families would like the developer and planning commission to consider the items within our fetter. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Chris Neumann 981 Trillium Court 651-454-0699 Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Date: August 16`h, 2005 To: Ms. Pam Dudziak - Planner RE: Diffley Marketplace Proposed Development Dear Ms. Dudziak: We are writing regarding the proposed development by Reliance Development Company of Diffley Marketplace. While we are not generally opposed to this development; however we do have considerations that we would like addressed by the planning commission and Reliance Development Company. Our four families would reside directly behind the 2 proposed 10,000 square foot buildings. Our overall concern is to have a development that fits nicely with the surroundings and protects our investments in our homes. We are also worried about safety issues related to our children who play in the backyards that directly face this development as well as the impact they has on the elementary school directly to the North of this proposed development. We would welcome the opportunity to work closely with the City of Eagan and Reliance regarding building structures, traffic patterns, safety issues, and landscaping. Structure Considerations: Our main consideration is the proposed setback requirements specific to the grocery store. We don't believe that the precedence in the City of Eagan is to build a Best Buy -like structure immediately next to a residential neighborhood without a significant buffer. More recent developments (such as Shell gas station at Johnny Cake & Diffley) have utilized a larger setback to provide a bigger buffer between residential and commercial developments. We believe that this has set precedence and should be applied to this development as well. Due to the proposed placement of these two structures, we will be looking directly onto the roof with air conditioning and other unsightly utilities. We would like to see the front facade replicated on the back side using similar materials to that on the front and have all utilities fenced or screened from view. Similarly, the garbage receptacles should be enclosed and the enclosure built with similar materials to the building so as to minimize the unattractiveness of viewing trash from our backyards as well as helping prevent smells from traveling off the site. Landscape Considerations: Reliance is proposing a small berm on the south side of this development and planting trees to create a screen. From an elevation perspective, our properties are at an elevation of 980. The proposed development is at an elevation of 982. They are proposing a berm a6� at an elevation of 982 with 3 foot trees to be planted. This current plan will not provide any screening or blocking of noise pollution to our properties. We propose 6 foot evergreen trees instead of the current 3-4 foot trees to provide immediate screening and buffering to our houses. The properties that border this development all have berms that are at an elevation of 986. We would suggest that the developer continue this berm out to the parking lot at the same height and plant 6 foot evergreens on top of the berm. This method will provide adequate screening to our properties and provide a safety barrier for the many children that live in our neighborhood and play in our backyards as our neighborhood bylaws prevent any fencing to be installed on properties. We would also like to see the berm extended all the way across the proposed development. Currently the berm slopes downward before getting to the path on either side of 981 Trillium and 977 Trillium. We would be happy to work with Reliance to devise a workable solution that benefits all affected parties. Miscellaneous Considerations: We would like to see similar light post sizes as to what was utilized at Walgreen's and utilize .5 candle foot or lower. We also would like the developer to devise a lighting pattern appropriate for the time of day, such as turning all but essential lights off by 10 pm each night. In addition, we would like hours of business to be addressed at this time to prevent further amendments in the future. We would also like the parking needs associated with the entire development addressed at this time. The developer has proposed several elements to this development and we would like the parking requirements defined at this time that would prevent the need for any future amendments. We would also request the developer provide a written agreement as to what could be considered "quick serve" restaurant. We look forward to working closely with the City of Eagan and Reliance on this development in hopes of providing a win-win for all parties involved. Please feel free to contact any of us if you need additional clarification regarding our comments and concerns. Regards, Jim & Lori Hopkins 985 Trillium Court Karyn Entzion 977 Trillium Court Chris & Carrie Neumann 981 Trillium Court • David & Tammy Fabry 973 Trillium Court �6� PAMELA DUDZIAK From: Johnson,Donald [mailto:DJOHNS04@stpaultravelers.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 2:38 PM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: s.kukulski@worldnet.att.net; Jennifer Johnson Subject: Diffley Marketplace Development Pam, We are long time Eagan residents and live near the above proposed commercial development. We wanted to let you know of our significant concerns regarding the incompatibility of this development with the existing neighborhood area. We must admit that at first we were excited to learn that a neighborhood grocery store was going to be built on the vacant piece of land along Diffley. After we learned more about what the developer was actually proposing were shocked by the size, intensity, scope of the buildings, parking lots, and change in service roads and potential hours of operation. In addition, we have 2 children in Northview Elementary who occasionally walk or ride bikes to/from school. This development as proposed would bring about a huge increase in the amount of traffic around the school which we feel presents an unacceptable safety risk for the children. Note that we are residents of the Walnut Ridge subdivision and while the development would not likely be seen directly from our house, we nevertheless feel that this proposal needs to be significantly scrutinized by the planning commission and scaled back to something that would be more compatible with the existing area. We trust that the planning commission and city counsel will consider our concerns as this development proposal is reviewed. Sincerely Donald M. Johnson Donald and Jennifer Johnson 3810 Jessica Court Eagan, MN 55123 651-681-8313- Phone DMarkJohn@comcast.net This communication, together with any attachments hereto or links contained herein, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution or use of this communication is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail message and delete the original and all copies of the communication, along with any attachments hereto or links herein, from your system. The St. Paul Travelers e-mail system made this annotation on 08/17/05, 15:38:47. �6q Page 1 of 1 Pam Dudziak From: Pam Dudziak Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 11:37 AM To: Pam Dudziak Subject: FW: Difley and Lexington Proposed Development From: Dave Berdahl [mailto:Dave.Berdahl@agribank.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 11:13 AM To: Mike Ridley Subject: Difley and Lexington Proposed Development Good morning. I am a resident in the Wildflower development that is directly south of the proposed development on the SE corner of Difley and Lexington. After we fell in love with Eagan and our home, it was disclosed to us that the field directly north of us (end of our backyard) was zoned commercial. We looked at the surrounding area, other businesses in Eagan, general design of the city, and amount of space available and made a decision to go ahead and purchase our home. I fully understood that the property would be developed in the near future. What I could not have imagined is what they are expecting to do. Nowhere, that I can think of, in all of Eagan is a commercial building of the size and scope of the proposed grocery store so close to a residential area. My resistance is not to the idea of grocery store itself, but more to the volume of traffic, amount of deliveries and the expected 24 hour operation that they are looking at. Then there is the building itself. My neighbors will have a 30' high building within 20' of their property line. Again, all other commercial properties that are near residential areas are no higher that 10-15'. I understand the land owner's right to develop their property. I have always been one to accept development and change without making noise. But, I do not feel like this is the kind of project that would set a good precedence for the City of Eagan. We can not have major commercial developments so close to residential property. That is not what Eagan has always been, I would hope that is not what Eagan is becoming. Development is needed and welcome, but size and scope needs to be held in check in certain circumstances. I moved from St Paul for a reason. I would really hate to see Eagan turn into the kind of city that does not have more regard for its homeowners then to sacrifice their welfare for the sake of development. Thank you for your time. Dave Berdahl 993 Trillium Court, Eagan MN This communication is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). It may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure, and that may be subject to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, as amended. If you are not the intended recipient, any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify me immediately by telephone and/or reply e-mail and destroy this message and attachments. 08/16/2005 Pam Dudziak From: Sharon Mangan [mangansl@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 11:07 AM To: Pam Dudziak Subject: Development at Lexington/Diffley Dear Ms. Dudziak, I think the development of the land near Walgreens at Lexington and Diffley is exciting, except for the grocery store. The aerial few provided makes it appear as if the developer is trying to fit six pounds of potatoes in a five pound bag. I understand the height of the building will be intrusive at best to the surrounding homes. I am also concerned at the prospect of a 24 hour business adjacent to our neighborhood. Furthermore, my husband worked at Supervalu for years during the demise of the corner grocery store. Has a study been done as to the success rate of such a store? I would hate to see such a large building sitting empty in a few years. Please reconsider allowing such a large building adjacent to a residential neighborhood. Is there a possibility of scaling back on the grocery store? A concerned neighbor, Sharon Mangan 993 Wildflower CT • Eagan, MN 55123 / Pam Dudziak From: taclasby@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 2:54 PM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: s.kukulski@worldnet.att.net Subject: Proposed Development Diffley and Lexington Dear Pamela, Thank you for accepting this assignment. We, Teresa and Shaun Clasby, think that the Eagan Planning Commission should carefully consider the negative impact of the currently proposed development at Diffley and Lexington. One of the very attractive things about Eagan is that commercial space and residential space seem, for the most part, well planned and separated. Eagan also has a great grid road system which allows you to easily get to the commercial centers, and cradles the neighborhoods in the center of the grids. There are more cul-de-sacs in Eagan than anywhere we have lived. It is impressive. Addressing the Rademacher SuperValue grocery store: Obviously the intersection of Diffley and Lexington is designed for commercial development. Our issue is that it should not be viewed as a space for industrial or highly commercial development. It is not next to a major artery like 35E, nor in the business district, that might warrant a 24 hour store. A developer might be ABLE to scale down the plans of a large shopping center such as Promenade, and build it in a smaller commercial space, but the large scale shopping center problems would not be proportionally reduced. The same large trucks that deliver to Byerleys, would need to deliver to Rademacher's. The same garbage collection trucks would need to service Rademacher's. There would still be a need for a large paved surface. The increased noise, nuisance lighting, traffic, security, water runoff, trash odor produced by food and grocery businesses, etc., would still be issues. Mid-sized grocery stores work well in rural Minnesota, and urban areas where many of the patrons do not have automobiles. We believe that grocery stores in suburbia need to either be very large, be open 24/7, cater to a higher income customer or specialized market, or be very cheap in order to be profitable. A grocery store at Diffley and Lexington could never be the size of a large Cub, our intersection doesn't warrant any 24/7 stores, Byerleys is already very successful in the gourmet food market, Sam's Club is fairly cheap, and Von Hansons Meats ranks high for quality and convenience. Eaganites have grocery choices. This is purely our opinion, but the quality of SuperValue meats, bake goods and produce seem VERY average. Addressing a southerly service road: The proposed grocery store and its delivery requirements suggest the need for a southerly service road. If other businesses were approved instead of a grocery store, then the southerly service road might not be needed. Regardless, approving a service road 20' from a residential property line seems much too close. Please take this into consideration when reviewing plans. Addressing increased traffic: In the world of intersections, the intersection of Diffley and Lexington is very inviting. It has sidewalks and pedestrian walk signals. The southwest corner is a large baseball and soccer park. The northwest corner is kid -friendly with a locally owned video store, and the American icon, McDonalds. The northeast corner is a church, behind which are 3 large schools. The southeast corner has a Walgreens, a Lexington facing strip mall, and the Diffley facing property in question. During spring, summer and fall the southwest corner park and the Northview Elementary fields generate more traffic because of sports. During the mornings and afternoons of school days, Diffley Road gets crowded with Eagan High School students entering and exiting Braddock Trail. Many students walk or ride bikes to school in the fall and spring. The proposed development needs to be able to flow with the daily and seasonal traffic. Suggestions of appropriate businesses: We want you to approve businesses that have a high probability of remaining viable. Empty properties are also not good for our neighborhoods. What we ask is that you consider this intersection to be a 'light' commercial area, with no businesses open 24/7. We would like the intersection to continue to be inviting, somewhat green, and safe for ala pedestrians/bicyclists/drivers. Ideally the buildings should be single -story with some or all brick exterior. Naturally we have opinions about the kind of businesses we want. Once approved and built, these businesses become part of our neighborhood. We will WANT to patronize them. We would like to see businesses, that because of their specialized products/services or convenient location, would be able to compete with Eagan's large shopping centers. Everyone in the neighborhood might have a different list of ideal businesses. Our close proximity to Eagan High School also means that lots of students are part of the consumer pool; they like "quick serve" restaurants, coffee shops, juice bars and specialty shops. Following are some businesses that I would find easy to support: professional offices (interior decorators, financial planners, accountants, lawyers, realtors; this could be a shared -resource monthly leases type of arrangement), medical and dental offices, restaurant, "quick serve" restaurant, bank, florist, school sanctioned sports and supplies shop (for team jerseys, embroidering, last minute pens/notebooks/locker locks, etc.), coffee shop (location is very important; coffee drinkers are often in a hurry; it can't involve too many left-hand turns), gourmet bread shop, Jamba Juice bar, dry cleaners combined with laundry mat with Targe machines for sleeping bags/bedspreads, consignment/exchange shops (clothes, musical instruments, etc.), art supply shop (combined with something else), take and bake foods such as Papa Murphy, rental and boxing and organize shop (rent party supplies, tents, chairs, tile cutters, power tools; supplies so that you can box items for shipping or storage; organizational gadgets and California Closet type displays), and more. Thank you for reviewing our concerns. If you have any questions that you would like to address to us, please call 651-994-9057. Sincerely, Teresa and Shaun Clasby g Q3 Page 1 of 1 Pam Dudziak From: t.meekin@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 3:59 PM To: Pam Dudziak Subject: Diffley Marketplace Ms. Dudziak, We are 11 year residents of Wildflower Development. When we considered moving into this neighborhood we did our homework. We called the City of Eagan and inquired about the undeveloped property in question. We were told point blank that any building being considered would not be more than one story tall; it could not operate 24 hours a day; and that we had nothing to worry about since it was across the street from an elementary school. We would likely see something similar to the strip mall that is adjacent to the west side of our neighborhood. What is currently proposed does not resemble what we were told. We would never have bought a home in this area had we known that a 43,000 square foot store would be considered for that area. This structure would ruin the family -friendly neighborhood that we have. It is simply way too big for this setting. As stated at the meeting, Rademacher's intends to draw customers from adjacent suburbs. Obviously they need a customer base far outside our neighborhood; how is that neighborhood friendly? As parents we are very concerned for the safety of all the children in the surrounding area. There is already more than enough traffic in this area. What would be the impact be of another 15,000 cars a week and the numerous delivery and garage trucks? Accidents, crime, noise. It does not make any sense to sandwich such a large commercial development between an elementary school and residential neighborhoods where hundreds of kids are at play. The proposed development poses many additional risks to our children. We have always known that this area would be developed, but we believe that the current proposal is out of scale in our neighborhood. Thank you for taking the time to review our letter and hear our concerns. Tim and Machelle Meekin 996 Trillium Court 651-454-5325 08/17/2005 c. ci-eA,ay.* qsb (k),Jrk.4,0 -tLa A„_K ottA)A14 d i\o,cA urn_ -ELA -r4g_ a,t_itAz -bLsc LQ . c„e_e --L1F ,LEJL,4, viA oe„_ q Lf4-0 • zaMAa4-4--LS L(r) aJSZ tit jR_ ottz ats6 AdLk JJ,ztft,,, tr-c-2 s6ric_e g August 15, 2005 Community Development Department Attn: Pam Dudziak 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan MN 55122 Dear Ms. Dudziak: We are property owners affected by the proposed Diffiey Marketplace development. We have been residents of the Wildflower Development for 10 years. Our lot is immediately adjacent to the proposed grocery store parking lot. We feel that the proposed development, specifically the 43,000 square foot grocery store,is not in scale with the size of the lot or the community's needs. We feel that a store of this size will have a negative impact on our quality of life. Our personal concerns are noise, lighting and traffic. Increased traffic will result from semi -trucks and delivery vehicles going to the grocery store. These vehicles will be noisy and will be delivering at alt hours of the day and night. The estimated 15,000 customer trips per week will cause additional traffic. It is already difficult to enter from our side streets onto Lexington Avenue and Diffley Road. We can only imagine how difficult this will become with the increased traffic to this development. The large parking lot will encourage more loitering than already exists in the Oasis and Walgreens parking lots. We will hear slamming car doors, cart corrals, and commotion 18-24 hours every day. With this plan there is no buffer between our home and the parking lot. Even with the buildings as a buffer in the existing strip mall, we can hear the noise in the parking lot at night from loitering teenagers. The lights from an 18-24 hour operation will be shining into our bedroom window. Our view will be of a 35 foot high store wall just 50 feet from our property line. This is too close. We will be attending the August 23 Advisory Planning Commission meeting to voice these concerns. We understand the need to develop this property but feel that this proposal does not fit this neighborhood. We are confident that the city will find this development is not in the community's best interest. Respectfully submitted, Grea uc Currie Y 100 rillium Court Eagan, MN 55123 ;96 Page 1 of 1 Pam Dudziak From: Eaganmarie@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 6:20 PM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: polonia@mac.com Subject: Diffley Development August 17, 2005 Dear Ms Dudziak, Seven years ago, I moved into Cambridge Court with the expectation of spendinng my retirement years in peaceful surroundings. To that end, I have so far been successful. It is with great trepidation I consider the impact a large grocery store and parking lot would have on this mainly residential area. The "unspecified" businesses could range anywhere from a gift shop to (dare I say) a nightclub which brings it's own attendant issues of traffic and noise, etc. I worry for the school children who will inevidently run across Diffley to pick up food items at the grocery store. I worry for those of us who risk disaster when we turn our vehicles into Kensington Trail without the benefit of a turning lane. These issues are certain to worsen with the addition of the 24/7 grocery and who knows what else. I also worry for the impact this congestion would have on the home values if someone chooses to sell their home. Who would want to live this close to Byerly's? It is my hope the planning commission will hear our pleas and reject this development plan in the best interest of we citizens of Eagan. I look forward to attending the Planning Meeting on August 23, 2005. Sincerely, Marie Newman eaganmarie(c�aol.com 7 08/18/2005 Page 1 of 1 Pam Dudziak From: Tausha Rucci [tarucci@comcast.netj Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 9:20 PM To: Pam Dudziak Subject: Proposed development on Lexington and Diffley Hello Ms. Dudziak, I hope this letter finds you well. I am a resident of the Cambridge Court Condominium Association located across Lexington from Walgreens (Kensington Trail). 1 just received word of the proposal of this new developmenet and wanted to share my concerns with you regarding this project. First there is the issue of the schools (which would be across the street from a busy parking lot) and the safety of the children, the people enjoying the walking trails, parks and playgrounds nearby not to mention the residents who will be living near this "development" that would be at risk if the extra traffic were to come through. This is a huge safety concern. Holiday, McDonalds and Walgreens are smaller scale yet still easily accessible and built with safety concerns in mind that were appropriate to this residential area. I'd like to think this was purposeful because of how this particular community may have wanted to keep a cap on growth of this magnitude or I should think that the larger scale developments would have been erected here in the first place. I also feel that if this new project were to come to fruition that it will not only increase traffic but it will increase traffic noise as well. I personally do not want that. The athletic fields produce plenty of noise where I can hardly have my windows open as it is. I don't think myself or my neighbors are interested in having anymore noise. I understand commercialism and capitalism but I don't feel there is a need for what is proposed. I am sure some of the financial reasons may make some sense, more jobs, more spending, etc but with all of this growth won't the crime grow too? How will this affect our taxes? I intend to do my best to make the planning commission meeting on the 23rd to express these same concerns and more as I care deeply about my neighborhood and like it just as it is. I thank you for your time and hope the people who live around here have more influence than the developers that don't. Sincerely, Tausha Rucci Lexington and Diffley resident 9er 08/18/2005 Page 1 of 1 Pam Dudziak From: jmej01@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 10:04 PM To: Pam Dudziak Subject: Concerns for PD of Diffley Marketplace Ms. Dudziak, My name is Jeff Greenwell and I live at 1010 Trillium Court in the Wildflower Residential Development. I wish to express a few concerns about the Diffley Marketplace Development Plan. 1. The truck access is rather ambiguous. The front entrance would seem to be the only viable option and that is directly across from an elementary school. The exit option puts a road behind my property on land that, as I understand, was "vacated" as a part of the Walgreen's deal. The frontage road south of Diffley was to replace this. 2. The size of the proposed grocery store would seem to be rather large for it's location. Also, the original plans call for it to have a finished floor elevation close to the elevation of the berm surrounding our development. Why is it not on grade with Walgreen's? 3. Since my understanding was that the area behind us was to be "vacated", we have deferred landscaping purchases for the back side of our berm. If the road were to be approved, I would want assurances that landscaping and retaining wall plans would be in place and mandatory. Too many times it seems developers promise alot and deliver the minimum. I am all for development on that land, but want what is best for the surrounding neighbors and my family. All I ask is that the Comprehensive Guide Plan be a driving force in Planning Commision decisions. We all want assurances that our property will not be adversely affected by the proposed development. Traffic flow must be a priority concern because of the school and residences. Truck noise should be a priority consideration. All aspects, as well as ramifications, should be addressed in full. As Reliance Development, and Mr. John Trautz in particular, has been evasive and uncooperative in returning phone calls and supplying visual materials, I would hope the Planning Commision would reject this first submittal and require Reliance to work more closely with the neighboring homeowner's association to address our concerns. I simply want to be fully informed. Submitting a plan and revising it very shortly afterwards doesn't build alot of trust. Please consider all aspects of the CGP and all concerns of the homeowners. I don't presume to speak for others, but my guess is that we all would love to have a development that satisfies all of our interests. Thank You, Jeff Greenwell 1010 Trillium Court a�9 08/18/2005 Page 1 of 1 Pam Dudziak From: Paul D. [cepd@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 10:23 PM To: Pam Dudziak Subject: Proposed Diffley Marketplace Project Pamela, My name is Claudia Danner and I am a resident in the Wildflower development. I'm writing to express my concern about the planned development in the property adjacent to my development. I find the proposal for Rademacher's to be both excessive in size and hours of operation. I would not object to a neighborhood grocery store but the size is not compatible with being adjacent to a neighborhood and a store operating 24 hours a day is not necessary and will impose a significantly burden on the neighborhood in terms of traffic, lighting, etc. I can think of no other commercial property operating 24 hours a day and with the sheer square footage of this store operating adjacent to residential property in the city of Eagan. Finally, I'm concemed about the traffic flow. There will be a significant number of trucks (possibly 30 a day) traveling adjacent to neighborhood property at all hours of the day. This will again be a major disruption to the residents of the development. I understand the property is zoned to be a commercial development. However, it has always been our understand the businesses will serve the area immediately surrounding the development. I believe the proposed development encroaches on the residents of the surrounding community for the reasons cited above. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Claudia Danner 08/18/2005 Message Page 1 of 1 Pam Dudziak From: Steve Martin [sjm@skylinedisplays.com] Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 9:39 AM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: s.kukulski@worldnet.att.net Subject: Relaince Development Dear Ms. Dudziak, We live in a neighborhood on the parameter of the Wildflower Neighborhood, and I thought I would take a moment to voice my concerns with the proposed development that is being considered for the land east of Walgreen's on Diffley Rd. Ascetics, scale and compatibility issues aside, I believe the traffic issues that would undoubtedly occur with this new mall, coupled with the Northview buses, and the high school traffic alone makes even concidering this project, as proposed, truly not in the best interest of the Eagan community surrounding this site. There is no doubt that this area will be developed in the future, but careful planning and concideration for the surrounding community must be formost in the minds of the appointed City Planners in charge of making sure that it makes sense, and fits with the needs of the neighborhood. This does not - Kind regards - Steve, Lynn, Sean, & Chelsey Martin 4372 Lexington Pt Pkwy Eagan Steve Martin 1 Project Manager 1 Skyline Exhibits 1 ph. 651.234.6894 1 fx. 651.234.3292 1 sim@skvline.com I www.skyline.com c8/ 08/18/2005 Agenda Information Memo October 6, 2005 Eagan City Council Meeting C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — RAMONA RODRIGUEZ ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve (Or direct Findings of Fact for Denial) a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the 25% impervious surface maximum in a Shoreland Overlay District for a four season porch addition on property located at 1325 Carlson Lake Lane in the NW 1/4 of Section 27; subject to the conditions in the APC minutes. REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: Majority of Council Members Present FACTS: > The applicant proposes to construct a 384 square foot four -season porch to the rear of the home, resulting in 29% impervious surface for the lot. > There is no direct impact to Carlson Lake with this increase of impervious surface. > The existing driveway and structures already exceed the limit by 1%. > The subject site is located within the Shoreland Overlay District of Carlson Lake and is restricted to 25% impervious surface. > The Advisory Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 27, 2005 and recommended approval. 60 DAY AGENCY ACTION DEADLINE: October 16, 2005 ATTACHMENTS (1): Draft APC Minutes to follow with additional information packet Staff report on pages3hrough Zet3 PLANNING REPORT CITY OF EAGAN REPORT DATE: September 12, 2005 CASE: 27 -CU -13-08-05 APPLICANT: Ramona Rodriquez HEARING DATE: September 27, 2005 PROPERTY OWNER: Same APPLICATION DATE: August 17, 2005 REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit PREPARED BY: Sheila Cartney LOCATION: 1325 Carlson Lake Lane COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: LD, Low Density Residential ZONING: R-1, Single Family Residential SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the maximum 25% impervious surface coverage in a shoreland overlay district for property located at 1325 Carlson Lake Lane in the NW 'V4 of Section 27. The applicant is proposing a 16'x 24' porch addition at the rear of the house. AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.50, Subdivisions 4C and 4D provide the following. Subdivision 4C states that the Planning Commission shall recommend a conditional use permit and the Council shall issue such conditional use permits only if it finds that such use at the proposed location: 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City. 2. Will be harmonious with the general and applicable specific objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and City Code provisions. 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area, nor substantially diminish or impair property a83 Planning Report — Rodriguez CUP • September 27, 2005 Page 2 values within the neighborhood. 4. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools. 5. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be hazardous or detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. 6. Will have vehicular ingress and egress to the property which does not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic on surrounding public streets. 7. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. Subdivision 4D, Conditions, states that in reviewing applications of conditional use permits, the Planning Commission and the Council may attach whatever reasonable conditions they deem necessary to mitigate anticipated adverse impacts associated with these uses, to protect the value of other property within the district, and to achieve the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. In all cases in which conditional uses are granted, the Council shall require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary as proof that the conditions stipulated in connection therewith are being and will be complied with. BACKGROUND/HISTORY The property was platted in 1973 as Lot 3, Block 4, Wilderness Run 4th Addition, and developed in 1977. EXISTING CONDITIONS The property contains a single family house with an attached garage. The lot is 11,983 square feet in area. The parcel is located in the shoreland overlay district associated with Carlson Lake, a General Development Lake. The shoreland overly district restricts impervious surface coverage to 25%. The subject site currently exceeds that restriction by one percent. SURROUNDING USES The subject site is surrounded by single family residences that are zoned R-1, single family residential and guided LD, Low Density Residential and abuts City Park property zoned and guided Park. Planning Report — Rodriguez CUP September 27, 2005 Page 3 EVALUATION OF REQUEST Compatibility with Surrounding Area - The subject site is surrounded by single family residences, adding a four -season porch is consistent with single family uses and is compatible with the surrounding area. Code Requirements — The shoreland overlay district limits the amount of impervious surface on a lot to 25% of the lot area. A Conditional Use Permit is required to exceed this amount. Description of Proposal — The applicant proposes to add a 16'x24' (384 square feet) four -season porch to the rear of the home. Impervious Surface — The allowable impervious surface for this lot is 2,996 square feet (25% of 11,983 square feet). The existing impervious area, which is the building coverage plus the driveway, and sidewalks, is 3,197 square feet, which exceeds the allowable maximum. The proposed porch addition would bring the total impervious surface area to 3,581 square feet or 29% of the lot size. Storm Water Management/Water Quality - Eagan City Code (§11.65) stipulates that the impervious coverage of parcels within a shoreland overlay district must not exceed 25 percent. However, because the City has approved and implemented a Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan, the Code allows the City to grant Conditional Use Permits for increases in shoreland impervious coverage, provided the City has required "necessary water quality mitigation features to meet non -degradation standards for phosphorus for the nearest downstream recreational water body identified in the Eagan Water Quality Management Plan." The subject property is within the shoreland overlay district of Carlson Lake (DNR # 19-0066P), and it drains runoff toward the lake. Carlson Lake Park is between the subject property and the lake; therefore, there is no believed direct impact to Carlson Lake with this increase of impervious surface. However, the subject property's steep slope is being significantly altered by landscaping and terracing, the City should require that a landscape management strategy be developed and implemented in consultation with the Soil and Water Conservation District and the City. The purpose of such a strategy is to ensure the best potential for long-term stability of the landscaping and terracing of the steep slope. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in order to exceed the maximum 25% impervious surface coverage limit. The existing structures and driveway already exceed this limit by 1%. The applicant is proposing to add a four season porch which will increase the impervious surface to 29% for the lot. Carlson Lake Park is between the subject property and the lake; therefore, there is no believed direct impact to Carlson Lake with this increase of impervious surface. However, the subject ass Planning Report — Rodriguez CUP September 27, 2005 Page 4 property's steep slope is being significantly altered by landscaping and terracing, the City should require that a landscape management strategy be developed and implemented in consultation with the soil and water conservation district and the City. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED To recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the 25% impervious surface maximum by 4% for a porch addition to property located at 1325 Carlson Lake Lane in the NW '/4 of Section 27; subject to the following conditions: 1. This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded at Dakota County within 60 days of approval by the City Council. 2. The impervious surface can not exceed 29%. 3. A landscape management plan and landscape plan shall be developed and implemented in consultation with the Soil and Water Conservation district and the City of Eagan prior to issuance of a building permit. X86 FINANCIAL OBLIGATION -27 -CU -13-08-05 —1325 Carlson Lake Lane Lot 3, Block 4, Wilderness Run 4th Addition There are pay-off balances of special assessments totaling $-0- on the parcel proposed for the conditional use. At this time, there are no pending assessments proposed to the parcel. Based upon the study of the fmancial obligations collected in the past and the uses proposed for the property, the following charges are proposed. The charges are computed using the City's existing fee schedule and for the connection and availability of the City's utility system. The charges will be computed using the rates in effect at time of connection or conditional use. IMPROVEMENT None USE RATE QUANTITY AMOUNT -0- Total $-0- cZ7 Location Map Eagan Boundary L l� Right-of-way Parcel Area FM Park Area ® Building Footprint 1000 1030 2030 Feet Development/Developer: Ramona Rodriguez Application: Conditional Use Permit Case No.: 27 -CU -13-08-05 Communlry Development Department Map Prepared using ERSI ArcView 3.1. Parcel base map data provided by Dakota County . GIS and is current as of April 2005. THIS MAP IS 1NTE The City of Eagan and Dakota Co not responsible ERENCE USE ONLY e the accuracy of this information and are err dls or omissions. Current Zoning and Comprehensive Guide Plan Land Use Map Zoning Map Current Zoning: R-1 Single Family Residential i00 000 1200 r..t Comprehensive Guide Plan Land Use Map Current Land Use Designation: LD Low Density Residential 000 0 000 1200 Pont Ramona Rodriguez Conditional Use Permit Case No. 27 -CU -13-08-05 IS MEI111 dig 1! i 111 LD 1 MI In 1. 54 :11111, 11IN '!l�►IIIaNiirIh MIMIII 46144 "if *MUNI r ■ �� ■; ."11v:1i. um. .0 111110/ ►;.�..CINEI clog LD City of Eagan Community Development Department Prowl hoss nap information provtd.dsy Dakot. County Land0awy D.p.rtm.ti J. 2003. Zoning infylI on pi laI b'Lity Stan THIS MAP IS ERENCE USE ONLY The City of Eagan and Dakota unty do nit guarantee the accuracy of this information. 2 1 WS CA -V-06 0 5CALE 2_0% RECEIVED AUG 17 Ktri'S RECEIVED AUG 17 2005 August 16, 2005 To: City of Eagan Planning Staff From: Jose and Ramona Rodriguez 1325 Carlson Lake Lane Eagan, Mn 55123 Dear Eagan staff members, Please accept this written request for an application of a conditional use permit for our family's potential 24 x 16 Four Season Addition to be located in the center rear of our home. Due to economic restraints of a family member we are a house hold of six which includes our two minor grandchildren . My aging parents spend a lot of time with us now and my husband and I foresee my parents also in the future as part of our house hold. Our family is now in need of additional leisure space. We enjoy and appreciate the harmony of Carlson Lake and plan to live in our home for many more years to come, for these reasons please grant us our wish for the additional living space needed. Sincerely, Ramona Rodriguez. a9� RECEIVED AUG 1.7 2005 Page 1 of 1 Sheila Cartney From: Jysnyder@aol.com Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 3:18 PM To: Sheila Cartney Subject: Advisory Planning Commission Mtg. I am in favor of granting a Conditional Use Permit to Ramona Rodriguez of 1325 Carlson Lake Lane, Eagan MN.that will allow the construction of a four season porch on a single family home, (File Number: 27 -CU -13-08- 05). Sincerely, Jean Y. Snyder 1321 Carlson Lake Lane Eagan, MN. 09/16/2005 .,2Q %3 Agenda Information Memo October 6, 2005 Eagan City Council D. COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT — OAK HILLS CHURCH ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To direct that a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from QP — Quasi -Public to LD — Low Density residential, approximately 0.94 acres located at the southwest corner of the property at 1570 Yankee Doodle Road (east of Coachman Road opposite the entrance to the City Maintenance Facility) in the NW 1/4 of Section 16, be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review and approval. REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: At least four votes. FACTS: > The applicant is requesting a change in the land use designation from QP — Quasi -Public to LD — Low Density on 0.94 acres in the southwest corner of the church site. > A conceptual plan shows a 170 feet wide by 240 feet deep area that would comprise two single-family residential lots, each approximately 22,400 sq. ft. in area. > The land area for the proposed homes above the required easement area for the pond would be about 8,750 sq. ft., and the gross area including the pond for each lot is 20,400 sq. ft. • A public hearing was held on July 5, 2005 to consider vacation of drainage and utility easements in the southwest comer of the property to allow for the two residential lots. • Action was taken to continue consideration of the vacation request to be concurrent with the final subdivision application for the property. > The APC held a public hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment on September 27, 2005 and recommended approval of the land use designation amendment. ISSUES: > The proposal appears compatible with existing single-family homes to the south. > The compatibility of the proposed new homes in this location across from the City Maintenance Facility is a policy matter for City officials to determine. 60 -DAY STATUS: Deadline is October 17, 2005 ATTACHMENTS (2): September 27, 2005 APC Minutes (to follow in the informational packet) Staff Report, pages through ,3Qt/, PLANNING REPORT CITY OF EAGAN REPORT DATE: September 21, 2005 APPLICANT: Oak Hills Church PROPERTY OWNER: Oak Hills Church REQUEST: Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment LOCATION: 1570 Yankee Doodle Road COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: QP, Quasi -Public ZONING: PF, Public Facilities CASE: 16 -CG -03-04-05 HEARING DATE: September 27, 2005 APPLICATION DATE: April 20, 2005 (Agency Action Deadline is Oct. 18, 2005) PREPARED BY: Pamela Dudziak SUMMARY OF REQUEST Oak Hills Church is requesting a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from QP, Quasi -Public, to LD, Low Density, upon approximately 0.94 acres located at the southwest comer of the property at 1570 Yankee Doodle Road (east of Coachman Road opposite the entrance to the City Maintenance Facility), in the NW Y4 of Section 16. AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW The city's Comprehensive Guide Plan was prepared pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.864. As defined by statute, the Land Use Plan is a guide and may be amended from time to time as conditions change. The city's Guide Plan is to be implemented by official controls such as zoning and other fiscal devices. The creation of land use districts and zoning is a formulation of public policy and a legislative act. As such, the classification of land uses must reasonably relate to promoting the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. When a change to a city's Comprehensive Guide Plan is requested, it is the city's responsibility to determine if the change is in the best long-range interests of the city. The standard of review of a city's action in approving or denying a Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment is whether there exists a rational basis. A rational basis standard has been described to mean having legally sufficient reasons supportable by the facts which promote the general health, safety and welfare of the city. a 9S Planning Report — Oak Hills Church September 27, 2005 Page 2 BACKGROUND/HISTORY In 1997, the City approved a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment and Rezoning to Public Facilities and Public to allow for construction of the church. Subsequently, with the City-wide update of the Comprehensive Guide Plan in 2001, the Public Facilities land use designation was refined to Quasi -Public for facilities such as churches. The zoning was updated to Public Facilities with corresponding amendments to the Zoning Code. A Variance was granted for the parking lot setback adjacent to Yankee Doodle Road, and the church was constructed in 2000. Earlier this year, the applicant petitioned the City to vacate the drainage and utility easements in the southwest corner of the property to allow for this application and development of two residential lots to occur. A public hearing on the vacation was held on July 5, 2005, and action was taken to continue consideration of the vacation request to be concurrent with the final subdivision application for the property. EXISTING CONDITIONS The church and parking lot are located on the northerly portion of the property. A pond covers much of the southeast portion of the site. The area around the pond contains steep slopes and wooded areas. The southern portion of the site is covered by drainage and utility easements. SURROUNDING USES The following existing uses, zoning, and comprehensive guide plan designations surround the subject property: EVALUATION OF REQUEST PROPOSAL Proposal — Oak Hills Church is proposing to amend the land use designation of a portion of the church property so that two lots can be created for development of single-family homes. If the a96 Existing Use Zoning Land Use Designation North Commercial NB, Neighborhood Business RC, Retail Commercial East Single-family residential PD, Planned Development LD, Low Density Residential South Single-family residential PD, Planned Development LD, Low Density Residential West City Maintenance/Water Treatment Facilities PF, Public Facilities QP, Quasi -public/ Institutional EVALUATION OF REQUEST PROPOSAL Proposal — Oak Hills Church is proposing to amend the land use designation of a portion of the church property so that two lots can be created for development of single-family homes. If the a96 Planning Report — Oak Hills Church September 27, 2005 Page 3 City approves of the land use amendment, the church would follow up with an application for subdivision and rezoning. The narrative states "The intention is for the church to maintain ownership of at least one of the lots to construct a single-family house. The other lot would be sold on the market to someone willing to construct a compatible house for the area." Site Plan — The Site Plan shows a 170 foot wide by 240 foot deep area that is proposed for the two lots. Each lot would be 85 feet wide by 240 feet deep. The eastern portion of each residential lot would extend into the existing pond. The gross area of each proposed lot is 20,400 sq. ft., the estimated area above the required easement area over the pond is about 8,750 sq. ft. for each lot. The lot size required for R-1 zoning is 12,000 sq. ft. Compatibility with Surrounding Area — The property to the south is developed with single-family homes and the proposed single-family homes would be compatible with that use. The property to the west is the City Maintenance Facility. There is some potential for traffic conflicts as the Maintenance Facility access to Coachman Road is opposite the proposed new single-family homes. The compatibility of additional single-family residences in this location is a policy matter to be determined by City officials. Compatibility considerations for the LD land use in the Comprehensive Guide Plan include "buffering is usually required where it abuts other more intense uses, particularly industrial or commercial uses or busy roadways .... [but] does not mean that strict separation of uses must always be maintained." Further, the Comprehensive Guide Plan states "Through attention to appropriate scale, aesthetic treatment, and mitigation of potential external nuisances such as noise and light, single family uses may be compatible within close proximity to more intense uses." With regard to access needs, the Plan states "access is generally most appropriate from local and neighborhood collector roads." The applicant's narrative states "The area to the south is already existing single-family residential houses and there is sufficient separation from ... the existing church facility. While the area immediately to the west is the existing City of Eagan maintenance facility, we believe that the continuation of the single-family to the north allows for this type of use on the parcel." ENVIRONMENTAL Topography — The site is wooded and generally slopes to the east. Tree Preservation — City's Tree Preservation ordinance will apply to the development of the two proposed single-family homes. Compliance with the tree preservation ordinance must be demonstrated at the time of development. Wetlands/Water Quality — The pond on the property is a DNR public water wetland. Under the City's 1990 Water Quality Management Plan it is classified as a Class V nutrient trap. A wetland delineation will be required at the time of preliminary subdivision and typically an � 99 Planning Report — Oak Hills Church September 27, 2005 Page 4 undisturbed buffer of 30 feet above the wetland boundary should be maintained. Any proposal to fill or alter the wetland would be subject to DNR review and permitting authority. INFRASTRUCTURE Utilities — Water main service is readily available to serve the proposed development. Sanitary sewer service may require removal and replacement of a portion of Coachman Road to access sanitary sewer along its west boulevard. Because adjacent Coachman Road was recently overlayed (City Proj. 917), the developer will be required to construct the sanitary sewer services to Lots 1 and 2 using trenchless technology, without disturbing the paved surface of Coachman Road. Access/ Trails — The driveway accesses for both lots is proposed directly onto Coachman Road. A City trail along the entire length of the Oak Hills Church property (east side of Coachman Road) was proposed with City Project No. 917 — Coachman Road Street Improvements, but denied by the City Council due to the objections from Oak Hills Church regarding trail easement dedication required on their property, and assessments. A trail is warranted at this location. With further development of the property, the developer should provide the trail easement necessary to construct the trail, as well as be responsible for construction of the trail along Coachman Road adjacent to the property proposed to be subdivided in the southwest corner. Easements/ Permits/ Right -of -Way — The development property is adjacent to Pond CP-1(as designated in the City's Storm Water Management Plan). Drainage & utility easements were dedicated over Pond CP -1 (as designated in the City Storm Water Management Plan) as part of the Oak Hills Church Addition plat to provide for flood storage for large runoff events. To accommodate this development proposal, a portion of these easements in the southwest corner of the lot would need to be vacated. The easement required to be vacated would be over Pond CP -1 in the southwest corner of the property to 3 feet above the calculated 1% rainfall event pond level. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE Land Use Designations — The existing QP, Quasi -Public, land use designation "provides areas for uses that may be either public or privately owned and operated, but are intended for general public use," including churches. The LD, Low Density Land Use Designation provides for development of residential uses at a gross density of 0-4 units per acre. The proposed 2 units on 0.94 acres is a density of 2.13 units per acre and is consistent with the proposed LD land use designation. a98" Planning Report — Oak Hills Church September 27, 2005 Page 5 SCHOOL SYSTEM School System — The impact of two additional single-family homes to the school system would be negligible. PARKS AND RECREATION Parks Systems Plan/ Neighborhood Parks — The property is located within the Y mile service districts for Quarry, Skyhill and Blackhawk Parks. The primary neighborhood park for the property being Quarry Park, though located across Yankee Doodle Road, is accessible via an existing boulevard trail and a controlled crossing. Parks and Recreation — A cash dedication for parks and trails would be due for the two residential lots at the time of subdivision. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION Oak Hills Church is proposing an Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from QP, Quasi -Public, to LD, Low Density, upon approximately 0.94 acres located at the southwest corner of the property at 1570 Yankee Doodle Road. The proposal requires vacation of drainage and utility easements and will require rezoning and subdivision of the land. While the proposal is compatible with existing single-family homes to the south, the compatibility of the proposed new homes in this location across from the City Maintenance Facility is a policy matter for City officials to determine. The site is large enough to accommodate two single family lots, without adverse effect on the church property. The land area for the proposed homes above the required easement area for the pond would be about 8,750 sq. ft., and the gross area including the pond for each lot is 20,400 sq. ft. The area is wooded and the tree preservation ordinance would apply to new development. Impacts to the school system would be negligible. Utility connections within Coachman Road would need to be made using trenchless technology, without disturbing the asphalt surface of the roadway, and a trail should be extended to the north along the length of the church property. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED To recommend approval of a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from QP, Quasi -Public, to LD, Low Density, upon approximately 0.94 acres located at the southwest comer of the property at 1570 Yankee Doodle Road (east of Coachman Road opposite the entrance to the City Maintenance Facility), in the NW 1/4 of Section 16. � 99 Location Map Eagan Boundary N Right-of-way Parcel Area Park Area - Building Footprint 1 a� 4.1t 1191 BEI BM v ,IMI 0111i H�I on ■� gall I 1 _ x MIM MEE liEnr mho ■i■i: s_, VII1 Sub ect Site 1=IC.J Aum mmilJ©J Q, f F f TS MYR at, MARKS DM 0 IM 0 1. IS I am i i Ili 1 4* ZdedCCEIhilliESSIGINI 3aeasE1o11:110 10 .4:414 Mip • wMM!Rmo P , w;-vwf l� on r ‘e0000c criga WOO 41 1 •t GO, LIE p�P In L'' final elle twarril a►vj YI RILLS RD. ea 1000 0 /AM 741 !i n D�IGIIIII 1000 ®•'•I R 2000 Feet Development/Developer: Oak Hills Church Application: Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment Case No.: 16 -CG -03-04-05 119// City ofEta Community Development Department Map Prepared using ERSI ArcVlew 3.1. Parcel base map data provided by Dakota County Office o GIS and is current as of April 2005. THIS MAP IS INT The City of Eagan and Dakota Cou RENCE USE ONLY the accuracy of this information and are not responsible for errors or omissions. Current Zoning and Comprehensive Guide Plan Land Use Map Oak Hills Church Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment Case No. 16 -CG -03-04-05 g Zoning Map 1�, MI —.,— : P Jr MI —� = II II 111111 R-0 ` A n11u11n tt - LB ���- PD NB R-4 NB . RD CWMT' ROAD IID. 2A (YANR.E YOO.LE .OA.I Current Zoning: ::', clse PD R-0 �poj° R•3� IN PF PD , EBE,��,'� Public Facilities :� :: •• •rt IN Voir, 4 Location �v i 0 tit, t ALI joillatiiivir PD ,� �II111 P0AW1111111011:::�11P 022 PD 41111* 1 % . 74 I I,', I R-2 1 ■}1� _� 600 0 666 1000 ►.., a ■I!!! Comprehensive Guide Plan :° LD =• 111111 MI P Land Use Map .. z "I mm B lin II HD �^ SA = LD n ll n g n 66 O/5 MI I OMRC HD MN COUNTY 11000 N0. 20 (YANKEE 0000LE ROAM 4,11., 11 ME Current Land Use nation: Desi Designation: ` MD aio. :=a;; SA 1� �v/ •', -1 • QP O 41-14r4111rLocationIM Quasi -Public I, rj� '2. �t:o ;; ..• MI CI NI ` •. = ' P L g A �11111tiss I11 c LJ , /III 11lt H11- LD 41111111 V.. ofilmpl" 600 0 600 1200 Peet FifIMF Parcel bo.. map Information pr003 .kola ty Land Slro.y Department Jon. 2003. N Zoning Int n int& .d byCity Stan 41 -City of Eagan W+E THIS MAP 15 1 REFERENCE USE ONLY Community Development Department The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this information. S OAK HDIS CHURCH OF OUTIAT A, HAMPTON PID# 10-535PD-01� 300,047.40 SQ. >. 7.00 ACR CONCEPT PLAN F3r TREATED WAi 1. 14H-12 T/04343.5 337 31 INV=836.63„, 3 RAW WATER 33, 33 I tt3 cn: • L41411 E/13,•414356 INV=833.64 ,t3 I num= me IIIVTY rmotietf 30' WETLAND BOUNDARY SETBACK DEUNEATED WETLAND BOUNDARY o I b 7 fit — co 17-- — N89°41'061'W ,38 ' // \ / SINGLE FAMILY RESDEN11/ ZONED PD 1 / —3 GUIDED D—I \ \ ' (0005 \ - \ ' ' ' ' / / \ \ : t ,•'''''' ' ''k ' s'', '''' . .' / / \ : - 1, / / AN C) --/ CONCEPT PLAN / / '-/ i' -i-------- 7 ti -..- i Written Narrative for Oak Hills Church Oak Hills Church is requesting a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment on a portion of their property to allow for the development of 2 single-family residential lots in the southwest corner of their property. The existing land use is Quasi -Public with an existing church occupying the site. A large portion of the south half of the site is a wetland area. Oak Hills Church received approval in 1997 to construct a church on a 7.09 acre parcel located at the southeast comer of Yankee Doodle Road and Coachman Road. The parcel was previously guided for medium -density residential development. The church development occurs on the north half of the property. The remaining parcel is generally comprised of wetlands. However, there is a non -wetland area along Coachman Road particularly in the southwest corner of the 7.09 acre parcel. This area abuts an existing single-family residential development to the south. The lots would be located generally east of the existing maintenance facility access to Coachman Road. The current Comprehensive Guide Plan designation is Public Facility (PF). The Church is proposing to modify a small portion of the southwest corner of the site to low density (D-1) single-family residential. The proposed single family lots would comply with the zoning requirements of a low density development. The surrounding land uses and zoning within 660 feet of the property consist of public facility to the west (City owned property); a planned development of single-family residential to the south; a planned assisted living facility to the east; and neighborhood business and limited business on the north side of Yankee Doodle Road. It is the Church's intention, upon receipt of the approval of a Comprehensive Guide Plan, to submit a rezoning application and a preliminary subdivision to obtain approval to construct two single-family residential lots in the southwest corner of the property. We acknowledge that a final determination of the wetland edge will need to occur as well as a tree survey conducted to provide an environmentally sensitive design of the property. However, based on previous delineation done on the property gives us confidence on the location of the existing wetland boundary. The intention is for the church to maintain ownership of at least one of the lots to construct a single-family house. The other lot would be sold on the market to someone willing to construct a compatible house for the area. Construction of the two homes would be constructed in late 2005 or early 2006. We believe that the residential lots are completely compatible with the surrounding area. The area to the south is already existing single-family residential houses and there is sufficient separation from the area of the proposed lots to the existing church facility. While the area immediately to the west is the existing City of Eagan maintenance facility, we believe that the continuation of the single-family to the north allows for this type of use on the parcel. City infrastructure is available at the site and while the entire area has a drainage and utility easement over the lots, there area no utility in the areas that will be in conflict with this development. We are confident that the City of Eagan will benefit from providing additional quality residential area in the community. Agenda Information Memo October 6, 2005 Eagan City Council Meeting E. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT — DELTA DEVELOPMENT ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED: To direct staff to submit the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for approximately 4.8 acres located on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Preusse Addition, from Business Park to Medium Density Residential to the Metropolitan Council for their review. OR To direct the preparation of Findings of Fact for denial of a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for approximately 4.8 acres located on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Preusse Addition, from Business Park to Medium Density Residential. REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: Majority of Council Members Present FACTS: > The subject site is vacant with some vegetation, surrounded with many different land uses including: Industrial, Business Park, and Medium Density Residential. > Development is not proposed at this time; the concept plan indicates 35 townhouse units, resulting in 7.14 units/acre which is consistent with Medium Density Residential (0-4 units/acre). However, the units do not meet perimeter setbacks as shown. > The Comp Plan indicates that medium density residential may be compatible with commercial and light industrial uses, given appropriate scale, buffering and design. > The subject site is located within Noise Zone 4 and the proposed residential use is considered conditional. Commercial and Industrial uses are consistent in Noise Zone 4. > Individual entrance residential uses are conditional in Noise Zone 4. The Goals and Polices of the Airports and Aviation section of the Comp Plan should be reviewed against this proposal. > The Metropolitan Council has adopted a new Transportation Policy Plan (December 2004) that will be used for their review of this request. The Met Council is in the process of updating many of their systems plans that will be incorporated in the 2008 Comp Guide Plan Updates. > The Advisory Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 27, 2005 and recommended denial. 3oS ISSUES: > City Officials need to seriously consider airport noise impacted to the subject site and the proposed individual entry housing product. 60 DAY AGENCY ACTION DEADLINE: October 14, 2005 ATTACHMENTS (2): Draft APC Minutes to follow with add'tional information packet Staff report on pageshrough3/ Airport Noise Contours on page ye 306 PLANNING REPORT CITY OF EAGAN REPORT DATE: September 16, 2005 APPLICANT: Mark Parranto PROPERTY OWNER: Greg Preusse REQUEST: Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment LOCATION: 4145 and 4135 Old Sibley HWY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: BP, Business Park ZONING: BP, Business Park CASE: 19 -CG -04-08-05 HEARING DATE: September 27, 2005 APPLICATION DATE: August 15, 2005 PREPARED BY: Sheila Cartney SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment to change the current land use of BP, Business Park to MD, Medium Density Residential on 4.8 acres located at 4145 and 4135 Old Sibley Highway, Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 Preusse 2' Addition. AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW The city's Comprehensive Guide Plan was prepared pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.864. As defined by statute, the Land Use Plan is a guide and may be amended from time to time as conditions change. The city's Guide Plan is to be implemented by official controls such as zoning and other fiscal devices. The creation of land use districts and zoning is a formulation of public policy and a legislative act. As such, the classification of land uses must reasonably relate to promoting the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. When a change to a city's Comprehensive Guide Plan is requested, it is the city's responsibility to determine if the change is in the best long-range interests of the city. The standard of review of a city's action in approving or denying a Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment is whether there exists a rational basis. A rational basis standard has been described to mean having legally sufficient reasons supportable by the facts which promote the general health, safety and welfare of the city. BACKGROUND/HISTORY In 2000, the subject properties were platted, at that time three unplatted parcels were platted; and a segment of Old Sibley Memorial Highway was vacated in November 1999. In 2002, the property owner appealed street assessments based on the current land use. If the land use is to 30 '7 Planning Report — Delta Development September 27, 2005 Page 2 change to medium density residential the assessments would be revisited at the time of subdivision. EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject site is vacant with some vegetation. There are several easements over these properties: a 66 foot wide transmission line easement, a 100 foot gas pipeline easement and a 30 foot drainage and utility easement. SURROUNDING USES The following existing uses, zoning, and comprehensive guide plan designations surround the subject property: EVALUATION OF REQUEST Proposal - The applicant is requesting approval of a Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment to change the subject site from Business Park to Medium Density Residential. Development is not proposed at this time, but the conceptual Site Plan shows 35 townhouse units with individual entrances. The proposed density is 7.14 units/acre; which would be consistent with the medium density (4-12 units/acre) request. The conceptual plan call for 35 total town home units in 6 buildings. Garages are shown at the rear of each unit. The applicant's narrative indicates the design of the site is to maximize the view of the river valley. Even though development is not proposed, the site was reviewed against R-3 standards. The concept plan has setback deviations, a 30 foot perimeter setback would apply to all buildings. The R-3 district requires 6,000 square feet of land area per unit, if divided evenly through out the site this requirement is achieved. Compatibility with Surrounding Area — The subject site is surrounded with many different uses and zoning districts. Industrial property is to the east and west of the subject site. According to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, medium density residential may be compatible with some 308 Existing Use Zoning Land Use Designation North Industrial/Manufacturing I-1, Limited Industrial Industrial East Natural gas pumping station BP, Business Park Business Park South Townhomes Planned Development Medium Density West TV station I-1, Limited Industrial Industrial EVALUATION OF REQUEST Proposal - The applicant is requesting approval of a Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment to change the subject site from Business Park to Medium Density Residential. Development is not proposed at this time, but the conceptual Site Plan shows 35 townhouse units with individual entrances. The proposed density is 7.14 units/acre; which would be consistent with the medium density (4-12 units/acre) request. The conceptual plan call for 35 total town home units in 6 buildings. Garages are shown at the rear of each unit. The applicant's narrative indicates the design of the site is to maximize the view of the river valley. Even though development is not proposed, the site was reviewed against R-3 standards. The concept plan has setback deviations, a 30 foot perimeter setback would apply to all buildings. The R-3 district requires 6,000 square feet of land area per unit, if divided evenly through out the site this requirement is achieved. Compatibility with Surrounding Area — The subject site is surrounded with many different uses and zoning districts. Industrial property is to the east and west of the subject site. According to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, medium density residential may be compatible with some 308 Planning Report — Delta Development September 27, 2005 Page 3 commercial and light industrial uses, given the appropriate scale, buffering and design of the higher intensity uses. Airport exposure should be considered, which is discussed later in this report. The appropriateness of this request is a policy matter for City Officials to determine. Comprehensive Plan Business Park The subject property is guided Business Park, according the to the Comp Plan, Business Park land use category "provides areas to accommodate a mix of professional offices, research and development facilities, and light industrial uses as well as some support services. Corporate office buildings, office -warehouse, office -showroom, research and development facilities, restaurants and hotels are examples of uses allowed in this category." Medium Density Residential The applicant's request is to change the comp plan designation to Medium Density Residential. According to the Comp Plan, "medium density residential uses are generally compatible with other residential uses. Medium density residential may also be compatible with some commercial and light industrial uses, given appropriate scale, buffering and design treatment of the higher intensity uses." Airports and Aviation Section five of the Comp Plan discusses airports and aviation. Goals and Polices are defined in this section Goals: 1. To minimize the establishment of noise sensitive uses in the area where noise impacts are greatest. 2. To the extent possible, mitigate noise impacts in areas where noise sensitive uses currently exist, or can be anticipated, in noise impact zones. 3. To advocate airport -operating procedures that will minimize adverse impacts in Eagan's noise sensitive areas, especially those areas that were established outside of areas where operations and noise impacts were anticipated. 4. To implement an orderly transition from noise sensitive land sues to noise compatible ones where appropriate, in consideration of all development factors for the area. 5. To minimize the establishment of physical structures that will interfere with aircraft operations; Policies: 1. The city will generally discourage new residential development in areas most affected by aircraft noise. This area is depicted by the current Metropolitan Council Noise Zones as illustrated in Figure 5.1. 2. The city will consider in -fill residential development within the area described above on a case by case basis. 3. The City of Eagan will consider a Noise Attenuation Construction ordinance that will apply to all noise -sensitive areas within the Metropolitan Council Noise Zones. 4. Any additions, modifications or replacements of existing homes within the Noise Zones shall use noise abatement designs and construction techniques to achieve an inside noise attenuation level appropriate for its noise zone. 309 Planning Report — Delta Development September 27, 2005 Page 4 5. The City will encourage the maximization of noise mitigation programs for the benefits of its residents. 6. The City will designate the Metropolitan 'Council Noise Policy Contours on its zoning and Comprehensive Land Use Guide maps 7. The City will continue its cooperative efforts with the Metropolitan Airports Commission, the Pollution Control Agency and other governmental agencies to reduce adverse noise impacts generated by air traffic. 8. The city will advocate for historic and prospective aircraft operating procedures that respect the City's purposeful efforts to minimize noise sensitive uses in the Eagan - Mendota Heights Corridor. The City will resist efforts by other agencies to introduce or modify operating procedures so as to increase adverse impacts in noise sensitive areas of Eagan outside of the Corridor. 9. The City will continue to encourage noise compatible commercial -industrial uses in the northern portion of the City where the noise compatible Corridor has been established. The City will consider redevelopment of noise -sensitive residential uses to noise compatible uses in the Corridor in situations where other planning factors support such action. 10. The City does not anticipate a strategy of major redevelopment of the residential areas of south .and west Eagan that will experience additional over -flights from the proposed north south runway. This is due to the scale of residential development that has occurred in this area to date and the presence of substantial areas of commercial and industrial land uses in the northern portion of the City associated with historic air traffic patterns. The City will apply appropriate performance standards to expansion or modification of uses, in -fill development or redevelopment within the area. 11. The City will advocate for specific noise attenuation considerations for noise sensitive areas in southwest Eagan, because neither the City nor its property owners could have anticipated the over -flight impact from the new north -south runway. 12. The City will notify appropriate agencies of proposed construction or alterations that will exceed height limitations in airport areas as specified in Federal or State law. According to this section of the Comp Plan, "commercial -industrial uses are more compatible with aircraft noise than noise -sensitive residential, churches and schools. Noise sensitivity varies among residential uses." In general, construction of multi -family homes can occur, but they must be constructed to provide adequate sound installation. Airport Noise Consideration - The City of Eagan considered airport noise as a factor in its Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan. The Metropolitan Council has adopted an Aviation Chapter in the Metropolitan Development Guide that anticipates the impacts from the continued operation of the airport at it s current location. The noise policy contours in Eagan place the subject property within Noise Zone 4. Within this area, new residential single/multiplex development with individual entrance would be conditional. To approve such development in this area, the City Council would need to make acceptable findings conceming the following: 3/0 Planning Report — Delta Development September 27, 2005 Page 5 1. Specific nature of the proposed use, including the extent of outdoor activities. 2. Relationship of the proposed use to other planning considerations, including adjacent land use activities, consistency with overall comprehensive planning and relation to other metropolitan systems. 3. Frequency of exposure of proposed uses to aircraft over flight. 4. Location of proposed use relative to aircraft flight tracks and aircraft on -ground operating and maintenance areas. 5. Location, site design and construction restrictions to be imposed by the community of the proposed use with respect to reduction of exterior to interior noise transmissions and shielding of outdoor activities. 6. Method community will use to inform future occupant of proposed building of potential noise from aircraft operations. 7. Extent to which community restricts the building from having facilities for outdoor activities associated with the use. 8. Distance of proposed use from existing or proposed runways, parallel taxiways or engine run-up areas. With respect to the factual aspects of the findings, the property lies approximately 6-7 miles south of the new north/south runway at the airport. There are three flight tracks that are proposed to fly over the property (within one mile). Flight track B, 6.7% of daily flights, Flight Track I, 3.3% of daily flights, and Flight Track C, which is the primary track being used for arrivals onto the new runway 16.1% of daily flights. Upon completion, approximately one-third of all arrivals and departures are expected to use the north -south runway. At current traffic levels, the airport handles approximately 530,000 operations annually. While the implementation of the Stage III airline fleet in recent years has lessened the noise per operation, the net effect of these deductions has not yet been translated into new noise policy contours. Updated policy contours are expected to be available and adopted later this year, and it is anticipated that the result will be a reduction in the contours. However, until that time, regional policy dictates that cities continue to utilize the last officially adopted noise policy contours. If the City determines that findings concerning these conditions support the approval of this application for in -fill development, it should be conditioned on the following: Architectural designs and construction methods for new construction within the development would incorporate sound attenuation standards sufficient to achieve an interior sound level of 45 dBA as compared with a noise level of 65 DNL (based on the inside boundary of the noise zone). This would require an inside noise level reduction of at least 20 dBA (Issue #5). Commercial or Industrial uses as permitted by Business Park zoning would be a considered Consistent as infill developments, or land uses that are acceptable. The Metropolitan Council adopted a new Transportation Policy Plan in December of 2004. New land use compatibility guidelines for airport noise were adopted as an appendix to the Transportation Plan and will be used by the Metropolitan Council as part of its land use review if this application is forwarded to them by the City of Eagan. System statements regarding 31/ Planning Report — Delta Development September 27, 2005 Page 6 compliance with Metropolitan Council policies are near completion and the City of Eagan anticipates subsequent adoption of these guidelines when required. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION The applicant is requesting a Comp Plan Amendment to change the subject site from Business Park to Medium Density Residential. Development is not proposed at this time. The submitted Site Plan indicates the possibility of developing 35 townhome units. Even though development is not proposed, the site was reviewed against R-3 standards. The concept plan has setback deviations, a 30 foot perimeter setback would apply to all buildings. The comprehensive Land Use Plan states that medium density residential may also be compatible with some commercial and light industrial uses, given appropriate scale, buffering and design treatment of the higher intensity uses. The neighboring properties are zoned and guided for Limited Industrial, Business Park and medium density uses. Airport noise impact should be extensively reviewed with this request. New multi -family development is considered conditional in Noise Zone 4; all conditions must be met in order to approve this application. Commercial or Industrial uses as permitted by Business Park zoning would be a considered Consistent as infill developments, land uses that are acceptable. The Metropolitan Council adopted a new Transportation Policy Plan in December of 2004. New land use compatibility guidelines for airport noise were adopted as an appendix to the Transportation Plan and will be used by the Metropolitan Council as part of its land use review if this application is forwarded to them by the City of Eagan. System statements regarding compliance with Metropolitan Council policies are near completion and the City of Eagan anticipates subsequent adoption of these guidelines when required. It is up to City Officials to determine the appropriateness of this Land Use change and if the goals and polices of the Comp Plan are achieved with this request. If approved the Council should direct city staff to forward this request to the Metropolitan Council for their review. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED To recommend approval of a Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment to change the land use from Business Park to Medium Density Residential on 4.8 acres, Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 Preusse 2nd Addition. 3/a 02/22/01 Table: 5.1 Metropolitan Council Airport Land -use Compatibility Guidelines Land Use Types/Noise Exposure Zones Land Use Compatibility Guidelines New Development Major Redevelopment Infill -Reconstruction or Additions to Existing Structures 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Residential Single/Multiplex with Individual Entrance Multiplex/Apartment with Shared Entrance Mobile Home INCO2 INCO INCO INCO PROV INCO INCO PROV INCO COND PROV COND COND COND COND COND PROV COND COND PROV COND COND PROV COND Educational and Medical Schools, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes INCO INCO INCO PROV COND COND COND PROV Cultural, Entertainment, Recreational Indoor Outdoor COND3 COND PROV COND PROV COND PROV CNST COND COND PROV COND PROV COND PROV CONST Office, Commercial, Retail COND PROV PROV CNST PROV PROV PROV CNST Services Transportation -Passenger Facilities Transient Lodging Other Medical, Health & Educational Services Other Services COND INCO COND COND PROV PROV PROV PROV. PROV PROV PROV PROV CNST PROV CNST CNST COND COND COND COND PROV PROV PROV PROV PROV PROV PROV PROV CNST PROV CNST CNST Industrial,Communication, Utility PROVO CNST CNST CNST CNST CNST CNST CNST Agricultural Land, Water Areas, Resource Extraction CNST5 CNST CNST CNST CNST CNST CNST CNST Source: Metropolitan Council, Metropolitan Development Guide — Aviation, 12/96 2 INCO means Inconsistent 3 COND means Conditional ° PROV means Provisional 5 CNST means Consistent 3C3 Location Map Eagan Boundary pxRight-of-way Parcel Area Park Area Building Footprint 1 1 9 1 • ra a irn-an-.5,z_N rirgircit prigia--13.4ei Sm.% lu'IV:61t*..-6101195-,,t4tg vitt ..,-.0 Liu k_Z•47.1 LIk4tr> V kO•i•-• kkt; t4litiai,a,, 41,4.'-, ,41:4*4 :474Z-414.-.11-5 1 A 1 o• le b Id . 43.1 OM .4.1.1../ " N -:- Zlorna Il"1f ti =:ttatti ,1P.AraiZauW Mt \ 1:3Lnla '‘%414.47 IL -1.7. a LlIMJ VINO, 111111.11 •-•"9.,(4. 7494401 L'allitl VII 4,1.--Ats'elochtior-g eiprie_Aii I _mai- 1 ! — r irArkiNVI ial Ei55TZU 111 111 DIM EEO sa P og op CP a e doketrYdE au a a a • PSO Leal L7PJ ugra Lau LIPJ EAU 1-1If UP' L1 Li IL1 1.II CI th3T6JL-60r30 Ir...C•01 LAMS WOUCELIAIM EIG-SUGLMSS E-EZETIME-M1 JAZ! IAN. rrrirtn-1,13rirn byEsssnos CZTZiism•GrilG;11 E1552222225721 OZZLIZIg Earpripurj — DICI MCI OM nun Lan" 14 1113 mu LJ imuu IF.1 Lael Lau LNPJ L.,1"..1 LleF.1 Lulu Ulla 'mai 1,11F.1 L1C1 Lau Lail MU Laapj Lmal1MJ 1,11_1 LIU LAW 4‘1111,-1 Lei*J toni IAEA LAM Lara toty3 691FJ larJ Lam' rElka LapJ iuj ,,kra \FRIA 11111 LIITLI UR_I 1111PJ q L. val LNPJ HISJ LaidA 0 siu ulyzarai 4 ."-t21:11.04 \4014.Ms `A*411147113 um:: v14-4,, ,44ry (4rfuo 12- A.,4,0 V.4.• v.,,,, 02 re4V. ,:,104>N A. 40 Nf) •,..,•-'44k ''" /444,t7 i 20 i t. ilkiloVi-*eg)'.'"i V Ult" VV.441 Mt tVk 1_, COM la4aigs.:45;1:11i Liti 1-114114-44%.7,WroreLiiir:ga VIIIIrrprpStrararrn uz=lilizi=- =a -tam -Ali CIO 1000 0 1000 faIMEMBliEffi r g EB 0 0 0 f1 44- 2000 Feet Development/Developer: Delta Development Application: Comp Guide Amendment Case No.: 19 -CG -04-08-05 'It` City of Eaiall Community Development Department Map Prepared using ERSI Arclf map data provided by Dakota County 0L of n.diseu t as of April 2005. THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this information and are not responsible for errors or omissions. 7) W+ E Delta Development Current Zoning and Comprehensive Guide Plan Comp Plan Amendment Land Use Map Case No. 19-CG-04-08-05 Zoning Map �.. 4- AIIW, on Nm7iiim NM Iry Tm MI %li rat Current Zoning: BP_' Business Park "igleiratelel° • �� ■S ,, 1 b n a_.. .. .. .. 71'' .. PD G •• w- hit 111 Ili In ®� PF I 000 o IMO +:oo 0004 GB Comprehensive Guide Planf-� Land Use Map IP 4 451 s-al r IND IND R ►I te.•' r 101 Current Land Use Designation: , IND ` all 1, anal ' ... BP , a`• low Business Park IND -- = � ME inm Num w' oll MEI '11 MD RC ',III 44 ®® PI lot ii I l 111 f T i i l I l QP 100 0 *00 1200 r••t Parcel baste map Informs tlo rid y akota County Land survey Department June 2003. 14 Zoning I Aldan ntained by City Staff. City of Eagan E THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY W Community Development Department The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this information. S 7 SOOT LI gnv 03AI3338 0.00 Pomo Segal rox'W9 ' 0•3 M.w :: „r1 en power p.a. .009-500 (109) 004 ao.. 09 9 00.149.00003 *WO wold 500E 2W3.1, 0.1111311.0.0 a-ren'u ON/7703H_ OM—Kt <t5.) 000,01 EEK5 .,w.unn •00003 Wq •10'+..0 EOK .LNZMYd073Aa70' Y17.7 .>~., NY7d SdIS NY7d 1dT.7N0.7 1114 1=4s 1 w 11 I\ g Y 28 a e s _ of c. 913 y • • \ \ \\\\\ \\\\\ \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ • \ a 1Ii E \ \\� \\\ 5.0 s \ r\ 3 \ � \\ ..�Y 1 •r 33 \\ \\ \ ', J )x Yw \ ';• \ \ \ y \ r \ \\ id, `off \ \ \\\:. G. \ \\\ 3F6 - R Z CC 2 < FK AZO x U O fX eL Z LL August 15, 2005 Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment Checklist Preusse 2nd Addition The legal description of the site is : Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Preusse 2nd Addition. The current Comprehensive Guide Plan designation of this property is BP Business Park. The proposed Guide Plan designation is Medium Density residential to allow owner occupied town homes. The current zoning of the site is BP Business Park. The proposed zoning of the site is R- 3 Medium density to allow owner occupied town homes. We intend to build 35 owner occupied town homes in 6 buildings. Each building is a single loaded row type town home. Garages are at the rear of each unit. Sidewalks connect the front door of each home with the parking areas. The layout was designed to maximize the views over the river valley to the north, maximize the green areas in the development and minimize the pavement areas and crossings of the easement areas included in the site. Construction would probably begin in Spring of 2006 with all buildings and landscaping finished by fall of 2007. Currently this a vacant land. To the east is a natural gas pumping station zoned BP Business Park, to the south is a similar town home development zoned Planned Unit Development, to the west is the cable television station zoned I-1 Limited Industrial, to the north across Old Sibley Highway is zoned I-1 Limited Industrial including the seller, Wenzel Heating. This site is located at the top of the bluff overlooking the Minnesota River valley. The topographic changes between the site and the light industrial uses to the north allow the town homes, located on a site that is higher than the roofs of the buildings across the street, to have virtually unobstructed views of the river valley. Twenty of the units will have one of the best views in the City of Eagan. The property to the south is developed with well over 100 similar style town homes. The site adjacent to the west is the cable television station with a single story building and satellite antennas and a radio tower. The site to the east is a natural gas pumping station. There is little in the way of buildings on the property pumping station site. RECEIVED AUG 17 2QQ5 312 Minneapolis/St.Paul Noise Policy Areas Source' Nose contour data is rmrn MAC and was obtain from the Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Council and the MepopoNan Airports Commission mare no representation or warranties, express a inpled. with respect to the mimeo! de data provided herewith, regardless dib lomat a the rears of its transmission. Determining the appropriate applicaions b he use al this data sets the responsibility d the user. The user accepts the date 'as is, and assumes all Asks assailed with its use. By aaepWceol the data the user agrees not to transmit INC data a pm:de access to It or any pad d it t another party or edddual. The Mea 5ogtn Cantil and the Metmpditn Airports Commission assume no responsi:diytor aolua a consequential damage incurred as a resat d any user's reliance on this data. 0 0.5 2 Mies Legend MSP Noise Noise Contour and Exposure Zones Noise Zone Boundary 1 ^I 1 Mile Buffer 2 • .. DNL60 3 ^..DNL65 4 ^..DNL70 ^� DNL 75 ® Municipal Boundary Street Centerline Figure 5.1 Agenda Information Memo October 6, 2005, Eagan City Council F. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT AND FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (OUTLOT C, EAGAN WOODS OFFICE PARK 2ND ADDITION) — LA OUINTA INNS, INC. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve (OR direct findings of fact for denial) a Rezoning from T, Transitional, to PD, Planned Development upon 0.76 acres located at 2779 Pilot Knob Road in the NE 1/4 of Section 4. To approve (OR direct findings of fact for denial) a Planned Development Amendment and Final Planned Development to expand the existing Planned Development to adjacent property and change the approved use from Class I restaurant to a 152 -room, five -story hotel upon 2.76 acres located at the southeast corner of Pilot Knob Road and Buffet Way in the NE 'A of Section 4, subject to the conditions in the APC minutes. REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: At least three votes. FACTS: ➢ This site consists of two parcels which are both vacant. The northerly parcel was platted as an outlot with the Old Country Buffet (OCB) development in the mid-1990s. The southerly parcel was rezoned from A, Agricultural to T, Transitional in 2002. > The applicant is proposing a five -story 152 -room hotel. The hotel use is consistent with the O/S, Office/Service land use designation and the surrounding office, hotel and commercial uses. > The proposal provides for access to contiguous parcels of land through a private street along the west side of the property and ingress/egress easements for adjoining properties. ➢ The developer is providing an entrance monument feature that coordinates with the one being constructed north of Buffet Way to complete the gateway entrance into this area. > The additional building height over 45 feet is supported by increased structure setbacks required by the City Code. The height of the tower in excess of 80 feet is a deviation from City Code standards. ➢ The Landscape Plan, Site Lighting Plan and Tree Mitigation Plan require some minor modifications. > The APC held a public hearing on September 27, 2005, and recommended approval of the Rezoning, Planned Development Amendment and the Final Planned Development. ISSUES: > The acceptability of the proposed amendment and its deviations are a policy matter to be determined by City officials. ,319 ➢ Deviations include the reduced parking setback and parking stall size. The developer has indicated that the reduced stall size and setbacks allow for the site to fully meet the City Code requirement for the number of parking stalls, while a portion of the site area that might otherwise be utilized for parking is dedicated to providing access to adjacent properties. ➢ The developer is proposing four building wall signs, more than are typically allowed by the City Code. The developer did incorporate the entrance monument feature which will contain a ground sign, and is not requesting a pylon sign. 60 -DAY STATUS: Deadline is October 30, 2005 ATTACHMENTS: (2) September 27, 2005 APC Minutes (to follow in the informational packet) Staff report, pages I through 3357 3 ao PLANNING REPORT CITY OF EAGAN REPORT DATE: September 21, 2005 APPLICANT: La Quinta Inns, Inc. CASE: 04-RZ-04-08-05; 04 -PA -10-08-05 and 04 -FD -15-08-05 HEARING DATE: September 27, 2005 PROPERTY OWNER: Commercial Property APPLICATION DATE: August 31, 2005 Development Corporation REQUEST: Planned Development Amendment PREPARED BY: Pamela Dudziak LOCATION: SW comer of Pilot Knob Road and Buffet Way COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: O/S, Office/Service ZONING: PD, Planned Development/T, Transitional SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a Rezoning from T, Transitional, to PD, Planned Development upon 0.76 acres, a Planned Development Amendment to expand the existing Planned Development to adjacent property and change the approved use from restaurant to hotel, and a Final Planned Development to allow a 152 -room, five -story hotel upon 2.88 acres located at the southeast comer of Pilot Knob Road and Buffet Way in the NE I/4 of Section 4. AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW Rezoning/PD Amendment: Chapter 11, Section 11.50, Subdivision 5 states, in part, 1. The provisions of this chapter may be amended by the majority vote of the council, except that amendments changing the boundaries of any district or changing the regulations of any district may only be made by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of all members of the council. 2. The Council shall not rezone any land in any zoning district or make any other proposed amendment to this chapter without first having referred it to the planning commission for its consideration and recommendation. Planned Development: City Code Chapter 11.60, Subd. 18, A., states the intent of the Planned Development zoning district as follows: 3a � Planning Report — La Quinta September 27, 2005 Page 2 1. Providing greater flexibility in environmental design and relaxation of strict application of the zoning ordinance in exchange for greater creativity and environmental sensitivity. 2. Recognizing the economic and cultural advantages that will accrue to the residents of a planned community. 3. Encouraging a more creative and efficient approach to the use of the land. 4. Encouraging the preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics, natural features, and open space. Encouraging a development pattern that is consistent with land use density, transportation facilities and community facilities objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. BACKGROUND/HISTORY This site consists of two parcels which are both vacant. The northerly parcel was platted as an outlot with the Old Country Buffet (OCB) development in the mid-1990s. Prior to that it was part of the Wyndham Corporate Center Planned Development dating back to 1985. The southerly parcel is unplatted and previously contained a single-family home, though the house has now been removed and the property is vacant. The southerly parcel was rezoned from A, Agricultural to T, Transitional in 2002. The purpose of the Transitional zoning is "to provide for orderly redevelopment of contiguous parcels of land," "to discourage piecemeal development ... that would result in the isolation or inefficient re -use of existing parcels of land" and "to ensure that contiguous parcels of land are served with adequate access and public infrastructure." The OCB Planned Development called for a restaurant on this parcel. The original intent of the OCB development was to "develop a campus where, in addition to their corporate offices, the employees can be trained at a training facility, be housed at the hotel, and operate their restaurant; all on one site." (OCB Staff Report, April 25, 1995) In keeping with that plan, the outlot south of Buffet Way was designated for a restaurant use, and the outlot north of Buffet Way was designated for a hotel. These uses have not developed and OCB recently sold both of the outlots. Zoning approval was recently granted to allow an office building (rather than a hotel) on the adjacent property north of Buffet Way. La Quinta Inns is now proposing a hotel (instead of a restaurant) on the subject site south of Buffet Way. EXISTING CONDITIONS The site is vacant and the northerly portion was previously graded. Access is provided to the southerly parcel via Pilot Knob Road, and to the northerly parcel via Buffet Way. 302 Planning Report — La Quinta September 27, 2005 Page 3 SURROUNDING USES The following existing uses, zoning, and comprehensive guide plan designations surround the subject property: EVALUATION OF REQUEST Compatibility with Surrounding Area — This site is within an area of primarily office and service uses. There are several office buildings in the area and one existing hotel, as well as one other site approved for a hotel that has not been built. All of the buildings are multiple stories, from 2- 6 stories in height. Proposal — The Site Plan shows a five -story 152 -room hotel building with surface parking. The applicant's narrative states the hotel is "designed to cater to the lodging needs or primarily business people whose typical stay would be about 2 or 3 nights." The hotel is not designed as an extended stay facility and "will be staffed on a 24-hour basis with a maximum of 12-15 employees on site at any given time .... Parking is provided for the exclusive use of employees and guests .... Two meeting rooms (650 square feet in each) and an indoor pool will be provided for the use of guests." Access into the site is provided from Buffet Way at the northwest comer of the property. A dedicated private drive is shown along the west edge of the property and stubbed to the south end of the site for possible future connection with adjacent properties to the south. A sidewalk from the southeast comer of the parking lot connects to the trail along the west side of Pilot Knob Road. The main entrance to the building is at the northeast corner of the building, facing Pilot Knob Road, and includes a drive under canopy for check-in and drop-off. This location is a gateway to Eagan, the first main intersection south of I-494. The OCB development intended to "create a focal point and a sense of arrival to the corporate campus at the intersection of [Buffet Way] and Pilot Knob Road." (OCB Staff Report, April 25, 1995) However, since the two outlots have not developed as originally intended, the focal point also did not materialize. With the change in use from hotel to office on the property to the north, the City approved the use of a decorative entrance monument, fence and landscaping feature to create such a focal point. This decorative feature serves this purpose and creates the intended sense of arrival into the office park. It was intended that the same entrance monument feature and landscaping elements be incorporated with development on the south side of Buffet Way. The plans show use of the same monument feature and similar landscaping elements. 3d3 Existing Use Zoning Land Use Designation North Vacant PD, Planned Development O/S, Office/Service South Retail (Collector's Paradise) NB, Neighborhood Business O/S, Office/Service East Office PD, Planned Development BP, Business Park West Office (Old Country Buffet) PD, Planned Development O/S, Office/Service EVALUATION OF REQUEST Compatibility with Surrounding Area — This site is within an area of primarily office and service uses. There are several office buildings in the area and one existing hotel, as well as one other site approved for a hotel that has not been built. All of the buildings are multiple stories, from 2- 6 stories in height. Proposal — The Site Plan shows a five -story 152 -room hotel building with surface parking. The applicant's narrative states the hotel is "designed to cater to the lodging needs or primarily business people whose typical stay would be about 2 or 3 nights." The hotel is not designed as an extended stay facility and "will be staffed on a 24-hour basis with a maximum of 12-15 employees on site at any given time .... Parking is provided for the exclusive use of employees and guests .... Two meeting rooms (650 square feet in each) and an indoor pool will be provided for the use of guests." Access into the site is provided from Buffet Way at the northwest comer of the property. A dedicated private drive is shown along the west edge of the property and stubbed to the south end of the site for possible future connection with adjacent properties to the south. A sidewalk from the southeast comer of the parking lot connects to the trail along the west side of Pilot Knob Road. The main entrance to the building is at the northeast corner of the building, facing Pilot Knob Road, and includes a drive under canopy for check-in and drop-off. This location is a gateway to Eagan, the first main intersection south of I-494. The OCB development intended to "create a focal point and a sense of arrival to the corporate campus at the intersection of [Buffet Way] and Pilot Knob Road." (OCB Staff Report, April 25, 1995) However, since the two outlots have not developed as originally intended, the focal point also did not materialize. With the change in use from hotel to office on the property to the north, the City approved the use of a decorative entrance monument, fence and landscaping feature to create such a focal point. This decorative feature serves this purpose and creates the intended sense of arrival into the office park. It was intended that the same entrance monument feature and landscaping elements be incorporated with development on the south side of Buffet Way. The plans show use of the same monument feature and similar landscaping elements. 3d3 Planning Report — La Quinta September 27, 2005 Page 4 Planned Development Zoning — The Planned Development zoning district allows the developer to have greater flexibility in the design of the development and the City to require higher standards in exchange for that flexibility. The Planned Development zoning is also utilized to establish standards and compatibility within a multi -phase development. This property has been zoned PD for many years dating back to 1985 with the Wyndham Corporate Center, and most recently as part of the Old Country Buffet headquarters campus. Conforming Plan — The conforming plan should show a development that conforms with the BP zoning district, a comparable zoning for the proposed uses. The conforming plan shows the 152 - room hotel. Parking stalls conform to dimensional standards and required number of stalls. The site plan is slightly different, primarily because the conforming plan utilizes the entire site for parking, and does not show the private access drive along the west side of the property. The conforming plan shows conforming structure setbacks, including the additional setbacks required in conjunction with the increased building height. Building coverage is 14.3% and impervious coverage is 26.7%, both meeting the BP standards. Benefits of Proposed PD — The applicant's narrative includes a section listing the benefits of this Planned Development. Among the items identified are: • Private street access is extended through the site for the benefit of adjoining properties to the south and ingress/egress easement provided for those parcels. • The development consolidates two parcels into one and provides orderly development/redevelopment of a smaller Transitional parcel. • The developer is providing an entrance monument feature that mirrors what will be constructed with the development to the north. • No pylon sign is requested. • The development provides a trail connection to the existing trail along Pilot Knob Road. Airport Noise Standards — The City of Eagan considered airport noise as a factor in its Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan. The Metropolitan Council has adopted an Aviation Chapter of its Metropolitan Development Plan that anticipates the impacts from the continued operation of the airport at its current location. The noise policy contours in Eagan place the subject property within Noise Zone 2. Within this area, hotel development is considered to be provisional, meaning that it must comply with certain structural performance standards to be acceptable according to MS 473.192. In particular, the building plans, materials and construction should be such that they will insure an interior sound level of 50 dBA (provisional land use performance standards) as compared with a noise level of 75 DNL (based on the inside boundary of the noise zone). This would require an inside noise level reduction of at least 25 dBA (DNL level minus required dBA level) as compared with the noise level at the inner boundary of the noise zone, in this case 75 DNL. Security — The applicant's narrative states addresses security and operations. It states the hotel will be staffed on a 24-hour basis. Guest room keys are required to enter the building at all points except the main lobby entrance. Between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., a guest room key would be required to enter the building via the main lobby entrance or the front desk Say Planning Report — La Quinta September 27, 2005 Page 5 clerk can be buzzed to permit entrance. The narrative adds that the hotel is not designed as an extended stay property and only daily room rates will typically be advertised. Lots — The site is 2.7 acres in size, after replatting and dedication of right-of-way for Pilot Knob Road. Setbacks — The City Code allows increased building height up to 80 feet, subject to air traffic corridor regulations and a one -foot increase in setback for each additional foot of building height over the maximum allowed up to a maximum setback of 60 feet on the front and 40 feet on the side and rear yards. These building setbacks are satisfied; the proposed building is set back more than 60 feet from both Pilot Knob Road and Buffet Way, and more than 40 feet from the south and west lot lines. Required parking setbacks are 20 feet from a public right of way and 5 feet from side and rear lot lines. The site plan shows a 7 -foot parking setback from Buffet Way and a 25 and 30 foot parking setback from Pilot Knob Road. The minimum 5 foot parking setback is satisfied on the south side, and also along the west side with the exception of the curve in the private street around a jog in the west property line. The proposed 7 -foot parking setback from Buffet Way is a, deviation from City Code standards. The applicant has indicated that this reduced setback provides for an additional row of parking along the north property line, allowing the site to increase the number of parking stalls on site since property along the west side is dedicated to an access drive that will also serve adjacent parcels. The acceptability of this reduced setback is a policy matter to be determined by City officials. Site Lighting — Since no details on the lighting fixtures were provided, staff has the following comments. All fixtures should be downcast and shielded to prevent glare and minimize light spillover off the property. Staff suggests using metal halide lighting on poles not more than 30 feet in height. Since there are no sensitive residential uses in the area, concerns regarding glare and spillover are related to the public rights-of-way. The Site Lighting Plan should be revised to include fixture and pole mounting details and information and to modify the calculations as noted below. Lighting levels are proposed to be within the typical standards, not exceeding 1 footcandle at the property lines and not less then 0.5 footcandles within the parking lot. The proposed maximum light level is 10 footcandles. The average to minimum ratio is 12.5, which indicates a high variation of light levels throughout the site; this ratio should be closer to 4:1. However, it appears the ratio utilizes a minimum level of 0.2 footcandles which occurs at the perimeter of the site outside the parking lot. The average to minimum ratio should be recalculated using the minimum light level within the parking lot. Landscaping — The landscape plan utilizes a variety of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs, as well as perennial and annual flowers and grasses. Landscaping at the entrance monument utilizes similar materials as will be used for the entrance monument on the north side of Buffet Way — both monuments use a Dwarf Korean Lilac backdrop, with spirea and perennials in front. La Quinta is proposing Snowmound Spirea and daylilies, the office building to the north uses Sas Planning Report — La Quinta September 27, 2005 Page 6 Little Princess Spirea and Salvia. The Landscape Plan shows a Snowmound Spirea hedge for screening along the north side, which matches the hedge material to be used on the property north of Buffet Way. Overall, the planting plan appears to be acceptable with some modifications. The landscape plan should be revised to identify more trees as landscape materials and fewer trees as mitigation (see Tree Preservation section). Parking lot islands are proposed to be landscaped with ornamental trees and spirea. Staff suggests using perennials in the islands because they die back in the winter and are not negatively affected by snow storage. The evergreen trees proposed along the south and west boundaries will spread out into the parking lot or driving lane and onto adjacent property. The plan should be revised to use a species in those locations that is more suitable to the constrained growing space. Parking — The proposed hotel contains 152 rooms. City Code requires one parking stall to be provided for each room, plus one stall for each 8 rooms. This calculates to a minimum required parking amount of 171 stalls. The applicant is proposing 167 regular parking stalls and 4 handicapped accessible stalls for a total of 171 stalls. This satisfies the amount required by City Code. Parking stalls are proposed to be 9 feet wide by 18 feet deep. This is a deviation from City Code standards, which requires stalls to be 10 feet wide and 19 feet deep. The developer has indicated that the reduced stall size helps the site to fully meet the City Code requirement for the number of parking stalls, while a portion of the site area that might otherwise be utilized for parking is dedicated to providing access to adjacent properties. The dimensional requirements for parking stall and drive aisles were added to the City Code in 2000. Prior to that, a 10 -foot wide standard was applied in high turnover areas, such as retail parking lots, and stalls as narrow as 9 feet were allowed in low turnover parking lots, such as employee parking at a warehouse or office building. Prior to 2000, minimum parking stall depth was typically 18 feet for single -loaded parking, and 20 feet for double -loaded. Single -loaded parking allows for vehicle bumpers to overhang the curb reducing the stall depth necessary to accommodate vehicle parking. Most of the parking on this site is single -loaded, except for one double -loaded row south of the building, which is also shown with 18 foot stall depth. The acceptability of the reduced stall dimensions is a policy matter to be determined by City officials. Two-way driving aisles are proposed to be 24 feet wide. This dimension is consistent with City Code standards. Bulk Standards — The property is currently zoned PD (Planned Development). The proposed amended use and site plan were reviewed using the BP, Business Park zoning district standards. The BP zoning district was selected as a comparable zoning district based on the office uses of the surrounding area, and the proposed hotel use, both of which are allowed in the BP zoning district as either a permitted or conditional use. Planning Report — La Quinta September 27, 2005 Page 7 Setbacks — The table below illustrates the BP setback requirements and the proposed setbacks. The applicant indicated the setback deviation allows for more parking on the site. Setback Building Parking Ordinance Proposed Ordinance Proposed Front yard: Pilot Knob Road *60 feet — 75 feet 20 feet 20 feet Front yard: Buffet Way *60 feet — 71 feet 20 feet 7 feet Side/Rear Yard (west) *40 feet — 65 feet 5 feet 5 feet Side/Rear yard (south) *40 feet —110 feet 5 feet 5 feet *Maximum for building >45' in height Building Coverage- The BP zoning district establishes a maximum building coverage ratio of 40%. The 16,790 sq. ft. building footprint proposed covers 14.3% of the 2.7 acre site area. Green Space — A minimum of 25% of the site is required to be green space. As proposed, the green space for the site is 25%. Building Height — Exterior elevations show the five -story building has a height of 63 feet (average grade to mean roof height). The entrance tower feature is about 83 feet measured to the mean roof height of the tower, 87 feet to the peak. The City Code allows for building heights up to 80 feet, provided additional setbacks are met (see Setbacks section of this report). The site plan does provide for the required additional maximum setbacks of 60 feet for the front yard and 40 feet in side and rear yards. The tower height over 80 feet is a deviation from City Code. The tower provides an architectural feature and a focal point adding visual interest to the building. The acceptability of this height deviation is a policy matter to be determined by City officials. Trash Enclosure — The Site Plan and elevations show a trash enclosure on the west side of the building. It is attached to the principal building and is shown to be constructed with the same materials as the principal building. Building Elevations/Architecture — The building architecture utilizes a peaked roof finished with metal roof tile. The first floor windows are set off by an arched brick frame in contrasting brick. Vertical banks of windows are highlighted by a frame that extends from the second through fifth floors. The balconies utilize a decorative metal railing. The lower two floors have a brick finish; the upper levels are primarily EIFS. The brick extends the full height of the building in some places, which are also set off with changes in the roof line. The entrance canopy utilizes brick pillars and the same metal tile peaked roof as on the main building. The tower feature adds creates a focal point and adds visual interest to the building and roof line. Signage — Wall signage is proposed on the east and north sides of the tower, and south and west sides of the building. The proposed building signs are 12'8" wide by 8' high, a total of 100 sq. ft. The Sign Code allows building signs on two elevations only. The proposed building signage 32? Planning Report — La Quinta September 27, 2005 Page 8 on four elevations is a deviation from this standard. The applicant's narrative states that La Quinta is not proposing a pylon sign, but is requesting additional building signage. To comply with the Sign Code, the building signage should be limited to two elevations. Additional building signage as proposed may be approved as part of the Planned Development and is a policy matter to be determined by City officials. A monument sign is proposed at the northeast comer of the site, located on the monument wall that is part of the decorative entrance feature. The proposed monument is 9'7" in height, with a central sign panel 8'7" in height. These heights exceed Sign Code standards, which limit monument signs to a total of 7 feet in height, and the sign message area to 4 feet in height. The monument sign panel shall not be an internally illuminated cabinet. The brick on the monument is proposed to match the principal building. While height and size deviations can be accommodated as part of a Planned Development, in this case the monument should match the monument being constructed with the office building north of Buffet Way to create a unified gateway entrance into this area. For this reason, the monument sign shall comply with all City Code requirements (in particular size limits and setback standards) and the developer should work with the development to the north to utilize the same brick material and same monument and decorative fence design on both entrance monuments north and south of Buffet Way and to select a brick that is compatible with the principal buildings in both developments. Grading — The site was graded with previous development in the area and is generally open and slopes to the west. The proposed building grade is about 4 to 5 feet above the elevation of the Buffet Way/ Pilot Knob Road intersection. Landscape berms to help screen parking areas should be provided within the parking setback areas, where possible. Wetlands/Water Quality — With the OCB development in 1995, water quality ponding and a cash dedication was provided that includes treatment for the northerly parcel of the subject site. The development should provide no net increase in runoff to Pond HP -7 for water quality treatment. Staff is working with the developer's engineer to adjust the drainage to achieve no net increase in the runoff to Pond HP -7 beyond what was provided for in 1995. Additional water quality treatment provisions may be necessary to treat the added impervious area resulting from the inclusion of the southerly Transitional parcel in the development site. Stormwater treatment design shall be subject to review and approval by the City Water Resources Coordinator prior to release of the Final PD Agreement for recording. There are no jurisdictional wetlands on the subject site. Utilities — Storm sewer drainage is available via existing storm sewer pipe and pond (Pond HP -7) to the northwest of the site. Access/Streets — Street access is proposed at one location, at the south leg of the Eagan Woods Drive/ Buffet Way intersection, an all -way stop intersection in the northwest comer of the site. 3.28' Planning Report — La Quinta September 27, 2005 Page 9 Public street access to the development should be restricted to this intersection of Eagan Woods Drive and Buffet Way. The developer proposes to extend a private service drive from this intersection to their south property line with the adjacent property, Lot 1, Block 1, McNally Addition (2781 Pilot Knob Road). This service drive is intended to provide street access for the businesses located at 2781 Pilot Knob Road (Collectors Paradise) and 2785 Pilot Knob Road (Central Irrigation). When these properties were platted 1999 and 2003, respectively, Dakota County required that alternative street access be provided in lieu of the current accesses to Pilot Knob Road. These plats provided street right-of-way along their western edges to allow for this street configuration and the removal of the accesses on Pilot Knob Road. The developer should remove all existing driveway accesses onto Pilot Knob Road and Buffet, in accordance with City and Dakota County standards. City staff has concerns regarding the close proximity of a parking area to the service drive along the west edge of the development. The movements of vehicles in and out of some of the stalls on the west edge of the lot may conflict with vehicle movements on the curve of the service drive. The parking stalls should be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the service drive in this area to reduce the conflict potential; this would reduce parking by one stall. Easements/Rights-of-Way/Permits — The developer should provide ingress/ egress easement over the proposed service drive along the west edge of the development in favor of McNally Addition and Central Irrigation Addition properties, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. This easement should contain a provision that the easement cannot be vacated without the consent of the City. Tree Preservation — A tree inventory submitted with this application indicates that there are 28 significant trees on this site. These trees are primarily Pine, and the balance is comprised of Oak, Walnut, Elm, Apple, Ash, Cedar and Cottonwood. The development as proposed will result in the removal of 27 significant trees, 96.4% of the total. According to the City of Eagan Tree Preservation Ordinance allowable tree removal for this development is set at 30%. The applicant has submitted a Tree Mitigation Plan that indicates the fulfillment of required tree mitigation through the installation of forty-two (42) Category B trees or the equivalent Category A and/or Category C trees. The proposed Mitigation Plan identifies a total 78 mitigation trees (Category B and Category C trees combined). This plan should be revised to identify the required 42 Category B trees (or equivalent) as mitigation, and designate the other trees as landscape materials. The applicant should submit a revised Landscape Plan, Tree Mitigation Plan and Overall Planting Plan that correctly identifies the 42 mitigation plantings and designates more of the proposed trees as landscape materials. This revised plan should be submitted for inclusion in the PD Agreement. Planning Report — La Quinta September 27, 2005 Page 10 Parks and Recreation — This development will be responsible for cash park and trails dedications at the time of building permit at the rates then in effect. The 2005 rates are $5,218 and $1,137 per acre respectively. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION La Quinta Inns is proposing a Rezoning from T, Transitional, to PD, Planned Development upon 0.76 acres, a Planned Development Amendment to expand the existing Planned Development to adjacent property and change the approved use from restaurant to hotel, and a Final Planned Development to allow a 152 -room, five -story hotel. The site is 2.88 acres in size and is located at the southeast comer of Pilot Knob Road and Buffet Way. While some modifications to the Site Lighting Plan, Landscape Plan and Tree Mitigation Plan will be necessary for incorporation into the Final PD Agreement. The proposed hotel use appears compatible with surrounding office, hotel and commercial uses. The additional building height over 45 feet is supported by increased structure setbacks required by the City Code. The height of the tower in excess of 80 feet is a deviation from City Code standards. The proposed Rezoning and PD Amendment consolidates two parcels, one of them a Transition parcel, into a single development site, thus preventing the isolation of smaller parcels and piecemeal development/redevelopment of land. The proposal also provides for access to contiguous parcels of land through the private street access and ingress/egress easements for adjoining properties. In addition, the developer is providing an entrance monument feature that coordinates with the one north of Buffet Way to complete the gateway entrance into this area. Deviations and policy questions for the Advisory Planning Commission and Council to consider include the reduced parking setback from 20 feet to 7 feet from Buffet Way and the reduced parking stalls size, 18 feet rather than 20 feet deep. The developer has indicated that the reduced stall size and setbacks allow for the site to fully meet the City Code requirement for the number of parking stalls, while a portion of the site area that might otherwise be utilized for parking is dedicated to providing access to adjacent properties. The developer is proposing four building wall signs, more than are typically allowed by the City Code. However, the developer did incorporate the entrance monument feature which will contain a ground sign, and is not requesting a pylon sign. The development will be responsible for cash parks and trails dedications at the time of building permit. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED To recommend approval of a Rezoning from T, Transitional, to PD, Planned Development upon 0.76 acres located at 2779 Pilot Knob Road in the NE 1/4 of Section 4. To recommend approval of a Planned Development Amendment and Final Planned Development to expand the existing Planned Development to adjacent property and change the approved use from Class I restaurant to a 152 -room, five -story hotel upon 2.76 acres located at the southeast corner of Pilot Knob Road and Buffet Way in the NE 1/4 of Section 4. If approved the following conditions shall apply: 330 Planning Report — La Quinta September 27, 2005 Page 11 1. The applicant and/or developer shall enter into a Final Planned Development Agreement with the City. The Final Planned Development Agreement shall be recorded against the property at the Dakota County Recorder's office prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. The following exhibits are required for the Final Planned Development Agreement: ► Final Site Plan ► Final Building Elevations/Signage Plan ► Final Landscape Plan ► Final Site Lighting Plan 3. The site shall be developed in accordance with the above referenced final plans. 4. The property shall be platted. 5. The hotel shall provide 24-hour staffing at the front desk. 6. Site Lighting shall be downcast and shielded to prevent glare and minimize light slillover off the property. 7. The Site Lighting Plan shall be revised to include fixture and pole mounting details and information and to modify the calculations using the minimum light level within the parking lot. Light levels shall not be less than 0.5 footcandles within the parking lot, nor exceed 1 footcandle at the property line. 8. The landscape plan shall be revised as follows: ► Identify more trees as landscape materials and fewer trees as mitigation to meet landscape and tree mitigation requirements ► Use perennials rather than shrubs in parking lot islands to better accommodate snow storage. ► Use a species that is more suitable to the constrained growing space along the south and west sides of the site. 9. Landscape berms to help screen parking areas shall be provided within the parking setback areas, where possible. 10. Building signage shall be limited to two elevations. 11. The monument sign shall comply with all City Code requirements (in particular size limits and setback standards). 12. The developer shall work with the development to the north to utilize the same brick material and same monument and decorative fence design on both entrance monuments north and south of Buffet Way and to select a brick that is compatible with the principal buildings in both developments. 33/ Planning Report — La Quinta September 27, 2005 Page 12 13. The monument sign area shall not exceed four feet in height and shall not consist of an internally lit cabinet. 14. The development shall provide no net increase in runoff to Pond HP -7 for water quality treatment. Stormwater treatment design shall be subject to review and approval by the City Water Resources Coordinator prior to release of the Final PD Agreement for recording. 15. Public street access to the development shall be restricted to the intersection of Eagan Woods Drive and Buffet Way. 16. The developer shall remove all existing driveway accesses onto Pilot Knob Road and Buffet, in accordance with City and Dakota County standards. 17. The parking stalls near the curve of the service drive shall be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the service drive. 18. The developer shall provide ingress/ egress easement over the proposed service drive along the west edge of the development in favor of McNally Addition and Central Irrigation Addition properties, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. This easement shall contain a provision that the easement cannot be vacated without the consent of the City. 19. The Landscape Plan, Tree Mitigation Plan and Overall Planting Plan shall be revised to correctly identify 42 Category B mitigation trees and designate more trees as landscape materials. These revised plans shall be submitted to the City for inclusion in the Final Planned Development Agreement. 20. This development shall be responsible for cash park and trails dedications at the time of building permit issuance at the rates then in effect. 33,9 Location Map Eagan Boundary f -way j!^N Area I Park Building Footprint - - - - ' " Ifilialli " iliV I 11.1 I 1 1 I b N • w N — — NI Subject Site 2 i , f FA", itt (::::,(3 III a #* .. v. le l — l■% .... .... IP t• g�I., Q i f MSB I.y.m'� 7 ■ + 1I'• �� 4Q8 1 I 1$e r0: io emu r-�. �J � aF=6Q= 1 i �/ , •© 4 emsVi6fitit,4,41t40 .. �� ( ' �4' El �sow ��MU"' LI 1': • `P �! 73 is i Eli ro:4 B -vi 1Wri V4groAA gilt mi a1 enA1017 =RLi 0 OHO ar" ip. r y raw, Ak 742 that i GJ� Ii v oa - �4 p 1111111111 r p pe s�d� • , I.raw irial . FPO ills l��voo r Zit .aiOi!L .: -����Ga - - % a� ago, 8‘ " NMI il I 1- Vying gem 1%1E0 is s an v ; ? SAN I :1 4 41114 t ®.rel lewvnw.uo ` a. �` <,1 3 ��q¢ K 1 1000 - 0 1000 2000 Feet Development/Developer: La Quinta Inns, Inc. Application: Rezoning; PD Amendment; Final PD Case No.: 04-RZ-04-08-05; 04 -PA -10-08-05; 04 -FD -14-08-05 Cityof Cap Community D.v.lepment Department Map Prepared using ERSI Ar 3. rel map data provided by Dakota County Office and Is men of April 2005. THIS MAP IS NTEN F REF ENCE USE ONLY The City of Eagan and Dakota Cou of guara ee the accuracy of this information and are not responsible for errors or omissions. N W E �NIIS Current Zoning and Comprehensive Guide Plan La Quinta Inns, Inc. Land Use Map Rezoning; PD Amendment; Final PD Case Nos. 04-RZ-04-08-05; 04 -PA -10-08-05; 04 -FD -14-08-05 1 1 1 1 1 J l `` 1 1 1 , Zoning Map •��' 1612/122626 HWY. NO. 494 Location PD Current Zoning: PD — F PD P ■„ PD, Planned Development imial�I 1. T, Transitional WI 1 NB PD D .. irl kg ii. /11ft Ail IPi< !71iiP , ■■ 1 _ R•1 ,. M �g S 600 0 600 1200 FootIIIVA I 1 i 01 1 1 1 1 1 o_ 1 Comprehensive Guide Plan Land Use Map 1 MWY. M0.4M O/S i ■ IND 1 Location IND ." P rir BPw ■„ Current Land Use Designation: o/s WM 1 I I O/S BP BP IND Office/Service - 1 1 al /� • � .D., r• _ D -�'�.. •., ■• LD : tta/i`' .1 '• .. • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f ' 600 0 600 1200 Foot ^ Parcel bas. map Information pro dby Dakota County Land Sunray Department J. 2003. N Zoning for t in in byCity Stet City of Eagan W> *+ Community Development Department THIS MAP FEFERENCE USE ONLY S The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this Information. /And 316 f.,NIMOJNOD 'sapacioici poop cri saUnS uut opmno .2C167,1 rri.94 '1 ,grk: lab Int .4 61.0.644.•••Is • 15‘0.“.44*,i • 5,•90,..15‘.3 PROPQSED PARKING ANALYSIS LU 3 3SCONFORMING PLAN 4 - 0 Lt..1 _J j ONIIHJI1 31IS 1/ V±OS3NNIW `NV9V3 S3lIfS'8 NNI b1Nino di NYld 3115 'DUI 'sagJadoJci oluinp o1 eJo.•.4( sa}ins 3g uui o}wnp o1 wsarestv rrrr-sr./cu •a ovs-sar/ry •••VJ \J■ ,.IA [Jori .J..... YJ r 00 [i] }y.� �Jr/BBrj� M! ,VIS anVMY V/N 60ioI 64.1401,5 • 6urouold • 6awaJn6 3 I� Of ..••r BK .•.. 10 m/r1/0 .100 aru/am 004 11000 •.0.41 00/u/0 -4.a .•6e Otto 004 ..0..0010 nJ...w111 le •11110 • 11 I6 0.1.11 ..0. ...y6.3 ro.4rt.J.b e..wan Or11 J 1•V1p�a.p 0. a Ila 4v 1.0 Rm,.ia»u 1 1110.1103 11,110,5109 0111 1s r. 10 CL 'j low €'-_ ►�\ "yam` Ntlld 1081N00 NOIS083 R ONIOVa0 'DUI 'sai}�adald Ojlllno 0'j elenYwn .mm3 sa}ins �g UUP D}UIrep Di �y�,y my-u./nr .w 1 e 010➢-1b/f9L .1 VI .13.r.ri ', tress •x•• w•,..•ry v Y\r, ql !xl VIII LW..l 6xfav�•bwuuob•6waaw63 a1' p.,.a.oe• osrnr ••wai �1•a if Q a e _ rj . i U eto/eVo `'� w•I' II �, P,�,� "fJ���j •�^I^�K ' L' •M %e.•Wn 1• •1e16 •y1 el ;NI x ...Sag pw1••w•,a e•.Y•m 4. a Yx I IeY1owY.1.x•aI.y•.xe.ex.wAa p.natl 4..0 .1111 1.1111 A V. 44.11 •Ib orWa,n ••.m crWare uY..m uo n. oa,u,>•, wed. .4 [u y ®I p•F••a NVId Amin 'DU) 'sai;iadD.id Dluinp Di .l°t.uuln 'wa.3 sa}ins �g UUP D}Ulna 01 A CCra-ur/rat +^i �H�ptlO oIOD-fir/raa •"°W nrtr AI•••°�!•n wA.0 rle fAl •IMI Hlv.+✓ VW OafIl Y 6wfa S • 6wuuob • 6uvafu6 3 90rr.1 ••••°n so/cVl aI°o C.4.01 A ale pr.Mf1• ~ p"LT114" DP p•w�o '�1�f °"4s U vl.wWn I. PAIS ."1 •arr/on, w•.A n"a p•.wAW 1 ' p aN w pep am .m h RmM Ram .aJLIJI I 0 room= uo w asrr "� v. wun • .ua.p..1 ...•o ae p• .P•a NV1e1 NOUNA1435311e1 332L 'DUI 'salve do.44 owy-to Di Nen.. ..603 SalpS 71. UUI oluino Di '.4 WPM ass-lettrOL .y W.A.," .. ; ...an. vil...., 0101-94Vrli ...vd wildn fl. .11,17....Y 4192' [VW V 5...(.4.3 • 5..,...,.. • 54..46.3 --' 5. ....sly ...'fl . I a g < a - : 15 g ........... "subs vleee..11.1 le .1.15 egl S. el .41 ..e 1,1.1.M1. ........1 •••••••n pp • •••• rouseeni sex sold sgs Is, Am.. Astons 1 _ iil lig KAOCA MAC iffillifilifft Elfilli/111111 11111111111111 s•wora ••••ro .."--i—W4 zuOltsmi 111 •D: MITIGATION CALCULATION 0 0 tt. b b 1. b 8 9. b f 8 F 8 • 8 8 8 1 8 A 1 8 8 8 8. 8 A A 8 1 A A A A 8 PA IN — • — • • — _J —1 II E 6ESERVATION PLAN 0 ..-..... ........... iil lig "i 3 iffillifilifft Elfilli/111111 11111111111111 IREPUCEMENT CA-MC.051 igg lass 155653655555555 gigliggigaggi ig 55 ICATEGORT II CA -1E0051 5 CATEGORY 0 gggri 556555 Z a g 2 i l i FV.; 1 k i 0411ltiia2aglt 'iss „ 011;111,Jl; ;gigggggpgg l' * ligi * pili RinTeli i tlliliriiii 0 0 tt. b b 1. b 8 9. b f 8 F 8 • 8 8 8 1 8 A 1 8 8 8 8. 8 A A 8 1 A A A A 8 PA IN — • — • • — _J —1 II E 6ESERVATION PLAN 0 NV3d NOLLtl'JLLIW 33M1 'DUI 'sal�JadoJd Daulnp tri 0 on 1 •PIF 'W6o3 San L1u Pin6 ll S $ I V 01 ,[Li -Pty/ �my/�y°�uy,�'A6, ow, -Pira. •ww V a� Y Y g,,,:„.4"=,4,7, -.z., wP 6 U4P 5 • N & • 6PWYN6ul b6 wwuY mot t DAV6o•.io [� 4 �p • 30■ P.P. ..M. ws „,.n..., I. q.i6 •h I. a ..1 .Pw MIN...,.P.arpon P..wan Avo P Pn I srl Pw w1..u.aP 1»Y Rva pw ...P [p "1/1:07.44174:441: 1/1:0 .w mp .m 1«P PU". Rwwv /o /c n.o 2 2 I■ 7 -. g J Apron 4P -..u.r6 '••�. jmeatein f 1 `.raewy PM •••� sm M•�M•o LANDSCAPE LEGEND _-_ _ _ _ a 2 2 I■ 1 s s s ■ s V a a a E f L L n n n h 1 11 131i 3 1 I 1 ii 1 HU 1;1 0 E :101111111 P Ptd -.® 40© oeo® 3 [�/ TREE MITIGATION PLAN Ntlld 3d0VSGNV1 03S0d011d •3U1 'salviadoJd o}Ulno o1 "ro.uiry Ym6.2 sa}mg 7Q UUP D}Ulna D, ,'�'"cj0' efts-DL./f1L 1 ^WA�•+!'�]IN ores-nit/fit •ww `� Lnsr .1.....vr Vl..al/d Hujuq CII NNS ••..I' VIYC COY.r r 6rnlavr1S.6rru"old • 6uuasy6./ xs p.e4dy acv"r.s .u.an ip/a./s..l.b i Q �- E M g J Puuo]A w•i i :.unN �" "P"� .o.wa rol.••uyry 1. .11116 WI le cw .yi Irpun Pnrvawr .d..q.sl w..tin aAiro ..e 1 1 osieeue ;;°,�„;m 1'`a"" 4n»a car.1 I so/ocli we raeti ISD-ttu..SA.Wee V SYn ....e "--' 4 c _ m•we Geis P�.a•a - LANDSCAPE LEGEND e e■ e i i e s e es t. w Vg 1 iiii 1 111H1111 2E! R ii' $ei(i®fg00000 i 1 I 1 W ! III ! i 1 1 I ! ; . I" Ntlld 3d7YSONV1 0350d0ad 'DUI 'sai4�adoJd o}uinp of e ee•u0II 'Veba 1 I 3 sarlin UU DIUiR 016#41".. t. 5 I t 'a 1ffl-1Lr/fIL wY IiNWllll�# K_ o[o,-wow ..0.1., 'R_(', [rrsa rn..Iw w,s+,.W da a VII a[ •a as raver not ao.l Y.i VII 5./.0 6./..../5,7 S ' /C ' �J ox w•+�r asw[I "°"� I 0 g Q A G N IPVVa]A wywaM auaN '°• ': ,�,,,� <Iw.wn •• �loli • o As n •w wawa vein wl,1 .:.•?". r••+•n pp • w• I laup Aw [.Vun w •w Ai p.s1.�/ .N w11 4V1 /•N </Ilw• APwV 1 WOUa n•a sew _ r e 9 O .j MI .,•a "—"V":". aal[Ney 11 J Sys P• pp, II11 ' 1 xax: € =aaaan.. {( { Ilitiii j �njp¢[s f 2 I �130090l'L® O*O• NY1d 3d0YSONV1 0350dO21d auk 'sat}�adad o�uin� 01 o,xsuiq,. 'u.6.7 sa in VV V�n �. s V 1 YA OOH ZfiO-)[r/LO[ m/ :Mr nos u./tii. 4 �„/��,A, [.rrr .,...am ,..t y ,/ IN WI •OM1. rnu..Y VIOL 000.! 6u� n S • 6xu �d . 6livartg6u3 r '.. 'r 60/DC/ D a,.o Q B M tl R C �� i S J oast w.l... IM•••3 •• .'I awM! a.,.a <I...Wn la .,.IS .yl O uq • 11 ..W. W,MPM.....r.., r••...174w. ua1 ,aa .•. •,•..a•a ,••..r ar. rwn p ... to ru......w .a. •wt ,•h Nna. OMa. 1 ao. �� WoV� ma OYn ••.•o .omn u. -Yu...p wn, ,.-..... ..an. a .vn P• .•a i I!til'f�ilHliflii !liiii€iliiFtiiii EIlilliiiiEiiif 11 11 :a p3 Ilie 35 tit 0, ■ I E I IIj3{RE kI R1 Fl aR 1 GF •'I 41!,614,":,.; tlli •,1,ig !;� f,. ori, 0 El 41 g 4.1 gh2 GRALLA ARCHITECTS, LLC 320 South Boehm. Soils 1000 - Tulsa, Oklahoma 70101 Tel 918.587.6158 • Fax 918.587.1:057 www.grallaarchitects.com �e , £f : L S i 5 p e 2 'S11 ill #L,.^ Eg1g' 11 €ii gz m L t t m s 0 � s m m D 0) m m D —1 0 z co 3g2y D • a O I Ir. I irI F 9i ft'- La Quinta Eagan, Minnesota ELEVATIONS GRA 0-,l - ,Zf/f 3IV3S z 0 m m D 0 z 11 i{ .IS 3 J 4 l3 F ri gh2 GRALLA ARCHITECTS, LLC 329 South Boston, Suits 1400 • Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103 Tel 919.507.9159 • Fax 919.597.0357 wv vw.grallaarchitects.com n e sI. 1 3 c 4 5 n n x _ 2 Lig •o•• Fi F3W i Y e n -1i P7:; • p [INTERIM REVIEW] ONLY with 6-9-97 ICON JUNE 9th 1997 GRAPHIC APPROVAL S-100 PAN FORMED and EMBOSSED with 2 INCH U -MOLDING • LA QUINTA BACKGROUND GREEN: ST #4-205-5B GOLD: ST #9.039-1 ICON GREEN: ST #4-206-2 • 1 1/4 INCH WHITE BORDER SET IN 2 INCHES from RETAINER • MOVE REGISTER MARK to RIGHT TOP of "a" in "LaQuinta" COPY • REGISTER MARK is GOLD • WHITE "La Quints' COPY all RESTROKED ... ALL HORIZONTAL SERIFS INCREASED in 141DTH ALL VERTICAL STROKES SLIMMED DOWN which ADDS MORE SPACE between STROKES SION TRIMMED "L" EXTENSION TRIMMED • AFTER ALL was CHANGED ABOVE the COPY was NOTE: 5B GREEN BACKGROUND SCALE: 3/8 INCH =1 FOOT ENLARGED by 7% • INN & SUITES' - 7.69 INCHES HIGH NOTE REGISTRATION MARK INCHES (152 INCHES) CO W W 1 N x W S 0 N U z N 0 Z 41 W m LL Q V P • PLATEAU EMBOSSED ICON • EMBOSSED WHITE BORDER • EMBOSSED "Laquinta INN & SUITES" EG. w E W 3 0 = 0 Om CS so 0 1u Q y C7 = S W S F. o 3 x 3 C Z o z 5 Ou O d : Z a Z O 15 • DRAFT on RETURNS (1 1/2 INCH DEEP PAN FORMED FACE) 2 INCH U -MOLDING ... BRITE GOLD 1/4 INCH WHITE CONTOUR BORDER SET IN 3 INCHES from RETAINER • ADDITION of JUNE 9th 1997 ICON DAYLIGHT FLUORESCENT LAMPS - HIGH OUTPUT Note: Dimensions are Approximate and Subject to Change Pending Review by Duallte Engineering. 0 a a 4 FILE# 05-5-47LA0001 •GSP Date: 5-5-05 Scale: 3/8" = 1' 0" Dualite Sales & S BUILDING SIGNAGE RECEIVED AUG 17 2005 LA QUINTA 97 LOGO SIGNAGE for REVIEW S-50 with OPAQUED BACKGROUND 1 i1_ Il I I 1 11 -rit 1,7 I— . I71 I ( lit ; , .1 t- [s) n ONUMENT SIGN 0 0 U rn W 2 5 FEET 7 INCHES x 8 FEET 11 5/8 uJ W 2 0 U ICON is a COMBINATION of DARK GREEN and GOLD WHITE CONTOUR BORDER BACKGROUND GREEN: ST #4-205.58 (OPAQUED) 9 O (7 ei to 0- 0- Z z 8 o 0)s a t0.7 z_ 1- CLI CC Q O CO CC CO0 I - z 0 w cv = - N W =Z ZWuz. cc0 15° DRAFT on RETURNS DAYLIGHT FLUORESCENT LAMPS • HIGH OUTPUT (1 1/2 INCHES DEEP PAN FORMED FACE) w crw 0 O CV CV N 0) UJ 0 Z 0 Q Note: Dimensions are Approximate and Subject to Change Pending Review by Dualite Engineering. FILE# 05-8-344LA0001-GSP Date: 8-30-05 SCALE: 3/8".1' Dualite Sales & URG, OHIO • CEDAR HILL, TEXAS DI R F r F 11/ F fl M'.I; 2 1 ?nnr La Quinta Inns • Inn & Suites PROPOSED 152 ROOM LA QUINTA INN & SUITES EAGAN, MINNESOTA PROJECT NARRATIVE La Quinta Corporation is one of the largest owner -operators of limited -service hotels in the United States with over 65,000 rooms. Based in the Dallas, Texas metropolitan area, with 9000 employees nationwide, La Quinta Corporation owns or franchises more than 590 hotels in 39 states and Canada under the Baymont Inn & Suites, La Quinta Inns, La Quinta Inn & Suites, Woodfield Suites and Budgetel brands. The company was founded in 1968 and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange Project Proposal The company proposes to construct a 152 room, five -story La Quinta Inn & Suites hotel located at the southwest corner of Pilot Knob Road and Buffet Way in Eagan. A total of 171 parking spaces will be provided, comprising 152 spaces for guests plus 19 spaces for employees. This total number of spaces meets current City of Eagan parking count criteria and is higher than our company's guidelines. The building's height measured as the average of the height to its eave and the height to its ridge top, is 62.99'. The building setbacks shown on the Site Plan all satisfy the minimum increased setback required to accommodate a building greater than 45' in height. This hotel is designed to cater to the lodging needs of primarily business people whose typical stay would be about 2 or 3 nights. The hotel is specifically not designed as an extended stay facility. Parking is provided for the exclusive use of employees and guests. All unauthorized parked vehicles will be towed. Two small meeting rooms (650 square feet in each) and an indoor pool will be provided for the use of guests. The site's location on Pilot Knob Road is about one quarter mile south of Interstate 494 and about a mile north of Interstate 35W. Construction is expected to begin in April 2006 and the hotel should be open for business in April 2007. The hotel will be staffed on a 24-hour basis with maximum of 12-15 employees on site at any given time, though 19 parking spaces will be provided for their use. Typically, employees will arrive in the morning as guests are leaving and they will depart in the evening as guests are arriving. Guest room keys are required to enter the building at all points except the main lobby entrance. However, between the hours of 11 PM to 7 AM, guest room key will be required to enter the building via the main lobby entrance or the front desk clerk can be buzzed to permit entrance. Since this hotel has not been designed as an extended stay property, only daily room rates will typically be advertised. The La Quinta® Companies (NYSE:LQI) ' 909 Hidden Ridge, Suite 600 ' Irving, TX 75038 ' 214-492-6600 RECEIVED AUG 312005 Eagan, Minnesota La Quinta Inn & Suites Project Narrative Page Two The site is currently undeveloped and comprises Parcel 1, Outlot "C" of the Eagan Woods Office Park, 2nd Addition and Parcel 2, adjacent to and south of Parcel 1. Parcel 1 is currently zoned as Planned Development and Parcel 2 is currently zoned as Transitional. This project proposal requests Planned Development Approval for the combination of Parcels 1 & 2, thereby amending the existing Planned Development for Parcel 1. A request is also being submitted to the City of Eagan for approval of a Final Plat, named the La Quinta Addition, which combines parcels 1 & 2 into one parcel. Additionally, a drainage and utility easement exists on the southern boundary of Outlot C of Eagan Woods Office Park 2nd Addition that will be vacated to allow for the site development. 100 square foot building signs are shown on the south and west building elevations at about 37 feet above ground level to the base of the sign. 100 square foot building signs are shown on the north and east elevations at about 65 feet above ground level to the base of the sign. These signs will be fully illuminated to ensure maximum visibility to enable guests to easily locate the hotel. A 50 square foot monument sign is proposed at the north east comer of the property to be part of a landscape feature designed, as requested by City of Eagan Planning staff, to complement a similar landscape feature proposed for the southeast corner of the Outlot "B" of the Eagan Woods Office Addition, across Buffet Way to the north of the proposed La Quinta Hotel. The brick associated with this monument sign will match the brick on the exterior of the building. The green background is opaqued so this means that at night, only the gold and white letters, along with the gold elliptical outline and the white perimeter border, will be illuminated. Snow storage/removal required on the site will be accommodated by a combination of methods: On-site storage (along the eastern edge of the site) Off-site disposal (via the maintenance contractor) This Planned Development as proposed will benefit the City of Eagan in the following ways: 1. Via the proposed access easement from Buffet way through Parcels 1 & 2, McNally Street of the McNally Addition will have direct access to Buffet Way, thus allowing the City of Eagan to reduce the number of driveway entrances on Pilot Knob Road. This access easement is being provided at La Quinta's cost 2. By including Parcel 2 in the La Quinta development, the City is assured of an aesthetically appealing development of this parcel through the consolidation of a Transitional Parcel. Eagan, Minnesota La Quinta Inn & Suites Project Narrative Page Three 3. The original Eagan Woods Planned Development included the provision for a hotel. The original Planned Development hotel site (Outlot B) was recently modified through an Amendment. The La Quinta Project will provide a hotel development on the site, which will address the intent of the Planned Development. 4. The consolidation of Parcel 2 will eliminate a potential access point onto Pilot Knob Road. 5. The platting of Parcel 2 will provide for the dedication of additional right-of-way along Pilot Knob Road. 6. Pylon signage is not being requested 7. The proposed building will be aesthetically pleasing, compatible with surrounding developments, comprising at least 60% brick and glass on its exterior. 8. 152 quality rooms, featuring full carpeting, granite and tiled bathrooms and well appointed lobby and public areas, will complement the City of Eagan's supply of hotel rooms in meeting increasing demand 9. The proposed Project will provide a trail connection onto the transportation trail along Pilot Knob Road. The Site Plan incorporates the following deviations from Business Park (BP) Land Use Regulations: 1. 9' x 18' parking stall dimensions instead of the required 10' x 19' 2. 7' Parking Setback from Buffet Way, instead of the required 20' 3. Four (4) building signs instead of the allowed three (3) 3s/ Agenda Information Memo October 6, 2005, Eagan City Council Meeting G. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT — LARSON PROPERTIES ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve (OR direct preparation of findings of fact for denial) a Planned Development Amendment to extend the term of the original Planned Development Agreement for five years on property Iocated at 3000 Denmark Avenue, legally described as Lot 1, Block 2, Eagandale Center Industrial Park No. 9 in the NE 1/4 of Section 10, subject to the conditions listed in the APC minutes. To recommend approval of a Planned Development Amendment to allow an interim use of expanded parking associated with airport shuttle service at the Microtel hotel on property located at 3000 Denmark Avenue, legally described as Lot 1, Block 2, Eagandale Center Industrial Park No. 9 in the NE 1/4 of Section 10, subject to the conditions listed in the APC minutes. REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: At least three votes. FACTS: > In 1998, a Planned Development was approved for a two-phase development consisting of a Microtel hotel and a future 6,450 square foot Class I restaurant. The initial five-year term has expired; the PD has not been terminated. • Larson Properties is requesting an extension of the original PD approval to retain the ability to develop a restaurant on the property. > Larson Properties is proposing to expand the Microtel parking to the westerly portion of the site as an interim use until such time as a restaurant is developed. > The applicant has indicated that the parking use would be discontinued once a restaurant user has been secured for the site. > Microtel operates a shuttle to and from the airport for their guests, and guests must stay at least one night at the hotel. > Based on the hotel room count of 82, the existing site exceeds City Code off-street parking requirements. > The site improvements proposed for the parking lot are consistent with City Code requirements for surfacing, landscaping, and setbacks. Some minor modifications to the Site Lighting Plan are needed. > The APC held a public hearing on September 27, 2005 and did recommend approval of both PD Amendments. 3sa ISSUES: > In the last few years, airport parking from several Eagan hotels, including Microtel, has spilled over onto vacant and unimproved property, creating a code enforcement issue. > Parking does not stand out as an incompatible use in this industrial/commercial area; however, City officials will need to determine the appropriateness of the parking lot expansion to accommodate the hotel's airport parking/shuttle service. 60 DAY AGENCY ACTION DEADLINE: October 28, 2005 ATTACHMENTS (2): September 27, 2005 APC Minutes (to follow in the informational packet) Staff Report, page 5 through3 740 36-3 PLANNING REPORT CITY OF EAGAN REPORT DATE: September 21, 2005 CASE: 10 -PA -11-08-05 APPLICANT: Larson Properties, LLC HEARING DATE: September 27, 2005 PROPERTY OWNER: Larson Properties, LLC APPLICATION DATE: August 29, 2005 REQUEST: Planned Development Amendment PREPARED BY: Pamela Dudziak LOCATION: 3000 Denmark Avenue COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: BP, Business Park ZONING: PD, Planned Development SUMMARY OF REQUEST Larson Properties is requesting approval of a Planned Development Amendment to extend the term of the original Planned Development Agreement and allow an interim use of expanded parking associated with airport shuttle service at the Microtel hotel on property located at 3000 Denmark Avenue, legally described as Lot 1, Block 2, Eagandale Center Industrial Park No. 9 in the NE 1/4 of Section 10. AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW Chapter 11, Section 11.50, Subdivision 5 states, in part, 1. The provisions of this chapter may be amended by the majority vote of the council, except that amendments changing the boundaries of any district or changing the regulations of any district may only be made by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of all members of the council. 2. The Council shall not rezone any land in any zoning district or make any other proposed amendment to this chapter without first having referred it to the planning commission for its consideration and recommendation. BACKGROUND/HISTORY A Planned Development was approved for this property in 1988 which provided for office or retail use. In 1998, a PD Amendment was approved for a two-phase development consisting of a Microtel hotel on the easterly two acres of the lot, and a future 6,450 square foot Class I restaurant on the westerly portion of the site. The hotel was constructed in 1998; the westerly portion of the property remains vacant. Planning Report — Larson Properties, LLC (Microtel) September 27, 2005 Page 2 The owner previously indicated that potential restaurant users wished to purchase their own lot. Thus, in 2003, the owner applied for a Preliminary Subdivision to divide the property into two parcels so that the restaurant portion of the site could be sold to a restaurant user. The City approved the Preliminary Subdivision, but the Final Subdivision was not completed and the Preliminary Subdivision approval has now expired. In the last few years, airport parking from several Eagan hotels, including Microtel, has spilled over onto vacant and unimproved property, creating a code enforcement issue. EXISTING CONDITIONS The easterly portion of the property contains a Microtel hotel with associated parking. Access to the site is provided from Denmark Avenue to the west. The westerly portion of the property was previously graded and remains vacant. Landscaping associated with the hotel was installed with construction in 1998; no landscaping was installed on the west end of the property. Based on the hotel room count of 82, the existing site exceeds City Code off-street parking requirements. • SURROUNDING USES The following existing uses, zoning, and comprehensive guide plan designations surround the subject property: EVALUATION OF REQUEST Proposal — Larson Properties is proposing to expand the Microtel parking to the westerly portion of the site, the area reserved for future construction of a Class I restaurant. Microtel operates a shuttle to and from the airport for their guests, and guests must stay at least one night at the Microtel. Microtel's proposal is to amend the site plan to expand the parking lot to the west to allow guests' vehicles to be parked there. This expanded parking would be an interim use until such time as a restaurant is developed on the western portion of the site. The applicant's narrative states "When a restaurant contract has been secured we will discontinue the use of the lot for additional parking and will return to the original intentions of the land; i.e. a restaurant." 3 SS Existing Use Zoning Land Use Designation North Single-family home/ Industrial (north of Lone Oak Road) T, Transitional (residence) I-1, Limited Industrial RC, Retail Commercial IND, Limited Industrial East Lexington Commerce Center (office/warehouse) I-1, Limited Industrial IND, Limited Industrial South Office Showroom PD, Planned Development BP, Business Park West Homestead Village hotel PD, Planned Development BP, Business Park EVALUATION OF REQUEST Proposal — Larson Properties is proposing to expand the Microtel parking to the westerly portion of the site, the area reserved for future construction of a Class I restaurant. Microtel operates a shuttle to and from the airport for their guests, and guests must stay at least one night at the Microtel. Microtel's proposal is to amend the site plan to expand the parking lot to the west to allow guests' vehicles to be parked there. This expanded parking would be an interim use until such time as a restaurant is developed on the western portion of the site. The applicant's narrative states "When a restaurant contract has been secured we will discontinue the use of the lot for additional parking and will return to the original intentions of the land; i.e. a restaurant." 3 SS Planning Report — Larson Properties, LLC (Microtel) September 27, 2005 Page 3 Compatibility with Surrounding Area — Parking does not stand out as an incompatible use in this industrial/commercial area; however, City officials will need to determine the appropriateness of the parking expansion to accommodate airport parking/shuttle service on this hotel site. Airport Considerations — The City of Eagan considered airport noise as a factor in its Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan. The Metropolitan Council has adopted an Aviation Chapter of its Metropolitan Development Plan that anticipates the impacts from the continued operation of the airport at its current location. The Metropolitan Council is in the process of adopting updated noise contours and noise compatibility provisions. The proposed parking expansion is compatible with the airport noise exposure in this location. The future restaurant will be evaluated at the time of Final Planned Development and building permit and will be subject to the airport noise policy standards in place at that time. Site Plan — The proposed site plan shows a parking lot layout on the western portion of the property that utilizes the existing access from Denmark Avenue. Landscaped islands are proposed within the parking lot. The parking lot design is consistent with the previously approved restaurant site plan and the perimeter parking areas can remain with construction of a restaurant building according to the previously approved plan. Setbacks — The proposed parking lot satisfies the minimum 20 foot setback requirement from the public rights-of-way (Lone Oak Road and Denmark Avenue). A 10 foot distance is provided between the existing parking lot and the new parking lot, and a retaining wall is located within this space. Grading — The portion of the site proposed for the parking expansion was previously graded with the Microtel motel construction, and would require minimal grading to prepare it for parking lot construction. The applicant should apply for and obtain a City grading/ excavation permit prior to construction of this proposed parking lot expansion. Access — Access to the proposed parking lot expansion is via the existing service drive to Microtel Inn, which intersects with Denmark Avenue to the west. Landscaping — A landscape plan was submitted and is acceptable. The plan shows a variety of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs along the north and west sides of the property to provide screening of the site from the public rights-of-way. The islands are proposed to be landscaped with deciduous overstory trees and perennial flowers. This should allow for winter snow storage and provide some shade during the summer months. Minimal disturbance to the landscaping would be necessary for future restaurant construction; only the interior parking islands would be modified, the perimeter landscaping should be able to remain intact. Automatic irrigation of all landscaped areas is required. Site Lighting — The Site Lighting plan shows use of the same pole -mounted light fixtures as are in the existing Microtel parking lot. These are single and double pole -mounted downcast fixtures at a 30 foot mounting height. There are some pockets within the parking lot that have less than 3 S6 Planning Report — Larson Properties, LLC (Microtel) September 27, 2005 Page 4 0.5 footcandles of light. The average -to -minimum ratio of 1.8:0.2 (8.85) is greater than the recommended 4:1 ratio, suggesting greater light variation throughout the site. The dark pockets should be eliminated and minimum light levels brought up to 0.5 at all points within the parking lot. This will also bring the average -to -minimum ratio closer to 4:1. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION Larson Properties is requesting approval of a Planned Development Amendment to extend the term of the original Planned Development Agreement and to allow an interim use of expanded parking associated with airport shuttle service at the Microtel hotel on property located south of Lone Oak Road between Denmark and Lexington Avenues. Based on City Code requirements, the 82 -room hotel exceeds City Code parking requirements. The site consists of a single parcel, which received previous approval for both the existing Microtel hotel and a future Class I restaurant. The parking expansion is proposed in the area where the future restaurant would be located. The parking is proposed as an interim use until a restaurant user can be secured to occupy the site and the applicant has indicated that the shuttle service and parking would be discontinued at that time. City officials will need to determine the appropriateness of the parking lot expansion to accommodate the hotel's airport parking/shuttle service. The site improvements proposed for the parking lot are consistent with City Code requirements for surfacing, landscaping, and setbacks. Some minor modifications to the site lighting plan are needed. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED To recommend approval of a Planned Development Amendment to extend the term of the original Planned Development Agreement for five years on property located at 3000 Denmark Avenue, legally described as Lot 1, Block 2, Eagandale Center Industrial Park No. 9 in the NE 1/4 of Section 10. If approved the following conditions shall apply: 1. A Final Planned Development Agreement will need to be completed for the development of the Class I restaurant, which may include on -sale liquor. The following exhibits are required for the Final Planned Development Agreement for the restaurant: • Final Site/Phasing Plan • Final Landscape Plan • Final Building Elevations Plan • Final Lighting Plan • Final Signage Plan 2. The term of the Planned Development shall be extended five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 3s� Planning Report — Larson Properties, LLC (Microtel) September 27, 2005 Page 5 3. The property shall be subdivided and replatted prior to construction of Phase 2 (the restaurant) of the development, if Phase 2 (restaurant) is not under common ownership with Phase 1 (hotel). 4. The future restaurant will be evaluated at the time of Final Planned Development and building permit and shall be subject to the airport noise policy standards in place at that time. 5. This amendment supplements the prior Planned Development Agreement and provides an interim use of parking for the westerly portion of the site until the Class I restaurant is constructed. The shuttle service and expanded hotel parking shall be discontinued once a restaurant is constructed on the site. To recommend approval of a Planned Development Amendment to allow an interim use of expanded parking associated with airport shuttle service at the Microtel hotel on property located at 3000 Denmark Avenue, legally described as Lot 1, Block 2, Eagandale Center Industrial Park No. 9 in the NE '/a of Section 10. If approved the following conditions shall apply: 1. The applicant and/or developer shall enter into a Planned Development Amendment Agreement with the City. The Planned Development Amendment Agreement shall be recorded against the property at the Dakota County Recorder's office prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. The following exhibits are required for the Planned Development Amendment Agreement ► Site Plan ► Landscape Plan ► Site Lighting Plan 3. The applicant shall apply for and obtain a City grading/ excavation permit prior to construction of the proposed parking lot expansion 4. All landscaped areas must have automatic irrigation. 5. The Site Lighting Plan shall be revised so that minimum light levels be brought up to 0.5 at all points within the parking lot. 6. The interim parking use shall be for a term of five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 7. A Final Planned Development Agreement will need to be completed for the development of the Class I restaurant, which may include on -sale liquor. The following exhibits are required for the Final Planned Development Agreement for the restaurant: 3 5 8 Planning Report — Larson Properties, LLC (Microtel) September 27, 2005 Page 6 • Final Site/Phasing Plan • Final Landscape Plan • Final Building Elevations Plan • Final Lighting Plan • Final Signage Plan 6. The property shall be subdivided and replatted prior to construction of Phase 2 (the restaurant) of the development, if Phase 2 (restaurant) is not under common ownership with Phase 1 (hotel). 7. The future restaurant will be evaluated at the time of Final Planned Development and building permit and shall be subject to the airport noise policy standards in place at that time. 8. This amendment supplements the prior Planned Development Agreement and provides an interim use of parking for the westerly portion of the site until the Class I restaurant is constructed. The shuttle service and expanded hotel parking shall be discontinued once a restaurant is constructed on the site. 3s9 Location Map Eagan Boundary �, Pa9ce Areay {Park Area Building Footprint �s AM O �ti A555555�55555., � / � n,;n. �t 7-1. '6 '.tis `h fP'-* em .' I ;77 1❑❑gypp ! ` QvJ : s ii55�555555555 qui -1 17,2,2212&NN • A� o , rr5555555R5� E ■ �� • f fo.n .RfYT >N I ��� 0 1. i Site t riali s iimra,Sub'ect . ■ Veil IJNI au,�■ -ir n iWI o IIe �o el tie5=11 I ui:i;i `� 5 ' ■^^■■■ ••• ALAO m mo • tu` J 1 O IFAI on lit Lair_ Or ' 11::1 44 414ti1 > 4 Nu toa Q ( II ;I' 427iJ!'E Q 0Ar, No ilwl*� " • j 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet Development/Developer: Application: Case Microtel Inn (Larson Properties) Planned Development Amendment No..: 10-PA-11-08-05 Cityof Cap Community Development Department Map Prepared using ERSI ArcVlew 3.1. Parcel base map data provided by Dakota Coun Office of GIS and is current as of April 2005. THIS MAP 1 E yOR REFERENCE USE ONLY The City of Eagan and Dakota ounty o (-- tee the accuracy of this information and are not re ons l e for errors or omissions. N W E Current Zoning and Comprehensive Guide Plan Land Use Map Microtel Inn (Larson Properties) PD Amendment Case No. 10-PA-11-08-05 Zoning Map `/\/ 1-, `u-,,,,,,,,,I Mgr I-1 Eirs Location PF r _a Current Zoning: D I PD Planned Development PD I, 1-, PD 4 SI A 1 1.1 , I d d z a 1-•1 - 1-1 BP -- - 1.1 I[ 1 I 100 0 000 1200 Foot 1-1 11 Comprehensive Guide Plan r' 1 "T" "' mu P L s 111 1 111 �1 Land Use Map t ill IND Location DP � r N- !I cs. 00.2. 004 •.) Current Land Use Designation: IVD IND SA RC Special Area 4 ......:.._ i IND IND BP INI I I coo 0 000 1200 root_ IND Parcel base map Information pDepartmentm y Dakota County Land Survey Department Jon. 2003. N t 2oni ron Intained 6yCity Staff, City of Eagan E THIS MAP FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY W Community Development Department The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this Information. S 2 r I 2 n €i 4 1 i!t!4� i ;If F a 1 E E , i 211i.11!-.0 , so 1- 5 c sT 'tv. a "At .£ . 3 t Gr tit ; F_t S a �i5os � �� tgi�s F i1 ig:Yi,.! %s 'gat ti gsg 6 g 111141- 1 8 li 115 _ 1 1 @d F °fag g : a cr i6 'R E£Sf 10 F�ijE E : ,I. i 6 a %g?i_aBI_: 3s €li. BE € to f IT 5 2 AZ JAI Fg ° =R f o @g gh ja i f g i§ i Eb ;1Eg °. g#liw €lift€, -115111 ,igi iini_11-1 e �.ij: iii:a ! jp i -s' iiiHr F°t°i-c cis €a ti afi t1eEi$i5eiltsECBbsfs€EEs:� =g°=ggBee !lila t1issssssssssssssss1ssssisssisssssssssss .111.1 [E[ s.... g via ae R lAgibool$6aa AAnigliiii F1oeso1Wil !Mil 0 FSii gid !Ili ado lig! vo€ea€E$rte n.aM€ tsUlii:UarvAg5.i js§;ER 9E (CP 'ON OVOF! '00) TAREWINMEN fr..p,......,—,—,ww. i.., ,-,.,,—,.,-...ii. , '. ..7'ixil7 .„-„-.1,--.-----2:- T.,74 Itur ICT ',° P[�,c velli `. I 1' EXISTING CONDITIONS,�� • ;I RECEIVED AUG 181005 Z� U 1 1 .111A Dj ii 0 hi { e i it 1 ,E P ! ijsi tit, , 111 1 Pi 1 10 11 iP jet 1;1 !I! s !ill 1 f I \ I I 1! it l yoi �Ii!irif zi Iii 8i i 1 .EN4 4 a: 11 i: f a: 1 s1JNf J n J (CP "ON 0 dod '00) _3/7/ 6— NO1 DNLX.3,.7 N Sd dY r V I LOCATION MAP I t '' E S FF ss!E N 0 `1 11 '1. i_1 !{ . I s1 F`1 S C •j•11 !1 1,, ! ([1 1 i lip # t , lf I 11a 11 t�s jb it F{f{` I••!l {,•t+<�{f1F �F+ tc�; f `{f,1 E;[! ti I{t; { ii EYE ` Hi {I11f[{i;i1 ` 1"lt{ f '}tft 111ii1 •1I { 111I,1S11 RI f 1l` =-'[11 1l1I { F F , t t 11 i'll 1,SY I' . 1i1 iii ! 1*11 . a '1l • It1[ Ili 1 f iF 'if{1 ' j st e l 111 z , b # ,• I F ! '4! ! 1.11 1, i'l 1 #•!#, � Il y1 I [1lt�f�11! !e11. 1f 111 f1 { - 1 ;F1 t I �, 1 { �.[ C1 1 1{1 1. 1111 , 11 iFl ,.1. 111 E1 1111 111 ! 11111:1 )fl 1111 htF1• ° 11Y1 F 411 1 [ 11 C{� • {►Y 1 . 1 11 S S jj{ I e 1' F I l , Y • C t s jj[ j ` lr ; #[ I Fi !F 111� ' ' [1 ' `Ft �1, t .i tp # [ i#i ' + 14 f �j 1E1tlij tI 11 ��� 1l !! � J f!! t 11 # ! laF11 lei ! 1F1{ Y!i` 1 i Fl . { 1 11 11 : 1 1 f l 1 1! 1 IS { i ! I 1 } E� , t + s E 1' , f, ti l;e E1 , [ i 'i•1 1 f SI{ .1i. E,, ,{ fi f • ? 011_ I ' of 1 E1 ;VII t FFE 1 1 11 1!. dr e i # 1 tai i; I'1Y ill 1 ` E !i 1#1#}11 1�1 •- 11;;if El !{f�•1#1,1 J1€ [8 1f 11111 i;i11111 1;111ltil1 1 Ip'1 ll1 li `f{ { llit111111IliJI f;: Et(t il! { 1h is •111 { tat` 1111,i iq 1t[ !1h.{ 1 S 1 IJ# -R { 1a111 ! 1 f- 1,r.11 [,!-�'�{I!If161 �{ [# !!fi ..i f # It• g tt , F f 1;�1FF• �� i!1Y i Y �F �Y {I , EYf f l! 1/11111 1 ' f Ill# { li' [# 111,1 1�# a +1 El l,i }[ AFI#1! Il 11e ! !{l } jfl11 • t i a �I� t1� Mi!ii-1{•F±1 1 . 1lli i 11 hj 1 11'11 Y 1i :['� ll !;!` 1 1 ;1 1.11 1ol111 Y r-�' 11f r:f{ f' F 1 it - I .1' � i1t 1 111 1 FI# ! 1 1! p#•.( • k FFtFrt 1! ! 1 It'IJ{tll![; al + '{f { 11.:{ t ` Y 1f {11!;-0.11111 1. 1� li,11 S1 {!l#E`{iI E#if tlif' 1. {:1 i{ 11 1 t !„. 1 !i1i]1f[F 1 1 I •li`il IY`ZJi1 i V S{S•1Y F!11 1 ,•1.,1E1p;Y ;f li7F° 1 !}¢, !4i! .F1�Y! i 1 f 11 { ii.1;;::;' E iti't11� Ii ti; Iliflj�`{{{ �� f111I1f hi; ; ;`•f ' 11�i„if J1.1!'{i .iF !111 i111bj' 1 t.. •' fi hi I F1 ! 111 !tall! 11a.11,:11ltg1 iYl{Iii1 1I 11.11 1 ;le 1111 f1 11111111[11,1t,1 ?1:1� .1.IIs: al 1lt#tsa f1 � 11 1, ti F 1{{ : Int 1 MI 1 ..1 1 ill 1 SI Ei , 1 1 1 # Ili 1 11 1' lfl i 1 l: 114;11 1 S} 1 1 El 1!` i E{ 11Eti 1"11' 1 t;g l f i • , 1{'`iif ! 1 i i j1F I,'1 1{ • S !!. i ii . i111111 11 P i II' 1 61 • 1 i 11 1 !,1 fm; 11 1 1;t 1' ti 1{11 !:f i 1. 1{I# i 111 4(';b 1f it( 11 1 If! if: [ t 111 iI " pry ,111! '{ illi } i 111 E ',1,{ 1 '(!1 '#t ! tf f 11 1` 0 • i1 1111 f 1 "1 = 111{1'.', '1 1i 11 11 {11 II; !i 11 { .1 '1 X11 11.11 { tj it tip } 1x11 IF ! E 11 � 111 !}1 I� !E !IN 1 '��sx !II 111 1 e 11S 1*hi iii 1!!t 1'i '1 1'( "17 1 (1 i " X11 fl f; : I F fill! a.1 Ys { i S1 1°: 11 S 1 s11 I. 11 f 1 F ! 1 (f1 a lR . 11! '2 lj ;11 { , ; I1 .I :1111t iI #1 !1; II ,.1 III I !. 1Et J1 11 {{ it;'1 [ ' t ii! fjigIf 111 gi 11 { f{sj[lt;E Y`11;=t � 4 {1111 ii 11f!1 ; if ' 1 1 ! F�#;1F1;E j�1 ., it F 'e1{ i1 118['11, i[ t! 1!I is !fl iii 1 1 1 1 ,[1.� ,i; 11 ``p[• VIII1 ti: 1 ['1 1 at 1 pill, {t 1{ S!l 1.1 {ll 11' f Y , i 11'1 igF 111111{ t l; 1. Ftf�� 1{{� y4 {(11 i .; �, ! !ill tlt E 1k i ,1 ;1�1 111 (�1 #'l k j, [ 11 a hi !Ali!!! 111i!! It 1111111.11{ 11111 ! .1 1:11 i1[ 11 Mil I1I1h ).1 a : u ^ i si {l II;€ 11 21 it EEE►E�F1 Ia i{ 1i {+il IiF 111111111 , i!: 14 1l1 {1111 1 ff1t� 1!f III 11111#e W1 #; 11. Ji 11. /1 11'111 1 18111 i1,{ i1 ##! Pt! 1i111i @1fE{tlg 1 �• EI 11f! 1 {.Y{ 11- {�ij11 {!Flt 11 ',i l{. 'I it ijj 1 i 11i !Alli 1, _1,11 Ijj J11 1`1;Y1 �11111ti1 ��li 1{l 111111 d z U W a c.36Y r RECEIVED AUG 181005 1 LL� ,!->g Ewa, INioncsoia I �I x 3t' Landscape Plan s e b i E xe y ;4 �lj�a! �� Ziii i1i�i ���i S�e i°i�Pi �� i� y rai ! I _ #i it i ! s li. €l i= it Il i 9 isgi e �a e` [ i eiii i.ha 81 iv 4,' 13 g'i'l to 1 ie a iyl i, s`Cfg if ��� j � e � ! ii�l���� °�¢ E lQ 9 gg�s � �� 45 II 11 Al l f11r�°° 9e 4 iE I�ipilildrilliiillitipili E. f ffilly '° a it 1. itppi[ sgl :iti °' t€r` 1 f li F °i li [°°C 4 i[[�_q filE [Y�°C�ll'9@� F!:s b� f�Ei.�g�f������ �q[�s,;o ei���- Essis!t� @�fs�6 i[F c s i- �°i� #���y;ia,-€� q�°@�:f�y e c st tE6;�'� �� � a,°i�B �i� � � �� � eg=8iyffe 4 f 3LaI ii=6Y rl°i ! ! ai' �i3 [X41e'f i� iie�:e yi Ye32�qt li S yiia ! •S'_:8 $ I 3°t E P4;1 4 lifli a l x @abe>. a e C ysseg!��e�s[ � `� �� f e g � ii a i� ;� ° �=1a 8l�::°� �_ ��'�¢'� �1.1" illi i311111° ill lir 1.11 111 a }} �� �i 0 ;1 �,$ _ � . �€e di tti. �. . .l q a Ja.�iO ! fi, i�.e4 a _ 8 E 114 1 a 9 s@ 4 6 V 17 1111 1/ 111 111111011 Pgi 1/12 y 3 kiplE g� i 011,1 !pp laf ii da.3.i G6�¢!q�• '141114111 :11i1F�i�i; �i� a E 3v ---------SR A 4�-- bye LANDSCAPE PLANT 36S- •ly \I. ,. PLANTING DETAILS PLANTING SCHEDULE 0°°1 U vmgig §zw us ~ w o l ; RECEIVED AUG 18 7005 -J w 0 0 6 U 3i 9 € CM5I e 3 tl w (E6 ON avow 00) 3I2rtL�A V NDi-ONI 1 7 _. z —ems= r� �L__`_,r. i CALCULATIONS) 1` z / 0 >- m H z 0 0 a6 CO w CC D U 0 Q F W 0 1` 0 1 a z -J -J 0- :71 J -A-N3A V SITE LIGHTING PLAN E 1 i rq t !'i. 1 `" J )CATION MA '■ ry 3 z 1 11 iii 1 111115 1 E4 i�1f`1;'11 ,t1( 1 `ll ;t liteli 111 19 11 F' 1 # ° ,li 1 `, tial! jii1' 1l 1 1. 11!II f{t [ j 1 t, f11 1,411111 lig' e1 1 1 i 1 [I # =t :1:1711$111 j 11' 1�1t 1'11` 11, 1. 141 f 1 1g' If1° _ fl' 1!. ! 11gli g1 1 11 i 1 1! 111 1f1?ei'i'iii 111E z1 lig# 1111�t1;1 !1.I 111111111! 11I Fit 1 l� 11! ;fill; iig11 if t if 1f`1 • if 411 ;1#alzi .i 11'1 1f 111• 111 #i. '11 'pill 1 11 ,711.1 1111! '1 ' 12 Oil a 1a1a11' 1 E11 1, 1 �� t ( It it i 111 11 i 111 ,1 [ it. i '1 1'tf �tiitil!il i151 11 E if : ';[# 11 :l; at,111 ffi 111 t 1 I i 1 111,1 i. 1I fill' 11, :Di 1t .i! • #_ ,1 1 1fft11= 1 {1 1 lei f t A 2 11 1 tI 11f lli f NIP! i 1f 1 if 1, I t : fj1 rpi. 11' 1.111 i 111f11tii 1 1 x;11,=1 i 1 iii. 911 E=1 ,11 t11 1,il11' 11t,a11 [6 1Ei 1f 11 1. 0 111(11 1 11-, +2 1 1 {'aftag' ', 1i . ' `{ li111 .vi 1111 i { 1 1[ 1ii'� ,1 1' i1 #= 1 11 f1 `f 11511<4 # , 1 iI 1 11• tt 1 _ $' 1 111 i;ill 1'1 ° 111 I ;,a Ip a1 a rye! if 11 (r, R■ 1 [ 1; 1 1t, tt , 1 . s } 111 {�aF 6 f ttt E_ 11i11� t '11E] 1i VI 151'.1 t, {f•1 if 1.1 t111}.,_. '# 1 11 111 1( ff ii 1{111. , ! li 1 PI .. t fi!!!!tt 1,• =ti1 it 11 # , ..1 fI!; Z 1 : 1' 1fi ' R #E 1 111ft f f111 11' ; {1!fil fl ti 1!1€1 =h # (# I. , '11 hit la H;11 1 iso lei{, 1}1t € 11 1 saa1 f1 111,'ti 111311 111`ft1 I;1 1 i1R1f 11 1i lilt #° 1� 1.1"1 g= 1a1 1j1 t 111 111 ;t({t( 11! 1111 it .111!1 {,� {#s1; /_,' ' e -1/ 1 :1• i 1 .. [1 [ 111111; !p21111,,1 it 111`1:1 F. 111 illi Milli 11; i;111 if iiiii i 1 11F 11[ f[i 1111 il 11141111 !iii 1 i=#1! 1€ ! !le 11,161 3111£! 11`.11 iii ;!;11; 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 _ R t 1 1 ,a t R'1 ' t , 111 1 t 11 f'= '` iii 1 ell 1 11 IN( re 11 { 1 1j 1 j 1 i ` #ill 1�1 iii 1 (l I �(11{{ 1 e { �� {. i t = i t 1= f ; ii 1! 7+{ 1 19' 1 +t IA =111 tt 1 if 11 1 1ft 11if 11 1`3{f6 j1!�� 1:1 R ={ =1II 1 I1 t {{t S ft! 111!1 tt= = 72 f F tt 1111 ii 111 I Ili 1$`.1{i Oil i{# 11 j 1 111 1j i 1 14 1i 1 1! Lill 1i#�f1 tt {l ( E 111 1� to ! 1 1 fl f =e t11 t{{ 1 • 1 lir , 1 i { 1((ll .def f till 1 I +ij 1 ;j 1812!11; 111 j1 li11 :a1 1;1i Ili [I 1 I i jII F:1 1 i ;'l{�f 1161 ;ii 11 1111a ; `E 11 '111111 11 111 ;l !1 111 1 Ij 11 $ `{ li! ' 11'., 111111 • i1 11 b f `i { filirt 1a, 13 1 11 fIII 11ff [l 1 1 1 t 1 1I, 1l 1 1f f� •t 1 $1 11 ' 1: 1lh 1.' 1 li 1jii{11 1 II, 1.1 1 !! 11 1111 i{ 1 1 !:11 ;:1ii f j1 18111 I;'`p'fh1 i'f Etl1t111 1111EI 1111,1 j1t1aIIl1 11ij1111 f; i i f{ { j i { )p i =f l �{ t 11 1B 1 1fi 1{# 1 ,' t1 f '1 ",1f ! 111!1=;{ 1E , 1 i'f I 1{1,11;i1ii1J!1 i1w,I1111111111!11111I:i1#IA1.1111 !lid i, t,,1! a ^ • a el ! _ R R 1 1 R R 4 O ' 2 co 1111 I a;1 i;ji . r11I.1A11a t,lf eel '01 1.11..1/1 {� ii: fl 11ff Fl€�t:ii p;11f� ,i ,i1 111 11 1 11,f1'11 ig1 1i11 1:1j 11�i 111 1-` 111 El[ 1,: tilt; fit 111 flit' ;Ow I1= 111 �1;1f � ,911111 a1,11 'E111! lIp1 1f 11l; 1E{ hi! kith € 1111€F 111 i! { 1 111Y 'fte a1 1 t i 111 t i{ _111 211 111'1 111 11 131 i 1 qt. if 11 {1 of 21 It! 8 ;,, 1,t 111 (f 1 lit! :a t:a5 f,a 1 a 1 1 t 1� 111 111 �Ilj1 1 �1a 1 f (! li � 1,1E .1f1 11il#f 11 1>1 i 1 1f, .tLif # 11 ;1i 111' 111 if I 1, 11,1( 113111;1, , e 111 1;11 =11 11fa 8�aF1 1 1t {1141 !1 1 11111 41,1! 111¢1 al1p 11'1 11111111 1,11 I :1 1 � _11 111 J (RESTAURANT) w w s 1 tif ltil 11 `f !i'{ - g it a !III II1 li: lig 1111 R . if ®!hh li I i 10 J !1101 Jig I mo1 I#i111;1 dili I 1. II _ r n s r r d r r 42 as 3f1N3AV NOJDNIX21 i9 J G° •SZ.Izas _..L.._.._.._.._.._. _. 1.1IIII II IIID — 2fNJAV fl D d o 4 A�A'AiA'A� -+3r- 0 am if mu m` T a a 2 ijI U C 3 m a m 1CITY OF EAGAN PROJECT N0. _ SITE PLAN (RESTAURAN V I LOCATION MAP 1 1 I 42 as 3f1N3AV NOJDNIX21 i9 J G° •SZ.Izas _..L.._.._.._.._.._. _. 1.1IIII II IIID — 2fNJAV fl D d o 4 A�A'AiA'A� -+3r- 0 am if mu m` T a a 2 ijI U C 3 m a m 1CITY OF EAGAN PROJECT N0. _ SITE PLAN (RESTAURAN 41.31 A ai 1� 1E.Ka1iyi3 ! it 1 g ta4°EE1,4gttk i� ° aT'p£� 1£k 1�T �1 �QgTi� 1� 8•$$f�a�g �apd•�Y��l 1�k£T�q 4ia 1511 it'll !I II; ¢� rE 111i�!� !PP }€° Yi 1� �ki E€f�k1Ea a= !�g Q 0��erg�$g�° Rii^CbT1 a � Yeyf@Yg lt� 1 rE q 411 P1�!g !F14!ft ;op ¢i lilt 1116 i 1E1 6 € 1 1k I5i4fqiPiRit1piili° ae 00 1Ye^l 1:01101111'1110 rillori Q=imP iTYf'°iri£ 4511 1011 Y!Fr 4`1�11�v 1z 11111110:i Y .1r I' <p d iY° YY1sg Ft 81 1 £ 1 415 1;11,1[' �;i0.!f�a 1a YCo5 5# ! „ 3 gg $8 yy y 1 411 e f oi ONYN03.0 !0 3003 `313H3NOO S nONlnnl le Md/0 .5 O 341 80'40,0=A 1'1 — LANDSCAPING N WN3a_ _ (RESTAURANT ' Ih 0 0 0 1 T oe ¢0 1 on 0 3 F MICROTEL INN AND SUITES 3000 Denmark Avenue Eagan, Minnesota LOT 1, BLOCK 2, EAGANDALE CENTER INDUSTRIAL PARK NO. 9 Applicant/Owner: Thomas Larson LARSON PROPERTIES, LLC. 3502 Oakwood Mall Drive Eau Claire, WI 54701 Civil Engineer: Brian Mundstock SUNDE ENGINEERING, PLLC. 4200 West Old Shakopee Road / Suite 230 Bloomington, MN 55437 Landscape Architect: Matt Wilkens DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES 923 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55402 Location: The site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Lone Oak Road and Denmark Avenue. Zoning: Planned Unit Development Requested Action: The applicant seeks a planned development amendment in order to allow the construction of temporary parking on the future restaurant site. This parking will augment the existing Microtel parking until the restaurant site is developed. Additional Information: • Our intention is to pave, landscape, and light our vacant land adjacent to our Microtel Inn and Suites located at 3000 Denmark Avenue, Eagan. Our projected date of completion is November 1, 2005. • The land is currently undeveloped and is surrounded by: Homestead Suites to the west, Microtel Inn and Suites to the east, an office building to the south, and Lone Oak Road to the north. • The planned development amendment will provide the surrounding properties with a more aesthetically pleasing parcel of land. The lot will be lighted and landscaped to city specifications and will be an enhancement to the surrounding businesses. • The planned development amendment will provide an interim use for the unused. lot. The intention of the project is to offer hotel guests adequate parking when business or leisure travel requires them to use air service to their destination. All guests parking their cars in the newly paved area will be required to stay a minimum of one night at the Microtel Inn and Suites. • Sanitary sewer and water services are not required for the parking lot, but are available for the future restaurant from Denmark Avenue. Storm sewer was installed at the time that the Microtel Inn was built. Stormwater management is provided on a regional basis by City of Eagan Pond DP -3. • The amendment will result in an interim use for the vacant parcel of land. Currently the lot is zoned for restaurant use, and our intentions are to continue to pursue a creditable restaurant concept and operator for that location. When a restaurant contract has been secured we will discontinue the use of the lot for additional parking and will return to the original intentions of the land; i.e. a restaurant. 1 , I / (it i ',,' i / YANKEE D000tE ROAD LOCATION MAP Requested Action: The applicant seeks a planned development amendment in order to allow the construction of temporary parking on the future restaurant site. This parking will augment the existing Microtel parking until the restaurant site is developed. Additional Information: • Our intention is to pave, landscape, and light our vacant land adjacent to our Microtel Inn and Suites located at 3000 Denmark Avenue, Eagan. Our projected date of completion is November 1, 2005. • The land is currently undeveloped and is surrounded by: Homestead Suites to the west, Microtel Inn and Suites to the east, an office building to the south, and Lone Oak Road to the north. • The planned development amendment will provide the surrounding properties with a more aesthetically pleasing parcel of land. The lot will be lighted and landscaped to city specifications and will be an enhancement to the surrounding businesses. • The planned development amendment will provide an interim use for the unused. lot. The intention of the project is to offer hotel guests adequate parking when business or leisure travel requires them to use air service to their destination. All guests parking their cars in the newly paved area will be required to stay a minimum of one night at the Microtel Inn and Suites. • Sanitary sewer and water services are not required for the parking lot, but are available for the future restaurant from Denmark Avenue. Storm sewer was installed at the time that the Microtel Inn was built. Stormwater management is provided on a regional basis by City of Eagan Pond DP -3. • The amendment will result in an interim use for the vacant parcel of land. Currently the lot is zoned for restaurant use, and our intentions are to continue to pursue a creditable restaurant concept and operator for that location. When a restaurant contract has been secured we will discontinue the use of the lot for additional parking and will return to the original intentions of the land; i.e. a restaurant. Agenda Information Memo October 6, 2005 Eagan City Council Meeting IX. NEW RUNWAY/AIRPORT UPDATE ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED: This item is for informational purposes only. No formal action is needed. FACTS: > The ten neighborhood open houses regarding airport noise, and particularly the new runway, have been completed. > The City is currently assisting the MAC staff as they prepare to host their quarterly public input meeting on Thursday, November 10. > Per the direction of the Council at the September 20 Council meeting, a letter will be sent to all Eagan households during the week of October 16-23 to communicate that the runway will be opening on Thursday, October 27 and to note the many efforts the City has made in communicating to residents about the runway. 32/ lb' City of Emil Meo TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: OCTOBER 31, 2005 SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION / NOVEMBER 1, 2005 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY New Business 1. NORTHEAST EAGAN REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT — Public Hearing to consider a Development Agreement with McGough Companies and the Public Purpose of the Acquisition and Assembly of Property Located on Blue Gentian Road and Blue Gentian Circle — Enclosed on page 296A is a follow up memo from the City Attorney's office regarding the property owners' response to the developer's offer of mediation for the acquisition of the properties on Blue Gentian Circle and Blue Gentian Road. Enclosed on page 296B is a copy of a letter from Anna Marie Pavlik on behalf of her parents, Frank and Patricia Pavlik. /s/ Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator SEVERSON, SHELDON, DOUGHERTY & MOLENDA, P.A. SUITE 600 7300 WEST 147TH STREET APPLE VALLEY, MINNESOTA 55124-7580 (952) 432-3136 TELEFAX NUMBER (952) 432-3780 E-MAIL huuskog@seversonsheldon.com TO: Jon Hohenstein, Community Development Director FROM: Gary Huusko, Assistant City Attorney DATE: October 31, 2005 RE: Supplement To: Background for Public Hearing on EDA — MG Eagan, LLC Development Agreement and condemnation of Properties. Our File No. 206-23506 At the time of the preparation of background for the EDA meeting, it was noted that the developer had offered mediation to the property owners as part of their efforts to negotiate acquisition of the properties, but we did not have documentation of the property owners' response. Since that time, we have been informed by the attorney for the developer that the offer for mediation was turned down verbally. Page 1 of 1 Jon Hohenstein From: Mira Pepper Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 10:16 AM To: Cyndee Fields; Meg Tilley; Mike Maguire; Pat Geagan; Peggy Carlson Cc: Tom Hedges; Jon Hohenstein Subject: FW: Blue Gentian Road From: Anna Marie Pavlik [mailto:ampavlik@austin.rr.com] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 10:01 AM To: City Council Subject: Blue Gentian Road October 31, 2005 Mayor and City Council of Eagan, This letter concerns the condemnation of my parents Frank and Patricia Pavlik's home, at 990 Blue Gentian. NORTHEAST EAGAN REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT — Public Hearing to consider a Development Agreement with McGough Companies and the Public Purpose of the Acquisition and Assembly of Property Located on Blue Gentian Road and Blue Gentian Circle. In 1958 they bought the 1 acre lot from Herbert Polzen who was then the Mayor of Eagan Township. After exhausting all home choices they designed and built the house on Blue Gentian with some assistance from contractors. My parents moved into the house with 4 daughters under the age of 7 when the house still had plywood floors and continued the construction process for many years. My Mother planted all of the trees and shrubs as there was nothing growing in the sand. They created the environment around the house and completed the interior. This is the only home that my parents have ever owned. They rented until they could buy and have never had a mortgage or loan. Now, at 83 and 84 years of age the house is perfectly suited to their physical abilities and lifestyle of projects; gardening, woodworking, sewing, cooking, and exercise for health maintenance. This is not just a house — but a carefully designed, handicapped accessible, energy efficient environment which was designed to raise a family and be comfortable in their final years. I request that the City Council of Eagan and McGough Corporation focus on other projects at the present time. My hope is that you can find a way to delay this project until a time when my parents can no longer care for themselves in their home of nearly 47 years. This home is an integral part of their life; I fear that a disruption to their lives at this point will be a life threatening change that will cause serious stress to their heath and well being. Thank you for considering this request on the behalf of long time Eagan residents, Anna Marie Pavlik 10903 Catthom Austin, Texas 78759 ampavlik©austin. rr.com 10/31/2005 %ED ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING EAGAN, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 17, 2005 CITY ATTORNEY CITY ADMINISTRATOR DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Item 1. Item 2. Redevelopment District Update Development/Construction Activity 10* City of Eagan Memo TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: OCTOBER 31, 2005 SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA / NOVEMBER 1, 2005 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY ATTORNEY The City Council reserves the right to hold an Executive Session for purposes of pending or threatened litigation and matters of labor/personnel. It is expected that the City Council will have an Executive Session update on matters of pending litigation to be determined by the City Attorney. CITY ADMINISTRATOR There are no items at this time. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS There are no items at this time. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Item 1. Redevelopment District Update — Staff is providing regular updates to the City Council regarding the City's redevelopment districts as a part of each administrative agenda. In addition to the information enclosed on page -9 , staff will be available to provide comments or respond to questions relative to the redevelopment projects at Tuesday's meeting. Item 2. Development/Construction Activity — Per the Council's request, Community Development staff will provide bi-weekly updates of larger development and construction activity. The current update is enclosed on page5.S /s/ Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator 3� deli'. City of Eagan Nemo TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: OCTOBER 31, 2005 SUBJECT: REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ACTIVITY UPDATE The following update reflects activity in the City's redevelopment districts. Cedar Grove Redevelopment District • Schafer Richardson Ryland Development Agreement — Following the City Council's approval in concept of the development agreement, staff and the developer are finalizing the written agreement, concept plan and phasing plan with a deadline of November 15. If the agreement is complete at that time, the Council will be asked to set a public hearing on the item for December 20 and a more detailed review of the agreement is planned for the Council workshop on December 7. • Acquisition and Relocation Plans — Negotiations are underway with the owners of several properties in the Cedar Grove Area and additional owners have contacted staff with preliminary interest in discussing possible sales. • Communications Activities — The Cedar Grove Gateway, the monthly newsletter update, is being distributed to businesses in the area. Website updates also continue. • Development Outside the Core Area - Construction continues on the River Ridge Condominiums, Schwans Distribution Facility and the Opus Office Warehouse. Northeast Eagan Redevelopment District • Grand Oaks Development — The first office building in Grand Oak 5 has begun to be occupied. The retail buildings are nearing completion and construction is underway on the Eagle Valley Bank. • McGough Office Project — The public hearing for the McGough project is scheduled for the EDA meeting on November 1. • Hwy 55 Parcels — DART Transit, the owner of a substantial number of the properties in the portion of the District south of Hwy 55 has indicated an intention to prepare a development/redevelopment plan for that part of the district. Staff has followed up with the DART representative, but have yet to receive additional information from them. Southeast Eagan Masterplan • LHB has completed the field work for the substandard analysis for properties in the southeast area, which will serve as the basis for the Council's consideration of whether to create a formal redevelopment district in the area. The draft report is expected in the near future. 4,1 City of Ea�all Memo TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Jon Hohenstein, Community Development Director Dale Schoeppner, Chief Building Official Mike Ridley, City Planner October 26, 2005 DevelopmentlConstruction Activity Update The following update reflects recent activity in the Building and Planning Divisions. Permits Issued Address • 1235 Town Centre Dr • 2020 Silver Bell Rd • 3450 Washington Dr • 2978 Center Ct • 2854 Hwy 55 Development Update Explanation Best Buy Marvin Windows Best Western General Resources Tech Healthcare Management Valuation $2,500,000 $ 450,000 $ 400,000 $ 200,000 $ 125,000 Type Comm New Comm Impr Comm Impr Comm Add Comm Impr > Planning staff has met recently with Howard Paster to discuss progress being made with the development of the Perron Property. The City Council can expect an update in November. > A new restaurant is finalizing arrangements to occupy the former Hunan Garden space in Eagan Town Centre. Staff will be happy to provide a brief overview of these items and/or respond to questions at Tuesday's meeting. As always, staff is available between meetings to respond to questions that may come to Council members' attention from the community. Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes October 6, 2005 Page 5 grocery store as opposed to a neighborhood grocery store, elevation impact during grading, and the number of conditions of approval. Council, City staff and the developer responded to a list of questions generated during the public comment period. Mayor Geagan closed the public comment period and turned discussion back to the Council. Council thanked everyone for their participation and diligence in becoming educated about the issue. Councilmember Carlson moved, Councilmember Tilley seconded a motion to approve a Preliminary Planned Development for a retail commercial development (Diffley Marketplace) consisting of a 43,175 square foot grocery store, two 10,000 square foot multi -tenant retail buildings, and two other retail buildings upon 10.94 acres located south of Diffley Road and east of Lexington Avenue, legally described as Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 13's Addition and Outlot A, Lexington Point 7s` Addition, in the NW '/. of Section 26, subject to the following conditions: Aye: 5 Nay: 0 1. A Final Planned Development Agreement shall be executed for each Phase of the development. The following plans are necessary for the Final Planned Development Agreement: • Final Site Plan • Final Building Elevations • Final Site Lighting Plan. • Final Landscaping Plan • Final Signage Plan 2. The property shall be platted prior to issuance of any building permits. Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 7th Addition, a 0.15 acre parcel adjacent to Daniel Drive) shall be included in the plat combining the two existing outlots that comprise this site into a single parcel. The platting shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits. 3. Uses permitted within the NB zoning district shall be permitted within the two Phase I retail buildings. Only three Class 11 restaurants, with one drive-through service shall be permitted in the Phase I retail buildings. Any additional Class II restaurants in the Phase I retail shall require a Planned Development Amendment. 4. The approved use for the Phase II development shall be one Class II restaurant with drive through service and one financial institution with drive through service. Any use in•Phase II other than the uses specified will require an amendment to the Preliminary Planned Development. 5. The following Class II restaurants shall be prohibited: McDonald's, Burger King, KFC, Wendy's, Taco Bell and Arby's. 6. Phase II development will require Final Planned Development approval for each building. Each Final Planned Development application will require a Site Plan Review by the City Council. 7. Phase II development on the east end of the site shall be subject to the minimum setback requirements in the NB zoning district, except that any proposed buildings in Phase II shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the south property line, and parking may be set back 15 feet from Diffley Road. 8. With future subdivision, cross -easements will be needed for ingress/egress and parking in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. 9. The trash enclosures shall meet the 30 -foot setback from the south property line. 10. The development shall provide a service drive dedicated to through movements and without direct parking stalls, from the existing access onto Diffley Road to the Walgreen's property. 11. This development shall dedicate 10' drainage and utility easements centered over all common lot lines and adjacent to private property or public right-of-way. 12. This development shall dedicate all public right-of-way and temporary slope easements for ultimate development of adjacent roadways as required by the appropriate jurisdictional agency. 13. This development shall dedicate adequate drainage and ponding easements to incorporate the required high water elevation necessitated by City storm water storage volume requirements and area acceptable to the City Engineer. 14. All public streets and utilities necessary to provide service to this development shall be designed by a registered professional engineer in accordance with City Codes and engineering standards, guidelines and policies. 1 `` •si,•' . Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes October 6, 2005 Page 6 15. To ensure that Walgreen's will retain access to Diffley Road with future subdivision of the subject site, the developer shall provide a copy of the access easement affording Walgreen's access to Diffley Road for review and approval by the City Attorney prior to release of the plat and Planned Development agreements for recording. 16. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion, and sediment control plan must be prepared in accordance with current City standards prior to final plat approval. 17. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted on the proposed grading plan. The financial guarantee shall be provided in the form of a letter of credit in an amount equivalent to the cost of plant materials plus installation, as calculated by the City, and shall cover two full calendar years subsequent to the completion of the landscaping as provided in the approved landscape plan and shall be released only upon inspection and written notice of conformance by the City. 18. City water quality requirements shall be met primarily through construction of an on-site pond on the east end of the parcel. This pond shall have a minimum treatment volume of 1.5 acre-feet and a maximum depth of 10 feet. To account for the 1.04 acres of the site that drain off site to city streets without stormwater treatment, cash in lieu of ponding shall be paid at the rates in effect at the time of payment. 19. The applicant shall submit a revised Tree Mitigation Plan that shows the mitigation plantings separate from the Landscape Plan. This revised plan shall be submitted to City staff for review and approval by the City Forester prior to inclusion in the Preliminary PD Agreement. 20. The proposed Grading Plan must be revised to incorporate berming along Diffley Road. 21. The developer shall review the Landscape Plan and revise it as necessary to address the following issues: a. Selection of plants and use of taller narrower evergreen materials along the south boundary for solid screening and appropriate size and tolerance for growing conditions. b. Potential conflicts between parking lot island trees and site lighting. c. Designation of mitigation plantings in addition to landscape plantings. d. Added shrub and/or perennial beds along Diffley Road. 22. The site lighting plan shall be reviewed and calculations clarified or lighting modified to better achieve the IESNA recommended standards and reduce light spillover onto adjacent residential property. • 23. Additional shielding or adjustments in the proposed lighting shall be made to achieve the 1.0 foot- candle or less at all points along the development where it abuts residential property. 24. The proposed grocery building elevations shall be modified to utilize brick as the primary exterior material rather than EIFS. 25. There shall be no signage on the cart corrals, and all shopping carts shall be retrieved from the corrals and stored within the building overnight. 26. Awnings on the two retail buildings shall be a canvas or Sunbrella material and shall not be illuminated and shall contain no signage. 27. Hours of operation for the grocery store and other commercial businesses shall be restricted to between 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. (midnight). 28. The driveway connection to Daniel Drive shall be eliminated and the plans resubmitted to Dakota County for review. 29. Grading operations shall occur only between 9:30 am and 3:00 pm. 30. The developer shall provide flagmen during grading operations. 31. Construction operations shall cease at 9:00 pm. Councihnember Carlson moved, Councihnember Tilley seconded a motion to approve a Final Planned Development for Phase I of a retail commercial development (Diffley Marketplace) consisting of a 42,600 sq. ft. grocery store and two 10,000 sq. ft. multi -tenant retail buildings, upon 10.94 acres located south of Diffley Road and east of Lexington Avenue, legally described as Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 13th Addition and Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 7th Addition, in the NW '/. of Section 26, subject to the following conditions: Aye: 5 Nay: 0 1. A Final Planned Development Agreement shall be executed for each Phase of the development. The following plans are necessary for the Final Planned Development Agreement: • Final Site Plan • Final Building Elevations Q Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes October 6, 2005 Page 7 • Final Site Lighting Plan • Final Landscaping Plan • Final Signage Plan 2. The property shall be platted prior to issuance of any building permits. Outlot A, Lexington Pointe 7th Addition, a 0.15 acre parcel adjacent to Daniel Drive) shall be included in the plat combining the two existing outlots that comprise this site into a single parcel. The platting shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits. 3. The development shall be_subj ect to the minimum setback requirements in the NB zoning district with the following exceptions: The two 10,000 sq. ft. retail buildings shall be set back a minimum of 40 feet from the south property line, trash enclosures shall be set back a minimum of 30 feet; parking may be set back a minimum of 15 feet from Diffley Road. Building Setbacks: • Minimum of 50' setback front yard setback (from Diffley Road) • Minimum of 50' rear yard setback (south lot line) for grocery building • Minimum of 40' rear yard setback (south lot line) for two multi -tenant retail buildings (30' minimum rear yard setback for trash enclosures) • Minimum 10' side yard setback (west lot line) Parking/pavement setback • Minimum of 15 feet from north property line abutting Diffley Road • Minimum of 20' from south property line • 25' set back shall be provided of where possible as shown on the approved Site Plan • 5' Minimum side yard setback (west lot line) 4. Uses permitted within the NB zoning district shall be permitted within the two Phase I retail buildings. 5. Only three Class II restaurants, with one drive-through service shall be permitted in the retail buildings. Any additional Class II restaurants in the Phase I retail shall require a Planned Development Amendment. 6. The following Class II restaurants shall be prohibited: McDonald's, Burger King, KFC, Wendy's, Taco Bell and Arby's. 7. The trash enclosures shall meet a minimum 30 -foot setback from the south property line. 8. The development shall provide a service drive dedicated to through movements and without direct parking stalls, from the existing access onto Diffley Road to the Walgreen's property. 9. This development shall dedicate 10' drainage and utility easements centered over all common lot lines and adjacent to private property or public right-of-way. 10. This development shall dedicate all public right-of-way and temporary slope easements for ultimate development of adjacent roadways as required by the appropriate jurisdictional agency. 11. This development shall dedicate adequate drainage and ponding easements to incorporate the required high water elevation necessitated by City storm water storage volume requirements and area acceptable to the City Engineer. 12. All public streets and utilities necessary to provide service to this development shall be designed by a registered professional engineer in accordance with City Codes and engineering standards, guidelines and policies. 13. To ensure that Walgreen's will retain access to Diffley Road with future subdivision of the subject site, the developer shall provide a copy of time access easement affording Walgreen's access to Diffley Road for review and approval by the City Attorney prior to release of the plat and Planned Development agreements for recording. 14. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion, and sediment control plan must be prepared in accordance with current City standards prior to final plat approval. 15. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted on the proposed grading plan. The financial guarantee shall be provided in the form of a letter of credit in an amount equivalent to the cost of plant materials plus installation, as calculated by the City, and shall cover two full calendar years subsequent to the completion of the landscaping as provided in the approved landscape plan and shall be released only upon inspection and written notice of conformance by the City. 16. City water quality requirements shall be met primarily through construction of an on-site pond on the east end of the parcel. This pond shall have a minimum treatment volume of 1.5 acre-feet and a maximum depth ck QTY Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes October 6, 2005 Page 8 of 10 feet. To account for the 1.04 acres of the site that drain off site to city streets without stormwater treatment, cash in lieu of ponding shall be paid at the rates in effect at the time of payment. 17. The applicant shall submit a revised Tree Mitigation Plan that shows the mitigation plantings separate from the Landscape Plan. This revised plan shall be submitted to City staff for review and approval by the City Forester prior to inclusion in the Preliminary PD Agreement. 18. The proposed Grading Plan must be revised to incorporate berming along Diffley Road. 19. The developer shall review the Landscape Plan and revise it as necessary to address the following issues: a. Selection of plants and use of taller narrower evergreen materials along the south boundary for solid screening and appropriate size and tolerance for growing conditions. b. Potential conflicts between parking lot island trees and site lighting. c. Designation of mitigation plantings in addition to landscape plantings. d. Added shrub and/or perennial beds along Diffley Road. 20. The site lighting plan shall be reviewed and calculations clarified or lighting modified to better achieve the IESNA recommended standards for light levels and uniformity necessary for security and safety, and to reduce light spillover onto adjacent residential property. 21. Additional shielding or adjustments in the proposed lighting shall be made to achieve the 1.0 footcandle or less at all points along the development where it abuts residential property. 22. The proposed grocery building elevations shall be modified to utilize brick as the primary exterior material rather than EIFS. 23. There shall be no signage on the cart corrals, and all shopping carts shall be retrieved from the corrals and stored within the building overnight. 24. Awnings on the two retail buildings shall be a canvas or Sunbrella material and shall not be illuminated and shall contain no signage. 25. Hours of operation for the grocery store and other commercial businesses shall be restricted to between 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m.(midnight). 26. Parking lot lighting shall be dimmed at night to a minimum agreeable with Eagan PD. 27. Storage of any kind outside of the westerly building (Rademacher's) is prohibited. 28. Replacement of all diseased or dying landscaping is required for the life of the project. 29. The developer shall install a decorative fence along the southerly property line. 30. The developer shall dedicate 75% of the cost of the future semaphore ($187,500). 31. Grading operations shall occur only between 9:30 am and 3:00 pm. 32. The developer shall provide flagmen during grading operations. 33. Constriction operations shall cease at 9:00 pm. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — RAMONA RODRIGUEZ City Administrator Hedges introduced this item regarding a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the 25% impervious surface maximum in a Shoreland Overlay District for a four season porch addition on property located at 1325 Carlson Lake Lane. City Planner Ridley gave a staff report. Councilmember Maguire moved, Councilmember Tilley seconded a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the 25% impervious surface maximum in a Shoreland Overlay District for a four season porch addition on property located at 1325 Carlson Lake Lane in the NW '/ of Section 27; subject to the following conditions: Aye: 5 Nay: 0 1. This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded at Dakota County within 60 days of approval by the City Council. 2. The impervious surface can not exceed 29%. 3. A landscape management plan and landscape plan shall be developed and implemented in consultation with the Soil and Water Conservation District and the City of Eagan prior to issuance of a building permit. COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT — OAK HILLS CHURCH ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING EAGAN, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 5, 2005 CITY ATTORNEY CITY ADMINISTRATOR DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Item 1. Item 2. Redevelopment District Update Development/Construction Activity City of Eapll demo TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: OCTOBER 5, 2005 SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA / OCTOBER 6, 2005 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY ATTORNEY There will be a brief Executive Session for the purpose of considering a matter of litigation. CITY ADMINISTRATOR There are no items at this time. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS There are no items at this time. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Item 1. Redevelopment District Update — Staff is providing regular updates to the City Council regarding the City's redevelopment districts as a part of each administrative agenda. In addition to the information enclosed on page 39 (, staff will be available to provide comments or respond to questions relative to the redevelopment projects at Tuesday's meeting. Item 2. Development/Construction Activity — Per the Council's request, Community Development staff will provide bi-weekly updates of larger development and construction activity. The current update is enclosed on page /s/ Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator 39D 411° City of Eagan Memo TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: OCTOBER 3, 2005 SUBJECT: REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ACTIVITY UPDATE The following update reflects activity in the City's redevelopment districts. Cedar Grove Redevelopment District • Schafer Richardson Ryland Development Agreement — The Finance Committee and staff have reviewed updated proposals to resolve remaining issues to permit a proposed development agreement to be presented for EDA and Council consideration. The Committee has set a deadline of October 18 to have an agreement in concept completed. Staff and the developer have met on September 20 and 29 and will meet on October 4 to work toward this deadline. • Affordable Housing — The developer's revised proposal commits to a 20% affordable housing component, with the workforce rental component to be constructed by the CDA. The developer, City staff and CDA staff have been meeting to identify an acceptable affordable housing goal and structure for the project. • Acquisition and Relocation Plans — Discussions are continuing with several property owners regarding City acquisitions from willing sellers within the area. A number of property owners are actively pursuing alternative sites. • Communications Activities — The Cedar Grove Gateway, the monthly newsletter update, is being distributed to businesses in the area. Website updates also continue. • Development Outside the Core Area - Construction continues on the River Ridge Condominiums, Schwans Distribution Facility and the Opus Office Warehouse. Northeast Eagan Redevelopment District • Grand Oaks Development — Construction is well underway for the office building, bank and retail center at the intersection of Hwys 149 and 55. The first tenants are expected to move into the new office building in mid-October. Staff understands that TMI has vacated the triangle building and relocated to its Terminal Drive property as of September 30. • McGough Office Project — Notices are being prepared for the public hearing to consider the development agreement for the McGough office project at the EDA meeting on November 1. • Retail Development Potential — DART Transit, the owner of a substantial number of the properties in the portion of the District south of Hwy 55 has indicated an intention to prepare a development/redevelopment plan for that part of the district. Southeast Eagan Masterplan • Under the predevelopment agreement with Revestors and Manley Development, staff has begun to meet with area property owners and is coordinating the substandard analysis of the improved properties in the area with LHB, previously approved by the EDA. 4111° City of Eaall TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mos Jon Hohenstein, Community Development Director Dale Schoeppner, Chief Building Official Mike Ridley, City Planner October 3, 2005 Development/Construction Activity Update The following update reflects recent activity in the Building and Planning Divisions. Permits Issued Address ➢ 2864 Eagandale Blvd > 1227 Northwood Pkwy > 3285 Northwood Cir > 3575 Lexington Ave > 1245 Trapp Rd ➢ 860 Blue Gentian Rd Explanation US Food Service Eagan Dental Assoc American Healthways Duckwood Apartments Global Mail Orbit System Upcoming Development Items Valuation Type $443,000 Reroof $427,000 Int Impr $425,000 Int Impr $320,000 Fire Repair $150,000 Int Impr $100,000 Int Impr ➢ Comcast is interested in finding an Eagan site to accommodate their Southeast Technical Operations Center. Staff will be working with Comcast to establish their needs and to assist with determining a suitable location. > Staff is also working with MFC Properties on a potential office expansion on Washington Drive; surveying and other site plan work have been completed and an application is expected this month or next. Staff will be happy to provide a brief overview of these items and/or respond to questions at Tuesday's meeting. As always, staff is available between meetings to respond to questions that may come to Council members' attention from the community. 3Qa 411'' City of Eaaall memo TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: OCTOBER 5, 2005 SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION / OCTOBER 6, 2005 CITY COUNCIL MEETING NEW BUSINESS Item B. Preliminary Planned Development and Final Planned Development—Reliance Development / Diffley Marketplace — Enclosed on pages 94A through 94C is a staff memo dated October 5, 2005 summarizing deviations, conditional uses, and mitigating elements of the proposed planned development. The City continues to receive correspondence from residents regarding the proposed Diffley Marketplace development. Enclosed on pages 281A through 281L is correspondence that the City received between Friday, September 30 and noon on Wednesday, October 5. Item C. Conditional Use Permit—Ramona Rodriguez — Enclosed on page 293A are the September 27, 2005 Advisory Planning Commission meeting minutes pertaining to this item. Item D. Comprehensive Guide Amendment—Oak Hills Church — Enclosed on page 304A are the September 27, 2005 Advisory Planning Commission meeting minutes pertaining to this item. Enclosed on pages 304B and 304C is additional correspondence received from the Treasurer of Oak Hills Church. Item E. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment—Delta Development/ Correction — The required vote for approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment requires a 415th majority, and thus, four votes would be needed to approve the submittal of the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment. The cover memo on Page 305 inadvertently states a simple majority of the Council is needed, as opposed to the 415th requirement. Enclosed on Pages 318A and 318B are the September 27, 2005 Advisory Planning Commission meeting minutes pertaining to this item. Item F. Planned Development / La Quinta Inns, Inc. — Enclosed on Pages 351A through 351D are the September 27, 2005 Advisory Planning Commission meeting minutes pertaining to this item. Item G. Planned Development / Larson Properties — Enclosed on Pages 370A through 370C are the September 27, 2005 Advisory Planning Commission meeting minutes pertaining to this item. /s/ Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator 44111 City of Evan Meo To: Mike Ridley, City Planner From: Pamela Dudziak, Planner Date: October 5, 2005 Subject: Diffley Marketplace Proposal 10/6/05 City Council Agenda - New Business Item B As you requested, this memo summarizes the deviations from typical NB zoning requirements and the requested conditional uses that are included in the Diffley Marketplace proposal. The first table identifies the deviations and the second table lists those items that are typically considered conditional uses in the NB zoning district for which approval is requested in the Diffley Marketplace Preliminary Planned Development. I have also included some relevant definitions excerpted from the City Code. The last part of the memo summarizes some of the things that this developer is proposing above and beyond the City's typical zoning requirements, and mitigating elements that are included in the proposal. DEVIATIONS PROPOSED CODE REQUIRES Parking/pavement setbacks 15' from north lot line (abutting Diffley Road) 20' parking/pavement setback required along public rights-of-way Building Height Most of building is 24-27' in height (varied roof line); entrance feature extends to 36'4" NB maximum building height is 30' Parking Stall Size Width: 9.5' width proposed Width: 10' wide required for all for grocery lot Depth: 18' stall depth uses Depth: 19' stall depth required for proposed for single -loaded rows of parking where overhang can occur all parking, single or double loaded Hours of Operation 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. (midnight) 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. within 200 feet of residential property Lots Multiple buildings on a single parcel are proposed in the Planned Development. (Designed for future subdivision into separate lots for each building) City Code allows only one building per parcel under straight zoning. CONDITIONAL USES REQUESTED CODE PROVISION Class II Restaurants and Phase I: 3 Class II Code allows both Class II Drive-through Facilities restaurants, one with a restaurants and drive - drive -through facility, in the through facilities with a two multi -tenant retail Conditional Use Permit in buildings. the NB zoning district. Phase II: 2 drive-through facilities, one a bank or credit union and the other a Class II restaurant, each as free-standing uses. Signage 3 free-standing signs. One monument sign under Monument style design, 2 7' in height is permitted for are 10' in height and 1 is each building. 18' in height. In the Diffley Marketplace The 18' sign is a shared proposal, 5 monument signs pylon for the three buildings could be constructed under in Phase I; also serves as a standard NB zoning. Pylon shopping center signs over 7' in height identification sign require a CUP. The two 10' signs serve the two buildings in Phase II and exceed the maximum 7' height allowed by City Code for a monument sign. DEFINITIONS Class II restaurant — Fast-food, drive-in, cafeteria, and carryout or delivery type restaurants. Class II restaurants include establishments that sell prepared and pre -prepared food and/or beverages directly to customers, without table service, for consumption on or off -premises. Class II restaurants may include a drive -up order, pick-up or delivery services. (Examples of Class II restaurants are McDonald's, Wendy's, Panera, Starbucks, Subway, Papa Johns, Quizno's, etc.) Drive-through Facility — An establishment which permits customers to receive services or obtain goods while remaining in their motor vehicles, excluding gasoline service stations. (Examples of typical drive-through facilities include some Class II restaurants, banks and credit unions, pharmacies, photo processing, etc.) Pylon Sign — A business sign erected on freestanding shafts, posts or walls which are solidly affixed to the ground, and which projects more than seven feet above ground level. (Requires a Conditional Use Permit in all zoning districts where allowed.) MITIGATING ELEMENTS Architecture — The proposal presents a unified architectural and site design with upgraded exterior building materials. The proposal satisfies a "60% brick/stone/glass" standard, which is not required by NB zoning. Signage — The proposal presents a unified and consolidated sign plan. Three free-standing signs are proposed, versus the five that would be allowed by the City Code. While some height deviation and a pylon sign are part of the proposal, the three signs do incorporate similar architectural features to present a consistent sign design and style. Landscaping/Buffers — The landscape proposal incorporates more intense landscaping and buffering on the south side of the development, adjacent to residential properties, than would be required under straight NB zoning. The developer is proposing a 25' foot setback along most of the southern boundary, whereas the Code requires only a 20' pavement setback. This allows more green space for planting and the creation of a more solid green buffer along the south property line. In order to provide this additional setback and buffer, the developer is asking for a reduced setback on the north side of the property, adjacent to Diffley Road. Pedestrian accommodations and other amenities — Decorative entrance features, consistent landscape elements throughout the development, cross -parking and internal vehicular circulation, and pedestrian connections to the neighborhood to the south and to the trail along Diffley Road as well as within the development have been provided. Class II Restaurants and Drive-through Facilities — The developer is proposing to restrict certain Class II restaurants within the development. While the City cannot prohibit certain businesses by name, the developer can establish restrictive covenants on the property that have the same effect. Site Lighting — The City Code does not have specific site lighting standards. Through the Planned Development, however, the City can require the use of the same light fixtures throughout the development, and the use of decorative fixtures and pedestrian lighting. The developer is proposing these things in the lighting plan, and is also providing special attention to shielding and of lights. The Planned Development incorporates a Site Lighting Plan for the entire development, resulting in consistent lighting throughout the site. From: Mira Pepper Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 8:30 AM To: 'Molle.Tubbs@welisfargo.com' Subject: RE: Diffley Marketplace Development Your message has been forwarded to the Mayor and City Council, as well as the Community Development Director. Thank you for your comments. From: Molle.Tubbs@wellsfargo.com [mailto:Molle.Tubbs@wellsfargo.com] Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 7:41 PM To: City Council Cc: s.kukulski@worldnet.att.net Subject: Diffley Marketplace Development Please forward to: Mayor Pat Geagan Council Members: Peggy Carlson, Cyndee Fields, Meg Tilley, Mike Maguire I am writing today to express my concerns regarding the Diffley Marketplace Development. I live on the corner of Lexington Pointe Parkway and Pointe Way. I have lived in my home for the past 7 years and have continued to make huge improvements in both my land and home. As a homeowner in the neighborhood that will be affected by this development I need to state that I am very apposed to a development of this size being built. My main concern is the increase in traffic, our neighborhood already has an issue with speeding on Lexington Pointe Parkway - the speed limit is rarely adhered to and even less patrolled by our local law enforcement. If this traffic is increased by this development I foresee this already ongoing issue to increase severely. This is neighborhood that was not built to handle any more traffic than it's homeowners bring to it's streets every day. It was not built to handle shoppers coming and going from a grocery store. This is a neighborhood street with very young children, families and pets walking on its roads during all hours of the day and evening. I often say I am on the walking path of Eagan living on my corner - this should not be taken away from the residents of our neighborhood due to the safety concerns and issues that will come with increased traffic. In addition to the traffic issues on Lexington Pointe Parkway - there are safety issues on Lexington Ave.. Already there are too many turn offs to streets, parks and businesses from this area of Lexington Ave.. When the park empties from an event it is already dangerous for cars, bikes and walkers to be in this area - I would imagine it would be like this at all times with the size of property that is being proposed. What will happen when the park empties and the traffic increases? I would like to request you vote NO to the Diffley Marketplace Development - please listen to your concerned citizens! Thank you for your time and consideration, A concerned Eagan resident, Molle Tubbs 979 Pointe Way Eagan, MN 55123 651-406-8113 www.molle.tubbs(c�wellsfargo.com Molle A. Tubbs Vice President Forward Hire Program Director 2BI A Metro Minnesota phone 612-667-6677 fax 612-667-3398 cellular 651-334-6213 WELLS FARGO RESTRICTED or CONFIDENTIAL. Not intended for use, reproduction, or further distribution outside of Wells Fargo & Company, or those without a business need -to -know. 2�� u From: Tom Kukulski[mailto:s.kukulski@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 5:40 PM To: Mike Hassett; City Council Cc: Tracie Hughes; Margaret Bums Subject: Re: Diffley Market Place Dear Mike, One reason Reliance delayed City Council action on the PD was because they claimed they were "doing a traffic study". I understand that Reliance has hired a "traffic" consultant but I am not aware of any traffic "study" underway by the developer. Keep in mind, the consutant is Reliance's "hired gun", retained to the refute the concerns of residents and to pursade the city and county that the traffic problems created by the proposed development "won't be so bad". I believe your concerns are right on target! John Trautz (Reliance) did meet with John Gorder (Eagan Assistant City Engineer), Kristi Sebastian of Dakota County and Ed Terhaar of Benshoof & Associates (Reliance's "traffic" consultant) several weeks ago. According to Mr. Trautz the meeting didn't go his way...According to Trautz, "The county isn't very flexible regarding traffic issues so I need to huddle with the city to figure out how to push them to do things that are satisfactory to the city, the neighbors and to me". I understand that the Dakota County will not allow "full access" at, or the signalization of the Diffley Marketplace 'main' entrance off Diffley Road. The county wants to maintain Daniel Drive as the only full access intersection on Diffley between Lexington Avenue and Braddock Trail. This will allow for a "controlled" crossing at Daniel Drive to Northview with a four-way stop or signalization when/if traffic conditions warrant. This is Northview Elementary's (i.e., School Distrcit 196)position as well. Reliance is going to tell the City Council that the County's position will force more than 4,100 vehicles per day to Daniel Road. This is not a consequence of the County's position; it is solely the result of the size of the grocery store and the scale of the development. Given the County's position, "site access remains very problematic" and the City Council needs to address the scale of the development to mitigate the problem. I understand that the County was logical in explaining its reasons for not allowing the "private entrance" to the development to be a signalized or four way stop intersection. Allowing a "full access entrance intersection" would be a "disbenefit to Diffley Road", significantly impeading traffic flow on Diffley and reducing the LOS (i.e., level of service) of the roadway. The County's position is based on well established design standards for effective traffic management and the best interest of the surrounding community. There really isn't anything further the City should do...or can do to make it more "satisfactory" to anyone but the developer so we all still need to voice our concerns about the development at the City Council meeting next week. If the development's "entrance" is full access, Daniel Drive would be designated "restricted" and limited to right turn into Daniel from east bound Diffley Road and right turn out to east bound Diffley Road. A left turn into Daniel Drive from west bound Diffley Road may be allowed as a "variance" but no left turn from Daniel Drive to west bound Diffley will be allowed. Now this may sound like good news for Daniel Drive residents but the scale of the development will still cause significant traffic problems on Daniel Drive. According to the City's Planning Department, traffic on Daniel Drive will about double to more than 2,500 trips per day if the development is built. ZS C If area residents don't support the entrance as full access, traffic and site access remain issues for the developer to address (i.e., reduce the size of the grocery store)...not a guaranteed traffic problem for all of us to deal with. If residents speak in support of the developer's request for a full access entrance on Diffley Road at the Council Meeting, the PD gains significant momentum towards approval. I don't know if the City can dissuade the County from their position and it would be reckless of the City to approve such intense development on a site without a "main entrance". I don't believe that the proposed development can gain the Council's approval unless the Diffley Road entrance is full access. So without "supporting" the development, if the development gets approved there has to be a "full access" main entrance and Daniel Drive will be restricted...I am confident that the City Council will act responsibly and deny approval of the PD. Please call me with any questions, 905-0470 Sincerely, Tom Kukulski Original Message From: Mike Hassett To: citvcouncil(a�citvofeagan.com Cc: Tracie Hughes ; Margaret Burns ; s.kukulski(a�worldnet.att.net Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 2:15 PM Subject: Fw: Diffley Market Place Please forward this email to the Mayor and all city council members. To: Mayor Pat Geagan Council Members: Peggy Carlson, Cyndee Fields, Meg Tilley, Mike Maguire From : Mike Hassett 4237 Daniel Dr Eagan, MN. 55123 Dear Mayor Geagan and City Council Members, On Thursday, October 6th, a proposal commonly referred to as Diffley Marketplace will be coming before the council for approval. As a neighbor of this development I have some concerns about the traffic impact to the surrounding area. I shared the planning report data provided by the developer with a person that does traffic forecasting and modeling for a living. Attached is a document that raises some concerns she has with the traffic information that has been provided. A few key points: - The traffic section shows a lot of data for existing and projected traffic, but it does not reference the study that was done to provide ZgID this data. Has a detailed traffic impact analysis been done? If not, how do we know if the data is accurate? - The traffic section lists average daily trips, but has no data on peak traffic levels. A peak traffic study must be conducted to determine the full effect of this development on surrounding streets. - It is possible the carrying capacity of Daniel Dr. will be exceeded as a result of the increased traffic this size development will bring. - Why have an outlet onto Daniel Dr.? Daniel is a neighborhood collector street, I am not aware of any similarly sized development in Eagan that uses a neighborhood collector street as a major entrance. Is there one? If yes, please identify it. - There is nothing in the planning report about traffic mitigation plans for Daniel Dr. If this development is allowed to go forward, with access to Daniel Dr., there is no question the traffic will increase tremendously, and yet, there are no plans to control this? I feel at a minimum a more detailed traffic analysis needs to be conducted to more accurately measure the drive by traffic as it exists today. Then a study to predict the traffic impact of this development would have a true base line to work from. From there it can be determined if the increase in traffic can be safely accommodated. If not, then perhaps this proposed development is just to large and a scaled down retail development is more in order. Respectfully, Mike Hassett 4237 Daniel Dr. Eagan, MN. 55123 651-683-9711 2ThE From: Mira Pepper Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 8:15 AM To: 'Mike Hassett' Subject: RE: Diffley Market Place Your message has been forwarded to the Mayor and City Council, as well as the Community Development Director. Thank you for your comments. From: Mike Hassett [mailto:mike9711@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 2:15 PM To: City Council Cc: Tracie Hughes; Margaret Burns; s.kukulski@worldnet.att.net Subject: Fw: Diffley Market Place Please forward this email to the Mayor and all city council members. To: Mayor Pat Geagan Council Members: Peggy Carlson, Cyndee Fields, Meg Tilley, Mike Maguire From : Mike Hassett 4237 Daniel Dr Eagan, MN. 55123 Dear Mayor Geagan and City Council Members, On Thursday, October 6th, a proposal commonly referred to as Diffley Marketplace will be coming before the council for approval. As a neighbor of this development I have some concerns about the traffic impact to the surrounding area. I shared the planning report data provided by the developer with a person that does traffic forecasting and modeling for a living. Attached is a document that raises some concerns she has with the traffic information that has been provided. A few key points: - The traffic section shows a lot of data for existing and projected traffic, but it does not reference the study that was done to provide this data. Has a detailed traffic impact analysis been done? If not, how do we know if the data is accurate? - The traffic section lists average daily trips, but has no data on peak traffic levels. A peak traffic study must be conducted to determine the full effect of this development on surrounding streets. - It is possible the carrying capacity of Daniel Dr. will be exceeded as a result of the increased traffic this size development will bring. - Why have an outlet onto Daniel Dr.? Daniel is a neighborhood collector street, I am not aware of any similarly sized development in Eagan that uses a neighborhood collector street as a major entrance. Is there one? If yes, please identify it. - There is nothing in the planning report about traffic mitigation plans for Daniel Dr. If this development is allowed to go forward, with access to Daniel Dr., there is no question the traffic will increase tremendously, and yet, there are no plans to control this? I feel at a minimum a more detailed traffic analysis needs to be conducted to more accurately measure the drive by traffic as it exists today. Then a study to predict the traffic impact of this development would have a true base line to work from. From there it can be determined if the increase in traffic can be safely accommodated. If not, then perhaps this proposed development is just to large and a scaled down retail development is more in order. Respectfully, Mike Hassett 4237 Daniel Dr. Eagan, MN. 55123 651-683-9711 2,$) C� From: Mira Pepper Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 1:56 PM To: Tracie Hughes' Subject: RE: Diffley Marketplace. Your message has been forwarded to the Mayor and City Council as well as the Community Development Director. Thank you for your comments. From: Tracie Hughes [mailto:traciehughes@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 1:32 PM To: City Council Subject: Diffley Marketplace. I realize that you probably have been overloaded with e-mails and information regarding this subject. I just have some concerns that I would like to pass on to the City Council for consideration before the October 6th meeting. Through neighborhood meetings and communications, the residence of Daniel Drive have been working together in our approach to the Diffley Marketplace proposal. Some things that have been shared with me concern me enough to bring it to your attention. Certain Council members have been contacted by members of our neighborhood. Some willing to listen and others who have already made up their minds before hearing any information brought to them on October 6th. There have been some conflicting facts that concern me about decisions being made prior to the meeting on the 6th. No one seems to know what purpose the Daniel Drive access is to serve. One council member stated that it was always meant to be a main access point, yet the city engineer stated the opposite. Who are we supposed to believe and who has the correct information? As Eagan residents, we need to know who we can go to for the right and proper information. A council member has also been quoted as saying "Doesn't the Daniel Drive access point ONLY affect 2 houses?" My question to you is how many residents of Eagan does something need to affect for it to be an issue to the City Council? And has anyone considered the fact that traffic will go both north and south on Daniel Drive and affect everyone in this neighborhood. The same council member was also quoted as saying thatshe "legally didn't think she had the right to tell the developer how to use this property since he was the owner and that he should be able to use it how he sees fit." If that is so, how come the City of Eagan can tell my neighbor that he cannot build a storage shed/garage behind his property? Isn't that his property and isn't the City telling him how to use it? Once again, thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Tracie Hughes 4225 Daniel Drive 651-905-0943 traciehughes(a)comcast.net 12 I Pam Dudziak From: neil-rad@comcast.net Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 7:22 AM To: Jon Hohenstein Subject: Diffley Marketplace Comments To: Please forward to all Eagan City Council Members and Mayor Page 1 of 2 while I am looking forward to the development of Diffley Marketplace, I have some serious questions, comments, and concerns I strongly ask you consider before voting to proceed with this planned development. The following is a list of concerns and objections as a homeowner and parent of 2 children in the very nearby schools in the direct adjacent neighborhood: 1) TRAFFIC/School Proximity is problematic: Serious concem here to limit size and scope of traffic from the new development to be reasonable with the nearby area. We have 3 schools that directly affect the traffic flow on Diffley: a) Northview elementary (directly across the street): Currently adding on a school expansion, also includes a large number of baseball fields, football and soccer fields/games also held at Northview with very heavy usage in that the parking often goes across the street into the current frontage road to Walgreens (within the proposed development). In addition to the kids that are bused there, there is still a substantial amount of car, bicycle and children foot traffic due to: an early AM daycare drop off, children walking and biking to school from neighborhoods to the south, parents dropping off kids to school in car lines on regular and more on rain days, and early am activities such as regular band practices before school starts. To say that the kids are all bused there is NOT TRUE. There are lines off Diffley, Daniel Drive area to enter the school every morning, none of which are buses, which use the west entrance. This is already a safety issue, added more or excessive traffic from the new proposed development would make it worse, not improve it. b) Dakota Hillsa Middle School (DHMS): has a larger enrollment vs the elementary. Auto traffic runs peak from 7:25 to 7:55am, and consistently backs up on Diffley from Braddock Trail stoplight. In addition to busses and parent drop offs, we also have children walking and biking to and from school. c) Eagan High School: (EHS) is much larger is size, with Auto traffic runs peak from 7:00 - 7:35am, with significant traffic backups from Braddock Trial (stoplights) back thru the Diffley / Daniel Drive intersection. d) New intersection essestially created from the exit from the proposed development onto Daniel Drive. This would result in 2 major intersections very close (with feet of each other), similar to 5 corners. Can a study / reasonable projection be made to assess the Daniel Drive and Diffley impact? Suggest the planned development be scaled back accordingly. 2) 100% tree removal of the large mature trees on the east side of development, not consistent with saving the greenery, preserving a portion of trees was ignored instead of maintaining or improving with the nearby area with some buffer on the east side. 3) The Proposed Grocery Store at 43,175 sq ft at 3x the size of Walgreens is grossly oversized. I suggest a more reasonable and appropriate size for the location and impact area, say maximum up to 30,000 square feet. 4) Development proposed to support a total of 360 parking cars, which is highly excessive for that small strip of land 10/03/2005 Page 2 of 2 5) If outlet is set to divert traffic on to Daniel Drive without a traffic study, something is wrong. this Road already services almost an entire set of neighborhoods, and will only get excessive with regular traffic, directly in line with bus routes and local congested traffic from all THREE schools as mentioned above. This is a heavy convergence of children in this area, which makes it very unique. 6) A southern service road 20 feet from Wildflower residences is very inappropriate (and I don't even live there). I the planning commission member indicated, proposal would have traffic from Walgreens to thru the parking spaces?? the existing frontage road acts as a safety buffer to the 4 lane traffic on Diffley Ave, and it should stay AS IS for safety reasons. 7) Two add'l 10,000 size retail buildings (or 20,000) also seem way too large for the planned development, again, suggest downsizing of the project to help lower the traffic and # of parking slots needed. 8) Lumping in 3 Class 2 Restaurants is not appropriate (like writing a blank check), if 1 or 2 "end up" with high volume fast food, major impact to the small area in excess of original plan. 9) Suggest a significant downsizing with ample buffering and safety provisions, with preservation of trees and consideration to local surroundings. Conclusion: Scale of proposed project is not compatible with nearby neighborhood, including impact from all 3 schools. We live in the neighborhood behind Wildflower at 4406 Braddock Trail, with Daniel Drive inlet street and schools/kids/bikes as a major concern our family and kids, and the many other children in the area. Sincerely, Neil and Jodi Radermacher 651-452-3730 Zcz, 10/03/2005 From: Christine Hansen [mailto:engmajor@comcast.net) Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 1:22 PM To: City Council Subject: Diffley Marketplace Dear Mayor and City Council members: My name is Christine Hansen and I live at 4221 Daniel Drive. I have previously contacted you with my traffic concerns regarding the proposed Diffley Marketplace development. Since then, I have heard on a number of occassions that Northview school has opined that they would prefer a full access to the development at Diffley and Daniel Drive. I called Kathy Carl, principal at Northview and queried her about this statement that was being attributed to the school. She repeatedly told me that the policy of district 196 is to "have no opinion" regarding proposed developments in school neighborhoods. I can only conclude from this that the school and any opinion expressed by any one in authority there, should be disregarded. Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter, Christine Hansen ZS I K From: Dave Berdahl [mailto:Dave.Berdahl@agribank.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 8:31 AM To: City Council Subject: Diffley/Lexington Proposed Development I would like to address my concerns about the proposed development at Diffley and Lexington. I like on 993 Trillium Court, and the area in question is just beyond my back yard. 1) Size and Scale: Nowhere in all of Eagan, that I can think of, is there a major business development so close to residential neighborhoods and a public school. The amount of traffic and direct impact on the area will be much greater than a smaller strip mall, which this size plot is more scaled for. Furthermore, the developer knew full well that they plot was not reasonable for the scale of the land. At every turn, they are asking for special exceptions regarding height, parking lot size, tree removal, access points, etc. They are simple trying to do too much in a plot that size. 2) Drive thru restaurants: I have heard through meeting with our neighborhood association and the developers that they are now looking for 4 restaurants with drive thru service. If they follow the same plan of their prior proposal, the drive thru traffic will come in along our property lines. Can you imagine the amount of noise and distraction outside the building from drive thru service 20-40' from our homes? Never again will we be able to have a quiet night on our deck without the squawking of speakers and rumble of cars/stereos. Again, no other residences or neighborhoods in Eagan are subjected to this type of severe business impact. 3) 24 operation: The grocery store will have 24 hour activity. Their will be stocking, bakery, cashiers and other employees accessing the building 24 hours a day. As someone who wakes to the sound of football already in the fall at Northview every Saturday morning, trust me, noise really carries with no leaves on the trees. I purchased this house just over 2 1/2 years ago. We fell in love with Eagan, the schools, the easy access to both downtowns, the multiple entry/exit options, the general layout of businesses in one area and residences in another. After we decided to put and offer down, we were told that the area north of our property was zoned commercial "planned development". We took a second look, and did some research. We went forth with the confidence that at most, there was room for a small strip mall and businesses that would work with the nearby residences and not be imposing on them. This development would be a departure from the general pattern that Eagan has established for growth. Please do not subject our quiet neighborhood to the level of traffic and distractions that no other residences of Eagan are. Thank you, Dave Berdahl This communication is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). It may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure, and that may be subject to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, as amended. If you are not the intended recipient, any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify me immediately by telephone and/or reply e-mail and destroy this message and attachments. City of Eagan Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 27, 2005 Page 2 New Business A. Carlson Lake Lane Applicant Name: Ramona Rodriguez Location: 1325 Carlson Lake Lane; Lot 3, Block 4, Wilderness Run 4th Add Application: Conditional Use Permit A Conditional Use Permit to exceed the 25% maximum impervious surface allowed for shoreland overlay of Carlson Lake to allow a 4 season porch on a single family home. File Number: 27 -CU -13-08-05 Planner Cartney introduced this item and highlighted the information presented in the City Staff report dated September 12, 2005. She noted the background and history. Chair Heyl opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Heyl closed the public hearing and turned the discussion back to the Commission. Chair Heyl stated concern regarding the scenario if all houses were allowed to exceed 25 percent impervious surface. City Planner Ridley explained that in the 1970's, the homes were constructed with 20 percent building coverage, impervious surface was not regulated. With changes to the properties it is possible that some homes exceed 25 percent impervious lot coverage. Chair Heyl suggested that a landscaping plan and topographical map be prepared prior to the City Council review due to the steep slope and increased impervious surface. Member Hansen moved, Member Dugan seconded a motion to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the 25% impervious surface maximum by 4% for a porch addition to property located at 1325 Carlson Lake Lane in the NW '/4 of Section 27 subject to the following conditions: 1. This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded at Dakota County within 60 days of approval by the City Council. 2. The impervious surface can not exceed 29%. 3. A landscape management plan and landscape plan shall be developed and implemented in consultation with the Soil and Water Conservation district and the City of Eagan prior to issuance of a building permit. A vote was taken: Aye: Members Bendt, Chavez, Dugan, Gladhill, Hansen, and Keeley. Nay: Chair Heyl. Motion carried 6-1. City of Eagan Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 27, 2005 Page 3 B. Oak Hills Church Applicant Name: Oak Hills Church Location: 1570 Yankee Doodle Road; Lot 1, Block 1, Oak Hills Church Application: Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment A Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from QP Quasi -Public to LD Low Density upon 0.94 acres to create 2 single family Tots. File Number: 16 -CG -03-04-05 Planner Dudziak introduced this item and highlighted the information presented in the City Staff report dated September 21, 2005. She noted the background and history. Gary D. Embretson, Oak Hills Church Treasurer, discussed the distributed letter dated September 24, 2005 addressed to Planner Dudziak. Chair Heyl opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Heyl closed the public hearing and turned the discussion back to the Commission. Staff and the Commission members discussed the drainage/utility easement and possible traffic conflicts. Chair Heyl stated that two new homes along with landscaping, and completion of the trail would be a good addition to the property/area. Member Bendt moved, Member Hansen seconded a motion to recommend approval of a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from QP, Quasi -Public, to LD, Low Density, upon approximately 0.94 acres located at the southwest corner of the property at 1570 Yankee Doodle Road (east of Coachman Road opposite the entrance to the City Maintenance Facility), in the NW 1/4 of Section 16. All voted in favor. Motion carried 7-0. September 24, 2005 Ms. Pam Dudziak City of Eagan Planning Department 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122-1897 Re: Oak Hills Church Application for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment Dear Ms. Dudziak: On behalf of Oak Hills Church we wanted to provide our supporting position on why it is appropriate to approve the requested Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for our project. We recognize that the City of Eagan has already previously amended the guide plan for our project, but there is a good story behind our request at this time. First, let me explain the cause. I know that precedent is not affected by "why" we might want to propose this change but it is important to know what we are trying to do. The addition of two residential lots next to the church facility would allow for the construction of homes that could be used for missionaries that are home on furlough for one year. In the Assemblies of God denomination, missionaries are sent worldwide for a number of years and then come home for a year while they raise support funds. These missionaries have sold their homes and all their possessions to be on the mission field. These homes would allow them a comfortable home base during the year they are visiting churches and raising their support funds. It also allows them a stable base for that year if they have school age children. By offering this housing to missionaries, the church will benefit by having them assist in ministry support functions on a part time basis. The missionaries will benefit from the great support structure the City has to offer; schools, retail, etc. The church is committed to providing this assistance to missionaries. The altemative to this proposed development (if it is not approved) is simply buying an existing house in the adjacent neighborhood. Of course this would be a more expensive option. Also, if two lots were approved, the church would have the option of selling one lot to help support the construction costs. It is important to note that all funds from the original church property and the proposed development come from donated money of the church members (Currently almost half of the 400 members are Eagan residents). It is the Church's fiduciary responsibility to manage these funds in the best way possible. Existing and adjacent property should be utilized before any other option. Second, during the approval process for the original Church property, the building committee discussed submitting the plans, which included the two residential lots. It was determined that this would add complexity and time to the completion process. The church raised approximately $ 1 million from its members for the construction of the church, but had no additional funds for the construction of the residential lots. As a result, the committee felt that the approval of these lots could be done at a later date. As a member of that committee I hope I didn't make what is now thought to be a tactical mistake simply because of timing and funding. SOLI 5 tce.1. lred a\ e yVt`a 4iIan tvs Ms. Pam Dudziak September 24, 2005 Page 2 of 2 Third, an option was discussed at the City Council meeting for the vacation of the drainage and utility easement on the property of giving the church a conditional use permit to build homes. We do not believe that this is in the best interest of the Church or the City. The church building was designed in a way that if sold, could be used for other purposes: community center, office or other commercial or retail purposes (It doesn't look like a church). Two new homes that are not able to be sold as separate lots would have little value to a new buyer and would not allow the church to recover the costs of the homes. It would not be a prudent financial decision for the members of the church providing these funds. While we fully intend to be in the community at this location for a long time, it is never good to be locked into a situation that might be considered a mistake down the road. You never know what could happen. Fourth, this development is a natural extension of the existing conditions of the land. The church property is adjacent to Yankee Doodle Road, but this proposed land is adjacent to an existing neighborhood that would have been developed by the original developer if it had been part of that land quadrant. We have brought a map to show you that this is not just "taking a chink of land" and making it residential. It will fit very nicely into what exists. In fact, the conditions today are even more conducive to "fitting" with existing conditions. The new Lundgren development to the immediate west now extends residential living to the whole quadrant except for the city maintenance facility. We have contacted the homeowner adjacent to this property and they are supportive of our proposal. They see it as an extension of the development, they will no longer be first on the road, and potentially the conditions will cause people to slow down sooner as they enter the residential area. I think we could provide some benefit to the City if this was approved. First, the church would consider providing the city a conservation easement for the remaining area. You can't find a pond in Eagan that is more beautiful and with the addition of the Manley Brothers conservation easement for the other side of the pond; this would square off the entire area. We would also provide our proportional amount of the funds for the completion of the sidewalk that was proposed on the east side of Coachman Road if this project were approved. We can't tell you how important this is to us but also to all the members of the church. You would be providing a great service to us and the missionaries who will live there if this is approved. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Oak Hills Church Gary D. Embretson Treasurer C: Pastor Rod Carlson, OHC Paul B. Danielson (OHC Building Committee Member) 309C City of Eagan Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 27, 2005 Page 4 C. Delta Development Inc. Applicant Name: Delta Development Inc. Location: 4145 & 4135 Old Sibley Hwy; Lot 1 & 2, Block 1, Preusse 2nd Addition Application: Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment A Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from IND Industrial to MD Medium Density Residential. File Number: 19 -CG -04-08-05 Planner Cartney introduced this item and highlighted the information presented in the City. Staff report dated September 16, 2005. She noted the background and history. Mark Parranto, Delta Development Inc., displayed drawings of the proposed development and discussed the request for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment. He described the property and why residential makes sense in this location Chair Heyl opened the public hearing. Dave Kalschewr, Pinnacle Properties, stated that he was not notified of this application and suggested that the applicant look into squaring off the triangular portions of the adjoining Tots. here being no further public comment, Chair Hey( closed the public hearing and turned the discussion back to the Commission. Chair Heyl explained that new housing in this area is not logical due to the Met Council established airport noise zones and the proposed runway addition. She agrees that the views are nice, but housing is not the best long range plan for this location with the additional arrivals and departures on the North/South runway. She suggested that it may make sense to see the actual impact of this runway before the land use designation is changed. Heyl also said this development does not meet the standard City Code criteria laid out in the staff report that is necessary for approval. Member Gladhill agreed with Chair Heyl and stated concern that the proposed development would create an island of homes in a largely industrial area. He also stated that Eagan does not have a shortage of the proposed housing type. Member Hansen stated the proposal has been well described in regard to the easement and the buildings are configured around the easement effectively. He stated it is an extension of the neighboring townhomes and the houses could be built in the same manner as those across the street. He said it is difficult to distinguish the difference between the townhomes to the south and this development and why it would be different. Member Keeley referred to the City policies listed in the Staff Report, particularly number three. She stated the City realizes the noise impacts and should discourage the construction. She agreed with Chair Heyl. 5\ S PC City of Eagan Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 27, 2005 Page 5 Member Bendt stated his agreement with Chair Hey! and stated additional housing should not be approved in these high noise zones, particularly before the true impact of the north/south runway is realized. Member Dugan moved, Member Chavez seconded a motion to recommend denial of a Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment to change the land use from Business Park to Medium Density Residential on 4.8 acres, Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 Preusse 2"d Addition due to the following reasons: 1. Does not meet the criteria for a Comprehensive Guild Plan Amendment in that it is not in the best interest of City due to the current airport noise and additional future noise. 2. The proposal would create an isolated island of homes in an industrial area. 3. Lack of need to introduce housing in this specific location. 4. The proposal does not meet the criteria set forth on page five of the Staff Report. A vote was taken: Aye: Chair Heyl, Members Bendt, Chavez, Dugan, Gledhill, and Keeley. Nay: Member Hansen. Motion carried 6-1. 348 City of Eagan Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 27, 2005 Page 6 D. La Quinta Inns Applicant Name: La Quinta Inns, Inc Location: Outlot C of Eagan Woods Office Park Application: Rezoning A Rezoning from T Transitional to PD Planned Development. File Number: 04-RZ-04-08-05 Application: Planned Development Amendment A Planned Development Amendment to expand the Planned Development to adjacent property and change the approved use from restaurant to hotel. File Number: 04 -PA -10-08-05 Application: Final Planned Development A Final Planned Development to build a 152 room 5 -story hotel on 2.88 acres. File Number: 04 -FD -14-08-05 Planner Dudziak introduced this item and highlighted the information presented in the City Staff report dated September 21, 2005. She noted the background and history. Maurice Taitt, La Quinta Inns, Inc., explained the La Quinta hotel concept and stated this would be the first La Quinta property in Minnesota. He explained the following benefits to the city -- access, consolidation of two parcels, no pylon signage, brick and glass exterior, 152 quality rooms, and trail connection. He asked that conditions 10, 11, and 13 be amended as follows: 10. Building signage shall be limited to two elevations. *Requested the condition be amended to allow building signage on three elevations. 11. The monument sign shall comply with all City Code requirements (in particular size limits and setback standards). *Requested that the sign be allowed to exceed the four feet in height. Mr. Taitt indicated that the sign proposed is a corporate standard and the smallest monument they have. The next smallest is only about 2' x 3' in size and more of a directional sign than an business identification monument. 13. The monument sign area shall not exceed four feet in height and shall not consist of an internally lit cabinet. * Requested that the sign be an internally lit cabinet. The sign cabinet proposed has an opaque green background with translucent white letters and the banner illuminated from within the cabinet. With the opaque background, the sign would be dark and only the letters would be illuminated, not the entire cabinet. Chair Heyl opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Heyl closed the public hearing and turned the discussion back to the Commission. City of Eagan Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 27, 2005 Page 7 John Bourassa, Engineer for La Quinta, discussed the landscaping and tree mitigation plans as submitted in the Staff Report. Kara Holm, HG2 Architects displayed color elevations and exterior materials samples. Staff and the Commission discussed the signage of the Corporate Woods property to the north of Buffet Way and concurred that the two should have matching monument features. Member Bendt stated he was in favor of the illuminated cabinet signage for this type of use — a nighttime commercial use versus a daytime office use. Member Gladhill agreed that the sign should be illuminated however stated he was opposed to the increase in the monument sign height. Assistant City Engineer John Gorder explained that this proposal would eliminate two existing curb cuts onto Pilot Knob Road and that the plan to eliminate direct accesses to Pilot Knob Road was started several years ago with the McNally Addition plat (Collector's Paradise) with the dedication of right-of-way for a future backage road to provide alternative access to these parcels. Member Chavez moved, Member Gladhill seconded a motion to recommend approval of a Rezoning from T, Transitional, to PD, Planned Development upon 0.76 acres located at 2779 Pilot Knob Road in the NE 1/4 of Section 4. All voted in favor. Motion carried 7-0. Member Chavez moved, Member Gladhill seconded a motion to recommend approval of a Planned Development Amendment and Final Planned Development to expand the existing Planned Development to adjacent property and change the approved use from Class I restaurant to a 152 -room, five -story hotel upon 2.76 acres located at the southeast corner of Pilot Knob Road and Buffet Way in the NE'/ of Section 4 subject to the following conditions as amended: 1. The applicant and/or developer shall enter into a Final Planned Development Agreement with the City. The Final Planned Development Agreement shall be recorded against the property at the Dakota County Recorder's office prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. The following exhibits are required for the Final Planned Development Agreement: • Final Site Plan • Final Building Elevations/Signage Plan • Final Landscape Plan • Final Site Lighting Plan 3. The site shall be developed in accordance with the above referenced final plans. 4. The property shall be platted. City of Eagan Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 27, 2005 Page 8 5. The hotel shall provide 24-hour staffing at the front desk. 6. Site Lighting shall be downcast and shielded to prevent glare and minimize Tight spillover off the property. 7. The Site Lighting Plan shall be revised to include fixture and pole mounting details and information, and to modify the calculations using the minimum light level within the parking lot. Light levels shall not be Tess than 0.5 footcandles within the parking lot, nor exceed 1 footcandle at the property line. 8. The landscape plan shall be revised as follows: ► Identify more trees as landscape materials and fewer trees as mitigation to meet landscape and tree mitigation requirements. ► Use perennials rather than shrubs in parking lot islands to better accommodate snow storage. ► Use a species that is more suitable to the constrained growing space along the south and west sides of the site. 9. Landscape berms to help screen parking areas shall be provided within the parking setback areas, where possible. 10. Building signage shall be limited to two elevations. 11. The developer shall work with the development to the north to utilize the same brick material and same monument and decorative fence design on both entrance monuments north and south of Buffet Way and to select a brick that is compatible with the principal buildings in both developments. 12. The monument sign area shall not exceed four feet seven inches (4'7") in height and may consist of an internally lit cabinet as shown on applicant's specimen (opaque background and internally lit letters and banner). 13. The development shall provide no net increase in runoff to Pond HP -7 for water quality treatment. Stormwater treatment design shall be subject to review and approval by the City Water Resources Coordinator prior to release of the Final PD Agreement for recording. 14. Public street access to the development shall be restricted to the intersection of Eagan Woods Drive and Buffet Way. 15. The developer shall remove all existing driveway accesses onto Pilot Knob Road and Buffet Way, in accordance with City and Dakota County standards. 16. The parking stalls near the curve of the service drive shall be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the service drive. City of Eagan Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 27, 2005 Page 9 17. The developer shall provide ingress/ egress easement over the proposed service drive along the west edge of the development in favor of McNally Addition and Central Irrigation Addition properties, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. This easement shall contain a provision that the easement cannot be vacated without the consent of the City. 18. The Landscape Plan, Tree Mitigation Plan and Overall Planting Plan shall be revised to correctly identify 42 Category B mitigation trees and designate more trees as landscape materials. These revised plans shall be submitted to the City for inclusion in the Final Planned Development Agreement. 19. This development shall be responsible for cash park and trails dedications at the time of building permit issuance at the rates then in effect. A vote was taken: Aye: Chair Heyl, Members Keeley, Hansen, Bendt, Chavez, and Dugan. Nay: Member Gladhill. All voted in favor. Motion carried 6-1. 39 City of Eagan Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 27, 2005 Page 10 E. Microtel Inn Applicant Name: Larson Properties, L.L.C. Location: 3000 Denmark Avenue; Lot 1, Block 2, Eagandale Center Industrial Park No. 9 Application: Planned Development Amendment A Planned Development Amendment to allow an interim use of expandable parking associated with airport shuttle service. File Number: 10 -PA -11-08-05 Planner Dudziak introduced this item and highlighted the information presented in the City Staff report dated September 12, 2005. She noted the background and history. She further stated this is one parcel, not two. Tom Larson, Larson Properties, LLC stated the Staff Report accurately reflects their request, however the cars parked in the parking lot will be hotel guests and those cars will be registered. He stated they will continue to market the attached property as a Class 1 restaurant. Chair Heyl opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Heyl closed the public hearing and turned the discussion back to the Commission. Chair Heyl stated she is hopeful for a restaurant on the adjacent property within the next five years. She also stated she would not support the additional parking use if it was not an interim use. Member Bendt moved, Member Hansen seconded a motion to recommend approval of a Planned Development Amendment to extend the term of the original Planned Development Agreement for five years on property located at 3000 Denmark Avenue, legally described as Lot 1, Block 2, Eagandale Center Industrial Park No. 9 in the NE'/ of Section 10 subject to the following conditions: 1. A Final Planned Development Agreement will need to be completed for the development of the Class I restaurant, which may include on -sale liquor. The following exhibits are required for the Final Planned Development Agreement for the restaurant: • Final Site/Phasing Plan • Final Landscape Plan • Final Building Elevations Plan • Final Lighting Plan • Final Signage Plan 2. The term of the Planned Development shall be extended five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 3. The property shall be subdivided and replatted prior to construction of Phase 2 (the restaurant) of the development, if Phase 2 (restaurant) is not under common ownership with Phase 1 (hotel). 3'1 D City of Eagan Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 27, 2005 Page 11 4. The future restaurant will be evaluated at the time of Final Planned Development and building permit and shall be subject to the airport noise policy standards in place at that time. 5. This amendment supplements the prior Planned Development Agreement and provides an interim use of parking for the westerly portion of the site until the Class I restaurant is constructed. The shuttle service and expanded hotel parking shall be discontinued once a restaurant is constructed on the site. All voted in favor. Motion carried 7-0. Member Bendt moved, Member Hansen seconded a motion to recommend approval of a Planned Development Amendment to allow an interim use of expanded parking associated with airport shuttle service at the Microtel hotel on property located at 3000 Denmark Avenue, legally described as Lot 1, Block 2, Eagandale Center Industrial Park No. 9 in the NE 1/4 of Section 10 subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant and/or developer shall enter into a Planned Development Amendment Agreement with the City. The Planned Development Amendment Agreement shall be recorded against the property at the Dakota County Recorder's office prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. The following exhibits are required for the Planned Development Amendment Agreement ► Site Plan ► Landscape Plan ► Site Lighting Plan 3. The applicant shall apply for and obtain a City grading/ excavation permit prior to construction of the proposed parking lot expansion 4. All landscaped areas must have automatic irrigation. 5. The Site Lighting Plan shall be revised so that minimum light levels be brought up to 0.5 at all points within the parking lot. 6. The interim parking use shall be for a term of five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. 7. A Final Planned Development Agreement will need to be completed for the development of the Class I restaurant, which may include on -sale liquor. The following exhibits are required for the Final Planned Development Agreement for the restaurant: Final Site/Phasing Plan: • Final Landscape Plan • Final Building Elevations Plan • Final Lighting Plan • Final Signage Plan City of Eagan Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 27, 2005 Page 12 8. The property shall be subdivided and replatted prior to construction of Phase 2 (the restaurant) of the development, if Phase 2 (restaurant) is not under common ownership with Phase 1 (hotel). 9. The future restaurant will be evaluated at the time of Final Planned Development and building permit and shall be subject to the airport noise policy standards in place at that time. 10. This amendment supplements the prior Planned Development Agreement and provides an interim use of parking for the westerly portion of the site until the Class I restaurant is constructed. The shuttle service and expanded hotel parking shall be discontinued once a restaurant is constructed on the site. All voted in favor. Motion carried 7-0. V. OTHER ITEMS VI. VISITORS TO BE HEARD (FOR THOSE NOT ON AGENDA) There were no visitors to be heard for items not on the agenda. VII. OTHER BUSINESS City Planner Ridley requested that questions regarding the memorandum regarding the October workshop be directed to him. He further announced that a workshop would be held on October 26, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. Members Chavez, and Dugan stated they will not be in attendance. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Member Chavez moved, Member Dugan seconded a motion to adjourn the Advisory Planning Commission meeting at 8:20 p.m. All voted in favor. Motion carried 7-0. Respectfully Submitted by: Steven Chavez APC Secretary Camille Yungerberg Recording Secretary STD