Loading...
05/11/2010 - City Council SpecialSPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY MAY 11, 2010 5:30 P.M. EAGAN ROOM-EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER AGENDA I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD i? I III. TH 77 MANAGED LANES CORRIDOR STUDY UPDATE f . IV. WINTER TRAIL MAINTENANCE PROGRAM REVIEW 64- V. PUBLIC WORKS 5 -YEAR CIP (2011-2015) etc] c] VI. STORM WATER UTILITY FEE & WATER QUALITY ADJUSTMENT NEEDS e8t)VII. CONSERVATION EASEMENTS & ENCROACHMENTS VIII. OTHER BUSINESS IX. ADJOURNMENT Special Council Workshop Agenda Memo May 11, 2010 III. MNDOT UPDATE ON TH 77 MANAGED LANES CORRIDOR STUDY DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To receive a presentation by the Minnesota Department of Transportation's (Mn/DOT) consultant regarding the TH 77 Managed Lanes Corridor Study and provide City and State staff with comments and direction in its regard. FACTS: • Mn/DOT, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, Metropolitan Council, Metro Transit, Dakota and Hennepin Counties, Minnesota Valley Transit, and the Cities of Apple Valley, Eagan, and Bloomington, is exploring feasible alternatives to maximize and/or temporarily reallocate available lane capacities in the Highway 77 corridor (Cedar Freeway) from McAndrews Road (County Road 38) in Apple Valley to I-494 in Bloomington. There currently exists a disproportionate volume distribution between the north bound (NB) and south bound (SB) directional travel in the morning and evening rush hours resulting in significant congestion points at Co. Rd 38 in Apple Valley and TH 13 in Eagan in the morning commute. • Due to a significant shortfall of available funding to increase capacity via additional lane construction in the metro area, Mn/DOT completed a conceptual review and concluded there is potential merit in applying innovative technologies to manage this capacity issue that may qualify for other non-traditional funding sources (i.e. UPA, Stimulus, etc). • Mn/DOT has received federal grant monies to conduct a more detailed, comprehensive study of a "Contra Flow Concept" which incorporates a movable barrier ("borrowing" one opposing lane during peak periods) as well as combinations and variations of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV lanes), Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Paying Single Occupant Vehicle (Toll) dedicated lane techniques as the guiding principles. It is also investigating the cost/benefit of extending the existing 3`d lane from Apple Valley that currently drops off at Co. Rd. 38 up to where it is reintroduced at Diffley Rd. • Key elements of the comprehensive study include Community Partnership and Public Outreach as well as the traditional Engineering Feasibility and Cost studies. A public Open House is scheduled to be held in Eagan at the ISD #191 Alternative High School (former Cedar Pond Elementary School) on May 13 at 4:30 pm. MnDOT is providing advance update presentations to the 3 affected cities and Dakota County. Invite notices are being mailed to all property owners within %2 mile of Cedar Ave along the corridor in question. ISSUES: • Over the past 6 months, numerous alternatives have been evaluated and subsequently narrowed down to 3 that are being proposed for further evaluation. The Contra -Flow lane concept (3B) is proposed to be introduced just north of I -35E with no access opportunities for Eagan's interchanges at Cliff, Diffley or TH 13. Other alternatives that provide additional lanes across the Cedar Bridge (2B) will be at the expense of eliminating the bus -only shoulder lanes taking away transit advantage for station to station and express bus service out of Eagan. ATTACHMENTS: • A copy of the Power Point presentation is enclosed without page number. 1 Special Council Workshop Agenda Memo May 11, 2010 IV. WINTER TRAIL MAINTENANCE PROGRAM REVIEW DIRECTION FOR CONSIDERATION: REVIEW AND COMMENT ON POTENTIAL ADDITIONS AND DIRECT TO THE JUNE 1, 2010 COUNCIL MEETING FOR FORMAL ACTION. FACTS: • In 1998, the City Council adopted a Winter Trail Maintenance Plan that allows the Council to annually review and reconsider the extent of the trail system that is maintained during the winter months. This review has been directed to be performed at the first available workshop after April 1 each year. • There is one Citizen Petition (P), and 5 New Trail segments (NT) built in 2009 that should be reviewed by the Council. Each request references the degree of compliance with the Council's current Policy adopted in June 1998. ATTACHMENTS: • Staff memo with location maps, enclosed on pages '3 through 13 . City of Eapil MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS THOMAS L. HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: THOMAS A. COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: APRIL 29, 2010 SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL SEGMENTS TO WINTER TRAIL MAINTENANCE PROGRAM BACKGROUND In October, 1996, the City Council implemented an experimental trial program for maintaining sidewalks and trails during the winter season on a select segment consisting of 3.8 miles primarily serving walkers to the elementary schools. In the spring of 1998, the Council evaluated the program and considered expanding it throughout the City. Staff was directed to inventory the existing transportation trail system (105 +/- miles), evaluate the priority uses of the sidewalks and trails, prepare a draft plan (-46 mi), and present it to the community for comments and suggestions. At a special workshop session held on May 26, 1998, the Council reviewed all the comments and modified the draft plan to address the needs and desires of the community. This final draft plan (-56 mi) was then presented to the public for final review and comments and subsequent Council adoption on June 2, 1998. Recreational trails within City Parks were not included in this maintenance plan. Since then, subsequent City Councils have added approximately 16.93 miles of trails (1.41 miles/yr avg) to the original system plan in response to citizen and business requests, as well as considering the merits of each new segment of trail constructed during the previous year along collector/arterial roads. The current program consists of 72.93 maintained miles of a total 113.55 mile system (64.2%). (This total does not include the recreational internal Park trail system.) Following budget cutbacks in late 2008, the decision was made to discontinue contractual winter trail and sidewalk maintenance services during the 2008-2009 winter season. Public Works Street Maintenance personnel then assumed this extra work effort and performed all winter trail and sidewalk plowing during normal workdays (7am - 3:30pm, Monday - Friday) as a secondary priority after completing the majority of local street snow and ice control operations. With only a few exceptions (i.e. weekend events), the service delivery closely mirrored the completion times typically provided through contractor services in previous years. ANNUAL COSTS/BUDGETS SUMMARY City Operations Cost for 2009-2010 winter trail and walk maintenance $ 109,469 ($1,501/mile) (*City costs are based on Fee Schedule rates for labor & eqpt. (including rental eqpt.) The 5 year average (2004-2009) annual contractual cost was: The highest annual contractual cost year was 2007/08 at: The lowest annual contractual cost year was 2004/05 at: The original 1998 annual budgeted cost was estimated at: $ 83,513 ($1,145/mile) $ 147,269 ($2,019/mile) $ 24,811 ($340/mile) $ 180,000 ($3,214/mile) CITIZEN REQUESTS 1. Citizen Petition (CP #1) A Petition containing 58 signatures representing 37 properties near the Wescott Station Park was submitted on March 22, 2010 requesting winter maintenance to the "loop" trail way inside Wescott Station Park. The city currently plows a portion of the trail, but only to provide access to a utility structure located at the northern end of the park. (see map) Rational: Residents adjacent to this area are requesting winter trail maintenance for recreational access/purposes. Option A Additional segment quantities Additional estimated annual cost Option B Additional segment quantities Additional estimated annual cost 2560 feet (0.48 miles) (see map) $717.00 ($1,501/mile, '09-'10 cost) 1740 feet (0.33 miles) (see map) $487.00 ($1,501/mile, '09-'10 cost) Meets "Petition" Criteria set forth in Council Policy -Winter Maintenance of Sidewalk and Trail ways (10/15/96): "Due to the cost to add additional segments to the overall maintenance program, it is necessary that a need and benefit be demonstrated to justify the expenditure of additional funds. Subsequently, no segment will be considered unless accompanied by a petition of 50 properties lying within '/4 mile of the segment to be considered". Additional Related Factors: • The requested trail segment is considered a recreational trail located entirely within Wescott Station Park, a neighborhood park. • To date, the only recreational trail segments approved for winter maintenance have been within Central Park, a community park. • The requested trail segment begins inside Wescott Station Park and does not connect with any other winter maintained trails. (Lack of continuity) • Plowing the current trail segment for Utility access needs has been re-evaluated and determined that it is no longer required and will be discontinued. NEW TRAILS INSTALLED LAST YEAR 1. New Trails- NT #1 In 2009, a 9' bituminous trail was installed along the north side of Diffley Rd. between Rahn Road and Blackhawk Rd (2,480 feet) in conformance with the City's Community Trail System Policy Plan. Rational: Medium density multi -family housing on the north side of Diffley Rd. are significant pedestrian generators in close proximity to retail located at the northeast quadrant of Diffley and Blackhawk. Additional segment quantities 2,545 feet (0.48 miles) (see map) Additional estimated annual cost $713 ($1,501/mile, '09-'10 cost) Meets City Council's Winter Trail Maintenance Policy criteria number 1: Major Arterial Roads. Adjacent to thoroughfare roads with 4+ lanes, traffic volumes greater than 5,000 vehicles per day and speed limits of 45 mph or greater. Additional Related Factors: • Would add connectivity to winter maintained trail segments along Rahn Rd. and Blackhawk Rd. • Currently, Diffley Rd has only one side included in the winter trial maintenance plan for its 6 mile length (Pilot Knob to the west — south side, Pilot Knob to the east — north side). Adding this new segment to the program would result in both sides of Diffley being maintained between Rahn Rd and Blackhawk Rd. 2. New Trails- NT #2 In 2009, a 6' concrete sidewalk was installed on the north side of Gold Trail between Cedar Grove Parkway and the first "bubble" to the east on Gold Trail as a conditional requirement of the CDA Young Adult Supportive Housing development (Lincoln Place). (— 145 feet). Rational: Recently completed higher density pedestrian oriented housing was added north and east of Cedar Grove Parkway and Gold Trail and residents would benefit from winter pedestrian access to retail and bus connections nearby. (Silver Bell Center & Cedar Grove). Additional 145 eet (see map) Additional average cost $41 ($1,501/mile, '09-'10 cost) Does not meet any definitive City Council Winter Trail Maintenance Policy Criteria: The Council's discretion will be used to designate other segments as necessary to provide continuity, designated recreational loops, etc. 3. New Trails- NT #3 In 2009, a 9' bituminous trail was installed on the north side of Towerview Rd. between Pilot Knob Park and Pilot Knob Rd in conformance with the City's Community Trail System Policy Plan. (— 625 feet). Rational: Medium density multi -family dwellings on the west side of Pilot Knob north of Towerview Rd. are potential pedestrians that could access winter maintained sections on the west side of Pilot Knob Road. Additional 625 feet (see map) Additional average cost $175 ($1,501/mile, '09-'10 cost) Does not meet any definitive City Council Winter Trail Maintenance Policy Criteria: The Council's discretion will be used to designate other segments as necessary to provide continuity, designated recreational loops, etc. Additional Related Factors: • Provides connectivity to winter maintained trail segments along Pilot Knob Rd. 4. New Trails- NT #4 In 2009, an 8' bituminous trail was installed on the south side of Opperman Rd. between the YMCA driveway and State Highway 149 in conformance with the City's Community Trail System Policy Plan. (— 960 feet). Rational: Connects community based YMCA to recent trail installation on the east side of State Trunk Highway 149. Additional 960 feet (see map) Additional average cost $269 ($1,501/mile, '09-'10 cost) Does not meet any definitive City Council Winter Trail Maintenance Policy Criteria: The Council's discretion will be used to designate other segments as necessary to provide continuity, designated recreational loops, etc. Additional Related Factors: • Does not provide connectivity to any winter maintained trails sections s 5. New Trails- NT #5 In 2009, an 8' bituminous trail was installed on the west side of Dodd Rd. north and south of Marsh Court as a conditional requirement of the Marsh Cove 11 lot Development in conformance with the City's Community Trail System Policy Plan. (— 260 feet). Rational: Will eventually connect to the existing winter maintained trail along the west side of Dodd Rd to the north with future development of adjacent property. Additional 260 feet (see map) Additional average cost $73 ($1,501/mile, '09-'10 cost) Does not meet any definitive City Council Winter Trail Maintenance Policy Criteria: The Council's discretion will be used to designate other segments as necessary to provide continuity, designated recreational loops, etc. Additional Related Factors: • Does not provide connectivity to any winter maintained trails sections. Please let me know if there is any additional information would be helpful in considering the merits of adding any of these segments to the current Winter Trail Maintenance program. Director of Public Works Enc: Location maps CC: Tom Struve, Supt of Streets & Eqpt 6, Winter Trail & Sidewalk Maintenance Route Considerations for 2010-2011 /1/ tThfi.r.,e N .7t7If .44.1 - --- — - Plowed In 2009-2010 City of kali Citizen Petition - CP #1 New Trail - NT#1,2,3,4,5 1 250 2 500 3,150 5.000 Fee, a N Date: 4/302010 Prepared by: City of Eagan Street Dept., SH File: L\...Icmistreetsltrailslplowrtesll0_ 1118x 11_route considerations 10 11.mxd 1.s Wescott Station Park Winter Trail Maintenance Petition Location Previously Plowed Trail to Utility Station Length = 1390 Ft Trail Plowing Option A Length = 2560 Ft Trail Plowing Option B Length = 1740 Ft Storm Sewer Pipe Between JP -16 & JP -17 RequestICP#1 with Petitioners for 2010-2011 Winter Trail Maintenance -Apr 30, 2010 t {' M 1— z — O L V • o C alm 0z Ce d a)coc '� a) °' 3c Special Council Workshop Agenda Memo May 11, 2010 V. PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 5 YEAR CAPITAL IMROVEMENT PROGRAM (PART III - INFRASTRUCTURE) DIRECTION FOR CONSIDERATION: AFFIRM (or REVISE) THE DRAFT 5 YR. CIP (Part III - Public Works Infrastructure, 2011-2015) and DIRECT IT TO THE JUNE 1, 2010 COUNCIL MEETING FOR FORMAL CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION. FACTS: • Every year, the City Council adopts a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the Community that becomes the planning guide for programming and scheduling various capital improvements. It is comprised of three parts: ➢ Part I - Major Community Facilities/Buildings ➢ Part II - Major Equipment & Vehicles ➢ Part III - Infrastructure (Parks & Public Works) • The Public Works Department has completed the preparation of its draft CIP, Part III (Public Works Infrastructure) for 2011 to 2015 and would like to review it with the Council and incorporate any comments and/or revisions before presenting it for formal consideration and adoption at a regular Council meeting. ATTACHMENTS: • Summary of the first ear (2011), of proposed programmed improvements pages / Cj through / . • Draft 5 yr. CIP ('11-'15), 3 ring binder previously distributed under separate cover. c 0 rovement Descri O 0 O O a) N CO rovements N 0 ass & interchan 0 0 New 2 -Lane Divided Bridge 0 Duckwood Dr. (Pilot Knob Road to Feder O O 0 O CO N 0 E 0 O & Collector 0 t Redevelopment/Upgrade/Realign 2 -Ln Urban Cedarvale Blvd. (Cedar Grove Pkwy. to Silver Bell Rd.) 0) 0 2. Johnny Cake Ridge Road (City Limits to Cliff Road) Recyle/ Reclaim 3. Blue Cross Road (Yankee Doodle Rd. to Blackhawk Rd.) Recycle/ Reclaim Wilderness Run Road (Capricorn Ct. to Dodd Rd.) New Urban 2 -Lane (36' wide) 5. Promenade Avenue (Yankee Doodle Rd. to Town Centre Dr.) is O O O CO CO M rovements E 0) 0) V 0 - J T T T T T T T T T @ 0 07 (0 (0 0 f0 (0 0 O O O O O O O O O 1. Trotters Ridge 2. Park Knolls Addition 3. Stafford Place 4. Woodlands/ Sunrise Hills 5. Engstroms Deerwood Wilderness Ponds 7. Fairway Hills 8. Hills of Stonebridge 1st 9. Bridle Ridge Overlay / Joint Repair T T T 0 (0 0 10. Blackhawk Ponds T m T 0) U) 0 N N = a H d N • U "a5 m 2 • xco co (O 01 �0 0 U N M Overlay (530 FT) 2. Lexington Ave. W. Side (Duckwood Tr. to Duckwood Dr.) NEW Construction Both Sides (1,500FT) NEW Construction North Side (2,500 FT) 0 a) 0) P_ o O o U_ ;.73 a cc � a) 0 rn a -o E V) c L_ 0 O E m c n c N U O O c/) Z o r2 o o U M V Overlay (2000 FT) 5. Lexington Ave. W. Side (Duckwood Dr. to Wescott Rd.) Overlay (1,400 FT) 6. Diffley Rd S. Side (East of 35E to Johnny Cake Rdg. Rd.) Overlay (1,450 FT) ttLLL 0 0 0 0 0 0 C, l� cs cs n n m W 0 0 0 0 0 a) (0 J 0 o 0 L 1- c o a) a o o cr a) a) Y Y (0 co U J >, c E o L H a) a) :O D V) U) c u >, > a) a) o o cd 9. Blue Cross Rd. (Ashbury Rd. to Blackhawk Rd.) 10. Johnny Cake Ridge Rd E. Side ( Clemson Dr. to Downing Park) 11. Walnut Hill Park Trail 12. Cliff Rd. N. Side (Thomas Lake Rd to Lake Park Dr.) l� Overlay (650 FT) 13. Cliff Rd. N. Side (Ridge Cliffe Dr. to Thomas Center Dr.) Overlay (1,700 FT) 14. Cliff Rd S. Side (Lenore Ln. to Johnny Cake Ridge Rd.) Overlay (350 FT) Overlay (1,400 FT) U 0 D a) c 0 U co E 0 L 1— CIDa) a)• 1- co d c a) @ Y E J 0 O a 0 ca 0 0 tri cc) Wide Surface Maintenance N N 335,777 square yard rovements Intersection Im New Traffic Signal or Round -about 1. Denmark Ave © Promenade Place New Traffic Signal 2. Yankee Doodle @ Promenade Ave Traffic Signal Modification 3. Cedar Freeway Ramps @ Diffley Rd Traffic Signal Modification 4. Cliff Rd @ Johnny Cake Ridge Rd. Traffic Signal Modification 5. Cliff Rd. @ Nicols Rd Traffic Signal Modification 6. Pilot Knob Rd. @ Duckwood Dr. vement Descri O 0 C c cz c9 c c a) O o N a) O a) w a) a a -o ID -o -0 a C c ca 2 ca c` ca ca ca 'c6 'm `o) 0) `o) 0) m 0) o.) 2 2 D DDDDDD mo) Lake Rd. & 2. Thomas Lake Rd. N. of Cliff Rd. 3. Thomas Lake Rd. & Auburn Ct. 4. Northview Park Rd. & Clinton Tr. 5. Northview Park Rd. & Savannah Rd. 6. Northview Park Rd. & Braddock Tr./Trotters Ridge 7. Cliff Rd. & N. Hay Lake Rd. C C m as CL a 8. Traffic Signal (TH 3/Red Pine, TH 55/Eagandale) 9. Promenade Area 0 0 0 t1') ti Water Trunk distribution Pressure Reducing Station 1. Pilot Knob & Pebble Beach Way 600 LF 8" Ductile Iron Pipe 2. Cliff Rd. Booster Station to Fairway Hills Dr. (1 General Maintenance Lakes Water Tow Upgrade Controls and Pressure Sensing Eqpt. 2. Cliff Rd. Booster Station 0 0 0 O O 0 C cts Sewer Trunk Conve Yet to be determined nflow & Infiltration (I&I) Improvement O 0 0 N to 0 .173a) Sewer Facilities & 0 On -Going Annual Program for root control and I&I mitigation 1. City Wide - Sewer Lining Project - 5,000 LF @ $25/ft Storm Trunk - Conve C U 0 0 as Q Z 0 a) C a) 0 a) E c n - m C0 C N a) O > U t cn a) a) C < • U) � N Pond Maintenance 0 0 0 LC) ti erations & Facilities U Ul Q) (n C C O. N 47. 'D To Ta oomoo cc cc E O E CD E J E E N O O N N ' V) cr) E m O a (f) O U U CO O J _ C N C 'N C CO CO COCD N C6 m Q) m CO N 0) c 0) CO o) c0 m .c 0 0 Lf) .c 0 m LC) 0 ' 0 J U J Y Y °'�Y3 J (O +� J N L -C CO Y (O .� ll N U (n L N d 0 cco d m J C T C C qiff 0 (O 0 0 a=aa.0 N CO V U) O O O I5' Special Council Workshop Agenda Memo May 11, 2010 VI. STORM WATER UTILITY FEE & WATER QUALITY ADJUSTMENT NEEDS DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To receive a presentation by City staff regarding the Storm Water Utility Fee and provide City staff with comments and direction in its regard. FACTS: • On April 3, 1990, the City Council adopted a Comprehensive Water Quality Management Plan. Accordingly, the Council also established the Storm Water Utility Fee to finance the program. • With the celebration of the 20th anniversary of the City's Water Quality Program, it is appropriate to review the current funding source and its ability to continue to adequately and equitably fund the program, especially with state and federal mandates that have evolved since the program's inception (i.e. Clean Water Act, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System — NPDES; Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System — MS4; Non -Degradation Requirements; etc.). • In 2009, the City Council authorized a detailed analysis of all Utility User Rates by the financial consulting firm of Springsted. As part of the review of the Storm Water Utility Fee, an evaluation was performed to determine if some type of pollutant loading surcharge would be appropriate or necessary based on increasing Clean Water Act mandates. The analysis indicated that the current rate, with some annual cost of living adjustments, was adequate to maintain the program for the foreseeable future. Eagan's Storm Water Utility Rate continues to rank in the lowest quartile in the metro area. • The originally established Residential Equivalent Factor (REF) continues to be used as the basis for determining the Storm Water Utility Fee for all land use classifications of property within the City. The REF equates the surface water runoff from the various land uses to a typical single-family property. This has shown to be a fair and equitable means of allocating the costs of the program on a volume weighted basis. • However, the analysis also revealed that a disparity has evolved over the years between the different classes of land uses when comparing the volume of runoff generated to their respective utility fee contributions. This has identified the need to apply some type of Equity Adjustment Factor (EAF) to all land uses to insure that each type continues to pay its proportionate fair share. • Staff has prepared a presentation for the Council that represents the land use changes that have occurred within the City over the past 20 years, relevant to the storm sewer system and surface water quality, and the possible impacts to the Storm Water Fee formula established 20 years ago. 11 Special Council Workshop Agenda Memo May 11, 2010 VII. CONSERVATION EASEMENTS ACTION FOR CONSIDERATION: To receive a presentation by City staff regarding Conservation Easements and provide City staff with comments and direction in regard to a policy addressing protection, encroachment and enforcement. FACTS • As a condition of development approval, the City has required the dedication of conservations easements over environmentally sensitive areas of the plat. • The purpose of the conservation easements is to protect the pre -development character of the area and to allow it to remain in its natural state for the benefit of the General Public and adjacent/riparian property owners. Most conservation easements have been granted along shorelines of lakes or wetlands or within heavily wooded areas. • Under the terms of the conservation easement, which is recorded against the title at the County, the owner retains fee title to the property but is prohibited from placing man-made structures within the easement area and also from removing trees (other than diseased trees). • The terms of the conservation easement provide that no such encroachment is permitted within the easement area without prior written consent of the City. • The City has some 40 conservation easements encumbering over 75 parcels within the City (see attached map). • With the recent implementation of routine compliance inspections and proactive education efforts over the past several years, City staff are discovering that some property owners have either, already violated the terms of the conservation easement with an existing encroachment or, expressed an interest to do so in the near future. These encroachments encompass a range of activities such as: storage of boats or docks within the easement area; construction of fire pits or trails (wood chips, concrete pavers, etc); installation of fencing, retaining walls, play structures; etc. • When informed of the violation or restriction, some property owners have expressed a desire to appeal to the City Council the enforcement action and continued application of these restrictions. • City staff seeks the following guidance from the Council: o To what extent should conservation easements be protected/enforced, o If encroachments are to be considered, which types of encroachments should routinely be allowed and can they be processed administratively or should all individual requests require formal Council review. o If formal Council review is desired, to what extent should public notification be provided for public input in considering the merits of an individual request (i.e. published notification similar to easement vacations, mailed notices to adjacent property or riparian owners, all properties within a 300'+/- radius, etc.) Special Council Workshop Agenda Memo May 11, 2010 VII. CONSERVATION EASEMENTS (continued) • In consultation with the City Attorney's Office, the following four options would be viable: A. COMPLIANCE ENFORCEMENT. This first option would support City staffs efforts to enforce the terms of the existing conservation easement to not allow placement of any man-made structures or improvements within the conservation easement area. Under this policy, staff would conduct routine inspections and administratively mandate a scheduled compliance action for restoration of the property to its natural conditions. This would still require the determination of a Council process (with appropriate public notifications to be determined) to consider a property owner's appeal. If a property owner remains non-compliant, Council authorized legal action would be required to compel compliance. B. LICENSE AGREEMENT. A second option would provide for an application process (with appropriate escrow) for Council determination to permit a requested or existing encroachment within the conservation easement area subject to the terms of a License Agreement (LA) between the property owner and the City. Under the terms of the License Agreement, the existing or requested encroachment within the conservation easement area would have to be specifically identified and limited to the current or proposed encroachment with no future expansions, additions or modifications without formally amending the LA. With this type of agreement, the City can mandate removal at any time upon written notice. Although not a formal land use application, this request would typically be processed as a public hearing with notification to all affected property owners. However, once an encroachment is permitted, the sanctity of the Conservation Easement and its nebulous visible border is harder to preserve. There may also be a lack of consistency in what is periodically permitted within similar easement areas which could lead to inconsistent application of restrictions (i.e. past precedence) with other affected or interested parties (i.e. neighbors). This would also result in an appeal process and legal action (see "A") if the Property owner contested the City's notice to remove. C. ADOPT NEW ORDINANCE. A third option would be for the City Council to consider the adoption of an ordinance which would provide that, notwithstanding any terms of any conservation easement granted to the City, certain items could be permitted within the conservation easement area (i.e. docks; trails to any lakeshore; fences; fire pits; setbacks where desirable, etc). Any appeal would have to be via the standard Variance process where a hardship would have to be identified. Standard notifications would apply. D. VACATION. The fourth option would require the property owner to petition the City to vacate that portion of the conservation easement area where there is an existing or proposed encroachment. Under this process, the property owner would need to follow the easement vacation process, which would require a public hearing and a determination that the easement is no longer needed for its stated public purpose. ATTACHMENTS • Location map of Conservation Easements, paggaa . 4 Conservation Easement Locations and Encroachment Status • 17 0 2 0 �od a' 0 40 0 0 In _ q 00 0 • I. 0J. O c2 s 0 a 0. 9► 0 o p �O a • 0 O oe 'ou D °p4 •0• of 0 °06 .o c 7 ‹)O ° ° ° O ° °a • U s . ° , .OQ 2' v 4 P s 0 Q O 8 0• pia ° 0 Q o c1 a Q 0 a�.•. o• a a VO ou p 0 2 o° 0 mor 0 o ° e a ° Qo o �, �� ps�o 4 (� a d V - d "tel v 4 1 0 n a o . ° • °° O CI ^0 O• a -�p0 P 0 p° o' d (� o o °D f t ° C' D a \1 v d .E o e c, op41111111101110*) 116 b 0 5 a a 4 U : Dom ...d a • o ° 1 0 qD 0 °r O0 �• 444. 0 c eta O u City of Eagan Legend • No Inspection or Monumentation * No Encroachment A Encroachments Existing or Requested an + Encroachments Removed or Approved 0 025 0.5 t , 1 1 Mile Date 5/5/10 File: L:\users\pubworks\sara\waterquality\projects\ Conservation Easement Locations8x11.mxd