Report on Advisory Boards and External Organizations

Mayor Elizabeth KautzCouncil Member Dan KealeyCouncil Member Dan GustafsonCouncil Member Vince WorkmanCouncil Member Cara Schulz CITY COUNCIL

WORK SESSION AGENDA

Burnsville City Hall100 Civic Center PkwyBurnsville, MN 55377

www.burnsville.org

Tuesday, April 9, 2019 5:30 PM Council Chambers

CALL TO ORDER

1. HOC Prohibited Use (Tobacco Sales) for 12340 Nicollet Ave S. 5:30 PM

2. Check In on Carports and Awning Enforcement in the Manufactured Home Parks 5:45 PM

3. Interim Policy for Code Enforcement in Manufactured Home Parks 6:00 PM

4. Review of Double Frontage Setbacks 6:30 PM

5. Update on LALALA, LLC Settlement 6:50 PM

6. Council Travel Budget for Conferences and Trainings 7:00 PM

7. ROUNDTABLE 7:10 PMDiscuss Legacy Events: Fire Muster and Art & All That Jazz

Schedule Special Work Session for Commission Interviews

Report on Advisory Boards and External Organizations

ADJOURNMENT

The City of Burnsville does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age or disability in the admission oraccess to, or treatment or employment in, its programs, activities or services. To obtain this information in alternative forms please contact theCity of Burnsville at (952) 895- 4400 or visit www.burnsville.org

http://www.burnsville.org

http://www.burnsville.org

CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION

AGENDA REPORT

4/9/2019Item No. 1.

ITEM

HOC Prohibited Use (Tobacco Sales) for 12340 Nicollet Ave S.

PRESENTER(S)

Regina Dean, Redevelopment Coordinator

POLICY DECISION / ACTION REQUESTED

Discussion and direction to staff and the developer.

BACKGROUND

Jesse Saadeh is the owner of the Nicollet Shell gas station and convenience store located at 12340 NicolletAvenue South. The site is zoned Heart of the City (HOC-1) and guided HOC in the Comprehensive Plan. Thesite is just south of the future Metro Orange Line HOC Bus Rapid Transit Station. The site is currently 1.33acres and is an unplatted property. Saadeh is interested in seeking feedback from the City Council todetermine if there is general support on a potential request for a Planned Unit Development to allow a tobaccoshop as a permitted standalone use for his property. The existing floorplan would be modified to create aseparate business entrance and use (see attached conceptual floor plan). Today tobacco sales are not allowedas a separate standalone business within the Heart of the City (HOC) zoning districts. Tobacco and pipe shopssales are a permitted use within the B-2, B-3 and B-4, and MIX zoning districts within the City. The current useof a gas station with carwash is also a non-conforming use. The gas station and convenience store currentlysells tobacco products which is grandfathered in as non-conforming use. Non-conforming uses are allowed to continue under specific requirements outlined in City Code. The codehowever does state that any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a conforming use oroccupancy. ISSUES: According to City Code, the purpose of the HOC zoning district is to provide an area for compact, mixed usedevelopment made mutually compatible through a combination of careful planning and urban design andcoordinated public and private investment. The proposal will further intensify a non-conforming use and is not inkeeping with the HOC city code and goals. The applicant has also discussed with staff a desire to explore redevelopment of the site. Staff sees this site asan opportunity for an alternate use which can meet the goals and policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan,HOC zoning code and HOC Design Framework. Consistent with existing policies and directionfor redevelopment in HOC, staff will continue to work with the owner to seek grants and funding opportunitiesthrough public-private partnership opportunities. These opportunities may include the following:

Metropolitan Council Livable Communities ProgramsSite Cleanup and Redevelopment GrantsDakota County Grants

RECOMMENDATION

Staff and the developer are seeking direction from Council to determine if there is support for the proposedexpansion of the non-conforming use and support for a non-permitted use.

RELATED ENDS and OUTCOMES STATEMENT(S)

DEVELOPMENT/REDEVELOPMENT: People find Burnsville a balanced city of residential andbusiness development enhanced by redevelopment., Economicdevelopment and redevelopment initiatives are implemented.Specific initiatives include Heart of the City, Minnesota RiverQuadrant, County Road 42 Commercial Corridor Viability,monuments at key City entrances, and promotion of industryclusters.

ATTACHMENTS:DescriptionApplicant Narrative LetterExisting Site PlanProposed Site Plan

Staff Contact: Regina Dean Department: Planning

March 26, 2019

Burnsville City Council100 Civic Center ParkwayBurnsville, MN 55337

Dear City Council:

I, Jesse Saadeh, am the owner of Nicollet Convenience Store in Burnsville (Nicollet Gas &Wash, Inc.) I am sending this letter to address our request for a zoning change or PUD for theHOC zone. I am seeking approval of a tobacco store that will be redeveloped inside of theexisting building at 12340 Nicollet Ave. Burnsville MN, 55337. No exterior work will be done.The store’s location, changing tobacco laws generally, and other factors play a part in why I amrequesting a tobacco shop redevelopment for my location.

I believe this is a good business concept for me and my family. We have been in business inBurnsville for more than 20 years. If Burnsville will allow us to redevelop the station as I haveproposed, we can continue to be a viable business for many years. If I were across Highway13 I would be allowed to develop a tobacco store without a PUC or zoning change. We operatein a responsible manner. I have met all City and State codes. I have passed all secret shoppertests by the City. I ID everyone! There will not be a problem with my company selling tounderage customers because my track record shows this will not be an issue. I will work veryclosely with Burnsville to make sure underage tobacco sales will not occur at my store. Todaythere is RED LION LIQUORS directly next to me that sells alcohol to those above the legal age.RED LION will be able to sell tobacco to customers 21 and older.

A tobacco store will give consumers a convenient location to purchase their items from abusiness that is within walking distance of the City’s other services. The existing building is agas station and convenience store surrounded by apartment complexes, grocery stores,restaurants, a transit station, parking ramp, an event center, a liquor store, and a bus stop.Many of my customers live, work and utilize these surrounding services and come to me fortheir gas and convenience store needs.

As a small, family owned business I must work extra hard to gain customers. When customerswalk into my store there is a smile on the attendant’s face, the store is clean, we have theconvenience items customers want, and we will do whatever it is we can do to make surecustomers are served in a convenient and friendly manner. I try to build strong rapport with mycustomers. As a business, we need to offer what a customer wants or needs. Several times Ihave had a groomsman in a wedding party next door at the Ames Center come to the store witha little bit of anxiety because he forgot the cigars all the groomsmen were supposed to sharewith the groom. I currently have only a very limited selection because I cannot put a humidor inmy current setup.

My store is located at the corner of Nicollet Ave. and Highway 13. It is what I consider the firstgas station south of Hennepin County since it is the easiest to access from 35W.Developing a tobacco store directly in the Heart of the City will serve our own residents and theresidents of other communities who find it easiest to drive to shop in the HOC. If laws restrictingtobacco purchases to customers 21 and older, or laws prohibiting sales on certain flavoredtobacco products, reach Dakota County, a convenience store without a tobacco shop would notbe able to serve our customers. My customers would find a different store (liquor store ortobacco shop) for tobacco purchases. A tobacco store not only serves my customers, but it will

Page 2

also protect me and my store against future changes in the laws that may reach Dakota County.I will not survive in business if those laws change in this area without having a tobacco store.Just across Highway 13 from me, the zoning laws will allow my competitors to put in a tobaccoshop.

If a liquor store can be operated in the Heart of the City if it follows all of the City’s and State’sregulations, a tobacco store should be a permitted business in my location.

I am respectfully requesting that the City of Burnsville support my application for a tobaccostore.

Thank you City of Burnsville

Jesse Saadeh

Jesse Saadeh12340 Nicollet Ave.Burnsville, MN 55337Phone (952) 857- 9873


AGENDA REPORT

4/9/2019Item No. 2.

ITEM

Check In on Carports and Awning Enforcement in the Manufactured Home Parks

PRESENTER(S)

Jenni Faulkner, Community Development DirectorChris Forslund, Code Enforcement and Licensing Coordinator


Informational update. No action is required.

BACKGROUND

In June, 2018 the City Attorney provided the Council with information regarding the cities legal obligations toenforce the Minnesota Building Code in the manufactured home parks. As a followup to this information, theCity Council at the work session on August 21, 2018 requested that the "grandfathering" of carports andawnings for the manufactured home communities be explored as well as possible solutions for those residents ofthe park who may have limited resources. The discussion at the work session suggested that perhaps a lesspunitive (and friendly) approach to enforcement in the manufactured home parks could be utilized. Staffdirection at that time was to continue to work with residents and to report back to council. Burnsville has three manufactured home parks or communities that provide approximately 746 homes. Eachhome is individually licensed and owned. The park owner provides the leased space. The parks are licensedby the Minnesota Department of Health. The most recent proactive inspection of a manufactured home park (Arbor Vista) was conducted in June-July of2018. The purpose of this inspection was to focus only on life-safety items that were visible to theinspector(s) from the road. This inspection yielded 65 code cases of which 25 were awning related. There wereno carport violations observed. Currently there are 51 non-compliant lots that have one or more violations. Examples of those violations are in the attachment to this report. The inspection of one park per year isscheduled. Sunny Acres will be inspected during the summer of 2019. It should be noted that Licensing and Code Enforcement have not issued any citations since 2013 in any of thethree manufactured home parks. Further, there have been no recorded reinspection fees invoiced in any of theparks since that time either. At anytime, staff has offered to meet with any resident requesting assistance orinformation and continues to operate with a solution driven compliance outcome over court action. The recentaddition of the administrative citation authority enhances our enforcement tools without involvement of criminalcourts and allows for more discretion as to how resident and inspection staff can find reasonable resolution. City staff have made several attempts to work with residents to resolve observed violations. Staff have offeredto help residents with:

1. Applying for and obtaining building permits,2. Providing general construction advice where applicable or appropriate3. Designing handouts in multiple languages (under development)4. Obtaining interpreter services, if needed (primarily Spanish)

5. Encouraging the park owner to address the issues with their tenants6. Organizing a community meeting with the park residents so they can discuss their violations and possible

solutions7. Adding the option of alternative languages to violation notices if the resident needs translation services.

Some of the challenges observed are:

1. Socioeconomic factors of tenants2. Unlicensed or untrained individuals performing work3. Language barriers (Spanish primarily)4. Lack of on-site Park management and lease enforcement 5. Limited city staff resources to monitor progress6. Weather hampers progress7. Absentee owners of the manufactured homes8. Lack of resources (grants, loans or other) for manufactured home owners to make repairs or

improvements. Staff has attempted to find solutions without causing financial hardship to the residents. Unfortunately, many ofthe observed violations cost money to correct and in most cases require licensed contractors. A biggerchallenge is to find resources for park residents to make corrections that may cause financial hardship orimpede compliance. At the All-Day Work session on February 1, 2019, the council consensus was to provide an interim enforcementpolicy for the manufactured home parks. In almost all cases, the carport/awning violations are building coderelated and required by state law to be corrected. Further, placement of the carport/awnings has mostly beenresolved by removing the setbacks requirements (a zoning violation) for their installation in 2015. Therefore,there are very few violations for carports and awnings other than meeting the building code in the manufacturedhome parks. All other violations are relatively minor in nature and many can be addressed with current tools inplace.

RECOMMENDATION

This is information only. No action needed. Item 3 on this agenda provides additional discussion and directionregarding Code Enforcement in Manufactured Home Parks. Staff believes that item may lead to changes in thisrealm that the Council may be seeking.


NEIGHBORHOODS: The City proactively canvasses neighborhoods checking for property maintenancecompliance to maintain and/or enhance housing stock and property values. , Peoplefeel Burnsville has quality housing through other licensing and regulatory activities toenhance health/safety for the residents/visitors.

ATTACHMENTS:DescriptionMHP Awnings and Carport-ExamplesMemo-CK regarding Carports and Awnings

Staff Contact: Christopher A Forslund Department: Licensing and Code

www.burnsville.org

City of Burnsville Check In on Carports and Awning Enforcement in

the Manufactured Home Parks

April 9, 2019

http://www.burnsville.org/

www.burnsville.org


www.burnsville.org


www.burnsville.org


www.burnsville.org



AGENDA REPORT

4/9/2019Item No. 3.

ITEM

Interim Policy for Code Enforcement in Manufactured Home Parks


Provide direction to staff to modify the City Code to account for performance standards that may be challengingto comply with given the unique arrangement of a manufactured home park neighborhood.

BACKGROUND

On February 1, 2019 at the City Council works session, after much discussion on code enforcement, City Code,and manufactured home parks, direction was given to staff to develop a one year Interim Code EnforcementPolicy for manufactured home parks that would focus on life/safety violations. The purpose of the discussionand direction was to recognize that manufactured home parks are different from typical single familyneighborhoods. They face differences in ownership and physical limitations to the extent that code enforcementmay be better addressed in a different way. Upon further review of the direction given, staff believes there maybe another way to satisfy the intention of Council to better accommodate and recognize the difference ofmanufactured home park neighborhoods. The goal of any enforcement program is to provide uniform and consistent enforcement for all citizens. Thussaid, it is recognized that the manufactured home parks exhibit characteristics that make it different from othersingle family R1 zoned residential areas. Examples of the differences are:

Lots are leased and not owned by residentTenant maybe limited by the lease contract language to make certain correctionsLeased lots are smaller than traditional single family home lotsThe lease lots have no property lines (only lot lines)Lots are not platted,but are only defined for rental purposes Limited yard space and exterior storage spaceSmall lots have difficulty meeting setbacks The parks operate under CUP’sThe tenant homes are licensed individually and are not considered “real” property in that they can bemoved from the park as they are not placed on a permanent foundation Manufacture home construction is regulated by HUD and Minnesota Building CodeThe park is licensed by the Minnesota Department of Health (Manufactured Home Park Rules)The fire hydrants and streets are privately owned

These differences can make it challenging for residents and owners to comply with the same zoning standardsthat are currently used for the R-1 districts. Further, it exposes residents to violations that are more difficult tocure in some cases such as refuse screening. Rather than have differing enforcement process, staff is suggesting that the City consider zoning code changesto the R3-D zoning district that may address many of those issues. This would be an opportunity to realign thecode to reflect those specific conflicts instead of an enforcement policy that creates a double standard ofenforcement practices. The majority of the violations observed in the manufactured home parks are primarily high risk violations.

Specifically the lack of building permits. This results in many structures that are of poor construction,substandard or illegal materials, or conflicts with other laws involving life/safety issues. Other violations notedthat are considered life/safety are lack of maintenance (broken steps, handrails, landings or blocked fireegress). In general, there are typically multiply violations of the building and fire codes for these structures thatare observed from the street. Building permit enforcement is not optional to enforce and represent the vastmajority of the violations. There are some medium and low risk violations that are also observed. These are the ones that zoningchanges may be able to address. These include non-property maintenance violations of the zoning code for theR3-D (trash can screening, exterior storage, number of accessory structures etc.). Providing exemptions oralternative language applicable to that district will recognize the difference of the land use while notcompromising consistency in the code enforcement process. Currently, these types of violations are enforcedthe same as the R1 because there is no exemption or exclusion. Staff is proposing that the Zoning Ordinancebe reviewed and changes made to the code that better reflect the zoning standards for manufactured homes. Building and Fire Code life safety enforcement will remain in effect (we can’t not enforce these), and the IPMCwill remain in effect (most of these provisions relate to structural and life/safety issues as well). However, thezoning ordinance can be tailored to provide exemptions from zoning related provision for manufactured homeparks.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommend that the Council provide direction to modify the City Code, specifically the Zoning Ordinance,to account for performance standards that may be challenging to comply with given the unique arrangement of amanufactured home park neighborhood.


NEIGHBORHOODS: The City proactively canvasses neighborhoods checking for property maintenancecompliance to maintain and/or enhance housing stock and property values. , Peoplefeel Burnsville has quality housing by promoting and encouraging the upgrade,enhancement and maintenance of existing housing stock., People feel Burnsville hasquality housing through other licensing and regulatory activities to enhancehealth/safety for the residents/visitors.

ATTACHMENTS:DescriptionWork Session Minutes-2.1.19

Staff Contact: Christopher A Forslund Department: Licensing and Code


AGENDA REPORT

4/9/2019Item No. 4.

ITEM

Review of Double Frontage Setbacks

PRESENTER(S)

Sarah Arnold, Planner


Provide direction to staff.

BACKGROUND

At the August 21, 2018 Work Session the City Council discussed the topic of double frontage lot setbacks. Aspart of that discussion the Council directed staff to research the City’s ordinance and the provisions of marketcities’ ordinances and bring the item back to a future Work Session. The City of Burnsville’s Zoning Ordinance states that a double frontage lot or through lot is: “A lot which has apair of opposite lot lines abutting two (2) substantially parallel streets, and which is not a corner lot. On athrough lot, both street lines shall be front lines”. As such, each frontage does not permit accessory structureswithin the required front yard setback of 30’. The structures may be located within the area in between thesetback line and the principal structure. The City’s Subdivision Ordinance states that “Double frontage, or lotswith frontage on two (2) parallel streets shall not be permitted except where lots back on arterial streets orhighways, or where topographic or other conditions render subdividing otherwise unreasonable. Such doublefrontage lots shall have an additional depth of at least twenty feet (20') in order to allow space for screenplanting along the back lot line.” At the August 21, 2018 Work Session, City Attorney Jamnik noted that a doublefrontage lot may be an appropriate reason for the City Council to approve a Variance for an accessory structureto be located within the 30’ setback. A double frontage or through lot is considered a front yard to provide consistency along roadways where theprimary structures of the through lots face varying directions. Homeowners with a double frontage lot facing anarterial roadway will not have their sight vision obstructed by neighbors’ accessory structures in the “front” yardwhen their structures are set back further from the lot line adjacent to the roadway. Staff researched locations within the City where double frontage or through lots are located. In most cases,double frontage lots were located along arterials roads where subdivisions backed up onto the arterial road. Forexample, along the county roads, Nicollet Avenue, Southcross Drive, etc. In some cases, the double frontagelots were deeper in accordance with the subdivision ordinance. There were a few noticeable cases within theCity where properties within the middle of the subdivision were platted as double frontage lots. Staff estimatesapproximately ~460 properties within the R-1 zoning district are double frontage lots. Staff conducted research with the Market Cities (Apple Valley, Bloomington, Brooklyn Park, Coon Rapids,Eagan, Edina, Lakeville, Maple Grove, Minnetonka, Plymouth, Savage, St. Louis Park and Woodbury),analyzing how these cities apply setback provisions to double frontage or through lots. Staff learned that all ofthe Market Cities refer to double frontage or through lots in their ordinances. There is little variation in how eachcity designates the “rear” yard abutting the additional street. In most cases, the Market Cities contain the samedefinition as the City of Burnsville Zoning Ordinance, where “on a through lot, both street lines shall be frontlines”. In cases where double frontage lots are defined as lots fronting two parallel streets, such as by the City

of Lakeville, accessory structures are permitted to be constructed in the rear yard abutting the street but notpermitted in the required buffer yard of a double frontage lot. In two of the Cities there was a provision that anaccessory structure could be located within the required front yard setback if the yard area abutted a majorstreet where street access is prohibited. In all Market Cities no structure can be built within a drainage or utilityeasement. The City of Plymouth includes a provision within their accessory structure requirements that a detachedaccessory building may be located in a front yard area abutting a major street if direct access is prohibited fromthe major street. In these cases, the detached accessory building must still be setback from the “front” lot linebut will not need to be set back as far as the primary structure. The setback is higher when abutting an arterialstreet. This is similar to Burnsville’s requirements as accessory structures are permitted to be located in the rearyard abutting a street but are required to meet the front yard setback requirements. Four of the Market and Adjacent Cities have similar provisions relating to double frontage lots, where the side orrear setback adjacent to public right-of-way for an accessory structure is the same for the principal building. It isalso common to see requirements in the subdivision ordinance requiring platted lots to have additional depth ifthey are double frontage lots backing up to other public right-of-way. The City of Minnetonka includes a provision wherein the front yard setback can be reduced by 10’ towards thedirection perceived by the city planner to be the rear yard. This does not apply to all residential zoning districts,and only applies when the properties are abutting other zoning districts outside of Low Density Residential. TheCity of Savage applies the front lot line requirements to primary structures on both lot lines abutting the street,except in cases of accessory structures. The majority of the Market and Adjacent Cities apply the front yardsetback requirement to a double frontage lot. Options for Council to consider include:

1. Leave the ordinance as-is as accessory structures are currently permitted on double frontage lots, manydouble frontage lots were platted as deeper lots to account for front yard setback requirements, and theVariance application can be considered in cases where the structure cannot meet setback requirements.

2. Amend the ordinance to modify setback requirements for accessory structures in the front yard to reducethe setback by 10’ in the case of a double frontage lot.

3. Amend the ordinance to modify setback requirements for accessory structures when the properties do notabut a collector or arterial road.

4. Send to Planning Commission for them to make a recommendation to Council.

RECOMMENDATION

This is an informational item and staff is seeking direction to amend the ordinance or to leave the provisions asis.


DEVELOPMENT/REDEVELOPMENT: People find Burnsville a balanced city of residential andbusiness development enhanced by redevelopment.

ATTACHMENTS:Description08-21-2018 City Council Work Session MinutesAmerican Planning Association Lot Type ExplanationDouble Frontage Setbacks TableExamples of Double Frontage Lots

Staff Contact: Sarah Arnold Department: Planning

WORK SESSION MINUTES 12 August 21, 2018 ITEM 2. MAX TAX DISCUSSION … (continued) Council discussed the proposals for National League of Cities and Shopping Center (ICSC) conferences. There is value in attending these conferences and staff and Council could attend these conferences in 2019 in place of the Greater MSP investment ($25,000 annually). Council consensus was to include the options for both conferences if they fit within the 4.9% proposed increase. Council consensus was to support one additional FTE for the IT Department. Council consensus was to direct staff to prepare Resolutions that establish the maximum tax levy with a 4.9% increase. Council Member Schulz was not supportive. ITEM 3. APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF THREE (3) SIDEWALK SNOW PLOW VEHICLES Ryan Peterson, Public Works Director, requested Council action regarding the purchase of snow plowing equipment as discussed during the previous max tax/budget item. Motion by Gustafson, seconded Kautz, to authorize the purchase of three sidewalk snow plow vehicles through Minnesota cooperative purchasing contracts in the amount of $495,000. Ayes: Coughlin, Gustafson, Kautz, Kealey, Schulz. Nays: None. The motion carried.

ITEM 4. REVIEW MAYOR AND COUNCIL SALARIES AND BENEFITS Macheal Collins, City Clerk, presented the survey of cities showing that Burnsville Mayor and Council salaries are the lowest of all market cities and noted that there has been no raise in salaries since 2007. Any Council decision to make an adjustment to Mayor and Council salaries would require action before the November election. Council discussed the policy to maintain salaries at the mid-range and whether a cost of living adjustment could be implemented. City Attorney Jamnik recommended against automatic annual cost of living adjustments as they are less transparent and not specifically allowed in statute. However, the Council could elect to increase their salaries by a percentage similar to cost of living adjustments. Mayor Kautz and Council Member Gustafson supported an increase to bring salaries to the mid-range. Council Members Coughlin, Kealey, and Schulz were not supportive. Council consensus was to maintain the Mayor and Council salaries at the current levels. ITEM 5. ROUNDTABLE

A. Double Frontage Setback Issue

Council Member Schulz requested Council to discuss issues for property owners with double frontage setbacks. Sometimes a backyard is visible from a street which could prevent the owner from having a backyard shed. City Attorney Jamnik noted that this is a common limitation in double frontage logs and also in shoreland zones that basically have two front yards, however having a double frontage lot would be an appropriate reason for the Council to approve a variance. It was noted that double frontage lots are treated differently in the City’s assessment and other policies. Councilmember Coughlin noted that some deeds have restrictive covenants that still would not allow a shed or other outbuilding. Council consensus was to direct staff to research and bring this item back to a future Work Session.

arnolds

Highlight

Distinguishing Related Terms

Most zoning ordinances define several kinds of lots, yards, buildings, dwellings, setbacks, and signs. To the occasional user of the ordinance, the distinctions between a group of related terms may not be obvious from the text. Their real meanings may be easier to understand if their relationships to each other can be visualized. To clarify the distinctions between front, side and rear yards, for example, a composite diagram (Figure 11) is included in the St. Clair, Michigan, model zoning ordinance.10 In this way, the user has a single, handy visual reference to terms that are used throughout the ordinance for the three types of yards.

Figure 11

k. Yards: The open spaces on the same lot with a main building, unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground upward except as otherwise provided in this Ordinance, and as defined herein:

(1) Front Yard: Is an open space extending the full width of the lot, the depth of which is the minimum horizontal distance between the front lot line and the nearest line of the main building.

(2) Rear Yard: Is an open space extending the full width of the lot the depth of which is the minimum horizontal distance between the rear lot line and the nearest line of the main building.

(3) Side Yard: Is an open space between a main building and the side lot line, extending from the front yard to the rear yard, the width of which is the horizontal distance from the nearest point of the side lot line to the nearest point of the main building. A good example of how diagrams can be used to clarify related terms is illustrated in the Cayce, South Carolina, zoning ordinance. Both lots and yards are defined in the text. Four types of lots

— corner, interior, through, and reversed frontage — are defined and illustrated as shown in Figure 12. In an attempt to be explicit, the ordinance drafters define several kinds of yards and then show how these vary depending on the lot type in question. Although a front yard is ordinarily "a yard extending between side lot lines across the front of a lot,"11 it has a slightly different meaning for through and corner lots. Similarly, side and rear yards have different meanings. The two terms — yard and lot — and their variations are illustrated in one diagram (Figure 13). Note the similarity in layout between this diagram and the diagram for lot types shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12

Lot Types

400.20. Lot types

400.201. Corner lot: A lot located at the intersection of two or more streets. A lot abutting on a curved street or streets shall be considered a corner lot if straight lines drawn from the foremost point of the side lot lines to the foremost point of the lot (or an extension of the lot where it has been rounded by a street radius) at an interior angle of less than 135 degrees. See lots marked A(1) in lot types diagram.

400.202. Interior lot: A lot other than a corner lot with only one frontage on a street other than an alley. See lots marked B in lot types diagram.

400.203. Through lot: A lot other than a corner lot with frontage on more than one street other than an alley. Through lots with frontage on two streets may be referred to as double frontage lots. See lot marked C in lot types diagram.

400.204. Reversed frontage lot: A lot which is at right angles, or approximately right angles, to the general pattern in the area involved. A reversed frontage lot may also be a corner lot or an interior lot (A-D and B-D) in diagram, or even, in rare cases, a through lot (not illustrated). Figure 13

Yards on Rectangular Lots

400.311. Front: A yard extending between side lot lines across the front of a lot . . .

In the case of through lots, unless the prevailing front yard pattern on adjoining lots indicates otherwise, front yards shall be provided on all frontages. Where one of the front yards that would normally be required on a through lot is not in keeping with the prevailing yard pattern, the administrative official may waive the requirement for the normal front yard and substitute therefore a special yard requirement which shall not exceed the average of the yards provided on adjacent lots.

In the case of corner lots which do not have reversed frontage, a front yard of the required pattern shall be provided in accordance with the prevailing yard pattern and a second front yard of half the depth required generally for front yards in the district shall be provided on the other frontage.

400.312. Side: A yard extending from the rear line of the required front yard to the rear lot line. In the case of through lots, side yards shall extend from the rear lines of the front yards required. In the case of corner lots, the yards remaining after full and half-depth front yards have been established shall be considered to be side yards.

400.313. Rear: A yard extending across the rear of the lot between inner side yard lines. In the case of through lots and corner lots, there will be no rear yard.

Figure 14

Two other examples showing differences between lot types in one diagram are depicted in Figures 14 and 15. In the Kern County, California,12 illustration (Figure 14), the lots are labeled by name rather than number, while the Des Moines, Iowa, ordinance13shows the lots in perspective (Figure 15).

Figure 15

Other diagrams used to clarify related

Apple Valley Bloomington Brooklyn Park Coon Rapids Eagan Edina

Rear Yard Setback Adj. Street 30' 30' 20' or 30' 35' or 40' 30' 25'

Front lot lines are the boundary of a lot which abuts an existing or dedicated street.

Side and rear yard abutting a public street - minimum setback matches the required setback of the principal structure in the zoning district

Accessory structures on residential properties must be setback from property lines at least:20 or 30 feet from any public right-of-way depending on zoning district.Side or rear setback adjacent to public right-of-way is same as for the principal building

The front yard setback is 35' or 40' depending on the zoning district. Lot lines abutting a public street right of way is considered a front lot line. Lots platted as double frontage lots are required to have additional depth.

Accessory buildings must meet setbacks from required property lines. 30' setback from front yard or public right of way

For a through lot, the required setback for all buildings and structures from the street upon which the single dwelling unit building does not front shall be not less than 25 feet.

Lakeville Maple Grove Minnetonka Plymouth Savage St. Louis Park Woodbury

30' 30' 25'

50' from arterial roads, 25' from city roads 10'

30' or the front wall of the closest house on the block front, whichever is greater. 35' or 50' depending on zoning district

Treated as rear yards only for accessory buildings. Shall not be located in required buffer yard. Double frontage lots require buffer and screening in the rear yard when abutting collector or arterial streets.

In the case of a lot abutted on one side by a major road (collector status or greater) and abutted on another non-contiguous side by an internal street, the front yard and front yard line shall be on the internal street side, which side shall also be used for setback, lot width and access purposes. On a through lot, both street lines shall be front lot lines for purposes of applying the yard and parking regulations.

Reduced by 10' in the area perceived as the rear lot in the case of double frontage lots

Can be located where direct street access is prohibited

On a through or double frontage lot, both lot lines that abut the street shallbe considered front lot lines for applying the yard setback requirements, except in the case of a fence or accessory building.

Accessory buildings on through lots shall be subject to the front and side yardrequirements of the principal building if the accessory building is located within 60feet of the rear lot line.

From major road (collector or arterial street): 50 feet. Minimum rear yard setback: 35 feet unless the rear yard abuts an existing or future collector or arterial street, then the minimum rear yard shall be 50 feet from the anticipated future right-of-way.


AGENDA REPORT

4/9/2019Item No. 5.

ITEM

Update on LALALA, LLC Settlement

PRESENTER(S)

Jenni Faulkner, Community Development Director


Informational update. No action is required.

BACKGROUND

In November 2017, the City Council approved a settlement and Interim Use Permit with Rubenzer and La LaLa, LLC regarding an illegal landscape and outdoor storage business and soil stockpiling. The agreementallows the business to conduct soil remediation over four construction seasons (until December 2022) and toremove a minimum of 11,000 cubic yards of existing soil per year and to provide an annual report to the City.The landscape business and related outdoor storage can remain on site for seven years (until November2024). The existing substandard building can remain until December 2021 and then a temporary businesstrailer is allowed until the IUP terminates. In December of 2018, staff sent a letter to the property owner seeking a report on soils removed in 2018. Theirresponse is attached. It does not comply with the terms of the settlement and the IUP. However, given thatthere are three construction seasons to go to remove the stockpile, staff feels legal action may not be the bestuse of resources at this time.

RECOMMENDATION

No recommendation needed. This is only an informational update. However, if Council would like legal actionpursued at this time, it should be noted.


DEVELOPMENT/REDEVELOPMENT: Economic development and redevelopment initiatives areimplemented. Specific initiatives include Heart of the City,Minnesota River Quadrant, County Road 42 CommercialCorridor Viability, monuments at key City entrances, andpromotion of industry clusters.

ATTACHMENTS:Description2017 Council background and signed settlementStatus update from La La La

Staff Contact: Jenni Faulkner Department: Director of Community Development

CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR AGENDA REPORT

11/6/2017

Item No. 4.K.

ITEM

Settlement with Rubenzer and La La La LLC

Approve the Settlement Agreement with Rubenzer and La La La, LLC.


Approve the Settlement Agreement.

BACKGR OUND

In 2005, the City entered into a Dakota County District Court settlement agreement with Innovative Landscapes

to attempt to resolve outstanding enforcement on an illegal landscape and outdoor storage business located at

721 and 771 Lady Bird Lane. The settlement called for the City to issue three different Interim Use Permits

IUPs):

IUP number one was for the continued operation of the storage and sale of landscaping materials for a 10

year period.

IUP number two required the removal of soil stockpile from an adjacent property immediately.

IUP number three required the soil stockpile at 721 Lady Bird Lane to be removed within 3 years.

All three of the IUPs were issued in September of 2005. IUP number one expired in March 2015. In February

2015 La La La LLC made application for an IUP to allow for soil remediation at 721 and 771 Lady Bird Lane

and to further continue the expired IUP to allow outdoor storage and sales of landscape materials. In June

2015 the City Council, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, approved the soil remediation

request of the IUP and denied the request to continue the outdoor storage and landscape sales ( that has

expired in earlier in 2015). The applicant and property owner, David Rubenzer, sued the City in September

2015 over a procedural matter related to the processing of the IUP as well as noting alleged takings claims in

being denied the use of their property for the continued landscape and outdoor storage business.

A result of the past two years of litigation has led to a proposed settlement. The settlement will compel the

property owner to conduct soil remediation over the next four construction seasons ( until December 2022).

They have agreed to mitigate a minimum of 11,000 cubic yards of existing soil per year and to provide an annual

report to the City. The remediation will include necessary fill and compaction for a future building consistent

with the IUP soil remediation plan approved by the Council in 2015 (Exhibit A). The settlement will allow the

landscape and outdoor storage business to operate for seven years from the IUP approval ( estimated date of

November 21, 2024). The existing landscape building will be removed by December 31, 2021. At such time the

City will allow a temporary trailer for the landscape office until the IUP terminates. Per the MRQ Soil

Remediation Ordinance, the IUP will include a provision that allows for the import of soils, and storing,

excavating, and sales of soil. The Settlement Agreement is attached.

To implement the Settlement Agreement, the City will process an Interim Use Permit to allow the soil

remediation with provision as outlined in the Settlement Agreement and ordinance; and extend the March 2015

expired IUP as originally approved in 2005. Those IUPs will be brought forth to Planning Commission at their

next meeting on November 14 and will be presented to the City Council at the November 21st regular meeting.

RECOMME NDATION

Staff, the City Attorney, and representing Legal Counsel recommend that the Council approve the Settlement

Agreement.

RELATE D ENDS & OUTCOMES STATEMENT(S)

DEVELOP MENT/REDEVELOP MENT:Economic development and redevelopment initiatives are implemented. Specific

initiatives include Heart of the City, Minnesota River Quadrant, monuments at key City Entrances, and promotion of industry

clusters

AT TAC HME NT S :

Description

Settlement Agreement

Exhibit A R emediation P lan

Staff Contact: Jenni Faulkner Department: Director of Community Development

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

This Settlement Agreement and Release (the "Agreement") is entered into effective as of September 22, 2017, by and between David Rubenzer ("Rubenzer"), La La La, LLC ("La La La"), and the City of Burnsville, (the "City").

RECITALS

• Rubenzer and La La La commenced a civil action entitled David Rubenzer and La La La, LLC v. City of Burnsville, Dakota District Court Case No. l 9HA-CV-15-3743 ("Litigation").

• The City issued Citation #190100006968 against Rubenzer on June 6, 2015 ("Citation").

• The noted actions involved certain Real Property located at 721 and 771 Ladybird Lane, Burnsville, MN ("Property").

• To avoid the significant time, and further expense of litigation and appeals, and to put to rest any and all possible disputes between the parties, Rubenzer, La La La, and the City voluntarily enter into this Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the stipulations, covenants, and the mutual promises contained in this Agreement, including the relinquishment of certain legal rights, and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties stipulate and agree as follows:

1. Stipulation of Dismissal. The parties hereto, by their signatures below, direct their respective counsel to take any and all necessary steps to cause all of the litigation and claims referenced above to be dismissed with prejudice.

2. Costs and Attorneys' Fees. Each of the parties hereto shall bear all of their own attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this litigation.

3. No Admission of Liability. Each party herein denies each and every one of the substantive allegations made by the other party, and the signing of this Agreement does not constitute nor shall it be construed as an admission by either party of any unlawful acts against any other person, nor of any liability or wrongful or unlawful conduct whatsoever.

4. Consideration. To resolve this matter, the parties agree to the following settlement terms:

a. The City will issue an Interim Use Permit (TUP), which will include the following provisions:

1. La La La or its successors in interest shall remediate the soil at the Property ("Work"), starting on the north side of the Property and continuing south toward the building on the Property. The Work shall commence on or about September 1, 2018, and be completed by December 31, 2021 ("Work Period"). It is understood that the Work will occur during the last four months of each calendar year.

a. The current building on the Property shall be removed no later than December 31 2021.

b. The Work shall include the removal of a minimum of 11,000 cubic yards of soil per year, located below street level, and filling to an elevation depicted in the remediation plan prepared by Bolton & Menk, which is attached as Exhibit A.

c. The Property will be compacted for construction of a building by the end of the Work Period.

d. Storing, stockpiling, mining, excavating or selling soil for current remediation on the Property is permitted.

e. Contractor trailers and heavy equipment ancillary to the Work is permitted on the Property.

II. La La La or its successors in interest shall submit a progress report to the City Planning Department by each December 31 of the Work Period ("Rep01t"). The Report will detail the quantities of soil removed and replaced.

a. No later than December 31 , 2022, La La La or its successors in interest shall provide the City Planning Department a separate report prepared by a soils engineer to verify that the poor soils have been removed, appropriate soils have been brought in, and the new soils have been compacted to industry standards to provide for a buildable pad.

111. A maximum of 10% of imported soils may be stored on the Property for the purpose of selling to customers without mixing. There shall be no limit imposed on the amount of soil stored on the Property for the purpose of combining with soils excavated as part of the Work.

tv. La La La or its successors in interest will have the ability to continue the operation of a wholesale landscaping supply company on the Property

2

for a period of seven years from the date of the grant of the IUP ("Operating Period").

a. In connection with the wholesale landscaping supply company, a mobile office trailer will be allowed to be on the Property starting at the time the building on the Property is being removed.

b. The mobile trailer shall be removed at the tetmination of the operation of the whole sale landscaping supply company or at the termination of the IUP, whichever occurs sooner..

v. La La La, or its successors in interest, will not apply for a renewal or extension of the IUP.

v1. The following additional conditions shall be incorporated into the new IUP:

a. The outdoor storage and display for all other landscape materials is permitted for the entire length (seven years) of the IUP.

b. The maximum height of material is 10 feet. c. La La La or its successors shall provide screening from the street

for the entire outdoor storage/display area including the proposed mulch bins.

d. La La La or its successor shall continue to provide the required minimum 30% green area for the southerly portion of the Property.

e. All new driveway areas shall be hard surfaced. f. All bins shall meet setbacks for accessory structures (40 feet front

yard setback, 10 feet side yard setback, and 20 feet rear yard setback required).

g. La La La or its successors shall obtain any necessary and required driveway, building, and grading permits.

h. All outside storage is to be contained to the area identified in the plan.

b. The Citation will be dismissed upon the date this Agreement is fully executed by the parties.

5. Mutual Release.

A. Rubenzer and La La La do hereby fully and release, acquit and forever discharge the City, and its current and past agents, employees, and officials, and all other persons, firms, corporations, associations or partnerships of and from any and

3

aU claims, actions, causes of action, demands, rights, damages, costs, expenses and compensation whatsoever, stemming from the Litigation and also including the Citation.

B. The City does hereby fully release, acquit and forever discharge David Rubenzer and La La La, and their current and past agents, employees, and officials, and all other persons, firms, corporations, associations or partnerships of and from any and all claims, actions, causes of action, demands, rights, damages, costs, expenses and compensation whatsoever stemming from the Litigation and also the Citation.

6. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. The parties intend this agreement as the final and binding expression of their agreement, and as the complete and exclusive statement of its terms. This Agreement supersedes all prior negotiations, representations and agreements between the parties, whether oral or written, relating to the subject matter of this Agreement.

7. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and/or by electronic signature, each counterpart of which will be deemed an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.

8. No Prior Assignment. The parties represent and warrant that they have not assigned or transferred to any third party any of the rights, claims, causes of action, or items to be released as part of this Agreement.

9. Authority to Execute Agreement. Each party to this Agreement represents that each such party is authorized to execute this Agreement. Each person executing this Agreement on behalf of any entity represents that he or she is authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said entity.

10. Advice of Counsel. Each party hereto, by executing this Agreement, represents to the other party, that each party has reviewed this Agreement with counsel, or has had the opportunity to seek the advice of counsel, and freely, knowingly, and voluntarily enters into this Agreement.

11. Governing Law. The parties agree that the laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern the validity, construction and enforceability of this Agreement. The parties agree that the state comis of Minnesota shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any legal proceeding arising out of or related to this Agreement.

12. Mutual Drafting. This Agreement is the result of negotiations between the parties and, accordingly, shall not be construed for or against either party, regardless of which party drafted the Agreement or any portion thereof. The Agreement shall for all purposes be deemed to have been mutually drafted.

4

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement.

Dated: /O~) ' 2017 By:

Dated: bee. . la , 2017

Dated: J;iJ r If ' 201 7

"0JAl1--David Rubenzer, Individually, and as Pr . ent f La La La, LLC

aclieAI Collins ity Cler~·

5

Dated: ~ l"). 2017

Dated: /;) Jj.?u--(_ 2017

6


AGENDA REPORT

4/9/2019Item No. 6.

ITEM

Council Travel Budget for Conferences and Trainings

PRESENTER(S)

Melanie Mesko Lee, City Manager


Provide staff direction regarding upcoming conferences and trainings.

BACKGROUND

Staff is providing information regarding additional training and conferences, specifically those provided throughthe National League of Cities (NLC), the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC), and the International Council ofShopping Centers (ICSC). The Council has approved in the 2019 Budget for four members to attend one NLC conference and one LMCconference. Also, two Economic Development (ED) staff members have been budgeted to attend the ICSCconference. During the 2019 All Day Work Session, Council discussed future training/conference budgeting. Staff wasdirected to bring forward a flat rate for the Mayor and a flat rate for each of the Councilmembers as part of the2020 budget. Council has inquired about the potential costs to attend more than one conference for NLC and LMC, and alsofor sending the Mayor and City Manager to the ICSC in addition to ED staff in 2019.

BUDGET IMPACT

If the Council authorizes additional conferences and/or attendees, the increase to the Council's travel budgetwould be approximately $5,000 for 2019, depending on number of attendees and if additional classes are takenat the conferences. Staff has provided a spreadsheet of budgeted assumptions for Council consideration.


CITY SERVICES: Burnsville is an organization that provides a supportive and collaborative environmentencouraging employee learning and participation in the decision-making process.

ATTACHMENTS:Description

Council Travel Budget Worksheet

Staff Contact: Macheal Collins Department: City Clerk

Registrations Flights Lodging Meals Taxi Mileage TotalsPercent Increase

2018 BUDGET $4,100.00 $3,300.00 $6,900.00 $1,660.00 $500.00 $600.00 $17,060.00NLC Added $2,400.00 $2,000.00 $5,000.00 $1,500.00 $160.00 $11,060.00 65%2019 BUDGET* $6,500.00 $5,300.00 $11,950.00 $3,160.00 $660.00 $600.00 $28,170.00

Kautz USCM Winter Mtg $700.00 $402.40 $1,089.72 $2,192.12USCM Winter Leadership Mtg $0.00 $500.00 $1,248.15 $40.25 $1,788.40USCM Annual Conf. (June ‐ booked) $950.00 $897.00 $1,603.72 $200.00 $100.00 $3,750.72USCM Fall Leadership‐ Mtg (projected) $500.00 $1,000.00 $100.00 $60.00 $1,660.00

Kealey NLC Conf (Mar) $605.00 $496.00 $1,018.53 $151.25 $60.25 $2,331.03

Gustafson NLC Conf (Mar) $1,075.00 $373.60 $642.41 $203.89 $2,294.90LMC Conf (Feb) $225.00 $255.56 $29.77 $172.84 $683.17LMC Conf (Jun) projected $400.00 $350.00 $150.00 $200.00 $1,100.00

Workman NLC Conf (Mar) $930.00 $373.60 $642.41 $194.50 $126.87 $2,267.38LMC Conf (Feb) $225.00 $511.11 $13.81 $172.84 $922.76LMC Conf (Jun) projected $400.00 $350.00 $150.00 $200.00 $1,100.00

Schulz LMC Conf (Feb) $225.00 $255.56 $13.81 $494.37

TOTALS $5,735.00 $3,542.60 $8,967.17 $1,207.03 $387.37 $745.68 $20,584.85

BUDGET REMAINING $765.00 $1,757.40 $2,982.83 $1,952.97 $272.63 ‐$145.68 $7,585.15

Registrations Flights Lodging Meals Taxi Mileage TotalsICSC (May) Estimate Per Person $760.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $250.00 $50.00 $2,560.00

Total for 2 (EBK & MML) $1,520.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $500.00 $100.00 $5,120.00

LMC (Jun) Estimate Per Person (CS?) $400.00 $350.00 $150.00 $200.00 $1,100.00

NLC (Nov) Estimate Per Person** $465.00 $400.00 $1,100.00 $250.00 $50.00 $2,265.00Total for 3 (DG, DK & VW) $1,395.00 $1,200.00 $3,300.00 $750.00 $150.00 $6,795.00

NEW CONFERENCE COSTS $3,315.00 $2,200.00 $5,650.00 $1,400.00 $250.00 $200.00 $13,015.00

OVERAGE IN TRAINING/TRAVEL BUDGET ‐$2,550.00 ‐$442.60 ‐$2,667.17 $552.97 $22.63 ‐$345.68 ‐$5,429.85AMENDED 2019 BUDGET WITH ADDITIONAL CONF. $32,499.85* Budget info includes miscellaneous training/conference line items but does not include local meals/mileage 15%** NLC Registration does not include additional classes 90%

Council Conference Costs and Budgets

Potential Increase to 2019 BudgetIncrease over 2018 Budget


AGENDA REPORT

4/9/2019Item No. 7.

ITEM

Roundtable

ROUNDTABLE ITEMS:

Legacy Events

Fire Muster: Council Member Kealey requested information on fully funding the Fire Muster in 2019 andbeyond. According to Policy No. 1.027, each legacy event organizer is responsible for reimbursing the City50% of the City service charges incurred for their event at levels consistent with 2017 services. Any costsincurred above the 2017 level of service is 100% the responsibility of the event organizer. Since 2010, thecosts of City services for the Fire Muster/Heart of the City 10k have varied from a low of $28,388.48 in2018 to a high of $35,406.45 in 2010. The 50% reimbursement policy for City service expenses waswaived in 2017 for all Legacy Events. As a result, the total City cost of the services provided that year was$32,277.00. Art & All That Jazz: Council Member Gustafson requested information for Art and All that Jazz as a LegacyEvent in 2019 and beyond. According to Policy No. 1.027, a mutually agreed upon date and level ofservice must be established and approved by Council prior to the return of this Legacy Event. Art and Allthat Jazz last took place in 2012. The total cost of City services for that event was $8,583.23 in 2012 witha three year average cost from 2010 to 2012 of $8,390.90.

Schedule Special Work Session for Commission Interviews

Staff is seeking direction to schedule a Special Work Session and is proposing Tuesday, May 28 at 4:00p.m. as a potential date to interview candidates for City Commissions.

Report on Advisory Boards and External Organizations

ATTACHMENTS:DescriptionAdvisory Boards & External Org List

Staff Contact: Macheal Collins Department: City Clerk

2019 ADVISORY BOARDS AND EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS

ELIZABETH KAUTZ Regional Agencies City Commissions/Committees/Community Interests Municipal Legislative Commission Economic Development Commission Regional Council of Mayors International Festival Committee SV/BV Joint Council Committee Metro Cities Policy - Metropolitan Agencies VINCE WORKMAN Regional Agencies City Commissions/Committees/Community Interests LMC Policy Committee - Improving Fiscal Future Planning Commission Metro Cities Policy - Municipal Revenues Fire Muster Board Broadband JPA Board, Alternate Burnsville Historical Society Savage/Burnsville Joint Council Committee DAN KEALEY Regional Agencies City Commissions/Committees/Community Interests I-35W Solutions Alliance Metro Cities Policy – Transportation & General Gov’t Minnesota Valley Transit Authority Minnesota Transportation Alliance Suburban Transit Authority CARA SCHULZ Regional Agencies City Commissions/Committees/Community Interests Dakota Comm. Center Board of Directors Parks & Natural Resources Comission Metro Cities Policy – Housing & Econ. Development International Festival Committee, Alternate LMC Policy – Improving Service Delivery Black Dog Watershed Management Organization Multi-Family Housing Managers DAN GUSTAFSON Regional Agencies City Commissions/Committees/Community Interests I-35W Solutions Alliance, Alternate Burnsville Community Foundation LMC Policy Committee-Improving Local Economies Burnsville Convention & Visitors Bureau Broadband JPA Board Dakota Comm. Center Board of Directors, Alternate ALL – Ad Hoc Committees

Documents

Report on Advisory Boards and External Organizations