Loading...
12/01/1987 - City Council RegularAGENDA REGULAR MEETING EAGAN CITY COUNCIL EAGAN, MINNESOTA CITY HALL DECEMBER 1, 1987 6:30 P.M. I. 6:30 - ROLL CALL & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (BLUE) II. 6:35 - ADOPT AGENDA & APPROVAL OF MINUTES (BLUE) III. 6:45 - DEPARTMENT BEAD BUSINESS (BLUE) A. PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT: 1 1. Recreation Survey/Decision Resources +•f- 2. Architectural Program Statement/Thomas-Lake Park IV. 6:55 - CONSENT AGENDA (ORCHID) A. LICENSES, Plumbers B. LICENSES, Cigarette - Renewals C. LICENSES, Kennel - Renewals .f� D. LICENSES, Rubbish - Renewals 13 E. FINAL PLAT, Patrick Addition .15 F. FINAL PLAT, St. Francis Woods 6th Addition .%g G. FINAL PLAT, Gopher Eagan Industrial Park 2nd Addition ,ZO H. PROJECT 5214, Johnny Cake Ridge Road - Streets, Receive Petition/ Order Feasibility Report �•Z� I. PROJECT 525, Woodlands Storm Sewer Lift Station, Receive Petition/ Order Feasibility Report �• 25 J. PROJECT 510, Cliff Road - Street & Storm Sewer, Receive Report, y5 K. Order Public Hearing PROJECT 5114, Duckwood Drive Streets p. - & Watermain, Receive Report, Order Public Hearing p.ZrJ L. I PROJECT 521, Yorktown 2nd Addition - Storm Sewer, Receive Report, Order Public Hearing -.Z` M. APPROVE COUNTY ROAD TURNBACK AGREEMENTS, County Road 23, Nicols Road, County Road 63A, and Becker Road 'TJ,Z7 N. FINAL PLAT, Cedar Cliff Commercial Park 3rd Addition V. 7:00 - PUBLIC HEARINGS (SALMON) ZR A. PROJECT 518, Eagan High School Addition, Utilities �7 B. PROJECT 519, Town Centre 70 & 100, Streetlights 6� C. PROJECT 1452R, Pond AP -50, Storm Sewer Outlet D. VACATION, Lot 6, Block 6, Oak Cliff Addition, Utility & Street Easements VI. OLD BUSINESS (PINK) -P•72- A. WAIVER OF PLAT, Pond View Planned Development, TXI, Inc., Combine 14 Existing Parcels into 2 Separate Parcels B. PRELIMINARY PLAT, Cedar Cliff Comnercial Park 4th Addition, Austin Companies AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for a Pylon Sign -rjj� C. COMPREHENSIVE GUID PLAN AMENDMENT, Cliff Lake Galleria & Towers, Ryan Hoffman Joint Venture AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT, 99.9 Acres for 3 Lots Containing a Strip Shopping Center and 5 Outlots for Future Development VII. NEW BUSINESS (TAN) -x.174 A. 1988 FEE SCHEDULE �(�Z B. WAIVER OF PLAT, Lot 1, Block 1, Rahn Ridge, B.H. Grace Corporation, Duplex Lot Split to Allow Individual Ownership WAIVER OF PLAT, Lot 6, Block 5, Vienna Woods, James Curry, Duplex ( � Lot Split to Allow Individual Ownership D. VARIANCE, 2073 Jade Lane, Craig and Barbara Kohler, .11" Side Yard / Setback, Lot 14, Block 5, Cedar Grove #3 VIII. ADDITIONAL ITEMS (GOLD) A. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS -P. X Z.1 . CONTRACT 87-42, Salt Storage Building, Receive Bids/Award Contract B. PRIVATE IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS I .2031. CONTRACT 86-I, Sunset 11th Addition - Utilities, Final Acceptance 7Z3 2. CONTRACT 86-H, Stuart Addition - Streets &IItilities, Final 1 Acceptance ,p, 26)4 C. RESOLUTION, Concerning Dakota County Solid Waste Master Planning IX. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA (GREEN) X. VISTORS TO BE HEARD (Those not appearing on the agenda) XI. ADJOURNMENT MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: NOVEMBER 24, 1987 SUBJECT: AGENDA INFORMATION FOR DECEMBER 1, 1987 MEETING 1! -APPROVE MINUTES/ADOPT AGENDA After approval is given to the December 1, 1987 agenda, and regular City Council meeting minutes for the November 17, 1987 meeting, the following items are in order for consideration: DEPARTMENT- HEAD BUSINESS A. PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT: Item 1. Recreation Survey/Decision Resources --Decision Resources, the firm that was selected to prepare a survey for the community center, has completed a draft and is now ready for inspection by the City Council. A copy of the draft survey and a memo from the Director of Parks and Recreation is enclosed on pages ?i through ,3 . The City Administrator reviewed the questions and advised some changes that have been incorporated into the City Council's draft. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny, with or without modification, the recreation survey as prepared by Decision Resources to proceed with a survey for the community center. MEMO TO: THOMAS L. HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: KEN VRAA DATE: NOVEMBER 19, 1987 SUBJECT: RECREATION SURVEY/DRAFT Attached is a draft of questions prepared by Decision Resources to be used for the sample survey recently authorized by the City Council. Essentially the survey can be divided into four parts: DEMOGRAPHICS - Those questions that will provide a residential profile of the City and the respondents to the survey. Potentially these are questions 1 through 3, 23 through 25, 99 through 108 and 113 through 124. GENERAL SATISFACTION - This series of questions deals with general issues having to do with the satisfaction levels of the respondents with the City. This is important as it has been demonstrated that a negative attitude can show up in a negative referendum vote as a form of protest of other problems within the City. Decision Resources's opinion is that these problems may need to be rectified prior to any vote on a community center. CURRENT RECREATIONAL FACILITIES - A community center should generally meet the liftstyle needs of its residents and should augment a successful parks and recreation system. If there is dissatisfaction with the current offerings and the current park system itself, voters may reject any attempt to expand on a community center until the public feels satisfied with those facilities that are now available and the manner in which they are maintained. Therefore, you will notice various questions concerning lifestyles and opinions on current facilities and programs being offered. FACILITY AND REFERENDUM PLANNING - Both the types of facilities residents would most like to see included in a community center as well as their willingness to pay needs to be judged. This component of the questionnaire helps measure support and its intensity under various proposals. Prioritization of the facilities most wanted by the voters also occurs within the survey. Please note that the questions have been deliberately "jumbled" to maintain the interest of the respondents. Be assured that Decision Resources does not feel the questionnaire is too long. The communities of Shoreview and Cottage Grove have recently completed structured surveys which were somewhat longer than this current draft. These two surveys had less than 2% refusal rate. The City Council is asked to review this questionnaire for comment. Please recognize that it is still a draft. You will note some typographical errors. The Council should read the questionnaire to determine if there are specific questions dealing with general satisfaction levels which they feel may be inappropriate. After Council approval, the survey is ready for administration to the public. It is desirable that the survey be completed prior to the Christmas holiday season if at all possible. -21- I will be sending a copy of the survey to the Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission asking them to serve as a "test group". They will be instructed to read each question and respond before proceeding to the next question. Modifications as a result of the Council's comments and the Commission's reactions will then be brought to Decision Resources. These comments will be incorporated into a third draft which will also be "tested" on another group of candidates to insure clarity and understanding. If you have questions or concerns relative to the appreciate knowing of your concerns at the earliest we can continue this process on a timely basis. Respectfully submitted, en Vraa Director of Parks and Recreation KV/kh Enclosure 3 questionnaire, I would opportunity in order that Agenda Information Memo, December 1, 1987, City Council Meeting Item 2. Architectural Program Statement/Thomas Lake Park --The Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission is recommending that an architectural program statement be approved for Thomas Lake Park. The architectural program will provide a facility somewhat similar to the structure at Trapp Farm Park although a different floor plan design will be required. According to the Director of Parks and Recreation it is intended that concept plans be prepared for this building by early February for approval to allow for construction bids to be let in March of 1988. As background, Thomas Lake Park is proposed to have a park shelter pavilion constructed as part of the community parks master plan and he LAWCON/LCMR Grants Program. Enclosed on pages \5 through is a copy of the Thomas Lake pavilion architectural program. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve with or without modification the architectural program statement of the pavilion at Thomas Lake Park. Stephen Sullivan Draft 11/3/87 Landscape Architect/ Worksheet #1 Parks Planner THOMAS LAKE PAVILION ARCHITECTURAL PgOGRAM 1 .;. BUILDING TITLE: THOMAS LAKE PAVILION GENERAL STATEMENTS OF BUILDING OBJECTIVES, PURPOSE & ACTIVITIES: VISUAL OBJECTIVES 1. The image of the building shall provide a symbolic and aesthetic quality that identifies the Eagan Park System and is complimentary to other park buildings within the system. Trapp Farm Park Pavilion's construction systems, materials and form, should not be ignored with the design of Thomas Lake Pavilion. The existing pavilion performs and visually enhances the park extremely well. However, considering that each of Eagan's community parks have diverse uses and character, it is unappropriate to take a cookie cutter approach to pavilion design. These site specific implications, stimulate a need to review several concept designs with a range of diversification. 2. The building location, orientation and form shall be designed to enhance recreational programming, park functions and user needs while providing visual coherence to all park elements. The proposed location of the pavilion is in the center of a central open space. The building should be designed to be viewed from all sides. The trails from the parking lot have strong visual and physical connections to the building area. The building area is at the park's high point providing a subtle visual connection to the lake. Prescribed sightlines from the building to the lake could be enhanced with selective cutting. The ground plane is relatively flat with the trees being a strong vertical element at the perimeter. Unlike Trapp Farm Park pavilion's two-level design, it appears there will be only one level at Thomas Lake Park. The building ground plane may need to be softened due to the building pads expansive horizontal nature. Vertical elements, change in materials, and colors may also soften the ground plane. Lastly, the park and building should relate, usually interfacing on the inside and the outside. 3. The image of the structure shall be a distinctive and a creative result of the function and shall identify and organize these functions. 4. The structure should have a unique visual quality that relates directly to Thomas Lake Park and it's use. The building image should blend into the visual and physical character of the site. 5. The image of the building should not reflect any time period. USER OBJECTIVES 1. The building should be designed to accommodate the functional and spacial needs for: A. A single group of 100-125 people picnicking. The architect will need to provide a picnic table' layout which works with the building design. The design should provide a speaker "node" which relates to the single group. this group area should be hard surfaced, sheltering the user from the rain, sun and wind. This area could be integrated with a complimentary exterior space which provides group size and use flexibility. B. A class room seating area for approximately 30 students. This area is primarily for interpretive and recreation programs. The area should relate to a speaker node. The space could be either interior or exterior, hard surface or soft surface. A combination space with architectural and park components seems appealing, i.e., (open roof joists, wood slatted benches, bonfire ring, plantings). C. General use by the public (i.e., family picnic, restroom stop, hikers rest area, curious George). Although there is a need to accommodate a single large group, the building should accommodate the general park user. D. Maintenance Workers 2. The building should provide efficient access/circulation for: a. Maintenance personnel and equipment, facilitating maintenance and operations within the park. b. Orderly circulation by users to building access points and functions to/from park functions. C. Service personnel to facilities. 3. The building and restrooms should be handicap accessible. The building should allow for three season use. BUILDING OBJECTIVES 1. Amenities within the building shall include: a. Large picnic area b. Informal sitting area C. Restrooms d. Storage area e. Food preparation area f. Speaker Node g. Entrance areas h. Grill area (inside or outside) 20 2. The building mechanical systems (water supply, waste disposal, and electrical shall be designed: a. To integrate with building form and physical elements. b. To provide ease of use. C. To accommodate the function of.the building. d. To be cost efficient. e. Low maintenance. A 4" D.I.P. watermain is stubbed to the proposed building pad. No sanitary sewer exists to Thomas Lake Park. The architect is responsible in providing sanitary disposal alternatives to accommodate this need. Primary electric service is not provided to the park. The architect should for the sake of a building contract assume no power to the building site. Primary electric service will be brought to the site by Dakota Electric late spring/early summer of 1988. No gas service is anticipated. 3. Outlets should be located throughout the structure. 4. Materials should be vandal proof or efficiently replaceable. These materials should be durable, cost effective and easily maintained. Materials used at the existing park_ buildings should be reviewed for their effectiveness, and application at Thomas Lake Park pavilion. 5. The building will be used for cold weather storage and miscellaneous park furnishings i.e, picnic tables. 6. The building should have security lighting inside and outside. The lighting should be activated by a photcell and deactivated by a time clock. The circuit should also have a manual override. 7. The building should be equipped with night use lighting. The lighting should be activated by a photo cell and deactivated by a time clock. The circuit should also have a manual over ride. 8. The restroom should have the following: A. Be handicap accessible B. Women's contain 2 toilets C. Men's contain 1 toilet & urinal D. Normal ceiling heights E. Good lighting levels F. Design should consider site .lines from exterior spares. It is important that the restrooms relate to the large picnic area, but does not interrupt its use by general park users. G. Counter space should be provided adjacent to the sink. H. Provide hot air dryers versus paper towels I. Provide a floor drain J. Provide hot water K. Provide trash receptacle. L. Provide electrical outlet. M. Provide regulated faucet. 7 N. Provide stainless steel mirror 0. Toilet partitions should be extremely durable and maintenance free. The architect should consider architectural walls versus partitions. P. All doors should be steel with steel frames. C ` Q. Floors, walls and ceilings should be extremely durable and r i maintenance free. R. The architect should review IA t effectiveness in heating the restrooms. 9. The storage area should provide the following: A. Sufficient space for mechanical equipment. B. Storage for mops, brooms, cleaning and restroom supplies. C. Shelving and floor space for miscellaneous supplies. D. Slop sink E. Materials should be functional and durable. Appearance should be construction grade. F. Steel doors and frames 10. Food preparation area should provide the following: A. Electrical outlets B. Food set-out/preparation space C. The area should accommodate food space for 100 people. D. The area the food is set out should be oriented to provide ease of circulation for 100 people. Agenda Information Memo, December 1, 1987, City Council Meeting There are fourteen (14) items on the agenda referred to as consent items requiring 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 Additional Items unless the discussion required is brief. PLUMBERS LICENSE A. Plumbers Licenses --There are three (3) plumbers' licenses in order for consideration: Anderson Mechanical, Leo's Plumbing and Joseph Peters Plumbing Company. These applicants have all satisfied bonding and other requirements of the City to qualify for a plumber's license. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the plumbers' license for the three applicants as listed. CIGARETTE LICENSES B. Cigarette License Renewals --Cigarette license renewals are in order for consideration. Attached on page /D is a list of all applicants requesting a cigarette license renewal. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve cigarette license renewals as presented. z 1988 CIGARETTE LICENSE RENEWALS LOCATION Airliner Motel Al Baker's American Fruit & Produce Brooks Superette Brown Tank Carbone's Pizzeria Cedar Cliff Amoco Cedarvale Lanes Coca Cola Consolidated Freightways Contract Beverage Country Club Market Diamond T Ranch Drugs Plus Durnings Eagan Service Center Eagan Sinclair Eagan Standard Eagandale Club Finaserve, Inc. Hardees LaFonda's Marriott Corp. Mediterranean Cruise Mr D's Pizza Mister Donut PDQ Parkview Golf Club Perkins Q Petroleum Rainbow Foods Richard's Food & Liquor Rosemount, Inc. Snyder Drug Store Snyder Drug Warehouse Starks Saloon Superamerica 3 M Tom Thumb Valley Lounge Walgreens Yankee Drug & Gifts Yankee Square Amoco /D VENDOR Airliner Motel Theisen Vending MN Vikings Food Service J. Brooks Hauser North Country Vending Harold Awe, Co_ Robert Schlangen DVM, Inc. MN Viking Food Service North Country Vending Twin City Vending Co. Country Club Market Jerry Thomas Linda Skarvedt James Durning Mike Koehnen Sinclair Marketing James Persons Theisen Vending Finaserve, Inc. DVM, Inc. Holly Inns, Inc. Twin:City Vending Co. Hussein Ansari Mr. D's Pizza Mister Donut PDQ Don Larsen Perkins Q Petroleum Applebaum Food Markets Dick Stariha Canteen/Interstate Snyder Drug Store Kreager Vending Gary Starks Superamerica ARA Services Tom Thumb DVM, Inc. Walgreens Richard Matuseski W.J. Rabuse NUMBER OF MACHINES 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 4 2 1 1 1 Agenda Information Memo, December 1, 1987, City Council Meeting KENNEL LICENSES C. Kennel License Renewals --There are three (3) kennel license renewals in order for consideration by the City Council: 1) Kathleen Gilbertson at 3995 Dodd Road, 2) Janice MacKimm at 1690 Diffley Road and 3) Donald Sandberg at 1560 Yankee Doodle Road. All three kennel license renewals are in order for consideration. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve kennel license renewals for the three applicants as stated. RUBBISH LICENSES D. Rubbish License Renewals --There are 17 rubbish haulers licensed in the City of Eagan at the present time. All 17 haulers have requested a renewal of their operating licenses and the City Clerk's office has found all applications to be in order for consideration. It has been the direction of the City Council to send a letter to the refuse haulers at the time of a new license application for renewals indicating that a study is being performed by a consultant with review by the Solid Waste Abatement Commission that could recommend changes to the City Council regarding the current refuse hauling practice. For a list of the refuse haulers license renewals, refer to page 12-- . ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: haulers license renewals as presented. To approve the rubbish REFUSE HAULERS LICENSE RENEWALS December 1, 1987 1. Action Disposal 9. Lakers Disposal 4300 E. 65th St. 3275 E. 260th Inver Grove Hgts. Webster, MN 55088 455-8634 461-2276 2. Bloomington Sanitation 9813 Flying Cloud Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 941-5174 3. Browning-Ferris 9813 Flying Cloud Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 941-8394 4. City Clean -Up William Kreitz 2841 Burnside Ave. Eagan, MN 55121 454-6768 5. Dana's Eco Service 3313 Valley View Drive Burnsville, MN 55337 435-7209 6. Dick's Sanitation Service 21338 Dodd Road Lakeville, MN 55044 469-2239 7. Expert Disposal, Inc. 3131 Sibley Memorial Hwy. Eagan, MN 55122 423-3311 8. Knutson Rubbish Service 14345 Biscayne Ave. Rosemount, MN 55068 423-2294 Z 10. Mendota Heights Rubbish 20700 Donnelly Ave. East Farmington, MN 55024 437-6786 11. Metro Refuse 8168 West 125th St. Savage, MN 55378 890-0861 12. Quality Waste Control 1901 West 144th St. Burnsville, MN 55337 435-3454 13. Roadway Rubbish 2400 Dodd Road Mendota Heights, MN 55120 454-7152 14. Triangle Services 1881 Lexington Ave. Mendota Heights, MN 55118 454-1848 15. Valley Sanitation 15296 Dresden Trail Apple Valley, MN 55124 423-2992 16. Waste Management, Inc. 12448 Pennsylvania Savage, MN 55378 890-1100 17. Wildwood Sanitation Box 176 Newport, MN 55055 459-7926 Agenda Information Memo, December 1, 1987, City Council Meeting FINAL PLAT APPROVAL/PATRICK ADDITION E. Final Plat Approval for Patrick Addition --Staff has received an application for final plat approval for the Patrick Addition located east of Dodd Road and south of Hay Lake as shown on page �. All conditions placed on the preliminary plat approval of February 17, 1987 have been satisfactorily complied with. All final plat application materials have been submitted, reviewed by staff and found to be in order for favorable Council action. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the final plat for the Patrick Addition and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. 13 /y/ Agenda Information Memo, December 1, 1987, City Council Meeting FINAL PLAT APPROVAL/ST. FRANCIS WOODS 6TH ADDITION F. Final Plat Approval for St. Francis Woods 6th Addition --Staff has received an application for final plat approval for the St. Francis Woods 6th Addition located south of Duckwood Drive and west of Lexington Avenue as shown on page . All conditions placed on the preliminary plat approval of September 15, 1�988�7 have been satisfactorily complied with. Enclosed on page �[�-&is a letter from the St. Francis Woods Condominium Homeowners Association indicating their concurrence with the proposed plat. All final plat application materials have been submitted, reviewed by staff and found to be in order for favorable Council action. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the final plat for St. Francis Woods 6th Addition and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. i O 0 a O ch Z LL 11 ��..�7� _ 1l�•7+� .t �w :J �a n •$ O S` � I -ooG/r ir,o� LO t_ b cu 01. _ e I.J• p, I' • s / I 1 o ht�i�Q. � ` � � w -i- -J � • v � b e o F � 11 ��..�7� _ 1l�•7+� .t :J �a n •$ O S` � I IC .t :J �a n •$ l I � I -ooG/r ir,o� LO t_ b cu IC :J �a n •$ l I � I -ooG/r ir,o� t_ b cu ',.l to I I ISI Z �•i IZn �� ti .�• tl •I '' �� u I.J• p, I' • s / I 1 o ht�i�Q. IC 3629 G St. Francis Way Eagan, Minnesota 55123 November 13, 1987 Mr. Richard M. Giefer Richard Land Associates 8053 Bloomington Freeway Minneapolis, Minnesota 55420 Subject: St. Francis Woods Sixth Addition Dear Mr. Giefer: The Purpose of this communication is to bring you up to date on the pos- iton and concerns of the residents of St. Francis Woods Condominium Associa- tion regarding your Sixth Addition. A meeting of several members of my committee was held on the evening of Novermer 11, 1987. The following is a synopsis of the position and concerns of the committee. 1 CLOSING OF OURIMAIN ENTRANCE The committe believes that the closing of the present main entrance from Lexington and the construction of a new entrance at the intersection of Falcon Way and Lexington is in the best interest of our area and your new Sixth Addi- tion. This is with the understanding that the City of Eagan in cooperation with Dakota County will submit plans and specification to our Committe for approval prior to the starting of construction. We understand 'that this pro- ject will consit of, but now limited to, removing the present blacktop roadway and curbing, installing new curbing on the east side of St. Francis Way at Abbey Way and providing for proper drainage. In addition they shall provide the needed fill, black dirt and sodding of the area. The present sign at this location shall be moved to the intersection of.Abbey Way and the extension of Falcon Way. It is further understood that all of the above changes shall be made without cost the the residents of St. Francis Woods Condominium Assocation. 2 DEDICATION OF ABBEY WAY EAST FROM buCKWOOD The Committee has no objection to our developer, Mr. Tom Healey, contracting with you for the necessay addition width of the right-of-way of this section of street so that is section can be dedicated to the City of Eagan. 3 TOT LOT ESCROW MONIES We know that you are not directly involved in this matter. However, as part of item number one the Committee is asking that the five thousand dollars now held by the City of Eagan, per Mr. Healey's developers agreement, for our Tot - Lot be placed in a special Escrow Account controlled in part by the residents of our Association. This request is made with the understanidng that the above 17 Page Two monies would be used only to improve the area of the present main entrance.. We understand this part of the developers agreement is controlled by the Eagan Park Commission. We would work with this Commission to determine the use of the monies. 4 REZONING of LOTS ADJACENT to ABBEY WAY at DUCKWOOD The Committee does not object to the future rezoning of all or part of the '0 four lots that are adjacent to this short section of Abbey Way at Duckwood. 5 PROPER SIGNS FOR ST. FRANCIS WOODS CONDOMINIUMS In addition to the proper moving of the Main Entrance Sign as noted above we request that a part of any agreement to rezone the four lots on Abbey Way enclude a proper sign at the intersection o£ Abbey Way and St. Francis Way to indentify and direct people looking for our project. 6 ROAD USE RESTRICTIONS It is a major concern to our committee what normal construction traffic into your new area would do to the condition of our private streets. For this reason we want to enter into an agreement with you to prohibit your contractors and sub -contractors from using our streets to enter your project. An example of our concern is the present condition of the road surface on St. Francis Way east of Abbey Way. Your contractors used this portion of the road for access to your property and to store their heavy construction equipment during the -be- ginning steps of road construction. They have left the roadway with a covering of clay and dirt. In addition we are concerned about the possible.damage to the road surface during normal spring break-up periods. For these reasons we are asking for an agreement to control our streets. We ask that prior to any further construction that you prepare and install proper signs at Lexington/St. Francis Way, Abbey Way/St. Francis Way and Abbey Way/Falcon Way extended that prohibit their use by your people. 7 CLEANING ST. FRANCIS WAY We ask that you arrange to have that part of St. Francis'Way which is now covered with clay and dirt cleaned as soon as possible. The Committee wishs to thank you in advance for your cooperation in these matters and we all look forward to working with you to made both of our areas "shine" in this rapidly expanding community of Eagan. Yours very truly, Carmen Tum elly, Chairman Community elations Committee St. Francis Wocds Condominium Assoc. cc: Mr. Thomas A. -Colbert City Engineer/Director of Public Works City of Eagan, 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55121 cc: Mr. Thomas H. Healy, St. Francis Woods Assoc. w Agenda Information Memo, December 1, 1987, City Council Meeting FINAL PLAT APPROVAL/GOPHER EAGAN INDUSTRIAL PARK 2ND ADDITION G. Final Plat Approval for Gopher Eagan Industrial Park 2nd Addition --The staff has received an application for final plat approval for Gopher Eagan Industrial Park 2nd Addition located north of Yankee Doodle Road extended east of Trunk Highway 149 as shown on page All conditions placed on the preliminary plat approval Of July 21, 1987 have been satisfactorily complied with. All final plat application material has been submitted, reviewed by staff and found to be in order for favorable Council action. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the final plat for the Gopher Eagan Industrial Park 2nd Addition and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. X W /9 Ci Y [ r 46 r i -L 1 \ �t7tr Kp• Q ,yR n+ , • � !1 ,R.." .t .Pi��' fir. •��'' ' .'•'� _— "'.,t•^ �,,•• saw• wI SII ° r � ! � e /9 agenda Information Memo, December 1, 1987, City Council Meeting PROJECT 524 JOHNNY CAKE RIDGE ROAD - STREETS H. Project 524, Johnny Cake Ridge Road - Streets, Receive Petition/Order Feasibility Report --The staff has received a petition from Tom Wi l lmus, owner of the property on both sides of Johnny Cake Ridge Road extended north from the Woodgate Addition to Diffley Road. The feasibility report and public hearing was originally held for this improvement under Project 298 in 1980. At that time, the project was determined to be premature and the project was denied with -the applicant nstructed to repetition at a later date. Enclosed on pages through 23 is a letter attached to the petition requesting this improvement in the near future. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive the petition for Project 524 (Johnny Cake Ridge Road - Streets) and authorize the preparation of a feasibility report. E40 PETITION FOR CITY USE ONLY Petition Date Received a Presented to Council •'� :� LOCATION/M30=1= The North 100 rods of the West 880± of the Northwest Ouarter of Section 28 lying South of County Road 30 W Pro „perties,_a_Mirinesota gen�r 1 part ershi , bei the owner of all XX4 k, xhe rea property adn,�acent to fha 100, Right of Way of-Tnhnny Cake Ridge Rnad hPtween County Rnad 30 _(Street) .(Diffley Road) on the North and North Woodgate Lane on the South hereby petition for: Street improvements X (final surfacing and installation of Sanitary Sewer curb -gutter) Water Supply (Check requested items) Storm Sewer Street Lights Other (Explain) Incorporated aspart of this petition is the statement annexed as Attachment 1. I/we understand that this petition does not in itself request the installation of these improvements, but rather, request the preparation of a feasibility report in which the estimated costs of these improvements will be tabulated. I/we understand that upon receipt of this petition and the preparation of the requested feasibility report, a public hearing will be held at which time we may voice our support or opposition based on the costs as prepared in said feasibility report. If the requested improvements are denied for construction at the time of public hear iia I ,'Ve herebyguarMn'tee payment for all 1 osts ink Ur red in the r C arati011 of this feasibility report., which we.understand will be in the range of $700 to $900 because of.the feasibility studies that'you have already made in connection with the rough grade construction of this road segment and the installation of water and sani- tary sewer mains within its boundaries. Signature of Land Owner Address of Property EHW Rrop r!�jCi s a Partnership 11i� 1+`- November11987?ter `c. treo sI�ifley I�oadsto�NorthnWoodgatent ' � 2-. I/We hereby waive our rights to the public hearing and request that detail plans and specifications be prepared simultaneously and also guarantee their respective costs if the project is not awarded. (Signature) (Signature) 7// Re: Street Improvement Petition of November 12, 1987 Street Segment - Johnny Cake Ridge Road Between Diffley Road and orth Woodgate Lane Petitioner - EHW Properties, a Partnership Attachment 1 Statement in SuDo ort of Petition The layout and rough grading construction of the entire stretch of Johnny Cake Ridge Road were completed many years ago, as was the installation within its right-of-way of the underground utility lines for water, sewer and gas. The finish surfacing and the curb/gutter for this road from south of the Mallard Park Second Addition to the north line of,Mallard Park Third Addition (North Woodgate Lane) have also been long since completed. All but 6 of the lot sites in Mallard Park Second Addi- tion have been sold and developed. Also, substantially all of the lots in Mallard Park Third Addition west of Johnny Cake Ridge Road have been sold, excepting only those lots which EHW Properties has reserved for marketing after the development and sale of its adjoining R-4 property have been completed. Pending the installation of the final surfacing and the curb/gutter on Johnny Cake Ridge Road from North Wood - gate Lane to Diffley Road, EHW Properties cannot go forward with the development and sale of its R-4 and RB properties that constitute all the property through which this road 7�-� segment runs. This is because the finishing of this road work is an essential pre -condition to the effective prepara- tion and marketing of the development and sale plans for this property. Accordingly, the City's favorable action on this road surfacing petition is earnestly requested. y3 Agenda Information Memo, December 1, 1987, City Council Meeting PROJECT 525/WOODLANDS STORM SEWER LIFT STATION I. Project 525, Woodlands Storm Sewer Lift Station, Receive Petition/Order Feasibility Report --As a part of the Woodlands Addition development, it is necessary to proceed with the installation of a storm sewer lift station and force main outlet for Pond JP -33 located in the northeast corner adjacent to the South Hills Addition. In compliance with conditions placed on the preliminary plat approval, the developer has petitioned for the installation of this trunk storm sewer facility. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive the petition for Project 525 (Woodlands Addition - Trunk Storm Sewer Lift Station) and authorize the preparation of the feasibility report. 74 Agenda Information Memo, December 1, 1987, City Council Meeting PROJECT 510, CLIFF ROAD/STREET & STORM SEWER J. Project 510, Cliff Road/Street and Storm Sewer - Receive Report, Order Public Hearing --As a part of Dakota County's 5 year Capital Improvement Program (CIP), it is proposed to upgrade Cliff Road from Pilot Knob Road to Johnny Cake Ridge Road to its ultimate urban design section with 4 through lanes and protective left turn lanes at properly spaced major intersections. It is proposed that this segment of County Road 32 will be reconstructed as a part of the Pilot Knob Road reconstruction scheduled for 1988. Subsequently, before the City can enter into a cost participation agreement for this improvement, it is necessary to proceed with the public hearing process. A feasibility report has been completed and is being presented to the Council for their consideration of scheduling a public hearing regarding these improvements. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive the feasibility report for Project 510 (Cliff Road/Street and Storm Sewer) and schedule a public hearing to be held on January 5, 1988. PROJECT 514, DUCKWOOD DRIVE/STREETS & WATERMAIN K. Project 514, Duckwood Drive/Streets and Watermain - Receive Report, Order Public Hearing --In response to a petition submitted by the developers of the proposed Pondview Addition, a feasiblity report has now been completed and is being presented to the Council in consideration of scheduling a formal public hearing. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive the feasibility report for Project 514, (Duckwood Drive/Streets and Watermain) and schedule a public hearing for January 5, 1988. PROJECT 521, YORKTOWN 2ND ADDITION/STORM SEWER L. Project 521, Yorktown 2nd Addition/Storm Sewer - Receive Report, Order Public Hearing --As a condition of the final plat approval for the Hills of Stonebridge Addition, the developer petitioned for the required storm sewer improvements through the proposed Yorktown 2nd Addition. This report has now been completed and is being presented to the Council for consideration of scheduling a formal public hearing. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive the feasibility report for Project 521, (Yorktown 2nd Addition/Storm Sewer) and schedule a public hearing to be held on January 5, 1988. 16 Agenda Information Memo, December 1, 1987, City Council Meeting APPROVE COUNTY ROAD TURNBACK AGREEMENTS M. Approve County Road Turnback Agreements, County Road 23 (Nicols Road) and County Road 63A (Becker Road) --As a part of the scheduled County Road Turnback Program, County Road 23 (Nicols Road) from Kings Road to Beau d'Rue Drive and County Road 63A (Becker Road) from Trunk Hwy. 149 to County Road 63 (Delaware Avenue) are proposed to be turned back to the City for perpetual maintenance and full jurisdiction authority. As a part of the turnback process, the county has platted the entire right-of-way for dedication to the City and will transfer all record plans, permits and final documents. In addition, current legislation requires that these county roads be brought up to current county road standards before being turned back to the City's jurisdiction. While both of these roadways were recently reconstructed under Project 460 (Nicols Road) and Project 442 (UPS Addition - Becker Road), a road rating analysis was performed prior to reconstruction to determine the amount of bituminous overlay required for Nicols Road and the additional gravel base for Becker Road to bring it up to comparable county standards. These quantities were then extended by the bid unit prices under the City contracts to determine a dollar equivalency. As a result of this analysis and calculation, the county will forward to the City $117,651 and $6,620 as a contribution to the City's reconstruction cost for Nicols Road and Becker Road respectively. In order to proceed with this financial contribution and jurisdiction transfer, it is necessary for the City to approve the turnback agreement prepared by the county. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To pass the resolution approving County Road Turnback Agreements for County Road 23 (Nicols Road) and County Road 63A (Becker Road) and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. 0 Agenda Information Memo, December 1, 1987, City Council Meeting FINAL PLAT APPROVAL/CEDAR CLIFF PARK 3RD ADDITION N. Final Plat Approval for Cedar Cliff Park 3rd Additions --Staff has received an application for final plat approval for the Cedar Cliff Park 3rd Addition located north of Cliff Road and west of Scott Trail as shown on page �. All conditions placed on the preliminary plat approval of October 20, 1987 have been satisfactorily complied with. All final plat application materials have been submitted, reviewed by staff and found to be in order for favorable Council action. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the final plat for the Cedar Cliff Commercial Park 3rd Addition and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. a I � R c 7 4 aYtet i 1100s � CV) eecc 'cwc •'a /� �I � � I i m � � I c4it_ I I Z i O 00 0ZZ 3.9t.91.00 n iG G �+ .01 l LL ��' f � I `• sae � i cc u 6I Iu LU I7 --------------- GOMMERc1A� 99'OIC 3.9C•9400 N ._ CLIFF I i10N DEDAR I I Aflp1 •'; '+ � r 0 Agenda Information Memo, December 1, 1987, City Council Meeting PROJECT 518, EAGAN HIGH SCHOOL ADDITION (UTILITIES) A. Project 518, Eagan High School Addition (Utilities) --On November 5th, the Council received the feasibility report for the installation of utilities to service the proposed Eagan High School Addition and schedules a public hearing to bHeld on December 1, 1987. Enclosed on pages L,50 through �_ is a copy of the feasibility report for the Council's information and review during the public hearing presentation by staff. All notices have been published in the legal newspaper and sent to all affected property owners informing them of this public hearing. om ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the public hearing and approve/deny Project 518 (Eagan High School Addition - Utilities) and if approved, authorize the preparation of detailed plans and specifications. 0 REPORT FOR EAGAN HIGH SCHOOL ADDITION UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT No. 518 EAGAN, MINNESOTA FILE No. 49444 BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 3o Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. 2335 W. Trunk Highway 36 St. Paul, MN 55113 612-636-4600 October 28, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Council City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Engineers & Architects Re: Eagan High School Addition Utility Improvements Project No. 518 File No. 49444 Dear Mayor and Council: Otto G. Bonestroo, P.£. Robert W Rusene, P E Juseph C. Anderlik, P L. Bradford A. Lemberg, P.E. Richard E. Turner, P.E. Junes C. Olson, P.E. Glenn R. Cook, P.E. Keith A Gordon, P E. Thomas E. Noyes, P E. Richard W. Faster, P.E. Robert G. Sehunmcht, P.E. Marvin L. Surva/a, P.E. Donald C. Burgardt, P.E. Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E. Afark A. Hanson, P.E. Ted K. Field, P.E. Michael T. Rauunann, P. E. Robert R. PJfyJerh•, l' L. Dowd 0 LwAvia, P L'. Thomas W. Peterson, P.E. Alwhuel C. Lynch, l° E. Karen L. Wilts, P. E. Junes R. Muland, P.E. Kenneth P. Anderson, P E Aeith A. Bat hinann, P 1., Mark R. Holts, Pi' Robert C RusseA, A 1 A. Thomas E. Angus, P L•. Scoff L Young, P 1 Charles A Erickson Lea Af. PasselsAv Hurlan .il. Olson Susan M. Dwrlin Transmitted herewith is our report for Eagan High School Addition, Proiect No. 518. This report covers sanitary sewer, water main and storm sewer construc— tion and includes a preliminary assessment roll. We would be pleased to meet with the Council and other interested parties at a mutually convenient time to discuss any aspect of this report. Yours very truly, BOtkA. RO SENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Ma Hanson MAH:li I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the/Styfe Minnesota. f MarJX A. Hanson Date: October 28, 1987 Reg. No. 14260 Approved by:� Department of Public Works Date /f- .2 7562e 31 SCOPE: This project provides for constructing sanitary sewer, water main, and storm sewer to serve Eagan High School and Dakota Hills Middle School. The schools are to be located west of Braddock Trail and south of Co. Rd. No. 30 (Diffley Road). Access to the school will be provided from Braddock Trail.. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The project is feasible from an engineering standpoint and is in accordance with the Master Utilitv Plans and their re- visions due to development in this area. The revisions are reflected in the sanitary sewer and storm sewer layout. The sanitary sewer plan previously intended the high school property to drain easterly. However, at the time the Wescott trunk sanitary sewer lift station was constructed it was sized to account for the flow from the school property. Earlier storm sewer plans had not proposed any ponding on the school property. However, with t'ie recent development of Northview Park downstream, it was determined that some of the ponding requirements for this area would be shared between Northview Park and school property. The project as outlined herein can best he carried out as one contract. TT V/ TTO0 T^_. Sanitary Sewer - Sanitary sewer proposed herein includes constructing a 10" PVC sanitary sewer across the athletic fields as shown on the attached draw- ing. The sanitary sewer will connect to the existing 10" sanitary sewer in Northview Park Road at the northwest corner of the school site. Water Main - Water main proposed herein provides for constructing a 12" lateral main from the existing 20" trunk main in Co. Rd. No. 30 looping through the school site to the existing 8" stub from Braddock Trail as shown on the attached drawing. In addition, it is proposed to •cut in a 20" valve in the existing 20" trunk main in Co. Rd. No. 30 between Braddock Trail and the Page 1. 7562e proposed 12" connection from the school at Co. Rd. No. 30. The 20" valve will be able to isolate a water main break in Co. Rd. No. 30 providing the school with an alternate supply of water. The high school site is located in the high pressure zone and will experience static and residual pressures of approximately 95 psi and 80 psi respectively. Storm Sewer - Storm sewer proposed herein provides for constructing a trunk storm sewer from Co. Rd. No. 30 to Pond JP -34 located in Northview Park as shown on the attached drawing. The trunk storm sewer at Co. Rd. No. 30 will connect to the existing 48" RCP culvert of Co. Rd. No. 30 [on the north side]. It is also proposed to upgrade this same culvert on the south side of Co. Rd. No. 30 which presently serves as the outlet for Pond JP -28A. The existing outlet pipe construction will be upgraded from 15" to 30". Also as noted on the attached drawing, a ponding area is proposed on the school property designated as Pond JP -34A. Listed below is design consideration for the specific ponds included in this or�ject: Pond Storage Outflow Descriz,tion NFTL HWL (Ac.Ft. ) (cfs) Pond JP -28A 940 951 8.6 55 Pond JP -34A 893 903 14.1 54 Pond JP -34 882 890 16.68 39 Storm sewer pipes for this project range in size from 36" to 48" in dia- meter. Page 2. 7562e -33 AREA TO BE INCLUDED: ASSESSMENT AND CONSTRUCTION AREA SE 1/4, SECTION 23 Parcel 010-77 Parcel 010-78 Parcel 010-79 DEER ADDTION Lot 1, Block 1 N 1/2, SECTION 26 Parcel 012-03 Parcel 010-25 Parcel 010-26 Parcel 020-26 Parcel 011-27 Parcel 012-29 COST ESTIMATE: A detailed cost estimate is presented in Appendix A located at the back of this report. A summary of these costs is as follows: Sanitary Sewer $ 61,730 Water Main 93,070 Storm Sewer 385,270 TOTAL ............................... $540,070 The total estimated project cost is 55 0,070 which includes contingencies and all related overhead. Overhead costs are estimated at 30% and include legal, engineering, administration and bond interest. Page 3. 7562e 3-4 ASSESSMENTS: Assessments are proposed to be levied against the benefited property. A preliminary assessment roll is included at the back of this re- port in Appendix B. All lateral costs will be revised based on final costs. These assessments will be spread over 15 years at an interest rate based on the bond sale financing this project. WATER MAIN: It is proposed to assess the total cost of water main to the future Eagan High school Addition (split evenly between Parcel 010-77 and 010-78). Trunk area water main was previously assessed as part of Project No. 365 and 485. STORM SEWER: Storm sewer proposed herein is trunk. Therefore, it is proposed to assess those parcels shown on the attached drawing their trunk area storm sewer assessment in accordance with the 1987 City of Eagan Fee Schedule for its current agricultural zoning with any upgrade in assessment obligation to be identified with the Final Plat Development Agreement. In addition, it is proposed to assess the Eagan High School site a lateral equivalent assessment for the trunk storm sewer. The attached drawing shows the lateral equivalent storm sewer system design which is the basis for their lateral storm sewer assessment. TRUNK ASSESSMENT RATES: Trunk Area Storm Sewer Single Family Multi -Family Comm./Ind. Page 4. 7562e 3 $0.053/sq.ft. $0.067/sq.ft. $0.079/sq.ft. REVENUE: Revenue sources to cover the cost of this project are as follows: PROJECT SCHEDULE Present Feasibility Report Public Hearing Approve Plans & Specifications Open Bids/Award Contract Construction Completion Final Assessment Hearing First Payment Due with Real Estate Taxes 7562e Page 5. 367 Nov. 5, 1987 Dec. 1, 1987 Winter 1988 Spring 1988 July 15, 1987 Sept. 1988 May 1989 Project Cost Revenue Balance A. SANITARY SEWER Lateral $ 61,730 Lateral Assessment $ 61,730 $ 61,730 $ 61,730 B. WATER MAIN Lateral $ 93,070 Lateral Assessment $ 93.070 $ 93,070 $ 93,070 _ 0 C. STORM SEWER Trunk $385,270 Lateral Assessment S127,050 Trunk Area Assessment 230,548 $385,270 5357,598 -$27,672 It is anticipated $27,672 will be required from the trunk storm sewer fund to finance the cost of this project. PROJECT SCHEDULE Present Feasibility Report Public Hearing Approve Plans & Specifications Open Bids/Award Contract Construction Completion Final Assessment Hearing First Payment Due with Real Estate Taxes 7562e Page 5. 367 Nov. 5, 1987 Dec. 1, 1987 Winter 1988 Spring 1988 July 15, 1987 Sept. 1988 May 1989 APPENDIX A PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE EAGAN HIGH SCHOOL ADDITION UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 518 A. SANITARY SEWER 1,530 Lin.ft. 10" PVC Sanitary sewer in pl. @ $18.00/l.f. 5 Each STd. 4' diameter MH w/cstg. @ $1,000.00/ea. 20 Lin.ft. MH depth greater than 8' dp. in pl. @ $70.00/l.f. 1 Each Connect MH to existing 10" PVC @ $500.00/ea. 35 Lin.ft. 10" Outside drop @ $150.00/l.f. 100 Cu.yds. Rock stabilization below pipe @ $10.00/cu.yd. 1,530 Lin.ft. Mechanical trench compaction @ $1.00/l.f. Total +5% Contingencies +30% Legal, Engrng., Admin. & Bond Interest TOTAL SANITARY SEWER ............................. Page 6. 7562e 3 $ 27,540 8,000 1,400 500 5,250 1,000 1,530 $ 45,220 2,260 $ 47,480 14.250 $ 61,730 L 450 Lin.ft. 12" DIP Water main in pl. @ $22.00/1.f. 80 Lin.ft. Jack or auger 12" DIP water main in pl. @ $150/1.f. 80 Lin.ft. 8" DIP Water main in pl. @ $20.00/l.f. 10 Lin.ft. 6" DIP Water main in pl. @ $14.00/l.f. 1 Each Hydrant in pl. @ 51,000.00/ea. 6,000 Lbs. Fittings in place @ $1.50/lb. 1 Each 12" Butterfly valve and box @ $800.00/ea. 2 Each 8" Gate valve and box @ 5450.00/ea. 1 Each 6" Gate valve and box @ $400.00/ea. 1 Each Cut in 20" butterfly valve & box @ S4,500.00/ea. 1 Each Wet tap 12" DIP to ex. 20" DIP @ $3,000.00/ea. 1 Each Connect 8" DIP to ex. 8" DIP @ $400.00/ea. 100 Cu.yds. Rock stabilization below pipe @ 510.00/cu.yd. 1,540 Lin.ft. Mechanical trench compaction @ $1.00/l.f. Total +51 Contingencies 7562e +30% Legal, Engrng., Admin. & Bond Interest TOTAL WATER MAIN .................................. Page �7. J U $ 31,900 12,000 1,600 140 1,000 9,000 800 900 400 4,500 3,000 400 1,000 1.540 S 68,180 3,4110 $ 71,590 21,480 S 93,070 C. STORM SEWER 420 Lin.ft. 48" RCP Storm sewer in pl. @ $70.00/l.f. $ 29,400 2,100 Lin.ft. 42" RCP Storm sewer in pl. @ $60.00/l.f. 126,000 1,410 Lin.ft. 36" RCP Storm sewer in pl. @ $50.00/1.f. 70,500 20 Lin.ft. 30" RCP Storm sewer in pl. @ $40.00/l.f. 800 12 Each Std. 6' dia. MH w/cstg. @ $2,600.00/ea. 31,200 1 Each 48" RCP flared end @ $1,800.00/ea. 1,800 1 Each 42" RCP flared end @ $1,500.00/ea. 1,500 1 Each 36" RCP flared end @ $1,200.00/ea. 1,200 1 Each 30" RCP flared end @ $1,000.00/ea. 1,000 2 Each Connect to existing storm sewer @ $500.00/ea. 1,000 200 Cu.yds. Rock stabilization below pipe @ $10.00/cu.yd. 2,000 16 Cu.yds. Rip rap @ $50.00/cu.yd. 800 LUMP SUM Clear & grub trees @ $1,000.00/L.S. 1,000 200 Ton Class 5 aggregate base @ $8.00/ton 1,600 5.0 Acres Seeding w/fertilizer and mulch @ $1,500.00/ac. 7,500 500 Sq.yds. Sodding @ $2.00/sq.yd. 1,000 3,950 Lin.ft. Mechanical trench compaction @ $1.00/l.f.. 3,950 Total $282,250 +5% Contingencies 14,110 $296,360 +30% Legal, Engrng., Admin. & Bond Interest 88,910 TOTAL STORM SEWER ................................. $385,270 Page 8. 7562e 39 ip A. SANITARY SEWER Parcel Description SE 1/4, SECTION 23 EAGAN HIGH SCHOOL ADDITION Parcel 010-7, 010-78 B. WATER MAIN SE 1/4, SECTION 23 EAGAN HIGH SCHOOL ADDITION Parcel 010-77, 010-78 C. STORM SEWER a.) Lateral Parcel Description SE 1/4, SECTION 23 EAGAN HIGH SCHOOL ADDITION Parcel 010-77, 010-78 7562e APPENDIX B PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL EAGAN HIGH SCHOOL ADDITION UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 518 Assessable Total Footage Rate/F.F. Assessment 1,530 F.F. $40.35 $ 61,730 1,540 F.F. $60.44 $ 93,070 Page 9. �J Total $127,050 b.) Trunk Area Parcel Area Assessable Rate/ Total Description (Sq.ft.) Credit Area Sq.ft. Assessment SE 1/4, SECTION 23 Parcel 010-77 1,632,340 Pond 36,000 1,277,070 $0.053 $ 67,685 Street 20% Parcel 010-78 1,164,520 Pond 36,000 902,820 0.053 47,849 Street 20% Parcel 010-79 28,100 Large Lot 16,400 0.053 869 DEER ADDITION Lot 1, Block 1 10,800 --- 10,800 0.053 572 N 1/2, SECTION 26 Parcel 012-03 328,800 Pond 44,000 227,840 0.067 $ 15,265 Street 20% Parcel 010-25 835,230 Street 20 668,180 0.079 52,786 Parcel 010-26 40,500 --- 40,500 0.079 3,200 Parcel 020-26 162,270 Street 20% 129,820 0.079 10,256 Parcel 011-27 208,725 Street 20% 166,980 0.079 13,191 Parcel 012-29 298,650 Street 20% 238,920 0.079 18,875 TOTAL .............. $230,548 Page 10. 7562e SLe'hfMARY PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL EAGAN HIGH SCHOOL ADDITION PROJECT NO. 518 Parcel Sanitary Water Storm Sewer Total Description Sewer Main Lateral Trunk Assessment SE 1/4, SECTION 23 Parcel 010-77 (Eagan High School) S 30,865 $46,535 S 63,525 S 67,685 $208,610 Parcel 010-78 (Eagan High School) 30,865 46,535 63,525 47,849 188,774 Parcel 010-79 869 869 DEER ADDITION Lot 1, Block 1 572 572 N 1/2, SECTION 26 Parcel 012-03 S 15,265 $ 15,265 Parcel 010-25 52,786 52,786 Parcel 010-26 3,200 3,200 Parcel 020-26 10,256 10,256 Parcel 011-27 13,191 13,191 Parcel 012-29 18,875 18,875 TOTAL ............. $ 61,730 $93,070 $127,050 $230,548 $512,398 Page 11. 7562e ,a Ex. N R H IE I P •RK I � f ----3 �� Y 23 U�LVANIA I j . \� POND JP -34 1 1 Q gyp" ;I � o � � FO POND F JP -34. IN-L.@93 IL. 903 0 ,41 k.A, AT NTIC U N � � i NhC 4N14 0 zoo 400 3..Y s M 0- 0� 0 a C. S. A. H. 30 DIFFLEY ROAD i 'A' 1' EAGAN HIGH SCHOOL ADDITION BONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIK ac ASSOCIATES, INC. SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS Engineers & Architects PROJECT NO. 518 St. Paul, Minnesoto EAGAN, MINNESOTA Date: OCT. 1987 FIG. NO. Comm. 49444 L L ' R H IHW �►—[� Rx C. S. A. H. 30 EAGAN HIGH SCHOOL ADDITION WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT No. 518 EAGAN, MINNESOTA NIA y U Q Q�?G L Him EXISTING PRESSURE jr REDUCING STATION Ex. 8"_ WATER MAIN DIFFLEY ROAD BONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Engineers & Architects St. Paul, Minnesota Date: OCT. 19871FIG. NO. 2 Comm. 49444 I 1 1 ter — — —— I--_—, POND I P-34 C. S. A. H. 30 EAGAN HIGH SCHOOL ADDITION WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT No. 518 EAGAN, MINNESOTA NIA y U Q Q�?G L Him EXISTING PRESSURE jr REDUCING STATION Ex. 8"_ WATER MAIN DIFFLEY ROAD BONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Engineers & Architects St. Paul, Minnesota Date: OCT. 19871FIG. NO. 2 Comm. 49444 N' R H llw� C f DIFFLEY ROAD 23r i N 012-52 O 10 0 dJ0 t, GA -53 C. S. A R 30 010 DEER ADD. D I FFLEY RD. I 012.03., 020- 0,0- 25 III ,•\ Oil- 25 012- 27 29 � EAGAN HIGH SCHOOL ADDITION STORM SEWER ASSESSMENTS PROJECT No. 518 EAGAN, MINNESOTA BONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Engineers & Architects St. Paul, Minnesota Date: OCT. 1987 FIG. NO. 4 Comm. 49444 Agenda Information Memo, December 1, 1987, City Council Meeting PROJECT 519, TOWN CENTRE 70 & 100/STREETLIGHTS B. Project 519, Town Centre 70 & 100 (Streetlights) --On November 5th, a public hearing was held to discuss the installation of street lights for the above referenced project. At the request of staff, this public hearing was continued until December 1 to insure prer notification requirements were met. Enclosed on pages through is a copy of the feasibility report for the Council's informati n and review during the public hearing presentation by staff. All notices have been published in the legal newspaper and sent to all affected property owners informing them of this public hearing. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close public hearing and approve/deny Project 519 (Town Centre 70 & 100 - Streetlights) and if approved, authorize preparation of detailed plans and specifications. �7 CITY OF EAGAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR STREETLIGHTING — PROJECT NO. 519 TOWN CENTRE 70 AND 100 SEPTEMBER 17, 1987 I hereby certify this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the .S'tntp of mi""MO i -n a i Vho.�as Al. Colbert, P.E. Registration :lumber 12049 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON STREETLIGHTING FOR TOWN CENTRE 70 AND 100 PROJECT NO. 519 EAGAN MN SEPTEMBER 17, 1987 SCOPE: This project covers the installation of streetlights serving Town Centre 70 and 100 in the northwest and northeast quarter of Section 15. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: This project is feasible and is in accordance with the City's policy on the installation of streetlights in this community shopping center district. It can best be accomplished as outlined herein and not as a part of any other project. DISCUSSION: The developer of Town Centre 70 and 100 has petitioned for the installation of streetlights. This addition contains 23 lots and/or outlots which would benefit from streetlighting. Under the City's streetlighting policy, the cost of streetlight installation is assessed on an area basis against the benefitted property. (An alternate is included in this report with the assessments spread on a front foot basis). The energy costs will be calculated on an area basis and will be billed quarterly to the existing developed properties along with the utility bill and the undeveloped outlots are to be billed through the 5 Year Assessment Plan. The energy needs for Town Centre 70 and 100 are serviced by Dakota Electric Association, and they offer the type of streetlighting poles, lighting fixtures, and the necessary maintenance service required by the City's streetlighting policy. The project is proposed to have 56 streetlights installed. OVERHEAD STREETLIGHTS: These 56 streetlights would be the standard overhead design with 30' fiberglass poles, a 6' aluminum sodium "Cobra" type fixture. These lights, underground wires, and transformers are proposed to be installed by Dakota Electric Association. PRELIMI`dARY REPORT ON STREETLIGHTING FOR T014N CENTRE 70 AND 100 PROJECT NO. 519 EAGAN MN SEPTEMBER 17, 1987 i INSTALLATION COST ESTIMATES: The following cost estimate includes the cost of construction, administration, legal and other related project costs. 56 ea. 250 watt Overhead High Pressure Sodium @ $1,414.00 $79,189.50 5% Contingency Factor 3,959.48 15% Administration Cost 11,878.43 TOTAL $95,027.41 ENERGY COST ESTIMATES: $9.85/light/:month - 56 ea. @ $9.85 x 12 months $6,619.20/year REVENUE SOURCES: Revenue sources to cover the cost of this protect are assessments against the benefitted property. Item Energy Cost - (5 Yr. Assessment Plan) Installation Cost Cost Assessment Revenue Balance Sq. Foot Front Foot Sq. Foot Front Foot Sq.. Ft. F.F $ 25,079.69 $ 25,497.68 95,027.41 95,027.41 $ 25,079.66 $ 25,497.68 95,027.41 95,027.41 TOTAL $120,107.10 $120,525.09 $120,107.10 $120,525.09 0 ASSESSMENTS: Assessments are proposed to be levied in accordance with current City policy. All costs of the project, including installation and energy, will be assessed and spread over 10 years at a rate of interest determined by the bond sale used to finance this project. INSTALLATION: Square Foot Front Foot (F.F.) (Construction Cost 'Total Assessable Square Footage) _ $.015800485/S.F. $ 5.11 = (Construction Cost Total Assessable Lineal Front Foot) A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON STREETLIGHTING FOR TOWN CENTRE 70 AND 100 PROJECT 519 EAGAN MN SEPTEMBER 17, 1987 lz ENERGY: Energy costs will be recovered either through a quarterly user fee or a 5 Yr. Assessment Plan. Quarterly user fees apply to all developed lots with a current sewer/water bill, whereas the 5 Yr. Assessment Plan applies to all lots not platted or developed at the time of the final assessment hearing. The energy rates are identified as follows: Quarterly User Fee (Developed Lots): Square Foot Basis ($9.85) x (56 Lights) x (3 Months) _ $1,654.80 69.03 S.L.L.E. * _ $23.97218601/S.L.L.E. * S.L.L.E. = Street Light Lot Equivalent. This unit is equivalent to two acres and is used to determine the energy cost on an area basis. Front Foot Basis ($9.85) x (56 Lights) x (3 Months) _ $1,654.80 18,583.34 Total Lineal Ft. _ $.089047502 per assessable front ft. per quarter 5 Yr. Assessment Plan (Undeveloped Lots): Square Foot Basis (52.31 S.L.L.E. (Outlots)) x ($23.97/S.L.L.E.) x (20 quarters) _ $25,079.69 Front Foot Basis (Alternate): 5 Year Assessment = (14316.90 F.F. (Outlots)) x 0.089 per Assess. F.F.) x (20 quarters) _ $259497.68 I PRELIMINARY REPORT ON STREETLIGHTING FOR TOWN CENTRE 70 AND 100 PROJECT 519 EAGAN MIN SEPTEMBER 17, 1987 AREA TO BE INCLUDED: TOWN CENTRE 70 1st Addition Outlot B Outlot E 2nd Addition Lot 1, Block 1 Lot 2, Block 1 Outlot A 3rd Addition Lot 1, Block 1 4th Addition Lot 1, Block 1 5th Addition Lot 1, Block 1 6th Addition Lot 1, Block 1 Outlot A 7th Addition Lot 1, Block 1 PROJECT SCHEDULE: Present Feasibility Report Public Hearing Approve Plans & Specifications Construction Completion Final Assessment Hearing 'O 4 TOWN CENTRE 100 1st Addition Lot 1, Block 1 Outlot B Outlot E Outlot F Outlot G 2nd Addition Lot 1, Block 1 Lot 2, Block 1 Outlot A 3rd Addition Lot 1, Block 2 Outlot A Outlot B Outlot C October 6, 1987 December 1, 1988 December, 1988 June, 1988 September, 1988 O O H a y W • y ti - I mM rn ti. Ln a+ �.. r N O O0 _ t� 00 H H r rHi 1• W a - a rn m N O Z rl N M =:r _-r kD 00 11 M -j- ri CO N N O Co h- %D N m C� r -I N N N N 00 c0 m =r ri t0 Ul O m O O kD U1 00 C =r Ul M ? z'N X'kO(V N N ri tom- H --.r N m Q\ tf1 tD N O H w N m rl 00 N N OO1 tom- ID 01 M O� 4 N t. � c0 O1 00 00 0\ :zr H kD Ul O Lf1 (,w Nw kl Lfl O w tl- tD -' Lf'A t— 9T N o ::r tD N ck r1 00 In Ho r M 000 U\ In O 1— M CM �It Ott �Ic SIC �It ole O� Itt O w rl l0 t— N r ON m _-r U\ =:r to -T M r1 O . .. =r ti to . . In . --.r m co N M N m _-r r -I . . . 4 ri . M .r H ti In c0 O ti r-1 00 tD M O . . Oo Lf O . . . O . O1 �p t- -- 10 XT CC) .fl ON m r -I . . . . m N 00 000 0 0 0 o 00 . . kD N O . . 9 O N rl 01 lD =r N m O1 0o _-:r . .7 . to . . O ra . O1 ri N � �D Lr% =:r O 00 h- 00 =' t0 =r%D 00 OO O N H Lf1 O 1 -- co 00 H tD %D N t— m rn ri 0D 00 OD N alk -4 --J- m N %.0 O N N w rMI ri r -I ri 1 4) O O 0 U 0 0 O U O 0 O 0 O U i+ +i rt O O ,i O ri O Yi O r♦ O ,i O �► q 43 4•1 r-1 ri 43 r-1 .43 r -f 43 ri +3, ri 4-3 ri ai W W rl Pq pq 4 -H W r1 pq rl W rl W 4 r{ W V 'LS .41 13 10 w ,N 'd w 'Ci w 'd w 'Ci w 41 'O w 01r0I a'ri\0 �'� C', e- �'� �'ir O Q'r i�4 if 13 4-) 43 'Ci d3 43 .4% 10 4..).C'•� 43 .Ci 43 .O 4.3 � Sr 43 moM m°�a°xo t0 C.4-10 .a Ina -10 - O O r A O O w a U w O C/1 H 1 a� ac Ln H a � I O O H to a IEEx NHN OI O U a w • www m2 a V3 a' O U H c/� O a a M N Ln cr*l 4.0 co Ln Lt 00 N O 9 El- N LV r- Ln Ln ON M r- N 01 r- 01tD t0 w w MMLn=r�D N m N r N O =r M W r- M *C. O N r4 .- O r{ 00 O M C4 N O *D O� C 1 O Ln C� ri � a =:r O t- � Lf U! r- � LC% •- ON r rI riCii N CV CA N M r -L r -I rl H Ln Ln _-r CD -T r -I 00 Ln Ln OOOCON k0 CNM r- C Co OO =' Co M .; Ln ON ON to r -I ---r %D as C wM wO\ U r- O ww M N --a- M r -I ri r-! Ln - = = - = 0 Ln CV 0 Ln o N N L1 M Oo M ON * * * ON Ln N N M Ll IL7 r -i 1 Lf Ob O O N r- m lD o 00 Ln N Ln Ln r1 Ln 00 N CV CA N M r -L r -I LnCYN ON=:r _-r r- O, M O I Ln N %0 Ln r - Co O O O O O 00 N OO r �0 _-:r =:r r -q Ln M Lt1 O w w w w w O 00 00 M r -I L \ CO N ri r-4 N O N N M 0 O .- r i. a0 -I O 4) 't7�WW Wc7 V b -4-1 d.� 43 4.)l •- O O O O r -I r -I r -I r -I 43����4.3 E4 .40000 N ILin N r-4 r -I I- e- 01 O O r 43 6 r- cV O D O O 0 N-340 6�— --r LLr\ N O OHO O C) O M co co ri rm-I O O %0 9;1 O �D 1.9 Ln N 01 r-- co O co N r- 00 AT Ln M o �o N -H O V M 4 Oq 'd -43 b t� 4 H m.4 o0 .d N a O H N N . N � N O 'O 0 Ww Ia. O r -I qi N r� ya a� N O N N � M O LU S. G] O m W � 94 N LC\ Co !~ D O w ,d -D N N O to V) m N N � m co sem. r .0 U U bo bo WWr-I-1 � 1 o tirn AVAV Uf 00 1O ti Lconrnrn O w 00 Ln Lf --r LLr\ N O OHO O C) O M co co ri rm-I O O %0 9;1 O �D 1.9 Ln N 01 r-- co O co N r- 00 AT Ln M o �o N -H O V M 4 Oq 'd -43 b t� 4 H m.4 o0 .d N a O H N N . N � N O 'O 0 Ww Ia. O r -I qi N r� ya a� N O N N � M O LU S. G] O m W � 94 N LC\ Co !~ D O w ,d -D N N O to V) m N N � m co sem. r .0 U U bo bo WWr-I-1 � 1 a w a c� ago a Lon 11 H to O O as U 00 O mi W �I a O O H toU 4 H U O w H� w H H yH O b -t U a oI Ell lf'1 a w tiW O O w � alp I;l w �O O W r -I m 0o M r1 r -i t0 r 00 N 01 tp �. CONS`. O m m --.r rn r -I rt t0 O r-4 co _-:r N O1 m ri to t— r I Ln =� OltO N N O [ 01 N I N M O O1 Ln t— O ON co tD r1 Ln t0 r -I H r -I ;:r t0 01 m .� • Ln o ca ao :w w m M ti N to Ln Ln to XT to N zt N M m w w m m to to m N m r -I co . o . to m M m O1 9 M t0 r-4 OD _-: r _-: r 01 m r -I t0 N r -I O O 01 t0 Ln N O N m N m 01 O O 01 O N O 01 OO O 4 co !` r -I r-♦ O 110 01 01 M Ln O co _-:r N w w M Lam- ti t0 t0 Ln 00 tp N M N d m Nw H O.`sr' O.?4 O 0 0 0 O 0 O O O 0 O O O U i+ «H r1 O O r1 O -H O -H O rl O ri O q 43 4.5 r -I H 43 r♦ -P 1-4 4.1 r -I 4-1 H 43 r -I tiI Pq W H PU PC! �' r1 PQ -H m ri en 0 0o ti Ln I I 1 ti M M I ti l I N Lin w w w � co m M M � r-1 t0 r 1 0o [ . O1 H 0o . . . O Ll- M _- co rn M m m to to m 00 t- . m r -I co . o . to m M m O1 9 M r4 m Ln rn Co . . to cn � . . ti. NM MtiN Ln 0o t0 Ln N H O co Ln m .-r to ZT H r i L-- Ln H M ri L ti I I 1 ti 1 I ti l I ti M � co m M M m tD tD M 0o [ . O1 H 0o . . . O t0 m m m 01 ti M t0 M Ln . . 00 . to . . 00 4 . ti N 0o O ti N m - Ln m r 4 O 0o t0 � .� t0 Ln H ri N Ln H C; I f ti d O.`sr' O.?4 O 0 0 0 O 0 O O O 0 O O O U i+ «H r1 O O r1 O -H O -H O rl O ri O q 43 4.5 r -I H 43 r♦ -P 1-4 4.1 r -I 4-1 H 43 r -I tiI Pq W H PU PC! �' r1 PQ -H m ri en -H pq .4 -H m U b 43 .N b w 43 b w 'd w 'd b '0 C4 0 0 -4 N �' r � •- � � � r 0 fir- CO ��4 b4343� '�� �� A,. 43 ��4 43 o to:jO 000 s.0 +30 +10 4-30 410 H roo Naa0 M-3 ---r -3 Lna t0 a0 t--3 51-3 w w W �xw o'er NO N 1 %D 00 OOmzctt o A4 LA ri r E.l V3 X -r 00 U � co O wl C*� C N =r =:r ri r I r-+ .:' Ol = 0% i�a7 Y �D — O� O� lC M LI- ri N O m ►a N r M co i <` ri =: Ln r-{ N q 01 0� I'D m N --i _-Ir .? M U1 N 1 000 t - C - H 00NN Ln E v Ln _,:I -0o N m m co 0 N ri =:r L'\ ON ri r -I rl 01 =' rl ra M4 E-� 00 C l O N 0� � C� 11 Cp O 2 ' Ln Lel N L— r -q N m m --.T Ln L� U 1 N ri 01� L-- 01 m;:I, =:r Ln O N I m O L'\ ON Ll- L-- M CO CO O w HLf M Ln N N 11c;lD d r E W 1 ri Uz F � [7 v M L— Ln M N co M m rO-I 0.i U k0 ko O L -- E lD 0J 1- ri Coo ti to ti N W z W i --4- ON Ln 00 7k ale rl 71e OD N C1 1 Ln M N O 0O M ri .: O CL a w w w w w w � U'\ rti r-4 N N N N U'N b � N Ln -.D 01 00 O _:r 0 -4 CO mr fD M CO O L11 O L 1 00 M V] C) `A E r Ln N o0 Ul m m U% O M M m V1 I r 00 O lD ZT Ln Ln lO _-;r m 0o ,i; 4.1 � r 1 w N L ri U% ri =r rl M w Ln ASC M ra ri ri 0� O G, CH ;).q 'A Ln H 0 cl I ti N N N i 1 I I ti l LO c 17 N ri SCJ N Ln %D m 00 O --.rO r4 CO xr " M -r 00 m O Lfi O Ln 00 M ri ,D C7 01 O N 0O O Ln ,7 U1 Ln Cl; M rl V] CAi 00 %.0O %D Nn m L %D ri M M A 43 1 r -f 00 !` rI tD rl Ln ri .r r -I M O I.D. ri is O M ri ri ri C N fy O U O O r r r .- r-1 f~-14� Ste" ^� W> i, -i O ,i O O rl O z1 R mMMWU..C7 -HpggcA vqm Z4m 414 W=3 r1 U 'O --P 4.1 41 a-% 10 w 4. 43 O a .4 — 01 0 4 C\, 0 C, 0 O F >« .-1O r0 o MOZZaa Z00:5 s.Oza E r-.]0000 CM .a0 Maoo z Q J CL a.w U z 0 F- J LU LU cr F— U) LL W z W U z 0 F- QCr ON OU OPY p r r•r _ •• 3M3Ar NOlONIX31 1. h r I I i JI ?., u I II► J 1 gg u z -- I•„/�r- I z� s ISO Uzic _ ••1111 U � \ Ix I I I � _ _ � a< I � a ai i Isl I I I ' i isU U C. r� ;;; Za 'J I I:. w.. l 4 - ,;' �. i'l ,A jj l uvnmaa rr• --4•�w • 1 .NyV .. \ l O . a ._ •,� yea �. I __ T �\� '3A UU OOOM1tiI3U11 wrco)— oroq_ +• DON. ;. �• •ur W Q m F O O LL d rn LO O z r U Lu G a.• A z LU G7 LL: Vi Q Q z J W cc a II N N U 1- L C-3 ) -t O > N R 2 ff U w U :? U n s J > t7 S: L ri N c7 W 9 r[ W x a _I I = V 1} :; q'Ill E{ ut II N N U 1- L C-3 ) -t O > N R 2 ff U w U :? U n s J > t7 S: L ri N c7 W 9 r[ W x a LO m 0 0 LL F— z 0 cr LO 0 LLJ 3 0 cr LLJ CO LLI Cf) cr LLJ M 0— Lr uY0 u Agenda information Memo, ecember 1, 1987, City Co,,: PROJECT 452R, POND AP -50 (STORM SEWER OUTLET) C. Project 452R, Pond AP -50 (Storm Sewer Outlet) --Or. October 20th and November 5th, a public hearing was scheduled to discuss the proposed improvements for the above referenced project. However, this public hearing was continued until December lst at the request.- of equestof the Federal Land Company and to insure proper notification of all affected property owners. Enclosed on pages through is a copy of the revised feasibility report for this project for the Council's information and review during the public hearing presentation by staff. All notices have been properly placed in the legal newspaper and sent to all affected property owners informing them of this continued public hearing. Federal Land Company, the owners of the 20 acres affected by the alignment of this storm sewer outlet, have expressed reservations about proceeding with this project until they have had an opportunity to firm up the development proposal for their property. However, because of the lead time necessary to insure the completion of this project prior to next years rainy season, it is necessary to authorize this project to allow staff to proceed with the appropriate design of work. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close public hearing approve/deny Project 452R (Pond AP-50/Stor:,i Sewer Outlet) and an>]rt7VP_c3. a77!-lhnrize the preparation of detailed plans acquisition of easements through condemnation and if and s as REPORT POND AQP -50 OUTLET TRUNK STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT No. 452R FOR EAGAN, MINNESOTA 1957 FILE No. 49364 SONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. 2335 W. Trunk Highway 36 St. Paul, MN 55773 612-636.4600 Citv of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Re: Pond AP -50 Outlet Project No. 452R sur File No. +9354 Dear Mayor and Council: Engineers & Architects Transmitted herewith is our report for Ponds AP -50 This report covers trunk storm sewer construction assessment roll. 0110 G. Banestroo, P.E. Robert W. Rusene, P.E. JosePh C. Anderhk. P E. Bradford A. Lemberg. P.E. Richard E. Turner. P.E. James C. O&M. P.E. Glenn R. Cook. P E. Krish A Gordon. P A. Traumas k Noyes. P A. Richard W. /faller. P.E. Robert G. Sehumcht. P.E. Marven L. Sorvala, P.C. DonaidC. Burrardi, P.£. Jerry A. Bourdon, P. E. Murk A. Hanson, P.E. Ted K. Field. P £. Michael T. Raunnana. P E. Robed R PJeofrde, P L Duval O. Lwkusa_ P k Thomas W. Peterson, P E Mnhue C. Lynch, P, 1: Karen L. IL'Allcs. P E. James R. Muland. P £. Kenneth P. Anderson, P E. Artth A. Bachmann, P t .Nark R. Roljs. P E. Ruben C. Russek. A EA Thumus E. Angus, P.E. Scwt L Young. PL. Charles A. truksun Leo M. PawrLiky Harlan Al. Olson Susan M. Eberlin Outlet, Project No. 452R. and includes a preliminary We would be pleased to meet with the Council and other interested parties at a mutually convenient time to discuss any aspect of this report. Yours very truly, BONESTROQ, R($E ;E/ ANDERLIK S ASSOCIATES, Mark A. Hanson MAH:li I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Prue sional Engineer under the laws of t at Minnesota. ::ark A. Hansor. Date: October 20. Date: - /! -Z' 7 F Reg. No. 14260 M SCOPE: This project provides for the construction of trunk storm sewer outlet for Pond AP -50 to Pond AP -25 included in the proposed Cliff Lake Centre. This project is the result of a petition received from the owner of the two lots in Cedar Cliff Commercial Park 2nd Addition where Pond AP -50 is included. Two office buildings presently exist on the two lots. FEASIBLITY AND RECO MENDATIN: This project is feasible from an engineering standpoint and is in accordance with the Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan for the City of Eagan with the exception that it is not proposed to provide an outlet for Pond AP -49 included in Rahn Park. It is assumed if no additional drainage is placed into the park, the existing wetlands can maintain their natural level and not require an outlet. DISCUSSION: This project provides for constructing a trunk storm sewer outlet from Pond AP -50 to Pond AP -25. The alignment is shown on the attached drawing which proposes to construct the trunk storm sewer along Cliff Road and Rahn Road to Pond AP -25 at the request of the adjacent property owner to minimize the impact of internal easements. It is assumed the outlet for Pond AP -25 which is presently land locked will be constructed as part of the Cliff Lake Centre project. It is also assumed the trunk storm sewer crossing Rahn Road will be open cut requiring patching of the street. Design considerations for Pond AP -50 assumed the following: a. The direct drainage area to Pond AP -50 south of Cliff Road is limited to 17.95 ac. while the remaining 30.5 ac. would be ponded and restricted to a 1 cfs outflow requiring 5.58 ac.ft. The 30.5 acres includes the southerly portion of the drivers training fa- cility and the WAYL property which is where the existing radio towers are located. The 30.5 acres is presently land locked. Page 1.- 7415e �r Storage Outflow NWL HWL (ac.ft.) (cfs) Pond AP -50 886 894 9.8 2 Pond AP -25 882 890 4.0 4 EASEMENTS: Permanent and temporary construction easements and pond easement will be required from Parcel 011-76 and 012-50 (Cliff Lake Centre). It is anticipated these easements can be acquired at no cost. AREA TO BE INCLUDED: ASSESSMENT AREA & CONSTRUCTION AREA SG] 1/4, SECTION 29 Parcel 012-50 (Cliff Lake Centre) SE 1/4, SECTION 30 Parcel 011-76 NE 1/4, SECTION 31 Parcel 010-02 COST ESTIMATE: Detailed cost estimates are presented in Appendix A located at the back of this report. The total estimated project cost is $200,590 which includes contingencies and all related overhead. Overhead costs are estimated at 30% and include legal engineering, administration, and bond interest. ASSESSMENTS: Assessments are proposed to be levied against the benefited property. A preliminary assessment roll is included at the back of this re- port in Appendix B. These assessments will be spread over 15 years at an in- terest rate based on the bond sale financing this project. Storm sewer proposed herein is trunk. Therefore, it is proposed to assess those parcels shown on the attached drawing their trunk area storm sewer as- sessment. In addition, because the storm sewer in Rahn Road has been designed 7415e Page 2. 7— to convey direct runoff from the property it abuts, it is also proposed to as- sess those parcels lateral storm sewer. The lateral storm sewer rate is de- termined by designing an equivalent storm sewer (24" RCP, 20 cfs) to Pond AP -25 and assessing its cost to the benefited drainage area. TRUNK RATES: Trunk rates in effect at the time of this report are as follows: Trunk Storm Sewer Single Family $0.053/sq.ft. Comm./Ind. $0.079/sq.ft. REVENUE SOURCES: Revenue sources to cover the cost of this project are as follows: Project PROJECT SCHEDULE Present Feasiblity Report Public Hearing Approve Plans and Specifications Open Bids/Award Contract Construction Completion Final Assessment Hearing First Payment due with Real Estate Taxes Page 3. 7415e �3 August 18, 1987 November 5, 1987 Winter 1988 Winter/Spring 1988 June 15, 1988 August, 1988 May, 1988 Cost Revenue Balance Trunk $200,590 Trunk Area Assessment $142,528 Lateral Assessment 37,540 TOTAL $200,590 $180,068 -$20,522 The anticipated project deficit is $20,522 which will be the responsibil- ity of the trunk storm sewer fund. PROJECT SCHEDULE Present Feasiblity Report Public Hearing Approve Plans and Specifications Open Bids/Award Contract Construction Completion Final Assessment Hearing First Payment due with Real Estate Taxes Page 3. 7415e �3 August 18, 1987 November 5, 1987 Winter 1988 Winter/Spring 1988 June 15, 1988 August, 1988 May, 1988 APPENDIX A PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE POND AP -50 OUTLET TRUNK STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 452R 450 Lin.ft. 18" RCP Storm sewer in pl. (10-20' dp.) @ $44.00/l.f. $ 19,800 1,200 Lin.ft. 18" RCP Storm sewer in pl. (20-30' dp.) @ $48.00/1.f. 57,600 700 Lin.ft. 36" RCP Stora sewer in pl. (10-20' dp.) @ $60.00/l.f. 42,000 6 Each Std. 4' dia. MH w/cstg. @ $1,000.00/each 6,000 80 Lin.ft. MH depth greater than 8' dp. @ $70.00/l.f. 5,600 1 Each 18" RCP flared end w/trash guard @ $500.00/each 500 1 Each 36" RCP flared end w/trach guard @ $1,800.00/each 1,800 16 Cu.yds. Rip rap @ $50.00/cu.yd. 800 100 Cu.yds. Rock stabilization below pipe @ $10.00/cu.yd. 1,000 LUMP SUM Street reconstruction 8 $5,000.00/L.S. 5,000 3.0 Acres Seed w/mulch & fertilizer @ $1,500.00/ac. 4,500 2,350 Lin.ft. Mechanical trench compaction @ $1.00/l.f. 2,350 Total $146,950 +5% Contingencies 7,350 $154,300 +30% Legal, En.grng., Admin. & Bond Interest 46.290 TOTAL............................................. $200,590 Page 4. 64/ APPENDIX B PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL POND AP -50 OUTLET TRUNK STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 4528 A.) TRUNK AREA Parcel Assessable Area Credit Assessable Area Total Description SW 1/4, SECTION 29 (sq.ft.)_ (sg.ft.) Area Rate/s.f. Assessment SW 1/4, SECTION 29 SE_ _1 /4, SECTION 30 Parcel 011-76 5.3 ac. $4,935 Parcel 012-50 1,382,000 Pond 295,000 869,600 $0.079 $ 68,698 Street 20% SE 1/4, SECTION 30 Parcel 011-76 898,240 Pond 16,000 705,790 $0.053 $ 37,407 Street 20% NE 1/4, SECTION 31 Parcel 010-02 859,040 Street 20% 687,230 $0.053 $ 36,423 TOTAL ........................................ $142,528 B.) LATERAL BENEFIT Parcel Assessable Total Descrirtion Area Rate/Acre Assessment SW 1/4, SECTION 29 Parcel 012-50 2.3 ac. $4,939 $11,361 SE_ _1 /4, SECTION 30 Parcel 011-76 5.3 ac. $4,935 26,179 TOTAL 7.6 ac. $37,540 Page 5. 7415e 45 SUMMARY PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL POND AP -50 OUTLET TRUNK STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 452 Parcel Trunk Lateral Total Description Area Benefit Assessment SW 1/4, SECTION 29 Parcel 012-50 68,698 $11,361 $ 80,059 SE 1/4, SECTION 30 Parcel 011-76 37,407 26,179 $ 63,586 NE 1/4, SECTION 31 Parcel 010-02 $361423 -- S 36,423 TOTAL $142,528 $37,540 $180,068 Page 6. 6 I 0 1000 SCALE IN FEET ' iu, �~ ��moi■ WOME %% fRi��E MARI I C` W gig ■ llN � .�11 } • • � CLIFF • PARK OAKUTi COUNT PLAT I ZZ 2� 72N STORM SEWER ASSESSMENT AREA PONDS AP -50v A P-4 9. AND BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERI.Iit R ASSOCIATES. INC. AP725 OUTLETS Consulting Engineers TRUNK STORM SEWER IMP, St. Paul, Minn. PROJECT NO. 452R Date:DEC., 1985 FIG. No EAGAN, MINNESOTA Comm. 49364 *I I 0 00 P POND AP -50 CLIFF ROAD 011-03 R A H N ELEM. SCHOOL RAHN PARK LATERAL ASSESSMENT '' AREA 36r 1 DRIVER TRAININ FACILITY 010-02 IA POND AP -50 TRUNK STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT No. 452R EAGAN, MINNESOTA CO. RD 32 CUB Fek v� 1 G ;AP -25 00 P POND AP -50 CLIFF ROAD 011-03 R A H N ELEM. SCHOOL RAHN PARK LATERAL ASSESSMENT '' AREA 36r 1 DRIVER TRAININ FACILITY 010-02 IA POND AP -50 TRUNK STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT No. 452R EAGAN, MINNESOTA CO. RD 32 CUB 1 ;AP -25 CLIFF -----� LAKE t ;CENTRE i 'TARGET o 012-50', z a x 0 s N0RTH j 0 400 L400! SCALE IN FEET 80NEST2OO, ROSENE, AND`RUK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Engineers & Arcnitects St. Paul, Minnesota Date: 10/20/87 Comm. 49364 Agenda Information Memo, December 1, 1987, City Council Meeting PARTIAL VACATION OF UTILITY & STREET EASEMENT/OAK CLIFF ADDITION D. Partial Vacation of Utility and Street Easement (Oak Cliff Addition, Lot 6, Block 6) --On November 5th, the Council received a petition to vacate the northerly 20 feet of a 30 foot half road right-of-way and utility easement along the south lot line of Lot 6, Block 6, Oak Cliff Addition and scheduled a public hearing to be held on December 1st. Enclosed on page 10 is a description of the area of the easement petitioned to be Vacated. At that same meeting, the Council authorized the issuance of a building permit allowing encroachment into this proposed area of vacation subject to the property owner receiving written permission from all potentially affected utility companies. Enclosed on page is a copy of the letter signed by all related utility companies. Based on this concurrence, it is not anticipated that there will be any objections to this proposed vacation. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close public hearing and approve the vacation of a portion of Lot 6, Block 6, Oak Cliff Addition as described and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. �9 DESCRIPTION OF EASEMENT TO BE VACATED`: P. , , the north 20 ft. of the south 30 ft. easement of Lot 6, i, Oak Cliff, excepting the 5 ft. of easement along the it line and the 10 ft. of easement along the northeast and southeast lot lines of said Lot 6, Block 6. 9v- r l..EGf�G. L D T' 6 D xar R cowry, -�a Existing 30` easement oR x lL/FF M I Al A/FSOTA November 6, 1987 Be: Placing of House On City Easement Prior To Vacation of Easement Dear Mr. & Mrs. Helmbolt: We the undersigned have reviewed and approved the proposed encroachment upon the north 20' of the existing 30' roadway and utility easement by planned new home construction as shown on the enclosed sketch. We realize this approval is prior to the proposed vacation of the north 20' of said 30' easement and leaves a 10' wide strip of easement free of any structures or appurtenances. We will reserve the right to grant approval for any given appurtenance at any given location within the south 10' of this easement. UTILITY: thvestern a Telephone UTILITY: Dakota Electric SIGNED:SIGNED: TITLE: TITLE: DATE: DATE: c -J 7 ) 9 97 UTILITY Peopl s Na Gas SIGNED: TITLE: DATE: v -4,2 - UTILITY: 7 f UTILITY: North Cent al Cable SIGNED: TITLE: �a„gfrti,G-E�o-, Ser.e'sw DATE: Agenda Information Memo, December 1, 1987, City Council Meeting WAIVER OF PLAT POND VIEW PLANNED DEVELOPMENT A. Waiver of Plat for Pond View Planned Development, TXI, Inc., Combine Four Existing Parcels into Two Separate Parcel --A public hearing was held by the Advisory Planning Commission at their regular meeting held on October 27, 1987, to consider an application submitted by TXI, Inc., for a waiver of plat to combine four existing parcels into separate parcels as a part of the Pond View Planned Development. The APC is recommending approval. At the request of the developer, this item was continued from the November 5, 1987, meeting until the December 1, 1987, meeting. Parcels A and B were part of the Blackhawk Park PD and are presently owned by Meritor Development Company. Parcels C and D were also owned by Meritor but have been deeded back to TXI, Inc. The waiver of plat is necessary for the conveyance and recording of the land sale. No construction will occur until the property is platted. For a copy of the Planning and Engineering report on this item, refer to pages 1,11 The Engineering Department had several questions regarding the proposed waiver of plat and have addressed their concerns in a revised report. The new Engineering comments are enclosed on pages(s) ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approved or deny the waiver of plat for Pond View Planned Development as presented. �v SUBJECT: WAIVER OF PLAT APPLICANT: TXI INC LOCATION: SE 1/4, SECTION 16 EXISTING ZONING: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PONDVIEW) DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: DATE OF REPORT: REPORTED BY: OCTOBER 27, 1987 OCTOBER 21, 1987 PLANNING & ENGINEERING APPLICATION SUMMARY: An application has been submitted requesting a Waiver of Plat in order to combine four existing parcels within the Pond View Planned Development into two separate parcels with different ownership located west of Pilot Knob Road and east of Hwy. 35-E. This Waiver of Plat is necessary for the conveyance and recording of a land sale only. No construction will occur until the area is platted in the normal procedure. Originally, Ed Dunn owned all of these parcels. The southern parcels, A and B, were a portion of the Slackhawk Park P.D. Parcel A, containing 6.6 acres, and B, 7.1 acres, are now owned by Meritor Development Company. The northern parcels, C, 10.7 acres, and D, 4.3 acres, will be controlled by TXI, Inc., (Title Ten, Inc.). Meritor previously held the deed for all four parcels and then quick claimed parcels C and D back to TXI, Inc. If approved, this Waiver of Plat shall be subject to all applicable Ordinances. ASSESSMENTS: The four parcels proposed to be combined by this Waiver were previously assessed for sanitary sewer trunk, water area, storm sewer trunk, and water lateral benefit. Y` The parcels are subject to pending assessments for storm sewer lateral benefit and Pilot Knob Road street improvements under Project 466. The following assessments are proposed as a condition of the Waiver of Plat: Project # Description Amount 24 Water trunk 11.12 Ac Water availability charge 24 Water lateral benefit (trunk) 24 Water lateral benefit 279 Storm sewer trunk 279 Storm sewer trunk 466 Pilot Knob Road upgrade 466 Pilot Knob Road trail 58 Lateral benefit sanitary sewer trunk Total proposed assessment Rate Quantity Amount $1,250.00/Ac 11.12 Ac $ 13,900 1,920.00/Ac 2.91 Ac 51588 8.08/FF 716 FF 5,786 12.47/FF 80 FF 998 .026/SF 126,760 SF 3,296 .014/SF 476,546 SF 6,672 73.51/FF 716 FF 52,634 12.40/FF 716 FF 8,878 15.06/FF 423.47 FF 6,377 $104,129 Note: The areas as noted in the proposed assessment table may be subject to change due to ponding area credits which were not available at the time of the report preparation. W. � ^ .�. ` ' � LR1111� � . ' p MY HALL R-11 ° R 11 p R-11 R-11 LS ` � -\'r 1,; - * I'll amm ar-W ENGLEAT ROAD James R. Hill, inc BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR FIRST NATIONAL P "E ENGINEERS / SURVEYORS I '.:A BANK OF ST. PAULaa cn HZIGPTS F! R-77 CnSTR.DGE LAW ul cn HZIGPTS F! R-77 •967 s ng.,g, 25'E '-.M V . . . . . . . . . . . . . IM . . . . . . . . . . n . .'.9.'.'.'.' . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . ................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . dt ......... ......... 1. O ....... ....... ...... ....... ........ ... ............. .. It ..:: S z':':':: PARCEL ................... . C .... .................... ................•..•..... ................ ......... . . . In ............ ...... ............... ....... .......... 11. ............. X. .. .................... ................ Lt.! j PARCEL Ar PARCEL AREA - - 308757 AGF A Z088 AC. AREA - 285656 S.F. - 6.558 Arl 14 KNOS HEM47S N a 9•my m / w F i R 3 r 9 mov ENGLERT STORM SEWER UPGRADE TO MULTI ( " STORM SEWER UPGRADE L LATERAL BENEFIT SAN. SEWER 000**** PILOT KNOB ROAD UPGRADE ------- PILOT KNOB ROAD TRAIL L— L ,� • r 771119 T�9•�5Y7� L ---i— i :. PARCEL d i I CL----- �r ti;i•. _ �. :f;•. ;•; :•?• AREA 468036 Si Z CRESTRIDGE ULME 10.747 At, ^�1 o r�' ••, © v i� `� :Z `ice• : � ■ z I I a L' :i. PARCEL / 4 ti a va B in PARCEL : AREA - 308757 IF � A - 7.088 AC k a`" ;a• ¢ / PILOT r: KNOB ME1G 7iT5 r- .......'. -... .� Ne9•zSA•w i - - ••lser FIRST • '' ENGLERThdti^ rs w' ROQO • I` s00I.IOn • WATERMAIN TRUNK ,-,•, WATER AVAILABILITY .. . WATER LATERAL BENEFIT WATER LATERAL BENEFIT UPGRADE •��� •� c'F� 0 , .RIDGE c. ( i, L•, :. • . N — Jj i i� ;:' P .E 0040 f .1L I' 1) ,T% „�.} I .. ;!�; C H 2 ADDITION PILOT ✓.NC9 II L �R �•\ �'FS7.�.`�s;� ;RAILS ,/. •a .:f nll.,f :f Vr....14 f51 _..........' :•.. u-,,1.. ,I -Tj 29 I, ALL_ .--K3V0 �,E a�u ,. j!� 6l NO z,r ; C _ F :. 271:15 I 12 �' 41 � 1 he - .�`• �� i -7 `.. l 11 -- — t11 2:7-T� (r1 '.S.�: U En1;Ar, " w .. 10 JI iItl'' 2711 PORK /; 1 71 moi; TXI INC. SUBJECT PARCEL FIG.. #2 City of eagan SANITARY SEWER approved :- plate #d PUBLIC w0Rxs MASTER PLAN '' DEPARTMEN 1 C5 RIDGE '' I 16" 63.9180.0'ri -- - BI y93.0 57.9/730 463/62.0 40 4/57.4 �` 41 a/60.0 20° I.Q§Y` '/ 20"••,•ivrr ..� 69 ,n1^ �g„ 30 IC6.0 78 TREATMENTJ t `iiJF-E{_Cw'° :vaL i /���_•.! I t ! �: I 68.8/84.0 PLANT ( �- -- =-v v \ro SITE nTJ+�+ A':D i t I I \ r, `1 (32 M.G. 0.) NEIGH i_ !'_ IK X91 75.1/92.0 •1t ^ 8 56.2/67.Oi� 2ND 1 6!. ---- --- ' I--- -- J is 69.5/820 55.3/ 00 66 3/TS:O'T r"J09 , i � � • i7 n p r --r- 8.1 68.1183:0 IOes..s. 3 ri�'1•�4" � � 'rIr �'78.0 .: 1 ' 101 , i 108 4 8,ai��w s 30" "'C NTEi. 59/F;37q f. •:. a. � � O A:. � .•:: t k4 6 / 72.0 - 33.'`0/690 L '84.7/98.0—. J: :•x•::•::•:_-: _' "•'�� 4 .. r�rrrrj59-1775.0 107 .8n" it � `Il�.+.'r�, '180 ,.JT•.,.•�y.. H+r.�� I I � v •��yiik;'.rfj $ R•'I �\ �18„ 78.7/96.0 i 1 840 Ar ,t 16 - of .:.r;:::��J'.�,g.•:.�_L�. '77.0 1J�•)� i dna 05 !�¢''-^±:�'' 05 - /... k 4 53.2 /69.0. JJ 1 ��- •-=� ,653/81.0 ;t [ PARK 4j'•I I i// 1wow rio. 51.7/67.0 j ....__ f.. ! '_:?A - 19;7' ar as s s as - 2.9/740 �:j - gig„ +/ 526/67.0: OLr�P; 6 M G' 24" ���� - / ¢ • 12� 599/75.0; 177 -J I( ! 1 59.8/76.0 'CGROUND STORAGE 124 446/59016"mH.W.L. 1059/' 02C /� 161 38.3/94.0 rq, r 20",� C� !-� 2IB/31.0 16�I—^^---$ — t J E4i,A I! 62 n ,eaa.� t' l �P95/ 928/o40 3I01g1, / .CO 0 :! 171 , !16• ::tn:E� I C�� 6t4/Jn7n! if; 0/650 °26;57 /570 rti =ti'. i1: J76 680/820 city of eagan rt PUBLIC ' WORKS DEPARTME TXI INC. SUBJECT PARCEL WATER MASTER PLAN FIG. approved:- standard plate I : APC Minutes October 27, 1987 a4ti , - 1. All standard plat conditions shall be adhered to. 2. The existing home on Lot 2, Block 4, shall change its address to be consistent with the others along Street "A". 3. The existing home shall connect to City sewer and water. 4. The approved conditions for Cutter's Ridge must be complied with as a condition of Cutter's Ridge 2nd Addition final plat approval. All voted affirmatively. WAIVER OF PLAT - ROBERT SCHLANGEN Mr. Hall then called the public hearing in regard to the application of Robert Schlangen for a waiver of plat to combine the north 1.76 acres of Outlot A, with Lot 1 of Oak Cliff 3rd Addition, located in the northwest quarter of Section 31, south of Cliff Road and east of Slater's Road. Mr. Runkle indicated that no building or construction was anticipated or would be requested prior to platting. However, the owner of the Amoco station had anticipated the need to expand at least his parking and in order to purchase the property in question, would need a waiver of plat prior to actually platting the property when the uses would be determined. The applicant was present and expressed agreement with the conditions imposed. Trygg moved, Krisnik seconded the motion to recommend approval of the waiver of plat. All voted yes. WAIVER OF PLAT - TXI, INC. The last hearing of the evening was convened at 12:07 a.m. by Chairman Hall in regard to the request of TXI, Inc. for a waiver of plat, in order to combine four existing parcels within the Pondview Planned Development, into two separate parcels with different ownership for future development, located in the southeast quarter of Section 16, between I -35E and Pilot Knob Road. Mr. Runkle explained that the waiver of plat was only for the purpose of recording transactions and that no building would be commenced at this time. g0_ 13 APC Minutes October 27, 1987 Mr. Kevin Ellis, attorney on behalf of TXI, Inc. indicated that his client was a subsidiary of the bank, which held the property and wished to liquidate the assets. In trying to liquidate those assets, it made a sale last April to Meritor Development who then conveyed back the northerly parcel to the TXI. He did indicate that his client objected to the assessment of $104,129.00. Mr. Foertsch indicated that this matter could be addressed to the City Council. McCrea moved, Trygg seconded the motion to recommend approval of the waiver of plat. All voted yes. ADJOURNMENT Voracek moved, Krisnik seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting at 12:20 a.m. All voted yea. DGK Secretary 0 MEMO TO: THOMAS L HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: THOMAS A COLBERT, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE: OCTOBER 29, 1987 SUBJECT: WAIVER OF PLAT, TXI, INC. RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS With the scheduled improvement of Pilot Knob Road and the petitioned upgrading of Duckwood Drive along the east and north property lines of the affected parcels, it will be necessary to have additional right-of-way dedicated to accomodate these necessary public improvements. Subsequently, during staff's review of this application, the additional permanent right-of-way and temporary slope easement requirements were inadvertently omitted from the Staff Report. Therefore, it is still appropriate for the City Council to add the following condition to the consideration of approval of this requested Waiver of Plat: The property owner shall dedicate the necessary permanent right-of-way and temporary slope easements for the proposed Pilot Knob Road and Duckwood Drive improvements prior to execution of appropriate documents by the City. Due to the fact that the result of this Waiver of Plat approval will facilitate the sale of property to separate individual interests which may not develop in the same time frame as each other or the related public improvements, is appropriate that this condition be fulfilled at the earliest opportunity. - --T "&,4 a � CgA:�� / - Public Works Director i t MEMO TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES FROM: CITY PLANNER RUNKLE DATE: NOVEMBER 25, 1987 SUBJECT: WAIVER OF PLAT (TXI, INC.) This Waiver of Plat was scheduled for the December 5, 1987 City Council meeting and during that day there were some questions regarding the exhibits for the Waiver of Plat. Staff has met with representatives of First Bank and TXI to review these issues and it was noted that there were, in fact, errors in the exhibits prepared. The applicants have now revised the exhibits showing the exception on their exhibit. In researching the error in the exhibits also brought up the question regarding assessments which were attached to the Waiver of Plat. Engineering also attended the meeting and had indicated a revised assessment search would be done because most of the assessments dealt with the expansion for Pilot Knob Road. Enclosed with this memorandum is the revised exhibit. The only condition to be clarified is that the Waiver of Plat is not allowing any development - only a transfer of ownership and that no building permits or development occur until the parcels are platted. City lanner Attachments DCR/a f 4A ' O 4000 Xy L O I i i 4A ' O 4000 Xy L I i f i vJ i t PARCEL C a i � `----- g _ V r a OtESTRIDGE LANE ( 4A ' I 4000 Xy I xx PARCEL 0 ' ` I AREA - 183874 S.F. - 4.267 Ar- PARCEL & PARCEL A AREA - 283636 S.F. - 6.336 A& L 423, a ENGLERT I I I uu>ru c�j mcu-_uQ ;11 )fIC PLANNERS /ENGINEERS /SURVEYORS BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR amesR. Hill, I s u, r n. • u�o.mn cwNn, u.ear FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ST. PAUL r«7 t PARCEL C a i � `----- AREA: AREA -283136 S.F. V 6.346 AC. OtESTRIDGE LANE ( / Sa!?.w23'Egjaoo r J tia I 1 p n -b EXCEPTIOI N \ n W PAR6EL <'o B W G7 AREA F I 7.08837& n p � w n PILOT K N 0, / HEIGHTS &56 45 FIRS. 8 a / Y ROAD )fIC PLANNERS /ENGINEERS /SURVEYORS BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR amesR. Hill, I s u, r n. • u�o.mn cwNn, u.ear FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ST. PAUL r«7 Agenda Information Memo, December 1, 1987, City Council Meeting PRELIMINARY PLAT CEDAR CLIFF COMMERCIAL PARR 4TH ADDITION B. Preliminary Plat for Cedar Cliff Commercial Park 4th Addition for Austin Companies Including an Amendment to the Planned Development Agreement and Conditional Use Permit for a Pylon Sign --A public hearing was held by the Advisory Planning Commission at their October 29, 1987, meeting to consider a planned development amendment, conditional use permit for a pylon sign and a preliminary plat for 1.83 acres for an automotive service center on LB designated land withint the Cedar Cliff Commercial Park PD located north of Cliff Road between Cliff Drive and Scott Trail. The APC is recommending denial of these applications. The APC's recommendation for denial is based on their action taken at the August 25, 1987, Planning Commission meetin� At that meeting, a copy of the minutes are enclosed on page, for your reference the following action was taken, "McCrea moved, Harrison seconded, the motion to recommend denial of the rezoning as being inconsistent with the PUD, office use and the daycare located adjacent thereto. All voted in favor." This item appeared on the September 15, 1987, City Council agenda; however, a request was made by the applicant to withdraw the application. The following action was taken, "Wachter moved, Egan seconded the motion to authorize the withdrawal of the application, based upon the request of Ray Williams of Astleford Construction who was present at the meeting." All members voted yes. The applicants made a decision to reapply and the three (3) applications were again considered by the Advisory Planning Commission at their October 29 meeting. As previously stated, the APC reviewed the applications and still agree with their August 25 action and, therefore, are recommending denial of the applications to the City Council. For a copy of the Planning and Engineering reports, APC min es and other pertinent information for review, refer to pages through %b( - ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the PD amendment, conditional use permit for a pylon sign and a preliminary plat of 1.83 acres for an automotive service center on LB designated land within the Cedar Cliff Commercial Park PD. um APC Minutes August 25, 1987 CEDAR CLIFF COMMERCIAL PARR 3RD ADDITION - PD AMENDMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT & PRELIMINARY PLAT Chairman Hall then called the next public hearing of the evening in regard to the application of Austin Companies for an amendment to the Planned Development Agreement, to allow a car care service center on a Limited Business designated parcel within the Cedar Cliff Commercial Park PUD, and a preliminary plat for the Cedar Cliff Commercial Park 3rd Addition. A conditional use permit for pylon sign is also requested for this 1.83 acre one lot plat located on the north side of Cliff Road between Cliff Road and Scott Trail, a portion of Outlot A of Cedar Cliff Commercial Park 1st Addition. Mr. Runkle indicated that immediately to the north is the Building Block Addition (Day Care Center). He also indicated that the storm water issue must be resolved prior to final plat approval. Mr. Runkle then addressed the location, traffic circulation, size and lot coverage. The applicant was present to respond to questions. Mr. Victor Twaddell, 1849 Narvik Court, was present and indicated that while he was not here in regard to this project, he had to question whether such use could possibly be considered proper in an LB District. Mr. Vernon Colon was present and indicated that in his opinion, there was no notice of rezoning, although there was notice of a PD Y amendment. He felt that such a use should not be allowed in an LB designated area within a PD and that such use had previously been denied to Federal Land Company. McCrea moved, Harrison seconded the motion to recommend denial of the rezoning as being inconsistent with the PUD, office use and the day care located adjacent thereto. All voted in favor. Member McCrea then stepped down from the Commission, explaining that she had a financial interest in the next development, as realtor for the property. GALAXIE CLIFF PLAZA - REZONING & PRELIMINARY PLAT •The last public hearing of the evening convened by Chairman Hall was on the applications of Cliff Road Partnership to rezone approximately 25 acres from A (Agricultural) to LB '(Limited Business) and for a preliminary plat consisting of one lot on 4.4 acres proposed for up to a 50,000 square foot office building with 21 acres of outlots. Mr. Runkle introduced the proposal. Brad Swenson was present on behalf of the applicant, and described the RB parcel to the south and west of the proposal, along with the proposed fire hall. He indicated that a neighborhood meeting had been held and as a result, the developer would perform a tree survey and an EAW. He indicated that the developer was in agreement with the staff conditions, except for condition 11, indicating that the change in the access to Galaxie Avenue may cut off access to neighboring land, plus bisect an existing building site. MEMO TO: C. HALL, ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: OCTOBER 22, 1987 SUBJECT: CEDAR CLIFF COMMERCIAL PARK 4TH ADDITION (PREVIOUS CEDAR CLIFF COMMERCIAL PARK 3RD ADDITION) On August 25, 1987, this item was denied by the APC and scheduled for a September City Council meeting. Prior to that meeting, the applications were withdrawn due to a misunderstanding of the application requirements and process. The City Attorney's office reviewed the applications and determined that they were processed correctly. Therefore, in an effort to insure proper legal notification prior to going to the Council, this item was rescheduled for a public hearing at the October 29, 1987 APC meeting. Staff recommends that the application name be changed from the Cedar Cliff Commercial Park 3rd Addition to the 4th Addition in order to keep our filing system in order. Attached is the original staff report for the Auto Center, an exhibit showing the relationship of the day care facility and Auto Center, a petition from residents of the area stating their approval of the project and letters from the day care developer and the owners of the Auto Center lot. JS/af SUBJECT: PD DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY PLAT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PYLON SIGN) CEDAR CLIFF COMMERCIAL PARK 3RD ADDITION APPLICANT: AUSTIN COMPANIES LOCATION: OUTLOT A, CEDAR CLIFF COMMERCIAL PARK, SE 1/4 SECTION 30 EXISTING ZONING: LB WITHIN CEDAR CLIFF CO,%1MERCIAL PARK DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: AUGUST 25, 1987 DATE OF REPORT: AUGUST 13, 1987 REPORTED BY: PLANNING & ENGINEERING APPLICATION SUMMARY: An application has been submitted requesting a Planned Development Amendment to allow an automotive service center on LB (Limited Business) designated land within the Cedar Cliff Commerical Park P.D. and a Preliminary Plat for the Cedar Cliff Commercial Park 3rd Addition. This 1.83 acre one lot plat is located on the north side of Cliff Road between Cliff Drive and Scott Trail and is currently a portion of Outlot A of the 1st Addition. Immediately to the north is the Building Block Addition (day care center). Before any final approvals can occur in that area, the storm water issue must be resolved. In an effort to do so, the Building Block Addition will be replatted into the Cedar Cliff Commercial Park 4th Addition as Lot 1 and the remaining area to the northwest will become Outlot A with a drainage and utility easement for the ponding area. It is anticipated that the Cedar Cliff Commercial Park 4th Addition will be scheduled for the September APC meeting. SITE -PLAN CODE CONFORMANCE: This 15,170 SF automotive service center will have four main tennants: Tires Plus, Lavells Auto Parts (retail sales only), Muffler Pro and an undetermined user. A single access from Cliff Drive matching that of the shopping center to the west will serve this site. All building and parking setbacks meet code requirements. Sixty-seven exterior parking stalls have been provided and eignteen are proposed as service bays within the building (85 total). If a strict 'retail only' sales parking ratio were used, 101 stalls would be required. At the 30,000 SF Car Care Center along Pilot Knob Road and Duckwood Drive, 143 stalls were approved in that site plan. That also included 19 that would be shared with a proposed restaurant site. Austin Companies is also proposing a similar 17,000 + SF project in Eden Prairie with 88 stalls. It appears that parking should be sufficient for this proposal since most uses are short term and the total 'retail only' space is 5,870 SF. All stalls are 10' wide except for the 26 designated employee only ones on the rear side of the building. The lot coverage is 19% in a 20% (LB) district. The building itself will be constructed of face brick, precast concrete and prefinished aluminum. The proposed main color will closely resemble the Cedar Cliff Shopping Center -- adding to the continuity of the Planned'Development. The applicant is aware that no roof top mechanical equipment shall be visible. The trash will be contained completely in the building and no exterior storage has been proposed. The landscape plan works well conceptually - all sizes and species are acceptable. The proposed pylon sign is located on the southeast corner of the site - over 300' from the shopping center sign. The detailed design has not been completed but all code requirements would be adhered to. GRADING/DRAINAGE/EROSION CONTROL: The proposed auto mall site occupies Lot 1 of the proposed Cedar Cliff Commercial Park 3rd Addition. Lot 1 is bounded by Cliff Road on the south, Cliff Drive on the west, and Scott Trail on the east. The proposed grading plan generally conforms to the existing grades of Cliff Drive and Scott Trail. Drainage along the northerly edge of Lot 1 is proposed to be provided by a deep swale into which all drainage from Lot 1 and Lot 2 is directed. This drainage swale is shown initially to drain northwest into a regraded portion of the existing pond. When the outlet to Pond AP -50 (lying easterly of Scott Trail) is provided in the future, the drainage from Lot 1 and Lot 2 is required to be directed east into Pond AP -50. Considering the elevations proposed for the Building Block Child Daycare Center on Lot 2 and the auto mall on Lot 1, this alternate is the most feasible permanent drainage plan for these two lots. The study of the outlet to Pond AP -50 has considered this eventuality. The developer shall escrow the necessary funds to provide the required storm sewer and to fill and relandscape the swale in the future when the Pond AP -50 outlet is constructed. The storm sewer system which conveys the water from the drainage swale between Lots 1 and 2 into the proposed pond on Outlot A will need to be abandoned at that time. No grading plan for the ultimate use of Lot 3 is provided. Much of the existing lower area on Lot 3 and on Outlot A is shown to be regraded to provide a small but deep detention pond. The bottom elevation of the pond 'is proposed at elevation * 888.0 and the overflow outlet elevation is proposed at 900.0. (The pond outlet is connected to the storm sewer system which ultimately discharges into Pond AP -9.) A pond with a depth of approximately twelve feet below the outlet is of questionable value for storm water drainage purposes. It is recommended that the bottom elevation be raised to approximately two to three feet below the controlled outlet elevation. This proposed elevation is low enough to receive storm water temporarily from Lots 1 and 2 and can ultimately serve as a permanent ponding area for the balance of this site. The dependable storage volume of this pond is not increased by the proposed greater depth. A permanent ponding easement should be provided for the pond and the maintenance of the pond should remain with the property draining into it. No erosion and sediment control plan was submitted as a part of this application. '5'& UTILITIES: The existing sanitary sewer and water lines in Cliff Drive are of adequate capacity and depth to serve this development. STREETS/ACCESS/CIRCULATION: The development is proposing to take access to the site from westerly adjacent Cliff Drive in one location. Dakota County will be requiring dedication of restricted access along the entire border with Cliff Road. Traffic circulation throughout the site can be easily accomplished for cars and single -axle trucks without encroachment into the parking stalls. A semitrailer -type unit would not be able to make turning maneuvers without encroachment into the parking stall areas. EASEMENTS/RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMITS: The proper easements will be --required for the proposed pond, its outlet, and for the future storm sewer to be constructed in the swale between proposed Lots 1 and 2. Adequate street rights-of-way have been provided for Cliff Drive and Scott Trail. Adequate right-of-way is shown to be provided with the platting to accommodate Cliff Road. All regulatory agency permits shall be acquired from the appropriate agency in the proper time frame. ASSESSMENTS: The parcel proposed for platting as Cedar Cliff Commercial Park 3rd Addition has been assessed for the following public utilities at the commercial/industrial rate: sanitary sewer trunk, water area, storm sewer trunk, sanitary sewer lateral benefit, water lateral benefit, water area upgrade, and water lateral benefit. The proposed parcel will be required to pay its proposed assessment for trailway along Cliff Road as a condition of final plat approval. The trailway assessment is identified at the rate of $12.49 per front foot for the frontage along Cliff Road which is 285.38 front feet.* The rate and the total front footage equate to a total proposed assessment of $3,564.00. All final assessment obligations will be calculated on the quantities and dimensions of the final plat and in accordance with the rates in effect at the time of the final plat approval. CONDITIONS: CEDAR CLIFF COMMERCIAL PK 3RD ADDITION 1. All standard platting conditions shall be adhered to. 2. No exterior storage, sales or displays shall be permitted. 3. No roof top mechanical equipment shall be permitted. 4. The pylon sign shall be no taller than the Cedar Cliff Shopping Center sign and contain no more than 125 SF of signage per side. All building mounted signage shall be compatible and uniform in size. All signage shall be subject to the one-time sign fee of $2.50 SF. --5. The detailed landscape plan shall be submitted on a grading plan. The financial guarantee shall not be released until 1 year after the date of installation. 6. 26 employee parking stalls with a 9' width shall be permitted. 7. The development shall be responsible for the cost of construction of the required storm sewer to convey the runoff from Lots 1 and 2 into the existing storm sewer system in Scott Trail when the outlet for Pond AP -50 is constructed. 8. The proposed pond bottom elevation shall not be more than three feet below the controlled water elevation of the ponding area. 9. The development shall modify its proposed site plan to provide adequate room for turning maneuvers of tractor/trailer-type unit. 10. This development shall also comply with the most recent requirements of the standard conditions of approval as adopted by Council action. e STANDARD CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL A. Assessments 1. This development shall accept its additional assessment obligations as defined in the staff's report in accordance with the final plat dimensions and the rates in effect at the time of final plat approval. B. Easements and Rights-of-Wav 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. 2. This development shall dedicate, provide, or financially guarantee its proportionate share of the acquisition costs of additional drainage, ponding, and utility easements as required by the alignment, depth, and storage capacity of all required public utilities and streets located beyond the boundaries of this plat or outside of dedicated public right-of-way as necessary to service this development. a'a 3. F"y This development shall dedicate all public right-of-way and temporary slope easements for ultimate development of adjacent road ways as required by the appropriate jurisdictional agency. 4. This development shall dedicate adequate drainage and ponding easements to incorporate the required high water elevation necessitated by City storm water storage volume requirements. C. Plans and S ecifications 1. All public str-eets 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 and policies, and approved by staff prior to final plat approval. 2. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion, and sediment control plan must be prepared in accordance with current City standards and approved by staff prior to final plat approval. 3. This development shall insure that all temporary dead end public streets shall have a cul-de-sac constructed in accordance with City engineering standards. 4. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted on the proposed grading plan and approved by staff prior to the final plat approval. The financial guarantee shall be included in the Development Contract and not released until one year after the date of installation. (OVER) 91 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL PAGE TWO 5. All internal public and private streets shall be constructed within the required right-of-way in accordance with City design standards. D. Public Improvements 1. If any public improvements are to be installed under a City contract, the appropriate project must be approved by Council action prior to final plat approval. E. Permits 1. This development shall be responsible for the acquisition of all regulatory agency permits in the time frame required by the affected agency. F. Parks Dedication 1. This development shall fulfull its parks dedication requirements as recommended by the Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission and approved by Council action. G. Other 1. All standard platting and zoning conditions shall be adhered to unless specifically granted a variance by Council action. Advisory Planning Commission City Council Approved: Rev ised: STANDARD LTS`2 �-. 1 _7 _ Se •% s' Sa: ?:r* Zc .3. /-3.69 • • 3D1.s8 i r y /34. Li I .i •���J O o \ It , t� r �j • �`� N3.0.65 � V! V ' S I to • I `L C 0••6 33'W �. N � o � vb q4 'e•'`�s Zvi tA S N y °V Amo e� / ,'0� / O i 0� qo� /V t, i Qy4� .��y• � 11300 rk •i: / �. • __ •' •- 3x`3.96 •- �•; / ,f �8 �' ' • S O'ZZ'0o'►i/ ncoc s CEDAR CLIFF COMMERCIAL .�# �?3 n s�, �� �;I �,• �1. I ,I I e I• 1i, ;ill •� ;•,�-� �% ��� ,► 11,E ZZ S viii it ...� � n � I i L ���• �� `,y •moi-, ,, �,i �.�r—••= 1 �.- _h. y.� ./ �'f. 1�•�� i /a �r� / �—i --sem _� 1�—�1�_ L.�—_y�� ' I iil !`• ti ti a =77- i Dabjj L mo] {�q...01rQ .G ►.'"..''^�J'i �.! I so I I �i eh ;e s Y 4 s R � a�t � t all it,, i3 1 Yl Ic itB�y ons x�5 Y� I I —I �� I I I I l Y dd_ sf �Se �, �• — ° a - � V _ rF• � ii � I � 3 s3 •�. s , � i .. cQ • — i e a r1. w•Ol..vw q:, �� I I l Y dd_ sf �Se �, �• ° a - � V _ rF• .. cQ • x d G C a a as E a] IS I 15. rn cn A -L IS '0 M I rn cn '0 M rn cn ¢ 9 z � ■9|� � � eNVO 1477S. | � -tfw r»7 t- t lit +yf , r • . \ ,� .� E �.� ! \ � \ \, izzlj - & / / �.■ [ / )t-1 / , § ,§RR2! 34Jb9:. �. I �� 61 a 10 m �71 ;t i d !!M* - 7Z 'A , !!M* - 'A , )J L �E Ii�� s �j i all 1111h, � III II 1111111 i.� III ;i1 Ir h !!M* - 'A , �E Ii�� s �j i all IS: A .0 Jul / _` I �; 1 i -^ •� !�, _ as ` — r0 1 )IP 77 - to -2.vi Alex ' ��il���dliitri(il� / ��ii�i� �����ii���..INC• 367 East Kellogg Blvd. • St. Paul, MN. 55101 • 612-228-9564 CEDAR CLIFF COMMERCIAL PARK Ali G 7 1987 THIRD ADDITION JA C2[IStrami `x fSSCC1ataS. Inc. 1t0 Ncrth cr?th St. Sure 925 CITY OF EAGAN Minnea�^::�, i11::P1 55401 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON STORM WATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM INTRODUCTION: It is proposed that a storm water detention pond be constructed within the Cedar Cliff Commercial Park, Third Addition. This pond is to be designed to contain the storm water run-off from this 5.75 acre development. At the present time, all storm water within the 5.75 acres drain into an existing pond within this proposed development. Also, storm water from the westerly one half of Scott Trail drains into a catch basin and into a drainage ditch which discharges into the C-1-17 pond area. EXISTING CONDITIONS: An 80 foot, 12 inch diameter storm pipe extends from the storm sewer main on Cliff Drive to the pond area. The inlet elevation of_this 12 inch pipe is at 900.0. Storm water is discharged into the main on Cliff Drive and is eventually discharged into a pond area, designated AP -9, located on the west side of Nichols Road. The normal pond elevation of AP -9 is 892.3. The maximum pond elevation of AP -9 is 898.8. A street, Scott Trail, is located to the east of this development. The centerline elevation at the catch basin, at its lowest elevation, is 902.4. Storm water from the east half of Scott Trail drains into the drainage ditch within the development. The west one half of Scott Trail drains into a catch basin which drains into a pond area designated as AP -50. The normal elevation of AP -50 is 886.0. The maximum pond elevation of AP -50 is 894.0. An interceptor storm sewer system is proposed to the AP -50 pond in the near future to control storm water run-off from this area. '/0 ENGINEERS • LAND SURVEYORS 9 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN: It is proposed that a new storage pond be constructed and a drainage system designed to accommodate storm water run-off in this development. The 5.75 acre parcel is to be platted into three lots and one outlot. The three lots are for commercial development and the outlot is for the storm water detention pond. The proposed detention pond, when empty.- will contain'a 6 inch rainfall. However, the inlet of the 12 inch storm sewer pipe is at elevation 900.0 and has a minimum grade of 0.07%. The capacity of this 12 inch pipe is approximately 1 cubic feet per second. In the event the pond is at elevation 900.0, the maximum storage is 2.0 feet (elevation 900 to 902) or 26,795 cubic feet. Therefore, a 1-1/4 inch rain will fill this pond to the maximum. DRAINAGE AND HYDROLOGY INFORMATION: Area: 5.75 Acres (Use 6 acres) (261,360 square foot surface area) Storage Pond Information: Bottom Elevation: 888.0 Maximum Elevation: 902.0 Storage Capacity: (Empty) 148,130 cubic feet Storage Capacity: Elevation 888 to 990 = 118,335 cubic feet Elevation 900 to 902 = 26,795 cubic feet 12 inch diameter storm pipe inlet at elevation 900.0 (Cliff Drive). Scott Trail street elevation at catch basin inlet 902.0. SUMMARY: When the Cedar Cliff Commercial Park, Third Addition is completed, storm water run-off can be contained and controlled within the designated areas to a certain extent. However, due to existing conditions, the maximum effective elevation control is elevation 902.4. At that elevation, storm water will flow across Scott Trail, to the east, into Pond AP -50. When the interceptor storm sewer is extended to AP -50, a storm sewer should be installed along the lot lines of Lots 1 and 2 and the storm water diverted into Pond AP -50. lt2I d66 f -N! ?E E 112. ' I' � ,.. : J '�,j elf : .,,�-w H ) f".�.�;:x 7.71 HIGH Am 71 i. A f: cc B In w -5. j T -- .T7' 18 MA R I 12 W -X RIDGE W—p -,w nu 16 18' 20 19 'RIVLR TE5T w LN rE 15" .12 17 17111 -ViNKLER14 2 JACKSor, w T u t RI W -S Mr H E 7 h 4 15"/ DAKOTA COUNTY CEDAR CLIFF COMMERCIAL PARK 3RD city of eagan PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTME SUBJECT PARCEL SANITARY SEWER MASTER PLAN FIG. fi- approved: standard I plate :#: of ti \AP -46 9450 948.5 FP -18 925.5 AP -34 -93 S 93834 9..08 . AP -331 0 980.0 1. 9853 city of eagan PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTME A -35 880.6 -7 /'AP- 8 869.3 S S 894.j890.. 17L AP -10:--. p-10: ot _1FF F 919.7 C!7 925.6 iz, 11 \AP -46 9450 948.5 FP -18 925.5 AP -34 -93 S 93834 9..08 . AP -331 0 980.0 1. 9853 city of eagan PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTME A -35 880.6 Ld A P.; S S 894.j890.. AP -10:--. p-10: ot _1FF F 919.7 C!7 925.6 iz, 11 L \AP -46 9450 948.5 FP -18 925.5 AP -34 -93 S 93834 9..08 . AP -331 0 980.0 1. 9853 city of eagan PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTME A -35 880.6 A P.; "A919 894.j890.. ot _1FF F . . ....... ................ .. ........... SUBJECT PARCEL DAKOTA COJNTY F A-yy ...low* CEDAR CLIFF COMMERCIAL ARK 3RD STORM SEWER 105. MASTER PLAN I FIG. -5pi approved: standard I plate 4: 44 6/7Z.0 is u L 143 R iY- 12" 4 F7/ &Q (1477) 3.8181.01 141 148, 1 -,., I (�- - I C- I P4.5/8Z�Q I• D9 8so. 43.3/70.0 0 / ' 13A---�: MGH 6' SCHUOL X46A/74.0 146 ;.y �� `.J ritPt/tixi,C�r::�' Fcoati� R oD 46.0/72.0 I LTY MARI 10'YR."HN 39.0/65.0 '4K T1 236 rc P 116 d . 1-1)" t 18 L r 2 0 . �4 Q3� 37.7/ ;,,DRIVER % TEST 16 CENTER; 2.5/56,0 2213 87. 970 308/5 J--4 il HIOGECLIFF�, 227 ' - 1000 16ADDiTION DAKOTA COUNTY PARK CEDAR CLIFF COMMERCIAL PARK 3RD city of eagan T PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTME SUBJECT PARCEL WAT 1 MASTER,PLAN FIG. C.": E= approved:- standard I plate 4: I OAU a JMD 1 U LO a 1 I d arc tf� OZO Ott W F �R A w C i U E. I OAU a JMD 1 U r� uiau-s \ I I OAU a JMD 1 U i PETITION TO: Mayor Bea Blomquist and Members of the Eagan City Council RE: Commercial Development on the North Side of Cliff Road between Cliff Drive and Scott Trail /and residents /and including The undersigned businesses, adjacent to the Cedar Cliff neighborhood and the above site in the City of Eagan; state that we do not object to the proposed development of the Building Block Daycare Center and Auto Plaza, now being proposed to the City of Eagan, as shown by Exhibit A. -Name: �j Address: Date: 1. /,L, __ a - r r(�174 Fc o �r 6i^--'3 . ��i ,qk,,k 4.. 1 G 5. 6. 442 7. k'7 8. r I / f 9. -S-" CIO 11. /b �O C C-"-;-,, me: Address: Date: 12. 13. S 2 C( 14. 15. to 16. 17. rIM11F> 18. -1/ �.�.' r I ' r7 41 19. 20. 21. ?PdA Zd11 22. 23'. Mo V7 24. bj,< 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. ai �g c��-f-�h� I I I,r��e to � 61!s/�� Ag 11gl: �s �3 TA. ,o ��5;cw�ir OVA f Name: ddress: f� 30. ►V J / JC4V j �I 3: 3: 3: 34 Date: 35 36. 37 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. '%Oyy� 1 c L /Pp CLIA 10&X - OA c 4590 Scott Trail Eagan, MN 55122 An Auto Plaza is being proposed on the north side of Cliff Road and Scott Trail, I am in favor of it: 4580 Scott Trail Eagan, Mn 55122 An Auto Plaza is being proposed on the north side of Cliff Road and Scott Trail, in favor of it: v >e— .---? A '1 Y 6,t October 2, 1987 Eagan Planning City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Eagan, Mn 55122 Commission Road James Durning Loren J. Spande 4580 Scott Trail Suite 100 Eagan, Mn 55122 We are writing to you for the purpose of asking for reconsider- ation on the Cedar Cliff Commercial Park 3rd Addition PUD Amendement. We have sought the advice of the City Staff and City Legal Council in regards to the misunderstanding of the applic- ation for the presentation of the August 2nd meeting. City Staff and Legal Council advised that the application was, in fact, presented properly and all public notices sentout timely. A short history on this project is: Originally this P.U.D. was allowed office use only within the commercial development. A proposal was made to the city in 1984 to develop 5.4 acres (SW corner) as a strip shopping center. It was agreed that the center would not have an exit onto Scott Trail so as to ease traffic in the neighborhood and all trash containers would be enclosed. A 6' berm with Black Hill spruce was built to the northside to help buffer the residential from the commerical. An office building was built to the north of the center and other office type uses committed to the northern corridor. Building Block Day Care center was proposed to act as a further buffer between residential and commercial - thereby completing the buffer zone. The City of Eagan approved this project. was developed by Federal Land Company. this project to be a vital asset to the city. They are more than satisfied with the operation. Vu_- N The shopping center Experience has shown neighborhood and the the development and October 2, 1987 James during Loren Spande page 2 We are asking for the Planning Commission to consider the Auto Plaza as being consistent with the previous amendment to the PUD allowing the shopping center. We would like to offer the following points for your consideration of the merits of this project. a) Auto Plaza has no entrance off Scott Trail. b) The height of the Plaza will be consistent with the center and a 10' berm with landscaping between the Auto Plaza and Day Care to provide additional site line barrier for the neighborhood. c) Construction within the total PUD would be architectually consistent to be a showcase for the neighborhood and City. d) Signage will be consistent with the shopping center signage both free standing and building application. A neighborhood meeting was held on August 8th at Durnings Restaurant to further explain the project to concerned neighbors. No one opposed the project. The only opposition was based on the way the project was presented. City Staff feels that this objection was not valid. Jim Durning & Loren Spande, as long time business men in the community and neighbors to the project feel it has merit and should be based on its merits. Thank you for your consideration. ctful October 2, 1987 James during Loren Spande page 2 We are asking for the Planning Commission to consider the Auto Plaza as being consistent with the previous amendment to the PUD allowing the shopping center. We would like to offer the following points for your consideration of the merits of this project. a) Auto Plaza has no entrance off Scott Trail. b) The height of the Plaza will be consistent with the center and a 10' berm with landscaping between the Auto Plaza and Day Care to provide additional site line barrier for the neighborhood. c) Construction within the total PUD would be architectually consistent to be a showcase for the neighborhood and City. d) Signage will be consistent with the shopping center signage both free standing and building application. A neighborhood meeting was held on August 8th at Durnings Restaurant to further explain the project to concerned neighbors. No one opposed the project. The only opposition was based on the way the project was presented. City Staff feels that this objection was not valid. Jim Durning & Loren Spande, as long time business men in the community and neighbors to the project feel it has merit and should be based on its merits. Thank you for your consideration. ctful c C', e Wateifictrf DEVELOPMENT GROUP; INC. October 8, 1987 Ray Williams M.G. Astleford 1200 W. Hwy 13 Burnsville, MN 55337 RE: Auto Plaza '46 at C-L.L L %. C/liuuGr 4.lal rat ti Dear Ray: I wanted to take this opportunity to express our approval for the auto plaza being developed adjacent to the Building Block Nursery School. We are optimistic that the auto plaza will bring many parents by our site. We feel confident that with a generous landscape plan, the auto plaza will create a nice buffer between Cliff Road and the daycare. Good luck on your progress. Sincerely-) Brian P. Carey Development Director BPC:kt (T35BCAut) l/ 3300 EDINBOROUGH WAY, SUITE 406, EDINA, MN 55435, TELEPHONE 835-7075 APC Minutes October 29, 1987 y. Harrison moved, McCrea seconded the motion to recommend a three- year extension of the PD, retroactive from the 1985 expiration date. All voted yes. CEDAR CLIFF COMMERCIAL PARK 4TH ADDITION - PRELIMINARY PLAT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The next public hearing called by Chairman Hall was in regard to the application of Austin Companies for a planned development amendment, a conditional use permit for a sign, and a preliminary plat of 1.83 acres for an automotive service center in LB (Limited Business) designated land within the Cedar Cliff Commercial Park PD located north of Cliff Road, between Cliff Drive and Scott Trail, in the southeast quarter of Section 30. Mr. Runkle indicated this matter had been considered by the Planning Commission at its August 25, 1987 meeting, at which time it recommended denial to the City Council. Prior to the City Council hearing, the applicant withdrew the application, as it had been advised that it was not a proper application. However, after staff review, it was determined that it was a proper application and therefore, in order to insure proper process, it was brought back to the Planning Commission. It was noted that it appeared to be basically the same application, although a Petition had been signed by neighboring owners as to their acceptance of the proposal. Mr. Ray Williams was present on behalf of the applicant, Austin Companies, and the owner, Cedar Cliff Commercial Partnership. He indicated that the day care center to the north would provide a natural buffer to the duplexes north of that site, and advised that the proposed design would be consistent with the existing mall to the west. He also advised that a Petition had been signed by all but one of the neighbors in the residential area, and all the tenants in the retail center. Mr. Jeff Carlstrom was present and described the 15,000 square foot building, using the same face brick and facia as the retail center. He also described the landscape buffer from the north of 10 feet in height, and uniform signage on the building for the various tenants. Mr. Vernon Colon of Federal Land Company was present and objected to the rezoning, indicating that the rezoning of an LB area to the east of this area has been denied to Federal Land Company. Mr. Williams noted that the area to the east was designated R -III on the Comprehensive Guide, which was not true of the area in question. APC Minutes October 29, 1987 Mr. Jim Durning appeared and stated that contrary to previous applications, this one was accepted by the neighbors. Mr. Mark Smith of Austin Companies, indicated that the proposed use was less intensive than an office use, and not like a retail use. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Runkle advised Chairman Hall that the application was the same as that provided in August, except that access was not being provided on Scott Trail. Mr. Foertsch indicated that the drainage issue had been resolved. Mr. Colon stated that access would be a problem as a median was planned in Cliff Road at the access of Cliff Drive. Mr. Foertsch indicated that a median would cross Scott Trail, but was not aware of a median in front of Cliff Drive. Harrison moved, Krisnik seconded the motion to recommend denial on the basis that the application had been previously denied and had not changed, other than for the purpose of proper process. Harrison, Voracek, Krisnik and Hall voted in favor of denial for the reasons given in the August hearing; McCrea and Gustafson voted no. LOT 1, BLOCK 2, CEDAR CLIFF COMMERCIAL PARK PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT = Th next hearing in regard to the application of ederal Land Company r a planned development amendment to ow motor fuel sales on Lo 1, Block 2, Cedar Cliff Commercial Par , located at the northeast inte ection of Cliff Road and Nic s Road, in the southeast quarte of Section 30, was then conve ed by Chairman Hall. Mr. Runkle describe the application which w s basically to provide for gas pumps whe previously not allow Mr. Vernon Colon was present and indicated at the previous a lication had been under an ordinance that prohibi. ed gas pumps ithout active service bays. He advised that the same chitectu 1 design would be used as the existing retail center. McCrea questioned the exist of the ordinance and the status of the lawsuit in regard to gas mps. Mr. Keller indicated that while the Court, to the best f his nowledg e, had declared the existing ordinance unconst' utional, it had not yet been repealed. He also advised that the ourt had found 1 the City's favor in that the City did not have o allow gas pumps be ause it was a condition of the Development Co L-ract. Harrison mov,;p5, McCrea seconded the motionrecommend denial on the basis at the Development Contract was ' effect and the conditions the eto were a promise to the public that -3s pumps were not to be pr the on the site. All voted in favor, except Voracek who abstai ed to avoid any appearance of a potential -�onflict of interest. 5 Agenda Information Memo, December 1, 1987, City Council Meeting COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CLIFF LAKE GALLERIA AND TOWERS C. Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for Cliff Lake Galleria and Towers, Ryan Hoffman Joint Venture, Amendment to Planned Development Agreement and Preliminary Plat Consisting of 99.9 Acres from Three Lots Containing a Strip Shopping Center and Five Outlots for Future Development --A public hearing was held by the Advisory Planning Commission at their last regular meeting held on November 24, 1987, to consider a revised preliminary plat entitled Cliff Lake Centre as proposed by the Ryan/Hoffman Joint Venture. The revised preliminary plat consists of three lots containing approximately 27.7 acres and eight outlots containing approximately 72 acres. At their November 24 meeting the APC recommended denial. The Advisory Planning Commission first considered a preliminary plat at their August 25 meeting, however, due to the necessity to complete a transportation study, submit an EAW and other review, the Planning Commission continued the application for 60 days. At their October 27 meeting, the original preliminary plat was again considered and the APC recommended denial to the City Council. At the City Council meeting of November 5 a new plan was submitted by the Ryan/Hoffman Joint Venture that placed the proposed shopping center and outlots on that portion of their P.D. that is zoned commercial. Since the City staff had not seen the revised plan until that afternoon, the City Council referred the plan, referenced as "Plan B", to the Advisory Planning Commission at its regular meeting in November for a recommendation in order that the City Council could act upon the preliminary plat proposal on December 1, 1987, noting that it was consistent with the prior planned development provisions, with the understanding that the developer would consent to extension of action by the Council on the application for preliminary plat until the first meeting in December, 1987. Mr. Sellergren agreed with the extension and all the City Council voted in favor. Enclosed on pages SII through 16,3 for City Council review is a copy of the report that was prepared by Planning and gngineering. A letter from Dave Sellergren is enclosed on pages L.sthrough and a legal memorandum regarding the shore 1and zoning which is enclosed on page(s)/j,0_/73. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the preliminary plat entitled Cliff Lake Centre as presented with or without modification. NOTE: Minutes for this APC item will be distributed on Friday, November 27, 1987. X17 Ae ti CITY OF EAGAN SUBJECT: REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT/CLIFF LAKE CENTER APPLICANT: RYAN/HOFFMAN JOINT VENTURE LOCATION: SW 1/4, SECTION 29, NE QUADRANT OF RAHN ROAD AND CLIFF ROAD EXISTING ZONING: EAGAN HILLS WEST PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CSC/RB, LB, AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PLANNED USES DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: AUGUST 25, 1987, CONTINUED THROUGH NOVEMBER 24, 1987 DATE OF REPORT: ORIGINAL REPORT AUGUST 17, UPDATED OCTOBER 19, AND UPDATED NOVEMBER 20, 1987 REPORTED BY: PLANNING AND ENGINEER DEPARTMENTS APPLICATION: The original application submitted was for preliminary plat approval consisting of approximately 99.9 acres and would contain three lots consisting of approximately 27.79 acres and four outlots containing 72.1 acres for future development zoning and land use. A revised preliminary plat has been submitted requesting three lots containing approximately 27.7 acres and eight outlots containing 72 acres plus or minus. ZONING AND LAND USE: Presently, the property is zoned PD (Planned Development) under the Eagan Hills West planned development consisting of approximately 384 acres. The portion of the development which lies south of the Northern States Power easement contains approximately 99.9 acres and according to the Eagan Hills West planned development, does allow for commercial and multiple residential development in this general area. Again, attached is Exhibit D of the Eagan Hills West planned development agreement labeled "Land Use" which designates the land uses allowed within the planned development. DESCRIPTION OF REVISED PLAN: T proposes a 701,000 square foot retail office, hotel, and high sixteen units per acre. Planned acres south of the NSP power line ze revised plan, dated November 16, mixed-use project consisting of density residential of twelve to uses located on approximately 100 easement. The first phase, or the retail component, of this development will contain approximately 278,000 square feet of retail space. This will be broken down as follows: Lot 1, Super Valu store, 62,000 square feet plus a 10,000 square foot addition; Lot 2, strip retail development, 79,700 square feet; Lot 3, Target discount store, 114,300 square feet; and two outlots containing 12,000 square feet of additional retail space. The second phase, the office/hotel component has a proposed development as comprised of 420,000 square feet on approximately 19.2 acres, including the desQignated exceptions. The office /I O M . component specifically consists of 285,000 square feet and is situated between two buildings. The developer has verbally represented that these buildings will be six to eight floors in height. The hotel component consists of one 135,000 square foot building. When calculating the floor area ratio instead of lot coverage, the floor area ratio is approximately .5. The office/hotel component of the development is proposed to be served by structured parking. The residential component of the proposed development consists of approximately thirty acres. The residential development is proposed to be high density in nature with twelve to sixteen units an acre. The October 26, 1987 Environmental Assessment Worksheet analyzed a total of 375 dwelling units for the residential areas. A specific design for this area has not been submitted by the developer to date. Outlots G and H are designated for residential usage. The outlots are very small in size, .32 and .23 acres respectively, and are of no practical use to the developer. The developer has verbally committed to not developing Outlots G and H of this proposed plan. In review of the detailed first phase of the plan, it appears that the three lots considered for development are within the parameters of lot coverage. The parking can be construed to be close; that is, if you exclude the 10,000 square foot addition to the Super Valu, the number of parking spaces are within the City Code requirements. If you add the 10,000 foot expansion plus the two outlots, parking would be short of the City's requirements. III SUMMARY OF ADJACENT LAND USES: Adjacent land uses are described in terms of existing or an- ticipated conditions. For purposes of this report, existing land uses are best measured by the City zoning map and anticipated land uses by the Comprehensive Land Use Guide _Plan Map (the map). Existing land uses to the north and west of the site are par- ticularly sensitive to the proposed intensive commercial and of- fice land uses. Single family residential and park land uses are located northerly and northwesterly of the site, with a park and an elementary school located west of the site. To the east is I -35E and Blackhawk Road followed by more single family and multiple residential land uses. To the southwest are existing commercial and public facilities that are compatible with the proposed development. Single family is located southeast of the site. Anticipated land uses located west of the site are sensitive to intensive commercial and office development. The Federal Land property is "guided" for residential density of 6 to 12 units per acre. The proposed development should be designed in such a fashion as to compliment and enhance this anticipated residen- tial component. Property to the north of the site is almost completely developed with the exception of some multifamily land east of Blackhawk Road. Office and commercial uses are yet to be developed south of the site with some residential development an- ticipated east of I -35E. Two conclusions can be drawn from the above land use discussion. The first is that existing and anticipated land uses (ie. school, park and single family residential) located north and west of the site are sensitive to the proposed intensive commercial and of- fice development. Second, land uses located south of the site (ie. commercial uses) are more conducive to the proposed develop- ment. Residential development located east of the site is sensi- tive to commercial development. This area, however, must also contend with the negative impacts of I -35E and Blackhawk Road. /7"0 SITE CONFIGURATION. e The Eagan Hills West Planned Development Agreement (the Agreement) is a contract between the City of Eagan and the developer that controls development of the site. This agreement was fashion is such a manner as to protect existing and an- ticipated development located north and west of the site. The agreement indicates that residential land uses are to be located north and west of the "CSC -RB -LB and High Density Residential" area. The purpose for this residential area is to buffer exist- ing and anticipated residential and public uses from the commer- cial area. The site plan as currently designed does not "exactly" fit Ex- hibit "D" Land Use Plan of the agreement nor does it accurately represent the configuration of commercial and residential land uses. As the enclosed exhibit illustrates, the commercial area encroaches slightly into the westerly residential area that is to serve as a buffer for adjacent residential and public land uses. Staff estimates this encroachment to be approximately four (4) acres. Because of this encroachment, the Planning Commission and City Council will need to determine whether the proposed development is substantially in conformance with the agreement. The addi- tional four acres used for commercial purposes provides the developer with critically needed parking space, internal circula- tion, and provides development potential for outlot C. The taking of four (4) residential acres reduces the viability of this land use to serve as a buffer for adjacent residential and public land uses. SITE INTEGRATION. It appears that the proposed development as currently designed may not result in an adequate maturation of the residential com- ponents and as a consequence may not sufficiently integrate with adjacent existing and anticipated land uses. Two of the three proposed residential areas are of particular concern. Outlot B is located west of the proposed commercial area and ad- jacent to Rahn Road. This area consists of 7.94 acres and serves as a buffer to residential, park and school land uses. Exhibit "D" of the agreement indicates high density residential land uses (12 to 16 units per acre) for outlot B. The proposed plan ap- pears to conform with this land use designation with the four (4) acre commercial encroachment as an exception. 121 t The concern with outlot B is that the developer is essentially using this land as a ponding area for commercial and office development. The proposed stormwater pond appears to be of suf- ficient size and depth that residential development may be precluded on outlot B. The developer has verbally stated that residential development in this area may never occur. In addition to ponding, adjacent roadway alignments make it un- likely that residential development will occur on outlot B. Out - lot B is an island surrounded by either internal or collector roadways. Rahn Road is located west of outlot B, "proposed street All to the north, and "proposed internal street" to the east and south. Given these ponding and roadway considerations, Staff is con- cerned about how outlot B may develop and how the City of Eagan may wish to approach this issue. If the Planning Commission and City Council are not concerned about outlot B serving as a buffer than perhaps this is a moot issue. Conversely, several steps need to be taken if outlot B is to serve as a buffer for adjacent land uses. These steps may include the relocation of commercial stormwater ponding and the vacation of certain portions of Rahn Road, or perhaps outlot B serving as open space. Outlot E is the second area where proposed residential land uses may not serve as an adequate buffer for adjacent areas. Outlot E is located south of the NSP power line, west of Blackhawk Road, and north of the proposed office/hotel area. Outlot E is 12.84 acres and serves as a buffer for single and multiple family residential and park land uses. The developer has verbally stated that office/hotel development is anticipated to be constructed 6 to 8 floors in height. Subur- ban high density residential development seldom exceeds three (3) floors in height. With other factors aside, the result of this height disparity is that outlot E residential development will not serve as a visual buffer for adjacent residential development. This problem is further exasperated by an existing ponding area that will be enlarged to accommodate office/hotel and commercial stormwater runoff and thereby further reduce the residential potential of this area. Again, the Planning Commission and City Council will need to determine whether the proposed residential area will serve as an adequate buffer of existing residential areas from the proposed office/hotel land uses. If the residential buffer appears to be adequate than perhaps nothing else needs to be addressed. Con- versely, if the residential buffer appears to be inadequate than IZ-2-, perhaps several alternatives need to be examined. These alterna- tives may include: 1. reduce size of office/hotel component; 2. retain aesthetic and architectural controls of the office/hotel component; and 3. clearly state that approval of phase 1 does not convey in any fashion consent or approval of phase 2. TRANSPORTATION IMPLICATIONS OF LAND USE. Transportation has been a critical issue with this development from the beginning, and frankly is a critical issue for almost any commercial development. The City of Eagan has retained the traffic consulting firm of Short -Elliott -Hendrickson (SEH) for the purpose of reviewing the transportation implications of the proposed development. The engineering department report will provide greater detail as to the facility and geometric implications of the proposed development. This section will describe in a more general fashion the transportation impacts of the proposed land uses. SEH has found that significant improvements will be needed for Cliff, Blackhawk, Rahn roads, and their intersection with Diffley Road. This includes improvements to the I -35E overpass bridge. These improvements are to be instituted by 1995 and are required, albeit to a lesser extent, even if a less intensive use were proposed for the site. Little federal, state, or county finan- cial assistance can be expected for these improvements. To ac- commodate this and other development, the City of Eagan will need to make a significant financial commitment to roadway improve- ments. The major transportatiion impacts, however, exclusively related to the proposed land uses is operation of internal site circula- tion and adjacent collector roadways. Cliff and Rahn road is currently not operational given the present proposal and site design. This problem is further exasperated by inadequate inter- nal site circulation. From this it appears that existing and proposed roadway infrastructure may be inadequate and insuffi- ciently designed to accommodate the proposed development. I 7_3 LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW: The Parks Landscape Architect and Planning Landscape Architect have reviewed the preliminary grading plans and landscape plans of the revised Cliff Lake Centre. Please refer to the memorandum to the City Planner regarding the landscape issue. SHORELINE ZONING: The one issue which has arose regarding the processing of this development plan is the question does the Shoreline Zoning Ordinance apply or not apply to the Eagan Hills West Planned Development/Cliff Lake Centre. Staff has reviewed the Shoreline Zoning Ordinance and has asked the City Attorney to review the Ordinance and be ready for questions regarding the application to this development proposal. PLATTING & SITE PLAN: Staff would like to draw attention to the Planning Commission and City Council that the site plans and Preliminary Plat do not correspond exactly and determination should be made as to how the Preliminary Plat will correspond exactly to the proposed site plan. As you can see, the differences occur in the platting of the Outlots and street alignments as proposed and what is being platted. A determination will also be needed on this discrepancy. Also, all of the site plan reviews were based on 80' road right-of-ways and if additional right-of-ways are needed, it may affect the lot coverage parking setback requirements of the proposed development. Therefore, if road right-of-ways are different than 80', it should be subject to a revised site plan review. GRADING/DRAINAGE/EROSION CONTROL: The proposed revised grading plan shows a minimal decrease in impact to the existing site topography. Proposed building and parking lot elevations result in cuts ranging from 18' +/- in the area of the supermarket, 25' +/- in the strip shop area and 30' +/- for the Target site itself. As a result, retaining walls from 18' - 24' high are needed along the southerly side of the proposed site adjacent to Cliff Road. The major differences between the site plan submitted for review at this time and the two previous submittals is the utilization of Cliff Lake for a ponding area. Utilization of Cliff Lake for direct storm water runoff is no longer being considered. The drainage on the entire Phase I site development is being directed to Pond AP -25. Since no runoff is being directed to Cliff Lake, the previously proposed sedimentation ponds are no longer needed to protect the water quality in Cliff Lake. Although the water quality of Cliff Lake is no longer an immediate concern of Phase I development, the water quality of the downstream ponding areas is still a critical., issue. Pond AP -25 will need to be sized taking into consideration two criteria; one being the storage volume due to the runoff generated by the proposed site development as well as off-site developments and the water quality issue. The configuration of Pond AP -25 has been increased in size to provide 27.4 acre feet of storage between elevation 872 and 882.8. Based on the resulting drainage area and the inplace outlet (approximately 22 cfs), the proposed storage volume of 27.4 acre feet has not been confirmed at the time of this report. However, based on previous reviews, it is felt that the proposed volume is relatively close to the required volume. Further detail analysis of the proposed ultimate site development is required to verify the proposed storage volumes of Ponds AP -22, AP -23 and AP -25. A detailed review of the parking lot storm sewer was not performed at this time. The specific details of the proposed parking lot storm sewer, the number of outlets into Pond AP -25 and the outlet from Pond AP -50 and its impact on AP -25 are all subject to further review and approval. The proposed normal water level for Pond AP -25 is 1.19' above the existing outlet pipe for this area. As a result, dependent on final hydraulic design, the normal water level may have to be adjusted slightly. No storm sewer is shown in the east west road east of the Cliff Lake Centre. Due to the length of roadway between Blackhawk Road and the east side of Cliff Lake Centre, storm sewer will be required in this section. However, this storm sewer can easily discharge into Pond AP -23. Pond AP -23 presently has an outlet. In addition, due to the direct drainage area being reduced to Cliff Lake, its rate of outflow may be reduced based on the same storage volume as required in the Comprehensive Plan. This can be confirmed as part of the detailed design. No review of the erosion and sediment control plan submitted as a part of the revised submittal was performed at this time. A detailed review of the erosion and sediment control plan submitted will need to be performed prior toany final approvals. I2 UTILITIES: Trunk sanitary sewer of sufficient capacity and depth to handle the first phase and ultimate development of this property is immediately available along the western (Rahn Road) and northern (NSP highline easement) boundary of this development. Sanitary sewer lateral extensions and individual service lines are adequately proposed to service the proposed first phase development. Water service for this development presently does not exist. It will require the installation of a 16" trunk water main from the existing stub on Blackhawk Road north of I -35E to the existing 16" trunk water main at the intersection of Cliff and Rahn Road. A 12" diamter trunk water main must also be interconnected to the existing 12" trunk water main stub located in Beaver Dam Road at Shale Lane. Internal lateral water main extensions and individual service lines necessary to service the first phase development and ultimate development of this property are subject to further review. TRAFFIC: A detailed traffic impact study similar to that which was provided for the original preliminary plat submittal was not performed at this time due to the extremely tight time frame given for a traffic impact analysis to be performed. However, some comments have been made based on a general evaluation. These general comments made by the City's transportation engineer have been attached and are included as a part of this report. A preliminary review by the Dakota County Plat Commission indicates that no access will be allowed from Cliff Road. EASEMENTS/PERMITS/RIGHTS-OF-WAY: The minimum right-of-way width for the proposed internal east west collector street between Blackhawk Road and Rahn Road and the street cross section necessary to serve the proposed development are all recommendations which will be proposed as a part of the detailed traffic analysis. Similarily, the right-of-way required for Rahn Road to accomodate the necessary upgrading that is anticipated with the ultimate development will be proposed as a recommendation made in the detailed traffic analysis. No additional right-of-way dedication is anticipated for Blackhawk Road or Cliff Road beyond what has already been acquired by MnDOT through the construction of I -35E. Ponding easements will be required for all ponding areas necessary to handle the surface water generated by the first phase development. Subsequent expansion or new dedication of ponding easements would be required with future phase developments as evaluated by their appropriate detailed plans. Internal utility easements will be required for all sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water main facilities servicing multiple properties or providing continuity to the City's trunk facility system. Permits from the following regulatory agencies will be required for this proposed development: MnDOT, County Highway Department, DNR. MPCA and Army Corps of Engineers (Cliff Lake). Temporary access easements will be required from NSP for any construction work located within their 200' highline power easement along the northern boundary of this development. 1,24 ASSESSMENTS: Trunk azea sanitary sewer and water main were previously assessed under Project #64 at both the residential and commercial/industrial rates. The lateral storm sewer and street improvements for Rahn Road was assessed at a residential rate under Project 180. Blackhawk Road street improvements were previously assessed at a multiple residential rate under Project 317. The following additional assessments would become the obligation of this development if approved: ITEM QTY RATE AMOUNT PROJECT # Lateral Benefit 1,175' $15.08/ff $23,720 64 from Trunk Sanitary Sewer ( Rahn Rd . ) Rahn Road Surfacing 1,500' 46.93/ff (1) 70,395 180 Upgrade Cliff Road Upgrade 636.67' 92.76/ff 59,058 Future Trailways (Cliff & 2,211.67' 12.40/ff 27,425 Future Rahn Road) Trunk Area Water 0.74 ac 1,920/ac (1) 1,414 Future Upgrade Trunk Area Storm 1,472,764 sf 0.075/sf 116,348 Future Sewer TOTAL PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS .. $298,360 (1) Represents the difference between proposed commercial industrial use and previously assessed residential classifications based on 1987 rates. All final assessment obligations would be based on the rates in effect at the time of final plat approval and quantities contained within the final plat application documents. In addition, this development shall be responsible for its proportionate share of any major roadway improvements to the overall transportation network system necessitated by either the first phase or ultimate development of this property. Its CONDITIONS: CLIFF LAKE CENTRE 1. The Advisory Planning Commission and City Council shall determine if a rezoning application for an amendment to the Eagan Hills West planned development is required for this development proposal. 2. The Advisory Planning Commission and City Council shall determine if a comprehensive plan amendment will/will not have to be submitted and approved by the Metro Council. 3. A negative declaration shall be arrived at with the Environmental Assessment Worksheet and the preliminary plant shall be contingent on all findings or recommendations of the thirty state agencies 4. The detailed landscape plan and lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City, and an adequate bond shall be submitted and not released until one year after the landscaping has been completed. 5. The City Attorney will make a recommendation to the Advisory Planning Commission and City Council if an amendment to the Shoreline Zoning Ordinance will be required to process this Preliminary Plat and site plan. 6. Architectural treatments amd aesthetic controls shall be retained by the City of Eagan and reviewed in detail. All sides shall be constructed of the same material. All loading docks shall have false walls or screening walls to properly screen the loading dock areas. 7. Because of the elevation difference between Cliff Road and the proposed center, parapet walls and mechanical devices on the roof shall be reviewed carefully and screened to the maximum extent possible. 8. The development shall comply with the most recent requirements of the Standard Conditions of Plat Approval as adopted by Council action. 9. A detailed grading plan must incorporate Ponds AP -22, AP -23 and AP -24 in addition to Pond AP -11 (Cliff Lake) and AP -25 (Rahn Road) compatible with City approved storage volume capacity requirements. 10. The retaining wall design must be prepared in accordance with City standards. 11. A specific detailed erosion and sediment control plan necessary for the water quality protection of Pond AP -11 (Cliff Lake) must be approved by the City prior to any construction activity initiation. 12. A detailed review of the proposed sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water distribution system is required prior to final approval. /2-e 13. A revision to the comprehensive storm sewer management plan must be approved prior to final plat approval. 14. A comprehensive traffic impact analysis must be performed evaluating the ultimate road improvements required with the full phased development as approved by the City and the County. 15. This development shall be responsible for its proportionate share of any major thoroughfare improvements necessitated by this development. 16. Rahn Road shall be reconstructed in such a fashion as to minimize northbound traffic on Rahn Road north of the proposed project site. The Eagan'City Council shall approve all related plans and specifications for this improvement prior to Phase One final plat approval. Reconstruction of this roadway shall be complete prior to issuance of occupancy permit. 17. The east/west collector roadway connecting Rahn and Blackhawk Roads shall be constructed and operational prior to issuance of occupancy permit for Phase One. Related plans and specifications for this improvement shall be approved by the Eagan City Council prior to Phase One final plat approval. 18. The Rahn and Cliff Road intersection shall be upgraded to an acceptable "Level of Service" with appropriate traffic controls and channelization prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for Phase One. The Eagan City Council : shall approve all related plans and specifications for this improvement prior to Phase One final plat approval. 19. A multi jurisdictional agreement shall be consummated by the appropriate federal, state, regional, county and city agencies that eliminates the functional operation of the "free right turn" egress from southbound I -35E to Cliff Road. This "free right turn" egress from southbound I -35E to Cliff Road must be removed from the system before issuance of occupancy permit for phase one. 20. Resolution of the Rahn and Cliff Road intersection geometric designs and configuration, and coordination with internal site circulation must be refined and approved by Dakota County and the City of Eagan prior to final plat approval. 21. No development shall be permitted on Outlots A, C, G & H. �Lq STANDARD CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL A. Assessments 1. This development shall accept its additional assessment obligations as defined in the staff's report in accordance with the final plat dimensions and the rates in effect at the time of final plat approval. B. Easements and Ri hts-of-Way 1. 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. 2. This development shall dedicate, provide, or financially guarantee its proportionate share of the acquisition costs of additional drainage, ponding, and utility easements as required by the alignment, depth, and storage capacity of all required public utilities and streets located beyond the boundaries of this plat or outside of dedicated public right-of-way as necessary to service this development. 3. 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. 4. This development shall dedicate adequate drainage and ponding easements to incorporate the required high water elevation necessitated by City storm water storage volume requirements. C. Plans and Specifications 1. 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 and policies, and approved by staff prior to final plat approval. 2. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion, and sediment control plan must be prepared in accordance with current City standards and approved by staff prior to final plat approval. 3. This development shall insure that all temporary dead end public streets shall have a cul-de-sac constructed in accordance with City engineering standards. 4. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted on the proposed grading plan and approved by staff prior to the final plat approval. The financial guarantee shall be included in the Development Contract and not released until one year after the date of installation. (OVER) I2 0 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL PAGE TWO 5. All internal public and private streets shall be constructed within the required right-of-way in accordance with City design standards. D. Public Improvements 1. If any public improvements are to be installed under a City contract, the appropriate project must be approved by Council action prior to final plat approval. E. Permits 1. This development shall be responsible for the acquisition of all regulatory agency permits in the time frame required by the affected agency. F. Parks Dedication 1. This development shall fulfull its parks dedication requirements as recommended by the Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission and approved by Council action. G. Other 1. All standard platting and zoning conditions shall be adhered to unless specifically granted a variance by Council action. Advisory Planning Commission City Council Approved: Rev ised: 131 STANDARD LTS#2 MEMO TO: DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER FROM: JIM STURM, PLANNER I DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 1987 SUBJECT: CLIFF LAKE CENTER SITE PLAN/LANDSCAPE COMMENTS SITE PLAN: * There is 36' of grade change in the building pad location and only 3' of proposed building elevation change (902 - 905). This requires a maximum cut of 27' and 11' of fill in two locations. The large parking lots are pretty much at a 20 slope (relatively flat). They could be increased to a greater percentage if more trees could be saved. LANDSCAPE/EXISTING TREES: * While reviewing their submitted plan, the 2+ or 2- foot range they proposed for retaining walls was even increased to 3' at times. Some trees they called saved would be lost and others, including the 30" oak they claim to save, will be lost due to the disturbance during the placement of utility lines. A real problem with the 2+ and 2- approach is that the range is noted at the trunk of the tree. Red oaks are extremely sensitive to soil compaction and shouldn't have any grading under the drip line. The 2+ - 2- approach doesn't take this into account but it should with trees that have crowns between 30' - 50'. With 2% parking lot grading, the difference from the trunk to the edge of the drip line of a 40' diameter tree is over 3 1/3". P0yn+sA, CIr� 2,0 F; - 132- Cliff Lake Center Site Plan/Landscape Comments November 23, 1987 Page Two AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Protecting shade trees from construction damage: DIAGNOSING CONSTRUCTION DAMAGE Symptoms of construction damage to trees appear over a period of several months to several years after the damage occurs. Because of this delay, people often shift the blame for damage to other causes, and it becomes too late to effectively treat the trees. The first symtoms are usually just a slight wilting and shedding of some leaves at the time of construction. Then, in later years, leaf dwarfing, dying of twigs, and, in the case of conifers, excessive dropping of needles occurs. Trees damaged by construction act abnormally in many other ways, most noticeabely by dropping leaves earlier in the fall than trees of the same species in other locations. Early fall coloring usually accompanies early leaf losses. In cases of severe construction damage, off -seasoning blooming occurs, and this usually means the tree is about to die. In addition to noticeable physiological change in trees, construction damage produces other symptoms. If the tree has been only slightly damaged, growth is slowed and resistance to insects and diseases is weakened. Diagnosing compaction or smothering damage can be difficult because it takes quite a while for symtoms to appear. Trees sometimes die five to seven years after the original damage. The amount of damage, the species of tree involved, and the soil type will determine how long it will take symptoms to appear. PREVENTING CONSTRUCTION DAMAGE Controlling traffic. A basic way to lessen construction damage to trees is to reduce traffic as much as possible around the construction site. Talk this over with your contractor before construction begins. Establish definite traffic patterns and fence off trees, if necessary. Locate areas where soil and building materials are stockpiled well away from the drip line of the trees you want to save. X33 Cliff Lake Center Site Plan/Landscape Comments November 23, 1987 Page Three Another major concern relating to the transplanting of trees is how the grading is done. If it occurs in an incremental fashion the trees will only have to be moved once. However, if a mass grading approach is taken the trees will have to be moved twice - the first time to a 'storage area'. The root ball will have a much greater chance of loosening and the tree will experience a double shock. On the large plan - the yellow areas are the only places where grading does not occur. The dark green trees are ones that could possibly be saved if a great deal of care is used during grading. The light green are transplanted trees, and the red are existing that I believe will be lost with the proposed utility locations and grading. It appears that approximately 22 trees where grading occurs. Ten existing in destroyed with this grading plan, transplanted. Planner I - Landscape Architec JS/jeh /3�z could be saved in areas the same area will be all others are to be 'd MEMORANDUM ENGINEERS X ARCHITECTS 9 PW NNERS f 222 EAST LITTLE CANADA ROAD,, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55117 612484-0272 RECE1lED�`��� a ' TO: STEVE SCHWANKE - EAGAN PLANNER FROM: BOB BYERS - SEH TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 1987 SUBJECT: TRAFFIC SITE REVIEW CLIFF LAKE CENTRE, CLIFF ROAD (CR -32) AT RAHN ROAD SEH FILE: 88006-32 We have reviewed the revised site plan which was presented by the developer at the November 5th City Council meeting. The extremely tight timeframe has not allowed for a detailed impact study similar to that which was provided for the original preliminary plat submittal. We do, however, have some comments based on a general evaluation. 1. The revised site layout tends to help reduce the congestion problems at Cliff and Rahn. With the previous concept, we had to assume that some diversion to Blackhawk Road would occur as traffic congestion increased. The revised concept tends to encourage the use of Blackhawk Road since the bulk of the development is shifted to the east away from Rahn Road. 2. Some reduction in the overall trips from the site would occur due to the 40,000 sq. ft. reduction in the Phase I development. Generally this reduction is anticipated to be fairly small since only the associated shops and outlots are affected. 3. The reorientation of the site could change the most probable land use of the Federal Land parcel. As the Cliff Lake Centre is pulled away from Rahn Road to the east, a multiple residential use for the Federal Land parcel becomes more feasible. The comprehensive land use plan currently guides this parcel for D -III (multiple residential). 4. Congestion problems on Cliff Road are still anticipated to occur and would be a combination of Cliff Lake Centre and other surrounding development traffic. While the above reductions in land uses and the redirection of traffic will help, Cliff Road will still require major improvements within the next ten years. These major improvements would include added turn lanes, channelization and additional thru 16� SHORT ELLlO%T $T PAUL HEN DRICKSCN INC. MINNESOTA CHlPPEWA FALLS VJ6C--NSIN lanes at the Cliff Road intersections with Rahn Road, the I - 35E ramps and Blackhawk/Galaxie.. Since the improvements at each intersection must compliment overall Cliff Road operations, the required lane ;arrangements may require reconstruction and expansion of the I -35E overpass. Current City, County and Mn/DOT capital plans do not anticipate these projected needs. We have stressed in recent public and staff meetings that the site requires attention to surrounding roadway operations, site roadway configurations and the internal parking lot circulation needs. These three components must work together to best serve the site and the other traffic on the surrounding roadways. These considerations were applied to the preliminary plat concept and led to a number of concepts which would work together. Unfortunately the revised site plan has a number of new conflicts which must be resolved similar to our previous review work. This development proposal also carries over some problem areas from the previous proposal which have never been completely resolved. Some items which need further consideration include: The internal street layout with Rahn Road and the Proposed Street A (E -W street) achieves some of the objectives of the original review, however the addition of a second north -south street to serve the site makes the need for a continuous Rahn Road unnecessary. Most traffic would be anticipated to use the second north - south street since Target is a primary destination. Some traffic to Cub Foods would use Rahn Road, but some would be split to the north -south street or might choose to divert to Blackhawk Road instead. The "Tee" connection of Rahn Road from the north to the Proposed Street A does impede the flow of thru traffic somewhat, however, it is easier to use than in some of our previous concepts. Site traffic can use Rahn Road to the north without much trouble. So traffic volumes on Rahn will be higher with this concept. One issue which has not been resolved is how to handle the heavy projected right turns from Cliff Road to Rahn Road. This volume is anticipated to be less with the new site orientation, but it will still be difficult to handle in the evening peak hour. Another problem associated with this heavy movement was the difficulty in accessing the Federal Land parcel which requires weaves in heavy traffic. The heavy right turn from Cliff Road also will cause some operating problems at the proposed intersection to the north at Rahn Road and the north -south site road. The proximity of Cliff and Rahn, the anticipated heavy turn movements and the difficulties in providing traffic control at this intersection will combine to produce a very difficult operational problem. There are a number of internal lot circulation problems also. Parking lot accesses to the north -south road are placed too close to the nearby intersections of Rahn/north-south and Proposed Street A/north-south. The close location of the north -south street to the site buildings creates numerous parking layout problems and stacking distance problems for vehicles leaving the site and desiring to enter the north -south road. Most parking lot circulation is forced to use the north - south road since movement within the parking lots can not be accommodated. SUMMARY We feel that the current site proposal needs considerable detailed review and modification before the traffic issues can be resolved. It is difficult at this time to identify the roadway improvements, rights-of-way, improvement schedules or costs. RHB:jms 131 T °1` SnTATEE OF DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 296-7523 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 PHONE NO. FILE NO. November 20, 1987 CITY OF EAGAN Mr. Dale Runkle, Planner 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55121 RE: CLIFF LAKE CENTRE Dear Mr. Runkle: Please make this letter a part of the record at any public hearing(s) regarding the above referenced development. The City of Eagan Shoreland Ordinance provides that the Cliff Lake Centre development must be approved by the Department of Natural Resources, prior to City approval. To date no such approval has been sought or granted by the Department. Section 11.21 Subd. 8B 2a provides that Planned Unit Development (PUD) "Proposals must be approved by the Department of Natural Resources prior to approval by the City." Moreover, the grandfather provision of Subd. 8C specifically exempts PUD's approved prior to adoption of the ordinance from the standards of Subd. 4 Subp. A. However, Subd. 4A applies only to unsewered areas and sewered natural environment waters. In this instance, Cliff Lake (a.k.a. Pitt Lake) is a General Development category with development standards defined by subd. 4C. Therefore, this development is not exempt under the PUD grandfather provision. I believe it is appropriate for the City to forego approval of this proposal pending a formal agreement on a PUD between the City, developers and the Department of Natural Resources. I am available to discuss this further. Please feel free to call me at 296-7523 if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Mike Mueller Area Hydrologist METRO REGION DIVISION OF WATERS cc: S. Prestin, Shoreland Management G. Downing, E.Q.B. / U ��I18/dv AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER i _ y Cl) rn ip m i o 0 � r z ,c m 3 = �� �C a ca i i g o ;CAP _a Z T E� 7 i _ y Cl) rn ip m i a a eaM •o m :— ■ I o I O � 1 i 1 Q '7 �7 �f 1 1 � 1 � i ot= a 7 b N 1 a 1 Y Y— 329 33 2 9 N .gig m °9 r 3z b 0 Z o - W_ /"/71 r �— w+Onoam srR A . /� L ti 11 1111111111111111 II 11111111111111111 1111111111111111 III I! III I " 111 ll�l 1111 II i lill Illi N-i I II IIIIIIIiI!IIII!Ilta111 II I III 1111 IllilliiiIiii �i 11111. IIIIIIIIIIIIIdlllllll!!I I II i II Illillll Illilll II 1 1111 II II 1)11 II !I � 11111111111111111 I 1111 11!1!l111l1ll1 11 11� D Ei�l •'11[1��� SS n � m ] n 4 c M •o m ■ L'J7 o n � 0 r CUFF ROAD ng a o� 9 y G7 a1C M'T7 RR 3 z 329 33 2 9 N .gig m °9 r 3z b 0 Z o - W_ /"/71 r �— w+Onoam srR A . /� L ti 11 1111111111111111 II 11111111111111111 1111111111111111 III I! III I " 111 ll�l 1111 II i lill Illi N-i I II IIIIIIIiI!IIII!Ilta111 II I III 1111 IllilliiiIiii �i 11111. IIIIIIIIIIIIIdlllllll!!I I II i II Illillll Illilll II 1 1111 II II 1)11 II !I � 11111111111111111 I 1111 11!1!l111l1ll1 11 11� Ei�l •'11[1��� SS n � s _ � r CUFF ROAD ' r' ► � .. Ri a � � 71 1 y r 1 n' fall � /',' 1 :11 1 1 � f •� 'I � � Vii, � /jell I �-!: -- �'s3r}S ; \ FSC \ -`1F�' / � ` +fig• i I I :j kl` O � � v 4�1 �. I Y •� , ,, •;h � � f" t� rl i~ r'—'1� � yt � �r I+� 4 r. •,y ,`1' `. � � �`� ; ;� _�� �,fu` /, \er �i; � R if f t I t� t }r 1'1;! < �s uOir o iQrO d.JF}ROAD • C =O m z �C a n C= ]7 m Z"" n c O 2 n n 0 0 a o� -i a Z V .. 7 3 �•1 Z 7 a A J .CLJW ROAD Zra X z z IRA 9 � D r .10 zz 0 a V a a N m' V za � z 9 dm' ROAD m a z 'o m Z Zra X z z IRA 9 � D r .10 zz 0 a V a a N m' V za � z 9 dm' ROAD m Z Zra X z z IRA 9 � D r .10 zz 0 a V a a N m' V za � z 9 dm' ROAD m BEAR PATH V O N 2_ CLff ROAD -- Z m S A -1 a 0 4 m m v r A Z 0� m r. � Z *o m o °o c n i 0 z ' c a� n� c2a 7�C 0.� BEAR PATH V O N 2_ CLff ROAD -- Z m S A -1 a 0 4 m m v r A Z -0 I>' 0 Z rn z a Z� a LC9 r= C= ' ry R� z Z a C n x nn N m U, < ^> m z X a r n r- IT! c IT! r- 0 V low m .:E ag onpo n ob O mZ 'az n =zm �n V P to D Z III III ! �e LJ -.>�--.�: , , ! �--r--r-t�-•-fit--t-�--,---�-- C r . BEAR PATH, ,vzm .LL i M> En L< i�- .OM N a as f �'�� X2-1 s^ 0 oZ O.M �. SHALE LA E o _ I � it iJ c o I ;MC "a r i :pq n I•I zrr- \ ;-rte � Y� ��-�•...�.�J %• j' 1� IN-�'�, "�-•�-�r�•"1�1'''1'1 mom"--•-u�" n m 1.0 i 1' •a .T r ( ;O _I z m a' ;-�.(,.a mQ. 1� S CUFF ROAD Hiphlln• Troll Corridor (Park) N 9 so° s • ar Pr ►, 7/ Iqj I m CLIFF ROAD o m m .. C= Ma M. cit Ln c m I m CLIFF ROAD Ns, Mr m m +R_y O i -4 0 Z0 �3 Z r a �p 0 . CUPF ROAD N I I/ A56CUFFROAD J co), z m z •o c m a C . L7 a 0 2� :o •v 3 ' d �c j 1 00, i r ■ Z Ak 0 Tn 7: n z .7. �i N I I/ A56CUFFROAD J �•jf z 1 :- r+, 1 ul •t ' �� �� I8g89 1011Q, �. ' �6 No a E am ti` fit z MY -1 7$ MY om is 1 1000000000000000000 -Fni •'F ti;;ri;_raiti�ii'r�rt '_ i <a z �a fE s c7+r+ a o m •o z c m � C ' n � x � Q _ Q _ C7 Q ' Q x O OOS a l — Z m c r ,=m - v Z Z nx =0 _ SN mZ SO N < =x n9 D x m x O = a r m c r ,=m - v m Z :moo m r m czz >'Z O i A • /:5� a I. Outlot G PD designates high density residential Outlot H Pd designates high density residential (Hotel - 135,000) 420,000 .32 None proposed .23 None proposed Subtotal 79.92 - 701,000 (Staff Cliff Lake 9.5 -0- estimate) / J N/A N/A COMPONENTS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Proposed Land Proposed Floor To Area Use Acres Building Area (S.F.) Area Ratio Lot 1 Retail 7.45 75,000 .23 (Grocer) Lot 2 Retail 9.84 79,700 .19 (Strip Center) Lot 3 Retail 10.42 114,300 .25 (Target) Outlot A PD designates 1.53 6,000 .09 CSC -RB -LB & high density residential Outlot B PD designates 7.94 12-16 U/A N/A high density residential Outlot C PD designates .93 6,000 .15 part CSC -RB -LB high density residential; and the other part is high density residential Outlot D PD designates 9.20 12-16 U/A N/A high density residential Outlot E PD designates 12.84 12-16 U/A N/A high density residential Outlot F+ Office and Hotel (19.22) (Office - 165,000) .50 "Exception" 17.77 + 1.45 (Office - 120,000) Outlot G PD designates high density residential Outlot H Pd designates high density residential (Hotel - 135,000) 420,000 .32 None proposed .23 None proposed Subtotal 79.92 - 701,000 (Staff Cliff Lake 9.5 -0- estimate) / J N/A N/A Proposed Land Area Use (Staff On site R.O.W. estimate) Total Acres 10.2 99.62 Proposed Building Area (S.F.) Area Ratio -0- 701,000 Gross FAR = .16 Net FAR = .33 i�_�i _i i i i s __r _ k BEAR P ATH —T—T-1­77-7777- >MX in ca 0 L) 0 0 19 N 19hune Tr■M corridor (P:.) imK w :w , M ad my Zr- FOX v 9. No 0 m m m r- 0 M r M 0 m V -4 V r—F., ' .\ s . . . . . . . . . . Q J: CLFF ROAD /55 LAND USE MAP FEB. 1980 LAND USE MAP JAN. 1987 :..._,. . LOCATION ZONING A CX -;� S r't ; wt i y - �� � ^ a. � y ` - r - - •• � _ tom' - � L �, -_ �� s 4�� A � � i d � , __�—Y.'•��V � _ _ �- VwV �` _ _ �' Wr+`-'L/�-. _. � "'�.iLJ :���%G' � _ — `.w- - ~' .. _ _ ✓'ice/�///r( / � � Y r. ------------ LS ILI �_,;.'^ r tai. -y: _•' ,, r� tSa.^-'�.�:�: :.y, /1 -14�e � /J � 2 _ —_._ _ - ... = y",'xr.,,.'+ .� ,,3i' f'i:•:. _ .;:y ,1i.,.�s..,,w' sr� r � /✓n/n(Jyy//7 V r • yy {�S a al. -i: •- �`Yl�;w . 1.e-�� A•'i.'.'.. ' �`Z.;r.'y yN (/ �! 'r�� r K "� . _ ids ��./'r ✓ - � .!-/— '_ �" it• �'"I`. :yam �i' a -'.f._ t �:• '�y'.•'9 � . sa�•s : r"Ski:�--a.'-•�^%'.-`�-^::?;}.vi:::'.:' :.�♦:•Z.ri??: tt:i� (I 1 .� �E tJ �'--G� ��'. _ _•�:!wx'c--. —C/1r=uF�sJ—moi/ QRZ ..d � - tr = y ____ - — -•i�t��%�� -.��%!I�!Z�C.J� -- — - — yw.?f"3i ...Y ��.�yt'#'�ss#'s+�. .�f•'�;��'1-Mli� "���.V� LL^ �.^' •: x tit ..; �' .. ,�.y}sy : - ---- — - - s Heide J. Kolhoff 4277 Sunrise Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 November 20, 1987 Dale C. Runkle City Planner 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Dear Mr. Runkle: I am opposed to the large shopping/hotel/office complex which is proposed to be built at 35E and Cliff ("a/the complex" or "proposed complex"), and below I have stated some of my thoughts and concerns which I hope you will read and consider. I am presently a resident in the Sun Cliff Development; and, had I been aware of the City of Eagan's plans to build a complex of that magnitude on the proposed site, I would have never built where I did. My feeling is that stores such as Cub and Target should be built on large, open lots away from housing. Then, should individuals decide at a later point in time to build housing areas around the complex, those moving in are aware that they are purchasing a home less than a mile from a Cub/Target/Hotel -- there would be no surprises. I would imagine there is a reason why such a complex is not being considered to be built in the "Rainbow Foods area" of Eagan; however, that is the most logical location to me. I was also opposed to the Diffley and 35E site for most of the same reasons I am stating now. Please note that at the Council Meeting of November 5, 1987 all but two (2) of the people that I heard comment that they were "for" the above proposal were not residents of the affected neighborhoods. Doesn't that tell you something? I also recall reading in the Minneapolis Tribune in early November that the developers of the proposed complex, Hoffman Development, and the law firm representing Eagan on a different land site case, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly and Lindgren, have a close relationship. Isn't there a conflict of interest here? I hope City Officials are thinking of the residents who will be adversely affected if the decision is made to build the complex and not the potential trade off it might bring. Dale C. Runkle Page 2 November 20, 1987 In another article I read that the complex will be built, it's just a question of which Land Plot Exhibit will be used by the developers. I live one house away from Beaver Dam Road (which as stated in one of the two Exhibits would be extended through to the complex). Whether the land in question is developed into a small, "Tom Thumb -type" complex or large, "Target -type" complex, I do not want Beaver Dam Road extended through to the complex. I do not want my little girl playing one house away from a through street to a shopping complex. Well, I have stated above some of my major concerns with building a large shopping complex close to a housing development, and I realize that this is probably just one more "against" letter to add to your pile. But I really do hope that the complex is built away from any and all neighborhoods in Eagan. We homeowners work hard for a peaceful, safe place to raise our families; I thought I had found it when I moved to the Sun Cliff Development. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Heide J. Kolhof r 4 MEMO TO: CHARLES HALL, CHAIRMAN, & ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DALE C RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER 1 DATE: NOVEMBER 19, 19867 SUBJECT: UPDATE ON CLIFF LAKE CENTRE The City received on November 19 a copy of the applicant's response to the City Council meeting held November 5. Staff has included this in the packet in order that the Planning Commission can review the comments made by the applicant as well as reductions of the revised site plan which is now proposed. We have provided this information to you in order that you can look at these documents over the weekend and if anyone has specific questions on the Cliff Lake Centre, you can call Monday so we can try to provide you that information. We are still in the process of working on the revised review which, again, will be delivered to you Monday, November 23. Thank you for consideration on this development proposal. bdz- City Planner DCR/7 J /G3 JAMES P. LARKIN ROBERT L. HOFFMAN JACK F. DALY 0. KENNETH LINDGREN ANDREW W. DANIELSON WENDELL R. ANDERSON GERALD H. FRIEDELL ROBERT B. WHIT LOCK ALLAN E. MULLIGAN ROBERT J. HENNESSEY JAMES C. ERICK ON EOWARO J. DRISCOLL JAMES P. MILEY GENE N. FULLER DAVID C. SELLERGREN RICHARD J. KEENAN JOHN D. FULLMER ROBERT E_ BOYLE FRANK I. HARVEY RICH ARO A. FORSCH LER RICHARD A. NORDBYE CHARLES S. MODELL CHRISTOPHER J. DIET2EN JOHN R. BEATTIE LINDA H. FISHER THOMAS P. STOLTMAN STEVEN G. LEVIN FORREST D. NOWLIN MICHAEL C. JACKMAN JOHN E.DIEHL JON S. SWIERZEWSK1 THOMAS J. FLYNN JAMES P.OUINN TOOD I. FREEMAN STEPHEN B. SOLOMON PETER K. BECK JEROME H. KAHNKE November 18, 1987 LARKIN, HoFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD ATTORNEYS AT LAW ISOO NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431 TELEPHONE 16121 83S-3800 TELECOPIER (612) 83S-5102 City of Eagan Attn: Thomas Hedges City Administrator 3830 Pilot Knob Road - Eagan, Minnesota 55121 RE: Cliff Lake Centre Dear Tom: REPLY TO 2000 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA SS402 TELEPHONE 16121338-6610 TELECOPIER 16121 338-1002 Bloomington PO Box 21199 SHERRILL OMAN KURETICH GERALD L. BECK JOHN S. LUNDOUIST THOMAS B. HUMPHREY, JR. DAVID J. PEAT FRANCIS E. GIBERSON MICHAEL T. MCKIM ANDREW J. MITCHELL JOHN A. COTTER* KATHLEEN M. OATES* BEATRICE A. ROTHWEILER PAUL B. PLUNKETT SUSAN R. BURNIGHT AMY DARR GRADY ALAN L. KILDOW KATHLEEN M. PICOTTE NEWMAN LARRY A. KOCH PETER J. COYLE CATHERINE GARNET T WILSON BETTY A. MORNING STAR JEFFREY C. ANDERSON AN DI EL L. BOWLES JONATHON G. LANDE TODD M. VLATKOVICH TIMOTHY J. MCMANUS JILL I. FRIEDERS GREGORY E. KORSTAD CRAIG A. PETERSON LISA A. GRAY GAR YA. RENNEKE THOMAS H. WEAVER SHANNON K. MCCAMBRIDGE MICHAEL S. COHEN DENISE M. NORTON OF COUNSEL JOSEPH GITIS JOHN A. MCHJGH JAMES A. BALOGH • ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN Thank you for your letter of November 12, 1987. The City Council's action is described in your paragraph 1. Paragraphs 2 and 3 were not actions of the City Council. In fact, Councilman Egan specially rejected the suggestion that a new application be filed and cited past practices of the City. On November 16, the date I received your letter, the developer submitted modifications to the preliminary plat of Cliff Lake Centre in response to the direction given by the Planning Department, City Attorney, Planning Commission and City Council (the Plat). The Plat responds to questions expressed by the Planning Department reports of August 17, October 19 and November 3, 1987, the City Attorney's letter of October 22, 1987, the Planning Commission action of October 27, 1987, and discussions of the City Council on November 5, 1987. The land uses conform exactly with the attorney's opinion of permitted land u the Planned Development Agreement. The been further reduced in size by 47,000 residential land separates Rahn Park, commercial area. City planning staff and se designations on Exhibit D to shopping center component has square feet. Multifamily Road and School from the L AAM_ -N, HOFF�iAN, D LY & LINDGIZEN, LTD. Thomas Hedges November 18, 1987 Pave 2 The area labeled "CSC-rb lb high density" southerly and easterly of the curvilinear road in Exhibit D is designated for commercial uses CSC, rb, and lb. John Voss' memorandum of November 3, 1987 states, "In my opinion, this designation (CSC-rb-lb-high density) means that the subject property could be developed with uses permitted in any of these categories or an%7 combination thereof." (Underlining supplied) Mr. Voss' is correct in his opinion. The right of the developer to designate land use in the commercial area was contracted to by the City. His opinion is consistent with paragraph 17 of the Planned Development Agreement which states: 17.) Commercial Overall Plan- As required by the Eagan Zoning Ordinance, specifically Section 52.07 subd. 11 B 1, prior to any platting or construction in the Commercial csc-rb-lb area on Exhibit "D", the Developer will present an overall plan for said area. The allocation within the area to uses permitted and conditionally permitted within zoning district csc-rb-lb as described in the Eagan Zoning Ordinance shall be reasonabl•,. defined at that time and development of each area shall reasonably be in accordance with those uses. (Underlining supplied) The contract with the City permits "the Developer" to designate the overall plan and allocate the areas for csc-rb-lb and then reasonably follow those. The area south of the curvilinear road has been taxed and assessed as commercial by the City of Eagan for years. The land uses on the Plat conform exactly with Exhibit D to the Planned Development Agreement: Lots 1, 2, and 3 are csc-lb-rb uses; Outlots A and C are CSC uses; Outlots G (0.32 acres) and H (0.23 acres) are "high den" uses and may be subjected to a restrictive covenant guaranteeing that.use if the City wishes; Outlots D and E are "high den" multifamily residential uses. Outlot B is "high den" multifamily residential uses, with a substantial portion to be dedicated by easement for storm water storage purposes. The developer has "reasonably defined" the proposed uses in the commercial area; having done so, the terms of the Planned Development Agreement are met. The road configuration shown on the Plat is the road configuration of Exhibit D, slightly adjusted as recommended by the City Traffic Consultant and the Public Works Director. The adjustments: �66 L-RKI\T, HOFFNiA_, DAI.Y & LI_DGRE\-, LTD. Thomas Hedges November 18, 1987 Pafae 3 (1) Delete the Beaver Dam Road connection, and "T" in Rahn Road to connect with the east -west collector at a point where the east -west collector curves south to connect with Cliff Road. This, (a) Eliminates traffic on Beaver Dam Road from the commercial area; (b) Substantially reduces Rahn Road traffic north of the east -west collector; (c) Redirects a percentage of traffic to Blackhawk Road, as suggested by City Traffic Consultant. (2) Arranges the south and north ends of the curvilinear road for traffic safety. The road configuration conforms with Exhibit D, adjusted as recommended by the City Traffic Consultant and City Public Works Director. The Development Agreement requires that "Plats reasonably consistent with the exhibits shall be approved by Eagan." (Underlining supplied) (PD Agreement, Section 1). As submitted, the Plat of Cliff Lake Centre is consistent with the exhibits to the Planned Development Agreement, especially Exhibit D, and, therefore, requires approval. lie will present the Plat to the Planning Commission on November 24, and request final action by the City Council on December 1, 1987. Sincerely yours, David C. CeAergren, f r LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DA LY & LINDGREN, Ltd. DCS:bg4sg Attachments: Site Plan Overall Development Concept Plan Preliminary Plat cc: Planning Commission City Council Ryan Construction Company Hoffman Development Group -0111, z 4 mc T -Z oN M ,Z-4-4 0 9 z z z z ca � I M 81 BEAR PATH rT7-T-7-7 >MX in 00 xcc�� 0 Highlins, Trail Corridor (Park) imn smr Pr- -j o 171"a zrm CLFF ROAD (61 Q. I r 1 9 7 7 �� x Z z V O ice. fff 00 7 10 4 i� p fl a i m Q = Q m g i 10% ,Cl" ROAD_ C b C- gmh rr C �o m ClJ 0 n i O _ J O . G7 .�C op =7 "7 y a AL O`er 2 -1 C7 C 'C ON 2 I Iv ra HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. (� PAUL H. HAUGE -qItorneus at oC,aw KEVIN W. EIDE nd TOWN CENTRE PROFESSIONAL BLDG., SUITE 200 DAVID G. KELLER 1260 YANKEE DOODLE ROAD LORI M. BELLIN EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55123 DEBRA E. SCHMIDT (612) 456-9000 THOMAS P. LOWE November 24, 1987 Mr. Thomas Hedges City Administrator City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 RE: Applicability of Shoreland Zoning Ordinance to Cliff Lake Galleria as Part of Eagan Hills West PUD Dear Mr. Hedges: Introduction. This office has been requested to draft a written response to inquiries made as to the applicability of the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance to the revised preliminary plat application of Hoffman Ryan Development for Cliff Lake Galleria. It is our understanding that it has been pointed out to staff that there may be an irregularity in the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance described as follows: Section 11.21, Subd. 8.C. provides that planned developments existing prior to the adoption of the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance are exempt from regulation of Subd. 4., subparagraph A of the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance which apparently only addresses unsewered areas adjacent to general development waters (Pitt Lake is a general development water). The suggestion is that this leaves open the application of Subd. 4.,.subparagraph C which also contains restrictions for areas (presumably sewered) adjacent to general development waters. Opinion. It is our opinion that the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance should not be applied to the revised preliminary plat of Cliff Lake Galleria if that preliminary plat is considered to be in compliance with the Eagan Hills West Planned Development Agreement. Discussion. 1. Consistence With Negotiations. The City has taken the position through the Cliff Lake application process that the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance does not apply if the proposal complies with the planned /70 ,f r Mr. Thomas Hedges November 24, 1987 Page Two M development agreement. To advise the applicant now that this presumption is not correct would be inconsistent. 2. Lack of rationale for discrimination within the ordinance. There does not appear to be a logical reason or basis for discriminating between an existing PD being exempt from the minimum standards for unsewered areas as opposed to sewered areas. 3. Development of the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance. The history of Eagan's Shoreland Zoning Ordinance clearly indicates that the intent was that existing PDs would be exempt from the restrictions placed upon unsewered areas around designated shorelands as well as sewered areas. The process of drafting the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance was commenced roughly in June of 1982. Several drafts were prepared through December 29, 1982 when a draft of Ordinance No. 77 was presented to this office. As you are aware, at that time the Eagan City Ordinances had not been codified in their present form. Codification occurred in 1983. A letter from John Voss, dated February 1, 1984, describes DNR review of Ordinance 77 as required by M.S.A. §105.485, Subd. 6. On October 30, 1984, the City Council acted on a proposed shoreland zoning ordinance derived directly from the draft of Ordinance No. 77 prepared in 1982. Thus, it was necessary to convert the numbering system of Ordinance No. 77 to fit it sequentially with Eagan City Code Chapter 11. This required many changes in references within the proposed shoreland zoning ordinance to Ordinance 52, the previous Zoning Ordinance, in addition to renumbering the Ordinance itself including any references to other portions of the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance. Section 77.03 "General Provisions" under Subd. 1 provided minimum standards to apply to all shorelands and other protected waters listed within that ordinance. Subparagraph A of Subd. 1 addressed natural environmental waters, recreational development waters and general development waters within unsewered areas. Subparagraph B addressed sewered areas within (1) natural environmental waters, (2) recreation development' waters, and (3) general development waters. 171 f r Mr. Thomas Hedges November 24, 1987 Page Three OL Therefore, as one would expect, there is a general category of minimum standards within which there are classifications of unsewered and sewered areas of which each had sub -classifications of natural environment, recreational development and general development waters. Section 77.07, Subd. 3, provided that planned unit developments which were approved by the City Council prior to the adoption of the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance shall not be subject to the density, set -back, and surface coverage or height standards established in Section 77.03, Subd. 1 which, as we just stated, included all types of protected shorelands in both unsewered and sewered areas. Ordinance 77 was the ordinance reviewed by area developers, by City staff and by this office. Basically, the only changes made to that ordinance were renumbering to bring it into compliance with the numbering in the new City Code. On October 24, 1984, pursuant to the requests of the City Administrator, this office prepared a memorandum addressing the proposed draft of the shoreland ordinance, City Code Chapter 11 amendment. Item 14 on page 2 of that letter indicates, "However, PUDs approved by the City Council prior to adoption of the Shoreland Ordinance shall not be subject to density, set -back and certain other standards". The minutes of the October 30, 1984 City Council meeting, at which the Ordinance was approved and adopted provide: "Mayor Blomquist was concerned about the unsewered areas and clarity of certain provisions in the ordinance. It was suggested that a matrix be formulated to make the ordinance more readable". The Shoreland Zoning Ordinance, which in its final form being 21 pages long, was difficult at best to read. Clearly, the reference to subdivision 4A is inaccurate as well as the same reference made in regard to roads and parking areas on page 519-7. We should also note that some minor revisions were made by municipal codifiers prior to the final drafting incorporated into the City Code. It has been suggested that even though the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance may be merely a error, it should be applied in its literal Galleria. This, at first blush, appears to the dilemma of how to address the Ordinance particular project. i7Y provision in the quirk or a typographical context to the Cliff Lake be an easy resolution to in relation to this Mr. Thomas Hedges November 24, 1987 Page Four It is our suggestion that if the Advisory Planning Commission recommends denial of the application, it not rely on the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance as a major reason for denial but, rather, deny the proposal on its merits relative to subdivision such as traffic, safety, degredation, etc. If the Advisory Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposal, we would suggest that the approval include a recommendation that the City Council request a revision to the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance to bring it into compliance with the intent of the City Council in 1984 and with the logical interpretation of such an ordinance. DGK:jjm cc: Dale Runkle Sincerely yours, HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. David G. Keller 175 Agenda Information Mer December 1, 1987, Cit, 1988 FEE SCHEDULE A. 1988 Fee Schedule --At a special City Council meeting held on Monday, November 23, 1987 the 1988 Fee Schedule was reviewed in detail by the Director of Finance. All proposed fee schedule changes were presented with the understanding that the schedule, if adopted, would be effective January 1, 1988. Enclosed on pages Z1� through is a copy of the City of Eagan Fee Schedule to be effective January 1, 1988. According to the City Code, all changes to fees are to be approved by resolution. For a copy of the resolution adopting the fee schedule, refer to page �. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To adopt the Fee Schedule as presented with adoption effective on January 1, 1988. / 7�1- Subject to Approval CITY OF EAGAN FEE SCHEDULE Effective January 1, 1988 Adopted December 15, 1987 FEE TYPE BEER, LIQUOR AND WINE Application and Investigation Off -Sale License On -Sale License Temporary License Application and Investigation Off -Sale License On -Sale License Sunday License On -Sale Club License Less than 200 201-500 501-1,000 1,001-2,000 2,001-4,000 4,001-6,000 Over 6,000 Application and Investigation On -Sale License Sunday License Consumption and Display Daily Sports or Convention Duplicate License $ 350.00(1) 40.00 175.00 25.00 300.00(2) 200.00 3,500.00 200.00 300.00 500.00 650.00 800.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 3,000.00 200.00(1) 200.00 100.00 25.00 50.00 2.00 ( "When Wine and Beer are applied for by the same applicant, the total maximum investigation fee is $350.00. (2)Also requires an escrow deposit of $1,000.00 for five persons requiring investigation and $200 for each additional if the investigation is conducted within Minnesota, or $2,000.00 for five persons requiring investigation and $400.00 for each addi- tional if the investigation is conducted outside of Minnesota. - Subject to Approval Permit Duplication Fee 1988 FEE TYPE FEE Rubbish Hauler 1st Truck 40.00 Each Additional 20.00 Service Station 50.00 Solicitors (Non -Profit) 25.00 Solicitors (For Profit) 50.00 Investigation License Fee 25.00 up to 3 solicitors Accident Photo 5.00 each additional over 3 Trailer Permit 25.00 Dog License 3.00 Male or Female 6.00 Neutered or Spayed 3.00 Late Fee .50/mo Kennel Permit - 2 -77 Initial 50.00 Renewal 25.00 Photocopies .50/page Fee Schedule 2.00 Animal Pick Up 10.00 Animal Impound 2.00/day over amount billed the City by the animal pound Permit Duplication Fee 20.00 Returned Check Fee 10.00 False Alarm Commercial 75.00 Per False Alarm After 6 (City Code) Residential 50.00 Per False Alarm After 6 (City Code) Alarm Panel 8.00/month Parade Permit Fee 25.00 Accident Photo 5.00/print Police/Fire Reports: Accident 3.00 Fire .50/page Burglary 4.00 first 2 pages .25/additional page - 2 -77 FEE TYPE Gambling Investigation Cigarette License Mechanical Amusement 1-3 Machines 4-15 Machines 15+ Machines Contractors Licenses Plumbing Sewer and Water Well Driller MN Ma & $2,000 Dona & Certificate of Ins. MN Master License No. & $2,000 Bond & Certificate of Ins. MN Master License No. & $2,000 Bond & Certificate of Ins. Topographic Maps $6.30/acre 179 Subject to Approval SUBDIVISION AND PLATTING Accessory Housing Permit 100.00 Excavation Permit 250.00 Assessment Search 8.00 Vacation Proceedings 300.00 1988 FEE TYPE Multifamily Housing Bond FEE Final Plat $100.00 Require Escrow 5.00 +$3/lot Deposits Per Chapter 11) Development Escrow 10.00 Code -Chapter 13) Policy Preliminary Plat 300.00 Chapter 8) Rezoning and Planned Dev. 250.00 3.00 PD -Annual Review 25.00 Sign Regulations Conditional Use Permit Initial 150.00 5.00 Renewal - CUP 25.00 Code Book Variance 75.00 75..00 Waiver of Plat Duplex Lot Splits 50.00 Others 300.00 Special Permit 50.00 Accessory Housing Permit 100.00 Excavation Permit 250.00 Assessment Search 8.00 Vacation Proceedings 300.00 Industrial Revenue Bond and Multifamily Housing Bond Processing Fee 500.00 Zoning Map 5.00 Zoning Regulations (City Code- 10.00 Chapter 11) Subdivision Regulations (City 10.00 Code -Chapter 13) Traffic Regulations (City Code- 3.00 Chapter 8) Parking Regulations (City Code- 3.00 Chapter 9) Sign Regulations 2.50 City Code Each Chapter (All 5.00 Chapters Except 8,9,11,13) Code Book 6000 Code Book With Binder 75..00 - 4 - FEE TYPE Building Permit Demolition Permit Disposal Permit Electrical Permit Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning Moving Permit Plumbing and Gas Fitting Sign Permit Wind Energy, Radio and Television Tower Permit Plan Check (Valuation over $10,000) Foundation Permit (If issued prior to building permit - fee is not credited against the Building Permit Fee) Subject to Approval INSPECTION FEES 1988 FEE See Attached (Modified 1985 Uniform Building Code) 15.00 10.00 See Schedule Attached See Schedule Attached 15.00 Plus Cost of Repairs and Escrow See Schedule Attached 2.50 per S.F. See Attached (Modified 1985 Uniform Building Code) 50% of Permit Fee .0005 X Valuation ($500 Maximum) Subject to Approval BUILDING PERMITS CITY OF EAGAN 1988 PERMIT FEES & LICENSING REQUIREMENTS PERMIT FEES - RESIDENTIAL - Fees based on modified 1985 UBC Fee Schedule 50% Plan Review Charge on all permits over $10,000. Permits are issued to specific lots - any lot change after issuance of permit $50.00 transfer fee. Utility Charges - collected with permit fee Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) - $650.00 Water Availability Charge (WAC) - $550.00 Water Meter (5/811) - $ 67.00 Road Unit Charge - $325.00 Treatment Plant Charge - $204.00 $1.00 - $ 500.00 $501.00 - $ 2,000.00 $2,001.00 - $25,000.00 -- No Permit Required -- $14.00 for the first $500.00 plus $1.90 for each additional $100.00 or franction thereof, to and including $2,000.00 -- $42.50 for the first $2,000.00 plus. $8.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00 $25,000.00 - $50,000.00 -- $226.50 for the first $25,000.00 plus $5.90 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00 $50,001.00 - $100,000.00 -- $374.00 for the first $50,000.00 plus $4.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof to and including $100,000.00 $100,000.00 - $500,000.00 -- $574.00 for the first $100,000.00 plus $3.25 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof $500,001.00 to $1,000,000 -- $1,874.00 for the first $500,000.00 plus $2.90 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000.00 $1,000,000.00 and Up -- $3,324.00 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $2.25 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof All permit fees are rounded to the nearest numerically even dollar amount. - 6 - Subject to Approval FEES FOR APARTMENT BUILDINGS (ONE COITION ENTRANCE & ONE LAUNDRY FACILITY) Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) Water Availability Charge (WAC) Road Unit Treatment Plant Charge - 80% of $650 x number of units - 80% of $550 x number of units - 80% of $325 x number of units - 80% of $2014 x number of units Accessory buildings in apartment complexes will not pay MWCC SAC (Per MWCC policy). City SAC, WAC, Road Unit and Water Treatment will be charged at full value. STATE SURCHARGE ON ALL BUILDING PERMITS Valuation of Structure Addition or Alteration $1,000,000 or Less $1,000,001 to $2,000,000 $2,000,001 to $3,000,000 $3,000,001 to $14,000,000 $4,000,001 to $5,000,000 $5,000,001 and Up Surcharge Com utation .0005 x Valuation $ 500 + .00014 x (Value - $1,000,000) $ 900 + .0003 x (Value - $2,000,000) $1,200 + .0002 x (Value - $3,000,000) $1,400 + .0001 x (Value - $4,000,000) $1,500 + .00005 x (Value - $5,000,000) �l- - 7 - Subject to Approval 1988 CITY OF EAGAN PLUMBING PERMIT FEES TYPE OF FIXTURE Water Closet @ $3.00 Ea. Bath Tub @ $3.00 Lavatory @ $3.00 Ea. Shower (Per Head) @ $3.00 Ea. Sink @ $3.00 Ea. Urinal @ $3.00 Ea. Bidet @ $3.00 Laundry Tub @ $3.00 Ea. COMMERCIAL PERMIT FEES: TYPE OF FIXTURE Janitor Sink or Receptor @ $3.00 Ea. Water Heater @ $3.00 Ea. Floor Drain @ $1.50 Ea. Water Stand Pipe @ $1.50 Ea. Gas Pipe Outlets @ $1.50 Ea. Rough Openings - No Fixtures @$1.50 Ea Fixtures on Rough Openings @ $1.50 Ea 1% of Contract Fee With a Minimum Fee of $20.00. State Surcharge is $.50 Per Each $1,000 of Fee (Not the Contract Cost). $12.00 Minimum Fee -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1988 CITY OF EAGAN MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES RESIDENTIAL HEATING 01-100,000 BTU'S - $214.00, Each Additional (Includes Cooling for New 50,000 BTU's or Fraction - $6.00 Construction) RESIDENTIAL COOLING (Add on) $12.00 MODIFICATIONS/ALTERATIONS $12.00 Minimum COMMERCIAL PERMIT FEES 1% of Contract Fee with a Minimum Fee of $20.00. State Surcharge is $.50 Per Each $1,000 of Fee (Not the Contract Cost) lnnrmmlmr�� 69P Subject to Approval CITY OF EAGAN ELECTRICAL INSPECTION FEES NOTE: MINIMUM CHARGE FOR EACH INSPECTION - $10.00 ALL PERMITS REQUIRE $.50 STATE SURCHARGE 1. Payment of fees - All electrical inspection fees are due and payable to the City of Eagan at or before commencement of the installation and shall be forwarded to the City of Eagan. 2. The fees for signs shall be computed in accordance with State schedule with a minimum fee of $10.00 per sign. 3. Swimming pool ground fees shall be computed separately at $30.00 per pool. 4. Minimum fee for each separate inspection of an installation, replacement, alteration or repair limited to one inspection only - $10.00. 5. Services, change of services, temporary services, additions, alterations or repairs on either primary or secondary services shall be computed separately. 1 to 100 ampere capacity ......................................... $12.00 101 to and including 200 ampere capacity or fraction thereof ..... $15.00 For each addition of 100 amperes or fraction thereof ............. $ 5.00 6. Circuit, installations or additions, alterations or repairs of each circuit or subf eeder shall be computed separately including circuits fed from subfeeders and including the equipment service. Circuits of 250 volts or less. 0 to and including 30 ampere capacity ............................ $ 3.00 31 to and including 100 ampere capacity .......................... $ 5.00 For each additional 100 ampere capacity or fraction thereof ...... $ 4.00 For circuits over 250 volts, double the fee for 250 volts or less. 7. In addition to the above fees: a. A charge of $1.50 will be made for each street lighting standard. b. A charge of $2.00 will be made for each traffic signal head. Circuits originating within the standard will not be used when computing the fee. 8. In addition to the above fees, all transformers and generators for lights, heat and power shall be computed separately at $2.00 per unit plus $.10 per KVA up to and including 100 KVA, 101 KVA and over at $.05 per KVA. The maximum fee for any transformer or generator in this category is $20.00. 9. In addition to the above fees, all transformers for signs and outline lighting shall be computed at $3.00 for the first 500 VA or fraction thereof per unit, plus $.25 for each additional 100 VA or fraction thereof. /SF Subject to Approval 10. In addition to the above fees (unless included in the maximum fee filed by the initial installer), remote controls, signal circuits, fire warning and security circuits of less than 50 volts shall be computed at $15.00 per each ten openings or devices of each system plus $1.00 for each additional opening. 11. For the review of plans and specifications of proposed installations, there shall be a minimum fee of $100.00 up to and including $30,000 of electrical estimate, plus 1/10 of 1% on any amount in excess of $30,000 to be paid by persons or firms requesting the review. 12. When reinspection is necessary to determine whether unsafe conditions have been corrected and such conditions are not the subject of an appeal pending before the Board or any court, a reinspection fee of not to exceed the original unit fee, or $10.00, whichever is less, may be assessed in writing by the inspector. 13. For inspections not covered herein, or for requested special inspections or services, the fee shall be $15.00 per man hour, including travel time, plus $.2.0 per mile traveled, plus the reasonable cost of equipment of material consumed. This section is also applicable to inspection of empty conduits and such other jobs as determined by the inspector. 14. For inspections of transient project including, but not limited to, carnivals and circuses, the inspection fees shall be computed as follows: a. Power supply units - According to Item 4(b) (2) of fee schedule - a like fee will be required on power supply units at each engagement during the season, except that a fee of $15.00 per hour will be charged for additional time spent by the inspector if the power supply is not ready for inspection at the time and date specified on the request for inspection as required by law. b. Rides, devices or concessions - Shall be inspected at their first appearance of the season and the inspection fee shall be $7.50 per unit. 15. Fees double - When any person, co -partnership or corporation begin work of any kind such as hereinbefore set forth, or for which a permit from the electrical inspector is required by ordinance, without having secured the necessary permit therefore from the inspector of buildings either previous to or during the day of the commencement of any such work, or on the next succeedingday where such work is commenced on a Saturday or on a Sunday or a holiday, he shall when subsequently securing such permit, be required to pay double the fees hereinbefore provided for such permit, and shall be subject to all penal provisions of this ordinance. 16. Additional Fees and/or Fee Shortage - Additional fees and/or fee shortages must be received by the City within 14 days of written notice. If additional fees and/or fee shortages are not received within 14 days of notice, permits for electrical installations will not be accepted by the City until such time as the additional fees and/or shortages are received. Additional fees and/or fee shortages that are not received within 14 days of notice are subject to a 10% per day penalty. g=J 10 - ASSESSMENT FEES 1988 FEE TYPE W FEE Trunk Assessment Trunk Sanitary Sewer Oversize Unplatted $1,365/Ac. Platted Residential 655/Lot Trunk Water Main Oversize Unplatted and Platted Comm. & Ind. 1,315/Ac. Platted Residential 630/Lot Water Supply & Storage & Main Oversizing (WAC) Comm. & Ind. 2,015/Ac. Trunk Storm Sewer Oversize Single Family .056/S.F. Multi -Family .070/S.F. Comm. & Ind. .083/S.F. Lateral Benefit Assessment Lateral Benefit from Trunk Sanitary Sewer Lateral Benefit from Trunk Water Main Single Family Multi -Family and Comm. & Ind. Lateral Benefit from Trunk Storm Sewer Single Family Multi -Family Comm. & Ind. Street Assessment Equivalent Zoning Subject to Approval 31.70/Centerline Foot 26.20/Centerline Foot 43.20/Centerline Foot 41.65/Centerline Foot 52.00/Centerline Foot 61.75/Centerline Foot STREET - Residential (Including Storm Sewer for Street Drainage) Equivalent (32') 48.05/F.F. Multiple Equivalent (44') 90.20/F.F. Comm. & Ind. Equivalent (52') 111.70/F.F. TRAILWAY - (Concrete or Bituminous) 13.00/F.F. l $� - 11 - FEE TYPE Sanitary Sewer Single Family, townhouse and Similar Residential Apartment, Institutional Commercial & Industrial Sewer only (Sewer with no water connection/meter to measure flow Water Works All users Street Light Energy Single Family/Twin Homes (R-1, R-2) UTILITY RATES & FEES 1988 FEE Townhouses (R-3) Multiple Residential & Comm. & Ind. (R-4, C/I) Road Unit Charge Residential Except Apartments Apartments (80%) Comm. & Ind. Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) Single Family (R1 and R2) Other Treatment Plant Charge Water Supply & Storage (WAC) Single Family Apartments Comm. & Ind. Shut-off Charge Delivery of Shut-off Notice Late Fee Sewer Permit Water Permit Subject to Approval MN $18.75/Qtr. for 15,000 Gal. $1.15/1000 Gal. for All Usage Over 15,000 Gal. Based on Winter Quarter Meter Reading MN $18.75/Qtr. for 15,000 Gal. $1.15/1000 Gal. for All Usage Over 15,000 Gal. Flat Rate - $25.35/Qtr. MN $17.85/Qtr for 15,000 Gal. & $.77/1000 Gal.for All Usage Over 15,000 Gal. $2.65 Per Quarter Per Lot $2.10 Per Quarter Per Unit $18.40 Per Quarter Per Billing Acct. $325/unit 260/unit 975/acre $650 MWCC 204.00 550/Lot 440/unit 2,015/acre 25.00 10.00 10% of Balance 10.50 ��ff'' 10.50 /", 12 - UTILITY FEES CONT. FEE TYPE After Hours Work Water Meter Removal Water Meter Replacement Sewer Tap Water Tap Water Meters 5/811 x 3/411 meter* 3/4 water meter* 111 water meter 1 1/211 water meter 211 water meter 3" compound 411 compound 611 compound 211 turbo meter 311 turbo meter 411 turbo meter 611 turbo meter #2 eopperhorn w/swivel Remote wire (over 351) Meter Strainers: 211 311 411 Subject to Approval f 1988 FEE A. Call Out - Labor Rate 2.5 Hr. Minimum + 10% Administrative B. Extended Day Labor + 10% Admin. $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 67.00 93.00 106.00 273.00 381.00 1,160.00 1,848.00 3,570.00 420.00 620.00 1,045.00 1,838.00 16.00 0.06/Ft 160.00 207.00 312.00 Meter Testing (Charged only if meter tests correct): 5/811 through 211 50.00 All other sizes Contract Cost (Mpls) + 10% * Includes Copperhorn lir - 13 - FEE TYPE Parkland Dedication Single Family Duplex Townhouse/Quad Apartments/Multiple Commercial and Industrial Park Fees Picnic Kit Rahn Building Trapp Farm Pavillion PARKS AND RECREATION 1988 FEE $492.00 462.00 396.00 404.00 0.046/S.F. 3.00 50.00 Per Day 35.00 1/2 Day Subject to Approval Enclosed Shelter Buildings 5.00 Per Hour for Each Hour over 5 $30.00 Minimum Open Shelters 15.00 Athletic Facilities/Shelters Fields 30.00 Per Field Per Day Lights (If Required) 20.00 Per Field Per Day Building Cleaning 30.00 Damage Deposit 100.00 Community Rooms Youth and Non -Profit Others Profit and Fund Raising Chuckwagon Grill No Charge 15.00 50.00 15.00 Canopy 50.00/Day /0 14 - FEE TYPE Subject to Approval MAIlITENANCE EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL 1988 FEE Maintenance Person $17.00/hr. Foreman 20.00/hr. Pick-up Truck 22.00/hr. 1 Ton Dump Truck 23.00/hr. Single axle dump truck 30.00/hr. Tandem axle dump truck 35.00/hr. Tractor 15.00/hr. Backhoe/loader 35.00/hr. Front end loader 56.00/hr. Road grader 56.00/hr. Street sweeper 141.00/hr. Roller 18.00/hr. Paver 20.00/hr. Air Compressor 8.00/hr. 50 KW Generator 35.00/hr. Sewer Jetter 83.00/hr. Sewer Rodder 33.00/hr. Sewer Vacuum 33.00/hr. (Regular) $25.50 (Overtime) RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FEES FOR VARIOUS CITY SERVICES, SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS WHEREAS, various sections of the City Code provide for fees to be established by Council resolution, and WHEREAS, the City has incurred increased costs in wages and materials and it is therefore necessary to increase some of the costs to cover said increases; and NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the fees as listed in the attached shall be effective January 1, 1988. Motion Made By: Seconded By: Those in Favor: Those Opposed: Dated: December 1, 1987 CITY OF EAGAN CITY COUNCIL By: Its Mayor Attest: Its Clerk CERTIFICATION I, E.J. VanOverbeke, 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 lst day of December, 1987. E.J. VanOverbeke, City Cler City of Eagan 191 Agenda Information Memo, December 1, 1987, City Council Meeting WAIVER OF PLAT/B.H. GRACE CORPORATION B. Waiver of Plat, B.H. Grace Corporation, Lot 1, Block 1, Rahn Ridge, for a Duplex Lot Split to Allow Individual Ownership --An application was submitted by B.H. Grace Corporation requesting a waiver of plat for Lot 1, Block 4, Rahn Ridge Addition. The purpose of the lot split is to provide individual ownership. For additio al information on this item, refer to pages through �- ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the waiver of plat for Lot 1, Block 1, Rahn Ridge Addition as requested by B.H. Grace Corporation for a duplex lot split to allow individual ownership. NOTE: Presently, this single duplex structure has only one single sewer and water service connection to the City mains located in the public right of way. If this waiver of plat is approved, providing for separate ownerships, the following condition should be added to that approval: A separate sewer and water service connection to the City laterals shall be installed or an appropriate maintenance agreement prepared by the City be executed and recorded against the affected properties. /9Z CITY OF EAGAN SUBJECT: WAIVER OF PLAT APPLICANT: B. H. GRACE CORPORATION LOCATION: LOT 1, BLOCK 4, RAHN RIDGE EXISTING ZONING: PD R-2 DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: DECEMBER 1, 1987 DATE OF REPORT: NOVEMBER 18, 1987 REPORTED BY: PLANNING AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS APPLICATION: An application has been submitted by B. H. Grace Corporation requesting a Waiver of Plat for Lot 1, Block 4, Rahn Ridge Addition. The purpose of the lot split is to provide individual ownership. The duplex lots :meet all setback require- ments. If approved, this Waiver shall be subject to all applicable Code requirements. •�22- III. b22-03'r 90� I� I I v b' 9 10 �auo_ 12 A �,,. ,dam 11 .. Gib - 22 96922 v 2! uri •• fo j0 0 1�W59� 24° C7 afro w 0 0 27 r v 0 t Hedlund I Land Surveyors Engineering Civil Engineers Services Land Planners 9201 East bloomtnatonFreawwy bloomington.minnasoto tit,r2o Phone: b88 -028y Survirwr`s Certifkate BOOK — PAGE — `l' �,'• JOB NO. 87R-537 SURVEY FOR. B.H. Grace Corp. DESCRIBED AS: PARCEL A_ That part of Lot 1, Block 4, RAHN RIDGE, City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, lying northeasterly of a line drawn from a point on the easterly line of said Lot 1 distant 107.26 feet south of the northeast corner thereof to a point on the westerly line of said Lot 1 distant 32.li Tvet suuthwesterly of the northwest corner thereof, as uieasureu along .".LJ line, and reserving easements of record. PARCEL LI: Th.t part of Lot 1, Block 4, RAHN RIDGE, City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, lying southwesterly of a line drawn from a point on the easterly line of said Lot 1 distant 107.2E feet south of the northeast corner tnereof to a point on the westerly line of said Lot I 015t:,nt 32.19 test southwesterly of the northwest corner thereof, as mea:urea along maid line, and reserving easements of record. CKRTIFICATK OP LOCATION QQF BUILDING I hereby certify that on /U -3O- 4i 7 I made a survey of the location of the building on the property described hurcun and that the location of said building is correctly shown hereon. /3 as✓..,, r- JaWfr%:�D. indgren, No� 1437E - - -- -- 934.2 I 155.19 EAST -1 U --! ` - --- -----y - a a V QQ' BE ivcs,,MARK .• T.N.H. Cul NW Core" K of G. 3, Q. 2, Ec.= 929. 9re TOP OF FOUNDATION = 540.4 GARAGE FLOOR = 940.0 BASEMENT FLOOR = 9�g•2 SEWER SERVICE ELEV. PROPOSED ELEVATIONS EXISTING ELEVATIONS : DRAINAGE DIRECTIONS --�- DENOTES LOT CORNERS v DENOTES OFFSET STAKE: o 4, �y 0 V v bs v S / 3 16 / 10 ��06 / Agenda Information Memo, December 1, 1987, City Cc WAIVER OF PLAT/JAMES CURRY C. Waiver of Plat, James Curry, Lot 6, Block 5, Vienna Woods, for a Duplex Lot split to Allow Individual Ownership --An application was submitted by James Curry requesting a waiver of plat for Lot 6, Block 5, Vienna Woods Addition. The duplex lot split would allow individual ownership. For additional information and a site location on this item, refer to pages �J� through 197 . ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the waiver of plat for Lot 6, Block 5, Vienna Woods as requested by James Curry for a duplex lot split to allow individual ownershiip. NOTE: Presently, this single duplex structure has only one single sewer and water service connection to the City mains located in the public right of way. If this waiver of plat is approved, providing for separate ownerships, the following condition should be added to that approval: A separate sewer and water service connection to the City laterals shall be installed or an appropriate maintenance agreement prepared by the City be executed and recorded against the affected properties. �q� CITY OF EAGAN SUBJECT: WAIVER OF PLAT APPLICANT: JAMES M CURRY LOCATION: LOT 6, BLOCK 5, VIENNA WOODS EXISTING ZONING: PD — R-2 DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: DECEMBER 1, 1987 DATE OF REPORT: NOVEMBER 20, 1987 REPORTED BY: PLANNING AND ENGINEERING APPLICATION: An application has been submitted by James A. Curry requesting a Waiver of Plat for Lot 6, Block 5, Vienna Woods Addition. The duplex lot split would allow individual ownership. The duplex lot has separate utilities and meets all setback requirements. If approved, this Waiver of Plat shall be subject to all applicable Code requirements. neuo A T0A1I� ! y rJ JAM y.� co r.( -4 ;%3 w A/ p - s c+•.i 0C. i s �S 27 26 R b G b n o o.0-0/ fi 0 z . �a Hedlund Engineering Services $201EosrWooaunglanFrse.uj bloommgton, mraasora »i2o Lana Swrrsrars Civil Engineers Land Planners Phone: ddd-02by 'wear`s 6rrtif1?4qte b �Lr ¢i ir�lrri BOOK 1lct PAGE t. JOB N0. SURVEY FOR: James M. Curry Construction Muluo AS: PARCEL A: That part of Lot 6, Block 5, VIENNA WOODS, City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, lying northerly of a line drawn from a point on the west line of said Lot 6 distant 73.77 feet south of the northwest corner thereof, as measured along said line, to a point on the easterly line of said Lot 6 distant 8.62 feet southwesterly of the northeast corner thereof, and reserving easements of record. PARCEL B: That part of Lot 6, Block 5, VIENNA WOODS. City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, lying southerly of a line drawn from a point on the west line of said Lot 6 distant 73.77 feet south of the northwest corner thereof, as measured along said line. to a point on the easterly line of said Lot 6 distant 8.62 feet southwesterly of the northeast corner thereof, and reservinq easements of record. -B�IJc Ii Mr -RK TnP NUT HYD. e S. E, COP . LOT -t, eLK S, ON VIENNA LANG ELEV. = RA -1.06 CSRTIFIC►TR OF LOCATION OF BUILDING I hereby certify that on 11-/8-87 I made a survey of the location of the building on the property described hereon and that the location of said building is correctly shown hereon. Js 6U.. (_Iindgren. No.L" 1437i 4- L! O .2201. le 1� I S H Io S r� O N - n Error, N �� itiw.t Gor. Hove- 1AL � 19[0.49 i N.69' 4(0 ) ".77 EA5T- CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY I- ; 'T- 'off (J(�`ilJ 0' OE.�:N.t i tr � •y 931.0 1�7 Agenda Information Memo, December 1, 1987, City Council Meet VARIANCE/CRAIG AND BARBARA KOHLER D. Variance at 2073 Jade Lane for Craig and Barbara Kohler, .11" Side Yard Setback for Lot 14, Block 5, Cedar Grove #3--A variance application was submitted by Craig and Barbara Kohler requesting a variance to the 5' sideyard setback to allow a garage addition to be constructed 4.1 feet from the side yard property line. For additional information on this item, refer to pages through 24d ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the variance application as submitted by Craig and Barbar Kohler to allow a garage addition to be constructed 4.1 feet from the side yard property line where a 5 foot side yard setback is required. CITY OF EAGAN SUBJECT: VARIANCE APPLICANT: CRAIG AND BARBARA KOHLER LOCATION: LOT 14, BLOCK 5, CEDAR GROVE #3 EXISTING ZONING: R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: DECEMBER 1, 1987 DATE OF REPORT: NOVEMBER 23, 1987 REPORTED BY: PLANNING AND ENGINEERING APPLICATION: An application has been submitted by Craig and Barbara Kohler requesting a Variance to the 5' side yard setback. COMMENTS: The purpose for this Variance is to allow a garage addition to be constructed 4.1' from the side yard property line. The applicant has a one -car garage and would like to enlarge it to a two -car garage for the purpose of parking their vehicles off the public street. There are no drainage and utility easements along the side property lines, only along the rear lot line. Therefore, a vacation of easement is not needed. If approved, this Variance shall be subject to all applicable Code requirainents . qz- IN�. �.�y z y • z er '4 SITE IV j fV .i c 5 / s �a 1 t, � l - to a 19 + / y ) S eU , // e e MA ?s cf(qJr „.. ---1333 SL--- 3NV1 3aVt 2pd Agenda Information Memo, December 1, 1987, City Council Meeting ADDITIONAL ITEMS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS A. Public Improvement Contracts: Item 1. Contract 87-42, Salt Storage Building, Receive Bids/Award Contract --At 10:00 a.m. on Monday, November 23, formal bids were received again for the proposed Salt Storage Building for the Public Works Maintenance operations of snow and ice control. Enclosed on page ?,OZ -is a bid tabulation showing the relationship of the low bid to the 1987 budgeted amount. The bid tabulation also references various alternates for different styles and sizes of salt storage buildings. The Superintendent of Streets/Equipment and Director of Public Works will be further evaluating these bids in relationship to the budget and the feasibility of placement of the different types of facilities within our maintenance grounds. Additional recommendations will be provided at the December 1 meeting. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive the bids for Contract 87-42, Salt Storage Building, and award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder. Za I Ll - 00 m T— . • P z N <4 s m O O O .. z O r O ca -F� b a0 ai ai E +) •H CO H P b b -H -H Pq W H 4) O a M A W H a T H a N SC w _ E-+ a OD .14 It W H O W Ei a ao O A z w O O O O 0 lD O �O O N n ti O O O O O O O w rn � co C N 4 L� Cp Ul b nCo O O O OO [O a tio 4-) N \0 -t 00 0 0 0 I OU1 P. m O\ N M O �Y C �t Ei 10 l0 L� PI) U] � � U O � U H U ',l -I U] H N fA 0 X. 0 •� +- � 03 E -i P, •rj p o as U � �4 c w ca El x $ 2�07— O O 0 lD O �O N n ti O O N �l �O r M co b nCo GPJ. a tio 4-) 4-) I P. H -:4w O d PQ -:4 Ei +-3 PI) � O � a w Agenda Information Memo, December 1, 1987, City Council Meeting PRIVATE IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS B. Private Improvement Contracts: Item 1. Contract 86-I, Sunset 11th Addition - Utilities, Final Acceptance --We have received a request for final acceptance from the developer of the above referenced addition along with a certification from the Engineering and Maintenance Division indicating that the public improvements were installed in compliance with city approved plans and specifications and are in order for formal acceptance of perpetual maintenance. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To accept Contract 86-I, Sunset 11th Addition - utilities, for perpetual maintenance. Item 2. Contract 86-H, Stuart Addition - Streets and Utilities, Final Acceptance --We have received a request for final acceptance by the developer of the above referenced subdivision along with a certification from the Engineering and Maintenance Division indicating that the construction of these public improvements were performed in accordance with city approved plans and specifications and is ready for a formal acceptance of perpetual maintenance. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To accept Contract 86-H, Stuart Addition - utilities and streets for perpetual maintenance. Agenda Information Memo, December 1, 1987, City Council Meeting RESOLUTION/SOLID WASTE MASTER PLANNING C. Resolution, Concerning Dakota County Solid Waste Master Planning --Following the joint meeting of the Eagan City Council and Solid Waste Abatement Commission held on Tuesday, October 13, 1987, a resolution and selected section of the Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan were prepared for Council distribution. The resolution outlines the City's recommendations to the County as it pertains to Solid Waste Abatement. Please review the resolution which identifies seven (7) points as discussed and agreed by the Eagan Council and Solid Waste Abatement Commission. The resolution is enclosed on page J,O and Also enclosed on pages ZD through are sections from the Dakota County Solid WAste Master Plan as it pertains to the existing waste management system, program goals and objectives and source separation. This additional information is a direct response to the City Council's request for more data as it pertains to the County's existing solid waste management program. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the resolution as presented concerning the Solid Waste Abatement Strategy Statement and recommendations to Dakota County pertinent to its solid waste masterplanning process. CITY OF EAGAN RESOLUTION CONCERNING DAKOTA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MASTERPLANNING WHEREAS, Federal, State and County mandates require that waste management strategies be developed by municipalities to mitigate unnecessary impacts on landfills and scarce resources, and WHEREAS, the City of Eagan is actively developing a waste management strategy to abate wastes from area landfills, and WHEREAS, Dakota County will define the parameters for such a strategy through its solid waste masterplanning process, and WHEREAS, the City and County will be best served by a comprehensive waste management system which considers the best interests of all citizens and communities, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Eagan adopt the Eagan Solid Waste Abatement Commission Strategy Statement, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City recommends that the Dakota County Board: 1. Choose a central processing alternative which includes a centralized separation component. 2. Identify the preferred central processing technology and the City obligations and costs it implies prior to enactment of the designation ordinance. 3. Implement a rate structure for the processing facility which encourages source separation by passing through the real costs of mixed waste processing. 4. Centralize and coordinate programs which will benefit from economies of scale: centralized separation, compost, recycling marketks, etc. 5. Act or require the central facility to act as a market of last resort for recycling contractors and programs, haulers and residents. ,,O�5 RESOLUTION/SOLID WASTE MASTERPLANNING PAGE TWO 6. Standardize education materials for schools and cities to help develop habits and attitudes for separation and recycling. 7. Specifically request a blanket exclusion from the Metropolitan Council's 1988 mandatory source separation requirement for all Dakota County cities to allow them to come into compliance as the County implements its waste processing facility. CITY OF EAGAN CITY COUNCIL By: Its Mayor Attest: Its Clerk Motion made by: Seconded by: Those in favor: Those against: Dated: CERTIFICATION I, E. J. VanOverbeke, 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 day of , 1987. E. J. VanOverbeke, City Clerk City of Eagan '.!'a y� k`' } fel. .t: Vii,, ,I •, L••,r i l♦• ''� L -,i \W, t.J:, .'•. v...- �C�. .f f�i• tdtiyC ls•� 'a7{t•? :,�,•.t. .i.' .i+' -:'C . • ,t' i 0. :j„. -,<'...• . i;, •^\S rAl .:i•�!� ' a •w ,L:[i..:.� •'•• -•.a .v`- . ,A' a F ' �R''M, y%J ,n r `'.. s "t .L•:. 7;: ,, :i1 a; a':Au L„ a ; 3 �•. . k -. Jl , t n ) - 1 :r, ha :k - i rr 4...5.♦.,_z[°: v}`.1.� ) .�,eG�j. D t`..y �, T. I. `vi >t;•ar{[if 6,. + tM * la yf.:` � t,r .•J Ft!"ikY yatrtiS ~i i' i )a •i c ,a •a<4 i . '[• ,� „�,p �* ' a.o�l. �'+ t.. t`;J t.t r - `' s j�.+. °'i y..' lti 1. ..l:•� '.\` �+. Ji`dM.'• i y h •t Al.. J •1' •,. Sa If' d. 1 . '` :r iI '* ta.n • Y• ••' '��.[d 'N c,j it tl• S'9tr'.'{� , I'� ♦ i t - xa ai'r' •�` t f \ - �,`; . a..a � el• .•,v 6 9'd f,.: i` .?t � . t _ ,L . .2.{' qa � S : �, � ,y W, ♦ yds �' ya • s � 4''a y�'t ~ •L 4'a.>'G� n: �3 ,'` s. t f ' 'ly; J:i r �: - aS'9c ' a i� t uz ''+�''�'cvc' �aa.••'i•. , . z . ..ai '� ak X :.n;•'v� s +. i w.(Or {{ J wY - ,,#2 r 1r 4 fit} c ! aT. �t •.F. _ _p,... %lx. .•w .4 f'�•i. ati: ..s:• +_ -Sq' t 5.2 ,6%,. .r� \i ss Vf. f,�. y,. .i' :F. i �:[�.. f:x. •(a .ih'f �:�.!'t` ��Y� tr .tt, Nz+�•t it§i YaF��i�•r'_f. [ .il r .:� t �,£a - al .•.°. a,.« .-a p �,� ., '1 . a t . L4 a. • .d 't ti r' y . r, r. ! i 3 r .r > r s J_a * - K. Y ", ,,;A,, J Z• t r 'r i '� "' ii'4r r: e f� sr� 11 � . .. .. ��,. --'� ,.,: ,� - ; - - . - - � .. I . . I i* , I ., . . � " : -% , � , � , - , ' ' ..F .. 1,_ �.a 5ti - t.fi .'' L' " � . . ..- "; ' ., - ' �. '* ' . . .. -. , . : . . . , . . . . , , 1: � I *:- ... - I . � '. , ,,.--,; : . :. -. j,,-;,, "" " - .. Y`' .✓ 1 •.t moi;_.a:.. .a `r, t'• r. _ 1 %. .% Y- •li ?rfa' '.'t `! i , . .�.*t, , '., , * � . ,,, ., : - � , . , h ,� ,,, I , — 4 . . - s - tb a I, "� , - , - :� , ,. " . 1. I , " .. , . I , . . " -. ,-- . m, % . : . : . . ;. ., '! CHAPTER 2 `} ,':. r ,. EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT : r�-d �� ' ; F ' ter. ;'V. 1. I-:,"- ': ,� �4 Z- :.- - ,,�,? ;,""...; ,.:--'.'t . ° i "r. f i 1 L i - . ±a .1;,,,,-.' "' }.9, t C 1 J ,, -�, .. . . - }�. S� 4 .� '� .. . r t� �+ e0. ~" t r •{`h r t - t ' _ a.- - i 9 d.a 1 .t '.Er a' t • f a -.3•' ,� _ , : " <: a . : 3'..`S i •i. ti �4kby r �: r, #r : 'i'. �. r .,yn:i``+k;Rad`p py ,�. t,4 "£.- } 2 .r .� f! L r •,b Ck -tf .1 r I` '1i •1�AA' ty,f t j % ip�\'i +•r1•�,I cl-,- ., 1. .J S a f }ll = a r . - ' 3w p . . ti C f i♦<> k 97$ a . .. r.'�L pY'S i fY i -Jr ittf `-..•r+f` : s ' x - 1'• i " �� - J j.'-'--" :i r• <1. n L 'i' r r 1 y., i? �4- lr s C_ a r.'s J+ -y `I�n s, ht .r '��c +�' - ;r "a° '� .1 - `P'+r tt t �.' k '1 a �� ��R psi Ff� rii<gi MSI .� -", - - -, .—;.-,,,,-"7" .if f . r i • i > y . r f " , . - �,.•'-. t J s.n #[ .ir a "`5j'.. . y� n f ? ,.! i4 {T . T r f T - l' ! ��+ 1t_ �j'�Y- F f t `%fi jun 't L : tE I { r s r �. �%t-. 'J @ ! 1'♦ tJ4,'r r G�{�'t r -J4 i _i }},, &.5.,Tf' f t ? IA C tr.}; 1. d ..•r�, r, r try a. �t �;, ... S t ♦- ` w ` F Yt€ >' , . - ,- ' •i "tt ?1' Fa Sr F., t# > •'t. ..r'. . y S i .r t k.+s' , , 4 •'. -,i _ ".1 4 F ll ••fi r. �•'} R i M1 S '(i i 't �. •J f i `} 4.:• .e rJ i,F r i. ., ^i''•'{•.'.•A�,'tp' h '2 {� > ' t 01, : 4: , e . J �[. , .:r a J t ; 4 _ r • y a{ , , fl�l , " " ` - , , , � .. . , � , , , , , I .. � .. I . F' a'. . 1 - .. " i• V ..2 o T • y �' a a ry a 4 & ' ; t 4 tri. S.. '° k" : - I .. . . - I li , m -,, ,,:, . % , „ 2 .•.. E_ ,t Z . i . ' , .f • Z 4= i 0 ry ";i 4 t r ,�+i , y' 1<. • +r '- ai + 3. ~ .a t� s a -+ ' f`. S r t ' r,r , ,, 'v i a f'. y t .�'' I fp:. .r ,.i -i ` fi, 1! I r -r ,fs rrz-, ..,` J i 1 i C i .2• l `C=•' :p. •j 3[• i•�: - -_�: �� :.t� '1 1. i Y . .a -•• -.+ E 1 'd J • Lt, -i I , ,i t Ff s r. as ' . ?. -i 1: w t M '' ` e ,, �: f . f i1 21 1"t COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION In Dakota County, the responsibilities of solid waste management are split between three divisions and departments. The organizational framework and the respective responsibilities are shown in Figure 1. STATE OF MINNESOTA rROPOLITAN DAKOTA COUNTY MPCA COL UNCIBOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND HUMAN SERVICES BOARD H DEVELOPMENT DIVISION PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLANNING I.,. 1. NEGOTIATION TEAM FOR RDF FACILITY • 2. PLANNNG ACTIVITIES NCLUONG: MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION PLAN SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 1: • 9. ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT 4. ADMINISTER COMMUNITY LANDFILL ABATEMENT FUNDING PROGRAM �• S. TECHNICAL AND PLANNING L' � ACTIVITIES FOR COMMUNITIES N!, nRnTNANCFS COUNTY ATTORNEY CIVIL DIVISION LEGAL 1. NEGOTIATION TEAM FOR ROF FACILITY 2. ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT 7. PROSECUTION OF VIOLATIONS •. ASSISTANCE TO PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS Figure 1 SOLID WASTE AOMINISTRAMN • OAKOTA COUNTf HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SECTION REGULATORY 1. ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT AND ADMNISTRATIONN AREAS OF SOLD AND HAZARDOUS WASTE 2. LICENSURE OF FACILITES 3. WATER TESTING PROGRAM 4. SUPERFUND ACTIVITY S. SITE INSPECTION 6.CLOSUREIPOST-CLOSURE There are currently two ordinances that regulate waste disposal in Dakota County; Ordinance 111, the Hazardous Waste Ordinance, and Ordinance 110, the Solid Waste Management Ordinance. Both are administered by the Environmental Health Section, Public Health Department. The Hazardous Waste Ordinance establishes rules, regulations, and standards for the identification, labeling and classification 'of hazardous waste; the handling, collection, transportation and storage of hazardous waste; the treatment, processing and disposal of hazardous waste; and the licensing of hazardous waste generators and facilities. The Solid Waste Management Ordinance establishes standards for, and regulates mixed municipal solid waste disposal sites, resource recovery facilities, recycling facilities, disposal sites for demolition wastes, disposal sites for special wastes, and transfer facilities for mixed municipal, special and demolition solid wastes. 2 F Table 1 POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD FORECAST U.S. CENSUS, 1980 ** Metropolitan Council Forecast 11, E" Source: Metropolitan Council "Preliminary Forecasts by Community, for w 1990 and 2000, November 8, 1985 17 SW-Tabl Household Po2ulation 1980* 1990** 2000** 1980* 1990** 2000** Apple Valley 6,376 10,000 12,000 21,818 30,000 36,000 Burnsville 12,080 16,000• 18,700 35,674 43,000 49,000 Castle Rock T. 395 450 500 1,340 1,400 1,500 Coates 65 80 100 207 230 280 Douglas T. 164 180 200 614 610 660 Eagan 6,824 15,400 20,000 20,700 40,000 50,000 Empire T. 360 450 500 1,224 1,400 1,600 Eureka T. 373 500 600 1,268 1,600 1,800 Farmington 1,511 1,900 2,200 4,370 5,200 5,800 Greenvale T. 190 220 250 654 700 780 Hampton 101 120 250 299 340 350 Hastings 4,201 4,700 5,000 12,827 13,600 14,000 Inver Grove Hgts 5,551 7,200 8,000 17,171 20,000 22,000 Lakeville 4,337 6,500 7,500 14,790 20,000 23,000 Lilydale 222 275 300 417 470 510 Marshan T 431 550 600 1,655 1,900 2,000 Mendota 80 100 100 219 250 240 Mendota Hgts 2,210 3,000 3,500 7,288 9,000 10,200 Miesville 49 50 50 179 180 170 New Trier 31 50 50 115 170 170 Nininger T. 201 250 300 774 850 990 Randolph 110 120 125 351 360 360 Randolph T. 118 150 175 385 480 540 Ravenna T. 433 500 525 1,683 1,900 1,900 Rosemount 1,456 2,300 2,700 5,083 7,100 8,100 Sciota T. 75 90 100 242 280 300 .4 So. St. Paul 7,748 8,100 8,200 21,235 20,000 20,000 Sunfish Lake 107 125 150 344 360 410 Vermillion 123 175 200 438 560 620 Vi Vermillion T. 281 330 375 1,070 1,200 1,300 Waterford T. 164 175 200 486 470 520 West St. Paul 7,501 8,100 8,500 18,527 17,300 17,300 TOTAL 64,091 88,000 102,000 194,295 242,000 274,000 U.S. CENSUS, 1980 ** Metropolitan Council Forecast 11, E" Source: Metropolitan Council "Preliminary Forecasts by Community, for w 1990 and 2000, November 8, 1985 17 SW-Tabl WASTE GENERATION M Waste generation can be shown in two ways: 1) using measured disposal data and 2) using per capita generation rates to calculate waste generation. A waste disposal volume study for Dakota County was completed for Dakota County in February, 1987 which measured actual waste generated in Dakota County which was disposed in area landfills. This was the first study, using field data, completed for the County. A combination of landfill scale data, portable scale data and truck counts was used to compute the weight of disposed material. Not all the landfills have scales, therefore, the combination of methods was used. The measured field data was taken during the summer and fall seasons. 64 Projections of annual waste disposal were made by exptrapolating the field data, and applying several variation factors. Projections of high and low disposal rates can be made in this was as well as annual disposal. The report indicates annual disposal of 247,832 tons, a low disposal of 521 tons per day and a high disposal of 799 tons per day. bi 0 Hill", E�w With time, as processing facilities and landfills all have scales, and several years of data can be gathered, using field data will be the most reliable way to make projections. The field data gathered in 1986 will give a benchmark from which to make future decisions. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS REPORT, HOWEVER, PER CAPITA GENERATION RATES WILL BE USED TO PROJECT DISPOSAL THROUGH THE YEAR 2000. There are two major generator types in Dakota County; commercial/industrial and residential. Commercial/industrial waste generation is estimated on a per -worker basis, using covered employment to estimate the labor force. Labor force information was obtained from the Minnesota Department of Economic Security, which had information on the Average Annual Covered Employment by the Two Digit Industry for SDA 12. SDA 12 is the statistical area Dakota County is a part of; the two digit industry refers to the major employment sectors as identified by the Standard Industrial Classification Code (SIC Code). The rate of generation per worker Environmental Health Section, Public were made to determine this factor; other was a waste generator survey. identical data, the generation rates generation are shown in Table 2. was developed by the Dakota County Health Department in 1985. Two surveys one was a waste hauler survey and the From these surveys, which yielded almost were computed. These rates and waste Residential rates were taken from similar studies completed in the City of Minneapolis and Hennepin County. These studies indicate that residential generation rates are 2.2 pounds/person/day for rural (R) residents and 2.45 pounds/person/day for urban (U) residents. For purposes of this Master Plan, the 2.2 pound generation rate is used for township residents and residents in small cities surrounded by rural land. These cities is range in size from 130 to 530 persons. The 2.45 pound generation rate was used for second and third class cities and fourth class cities that have a population greater than 1500 or are surrounded by urban development. Generation is shown in Table 3. Table 4 shows the combined commercial/industrial and residential generation for the years 1985 - 2000. . 4 Tabla 2 DAKOTA COUNTY COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SOLID BASTE GENERATION (Based upon generation rate per worker per day) Employment Gen. 1991- 1996 - Sector Rate 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 19958 20000 Agriculture. 10.00 986 1349 1420 1490 1560 1638 9220 11075 at al Construction 10.00 5944 5663 5710 5756 5803 5850 30156 31371 and Mining Manufacturing 10.00 10007 18876 19188 19656 20124 20592 109512 120432 Transportation, 9.40 5366 5572 5719 5939 6159 6306 34825 40106 et al Trade 10.00 39959 39390 40560 41730 42900 44070 240240 273390 Finance.et al 8.95 5089 5306 5445 5620 5759 5934 32286 36231 Services 9.50 20081 20748 21785 22971 24305 25342 144050 173838 Government 7.95 14023 13084 13394 13828 14200 14572 78257 87435 Tota1�N~wM~w 110455 109988 113221 116990~ 120810 N 124304 678546 773878 Source: Dakota County Planning and Program Management, March 1987 SK-Tab2 RIB Table 3 DAKOTA COUNTY RESIDENTTIAL SOLID PASTE GENERATION (Based on generation rate per capita per day) Generation in Tons Per Year 2 6 3 Class City Subtotal 83086 84073 86322 87941 89560 91179 475067 504895 TOTAL 97996 99892 101793 103691 105592 107492 558477 ..... ■..........■...■.......■..■.......w...../......./......■■......■..........■...../■/■ -Motet Aggregate volumes for five year period Sources Dakota County Planning and Program Management, March 1987 SW-Tab3 Table 4 COMBINED DAKOTA COUNTY COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION Gen. Year Industrial Residential Total 1991- 1996 - Municipality Rate 1985 X562 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 19950 2000/ Castle Rock T. 2.20 103691 562 562 562~w 562 562 2070 2970 Douglas T. 2.20 249 248 247 247 246 245 1253 1303 Empire T. 2.20 522 529 338 346 554 562 2930 3130 Eureka T. 2.20 538 559 580 601 622 642 3332 3533 Greenvale T. 2.20 269 271 274 276 279 281 1450 1534 Nampeon T. 2.20 360 474 388 403 417 431 2213 2310 Marshan T. 2.20 711 721 732 742 752 763 3875 3975 Minninger T. 2.20 325 328 332 335 338 341 1735 1775 Randolph T. 2.20 169 173 178 183 188 193 1000 1060 Ravenne T. 2.20 711 721 732 742 752 763 3815 3815 Saint& T. 2.20 104 105 108 109 111 112 574 594 Vermillion T. 2.20 466 469 472 473 479 482 2470 2570 Yateeford T. 2.20 197 195 194 192 190 189 975 1025 Twp. Subtotal 5183 5257 5337 5413 5490 5567 27694 29596 Coates 2.20 84 86 88 89 91 92 490 540 Farmington 2.20 2137 2175 2212 2250 2287 2325 12028 12698 Rampton 2.20 128 130 132 133 135 137 689 699 Lilydele 2.43 192 1% 199 203 207 210 1071 1118 Mendota 2.43 103 103 106 106 110 112 552 541 Mendota Bts. 2.45 3604 3688 3772 3856 3940 4024 20925 22267 Miesville 2.20 72 72 72 72 72 72 333 343 Now Trier 2.20 48 32 56 60 64 68 340 340 Randolph 2.20 141 141 142 143 144 145 725 725 Rosemount 2.20 2857 2921 2984 3048 3111 3175 16543 17662 Sunfish Lake 2.45 152 134 156 157 159 16L 838 894 Vermillionw 2.20 209 212 215 218 222 225 1160 1221 fourth Class w _. City Subtotal 9727 9932 10134 10337 10542 10746 55716 59050 Apple Valley 2.43 12037 12312 12587 12863 13138 13414 71893 77800 Burnsville 2.45 18037 18275 1B513 18751 18989 19226 100156 106863 Eagan 2.45 13563 14347 15232 16116 17001 17885 96132 107310 Beatings 2.45 39% 6013 6030 6047 6064 6081 30672 31120 Inver Cr. Nes. 2.45 8469 8563 8658 8753 8848 8943 46054 48289 Lakeville 2.45 7722 7966 8210 8454 8696 8943 46725 50078 Northfield 2.45 9 9 9 9 9 9 45 45 So. St. Paul 2.45 9224 9166 9112 9033 8999 8943 44713 44715 West St. Paul 2.45 8129 8050 7971 7893 7814 7735 38675 38675 2 6 3 Class City Subtotal 83086 84073 86322 87941 89560 91179 475067 504895 TOTAL 97996 99892 101793 103691 105592 107492 558477 ..... ■..........■...■.......■..■.......w...../......./......■■......■..........■...../■/■ -Motet Aggregate volumes for five year period Sources Dakota County Planning and Program Management, March 1987 SW-Tab3 Table 4 COMBINED DAKOTA COUNTY COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION SW-Tab4 Commercial/ Year Industrial Residential Total 1985 110455 97996 208451 1986 109988 99892 209880 1987 113221 101793 215014 1988 116990 103691 220681 1989 120810 105592 226402 1990 124304 107492 231796 1991-1995* 6785460 5584770 12370238 1996-20008 7738788 5935438 13674218 *Note: Aggregate volumes for live year period Source: Dakota County Planning and Program Management March 1987 SW-Tab4 WASTE COLLECTION There is only one municipality in Dakota County controlling the waste stream within its boundary - the City of Farmington. Collection in the City is a public service and is performed by City employees. Collection in the rest of the County is by the private sector and licensing varies with the municipality. There is no organized colTection system except at Farmington. Cities licensing haulers in their jurisdiction are the Cities of Apple Valley, Coates, Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Lakeville, Lilydale, Rosemount, South St. Paul, West St. Paul and Hastings. -Cities that do not license haulers operating in their jurisdict.ions include the Cities of Burnsville, Sunfish Lake, Hampton, Mendota Heights, Mendota, Miesville, New Trier, and Randolph. No township licenses haulers. In addition to licensing of haulers, several municipalities have enacted solid waste ordinances regulating the manner of storage, placement for collection, time of collection, definition of acceptable materials, and method of payment for services. Municipalities with such ordinances include the Cities of Inver Grove Heights, Coates, Lakeville, West St. Paul, Apple Valley, Eagan and Hastings. There is no designation of disposal sites and there is no organized voluntary or mandatory separation of recyclables in Dakota County. The City of Burnsville has an ordinance regulating the disposal of "Garbage and Refuse" specifying the terms of acceptable disposal and the conditions owners must meet before a license to operate is issued. It also has a "Health Nuisances" ordinance which sites solid waste and its containment as a potential nuisance if hauled improperly. CURRENT DISPOSAL METHODS Today's waste streams can be characterized by the type of land disposal site which accepts it, ie., special, demolition or sanitary landfills. The one kind of waste which doesn't fall into this method of characterization is hazardous waste. Currently, there are no sites in Dakota County which accept hazardous waste from reported generators. At the present time, disposal of this material is the responsibility of the generator. A contract may be arranged with a full service contractor for pick-up, transportation, and disposal, but the generator remains liable for the hazardous waste generated and must retain all records to prove the waste has been managed in accordance with County, State and Federal rules. A special waste facility is one which accepts solid wastes defined in Dakota County Ordinance Number 110 as follows: "Special Waste." Is a non -hazardous, solid waste that is not mixed municipal solid waste and requires management other than that normally required for mixed municipal solid waste. �I 7 F r L. Examples of Special Waste are auto hulks, white goods, street sweepings, demolition debris, mining waste, ash, foundry sands and slags, furnace dust, r shredded car interiors, sludges, waste trees, yard wastes, and waste tires. Dakota County currently has five licensed special waste facilities; four accept ash and one accepts concrete. The five sites are shown in Figure 2. w A demolition landfill accepts only demolition or construction debris. As defined by Dakota County Ordinance No. 110, demolition waste includes, and is limited to "concrete, blacktop, brick, stone facing, concrete block, stucco, a glass, structural metal and wood from demolished structures and other inert .t waste materials as may be approved by the (Human Services) Department". There are nine licensed demolition landfills in Dakota County; the sites are shown r in Figure 3. The sanitary landfill accepts mixed municipal waste for disposal in accordance with a plan of operation. The intent of the sanitary landfill is to confine dumped waste "to the smallest practical- area, to reduce it to the smallest volume, and to cover it with an adequate layer of earth at the conclusion of each days operation...". Generators are from all sectors of society including residential, commercial, industrial and community generators. Waste disposed at sanitary landfills is called mixed municipal waste, and is defined by Dakota County Ordinance Number 110 as garbage, refuse and other solid waste from residential commercial, industrial, and community activities which is generated and collected in aggregate. Hazardous wastes, liquids, 4� sludges, raw sewage, some special wastes, and industrial wastes that have not f been tested and specifically approved for disposal by the MPCA and the County til are prohibited from disposal in sanitary landfills. One part of the waste stream going to the sanitary landfill which is identifiable and is causing concern is Household Hazardous Waste. This waste type consists of household quantities of toxic materials including solvents, paints, pesticides, fertilizers, acids and flammable liquids. These substances are now exempt from regulation because of the small quantities generated by a single generator, ie., a household. However, in aggregate, they do present a formidable problem. L: Mixed municipal waste constitutes the largest percentage of the total waste stream. It is estimated that approximately 215, tons of mixed municipal waste are generated annually in Dakota County. This is 589 tons per day. The four licensed sanitary landfills are shown in Figure #4. STATUS OF LANDFILLS IN DAKOTA COUNTY Y In Dakota County there are currently four licensed sanitary landfills. These y landfills receive approximately 50% of all waste disposed in the Metropolitan Region. They serve all of the counties in the Metropolitan Region, and parts of St. Croix and Pierce Counties in Wisconsin. Following is a description of the four sanitary landfills in Dakota County. Please note that the annual receiving rate and the remaining site life are inconsistent. As a landfill nears capacity, the volume of waste received is typically reduced. This ;. results in a longer site life than a comparison of receiving rates with remaining capacities would indicate. KEY 1. NSP RAIL UTILIZATION ASH SI 2. NSP BLACKDOG ASH STORAGE YARD 0 I ILLS FARM1NyTON 9.1AVIKL �1VERMILLION MAASMAN �VtZiNw �_ I � � HAMPTON � I ❑ NEWT1l1i,R; MUR,bvIILL I 4JJ11+ � 1 EUREIU► Lr -kms RACK I HAM?TON I DOUGLAS —J I I RANDMPN 1 I � � I GRLi1JVALt — �� �WICTiltFa0.o SC.10TI. SPECIAL WASTE DISPOSAL SITES I Figure 2 Dakota 21 County _ I- l! c 0 � I N KEY I. 2. MWCC S.ST. PAUL WASTE WATE' 4. TREATMENT PLANT #1 -*4 jVetuuwow � ❑ I I I ILLS FARM1w4TON LMPIAE-1— YEAMILLIOt�I (MA0.SIiAM — — — — II I HAMPTON , aMEW TI11QA' I I 49 I I I 1 1 -- !RAVWNA _J � EUILTtK1+ LGAf.TLs ROCK � NAM4TOIV DO-UriLA1 __-.2_ I I � RA>VDOLPII � � I I � RAaooLpN G0.LL1dYALL -iwK RFOI10 I SGtOTA DEMOLITION WASTE DISPOSAL SITES Figure 3 Dakota .county 10 KEY 1. BURNSVILLE 2. FREEWAY 3. PINE BEND r f I v!MLuoM I I I %LLE F!►RM1NyZON EM41RE _ 1YERM1LL10N FM0.S�+Atr RAV W NA I j Hl►MPTot� � '� CCC I I NEW T0.1LRI MUE.SVIIII Euo&*J, Lu RACK I MA-mvTom _ DOU4LAs � � ( I R►�coLvK I Gnxwvsk%z—lt=!eRD I SC10TA s Dakota County LICENSED SANITARY LANDFILL SITES Figure 4 11 Freeway Landfill Freeway Landfill is located in Burnsville. The owners of the landfill have been requested to update their engineering plans and submit a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, as it is currently on the State of Minnesota Superfund list. The landfill currently receives 146,601 cubic yards per year of waste. Remaining capacity is approximately 500.,000 cubic yards, leaving a remaining. [ life of about 2-3 years. Rates and charges, effective December 31, 1986, for waste at Freeway Landfill are as follows: Commercial - compacted $ 7.00/c. yard, $75.00 minimum Commercial - loose $ 7.00/c. yard, $75.00 minimum Pick-ups/trailers $15.00 minimum, $7.00/c. yard Cars $ 8.00 minimum, $7.00/c. yard Burnsville Landfill Burnsville Landfill is also located in Burnsville, west of Freeway Landfill. This landfill was placed on the Superfund list in 1986, and has also been requested to submit its Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. Previous testing between the Landfill and the well field for the City of Burnsville established that leachate was not flowing toward the well field at the depths tested. The landfill currentlyreceives about 740,000 cubic yards of waste per year. The remaining capacitis abut 3,000,000 cubic yards, for a remaininlife of ten years. Ea Rates and charges, effective December 31, 1986, for waste at Burnsville Landfill are as follows: Refuse $23.00 - $25.00/ton Demolition $40.00 load plus $3 tax; single axle $50.00 tandem axle x� $70.00 truck/tractor Cars/Pick-Ups/Trailers $10.00 - $25.00/vehicle Pine Bend Landfill Pine Bend Landfill is located in Inver Grove _» Heights. It is on the National Priority List, as well as the State Superfund List. It has been directed to complete its Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, and to prepare a Response Action Design and commence appropriate z response actions. This landfill currently receives 1,048,459 cubic yards of waste per year and is the biggest landfill in the State. It has a remaining volume of about i 8,000,000 cubic yards, with a projected closure date of about fifteen years into the future. 12 Rates and charges, effective March 26, 1987, for delivery of waste to Pine Bend Landfill are as follows: Refuse Car Tires Appliances Tree Stumps Bed Springs/Mattresses Tree Co-Disposal/Aspestos $ 21.50/ton $ 18.00/minimum or $ 3.00/car $ 6.00/truck $ 9.00 $115.00/ton $ 9.00 $ 75.00/minimum $ 52.00 $4.50/c. yard Dakhue Landfill Dakhue Landfill is located in Hampton Township, in southern Dakota County. It was placed on the State Superfund List in 1985, with instructions to improve the monitoring well system and prepare a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. The landfill currently receives almost 169,673 cubic yards of waste per year. Remaining capacity is about 201,666 cubic yards. It is estimated that Dakhue landfill will continue to receive refuse until approximately the summer of 1988, at which time it will reach its final permitted capacity. Closure work on various portions of the facility will commence well in advance of the receipt of the final load of garbage. Dakhue Sanitary Landfill has reduced its current receiving rate thereby extending the life of the landfill and allowing time to prepare required Superfund documents and receive approval of their Closure/Post-Closure Plan. Presently, low areas on previously completed phases and the final fill phase are receiving refuse. In order that these areas will be brought up to final grade, a final cover test plot comprised .of water treatment lime sludge has been placed on a completed area of the site to determine the suitability of this material for eventual final cover usage. Dakota County Public Health staff have received a draft closure/post closure plan from Dakhue Landfill, Inc., and have reviewed the plan for completeness. The plan was determined to be incomplete and Dakhue Landfill, Inc., has been so notified. The consulting engineers for Dakhue will be revising the plan with a finalized plan required on or before April 30, 1987. All closure/post-closure plan requirements must be in accord with any MPCA Superfund activities and the plan must be approved by MPCA before the County will approve it. Rates and charges, effective December 31, 1986, for waste at Dakhue Landfill are as follows: Commercial - compacted Pick-ups/Vans/Station Wagons Cars Appliances Bed Springs/Mattresses Brush Concrete $5.25/cubic yard $6.50 - $8.50 plus $2.50 tax $4.00 $4.00 $2.00 $5.00/cubic yard plus $2.50 tax $6.00/cubic yard plus $2.50 tax a(q 13 f r F, e E V1 r r Q rJf bi ��7 LANDFILL CLOSURE/POST-CLOSURE The Dakota County Public Health Department currently has guidelines applying to all licensed and unlicensed disposal sites in the County. This includes all open and abandoned disposal sites for municipal solid waste, demolition waste, and industrial waste. The guidelines established procedures for filing the plan(s) and defines plan.content. Plans may differ in content from site to site; a small demolition disposal site, accepting material from a known source, will not require the amount of information or level of detail required for a large sanitary landfill. The preparer of the plan(s) must evaluate the need for each requirement and submit their evaluation to the Public Health Department. Public Health staff must approve the closure/post-closure plan in writing before any requirement of the guidelines is determined not to be applicable to the site under evaluation. Unlicensed sites are investigated by Department staff. The owner or operator must immediately cease and desist from accepting waste and must close the facility if the County Public Health Department notifies the owner or operator in writing that the facility is not able to be licensed and that the facility is in violation of County Solid Waste Ordinance No. 110. It is possible that an unlicensed site will be required to be licensed providing the owner/operator applies for a license. There are areas of the County in which no disposal site will be licensed such as areas of Karst topography and wetlands. The guidelines describe these areas by characteristics. If the owner or operator of a currently unlicensed site applies for a license, all provisions for proposed disposal sites apply. If the owner or operator of a currently unlicensed site chooses not to apply for a license, closure/post-closure plans must be filed within ninety days of the written notice from the County Public Health Department. Currently licensed landfills must file their closure/post-closure plans at lease two years before the projected closure date. Proposed disposal sites must file preliminary closure/post-closure plans, including closure/post-closure cost estimates at the time of application for licensure. Final plans must be filed at least two years before the projected closure date. When preparing closure/post-closure plans, the preparer must: a. project and fully describe the final design and end use of the site b. evaluate the potential for leachate and gas production and their migration C. provide plans for surface and subsurface d. provide plans for gas monitoring e. determine costs of closure f. post a bond (or bonds) which cover the estimate ground water monitoring closure/post-closure cost g. submit an operational and financial insurance plan 14 All facilities on the State's Superfund Site List must have their plans approved by the Minnesota Pollution- Control Agency before the County will approve their plans. COMMUNITY REDUCTION/SOURCE SEPARATION PROGRAMS Dakota County has established a grant-in-aid program for municipalities that wish to implement abatement programs in their communities. Funding for the programs is provided through the landfill surcharge funds generated from the ;.25 County share of the $.90 surcharge rate charged to haulers. Each municipality is eligible for $1.00 per household, which can be used for abatement related planning and start-up costs. In 1985, there were six requests by eleven municipalities for funding under the County Program: 1. Cities of Apple Valley, Lakeville, Rosemount - an attended recycling City of center and compost site for yard waste 2. City of Burnsville - an attended recycling center 3. City of Eagan - a compost program for yard waste 4. City of Farmington - planning activity for a co -compost facility 5. City of Hastings - expansion of its yard waste compost program 6. Cities of Inver Grove Heights, Mendota Heights, West St. Paul and South St. Paul - a compost program for yard waste Of the six programs, progress was made on five of them, as per the grant request in 1985. 1. The cities of Apple Valley, Lakeville and Rosemount will open their recycling center in May, 1986 and their yard compost facility in the fall of 1986. Goodwill Industries has been contracted with to manage the recycling center collecting and processing recyclables in addition to materials collected previously. 2. The City of Burnsville has scheduled the opening of its recycling center for May, 1986. It has also contracted with Goodwill Industries to manage its recycling center. 3. The City of Farmington is actively pursuing its co -compost program. 4. The City of Hastings has expanded its yard waste composting program and has made improvements to the compost site. 5. The City of Eagan continued its program of composting yard wastes and scheduled two special "Clean Up and Recycling Days" in April and May for purposes of collecting recyclables. 15 In addition to the municipal programs, a number of recycling firms and organizations operate within Dakota County. These are listed in Appendix 1. Dakota County is also conducting a twelve month pilot project of office paper recycling in its offices and some municipal offices. In the first six months f, of the project, approximately 2 tons of office paper were recycled. rCURRENT SOLID WASTE PLANNING STATUS Planning activity is taking place in every facet of solid waste management in Zvi Dakota County; this includes, waste to energy resource recovery, waste reduction, source separation of recyclables and yard waste, compost of yard• waste, co -compost of mixed municipal waste -and resource recovery .process rejects, and land disposal. A key component to the entire system is a waste to energy facility. Dakota County has previously conducted negotiations on two agreements for ROF facilities; one with NSP and Westinghouse and Ramsey Counties in which Dakota County would have transferred its MSW to a facility located in the City of Newport; the second with PLM Sellbergs/Westinghouse in which a RDF -/co- generation facility would have been built in Dakota County. Final agreement was not reached on either project. A request for proposal will be advertised by the County in May, 1981 requesting proposals on either mass burn or RDF incineration facilities. Waste reduction and source separation programs will be integral parts of the overall management system. Both rely very heavily upon education programs for a their success. An Education Subcommittee of the Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee has been formed with the charge of developing a well rounded educational program addressing reduction and source separation. A second part of the source separation segment will be the collection and marketing of recyclables. The economic feasibility of constructing an Intermediate Processing Facility for recyclables is being explored. Two compost projects are currently in the planning stages. Dakota County has advertised a Request for Qualifications/Request for Proposal for a facility to be co -located with a resource recovery facility. In addition to the County 1_3 facility, the City of Farmington has conducted a feasibility study for a City - owned co -compost facility; work is progressing on obtaining financing and the logistics connected with siting the facility. :.5 LANDFILL SURCHARGE ACCOUNT All sanitary landfills in Dakota County are required to pay a total of $.90 per cubic yard; $.15 to the municipality in which the landfill is located, $.25 to Dakota County and $.50 to the State. The revenues received by Dakota County are divided between the counties contributing to the waste stream going into landfills of Dakota County, according to a formula developed jointly by the Metropolitan Counties. These revenues are administered by the Public Health Department. The revenues are intended to be used for purposes of F,f landfill abatement and to offset the effects of landfills located in the County. L_7� -7-7-2- 16 zz16 Surcharge revenues retained by Dakota County have been used as follows: 0 To fund a Community Landfill Abatement Project Grant Program which makes $1.00 per household available to municipalities for eligible landfill abatement projects. 0 To fund the salaries of County solid waste management staff. 0 To finance the retention of a consultant to perform. the Solid Waste Quantity Study. 0 To finance the retention of consultants required for the planning of Dakota County's solid waste management system. SW-Chap2 17 i 3 y . �. . � .. . S ♦ 1 aT y. f r ~ .F t T ! r` ,. � ... .t .? • •il � � ,�R .. i'p` ist .. a Y+ay• +^ { ;:.. •f 7 nA iiry � (( CHAPTER 3 ' PROGRAM GOALS.,- OBJECTIVES AND POLICC.E :e ' .aa • x r 1 -{+. ,,• z�� z, •+�' fs > � •':1 •r��'"_. .'�'r� �5'��` l�1 r � w A �.�=t �a ���'� •'.n; 5 . f > e -t s f �l' J t h L ',tirY, y. L�3�`•7a;•4a ����. _ a iy' , i ti � ¢: � xx -h ; 3f l.r, }rkt>� xr-��{. T� <�+ R"i.>�''�>�Sf��'`-•� • .� ' Y .c r -S. x, f �'' a ,5 al'n, pix � e r iz p %. •• r pa,r •++.. .e+ � z 7 �a E � w ,S � � z .: $� %'£ � {E(- L t a •!. 1 t .! V •! fj Yn/ 1 i4 r Ay .>.. `✓ J'!+. e " '• 1 t or. J ,`-'�i r t- � f f i y.. C dy �.• if VL PROGRAM GOAL, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES Dakota County has been actively moving toward a municipal solid waste management system since 1983 when it developed its first Solid Waste Master Plan. Since that time, consideration of systems has progressed from consideration of incineration only, to a system that includes waste rlreduction, source separation of yard waste and- recyclables, composting/co- composting of separated yard waste and mixed municipal solid waste, marketing of recovered material and energy, and disposal of residue. The breadth of 1 solid waste management has increased considerably in the minds of decision makers and staff; this is reflected in the policy statements adopted as part of this plan. f PROGRAM GOAL: A comprehensive solid waste management system which protects public health and safety, preserves and protects the environment and natural resources, and provides cost- effective alternatives to land disposal of mixed municipal solid waste. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES: Maximize landfill abatement in Dakota County through the use of sound management methods, including waste reduction, source separation, municipal composting of yard waste, municipal and other local recycling programs, regional processing of recyclables and central processing for material and energy recovery according to the following schedule: Table 5 DAKOTA COUNTY LANDFILL ABATEMENT SCHEDULE Year ACTIVITY 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1995* 2000* _ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Waste Reduction % of waste stream) 1 2 2 2 4 5 5 5 (Projected tons) 2085 4198 4300 4414 9056 11589 61831 68371 Source Separation % of waste stream) 2 4 6 9 11 15 15 15 (Projected tons) 4168 8400 12900 19861 24904 34770 185554 205113 f Central Processing (% of waste stream) 0 0 0 1.6 1.6 80 80 80 (Projected tons) 3531 3622 185436 989618 1093936 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Countj Totals % of waste stream 3 6 8 12.6 16.6 100 100 100 Projected tons 6253 12598 17200 27806 37582 231795 1227023 1367420 *Note: Aggregate volumes for five year period 18 The percentages of waste diverted from the waste stream through waste reduction and source separation are consistent with the Metropolitan Council's Waste Reduction/Resource Recovery Development Schedule. The percentages of waste processed by central processing differ from those established by the Metropolitan Council for the years 1985 - 1989 for the following reasons: 0 The percent of the total waste stream processed by central facilities for the years 1985 through 1987 assumed a pilot project for co - composting would develop. It did not, therefore, no waste was processed by central processing facilities in those years. 0 In the years 1988 and 1989, waste will be centrally processed by the City of Farmington, Co -compost facility. The percentages shown reflect processing residential waste only,' and the volume projected to be processed by this facility. PROGRAM POLICIES 0 The Solid Waste Master Plan will serve as a guide for management of all the municipal solid waste generated within Dakota County. 0 The Dakota County Solid Waste Management Program will emphasize a balanced system, to include all waste reduction, source separation, central processing, disposal and planning programs and activities. 0 Dakota County shall develop a Designation Plan and adopt a Designation Ordinance to assure volumes of material to facilities requiring waste assurance. 0 The County shall perform a County -wide commercial /industrial solid waste survey by�",la_nuary 1, 1988 ---to ,determine existing generation, reduction and source separatio crates; and the potential reduction and source separation volumes. 0 Dakota County shall establish a Solid Waste Enterprise Fund by July y988'_1� through which all costs of solid waste management wi1-1--be untied. All solid waste related costs and revenues shall be accounted for in this fund. Dakota County costs and revenues shall include, but not be limited to: COSTS * Costs incurred for the vendor search, vendor negotiations, project financing, project design and construction, and acceptance testing of waste management facilities. Costs incurred during the preparation of reports and documents required to obtain all permits. * Costs incurred during administration of present and future solid waste planning and regulatory programs. 19 ;.2 * Costs incurred in establishing baseline solid waste data and continuing monitoring and reporting activities. * Costs incurred for the operation, maintenance and replacement of system facilities. REVENUES ! * Revenues generated from tipping fees. * Revenues generated from the sale of assets, and materials or energy generated by the system. Revenues from the solid waste surcharge tax to landfills. E" * Revenues generated as interest from profits generated by the system. j0 Dakota County shall incorporate, as parts of its program activities: technical assistance to communities as they work towards meeting the community schedules and implement their local programs, continued administration of the Community Landfill Abatement Project Grant Program, market development for resources recovered, and monitoring and reporting on the program to the Metropolitan Council. L0 Dakota County urges each city and township in the County to form a solid waste management committee or commission for the purpose of ,.� assessing waste management in the jurisdiction, recommending waste management practices to the governing body, and to work with Count 9 P 9 9 Y� Y solid waste management staff as the community initiates and continues to operate community programs. The membership of the committee or commission shall be determined by the community. Examples of persons to serve are: elected officials, residents, business persons who are residents, persons who are not residents but do represent businesses in a community, haulers or other solid waste industry representatives, persons representing community programs, representatives of schools etc. 0 As communities develop their local programs for reduction and source separation, they shall co-sponsor programs with existing organizations, if possible, and build upon their experience and public support. 0 Dakota County shall add appropriate staff resources, as required to implement the various programs outlined in this Master Plan. Funding [4_4 for existing and additional solid waste management staff shall be through the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund. 9 r SW-Chap3 zz 7 20 M W r —N r 0 co r r- 00 (M Z CW C �W V LO Q Z �. cQc G U. W N � r O c!) Z>- 1- 0 (r. W Q Q U w n�U Z o (raLU ¢ z z� Y a awp>. O r"0 �- p z w t '- Z¢¢ Q ¢ ¢ Z H �~ OJ Q wOwz D CJ W Z ow Z_- aZ ncn¢wF- G Y w g �a¢J¢ O P J¢ U.wc a5: W U ¢ w O Orw a Z ¢pZ> o ¢ 0zo>. w Jaz° ¢Orn z wz— ¢ f- z m U ¢ (� � W z Z ¢ ti F- a0t-J z (L aLL, W Z a ¢-'zw—a.u3 Z�nUazMC7 O W�z�Z U O >- z � rg-1ai-jUz C? ¢oaZ¢NZ ¢ zaOtr--¢ ¢ Z o0z O LL. wmu>XW vii OO-�WzCi ¢ wwf-z0 t- O Uzi f- z�¢¢UwwaY vi t-zJ¢¢0w H >Z=F= t- ph -0 2 ¢¢¢V o"-0 ¢ w U¢¢Z¢Uf- �I-pz U U Wcn0 ¢ Jc7WOCL CrF--0o8H¢ U w0�p�,,w m ¢FaOOm wj W W WW W �zECLaaO�mo-i a cn¢2wZ�z ¢ OZOJ¢ U¢ Z=m ¢ ��Z w �F-WF-z�¢MZ J OWOnfF-a g w¢� ¢ O0 W co f- U 2z0z¢zacc0 < oZ¢} -mJW W J�>�Z ZO �pF- H ZpZ ¢ �¢u.�C7w0wC7 F- zC7>U¢UU p� -¢wap¢UO00CLw�wW�¢i W<O woo ¢ U0O00WZZx w3a.�0 � ••••• Fa ••• 3 s • U • ••■• • U •••••• ' �+�� All m � \Y ° f`, : - • E' c, Y ',cyr s> : i s r: "• �.k. >, •^''' sj! lt;�i s`'- .. r .. . iii :�i '~ • 'IU'- st.2� z - �'t�.{ .. .�):oi r>.'. .+.•, x? '�..3 ^ f � a !y `S``.q -K .•2 F_ S Y,a S $' M' -' x �.•: r i s'�' � ''• , '� ti i .. �gjnd sof .i�:� r'�,���.t Y CHAPTER 5 r SOURCE SEP ARATION s .`i f i •.i - I 7 4t _ ' '.'a .1- l bF e- J }. ..a r't.•. Il i. ,. .v•J{ 4 7 i .. .. � •. ' ., f r � ,,, ` f +r r �r l � ,t \ s"' Y e•>;� f4 � � - f' • 7 f \ t n 3 r i •a i 3� I-} t t. 1�. tq r ✓/,!f 3 �' - i �s� a., ✓..' Gf �[l i�f M.~��lfr .4 f �,. '^;`y i3fL �.3 j •}I ZZ V�l • . .: : i .. to - - -.� i 'r `• 3 sem- •sts tC • .. - ..... .. _. .. - '. ,� t ._. �.. ., _ ..�-. r -._. ... ..s a .. f��... L • awn �• h.: SOURCE SEPARATION Source Separation implies the separation of materials, by the generator, from the municipal solid waste stream prior to the collection of the remaining mixed Emunicipal solid waste. The materials subject to "source separation" are yard waste and recyclable glass, tin aluminum, ferrous metals, paper, corregated cardboard, and some plastics. Also implied are systems of collection, processing, and marketing of separated materials. Source separation is one method of meeting legislative requirements for "materials recovery". F6 i` e Eil The effort expended by the generator consists of separating the materials from the waste stream collected as trash and making them available for either pick- up or taking them to a drop-off site. This may currently be considered by some as an inconvenience, but as the cost of disposing or processing solid waste increases and .as the public. becomes more aware of solid waste management, source separation becomes more attractive. Depending on how the program is designed, recyclable materials may be mixed together or may have to be separated by type. Yard waste typically is bagged if it is collected via routed pick-up or it can be loose if it is delivered to a drop-off site. Collection consists of routed pick-up either separately or in conjunction with the pick-up of trash, or delivery of materials to a drop-off site by the generator. Routed pick-up is appropriate to areas that have a fairly dense population, such as the larger cities of Dakota County. Drop-off sites are more appropriate to smaller cities and townships. Drop-off sites can be as simple as an attended site with containers for disposal or they can be redemption centers at which materials can be redeemed for cash. Processing of separated material will be different for compostable material (yard waste) and recyclable material. The degree to which recyclables are processed also depends on the market to which they will be sent. Yard waste is commonly processed through composting. Currently there are community composting programs for the cities of Eagan, Burnsville, Hastings, and a joint program for the cities of Apple Valley, Lakeville and Rosemount. Regional composting of yard waste is also planned in conjunction with the co composting programs of Dakota County and the,City of Farmington. _«•• >_- Recyclables are processed to respond to market and transportation requirements. A small program which has minimal exposure to regional or premium markets will likely limit its processing to sorting the material by type (aluminum, clear glass, green glass, and amber glass), crushing cans and breaking bottles. Transportation is usually in barrels on small trucks, or loose in semi -trailers if paper is being transported. The opposite end of the processing spectrum involves an Intermediate Processing Facility which will accept 50 - 100 tons of material per day, processing it for regional and premium markets, and transporting it via semi -trailer or railroad. The Intermediate Processing Facility will process and package the material to maximize the amount of material which can -be handled by a single vehicle because of transportation cost. This means crushing and baling cans, baling paper, and cardboard, chipping plastics, and pulverizing glass. Z,Sa 30 r SOURCE SEPARATION GOAL: Separation of Municipal Solid Waste into fractions which can be collected as recyclables and yard waste, process recyclables for use in r manufacturing new products, and process yard waste as compost for use as a soil amendment. SOURCE SEPARATION OBJECTIVES: Reduce the amount of waste disposed of in Dakota County through source separation alternatives in the following amounts: Table #8 SOURCE SEPARATION SCHEDULE --PERCENT WASTE ABATEMENT COUNTY WIDE *Note: Aggregate volumes for five year period SOURCE SEPARATION POLICIES: 0 Through the County Solid Waste Management Committee, the Planning and Program Management Department and the University of Minnesota Extension Services, Dakota County, the County shall develop a "source' separation education and information package;' parts of which will! .inform ..._.local _..:: officials, 'chambers -of -commerce and = 'other business/industry '.,organizations,'''"civic and service 'jagency-type' organizations, 'and the residents of Dakota County of the benefits .of source separation. 0 Dakota County shall continue to support and encourage the initiation and expansion of community source separation programs through its grant program by funding communities at the rate of $1.00 per house- hold for approved, community sponsored programs. 0 Dakota County shall encourage communities to co-sponsor existing source separation programs, through the use of contracts, making local programs eligible for the $1.00 per household Community Landfill Abatement Funding Assistance Program, the $0.50 per household Metropolitan Council grant program, the $4.00 per ton payment under the Metropolitan Abatement Cost Recovery Program, and other sources likely to develop as a result of legislative and program changes._ Percent Projected Tons Source Without Source Separation Projected Tons ' Year Separation Residential Comm'l/Ind'l Source Separation 4168 1985 2 1959 2209 1896 4 3996 4400 8400 1987 6 6108 6793 12900 1988 9 9332 10529 19861 1989 11 11615 13289 24904 1990 15 16124 18646 34770 1991-1995 15 83772* 101782* 185554* 1996-2000 15 89031* 116082* 205113* *Note: Aggregate volumes for five year period SOURCE SEPARATION POLICIES: 0 Through the County Solid Waste Management Committee, the Planning and Program Management Department and the University of Minnesota Extension Services, Dakota County, the County shall develop a "source' separation education and information package;' parts of which will! .inform ..._.local _..:: officials, 'chambers -of -commerce and = 'other business/industry '.,organizations,'''"civic and service 'jagency-type' organizations, 'and the residents of Dakota County of the benefits .of source separation. 0 Dakota County shall continue to support and encourage the initiation and expansion of community source separation programs through its grant program by funding communities at the rate of $1.00 per house- hold for approved, community sponsored programs. 0 Dakota County shall encourage communities to co-sponsor existing source separation programs, through the use of contracts, making local programs eligible for the $1.00 per household Community Landfill Abatement Funding Assistance Program, the $0.50 per household Metropolitan Council grant program, the $4.00 per ton payment under the Metropolitan Abatement Cost Recovery Program, and other sources likely to develop as a result of legislative and program changes._ 4 0 Dakota County shall provide technical assistance and funding under the County's Community Landfill Abatement Funding Assistance Program to ; local communities wishing to implement a routed collection of recyclables and/or yard waste. 0 Dakota County shall continue to support eligible recycling and yard waste compost programs sponsored or co-sponsored by communities to the extent permitted in the Community Landfill Abatement Funding Assistance Program. By January 1, 1990 Dakota County shall reassess the provisions of the Program, adjusting it as needed to meet the requirements of community landfill abatement programs functioning within the emerging Dakota County Solid Waste Management Program. E 0 Dakota County shall make a yard waste compost facility available to community sponsored yard. waste collection programs. A site will be available April 1, 1988. Those communities that do not have community } yard waste compost programs, may direct collected yard waste or yard waste delivered by community residents to this facility. 0 In the event that the 1989 source separation objectives are not met, the County urges the communities to adopt ordinances eliminating the collection of yard wastes with mixed municipal solid waste, effective January 1, 1990. fey 0 In the event that the 1990 source separation objectives are not met, the County urges communities to reassess their source separation program for recyclables and to implement measures, effective by January , f 1, 1992, that will increase participation and the volume of source separated materials. 0 Dakota County will assess communities in assessing their progress in Imeeting the source separation objectives by making available to communities: -:L; r !; F bl 3L.-_ Irl Liz 1. per capita residential generation rates 2. results of the County -wide commercial/industrial waste survey 3. results of the annual, random sample solid waste survey, and 4. technical assistance, as requested by communities. 0 Dakota County shall make available the scales of the Intermediate Processing Facility to all recycling programs for purpose of weighing source separated materials in the interest of obtaining reliable weight data from area recyclers. 0 If a scale at an Intermediate Processing Facility is unavailable to programs for weighing source separated materials, other scales within the County system will be made available, and other methods of gathering volume information will be employed. Alternative methods are, but are not limited to: use of weight tickets from the sale of materials; estimating tonnages based upon "typical" loads; arranging with other private owners of scales, such as lumber yards, creameries, quarries, and feed stores, for the use of their scales; using funds from the Community Landfill Abatement Funding Assistance Program to purchase or rent portable scales; arranging with another county or state agency for the use of their scales, etc. Z3 z 32 0 Dakota County shall purchase processing equipment that is considered necessary but may possibly be under utilized when serving just one community, is beyond the ability of small community programs to purchase, and will be of benefit to several community programs. 0 Dakota County shall continue to expand its office paper recycling program through the purchase of fire retardant containers to use in County offices; encourage local governments, businesses and community facilities to initiate the program; and provide technical assistance to those who want to begin a program. 0 Dakota County shall support and participate in the efforts of Metropolitan Council and the State. to develop new and expanding markets and to stabilize existing markets for recyclables and compost. 0 Dakota County shall implement a policy of purchasing bond paper made from recycled fiber when it is economically advantageous to do so. 0 Dakota County shall determine the feasibility of developing an Intermediate Processing Facility for recyclables having the capacity to process large volumes (50 - 100 tons per day) and having the ability to utilize regional and premium markets.. 0 Dakota County, within its solid waste administration program, will include a monitoring program of source separation programs and reporting to Metropolitan Council through the County's annual solid waste report. The monitoring program will assess the impact of source separation activities and will include: * An inventory of all existing source separation programs by. January 1, 1988, including yard waste compost and recycling programs. * An inventory of commercial/industrial generators, by January 1, 1988, to determine potential source separation volumes from these generators. * In the years, 1988 and 1989, along with the communities, assess the actual rate of source separation with the proposed objectives, and develop strategies which will: 1) meet the next year's objectives, and 2) meet the objectives after 1990. The County will continue to support eligible, community sponsored programs and will make adjustments in the Community Landfill Abatement Funding Assistance Program necessary to make community sponsored or co-sponsored source separation programs an effective part of the emerging Dakota County Solid Waste Management System. * A standard reporting format collection and processing accounting of volumes separated X33 33 for all source separation facilities so an accurate can be maintained. * A reporting procedure, similar to that already in place for use in administering the County grant program, for all community sponsored or co=sponsored source separation programs. * Comparison of the percent and volume of materials actually source separated with the objectives stated in this chapter. 0 Financing the Source Separation Program shall be through budget categories in the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund, anticipated to be in place by July 1, 1988. Prior to the establishment of the Solid Waste €' Enterprise Fund, funding for source separation related activities shall be from the Solid Waste Surcharge Account. Funding shall be for, but not limited to the following: * Staff time and expenses related to source separation including, but not limited to, technical assistance, inventory of source separation programs, ongoing reporting, and market development. * The Community Landfill Abatement Grant Program. * Capital equipment owned by the County and used for community programs. t_r * Materials, equipment, and consultants required to develop the source separation part of the waste management education and information program. 4' * Consultants required to develop the source separation part of the solid waste monitoring/ administration program. * Feasibility analysis of an Intermediate Processing Facility for recyclables. ' 0 Dakota County will urge the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the State to revise the definition of "Recycling" to include materials recovered through the process of mechanical separation at central processing facilities as well as; ' materials recovered through source separation. f 0 The Cities of Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan, Hastings, Inver Grove Heights, Lakeville, Northfield, South St. Paul, West St. Paul, Farmington, Lilydale, Mendota, Mendota Heights, Rosemount, and Sunfish `7 Lake shall investigate and determine the feasibility of the following programs, techniques and actions, listed in order of most effective to least effective in meeting the source separation objectives, as the deliberate on how they will meet the community source separation E' schedule: * Establ-ish a community solid waste management committee/commission. 17 `. * Mandatory source separation ordinances combined . with an extensive educational program and organized, routed collection. 3� 34 * Mandatory source separation ordinances combined with routed collection. * Mandatory source separation with drop-off collection. * Voluntary source separation combined with an extensive educational program and organized, routed collection. * Voluntary source separation combined with an extensive education program and drop-off collection. * Voluntary source separation with routed collection. * Voluntary source separation combined with an extensive education program and drop-off collection. * Limiting the collection of material which is recyclable through organized collection or the placing of restrictions on the licenses of waste haulers which bans the collection of yard waste and recyclables together with the remaining mixed municipal solid waste stream. * Contracting with existing source separation programs allowing the programs to become the "official" recycling or yard waste compost programs of the city. 0 Dakota County communities shall undertake the following roles and responsibilities, listed in order of most effective to least effective in meeting the Source Separation Community Development Schedule: * Establish a community solid waste management committee/commission. * Establish a community source separation education program. * Implement a routed collection or a drop-off collection program. * Sponsor or co-sponsor source programs which process source separated materials. * Utilize the facilities of the Intermediate Processing Facility for recyclables and the County composting facility for yard waste. * Utilize the technical assistance on source separation which is offered to communities by the County. * Annually report activities and results of community source separation activities to the County using the reporting format developed by the County. * Meet the community residential waste reduction schedule (See Table 9). 35 •T COMMUNITY SOURCE SEPARATION SCHEDULE - Table #9 !:Y 1991- 1996 - Year 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1995, * 2000 }} Annual I'= % Reduction 2 4 6 9 11 15 15 15 COMMUNITY =------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Castle Rock T. 11 23 34 51 62 84 431 446 Douglas T. 5 10 15 22 27 37 188 196 Empire T. 10 21 32 49 61 84 440 470 Eureka T. 11 22 35 54 68 96 500 525 Greenvale T. 5 11 16 25 31 42 219 230 Hampton T. 7 15 24 37 47 66 340 355 Marshan T. 14 29 44 67 83 114 581 596 Nininger T. 7 13 20 30 37 51 260 266 Randolph T. 3 7 11 16 21 29 150 159 Ravenna T. 14 -29 44 67 83 114 570 570 Sciota T. 2 4 7 10 12 17 85 90 Vermillion T. Waterford T. 9 4 19 8 28 12 43 17 53 21 72 28 370 147 385 153 r ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Twp. Subtotal 102 211 322 488 605 834 4281 4441 Farmington 43 87 133 202 252 349 1805 1905 Hampton 3 5 8 12 15 20 105 105 LA Lilydale 4 8 12 18 23 32 161 168 Mendota 2 4 6 10 12 17 83 80 i.�. Mendota Hts. 72 148 226 347 433 604 3140 3340 Miesville 1 3 4 7 8 11 55 50 New Trier 1 2 3 5 7 10 .50 50 Randolph 3 6 9 13 16 22 110 110 Rosemount 57 117 179 274 342 476 2482 2649 Sunfish Lake 3 6 9 14 18 24 125 133 Vermillion 4 9 13 20 24 34 174 183 ----------------------------------------- 4th Class ---- -- ------- ------------ --- --------- City Subtotal 195 398 607 930 1160 1613 8363 8855 Apple Valley 241 493 755 1158 1445 2012 10664 11670 Burnsville 361 731 1111 1688 2089 2884 15023 16029 Eagan 269 574 914 1450 1870 2683 14420 16095 Hastings 120 241 362 544 667 912 4602 4668 Inver Gr. Hts. 169 343 520 788 973 1341 6908 7244 Lakeville 154 319 493 761 957 1341 7009 7511 Northfield 0 0 1 1 1 1 5 5 So. St. Paul 185 367 547 815 990 1341 6705 6705 West St. Paul 163 322 478 710 860 1160 5800 5800 - r ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 & 3 Class City Subtotal 1662 3390 5181 7915 9852 13675 71136 75727 TOTALS 1959 3999 6110 9333 11616 16122 83780 89023 *Note: Aggregate volumes for five year period. •T ANTICIPATED SOURCE SEPARATION PROGRAM COSTS ITEM 1. 75% of one staff position ($21,000 in 1987 dollars including fringe benefits) COSTS Consulting/Capital Annual 2. Source separation part of the solid waste management education and information program: consultant $ 10,000 3. Source separation part of solid waste management monitoring/administrative program: Consultant - $ 5,000 4. Continued support of the County Community Landfill Abatement Grant Program ($76,000 in 1985 - $102,000 in 2000) 5. Capital equipment $ 50,000 6. Intermediate Processing Facility for $750,000 Recyclables SW-Chap5 37 $21,000 $10,000 $ 2,000 $76,000-$102,00 a - z � G e LU Q 0 � -i a � 2 - 2 a LU ■ � � co 2 @ 0 . m� we Q � n } u 0 m Q 0 � � z w CL C) �K a. 0 o 2co co �& m� m o ƒ � c o k jE 0 0 <m LL a 0 LL w a. � - � �_2 co C) CD- � co .. � © Go © , � § M � © © � ■_ n � � . � � 2 2 0 w a = P -i /CL ui } w >co 2� u Q o 2 2 > «2 2 c < �J � I o 0 < w 0 ze � 2 % = e 2 LU z 0 0 k 9 -j n 0 0 Q a 0 CL < $ w >- Ez S2 0 0 20 22 k/ < 0 k< U� zv \ / U\ E LU E R< 2 § 7 _ Q W ¥ w a - 0 w ui> � e 2 LU 2 w Q = 0 w� � QQ a \/ _ z o§ 0 m2 u2 0 =< §/ /3 km \/ C; W J ca Q � W r Z Q I r, CL W Cl) z G e LU Q 0 w -i a 2 CL 2 a LU 0 co 2 < 0 a m� we Q w 2� u 0 m Q 0 � � z w CL C) �K a. 0 o 2co co �& m� m o ƒ /� c <§ k jE 0 0 <m LL a 0 LL w a. 2 0 w ui> � e 2 LU 2 w Q = 0 w� � QQ a \/ _ z o§ 0 m2 u2 0 =< §/ /3 km \/ C; W J ca Q � W r Z Q I r, CL W Cl) -z . .. .. U '. ::.. . 5 f lam! . .. .. .f� •. CHAPTER 6 _1 y , CENTRALIZED PROCESSING Jf 1 F _ .v Vi +j1r- ls • -.- - - .. »nom. .. itf� • ' F•� s CENTRAL PROCESSING Central processing is defined as " collected from within a designated a • processing facilities have the capacit the purposes of volume reduction and accomplish both. They are the most management system, but have the • percentage of volume reduction and as will be capable of energy recovery and The processing of mixed rea at a single facil y to process large volum /or resource recovery; s capital intensive parts potential of achieving currently envisioned in /or material recovery. municipal waste ity". Central es of waste for ome facilities of a waste 'the greatest Dakota County, Types of facilities which can serve as central processing facilities are composting/co-composting; mass burn waste incineration; refuse derived fuel (RDF) production including RDF fluff, densified RDF, and dehydrated densified RDF; and incineration of refuse derived fuel.. The incineration processes are able to produce steam for use as heat and through co -generation, production of electricity. Composting produces heat, composted humus, and anearobic composting produces methane gas which can be captured. t Since central processing will have more impact upon the waste management system than the other parts of the system, it is very important to have a strategic framework within which central processing can be designed. Dakota County has taken the position that a diverse central processing system is preferable to ev single purpose systems for the following reasons: 0 A•diverse system, with two or more compatible central processing facility types, will be flexible and will be able to respond to changes �. in market demand, waste composition, waste volume, and environmental �i criteria. D A larger percentage of landfill abatement can result because of the diversity of materials processed. 0 The value of energy and material recovery will be greater because it will be possible to maximize recovery from more than one type of facility. 0 A diverse system should be more environmentally sound than a single purpose system because it processes waste in a variety of ways and can process a wide range of waste types. B Regardless of the central processing system used, there will be process residues that require disposal. It is Dakota County's goal to limit the landfilling of process residues to a minimum. Mass burn incineration generates ash and material which will not burn, refuse derived fuel production generates process rejects and its incineration also generates ash, and composting of solid waste results in residue which will not compost. Mass Burn: A mass burn system inc condition it is delivered to the waste is usually mixed by front end 1 material is removed. Some facilities recyclables before the remaining technologies have a primary chamber inerates waste in virtually the same facility. Prior to incineration oaders or grapple cranes and undesirable also mechanically or hand -separate waste is incinerated. Most mass burn which incinerates the waste and moves 2�0 Ko r the burning waste horizontally from the point of charging to the point of discharge. Heated air, unburned gases and particulates driven from the burning waste move into a second chamber where the gases and most particulates are burned. It is the secondary chamber which reaches the highest temperatures due to heat generated in the primary chamber plus additional heat derived from the burning gas. It is possible to capture most of the energy contained in the heated air by passing it through a boiler to produce steam. Steam then has value as a heat ' source and a source of electrical generation. Refuse Derived Fuel: The production of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) significantly alters the condition of solid waste before it is burned. As with mass burn, many OF facilities mechanically or hand -separate recyclables before the remaining waste is processed. When waste is processed for refuse - derived fuel the goals are to: 1).size reduce the waste to give better, more consistent burning characteristics, and 2) classify the material received to increase the heat value. A series of shredders, hammer mills and air knives classify the waste to produce a product that is lightweight, uniform in size (usually four inches or less) and has a greater energy value per unit than a comparable unit of unprocessed solid waste. Following production the refuse - derived fuel can be used in its original form (fluff), it can be densified to enhance its handling characteristics, or it can be dehydrated and densified to yield a product which can be stored. Incineration of refuse derived fuel differs from mass burn incineration in the type of incinerator used. Mass burn incinerators use mechanical devices to move the charged and burning material from the front of the burning chamber to its rear. Incinerators used for refuse derived fuel are typically fluidized bed incinerators which use air forced into the burning chamber to keep particles suspended. This allows for a more complete burn than occurs when small particles are charged and are allowed to pack in a pile. Composting/Co-Composting: A biological process which occurs naturally, composting can yield both energy and material which can be utilized. There are two different processes that can be employed; aerobic and anaerobic. Aerobic composting takes place in the presence of sufficient or excess oxygen; the microbes active in aerobic composting produce heat but do not produce methane gas. Anaerobic composting takes place in conditions which are oxygen starved; microbe active in anaerobic composting produce both heat and methane gas. When left alone, a decomposing pile of organic material will naturally go from an aerobic state to an anaerobic state. When processing municipal solid waste, most vendors utilize the aerobic E process. Until recently, it has been a faster process than anaerobic composting, or it has been less capital intensive when comparing similar technologies. Recently, Belgian technology has developed an invessel system which speeds up the anaerobic process, making it comparable to invessel, aerobic processes. f Vendors of compost systems use static piles which are turned infrequently; windrows which facilitate frequent turning; and invessel systems which mix the composting material, usually aerate.it, and screen it at the point of discharge. All composting material will. go through an active composting stage when high temperatures are produced, and a curing stage during which lower temperatures are produced and the compost becomes stable. 40 Both aerobic and anaerobic composting produce humus and heat. Heat is generated during the processes due to activity by microbes. This heat can be utilized for such purposes as to heat buildings and preheat water. When the temperature begins to drop, the compost is entering its curing phase and is �a beginning to stabilize as humus. It is also possible to capture methane gas generated through the anaerobic process, either from old, time consuming processes or the newer Belgian process. The value of this gas must be compared with the capital costs for its capture and the payback period. Past efforts of Dakota County to implement a central processing system included entering into negotiations with two vendors of facilities to be owned and �.A operated by the private sector. In both instances, negotiations were terminated before agreements were signed. Currently, legal, financial and engineering consultants have been retained to assist county staff in all activities related to implementing a central processing system. IF - CENTRAL PROCESSING GOAL: A central processing system, capable of eliminating the landfilling of all non -source separated municipal solid waste in Dakota County from which energy or materials can be recovered. _ CENTRAL PROCESSING OBJECTIVES: Process the following amounts of the Municipal Solid Waste Stream in central processing facilities: Table #10 CENTRAL PROCESSING SCHEDULE - PERCENT WASTE STREAM PROCESSED COUNTY WIDE 41 Percent of Projected Tons Total waste Processed by Projected Stream Processed Central Processing Total Volume Res. Comm'l/Ind. Residential Comm'l/Ind. Processed 1985 (1) 0 0 0 1986 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 T 1987 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 ' 1988 (2) 3.5 0 3,629 0 3,629 1989 (2) 3.5 0 3,684 0 3,684 1990 (3) 80 80 85,847 99,443 185,290 1991-1995 80 80 433,026* 542,863* 975,889* 1996-2000 80 80 460,740* 619,105* 1,079,895* Notes: Aggregate volumes for five year period (1) Percent of waste stream processed differs from the Metropolitan Council Waste Abatement Development Schedule because anticipated pilot project did not develop. (2) Percent of waste stream processed based upon capacity of proposed City of Farmington Co -Compost Project >> (3) Dakota County central processing facilities proposed to be operational percent of waste stream processed assumes capacities able to process all of Dakota County waste. Z �4Z 41 CENTRAL PROCESSING POLICIES: 0 Dakota County_ shall pursue the construction of central processing facilities to serve the County and, if feasible, other metropolitan counties. The facilities shall be capable of processing all non -source separated municipal solid waste including burnable, high moisture organic and recyclable wastes. 0 Dakota County shall issue, as appropriate, Requests For Proposals for a central processing system ,to include mass burn, refuse derived fuel, and compost/co-compost. 0 Dakota County shall include, as a part of the Request For Proposal, the requirement that vendors consider mechanical separation of aluminum, ferrous, and glass as a part of their response. 0 Dakota County shall seek firms which are financially responsible, and offer proven technologies and equipment, thereby reducing public risk and obl igation. 0 Dakota County, in cooperation with the chosen vendors and other participating counties shall establish markets for all recovered materials and energy generated by'the central processing facilities. 0 Dakota County shall enhance the feasibility of financing central processing facilities by assuring a steady supply of municipal solid waste through contracts with refuse haulers and municipalities, development of a waste designation. plan, and adoption of a waste designation ordinance designating all non-exampt and non -excluded mixed municipal solid waste to a resource recovery facility. 0 Dakota County, within its solid waste administration program, will provide a monitoring program of central processing, and will report to the Metropolitan Council the effectiveness of the central processing system. The monitoring program used to assess the impact of central processing system will quantify: * The volume, by weight, of municipal solid waste delivered to the central processing facilities. * The respective volumes processed by County sponsored central processing facilities and other specified facilities. * The volumes processed, broken down by origin. * Revenues generated materials and energy, and financing costs. through tipping fees and the sale of the costs of operation and maintenance, * Relative compliance with the Residential Community Source Separation Schedule to be determined through the use of an annual solid waste survey. 14� 42 r L Vl� Ua A L-1-1 ems:+ U-1 Dakota County shall continue to pursue the feasibility of utilizing ash from the incineration of municipal solid waste. as. an admixture with compost, and other potential technologies that may develop. 0 Dakota County shall develop an education and information program on the role of central processing within the waste management system, the role of designation of waste to specified processing facilities, the receptive roles of citizens, haulers, municipalities and county; costs and benefits of central processing; and cost of waste disposal related to the homeowner and businesses in the County. The program will be developed by the Dakota County Planning and Program Management Department, and the University of Minnesota Extension Service, Dakota County. 0 Dakota County shall conduct a series of presentations on its waste management program throughout the County. The presentations will include a segment on central processing. 0 Technical assistance in the form of staff time, examples of documents, and other material needed to implement the central processing system at the local level, and presentations on the waste management system will be made available to local governments, citizens groups, haulers, and other special interest groups in Dakota County. 0 Dakota County shall contribute information to all residents and businesses in the County, in cooperation with local communities, through such means as community newsletters, utility billings, or tax statements. 0 Dakota County shall finance all activities related to central processing through a Solid Waste Enterprise Fund anticipated to be in place by July 1, 1988. Prior to the establishment of the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund, all central processing related activities will be funded through the Solid Waste Surcharge Account. It shall also be the policy of the County, as it funds related activities from the Solid Waste Surcharge Account, that costs of activities will be capitalized when possible, and that revenues will be returned to the Solid Waste Surcharge Account or Solid Waste Enterprise Fund, whichever is in effect at that time. Funding shall be for, but not limited to the following: * County staff time and expenses, allotted to central processing activities. * Materials and services needed to develop an educational and information program related to central processing. Services and equipment required to develop an administration/ monitoring program for central processing. * Services required for the securing of central processing vendors, for execution of -agreements, and subsequent central processing activities,. 2Z/# 43 I * All costs incurred by the County in securing financing of central processing facilities. . I 0 In the event that a resource recovery facility cannot be constructed to meet the County's Resource Recovery Development Schedule, the County shall develop a strategy to process the municipal solid waste generated within the County on an interim basis until a resource recovery facility can be brought on-line or the mixed municipal solid waste r generated in the County can permanently be designated to another {l facility. A strategy will be articulated by July 1, 1989. * Petition the Metropolitan Council and the State for authorization to landfill mixed municipal solid waste in area landfills. * Contract with resource recovery facilities in the metropolitan region to process municipal solid waste generated in the County. * Contract with resource recovery facilities outside the Metropolitan Region to process municipal solid waste generated in the County. * Contract with landfills outside the Metropolitan Region to accept municipal solid waste generated in Dakota County. 0 In the event the central processing facility becomes temporarily inoperational, the following strategies, listed in order of preference, are considered reasonable alternatives: * Contract with resource recovery facilities in the Metropolitan Region to temporarily process the bypass, * Contract with resource recovery facilities within a reasonable transfer distance, but outside the Metropolitan Region to temporarily process the bypass, and * Landfill the bypass in a sanitary landfill. 0 Dakota County cities and townships shall undertake the following roles and responsibilities: Participate in local meetings at which the solid waste management system, specifically the central processing system will be presented. * Participate with the County in distributing information on the central processing system. * Participate with the County in designating all municipal solid waste which is not exempt or excluded to specified central processing facilities. X45 SW-Chap6 * Through the use of Joint -Powers -Agreements and contracts with_ haulers, secure waste for specified central processing' facilities. * Utilize the technical assistance offered to communities by the County. Assist the County in_ meeting the Community Central Processing Schedule. 29 A COMMUNITY CENTRAL PROCESSING DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Table #11 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1991- 1996 - Year 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1995 * 2000 Annual z Central Proc. 0 0 0 3.5 3.5' 80 80. 80 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMUNITY PROJECTED CENTRAL PROCESSING TONS ------------------ Castle Rock T. 0 -------------------------------------------------- 0 0 450 450 450 2297 2377 Douglas T. 0 0 0 0 0 196 1004 1044 Empire T. 0 0 0 437 443 450 2344 2505 Eureka T 0 0 0 481 497 514 2644 2826 Greenvale T. 0 0 0 221 223 225 1163 1227 Hampton T. 0 0 0 0 0 344 1771 1849 Marshan T. 0 0 0 0 0 610 3099 3180 Nininger T. 0 0 0 0 0 273 1389 1420 Randolph T. 0 0 0 0 0 153 800 849 Ravenna T. 0 0 0 0 0 610 3050 3050 Sciota T. 0 0 0 87 89 90 460 475 }F Vermillion T. 0 0 0 0 0 385 1975 2056 Waterford T. 0 0 0 154 152 151 778 819 --------------------------------------- Twp. Subtotal 0 0 --- ----------- 0 1830 1854 -------------------- 4451 22796 ---- 23677 Coates 0 0 0 0 0 74 393 434 Farmington 0 0 0 1800 1830 1860 9622 10159 Hampton 0 0 0 0 0 109 551 558 Lilydale 0 0 0 0 0 168 855 894 Mendota 0 0 0 0 0 89 442 433 _ Mendota Hts. 0 0 0 0 0 3219 16740 17815 Miesville 0 0 0 0 0 58 283 277 New Trier 0 0 0 0 0 55 275 275 Randolph 0 0 0 0 0 116 580 580 Rosemount 0 0 0 0 0 2540 13235 14129 Sunfish Lake 0 0 0 0 0 129 671 716 Vermillion 0 0 0 0 0 180 930 975 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4th Class •t City Subtotal 0 0 0 1800 1830 8597 44577 47245 Apple Valley 0 0 0 0 0 10731 56874 62240 Burnsville 0 .0 0 0 0 15381 80125 85490 Eagan 0 0 0 0 0 14308 76906 85484 Hastings 0 0 0 0 0 4865 24537 24896 Inver Gr. Hts. 0 0 0 0 0 7154 36844 38630 Lakeville 0 0 0 0 0 7154 37380 40062 Northfield 0 0 0 0 0 7 35 35 So. St. Paul 0 0 0 0 0 7154 35620 35770 West St. Paul 0 0 0 0 0 6188 30940 30940 =: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2nd & 3rd Class 72942 379261 403911 City Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 -------------- TOTAL - 0 - 0 0 3629 3684 85990 446634 474833 *Note: Aggregate volumes for five year period 46 ANTICIPATED CENTRAL PROCESSING PROGRAM COSTS: ITEM COST Consulting/Capital Annual 1. Solid Waste and Energy Program Manager ($55,000.00 in 1987 dollars including fringe benefits 2. Consultants needed for vendor selection, $830,000.00 negotiation of service, and design and construction agreements, project financing, and execution of contracts. 3. Consultants needed to design and develop $ 25,000.00 the central processing monitoring/ administration program. 4. Processing equipment upon which the $ 10,000.00 central processing monitoring/adminisration program will be loaded. 5. County personnel time and expense, related $ 50,000.00 to vendor selection, negotiation service, and design and construction agreements, project financing and execution of contracts. 6. Costs related to the development and implementation of the central processing education and information program: Consultant $ 30,000.00 7. County staff time and expense, related to ongoing central processing activities not included in No. 3, above ($35,000.00 in 1987 dollars) 8. Private sector costs for permits, design, unknown construction, and acceptance testing of the central processing site and facilities. (Estimates have ranged from $50,000,000.00 to $125,000,000.00 in 1987 dollars) ;7d 47 $55,000 �PA ..41 CA CTt A W N -+ O cD CD V O CT A W N � D M:5 -0: N a:E a O T p T M T Q < N n— n ma =a Cn za a O O z z m z m in m mm <cn m co -0-1 C QCn '� CA n m z a a a m r a a z v r Z m -1 m a m m v mO -I m M-4 cA r T r r T O� m n --I m = C D M '0o a C ' ma m z m -i r*�m m-4 M O C- m 00 o n n a � z z m <pa m >> z> M < m M O z �C m r> a m z a m Z O 0-4 m �I -i w j - I CA z 0 m � a � 00 O O z O p -+ v z m D mO <z >O z m z M z z o m z z r, a o N p z70 O� m O r V r O a z r m T� v o z z z m v M M z ao n > > m m 2 z O O O O r-Cn z z < m z o -4 --1 O a m m > O m -ii -Ni a m C/) a a -+ o O O m m m z p{ z m 7_ CD 1 = ■ w ■ rn N� Wca co N W CA 'o co O Ow M * A reporting procedure, similar to that already in place for use in administering the County grant program, for all community sponsored or co-sponsored source separation programs. * Comparison of the percent and volume of materials actually source separated with the objectives stated in this chapter. 0 Financing the Source Separation Program shall be through budget categories in the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund, anticipated to be in place by July 1, 1988. Prior to the establishment of the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund, funding for source separation related activities shall be from the Solid Waste Surcharge Account. Funding shall be for, but not limited to the following: * Staff time and expenses related to source separation including, but not limited to, technical assistance, inventory of source separation programs, ongoing reporting, and market development. * The Community Landfill Abatement Grant Program. Capital equipment owned by the County and used for community programs. * Materials, equipment, and consultants required to develop the source separation part of the waste management education and information program. * Consultants required to develop the source separation part of the solid waste monitoring/ administration program. * Feasibility analysis of an Intermediate Processing Facility for recyclables. 0 Dakota County will urge the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the State to revise the definition of "Recycling" to include materials recovered through the process of mechanical separation at central processing facilities as well as materials recovered through source separation. 0 The Cities of Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan, Hastings, Inver Grove Heights, Lakeville, Northfield, South St. Paul, West St. Paul, Farmington, Lilydale, Mendota, Mendota Heights, Rosemount, and Sunfish Lake shall investigate and determine the feasibility of the following programs, techniques and actions, listed in order of most effective to least effective in meeting the source separation objectives, as the deliberate on how they will meet the community source separation schedule: . * Establish a community solid waste management committee/commission. Mandatory source separation ordinances combined with an extensive educational program and organized, routed collection. z3� 34 Establish a community source separation education program. * Implement a routed collection or a drop-off collection program. * Sponsor or co-sponsor source programs which process source separated materials. * Utilize the facilities of the Intermediate Processing Facility for recyclables and the County composting facility for yard waste. r * Utilize the technical assistance on source separation which is offered to communities by the County. * Annually report activities and results of community source separation activities to the County using the reporting format developed by the County. * Meet the community residential waste reduction schedule (See Table 9). a• 35 * Mandatory source separation ordinances combined with routed collection. Mandatory source separation with drop-off collection. * Voluntary source separation combined with an extensive educational program and organized, routed collection. * Voluntary source separation combined with an extensive education program and drop-off collection. * Voluntary source separation with routed collection. * Voluntary source separation combined with an extensive education program and drop-off collection. * Limiting the collection of material which is recyclable through organized collection or the placing of restrictions on the: licenses of waste haulers which bans the collection of yard waste and recyclables together with the remaining mixed municipal solid waste stream. * Contracting with existing source separation programs allowing the programs to become the "official" recycling or yard waste compost programs of the city. 0 Dakota County communities shall undertake the following roles and responsibilities, listed in order of most effective to least effective in meeting the Source Separation Community Development Schedule: * Establish a community solid waste management committee/commission. Establish a community source separation education program. * Implement a routed collection or a drop-off collection program. * Sponsor or co-sponsor source programs which process source separated materials. * Utilize the facilities of the Intermediate Processing Facility for recyclables and the County composting facility for yard waste. r * Utilize the technical assistance on source separation which is offered to communities by the County. * Annually report activities and results of community source separation activities to the County using the reporting format developed by the County. * Meet the community residential waste reduction schedule (See Table 9). a• 35 COMMUNITY SOURCE SEPARATION SCHEDULE i Table #9 1991- 1996 - Year 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1995 * 2000 Annual =` % Reduction 2 4 6 9 11 15 15 15 COMMUNITY Castle Rock T. 11 -------------------------------------------------------- 23 34 51 62 84 431 446 Douglas T. 5 10 15 22 27 37 188 196 Empire T. 10 21 32 49 61 84 440 470 Eureka T. 11 22 35 54 68 96 500 525 Greenvale T. 5 11 16 25 31 42 219 230 f Hampton T. 7 15 24 37 47 66 340 355 Marshan T. 14 29 44 67 83 114 581 596 Nininger T. 7 13 20 30 37 51 260 266 Randolph T. 3 7 11 16 21 29 150 159 Ravenna T. 14 29 44 67 83 114 570 570 Sciota T. 2 4 7 10 12 17 85 90 Vermillion T. 9 19 28 43 53 72 370 385 Waterford T. 4 8 12 17 21 28 147 153 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Twp. Subtotal 102 211 322 488 605 834 4281 4441 _____________________________ Coates 2 3 5 8 10 14 73 82 Farmington 43 87 133 202 252 349 1805 1905 Hampton 3 5 8- 12 15 20 105 105 Lilydale 4 8 12 18 23 32 161 168 Mendota 2 4 6 10 12 17 83 80 Mendota Hts. 72 148 226 347 433 604 3140 3340 I: Miesville 1 3 4 7 8 11 55 50 New Trier 1 2 3 5 7 10 ,50 50 Randolph 3 6 9 13 16 22 110 110 Rosemount 57 117 179 274 342 476 2482 2649 Sunfish Lake 3 6 9 14 18 24 125 133 Vermillion 4 9 13 20 24 34 174 183 =i ----------------------------------------- 4th Class ----- -- ------- ------------ --- -------- City Subtotal 195 398 607 930 1160 1613 8363 8855 -, ------------------------------=-=------===------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Apple Valley 241. 493 755 1158 1445 2012 10664 11670 Burnsville 361 731 1111 1688 2089 2884 15023 16029 Eagan 269 574 914 1450 1870 2683 14420 16095 _ Hastings 120 241 362 544 667 912 4602 4668 Inver Gr. Hts. 169 343 520 788 973 1341 6908 7244 Lakeville 154 319 493 761 957 1341 7009 7511 Northfield 0 0 1 1 1 1 5 5 So. St. Paul 185 367 547 815 990 1341 6705 6705 West St. Paul 163 322 478 710 860 1160 5800 5800 -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 & 3 Class City Subtotal 1662 3390 5181 7915 9852 13675 71136 75727 3999 6110 9333 11616 16122 83780 89023 TOTALS 1959 _ 1![`[ *Note: Aggregate volumes for five year period. z3� ANTICIPATED SOURCE SEPARATION PROGRAM COSTS ITEM 1. 75% of one staff position ($21,000 in 1987 dollars including fringe benefits) 2. Source separation part of the solid waste management education and information program: consultant 3. Source separation part of solid waste management monitoring/administrative program: Consultant 4. Continued support of the County Community Landfill Abatement Grant Program ($76,000 in 1985 - $102,000 in 2000) 5. Capital equipment 6. Intermediate Processing Facility for Recyclables SW-Chap5 ,-Z� 37 COSTS Consulting/Capital Annual $21,000 $ 10,000 $ 5,000 $ 50,000 $750,000 $10,000 $ 2,000 $76',000-$102,00 0 LL, LU � e z 2 LU Q = Q m0 CL e 0 \ �c 0 Q � \ w� eo kcc \CL W -j m Q � W 2 i . �ffil W U � � O CO �Oml � O �■ � Q LL. � 2 LU I -- 0 LU Q -j E � � w / - w LU E 2� 0 J � & U 0 U� w z w CL c � 2 q 0 z 0 §w CO Q _2 < w cc 0< 2 0 QLL � (D @ � o � � n � 2 q n � \ � @ W a . n. ■ a � � 0 ■_ © rill @ } 0 ■ z \ « w @ S E a U j S §0 < U. a. a w e 6J 2R w w CO) c «< § Q 7 z < LL 2 0 02 Ll 0 2 < C-1 I e i § 0 >- < 0/ 0 m E E § Q= Q a 2 w } LU LLIz S2 0 0 (DQ _� e 0 �z 2� zQ �< < � e Lu z/ q - z/ z/ § LLJ S U R7 0< 0 LL, LU � e z 2 LU Q = Q m0 CL e 0 \ �c 0 Q � \ w� eo kcc \CL W -j m Q � W 2 i . �ffil W U � � O CO �Oml � O �■ � Q LL. � 2 LU I -- 0 LU Q -j E a z 2 g w / w LU E 2� 0 J & U 0 U� w z w CL c � 2 q 0 z 0 §w CO Q zLU < - E < w cc 0< 2 0 QLL a I (D .n 0 LL, LU � e z 2 LU Q = Q m0 CL e 0 \ �c 0 Q � \ w� eo kcc \CL W -j m Q � W 2 i . �ffil W U � � O CO �Oml � O �■ � Q LL. CHAPTER 6 - t r CENTRALIZED PROCESSING :r f i t i f , •� re F s'r� i w _�. .t ± Kr = .. ' -;• . 1. � i�;. H' �S-•��-.K rt 1�Y• -` ,'': •` rs f.,s �• •-k}Y.?�`',:% !�. .�,y T' ,s.' yr \. :ti•: ,�• t s' J•;;z.. '� �.r"�v•' `3 , • • t.- .t • 1, •�. T' r1 � f( �`T� a a , `• • • • • .T • ,i! •,� � •.tip i - -. � r, 0 L' V., Ili CENTRAL PROCESSING Central processing is defined as "The processing of mixed municipal waste collected from within a designated area at a single facility". Central processing facilities have the capacity to process large volumes of waste for the purposes of volume reduction and/or resource recovery; some facilities accomplish both. They are the most capital intensive parts of a waste management system, but have the potential of achieving 'the greatest percentage of volume reduction and as currently envisioned in Dakota County, will be capable of energy recovery and/or material recovery. Types of facilities which can serve as central processing facilities are composting/co-composting; mass burn waste incineration; refuse derived fuel (RDF) production including RDF fluff, densified RDF, and dehydrated densified RDF; and incineration of refuse derived fuel.. The incineration processes are able to produce steam for use as heat and through co -generation, production of electricity. Composting produces heat, composted humus, and anearobic composting produces methane gas which can be captured. Since central processing will have more impact upon the waste management system than the other parts of the system, it is very important to have a strategic framework within which central processing can be designed. Dakota County has taken the position that a diverse central processing system is preferable to single purpose systems for the following reasons: 0 A -diverse system, with two or more compatible central processing facility types, will be flexible and will be able to respond to changes in market demand, waste composition, waste volume, and environmental criteria. 0 A larger percentage of landfill abatement can result because of the diversity of materials processed. 0 The value of energy and material recovery will be greater because it will be possible to maximize recovery from more than one type of facility. 0 A diverse system should be more environmentally sound than a single purpose system because it processes waste in a variety of ways and can process a wide range of waste types. Regardless of the central processing system used, there will be process residues that require disposal. It is Dakota County's goal to limit the landfilling of process residues to a minimum. Mass burn incineration generates ash and material which will not burn, refuse derived fuel production generates process rejects and its incineration also generates ash, and composting of solid waste results in residue which will not compost. Mass Burn: A mass burn system incinerates waste in virtually the same condition it is delivered to the facility. Prior to incineration waste is usually mixed by front end loaders or grapple cranes and undesirable material is removed. Some facilities also mechanically or hand -separate recyclables before the remaining waste is incinerated. Most mass burn technologies have a primary chamber which incinerates the waste and moves Z410 39 r the burning waste horizontally from the point of charging to the point of discharge. Heated air, unburned gases and particulates driven from the burning waste move into a second chamber where the gases and most particulates are burned. It is the secondary chamber which reaches the highest temperatures due to heat generated in the primary chamber plus additional heat derived from the burning gas. It is possible to capture most of the energy contained in the heated air by passing it through a boiler to produce steam. Steam then has value as a heat ' source and a source of electrical generation. Refuse Derived Fuel: The production of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) significantly alters the condition of solid waste before it is burned. As with mass burn, many OF facilities mechanically or hand -separate recyclables before the remaining waste is processed. When waste is processed for refuse - derived fuel the goals are to: 1).size reduce the waste to give better, more consistent burning characteristics, and 2) classify the material received to: increase the heat value. A series of shredders, hammer mills and air knives classify the waste to produce a product that is lightweight, uniform in size r (usually four inches or less) and has a greater energy value per unit than a [E comparable unit of unprocessed solid waste. Following production the refuse derived fuel can be used in its original form (fluff), it can be densified to enhance its handling characteristics, or it can be dehydrated and densified to yield a product which can be stored. Incineration of refuse derived fuel differs from mass burn incineration in the type of incinerator used. Mass burn incinerators use mechanical devices to move the charged and burning material from the front of the burning chamber to its rear. Incinerators used for refuse derived fuel are typically fluidized bed incinerators which use air forced into the burning chamber to keep particles suspended. This allows for a more complete burn than occurs when small particles are charged and are allowed to pack in a pile. Composting/Co-Composting: A biological process which occurs naturally, composting can yield both energy and material which can be utilized. There are two different processes that can be employed; aerobic and anaerobic. Aerobic composting takes place in the presence of sufficient or excess oxygen; the microbes active in aerobic composting produce heat but do not produce methane gas. Anaerobic composting takes place in conditions which are oxygen starved; microbe active in anaerobic composting produce both heat and methane gas. When left alone, a decomposing pile of organic material will naturally go from an aerobic state to an anaerobic state. When processing municipal solid waste, most vendors utilize the aerobic !; process. Until recently, it has been a faster process than anaerobic composting, or it has been less capital intensive when comparing similar technologies. Recently, Belgian technology has developed an invessel system which speeds up the anaerobic process, making it comparable to invessel, aerobic processes. till Vendors of compost systems use static piles which are turned infrequently; windrows which facilitate frequent turning; and invessel systems which mix the composting material, usually aerate.it, and screen it at the point of discharge. All composting material will. go through an active composting stage when high temperatures are produced, and a curing stage during which lower temperatures are produced and the compost becomes stable. F 40 Both aerobic and anaerobic composting produce humus and heat. Heat is generated during the processes due to activity by microbes. This heat can be utilized for such purposes as to heat buildings and preheat water. When the temperature begins to drop, the compost is entering its curing phase and is beginning to stabilize as humus. It is also possible to capture methane gas generated through the anaerobic process, either from old, time consuming processes or the newer Belgian process. The value of this gas must be compared with the capital costs for its capture and the payback period. Past efforts of Dakota County to implement a central processing system included entering into negotiations with two vendors of facilities to be owned and t. operated by the private sector. In both instances, negotiations were terminated before agreements were signed. Currently, legal, financial and engineering consultants have been retained to assist county staff in all activities related to implementing a central processing system. CENTRAL PROCESSING GOAL: A central processing system, capable of eliminating the landfilling of all non -source separated municipal solid waste in Dakota County from which energy or materials can be recovered. 41 CENTRAL PROCESSING OBJECTIVES: Process the following amounts of the Municipal ` Solid Waste Stream in central processing facilities: Table #10 CENTRAL PROCESSING SCHEDULE - PERCENT WASTE STREAM PROCESSED COUNTY WIDE Percent of Projected Tons t Total waste Processed by Projected Stream Processed Central Processing Total Volume Res. Comm'l/Ind. Residential Comn'l/Ind. Processed 1985 ) 0 0 0 0 7- 1986 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 'R 1987 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 1988 (2) 3.5 0 3,629 0 3,629 1989 (2) 3.5 0 3,684 0 3,684 1990 (3) 80 80 85,847 99,443 185,290 1991-1995 80 80 433,026* 542,863* 975,889* 1996-2000 80 80 460,740* 619,105* 1,079,895* Notes: * Aggregate volumes for five year period (1) Percent of waste stream processed differs from the Metropolitan Council Waste Abatement Development Schedule because anticipated pilot project did not develop. (2) Percent of waste stream processed based upon capacity of proposed City of ,s Farmington Co -Compost Project r:== (3) Dakota County central processing facilities proposed to be operational percent of waste stream processed assumes capacities able to process all of Dakota County waste. �Z 41 r CENTRAL PROCESSING POLICIES: 0 Dakota County, shall pursue the construction of central processing facilities to serve the County and, if feasible, other metropolitan counties. The facilities shall be capable of processing all non -source separated municipal solid waste including burnable, high moisture organic and recyclable wastes. 0 Dakota County shall issue, as appropriate, Requests For Proposals for a central processing system ,to include mass burn, refuse derived fuel, and compost/co-compost. 0 Dakota County shall include, as a part of the Request For Proposal, the requirement that vendors consider mechanical separation of aluminum, ferrous, and glass as a part of their response. 0 Dakota Count shall seek firms which are financial) responsible, and County Y P offer proven technologies and equipment, thereby reducing public risk and obligation. 0 Dakota County, in cooperation with the chosen vendors and other participating counties shall establish markets for all recovered materials and energy generated by the central processing facilities. 0 Dakota County shall enhance the feasibility of financing central processing facilities by assuring a steady supply of municipal solid waste through contracts with refuse haulers and municipalities, development of a waste designation. plan, and adoption of a waste designation ordinance designating all non-exampt and non -excluded mixed municipal solid waste to a resource recovery facility. - 0 Dakota County, within its solid waste administration program, will provide a monitoring program of central processing, and will report to the Metropolitan Council the effectiveness of the central processing system. The monitoring program used -to assess the impact of central processing system will quantify: * The volume, by weight, of municipal solid waste delivered to the central processing facilities. * The respective volumes processed by County sponsored central processing facilities and other specified facilities. * The volumes processed, broken down by origin. * Revenues generated through tipping fees and the sale of materials and energy, the costs of operation and maintenance, and financing costs. * Relative compliance with the Residential Community Source Separation Schedule to be determined through the use of an annual solid waste survey. 114 42 rl R 0 Dakota County shall continue to pursue the feasibility of utilizing ash from the incineration of municipal solid waste. as- an admixture with compost, and other potential technologies that may develop. 0 Dakota County shall develop an education and information program on the role of central processing within the waste management system, the role of designation of waste to specified processing facilities, the receptive roles of citizens, haulers, municipalities and county; costs and benefits of central processing; and cost of waste disposal related to the homeowner and businesses in the County. The program will be developed by the Dakota County Planning and Program Management Department, and the University of Minnesota Extension Service, Dakota County. 0 Dakota County shall conduct a series of presentations on its waste management program throughout the County. The presentations will include a segment on central processing. 0 Technical assistance in the form of staff time, examples of documents, and other material needed to implement the central processing system at the local level, and presentations on the waste management system will be made available to local governments, citizens groups, haulers, and other special interest groups in Dakota County. 0 Dakota County shall contribute information to all residents and businesses in the County, in cooperation with local communities, through such means as community newsletters, utility billings, or tax statements. Dakota County shall finance all activities related to central processing through a Solid Waste Enterprise Fund anticipated to be in place by July 1, 1988. Prior to the establishment of the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund, all central processing related activities will be funded through the Solid Waste Surcharge Account. It shall also be the policy of the County, as it funds related activities from the Solid Waste Surcharge Account, that costs of activities will be capitalized when possible, and that revenues will be returned to the Solid Waste Surcharge Account or Solid Waste Enterprise Fund, whichever is in effect at that time. Funding shall be for, but not limited to the following: * County staff time and expenses, allotted to central processing activities. * Materials and services needed to develop an educational and information program related to central processing. * Services and equipment required to develop an administration/ monitoring program for central processing. * Services required for the securing of central processing vendors, for execution of -agreements, and subsequent central processing activities,. 2� 43 r * All costs incurred by the County in securing financing of central processing facilities. 0 In the event that a resource recovery facility cannot be constructed to meet the County's Resource Recovery Development Schedule, the County shall develop a strategy to process the municipal solid waste generated within the County on an interim basis until a resource recovery facility can be brought on-line or the mixed municipal solid waste r generated in the County can permanently be designated to another {t facility. A strategy will be articulated by July 1, 1989. * Petition the Metropolitan Council and the State for authorization to landfill mixed municipal solid waste in area landfills. * Contract with resource recovery facilities in the metropolitan region to process municipal solid waste generated in the County. * Contract with resource recovery facilities outside the Metropolitan Region to process municipal solid waste generated in the County. * Contract with landfills outside the Metropolitan Region to accept municipal solid waste generated in Dakota County. 0 In the event the central processing facility becomes temporarily inoperational, the following strategies, listed in order of preference, are considered reasonable alternatives: * Contract with resource recovery facilities in the Metropolitan Region to temporarily process the bypass, * Contract with resource recovery facilities within a reasonable transfer distance, but outside the Metropolitan Region to temporarily process the bypass, and * Landfill the bypass in a sanitary landfill. 0 Dakota County cities and townships shall undertake the following roles and responsibilities: * Participate in local meetings at which the solid waste management system, specifically the central processing system will be presented. * Participate with the County in distributing information on the central processing system. Participate with the County in designating all municipal solid waste which is not exempt or excluded to specified central processing facilities. E t. * Through the use of Joint -Powers -Agreements and contracts with- haulers, ithhaulers, secure waste for specified central processing' facilities. * Utilize the technical assistance offered to communities by the County. * Assist the County in. meeting the Community Central Processing Schedule. SW-Chap6 29 Ar, COMMUNITY CENTRAL PROCESSING DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Table #11 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1991- 1996- Year 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1995 * 2000 Annual % Central Proc. 0 0 0 3.5 3.5 80 80. 80 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMUNITY PROJECTED CENTRAL PROCESSING TONS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Castle Rock T. 0 0 0 450 450 450 2297 2377 Douglas T. 0 0 0 0 0 196 1004 1044 Empire T. 0 0 0 437 443 450 2344 2505 Eureka T 0 '0 0 481 497 514 2644 2826 Greenvale T. 0 0 0 221 223 225 1163 1227 Hampton T. 0 0 0 0 0 344 1771 1849 Marshan T. 0 0 0 0 0 610 3099 3180 Nininger. T. 0 0 0 0 0 273 1389 1420 Randolph T. 0 0 0 0 0 153 800 849 Ravenna T. 0 0 0 0 0 610 3050 3050 Sciota T. 0 0 0 87 89 90 460 475 Vermillion T. 0 0 0 0 0 385 1975 2056 Waterford T. 0 0 0 154 152 151 778 819 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Twp. Subtotal 0 0 0 1830 1854 4451 22796 23677 Coates 0 0 0 0 0 74 393 434 Farmington 0 0 0 1800 1830 1860 9622 10159 Hampton 0 0 0 0 0 109 551 558 Lilydale 0 0 0 0 0 168 855 894 Mendota 0 0 0 0 0 89 442 433 Mendota Hts. 0 0 0 0 0 3219 16740 17815 Miesville 0 0 0 0 0 58 283 277 New Trier 0 0 0 0 0 55 275 275 Randolph 0 0 0 0 0 116 580 580 Rosemount 0 0 0 0 0 2540 13235 14129 Sunfish Lake 0 0 0 0 0 129 671 716 Vermillion 0 0 0 0 0 180 930 975 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4th Class City Subtotal 0 0 0 1800 1830 8597 44577 47245 - Apple Valley 0 0 0 0 0 10731 56874 62240 Burnsville 0 .0 0 0 0 15381 80125 85490 Eagan 0 0 0 0 0 14308 76906 85484 Hastings 0 0 0 0 0 4865 24537 24896 Inver Gr. Hts. 0 0 0 0 0 7154 36844 38630 Lakeville 0 0 0 0 0 7154 37380 40062 Northfield 0 0 0 0 0 7 35 35 So. St. Paul West St. Paul 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7154 6188 35620 30940 35770 30940 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2nd & 3rd Class 72942 379261 403911 City Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 3629 3684 85990 446634 474833 i *Note: Aggregate volumes for five year period 46 ANTICIPATED CENTRAL PROCESSING PROGRAM COSTS: ITEM COST Consulting/Capital Annual �C tR•{� 47 $55,000 1. Solid Waste and Energy Program Manager ($55,000.00 in 1987 dollars including fringe benefits 2. Consultants needed for vendor selection, $830,000.00 negotiation of service, and design and construction agreements, project financing, [ and execution of contracts. ` 3. Consultants needed to design and develop $ 25,000.00 the central processing monitoring/ [ [ administration program. 4. Processing equipment upon which the $ 10,000.00 central processing monitoring/adminisration program will be loaded. 5. County personnel time and expense, related $ 50,000.00 i to vendor selection, negotiation service, and design and construction agreements, project financing and execution of l.= contracts. 6. Costs related to the development and implementation of the central processing education and information program: Consultant $ 30,000.00 :Y 7. County staff time and expense, related to ongoing central processing activities not included in No. 3, above ($35,000.00 in 1987 [ dollars) 8. Private sector costs for permits, design, unknown construction, and acceptance testing of the central processing site and facilities. (Estimates have ranged from $50,000,000.00 to $125,000,000.00 in 1987 dollars) �C tR•{� 47 $55,000 m n c CD z ■ �o n m z r c> co m N— 0! GT1 A fJ N i O fD OD V � � A W N r D ma < cn a m cn Cl) c za v cn a CO (7 A O za Z ]7 a z a m m z a m a m z m r m W Z c ...� m m a m m a m -a m m fn -i r '^ -+ r- r r m -+ v O m 0 -1 m m av av m mo v a z c -+ a T m z m r - m zm cn m Cn O r- Mm 0 m w Z n O a 0 a 2 a _< z < z m < m mO v- "0 O- za m< m 3 M � < 0 0 o Z Mc m > -a ra a .m z o a m 9 z 0 n -q 10> w j -t to z Cls m 9 > l c T 00 <z O O 0 O Z p z J z < v z a m O cn cn O -Z r0 z V M O m z z r -zi aco T O O� 37 O a a G1 z a z v r M m v v z z m D m a0 0 Z a z a m m m z A A O SCO z z < m z 0 0 �, a m m m > A -4i 4 a tiu' > 9i m m 0 O 7C O Q m m z CD O z z. z -t 2) z ■ �o n m z r c> co m N— MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: NOVEMBER 24, 1987 SUBJECT: INFORMATIVE HUD ACQUISITION/LEXINGTON AVENUE AND DIFFLEY ROAD Enclosed on pages through Z$7/ is a memo from the Director of Parks and Recreation entitled "Lexington Avenue/Diffley Road" that provides information and an update on the City's attempt to acquire the property. This acquisition is significant and the staff will keep the City Council informed of each transaction as we proceed through the acquisition attempt. FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMENDATION Enclosed on page Z-63 is a letter that was received from the City of Brooklyn Park, thanking the Fire Chief and Assistant Fire Chief for their presentation regarding the Woodridge fire. HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION Enclosed on page is a brief update on the November 6-7 household hazardous waste collection that was coordinated with Unisys and Dakota County. /s/ Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator Z1'a MEMO TO: THOMAS L. HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: KEN VRAA DATE: NOVEMBER 19, 1987 SUBJECT: LEXINGTON AVENUE/DIFFLEY ROAD - SOUTHWEST CORNER The purpose of this memo is to summarize information that was verbally presented to the City Council on November 17th concerning the parkland purchase. In October, the City Council authorized the Parks and Recreation Department to purchase approximately 30 to 35 acres of property at the intersection of Diffley Road and Lexington Avenue for a future community athletic facility. Mr. Dan Gustafson was to acquire the corner parcel(s) consisting of approximately 66 acres with the intent that he would be developing a mixture of single-family and multiple residential dwellings on the remaining property - after sale to the City of the athletic site. An offer was made through First Bank System of Minneapolis to HUD. The bank has been waiting for an assignment on the property from HUD which is expected to come at any time. HUD rejected the offer made by Mr. Gustafson apparently for reasons other than just price for the parcels. These reasons included the fact that a sale to Mr. Gustafson, a private developer, who would then turn around and sell a portion of the site to the City may reflect poorly upon HUD giving the appearance of a possible impropriety of profiteering by a private individual. Also, the terms provided that Mr. Gustafson would have 150 days to close the deal with two 30 -day extensions and a contingency that the plat would be approved by the City. It is felt that HUD may have objected to this condition because of the time extension requested in this purchase agreement. HUD has asked that if the parties are still interested that separate purchase agreements be submitted. The concerns of staff for this is the delay in submitting a joint purchase agreement; and the concept plan for the park was exactly that, a concept plan! A completed plan of the park property with final grades, etc., after the land was purchased does not provide for sufficient flexibility for design of the park. This loss of flexibility is seen as a serious detriment to simultaneous submissions of purchase agreements. Second, it is not likely that HUD would authorize a division of the property for a sale. Consequently, it may be that the City's offer could be held until such time as all the contingencies anticipated with the Gustafson offer were completed. Knowing that other developers are also interested in the parcel this may exclude the City from acquiring that which it feels is essential for the community athletic facilities. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The park parcel is offered at $18,000.00 an acre, the remaining property at lesser value as a result of having approximately 5.5 acres of unbuildable, steep slopes. 15'/ a . There is between $200,000.00 and $250,000.00 worth of assessments on all the property, the seller would be expected to pay these assessments. . First Bank expects to have HUD complete the processing of the assignment shortly. Once this is completed a new process begins for HUD which requires a new appraisal of the property and offering for sale. This process may take 9 months to a year if not longer. PROCESSING: Following Tuesday's City Council meeting staff met with Mr. Gustafson again to review the issue along with the Council action. He is still agreeable to purchasing a portion of the property and is understanding that the City is concerned about being "closed out" by other potential buyers. The City attorney, Paul Hauge, is reviewing the legality of selling property to Mr. Gustafson - or others - at this time. Staff is working towards a Friday submission (November 20th) of the purchase agreement. We are not unable to determine the legalities of entering into a simultaneous agreement with Mr. Gustafson and staff will proceed, as was authorized by the City Council, to purchase the entire parcel. PARCEL REMNANT: If the City is able to secure the property, department staff will develop a detailed and "final plan" for the park. The residual of the parcel can then be disposed of. It appears that the remnant parcel(s) could be disposed of in a number of ways: 1. The "bidding out" of the entire remnant parcel for development. Simply, the parcel would be sold to the highest bidder with an assumed zoning or density. 2. Market the property through a realtor; again with assumed zoning. 3. Subdivide the property and sell the remnants by parcel for development based on a proposed concept plan. 4. Receive "requests for proposals" for development of the property in which developers submit a price and preliminary concept plan/plat. The City could then choose the "best" proposal and price. This writer assumes that there are other alternatives that can and should be considered by the City Council. In any case, it is assumed that responsibility for disposal of the land once the parks plan has been detailed, will be left to other City staff; other than the Department of Parks and Recreation. Specifies of who, when and how can be detailed later on by Council action. I will be pleased to keep the Council and City staff advised as to the progress being made with this proposed purchase and any rapidly changing developments. Respectfully submitted, VC - en Vraa Director of Parks and Re eation CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK 5800 05th AVENUE NORTH / BROOKLYN PARI, MN. 55443 / G12-424-8000 Mr. Thomas Hedges City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Dear Mr. Hedges: November 16, 1987 Recently Fire Chief Ken Southorn and Assistant Chief Dick Schindeldecker conducted a training session on your apartment complex fire for the Brooklyn Park Fire Department. The class was held at our Fire Station # 2 on October 12, 1987. Your Chiefs were very professional in the manner in which they presented a variety of subjects and problems they encountered during that fire. While our cities are on the opposite ends of the metropolitan area, we have very similar cities and fire departments. It was very beneficial for our chiefs and firefighters to hear first-hand the tactics, logistical problems, different ideas, communication problems, equipment, and the times involved. I have heard a lot of good comments from the chiefs and firefighters on the presentation and information presented. On behalf of the Brooklyn Park Fire Department and myself, I would like to pass, along my thanks to your chiefs for the great job they did. hds HEDGES.TW Thank you, Timothy P. Wilmes Training Officer Brooklyn Park Fire Department Z,b-"3 rM MEMO TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES FROM: ADMINISTRATOR ASSISTANT HOHENSTEIN DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 1987 SUBJECT: NOVEMBER 6-7 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION This memo shall serve to inform you about the Household Hazardous Waste Collection on November 6th and 7th, 1987. The event was attended by roughly 325 individuals who disposed of a wide variety of materials including used motor oil, lead -acid batteries, paint, solvents, thinners, pesticides, cleaners and other wastes. Staff is currently waiting for a report from Dakota County on the actual volumes of each type of material collected and will forward such information to the Council at its earliest opportunity. By comparison however, this collection is on par with, if not, slightly above the response rate for other collections held in Dakota County. It is staff's opinion that the event was highly successful and that both Unisys and Dakota County ought to be commended for their work in this regard. To that end, staff has prepared the attached correspondence for consideration by the Council and, if appropriate, signature by the Mayor. If you have questions about the event, please let me know. As noted, final volumes and costs will be forthcoming from Dakota County. A inistrative Assistant Attachment JH/af z��