No preview available
 /
     
04/03/2018 - City Council Regular AGENDA EAGAN CITY COUNCIL EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER BUILDING APRIL 3, 2018 6:30 P.M. I. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ADOPT AGENDA III. RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS IV. CONSENT AGENDA (Consent items are acted on with one motion unless a request is made for an item to be pulled for discussion) A. APPROVE MINUTES B. PERSONNEL ITEMS C. APPROVE Check Registers D. APPROVE Contracts E. APPROVE Cost Share Agreement with Dakota County for the purchase and use of electronic poll books F. APPROVE Final Payment, Contract 17-11, 2017 Sewer CIPP Lining G. AWARD Contract 18-01, 2018 Citywide Street Improvements H. AWARD Contract 18-07, Fitz Lake Improvement Project I. AWARD Contract 18-08, Pond Improvement Projects J. AWARD Contract 18-09, Pond Improvement Projects K. AWARD Contract 18-11, 2018 Sewer CIPP Lining L. AWARD Contract 18-13, 2018 Municipal Well Rehabilitations M. APPROVE Resolution for Master Partnership Contract between MnDOT and the City of Eagan N. APPROVE Supplemental Consulting Services Agreement for Central Maintenance Facility – Phase II Improvements O. SET interest rate on special assessments levied in 2018 at 4.5% P. APPROVE public art bench projects for 2018 as recommended by the Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission Q. DECLARE miscellaneous City property as surplus R. APPROVE Resolution to accept a donation from the Eagan Hockey Association V. PUBLIC HEARINGS VI. OLD BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT and VARIANCE – Verizon Wireless - A Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a 119' monopole and A Variance of 135 ft. to the minimum 300 ft. setback from residential property for a monopole located at 4640 Pinetree Curve & Outlot B, Pinetree Pass 2nd Addition B. COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT- Yankee Doodle Property – Pulte Homes - A Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from BP, Business Park to MD, Medium Density located at SE 1/4 of Section 12, east of Dodd Road & north of Yankee Doodle Road C. COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT- Dodd Road Apartments/ Noah Bly, Integrated Development, LLC - A Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from RC- Retail Commercial to HD, High Density located at 3150, 3200, & 3240 Dodd Road & 3101 Highway 55 VIII. LEGISLATIVE / INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UPDATE IX. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY X. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA A. City Attorney B. City Council Comments C. City Administrator D. Director of Public Works E. Director of Community Development XI. VISITORS TO BE HEARD (for those persons not on the agenda) XII. ADJOURNMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: City Administrator Osberg Date: March 30, 2018 Subject: Agenda Information for April 3, 2018 City Council Meeting ADOPT AGENDA After approval is given to the April 3, 2018 City Council agenda, the following items are in order for consideration. Agenda Information Memo April 3, 2018 Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA The following items referred to as consent items require one (1) motion by the City Council. If the City Council wishes to discuss any of the items in further detail, those items should be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed under Old or New Business unless the discussion required is brief. A. Approve Minutes Action To Be Considered: To approve the minutes of March 20, 2018 regular City Council meeting as presented or modified. Attachments: (1) CA-1 March 20, 2018 City Council Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE EAGAN CITY COUNCIL Eagan, Minnesota MARCH 20, 2018 A Listening Session was held at 6:00 p.m. prior to the regular City Council meeting. Present were Mayor Maguire, Councilmember Fields and Hansen. Councilmembers Bakken and Tilley were absent. A regular meeting of the Eagan City Council was held on Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 6:30 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center. Present were Mayor Maguire, Councilmembers Bakken, Fields and Hansen. Councilmember Tilley was absent. Also present were City Administrator Osberg, Assistant City Administrator Miller, Public Works Director Matthys, Parks & Recreation Director Pimental, Director of Community Development Hutmacher, Fire Chief Scott, Police Chief McDonald, City Attorney Bauer and Executive Assistant Stevenson. AGENDA Councilmember Fields moved, Councilmember Bakken seconded a motion to approve the agenda as presented. Aye: 4 Nay: 0 RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATION Swearing in of Full-Time Fire Staff Fire Chief Scott introduced the firefighters: Jon Kemp, Nate Voye, Mike Winters, Jake McPherson, Dale Stein, Tim Keller, Tyler Haege, Jason Marshall, Jessica Hoffman, Matt Forse, and Joe Ahlstrom, and administered the Oath of Office. Fire Captain TC Shellinger was absent. CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Hansen moved, Councilmember Bakken seconded a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented: Aye: 4 Nay: 0 A. It was recommended to approve the minutes of March 6, 2018 regular City Council meeting, as presented. B. Personnel Items: 1. It was recommended to accept the resignation of Winter Recreational Seasonal Employees. 2. It was recommended to approve the hiring of Jarvis Groth, Utility Maintenance Worker. 3. It was recommended to approve the hiring of Brent Foiles, Accountant II. 4. It was recommended to approve the hiring of seasonal employees as Recreation Program Assistant, Umpire, Personal Trainer, and Recreation Leader. C. It was recommended to ratify the check registers dated March 2, 9 and 16, 2018. D. It was recommended to approve the ordinary and customary contracts with Impact Printing, Think Mutual Bank, Lalo’s Lunchbox, LLC, Legacy Creative Images, Marv Gohman, UHL Company, Inc., and Pros of the Rope. E. It was recommended to approve the Remote City Council Meeting Participation Guidelines. City Council Meeting Minutes March 20, 2018 2 page F. It was recommended to receive bids for City Contract 18-06 (Police Department and City Hall Renovations) and award the contract to Ebert Construction, for the Base Bid and Alternates 1-5 in the amount of $14,853,400 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. G. It was recommended to approve Change Order No. 2 for Contract 17-06 (Digital Radio System Replacement) and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. H. It was recommended to receive the bids and award Contract 17-20 (Quarry Road/Quarry Park Improvements) to McNamara Contracting Inc. for the Base Bid in the amount of $1,169,972.21 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. I. It was recommended to receive the bids for Contract 18-05 (Central Maintenance Facility – Phase II Improvements), and award a contract to Ebert Construction for the base bid, plus Alternate Bid #1, in the amount of $3,162,300.00, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. J. It was recommended to approve a resolution of support for Dakota County Transportation Department’s submittal of a Corridors of Commerce grant application for Highway77 (Cedar Avenue Freeway) Northbound MnPASS Lane. K. It was recommended to approve a resolution requesting the Minnesota Commissioner of Transportation’s approval of designation of Washington Drive, and existing street segment, on the City of Eagan’s Municipal State Aid (MSA) roadway system. L. It was recommended to approve a resolution requesting the Minnesota Department of Transportation to advance to the City of Eagan approximately $3.23 million from the Municipal State Aid (MSA) Construction account. M. It was recommended to approve a resolution requesting the Minnesota Department of Transportation to release the local bond principal and interest portion of the City of Eagan’s annual appointment from the Municipal State Aid (MSA) Construction and Maintenance account. N. It was recommended to approve an On-Sale Liquor and Sunday License for Cosmos Diner, LLC doing business as Cosmos Diner, Located at 1891 Silver Bell Road, Suite 1200. O. It was recommended to approve pool of Consultant Service providers for lawn mowing, refuse removal, securing vacant buildings and general maintenance for the collection of businesses on the attached list, authorize the City Planner and/or Senior Code Enforcement Technician as the signatory for work orders, and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. P. It was recommended to approve a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Quasi-Public/Institutional (QP) to Office/Service (O/S) and a Rezoning from Public Facilities (PF) to Limited Business (LB) for City-owned property located at 3940 Rahn Road and 4701 Galaxie Avenue. Q. It was recommended to approve a Joint Powers Agreement with the Dakota County Transportation Department for Project 1284, Yankee Doddle Road (CSAH 28) Traffic Signal Replacements at Blue Cross Road, Coachman Road, and Central Parkway – County Project No. 28-56, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. R. It was recommended to approve a resolution to temporarily extend the licensed premise of the On-Sale Taproom License issued to Bald Man Brewing, Inc. on April 7, 2018 at 2020 Silver Bell Road Suite 25. S. It was recommended to receive the petition to vacate drainage and utility easements on Lot 1, Block 1 Sakallah Addition and schedule a public hearing to be held on April 17, 2018. City Council Meeting Minutes March 20, 2018 3 page T. It was recommended to approve an On-Sale Liquor and Sunday Liquor License for Ashford Royal Cliff LLC doing business as Brianno’s/Royal Cliff, located at 2280 Cliff Road. U. It was recommended to approve a manager change of the Off-Sale Beer License issued to Eagan 2014 LLC doing business as Cub Foods #1695 at 1276 Town Centre Drive. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearing items to be heard. OLD BUSINESS There were no old business items to be heard. NEW BUSINESS There were no new business items to be heard. LEGISLATIVE / INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UPDATE There was no legislative/intergovernmental affairs update. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA There were no administrative agenda items to be heard. VISITORS TO BE HEARD There were no visitors to be heard. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Hansen moved, Councilmember Fields seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:45 p.m. Aye: 4 Nay: 0 _______ Date ______ Mayor _______ City Clerk Agenda Information Memo April 3, 2018 Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA B. Personnel Items ITEM 1. Action To Be Considered: Accept the resignations of the following Part Time, recurring Employees; Jill Greenan: Fitness Instructor Tony Vu: ECC Guest Service Rep ITEM 2. Action To Be Considered: Approve the hiring of Charles Fischer – Parks Maintenance Supervisor Facts:  Mr. Fischer replaces Ben Boeding, former Parks Maintenance Supervisor ITEM 3. Action To Be Considered: Approve the hiring of Eagan Community Center Programs & Facility Supervisor, to be named. Facts:  This position is in place of the ECC manager position, vacated by Marshall Grange. ITEM 4. Action To Be Considered: Approve the hiring of the following seasonal employees: Walt Richard: ECC Guest Service Rep 3/19/2018 Luzia Tavares: Group Fitness Instructor 3/19/2018 ITEM 5. Action To Be Considered: Approve the modification to the City of Eagan Donated Vacation Leave Policy Facts:  The current policy indicates that an employee who receives donated vacation is required to spend down all vacation and sick leave.  Management proposes that the employee may maintain up to 40 hours of vacation accrual and may maintain up to 40 hours of sick accrual.  The policy, in its entirety, with the proposed language changes is available for review in the City Administrator’s office. Agenda Information Memo April 3, 2018 Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA C. Ratify Check Registers Action To Be Considered: To ratify the check registers dated March 23, 2018 as presented. Attachments: (1) CC-1 Check register dated March 23, 2018 3/22/2018City of Eagan 15:39:16R55CKR2 LOGIS102V 1Page -Council Check Register by GL Check Register w GL Date & Summary 3/23/20183/19/2018 -- Inv No Account No Account Description Business UnitDoc NoCheck #PO #SubledgerSupplier / ExplanationDateAmount 197114 3/23/2018 147198 ADVANCED ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL 2,256.00 LEXDIF BOOSTER STATION REHAB 274961 57227 6133.6630 P12883/22/2018 Other Improvements Booster Station Maint/Repair 2,256.00 197115 3/23/2018 100417 ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS INC 410.00 BASE RADIO BASES DUTY 274962 77074 1221.62383/22/2018 Communication System Parts Administration-Fire 410.00 197116 3/23/2018 100360 APPLE FORD LINCOLN APPLE VALLEY 32.37 UNIT 388 RO 316 274963 422192 9001.14153/22/2018 Inventory - Parts General Fund 32.37 UNIT 1122 RO 332 274964 421507 9001.14153/22/2018 Inventory - Parts General Fund 11.34 UNIT 1122 RO 332 274965 532659 9001.14153/22/2018 Inventory - Parts General Fund 76.08 197117 3/23/2018 144673 ARCADE ELECTRIC 1,223.00 ELECTRICAL REPAIR 274966 9717 6827.65353/22/2018 Other Contractual Services Building Maintenance 1,223.00 197118 3/23/2018 100010 ASTLEFORD EQUIP CO INC 173.96 UNIT 156 RO 327 274967 T407438 9001.14153/22/2018 Inventory - Parts General Fund 173.96 197119 3/23/2018 115432 AUDIOVISUAL, INC. 4,480.00 TIGHTROPE SOFTWARE ASSURANCE 274968 88533234 9701.65693/22/2018 Maintenance Contracts PEG-eligible 4,480.00 197120 3/23/2018 151377 BADWAN, NANCY 24.86 10717-OVRPMNT 894 OAK CT 274969 031518 9220.22503/22/2018 Escrow Deposits Public Utilities 24.86 197121 3/23/2018 151374 BAGHA, SALMA 13.93 10717-OVRPMNT 2103 CLIFFHILL L 274970 031518 9220.22503/22/2018 Escrow Deposits Public Utilities 13.93 197122 3/23/2018 143108 BLOOMINGTON, CITY OF 735.00 LAB/BAC T 274971 1800028 6149.63233/22/2018 Testing Services Water Sampling/Testing 735.00 197123 3/23/2018 121444 BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MINNESOTA 55,884.87 MEDICAL PREMIUM - APRIL 18 274974 180302468419 9592.20173/22/2018 Ded Payable-Insurance BCBS Benefit Accrual 259,405.98 MEDICAL PREMIUM - APRIL 18 274974 180302468419 9592.61513/22/2018 Health Insurance Benefit Accrual 3/30/2018 3/22/2018City of Eagan 15:39:16R55CKR2LOGIS102V 2Page -Council Check Register by GL Check Register w GL Date & Summary 3/23/20183/19/2018 -- Inv No Account No Account Description Business UnitDoc NoCheck #PO #SubledgerSupplier / ExplanationDateAmount 197123 3/23/2018 121444 BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MINNESOTA Continued... 315,290.85 197124 3/23/2018 119552 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 214.43 MEDICAL GLOVES 274972 82792763 1225.62223/22/2018 Medical/Rescue/Safety Supplies Fire / EMS Equipment 214.43 197125 3/23/2018 100022 BOYER TRUCK PARTS 68.34 UNIT 146 274973 477009 9001.14153/22/2018 Inventory - Parts General Fund 68.34 197126 3/23/2018 143367 BUENNING, SAUNDRA 60.30 CLERICAL CLOTHING-WORK PANTS 3 274986 030518 1107.62243/22/2018 Clothing/Personal Equipment Support Services 60.30 197127 3/23/2018 151337 CERIO, ROBIN 482.06 2018 OAK WILT-TREE REMOVAL 274987 2018 OAK WILT-TR 3209.68603/22/2018 Contributions/Cost Sharing Pay Plant Inspections-Private Prop 482.06 197128 3/23/2018 151299 CINTAS 162.24 SHOP TOWELS 274975 4004148326 2401.62413/22/2018 Shop Materials Gen/Adm-Central Services 90.85 SHOP TOWELS 274976 4004148307 2401.62413/22/2018 Shop Materials Gen/Adm-Central Services 22.98 FD RUGS 274977 4004302092 3313.65693/22/2018 Maintenance Contracts Fire Buildings 30.40 ECC RUGS 274978 4004302142 6827.65693/22/2018 Maintenance Contracts Building Maintenance 306.47 197129 3/23/2018 100040 CONT SAFETY EQUIP 31.51 SAFETY SUPPLIES 274979 447301 3119.62223/22/2018 Medical/Rescue/Safety Supplies Rink Amenity Mtn/Setup 18.50 SEWER GLOVES PPE 274980 447287 6238.62223/22/2018 Medical/Rescue/Safety Supplies Sewer Main Maintenance 92.50 SAFETY SUPPLIES-SUNSCREEN 274988 447278 3201.62223/22/2018 Medical/Rescue/Safety Supplies Administrative/General 142.51 197130 3/23/2018 132315 COOK, DAN 152.06 COOK, DAN MILEAGE1/2-3/20/181 275158 032018 0301.63533/22/2018 Personal Auto/Parking IT-Gen & Admn 152.06 197131 3/23/2018 150880 CORE & MAIN LP 250.85 WATERMAIN REPAIR INVENTORY 274981 1531010 6160.62603/22/2018 Utility System Parts/Supplies Main Maintenance/Repair 250.85 3/22/2018City of Eagan 15:39:16R55CKR2LOGIS102V 3Page -Council Check Register by GL Check Register w GL Date & Summary 3/23/20183/19/2018 -- Inv No Account No Account Description Business UnitDoc NoCheck #PO #SubledgerSupplier / ExplanationDateAmount 197132 3/23/2018 146281 CORNERSTONE PARKING GROUP INC.Continued... 316.95 REPLACE BALL VALVE 274982 1515 9116.62233/22/2018 Building/Cleaning Supplies Cedar Grove Parking Garage 3,922.65 RELIABLE SNOW REMOVAL 274982 1515 9116.62533/22/2018 Turf Maintenance & Landscape S Cedar Grove Parking Garage 12,978.94 PARKING MANAGE SERV FEB 2018 274983 1517 9116.65353/22/2018 Other Contractual Services Cedar Grove Parking Garage 12,254.15 RELIABLE SNOW REMOVAL 274984 1518 9116.62533/22/2018 Turf Maintenance & Landscape S Cedar Grove Parking Garage 29,472.69 197133 3/23/2018 110921 DAKOTA AWARDS & ENGRAVING 18.00 PAR TAGS 274985 18331 1225.62243/22/2018 Clothing/Personal Equipment Fire / EMS Equipment 18.00 197134 3/23/2018 120622 DAKOTA COMMUNICATIONS CENTER 104,692.00 DCC MONTHLY FEE-APR 2018 274989 EA2018-04 1108.63303/22/2018 DCC Fees Communications 104,692.00 197135 3/23/2018 100050 DAKOTA ELECTRIC 25.45 OLD TOWN HALL 274824 100749-1-FEB18 3304.64053/23/2018 Electricity Bldg/Facilities Maintenance 77.44 CARLSON LAKE SAN 274825 102339-9-FEB18 6239.64083/23/2018 Electricity-Lift Stations Lift Station Maintenanc/Repair 95.51 SOUTHERN HILLS TOWER 274826 103460-2-FEB18 6154.64093/23/2018 Electricity-Wells/Booster Stat South Plant Building 162.18 FIRE STATION 1 274827 107460-8-FEB18 3313.64053/23/2018 Electricity Fire Buildings 5,164.97 FIRE SAFETY CENTER 274828 108247-8-FEB18 3313.64053/23/2018 Electricity Fire Buildings 110.99 YANKEE DOODLE WATER TANK RSVR 274829 112682-0-FEB18 6146.64093/23/2018 Electricity-Wells/Booster Stat North Plant Building 241.75 LONE OAK SAN 274830 112832-1-FEB18 6239.64083/23/2018 Electricity-Lift Stations Lift Station Maintenanc/Repair 83.72 CARLSON LAKE STORM 274831 122797-4-FEB18 6439.64083/23/2018 Electricity-Lift Stations Lift Station Maintenanc/Repair 37.73 BLACKHAWK COVE SAN 274832 127325-9-FEB18 6239.64083/23/2018 Electricity-Lift Stations Lift Station Maintenanc/Repair 533.83 RAHN PARK 274833 132778-2-FEB18 3106.64053/23/2018 Electricity Structure Care & Maintenance 76.12 LEXINGTON STORM STATION 274834 133789-8-FEB18 6439.64083/23/2018 Electricity-Lift Stations Lift Station Maintenanc/Repair 21.42 ZOO METER 274835 136873-7-FEB18 6239.64083/23/2018 Electricity-Lift Stations Lift Station Maintenanc/Repair 742.77 LODGEPOLE CT SECURITY LITES 274836 138267-0-FEB18 3106.64053/23/2018 Electricity Structure Care & Maintenance 593.14 CLIFF BOOSTER STATION 274837 139958-3-FEB18 6154.64093/23/2018 Electricity-Wells/Booster Stat South Plant Building 252.00 LEXINGTON BOOSTER STATION 274838 143222-8-FEB18 6154.64093/23/2018 Electricity-Wells/Booster Stat South Plant Building 215.16 FIRE STATION 3 274839 146053-4-FEB18 3313.64053/23/2018 Electricity Fire Buildings 58.79 OAK CHASE STORM 274840 146920-4-FEB18 6439.64083/23/2018 Electricity-Lift Stations Lift Station Maintenanc/Repair 15.94 COVINGTON STORM 274841 149810-4-FEB18 6439.64083/23/2018 Electricity-Lift Stations Lift Station Maintenanc/Repair 44.13 TH 77/CO RD 32 SIGNALS 274842 152634-2-FEB18 6301.64073/23/2018 Electricity-Signal Lights Street Lighting 36.13 TH 77/CO RD 32 SIGNALS 274843 152635-9-FEB18 6301.64073/23/2018 Electricity-Signal Lights Street Lighting 5.00 CIVIL DEFENSE SIREN 274844 155062-3-FEB18 1106.64053/23/2018 Electricity Emergency Preparedness 5.00 CIVIL DEFENSE SIREN 274845 155063-1-FEB18 1106.64053/23/2018 Electricity Emergency Preparedness 5.00 CIVIL DEFENSE SIREN 274846 155064-9-FEB18 1106.64053/23/2018 Electricity Emergency Preparedness 49.37 SAFARI RESERVOIR 274847 159673-3-FEB18 6154.64093/23/2018 Electricity-Wells/Booster Stat South Plant Building 87.22 HURLEY STORM 274848 159822-6-FEB18 6439.64083/23/2018 Electricity-Lift Stations Lift Station Maintenanc/Repair 3/22/2018City of Eagan 15:39:16R55CKR2LOGIS102V 4Page -Council Check Register by GL Check Register w GL Date & Summary 3/23/20183/19/2018 -- Inv No Account No Account Description Business UnitDoc NoCheck #PO #SubledgerSupplier / ExplanationDateAmount 197135 3/23/2018 100050 DAKOTA ELECTRIC Continued... 73.85 SCHWANZ STORM 274849 160898-3-FEB18 6439.64083/23/2018 Electricity-Lift Stations Lift Station Maintenanc/Repair 40.92 LONE OAK/35 SIGNALS 274850 162414-7-FEB18 6301.64073/23/2018 Electricity-Signal Lights Street Lighting 25.41 OAK CLIFF STORM 274851 165267-6-FEB18 6439.64083/23/2018 Electricity-Lift Stations Lift Station Maintenanc/Repair 196.24 NORTHVIEW PARK 274852 167128-8-FEB18 3106.64053/23/2018 Electricity Structure Care & Maintenance 31.00 35E/CLILFF SIGNALS 274853 167845-7-FEB18 6301.64073/23/2018 Electricity-Signal Lights Street Lighting 28.38 35E/CLIFF SIGNALS 274854 167846-5-FEB18 6301.64073/23/2018 Electricity-Signal Lights Street Lighting 30.89 35E/PILOT KNOB RD SIGNALS 274855 167849-9-FEB18 6301.64073/23/2018 Electricity-Signal Lights Street Lighting 31.34 35E/PILOT KNOB RD SIGNALS 274856 167850-7-FEB18 6301.64073/23/2018 Electricity-Signal Lights Street Lighting 55.65 35E/YANKEE DOODLE SIGNALS 274857 167851-5-FEB18 6301.64073/23/2018 Electricity-Signal Lights Street Lighting 97.30 RAHN PARK 274858 169262-3-FEB18 3106.64053/23/2018 Electricity Structure Care & Maintenance 561.68 GOAT HILL PARK HOCKEY RINK 274859 170635-7-FEB18 3106.64053/23/2018 Electricity Structure Care & Maintenance 141.20 GOAT HILL PARK BASEBALL FIELD 274860 170636-5-FEB18 3106.64053/23/2018 Electricity Structure Care & Maintenance 54.51 ASHBURY SAN 274861 172471-5-FEB18 6239.64083/23/2018 Electricity-Lift Stations Lift Station Maintenanc/Repair 251.33 BLUE CROSS PARK 274862 177546-9-FEB18 3106.64053/23/2018 Electricity Structure Care & Maintenance 259.85-YANKEE STORM 274863 180516-7-FEB18 6439.64083/23/2018 Electricity-Lift Stations Lift Station Maintenanc/Repair 482.70 WELL #8 & #9 274864 187147-4-FEB18 6146.64093/23/2018 Electricity-Wells/Booster Stat North Plant Building 41.39 BLACKHAWK/CLIFF SIGNALS 274865 187873-5-FEB18 6301.64073/23/2018 Electricity-Signal Lights Street Lighting 277.39 COUNTRY HOLLOW SAN 274866 193140-1-FEB18 6239.64083/23/2018 Electricity-Lift Stations Lift Station Maintenanc/Repair 340.17 COUNTRY HOLLOW STORM 274867 193575-8-FEB18 6439.64083/23/2018 Electricity-Lift Stations Lift Station Maintenanc/Repair 656.16 FIRE STATION 4 274868 195895-8-FEB18 3313.64053/23/2018 Electricity Fire Buildings 276.40 WELL #10 274869 196322-2-FEB18 6154.64093/23/2018 Electricity-Wells/Booster Stat South Plant Building 85.81 THOMAS LAKE STORM 274870 196919-5-FEB18 6439.64083/23/2018 Electricity-Lift Stations Lift Station Maintenanc/Repair 282.80 FIRE STATION 5 274871 197741-2-FEB18 3313.64053/23/2018 Electricity Fire Buildings 310.13 WELL #11 274872 197761-0-FEB18 6146.64093/23/2018 Electricity-Wells/Booster Stat North Plant Building 69.45 MURPHY SAN 274873 198484-8-FEB18 6239.64083/23/2018 Electricity-Lift Stations Lift Station Maintenanc/Repair 46.87 CLIFF & CLIFF LAKE RD SIGNALS 274874 198522-5-FEB18 6301.64073/23/2018 Electricity-Signal Lights Street Lighting 31.00 SIGNAL LIGHT/TARGET 274875 198523-3-FEB18 6301.64073/23/2018 Electricity-Signal Lights Street Lighting 1,132.15 WELL #13 274876 200399-4-FEB18 6154.64093/23/2018 Electricity-Wells/Booster Stat South Plant Building 3,430.79 WELL #12 274877 200417-4-FEB18 6154.64093/23/2018 Electricity-Wells/Booster Stat South Plant Building 3,269.26 WELL #14 274878 200823-3-FEB18 6154.64093/23/2018 Electricity-Wells/Booster Stat South Plant Building 293.85 WELL #15 274879 200922-3-FEB18 6154.64093/23/2018 Electricity-Wells/Booster Stat South Plant Building 158.66 BLACKHAWK PAVILLION 274880 211088-0-FEB18 3106.64053/23/2018 Electricity Structure Care & Maintenance 77.38 BLACKHAWK PARK AERATOR 274881 211089-8-FEB18- 1 3106.64053/23/2018 Electricity Structure Care & Maintenance 14.45 WEST GROUP NORTH 274882 212539-1-FEB18 6239.64083/23/2018 Electricity-Lift Stations Lift Station Maintenanc/Repair 49.94 DENMARK/TWN CNTR SIGNALS 274883 224458-0-FEB18 6301.64073/23/2018 Electricity-Signal Lights Street Lighting 5.00 CIVIL DEFENSE SIREN 274884 224623-9-FEB18 1106.64053/23/2018 Electricity Emergency Preparedness 5.00 CIVIL DEFENSE SIREN 274885 224624-7-FEB18 1106.64053/23/2018 Electricity Emergency Preparedness 5.00 CIVIL DEFENSE SIREN 274886 224625-4-FEB18 1106.64053/23/2018 Electricity Emergency Preparedness 3/22/2018City of Eagan 15:39:16R55CKR2LOGIS102V 5Page -Council Check Register by GL Check Register w GL Date & Summary 3/23/20183/19/2018 -- Inv No Account No Account Description Business UnitDoc NoCheck #PO #SubledgerSupplier / ExplanationDateAmount 197135 3/23/2018 100050 DAKOTA ELECTRIC Continued... 139.60 WELL #18 274887 224626-2-FEB18 6154.64093/23/2018 Electricity-Wells/Booster Stat South Plant Building 27.35 DEERWOOD RESERVOIR 274888 224893-8-FEB18 6154.64093/23/2018 Electricity-Wells/Booster Stat South Plant Building 150.92 YANKEE/WASHINGTON STREET LITES 274889 226048-7-FEB18 6301.64063/23/2018 Electricity-Street Lights Street Lighting 187.89 YANKEE/35E STREET LIGHTS 274890 226049-5-FEB18 6301.64063/23/2018 Electricity-Street Lights Street Lighting 298.80 YANKEE/DENMARK STREET LITES 274891 226050-3-FEB18 6301.64063/23/2018 Electricity-Street Lights Street Lighting 219.83 YANKEE/PROMENADE STREET LITES 274892 226051-1-FEB18 6301.64063/23/2018 Electricity-Street Lights Street Lighting 166.90 NORTHWD/PROMENADE STREET LITES 274893 226052-9-FEB18 6301.64063/23/2018 Electricity-Street Lights Street Lighting 14.00 WEST GROUP SOUTH 274894 300763-0-FEB18 6239.64083/23/2018 Electricity-Lift Stations Lift Station Maintenanc/Repair 39.67 CLUBVIEW/LEXINGTON SIGNALS 274895 313124-0-FEB18 6301.64073/23/2018 Electricity-Signal Lights Street Lighting 39.10 LEX/N ARMSTRONG BLVD SIGNALS 274896 313127-3-FEB18 6301.64073/23/2018 Electricity-Signal Lights Street Lighting 202.27 THOMAS LAKE PARK 274897 348080-3-FEB18 3106.64053/23/2018 Electricity Structure Care & Maintenance 14.00 THRESHER PARK 274898 349188-3-FEB18 3106.64053/23/2018 Electricity Structure Care & Maintenance 38.76 DUCKWOOD/TWN CNTR SIGNALS 274899 357166-1-FEB18 6301.64073/23/2018 Electricity-Signal Lights Street Lighting 72.54 1960 CLIFF LAKE RD AERATOR 274900 412466-5-FEB18 6520.64053/23/2018 Electricity Basin Mgmt-Aeration 14.23 DEERWOOD/35E SPDSIGNAL 274901 417173-2-FEB18 6301.64073/23/2018 Electricity-Signal Lights Street Lighting 54.51 THRESHER PARK BLDG 274902 427290-2-FEB18 3106.64053/23/2018 Electricity Structure Care & Maintenance 296.40 SHERMAN CT BRIDGE LITES 274903 440715-1-FEB18 6301.64063/23/2018 Electricity-Street Lights Street Lighting 14.45 1940 CLIFF LAKE RD 274904 452288-4-FEB18 2271.64053/23/2018 Electricity Boulevard/Ditch Mtn 103.45 RAHN/DIFFLEY RD #LIGHTS 274905 453294-1-FEB18 6301.64073/23/2018 Electricity-Signal Lights Street Lighting 14.34 4237 DANIEL DR #SIGN 274906 456815-0-FEB18 6301.64073/23/2018 Electricity-Signal Lights Street Lighting 14.23 4266 DANIEL DR #SIGN 274907 456817-6-FEB18 6301.64073/23/2018 Electricity-Signal Lights Street Lighting 115.09 3521 FEDERAL DR STREET LITES 274908 483732-4-FEB18 6301.64073/23/2018 Electricity-Signal Lights Street Lighting 35.68 DEERWOOD/PILOT KNOB SIGNALS 274909 509475-0-FEB18 6301.64073/23/2018 Electricity-Signal Lights Street Lighting 289.67 WITHAM LANE LIFT STATION 274910 545622-3-FEB18 6239.64083/23/2018 Electricity-Lift Stations Lift Station Maintenanc/Repair 40.30 PROMENADE DR #SIGNAL 274911 549208-7-FEB18 6301.64073/23/2018 Electricity-Signal Lights Street Lighting 17.93 BLACKHAWK PARK AERATOR 274912 557042-9-FEB18 6520.64053/23/2018 Electricity Basin Mgmt-Aeration 47.02 WIDGEON WAY 274913 571231-0-FEB18 6239.64083/23/2018 Electricity-Lift Stations Lift Station Maintenanc/Repair 2,180.60 PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE 274914 110986-7-FEB18 3304.64053/23/2018 Electricity Bldg/Facilities Maintenance 1,652.30 WELL #1 274915 112885-9-FEB18 6146.64093/23/2018 Electricity-Wells/Booster Stat North Plant Building 282.94 WELL #2 274916 124865-7-FEB18 6146.64093/23/2018 Electricity-Wells/Booster Stat North Plant Building 2,338.00 MUNICIPAL CENTER 274917 127189-9-FEB18 3304.64053/23/2018 Electricity Bldg/Facilities Maintenance 10,020.50 WELL #4/TREATMENT PLANT 274918 137781-1-FEB18 6146.64093/23/2018 Electricity-Wells/Booster Stat North Plant Building 2,853.70 POLICE STATION 274919 217026-4-FEB18 3304.64053/23/2018 Electricity Bldg/Facilities Maintenance 5,631.68 CIVIC ICE ARENA 274920 220593-8-FEB18 6601.64053/23/2018 Electricity General/Administrative-Arena 772.45 AQUATIC ADMIN BLDG 274921 256881-4-FEB18 6719.64053/23/2018 Electricity Building Maintenance 452.32 AQUATIC PARKING LOT LIGHT 274922 263297-4-FEB18 6719.64053/23/2018 Electricity Building Maintenance 158.06 AQUATIC MECH BLDG 274923 272182-7-FEB18 6719.64053/23/2018 Electricity Building Maintenance 390.80 AQUATIC CHANGE FACILITY 274924 272183-5-FEB18 6719.64053/23/2018 Electricity Building Maintenance 807.50 GENERATOR 274925 326096-5-FEB18 3304.64053/23/2018 Electricity Bldg/Facilities Maintenance 3/22/2018City of Eagan 15:39:16R55CKR2LOGIS102V 6Page -Council Check Register by GL Check Register w GL Date & Summary 3/23/20183/19/2018 -- Inv No Account No Account Description Business UnitDoc NoCheck #PO #SubledgerSupplier / ExplanationDateAmount 197135 3/23/2018 100050 DAKOTA ELECTRIC Continued... 7,228.66 CIVIC ICE ARENA 274926 463323-6-FEB18 6601.64053/23/2018 Electricity General/Administrative-Arena 235.07 DE SWITCH/COMM BLDG 274927 529232-1-FEB18 6147.64083/23/2018 Electricity-Lift Stations North Plant Production 758.62 EAGAN SWITCH/COMM BLDG 274928 529233-9-FEB18 6147.64083/23/2018 Electricity-Lift Stations North Plant Production 384.92 CAMPUS GENERATOR/TRANSFORMER 274929 529234-7-FEB18 6147.64083/23/2018 Electricity-Lift Stations North Plant Production 366.76 DENMARK LIFT STATION 274930 532128-6-FEB18 6239.64083/23/2018 Electricity-Lift Stations Lift Station Maintenanc/Repair 1,222.34 WELL #3 274931 555257-5-FEB18 6146.64093/23/2018 Electricity-Wells/Booster Stat North Plant Building 478.25 BRINE/SALT STORAGE 274932 555450-6-FEB18 3304.64053/23/2018 Electricity Bldg/Facilities Maintenance 210.29 UTILITY BUILDING 274933 555451-4-FEB18 6146.64053/23/2018 Electricity North Plant Building 5,850.20 SOUTH TREATMENT PLANT 274934 201358-9-FEB18 6154.64093/23/2018 Electricity-Wells/Booster Stat South Plant Building 68,387.25 197136 3/23/2018 130735 DAVIS EQUIPMENT CORPORATION 11.04 SUPPLIES 274990 EI05107 3222.62203/22/2018 Operating Supplies - General Equipment Mtn 11.04 197137 3/23/2018 118917 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY 2,879.34 BUILDING PERMIT 2/18 275031 020118 9001.21953/22/2018 Due to State - Permit Surcharg General Fund 2,879.34 197138 3/23/2018 101784 DISCOUNT STEEL INC. 79.03 UNIT 324 275032 4309543 9001.14153/22/2018 Inventory - Parts General Fund 79.03 197139 3/23/2018 151336 DIXON, DANIEL 132.57 2018 OAK WILT-TREE REMOVAL 275041 2018 OAK WILT-TR 3209.68603/22/2018 Contributions/Cost Sharing Pay Plant Inspections-Private Prop 132.57 197140 3/23/2018 142972 DOUGHERTY, MOLENDA, SOLFEST, HILLS 4,725.70 LEGAL 274991 170049-04768 0601.63113/23/2018 Legal General Legal Service 78.50 LEGAL 274992 170059-38701 0601.63113/23/2018 Legal General Legal Service 204.10 LEGAL 274993 170058-38031 0601.63113/23/2018 Legal General Legal Service 47.10 LEGAL 274994 170063-39435 0601.63113/23/2018 Legal General Legal Service 163.63 LEGAL 274995 170050-10388 0601.63113/23/2018 Legal General Legal Service 1,494.00 LEAGAL 274996 170051-12651 0601.63113/23/2018 Legal General Legal Service 125.60 LEGAL 274997 170054-34827 0601.63113/23/2018 Legal General Legal Service 193.04 SPRINT-ANTENNA LEASE 274998 170052-23897 6007.6311 ASPRI3/23/2018 Legal Sperry Antenna Location 96.52 VERIZON WIRELESS 274999 170072-39821 6015.6311 AVERI3/23/2018 Legal Walden Heights Monopole 1500 62.80 P1245 QUARRY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 275000 170057-37910 8245.67163/23/2018 Project - Legal P1245 Quarry Rd 144.78 SUMMERBROOKE 275001 170055-37013 9001.2245 J02943/23/2018 Escrow - Private Development F General Fund 3/22/2018City of Eagan 15:39:16R55CKR2LOGIS102V 7Page -Council Check Register by GL Check Register w GL Date & Summary 3/23/20183/19/2018 -- Inv No Account No Account Description Business UnitDoc NoCheck #PO #SubledgerSupplier / ExplanationDateAmount 197140 3/23/2018 142972 DOUGHERTY, MOLENDA, SOLFEST, HILLS Continued... 1,761.49 NORTHEAST EAGAN DEVELOPMENT 275002 170056-37129 9001.2245 J03013/23/2018 Escrow - Private Development F General Fund 96.52 NEISIUS SECOND ADDN 275003 170071-39820 9001.2245 J03593/23/2018 Escrow - Private Development F General Fund 48.26 FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES 275004 170061-39358 9001.2245 J03843/23/2018 Escrow - Private Development F General Fund 72.39 CUB OUTLET TOWN CENTRE 275005 170062-39359 9001.2245 J03853/23/2018 Escrow - Private Development F General Fund 168.91 MCDONALDS VARIANCE 275006 170073-39826 9001.2245 J03863/23/2018 Escrow - Private Development F General Fund 47.10 PURAIR PRODUCTS 275007 170064 9001.2245 J03873/23/2018 Escrow - Private Development F General Fund 94.20 RYDER TRUCK 275008 170065-39592 9001.2245 J03943/23/2018 Escrow - Private Development F General Fund 1,390.02 PRESERVE AT CEDAR GROVE 275009 170066-39594 9001.2245 J03973/23/2018 Escrow - Private Development F General Fund 125.60 LEBANON HILLS SUBSTATION 275010 170067-39698 9001.2245 J03983/23/2018 Escrow - Private Development F General Fund 96.52 DODD RD APARTMENTS 275011 170068-39817 9001.2245 J04003/23/2018 Escrow - Private Development F General Fund 96.52 YANKEE DOODLE PROPERTY 275012 170069-39818 9001.2245 J04013/23/2018 Escrow - Private Development F General Fund 120.65 HAVEN WOODS 275013 170070-39819 9001.2245 J04023/23/2018 Escrow - Private Development F General Fund 2,888.80 CEDAR GROVE REDEVELOPMENT 275014 170053-26768 9334.67163/23/2018 Project - Legal Cedarvale/Hwy 13 TIF 77.01 FIRE STATION 5 275015 170060-39258 9337.63113/23/2018 Legal Community Investment 14,419.76 197141 3/23/2018 100969 DRIVER & VEHICLE SERVICES 20.75 DUI FORT. FUND FEE 09 IMPALA 275042 031218 9115.44203/22/2018 Police Fine & Forfeiture Monie DWI Forfeiture 20.75 197142 3/23/2018 126333 DUNN & SEMINGTON PRINTING DESIGN 78.00 DUCT TOSS GRAPHICS 275033 32228 6716.63573/22/2018 Advertising/Publication General Administration 78.00 197143 3/23/2018 101697 EAGAN CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU 70,476.94 LODGING TAX - JAN 2018 275043 0118 9001.22103/22/2018 Due to Convention Bureau General Fund 1,347.78-LODGING TAX - JAN 2018 275043 0118 6801.46213/22/2018 Building Rent General & Administrative 25.70-LODGING TAX - JAN 2018 275043 0118 6801.63473/22/2018 Telephone Service & Line Charg General & Administrative 20.00-LODGING TAX - JAN 2018 275043 0118 6801.63473/22/2018 Telephone Service & Line Charg General & Administrative 1,051.71-LODGING TAX - JAN 2018 275043 0118 9337.1386.13/22/2018 Due from ECVB Community Investment 414.96-LODGING TAX - JAN 2018 275043 0118 9337.4613.43/22/2018 Int on IR-ECVB Community Investment 67,616.79 197144 3/23/2018 150747 EAGAN KICK-START ROTARY CLUB 220.00 ROTARY, 2ND QTR-MILLER 275159 313 0201.64773/22/2018 Local Meeting Expenses General & Admn-Admn 220.00 197145 3/23/2018 100060 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 530.75 ROP 275034 576188 0401.63593/22/2018 Legal Notice Publication General & Admn-City Clerk 175.00 ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS 275035 575886 8245.67183/22/2018 Project - Other Charges P1245 Quarry Rd 3/22/2018City of Eagan 15:39:16R55CKR2LOGIS102V 8Page -Council Check Register by GL Check Register w GL Date & Summary 3/23/20183/19/2018 -- Inv No Account No Account Description Business UnitDoc NoCheck #PO #SubledgerSupplier / ExplanationDateAmount 197145 3/23/2018 100060 ECM PUBLISHERS INC Continued... 176.74 ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS 275035 575886 8287.67183/22/2018 Project - Other Charges P1287 Quarry Park pickleball 100.00 ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS 275036 575887 8265.67183/22/2018 Project - Other Charges P1265 Blue Gentian Blue Water 100.00 ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS 275036 575887 8264.67183/22/2018 Project - Other Charges P1264 Royal Oaks 100.00 ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS 275036 575887 8263.67183/22/2018 Project - Other Charges P1263 Eagandale Corp Center 2n 149.90 ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS 275036 575887 8258.67183/22/2018 Project - Other Charges P1258 Galaxie Ave 1,332.39 197146 3/23/2018 100062 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO 13.42 UNIT 127 275037 1-5386809 9001.14153/22/2018 Inventory - Parts General Fund 94.44 DEF STREETS 275038 1-5513900 2244.62353/22/2018 Fuel, Lubricants, Additives Street Equipment Repair/Mtn 107.86 197147 3/23/2018 100451 FASTENAL COMPANY 70.53 UNIT 324 275039 MNTC1212292 9001.14153/22/2018 Inventory - Parts General Fund 1,155.62 SEASONAL HI-VIS T-SHIRTS 275040 MNTC1212599 3201.62243/22/2018 Clothing/Personal Equipment Administrative/General 1,226.15 197148 3/23/2018 138330 FELHABER, LARSON, FENLON & VOGT P.A. 70.00 OUTSIDE LEGAL CONSULT 275044 625978 0603.63113/22/2018 Legal Outside Legal Counsel 70.00 197149 3/23/2018 144138 FISCHER MINING LLC 219.69 MAINBREAK FILL 275045 116690 6160.62553/22/2018 Street Repair Supplies Main Maintenance/Repair 219.69 197150 3/23/2018 102640 FITZCO INC. 70.07 EVIDENCE ROOM SUPPLIES 275046 56333 1107.62203/22/2018 Operating Supplies - General Support Services 70.07 197151 3/23/2018 143971 FLEETPRIDE 50.94 UNIT 126 275047 92688501 9001.14153/22/2018 Inventory - Parts General Fund 50.94 197152 3/23/2018 145103 FRATTALONE COMPANIES INC. 40,476.14 CONT 16-22 PMT 6 275060 030618 8225.6710 P225A3/22/2018 Project - Contract P1225 Northwest Park Way Exten 103,772.50 CONT 16-22 PMT 6 275060 030618 8225.6710 P225B3/22/2018 Project - Contract P1225 Northwest Park Way Exten 12,915.81 CONT 16-22 PMT 6 275060 030618 8225.6710 P225C3/22/2018 Project - Contract P1225 Northwest Park Way Exten 313,590.70 CONT 16-22 PMT 6 275060 030618 8225.67103/22/2018 Project - Contract P1225 Northwest Park Way Exten 470,755.15 3/22/2018City of Eagan 15:39:16R55CKR2LOGIS102V 9Page -Council Check Register by GL Check Register w GL Date & Summary 3/23/20183/19/2018 -- Inv No Account No Account Description Business UnitDoc NoCheck #PO #SubledgerSupplier / ExplanationDateAmount 197153 3/23/2018 100071 G & K SERVICES Continued... 86.54 MT RUGS 275048 6182101692 3314.65693/22/2018 Maintenance Contracts Central Maintenance 63.81 CH RUGS 275049 6182101694 3315.65693/22/2018 Maintenance Contracts City Hall 150.35 197154 3/23/2018 147955 GALLS LLC 181.98 PATROL CLOTHING 275050 009440829 1104.62243/22/2018 Clothing/Personal Equipment Patrolling/Traffic 20.99 PATROL CLOTHING 275051 009441101 1104.62243/22/2018 Clothing/Personal Equipment Patrolling/Traffic 51.90 SPECIALITY UNIT CLOTHING 275052 009444223 1104.62243/22/2018 Clothing/Personal Equipment Patrolling/Traffic 50.00 PATROL CLOTHING 275053 009444222 1104.62243/22/2018 Clothing/Personal Equipment Patrolling/Traffic 23.94 SPECIALTY FORMS 275054 009444224 1104.62243/22/2018 Clothing/Personal Equipment Patrolling/Traffic 123.98 ORIGINAL ISSUE OFFICER 275055 009444232 1104.62243/22/2018 Clothing/Personal Equipment Patrolling/Traffic 10.99 ORIGINAL ISSUE OFFICER 275056 009455230 1104.62243/22/2018 Clothing/Personal Equipment Patrolling/Traffic 170.97 PATROL CLOTHING 275057 009453710 1104.62243/22/2018 Clothing/Personal Equipment Patrolling/Traffic 34.99 ORIGINAL ISSUE OFFICER 275058 009455222 1104.62243/22/2018 Clothing/Personal Equipment Patrolling/Traffic 68.99-PATROL EQUIPMENT 275059 009456186 1104.62243/22/2018 Clothing/Personal Equipment Patrolling/Traffic 22.00 PATROL EQUIPMENT 275061 009469698 1104.62243/22/2018 Clothing/Personal Equipment Patrolling/Traffic 35.99 PATROL EQUIPMENT 275062 009478591 1104.62243/22/2018 Clothing/Personal Equipment Patrolling/Traffic 134.00 ORIGINAL ISSUE OFFICER 275063 009491128 1104.62243/22/2018 Clothing/Personal Equipment Patrolling/Traffic 792.74 197155 3/23/2018 100990 GRAINGER 55.92 PARTS FOR BALL GRABBER 275064 9720700021 3222.62313/22/2018 Mobile Equipment Repair Parts Equipment Mtn 55.92 197156 3/23/2018 100085 HARDWARE HANK 29.99 SNOW SHOVEL 275065 1745507 6239.62403/22/2018 Small Tools Lift Station Maintenanc/Repair 14.99 METER SERVICE 275066 1741328 6131.62603/22/2018 Utility System Parts/Supplies Water Customer Service 30.91 HSP PARTS NTP 275067 1744475 6147.62303/22/2018 Repair/Maintenance Supplies-Ge North Plant Production 14.97 MISC REPAIR SUPPLIES 275068 1745279 1225.62303/22/2018 Repair/Maintenance Supplies-Ge Fire / EMS Equipment .92 MISC REPAIR SUPPLIES 275069 1745393 1225.62303/22/2018 Repair/Maintenance Supplies-Ge Fire / EMS Equipment 45.98 FUEL FOR HOT PATCH TRAILER 275070 1746327 2220.62353/22/2018 Fuel, Lubricants, Additives Bituminous Surface Maint 22.03 OPERATING SUPPLIES 275071 1745707 1104.62203/22/2018 Operating Supplies - General Patrolling/Traffic 159.79 197157 3/23/2018 100064 HAWKINS WATER TRTMNT GROUP INC 2,000.00 KNM04 NTP 275072 4240849 6147.62443/22/2018 Chemicals & Chemical Products North Plant Production 1,235.70 KNM04 STP 275072 4240849 6155.62443/22/2018 Chemicals & Chemical Products South Plant Production 3,235.70 197158 3/23/2018 100267 HAYES ELECTRIC 3/22/2018City of Eagan 15:39:16R55CKR2LOGIS102V 10Page -Council Check Register by GL Check Register w GL Date & Summary 3/23/20183/19/2018 -- Inv No Account No Account Description Business UnitDoc NoCheck #PO #SubledgerSupplier / ExplanationDateAmount 197158 3/23/2018 100267 HAYES ELECTRIC Continued... 508.41 ELECTRICAL REPAIR 275073 4263-031418 3314.65353/22/2018 Other Contractual Services Central Maintenance 1,226.51 ELECTRICAL REPAIR 275097 4262-031418 3314.65353/22/2018 Other Contractual Services Central Maintenance 1,734.92 197159 3/23/2018 138631 HEALTHEAST MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION 85.00 BLOOD DRAW 275074 18-10224 9115.63103/22/2018 Professional Services-General DWI Forfeiture 85.00 197160 3/23/2018 100082 HEALTHPARTNERS 1,544.70 DENTAL ADMIN FEES - APRIL 2018 275078 79760668 9594.61613/22/2018 Dental self-insurance admin fe Dental Self-insurance 1,544.70 197161 3/23/2018 100297 HOLIDAY COMMERCIAL 5.87 FUEL 275079 1400-006-310-71 0-030818 3220.62353/22/2018 Fuel, Lubricants, Additives Tree Removal 26.76 CAR WASHES 275080 1400-006-317-66 9-030818 1221.63543/22/2018 Car Washes Administration-Fire 5.36-CAR WASH SQUAD 275081 1400-006-317-66 9-020818 1221.63543/22/2018 Car Washes Administration-Fire 300.00 SQUAD CAR WASHES 275155 1400-006-311-45 8-030818 1104.63543/22/2018 Car Washes Patrolling/Traffic 327.27 197162 3/23/2018 145242 HOLTZ, DWAYNE 24.99 CLOTHING ALLOWANCE - HOLTZ 275082 031218 6201.21153/22/2018 Clothing Allowance San Sewer-Administration 24.99 197163 3/23/2018 102238 IDENTISYS 168.50 PRINT CARTRIDGES 275075 379010 0301.62103/22/2018 Office Supplies IT-Gen & Admn 168.50 197164 3/23/2018 151335 INFOSENSE INC. 25,410.00 SEWER INSPECTION EQUIPMENT 275083 1650 6240.66303/22/2018 Other Improvements Sewer Main Inspection 25,410.00 197165 3/23/2018 146543 INTERSTATE ALL BATTERY CENTER 277.20 ISCO BATTERIES FOR FLOW MONITO 275076 1911701003530 6244.62603/22/2018 Utility System Parts/Supplies Sewer System Meterng/Monitorng 277.20 197166 3/23/2018 142544 JEDLICKI INC., G.F. 3/22/2018City of Eagan 15:39:16R55CKR2LOGIS102V 11Page -Council Check Register by GL Check Register w GL Date & Summary 3/23/20183/19/2018 -- Inv No Account No Account Description Business UnitDoc NoCheck #PO #SubledgerSupplier / ExplanationDateAmount 197166 3/23/2018 142544 JEDLICKI INC., G.F.Continued... 16,626.96 COUNTRY HOLLOW SAN LS REPAIR 275084 093017 6239.6630 P11203/22/2018 Other Improvements Lift Station Maintenanc/Repair 16,626.96 197167 3/23/2018 147640 JORGENSON, SCOTT 18.53 MILEAGE TO COURT, HASTINGS3/13 275085 031318 1104.63533/22/2018 Personal Auto/Parking Patrolling/Traffic 18.53 197168 3/23/2018 119878 KATH FUEL 17,554.28 8500 GALLONS OF GASOLINE 275077 617999 9001.14113/22/2018 Inventory - Motor Fuels General Fund 17,554.28 197169 3/23/2018 151372 KELLER, JUSTIN 74.27 10717-OVRPMNT 4472 REINDEER LN 275086 031518 9220.22503/22/2018 Escrow Deposits Public Utilities 74.27 197170 3/23/2018 149324 KONRAD MATERIAL SALES LLC 348.75 BITUM REPAIR 275087 1253319 2220.62553/22/2018 Street Repair Supplies Bituminous Surface Maint 348.75 197171 3/23/2018 100061 KRAEMER MINING & MATERIALS INC. 340.61 MAINBREAK FILL 275088 268106 6160.62553/22/2018 Street Repair Supplies Main Maintenance/Repair 340.61 197172 3/23/2018 146762 KRAFT CONTRACTING & MECHANICAL LLC 30,000.00 NTP HVAC UPGRADES 275089 11589 6146.64273/22/2018 Building Operations/Repair-Lab North Plant Building 30,000.00 197173 3/23/2018 135589 KULLY SUPPLY INC. 83.87 DRINKING FOUNTAIN PARTS 275090 445181 6602.62303/22/2018 Repair/Maintenance Supplies-Ge Equipment Repair & Maint. 83.87 197174 3/23/2018 151338 LENTSCH, GAIL 412.43 2018 OAK WILT-TREE REMOVAL 275096 2018 OAK WILT-TR 3209.68603/22/2018 Contributions/Cost Sharing Pay Plant Inspections-Private Prop 412.43 197175 3/23/2018 100490 LIFEWORKS 86.94 BLDG CLEANING CONTRACT 275091 021139 3106.65373/22/2018 Janitorial Service Structure Care & Maintenance 86.94 3/22/2018City of Eagan 15:39:16R55CKR2LOGIS102V 12Page -Council Check Register by GL Check Register w GL Date & Summary 3/23/20183/19/2018 -- Inv No Account No Account Description Business UnitDoc NoCheck #PO #SubledgerSupplier / ExplanationDateAmount 197176 3/23/2018 100111 LOGIS Continued... 57,277.00 LOGIS-NETWORK SUPPORT 275092 44812 0301.63503/22/2018 LOGIS IT Services IT-Gen & Admn 488.00 ACCESSEAGAN-LOGIS SUPPORT 275092 44812 4005.63503/22/2018 LOGIS IT Services AccessEagan 27,829.00 LOGIS-NETWORK SUPPORT 275093 44920 0301.63503/22/2018 LOGIS IT Services IT-Gen & Admn 9,780.00 275094 44893 0301.63503/22/2018 LOGIS IT Services IT-Gen & Admn 4,982.00 WELLNESS SERVICE-LOGIS 275095 44946 0301.63503/22/2018 LOGIS IT Services IT-Gen & Admn 100,356.00 197177 3/23/2018 100116 MACQUEEN EQUIP 55.54 VACTOR VALVE HANDLES 275098 P11135 6232.62313/22/2018 Mobile Equipment Repair Parts Equipment Maintenance/Repair 4,994.51 CCTV CAMERA REPAIR 275099 W02233 6240.64253/22/2018 Mobile Equipment Repair Labor Sewer Main Inspection 3,544.82 SMALL JETTER REPAIRS #227 275101 W02231 6232.64253/22/2018 Mobile Equipment Repair Labor Equipment Maintenance/Repair 8,594.87 197178 3/23/2018 141510 MADISON NATIONAL LIFE 4,903.68 MADISON LIFE-LTD BILL MAR 18 275102 8862-0318 9592.61523/22/2018 Life Benefit Accrual 4,903.68 197179 3/23/2018 151344 MARKET & JOHNSON INC. 57,118.00 FINAL PMT ECC OFFICE CREATE 275103 5102-1 5045.67103/22/2018 Project - Contract Temporary Office/Moving Expens 57,118.00 197180 3/23/2018 149658 MASSMANN, BRENT 200.00 MATERIALS STORAGE 275104 031618 6163.62303/22/2018 Repair/Maintenance Supplies-Ge Meter Maintenance/Repair 200.00 197181 3/23/2018 151196 METLIFE 585.00 METLIFE BILL-MAR/APR 18 275105 50692361 9592.20353/22/2018 Ded Payable-Met Law Benefit Accrual 585.00 197182 3/23/2018 100710 METRO COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS 440,841.29 WASTE WATER SERVICE - APRIL 18 275106 0001078676 6201.65753/22/2018 MCES Disposal Charges San Sewer-Administration 440,841.29 197183 3/23/2018 100452 METRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS ASN 60.00 MEN'S VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS'275100 250 3041.63273/22/2018 Sporting Event Officials Adult Volleyball-Men 90.00 WOMEN'S VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS 275100 250 3042.63273/22/2018 Sporting Event Officials Adult Volleyball-Women 150.00 197184 3/23/2018 100133 MIKES SHOE REPAIR 185.00 CLOTHING ALLOWANCE - TISOR 275107 3022018 6101.21153/22/2018 Clothing Allowance Water -Administration 3/22/2018City of Eagan 15:39:16R55CKR2LOGIS102V 13Page -Council Check Register by GL Check Register w GL Date & Summary 3/23/20183/19/2018 -- Inv No Account No Account Description Business UnitDoc NoCheck #PO #SubledgerSupplier / ExplanationDateAmount 197184 3/23/2018 100133 MIKES SHOE REPAIR Continued... 185.00 197185 3/23/2018 133533 MINGER CONSTRUCTION INC. 29,806.25 APOLLO STORM LIFT REPAIR 275108 031318 6439.6630 P12533/22/2018 Other Improvements Lift Station Maintenanc/Repair 30,308.56 APOLLO STORM LIFT REPAIR 275108 031318 6439.6630 P12493/22/2018 Other Improvements Lift Station Maintenanc/Repair 60,114.81 197186 3/23/2018 100664 MN CHILD SUPPORT 586.52 PAYROLL ENDING 3/17/18 274957 GARNISHMENT 3/17/18 9592.20303/23/2018 Ded Pay - Garnishments Benefit Accrual 342.87 PAYROLL ENDING 3/17/18 274958 GARNISHMENT 3/17/18-1 9592.20303/23/2018 Ded Pay - Garnishments Benefit Accrual 230.73 PAYROLL ENDING 3/17/18 274959 GARNISHMENT 3/17/18-2 9592.20303/23/2018 Ded Pay - Garnishments Benefit Accrual 1,160.12 197187 3/23/2018 100682 MN DEPT OF HEALTH 32,424.00 CONNECTION WATER SUPPLY FEE 275109 1ST QTR 2018 9220.22723/22/2018 Water Testing Surcharge Payabl Public Utilities 32,424.00 197188 3/23/2018 102019 MN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 20.00 LICENSE RENEWAL-HEIL 275110 SP078728-18-HEI L 6101.64803/22/2018 Licenses, Permits and Taxes Water -Administration 20.00 197189 3/23/2018 102147 MN DNR ECO- WATERS 22,442.31 WATER APPROPRIATION 275111 1978-6010-2018 6148.64803/22/2018 Licenses, Permits and Taxes North Well Field 22,442.31 WATER APPROPRIATION 275111 1978-6010-2018 6156.64803/22/2018 Licenses, Permits and Taxes South Well Field 44,884.62 197190 3/23/2018 120087 MN ENERGY RESOURCES CORP 135.06 ART HOUSE 275112 0506085756-0000 1-MAR18 3106.64103/22/2018 Natural Gas Service Structure Care & Maintenance 76.28 OLD TOWN HALL 275113 0504848982-0000 1-MAR18 3304.64103/22/2018 Natural Gas Service Bldg/Facilities Maintenance 177.41 BRIDLE RIDGE PARK 275114 0502896570-0000 6-MAR18 3106.64103/22/2018 Natural Gas Service Structure Care & Maintenance 771.35 CIVIC ICE ARENA 275115 0504859971-0000 1-MAR18 6601.64103/22/2018 Natural Gas Service General/Administrative-Arena 10.35 CENTRAL PARK PAVILLION 275116 0506640339-0000 3106.64103/22/2018 Natural Gas Service Structure Care & Maintenance 3/22/2018City of Eagan 15:39:16R55CKR2LOGIS102V 14Page -Council Check Register by GL Check Register w GL Date & Summary 3/23/20183/19/2018 -- Inv No Account No Account Description Business UnitDoc NoCheck #PO #SubledgerSupplier / ExplanationDateAmount 197190 3/23/2018 120087 MN ENERGY RESOURCES CORP Continued... 1-MAR18 75.65 TIMBERLINE PUMPHOUSE 275117 0502341685-0000 1-MAR18 6146.64103/22/2018 Natural Gas Service North Plant Building 1,782.53 SOUTH TREATMENT PLANT 275118 0503582559-0000 1-MAR18 6154.64103/22/2018 Natural Gas Service South Plant Building 103.38 MOONSHINE 275119 0506119075-0000 1-MAR18 3106.64103/22/2018 Natural Gas Service Structure Care & Maintenance 1,443.30 POLICE BLDG 275120 0507280053-0000 1-MAR18 3304.64103/22/2018 Natural Gas Service Bldg/Facilities Maintenance 94.62 PUMPHOUSE 2 275121 0503993940-0000 1-MAR18 6146.64103/22/2018 Natural Gas Service North Plant Building 265.52 FIRE STATION 5 275122 0507602491-0000 1-MAR18 3313.64103/22/2018 Natural Gas Service Fire Buildings 145.58 GOAT HILL PARK 275123 0502896570-0000 1-MAR18 3106.64103/22/2018 Natural Gas Service Structure Care & Maintenance 582.48 FIRE STATION 4 275124 0502992371-0000 1-MAR18 3313.64103/22/2018 Natural Gas Service Fire Buildings 1,785.86 FIRE STATION 1 275125 0502896570-0000 4-MAR18 3313.64103/22/2018 Natural Gas Service Fire Buildings 332.58 CASCADE BAY 275126 0506263442-0000 1-MAR18 6715.64103/22/2018 Natural Gas Service Cascade Utilities 49.05 CASCADE BAY 275127 0506263442-0000 2-MAR18 6715.64103/22/2018 Natural Gas Service Cascade Utilities 2,240.25 CITY HALL 275128 0507679172-0000 1-MAR18 3304.64103/22/2018 Natural Gas Service Bldg/Facilities Maintenance 152.42 SKYHILL PARK 275129 0505890818-0000 1-MAR18 3106.64103/22/2018 Natural Gas Service Structure Care & Maintenance 2,555.21 PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE 275130 0505182087-0000 1-MAR18 3304.64103/22/2018 Natural Gas Service Bldg/Facilities Maintenance 303.64 UTILITY STORAGE BLDG 275131 0505182087-0000 3-MAR18 6146.64103/22/2018 Natural Gas Service North Plant Building 79.49 QUARRY PARK 275132 0507516709-0000 1-MAR18 3106.64103/22/2018 Natural Gas Service Structure Care & Maintenance 270.85 FIRE SAFETY CENTER 275133 0507084666-0000 1-MAR18 3313.64103/22/2018 Natural Gas Service Fire Buildings 13,432.86 197191 3/23/2018 145555 MN LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPLORER ASSOC 1,420.00 EXPLORER CONFERENCE FEE-4 275136 4432 1104.64763/22/2018 Conferences/Meetings/Training Patrolling/Traffic 1,420.00 3/22/2018City of Eagan 15:39:16R55CKR2LOGIS102V 15Page -Council Check Register by GL Check Register w GL Date & Summary 3/23/20183/19/2018 -- Inv No Account No Account Description Business UnitDoc NoCheck #PO #SubledgerSupplier / ExplanationDateAmount 197191 3/23/2018 145555 MN LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPLORER ASSOC Continued... 197192 3/23/2018 138821 MN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 1,436.27 MINNESOTA LIFE-APR 2018 275137 APR18 9592.61523/22/2018 Life Benefit Accrual 1,447.27 MINNESOTA LIFE-MARCH 2018 275138 MAR18 9592.61523/22/2018 Life Benefit Accrual 2,883.54 197193 3/23/2018 146682 MN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 4,661.30 MINNESOTA LIFE-MARCH 2018 275139 0033843-MAR18 9592.20213/22/2018 Ded Payable - Insurance Benefit Accrual 4,661.30 197194 3/23/2018 115199 MN RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION 255.00 OPERATOR EDUC-R. FRANCOIS 275140 030618-FRANCOIS 6101.64763/22/2018 Conferences/Meetings/Training Water -Administration 255.00 197195 3/23/2018 143590 MN SCIA 60.00 DETECTIVE TRAINING-M.SCHNEIDER 275141 01670 1105.64763/22/2018 Conferences/Meetings/Training Investigation/Crime Prevention 60.00 197196 3/23/2018 151287 MONOPRICE INC 52.20 CABLES FOR CMF TEMP OFFICE 275134 17303122 2401.62703/22/2018 Computer Software Gen/Adm-Central Services 144.02 CABLES FOR CH-FS2 MOVE 275134 17303122 5045.66603/22/2018 Office Furnishings & Equipment Temporary Office/Moving Expens 196.22 197197 3/23/2018 100142 MOTOROLA INC 108.00 PORTABLE BELT CLIPS 275135 8280426527 1104.62383/22/2018 Communication System Parts Patrolling/Traffic 108.00 197198 3/23/2018 149464 MUA, KRISHINA 18.53 MILEAGE TO COURT, HASTINGS3/14 275142 031418 1104.63533/22/2018 Personal Auto/Parking Patrolling/Traffic 18.53 197199 3/23/2018 125742 NATIONAL DRIVE 2.00 PAYROLL ENDING 3/17/18 274960 031718 9592.20373/23/2018 Ded Payable-Teamsters DRIVE Benefit Accrual 2.00 197200 3/23/2018 120468 NEW LOOK CONTRACTING INC 6,645.10 STORM POND REPAIR 275143 6234 6435.64323/22/2018 Utility System Repair-Labor Storm Pond Maintn/Inspection 6,645.10 197201 3/23/2018 144499 NSC 3/22/2018City of Eagan 15:39:16R55CKR2LOGIS102V 16Page -Council Check Register by GL Check Register w GL Date & Summary 3/23/20183/19/2018 -- Inv No Account No Account Description Business UnitDoc NoCheck #PO #SubledgerSupplier / ExplanationDateAmount 197201 3/23/2018 144499 NSC Continued... 1,378.00 COMP TO BE REIMBURSED 275144 031518 6611.62203/22/2018 Operating Supplies - General Learn To Skate 1,378.00 197202 3/23/2018 143383 OERTEL ARCHITECTS 221.80 ARCH. FEES BRIDLE RIDGE 275145 13-030718 2846.67513/22/2018 Design & Engineering (External Bridle Ridge Park 221.80 197203 3/23/2018 108599 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 118.58 OFFICE SUPPLIES 275146 111170544001 1107.62103/22/2018 Office Supplies Support Services 10.47 OFFICE SUPPLIES 275147 111092630001 0720.62103/22/2018 Office Supplies General Admin-Planning & Zonin 9.98 OFFICE SUPPLIES 275151 111092564001 0501.62103/22/2018 Office Supplies General & Admn-Finance 33.08 OFFICE SUPPLIES 275151 111092564001 0720.62103/22/2018 Office Supplies General Admin-Planning & Zonin 39.99 OFFICE SUPPLIES 275152 111672926001 0501.62103/22/2018 Office Supplies General & Admn-Finance 89.29 HOLLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 275152 111672926001 3001.62123/22/2018 Office Small Equipment General/Admn-Recreation 301.39 197204 3/23/2018 142091 OFFICE OF MN IT SERVICES 21.60 STATE TOKENS 275153 DV18020506 0301.65693/22/2018 Maintenance Contracts IT-Gen & Admn 21.60 197205 3/23/2018 100653 PARADISE CAR WASH 419.35 SQUAD CAR WASHES 275148 52020-030818 1104.63543/22/2018 Car Washes Patrolling/Traffic 419.35 197206 3/23/2018 102381 PARK SUPPLY, INC. 669.19 PLUMBING PARTS 275149 228518000 6827.62333/22/2018 Building Repair Supplies Building Maintenance 669.19 197207 3/23/2018 151375 PARTNERS TITLE 17.18 10717-OVRPMNT 4141 LEXINGTON W 275150 031518 9220.22503/22/2018 Escrow Deposits Public Utilities 17.18 197208 3/23/2018 151298 PILOT KNOB RD PROPERTIES LLC 13,975.00 PAINTING 275154 2 6834.65353/22/2018 Other Contractual Services Capital Replacement 13,975.00 197209 3/23/2018 100310 POSTMASTER 500.00 2018- 1ST QTR EBN POSTAGE 275160 031318 0903.63463/22/2018 Postage Eagan Business News 500.00 3/22/2018City of Eagan 15:39:16R55CKR2LOGIS102V 17Page -Council Check Register by GL Check Register w GL Date & Summary 3/23/20183/19/2018 -- Inv No Account No Account Description Business UnitDoc NoCheck #PO #SubledgerSupplier / ExplanationDateAmount 197210 3/23/2018 100361 R & R SPECIALTIES INC Continued... 56.00 BLADES SHARPENED 275156 0064681-IN 6602.62303/22/2018 Repair/Maintenance Supplies-Ge Equipment Repair & Maint. 56.00 197211 3/23/2018 103065 ROTARY CLUB OF EAGAN 156.00 ROTARY-OSBERG 1ST QTR 2018 275161 2016-1720 0201.64773/22/2018 Local Meeting Expenses General & Admn-Admn 156.00 J. MCDONALD 1ST QTR 2018 275162 2016-1716 1101.64773/22/2018 Local Meeting Expenses General/Admn-Police 156.00 ROTARY-M. SCOTT 1ST QTR 2018 275163 2016-1731 1221.64773/22/2018 Local Meeting Expenses Administration-Fire 156.00 J. HUTMACHER 1ST QTR 2018 275164 2016-1707 0720.64773/22/2018 Local Meeting Expenses General Admin-Planning & Zonin 624.00 197212 3/23/2018 100683 SAMS CLUB GECF 31.96 CAKES 274935 004331-011918 6609.68553/23/2018 Merchandise for Resale Concession Sales/Vending 44.72 FRUIT/CHIPS/CANDY 274936 004533-011918 6806.68553/23/2018 Merchandise for Resale Concessions 50.14 FRUIT/CHIPS/CANDY 274936 004533-011918 6831.68553/23/2018 Merchandise for Resale Food and Beverage 47.92 FRUIT/CHIPS/CANDY 274936 004533-011918 6807.62203/23/2018 Operating Supplies - General Fitness Center 98.84 VINEGAR/TOWELS/TISSUE 274938 001140-012518 6146.62233/23/2018 Building/Cleaning Supplies North Plant Building 45.30 WATER/CHEESE/CLEMENTINES 274939 007147-012518 3086.62273/23/2018 Recreation Equipment/Supplies New Programs 20.92 WATER/CHEESE/CLEMENTINES 274939 007147-012518 3079.62273/23/2018 Recreation Equipment/Supplies Special Events 31.96 CAKES 274940 001437-012618 6609.68553/23/2018 Merchandise for Resale Concession Sales/Vending 197.78 SUPPLIES 274941 000000-013018 3057.62273/23/2018 Recreation Equipment/Supplies Preschool Programs 165.31 POP 274942 009028-013018 6609.68553/23/2018 Merchandise for Resale Concession Sales/Vending 16.99 CHIPS/WATER 274943 001931-013118 0101.64773/23/2018 Local Meeting Expenses Legislative/Policy Development 34.96 PAPER TOWELS 274944 005539-013118 3057.62273/23/2018 Recreation Equipment/Supplies Preschool Programs 20.73 CUPS LIDS 274945 001408-020318 6609.68553/23/2018 Merchandise for Resale Concession Sales/Vending 20.73-SUPPLIES 274946 005683-020318 6609.68553/23/2018 Merchandise for Resale Concession Sales/Vending 52.94 WWATER/POP 274947 003231-020618 1101.64773/23/2018 Local Meeting Expenses General/Admn-Police 52.88 BROWNIES/COOKIES/MUFFINS 274948 009895-020718 1101.64773/23/2018 Local Meeting Expenses General/Admn-Police 11.98 SUPPLIES 274949 000163-020818 6807.62203/23/2018 Operating Supplies - General Fitness Center 54.52 SUPPLIES 274949 000163-020818 6831.68553/23/2018 Merchandise for Resale Food and Beverage 19.94 SUPPLIES 274949 000163-020818 6805.62203/23/2018 Operating Supplies - General Birthday Parties 15.96 SUPPLIES 274949 000163-020818 6806.62203/23/2018 Operating Supplies - General Concessions 38.92 SUPPLIES 274949 000163-020818 6806.68553/23/2018 Merchandise for Resale Concessions 31.96 CAKES/WIPES 274950 002669-020918 6609.68553/23/2018 Merchandise for Resale Concession Sales/Vending 15.51 CAKES/WIPES 274950 002669-020918 6603.62233/23/2018 Building/Cleaning Supplies Building Repair & Maint. 1.03-SUPPLIES 274951 003759-020918 6603.62233/23/2018 Building/Cleaning Supplies Building Repair & Maint. 121.78 SUPPLIES 274952 000000-021318 5045.62203/23/2018 Operating Supplies - General Temporary Office/Moving Expens 25.96 WATER/BREAKFAST TRAY 274953 000405-021418 1104.64773/23/2018 Local Meeting Expenses Patrolling/Traffic 32.47 CUPS/WATER/BREAKFAST TRAY 274954 009091-021418 3078.62273/23/2018 Recreation Equipment/Supplies Senior Citizens 63.92 POP/CAKES 274955 001597-021618 6609.68553/23/2018 Merchandise for Resale Concession Sales/Vending 96.88 POP/CAKES 274955 001597-021618 6629.68553/23/2018 Merchandise for Resale Vending 3/22/2018City of Eagan 15:39:16R55CKR2LOGIS102V 18Page -Council Check Register by GL Check Register w GL Date & Summary 3/23/20183/19/2018 -- Inv No Account No Account Description Business UnitDoc NoCheck #PO #SubledgerSupplier / ExplanationDateAmount 197212 3/23/2018 100683 SAMS CLUB GECF Continued... 13.75 BANANA'S/CLEMENTINES/CANDY 274956 001034-012518 1101.64773/23/2018 Local Meeting Expenses General/Admn-Police 1,435.14 197213 3/23/2018 151373 SCHMIDT, DANIELLE 11.30 10717-OVRPMNT 4509 CINNAMON RI 275157 031518 9220.22503/22/2018 Escrow Deposits Public Utilities 11.30 197214 3/23/2018 144553 SCHNEIDER, MICHAEL 8.59 TRAINING MEAL 3/7/18 275165 030718 1105.64763/22/2018 Conferences/Meetings/Training Investigation/Crime Prevention 8.59 197215 3/23/2018 142107 SCHROEPFER, DESIREE 12.13 TRAINING MEAL 3/7/18 275166 030718 1105.64763/22/2018 Conferences/Meetings/Training Investigation/Crime Prevention 12.13 197216 3/23/2018 141461 SHAWN, JACK P 6,079.00 MEN'S BASKETBALL OFFICIALS 275167 031818 3076.63273/22/2018 Sporting Event Officials Adult Basketball-Men 6,079.00 197217 3/23/2018 151370 SHEIKHI, NADER 48.30 10717-OVRPMNT 3837 LAUREL CT 275168 031518 9220.22503/22/2018 Escrow Deposits Public Utilities 48.30 197218 3/23/2018 149647 SHETLER SI INC 97.88 SECURITY OFFICER 275169 1017108 6847.65353/22/2018 Other Contractual Services Security 97.88 197219 3/23/2018 100193 SIGNATURE CONCEPTS 91.21 PARK SEASONAL UNIFORMS 275170 901461 3170.62243/22/2018 Clothing/Personal Equipment General AdmIn-Parks 2,643.20 PARK SEASONAL UNIFORMS 275171 901674 3170.62243/22/2018 Clothing/Personal Equipment General AdmIn-Parks 163.51 UNIFORMS/NEW LOGO-G HOVE 275174 901462 3201.21153/22/2018 Clothing Allowance Administrative/General 2,897.92 197220 3/23/2018 101035 SIMPLEXGRINNELL LP 502.12 FIRE ALARM MONITORING 275172 20082960 3313.65693/22/2018 Maintenance Contracts Fire Buildings 502.12 197221 3/23/2018 102392 SPARTAN PROMOTIONAL GROUP, INC. 50.00 SPARTAN-EMB.SET UP FEE 275173 563208B 3001.62273/22/2018 Recreation Equipment/Supplies General/Admn-Recreation 74.00 SPARTAN-STAFF SHIRTS 275173 563208B 3061.62243/22/2018 Clothing/Personal Equipment Market Fest 3/22/2018City of Eagan 15:39:16R55CKR2LOGIS102V 19Page -Council Check Register by GL Check Register w GL Date & Summary 3/23/20183/19/2018 -- Inv No Account No Account Description Business UnitDoc NoCheck #PO #SubledgerSupplier / ExplanationDateAmount 197221 3/23/2018 102392 SPARTAN PROMOTIONAL GROUP, INC.Continued... 124.00 197222 3/23/2018 100204 STREICHERS INC. 19,964.76 2017 AMMO PURCHASE 275175 11292753 1104.62283/22/2018 Ammunition Patrolling/Traffic 19,964.76 197223 3/23/2018 144123 TECHNOLOGY MANAGMENT CORPORATION 712.50 PRICE COMPARISON STUDY 275176 4740 4005.63103/22/2018 Professional Services-General AccessEagan 712.50 197224 3/23/2018 146452 TIMM, MELISSA 34.88 MILEAGE 2/8/18-3/12/18 275182 031218 0401.63533/22/2018 Personal Auto/Parking General & Admn-City Clerk 34.88 197225 3/23/2018 113124 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY 930.44 BUY NEW WELDING GAS TANKS 275177 10232473 2401.62413/22/2018 Shop Materials Gen/Adm-Central Services 930.44 197226 3/23/2018 100218 TOTAL TOOL 66.37 PICK HANDLES FOR JETTING 275178 01269979 6238.62403/22/2018 Small Tools Sewer Main Maintenance 66.37 197227 3/23/2018 149500 TOYOTA-LIFT OF MINNESOTA 50.00 PALLET RACKING LOAD STICKERS 275179 S0060760 6146.62103/22/2018 Office Supplies North Plant Building 50.00 197228 3/23/2018 151376 TRIPP, CHRIS 43.56 10717-OVRPMNT 1769 KARIS WAY 275180 031518 9220.22503/22/2018 Escrow Deposits Public Utilities 43.56 197229 3/23/2018 100232 UHL CO INC 3,864.00 CAMERA/CALLBOX EAST CH ENTRANC 275181 4381 5045.66603/22/2018 Office Furnishings & Equipment Temporary Office/Moving Expens 1,025.00 NETWORK ROOM CAMERAS 275183 2326 3503.66603/22/2018 Office Furnishings & Equipment Equip Rev Fd-Dept 03 4,889.00 197230 3/23/2018 120163 ULINE INC. 2,447.36 COLD STORAGE RACKING 275184 94560507 6146.66403/22/2018 Machinery/Equipment North Plant Building 307.32 NEW DROPBOX FOR EVD. TRAILER 275185 95463424 5045.62203/22/2018 Operating Supplies - General Temporary Office/Moving Expens 76.23 BOXES 275189 95452563 0801.62103/22/2018 Office Supplies General & Admn-Protective Insp 2,830.91 3/22/2018City of Eagan 15:39:16R55CKR2LOGIS102V 20Page -Council Check Register by GL Check Register w GL Date & Summary 3/23/20183/19/2018 -- Inv No Account No Account Description Business UnitDoc NoCheck #PO #SubledgerSupplier / ExplanationDateAmount 197230 3/23/2018 120163 ULINE INC.Continued... 197231 3/23/2018 149351 UNITED FARMERS COOPERATIVE 8,732.89 EXMARK MOWER '18 BUDGET 275186 874705 3170.66703/22/2018 Other Equipment General AdmIn-Parks 8,732.89 197232 3/23/2018 136168 UNITED STATES MARSHAL'S (R) 52,521.00 18-DC-503 TRANSFER TO FEDS 275190 032118 9695.28653/22/2018 Pending Forfeitures Dakota Co Drug Task Force 52,521.00 197233 3/23/2018 100236 VAN PAPER 80.80 PAPER PRODUCTS 275187 456557-00 6603.62233/22/2018 Building/Cleaning Supplies Building Repair & Maint. 80.80 197234 3/23/2018 151371 VANNELLI, KAROL 10.93 10717-OVRPMNT 1588B CLEMSON DR 275188 031518 9220.22503/22/2018 Escrow Deposits Public Utilities 10.93 197235 3/23/2018 101798 VESSCO INC. 1,339.80 WATSON MARLOW ROLLERS 275191 72262 6147.62603/22/2018 Utility System Parts/Supplies North Plant Production 1,339.80 197236 3/23/2018 100237 VIKING ELECTRIC 445.09 NTP HSP PROJECT 275192 S001308746.001 6147.64273/22/2018 Building Operations/Repair-Lab North Plant Production 445.09 197237 3/23/2018 151378 VORTEX USA INC 52,453.72 SPLASHPAD 30%DEPOSIT 275193 33135 2861.67603/22/2018 Play Equipment Central Park 52,453.72 197238 3/23/2018 143785 WILKEN, BILL 125.00 2018 OAK WILT-TREE REMOVAL 275194 2018 OAK WILT-TR 3209.68603/22/2018 Contributions/Cost Sharing Pay Plant Inspections-Private Prop 125.00 197239 3/23/2018 113897 WORKING WORDS 3,325.00 EBN 1Q WRITING 275195 EBN-070 0903.63103/22/2018 Professional Services-General Eagan Business News 3,325.00 197240 3/23/2018 104542 WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3,960.25 OHMANN DESIGN 275196 3-R-011130-000-2849.67513/22/2018 Design & Engineering (External Ohmann Park 3/22/2018City of Eagan 15:39:16R55CKR2LOGIS102V 21Page -Council Check Register by GL Check Register w GL Date & Summary 3/23/20183/19/2018 -- Inv No Account No Account Description Business UnitDoc NoCheck #PO #SubledgerSupplier / ExplanationDateAmount 197240 3/23/2018 104542 WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC.Continued... 022818 13,022.75 QUARRY FINAL DESIGN 275197 3-R-011216-000- 022818 2803.67513/22/2018 Design & Engineering (External Quarry Park 186.00 PROJECT MANAGEMENT JAN 2018 275198 21-0-002084-120 -022818 8189.67133/22/2018 Project - Outside Engineering P1189 CG area landscape monume 17,169.00 197241 3/23/2018 101755 XCEL ENERGY 880.30 SIGNALS 275201 51-6563386-3-03 0618 6301.64073/22/2018 Electricity-Signal Lights Street Lighting 880.30 197242 3/23/2018 101755 XCEL ENERGY 2,873.47 STREET LIGHTS 275202 51-6563390-9-03 0518 6301.64063/22/2018 Electricity-Street Lights Street Lighting 2,873.47 197243 3/23/2018 101755 XCEL ENERGY 12.68 ALEXANDER LIFT STATION 275203 51-6563387-4-03 0818 6239.64083/22/2018 Electricity-Lift Stations Lift Station Maintenanc/Repair 37.31 HWY 55 SAN 275203 51-6563387-4-03 0818 6239.64083/22/2018 Electricity-Lift Stations Lift Station Maintenanc/Repair 49.99 197244 3/23/2018 101755 XCEL ENERGY 263.18 WELL #6 275204 51-6563389-6 6148.64093/22/2018 Electricity-Wells/Booster Stat North Well Field 231.60 WELL #16 275204 51-6563389-6 6148.64093/22/2018 Electricity-Wells/Booster Stat North Well Field 1,596.02 WELL #7 275204 51-6563389-6 6148.64093/22/2018 Electricity-Wells/Booster Stat North Well Field 2,632.02 WELL #17 275204 51-6563389-6 6148.64093/22/2018 Electricity-Wells/Booster Stat North Well Field 4,722.82 197245 3/23/2018 101755 XCEL ENERGY 11.31 SKYLINE ROAD HOCKEY RINK 275205 51-6563384-1-03 0618 3104.64053/22/2018 Electricity Site Amenity Installation 14.18 MCKEE ST ICE RINK LITES 275205 51-6563384-1-03 0618 3104.64053/22/2018 Electricity Site Amenity Installation 269.62 QUARRY PARK 275205 51-6563384-1-03 0618 3106.64053/22/2018 Electricity Structure Care & Maintenance 295.11 3/22/2018City of Eagan 15:39:16R55CKR2LOGIS102V 22Page -Council Check Register by GL Check Register w GL Date & Summary 3/23/20183/19/2018 -- Inv No Account No Account Description Business UnitDoc NoCheck #PO #SubledgerSupplier / ExplanationDateAmount 197246 3/23/2018 100247 ZIEGLER INC Continued... 152.09 UNIT 118 RO 328 275199 PC001953249 9001.14153/22/2018 Inventory - Parts General Fund 753.80 UNIT 144 RO 342 275200 PC001953622 9001.14153/22/2018 Inventory - Parts General Fund 905.89 20180123 3/23/2018 100249 FIT 108,824.90 PAYROLL ENDING 3/17/18 275027 032318 9880.20113/23/2018 Ded Payable - FIT Payroll 108,824.90 20180124 3/23/2018 100250 COMMISIONER OF REVENUE-PAYROLL 32,694.30 PAYROLL ENDING 3/17/18 275028 032318 9880.20123/23/2018 Ded Payable - SIT Payroll 32,694.30 20180125 3/23/2018 100252 FICA 30,040.07 PAYROLL ENDING 3/17/18 275029 032318 9880.20143/23/2018 Ded Payable - FICA Payroll 30,040.07 20180126 3/23/2018 100253 MEDICARE 11,336.38 PAYROLL ENDING 3/17/18 275030 032318 9880.20153/23/2018 Ded Payable - Medicare Payroll 11,336.38 20180301 3/23/2018 150536 MONEY MOVERS INC. 81.00 FEBRUARY 2018 275016 107493 6807.43213/23/2018 Memberships-Taxable Fitness Center 81.00 20180313 3/23/2018 100693 EAGAN PAYROLL ACCT 641,509.32 PAYROLL ENDING 3/17/18 275026 032218 9001.11153/23/2018 Claim on Cash General Fund 7,197.36 PAYROLL ENDING 3/17/18 275026 032218 9197.11153/23/2018 Claim on Cash ETV 65,264.50 PAYROLL ENDING 3/17/18 275026 032218 9220.11153/23/2018 Claim on Cash Public Utilities 18,218.14 PAYROLL ENDING 3/17/18 275026 032218 9221.11153/23/2018 Claim on Cash Civic Arena 3,884.38 PAYROLL ENDING 3/17/18 275026 032218 9222.11153/23/2018 Claim on Cash Cascade Bay 33,830.70 PAYROLL ENDING 3/17/18 275026 032218 9223.11153/23/2018 Claim on Cash Central Park/Community Center 3,826.00 PAYROLL ENDING 3/17/18 275026 032218 9225.11153/23/2018 Claim on Cash Fiber Infrastructure Fund 83,979.84 PAYROLL ENDING 3/17/18 275026 032218 9592.11153/23/2018 Claim on Cash Benefit Accrual 41,376.45 PAYROLL ENDING 3/17/18 275026 032218 9592.61443/23/2018 FICA Benefit Accrual 899,086.69 20180315 3/23/2018 138388 VANCO SERVICES LLC 239.72 FEBRUARY 2018 275017 00008799460 6101.65353/23/2018 Other Contractual Services Water -Administration 239.72 3/22/2018City of Eagan 15:39:16R55CKR2LOGIS102V 23Page -Council Check Register by GL Check Register w GL Date & Summary 3/23/20183/19/2018 -- Inv No Account No Account Description Business UnitDoc NoCheck #PO #SubledgerSupplier / ExplanationDateAmount 20182506 3/23/2018 115374 MN STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM-HCSP Continued... 34,102.91 EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS 275208 032218 9592.20343/23/2018 Ded Payable-HCSP Benefit Accrual 34,102.91 20183206 3/23/2018 138969 MN STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM-MNDCP 9,373.81 EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS 275206 032218 9592.20323/23/2018 Ded Pay - Great West Def Comp Benefit Accrual 9,373.81 20184206 3/23/2018 100892 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 38,893.42 EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS 275207 032218 9592.20313/23/2018 Ded Pay - ICMA Benefit Accrual 38,893.42 20185205 3/23/2018 100283 BERKLEY ADMINISTRATORS 10,000.00 WC ADVANCE 275018 031518 9593.16503/23/2018 Worker's Comp Advance to DCA Workers' Compensation Self-In 10,000.00 20185613 3/23/2018 147907 SELECT ACCOUNT 895.50 MARCH 2018 275019 032218 9592.65363/23/2018 Flex Plan Administration Fee Benefit Accrual 895.50 20186003 3/23/2018 100901 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 4,185.00 SALES TAX FEB 2018 275020 SALES TAX - FEB 2018 9001.22703/23/2018 Sales Tax Payable General Fund 153.00 TRANSIT TAX FEB 2018 275020 SALES TAX - FEB 2018 9001.22713/23/2018 Transit Imprv Tax General Fund 2,424.00 SALES TAX FEB 2018 275020 SALES TAX - FEB 2018 9220.22703/23/2018 Sales Tax Payable Public Utilities 88.00 TRANSIT TAX FEB 2018 275020 SALES TAX - FEB 2018 9220.22713/23/2018 Transit Imprv Tax Public Utilities 2,174.00 SALES TAX FEB 2018 275020 SALES TAX - FEB 2018 9221.22703/23/2018 Sales Tax Payable Civic Arena 63.00 TRANSIT TAX FEB 2018 275020 SALES TAX - FEB 2018 9221.22713/23/2018 Transit Imprv Tax Civic Arena 247.00 SALES TAX FEB 2018 275020 SALES TAX - FEB 2018 9222.22703/23/2018 Sales Tax Payable Cascade Bay 9.00 TRANSIT TAX FEB 2018 275020 SALES TAX - FEB 2018 9222.22713/23/2018 Transit Imprv Tax Cascade Bay 6,717.00 SALES TAX FEB 2018 275020 SALES TAX - FEB 2018 9223.22703/23/2018 Sales Tax Payable Central Park/Community Center 244.00 TRANSIT TAX FEB 2018 275020 SALES TAX - FEB 2018 9223.22713/23/2018 Transit Imprv Tax Central Park/Community Center 3/22/2018City of Eagan 15:39:16R55CKR2LOGIS102V 24Page -Council Check Register by GL Check Register w GL Date & Summary 3/23/20183/19/2018 -- Inv No Account No Account Description Business UnitDoc NoCheck #PO #SubledgerSupplier / ExplanationDateAmount 20186003 3/23/2018 100901 MN DEPT OF REVENUE Continued... 16,304.00 20187003 3/23/2018 100901 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 966.35 FUEL TAX (CENT SV) FEB 2018 275021 FUEL TAX - FEB 2018 2244.62353/23/2018 Fuel, Lubricants, Additives Street Equipment Repair/Mtn 64.33 FUEL TAX (EQUIP) FEB 2018 275021 FUEL TAX - FEB 2018 3127.62353/23/2018 Fuel, Lubricants, Additives Equipment Maintenance/Repair 11.00 FUEL TAX (SEWER) FEB 2018 275021 FUEL TAX - FEB 2018 6232.62353/23/2018 Fuel, Lubricants, Additives Equipment Maintenance/Repair 1,041.68 20188006 3/23/2018 100694 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT 76.96 PAYROLL PERIOD 3/4/18-3/17/18 275022 434600-032318 9592.61463/23/2018 PERA - DCP Benefit Accrual 67,619.09 PAYROLL PERIOD 3/4/18-3/17/18 275022 434600-032318 9592.20133/23/2018 Ded Payable - PERA Benefit Accrual 38,719.94 PAYROLL PERIOD 3/4/18-3/17/18 275022 434600-032318 9592.61423/23/2018 PERA - Coordinated Benefit Accrual 50,977.41 PAYROLL PERIOD 3/4/18-3/17/18 275022 434600-032318 9592.61433/23/2018 PERA - Police Benefit Accrual 157,393.40 20188510 3/23/2018 151185 HEALTHPARTNERS INC 5,793.66 DENTAL CLAIMS REIMBURSEMENT 275023 031918 9594.61583/23/2018 Dental Insurance Dental Self-insurance 5,793.66 20189003 3/23/2018 147691 HR SIMPLIFIED INC. 189.00 FEBRUARY 2018 275024 55028 9592.65363/23/2018 Flex Plan Administration Fee Benefit Accrual 189.00 20189004 3/23/2018 147691 HR SIMPLIFIED INC. 1,786.00 2017 ACA 1094/1095 275025 55348 9592.65363/23/2018 Flex Plan Administration Fee Benefit Accrual 1,786.00 3,531,883.39 Grand Total Payment Instrument Totals Checks 3,531,883.39 Total Payments 3,531,883.39 3/22/2018City of Eagan 15:39:23R55CKS2LOGIS100 1Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 3/23/20183/19/2018 - Company Amount 1,038,630.9309001GENERAL FUND 105.7509115DWI Forfeiture 29,472.6909116CEDAR GROVE PARKING GARAGE 11,677.3609197ETV 792,940.5609220PUBLIC UTILITIES 36,121.9709221CIVIC ARENA 6,373.6409222CASCADE BAY 55,758.7909223CENTRAL PARK /COMMUNITY CENTER 5,026.5009225FIBER INFRASTRUCTURE FUND 69,658.5209328PARK SYS DEV AND R&R 2,888.8009334CEDARVALE/HWY 13 TIF 1,025.0009335EQUIPMENT REVOLVING 1,389.66-09337 COMMUNITY INVESTMENT 61,555.1209353POLICE & CITY HALL REMODEL 471,805.5909372REVOLVING SAF-CONSTRUCTION 697,476.8209592BENEFIT ACCRUAL 10,000.0009593WORKERS' COMPENSATION SELF-INS 7,338.3609594Dental Self-insurance 52,521.0009695DAK CO DRUG TASK FORCE 182,895.6509880PAYROLL Report Totals 3,531,883.39 Agenda Information Memo April 3, 2018, Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA D. Approve Contracts Action To Be Considered: To approve the ordinary and customary contracts listed below. Facts:  The contracts listed below are in order for Council approval. Following approval, the contracts will be electronically executed by the Mayor and City Clerk. Contracts to be approved:  Event Sponsorship Agreement with Genisys Credit Union for sponsorship of Market Fest  Agreement with Hunger Solutions for EBT and Market Bucks initiative at Market Fest  Agreement with Baser PL Umpire Association for umpire services  Event Sponsorship Agreement with Dr. Jennifer Eisenhuth Orthodontics for sponsorship of Market Fest  Agreement with Blurberrybuzz Body Art for face painting at Big Rig Rally  Contract with RES Specialty Pyrotechnics, Inc. for a 4th of July fireworks display Attachments: (0) The contracts are available from the City Clerk’s Office. Agenda Information Memo April 3, 2018, Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA E. Approve Cost Share Agreement with Dakota County for the purchase and use of electronic poll books Action To Be Considered: To approve a Cost Share Agreement with Dakota County for the purchase and use of electronic poll books Facts:  Dakota County and its 12 large cities are entering into cost share agreements for the purchase of electronic poll books.  Electronic poll books are computer tablets that replace paper rosters used for checking in voters at polling places. The electronic rosters provide a more efficient check-in experience for voters and election judges. Additionally, electronic poll books minimize the opportunities for error and decrease the staff time needed for roster preparation prior to Election Day. Electronic poll books have been used successfully in other Minnesota counties.  Dakota County has been awarded a State grant for the purchase of the electronic poll books. After the grant has been applied, the cost for the equipment is split evenly between the County and the City. The estimated cost breakdown for Eagan is: o Total cost: $104,929.60 o Grant funding: $41,825.20 o County share: $31,552.20 o City share: $31,552.20  Purchase of the electronic poll books is included in the 2018 Capital Improvement Program.  The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed Cost Share Agreement and has found it to be acceptable. Attachments: (1) CE-1 Cost Share Agreement 1 COST SHARE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF __________ AND COUNTY OF DAKOTA FOR ELECTION ELECTRONIC POLL BOOKS HARDWARE, SOFTWARE, AND RELATED SERVICES This Agreement is entered into by and between the City of _________ (“City”), [address], and the County of Dakota (“County”) 1590 Highway 55, Hastings, MN 55033. City and County are referred to individually as the “Party” and are collectively referred to as the “Parties.” WHEREAS, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 471.59, two or more governmental units, by agreement through action of their governing bodies, may jointly exercise powers common to the governmental units; and WHEREAS, under Minnesota law the parties are empowered to purchase, use, and maintain electronic poll books, also referred to in law as “electronic rosters”; and WHEREAS, the County is the recipient of grant funds by the State of Minnesota for the purchase of electronic rosters, subject to a grant match of local funds; and WHEREAS, the Parties are desirous of cooperating for the purchase and implementation of an electronic poll book system through the State of Minnesota cooperative purchasing venture by use of the grant funds and funds by the Parties and other cities in Dakota County who enter into separate Cost Share Agreements with the County. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and covenants contained herein and subject to the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 471.59, the Parties agree as follows: I. PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to authorize the County to purchase an electronic poll book equipment, software, and related services (collectively, “electronic poll book system”) for use by the Parties and to establish the obligations of the Parties with respect to their implementation, use, and maintenance. II. TERM The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date, which is the date when all signatures of the Parties are obtained, and shall remain in full force and effect until the Expiration Date, which is the date when the Vendor Contract entered into pursuant to Section III. A. expires, this Agreement is terminated as provided herein or by operation of law, whichever occurs first. This agreement may be extended by written mutual agreement of the Parties. 2 III. DUTIES OF THE COUNTY In conformance with the provisions of Minnesota law and, specifically, Minn. Stat. § 16C.03,subd.10, the County will purchase an electronic poll book system through the State of Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing Venture (“CPV”) in consultation with the City. The electronic poll book system purchase will include vendor-supplied technical maintenance and regular maintenance and upgrades of the electronic poll book system, for at least five years from the date of purchase, including assurances of sufficient parts, supplies and accessories, warranty services, and trade-in allowance for all electronic poll book systems owned by the Parties. A. Award of Contract. The final decision on the vendor to whom the contract shall be awarded will be made by the Dakota County Board of Commissioners. The contract will be awarded to a vendor whose proposal meets all of the standards for electronic poll book systems required by Minnesota law (“Vendor Contract”) and will be purchased through the CPV. B. Purchase and Delivery. The County will enter into the Vendor Contract to purchase sufficient electronic poll book system devices for the City using funds awarded to the County in the State of Minnesota Voting Equipment Grant Agreement in the amount of $260,121.98 (“Grant Funds”) and funds provided by the Parties as provided in Section IV.C (together, “Purchase Price”). The County will be responsible for the payment to the vendor pursuant to the Vendor Contract. C. Ownership. The County will own the electronic poll book system purchased pursuant to this Agreement, regardless of where the electronic poll book system may be stored or used. D. Acceptance Testing. The electronic poll book system will be delivered to a County location for acceptance testing by the Parties. E. Repairs and Maintenance. The County will arrange for all necessary repairs, maintenance and upgrades to the electronic poll book system between elections. When upgrades or other services are to be performed by the County or vendor on any part of the electronic poll book system, the City must transport the devices to a central location if requested by the County. F. Licenses. The County will obtain all licenses and other rights necessary for the City to use the election hardware and software for its intended use. G. Insurance. The County will include the electronic poll book system on its commercial property casualty insurance coverage. 3 IV. DUTIES OF THE CITY A. Testing. The City must provide enough staff to test the electronic poll book system for its intended use. B. Storage, Handling and Service. The City must provide safe storage and handling of the electronic poll book system when such equipment is in the City's possession. City must transport the devices to and from polling locations. The City must report any needed hardware and software maintenance, in writing, to the County. Any electronic poll book system problems on election days may be reported to the County orally. C. Payment. The County shall be responsible for the payment of one-half of the Purchase Price. The other one-half of the Purchase Price shall be paid by all cities participating in the purchase. Each city’s share of that one-half of the Purchase Price shall be determined by first calculating that city’s percentage of the total Purchase Price, then subtracting the same percentage of the grant funds from the city’s total cost (“City Share”). Attached hereto as Appendix A are Cost Projections and corresponding City Shares. The County will notify the City of its City Share upon entry into the Vendor Contract. Payment by the City to the County will be made in three equal annual installments, without interest, beginning the first day of the month immediately following delivery of the electronic poll book system packages to the City (years two and three shall be on the first day of the month that the first installment was made). The City may prepay installments at any time without penalty. The City will pay to the County its pro rata share of the annual maintenance costs for the electronic poll book system. The City’s pro rata share shall be based on the total number of electronic poll book system packages purchased under the Vendor Contract divided by the number of packages purchased for the City’s use. The City will pay the County within 45 calendar days of receipt of an invoice from the County. D. Additional Election Hardware and Software. The County will purchase additional election hardware and software to meet the City's needs in connection with the addition of voting precincts to the City. The cost of such election hardware and software will be split equally between the City and the County. The City will pay the County in a lump sum within 45 days of receipt of an invoice from the County. V. INDEMNIFICATION A. City. The City will defend and indemnify the County, its elected officials, employees, and agents and hold them harmless from all claims and damages arising 4 out of the use, transport, storage, handling, or maintenance of the electronic poll book system, which are attributable to the intentional, willful, or negligent acts or omissions of the City, its elected officials, employees, or agents. B. County. The County will defend and indemnify the City, its elected officials, employees, and agents and hold them harmless from all claims and damages arising out of the solicitation and award of the Vendor Contract and arising out of the transport, handling, or storage of the electronic poll books attributable to the intentional, willful, or negligent acts or omissions of the County, its elected officials, employees, or agents. The County does not warrant nor does it indemnify the City for performance of or failure to perform by the Contract Vendor for the electronic poll book system. Nevertheless, the County will pursue any and all rights it may have with respect to warranties, when requested by the City or when necessary, to assure conformance with the intended use of the electronic poll book system. C. Municipal Tort Claims Act. It is understood and agreed that the provisions of the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 466, and other applicable laws govern liability arising from the Parties’ acts or omissions. Each Party warrants that it is able to comply with the aforementioned indemnity requirements through an insurance or self-insurance program and that each has minimum coverage consistent with the liability limits contained in Minn. Stat. Ch. 466. For purposes of determining total liability for tort damages which may arise from this Agreement, the Parties are to be considered a single governmental unit. VI. STATE AUDIT Under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 5, each Party’s books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices relevant to this Agreement are subject to examination by the State and/or the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from the Expiration Date of this Agreement. VII. GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES For purposes of this Agreement, all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the Parties in the performance of this Agreement is subject to the requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, and its implementing rules, as well as any other applicable State or Federal laws on data privacy or security. Each Party shall provide the other Party with prompt notice of a breach of the security of data defined in Minn. Stat. § 13.055, subd. 1(a) or suspected breach of the security of data and shall assist in remedying such breach. Providing or accepting assistance does not constitute a waiver of any claim or cause of action for breach of contract. The Parties shall promptly notify each other when any third-party requests data related to 5 this Agreement, the electronic poll book system or the Vendor Contract. The Party who originated the data subject to the request will give the Party receiving the request instructions concerning the release of the data to the data requester before the data is released. VIII. VENUE Venue for all legal proceedings out of this Agreement, or its breach, must be in the appropriate court of competent jurisdiction in Dakota County, Minnesota. IX. TERMINATION The County will notify the City if its City Share as stated in Appendix A is increased due to one or more cities’ failure to execute a Cost Sharing Agreement, a change in the amount of Grant Funds or a change in the Purchase Price. The City will then have five (5) days from the date of the notification by the County to terminate this Agreement by written notice to the County. Otherwise, the parties must mutually agree to terminate this Agreement in writing and memorialized by the undersigned or their successors. X. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS A. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any provision of this Agreement is void, invalid, or unenforceable, it will not affect the validity and enforceability of the remainder of this Agreement, unless the void, invalid, or unenforceable provision substantially impairs the value of the entire Agreement with respect to either Party. B. Assignment. No Party may assign or transfer any rights or obligations under this Agreement without the prior consent of the other Party and an assignment agreement, approved and executed by all Parties to this Agreement, or their successors in office. C. Amendments. Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and is not effective until approved and executed by all Parties to this Agreement, or their successors in office. D. Waiver. If any Party fails to enforce any provision of this Agreement, such failure does not waive the provision or its right to enforce it. E. Contract Complete. This Agreement contains all negotiations and agreements between the Parties. No other understanding regarding this Agreement, whether written or oral, is binding on any Party. F. Compliance with Laws. The Parties shall abide by all Federal, State and local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations now in effect or hereinafter adopted 6 pertaining to this Agreement. XI. GENERAL CONDITIONS GOVERNING OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM A. City shall distribute electronic pollbooks to precincts in the quantities advised by the County in each election held in the City through 2020. B. Devices requiring maintenance must be identified by the City to the County for reporting to the Contract Vendor within 14 days after an election using the procedure agreed to with the County. C. City must conduct testing on all devices prior to deployment. D. City must follow the County timeline for electronic poll book roster loading and completed file upload after an election. E. City must only use the polling place procedures approved by or from the County or the Minnesota Secretary of State. F. Electronic poll books are to be utilized for election purposes only, and no other function. Electronic poll books are not to be used to scan ID cards of registered voters. G. Voter data of any kind may not be transmitted wirelessly through any device/network/etc. other than the equipment provided for the electronic poll books. 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the County have caused this Agreement to be executed on their behalf. COUNTY OF DAKOTA: CITY OF ________________: By: ______________________________ By: _____________________________ Mayor Name: ___________________________ Date: __________________________ Title:_____________________________ By: _____________________________ City Clerk Date: ____________________________ Date: ____________________________ Approved as to form: _________________________________ Assistant County Attorney/Date File No. KS-17-386 KS-17-386 Cost share for epollbooks.docx 8 Appendix A COST PROJECTIONS* City Total cost for City before grant applied City’s percentage of total purchase City’s percentage of grant funds Cost after grant applied City Share County Share Apple Valley $ 81,049.60 12% $ 32,306.57 $ 48,743.03 $ 24,371.51 $ 24,371.51 Burnsville $ 100,384.50 15% $ 40,013.51 $ 60,370.99 $ 30,185.49 $ 30,185.49 Eagan $ 104,929.60 16% $ 41,825.20 $ 63,104.40 $ 31,552.20 $ 31,552.20 Farmington $ 36,199.56 6% $ 14,429.24 $ 21,770.32 $ 10,885.16 $ 10,885.16 Hastings $ 41,209.60 6% $ 16,426.25 $ 24,783.35 $ 12,391.67 $ 12,391.67 Inver Grove Heights $ 58,099.60 9% $ 23,158.65 $ 34,940.95 $ 17,470.48 $ 17,470.48 Lakeville $ 94,444.50 14% $ 37,645.82 $ 56,798.68 $ 28,399.34 $ 28,399.34 Mendota Heights $ 22,804.60 3% $ 9,089.97 $ 13,714.63 $ 6,857.31 $ 6,857.31 Northfield $ 7,834.58 1% $ 3,122.88 $ 4,711.70 $ 2,355.85 $ 2,355.85 Rosemount $ 35,734.59 5% $ 14,243.90 $ 21,490.69 $ 10,745.35 $ 10,745.35 South St Paul $ 36,664.60 6% $ 14,614.60 $ 22,050.00 $ 11,025.00 $ 11,025.00 West St Paul $ 33,229.56 5% $ 13,245.39 $ 19,984.17 $ 9,992.09 $ 9,992.09 *The information in this Appendix A is informational only and based on all cities identified in the chart executing a Cost Sharing Agreement, the County’s receipt of grant funds in the amount of $260,121.98 and a total Purchase Price of $643,405.00. If one or more of these factors changes, the City Share will likely increase. Agenda Information Memo April 3, 2018 City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA F. Contract 17-11, 2017 City-Wide Sanitary Sewer Lining Action To Be Considered: Approve the final payment for Contract 17-11 (2017 City-wide Sewer Lining - Sanitary Sewer Improvements) in the amount of $7,749.00 to Lametti & Sons, Inc. and accept the improvements for perpetual City maintenance subject to warranty provisions. Facts:  Contract 17-11 provided the rehabilitation of public sanitary sewer through lining improvements of 7,380 linear feet of existing pipe in various areas within the City as is typically completed on an annual basis. The original contract award was $154,980.00. The final contract cost was $179,037.00.  These improvements have been completed, inspected by representatives of the Public Works Department, and found to be in order for favorable Council action of final payment and acceptance for perpetual maintenance subject to warranty provisions. Attachments (1) CF-1 Pay Summary 2017 City-Wide Sanitary Sewer Lining City Project 1255 City Contract 17-11 Original Contract Amount 154,980.00$ Change Orders 24,057.00$ Revised Contract Amount 179,037.00$ Value Completed to Date 179,037.00$ Amount Previously Paid 171,288.00$ Final Payment 7,749.00$ Pay request #2 Amount in excess of Revised Contract -$ Percent over revised Contract 0.0% * Explain if greater than 5% Agenda Information Memo April 3, 2018 Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA G. Contract 18-01 2018 Street Revitalization Action To Be Considered: Receive the bids for Contract 18-01 (2018 Street Revitalization) and award a contract Bituminous Roadways, Inc., for the base bid in the amount of $1,749,860.00, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. Facts:  Contract 18-01 provides for the street improvements as outlined and discussed in the respective Feasibility Reports for each of the following projects: o Galaxie Avenue - Project No. 1258 o Heine 1st Addition - Project No. 1259 o Evergreen Park Addition - Project No. 1260 o Wilderness Run 4th, 5th & 6th Additions - Project No. 1261 o Donnywood - Project No. 1262 o Discovery Road & Columbia Drive - Project No. 1263 o Wescott Woodlands – Project No. 1264 o Blue Gentian Road / Blue Water Road – Project No. 1265 o Rock Lane – Project No. 1274 o 120th Street (Pine Lane to Biscayne Avenue) – Project 1277 (CIP Approval)  On February 5, 2018, the Council approved the plans and specifications for Contract 18- 01 and authorized the solicitation of competitive bids.  At 10:30 a.m. on March 29, 2018, formal bids from three bidders were received for this project.  All of the construction activity for said improvements has been designed to occur within existing public right-of-way or easements.  All bids have been reviewed for compliance with the bid specifications and accuracy on unit price extensions and summations. The base bid from Bituminous Roadwyas has been reviewed by the Public Works Department (Engineering Division) and found to be in order for favorable Council action. Attachments (1) CG-1 Bid Summary BID SUMMARY 2018 STREET REVITALIZATION CITY CONTRACT No. 18-01 GALAXIE AVENUE PROJECT NO 1258 Street Overlay HEINE 1ST ADDITION PROJECT NO 1259 Street Overlay EVERGREEN PARK ADDITION PROJECT NO 1260 Street Overlay WILDERNESS RUN 4TH, 5TH & 6TH PROJECT NO. 1261 Street Overlay DONNYWOOD PROJECT NO 1262 Street Overlay DISCOVERY ROAD & COLUMBIA DRIVE PROJECT NO 1263 Street Overlay WESCOTT WOODLANDS PROJECT NO 1264 Street Overlay BLUE GENTIAN ROAD / BLUE WATER ROAD PROJECT NO 1265 Street Overlay ROCKY LANE PROJECT NO 1274 Street Overlay 120th STREET (PINE LANE TO BISCAYNE) PROJECT NO 1277 Street Rehab Bid Date/ Time: 10:30 a.m., Thursday, March 29, 2018 Contractors Total Base Bid 1. Bituminous Roadways, Inc. $1,749,860.00 2. McNamara Contracting, Inc. $1,880,353.50 3. Park Construction Company $2,067,829.85 Project Low Base Bid Feasibility Report (FR) Estimate % Over/Under FR Estimate Engineer’s Estimate % Over/Under Eng Estimate 1258 $ 194,013 $ 217,200 -10.7% $ 262,126 -26.0% 1259 $ 46,571 $ 55,840 -16.6% $ 58,446 -20.3% 1260 $ 311,725 $ 342,080 - 8.9% $ 419,557 -25.7% 1261 $ 485,426 $ 647,280 -25.0% $ 654,403 -25.8% 1262 $ 282,549 $ 407,040 -30.6% $ 399,468 -29.3% 1263 $ 85,900 $ 95,280 -9.8% $ 108,469 -20.8% 1264 $ 69,455 $ 78,240 -11.2% $ 85,477 -18.7% 1265 $ 213,669 $ 217,360 -1.7% $ 267,248 -20.0% 1274 $ 9,547 $ 18,240 - 47.7% $ 11,862 - 19.5% 1277 $ 51,005 N/A N/A $ 84,776 -39.8% Totals $1,749,860 $2,105,560 -16.9% $2,351,832 -25.6% Agenda Information Memo April 3, 2018 Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA H. Contract 18-07, Fitz Lake Improvement Project Ponds LP-26.3 & 26.5 Action To Be Considered: Receive the bids for Contract 18-07 (Fitz Lake Improvement Project - Ponds LP-26.3 & 26.5) and award a contract to Peterson Companies, for the base bid in the amount of $170,893.16, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. Facts:  Contract 18-07 provides for the second part of the lake improvement project that is intended to benefit Fitz Lake not completed under contract 17-04.  This project provides good cost efficiency (i.e., cost per pound of phosphorus removed) to support the required reduction.  On February 20, 2018, the Council approved the plans and specifications for Contract 18-07 and authorized the solicitation of competitive bids.  At 10:30 a.m. on March 29, 2018, formal bids from five bidders were received for this project.  All of the construction activity for said improvements has been designed to occur within existing public right-of-way or easements.  All bids have been reviewed for compliance with the bid specifications and accuracy on unit price extensions and summations. The base bid from Peterson Companies has been reviewed by the Public Works Department (Water Resources/Engineering Divisions) and found to be in order for favorable Council action. Attachments (1) CH-1 Bid Summary BID SUMMARY FITZ LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PONDS LP-26.3 AND 26.5 CITY CONTRACT 18-07 CITY PROJECTS 1241 Bid Date/ Time: 10:30 a.m., Thursday, March 29, 2018 Contractors Total Base Bid 1. Peterson Companies, Inc. $170,893.16 2. G.F. Jedlicki, Inc. $185,775.00 3. U.S. SiteWork $188,979.00 4. Sunram Construction, Inc. $194,152.00 5. Urban Companies $206,655.00 Project Low Base Bid Engineer’s Estimate % Over/Under Eng Estimate 1241 $170,893 $ 206,709 -17.3% Agenda Information Memo April 3, 2018 Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA I. Contract 18-08, Pond Improvement Projects Ponds FP-1, FP-1.4, FP-1.5, FP-1.6 Action To Be Considered: Receive the bids for Contract 18-08 (Pond Improvements Projects - Ponds FP-1, FP-1.4, FP-1.5, FP-1.6) and award a contract to BKJ Land Company, for the base bid in the amount of $324,923.45, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. Facts:  Contract 18-08 provides for sediment removal and infrastructure maintenance within multiple storm water basins around O’Neil Pond (FP-1), as identified and approved in the City’s 5-Year CIP (2018-2022). This work helps the City fulfill routine responsibilities to maintain its stormwater drainage system in accordance with requirements of the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The work supports surface water quality within Eagan lakes and ponds.  On February 20, 2018, the Council approved the plans and specifications for Contract 18-08 and authorized the solicitation of competitive bids.  At 10:30 a.m. on March 27, 2018, formal bids from six bidders were received for this project.  All of the construction activity for said improvements has been desi gned to occur within existing public right-of-way or easements.  All bids have been reviewed for compliance with the bid specifications and accuracy on unit price extensions and summations. The base bid from BKJ Land Company has been reviewed by the Public Works Department (Water Resources/Engineering Divisions) and found to be in order for favorable Council action. Attachments (1) CI-1 Bid Summary BID SUMMARY Pond Improvement Projects Ponds FP-1, FP-1.4, FP-1.5, FP-1.6 CITY CONTRACT 18-08 CITY PROJECT 1272 Bid Date/ Time: 10:30 a.m., Tuesday, March 27, 2018 Contractors Total Base Bid 1. BKJ Land Company $ 324,923.45 2. JM Hauling LLC $ 404,677.16 3. Sunram Construction $ 430,477.00 4. G.F. Jedlicki $ 512,376.00 5. Max Steininger, Inc. $ 663,703.37 6. Blackstone Contractors LLC $ 714,084.00 Project Low Base Bid Engineer’s Estimate % Over/Under Eng Estimate 1272 $324,923 $ 497,198 -34.6% Agenda Information Memo April 3, 2018 Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA J. Contract 18-09, 2018 Water Quality Improvements Action To Be Considered: Receive the bids for Contract 18-09 (Ponds CP-1.1, CP-5, GP-11 and GP-11.1 – Water Quality Improvements) and award a contract to BKJ Land Company, for the base bid in the amount of $120,788.85, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. Facts:  Contract 18-09 provides for sediment removal and infrastructure maintenance within four wetlands/ basins (Ponds CP-1.1, CP-5, GP-11 and GP-11.1), as identified and approved in the City’s 5-Year CIP (2018-2022). This work helps the City fulfill routine responsibilities to maintain its stormwater drainage system in accordance with requirements of the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The work supports surface water quality within Eagan lakes and ponds.  On February 20, 2018, the Council approved the plans and specifications for Contract 18-09 and authorized the solicitation of competitive bids.  At 11:00 a.m. on March 27, 2018, formal bids from five bidders were received for this project.  All of the construction activity for said improvements has been designed to occur wit hin existing public right-of-way or easements.  All bids have been reviewed for compliance with the bid specifications and accuracy on unit price extensions and summations. The base bid from BKJ Land Company has been reviewed by the Public Works Department (Water Resources/Engineering Divisions) and found to be in order for favorable Council action. Attachments (1) CJ-1 Bid Summary BID SUMMARY 2018 WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PONDS CP-1.1, CP-5, GP-11 AND GP-11.1 CITY CONTRACT 18-09 CITY PROJECTS 1269, 1270 and 1271 Bid Date/ Time: 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, March 27, 2018 Contractors Total Base Bid 1. BKJ Land Company $ 120,788.85 3. Sunram Construction, Inc. $ 163,905.50 2. G.F. Jedlicki, Inc. $ 198,324.00 4. Blackstone Contractors LLC $ 236,435.00 5. Max Steininger, Inc. $ 304,811.11 Contract Low Base Bid Engineer’s Estimate % Over/Under Eng Estimate 18-09 $120,788.85 $ 168,073 -28.1% Agenda Information Memo April 3, 2018 Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA K. Contract 18-11, 2018 City-Wide Sanitary Sewer Lining Action To Be Considered: Receive the bids for Contract 18-11 (2018 City-wide Sewer Lining - Sanitary Sewer Improvements), award the contract to Insituform Technologies USA, Inc. for the base bid in the amount of $167,551.20 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. Facts:  Contract 18-11 provides for the rehabilitation of public sanitary sewer through lining improvements of about 7,757 linear feet of existing pipe in various areas within the City as was included in the Sanitary Sewer Operations and Facilities port ion of the Council approved 2018-2022 Capital Improvement Program (CIP).  On February 20, 2018, the Council approved the plans and specifications for Contract 18-11 and authorized the advertisement for solicitation of competitive bids.  On March 14, 2018, six bid proposals were received (see attached summary). The low bid of $167,551.20 was 17% below the project estimate of $201,682.00.  All of the construction activity for said improvements has been designed to occur within existing public right-of-way or easements.  All bids have been reviewed for compliance with the bid specifications and accuracy on unit price extensions and summations. The base bid of $167,551.20 ($21.60 per linear foot) from Insituform Technologies USA, Inc. has been reviewed by Public Works (Utilities Division) staff and is in order for favorable Council action. Attachments (2) CK-1 Location Map CK-2 Bid Summary BLOOMINGTONBURNSVILLEMENDOTA HEIGHTS APPLE VALLEY ROSEMOUNT INVERGROVEHEIGHTS§¨¦494 §¨¦35E §¨¦35E §¨¦35E $+32 $+32 !(43 !(43 !(28 !(28 $+26 $+26 $+31 $+31 $+31 !(30 !(30 !(30 ÕÇ13 ÕÇ13 ÕÇ55 ÕÇ55 ÕÇ149 ÕÇ149 ÕÇ149 ÕÇ3 ÕÇ3 ÕÇ77 ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !TRUNKHWY13TRUNKHWY.149(DODDRD.)TRUNKHWY55 TRUNKHWY 55 T R U N K H WY 1 4 9 (SIBLEYM EM O RIALHW Y.)TRUNKHWY13T .H. 1 4 9 TRUNKHW Y3 STATETRUNKHWY3CLIFF RD DIFFLEY RD YANKEE DOODLE RD H WY 1 4 9 LEXINGTON AVEPILOT KNOB RDHWY 77HWY 13I - 35EHWY 55 I - 494 PILOT KNOB RDCLIFF RD CORPORATE CENTER DR. CORPORATE CENTER CUR. TRAPP RD. EAG. INDUST. RD. EAG. INDUST. RD.WEST SERVICE RD.EAGANDALECT.CENTERCT.EAGANDALEBL V D B L U EGE N TIAN ROAD VIKING S P ARKWAY CO M M ERSDR.WATERS R D.LON E OA KPKWY.LONE OAK D R. COURTHOUSELN.HOLIDAY LN.APOLLO RD. ALDRIN DR.MIKE COLLINS DR.LUNARLN.GEMINI RD.NEIL ARMSTRONG BLVD.LONE OAKCIRAMESCROSSINGR O AD O'NEIL DR OPPERMAN DR.DODD RD.PROMENADEAVE.CLUBVIEW DR.DENMARK AVE.DENMARK AVE.YANKEE PL.O'LE A R Y LNTOWNCENTRED RIVE DUCKWOOD DR.FEDERAL DR.CENTRALP A R K W A Y HIGH SITE DR. NORWEST DR. 81ST ST. W A SHNTNDR.FOUR OAKS RD.COACHMAN RD.MEADOWVIEW RD. ALEXANDER RD.TERMINAL DR.YANKEE DR.C O M A N C HE RD. SHAWNEE RD.SENE C ARD.KENNEBEC DR.NICOLS RD. SILVER BELL RD.CEDAR GROVE PKW Y.NICOLS RD.ERIN DR.OLD SIB HWY.OLD SIB MEM HWY.RAHN RD.CLIFF L AKERD.SLATER RD.RAHN WAY RAH N CLIFFCT.BLACKHAWK RD.BLACKHAWK RD.GALAXIE AVE.JOHNNY CAKE RIDGE RD.THO M A SLAKERD.THOM.CEN TE R DR .WILD E R NESSRUNRD.DEER W OOD DR. NORTHVIEW PARK RD. WESCOTT RD.DODD RD.E L R E NERD. D OD D R D . RED PINE LN. NORT H W OODPKWY.MN Hwy 7 7 Cliff Road (Co. Rd. 32)Lexington Ave (Co Rd 43)Blackhawk Rd.Dodd Rd.Butwin Road Deerwood Dr. Wilderness Run Rd Duckwood Dr.Rahn RoadGalaxie Ave.Elr e n e Ro a d Northview Park Rd. Yankee Doodle Rd. (Co. Rd. 28) E l r e n e R d .JohnnyCakeRdgRd.Town Center Dr. Tho m a s LakeRd.Slater Rd.Braddock Tr.Federal DrivePilot Knob Road (Co. Rd. 31)CliffLakeRd.Cedar Grove Pkwy.Lone Oak Dr. Silver Bell Rd. Lexington Pt. Pkwy. N orth w oodPa r k w ay Crestridge Dr.Dodd RoadTowerview Rd.Denmark Ave Wescott Road Nicols Rd. Cliff Road (Co. Rd. 32) Lone Oak Rd. (Co. Rd. 26) Vikings P k wy. R edPin e Ln. Diffley Road (Co. Rd. 30) I-494 MN HWY 55 MN HWY 149MN H WY 1 4 9 MN HWY 55 1 in = 1 mile Sa nitary FO, 2 018-7,757 ft./Map D ate: Prepared by: City of Eagan Department of Public Works 2/15/2018 Document Path: L:\USERS\PUBWORKS\Utilities\Sanitary_Sewer\Maintenance\Lining\CouncilProposedLining8x11.mxd City of Eagan Sanitary Sewer Lining 2018 Sanitary Sewer Lining Text2018 Lining 3/14/2018 Bid Date/ Time: 11:00 a.m., Wednesday March 14, 2018 Estimate: $201,682.00 Contractors Total Base Bid Over/Under Estimate Insituform Technologies USA, Inc.$167,551.20 -17% Michels Corp $179,962.40 -11% Veit and Company $197,803.50 -2% Visu-Sewer, Inc.$215,256.75 7% Lametti & Sons $217,196.00 8% SAK Construction $340,144.45 69% 2018 SEWER LINE RENOVATION FOR CURED IN PLACE PIPE CITY PROJECT NO. 1292 CITY CONTRACT NO. 18-11 BID SUMMARY Agenda Information Memo April 3, 2018 Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA L. Contract 18-13, 2018 City-Wide Sanitary Sewer Lining Action To Be Considered: Receive the bids for Contract 18-13 (2018 Well Rehabilitation Improvements), award the contract to Keys Well Drilling, Inc. for the base bid in the amount of $215,380.00 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. Facts:  Contract 18-13 provides for the refurbishing of three City deep water-wells.  On March 6, 2018, the Council approved the plans and specifications for Contract 18-13 and authorized the advertisement of competitive bids.  On March 22, 2018, three bid proposals were received (see attached summary). The low bid of $215,380.00 was 18% below the project estimate of $263,210.00.  All of the construction activity for said improvements has been designed to occur within existing public right-of-way or easements.  All bids have been reviewed for compliance with the bid specifications and accuracy on unit price extensions and summations. The low bid of $215,380.00 from Keys Well Drilling has been reviewed by Public Works staff and found to be in order for favorable Council action. Attachments (1) CL-1 Bid Summary Bid Date/ Time: 11:00 a.m., Thursday March 22, 2018 Well 5 Estimate: $37,780 Contractors Total Base Bid Over/Under Estimate Keys Well Drilling $34,360 -9% Bergerson-Caswell $47,620 26% Traut Wells $53,915 43% E. H. Renner No Bid Well 8 Estimate: $128,950 Contractors Total Base Bid Over/Under Estimate Keys Well Drilling $106,080 -18% Bergerson-Caswell $132,690 3% Traut Wells $143,905 12% E. H. Renner No Bid Well 19 Estimate: $96,480 Contractors Total Base Bid Over/Under Estimate Keys Well Drilling $74,940 -22% Bergerson-Caswell $90,890 -6% Traut Wells $110,475 15% E. H. Renner No Bid 2018 MUNICIPAL WELL REHABILITATION CITY PROJECT NO. 1294 CITY CONTRACT NO. 18-13 BID SUMMARY Agenda Information Memo April 3, 2018 Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA M. Master Partnership Contract Action To Be Considered: Approve the Resolution for a Master Partnership Contract with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents, and delegate authority to the City Engineer to enter into subsequent Work Order Contracts as needed. Facts:  MnDOT offers various services to local agencies through their Master Partnership Contract Program. These services may include Professional and Technical services; Routine Roadway Maintenance; Construction Administration; and Emergency Services. When a need is identified, the State and City will negotiate the specific and detailed work tasks and cost. The State will then prepare a “Work Order” contract limited to a specific project/engagement to be performed under the general terms and conditions of the Master Partnership Contract.  It is financially prudent for the City to make use of certain MnDOT technical services during the course of local public improvement projects or in emergency situations when time is of the essence.  The Public Works Department occasionally requires some of the many technical services provided by MnDOT, including material testing, concrete and bituminous plant inspections, pavement striping, equipment repair, streetlight and signal maintenance, etc.  An agreement between the City of Eagan and MnDOT has been prepared by MnDOT providing the terms and conditions which MnDOT would provide the City with these services.  The City Attorney’s office has reviewed this agreement and found it to be similar to other interagency and service agreements and in order for favorable Council consideration.  Execution of the agreement does not require the City to use MnDOT services. Rather, it provides the City an additional resource for required technical services for economic evaluation. Attachments (2) CM-1 Resolution CM-2 Master Partnership Contract RESOLUTION NO __________ APPROVING A MASTER PARTNERHISP CONTRACT BETWEEN THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CITY OF EAGAN Whereas, The Minnesota Department of Transportation wishes to cooperate closely with local units of government to coordinate the delivery of transportation services and maximize the efficient delivery of such services at all levels of government; and Whereas, MnDOT and local governments are authorized by Minnesota Statutes sections 471.59, 174.02, and 161.20, to undertake collaborative efforts for the design, construction, maintenance and operation of state and local roads; and Whereas, the parties wish to be able to respond quickly and efficiently to such opportunities for collaboration, and have determined that having the ability to write “work orders” against a master contract would provide the greatest speed and flexibility in responding to identified needs. Therefore, be it resolved: 1. That the City of Eagan enter into a Master Partnership Contract with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, a copy of which was before the Council; and 2. That the proper City officers are authorized to execute such contract, and any amendments thereto; and 3. That the City Engineer is authorized to negotiate work order contracts pursuant to the Master Contract, which work order contracts may provide for payment to or from MnDOT, and that the City Engineer may execute such work order contracts on behalf of the City without further approval by this Council. Approved this 3rd day of April, 2018. CITY OF EAGAN CITY COUNCIL By:________________________________ Mayor Attest: _____________________________ City Clerk I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by the City of Eagan, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, at a duly authorized City Council Meeting held in the city of Eagan, Minnesota, on the 3rd day of April, 2018, as disclosed by the records of said City on file and of record in the office. _______________________________________ Christina M. Scipioni MnDOT Contract Number: 1028131 STATE OF MINNESOTA AND CITY OF EAGAN MASTER PARTNERSHIP CONTRACT This master contract is between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Transportation in this contract referred to as the “State” and the City of Eagan acting through its City Council, in this contract referred to as the “Local Government." Recitals 1. The parties are authorized to enter into this contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, §§15.061, 471.59 and 174.02. 2. Minn. Stat. § 161.20, subd. 2, authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to make arrangements with and cooperate with any governmental authority for the purposes of constructing, maintaining and improving the trunk highway system. 3. Each party to this contract is a “road authority” as defined by Minn. Stat. §160.02, subd. 25. 4. Minn. Stat. § 161.39, subd. 1, authorizes a road authority to perform work for another road authority. Such work may include providing technical and engineering advice, assistance and supervision, surveying, preparing plans for the construction or reconstruction of roadways, and performing roadway maintenance. 5. Minn. Stat. §174.02, subd. 6, authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to enter into contracts with other governmental entities for research and experimentation; for sharing facilities, equipment, staff, data, or other means of providing transportation-related services; or for other cooperative programs that promote efficiencies in providing governmental services, or that further development of innovation in transportation for the benefit of the citizens of Minnesota. 6. Each party wishes to occasionally purchase services from the other party, which the parties agree will enhance the efficiency of delivering governmental services at all levels. This Master Partnership Contract (MPC) provides a framework for the efficient handling of such requests. This MPC contains terms generally governing the relationship between the parties. When specific services are requested, the parties will (unless otherwise specified) enter into a “Work Order” contracts. 7. After the execution of this MPC, the parties may (but are not required to) enter into “Work Order” contracts. These Work Orders will specify the work to be done, timelines for completion, and compensation to be paid for the specific work. 8. The parties are entering into this MPC to establish terms that will govern all of the Work Orders subsequently issued under the authority of this Contract. Master Partnership Contract 1. Term of Master Partnership Contract; Use of Work Order Contracts; Survival of Terms 1.1. Effective Date: This contract will be effective on the date last signed by the Local Government, and all State officials as required under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 2. 1.2. A party must not accept work under this Contract until it is fully executed. 1.3. Expiration Date. This Contract will expire on June 30, 2022. Page 1 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: 1028131 1.4. Work Order Contracts. A work order contract must be negotiated and executed (by both the State and the Local Government) for each particular engagement, except for Technical Services provided by the State to the Local Government as specified in Article 2. The work order contract must specify the detailed scope of work and deliverables for that project. A party must not begin work under a work order until the work order is fully executed. The terms of this MPC will apply to all work orders contracts issued, unless specifically varied in the work order. The Local Government understands that this MPC is not a guarantee of any payments or work order assignments, and that payments will only be issued for work actually performed under fully-executed work orders. 1.5. Survival of Terms. The following clauses survive the expiration or cancellation of this master contract and all work order contracts: 12. Liability; 13. State Audits; 14. Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property; 17. Publicity; 18. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue; and 22. Data Disclosure. All terms of this MPC will survive with respect to any work order contract issued prior to the expiration date of the MPC. 1.6. Sample Work Order. A sample work order contract is available upon request from the State. 1.7. Definition of “Providing Party” and “Requesting Party”. For the purpose of assigning certain duties and obligations in the MPC to work order contracts, the following definitions will apply throughout the MPC. “Requesting Party” is defined as the party requesting the other party to perform work under a work order contract. “Providing Party” is defined as the party performing the scope of work under a work order contract. 2. Technical Services 2.1. Technical Services include repetitive low-cost services routinely performed by the State for the Local Government. These services may be performed by the State for the Local Government without the execution of a work order, as these services are provided in accordance with standardized practices and processes and do not require a detailed scope of work. Exhibit A – Table of Technical Services is attached. 2.1.1. Every other service not falling under the services listed in Exhibit A will require a work order contract. 2.2. The Local Government may request the State to perform Technical Services in an informal manner, such as by the use of email, a purchase order, or by delivering materials to a State lab and requesting testing. A request may be made via telephone, but will not be considered accepted unless acknowledged in writing by the State. 2.3. The State will promptly inform the Local Government if the State will be unable to perform the requested Technical Services. Otherwise, the State will perform the Technical Services in accordance with the State’s normal processes and practices, including scheduling practices taking into account the availability of State staff and equipment. 2.4. Payment Basis. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties prior to performance of the services, the State will charge the Local Government the State’s then-current rate for performing the Technical Services. The then-current rate may include the State’s normal and customary additives. The State will invoice the Local Government upon completion of the services, or at regular intervals not more than once monthly as agreed upon by the parties. The invoice will provide a summary of the Technical Services provided by the State during the invoice period. 3. Services Requiring A Work Order Contract 3.1. Work Order Contracts: A party may request the other party to perform any of the following services under individual work order contracts. Page 2 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: 1028131 3.2. Professional and Technical Services. A party may provide professional and technical services upon the request of the other party. As defined by Minn. Stat. §16C.08, subd. 1, professional/technical services “means services that are intellectual in character, including consultation, analysis, evaluation, prediction, planning, programming, or recommendation; and result in the production of a report or completion of a task.” Professional and technical services do not include providing supplies or materials except as incidental to performing such services. Professional and technical services include (by way of example and without limitation) engineering services, surveying, foundation recommendations and reports, environmental documentation, right-of-way assistance (such as performing appraisals or providing relocation assistance, but excluding the exercise of the power of eminent domain), geometric layouts, final construction plans, graphic presentations, public relations, and facilitating open houses. A party will normally provide such services with its own personnel; however, a party’s professional/technical services may also include hiring and managing outside consultants to perform work provided that a party itself provides active project management for the use of such outside consultants. 3.3. Roadway Maintenance. A party may provide roadway maintenance upon the request of the other party. Roadway maintenance does not include roadway reconstruction. This work may include but is not limited to snow removal, ditch spraying, roadside mowing, bituminous mill and overlay (only small projects), seal coat, bridge hits, major retaining wall failures, major drainage failures, and message painting. All services must be performed by an employee with sufficient skills, training, expertise or certification to perform such work, and work must be supervised by a qualified employee of the party performing the work. 3.4. Construction Administration. A party may administer roadway construction projects upon the request of the other party. Roadway construction includes (by way of example and without limitation) the construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation of mainline, shoulder, median, pedestrian or bicycle pathway, lighting and signal systems, pavement mill and overlays, seal coating, guardrail installation, and channelization. These services may be performed by the Providing Party’s own forces, or the Providing Party may administer outside contracts for such work. Construction administration may include letting and awarding construction contracts for such work (including state projects to be completed in conjunction with local projects). All contract administration services must be performed by an employee with sufficient skills, training, expertise or certification to perform such work. 3.5. Emergency Services. A party may provide aid upon request of the other party in the event of a man-made disaster, natural disaster or other act of God. Emergency services includes all those services as the parties mutually agree are necessary to plan for, prepare for, deal with, and recover from emergency situations. These services include, without limitation, planning, engineering, construction, maintenance, and removal and disposal services related to things such as road closures, traffic control, debris removal, flood protection and mitigation, sign repair, sandbag activities and general cleanup. Work will be performed by an employee with sufficient skills, training, expertise or certification to perform such work, and work must be supervised by a qualified employee of the party performing the work. If it is not feasible to have an executed work order prior to performance of the work, the parties will promptly confer to determine whether work may be commenced without a fully-executed work order in place. If work commences without a fully-executed work order, the parties will follow up with execution of a work order as soon as feasible. 3.6. When a need is identified, the State and the Local Government will discuss the proposed work and the resources needed to perform the work. If a party desires to perform such work, the parties will negotiate the specific and detailed work tasks and cost. The State will then prepare a work order contract. Generally, a work order contract will be limited to one specific project/engagement, although “on call” work orders may be prepared for certain types of services, especially for “Technical Services” items as identified section 2.1.. The work order will also identify specific deliverables required, and timeframes for completing work. A work order must be fully executed by the parties prior to work being commenced. Page 3 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: 1028131 The Local Government will not be paid for work performed prior to execution of a work order contract and authorization by the State. 4. Responsibilities of the Providing Party 4.1. Terms Applicable to ALL Work Order Contracts. The terms in this section 4.1 will apply to ALL work order contracts. 4.1.1. Each work order will identify an Authorized Representative for each party. Each party’s authorized representative is responsible for administering the work order, and has the authority to make any decisions regarding the work, and to give and receive any notices required or permitted under this MPC or the work order. 4.1.2. The Providing Party will furnish and assign a publicly employed licensed engineer (Project Engineer), to be in responsible charge of the project(s) and to supervise and direct the work to be performed under each work order contract. For services not requiring an engineer, the Providing Party will furnish and assign another responsible employee to be in charge of the project. The services of the Providing Party under a work order contract may not be otherwise assigned, sublet, or transferred unless approved in writing by the Requesting Party’s authorized representative. This written consent will in no way relieve the Providing Party from its primary responsibility for the work. 4.1.3. If the Local Government is the Providing Party, the Project Engineer may request in writing specific engineering and/or technical services from the State, pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 161.39. The work order Contract will require the Local Government to deposit payment in advance. The costs and expenses will include the current State additives and overhead rates, subject to adjustment based on actual direct costs that have been verified by audit. 4.1.4. Only the receipt of a fully executed work order contract authorizes the Providing Party to begin work on a project. Any and all effort, expenses, or actions taken by the Providing Party before the work order contract is fully executed are considered unauthorized and undertaken at the risk of non-payment. 4.1.5. In connection with the performance of this contract and any work orders issued, the Providing Agency will comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations. When the Providing Party is authorized or permitted to award contracts in connection with any work order, the Providing Party will require and cause its contractors and subcontractors to comply with all Federal and State laws and regulations. 4.2. Additional Terms for Roadway Maintenance. The terms of section 4.1 and this section 4.2 will apply to all work orders for Roadway Maintenance. 4.2.1. Unless otherwise provided for by contract or work order, the Providing Party must obtain all permits and sanctions that may be required for the proper and lawful performance of the work. 4.2.2. The Providing Party must perform maintenance in accordance with MnDOT maintenance manuals, policies and operations. 4.2.3. The Providing Party must use State-approved materials, including (by way of example and without limitation), sign posts, sign sheeting, and de-icing and anti-icing chemicals. 4.3. Additional Terms for Construction Administration. The terms of section 4.1 and this section 4.3 will apply to all work order contracts for construction administration. 4.3.1. Contract(s) must be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder or best value proposer in accordance with state law. Page 4 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: 1028131 4.3.2. Contractor(s) must be required to post payment and performance bonds in an amount equal to the contract amount. The Providing Party will take all necessary action to make claims against such bonds in the event of any default by the contractor. 4.3.3. Contractor(s) must be required to perform work in accordance with the latest edition of the Minnesota Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Construction. 4.3.4. For work performed on State right-of-way, contractor(s) must be required to indemnify and hold the State harmless against any loss incurred with respect to the performance of the contracted work, and must be required to provide evidence of insurance coverage commensurate with project risk. 4.3.5. Contractor(s) must pay prevailing wages pursuant to applicable state and federal law. 4.3.6. Contractor(s) must comply with all applicable Federal, and State laws, ordinances and regulations, including but not limited to applicable human rights/anti-discrimination laws and laws concerning the participation of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in federally-assisted contracts. 4.3.7. Unless otherwise agreed in a work order contract, each party will be responsible for providing rights of way, easement, and construction permits for its portion of the improvements. Each party will, upon the other’s request, furnish copies of right of way certificates, easements, and construction permits. 4.3.8. The Providing Party may approve minor changes to the Requesting Party’s portion of the project work if such changes do not increase the Requesting Party’s cost obligation under the applicable work order contract. 4.3.9. The Providing Party will not approve any contractor claims for additional compensation without the Requesting Party’s written approval, and the execution of a proper amendment to the applicable work order contract when necessary. The Local Government will tender the processing and defense of any such claims to the State upon the State’s request. 4.3.10. The Local Government must coordinate all trunk highway work affecting any utilities with the State’s Utilities Office. 4.3.11. The Providing Party must coordinate all necessary detours with the Requesting Party. 4.3.12. If the Local Government is the Providing Party, and there is work performed on the trunk highway right-of-way, the following will apply: 4.3.12.1 The Local Government will have a permit to perform the work on the trunk highway. The State may revoke this permit if the work is not being performed in a safe, proper and skillful manner, or if the contractor is violating the terms of any law, regulation, or permit applicable to the work. The State will have no liability to the Local Government, or its contractor, if work is suspended or stopped due to any such condition or concern. 4.3.12.2 The Local Government will require its contractor to conduct all traffic control in accordance with the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 4.3.12.3 The Local Government will require its contractor to comply with the terms of all permits issued for the project including, but not limited to, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and other environmental permits. 4.3.12.4 All improvements constructed on the State’s right-of-way will become the property of the State. 5. Responsibilities of the Requesting Party Page 5 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: 1028131 5.1. After authorizing the Providing Party to begin work, the Requesting Party will furnish any data or material in its possession relating to the project that may be of use to the Providing Party in performing the work. 5.2. All such data furnished to the Providing Party will remain the property of the Requesting Party and will be promptly returned upon the Requesting Party’s request or upon the expiration or termination of this contract (subject to data retention requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and other applicable law). 5.3. The Providing Party will analyze all such data furnished by the Requesting Party. If the Providing Party finds any such data to be incorrect or incomplete, the Providing Party will bring the facts to the attention of the Requesting Party before proceeding with the part of the project affected. The Providing Party will investigate the matter, and if it finds that such data is incorrect or incomplete, it will promptly determine a method for furnishing corrected data. Delay in furnishing data will not be considered justification for an adjustment in compensation. 5.4. The State will provide to the Local Government copies of any Trunk Highway fund clauses to be included in the bid solicitation and will provide any required Trunk Highway fund provisions to be included in the Proposal for Highway Construction, that are different from those required for State Aid construction. 5.5. The Requesting Party will perform final reviews and inspections of its portion of the project work. If the work is found to have been completed in accordance with the work order contract, the Requesting Party will promptly release any remaining funds due the Providing Party for the Project(s). 5.6. The work order contracts may include additional responsibilities to be completed by the Requesting Party. 6. Time In the performance of project work under a work order contract, time is of the essence. 7. Consideration and Payment 7.1. Consideration. The Requesting Party will pay the Providing Party as specified in the work order. The State’s normal and customary additives will apply to work performed by the State, unless otherwise specified in the work order. The State’s normal and customary additives will not apply if the parties agree to a “lump sum” or “unit rate” payment. 7.2. State’s Maximum Obligation. The total compensation to be paid by the State to the Local Government under all work order contracts issued pursuant to this MPC will not exceed $500,000.00. 7.3. Travel Expenses. It is anticipated that all travel expenses will be included in the base cost of the Providing Party’s services, and unless otherwise specifically set forth in an applicable work order contract, the Providing Party will not be separately reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses incurred by the Providing Party in performing any work order contract. In those cases where the State agrees to reimburse travel expenses, such expenses will be reimbursed in the same manner and in no greater amount than provided in the current "MnDOT Travel Regulations” a copy of which is on file with and available from the MnDOT District Office. The Local Government will not be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses incurred outside of Minnesota unless it has received the State’s prior written approval for such travel. 7.4. Payment. 7.4.1. Generally. The Requesting Party will pay the Providing Party as specified in the applicable work order, and will make prompt payment in accordance with Minnesota law. 7.4.2. Payment by the Local Government. Page 6 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: 1028131 7.4.2.1. The Local Government will make payment to the order of the Commissioner of Transportation. 7.4.2.2. IMPORTANT NOTE: PAYMENT MUST REFERENCE THE “MNDOT CONTRACT NUMBER” SHOWN ON THE FACE PAGE OF THIS CONTRACT AND THE “INVOICE NUMBER” ON THE INVOICE RECEIVED FROM MNDOT. 7.4.2.3. Remit payment to the address below: MnDOT Attn: Cash Accounting RE: MnDOT Contract Number 1028131 and Invoice Number ###### Mail Stop 215 395 John Ireland Blvd St. Paul, MN 55155 7.4.3. Payment by the State. 7.4.3.1. Generally. The State will promptly pay the Local Government after the Local Government presents an itemized invoice for the services actually performed and the State's Authorized Representative accepts the invoiced services. Invoices must be submitted as specified in the applicable work order, but no more frequently than monthly. 7.4.3.2. Retainage for Professional and Technical Services. For work orders for professional and technical services, as required by Minn. Stat. § 16C.08, subd. 2(10), no more than 90 percent of the amount due under any work order contract may be paid until the final product of the work order contract has been reviewed by the State’s authorized representative. The balance due will be paid when the State’s authorized representative determines that the Local Government has satisfactorily fulfilled all the terms of the work order contract. 8. Conditions of Payment All work performed by the Providing Party under a work order contract must be performed to the Requesting Party’s satisfaction, as determined at the sole and reasonable discretion of the Requesting Party’s Authorized Representative and in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws, rules, and regulations. The Providing Party will not receive payment for work found by the State to be unsatisfactory or performed in violation of federal or state law. 9. Local Government’s Authorized Representative and Project Manager; Authority to Execute Work Order Contracts 9.1. The Local Government’s Authorized Representative for administering this master contract is the Local Government’s Engineer, and the Engineer has the responsibility to monitor the Local Government’s performance. The Local Government’s Authorized Representative is also authorized to execute work order contracts on behalf of the Local Government without approval of each proposed work order contract by its governing body. 9.2. The Local Government’s Project Manager will be identified in each work order contract. 10. State’s Authorized Representative and Project Manager 10.1. The State's Authorized Representative for this master contract is the District State Aid Engineer, who has the responsibility to monitor the State’s performance. 10.2. The State’s Project Manager will be identified in each work order contract. Page 7 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: 1028131 11. Assignment, Amendments, Waiver, and Contract Complete 11.1. Assignment. Neither party may assign or transfer any rights or obligations under this MPC or any work order contract without the prior consent of the other and a fully executed Assignment Contract, executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved this MPC, or their successors in office. 11.2. Amendments. Any amendment to this master contract or any work order contract must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original contract, or their successors in office. 11.3. Waiver. If a party fails to enforce any provision of this master contract or any work order contract, that failure does not waive the provision or the party’s right to subsequently enforce it. 11.4. Contract Complete. This master contract and any work order contract contain all negotiations and contracts between the State and the Local Government. No other understanding regarding this master contract or any work order contract issued hereunder, whether written or oral may be used to bind either party. 12. Liability. Each party will be responsible for its own acts and omissions to the extent provided by law. The Local Government’s liability is governed by Minn. Stat. chapter 466 and other applicable law. The State’s liability is governed by Minn. Stat. section 3.736 and other applicable law. This clause will not be construed to bar any legal remedies a party may have for the other party’s failure to fulfill its obligations under this master contract or any work order contract. Neither party agrees to assume any environmental liability on behalf of the other party. A Providing Party under any work order is acting only as a “Contractor” to the Requesting Party, as the term “Contractor” is defined in Minn. Stat. §115B.03 (subd. 10), and is entitled to the protections afforded to a “Contractor” by the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act. The parties specifically intend that Minn. Stat. §471.59 subd. 1a will apply to any work undertaken under this MPC and any work order issued hereunder. 13. State Audits Under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 5, the party’s books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices relevant to any work order contract are subject to examination by the parties and by the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from the end of this MPC. 14. Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property 14.1. Government Data Practices. The Local Government and State must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, as it applies to all data provided by the State under this MPC and any work order contract, and as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the Local Government under this MPC and any work order contract. The civil remedies of Minn. Stat. § 13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this clause by either the Local Government or the State. 14.2. Intellectual Property Rights 14.2.1. Intellectual Property Rights. The Requesting Party will own all rights, title, and interest in all of the intellectual property rights, including copyrights, patents, trade secrets, trademarks, and service marks in the Works and Documents created and paid for under work order contracts. Works means all inventions, improvements, discoveries (whether or not patentable), databases, computer programs, reports, notes, studies, photographs, negatives, designs, drawings, specifications, materials, tapes, and disks conceived, reduced to practice, created or originated by the Providing Party, its employees, agents, and subcontractors, either individually or jointly with others in the performance of this master contract or any work order contract. Works includes “Documents.” Documents are the originals of any databases, computer programs, reports, notes, Page 8 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: 1028131 studies, photographs, negatives, designs, drawings, specifications, materials, tapes, disks, or other materials, whether in tangible or electronic forms, prepared by the Providing Party, its employees, agents, or contractors, in the performance of a work order contract. The Documents will be the exclusive property of the Requesting Party and all such Documents must be immediately returned to the Requesting Party by the Providing Party upon completion or cancellation of the work order contract. To the extent possible, those Works eligible for copyright protection under the United States Copyright Act will be deemed to be “works made for hire.” The Providing Party Government assigns all right, title, and interest it may have in the Works and the Documents to the Requesting Party. The Providing Party must, at the request of the Requesting Party, execute all papers and perform all other acts necessary to transfer or record the Requesting Party’s ownership interest in the Works and Documents. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Requesting Party grants the Providing Party an irrevocable and royalty-free license to use such intellectual property for its own non-commercial purposes, including dissemination to political subdivisions of the state of Minnesota and to transportation-related agencies such as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 14.2.2. Obligations with Respect to Intellectual Property. 14.2.2.1. Notification. Whenever any invention, improvement, or discovery (whether or not patentable) is made or conceived for the first time or actually or constructively reduced to practice by the Providing Party, including its employees and subcontractors, in the performance of the work order contract, the Providing Party will immediately give the Requesting Party’s Authorized Representative written notice thereof, and must promptly furnish the Authorized Representative with complete information and/or disclosure thereon. 14.2.2.2. Representation. The Providing Party must perform all acts, and take all steps necessary to ensure that all intellectual property rights in the Works and Documents are the sole property of the Requesting Party, and that neither Providing Party nor its employees, agents or contractors retain any interest in and to the Works and Documents. 15. Affirmative Action The State intends to carry out its responsibility for requiring affirmative action by its Contractors, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §363A.36. Pursuant to that Statute, the Local Government is encouraged to prepare and implement an affirmative action plan for the employment of minority persons, women, and the qualified disabled, and submit such plan to the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. In addition, when the Local Government lets a contract for the performance of work under a work order issued pursuant to this MPC, it must include the following in the bid or proposal solicitation and any contracts awarded as a result thereof: 15.1. Covered Contracts and Contractors. If the Contract exceeds $100,000 and the Contractor employed more than 40 full-time employees on a single working day during the previous 12 months in Minnesota or in the state where it has its principle place of business, then the Contractor must comply with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 and Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600. A Contractor covered by Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 because it employed more than 40 full-time employees in another state and does not have a certificate of compliance, must certify that it is in compliance with federal affirmative action requirements. 15.2. Minn. Stat. § 363A.36. Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 requires the Contractor to have an affirmative action plan for the employment of minority persons, women, and qualified disabled individuals approved by the Minnesota Commissioner of Human Rights (“Commissioner”) as indicated by a certificate of compliance. The law addresses suspension or revocation of a certificate of compliance and contract consequences in that event. A contract awarded without a certificate of compliance may be voided. 15.3. Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600. Page 9 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: 1028131 15.3.1. General. Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600 implement Minn. Stat. § 363A.36. These rules include, but are not limited to, criteria for contents, approval, and implementation of affirmative action plans; procedures for issuing certificates of compliance and criteria for determining a contractor’s compliance status; procedures for addressing deficiencies, sanctions, and notice and hearing; annual compliance reports; procedures for compliance review; and contract consequences for non-compliance. The specific criteria for approval or rejection of an affirmative action plan are contained in various provisions of Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600 including, but not limited to, parts 5000.3420-5000.3500 and 5000.3552-5000.3559. 15.3.2. Disabled Workers. The Contractor must comply with the following affirmative action requirements for disabled workers: 15.3.2.1. The Contractor must not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of physical or mental disability in regard to any position for which the employee or applicant for employment is qualified. The Contractor agrees to take affirmative action to employ, advance in employment, and otherwise treat qualified disabled persons without discrimination based upon their physical or mental disability in all employment practices such as the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment, advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship. 15.3.2.2. The Contractor agrees to comply with the rules and relevant orders of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights issued pursuant to the Minnesota Human Rights Act. 15.3.2.3. In the event of the Contractor's noncompliance with the requirements of this clause, actions for noncompliance may be taken in accordance with Minn. Stat. Section 363A.36, and the rules and relevant orders of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights issued pursuant to the Minnesota Human Rights Act. 15.3.2.4. The Contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices in a form to be prescribed by the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. Such notices must state the Contractor's obligation under the law to take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified disabled employees and applicants for employment, and the rights of applicants and employees. 15.3.2.5. The Contractor must notify each labor union or representative of workers with which it has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract understanding, that the Contractor is bound by the terms of Minn. Stat. Section 363A.36, of the Minnesota Human Rights Act and is committed to take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment physically and mentally disabled persons. 15.3.3. Consequences. The consequences for the Contractor’s failure to implement its affirmative action plan or make a good faith effort to do so include, but are not limited to, suspension or revocation of a certificate of compliance by the Commissioner, refusal by the Commissioner to approve subsequent plans, and termination of all or part of this contract by the Commissioner or the State. 15.3.4. Certification. The Contractor hereby certifies that it is in compliance with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 and Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600 and is aware of the consequences for noncompliance. 16. Workers’ Compensation Each party will be responsible for its own employees for any workers compensation claims. This MPC, and any work order contracts issued hereunder, are not intended to constitute an interchange of government employees under Minn. Stat. §15.53. To the extent that this MPC, or any work order issued hereunder, is determined to be Page 10 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: 1028131 subject to Minn. Stat. §15.53, such statute will control to the extent of any conflict between the contract and the statute. 17. Publicity 17.1. Publicity. Any publicity regarding the subject matter of a work order contract where the State is the Requesting Party must identify the State as the sponsoring agency and must not be released without prior written approval from the State’s Authorized Representative. For purposes of this provision, publicity includes notices, informational pamphlets, press releases, research, reports, signs, and similar public notices prepared by or for the Local Government individually or jointly with others, or any subcontractors, with respect to the program, publications, or services provided resulting from a work order contract. 17.2. Data Practices Act. Section 17.1 is not intended to override the Local Government’s responsibilities under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. 18. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue Minnesota law, without regard to its choice-of-law provisions, governs this master contract and all work order contracts. Venue for all legal proceedings out of this master contract or any work order contracts, or the breach of any such contracts, must be in the appropriate state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota. 19. Prompt Payment; Payment to Subcontractors The parties must make prompt payment of their obligations in accordance with applicable law. As required by Minn. Stat. § 16A.1245, when the Local Government lets a contract for work pursuant to any work order, the Local Government must require its contractor to pay all subcontractors, less any retainage, within 10 calendar days of the prime contractor's receipt of payment from the Local Government for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor(s) and must pay interest at the rate of one and one-half percent per month or any part of a month to the subcontractor(s) on any undisputed amount not paid on time to the subcontractor(s). 20. Minn. Stat. § 181.59. The Local Government will comply with the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 181.59 which requires: Every contract for or on behalf of the state of Minnesota, or any county, city, town, township, school, school district, or any other district in the state, for materials, supplies, or construction shall contain provisions by which the Contractor agrees: (1) That, in the hiring of common or skilled labor for the performance of any work under any contract, or any subcontract, no contractor, material supplier, or vendor, shall, by reason of race, creed, or color, discriminate against the person or persons who are citizens of the United States or resident aliens who are qualified and available to perform the work to which the employment relates; (2) That no contractor, material supplier, or vendor, shall, in any manner, discriminate against, or intimidate, or prevent the employment of any person or persons identified in clause (1) of this section, or on being hired, prevent, or conspire to prevent, the person or persons from the performance of work under any contract on account of race, creed, or color; (3) That a violation of this section is a misdemeanor; and (4) That this contract may be canceled or terminated by the state, county, city, town, school board, or any other person authorized to grant the contracts for employment, and all money due, or to become due under the contract, may be forfeited for a second or any subsequent violation of the terms or conditions of this contract. 21. Termination; Suspension 21.1. Termination by the State for Convenience. The State or commissioner of Administration may cancel this MPC and any work order contracts at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 days written notice to the Local Government. Upon termination, the Local Government and the State will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed. 21.2. Termination by the Local Government for Convenience. The Local Government may cancel this MPC and any work order contracts at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 days written notice to the State. Page 11 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: 1028131 Upon termination, the Local Government and the State will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed. 21.3. Termination for Insufficient Funding. The State may immediately terminate or suspend this MPC and any work order contract if it does not obtain funding from the Minnesota legislature or other funding source; or if funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow for the payment of the services covered here. Termination or suspension must be by written or fax notice to the Local Government. The State is not obligated to pay for any services that are provided after notice and effective date of termination or suspension. However, the Local Government will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed to the extent that funds are available. The State will not be assessed any penalty if the master contract or work order is terminated because of the decision of the Minnesota legislature or other funding source, not to appropriate funds. The State must provide the Local Government notice of the lack of funding within a reasonable time of the State’s receiving that notice. 22. Data Disclosure Under Minn. Stat. §270C.65, subd. 3, and other applicable law, the Local Government consents to disclosure of its federal employer tax identification number, and/or Minnesota tax identification number, already provided to the State, to federal and state tax agencies and state personnel involved in the payment of state obligations. These identification numbers may be used in the enforcement of federal and state tax laws which could result in action requiring the Local Government to file state tax returns and pay delinquent state tax liabilities, if any. 23. Defense of Claims and Lawsuits If any lawsuit or claim is filed by a third party (including but not limited to the Local Government’s contractors and subcontractors), arising out of trunk highway work performed pursuant to a valid work order issued under this MPC, the Local Government will, at the discretion of and upon the request of the State, tender the defense of such claims to the State or allow the State to participate in the defense of such claims. The Local Government will, however, be solely responsible for defending any lawsuit or claim, or any portion thereof, when the claim or cause of action asserted is based on its own acts or omissions in performing or supervising the work. The Local Government will not purport to represent the State in any litigation, settlement, or alternative dispute resolution process. The State will not be responsible for any judgment entered against the Local Government, and will not be bound by the terms of any settlement entered into by the Local Government except with the written approval of the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Transportation and pursuant to applicable law. 24. Additional Provisions [The balance of this page has intentionally been left blank – signature page follows] Page 12 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/10/2017) MnDOT Contract Number: 1028131 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION The Local Government certifies that the appropriate person(s) have executed the contract on behalf of the Local Government as required by applicable ordinance, resolution, or charter provision. By: By: (with delegated authority) Title: Title Assistant Commissioner or Assistant Division Director Date: Date: By: COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION As delegated to Materials Management Division Title By: Date: Date: Page 13 of 13 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 04/10/2017) Page 1 of 4 MPC Program FY 2017-2022 Exhibit A - Table of Tech Serv Used with TA98 Project IDs If a source code is not on this list, a work order is needed. Date: 04/20/2017 If a source code is not on this list, a work order is needed. Source Code Title Description 0032 Business Unit Management All expenses of business/office managers for general management and administration of support functions. includes administering central facilities maintenance and facilities capital budgets. 0152 Support Services Work that supports general office management, system management such as entering data into SWIFT, PPMS, PUMA and other MnDOT systems, attending staff meetings and other indirect support activities. 0400 Equipment Calibration-Mat Insp Use when performing periodic equipment calibration for equipment used in the materials lab or on construction projects. 0600 General Training Attended All costs (time, registration, materials, travel expenses, etc.) for attending or participating informal or informal training, including conferences that primarily provide training. 1182 Soils/Foundation Field/Laboratory Tests All laboratory testing necessary to provide geotechnical information to complete roadway soils recommendations and approvals for use in the development of Final Design Plans and Special Provisions. Lab work includes R-value, resilient modulus, soil classification, gradation, proctor testing, unconfined compression, consolidation, direct simple shear, direct sheer, permeability and triaxial tests. 1312 Tech Assist-Outside MnDOT Use when providing technical assistance to an organization external to MnDOT. 1421 Bridge Management System Operation/Administration/Data Use for tasks related to the Bridge Management System, including operations, administration, or data entry. 1434 Structural Metals Inspection-Non DOT Reviewing shop drawings furnished by suppliers, fabricators, and contractors (working drawing or calculations), and for tasks related to structural metals inspection (materials surveys, physical and chemical laboratory testing, material inspection and engineering, and technical services in the field and offices) for local agency projects. 1501 Traffic Management System (TMS)Used by traffic operations staff for all tasks that support the RTMC's operations center (or TOCC) providing traveler information, managing incidents and monitoring the FMS. Includes dynamic message sign maintenance, ramp meter maintenance, camera maintenance, and loop detection activities. Includes maintenance activities related to any ITS or TMS device such as RTMC cables, monitor wall, switchers, routers, or modems. Use to record all costs for maintenance activities related to traffic management fiber optics. Use for tasks related to maintaining traffic operations software including minor software enhancements and fixes. Use when providing traffic operations technical assistance external to MnDOT. 1513 Traffic Management System (TMS) Integration For tasks associated with the incorporation of new and existing TMS devices (cameras, loops, DMS, and other ITS devices) into existing infrastructure to ensure proper operation. Use with the Construction/Program Delivery Appropriation. 1520 Pavement Management System For tasks related to the operation of the pavement management system, including development and maintenance/technical support. Includes tasks to meet needs external to MnDOT. 1716 Record Sampling Used by Materials and Research Section and district materials staff to verify inspector" sampling and testing procedures and checking inspectors' equipment during project construction as required by FHWA. Use when performing field tests on split sample. 1721 Traffic Sign Work Orders Use for work involved in preparing work orders for traffic signs. Use only with Maintenance Operations appropriation (T790081). Page 2 of 4 MPC Program FY 2017-2022 Exhibit A - Table of Tech Serv Used with TA98 Project IDs If a source code is not on this list, a work order is needed. Date: 04/20/2017 If a source code is not on this list, a work order is needed. Source Code Title Description 1732 Material Testing & Inspection Performing construction phase and research physical and chemical laboratory testing, and related technical services in the districts and central labs, and for performing research and construction phase non-destructive testing materials surveys, and related technical services in the field and offices. Includes detour surveys. Non-destructive tests include, skid resistance and falling weight deflectometer (FWD) testing. 1733 Concrete Plant Inspections Performing QA/QC physical testing at the plant; sampling and transporting of materials from the plant to the lab for lab testing, plant reviews, and operations; investigating plant discrepancies; and other technical services in the plant or office associated with stationary concrete plants or mobile concrete paving plant inspection. 1734 Construction Materials Inspections Performing construction phase material inspection and engineering, for structural steel, precast and pre-stressed concrete, reinforcement steel, and electrical products and related technical services in the field and office for materials to be used in multiple projects. Includes travel time, sampling, and sample delivery. Includes tasks related to reviewing shop drawings furnished by suppliers or fabricators and contractor working drawings or calculations, and for tasks related to structural metals inspection (materials surveys, physical and chemical laboratory testing, material inspection and engineering, and technical services in the field and offices). 1735 Bituminous Plant Inspection Performing QA/QC physical testing at the plant; sampling and transporting of materials from the plant to the lab for lab testing, plant reviews, and operations; investigating plant discrepancies; and other technical services in the plant or office associated with bituminous plant inspection. 1738 State Project - Specific Materials Inspection Performing material inspection for materials designated for a specific construction project (SP). Generally applies to inspection of such things as structural steel, prestressed concrete items, and most precast concrete items and for SP specific tasks related to structural metals inspection (materials surveys, physical and chemical laboratory testing, material inspection and engineering and technical services in the field and offices). 1800 Field Inspection Occasional construction project field inspection (not cyclical inspection of assets); Includes field inspection of materials such as gradations, densities/DCP, proctors, compaction, slump tests, and field air testsand collecting and transporting samples for lab tests, but not the actual laboratory verifications. 1870 Traffic Signal Maintenance This work will not substitute for or alter existing cooperative construction agreements or traffic signal maintenance agreements. Work related to the occasional repair and replacement of traffic signal system structures and all electrical maintenance for traffic signal systems including electrical power, labor, equipment materials, GSOC locates, traffic control and responses to public inquiries. 1871 Lighting Maintenance & Utilities All work related to installing, maintaining, restoring, or removing highway lighting systems and fixtures. Includes repairing, maintaining, or replacing supports necessary for roadway lighting luminaries. Includes patrol highway lighting, inspect lighting structures, electrical service for highway lighting, re-lamping, pump stations, anti-icing systems, truck roll-over warning systems and electrical repairs. Includes traffic control in support of roadway lighting activities. Use for tasks related to public inquiries/complaints, review utility billings, provide data, and conduct field reviews. 1875 Locate One Call Finding and marking locations of buried conduit, cables, hand holes, loops, etc. in order to maintain or repair the traffic management system, signal systems, or roadway lighting systems. Page 3 of 4 MPC Program FY 2017-2022 Exhibit A - Table of Tech Serv Used with TA98 Project IDs If a source code is not on this list, a work order is needed. Date: 04/20/2017 If a source code is not on this list, a work order is needed. Source Code Title Description 1876 Traffic Counting Use to record labor, equipment usage, and material costs for activities related to traffic counts made for statewide traffic monitoring or traffic operations. Includes all activities related to traffic counting, such as taking requests, assigning priorities, collecting field data, processing data, and developing new techniques for collection. 2102 Patching Related source type codes: 2103-Heavy patching, 2104-Bituminous paving, 2105-Blow patching 2142 Overhead Sign Panel Maintenance Work related to the repair and replacement of overhead sign panels, extruded sign panels mounted on I-beams, and overhead sign structures. Includes related cable locates and traffic control. Does not include structural work. 2210 Guardrail-Install/Repair/Maintenance Install, repair, or maintain low tension cable, plate beams, and end treatments; cable tension adjustments; and reflector replacement. includes related traffic control. 2222 Sign/Delineation/Marker Repair Replacing, repairing, and washing signs (including temporary stop signs). Includes re-sequencing intersection signing and repair/replace overhead and extrude signs mounted on I-beams. Includes related cable locates and traffic control. 2316 Brush & Tree Removal Maintaining, watering, trimming, and removing highway right of way tree and brush. Includes chipping of tree limbs and stump removal/grinding. Includes related traffic control. 2624 Indirect Expense Indirect shop expenses and shop equipment. Allocate to mobile equipment. 2629 Supplies & Small Tools Shop tools, small equipment, and supplies that cannot be directly charged to a mobile equipment unit. 2819 Bridge Curb, Walk And Railing Repairing and maintaining bridge curb, walk, rail, coping, and fencing connected to the rail. Includes glare screen and median barriers on bridges. Includes related traffic control. 2820 Bridge Deck Work associated with bridge deck and slab repair regardless of removal depth or type of material used for patching. Includes deck or slab overlays and replacements and underside deck delamination. Includes related traffic control. 2822 Miscellaneous Bridge Maintenance This source code does not include replacement or major repair. Miscellaneous maintenance tasks performed on a specific bridge or structure not covered by other source codes. Includes minor repairs and simple fixes on items such as stairways, drains, fencing, light bases, transient guards, and access doors. Includes transient removal, ordering materials, and picking up equipment. Includes related traffic control. 2824 Bridge Inspection-Non-Federal All tasks related to inventory, inspection, and load capacity rating work done on trunk highway bridges to meet the requirements of the National Bridge Inspection System and/or Minnesota Bridge Safety Inspection Program or for billing to local governments. Includes related inspection reports and deck condition surveys. 2827 Bridge Expansion, Relief Joints All maintenance tasks associated with bridge expansion joints, except joint reestablishment. Includes tightening expansion device bolts and replacing seal glands. Includes related traffic control. 2828 Bridge Inspection-Federal Fund All bridge inspection tasks for non-MnDOT bridges funded by the federal Fracture-Critical Bridge Program (Project Code will begin with TSL and with the local bridge number). Includes related inspection reports. For MnDOT Trunk Highway bridges (Project Code begins with TSO followed by the bridge number) and local and Department of Natural Resources (DNR) (bridge number begins with 9A follow by bridge number) bridge inspections to be billed to the local government or Department of Natural Resources (DNR) use Source Code 2824. Page 4 of 4 MPC Program FY 2017-2022 Exhibit A - Table of Tech Serv Used with TA98 Project IDs If a source code is not on this list, a work order is needed. Date: 04/20/2017 If a source code is not on this list, a work order is needed. Source Code Title Description 2829 Bridge Superstructure All tasks to repair any bridge component above the bridge seat that is not included in other source codes. Includes repairs to all types of bridge superstructure elements such as girders, beams, floor beams, trusses, stringers, t-beams, precast channels, and box girders. Includes related traffic control. 2830 Bridge Bearing Assemblies All tasks related to the repair and maintenance of fixed or expansion-bearing assemblies on bridges. Includes related traffic 2834 Waterway Maintenance All tasks related to waterway maintenance for deck bridges. Includes debris removal, waterway cleanup, channel repair, and channel protection repair that is not part of slope protection. Includes related traffic control. 2838 Bridge Deck Crack Sealing All tasks related to deck crack sealing. Includes related traffic control. 2863 Traffic Signal Inspection Work related to cyclical structural and electrical inspection and preventive maintenance checks of traffic signal systems/structures. Includes labor, equipment, materials, and traffic control. 3000 Class Of Frequency Coordination Use for frequency coordination done with APCO, AASHTO or FCCA. 3002 Radio/Electronic Infrastructure Use for the repair and preventative maintenance of all equipment associated with wireless two-way radio communications systems (includes mobile radios, portable radios, base stations, console workstations, recorders, etc.). Non-MnDOT equipment - Must use Project number assigned to requesting agency; Department of Public Safety (DPS) includes State Patrol (SP) Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), Fire Marshall); does not include Department of Natural Resources (DNR). See OSRC Project 3005 Radio - Mobile Equipment Use for the repair and preventative maintenance of all equipment associated with wireless two-way radio communications systems (includes mobile radios, portable radios, base stations, console workstations, recorders, etc.). Non-MnDOT equipment - Must use Project number assigned to requesting agency (State Patrol, DNR, BCA, Fire Marshall). See OSRC Project Code list. 3009 Radio/Electronic System Upgrade & Installation Use for the installation and other services needed to provide major system upgrades or improvements to wireless or electronic systems. Use for all work performed to correct or repair deficiencies found in a new installation. 3025 Tower/Building Maintenance Use for all tasks related to the maintenance of a tower building or site. Includes towers, buildings, generators, LP system, fencing, landscaping, grounding, ice bridge, cable management, climbing ladders, card key systems, and HVAC. 3027 Radio Programming Creating or modifying radio frequency programs and programming mobile and portable radios. Does not include mobile radios used as fixed base radios as part of the Inter-OP System (Use 3009). 3049 On Call Electronic Communications Infrastructure Maintenance To be used by Statewide Radio Communications personnel to record on-call time. Agenda Information Memo April 3, 2018 Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA N. Project 1278, Central Maintenance Facility- Phase 2 Improvements Approve Supplemental Consulting Services Action To Be Considered: Approve Supplemental Consulting Services for Project 1278 (Central Maintenance Facility – Phase 2 Improvements) from CNH Architects in the amount of $37,600 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. Facts:  On August 3, 2015, the City Council approved the 2016-2020 Facilities Capital Improvement Plan to anticipate capital improvement expenditures and schedule them over a five-year period.  Among several projects, the 2016-2020 Facilities Capital Improvement Plan included improvements to the Central Maintenance Facility. The improvements were split into 2 separate phases to balance expenditures and revenue sources. Phase 1 improvements were programmed to be constructed in 2016 while Phase 2 improvements were programmed to be constructed in 2018.  On March 15, 2016, the City Council awarded the contract for the Central Maintenance Facility Phase I Improvements which generally included construction of additional heated vehicle storage area, a new vehicle maintenance area, a new salt storage structure and installation of an elevator in the front office for ADA compliance. These improvements are now substantially complete.  On September 5, 2018, the City Council approved an agreement in a not-to-exceed amount of $204,500 with CNH Architects to provide architectural services for the design of Phase II Improvements.  On March 20, 2018, the City Council approved construction of the CMF Phase II Improvements (City Contract 18-05). Construction is anticipated to begin in mid-April.  During the course of preliminary design, the City directed CNH Architects to perform work the exceeded the scope of the original agreement. Specifically, the requested supplemental services consist of design development, construction document preparation, bidding and construction services for the CMF Office Area.  The not-to-exceed cost of the requested supplemental services is $37,600. The revised not-to-exceed cost of the consulting services agreement is $242,100. Attachments (1) CN-1 Proposal from CNH Architects 7300 West 147th St, Suite 504, Apple Valley, MN 55124 | 952.431.4433 | www.cnharch.com | Page 1 PROPOSAL FOR ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES – 01 PROJECT: Eagan Central Maintenance Facility Improvements CNH NO.: 17068 CLIENT: City of Eagan January 29, 2018 Mr. Tim Plath City of Eagan – Central Maintenance Facility 3501 Coachman Road Eagan, MN 55122 DESCRIPTION OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES The project scope is expanded to include additional architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical and civil engineering design services for the office remodeling at the Central Maintenance Facility offices. The additional services includes Design Development, Construction Documents, Bidding and Construction Administration for proceeding with this office remodeling as part of the main project instead of stopping at the Schematic Design phase included in the original contract. GENERAL We propose to perform our services in the following parts: PART I – DESIGN DEVELOPMENT This portion of the work includes further development of the detailed elements of the building design. SERVICES PROVIDED Further development of floor plans Develop civil concept for revised HC parking and extended entrance Interior millwork and interior elevations Interior material selection Preliminary mechanical / electrical design Meetings with Client as required PART II - CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS Our services for this part include providing a set of drawings and specifications for bidding, construction and review by city building officials. SERVICES PROVIDED Structural design, final drawings and details at new lintels, columns and stoop Civil design, final drawings and details at HC parking and sidewalk 7300 West 147th St, Suite 504, Apple Valley, MN 55124 | 952.431.4433 | www.cnharch.com | Page 2 Final mechanical / electrical drawings and specifications Overall and enlarged floor plans Building and wall sections, details Interior elevations Millwork and other interior details Room and door schedules Door, window and wall types Skylight plan and details Final review of building codes Project specifications CD cost estimate for office remodel Meetings with Client as required PART III – BIDDING Our services for this part include support of the bidding process. SERVICES PROVIDED Answer additional bidder questions regarding office remodel Write addenda regarding office remodel items, if required Review product substitution requests regarding office remodel items PART IV - CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION Our services for this part include construction phase support, submittal and site review. SERVICES PROVIDED Additional quantity and/or extended length site review and client construction meetings related to office remodel Shop drawing review for office remodel items Monthly pay application review of office remodel work scope Preparation of construction administration documents as needed (Supplemental Information, Proposal Requests, and Change Orders) related to office remodeling Answer contractor questions (Request for Information) related to office remodeling Final punchlist review of office remodeling areas Review of additional project closeout documents Up to two additional site review(s) by Mechanical / Electrical Engineer FEE We propose the services indicated above for an $37,600 expansion of the hourly not to exceed fee maximum, plus reimbursable expenses as indicated below. This proposal fee is valid for 30 days from the date of this document. The total maximum fee will be revised as follows: Original Contract Maximum $204,500 Additional Services $ 37,600 Revised Total Contract Maximum $242,100 AGREEMENT It is assumed that the terms of the original Owner-Architect Agreement for this project dated August 31, 2017, will be modified by the scope of work and fee adjustment indicated in this proposal. All other items will remain as indicated in the original contract. 7300 West 147th St, Suite 504, Apple Valley, MN 55124 | 952.431.4433 | www.cnharch.com | Page 3 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Reimbursable expenses include the following items and will be billed as they occur: Miscellaneous B&W and color printing at cost Miscellaneous postage, and shipping at cost Mileage, at IRS designated rate SCHEDULE The design development, construction documents and bidding phases will follow the original project schedule. The construction administration phase will be extended to begin on or about April 16,, 2018, instead of mid-July as indicated in the original contract. We appreciate this opportunity to provide additional services to expand the scope of your remodeling portion of the project. Sincerely, Quinn S. Hutson, AIA Principal CNH Architects, Inc ACCEPTED BY: Signature: _____________________________ Name: _____________________________ Title: _____________________________ Date: ____________________________ Agenda Information Memo April 3, 2018, Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA O. Set interest rate on special assessments levied in 2018 at 4.5%. Action to be Considered: To set the interest rate for special assessments levied in 2018 at 4.5%. Facts:  By policy, the interest rate for special assessments is set by the Council each year in April for projects to be assessed in the current year. The rate applies to assessments on public improvement projects, delinquent utility bills, and delinquent invoices for noxious weed-cutting, board-ups, and false alarm charges.  The interest rate is to be between 1.5% and 2.0% over the current composite 10- year AAA municipal bond yield, rounded to the nearest .5%.  The current composite 10-year AAA municipal bond yield is 2.52%, putting the City interest rate range at 4.02% to 4.52%; therefore, the interest rate to be used on special assessments this year calculates to 4.5%.  Last year, the special assessment rate was 4.0%. Attachments: None Agenda Information Memo April 3, 2018 Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA P.APPROVE 2018 Art Bench Public Art Projects and sites and coordinate contracts through the City Attorney’s office for each artist Action To Be Considered: Approve the APrC’s 2018 list of artist and public art bench projects throughout the city and coordinate the needed contracts through the City Clerk’s office in a form approved by the City Attorney. Facts: The 2018 Parks Capital Improvement Program was approved with money appropriated for four additional public art benches. Locations were discussed with an art subcommittee of the APrC in late 2017 and finalized and approved by APrC in February 2018. A Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was put out to local and statewide art organizations with seventeen (17) artists submitting their materials. The sub committee reviewed all submissions and invited 8 artists for formal proposals and interviews. Seven high quality submissions were reviewed and open for public comment over the last month, on display at the Eagan Community Center. The APrC on Wednesday, March 28th, 2018 voted to approve a final recommendation of the attached benches and locations for City Council to consider. Once approved, contracts with each artist will be executed in coordination with the City Attorney’s office. Timeline for installation will be by August 31, 2018. Attachments: (1) CP-1 Public Art Benches Summary 2018 Art Bench Summary City Council, April 3, 2018 Recommendation from Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission Location Concept image Site location Blackhawk Park “Sprout” by Ben Janssens Material: Steel, Paint & Hardware Holz Farm Park “The Allium Bench” by N.M Kelby & S.A. Milligan Material: Copper, Reclaimed Barn beams Thresher Fields “Curious George” by Judd Nelson Material: Cedar timbers, plate steel Eagan Community Center, Indoors-Upper Level “Aerodynamic” by Craig Snyder Materials: Aluminum, hardwood Agenda Information Memo April 3, 2018, Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA Q. Declare miscellaneous City property as surplus Action To Be Considered: To declare miscellaneous City property as surplus. Facts:  The Water Quality Division has identified the following property is surplus: o Sony Cyber-Shot digital camera and case o 4 ISCO samplers o Planix planimeter  Per the Surplus Property Policy, the City Council must declare the property to be surplus before it can be sold, recycled or otherwise disposed of.  Upon the Council’s declaration of the property as surplus, it will be recycled or disposed of in accordance with the Surplus Property Policy. Attachments: (0) Agenda Information Memo April 3, 2018, Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA R. Approve a resolution to accept a donation from the Eagan Hockey Association Action To Be Considered: To approve a resolution to accept a donation from the Eagan Hockey Association. Facts:  State Statute requires the Mayor and City Council to accept donations to the City via a resolution.  The City has received the following donation: o $10,054 from the Eagan Hockey Association for drink rails on the dasher boards at the Civic Arena Attachments: (1) CR-1 Resolution RESOLUTION NO. _______ CITY OF EAGAN Accept Donation from the Eagan Hockey Association WHERAS, the City of Eagan is generally authorized to accept donations of real and personal property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 465.03 for the benefits of its citizens, and is specifically authorized to accept gifts; and WHEREAS, the following person has offered to contribute the following donation set forth below to the City: Name of Donor Donation Eagan Hockey Association $10,054 for drink rails on the dasher boards at the Civic Arena WHEREAS, the donation has been contributed to the City for the benefit of its citizens, as allowed by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is appropriate to accept the donation offered. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, hereby accepts the donation described above. CITY OF EAGAN CITY COUNCIL By: _________________________ Its Mayor Attest: _______________________ Its Deputy Clerk Motion by: Seconded by: Those in favor: Those against: Date: April 3, 2018 CERTIFICATION I, Cheryl Stevenson, 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 3rd day of April, 2018. ____________________________ Deputy City Clerk Agenda Information Memo April 3, 2018, Eagan City Council Meeting NEW BUSINESS A. Conditional Use Permit and Variance – Verizon Wireless Action To Be Considered: To approve, or direct preparation of findings of fact for denial of, a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a new 110-foot telecommunications monopole with a 9’ lightning rod upon property located at 4640 Pinetree Curve, legally described as Outlet B Pinetree Pass 2nd Addition and Outlet B, Walden Heights 1st Addition, subject to the conditions in the staff report. To approve, or direct preparation of findings of fact for denial of, a Variance of 135 feet to the 300 foot setback from residential property for a telecommunications monopole upon property located at 4640 Pinetree Curve, legally described as Outlet B Pinetree Pass 2nd Addition and Outlet B, Walden Heights 1st Addition, subject to the conditions in the staff report. Required Vote For Approval:  Majority of Councilmembers present Facts:  The site is located in Walden Heights Park, which is zoned P, Park.  City Code allows telecommunications towers in the P, Park, zoning district with a Conditional Use Permit.  In 2017, Verizon approached the City to inquire about locating monopole on park property. After some preliminary discussion with City staff, Version submitted a written request.  Verizon’s request was presented to the City Council on January 16, 2018, and the Council authorized staff and the City Attorney’s office to proceed with the land use applications and lease negotiations.  Application was made for the CUP and Variance on February 21, with additional information on March 7, 2018 to complete the applications.  Verizon indicates a need for additional capacity in the Pilot Knob Road and Cliff Road area, that possible co-location sites are not suitable, and that this new tower is necessary to meet their technical performance needs and provide coverage in this area.  The proposed tower is within a 24’ x 20’ lease area, 112’6” south of Cliff Road. Access to the lease area is from Cliff Road.  The City Code requires towers to meet a 300’ setback from residential property. The proposed setback to nearest residential property is 165’1”, for which a Variance is requested.  Given the dimensions and configuration of Walden Heights Park, there is no location within the property that would fully satisfy the 300’ setback from residential property.  The Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the proposal at a workshop on February 26, 2018, and had no concerns or specific recommendations regarding the proposal.  The Advisory Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 27, 2018, and did recommend denial of both the Conditional Use Permit and Variance on a 4-1 vote. Issues:  The applicant indicated agreement with the conditions of approval, specifically the black vinyl coated fence and the addition of landscape screening around the installation. The applicant does request the ability to install barbed wire on the fence for security purposes.  Significant discussion and confusion occurred relative to the City’s Clearwater Park and the APC requested staff flesh out the specifics of that site for the City Council. According to Public Works: o Prior to this application, City staff reviewed other area City properties within Verizon’s desired service improvement area, for feasibility of placement of the tower, including the South Water Treatment Plant/Clearwater Park (1395 Cliff Road), Cliff Road Booster Station (1311 Cliff Road), and a City well site at the corner of Lake Park Drive and Cliff Road. Due to various underground utilities, topographical and land use constraints, these sites were determined to be unsuitable for placement of the proposed tower. o A memo from the Supt. of Utilities detailing exploration of alternative public sites is included in the attachments for this item.  Many public comments have been received and are included in the attachments. Several residents of the area spoke at the public hearing and expressed concerns about the location of the proposed tower, the visibility of the tower from residential properties, the proximity to residential uses, impact on the natural setting and uses of the park, property values, and health concerns.  In response to questions raised by the APC at the public hearing: o The specific site within Walden Heights Park was selected through consultation with City Parks and Utilities staff. o The APC inquired about the possibility of locating the tower elsewhere in the vicinity, specifically on other City properties. o Clearwater Park at the northeast corner of Cliff and Pilot Knob Roads contains the south water treatment plant and has buried infrastructure limiting placement of a tower on that site. Zoning prohibits placement of a tower in a front yard, and it appears available locations on that site also would require a Variance to the 300’ residential setback. The applicant also indicates that the Clearwater Park property is at the edge of their search area and may not meet their technical needs. o The applicant indicates the north end of Thomas Lake Park and the existing electrical transmission line towers on the High Line trail are also outside the functional search area. o The applicant indicates the existing private monopoles at Dakota Path and Chapel Hill Baptist Church do not meet the technical needs, and have structural or technical limitations to accommodating the additional equipment. 60-Day Agency Action Deadline:  May 6, 2018 Attachments: (7) NBA-1 Location Map NBA-2 Draft March 27, 2018 APC Minutes NBA-3 Planning Report NBA-4 Report Exhibits NBA-5 Public Comments NBA-6 Staff Memo from Supt. of Utilities NBA-7 Verizon Additional Information for City Council WILDERNESS RUN ROADWINDSOR COURTRICHARDSCTFAIRWAY HILLS DRIVELAKEPARKCTWELLINGTON CT.STEEPLECHASELANELNPENKWEWAYSTEEPLECHASEWAYRICHARDLANENORTHMA L LA RD T R .SHADOWCREEKCUINTERLACHEN DRIVECYPRESS PTCTCLANETHOMASLAKERD.COACHDR.PINETREEPASSTHOMASCENTERDRO DGEPOLEDRTRENTON LN.WILDERNESS LPEBBLEBEACHWAYROADWESTMINSTERCRWELLINGTONWAYE N T R AIL JOHNNYCAKERIDGERDDELORES LANEWALDENDRMALLARDKINGSBURYDRCLEMSONDRIVELAKESIDE DRWILDERNESS RUN CT.MALLARD CIRSHERWOODCOURTJOHNNY CAKE RIDGE ROADTHOMASLAKERD.GRACE DRR IC H A R D L N CAMBRIDGE DRMALLARDDRIVENYBROCIRPINETR E E C U RVECHES MAR DRIVEC.S.A.H.NO.32(CLIFFROAD)WINGEDKNOTTI N G H AMCIRBEACON HILL CRLODGEPOLE CTBEACONHILLRDLONDONLANEANDREWBLVDJ O H N N Y C A K E R ID G E R O A D WILDE R N ESSKERIDGERDWELLINGTO N WAY SUMMITPASSNORWOODDRNORWOOD C TLAKEPARKCIRSTONECLIFFEDRIVEOAKLEAFCIRREBECCALN WALNUTLANELANECAMELBACKDRBEACONS H E F F IE L D L N.DRIVEL A K E S ID ECIRHILLMALLARD VIEWBARCLAY CR.RIDGE VI E W D RWILDERNESS RUN CIRCOVINGTONPINETREETRAILWALNUTCTIRSHEFFIELD CIRSHERWOODWAYBEACONHILLROADSHEVLINCTSOUTHMALLARDBEACONHILLCTHAZELTI N ELANETHOMASLNMALLARD PLACEMALMO CIRPENKWECIRCHESMARCRANDREWBLVDC.S.A.H. NO. 31 (PILOT KNOB ROAD)INTEH I C K ORYLANECOVINGTONCRCARRIAGE HILLNORWOODDRC.S.A.H.NO.31(PILOTKNOBRD.)C.S.A.H.NO.31(PILOTKNOBRD.)NORWO O D CIR.WOODGATELANEC.S.A.H.NO.31(PILOTKNOBRD.)HILLCOVING TON LN C.S.A.H.NO.32(CLIFFROAD)COVINGTONAMARYLLIS LANEERIK'SBLVDDUNBERRY CIRPENKWEWAYWILDERNESS RUN DRLANCASTER LANEHICKORYHILLLA K E PARKDR STEEPLECHASECOURTSHERWOODWAYCIRRIDGE CLIFF DRIVESVENSKLANEC LIFFORDLN.CHESMARLNCOVINGTONC.S.A.H.NO.31(PILOTKNOBRD.)ClearwaterParkEvergreenParkGeorgeOhmannParkDowning ParkHighlineTrailParkRidgecliffParkParkThomasLakeEast ParkThomasLakeParkWaldenHeights ParkLebanon HillsRegional ParkParkLocation Map01,000500Feet´§¨¦35E§¨¦494Cliff RdDiffley RdYankee Doodle RdLone Oak RdMap Area ExtentProject Name: Verizon/ Walden Heights ParkRequest: Conditional Use Permit and VarianceCase Nos.: 33-CU-04-02-18 33-VA-02-02-18 Subject Sites Advisory Planning Commission March 27, 2018 Page 2 of 17 IV. PUBLIC HEARING New Business A. Verizon Wireless Applicant Name: Lewis Martin, Martin Consulting LLC Location: 4640 Pinetree Curve & Outlot B, Pinetree Pass 2nd Addition Application: Conditional Use Permit A Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a 119' monopole. File Number: 33-CU-04-02-18 Application: Variance A Variance of 135 ft. to the minimum 300 ft. setback from residential property for a monopole. File Number: 33-VA-02-02-18 Planner Dudziak introduced this item and highlighted the information presented in the City Staff report dated March 21, 2018. Lewis Martin, representing Verizon, provided a brief summary of a number of sites in the area analyzed by Verizon engineers. Chair Piper asked what issue or problem Verizon is attempting to solve with this proposal. Mr. Martin stated Verizon is experiencing a coverage gap and that this new tower and equipment would also improve network capacity. In reference to the many emails submitted by the neighbors, Mr. Martin stated colocation on an existing tower or structure is the preferred alternative, and the last resort is constructing a new tower. He added that the two existing monopoles in the area are not suitable due to height, and also do not provide coverage in the area where it is needed. Member Weimert asked if a suitable location could be found in the highline corridor. Mr. Martin stated that the corridor is too far out of the search area and would not work. Member Goff asked what impact 5G technology will have on the current system. Mr. Martin stated 5G will bog or slow the system down. Chair Piper asked about a stealth tower. Mr. Martin explained a stealth tower was possible but, due to technical limitations and City Code requirements that a tower must be able to accommodate additional equipment in the future, the tower would have to be significantly taller. Advisory Planning Commission March 27, 2018 Page 3 of 17 Chair Piper explained to the audience that the APC had received and reviewed all of the 60+ emails submitted and encouraged those interested in speaking to not simply repeat what previous speakers say. He then opened the public hearing. Steve Taylor, 1485 Thomas Lane, stated his opposition to locating the tower in the park as it will disrupt views and neighborhood enjoyment of the park. Dennis Bechly, 1465 Thomas Lane, suggested the Clearwater Park reservoir site was the Eagan Utility Division’s preferred tower location site. Mr. Bechly also stated the requested Variance was too large and that the request did not satisfy the three factors required to approve a Variance. Tom Craft, 1450 Richards Court, asked the commission to be the citizen voice to the City Council. He went on to say that he has two kids and they use the park regularly. He also stated this application represents a big corporation versus citizens. Mike Feldman, 1500 Thomas Lane, stated that the amount of Variance requested makes a mockery of the City ordinance. He stated his belief that the Variance benefits a private company at the expense of residents and encouraged the commission to recommend denial. Arlie Johnson, 1476 Thomas Lane, stated he preferred the Clearwater Park site as he was concerned about impact the Walden Heights Park location would have on aesthetics and property values. Bill Ratts, 1458 Richards Court, stated all parties have an interest in this issue and an alternative location for the tower should be found. Linda Dygos, 4622 Stonecliffe Drive, stated her position that the proposed location is not good for the park and that an alternative location should be found. Susan Bechly, 1465 Thomas Lane, stated that years ago the neighbors worked with the City to nix efforts to expand use of the park by adding field lighting, etc. She shared a graphic illustration of what the monopole would look like from her property. She opined that an alternative site would be a better option. Mike Casey, 4630 Stonecliffe Drive, stated he had worked for years in the wireless phone industry and that other locations mentioned could work but would be more expensive. He also stated that 5G technology would ultimately require more towers. Shari Myszka, 1500 Pinetree Pass, expressed concern about the health impacts and stated the World Health Organization is being asked to hold off on the roll out of 5G until health impacts are understood. Advisory Planning Commission March 27, 2018 Page 4 of 17 Hans Aanning, 1472 Thomas Lane, suggested an alternative site could be the vacant Jiffy Lube site at Thomas Lake Center. Mike Feldman, 1500 Thomas Lane, stated that Verizon is here to make more money. Steven Dygos, 4622 Stonecliffe Dr. mentioned an on-line petition in opposition to the proposal representing many residents in the Stonecliffe neighborhood who could not attend the public hearing. There being no further public comment, Chair Piper closed the public hearing and turned the discussion back to the Commission. Chair Piper asked City Attorney Wisdorf if the hardship standards as laid out in the staff report are consistent with the City Code. Mr. Wisdorf replied that they are. Chair Piper asked City Engineer John Gorder if the Clearwater Park site was available for this use. City Engineer Gorder stated it was his understanding that the reservoir site did not work for Verizon. Member Weimert asked City Engineer Gorder if he was familiar with any discussions regarding the highline corridor; Mr. Gorder stated he was not. Chair Piper asked for clarification on cell towers in Planned Development (PD) Zoning Districts. Planner Dudziak explained that the City Code provides for locating communications towers only in I-1, I-2, PF and within PD, Planned Development, districts designated solely for industrial uses. Member Goff asked if there were technical challenges with the 300’ setback. City Planner Ridley stated his recollection was the 300’ foot setback requirement was randomly selected and not related to any technical or health/safety reasons. Member Weimert asked about impacts 5G technology would have on existing tower facilities and if stronger signal projection could put a highline corridor location in play. Mr. Martin stated the conversion to 5G technology would impact existing facilities only by changing out the equipment within the cabinets, and that existing towers won’t be retired He also stated that signal projection from the highline trail is not feasible because a stronger signal would interfere with signals in other surrounding sectors. Chair Piper asked about the Clearwater Park site. Mr. Martin stated the area of the site that could accommodate the installation of a monopole would not provide the coverage issue Verizon is looking to solve. Advisory Planning Commission March 27, 2018 Page 5 of 17 Chair Piper asked City Engineer Gorder to flesh out the Clearwater Park site questions for the City Council meeting. Member Weimert stated he would be voting “no” as he was not persuaded that all alternative location options have been exhausted. Member Vanderpoel stated she agreed and that she would prefer Easter by The Lake or the Clearwater Park site. Member Torres stated the pros and cons of alternative sites have not been made clear to her. Chair Piper indicated his support for the proposal for the following reasons:  The applicant illustrated a tower could be placed in the park with a five foot Variance to the 300’ setback, but that location was rejected by Parks staff.  The Advisory Parks Commission was okay with the proposed location.  The American Cancer Society debunks claims that cellular antennae cause health issues.  The National Realtors Association states that strong residential cell phone coverage is important so this must be balanced with property value claims.  There were a handful of emails in support of the tower and expressing the need for improved service due to regularly dropped calls in the area. Chair Piper moved, Member Torres seconded the motion, to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a new telecommunications monopole upon property located at4640 Pinetree Curve, legally described as Outlot B Pinetree Pass 2nd Addition and Outlot B, Walden Heights 1st Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded with the Dakota County Recorder’s office within 60 days of approval by the City Council, with the following exhibits: • Site Plan • Landscape Plan 2. The Applicant shall provide a Landscape Plan for review and approval by City staff, prior to release of the Conditional Use Permit for recording. 3. Any damage to the boulevard and trail shall be repaired in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer. 4. The applicant shall obtain a Building Permit or Grading Permit from the City prior to any construction on the site Advisory Planning Commission March 27, 2018 Page 6 of 17 5. The lease area shall be secured with a six foot tall security fence, black vinyl coated chain link, with no barbed wire. 6. Verizon shall enter into a lease agreement with the City in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. The lease agreement shall be executed prior to erection of the tower or placement of any equipment upon the property. 7. The monopole and all equipment shall be maintained. The equipment building shall be maintained in a manner that is compatible with adjacent uses and does not present a hazard to public health safety and general welfare. 8. As required by City Code, and as shown on the submitted plans, the monopole shall be designed to accommodate additional comparable antennae for other communication providers; accept antennae mounted at varying heights; and allow the future rearrangement of antennae upon the tower. 9. The tower and accessory equipment building shall comply with the general standards outlined in City Code Section 11.70, Subdivision 26-G. Motion failed 1-4 (Piper). Member Weimert moved, Member Vanderpoel seconded a motion to recommend denial of a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a new telecommunications monopole upon property located at4640 Pinetree Curve, legally described as Outlot B Pinetree Pass 2nd Addition and Outlot B, Walden Heights 1st Addition. Motion carried 4-1 (Piper). Chair Piper moved, Member Vanderpoel seconded a motion to recommend approval of a Variance of 135 feet to the minimum 300 foot setback from residential property for a monopole upon property located at 4640 Pinetree Curve, legally described as Outlot B Pinetree Pass 2nd Addition and Outlot B Walden Heights 1st Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. If within one year after approval, the variance shall not have been completed or utilized, it shall become null and void unless a petition for extension has been granted by the council. Such extension shall be requested in writing at least 30 days before expiration and shall state facts showing a good faith attempt to complete or utilize the use permitted in the variance. Motion failed 1-4 (Piper). Advisory Planning Commission March 27, 2018 Page 7 of 17 Member Weimert moved, Member Goff seconded a motion to recommend denial of a Variance of 135 feet to the minimum 300 foot setback from residential property for a monopole upon property located at 4640 Pinetree Curve, legally described as Outlot B Pinetree Pass 2nd Addition and Outlot B Walden Heights 1st Addition Motion carried 4-1 (Piper). PLANNING REPORT CITY OF EAGAN REPORT DATE: March 21, 2018 CASE: 33-CU-04-02-18; 33-VA-02-02-18 APPLICANT: Verizon Wireless HEARING DATE: March 27, 2018 PROPERTY OWNER: City of Eagan APPLICATION DATE: March 7, 2018 REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit PREPARED BY: Pam Dudziak LOCATION: Walden Heights Park, 4640 Pinetree Curve COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: P, Parks, Open Space, and Recreation ZONING: P, Park SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a new telecommunications monopole and a Variance of 135 feet to the minimum 300 foot setback from residential property for a 110-foot monopole with a 9’ lightning rod, upon property located at 4640 Pinetree Curve, legally described as Outlot B Pinetree Pass 2nd Addition and Outlot B, Walden Heights 1st Addition. AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW Conditional Use Permit: City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.50, Subdivisions 4C and 4D provide the following. Subdivision 4C states that the Planning Commission shall recommend a conditional use permit and the Council shall issue such conditional use permits only if it finds that such use at the proposed location: 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City. 2. Will be harmonious with the general and applicable specific objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and City Code provisions. Planning Report – Verizon/Walden Heights Park March 27, 2018 Page 2 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area, nor substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 4. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools. 5. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be hazardous or detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. 6. Will have vehicular ingress and egress to the property which does not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic on surrounding public streets. 7. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. 8. Is appropriate after considering whether the property is in compliance with the City Code. Subdivision 4D, Conditions, states that in reviewing applications of conditional use permits, the Planning Commission and the Council may attach whatever reasonable conditions they deem necessary to mitigate anticipated adverse impacts associated with these uses, to protect the value of other property within the district, and to achieve the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. In all cases in which conditional uses are granted, the Council shall require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary as proof that the conditions stipulated in connection therewith are being and will be complied with. Variance: City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.50, Subdivision 3, B., 3, states that the city council may approve, approve with conditions or deny a request for a variance. A variance will be denied when it is not in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning provisions of this Code or when the variance is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Any condition imposed upon the approved variance must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. In considering all requests for a variance and whether the applicant established that there are practical difficulties in complying with the provision(s) of this chapter, the city council shall consider the following factors: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or Planning Report – Verizon/Walden Heights Park March 27, 2018 Page 3 shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owner of property has no control. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Code would deprive the applicant property use commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the provisions of this Code. c. The exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. d. The granting of the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this chapter to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. e. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Code, or to other properties in the same zone. g. The property for which the variance is requested is otherwise in compliance with the City Code. BACKGROUND/HISTORY The easterly park parcel was dedicated in 1983 and the westerly parcel in 1998. Verizon approached the City in 2017 to inquire about locating a monopole on park property. After some preliminary discussion with City staff, Verizon submitted a written request to locate a monopole at Walden Heights Park. The request was presented to the City Council because consent from the property owner is required for the Conditional Use Permit and Variance requests, and a lease agreement is necessary to permit the installation of private telecommunications equipment upon City land. On January 16, 2018, the Council authorized staff and the City Attorney’s office to proceed with the land use applications and lease negotiations. Following such direction, the Conditional Use Permit and Variance applications were received on February 21, 2018, with additional information submitted on March 7, 2018, to complete the applications. EXISTING CONDITIONS The park is comprised of two parcels and includes a baseball field, open field, parking lot, trails, and play structure. There are areas around the perimeter of both parcels that are heavily treed; the middle is generally open. The easterly parcel Outlot B, Walden Heights 1st Addition, Planning Report – Verizon/Walden Heights Park March 27, 2018 Page 4 is 4.5 acres and contains a playground and a trail that connects to Cliff Road to the north and Thomas Lane to the east and south. The westerly park parcel is Outlot B, Pinetree Pass 2nd Addition, is 4.0 acres and contains a ballfield and a parking lot with access off Pinetree Curve to the west. Drainage and utility easements are located around the perimeter of the park parcels, and a 70 foot wide northern natural gas easement cuts diagonally through the northeast corner of the eastern parcel. The majority of the park is generally flat, but there is a knob in the northern central portion of the site with elevations ranging from 964 to 927. SURROUNDING USES The surrounding area is developed largely with single-family residential uses. To the northeast across Cliff Road, is a church. EVALUATION OF REQUEST Proposal – Verizon is requesting a Conditional Use Permit, with a Variance to the 300’ setback from residential property, for construction of a new telecommunications monopole within Walden Heights Park. Verizon proposes a 110’ monopole, with a 9’ lightning rod to a total of 119’ height. According to the submitted plans, the monopole will be designed to accommodate up to two other future antenna arrays. In order for the installation to proceed, a lease agreement between the City and Verizon for the placement of equipment upon City property is also necessary. Applicant’s Narrative – According to the narrative, Verizon Wireless has identified a need to “improve its quality of service in the area along Cliff Road and Pilot Knob Road.” This “specific location within the wooded part of the park” was selected because of possible sites within the search area, it has the “least impact on the community” while also “achieving the technical parameters required by VZW.” The monopole itself is proposed to be a matte galvanized metal, which does not rust and is not shiny. The applicant indicated a stealth design “wasn’t considered due to the antenna design needed by the radio frequency engineers to respond to the network needs of this area.” Additionally, the applicant indicates the proposed tower design is consistent with other similar monopole installations in the area, and painting the monopole is not desired due to maintenance concerns. Compatibility with Surrounding Area – The site is zoned P, Park. The City’s zoning ordinance permits communications towers as a conditional use in the P zoning district. The surrounding area is developed with single-family residential uses, and a church to the northeast. Planning Report – Verizon/Walden Heights Park March 27, 2018 Page 5 Site Plan– The Site Plan shows the proposed tower within a 24’ x 20’ leased area 112’6” feet south of Cliff Road. Access to the leased area will be from Cliff Road via a new 12’ wide paved driveway that widens to a 20’ parking area. A concrete staircase and walkway completes the access between the driveway and lease area. The lease area is proposed to be enclosed with a chain link fence, and surfaced with rock. Also within the lease area is a 6’ x 6’ equipment shelter for the ground equipment, and a generator on a 7’6” x 3’8” concrete slab. No new landscaping is proposed. No trees will be removed for the tower construction. Code Requirements – City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.70, Subd. 26 sets forth the regulations for the installation of antennae and construction of towers. Subdivision 26-G contains general standards applying to all towers and antennae regarding illumination, signage, security, screening, location and color, design, and building permit requirements. The proposed tower must comply with these general standards, which are listed at the end of this report. The lease area is proposed to be enclosed with a 6’ chain link fence, with 3 rows of barbed wire on top to a height of 7’. Through its lease agreements, the City does not allow barbed wire is for such installations, and the chain link fence should be black vinyl coated chain link. Additionally, Subdivision 26-E-2 states that freestanding towers and antennae in non- residential use districts shall be subject to the following requirements. An assessment of this proposal relative to these provisions follows each item. a)The combined height of any freestanding tower and antennae or satellite dishes mounted thereto shall not exceed: (ii)125 feet, measured from ground elevation of the tower to the highest point of the tower-antenna/satellite dish combination . . . . (A)Accommodate the applicant’s antennae and at least one additional comparable antennae for other communication providers; (B)Accept antennae mounted at varying heights; and (C)Allow the future rearrangement of antennae upon the tower. The ordinance requires that the combined height of the tower and antennae or satellite dishes not exceed 125 feet. The proposed tower is 110 feet in height with a 9 foot lightning rod for a total height of 119 feet. The antenna equipment consists of 3 arrays mounted at the top of the monopole. The plans show the equipment mounted such that the height of the antennae is at 110 feet. The plans also show potential future antenna installations lower on the same monopole. b)All setback requirements for any accessory equipment building or structure shall be met as set forth in this chapter, provided the minimum setback distance of the tower from any property line of a parcel or lot within a residential use district shall be equal Planning Report – Verizon/Walden Heights Park March 27, 2018 Page 6 to two times the height of the tower or 300 feet, whichever is greater. All equipment is located within the lease area. The lease area is set back approximately 90 feet from the north property line and satisfies the setback from right-of-way. The lease area is set back approximately 145 feet from residential property to the east. Thus, accessory ground equipment satisfies required setbacks for the P zoning district. The tower is proposed to be setback 165’1” from the residential property to the east. Because this is less than the 300 foot setback required from residential property, a Variance is requested. The Zoning Ordinance states that relief may be granted from a required ordinance provision provided there are special conditions that apply to the subject land, the relief is not contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Guide Plan, and it is necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty. The practical difficultly is limited locations for antenna and towers within the functional search area. The applicant selected the park site after evaluating the functional parameters and other possible locations. The proposed location is at a high point of the property, where existing vegetation minimizes visibility of ground equipment, and does not impact recreational activities in the park. The proposed 165-foot setback from residential property is greater than the 119-foot height of the monopole. Analysis from a structural engineer was provided that describes the structural design of the monopole as consistent with industry standards, and further explains that “should wind speed increase beyond the capacity of the built-in safety factors, to the point of failure of one or more structural elements,” the likely “fall radius . . . is less than 55 feet.” c) The tower shall be located in the rear yard. There are no buildings within this park which create a front yard. The tower exceeds the required setback from the front lot line abutting the public street. d) The tower shall be self-supporting through the use of a design that uses an open- frame or monopole configuration. The applicant’s proposal is for a self-supporting monopole. e) Permanent platforms or structures, exclusive of the tower or antennae, that increase off-site visibility are prohibited. The plans do not include any such additions to the tower. f) Existing vegetation on the site shall be preserved to the greatest possible extent practical. The proposed tower is located in a clearing and no trees will be removed for its construction. Planning Report – Verizon/Walden Heights Park March 27, 2018 Page 7 g) Accessory equipment associated with freestanding towers and antennae shall be located within an equipment building constructed of materials and color compatible with principal building and surrounding area or within an equipment encasement not exceeding 10 feet (w) x 10 feet (l) x 5 feet (h) in size. Accessory equipment will be within a shelter located within the lease area. The prefabricated shelter is 6’ (w) x 6’ (l) x 8’10” (h). The exterior is an aggregate finish in a tan/brown color. There is no principal building on the park property, and the surrounding area is primarily residential uses. The equipment building is subject to the standards for accessory structures in the City Code. This includes maintenance, as well as and setbacks and height standards of the zoning district in which it is located. Setbacks and height standards for the P, Park, zoning district are satisfied. The structure should be maintained in a manner that is compatible with adjacent uses and does not present a hazard to public health safety and general welfare. In addition to the equipment shelter, a generator is also proposed within the lease area. To be compatible with the equipment shelter, the generator should be similar tan/brown color, and should be screened from public views, primarily from the north and east. Landscape screening should consist of plant materials that remain fully opaque year-round. h) The applicant shall provide a color manipulated “as built” photograph of the tower as proposed for the location. The applicant has provided the photo simulation of the site showing existing and proposed views from different vantage points. i) No new tower shall be permitted unless the city council finds that the equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated at any preferred co- location site. The city council may find that a preferred co-location site cannot accommodate that planned equipment for the following reasons: (i) The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the preferred co-location site, and the preferred co-location site cannot be reinforced, modified, or replaced to accommodate the planned equipment or its equivalent at a reasonable cost, as certified by a qualified radio frequency engineer; (ii) The planned equipment would interfere significantly with the usability of existing or approved equipment at the preferred co-location site, and the interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost, as certified by a qualified radio frequency engineer; (iii) A preferred co-location site cannot accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary to function reasonably, as certified by a qualified radio frequency engineer; or (iv) The applicant, after a good-faith effort, is unable to lease, purchase or otherwise obtain space for the planned equipment at a preferred co-location site. Planning Report – Verizon/Walden Heights Park March 27, 2018 Page 8 Verizon has identified a need for improved service in the area along Cliff Road and Pilot Knob Road. The Radio Frequency Engineer’s report states, “The combined effect of varying terrain elevation and vegetation in the area prevent effect propagation of a signal with new technologies.” The Radio Frequency Engineer’s report evaluated two alternate locations in the area – existing monopoles at Dakota Path and Chapel Hill Baptist Church – and concluded the “coverage improvement of the alternate locations is much less than the benefit of the proposed location . . . and will not completely satisfy the coverage objectives of the project and will not meet the customer demand in the area.” The narrative identifies the search ring where a wireless communications facility can “successfully connect with each of the adjacent cell sites” and that the properties in the area are primarily residential zoning and use. Two exceptions to the residential zoning are Easter Lutheran Church and Walden Heights Park. With Planned Development zoning, the ordinance does not allow for a tower on the church property, leaving the park as the only site within the area that is appropriately zoned for such an installation. Security – One of the general City Code standards requires that “towers, and any equipment attached thereto, shall be unclimbable by design for the first 12 feet or completely surrounded by a six feet high security fence with a lockable gate.” The lease area is proposed to be enclosed with a 6’ chain link fence with 3 rows of barbed wire on top to a height of 7’. Barbed wire is not acceptable and should be omitted, and the chain link fence should be black coated vinyl. Landscaping – No new landscaping is proposed. To the extent that existing vegetation screens the installation, landscaping is not required. Landscaping should be provided along the north and east sides of the installation to screen visibility from the roadway and enhance screening from the trail and adjacent residential property to the east. The Applicant should provide a Landscape Plan for review and approval by City staff, prior to release of the Conditional Use Permit for recording. Wetlands - Because there are no wetlands on site, City Code §11.67, wetland protection and management regulations, does not apply. Stormwater Management/ Water Quality – The applicant proposes to add less than 10,000 sf of impervious surface, therefore, the City’s Post Construction Stormwater Management Requirements (City Code §4.34) for stormwater management and surface water quality do not apply. Utilities –No connection to City utilities are proposed with this application. Planning Report – Verizon/Walden Heights Park March 27, 2018 Page 9 Streets/Access/Circulation – Public street access is proposed via a new bituminous driveway connection to Cliff Road. The applicant should obtain a building permit or grading permit from the City prior to any construction on the site. Any damage to the boulevard and trail should be repaired in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer. The applicant will need to obtain a right- of-way permit from Dakota County for any work within the Cliff Road right-of-way. Concrete stairs are proposed from the end of the driveway to access the tower. Financial Obligation – At this time, there are no pending assessments on the parcel. Tree Preservation – There are no tree preservation issues associated with this proposal. Parks and Recreation – The proposal was reviewed by the Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission at a workshop on February 26, 2018. Parks staff indicated the tower will not impact recreational activities at Walden Heights Park and the tower will generate a monthly lease payment to the City. The Commission had no concerns or specific recommendations regarding Verizon’s proposal. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION Verizon Wireless is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit and a Variance of 135’ to the 300’ setback from residential property to construct a 110-foot monopole telecommunications antenna tower with a 9’ lightning rod on the property of Walden Heights Park. Verizon indicates a need for additional capacity in the Pilot Knob Road and Cliff Road area, that possible co-location sites are not suitable, and that this new tower is necessary to meet their technical performance needs and provide coverage in this area. The proposal appears to satisfy the performance standards in the City Code with the exception of setback for which the Variance is requested. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED To recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a new telecommunications monopole upon property located at4640 Pinetree Curve, legally described as Outlot B Pinetree Pass 2nd Addition and Outlot B, Walden Heights 1st Addition. If approved the following conditions shall apply: 1. This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded with the Dakota County Recorder’s office within 60 days of approval by the City Council, with the following exhibits: • Site Plan • Landscape Plan Planning Report – Verizon/Walden Heights Park March 27, 2018 Page 10 2. The Applicant shall provide a Landscape Plan for review and approval by City staff, prior to release of the Conditional Use Permit for recording. 3. Any damage to the boulevard and trail shall be repaired in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer. 4. The applicant shall obtain a Building Permit or Grading Permit from the City prior to any construction on the site 5. The lease area shall be secured with a six foot tall security fence, black vinyl coated chain link, with no barbed wire. 6. Verizon shall enter into a lease agreement with the City in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. The lease agreement shall be executed prior to erection of the tower or placement of any equipment upon the property. 7. The monopole and all equipment shall be maintained. The equipment building shall be maintained in a manner that is compatible with adjacent uses and does not present a hazard to public health safety and general welfare. 8. As required by City Code, and as shown on the submitted plans, the monopole shall be designed to accommodate additional comparable antennae for other communication providers; accept antennae mounted at varying heights; and allow the future rearrangement of antennae upon the tower. 9. The tower and accessory equipment building shall comply with the general standards outlined in City Code Section 11.70, Subdivision 26-G. To approve a Variance of 135 feet to the minimum 300 foot setback from residential property for a monopole upon property located at 4640 Pinetree Curve, legally described as Outlot B Pinetree Pass 2nd Addition and Outlot B Walden Heights 1st Addition. If approved, the following conditions shall apply: 1. If within one year after approval, the variance shall not have been completed or utilized, it shall become null and void unless a petition for extension has been granted by the council. Such extension shall be requested in writing at least 30 days before expiration and shall state facts showing a good faith attempt to complete or utilize the use permitted in the variance. Eagan City Code Section 11.70, Subd. 26-G (excerpt) G.General standards. All antennae, satellite dishes, towers, and wind energy conversion systems shall be subject to the following additional requirements: 1.Location and color shall be in a manner to minimize off-site visibility to the greatest possible extent; 2.Compliance with all applicable provisions of the Code, including the provisions of the state building code therein adopted, in addition to the requirements set out in this subdivision; 3.No signs, other than for public safety warnings or equipment information, shall be affixed to any portion thereof; 4.No artificial illumination, except when required by law or by a governmental agency to protect the public's health and safety, shall be utilized; 5.The placement of transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be integrated within the site, being located within an existing structure whenever possible; any new accessory equipment structure shall be attached to the principal building, if possible, and constructed of materials and of a color scheme compatible with the principal structure and/or surrounding area or within an equipment encasement not exceeding 10 feet (w), by 10 feet (l), by five feet (h), in size; 6.Accessory equipment or buildings shall be screened by suitable landscaping, as set forth in this chapter, except where a design of non-vegetative screening better reflects and compliments the architectural character of the surrounding neighborhood; 7.Building permits shall be required for the installation of building mounted satellite dishes in excess of five feet in diameter, towers, and wind energy conversion systems; 8.Structural design, mounting and installation of a tower, antenna or satellite dish which requires a building permit shall be verified and approved by a qualified licensed engineer; and 9.Towers, and any equipment attached thereto, shall be unclimbable by design for the first 12 feet or completely surrounded by a six feet high security fence with a lockable gate. WILDERNESS RUN ROADWINDSOR COURTRICHARDSCTFAIRWAY HILLS DRIVELAKEPARKCTWELLINGTON CT.STEEPLECHASELANELNPENKWEWAYSTEEPLECHASEWAYRICHARDLANENORTHMA L LA RD T R .SHADOWCREEKCUINTERLACHEN DRIVECYPRESS PTCTCLANETHOMASLAKERD.COACHDR.PINETREEPASSTHOMASCENTERDRO DGEPOLEDRTRENTON LN.WILDERNESS LPEBBLEBEACHWAYROADWESTMINSTERCRWELLINGTONWAYE N T R AIL JOHNNYCAKERIDGERDDELORES LANEWALDENDRMALLARDKINGSBURYDRCLEMSONDRIVELAKESIDE DRWILDERNESS RUN CT.MALLARD CIRSHERWOODCOURTJOHNNY CAKE RIDGE ROADTHOMASLAKERD.GRACE DRR IC H A R D L N CAMBRIDGE DRMALLARDDRIVENYBROCIRPINETR E E C U RVECHES MAR DRIVEC.S.A.H.NO.32(CLIFFROAD)WINGEDKNOTTI N G H AMCIRBEACON HILL CRLODGEPOLE CTBEACONHILLRDLONDONLANEANDREWBLVDJ O H N N Y C A K E R ID G E R O A D WILDE R N ESSKERIDGERDWELLINGTO N WAY SUMMITPASSNORWOODDRNORWOOD C TLAKEPARKCIRSTONECLIFFEDRIVEOAKLEAFCIRREBECCALN WALNUTLANELANECAMELBACKDRBEACONS H E F F IE L D L N.DRIVEL A K E S ID ECIRHILLMALLARD VIEWBARCLAY CR.RIDGE VI E W D RWILDERNESS RUN CIRCOVINGTONPINETREETRAILWALNUTCTIRSHEFFIELD CIRSHERWOODWAYBEACONHILLROADSHEVLINCTSOUTHMALLARDBEACONHILLCTHAZELTI N ELANETHOMASLNMALLARD PLACEMALMO CIRPENKWECIRCHESMARCRANDREWBLVDC.S.A.H. NO. 31 (PILOT KNOB ROAD)INTEH I C K ORYLANECOVINGTONCRCARRIAGE HILLNORWOODDRC.S.A.H.NO.31(PILOTKNOBRD.)C.S.A.H.NO.31(PILOTKNOBRD.)NORWO O D CIR.WOODGATELANEC.S.A.H.NO.31(PILOTKNOBRD.)HILLCOVING TON LN C.S.A.H.NO.32(CLIFFROAD)COVINGTONAMARYLLIS LANEERIK'SBLVDDUNBERRY CIRPENKWEWAYWILDERNESS RUN DRLANCASTER LANEHICKORYHILLLA K E PARKDR STEEPLECHASECOURTSHERWOODWAYCIRRIDGE CLIFF DRIVESVENSKLANEC LIFFORDLN.CHESMARLNCOVINGTONC.S.A.H.NO.31(PILOTKNOBRD.)ClearwaterParkEvergreenParkGeorgeOhmannParkDowning ParkHighlineTrailParkRidgecliffParkParkThomasLakeEast ParkThomasLakeParkWaldenHeights ParkLebanon HillsRegional ParkParkLocation Map01,000500Feet´§¨¦35E§¨¦494Cliff RdDiffley RdYankee Doodle RdLone Oak RdMap Area ExtentProject Name: Verizon/ Walden Heights ParkRequest: Conditional Use Permit and VarianceCase Nos.: 33-CU-04-02-18 33-VA-02-02-18 Subject Sites CO. RD. 32 Cliff RoadCO. RD. 32 Cliff RoadCO. RD. 32 Cliff RoadPinetree C u r v e Thomas LaneRichard's CourtLake Park DriveThomas Lane200 0100 Feet´This map is for reference use only. This is not a survey and is not indtended to be used as one.Aerial photo-Spring 2016Project: Verizon - Walden Heights ParkRequest: Conditional Use Permit & VarianceCase Nos.: 33-CU-04-02-18 & 33-VA-02-02-18 = DENOTES A FOUND SECTION CORNERMONUMENTORIENTATION OF THIS BEARING SYSTEM ISBASED ON THE DAKOTA COUNTYCOORDINATE SYSTEM NAD83 (1986)SECTION LINELEGENDDakota County, MN 0494A2362.000No. Date REVISIONS By CHK APP'DSMK JPB/JMBFIELD WORK: 8/8/17CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:©2017 WIDSETH SMITH NOLTINGHALF SCALE ON 11"x17"FULL SCALE ON 22"x34"SITE NAME: MIN THOMASSURVEYOR NOTES:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYORUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.SITE SURVEY0SCALE ( IN FEET )40 80NORTHBOUNDARY LINERIGHT OF WAY LINE= DENOTES A FOUND IRON MONUMENTPOSTFIBER HANDHOLELOT LINETHBUILDING WALL HATCHCONCRETE SURFACEELECTRIC METEREUGEGASELECTRIC POLEUNDERGROUND GASUNDERGROUND ELECTRICWIDSETH SMITH NOLTINGEngineering | Architecture | Surveying | EnvironmentalQUARTER LINEEDGE OF WOODSTREE CONIFEROUSGRIDNORTHGEODETICNORTHOHEOVERHEAD ELECTRICTREE DECIDUOUSTELE PEDESTALELEC LIGHT POLETSTORM CATCH BASINSANITARY MANHOLESELEC TRANSFORMER BOXSIXTEENTH LINENEW EASEMENT LINECONTROLLED ACCESSSTSTORM MANHOLEEELEC MANHOLEPREMISESCENTERLINESHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETSDETAILNORTH0SCALE ( IN FEET )10 20EXISTING EASEMENT LINE 1 Pam Dudziak From:Caron Rodman <caron.rodman@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 17, 2018 10:17 PM To:APC Subject:Concern over proposed Verizon tower- Walden Heights Park To whom it may concern: I live in the Stonecliffe neighborhood and frequent Walden Heights Park with my family. I am strongly opposed to any cell phone tower being placed on or near the park grounds, which is in the middle of a residential area. There are plenty other locations that are not centered in residential areas, parks where children play in the park or play ball, families ride bikes and take walks, where towers can be built. We moved to this neighborhood over 5 years ago partly because there were no monstrous towers, power lines, or unsightly (or potentially health- harming) cell towers nearby. Please keep our parks and neighborhoods as they are WITHOUT the invasiveness and potential danger and ugliness of a proposed cell phone tower (be it Verizon or otherwise). I urge you to help keep our parks, children's play areas, and neighborhoods as natural as possible. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Dr. Caron Rodman 1496 Pinetree Pass Eagan, MN 55122 1 Pam Dudziak From:JMarkoe661 <jmarkoe661@aol.com> Sent:Saturday, March 17, 2018 8:47 PM To:APC Subject:Cell tower To Eagan City Council, Thank you for taking a few minutes to read and consider my position on the new cell tower Verizon plans to build in Eagan.While I understand the needs for a new cell tower where this tower is plan to be built is a totally unacceptable place to put it. To have this tower so close to play areas and within easy sight of homes where homeowners paid good money to be by a park is just not right but will effect homeowners when they try to sell there homes. Instead of being a great place where you are right next to a park you now have a cell tower practically in your back yard. Eagan is better then this (at least I hope it is) to do this to homeowners. Eagan has a excellent reputation known for its nice parks, schools and nice property. Now in the name of progess ( basically just a excuse) Eagan appears not to care about the protection of maintaining people property investments but instead allowing over 110ft cell phone tower just 20 to 50 yards away from where children are playing in the park (that the taxpayer paid for having put in and maintain) and instead it is being used as a convenient place to stick some unsightly cell towers. What are you thinking? What if it was your home or your family used the park? To keep home values up we need to maintain what makes families move here to begin with and a huge cell tower right next to homes and parks does not get it. This also set up the idea that if a cell tower is OK next to homes and parks what stops it from some other cell phone companies of wanting and doing the same thing to do the same thing Please see if there is a real need and if needed build it someplace else. The people in Eagan deserve better then this. By the way anyone who votes for this cell tower to be built at this location will not get my vote in the next election. Jenifer Markoe 4266 Boulder Ridge Point Eagan, MN 55122 561 306-8776 JMarkoe661@aol.com Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Devicek 1 Pam Dudziak From:kellyannsullivan11 <kellyannsullivan11@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 17, 2018 11:02 AM To:APC Subject:Cell tower proposition We actively use Walden Heights Park, which is quite small, and are opposed to a cell tower there. Children are ALWAYS at that park, often unattended, and I fear it would be unsafe and of course it would be an eyesore. A more appropriate place would be across Cliff Rd on private property or at Thomas Lake Park, which is not so condensed. 1 Pam Dudziak From:L Loberg <laurenmloberg@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 17, 2018 2:38 PM To:APC Subject:Walden Heights Cell Tower Hello, MyfamilylivesintheneighborhoodadjacenttotheWaldenHeightsPark.WechoseEagantoliveinforit’sbeautiful parks.Wefrequentlyusethisparkaswellasourthreechildren’sdaycareprovidersonadailybasisinniceweather.Our childrenheavilyutilizethewoodsandhillwhenplaying.Iamconcernedoverthepreservationofourparksasplay spacesandnotintroducingelementssuchasacelltowerthatdetractfromthis.Althoughmanystudiesshowthatthe radiowavestransmittedfromtowersarelowandnotconsideredarisktothoseneartowers,Ialsorealizethisresearch isnotlongstanding.Formychildren’slongtermhealth,Iwouldnotfeelcomfortableplayingbeneathatower.I appreciateyourtimeinconsideringmyfamily’sconcern.  Sincerely, LaurenLoberg   1 Pam Dudziak Mike W <mnmike130@gmail.com> Sunday, March 18, 2018 6:54 PM APC One more comment on the proposed cell phone tower in Walden Heights Park I think this is what is called a "two-fer". First, land that is not collecting tax revenue will generate some money for the city from the lessee. That helps all residents. Secondly, some less fortunate people (those who can not afford internet and cell phone) will have better access to the internet. Their cell phone is their access to it. This idea that property values will decline is an opinion, not a fact. The home owners who didn't want the Cub at Diffley and Lexington said the same thing. The home owners who didn't want the owners of the golf course on Cliff to sell it to a housing developer said the same thing. I don't believe their fears came to fruition.I just did a random search on the Dakota County Property Tax web site for those two locations and property values for 2017, 2018 and 2019 have increased each year. Thank you, Mike Warner 3829 Denmark Ave Pam Dudziak From: Sent: To: Subject: Mike W <mnmike130@gmail.com> Saturday, March 17, 2018 7:06 PM APC Proposed cell tower at Walden Heights Park I think it is a great idea to put this up. There are people who use cell phones For their internet service. If this helps them we are helping our citizens. Thank you Mike Warnerrn 3829 Denmark ave. Eagan From: Sent: To: Subject: 1 Pam Dudziak From:Shaya M <s.malekoshoarai@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 17, 2018 2:33 PM To:APC Subject:Proposed Cell Tower in Walden Heights Park Hello, I recently heard of a proposed cell tower by Verizon Wireless. I urge the city to not allow this to go through. It is too close to a park where many children play all year round. Thank you, Shaya Malekoshoarai 1 Pam Dudziak From:Usha Deodhar <ushadeodhar@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 18, 2018 8:22 PM To:APC Subject:Cell tower near Walden Park  Iliveacrosstheparkinstonecliffneighborhoodandamdefinitelyopposedtothecelltowersoclosetothechildrens playarea.Pleasenotemydispleasureinthismatter. UshaDeodhar 1516ThomasLane Eagan. SentfrommyiPhone 1 Pam Dudziak From:Chris Nelson <christopheranelson@centurylink.net> Sent:Monday, March 19, 2018 3:51 PM To:Mike Ridley Subject:Planning commission/Cell phone tower variance Mike, I live at 1523 Pinetree Trail. I understand that a Verizon tower is being proposed for Walden Park. Frankly, it's about time. I routinely drop calls when I enter our neighborhood. It's a dead zone. For both ATT and Verizon. I've been reading a flurry of emails from my neighbors, and I have to be honest. They sound like a bunch of Luddites: Cell tower energy is harmful to children, corporations are evil, blah blah blah. Give me a break. Complete Nimby attitude. They must have good cell reception in their part of the neighborhood. If the tower is being proposed for home plate, then yes it shouldn't go there. There is a hill behind home plate that is currently only being used for illicit drug activity. A great place for a tower, especially if it's designed to look like a big juniper or something. I will be out of town for the 3/27 meeting. I know that the city's normal response to a few complaints is to cave in. Do not fear the pitchforks and torches! The silent majority wants to see the tower go up. Please find a way to make this tower happen. Christopher Nelson 1 Pam Dudziak From:Jo Haugen <haugenjo@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, March 19, 2018 6:22 PM To:APC Subject:Proposed cell tower in Walden Heights neighborhood Dear City of Eagan, Thank you for considering a cell tower in our neighborhood. Cell service, regardless of carrier, is sketchy throughout our home. We must pay for a land line because our cell service is so unreliable. We find it inconvenient, particularly in winter, to have to go out on our deck to keep calls from cutting out. Therefore, we support the new cell tower proposal...with one caveat. We understand that our neighbors do not want an eyesore erected outside their windows. Anything you can do to make the tower blend in would be appreciated. Thank you for your time, Jo and Tony Haugen 1481 Pinetree Pass Tap to get Yahoo Mail 1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Feldman <mike_feldman111@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, March 19, 2018 7:06 PM To:APC Subject:Verizon 119' Monopole @ 4640 Pinetree Curve Dear Sir/Madam, We are strongly against a cell tower in this for two main reasons, potential health risks to children and property values in our neighborhood. 1) There are many families with young children who play in the park. There is a potential long term health risk to them from being exposed to electromagnetic waves. There is a reason why experts advise limiting the time kids spend on Ipads and cellphones. 2)Property Values Declining Near Cell Towers Property Values Declining Near Cell Towers When it comes to cell phone towers, there is increasingly the perception that a family does not want to live nex... Simply put, perception is reality. Families don't want to rent or buy near cell phone towers. There is a reason why most towers are in industrial areas. Putting one in a residential decreases property values hurting everyone - including the city. Lower property value = less taxes the city collects. The lease payments from one tower won't come to making up the difference. We STRONGLY object this object proposal. Thank you, Mike + Marina Feldman 1500 Thomas Lane Eagan 1 Pam Dudziak From:Mark Sisson <Mark.Sisson@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, March 19, 2018 9:48 AM To:APC Subject:Public Hearing Notice - Verizon Wireless Cell Tower Variance # 33-VA-02-02-18 Attachments:Cell_Tower_Planning_Meeting_Notice_20001.pdf; ATT00001.htm City Of Eagan Attention: Christina M. Scipione, City Clerk We are long time residents of Eagan (33 years) and have nothing but the highest regard for the City, its leaders and progress made during this time. However, we are concerned about the subject variance request and the possibility of a Cell Tower in the location outlined. The variance proposal of 135 Ft. to the minimum 300 Ft. setback from residential property seems like a significant and imposing request. While we are not residents directly impacted by the variance request, we have used the Walden Heights Park over the years for both our children and grand children and feel strongly this is a poor location for both nearby residents and park users. We find it concerning that another location, which fulfills the established residential set back requirements and does not impose on park areas is not available elsewhere. Based upon our observations, existing area cell towers to not impose on residential and public areas to the degree this proposal would. Due to prior commitments, we may not be able to attend the March 27th Public Hearing, so please consider this letter as our opposition to the variance request. Sincerely, Mark & Virginia Sisson 4862 Windsor Court Eagan, MN. 55122 email: Mark.Sisson@comcast.net 1 Pam Dudziak From:Shari Myszka <slmyszka@mmm.com> Sent:Monday, March 19, 2018 9:31 AM To:APC Subject:NO to any variances for cell phone towers CityofEagan:  RegardingmoreproposedcelltowersandANYproposedpetitionstoignorelongstandingordinancesforcelltower(s), specificallyintheWaldenHeightspark,localhomeownerssayNO,wedon’tneedanymoredamncellphonetowers, andwecertainlydon’tneedanymorevariances.PERIOD.Iforone,nolongertrustthesecorruptcompaniesthatare bulldozing,steamrollingandpeddlingmoreandmorecellphonesandcelltowersandcellserviceandpropagandato ourchildrenandAmericancitizens.Theparksbelongtothecitizensandhomeownersthatliveinthisarea,webought ourhomesundercertaincircumstancesANDWEEXPECTOURLOCALGOVERNMENTSTOLIVEUPTOTHECURRENT ORDINANCESTHATAREPUTINPLACEFOROURPROTECTION.PERIOD.  PROPOSEDORDINANCE:VOTENO  IMPORTANTANDTIMESENSATIVENEIGHBORHOODINFORMATIONThereisanapplicationtoputthefirst“newconstruction” 119ftCellToweratthenorthendofWaldenHeightsPark.VERIZONWIRELESSispetitioningthecitytoignorealongstanding ordinancebyseekingaVarianceof135fttotheMINUMUM300ftsetbackfromresidentialproperty,reducingthatsetback almostinhalf.ThisproposedtowerwillbepositionedonveryACTIVEparkproperty.Childrenplayingonthehillinthepark, climbingtreesinthesummerandsleddinginthewinter,justadjacenttotower,willbelessthan50ftaway.Thenearbyball fieldislessthan150ftaway.Themetalconstructionplaygroundwillbelessthan400ftaway.Thewalking/bikepathwillpass within40ftofthetowerandstructures..Andofcoursethetowerwillbevisiblethroughouttheparkandneighborhood.Please don’tallowourcityofficialstoforceourchildrenandresidentstobeactiveundertheshadowofaCellTower.Theprecedent couldbesetforignoringlongstandingstandardsofconsiderationtoresidentsandforconstructionofnewCellTowersinany ourparks.AnAdvisoryPlanningMeetingisscheduledforMarch27at6:30intheCityHallCouncilChambers.COMEVOICE YOURCONCERNS.Youmayalsosendanemailto  ThesecorruptISPcompanieshavealreadyvotedagainstcivilliberties&netneutrality,forcemorepayforaccess,speed andblockwebsitesastheyseefit.KeepcorruptionoutofEAGAN,MN.  https://www.inverse.com/article/38734ͲnetͲneutralityͲattͲverizonͲcharterͲcomcast     ShariMyszka|RegulatoryAffairsSpecialist 3MOralCareSolutionsDivision 3MCenter,275Ͳ2WͲ08|St.Paul,MN55144Ͳ1000|UnitedStates Office:+16517366955|Mobile:+16128654951|Fax:+16517369665 slmyszka@mmm.com|www.3MESPE.com|www.3MUnitek.com    1 Pam Dudziak From:Tim Ostrem <todo@usfamily.net> Sent:Monday, March 19, 2018 9:57 PM To:APC Cc:todo@usfamily.com Subject:Verizon Tower Notice ToAPCinEagan,  IamstronglyopposedtotheproposedcellphonetowerintheStonecliffeneighborhood.Iamalongtimeresidentofthe Stonecliffeneighborhood.Idonotwanttoliveinaneighborhoodnearacellphonetoweranddon’twantthecellphone towertohaveanegativeimpactonthepropertyvalueofmyhome.Pleasedonotallowtheconstructionofthiscell phonetower.  Sincerely, TimOstrem 4622SummitPass Eagan,MN55122  1 Pam Dudziak From:Dennis & Susan Bechly <bechly@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, March 20, 2018 1:51 PM To:APC Cc:Pam Dudziak Subject:Proposed Verizon Wireless Tower in Walden Heights Park To: Jane Vanderpoel Gutknecht Dan Sagstetter Daniel Piper Ben Weimert Kim Heckmann Bruce Goff Angela Torres Dear Advisory Planning Commission members: Scheduled for the upcoming March 27 Commission meeting is the Verizon Wireless application for a Conditional Use Permit/Variance for the construction of a 119 foot Cell Tower at the north end of Walden Heights Park. Our home is the closest residence affected by this Variance. We have lived at this property since moving to Eagan in 1983, building our home and remaining in this location principally for its relation to the Walden Heights Park. Nine years ago we invested over $200,000 in an addition and improvements specifically to take advantage of our relationship and views of the park. In no uncertain terms, this Variance will be devastating to our lives and property. 55%. That is the resulting setback with the requested variance of 135 feet. This is just over half of the required MINIMUM setback of 300 feet. Not 95%, not 85%, not even 75%. This is not a request for a Variance. This is a request to abandon any residential property protection set by city ordinance. Why is there an ordinance at all? The ordinance was put in place just for this situation, so city official wouldn’t be put in a position of negotiating around issues of bias and emotion. This proposed setback does not even meet the industry standard for maintaining a clearance radius of 2x the height of the tower. In this case that 238 foot setback is in our bedroom. The screening that is mentioned by Verizon Wireless documentation only concerns ground equipment and although it may sound good on paper, it is not even close to presenting the whole truth concerning the residents to the north, east and south and for Cliff Road traffic. This tower will be visible everywhere in Walden Heights Park and by all residents adjacent to the park property as well as residents north of Cliff Road. The best way to make a fully informed decision on this application is to observe, first hand, how this cell tower will affect this park and the residents nearby. That is why we extend an open invitation to each and every one of you to come to our home, walk and observe the park, sit in our living room and look out the windows, stand on our deck or patio and visualize the sight of a 119 foot Cell Tower only 165 feet away towering above any screening. We will make every effort to be available to meet any of your schedules. Only with the totality of this input will you be able to examine the logic and emotion of ignoring Eagan’s own long standing researched, planned, debated and passed ordinance. With a natural gas line easement on the northeast corner of our property for multiple pipelines, it could be argued that we have already made a sacrifice for our community. Imagine yourself living at this location, your children playing in this park and this as your lifelong home. 2 Sincerely, Dennis and Susan Bechly 1465 Thomas Lane Eagan, MN 55122 651-454-6058 (Home) 952-818-6468 (Dennis’ Cell) 651-253-7396 (Sue’s Cell) bechly@comcast.net Comments on the Proposed Verizon Wireless Tower in Walden Heights Park - north Submitted by Dennis & Susan Bechly, 1465 Thomas Lane Page 1 Cited: Campanelli & Associates, P.C., Attorneys and Counselors at Law Do property owners have a right to oppose the approval of Cell Tower applications? Absolutely. Aside from your rights, under state law, to be heard at public hearings, you also have a right to submit opposition to Cell Tower applications, under the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees your right to petition government for the redress of grievances. Under this guarantee, you have a U.S. Constitutional right to be heard before town boards, planning boards and zoning boards, and to make submissions to oppose any Cell Tower application pending before any such local boards. While the Telecommunications Act of 1996 bars local governments from denying zoning applications for Cell Towers based upon the potential adverse health impacts caused by their RF emissions, as an individual or an association, you have the right to fight against sustaining the adverse consequences which you may suffer in the event that a Cell Tower were to be installed in close proximity to your home, or in your community. You have the right to fight against sustaining a loss to the value of your property as a result of the installation of a Cell Tower in close proximity. You have the right to protect yourself, your family, friends and neighbors against the dangers of Cell Tower collapse, which occurs more often than the average person realizes. You have the right to fight against having the installation of a Cell Tower adversely affect the character or aesthetics of your neighborhood. You have the right to assert all factual grounds upon which a respective application should be denied, and all legal grounds upon which a respective Cell Tower application should be denied, or in some cases, must be denied as a matter of law. Your Right to Petition also protects your right to demand that your local officials enact and enforce proper zoning ordinances which can protect your property values, can protect yourselves and the public from the potential dangers of Cell Tower collapse, and can further protect against Cell Towers adversely affecting both the aesthetics and the character of your neighborhood. It also protects your right to resort to legal recourse, in both Federal and State Courts, to challenge the approval of a Cell Tower application, or to defend a local government's denial of one. Can local Zoning Boards legally deny applications to install Cell Towers? Of course. There is a moderately wide range of legally valid basis upon which a local zoning board, planning board or town board may deny, and in fact, may be legally compelled to deny, an application for the installation of a Cell Tower. Comments on the Proposed Verizon Wireless Tower in Walden Heights Park - north Submitted by Dennis & Susan Bechly, 1465 Thomas Lane Page 2 Parks & Residential Properties Residents purchase property and move to areas surrounding a city park for its natural beauty and for the recreational opportunities it provides. A park is a place for participation in the natural environment and it is unconscionably to degrade such an environment with the introduction of industrial features. This is especially disturbing and heartbreaking for the residents that have enjoyed the beauty of a park for many years only to have it stripped away for commercial purposes. The value of their property is directly influenced by the aesthetics and character of a park. Maintaining that aesthetics, character and thus the value of their property is of the highest priority for every resident adjacent to a neighborhood park. Walden Heights Park – north is one the smaller parks in the City of Eagan. But don’t let its size fool you. It is a very active park. The playground is bustling during the summer and so is the area in which the cell tower is to be built. Even though it is an unmaintained section of the park, children play at the top of hill and climb the trees. In the winter the hill is a prime sledding spot. Locating a cell tower and its associated equipment in this location will significantly affect the safe use of the area for the children. A walking/biking path will now have to pass right by the proposed location of the tower. Locating this cell tower according to this application will destroy the aesthetics and character of this small park. Comments on the Proposed Verizon Wireless Tower in Walden Heights Park - north Submitted by Dennis & Susan Bechly, 1465 Thomas Lane Page 3 The screening that is mentioned in the Verizon Wireless application only concerns the ground equipment and is misleading at best. It does not represent the whole truth concerning residents to the north, east and south and for Cliff Road traffic. This tower will be visible virtually everywhere in Walden Heights Park and its adjacent residential properties. Allowing a cell tower in Walden Heights Park - north runs contrary to the principles of setting aside land for green spaces. In this situation, a Conditional Use Permit should be denied. Ours names are Dennis and Susan Bechly and we are the owners of the property directly affected by the Variance. We have lived at this property since moving to Eagan in 1983, building our home and remaining at this location principally for its relation to the Walden Heights Park. In 2008 we invested over $200,000 in an addition and improvements specifically to take advantage of our relationship and views of the park property. If this Conditional Use Permit and Variance is granted, it will have a severe impact on our quality of life as well as affect the monetary valuation of our property. Both of which we have a right and willingness to protect vigorously. 55% of the setback guidelines. That is the resulting setback with the requested variance of 135 feet. This is just over half of the required MINIMUM setback of 300 feet. Not 95%, not 85%, not even 75%. That is why we respectfully request that city officials adhere to and abide by the long standing ordinance guidelines and deny the request for such a Variance. We view this setback as a requirement for our property’s protection and our own personal safety, as well as that of our neighborhood, and we feel threatened by this proposed construction of a monopole structure in such close proximity to our home. Comments on the Proposed Verizon Wireless Tower in Walden Heights Park - north Submitted by Dennis & Susan Bechly, 1465 Thomas Lane Page 4 Safety and Environment Cited: Campanelli & Associates, P.C., Attorneys and Counselors at Law Do Cell Towers Ever Collapse? Yes, more often than one would expect. Like Smart Cars, Cell Towers are built to be economically sensible rather than being built to be as safe as possible. Moreover, the blinding pace of Cell Tower installations across the Country makes "quality control" over the manufacturing and installation processes virtually impossible. As such, they present a very real danger of collapse, and the potential to cause harm such as property damage, and personal injury or death to anyone who might be unlucky enough to be near a 10 to 19 story Cell Tower when it fails. Unlike telephone poles, which consist of one solid piece of wood, Cell Towers are constructed of multiple individual components, the failure of one or more of which can cause a complete structural failure, and concomitant collapse. Some of the most common areas and elements of failure which result in the collapse of Cell Towers are baseplates, flanges, joints, bolts and guy wires. In some cases, Cell Towers have caught fire. With a simple visit to YouTube, you can watch multiple videos of a Cell Tower burning as it collapsed to the ground. Even their foundations have the capacity to fail. For these reasons, it is imperative that local zoning authorities adopt and require strict compliance with setback requirements necessary to protect both local citizens and the public from the danger of collapse that Cell Towers present. Verizon Wireless is requesting a Variance of 135 feet from the long standing ordinance requiring a MINIMUM setback of 300 feet. That is cutting the required setback almost in half and raising issues of safety with this site. The Sabre Industries report states it is “highly unlikely” that the monopole will fail during a wind event. But what if it does? It would be prudent to maintain a level of safety afforded by the current MINIMUM setback of 300 feet. If there is a total collapse of the tower, the requested setback provides less that a 50 foot buffer from residential structures to the southeast. With storms common from the northwest, the residences to the southeast are in the danger zone. Debris from faulty or improperly mounted equipment or falling ice make for dangerous projectiles even during a modest wind event with residential property so close. Comments on the Proposed Verizon Wireless Tower in Walden Heights Park - north Submitted by Dennis & Susan Bechly, 1465 Thomas Lane Page 5 As stated above, in some cases cell towers have caught fire. With the tower’s proximity to trees and tall grass, under the right and not so uncommon conditions, a fire would spread quickly engulfing the park in a matter of minutes and threaten the lives and property of the nearby residents. The fire department would be pressed to get to the location in time to prevent serious property damage. All the more reason a cell tower would be incompatible with this location in the park. A tower at this location is also incompatible with the usage of this park. Even though the proposed site is in an unmaintained area of the park that does not mean that the area is not actively being used. Neighborhood children climb in the trees, play on the hill and in the nearby area all year round. Additionally, a walking/bike trail passes only tens of feet from the proposed location. These should be very important reasons to take the safety of this location seriously. This proposed monopole also includes a generator. There have been instances of fuel leaks from cell tower generators causing soil contamination. Remember that this site is in a city park and just uphill from a wetland which empties into Thomas Lake. In addition, this generator could be considered another fire risk in this unmaintained area of the park. Comments on the Proposed Verizon Wireless Tower in Walden Heights Park - north Submitted by Dennis & Susan Bechly, 1465 Thomas Lane Page 6 Litigation and Ordinance Enforcement Granting this Conditional Use Permit and Variance may cause an unwanted effect of spreading newly constructed cell towers throughout the city parks and green spaces. How would this happen? If this sizeable variance is granted, the integrity of that section of the city zoning ordinance will be compromised. Let’s say the Eagan permits this Variance for Verizon Wireless, ignoring its own ordinance guidelines. The next cell service provider that comes to Eagan decides it want to build on another park property and requests a similar or maybe possibly even a greater Variance. According to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, local governments cannot discriminate between cell service providers. The choice for the city is not simple. Grant the Conditional Use Permit/Variance for another park property and thus up pops another tower. If the new application is denied there is a strong precedent for litigation against the city for showing discriminating between service providers. That suit will most likely be decided in the service provider’s favor and up pops another tower. The flood gates open for new towers in any city park. For the sake of argument, let’s say, by some stroke of luck, the suit is decided in favor of the city. Now a different kind of discrimination has just occurred against the residents adjacent to the Walden Heights Park -north. That opens the door for residents to take precedential legal action to remove the tower from their neighborhood. The most expedient solution is to abide by and strictly enforce all zoning regulations already in the ordinances for all new cell towers applications. Comments on the Proposed Verizon Wireless Tower in Walden Heights Park - north Submitted by Dennis & Susan Bechly, 1465 Thomas Lane Page 7 Alternatives Verizon Wireless is by no means limited to this one site. The following will point to a variety of options for placement of a Cell Service Tower. Some location may not be a optimal as other but the point to provide services with the least impact on residential property. A) Clearwater Park – A site suggested by Eagan Utilities. This site is located less than a tenth of a mile to the northeast of the proposed site and already the location of a public facility. B) Co-location on exiting Electrical Power Line Towers in Thomas Lake Park. This site is .4 miles to the north of the proposed site. Zoning guidelines state a preference for this kind of location (Sec 11.70 subd 26 Sec E paragraph 2i). C) Co-location on existing Cell Tower located on the top of the hill just east of Pilot Knob along Cliff Road. This site is .7 miles to the east of the proposed site. Zoning guidelines state a preference for this kind of location (Sec 11.70 subd 26 Sec E paragraph 2i). Competing Cell Service Provider’s inability to “play well” with each other is degrading our community. D) Metro Transit Park & Ride site located at northeast corner of the intersection of 35E and Cliff Road. This site is .7 miles to the west of the proposed site and has a higher elevation. This site would provide easy access and a level terrain with no obstructions to the west and north. A possible advantage to this location would be the shift the strong signal area to the west allowing it to cover the low signal zone still in existence even with the expected coverage of the proposed site. Comments on the Proposed Verizon Wireless Tower in Walden Heights Park - north Submitted by Dennis & Susan Bechly, 1465 Thomas Lane Page 8 Conclusion Don’t be misled by Verizon’s colorful diagrams. The reason that this location was chosen is not because it is the only site available or because of its “optimal” location for services to Eagan residents. It is for Verizon Wireless’ ease of use and ability to minimize its costs. There are other locations, even if alternatives are not as “optimal”, that would provide the services needed and that would be much less intrusive to Eagan’s residents and especially to the small active neighborhood park of Walden Heights. Avoid setting a precedent that may spread newly constructed cell tower to all corners of Eagan’s parks and open spaces. The residents live in Eagan because of it amenities, schools, green space and character. Verizon Wireless should not provide a product that is beneficial to some residents of the City of Eagan and harmful to others. That product should be compatible with the city’s character and spirit as well as compliant with its ordinances. City officials and staff must uphold the forethought and planning put into the city’s ordinances and work to protect the quality of life of each resident and the integrity and value of each resident’s property. Observing all these points, the only conclusion is that the Conditional Use Permit and Variance must be denied. Process Verizon Wireless has had months of interface with the various departments of the City of Eagan during this process. This has afforded Verizon Wireless a great deal of time for research and planning for their proposal. This proposal was submitted February 21, 2018. In contrast, the residents affected by this proposal had no contact from any City of Eagan department until a Public Hearing notice sent to them on March 13, 2018 and arriving in mailboxes on March 15, 2018. It is acknowledged that this is the required 14 day notice for a March 27, 2018 Advisory Planning Commission Meeting. Unfortunately, there also happened to be a deadline for getting written comments into the Advisory Planning Commission packet of noon on March 21, 2018. That gave residents only 6 days for getting informed and up to speed about the proposal, researching options and getting their ideas and comments in order. The process seems a bit one-sided from a resident’s perspective. 1 Pam Dudziak From:Michael Myszka <mjmyszka@msn.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 20, 2018 12:29 PM To:APC Subject:Cell Tower proposed IliveintheStonecliffneighborhoodinEagan.IamopposedtoputtingacellTowerintoWaldenpark.Thereisplentyof otherplacestheycanputthatTowerthatwouldbebetter.Keeptheparkasis.Wedon’tneedthiseyesoreinthis greenspace.Thanks,MikeMyszka,1500PinetreePass,Eagan,Mn55122  SentfrommyiPhone  1 Pam Dudziak From:Meghan Scott <meghan.scott14@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 20, 2018 3:36 PM To:APC Subject:Cell tower concern Goodafternoon,  IamwritingtovoicemyconcernovertheproposedcelltowerconstructioninWaldenHeightsPark.AsanEagan residentandmemberoftheWaldenHeightsneighborhood,Iamopposedtotheadditionofacelltowerinthepark. Thisisourneighborhoodgreenspace(andaverysmallpark)whichwilljustbemadesmallerwiththeadditionofacell tower.Theremustbealternativeoptionsforadifferentlocation.  PleasedonotapproveavariancefortheexistingordinancetoconstructanewcelltowerinWaldenHeightsPark.  Sincerely,  MeghanScott  SentfrommyiPhone 1 Pam Dudziak From:Ted McGown <tedm@poliac.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 20, 2018 2:02 PM To:APC; Pam Dudziak Subject:Verizon Wireless tower at 4640 Pinetree Curve AdvisoryPlanningCommission,  Ireceivedtheflyeronthepublichearingfortheconditionalusepermittobuilda119'monopoleantenna,basically acrossthestreetfrommyhouse.  Asa20yearneighborandEaganresident,Istronglyopposethebuildingofanytoweratthatlocation.Iunfortunately willnotbeintownforthepublichearingonMarch27,butwouldliketoagainexpressmyobjectiontotheproject.  Thankyou.  TedMcGown 1470ThomasLane. 612.269.6646  1 Pam Dudziak From:Pam Dudziak Sent:Thursday, March 22, 2018 9:50 AM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: Objection to the proposed cell tower at Walnut park   ͲͲͲͲͲOriginalMessageͲͲͲͲͲ From:AnneDenny[mailto:anne@aedenny.com] Sent:Thursday,March22,20188:38AM To:APC<APC@cityofeagan.com> Subject:ObjectiontotheproposedcelltoweratWalnutpark  HelloͲIstronglyobjecttotheproposedcelltowerinWalnutpark.WeliveintheStonecliffeneighborhood.Ourconcern isforthehealthofchildrenandresidents,aswellasthepotentialnegativeimpactonpropertyvalues.  PleasevoteNOonthisproposedcelltower.  Thankyou, AnneDenny 4666StonecliffeDrive   1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Friday, March 23, 2018 8:15 AM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: NO to proposal for cell tower at Walden Heights Park From: Ann Brandt [mailto:ambrandt444@gmail.com]   Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:52 PM  To: APC   Subject: NO to proposal for cell tower at Walden Heights Park  Due to the fact that it will decrease property values within view of the proposed cell tower we say "no" to the proposal. Evidence: From Realtor.org: http://realtormag.realtor.org/daily-news/2014/07/25/cell-towers-antennas-problematic-for- buyers "An overwhelming 94 percent of home buyers and renters surveyed by the National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy (NISLAPP) say they are less interested and would pay less for a property located near a cell tower or antenna. What's more, of the 1,000 survey respondents, 79 percent said that under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent a property within a few blocks of a cell tower or antennas, and almost 90 percent said they were concerned about the increasing number of cell towers and antennas in their residential neighborhood." http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/survey-property-desirability/ "The National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy’s survey “Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas—Do They Impact a Property’s Desirability?” initiated June 2, 2014, has now been completed by 1,000 respondents as of June 28, 2014. The survey, which circulated online through email and social networking sites, in both the U.S. and abroad, sought to determine if nearby cell towers and antennas, or wireless antennas placed on top of or on the side of a building, would impact a home buyer’s or renter’s interest in a real estate property. The overwhelming majority of respondents (94%) reported that cell towers and antennas in a neighborhood or on a building would impact interest in a property and the price they would be willing to pay for it. And 79% said under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent a property within a few blocks of a cell tower or antenna. 94% said a nearby cell tower or group of antennas would negatively impact interest in a property or the price they would be willing to pay for it. 2  94% said a cell tower or group of antennas on top of, or attached to, an apartment building would negatively impact interest in the apartment building or the price they would be willing to pay for it.  95% said they would opt to buy or rent a property that had zero antennas on the building over a comparable property that had several antennas on the building.  79% said under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent a property within a few blocks of a cell tower or antennas.  88% said that under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent a property with a cell tower or group of antennas on top of, or attached to, the apartment building.  89% said they were generally concerned about the increasing number of cell towers and antennas in their residential neighborhood." https://takebackyourpower.net/real-estate-survey-results-cellgrid-towers-impact-propertys-desirability/ "Concern was expressed in the comments section by respondents about potential property valuation declines near antennas and cell towers. While the NISLAPP survey did not evaluate property price declines, a study on this subject by Sandy Bond, PhD of the New Zealand Property Institute, and Past President of the Pacific Rim Real Estate Society (PRRES), The Impact of Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Residential Neighborhoods, was published in The Appraisal Journal of the Appraisal Institute in 2006. The Appraisal Institute is the largest global professional organization for appraisers with 91 chapters. The study indicated that homebuyers would pay from 10%–19% less to over 20% less for a property if it were in close proximity to a cell phone base station. The ‘opinion’ survey results were then confirmed by a market sales analysis. The results of the sales analysis showed prices of properties were reduced by around 21% after a cell phone base station was built in the neighborhood.” Please vote "NO" to the cell phone tower at Walden Heights! Thank you, Ann and Kevin Brandt 1 Pam Dudziak From:Pam Dudziak Sent:Monday, March 26, 2018 2:43 PM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: Proposed cell tower ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Connie Van Beck [mailto:vanbeck.connie@gmail.com]   Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 1:46 PM  To: APC <APC@cityofeagan.com>  Subject: Proposed cell tower   We are writing you today to oppose the city of Eagan's plan to erect a cell tower in Walden Heights Park, adjacent to the  Stonecliffe residential neighborhood.  Our opposition is based on the following concerns:  HEALTH  WHO studies have linked cell tower radiation exposure to an increase in rates of asthma, autism, ADHA and other  illnesses, particularly in children and in‐born babies.  While other studies are still in‐conclusive, the best course is not to erect cell towers in areas where children are present  or next to residential areas.  FINANCIAL  Our home values are likely to be impacted negatively by many people's fears about the presence of electro‐magnetic  signals.  NUISANCE   These cell towers require maintenance, so we will likely see an increase in traffic through the neighborhood plus an  increase in noise.  Due to these real concerns we ask the city of Eagan to please consider an alternative location for the cell tower.  Respectfully,  Dr. Jerald and Connie Van Beck  1497 Pinetree Pass  Sent from my iPhone  1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Friday, March 23, 2018 8:15 AM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: Cell Tower in Stonecliffe Neighborhood Park From: KEVIN DESMOND [mailto:kevodes@comcast.net]   Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:02 PM  To: APC   Subject: Cell Tower in Stonecliffe Neighborhood Park  Advisory Committee, Please do not all place allow the variance for the cell tower install in Walden Heights Park. There is growing evidence of RF radiation ill affects to our children and it is also proven that proximity to these towers hurts property values. Best regards, Kevin Desmond 4634 Stonecliffe Dr Eagan, MN 55122 1 Pam Dudziak From:Kjirsten Johnson <kjirsten2@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 22, 2018 12:27 PM To:Pam Dudziak Cc:APC Subject:Re: Verizon - Walden Heights Park Thanks Pam! I appreciate the information.  I will admit I'm disappointed with the renderings. This cell tower is truly designed to be an eye sore. I was hoping to see  some attempt to mask its appearance (some towers are designed to look like trees ‐ which would make sense for the  city to require in a park setting) which would help with my concern over the decline this will cause in property values  and the impediment this will cause to the enjoyment of this park. We walk our dog three times per day and my 11 year  son actually walks the dog through that area because they love it.   This park has an unusual layout as it was originally designed to be a part of our neighborhood and to house a community  room and pool. Because of this, it is a tight space and naturally really close to kids playing and homes. I've got to believe  that city developed it's code for a reason and the applicant is asking for a massive variance. In the materials, I haven't  seen any information to support granting the variance and hope the city doesn't.   While I believe we need to make sure we have a good infrastructure to ensure people want to live here, we also need to  make sure we are maintaining our parks in a way people can enjoy them. Our playground equipment was just replaced  this past year so that kids can continue to enjoy the park. It would be sad to see parents fearful of bringing their kids to  enjoy it. There are several close by options which may be able to solve both objectives.   Thanks again Pam!  Kjirsten Johnson  Summit Pass   Sent from my iPhone  On Mar 22, 2018, at 11:44 AM, Pam Dudziak <pdudziak@cityofeagan.com> wrote:  Hi Kjirsten,  Attached are the site plan and photo simulations provided by the applicant for the Verizon proposal. The  complete report and full set of plans and submittal information will be posted to our web site through  the Advisory Planning Commission meeting agenda tomorrow. Please check the web site after noon on  Friday for additional information, https://www.cityofeagan.com/meetings . Any comments received will  be forwarded to the Advisory Planning Commission and City Council. Most comments come in by e‐mail,  and you can send them directly to me or to APC@cityofeagan.com .   Pam Dudziak  Pam Dudziak  Planner  3830 Pilot Knob Rd | Eagan, MN 55122  Office: 651‐675‐5691  2 https://www.cityofeagan.com   1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Friday, March 23, 2018 8:15 AM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: Proposed Cell Tower in Walden Heights Park   From: Mike Kautzky [mailto:kautzkyml@comcast.net]   Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:41 PM  To: APC   Subject: Proposed Cell Tower in Walden Heights Park  Members of the City of Eagan Planning Commission and City Council, I am a resident of the Stonecliffe neighborhood in Eagan. It has come to my attention that on March 27 there is an Advisory Planning Commission Meeting where an application from Verizon Wireless to install a 119' monopole will be considered. I further understand that installation of the monopole will require a 135' variance to the minimum 300' setback from residential property originally specified when the neighborhood was developed. As a resident in the greater Stonecliffe neighborhood and Eagan, I am against allowing a variance to the original development setback. Homeowners purchased their property with an understanding of the original setback. Any change will likely negatively impact their property value. Additionally, I am a Verizon customer, and have excellent cell phone coverage in the neighborhood. I understand that the tower may be used by other cellular companies. However, based on my good coverage, I believe the tower would be better placed elsewhere. I am unable to attend the March 27th and appreciate your consideration of my concerns expressed in this email. Sincerely, Linda Kautzky 1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Thursday, March 22, 2018 4:27 PM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: Walden Height sPark proposed cell phone tower     From: Natalie DeCuir [mailto:n.decuir@yahoo.com]   Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 4:11 PM  To: APC   Subject: Walden Height sPark proposed cell phone tower  To the City Of Eagan Advisory Committee: I am a homeowner that is highly opposed to the proposed Cell Phone Tower the City of Eagan is considering to be built by Verizon Wireless literally in my backyard. I feel as if the story is still out on whether or not cell towers are safe and I am not willing to take the risk with raising my children near this eyesore. Not to mention what this may do to our property values. I have been in this neighborhood for almost 10 years and felt it was a great and safe place to raise my two sons, currently 12 and 8 years of age. Please do not allow this proposal to be constructed in my backyard, where my children would be subjected to a constant bombardment of radio waves/radiation even while in their home. I am sure most of you are parents, please ask yourself if you would accept this in your backyard? I am also pretty upset the City of Eagan has just notified our neighborhood via mail March 19th (letter was dated March 13th) and the council meeting is set for March 27th. Which by the way our neighborhood is part of the ISD 196 and it is Spring Break most of my neighbors may be on vacation to be able to attend the meeting. That does not give the homeowners affected by this eyesore to research and pull together to voice our concerns. I feel as if the City of Eagan is pushing this through rather quickly without allowing those affected by this proposal to have adequate time to properly research this proposal. Studies have shown that even at low levels of this radiation (one tower), there is evidence of damage to cell tissue and DNA, and it has been linked to brain tumors, cancer, suppressed immune function, depression, miscarriage, Alzheimer’s disease, and numerous other serious illnesses. For example, in “The Influence of Being Physically Near to a Cell Phone Transmission Mast on the Incidence of Cancer” by Horst Eger, Klaus Uwe Hagen, Birgitt Lucas, Peter Vogel, Helmut Voit (Published in Umwelt·Medizin·Gesellschaft 17,4 in 2004), the 2 researchers found a fourfold increase in cancer rates amongst people living within 350 meters of a cell phone tower. Amongst women there was a tenfold increase. ( Please realize a 350 meter radiation area doesn't suddenly drop down to zero at 351 meters. ) In 2011, The World Health Organization (WHO)/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified EMR (microwave radiation) as a possible carcinogen to humans (the same classification as DDT and lead) based on an increased risk for glioma (a malignant type of brain cancer). Which by the way would be a current death sentence to anyone who may get this type of brain cancer. In 2015, Morgan, Miller, Sasco and Davies published a paper in the International Journal of Oncology titled “Mobile phone radiation causes brain tumors and should be classified as a probable human carcinogen (2A)." The title says it all in this case. In the past five years alone, about 1,800 new scientific papers have been published that show adverse health effects. Dr. George Carlo, a public health expert who coordinated the telecommunications industry’s own study, which was mandated by congress, confirms that exposure to communications radiation from wireless technology is "potentially the biggest health insult" this nation has ever seen. Dr. Carlo believes RF/microwave radiation is a greater threat than cigarette smoking and asbestos. 1. Potential health risks to children – The Eagan area has a large number of young families. Children have thinner skulls and the immaturity of their central nervous systems puts them more at risk. See, for example, Morgan, Kesari, and Davis, 2014, "Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences", published in the Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure. And our city is considering a cell phone tower to be constructed at an active park! 2. The devaluation of real estate. In March, 2014 the National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy’s survey “Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas—Do They Impact a Property’s Desirability?” found that an overwhelming majority of respondents (94%) reported that cell towers and antennas in a neighborhood or on a building would impact interest in a property and the price they would be willing to pay for it. Studies by Dr. Sandy Bond, Ph.D. have shown that a cell phone tower negatively affects the real estate values of homes surrounding it. Depending on proximity to the cell phone tower property values can be reduced by up to 20% for properties within 200-300 meters of the tower (See for example http://www.clarkdale.az.gov/2015_Meetings/2015_Council/2015-05- 12_Council_Regular/Public_Comment_Rcd_Karen_Daniels.pdf 3 Stonecliffe residents do not want decreased property values caused by an unnecessary cell phone tower, and we hope that the City of Eagan wouldn't want the value of homes to fall substantially as such a decrease would be accompanied by a significant decline in property tax revenues. 3. Residents already have adequate cell phone and wireless data coverage in the area and so we don't need a new Verizon phone tower. . There is not a real enough "need" to warrant putting the residents in this area at risk for health problems or a decrease in their property values. FOR THE SIMPLE REASON ONLY OF FASTER CELL SERVICE! 4. A 100-foot tower is incompatible with the neighborhood aesthetics. The antenna will be in the close proximity to the quiet residential neighborhood, churches and to the beautiful Lebanon Hills Park which is enjoyed by so many children and adults alike. As a parent of two young children who will be directly impacted by this potential health risk and eyesore I urge you to not recommend this Cell Phone Tower be constructed near an active park, walking path, baseball diamond and basketball court. Sincerely, Natalie DeCuir (Mom of Noah and Joseph DeCuir) 612-501-4592 4656 Pinetree Curve 1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Monday, March 26, 2018 11:31 AM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: Subject: Request delay of April 3 vote on Verizon cell tower variance     From: Natalie DeCuir <n.decuir@yahoo.com>   Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2018 7:31 PM  To: Gary Hansen <GHansen@cityofeagan.com>; Meg Tilley <MTilley@cityofeagan.com>; Paul Bakken  <PBakken@cityofeagan.com>; Cyndee Fields <CFields@cityofeagan.com>; City Council <CityCouncil@cityofeagan.com>  Subject: Subject: Request delay of April 3 vote on Verizon cell tower variance  To the Eagan City Council - I am an Eagan homeowner that has just learned that Verizon plans to build a 119-foot cell tower in Walden Heights Park and Verizon needs a variance to zoning laws to do so. I have only recently been made aware of this project from my neighbors. I have just had a few days to attempt to understand it but, based on my initial review, I am against having this cell tower built in my park. I am asking the City Council to delay the April 3 vote on this variance to give me and other homeowners more time to understand the project and assess the impact this proposal will have on safety and our property values so that we can bring that information to the City Council. Both the Advisory Planning Commission meeting and the City Council Meeting are occurring during ISD196 school district’s spring break and many interested homeowners are unavailable to attend. The city has zoning ordinances in place for a reason and the granting or denial of a variance to those rules should be done with input from all of the stakeholders and we homeowners need additional time to do that. Thank you for your consideration. Eric and Natalie DeCuir 4656 Pinetree Curve Eagan, MN 55122 1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Friday, March 23, 2018 8:15 AM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: Proposed Cell Phone Tower in Walden Park From: Warren McLean [mailto:wmclean@usfamily.net]   Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 4:56 PM  To: APC   Subject: Proposed Cell Phone Tower in Walden Park  Dear Advisory Council Members: I am a Stonecliffe resident and I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed cell phone tower in Walden Park. I believe it will have an adverse effect on property values, the towers are aesthetically unappealing, and, although there is evidence to the contrary, there is the potential for health risks due to radiation. Moreover, the park should be used for the initial intended purpose which is a place for the Stonecliffe residents children to play. As one resident cited, the City of Eagan, denied the use of the park for soccer games when at that time there were few alternatives. Also, Verizon is my cell phone provider and I have no problems with the service. Warren McLean Summit Pass 1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Friday, March 23, 2018 4:30 PM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: Public Hearing re File Numbers 33-CU-04-02-18 and 33-VA-02-02-18     From: Arun Vachher [mailto:arunvachher@hotmail.com]   Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 3:35 PM  To: APC   Subject: RE: Public Hearing re File Numbers 33‐CU‐04‐02‐18 and 33‐VA‐02‐02‐18  Dear Madam(s)/Sir(s),    This is in regards to the APC Meeting on March 27, 2018 on the subject file number Conditional Use Permit  and the Variance requested therein.    I am in receipt of the public hearing notice. Please note that I would request a NO vote on both the  Conditional use and the Variance.    PROPOSED ORDINANCE: VOTE NO    Also, I see that there is only one Variance up for vote. The way I see it there are 3 variances being desired  1. The desired pole is 119'. This in itself is at least a 19' variation if not a 59' variation,   1. Depending upon whether the park is classified as non‐residential use district (maximum height  is 100' for single consumer) or residential use‐district (maximum height is 60' ‐ which means  that the requested variance is almost 100%!). Considering that I live within the 350' distance of  the site, as do a lot more people, I can only imagine this area being classified as a residential  use‐district.  2. Of course, this variation could be subsumed in the CU permit.  2. The variance of 135 ft from residential property, which is being requested, and  3. There are no setbacks defined in the code from parks where children may be playing (at least I did not  find any in Section 11.70, Subd. 26). The subject area is a park and there should be some setback  defined for humans, particularly children, to be around the tower. The tower will be smack in the  middle of the park, and the entire park will be in the "fall zone" for this tower.     Thank you for your consideration.    ‐ Arun Vachher  4617 Stonecliffe Dr.  Eagan, MN, 55122  1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Friday, March 23, 2018 11:31 AM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: Proposed Cell Phone Tower- Walden Heights Park, Eagan     From: Justine Kolb [mailto:jrkolb03@gmail.com]   Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 11:04 AM  To: APC   Subject: Proposed Cell Phone Tower‐ Walden Heights Park, Eagan  To whom it may concern, I have just been informed from surrounding neighbors of the cell phone tower that is trying to make its way into our area. I would like the city to know that my family and I are completely against this. We never received notice and we live in Twin View Manor, which I suppose is not in the 350' radiance, but can still be harmful to us. I grew up in my home and then I purchased the home from my parents, to raise my family in the same home. We love the area we are in because we are close to Lebanon Hills and very little commercial area. There is so much information out there about how harmful cell towers are to people's health and well-being. Not to mention we have an association with people who have become ill from the poison these towers give off. To add one so close to where my children and I sleep at night is just a nightmare. This cell tower is not a necessity. It will not only be a health burden; it will be an eye sore and extremely reduce the value of all the surrounding homes. This will only get worse with time and the damage it will cause to our health will only get greater with time. I really hope that the city looks at this project from a global view and what this can mean long term for the surrounding neighborhoods. I hope this project is not lead by money and greed that so blatantly is taking over our Country, State and Community. We need your help to stop this from passing. Would you want this in your neighborhood? The people have spoken and continue to reach out. Please listen. Justine Kolb 4796 Eriks Blvd Eagan MN 55122 jrkolb03@gmail.com 1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Friday, March 23, 2018 2:42 PM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: Proposed cell tower in Walden Heights Park     From: Jeri Ringold [mailto:j.ringold@comcast.net]   Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 12:48 PM  To: APC   Subject: Proposed cell tower in Walden Heights Park    I totally disagree with putting up a cell tower in Walden Heights Park. This would be a TOTAL eye sore . My children  attend that park almost every day in the Spring, Summer, Fall and many times during the winter. It is unfair to take a  way that park land and use it for a cell tower. That space is used for games like tag and catch and is an open area where  there are woods and small creatures for children to discover.     There is a horrible looking cell tower just a few block from this proposed site, why would another one be necessary?  Every time I drive by it I am consciously aware of what an ugly obstruction it is. (not to mention the beautiful golf course  that was sacrificed.) Also there are many high towers along wilderness run already, why not just put a cell tower there  where there is already an ugly obstruction to the landscape?     There are set back rules which would be violated, and those set back rules are put in place in order to not obstruct and  be an eyesore as this one would be. So we should go against the rules that are in place? I totally disagree with providing  a variance for a structure that pollutes the landscape and skyline. We have already had to lose the natural land as  Diamond T, to put up Stonecliffe, then Parkview Golf course to put up that ugly housing development that encroaches  on Cliff Road. They are tearing down trees and ruining the landscape at Cliff and Thomas Lake Road. Why ruin more  natural land? It is disgraceful.    Children are playing around and in Walden Park every day and all day‐‐ it is a very active park! It is uncalled for to tear  down natural space (not to mention PARK LAND) to put up such an ugly structure as a cell tower!    Of course this meeting was scheduled during a time when all of district 196 children are on Spring Break. I also think that  is unfair.     Please listen to your residents City of Eagan. We want to keep our city beautiful. Changes in recent years are seriously  putting our city’s beauty in question. Let’s not make another mistake by getting rid of more park land and natural green  space.    Thank you ,    Jeri Ringold    Sent from Mail for Windows 10    1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Friday, March 23, 2018 10:17 AM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: Cellphone tower near Eagan Stonecliffe neighborhood     From: JIANXIN ZHU [mailto:jzmulan2005@msn.com]   Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 10:16 AM  To: APC   Subject: Cellphone tower near Eagan Stonecliffe neighborhood  I want to voice that our family is STRONGLY AGAINST the idea to construct a cellphone tower in our neighborhood.       Regards,    Jianxin Zhu, April LI    Residence at:   1501 Pinetree Pass  Eagan, MN55122  1 Pam Dudziak From:Kim Peterson <k.peterson@fmpco.com> Sent:Friday, March 23, 2018 2:59 PM To:Pam Dudziak; Mike Ridley Subject:Verizon Tower Project 20171567741 Cliff Rd in Eagan Good afternoon Mike and Pam I am a resident of the Stonecliffe development that has a proposal being considered for a Verizon cell tower next to Walden Heights Park just off Cliff Road in Eagan. I find it astonishing that the city would even consider placing a cell tower next to a softball field and directly adjacent to a childrens' playground. I find it very hard to believe that anyone even reviewed the surrounding area before allowing this proposal to be considered. As a long time Eagan resident, I am strongly opposed to placing this type of structure within yards of a city park, playground and neighborhood. I ask that you please consider denying the construction of this cell tower in the current proposed location. Thank you Kim Peterson 4627 Pinetree Curve Eagan MN 55122 1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Friday, March 23, 2018 11:32 AM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: Verizon cellular tower   ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Lauren Larsen [mailto:laurenlarsen6@gmail.com]   Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 11:13 AM  To: APC <APC@cityofeagan.com>  Subject: Verizon cellular tower    Members of the committee, as a neighbor at 4635 Pinetree curve facing directly west of Walden Heights Park. My wife  and I are not in favor of the proposed 119 foot cell phone tower to be adjacent to our residential homes. Which suggests  that the tower be moved further north into the Thomas Lake Park area perhaps adjacent to some current large electrical  towers if possible.     Lauren and Beth Larsen  4635 Pinetree Curve  Sent from my iPhone    1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Friday, March 23, 2018 9:40 AM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: No Cell Phone tower near Stonecliffe neighborhood and Walden Heights Park area From: Ping Li [mailto:pingli@gmail.com]   Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 9:13 AM  To: APC   Subject: No Cell Phone tower near Stonecliffe neighborhood and Walden Heights Park area  I am writing to vote against Verizon's proposal to build a Cell Phone tower near our neighborhood and Walden Heights Park. Thanks, Ping 1 Pam Dudziak From:Shari Myszka <slmyszka@mmm.com> Sent:Friday, March 23, 2018 12:07 PM To:Pam Dudziak Cc:Mike Ridley; caron.rodman@gmail.com; ambrandt444@gmail.com; k.peterson@fmpco.com; mike_feldman111@yahoo.com; loralee.erickson@gmail.com; haugenjo@yahoo.com; Coneldo@aol.com; k.peterson@fmpco.com; kimberlybernstein@gmail.com; n.decuir@yahoo.com; Michael Myszka Subject:RE: Stonecliffe Association & cell phone tower - NOTE NO Attachments:proposed-cell-phone-tower-w.pdf; Cell_Tower_Planning_Meeting_Notice0001.pdf Hi Pam,     Fyi, please see pdf copy of our neighborhood petition to VOTE NO on this proposal. In addition, I have copied my  comments on this petition below. Please add to your record.      Health Concerns from RF radiation. There is the growing evidence of damage to cells and tissues that can lead to  cancer. The World Health Organization (WHO) named RF Radiation from cell phones /towers as class 2B, possible human  carcinogen. Studies show that even low levels of RF Radiation damage cell tissue & DNA. (i.e. Eyes, testes, fertility, rapid  aging, cancer, tumors & leukemia). The corporate technocracy driving the technocrat mindset behind the mobile 5G  (and higher radiation frequencies) “internet of everything” care ONLY about driving the mindless and endless  connectivity to artificial intelligence & the networks, these technocrats do NOT care about our families &  communities & the unethical consequences of the long‐term impact of their products on our human health. These  industries need to be held accountable for proving the safety of their products, in the same exact manner that drug and  device companies are held accountable for proving the safety of our products. They must be held to much HIGHER  standards, unlike products that you can chose to use or not to use, the technocrat industries insist on the never‐ending  pushing and shoving their products and radiation down the throats of Americans, without our consent to using or being  exposed to their continued radiation. These industries must be held accountable for proving the safety of their products.  These industries and the regulatory agencies must be held accountable for holding public forums of debate to discuss  and prove of safety for their products. These companies profit only from their products, they have not proven the safety  of their products. Communities must say NO to their bullying techniques, their lack of public input and discussion, their  lack of transparency of who is and who is NOT accepting payment for these products with UNPROVEN safety.    https://www.cpwr.com/sites/default/files/research/3._Health_Effects_of_RF_Radiation.pdf    Your ethical decision to VOTE NO is appreciated.  Most Sincerely,  Shari        Shari Myszka, RPh, PharmD | Regulatory Affairs Specialist   3M Oral Care Solutions Division   3M Center, 275‐2W‐08 | St. Paul, MN 55144‐1000 | United States  Office: +1 651 736 6955 | Mobile: +1 612 865 4951 | Fax: +1 651 736 9665   slmyszka@mmm.com | www.3MESPE.com | www.3MUnitek.com    2     From: Pam Dudziak [mailto:pdudziak@cityofeagan.com]   Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 4:05 PM  To: Shari Myszka   Subject: [EXTERNAL] FW: Stonecliffe Association & cell phone tower    Hi Shari,    Your message was forwarded to me to respond to your questions. The Advisory Planning Commission packet was  finalized this morning, and any comments that come in now will be forwarded separately to the Commission. Following  the Advisory Planning Commission meeting, we will assemble an updated packet the City Council meeting, and will  include in that all comments that have been received by that day, and again, forward any subsequent comments  separately to the City Council.     You can access the City Code on our website, https://www.cityofeagan.com/codeenforcement . The antenna and tower  ordinance is in Section 11.70, Subd. 26.     I have attached a copy of the mailed notice of public hearing for the Verizon proposal. In accordance with State statute,  the notification area is to property owners within a 350’ radius of the perimeter of the site. It is our practice to mail the  notices 14 days prior to the hearing by U.S. Mail (10 days is required by State statute). The City does not confirm that all  property owners receive the notices, only that notices are sent.     The complete packet of information including the submittal, staff report, and public comments received thus far, will be  posted to our web site on Friday by noon, https://www.cityofeagan.com/meetings . Please check there for more  information before next Tuesday’s Advisory Planning Commission meeting.     Kind regards,  Pam Dudziak        Pam Dudziak  Planner  3830 Pilot Knob Rd | Eagan, MN 55122  Office: 651‐675‐5691  https://www.cityofeagan.com     From: Shari Myszka [mailto:slmyszka@mmm.com]   Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 11:27 AM  To: Mike Ridley <MRidley@cityofeagan.com>  Subject: Stonecliffe Association & cell phone tower    Hi Mike,     Thank you for your reply to my concern regarding the construction of the Proposed Cell Phone tower near our  neighborhood and Walden Heights Park. Our neighborhood has contacted officials in the City of Eagan‐ Community  Development Dept and have been told in order for our concerns to be included in the packet the Advisory Committee,  they must be received to the below email by, March 23rd, Friday.     Can you please send me link or copy the notice (ie petitioning the city to ignore a long standing ordinance by seeking a  Variance of 135ft to the MINUMUM 300ft setback from residential property) and the link to city regulations of the  3 current ordinance, the current process for notifying homeowners of proposed variances, and the timing for notification  to homeowners, confirmation that all households received this notice according to city regulations and within the  required timelines? In addition, can you confirm that Verizon has made no payments to local citizens or local businesses  in support of their proposed tower to unduly influence the building of this tower in our community?    I apologize in advance if I missed communications, we get so much junk mail that it is almost impossible to identify what  mailings are critical for our attention these days.    VERY much appreciated,  Shari           Shari Myszka, RPh, PharmD | Regulatory Affairs Specialist   3M Oral Care Solutions Division   3M Center, 275‐2W‐08 | St. Paul, MN 55144‐1000 | United States  Office: +1 651 736 6955 | Mobile: +1 612 865 4951 | Fax: +1 651 736 9665   slmyszka@mmm.com | www.3MESPE.com | www.3MUnitek.com        From: Mike Ridley [mailto:MRidley@cityofeagan.com]   Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 10:20 AM  To: Shari Myszka <slmyszka@mmm.com>  Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: NO to any variances for cell phone towers    Thank you for writing; your email will be shared with the Advisory Planning Commission and City Council.          Michael J. Ridley, AICP  City Planner  3830 Pilot Knob Rd | Eagan, MN 55122  Office: 651‐675‐5650  https://www.cityofeagan.com      From: Shari Myszka [mailto:slmyszka@mmm.com]   Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 9:31 AM  To: APC <APC@cityofeagan.com>  Subject: NO to any variances for cell phone towers    City of Eagan:     Regarding more proposed cell towers and ANY proposed petitions to ignore long standing ordinances for cell tower(s),  specifically in the Walden Heights park, local home owners say NO, we don’t need any more damn cell phone towers,  and we certainly don’t need any more variances. PERIOD. I for one, no longer trust these corrupt companies that are  bulldozing, steam rolling and peddling more and more cell phones and cell towers and cell service and propaganda to  4 our children and American citizens. The parks belong to the citizens and homeowners that live in this area, we bought  our homes under certain circumstances AND WE EXPECT OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO LIVE UP TO THE CURRENT  ORDINANCES THAT ARE PUT IN PLACE FOR OUR PROTECTION. PERIOD.     PROPOSED ORDINANCE: VOTE NO    IMPORTANT AND TIME SENSATIVE NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION There is an application to put the first “new construction”  119ft Cell Tower at the north end of Walden Heights Park. VERIZON WIRELESS is petitioning the city to ignore a long standing  ordinance by seeking a Variance of 135ft to the MINUMUM 300ft setback from residential property, reducing that setback  almost in half. This proposed tower will be positioned on very ACTIVE park property. Children playing on the hill in the park,  climbing trees in the summer and sledding in the winter, just adjacent to tower, will be less than 50 ft away. The nearby ball  field is less than 150ft away. The metal construction play ground will be less than 400ft away. The walking/bike path will pass  within 40ft of the tower and structures.. And of course the tower will be visible throughout the park and neighborhood. Please  don’t allow our city officials to force our children and residents to be active under the shadow of a Cell Tower. The precedent  could be set for ignoring long standing standards of consideration to residents and for construction of new Cell Towers in any  our parks. An Advisory Planning Meeting is scheduled for March 27 at 6:30 in the City Hall Council Chambers. COME VOICE  YOUR CONCERNS. You may also send an email to    These corrupt ISP companies have already voted against civil liberties & net neutrality, force more pay for access, speed  and block websites as they see fit. Keep corruption out of EAGAN, MN.     https://www.inverse.com/article/38734‐net‐neutrality‐att‐verizon‐charter‐comcast          Shari Myszka | Regulatory Affairs Specialist   3M Oral Care Solutions Division   3M Center, 275‐2W‐08 | St. Paul, MN 55144‐1000 | United States  Office: +1 651 736 6955 | Mobile: +1 612 865 4951 | Fax: +1 651 736 9665   slmyszka@mmm.com | www.3MESPE.com | www.3MUnitek.com          3M Note: This message is from an [EXTERNAL] sender. If you suspect this message is malicious or spam, please click on the "Report Phishing - PhishMe" icon within the Outlook Ribbon to report it for evaluation, and do NOT open any attachments or click on any links. If you are using OWA, a handheld device, or do not see the icon, please follow the instructions below: Click here to report this email as spam     3M Note: This message is from an [EXTERNAL] sender. If you suspect this message is malicious or spam, please click on the "Report Phishing - PhishMe" icon within the Outlook Ribbon to report it for evaluation, and do NOT open any attachments or click on any links. If you are using OWA, a handheld device, or do not see 5 the icon, please follow the instructions below: Click here to report this email as spam   Goal: 1,000 PROPOSED CELL PHONE TOWER - WALDEN HEIGHTS PARK, EAGAN 65 Signatures Attention Stonecliffe Residents: I am a homeowner that is opposed to the proposed 119 foot Cell Phone Tower the City of Eagan is considering to be built by Verizon Wireless literally in our backyard. Which by the way may be used by other cell companies in the future to attach their hardware to as well. I feel as if the story is still out on whether or not cell towers are safe and I am not willing to take the risk with raising my children near this eyesore. Not to mention what this may do to our property values. PROPOSED CELL PHONE TOWER - WALDEN HEIGHTS PARK, EAGAN There is an application to put the first “new construction” 119ft Cell Tower at the north end of Walden Heights Park. VERIZON WIRELESS is petitioning the city to ignore a long standing ordinance by seeking a Variance of 135ft to the MINUMUM 300ft setback from residential property, reducing that setback almost in half. This (29) (Comments)ç Goal: 1,00065 signatures Page 1 of 8Petition PROPOSED CELL PHONE TOWER - WALDEN HEIGHTS PARK, EAGAN 3/23/2018https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/proposed-cell-phone-tower-walden-heights-park adjacent to tower, will be less than 50 ft away. The nearby ball field is less than 150ft away. The metal construction play ground will be less than 400ft away. The walking/bike path will pass within 40ft of the tower and structures.. And of course the tower will be visible throughout the park and neighborhood. Please don’t allow our city officials to force our children and residents to be active under the shadow of a Cell Tower. The precedent could be set for ignoring long standing standards of consideration to residents and for construction of new Cell Towers in any our parks. An Advisory Planning Meeting is scheduled for March 27 at 6:30 in the City Hall Council Chambers. COME VOICE YOUR CONCERNS. You may also send an email to APC@cityofeagan.com or by mail to Community Development Department, 3830 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan, MN 55122. You may also contact any Planning Commission or City Council member. Studies have shown that even at low levels of this radiation (one tower), there is evidence of damage to cell tissue and DNA, and it has been linked to brain tumors, cancer, suppressed immune function, depression, miscarriage, Alzheimer’s disease, and numerous other serious illnesses. For example, in “The Influence of Being Physically Near to a Cell Phone Transmission Mast on the Incidence of Cancer” by Horst Eger, Klaus Uwe Hagen, Birgitt Lucas, Peter Vogel, Helmut Voit (Published in Umwelt·Medizin·Gesellschaft 17,4 in 2004), the researchers found a fourfold increase in cancer rates amongst people living within 350 meters of a cell phone tower. Amongst women there was a tenfold increase. ( Please realize a 350 meter radiation area doesn't suddenly drop down to zero at 351 meters. ) In 2011, The World Health Organization (WHO)/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified EMR (microwave radiation) as a possible carcinogen to humans (the same classification as DDT and lead) based on an increased risk for glioma (a malignant type of brain cancer). In 2015, Morgan, Miller, Sasco and Davies published a paper in the International Journal of Oncology titled “Mobile phone radiation causes brain tumors and should be classified as a probable human carcinogen (2A)." The title says it all in this case. In the past five years alone, about 1,800 new scientific papers have been published that show adverse health effects. Dr. George Carlo, a public health expert who coordinated the telecommunications industry’s own study, which was mandated by congress, confirms that exposure to communications radiation from wireless technology is "potentially the biggest health insult" this nation has ever seen. Dr. Carlo believes RF/microwave radiation is a greater threat than cigarette smoking and asbestos. 1. Potential health risks to children – The Eagan area has a large number of young families. Children have thinner skulls and the immaturity of their central nervous systems puts them more at risk. See, for example, Morgan, Kesari, and Davis, 2014, "Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences", published in the Page 2 of 8Petition PROPOSED CELL PHONE TOWER - WALDEN HEIGHTS PARK, EAGAN 3/23/2018https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/proposed-cell-phone-tower-walden-heights-park 2. The devaluation of real estate. In March, 2014 the National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy’s survey “Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas—Do They Impact a Property’s Desirability?” found that an overwhelming majority of respondents (94%) reported that cell towers and antennas in a neighborhood or on a building would impact interest in a property and the price they would be willing to pay for it. Studies by Dr. Sandy Bond, Ph.D. have shown that a cell phone tower negatively affects the real estate values of homes surrounding it. Depending on proximity to the cell phone tower property values can be reduced by up to 20% for properties within 200-300 meters of the tower (See for example http://www.clarkdale.az.gov/2015_Meetings/2015_Council/2015-05- 12_Council_Regular/Public_Comment_Rcd_Karen_Daniels.pdf Stonecliffe residents do not want decreased property values caused by an unnecessary cell phone tower, and we hope that the City of Eagan wouldn't want the value of homes to fall substantially as such a decrease would be accompanied by a significant decline in property tax revenues. 3. Residents already have adequate cell phone and wireless data coverage in the area and so we don't need a new Verizon phone tower. . There is not a real enough "need" to warrant putting the residents in this area at risk for health problems or a decrease in their property values. FOR THE SIMPLE REASON ONLY OF FASTER CELL SERVICE! 4. A 100-foot tower is incompatible with the neighborhood aesthetics. The antenna will be in the close proximity to the quiet residential neighborhood, churches and to the beautiful Lebanon Hills Park which is enjoyed by so many children and adults alike. Please join with me and show your support with signing this online petition that will be shared with the Eagan City Council to VOTE NO on allowing this cell phone tower to be built near our homes. Please help keep our neighborhood and park safe for our children to enjoy! Sincerely, The DeCuir's Pinetree Curve Share on Facebook 29 COMMENTS Filter Shari Myszka United States, Elk Grove Village Page 3 of 8Petition PROPOSED CELL PHONE TOWER - WALDEN HEIGHTS PARK, EAGAN 3/23/2018https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/proposed-cell-phone-tower-walden-heights-park upvote  reply show Mar 23, 2018 VOTE NO. VOTE NO. VOTE NO. VOTE NO. VOTE NO. VOTE NO. VOTE NO. VOTE NO. VOTE NO. Health Concerns from RF radiation. There is the growing evidence of damage to cells and tissues that can lead to cancer. The World Health Organization (WHO) named RF Radiation from cell phones /towers as class 2B, possible human carcinogen. Studies show that even low levels of RF Radiation damage cell tissue & DNA. (i.e. Eyes, testes, fertility, rapid aging, cancer, tumors & leukemia). The corporate technocracy driving the technocrat mindset behind the mobile 5G (and higher radiation frequencies) “internet of everything” care ONLY about driving the mindless and endless connectivity to artificial intelligence & the networks, these technocrats do NOT care about our families & communities & the unethical consequences of the long-term impact of their products on our human health. These industries need to be held accountable for proving the safety of their products, in the same exact manner that drug and device companies are held accountable for proving the safety of our products. They must be held to much HIGHER standards, unlike products that you can chose to use or not to use, the technocrat industries insist on the never-ending pushing and shoving their products and radiation down the throats of Americans, without our consent to using or being exposed to their continued radiation. These industries must be held accountable for proving the safety of their products. These industries and the regulatory agencies must be held accountable for holding public forums of debate to discuss and prove of safety for their products. These companies profit only from their products, they have not proven the safety of their products. Communities must say NO to their bullying techniques, their lack of public input and discussion, their lack of transparency of who is and who is NOT accepting payment for these products with UNPROVEN safety. https://www.cpwr.com/sites/default/files/research/3._Health_Effects_of_RF_Radiation.pdf Mar 23, 2018 upvote  reply show Mar 23, 2018 The proposed antenna site in located at Walden Heights park. The exact location is directly on a hill used by the neighborhood children to slide in the winter time and ride their bike in the summertime. In addition, it is located near the park equipment and the baseball/softball field. Kids play here year round. If you build here, these recreational activities will be directly affected. There is arguably a better location at the NE corner of Pilot Knob and Cliff, also city owned land, that does not affect a park setting or a neighborhood. In addition to this location, further to the east on Pilot Knob there is an existing antenna that could be shared. Make the communication companies work together on this site. Please do not approve the current site for antenna installation. Question: What other alternative sites has the planning commission considered? Does the planning commission realize the March 27 date for the hearing is during spring break for district 196? Can the date be changed to next month? Would give many neighbors more opportunity to attend the meeting. Again, please do not approve this site for the antenna. Thank you. Ted Ted McGown United States, Saint Paul Mar 23, 2018 upvote  reply show Mar 23, 2018 Anonymous Mar 23, 2018 Page 4 of 8Petition PROPOSED CELL PHONE TOWER - WALDEN HEIGHTS PARK, EAGAN 3/23/2018https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/proposed-cell-phone-tower-walden-heights-park See More   COMMENT* Cancel 65 SIGNATURES 4 hours ago Shari Myszka United States 4 hours ago 4 hours ago Laura Van Beck United States 4 hours ago 4 hours ago Please do not build this tower! upvote  reply show Mar 23, 2018 Wrong place to construct such thing! Jianxin Zhu United States, Minneapolis Mar 23, 2018 Page 5 of 8Petition PROPOSED CELL PHONE TOWER - WALDEN HEIGHTS PARK, EAGAN 3/23/2018https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/proposed-cell-phone-tower-walden-heights-park Courtney Kohn United States4 hours ago 5 hours ago Ted McGown United States5 hours ago 5 hours ago Linda Dygo United States5 hours ago 6 hours ago Jianxin Zhu United States6 hours ago 6 hours ago Brad Pickens United States6 hours ago 6 hours ago Barry Peterson United States 6 hours ago Page 6 of 8Petition PROPOSED CELL PHONE TOWER - WALDEN HEIGHTS PARK, EAGAN 3/23/2018https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/proposed-cell-phone-tower-walden-heights-park 6 hours ago Glenn iverson Mexico6 hours ago 6 hours ago Natasha Stergion United States6 hours ago 6 hours ago Natasha Stergion United States6 hours ago 6 hours ago Barb Pickens United States6 hours ago 6 hours ago Joe United States 6 hours ago Page 7 of 8Petition PROPOSED CELL PHONE TOWER - WALDEN HEIGHTS PARK, EAGAN 3/23/2018https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/proposed-cell-phone-tower-walden-heights-park 6 hours ago Chris Maccarone United States6 hours ago 6 hours ago Lai Maccarone United States6 hours ago See More Page 8 of 8Petition PROPOSED CELL PHONE TOWER - WALDEN HEIGHTS PARK, EAGAN 3/23/2018https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/proposed-cell-phone-tower-walden-heights-park 1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Friday, March 23, 2018 10:54 AM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: No to Cell Phone tower in Walden Park   ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Todd Drew [mailto:tmstolpman@msn.com]   Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 10:34 AM  To: APC <APC@cityofeagan.com>  Subject: No to Cell Phone tower in Walden Park    We live at 4660 Pinetree Curve in Stonecliffe neighborhood in Eagan.  Our home backs up to Walden Heights Park.   We  do not want the city of Eagan to grant a variance to violate city ordinances and put in an ugly and potentially health  risking cell tower in our back yard.  We moved to Eagan and invested a lot of time and money into this great community.  Our home is directly in the area which supposedly has poor cell coverage. We have used Verizon and currently use Sprint  and have no issues whatsoever. There are alternative locations that do not jeopardize home values or health risks to  children.  Directly across Cliff to the north is a wide‐open commercial area that would not jeopardize the city ordinance  of 300 feet. There is also the water treatment facility on the corner of Pilot knob and Cliff. This would not impact  homeowners and Eagan can still benefit financially.  I’m sure there are a dozen other options available.    We moved to Eagan because of the parks for our children to play in and under the understanding that when we bought  our home in Eagan the city ordinances were in place to keep our our home and family safe from commercial  development in our public parks.  Now the city wants to violate its ordinances to make money and screw the  homeowners who live next to this park.  Our children’s health are at risk since no one knows 100% what issues are  associated with cell phone transmissions.    Ultimately I find it extremely disappointing that the city would even consider such  an appalling variance for a highly  utilized park were children play. I feel the planning committee and the board members need to think long and hard  about what they are considering.  The people of the Egan are the community and safe parks are what has made Eagan  great. Don’t throw away the community values to support Verizon with an unneeded cell tower or at the very least put it  in a location that does not impact homeowners and children.    Sincerely,    Todd & Monique Stolpman  4660 Pinetree Curve  TMStolpman@msn.com      Sent from my iPad    1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Monday, March 26, 2018 11:31 AM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: Cell Tower     From: Todd Drew <TMSTOLPMAN@msn.com>   Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2018 7:02 PM  To: City Council <CityCouncil@cityofeagan.com>  Subject: Cell Tower  Dear Eagan City Council - We are nearby Eagan homeowners that have just learned that Verizon plans to build a 119-foot cell tower in Walden Heights Park and Verizon needs a variance to zoning laws to do so. We asking the City Council to delay the April 3 vote on this variance to give us and other homeowners more time to understand the project and assess the impact that this proposal will have on park usage and our property values. Both the Advisory Planning Commission meeting and the City Council Meeting are occurring during ISD196 school district’s spring break and many interested homeowners are unavailable to attend. The city has zoning ordinances in place for a reason and the granting or denial of a variance to those rules should be done with input from residents effected. The preliminary information we are finding for a comparable cell tower and neighborhood is home value dropping between 5-15%. We feel this is a substantial loss of value which is the opposite of what Verizon is claiming in their proposal. We feel this is an unreasonable devaluation to put on nearby homeowners when many other sites exist. Sincerely, Todd & Monique Stolpman 1 Pam Dudziak From:Ted McGown <tedm@poliac.com> Sent:Friday, March 23, 2018 11:03 AM To:APC; Pam Dudziak; City Council Subject:Re: Verizon Wireless tower at 4640 Pinetree Curve All,    Since my previous email I have found the time to do more due diligence on the proposed tower.  Further to my  comments below, I would like to add additional comments/questions.    Comments:    The proposed antenna site in located at Walden Heights park.  The exact location is directly on a hill used by the  neighborhood children to slide in the winter time and ride their bike in the summertime.  In addition, it is located near  the park equipment and the baseball/softball field.  Kids play here year round.  If you build here, these recreational  activities will be directly affected.    There is arguably a better location at the NE corner of Pilot Knob and Cliff, also city owned land, that does not affect a  park setting or a neighborhood.  In addition to this location, further to the east on Pilot Knob there is an existing antenna  that could be shared.  Make the communication companies work together on this site.    Please do not approve the current site for antenna installation.    Question:  What other alternative sites has the planning commission considered?    Does the planning commission realize the March 27 date for the hearing is during spring break for district 196?  Can the  date be changed to next month?  Would give many neighbors more opportunity to attend the meeting.    Again, please do not approve this site for the antenna.    Thank you.    Ted      On 3/20/2018 2:01 PM, Ted McGown wrote:  > Advisory Planning Commission,  >  > I received the flyer on the public hearing for the conditional use   > permit to build a 119' monopole antenna, basically across the street   > from my house.  >  > As a 20 year neighbor and Eagan resident, I strongly oppose the   > building of any tower at that location.  I unfortunately will not be   > in town for the public hearing on March 27, but would like to again   > express my objection to the project.  >  2 > Thank you.  >  > Ted McGown  > 1470 Thomas Lane.  > 612.269.6646      1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Monday, March 26, 2018 10:53 AM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: Request delay of April 3 vote on Verizon cell tower variance.     From: Ted McGown <tedm@poliac.com>   Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 10:01 AM  To: Cyndee Fields <CFields@cityofeagan.com>; Gary Hansen <GHansen@cityofeagan.com>; Meg Tilley  <MTilley@cityofeagan.com>; Mike Maguire <MMaguire@cityofeagan.com>; Paul Bakken <PBakken@cityofeagan.com>  Subject: Request delay of April 3 vote on Verizon cell tower variance.  To the Eagan City Council - I am an Eagan homeowner that has just learned that Verizon plans to build a 119-foot cell tower in Walden Heights Park and Verizon needs a variance to zoning laws to do so. I have only recently been made aware of this project from my neighbors. I have just had a few days to attempt to understand it but, based on my initial review, I am against havng this cell tower built in my park. I am asking the City Council to delay the April 3rd vote on this variance to give me and other homeowners more time to understand the project and assess the impact this proposal will have on safety and our property values so that we can bring that information to the City Council. Both the Advisory Planning Commission meeting and the City Council Meeting are occurring during ISD196 school district spring break and many interested homeowners are unavailable to attend. The city has zoning ordinances in place for a reason and the granting or denial of a variance to those rules should be done with input from all of the stakeholders and we homeowners need additional time to do that. Thank you for your consideration. Ted McGown 1470 Thomas Lane Eagan, MN 55122 1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Monday, March 26, 2018 10:54 AM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: Verizon Wireless tower at 4640 Pinetree Curve         ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Ted McGown <tedm@poliac.com>  Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 11:03 AM  To: APC <APC@cityofeagan.com>; Pam Dudziak <pdudziak@cityofeagan.com>; City Council  <CityCouncil@cityofeagan.com>  Subject: Re: Verizon Wireless tower at 4640 Pinetree Curve    All,    Since my previous email I have found the time to do more due diligence on the proposed tower.  Further to my  comments below, I would like to add additional comments/questions.    Comments:    The proposed antenna site in located at Walden Heights park.  The exact location is directly on a hill used by the  neighborhood children to slide in the winter time and ride their bike in the summertime.  In addition, it is located near  the park equipment and the baseball/softball field.  Kids play here year round.  If you build here, these recreational  activities will be directly affected.    There is arguably a better location at the NE corner of Pilot Knob and Cliff, also city owned land, that does not affect a  park setting or a neighborhood.  In addition to this location, further to the east on Pilot Knob there is an existing antenna  that could be shared.  Make the communication companies work together on this site.    Please do not approve the current site for antenna installation.    Question:  What other alternative sites has the planning commission considered?    Does the planning commission realize the March 27 date for the hearing is during spring break for district 196?  Can the  date be changed to next month?  Would give many neighbors more opportunity to attend the meeting.    Again, please do not approve this site for the antenna.    Thank you.    Ted      On 3/20/2018 2:01 PM, Ted McGown wrote:  2 > Advisory Planning Commission,  >  > I received the flyer on the public hearing for the conditional use   > permit to build a 119' monopole antenna, basically across the street   > from my house.  >  > As a 20 year neighbor and Eagan resident, I strongly oppose the   > building of any tower at that location.  I unfortunately will not be   > in town for the public hearing on March 27, but would like to again   > express my objection to the project.  >  > Thank you.  >  > Ted McGown  > 1470 Thomas Lane.  > 612.269.6646      1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Monday, March 26, 2018 8:23 AM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: NO!! cell tower in Walden Heights Park   From: Ke Wang [mailto:mr.kewang@gmail.com]   Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 1:41 PM  To: APC   Subject: NO!! cell tower in Walden Heights Park  Dear Eagan Advisory Committee: I just heard the news of the proposal to build a cell tower in Walden Heights, which breaks the city ordnance. There is a reason that the ordnance exists as is. If it is can be circumvented for convenience, it might as well does not exist. I strongly disagree to this proposal, NO to cell tower in Walden Heights Park! Ke Wang 1521 Covington lane Eagan, MN 55122 1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Monday, March 26, 2018 11:30 AM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: Delay the April 3 vote on Walden Cell Tower   From: Anne Denny <anne@aedenny.com>   Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2018 2:43 PM  To: Cyndee Fields <CFields@cityofeagan.com>; Gary Hansen <GHansen@cityofeagan.com>; Meg Tilley  <MTilley@cityofeagan.com>; Mike Maguire <MMaguire@cityofeagan.com>; Paul Bakken <PBakken@cityofeagan.com>  Subject: Delay the April 3 vote on Walden Cell Tower  To the Eagan City Council - I am an Eagan homeowner that has just learned that Verizon plans to build a 119-foot cell tower in Walden Heights Park and Verizon needs a variance to zoning laws to do so. I have only recently been made aware of this project from my neighbors. I have just had a few days to attempt to understand it but, based on my initial review, I am against having this cell tower built in my park. I am asking the City Council to delay the April 3 vote on this variance to give me and other homeowners more time to understand the project and assess the impact this proposal will have on safety and our property values so that we can bring that information to the City Council. Both the Advisory Planning Commission meeting and the City Council Meeting are occurring during ISD196 school district’s spring break and many interested homeowners are unavailable to attend. The city has zoning ordinances in place for a reason and the granting or denial of a variance to those rules should be done with input from all of the stakeholders and we homeowners need additional time to do that. Thank you for your consideration. Anne Denny 4666 Stonecliffe Drive Eagan 1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Monday, March 26, 2018 11:35 AM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: Cell phone tower       From: BRIAN LAURIENZO <brianlaurienzo@comcast.net>   Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2018 9:24 PM  To: Mike Maguire <MMaguire@cityofeagan.com>  Subject: Cell phone tower  To the Eagan City Council - I am an Eagan homeowner that has just learned that Verizon plans to build a 119-foot cell tower in Walden Heights Park and Verizon needs a variance to zoning laws to do so. I have only recently been made aware of this project from my neighbors. I have just had a few days to attempt to understand it but, based on my initial review, I am against having this cell tower built in my park. I am asking the City Council to delay the April 3 vote on this variance to give me and other homeowners more time to understand the project and assess the impact this proposal will have on safety and our property values so that we can bring that information to the City Council.Both the Advisory Planning Commission meeting and the City Council Meeting are occurring during ISD196 school district’s spring break and many interested homeowners are unavailable to attend. The city has zoning ordinances in place for a reason and the granting or denial of a variance to those rules should be done with input from all of the stakeholders and we homeowners need additional time to do that. Thank you for your consideration. Brian Laurienzo 4624 Pinetree Curve 2 Thanks, Brian 1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Monday, March 26, 2018 11:31 AM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: Request delay of April 3 vote on Verizon cell tower variance       From: bgo10@centurylink.net <bgo10@centurylink.net>   Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2018 7:33 PM  To: City Council <CityCouncil@cityofeagan.com>  Subject: Request delay of April 3 vote on Verizon cell tower variance     To the Eagan City Council - We are Eagan homeowners that have just learned that Verizon plans to build a 119-foot cell tower in Walden Heights Park and Verizon needs a variance to zoning laws to do so. We have only recently been made aware of this project from our neighbors have just had a few days to attempt to understand it but, based on our initial review, we are against having this cell tower built in our neighborhood park. We are asking the City Council to delay the April 3 vote on this variance to give us and other homeowners more time to understand the project and assess the impact this proposal will have on safety and our property values so that we can bring that information to the City Council. Both the Advisory Planning Commission meeting and the City Council Meeting are occurring during ISD196 school district’s spring break and many interested homeowners are unavailable to attend. The city has zoning ordinances in place for a reason and the granting or denial of a variance to those rules should be done with input from all of the stakeholders and we homeowners need additional time to do that. Thank you for your consideration. Ben G Ohlander  Dixie C. Ohlander  1418 Lake Park Circle  Eagan, Minnesota 55122    1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Monday, March 26, 2018 11:36 AM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: Verizon Cell Phone Tower in Walden Heights     From: cj riley <cjriley891@hotmail.com>   Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2018 9:26 PM  To: Cyndee Fields <CFields@cityofeagan.com>  Cc: Gary Hansen <GHansen@cityofeagan.com>; Meg Tilley <MTilley@cityofeagan.com>; Mike Maguire  <MMaguire@cityofeagan.com>; Paul Bakken <PBakken@cityofeagan.com>  Subject: Fw: Verizon Cell Phone Tower in Walden Heights  Subject: Request delay of April 3 vote on Verizon cell tower variance   To the Eagan City Council ‐  I am an Eagan homeowner that has just learned that Verizon plans to build a 119‐foot cell tower in Walden  Heights Park and Verizon needs a variance to zoning laws to do so.   I have only recently been made aware of this project from my neighbors. I have just had a few days to attempt  to understand it but, based on my initial review, I am against having this cell tower built in my park.  I am asking the City Council to delay the April 3 vote on this variance to give me and other homeowners more  time to understand the project and assess the impact this proposal will have on safety and our property values  so that we can bring that information to the City Council. Both the Advisory Planning Commission meeting and  the City Council Meeting are occurring during ISD196 school district’s spring break and many interested  homeowners are unavailable to attend.  The city has zoning ordinances in place for a reason and the granting or denial of a variance to those rules  should be done with input from all of the stakeholders and we homeowners need additional time to do that.  Thank you for your consideration.  Barbara Johnson  1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Monday, March 26, 2018 10:54 AM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: Cell Tower     From: Asian Direct <dlao0805@comcast.net>   Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 9:26 AM  To: Meg Tilley <MTilley@cityofeagan.com>  Subject: Cell Tower  To the Eagan City Council - I am an Eagan homeowner that has just learned that Verizon plans to build a 119-foot cell tower in Walden Heights Park and Verizon needs a variance to zoning laws to do so. I have only recently been made aware of this project from my neighbors. I have just had a few days to attempt to understand it but, based on my initial review, I am against having this cell tower built in my park. The city has zoning ordinances in place for a reason and therefore the city should not be granting it. Thank you for your consideration. Dar Lao 4651 Pinetree Curve Eagan, MN 55122 1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Monday, March 26, 2018 11:34 AM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: Request delay of April 3 vote on Verizon cell tower       From: Jim Spillman <jimspillman@comcast.net>   Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2018 5:40 PM  To: City Council <CityCouncil@cityofeagan.com>  Cc: Cyndee Fields <CFields@cityofeagan.com>; Gary Hansen <GHansen@cityofeagan.com>; Meg Tilley  <MTilley@cityofeagan.com>; Mike Maguire <MMaguire@cityofeagan.com>; Paul Bakken <PBakken@cityofeagan.com>  Subject: Request delay of April 3 vote on Verizon cell tower     To the Eagan City Council - I am an Eagan homeowner that has just learned that Verizon plans to build a 119-foot cell tower in Walden Heights Park and Verizon needs a variance to zoning laws to do so. I have only recently been made aware of this project from my neighbors. I have just had a few days to attempt to understand it but, based on my initial review, I am against having this cell tower built in my park. I am asking the City Council to delay the April 3 vote on this variance to give me and other homeowners more time to understand the project and assess the impact this proposal will have on safety and our property values so that we can bring that information to the City Council. Both the Advisory Planning Commission meeting and the City Council Meeting are occurring during ISD196 school district’s spring break and many interested homeowners are unavailable to attend. The city has zoning ordinances in place for a reason and the granting or denial of a variance to those rules should be done with input from all of the stakeholders and we homeowners need additional time to do that. Thank you for your consideration. Jim and Sharon Spillman 4637 Stonecliffe Drive Eagan, MN 55122   1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Monday, March 26, 2018 11:34 AM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: Delay Request: April 3 Verizon Cell Tower Variance Request       From: KEVIN L BENFER <kevin.benfer@icloud.com>   Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2018 4:38 PM  To: City Council <CityCouncil@cityofeagan.com>  Cc: Cyndee Fields <CFields@cityofeagan.com>; Mike Maguire <MMaguire@cityofeagan.com>; Gary Hansen  <GHansen@cityofeagan.com>; Meg Tilley <MTilley@cityofeagan.com>  Subject: Delay Request: April 3 Verizon Cell Tower Variance Request  Eagan City Council - I am Kevin Benfer an Eagan homeowner (1473 Thomas Lane) and just learned of Verizon’s plans to build a 119-foot cell tower in Walden Heights Park. I understand Verizon is asking for a zoning variance to do so. I just learned of this variance request and have not had ample time to review the plans or research its effect on health, property values, and neighbors aesthetics. At this time I strenuously oppose this variance and the construction of this tower at this location. I strongly urge the City Council to delay the April 3 vote on this variance to give the neighborhood homeowners more time to understand the project and assess the impact of this cellular tower will have on safety and our property values so that we have the opportunity to bring that information to the City Council. Furthermore, the Advisory Planning Commission meeting and the City Council Meeting are occurring during ISD196 school district’s spring break and many interested homeowners are unavailable. The city’s zoning ordinances in place for a reason and the granting or denial of a variance to those rules should be done with input from all of the stakeholders and we homeowners need additional time to do that. A variance to zoning ordinances is a significant request and deference should be given to the homeowners and community stakeholders who are impacted by it. We need additional time to adequately prepare a response to this variance request. 2 Thank you. Warmly, Kevin L. Benfer 1473 Thomas Lane 1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Monday, March 26, 2018 11:35 AM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: Request delay of April 3 vote on Verizon cell tower variance       From: Michael Johnson <michael.c.johnsonmn@gmail.com>   Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2018 7:29 PM  To: Cyndee Fields <CFields@cityofeagan.com>; Gary Hansen <GHansen@cityofeagan.com>; Meg Tilley  <MTilley@cityofeagan.com>; Mike Maguire <MMaguire@cityofeagan.com>; Paul Bakken <PBakken@cityofeagan.com>  Subject: Request delay of April 3 vote on Verizon cell tower variance   To the Eagan City Council - I am an Eagan homeowner that has just learned that Verizon plans to build a 119-foot cell tower in Walden Heights Park and Verizon needs a variance to zoning laws to do so. I have only recently been made aware of this project from my neighbors. I have just had a few days to attempt to understand it but, based on my initial review, I am against having this cell tower built in my park. I am asking the City Council to delay the April 3 vote on this variance to give me and other homeowners more time to understand the project and assess the impact this proposal will have on safety and our property values so that we can bring that information to the City Council. Both the Advisory Planning Commission meeting and the City Council Meeting are occurring during ISD196 school district’s spring break and many interested homeowners are unavailable to attend. The city has zoning ordinances in place for a reason and the granting or denial of a variance to those rules should be done with input from all of the stakeholders and we homeowners need additional time to do that. Thank you for your consideration. Michael Johnson 4618 Summit Pass Eagan, MN michael.c.johnsonmn@gmail.com 1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Monday, March 26, 2018 11:30 AM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: Request delay of April 3 vote on Verizon cell tower variance     From: Maryann Choy <machoy2010@gmail.com>   Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2018 12:36 PM  To: Cyndee Fields <CFields@cityofeagan.com>; Gary Hansen <GHansen@cityofeagan.com>; Meg Tilley  <MTilley@cityofeagan.com>; Mike Maguire <MMaguire@cityofeagan.com>; Paul Bakken <PBakken@cityofeagan.com>;  City Council <CityCouncil@cityofeagan.com>  Subject: Request delay of April 3 vote on Verizon cell tower variance  To the Eagan City Council - I am an Eagan homeowner that has just learned that Verizon plans to build a 119-foot cell tower in Walden Heights Park and Verizon needs a variance to zoning laws to do so. I have only recently been made aware (on Thursday, 3/23) of this project from my neighbors; the City did not inform me yet I live very close to the proposed site. I have just had a few days to attempt to understand it but, based on my initial review, I am against having this cell tower built in my park. I am asking the City Council to delay the April 3 vote on this variance to give me and other homeowners more time to understand the project and assess the impact this proposal will have on safety and our property values so that we can bring that information to the City Council. Both the Advisory Planning Commission meeting and the City Council Meeting are occurring during ISD196 school district’s spring break and many interested homeowners are unavailable to attend. The city has zoning ordinances in place for a reason and the granting or denial of a variance to those rules should be done with input from all of the stakeholders and we homeowners need additional time to do that. Thank you for your consideration. Steve Johnson 4652 Pinetree Curve Eagan, MN 55122 651-454-8854 1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Monday, March 26, 2018 11:30 AM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: April 3 Vote on Walden Park Cell Tower Variance     From: Stephen Yahn <steveyahn2@gmail.com>   Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2018 5:42 PM  To: City Council <CityCouncil@cityofeagan.com>  Subject: April 3 Vote on Walden Park Cell Tower Variance  Dear Eagan city council member: I have recently learned of the proposed variance for a Verizon cell tower in Walden Park. Given the number of aspects of this variance that require research including effects on property values, health considerations, and the suitability of alternate sites, I request that a vote on this matter be postponed until there has been sufficient time to complete the necessary research. Thanks for your consideration of this matter. Stephen Yahn 1467 Thomas Lane Eagan 1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Monday, March 26, 2018 11:33 AM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: Verizon Tower         ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Tom <tommyecraft@gmail.com>   Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2018 8:19 PM  To: Gary Hansen <GHansen@cityofeagan.com>  Subject: Verizon Tower      Hi Gary,     Hope you’re well. Just want to lodge a strong opinion regarding the proposed Verizon tower in Walden Heights Park. We  go to this park 2‐3 times a weeks with our boys. In addition to not wanting to look at this thing out of my front door, I  would hate to see our relatively small park get chipped away any further.     Frankly put, why is the city even considering handing over heavily used public lands to a private company so that they  can improve their coverage/profitability? I’ve had coverage with two other providers (Sprint and AT&T) and have had no  connectivity issues. Perfect cell coverage for all carriers isn’t a compelling event to justify diminishing a neighborhood.     I heard that you may be considering an abstention. I do not believe that would be necessary or proper.    Thanks for your consideration.    Take care,     Tom    Sent from my iPhone    1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Monday, March 26, 2018 12:47 PM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: Request delay of April 3 vote on Verizon cell tower decision: Stonecliffe HOA   From: Andrew vanReeuwijk <avreeuwijk@gmail.com>   Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 11:42 AM  To: Cyndee Fields <CFields@cityofeagan.com>; Gary Hansen <GHansen@cityofeagan.com>; Meg Tilley  <MTilley@cityofeagan.com>; Mike Maguire <MMaguire@cityofeagan.com>; Paul Bakken <PBakken@cityofeagan.com>;  City Council <CityCouncil@cityofeagan.com>  Subject: Request delay of April 3 vote on Verizon cell tower decision: Stonecliffe HOA  To the Eagan City Council - I am an Eagan homeowner AND the President of the Stonecliffe Homeowners Association (125 homes) that has just learned of Verizon's plans to build a 119-foot cell tower in Walden Heights Park and a variance to zoning laws to do so. I have only recently been made aware of this project from my neighbors since I do not live in very close proximity to Walden park and therefore didn't get any City Notifications. I have just had a few days to attempt to understand it but, based on my initial review, I am against having this cell tower built in my park until there has been more time to fully understand the implications and ramifications. I am asking the City Council to delay the April 3 vote on this variance to give me and other homeowners more time to understand the project and assess the impact this proposal will have on safety and our property values so that we can bring that information to the City Council. Both the Advisory Planning Commission meeting and the City Council Meeting are occurring during ISD196 school district’s spring break and many interested homeowners are unavailable to attend. The city has zoning ordinances in place for a reason and the granting or denial of a variance to those rules should be done with input from all of the stakeholders and we homeowners need additional time to do that. I note that the planning report is dated 21 March 2018, which doesn't give much time for all interested parties to reasonably understand these plans. I am planning on attending the meeting on March 27th. I strongly encourage the City to spend time at this meeting reviewing the conditional use permit authority, related risk reviews and compliance thereof. I also note that the residents of the new development at Cliff Rd/Dakota Path possibly enjoy some form of compensation to the HOA for the cell tower at that location. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Andrew van Reeuwijk and Stonecliffe HOA President 2 4642 Stonecliffe Dr Eagan Cell: 612 802 3911 1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Monday, March 26, 2018 11:27 AM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: Please delay April 3rd vote on Verizon Cell Tower Variance       From: Courtney Graney <cfgraney@hotmail.com>   Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 7:49 AM  To: City Council <CityCouncil@cityofeagan.com>  Cc: Mike Maguire <MMaguire@cityofeagan.com>; cjkohn@yahoo.com  Subject: Please delay April 3rd vote on Verizon Cell Tower Variance  Eagan City Council, I am an Eagan homeowner that has just learned that Verizon plans to build a 119-foot cell tower in Walden Heights Park and Verizon needs a variance to zoning laws to do so. I have only recently been made aware of this project from my neighbors. I am against having this cell tower built in my park where my 4 year old son and 2 year old daughter play. 2   I am asking the City Council to delay the April 3 vote on this variance to give me and other homeowners more time to understand the project and assess the impact this proposal will have on safety and our property values so that we can bring that information to the City Council. Both the Advisory Planning Commission meeting and the City Council Meeting are occurring during ISD196 school district’s spring break and many interested homeowners are unavailable to attend. The city has zoning ordinances in place for a reason and the granting or denial of a variance to those rules should be done with input from all of the stakeholders and we homeowners need additional time to do that. Thank you for your consideration.   Courtney Kohn  4650 Stonecliffe Drive  Eagan, MN 55122  Cell 608‐239‐7795  1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Monday, March 26, 2018 10:53 AM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: Verizon cell tower         ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Daniel Hall <fuel80@comcast.net>   Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 9:25 AM  To: City Council <CityCouncil@cityofeagan.com>  Cc: Mike Maguire <MMaguire@cityofeagan.com>  Subject: Verizon cell tower    Hello‐    I want to register my thoughts on the proposed Verizon Cell Tower in Walden Park. I am against this tower. They are a  health hazard. Verizon is seeking a variance which means that on the face of it Eagan is against a cell tower, but for some  reason Eagan is considering putting this structure in a public park surrounded by houses where many people will be  effected. To those who are voting on this matter I ask: would you want this in your back yard? So often people who vote  on theses matters are not effected by the decisions they make and if they were would note vote the same way. Verizon  is a big company with smart people. I think they can find a solution that doesn’t effect so many people.    Thank you,    Daniel Hall  4654 Stonecliffe Dr.   Eagan, MN 55122    1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Monday, March 26, 2018 11:27 AM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: Verizon Tower Proposal     From: Mike Feldman <mike_feldman111@yahoo.com>   Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 7:57 AM  To: City Council <CityCouncil@cityofeagan.com>  Cc: Mike Maguire <MMaguire@cityofeagan.com>  Subject: Verizon Tower Proposal  To the Eagan City Council - I am an Eagan homeowner that has just learned that Verizon plans to build a 119-foot cell tower in Walden Heights Park and Verizon needs a variance to zoning laws to do so. I have only recently been made aware of this project from my neighbors. I have just had a few days to attempt to understand it but, based on my initial review, I am against having this cell tower built in my park. I am asking the City Council to delay the April 3 vote on this variance to give me and other homeowners more time to understand the project and assess the impact this proposal will have on safety and our property values so that we can bring that information to the City Council. Both the Advisory Planning Commission meeting and the City Council Meeting are occurring during ISD196 school district’s spring break and many interested homeowners are unavailable to attend. The city has zoning ordinances in place for a reason and the granting or denial of a variance to those rules should be done with input from all of the stakeholders and we homeowners need additional time to do that. Thank you for your consideration. Michael Feldman 1500 Thomas Lane 1 Pam Dudziak From:Mike Ridley Sent:Monday, March 26, 2018 11:32 AM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: Proposed cell tower in Walden Heights Park       From: Terry Burns <tburns4664@gmail.com>   Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 10:54 AM  To: City Council <CityCouncil@cityofeagan.com>; Mike Maguire <MMaguire@cityofeagan.com>  Subject: Proposed cell tower in Walden Heights Park  Subject: Request delay of April 3 vote on Verizon cell tower variance To the Eagan City Council - I am an Eagan homeowner that has just learned that Verizon plans to build a 119-foot cell tower in Walden Heights Park and Verizon needs a variance to zoning laws to do so. I have only recently been made aware of this project from my neighbors. I have just had a few days to attempt to understand it but, based on my initial review, I am against having this cell tower built in my park. I am asking the City Council to delay the April 3 vote on this variance to give me and other homeowners more time to understand the project and assess the impact this proposal will have on safety and our property values so that we can bring that information to the City Council. Both the Advisory Planning Commission meeting and the City Council Meeting are occurring during ISD196 school district’s spring break and many interested homeowners are unavailable to attend. The city has zoning ordinances in place for a reason and the granting or denial of a variance to those rules should be done with input from all of the stakeholders and we homeowners need additional time to do that. Thank you for your consideration. Terry and Chris Burns 4664 Pinetree Curve Eagan, Minesota 55122 PETITION AGAINST PROPOSED CELL TOWER AT WALDEN HEIGHTS PARK Page 1 of 6 3/25/18 #Name Date Signed Comments 1 Natalie DeCuir 3/22/18 23:24 2 Mike Myszka 3/22/18 23:32 3 Kevin Desmond 3/22/18 23:43 4 Kimberly Bernstein 3/22/18 23:47 I am vehemently opposed to this tower!!! Eagan‚Äôs a big place, surely there are other places to build one rather than adjacent to my yard! 5 Terry Curtis 3/22/18 23:56 4625 Summit Pass Eagan MN 55122 6 Shelley Frazee 3/23/18 0:10 This tower is not necessary in this location. There are many other places that will not disrupt a park and lower the home values. 7 Linda Kautzky 3/23/18 0:28 8 Ann Brandt 3/23/18 0:45 9 Lydia deGuzman 3/23/18 0:55 10 Janet Glenn 3/23/18 1:12 11 Todd Stolpman 3/23/18 1:16 12 Beth Larsen 3/23/18 1:21 13 Mike Curtis 3/23/18 1:31 There are many reasons to be opposed to this eyesore. Why would you be in favor? We have Verizon wireless in this neighborhood and get superior reception. Vote NO! 14 Rezvan Azimi 3/23/18 1:44 15 Parham Alaei 3/23/18 1:48 Even if the tower is needed (which I doubt) there are other sites nearby far from parks and houses to place it. 16 Dar Lao 3/23/18 2:01 17 Kim Peterson 3/23/18 2:25 I do not want a cell phone tower placed this close to our homes and directly across from a childrens' playground. 18 Anne Hagen 3/23/18 2:27 I choose to live in Eagan because of it‚Äôs green spaces and natural beauty. A cell phone tower at a park is not necessary. Let us continue to enjoy our spaces. 19 Dawn Ostrem 3/23/18 2:30 I oppose the cell phone tower. 20 Tim Ostrem 3/23/18 2:33 I strongly object to the location of this tower due to health and real estate devaluation concerns. It is very unfair to dump this on families who could never have anticipated a huge tower being constructed in close proximity to their house when they decided to make this neighborhood their home. 21 Katlyn Peterson 3/23/18 2:54 22 Susan Hanegan Burdorf 3/23/18 2:55 23 Allison Peterson 3/23/18 2:56 24 Garrett Weekley 3/23/18 3:03 25 Jenny Tran 3/23/18 3:07 I vote NO on allowing the cell phone tower to be built in our neighborhood due to some risks and effects associated with it. 26 Stephen Dygos 3/23/18 3:26 27 Carrie Rodman 3/23/18 3:53 28 Scott Rodman 3/23/18 4:02 I use this park regularly with my young children and moved here due to the open green spaces. Please don‚Äôt approve this cell tower. 29 Kelli Reitzel 3/23/18 5:16 30 Lauren Loberg 3/23/18 11:30 31 Brent Loberg 3/23/18 11:40 Voting against cell tower. Why put something that promotes indoor activity in an area that promotes outdoor activity? 32 Gary Thurber 3/23/18 12:04 Please do not put that eyesore by the park we take our kids to each week. 33 Brian Laurienzo 3/23/18 12:22 I would like to see more information and EXACT location of this tower. 34 Jerry VanBeck 3/23/18 12:42 PETITION AGAINST PROPOSED CELL TOWER AT WALDEN HEIGHTS PARK Page 2 of 6 3/25/18 #Name Date Signed Comments 35 Michael Feldman 3/23/18 12:43 36 Connie VanBeck 3/23/18 12:55 Please do not erect a cell tower in a children's playground due to potential health risks. 37 Kathleen Howard 3/23/18 13:13 38 Monique Stolpman 3/23/18 13:20 39 Tabby Casey 3/23/18 13:24 Don't put this cell tower next to our neighborhood playground. This green space is used and enjoyed by families in the Stonecliffe neighborhood and adjacent neighborhoods. This will negatively impact home values in this area. 40 Jenna Van Beck 3/23/18 13:30 41 Subramanian 3/23/18 13:40 I am opposed to this cell phone tower in my neighborhood. It's very unsafe for children. We have no problem with cell phone signal here. We would be forced to leave this Eagan neighborhood in the event that our voice is not heard. Thanks! Summit Pass resident 42 Mary Ann Choy 3/23/18 13:53 We definitely do NOT want this ugly cell phone tower in our backyard that will decrease our property value and health risk to all life. 43 Steve Johnson 3/23/18 13:55 NO cell tower in my backyard. 4652 Pinetree Curve, Eagan, MN . 55122 44 Ping Li 3/23/18 13:55 No cell phone tower in the neighborhood 45 Justine Kolb 3/23/18 14:02 More and more information and research is being revealed about the health risks of having cell phone towers near and around us, plus the fact that they have not been around long enough to know what long term damage they can have on our health and well being. It is not safe to have them near our homes where we spend the majority of our time; where we sleep and our children sleep and play. I am 100% against having a cell phone tower that close to my home. It is not necessary, cell phone service is perfectly fine in our area, we do not need to add this tower. 46 Kimberly Renee Hall 3/23/18 14:06 I have stage four cancer. After much research, I believe things like cell towers have contributed. 47 Thomas Johnson 3/23/18 14:16 48 Lai Maccarone 3/23/18 14:25 49 Chris Maccarone 3/23/18 14:29 50 Joe 3/23/18 14:32 51 Barb Pickens 3/23/18 14:41 No cell phone tower in our neighborhood! 52 Natasha Stergion 3/23/18 14:43 53 Natasha Stergion 3/23/18 14:44 54 Glenn iverson 3/23/18 14:46 Why can‚Äôt this be located at the water treatment plant where it does not impact home owners view 55 Barry Peterson 3/23/18 14:48 I oppose the tower for many reasons. Our neighborhood does not need anybody, especially children, exposed to the effects of a cell tower. Add to that, it will be an eyesore right our my front window. Our Verizon service works fantastic already! I also don't understand how our city can just change the easements that they established!!! Especially to the extent that is being described!56 Brad Pickens 3/23/18 15:05 57 Jianxin Zhu 3/23/18 15:18 Wrong place to construct such thing! 58 Ben B 3/23/18 15:42 Please do not build this tower! 59 Linda Dygo 3/23/18 15:44 PETITION AGAINST PROPOSED CELL TOWER AT WALDEN HEIGHTS PARK Page 3 of 6 3/25/18 #Name Date Signed Comments 60 Ted McGown 3/23/18 16:14 The proposed antenna site in located at Walden Heights park. The exact location is directly on a hill used by the neighborhood children to slide in the winter time and ride their bike in the summertime. In addition, it is located near the park equipment and the baseball/softball field. Kids play here year round. If you build here, these recreational activities will be directly affected. There is arguably a better location at the NE corner of Pilot Knob and Cliff, also city owned land, that does not affect a park setting or a neighborhood. In addition to this location, further to the east on Pilot Knob there is an existing antenna that could be shared. Make the communication companies work together on this site. Please do not approve the current site for antenna installation. Question: What other alternative sites has the planning commission considered? Does the planning commission realize the March 27 date for the hearing is during spring break for district 196? Can the date be changed to next month? Would give many neighbors more opportunity to attend the meeting. 61 Courtney Kohn 3/23/18 16:34 62 Laura Van Beck 3/23/18 16:38 63 Shari Myszka 3/23/18 16:43 64 Casandra Lopez 3/23/18 16:47 65 Chris Kohn 3/23/18 16:50 66 Ana Subich 3/23/18 16:56 This is insane idea to build tower in some people backyard. Don't put this cell tower next to our neighborhood playground. This green space is used and enjoyed by families in the Stonecliffe neighborhood. 67 Erin Johnson 3/23/18 17:02 68 Sara johnson 3/23/18 17:04 Against tower 69 Edith Graney 3/23/18 17:41 Bad idea for a residential neighborhood 70 Damin Hall 3/23/18 17:47 71 Julia Hall 3/23/18 17:48 72 Barbara Shudlick 3/23/18 17:50 Absolutely against the cell phone tower being built in and near a neighborhood park!!! How insensitive to families and family homes and their families!!!! 73 Gretchen Asselin 3/23/18 17:51 74 Eric Decuir 3/23/18 17:52 There are many other places in Eagan that are higher in elevation with less surrounding population that could potentially be a better place with less risk of exposure to to high energy radio frequencies. Health risks are still being studied and are far from being settled on as universally known as safe. Cigarette smoking in the 50‚Äôs was also shown not be linked to cancers according to the prevailing studies at the time. Vote NO on relaxing the variance rules which are there to protect residential areas and the surrounding citizens.75 Krista Nelson 3/23/18 18:25 I had a client who worked for the power company that wanted a test done on her home for the cell phone tower she could see from her deck... it was recommended she put her bed on one wall otherwise she will spend 8+ hrs a night in a direct path of cell phone waves. If people who don't believe that makes a difference, you might want to check with those who have lost a child to brain cancer...then had their homes checked....or for starters read the book ZAPPED by Ann Louise Gittleman...cell phone towers, electrical lines, your wifi, your electrical appliances, even the cities automatic water meter readers. Have your home tested and see what you don't know. We will never get away from this billion dollar industry but you can do things to reduce your exposure.76 Mike Casey 3/23/18 18:28 PETITION AGAINST PROPOSED CELL TOWER AT WALDEN HEIGHTS PARK Page 4 of 6 3/25/18 #Name Date Signed Comments 77 Lys Maruszewski 3/23/18 19:23 Yuck 78 Alyssa Tozzi 3/23/18 19:26 79 Marc Tozzi 3/23/18 19:26 80 Hari Pallempati 3/23/18 19:29 81 Sarah Comfort 3/23/18 19:42 82 Kevin Brandt 3/23/18 19:42 83 Sheila Xiong 3/23/18 19:44 84 Thomas J Ostrem 3/23/18 20:16 85 Kelly Lelo 3/23/18 20:38 86 Susan Longshore 3/23/18 20:39 87 Arun Vachher 3/23/18 20:40 I see that there is only one Variance up for vote. The way I see it there are 3 variances being desired 1. The desired pole is 119'. This in itself is at least a 19' variation if not a 59' variation, (i) Depending upon whether the park is classified as non-residential use district (maximum height is 100' for single consumer) or residential use-district (maximum height is 60' - which means that the requested variance is almost 100%!). Considering that I live within the 350' distance of the site, as do a lot more people, I can only imagine this area being classified as a residential use-district. (ii) Of course, this variation could be subsumed in the CU permit. 2. The variance of 135 ft from residential property, which is being requested, and 3. There are no setbacks defined in the code from parks where children may be playing (at least I did not find any in Section 11.70, Subd. 26). The subject area is a park and there should be some setback defined for humans, particularly children, to be around the tower. The tower will be smack in the middle of the park, and the entire park will be in the "fall zone" for this tower. 88 Claudine Rasschaert 3/23/18 20:45 89 Anju Vachher 3/23/18 20:56 90 Catherine Homer 3/23/18 21:48 A less visited area should be found and considered. 91 Chad Kip 3/23/18 22:03 92 Chris Kohn 3/23/18 22:05 93 Emily Lange 3/24/18 0:43 94 Dana Ottesen 3/24/18 1:40 95 Shannon Kohn 3/24/18 2:38 96 Ryna lao 3/24/18 3:23 97 Lauren Casey 3/24/18 3:50 NO 98 Christopher Casey 3/24/18 4:07 As someone who used that sledding hill every single winter when I was growing up in Stonecliffe, it would be a shame to see a tower disrupt this experience for children in the future. I hope the city council makes the right decision and votes "no" to the unnecessary cell tower. 99 John Kohn 3/24/18 11:21 100 Anne Denny 3/24/18 11:51 Vote NO regarding this proposed cell tower. Put it in a commercial area instead of in a park in a beautiful neighborhood. 101 Cara Desmond 3/24/18 13:56 102 Wade Glenn 3/24/18 15:39 103 Linda Kohn 3/24/18 15:40 104 Tim Kohn 3/24/18 15:51 PETITION AGAINST PROPOSED CELL TOWER AT WALDEN HEIGHTS PARK Page 5 of 6 3/25/18 #Name Date Signed Comments 105 Nick Molitor 3/24/18 19:38 Thank you for organizing this petition. As a resident within 350‚Äô of the proposed location I‚Äôm strongly opposed to this tower which serves no purpose to the residents and taxpayers it would impact. The city council should do the right thing and deny the conditional use permit. 106 Whitney Molitor 3/24/18 19:42 As an expecting mother, and due to our proximity to the proposed location, I‚Äôm concerned about the potential impacts of this tower on our newborn, not to mention our property value and the degradation of the aesthetic of our neighborhood. The city council should deny the conditional use permit. This tower serves no benefit. 107 Thomas Craft 3/24/18 19:43 108 Karolina Craft 3/24/18 19:58 109 Laura Altobelli 3/24/18 20:07 110 Ben Gunnar Ohlander 3/24/18 20:13 I am alarmed at the City of Eagan's proposal for Verizon Wireless to build a 119 foot phone tower in Walden Heights Park, Eagan, Minnesota. Due to our proximity to the proposed location, I‚Äôm concerned about the potential impacts of this tower on my wife and I as retired 27-year residents of Eagan not to mention the degradation of the aesthetic of our neighborhood. The science regarding the impact of microwave radiation from a tower of this type has not been fully established and there are research studies that indicate increased rates of cancer and other potential serious issues. For these reasons, we are very uncomfortable with the City approving construction of this tower. The city council should deny the conditional use permit. This tower serves no benefit.111 Meghan Scott 3/24/18 20:19 112 Scott 3/24/18 21:11 113 Dennis Bechly 3/24/18 22:06 There is nothing "unique" to this location except that it is the most advantageous for Verizon Wireless. Other somewhat less "optimal" locations are available. The City Council should deny this application which will destroy the character of Walden Height Park, threaten the safety of our children and degrade the value of the surrounding neighborhood.114 Chrystal Bleichner 3/25/18 0:27 115 Roger Krech 3/25/18 0:28 116 Sharon Krech 3/25/18 0:31 117 Gireesh Nair 3/25/18 0:38 118 Suja Nair 3/25/18 0:42 119 Melanie Leslie 3/25/18 1:01 120 ANDREW VAN REEUWIJK 3/25/18 1:46 As the Stonecliffe Home Owners Association President I cannot agree to this proposal given such a short time to understand the plan. This is also Spring break so rather inconvenient timing. The City of Eagan needs to hold more informational and educational meetings before rushing this through to a conclusion. Walden Heights was given to the City when Lungren couldn't meet its obligations for a community center. The City cannot reasonably expect the Residents to accept this without further discourse. Thank you.121 Rebecca chamberlain 3/25/18 2:10 122 Amy Schenk 3/25/18 10:15 123 Tim Schenk 3/25/18 10:16 124 Ryann Schenk 3/25/18 10:17 125 Gail Syverson 3/25/18 13:41 With all of the land in Eagan, please put this tower in an industrial area...not residential. PETITION AGAINST PROPOSED CELL TOWER AT WALDEN HEIGHTS PARK Page 6 of 6 3/25/18 #Name Date Signed Comments 126 Bradley Syverson 3/25/18 13:51 127 DeCuir 3/25/18 14:09 I for one am very interested on what exact criteria did our Parks and Rec Department use to determine this conclusion? They have "NO CONCERNS"...WOW! The below statement is included in this proposal. Parks and Recreation ‚Äì The proposal was reviewed by the Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission at a workshop on February 26, 2018. Parks staff indicated the tower will not impact recreational activities at Walden Heights Park and the tower will generate a monthly lease payment to the City. The Commission had no concerns or specific recommendations regarding Verizon‚Äôs proposal. 128 Karrie Reasor 3/25/18 15:34 129 Stephen Yahn 3/25/18 17:49 130 Karyn 3/25/18 19:45 131 Kevin Benfer 3/25/18 21:55 A variance to zoning ordinances is a significant request and deference should be given to the homeowners and community stakeholders who are impacted by it. Just because this location is advantageous to Verizon and it generates revenue to the city does not warrant approval. This is a park not an industrial area. 132 Cory Janssen 3/25/18 22:45 133 Kim Janssen 3/25/18 22:46 134 Joe Janssen 3/25/18 22:46 135 Carolyn Janssen 3/25/18 22:47 136 Kim 3/25/18 22:51 137 Joe 3/25/18 22:55 138 Susan Bechly 3/26/18 This would seriously change the character of this very small park. And a 45% variance to the set back ordinance pretty much throws ordinances out the window. 139 Michael Johnson 3/26/18 PETITION AGAINST PROPOSED CELL TOWER AT WALDEN HEIGHTS PARK 4/2/18 Page 7 of 8 #Name Date Comments 138 Susan Bechly 3/26/18 0:22 This would seriously change the character of this very small park. And a 45% variance to the set back ordinance pretty much throws ordinances out the window. Thomas Lane 139 Michael Johnson 3/26/18 0:34 140 Barbara Johnson 3/26/18 2:19 Please vote NO for cell phone tower in Walden Heights Park, Eaga. 141 Arlie Johnson 3/26/18 3:36 Why this location that is in homeowners back yard and in the line of sight of so many when there are an abundance of locations that would not be on top of homes and hardly visible. 142 Michelle Rowe-Johnson 3/26/18 3:39 There are several options for this tower that will not affect homeowners in Eagan. This is not one of them! 143 Sauviz Alaei 3/26/18 3:41 Summit Pass resident 144 Sanauz Alaei 3/26/18 3:58 As someone who grew up using the neighborhood park, having a large obstruction to the natural beauty of it would be a shame and an inconvenience to all who live in Stonecliffe for many reasons. There are definitely other places that this can go. Summit Pass resident 145 Warren McLean 3/26/18 13:37 I vote no to the proposed Verizon Tower in Walden Park. Summit Pass resident 146 Alaa M Aqel 3/26/18 13:41 Not agreeing to it. Pinetree Curve resident 147 Derek Bishop 3/26/18 14:24 Sherwood Way resident 148 Heather Kelly-Burrows 3/26/18 14:30 Pinetree Curve resident 149 Lauren and Beth Larsen 3/26/18 14:40 Oppose giving a variance to a 119 foot tower adjacent to residential homes. Board member Stonecliffe. Pinetree Curve resident 150 Dina Castle 3/26/18 14:45 Pinetree Trail resident 151 Jerry VanBeck 3/26/18 15:08 Pinetree Pass resident 152 Drew Stolpman 3/26/18 15:34 Pinetree Curve resident 153 Kjirsten Johnson 3/26/18 16:07 Summit Pass resident 154 Diana 3/26/18 16:24 Do not give variance for commercial use and take away nature / park space for our children. 4652 Pinetree Curve 155 Dixie Ohlander 3/26/18 18:00 I am alarmed at the City of Eagan's proposal for Verizon Wireless to build a 119 foot phone tower in Walden Heights Park, Eagan, Minnesota. Due to our proximity to the proposed location, I‚Äôm concerned about the potential impacts of this tower on my husband and I as retired 27-year residents of Eagan not to mention the degradation of the aesthetic of our neighborhood. The science regarding the impact of microwave radiation from a tower of this type has not been fully established and there are research studies that indicate increased rates of cancer and other potential serious issues. For these reasons, we are very uncomfortable with the City approving construction of this tower. The city council should deny the conditional use permit. This tower serves no benefit. 156 JEFFREY A GOTTWIG 3/27/18 3:13 I am completely against allowing this variance. Set backs are established for a reason and I am at a loss as to how this will benefit our community. 157 Cheryl Wason 3/27/18 3:15 I am 100% against allowing the variance. PETITION AGAINST PROPOSED CELL TOWER AT WALDEN HEIGHTS PARK 4/2/18 Page 7 of 8 #Name Date Comments 158 Janise Skinn 3/27/18 16:17 1535 Cliff Road, Eagan Mn 55122 Definitely do not want this cell ptower to be built near our homes 159 Benfer Kevin 3/27/18 20:53 1473 Thomas Lane 160 Austin Kaufmann 3/27/18 21:05 1481 Thomas Lane Eagan, MN 55122 161 Brenda J Brenberg 3/27/18 21:56 162 garret johnson 3/28/18 15:35 I used to go sledding on this hill. Our kids should enjoy the same opportunity. 4652 Pinetree Curve 163 Mary Jo Johnson 4/1/18 15:41 Does not belong in a park 4265 Sequoia Dr. Eagan 164 Antoine Stamboulieh 4/1/18 15:53 1491 Thomas Lane Eagan, MN 55122 165 Julia Vaynerman 4/1/18 19:09 1512 Thomas lane 166 Paula Losee 4/1/18 19:21 167 Mark losee 4/1/18 19:23 Refer to letter sent 168 Alex Lao 4/1/18 19:56 Strongly against any cellular tower in Walden Heights Park or any surrounding area. 4651 Pinetree Curve, Eagan MN 55122 169 Amy Lao 4/1/18 21:17 Pinetree Curve resident 170 Brent Johnson 4/1/18 21:27 Summit Pass resident 171 Tim Ostrem 4/1/18 22:29 4622 Summit Pass Eagan, MN 55122 I strongly oppose this tower due to real estate devaluation concerns and possible health concerns. It is very unfair to dump this on families who could never have anticipated a huge tower being constructed in close proximity to their house when they decided to make this neighborhood their home. Repeated to include home address 172 Jennifer Knapp 4/1/18 23:35 4668 Pinetree Curve 173 Andy Bernstein 4/2/18 0:43 4639 Pinetree Curv, Eagan, MN 55122 Their ad slogan is "can you hear me now." I thought Verizon always brags about having the "best" coverage everywhere in America. We use AT&T, and the service is always acceptable. There must be another place to put one of these, where it won't hurt our property values, our neighborhood enjoyment, and our health. 174 Alexander Axelrod 4/2/18 1:19 Why should we sacrifice our property values, our neighborhood enjoyment, and our health for the private company, which main goals are to save its own money and get more personal benefits. There are some other cellphone companies, which have good signal here. Pinetree Trail resident 175 Lisa Magee 4/2/18 11:23 4606 stonecliffe Drive. Eagan 176 John Magee 4/2/18 11:25 4606 Stonecliffe Drive, Eagan, MN 177 Martin Knapp 4/2/18 18:14 4668 Pinetree Curve 1 Julie Strid From:Cheryl Stevenson on behalf of City Council Sent:Tuesday, March 27, 2018 9:49 AM To:Mike Ridley Subject:FW: Proposed Walden Heights Cell Tower         Cheryl Stevenson Executive Assistant/Deputy City Clerk 3830 Pilot Knob Rd | Eagan, MN 55122 Office: 651-675-5005 https://www.cityofeagan.com     From: Connie Van Beck   Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 9:47 AM  To: City Council   Cc: Mike Maguire   Subject: Proposed Walden Heights Cell Tower  Dear City Council members, We oppose the Verizon Cell Tower in the park adjacent to our Stonecliffe neighborhood. To locate a cell tower in a park, where children play is just wrong! It is a potential danger and is unsightly. And while I know that the health argument is not allowed, it is a real potential threat in the minds of some people. This is valuable green space that should be protected from big business interests. City ordinances were designed to protect us from these circumstances. The city of Eagan is known for its parks and greenspaces. Please help us preserve it and our neighborhoods by working with Verizon to find an alternative location for the tower. Thank you, Dr. Jerry and Connie Van Beck 1497 Pinetree Pass, Eagan 55122 1 Julie Strid From:Cheryl Stevenson on behalf of City Council Sent:Tuesday, March 27, 2018 7:51 AM To:Mike Ridley Subject:FW: Request delay of April 3 vote on Verizon cell tower variance         Cheryl Stevenson Executive Assistant/Deputy City Clerk 3830 Pilot Knob Rd | Eagan, MN 55122 Office: 651-675-5005 https://www.cityofeagan.com     From: Caron Rodman   Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 7:53 PM  To: City Council   Cc: Mike Maguire ; Cyndee Fields ; Meg Tilley ; Gary Hansen ; Paul Bakken   Subject: Request delay of April 3 vote on Verizon cell tower variance  To the Eagan City Council, We are Eagan homeowners in the Stonecliffe neighborhood and have just learned that Verizon plans to build a 119-foot cell tower in Walden Heights Park and they need a variance to zoning laws to do so. We have only recently been made aware of this project from our neighbors and have had just a few days to attempt to understand it. However, based on our initial review, we are against having this cell tower built in our park, a park that we frequent with our young children. We are asking the City Council to delay the April 3 vote on this variance to give us and other homeowners more time to understand the project and assess the impact this proposal will have on health, safety, and our property values so that we can bring that information to the City Council. Both the Advisory Planning Commission meeting and the City Council Meeting are occurring during ISD196 school district’s spring break and many interested homeowners are unavailable to attend. The city has zoning ordinances in place for a reason and the granting or denial of a variance to those rules should be done with input from all of the stakeholders and we homeowners need additional time to do that. Thank you for your consideration. Caron & Scott Rodman 1496 Pinetree Pass Eagan, 55122 1 Julie Strid From:Cheryl Stevenson on behalf of City Council Sent:Tuesday, March 27, 2018 9:20 AM To:Mike Ridley Subject:FW: Request delay of April 3 vote on Verizon cell tower variance Can you add the information below for the Council packet? Or APC?        Cheryl Stevenson Executive Assistant/Deputy City Clerk 3830 Pilot Knob Rd | Eagan, MN 55122 Office: 651-675-5005 https://www.cityofeagan.com     From: L Loberg   Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 8:21 AM  To: City Council   Subject: Re: Request delay of April 3 vote on Verizon cell tower variance  Thank you Cheryl. Could if be pointed out that the exact proposed location of the cell tower is heavily utilized area of the park. The top of the hill is used as a picnic spot and play area in the summer and sledding spot in the winter. My children have a daycare group as well that visits this park daily in the summer and plays and picnics on top of the hill. This park is so small and the tower would be so visible. As technology advances, there most still be ways to preserve Eagan’s beautiful neighborhoods and parks. Sincerely, Lauren and Brent Loberg On Mar 27, 2018, at 7:50 AM, City Council <CityCouncil@cityofeagan.com> wrote: Thank you for your email.  Your email will be made available to the APC and will be included in the April 3rd City Council packet. Cheryl   Cheryl Stevenson Executive Assistant/Deputy City Clerk 3830 Pilot Knob Rd | Eagan, MN 55122 Office: 651-675-5005 https://www.cityofeagan.com 2 From: L Loberg <laurenmloberg@gmail.com>   Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 9:15 PM  To: City Council <CityCouncil@cityofeagan.com>; Cyndee Fields <CFields@cityofeagan.com>; Gary  Hansen <GHansen@cityofeagan.com>; Meg Tilley <MTilley@cityofeagan.com>; Paul Bakken  <PBakken@cityofeagan.com>  Cc: Mike Maguire <MMaguire@cityofeagan.com>  Subject: Request delay of April 3 vote on Verizon cell tower variance  To the Eagan City Council - I am an Eagan homeowner that has just learned that Verizon plans to build a 119-foot cell tower in Walden Heights Park and Verizon needs a variance to zoning laws to do so. I have only recently been made aware of this project from my neighbors. I have just had a few days to attempt to understand it but, based on my initial review, I am against having this cell tower built in my park. I am asking the City Council to delay the April 3 vote on this variance to give me and other homeowners more time to understand the project and assess the impact this proposal will have on safety and our property values so that we can bring that information to the City Council. Both the Advisory Planning Commission meeting and the City Council Meeting are occurring during ISD196 school district’s spring break and many interested homeowners are unavailable to attend. The city has zoning ordinances in place for a reason and the granting or denial of a variance to those rules should be done with input from all of the stakeholders and we homeowners need additional time to do that. Thank you for your consideration. Lauren and Brent Loberg 4673 Stonecliffe Dr 1 Julie Strid From:Cheryl Stevenson on behalf of City Council Sent:Tuesday, March 27, 2018 7:50 AM To:Mike Ridley Subject:FW: Request delay of April 3 vote on Verizon cell tower variance         Cheryl Stevenson Executive Assistant/Deputy City Clerk 3830 Pilot Knob Rd | Eagan, MN 55122 Office: 651-675-5005 https://www.cityofeagan.com     From: L Loberg   Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 9:15 PM  To: City Council ; Cyndee Fields ; Gary Hansen ; Meg Tilley ; Paul Bakken   Cc: Mike Maguire   Subject: Request delay of April 3 vote on Verizon cell tower variance   To the Eagan City Council - I am an Eagan homeowner that has just learned that Verizon plans to build a 119-foot cell tower in Walden Heights Park and Verizon needs a variance to zoning laws to do so. I have only recently been made aware of this project from my neighbors. I have just had a few days to attempt to understand it but, based on my initial review, I am against having this cell tower built in my park. I am asking the City Council to delay the April 3 vote on this variance to give me and other homeowners more time to understand the project and assess the impact this proposal will have on safety and our property values so that we can bring that information to the City Council. Both the Advisory Planning Commission meeting and the City Council Meeting are occurring during ISD196 school district’s spring break and many interested homeowners are unavailable to attend. The city has zoning ordinances in place for a reason and the granting or denial of a variance to those rules should be done with input from all of the stakeholders and we homeowners need additional time to do that. Thank you for your consideration. Lauren and Brent Loberg 4673 Stonecliffe Dr 1 Julie Strid From:Cheryl Stevenson on behalf of City Council Sent:Tuesday, March 27, 2018 7:50 AM To:Mike Ridley Subject:FW: Verizon cell tower variance         Cheryl Stevenson Executive Assistant/Deputy City Clerk 3830 Pilot Knob Rd | Eagan, MN 55122 Office: 651-675-5005 https://www.cityofeagan.com   From: Tim Ostrem   Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 9:24 PM  To: City Council   Cc: Mike Maguire ; Cyndee Fields ; Gary Hansen ; Meg Tilley ; Paul Bakken ; todo@usfamily.com; 'Tim Ostrem'   Subject: Verizon cell tower variance    To the Eagan City Council - We are opposed to the construction of a cell tower in Walden Heights Park. We are Eagan homeowners that have just learned that Verizon plans to build a 119-foot cell tower in Walden Heights Park. The city has zoning ordinances in place to protect homeowners and other stakeholders who have been living in the neighborhood for many years. We are asking the city council not to grant Verizon the variance to zoning laws especially without input from all of the stakeholders. Further we have only recently been made aware of this project from my neighbors. We are asking the City Council to delay the April 3 vote on this variance to give us and other homeowners more time to understand the project and assess the impact this proposal will have on safety and our property values so that we can bring that information to the City Council. Both the Advisory Planning Commission meeting and the City Council Meeting are occurring during ISD196 school district’s spring break and many interested homeowners are unavailable to attend. Thank you for your consideration. Tim and Dawn Ostrem 4622 Summit Pass Eagan, MN 55122   From:Cheryl Stevenson To:Mike Ridley Subject:FW: Proposed Cell Phone Tower - Walden Heights Park, Eagan Date:Tuesday, March 27, 2018 7:46:20 AM Attachments:image001.png Please add to Council packet. Thanks! Cheryl StevensonExecutive Assistant/Deputy City Clerk3830 Pilot Knob Rd | Eagan, MN 55122Office: 651-675-5005https://www.cityofeagan.com From: Arlie D Johnson Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 11:07 PM To: APC ; Cyndee Fields ; Gary Hansen ; Meg Tilley ; Paul Bakken ; Mike Maguire Subject: Proposed Cell Phone Tower - Walden Heights Park, Eagan Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: We are opposed to the proposed site for a Verizon cell tower in Walden Heights Park.. We purchased our home in the Walden Heights area of Eagan 15 years ago, City management and governance was one of the reasons we chose Eagan for a second time. An emphasis on preserving the natural beauty while planning for the future growth and essential services is what has set Eagan above many other cities. We are hopeful that has not and does not change. Cell phone service is important to us all. Our Verizon cell service works great and has for years. We support continued improvement of services, but not at the expense of our community. It needs to be done without variances that were implemented for good reasons and must be maintained for those reasons. We do not need to be city planners or engineers to see there are better alternatives that will meet cell phone needs without adversely affecting what has made Eagan a great place for those of us who live here. We appreciate the work that you do on our behalf and ask that you make the decision you would make if this tower was proposed only feet from your home. It should not be recommended or approved at the proposed site. There are better locations. Thank you, Arlie Johnson & Michelle Rowe-Johnson arliedjohnson5@gmail.com 651 689-1415 1476 Thomas Lane Eagan,MN 55122 1 Julie Strid From:Cheryl Stevenson on behalf of City Council Sent:Tuesday, March 27, 2018 7:51 AM To:Mike Ridley Subject:FW: Proposed Verizon tower         Cheryl Stevenson Executive Assistant/Deputy City Clerk 3830 Pilot Knob Rd | Eagan, MN 55122 Office: 651-675-5005 https://www.cityofeagan.com     From: Barry Peterson   Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 6:53 PM  To: City Council   Cc: Mike Maguire   Subject: Proposed Verizon tower  To the Eagan City Council - I am an Eagan homeowner that has just learned that Verizon plans to build a 119-foot cell tower in Walden Heights Park, and the fact that Verizon needs a variance to zoning laws to do so. I was recently made aware of this project from a mailing from the city of Eagan. I have had just a few days to attempt to understand it, but based on my initial review, I am against having this cell tower built in my park. One piece that has me concerned is the lack of communication with the majority of my neighbors outside of the very narrow circumference of the proposed tower! Yes, most of my neighbors did not receive the information from the city of Eagan. Add to that, the information shared was incorrect as to where the Walden Heights Park is even located. The information sent appears to show Walden Heights Park in the wetlands to the south of our development! 2 I am very concerned with our home value if this project proceeds. My home is located with a direct sight line outside my front window. Adding to the eyesore is the aspect of health issues to people within close proximity of the adjacent park, especially our children utilizing the play space of the park! I am asking the City Council to delay the April 3 vote on this variance to give me and other homeowners more time to understand the project and assess the impact this proposal will have on safety and our property values so that we can bring that information to the City Council. Both the Advisory Planning Commission meeting and the City Council Meeting are occurring during ISD196 school district’s spring break and many interested homeowners are unavailable to attend. The city has zoning ordinances in place for a reason and the granting or denial of a variance to those rules should be done with input from all of the stakeholders and we homeowners need additional time to do that. Thank you for your consideration. Barry and Kim Peterson 4627 Pinetree Curve Eagan, MN 55122 1 Julie Strid From:Maryann Choy <machoy2010@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 26, 2018 2:42 PM To:Pam Dudziak Cc:Natalie Decuir; slmyszka@mmm.com; Dennis Bechly; Beth & Lauren Larson; mike_feldman111@yahoo.com Subject:Re: Stonecliffe Association & cell phone tower - NOTE NO Attachments:Petition against proposed-cell-phone-tower-wh park.pdf Pam, I was forwarded this email and have access to manage the petition created on iPetition. Attached is a draft of signer's name, date/time they signed it (electronic signature) and comments. We have email addresses, too but I did not disclose on this report for confidentiality. I can get addresses for those who live in the Stonecliffe neighborhood and listed on our Association's directory, about 80 petitioners. For those we don't have an address, I could email request them individually but this will take time. Is this attached format acceptable? MaryAnn Choy P.S. As for timing... I will be leaving on a flight at 5pm today for Spring Break and will not be back in town until Saturday 4PM. Your immediate reply is appreciated. On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Natalie DeCuir <n.decuir@yahoo.com> wrote: Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Pam Dudziak <pdudziak@cityofeagan.com> Date: March 26, 2018 at 1:10:42 PM CDT To: 'Shari Myszka' <slmyszka@mmm.com> Cc: Mike Ridley <MRidley@cityofeagan.com>, "caron.rodman@gmail.com" <caron.rodman@gmail.com>, "ambrandt444@gmail.com" <ambrandt444@gmail.com>, "k.peterson@fmpco.com" <k.peterson@fmpco.com>, "mike_feldman111@yahoo.com" <mike_feldman111@yahoo.com>, "loralee.erickson@gmail.com" <loralee.erickson@gmail.com>, "haugenjo@yahoo.com" <haugenjo@yahoo.com>, "Coneldo@aol.com" <Coneldo@aol.com>, "k.peterson@fmpco.com" <k.peterson@fmpco.com>, "kimberlybernstein@gmail.com" <kimberlybernstein@gmail.com>, "n.decuir@yahoo.com" <n.decuir@yahoo.com>, Michael Myszka <mjmyszka@msn.com> Subject: RE: Stonecliffe Association & cell phone tower - NOTE NO Hi Shari, Thank you for your additional comments. Your e-mail and the PDF comments you attached will be forwarded to the Advisory Planning Commission and City Council. However, because the “petition” lacks names, addresses, and signatures, we are unable to accept it as representative of those who have signed on to it electronically. Thank you, 2 Pam Dudziak Pam Dudziak Planner 3830 Pilot Knob Rd | Eagan, MN 55122 Office: 651-675-5691 https://www.cityofeagan.com 1 Julie Strid From:Stephen Yahn <steveyahn2@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 27, 2018 10:30 AM To:APC Subject:Verizon / Walden Heights Park Conditional Use Permit Dear members of the Eagan Advisory Planning Commission: I am writing to request that you recommend to the City Council that the request by Verizon Wireless for a conditional use permit (file #33-CU-04-02-18) for a cell phone tower in Walden Park be denied. As a resident whose property abuts Walden Park near the location of the proposed tower, I am opposed to the building of the tower for several reasons. First, it will damage the aesthetics of the neighborhood; I expect most homeowners near the park chose this location for its natural setting. Second, it would have a deleterious effect on property values. Third, the claim by Verizon and its representatives that Walden Park is the sole suitable site for a tower strains credulity. There are many nearby public and commercial sites that do not so much infringe on a residential neighborhood. Zoning ordinances exist, in part, for the benefit of nearby residents. Since the beneficiaries of the proposed tower are Verizon Wireless and people transiting the area via two nearby county roads, neighborhood residents would be the losers by the granting of the requested variance. I urge you to recommend to deny a conditional use permit for the cell tower in Walden Park. Sincerely, Stephen Yahn 1467 Thomas Lane From:barb@bradpickens.com email To:City Council Subject:Subject: Request delay of April 3 vote on Verizon cell tower variance Date:Sunday, March 25, 2018 8:30:06 PM To the Eagan City Council - I am an Eagan homeowner that has just learned that Verizon plans to build a 119-foot cell tower in Walden Heights Park and Verizon needs a variance to zoning laws to do so. I have only recently been made aware of this project from my neighbors. I have just had a few days to attempt to understand it but, based on my initial review, I am against having this cell tower built in my park. I am asking the City Council to delay the April 3 vote on this variance to give me and other homeowners more time to understand the project and assess the impact this proposal will have on safety and our property values so that we can bring that information to the City Council. Both the Advisory Planning Commission meeting and the City Council Meeting are occurring during ISD196 school district’s spring break and many interested homeowners are unavailable to attend. The city has zoning ordinances in place for a reason and the granting or denial of a variance to those rules should be done with input from all of the stakeholders and we homeowners need additional time to do that. Thank you for your consideration. Barb & Brad Pickens 1489 Pinetree Pass Eagan MN 55122b From:Parham Alaei To:City Council Cc:Mike Maguire Subject:Verizon cell tower variance Date:Sunday, March 25, 2018 11:05:12 PM Dear members of Eagan City Council and Mayor McGuire, As a resident of Stonecliffe I was surprised to learn of Verizon's plan to install a 119-foot cell tower in Walden Heights Park and Verizon's request for a variance to zoning laws from my neighbors, and not the city. Due to the short noticed we have received, I am asking the City Council to delay the April 3 vote on this variance to give me and other homeowners more time to understand the project and assess the impact this proposal will have on the property values so that we can bring that information to the City Council. Both the Advisory Planning Commission meeting and the City Council Meeting are occurring during or shortly after ISD196 school district’s spring break and many interested homeowners are unavailable to attend, including myself. The city has zoning ordinances in place for a reason and the granting or denial of a variance to those rules should be done with input from all of the stakeholders and we homeowners need additional time to do that. Sincerely, Parham Alaei 4626 Summit Pass Eagan, MN 55122 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Parham Alaei, Ph.D., DABR Professor and Director of Medical Physics Department of Radiation Oncology Director of Graduate Studies Medical Physics Graduate Program University of Minnesota Mayo Mail Code 494 420 Delaware St. S.E. Minneapolis, MN 55455 Tel: (612) 626-6505 Fax: (612) 624-5445 https://sites.google.com/umn.edu/alaei March 29, 2018 Honorable Mayor Mike Maguire and City of Eagan City Counsel Members Greetings, I would llike to share with you my comments about the proposed cell phone tower placement in Walden Heights Park. I was uable to attend the Eagan Planning Commission meeting on March 27'. I did watch the video replay of that meeting. At that meeting the Commission voted to deny the variance requested by Verizon. I heard a presentation that explained the current and future need for updated equipment by Verizon. I also heard that there was substantial planning that went into the proposed site and it was chosen because it was the best site to meet those needs. What I did not hear was a valid reason for the denial of the permit. It appeard that the only reason for denial was some people in the surrounding area didn't want it there, because it "spoiled" their view. I would submit that your view extends to the end or your property. After that (baring any code violations) there should be no expectation of some type of view. If you want the view unchanged, purchase the property you want to see unchanged. Yes, there was also "it will lower my property taxes", "it's hazardous to health". Nethier of them can be substantiated. It would appear that a small group (in comparison to the population of Eagan) has decided what is best for the community as a whole. When I first heard of the proposal, I sent an email to the Planning Commission giving my reason that I felt it would be a good place to put the tower. I have two. First, the City of Eagan would be able to gain some revenue from leasing the park land to Verizon or any other cell carrier. Second, some people can not afford both internet and cell phone access to the internet. That means there only access to the internet is their cell phone. Why would there be an objection to allowing more people the best possible access? Both of these two reasons would benefit our city and it's residents as a whole. We moved here in 1989. I didn't like my view disturbed when the current Lund/Byerlys complex was built. Our "view" was obstructed. We used to watch deer graze in the field that was there. But I realized that progress moves on and things change. The City of Eagan has and will continue to change. Almost always for the better. If the current city administration is held hostage by a few "not in my neighborhood" residents, hope for a better community is diminished. I learned of this proposal via the App "Nextdoor". I was a little disturbed by a comment posted on that site on March 17' by someone using the name of Kevin Shannon. His post stated that "I just wrote to the two city council members whom I know personally. Thank you." On it's face, it sounds like some undue infuence was being used. Wether we know someone personally or not should not have any influence one way or the other about any subject. Thank you. epectfully, i Mike Warner 3829 Denmark Ave. Eagan, MN 55123 Cheryl Stevenson From: Linda Dygos <Idygos@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 12:41 AM To: Mike Maguire Subject: Oppose Walden Heights Park Cell Phone Tower Dear Mayor Maguire, My name is Linda Shudlick Dygos and I live across the street from Walden Heights Park (4622 Stonecliffe Drive) along with my husband and our three children ages five, three and two. We were initially drawn to this community three years ago for the local schools and fell in love with this specific location due in large part to Walden Park. In the winter, we slide down the hill where the proposed cell phone tower is to be located. In the summer, we play in the park and take nature hikes up into the wooded area next to the proposed cell phone tower location. We also fly kites and hold kiddie kickball games on the baseball field directly below the proposed cell phone tower site. Although I do not have cell phone service issues, I am sympathetic to those who struggle with coverage and I would not dispute that a cell phone tower or some other alternative is needed. However, we are strongly opposed to approving a variance that would allow a 119 -foot monopole to be constructed in Walden Park for a number of reasons. 1. Our small neighborhood park could be used as a precedent for changing the landscape of other Eagan neighborhoods. If a 300 -foot setback from residential properties is an arbitrary number, when does it become unacceptable? 100 feet, 50 feet, 25 feet from residential properties? We are not a historic neighborhood, but we take pride in our community and our park. We hope the city does too. 2. A 119 -foot tower is incompatible with neighborhood aesthetics. We do not have large floodlights in the park or along our walking paths and we do not have electrical lines running through our neighborhood. I am not a housing expert, but I assume the view from your window or the view driving through a prospective neighborhood would carry greater weight on property value versus cell phone coverage. 3. Similar to Advisory Planning commission member Weimert, I am not persuaded that all alternative location options have been exhausted, specifically Easter Church property or the Clearwater Park site. I have read the memo from Jon Eaton, Superintendent of Utilities, regarding the Proposed Verizon Tower and as I understand it, two of the reasons the Clearwater Park site was eliminated include a safety concern with a structure adjacent to the play area, and the area is adjacent to residential property owners (variance required). Both are issues with Walden Park as well, yet it is still being considered. 4. And finally, from a purely logical standpoint, I assume there were more than four locations Verizon looked at when deciding where to erect a cell phone tower. I assume if Walden Heights Park is declined, they would take a deeper look at other potential sites or options that could be just as suitable. And, if current zoning regulations can be changed and the current 300 -foot variance is not considered a reasonable defense for denying Verizon the Walden Heights Park location, then would there not be other areas or neighborhoods closer to the epicenter of the cell phone service issue that should now be considered or put back on the table? I freely admit this last reason is the emotional side of me pleading for a "No" vote, but I love this city and I love this neighborhood and I'd like to keep loving it. Thank you for your time, Linda, Stephen, Samuel (5), Grace (3) and Noelle (2) Cheryl Stevenson From: Stephen Dygos <dygos@sdwia.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 12:04 AM To: Mike Maguire Subject: Opposing Walden Heights Tower Dear Mayor Maguire, My family lives by Walden Heights Park, very near to the proposed cell phone tower location. My family and I strongly oppose the location of this tower. First, it is in the middle of a small park and would starkly change both the park and surrounding neighborhood. The proposed tower would also have a larger impact than what has been advertised due to its location on a hill. While the tower is 119 feet tall, it would be placed on a 40 foot hill, making it approximately 4 stories taller than the tallest building in Eagan, the CityVue apartments. Due to its prominence, it would be deleterious to the prices of homes surrounding the park. If this tower was already in place prior to our moving to Eagan 2 years ago, we would have chosen a different neighborhood. It is hard to put a price on that, you basically create less demand for an entire neighborhood and it thus affects the supply/demand equilibrium. The biggest issue with the tower in regard to decreasing property taxes will be a trickle down effect. If my house is worth $25k less because of a huge tower outside our back window, surrounding neighbors' houses will also be worth less since home appraisals are largely done on comparisons. We can quickly get to a few million dollars in lower property values which likely would offset much or all of the revenues from a tower. Since Eagan annual property taxes are about 1.1% of home values, Eagan would receive $11 k less for every million in decreased home values. A few million in decreased value across hundreds of houses is easy to envision when you factor in this trickle down effect. We urge you to not allow the variance for this tower as it has already been voted against 4-1 by the planning committee. There are other options the cell phone carriers can take to provide good coverage, we do not need to bend to what is cheapest and best for them. Having them explore other options that do not impact home prices is a win-win for all in Eagan. Thank you. -Stephen Dygos 4622 Stonecliffe Drive Eagan, MN. 55122 Stephen Dygos, CFP®, CPWA® ( Financial Advisor SCHWARZ DYGOs WHEELER INVESTMENT ADVISORS LLC 30 South. Sixth Street j Suite "1.405 i :Mi.n.neapotis, .MR? 55402 Dived: 61.2.355.4,3641 Fax: 61.2.355.2361. 1 www.sdwia.com rr1 I~. Registered Investment Advisor This message is confidential and sent by SCHWARZ DYGOS WHEELER INVESTMENT ADVISORS LLC solely for use by the intended recipient. if you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. This communication should not be deemed as an offer or solicitation to buy or sell any product. Any 3rd party information contained herein was prepared by sources deemed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. All electronic communications sent or received are stored and may be subject to review by regulatory authorities or others with a legal right to do so. All communications requiring immediate attention or action by the adviser should not be sent via e-mail, since they may not be acted upon in a timely manner. SCHWARZ DYGOS WHEELER INVESTMENT ADVISORS LLC only transacts business in states where it is properly registered or notice riled, or excluded or exempted from registration requirements. SCHWARZ DYGOS WHEELER INVESTMENT ADVISORS LLC has taken precautions to screen this message for viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it is virus free nor are we responsible for any damage that may be caused by this message. Cheryl Stevenson From: Maryann Choy <machoy2010@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 2, 2018 10:07 PM To: City Council; Cyndee Fields; Gary Hansen; Meg Tilley; Paul Bakken; Mike Maguire Subject: No Cell Tower at Walden Heights Park Eagan City Council member: We have lived at 4652 Pinetree Curve for 18 years. We bought this home and chose this specific lot because of the park. Our children had a great, safe neighborhood park to play and grow up in. We have many, many memories of the kids sledding on that hill, running with the dog, walking the trails and playing in the playground. Verizon's proposal to build a 119' cell tower on this very same spot where our kids played not only devalues our property but, steals laughter and joy from the neighborhood's children. It will not be a safe place for them to play. A variance of 135' to the minimum 300' is a gargantuan and imposing request. Please consider, the APC minutes do not fully show the commission's discussion of the Thomas Lake commercial area and Easter Lutheran Church as alternative sites. Planner Dudziak did explain that the City Code provides for communication structures in areas of planned development (PD) that are designated solely for industrial use. She also said, an amendment could be made to the City Code to allow towers on PD that are non -industrial use. Thus, making Thomas Lake and Easter Lutheran church alternative sites. It makes more sense for Verizon's cell tower, which is a commercial / business endeavor, to reside in a commercial area. Also, it was discussed that Easter Lutheran church may welcome the added income. Please do not approve Verizon's Conditional Use Permit nor Variance at Walden Heights Park. There seems to be many other sites, as above or Clearwater Park. We STRONGLY object to this proposal. Thank you for your time, MaryAnn Choy Steven Johnson 4652 Pinetree Curve Eagan, MN 55122 Cheal Stevenson From: Erik Ostrem <ostremerik@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 2, 2018 9:20 PM To: City Council Cc: Mike Maguire; Cyndee Fields; Gary Hansen; Meg Tilley; Paul Bakken Subject: Cell Phone Tower in Walden Heights Park Dear Eagan City Council, My name is Erik Ostrem. I am a high school senior who lives in the Stone Cliff Housing Development. I am emailing today regarding the cell phone tower that was proposed to be set up in Walden Heights Park. I understand that some may benefit from the addition of a cell phone tower in our neighborhood, but I want to bring up some factors as to why I am opposed to the addition of a cell phone tower in Walden Heights Park. First off, the proposed location, a hill in Walden Heights Park, is a cherished Sledding Hill to the kids in the neighborhood. As a child, I visited the Sledding Hill several times every winter with my siblings and next door neighbors. We would build jumps at the bottom to see how high we could get, we would make competitions to see who could sled the farthest and exclaim "NEW WORLD RECORD!" when we managed to make it farther than anyone else. I have made many fond memories on that Sledding Hill not only as a child though. I continue to sled town that hill with my next door neighbor every year. One day in particular that we spent at that hill was a Monday in late January when we had a snow day from school. We spent several hours at that hill making a hug jump on the front side and what we called an "Olympic Bobsled Track" down the back. We were content to spend all day on that hill, but unfortunately, our moms called us back home, but when school got canceled the next day, we were right back out on our "Track" perfecting the turns so we could set more world records. The Sledding Hill is not just any other hill, it is a place that I get nostalgic about every year. Sadly, the construction of a cell phone tower on the Sledding Hill, might very well prevent all future sledding. Even though, the Sledding Hill seemed as big as Everest when I was a child, it is not a big hill, on top of that, it is so covered with dense vegetation that there is only one narrow path on the either side. Were a FR cell phone tower to be constructed on the Sledding Hill, it would most likely be on the top where it can cover the largest area with its limited line of sight connection. That spot at the top also happens to be where both sledding paths on either side of the hill begin. If a cell phone tower is constructed on the top of the Sledding Hill, it will prevent the next generation of kids from setting new world records and just having fun for the sake of fun. The next closest good sledding hill, not some small hill that kids get bored of after two runs, (there are several of those lying around) to the Stone Cliff Housing Development is at Thomas Lake Elementary School, which is not a convenient location. To sled there would require crossing Cliff Road in the winter, something that most parents are not comfortable with. Parents would drive their kids to TLE to ensure the safety of their kids, which means that if the kids are home alone or their parents are busy, they are out of options to go sledding. Sledding is a huge part of being a kid in Minnesota, and a cell phone tower on top of the Sledding Hill, would rob the kids of Stone Cliff from that experience. Secondly, the Sledding Hill is home to both plant and animal life. It may be a small hill, but I often see deer and rabbits feeding on the numerous plant species, one of which is worth noting, Milkweed. Last year, my biology teacher assigned us to take care of Monarch Caterpillars and study them as they grew into butterflies. When it was my turn to take the caterpillars home for the weekend to ensure that they were well fed, I had to look around Eagan to find Milkweed plants to feed them. As I wandered around the various parks, I noticed that there is a significant patch of Common Milkweed, one of the types of Milkweed that Monarch Caterpillars feed on (I also noticed that there were several Monarch Caterpillars feeding on the leaves as well). While the Milkweed patch is only on one the side of the hill, a cell phone tower on any part of the Sledding Hill would affect the Monarch Caterpillars that feed there. Cell phone towers, similarly to power lines, create electromagnetic fields which research shows affects birds, bees and butterflies. Electromagnetic fields caused by a cell phone tower on the Sledding Hill would disorient these creatures and prevent them from performing their usual activity. It is worth noting that the population of bees, especially the honey bee, is dropping significantly and Monarch Butterflies are already on the endangered species list. It may not seem significant that a cell phone tower prevents the development of Monarch Caterpillars in a single patch of Milkweed, but the amount of Milkweed growing along the "Monarch Highway" has dwindled enough. The reason that people throw Milkweed "seed -bombs" out their car windows or from their bikes is because each plant won't make a difference by itself, but all those plants together are what will save the Monarch population, and that includes every single plant currently growing on the sledding hill(I used the Milkweed "seed -bombs" that I made in my biology class on the Sledding Hill). The city of Eagan has always been a place where plant and animal life can thrive (examples: Thomas Lake Prairies, Lebanon Hills Regional Park), and I hope that it will continue to protect numerous species as America is increasingly urbanized. Money can always be earned one way or another, but when species go extinct, it is very difficult to bring them back, and quite often, they can't be brought back at all. I hope my letter brings to light that there are more factors to take into account for the construction of a cell phone tower than dealing with slightly slower cell phone connections, decreased property value, and making money. Thank you for your time. Here is a link to some research websites that explain in more depth the effects of power lines and cell phone towers on wild life: haps://ehtrust.org/science/bees-butterflies-wildlife-research-electromagnetic-fields- environment/ htts:l/,,A,ww.saferemr.com/2xl4/03/de t-of-interior-attacks-fcc-re ardin T.html Sincerely, Erik Ostrem Cheryl Stevenson From: Tim Ostrem <todo@usfamily.net> Sent: Monday, April 2, 2018 8:10 AM To: City Council Cc: Mike Maguire; Cyndee Fields; Gary Hansen; Meg Tilley; Paul Bakken; todo@usfamily.com; 'Tim Ostrem' Subject: Objection to Verizon cell tower variance To whom it may concern - I attended the Advisory Planning Commission meeting last week and listened to Verizon's proposal and resulting discussion. The Advisory Planning Commission voted 4-1 to deny Verizon's application. The Advisory Planning Commission as well as the residents who's houses are affected by the tower overwhelmingly oppose the building of this tower. Please do not allow construction of this tower in our neighborhood. Sincerely, Tim Ostrem 4622 Summit Pass Eagan, MN 55122 Cheryl Stevenson From: KEVIN L BENFER <kevin.benfer@icloud.com> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2018 8:42 PM To: City Council Cc: Cyndee Fields; Mike Maguire; Gary Hansen; Meg Tilley Subject: April 3 Verizon Cell Tower Variance Request Eagan City Council - I'm writing once more to register my opposition to granting Verizon's request for a variance in order to construct a 119 -foot cell tower at the entrance to Walden Heights Park and neighborhood. I live within five houses of this site and it concerns me very much. I fear the negative impact on housing values as well as a diminishing affect it will have on the aesthetic value to this neighborhood. Furthermore, I don't think one can rule out the health implications. Will Verizon need to remove trees for their tower maintenance and further disturb the park entrance? Where will their needs end here? The proposed tower will be in clear view from our neighborhood and from Cliff Road. It adds no value to this neighborhood other than a tasteless distraction. It will also serve as as a permanent reminder that the fine City of Eagan chose to grant a company a variance to erect an eyesore in a park and a neighborhood over the needs and wishes of the residents. And why ... because it generates a small revenue stream? Please City Council this neighborhood needs your protection from this intrusion. Please protect us and deny the variance and direct Verizon to find a location that is properly zoned. Respectfully, Kevin Benfer 1473 Thomas Lane On Mar 25, 2018, at 4:38 PM, KEVIN L BENFER <kevin.benfergicloud.com> wrote: Eagan City Council - I am Kevin Benfer an Eagan homeowner (1473 Thomas Lane) and just learned of Verizon's plans to build a 119 -foot cell tower in Walden Heights Park. I understand Verizon is asking for a zoning variance to do so. I just learned of this variance request and have not had ample time to review the plans or research its effect on health, property values, and neighbors aesthetics. At this time I strenuously oppose this variance and the construction of this tower at this location. I strongly urge the City Council to delay the April 3 vote on this variance to give the neighborhood homeowners more time to understand the project and assess the impact of this cellular tower will have on safety and our property values so that we have the opportunity to bring that information to the City Council. Furthermore, the Advisory Planning Commission meeting and the City Council Meeting are occurring during ISD 196 school district's spring break and many interested homeowners are unavailable. The city's zoning ordinances in place for a reason and the granting or denial of a variance to those rules should be done with input from all of the stakeholders and we homeowners need additional time to do that. A variance to zoning ordinances is a significant request and deference should be given to the homeowners and community stakeholders who are impacted by it. We need additional time to adequately prepare a response to this variance request. Thank you. Warmly, Kevin L. Benfer 1473 Thomas Lane Cheryl Stevenson From: Parham Alaei <alaei001 @umn.edu> Sent: Monday, April 2, 2018 6:54 PM To: City Council Subject: Verizon Request for Cell Tower in Walden Heights Park Dear members of Eagan City Council, I am planning to attend the City Council meeting on April 3rd to voice my concerns about the proposed Verizon cell tower in Walden Heights Park but, just to make sure my concerns are passed on to you, I am writing this email. As I wrote in my previous email, I learned of Verizon's plan to install a 119 -foot cell tower in Walden Heights Park and its request for a variance from my neighbors. I am surprised at the fast pace of public hearings regarding this. Regardless of the above, now that the Advisory Planning Commission has voted against granting the variance to Verizon, I think it is imperative for the City Council to deny Verison's request and suggest the company to look for alternative locations, not near residential areas or in parks. Although there is no conclusive evidence of adverse health effects of radiofrequency waves on humans, a simple literature search points to a number of studies indicating potential interactions between RF fields and biological systems, and potential adverse health effects of cell towers on humans living nearby. As such, there is no reason to place a cell tower near homes and in a park frequented by children year-round: In the summer playing in the playground and in the winter sledding down the hill. I sincerely hope City of Eagan values its citizens' input and concerns more than the needs of a phone company. Sincerely, Parham Alaei 4626 Summit Pass Eagan, MN 55122 Parham Alaei, Ph.D., DABR Professor and Director of Medical Physics Department of Radiation Oncology Director of Graduate Studies Medical Physics Graduate Program University of Minnesota Mayo Mail Code 494 420 .Delaware St. S.E. Minneapolis. MN 55455 Tel: ( 612)_ 626-6505 Fax: (612) 624-5445 https:Hsites.google.com/umn.edu/alaei Cheal Stevenson From: donna bredemus <djbred52@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 2, 2018 1:10 PM To: City Council Subject: cell tower variance To advisory planning commission members; We are property owners of 31 years in the Walden Heights addition, residing at 1490 Thomas Lane since 1986. We are opposed to the city of Eagan providing a conditional use permit and variance for a proposed Verizon cell phone tower. Our basic argument is we do not agree with this conditional land use request nor re -zoning variance for Walden Heights park and expect the city of Eagan to be consistent in honoring existing land use. We waited many years for the Walden Heights park to be developed. I personally recall attending meetings at city hall begging the commission to develop this park ahead of schedule. However the city held firm and did not move ahead with park development until the property owned by Diamond T ranch was sold and developed. So now my grandchildren enjoy the park instead of our four children. While not exactly the same issue, We now expect the city to stay consistent regarding land use, park development & maintenance. We do not wish to get into emotional arguments, looks and health risks. This is a request for a variance, we do not agree with it. Period. Keep our park free of a cell phone tower. We ask you to vote "NO" on this variance and conditional use permit. Respectfully, Donna and Lou Bredemus 1490 Thomas lane, Eagan mn 55122 Cheal Stevenson From: Sauviz Alaei <sauviza@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 4:38 PM To: City Council Subject: Verizon Tower in Walden Heights Dear Eagan City Council members, I am writing to you regarding Verizon's proposed cell tower in Walden Heights. While I do see why a handful of members of our community feel this tower would be a favorable addition to our area, I, along with what I believe to be the vast majority of residents of Stonecliffe believe that the meager benefit of this tower is far outweighed by the costs. First, the only positive effect of this tower that I can think of is the improved cell reception for Verizon. While I understand that it can be frustrating to have poor cell service, I also realize how easy it is to simply switch carriers. There are more ways to get better service in your area than adding a 119' tower. Now, for the reasons why I am opposed to this tower. To begin with, I have been a resident of this neighborhood for around 15 of my 17 years. I grew up here. All of my best childhood memories were in this neighborhood, and the park has had a part to play in many of those memories. Throughout my childhood, and many of my friends' childhoods, we have frequented this park. Whether it be for baseball and soccer on a warm Summer day, the playground in Autumn, or the sledding hill during our frigid Winters, Walden Heights has been a staple of this neighborhood, and is used almost year round. I will admit that as I've grown older, I personally have used the park less (although I will still make the occasional trip to kick around a soccer ball or play catch). However, there are still young kids here who can, and do, use this playground and surrounding fields. I have had my time with this park, and it is their turn to enjoy it too. To deny them the chance to use this area to the fullest extent, and create memories they will cherish a decade later, is grossly unfair to the current and future kids of Stonecliffe. If we allow the construction of this tower, you are taking away things that the small increase in revenue to the city cannot make up for. There are more important things in the world than cell service and money. This park is more valuable to our community than Verizon's tower could ever be. Aside from losing the principal recreational area of my neighborhood (which should already be enough to deny Verizon's request), I would like to highlight the possible effects on the wildlife. This unnecessary tower will surely be a disturbance to the area, whether it be to the deer and rabbits on the ground who frequent this field, or to the birds and insects in the sky. While the effects may not be fully known, there are multiple studies which point to possible adverse effects on wildlife in the area surrounding an RF cell tower. Some of the insects who could be affected by a cell tower are already endangered. Bees and butterflies are vital to our ecosystem, and they are already struggling to maintain their populations. We have no reason to place this tower in a location that would hurt these creatures even more. There are locations that have already been commercialized or industrialized, which have already lost there vegetation, and so constructing a tower there will not hurt the already distressed wildlife populations. In addition, I want to emphasize the fact that according to our current, reasonable city ordinance, a cell tower would not be allowed to be constructed here in the first place. In my opinion, a variance in this case makes very little sense. While I understand that there are always cases where a variance is needed, this is not one of them. There are other locations that Verizon could build on which would not violate our city's rules. Verizon should respect Eagan's city codes, and use a different location. Finally, I would like to address the detrimental cost of this tower to the neighborhood's aesthetics. To start off, it is unquestionable that our houses will decrease in value if the tower is built here. To those of you wishing for concrete evidence of this, just think about whether you would actually want to live in view of a cell tower, and whether you would pay the same amount for a home next to a tower and a home that is not. Also, for those of us in the neighborhood who would have a clear view of this tower, we simply don't want to see it. Looking out my window, I can see a peaceful scene of a calm residential area, with plenty of trees and a clear view of the sky. I see no reason to change that. Of those homeowners in support of this tower, I think it is important to acknowledge which one of them will actually be able to see the tower. In conclusion, I hope that the City Council will side with the majority of the residents of Stonecliffe and deny Verizon's request to build here. Sauviz Alaei 4626 Summit Pass Cheryl Stevenson moi= - - From: Maryann Choy <machoy2010@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 4:34 PM To: City Council; Pam Dudziak Cc: Natalie Decuir; Dennis Bechly; Shari Myszka; Mike Feldman; Beth & Lauren Larson Subject: Petition Map of Households Attachments: WHP Petition Map jpg Eagan City Council: Attached is a printed Map that shows abOUt 94 homes which includes 57 signatures in the same household. (3 of which are YES votes in Green. One of the Yes votes lives on Denmark not visible on the printed map but can see in the Google map link below.) These are households from the petition and also 12 addresses from the Public Comment minutes and/or emails. There are an additional 32 signatures where an address is unknown. This a good visual of where we stand. https:Hdrive.google.comlopen?id=1 fkt2X5gcgdJTDCM5wcE3Uz6CmbmalKLU&usp=sharing Sincerely, MaryAnn Choy CP Q �. a - ,5+ G K°' ,>t.Kvoma Rd vPilot Knok)✓ < }± ul pitt,[d Q� (> O CIO O o s+� 4 ov O O -i ti OO oO yO O O• � O O 7�j v op (> Q o Q Clio, 0 0(30. O 4tll11 Cr: f1 �{e Cil Aoll ol� r ' CIO. v •.v O O ,{iF'r/fir.• Co. O O �F*��_ P ' o v v¢ Ei A ± fl 44 r ... ia1✓ f/. Memo To: John Gorder, City Engineer From: Jon Eaton, Superintendent of Utilities Date: March 29, 2018 Subject: Proposed Verizon Improvements Lewis Martin, of Martin Consulting LLC, representing Verizon Wireless, contacted Eagan Utilities last February to search for potential sites to place equipment and improve customer service. Verizon Wireless has identified that wireless service (specifically system capacity) has become an issue in the area of Cliff Road between Pilot Knob and Johnny Cake Ridge Road. Based on the RF study, a search area was identified to place equipment. This additional equipment is required to meet current and future cell service needs. Mr. Martin’s initial request for information was focused on the Clearwater Park / South Treatment Plant site. Staff first worked with Mr. Martin to identify and review existing cell sites. Staff only has record of two sites in the area (see attached antenna site locations); the Parkview Golf Course antenna (private) and the Highline Trail antenna (public). Both locations were considered to be outside the proposed improvement area and eliminated as potential sites. Please note, Eagan Utilities does not track private antenna site locations; installations on private property may exist but were not identified as part of this search. If another private site does exist in the area, it would most likely be tied to a building and not have enough height to be practically feasible for the proposed capacity improvement. Once the existing sites were exhausted, open public sites were identified and reviewed. The following sites were discussed: • Clearwater Park / South Treatment Plant area • Open area behind the Cliff Booster Station (old reservoir site) • Municipal well site (on Lake Park Dr) • Walden Heights Park The open area behind the Cliff Booster Station was eliminated right away because it was outside the improvement area. Page 2 The municipal well site, on the corner of Lake Park Dr and Cliff Road does not have enough space (after eliminating the power line setback and Right Of Way), and is adjacent to property owners (requires a variance). The Clearwater Park/South Treatment Plant site was Verizon’s initial site location. It was not the ideal location because it was at the edge of the search area but the only area thought to be acceptable to the public. Unfortunately, the site has a lot of underground infrastructure (wells, distribution main, sanitary and storm main, etc.). After blocking out utility conflicts, four possible areas were identified (see the attachment, discussing areas from NW to SE). • Clearwater Park (eliminated as potential site) - usable space is very limited (based on preliminary drawing the equipment / tower will not fit in the available area), safety would be a concern with a structure adjacent to the play area, and the area is adjacent to residential property owners (variance required). • Area further west (eliminated as potential site) - it is outside the improvement area, would require significant tree removal, is not easily accessible, and adjacent to residential property owners (variance required). • Ravine off Cliff Road (eliminated as potential site) - significant grade change from road, difficult to access, has restricted access rights by Dakota Co, and adjacent to residential property owners (variance required). • Area adjacent to Chez Mar Dr. (eliminated as potential site) - it is outside the proposed improvement area, would require significant tree removal and leveling, and is adjacent to residential property owners (variance required). Walden Heights Park was the last site considered. The proposed siting is well within the search area, considered by Verizon to be the best location to maximize transmission/reception, easy to access (for construction and future maintenance), has the least environmental impact, but is adjacent to properties (requires a variance). ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! WaldenHeightsPark Merideth ParkviewGolf Course EaganHighSchool Safari Tower SouthernLakesTower DeerwoodTower Sperry Tower YankeeDoodleTower LexingtonTower HighlineTrail O'Leary Park RahnPark/Sandstone QwestSwitchingStation QwestSwitchingStation Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community City of Eagan Antenna Sites Map Date: 3/30/2018Prepared By: City of Eagan Dept. of Public Works 1:19,027 EAntenna Sites !City of Eagan, Active !City of Eagan, Proposed !Private, Active City Boundary Highways Parks OakChaseWa y Carlson Lake Lane Sherwo o d W a y Covington L a n e M a l l a r d D r i v e WalnutLane Ches Mar DriveWilderness Run RoadW oodg ateLane Oak Chase RoadCl e m sonDrive N o k i a W a y HaldenCircleC ovingtonCourtDunrovinPlaceBa m b l e Circl e Waln utCircleMa ll a r dCo u r t WalnutLane Vildmark D ri v e RidgeviewDr i veHi c kory La ne Mallar dTrail NL a k e si d e D r iv e Pebble B eachWayShevlinCourtHic koryH ill W e llington W ay L a n ca ste r La ne Norw o o d D riveR e b e c c a L a n eHickoryHill Grace DriveWestminsterCirclePinetreePassHaugeCircle PrairieDunesWay Parkcliff D ri veGardenTrailRichard'sCourt LondonLaneOak ChaseCircleP e n k w eCirclePinetre ePass WaldenDriveLakePar k CircleGrac e Drive OakCh a s e WayP in e tree T r a i l Wilderne ss Run DriveInte r lachenDr iveJohnny Cake Ridge RoadCloverLaneThomas L a n e StonecliffeDriveDakotaPathWoodga te L an eLakePark Drive B e a c o nHillRoadK a r isW a y N okiaWayBlack WolfRunWi l der ness C urv e FairwayHillsDriveRidge Cliffe DriveRichard LaneErik's BoulevardP a r k ridgeDrivePenk w e WayMa l l a rdTrail S SummitPassThomasLakeRoadD r a k e D rive HazeltineLa neSt.Andrew B oulevard F orssa W a y Pin etree Curv e KingsburyDriveCambridgeDriveD u n berry LaneCO.RD.31PilotKnobRoadCO. RD. 32 Cliff RoadCO.RD.32 Cliff Roa d ClearwaterPark EvergreenPark GeorgeOhmannPark Carlson Lake Park Downing Park HighlineTrail Park Oak ChasePark RidgecliffPark RidgecliffPark Park ThomasLakeEast Park ThomasLake Park WaldenHeights Park RavineParkPark Lebanon HillsRegional Park Park City of EaganMap Date: 03/28/2018 Zoning LD-Low Density MD-Medium Density HD-High Density RC-Retail Commercial P-Parks, Open Space & Recreation QP-Public/Quasi-Public Impact of Cell Tower on Surrounding Properties By Tom J. Keith & Associates, Inc. ©Tom J. Keith & Associates, Inc. The following pages illustrate how to quantify the impact of a cell tower on surrounding properties. Property values surrounding several towers are studied in order to quantify the impact. Permission to reproduce with acknowledgement of author. Tower #306527 Address: City: State: Zip Code: Latitude: Longitude: 5409 Spence Farm Rd. Holly Springs North Carolina 27540 35 - 36 - 22.6 N 35.60627 78 - 49 - 33.2 W -78.8259 SITE SPECS MTA: Charlotte-Raleigh BTA: Raleigh-Durham, NC MSA/RSA: Raleigh, NC Ground Elevation AMSL: 0.0 ft. Datum: NAD83 County: WAKE Region: USA Comments: Driving Instructions: Take US1 South to exit 95. Make left @ stop light. Go 9 miles make right on to Old Powell Road for 1 mile. Turn left onto Spencer Farm Road, @ intersection of Spencer Farm Road and Commission make left (infront of brick house) site is behind hous .3m UTILITY INFORMATION Telco Provider: Power Provider: --No Business Entered-- TOWER DATA Tower Number: 306527 Structure Height (AGL): 285 ft. Structure Height (AMSL): 285 ft. Clearance: 10 ft. Total Height (AMSL): 295 ft. Type: Self Support FAA #: 2003-ASO-5007-OE FCC #: 1046859 Tower Status: Active WILBON WADE NASH OLD POWELLSPENCE FARM MAGGIE RUNTHREE PONDSTWIN LAKEOLDE MCKENZI EFARM LAKE COLEY FARMMAGGIEWOOD WAVCOTTLIGHTWATERS T I C K L E B A C KBRACKNEY LITTLE BEAVERDAM STOBHILL SPENCE PLANT ATIO N COMMISSIONHUMBOLDTHOPSON DOWNSBASILICATEMPLE VIEW L A R E SNELLIE FARMGRASSY HILLSAPPLEPOND WATERWILLAKEFLYING G E E S E HOMAGE M C K E N ZIE L O C H Tower 306527 Subdivision Sales Used Tower #306527 Location of Sales within Buffer Rings of Tower Site Tower #306527 S P E N C E FA R M OLDE MCKENZIE SPENC E PLAN TATIO NCOMMISSIONMAGGIE RUNWILDLIFE S C O T T IS H H IL LS HIGHLAND BROOKETHREE PONDSGRASSY HILLSHOMAGE M CKENZIE LO CHDUCK LANDI NG$90.76$85.54 $87.80$88.64 $94.59 $89.42$87.61$126.17 $81.56$89.51$89.82$87.08$82.49$111.33$9 0 .4 9 $97.47 $96.72$84.51$101.63$95.98$8 6 .2 4 $87.83 $87.27 $8 9 .5 9 $7 9 .9 9 $81.71 $95.96$97.50 $93.49 $85.76 $96.15$8 6.46 $85.99 $84.85$91.99$91.58 $93.01$81.27$87 .83 $9 2 .4 5 $92.82 $89.63$88.48$96.57 $97.39 $94.80 $8 7 .7 5 $94.14 $85.55 $86.08$79.29 $85.36$85.05$86.18$85.82$94.30$80.65$8 5 .4 7 $92.24$87.53$85.96 $89.81$1 0 7 .9 1 $113.36 $114.09 $ 1 0 4 . 1 7 $108.16 $1 0 9 .9 7 $101.85$122.00$118.35 Tower 306527 Subdivision Sales Analyzed From Tower Site Buffer Ring 1 1/10 Mile from Tower Site Buffer Ring 2 2/10 Mile from Tower Site Buffer Ring 5 5/10 Mile from Tower Site 95.96$ 89.42$ 79.29$ 92.24$ 85.76$ 104.17$ 81.56$ 84.51$ 89.63$ 85.82$ 92.45$ 94.14$ 101.85$ 85.54$ 92.82$ 97.39$ 86.46$ 93.01$ 89.81$ 111.33$ 79.99$ 85.05$ 85.99$ 113.36$ 86.08$ 90.76$ 87.83$ 86.18$ 84.85$ 93.49$ 85.96$ 96.15$ 126.17$ 96.57$ 85.36$ 97.50$ 87.83$ 109.97$ 81.71$ 97.47$ 85.47$ 91.99$ 80.65$ 87.75$ 107.91$ 94.80$ 101.63$ 88.48$ 87.80$ 89.59$ 95.98$ 114.09$ 87.61$ 81.27$ 96.72$ 90.49$ 94.30$ 89.51$ 108.16$ 82.49$ 86.24$ 87.27$ 87.08$ 85.55$ 89.82$ 87.53$ 91.58$ 94.59$ 88.64$ $90.24 $94.61 $92.13 WAKE COUNTY TOWER #306527 AVERAGE SALES PRICE PER SF Buffer Ring 3 3/10 Mile from Tower Site Buffer Ring 4 4/10 Mile from Tower Site $90.96 $92.09 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 avg. price per SF 1/10 mile 2/10 mile 3/10 mile 4/10 mile 5/10 mile distance Tower #306527 As you will note we have averaged the price per square foot for dwellings located within each of the buffer rings. Buffer Ring 1= $ 90.24 Buffer Ring 2= $ 94.61 Buffer Ring 3= $ 90.96 Buffer Ring 4= $ 92.09 Buffer Ring 5= $ 92.13 As you can observe from the charts and data above for tower #306527, there does not appear to be any significant or consistent change in value from the properties located in each buffer ring. Buffer ring one had a value of 90.24, which rises in buffer ring two to $94.61. This rise could be of consideration until the fall in value of buffer ring three with $90.96. Buffer ring four has a slight increase in value to $92.09. The values rise and fall as you move out from ring one to ring five, concluding that the tower does not affect the value of the properties as distance increases from tower. Importance of Wireless coverage to Homeowners and Buyers October 2017 Around 52 percent of American households are now wireless only for voice service. (CDC’s 2016 Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, July-December) 90% of US households use wireless service. With this increase in demand from users at home and those who work from home comes the need for more facilities to meet the customer needs. Citizens need access to 911 and reverse 911 and wireless may be their only connection. (CTIA, June 2015) Across income levels, a significant majority of Americans now have smartphones. 93 percent of people earning more than $75,000 a year own smartphones. And 64 percent of people making less than $30,000 a year are smartphone owners – which marks a 42 percent growth in ownership at this income level since 2011. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017 & Pew Research Center, “Mobile Fact Sheet” (Jan. 12, 2017), available at http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/) A 2015 survey found that cellular service is of major importance to homebuyers. It was more important than schools when looking for a home (cellular service ranked 76% versus 60% for schools). Cellular coverage trailed only crime rates (96%), local taxes (90%), and amenities like parks and shops (84%). Among Millennials, 83% said cell service was the most important fact in purchasing a home. (RootMetrics & Money, June 2, 2015) “..the fastest type of high speed Internet available, can add $5,437 to the price of a $175,000 home—about as much as a fireplace, or half the value of a bathroom.” (WSJ, “How Fast Internet Affects Home Prices”, June 30, 2015”) The Surprising Thing Home Buyers Care About More than Schools 2 (RootMetrics/Money, June 2, 2015) June 2, 201 3 The Surprising Thing Home Buyers Care About More than Schools (RootMetrics/Money, June 2, 2015) 4 11 must-haves to sell to millennial homebuyers http://www.bankrate.com/finance/real-estate/must-haves-to-sell-to-young-homebuyers-7.aspx Technology Previous 7 of 11 Next © scyther5/Shutterstock.com Technology A generation ago, buyers didn't care about a home's technological capabilities. Either it had cable hookups or it didn't. Today, buyers want to know about tech. They want to hear about wireless service and internet, not cable and telephone. "Most young homebuyers laugh at a landline phone, and even if they buy a house that has a jack, it is rarely used," Cardillo says. In some cases, a house's appeal can be increased or diminished because of the strength of a mobile carrier's signal or its internet service provider options. While cellphone and internet services are out of the seller's hands, Cardillo says sellers or their agents should be prepared to field questions on that front. "Internet and cell service matters a lot to this generation, and they're going to ask, so you need to have answers," he says. Verizon Wireless Communications Facility Engineering Necessity Case – MIN THOMASConfidential and proprietary materials for authorized Verizon personnel and outside agencies only. Use, disclosure or distribution of this material is not permitted to any unauthorized persons or third parties except by written agreement.Prepared by:  Mihaela Oxley, RF EngineerMarch 29, 2018 Confidential and proprietary materials for authorized Verizon personnel and outside agencies only. Use, disclosure or distribution of this material is not permitted to any unauthorized persons or third parties except by written agreement.Project Need Overview:The primary objective for this project is to improve service quality in the City of Eagan in the residential area along Cliff Road, Pilot Knob Road and Johnny Cake Ridge Road. The combined effect of varying terrain elevation and vegetation in the area  prevent effective propagation of a signal with newer technologies. Detail is provided on slides 3‐6 supporting this issue.Our engineering data shows that the target area is also experiencing 4G data overloads. The proposed project would provide capacity offload from neighboring cell sites by taking over coverage in the residential area along the intersection of Cliff Road and Pilot Knob Road.The following slides will show existing and expected coverage levels in the area of interest. Confidential and proprietary materials for authorized Verizon personnel and outside agencies only. Use, disclosure or distribution of this material is not permitted to any unauthorized persons or third parties except by written agreement.Legend: LTE RSRP Coverage (dBm)RSRP Level (DL) (dBm) >= -85 (In-Building CoverageRSRP Level (DL) (dBm) >= -95 (In-Vehicle Coverage)RSRP Level (DL) (dBm) >= -105 (On-Street Coverage)Existing Coverage Levels Confidential and proprietary materials for authorized Verizon personnel and outside agencies only. Use, disclosure or distribution of this material is not permitted to any unauthorized persons or third parties except by written agreement.Expected Coverage Levels (Including the cell tower at Walden Park)Legend: LTE RSRP Coverage (dBm)RSRP Level (DL) (dBm) >= -85 (In-Building CoverageRSRP Level (DL) (dBm) >= -95 (In-Vehicle Coverage)RSRP Level (DL) (dBm) >= -105 (On-Street Coverage) Confidential and proprietary materials for authorized Verizon personnel and outside agencies only. Use, disclosure or distribution of this material is not permitted to any unauthorized persons or third parties except by written agreement.Expected Coverage Levels (Including the cell tower at Alternate #1-Dakota Path Tower)Legend: LTE RSRP Coverage (dBm)RSRP Level (DL) (dBm) >= -85 (In-Building CoverageRSRP Level (DL) (dBm) >= -95 (In-Vehicle Coverage)RSRP Level (DL) (dBm) >= -105 (On-Street Coverage) Confidential and proprietary materials for authorized Verizon personnel and outside agencies only. Use, disclosure or distribution of this material is not permitted to any unauthorized persons or third parties except by written agreement.Expected Coverage Levels (Including the cell tower at Alternate #2-Chapel Hill Baptist Church)Legend: LTE RSRP Coverage (dBm)RSRP Level (DL) (dBm) >= -85 (In-Building CoverageRSRP Level (DL) (dBm) >= -95 (In-Vehicle Coverage)RSRP Level (DL) (dBm) >= -105 (On-Street Coverage) Confidential and proprietary materials for authorized Verizon personnel and outside agencies only. Use, disclosure or distribution of this material is not permitted to any unauthorized persons or third parties except by written agreement.In summary, the alternate candidate locations for the project were looked at in the area. The expected coverage level contribution of the 2 alternate locations is presented on slides 5 and 6 above. As can be observed in the slides above, the expected improvement of the alternate locations will not meet the coverage objective of the proposed search ring. Conclusion EXHIBIT A Page 1 of 12 Jerry Hulm, ARA Real Property Appraiser PO Box 7507 Rapid City, SD 57709-7507 605-791-1430 December 8, 2015 Jaymes D. Littlejohn-Attorney at Law Moss & Barnett 150 South 5th Street, Suite 1200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Dear Mr. Littlejohn: You have requested that I prepare an unbiased analysis of the impact on market value on properties near monopine cell tower sites. The purpose of this analysis is to determine if monopine towers impact value in a positive or negative manner. Two tower sites are available in this market to extract an opinion of this impact. I have attached the Ulteig Photo Simulation of the proposed site for the reader’s reference. This best illustrates the proposed site compared to anything I can create. The Pennington County Director of Equalization was contacted for sales in the vicinity of these tower sites. The request was for the land sales that occurred in this area between 2008 and the end of 2012. The land sales were inconclusive simply because the areas around both sites are relatively built out and the analysis that follows is based upon improved sales that sold in the vicinity of the two tower sites. The printouts of the sales data from the county are retained in my file. The following map shows the two existing tower sites as #1 and #2. The proposed site is labeled with a plain blue dot. EXHIBIT B Page 2 of 12 Page 3 of 12 Tower Site #1: The first site, which is labeled #1 on the map, is located at 13100 Big Bend Road. The site is about three miles northwest of the proposed site. The date used on this data is September 16th, 2009; the date Pennington County approved the building permit for the tower. The county record information shows five sales that sold between June of 2008 and September 2, 2009. The average of these five sales was $212,200. The remaining data covers a time frame from October 29, 2009 through December 21, 2012. The average of these sales included fifteen improved sales in the subdivisions that either include the tower or were very near it. All were within ½ mile of the tower. These sales averaged $232,260 showing that the market increased between October 29, 2009 and December 21, 2012. Page 4 of 12 The arrow on the following subdivisions map indicates the location of the tower site. This data supports a conclusion that the monopine tower that is 104’ tall had no negative impact on the overall sale price of these residential properties. Page 5 of 12 Tower Site #2: The address of this tower site is 8652 Sheridan Lake Road. Tower location is about three and half miles to the southeast of the proposed tower site. The building permit for the tower was approved November 17, 2010. An arrow on the map shows the location of the tower within the surrounding subdivisions. Again a search was made for land sales which, in most cases, were removed from these built out subdivisions. These areas developed to a point where there is a limited amount of building sites available near the tower site. A data search was again requested from the Pennington County Director of Equalization as was for Tower #1. The start of the data is January 4, 2008 and ends September 29, 2010 creating 68 sales. The average price of these 68 improved properties was $256,610. In the after analysis of the data the beginning date is November 18, 2010 ending December 28, 2012. This produced 48 improved sales with an average sales price of $252,543. The difference between the average sales price prior to the installation of the tower and after the tower was approved is $4,067. This is a difference of 1.6%. This low percentage would not support a conclusion that this tower affected the sale price. Out of 116 transactions total in this analysis there is nothing that allows me to conclude that the tower 105’ tall impacted value. Page 6 of 12 Page 7 of 12 Conclusion: The analysis of Tower Site #1 shows that these properties had a higher value after the tower was placed. This market appears to have been relatively flat as far as time adjustments or appreciation. The indication from Tower #1 shows that these properties appreciated approximately 10% over a three year period. Tower Site #2 indicates that there is less than a 2% difference between sales before and after the tower’s construction. Due to the fact that this data comes from public records, I have not confirmed or inspected any of these sales. The reason for using county record information was to get a large sample of data near the towers. The two tower sites that are within 3 ½ miles of the proposed tower site support my opinion that the proposed 106’ monopine tower will have no impact on the value of surrounding properties. Sincerely, Jerry Hulm - ARA State Certified General Appraiser #1222CG Page 8 of 12 Page 9 of 12 Page 10 of 12 Page 11 of 12 Page 12 of 12 *A.PPRAISAl.S.~ INC" ni2!.i Mh(:hfJI ~J.."'\Id, Suh.:, ",~~)t; :::(;19I'l1 :llril), rl1r'J 5~03~1' ::h '~=-:'1'll1 fl.7:i'.'I1 • f:.I: ~ f.2 .*f~~ n.4:1 IIj.H·[Jnn':f'.~IlCP,~ ,9t Octo bet 22, 2007 i\.tr, Jillli Ne,£:::oll Bud ~ Consult! I)g~ Inc. 122 ,E,~~S't Golden Lake Lane Circle Plnes, :ro..··fi\l 550[4 lin accordance with ~('n\or request, I have ~~n.~ly7.~d the real estate market in New Prague to determine the potemiul tor' a diminution ill value to residential properties that ,Iuay' result from the consrructien of a 144' cellular phone tower, The tower is to be loceted on ~~ ~l:I'O'pt!Tty known as tbe Lamerecth Property [OCl).k(J ,at 26595 Helen» Blvd in New Prague. 1']1.:.:: purpose of dtis research is to ascertain if the proposed eel lular tnv.·er wi U subsrantially d i minish 0.1' impai r property values of the proposed development located .i ust aouth and west of the proposed tower. Per the City of Ne·v.' Prague the development is referred to as Homeficld 31'd Addition . .. Property inspectiou -Inspcct and analyze development trends <on surrounding properties -Rcsearch una ana lyzc recent sales 1)1' propertica a~ja(~l!nt to other cell tower locations. - Inic . .rvie\v hOme0'ii.'ncrs of other ,Properties j tl; N (.:'\'1/ r~r:]guc that ib>:.~c,k ~~) H 199" Sp:r,i nt {:.;.~~h..11al' l.(H . .vcr toca I.c'd mll ·i\,k ........ P],a!gUt:'~ w~'nk!rvic\~/ r.e~lH'';J''rs v.'ho activdy '1rVCliek the N~,v PraguIW market: -]n('eryi es,\/ hOlnebuikl,cl',s Ville are. ;;:li~>Livc i t~ ~ht:, New ,Pr<l::lgue. mm"k0t .. Il1t~.r .... ;i~\\' ;Dlf)prui8Cl'.S, ,a.;;·li vc in the markec ~'U'.;.!~ 1'1), research indicates that the proposed cellular tower will have no impact at) d)e market valnes of a1l1jacent residential properties, 'The proposed devdopml;a1t is located in the northwest portion of nlll.} 'City of New Prague, The average marketing ~im.e of pf(~p-:;:rlve$ over ~hl..~ past 12 months is .~ 56 day;:; and the average sale pr.i.c.e. is $272~OOO, For the period between October 2005 and October 20Q.G~ the :::r"'I{;'mg~~ :m~rkctiL1lg: time '\'V~~S 55 days at).d. tbe aveeage sale price WH;,"i. $287.;'000. This indicates that the market in Ne'!.!I,.' Pr.;.,glue has.softened over the past 24 months \viJh lot)get marketi ng periods and a decline in· overall market \ralues. It should 2'U~S(l be noted that currently there ~:s an oversupply of WJ:c;)!n,t lors HSI}~d Ior sale. As. of ~hc date of thi s letter there are .~ 53 lots available for sale in the Ml.S for the City of New Prague, The conclusion fr(m,'j~ this data is that the New Prague residential real estate market is soft compared to recent previous years am:! w()uJ.d be considered .. a buyers market. U;!I,t;l t~, Support Findings. In uie City of 'New' Prague there is a Spri:nL cC:Huk~r tower loccted just nn:11h or t)j S treet N\¥ ii:lJnd ,"vest of :Foundd)' Hill Park. I Ila'l,l'c illlwnd,e1,ved s:iiM. of the reside:nLs that. M.ve hOfrlt$. 1h~ll bfH'!·k (Un .. ~t~y to the 199" to\~'e;r, Each b.orn~~O\~'11Cr \V::d!S w:~kecL ,;,;n;d the Iocatm.Olil of thiS ceUu]a1l' tOv,,-ef ~d)!e(;t !i,blUr pur,c~sCl of yOUI' hom.e't~ ,AJI :six. res-pon.dents ~[Js\\'el~ed ~h~t t~l.e tower did noL. SJfn.':et their pUl'Cha':;e.. ,A. l~)nO'f\!-tl:P qruestion ",Nas asked; ··D~.d ;,t ~l.:lIi.'>C~; vlhnt von ,otre.red on tbe horner. AJJ :si;r.;: respondcnts st.ared that i,t dtiJ ,r.~ot . - ~~n1.~,ct 'the price nffered on the tH)rn~. :~ h.ave ~jJlk'tvic\""'':{l sdmc loe:a~ 't'eahor:s and ~:wo b'LI,Hdc.':fs mn ,the area, Al ~ hut Oint $t')t.;.:;J~ that Ihcy ba'vc, uot see.rll ,1).1)),1' n.egat~:ve '~.m~C:lS ;trorn ht1m.of!S tJlmt have vie'w',s (If (':cHuhn' to\.vers.. 011~ pe.r:ron hnd.ff:l had ~my cxpci['icnce~.,. whh t;:e1 tulf.lr 1lowcrs~ but sudcd that the'Y tha;}lJgb~, lb.~d. :t~. "'''''ould have titUe -or :no eJfect. I.ha\·'(l spoken w~th tb,;i Cf)lJ.utty ass.cssor fot" the Cily 'of New' .rr~)~~IU~~ Ivld I s.zlCl', He stated that ~h-e: CiXH1Ly ~s~mSSmc.llt m.akes fhO dHTe·l'erIDal..ioL1. in vuluc for homes that back to ccU:uhu' ~!l..l\'~'em conlpal'¬ d. to 1.'e8kler.J:lj~~~ views, He had no d.·CLtfL to sliloRes¢ tfu'~C there \'llililS I ~ any negatjve impact. ·fhe. ot)1y' [t;'Ccnl sak~ of a home in New P.ragu·~~ CM •. oocks to a ,cd1:u~ar tower h,. ]ocOired ,at 903 2"d! Str,ect: N\V _ B;;ls,ed on the· fi::~Uo\,-ing cOlt1lpamth;e. :;:ales a.dl~~YSJS~ the S~Ih..'=t!, 'price of tbe home Wits ~tot lI1eg,aLh"dy mmpare:ted b:y h~' ~ocat.ion t(~ ~he ocU'I.Ilar tm,·,rer. In fact, the compat.;;':Iblcs· .fH.fjrust,ed sa]e prkes tndjic;llte a value· l'angc of $261;{~39 to 5'26·5,000, T,h~ ho.me sold for $27J .:500, 13000 . I 1"I,g jC<Jtl o !Ill of Val:ue b I.ll~II'" HOME-S U$£D IN CO,., PARA nvs ANA.LYSmS 60rrOWflr; 903 .2N'O, STReET N,W NE:W PRAG U'E, M N $l"lIliitJElCT PR:OPERTY THAT BACKS TO CElLULAR tOW:E:R 1402 7TH stREE.t NE Nil;W !PlUG U E, MN COMPAIRABI..E #1 HOMES 'USIED INI COM PARATIIVE! ANAL;Y$:IS Fre NQ,; V¢riroo ~ ... ~. . ~ . ..c;a.:s.e. No.-; .. ~ .. ~~ _~_. ._ .. ,~. _ $M~Jl~!:~_: _ ~ :' 401 7TH AVE,NIJE SE: NEW PRAGUe. M N COM PARAB!..E: #2: M!5 CHAlU PSKY AVE:NUE NI;W pF-t.AGue. MNI COMPA.R_ABLE #':;:1 /l\,I,S{) considered in the market analysis are ~ot sales located in N orth O,riks~ ~I') af1hl:ten~' suburb of St Paul, :~n 2001 a sin,g:le 144" cellular tower existed (Ill ~~, property commonly refencd to as M,el' $ Se[l ... ice CC11lCr,. A:t the time a s-o ... cond 144' cellular tower was ~),I'o.pt)8ed On the same site, A new sub([i:\·'~~:d{)Jn. 1:1101;'\'11 as Wildftower 'PI (lC~. was b(...Jng developed and in the srul),dhl.~si()Il there is a (:1lI1 .. de-sac 01:1 \ViJd'no· ...... ·er Place th®t directly I overlooks the cdh,dl~ towers, Cb .... the, cul-de-sac, :I .ots 17 ,and 18 sold :for $230,!-OOO and $25{J.(IOO respectively (Sec Attached Addendum), These lots. were the two most e-xp.eJmsi' v c lo()~s sold in the dev~.k),Pfr)"llt and .:ll,u .• 'T~:fOl'{l ~ret'e.: !l.~:t ,r.dlecl~~l ~)y ~ht..:'~'r l~c •. dioll '~:O '~hc cellular 'towers, Acoordmg. ~Q the builder, M,J'.. navld Frosch 01 Kootcnia Homes, the cellular to\ve.r hsd no impact on the ,~'jI.I'ice ,:p.aid for the lot, Kootenia Homes had acquired ,9.3 lots in the sll~h.d~v.i.sk~t1J. 'Mr, Diek Leonard {tf the N onh Of~ks Land Company stared that al r tbe b'uiMiillg sat,l,;~ in 'VilUdfilov/er 'P'I ace W'el'e sold a~: .an .open tI1tlctim'l to 'val'~(}US bruiklers. Du.ring the a:uctkm the.re y',lHS n,o mention by ,any of the p.!i'o8pecti'l,.·,e, blUiI,~k~ of auy ~[IHdp.lted tli.OJ.colty in, nULl~keUng the ,!).ubdiviis.,lOilJ lx:c"'n.J:')t~ of the ,eeHu1.ru' tit1i'~:V(!rs. Conclusion 'The pr{~p(l'&.ed cdhl.ku' 'tower I.Qcated ,at 2( .. 595 Hd,ClIlaJ Blvd i:r. Ne.w P~m~:Lle '~voldd not impad: ~hc' overal.~ t:1I'larket vahlcs of th~ adjaoemlt 1'es~deu)tm~d pr0:P'~rlics lIJol'oposed f{)i[' Homefldd) :;rd .Add~tkm. l1u; c(I!J.lduskHt is l:~'Y.I8ed on findirn:g..':f from 'pet's[ma~ Gnte.rvi~"vs uf hOfne(}' .. ,,'ne-rs (md, Ic.:iIl estate prn;fessk,'nrds f,t~ w-eU il::: market anatyses of ptoiPetttCS ~,ocated tle~lJJ:' O'lhl.'if ,cdlUl]ar tf)wel'.s:. " :f 11{iVe apPl'ec.,ifl.Ll:xi. .p[uvid~lI1g dlil;,~ et~c.l.ose,d anrdysts and wekome any question~ Y01l Inay ha.\!C in :regard~. to my [I'ese~~,('h, Report Type Real Estate Consulting Letter Report Effective Date February 27, 2017 Prepared By: William R. Waytas, Appraiser Nagell Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. 12805 Highway 55, Suite 300 Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 Tel: 952.544.8966 | Fax: 952.544.8969 Client Subject Property City of Wayzata Attn: David Dudinsky, Dir. Public Service Residential Home 299 Wayzata Blvd. 315 Barry Avenue North Wayzata, MN 55391 Wayzata, MN 55391 Owner: Karen Walker Trustee File # G1702002 03-07-2017 CC PACKET Page 148 of 273 Nagell Appraisal & Consulting | 952.544.8966 Page 1 NAGELL APPRAISAL & CONSULTING 12805 Highway 55 #300 Minneapolis 952-544-8966 Plymouth, MN 55441 St. Paul 651-209-6159 Established in 1968 Central Fax 952-544-8969 __________________________________________________________________________ Client: City of Wayzata February 27, 2017 Attn: David Dudinsky, Director of Public Service 299 Wayzata Blvd., Wayzata, MN 55391 Subject Property: 315 Barry Avenue N Wayzata, MN Owner: Karen Walker Trustee Dear David: Assignment: Per your request, this is a letter report provides commentary concerning the impact, if any, on the above referenced residential property as it relates to the construction of a cell tower. This letter is not an appraisal, but rather provides general commentary regarding market perception. The letter is for internal decision making and is only intended for the sole use of the named client. The Subject Property and Area: The home was built in 1947, has 2,167 SF with a 1.5 story design on a 12,741 SF lot located in Wayzata, MN. It is located on a dead end street one lot south of I-394. Homes in the area are generally considered to be in good to very good condition and have good to very good appeal. Additionally, adding to the appeal of the immediate neighborhood is natural tree growth at the rear of the lots. Wayzata is considered one of the more appealing cities in the Metro area, with a high standard of living with good schools, along with good access to medical and commercial services. Located to the west of the home are the athletic fields of Wayzata West Middle School. A large tree buffer blocks the school and fields. The Cell Tower Project: The city is considering allowing a cell tower to be constructed in the play field of the school. The tower is to be about 195’ high and is a monopole design. It would be located in back of the subject property, see attached. The Impact from the Cell Tower on the Subject: Assuming a typical view shed off of the rear of the subject of 180 degrees, the cell tower would take up less than 1% of the view shed area. Also the trees at the rear of the subject are substantial, most are on the school property, and would block most of the cell tower view (year round, as trees are heavy). For example, a telephone phone pole in the rear corner of the property could appear taller than the cell tower, as the cell tower is located farther away. Market Impact: Considering the layout of the home, rear deck, tall trees in back, the exposure to the cell tower and appraiser’s experience it is deemed to have a very minimal or nil impact on the subject from a typical buyer/seller perspective. Additionally, it appears the city’s zoning allows for cell tower use. An informed buyer and seller would be aware that a cell tower use is allowed . This letter reflects a “typical” buyer and seller. There are potential buyers and sellers who would have more of a n adverse reaction to the tower but these are not considered typical market participants (these buyers/sellers would be left tail participants, applying a Bell Curve Model). Sincerely, William R. Waytas, SRA, CRP Certified General MN 4000813 __________________________________________________________________________ www.nagellmn.com 03-07-2017 CC PACKET Page 149 of 273 Page 2 Nagell Appraisal & Consulting | 952.544.8966 LOCATION MAP 03-07-2017 CC PACKET Page 150 of 273 Nagell Appraisal & Consulting | 952.544.8966 Page 3 Location Map – Continued 03-07-2017 CC PACKET Page 151 of 273 Page 4 Nagell Appraisal & Consulting | 952.544.8966 PLAT MAP Per county 03-07-2017 CC PACKET Page 152 of 273 Nagell Appraisal & Consulting | 952.544.8966 Page 5 AERIAL VIEW Subject indicated by red arrow. 03-07-2017 CC PACKET Page 153 of 273 Page 6 Nagell Appraisal & Consulting | 952.544.8966 LOCATION OF CELL TOWER 03-07-2017 CC PACKET Page 154 of 273 Nagell Appraisal & Consulting | 952.544.8966 Page 7 PROFILE OF CELL TOWER 03-07-2017 CC PACKET Page 155 of 273 Page 8 Nagell Appraisal & Consulting | 952.544.8966 Profile of Cell Tower -- Continued 03-07-2017 CC PACKET Page 156 of 273 Nagell Appraisal & Consulting | 952.544.8966 Page 9 Profile of Cell Tower – Continued Subject indicated by red arrow. Cell tower indicated with gray line. Use for illustrative purposes. Not drawn to scale. 03-07-2017 CC PACKET Page 157 of 273 Page 10 Nagell Appraisal & Consulting | 952.544.8966 PHOTOGRAPHS Lookingsouth on Barry Avenue North Looking north on Barry Avenue North Front view Rear view 03-07-2017 CC PACKET Page 158 of 273 Nagell Appraisal & Consulting | 952.544.8966 Page 11 Project Photographs – Continued View of trees Location of cell tower Location of cell tower / Park view Looking east on I-394 03-07-2017 CC PACKET Page 159 of 273 Page 12 Nagell Appraisal & Consulting | 952.544.8966 Appraisal Experience Presently and since 1985, William R. Waytas has been employed as a full time real estate appraiser. Currently a partner and President of the Nagell Appraisal & Consulting, an independent appraisal firm (12 employees) who annually prepare 1,500 +/- appraisal reports of all types. Mr. Waytas was employed with Iver C. Johnson & Company, Ltd., Phoenix, AZ from 1985 to 1987. Properties appraised:  Commercial - low and high-density multi-family, retail, office, industrial, restaurant, church, strip- mall, fast-food, convenience stores, auto-service and repair, hotel, hotel water park, bed & breakfast, cinema, marina, numerous special use properties, and subdivision analysis.  Residential – single-family residences, hobby farms, lakeshore, condominiums, townhouses, REO and land.  Eminent Domain – extensive partial and total acquisition appraisal services provided to numerous governmental agencies and private owners.  Special Assessment – numerous street improvement and utilities projects for both governmental and private owners.  Review – residential, commercial and land development.  Clients - served include banks, savings and loan associations, trust companies, corporations, governmental bodies, relocation companies, attorneys, REO companies, accountants and private individuals.  Area of Service - most appraisal experience is in the greater Twin Cities Metro Area (typically an hour from downtown metro). Numerous assignments throughout Minnesota. Professional Membership, Associations & Affiliations License: Certified General Real Property Appraiser, MN License #4000813. Appraisal Institute: SRA, Senior Residential Appraiser Designation, General Associate Member Employee Relocation Council: CRP Certified Relocation Professional Designation. International Right-Of-Way Association: Member HUD/FHA: On Lender Selection Roster and Review Appraiser DNR: Approved appraiser for Department of Natural Resources Testimony -- Court, deposition, commission, arbitration & administrative testimony given. Mediator -- Court appointed in Wright County. Committees -- President of Metro/Minnesota Chapter, 2002, Appraisal Institute. -- Chairman of Residential Admissions, Metro/MN Chapter, AI. -- Chairman Residential Candidate Guidance, Metro/Minnesota Chapter, AI. -- Elm Creek Watershed Commission, Medina representative 3 years. -- Medina Park Commission, 3 years. 03-07-2017 CC PACKET Page 160 of 273 Nagell Appraisal & Consulting | 952.544.8966 Page 13 Curriculum Vitae -- continued Education -- Graduate of Bemidji State University, Minnesota. B.S. degree in Bus. Ad. -- During college, summer employment in building trades (residential and commercial). -- Graduate of Cecil Lawter Real Estate School. Past Arizona Real Estate License. -- General & Professional Practice Courses & Seminars -- Course 101-Introduction to Appraising Real Property. -- Numerous Standards of Professional Practice Seminar. -- Fair Lending Seminar. -- Eminent Domain & Condemnation Appraising. -- Eminent Domain (An In-Depth Analysis) -- Property Tax Appeal -- Eminent Domain -- Business Practices and Ethics -- Scope of Work -- Construction Disturbances and Temporary Loss of Going Concern -- Uniform Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (Yellow Book Seminar) -- Partial Interest Valuation Divided (conservation easements, historic preservation easements, life estates, subsurface rights, access easements, air rights, water rights, transferable development rights) Commercial/Industrial/Subdivision Courses & Seminars -- Capitalization Theory & Techniques -- Highest & Best Use Seminar -- General & Residential State Certification Review Seminar -- Subdivision Analysis Seminar. -- Narrative Report Writing Seminar (general) -- Advanced Income Capitalization Seminar -- Advanced Industrial Valuation -- Appraisal of Local Retail Properties -- Appraising Convenience Stores -- Analyzing Distressed Real Estate -- Evaluating Commercial Construction -- Fundamentals of Separating Real Property, Personal Property and Intangible Business Assets Residential Courses & Seminars -- Course 102-Applied Residential Appraising -- Narrative Report Writing Seminar (residential) -- HUD Training session local office for FHA appraisals -- Familiar with HUD Handbook 4150.1 REV-1 & other material from local FHA office. -- Appraiser/Underwriter FHA Training -- Residential Property Construction and Inspection -- Numerous other continuing education seminars for state licensing & AI Speaking Engagements -- Bankers -- Auditors -- Assessors -- Relocation (Panel Discussion) Publications -- Real Estate Appraisal Practice (book): Acknowledgement -- Articles for Finance & Commerce and Minnesota Real Estate Journal 03-07-2017 CC PACKET Page 161 of 273 Agenda Information Memo April 3, 2018, Eagan City Council Meeting NEW BUSINESS B.Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment – Pulte Homes of Minnesota Action To Be Considered: To direct staff to submit to the Metropolitan Council a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment (or direct Findings of Fact for Denial) to change the land use designation from BP (Business Park) to MD (Medium Density Residential) upon approximately 7.33 acres located east of Dodd Rd and North of Yankee Doodle Road. Required Vote For Approval: Majority of Councilmembers present Facts: The Applicant is requesting a change in the land use designation of this site from BP (Business Park) to MD (Medium Density Residential). The single parcel is currently vacant and unplatted. A ccess is from Yankee Doodle Road and the property was previously graded. There are no wetlands on the site. Surrounding land uses are Business Park, Low Density Residential and Low-Medium Residential to the east in Inver Grove Heights. The site lies directly under the controlled landing path used frequently for operations on the south parallel runway at MSP airport and will be regularly exposed to airport noise. The proposed land use amendment from BP to MD is intended to allow a townhome development. The concept Site Plan shows a 72-unit development with access from Yankee Doodle Road at the east and west ends of the site. The acceptability of the proposed Comp Guide Amendment and the proposed use is a policy matter for City officials. The land use change is also subject to review and approval by the Metropolitan Council. Final implementation by the City would be withheld until it is accompanied by specific development plans as part of a Planned Development Amendment or Rezoning. The Advisory Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposal at their March 27, 2018 meeting, and did recommend approval on a 4-1 vote. Issues: The site is currently located within the Airport Noise Policy Buffer Zone which allows this type of development with a noise exposure level reduction of 19 dBA; however, the noise contours are in the process of changing. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan update will place this property in Zone 4 which will make single entry housing units Incompatible and prohibited at this location. 60-Day Agency Action Deadline: Not Applicable Attachments: (4) NBB-1 Location Map NBB-2 Draft March 27, 2018, APC Meeting Minutes NBB-3 Planning Report NBB-4 Report Exhibits NBB-5 Correspondence 77THGREATOAKSPLROLLINGHILLSDRCIRCLEC.S.A.H. NO. 26 (LONE OAK RD.)M IK E C O LLIN SD R LOUIS LANERED OAK DRROLL LN.IVYLANEHILLSIDEDRK U T O F F C T SALLYG REATOAKSLNBECKER ROADSTATETRUNKHWY.NO.55EROLLINGHILLSPLCHAPEL LANEROLLINGHILLSDRRITA CTS T A COURTHOUSE LNREDOAKDRROLLING HILLS CRBORCHERTLNRANDOMRDROLLING HILLS DRELRENEROADROLLING HILLS CTJOYCE CTAKS TRAILWREN LNEHOLIDAY LNWESTTRAILS END RDSTREETBLACKOAKDRELRENEROADHILLSIDE CTS T ATE TRU N K H W Y. N O . 149 HOLIDAY LNREDOAKDRBLACKOAKDRCO.RD.NO.28(YANKEEDOODLERD.)IVY CTSTATE TRUNK HWY. NO. 559 ROLLINGHILLSDRREDOAKCTCHAPELLANEBur Oaks ParkThresherFieldsParkLocation Map01,000500Feet´§¨¦35E§¨¦494Cliff RdDiffley RdYankee Doodle RdLone Oak RdMap Area ExtentProject Name: Pulte-Yankee Doodle RdRequest: Comprehensive Guide Plan AmendmentCase No.: 12-CG-03-02-18Subject Site Advisory Planning Commission March 27, 2018 Page 8 of 17 B. Yankee Doodle Property Applicant Name: Paul Heuer, Pulte Homes of Minnesota Location: N 10 A OF S 20 A OF SE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 SUBJ TO PARCEL 5 DAKOTA CO R/W MAP 272 Application: Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment A Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from BP, Business Park to MD, Medium Density. File Number: 12-CG-03-02-18 Planner Thomas introduced this item and highlighted the information presented in the City Staff report dated March 22, 2018. Paul Heuer, Pulte Homes, introduced himself and narrated a PowerPoint presentation supporting the Plan Amendment. Member Vanderpoel asked how Pulte would insure buyers are aware of the air traffic noise they would experience. Mr. Heuer stated they are experienced in marketing such properties and Pulte requires all buyers to read and sign a disclosure document that outlines unique site characteristics. Member Goff asked about the expected size of the units. Heuer explained the product is three- story units and they range in size from 1,800 -2,500 SF. Chair Piper opened the public hearing. Chad Alexander, 3247 Red Oak Drive, stated no one cares about the planes but the neighborhood is concerned with the speed and amount of traffic on Yankee Doodle Road. Jason Wicklund, 3338 Rolling Hills Drive, asked about the development impact on tree removal and wildlife and stated his concern with trespassing from the site to Bur Oaks Park. There being no further public comment, Chair Piper closed the public hearing and turned the discussion back to the Commission. City Engineer Gorder explained Yankee Doodle is a county road and Dakota County would apply their access and right-of-way guidelines to the site when they review the plat. Chair Piper asked if the APC would review the development plans in the future. City Planner Ridley responded in the affirmative; he explained that the APC would hold a future Public Hearing and review the Rezoning/PD Amendment at a point in future. Advisory Planning Commission March 27, 2018 Page 9 of 17 Member Vanderpoel moved, Member Weimert seconded a motion to recommend approval of a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from BP, Business Park to MD, Medium Density Residential, for a residential development upon 7.33 acres located north of Yankee Doodle Road and east of Dodd Road. Motion carried 4-1 (Goff). PLANNING REPORT CITY OF EAGAN REPORT DATE: March 22, 2018 CASE: 12-CG-03-02-18 APPLICANT: Pulte Homes of Minnesota HEARING DATE: March 27, 2018 PROPERTY OWNER: Burr Oak II LLC APPLICATION DATE: Feb. 20, 2018 REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment PREPARED BY: Sarah Thomas LOCATION: North of Yankee Doodle Rd, East of Dodd Rd COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: BP, Business Park ZONING: PD, Planned Development SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from BP, Business Park to MD, Medium Density Residential, for a residential development upon 7.33 acres located north of Yankee Doodle Road and east of Dodd Road. AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment: The city’s Comprehensive Guide Plan was prepared pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.864. As defined by statute, the Land Use Plan is a guide and may be amended from time to time as conditions change. The city’s Guide Plan is to be implemented by official controls such as zoning and other fiscal devices. The creation of land use districts and zoning is a formulation of public policy and a legislative act. As such, the classification of land uses must reasonabl y relate to promoting the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. When a change to a city’s Comprehensive Guide Plan is requested, it is the city’s responsibility to determine if the change is in the best long-range interests of the city. The standard of review of a city’s action in approving or denying a Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment is whether there exists a rational basis. A rational basis standard has been described to mean having legally sufficient reasons supportable by the facts which promote the general health, safety and welfare of the city. Planning Report – Pulte Homes of MN March 27, 2018 Page 2 BACKGROUND/HISTORY The 7.33 acre site consists of an unplatted, vacant, parcel. The property was split with the extension of Yankee Doodle Road to the east in 2005 and graded in 2009. The grading activity was to create a more saleable property for possible future development and was not associated with a specific development proposal. The plans reflected filling of the property to a level consistent with the grades of Yankee Doodle Road. Tree Mitigation occurred due to the grading activity. EXISTING CONDITIONS The southern half of the site is generally open, the northern half is heavily treed with younger landscape trees, and the eastern portion has a large area of mature trees that were preserved from the grading activity in 2009. The site lies directly under the controlled landing path used frequently for operations on the south parallel runway at MSP airport and will be regularly exposed to airport noise. SURROUNDING USES The following existing uses, zoning, and comprehensive guide plan designations surround the subject property: Existing Use Zoning Land Use Designation North Single-Family Homes R-1, Single Family Residential LD, Low Density West Office/Warehouse Facility PD, Planned Development BP, Business Park South Yankee Doodle Road Right-of-Way Right-of-Way East City of Inver Grove Heights A, Agricultural LMDR, Low-Medium Density Residential EVALUATION OF REQUEST Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment: The applicant is proposing a change in the land use designation of this 7.33-acre site from BP, Business Park to MD, Medium Density. MD (4 to 12 units per acre) is a general land use category which primarily provides areas for attached housing units including two-family dwellings, townhomes and condominiums. Small lot single-family may also be appropriate. The Comprehensive Guide Plan specifies which zoning districts are considered consistent and compatible with each land use designation. Planning Report – Pulte Homes of MN March 27, 2018 Page 3 PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing development of 72 townhome units. The Concept Plan identifies access from Yankee Doodle Road on the east and west ends of the site. The applicant’s submitted narrative states, “In evaluating the property, we determined that the lack of property depth severely limited uses. We found one particular type of residential use which would neatly fit onto this property and is in demand in this submarket: a type of townhome commonly known as “rowhomes”. The property is not deep enough to fit a public street/right-of-way on both sides of the street.” The property owner also submitted a narrative and states, “The Subject property has been extremely difficult to sell…The few groups that expressed some interest passed for one reason or the other, but every single group told us the depth of the site (from Yankee Doodle to the single family homes) was too narrow to layout and develop an efficient industrial/office site and that was before considering ROW and building setbacks per code.” ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Topography – The entire site drains to the west with elevations ranging from approximately 900 to 840. The majority of the site will be disturbed for construction of the proposed buildings, storm water facilities, utilities, and private street. Wetlands – There are no wetlands on site, therefore, City Code §11.67, wetland protection and management regulations, does not apply. Tree Preservation – The City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance sets the allowable removal for this type of development at 30%. A detailed current tree inventory and tree preservation plan will be required at the time the development application is made. Airport Noise Considerations – The City of Eagan considered airport noise as a factor in its 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan and has subsequently adopted zoning standards to assist with noise mitigation that are consistent with Metropolitan Council requirements. The site is located within the Airport Noise Policy Buffer Zone. Sec. 11.64, Aircraft Noise Zone Overlay District, applies to new construction within this area. Within the Noise Buffer Zone, residential uses with individual entrances are considered a conditional use. A conditional use is not permitted unless it meets the structural performance standards and factors set forth by the Metropolitan Council 2030 Transportation Plan. The review of conditional use projects within the buffer zone are accomplished by the City. The development would require a noise exposure level reduction of 19 dBA. The noise contours are in the process of changing. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning overlay uses the 2007 contours to establish Policy Areas and shows the subject property just Planning Report – Pulte Homes of MN March 27, 2018 Page 4 inside the noise buffer zone. However, the Met Council now uses 2025 contours for planning purposes which narrows and elongates the Zone 4 contour, placing it over the subject property instead of the subject property being in the Buffer Zone. The City intends to adopt the 2025 contour map with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan update, and in doing so, the property will be in Zone 4 which will make single entry housing units Incompatible and prohibited at this location. Summary – Environmental Impacts There are no wetlands located on the property, thus a wetland delineation will not be required. Standard Tree Preservation requirements will apply to the development. The site is within the Airport Noise Policy Buffer Zone in which housing with individual entrances are a conditional use; however, the site will most likely be part of Zone 4 when the City updates the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. At that time the site would become incompatible for single entry housing units. It is a policy matter for the elected officials to determine whether the proposal is compatible to the surrounding area and the Comprehensive Guide plan objectives. INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACTS Storm Drainage – The entire site lies within Drainage District G (as designated in the City Storm Water Management Plan – 2007). The site drains to the small city pond at the west end of the property. Stormwater then enters the storm sewer system where it is conveyed to Bur Oaks Pond to the north. The development of this property will be subject to the codified post - construction storm water requirements for stormwater volume and pollutant control. Utilities – City owned and maintained lateral water main of sufficient size and capacity is available along the east end of the site for connection and extension with development of the property. Any new water main installed to serve the proposed development should be privately owned and maintained, and a water main “loop” should be constructed with the proposed development to provide redundancy in the system and reduce the likelihood of shutting down the entire development when maintenance or repairs are being performed. Water Quality – Any development will need to comply with the City’s Post Construction Stormwater Management Requirements (City Code §4.34) for stormwater management and surface water quality, including Runoff Rate Control and 1.1” Volume Control. These regulations include: design standards for volume control and reduction; total phosphorus control; total suspended solids control; oil and grease control; and runoff rate control – performance standards. They also provide for: minimization of impervious surface area and m aximization of infiltration and retention; acceptable complementary stormwater treatments; pond requirements; regional ponding; and maintenance of private stormwater facilities. Planning Report – Pulte Homes of MN March 27, 2018 Page 5 Streets/Access/Transportation – The primary access for development of the property will be directly to Yankee Doodle Road (CSAH 28), a four-lane divided minor arterial roadway under the jurisdiction of Dakota County. The existing road has two lanes in each direction, a center median, shoulders, turn lanes at intersections, and a bituminous trail in both boulevards. The east end of this property is on the city limits between Eagan and Inver Grove Heights. A full access is proposed at the eastern end of the parcel, and a right-in/right-out at the western end, with a two lane private street running through the middle of the property. Dakota County is considering changing the functional classification of Yankee Doodle Road from a Minor Arterial Roadway to a Principal Arterial Roadway. Dakota County’s access spacing guidelines for principal arterial roadways typically have fewer accesses at greater spacing than lower classification roadways. Dakota County will need to determine where access for this property will be allowed, how future access to the property to the east in Inver Gro ve Heights will be accommodated, and if any additional right-of-way will be required. The Concept Plan includes private pedestrian facilities to be connected to the existing public trail along Yankee Doodle Road. Easements/Permits/Right-of-Way – Yankee Doodle Road is under the jurisdiction of Dakota County. If required by the County, the developer of this property will be required to dedicate right-of-way along Yankee Doodle Road (County 28), in accordance with Dakota County standards. Drainage and utility easements are currently over the pond on the west end of the property, and over existing public utilities. Platting of the property will need to provide easements over public infrastructure and around the perimeter of the property. Financial Obligation – At this time, there are no pending assessments on the parcel. Summary – Infrastructure Impacts Sanitary sewer and water main service are available to serve development of the site. Any development of this site would be subject to City ordinances related to storm water volume and rate control, as well as pollutant control and water quality management. Public street access is available from Yankee Doodle Road. Dakota County’s access spacing guidelines may impact the proposed access points. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE IMPACTS Land Use Designations – MD, Medium Density Residential, is a general land use category which generally provides areas for attached housing units and small lot single-family developments. The Comprehensive Guide Plan specifies which zoning districts are considered consistent and compatible with each land use designation. Planning Report – Pulte Homes of MN March 27, 2018 Page 6 Density – The maximum allowed gross density for this land use is 12 units per acre. The proposed Concept Plan reaches a density of 9.82 units/acre. Compatibility – As noted in the Eagan 2030 Comprehensive Plan, medium density residential uses are generally compatible with other residential uses (lower and higher density). Like single family uses, medium density residential may able be compatible with some commercial and light industrial uses, given appropriate scale, buffering and design treatment of the higher intensity uses. In some situations, medium density residential uses may serve as a buffer between lower and higher intensity uses. The proposal would provide a transition from Yankee Doodle Road and the office/warehouse uses to the existing single family neighborhood. It is a policy matter for the elected officials to determine whether the proposal is compatible to the surrounding area and the Comprehensive Guide plan objectives. Access Needs – Access needs vary by unit type and size of development but are generally moderate with medium density residential developments. Locations with easy access to arterial and collector streets is appropriate for larger-scale townhome developments. Physical Suitability – The Comprehensive Plan states that medium density residential development needs are similar to that of single family with few limitations beyond those imposed by the City’s existing regulations regarding wetland, shoreland impacts, tree preservation and water quality. In areas of significant natural features worthy of protection, such as a wetland, it may be appropriate to utilize cluster design techniques to minimize disturbance of the natural site features. Generally, attached units can be well integrated into a site with physical constraints. The proposed Concept Plan depicts the townhomes along the eastern half of the development, taking the existing stormwater basin, setbacks from Yankee Doodle Road and the single family neighborhood to the north into consideration. Summary – Comprehensive Land Use Impacts Medium density may offer flexibility on the site given the physical depth constraints and provide a more compatible land use adjacent to the single -family development, compared to a commercial/industrial use. It is a policy matter for the elected officials to determine whether the proposal is compatible to the surrounding area and the Comprehensive Guide plan objectives. Planning Report – Pulte Homes of MN March 27, 2018 Page 7 PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM Park Dedication – Land dedications to satisfy the dedication requirements are generally requested when there is the opportunity to expand an existing parks space, create a park in an area identified as underserved or to protect a unique natural resource. The subject parcel is located within Park Service Area 12. This portion of the Service Area contains two developed park features, Thresher Fields Park and Bur Oaks Park. Park Service Area 12 also contains the Off-Leash Dog Area, which is located on the west side of Thresher Fields Park. Trail Dedication – Typically, development of the site would be responsible for a trails dedication. As per past practice and policy, the dedication could be met with a cash payment and/or credit given for the development of trails internal to the site that have public benefit. While the subject site is located very close to Burr Oaks Park, physically, direct pedestrian access is not available due to existing development patterns. The parcel is located near both residential and industrial properties. A detached trail on both the north and south side of Yankee Doodle Road provides adequate transportation going east-west. Summary – Parks and Recreation The subject area is served by Thresher Fields Park and Bur Oaks Park, as well as the Off-Leash dog area in Thresher Fields. An existing trail is located along both the north and south sides of Yankee Doodle Road. Thus, the site will be subject to cash park and trail dedication. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS In evaluating this proposal, the following items should be considered: General Considerations  The applicant is requesting a change in land use designation to MD, Medium Density, from BP, Business Park, for 7.33 acres located east of Dodd Road and South of Yankee Doodle Road.  The submitted Concept Plan illustrates a 72 unit twin home development with two access points from Yankee Doodle Road. Environmental Impacts  The site was previously graded, in anticipation of future development. Planning Report – Pulte Homes of MN March 27, 2018 Page 8  The site is generally open with light tree coverage save for the stand of trees preserved on the eastern edge of the site.  The development is subject to the Tree Preservation Ordinance.  No wetlands are located on the property.  The site is located within the Buffer Zone of the Airport Noise Policy Zones.  The site is anticipated to be located within Zone 4 of the Airport Noise Policy Zones upon adoption of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Zone 4 prohibits single entry housing units. Infrastructure Impacts  Public street access is from Yankee Doodle Road; a private street is proposed to serve the development.  Any development of this site would be subject to City ordinances related to storm water volume and rate control, as well as pollutant control and water quality management.  Sanitary sewer and water main service are available to serve development of the site. Comprehensive Land Use Impacts  MD, Medium Density, is a general land use category which provides areas for primarily for attached housing units; however, small lot single-family may be appropriate provided they comply with density restrictions (4-12 units/acre).  The submitted concept plan and narrative propose a 72-unit twin home development upon7.33 acres resulting in 9.82 units per acre.  The proposal appears generally compatible to the surrounding developed properties and provide a buffer from Yankee Doodle Road, an arterial roadway, and the office/warehouse uses to the west to the existing adjacent residential neighborhood. Parks and Recreation System  Developed parked features are nearby include Thresher Field Park which contains the Off Leash Dog Area.  Park Service Area 12 also contains a developed neighborhood park, Bur Oaks Park. Planning Report – Pulte Homes of MN March 27, 2018 Page 9  Existing park and recreation facilities in this area have the capability to accommodate an increased service base. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION The applicant is requesting approval of a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from BP, Business Park to MD, Medium Density, to allow a 72-unit townhome residential development. The site is within the Buffer Zone of the Airport Noise Policy Zones and is anticipated to be part of Zone 4, upon adoption of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which will make single entry housing units Incompatible. It is a policy matter for the elected officials to determine whether the proposal is compatible to the surrounding area and the Comprehensive Guide plan objectives . ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED To recommend approval of a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from BP, Business Park to MD, Medium Density Residential, for a residential development upon 7.33 acres located north of Yankee Doodle Road and east of Dodd Road. 77THGREATOAKSPLROLLINGHILLSDRCIRCLEC.S.A.H. NO. 26 (LONE OAK RD.)M IK E C O LLIN SD R LOUIS LANERED OAK DRROLL LN.IVYLANEHILLSIDEDRK U T O F F C T SALLYG REATOAKSLNBECKER ROADSTATETRUNKHWY.NO.55EROLLINGHILLSPLCHAPEL LANEROLLINGHILLSDRRITA CTS T A COURTHOUSE LNREDOAKDRROLLING HILLS CRBORCHERTLNRANDOMRDROLLING HILLS DRELRENEROADROLLING HILLS CTJOYCE CTAKS TRAILWREN LNEHOLIDAY LNWESTTRAILS END RDSTREETBLACKOAKDRELRENEROADHILLSIDE CTS T ATE TRU N K H W Y. N O . 149 HOLIDAY LNREDOAKDRBLACKOAKDRCO.RD.NO.28(YANKEEDOODLERD.)IVY CTSTATE TRUNK HWY. NO. 559 ROLLINGHILLSDRREDOAKCTCHAPELLANEBur Oaks ParkThresherFieldsParkLocation Map01,000500Feet´§¨¦35E§¨¦494Cliff RdDiffley RdYankee Doodle RdLone Oak RdMap Area ExtentProject Name: Pulte-Yankee Doodle RdRequest: Comprehensive Guide Plan AmendmentCase No.: 12-CG-03-02-18Subject Site CO. RD. 28 Yankee Doodle RoadRolling Hills PlaceRolling Hills CourtRolling Hills DriveRolling Hills DriveRolling Hills Drive200 0100 Feet´This map is for reference use only. This is not a survey and is not indtended to be used as one.Aerial photo-Spring 2016Project: Pulte-Yankee Doodle RdRequest: Comprehensive Guide Plan AmendmentCase No.: 12-CG-03-02-18 DATE: 1-26-18 MPR - ConceptYANKEE DOODLE ROAD - CONCEPT B EAGAN, MINNESOTASITE DATAINCLUDED PARCELS = 10-01200-77-010 (9.93 ac per GIS)YANKEE DOODLE ROAD R/W DEDICATION = 2.60 ACNET CONCEPT PLAN AREA = 7.33 AC (INCLUDES EXISTING D/U EASEMENTS)TOTAL UNITS = 72 UNITSTOTAL GROSS DENSITY = 9.82 U/G.A.CURRENT ZONING = PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENTPROPOSED ZONING = R-3, RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSECURRENT LAND USE = BP, BUSINESS PARKPROPOSED LAND USE = MD, MEDIUM DENSITYSITE WETLANDS = NONE ASSUMED PER REVIEW OF COUNTY AND NWI MAPSDESIGN STANDARDS USED IN CONCEPTPRIVATE ROADWAY REQUIREMENTS4 OR LESS NO CURB12'5-8 UNITS CURB AND GUTTER20' MIN. WIDTH FACE-FACE9-20 UNITS CURB AND GUTTER24' MIN. WIDTH FACE-FACEMORE THAN 20 UNITS CURB AND GUTTER28' MIN. WIDTH FACE-FACEPROPOSED PRIVATE ROAD SECTIONS28' FACE TO FACE (SECTION A) - ALL 1,322LF PRIVATE ROAD IS 28' F-FTYPICAL DRIVEWAY LENGTH = 22' MIN (EXCEPT 1 @ 20' & 1 @ 21.6')PARKING PROPOSED2 GARAGE STALLS PER UNIT = 2 *72 = 144 STALLS2 DRIVEWAY PARKING STALLS PER UNIT = 2 *72 = 144 STALLSADDITIONAL GUEST STALLS = 29 STALLSTOTAL PARKING AVAILABLE = 317 STALLS (4.4 STALLS/UNITS)SITE ZONING DATAPROPOSED SETBACK TO YANKEE DOODLE ROAD R/W = 50'PROPOSED SETBACK TO DEVELOPMENT PERIMETER = 30' PROPOSED DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS = 20'MAX. R-3 BUILDING HEIGHT = 35'MAX. R-3 BUILDING COVERAGE = 20% 1 We Build Consumer Inspired Homes and Communities to Make Lives Better “YANKEE DOODLE PROPERTY” APPLICATION FOR: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT EAGAN, MINNESOTA February 21, 2018 Introduction Pulte Homes of Minnesota, LLC (“Pulte”) is pleased to be submitting this application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Pulte’s company vision is “Building Consumer Inspired Homes and Communities to Make Lives Better”. We are one of the largest homebuilders in the United States with corporate offices in Atlanta, Georgia. We currently operate under three distinct brands of homebuilding throughout the country: Pulte Homes, Centex Homes, and Del Webb. Pulte’s Minnesota Division has an office in Eden Prairie and sold over 500 homes in the Twin Cities in 2017, all under the Pulte Homes brand. Pulte will act as both developer of the property and builder of the homes within this residential development. The primary contact for Pulte is: Paul Heuer, Director of Land Planning & Entitlement 7500 Flying Cloud Drive, Suite 670 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 952-229-0722 Paul.Heuer@PulteGroup.com The owner of the property is: Burr Oak II LLC 2900 Lone Oak Parkway, Suite 140 Eagan, MN 55121 Property Legal Description & Address Legal Description: 12 27 23 N 10 A OF S 20 A OF SE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 SUBJ TO PARCEL 5 DAKOTA CO R/W MAP 272 Address: NA PIN: 10-01200-77-010 2 Key Facts x Existing zoning is PD Planned Development x 2030 Future Land Use Plan guidance is BP Business Park (see below graphic) x Proposed reguiding is Medium Density Residential (4 to 12 units/acre) x Proposed rezoning is R-3 x Proposed use – Multifamily residential development x 72 housing units on 7.33 net acres (after right-of-way dedication) x Net density = 9.82 units/acre Land Use The 2030 Future Land Use Plan guidance for the property is BP Business Park. See below graphic. The property is shown with a red boundary. In 2006 Yankee Doodle Road was extended from State Highway 149 to State Highway 55, bisecting a rectangular shaped property, the north portion of which is the subject property. The resulting shape of the subject property is very narrow and linear. The total depth of the property after right-of-way dedication is approximately 250 feet. Over the past twelve years, since the property was provided with access, public utilities, and turn lanes, there has been little interest from industrial users (see attached letter from owner). A common complaint is that the lack of depth of the property is inadequate for industrial uses. In addition, if an industrial use was shoehorned onto the site, it would need to be pressed up against the northern property line. Land uses north of this property line are single family homes. It is apparent to potential industrial users that this would create a conflict with neighboring property owners. In evaluating the property, we determined that the lack of property depth severely limited uses. We found one particular type of residential use which would neatly fit onto this property and is in demand in this submarket: a type of townhomes commonly known as “rowhomes”. The property is not deep enough to fit a public street/right-of-way with homes on both sides of the street. 3 However, it will accommodate a private street with rowhomes on both sides of the street. This housing product is a natural fit for this property for the following reasons: 1. Unlike industrial users, this rowhome product physically fits on the site. 2. This use acts as a very natural transition from industrial uses to the south to low density residential uses to the north. 3. This product is in demand in this submarket. For these reasons, we are requesting a land use guidance change of this property from Light Industrial to Medium Density Residential. This submittal includes: x This narrative x Comprehensive Plan Amendment application x Application fees totaling $3,000 x Concept Plan 1 Cheryl Stevenson From:Sarah Thomas Sent:Friday, March 30, 2018 11:32 AM To:Cheryl Stevenson Subject:FW: Pulte-Yankee Doodle Rd project FYI    From: Tim Donarski [mailto:timothy.donarski@gmail.com]   Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 8:31 PM  To: Mike Ridley <MRidley@cityofeagan.com>  Subject: Pulte‐Yankee Doodle Rd project  Hey Mike, I'm an Eagan resident in the Burr Oaks neighborhood, but a little ways away from this proposed project. I think a project like this makes a lot of sense for this site, but one thing I'm concerned about is pedestrian access between this proposed development, Rolling Hills Drive and Burr Oaks Park. I have no idea if the city has done this in the past (or if it is even legal), but it would seem reasonable for the city to demand as a condition to providing final approval to this development, that Pulte should pay for an easement (obtained by the city from one of the property owners to the north) and a corresponding paved walkway from the development to Rolling Hills Drive. Thinking of our young boys, if they were to make friends with kids in this new development, it would be unfortunate for them to have to walk/bike all the way out to Yankee Doodle in order to visit the development and vice versa. A pedestrian link to Rolling Hills Drive would truly bring this development into the neighborhood, rather than leaving it awkwardly on the exterior. Thanks for your time and your service to our Eagan! Tim Donarski 3255 Black Oak Drive Cheryl Stevenson �_ From: Millican,Bridget W <BMILLICA@travelers.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 4:56 PM To: City Council Cc: Cyndee Fields; Gary Hansen; Meg Tilley; Mike Maguire; Paul Bakken Subject: Proposed Plute development on Yankee Doodle Attachments: Plute Trees Removal jpg; Trees Plute Yankee jpg Hello, After looking over the exhibits included in your Agenda for today's City Council Meeting, I do not see the exhibit which identifies all of the trees that Pulte is planning on removing. This is an important issue for those of us homeowners bordering the subject site. They have tagged trees in anticipation of removal and we will be left with very little border to hide this ugly development. They need to define "younger" as stated in the Planning Report: "the northern half is heavily treed with younger landscape trees". There are not young trees that separate my property from the Subject Site. These trees are over 30 years old and they are tagged for removal. It seems Pulte is being deceptive in their assessment of the current tree age and this needs to be addressed. I have attached a few photos of the so called "younger landscape trees". Please request that they submit an exhibit identifying the potential tree removal and review it as you make your decision. Please research the quality of Pulte's other developments before making any decisions on this proposal. The rate at which they build is so fast and it is concerning. This is not an ideal location for 72 homes that could easily hold 288 people. It seems like Pulte is racing against the clock to try and get this passed before the noise contours change and the classification of Yankee Doodle changes. If the City is planning to adopt Zone 4 which would prohibit single entry housing in a few weeks or months, how can it be justified today? There are better locations to cram 288 people in the city of Eagan aside from this very narrow stretch of industrial -zoned land next to a principal arterial roadway. Thank you, Bridget Millican 3314 Rolling Hills Drive This message (including any attachments) may contain coni dential, proprietary, privileged and/or private information. The information is intended to be far the use of the individual or entity designated above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender immediately; and delete the mossage Gnd any attar hmen;s. Any disclosure, repmduc'ion, distribution or other use of this message or any attachments by an individual or entity other than the intandeu rec'p°ont is prohibited. 4 k. 5 s 4 d 4 µ`,>' y# 'a -� t 'x,.: s.'+r ®' s'. Y +. 3 Y � • ' 4Y `Y • r �t�, 9 x ` r $1►.+w fay E >s a rya h. At" y e� �''`,y�` •a ',•,�-'�d�+� ~9�4 aFri¢ �� FF'!�' �d�� ,y Y*t`b' 9 �'. ��'�d,. s, :. yet �.r .b .s �`' �.f d �!•�'- 3 x. P g '14` f E�� ayg �, ..,p � ~� �3di L ... �_ � . r• .� ! � '`. �al�f p ,.oar., � ,u"�"�]sF Y� �. ° 't kk �4i�,q,np�; "�. * .,• y ,a� �„ . '� , - a�,b 5 -..n'� �• .. $ v� '� � � 4'�' _..fir �� ,.�s tita i ' � � � -.4 S1. p � ..,.. '.iz-...,`J,>, �. - �y�' r �+.6 � � �_ '���'� b� aY '°�*r a�l�"4 �• , °d �.7t t' � -. • � f� ~ �i-� � � :,.:.-, tis ' �!" r �vr � .� ���" a.art +�; ! �C^^+-'#"�" �� ... �-9i �y:�� � "�i.'.•Y d�,wr^b:y _' �{' j � ," ', 17 .. � � Y i _,.,may.+ ¢ .• 4 7k" 0.9 mow. .9K. a,. �.a' '' r-, ��'`.� �ti�aA 4 .spa+-av �'ir +: dr�.S.'• .4 �' i.' R • it' E <`$y. 4 s#. ,B vi •. �� x� �h�2_g "•`k �f alb �� �Rar ���*' � �i�•^"R � � ,� c�'�, �� * :P. 'f.=^�.:` p+-5c�• � o- � > , e �.: s r 7 � ,� et � � --;8 m �.i � •,� ���g •'.'fin '� i �' ti��� y I r 4 ~w Agenda Information Memo April 3, 2018, Eagan City Council Meeting NEW BUSINESS C.Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment – Integrated Development, LLC Action To Be Considered: To direct staff to submit to the Metropolitan Council a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment (or direct Findings of Fact for Denial) to change the land use designation from RC (Retail Commercial) to HD (High Density Residential) upon approximately 5.22 acres located south of Hwy. 55 and east of Dodd Rd. Required Vote For Approval: Majority of Councilmembers present Facts: The Applicant is requesting a change in the land use designation of this site from RC (Retail Commercial) to HD (High Density Residential, 12+ units/acre). The site consists of four developed parcels. Surrounding land uses are Low and Medium Density residential, Retail Commercial, and Limited Industrial. The concept plan shows a 4-story multi-family building parallel to Dodd Road, with parking and green space to the east. Internal pedestrian trails are shown connecting to existing trails along Dodd Road, and other intended amenities are also identified. Access is from Dodd Road and the Hwy. 55 frontage road. Dodd Road is a state highway, and as such, access is managed by MnDOT. The proposed density is approximately 48 units/acre. The site lies with Airport Noise Zone 4, within which multi-family with shared entrance is considered a compatible use, with interior noise attenuation construction. The tree preservation ordinance will apply to any redevelopment; and a wetland inventory will be required to determine if any wetlands are present. Sanitary sewer and water main are present to serve the site, and redevelopment will be subject to the stormwater management ordinance. Redevelopment will be subject to park and trail dedications, with credit given for any dedications previously satisfied. The acceptability of the proposed Comp Guide Amendment and the proposed use is a policy matter for City officials. The land use change is also subject to review and approval by the Metropolitan Council. Final implementation by the City would be withheld until it is accompanied by specific development plans as part of a Planned Development Amendment. The Advisory Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposal at their March 27, 2018 meeting, and did recommend approval on a 5-0 vote. Issues:  One e-mail of support for the proposal has been received.  During the public hearing, neighbors raised concerns about traffic, building height, noise, crime and property values. 60-Day Agency Action Deadline:  Not Applicable Attachments: (4) NBC-1 Location Map NBC-2 Draft March 27, 2018, APC Meeting Minutes NBC-3 Planning Report NBC-4 Report Exhibits & Public Correspondence AMES CROSSING RD77THLUNAR LANEWESCOTTSQUARE ROLLINGHILLS DR CIRCLE C.S.A.H. NO. 26 (LONE OAK RD.)MI K E C O LLIN S D R GRAND OAK CIR W LOUIS LANEROLL LN.HILLSIDE DR KUTOFFCTSALLY ALDRIN DRIVE STATETRUNK HWY.NO.55 R O L L I N G HILLS P LCHAPEL L ANE ROLLINGHILLSD RLONEO A K P A R K W AY RITA CT COURTHOUSE LN REDOAKDRMIKE COLLINS DRBORCHERTLN RANDOMRDLONE OAK DRIVE ELRENEROADJOYCE CTWREN LNC O MM E R S D R COLUMBIA DRHOLIDAY LNAPOLLO ROAD WATE RS R D STREET ELRENEROADHILLSIDE CTS T A T E T R U N K H W Y. N O . 1 4 9HOLIDAY LNREDOAKDRC O .R D .N O .28(Y A N K E E DOODLE RD.)MIKECOLLINSDRSTATE TRUNK HWY. NO. 55 S T A T E T R U N K H WY . N O. 1 4 9 R E D OAKCT CO. HWY. NO. 28 (YANKEE DOODLE RD.) CHAPEL LANE APOLLO ROAD Bur Oaks Park ThresherFieldsPark Wescott Commons Park Location Map 0 1,000500Feet ´ §¨¦35E §¨¦494 Cliff Rd Diffley Rd Yanke e Doodle Rd Lone Oak Rd Map Area Extent Project Name: Dodd Road ApartmentsRequest: Comprehensive Guide Plan A mendmentCase Nos.: 12-CG-02-02-18 Subject SitesSubject SitesSubject SitesSubject Sites Advisory Planning Commission March 27, 2018 Page 15 of 17 D. Dodd Road Apartments Applicant Name: Noah Bly, Integrated Development, LLC Location: 3150, 3200, 3240 & 3101 Dodd Road & Highway 55 Application: Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment A Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from RC- Retail Commercial to HD, High Density. File Number: 12-CG-02-02-18 Planner Dudziak introduced this item and highlighted the information presented in the City Staff report dated March 21, 2018. Scott Stevens, owner/applicant, provided a brief history of his involvement with the site and his desire to convert a prominent, yet tired, location into a focal point. Noah Bly, applicant, provided a summary of what attracted him to the site and the proposed amenities the apartment complex would provide. Member Torres asked about the thought process for providing luxury versus affordable apartments. Mr. Bly explained the economics of site acquisition and construction drive that determination. Member Weimert questioned “luxury” apartments overlooking a diesel Kwik Trip. Mr. Bly stated the site works because it is very visible and has great access to Hwy 149 & 55 and I-494. Chair Piper suggested the developer consider multiple price points within the building. Chair Piper opened the public hearing. Matt Ruveson, 3119 Joyce Court, stated he was opposed to high-density housing and had concerns about noise, traffic, crime and overflow parking on Joyce Court. He also suggested that a multi-story structure would change neighborhood sight lines and reduce property values. Kathy Wills, 3120 Joyce Court, stated she is not opposed to residential use, but the high density residential raised concerns about the traffic it would generate. There being no further public comment, Chair Piper closed the public hearing and turned the discussion back to the Commission. City Engineer Gorder explained that as a state highway, MnDOT would have full oversight on Highway 149 intersection control and possible roadway modifications. Advisory Planning Commission March 27, 2018 Page 16 of 17 City Planner Ridley explained Eagan Police Dept. would be the entity to respond to noise issues between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM regardless of the use of the property. Member VanderPoel commented she supports the proposal, thinks the area needs a big change, and that the concept plan makes an effort to create a buffer to the lower density residential area. Chair Piper stated that whether the proposal is Medium Density or High Density, any redevelopment is likely to be vertical and multiple stories. Member Weimert commented he supports the proposal, and will have questions about the specifics of the development plan such as pedestrian access, parking, screening and buffering, when it comes back for rezoning or other development approvals. Member Weimert moved, Member Goff seconded a motion to recommend approval of a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from RC, Retail Commercial, to HD, High Density upon approximately 5.22 acres upon property at 3150, 3200 and 3240 Dodd Road and 3101 Hwy. 55, located south of Hwy. 55 and east of Dodd Road. All voted in favor. Motion carried 5-0. PLANNING REPORT CITY OF EAGAN REPORT DATE: March 21, 2018 CASE: 12-CG-02-02-18 APPLICANT: Integrated Development, LLC HEARING DATE: March 27, 2018 PROPERTY OWNER: Television Service Labs, Inc. APPLICATION DATE: February 20, 2018 Three Corners Capital, LLC REQUEST: Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment PREPARED BY: Pam Dudziak LOCATION: 3150, 3200 and 3240 Dodd Road and 3101 Hwy. 55 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: RC, Retail Commercial ZONING: GB, General Business & LB, Limited Business SUMMARY OF REQUEST The Applicant, Integrated Development, LLC, is requesting approval of a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Retail Commercial (RC) to High Density (HD) to allow a multi-family upon approximately 5.22 acres located at 31500, 3200 and 3240 Dodd Road and 3101 Hwy. 55. The site consists of four parcels located south of Hwy. 55 and east of Hwy. 149/Dodd Road. AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW The city’s Comprehensive Guide Plan was prepared pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.864. As defined by statute, the Land Use Plan is a guide and may be amended from time to time as conditions change. The city’s Guide Plan is to be implemented by official controls such as zoning and other fiscal devices. The creation of land use districts and zoning is a formulation of public policy and a legislative act. As such, the classification of land uses must reasonably relate to promoting the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. When a change to a city’s Comprehensive Guide Plan is requested, it is the city’s responsibility to determine if the change is in the best long-range interests of the city. The standard of review of a city’s action in approving or denying a Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment is whether there exists a rational basis. A rational basis standard has been described to mean having legally sufficient reasons supportable by the facts which promote the general health, safety and welfare of the city. Planning Report – Integrated Development, LLC March 27, 2018 Page 2 BACKGROUND/HISTORY The gas station was constructed in 1991. According to Dakota County records, the original construction on one of the houses dates back to 1890, the other two houses on the site were built in the 1950s. Television Service Labs has operated in this location for over 20 years. Land Use History – The current RC, Retail Commercial land use designation was applied to the properties with the adoption of the 2000 Comprehensive Guide Plan, and reflected the existing uses and a collapsing of multiple commercial designations into one broader Retail Commercial classification. The City’s first Comprehensive Plan was established in 1974, and the properties were designated for R-III, Mixed Residential (6-12 units per acre) at that time. In 1980, the designation changed to R-II, Mixed Residential (3-6 units/acre). The General Business and Neighborhood Business designations appear in the 1988 Land Use Plan. Zoning History – The City’s earliest zoning maps in 1959 identify the property as Agricultural. In 1964, the former gas station parcel was zoned C-1, Light Commercial and the remaining parcels were R-1, Residential Urban. The southernmost parcel of the four also was rezoned to C-1 by 1968, and in 1974, the two Light Commercial properties were zoned GB, General Business, and the other two parcels remained R-1, Residential Single. By 1987, one of the parcels on Dodd Road was zoned NB, Neighborhood Business. Ultimately, by 1991, the two northerly parcels retained a General Business zoning designation, and the two southerly parcels were rezoned to Neighborhood Business, and these designations remain today. EXISTING CONDITIONS The site consists of four parcels, all of which have been developed. The corner lot at Hwy. 55 and Dodd Road contains a former gas station. The other three parcels are owned by Television Service Labs, Inc., include an electronics repair business and three single-family homes. Television Service Labs has operated a business in this location for many years. The two southerly lots are zoned NB, Neighborhood Business, the two northerly lots are zoned GB, General Business. The three single-family homes are considered a nonconforming uses within the NB and GB zoning districts. The two southerly parcels share one driveway to Dodd Road, a frontage road along the south side of Hwy. 55 provides access to the two northerly parcels, and the former gas station site also has direct access to Dodd Road. SURROUNDING USES The following existing uses, zoning, and comprehensive guide plan designations surround the subject property: Planning Report – Integrated Development, LLC March 27, 2018 Page 3 Existing Use Zoning Land Use Designation North Restaurants/Gas Station PD, Planned Development RC, Retail Commercial East Residential R-1, Single-family LD, Low Density South Residential R-1, Single-family R-3, Residential Townhome LD, Low Density and MD, Medium Density West Gas station/ convenience store (Kwik Trip) and Restaurant (Starks) I-1, Limited Industrial IND, Limited Industrial EVALUATION OF REQUEST Description of Proposal – The Applicant is proposing to consolidate the four parcels into one site for redevelopment as a four-story multi-family apartment building. The applicant’s narrative describes the intended development as “a market rate apartment building” with “250 luxury apartments and a range of superior amenities.” Some amenities listed in the narrative include walking paths, separate co-working spaces, “a club room with kitchen, a rooftop deck with outdoor grill, an outdoor pool with lounge areas and grills, an exercise facility, a dog spa, a large dog run, package room and electronic package system, a two-story hospitality style lobby with WIFI, fireplace and water feature, and a porte cochere at the entrance.” Compatibility with Surrounding Area – Multi-family residential use in this area is a transitional land use between industrial and commercial uses to the north and west, and lower intensity residential uses to the east and south. The proposed 4-story building height would be taller than other buildings in this area; however, the building can also serve as a buffer to sound and activity on the adjacent major roadways. Concept and Site Plan – The site plan shows the building fronting on Dodd Road and Hwy. 55, with a short leg on the south end. Parking is proposed behind the building, along with ponding and a swimming pool. Access is proposed directly from Dodd Road, and from the Hwy. 55 frontage road. Two levels of the building are proposed to be constructed over the westerly driveway, allowing passage of vehicles beneath it. The building is proposed to be four stories with two levels of underground parking, and the narrative states “more than 80% of the resident parking will be underground,” and providing a parking ratio of “1.5 stalls per unit overall.” A pet park for residents is proposed at the southern point of the site. The northwest end of the building is proposed to contain a “lounge and rooftop deck.” Density – The HD, High Density land use designation provides for residential development exceeding 12 units per acre. The subject site is 5.22 acres in size, and the Applicant’s narrative indicates the intended development would have 250 apartment units. This translates to a gross density of 47.9 units/acre. Planning Report – Integrated Development, LLC March 27, 2018 Page 4 Parks and Recreation – Bur Oaks Park is located about ½-mile to the southeast, accessible from the site via trails and local streets. City Code also requires multi-family developments to provide on-site recreational space. Park and trail dedications were previously satisfied for the former gas station parcel. Cash park and trail dedications would be due with redevelopment of the site, with credit applied for previous dedications. For multi-family development, the 2018 park dedication rate is $3,475 per unit, and trail dedication is $258 per unit. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Topography/Grading – The existing parcels are currently developed with a combination of residential homes and a commercial business. Some parcels are generally open, while others are heavily treed. The entire site will be disturbed for construction of the building, parking lot, entrances, and utilities. The site generally slopes to the north with elevations ranging from 880 to 854. Wetlands – It is uncertain if any wetlands are on site. A certified wetland specialist will need to verify if wetlands exist. If present, they will need to be addressed in accordance with the State Wetlands Conservation Act with any future development. Tree Preservation – There are some wooded areas across the four parcels that make up the site. A significant Tree Inventory and Tree Preservation Plan will be required with a future development application. As a single-lot multi-unit residential development, allowable removal would be 30%. Proposed removal beyond that amount is subject to mitigation in accordance with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. Airport Noise Considerations – The City of Eagan considered airport noise as a factor in its Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan. The Metropolitan Council has adopted land use compatibility guidelines which incorporate the 2007 Noise Policy Contours. Under these guidelines, the site is located within Airport Noise Zone 4, within which multi-family residential with shared entrance is considered a compatible use. Noise attenuation construction standards will be required to achieve interior noise level reduction of at least 19 dBA. INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACTS Storm Drainage – The entire site lies within Drainage District G (as designated in the City Storm Water Management Plan – 2007). The site drains to the small city pond at the north end of the property. Stormwater then enters the storm sewer system where it travels east along TH 55, then to the south to Bur Oaks Pond. The development of this property will be subject to the codified post-construction storm water requirements for stormwater volume and pollutant Planning Report – Integrated Development, LLC March 27, 2018 Page 5 control. Any existing ponding displaced by development will need to be replaced elsewhere on the site. A Mn/DOT storm water permit will be required if any drainage enters the TH 149 or TH 55 right-of-way. Sanitary Sewer – Trunk sanitary sewer of sufficient size, depth, and capacity is available to the through the middle of the property, for connection with development of the property. Sanitary sewer District N (as designated in the City’s Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan) serves the entire site. The proposed apartment is located over the existing sanitary sewer. The applicant will be responsible to relocate the sanitary sewer in a location and manner acceptable to the City Engineer, including verification of adequate grade, and keep all properties in service during the relocation. Water Main/Supply – Lateral water main of sufficient size and capacity is available along the east boulevard of TH 149 for connection and extension with development of the property. All well and septic systems within the development should be abandoned in accordance with City and County standards. Water Quality – Any development will need to comply with the City’s Post Construction Stormwater Management Requirements (City Code §4.34) for stormwater management and surface water quality, including Runoff Rate Control and 1.1” Volume Control for all new and fully reconstructed impervious surface areas. Telecommunications - In 2004, the Eagan Technology Task Force recommended that broadband and fiber optic telecommunications networks be expanded in the city wherever possible. Any development of the site should include the installation of fiber optic cable, or a conduit for future installation, in its construction plans. Streets/Access/Transportation – The primary access for development is proposed at the existing median opening on TH 149 (Dodd Road), and a secondary access to the TH 55 access road. TH 149 is a four-lane divided minor arterial roadway with turn lanes at intersections and a bituminous trail in the east boulevard. Mn/DOT reviewed the concept plan and commented that the applicant will be required to construct a right-turn lane into the main entrance. Construction of a turn lane will also require the existing trail to be relocated further east, and if necessary, additional right-of-way will be required for the trail relocation. Other utilities (Access Eagan Fiber Duct, electric, etc.) in the turn lane and relocated trail sections will also need to be relocated by the applicant. A pedestrian walking path is shown on the concept plan. Easements/Permits/Rights-of-Way – Drainage and utility easements are currently located around the perimeter of each parcel, over the stormwater pond, and over the sanitary sewer line that runs through the middle of the site. All easements will need to be vacated and re- dedicated as needed with the new plat. Additional right-of-way may be needed where the trail is being relocated to make room for a new turn lane. Planning Report – Integrated Development, LLC March 27, 2018 Page 6 Financial Obligation – At this time, there are no pending assessments on any of the four parcels included with this development. Based upon a study by City staff of the financial obligations collected in the past, some of the parcels previously paid trunk and lateral utility fees, but many of those fees were not paid and will be collected at time of final plat or connection to the City’s utility system. The estimated fees to be collected are typically estimated at the time of development application such as Preliminary Subdivision, or Rezoning. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE IMPACTS: Land Supply - The proposal would result in the loss of 5.2 acres in the Retail Commercial land use category. The City is considered fully developed, with more than 95% of the City’s land developed. In recent years, the City has seen increased retail commercial development, particularly in Cedar Grove with the outlet center, and at Yankee Doodle and Pilot Knob Roads with Central Park Commons, offsetting the proposed 5.2 acre loss. The proposal increases the amount of High Density land by 5.2 acres, and if developed as proposed, could result in the addition of 250 multi-family dwelling units to the community. The proposal appears to be consistent with the City policy to “support higher density residential development in areas adequately served by municipal services; in close proximity to parks, schools, shopping and transit; and where existing environmental conditions can be protected.” Land Use Designations – The High Density residential category provides areas for high density attached housing units, with allowable gross densities greater than 12 units per acre. The proposed concept plan intends 250 units on 5.2 acres, a gross density of 48.2 units per acre. Before these properties were designated for commercial land uses in 1988, the land use designation was for medium density residential uses between 3 and 12 units per acre. Compatibility – The City of Eagan Comprehensive Guide Plan describes High Density residential uses as potentially compatible with other lower density residential uses, and also with more intense commercial and industrial uses, given appropriate scale, buffering and design treatment. In some situations, high density residential uses may serve as a buffer between lower density residential and higher intensity commercial and industrial uses. The subject site is adjacent to both lower density residential uses to the east and south, and higher intensity industrial and commercial uses, as well as major roadways, to the north and west. Planning Report – Integrated Development, LLC March 27, 2018 Page 7 Access Needs – Access needs vary with the size of development. Large developments should have direct access to arterial and collector roadways. Close proximity to transit service is desirable. This site has direct access to Dodd Road, and Hwy. 55, both major arterial roadways. Physical Suitability – According to the City of Eagan’s Comprehensive Guide Plan, High Density development can be suited to properties with development limitations, and underground parking can minimize the amount of impervious surface area. The subject site does not have particular physical constraints to development, but can provide for underground parking, minimizing impervious coverage and allowing for green buffers and amenities. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION The applicant is proposing to amend the land use designation of four parcels comprising a 5.2 acre site from Retail Commercial (RC) to High Density (HD) to allow for redevelopment of the site with a multi-family apartment building. The Retail Commercial land use designation reflects the existing and former uses of the properties. The proposed High Density land use designation is potentially compatible with the surrounding area with lower density residential uses to the south and east, and higher intensity commercial and industrial uses to the north and west. Municipal utilities are present to serve the development. Any development of the site would be subject to park and trail dedications. A certified wetland specialist will need to verify if wetlands exist and if present, addressed in accordance with the State Wetlands Conservation Act with any future development. A tree inventory also would be required with any future development, and mitigation applies for tree removal in excess of the allowable amount. The acceptability of the proposed Comp Guide Amendment and the proposed use is a policy matter for City officials. The Comp Guide Amendment also is subject to review and approval by the Metropolitan Council, after which the request is returned to the City for final action. It is the City’s policy to withhold final action on implementation of a land use change until it is accompanied by specific development plans. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED To recommend approval of a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from RC, Retail Commercial, to HD, High Density upon approximately 5.22 acres upon property at 3150, 3200 and 3240 Dodd Road and 3101 Hwy. 55, located south of Hwy. 55 and east of Dodd Road. AMES CROSSING RD77THLUNAR LANEWESCOTTSQUARE ROLLINGHILLS DR CIRCLE C.S.A.H. NO. 26 (LONE OAK RD.)MI K E C O LLIN S D R GRAND OAK CIR W LOUIS LANEROLL LN.HILLSIDE DR KUTOFFCTSALLY ALDRIN DRIVE STATETRUNK HWY.NO.55 R O L L I N G HILLS P LCHAPEL L ANE ROLLINGHILLSD RLONEO A K P A R K W AY RITA CT COURTHOUSE LN REDOAKDRMIKE COLLINS DRBORCHERTLN RANDOMRDLONE OAK DRIVE ELRENEROADJOYCE CTWREN LNC O MM E R S D R COLUMBIA DRHOLIDAY LNAPOLLO ROAD WATE RS R D STREET ELRENEROADHILLSIDE CTS T A T E T R U N K H W Y. N O . 1 4 9HOLIDAY LNREDOAKDRC O .R D .N O .28(Y A N K E E DOODLE RD.)MIKECOLLINSDRSTATE TRUNK HWY. NO. 55 S T A T E T R U N K H WY . N O. 1 4 9 R E D OAKCT CO. HWY. NO. 28 (YANKEE DOODLE RD.) CHAPEL LANE APOLLO ROAD Bur Oaks Park ThresherFieldsPark Wescott Commons Park Location Map 0 1,000500Feet ´ §¨¦35E §¨¦494 Cliff Rd Diffley Rd Yanke e Doodle Rd Lone Oak Rd Map Area Extent Project Name: Dodd Road ApartmentsRequest: Comprehensive Guide Plan A mendmentCase Nos.: 12-CG-02-02-18 Subject SitesSubject SitesSubject SitesSubject Sites HWY 55HW Y149 HWY 55 HWY 55 HWY 55 HWY 55 H W Y 149 Courthouse Lane Joyce CourtAdvantage LaneRandom RoadRita Court Sally CircleHoliday LaneHwy 55 Frontage Road Hwy 55 Frontage RoadRandom RoadRandom Road200 0100 Feet ´This map is for reference use only. This is not a survey and is not indtended to be used as one. Aerial photo-Spring 2016 Project: Integrated Development, LLCRequest: Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment Case N o.: 12-CG-02-02-18 Dodd Road Apartments! !!! 2.7.18 www.rolflokensgard.com! 5 5 0 ' - 0 "62'-0"40'-0"334'-4"Mpls St PaulSt Paul 864 848 857 860 862 846 866 868 870 866 858 868 868 848 0 40 100 878 Level 1 a Porte Cachere b Guest and resident parking c Green amenity and pond d Outdoor pool and patio e Lounge, rooftop deck f -1 parking g -2 parking h Outdoor pet area i Walking path j Move-in truck parking to elevator j i i h g f e d c b a b i i City of Eagan Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment Narrative - Dodd Road Apartments 3150 Dodd Rd, 3200 Dodd Rd, 3240 Dodd Rd, 3101 Highway 55 February 20, 2018 Comprehensive Guide Plan Designation The 2030 Comprehensive Guide Plan designates the site as RC – Retail Commercial. A designation of HD-High Density is proposed for the site. Zoning Classification The overall site currently has two zoning classifications. The north half of the site is zoned GB – General Business and the southern portion is NB-Neighborhood Business. We propose that the site be redeveloped using the PD – Planned Development zoning designation. Proposed Project The proposed project is a distinct new market rate apartment building. As proposed the building has 250 luxury apartments and a range of superior amenities including a club room with kitchen, a rooftop deck with outdoor grill, an outdoor pool with lounge areas and grills, an exercise facility, a dog spa, a large dog run, package room and electronic package system, a two story hospitality style lobby with WIFI, fireplace and water feature, and a porte corchere at the entrance. The grounds include a heavily planted grove of trees between the development and adjacent houses to the east and a naturally landscaped rainwater retention pond. More than 80% of the resident parking will be underground, leaving more of the site planted. Innovative features relate a focus on enhancing the well-being of the residents. For example, walking paths connect residents to the pond, grove and dog park, but also to the sidewalk at Dodd Road that is the start of a 15 minute walk to Burr Oaks Park to the south. Exercise facilities in the building include not only a generously equipped work out room, but also a separate room for yoga and Pilates. Additional well-being features include 25% more glazing in each apartment for better views to the outside and more light and air. Staircases within the building include windows for natural light and will be placed to encourage their use. Separate co-working spaces allow residents to focus on work or studies outside of their apartments by reserving work spaces within the building. The building as proposed has four levels above ground and two levels of parking below ground – more than one enclosed stall per unit, and 1.5 stalls per unit overall. Redevelopment will require significant site work including regrading, relocating an existing storm pond, re-routing of a nine inch CIPP sanitary pipe running north/south, installation of a new water service looped through the site, and the construction of a new intersection with traffic signals at Advantage Lane. Project Schedule In addition to reviewing the development concept with City staff, we have reached out to MNDOT regarding eliminating the two existing access points on Dodd Road and building a signalized intersection at Advantage Lane. We have also commenced the first stage of site investigation including utilities, storm water, geotechnical information and environmental status. We intend to continue to work on these issues while working closely with the City of Eagan to create an outstanding development. Optimally approvals would be complete with the City, Met Council and MNDOT by the fall of this year. Demolition, environmental abatement if required, site work and construction are projected to have a 16 month duration. Existing Land Uses There are four parcels included in this application: Property Owner Acres 3150 Dodd Rd Three Corners Capital, LLC 1.61 3200 Dodd Rd Television Service Labs, Inc 1.35 3240 Dodd Rd Television Service Labs, Inc 1.37 3101 Highway 55 Television Service Labs, Inc 0.89 5.22 3150 Dodd Rd is the location of a former gas station, convenience store and car wash. It has been vacant for several years. The remaining three parcels owned by Television Service Labs, Inc. include an electronics repair business and three houses and garages. Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning within 660 Feet The following existing uses, zoning and comprehensive guide plan designations surround the site: Existing Use Zoning Land Use Designation North Restaurants, Gas Station PD – Planned Development RC-Retail Commercial South Industrial, Restaurants, Gas Station I-1-Limited Industrial IND-Limited Industrial East Houses, Townhouses R-1-Residential Single Family, R-3 Residential Townhouse LD-Low Density MD-Medium Density West Industrial, Restaurants, Gas Station I-1-Limited Industrial IND-Limited Industrial Compatibility of Proposed Land Use with Surrounding Area The industrial zone to the west has a mix of uses including both retail operations and food service that are compatible with and would be supported by a multifamily use. Industrial functions are separated from the site by the width of Dodd Road and setbacks on both sides. Current concerns about tractor trailers entering Dodd will be improved with a signalized intersection at Advantage Lane. Possible noise concerns for a multifamily use will be mitigated by sound attenuating design incorporated into the building in response to the MSP Noise Exposure Zone 4 and any other measures as necessary. The mix of uses to the north of the site including restaurants, a gas station and a hotel are highly compatible with multifamily. The area will be appear more complete and active with a new high quality building to replace a closed gas station. The proposed multifamily land use provides a transition from the Highway 55 and Dodd Road to the low and medium density residential to the east. A multifamily use benefits from the visibility provided by these two roads while also serving as a buffer for the homes behind it. It is unlikely that a successful retail development could similarly occupy the site and would likely present compatibility issues. A high density residential land use also is well co-located with Burr Oaks Park and also Thresher Fields Park. Grocery stores and other retail are a short drive away. Highway access is excellent. Grocery stores and other retail are convenient. Metropolitan District Waters Edge Building 1500 County Road B2 West Roseville, MN 55113 An equal opportunity employer MnDOT Metropolitan District, Waters Edge Building, 1500 County Road B2 West, Roseville, MN 55113 February 22nd, 2018 Michael Ridley Eagan Municipal Center 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 SUBJECT: Dodd Road Apartments MnDOT Review #PRE18-002 SE Quad of MN 55/MN 149 Eagan, Dakota County Control Section 1916 Dear Mr. Ridley, The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has reviewed the above referenced site plan. Please address the following issues before any further development: Traffic: Per the ITE trip generation manual, the proposed development will generate approximately 1,000 daily trips. This is over the 100 daily trips that warrants a right turn lane per the MnDOT Access Management Manual guidelines. MnDOT will require a right turn lane as a part of the permitting process. For questions regarding this comment please contact Almin Ramic at (651) 234-7824, or almin.ramic@state.mn.us. Noise: MnDOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities having the authority to regulate land use shall take all reasonable measures to prevent the establishment of land use activities, listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC), anywhere that the establishment of the land use would result in immediate violations of established State noise standards. MnDOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such developed areas. The project proposer is required to assess the existing noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact to the proposed development from any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding MnDOT's noise policy please contact Natalie Ries in Metro District’s Noise and Air Quality Unit at 651-234-7681 or Natalie.Ries@state.mn.us. Bike-Pedestrian: There is currently a bike/pedestrian trail along the east side of MN 149 (Dodd Road). Since MN 149 is a higher- speed highway, the width of the current buffer between the trail and the edge of the highway will need to be maintained (or, if possible, increased) so as to provide safe and comfortable separation between trail users and MnDOT Metropolitan District, Waters Edge Building, 1500 County Road B2 West, Roseville, MN 55113 motor vehicles. MnDOT also recommends providing one or more connections between the development and the bike/pedestrian trail to accommodate future residents. Please direct questions regarding these comments to Cameron Muhic at Cameron.Muhic@state.mn.us or 651- 234-7797. Design: The proposed driveway access onto MN 149 is located at the fourth leg of an existing three legged intersection and as such needs to be reviewed in more detail. Please be advised that this is a high speed roadway. Listed below are some of the major concerns MnDOT Metro Design has with this new driveway. MnDOT recommends that a preliminary layout be submitted for review.  The driveway will need to line up with the Advantage Lane centerline. If the existing alignment and topo files are needed, please request them from Casey Crisp (651-234-4332 or casey.crisp@state.mn.us) in MnDOT’s Surveys Section.  The two existing driveways will need to be restored with curb and gutter.  The proposed driveway is at the end of the existing Crane Creek Lane right turn lane. Please show how the right turn lane and the driveway work together.  Please provide turning templates all around for the design vehicle  Please show the existing trail in the plans and identify how the proposed right turn lane will affect the trail.  There are some drainage structures that will need to be relocated. Please include the relocated drainage structures in the layout.  Please include a pavement section for MnDOT review.  Use MnDOT Standard Plan 5-297.254 for the driveway. Note that truncated domes are not used in this alternative. Standard plans can be found at: https://standardplans.dot.state.mn.us/.  Use MnDOT Standard Plan 5-297.250 for the two pedestrian curb ramps needed to cross MN 149 (Dodd Road). Standard plans can be found at: https://standardplans.dot.state.mn.us/. Please direct questions regarding these comments to Nancy Jacobson, Metro Design, at nancy.l.jacobson@state.mn.us or 651-234-7647. Limited Use Permit (LUP): If the alignment for the trail changes and is covered by an LUP, the LUP may need to be adjusted. For questions regarding LUPs please contact Dan Phelps at dan.phelps@state.mn.us or 651-234-7585. Drainage Permit: A MnDOT drainage permit will be required to ensure that current drainage rates to MnDOT right-of-way will not be increased. The drainage permit application, including the information below, should be submitted to: Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District - Permit Office 1500 W. County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 The following information must be submitted with the drainage permit application: 1. A grading plan showing existing and proposed contours. MnDOT Metropolitan District, Waters Edge Building, 1500 County Road B2 West, Roseville, MN 55113 2. Drainage area maps for the proposed project showing existing and proposed drainage areas. Any off -site areas that drain to the project area should also be included in the drainage area maps. The direction of flow for each drainage area must be indicated by arrows. 3. Drainage computations for pre and post construction conditions during the 2, 10, 50 and 100 year rain events. 4. Time of concentration calculations. 5. An electronic copy of any computer modeling used for the drainage computations. 6. See also the attached Drainage Permits Checklist for more information. Once a drainage permit application is submitted, a thorough review will be completed and additional information may be requested. Please direct questions concerning drainage issues to Nick Olson (651-234-7542) or (nicholas.olson@state.mn.us) of MnDOT’s Water Resources section. Permits: In addition to the drainage permit, an access permit will be required. Any use of or work within or affecting MnDOT right-of-way requires a permit. Permit forms are available from MnDOT’s utility website at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/utility/index.html. Please include one set of plans formatted to 11X17 with each permit application. Please submit/send all permit applications and 11 X 17 plan sets to the metro permits email. Please direct any questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig (651-234-7911) of MnDOT’s Metro Permits Section. Review Submittal Options: MnDOT’s goal is to complete the review of plans within 30 days. Submittals sent in electronically can usually be turned around faster. There are four submittal options. Please submit either: 1. One (1) electronic pdf version of the plans. MnDOT can accept the plans via e-mail at metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us provided that each separate e-mail is under 20 megabytes. 2. Three (3) sets of full size plans. Although submitting seven sets of full size plans will expedite the review process. Plans can be sent to: MnDOT – Metro District Planning Section Development Reviews Coordinator 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 3. One (1) compact disc. 4. Plans can also be submitted to MnDOT’s External FTP Site. Please send files to: ftp://ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/incoming/MetroWatersEdge/Planning Internet Explorer doesn’t work using ftp so please use an FTP Client or your Windows Explorer (My Computer). Also, please send a note to metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us indicating that the plans have been submitted on the FTP site. If you have any questions concerning this review, please contact me at (651) 234-7788. MnDOT Metropolitan District, Waters Edge Building, 1500 County Road B2 West, Roseville, MN 55113 Sincerely, Jennifer Wiltgen Principal Planner Copy sent via E -Mail: Molly Kline, Area Engineer Cameron Muhic, Bike-Pedestrian Mackenzie Turner-Bargen, Bike-Pedestrian Natalie Ries, Noise Jon Solberg, Area Manager Almin Ramic, Traffic Buck Craig, Permits Becky Parzyck, Right of way Casey Crisp, Surveys Nicholas Olson, Water Resources Nancy Jacobson, Design Russell Owen, Metropolitan Council Nino Pedrelli PhD, State Street Realty Advisors 1 Pam Dudziak From:Pam Dudziak Sent:Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:29 AM To:Pam Dudziak Subject:FW: Dodd Road Apartments-Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Attachments:0156_001.pdf   From: JJ Jenkins [mailto:jjenkins@northpointkc.com]   Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 4:29 PM  To: APC <APC@cityofeagan.com>  Subject: Dodd Road Apartments‐Advisory Planning Commission Meeting  To: Pam Dudziak, Project Planner Hello Pam, We are in receipt of the attached public hearing notice for the proposed Dodd Road Apartments project, request file #12-CG-02-02-18. As a nearby property owner we would like to submit this response in support of the project and the associated request. We feel this proposed development would serve as an appropriate transitional use for the property in relation to other adjacent and nearby uses. Thank you. J.J. Jenkins BSS Eagan, LLC 3100 Courthouse Lane, Eagan, MN 55121 Phone: 816-888-7053 Email: jjenkins@northpointkc.com