The URL can be used to link to this page

01/05/2010 - City Council RegularAGENDA EAGAN CITY COUNCIL EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER BUILDING JANUARY 5, 2010 6:30 P.M. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ADOPT AGENDA III. RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS {�, a A. Eagan's Sesquicentennial Celebration Update .� B. 2009 City of Eagan Photo Contest Winners IV. CONSENT AGENDA (Consent items are acted on with one motion unless a request is made for an item to be pulled for discussion) P S A. APPROVE MINUTES /3 B. PERSONNEL ITEMS C. APPROVE Check Registers 6 D. APPROVE Final Payment and Authorize City Maintenance of Contract 08 -13 (Sibley Terminal Industrial Park — Storm Sewer Improvements �( E. RECEIVE Feasibility Report for Project 1008 (Northview Park Road / Braddock Trail / Trotters Ridge / Stafford Place — Street Overlay) and Schedule a Public Hearing (February 2, 2010) g F. ACCEPT a donation from the Eagan Citizens Crime Prevention Association for $3,609.11 APPROVE acceptance of a Forest Protection Reserve Planning and Preparedness Grant and authorize staff to sign contract documents pa0 H. DIRECT staff to prepare an ordinance amendment to Chapter 11, Section 11.40, Subd. 4 regarding I expiration of Conditional Use Permits �02 ( I. APPROVE Final Subdivision for Eagan Fire Station 2 ,pa� J. DIRECT staff to prepare ordinance amendments to Chapter 11 related to various housekeeping items / identified by staff p!S K. AUTHORIZE consideration of telecommunication tower locations at Eagan Municipal Campus and Northview Park L. AUTHORIZE Amendment of Cedar Grove Special Service District Levy �•Z� M. ACCEPT a Grant from the State of Minnesota on behalf of the Dakota County Drug Task Force and approve CCCC'"' a Resolution Authorizing Execution of the Agreement 3Y N. APPROVE Telecommunications Lease Amendments (Verizon Wireless) V. PUBLIC HEARINGS SA. 2010 FEE SCHEDULE I B. PROJECT 1022 Street Overlay (Overhill Farm) Y P gqC. PROJECT 1018 Street Overlay (Greensboro) 24D. PROJECT 1026 Street Overlay (Northview Meadows) I y/ E. PROJECT 1027 Street Overlay (Patrick Road) '6(F. VARIANCE — Preusse Property - A 9 foot setback Variance to allow two existing sheds located at 4145 Sibley Memorial Highway VI. OLD BUSINESS f)$OA. RATIFY resolution and ordinance and related documents for the establishment of Housing Improvement District for Meadowlark Ridge Homeowners Association VII. NEW BUSINESS +e2 A. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT — Steeplechase — Toll Brothers — A Planned Development Amendment to allow the remaining lots to exceed the 20% standard building coverage by 5% located at 1431, 1434, 1439, 1447, 1457, 1470, 1486, 1493 and 1497 Wellington Way Pap B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT —Hawthorne Ridge — H1 MN Inc. —A Conditional Use Permit to allow an automotive repair shop located at 525 Diffley Road ffqC. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Clearwire —A Conditional Use Permit to allow a 150' wireless communication monopole located at 1010 Aldrin Drive VIII. LEGISLATIVE / INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UPDATE dOx. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY A. CALL TO ORDER B. ADOPT AGENDA C. CONSENT AGENDA 1. APPROVE EDA Minutes D. OLD BUSINESS E. NEW BUSINESS p, L54 1. NORTHEAST EAGAN REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT - Assessment Agreement for certain costs for McGough Development /j )L65�2. REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS —Authorize submittal of Letter of Interest to Dakota County for a consideration of a Recovery Zone Bonding Allocation for projects in Cedar Grove and Northeast Eagan F. OTHER BUSINESS G. ADJOURN 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 agenda) XII. CLOSED SESSION XIII. ADJOURNMENT City of Eap Yea TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: DECEMBER 31, 2009 SUBJECT: AGENDA INFORMATION FOR JANUARY 5, 2010 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ADOPT AGENDA After approval is given to the January 5, 2010 City Council agenda, the following items are in order for consideration. Agenda Information Memo January 5, 2010 City Council Meeting RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS A. EAGAN'S SESQUICENTENNIAL CELEBRATION UPDATE ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: No action required; informational update only. FACTS: • In 2010, Eagan will be celebrating its 1501h Anniversary, or Sesquicentennial. • The anniversary recognizes Eagan's designation as a township by the State Legislature in 1860. • To facilitate the celebratory year ahead, the City Council asked that a volunteer executive board be set up under the leadership of Eagan resident and businessman, Scott Swenson. • Mr. Swenson will be in attendance at the January 5 City Council meeting to highlight the 150th efforts underway, including the upcoming 150th birthday party taking place on January 9 from 5 -9 p.m. at the Eagan Community Center. • Scott will also talk about the 1501h Anniversary goal of collecting 150,000 pounds of food for local food shelves in 2010. • Scott Swenson has proven to be an extremely dedicated volunteer on this effort. In addition to recognizing Scott for his individual commitment to date, thanks can also be extended to Home Federal Bank for supporting Scott's volunteer time in this community initiative. • Scott has been the primary facilitator of bi- monthly Board meetings over the past three months. He has also been instrumental in getting the 150th food drive up and running, and also critical to the fundraising efforts that will make the anniversary celebration possible. • Other members of the 150th Anniversary Board include: Scott Swenson, Chair, Home Federal Bank Ruthe Batulis, Dakota County Regional Chamber of Commerce Brent Cory, Eagan Convention and Visitors Bureau Michele Engdahl, Thomson Reuters Dianne Miller, City of Eagan Dorothy Peterson, Eagan Resident C Dan Sjolseth, Superior Collision Phil Stalboerger, Blue Cross Blue Shield of MN John Tapper, Gopher Resources Dave Unmacht, Springstead/Eagan Resident Bart Zibrowski, McGough Construction Company Board Liaisons: Mayor Mike Maguire, City of Eagan Tom Garrison, City of Eagan Tom Hedges, City of Eagan Karen Lyons, Blue Cross Blue Shield of MN Juli Seydell Johnson, City of Eagan Lynn Noble, Gopher Resources ATTACHMENTS: • There are no attachments. 3 Agenda Information Memo October 2 2007 Eagan City Council Meeting III. RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS 6 % 2009 Picture Eagan Photo Contest Winners ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED None except to extend City Council thanks and congratulations FACTS • The Picture Eagan amateur photo contest was begun by the Communications Department in 2003 as an effective way to gather quintessential views of Eagan in a cost effective manner, while building community pride and participation. • The goal of the contest is to capture images of Eagan for use in City publications on the City Web site and to illustrate the many attractive qualities of our community. • The contest is held every two years, so 2009 marked the 4th Eagan photo contest. The number of entries has risen every year to nearly 100 for this latest contest. Entrants have included teens through seniors. • The photos are competitively judged by local professional photographers and the Communications Department. • The winning photos are displayed in City buildings and deepen the appreciation of visitors of all there is to do and experience in Eagan. Many of the runner's up photos are also used in a variety of ways. • As the community celebrates its 150th year, Director Garrison has a brief presentation and is proud to present this year's winners. • The 2009 categories included the Eagan Sports & Recreation, Seasons in Eagan Parks and Neighborhood Life & Celebrations. An additional award is given to the photo judged to be the overall Best in Show. ATTACHMENTS None. The winning photos will be displayed in the Council Chambers the night of the meeting. Y Agenda Information Memo January 5, 2010 Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA The following items referred to as consent items require one (1) motion by the City Council. If the City Council wishes to discuss any of the items in further detail, those items should be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed under Old or New Business unless the discussion required is brief. A. APPROVE MINUTES ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve the minutes of the December 15, 2009 regular City Council meeting as presented or modified. ATTACHMENTS: • Minutes of the December 15, 2009 regular City Council meeting are enclosed on pages through Z.2_. 5 DRAFT MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE EAGAN CITY COUNCIL Eagan, Minnesota December 15, 2009 A Listening Session was held at 6:00 p.m. prior to the regular City Council meeting. Present were Mayor Maguire, Councilmembers Tilley, Bakken, Hansen and Fields. There were no visitors who wished to be heard. A regular meeting of the Eagan City Council was held on Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center. Present were Mayor Maguire, Councilmembers Tilley, Bakken, Hansen and Fields. Also present were City Administrator Tom Hedges, City Planner Mike Ridley, Public Works Director Tom Colbert, Community Development Director Jon Hohenstein, City Attorney Mike Dougherty and Administrative Secretary / Deputy Clerk Mira Pepper. AGENDA Councilmember Bakken moved, Councilmember Fields seconded a motion to approve the agenda as presented. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS There were no recognitions or presentations. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works Director Colbert acknowledged the retirement of Engineering Secretary Judy Jenkins. Councilmember Hansen moved, Councilmember Tilley seconded a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 A. It was recommended to approve the minutes of the December 1, 2009 regular City Council meeting and the November 10, 2009 Special City Council meeting as presented. B. Personnel Items. 1. It was recommended to accept the letter of retirement from Judy Jenkins, Engineering Secretary. 2. It was recommended to approve the hiring of Ryan Blake, Chris Bowen, Vincent Carlson, Joe Caron, Jennifer Felton, Josh Garcia, Alyssa Giancana, Lucas Grittner, Sara Havran, Tyler Holman, Cody Johnson, Neal Kunik, Erik Larsen, Bradi Larson, Ryan Marks, Taylor Mathiason, Thomas Miller, Andrew Neuser, Jennifer Schoenecker, Nick Schuetz, Zack Sheahan, Kevin Stevenson and Christopher Toll as a part-time seasonal winter recreation leaders. 3. It was recommended to approve the hiring of Dave Allen, Keith Wallace, Michael Neuschwander and Andrea Williams as part-time seasonal recreation sports officials. C. It was recommended to ratify check register dated December 3, 2009 as presented. D. It was recommended to approve the 2010 renewal of a Carrier / Homing / Racing Pigeon License for Eric Drenckhahn, 2811 Pilot Knob Road. E. It was recommended to approve the renewal of a Joint Powers Agreement allowing the City of Eagan to continue its participation in the Dakota County Drug Task Force, effective until December 31, 2014. F. It was recommended to approve the general insurance renewal for the period July 1, 2009 to July 1, 2010. G. It was recommended to approve the proposed 2010 Enterprise Fund budgets for Public Utilities (Water, Sanitary Sewer, Streetlighting, and Storm Drainage / Water Quality), Cascade Bay and the Community Center. H. It was recommended to approve the 2010 Special Revenue Funds Budgets: Housing Fund, DWI Forfeiture Fund, Minnesota Investment Fund (MIF) Revolving Loan Fund, Cedarvale Special Services District Fund, Cable TV Franchise Fees Fund, an E -TV Fund. City Council Minutes December 15, 2009 Page 2 DR,q I. It was recommended to approve the 2010 Eagan Convention & Visitors Bureau (ECVB) budget adopted by the EDVB's Board. J. It was recommended to approve an extension of the grant contract between the State of Minnesota and the City of Eagan for the Fish Lake and Schwanz Lake Nutrient Impairment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Project (2008 -2009) to December 30, 2010. K. It was recommended to approve the final payment for Contract 09 -06 (Wandering Walk Park — Wetland Bank Improvements) in the amount of $2,464.63 to G.F. Jedlicki, Inc., and accept the improvements for perpetual City maintenance subject to warranty provisions. L. It was recommended to approve the final payment for Contract 09 -19 (Rain Gardens — Curb Cut/Inlet Improvements) in the amount of $30,457.25 to Bituminous Roadways, Inc., and accept the improvements for perpetual City maintenance subject to warranty provisions. M. It was recommended to approve the final initial phase payment for Contract 09 -06B (Wandering Walk Park — Wetland Bank Planting) in the amount of $1,865.73 to Applied Ecological Services, Inc., and accept the improvements for perpetual City maintenance subject to warranty provisions, including a 4 -year maintenance plan by the contractor. N. It was recommended to approve an expenditure not to exceed $600 to send mailed notices regarding the January 12, 2010. O. It was recommended to receive the Draft Feasibility Report for Project 1020, (Thomas Lake Woods Additions — Street Improvements) and schedule a public hearing to be held on January 19, 2010. P. It was recommended to receive the Draft Feasibility Report for Project 1023, (Eagan Royale / Safari Estates / Safari 3rd /4 th Additions — Street Improvements) and schedule a public hearing to be held on January 19, 2010. Q. It was recommended to receive the Draft Feasibility Report for Project 1024, (Kennebec Drive — Street improvements) and schedule a public hearing to beheld on January 19, 2010. R. It was recommended to receive the Draft Feasibility Report for Project 1025, (Oak Cliff 4th — Street Improvements) and schedule a public hearing to be held on January 19, 2010. S. It was recommended to award Professional Services Contract for design of Contract 09 -18 (Duckwood Drive / Federal Drive Bridge / Street Improvements) to SRF Consulting Group, Inc. and authorize the City Engineer to execute a Work Order according to the terms of the City's Master Contract. T. It was recommended to approve an amendment to the Fee Schedule Appendix for the current Consulting Engineering Contracts for services to be provided in 2010. U. It was recommended to approve a one -year extension of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Variance approvals for property legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Spectrum Business Park in the NW % of Section 2. V. It was recommended to confirm City sponsored event signage is consistent with the definition of Governmental signage. W. It was recommended to approve an update of the Alternative Urban Areawide Review for the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area and authorize its distribution. X. It was recommended to approve a Resolution in support of the concept of a memorial tribute to public servants to be located on City of Eagan property. Y. It was recommended to approve a budget adjustment to the 2010 Civic Arena budget to allow for the exchange of television monitors for advertising within the arenas. Z. It was recommended to authorize the submission of the grant application to the Metropolitan Regional Arts Council for a Community Arts Grant. PUBLIC HEARINGS VARIANCE — 945 CHLOE LAND (SOWANOU EDEM ABOKI) City Administrator Hedges introduced this item regarding an 11' Variance to allow for construction of a deck on property located at 945 Chloe Lane. City Planner Ridley gave a staff report. Mr. Aboki discussed the plans for the proposed deck and the need for a variance. City Council Minutes December 15, 2009 Page 3 Mayor Maguire opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, he turned discussion to the Council. Councilmember Fields moved, Councilmember Bakken seconded a motion to approve an 11' Variance to allow for construction of a deck on property located at 945 Chloe Lane, legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Thorpe Woodland Gardens 2nd Addition, subject to the following conditions: Aye: 5 Nay: 0 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. 2. A building permit shall be required prior to construction of the deck. PROJECT 981, RAHNCLIFF ROAD / CLIFF LAKE ROAD / RAHN ROAD STREET OVERLAYLANDSCAPE MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING — COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES City Administrator Hedges introduced this item regarding the final assessments for Rahncliff Road, Cliff Lake Road and Rahn Road street overlay and landscape median improvements for commercial properties. He noted that assessments for residential properties were considered at a previous public hearing. Public Works Director Colbert gave a staff report. Mayor Maguire opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, he turned discussion back to the Council. Councilmember Fields moved, Councilmember Bakken seconded a motion to approve the Final Assessment Roll for Project 981 ( Rahncliff Road / Cliff Lake Road / Rahn Road — Street Improvements) for the commercial properties, as presented and authorize its certification to Dakota County for collection. Aye: 5 Nay:0 PROJECT 972, LONE OAK / WATERS AREA STREET OVERLAY IMPROVEMENTS SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT HEARING City Administrator Hedges introduced this item regarding the supplemental assessment hearing for the Lone Oak and Waters area street overlay improvements. Public Works Director Colbert gave a staff report. Mayor Maguire opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, he turned discussion back to the Council. Councilmember Bakken moved, Councilmember Fields seconded a motion to approve the supplemental assessment roll for Project 972 (Lone Oak / Waters Area) street overlay improvements and authorize its certification to Dakota County for collection. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 PROJECT 978, EAGANDALE / LEMAY LAKE STREET OVERLAY IMPROVEMENTS SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT HEARING City Administrator Hedges introduced this item regarding the supplemental assessment roll for Eagandale and Lemay Lake street overlay improvements. Public Works Director Colbert gave a staff report. Mayor Maguire opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, he turned discussion back to the Council. 01041 City Council Minutes December 15, 2009 Page 4 0P F� Councilmember Bakken moved, Councilmember Fields seconded a motion to approve the Supplemental Assessment Roll for Project 978 (Eagandale / Lemay Lake street improvements) and authorize its certification to Dakota County for collection. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 MEADOWLARK RIDGE HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ESTABLISHMENT OF A HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA AND IMPOSITION OF FEES ON HOUSING UNITS WITHIN MEADOWLARK RIDGE HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA City Administrator Hedges introduced this item regarding the establishment of Meadowlark Ridge as a Housing Improvement Area. Community Development Director Hohenstein gave a staff report. Mayor Maguire opened the public hearing. Debra Vang discussed damage issues and her uncertainty that the stucco is the actual root cause of the problems. Maria Ferra, President of the Board for Meadowlark Ridge, addressed Ms. Vang's concerns in regard to the stucco. Vince Carlson expressed concern regarding the percentage of assessment to each homeowner. John Denton, contractor retained by the Homeowner Association, discussed the project. Mark Ulfers, Dakota County Community Development Agency, stated that their staff had inspected the property and determined the proposed improvements are adequate and necessary to rectify the assessed condition. At the Mayor's request, City Attorney Dougherty summarized the City's role in the Improvement Area as one of merely being a conduit to financing. There being no further public comment, Mayor Maguire turned discussion back to the Council. Councilmember Tilley questioned the drainage /grading issues. It was noted that those issues are being addressed as part of the improvement project. Councilmember Tilley moved, Councilmember Fields seconded a motion to close the public hearing and direct preparation of: 1. An ordinance establishing the Meadowlark Ridge Housing Improvements Area. 2. A resolution imposing fees on housing units within the Meadowlark Ridge Housing Improvement Area to finance improvements. 3. A Development Agreement between the City and the Association. Aye: 5 Nay:0 EASEMENT VACATION — LOT 2, BLOCK 1, NORTHWOOD BUSINESS PARK 3RD ADDITION City Administrator Hedges introduced this item regarding the vacation of an easement on Lot 2, Block 1, Northwood Business Park 3rd Addition. Public Works Director Colbert gave a staff report. Mayor Maguire opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, he turned discussion back to the Council. City Council Minutes December 15, 2009 Page 5 oR 'JFr Councilmember Bakken moved, Councilmember Fields seconded a motion to close the public hearing and continue consideration of the public drainage and utility easements vacation within Northwood Business Park 3rd Addition to be concurrent with consideration of the Northwood Business Park 3`d Addition development (Eagan Northwoods) proposal. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 EASEMENT VACATION — LOTS 11, 12, 13, BLOCK 3 OAKS OF BRIDGEWATER 2 "D ADDITION City Administrator Hedges introduced this item regarding the vacation of an easement within Lots 11, 12, 13, Block 3, Oaks of Bridgewater 2nd Addition. Public Works Director Colbert gave a staff report and requested action on the vacation be continued until consideration of the Oaks of Bridgewater 3rd Addition under New Business later in the meeting. Mayor Maguire opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, he turned discussion back to the Council. Councilmember Bakken moved, Councilmember Fields seconded a motion to close the public hearing and continue consideration of the public drainage and utility easements vacation within Lots 11, 12, and 13, Block 3 Oaks of Bridgewater 2nd . Aye: 5 Nay: 0 OLD BUSINESS 2010 GENERAL FUND BDGET AND PAYABLE 2010 PROPERTY TAX LEVY City Administrator Hedges discussed the 2010 General Fund budget and payable 2010 property tax levy. He noted that a public hearing was held before the Council on December 1 and a budget open house was held at City Hall on December 8. Councilmember Hansen moved, Councilmember Fields seconded a motion to approve the proposed 2009 (Payable 2010) property tax levy as follows: General Revenue: General Fund $ 22,236,645 Equipment Revolving Fund 987,790 Major Street Fund 2,371,301 Gen Facilities R/R Fund 271,146 Fire Apparatus 333.895 Subtotal — General Revenue 26,200,777 Debt service: 2009A Equipment Certificates 66,105 Community Center bonds 1,198,103 Subtotal — Debt Service 1.264.208 Total City -wide Levy $ 27 464 985 Cedarvale Special Services Dist. $ ! Councilmember Hansen moved, Councilmember Fields seconded a motion to approve the 2010 General Fund budget in the amount of $27,537,100. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 INFLOW & INFILTRATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION City Administrator Hedges introduced this item regarding the implementation of an Inflow and Infiltration policy. Public Works Director Colbert discussed the proposed program. /6) 4) City Council Minutes December 15, 2009 1� Page 6 Councilmember Tilley moved, Councilmember Fields seconded a motion to approve the Inflow & Infiltration Mitigation Implementation Policy. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 NEW BUSINESS PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION (THE OAKS OF BRIDGEWATER 3RD ADDITION) C. HALL COMPANY City Administrator Hedges introduced this item regarding the subdivision of 5.53 acres of property located at 3892, 3858 and 3854 Bridgewater Drive. Senior Planner Ridley gave a staff report. Quinn Hutson, representative of the applicant, discussed the proposed subdivision and requested that condition number eight in the staff report requiring the removal of an existing fence within the wetland, buffer and conservation easement be reconsidered. Council discussed the conservation easement and the fencing. It was the consensus of the Council to allow the fence to remain. Mr. Hall spoke briefly about the history of the home and the property. Mayor Maguire commended Mr. Hall for his many years of service to the City on both the Park and Planning Commission. Councilmember Fields moved, Councilmember Hansen seconded a motion to approve a Preliminary Subdivision (The Oaks of Bridgewater 3rd Addition) to create five lots upon 5.53 acres, with a Variance to the minimum lot width for proposed Lot 2, and setback Variances from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of Bald Lake for the existing swimming pool and retaining walls, located at 3862, 3858 and 3854 Bridgewater Drive, legally described as Lots 11, 12 and 13, Block 3, The Oaks of Bridgewater 2nd Addition, subject to the following conditions: Aye: 5 Nay: 0 1. The developer shall comply with these standards conditions of plat approval as adopted by Council on February 2, 1993: B1, B2, B3, C1, C2, D1 and E1. 2. The property shall be platted. 3. This development shall dedicate and maintain an access easement, in a form acceptable to the City, in an alignment as determined by the City Public Works Department, for maintenance of the existing utility pipes and structures along the south portion of the development. This easement shall be clear of obstruction at all times. 4. This development shall be required to submit an Individual Lot Tree Preservation Plan at the time of building permit application for Lot 1 and Lot 3. 5. Prior to final subdivision approval, the developer shall submit a Wetland Buffer landscaping plan (in accordance with City Code Section 11.67, Subd. 7. A. 2.) for City approval. 6. Prior to final subdivision approval, the developer shall deliver a conservation easement for the wetland and wetland buffer in a form and with content acceptable to the City Attorney. 7. The developer shall place markers at the upland edge of the Wetland Buffer at least every 75 feet (or a minimum of one per lot). Wetland Buffer Markers will be provided by the City. 8. There shall be no new fences or other structures within the conservation easement areas of Lots 2 -5 or within the steep slope areas of Lots 1 and 2. Councilmember Fields moved, Councilmember Hansen seconded a motion to approve a Final Subdivision (The Oaks of Bridgewater 3rd Addition) to create five single family lots upon 5.53 acres located at 3892,3858 and 3854 Bridgewater Drive, legally described as Lots 11, 12, and 13 ,Block 3, The Oaks of Bridgewater 2nd Addition subject to the above conditions. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 Councilmember Fields moved, Councilmember Hansen seconded a motion to approve the vacation of the public drainage and utility easements within Lots 11, 12, and 13, Block 3, Oaks of Bridgewater 2 "d Aye:5 Nay:0 City Council Minutes December 15, 2009 Page 7 COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING, AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT — DAKOTA COUNTY CDA City Administrator Hedges introduced this item regarding a Comprehensive Guide Plan Land Use Amendment that would change the land use designation from Special Area / Business Park to Special Area / Medium Density to allow for a 47 unit townhome development upon property located in Northwood Business Park 3'd Addition. City Planner Ridley gave a staff report. Kari Gilman, Dakota County Community Development Agency, discussed the proposed project. Judy Urban, representative of MICAH thanked the Council for support of recent youth housing approval and spoke in support of the proposed townhome project. Mark Ulfers, Director of the Dakota County Community Development Agency spoke to the payment in lieu of taxes model that will affect the property. Councilmember Tilley moved, Councilmember Hansen seconded a motion to direct staff to submit to the Metropolitan Council a Comprehensive Guide Plan Land Use Amendment that would change the land use designation from SA/BP (Special Area / Business Park), to SA/MD (Special Area / Medium Density), to allow for a 47 unit townhome development upon property legally described as Lot 2 and 1, Block 1, Northwood Business Park 3rd Addition. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 LEGISLATIVE / INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UPDATE There were no items. There were no items requiring action. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA VISITORS TO BE HEARD There were no visitors who wished to be heard. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Fields moved, Councilmember Tilley seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9: 30 p.m. Aye:5 Nay:0 Date /02 Administrative Secretary / Deputy Clerk Aq4t,- G Agenda Information Memo January 5, 2010 Eagan City Council Meeting B. PERSONNEL ITEMS Item 1. Resignation of Human Resources Specialist, Virginia Discenza. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Accept the resignation (retirement) of Virginia Discenza as the Human Resources Specialist position and authorize replacement of the position. FACTS: Mrs. Discenza has been employed with the City of Eagan for 21 years. She served the first 15 years working in Administration as a confidential clerical technician. The last 5 years, she has worked as the Human Resources Specialist; primarily focused on recruitment, benefits administration and special events coordination such as the annual staff training, employee recognition and the City's wellness initiatives including the annual Wellness Fair and flu shot clinic. Staff would like to acknowledge her commitment to the City and the excellence and professionalism she brought to the position. Item 2. Resignation of Lieutenant Greg Johnson ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Accept the resignation (retirement) of Greg Johnson, Lieutenant and authorize replacement of the position. FACTS: Lieutenant Johnson has been employed with the City of Eagan for 32 years. He has served the last 4 years as Lieutenant. Formal recognition and presenting of a plaque will occur at the January 19 City council meeting. Staff requests authorization to replace the Lieutenant position in the second quarter of 2010. Item 3. Authorize the hiring of Eric Tessmer, Patrol Officer Officer Tessmer replaces former Officer Paul Tupy who resigned July 2009. The City Council took previous action to authorize replacement. /9 Item 4. Job Title Change of Engineering Secretary ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To change the job title of the Engineering Secretary to Engineering Aide. FACTS: With the resignation of the Engineering Secretary, the staffing needs were re- evaluated and the administrative and technical duties were revised to meet the current needs of the Engineering Division resulting in a job classification change from Level 7 to Level 6. This position will also assist with periodic administrative duties in Community Development, with work direction from the Community Development Office Supervisor. This Office Supervisor will also manage the overall clerical coverage in both Community Development and Engineering. This initiative is the result of the collaborative efforts between Community Development and Engineering. (Community Development recently elected not to replace a .8 FTE position). This sharing of clerical responsibilities will better align both departmental needs into the future. Item 5. Compensation- ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve step increases for non collective bargaining employees. The Compensation Plan for non collective bargaining employees including; regular full time and part time employees, interns, non collective bargaining seasonal, temporary and recurring employees will remain that the 2009 rates. Director car allowances to remain at the 2009 rates. To adopt the IRS mileage rate effective January 1, 2010. The current IRS rate for 2010 is $.50 per mile. Should the rate change, the City's reimbursement will automatically adjust to the new rate. Agenda Information Memo January 5, 2010 Eagan City Council Meeting C. RATIFY CHECK REGISTERS ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To ratify the check registers dated December 10, 2009, December 17, 2009 and December 24, 2009 as presented. ATTACHMENTS: • Check registers dated December 3, 2009, December 17, 2009 and December 24, 2009 are enclosed without page number. 1-5 Agenda Information Memo January 5, 2009 Eagan City Council Meeting D. CONTRACT 08 -13, SIBLEY TERMINAL STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve the final payment for Contract 08 -13 (Sibley Terminal Storm Drainage Improvements) in the amount of $4,586.09 to G.F. Jedlicki, Inc. and accept the improvements for perpetual City maintenance subject to warranty provisions. FACTS: • Contract 08 -13 provides for the drainage improvements through the Sibley Terminal Industrial Park area near TH 13 and Terminal Drive in northwest Eagan (City Project 858). • 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. 161, Agenda Information Memo January 5, 2009 Eagan City Council Meeting E. PROJECT 1008, NORTHVIEW PARK ROADBRADDOCK TRAIL/TROTTERS RIDGE /STAFFORD PLACE STREET IMPROVEMENTS ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Reschedule consideration of Project 1008, ( Northview Park Road/Braddock Trail /Trotters Ridge /Stafford Place - Street Improvements) to a future date. FACTS: • On June 2, 2009 the City Council directed staff to prepare a feasibility report considering the street rehabilitation of the numerous streets within the Northview Park Road/Braddock Trail /Trotters Ridge /Stafford Place/Lexington Parkview neighborhoods near Eagan High School. • A structural mill and overlay of these streets is programmed for 2010 in the City of Eagan's 5 -Year CIP (2010- 2014). /7 Agenda Information Memo January 5, 2010, Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA: F. Accept a $3,609.11 donation from the Eagan Citizen's Crime Prevention Association ( ECCPA). ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Accept a cash donation from the ECCPA to purchase surveillance equipment for the police department. FACTS: • The Eagan Police Department recognized a need to update its video equipment. • In order to procure the equipment, the ECCPA is making a donation to the City. • The police department seeks authorization to accept this donation from the ECCPA. No attachments IF Agenda Memo January 5, 2010 City Council Meeting G. APPROVE the acceptance of a Forest Protection Reserve Planning and Preparedness Grant and authorize staff to sign the required documents ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED Accept a Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA), Forest Protection Reserve Planning and Preparedness Grant in the amount of $89,000, to be used to implement a City program to manage and control the spread of Emerald Ash Borer, and authorize the Director of Parks and Recreation to sign the contract agreement and future related documents on behalf of the City. FACTS • Emerald Ash Borer(EAB) has been determined to be a lethal pest to ash trees and has devastated ash tree populations in several states. EAB infestations have been found within less than 10 miles of the Eagan border. • Of the approximately 17,000 inventoried boulevard trees in the City, over 3500 are ash, approximately 10% of all park trees are ash, the number of ash trees on private property and in woodland stands is unknown but is quite high. • Currently, the most efficient means of controlling and containing EAB is the implementation of a strategy that includes the removal of the most weaken/susceptible trees and pre- infestation chemical treatment of select healthy trees. • The MDA approved City program includes a combination of removal, replacement and/or chemical treatment of designated ash trees in boulevards and parks. A total of approximately 130 large trees will be removed and replaced; over 300 trees will be chemically treated. • Trees will be selected through a condition rating system with mature, high quality trees considered the priority for preservation and chemical injections. Mature trees in a weaken/susceptible condition, located within an area of a high ash concentration, will be a priority for removal. • The grant of $89,000 represent approximately 85% of estimated program cost, the required 15% local match will consist of the value of in -kind labor by City staff and any related expenses. No adjustment of the 2010 budget will be necessary. Contractors will be utilized for the majority of the work. • Preparatory work, including the identification of priority trees, contacting residents in the project area and securing contractors, will begin in January/February, removal will commence in late spring with replacements installed in the fall. Completion is expected by year end. • There were over $4 million dollars in requests for the $850,000 available through this statewide grant program. Eagan was one of the very few grant applicants that was awarded the entire amount requested. The program employed in Eagan will most likely be utilized as a model for other communities. • Efforts to eliminate and/or control EAB will be ongoing for years; avoidance of any impact in the City is unlikely, containment is the best case scenario. ATTACHMENTS: None /9 Agenda Information Memo January 5, 2010 Eagan City Council Meeting H. ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS — CITY OF EAGAN ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To direct staff to initiate an Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 11, specifically as it relates to the expiration of Conditional Use Permits. REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: Majority of Council Members Present FACTS: ➢ Presently, the City Code regulates evaluation criteria and requirements for revocation, expiration and reapplication of Conditional Use Permits. CUP approval is valid for a year. ➢ However, the City Code does not allow for an extension to establishing the Conditional Use. ➢ City staff suggests code language to allow for an extension opportunity similar to that for Variances where a request for extension can be made provided the request is made at least 30 days before the expiration date and the request for extension states the facts showing a good faith attempt to complete or utilize the use permitted ➢ As an amendment to Chapter 11, a Public Hearing before the APC will be necessary before this item returns to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: None m Agenda Information Memo January 5, 2010 Eagan City Council Meeting I. FINAL SUBDIVISION — CITY OF EAGAN ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve a Final Subdivision (Eagan Fire Station No. 2) to separate approximately six acres from a 75 -acre parcel to create one four -acre lot and associated right -of -way dedication, located at the southwest corner of Yankee Doodle Road and Wescott Woodlands. REQUIRED VOTES FOR APPROVAL: Majority of Councilmembers present FACTS: ➢ The Preliminary Subdivision was approved on September 22, 2009. ➢ The subdivision creates a 4 -acre lot for future development of a fire station. The plat also dedicates right -of -way associated with the creation of the new parcel. ➢ The Dakota County Plat Commission has reviewed the plat and required restricted access along Yankee Doodle Road. Emergency access to Yankee Doodle Road may be provided with a permit from Dakota County. ATTACHMENTS (2): Location Map, page JL! Final Plat drawing on paged - -- -4 $ g ? a n I i Ilia °�� I 5 ill , 's s e I ii I ►+y� ° IIIW »ya$ Igg -$5 ' bl� � bd � �°� 6.db 'd•' � � i I Es I �� I � I g N Ys '• ss i i I �e#•` § §a° b gi s I i a$ I i 3< I Va i .–o —9" 26 : I i t jai J � rearm _– _____-- _ –_____ cs mass 3.scazas 1� T o «ae. aw•vua°am..<w- ` sa7VY7tltcmJi �43My�" A 11 ° A - -- -- -- -- ° — — — :e -{I _ _ _ _ _ _ S- -- =� — —1 T - RK to te low al -- — west -- -I -- M.B.^.sz.av aoro[�^eox. 3 I o� c:23 FINAL PLAT Agenda Information Memo January 5, 2010 Eagan City Council Meeting J. ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS — CITY OF EAGAN ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To direct staff to initiate Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 11, specifically as they relate to general provisions, design standards and signage. REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: Majority of Council Members Present FACTS: ➢ Portions of the City Code were inadvertently deleted during amendments to the accessory structures, mechanical screening and dynamic signs sections of the City Code. ➢ The purpose of the proposed Ordinance Amendments is to replace the code language that was not intended to be changed. ➢ As an amendment to Chapter 11, a public hearing before the Advisory Planning Commission will be necessary before this item returns to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: None ay Agenda Information Memo January 5, 2010 Eagan City Council Meeting K. CONSIDERATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER LOCATIONS — EAGAN MUNICIPAL CAMPUS AND NORTHVIEW PARK ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: ➢ To authorize staff and the City Attorney's office to proceed with the necessary land use application processes and appropriate lease negotiations for the installation of private telecommunications equipment at the Eagan Municipal Campus and at Northview Park. REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: Majority of Council Members Present FACTS: City staff have received proposals from Clearwire to locate telecommunications equipment on both the Eagan Municipal Campus property and at Northview Park. ➢ City Code allows telecommunications antennae and towers to be located on property that is zoned PF, Public Facilities or P, Park. In both zoning districts, construction of a new tower requires a Conditional Use Permit. ➢ At the Municipal Campus, Clearwire is proposing to collocate on the City's existing police communications tower, or reconstruct that tower in its current location if additional height is necessary or the existing tower is found to be structurally unable to support the additional equipment. At Northview Park, Clearwire is proposing to install a new tower. ➢ Consent from the City as the property owner is required for the CUP application to be brought forward to the APC for public hearing, and then to the City Council for final action. A lease agreement is also necessary to permit the installation of private telecommunications equipment upon City land. ➢ The requested Council action to authorize staff and the City Attorney's office to continue working with Clearwire to accomplish the necessary land use application processes and appropriate lease negotiations for these two sites does not guarantee City approval of said applications. ATTACHMENTS: None S Agenda Information Memo Eagan City Council Meeting Consent January 5, 2010 AUTHORIZE AMENDMENT OF CEDAR GROVE SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT LEVY ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve a resolution amending the 2010 payable Cedar Grove Special Service District Levy to $600. FACTS: • In response to a petition by property owners in the area, the Cedar Grove Special Service District was established in 1994 to provide a means of funding levels of service that would not ordinarily be provided through the general fund. Services in excess of those ordinarily provided are defined as "special services" in state law and form the basis for consideration of such districts. • In the case of the Cedar Grove District, the special services have included additional mowing and right of way maintenance at the area entrance and in common areas at levels and frequencies greater than the standard elsewhere in'the City and construction and maintenance of an area wide pylon sign, which has since been removed as part of the redevelopment activities. • The mowing and ROW maintenance activities have continued and are expected to remain necessary at least in the primary entrance area even after the redevelopment has been completed. • As staff prepared to certify the 2010 levy for the Cedar Grove District, a review of the properties to be charged for the services was done and two issues were identified related to the redevelopment activities to date. The first is that the Mulcahy property that used to lie on both sides of Hwy 13 was subdivided as part of the City's acquisition of the southern parcel. The Special Service District boundary runs along Hwy 13 and the northern parcel should not have been included in the district levy after the subdivision, County records showed it being subject to District service charges. Staff has asked the County to correct that designation. • The second issue is that residential areas may lie within Special Service Districts, but they are not subject to the service district charges. The area currently occupied by the Nicols Ridge Project was zoned for commercial uses prior to the commencement of the redevelopment and were subject to the fee. Now that the property has been converted to residential uses, they should not be. Staff has asked the County to correct this designation as well. • The consequence of not applying the 2010 levy to these properties is that the total levy would be respread against the remaining non -City owned properties (which are tax exempt) within the Special Service District. Since this would result in a significant increase in the amount for which those property owners had been I i noticed, staff has calculated a revised levy amount of $600, reduced from $3,000, which would result in a respread such that the remaining property owners would pay approximately what they would have if the other properties had paid the noticed shares of the total. • Staff advised the County of the need to make these adjustments on December 22, 2009. It is in order for the City Council to ratify that direction at this time. ATTACHMENTS: • Resolution on page �2 F a7 RESOLUTION CITY OF EAGAN LEVY OF PAYABLE 2010 CEDAR GROVE SPECIAL SERVICES DISTRICT WHEREAS, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, was held on January 5, 2010, at 6:30 p.m., at the Eagan Municipal Center, all members being present, WHEREAS, upon motion by Councilmember , and seconded by Councilmember NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, hereby is on record approving and certifying the amended levy of Service Charges for the Cedarvale Special Services District in Eagan, Minnesota, which are payable in 2010 as follows: Cedarvale Special Services District Amended Levy 600 Dated: January 5, 2010 CITY OF EAGAN CITY COUNCIL By: Its Mayor Attest: Its Clerk CERTIFICATION I, Maria Petersen, Clerk of the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, in a regular meeting thereof assembled this 5th day of January, 2010. Maria Petersen, City Clerk Consent Agenda Information Memo January 5, 2009 Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA: M. Accept a Grant from the State of Minnesota on behalf of the Dakota County Drug Task Force and approve a resolution authorizing execution of the agreement. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve the resolution and except the 2010 grant on behalf of the Dakota County Drug Task Force. FACTS: • The Drug Task Force has received state and federal grant funds since its inception in 1988. • One municipality has always acted as its fiscal agency. The City of Eagan assumed this responsibility in 2005. The City of Eagan is now responsible for book keeping, budgeting and grant administration. • The State of Minnesota Office of Justice Programs has awarded the Drug Task Force $260,000 for 2010. The Dakota Drug Task Force uses this funding to supplement the administration of the unit. • There are 3 copies of the grant contract attached for the Mayor and City Clerk to endorse. ATTACHMENTS: Copy of the 2010 grant contract on pages 3-e) — .3 .3 . Grant Agreement Page 1 Minnesota Department of Public Safety ( "State ") Grant Program: Commissioner of Public Safety Narcotics and Gang Task Force 2010 Office of Justice Programs 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 2300 Grant Agreement No.: St. Paul, MN 55101 -2139 2010 -NGTF -00398 Grantee: Grant Agreement Term: City of Eagan Effective Date: 1/1/2010 3830 Pilot Knob Road Expiration Date: 12/31/2010 Eagan, Minnesota 55122 -1897 Grantee's Authorized Representative: Grant Agreement Amount: Tom Pepper, Chief Financial Officer Original Agreement $260,000.00 3830 Pilot Knob Road Matching Requirement $0.00 Eagan, Minnesota 55122 -1897 651 675 -5017 State's Authorized Representative: Federal Funding: CFDA None Sue Perkins, Grants Specialist Coordinator State Funding: Laws 2009, Chapter 83, Article 1, Justice and Community Grants Sect 10, Subd 6 Bremer Tower Suite 2300, 445 Minnesota Street Special Conditions: Attached and incorporated into St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 this grant agreement. See page 3. (651) 201 -7338 Under Minn. Stat. § 299A.01, Subd 2 (4) the State is empowered to enter into this grant agreement. Term: Effective date is the date shown above or the date the State obtains all required signatures under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 2, whichever is later. Once this grant agreement is fully executed, the Grantee may claim reimbursement for expenditures incurred pursuant to the Payment clause of this grant agreement. Reimbursements will only be made for those expenditures made according to the terms of this grant agreement. Expiration date is the date shown above or until all obligations have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs_ first. The Grantee, who is not a state employee will: Perform and accomplish such purposes and activities as specified herein and in the Grantee's approved Narcotics and Gang Task Force 2010 Application ( "Application ") which is incorporated by reference into this grant agreement and on file with the State at Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 2300, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 -2139. The Grantee shall also comply with all requirements referenced in the Narcotics and Gang Task Force 2010 Guidelines and Application which includes the Terms and Conditions and Grant Program Guidelines (www.wego.dps.state.mn.us), which are incorporated by reference into this grant agreement. Budget Revisions: The breakdown of costs of the Grantee's Budget is contained in Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated into this grant agreement. As stated in the Grantee's Application and Grant Program Guidelines, the Grantee will submit a written change request for any substitution of budget items or any deviation and in accordance with the Grant Program Guidelines. Requests must be approved prior to any expenditure by the Grantee. Matching Requirements: (If applicable.) As stated in the Grantee's Application, the Grantee certifies that the matching requirement will be met by the Grantee. Payment: As stated in the Grantee's Application and Grant Program Guidance, the State will promptly pay the Grantee after the Grantee presents an invoice for the services actually performed and the State's Authorized DPS Grant Agreement non -state (09/08) 30 (D Grant Agreement Page 2 Representative accepts the invoiced services and in accordance with the Grant Program Guidelines. Payment will not be made if the Grantee has not satisfied reporting requirements. Certification Regarding Lobbying: (If applicable) Grantees receiving federal funds over $100,000.00 must complete and return the Certification Regarding Lobbying form provided by the State to the Grantee. 1. ENCUMBRANCE VERIFICATION 3. STATE AGENCY Individual certifies that funds have been encumbered as required by Minn. Stat. §§ 1644.15 and 160.05. By: (with delegated authority) Signed: Title: Date: Date: Grant Agreement No. 2010 -NGTF- 00398/6300 -2101 2. GRANTEE The Grantee certifies that the appropriate person(s) have executed the grant agreement on behalf of the Grantee as required by applicable articles, bylaws, resolutions, or ordinances. By: Title: Date: By: Distribution: DPS/FAS Title: Grantee State's Authorized Representative Date: DPS Grant Agreement non -state (09/08) 31 Grant Agreement Page 3 Special Conditions 1. Additional Requirements: The Grantee acts on behalf of the Dakota County Drug Task Force and will perform all duties and tasks specified in the applicable Request for Proposal and the Grantee's grant application. Grantee must meet and maintain all conditions of eligibility for multijurisdictional task forces as detailed in the applicable Request for Proposal which are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this grant contract. 2. Time limitations on fundiniz use: $130,000.00 is available from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010. $130,000.00 is available from July 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010. DPS Grant Agreement non -state (09/08) goZ of P 1Pr��OF MINSO�P OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS Grantee: Eagan, City of Grant Number: 2010 -NGTF -00398 Program Component: ALL PROGRAM COMPONENTS EXHIBIT A Budget Category Award Contract Services $52,000.00 Office Expenses $19,200.00 Program Expenses $40,000.00 Other Expenses $111,600.00 Confidential Funds $37,200.00 TOTAL $260,000.00 33 Agenda Information Memo January 5, 2010 Eagan City Council Meeting N. APPROVE TELECOMMUNICATIONS LEASE AMENDMENTS ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve Amendments to existing telecommunication lease agreements with Verizon, Inc. for antenna upgrade installations on designated water reservoir sites and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. FACTS: • The City has received applications from Verizon, Inc. for the upgrades of wireless communication system antennas on each of the following water reservoir sites: Sperry — 1420 Towerview Road Safari — 2091 Royale Drive Deerwood —1680 Deerwood Drive Yankee — 680 Yankee Doodle Road Southern Lakes — 10656 Alton Court • These applications have been reviewed by the City's Engineering Consultant, Radio Communication Consultant, City Attorney's Office and Public Works Department personnel and found to be consistent with other past lease agreements and in order for favorable Council consideration. 311 Agenda Information Memo January 5, 2010 Eagan City Council Meeting PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 2010 Fee Schedule ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To close the public hearing and adopt a resolution approving the 2010 Fee Schedule establishing fees for various City services, supplies and materials. FACTS: • Per Minnesota Statutes 462.353, the adoption of a fee schedule requires publication at least 10 days prior to a public hearing. The notice was published on December 18. • For 2010, the majority of fees are proposed at the same level as the prior year. Not only was inflation negligible over the past year, but it is difficult to consider significant fee increases in this troubled economy. While a comprehensive survey of surrounding communities' fees has not been performed recently, Eagan's fees have generally been at or near the median of comparable cities. • No changes to the utilities rates are proposed at this time, pending recommendations from Springsted and the Finance Committee pursuant to the rate study currently underway. FAIV8VMS] "I d ",&1 1 • A copy of the existing 2009 Fee Schedule marked up with proposed changes for 2010 is attached on pages 36 through /,,�r . • A summary of notable changes for 2010 is attached on page_ . • A copy of the resolution adopting the 2010 Fee Schedule is attached on page ?0— . ,3S Al City of Ea an I Approved by the City Council at its January 5, 2010 meeting. Fees are effective January 6, 2010. 36 Table of Contents Page Licenses and Permits Alcohol......................................................................................... ..............................1 Other............................................................................................ ..............................2 Tobacco and Liquor License Violations ....................................... ..............................3 DevelopmentReview ................................................................................. ..............................4 Construction - related and Right -of -Way Permits ....................................... ..............................5 EscrowDeposits ....................................................................................... ..............................6 Other Development - related Charges Park, Trail, Water Quality Dedication ........ ............................... Tree Mitigation / Replacement .................... ............................... Inspections Fees /Permits BuildingPermits ........................................ ............................... Mechanical Permits ................................... ............................... PlumbingPermits ...................................... ............................... Fire Suppression and Fireworks Permits .. ............................... Other Inspections ...................................... ............................... StateSurcharge ........................................ ............................... Utilities Fees /Charges ... ..............................7 ... ..............................7 ... ..............................8 ... ..............................9 ... ..............................9 ... ..............................9 .............................. 10 .............................. 11 Connection /Availability Charges .............................................. ............................... 12 UserRates ............................................................................... ............................... 13 Other Utilities Fees .................................................................. ............................... 14 WaterMeters ........................................................................... ............................... 15 Street and Trail Special Assessment Rates ......................................... ............................... 16 Other Assessment - related Charges ..................................................... ............................... 16 Parks and Recreation Charges ............................................................. ............................... 17 CivicArena Fees ................................................................................... ............................... 19 CascadeBay Fees ................................................................................ ............................... 19 Community Center Fees ....................................................................... ............................... 20 Wetland Conservation Application Fees ............................................... ............................... 22 Police Department Charges .................................................................. ............................... 23 FireDepartment Charges ..................................................................... ............................... 24 Fire Department Training Room Rental ................................................ ............................... 25 Equipmentand Staff Rates ................................................................... ............................... 26 CityAttorney Rates ............................................................................... ............................... 27 Miscellaneous Fees / Charges ................................................................ ............................... 28 Summary of Connection Charges ......................................................... ............................... 31 3'7 �City of Eatan 2010 Fee Schedule ALCOHOL LICENSES AND PERMITS Liquor Application and investigation Fee Acct Code Beer 200.00 0401.4055 Application and investigation $ 500.00 (1) 1101.4239 Off -sale license 100.00 0401.4056 On -sale license 450.00 0401.4056 Temporary license 25.00 0401.4056 Liquor Application and investigation 500.00 (2) 1101.4239 Off -sale license 200.00 0401.4055 On -sale license " Annual sales < $275,000 5,300.00 " Sales $275,000- 550,000 6,300.00 " Sales > $550,000 7,300.00 " Sunday license 200.00 " On -sale club license < 200 300.00 0401.4055 201 -500 500.00 " 501-1,000 650.00 " 1,001 -2,000 800.00 " 2,001 -4,000 1,000.00 " 4,001-6,000 2,000.00 " > 6,000 3,000.00 " Temporary (up to 3 days) 150.00 " Wine Application and investigation 500.00 (1) 1101.4239 On -sale license 1,900.00 0401.4055 Sunday license 100.00 0401.4055 Daily consumption and display 25.00 0401.4055 Annual consumption and display 300.00 " Daily sports or convention 50.00 " Annual sports or convention 600.00 Duplicate license 5.00 0401.4230 Change in managers 300.00 1101.4239 (1) When wine and beer licenses are applied for by the same applicant, the total maximum application and investigation fee is $500.00. (Acct code 9001.2248) (2) Also requires additional fee of $200 /person or entity beyond five having an interest in the proposed licensed establishment. A $1,000 escrow for up to five applicants residing outside of the state is required, plus $200 /person beyond five with an interest. 3a 1 + City orEaiau 2010 Fee Schedule OTHER LICENSES AND PERMITS Amusement, mechanical (statutory maximums) Per establishment 15.00 0401.4062 plus Per machine 15.00 Body art establishment - license Body art establishment - investigation Body art technician - license Body art technician - investigation Contractors license - Plumbing OR Sewer and Water Unlicensed 300 300 25 100 MN Dept of Health Bond & Ins. Cert. ($25,000), and MN Master Plumbers Cert. ABC, LECET, or MUCA Pipelayer Training Certification & MN Dept of Health Contractor Bond Certificate ($25,000) Dance hall - initial investigation Fee Acct Code Adult establishments: Dance, public - single event 50.00 " Investigation $ 300.00 Requires $1,000 escrow 1101.4239 Annual license 5,000.00 0401.4067 Adult companionship /escort service provider: 2.00 1101.4061 Investigation 300.00 Requires $1,000 escrow 1101.4239 Annual license (one license included w/ 850.00 0401.4067 adult establishment license) 50.00 0401.4070 Amusement, mechanical (statutory maximums) Per establishment 15.00 0401.4062 plus Per machine 15.00 Body art establishment - license Body art establishment - investigation Body art technician - license Body art technician - investigation Contractors license - Plumbing OR Sewer and Water Unlicensed 300 300 25 100 MN Dept of Health Bond & Ins. Cert. ($25,000), and MN Master Plumbers Cert. ABC, LECET, or MUCA Pipelayer Training Certification & MN Dept of Health Contractor Bond Certificate ($25,000) Dance hall - initial investigation 300.00 1101.4239 Dance hall - annual permit 300.00 0401.4112 Dance, public - single event 50.00 " Dangerous dog registration Registration, sign, and tag (lifetime of dog) 100.00 1101.4061 Development - related permits See pages 4 through 7 Dog license (2 -year) 20.00 18.88 1101.4061 [Licenses are also available at all Eagan veterinary clinics.] Dog license late fee 5.00 2:98 1101.4061 Duplicate dog tag 2.00 1101.4061 Gambling - investigation 250.00 1101.4239 Golf cart, motorized permit 25.00 0401.4114 Golf driving range license 50.00 0401.4070 Hunting, bow permit - resident 10.00 1101.4120 Hunting, bow permit - non - resident 25.00 " Kennel permit - initial 100.00 1101.4212 Kennel permit - renewal 50.00 1101.4212 3� 2 * MyorEvan 2010 Fee Schedule OTHER LICENSES AND PERMITS (cont'd) Fee Acct Code Massage therapy establishment - investigation $ 300.00 1101.4239 Massage therapy establishment - license 300.00 includes 1 therapist license 0401.4064 Massage therapist - investigation 100.00 1101.4239 Massage therapist - license 25.00 0401.4064 Paintball facility - investigation 50.00 1101.4239 Paintball facility - license 150.00 0401.4070 Parade permit 25.00 0401.4120 Pawn shop - investigation 850.00 per owner 1101.4239 Pawn shop - license 12,000.00 0401.4065 Pet shop license - initial 100.00 Pet shop license - renewal 50.00 0401.4063 Pigeon 50.00 0401.4120 Rubbish hauler - commercial, residential, 2,000.00 0401.4059 recycling only, or construction /demolition u debris: 1 st truck 100.00 " Each additional truck 60.00 Shows (circus, carnival) - investigation 50.00 1101.4239 Shows - license 25.00 0401.4120 Solicitor /peddler /transient merchant 100.00 1101.4239 Stables license 50.00 0401.4070 Tobacco sales- investigation 100.00 Tobacco sales license 200.00 0401.4057 Tree contractor license 25.00 U4U1.4058 TOBACCO LICENSE VIOLATIONS: Licensee: First violation at licensed premise 75.00 1101.4233 Second violation within 24 months of first violation at licensed premise 200.00 " Third and subsequent violations within a 24 -month period at licensed premise 250.00 " Other individuals: 50.00 " LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATIONS: Licensee: First violation at licensed premise 500.00 1101.4241 Second violation within 24 months 1,000.00 " of first violation Third violation within 24 months 1,500.00 plus seven (7) -day " of first violation suspension of license Fourth and subsequent violations 2,000.00 plus thirty (30) -day " within 36 months of first violation suspension of license �4_D 3 *Ciq of Evan 2010 Fee Schedule DEVELOPMENT REVIEW For the charges below that require escrow deposits, refer to p.6 for the amount. Application Type Fee Escrow required? Acct Code Comprehensive Plan Amendment $ 500.00 Yes 0720.4207 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) * 350.00 Yes 0720.4095 Final Planned Development 350.00 Yes 0720.4206 Final Plat 250.00 Yes 0720.4206 Final Subdivision 250.00 Yes 0720.4206 plus 3.00 /lot Interim Use Permit (IUP) * 250.00 Yes 0720.4095 Planned Development - annual review 100.00 No 0720.4223 Planned Development Amendment 250.00 Yes 0720.4207 (separate from rezoning) Preliminary Planned Development 500.00 Yes 0720.4206 Preliminary Subdivision * 450.00 Yes 0720.4206 Public notice mailing labels - residential variances 1.50 per mailing address 0720.4230 and Housing Improvement District mailings Rezoning * 350.00 Yes 0720.4207 Site plan review 150.00 Yes 0720.4223 Variance - residential ' 300.00 Yes 0720.4205 Variance - non - residential * 500.00 Yes " Waiver of subdivision - duplex lot splits * 50.00 No 0720.4206 Waiver of subdivision - single - family zoned * 300.00 Yes " Waiver of subdivision - other * 150.00 Yes " * Application to appeal is 50% of original fee. NOTE: Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Planned Developments, CUPS and IUPs do not require additional escrow if incorporated with subdivision application. q/ 4 40'Ciq of Eaian 2010 Fee Schedule DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (cont'd) RIGHT -OF -WAY (ROW) PERMIT & MANAGEMENT FEES ROW registration fee Fee ROW excavation /installation permit up to 1,000 feet Acct Code Lot combination agreement $ 200.00 Winter ROW excavation surcharge (Dec 1 — Mar 31) 0720.4206 Vacation proceedings 400.00 plus out -of- pocket City costs on 0720.4220 Private improvement in ROW (e.g. mailbox, driveway) 20.00 " replacement easements and /or 250.00 " If disturbance of existing infrastructure 220.00 plus minimum $500.00' security " transfer of property if handled deposit for one year warranty outside normal subdiv. process Industrial revenue bond and multi- 1,000.00 plus out -of- pocket City costs 9113.4211 family housing bond application (Escrow required) 9113.4224 Public financing 1,000.00 plus out -of- pocket City costs xxxx.4229 Assistance application (TIF, State program, etc) (Escrow required) CONSTRUCTION - RELATED PERMITS Grading /excavation If preliminary platted: < 1 acre 300.00 2010.4094 1 -5 acres 500.00 " 5+ acres 700.00 " If not preliminary platted: 0 -5 acres 300.00 " each additional acre over 5 50.00 (800.00 maximum) " Renewal 200.00 " RIGHT -OF -WAY (ROW) PERMIT & MANAGEMENT FEES ROW registration fee 40.00 2010.4102 ROW excavation /installation permit up to 1,000 feet 200.00 " ROW excavation /installation (> 1,000 feet) .20 per foot Winter ROW excavation surcharge (Dec 1 — Mar 31) 80.00 " ROW excavation /installation fee (new development) 90.00 " Obstruction permit . 50.00 " Private improvement in ROW (e.g. mailbox, driveway) 20.00 " If maintenance agreement is required 250.00 " If disturbance of existing infrastructure 220.00 plus minimum $500.00' security " (e.g. curb, sidewalk, catch - basin) deposit for one year warranty " Security deposit to be calculated by Engineering Department y� 5 *94 of Eatan 2010 Fee Schedule ESCROW DEPOSITS The City requires the following escrow deposits. The amounts represent initial deposits, not actual charges. Additional deposits may be required as City costs are incurred. Initial Escrow Deposit Acct Code Preliminary Subdivision application OR $ 2,500.00 single - family < 10 acres 9001.2245 Preliminary Planned Development OR 5,000.00 single - family > 10 acres " Waiver of Subdivision — other OR 4,500.00 C/I and townhomes /multiples " Comprehensive Plan Amendment < 20 acres 9,000.00 C/I and town homes /multiples " > 20 acres Waiver of Subdivision - single family zoned 800.00 " Final Planned Development 3,000.00 " Planned Development Amendment 1,500.00 " Final Plat 800.00 " Final Subdivision application - 1 -3 lots 2,000.00 " Final Subdivision application - 4 or more lots 4,000.00 " Contract management < $150,000 estimated construction costs 12% of costs 5,000.00 minimum 9001.2245 $150,0014500,000 estimated construction costs 9% of costs 15,000.00 minimum " > $500,000 estimated construction costs 5% of costs 30,000.00 minimum " Conditional use permit 500.00 Residential 9001.2245 (Not required if subdivision escrow has 1,000.00 Commercial been collected as part of same application.) Interim use permit - when site plan is involved 500.00 Residential 9001.2245 (Not required if subdivision escrow has 1,000.00 Commercial been collected as part of same application.) Rezoning 500.00 Residential 9001.2245 (Not required if subdivision escrow has 1,000.00 Commercial been collected as part of same application.) Site Plan Review 500.00 9001.2245 Variance - residential 300.00 " Variance - non - residential 500.00 " Public financing assistance 10,000.00 9001.2245 Request for release of development documents Determined on case -by -case basis 9001.2245 �1 3 6 *gq of EaF 2010 Fee Schedule OTHER DEVELOPMENT - RELATED CHARGES Water quality dedication: Water quality dedication fee is equal to the sum of: (1) the cost of the area of a water quality treatment pond using the per -acre land values below; and (2) the cost of the volume of that pond using the excavation rate below. Dedication fees apply in lieu of or in addition to construction or use of an actual treatment pond. Per -acre land values: Single- family Fee Acct Code Parkland dedication: Townhome 141,262.00 " Single- family $ 3,308.00 per unit 9328.4670 Duplex 3,258.00 per unit " Townhouse /Quad 3,458.00 per unit " Apartments /Multiple 3,212.00 per unit " Commercial (post- 1/1/83) 869.00 per 1,000 ft2 of bldg " Industrial (post- 1/1/83) 236.00 per 1,000 ft2 of bldg " Commercial /Industrial (pre- 1/1/83) 2,618.00 per net acre " Trailway dedication: Commercial /Industrial /Public Facility 1,251.00 per net acre 9375.4671 Residential 250.00 per unit 9375.4671 Water quality dedication: Water quality dedication fee is equal to the sum of: (1) the cost of the area of a water quality treatment pond using the per -acre land values below; and (2) the cost of the volume of that pond using the excavation rate below. Dedication fees apply in lieu of or in addition to construction or use of an actual treatment pond. Per -acre land values: Single- family 85,474.00 6501.4672 Duplex 84,158.00 " Townhome 141,262.00 " Apartments, Schools & Churches 149,893.00 " Commercial 96,481.00 " Industrial 82,754.00 " Excavation rate 8.00 per yard " Tree mitigation /replacement: Refer to City Code section 11. 10, subd. 15.1 for calculation. Individual trees 120.00 per diameter inch 9001.2120 Woodland areas 1.20 per sq ft of woodland 9001.2120 YT 7 City of 6ajan INSPECTION FEES /PERMITS 2010 Fee Schedule Building permits: Building permit fees are based on the League of Minnesota Cities Fee Table. Permits are issued to specific lots. There is a State surcharge on all permits; the surcharge fee schedule is on page 11. The following connection and availability charges are also collected with single - family building permit fees: Fee Acct Code Sewer availability charge (SAC) - Met. Council — 501 -2,000 40.00 Environmental Services $ 2,100.00 $2,99Q.89 9220.2275 Sewer availability charge - City 100.00 9379.4681 Water supply and storage - City 1,185.00 6101.4680 Water meter (5/8 ") 147.00 6101.4509 Treatment plant charge 735.00 6101.4685 Building permit valuation < $500 40.00 399 0801.4085 501 -2,000 40.00 38-09 plus 2.25 3.25/ $100 valuation* > $500 " 2,001- 25,000 73.75 plus 14.75/ $1,000 valuation* > $2,000 " 25,001- 50,000 413.00 plus 10.75/ $1,000 valuation* > $25,000 " 50,001- 100,000 681.75 plus 7.50/ $1,000 valuation* > $50,000 " 100,001- 500,000 1,056.75 plus 6.00/ $1,000 valuation* > $100,000 " 500,001- 1,000,000 3,456.75 plus 5.00/ $1,000 valuation* > $500,000 " > 1,000,000 5,956.75 plus 4.00/ $1,000 valuation* > $1,000,000 " Building permits for selected work at existing residences: • Fireplace /fireplace stove, demolition, building move 88.50 0801.4085 • Nail salon 88.50 0801.4085 Tents >200 sq. ft., canopies >400 sq. ft., greenhouses, pylon signs >7' tall 128.50 0801.4085 • Residential lower level finishes, residential decks 428.59 Based on valuation ($2,000 minimum) 0801.4085 Also subject to plan review fees. • Re -roof, siding, windows, including egress (based on fixed valuation of $3,000 per work type and per unit for 1- and 2 -unit buildings): $3,000 valuation 88.50 0801.4085 $6,000 valuation 132.75 " " $9,000 valuation 177.00 " " * or fraction thereof 21,S- 8 +CitpofBapu 2070 Fee Schedule INSPECTION FEES /PERMITS (cont'd) Mechanical permits: The Inspections Department must verify the classification of each multiple- residence dwelling to determine the appropriate permit type. Plumbing permits: The Inspections Department must verify the classification of each multiple- residence dwelling to determine the appropriate permit type. Residential (1 -2 family, townhomes, condominiums) New construction Modifications that alter living area Add /replace softener, water heater Private sewage disposal system (includes 40.00 County Permit Fee - 9001.2276) Additional, per as -built Abandonment of private sewage disposal System - demolition Abandonment - escrow Turnaround Reduced pressure zone (RPZ) backflow preventer Lawn irrigation system Commercial /Industrial /Apartment buildings All plumbing PVB /RPZ - new /repair /rebuild /remove Fire Suppression and Commercial Fire Alarm Permits: Fireworks Permits: Sales and Storage - outdoor Sales and Storage - all other Pyrotechnic Special Effects Displays 90.00 per dwelling unit 0801.4087 50.00 " 50.00 " 100.00 " 9001.2276 10.00 0801.4087 50.00 0801.4093 9001.2257 50.00 0801.4087 30.00 " 30.00 " 1% of contract price ($50.00 minimum) 0801.4087 50.00 per building 0801.4087 1 % of contract price ($50.00 minimum) I/6 9 410.50 (includes tent) 100.00 100.00 0801.4096 0801.4097 Fee Acct Code Residential (1 -2 family, townhomes, condominiums) New construction $ 90.00 per dwelling unit 0801.4088 Modification /alteration (e.g., furnace, A/C, air exchange) 50.00 " (Permit not required for lower -level ductwork alterations.) Supplementary furnace 50.00 per dwelling unit " Commercial /Industrial /Apartment buildings HVAC 1% of contract price ($50.00 minimum) 0801.4088 Process piping systems 50.00 0801.4088 Underground tank installation /removal 70.00 0801.4088 Plumbing permits: The Inspections Department must verify the classification of each multiple- residence dwelling to determine the appropriate permit type. Residential (1 -2 family, townhomes, condominiums) New construction Modifications that alter living area Add /replace softener, water heater Private sewage disposal system (includes 40.00 County Permit Fee - 9001.2276) Additional, per as -built Abandonment of private sewage disposal System - demolition Abandonment - escrow Turnaround Reduced pressure zone (RPZ) backflow preventer Lawn irrigation system Commercial /Industrial /Apartment buildings All plumbing PVB /RPZ - new /repair /rebuild /remove Fire Suppression and Commercial Fire Alarm Permits: Fireworks Permits: Sales and Storage - outdoor Sales and Storage - all other Pyrotechnic Special Effects Displays 90.00 per dwelling unit 0801.4087 50.00 " 50.00 " 100.00 " 9001.2276 10.00 0801.4087 50.00 0801.4093 9001.2257 50.00 0801.4087 30.00 " 30.00 " 1% of contract price ($50.00 minimum) 0801.4087 50.00 per building 0801.4087 1 % of contract price ($50.00 minimum) I/6 9 410.50 (includes tent) 100.00 100.00 0801.4096 0801.4097 *Myflatan 2010 Fee Schedule INSPECTION FEES /PERMITS (cont'd) Other building inspections fees: Electrical permits Plan review Demolition permit Day Care Moving permit - building Outdoor electronic sound system /audio after 10 p.m. Fee Acct Code Issued by the State 65% of building permit fee 0720.4222 $88.50 0801.4093 50.00 1201.4216 90.00 + cost of damage /repairs; 0801.4093 $2,000 escrow required. 9001.2257 75.00 0720.4115 Sign permit (excludes temporary signs) 2.50 per square foot 0720.4089 Pylon sign footing inspection permit (in addition to sign permit fee) 128.50 0801.4085 Temporary sign permit (up to 10 days in a 60 -day period) 25.00 0720.4089 Sign permit - investigation fee (applies when work Double sign permit fee 0720.4089 commences before permit issuance) Wind energy, radio and TV tower permit Based on value -see building permits 0801.4092 Underground storage tank installation /removal 70.00 0801.4088 Building permit investigation fee 50% of plan review fee 0801.4085 (applies to approved permits abandoned by applicant) Building /Plumbing /Mechanical permit investigation fee Double the base fee permits; p.9 (applies when work commences prior to permit issuance) Lot transfer or address change fee 50.00 0720.4222 ReplaGement b uilding �,,;n PId =rd son QSQ1 -4230 UP"Gate nertifina4c of G_G_G manry 5.00 991 0 A79l1 w r.�zvv GeFtifi ate Of •esea;Gh fee 20.00 9841.4230 Commercial driveway construction in City ROW Commercial utility connection in City ROW Re- inspection fee After - hours /weekend inspection fee Address change after building permit issued Permit refunding fee State of MN contractor license verification Street name change application �z �' 10 50.00 Escrow to be determined 50.00 on case -by -case basis 50.00 per hr. -1 hr minimum 0801.4242 50.00 per hr. - 2 hr minimum 0801.4242 A mm 0201.4230 50.00 permits, pp. 8,9 5.00 0201.4230 100.00 + out -of- pocket City costs 0201.4230 *Ci4 of E*n 2010 Fee Schedule INSPECTION FEES /PERMITS (cont'd) State surcharge The State of Minnesota requires the following permit surcharges to be collected by the City and remitted to the State. Building Permits: Value -based permits < $1,000,000 valuation 1,000,001-2,000,000 2,000,001-3,000,000 3,000,001-4,000,000 4,000,001-5,000,000 > 5,000,000 Fixed -fee permits Permit amount 1,000 or less Permit amount > 1,000 Fee Acct Code .0005 x valuation 500 + .0004 x (valuation — 1,000,000) 9001.2195 900 + .0003 x (valuation — 2,000,000) " 1,200 + .0002 x (valuation — 3,000,000) " 1,400 + .0001 x (valuation — 4,000,000) " 1,500 + .00005 x (valuation - 5,000,000) " .50 Permit fee x.0005 Mechanical, Plumbing, and Fire Suppression permits: Permit amount $1,000 or less .50 Permit amount > 1,000 Permit fee x .0005 Z/31' 11 permits, p.9 +ciqorsatan 2010 Fee Schedule UTILITIES FEES - CONNECTION /AVAILABILITY CHARGES Trunk charges: Fee Acct Code Sanitary sewer oversize (for assessment purposes) Un- platted and platted non - residential $ 2,625.00 per acre 9379.4611 Platted residential 1,275.00 per lot 9379.4611 Water main oversize Un- platted and platted non - residential 2,770.00 per acre 9378.4611 Platted residential 1,325.00 per lot 9378.4611 Storm sewer oversize Single- family .117 per sq ft 9377.4611 Multi- family .150 per sq ft " Non- residential .180 per sq ft " Lateral charges: Sanitary sewer 62.70 per centerline foot 9379.4611 Water main Single- family 63.30 per centerline foot 9378.4611 Multi- family and non - residential 79.75 per centerline foot 9378.4611 Storm sewer (based on pipe at 15' depth) 12" storm sewer 68.80 per centerline foot 9377.4611 15" storm sewer 71.20 per centerline foot " 18" storm sewer 76.40 per centerline foot " 21" storm sewer 82.10 per centerline foot " 24" storm sewer 93.75 per centerline foot " Service Charges: Sanitary Sewer - 4" service 765.00 per service 9379.4533 Sanitary Sewer - 8" stub 1,760.00 per stub 9379.4533 Water - 1" service 855.00 per service 9378.4508 Water - 6" stub 2,945.00 per stub 9378.4508 Sanitary sewer availability (SAC): MCES portion - all property types City portion - all property types Sanitary Sewer Trunk Connection Charge (SCC): 1 -5 SAC units 6 -10 SAC units 11+ SAC units Water supply and storage: Residential Non - residential Treatment plant: 2,100.00 2,000.99 per SAC unit * 100.00 per SAC unit * 1,635.00 per SAC unit * 8,175.00 plus 410.00 per SAC unit over 5* 10,225.00 plus 165.00 per SAC unit over 10* 1,185.00 per SAC unit 4,360.00 per acre All property types 735.00 per SAC unit Direct connection to MCES Interceptor - application fee (not a City fee) 900.00 per connection * SAC units are determined by Metropolitan Council- Environmental Services (MCES). Y � 12 9220.2275 9379.4681 9379.4611 9379.4611 9379.4611 6101.4680 Il 6101.4685 490"CityofBajau UTILITIES FEES —USER RATES 2010 Fee Schedule Sanitary sewer Residential and Commercial /Industrial (Usage is based on lower of winter quarter and current quarter water usage) . Administrative fee All usage (min 3,000 gal /qtr) Sewer -only (no water connection) Manual reading /billing fee- deduct meters Water Residential and Commercial /Industrial Administrative fee Domestic/Potable usage Lawn & Irrigation usage if separately metered (includes DNR summer surcharge of $.02 per 1,000 gallons) Hydrant/construction meter - minimum Storm water drainage All properties except R3 R3 properties (20% credit) Street/signal lighting Neighborhood lights Single- family, twin homes (R1 /R2) Townhomes (133) Multiple residential Non - continuous Continuous (per LF basis) Continuous (per acre basis) Individual lights 100 WHPS 150 WHPS 200 WHPS 250 WHPS Community and signal lights R1 /R2 R3 R4 Non - residential sO 13 Fee Acct Code $1.45 per bill 6201.4530 2.55 per 1,000 gallons " 52.45 per quarter " 10.00 per meter, per read " 6.00 per bill 6101.4505 1.40 per 1,000 gallons " 1.42 per 1,000 gallons " 5.00 per day " 8.11 per REF /qtr 6401.4540 6.48 per REF /qtr 6401.4540 4.99 per qtr /lot 6301.4550 4.00 per qtr /unit " 8.74 per qtr /account " 5.90 per qtr /acre " 0.127 per qtr /LF " 11.28 per qtr /acre " 35.46 per light/qtr " 51.40 per light/qtr " 45.25 per light/qtr " 57.73 per light/qtr " 1.85 per unit/qtr " 1.48 per unit/qtr " 1.09 per unit/qtr " 7.45 per unit/qtr " Cite of Bain UTILITIES FEES -OTHER 2010 Fee Schedule Clear water discharge surcharges: Inspection not completed - single - family Inspection not completed - non - single - family Correction not made - single - family Correction not made - non - single - family Prohibited reconnection made - single - family Prohibited reconnection made - non - single - family Water shut -off Water meter removal /replacement/resealing Utility bill late charge Certification fee on delinquent utility bills Sewer permit - new or repair of existing Water permit - new or repair of existing Temporary construction hydrant meters (6 month max) Permit fee Hydrant damage deposit 5/8" meter damage deposit 3" meter damage deposit 3" backflow preventer & cart damage deposit Trip fee (if required) %" backflow preventer deposit Scheduled after -hours work Call out - 2.5 hour minimum Extended day Meter testing (charged only if meter tests correct) 5/8" through 1" 1 %" through 2" All other sizes Private hydrants Maintenance /flushing Repair Utilities customer list Mailing labels Electronic transmission, weekly new customer list s/ Fee Acct Code 150.00 per month 6201.4534 500.00 per month 6201.4534 150.00 per month 6201.4535 500.00 per month 6201.4535 300.00 per month 1,000.00 per month $ 55.00 (7am - 4pm) 6101.4512 55.00 (7am - 4 pm) 6101.4512 1.5% per month on 6101.4506 unpaid balance 25.00 per parcel xxxx.4612 50.50 6201.4532 50.50 6101.4507 40.00 per month, 3 -month 6101.4521 200.00 deposit required 9220.2254 245.00 9220.2254 1,022.00 " 1,800.00 " 55.00 0801.4242 45.00 9220.2254 OT labor rate plus 15% admin fee to max admin of 60.00 OT labor rate plus 15% admin fee 110.00 6101.4242 130.00 6101.4242 Contract cost plus 15% 55.00 6101.4242 Time and material plus 15% 6101.4242 14 125.00 0501.4230 50.00 per year 0501.4230 *CIV of Eaian 2010 Fee Schedule UTILITIES FEES —WATER METERS Water meters (includes copperhorn /strainer, remote wire, and touch -pad meter) 5/8" x %" meter %" meter 1" meter 1 %Z" meter 2"-compound meter 3" compound meter 4" compound meter 6" compound meter 1 W turbo meter 2" turbo meter 3" turbo meter 4" turbo meter 6" turbo meter Replacement remote wire (over 50') Replacement outside touch -pad meter #2 copperhorns only Meter strainers only 2" strainer 3" strainer 4" strainer 6" strainer Radio meter read sending unit Dual port expander Fee Acct Code $166.00 $165. -09 6101.4509 204.00 20200 " 220.00 21 900 " 467.00 544-09 " 1,750.00 1,730.00 " 2.211.00 2,737.00 " 3,746.00 3,597.00 " 6,176.00 5,692.00 " 842.00 91540 " 1,002.00 1;874.09 " 1,241.00 1 1.09 " 2,421.00 2,489.99 " 4,363.00 444. -99 " 0.14 042 per foot " 18.00 17.90 " 49.00 " 322.00 221-00 " 411.00 40900 " 624.00 522 90 " 787.00 78400 " 154.00 453.00 6101.4509 69.00 600 6101.4509 02 15 * City orsajan 2010 Fee Schedule STREET ASSESSMENTS TRAIL ASSESSMENTS Concrete - 6' wide (includes $4.15/FF sod /grading) 38.20 per FF xoax.4611 / 4612 Bituminous -10' wide (includes $4.15/FF sod /grading) 24.60 per FF " OTHER ASSESSMENT - RELATED CHARGES Reallocation of special assessments Fee Acct Code Residential - 32' wide Pending assessment report 0.25 per page * " Street surfacing $ 51.20 per FF )o=.4611 / 4612 Street surfacing with grading 86.95 per FF " Street surfacing with storm sewer 71.10 per FF " Street surfacing w/ grading and storm sewer 107.25 per FF " Multiple and Institutional - 44' wide Street surfacing 85.00 per FF " Street surfacing with grading 137.05 per FF " Street surfacing with storm sewer 120.30 per FF " Street surfacing w/ grading and storm sewer 172.40 per FF " Commercial /Industrial - 52' Wide Street surfacing 115.25 per FF " Street surfacing with grading 178.70 per FF " Street surfacing with storm sewer 157.75 per FF " Street surfacing w/ grading and storm sewer 221.25 per FF " TRAIL ASSESSMENTS Concrete - 6' wide (includes $4.15/FF sod /grading) 38.20 per FF xoax.4611 / 4612 Bituminous -10' wide (includes $4.15/FF sod /grading) 24.60 per FF " OTHER ASSESSMENT - RELATED CHARGES Reallocation of special assessments 150.00 0501.4225 Assessment search 10.00 0501.4225 Pending assessment report 0.25 per page * " Final assessment report 0.25 per page * " Copies of legal description, owners, etc. 0.25 per page * 0201.4230 * if less than 100 pages 3 16 +Cityflaian 2010 Fee Schedule PARKS AND RECREATION CHARGES The following facility rental fees are subject to 7.125% State sales tax and require a $150.00 damage deposit payable at the time of reservation. Eagan based school organizations that have a Joint Powers Agreement with the City may schedule use of Eagan shelters and pavilions free of charge, although a damage deposit is required. FACILITY FEE Residents Non - residents Acct Code Adult League Protest/Appeal Fee 55.00 55.00 xxxx.4310 Athletic Field /Facility Maintenance Fees Youth Traveling Teams - Eagan & Eastview Athletic Associations • Soccer - per team 100.00 N/A 3087.4624/4627 • Baseball /Softball - per team practice fee for season 25.00 N/A " • Baseball /Softball - per game 15.00 N/A " Adults • Up to 9 games per team 252.00 505.00 " • More than 9 games, fee for each additional game >9 35.00 70.00 " Tournaments - per field /per day or single games • Youth 57.00 52.00 114.00 483-90 " • Adult 80.00 75.00 160.00 159 99 " Lights • Northview per hour (includes all 4 fields) 57.00 57.00 " • Goat Hill per field per hour 30.00 30.00 " • Clearwater per field per hour 30.00 30.00 " Building cleaning per full day use 75.00 75.00 " Band Shell and Public Address System at Central Park • Permitted use in partnership with Eagan Parks and Recreation community entertainment criteria: No fee • Permitted use in conjunction with a Community Center paid permitted use: No fee Band Shell only per hour 75.00 100.00 6809.4325/4326 Band Shell with Sound System (includes staff) per hour 120.00 150.00 " Band Shell with Microphone only 50.00 50.00 " Wedding Ceremonies per hour 58.00 65.00 " Wedding Ceremonies with Oaks rental per hour 50.00 50.00 " Wedding Ceremonies w /Sound Sys. (includes staff) per hr 100.00 125.00 " Canoe Storage (May 1 - October 31) 43.00 54.00 3089.4305 Central Park Festival Grounds: Ellipse only,one day event 151.00 189.00 3088.4325/4326 Designated Green Space within a Park 52.00 103.00 3087.4624/4627 Disc Golf per hour 5.00 6.00 3087.4624/4627 Dunk Tank Fill in City Park - Filled by Parks Staff Weekdays - Monday - Friday from 7 am - 3:30 pm 100.00 100.00 3089.4310 Weekends /Evenings after 3:30 pm 175.00 175.00 " Holz Farm Barn Rentals from June - August per day Group size limited to 80 247.00 309.00 3088.4325/4326 Staff attendant required with fee charged per hour 10.00 10.00 SX 17 orEatan 2010 Fee Schedule PARKS AND RECREATION CHARGES (Cont'd) Moonshine Park Retreat Center Upstairs - retreat/meeting space All day rental - kitchen included 6 hour time slot - kitchen included Downstairs - activity space All day rental 6 hour time slot Outdoor hockey rinks per hour With or without ice and lights Without ice Park Shelter Buildings All day rental from 10 am -10 pm Half -day rental from 10 am - 4 pm or 5 pm -10 pm Pavilions All day rental from 10 am -10 pm Half -day rental from 10 am - 4 pm or 5 pm -10 pm Kitchen use Sand Volleyball Courts per hour Special Events Closing trail & posting signs Sun Shelters per day Tennis courts per court per hour Trapp Farm Tubing Hill: Daily per person Reservations for groups of 20 -80 per person Use of parks for large groups, charity walks /runs /rides Vendor permit to conduct sales at outside facilities EAGAN ROOM - 2 hour minimum Youth Groups per hour Local Civic Groups per hour Local Resident Groups per hour Non - Resident Groups per hour Profit Making Groups per hour Kitchen, City Hall - flat rate: Youth Groups per hour Local Civic Groups per hour Local Resident Groups per hour Non - Resident Groups per hour Profit Making Groups per hour Residents Non- residents Acct Code 138.00 173.00 3088.4325/4326 93.00 116.00 " 46.00 58.00 " 32.00 40.00 " 18.00 23.00 3087.4624/4627 6.00 8.00 " 138.00 173.00 3088.4625/4626 93.00 116.00 " 138.00 173.00 3088.4625/4626 93.00 116.00 " 46.00 58.00 " 4.00 5.00 3087.4624/4627 50.00 100.00 3088.4625/4626 46.00 58.00 3088.4625/4626 4.00 5.00 3087.4624/4627 2.50 2:25 2.50 245 3074.4318 5.00 4.25 6.00 5.45 " 62.00 77.00 3088.4625/4626 26.00 32.00 3087.4624/4627 25.00 NA 3088.4625/4626 40.00 NA " 40.00 NA " 50.00 NA " 75.00 NA " 10.00 NA 3088.4625/4626 20.00 NA " 20.00 NA " 25.00 NA " 35.00 NA " '5��18 46'9ty of Evan 2010 Fee Schedule PARKS AND RECREATION CHARGES (Cont'd) EQUIPMENT Residents Non - residents Acct Code Picnic kit (requires $50.00 damage deposit) - each item 4.00 NA 3089.4305 Chuckwagon grill per day 46.00 58.00 " Canopy per day 76.00 95.00 " Extra picnic tables per table with a maximum of 6 18.00 22.00 " CASCADE BAY Daytime After 5 p.m. Daily Admission Guests over 42" 9.00 6.00 67XX/43XX Guests under 42" 7.00 4.00 " Seniors 62 and older 7.00 4.00 " Under 18 months Free Free Season Passes Resident Non - Resident First family member, all ages 55.00 65.00 670X.4321 Additional family members 45.00 55.00 " Additional family members <42" tall 31.00 41.00 " Seniors 62 and older 31.00 41.00 " Under 18 months of age Free Free Captain's Course, per nine holes 3.00 3.00 Birthday Parties Pool 140.00 140.00 6709.4316 Additional guest 14.00 14.00 " Golfing 125.00 125.00 6726.4316 Additional Guest 12.50 12.50 " Groups per person 9.00 9.00 6708.43XX Private Rental per hour, minimum of two hours 1,000.00 1,000.00 6711.43XX CIVIC ARENA Residents Non - residents Acct Code Civic Arena Rentals per hour, October 1, 2009 - September 30, 2010 Prime rate 175.00 479-99 175.00 17-A:99 66XX.4355/4356 Eagan & Eastview Association 175.00 470.00 N/A " High School 180.00 175 99 N/A " Non -prime 112.00 112.00 " Dry Floor 40.00 40.00 " Indoor turf 75.00 75.00 " Civic Arena mezzanine: Hourly -1 hour minimum 25.00 31.00 6622.4325 Daily - 8 hours 150.00 188.00 " Each additional hour 20.00 25.00 " Birthday Parties Gold 150.00 150.00 6630.4311 Additional 15.00 15.00 " Silver 120.00 120.00 " Additional 12.00 12.00 " Bronze 90.00 90.00 " Additional 9.00 9.00 " ,�j 4 19 City of Eap 2010 Fee Schedule COMMUNITY CENTER FEES Fee Acct Code Note: Deposit required for all rentals Passport execution fee 25.00 6829.4329 The Oaks (350 capacity) Sunday - Thursday • 8:00 am -11:00 pm 850.00 6802.2855.x 6802.4324/4325 • 8:00 am - Noon 300.00 25000 " • 1:00 pm - 5 :00 pm 300.00 258:-99 " • 6:00 pm - 11:00 pm 400.00 25000 " Friday: Full Day (patio included) 1,150.00 a- 189.99 " Saturday: Full Day (patio included) 1,490.00 4,45 50 North, South or Central Oaks (110 capacity/each room) Sunday - Thursday • 8:00 am - 11:00 pm 400.00 " • 8:00 am - Noon 155.00 459.99 " • 1:00 pm - 5:00 pm 155.00 159.99 " • 6:00 pm -11:00 pm 185.00 !75.-90 North /Central or South /Central (2 Oaks rooms combined) Sunday - Thursday • 8:00 am - 11:00 pm 775.00 " • 8:00 am - Noon 285.00 • 1:00 pm - 5:00 pm 285.00 « • 6:00 pm -11:00 pm 370.00 " Resident Non -Res./ North, Central or South Meeting Rooms (20 cap. /each room) For Profit Sunday - Saturday (2 -hour minimum) 17.00 440 /hr 19.00 48.0 hr " Reduced (w/ 8 -hr banquet rental) 14.00 42 -99 /hr 14.00 12 00 hr " North /Central /South Meeting Rooms combined 52.00 Saturday - Sunday (2 -hour minimum) 44.00 4&00 1hr (200.0o max) 59- 991hr(240.00 max) Reduced (w/ 8 -hour banquet rental) 38.00 35:)0/hr (175.00 max) The Board Room (35 capacity) Sunday - Saturday (2 -hour mimimum) 22.00 2490/hr 26.00 25-09/hr " Reduced (w /8 hr banquet rental) 18.00 46709 /hr. 16.00 /hr " The Lone Oak Room Full Lone Oak Room (2 -hour minimum) 50.00 /hr 55.00 /hr 6812.4324/4325 Half Lone Oak Room (2 -hour minimum) 35.00 30.00 hr 35.00 30.W /hr " Oasis Teen Center (2 -hour minimum) 50.00 /hr 55.00 /hr 6811.4324/4325 Kid's Kare 20.00 /hr 22.00/hr 6813.4324/4325 North, Central, or South Gym: Parks & Recreation 25.00 /hr 25.00 /hr 6810.4326/4327 Athletic Association 32.00 /hr 32.00 /hr " Private - full court 58.00 /hr 58.001hr (340.00 max) " Private - half court 32.00 /hr 32.00/hr (200.00 max) " Gazebo 58.00 /hr 60.00 _9448 /hr 6844.4326/4327 (__� 20 +Nyflaaan 2010 Fee Schedule COMMUNITY CENTER FEES (conVd) Fitness Membership Fee Acct Code Member enrollment fee - 1 sc family member 69.00 6807.4321 Member enrollment fee - each additional family member 10.00 " Monthly fee - Resident/Corporate - 1st family member 35.00 " Monthly fee - Resident/Corporate - each additional 30.00 " Monthly fee - Non - resident - 1st family member 40.00 " Monthly fee - Non - resident - each additional 40.00 " Daily admission to fitness center 10.00 6807.4310 Report Processing Fee Fitness Attendance Activity report 30.00 6807.4304 Open Gym Fees Adult Open — Resident 5.00 6810.431814319 Adult Open — Non - resident 10.00 " Youth Open 3.00 " Preschool Open (includes limited Blast use) 3.00 Blast Fees Daily admission 5.00 6804.4318/4319 After 5 pm 2.50 " 10 -Visit punch card (residents only) 40.00 " Private Rental 150.00 6804.4326/4327 Private Rental (with 8 -hr banquet room rental) 100.00 " Birthday Party Fees Rocketship 125.00 6805.4310/4311 Additional guest 12.50 " Moonbuggy 75.00 " Additional guest Tees�er�teF 5.00 " �2c�.nn an�� nu�� TeeflGenteF h) additienal guest {ea sa 21 * City oi8ajan 2010 Fee Schedule WETLAND CONSERVATION APPLICATION FEES Exemption /no -loss determination Replacement plan Banking plan Certificate of completion Wetland decision appeal Aquatic plant harvesting Co- application & service fee (City- permitted activity, lakes only) $ 100.00 ( plus staff review time 6530.4675 300.00 ( plus staff review time 300.00 ( plus staff review time 100.00 300.00 100.00 per property owner per year 6523.4676 22 40'My of E*R 2010 Fee Schedule POLICE DEPARTMENT CHARGES Police /Fire reports: Police incident and other reports /data Background investigation report (copy) Photos 35mm, first print 35mm, each additional Polaroid - color photocopy Digital - color print Viewing accident reports (commercial users) Audio tapes (copy) Video tapes (copy) CD ROM (copy) Other Police charges: Contractual security Contractual security admin. fee (5 %) BCA urine or blood test kit Drivers' license printouts Police records check/clearance letters Law enforcement agencies Non -law enforcement agencies Repeat nuisance call, for third and subsequent calls in a 365 -day period 6" 23 Fee Acct Code $ .25 per page 1101.4221 10.00 " 10.00 1101.4221 0.50 " 3.00 " 3.00 " 0.50 per report " 25.00 1101.4221 35.00 " 25.00 " 67.00 6499 per officer per hour 1116.4234 3.35 3-29 per officer per hour 0501.4228 10.00 1101.4691 5.00 1101.4221 no fee 5.00 1101.4221 250.00 per call 1101.4215 City of saran FIRE DEPARTMENT CHARGES Fire reports: Personnel /Equipment: 2010 Fee Schedule Manpower Chiefs vehicle, rescue truck, grass rigs Pumper, tanker, emergency support vehicle, heavy rescue Command vehicle, aerial Safety house: Fee Acct Code $ 0.25 per page 1221.4221 20.00 per hr (1 hr min) 1221.4242 175.00 per hr (1 hr min) 1221.4242 300.00 per hr (1 hr min) 1221.4242 600.00 per hr (1 hr min) 122114242 Within City limits no fee otheF Spesi,Q, Feque6ts (e.g., biFthday paFties at statieRs) 35 an 12264241 Outside City limits Gounty A ed - cities (house nJy` 175.00 per day + mileage " + +. A*d cities FnanpeweF; supplies 2AA.AQ per day + mileage " Ot#ers � 6e -snh•` 200-.00 per ay + mileage " OthArs House, manpower, mateF;a: 275.00 per day + 20.00 per firefighter (minimum 2 firefighters) Hazardous material containment/cleanup: Personnel: 20.00 per person per hour 1221.4242 ( one hour minimum ) Supplies: actual cost Equipment per equipment rates above 1213.4242 Rescue boat 175.00 per hour (1 hr min) 1221.4242 Fire key Knox box actual cost 1221.6220 "Fire Department Connection" sign actual cost 1221.6220 G/ 24 40' My of BaQan 2010 Fee Schedule FIRE DEPARTMENT TRAINING ROOM Room deposit of $150.00 to be paid at time of registration (After -hour rental is a 2 -hour minimum) Hourly rates: Kitchen use, in conjunction with training room rental —flat rate: Youth groups RESIDENT NON - RESIDENT Local civic groups 20.00 Full Full 20.00 25.00 Room Room Acct Code Youth groups 25.00 N/A 1221.4324 Local civic groups 40.00 N/A 1221.4324 Other citizen groups 40.00 50.00 1221.4324 For - profit organizations 75.00 75.00 1221.4324 Kitchen use, in conjunction with training room rental —flat rate: Youth groups 10.00 10.00 Local civic groups 20.00 20.00 Other citizen groups 20.00 25.00 For - profit organizations 35.00 35.00 Audio Visual 100.00 100.00 6 a 25 1221.4242 40'City of Evan 2010 Fee Schedule EQUIPMENT AND STAFF RATES Hourly Rate Acct Code Equipment: (does not include operator labor) Pick -up truck $ 32.00 xxxx.4242 One -ton dump truck 35.00 " Single -axle dump truck 45.00 " Tandem -axle dump truck 55.00 " Bucket Truck 55.00 " Aquatic Plant Harvester / conveyor 100.00 " Tractor 45.00 " Backhoe /loader 60.00 " Front -end loader 85.00 " Street sweeper 85.00 " Roller or paver 30.00 " Air compressor 40.00 " Sewer jetter or sewer rodder 175.00 " Sewer vacuum / jetter 200.00 " Groundsmaster mower 32.00 " Sprayer boat 32.00 " Pump, 6" 45.00 " Pump, 8" 50.00 " Skid loader 60.00 " Chipper 25.00 " Tanker 45.00 " TV camera - service (1 hour minimum) 200.00 " TV camera - main line (1 hour minimum) 260.00 " Staff rates: Department Director 150.00 xxxx.4242 Assistant City Administrator 125.00 " City Engineer 130.00 " Maintenance Superintendent 125.00 " Assistant City Engineer /Sr. Building Inspector 120.00 " Transportation Engineer 110.00 " Building Inspector 100.00 " Maintenance Supervisor 100.00 " City Planner 125.00 " Planner 95.00 " Water Resources Coordinator 100.00 95-90 " City Clerk 95.00 " Police Officer - dangerous dog hearings 90.00 " Water Resources Specialist 85.00 " Water Resources Assistant 75.00 " Construction Project Coordinator 95.00 " Utilities Construction Inspector 80.00 " Engineering Technician 85.00 " GIS Technician 90.00 " Animal Control Officer 60.00 " Maintenance Person - regular 65.00 " Maintenance Person - overtime 95.00 " Intern /Seasonal 45.00 " Survey crew (includes vehicle and equipment): 2- person 135.00 " 3- person 160.00 " Clerical Tech 60.00 " 62 26 + MyorEatan 2010 Fee Schedule MISCELLANEOUS FEES /CHARGES Animal pickup Animal impound Antennae - Radio, Satellite, Microwave and PCS: One -time fees: Application & Frequency Analysis Site survey review Administrative Process & Construction Inspection actual costs with a Landscaping Lease /rent rates: 1 -9 antenna panels 25,435.00 Each additional antenna panel 2,826.00 1 -3 microwave /satellite dishes or whip antennae 25,435.00 (includes up to 3 antenna panels at no extra cost) Maximum dish size - 24" diameter Ground space only lease (16 sq. ft. minimum charge) Fee $ 20.00 125.00 4.00 per day over amount Comp. Water Supply /Distribution Plan billed to City by pound 500.00 per site 500.00 per site 2,500.00 per site minimum 2,500.00 per site Exterior space 38.00 Interior space 76.00 Monopoles varies depending on size /location Audio tapes - Board /Council meetings actual costs Certification fee for unpaid false alarm or weed bills 25.00 City Plans /Policies: Comprehensive Plan 2030 125.00 Special Area Plans 0.25 Comp. Water Supply /Distribution Plan 75.00 Comp. Sanitary Sewer Policy /Plan 75.00 Comp. Storm Water Management Plan 75.00 Landscape Policy, Shoreland Zoning Ordinance, Sign Regulations or Tree Preservation Policy 0.25 Water Quality & Wetlands Management Plan 75.00 per site per year per site per year per site per year per square foot per year per square foot per year per parcel per page per page Acct Code 1101.4212 1101.4212 xxxx.4618 xxxx.4617 xxxx.4617 xxxx.4619 ♦ #• 1 xxxx.4620 xxxx.4620 xxxx.4612 0720.4230 0201.4230 u 6501.4230 Dangerous Dog hearing actual costs based on staff time (see Equipment & Staff rates section) for hearing and written recommendation, for City Clerk, Animal Control Officer, and Police officer, to a maximum of $1,000 Dangerous Dog hearing escrow (in advance of hearing) 1,000.00 340 00 9001.2250 Data processing reports actual cost +10% 0201.4230 Digital image photocopies (pictometry not included) Color 3.00 per page 0720.4230 Black & white .25 per page "Eagan on Deck" playing cards 5.00 0905.4666 Extension fee for variance, CUP, or recording of a Plat or Subdivision False alarm charges - commercial and residential: First 3 false alarms per year Each false alarm after 3 6 Y28 75.00 0720.4206 no charge 100.00 1101.4214 City hian of 2010 Fee Schedule CITY ATTORNEY RATES Fee Acct Code City Attorney (Severson, Sheldon, Dougherty & Molenda) General legal $ 133.55 hour 9001.2245 Paralegal fees 81.30 per hour " Development - related work 205.00 per hour " City Council /APC meetings 423.15 per meeting " 27 40'gq of hian 2010 Fee Schedule MISCELLANEOUS FEES /CHARGES (cont'd) Fee schedule Invoicing charge Lodging tax Mailing labels Inspection /administrative fee City- initiated corrective or clean up work (eg., tree debris, noxious weeds, board up) Fee Acct Code 0.25 per page 0501.4230 15% to max. of $10.00 0501.4228 3% of gross receipts ECVB 9001.2210 (5% City admin fee) 0501.4247 actual cost +10% 0201.4230 MM Maps: City map: First one free Each additional 2.00 0201.4230 Section maps: % section - property only 10.00 xxxx.4230 %2 section - property and planimetric 50.00 " %2 section - property, planimetric, and contours 150.00 " 1/8 section - prop., planimetric and contours 40.00 " % section - aerial photo (black and white) 6.00 " '/ section - aerial photo (color) 12.00 % section - property only 5.00 " Trunk water or sewer system map 2.50 " Water quality classification map 5.00 " Specialty maps Based on staff rates, p. 25 " Zoning or Comp Guide maps: 15 x 22 color 5.00 " 22 x 34 color 15.00 " GIS Utility As -Built (1/2 section - digital format) 40.00 " National Night Out map 25.00 " Location Plan map 40.00 per page " GIS existing map 25.00 " Other digital data/mapping Based on staff rates, p. 25 " Land Use Study copy 50.00 xxxx.4231 Notary seal (non -City business): First 5 1.00 each 0201.4230 Each additional > 5 0.50 each " Patch - Eagan Historical Trail 1.00 Photocopies - up to 100 pages 0.25 per page 0201.4230 Photocopies - in excess of 100 pages Allowable costs as calculated per State law 0201.4231 Plans and Specifications 50.00 minimum, varies xxxx.4230 by contract Research of City records (beyond readily Allowable costs as calculated per State law xxxx.4231 available material) 4� 29 + MyorEwn 2010 Fee Schedule MISCELLANEOUS FEES /CHARGES (cont'd) Parking restriction - sign bagging fee Street Closure Deposit Returned check or ACH transfer fee Zoning letter Standard Specialty 50.00 2001.4691 25.00 + deposit 2001.4691 25.00 9001.2255 20.00 0501.4210 50.00 per parcel 0701.4242 Based on staff rates, p. 25 " 630 411111� MyofEajan 2010 Fee Schedule SUMMARY OF CONNECTION CHARGES The following connection charges are provided for in the City Code. Some or all of them may be collected at the time of: 1) new development applications, 2) new connections to a utility system, 3) the issuance of building permits, and 4) enforcement of agreements; as appropriate in each individual circumstance. Fee Pa4e Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) 8 & 12 Sanitary Sewer Trunk Connection Charge (SCC) 12 Water Supply & Storage 8 & 12 Water Meter 8 & 15 Treatment Plant Charge 8 & 12 Plumbing Permits 8 Building Permits 8 & 11 Trunk Oversize Charges Sanitary Sewer 12 Water Main 12 Storm sewer 12 Lateral Charges Sanitary Sewer 12 Water Main 12 Storm Sewer 12 Sewer permit - new or repair of existing 14 Water permit - new or repair of existing 14 1:51; �r 31 2010 Fee Schedule Summary of Notable Proposed Changes January 5, 2010 Page 2 Two -year dog licenses are increased from $18 to $20. Page 13 Springsted, Inc. is currently performing a utility rate study. Utility rate changes will be considered at a later time. Pages 17 -21 Parks & Recreation charges are adjusted to align with policy objectives and /or APrC recommendations. Page 23 Police contractual security hourly rate is increased from $64.00 to $67.00. The 2010 rate is at a level that fully recovers overtime wages and payroll taxes for an officer, with no profit margin. Page 28 Antenna lease annual rentals are increased 6% per existing contract provisions. �O/9 RESOLUTION CITY OF EAGAN APPROVING THE 2010 FEE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, various sections of the City Code provide for fees to be established by City Council resolution; and WHEREAS, the City desires to recover certain user related costs through fees and reimbursement; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the fees as listed in the attached shall be effective immediately: Motion by: Seconded by: Those in Favor: Those Against: Date: January 5, 2010 CITY OF EAGAN CITY COUNCIL Its Mayor Attest: Its Clerk CERTIFICATION I, Maria Petersen, City 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 5t' day of January, 2010. Maria Peterson, City Clerk 70 Agenda Information Memo January 5, 2010 Eagan City Council Meeting B. PROJECT 1022, OVERHILL FARM ADDITION STREET IMPROVEMENTS ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve Project 1022, Overhill Farm Addition (Street Improvements) as presented and authorize the preparation of detailed plans and specifications. FACTS: • Since 1990, the City has implemented a comprehensive Pavement Management Program that provides timely pavement rehabilitation to our local streets, significantly extending their overall life expectancy. During these past twenty years, the City has rehabilitated approximately 152 miles of local streets. • The resurfacing of the 0.75 mile of streets within the Overhill Farm neighborhood in southeast Eagan has been programmed for 2010 in the City's 5 -Year Capital Improvement Program. • On June 2, 2009 the City Council directed staff to prepare a feasibility report considering a rehabilitation of these streets. • On December 1, 2009, the feasibility report for Project 1022 was presented to the City Council and a Public Hearing was scheduled for January 5 to formally present and discuss the report with the adjacent property owners. • An informational neighborhood meeting was held on December 29 for the adjacent property owners to discuss the proposed improvements. Of the 62 total properties (61 Single - Family Residential, 1 City Park) proposed to be assessed under this improvement, no residents attended the meeting. • All notices have been published in the legal newspaper and sent to all affected property owners informing them of this public hearing. ATTACHMENTS: • Feasibility Report, pages through . �1/ I� !�1 City of a an December , 2009 Mike Maguire Mayor Paul Bakken Cyndee Fields Gary Hansen Meg Tilley Council Members Thomas Hedges City Administrator Municipal Center 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 -1810 651.675.5000 phone 651.675.5012 fax 651.454.8535 TDD Maintenance Facility 3501 Coachman Point Eagan, MN 55122 651.675.5300 phone 651.675.5360 fax 651.454.8535 TDD www.cityofeagan.com The Lone Oak Tree The symbol of strength and growth in our community. Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Re: Overhill Farm Additions Street Revitalization City Project No. 1022 Dear Mayor and City Council: Attached is our report for the Overhill Farm Additions Street Revitalization, City Project No. 1022. The report presents and discusses the proposed improvements and includes a cost estimate, preliminary assessment roll and schedule. We would be pleased to meet with the City Council at your convenience to review and discuss the contents of this report. SincerelyT/, >F�l /+� J hn P. Gorder Assistant City Engineer I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ^✓L 7 <�4� John P. Gorder D e: 12 '-?O ` Osi Reg. No. 22813 Date: 1 —a'--) Date: Overhill Farm Additions TABLE OF CONTENTS Letter of Transmittal /Certification Table of Contents Page Introduction.............................................................................................. ..............................1 Scope..................................................................................................... ..............................2 Feasibility and Recommendations .......................................................... ..............................2 StreetEvaluation .................................................................................... ..............................2 ProposedImprovements ......................................................................... ..............................3 Easements /Permits ................................................................................. ..............................4 CostEstimate ......................................................................................... ..............................4 Assessments.......................................................................................... ..............................5 Residential...................................................................................... ............................... 5 SouthOaks Park .............................................................................. ..............................5 Assessment Financing Options ............................................................... ..............................6 RevenueSource ..................................................................................... ..............................6 ProjectSchedule ...................................................................................... ..............................7 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Preliminary Cost Estimate Appendix B Preliminary Assessment Roll Appendix C Figures - 1 Location Map - 2 Street Improvement/Assessment Area Map 3 Typical Section — Overlay %Y Overhill Farm Additions December 2009 Overhill Farm Addition Street Revitalization Eagan, Minnesota Introduction/ Streets - As a part of Eagan's Pavement Management Program, (PMP), the City evaluates streets within the community throughout their life cycle and implements appropriate maintenance strategies. In 1989, a Pavement Management System (PMS) was developed that allowed the City to evaluate the condition of the existing pavement surface for all the streets on a routine basis and schedule timely maintenance. A Five Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for street rehabilitation is developed from this information. The nearly 0.75 miles of neighborhood streets of the Overhill Farm Addition located in south eastern Eagan are identified for the 2010 street revitalization improvements. Figure 1, located in Appendix C, illustrates the project location. The streets in this residential neighborhood were constructed from 1983 through 1986. Based on the data and engineering strategies available at this time, the City's current PMP incorporates local and ongoing maintenance strategies with seal coating occurring as needed (at 5 to 7 years, again at 12 to 14 years) with a bituminous overlay at approximately 20 years. Overlaying the roadways located within the project area, which are presently at the 24 to 27 year time frame, will prevent further decay of the pavement surface, thus protecting and extending the structural life of the streets. Timely maintenance work, such as bituminous patching, crack sealing and seal coating have occurred at appropriate intervals during the life of the pavement in the area. The City of Eagan's maintenance records indicate that the streets were seal coated during the 1990's and in 2003. The Public Works maintenance program typically includes extensive patching and crack sealing during the summer prior to the overlay. The Public Works crews, as part of the Preparatory Pavement Management Plan, removed and replaced deteriorated pavement areas and placed ,,, Overhill Farm Addition 7S -1- leveling and maintenance overlays on portions of the streets under consideration, where necessary. These repairs alone will not substantially extend the life expectancy of the street section if not combined with the bituminous overlay proposed with this project. The Public Works Department has also inspected the utility infrastructure (sanitary sewer, water main, and storm sewer) in the project area and determined the system is generally in good working order and that no major repairs are necessary. This project will provide resurfacing (edge mill and overlay) of all of the residential streets. Figure 1, located in Appendix C, illustrates the project limits. Included in this project are the following improvements; replacement of damaged curb and gutter, adjustments and /or replacement to sanitary/storm sewer utility castings, water gate valves, sewer services, and street signage. Feasibility and Recommendations The mill and overlay improvements are necessary to prevent further decay of the pavement section, create a safer driving surface, increase ride ability, and add structural strength. The mill and overlay is cost effective in that the proposed improvements (resurfacing) are considerably less expensive than complete reconstruction of the streets. The mill and overlay is feasible in that these types of improvements have been used successfully to extend the life expectancy of numerous other streets throughout the City and the region. This project is in accordance with the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan (2010 — 2014) for the City of Eagan and the schedule as outlined in the Pavement Management Program. It is recommended that the project be constructed as proposed in this report in combination with other similar projects in the area. Street Evaluation The City of Eagan's Pavement Management System allows the City to evaluate the condition of the existing street surface to help schedule timely maintenance and improvements. The / Overhill Farm Addition ,�j -2- Pavement Condition Index (PCI) ranks the surface condition for each street. The general categories that define PCI rankings are as follows: PCI — Recommended Improvement 156-100 i Routine Maintenance /Crack Seal /Seal Coat 36 55 Patch /Repair and /or Overlay FO - 35 Reconstruct The 2009 PCI rankings for the neighborhood street segments have a weighted average pavement condition rating of 59, which falls in the lower rankings of the "Routine Maintenance /Crack Seal /Seal Coat" category, mostly because of the preparatory maintenance performed by City crews, as mentioned above. It is anticipated that half of the street segments within this neighborhood would have PCI ratings in the Patch/ Repair/ Overlay category regardless in 2010. In order to achieve the anticipated highest cost benefit for the entire neighborhood, it is recommended to complete the improvements for all of the neighborhood streets at this time. The street pavement has reached an age where, based on the City's past experience, the integrity of the pavement can rapidly decline if no improvements are performed. Therefore, the 2010 construction season is the optimal time to construct the bituminous overlay on this street. Any delay of the project may reduce the structural benefit to the street sections and require full reconstruction. Proposed Improvements Pavement - The proposed street improvements are shown in Figure 3. The existing street section for these streets generally consists of 3 -inch bituminous pavement supported by 6 -inch gravel base. The existing bituminous surface will be milled adjacent to the existing curb and gutter 6' to 8' wide adjacent to outside curbs to accommodate a 1'h -inch bituminous overlay. The overlay, combined with the existing street section, will provide a street section consistent with Overhill Farm Addition o,07 � -3- current City standards. The combination of patching and overlay will not eliminate cracking due to the temperature extremes experienced in Minnesota. Bituminous overlays will show some continued frost movements and reflective cracking consistent with the underlying pavement. Routine maintenance will still needs to continue under the City's Pavement Management Program. Concrete curb & gutter - Damaged curb & gutter will be replaced if severely cracked, spalled, or settled. It is estimated that approximately 9% of the existing concrete curb and gutter will have to be replaced. Boulevard turf will be removed and replaced. While the contractor who performs the work is responsible for its establishment in the first 30 days after placement, adjacent property owners are encouraged to consistently water the new turf, where possible, to help ensure its growth. Signage - All traffic control and street identification signage within the project limits will be replaced due to diminished reflectivity, deteriorated support posts, and the signs or posts no longer meeting City and State standards. Easement/Permits All work will be in the public right -of -way. No additional easements will be necessary. It is anticipated that no permits will be required for the resurfacing project. Cost Estimate Detailed cost estimates are located in Appendix A. The estimates are based on anticipated 2010 construction costs and include a 5% contingency and indirect cost of 30 %, which include legal, administration, engineering, and bond interest. A summary of the costs is as follows: Overhill Farm Additions • Edge Mill and Overlay w/ Signage ....... ............................... $158,000 • Repair Existing Concrete Curb & Gutter ............................. $ 33,500 Total......................................... ............................... $191,500 �� Overhill Farm Addition -4- Assessments Assessments are proposed to be levied against the benefited properties for the total improvement with costs allocated in accordance with the City of Eagan's Special Assessment Policy for a mill and overlay improvement for collector streets. All assessments will be revised based on final costs. A preliminary assessment roll is included in Appendix B. City Special Assessment Policy Assessment Ratio Property City Mill and Overlay/ Signage — R1 Residential 50% 50% Repair Existing Concrete Curb and Gutter 0% 100% Residential Lots — Street Revitalization Improvements All residential equivalent properties (61 single - family lot, 5 South Park) as shown on Figure 2, having direct driveway access on to the streets to be improved are proposed to be assessed, based upon a per unit, or lot, basis within the project. The City's Assessment Policy states that 50% of the mill and overlay costs are assessable for residential properties (R -1, R -2, R -3) based on a normal residential width street (32 feet). The estimated cost per residential lot equivalent to be assessed based on the City Assessment Policy is $1,200 per Single Family Lot and is calculated as follows: 1) [$158,000 (Mill & Overlay/ Signage Cost) x 50% x 100 %] = $79,000 [Total Residential Assessment (R -1)] 2) $79,000 (Total Residential Assessment) 4 $1,200 / lot 66 Equivalent Single Family Residential Lots South Oaks Park (City Park) — Street Revitalization Improvements South Oaks Park is located partially within Overhill Farm Additions. Based upon the comparable lot equivalency of the adjacent single - family parcels ( Overhill Farm Additions), the park will be assessed 5 of the 66 single - family lot equivalents. The City's Assessment Policy states that 50% of the mill and overlay costs are assessable for neighborhood park properties based on a normal residential width street (32 feet). Since the estimated cost per residential lot 011? 7 Overhill Farm Addition -5- equivalent to be assessed is $1,200 per Single Family Lot, based on the City Assessment Policy, the Park assessment is calculated as follows: $1,200 per Residential Lot x 5 Equivalent Residential Lots = $6,000 Park Assessment Assessment Financing Options The property owner will have the option at the time of the assessment hearing to pay the full assessment or include the assessment in with their property tax statement. If the assessment is included with the property tax statement, the assessment will be spread over five years with the interest determined by the results of the bond sale used to finance the improvements. The following payment schedules are examples of the various estimated assessments with an estimated 6.5% interest for the assessed amounts: Single Family Residential Lot = $1,200 Revenue Source A summary of revenue sources is listed below: Project Property City Cost Assessment Contribution Mill & Overlay(w/ Signage) Principal Interest I Cost Repair Existing Curb $ 33,500 -0- $33,500 Per Year Per Year Per Year First Year $240 F$85 $ 23 6 Fifth Year $240 �$16 I $257 Revenue Source A summary of revenue sources is listed below: Project Property City Cost Assessment Contribution Mill & Overlay(w/ Signage) $ 158,000 $ 79,000 $79,000 Repair Existing Curb $ 33,500 -0- $33,500 Total $191,500 $ 79,000 $112,500 The City's Park Fund will finance the $6,000 special assessment for South Oaks Park. The City's Major Street Fund will finance the remaining estimated project deficit of $112,500 (59% of total). TO Overhill Farm Addition -6- Project Schedule Present Feasibility Report to City Council/ Order Public Hearing ................ ............................... December 1, 2009 Informational Meeting ................................... ............................... December 29, 2009 Public Hearing ......................................... ............................... January 5, 2010 Approve Plans and Specifications ........................ ............................... February, 2010 Award Contract ............................................... ............................... March, 2010 Project Completion ............................................. ............................... August, 2010 Final Cost Report ....................................... ............................... September, 2010 Final Assessment Hearing ............................................ ............................... Fall, 2010 First Payment Due with Property Tax Statement . ............................... May 15, 2011 / Overhill Farm Addition -7- Appendix A- Street Overlay City Project No. 1022 Preliminary Cost Estimate Overhill Farm Additions IItem No. I Item I Unit I Qtv I Price I To Date I 2021.501 Mobilization LS 1.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 2232.501 Mill Bituminous Pavement (1 1/4" depth) SY 5,565 $ 0.70 $ 3,895.50 2350.501 Type LVWE45030B Wearing Course Mixture TON 1,300 $ 66.00 $ 85,800.00 2357.502 Bituminous Material for Tack Coat GAL 690 $ 4.00 $ 2,760.00 2504.602 Adjust Frame and Ring Casting (Manhole) EA 11 $ 400.00 $ 4,400.00 2504.602 Adjust Manhole Casting - Riser Adjustment EA 9 $ 185.00 $ 1,665.00 2504.602 Adjust Water Valve Box EA 10 $ 125.00 $ 1,250.00 2504.602 Remove & Replace Frame & Ring Casting (27 ") EA 1 $ 675.00 $ 675.00 2504.602 Repair Gate Valve Mid Section EA 5 $ 155.00 $ 775.00 2504.602 Repair Gate Valve Top Section w/ Cover EA 5 $ 175.00 $ 875.00 SPA Signage Remove & Replace LS 1 $ 4,900.00 $ 4,900.00 2563.601 Traffic Control LS 1.00 $ 1,750.00 $ 1,750.00 Part I - Project - Bituminous Street Overlay Sub Total Part 1 $ 115,745.50 +5% Contingencies $5,787.28 Subtotal $121,532.78 +30% Indirect Costs $36,459.83 Total Part 1 $157,992.61 Part li - Project - Repair Existing Curb & Gutter 2104.501 Remove Concrete Curb & Gutter LF 675 $ 6.00 $ 4,050.00 2104.503 Remove Bituminous Trail Pavement SF 50 $ 0.50 $ 25.00 2104.505 Remove Concrete Valley Gutter SY 23 $ 6.00 $ 138.00 . 2105.501 Common Excavation CY 7 $ 18.75 $ 131.25 2105.526 Select Topsoil Borrow CY 30 $ 22.00 $ 660.00 2211.501 Aggregate Base, Cl. 5 (100% Crushed) TON 18 $ 15.00 $ 270.00 2350.503 Type LVWE45030B Wear Course - 2" Trail Patch TON 3 $ 130.00 $ 390.00 2350.503 Type LVWE45030B Wear Course - Driveways TON 3 $ 100.00 $ 300.00 2350.505 Type LVWE45030B Wear Course - Street Patch TON 25 $ 100.00 $ 2,500.00 2506.602 Adjust Frame & Ring Casting (CB) EA 10 $ 250.00 $ 2,500.00 2506.602 Install 2 x 3 CB Erosion Barrier Shroud EA 3 $ 100.00 $ 300.00 2506.602 Remove & Replace Casting (Catch Basin) EA 0 $ 575.00 $ - 2521.501 4" Concrete Ped Ramp w/ Wet Cast for Truncated Dome Inset SF 50 $ 4.50 $ 225.00 2531.501 Concrete Curb & Gutter D412 LF 675 $ 15.00 $ 10,125.00 2531.604 Concrete Valley Gutter SY 23 $ 50.00 $ 1,150.00 2531.618 Truncated Dome Detectable Warning Paver SF 12 $ 42.00 $ 504.00 2575.505 Sodding, Type Lawn (Highland) SY 180 $ 7.00 $ 1,260.00 Part II - Project - Repair Existing Curb & Gutter Sub Total Part II $ 24,528.25 +5% Contingencies $1,226.41 Subtotal $25,754.66 +30% Indirect Costs $7,726.40 Total Part II $33,481.06 Total Project Cost = $191,473.67 Appendix B - City Project No. 1022 Preliminary Assessment Roll Overhill Farm Additions P.I.N. III Lot III Unit R -1 Residential Equivalent Assessment Total Overhill Farm 1st Addition 4522 Hay Lake Road S. 10- 56150 - 010 -01 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 4525 Hay Lake Road S. 10- 56150 - 010 -02 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 South Oaks Park (Eagan) 10- 56150 - 020 -00 5 $1,200.00 $6,000.00 4534 Hay Lake Road S. 10- 56150 - 020 -01 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 4531 Hay Lake Road S. 10- 56150 - 020 -02 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 4542 Hay Lake Road S. 10- 56150 - 030 -01 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 4539 Hay Lake Road S. 10- 56150 - 031 -02 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 4537 Hay Lake Road S. 10- 56150 - 032 -02 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 4546 Hay Lake Road S. 10- 56150 - 040 -01 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 4543 Hay Lake Road S. 10- 56150 - 041 -02 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 4545 Hay Lake Road S. 10- 56150 - 042 -02 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 4552 Hay Lake Road S. 10- 56150 - 050 -01 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 4549 Hay Lake Road S. 10- 56150 - 050 -02 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 4566 Hay Lake Road S. 10- 56150 - 060 -01 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 4555 Hay Lake Road S. 10- 56150 - 060 -02 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 4574 Hay Lake Road S. 10- 56150 - 070 -01 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 4561 Hay Lake Road S. 10- 56150 - 070 -02 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 4580 Hay Lake Road S. 10- 56150 - 080 -01 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 4567 Hay Lake Road S. 10- 56150 - 080 -02 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 4571 Hay Lake Road S. 10- 56150- 090 -02 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 4575 Hay Lake Road S. 10- 56150 - 100 -02 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 4579 Hay Lake Road S. 10- 56150 - 110 -02 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 Subtotal 26 $31,200.00 Overhill Farm 2nd Addition 676 Overhill Road 10- 56151 - 010 -01 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 4521 Hay Lake Road S. 10- 56151 - 010 -02 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 4512 Hay Lake Road S. I 10- 56151 - 010 -03 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 93 717 Hay Lake Road N. 672 Overhill Road 4517 Hay Lake Road S 671 Overhill Road 713 Hay Lake Road N. 668 Overhill Road 4513 Hay Lake Road S. 667 Overhill Road 709 Hay Lake Road N. 664 Overhill Road 4509 Hay Lake Road S. 663 Overhill Road 705 Hay Lake Road N. 660 Overhill Road 4505 Hay Lake Road S. 659 Overhill Road 701 Hay Lake Road N. 712 Hay Lake Road N. 655 Overhill Road N. 697 Hay Lake Road N 716 Hay Lake Road N. 672 Hay Lake Road N. 693 Hay Lake Road N. 676 Hay Lake Road N. 689 Hay Lake Road N. 680 Hay Lake Road N. 685 Hay Lake Road N. 684 Hay Lake Road N. 681 Hay Lake Road N. 688 Hay Lake Road N. 692 Hay Lake Road N. 696 Hay Lake Road N. 700 Hay Lake Road N. 704 Hay Lake Road N. 4500 Hay Lake Road S. 10- 56151- 010 -04 10- 56151- 020 -01 10- 56151- 020 -02 110-56151-020-03 1 1 10- 56151- 020 -04 1 10- 56151- 030 -01 10- 56151- 030 -02 10- 56151- 030 -03 110-56151-030-04 1 10- 56151- 040 -01 10- 56151- 040 -02 10- 56151- 040 -03 10- 56151- 040 -04 110-56151-050-01 1 10- 56151- 050 -02 10- 56151- 050 -03 10- 56151- 050 -04 1 10- 56151- 060 -02 1 110-56151-060-03 1 110-56151-060-04 1 10- 56151- 070 -02 10- 56151- 070 -03 10- 56151- 070 -04 110-56151-080-03 1 10- 56151- 080 -04 10- 56151- 090 -03 10- 56151- 090 -04 10- 56151- 100 -03 110-56151-100-04 1 10- 56151- 110 -03 10- 56151 - 120 -03 10- 56151- 130 -03 10- 56151- 140 -03 1 10- 56151- 150 -03 1 10- 56151- 160 -03 10910 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 1 4504 Hay Lake Road S. 4508 Hay Lake Road S. TOTALS - Properties Single Family = 66 Lot Equivalents 10- 56151- 170 -03 10- 56151- 180 -03 I Subtotal TOTALS low 1 $1,200.00 1 $1,200.00 40 66 1 $1,200.00 1 $1,200.00 $48,000.00 $79,000 N 41� Overhill Farms my Of Eap 96 Street Revitalization Fig. 1 Engineering Department (D Location Plan - Project 1022 NORTH Q 1 717 713 709 705 701 697 693 689 685 681 k NCRTH H) y'' LAKE'"' I \\ C) I — I '' in 0 1 716 712 704 700 696 692 4SO5 F7771 V4509 684 4504 680 4513 . 4517 CLIFF ROAD 4500 — L,,.. '' i l — LLLJ- 704 700 696 692 688 684 4504 680 4508 671 667 663 659 655 676 1 E? 7_71 672 T 4512 1 1 OVERHI,LL 4580 672 668 L�J 01 664 660 4574F-I1. 4522 4534 4542 4546 4552 4566 4531 — — I L 45 ij 54 49 455 4537 4539 545 Rp �, Sou Oa RD. 4579 4571 4567 4571 1 LEGEND Street Improvements - Assessment Area Overhill Farms City of Eap Street Revitalization -Project 1022 Fig. 2 Engineering Department F)Assessments / Street Improvement Area EDGE MILL (6' -8' wide) T 3" BITUMINOUS SURFACE 6" 5 AGGREGATE BASE Existing Typical Section 60' ROW 32' 11/2" 2360 WEAR COURSE — BITUMINOUS OVERLAY BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 3" BITUMINOUS SURFACE 6" CL. 5 AGGREGATE BASE Bituminous Street Overlay Proposed Typical Section EX. D412 CURB & GUTTER REPLACE EX. CURB & GUTTER AS DIRECTED 2 -2 -09 Overhill Farms City of Eap r7p Street Revitalization Fig. 3 Engineering Department Pr oject 1022 - Typical Section Agenda Information Memo January 5, 2010 Eagan City Council Meeting C. PROJECT 1018, GREENSBORO ADDITIONS STREET IMPROVEMENTS ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: • Approve Project 1018, Greensboro Additions (Street Improvements) with or without the Alternate (Hunter Lane removal), and authorize the preparation of detailed plans and specs. NOTE: If Hunter Lane removal alternative is included, it would then be appropriate to also: • Accept the petition for the vacation of the public right -of -way of Hunter Lane and schedule a public hearing to be held on February 16, 2010; FACTS: • Since 1990, the City has implemented a comprehensive Pavement Management Program that provides timely pavement rehabilitation to our local streets, significantly extending their overall life expectancy. During these past twenty years, the City has rehabilitated approximately 152 miles of local streets. • The resurfacing of the 0.9 mile of streets within the Greensboro neighborhood in east - central Eagan has been programmed for 2010 in the City's 5 -Year Capital Improvement Program. • On June 2, 2009 the City Council directed staff to prepare a feasibility report considering a rehabilitation of these streets. • On December 1, 2009, the feasibility report for Project 1018 was presented to the City Council and a Public Hearing was scheduled for January 5 to formally present and discuss the report with the adjacent property owners. • An informational neighborhood meeting was held on December 29 for the adjacent property owners to discuss the proposed improvements. Of the 80 total properties (all Single - Family Residential) proposed to be assessed under this improvement, 7 residents representing 7 properties attended the meeting. 3 additional property owners representing 2 properties also contacted city staff seperately to discuss the proposed improvements. • All notices have been published in the legal newspaper and sent to all affected property owners informing them of this public hearing. ISSUES: • When Greensboro 2 °a Addition was developed in 1987, a street stub (Hunter Lane) was constructed from Greensboro Drive to the north for a local street interconnection with the potential future development of the Carriage Hills Golf Course. There are no houses currently taking access from Hunter Lane. • The Preliminary Planned Development (PD) for Carriage Hills approved on June 3, 2008 contained a conceptual site plan layout that does not provide for any interconnection to Hunter's Lane. • With the street improvements proposed for 2010 within the Greensboro neighborhood and the pending development of the Carriage Hills property, it is appropriate to consider the long -term viability of Hunter Lane. (i.e. Should the Hunter Lane stub street be rehabilitated with the rest of the Greensboro neighborhood, or should it be removed and vacated precluding any possible interconnection in the future.) ATTACHMENTS: • Feasibility Report, pages _?o through • Carriage Hills Prelim PD concept site plan layout, page. • Neighborhood Meeting Minutes, pages IID_ through • Resident Correspondence, pages (Z_y_ through J11. • Hunter Lane Right -of -Way Vacation Petition, pages 6W through Ll- I City otEapan ; 2009 Honorable Mayor and City Council Mike Maguire Mayor City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Paul Bakken Eagan, MN 55122 Cyndee Fields Gary Hansen Re: Greensboro Additions Street Revitalization Meg Tilley City Project No. 1018 Council Members Thomas Hedges Dear Mayor and City Council: City Administrator Attached is our report for the Greensboro Additions Street Revitalization, City Project No. 1018. The report presents and discusses the proposed improvements and includes a cost estimate, preliminary assessment roll and schedule. We would be pleased to meet with the City Council at your convenience to review and Municipal Center discuss the contents of this report. 3830 Pilot Knob Road Sincerely, Eagan, MN 551 22 -1 81 0 651.675.5000 phone �G- 651.675.5012 fax John P. Gorder 651.454.8535 TDD Assistant City Engineer I hereby certify that this report was Maintenance Facility prepared by me or under my direct 3501 Coachman Point supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Eagan, MN 55122 Professional Engineer under the laws of the 651.675.5300 phone State of Minnesota. 651.675.5360 fax 651.454.8535 TDD °' ✓� John P. Gorder ate: 12 '30_ -0q Reg. No. 22813 Reviewed By: www.cityofeagan.com Dept. of Pbblic Works Date: Revipwei y: a Le r� The Lone Oak Tree Finance pt. Date: p The symbol of i strength and growth in our community. q1 Greensboro Additions TABLE OF CONTENTS Letter of Transmittal /Certification Table of Contents Appendix A Preliminary Cost Estimate Appendix B Preliminary Assessment Roll Figures - 1 2 3 0 Location Map Street Improvement/Assessment Area Map Typical Section — Overlay Greensboro Additions Page Introduction 1 Scope 2 Feasibility and Recommendations 3 Street Evaluation 3 Proposed Improvements 4 Easements /Permits 5 Cost Estimate 5 Assessments 5 Assessment Financing Options 6 Revenue Source 7 Project Schedule 8 Appendix A Preliminary Cost Estimate Appendix B Preliminary Assessment Roll Figures - 1 2 3 0 Location Map Street Improvement/Assessment Area Map Typical Section — Overlay Greensboro Additions December 2009 Greensboro Additions Street Revitalization Eagan, Minnesota Introduction/ History Streets - As a part of Eagan's Pavement Management Program, (PMP), the City evaluates streets within the community throughout their life cycle and implements appropriate maintenance strategies. In 1989, a Pavement Management System (PMS) was developed that allowed the City to evaluate the condition of the existing pavement surface for all the streets on a routine basis and schedule timely maintenance. A Five Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for street rehabilitation is developed from this information. The nearly 0.9 mile of neighborhood streets of the Greensboro Additions located in central Eagan are identified for the 2010 street revitalization improvements. Figure 1, located in Appendix C, illustrates the project location. The streets in this residential neighborhood were constructed in 1986 and 1987. Based on the data and engineering strategies available at this time, the City's current PMP incorporates local and ongoing maintenance strategies with seal coating occurring as needed (at 5 to 7 years, again at 12 to 14 years) with a bituminous overlay at approximately 20 years. Recycling or overlaying the roadways located within the project area, which are presently at the 23 to 24 year time frame, will prevent further decay of the pavement surface, thus protecting and extending the structural life of the streets. Timely maintenance work, such as bituminous patching, crack sealing and seal coating have occurred at appropriate intervals during the life of the pavement in the area. The City of Eagan's maintenance records indicate that the streets were seal coated in 1990 and 2000. The Public Works maintenance program typically includes extensive patching and crack sealing during the summer prior to the overlay. The Public Works crews, as part of the Preparatory Pavement Management Plan, removed and replaced deteriorated pavement areas and placed ?—? Greensboro Additions - 1 - leveling and maintenance overlays on substantial portions of the streets under consideration in 2009, where necessary. These repairs alone will not substantially extend the life expectancy of the street section if not combined with the bituminous overlay proposed with this project. The Public Works Department has also inspected the utility infrastructure (sanitary sewer, water main, and storm sewer) in the project area and determined the system is generally in good working order and that no major repairs are necessary. Hunter Lane - This section of street (about 140 feet in length), north of Greensboro Drive is stubbed to the south edge of the Carriage Hills property, intended to provide street interconnection with possible residential development of the golf course. There are no houses currently gaining access from Hunter Lane. With the pending development of the Carriage Hills golf course, this project should address the long -term viability of this street connection. a p�� ,ar 3 Scope This project will provide resurfacing (edge mill and overlay) of all of the residential streets. Figure 1, located in Appendix C, illustrates the project limits. Greensboro Additions -2- Included in this project are the following improvements; replacement of damaged curb and gutter, adjustments and /or replacement to sanitary/storm sewer utility castings, water gate valves, sewer services, and street signage. Feasibility and Recommendations The mill & overlay improvements are necessary to prevent further decay of the pavement section, create a safer driving surface, increase ride ability, and add structural strength. The mill & overlay is cost effective in that the proposed improvements (resurfacing) are considerably less expensive than complete reconstruction of the streets. The mill & overlay is feasible in that these types of improvements have been used successfully to extend the life expectancy of numerous other streets throughout the City and the region. This project is in accordance with the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan (2010 — 2014) for the City of Eagan and the schedule as outlined in the Pavement Management Program. It is recommended that the project be constructed as proposed in this report in combination with other similar projects in the area. Street Evaluation The City of Eagan's Pavement Management System allows the City to evaluate the condition of the existing street surface to help schedule timely maintenance and improvements. The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) ranks the surface condition for each street. The general categories that define PCI rankings are as follows: PCI - Recommended Improvement 56-100 Routine Maintenance /Crack Seal /Seal Coat i 36-55 Patch /Repair and /or Overlay 0-35 Reconstruct The 2009 PCI rankings for the street segments have a weighted average pavement condition rating of 46 for these neighborhood streets, which falls in the "Patch /Repair and /or Overlay" category. The street pavement has reached an age where, based on the City's past experience, the integrity of the pavement can rapidly decline if no improvements are performed. Therefore, the 2010 construction season is the optimal time to construct the bituminous overlay on this Greensboro Additions -3- street. Any delay of the project may reduce the structural benefit to the street sections and require full reconstruction. Proposed Improvements Pavement - The proposed street improvements are shown in Figure 3. The existing street section for these streets generally consists of 3" bituminous pavement supported by 6" gravel base. The existing bituminous surface will be milled adjacent to the existing curb and gutter 6' to 8' wide adjacent to outside curbs to accommodate a 1'/i -inch bituminous overlay. The overlay, combined with the existing street section, will provide a street section consistent with current City standards. The combination of patching and overlay will not eliminate cracking due to the temperature extremes experienced in Minnesota. Bituminous overlays will show some continued frost movements and reflective cracking consistent with the underlying pavement. Routine maintenance will still needs to continue under the City's Pavement Management Program. A/temate — Hunter Lane —As an alternate for consideration, it is proposed to completely remove the Hunter Lane street stub, as shown on Figure 2. The removal of the street stub would remove the possibility of street interconnection between the Greensboro neighborhood and future development of the Carriage Hills property. The removal would include pavement and curb & gutter, with restoration to turf. Greensboro Additions -4- Concrete curb & gutter - Damaged curb & gutter will be replaced if severely cracked, spalled, or settled. It is estimated that approximately 15% of the existing concrete curb and gutter will have to be replaced. Boulevard turf will be removed and replaced. While the contractor who performs the work is responsible for its establishment in the first 30 days after placement, adjacent property owners are encouraged to consistently water the new turf, where possible, to help ensure its growth. Signage - All traffic control and street identification signage within the project limits will be replaced due to diminished reflectivity, deteriorated support posts, and the signs or posts no longer meeting City and State standards. Easement/Permits All work will be in the public right -of -way. No additional easements will be necessary. It is anticipated that no permits will be required for the resurfacing project. Cost Estimate Detailed cost estimates are located in Appendix A. The estimates are based on anticipated 2010 construction costs and include a 5% contingency and indirect cost of 30 %, which include legal, administration, engineering, and bond interest. A summary of the costs is as follows: Greensboro Additions • Edge Mill and Overlay w/ Signage ....... ............................... $171,400 • Repair Existing Concrete Curb & Gutter ............................. $ 46,000 Total......................................... ............................... $ 217,400 A/temate — Hunter Lane Street Stub Removal ............... ............................... $22,500 Assessments Assessments are proposed to be levied against the benefited properties for the total improvement with costs allocated in accordance with the City of Eagan's Special Assessment ?� Greensboro Additions -5- Policy for a mill and overlay improvement for collector streets. All assessments will be revised based on final costs. A preliminary assessment roll is included in Appendix B. City Special Assessment Policy Assessment Ratio Property City Mill and Overlay/ Signage — R1 Residential 50% 50% Repair Existing Concrete Curb and Gutter 0% 100% Street Stub Removal - Hunter Lane Alternate 100% 05VO Residential Lots — Street Revitalization Improvements All residential equivalent properties (80 single - family lots) as shown on Figure 2, having direct driveway access on to the streets to be improved are proposed to be assessed. The City's Assessment Policy states that 50% of the mill and overlay costs are assessable for residential properties (R -1, R -2, R -3) based on a normal residential width street (32 feet). The estimated cost per residential lot equivalent to be assessed based on the City Assessment Policy is $1,070 per Single Family Lot and is calculated as follows: 1) [$171,400 (Mill & Overlay Cost) x 50 %] _ $85,700 Total Residential Assessment 2) $85,000 (Total Residential Assessment) 4 $1,0701 lot 80 Equivalent Single Family Residential Lots A/temate — Hunter Lane — Street Stub Removal If the alternate is approved, and in accordance with the City's Special Assessment Policy, it is proposed to assess all properties within the Greensboro neighborhood, for 100% of the costs on a per lot basis. The estimated assessment per lot for these improvements is $280 ($22,500/ 80 lots). Assessment Financing Options The property owner will have the option at the time of the assessment hearing to pay the full assessment or include the assessment in with their property tax statement. If the assessment is included with the property tax statement, the assessment will be spread over five years with the interest determined by the results of the bond sale used to finance the improvements. The following payment schedules are examples of the various estimated assessments with an estimated 6.5% interest for the assessed amounts: ?,�� Greensboro Additions -6- Single Family Residential Lot = $1,070 Principal Interest j Cost Per Year Per Year Per Year First Year j $214 $81 $295 Fifth Year $214 i $14 $228 Alternate – Hunter Lane Removal Assessment = $280 Revenue Source A summary of revenue sources is listed below: Project Property City Cost Assessment Contribution Mill & Overlay(w/ Signage) $ 171,400 $ 85,700 $ 85,700 Repair Existing Curb $ 46,000 -0- $ 46,000 Total $ 217,400 $ 85,700 $131,700 The City's Major Street Fund will finance the estimated project deficit of $131,700 (60% of total). If selected, the alternate removal of Hunter Lane is proposed to be financed as shown below: Project Property City Cost Assessment Contribution Alternate – Hunter Lane $22,500 99 $22,500 Greensboro Additions -7- F11 I Principal Interest Cost j Per Year Per Year Per Year First Year $56 $21 $77 —i - Fifth Year -, - - -- $56 _ � $3 - -- � -- $5�J Revenue Source A summary of revenue sources is listed below: Project Property City Cost Assessment Contribution Mill & Overlay(w/ Signage) $ 171,400 $ 85,700 $ 85,700 Repair Existing Curb $ 46,000 -0- $ 46,000 Total $ 217,400 $ 85,700 $131,700 The City's Major Street Fund will finance the estimated project deficit of $131,700 (60% of total). If selected, the alternate removal of Hunter Lane is proposed to be financed as shown below: Project Property City Cost Assessment Contribution Alternate – Hunter Lane $22,500 99 $22,500 Greensboro Additions -7- F11 F ject Schedule Present Feasibility Report to City Council/ Order Public Hearing ................ ............................... December 1, 2009 Informational Meeting ................................... ............................... December 29, 2009 Public Hearing ......................................... ............................... January 5, 2010 Approve Plans and Specifications ........................ ............................... February, 2010 Award Contract ............................................... ............................... March, 2010 Project Completion ............................................. ............................... August, 2010 Final Cost Report ....................................... ............................... September, 2010 Final Assessment Hearing ............................................ ............................... Fall, 2010 First Payment Due with Property Tax Statement . ............................... May 15, 2011 Greensboro Additions �� -8- /o// Greensboro Additions City Project No. 1018 Preliminary Cost Estimate Appendix A- Street Overlay Contract Unit Amount Item No. I Item Unit Qty Price To Date Part I - Project - Bituminous Street Overlay 2021.501 Mobilization LS 1.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 2232.501 Mill Bituminous Pavement (1 1/4" depth) SY 6,200 $ 0.65 $ 4,030.00 2350.501 Type LVWE45030B Wearing Course Mixture TON 1,400 $ 66.00 $ 92,400.00 2350.505 Type LVWE45030B Wear Course - Street Patch TON 10 $ 100.00 $ 1,000.00 2357.502 Bituminous Material for Tack Coat GAL 800 $ 4.00 $ 3,200.00 2504.602 Adjust Frame and Ring Casting (Manhole) EA 23 $ 400.00 $ 9,200.00 2504.602 Adjust Manhole Casting - Riser Adjustment EA 9 $ 185.00 $ 1,665.00 2504.602 Adjust Water Valve Box EA 10 $ 125.00 $ 1,250.00 2504.602 Repair Gate Valve Mid Section EA 1 $ 155.00 $ 155.00 2504.602 Repair Gate Valve Top Section w/ Cover EA 1 $ 175.00 $ 175.00 SP -1 Signage Remove & Replace LS 1 $ 3,700.00 $ 3,700.00 2563.601 Traffic Control LS 1.00 $ 1,750.00 $ 1,750.00 Sub Total Part 1 $ 125,525.00 Part I - Project - Bituminous Street Overlay +5% Contingencies $6,276.25 Subtotal $131,801.25 +30% Indirect Costs $39,540.38 Total Part 1 $171,342 Part II - Project - Repair Existing Curb & Gutter 2104.501 Remove Concrete Curb & Gutter LF 1,200 $ 6.00 $ 7,200.00 2105.526 Select Topsoil Borrow CY 35 $ 22.00 $ 770.00 2211.501 Aggregate Base, Cl. 5 (100% Crushed) TON 10 $ 15.00 $ 150.00 2350.505 Type LVWE45030B Wear Course - Street/ DW/ Trail Patch TON 25 $ 100.00 $ 2,500.00 2506.602 Adjust Frame & Ring Casting (CB) EA 9 $ 250.00 $ 2,250.00 2506.602 Install 2 x 3 CB Erosion Barrier Shroud EA 6 $ 100.00 $ 600.00 2531.501 Concrete Curb & Gutter D412 LF 1,200 $ 15.00 $ 18,000.00 2575.505 Sodding, Type Lawn (Highland) SY 320 $ 7.00 $ 2,240.00 Sub Total Part II $ 33,710.00 Part II - Project - Repair Existing Curb & Gutter +5% Contingencies $1,685.50 Subtotal $35,395.50 +30% Indirect Costs $10,618.65 Total Part 11 $46,014.15 Total Project Cost = $217,356 /o// Alternate - Hunter Lane Stub Street Removal 2104.501 Remove Concrete Curb & Gutter 2104.513 Sawcut Bituminous Pavement 2104.505 Remove Bituminous Pavement 2105.501 Common Excavation 2105.526 Select Topsoil Borrow 2506.602 Replace Frame & Ring Casting (CB) 2531.501 Concrete Curb & Gutter D412 2575.505 Sodding, Type Lawn (Highland) Alternate - Hunter Lane Stub Street Removal 16 c)- LF 300 $ 6.00 $ 1,800.00 LF 50 $ 10.00 $ 500.00 SY 500 $ 5.00 $ 2,500.00 CY 50 $ 15.00 $ 750.00 CY 200 $ 22.00 $ 4,400.00 EA 2 $ 575.00 $ 1,150.00 LF 80 $ 15.00 $ 1,200.00 SY 600 $ 7.00 $ 4,200.00 Sub Total Alternate $ 16,500.00 +5% Contingencies $825.00 Subtotal +30% Indirect Costs Total Alternate $17,325.00 $5,197.50 $22,522.50 Appendix B -City Project No. 1018 Preliminary Assessment Roll Greensboro Addition R -1 Residential P.I.N. Lot Street Hunter Lane Equivalent Assessment Removal Total Greensboro 1s Addition 3795 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30900 - 010 -01 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3794 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30900 - 010 -02 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3770 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30900 - 010 -03 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3740 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30900 - 010 -04 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3789 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30900 - 020 -01 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3788 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30900 - 020 -02 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3764 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30900 - 020 -03 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 1007 Cross Rd. 10- 30900 - 020 -04 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3783 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30900 - 030 -01 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3782 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30900 - 030 -02 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3758 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30900 - 030 -03 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 1001 Cross Road 10- 30900 - 030 -04 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3777 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30900 - 040 -01 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 1006 Greensboro Ln. 10- 30900 - 040 -02 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3752 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30900 - 040 -03 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 999 Cross Rd. 10- 30900 - 040 -04 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3771 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30900 - 050 -01 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 1000 Greensboro Ln. 10- 30900 - 050 -02 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 1002 Cross Rd. 10- 30900 - 050 -03 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 997 Cross Rd. 10- 30900 - 050 -04 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3765 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30900 - 060 -01 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3785 Greensboro Ct. 10- 30900 - 060 -02 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 971 Greensboro Ln. 10- 30900 - 060 -03 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3759 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30900 - 070 -01 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3791 Greensboro Ct. 10- 30900 - 070 -02 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 977 Greensboro Ln. 10- 30900 - 070 -03 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3753 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30900 - 080 -01 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3786 Greensboro Ct. 10- 30900 - 080 -02 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 983 Greensboro Ln. 10- 30900 - 080 -03 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3747 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30900 - 090 -01 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3780 Greensboro Ct. 10- 30900 - 090 -02 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 989 Greensboro Ln. 10- 30900 - 090 -03 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 Subtotal 32 Lot Unit R -1 Residential P.I.N. Equivalent Assessment Total 988 Greensboro Ln. 10- 30900 - 100 -02 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 1005 Greensboro Ln. 10- 30900 - 100 -03 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 982 Greensboro Ln. 10- 30900 - 110 -02 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 976 Greensboro Ln. 10- 30900 - 120 -02 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 970 Greensboro Ln. 10- 30900 - 130 -02 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 964 Greensboro Ln. 10- 30900 - 140 -02 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 Subtotal 6 Greensboro 2nd Addn. 3735 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 010 -01 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3719 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 010 -02 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3711 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 010 -03 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3738 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 010 -04 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 956 Greensboro Ln. 10- 30901- 010 -05 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3671 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 010 -06 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3739 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 020 -01 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3723 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 020 -02 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3707 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 020 -03 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3734 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 020 -04 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 960 Greensboro Ln. 10- 30901 - 020 -05 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3667 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 020 -06 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3743 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 030 -01 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3727 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 030 -02 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3703 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 030 -03 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3728 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 030 -04 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3676 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 030 -05 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3663 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 030 -06 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3731 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 040 -02 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3699 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 040 -03 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3722 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 040 -04 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3672 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 040 -05 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3659 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 040 -06 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3695 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 050 -03 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3716 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 050 -04 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3668 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 050 -05 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3655 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 050 -06 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 /d 3691 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 060 -03 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3710 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 060 -04 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3664 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 060 -05 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3651 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 060 -06 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3687 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 070 -03 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3704 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 070 -04 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 Subtotal 33 Lot Unit R -1 Residential P.I.N. Equivalent Assessment Total 3660 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 070 -05 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3683 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 080 -03 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3698 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 080 -04 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3656 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 080 -05 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3679 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 090 -03 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 957 Greensboro Ln. 10- 30901 - 090 -04 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3652 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 090 -05 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 3675 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 100 -03 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 961 Greensboro Dr. 10- 30901 - 100 -04 1 $1,070 $280 $1,350 Subtotal 9 TOTALS 80 $85,700 $22,500 $108,200 TOTALS - Properties Single Family = 80 - Direct Access /os N ii -z7 -zoos Greensboro Addition City of Eapn )Location Street Revitalization Fig. 1 Engineering Department Plan - Project 1018 i WE 1 ALTERNATE: HUNTER LANE STUB STREET REMOVAL 3707 / 3703 3728 3722 3716 r3710/ 3704 3739 3734 3698 3738 1001 ❑ 999 1007 961 3743 997 S \ 3740 CROSS ' 3747 I ^ 957 3786 \ �% � � 3652 WESCOTT ROAD �f 3687 > 3683 i 3679 J 3655 3651 ■ 0 M ■ ASSESSABLE AREA I Greensboro Addition City of Eap Street Revitalization - Project 1018 Fig. 2 Engineering Department Assessments / Street Improvement Area m ' 3753 �Z 3752 W W 13759IE� 1002 3758 983 3765 989 � 3764 1005 G ' 3771 3770 ' ' 3777 ' 3782 3783 1000 3788 1006 3789 3794 3785` 3795 957 3786 \ �% � � 3652 WESCOTT ROAD �f 3687 > 3683 i 3679 J 3655 3651 ■ 0 M ■ ASSESSABLE AREA I Greensboro Addition City of Eap Street Revitalization - Project 1018 Fig. 2 Engineering Department Assessments / Street Improvement Area EDGE MILL (6' -8' wide) T 60' ROW 50' ROW 3" BITUMINOUS SURFACE 6" 5 AGGREGATE BASE Existing Typical Section 60' ROW 50' ROW 32' (F -F 11/2" 2360 WEAR COURSE BITUMINOUS OVERLAY BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 3" BITUMINOUS SURFACE 6" CL. 5 AGGREGATE BASE Bituminous Street Overlay Proposed Typical Section EX. D412 CURB & GUTTER REPLACE EX. CURB & GUTTER AS DIRECTED ,2_4 -09 Greensboro Addition City of Eap Street Revitalization Fig. 3 Engineering Department Project 1018 - Typical Section MLIYA T J DO 1 � •- final& - o CITY PROJECT NO 1018 INFORMATIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING GREENSBORO ADDITION STREET REVITALIZATION TUESDAY, DECEMBER 29,2009,6:30 p.m. CONFERENCE ROOM 1AB Attendance: Russ Matthys, City Engineer; Jeanette Johnson, Engineering Clerical Tech.; 7 residents representing 7 properties (see attached sign -in sheet). Presentation of Project Details • Mr. Matthys welcomed the residents and provided a power point presentation including information about the proposed improvement. Details of the presentation included the project construction, costs, schedule and assessments. An overview of the City's Pavement Management Program was also presented. • Questions were asked throughout the presentation and a good dialogue ensued staff's responses. Questions/ Comments 1. This neighborhood includes the stub street called Hunter Lane. Please explain the proposed alternatives. The alternatives for Hunter Lane consist of an overlay of the existing street or removal of the street. 2. Why is the option of removing Hunter Lane being included as part of this project? The City Council has heard concerns from residents regarding the potential development of the Carriage Hills Golf Course property and the connection of such development to the existing residential neighborhoods via Wescott Hills Drive and Hunter Lane. The option of considering the removal of Hunter Lane goes toward addressing this concern for the Greensboro neighborhood. 3. If Hunter Lane is removed, will this eliminate the option of a feeder street with any proposed development of the adjoining Carriage Hills property? As part of the court decision on the fate of the Carriage Hills property, it was determined that if the City did not purchase the property that development would need to be permitted. The development proposal (Wensmann) considered as part of this decision included 30 acres of buffer area between it and the existing residential development surrounding the Carriage Hills property. The proposed development layout did not include a connection to Hunter Lane. However, until the City Council approves a development for this property, the connection to Hunter Lane is a possibility. The removal of Hunter Lane would reduce this possibility. 4. What about vacating Hunter Lane and how is this different than the removal of the street? Does the City have a procedure in place to vacate right -of -way and has this been done in the past? The removal of the street (blacktop, curb) and placement of turf/sod on Hunter Lane does not address the status of the public right -of -way. The opportunity for a street to be constructed by a future developer as a connection between a new development and the Greensboro neighborhood would still exist. Vacation of the right -of -way would place ownership of the land, formerly known as Hunter Lane, in the hands of the adjacent property owners. If the City /developer would desire to have a street //o connection between Carriage Hills and Greensboro, the City /developer would be required to purchase or condemn the property needed for the street connection. This process would be much more difficult and less desirable. There is a process for vacating public property or right -of -way to adjacent properties that were developed with the same recorded action (i.e. plat) that dedicated the right -of -way. It is done infrequently. 5. What would the City need from these adjacent property owners? Input from them would be appreciated prior to or at the public hearing. (Staff was contacted by both property owners on December 30, 2010. A petition to vacate the right -of -way was submitted on December 31, 2010, and is included in the Council's agenda memo packet.) 6. If the City vacates this area, who would be responsible for maintenance? It would become the adjacent property owners' responsibility. The same would be the case if the street was removed, but not vacated, per city code. Similar to a resident's mowing of the boulevard turf. 7. Current street drains are connected within Hunter Lane. If Hunter Lane is removed, the area may or may not need a drain. It is likely that a catch basin in the gutter would be changed to a round casting grate. This would be further reviewed in the field in order to make that determination. 8. If not vacated, would a street connection to a new development be a cost to the developer or the adjoining properties? The developer would likely be the responsible party for the cost of the new street. 9. Do the proposed plans for the new fire station include the extension of Duckwood Drive coming across Carriage Hills to Wescott Woodlands and Yankee Doodle Road? Yes. 10. Will there be a stoplight at Wescott Woodlands and Yankee Doodle Road? Not at this time, as it does not meet warrants (engineering criteria). 11. On West Greensboro, in 1998, drain tile was put in, so the street surface is only 12 years old. Will that be milled and overlayed also? Yes to be consistent. 12. What is the duration of the project? Plan to allow 4 -6 weeks in your area for this work. It may begin as early as the end of April or first of May and will be completed by July. 13. Will I be able to drive to and from my home throughout construction? Yes. There may be a temporary closure of access to your driveway if the curb needs to be replaced. Typically 3 to 4 days. Unlikely this will occur at most homes. 14. Does the City inspect the drains? Yes, all utilities have been inspected and the City will do any repairs needed as part of the project. 15. There seems to be a drainage problem in front of 3698 Greensboro Drive. The resident is not in attendance but has called the Street Maintenance Department with concerns. Engineering has worked with Street Maintenance to ensure we address any drainage issues throughout the neighborhood as part of the project. (Upon review, the problem should be easily resolved as part of the mill and overlay improvement.) 16. Is this process similar to the preparatory maintenance overlay done previously? Yes, however the bituminous material is much thicker (1.5 "). 17. There is a proposed dollar amount listed on the letter for the assessment. Could this amount rise? Yes, and it also could be reduced. We try to estimate conservatively. This economy has been good for bids from contractors on projects previously and we are anticipating the same for this next season. 18. What is the timeframe for the assessment payment? After project has been completed, another public hearing will be held for the final assessments. You will have 30 days after the approval of the assessment roll at the close of the public hearing to pay this amount (or any part of it) without interest. After this time frame, there is the option of payment over a 5 -year period at 6.5% interest, as it would be added to the Dakota County property tax role. 19. At the Public Hearing, does the Council have to approve all of the jobs that are planned to be combined together under a contract? No, each neighborhood will get its own public hearing and proceed, with approval, regardless of any other projects. 20. Do contractors do driveways? You will be provided contact information for the contractor and you may ask them. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. G:Proj & Contract Info /1018 Greensboro/NH Mtg Minutes pia NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING Greensboro Addition, City Project 1018 Overhill Farm, City Project 1022 T'lo Northview Meadows 2nd Addition, City Project 1026 City of Eakan Tuesday, December 29, 2009 6:30 p.m. NAME, n 2. on 3. �0 vJ 4. 5. 00'/ 6. /e /Y 7. M ovi, ' 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. GAForms \Sign -In Sheets \SIGN- IN.SHT & logo.doc ADDRESS ��7C�S 3�►NE'�rs''�o rU �;( /� lie 37 62P.eeos env Ct. /13 Russ Matthys From: Troy Delmonico [troy @mtzgeo.com] Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 4:04 PM To: Russ Matthys Subject: RE: Project 1018 - Greensboro Addition - Neighborhood Street Revitalization Thank you. From: Russ Matthys [mailto:RMatthys @cityofeagan.com] Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 3:58 PM To: Troy Delmonico Cc: ' Delmonico'; Tom Struve; Kurt Schlegel; Jeanette Johnson Subject: RE: Project 1018 - Greensboro Addition - Neighborhood Street Revitalization Mr. Delmonico, Thank you for your response. I can certainly forward your correspondence to the City Council for their consideration. I do hope that you attend both meetings regardless of the anticipated low attendance. It only takes one voice to make a difference. Regarding the bituminous overlay completed in the past year, this work was only a preparatory maintenance patch completed in anticipation of the proposed edge mill and overlay of the streets. While it looks nice now, it is relatively thin and was only done to temporarily seal the surface failures that were occurring throughout the neighborhood. I would like to discuss this more fully at the meeting tomorrow evening. We have discussed this internally and realize the confusing message this effort can send. I hope to see you tomorrow. Russ Matthys, P.E. I City Engineer I City of Eagan x - City of Eagan 13830 Pilot Knob Road I Eagan, MN 551221651-675-5646 1651-675- 5694 (Fax) I rmatthvs0cityofeagan.com THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND /OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers. From: Troy Delmonico [troy @mtzgeo.com] Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 10:36 AM To: Russ Matthys Cc: ' Delmonico' Subject: RE: Project 1018 - Greensboro Addition - Neighborhood Street Revitalization Dear Russ Matthys, Thank you very much for the timely and detailed response. I am opposed to the entire project in general. Either last year or no later than the year before last, a significant portion of my neighborhoods streets were resurfaced with bituminous layover. Why was this done if plans were already in progress to replace all the street surfaces within the following year or two? I am quite satisfied with the condition of the streets in my neighborhood. Although pebbles in the bituminous surface are now exposed in many portions, there are no potholes or any areas that represent a danger to either foot, bicycle, or vehicle traffic. The increase in property value will be minimal and the proposed "temporary" increase in property taxes (plus interest) are something I simply cannot afford. Specifically, I am strongly opposed to the "Hunter Lane" portion of the Greensboro project. Hunter Lane is often used by neighborhood children for pickup sports and other "street" games. As well, replacing Hunter Lane with "green space" would disproportionately increase the value of the immediate property owners while taxing all eighty neighborhood residents the same. Lastly, and most importantly, these are very difficult financial times for many, including the City. Proceeding with unnecessary and expensive improvements for "aesthetic" purposes is simply unacceptable in my opinion. I am very happy living in Eagan and am proud that my city runs itself in a manner as not to require state funds to meet its budget. I am well aware of the adjustments/cuts in services the city is taking to keep Eagan self - sufficient during these difficult economic times. I am grateful the City is offering to cover a majority of the proposed "street revitalization project ", but I feel these funds could be better used in other areas of the City's budget. I wish to attend both meetings but am discouraged that attendance is typically so very low. Does one residents attendance /opinion make any difference whatsoever in the Councils consideration? Or does it take many more voices before the Council alters its decision to proceed? Could you please provide my opinion to the council and I hope to see you Tuesday evening. Thanks again sir. With respect and sincerity, Troy Delmonico 3785 Greensboro Court Eagan, MN 55123 From: Russ Matthys [mailto:RMatthys @cityofeagan.com] Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 9:27 AM To: Troy Delmonico Cc: Jeanette Johnson Subject: RE: Project 1018 - greensboro Addition - Neighborhood Street Revitalization Mr. Delmonico, Thank you for your correspondence. The two meetings you referenced will both be opportunities for you to have your opinion heard and considered by the City Council prior to approval or denial of the proposed project. The formats of the meetings are different, so I will explain the difference. The first meeting that is held tomorrow evening is a casual neighborhood meeting at which I will explain the public improvement process and be able to respond to any questions regarding the process and proposed project. It is a great opportunity for residents and property owners to get all of their questions answered and have as detailed of a dialogue as desired. The meeting will cover four different projects, but the process and improvements are the same for each, so I explain a generic public improvement once. Honestly, attendance is typically rather light, 1 or 2 residents from each neighborhood, so there is ample time for questions. I'll take minutes and forward them and any correspondence from property owners to the City Council prior to the public hearing. We are usually done within half an hour. The second meeting that is scheduled for January 5, 2010, is the actual formal public hearing that is held as a part of the regular City Council meeting. The City Council controls the tempo for this meeting. The mayor typically asks the audience to identify themselves if they are attending one of the public hearings for a project; there will be four public hearings on January 5, one for each project. If no one is in attendance for a specific project, this happens frequently, the mayor directs staff to provide a quick summary of the project details. After staff provides the details for the proposed improvements, the mayor will open the public hearing for the individual project and ask for any comments from the audience. Anyone desiring to address the City Council about a specific project would approach the podium and speak to the mayor and council members, stating any questions or comments. The mayor will control the dialogue. After the /X5 mayor has excused the property owner, he may either reply to the questions or comments directly or ask staff to respond. There may or may not be an opportunity for a property owner to respond to the mayor's or staffs statements. Usually there is, but it can depend upon a number of things and is the mayor's decision. After all comments are heard, at the mayor's discretion, the mayor will close the hearing and consideration of moving forward with the project will be given by the City Council. A vote will be taken at the end of any discussion by the mayor and council members. Both meetings will provide you an opportunity to share your comments with the City Council. I encourage attendance of the neighborhood meeting for two main reasons. First, you get as many details as you want about the public improvement process and the specific project; you don't leave until you get all the answers you need. Second, your comments that you want the City Council to consider before voting on the project will be given to them as part of the prepared final project information four days prior to the public hearing. They will have ample time to consider your comments along with the project details rather than only minutes to consider as part of the public hearing and regular Council meeting. Hopefully, this has provided you with sufficient details about the two meetings and you are able to best decide which to attend. If your schedule does not work with the proposed meetings, I can always forward written correspondence to the City Council as well. Such correspondence should be to me by noon on Wednesday, December 30 in order to place it with the prepared final project information. Russ Matthys, P.E. I City Engineer I City of Eagan x City of Eagan 13830 Pilot Knob Road I Eagan, MN 55122 1651-675-5646 1651-675- 5694 (Fax) i rmatthys(Mcityofeaaan.com THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND /OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers. From: Troy Delmonico [troy @mtzgeo.com] Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 8:19 AM To: Russ Matthys Cc: 'Delmonico' Subject: FW: Project 1018 - greensboro Addition - Neighborhood Street Revitalization Dear Russ Matthys, My name is Troy Delmonico and I am a resident of the Greensboro neighborhood. I wish to express my opinion on the proposed "street revitalization" project. The documentation I have received from the City of Eagan tells of public meetings on Tuesday, Dec 29 and Tuesday, Jan 05. Which of these meetings need I attend to ensure my opinion be heard and considered prior to approving /denying this project? Thank you. Sincerely, Troy Delmonico 3785 Greensboro Drive Eagan, MN 55123 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.431 /Virus Database: 270.14.122/2590 - Release Date: 12/28/09 07:16:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.431 / Virus Database: 270.14.122/2590 - Release Date: 12/28/09 07:16:00 //6 Russ Matthys From: Joy Thompson [hamlinegrad @yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 8:01 PM To: City Council; Mike Maguire Cc: Russ Matthys Subject: Hunter Lane / Greensboro Street Revitalization for 2010 Dear Mayor and City Council Members, We are writing regarding agenda item "V. Public Hearings ", specifically regarding part "C. PROJECT 1018 Street Overlay (Greensboro)" for the January 5 City Council meeting. Joy attended the December 29 informational meeting regarding same, which was very good. We wish to state our support for the Greensboro Addition Street Revitalization planned for 2010, as well as for the Hunter Lane stub removal. We understand the additional approximate cost per equivalent household for the Hunter Lane stub removal is $280. Based on the informational meeting, it is not clear to us, and other neighborhood residents Joy has spoken with, what would happen to that parcel. It was mentioned at the informational meeting that it is possible the City would vacate property rights to the parcel which would then be divided between the two adjacent property owners. If the City does not wish to vacate the property but merely replace the stub with turf, then we are not sure what the advantage to the neighborhood would be though perhaps there would still be some. The concern is that the neighborhood residents would pay to have the stub removed but at some later date the City would discover a need to connect Greensboro Drive with the future Carriage Hills development and build a new road there anyway. We are concerned that while the current development plan (Wensmann's - presumably moot) states that a connection between Hunter Lane and the development is not required, that there is nothing stopping that from happening at the future date, and we are opposed to that occurring. We believe that the Hunter Lane stub removal would make that less likely, especially if the City vacates the property rights. Without information regarding the City's intent for the property after the stub removal it is a little difficult to make a good determination of our position prior to January 5. However, we believe we would still be in favor of the Hunter Lane stub removal. Sincerely, Joy and Randy Thompson 3703 Greensboro Drive Eagan, MN 55123 651 - 454- 5317(h) 952 - 921- 6496(Joy -work) 1 Russ Matthys From: Paul S Copeland [cope[012 @umn.edu] Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 8:27 AM To: Russ Matthys Subject: Re: Greensboro Dr /Hunter Lane Attachments: image001.gif Russ, Good. I'm glad the Kuntz's and the Hannasch's are involved and are thinking about how they want to proceed. For the record, I am in favor of removing Hunter Lane and the city eventually vacating ownership of the property. Even if the city decides to keep ownership, I'm still in favor of removing Hunter Ln. I think the city keeping a tiny, isolated piece of property has the potential to cause ongoing irritation for the neighbors and the city over use and maintenance issues so I hope the City Council does decided to vacate ownership. Thanks for everything. Happy new Year! Paul Copeland - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: Russ Matthys To: 'Paul S Copeland' Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 12:38 PM Subject: RE: Greensboro Dr /Hunter Lane Paul, Thank you for your e-mail correspondence and for your attendance at the meeting last night. I was very impressed with your neighborhood representation and appreciated the level of quality of questions and discussion. I have spoken to both of your neighbors this morning. They both asked very good questions and we had good discussions. I have sent Tom and Laura Kuntz a petition form requesting the vacation of Hunter Lane. They will discuss it with Ed and Lora Hannasch later today. I realized this morning that the Council will not be able to approve the vacation as part of the meeting on Tuesday as we are required to advertise a separate public hearing for the vacation of any public property /right -of -way. If the Council approves the removal of Hunter Lane and they accept the petition for the right -of -way vacation, they would likely schedule a public hearing for February 16 to consider approving the vacation. We would send notices out and advertise in the local newspaper for the vacation hearing. I spoke to our street maintenance staff about the drainage concerns at 3698 Greensboro Drive. They did not attempt to address the problem with the patch work that was done this past summer, but it sounds like we can easily rectify it as part of the overlay project. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Have a great New Year and I'll look forward to seeing you at the public hearing. Russ /A8 Russ Matthys, P.E. I City Engineer I City of Eagan City of Eagan 13830 Pilot Knob Road I Eagan, MN 55122 1651-675-5646 1651-675- 5694 (Fax) I rmatthvs0citvofeagan.com �jj of Eagn THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND /OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Paul S Copeland (mailto:cope[012 @umn.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 11:47 AM To: Russ Matthys Subject: Greensboro Dr /Hunter Lane Mr. Matthys, Thank you for the update on the Greensboro Drive area Street Revitalization plans at last night's informational meeting. Your presentation and discussion was very professional and informative. Since the informational meeting, I have discussed the Hunter Lane options with the two homeowners who would be most directly affected (Tom and Laura Kuntz at 3719 Greensboro Dr and Ed and Lora Hannasch at 3711 Greensboro Dr). I gave them your phone number and email address and explained that if they had any input they wanted included in your report to the City Council they should contact you before the report is finished Thursday. At the meeting I mentioned a slight depression in Greensboro Dr that prevented water from flowing to the curb. At this location water pools and during the spring and fall freeze /thaw cycles significant damage to the road surface can occur. The location of this road depression is in front of 3698 Greensboro Dr. The recent pavement overlay that was done in that area did not resolve the issue. Best Regards and Happy New Year! Paul Copeland 3727 Greensboro Dr. //9 FOR CITY USE ONLY DATE RECEIVED f U DATE PRESENTED TO COUNCIL I — t L PUBLIC HEARING DATE APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ PETITION TO VACATE CONTACT PERSON: TOM KUNTZ ADDRESS: 3719 Greensboro Drive Eagan, MN 55123 PHONE #: (w) 952- 854 -6250 (h) 651- 452 -9283 Subdivision: GREENSBORO 2" ADDITION Location: HUNTER LANE I /We, the undersigned, owners of the real property adjacent to: HUNTER LANE (street) or within GREENSBORO 2ND ADDITION (subdivision) hereby petition for: Vacation of Right -of -Way (check requested item) Vacation of Easement (check requested item) ❑ Processing and other fees: Since the City is proposing the removal of Hunter Lane and the distribution of associated costs among the neighbors, we request that the $400 processing fees and any other costs associated with this vacation be included as part of the assessments for this improvement. To be Provided by City Staff: • Legal description of the property to be vacated, including County document number or name and date of final plat recording. • Sketch of the property to be vacated (8%2 x 11). See letter justifying this request, attached. I/We understand that upon receipt of this petition, a public hearing will be scheduled. Id EXHIBIT "A" AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City of Eagan, as a condition of the vacation of City right -of -way, requires the appropriate combination of lots and parcels in order to prevent the creation of landlocked properties and, WHEREAS, the petitioner(s) has/have a legal interest in the land surrounding the vacated City easements /right -of -way. THEREFORE, the petitioner(s) hereby agree to ensure access by allowing the City of Eagan to retain a drainage and utility easement for ingress and egress over certain portions of the vacated City right -of -way. GTORMS /PETITIONSNacations 12'07 u 3 jc,)- r FOR VACATION OF RIGHT -OF -WAY UWe agree to abide by the conditions set out in the agreement attached and incorporated as Exhibit "A." 0 Signat a of Land Owners Q % Z— r Address of Property �/ � 1��'ifL'�y r ✓-P IVAI Subscribed and sworn this &'� day of 20 o9 . NOTARY 'i ,�. M y Cammisslon EXPIM JaA 31, 2AIZ Signature of Land Owners Subscribed and sworn this day of 2 /=� aZ Notary Pu lic Address of Property Notary Public 20 December 30, 2009 To: Eagan City Council From: Laura and Tom Kuntz, owners of 3719 Greensboro Drive, Eagan, MN, which is a property adjacent to Hunter Lane Re: Petition for Vacation of City right of way along with proposed removal of Hunter Lane We respectfully request that you, the City Council, remove Hunter Lane and then vacate City right of way. This would remove the possibility of street interconnection between the Greensboro neighborhood and future development of the Carriage Hills property. This would avoid a potential large increase of traffic into our neighborhood. Such a traffic increase may decrease safety for children, walkers, and bikers; increase noise and stress; and decrease our property values. This vacation would complete the alternative regarding removal of Hunter Lane listed in the feasibility report on this subject. We recognize that by vacating the City right of way, we, as one of the adjacent homeowners would then become owners of one -half of the property, assuming responsibility for its maintenance and care and also for its property taxes. Please do contact us with any questions. Tom (work) 952- 854 -6250 or thomas.kuntz @raymondiames.com Laura (work) 952 - 854 -6250 or laura.kuntz @raymondiames.com Laura Kuntz s Thomas Kuntz Date /Z- -3C-dl Date /a3 Agenda Information Memo January 5, 2010 Eagan City Council Meeting D. PROJECT 1026, NORTHVIEW MEADOWS 2nd ADDITION STREET IMPROVEMENTS ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve Project 1026, Northview Meadows 2nd Addition (Street Improvements) as presented and authorize the preparation of detailed plans and specifications. FACTS: • Since 1990, the City has implemented a comprehensive Pavement Management Program that provides timely pavement rehabilitation to our local streets, significantly extending their overall life expectancy. During these past twenty years, the City has rehabilitated approximately 152 miles of local streets. • The resurfacing of Curry Trail within the Northview Meadows 2nd Addition neighborhood in southeast Eagan has been programmed for 2010 in the City's 5 -Year Capital Improvement Program. • On June 2, 2009 the City Council directed staff to prepare a feasibility report considering a rehabilitation of this street. • On December l,'2009, the feasibility report for Project 1026 was presented to the City Council and a Public Hearing was scheduled for January 5 to formally present and discuss the report with the adjacent property owners. • An informational neighborhood meeting was held on December 29 for the adjacent property owners to discuss the proposed improvements. Of the 38 total properties (all Single - Family Residential) proposed to be assessed under this improvement, no residents attended the meeting. • All notices have been published in the legal newspaper and sent to all affected property owners informing them of this public hearing. ATTACHMENTS: • Feasibility Report, pages through L p. /a� City of Eagan Mike Maguire Mayor Paul Bakken Cyndee Fields Gary Hansen Meg Tilley Council Members Thomas Hedges City Administrator Municipal Center 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 -1810 651.675.5000 phone 651.675.5012 fax 651.454.8535 TDD Maintenance Facility 3501 Coachman Point Eagan, MN 55122 651.675.5300 phone 651.675.5360 fax 651.454.8535 TDD www.cityofeagan.com The Lone Oak Tree The symbol of strength and growth in our community. December 30, 2009 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Re: Northview Meadows 2 "d Addition Street Revitalization City Project No. 1026 Dear Mayor and City Council: Attached is our report for the Northview Meadows 2nd Addition Street Revitalization, City Project No. 1026. The report presents and discusses the proposed improvements and includes a cost estimate, preliminary assessment roll and schedule. We would be pleased to meet with the City Council at your convenience to review and discuss the contents of this report. Sincerely, ohn P. Gorder Assistant City Engineer Reviewed By: Dept. of Po�lic Works Finance I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ✓`1 John P. Gorder Date: V2 ' �� _ °`� Reg. No. 22813 /a/-'/7 Date: Z-3 l _ D°f Date: TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction/ History ................................................................................ ..............................1 Scope...................................................................................................... ..............................2 Feasibility and Recommendations .......................................................... ..............................2 StreetEvaluation ........................................................................ ............................... 2 ProposedImprovements ......................................................................... ..............................3 Easements /Permits ................................................................................. ..............................4 CostEstimate ......................................................................................... ..............................4 Assessments.......................................................................................... ..............................5 Assessment Financing Options ............................................................... ..............................6 RevenueSource ..................................................................................... ..............................6 ProjectSchedule ...................................................................................... ..............................7 Appendix A Preliminary Cost Estimate Appendix B Preliminary Assessment Roll Appendix C Figures - 1 Location Map - 2 Street Improvement/Assessment Area Map - 3 Typical Section — Overlay ia� December, 2009 Northview Meadows 2nd Addition Street Revitalization Eagan, Minnesota Introduction/ History Streets - As a part of Eagan's Pavement Management Program, (PMP), the City evaluates streets within the community throughout their life cycle and implements appropriate maintenance strategies. In 1989, a Pavement Management System (PMS) was developed that allowed the City to evaluate the condition of the existing pavement surface for all the streets on a routine basis and schedule timely maintenance. A Five Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for street rehabilitation is developed from this information. The 0.3 mile of local residential street (Curry Trail) within Northview Meadows 2nd Addition located in east central Eagan is identified for the 2010 overlay improvements. Figure 1, located in Appendix C, illustrates the project location. This single - family residential street was constructed in 1986. Based on the data and engineering strategies available at this time, the City's current PMP incorporates local and ongoing maintenance strategies with seal coating occurring as needed (at 5 to 7 years, again at 12 to 14 years) with a bituminous overlay at approximately 20 years. Overlaying this roadway, which is presently at the 24 -year time frame, will prevent further decay of the pavement surface, thus protecting and extending the structural life of the street. Timely maintenance work, such as bituminous patching, crack sealing and seal coating have occurred at appropriate intervals during the life of these pavements. The City of Eagan's maintenance records indicate that this street was seal coated in 1991, and again in 2000. The Public Works maintenance program typically includes extensive patching and crack sealing during the summer prior to the overlay. The Public Works crews, as part of the Preparatory Pavement Management Plan, removed and replaced deteriorated pavement areas and placed leveling and maintenance overlays on portions of these streets under consideration, where necessary. These repairs alone will not substantially extend the life expectancy of the street pavement if not combined with the proposed bituminous overlay proposed with this project. 1 The Public Works Department has also inspected the utility infrastructure (sanitary sewer, water main, and storm sewer) in the project area and determined the system is in good working order and that no major repairs are necessary. Scope This project will provide resurfacing (edge mill and overlay) for approximately 0.3 mile of roadway. Figure 2 in Appendix C, illustrate the project limits. Included in this project are the following improvements; replacement of damaged curb and gutter, adjustments and /or replacement of storm sewer utility castings, water gate valves, sewer services and street signage. Feasibility and Recommendations The mill & overlay project is necessary to prevent further decay of the pavement section, create a safer driving surface, increase ride ability, and add structural strength. The mill & overlay portion of the project is cost effective in that the proposed improvement (resurfacing) is considerably less expensive than complete reconstruction of this street. The mill & overlay is feasible in that this type of improvement has been used successfully to extend the life expectancy of numerous other streets throughout the City and the region. This project is in accordance with the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan (2010 - 2014) for the City of Eagan and the schedule as outlined in the Pavement Management Program. It is recommended that the project be constructed as proposed in this report in combination with other similar projects in the area. Street Evaluation The City of Eagan's Pavement Management System allows the City to evaluate the condition of the existing street surface to help schedule timely maintenance and improvements. The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) ranks the surface condition for each street. The general categories that define PCI rankings are as follows: PCI Recommended Improvement F- I— - - -- - - -- - - - -- - 56-100 Routine Maintenance /Crack Seal /Seal Coat 36 - 55 r Patch /Repair and /or Overlay 0-35 r Reconstruct ia9 The 2009 PCI rankings for the street segments have a weighted average pavement condition rating of 43 for Northview Meadows 2nd Addition, which falls in the middle rankings of the "Patch /Repair and /or Overlay" category mostly because of the preparatory maintenance performed by City crews, as mentioned above. Therefore, based on this PCI rating, the 2010 construction season is the optimal time to construct the bituminous overlay on this street. Proposed Improvements Pavement - The proposed street improvements are shown in Figure 3. The existing street section for this residential street consists of 3" bituminous pavement supported by 6" gravel base. The existing bituminous surface will be milled adjacent to the existing curb and gutter (6' -8' wide) to accommodate a 1 %2 -inch bituminous overlay. The overlay, combined with the existing street section, will provide a street section consistent with current City standards for residential streets. The combination of patching and overlay will not eliminate cracking due to the temperature extremes experienced in Minnesota. Bituminous overlays will show some continued frost movements and reflective cracking consistent with the underlying pavement. Routine maintenance will still need to continue under the City's Pavement Management Program. Concrete curb & gutter - Damaged curb & gutter and sidewalk will be replaced if severely cracked, spalled, or settled. Boulevard turf will be removed and replaced. While the contractor who performs the work is responsible for its establishment in the first 30 days after placement, adjacent property owners are encouraged to consistently water the new turf, where possible, to help ensure its growth. 130 3 Signage - All traffic control and street identification signage within the project limits will be replaced due to diminished reflectivity, deteriorated support posts, and the signs or posts no longer meeting City and State standards. Example of a recent street overlay project in Eagan (Burr Oak Hills, 2008) Easement/Permits All work will be in the public right -of -way. No additional easements will be necessary. Cost Estimate Detailed cost estimates are located in Appendix A. The estimates are based on anticipated 2010 construction costs and include a 5% contingency and indirect cost of 30 %, which include legal, administration, engineering, and bond interest. A summary of the costs is as follows: Northview Meadows 2nd Addition • Edge Mill and Overlay w/ Signage ......... ............................... $ 72,300 • Repair Existing Concrete Curb & Gutter . ............................... $ 13,900 Total......................................... ............................... $86,200 4 Assessments Assessments are proposed to be levied against the benefited properties for the total improvement with costs allocated in accordance with the City of Eagan's Special Assessment Policy for a mill and overlay improvement for local streets. All assessments will be revised based on final costs. A preliminary assessment roll is included in Appendix B. City Special Assessment Policy Assessment Ratio Property City Mill and Overlay /Signage Low Density Residential (R- 1,2,3) 50% 50% Repair Existing Concrete Curb & Gutter 0% 100% Low Density Residential Lots (R -1) - All residential equivalent properties (38 total, all single - family) as shown on Figure 2, having direct driveway access on to the street to be improved are proposed to be assessed based upon a per unit, or lot, basis within the project. The City's Assessment Policy states that 50% of the mill and overlay costs are assessable for residential properties (R -1, R -2, R -3) based on a normal residential width street (32 feet). The estimated cost per residential lot equivalent to be assessed based on the City Assessment Policy is $953 per Single Family Lot and is calculated as follows: 1) $ 72,300 (Mill & Overlay Cost + Signage Cost) x 50 %] _ $36,200 [Total Residential Assessment (R -1, 2, 3)] 2) $36,200 (Total Residential Assessment) 4 $953 / lot 38 Single Family Residential Lots 13cz 5 Assessment Financing Options The property owner will have the option at the time of the assessment hearing to pay the full assessment or include the assessment in with their property tax statement. If the assessment is included with the property tax statement, the assessment will be spread over five years with the interest determined by the results of the bond sale used to finance the improvements. The following payment schedule is based on an estimated 6.5% interest rate for the assessed amounts: Single Family Residential Lot = $953 First Year � $190 � $72 Principal Interest Cost $190 $22 Per Year Per Year Per Year Revenue Source A summary of revenue sources is listed below: Project Property City Cost Assessment Contribution Mill and Overlay $ 72,300 $ 36,200 $ 36,100 (with Signage) Repair Existing Curb $ 13,900 -0- $ 13,900 Total $86,200 $36,200 $50,000 The City's Major Street Fund will finance the estimated project deficit of $50,000 (58% of total) 6 � I First Year � $190 � $72 $262 Fifth Year $190 $22 $202 Project Schedule Present Feasibility Report to City Council/ Order Public Hearing ........................ .......................December 1, 2009 Informational Meeting ............. ............................... .......................December 29, 2009 Public Hearing ......................................... ............................... January 5, 2010 Approve Plans and Specifications ......................... ............................... February, 2010 Award Contract ............................................... ............................... March, 2010 Project Completion ...................... ............................... ........................August, 2010 Final Cost Report ................... ............................... .....................September, 2010 Final Assessment Hearing ............................................ ............................... Fall, 2010 First Payment Due with Property Tax Statement . ............................... May 15, 2011 12�1 7 Northview Meadows 2 "d Addition - Street Overlay City Project No. 1026 Appendix A - Preliminary Cost Estimate Part I - Project - Bituminous Street Overlay Contract Unit Amount Item No. I Item Unit Qty Price To Date Part I - Project - Bituminous Street Overlay $55,639.50 2021.501 Mobilization LS 1.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 2232.501 Mill Bituminous Pavement (1 1/4" depth) SY 2,000 $ 0.65 $ 1,300.00 2350.501 Type LVWE45030B Wearing Course Mixture TON 500 $ 66.00 $ 33,000.00 2357.502 Bituminous Material for Tack Coat GAL 250 $ 4.00 $ 1,000.00 2504.602 Adjust Frame and Ring Casting (Manhole) EA 6 $ 400.00 $ 2,400.00 2504.602 Adjust Manhole Casting - Riser Adjustment EA 8 $ 185.00 $ 1,480.00 2504.602 Adjust Water Valve Box EA 2 $ 125.00 $ 250.00 2504.602 Remove & Replace Frame & Ring Casting (27') EA 0 $ 675.00 $ - 2504.602 Repair Gate Valve Mid Section EA 2 $ 155.00 $ 310.00 2504.602 Repair Gate Valve Top Section w/ Cover EA 2 $ 175.00 $ 350.00 SP -1 Signage Remove & Replace LS 1 $ 4,400.00 $ 4,400.00 2563.601 Traffic Control LS 1.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 Part I - Project - Bituminous Street Overlay $ 52,990.00 +5% Contingencies $2,649.50 Subtotal $55,639.50 +30% Indirect Costs $16,691.85 Total Part 1 $72,331.35 Part II - Project - Repair Existing Curb & Gutter 2104.501 Remove Concrete Curb & Gutter LF 370 $ 6.00 $ 2,220.00 2105.526 Select Topsoil Borrow CY 11 $ 22.00 $ 242.00 2211.501 Aggregate Base, Cl. 5 (100% Crushed) TON 2 $ 15.00 $ 32.14 2350.503 Type LVWE45030B Wear Course - Driveways TON 3 $ 100.00 $ 300.00 2350.505 Type LVWE45030B Wear Course - Street Patch TON 3 $ 100.00 $ 300.00 2506.602 Adjust Frame & Ring Casting (CB) EA 2 $ 250.00 $ 500.00 2506.602 Install 2 x 3 CB Erosion Barrier Shroud EA 3 $ 100.00 $ 300.00 2531.501 Concrete Curb & Gutter D412 LF 370 $ 15.00 $ 5,550.00 2575.505 Sodding, Type Lawn (Highland) SY 100 $ 7.00 $ 700.00 Part II - Project - Repair Existing Curb & Gutter $ 10,144.14 +5% Contingencies $507.21 Subtotal $10,651.35 +30% Indirect Costs $3,195.41 Total Part II $13,846.76 Grand Total $86,178.11 /3 S Northview Meadows 2 "d Addition City Project No. 1026 Appendix B - Preliminary Assessment Roll R -1 Residential P.I.N. Lot Unit Equivalent Assessment Total Northview Meadows 921 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 010 -01 1 $953 $953 920 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 010 -02 1 $953 $953 917 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 020 -01 1 $953 $953 916 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 020 -02 1 $953 $953 913 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 030 -01 1 $953 $953 912 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 030 -02 1 $953 $953 909 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 040 -01 1 $953 $953 894 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 040 -02 1 $953 $953 905 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 050 -01 1 $953 $953 884 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 050 -02 1 . $953 $953 901 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 060 -01 1 $953 $953 880 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 060 -02 1 $953 $953 897 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 070 -01 1 $953 $953 876 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 070 -02 1 $953 $953 893 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 080 -01 1 $953 $953 872 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 080 -02 1 $953 $953 889 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 090 -01 1 $953 $953 868 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 090 -02 1 $953 $953 885 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 100 -01 1 $953 $953 864 Curry Trail 10- 52101- 100 -02 1 $953 $953 881 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 110 -01 1 $953 $953 854 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 110 -02 1 $953 $953 877Curry Trail 10- 52101- 120 -01 1 $953 $953 844 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 120 -02 1 $953 $953 873 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 130 -01 1 $953 $953 840 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 130 -02 1 $953 $953 869 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 140 -01 1 $953 $953 830 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 140 -02 1 $953 $953 865 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 150 -01 1 $953 $953 861 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 160 -01 1 $953 $953 857 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 170 -01 1 $953 $953 853 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 180 -01 1 $953 $953 849 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 190 -01 1 $953 $953 R -1 Residential P.I.N. Lot Unit Equivalent Assessment Total 845 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 200 -01 1 $953 $953 841 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 210 -01 1 $953 $953 837 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 220 -01 1 $953 $953 833 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 230 -01 1 $953 $953 829 Curry Trail 10- 52101 - 240 -01 1 $953 $953 Subtotal 38 TOTAL $ 36,200 TOTALS - Properties Single Family = 38 - Direct Access /3�, Northview Meadows City of E� e Street Revitalization Fig. 1 Engineering Department Location Plan - Project 1026 WA Fa m n 905 909 9 913, 917 921 - I 0 / 893 BURRY 894 DIFFLEY ROAD / \ \BRADDOC� 889 ; 885 TRAIL 881 •�� 877 873 869 865 861 \ 857 �T 916 884 /� �I "% 880 <� �Ort�jV� 876 \ r ' 854 872 Mec�4r°lv3 868 864 844 2`�aq a Sao /830,/N ■ w m ■ ASSESSABLE AREA 41 Northview Meadows 2nd Add. City of Eap )Assessments Street Revitalization -Project 1026 Fig. 2 Engineering Department / Street Improvement Area EDGE MILL (6-8' wide) I 3" BITUMINOUS SURFACE 6" 5 AGGREGATE BASE Existing Typical Section 60' ROW 32' (F -F) 11/2" 2360 WEAR COURSE BITUMINOUS OVERLAY BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 3" BITUMINOUS SURFACE 6" CL. 5 AGGREGATE BASE Bituminous Street Overlay Proposed Typical Section EX. D412 CURB & GUTTER REPLACE EX. CURB & GUTTER AS DIRECTED ,1 -,0 -D8 Northview Meadows 2nd Add. City of Faun / c treet Revitalization -Project 1026 Fig. 3 Engineering Department ! Typical Sections Agenda Information Memo January 5, 2010 Eagan City Council Meeting E. PROJECT 1027, PATRICK ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENTS ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve Project 1027, Patrick Road (Street Improvements) as presented and authorize the preparation of detailed plans and specifications. FACTS: • Since 1990, the City has implemented a comprehensive Pavement Management Program that provides timely pavement rehabilitation to our local streets, significantly extending their overall life expectancy. During these past twenty years, the City has rehabilitated approximately 152 miles of local streets. • The resurfacing of Patrick Road, a commercial street in south - central Eagan, has been programmed for 2010 in the City's 5 -Year Capital Improvement Program. • On June 2, 2009 the City Council directed staff to prepare a feasibility report considering a rehabilitation of this street. • On December 1, 2009, the feasibility report for Project 1027 was presented to the City Council and a Public Hearing was scheduled for January 5 to formally present and discuss the report with the adjacent property owners. • An informational neighborhood meeting was held on December 29 for the adjacent property owners and representatives to discuss the proposed improvements. Of the 4 total properties (all Commercial/ Industrial) proposed to be assessed under this improvement, no property owners or representatives attended the meeting. • All notices have been published in the legal newspaper and sent to all affected property owners informing them of this public hearing. ATTACHMENTS: • Feasibility Report, pages /7— V-2 through %O. /y/ City of Ea�an Report for Patrick Road Street Revitalization City Project No. 1027 December 2009 L:: City of Eagan Mike Maguire Mayor Paul Bakken Cyndee Fields Gary Hansen Meg Tilley Council Members Thomas Hedges. City Administrator Municipal Center 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 -1810 651.675.5000 phone 651.675.5012 fax 651.454.8535 TDD Maintenance Facility 3501 Coachman Point Eagan, MN 55122 651.675.5300 phone 651.675.5360 fax 651.454.8535 TDD www.cityofeagan.com The Lone Oak Tree The symbol of strength and growth in our community. December 30, 2009 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Re: Patrick Road Street Revitalization City Project No. 1027 Dear Mayor and City Council: Attached is our report for the Patrick Road Street Revitalization, City Project No. 1027. The report presents and discusses the proposed improvements and includes a cost estimate, preliminary assessment roll and schedule. We would be pleased to meet with the City Council at your convenience to review and discuss the contents of this report. Sincerely, 00?yt- 4-p-h ohn P. Gorder Assistant City Engineer Dept. of Finance By: I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 4�!/ John P. Gorder Date: 1?-30- /y3 Reg. No. 22813 Date: /;Z "3 / -O� Date: TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction / History ............................................................................. ............................... 1 Scope................................................................................................ ............................... 2 Feasibility and Recommendations ....................................................... ............................... 2 StreetEvaluation ................................................................................ ............................... 4 Proposed Improvements ..................................................................... ............................... 5 Easements/Permits ............................................................................ ............................... 7 CostEstimate .................................................................................... ............................... 7 Assessments...................................................................................... ............................... 7 Commercial/Industrial ..................................................................... ............................... 8 Driveway Entrance Replacement ..................................................... ............................... 8 Assessment Financing Options ........................................................... ............................... 9 RevenueSource ................................................................................. ............................... 9 ProjectSchedule ................................................................................ ............................... 10 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Preliminary Cost Estimate Appendix B Preliminary Assessment Roll Appendix C Figures - 1 Location Map - 2 Street Improvement/Assessment Area Map - 3 Typical Sections — Overlay 1q- �!atrick Road 1 December 2009 Patrick Road Street Revitalization Eagan, Minnesota Introduction/ History As a part of Eagan's Pavement Management Program, (PMP), the City evaluates streets within the community throughout their life cycle and implements appropriate maintenance strategies. In 1989, a Pavement Management System (PMS) was developed that allowed the City to evaluate the condition of the existing pavement surface for all the streets on a routine basis and schedule timely maintenance. A Five Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for street rehabilitation is developed from this information. The nearly 350 -feet of 2 -lane commercial /industrial street in central Eagan is identified for 2010 street revitalization improvements. Figure 1, located in Appendix C, illustrates the project location. The street in this commercial /industrial area was originally constructed in 1986. Based on the data and engineering strategies available at this time, the City's current PMP incorporates local and ongoing maintenance strategies with seal coating occurring as needed (at 5 to 7 years, again at 12 to 14 years) with a bituminous overlay at approximately 20+ years. Recycling or overlaying the roadway located within the project area, which is presently at the 24 -year time frame, will prevent further decay of the pavement surface, thus protecting and extending the structural life of the streets. Timely maintenance work, such as bituminous patching, crack sealing and seal coating have occurred at appropriate intervals during the life of the pavement in the area. The City of Eagan's maintenance records indicate that Patrick Road was seal coated in 1991. Patrick Road 2 The Public Works maintenance program typically includes extensive patching and crack sealing during the summer prior to the overlay. The Public Works crews, as part of the Preparatory Pavement Management Plan, removed and replaced deteriorated pavement areas and placed leveling and maintenance overlays on portions of the streets under consideration, where necessary. These repairs alone will not substantially extend the life expectancy of the street section if not combined with the bituminous overlay proposed for this project. The Public Works Department has also inspected the utility infrastructure (sanitary sewer, water main, and storm sewer) in the project area and determined the system is generally in good working order and that no major repairs are necessary. Scope This project provides for resurfacing (edge mill and overlay) of approximately 350 feet of Patrick Road and reconfiguration of the east end. Figure 2, located in Appendix C, illustrates the project area. Included in this project are the following improvements: replacement of damaged curb and gutter, adjustments and /or replacement to sanitary/storm sewer utility castings, water gate valves, concrete entrance aprons, street signage, and pedestrian ramps. Feasibility and Recommendations The mill & overlay improvements are necessary to prevent further decay of the pavement section, create a safer driving surface, increase ride ability, and add structural strength. The mill & overlay portion of the project is cost effective in that the proposed improvements (resurfacing) is considerably less expensive than complete reconstruction of the street. The mill & overlay is feasible in that these types of improvements have been used successfully to extend the life expectancy of numerous other streets throughout the City and the region. Patrick Road ;ll 3 This project is in accordance with the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan (2010 — 2014) for the City of Eagan and the schedule as outlined in the Pavement Management Program. It is recommended that the project be constructed as proposed in this report in combination with other similar projects in the area. Street Evaluation The City of Eagan's Pavement Management System allows the City to evaluate the condition of the existing street surface to help schedule timely maintenance and improvements. The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) ranks the surface condition for each street. The general categories that define PCI rankings are as follows: PCI 7 Recommended Improvement The 2009 PCI rankings for this street segment has a pavement condition rating of 41, which falls in the rankings of the "Patch /Repair and /or Overlay" category, as mentioned above. The street pavement has reached an age where, based on the City's past experience, the integrity of the pavement can rapidly decline if no improvements are performed. Therefore, the 2010 construction season is the optimal time to recycle and construct the bituminous overlay on this street. Any delay of the project may reduce the structural benefit to the street sections and require full reconstruction. Patrick Road / 4 � 56 - 100 Routine Maintenance /Crack Seal /Seal Coat 36 - 55 Patch /Repair and /or Overlay 0-35 r- Reconstruct Proposed Improvements Pavement - The proposed street improvements are shown on Figure 3. The existing street section for this street generally consists of 4" bituminous pavement supported by 8" gravel base. The existing bituminous surface will be milled adjacent to the existing curb and gutter (6' -8' wide adjacent to curbs) to accommodate a 1'h -inch bituminous overlay. The overlay, combined with the existing street section, will provide a street section consistent with current City standards for commercial /industrial streets. The combination of patching and overlay will not eliminate cracking due to the temperature extremes experienced in Minnesota. Bituminous streets will show some continued frost movements and reflective cracking consistent with the existing pavement. Routine maintenance will still need to continue under the City's Pavement Management Program. Concrete curb & gutter - Damaged curb & gutter will be replaced if severely cracked, spalled, or settled. It is estimated that approximately 5% of the existing concrete curb and gutter will have to be replaced. Boulevard turf will be removed and replaced in curb removal areas. While the contractor who performs the work is responsible for it's establishment in the first 30 days after placement, adjacent property owners are encouraged to consistently water the new turf, where possible, to help ensure its growth. Signage - All traffic control and street identification signage within the project limits will be replaced due to diminished reflectivity, deteriorated support posts, or the signs or posts no longer meet City and State standards. Sidewalk/Path Pedestrian Ramp — Revisions to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires jurisdictional agencies to provide detectable warnings at all existing pedestrian ramps /�Y Patrick Road 5 of sidewalks and paths with public streets that are improved, including street surface improvements. The most common method of providing this detectable warning is through the installation of truncated domes, a minimum of two feet in length across the width of all pedestrian ramps. This project provides for the installation of truncated dome pedestrian ramps at the Lexington Avenue intersection. The existing sidewalk along the north and south sides of Patrick Road is in relatively good condition and will require only minor repairs under this project. Driveway Replacement — The properties along Patrick Road were constructed with bituminous driveway entrances and are proposed to be replaced. The entrances will be reconstructed with 7" -thick concrete entrance aprons in accordance with Eagan Standard Detail 440. This driveway entrance replacement provides commercial entrances of adequate strength and width and is consistent with similar past projects in commercial/ industrial areas throughout the City. Reconfiguration of East End — The east end of Patrick Road was originally designed to connect to a future north -south public street. The future north -south street was to be constructed with later phases of development. As development of the adjacent properties progressed, the planned land use and transportation network were revised to accommodate the neighboring residential subdivisions. As a result, the existing configuration of the east end of Patrick Road is no longer consistent with the final development plans for the area. It is proposed to reconfigure the east end of Patrick Road to accommodate the existing private commercial entrance on the Patrick Road 6 north and the construction of a concrete driveway apron to the south for a future private north - south commercial access road. The costs for reconfiguring the east end of Patrick Road are included in the mill and overlay costs. Easement/Permits All work will be in the public right -of -way. No additional easements will be necessary. It is anticipated that no permits will be required for the resurfacing project. Cost Estimate Detailed cost estimates are located in Appendix A. The estimates are based on anticipated 2010 construction costs and include a 5% contingency and indirect cost of 30 %, which include legal, administration, engineering, and bond interest. A summary of the costs is as follows: • Edge Mill and Overlay with Signage $ 27,100 • Repair Existing Concrete Curb & Gutter $ 13,700 • Concrete Entrance Replacement $ 37,100 Total Estimated Project Cost $ 77,900 Assessments Assessments are proposed to be levied against the benefited properties for the total improvement with costs allocated in accordance with the City of Eagan's Special Assessment Policy for a mill and overlay improvement for commercial /industrial streets. All assessments will be revised based on final costs. A preliminary assessment roll is included in Appendix B. City Special Assessment Policy Mill and Overlay — Commercial /Industrial Repair Existing Concrete Curb and Gutter Concrete Entrance Replacement 45 Patrick Road l/ 7 Assessment Ratio Property City 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% Commercial and Industrial Lots — Street Improvements All commercial and industrial lots as shown on Figure 2, having driveway access on to Patrick Road, are proposed to be assessed. The City's Special Assessment Policy states that 100% of the mill and overlay costs are assessable for commercial/ industrial streets, regardless of width. The estimated cost per commercial /industrial foot to be assessed based on the City Assessment Policy is $43.02/F.F. and is calculated as follows: 1) % Commercial /Industrial = 630 f.f. / 630 total f.f. = 100% 2) [$27,100 (Mill & Overlay Cost) x 100% x 100 %] = $27,100 (Total Commercial/ Industrial Assessment) 3) $27,100 (Commercial /Industrial Assessment) 4 $43.02/F.F. 630 Front Feet Driveway Entrance Replacement All adjacent commercial/ industrial properties with driveways not to current City standards are proposed to be assessed the total cost of driveway entrance replacement improvements on the area of driveway installed. The total driveway improvement assessment per lot is calculated based on the individual requirements needed to replace existing bituminous entrances with concrete entrances, in accordance with current City standards. The estimated cost of driveway replacement is approximately $108 per square yard replaced. Patrick Road / ( 8 Assessment Financing Options The property owner will have the option at the time of the assessment hearing to pay the full assessment or include the assessment in with their property tax statement. If the assessment is included with the property tax statement, the assessment will be spread over ten years with the interest determined by the results of the bond sale used to finance the improvements. The following payment schedule is an example of a $10,000 assessment with an estimated 6.5% interest for the assessed amounts: Principal Interest Cost Revenue Source A summary of revenue sources is listed below: Project Property City Cost Assessment Contribution Mill & Overlay $ 27,100 $ 27,100 $0 (with Signage) Repair Existing Curb $ 13,700 -0- $ 13,700 Concrete Entrances $ 37,100 $ 37,100 $0 Total $ 77,900 $ 64,200 $13,700 The City's Major Street Fund will finance the estimated project deficit of $13,700 (18% of total). �a Patrick Road 9 � I Per Year � Per Year ' Per Year First Year � $1,000 $650 $1,650 Tenth Year � $1,000 $65 � $1,065 Project Schedule Present Feasibility Report to City Council/ Order Public Hearing ...................... ............................... December 1, 2009 Informational Meeting ......................................... ............................... December 29, 2009 Public Hearing ...................... ............................... .........................January 5, 2010 Approve Plans and Specifications .................................... ............................... February, 2010 Award Contract .................................................... ............................... March, 2010 Project Completion ................................................... ............................... August, 2010 Final Cost Report ............................................. ............................... September, 2010 Final Assessment Hearing ....................................................... ............................... Fall, 2010 First Payment Due with Property Tax Statement ................. ............................... May 15, 2011 Patrick Road / 10 Appendix A - Street Overlay - City Project No. 1027 Patrick Road Preliminary Cost Estimate Part I - Project 1027 Patrick Road - Bituminous Street Overlay Item No. Item Unit Estimated Qty Unit Price Estimated Cost 2021.501 Mobilization LS 1.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 2104.505 Remove Bituminous Pavement SY 45 4.75 213.75 2232.501 Mill Bituminous Pavement (1 1/4" depth) SY 885 0.65 575.25 2350.501 Type LVWE45030B Wearing Course Mixture TON 190 66.00 12,540.00 2350.505 Type LVWE45030B Wear Course - Street Patch TON 2 100.00 200.00 2357.502 Bituminous Material for Tack Coat GAL 105 4.00 420.00 2504.602 Adjust Manhole Casting - Riser Adjustment EA 4 185.00 740.00 2504.602 Repair Gate Valve Mid Section EA 1 155.00 155.00 2504.602 Repair Gate Valve Top Section w/ Cover EA 1 175.00 175.00 2573.530 Storm Drain Inlet Protection EA 2 125.00 250.00 2575.505 Sodding SY 35 7.00 245.00 2575.551 Compost Grade 1 TON 10 27.00 270.00 2563.601 Traffic Control LS 1.00 750.00 750.00 2564.601 Remove £t Replace Street /Traffic Signs LS 1 750.00 750.00 Subtotal 19,784.00 ( +5 %) Contingencies 989.20 Subtotal 20, 773.20 ( +30 %) Indirect Costs 6,231.96 Total Part I - Project 1027 Patrick Road - Bituminous Street Overlayl 27,100.00 /s� Part II - Project 1027 Patrick Road - Concrete Curb £t Gutter /Sidewalk Repairs Item No. Item Unit Estimated Qty Unit Price Estimated Cost 2104.501 Remove Concrete Curb t3 Gutter LF 30 6.00 180.00 2104.503 Remove Concrete Sidewalk SF 225 0.60 135.00 2104.505 Remove Bituminous Trail SF 495 0.60 297.00 2104.505 Remove Concrete Valley Gutter SY 25 10.00 250.00 2105.526 1 Select Topsoil Borrow CY 5 22.00 110.00 2211.501 Aggregate Base, Ct. 5 (100% Crushed) TON 2 15.00 30.00 2350.505 Type LVWE45030B Wear Course - Street Patch TON 6 100.00 600.00 2504.602 Repair Sprinkler Head EA 2 100.00 200.00 2504.602 Repair Sprinkler System EA 1 250.00 250.00 2506.602 JAdjust Frame ft Ring Casting (CB) EA 3 250.00 750.00 2506.602 Install 2 x 3 CB Erosion Barrier Shroud EA 2 100.00 200.00 2521.501 4" Concrete Walk SF 150 4.00 600.00 2531.501 Concrete Curb ft Gutter B618 LF 30 16.00 480.00 2531.604 Concrete Valley Gutter SY 25 60.00 1,500.00 2531.618 Truncated Dome Detectable Warning Paver SF 48 42.00 2,016.00 2531.618 4" Concrete Ped Ramp w/ Wet Cast for Truncated Dome Inset SF 426 4.50 1,917.00 2575.505 Sodding SY 50 7.00 350.00 2575.551 lCompost Grade 1 TON 1 5 1 27.00 135.00 Subtotal 10,000.00 ( +5 %) Contingencies 500.00 Subtotal 10, 500.00 ( +30 %) Indirect Costs 3,150.00 Total Part II - Project 1027 Patrick Road - Concrete Curb l* Gutter /Sidewalk Repairs 13,700.00 /SS Part III - Project 1027 Patrick Road - Concrete Entrance Aprons Item No. Item Unit Estimated Qty Unit Price Estimated Cost 2104.501 Remove Concrete Curb tt Gutter LF 330 6.00 1,980.00 2104.505 Remove Bituminous Pavement SY 400 4.75 1,900.00 2105.501 Common Excavation CY 45 18.75 843.75 2105.526 Select Topsoil Borrow CY 10 22.00 220.00 2211.511 Aggregate Base, CL. 5 (100% Crushed) TON 10 15.00 150.00 2350.505 Type LVWE45030B Wear Course - Street Patch TON 15 100.00 1,500.00 2506.602 Adjust Frame £t Ring Casting CB EA 1 250.00 250.00 2531.501 Concrete Curb !t Gutter 8612 LF 25 15.50 387.50 2531.503 7' Concrete Apron Incl. Curb £t Gutter (High - Early) SY 342 55.00 18,810.00 2575.505 Sodding SY 115 7.00 805.00 2575.551 Compost Grade 1 TON 10 27.00 270.00 Subtotal 27,120.00 ( +5 %) Contingencies 1,360.00 Subtotal 28,480.00 ( +30 %) Indirect Costs 8,550.00 Total Part III - Project 1027 Patrick Road - Concrete Entrance Aprons 37,100.00 /56 Appendix B - City Project 1027 Patrick Road Preliminary Assessment Roll /-S- �, Street D/W Front Rate/ Overlay D/W Rate D/W Total Plat Lot/Block P.I.D. Foot F. F. Assmt (SY) (SY) Assmt Assmt Diffley Marketplace 2nd Addition Lot 1, Block 1 10- 20476- 010 -01 60 $43.02 $2,581 100 $108 $10,848 $13,429 Eagan Center 1st Addition Lot 1, Block 1 10- 22405- 010 -01 255 $43.02 $10,970 99 $108 $10,740 $21,710 Eagan Center 1st Addition Outlot D 10- 22405 - 040 -00 255 $43.02 $10,970 93 $108 $10,089 $21,059 Lexington Pointe 8th Addition loutlot C 10- 45092 -030 -00 60 $43.02 $2,581 50 $108 $5,424 $8,005 Total Assessments 630 $27,100 342 1 $37,100 $64,200 /-S- �, Patrick Road City of Eap � Street Revitalization Fig. 1 Engineering Department Location Plan - Project 1027 NORTH V Y FFLE iNGT�N'�I�CILITY A HLETIC KENSINGTON 117: DIFFLEY ROAD LEA LEGEND Street Improvements - Assessment Area OConcrete Entrance Apron Replacement Patrick Road City of Eagan Street Revitalization - Project 1027 Fig. 2 Engineering Department Assessments / Street Improvement Area " "'k t.. I EX. SIDEWALK EDGE MILL _ (6' -8' wide) Typ. EX. SIDEWALK Flne 4" BITUMINOUS SURFACE 8" CL. 5 AGGREGATE BASE Existing Typical Section 80' ROW 48' (F -F) 1 1/2" WEAR COURSE BITUMI 2350/60 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 4" BITUMINOUS SURFACE 8" CL. 5 AGGREGATE BASE Bituminous Street Overlay Proposed Typical Section R/W EX. B618 CURB & GUTTER rA OVERLAY EX. SIDEWALK EX. SIDEWALK 1 REPLACE EX. CURB & GUTTER AS DIRECTED 11 -22 -09 AffimilhL To, Patrick Road c� �n City 1 f EQ W! � � Rio Typical Section - Project 1027 Fig. 3 Engineering Department Agenda Information Memo January 5, 2010 Eagan City Council Meeting F. VARIANCE — 4145 OLD SIBLEY HWY (GREGORY PREUSSE) ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve a 9 -foot Variance to the required 40 -foot front yard setback to allow two existing sheds and a dumpster enclosure in the front yard on property located at 4145 Old Sibley Hwy, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Preusse 2nd Addition. To approve a 15 -foot Variance to the required 20 -foot side yard setback to allow two existing sheds and a dumpster enclosure in the front yard on property located at 4145 Old Sibley Hwy, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Preusse 2nd Addition. REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: Majority of Council Members Present FACTS: ➢ The property is zoned Business Park (BP) and contains a 16,000 SF office /warehouse building with an attached garage. ➢ Two detached sheds were placed in the front yard without the benefit of an approved Building Permit. The applicant proposes the detached sheds to remain, within the front and side yard setback requirements. ➢ Further, the applicant has placed a dumpster between the two sheds and proposes constructing a sliding or rolling gate in the front. The rear of the dumpster is screened by a wood fence. ➢ At the time the Building Permit was approved, the owner stated the future tenants trash needs would be kept inside the attached garage. As such, no trash enclosure was required or built. ➢ The applicant proposes a wood stain on the sheds to match the brick on the existing building. The principal building consists of face brick and stucco. ➢ The applicant has stated the hardship for the Variances is a combination of employee safety (due to the material stored in the sheds) and the odd shape of the property which present a practical difficulty. ➢ The requested Variance does not appear to present a detrimental effect to the neighboring property to the southwest; however, the proposed location is, clearly visible to the adjacent (vacant) property to the east. ISSUES: ➢ The City Fire Marshal has reviewed the request and determined that there is no safety hazard storing the pressurized tanks inside or outside of the principal building. ➢ City policymakers shall determine the suitability of the location and exterior materials of the accessory buildings. 60 DAY AGENCY ACTION DEADLINE: January 29, 2010 ATTACEWNTS (2): Location Map, page 0 Planning Report on pages (03 through �� PLANNING REPORT CITY OF EAGAN REPORT DATE: December 22, 2009 APPLICANT: Gregory Preusse PROPERTY OWNER: Preusse Family LTD PTNSHP REQUEST: Variance LOCATION: 4145 Old Sibley Highway COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: BP, Business Park ZONING: BP, Business Park SUMMARY OF REQUEST CASE: 19- VA- 07 -11 -09 HEARING DATE: January 5, 2010 APPLICATION DATE: Nov. 10, 2009 PREPARED BY: Sarah Thomas The applicant is requesting approval of a 9 -foot Variance to the required 40 -foot front yard setback and a 15 -foot Variance to the required 20 -foot side yard setback to allow two existing sheds and a dumpster enclosure in the front yard on property legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Preusse 2nd Addition, located at 4145 Old Sibley Highway. AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.50, Subdivision 3, B., 3, states that the Council may approve, approve with conditions or deny a request for a variance. In considering all requests for a variance, City Council shall consider the following factors: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property have no control. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Code would deprive the applicant property use commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the provisions of this Code. c. That special conditions or circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. d. That granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. 163 Planning Report — Gregory Preusse Variance January 5, 2010 Page 2 e. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Code or to property in the same zone. g. Whether the property for which the variance is requested is in compliance with the code. CODE REQUIREMENTS City Code Section 11.40, Subd. 5 B.I. requires buildings and structures accessory to uses other than farms and single - family detached dwellings to conform to the principal building setback requirements specified for the respective zoning district which they are located. The subject property is zoned Business Park (BP) which requires a 40 -foot setback from public right -of -way and a 20 -foot side yard setback. BACKGROUND/HISTORY The subject property was platted in 2000 and the building was constructed in 2007. The City Council also approved a variance of 5 feet to the required 5 -foot side yard parking setback to allow a zero setback for a future shared access drive in 2007. EXISTING CONDITIONS The two acre site consists of a 16,000 SF building with an attached garage. There are several easements over this property: a portion of a 66 foot wide transmission line easement, a 100 foot gas pipeline easement and a 30 foot drainage and utility easement. Old Sibley Memorial Highway to the rear. The property has access from Old Sibley Highway and abuts Two detached sheds were placed in the front yard without the benefit of an approved Building Permit. The sheds are located adjacent to the southwest side yard property line, 31 feet from the public right -of -way. A dumpster is located between the two sheds. Trucks and trailers are also in this location and stored over night. The applicant has removed the trailers and must either remove the trucks or apply for an Interim Use Permit for outdoor storage. A65� Planning Report — Gregory Preusse Variance January 5, 2010 Page 3 APPLICANT'S ESTIMATE OF HARDSHIP The estimate of hardship provided by the applicant pertains to the safety of the employees. Instead of storing the compression gas used by the service department in the attached garage, the applicant prefers that it be stored in a detached structure, away from the principal building. The applicant also states there is a hardship due to the lot being triangular in shape and the main building entrance being on the side of the building, which limits the practical location for accessory structures. EVALUATION OF REQUEST Proposal — The applicant is proposing two sheds, each 128 SF, to be located within four existing parking stalls. This location is within both the front and side yard setback requirements for accessory structures. The applicant also proposes to enclose the dumpsters by utilizing the two existing sheds on each end and constructing a sliding or rolling gate in the front. The rear of the dumpster is screened by a wood fence. Setbacks — The City Code requires a 40 -foot setback to the public right -of way and a 20 -foot setback from the side yard. The applicant proposes the sheds to be located 31 feet from the right -of way and five feet from the side yard. All other building and parking setback standards are satisfied. Parking — The site requires 60 parking stalls based on 8,000 SF of office and 8,000 square feet of warehouse. The site was developed with 77 stalls; therefore even with the utilization of four parking stalls for the sheds and dumpsters, the parking requirements are still met. Building_ Materials — City Code Section 11.40, Subd. 5 A.2. requires accessory buildings exceeding 120 SF to have similar and compatible finish materials to the principal building and to match the principal building in color. The existing sheds exceed 120 SF and therefore are subject to the building materials requirement. The exterior materials on the principal building consist of face brick and stucco and are earth tone with a green roof. /6 s Planning Report — Gregory Preusse Variance January 5, 2010 Page 4 The applicant proposes the wood stain on the sheds to match the brick on the existing building. The wood exterior of the existing sheds is not similar in quality to the materials of the principal building. City policymakers should determine if the materials on the accessory buildings are similar and compatible to those utilized on the principal building or if the applicant must provide a different exterior material that is similar in durability. Trash Enclosure — As previously mentioned, the building has an attached garage. At the time the building was approved, the owner stated the future tenants trash needs would be limited to two small trash bins with wheels which would be kept inside the garage. As such, no trash enclosure was required or built. The applicant now proposes to enclose the dumpster by utilizing the two existing sheds on each end and constructing a sliding or rolling gate in the front. The rear of the dumpster is screened by a wood fence. City Code Section 11.70, Subd. 21 D.7. allows for enclosures to be detached from the principal building in BP zoning districts; however the enclosure shall meet principal building setbacks, constructed of materials to match the exterior of the principal structure, with gates or doors having at least 90 percent opacity. The enclosure shall also be between six and ten feet in height. The proposed enclosure should meet these requirements and be located in a side or rear yard, if possible. Fire Safety — The Fire Marshal has reviewed the material safety data sheets of the compression gas being stored in the wood sheds and has determined it is not flammable and poses no fire hazard and, provided the material is stored and secured properly, it presents no public safety concerns. The Fire Marshal also states that storing the cylinders in the principal building would be preferred because of better security and the building has a sprinkler system. Variance Criteria — 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 demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The Zoning Ordinance states that relief may be granted provided that there are special conditions that apply to the parcel in question. It does appear as though special conditions (i.e., topography, unique lot configuration, vegetation, etc.) are present on the property. The location of the principal building was limited due to the number and size of easements that are on the property. Approximately 27,000 square feet of the property consists of easements and buildings are not allowed to be constructed within such easements. The parcel also abuts two public streets with relatively steep topography north of the building to Old Sibley Memorial Highway. The relief sought by the applicant may be contrary to the Comprehensive Guide Plan, which provides the basis for zoning categories. The Business Park Zoning District was created with the intention of establishing and maintaining high quality site planning, architecture, signage and landscape design to create an attractive and unified development character. Locating accessory /6�:7 6 Planning Report — Gregory Preusse Variance January 5, 2010 Page 5 buildings that do not match the quality of the principal building appears to be in conflict with the intent of the ordinance. In addition, locating a trash enclosure in the front yard is also inconsistent with City Code standards. A demonstrable difficulty is required to grant relief from the minimum required front and side yard setbacks. The lot abuts two public streets, has relatively steep topography north of the existing building and is limited due to the location of the existing building, which presents a practical difficulty to locate accessory structures. However, accessory structures are uncommon in the Business Park Zoning District. It appears that granting of the Variances may result in detrimental effects to the neighboring properties as the location is screened by landscaping and existing vegetation to the west and natural topography to the north, but is in complete view of the (currently undeveloped) neighboring property to the east. The requested Variance reflects the minimum setback deviation necessary to accommodate the current location of accessory structures. SUMMARY /CONCLUSION Two detached sheds and a trash container were placed in the front yard without the benefit of City approval. The applicant is requesting Variances to the front and side yard setback requirements to allow the two existing sheds and a dumpster enclosure to be located in the front yard occupying four parking stalls. The applicant has stated the hardship for the Variances is a combination of employee safety and the odd shape of the property which present a practical difficulty. The Fire Marshal states that storing the cylinders in the principal building would be preferred because the building has a sprinkler system. The Business Park Zoning District is intended to provide high quality design and finishes. City policymakers should determine if the finish material and location of the accessory buildings are consistent City standards. The requested Variance appears to be the minimum necessary, in that it reflects the current location, and, due to natural screening, does not appear to present a detrimental effect to the neighboring property to the southwest; however, the proposed location is clearly visible to the adjacent (vacant) property to the east. The property meets parking requirements even with the reduction of the four stalls. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED To approve a 9 -foot Variance to the required 40 -foot front yard setback to allow two existing sheds and a dumpster enclosure in the front yard on property legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, /G � Planning Report — Gregory Preusse Variance January 5, 2010 Page 6 Preusse 2nd Addition, located at 4145 Old Sibley Highway. If approved, the following conditions should 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. 2. A Building Permit shall be applied for within 60 days of Variance approval for the two existing sheds and dumpster enclosure. The structures shall meet City Code requirements. 3. The two sheds shall be located per the Site Plan received November 10, 2009 and constructed and painted per the Elevation Plan received November 10, 2009. 4. The applicant shall supply the material safety data sheet and quantities list to the Fire Marshal for review and approval. 5. The applicant shall remove all outdoor storage or apply for an Interim Use Permit within 60 days of Variance approval. 6. The applicant shall provide an exterior material on the accessory buildings that is comparable to the principal building in both durability and color. To approve a 15 -foot Variance to the required 20 -foot side yard setback to allow two existing sheds and a dumpster enclosure in the front yard on property legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Preusse 2nd Addition, located at 4145 Old Sibley Highway. If approved, the following conditions should 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. 2. A Building Permit shall be applied for within 60 days of Variance approval for the two existing sheds and dumpster enclosure. The structures shall meet City Code requirements. 3. The two sheds shall be located per the Site Plan received November 10, 2009 and constructed and painted per the Elevation Plan received November 10, 2009. 4. The applicant shall supply the material safety data sheet and quantities list to the Fire Marshal for review and approval. /0/ cli- Planning Report — Gregory Preusse Variance January 5, 2010 Page 7 5. The applicant shall remove all outdoor storage or apply for an Interim Use Permit within 60 days of Variance approval. 6. The applicant shall provide an exterior material on the accessory buildings that is comparable to the principal building in both durability and color.\ /69 Current Zoning and Comprehensive Guide Plan Prousse Land Use Map Variance i• Zoning Map Moan Current Zoning: Business Park .�� ©�'S�S�,S►, cU gip. 1.��Pq ■ a ,a 65* I J I _ I �`�O • i,4 o � n Vd �� C�Q.�s O`�c �` '�a �� o. �� P� vJJrw�1 •,��, mss" / 31 L l� 7 �w�� L7� J V �'�iis�� <J,6 ILF t �4n Al LIA- ' .11..1111..11. La fJ55M ■ L, S 111111 111111 10 11226—A � ■ � � 1.. J *� '.now '"ap inl6nnation Provided by Dakota County Land S�y Department Docather 200& N Zoning brillannation maintalmW by City Staff. W E(, �- Y I 11.I THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY S The City of Eagon and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this Information. I NOV.24r2009 11:35AM WELSH COMPANIES INC SITE PLAN I �7 -LOCATION A'— - \\ 610 G 44 g� b . 201 6 t en w= '■ =E �3 N0. 9242 P. rr; a w♦ 3� R � 5 m M C-1 rn m 0 z C ..I ad, jCO SM�MOfFICEBUII.DM(i w nMaum�wu¢r � mm amr xro�orn. N w�mw asonea+n"wonMr°iwegartm® eJ�non i WdM Arluwf..i�`La N b 07-005 L- - wHSHGONSTRUCROIt a°+ 0, onreaomrenn6uwroEfNe n e .nera.¢laaarYfhidxm..ti�. r .+ Ereg7nU- - - - --- /�--- rwaeon e570gFRORNE7�IM�Wb�D i J,... 7i �� ;zt�'ti q•�l'(� �. ;� - Jam.._ _ .�Y' ^. N Y�' t Y- y . Y x. 7 i .`•T� fan: �'.i?'r: . /�4ra� W' Il . 1 .. - 1 t , � J � A c w '�..r! 2 `Fggli, • �Iy�''fs.� •5� ��4 li r ELEVATIONS m � 4 i+ T* . ,�Y , f a"� i $3. ?tea r �t, j• .p•' � St A, x P r+ li 1w t d� y'v'F .x _ XK. 5. ♦ .L.� .'$�. PF< v - s � 1 �.+' S .A •' fah r!u� � �'� t � , ^ ,♦ . ` ��" n e�+ �s �. �y .� �K r �i .�."4`�'�m�L�; i`. `fit ds ?% f k, , s Y � �,. - �: M. ¢ .S K 4z•,i, Y�T iii €a f�'�� -#•Y .y�t {. ` ; � '� �'�aa. �•.- r � l }eg "S °x'�"'- f y � to � i -•' e s '4yY.� �. s g.. F 84°`'+x& �� ir, • ,. ►Y M x ° &� t4�z � ¢i { h��.C.'y y, yk Yq' 'L -'�'v, r � . � +'.. _� .� i s a • is �r � � t � ' ��a� ..,fir } �1 ,.+ Y ,`�'�+�.'3. � X� • ��ys -f 'r'�t`.� , ". ad'= ° a i kph are g k i� Ik 4 y ✓°r �fi Y' ♦ R ..�. T G" �` lJ�v�� ,mss N .i . r ?i'r - s5c `�Lt '�F� s.'� �� ' ' Y�� if� ; y`r ,..et'F'�'F '�C P�'�..+, '""'�".1'� �' _..� Y � .s'� .��r+ 'S .'.�' .fi'�'�•.�".�� s � � r .. a _ z a t� r ,• ♦TJas Nw a i ys'� y� D!S, k i Fr- 9. � :L +• 'h �.y.+ -' 1,. RECEIVED NOV 3 01009 November 30, 2009 City of Eagan Re: Variance at 4145 Sibley Memorial Hwy. Eagan, MN 55122 PID # 10- 59101- 010 -01 Dear Council Members: This letter is being written with regards to the request for a variance at the above referenced property. The following paragraphs will help better explain the type of work that was completed as well as the information per your request. In September 2008, two portable storage buildings along with a trash enclosure were built on my property. These buildings are used exactly for that purpose. Since these building are portable, I was not aware that I had to take a permit out to build them. I am will to take all necessary permits out for the work that was completed, however my wish is that the variance requested for this property will be approved. All work has been completed for this project with exception of enclosure gates and minor modifications. The storage buildings and trash enclosure are not easily seen from the street. It is my belief that they are in the best location for this site. Furthermore, they are less visible in this location. To date, I have not received a single complaint regarding these buildings. It is also my understanding the City of Eagan has not either. I would like to point out that the surrounding land use is very similar to my property, with the exception of town homes located towards the south. I would further like to stress that the main reason for the location of the trash and storage shed was for the safety of the individuals working in the building. To further explain, our service department uses compression gas or otherwise known as R -22 and R41OA. We store these in the storage sheds in small quantities. The second factor for our request is the odd shape of the lot. The lot is more of a triangular shape and our main entrance is on the side of the building. Finally, I would like to point out that this property is located on a dead end street. The following information is being given per your request: • A Comprehensive Guide Plan has already been established for this property. • The current zoning classification is BP. I would like to maintain this zoning if I get the variance approved. • Work we wish to do; timing/ phasing: (Explanation stated above). • The existing land use is in compliance. • The surrounding land uses are similar with the exception of the town homes located to the south of my property. • Parking stalls currently being used are 56. The total numbers of parking stalls that presently exist are 81. Sincer ;:�' regory L Pr sse Preusse Family Limited Partnership /�9 Agenda Information Memo Eagan City Council Meeting Old Business January 5, 2010 A. MEADOWLARK RIDGE HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA — APPROVAL OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA AND IMPOSITION OF FEES ON HOUSING UNITS WITHIN THE AREA ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. To approve an ordinance establishing the Meadowlark Ridge Housing Improvements Area. 2. To approve a resolution imposing fees on housing units within the Meadowlark Ridge Housing Improvement Area to finance improvements. 3. To approve a Development Agreement between the City and the Association (if it is executed prior to the January 5 meeting). FACTS (New Information in Bold): The home owners of the Meadowlark Ridge Townhomes have petitioned requested that the City establish a Housing Improvement Area to finance improvements to the exterior common area and building systems including: the removing the existing stucco siding and replacement with vinyl siding; replacing all sheathing; repairing structural damages due to the rot behind the stucco; and replacing windows and patio doors with energy efficient products. A city may create a Housing Improvement Area to finance improvements to the common areas of condo and townhome associations when other financing cannot be obtained. This financing mechanism was adopted by the state legislature because homeowner associations cannot readily obtain financing; they have very little collateral and cannot mortgage individual's units. Within a Housing Improvement Area, the City may finance housing improvements and recover the cost by assessing fees, much like special assessments. The fees are assessed against each unit, and appear on the property tax statement to be paid by the individual homeowners with their taxes. • The sequence of events that has preceded the public hearing is as follows: ❑ In 2005, the City Council was approached by one of the City's Homeowners Association regarding the potential creation of a City policy for the creation of Housing Improvement District. / bo ❑ In response, the City Council adopted a policy on September 20, 2005 that would permit consideration of petitions and the process by which applications would be reviewed. ❑ On January 6, 2009, the City Council received the Meadowlark Ridge Homeowners Association preliminary application and petition and authorized staff to request that the Association make a formal submittal of improvement plans, detailed financial plans and a fee to cover City costs associated with the detailed review. ❑ Those submittals were made and reviewed by City staff, the City Attorney, the Dakota County CDA and Ehlers and Associates, the City's fiscal consultant. They are in order for formal consideration through the public hearing process. ❑ On November 5, 2009, the City Council adopted a resolution calling for a public hearing on December 15, and notice was duly published and distributed to the owners of each unit, as required by state law. • The total cost of the improvements, including administrative costs, is estimated to be $919,800. The City will make a loan to the association in an amount up to $$919,800 at an interest rate of 5% and amortized over 20 years. • The fees with be spread over 50 units on a unit share basis. The approximate average proposed fee for each homeowner is: ❑ $1,500 per year ($125 per month) ❑ $18,500 total if paid in full • The Dakota County CDA staff has inspected the property and determined the proposed improvements are adequate and necessary to rectify the assessed condition. • On December 15, 2009, the City Council held a public hearing and received background and testimony regarding the petition and the creation of the proposed district. The Council closed the public hearing and directed preparation of the three documents noted above. The ordinance and resolution are in hand and in order at this time. The development agreement has been forwarded to the homeowners association for review and execution. If the executed copy is received before Tuesday evening's meeting, all documents will be in order for adoption. If the development agreement is not received by that time, the ordinance and resolution can be adopted and the development agreement can be adopted by the City Council at a later date. /J�/ ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance on pages Z,�3_ through Resolution to be distributed on January 4 Development Agreement on pages through ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE MEADOWLARK RIDGE HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTIONS 428A.I I to 428A.21. BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Eagan as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The City of Eagan ( "City ") is authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 428A.1 I to 428A.21 (the "Act ") to establish by ordinance a housing improvement area within which housing improvements are made or constructed and the costs of the improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees imposed within the area. 1.02. The Eagan City Council ( "Council ") has adopted a Housing Improvement Area Policy. 1.03. The City has determined a need to establish the Meadowlark Ridge Housing Improvement Area as further defined herein, in order to facilitate certain improvements to property known as the "Meadowlark Ridge Condominiums," all in accordance with the Housing Improvement Area Policy, 1.04. The City has consulted with the Meadowlark Ridge Townhomes Condominium Association (the "Condominium Association ") and the condominium owners regarding the establishment of the Meadowlark Ridge Housing Improvement Area and the housing improvements to be constructed and financed under this ordinance. Section 2. Findings. 2.01. The Council finds that, in accordance with Section 428A.12 of the Act, owners of at least 25 percent of the housing units within the Meadowlark Ridge Housing Improvement Area have filed a petition with the City Clerk requesting a public hearing regarding establishment of such housing improvement area. 2.02. On December 15, 2009, the City conducted a public hearing, duly noticed in accordance with Section 428A.13 of the Act, regarding adoption of this ordinance, at which all persons, including owners of property within the Meadowlark Ridge Housing Improvement Area, were given an opportunity to be heard. 2.03. The Council finds that, without establishment of the Meadowlark Ridge Housing Improvement Area, the Housing Improvements (as hereinafter defined) could not be made by the Condominium Association or the housing unit owners in the Condominium Association. 2.04. The Council further finds that designation of the Meadowlark Ridge Housing Improvement Area is needed to maintain and preserve the housing units within such area. 193 2.05 The City will be the implementing entity for the Meadowlark Ridge Housing Improvement Area and the improvement fee. 2.06 The Council finds that the Meadowlark Ridge Housing Improvement Area meets each of the approval criteria contained in the Housing Improvement Area Policy, including the criterion that a majority of the condominium association owners support the project and the Housing Improvement Area financing. The Condominium Association presented evidence to the Council adequate to demonstrate that these criteria were met, including presentation to the Council of the petition described in 2.01 above. Section 3. Housing Improvement Area Defined. 3.01. The Meadowlark Ridge Housing Improvement Area is hereby defined as the area of the City legally described as Units 1 — 50, Meadowlark Ridge Townhomes Condominium Association (CIC 142). 3.02. The Meadowlark Ridge Housing Improvement Area contains 50 housing units as of the date of adoption of this ordinance. Section 4. Housing Improvements Defined. 4.01. For the purposes of this ordinance and the Meadowlark Ridge Housing Improvement Area, the term "Housing Improvements" shall mean the following improvements to the housing units and common areas within the Meadowlark Ridge Housing Improvement Area: removing existing stucco siding and replacement with vinyl siding; replace all sheathing; repairing structural damage to the rot behind the stucco; replacing all windows and patio doors with energy efficient products. 4.02. Housing Improvements shall also be deemed to include: (a) all costs of architectural and engineering services in connection with the activities described in Section 4.01; (b) all administration, legal and consultant costs in connection with the Meakowlark Ridge Housing Improvement Area; and (c) costs of arranging financing for the Housing Improvements under the Housing Improvement Act; and (d) interest on the internal loan as described in Section 6.01. 4 v Section 5. Housing Improvement Fee. 5.01. The City may, by resolution adopted in accordance with the petition, hearing and notice procedures required under Section 428A.14 of the Act, impose a fee on the housing units within the Meadowlark Ridge Housing Improvement Area, at a rate, term or amount sufficient to produce revenues required to provide the Housing Improvements (hereinafter referred to as the "Housing Improvement Fee "), subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Section. 5.02. The Housing Improvement Fee shall be imposed upon each unit (50 units) within CIC 142. 5.03. The Housing Improvement Fee shall be imposed and payable for a period no greater than 20 years after the first installment is due and payable. 5.04. Housing unit owners shall be permitted to prepay the Housing Improvement Fee in accordance with the terms specified in the resolution imposing the fee. 5.05. The Housing Improvement Fee shall not exceed the amount specified in the notice of public hearing regarding the approval of such fee; provided, however, that the Housing Improvement Fee may be reduced after approval of the resolution setting the Housing Improvement Fee, in the manner specified in such resolution. Section 6. Housing Improvement Area Loan. 6.01. At any time after a contract with the Condominium Association for construction of all or part of the Housing Improvements has been entered into or the work has been ordered, and the period for prepayment of the Housing Improvement Fee has expired as described in Section 5.04 hereof, the Council may begin disbursement to the Condominium Association of the proceeds of an internal loan (the "loan ") of available City funds in the principal amounts necessary to finance the cost of the Housing Improvements that have not been prepaid, together with administrative costs. 6.02. The City may refinance the loan or any unpaid portion of the loan at any time by issuing bonds secured by Housing Improvement Fees, as outlined by Section 428A.16 of the Act. Section 7. Annual Reports. 7.01. On October 31, 2010, and each year thereafter until there are no longer any outstanding obligations in connection with the Meadowlark Ridge Housing Improvement Area, the Condominium Association (and any successor in interest) shall submit to the City Clerk a copy of the Condominium Association's audited financial statements. 7.02. The Condominium Association (and any successor in interest) shall also submit to the City any other reports or information at the times and as required by any contract entered into between that entity and the City. Section 8. Notice of Right to File Objections. �8s 8.01. Within five days after the adoption of this ordinance, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to mail to the owner of each housing unit in the Meadowlark Ridge Housing Improvement Area: a summary of this ordinance; notice that owners subject to the proposed Housing Improvement Fee have a right to veto this ordinance if owners of at least 35 percent of the housing units within the Meadowlark Ridge Housing Improvement Area file a written objection with the City Clerk before the effective date of this ordinance; and notice that a copy of this ordinance is on file with the City Clerk for public inspection. Section 9. Amendment. 9.01. This ordinance may be amended by the Council upon compliance with the public hearing and notice requirements set forth in Section 428A.13 of the Act. Section 10. Effective Date. 10.1. This ordinance shall be effective 45 days after adoption hereof. ATTEST: By: Maria Petersen Its: City Clerk Date Ordinance Adopted: CITY OF EAGAN City Council By: Mike Maguire Its: Mayor Date Ordinance Published in the Legal Newspaper: 1�6 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This Development Agreement ( "Agreement ") is made and entered into this day of , 2010, by and between the CITY OF EAGAN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City "), and MEADOWLARK RIDGE TOWNHOMES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, a Minnesota non - profit corporation, (the "Association "). (The City and Association shall collectively be referred to hereinafter as the "Parties "). WHEREAS, the Association consists of 50 condominium units (the "Property "); and WHEREAS, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 428A, the requisite percentage of property owners within the Association filed a petition with the City Clerk to request a public hearing concerning the establishment of a housing improvement area to allow the Association to undertake housing improvements as defined herein; and WHEREAS, the City conducted a public hearing and adopted an ordinance to establish the Meadowlark Ridge housing improvement area; and WHEREAS, the City will finance the housing improvements (as defined herein) and create a housing improvement fee, provided that the Association enter into this Agreement. NOW, WHEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and other good and valuable consideration, the Parties hereby agree as follows: HOUSING IMPROVEMENTS. The Association must undertake the following housing improvements to the Property: removing existing stucco siding and replacement with vinyl siding; replace all sheathing; repairing structural damage to the rot behind the stucco; replacing all windows and patio doors with energy efficient products (the "Housing Improvements "). 2. HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA LOAN. Within 30 days after the Association has provided the City with a copy of the contract(s) for the construction of Housing Improvements, the City shall disburse the sum of $919,800.00 (the "Loan ") to Dakota County Abstract and Title (the "Escrow Agent "). 3. DISBURSEMENTS FROM THE LOAN. The Association may obtain disbursements of the Loan by the Escrow Agent for the Housing Improvements and the following soft costs: Association's engineering consultants; City administration fees; legal fees incurred by the City; fees to be charged by the escrow agent; inspections and fees charged by Dakota County Community Development Agency (hereinafter the "CDA "); payments to the City's financial advisors, Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Disbursements shall be made only after the Association has submitted a disbursement request to and the request has been approved by the CDA. Ay �, 4 M Prior to the commencement of any phase of construction of the Housing Improvements, the Association must first coordinate a pre- construction meeting with the CDA inspection staff and the Contractor. The CDA inspection staff, Contractor and Association representative will review the scope of work and final contract amounts, ensure that sufficient funds are on deposit with the Escrow Agent to complete the Improvements and establish a disbursement schedule whereby the CDA inspection staff will inspect the work completed to date and recommend approval of draw requests to the Escrow Agent. In addition, the CDA will approve all change orders to the construction contracts and, prior to such approval, shall determine that the Association has deposited sufficient funds with the Escrow Agent to complete the work. REPRESENTATIONS BY ASSOCIATION. The Association makes the following acknowledgments, representations and covenants: A. The Association has legal authority and power to enter into this Agreement. B. The Association will obtain, in a timely manner, all required permits, licenses and approvals, which must be obtained before the Housing Improvements may be constructed. C. The Association will: replace all stucco siding and replace with vinyl siding; and replace the windows and patio doors in each and every condominium unit. D. The Association has sufficient reserves to cover the cost of the Housing Improvements that may be in excess of the Loan. REQUIRED REPORTS. The Association shall, on or before the first day of each month, provide the City with a report on the status of the Housing Improvements to the Property. COMPLETION OF HOUSING IMPROVEMENTS. The Housing Improvements must be completed on or before December 31, 2010. DEFAULT. Each of the following occurrences shall constitute an event of default under this Agreement: A. Association shall fail conditions to be kept under this Agreement; to perform any of the terms of or performed by the Association B. Association shall fail to construct the Housing Improvements on or before December 31, 2010; M-4 C. Failure by the Association to undertake the replacement of: all stucco siding with vinyl siding and replace windows and patio doors in each and every condominium unit; D. Failure to maintain an independent professional management firm for the operation of the Association; and E. Failure to deposit funds into the project fund sufficient to complete the Housing Improvements as determined by the CDA. 8. REMEDIES. In the event of a default by the Association, the City may, at the City's option, request that the CDA coordinate completion of the work in default and seek reimbursement from the Escrow Agent and from the Association for any costs that exceed the amount of the Loan; or, the City may require that the Escrow Agent disbursement any unused portions of the Loan to the City. 9. NOTICES AND DEMANDS. Any notice required or permitted under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be given when and if sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, properly addressed as follows, or such other address as may hereafter be designated in writing by either of the Parties: IF TO CITY: City of Eagan Attn: Jon Hohenstein, 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 WITH A COPY TO: Robert B. Bauer, City Attorney Severson, Sheldon, Dougherty & Molenda, P.A. 7300 West 147`h Street, Suite 600 Apple Valley, MN 55124 IF TO ASSOCIATION: Meadowlark Ridge Townhomes Condominium Association Attn: Terri Redshaw Property Manager Gassen Companies 7275 Bush Lake Road Edina, MN 55439 10. Law GOVERNING. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted under the laws of the State of Minnesota. I MEADOWLARK RIDGE TOWNHOMES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Its: CITY OF EAGAN, a Minnesota municipal corporation By: Mike Maguire Its: Mayor By: Maria Petersen Its: Clerk /90 STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 2010, by , the of MEADOWLARK RIDGE TOWNHOMES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, a Minnesota non - profit corporation, on behalf of the non - profit corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2010, by Mike Maguire and Maria Petersen, the Mayor and Clerk of the CITY OF EAGAN, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the municipal corporation. Notary Public /9/ Agenda Information Memo January 5, 2010, Eagan City Council Meeting VII. NEW BUSINESS A. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT — STEEPLECHASE (TOLL MN, LP) ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve (OR direct findings of fact for denial) a Planned Development Amendment to allow building coverage of up to 25% for nine remaining vacant single - family lots within the Steeplechase development at 1434, 1431, 1439, 1447, 1457, 1493, 1497, 1470 and 1486 Wellington Way, legally described as Lot 2, Block 1; Lots 1, 3, and 5, Block 3; Lots 3, 12 and 13, Block 4; and Lots 3 and 7, Block 5, Steeplechase of Eagan, subject to the conditions listed in the APC minutes. REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: Majority of Council Members Present FACTS: ➢ The Steeplechase development was platted in 2005. The development is zoned PD, and consists of 37 single- family homes and 58 townhome units. ➢ The Planned Development Agreement specifies that R -1 zoning standards apply to the single - family lots, including a maximum 20% building coverage to lot area ratio. ➢ Toll is proposing to increase the allowable building coverage from 20% to 25% on the 9 remaining vacant single - family lots. The nine vacant lots range in size from 13,639 to 16,904 sq. ft. ➢ The requested amendment is to accommodate buyers' demands to customize their home with options that increase the building footprint. ➢ The average building coverage for the existing developed single - family lots is 16.7 %. With the proposed change to allow 25% coverage on the remaining vacant lots, the average building coverage ratio will be 18.8 %. ➢ The APC held a public hearing on December 22, 2009, and recommended denial of the PD Amendment on a 7 -0 vote for the following reasons: • Concern for the precedent this amendment could set. • The amount of the increase in coverage requested. • Lack of benefit to the City of the proposed amendment. /9C�_ ISSUES: ➢ One resident spoke at the APC meeting and expressed concern that larger homes and less green space would not benefit the area or the community. 60 -DAY AGENCY ACTION DEADLINE: January 29, 2010 ATTACHMENTS (3): Location Map, page Lft December 22, 2009 Draft APC Minutes, pages 11-5- through %46 Planning Report, pages 1_L_C_ through.24 /�j3 SAW , �!;'�■1 x!!11! /� _ I Advisory Planning Commission December 22, 2009 Page 2 of 7 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Steeplechase Applicant Name:Toll Brothers, Inc. Location:1431, 1434, 1439, 1447, 1457, 1470, 1486, 1493 &1497 Wellington Way; Application: Planned Development Amendment A Planned Development Amendment to allow the remaining lots to exceed the 20% standard building coverage by 5 %. File Number: 33- PA- 12 -11 -09 City Planner Ridley introduced this item and highlighted the information presented in the City Staff report dated December 14, 2009. He noted the background and history. Chair Chavez opened the public hearing. Applicant Alex Martin, Division Vice President of Toll Brothers in Minnesota, discussed the layout of the lots and he stated he is not proposing to build into the side yard setbacks. Tom Ferber, 1518 Wellington Way, questioned information on the Toll Brother website relative to the number of lots available and the fact that construction had already begun on one of the lots being considered this evening. He further stated his opposition to the amendment because larger homes and less green space would not benefit the area or the community. There being no further public comment, Chair Chavez closed the public hearing and turned the discussion back to the Commission. Chair Chavez asked the applicant to comment. Mr. Martin discussed that the Lot 7, Block 5 building permit was issued and it is under the 20% standard building coverage. He clarified that 3 of the 9 lots are on hold for the outcome of the application and one has been sold and is currently being built on. Member Keeley expressed concern for the precedent that this request could establish. Member Supina commented that a number of developed lots within the subdivision fall in the size range of the subject lots but still meet the 20% standard. He stated that the lots haven't changed. He further stated that he is not comfortable with a blanket 25% but would find a lot coverage of 21 or 22% more palatable for the 3 pre -sold lots. Chair Chavez discussed the increase from 20% to 25% represents a 25% deviation to the R -1 standard and, further, a 25% lot coverage represents a 50% increase in lot coverage when compared to the current built coverage of 16.7% and he would not support the request. Member Filipi stated he agreed with Chair Chavez and that he did not see a benefit to the City to make the jump from a 20 to 25% for lot coverage.. Member Keeley moved, Member Supina seconded a motion to recommend approval of a Planned Development Amendment to allow the remaining lots to exceed the 20% standard building coverage by 5% on properties located at 1431, 1434, 1439, 1447, 1457, 1470, 1486, 1493 &1497 Wellington Way legally described as Lot 2, Block 1; Lots 1, 3, and 5, Block 3; Lots 3, 12 and 13, Block 4; and Lots 3 and 7, Block 5, Steeplechase of Eagan, subject to the following conditions: 1 �� Advisory Planning Commission December 22, 2009 Page 3 of 7 1. An Amendment to the Planned Development Agreement shall be executed and recorded against the property at the Dakota County Recorder's office. 2. Building coverage shall not exceed 25% for the following single - family lots: Lot 2, Block 1 Lots 1, 3, and 5, Block 3 Lots 3, 12 and 13, Block 4 Lots 3 and 7, Block 5 After the motion and second, the following discussion took place: Member Dugan stated he cannot support the request due to reasons previously cited by Chair Chavez and Member Keeley. A vote was taken. All voted in favor to approve. Motion carried 0-7. Member Keeley moved, Member Daley seconded a motion to recommend denial of a Planned Development Amendment to allow the remaining lots to exceed the 20 %d standard building coverage by 5% on properties located at 1431, 1434, 1439, 1447, 1457, 1470, 1486, 1493 &1497 Wellington Way legally described as Lot 2, Block 1; Lots 1, 3, and 5, Block 3; Lots 3, 12 and 13, Block 4; and Lots 3 and 7, Block 5, Steeplechase of Eagan. A vote was taken. All voted in favor of denial. Motion carried 7-0. /96 PLANNING REPORT CITY OF EAGAN REPORT DATE: December 14, 2009 APPLICANT: Toll Brothers, Inc. PROPERTY OWNER: Toll MN LP REQUEST: Planned Development Amendment LOCATION: W of Pilot Knob at Wellington Way COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: LD, Low Density ZONING: PD, Planned Development SUMMARY OF REQUEST CASE: 33- PA- 12 -11 -09 HEARING DATE: December 22, 2009 APPLICATION DATE: Nov. 30, 2009 PREPARED BY: Pamela Dudziak The applicant is requesting approval of a Planned Development Amendment to allow building coverage of up to 25% for nine remaining vacant single- family lots within the Steeplechase development at 1434, 1431, 1439, 1447, 1457, 1493, 1497, 1470 and 1486 Wellington Way, legally described as Lot 2, Block 1; Lots 1, 3, and 5, Block 3; Lots 3, 12 and 13, Block 4; and Lots 3 and 7, Block 5, Steeplechase of Eagan. AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW Chapter 11, Section 11. 50, Subdivision 5 states, in part, 1. The provisions of this chapter may be amended by the majority vote of the council, except that amendments changing the boundaries of any district or changing the regulations of any district may only be made by an affirmative vote of two- thirds of all members of the council. 2. The Council shall not rezone any land or area in any zoning district or make any other proposed amendment to this chapter without first having referred it to the advisory planning commission for its consideration and recommendation. BACKGROUND/HISTORY The Steeplechase development was platted in 2005. The development is zoned PD, and consists of 37 single - family homes and 58 townhome units. The Planned Development Agreement specifies that R -1 zoning standards apply to the single - family lots. Thus, each single - family lot within the PD is held to a maximum 20% building coverage to lot area ratio. If � Planning Report — Steeplechase December 22, 2009 Page 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS To date, 54 of 95 total dwelling units (57 %) have been completed within Steeplechase of Eagan. 28 of the 37 single - family homes have been constructed. Nine of the single - family lots remain vacant. SURROUNDING USES The following existing uses, zoning, and comprehensive guide plan designations surround the subject property: EVALUATION OF REQUEST Compatibility with Surrounding_ Area —The single - family use is consistent with surrounding development which consists of single - family homes, the Steeplechase townhomes, a church and a regional park. Description of Proposal — The PD Agreement applies typical R -1 standards to the single - family portion of the development. Toll is proposing to modify the terms of the Planned Development as it pertains to building coverage for the nine remaining vacant single - family lots. Toll proposes to increase the allowable building coverage from 20% to 25% on the remaining vacant lots. No change is proposed to the lots that have already been developed. A 20% maximum building coverage standard will continue to apply to the developed single - family lots. The single - family minimum lot size in R -1 zoning is 12,000 sq. ft. The single - family lots within Steeplechase range in size from 13,639 to 29,664 sq. ft. The nine vacant lots range in size from 13,639 to 16,904 sq. ft. Toll has submitted two tables identifying lot areas and building coverage, both existing and proposed. The average building coverage for the existing developed lots is 16.7 %. With the proposed changes to the remaining vacant lots, the average building coverage ratio will be 18.8 %, if all nine remaining lots build to the proposed 25% maximum. M Existing Use Zoning Land Use Designation North Single-family R -1, Single-family LD, Low Density East Single - family A, Agriculture LD, Low Density Lebanon Hills Regional Park P, Park P, Park and Recreational Church PF, Public Facilities Open Space QP, Quasi - Public South Steeplechase Townhomes PD, Planned Development LD, Low Density Lebanon Hills Regional Park P, Park P, Park and Recreational Open Space West Single-family R -1, Single-family LD, Low Density EVALUATION OF REQUEST Compatibility with Surrounding_ Area —The single - family use is consistent with surrounding development which consists of single - family homes, the Steeplechase townhomes, a church and a regional park. Description of Proposal — The PD Agreement applies typical R -1 standards to the single - family portion of the development. Toll is proposing to modify the terms of the Planned Development as it pertains to building coverage for the nine remaining vacant single - family lots. Toll proposes to increase the allowable building coverage from 20% to 25% on the remaining vacant lots. No change is proposed to the lots that have already been developed. A 20% maximum building coverage standard will continue to apply to the developed single - family lots. The single - family minimum lot size in R -1 zoning is 12,000 sq. ft. The single - family lots within Steeplechase range in size from 13,639 to 29,664 sq. ft. The nine vacant lots range in size from 13,639 to 16,904 sq. ft. Toll has submitted two tables identifying lot areas and building coverage, both existing and proposed. The average building coverage for the existing developed lots is 16.7 %. With the proposed changes to the remaining vacant lots, the average building coverage ratio will be 18.8 %, if all nine remaining lots build to the proposed 25% maximum. M Planning Report — Steeplechase December 22, 2009 Page 3 Applicant's Narrative - Toll has indicated that buyers may customize their home with a variety of options such as an expanded kitchen, larger family room, or adding a first floor bedroom, that can increase the building footprint. Toll's narrative indicates that in the current residential market, buyers are demanding more of these options, while the remaining vacant lots are the smaller lots within the Steeplechase development. Thus, the larger footprints desired by buyers are resulting in building coverage ratios that are above the allowable 20% maximum. The applicant states that the proposal will result in "consistent home styles and designs throughout the single family development." Evaluation —The lot coverage ratio limits building size relative to the lot area, so smaller houses on smaller lots, and larger houses on larger lots maintain the same coverage ratio. In this proposal, although the nine lots are the smaller lots within the Steeplechase development, all of the affected lots are larger than 12,000 sq. ft. The PD zoning permits flexibility of performance standards. While on average the development will not exceed 20% building coverage; the proposal would result in a different standard applied to these nine single- family lots as compared to other lots within the same development. Existing homeowners in this development, or elsewhere in the City, may seek similar flexibility to enlarge their homes beyond 20% of the lot size. However, in the case of Steeplechase, this would require another PD Amendment. SUMMARY /CONCLUSION Toll Brothers is requesting approval of a Planned Development Amendment to allow building coverage of up to 25% for nine remaining vacant single - family lots within the Steeplechase development. Toll is proposing the increase in lot coverage to allow greater flexibility to meet buyers' needs. Toll's narrative states there will be no negative impacts to surrounding properties, and that the flexibility afforded by higher lot coverage will "result in consistent homc styles and designs." The acceptability of the proposed flexibility within this Planned Development and possible precedent is a policy matter to be considered by City officials. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED To recommend approval of a Planned Development Amendment to allow building coverage of up to 25% for nine remaining vacant single - family lots within the Steeplechase development at 1434, 1431, 1439, 1447, 1457, 1493, 1497, 1470 and 1486 Wellington Way, legally described as Lot 2, Block 1; Lots 1, 3, and 5, Block 3; Lots 3, 12 and 13, Block 4; and Lots 3 and 7, Block 5, Steeplechase of Eagan. If approved the following conditions shall apply: 1. An Amendment to the Planned Development Agreement shall be executed and recorded against the property at the Dakota County Recorder's office. /99 Planning Report — Steeplechase December 22, 2009 Pase 4 2. Building coverage shall not exceed 25% for the following single - family lots: Lot 2, Block 1 Lots 1, 3, and 5, Block 3 Lots 3, 12 and 13, Block 4 Lots 3 and 7, Block 5 clriv 6 1 1 s m �a = 1 1 s m Current Zoning and Comprehensive Guide Plan Land Use Map Zoning Map Current Zoning: PD Planned Development 000 0 000 1100 Feet Comprehensive Guide Plan Land Use Map Current Land Use Designation: LO Low Density {00 0 {00 1200 Feet Steeplechase PD Amendment 33- PA- 12 -11 -09 t� V` ;32! p, r mru MW rr 1J ■ all Ls P 0 P i P d P' P i �.� -� mSS NW 31BIYBd N343 S2OH10219 110i IIGIHX3 iOl INVDVA Inorccoozl v4-so`8N"`"79r"88`d kiio NVOV3 30 3SVH03ld33is z3.R0,0ZOOS — — — — — — — — — — — — ............. . .............. . ............. t GYOH 90N31 1011d IC AVAHDIH GIV 31VIS AINrI03 U5 . . .... . . ...... . ..... ....... . .. . . . ....... So s ul .600ZOOS at ------------ tj j. V �s to :fs' 73. X" 10 0 .... . ....... . . .. .^_.r l -kr 3als . k m N .0 X�l 'E-P 0 Ou t1l to /* z 4 co 4 U�j 9 9 4 iz J� 1p. N d ia' 0!T 0 91, 0 0 4 :H 6F 00Z[ :yam- - - - - - - - - - - -- 14 O O l N), 19A tiq cn C= C= C�4 co CD 0 LLJ >1 LU C..) LLJ w Toll BBrothers America's Luxury Home Builder- Our Proposal Steeplechase of Eagan is a single family and townhome residential development located west of Pilot Knob Road and south of Cliff Road in the City of Eagan. In the summer of 2005 the City of Eagan and the developer Toll Brothers consummated the Final Planned Development Agreement for Steeplechase of Eagan. The Development Agreement anticipates building lot coverage of the single family lots to be no greater than 20 %. Toll Brothers is requesting the Planned Development Agreement be amended to allow lot coverage no greater than 25% for the remaining nine (9) single family lots. Back _ground The residential real estate industry has experienced a significant decline in new home sales dating back to the spring of 2006. Toll Brothers and Steeplechase of Eagan is no exception to this down turn in the residential market. Today's real estate market is a buyers market and homebuilders must be flexible to meet the exacting demands of buyers. Toll Brothers' ability to customize a home allows buyers to personalize their home to suit individual tastes and needs. Home buyers may choose from a variety of options that increase building foot print and size by expanding kitchens, enlarging family rooms, adding first floor bedrooms and other options that allow a home buyer to make their home unique. In part, this flexibility of design is what makes Steeplechase of Eagan a unique and desired neighborhood. The typical single family lot in Steeplechase accommodates single family houses described above and still meet the 20% building coverage standard. Nine (9) single family lots exist, however, where a typical Toll Brothers home built in Steeplechase may not meet the 20% building coverage standard, and continue to provide buyers with the design flexibility necessary in today's market place. Rather than build a home that is substandard to the neighborhood Toll Brothers is requesting a 25% building coverage ratio be applied to the remaining nine (9) lots. The slightly higher building coverage for the nine lots will have no negative impact on the neighborhood, or on public infrastructure or services (see below for further discussion). Further, this proposal will result in consistent home styles and designs throughout the single family development. The overall building coverage for the single family development will remain below 20 %. Attached to this narrative are exhibits illustrating the per lot and cumulative effect of this proposal. Existing Land Uses On Subiect Property: Existing land uses on the subject property is single family residential. Townhome residential is located immediately south of the single family area. RECEIVED NOV 18 2009 New York Stock Exchange • Symbol TOL Minnesota Division - 1400 Corporate Center Curve, Suite 110, Eagan, MN 55121 (651) 365 -0551 • Fax (651) 365 -0557 toll�brothers.com 0 Toll `Brothers America's Luxury Home Builder® Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning Within 600 Feet: The subject property is surrounded by single family and Regional Park land uses. Impact Of The Planned Development Amendment On: Surrounding property and land uses? The proposed plan amendment will have no impact on surrounding property and land uses and is consistent with these land uses. 2. Subject property? The proposed plan amendment will benefit the subject property. Toll Brothers may continue to offer homes that the market has shown it wants. As single family lots are sold the remaining lots are smaller and less likely to accommodate the house and flexibility desired by buyers. The amendment to the PD will allow the community to maintain its current character. 3. City services such as water, sanitary sewer, stormwater, and roads? City services will not be impacted with this proposal. Public infrastructure (water, sanitary sewer, roads, and stormwater) of sufficient size and depth already serves the subject property to accommodate the total number of single family units approved in the 2005 Planned Development Agreement. No additional single family units are requested as part of this proposal and the overall building coverage remains below 20 %. The need will not change for city services such as police and fire. Additional property tax revenue will likely occur as a result of this proposal. 4. Does the proposal result in a better use of the land? Approval of the Amendment will allow the land to be used consistent with the original subdivision approval and with the existing homes already built on -site. RECEIVED 0 18 2009 New York Stock Exchange • Symbol TOL Minnesota Division 12330 86th Ave. North • Maple Grove, MN 55369 • (763) 4�A-1714 • Fax: (763) 494 -8891 tollbrothers.com f n �/ a �r� � �X1SrrNts Ch. CZ), N LLJ In- W C-) LU Of z O 0 00 0 0 0 W W J z JJQ ZZ ZJZQJ Q J_)Z .J ¢J JQ J C7��Z 007 (n C79U' Z9 Z 99[7 9Z9 �Z W Q w z w w W— Z Z W Z W z— w W W Z W— W W— W �, c�Z 0 w Wgoo> Ww0 wwgwow w >o ow > o oow ww 0>0 wow 0> wo o w w Z w �UwwW ��0�u- LL ww3 wWw LL Ix w _ p w a ww w wa a w a a (n z zz z z z o X w m lzz z �zz zzz zZ zzlzz z z �o j w z 0 =2w0U 00 0WOOE000 =ZU =WUUU a aWw 0w�po�o =U�U w z D O z J 'z�Ja�� w wzz zZ Uzw z z ¢ U U�zOV zww - U2pU 000 a n wzzJa 0ZZ60900 = S2 = Q moo W w w o WW g OD V' 00000'- N0000NM0 00 to NCO N00 r- � Mto-7 0 y 0 W co (G tn� V'n� th Qj (000��0(O n t(700n �COh0000 (00000 T = a0 U n a w UN �t9 w W ¢� Fw- 0 O M W (Q pJ LL C3 f- M v O N00000t` Go 0 CO(O. - n — Cl) 0000MOd'— IT Ntn0000 to to naO 000 v —N0(0 Mto -Iti[)LOr- I- MN W) n �� mO 0 w W a. w O f` 6 Oto 6 GO (M6 NO 0000 vcO N(O600 N00(O V 4 to 6 N 666 N CO (O r- OOO(hLO �C)(7) V N v O N W J ? J co ::t M o (O to GO `0 O(OM �:T tiMMO(n NN 00M�004 LO CO Go N (A .-aoM ��O(O t- 04 N w W 4 (D W LLJ O 0 Z U � N Ul C) W W 0 cq W W p~ 0OM O Go N 0 r > L, J1�t (O N 0 n N to to _ Q W~ 0 Cl) ^o Cl) N O M 0 0 II W J QZ � U v � v co M v c00 � coo Q Q O> w CO W O 0 D z a W LU o 0= � w > u � � z oZaovM V Vz(Dw F- Lo(ONw r F- z z w z wN�r- F- -0 vl- I- tnMzN f- O x40QO N¢(0 w h 00 Qv N0 M 01- w 0 QQ�Q to 00 to l-O �.- to (M O�QN Q V (O (.i U) Q V'(00000 V t- LO O(0 .- 0000(.) r'U(O N COUPNO t-O. -U V U_¢ N¢ N¢ N N N Cl) N Q N N (M N M N Cl) Cl) Q¢ M¢ N M N¢ M M M M M N M M¢ M � > C) -J W - J Q � 0 > Y 0 U z p MMMMMMMM'IT It �r V It V Vv 'IT It tototnMtntntotnr J Z U) 0 NM�Tto(0 r 00 r NM V to CO �co(D X co r-w to V orl- -00 h 0 to V MN� x J w OO+- J N M V to 0 f` 00 0 NM�N(Oti W 00 r N N NMSf N N N �(0n0ol N N N N N co M NM7 co M M V, co M co J 0 F.. a �r� � �X1SrrNts Ch. CZ), N LLJ In- W C-) LU Of J?Zi 0(POSllfft� 0 0 N 7 Im W W W w z O H 0 Z -j 00 Z Z 0 Z 0 Z J -j 0 z J J U) WW J J J Q QJ Q J Q J 998' J J 969 Q J J 9Z Q J 9 % W WQ o C7 Wgoo> in (7(- Ww5wow gU)a�(D Z� z > oow o >o o> o ~ (7 z w wW0 > w >o Ow O w Wow w0 w Z LL �ULL LL w 3: LL LL W LLLL� LLB LL LL W LL z a zz z za ° z o a m (i O J z z �zz Zzzz z z z zZ ZZ &Z z z Q� � j w Z 0 =�WUU C/) 0 0 0 0 =zU W O O =wUUU E 0 0 0 a F W W 0 W 0 O =U�U O U) O w z Qwo W Q9z00 QwOQa000 W a wzz aww Uzw 0wZQ0�0 w U = U U= U == U= U U U = LL MOO U QUO 2 O F- U) =W�OOO V OaDOOO ONO000NM000ODOO'4OONO-N V MO rO W U ,y N ao Kl CO fA (0 f� n rn ri to O ao O) ((i O (0 Yf (ri t` Kf LO ao t` vi m CD f` ao ao (O ati ao (n W J W d IL w Lu w w Q F- 00 0J LL h M V O Na0 OR O(O(Or a00 I- I-M r0o V 00(M NNWM Oar Sri O I-00 O0O r (. M(n O CD V r LO MN(n On f' r C) co > O W W wa. �0 O r 00(0 00 ao MO NO 0000 V (D N_CO N00W O CO V V Ln W N (000 N (D (O f-1-00f- OOOMO V V N v (D Nw ,j 0 J J M V M O 00000) Oh 01-(D (DM I-MM0)LOLO(D C) N (D N a0 M0CF) - a) N 00 CV N u') fl- Iz 00M t`(0 V (0 V a) C) r- CO (D fl- ITN (D(Dn N ^¢ > W U) W U Q OO w -' q v w ui > M Q FQ- fA o v R� J0 0 J M V (D O O N N 0 I� 0 N ti O V O O W wZ0 Cl) f- NO M 0 0 11 W w > Q Q > U v cc2 V cMD Cl) ( (°)n V c°D C7 W > O z F- QQ O w (9 w Q W > 0 _ UOLL w F- F- F- F- I- F- F- F- F- F- LL'OQ�QNQ(OD OVOnOOViQ�N000N(OD(U) QQ - QLO a00 w Q LI FO VV (1 aM700iMQN O J Qaci(00 �= Q N a LO N Q vw N N 00 N M a0 N UI-- Q N O00 N M N M 00 N M ao Cl) V Q V Q Z;; M 0 a W N N M M N (� a r M N M 00r M M M I` N OrU M M Q V M LLI (J I> > > > > » > > > F- W .. U) b LL O w Y W0 Cl) Cl) M M(M Cl) MCl) V It V V V V V V V V V V V (()O(n U') LO U)OOr 0 M w ad F- O rN Cl) VO(O f`OorNM VO(0 r.-co Sao f- CDO VMN - Wrl- WO VMNr � J J_ m OJ r N M V O w f-- W 0 O r r N M V O (D f� 00 0 r CO N N M N V N O N CD N � N CO N 0 N O M r M N M M M V M O M W M N M J J 0 F F- J?Zi 0(POSllfft� 0 0 N 7 Im W W W w Agenda Information Memo January 5, Eagan City Council Meeting B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — H1 MN INC ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve (OR direct preparation of Findings of Fact for Denial) a Conditional Use Permit to allow a minor motor vehicle repair business located at 525 Diffley Road, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Hawthorne Ridge, subject to the conditions listed in the APC minutes. REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: Majority of Councilmembers Present FACTS: ➢ The subject property is zoned NB (Neighborhood Business) which allows minor motor vehicle repair via a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). ➢ The retail property is located at the corner of Hwy 3 and Diffley Road, with access from Diffley Road. ➢ The applicant proposes to lease approximately 3,000 SF in the shopping center, specifically in the northeastern most portion of the L- shaped building. ➢ The proposal includes removal of turf on the east side of the building to construct a 25 -foot wide drive aisle to access the four service bays to be added to the north- eastern portion of the existing building, facing Hwy 3. ➢ The service bays will be visible from public right -of way; the applicant must submit a landscape plan, acceptable to city staff, to provide screening of the service bays from right - of -way. The landscaping should be installed no later than July 1, 2010. The applicant proposes the four garage doors to match the color of the existing building. ➢ The Advisory Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on December 22, 2009 and is recommending approval. 60 DAY AGENCY ACTION DEADLINE: January 15, 2010 ISSUES: None ATTACHMENTS (3): Location map on page A? . Draft December 22, 2009 APC minutes on pages62ZL4hfo� Staff report on pages through 2ja. Advisory Planning Commission December 22, 2009 Page 4 of 7 B. Hawthorne Ridge 2009 Applicant Name:H1 MN Inc. Location:525 Diffley Road; Lot 1, Block 1, Hawthorne Ridge Application: Conditional Use Permit A Conditional Use Permit to allow an automotive repair shop. File Number: 24- CU- 13 -11 -09 Planner Thomas introduced this item and highlighted the information presented in the City Staff report dated December 17, 2009. She noted the background and history. Jim Henkel, H1 MN Inc, the applicant, described his Eco- friendly business. Chair Chavez opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Chavez closed. the public hearing and turned the discussion back to the Commission. Member Keeley moved, Member Filipi seconded a motion to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow an automotive repair shop located at 525 Diffley Road, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Hawthorne Ridge, subject to the following conditions: 1. This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded at Dakota County within 60 days of approval by the City Council 2. Updated building facades shall be constructed per the submitted elevation plan received December 1, 2009 and shall include garage doors painted to match the color of the building. 3. Overnight parking shall not exceed three customer vehicles and shall be located per the Site Plan received December 4, 2009. 4. NoI additional outdoor storage shall be allowed. 5. The applicant shall submit a ';aandscape plan, acceptable to city staff, to provide screening of the service bays from Hwy 3. The landscaping shall be installed no later than July, 1, 2010. 6. All signage is subject to City Code requirements. A vote was taken. All voted 'in favor. Motion carried 7 -0. a�� PLANNING REPORT CITY OF EAGAN REPORT DATE: December 17, 2009 APPLICANT: H1 MN Inc CASE: 24- CU- 13 -11 -09 HEARING DATE: December 22, 2009 PROPERTY OWNER: Excel Development LLC APPLICATION DATE: Nov. 18, 2009 REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 525 Diffley Road COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: O /S, Office Service ZONING: NB, Neighborhood Business SUMMARY OF REQUEST PREPARED BY: Sarah Thomas The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a light duty automotive maintenance and repair business located at 525 Diffley Road, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Hawthorne Ridge. AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW Conditional Use Permit: City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.40, 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: A. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City. B. Will be harmonious with the general and applicable specific objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and City Code provisions. C. 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. Planning Report— H1 N N Inc December 22, 2009 Paee 2 D. 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. E. 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. F. Will have vehicular ingress and egress to the property which does not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic on surrounding public streets. G. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. H. Is appropriate after considering whether the property is in compliance with the City Code. Subdivision 41), 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. BACKGROUNDMISTORY The City acquired the subject parcel through condemnation in 1994 for right -of way and ponding purposes as part of a public improvement project (Diffley Road Upgrade — Project 607). Shortly thereafter, it was determined that a portion of the site was developable. P:�or to selling the property, it was rezoned in 2002 from Agriculture to Neighborhood Business (NB). Due to neighborhood concerns, the City established covenants prohibiting certain uses that would otherwise be allowed in NB zoning. The proposed use, automotive repair, is not prohibited by the covenants. EXISTING CONDITIONS The property consists of approximately 3 acres and is developed with a 24,400 SF shopping center. The auto repair business is proposed in the northeastern most portion of the L- shaped building. a13 Planning Report — H I MN Inc December 22, 2009 Page 3 SURROUNDING USES The following existing uses, zoning, and comprehensive guide plan designations surround the subject property: EVALUATION OF REQUEST Compatibility with Surrounding Area — The NB zoning district is generally located adjacent to or in close proximity to residential neighbors and intended to provide daily retail goods and services. The proposed use is a conditional use in the NB district and appears compatible with both the existing development and adjacent land uses. Site Plan — Minimal changes are proposed to the existing site. The applicant proposes to remove the existing sod on the east side of the building and create a drive aisle approximately 25 feet wide to access four garage service bays. The service bays will be added to the north- eastern portion of the existing building, facing Highway 3 and will be visible from public right -of way. Landscaping — The applicant must provide screening of the service bays to meet City Code requirements. A detailed landscape plan prepared by a registered landscape architect should be submitted for review and approval by City staff. City Code also requires that all landscaped areas be served by automatic irrigation. Landscaping should be installed by July 1, 2010. Parkin — Two parking stalls are proposed to be removed to accommodate these changes; however parking requirements are still met. Three parking stalls have been designated for overnight parking of vehicles for those customers who leave their vehicle for service the next morning. Grading — The existing area proposed for use as a service drive is currently turf grass. The applicant proposes to pave the area with bituminous pavement. Because the area is not large enough to meet permit requirements, a City grading permit will not be necessary. Storm Drainage — This proposal will utilize the existing storm sewer on the site, with slight modifications. Utilities — The existing building on the site is connected to the City sanitary sewer and water main systems. No additional connections are proposed with this application. C �?' / LI, Existing Use Zoning Land Use Designation North Single Family and R -1, Residential LD, Low Density Neighborhood Single district/ NB, (0 -4 units /acre)/ RC, Business Neighborhood Business Retail Commercial South Single Family R -1, Residential LD, Low Density Single district (0 -4 units /acre) East Inver Grove Commercial Commercial Hei hts West Single Family R -1, Residential LD, Low Density Single district (0 -4 units /acre) EVALUATION OF REQUEST Compatibility with Surrounding Area — The NB zoning district is generally located adjacent to or in close proximity to residential neighbors and intended to provide daily retail goods and services. The proposed use is a conditional use in the NB district and appears compatible with both the existing development and adjacent land uses. Site Plan — Minimal changes are proposed to the existing site. The applicant proposes to remove the existing sod on the east side of the building and create a drive aisle approximately 25 feet wide to access four garage service bays. The service bays will be added to the north- eastern portion of the existing building, facing Highway 3 and will be visible from public right -of way. Landscaping — The applicant must provide screening of the service bays to meet City Code requirements. A detailed landscape plan prepared by a registered landscape architect should be submitted for review and approval by City staff. City Code also requires that all landscaped areas be served by automatic irrigation. Landscaping should be installed by July 1, 2010. Parkin — Two parking stalls are proposed to be removed to accommodate these changes; however parking requirements are still met. Three parking stalls have been designated for overnight parking of vehicles for those customers who leave their vehicle for service the next morning. Grading — The existing area proposed for use as a service drive is currently turf grass. The applicant proposes to pave the area with bituminous pavement. Because the area is not large enough to meet permit requirements, a City grading permit will not be necessary. Storm Drainage — This proposal will utilize the existing storm sewer on the site, with slight modifications. Utilities — The existing building on the site is connected to the City sanitary sewer and water main systems. No additional connections are proposed with this application. C �?' / LI, Planning Report — H1 MN Inc December 22, 2009 Paee 4 Access/ Circulation — Access to the retail center is from Diffley Road and will remain unchanged with this plan. Access to the proposed auto service bays will be through a new service drive along the east edge of the building. SUMMARY /CONCLUSION The applicant is proposing an automotive repair business with four service bays to be located in an existing neighborhood shopping center. The proposed use is a conditional use in the NB zoning district and appears compatible with adjacent and surrounding land uses; however, the applicant should visibly screen the service bays from the public right -of -way. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED To recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a light duty automotive maintenance and repair business located at 525 Diffley Road, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Hawthorne Ridge. If approved the following conditions shall apply: This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded at Dakota County within 60 days of approval by the City Council. 2. Updated building facades shall be constructed per the submitted elevation plan received December 1, 2009 and shall include garage doors painted to match the color of the building. 3. Overnight parking shall not exceed three customer vehicles and shall be located per the Site Plan received December 4, 2009. 4. No additional outdoor storage shall be allowed. 5. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan, acceptable to city staff, to provide screening of the service bays from Hwy 3. The landscaping shall be installed no later than July 1, 2010. 6. All signage is subject to City Code requirements. �/S amc wffNffl suseo Ig LIN WI 1 13 Ell Irml Asp L3 ro n� ��© �QQOP ''�'��• �� din Fm ro Uw rlLj 1�7�i■� \\�P►n,�,A�►_��a�iA, s: 1 i US i; • ��`` ��o ©�`�rr ,�� ©L►� =,� ^fie LV r� r ry // fir' aw►� Us �cGv ©��GiOoi1'IG:.� 'fin : i iW LIE In ' •f i 1 i = — t W •i y w / n .........,,,,•...,,,..w,.�- .t. _ . _ J ; is t - �1 �1 t fg r. tiv • jd 'y J ' •f i 1 i = — t W •i y w / n .........,,,,•...,,,..w,.�- .t. _ . _ J ; is t - �1 �1 t fg r. C) Q • Q l< O I I r I 1 I ! 1 ! 1 I I I 1 I� I> I I I 1 r I 1 I r I I ! I 1 I 1 ( 1 t I i I I I I i it !I . 11 II 11- II II it I! SITE PLAN I i`i FT-1 F ii l : FT I I r r r r r r� .,..•• " 'Il +r,,,, 1J_L1J— L1J— L1J_L1J —I ! 1J �J- � oN y aiy z N ■ a a:� i`i FT-1 F ii l : FT I I r r r r r r� .,..•• " 'Il +r,,,, 1J_L1J— L1J— L1J_L1J —I ! 1J �J- � oN y aiy o Mq6 M Y"I--LT ❑� ❑ �5 m� um �o 6 + •� u ,u +I4r wis 4 = }} A II . RECEIVED OEC 0 4 2009 z o Mq6 M Y"I--LT ❑� ❑ �5 m� um �o 6 + •� u ,u +I4r wis 4 = }} A II . RECEIVED OEC 0 4 2009 4!� co Z (Z 0 M II II II II II II II II ELEVATIONS .1 O ;z Z C I Z 0 rri rri n Z II z Cl Z O II II 0 z II II LL III II 4!� co Z (Z 0 M II II II II II II II II WF i aao 5 z ..0 C) c II < 0 II lz II II 0 ZII II II II II II II C tl II II II II II II II II it — II II ILL II II II � PR - X I A 0 0. ELEVATIONS .1 O ;z Z C I IZ rri rri n WF i aao 5 z ..0 C) c II < 0 II lz II II 0 ZII II II II II II II C tl II II II II II II II II it — II II ILL II II II � PR - X I A 0 0. ELEVATIONS O ;z Z C I IZ z II WF i aao 5 z ..0 C) c II < 0 II lz II II 0 ZII II II II II II II C tl II II II II II II II II it — II II ILL II II II � PR - X I A 0 0. - ,�,-�, g: tom•-- -�,r`�- s*.'.;i `� _ - .� - ION - ,�,-�, g: tom•-- -�,r`�- s*.'.;i `� _ - .� _ Pal a�, I M r . t SA1 f 1° as � Rates as w '{."k�' t x RECEIVED DEC p 4 20 Narrative Honest -1 Auto Care is the premier provider of honest service, by friendly exceptionally well trained staff, in a clean, comfortable and very well appointed atmosphere. Our shops are very modern in design and operation. We specialize in performing regularly scheduled maintenance and same -day repair work. Our true strength lies in our brand and in the leadership role that Honest -1 Auto Care owns in the marketplace. We are the first automotive service company to use an environmentally responsible approach as the primary positioning of our brand. Honest -1 Auto Care proactively takes extraordinary steps to protect our environment by helping our customers maintain the most efficient and safe condition of their vehicles. By maintaining a vehicle in this manner you will experience reduced emissions and improved fuel economy. In addition to offering exceptional service programs for our customers to choose from we also offer specialized, Eco -Auto Care programs for those that want to play a greater role in helping the environment. Honest -1 Auto Care has its own proprietary line of treatments and additives that offer unique benefits and effectively reduce vehicle emissions. We as a company have also adopted a certification program for all our locations called the Environmentally Sustainable Actions program. The program requires that each location implement numerous eco- friendly practices including recycling 9S +% of all waste generated, reducing pollution, modifying business practices to conserve resources, utilizing products in our business that have the least negative impact on the environment, implementing green technology in our facilities to reduce utility use, and offering specialized services and products to our customers. Each Honest -1 Auto Care location is an independently owned business. The owner is awarded a franchise and given the opportunity to operate a location as Honest -1 Auto Care only after they have undergone an extensive vetting process by the Franchisor, have successfully completed a very comprehensive training program and have made the commitment to operate their location in compliance with the franchises systems and method of operation. We service the Autos by appointments. Additional Autos prior to service will be park as showing on Site Plan. Overnight Autos will be park inside the garage and in designated area as per Site Plan. Landscaping, no changes is proposed. James Henkel, the applicant, owns and operates an existing location in Roseville. In addition James is an Area Representative for Honest -1 Auto Care. James is responsible for selling, training and supporting additional locations in MN. James has owned and operated successful automotive repair facilities for more than 9 years. =# O N E S T -1 r'" �� r �S 6a" , ti Agenda Information Memo January 5, 2010, Eagan City Council Meeting C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — CLEARWIRE ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve (OR direct preparation of findings of fact for denial) a Conditional Use Permit to permit construction of a 150' communications monopole on property located at 1010 Aldrin Drive, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Eagandale Corporate Center No. 5, subject to the conditions listed in the APC minutes. REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: At least three votes FACTS: ➢ Clearwire proposes to construct a telecommunications tower at 1010 Aldrin Drive. ➢ The proposed monopole will be located within a 30' x 30' leased area adjacent to the southeast corner of the building. The lease area will be enclosed with a 6' chain link fence and will be surfaced with gravel. ➢ Clearwire proposes access to the tower via the existing paved area. A new 12' gravel drive is proposed to be installed between the existing pavement and the lease area. ➢ The location of the proposed tower construction is in a clearing and no trees will be removed for its construction. There is a wetland and trees located south of the proposed tower site. ➢ The Advisory Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 22, 2009 and recommended approval of the request. ISSUES: ➢ An adjacent property owner stated concern for the visual impact the monopole would have on the area. ➢ The APC stated the industrial zone and the specific location are appropriate. 60 -DAY AGENCY ACTION DEADLINE: February 1, 2010 ATTACHMENTS (3): Location Map, pages2�r December 22, 2009 Draft APC minutes, page c;Ug —c).2� Planning Report, pages throughc;ZQ QQ1/ viii iif'�llw &11107 1 1 Advisory Planning Commission December 22, 2009 Page 5 of 7 C. Clearwire - Aldrin Drive Applicant Name:Clear Wireless, LLC Location: 1010 Aldrin Drive; Lot 1, Block 1, Eagandale Corporate Center No. 5 Application: Conditional Use Permit A Conditional Use Permit to allow a 150' wireless communication monopole. File Number: 11- CU- 18 -11 -09 City Planner Ridley introduced this item and highlighted the information presented in the City Staff report dated December 16, 2009. He noted the background and history. Pat Conlin, representing Clearwire, explained that Clearwire is a high -speed wireless internet provider. She discussed the application and the need for the monopole. Member Daley questioned if the primary customer was residential or commercial and if there were going to be more requests in the future. Ms. Conlin stated that it was for both residential and commercial and that due to the technology utilized by Clearwire, additional locations would be necessary as they establish their infrastructure. Member Filipi, queried how much power would be emitted from -the monopole. Ms. Conlin stated she did not know but that Clearwire's model is consistent with FCC guidelines. Chair Chavez opened the public hearing. Ty Bueckler, representing Uline at 985 Aldrin Drive, stated his opposition to the proposed monopole location due to the negative visual impact it will have on the area. There being no further public comment, Chair Chavez closed the public hearing and turned the discussion back to the Commission. Chair Chavez explained the authority for review the APC must adhere to, Member Supina, stated his approval of the application but suggested the omission of condition no. 4 due to potential maintenance issues in the future and his uncertainty on whether the cabinet needed to match the principal building. Member Keeley stated concern with the amount of towers possible in the City and would like carriers to try and use existing buildings in the city rather than monopoles. Member Filipi moved, Member Daley seconded a motion to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit to permit construction of a 150' communications monopole on property located at 1010 Aldrin Drive, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Eagandale Corporate Center No. 5, subject to the following conditions: 1. This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded at Dakota County within 60 days of approval by the City Council. 2. As required by City Code, the 150 -foot monopole antenna tower shall accommodate the applicant's antennae and at least two additional comparable communication providers. The C;)a6 Advisory Planning Commission December 22, 2009 Page 6 of 7 monopole shall also accept antennae mounted at varying heights; and allow the future rearrangement of antennae upon the tower. 3. The tower and accessory equipment building shall comply with the general standards outlined in City Code Section 11.70, Subdivision 26 -G. 4. The equipment cabinet shall be finished in a tan or brown color to match the principal building. 5. The lease area shall be secured with a security fence as shown on the Site Plan dated December 1, 2009. 6. The monopole tower shall be painted light blue. After the motion and second, the following discussion took place: Member Keeley asked for clarification on condition no. 4 City Planner Ridley stated that staff believes the City Code does require. color coordination and, further, the tan or brown color can be applied at the factory so maintenance issues should be no greater than with a green or grey cabinet. Mr. Ridley also spoke to Member Keeley's concerns about the potential proliferation of monopoles. He stated that the City Code encourages co'- location by allowing such requests to be approved administratively; so, in addition•to expense of` constructing a new monopole, a new free - standing structure also requires the time and expense associated with the CUP process. A vote was taken. All voted in favor. Motion carried 7 -0. do? 7 PLANNING REPORT CITY OF EAGAN REPORT DATE: December 16, 2009 APPLICANT: Clearwire PROPERTY OWNER: Maplewood Acres, Inc REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 1010 Aldrin Drive CASE: l l- CU- 18 -11 -09 HEARING DATE: December 22, 2009 APPLICATION DATE: Dec. 2, 2009 PREPARED BY: Pamela Dudziak COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: IND, Limited Industrial ZONING: I -1, Limited Industrial SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to permit construction of a 150' communications monopole on property located at 1010 Aldrin Drive, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Eagandale Corporate Center No. 5 in the SW '/4 of Section 11. AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.50, Subdivisions 4C and 4D provide the following. Subdivision 4C states that the Planning Commission shall recommend a conditional use permit and the Council shall issue such conditional use permits only if it finds that such use at the proposed location: 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. 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. Planning Report — Clearwire, 1010 Aldrin Drive December 22, 2009 Paee 2 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. BACKGROUNDMISTORY The subject site was platted in 1998 and the 41,168 s.f. office /warehouse building was constructed in 2001. A CUP was approved for this site in 2000 permitting outdoor overnight truck storage. EXISTING CONDITIONS The property consists of 10.74 acres. Access to the site is from Aldrin Drive. The building is long and narrow with vehicle parking along the west side, and truck docks and maneuvering area on the east side. A Variance was approved in 1998 to allow for the shared access and maneuvering area with the adjacent lot to the east and cross easements were executed for this purpose. SURROUNDING USES The following existing uses, zoning, and comprehensive guide plan designations surround the subject property: W Planning Report — Clearwire, 1010 Aldrin Drive December 22, 2009 Page 3 EVALUATION OF REQUEST Compatibility with Surrounding Area — The site is zoned I -1, Limited Industrial. The City's zoning ordinance permits communications towers as a conditional use in the I -1 zoning district. Site Plan — The Site Plan shows the proposed tower within a 30' x 30' leased area adjacent to the southeast corner of the building. Access to the site is from Aldrin Drive. Clearwire proposes access to the tower via the existing paved area. A new 12' gravel drive is proposed to be installed between the existing pavement and the lease area. The lease area will be enclosed with a 6' chain link fence and also will be surfaced with gravel. The site was landscaped with construction of the building in 2001. No new landscaping is proposed. The location of the proposed tower construction is in a clearing and no trees will be removed for its construction. There is a wetland and trees located south of the proposed tower site. Easements/Rights -Of -Way/ Permits — There is an existing cross easement in place for the shared access and maneuvering area between this lot and the adjacent lot to the east. 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 in the attached exhibits. 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: (iii) 150 feet, measured from ground elevation of the tower to the highest point of the tower- antenna/satellite dish combination, provided the tower is designed to: o�'.3U Existing Use Zoning Land Use Designation North Owobopte Industries; U -Line I -1, Limited Industrial IND, Limited Industrial South Skyline Displays BP, Business Park BP, Business Park East Warehouse I -1, Limited Industrial IND, Limited Industrial West Skyline Displays; Metz Bakery BP, Business Park BP, Business Park EVALUATION OF REQUEST Compatibility with Surrounding Area — The site is zoned I -1, Limited Industrial. The City's zoning ordinance permits communications towers as a conditional use in the I -1 zoning district. Site Plan — The Site Plan shows the proposed tower within a 30' x 30' leased area adjacent to the southeast corner of the building. Access to the site is from Aldrin Drive. Clearwire proposes access to the tower via the existing paved area. A new 12' gravel drive is proposed to be installed between the existing pavement and the lease area. The lease area will be enclosed with a 6' chain link fence and also will be surfaced with gravel. The site was landscaped with construction of the building in 2001. No new landscaping is proposed. The location of the proposed tower construction is in a clearing and no trees will be removed for its construction. There is a wetland and trees located south of the proposed tower site. Easements/Rights -Of -Way/ Permits — There is an existing cross easement in place for the shared access and maneuvering area between this lot and the adjacent lot to the east. 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 in the attached exhibits. 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: (iii) 150 feet, measured from ground elevation of the tower to the highest point of the tower- antenna/satellite dish combination, provided the tower is designed to: o�'.3U Planning Report — Clearwire, 1010 Aldrin Drive December 22, 2009 Page 4 (A) Accommodate the applicant's antennae and at least two additional comparable antennae for other communication providers. The proposed tower is 150 feet in height. The antenna equipment consists of 3 panel antennas and 3 microwave dishes attached to the tower. The submitted elevations show the antennae equipment mounted at approximately 148', such that the top of the antennae are even with the top of the tower at 150'. In addition, a lightning rod is mounted to the top of the tower. While it appears larger on the elevation drawing, the applicant has indicated the lightning rod will be approximately 12 inches in height. To comply with this standard, the tower also must be designed to accommodate at least two additional users and should also allow for the future rearrangement of antenna at different heights. 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 to two times the height of the tower or 300 feet, whichever is greater. The proposed equipment cabinet is set back more than 100 feet from all property lines. There is no residential property within 300 feet of the site. C) The tower shall be located in the rear yard. The proposed tower is located in the rear yard of the lot. The equipment is screened from the public street by the building, and from adjacent properties by existing natural vegetation around the wetland. The area is visible from the adjacent property to the east, which shares the truck maneuvering and loading area with the subject site. 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 show any extraneous platforms or structures associated with the tower. Because the tower will be located in a clearing, staff suggests it be painted light blue to blend in with the sky. f) Existing vegetation on the site shall be preserved to the greatest possible extent practical. The proposed tower is located in a clearing south of the building. 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 (1) x 5 feet (h) in size. Accessory equipment will be within a ground mounted cabinet located within the lease area. The cabinet is 2'(w) x 2'(1) x 4.5'(h). The color elevations submitted show a gray equipment cabinet. The principal building on this lot is tan with a brown base and red -brown brick accents. The c2 31 Planning Report — Clearwire, 1010 Aldrin Drive December 22, 2009 Page 5 cabinet should be a tan or brown color to match the materials on the principal building. 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. 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. Clearwire has provided a letter from Julio Hernandez, Radio Frequency Engineer, indicating that this site is the "only Candidate in the Search Ring due to the Zoning Conditions in the area." In addition, the applicant's narrative states that this site was selected after BCBS declined a building mounted location on their 10 -story office building on Yankee Doodle Road. The RF Engineer's letter states that because of the higher frequencies at which Clearwire's network system operates, it is necessary to place the antennas well above the obstructions such as trees, buildings, etc. Also, Clearwire requires "a Line of Sight between the site locations, plus a clearance zone for the proper operation of our Microwave links." As a result, Clearwire is proposing the tower height at 150 feet. Finally, the letter states that their installation "will not interfere with other adjacent or neighboring transmission or reception of communications signals including emergency services." SUMMARY /CONCLUSION Clearwire is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 150 -foot monopole communications antennae tower on property located at 1010 Aldrin Drive. Clearwire indicates that because their system requires line of sight between installations, this is the only available site within their search area, and they were unable to obtain a suitable co- location or building mounted site. Therefore, a new tower is necessary to meet their technical performance needs and Planning Report — Clearwire, 1010 Aldrin Drive December 22, 2009 Pase 6 provide coverage in this area. As required by city ordinance, the proposed tower should provide co- location potential for at least two other users. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED To recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a 150 -foot monopole telecommunications tower for property located at 1010 Aldrin Drive, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Eagandale Corporate Center No. 5, in the SW' /4 of Section 11. If approved, the following conditions apply: 1. This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded at Dakota County within 60 days of approval by the City Council. 2. As required by City Code, the 150 -foot monopole antenna tower shall accommodate the applicant's antennae and at least two additional comparable communication providers. The monopole shall also accept antennae mounted at varying heights; and allow the future rearrangement of antennae upon the tower. 3. The tower and accessory equipment building shall comply with the general standards outlined in City Code Section 11.70, Subdivision 26 -G. 4. The equipment cabinet shall be finished in a tan or brown color to match the principal building. The lease area shall be secured with a security fence as shown on the Site Plan dated December 1, 2009. 6. The monopole tower shall be painted light blue. a33 LAND USE REGULATIONS (ZONING) § 11.70 (0. 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 (1), 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 neigh- borhood; 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; 3. 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. CITY CODE SEC. 11 -70, SUBD 26.G. a3�4 Development/Developer: Clearwire Application: Conditional Use Per _ Case No.: 11- CU- 18 -11 -09 :�:; ,-33S N � } �l f1 THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY j'jq* The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this information and are W E ` ` n not responsible for ertors or omissions. S community Daw�opm.nt Mwran«R Current Zoning and Comprehensive Guide Plan Land Use Map Zoning Map Current Zoning: 1 -1 Limited Industrial 600 0 600 1200 F..t Clearwire Conditional Use Permit 11- CU- 18 -11 -09 Comprehensive Guide Plan ' Land Use Map IND @ ®®0pp IND G` C OG N10 IND a Current Land Use Designation: °•°• 0 IND Limited Industrial a ii & �� }� J q ]�� x � 7 +F _ 1 7 � y �': � A k si ', n .. .: a. :� �, `' Ji L , _ ��((( ^J ', ;, t �.', �~ ITV ". �f zi.K.M.,�.y "•.0 1 '3 ab�.3 R � A '�,l�y�^� Ry � �, vrw Ft 'FW T , 77 a Y. ia-T...F� IL F •F 1°4 —J .a ai: > ,m N �. :: ,-r•� pry. f a ''�� t � F M Al kFt -n A ri Yr',4 ....i...w -.rte{ ati El! �. Aso. W F Hsu c %a •aya – — – — — �• ` C. ROt d) Voult Concrete Parking — S91– Tronetonnerq/ / mw s \ Fnd. Cap{ b „� I W Concrete m / Truck 3 Parking $ UN w `f m to Concrete Building •{ } \ 1\ ~ C a Parking a'� Q LOT 1 metal Building I m { J } \ go 1 r \! v I 1 1 j ITrrckta \ C Parking ' \\ �0 O C�f a Podl i 1 1 Tank Storage 1 } Ull (Grass) Cone. Pod 895502• "2 r —' 175.110, — – (Grass) m °o Wetlands F BLOCK 1 CWNER: PROPOSED TOWER �O. Maplewood LAT: 4450'15.28` NAD83 S82 s ( f 0�t3 } 2 3 sE Acres Inc. N�E� PN 10- 22519D- 010 -01 LON: 93V8'31.11• NAD83 (•jF^ 1,u ELM. 893.0' NAVO88 ° .. SE Comer Lot 1 Fnd. Cop IT $ P.O-R. Leese Area SITE PLAN • 0 P V to W 0 A W a a. t W Q CL 'sue ` E=£$ o� eEg . Y$" R .ia> s'a6a x -I t 1/■ I I t 1 1 1 ■■ 1 I■/ 1/ ■■ 1 ® ®0® -699T"- a®D69 ® ®% ®0 A CZ e Y J. ooao e DD ° � • Yvi ° » »5`um 3° UU' ml m Z 6 G¢ 1/ 1 1 1 ■ I 1 1 1 I ■mt 1111■mdlllillll IIIIIIII z s S m 0 m Hip. a za s o:=s 803 Z oeE f C Z s W W U w W g �'•� �� awl 8 i0� + 7 a x 5 i mz� _� £ z *a s £7a d d° 0 ° . ot6 d i 9 y d uj 9 9 +$ s °go W $g $bY W g $o+ G m E `e e ui �m T w 8 g ms: :ssW w �s .4� 1au a LU �E K+ =3 °m a <Lit 1 a•'b i., ;ius W 0 z cc 0 AREA V jO � o p O 2 � � a M ire m h O °if Z U' C ° -W° Fo 3 h 15 te a 'Q f0 0 3 al e V3 6 J o � �I:., E 0 m o W E °o w a u + C \'f 41 \ �z \ mm > \ter < CL 7 \ y � N z FmF m a w S 4 0 —� ✓r S 01'44'45 E a w 30. D' IW :t\,) O 0_ � 8 10 h ro C Wn • � o BIZ N J N 01.44'45 W n. n Y $ W 30.00, c cp O = — Z + o 2w z IL W 0 z cc 0 AREA V jO � o p O 2 � � a M ire m h O °if Z U' C ° -W° Fo 3 h 15 te a 'Q f0 0 3 al e V3 6 J o � �I:., e� 4 .1 .r Ili r O n , VHL)VUbLU lMt'HUVLMt:N I b r zz 0 dF 9 m� o V W W F W J p e xa � Z n � o � W — C A 0. L A V3 '• F7fi�� i� �i r I in u S. CA \ ( u c Ln I Cl) 70 (D .c Q U ; c c CL Lr) C C-4 N 0 \� � <R /�(� DO itu , 7. zmz E.00=E IBM%'. '2 . ... . . ......... . .... .......... ----- - - - --- a) �d u CL c =) CLO CL— c CY CL (1) x 0 C) a) w - 0 M u X, ca C� x 0 (_)O -0:2 g u C: 0 C> zN:Q 0 C) CL U c 0- a) :2 > > C� u 0 CN 0 X CL 0 E _j 0 C: a) 0 C14 c < z '0 C>0 CD < -j U C- C-4 6:,- 0 D Ol w2 CL 0 CO C3 ol C%4 C14 cn C14 r 04 LO 10 LO %0 CL S. CA \ ( u c Ln I Cl) 70 (D .c Q U ; c c CL Lr) C C-4 N 0 \� � <R /�(� DO itu , 7. zmz E.00=E IBM%'. '2 . ... . . ......... . .... .......... ----- - - - --- m :21 U a CQ AD O 0 m 93 u 0:5 CLU 0 7F).r- Gb= c 0 q) 0 B CN C: 0 , ; Q) a) r- > (u , c Qf E go, LD 2 C3 �:D M-n , 0 QE -r,- r- U, -0—W U) or- c — () 70 (D ".E -C u p 7 3r (D gco 0*1 O zw uu a) LU V) O C z liJ CA H! j @! E.r- 1 K u U I ,I LID U 0 a u H CD UL U C11 1! 04 ID 3. 0 !�Zo cz WE zKzrt uog;�Z- z -Uzr=u N A) z 3�.00SRI 0) V"O . . . . . . . . . . . V) C,4 0) 0 U m < m v rN X 0) c LU Ue/ c;Q ... . ... .... - U a) >1 C-3 1-6, 8 kv) \§� \ ^� � �^ a \�� \ ' � u u U) c LO C: C,4 C14 Z) u CLI 0 § � � � \� 0 �oz z Z mg!'o, ila.R 73;.Oo.a: E,-o M N- MSP0040 1010 Aldrin Dr Eagan, MN 66122 Facing East T i 1i r T clearw're W Pal, wircicss broadband PROPOSED at"m �, "Cl V J J n: J O a w 0 V z` 4 0 §0 - - l; y K } i4- LL TIM .1 CK T ra p N r xaC cr A �«. °�,�� - - �- � � a-..; 6 ,i_ � '� sue• �+° '�:. - �' T'`aA'a�, .'4i1'�IS•. aif'iF .YW - ."t. Y'+-' 1, "y"•TT„ R ICT..° 3} *gll lh! i K4,L �^i rya .0 \' c ,� ��+cS � •t- a- �'�^i p ti�Gnu yyr�id - ��A - fs tit I 4 _¢ n won, a' 1 w spy TQ 1M AM, CIA= 0 P $., Al4 ' '- iCt$Ee. gq'4 411 '` ice, ✓"' .s Ur 'fan�cee C3ooc19e �d � K 'z tit d -6 s-+�. < .a �, �a Ufa` - ,r �s 4 low imeg mzt _ EEO c Z T *Mel a {# "O e`�'- _�, �. t lilt! +fir' €, t ,1 't di 3' s.. ISI Lazo `sElm �� u S Like �*£ , 4 sh '" � ks 4 �� id`s x, g �. df `X - ,ri : {T� �` ,E` k .. ,._ g � .y.. .A ♦ j ' .y � � d x, ATI 1- c €k� u` c GUtabOE' ems,; �� ` f i ,.a '. M' :+ x� 200 Am�y e �'ech fa oe E � �` ' a?�k� - Yra�'> I' t7dg¢£ �aw.�`.7BRIG'}6Ce�1jUt�i,� <J�.: Eck' 3 t �?s`` et.r d.: @04�0ia., ©a4 f W � C fj alt1Q133ft CUP NARRATIVE CONTINUED RE: 1010 Aldrin Dr. PID # 10- 22519 - 010 -01 Clearwire Communications, LLC, an operating subsidiary of Clearwire Corporation (NASDAQ:CLWR), offers a robust suite of advanced high -speed Internet services to consumers and businesses. As part of a multi -year network build -out plan, Clearwire's 4G service, called CLEART?4, will be available in major metropolitan areas across the U.S., and bring together an unprecedented combination of speed and mobility. Clearwire's open all -IP network, combined with significant spectrum holdings, provides unmatched network capacity to deliver next - generation broadband access. Strategic investors include Intel Capital, Comcast, Sprint, Google, Time Warner Cable, and Bright House Networks. Clearwire currently provides 4G service, utilizing WiMAX Unlike other wireless services, CLEAR delivers a mobile broadband Internet experience on par with speeds typically experienced only on wired connections, like DSL. CLEAR customers can expect to see average download speeds of 3 to 6 mbps with bursts over 10 mbps. The CLEAR customer experience is similar to that provided by Wi -Fi, but without the short range limitations of a traditional hotspot. CLEAR uses a 4G technology that differs from Wi -Fi called WiMAX, which provides service areas measured in miles, not feet. In these markets, the Clearwire network utilizes an area -wide WiMAX radio system from Motorola. 1 __ 1. With -this type -of- service it -is necessary to_ have antenna locations-in closer proximity to each other than is necessary for a wireless telecommunication provider. Clearwire uses dish antennas that work by line -of -sight and therefore the distance between locations needs to be calculated very carefully to provide the best coverage for their customers. Also, the dishes must be mounted to a structure that will allow for the very least twist - and -sway as to eliminate any connection interruptions. This site was selected as a second choice after being turned down by the Blue Cross /Blue Shield building located on Yankee Doodle Road. Other rooftop locations would not provide the height necessary to obtain the coverage needed and other property for a new tower were not located in a zoning district that allows commercial communication towers. Clearwire is proposing to build a 150' tower with 3 panel antennas and 3 microwave dishes attached to the tower. The ground space will be a fenced area approximately 30'x 30' with Clearwire's equipment located in a Tx 3' cabinet located on a 4' x 6' slab. All building material will be that of which will be determined by the City of Eagan. / NARRATIVE ly clear 'r4 November 20, 2009 Kik nd, O `WA 98033 I 425 216 7600 I 425 216 7900 owww.rLearwire.com RE: Proposed Wireless Installation ID MSP0040 in the City of Eagan �. To Whom It May Concern: Clearwire provides wireless broadband services that use a network of fixed base stations. Clearwire operates between 2496 MHz and 2690 MHz spectrum using 10 MHz channels. Clearwire Network Design is driven by Coverage Target Areas and by High Speed Data Rate (Mbps), our main objective is to achieve the largest Coverage area in the residential and business areas and to deliver the highest data rate levels. Proposed MSP0040 Search Ring Coverage Target is located around the intersection of Yankee Doodle Rd and Lexington Ave: -S.- giving higher priority to the Residential areas -South of Yankee Doodle Rd. To meet this objective Clearwire has identify a Raw Land location on 1010 Aldrin Dr. This was the only Candidate in the Search Ring due to the Zoning Conditions in the area. Clearwire Network System operates at higher frequencies compared to conventional PCS /Cellular carriers. Due to this fact our System is more susceptible to Radio Frequency Signal Attenuation when travelling thru obstructions (trees, buildings, etc), therefore we require to place the antennas well above the obstructions. Also we require having a Line of Sight between the site locations plus a clearance zone for the proper operation of our Microwave links. Based on this, MSP0040 has been proposed at 150 feet. It will serve to connect 3 Microwave Links for the Backhaul Network. Clearwire will comply with all FAA and FCC regulations and applicable standards from all other federal, state, and local laws and regulations. As the applicant for this project, Clearwire will ensure that such installation, repair, operation, upgrading, maintenance and removal of antennas by the wireless RECEIVED NOV 24 2009 V/ N HIGH SPEED INTERNET MADE SIMPLE. WAY SIMPLE. /5 �� *�, 4400 Carillon Point I PHONE: ( FAX: I ONLINE: Kirkland, WA 98033 ) 425 216 760D I 425 216 7900 1 www.dearwirexom G communication provider shall be lawful and in compliance with all applicable laws, orders, ordinances and regulations of federal, state and local laws and regulations. Antenna usage at our wireless installations will not interfere with other adjacent or neighboring transmission or reception of communications signals including emergency services. Sincerely, %`ds°'�fauutwdiy Julio Hernandez Radio Frequency Engineer Clearwire Minneapolis -Saint Paul Market (240) 277 -4689 C2-S-0 HIGH SPEED INTERNET MADE SIMPLE. WAY SIMPLE. IXHIBrr F. Kathie Hayes From: Randy_Blaha @bluecrossmn.com Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 1:22 PM To: cbeck @fmhc.com Cc: khayes @fmhc.com; pconlin @fmhc.com Subject: Re: Telecommunications on Eagan Tower (MN- MSP0040) Blue Cross is not interested at this time. Regards, Randy Blaha Project Manager, Real Estate and Facilities Services Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota PO Box 64560, Route N194 (651) 662 -2542 direct (612) 369 -2635 mobile "Chuck Beck" <cbeck mhc.com> To <randy blahaAbluecrossmn.com> cc <khayesafmhc.com >, <pconlinafmhc.com> 08/04/2009 09:02 AM Subject Telecommunications on Eagan Tower (MN- MSP0040) Please respond to <cbeck fmhc.com> _...__. _. _........._......_I Randy, _ As a Real Estate agent for Clear wire, we have identified a 10 story building (1200 Yankee Doodle Road) in Eagan, MN. Clearwire is interested in placing a telecommunications system on the roof deck of the building to provide wireless services to the surrounding area. Please respond with Blue Cross's position regarding the placement of these type of systems on their property. Sincerely, Chuck Beck FMHC Corp Important news about email communications: If our business rules identify sensitive information, you will receive a ZixMail Secure Message with a link to view your message. First -time recipients will be asked to create a password before they are granted access. To learn more about ZixMail, ZixCorp Secure Email Messag a Center, and other ZixCorp offerings, please go to http:// userawareness .zixcorp.com/secure4fmdex.ph2 ---------- - - - - -- The information contained in this communication maybe confidential, and is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) na med above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please return it to the sender immediately and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer sy stem. If you have any questions concerning this message, please contact the sender. Unencrypted, unauthenticated Internet a -mail is inherently insecure. Internet messages may be corrupted or incomplete, or may incorrectly identify the sender. 1-7 RECEIVED NOV 1 8 2889 AGENDA CITY OF EAGAN REGULAR MEETING OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER JANUARY 5, 2010 A. CALL TO ORDER B. ADOPT AGENDA C. CONSENT AGENDA 1. APPROVE EDA Minutes D. OLD BUSINESS E. NEW BUSINESS a�(O1. NORTHEAST EAGAN REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT — Assessment Agreement for Certain Costs for McGough Development Q 2. REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS — Authorize Submittal of Letter of Interest to Dakota County for Consideration of a Recovery Zone Bonding Allocation for Projects in Cedar Grove and Northeast Eagan F. OTHER BUSINESS G. ADJOURN Asa Agenda Information Memo Eagan Economic Development Authority Meeting January 5, 2010 NOTICE OF CONCURRENT ACTIONS The Council acting as the Board of Commissioners of the Economic Development Authority ( "EDA ") may discuss and act on the agenda items for the EDA in conjunction with its actions as a Council. A. CALL TO ORDER ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To convene a meeting of the Economic Development Authority to run concurrent with the City Council meeting. B. ADOPT AGENDA ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To adopt the Agenda as presented or modified. C. CONSENT AGENDA ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve the Consent Agenda as presented or modified. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — The minutes of the December 1, 2009 EDA meeting are enclosed on pages,-) -!� y — 2S5 as3 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE EAGAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Eagan, Minnesota December 1, 2009 A meeting of the Eagan Economic Development Authority was held on Tuesday, December 1, 2009 at the Eagan Municipal Center. Present were President Maguire, Commissioner Bakken, Commissioner Tilley, Commissioner Hansen and Commissioner Fields. Also present were Executive Director Hedges, Community Development Director Hohenstein and City Attorney Dougherty. ADOPT AGENDA Commissioner Bakken moved, Commissioner Fields seconded a motion to approve the agenda as presented. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Bakken moved, Commissioner Fields seconded a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 It was recommended to approve the minutes of the November 17, 2009 EDA meeting as presented. OLD BUSINESS There were no Old Business items. NEW BUSINESS CEDAR GROVE FINANCING — NICOLS RIDGE CONCEPT REVISION AND FINANCIAL SETTLEMENT Community Development Director Hohenstein discussed the proposed amendment to the TIF Development Agreement with Lennar Corporation for the Nicols Ridge Development. Commissioner Bakken moved, Commissioner Fields seconded a motion to approve an Amendment of the TIF Development Agreement to implement the proposed settlement with Lennar regarding the Nicols Ridge project in the Cedar Grove Redevelopment District and authorize the EDA Officers to execute the agreement. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 asp NORTHEAST EAGAN REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT Community Development Director Hohenstein discussed a request for an assessment agreement for additional acquisition costs for the assembly of property for the Blue Gentian Corporate Center project. Commissioner Hansen moved, Commissioner Tilley seconded a motion to direct staff to prepare an assessment agreement for additional acquisition costs for the assembly of property for the Blue Gentian Corporate Center project for future consideration by the EDA. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 CDA REDEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE GRANT FOR CEDAR GROVE PROJECT Community Development Director Hohenstein discussed the submittal of a CDA Redevelopment Incentive Grant program application for demolition and improvement activities in the Cedar Grove Redevelopment District. Commissioner Tilley moved, Commissioner Fields seconded a motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the submittal of a. CDA Redevelopment Incentive Grant program application for demolition and improvement activities in the Cedar Grove Redevelopment District. Aye: 5 Nay:;, 0 OTHER BUSINESS There were no Other Business items. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Bakken moved, Commissioner Fields seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11` :20 p.m. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 Date Thomas Hedges, Executive Director ass Agenda Memo Eagan Economic Development Authority Meeting January 5, 2010 New Business 1. NORTHEAST EAGAN REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT — Assessment Agreement for Certain Costs for McGough Development ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve an assessment agreement for additional acquisition costs for the assembly of property for the Blue Gentian Corporate Center project for future consideration by the EDA. FACTS (New Information in Bold): At its meeting of March 6, 2006, the EDA and City Council approved a TIF Development Agreement between the City and MG Eagan, an entity of McGough Development, for the redevelopment of property in the Northeast Eagan Redevelopment District No. 2 -4. Under the terms of the agreement, MG Eagan agreed to pay all of the City costs of acquisition of properties the company could not acquire by private negotiation. Since that time, the developer has received approval for the development of the Blue Gentian Corporate Center project. Subsequently, the City approved the decertification of a portion of District No. 2 -4 and the recertification of a new TIF District No. 2 -5, which includes the Blue Gentian Corporate Center properties. When the developer had acquired most of the properties and had exhausted good faith efforts to acquire the remaining four properties privately, the EDA proceeded with the acquisition of those properties. Initial values were determined to be $2.3 million, which MG Eagan has already paid to the EDA and the EDA has paid to the owners. The total cost of acquisition was subsequently estimated to be $2.8 million. MG Eagan has provided a financial security to the EDA for the difference of $500,000. In light of Commissioners' awards and settlement negotiations, the City Attorney's office is estimating that the total cost of acquisition may be in excess of that amount. The developer has been advised of that circumstance and, while they agree that the additional cost would be their obligation, they have asked that the EDA consider a proposal that any amount in excess of the $500,000 covered by the security be financed through an assessment agreement against the Blue Gentian Corporate Center property. The City Attorney has advised that this is an acceptable mechanism to insure payment of the obligation, even though it differs from the typical situation in which physical improvements are financed through such agreements. While McGough has actively marketed the site since its approval, it has not been able to secure a tenant for the first phase of the development to date. In consideration of the current development and credit markets, the developer has asp stated that the consideration being requested will allow them to control the costs of the project and the financial security, while providing assurance to the City that the additional costs will be paid once the project proceeds. • In consideration of the developer's efforts and the effect of the current economy on development activity, the requested assessment agreement may be in order at the discretion of the EDA. • At its meeting of December 1, 2009, the EDA directed the preparation of an agreement that has been executed by the developer and is in order for consideration at this meeting. ATTACHMENTS: • Location map and development plan on pages �Xy AK4A—,s��n,—, • Assessment Agreement on page through asp `o In N L 00 0 `6 r C W rm m L C. 'L+ V CL CR G L Q CD Z v m w r m N a m cm n_ d v cc m 00 o� J CD 0 0 N Ld N d a m E 0 Z a? m CL 0 2 FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT ( "Agreement ") is made this day of , 2009, by and between EAGAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter the "EDA "), CITY OF EAGAN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City ") and MG EAGAN, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the "Developer "). (The EDA, City and Developer are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Parties "). WHEREAS, the Parties entered into that certain Development Agreement dated March 6, 2006 relating to Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 -4 and also an Amended and Restated Development Agreement dated June 17, 2008 (collectively the "Development Agreement "); and WHEREAS, under Section 3.9 of the Development Agreement, the Developer is required to provide security for reimbursement to the EDA for payment of Public Acquisition Costs, Relocation Costs and other costs incurred by the EDA to acquire the Other Parcels as defined in the Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Public Acquisition Costs, Relocation Costs and other costs anticipated under the Development Agreement are estimated to exceed the amount of the letter of credit, and subsequent cash payment previously provided by the Developer; and WHEREAS, the Developer has requested that any costs in excess of the funds previously provided by the Developer be specially assessed against the property owned by the Developer; and WHEREAS, the City and the EDA are willing to specially assess such costs, all upon the terms and conditions contained herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 1. AMENDMENT OF SECTION 3.9. Section 3.9 of the Development Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 3.9 Security for Acquisition Costs for the Other Parcels. As security for the Developer's obligation to reimburse the EDA for payment of Public Acquisition Costs, Relocation Costs and any other costs hereunder, the Developer must, upon determination of the EDA of the actual costs incurred by the EDA for Public Acquisition Costs, Relocation Costs and other costs hereunder, enter into the Special Assessment Waiver Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "A." In the event the Developer fails to execute and deliver to the EDA and City the Special Assessment Waiver in the form and text of Exhibit "A" within thirty (30) days after the EDA determines the total amount of unreimbursed Public Acquisition Costs, Relocation Costs and other costs incurred by the EDA, the Developer, hereby authorizes the City to specially assess the property owned by it and legally described as: Lot 1, Block 1, Blue Gentian Corporate Center up to the sum of $750,000.00. The Developer, hereby consents to the levy of an assessment of up to $750,000.00 and further waives notice of any and all hearings necessary and waives objection to any technical defects and any proceedings related to the assessments and further waives the right to object or appeal from the assessments made pursuant to this Agreement. 2. No FURTHER MODIFICATION. Except as hereinafter amended, all of the terms of the Development Agreement remain in full force and effect. EAGAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By: Mike Maguire Its: President By: Thomas L. Hedges Its: Executive Director STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 2009, by Mike Maguire and Thomas L. Hedges, the President and Executive Director of the Eagan Economic Development Authority, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the Eagan Economic Development Authority. Notary Public 4 CITY OF EAGAN By: Mike Maguire Its: Mayor By: Maria Petersen Its: City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 2009, by Mike Maguire and Maria Petersen the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Eagan, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public 3 MG EAGAN, LLC By Thomas J. McG gh, Jr. Its: President STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF frA ) rr�seL .0 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Z� day of them f- , 2009, by Thomas J. McGough, Jr., the President of MG EAGAN, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. Not Public JANANN B. ANDERSON Notary Public �€ Minnesota My Commission Expires Jan. 31. 2010 El EXHIBIT "A" WAIVER OF HEARING # Special Assessment Authorization The undersigned requests and authorizes the City of Eagan, Minnesota (Dakota County) to specially assess Lot 1, Block 1, Blue Gentian Corporate Center (the "Property") up to $750,000.00 (the "Assessment') for public acquisition costs incurred by the City under that certain Amended and Restated Development Agreement dated June 17, 2008 to be spread over five years at an annual interest rate of six and one -half percent (6.5 %) against any remaining unpaid balances. The undersigned, for itself, its successors and assigns, hereby consent to the levy of the Assessment, and further, hereby waive notice of any and all hearings necessary, and waive objections to any technical defects in any proceedings related to the Assessment, and further waive the right to object to or appeal from the Assessment made pursuant to this agreement. The first installment shall become due and payable in the calendar year when a building permit is obtained for the Property, but no later than January 1, 2012. MG EAGAN, LLC By c Thomas J. Mc ugh, Jr. Its: President STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF DAKE� ) n-,sc � The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ,�' day of j6p_, 2009, by Thomas J. McGough, Jr., the President of MG EAGAN, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. (:N ary Public SON x�� . 31.2010 APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney's Office Dated: 12 N -216 q APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Public Works Department Dated: THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: SEVERSON, SHELDON, DOUGHERTY & MOLENDA, P.A. 7300 West 147th Street, Suite 600 Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 (952) 432 -3136 (RBB: 206 - 23506) NA o?b /I` Agenda Memo Eagan Economic Development Authority Meeting January 5, 2010 New Business 2. REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS — AUTHORIZE SUBMITTAL OF LETTER OF INTEREST TO DAKOTA COUNTY FOR CONSIDERATION OF A RECOVERY ZONE BONDING ALLOCATION ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To authorize the submittal of Letter of Interest to Dakota County for Consideration of a Recovery Zone Bonding Allocation for projects in the Cedar Grove and Northeast Eagan Redevelopment Districts. FACTS: As a part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, two forms of "Recovery Zone" bonds were created and allocated for use by counties. Dakota County is authorized to issue up to $13,966,000 in Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds, which are for governmental purposed, and up to $20,949,000 in Recovery Zone Facility Bonds, which may be used to finance private activities. The latter are similar to industrial development bonds, but can be applied to a wider range of private uses than IDBs can be. On December 15, 2009, the Dakota County Board adopted a resolution to apply the RZED Bonding authority to the support of CDA senior housing projects and to have the County Administrator coordinate the solicitation of potentially eligible projects for RZF Bonds from cities and he has directed Mark Ulfers and his staff at the Dakota County CDA. to develop an application process for that purpose. The application forms and procedure were targeted to be released during the week of December 28. City staff met with CDA and County staff on December 22 and it appears that the turnaround time on the identification of projects will be short and that it will be necessary to concentrate on projects that would participate in a more detailed financial review in the first quarter of the year and that could be ready to proceed in time to issue the bonds by the expiration of the authority at the end of 2010. One project that the CDA has noted could be eligible is the hotel project at Cedar Grove. The projects need to be credit worthy and market supportable, so the bonds cannot be used for purely speculative projects, but the attachment notes the potential advantages for projects that could proceed but for the challenges of the current commercial credit market, which you have noted in comments in the past. Another project that may be eligible for use of the tool would be the Blue Gentian Corporate Center, if leasing or market support is present during the review timeframe. At present, it appears that the pool of potential projects eligible to use the bonds will be relatively small. To date, CDA is aware of one other project outside of Eagan that might qualify, but it won't be known for certain until the solicitation goes out and responses are received. C)�6-s In the meantime, staff is requesting that the EDA authorize the submittal of an application/communication of interest for the possible use of RZF Bonding authority for eligible projects in the Cedar Grove Redevelopment District and the Northeast Eagan Redevelopment District to the CDA to permit the City to preserve the opportunity to take advantage of this tool, if the projects meet the necessary criteria. ATTACHMENTS: • Recovery Zone Facility Bond Description on pages =),6 Z through • Dakota County Board resolution on pagms through ,22a • County staff presentation to County Board on pages through 10M Recovery Zone Facility Bonds (RZFB) are one of the new public finance tools created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). (Please refer to our separate summary for information on Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds.) On June 12, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued written guidelines (Notice 2009- 50) on the allocations of issuing authority and the use of these bonds. This summary offers our thoughts on the potential use of RZFB. Q: What are RZFB? A: Recovery Zone Facility Bonds are a tool for encouraging private investment in economic development and job growth. RZFB are a new type of qualified private activity bonds (think IDB). RZFB create the ability to use tax - exempt bor- rowing for a wide range of business development. RZFB are subject to the general rules that apply to qualified private activity bonds, except: (1) RZFB have a separate allocation (volume cap) of issuing au- thority and (2) bond proceeds can be used to acquire existing property. Q: What are the uses of RZFB? A: The primary criteria is that 95% or more of bond proceeds must be spent on "recovery zone property". The IRS guidelines set three criteria for recovery zone property: 1. The property was constructed, reconstructed, renovated, or acquired by purchase by the taxpayer (the party borrowing and securing the bonds) af- ter designation of the recovery zone. 2. The original use of the property commences with the taxpayer 3. Substantially all use of the property occurs in the recovery zone and is the active conduct of a qualified business. The "qualified business" provisions represent a key expansion of the use of pri- vate activity bonds. Essentially, the IRS guidelines allow any businesses that are not specifically excluded. The list of businesses that are not qualified businesses includes rental residential, golf courses, country clubs, massage parlors, suntan facilities, racetracks or other facilities used for gambling, or off -sale liquor stores. Unlike conventional IDB, RZFB can be used to acquire existing property. RZFB create the opportunity to use tax - exempt financing for commercial uses, owned housing and other private development not allowed under the rules for private activity bonds. RZFB could also be used for tax increment (or other mu- nicipal bonds) that would be private activity bonds. (Continued on Page 2) NORTHLAND SECURITIES 6-7 Northland Securities is com- mitted to keeping local governments informed of the latest tools, issues and trends in public finance. Northland's Public Finance Group specializes in the public finance needs of municipalities and govern- mental agencies across the Upper Midwest. Our public finance profes- sionals have the depth of experience in the municipal bond industry that serves our clients well, as they navi- gate through the complexities of the financial markets. As a diversified financial services firm, we provide financial advisory services and are also a significant underwriter of municipal debt. This provides a distinct advantage to our clients. Not only can they draw upon our experi- ence to develop a sound finance plan, but also our expertise in the credit markets, to get firsthand market in- formation useful in the structuring and timing of their financing. Our mission is to "provide direction and produce results:' Northland Pub- lic Finance is committed to develop- ing long -term client relationships by providing sound advice, creative so- lutions, and the desired results. Northland Securities, Inc. 45 South 7th Street, Suite 2000, Minneapolis, MN 55402 Toll Free 1- 800 - 851 -2920 Main 612 - 851 -5900 www.northlandsecurities.com Member FINRA and SIPC Q: A: Q: A: Can I issue RZFB? The answer to this question lies with both IRS guide- lines and state law. The basic requirement under the IRS guidelines is that an issuer must have an alloca- tion of the state volume cap equal to the amount of the bonds. It is important to recognize that RZFB is a federal designation. An issuer must also have statu- tory authority to issue the bonds. In Minnesota, this authority likely comes from the ability to undertake "projects" and issue bonds pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 to 469.165. These pow- ers are given to cities and certain townships (M.S. 368.01). Counties are only authorized to undertake projects in areas outside of cities or these townships. These statutory requirements are particularly impor- tant because of the volume cap allocations given to Minnesota counties. Who has allocation to use RZFB? The June 12 IRS Notice contained a list of allocations to local governments in each state. The Minnesota allocation went to two cities (Minneapolis and Saint Q Paul) and to 55 counties (see complete list on pages A• 3 and 4). Minneapolis, Saint Paul and these counties may directly issue and designate bonds as RZFB up to the amount of allocated volume cap. Instead of issu- ing bonds, these local governments may reallocate or waive all or part of its allocation. Reallocation may be made to any entity that includes the city /county. Such entities could include the coun- ty's HRA /EDA /CDA, a city within the county, or the A: HRA /EDA /Port Authority of a city within the county. The decision to reallocate can be made "in any rea- sonable manner ". If the cities /counties decide not to directly issue or reallocate, then the allocated volume cap is waived. All waived volume cap is reallocated by the State. Any criteria for State reallocation have not been de- termined. Q: What is a recovery zone? A: The proceeds of RZFB must be spent to promote de- velopment or other activity in a designated "recovery zone ". The IRS guidelines do not contain a detailed definition of a recovery zone. Instead, the criteria for a recovery zone must be pieced together from sev- eral parts of the guidelines. • The guidelines specifically list three means of designation. (1) Issuers may designate a recov- ery zone as any area having "significant poverty, unemployment, rate of home foreclosures, or general distress ". (2) Economic distress caused by the closure or realignment of a military instal- lation pursuant to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 may be used as the cri- teria for a recovery area. (3) A recovery zone may be an empowerment zone or renewal community in effect as of February 17, 2009. • The guidelines do not further define these fac- tors other than to require that designation be "based on certain specified criteria ". • The only guidance on the designation process comes from the provision that any state or local government receiving a volume cap allocation may designate recovery zones "in any reasonable manner as it shall determine in good faith in its discretion ". This lack of specific guidelines means that the desig- nation of recovery zones will be an evolving issue as issuers exercise this authority. What other factors apply to the use of RZFB? Three factors in particular should be noted: 1. Activities financed with the proceeds of RZFB are not subject to federal prevailing wage rates. 2. Use of RZFB avoids the various caps /limits tied to small issue IDBs. 3. The bonds must be issued before January 1, 2011. What else do you need to know? Unfortunately, the nature of the IRS guidelines mean that certain aspect of using RZFB will evolve over time. Here are some things to watch: • How will the County decide to use or reallocate issuing authority? • Will the State make waived issuing authority available to other local governments? • How will the initial issues shape future use? The information in this summary is based on sources believed to be reliable, but does not purport to be complete and is not warranted by Northland Se- curities, Inc. Recovery Zone Economic Development Recovery Zone Facility Area Residual Bond Bond Minnesota 132,154,000 198,231,000 Minneapolis city, MN 12,993,000 19,490,000 St. Paul city, MN 8,672,000 13,008,000 Aitkin County, MN 50,000 75,000 Anoka County; MN 11,466,000 17,200,000 Becker County, MN 914,000 1,371,000 Bettrami County, MN 0 0 Benton County, MN 457,000 685,000 Big Stone County, MN 0 0 Blue Earth County, MN 2,399,000 3,599,000 Brown County, MN 0 0 Carlton County, MN 675,000 1,013,000 Carver County, MN 3,021,000 4,532,000 Cass County, MN 398,000 597,000 Chippewa County, MN 0 0 Chisago County, MN 1,633,000 2,450,000 Clay County, MN 0 0 Clearwater County, MN 0 0 Cook County, MN 310,000 464,000 Cottonwood County, MN 12,000 18,000 Crow Wing County, MN 926,000 1,388,000 Dakota County, MN 13,966,000 20,949,000 Dodge County, MN 174,000 261,000 Douglas County, MN 189,000 283,000 Faribault County, MN 342,000 513,000 Fillmore County, MN 861,000 1,2.91,000 Freeborn County, MN 133,000 199,000 Goodhue County, MN 215,000 323,000 Grant County, MN 0 0 Hennepin County, MN Residual 26,853,000 40,280,000 Houston County, MN 174,000 261,000 Hubbard County, MN 0 0 Isanti County, MN 1;291,000 1,937,000 Itasca County, MN 1,492,000 2,237,000 Jackson County, MN 0 0 Kanabec County, MN 248,000 371,000 Kandiyohi County, MN 522,000 763,000 Kittson County, MN 0 0 Koochiching County, MN 153,000 230,000 Lac qui Parle County, MN 130,000 195,000 Lake County, MN 0 0 Lake of the Woods County, MN 50,000 75,000 Le Sueur County, MN 808,000 1,2.11,000 Lincoln County, MN 0 0 Lyon County, MN 88,000 133,000 McLeod County, MN 0 0 Mahnomen County, MN 115,000 172,000 Marshall County, MN 0 0 Martin County, MN 0 0 Meeker County, MN 0 0 Source: Department of the Treasury - Internal Revenue Service C261' Recovery Zone Economic Development Recovery Zone Facility Residual Bond Bond Mille Lacs County, MN 920,000 1,380,000 Morrison County, MN 0 0 Mower County, MN 0 0 Murray County, MN 254,000 380,000 Nicollet County, MN 1,276,000 1,915,000 Nobles County, MN 0 0 Norman County, MN 0 0 Olmsted County, MN 1,268,000 1,901,000 Otter Tail County, MN 0 0 Pennington County, MN 0 0 Pine County, MN 0 0 Pipestone County, MN 0 0 Polk County, MN 0 0 Pope County; MN 0 0 Ramsey County, MN Residual 7,770,000 11,655,000 Red Lake County, MN 430,000 646,000 Redwood County, MN 613,000 920,000 Renville County, MN 0 0 Rice County, MN 77,D00 115,000 Rock County, MN 209,000 314,000 Roseau County, MN 242,000 363,000 St. Louis County, MN 4,059,000 6,088,000 Scott County, MN 4,445,000 6,668,000 Sherburne County, MN 2,933,000 4,399,000 Sibley County, MN 0 0 Stearns County, MN 1,665,000 2,498,000 Steele County, MN 0 0 Stevens County, MN 197,000 296,000 Swift County, MN 601,000 902,000 Todd County, MN 525,000 787,000 Traverse County, MN 180,000 270,000 Wabasha County, MN 192,000 287,000 Wadena County, MN 0 0 Waseca County, MN 0 0 Washington County, MN 7,773,000 11,659,000 Watonwan County, MN 483,000 725,000 Wilkin County, MN 230,000 345,000 Winona County, MN 106,000 159,000 Wright County, MN 3,976,000 5,965,000 Yellow Medicine County, MN 0 0 Source. Department of the Treasury - Internal Revenue Service 10 DAKOTA COUNTY ADMiN /FINANCEiPOLICY COMMITTEE REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION 10.2 - Authorize Sollctation Of Applications For "Recovery Zone" Bonding Authority CMeeting Date: 12/15109 Fiscal /FTE Impact: Item Type: Regular - information ❑ None Division: COUNTY BOARD /COUNTY ADMINISTRATION ❑ Amount included in current budget Department: Financial Services ❑ Budget amendment requested Contact: Matt Smith Telephone: 651 - 438 -4590 ❑ FTE included in current complement Prepared by: Matt Smith ❑ New FTE(s) requested —N /A Reviewed by: NIA N/A ® Other PURPOSEiACTION REQUESTED .. Authorize a process to solicit applications, evaluate, and recommend allocations of new °Recovery Zone" bonding authority awarded to Dakota County by the federal government. SUMMARY As part of the federal stimulus bill (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) passed in February 2009, the U.S. Treasury Department recently allocated $13,966,000 of Recovery Zone Economic Development Bond authority and $20,949,000 of Recovery Zone Facility Bond authority to Dakota County. This is not a grant, it Is the authority to borrow via special bonding provisions for new projects (not refinancing). The County can use the allocations itself or can allocate the authority to issue this lower cost debt to other governmental entities in the County. Recoveryy Zone Bonds A Recovery Zone (RZ) is any area designated by the County or local issuer of bonds as having significant poverty, unemployment, home foreclosures, or general distress. Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds (RZEDBs) are for. governmental purposes and'reduce borrowing costs through a direct federal subsidy to the issuer. As with'traditional tk4xempt bonds, RZEDBs need to be issued for public purposes such as roads or public buildings,: require a Minnesota legal authority (such as.CIP bonds), and as such, need either a general obligation or revenue: pledge..Unlike taX-�exempt bonds, however, interest earned by RZEDB investors is subject to income tax, meaning that investors require a higher interest rate to achieve an acceptable yield. The higher Interest rates on.RZEDBs are then offset by the federal subsidy.to the Issuer, equal to 45% of interest paid, provided via direct payment back to the:lssuer. Recovery Zone Facility Bonds (RZFBs) are a new kind of tax - exempt "private activity" bonds similar to industrial development bonds. The difference is that the bonds are able.to be.issued for a much wider range of business activities. By offering project financing at a lower interest cost than a normal taxable business loan /mortgage, RZFBs are Intended to spur business development that wouldn't otherwise occur. There is a deadline of December 31, 2010 to Issue any RZEDBs and RZFBs. County Board authority to use or allocate bonding authority to other Issuers The .County can choose to use RZ bonding authority directly Itself, allocate the authority to other issuers within the County for qualifying projects, and /or return unused allocations to a statewide pool for use elsewhere. Staff have Identified and will discuss in more detail options for aliocating'each type of bonding authority. Important elements of an allocation process Include solicitation of proposals, evaluation criteria,. process, and timeline, how to ensure that allocations are actually used (bonds are Issued once authorized), and whether or how long to hold unused authority within the County or return it for use elsewhere in the state. Staff recommend a process that would result In a report on applications received and any allocation recommendations to come back before the Board for action no later than February 9, 2010. RZEDB allocation: The County 2010 CIP does not anticipate any bonding so direct use appears unlikely. Options include 100% allocation to the Dakota County CDA for senior housing development or soliciting, evaluating, and awarding specific projects from clues, schools, and other potential issuers within the County. if authority is allocated to the CDA, no wider solicitation for potential uses of these bonds will be necessary. RZFB allocation: Potential Issuers of these bonds are city economic development agencies within the County or the CDA. A solicitation, evaluation, and allocation process for these bonds will be necessary. ( EXPLANATION OF FISCALIFTE IMPACT - No direct impact on the County's adopted 2009 or recommended 2010 budgets. Ultimate users (issuers) of the bonding authority will be responsible for servicing debt incurred. 12/11/2009 6:50 AM Page 1 / 071- g:Vinal afplms afp 12 15 09 arra recovery zone bonds rba.docx Agenda Page No. Supporting Documents: Previous Board Action(s): ; RESOLUTION Authorize Solicitation Of Applications For "Recovery Zone" Bonding Authority WHEREAS, on February 17, 2009, the President signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111 -5 Stat. 115 (2009 .( "ARRA "); and WHEREAS, Section 1401 of Title I of Division B of ARRA authorizes state and local governments to issue Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds and Recovery Zone Facility Bonds; and WHEREAS, Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds may be used to finance certain "qualified economic development purposes" and Recovery Zone Facility Bonds may be used ' to finance certain °recovery zone property," as such terms are defined in ARRA; and WHEREAS, the term "Recovery Zone" means; 1. Any area designated by the issuer as having significant poverty, unemployment, a high rate of home foreclosures or general distress; 2. Any area designated by the issuer as economically distressed by reason of the closure or realignment of a military installation pursuant to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, and 3. Any area for which a designation as an empowerment zone or renewal community is In effect as of the effective date of ARRA, which effective date Is February 17, 2009; and WHEREAS, Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds are considered 'qualified" bonds for purposes of Section 6431 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and provide for a federal subsidy through a refundable tax credit paid to State or local governmental issuers in an amount equal to 45 percent of the total coupon interest payable to investors in these taxable bonds; and WHEREAS, the- interest on State- or local Recovery Zone Facility Bonds is excludable from gross income for C.. Federal income tax purposes; and WHEREAS, Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds and Recovery Zone Facility Bonds must be issued before January 1, 2011; and , WHEREAS, the County of Dakota has received a volume caps of Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds In the amount of $13,966,000 and Recovery Zone Facility Bonds in the amount of $20,949,000, and may use such volume cap for eligible costs or may allocate such volume cap in any reasonable manner as the Dakota County Board of Commissioners shall determine in good faith at their discretion for use for eligible costs for qualified economic development purposes or recovery zone property; and WHEREAS, the County of Dakota does not have at the present time a qualifying and cost - effective opportunity to utilize these bonding authodtes within the prescribed time limit of December 3 :1, 2010; and OPTION I /T Fla WHEREAS, the Dakota County Community Development Agency is a qualified issuer and has developed a proposal for use of the Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds In connection with the development of affordable senior housing in Dakota County; and Recommend Action ❑ County Attorney's Office Do Not Recommend Action ❑ Financial Services ❑ Reviewed -No Recommendation ❑ Risk Management ❑ Reviewed- Information Only ❑ Employee Relations E3 -Submitted at Co er Reyp,,¢t [3 information Technology ❑ g:Vinal afpVns afp 1215 09 arra recovery zone bonds rba.docx -2/1 Agenda Page No. r Q WHEREAS, the Dakota County Board of Commissioners desires to ascertain whether there are qualified Issuers in Dakota County of Recovery Zone Facility Bonds for qualifying projects, such that the Dakota County Board of Commissioners might allocate such bonding authority within Dakota County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Dakota County Board of Commissioners hereby allocates authority to issue $13,966,000 Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds to the Dakota County Community Development Agency for the eligible costs of developing affordable housing for seniors within Dakota County; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Dakota County Board of Commissioners hereby authorizes the County Administrator to undertake a program of informing potential issuers within Dakota County of the opportunity and requirements for Recovery Zone Facility bonds; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Dakota County Board of Commissioners hereby further authorizes the County Administrator to establish a process arid timeline for solicitation and evaluation of applications for allocation of such bonding authority; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that such applications shall include information about the extent and assurance of site control, legal authority to issue Recovery Zone Facility bonds together with estimates of net improvement in tax base and new jobs created as a result of the project, and also Including such such additional information which the County Administrator deems relevant; and di OPTION 2 i S+y,;eC'1fo. e Af<14 'q(r/04J WHEREAS, the Dakota County Board of Commissioners desires to ascertain whet h ount TBuamma' issuers R-Dai County of such bonding for qualifying projects, s e akota County Board of Commissioners mfg 0oc�te such bonding authorit o a County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE-� he Dakota County Board of Commissioners hereby authorizes the dministrator.to undertake a pro are+ -o orming potential issuers within Dakota Coun a opportunity and requirements for. Recovery Zone c . _ this —D velopment bonds and ,e overy Zone Facility bonds; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Dakota County Board of commissioners hereby imposes an application fee of $20.00 per $100,000.00 requested bonding allocation; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the County Administrator return to the Dakota County Board of Commissioners as soon as practicable, but no later than February 9, 2010, with a report on applications received, if any, and a recommendation, if any, as to whether and how time County Board should allocate such bonding authority. 1211112009 6:50 AM Page 3 Agenda Page No. 073'. g :lflnal afplms 01) 12 15 09 arra recovery zone bonds rba.dOCX /1 2 g 9 6_�' E 12/16/2009 "Recovery Zone' (RZ) Bonding Allocation Dakota County Board of Commissioners Administration, Finance and Planning Committee of the Whole 12/15/09 RZ Bonds at a Glance • Federal ARRA provides low interest bonding (borrowing) authority: — to eligible issuers (County, cities, schools, etc.) — for: • Public infrastructure and similar costs ('Economic Development' bonds) • Many private business development purposes ('Facility' bonds) — in "Recovery Zones" (in economic distress, as determined and demonstrated by the issuer) — by December 31, 2010 acv 1 12/16/2009 How RZ bonds work • RZ economic Development Bonds (RZDBs) — Must meet criteria for traditional tax exempt bonds (public purpose and repayment pledge, legal authority to issue, etc.) — ED bonds are taxable, but net costs are reduced via 45% federal interest subsidy to issuer • RZ Facility Bonds (RZFBs) — Can be used to finance a variety of private business investments similar to industrial revenue bonds — Tax exempt private activity bonds • Both types of bonds can only be issued through the end of 2010 Allocation of RZ bonding authority to Dakota County • Dakota County has received a direct allocation of RZ bonding authority — RZEDBs: $13.966 million — RZFBs: $20.949 million • No other potential issuer within Dakota County received a direct allocation —but can be allocated from the County's share • Many MN counties received no (or very small) RZ bonding allocation — must seek allocation from the Statewide pool — AMC requests initial county use or allocation decisions by mid - January C �s Allocation options: Economic Development Bonds • Recommended County CIP does not plan bonding in 2010 • Dakota County CDA would be eligible issuer and has potential qualifying use for entire RZEDB authority • Alternative approach is to solicit all potential issuers within the County, evaluate proposals, and allocate bonding authority to individual projects and issuers CDA ED bonding proposal • The CDA periodically issues tax exempt essential function bonds for its senior housing program • The next three CDA senior buildings (South St. Paul, Farmington, & Burnsville — 206 units) need financing starting in 2010 Crossroads Commons (87 units), Lakeville a76 12/16/2009 3 CDA ED bonding proposal • Senior housing financing is a RZEDB eligible use • Total bond amount for the three buildings would be approximately $25 million • Bonds would be issued in two Series — Series A would be taxable ( RZEDB) and Series B would be tax exempt essential function bonds Oakwoods East (55 units), Eagan CDA ED bonding proposal • Projections show County taxable market values declining. Since the CDXs levy amount is based on these values, the total levy the CDA receives will also decrease. • A recent update to the CDNs Senior Housing CIP III shows that the CDA will be able to produce 47 fewer units than originally projected in the 2007 CIP III because its levy amount is projected to be lower than anticipated in the 2007 plan. a 77 12/16/2009 4 CDA ED bonding proposal • Lower RZEDB net costs could temper some of the effect dropping taxable market values has on CDA senior housing resources. • Interest savings on the RZEDB bonds could potentially help the CDA gain back some of the lost units (47 units) due to declining market values. Cobblestone (60 units), Apple Valley Allocation options: Facility Bonds • No direct County or CDA use foreseen • Limited inquiries received to date from cities within the County • Other counties' approaches to RZFBs: — Carver: Simple e-mail request describing project size and why it qualifies — Ramsey: Detailed application and project scoring process including new jobs created, average wages, net impact on county tax base C-;?, ka 12/16/2009 5 12/16/2009 Potential RZFB allocation process Evaluation of proposals Evaluate proposals on *Dakota County CDA (January 2010) criteria to include: (primary) *Authority to issue •County staff -Site control -New jobs and tax base Resolution and direction to staff RZED bonds: — County -wide allocation process or retain for CDA senior housing use? (Resolution option 1 or 2) • RZFB bonds: — Criteria (jobs, tax base, etc.) for evaluating competing project proposals — Nonrefundable application fee • Future policy issues (on or after February): — "Use it or lose it" issuance requirement? — Return any unused to State pool? a �9 6 Agenda Information Memo Eagan Economic Development Authority Meeting January 5, 2009 F. OTHER BUSINESS There is no other business to come before the EDA at this time. G. ADJOURNMENT ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To adjourn the Economic Development Authority meeting. M