Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-11-2016 Council PacketEXPANDED AGENDA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Monday, April 11, 2016 *********** 6:30 p.m. (Scheduled to be broadcast on Channel 16) City Council: Mayor Reinert, Council Members Kusterman, Maher, Manthey and Rafferty City Administrator: Jeff Karlson ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA), 6:15 P.M. See separate agenda CITY COUNCIL MEETING, 6:30 P.M.  Roll Call - Council Members Rafferty, Kusterman, Manthey, Maher, and Mayor Reinert were present  Pledge of Allegiance  Open Mike / Public Comment - Nick Arnt, Arnt Construction Company, 2190 Phelps Road, notified the council that he will be requesting permission for operation of a construction plant at his facilities in June; staff will work with Mr. Arnt to submit an application  Setting the Agenda: Addition or deletion of agenda items The agenda was approved as presented. SPECIAL CEREMONY Oath of Police Service – Police Officer Katie Kramer 1. CONSENT AGENDA A) Consideration of Expenditures: i) April 11, 2016 (Check No. 103450 through 103512) in the amount of $242,635.72 B) Consider approval of March 28, 2016 Work Session Minutes C) Consider approval of March 28, 2016 City Council Minutes D) Consider approval of March 28, 2016 Closed Council Minutes E) Consider Resolution 15-26, Adoption and Implementation of Wellhead Protection Plan Part II F) Consider approval of March 23, 2016 Jt. Council/Advisory Boards Mtg Minutes Action Taken: Motion by Kusterman, seconded by Maher, to approve the Consent Agenda, Items 1A though 1F as presented, was adopted Council Agenda -2- April 11, 2016 EXPANDED AGENDA 2. FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT No report 3. ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT A) Consider Resolution No. 16-22, Approving New On-Sale and Sunday Liquor License for Fiesta Cancun Mexican Grill & Bar, Julie Bartell Action Taken: Motion by Kusterman, seconded by Maher, to approve Resolution No. 16-22 as presented, was adopted 4. PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT No report 5. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT No report 6. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT A) Approving First Amendment - Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Centerville, 21st Avenue Improvements and Maintenance, Diane Hankee Action Taken: Motion by Manthey, seconded by Maher, to approve Resolution No. 16-19 as presented, was adopted B) Rice Lake Elementary School Addition, Katie Larsen i. Consider Resolution No. 16-20 Approving Conditional Use Permit Amendment & Site Plan Review for Addition for Early Childhood Education Action Taken: Motion by Kusterman, seconded by Manthey, to approve Resolution No. 16-20 as presented, was adopted ii. Consider Resolution No. 16-21 Approving Site Improvement Performance Agreement Action Taken: Motion by Kusterman, seconded by Manthey, to approve Resolution No. 16-21 as presented, was adopted C) Saddle Club Second Addition, Katie Larsen i. Consider Resolution No. 16-12 Approving Final Plat Action Taken: Motion by Kusterman, seconded by Rafferty, to approve Resolution No. 16-12 as presented, was adopted ii. Consider Resolution No. 16-13 Approving Development Agreement Action Taken: Motion by Kusterman, seconded by Maher, to approve Resolution No. 16-13 as presented, was adopted D) Consider Resolution No. 16-13, Designating Building as Structurally Substandard, 49 Club, Michael Grochala Action Taken: Motion by Kusterman, seconded by Manthey, to approve Resolution No. 16-20 as presented, was adopted Council Agenda -3- April 11, 2016 EXPANDED AGENDA E) Consider Resolution No. 16-24, Approving the Plans & Specifications and Authorizing the Ad for Bid, 2016 Mill and Overlay Project, Diane Hankee Action Taken: Motion by Kusterman, seconded by Rafferty, to approve Resolution No. 16-24 as presented, was adopted F) Consider Resolution No. 16-25, Accepting the Feasibility Report, Mattamy Homes Water Reuse, Diane Hankee Action Taken: Motion by Kusterman, seconded by Manthey, to approve Resolution No. 16-25 as presented, was adopted G) Consider Resolution No. 16-27, Authorize Preparation of Water Supply Plan Update, Michael Grochala Action Taken: Motion by Kusterman, seconded by Maher, to approve Resolution No. 16-27 as presented, was adopted 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None 8. NEW BUSINESS None Adjournment Motion by Maher, seconded by Manthey, to adjourn at 7:48 p.m, was adopted Community Calendar – A Look Ahead April 11, 2016 through April 25, 2016 Wednesday, April 13 6:30 pm, Council Chambers Planning & Zoning Monday, April 25 5:45 pm, Council Work Rm Work Session - Interview Monday, April 25 6:00 pm, Community Room Council Work Session Monday, April 25 6:30 pm, Council Chambers City Council Meeting CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Monday, April 11, 2016 *********** 6:30 p.m. (Scheduled to be broadcast on Channel 16) City Council: Mayor Reinert, Council Members Kusterman, Maher, Manthey and Rafferty City Administrator: Jeff Karlson ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA), 6:15 P.M. See separate agenda CITY COUNCIL MEETING, 6:30 P.M.  Call to Order and Roll Call  Pledge of Allegiance  Open Mike / Public Comment  Setting the Agenda: Addition or deletion of agenda items SPECIAL CEREMONY Oath of Police Service – Police Officer Katie Kramer 1. CONSENT AGENDA A) Consideration of Expenditures: i) April 11, 2016 (Check No. 103450 through 103512) in the amount of $242,635.72 B) Consider approval of March 28, 2016 Work Session Minutes C) Consider approval of March 28, 2016 City Council Minutes D) Consider approval of March 28, 2016 Closed Council Minutes E) Consider Resolution 15-26, Adoption and Implementation of Wellhead Protection Plan Part II F) Consider approval of March 23, 2016 Jt. Council/Advisory Boards Mtg Minutes 2. FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT No report 3. ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT A) Consider Resolution No. 16-22, Approving New On-Sale and Sunday Liquor License for Fiesta Cancun Mexican Grill & Bar, Julie Bartell 4. PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT No report Council Agenda -2- April 11, 2016 5. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT No report 6. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT A) Approving First Amendment - Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Centerville, 21st Avenue Improvements and Maintenance, Diane Hankee B) Rice Lake Elementary School Addition, Katie Larsen i. Consider Resolution No. 16-20 Approving Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Site Plan Review for Addition for Early Childhood Education ii. Consider Resolution No. 16-21 Approving Site Improvement Performance Agreement C) Saddle Club Second Addition, Katie Larsen i. Consider Resolution No. 16-12 Approving Final Plat ii. Consider Resolution No. 16-13 Approving Development Agreement D) Consider Resolution No. 16-23, Designating Building as Structurally Substandard, 49 Club, Michael Grochala E) Consider Resolution No. 16-24, Approving the Plans & Specifications and Authorizing the Ad for Bid, 2016 Mill and Overlay Project, Diane Hankee F) Consider Resolution No. 16-25, Accepting the Feasibility Report, Mattamy Homes Water Reuse, Diane Hankee G) Consider Resolution No. 16-27, Authorize Preparation of Water Supply Plan Update, Michael Grochala 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None 8. NEW BUSINESS None Adjournment Community Calendar – A Look Ahead April 11, 2016 through April 25, 2016 Wednesday, April 13 6:30 pm, Council Chambers Planning & Zoning Monday, April 25 5:45 pm, Council Work Rm Work Session - Interview Monday, April 25 6:00 pm, Community Room Council Work Session Monday, April 25 6:30 pm, Council Chambers City Council Meeting LINO LAKES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING Monday, April 11, 2016 6:15 P.M. City Council Chambers 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2. Consideration of Minutes of February 8, 2016 3. Action Items A. 49 Club Demolition, Michael Grochala i. Consider Resolution No. 16-01, Designating Building as Structurally Substandard, 49 Club ii. Consider Resolution No. 16-02, Approving Preliminary Development Agreement with DM Land, LLC 4. Adjourn EDA MINUTES February 8, 2016 DRAFT 1 DATE : February 8, 2016 TIME STARTED : 6:20 p.m. TIME ENDED : 6:28 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT : EDA Members Kusterman, Reinert, Rafferty, Maher, Manthey MEMBERS ABSENT : None OTHERS PRESENT: : Administrator Jeff Karlson; Community Development Director Michael Grochala; City Clerk Julie Bartell The meeting was called to order at 6:20 p.m. by Acting President Kusterman. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 28, 2015 Economic Development Authority (EDA) Member Reinert moved to approve the December 28, 2016 minutes. EDA Member Rafferty seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote; EDA Members Maher and Manthey abstained from voting. CONSIDERATION OF ANNUAL APPOINTMENTS Michael Grochala, Community Development Director, informed the members that each year the EDA is required to hold an annual meeting and make a number of appointments; the list of appointments was before the Authority for consideration. EDA member Reinert moved to appoint EDA Member Kusterman as president, EDA Member Rafferty as vice president and EDA Member Manthey as treasurer. EDA member Maher seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. EDA member Rafferty moved to approve other appointments as outlined in the staff report. EDA Member Manthey seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. CONSIDERATION OF ANNUAL REPORT Community Development Director Grochala reviewed the annual report outlining activities of the EDA in 2015. EDA Member Manthey asked about the number of residential permits issued in 2014. Mr. Grochala explained that there were 33 residential permits (new homes) issued in 2014 and the figure (higher) for 2015 is listed in the report. EDA Member Maher moved to accept the 2015 Annual Report as presented. EDA Member Manthey seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, EDA Member Rafferty moved to adjourn. EDA Member Maher seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. The meeting was adjourned at 6:28 p.m. LINO LAKES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AGENDA ITEM 3A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Michael Grochala MEETING DATE: April 11, 2016 TOPIC: i. Consider Resolution No. 16-01, Designating Building as Structurally Substandard, 49 Club ii. Consider Resolution No. 16-02, Approving Preliminary Development Agreement with DM Land, LLC VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 BACKGROUND The 49 Club, located at the corner of Hodgson Road and County Road J, has been vacant since approximately 2003. The site has become a blighted location with illegal dumping and vandalism taking place on a regular basis. The city has received numerous complaints regarding the property. The site has been the topic, along with the neighboring 17 acre Jensen property, of several development proposals. However, none have advanced past the concept phase due to a number of complicating factors including the need for public improvements, multiple property owners, and council concern over the intensity of prior commercial development proposals. In March of 2015 LHB Corporation was retained to determine the eligibility of the property for TIF purposes and to document the condition of the building. As noted in the report the buildings are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance. Staff has been working with the owner of the property regarding potential demolition of the buildings either as a City project or by the owner. The owner is proposing to remove both the principal structure and accessory garage with their own contractor. Staff is very interested in this project as a means to clean up the site, eliminate the blight and assist redevelopment efforts. The use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) has previously been discussed to help offset utility, road or land assemblage costs to facility redevelopment of the corner. However, removal of the building has the potential to eliminate one of the financial tools available to assist with redevelopment. In order to establish a TIF District after demolition, the request for certification of the TIF District must be filed with the County within three years of the parcel being occupied by a substandard building. An actual project would need to occur within 4 years of district certification or the site would be dropped from the district and no longer eligible for TIF. To retain our ability to use TIF staff has listed out the steps that the EDA/City would need to follow in order to demolish a building prior to a redevelopment TIF District being established: 1) The EDA Board finds by resolution (adopted before demolition) that the parcel was occupied by a structurally substandard building and that after demolition and clearance the EDA intends to include the parcel within a TIF district; 2) The City Council adopts resolution and makes blight findings regarding the building (based on report); 3) EDA and owner of property enter into a preliminary development agreement (before demolition) regarding demolition of the buildings and redevelopment of the property. The proposed development agreement does not bind the EDA and/or City to use of Tax Increment Financing. Rather the City and Developer (owner) are agreeing cooperate with respect to potential future redevelopment of the Property. The agreement sets for the conditions and for consideration of city redevelopment assistance and responsibilities of each party. The City Council will be considering the blight findings at their April 11, 2016 regular meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of Resolution No. 16-01 and Resolution No. 16-02. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 16-01 2. LHB Recommendation March 27, 2015 3. Resolution No. 16-02 4. Preliminary Development Agreement 460586v1 LN140-114 LINO LAKES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 16-01 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING BUILDINGS AS STRUCTURALLY SUBSTANDARD WITHIN LINO LAKES REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the Lino Lakes Economic Development Authority ("Authority") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. Under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 10(d), the Authority is authorized to deem parcels as occupied by structurally substandard buildings despite prior demolition or removal of the buildings, subject to certain terms and conditions as described in this resolution. 1.02. The Authority intends to cause demolition of the buildings located on the property described in Exhibit A hereto (the “Designated Property”), and may in the future include the Designated Property in a redevelopment or renewal and renovation tax increment financing district as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174, Subd. 10 or Subd. 10a. Section 2. Buildings Designated Substandard; Other Proceedings. 2.01. The Authority finds that the buildings on the Designated Property as described in Exhibit A are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance, based upon the analysis of such buildings by LHB Architects dated March 27, 2015 and on file in City Hall. 2.02. After the date of approval of this resolution, the buildings on the Designated Property may be demolished or removed by the Authority, or such demolition or removal may be financed by the Authority, or may be undertaken by a developer under a development agreement with the Authority. 2.03. The Authority intends to include the Designated Property in a redevelopment or renewal and renovation tax increment financing district, and to file the request for certification of such district with the Anoka County auditor within three years after the date of demolition of the buildings on the Designated Property. 2.04. Upon filing the request for certification of the new tax increment financing district, the Authority will notify the Anoka County auditor that the original tax capacity of the Designated Property must be adjusted to reflect the greater of (a) the current net tax capacity of the parcel, or (b) the estimated market value of the parcel for the year in which the buildings were demolished or removed, but applying class rates for the current year, all in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 10(d). 460586v1 LN140-114 2 2.05. Authority staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution. Adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the Lino Lakes Economic Development Authority this 11th day of April, 2016. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Board Member _______________and was duly seconded by Board Member ________________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: William Kusterman, President ATTEST: Jeff Karlson, Executive Director 460586v1 LN140-114 3 EXHIBIT A Description of Designated Property 6007 Hodgson Road, Lino Lakes, Minnesota PID Nos. 31-31-22-43-0007, 31-31-22-43-0006, and 31-31-22-43-0017 March 27, 2015 Michael Grochala Community Development Director City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 TIF ANALYSIS FINDINGS FOR 6007 HODGSON ROAD, LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA 55014 LHB was hired to inspect the 49 Club building at 6007 Hodgson Road in Lino Lakes, Minnesota, in order to determine if it meets the definition of “Substandard” as defined by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subdivision 10. The building parcel may potentially be part of a future Redevelopment TIF District, so will need to be compliant with all of the statutes pertaining to a Redevelopment District. The building is located on a three-parcel property at the northwest corner of Ash Street and Hodgson Road (see Diagram 1). Diagram 1 Page: 2 Date: March 27, 2015 CONCLUSION After inspecting and evaluating the building on March 13, 2015 and applying current statutory criteria for a Redevelopment District under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, it is our professional opinion that the building qualifies as substandard. The remainder of this letter and attachments describe our process and findings in detail. MINNESOTA STATUTE 469.174, SUBDIVISION 10 REQUIREMENTS The property was inspected in accordance with the following requirements under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), which states: Interior Inspection “The municipality may not make such determination [that the building is structurally substandard] without an interior inspection of the property...” Exterior Inspection and Other Means “An interior inspection of the property is not required, if the municipality finds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable to gain access to the property after using its best efforts to obtain permission from the party that owns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is structurally substandard.” Documentation “Written documentation of the findings and reasons why an interior inspection was not conducted must be made and retained under section 469.175, subdivision 3(1).” Qualification Requirements Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10 (a) (1) requires two tests for occupied parcels: 1. Coverage Test …“parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or paved or gravel parking lots” The coverage required by the parcel to be considered occupied is defined under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(e), which states: “For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similar structures unless 15 percent of the area of the parcel contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similar structures.” The LHB team reviewed parcels 31-31-22-43-0007, 31-31-22-43-0006 and 31-31-22-43-0017: • Parcel A (31-31-22-43-0007) is approximately 25,358 square feet and is 98 percent covered by buildings, parking lots or other improvements. • Parcel B (31-31-22-43-0006) is approximately 36,305 square feet and is 45 percent covered by buildings, parking lots or other improvements. • Parcel C (31-31-22-43-0017) is approximately 30,381 square feet and is 21 percent covered by buildings, parking lots or other improvements. Page: 3 Date: March 27, 2015 Findings: The parcels are all covered by buildings, parking lots or other improvements, exceeding the 15 percent parcel requirement. 2. Condition of Buildings Test Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(a) states, “…and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance;” a. Structurally substandard is defined under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b), which states: “For purposes of this subdivision, ‘structurally substandard’ shall mean containing defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance.” i. We do not count energy code deficiencies toward the thresholds required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b)) defined as “structurally substandard”, due to concerns expressed by the State of Minnesota Court of Appeals in the Walser Auto Sales, Inc. vs. City of Richfield case filed November 13, 2001. Findings: The 49 Club building at 6007 Hodgson Road exceeds the criteria required to be determined a substandard building (see the attached Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Report). b. Buildings are not eligible to be considered structurally substandard unless they meet certain additional criteria, as set forth in Subdivision 10(c) which states: “A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs, or other similar reliable evidence.” “Items of evidence that support such a conclusion [that the building is not disqualified] include recent fire or police inspections, on-site property tax appraisals or housing inspections, exterior evidence of deterioration, or other similar reliable evidence.” LHB counts energy code deficiencies toward the 15 percent code threshold required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c)) for the following reasons: • The Minnesota energy code is one of ten building code areas highlighted by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry website where minimum construction standards are required by law. • The index page of the 2007 Minnesota Building Code lists the Minnesota Energy Code as a “Required Enforcement” area compared to an additional list of “Optional Enforcement” chapters. Page: 4 Date: March 27, 2015 • Chapter 11 of the 2015 Minnesota Residential Code incorporates Minnesota Rules, Chapters, 1322 and 1323 Minnesota Energy Code. • The Senior Building Code Representative for the Construction Codes and Licensing Division of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry confirmed that the Minnesota Energy Code is being enforced throughout the State of Minnesota. • In a January 2002 report to the Minnesota Legislature, the Management Analysis Division of the Minnesota Department of Administration confirmed that the construction cost of new buildings complying with the Minnesota Energy Code is higher than buildings built prior to the enactment of the code. • Proper TIF analysis requires a comparison between the replacement value of a new building built under current code standards with the repairs that would be necessary to bring the existing building up to current code standards. In order for an equal comparison to be made, all applicable code chapters should be applied to both scenarios. Since current construction estimating software automatically applies the construction cost of complying with the Minnesota Energy Code, energy code deficiencies should also be identified in the existing structures. Findings: The building has code deficiencies exceeding the 15 percent building code deficiency criteria required to be determined substandard (see the attached Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Report). TEAM CREDENTIALS Michael A. Fischer, AIA, LEED AP - Project Principal/TIF Analyst Michael has 28 years of experience as project principal, project manager, project designer and project architect on planning, urban design, educational, commercial and governmental projects. He has become an expert on Tax Increment Finance District analysis assisting over 100 cities with strategic planning for TIF Districts. He is a Senior Vice President at LHB and currently leads the Minneapolis office. Michael completed a two-year Bush Fellowship, studying at MIT and Harvard in 1999, earning Masters degrees in City Planning and Real Estate Development from MIT. He has served on more than 50 committees, boards and community task forces, including a term as a City Council President and as Chair of a Metropolitan Planning Organization. Most recently, he served as Chair of the Edina, Minnesota planning commission. Michael has also managed and designed several award-winning architectural projects, and was one of four architects in the Country to receive the AIA Young Architects Citation in 1997. Philip Waugh – Project Manager/TIF Analyst Philip is a project manager with 13 years of experience in historic preservation, building investigations, material research, and construction methods. He previously worked as a historic preservationist and also served as the preservation specialist at the St. Paul Heritage Preservation Commission. Currently, Philip sits on the Board of Directors for the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota. His current responsibilities include project management of historic preservation projects, performing building condition surveys and analysis, TIF analysis, writing preservation specifications, historic design reviews, writing Historic Preservation Tax Credit applications, preservation planning, and grant writing. Page: 5 Date: March 27, 2015 Phil Fisher – Inspector For 35 years, Phil Fisher worked in the field of Building Operations in Minnesota including White Bear Lake Area Schools. At the University of Minnesota he earned his Bachelor of Science in Industrial Technology. He is a Certified Playground Safety Inspector, Certified Plant Engineer, and is trained in Minnesota Enterprise Real Properties (MERP) Facility Condition Assessment (FCA). His FCA training was recently applied to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Facilities Condition Assessment project involving over 2,000 buildings. ATTACHMENTS We have attached a Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Report, Replacement Cost Report, Code Deficiency Report, and thumbnail photo sheets of the building. Please contact me at (612) 752-6920 if you have any questions. LHB INC. MICHAEL A. FISCHER, AIA, LEED AP SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT M:\15Proj\150099\400 Design\406 Reports\Final Report\150099 Lino Lakes 49 Club Letter of Finding 20150327.docx Lino Lakes 49 Club Redevelopment TIF District Letter of Finding Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Report March 26, 2015 Map No. & Address: Map A - 6007 Hodgson Road, Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Inspection Date(s) & Time(s): March 13, 2015 4:00 PM Inspection Type: Interior and Exterior Summary of Deficiencies: It is our professional opinion that this building is Substandard because: - Substantial renovation is required to correct Conditions found. - Building Code deficiencies total more than 15% of replacement cost, NOT including energy code deficiencies. Estimated Replacement Cost: $940,500 Estimated Cost to Correct Building Code Deficiencies: $575,019 Percentage of Replacement Cost for Building Code Deficiencies: 61.14% Defects in Structural Elements 1. A code required wind uplift system is missing on the exterior wall connection to the roof. 2. East and West wall are tied together with a suspect system to prevent movement. Combination of Deficiencies 1. Essential Utilities and Facilities a. Water service to the building has been disconnected. b. Electrical service is disconnected. c. There are no code accessible restrooms. d. There is no code required accessible parking spaces. 2. Light and Ventilation a. Electrical branch wiring has been removed. b. All light fixtures have been removed. c. The exhaust system has been removed. d. The ventilation system has been disconnected. The age and condition of it make it suspect if it would work as designed. 3. Fire Protection/Adequate Egress a. There is not a code compliant fire protection system in the kitchen. b. Stairs do not have code compliant hand rails. c. The exterior steps leading from the kitchen area are missing and required by code. d. The East and West exterior doors do not have code approved thresholds. e. The East glass door does not have the code required 10 inch kick plates. f. Flooring is missing, torn, or damaged preventing code compliant exiting from the building. Lino Lakes 49 Club Redevelopment TIF District Letter of Finding Building Report LHB Project No. 150099 Page 1 of 2 Map A 4. Layout and Condition of Interior Partitions/Materials a. The ceiling in the residence is stained from water intrusion and damaged by vandals. b. Code approved wall surfacing is absent in the kitchen and restaurant areas. c. Wall surfaces in the residence have been damaged by vandals with holes and graffiti. d. All insulation in the kitchen and restaurant has been removed. 5. Exterior Construction a. Roof is in need of code required replacement to prevent water intrusion. b. Code required siding is missing on the North side of the building. c. Soffit and fascia are missing from the North side of the building. d. Exterior siding is damaged and in need of repair and paint to prevent water intrusion. e. Window glass is missing and is allowing water intrusion. f. Door glass on the west side of the building is broken. Description of Code Deficiencies 1. Provide adequate water supply for fire and life safety system. 2. Replace all electrical wiring and electrical panels in order to provide adequate illuminated egress. 3. Install adequate plumbing for restroom accessibility. 4. Replace HVAC system that is non-existent. 5. All exit doors have non-compliant steps down to landing. 6. Thresholds at egress doors exceed allowable 1/2”. 7. Aluminum and glass doors lack required 10” high kick plate. 8. Flooring needs to be securely installed to create a slip resistant pathway to egress. 9. Replace roof to prevent water intrusion. 10. Replace exterior siding to prevent water intrusion. 11. Commercial kitchen exhaust shall have a separate fire suppression system. 12. Stairways shall have handrails on both sides. 13. Exterior walls do not conform to fire restrictive construction. 14. Install required wind up lift connection system to exterior wall and roof. Overview of Deficiencies The original structure was built in 1967 and has several additions, the latest having burned down several years ago. The interior is void of all essential utilities and necessary facilities to be considered a functional place of business. Lino Lakes 49 Club Redevelopment TIF District Letter of Finding Building Report LHB Project No. 150099 Page 2 of 2 Map A Lino Lakes 49 Club Redevelopment TIF District Letter of Finding Replacement Cost Report Map A - 49 Club City of Lino Lakes 6007 Hodgson Road, Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Building Type: Restaurant with Wood Siding / Wood Frame Location:SAINT PAUL, MN Story Count:1 Story Height (L.F.):12 Floor Area (S.F.):5150 Labor Type:OPN Basement Included:No Data Release:Year 2015 Cost Per Square Foot:$182.62 Building Cost:$940,500 % of Total Cost Per S.F. Cost 8.89% $14.76 $76,000.00 A1010 Standard Foundations $3.44 $17,700.00 A1030 Slab on Grade $5.69 $29,300.00 A2010 Basement Excavation $0.57 $2,950.00 A2020 Basement Walls $5.03 $25,900.00 24.80% $41.17 $212,000.00 B1010 Floor Construction $1.17 $6,050.00 B1020 Roof Construction $7.69 $39,600.00 B2010 Exterior Walls $6.85 $35,300.00 B2020 Exterior Windows $10.58 $54,500.00 B2030 Exterior Doors $5.65 $29,100.00 Estimate Name: Costs are derived from a building model with basic components. Scope differences and market conditions can cause costs to vary significantly. A Substructure Strip footing, concrete, reinforced, load 11.1 KLF, soil bearing capacity 6 KSF, 12" deep x 24" wide Spread footings, 3000 PSI concrete, load 25K, soil bearing capacity 3 KSF, 3' - 0" square x 12" deep Slab on grade, 4" thick, non industrial, reinforced Excavate and fill, 4000 SF, 4' deep, sand, gravel, or common earth, on site storage Foundation wall, CIP, 4' wall height, direct chute, .148 CY/LF, 7.2 PLF, 12" thick B Shell Wood column, 8" x 8", 20' x 20' bay, 12' unsupported height, 160 BF/MSF, 160 PSF total allowable load Wood roof, truss, 4/12 slope, 24" O.C., 30' to 43' span Wood siding, 2"x4" studs 16"OC, insulated wall, 1" x 12" sawn cedar, 1" x 4" battens Aluminum flush tube frame, for 1/4"glass,1-3/4"x4", 5'x6' opening, no intermediate horizontals Glazing panel, plate glass, 1/4" thick, tempered Door, aluminum & glass, without transom, full vision, double door, hardware, 6'-0" x 7'-0" opening Door, aluminum & glass, with transom, non-standard, double door, hardware, 6'-0" x 10'-0" opening Lino Lakes 49 Club Redevelopment TIF District Letter of Finding LHB Project No. 150099 Page 1 of 3 Replacement Cost Report Map A % of Total Cost Per S.F. Cost B3010 Roof Coverings $9.07 $46,700.00 B3020 Roof Openings $0.10 $500.00 15.50% $25.73 $132,500.00 C1010 Partitions $4.50 $23,200.00 C1020 Interior Doors $2.17 $11,200.00 C1030 Fittings $0.70 $3,600.00 C3010 Wall Finishes $2.04 $10,500.00 C3020 Floor Finishes $9.05 $46,600.00 C3030 Ceiling Finishes $7.26 $37,400.00 50.82% $84.37 $434,500.00 D2010 Plumbing Fixtures $10.78 $55,500.00 D2020 Domestic Water Distribution $8.31 $42,800.00 D3050 Terminal & Package Units $36.89 $190,000.00 Door, steel 18 gauge, hollow metal, 1 door with frame, no label, 3'-0" x 7'-0" opening Wood roofing, cedar shingles, 16" x 5", 4" min slope, 5" exposure, 1.6 PSF Insulation, rigid, roof deck, fiberglass, 3'x4' or 4'x8' sheets, 15/16" thick, R3.70 Gutters, box, aluminum, .027" thick, 5", enameled finish Downspout, aluminum, rectangular, 2" x 3", embossed mill finish, .020" thick Skylight, plastic domes, insulated curbs, nominal size to 10 SF, double glazing C Interiors Wood partition, 5/8"fire rated gypsum board face, none base,2 x 4,@ 16" OC framing,same opposite face, 0 insul 5/8" gypsum board, taped & finished, painted on metal furring Door, single leaf, wood frame, 3'-0" x 7'-0" x 1-3/8", birch, hollow core Toilet partitions, cubicles, ceiling hung, plastic laminate Painting, interior on plaster and drywall, walls & ceilings, roller work, primer & 2 coats Ceramic tile, thin set, 4-1/4" x 4-1/4" Carpet tile, nylon, fusion bonded, 18" x 18" or 24" x 24", 35 oz Tile, quarry tile, mud set, minimum Tile, quarry tile, mud set, maximum g, , , channel grid, suspended support D Services Water closet, vitreous china, bowl only with flush valve, wall hung Urinal, vitreous china, wall hung Lavatory w/trim, vanity top, PE on CI, 20" x 18" Kitchen sink w/trim, countertop, stainless steel, 44" x 22" triple bowl Service sink w/trim, PE on CI,wall hung w/rim guard, 24" x 20" Shower, stall, baked enamel, terrazzo receptor, 36" square Water cooler, electric, wall hung, dual height, 14.3 GPH Gas fired water heater, commercial, 100< F rise, 500 MBH input, 480 GPH Rooftop, multizone, air conditioner, restaurants, 3,000 SF, 15.00 ton Commercial kitchen exhaust/make-up air system, rooftop, gas, 2000 CFM Lino Lakes 49 Club Redevelopment TIF District Letter of Finding LHB Project No. 150099 Page 2 of 3 Replacement Cost Report Map A % of Total Cost Per S.F. Cost D4010 Sprinklers $8.70 $44,800.00 D4020 Standpipes $2.00 $10,300.00 D5010 Electrical Service/Distribution $4.35 $22,400.00 D5020 Lighting and Branch Wiring $9.48 $48,800.00 D5030 Communications and Security $3.50 $18,000.00 D5090 Other Electrical Systems $0.32 $1,650.00 0% $0.00 $0.00 E1090 Other Equipment $0.00 $0.00 0% $0.00 $0.00 0% $0.00 $0.00 100% $166.03 $855,000.00 10.00% $16.60 $85,500.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 $182.62 $940,500.00 Wet pipe sprinkler systems, steel, light hazard, 1 floor, 2000 SF Wet pipe sprinkler systems, steel, ordinary hazard, 1 floor, 1000 SF Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 4" diam pipe, 1 floor Overhead service installation, includes breakers, metering, 20' conduit & wire, 3 phase, 4 wire, 120/208 V, 400 A Feeder installation 600 V, including RGS conduit and XHHW wire, 400 A Switchgear installation, incl switchboard, panels & circuit breaker, 120/208 V, 1 phase, 400 A Receptacles incl plate, box, conduit, wire, 10 per 1000 SF, 1.2 watts per SF Miscellaneous power, 1.8 watts Central air conditioning power, 6 watts Fluorescent fixtures recess mounted in ceiling, 1.6 watt per SF, 40 FC, 10 fixtures @32watt per 1000 SF Communication and alarm systems, fire detection, addressable, 12 detectors, includes outlets, boxes, conduit and wire Fire alarm command center, addressable without voice, excl. wire & conduit Generator sets, w/battery, charger, muffler and transfer switch, gas/gasoline operated, 3 phase, 4 wire, 277/480 V, 15 kW E Equipment & Furnishings F Special Construction G Building Sitework SubTotal Contractor Fees (General Conditions,Overhead,Profit) Architectural Fees User Fees Total Building Cost Lino Lakes 49 Club Redevelopment TIF District Letter of Finding LHB Project No. 150099 Page 3 of 3 Replacement Cost Report Map A Lino Lakes 49 Club Redevelopment TIF District Letter of Finding Code Deficiency Cost Report Map A - 6007 Hodgson Road, Lino Lakes, MN 55014 - PID 31-31-22-43-0007 Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units Unit Quantity Total Accessibility Items Restrooms Install plumbing fixtures for accessible restrooms 10.78$ SF 5,150 55,517.00$ Structural Elements Wind up lift requirement Install code required wind up lift system between trusses/rafters and exterior wall 1.75$ SF 5,150 9,012.50$ Exiting Thresholds Correct elevation drop from interior to exterior landing 1,000.00$ Ea 4 4,000.00$ Reduce threshold elevation to less than 1/2 inch 250.00$ Ea 4 1,000.00$ Glass Dooors Install code required 10 inch kick plate 150.00$ Ea 4 600.00$ Flooring Install level flooring to allow emergency egress 9.05$ SF 5,150 46,607.50$ Lighting Install branch wiring and lights for egress 9.48$ SF 5,150 48,822.00$ Fire Protection Commercial Kitchen Install code required fire suppression system 3.70$ SF 2,000 7,400.00$ Entire building Install code required fire alarm system 3.50$ SF 5,150 18,025.00$ Interior walls/ceilings Install code required wall and ceiling finishes 9.30$ SF 5,150 47,895.00$ Exterior Construction Wood Siding Repair/replace wood siding to prevent water intrusion 5.00$ SF 5,150 25,750.00$ Lino Lakes 49 Club Redevelopment TIF District Letter of Finding LHB Project No. 150099 Page 1 of 2 Code Deficiency Cost Report Map A Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units Unit Quantity Total Roof Construction Replace roof that has failed. Remove old roof 0.90$ SF 5,150 4,635.00$ Replace with new roof 9.07$ SF 5,150 46,710.50$ Mechanical- Electrical Electrical Install new electrical service 4.35$ SF 5,150 22,402.50$ Plumbing Install domestic water distribution system 8.31$ SF 5,150 42,796.50$ Mechanical Install HVAC system 36.89$ SF 5,150 189,983.50$ Provide electrical service to new HVAC 0.75$ SF 5,150 3,862.50$ Total Code Improvements 575,019.50$ Lino Lakes 49 Club Redevelopment TIF District Letter of Finding LHB Project No. 150099 Page 2 of 2 Code Deficiency Cost Report Map A Lino Lakes 49 Club Redevelopment TIF District Letter of Finding Map A, 6007 Hodgson Road - Photos Page 1 of 6 P1020945.JPG P1020946.JPG P1020948.JPG P1020949.JPG P1020950.JPG P1020951.JPG P1020953.JPG P1020955.JPG P1020956.JPG P1020957.JPG P1020958.JPG P1020959.JPG Page 2 of 6 Lino Lakes 49 Club Redevelopment TIF District Letter of Finding LHB Project No. 150099 Photos Map A P1020960.JPG P1020961.JPG P1020962.JPG P1020963.JPG P1020964.JPG P1020966.JPG P1020967.JPG P1020968.JPG P1020969.JPG P1020970.JPG P1020971.JPG P1020972.JPG Page 3 of 6 Lino Lakes 49 Club Redevelopment TIF District Letter of Finding LHB Project No. 150099 Photos Map A P1020973.JPG P1020974.JPG P1020975.JPG P1020976.JPG P1020977.JPG P1020979.JPG P1020980.JPG P1020981.JPG P1020982.JPG P1020983.JPG P1020984.JPG P1020985.JPG Page 4 of 6 Lino Lakes 49 Club Redevelopment TIF District Letter of Finding LHB Project No. 150099 Photos Map A P1020986.JPG P1020987.JPG P1020988.JPG P1020989.JPG P1020990.JPG P1020991.JPG P1020994.JPG P1020995.JPG P1020996.JPG P1020997.JPG P1020998.JPG P1020999.JPG Page 5 of 6 Lino Lakes 49 Club Redevelopment TIF District Letter of Finding LHB Project No. 150099 Photos Map A P1030001.JPG P1030002.JPG P1030003.JPG P1030004.JPG P1030005.JPG P1030006.JPG P1030007.JPG P1030008.JPG P1030009.JPG P1030010.JPG P1030011.JPG P1030012.JPG Page 6 of 6 Lino Lakes 49 Club Redevelopment TIF District Letter of Finding LHB Project No. 150099 Photos Map A P1030013.JPG P1030014.JPG P1030017.JPG P1030018.JPG P1030019.JPG P1030020.JPG P1030021.JPG P1030022.JPG P1030023.JPG P1030024.JPG P1030025.JPG 476794v1 JAE LN140-114 LINO LAKES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 16-02 RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH DM LAND, LLC WHEREAS, the Lino Lakes Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) desires to promote redevelopment of property located in the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota (the “City”) known as the Old 49 Club Site (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the Developer owns the Property and intends to demolish the restaurant and garage buildings currently located on the Property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to a report from LHB, dated March 27, 2015, the buildings are in substandard condition; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of the Authority (the “Board”) has previously found the buildings located on the Property to be structurally substandard within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subdivision 10; and WHEREAS, demolition of the existing buildings will encourage the redevelopment of the Property; and WHEREAS, there has been presented before the Board a form of Preliminary Development Agreement (the “Preliminary Development Agreement”) proposed to be entered into between the Authority and the Developer, which sets forth the Developer’s intentions and the conditions under which the Developer will demolish the existing buildings on the Property and undertake the redevelopment of the Property; and WHEREAS, a preliminary development agreement entered into prior to demolition is required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subdivision 10 in order for the Authority to be able to establish a redevelopment tax increment district after the demolition occurs; and WHEREAS, the Authority has reviewed the Preliminary Development Agreement and finds that the execution thereof by the Authority and the performance of the Authority’s obligations thereunder are in the best interest of the City and its residents; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE Board of Commissioners of the Lino Lakes Economic Development Authority as follows: 2 476794v1 JAE LN140-114 1. The Preliminary Development Agreement in substantially the form presented to the Board and on file with the Community Development Director of the City is hereby in all respects approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by the President and Executive Director; provided that execution of such documents by such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval. 2. The President and Executive Director are hereby authorized to execute the Preliminary Development Agreement on behalf of the Authority and to carry out on behalf of the Authority the Authority’s obligations thereunder. Adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the Lino Lakes Economic Development Authority this 11th day of April, 2016. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Board Member _______________and was duly seconded by Board Member ________________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: William Kusterman, President ATTEST: Jeff Karlson, Executive Director 445151v1 JAE WA445-15 PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”), dated this ___ day of ____________, 2016, by and between the Lino Lakes Economic Development Authority, a municipal corporation and political subdivision under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the “EDA”) and DM Land, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, or its successors or assigns (the “Developer”): WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the EDA desires to promote redevelopment of property known as the 49 Club Site, located in the City of Lino Lakes, and legally described in Exhibit A (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the Developer owns the Property and intends to demolish the restaurant building and garage currently located on the Property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to a report from LHB, dated March 27, 2015, the buildings are in substandard condition; and WHEREAS, by resolution adopted on the date hereof, the EDA Board has found the buildings located on the Property to be structurally substandard within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 10(b); and WHEREAS, the EDA and the Developer have determined that it is in the best interest of the parties to demolish the existing building and agree to cooperate with respect to potential future redevelopment of the Property, all as further described in this Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants and obligations set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. During the term of this Agreement, the Developer (or its successors and assigns) shall: (a) At no cost to the EDA, cause the existing buildings on the Property to be demolished and all demolition debris to be removed from the Property as soon as reasonably practicable after the date of this Agreement. The parties agree that Developer will not be required to remove the existing concrete and asphalt slabs on the Property. The parties agree that such demolition shall occur no later than July 31, 2016. (b) Maintain the Property in compliance with City ordinances. The Parties agree that leaving the concrete and asphalt slabs on the Property are in compliance with City ordinances. (c) If the Developer determines not to undertake redevelopment of the Property directly, it will use its best efforts to seek a successor entity that will proceed with such 445151v1 JAE WA445-15 2 redevelopment. (d) Negotiate in good faith with the EDA regarding any proposed redevelopment of the Property, including any possible public financial assistance related thereof, all with the goal of entering into a contract for private redevelopment (the “Contract”). 2. During the term of this Agreement, the EDA agrees to: (a) Review any proposed successor to the Developer, and if the EDA determines to approve that successor, thereafter cooperate with the successor as the Developer under this Agreement. (b) Cooperate with the Developer or its successor in evaluating any redevelopment proposal submitted by the Developer, including whether any public financial assistance is warranted in connection with that effort. (c) Proceed to seek all necessary information with regard to the anticipated public costs associated with any proposed redevelopment. (d) If the EDA determines that tax increment assistance is reasonably necessary in order to induce the proposed redevelopment of the Property, with the Developer’s assistance, begin the process to create a redevelopment, a housing or a renewal and renovation tax increment financing district encompassing the Property, including the preparation of a tax increment financing plan, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.1799, as amended (collectively, the “TIF Act”); provided that parties agree and understand that the EDA must file a request for certification of such a tax increment financing district within three years after the date of demolition of the building on the Property, unless Section 469.174, subd. 10(d) is hereafter amended to extend that time period. (e) Negotiate in good faith with the Developer or a successor regarding any proposed redevelopment of the Property, including any possible public financial assistance related thereto, all with the goal of entering into a Contract. 3. It is expressly understood that execution and implementation of the Contract shall be subject to: (a) A determination by the EDA in its sole discretion that its undertakings are feasible based on (i) the projected tax increment revenues and any other revenues designated by the EDA; (ii) the purposes and objectives of any tax increment, development, or other plan created or proposed for the purpose of providing financial assistance for the Redevelopment; and (iii) the best interests of the EDA. (b) A determination by the EDA that any EDA financial assistance is reasonably necessary in order to make the Redevelopment financially feasible. 445151v1 JAE WA445-15 3 (c) A determination by the Developer or its successor that the Redevelopment is economically feasible and in the best interests of the Developer or his successor. 4. This Agreement is effective from the date hereof through December 31, 2017. After such date, neither party shall have any obligation hereunder except as expressly set forth to the contrary herein. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the term of this Agreement may be extended by mutual written agreement of the parties, provided that the EDA’s approval of such extension may be given by the EDA Executive Director. 5. The Developer shall solely be responsible for all costs incurred by the Developer, and the EDA shall be solely responsible for all costs incurred by the EDA, in connection with the negotiation and drafting of this Agreement and the parties obligations hereunder. 6. This Agreement may be terminated upon ten (10) days written notice by either party to the other of any of the following events of default, only if such events of default shall remain uncured during the aforementioned notice period: (a) an essential precondition to the execution of the Contract cannot be met; or (b) if, in the sole discretion of the EDA, an impasse has been reached in the negotiation or implementation of any material term or condition of this Agreement or the Contract; or 7. If any portion of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of any remaining portion of the Agreement. 8. In the event any covenant contained in this Agreement should be breached by one party and subsequently waived by another party, such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and shall not be deemed to waive any other concurrent, previous or subsequent breach. This Agreement may not be amended nor any of its terms modified except by a writing authorized and executed by all parties hereto. 9. Notice or demand or other communication between or among the parties shall be sufficiently given if sent by mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested or delivered personally: (a) As to the EDA: Lino Lakes Economic Development Authority Lino Lakes City Hall 600 Town Center Pkwy Lino Lakes, MN 55014-1182 Attn: Community Development Director 445151v1 JAE WA445-15 4 (b) As to the Developer: DM Land, LLC 14814 102nd Street Circle N Stillwater, MN 55082 Attn: Damon K. Lawson and Brutlag, Hartmann, & Trucke, P.A. 3555 Plymouth Blvd. Ste. 117 Plymouth, MN 55447 Attn: Matthew Doherty 10. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in any number of counterparts, all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. 11. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 476746v1 JAE LN140-114 S-1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written. LINO LAKES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By ________________________ Its President By ________________________ Its Executive Director DM LAND, LLC Damon K. Lawson Its _____________ 476746v1 JAE LN140-114 A-1 EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Parcel A Address: 6007 Hodgson Road, Lino Lakes, Minnesota PID: 31-31-22-43-0007 Parcel B Address: 295 Ash Street, Lino Lakes, Minnesota PID: 31-31-22-43-0006 Parcel C Address: [no street address] PID: 31-31-22-43-0017 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION March 28, 2016 DRAFT 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES 1 MINUTES 2 3 DATE : March 28, 2016 4 TIME STARTED : 6:00 p.m. 5 TIME ENDED : 6:25 p.m. 6 MEMBERS PRESENT : Councilmember Rafferty, Kusterman, 7 Maher, Manthey and Mayor Reinert 8 MEMBERS ABSENT : None 9 10 11 Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Deputy Public Safety Director 12 Police – Kelly McCarthy; City Clerk Julie Bartell 13 14 1. ACE Program Update – Jeff Karlson noted the high level of activity for the 15 city’s ACE Program. The council had received a report at the last meeting on the activity 16 level along with three options to meet the increasing demands – limit participation in the 17 program, add an additional part time Community Service Office (CSO) position or add an 18 Office Tech in Administration to handle the work. Mr. Karlson said he has eliminated 19 the Office Tech possibility because a CSO is much costly. He reviewed the cost of the 20 CSO position and noted that, without a change, the Police Department will have to begin 21 limiting participation in the program now (they are already not allowing the option for 22 speeding tickets). 23 24 Council Member Maher noted the department’s grant funded traffic safety officer 25 position and asked how long it is in place. Deputy Director McCarthy explained that it is 26 in place for an additional two to three years. Administrator Karlson noted that the 27 position is also tied to production but that has not been a problem. 28 29 The council discussed the usual term of an individual in a CSO position, with staff 30 explaining it is commonly about two years; most often individuals in that position move 31 into police officer positions, either here or within other departments. 32 33 The idea of automation was brought up at the last meeting and staff explained the option 34 was reviewed but was not found to be feasible; Deputy Director McCarthy explained the 35 department’s evaluation of automating the process. Additionally the volunteers that 36 were working with the program have pretty much stepped away but that’s the nature of 37 using volunteers – they aren’t always going to be there. 38 39 Mayor Reinert reiterated his concern that any new position would have to be tied to a 40 certain activity level so it could be lowered if that activity goes down. Deputy Director 41 McCarthy said she’d have to get more data together to tie a position to activity numbers. 42 Council Member Manthey said he’d like to know if the program was originally budgeted 43 based on an accurate number. Administrator Karlson noted that the budget has increased 44 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION March 28, 2016 DRAFT 2 from its onset and Council Member Manthey suggested that it would interesting to review 45 a participation and cost comparison timeline. 46 47 The council discussed the effectiveness of the program with Deputy Director McCarthy 48 who explained how the department continues to gauge the benefit. She also noted the 49 positive feedback they’ve received. 50 51 The council discussed why speeding tickets have been eliminated rather than other tickets 52 and Deputy Director McCarthy explained the analysis that went into that decision. It’s 53 based on continuing with areas where they feel people benefit most from an educational 54 push. 55 56 Mayor Reinert suggested that it’s appropriate to consider a change if a thorough review 57 indicates one but, again, only with a threshold included where that staffing can drop if 58 that becomes appropriate. The council concurred noting the benefit of the program to the 59 community, the learning potential and increased revenue associated with the program. 60 61 2. Review Regular City Council Agenda – There were no changes to the council 62 agenda. 63 64 The meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m. 65 66 These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on 67 April 14, 2016. 68 69 70 71 72 Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Jeff Reinert, Mayor 73 74 COUNCIL MINUTES March 28, 2016 DRAFT 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES 1 MINUTES 2 3 DATE : March 28, 2016 4 TIME STARTED : 6:30 p.m. 5 TIME ENDED : 6:35 p.m. 6 MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Member Rafferty, Kusterman, Maher, 7 Manthey, and Mayor Reinert 8 MEMBERS ABSENT : 9 10 Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Director of Public Safety John Swenson; 11 and City Clerk Julie Bartell 12 13 PUBLIC COMMENT 14 15 No one was present to address the council regarding a matter not on the agenda. 16 17 SETTING THE AGENDA 18 19 The agenda was approved as presented. 20 21 CONSENT AGENDA 22 23 Council Member Kusterman moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items 1A through 1C, as 24 presented. Council Member Maher seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 25 26 ITEM ACTION 27 28 Consideration of Expenditures: 29 30 March 28, 2016 (Check No. 103357– 31 103449, $610,326.24) Approved 32 33 Centennial Fire District (Check No. 2016002 34 in the amt of $885.14) Approved 35 36 March 7, 2016 Council Work Session 37 Minutes Approved 38 39 March 14, 2016 City Council Meeting 40 Minutes Approved 41 42 FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT 43 44 There was no report from the Finance Department. 45 COUNCIL MINUTES March 28, 2016 DRAFT 2 ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT 46 47 There was no report from the Administration Department. 48 49 PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT 50 51 There was no report from the Public Safety Department. 52 53 PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT 54 55 There was no report from the Public Services Department. 56 57 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT 58 59 There was no report from the Community Development Department. 60 61 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 62 63 There was no Unfinished Business. 64 65 NEW BUSINESS 66 67 There was no New Business. 68 69 COMMUNITY CALENDAR 70 71 Community Calendar – A Look Ahead 72 March 28, 2016 through April 11, 2016 73 Wednesday, March 30 6:30 pm, Council Chambers Environmental Board 74 Monday, April 4 6:00 pm, Community Room Council Work Session 75 Thursday, April 7 8:00 am, Community Room EDAC 76 Monday, April 11 6:30 pm, Council Chambers City Council Meeting 77 78 ADJOURN 79 80 There being no further business, Council Member Rafferty moved to adjourn at 6:35 p.m. Council 81 Member Maher seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 82 83 These minutes were considered and approved at the regular Council Meeting, April 11, 2016. 84 85 86 87 88 Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Jeff Reinert, Mayor 89 90 CLOSED COUNCIL SESSION March 28, 2016 DRAFT 1 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES 2 MINUTES 3 CLOSED COUNCIL SESSION 4 5 DATE : March 28, 2016 6 TIME STARTED : 6:40 p.m. 7 TIME ENDED : 8:16 p.m. 8 MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Members Rafferty, Maher, 9 Manthey, Kusterman and Mayor Reinert 10 MEMBERS ABSENT : none 11 12 Staff present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson. 13 14 Mayor Reinert called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. in the Council Work Room at 15 Lino Lakes City Hall. Before the meeting was closed, Mayor Reinert read a statement on 16 the purpose of the meeting. The meeting was closed as a session of the city council 17 pursuant to the Open Meeting Law for the purpose of discussing labor negotiations. 18 19 The meeting was recorded. 20 21 The meeting was adjourned at 8:16 p.m. 22 23 These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on 24 April 14, 2016. 25 26 27 28 29 Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Jeff Reinert, Mayor 30 31 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 1E STAFF ORIGINATOR: Diane Hankee, City Engineer MEETING DATE: April 11, 2016 TOPIC: Consider Resolution No. 16-26, Adoption and Implementation of Wellhead Protection Plan Part II VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION Staff is requesting City Council consideration for the Adoption and Implementation of Wellhead Protection Plan Part II. BACKGROUND On February 26, 2016, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) notified the City of Lino Lakes that its Part 2 Wellhead Protection Plan (WHPP) was officially approved. The preparation of the City’s WHPP is a requirement of Minnesota Rules 4720.5100 to 4720.5590. The goal of the Plan is to prevent human-caused contaminants from entering the water supply wells and to protect all who use the water supply from adverse health effects associated with groundwater contamination. The Plan falls under the jurisdiction of the MDH and consists of two parts (Part 1 and Part 2). Part 1 Part 1 of Lino Lakes’ WHPP was completed in 2014. Part 1 is a technical exercise that uses groundwater modeling to delineate the wellhead protection area (WHPA), Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) and includes a well and aquifer vulnerability assessment. Part 1 addresses the three municipal water supply wells used by the City and the associated source water aquifer. Part 2 Part 2 of the WHPP describes how the results of the Part 1 can be applied to best protect a community’s water supply. Data elements were collected and interpreted, and then impacts of changes in land and water use were assessed. This allowed issues, problems, and opportunities to be identified and included in the WHPP. Next Steps The goals and objectives of the Part 2 WHPP focus on managing potential contaminant sources within the DWSMA, reducing the potential contaminant pathways to the source water aquifer that may be provided by private wells, educating property owners and water supply users, and working with the cities within the DWSMA to ensure proper management of the portion within their respective community. Once adopted, the City must begin implementation of these objectives. Specific goals outlined in Chapter 5 of the Part 2 Plan fall under the following categories: A. Well Management B. Public Education C. Storage Tank Management D. Septic Systems (ISTS) E. Stormwater Management F. Hazardous Waste Management G. Data Collection H. Water Conservation I. Planning and Zoning J. Implementation K. Evaluation Specific examples of implementation activities include educating the public on lawn care practices, maintain an up-to-date septic system inventory, and notifying storage tank owners within the DWSMA that the tank is in a source water protection area. The annual cost for WHPP implementation is approximately $10,000. Source Water Protection grants from the Minnesota Department of Health are available to offset some of this cost. These grants are available twice annually and do not require a cost-share. The WHPP implementation plan was approved by the Environmental Board on March 30, 2016. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution 16-26 for the Adoption and Implementation of Wellhead Protection Plan Part II. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 16-26 CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 14-54 AUTHORIZING PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES TO PREPARE AMENDMENT TO WELLHEAD PROTECTION PLAN - PART II WHEREAS, The City Council is required by the Minnesota Department of Health to prepare an amendment to the Wellhead Protection Plan; WHEREAS, The City has received a proposal from WSB & Associates, Inc. to prepare Part II of the required amendment to the Wellhead Protection Plan; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota, that an amendment to the City’s Wellhead Protection Plan – Part II is authorized to be performed by WSB & Associates, Inc at a cost of $19,499. Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 9th day of June, 2014. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member _____________and was duly seconded by Council Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: _____________________ Jeff Reinert, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________ Julianne Bartell, City Clerk CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 16-26 RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND IMPLEMENTING THE CITY OF LINO LAKES’ WELLHEAD PROTECTION PLAN WHEREAS the City of Lino Lakes is a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes has completed developing its Wellhead Protection Plans pursuant to the requirements of Minnesota Rules 4720.5100 to 4720.5590; and WHEREAS, the goal of the Wellhead Protection Plan is to prevent human-caused contaminants from entering the water supply wells and to protect all who use the water supply from adverse health effects associated with groundwater contamination; and WHEREAS, Part I of the Wellhead Protection Plan is a technical exercise that uses ground water modeling to delineate the wellhead protection area (WHPA), Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) and includes a well and aquifer vulnerability assessment; and WHEREAS, Part 1 was developed and approved by the Minnesota Department of Health in August of 2012; and WHEREAS, Part 2 of the Wellhead Protection Plan describes how the results of the Part 1 can be applied to best protect a community’s water supply, through the evaluation of several data elements, including physical environment, land use, public utilities, water quantity and water quality, an inventory of potential contaminants, and the preparation of a management portion of the plan; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held, as required by Minnesota Rules (part 4720.5350, subpart 4) on March 9, 2015 for review of Part 2 prior to submittal to the Minnesota Department of Health for approval; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Health has found that the plan provides an adequate assessment of the City’s source waters and contains goals, objectives and action strategies for the potential sources covered by the plan; and is consistent with Minnesota’s wellhead protection rules; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes that Part 1 and Part 2 of the Wellhead Protection Plan are formally adopted. Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 11th day of April, 2016. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member _______________and was duly seconded by Council Member ________________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: _______________________________ Jeff Reinert, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________ Julianne Bartell, City Clerk SPECIAL JOINT COUNCIL MEETING DRAFT March 23, 2016 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES 1 MINUTES 2 SPECIAL JOINT SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, 3 PARK BOARD, ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD, PLANNING & ZONING BOARD 4 & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE 5 6 7 DATE : March 23, 2016 8 TIME STARTED : 6:30 p.m. 9 TIME ENDED : 8:05 p.m. 10 11 COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Members Manthey, Rafferty, 12 Kusterman and Mayor Reinert 13 14 PLANNING AND ZONING PRESENT : P&Z Members Stoesz, Kassner, Evenson, 15 Root, Masonick and Tralle 16 17 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD PRESENT : Environmental Board Members Heiskary, 18 Bor, Sullivan, Kaufenberg, Andrzejewksi 19 20 PARK BOARD PRESENT : Park Board Members Lindy, Nordlund, Jensen, 21 Huelman 22 23 EDAC PRESENT : EDAC Members Johnson, Masonick, Vojtech, Colgan 24 25 26 Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Community Development Director 27 Michael Grochala; Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson; Public Services Director Rick 28 DeGardner; City Planner Katie Larsen; City Engineer Diane Hankee; City Clerk Julie Bartell 29 30 CALL TO ORDER 31 32 Community Development Director Grochala introduced city staff present as well as consultant 33 Kendra Lindahl of Landform who would be updating the group on the Watermark project that is 34 proposed for the northeast area of the city. 35 36 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PRESENTATION ON WATERMARK 37 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL BY MATTAMY HOMES 38 39 Ms. Lindahl reviewed a PowerPoint presentation on the Watermark development proposal by 40 Mattamy Homes (full presentation on file). The presentation included information on required 41 elements such as an amendment to the city’s comprehensive plan, rezoning, a preliminary plat 42 and PUD development staging plan. She reviewed what the schedule looks like at this point, 43 noting that the development is at the first step of a multi-step process. 44 45 The presentation included information on: 46 - Existing condition of the site; 47 SPECIAL JOINT COUNCIL MEETING DRAFT March 23, 2016 2 - AUAR done for the site in 2015; 48 - Comprehensive plan implications for the site; 49 - Zoning map implications for the site; 50 - Master planning; 51 - Parks and open space planning; 52 - Connections to future development (train connections, commercial facilities); 53 - Land use planning (density and consistency with the city’s comprehensive plan); 54 - Lot area exhibit showing lot sizes/house types; 55 - Plans to model all types of homes at the entrance to the development; 56 - Entry features for the development area (bridge, park concept); 57 - Streets planned within the development with green space to be maintained by the 58 development; 59 - A recreation center complex (5,000 sq ft). 60 61 Next steps for the proposed development will be advisory board review and hearings. 62 63 QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS 64 65 Environmental Board Member Barbara Bor asked about signaling planned for the development 66 area and Community Development Director Grochala reviewed plans for streets, including 67 signaling standards, and noted that signals will be possible and a part of design planning. 68 69 There were questions raised about the drainage system and whether it leads to the lakes that are 70 being created within the development. Mr. Grochala explained the current ditch system and the 71 drainage study that has been underway for the northeast area of the city; that impacts the 72 development area and involves the lake in the development. The lake itself would provide 73 irrigation water for the development. 74 75 A question arose about density and affordability and Community Development Director Grochala 76 explained that housing fitting into the affordable category isn’t a part of the development at this 77 time. He explained how density is phased and planned so that it generally increases toward the 78 commercial area to the south. Roads would be designed to carry a balanced amount of traffic. 79 80 In a discussion about transportation and the lack of commercial within the development, Mr. 81 Grochala noted that recent improvements to the intersection of 35E and CSAH 14 were key, and 82 along with improvements coming through a new drainage plan that in turn encourages more 83 rooftops in the area, will draw commercial to the area. 84 85 Mayor Reinert concurred, adding that one benefit of a master plan is that development doesn’t 86 occur piecemeal. He noted that a more dense development was originally planned for this site but 87 this is scaled down and still provides some of the density called for in the city’s comp plan. The 88 mayor noted his favor with the quick build-out of parks and the inclusion of a community center; 89 those elements will be present for residents very early rather than fifteen or so years down the line. 90 He said that overall he feels the development is a good addition to Lino Lakes but he still wants to 91 hear any concerns from board members as they review the plans. 92 93 The group discussed the availability of single level living space with development representative 94 Rick Packer outlining some single family styles that have a generational element. 95 96 SPECIAL JOINT COUNCIL MEETING DRAFT March 23, 2016 3 Elevation requirements around the water features was discussed; a priority will certainly be that 97 flood plain will not be included/created. The depth of the lakes themselves will be up to about 25 98 feet. 99 100 As the group reviewed the renderings of exterior home styling, it was pointed out that Mattamy 101 Homes is known for its variation in all areas of their homes, offering different products and 102 elevations throughout their developments. 103 104 ADJOURN 105 106 There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. 107 108 These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on 109 April 11, 2016. 110 111 112 113 114 City Clerk, Julianne Bartell Jeff Reinert, Mayor 115 116 AGENDA ITEM 3A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Lisa Hogstad-Osterhues, Deputy Clerk MEETING DATE: April 11, 2016 TOPIC Consider Resolution 16-22, Approving New On-Sale Liquor and Sunday Sales License for Katrina’s Mexican Grill and Cantina d/b/a/ Fiesta Cancun Mexican Grill & Bar VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION Katrina’s Mexican Grill and Cantina d/b/a Fiesta Cancun Mexican Grill & Bar is a new restaurant that will be opening at 566 Lilac Street upon approval of the liquor license and certificate of occupancy from the building department. BACKGROUND The application submitted to the City is complete, the related fees have been paid and insurance information has been provided to the City as required. In addition, the Lino Lakes Police Department has conducted the required background investigation on the applicant. In accordance with the Lino Lakes Code of Ordinances, Section 701 relating to Liquor Licensing, this application requires approval by the City Council. The code also requires that opportunity shall be given to any person to be heard for or against the granting of the license. The council may then, in its discretion, grant or refuse the application. If local approval is granted, Monica Silva’s application for a liquor license will be forwarded to the Minnesota Alcohol & Gambling Enforcement Division for review. The applicant is aware that approval is subject to all the provisions and conditions of the laws of the city, state and federal government. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the approval of the On-Sale Liquor and Sunday Sales License for Fiesta Cancun Mexican Grill & Bar. ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 16-22 CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 16-22 APPROVING ISSUANCE OF NEW ON-SALE LIQUOR AND SUNDAY LICENSE FOR KATRINA’S MEXICAN GRILL AND CANTINEA D/B/A/ FIESTA CANCUN, 566 LILAC STREET WHEREAS, the city has received an application for an On-Sale Liquor and Sunday License from Monica Silva, d/b/a Fiesta Cancun Mexican Grill & Bar located at 566 Lilac Street; and WHEREAS, city staff has reviewed said application and determined that the request meets the requirements of the City Code and Minnesota State Statutes for the type of licenses requested; and WHEREAS, the Police Department of the City of Lino Lakes has conducted an investigation of the applicant, and; WHEREAS, the applicant has provided proof of insurance as required and paid the necessary fees; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes hereby approves a new on-sale liquor and Sunday license for Fiesta Cancun Mexican Grill & Bar subject to all the fees, provisions and conditions of the laws of the city, state and federal government and the applicant will comply with all said laws. Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 11th day of April, 2016. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member _____________and was duly seconded by Council Member ________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: ______________________________ Jeff Reinert, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________________ Julianne Bartell, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 6A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Diane Hankee MEETING DATE: April 11, 2016 TOPIC: Consider Resolution No. 16-19, Approving First Amendment - Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Centerville, 21st Avenue Improvements and Maintenance VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION Staff is requesting City Council consideration of a First Amendment - Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Centerville for 21st Avenue Street and Utility Improvements and Maintenance. BACKGROUND On August 6, 2013 the City Council approved Resolution No. 13-91, for a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Centerville regarding the 21st Avenue Improvement Project. The 21st Avenue Improvement project was from Main Street (CSAH 14) to a point approximately 1,400 feet to the north. The project included a new roadway, storm sewer, water main, sanitary sewer, and pedestrian facilities. 21st Avenue is centered on the corporate limits of Lino Lakes and Centerville. Accordingly an agreement between both cities was required for construction; and this amendment addresses the ongoing maintenance. The City of Centerville approved the agreement at their March 9, 2013 City Council meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of Resolution No. 16-19. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 16-19 2. Joint Powers Agreement CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 16-19 APPROVING FIRST AMENDMENT- JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LINO LAKES AND THE CITY OF CENTERVILLE REGARDING 21st AVENUE STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE WHEREAS, 21st Avenue between Main Street and a point approximately 1,400 feet north of Main Street is a line road between Lino Lakes and Centerville, with the corporate boundary in the center of the street, as platted; and WHEREAS, The City of Centerville and the City of Lino Lakes paved 21st Avenue between Main Street and a point approximately 1,400 feet north of Main Street pursuant to a Joint Powers Agreement; and WHEREAS, the two Cities also desire to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement for the ongoing maintenance of 21st Avenue. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes that the Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Centerville concerning the ongoing maintenance of 21st Avenue between Main Street and a point approximately 1,400 feet north of Main Street. Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 11th day of April, 2016. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member _______________and was duly seconded by Council Member ________________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: ______________________________ Jeff Reinert, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________ Julianne Bartell, City Clerk o Uz o U b w 0cn 4-, v ZN o W C7U >U wxW 0 Oo NJ o z z A Con F- < ° 04 1 0 G Wp zEw, . o U) 41 UF" WdW O : wW0 o 4-49L4U o zOfE-ZdF" ,Wj 3 UWP waW o C) Up P4 u o O ai w o gOP,x 4-+ d a [ Z " obUwAba cd1-4 Oz ~ o v; Z 4 c b W Wad'0 c° w v x xtooO (DwH -d o zU -SO (n d d H i u o p a0i a°i O cON N N a U O a 0 ami 44 4-4 OwWOZU a -do g c dZU N U U - N , I I 0.4O F V "C O M W 1 1- 20 0 Cd 0 cli rA U U cd pop 030 Cd lurAo w >, U U U N O L; a 30 U p N W U C4-4 o U o 0 3 0 o rn 0 Cd 64 0-4 co a 0 0 0 b d ami U a O w b v O U o W 4 w_ w i i 1 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 6B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner MEETING DATE: April 11, 2016 TOPIC: Rice Lake Elementary School Addition i. Consider Resolution No. 16-20 Approving Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Site Plan Review for Addition for Early Childhood Education ii. Consider Resolution No. 16-21 Approving Site Improvement Performance Agreement VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION Staff is requesting City Council consideration of a Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Site Plan Review for the Rice Lake Elementary School Addition for Early Childhood Education. Complete Application Date: February 5, 2016 60-Day Review Deadline: April 5, 2016 120-Day Review Deadline: June 4, 2016 Environmental Board Meeting: February 24, 2016 Park Board Meeting: NA Planning & Zoning Board Meeting: March 9, 2016 City Council Work Session: April 4, 2016 City Council Meeting: April 11, 2016 BACKGROUND Rice Lake Elementary School is proposing a 17,064 s.f. addition on the southeast corner of the existing building for early childhood education. The school currently houses early childhood family education and early childhood special education; however, they are in need of additional space. The property address is 575 Birch Street. Construction is scheduled to start in June 2016 with substantial completion in December 2016. The Planning & Zoning Staff Report dated March 9, 2016 details compliance of the project with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinances. The Planning & Zoning Board 2 held a public hearing on March 9, 2016. There were no public comments and the Board recommended approval with a 5-0 vote. A Site Improvement Performance Agreement is required as detailed in Resolution No. 16-21. The School Board approved the Agreement on March 28, 2016. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Board recommend approval of Resolution Nos. 16-20 and No. 16-21. ATTACHMENTS 1. Site Location Map 2. Sheet A-Overall Site Plan 3. Sheet A1 & A2, Exterior Elevations 4. Resolution No. 16-20 5. Resolution No. 16-21 6. Site Improvement Performance Agreement 0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet IJ49 IJ53 BIRCH STBIRCH STLAKE DRLAKE DRHHOODDGGSSOONNRRDDRICE CT RICE CT LINDA LALINDA LAEGRET LAEGRET LA S IO U X L ASIOUX L A HOLLOW LAHOLLOW LAW A R E R DWARE R D LAKOTA TRLAKOTA TRF A WN L A F A WN L AGLENVIEW LAGLENVIEW LAS GLEN TRS GLEN TRLINDA AVELINDA AVE FOX RDFOX RDSUNRISE AVESUNRISE AVELINDEN LALINDEN LAHHOOKKAAHHDDRRBLA C K D U C K D R BLA C K D U C K D R HHOOLLLLYYCCTTPHEASANT RUN SPHEASANT RUN SOLD BIRCH STOLD BIRCH STWWSSHHAADDOOWWLLAAKKEEDDRR12TH AVE S12TH AVE SLAKEVIEW DRLAKEVIEW DRWOODRIDGE LAWOODRIDGE LA WARE RDWARE RD22NNDDAAVVEEH A W T H O R N R DHAWTHORN R D HOLLY DRHOLLY DR62ND ST62ND STRICECREEKBALDWIN LAKEOHWL 883.1100-yr 886.1 WARDSLAKERESHANAU LAKEOHWL 883.5100-yr 886.0 RICE LAKEOHWL 883.1100-yr 886.0 CENTERVILLELAKE OHWL 885.0100-yr 886.3 CEDARLAKE OHWL892.9 Lino Lakes Site Location Map µ Rice Lake Elementary School NEW BUILDING ADDITIONFFE = 900.50RAIN GARDENRAIN GARDENRELOCATEDTREESSPLIT-RAILWOOD FENCEDescriptionRev.DateSheet:Sheet Title:Project #:Drawn By:Checked By:Issue Date:12156103.000JAN3.30.163524 Labore RoadWhite Bear Lake, MN 55110651.481.9120 (f) 651.481.9201www.larsonengr.comC 2015 Larson Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved.P:\Projects\Projects - 2015\12156103- Rice Lake Elementary\C. Design\Drawing Files\Rice Lake - Overall Site Plan.dwg3524 Labore RoadWhite Bear Lake, MN 55110651.481.9120 (f) 651.481.9201www.larsonengr.comProject Title:Client:First M. Last, P.E.Date: Reg. No.:XXXXXI hereby certify that this plan,specifications or report was preparedby me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly licensedProfessional Engineer under the lawsof the state of Minnesota.of11AOVERALLSITE PLAN0NORTH204080RICE LAKE ELEMENTARY575 BIRCH STREETLINO LAKES, MN 55014CENTENNIAL SCHOOLSI. S. D. #124707 NORTH ROADCIRCLE PINES, MN 55014TOTAL PARKING STALL COUNT = 200TOTAL STALL COUNT REQUIREDBY CITY CODE = 143EXISTING IMPERVIOUS = 7.39 ACRESEXISTING PERVIOUS = 46.78 ACRESPROPOSED NEW IMPERVIOUS = 0.35ACRES9 TREES ARE BEING REMOVED.2 OF THOSE TREES HAVE ALREADYBEEN RELOCATED BY THE SCHOOL,THE LOCATES ARE SHOWN ON THEOVERALL SITE PLAN.PARKING STALL CALCULATIONS:1 SPACE FOR EACH CLASSROOM (53 CLASSROOMS) = 53 STALLS1 SPACE FOR EACH 300 STUDENTS (572 STUDENTS) = 2 STALLS1 SPACE FOR EACH EMPLOYEE (88 EMPLOYEES) = 88 STALLS1 SPACE FOR EACH 4 SEATS IN AUDITORIUM (NO AUDITORIUM) = 0 STALLSTOTAL = 143 STALLS BASEML100'-0"EC ADDITION99'-6"EC TOP OF MASONRY114'-1 3/8"EXISTING T.O. PARAPET114'-8 3/8"04.0504.0204.0504.0104.0304.0404.0904.0504.0404.0904.0504.0404.0904.0504.0504.0104.0204.0308.3008.2804.0508.3008.2804.0508.3008.2804.0508.3008.2804.0508.3008.2804.0508.3008.2804.0204.0204.0104.0504.0904.04E001-AW6W6W1W1W1W126.9726.9722.98C.J.C.J.C.J.C.J.C.J.C.J.C.J.C.J.C.J.C.J.C.J.C.J.BRICK LEDGE ELEVATION: 99'-2"BRICK LEDGE ELEVATION: 98'-6"EXISTINGBUILDINGBEYOND07.38MATERIALS BREAKDOWN:MATERIALS BREAKDOWN:MATERIALS BREAKDOWN:MATERIALS BREAKDOWN: 3% PREFINISHED ALUMINIUM, 10% GLASS, 87% BRICK & GLAZED BLOCKBASEML100'-0"EC ADDITION99'-6"EC TOP OF MASONRY114'-1 3/8"EXISTING T.O. PARAPET114'-8 3/8"04.0504.0104.0304.0204.0404.0904.0504.0126.97C.J.BRICK LEDGE ELEVATION: 99'2"07.38MATERIALS BREAKDOWN:MATERIALS BREAKDOWN:MATERIALS BREAKDOWN:MATERIALS BREAKDOWN: 100% BRICK & GLAZED BLOCKBASEML100'-0"EC ADDITION99'-6"EC TOP OF MASONRY114'-1 3/8"EXISTING T.O. PARAPET114'-8 3/8"04.0504.0904.0304.0504.0104.0107.3804.0204.0504.0504.0504.0904.0504.0104.0204.0904.0504.0104.0504.0504.0504.0904.0504.0104.0904.0504.0104.0904.0504.0104.0904.0504.0104.0504.0304.0204.0108.3008.18SEE ELEVATIONB1/A6.0304.0204.0204.0208.3008.1808.3008.1808.3008.1808.3008.1808.3008.1808.3008.18W1W1W1E003-AW6W6W6W608.0308.0726.9726.9726.9710.0710.0722.98C.J.C.J.C.J.C.J.C.J.C.J.C.J.C.J.C.J.C.J.C.J.C.J.C.J.C.J.BRICK LEDGE ELEVATION: 98'-6"EXISTING BUILDING BEYONDEXISTINGBUILDINGBEYONDMATERIALS BREAKDOWN:MATERIALS BREAKDOWN:MATERIALS BREAKDOWN:MATERIALS BREAKDOWN: 3% PREFINISHED ALUMINIUM, 7% GLASS, 90% BRICK & GLAZED BLOCKBASEML100'-0"EC ADDITION99'-6"EC TOP OF MASONRY114'-1 3/8"EXISTING T.O. PARAPET114'-8 3/8"04.0904.0504.0104.0104.0504.0204.0307.3808.0308.0704.0904.0504.0104.0904.0504.0104.0904.0504.0104.0508.3008.28W6E00426.9726.97C.J.C.J.C.J.C.J.C.J.C.J.C.J.BRICK LEDGE ELEVATION: 98'-6"EXISTINGBUILDINGBEYOND22.98MATERIALS BREAKDOWN:MATERIALS BREAKDOWN:MATERIALS BREAKDOWN:MATERIALS BREAKDOWN: 2% PREFINISHED ALUMINIUM, 7% GLASS, 91% BRICK & GLAZED BLOCKBASEML100'-0"EC ADDITION99'-6"EC TOP OF MASONRY114'-1 3/8"EXISTING T.O. PARAPET114'-8 3/8"04.0504.0104.0304.0104.0404.0904.0504.0204.0508.3008.2804.0104.0404.0904.0504.0508.3008.2804.02W6W6C.J.C.J.C.J.C.J.C.J.C.J.C.J.C.J.BRICK LEDGE ELEVATION: 98'-6"EXISTING BUILDINGMATERIALS BREAKDOWN:MATERIALS BREAKDOWN:MATERIALS BREAKDOWN:MATERIALS BREAKDOWN: 1% PREFINISHED ALUMINIUM, 6% GLASS, 93% BRICK & GLAZED BLOCKBASEML100'-0"AAEC ADDITION99'-6"EC TOP OF MASONRY114'-1 3/8"04.0104.0304.0104.0404.0904.0504.02C.J.BRICK LEDGE ELEVATION: 98'-6"MATERIALS BREAKDOWN:MATERIALS BREAKDOWN:MATERIALS BREAKDOWN:MATERIALS BREAKDOWN: 100% BRICK & GLAZED BLOCKB1A1B5A1D1A1F2A1F7A1F1A1F1A1MIRNKEYPLANNexus Solutions, LLCTHIS DRAWING IS PROPERTY OFNEXUS SOLUTIONS, LLC. USE OR REPRODUCTIONWITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS PROHIBITED.2016 BUILDING ADDITIONDRAWING NUMBERCDRAWING TITLEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THESTATE OF MINNESOTA.PRINTED NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE: REG. NO.11188 ZEALAND AVENUE NORTHCHAMPLIN, MN 55316Phone: 763-201-8400Fax: 763-201-8410DRAWINGSCONSTRUCTIONCheck:Drawn:Date: Comm:CENTENNIAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS - ISD #12RICE LAKE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLPaul Aplikowski4273711/02/2015BID PACKAGE 17575 BIRCH STREETLINO LAKES, MN 55014^ÄÅÇÉCheckerAuthor11/02/2015 152131EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS -CONDITIONAL USEPERMITA1RevisionsDescription Date Num0 1/8" = 1'-0"WEST ELEVATIONB16' 12'0 1/8" = 1'-0"NORTH ENTRANCE NORTH ELEVATIONB56' 12'0 1/8" = 1'-0"SOUTH ELEVATIOND16' 12'0 1/8" = 1'-0"EAST ELEVATIONF26' 12'0 1/8" = 1'-0"NORTH ELEVATIONF76' 12'0 1/8" = 1'-0"MAIN ENTRY EAST ELEVATIONF16' 12'MATERIALS KEYMATERIALS KEYMATERIALS KEYMATERIALS KEYKEYKEYKEYKEYMATERIALMATERIALMATERIALMATERIAL04.0104.0104.0104.01 BRICK 1BRICK 1BRICK 1BRICK 104.0204.0204.0204.02 BRICK 2BRICK 2BRICK 2BRICK 204.0304.0304.0304.03 BRICK 3BRICK 3BRICK 3BRICK 304.0404.0404.0404.04 BRICK 4BRICK 4BRICK 4BRICK 404.0504.0504.0504.05 BRICK 1 SOLDIER COURSEBRICK 1 SOLDIER COURSEBRICK 1 SOLDIER COURSEBRICK 1 SOLDIER COURSE04.0904.0904.0904.09 GLAZED BLOCKGLAZED BLOCKGLAZED BLOCKGLAZED BLOCK07.3807.3807.3807.38 PREFINISHED ALUMINUM COPINGPREFINISHED ALUMINUM COPINGPREFINISHED ALUMINUM COPINGPREFINISHED ALUMINUM COPING08.0308.0308.0308.03 PREFINISHED ALUMINUM DOORPREFINISHED ALUMINUM DOORPREFINISHED ALUMINUM DOORPREFINISHED ALUMINUM DOOR08.0708.0708.0708.07 PREFINISHED ALUMINUM FRAMEPREFINISHED ALUMINUM FRAMEPREFINISHED ALUMINUM FRAMEPREFINISHED ALUMINUM FRAME08.1808.1808.1808.18 PREFINISHED SILLPREFINISHED SILLPREFINISHED SILLPREFINISHED SILL08.2808.2808.2808.28 PREFINISHED WINDOW SILLPREFINISHED WINDOW SILLPREFINISHED WINDOW SILLPREFINISHED WINDOW SILL08.3008.3008.3008.30 PREFINISHED ALUMINUM WINDOWPREFINISHED ALUMINUM WINDOWPREFINISHED ALUMINUM WINDOWPREFINISHED ALUMINUM WINDOW10.0710.0710.0710.07 PAINTED DIMENSION LETTER SIGNAGEPAINTED DIMENSION LETTER SIGNAGEPAINTED DIMENSION LETTER SIGNAGEPAINTED DIMENSION LETTER SIGNAGE22.9822.9822.9822.98 ROOF DRAIN DOWNSPOUT (SEE MECH.)ROOF DRAIN DOWNSPOUT (SEE MECH.)ROOF DRAIN DOWNSPOUT (SEE MECH.)ROOF DRAIN DOWNSPOUT (SEE MECH.)26.9726.9726.9726.97 EXTERIOR LIGHTING (SEE ELEC.)EXTERIOR LIGHTING (SEE ELEC.)EXTERIOR LIGHTING (SEE ELEC.)EXTERIOR LIGHTING (SEE ELEC.)OVERALL MATERIALS BREAKDOWN:OVERALL MATERIALS BREAKDOWN:OVERALL MATERIALS BREAKDOWN:OVERALL MATERIALS BREAKDOWN:89% BRICK (RED, TAN, AND BROWN)8.5% GLASS1.5% PERFINISHED ALUMINIUM1% GLAZED BLOCKEXTERIOR ELEVATIONKEY PLAN Copy 1 A'A'B'B'1'1'2'2'3'3'4'4'010102020303040405050606AAAABBBBCCCCDDDDEEEECLASSROOME101856 SFPARENTEDUCATIONE102846 SFOFFICEE103C117 SFOFFICEE103B117 SFWORKROOME103D287 SFCONFERENCEE103A205 SFMAIN OFFICEE103749 SFVESTIBULEE003CORRIDORE002CORRIDORE004CORRIDORE005SIBLING CAREE123382 SFLOUNGEE121295 SFASSESSMENT/SENSORYE122104 SFRESTROOME12048 SFRESTROOME11948 SFCLASSROOME105855 SFCLASSROOME107855 SFCLASSROOME108855 SFMOTOR ROOME118855 SFSTORAGEE118A106 SFRESTROOME117226 SFRESTROOME115226 SFJANITORE11633 SFRESTROOME114B48 SFELECTRICALE114A56 SFSCHOOLREADINESSE114855 SFCLASSROOME113855 SFSPEECHE11293 SFSPEECHE11193 SFSPEECHE11093 SFHOME VISITOFFICEE109411 SFSTORAGEE106186 SFCLASSROOME104853 SFCORRIDORE001CORRIDORE103EDATAE106A65 SF100'-0"100'-0"99'-6"100'-0"SQUARE FOOTAGE SUMMARY:SQUARE FOOTAGE SUMMARY:SQUARE FOOTAGE SUMMARY:SQUARE FOOTAGE SUMMARY: 17,064 GROSS SQUARE FEET - 100% 'E' OCCUPANCYCLASSROOMNKEYPLANNexus Solutions, LLCTHIS DRAWING IS PROPERTY OFNEXUS SOLUTIONS, LLC. USE OR REPRODUCTIONWITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS PROHIBITED.2016 BUILDING ADDITIONDRAWING NUMBERCDRAWING TITLEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THESTATE OF MINNESOTA.PRINTED NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE: REG. NO.11188 ZEALAND AVENUE NORTHCHAMPLIN, MN 55316Phone: 763-201-8400Fax: 763-201-8410DRAWINGSCONSTRUCTIONCheck:Drawn:Date: Comm:CENTENNIAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS - ISD #12RICE LAKE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLPaul Aplikowski4273711/02/2015BID PACKAGE 17575 BIRCH STREETLINO LAKES, MN 55014^ÄÅÇÉCheckerAuthor11/02/2015 152131TYPICAL FLOOR PLANS-CONDITIONAL USEPERMITA2RevisionsDescription Date Num0 1/8" = 1'-0"MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITF16' 12'0 1/4" = 1'-0"TYPICAL ROOM PLAN - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITH63' 6' 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 16-20 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR RICE LAKE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ADDITION (575 BIRCH STREET) WHEREAS, the City has received an application for a conditional use permit amendment and site plan review for an addition to the existing elementary school for early childhood education hereafter referred to as “Development”; and WHEREAS, the property is zoned PSP, Public and Semi-Public and allows for schools (public and private) with a conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, per Section 1007.016(2)(n), the school is considered to have an existing conditional use permit because it was existing as of July 14, 1997 and any change involving a structural enlargement of the facility requires an amendment to the conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, the legal descriptions of the subject properties are: (Per Warranty Deed Doc. No. 937240) That part of Government Lot 4 Section 29, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said government Lot 4; thence North 00 degrees 39 minutes 48 seconds East, assumed bearing, 60.00 feet to the north right-of-way line of C.S.A.H. No. 10 and the point of beginning of the part to be described; thence South 88 degrees 52 minutes 59 seconds East 625.56 feet; thence north 00 degrees 43 minutes 03 seconds East 1262.73 feet to the north line of said government Lot 4; thence North 88 degrees 51 minutes 16 seconds west 626.80 feet to the West line of said government lot 4; thence South 00 degrees 39 minutes 41 seconds West along the west line of said government lot 4 a distance of 1263.06 feet to the point of beginning. AND (Per Warranty Deed Doc. No. 937239) That part of Government Lot 5, Section 29, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said government Lot 5; thence North 00 degrees 39 minutes 48 seconds East, assumed bearing, 60.00 feet to the north right-of-way line of C.S.A.H. No. 10 and the point of beginning of the part to be 2 described; thence North 88 degrees 52 minutes 00 seconds West 896.68 feet; thence north 00 degrees 32 minutes 38 seconds East 240.02 feet; thence North 88 degrees 52 minutes 00 seconds West 420.02 feet; thence North 00 degrees 32 minutes 38 seconds East 1023.34 feet to the East-West Quarter line of said section 29; thence South 88 degrees 51 minutes 16 seconds East, along said East-West Quarter Line 1319.29 feet to the East line of said government lot 5; thence South 00 degrees 39 minutes 41 seconds west 1263.06 feet to the point of beginning. WHEREAS, City staff has completed a review of the proposed “Development” based on the revised plan set prepared by Nexus Solutions and Larson Engineering dated March 14, 2016; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning & Zoning Board on March 9, 2016 and the Board recommended approval of the conditional use permit amendment and site plan review; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes makes the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed development application has been found to be consistent with the policies and recommendations of the Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan including: a. Land Use Plan. b. Transportation Plan. c. Utility (Sewer and Water) Plans. d. Local Water Management Plan. e. Capital Improvement Plan. f. Policy Plan. g. Natural Environment Plan. The proposed school addition for early childhood education is consistent with the policies and recommendations of the comprehensive plan in regards to the Resource Management System, Land Use Plan, Transportation Plan, Utility Plans and Community Facilities. This is detailed in the March 9, 2016 Planning & Zoning Staff Report. 2. The proposed development application is compatible with present and future land uses of the area. The proposed school addition for early childhood education is compatible with present and future land uses. The property to the north is zoned PSP, Public and 3 Semi-Public and is guided for park and open space. This property is part of the Anoka County Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Park Reserve. The properties to the west, east and south are zoned and guided for single family residential development. Single family homes exist in the surrounding neighborhood. 3. The proposed development application conforms to performance standards herein and other applicable City Codes. The proposed school addition conforms to performance standards and other applicable City Codes. A Site and Building Plan Review has been completed and the proposed school addition meets zoning performance standards in regards to exterior building materials, setbacks, landscaping and parking. 4. Traffic generated by a proposed development application is within the capabilities of the City when: a. If the existing level of service (LOS) outside of the proposed subdivision is A or B, traffic generated by a proposed subdivision will not degrade the level of service more than one grade. b. If the existing LOS outside of the proposed subdivision is C, traffic generated by a proposed subdivision will not degrade the level of service below C. c. If the existing LOS outside of the proposed subdivision is D, traffic generated by a proposed subdivision will not degrade the level of service below D. d. The existing LOS must be D or better for all streets and intersections providing access to the subdivision. If the existing level of service is E or F, the subdivision developer must provide, as part of the proposed project, improvements needed to ensure a level of service D or better. e. Existing roads and intersections providing access to the subdivision must have the structural capacity to accommodate projected traffic from the proposed subdivision or the developer will pay to correct any structural deficiencies. f. The traffic generated from a proposed subdivision shall not require City street improvements that are inconsistent with the Lino Lakes Capital Improvement Plan. However, the City may, at its discretion, consider developer-financed improvements to correct any street deficiencies. g. The LOS requirements in paragraphs a. to d. above do not apply to the I- 35W/Lake Drive or I-35E/Main St. interchanges. At City discretion, interchange impacts must be evaluated in conjunction with Anoka County and the Minnesota Dept. of Transportation, and a plan must be prepared to determine improvements needed to resolve deficiencies. This plan must determine traffic generated by the subdivision project, how this traffic contributes to the total traffic, and the time frame of the improvements. The 4 plan also must examine financing options, including project contribution and cost sharing among other jurisdictions and other properties, that contribute to traffic at the interchange. h. The City does not relinquish any rights of local determination. Traffic generated by the proposed school addition is within the capabilities of the City. CSAH 34/Birch Street is a “B” minor arterial road. The school is accessed via two main driveways off of CSAH 34 and there will be no changes to these driveways. The early childhood education program currently operates out of the existing school. There will be no additional students or teachers increasing traffic and no impacts to the traffic levels of service are anticipated. 5. The proposed development shall be served with adequate and safe water supply. The proposed school addition will be served with an adequate and safe water supply. The site is served by a 16” ductile iron watermain located along CSAH 34/Birch Street that can accommodate the demands of the proposed school addition. 6. The proposed development shall be served with an adequate and safe sanitary sewer system. The proposed school addition will be served with an adequate and safe sanitary sewer system. The site is served by a 12” sanitary sewer line located along CSAH 34/Birch Street that can accommodate the demands of the school addition. 7. The proposed development shall not result in the premature expenditures of City funds on capital improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed development. No City funds are being expended on this project. 8. The proposed development will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. The proposed school addition for early childhood education is an allowed use within the PSP, Public and Semi-Public District with an approved conditional use permit. The addition will not generate excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. 9. The proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. The proposed school addition will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of natural, scenic or historic features of major importance because there are none existing on site. 5 WHEREAS, in addition to the criteria established under Section 1007.016, Conditional Use Permits above, Section 1007.130(8)(a) establishes the following conditions that shall be met: 1. Side yards shall be double that required for the district, but no greater than thirty (30) feet. The standard side yard setback is 10 feet so a 20 foot setback is required. The proposed school addition is 500+ feet from the east property line and 700+ feet from the west property line. 2. Adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with §1007.043 (17) of this Ordinance. Adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided. The proposed school addition is more than 400 feet from the nearest residential property. No addition landscaping or screening is required. 3. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided on the site or on lots directly abutting or directly across a public street or alley to the principal use in compliance with §1007.044 of this Ordinance and that such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting residential uses in compliance with §1007.043 (17) this Ordinance. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided on the site. The 200 existing parking stalls located off-street exceed the required 143 parking stalls and will adequately serve the existing school and addition. The site is accessed via 2 driveways onto CSAH 34/Birch Street and these will not be altered. 4. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided and regulated where applicable by §1007.045 of this Ordinance. There is no off-street loading associated with the proposed school addition. 5. The provisions of §1007.016 of this Ordinance are considered and determined to be satisfied. The provisions of Section 1007.016 are satisfied as noted above and in the March 9, 2016 Planning & Zoning Staff Report. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes hereby approves the conditional use permit amendment and site plan review for the Rice Lake Elementary School Addition subject to the following conditions: 1. A Site Improvement Performance Agreement shall be executed and securities and escrows in place prior to issuance of a building permit. 6 2. A Declaration for Maintenance of Stormwater Facilities shall be executed prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. A permit from Rice Creek Watershed District shall be required. 4. A separate Sign Permit shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. 5. A building permit shall be required. Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 11th day of April, 2016. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member_______________ and was duly seconded by Council Member ________________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: ______________________________ Jeff Reinert, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________ Julianne Bartell, City Clerk CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 16-21 RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT WITH CENTENNIAL ISD #12 (RICE LAKE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ADDITION) WHEREAS, the City has completed the review of the conditional use permit amendment and site plan review for the Rice Lake Elementary School Addition located at 575 Birch Street; and WHEREAS, Section 1007.020(5)(d) of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance requires the execution of a site improvement performance agreement prior to issuance of a building permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes that the Site Improvement Performance Agreement between the City of Lino Lakes and Centennial ISD #12 is hereby approved, and the Mayor and City Clerk are authorized to execute such agreements on behalf of the City. Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 11th day of April, 2016. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member_______________and was duly seconded by Council Member ________________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: _______________________________ Jeff Reinert, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________ Julianne Bartell, City Clerk 6 20160411Rice Lake Elementary Addition Site Performance Agreement.doc page 1 of 8 CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this _______ day of _______________, 2016, is by and between the City of Lino Lakes, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, and Centennial ISD #12 (Developer). WHEREAS, the Developer has received approval of Site Development Plans, hereinafter called the "Plans", by the City of Lino Lakes on the day of ________, 2016, and in accordance with the Plans all of which are made a part hereof by reference. In consideration of such approval, the Developer, its successors and assigns, does covenant and agree to perform the work as set forth in the Plans, in the aforesaid approval, and as hereinafter set forth upon the real estate (hereinafter referred to as "Property") described as follows: (Per Warranty Deed Doc. No. 937240) That part of Government Lot 4 Section 29, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said government Lot 4; thence North 00 degrees 39 minutes 48 seconds East, assumed bearing, 60.00 feet to the north right-of-way line of C.S.A.H. No. 10 and the point of beginning of the part to be described; thence South 88 degrees 52 minutes 59 seconds East 625.56 feet; thence north 00 degrees 43 minutes 03 seconds East 1262.73 feet to the north line of said government Lot 4; thence North 88 degrees 51 minutes 16 seconds west 626.80 feet to the West line of said government lot 4; thence South 00 degrees 39 minutes 41 seconds West along the west line of said government lot 4 a distance of 1263.06 feet to the point of beginning. AND (Per Warranty Deed Doc. No. 937239) That part of Government Lot 5, Section 29, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said government Lot 5; thence North 00 degrees 39 minutes 48 seconds East, assumed bearing, 60.00 feet to the north right-of-way line of C.S.A.H. No. 10 and the point of beginning of the part to be described; thence North 88 degrees 52 minutes 00 seconds West 896.68 feet; thence north 00 degrees 32 minutes 38 seconds East 240.02 feet; thence North 88 degrees 52 minutes 00 seconds West 420.02 feet; thence North 00 degrees 32 minutes 38 seconds East 1023.34 feet to the East-West Quarter line of said section 29; thence South 88 degrees 51 minutes 16 seconds East, along said East-West 6 20160411Rice Lake Elementary Addition Site Performance Agreement.doc page 2 of 8 Quarter Line 1319.29 feet to the East line of said government lot 5; thence South 00 degrees 39 minutes 41 seconds west 1263.06 feet to the point of beginning. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises of the parties made herein, IT IS AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO: I. DESIGNATION OF IMPROVEMENTS. A. Improvements on the project site to be installed at the Developer’s expense by the Developer as hereinafter provided are hereinafter referred to as “On-site Work”. B. Improvements off the project site to be installed at the Developer’s expense, if any, by the Developer as hereinafter provided are hereinafter referred to as “Off-Site Work”. C. Developer shall enter into a Declaration for Maintenance of Stormwater Facilities. II. ON-SITE WORK. A. On-Site Work. The On-site Work shall consist of the improvements described in the approved Plans, to include any approved subsequent amendments, and shall be in compliance with all applicable statutes, codes and ordinances of the City. The Work includes all on-site exterior amenities as shown on the approved Plans and as required by the plan approval, such as, but not limited to: landscaping, private driveways, parking areas, sanitary sewer extension, water system extension, storm drainage systems, curbing, lighting, fencing, fire lanes, sidewalks, exterior building architectural design and building elements, site grading and erosion control measures. Such improvements shall be completed in accordance with Section IV herein. B. Cost Estimates. The Developer shall provide the City with a written estimate of all applicable costs of the On-Site Work, itemized by type; the estimates shall be based upon the actual estimates provided by the contractors who are to do the Work. Said cost estimates shall be reviewed by the City, and the City shall establish the actual amount of the financial guarantee. The description and estimated cost of Developer's On-site Work are as follows: 6 20160411Rice Lake Elementary Addition Site Performance Agreement.doc page 3 of 8 Description of Improvements Estimated Costs 1. Grading $16,500 2. Utilities $28,000 3. Curb and Gutter $14,000 4. Pavement $24,000 5. Sidewalk $27,000 6. Lot Lighting $6,800 7. Landscaping $13,000 Total Estimated Cost of Developer Improvements $129,300 Security Requirement (Total * 35%) $45,255 III. Record Drawings A record drawing that includes an as-built survey of all storm water BMP’s (ponds, rain gardens, trenches, swales, etc.) is to be submitted to the City for verification of compliance with the approved plans. A hard copy and an electronic copy of the record drawing must be submitted. IV. COMPLETION DATE. If the activities authorized by site and building plan approval are not initiated within twelve (12) months from the final execution of this agreement, then Developer will need to start the site and building plan approval process from the beginning. V. GUARANTEE. A. The Developer will fully and faithfully comply with all terms and conditions of any and all contracts entered into by the Developer. Concurrently with the execution hereof by the Developer, the Developer will furnish to, and at all times thereafter maintain with the City, a cash deposit, certified check, or Irrevocable Letter of Credit, based on thirty- five (35%) percent of the total estimated cost of Developer's On-site Work. An Irrevocable Letter of Credit shall be for the exclusive use and benefit of the City of Lino Lakes and shall state thereon that the same is issued to guarantee and assure performance by the Developer of all the terms and conditions of this Development Contract, construction of all required improvements in accordance with the ordinances and specifications of the City and guarantees the workmanship and materials for the landscape improvements for a period of one year following the City’s acceptance of the landscape improvements. The City reserves the 6 20160411Rice Lake Elementary Addition Site Performance Agreement.doc page 4 of 8 right to draw, in whole or in part, on any portion of the Irrevocable Letter of Credit for the purpose of guaranteeing the terms and conditions of this contract, if Developer has been found to be in default of this agreement and only after providing Developer with written notice and opportunity to cure any default. The Irrevocable Letter of Credit shall be automatically extended for additional periods of one year from present or future expiration dates unless sixty (60) days prior to such the City Clerk or Administrator is notified in writing by certified mail or overnight mail that the Letter of Credit will not be renewed. B. Upon written request, The City will grant a reduction of the Letter of Credit, or cash deposit based on prepayment or the value of the completed improvements at the time of the requested reduction. The Developer may make such requests three times throughout the life of this agreement, with the third and/or final request being at the completion of the project. The City will respond to such request within 30 days time. Prior to the final acceptance of the Developer’s Improvements the City shall require a Letter of Credit or Cash Escrow to cover the warranty provisions of the agreement. The amount shall be agreed to by the City Engineer and Developer and Developer may use the Letter of Credit discussed in Section V.A above. VI. REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS. A. The Developer agrees to establish a non-interest bearing escrow account with the City in an amount established by the City Engineer or his designee for the payment of all City fees and costs incurred by the City related to the On-site Work, including, but not limited to, the following: 1. Site Plan Review Fee $1,500 2. Administration (Legal, Engineering, Planning, and Contract administration) $3,500 3. Sanitary Sewer Trunk Unit Fee (16 units @ $3,073 per unit) $49,168 4. Water Trunk Unit Fee (16 units @ $4,069 per unit) $65,104 5. Surface Water Management Fee $1,417 Total Estimated (Budget) Costs for Escrow Account $120,689 B. If it appears that the actual costs incurred will exceed the estimate or that the actual costs incurred will be less than the estimate, then Developer and City shall review the costs required to complete the project. In such case, if the actual costs exceed the estimate, then Developer shall promptly pay the additional sums to the City to pay for the agreed upon increase. However, in such case where the actual costs are less than the estimate, the City shall promptly reimburse to Developer any amounts overpaid by 6 20160411Rice Lake Elementary Addition Site Performance Agreement.doc page 5 of 8 the Developer. The Developer may request a statement of the account each month for review. C. Intentionally Deleted. VII. REMEDIES FOR BREACH A. The City shall give prior written notice to the Developer of any default hereunder before proceeding to enforce such financial guarantee or before the City undertakes any work for which the City will be reimbursed through the financial guarantee. If within twenty (20) days after receipt of such written notice to it, the Developer has not notified the City by stating in writing the manner in which the default will be cured and the time within which such default will be cured, the City will proceed with the remedy it deems reasonably appropriate. B. At any time after the completion date and any extensions thereof, if any of the work is deemed incomplete, the City may proceed in any one or more of the following ways to enforce the undertakings herein set forth, and to collect any and all expenses reasonably incurred by the City in connection therewith, including, but not limited to, engineering, legal, planning and litigation costs and expense. The enumeration of the remedies hereunder shall be in addition to any other remedies available to the City. 1. Specific Performance. The City may in writing direct the surety or the Developer to cause the Work to be undertaken and completed within a specified reasonable time. If the Developer fails to cause the Work to be done and completed in a manner and time reasonably acceptable to the City, the City may proceed to bring an action for specific performance to require work to be undertaken. 2. Completion by the City. The City, after written notice, may enter the premises and proceed to have the Work done either by contract, by day labor or by regular City forces. The Developer may not question the manner of doing such work or the letting of any such contracts for the doing of any such work; provided that all such work is performed in a reasonable manner, the costs are reasonable and the work is completed in a good and workman-like manner and in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. Upon completion of such work, the Developer shall promptly pay the City the full cost thereof as aforesaid. 3. Deposit of Financial Guarantee. In the event the financial guarantee has been submitted in the form of a Letter of Credit, the City may draw on the Letter of Credit the sum equal to the reasonably estimated cost of completing the Work, plus the City's 6 20160411Rice Lake Elementary Addition Site Performance Agreement.doc page 6 of 8 reasonably estimated expenses as defined herein, including any other reasonable costs, expenses, and damages for which the surety may be liable hereunder, but not exceeding the amount set forth on the Letter of Credit. The money shall be deemed to be held by the City for the purpose of reimbursing the City for any reasonable costs incurred in completing the Work as hereinafter specified. Any funds remaining after completion of the project shall be promptly returned to the Developer. VIII. OCCUPATION OF PREMISES The Developer agrees that it will not cause to be occupied any portion of the building or improvements to be constructed upon the premises until completion of the building and site improvements as more fully described in the approved plans and following issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. IX. INSURANCE Developer or its general contractor shall take out and maintain until one year after the City accepted the Developer Improvements, public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of the Developer's or general contractor’s work, as the case may be, or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them. Limits for bodily injury and death shall be not less than Five Hundred Thousand and no/100 ($500,000.00) Dollars for one person and One Million and no/100 ($1,000,000.00) Dollars for each occurrence; limits for property damage shall be not less then Two Hundred Thousand and no/100 ($200,000.00) Dollars for each occurrence; or a combination single limit policy of One Million and no/100 ($1,000,000.00) Dollars or more. The City, its employees, its agents and assigns shall be named as an additional insured on the policy, and the Developer or its general contractor shall file with the City a certificate evidencing coverage prior to the City signing the plat. The certificate shall provide that the City must be given ten days advance written notice of the cancellation of the insurance. The certificate may not contain any disclaimer for failure to give the required notice. X. REIMBURSEMENT FOR LITIGATION EXPENSES The City and Developer agree that the prevailing party in any litigation pertaining to the enforcement of this Agreement shall be entitled to reimbursement from the non-prevailing party for all reasonable costs incurred by said prevailing party including court costs and reasonable engineering and attorneys' fees. XI. VALIDITY 6 20160411Rice Lake Elementary Addition Site Performance Agreement.doc page 7 of 8 If a portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase in this Agreement is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect or void any of the other provisions of the Site Improvement Performance Agreement. XII. GENERAL A. Binding Effect. The terms and provisions hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto and shall be binding upon all future owners of all or any part of the Property and shall be deemed covenants running with the land. D. Notices. Whenever in this Agreement it shall be required or permitted that notice or demand be given or served by either party to this Agreement to or on the other party, such notice or demand shall be delivered personally or (i) mailed by United States mail by certified mail (return receipt requested)or (ii) sent by nationally recognized overnight carrier to the addresses hereinbefore set forth on Page 1 . Such notice or demand shall be deemed timely given when delivered personally or when deposited in the mail or the overnight carrier in accordance with the above. The addresses of the parties hereto are as set forth on Page 1 until changed by notices given as above. E. Incorporation by Reference. All plans, special provisions, proposals, specifications and contracts for the improvements furnished and let pursuant to this Agreement shall be and hereby are made a part of this Agreement by reference as fully as if set out herein in full. F. Hours of Construction Activity. All construction activity shall be limited to the hours set out as follows: Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Sunday and Holidays No working hours allowed XIII. VIOLATIONS/BUILDING PERMITS In the event that Developer violates any of the covenants and agreements contained in this Site Improvement Performance Agreement and to be performed by the Developer, the City, at its option, and after providing written notice and opportunity to cure to Developer in addition to the rights and remedies as set out hereunder may refuse to issue building permits to any property within the development and/or stop building construction within the development until such time as such default has been corrected to the satisfaction of the City. 6 20160411Rice Lake Elementary Addition Site Performance Agreement.doc page 8 of 8 DEVELOPER CITY OF LINO LAKES _________________________ By _________________________ Developer Mayor ATTEST: By _________________________ City Clerk State of Minnesota ) ) ss. County of Anoka ) On this _____ day of ____________________, in the year of 2016 before me, a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared Julianne Bartell, City Clerk of the City of Lino Lakes, who executed the foregoing instrument, attesting to the signature of Jeff Reinert, Mayor and acknowledged that it was executed on behalf of said City. ____________________________________ Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ANOKA ) On this _______ day of _______________, 2016, before me, a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared (Developer), who executed the foregoing instrument. ______________________________ Notary Public This instrument was drafted by: City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 1 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 6C STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner MEETING DATE: April 11, 2016 TOPIC: Saddle Club Second Addition i. Consider Resolution No. 16-12 Approving Final Plat ii. Consider Resolution No. 16-13 Approving Development Agreement VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION Staff is requesting City Council consideration of the Final Plat and Development Agreement for Saddle Club Second Addition. Complete Application Date: January 8, 2016 60 Day Review: March 8, 2016 Environmental Board: NA Park Board: NA Planning & Zoning Board: February 10, 2016 Council Work Session: April 4, 2016 City Council Meeting: April 11, 2016 BACKGROUND Saddle Club is a PUD residential subdivision located south of Birch Street and Old Birch Street. The preliminary plat is 39.4 gross acres and consists of 55 single family residential lots. The applicant has submitted a land use application for final plat of Saddle Club Second Addition. This review is based on the final plat dated December 17, 2015 and prepared by EG Rud & Sons. Previous Council and Board Actions: 2 • February 10, 2014: City Council approval of Saddle Club PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat, Resolution No. 14-15 • August 25, 2014: City Council approval of Saddle Club PUD Final Plan-Final Plat, Resolution No. 14-63 • February 10, 2016: Planning & Zoning Board recommendation of Saddle Club Second Addition Final Plat Analysis Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code The final plat has been reviewed for compliance with the comprehensive plan, zoning and subdivision ordinance. The proposed development is not considered premature and meets the performance standards of the subdivision and zoning ordinance. The final plat is consistent with the PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat and Final Plan. The phasing plan has been revised from 2 phases to 3 phases of development. The total number of lots has not changed. ORIGINAL PHASING PLAN # of LOTS Phase One 28 Phase Two 27 TOTAL 55 REVISED PHASING PLAN # of LOTS Phase One 28 Phase Two 17 Phase Three 10 TOTAL 55 An important component of the Saddle Club development is the connection of Fox Road and extension of public utilities to the Foxborough development. This extension was to be completed with phase two of the development. The revised phasing plan now has this connection being made with phase three. The city will obtain financial securities from the developer to ensure future construction of these improvements. These securities are detailed in the Development Agreement for Saddle Club Second Addition. 3 Blocks and Lots The final plat for Saddle Club Second Addition creates 17 lots from outlots B and C, Saddle Club First Addition. Streets Black Berry Court will be constructed with this phase. As approved with the final plan, the right-of-way width is 50 feet and street width is 30 feet back to back. Public Utilities Watermain and sanitary sewer will be extended down Black Berry Court per the approved construction plans. Easements Standard drainage and utility easements are provided on all lot lines. Public Land Dedication and Fees The City is requiring cash in lieu of land dedication. Saddle Club Second Addition 17 lots x $2,500 = $42,500 Trail The trail will be constructed from the Foxborough development to Black Berry Court in this phase. Zoning Saddle Club Second Addition is zoned PUD-Planned Unit Development as approved by the City Council with Ordinance No. 01-14. Comprehensive Plan The final plat is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan in terms of the Resource Management System, Land Use Plan and Housing Plan. 4 Transportation Plan By-pass Lane on Birch Street The City is working with Anoka County on the design and construction of a by-pass lane on CSAH 34/Birch Street. Design is 70% complete and the County anticipates construction by fall 2016. Old Birch Street Design on the north-south section and cul de sac on the north end of Old Birch Street is 50% complete. The City anticipates construction by fall 2016. The east-west section of Old Birch Street will be reconstructed by the developer in early summer 2016. Future Fox Road and Public Utilities Connection The City Attorney is drafting a purchase agreement with Comcast to acquire the south 550 feet of their parcel to the west to allow for the extension of Fox Road and public utilities to Foxborough. This purchase will require separate Council action. The city will obtain financial securities from the developer to ensure future construction of these improvements with phase three. These securities are detailed in the Development Agreement for Saddle Club Second Addition. A wetland delineation has been completed in this area and the developer is starting design of the Fox Road and public utility extension. Construction will coincide with the submittal of the Saddle Club Third Addition in spring 2017. Development Agreement A Development Agreement has been drafted by the City and shall be executed by the developer. Title Commitment The City Attorney reviewed the title commitment and final plat and notes Royal Oaks shall transfer title to Dupont Holdings before the plat can be approved and recorded. The title commitment legal description shall be revised to include Outlot B and C. Stormwater Maintenance Agreement A Maintenance Agreement for Stormwater Management Facilities was approved by the City Council on August 25, 2014 with Resolution No. 14-92 for the entire Saddle Club development. 5 RECOMMENDATION The Planning & Zoning Board reviewed the final plat on February 10, 2016. The Board and staff recommend approval of the following items with conditions as listed: 1. Resolution No. 16-12 Approving Saddle Club Second Final Plat 2. Resolution No. 16-13 Approving Development Agreement ATTACHMENTS 1. Original and Revised Phasing Plan 2. Resolution No. 16-12 3. Final Plat for Saddle Club Second Addition 4. Resolution No. 16-13 5. Development Agreement 6. City Engineer Letter dated February 1, 2016 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 16-12 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT FOR SADDLE CLUB SECOND ADDITION WHEREAS, the City has received an application for Final Plat approval for Saddle Club Second addition hereafter referred to as “Development”; and WHEREAS, City staff has completed a review of the proposed “Development” based on the following plans and information: • Final plat dated December 17, 2015 and prepared by EG Rud & Sons ; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning & Zoning Board on November 13, 2013 and continued to the January 8, 2014 meeting and the Board recommended approval of the PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the rezoning from R, Rural to PUD, Planned Unit Development with Ordinance 01-14 and the PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat with Resolution 14-15; and WHEREAS, Planning & Zoning Board reviewed and recommended approval of the Saddle Club Second Addition final plat at the February 10, 2016 meeting; and WHEREAS, the proposed development is not considered premature and meets the performance standards of the subdivision and zoning ordinance; and WHEREAS, the final plat is consistent with the PUD Development Stage Plan and Preliminary Plat; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes hereby approves the final plat for Saddle Club Second Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. All comments from City Engineer letter dated February 1, 2016 shall be addressed. 2. A Development Agreement shall be drafted by the City, executed by the City and the developer and recorded by the developer. 3. Black Berry Court shall be revised to one word, Blackberry Court. 4. Title Commitment: a. Royal Oaks shall transfer title to Dupont Holdings before the plat is approved and recorded. b. The title commitment legal description shall be revised to include Outlot B and C. 2 Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 11th day of April, 2016. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member _______________and was duly seconded by Council Member ________________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: ______________________________ Jeff Reinert, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________ Julianne Bartell, City Clerk CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 16-13 RESOLUTION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SADDLE CLUB SECOND ADDITION WHEREAS, the City Council approved the final plat for Saddle Club Second Addition with Resolution No. 16-12 on April 11, 2016; and WHEREAS, the City’s subdivision ordinance and conditions of approval require the execution of a development agreement between the Developer and the City of Lino Lakes. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes hereby approves the Development Agreement between DuPont Holdings, LLC and the City of Lino Lakes for Saddle Club and authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to execute such agreement on behalf of the City. Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 11th day of April, 2016. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member _______________and was duly seconded by Council Member ________________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: _______________________________ Jeff Reinert, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________ Julianne Bartell, City Clerk DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT and PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Saddle Club Second Addition THIS AGREEMENT is made this _____ day of ____________, 2016, by and between the City of Lino Lakes, a Minnesota municipal corporation, and Dupont Holdings, LLC (“Developer”). 1. Subdivision. Developer received preliminary plat approval from the City by Resolution No. 14-15 for a plat known as Saddle Club (“Subdivision”). Unless otherwise stated, all terms and conditions of this Agreement relate to work within the Subdivision. 2. Final Plat Approval. The City’s approval of the Saddle Club Second Addition final plat, said property legally described in Attachment A, is contingent upon execution and delivery of this Agreement and all required petitions, bonds, security, and documents, and satisfaction of all conditions of approval required by Resolution No. 16-12. 3. Phased Development. The City may refuse to approve final plats of subsequent additions of the plat if the Developer breached this Agreement and the breach has not been remedied. Development of subsequent phases may not proceed until Development Agreements for such phases are approved by the City. 4. Developer Plans. a. The Subdivision shall be developed in accordance with the following Developer Plans, original copies of which are on file with the City Engineer. The Developer Plans may be prepared and revised after entering into this Agreement but must be approved by the City before commencement of any work. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Agreement, this Agreement shall control. b. The Developer Plans as of the date of this Agreement are: i. Saddle Club PUD plan set containing Sheets C0-C6.6, prepared by Plowe Engineering, Inc., revised April 8, 2015. 5. Permits. The Developer shall be responsible for securing all site grading and development approvals and permits from all appropriate Federal, State, Regional and Local jurisdictions prior to the commencement of site grading or construction and prior to the City awarding construction contracts for public improvements. Saddle Club Second Addition Development Agreement April 2016 page 2 6. Developer Improvements. The Developer shall secure a contractor to install these improvements, hereinafter referred to as the “Developer Improvements,” which contractor shall be approved by the City in its absolute discretion. The cost of Developer Improvements is as shown on Attachment B. All Developer Improvements shall require City inspection and approval and, where appropriate, the approval of any other governmental agency having jurisdiction. The Developer shall construct and install at the Developer's expense the following improvements according to the following terms and conditions: a. Site Grading i. No grading shall commence until all requirements of the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) have been satisfied. ii. All site grading shall be conducted in accordance with the grading plan as approved by the City and in accordance with NPDES and RCWD requirements. The Developer shall perform the work in accordance with a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) pursuant to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements. b. Grading and Erosion Control i. The Developer shall grade the site to within 0.2 foot of the grades shown on the approved grading plan. No deviations will be allowed unless a revised plan is submitted and approved by the City and all other regulatory agencies. ii. The street right-of-way, storm water storage ponds, and surface water drainage ways shall be graded prior to commencement of utility construction. iii. The Developer shall be responsible for ascertaining that site geotechnical and groundwater conditions are adequate and conforming with the grading and site improvement as proposed. iv. The Developer’s engineer shall certify in writing, with an as-built survey, that all grading complies with the approved grading plan prior to issuance of any building permits. v. The Developer shall promptly clear dirt and debris within public right-of- ways and drainage and utility easements resulting from construction by the Developer, its purchasers, builders and contractors within five days after notification by the City. The Developer shall be responsible for all necessary street and storm sewer maintenance, including street Saddle Club Second Addition Development Agreement April 2016 page 3 sweeping, until all home construction is completed, unless otherwise released by the City. Warning signs shall be placed when hazards develop in streets to prevent the public from traveling on them, including detour signs if necessary. If and when the streets become impassable, such streets shall be barricaded and closed. The Developer shall maintain a smooth, hard driving surface and adequate drainage on all temporary streets. c. Final street grading, subbase, gravel base, concrete curb and gutter, and bituminous base course and wear course shall be furnished and installed. d. Sidewalks, paths and street lighting as required by the City. e. Storm sewers, when determined to be necessary by the City Engineer, including all necessary laterals, catch basins, inlets and other appurtenances, shall be furnished and installed. f. Sanitary sewer mains, laterals or extensions, including all necessary building services and other appurtenances, shall be furnished and installed. g. Water mains, laterals or extensions, including all necessary building services, hydrants, valves and other appurtenances, shall be furnished and installed. h. The Developer shall place iron monuments at all lot and block corners and at all other angle points on boundary lines. Iron monuments shall be placed after all street and lawn grading has been completed in order to preserve the lot markers for future property owners. Lot corner irons on the back property line shall be installed so that the top of the iron corresponds to the finished ground elevation in accordance with the approved grading plan. Guard stakes shall be appropriately installed to mark these irons. i. Landscaping shall be furnished and installed in accordance with the approved plans. j. The Developer shall arrange for all gas, telephone, cable TV and electric utility services to the Subdivision in accordance with City Code and State law. The Developer is solely responsible for the cost of utility installation. 7. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required improvements enumerated in Paragraph 6 by [INSERT DATE]. The Developer may request a reasonable extension of time from the City. If the extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date. Saddle Club Second Addition Development Agreement April 2016 page 4 8. City Improvements. No city improvements are proposed to be constructed for this subdivision. 9. Record Drawings. a. Upon project completion, Developer shall submit record drawings, in electronic format, of all public and private infrastructure improvements, including roads, sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer facilities, and grading, constructed by Developer. The files shall be drawn in Anoka County NAD 83 Coordinate system and provided in both AutoCad .dwg and Adobe .pdf file formats. The plans shall include accurate locations, dimensions, elevations, grades, slopes and all other pertinent information concerning the complete work. b. A summary of the record plan attribute data for the storm sewer, water main, and sanitary sewer structures and pipes shall be submitted in the form of an Excel Spreadsheet provided by the City Engineer. c. No securities will be fully released until all record drawings have been submitted and accepted by the City Engineer. 10. Faithful Performance of Construction Contracts and Security. a. The Developer will fully and faithfully comply with all terms and conditions of any and all contracts entered into by the Developer for the installation and construction of all Developer Improvements. Concurrent with the execution hereof by the Developer, the Developer will furnish to, and at all times thereafter maintain with the City, a cash deposit, certified check, or Irrevocable Letter of Credit, based on one hundred fifty (150%) percent of the total estimated cost of Developer's Improvements. b. Irrevocable Letter of Credit. If an Irrevocable Letter of Credit is utilized, it shall be for the exclusive use and benefit of the City of Lino Lakes and shall state that it is issued to guarantee and assure performance by the Developer of all the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement and construction of all required improvements referenced therein in accordance with the ordinances and specifications of the City. The letter shall be in a form, and from a bank, as approved by the City. The City reserves the right to draw, in whole or in part, on any portion of the Irrevocable Letter of Credit for the purpose of guaranteeing the terms and conditions of this agreement. The Irrevocable Letter of Credit shall be automatically extended for additional periods of one year from present or future expiration dates. The Irrevocable Letter of Credit may not be terminated without the City’s written consent. Saddle Club Second Addition Development Agreement April 2016 page 5 c. Alternatively, the Developer may enter into a Public Improvement Surety Agreement subject to City approval. d. Reduction of Security. The Developer may request a reduction of the Letter of Credit or cash deposit based on prepayment or the value of the completed improvements at the time of the requested reduction. 11. Warranty. The Developer warrants all utility work required to be performed by it against poor material and faulty workmanship for a period of two years after its completion and acceptance by the City. All new streets shall be warranted by the developer for a period of one year from the time the final inspection of the street is completed and accepted by the City. All trees, grass and sod shall be warranted to be alive, of good quality and disease free for 12 months after planting. Prior to final acceptance of the Developer Improvements the City shall require a Performance Bond or Cash Escrow to cover the warranty provisions of this Agreement. The amount shall be determined by the City Engineer. 12. Dedication. The Developer shall dedicate to the City, at no cost to the City, any permanent or temporary easements that may be necessary for the construction and installation of the Developer Improvements. All such easements required by the City shall be in writing, in recordable form, containing such terms and conditions as the City shall determine. 13. Ownership of Improvements. Upon completion and City acceptance of the work and construction required by this Agreement, the public improvements lying within public right-of-way and easements shall become City property without further notice or action unless the improvements are to be deemed private infrastructure. 14. Recording and Release. The Developer agrees that the terms of this Development Agreement shall be a covenant on any and all property included in the Subdivision. The Developer agrees that the City shall have the right to record a copy of this Development Agreement with the Anoka County Recorder to give notice to future purchasers and owners. This shall be recorded against the Subdivision described on Page 1. 15. Escrow for City’s Costs. a. The Developer agrees to establish a non-interest bearing escrow account with the City in an amount determined by the City Administrator or his designee for the payment of all costs incurred by the City related to the development of the Subdivision including, but not limited to, the following (See Attachment B for breakdown of costs): i. Administration - 3% of Developer Improvement Costs Saddle Club Second Addition Development Agreement April 2016 page 6 ii. City Engineering iii. Street lighting installation (by utility company) iv. Traffic signing improvements v. Boulevard tree planting vi. Street, storm sewer and pond maintenance vii. Property Taxes. Should the recording of the Final Plat occur after July 1st, any and all property taxes on any public property dedicated as a part of this plat shall be the responsibility of the Developer. b. If the above escrow amounts are insufficient, the Developer shall make such additional deposits as required by the City. The City shall have a right to reimburse itself from the Escrow upon notice to the Developer, with suitable documentation supporting the charges. 16. Developer Fees. At the time of execution of this Agreement, the Developer shall pay the following fees related to the development of the Subdivision (See Attachment B for breakdown of costs): a. Park Dedication fee of $42,500. b. The Developer shall pay 15 months of maintenance and energy costs for street lights installed within the Subject Property at the rate of $7/month/light. After that the City will assume the costs. c. Sealcoating. The Developer will pay the cost of sealcoating the streets within the development at a cost of $5,544. The sealcoating will be completed within three to seven years following completion of the wear course placement. d. Aerial Photo Fees. e. Trunk Sewer Unit Charges. The City established trunk unit charges to uniformly distribute the costs of public trunk sanitary sewer infrastructure. Each individual connection to the sanitary sewer system shall be charged a unit charge per SAC unit (currently at $3,073 per SAC unit). The calculation of the SAC units shall be based on the procedure outlined in the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Sewer Availability Charge Procedure Manual. Trunk sewer unit charges addressed under this paragraph are in addition to any SAC charges imposed by Metropolitan Council Saddle Club Second Addition Development Agreement April 2016 page 7 Environmental Services. An estimate of the total charge and the trunk utility credit for developer installed trunk oversizing is specified in Attachment B. f. Trunk Water Unit Charges The City established trunk unit charges to uniformly distribute the costs of public trunk water infrastructure. Each individual connection to the water system shall be charged a unit charge per SAC unit (currently at $4,069 per SAC unit). The calculation of the SAC units shall be based on the procedure outlined in the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Sewer Availability Charge Procedure Manual. An estimate of the total charge and the trunk utility credit for developer installed trunk oversizing is specified in Attachment B. g. Surface Water Management Area Charges The City established a trunk area charge to uniformly distribute the costs of public trunk surface water infrastructure and water quality improvements. The Surface Water Management Charge shall be based on developable acreage, in the amount specified in Attachment B. 17. Assessment of Charges and Waiver of Rights. a. In consideration of the construction of City Improvements listed in Paragraph 8 and /or provision of sewer, water and storm water services, the Developer agrees that the costs of City Improvements together with Trunk Sewer Unit Charge, Trunk Water Unit Charge and the Surface Water Management Area Charge (collectively, “the Charges”) may be assessed against the Subdivision parcels. The Developer hereby waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessments, including notice and hearing requirements, any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the properties, and any right to appeal. b. Unless the Developer pays the entire balance owed for the Charges contemporaneously with the execution of this Agreement, the Developer shall provide to the City a cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit in an amount equal to 35% of the total assessments for the Charges as estimated by the City Engineer (see Attachment B). The letter of credit shall be in a form, and from a bank, as approved by the City. The letter of credit or cash escrow may be used by the City upon default by Developer in the payment of special assessments. The cash escrow or letter of credit shall remain in place throughout the term of the special assessments. The letter of credit may not be terminated without the City’s written consent. Saddle Club Second Addition Development Agreement April 2016 page 8 c. Developer, its heirs, successors or assigns, agrees that within 30 days after the date of sale of a lot, the Developer, its heirs, successors or assigns, at its own cost and expense, shall pay the entire unpaid charges assessed or to be assessed under this agreement against such property. d. If a certificate of occupancy is issued before the special assessments have been levied, the Developer, its heirs, successors or assigns shall pay the City the sum of cash equal to 120% of the Engineer's estimate of the special assessments for such Charges that would be levied against the property. Upon such payment the City shall issue a certificate showing the assessments are paid in full. Notwithstanding the issuance of said certificate, the Developer shall be liable to the City for any deficiency and the City shall pay the Developer any surplus arising from the payment based upon such estimate. e. Acceleration upon Default. In the event the Developer violates any of the covenants, conditions or agreements herein, violates any ordinance, rule or regulation of the City, County of Anoka, State of Minnesota or other governmental entity having jurisdiction over the plat or development, or fails to pay when due any installment of any special assessment levied pursuant to this agreement, or any interest thereon, the City at its option, in addition to its rights and remedies hereunder, after 10 days written notice to the Developer, may declare all of the unpaid special assessments which are then estimated or levied pursuant to this agreement due and payable in full, with interest. The City may seek recovery of such special assessments due and payable from the security provided herein. In the event that such security is insufficient to pay the outstanding amount of such special assessments plus accrued interest the City may certify such outstanding special assessments in full to the County Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 429.061, subdivision 3, for collection the following year. The City, at its option, may commence legal action against the Developer to collect the entire unpaid balance of the special assessments then estimated or levied pursuant hereto, with interest, including reasonable attorney's fees, and Developer shall be liable for such special assessments and, if more than one, such liability shall be joint and several. In addition to any other rights and remedies upon Developer’s default, the City may refuse to issue building permits and/or Certificates of Occupancy for any property within the Subdivision until such time as such default has been corrected to the satisfaction of the City. The Developer agrees to reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City in the enforcement of this agreement, or any portion thereof, including court costs and reasonable engineering and attorneys' fees, if the City prevails in any enforcement action. 18. Building Permits. No building permits shall be issued until: Saddle Club Second Addition Development Agreement April 2016 page 9 a. Site grading, City sewer, water, storm sewer, and bituminous base construction of the streets, temporary street signs, gas, electric, and telephone are completed and approved by the City, except as provided below. i. Model Homes: Structures may be installed as model homes consistent with City ordinance upon approval of the final plat. A record drawing of the site grading for the model home lots shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits for the model homes. ii. If building permits are issued prior to the completion and acceptance of public improvements, the Developer assumes all liability and costs resulting in delays in completion of public improvements and damage to public improvements caused by the City, the Developer, its contractors, subcontractors, material men, employees, agents or third parties. Any such costs shall be reimbursed from Developer’s escrow. 19. Special Provisions. In consideration for the City’s approval of this Agreement, Developer agrees to undertake the following off-site improvements: a. Fox Road. Developer shall acquire from the City fee simple title to the southern 550 feet of the abutting parcel to the west of the Subdivision (a/k/a the Comcast parcel) pursuant to a separate purchase agreement. City approval of this Agreement is contingent upon the City and Developer entering into the purchase agreement for the Comcast parcel and Developer depositing into escrow with the City the purchase price of $100,000.00. Upon acquisition of, and final plat approval for, the Comcast parcel, Developer shall: i. Construct Fox Road across the Comcast parcel so as to join the Fox Road segment in Saddle Club to the existing Fox Road in the Foxborough subdivision to the southwest. All plans and specifications for Fox Road must be approved by the City prior to construction. ii. Install sanitary sewer and water main on the Comcast parcel so as to connect the sanitary sewer and water main in Saddle Club to those existing utilities in the Fox Road right-of-way in the Foxborough subdivision to the southwest. All plans and specifications for the sanitary sewer and water main utilities must be approved by the City prior to construction. iii. All Fox Road utility and roadway improvements shall be completed prior to, or concurrent with, the utility and roadway improvements within phase three of Saddle Club, or within two years from the date of Council approval of the Saddle Club Second Addition final plat, whichever is earlier. Saddle Club Second Addition Development Agreement April 2016 page 10 b. Old Birch Street. i. Developer shall mill and overlay the east-west portion of Old Birch Street. Developer’s plans and specifications must be approved by the City prior to Developer’s use of the Street. ii. Developer shall pay the City for the City’s cost of creating a cul-de-sac at the northern terminus of Old Birch Street. This payment is in lieu of paying for the installation of a new turn lane from Birch Street to Old Birch Street. c. Trunk Fees. Upon completion of Fox Road and the related utilities, Developer shall be credited $90,000.00 for the sanity sewer trunk charge and $25,000.00 for the water trunk charge. If Fox Road and the associated sanitary sewer and water utilities are not completed within the timeline set forth in subparagraph 19(a)(iii), Developer forfeits the aforementioned trunk charge credits. 20. Hours of Construction Activity. All construction activity shall be limited to the hours as follows: Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Sunday and Holidays No working hours allowed. 1. Insurance. Insurance. Developer or its general contractor shall take out and maintain until one year after the City accepted the Developer Improvements, Commercial General Liability, Automobile Liability and Employers Liability Insurance. Limits for Commercial General Liability shall be not less than One Million and no/100 ($1,000,000.00) Dollars per occurrence and Two Million and no/100 ($2,000,000.00) Dollars in aggregate. Limits for Automobile Liability shall be not less than One Million and no/100 ($1,000,000.00) Dollars for each occurrence. Limits for Liability Insurance shall be not less than Five Hundred Thousand and no/100 ($500,000) Dollars. The City, its employees, its agents and assigns shall be named as an additional insured on the policy, and the Developer or its general contractor shall file with the City a certificate evidencing coverage prior to the City signing the plat. The certificate shall provide that the City must be given ten days advance written notice of the cancellation of the insurance. The certificate may not contain any disclaimer for failure to give the required notice. 2. Developer’s Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is first given notice of the work in default, not less than 48 hours Saddle Club Second Addition Development Agreement April 2016 page 11 in advance. This Agreement is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, levy the cost in whole or in part as a special assessment against the Subject Property. Developer waives its rights to notice of hearing and hearing on such assessments and its right to appeal such assessments pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 429. 3. General. a. Binding Effect The terms and provisions hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto and shall be binding upon all future owners of all or any part of the Subdivision and shall be deemed covenants running with the land, unless otherwise released pursuant to section 14 of this Agreement. b. Validity. If a portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase in this agreement is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect or void any of the other provisions of the Development Agreement. c. Notices Whenever in this agreement it shall be required or permitted that notice or demand be given or served by either party to this agreement to or on the other party, such notice or demand shall be delivered personally or mailed by United States mail to the addresses below by certified mail (return receipt requested). Such notice or demand shall be deemed timely given when delivered personally or when deposited in the mail in accordance with the above. The addresses of the parties are as set forth until changed by notice given as above. DuPont Holdings, LLC Attn: Marcel Eibensteiner 1000 County Road West, Suite 150 Shoreview, MN 55126 Community Development Director City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Saddle Club Second Addition Development Agreement April 2016 page 12 4. Land Use Controls - Planned Unit Development. a. Saddle Club Second Addition is a Planned Unit Development (PUD) as approved by the City Council by Ordinance No. 02-14, and Resolution No. 14-15. Saddle Club Second Addition Development Agreement April 2016 page 13 DEVELOPER CITY OF LINO LAKES By ______________________ By _________________________ Mayor Its ______________________ ATTEST: By ______________________ By _________________________ City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ANOKA ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on _______ day of _______________, 2016, by Jeff Reinert as Mayor of the City of Lino Lakes on behalf of said City. ______________________________ Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ANOKA ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on _______ day of _______________, 2016, by Julianne Bartell as City Clerk of the City of Lino Lakes on behalf of said City. ______________________________ Notary Public Saddle Club Second Addition Development Agreement April 2016 page 14 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF __________ ) On this _______ day of _______________, 2016, before me, a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared Marcel Ebensteiner, __________________ of DuPont Holdings, LLC. (Developer), who executed the foregoing instrument. ______________________________ Notary Public This instrument was drafted by: City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 Saddle Club Second Addition Development Agreement April 2016 page 15 ATTACHMENT A Legal Description and Final Plat Outlot B and Outlot C, Saddle Club First Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota 4/6/2016 PROJECT: Saddle Club 2nd Addition NUMBER OF REU's:17 APPLICANT: DuPont Holdings, LLC NO. OF LOT FRONTAGES 19 AREA:6.2 ACRES IMPROVEMENTS COST NOTES DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENT COSTS SITE GRADING $15,430 EROSION CONTROL $8,000 LANDSCAPING $6,485 TRAIL $4,462 STREETS $74,985 STORM SEWER CONST.$28,834 SANITARY SEWER CONST.$33,231 WATERMAIN CONST.$32,886 OLD BIRCH CUL DU SAC CONSTRUCTION $50,000 Marcel needs to provide bid $ OLD BIRCH PAVING (EAST - WEST SECTION)$50,000 Marcel needs to provide bid $ ENGINEERING & SURVEYING $6,000 Total $310,313 Letter of Credit Amount X 150%$465,470 Surety Agreement Option is 125% CITY IMPROVEMENT COSTS TRUNK SANITARY SEWER $52,241 $3,073/REU TRUNK SANITARY SEWER CREDIT Future Credit Old Birch Extension $90,000 TRUNK WATERMAIN $69,173 $4,069/REU TRUNK WATERMAIN CREDIT Future Credit Foxborough Extension $25,000 TOTAL TRUNK SEWER & WATER FEES $121,414 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT $39,160 $0.145/SF of Development Area SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT CREDIT ($6,482)Credit 3 & 5 TOTAL SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT FEES $32,679 Total $154,093 Letter of Credit Amount X 35%$53,940 ESCROW PLANNING REVIEW $1,500 ADMINISTRATION $9,310 3% of construction ENGINEER PLAN REVIEW $5,500 OLD BIRCH CUL DU SAC DESIGN $7,200 ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION SERVICES $18,500 PROJECT FINAL DOCUMENTS & CITY ENGINEER $2,500 STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION $5,000 (2 lights) $2,500/Light STREET & STORMWATER MAINTENANCE $2,500 PROPERTY TAXES $0 If final plat between July 1 and Dec. 31 BOULEVARD TREE PLANTING $9,215 (x tree) $485/ tree Total $61,225 DEVELOPMENT FEE DEPOSIT PARK DEDICATION $42,500 $2,500/res unit: $2,175/com ac PARK DEDICATION CREDIT (TRAIL)$0 SEAL COATING FEE $5,544 $0.33/SF of road AERIAL PHOTO FEE $1,530 $90/Lot STREET LIGHTING OPERATION $210 (2 lights) $105/Light Total $49,784 SUMMARY OF COSTS LETTER OF CREDIT DEVELOPER IMP'MENT COSTS $465,470 LETTER OF CREDIT CITY IMPROVEMENT COSTS $53,940 ESCROW $61,225 DEVELOPMENT FEES $49,784 ATTACHMENT B engineering planning environmental construction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 St. Cloud  Minneapolis  St. Paul Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com S:\Community Development\Projects\Planning Cases\Saddle Club\Second Addition\Staff Reports\20160411 CC-Final Plat\6 20160201 Engineering Review Saddle Club 2nd.docx Memorandum To: Katie Larsen, City Planner From: Diane Hankee PE, City Engineer Date: February 1, 2016 Re: Saddle Club 2nd Addition Plan Review WSB Project No. 2029-633 We have reviewed the Final Plat for Saddle Club 2nd Addition in Lino Lakes, MN prepared by E.G. Rudd and Sons, Inc. dated December 17, 2015. Note the construction plans were previously reviewed with the Saddle Club 1st Addition. Based on our review, we offer the following comments that should be responded to in writing by the applicant: GRADING, EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL 1. The applicant is to verify that the NPDES permit and SWPPP are current. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 1. The stormwater management was previously reviewed with the 1st Addition and a Stormwater Management Agreement is in place for the overall plat. There are no additional comments at this time. FLOODPLAIN 1. A LOMR was completed based on the meets and bounds and there remains floodplain on some of the lots. The developer should consider a LOMA for those lots. WETLANDS 1. For the future extension of Fox Road (south section as a separate plat), an approved RCWD wetland mitigation plan will need to be approved. Ms. Katie Larsen February 1, 2016 Page 2 S:\Community Development\Projects\Planning Cases\Saddle Club\Second Addition\Staff Reports\20160411 CC-Final Plat\6 20160201 Engineering Review Sadd WATER SYSTEM 1. The proposed water system extension was previously reviewed with the 1st Addition. There are no additional comments at this time. SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM 1. The proposed sanitary sewer system extension was previously reviewed with the 1st Addition. There are no additional comments at this time. TRANSPORTATION 1. The trail should be constructed from the Fox Borough development, and signage installed per plan. A detail of the trail section adjacent to wetlands is to be submitted. 2. A temporary cul-du-sac or turnaround is to be constructed at the end of Fox Road in the 1st Addition. 3. The developer is responsible for milling and overlaying the east-west section of Old Birch Street. The south edge will need to be a full depth patch where it has broken up from construction. The inside curve at the match point of Old Birch and Pheasant Run needs to be brought up to a higher grade. 4. The Old Birch Street access (north-east) at Birch Street is to be removed and a cul-du-sac constructed. 5. A by-pass lane on Birch Street at the intersection with Old Birch (south-west ) is to be constructed. The City has been working with Anoka County on the design of the by-pass lane. Anoka County plans construct the by-pass lane with their 2016 Roadway Project. This work includes the reconstruction of a section of trail adjacent to the by-pass lane. Anoka County has also expressed and interest in re-locating the driveway access at 855 Birch Street. Anoka County would lead the effort to re-locate the driveway access. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 1. A Development Agreement is being drafted for Saddle Club 2nd Addition. The cost estimates for the oversizing and other development costs have been updated. 2. The developer shall provide security for grading work associated with Fox Road. 3. The proposed Saddle Club 2nd Addition has been modified from the preliminary plat. The current proposed 2nd Addition includes Black Berry Court and does not include Fox Road. The Fox Road connection is needed with a future phase to: a. Complete the transportation network in the area. b. Provide watermain looping that is needed to maintain water service pressure and fire fighting capacity. Ms. Katie Larsen February 1, 2016 Page 3 S:\Community Development\Projects\Planning Cases\Saddle Club\Second Addition\Staff Reports\20160411 CC-Final Plat\6 20160201 Engineering Review Sadd PERMITS 1. Permits were obtained with the overall Saddle Club development, 1st Addition. 2. The Fox Road connection at the south end (future plat) will require RCWD permitting for wetland mitigation. If you or the applicant has any questions regarding these comments, please contact Diane Hankee at (651) 982-2430 or diane.hankee@ci.lino-lakes.mn.us. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 6D STAFF ORIGINATOR: Michael Grochala MEETING DATE: April 11, 2016 TOPIC: i. Consider Resolution No. 16-23, Designating Building as Structurally Substandard, 49 Club VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION Staff is requesting City Council approval to designate buildings (49 Club) as structurally substandard. BACKGROUND The 49 Club, located at the corner of Hodgson Road and County Road J, has been vacant since approximately 2003. The site has become a blighted location with illegal dumping and vandalism taking place on a regular basis. The city has received numerous complaints regarding the property. The site has been the topic, along with the neighboring 17 acre Jensen property, of several development proposals. However, none have advanced past the concept phase due to a number of complicating factors including the need for public improvements, multiple property owners, and council concern over the intensity of prior commercial development proposals. In March of 2015 LHB Corporation was retained to determine the eligibility of the property for TIF purposes and to document the condition of the building. As noted in the report the buildings are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance. Staff has been working with the owner of the property regarding potential demolition of the buildings either as a City project or by the owner. The owner is proposing to remove both the principal structure and accessory garage with their own contractor. Staff is very interested in this project as a means to clean up the site, eliminate the blight and assist redevelopment efforts. The use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) has previously been discussed to help offset utility, road or land assemblage costs to facility redevelopment of the corner. However, removal of the building has the potential to eliminate one of the financial tools available to assist with redevelopment. In order to establish a TIF District after demolition, the request for certification of the TIF District must be filed with the County within three years of the parcel being occupied by a substandard building. An actual project would need to occur within 4 years of district certification or the site would be dropped from the district and no longer eligible for TIF. To retain our ability to use TIF staff has listed out the steps that the EDA/City would need to follow in order to demolish a building prior to a redevelopment TIF District being established: 1) The EDA Board finds by resolution (adopted before demolition) that the parcel was occupied by a structurally substandard building and that after demolition and clearance the EDA intends to include the parcel within a TIF district; 2) The City Council adopts resolution and makes blight findings regarding the building (based on report); 3) EDA and owner of property enter into a preliminary development agreement (before demolition) regarding demolition of the buildings and redevelopment of the property. The EDA is considering the substandard building findings and the preliminary development agreement at their April 11, 2016 meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of Resolution No. 16-23. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 16-23 2. LHB Recommendation March 27, 2015 460588v1 LN140-114 CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 16-23 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING BUILDINGS AS STRUCTURALLY SUBSTANDARD WITHIN LINO LAKES REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes ("City") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. Under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 10(d), the City or the Lino Lakes Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) is authorized to deem parcels as occupied by structurally substandard buildings despite prior demolition or removal of the buildings, subject to certain terms and conditions as described in this resolution. 1.02. The City or Authority intends to cause demolition of the buildings located on the property described in Exhibit A hereto (the “Designated Property”), and may in the future include the Designated Property in a redevelopment or renewal and renovation tax increment financing district as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174, Subd. 10 or Subd. 10a. Section 2. Buildings Designated Substandard; Other Proceedings. 2.01. The City finds that the buildings on the Designated Property as described in Exhibit A are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance, based upon the analysis of such buildings by LHB Architects dated March 27, 2015 and on file in City Hall. 2.02. After the date of approval of this resolution, the buildings on the Designated Property may be demolished or removed by the City, or such demolition or removal may be financed by the City, or may be undertaken by a developer under a development agreement with the City. 2.03. The City intends to include the Designated Property in a redevelopment or renewal and renovation tax increment financing district, and to file the request for certification of such district with the Anoka County auditor within three years after the date of demolition of the buildings on the Designated Property. 2.04. Upon filing the request for certification of the new tax increment financing district, the City will notify the Anoka County auditor that the original tax capacity of the Designated Property must be adjusted to reflect the greater of (a) the current net tax capacity of the parcel, or (b) the estimated market value of the parcel for the year in which the buildings were demolished or removed, but applying class rates for the current year, all in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 10(d). 2.05. City staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution. 460588v1 LN140-114 2 Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 11th day of April, 2016. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member _______________and was duly seconded by Council Member ________________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: _______________________________ Jeff Reinert, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________ Julianne Bartell, City Clerk 460588v1 LN140-114 3 EXHIBIT A Description of Designated Property 6007 Hodgson Road, Lino Lakes, Minnesota PID Nos. 31-31-22-43-0007, 31-31-22-43-0006, and 31-31-22-43-0017 March 27, 2015 Michael Grochala Community Development Director City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 TIF ANALYSIS FINDINGS FOR 6007 HODGSON ROAD, LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA 55014 LHB was hired to inspect the 49 Club building at 6007 Hodgson Road in Lino Lakes, Minnesota, in order to determine if it meets the definition of “Substandard” as defined by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subdivision 10. The building parcel may potentially be part of a future Redevelopment TIF District, so will need to be compliant with all of the statutes pertaining to a Redevelopment District. The building is located on a three-parcel property at the northwest corner of Ash Street and Hodgson Road (see Diagram 1). Diagram 1 Page: 2 Date: March 27, 2015 CONCLUSION After inspecting and evaluating the building on March 13, 2015 and applying current statutory criteria for a Redevelopment District under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, it is our professional opinion that the building qualifies as substandard. The remainder of this letter and attachments describe our process and findings in detail. MINNESOTA STATUTE 469.174, SUBDIVISION 10 REQUIREMENTS The property was inspected in accordance with the following requirements under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), which states: Interior Inspection “The municipality may not make such determination [that the building is structurally substandard] without an interior inspection of the property...” Exterior Inspection and Other Means “An interior inspection of the property is not required, if the municipality finds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable to gain access to the property after using its best efforts to obtain permission from the party that owns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is structurally substandard.” Documentation “Written documentation of the findings and reasons why an interior inspection was not conducted must be made and retained under section 469.175, subdivision 3(1).” Qualification Requirements Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10 (a) (1) requires two tests for occupied parcels: 1. Coverage Test …“parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or paved or gravel parking lots” The coverage required by the parcel to be considered occupied is defined under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(e), which states: “For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similar structures unless 15 percent of the area of the parcel contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similar structures.” The LHB team reviewed parcels 31-31-22-43-0007, 31-31-22-43-0006 and 31-31-22-43-0017: • Parcel A (31-31-22-43-0007) is approximately 25,358 square feet and is 98 percent covered by buildings, parking lots or other improvements. • Parcel B (31-31-22-43-0006) is approximately 36,305 square feet and is 45 percent covered by buildings, parking lots or other improvements. • Parcel C (31-31-22-43-0017) is approximately 30,381 square feet and is 21 percent covered by buildings, parking lots or other improvements. Page: 3 Date: March 27, 2015 Findings: The parcels are all covered by buildings, parking lots or other improvements, exceeding the 15 percent parcel requirement. 2. Condition of Buildings Test Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(a) states, “…and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance;” a. Structurally substandard is defined under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b), which states: “For purposes of this subdivision, ‘structurally substandard’ shall mean containing defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance.” i. We do not count energy code deficiencies toward the thresholds required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b)) defined as “structurally substandard”, due to concerns expressed by the State of Minnesota Court of Appeals in the Walser Auto Sales, Inc. vs. City of Richfield case filed November 13, 2001. Findings: The 49 Club building at 6007 Hodgson Road exceeds the criteria required to be determined a substandard building (see the attached Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Report). b. Buildings are not eligible to be considered structurally substandard unless they meet certain additional criteria, as set forth in Subdivision 10(c) which states: “A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs, or other similar reliable evidence.” “Items of evidence that support such a conclusion [that the building is not disqualified] include recent fire or police inspections, on-site property tax appraisals or housing inspections, exterior evidence of deterioration, or other similar reliable evidence.” LHB counts energy code deficiencies toward the 15 percent code threshold required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c)) for the following reasons: • The Minnesota energy code is one of ten building code areas highlighted by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry website where minimum construction standards are required by law. • The index page of the 2007 Minnesota Building Code lists the Minnesota Energy Code as a “Required Enforcement” area compared to an additional list of “Optional Enforcement” chapters. Page: 4 Date: March 27, 2015 • Chapter 11 of the 2015 Minnesota Residential Code incorporates Minnesota Rules, Chapters, 1322 and 1323 Minnesota Energy Code. • The Senior Building Code Representative for the Construction Codes and Licensing Division of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry confirmed that the Minnesota Energy Code is being enforced throughout the State of Minnesota. • In a January 2002 report to the Minnesota Legislature, the Management Analysis Division of the Minnesota Department of Administration confirmed that the construction cost of new buildings complying with the Minnesota Energy Code is higher than buildings built prior to the enactment of the code. • Proper TIF analysis requires a comparison between the replacement value of a new building built under current code standards with the repairs that would be necessary to bring the existing building up to current code standards. In order for an equal comparison to be made, all applicable code chapters should be applied to both scenarios. Since current construction estimating software automatically applies the construction cost of complying with the Minnesota Energy Code, energy code deficiencies should also be identified in the existing structures. Findings: The building has code deficiencies exceeding the 15 percent building code deficiency criteria required to be determined substandard (see the attached Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Report). TEAM CREDENTIALS Michael A. Fischer, AIA, LEED AP - Project Principal/TIF Analyst Michael has 28 years of experience as project principal, project manager, project designer and project architect on planning, urban design, educational, commercial and governmental projects. He has become an expert on Tax Increment Finance District analysis assisting over 100 cities with strategic planning for TIF Districts. He is a Senior Vice President at LHB and currently leads the Minneapolis office. Michael completed a two-year Bush Fellowship, studying at MIT and Harvard in 1999, earning Masters degrees in City Planning and Real Estate Development from MIT. He has served on more than 50 committees, boards and community task forces, including a term as a City Council President and as Chair of a Metropolitan Planning Organization. Most recently, he served as Chair of the Edina, Minnesota planning commission. Michael has also managed and designed several award-winning architectural projects, and was one of four architects in the Country to receive the AIA Young Architects Citation in 1997. Philip Waugh – Project Manager/TIF Analyst Philip is a project manager with 13 years of experience in historic preservation, building investigations, material research, and construction methods. He previously worked as a historic preservationist and also served as the preservation specialist at the St. Paul Heritage Preservation Commission. Currently, Philip sits on the Board of Directors for the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota. His current responsibilities include project management of historic preservation projects, performing building condition surveys and analysis, TIF analysis, writing preservation specifications, historic design reviews, writing Historic Preservation Tax Credit applications, preservation planning, and grant writing. Page: 5 Date: March 27, 2015 Phil Fisher – Inspector For 35 years, Phil Fisher worked in the field of Building Operations in Minnesota including White Bear Lake Area Schools. At the University of Minnesota he earned his Bachelor of Science in Industrial Technology. He is a Certified Playground Safety Inspector, Certified Plant Engineer, and is trained in Minnesota Enterprise Real Properties (MERP) Facility Condition Assessment (FCA). His FCA training was recently applied to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Facilities Condition Assessment project involving over 2,000 buildings. ATTACHMENTS We have attached a Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Report, Replacement Cost Report, Code Deficiency Report, and thumbnail photo sheets of the building. Please contact me at (612) 752-6920 if you have any questions. LHB INC. MICHAEL A. FISCHER, AIA, LEED AP SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT M:\15Proj\150099\400 Design\406 Reports\Final Report\150099 Lino Lakes 49 Club Letter of Finding 20150327.docx Lino Lakes 49 Club Redevelopment TIF District Letter of Finding Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Report March 26, 2015 Map No. & Address: Map A - 6007 Hodgson Road, Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Inspection Date(s) & Time(s): March 13, 2015 4:00 PM Inspection Type: Interior and Exterior Summary of Deficiencies: It is our professional opinion that this building is Substandard because: - Substantial renovation is required to correct Conditions found. - Building Code deficiencies total more than 15% of replacement cost, NOT including energy code deficiencies. Estimated Replacement Cost: $940,500 Estimated Cost to Correct Building Code Deficiencies: $575,019 Percentage of Replacement Cost for Building Code Deficiencies: 61.14% Defects in Structural Elements 1. A code required wind uplift system is missing on the exterior wall connection to the roof. 2. East and West wall are tied together with a suspect system to prevent movement. Combination of Deficiencies 1. Essential Utilities and Facilities a. Water service to the building has been disconnected. b. Electrical service is disconnected. c. There are no code accessible restrooms. d. There is no code required accessible parking spaces. 2. Light and Ventilation a. Electrical branch wiring has been removed. b. All light fixtures have been removed. c. The exhaust system has been removed. d. The ventilation system has been disconnected. The age and condition of it make it suspect if it would work as designed. 3. Fire Protection/Adequate Egress a. There is not a code compliant fire protection system in the kitchen. b. Stairs do not have code compliant hand rails. c. The exterior steps leading from the kitchen area are missing and required by code. d. The East and West exterior doors do not have code approved thresholds. e. The East glass door does not have the code required 10 inch kick plates. f. Flooring is missing, torn, or damaged preventing code compliant exiting from the building. Lino Lakes 49 Club Redevelopment TIF District Letter of Finding Building Report LHB Project No. 150099 Page 1 of 2 Map A 4. Layout and Condition of Interior Partitions/Materials a. The ceiling in the residence is stained from water intrusion and damaged by vandals. b. Code approved wall surfacing is absent in the kitchen and restaurant areas. c. Wall surfaces in the residence have been damaged by vandals with holes and graffiti. d. All insulation in the kitchen and restaurant has been removed. 5. Exterior Construction a. Roof is in need of code required replacement to prevent water intrusion. b. Code required siding is missing on the North side of the building. c. Soffit and fascia are missing from the North side of the building. d. Exterior siding is damaged and in need of repair and paint to prevent water intrusion. e. Window glass is missing and is allowing water intrusion. f. Door glass on the west side of the building is broken. Description of Code Deficiencies 1. Provide adequate water supply for fire and life safety system. 2. Replace all electrical wiring and electrical panels in order to provide adequate illuminated egress. 3. Install adequate plumbing for restroom accessibility. 4. Replace HVAC system that is non-existent. 5. All exit doors have non-compliant steps down to landing. 6. Thresholds at egress doors exceed allowable 1/2”. 7. Aluminum and glass doors lack required 10” high kick plate. 8. Flooring needs to be securely installed to create a slip resistant pathway to egress. 9. Replace roof to prevent water intrusion. 10. Replace exterior siding to prevent water intrusion. 11. Commercial kitchen exhaust shall have a separate fire suppression system. 12. Stairways shall have handrails on both sides. 13. Exterior walls do not conform to fire restrictive construction. 14. Install required wind up lift connection system to exterior wall and roof. Overview of Deficiencies The original structure was built in 1967 and has several additions, the latest having burned down several years ago. The interior is void of all essential utilities and necessary facilities to be considered a functional place of business. Lino Lakes 49 Club Redevelopment TIF District Letter of Finding Building Report LHB Project No. 150099 Page 2 of 2 Map A Lino Lakes 49 Club Redevelopment TIF District Letter of Finding Replacement Cost Report Map A - 49 Club City of Lino Lakes 6007 Hodgson Road, Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Building Type: Restaurant with Wood Siding / Wood Frame Location:SAINT PAUL, MN Story Count:1 Story Height (L.F.):12 Floor Area (S.F.):5150 Labor Type:OPN Basement Included:No Data Release:Year 2015 Cost Per Square Foot:$182.62 Building Cost:$940,500 % of Total Cost Per S.F. Cost 8.89% $14.76 $76,000.00 A1010 Standard Foundations $3.44 $17,700.00 A1030 Slab on Grade $5.69 $29,300.00 A2010 Basement Excavation $0.57 $2,950.00 A2020 Basement Walls $5.03 $25,900.00 24.80% $41.17 $212,000.00 B1010 Floor Construction $1.17 $6,050.00 B1020 Roof Construction $7.69 $39,600.00 B2010 Exterior Walls $6.85 $35,300.00 B2020 Exterior Windows $10.58 $54,500.00 B2030 Exterior Doors $5.65 $29,100.00 Estimate Name: Costs are derived from a building model with basic components. Scope differences and market conditions can cause costs to vary significantly. A Substructure Strip footing, concrete, reinforced, load 11.1 KLF, soil bearing capacity 6 KSF, 12" deep x 24" wide Spread footings, 3000 PSI concrete, load 25K, soil bearing capacity 3 KSF, 3' - 0" square x 12" deep Slab on grade, 4" thick, non industrial, reinforced Excavate and fill, 4000 SF, 4' deep, sand, gravel, or common earth, on site storage Foundation wall, CIP, 4' wall height, direct chute, .148 CY/LF, 7.2 PLF, 12" thick B Shell Wood column, 8" x 8", 20' x 20' bay, 12' unsupported height, 160 BF/MSF, 160 PSF total allowable load Wood roof, truss, 4/12 slope, 24" O.C., 30' to 43' span Wood siding, 2"x4" studs 16"OC, insulated wall, 1" x 12" sawn cedar, 1" x 4" battens Aluminum flush tube frame, for 1/4"glass,1-3/4"x4", 5'x6' opening, no intermediate horizontals Glazing panel, plate glass, 1/4" thick, tempered Door, aluminum & glass, without transom, full vision, double door, hardware, 6'-0" x 7'-0" opening Door, aluminum & glass, with transom, non-standard, double door, hardware, 6'-0" x 10'-0" opening Lino Lakes 49 Club Redevelopment TIF District Letter of Finding LHB Project No. 150099 Page 1 of 3 Replacement Cost Report Map A % of Total Cost Per S.F. Cost B3010 Roof Coverings $9.07 $46,700.00 B3020 Roof Openings $0.10 $500.00 15.50% $25.73 $132,500.00 C1010 Partitions $4.50 $23,200.00 C1020 Interior Doors $2.17 $11,200.00 C1030 Fittings $0.70 $3,600.00 C3010 Wall Finishes $2.04 $10,500.00 C3020 Floor Finishes $9.05 $46,600.00 C3030 Ceiling Finishes $7.26 $37,400.00 50.82% $84.37 $434,500.00 D2010 Plumbing Fixtures $10.78 $55,500.00 D2020 Domestic Water Distribution $8.31 $42,800.00 D3050 Terminal & Package Units $36.89 $190,000.00 Door, steel 18 gauge, hollow metal, 1 door with frame, no label, 3'-0" x 7'-0" opening Wood roofing, cedar shingles, 16" x 5", 4" min slope, 5" exposure, 1.6 PSF Insulation, rigid, roof deck, fiberglass, 3'x4' or 4'x8' sheets, 15/16" thick, R3.70 Gutters, box, aluminum, .027" thick, 5", enameled finish Downspout, aluminum, rectangular, 2" x 3", embossed mill finish, .020" thick Skylight, plastic domes, insulated curbs, nominal size to 10 SF, double glazing C Interiors Wood partition, 5/8"fire rated gypsum board face, none base,2 x 4,@ 16" OC framing,same opposite face, 0 insul 5/8" gypsum board, taped & finished, painted on metal furring Door, single leaf, wood frame, 3'-0" x 7'-0" x 1-3/8", birch, hollow core Toilet partitions, cubicles, ceiling hung, plastic laminate Painting, interior on plaster and drywall, walls & ceilings, roller work, primer & 2 coats Ceramic tile, thin set, 4-1/4" x 4-1/4" Carpet tile, nylon, fusion bonded, 18" x 18" or 24" x 24", 35 oz Tile, quarry tile, mud set, minimum Tile, quarry tile, mud set, maximum g, , , channel grid, suspended support D Services Water closet, vitreous china, bowl only with flush valve, wall hung Urinal, vitreous china, wall hung Lavatory w/trim, vanity top, PE on CI, 20" x 18" Kitchen sink w/trim, countertop, stainless steel, 44" x 22" triple bowl Service sink w/trim, PE on CI,wall hung w/rim guard, 24" x 20" Shower, stall, baked enamel, terrazzo receptor, 36" square Water cooler, electric, wall hung, dual height, 14.3 GPH Gas fired water heater, commercial, 100< F rise, 500 MBH input, 480 GPH Rooftop, multizone, air conditioner, restaurants, 3,000 SF, 15.00 ton Commercial kitchen exhaust/make-up air system, rooftop, gas, 2000 CFM Lino Lakes 49 Club Redevelopment TIF District Letter of Finding LHB Project No. 150099 Page 2 of 3 Replacement Cost Report Map A % of Total Cost Per S.F. Cost D4010 Sprinklers $8.70 $44,800.00 D4020 Standpipes $2.00 $10,300.00 D5010 Electrical Service/Distribution $4.35 $22,400.00 D5020 Lighting and Branch Wiring $9.48 $48,800.00 D5030 Communications and Security $3.50 $18,000.00 D5090 Other Electrical Systems $0.32 $1,650.00 0% $0.00 $0.00 E1090 Other Equipment $0.00 $0.00 0% $0.00 $0.00 0% $0.00 $0.00 100% $166.03 $855,000.00 10.00% $16.60 $85,500.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 $182.62 $940,500.00 Wet pipe sprinkler systems, steel, light hazard, 1 floor, 2000 SF Wet pipe sprinkler systems, steel, ordinary hazard, 1 floor, 1000 SF Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 4" diam pipe, 1 floor Overhead service installation, includes breakers, metering, 20' conduit & wire, 3 phase, 4 wire, 120/208 V, 400 A Feeder installation 600 V, including RGS conduit and XHHW wire, 400 A Switchgear installation, incl switchboard, panels & circuit breaker, 120/208 V, 1 phase, 400 A Receptacles incl plate, box, conduit, wire, 10 per 1000 SF, 1.2 watts per SF Miscellaneous power, 1.8 watts Central air conditioning power, 6 watts Fluorescent fixtures recess mounted in ceiling, 1.6 watt per SF, 40 FC, 10 fixtures @32watt per 1000 SF Communication and alarm systems, fire detection, addressable, 12 detectors, includes outlets, boxes, conduit and wire Fire alarm command center, addressable without voice, excl. wire & conduit Generator sets, w/battery, charger, muffler and transfer switch, gas/gasoline operated, 3 phase, 4 wire, 277/480 V, 15 kW E Equipment & Furnishings F Special Construction G Building Sitework SubTotal Contractor Fees (General Conditions,Overhead,Profit) Architectural Fees User Fees Total Building Cost Lino Lakes 49 Club Redevelopment TIF District Letter of Finding LHB Project No. 150099 Page 3 of 3 Replacement Cost Report Map A Lino Lakes 49 Club Redevelopment TIF District Letter of Finding Code Deficiency Cost Report Map A - 6007 Hodgson Road, Lino Lakes, MN 55014 - PID 31-31-22-43-0007 Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units Unit Quantity Total Accessibility Items Restrooms Install plumbing fixtures for accessible restrooms 10.78$ SF 5,150 55,517.00$ Structural Elements Wind up lift requirement Install code required wind up lift system between trusses/rafters and exterior wall 1.75$ SF 5,150 9,012.50$ Exiting Thresholds Correct elevation drop from interior to exterior landing 1,000.00$ Ea 4 4,000.00$ Reduce threshold elevation to less than 1/2 inch 250.00$ Ea 4 1,000.00$ Glass Dooors Install code required 10 inch kick plate 150.00$ Ea 4 600.00$ Flooring Install level flooring to allow emergency egress 9.05$ SF 5,150 46,607.50$ Lighting Install branch wiring and lights for egress 9.48$ SF 5,150 48,822.00$ Fire Protection Commercial Kitchen Install code required fire suppression system 3.70$ SF 2,000 7,400.00$ Entire building Install code required fire alarm system 3.50$ SF 5,150 18,025.00$ Interior walls/ceilings Install code required wall and ceiling finishes 9.30$ SF 5,150 47,895.00$ Exterior Construction Wood Siding Repair/replace wood siding to prevent water intrusion 5.00$ SF 5,150 25,750.00$ Lino Lakes 49 Club Redevelopment TIF District Letter of Finding LHB Project No. 150099 Page 1 of 2 Code Deficiency Cost Report Map A Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units Unit Quantity Total Roof Construction Replace roof that has failed. Remove old roof 0.90$ SF 5,150 4,635.00$ Replace with new roof 9.07$ SF 5,150 46,710.50$ Mechanical- Electrical Electrical Install new electrical service 4.35$ SF 5,150 22,402.50$ Plumbing Install domestic water distribution system 8.31$ SF 5,150 42,796.50$ Mechanical Install HVAC system 36.89$ SF 5,150 189,983.50$ Provide electrical service to new HVAC 0.75$ SF 5,150 3,862.50$ Total Code Improvements 575,019.50$ Lino Lakes 49 Club Redevelopment TIF District Letter of Finding LHB Project No. 150099 Page 2 of 2 Code Deficiency Cost Report Map A Lino Lakes 49 Club Redevelopment TIF District Letter of Finding Map A, 6007 Hodgson Road - Photos Page 1 of 6 P1020945.JPG P1020946.JPG P1020948.JPG P1020949.JPG P1020950.JPG P1020951.JPG P1020953.JPG P1020955.JPG P1020956.JPG P1020957.JPG P1020958.JPG P1020959.JPG Page 2 of 6 Lino Lakes 49 Club Redevelopment TIF District Letter of Finding LHB Project No. 150099 Photos Map A P1020960.JPG P1020961.JPG P1020962.JPG P1020963.JPG P1020964.JPG P1020966.JPG P1020967.JPG P1020968.JPG P1020969.JPG P1020970.JPG P1020971.JPG P1020972.JPG Page 3 of 6 Lino Lakes 49 Club Redevelopment TIF District Letter of Finding LHB Project No. 150099 Photos Map A P1020973.JPG P1020974.JPG P1020975.JPG P1020976.JPG P1020977.JPG P1020979.JPG P1020980.JPG P1020981.JPG P1020982.JPG P1020983.JPG P1020984.JPG P1020985.JPG Page 4 of 6 Lino Lakes 49 Club Redevelopment TIF District Letter of Finding LHB Project No. 150099 Photos Map A P1020986.JPG P1020987.JPG P1020988.JPG P1020989.JPG P1020990.JPG P1020991.JPG P1020994.JPG P1020995.JPG P1020996.JPG P1020997.JPG P1020998.JPG P1020999.JPG Page 5 of 6 Lino Lakes 49 Club Redevelopment TIF District Letter of Finding LHB Project No. 150099 Photos Map A P1030001.JPG P1030002.JPG P1030003.JPG P1030004.JPG P1030005.JPG P1030006.JPG P1030007.JPG P1030008.JPG P1030009.JPG P1030010.JPG P1030011.JPG P1030012.JPG Page 6 of 6 Lino Lakes 49 Club Redevelopment TIF District Letter of Finding LHB Project No. 150099 Photos Map A P1030013.JPG P1030014.JPG P1030017.JPG P1030018.JPG P1030019.JPG P1030020.JPG P1030021.JPG P1030022.JPG P1030023.JPG P1030024.JPG P1030025.JPG CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 6E STAFF ORIGINATOR: Diane Hankee, City Engineer MEETING DATE: April 11, 2016 TOPIC: Consider Resolution No. 16-24 Approving the Plans & Specifications and Authorizing the Ad for Bid, 2016 Mill and Overlay Project VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 Vote Required INTRODUCTION Staff is requesting Council approve of plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids for the 2016 Mill and Overlay Project. BACKGROUND In accordance with the City’s Pavement Management Plan, streets are identified for annual maintenance. The City uses a pavement rating review to annually analyze the conditions of the City’s streets and recommend segments that meet the maintenance requirements. Streets are selected for maintenance based on pavement management criteria, input from Public Works, and feasibility of locations. The proposed project includes Holly Drive, Holly Court, and Old Birch Street (north/south section). It is recommended to complete a full depth reclamation or mill and overlay. The budget for the project is $350,000. The schedule for this project is as follows: City Council Order Project, Authorizes Plans and Specifications March 14, 2016 City Council Approves Plans and Specifications April 11, 2016 City Council Authorizes Ad for Bids April 11, 2016 City Open Bids May 11, 2016 City Council Awards Contract May 23, 2016 Construction Begins May 27, 2016 Final Completion August 28, 2016 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 16-24 Approving the Plans & Specifications, Authorizing the Ad for Bid, 2016 Mill and Overlay Project. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 16-24 2. Plan Title Sheet/Location Map CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 16-24 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE 2016 (ROADWAY MAINTENANCE) MILL AND OVERLAY PROJECT WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the 2016 (Roadway Maintenance) Mill and Overlay Project and has presented such plans and specifications to the City Council for approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota: Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file at City Hall, are hereby approved. The City Engineer is directed to advertise for bids, provide construction observation, and close out the project once it is complete. The City clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in Finance and Commerce an advertisement for bids for the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published for two weeks, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be received by the Clerk, at which time they will be publicly opened at the City Hall by the City Clerk and Engineer, will then be tabulated, and will be considered by the Council at 6:30 p.m. on May 23, 2016, in the Council chambers of the City Hall. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given an opportunity to address the Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier’s check, bid bond or certified check payable to the Clerk for five (5) percent of the amount of such bid. Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 11th day of April, 2016. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member _______________and was duly seconded by Council Member ________________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: _______________________________ Jeff Reinert, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________ Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Old Birch StreetHolly CourtHolly DriveSHEETSOFSHEET%+6;1(.+01.#-'5wsbeng.comWSB PROJECT NO. 02988--140K:\02988-140\Cad\Plan\02988-140 TS.dwg CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 6F STAFF ORIGINATOR: Diane Hankee, City Engineer MEETING DATE: April 11, 2016 TOPIC: Consideration of Resolution No. 16-25 Accepting Feasibility Report for Mattamy Water Reuse VOTE REQUIRED: Simple Majority INTRODUCTION The City Council is to consider accepting Feasibility Report for Mattamy Water Reuse project. BACKGROUND The City Council approved Resolution 15-53 on June 8, 2015 authorizing the Feasibility Study for the Mattamy Water Reuse. The feasibility study has been completed and was approved by City’s Environmental Board on March 30, 2016. The feasibility Study provides an overview of three options for stormwater reuse in the proposed Mattamy development: 1. Reusing stormwater to irrigate public places; 2. Reusing stormwater to irrigate public places and the townhomes; and 3. Reusing stormwater to irrigate the entire development. A water balance was conducted to determine if there was sufficient water quantity available for each of the three options. The balance evaluated runoff, precipitation, evaporation, and irrigation. The proposed stormwater pond will receive enough runoff to implement Options 1 or 2, but a potable water connection will be required to implement Option 3. The developer has reservations regarding option 3 based on their past experience. In addition, the cost of each of the three options was estimated. After considering water supply and cost, WSB recommended that the City implement Option 2: reusing stormwater to irrigate public places and the townhomes for an estimated cost of $463,000. Financing was delineated for the recommended option, as well as ownership and maintenance recommendations. It is recommended that development fees cover $197,000 of the total cost, with the remaining funded by the City’s Trunk Water fund. 2 Requested Council Direction Staff recommends Resolution No. 16-25 Accepting Feasibility Report for Mattamy Water Reuse. Attachments 1. Resolution No. 16-25 2. Mattamy Homes Water Reuse Feasibility Report CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 16-25 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE MATTAMY HOMES WATER REUSE WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 15-53, Authorizing the Feasibility Study for Mattamy Homes Water Reuse adopted by the council on June 8, 2015, a report has been prepared by WSB and Associates, and WHEREAS, this report was received by the council on April 4, 2016, and WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessar y, cost effective, and feasible. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes: 1. The council hereby accepts the feasibility report, prepared by WSB and Associates dated June 8, 2015. 2. The council will consider such improvements in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. 3. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement at a date to be determined and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 11th day of April, 2016. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member _______________and was duly seconded by Council Member ________________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: _______________________________ Jeff Reinert, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________ Julianne Bartell, City Clerk City of Lino Lakes, MN 600 Town Center Parkway • Lino Lakes, MN 55014 June 8, 2015 Mattamy Homes Water Reuse City of Lino Lakes Anoka County, MN WSB Project No. 2988-01 FEASIBILITY REPORT MATTAMY HOMES WATER REUSE FOR THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA June 8, 2015 Prepared By: WSB & Associates, Inc. 477 Temperance Street St. Paul, MN 55101 651-286-8450 651-286-8488 (Fax) Feasibility Report Mattamy Homes Water Reuse WSB Project No. 2988-01 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or 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. Greg F. Johnson, PE Date: April 11, 2016 Lic. No. 26430 Prepared By: _____________________________________________________ Erin J. Heydinger Date: April 11, 2016 Feasibility Report Mattamy Homes Water Reuse WSB Project No. 2988-01 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 4 2. MATTAMY HOMES WATER REUSE ...................................................................................... 5 2.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 GENERAL BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 5 2.3 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................ 6 3. FINANCING .................................................................................................................................. 8 3.1 OPINION OF COST ................................................................................................................ 8 3.2 FUNDING .................................................................................................................................. 8 4. RECOMMENDATION ............................................................................................................... 10 Appendix A Figure 1 – Project Location Figure 2 – Option 1: Irrigating Public Spaces Figure 3 – Option 2: Irrigating Public Spaces and Townhomes Figure 4 – Option 3: Irrigating Entire Development Appendix B Table 1 – Estimated Annual Irrigation Appendix C Table 1 - Water Balance Summary Table 2 – Option 1 Cost Summary Table 3 – Option 2 Cost Summary Table 4 – Option 3 Cost Summary Appendix D Water Balance Tech Memo Feasibility Report Mattamy Homes Water Reuse WSB Project No. 2988-01 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed Mattamy Homes Development is a 400 acre residential development located east of Interstate 35E and north of Main Street in the City of Lino Lakes. Surface water management for the project would include storm water quality, storage and rate control. The storm water storage area will hold a significant amount of water that can be used to provide irrigation verses conventional groundwater use for irrigation. Over the past three years, management of both surface water and groundwater resources have received increased awareness both locally and regionally. Lino Lakes is included in the North and East Metro Groundwater Management District established by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The goal is to protect of water resources through sustainable water use solutions such as the one being proposed. The water reuse project was evaluated through a water balance analysis and multiple options for an irrigation reuse system. The options for an irrigation reuse system are: 1. Irrigate the park and public spaces 2. Irrigate the townhomes, park, and public spaces 3. Irrigate the entire development, including single-family residences The options were evaluated based on the estimated costs, ownership, storm water requirements, and maintenance. Option 2 is recommended: it includes irrigation of the townhomes, park and public spaces. The estimated project cost for Option 2 is $463,000 which includes 10% construction contingency and 20% indirect costs. Funding for the project is proposed through development fees generated from surface water management fees, and City trunk water system funds. This project is feasible and cost-effective from an engineering standpoint, and should be constructed as proposed herein. Feasibility Report Mattamy Homes Water Reuse WSB Project No. 2988-01 2. MATTAMY HOMES WATER REUSE 2.1 INTRODUCTION 2.1.1 Authorization On June 8, 2015, the City of Lino Lakes City Council authorized the preparation of a feasibility report for the Mattamy Homes Water Reuse project. 2.1.2 Scope The Mattamy Homes Development includes a large storm water storage area that can be used as an irrigation source. The proposed project includes storm water used for irrigating the development. This report evaluates several options for water reuse and considers water resources, cost, regulatory requirements, and value of the reuse irrigation system. 2.1.3 Data Available Information and materials used in the preparation of this report include the following:  City of Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan  City of Lino Lakes Base Map and/or Topography Maps  Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Water Usage Reports  Grading plans and plat for the Mattamy Homes development 2.2 GENERAL BACKGROUND 2.2.1 Project Location The Mattamy Homes Development is located in the City of Lino Lakes, west of Interstate 35E, east of 20th Avenue North, north of Main Street, and south of the bounds extended by 77th Street East. A map showing the project area can be found in Figure 1, Appendix A of this report. 2.2.2 Existing Conditions The existing land use at Mattamy Homes is agricultural, with stormwater currently running through the site via Anoka County Ditch 55 (ACD-55) and Anoka County Ditch 72 (ACD-72). These ditch systems receive storm water runoff from watersheds located in the cities of Hugo and Lino Lakes and discharge to Peltier Lake. A study is being completed to address the surface water in the NE area or Lino Lakes. This report assumes that ditch water is not available as a source for irrigation and will be addressed through the NE Drainage Study. 2.2.3 Stormwater Management The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) Rules state that stormwater volume and rate control must occur in any location with new or reconstructed impervious surfaces, such as the Mattamy development. Stormwater infiltration is the preferred method of volume control. Prior to this feasibility study, an analysis was conducted to determine if the site was suitable for infiltration. Because a large portion of the site is within a vulnerable portion of the Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA), and the Minnesota Department of Health recommends that infiltration not occur in a vulnerable DWSMA, it Feasibility Report Mattamy Homes Water Reuse WSB Project No. 2988-01 was determined that infiltration is not feasible. In this instance, the RCWD Rules state that stormwater irrigation can occur in lieu of infiltration as a volume reduction practice. The three scenarios in this study reflect this determination. 2.2.3 Current Irrigation Practices The City currently regulates irrigation within the community to promote water conservation. It is estimated that irrigation accounts for 43% of the potable water used in the City each year (Appendix B, Table 1). The large proportion of water allocated towards irrigation presents an opportunity for the City to reduce its summer demand on the potable water system through water reuse. 2.3 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS There were three options identified to coincide with the Mattamy development Option 1: Irrigating Public Spaces with Storm Water Option 1 includes a water reuse irrigation system for public open spaces within the Mattamy Homes Development. This system includes the park in the center of the development as well as the berm on the east side of the development. In total, the irrigated area for Option 1 is 11 acres. A figure depicting Option 1 is shown as Appendix A, Figure 2. Option 2: Irrigating Public Spaces and Townhomes with Storm Water Option 2 includes a water reuse irrigation system for public open spaces and multi-family residential (townhome) area in the southeastern portion of the development. The townhome area includes 12 acres of green space that will require irrigation, in addition to the 11 acres irrigated in the public space. A figure depicting Option 2 is shown as Appendix A, Figure 3. Option 3: Irrigating all of the Mattamy Development with Storm Water Option 3 includes a water reuse irrigation system for public open spaces, multi- family residential townhomes, and single-family residences. A fourth municipal utility would be installed throughout the development. The third option requires homeowner education and interaction for system management and coordinatation with City maintenance staff. The total irrigated area for Option 3 is 144 acres. A figure depicting Option 3 is shown as Appendix A, Figure 4. A water balance analysis was completed and can be found in Appendix D. The water balance summary for each option: Option 1: Irrigating Public Spaces with Storm Water The water balance model indicates that the storm water stored can sufficiently supply water for irrigation of the public spaces with minimal pond level fluctuations. Feasibility Report Mattamy Homes Water Reuse WSB Project No. 2988-01 Option 2: Irrigating Public Spaces and Townhomes with Storm Water The water balance model indicates that the storm water stored can sufficiently supply water for irrigation of the public spaces and townhomes with minimal pond level fluctuations. Option 3: Irrigating all of the Mattamy Development with Storm Water The water balance model indicates that the storage area cannot supply enough irrigation water to support this option. The model showed that storage levels will reach significantly low levels and that the reuse system would require supplementation from the municipal water system. The cost to supplement the water reuse system with the municipal supply is not a cost that required with Option 1 or 2. In addition there will be vegetation issues if the storage area is drawn down this low, along with it is anticipated that residents will not desire to have the storage area this low. Option 2 is recommended because it provides the most surface water reuse without a fourth municipal utility system and individual service lines. Option 2 can be implemented without supplementation/connection to the municipal water system. 2.3.1 Pump and Pipe Materials Appendix C includes pump and forcemain layouts for each option, as well as suggested meter locations. The pump size should be determined by the irrigation designer, and they should be controlled by soil-moisture sensors, to ensure that watering is dictated by weather and soil conditions. The proposed forcemain is 2 to 4” diameter, high density polyethylene (HDPE). 2.3.2 Water Quality Prior to each irrigation season, it is recommended that the storage area be tested for water quality. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has recommended water quality parameters as outlined in Appendix D. If the parameters are not met, additional treatment should be considered to ensure the storage water remains of high enough quality to use for irrigation. 2.3.3 Ownership Recommendation It is recommended that the City own and operate the system, and within the townhome area, the City should have a maintenance agreement with the HOA where they are responsible for maintaining the system in the townhome area. 2.3.4 Metering, Usage, and Billing It is recommended that the park and berm irrigation systems be operated with independent meters so that the townhome maybe invoiced for their water usage to support maintenance of the system. Watering restrictions should remain in place for consistency and promote water conservation. 2.3.5 Permitting A Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) permit will be required. The project will meet volume reduction, treatment and rate control per RCWD rules. A Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) appropriations permit will also be required for the project. Feasibility Report Mattamy Homes Water Reuse WSB Project No. 2988-01 2.3.6 Right of Way The proposed reuse system with Option 2 would be constructed within public right of ways and public land or land owned by the Home Owner Association for the townhomes. Option 3 may require additional easement or right of way dedicated through platting for the distribution system. 3. FINANCING 3.1 OPINION OF COST The detailed opinion of probably cost for each of the three options can be found in Appendix C of this report. The opinions of cost incorporate estimated construction costs and include a 10% construction contingency and 20% for indirect costs (legal, administrative, engineering, and financing items). Table 4 below provides a summary of the estimated cost for each of the three options considered: Option Construction with Contingency Indirect (20%) Total Option 1: Public Areas Irrigated $296,000 $60,000 $356,000 Option 2: Public Areas and Townhomes Irrigated $386,000 $77,000 $463,000 Option 3: Public Areas, Townhomes, and Single- Family Homes Irrigated $2,151,000 $431,000 $2,582,000 3.2 FUNDING Funding for the project is proposed through development fees generated from surface water management fees, and City trunk water system funds. The proposed funding for Option 2 is outlined as follows: Funding Source Amount Surface Water Management $197,000 Trunk Water $266,000 Total $463,000 Feasibility Report Mattamy Homes Water Reuse WSB Project No. 2988-01 The trunk fee is calculated based on 40% of the $4,069 trunk water fee for each townhome unit, based on the estimated water savings. It was assumed that each townhome is one Residential Equivalency Unit (REU). The project may be eligible for grants from the Metropolitan Council of Environmental Services for Targeted Storm Water. Grant funding opportunities will be evaluated during the design of the project. Feasibility Report Mattamy Homes Water Reuse WSB Project No. 2988-01 4. RECOMMENDATION The project is feasible, necessary, and cost-effective from an engineering perspective. WSB & Associates, Inc. recommends construction of the proposed improvements as detailed in this report. The economic feasibility of this project will be determined by the City Council. Feasibility Report Mattamy Homes Water Reuse WSB Project No. 2988-01 APPENDIX A Figure 1: Project Location Figure 2: Option 1: Irrigating Public Spaces Figure 3: Option 2: Irrigating Public Spaces and Townhomes Figure 4: Option 3: Irrigating Entire Development Feasibility Report Mattamy Homes Water Reuse WSB Project No. 2988-01 %&c( %&c( Rehbein St 73rd St Brian Dr20th Ave N20th Ave N77th St E Document Path: K:\02988-010\GIS\Maps\Figure1_MatamyHomeProjectArea.mxdÜ Figure 1Mattamy Homes Project Area 0 1,000Feet Project A rea Single Family Homes Townhomes Irrigation Source Ponds Par k Berm ROW "/ "/ %&c( Rehbein St 73rd St Brian Dr20th Ave N20th Ave N77th St E Document Path: K:\02988-010\GIS\Maps\Figure2_Scenario1.mxdÜ Figure 2Option 1 - Parks and Berm 0 1,000Feet Irrigated Area "/Pump Park Irrigation System Berm Irrigation System Project A rea Single Family Homes Townhomes Irrigation Source Ponds Par k Berm ROW %&c( Rehbein St 73rd St Brian Dr20th Ave N20th Ave N77t h St E Document Path: K:\02988-010\GIS\Maps\Figure3_Scenario2.mxdÜ Figure 3Option 2 - Parks, Berm, and Townhomes 0 1,000Feet Irrigated Area "/Pump Park Irrigation System Berm Irrigation System Townhome Irrigation System Project A rea Single Family Homes Townhomes Irrigation Source Ponds Par k Berm ROW "/ "/ "/ "/ "/ "/ %&c( Rehbein St 73rd St Brian Dr20th Ave N20th Ave N77th St E Document Path: K:\02988-010\GIS\Maps\Figure4_Scenario3.mxdÜ Figure 4Option 3 - Entire Development Irrigated 0 1,000Feet Irrigated Area "/Pump Single Family Irrigation System Park Irrigation System Berm Irrigation System Townhome Irrigation System Project A rea Single Family Homes Townhomes Irrigation Source Ponds Par k Berm ROW APPENDIX B Table 1 - Estimated Annual Irrigation Feasibility Report Mattamy Homes Water Reuse WSB Project No. 2988-01 Pumping Data 2011 2012 2013 2014 Average January 25,888,000 25,071,000 27,807,000 25,983,000 26,187,250 February 23,596,000 22,437,000 23,407,000 22,194,000 22,908,500 March 23,542,000 24,787,000 23,681,000 24,295,000 24,076,250 April 26,549,000 35,803,000 27,568,000 25,505,000 28,856,250 May 32,688,000 48,084,000 35,966,000 36,576,000 38,328,500 June 61,591,000 66,619,000 38,388,000 42,654,000 52,313,000 July 66,370,000 95,916,000 83,252,000 64,403,000 77,485,250 August 59,137,000 93,978,000 101,316,000 73,428,000 81,964,750 September 69,350,000 90,784,000 89,821,000 47,160,000 74,278,750 October 51,635,000 56,177,000 34,861,000 33,170,000 43,960,750 November 25,097,000 24,722,000 24,858,000 24,064,000 24,685,250 December 26,704,000 25,046,000 24,703,000 25,310,000 25,440,750 Total 492,147,000 609,424,000 535,628,000 444,742,000 520,485,250 Summer Usage:367,320,000 487,361,000 411,172,000 322,896,000 397,187,250 Winter Usage:124,827,000 122,063,000 124,456,000 121,846,000 123,298,000 Average Monthly Winter Use:24,659,600 Average Monthly Summer Use:56,741,036 Average Estimated Irrigation:224,570,050 Percent of Total:43.1% APPENDIX C Table 1 - Water Balance Summary Table 2 – Option 1 Cost Summary Table 3 – Option 2 Cost Summary Table 4 – Option 3 Cost Summary Feasibility Report Mattamy Homes Water Reuse WSB Project No. 2988-01 Irrigated Area (ac)Volume Required to Irrigate  Area (gal)Average Days Irrigating from Lake YearlyAverage Daily Irrigation Demand (gal)Annual Lake Water Used (MG)Annual Lake Water Used (ac‐ft)Annual Potable Water Used (MG)Option 1: Irrigate Park and Berm10.79 42,000156 35,3366.54 20.06 0Option 2: Irrigate Park, Berm, and Townhome23.04 88,000156 74,03813.69 42.02 0Option 3: Irrigate Entire Development*143.7 547,000134 460,215 73.09 224.3 12.05*Numbers assume an 11' protective depth Item No. Description Unit Estimated Total Quantity Estimated Unit Price Estimated Total Cost 1 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 2 CLEARING AND GRUBBING LUMP SUM 1 $500.00 $500.00 3 DEWATERING LUMP SUM 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 4 2" FORCE MAIN HDPE LIN FT 6,991 $18.00 $125,832.87 5 ELECTRICAL SERVICE LUMP SUM 1 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 6 IRRIGATION METER AND CONTROLS EACH 2 $3,000.00 $6,000.00 7 LIFT STATION, FILTER, CONTROLS, AND APPURTENANCES* LUMP SUM 2 $55,000.00 $110,000.00 8 SILT FENCE, TYPE HEAVY DUTY LIN FT 250 $3.50 $875.00 9 CONCRETE PUMP PAD EACH 2 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 SUBTOTAL $269,207.87 + 10% CONTINGENCY $26,920.79 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $296,128.66 + 20% INDIRECT $59,225.73 TOTAL $356,000.00 Opinion of Probable Cost A. Irrigating Public Spaces (Park and Berms) Item No. Description Unit Estimated Total Quantity Estimated Unit Price Estimated Total Cost 1 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 $16,700.00 $16,700.00 2 CLEARING AND GRUBBING LUMP SUM 1 $500.00 $500.00 3 DEWATERING LUMP SUM 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 4 2" FORCE MAIN HDPE LIN FT 6,991         $18.00 $125,838.00 5 ELECTRICAL SERVICE LUMP SUM 1 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 6 IRRIGATION METER AND CONTROLS EACH 3 $3,000.00 $9,000.00 7 LIFT STATION, FILTER, CONTROLS, AND APPURTENANCES* LUMP SUM 2 $55,000.00 $110,000.00 8 SILT FENCE, TYPE HEAVY DUTY LIN FT 250 $3.50 $875.00 9 CONCRETE PUMP PAD EACH 2 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 11 4" FORCE MAIN HDPE LIN FT 3,807 $18.00 $68,531.73 SUBTOTAL $350,444.73 + 10% CONTINGENCY $35,044.47 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $385,489.21 + 20% INDIRECT $77,097.84 TOTAL $463,000.00 B. Irrigating Public Spaces and Townhomes Opinion of Probable Cost Item No. Description Unit Estimated Total Quantity Estimated Unit Price Estimated Total Cost 1 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 $93,100.00 $93,100.00 2 CLEARING AND GRUBBING LUMP SUM 1 $500.00 $500.00 3 DEWATERING LUMP SUM 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 4 2" FORCE MAIN HDPE LIN FT 6,991 $18.00 $125,838.00 5 ELECTRICAL SERVICE LUMP SUM 1 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 6 IRRIGATION METER AND CONTROLS EACH 8 $3,000.00 $24,000.00 7 LIFT STATION, FILTER, CONTROLS, AND APPURTENANCES* LUMP SUM 6 $55,000.00 $330,000.00 8 SILT FENCE, TYPE HEAVY DUTY LIN FT 250 $3.50 $875.00 9 CONCRETE PUMP PAD EACH 6 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 10 CONNECT TO POTABLE WATER EACH 6 $8,000.00 $48,000.00 11 4" FORCE MAIN HDPE LIN FT 36,944 $18.00 $664,992.00 12 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM OVERSIZING LUMP SUM 1 $650,000.00 $650,000.00 SUBTOTAL $1,955,305.00 + 10% CONTINGENCY $195,530.50 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $2,150,835.50 + 20% INDIRECT $430,167.10 TOTAL $2,582,000.00 C. Irrigating Entire Development Opinion of Probable Cost APPENDIX D Water Balance Technical Memo Feasibility Report Mattamy Homes Water Reuse WSB Project No. 2988-01 engineering planning environmental construction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com January 21, 2016 Mr. Mike Grochala, AICP Community Development Director City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Pkwy Lino Lakes, MN 55015 Re: Mattamy Homes Water Reuse – Water Balance Technical Memorandum WSB Project Number 02988-01 Dear Mr. Grochala: We are providing you this technical memorandum to summarize the results of the water balance model for the water reuse feasibility study in the Mattamy Homes development. This document describes the methodology used to calculate the quantity of stormwater available and the amount used for irrigation purposes. Project Background The City of Lino Lakes wishes to implement a water reuse program using water from the lake in the Mattamy Homes development to irrigate portions of the development. There are three potential scales with respect to water reuse that were evaluated. The first is using water in the lake to irrigate the development’s park and the berms on the eastern edge of the development. The second is to irrigate the park and the berms as well as the townhomes in the southeastern corner of the development. Finally, the water balance modeled the feasibility of irrigating the entire development, including single-family homes, with water from the lake. Water Balance Theory The water balance presented in this document evaluates the amount of water provided to the pond via stormwater runoff, the amount that will be withdrawn for irrigation, and the resulting lake levels. The estimate takes into consideration precipitation, runoff, evaporation, irrigation demand, and pond overflow. While water balances rely on historic data and do not predict future climate patterns, they are a helpful tool when determining if stormwater irrigation is feasible, and if so, whether or not potable water augmentation will be required. Calculating Drainage Area To determine the amount of water available for irrigation, the drainage area to the lake was taken from the current Lino Lakes Northeast Study being conducted by WSB & Associates for the City. In addition, drainage information was obtained from the the developer to estimate the area in the future development that will drain to the lake. Mr. Mike Grochala January 21, 2016 Page 2 The purpose of the water balance is to determine if the lake holds enough water for irrigation purposes throughout the irrigation season. Therefore, a conservative approach was taken when estimating the drainage area; only the immediate drainage within the development was considered for the water balance. Calculating Precipitation Rainfall data was obtained from the Minnesota Climatology Working Group. Data was available beginning on May 1, 1959, and extending to June 30, 2015. Days in which rainfall data was missing were assumed to have received no precipitation. Calculating Runoff The water balance uses the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service method for determining runoff. This method, commonly known as the SCS Runoff Curve Number method, has widespread use in hydrologic modeling. The curve number for the drainage area was calculated as part of the Lino Lakes Northeast Study. The curve numbers for the drainage area within the development was estimated using soil type and single- and multi-family residential published curve numbers. Using the calculated curve numbers, an S-value (the amount of maximum soil moisture retention after runoff begins) was determined using the following equation: ܵൌ 1000 ܥݑݎݒ݁ ܰݑܾ݉݁ݎ െ10 From the S-value, the initial abstraction (Ia) was calculated as 0.2*S, per the USDA. To predict the amount of runoff (Q) from a particular rain event, the USDA gives the equation: The equation dictates that there is no runoff from a storm where the amount that falls (in inches) is less than the initial abstraction. In the single-family residential area, a storm of 0.47 inches is required, and in the multi-family residential (townhome) area, a storm of 0.26 inches is required. In the model, runoff from the three areas was considered independently to ensure the most accurate estimate of total runoff volume possible. Using the equation above, the runoff entering the lake was evaluated for each rain event from the historical rainfall data. Calculating Pond Volume Pond volume was determined using contour data from the grading plan for the lake. First, a stage to surface area relationship was developed using surface area from the grading plan. Once the surface area was evaluated at several elevations, the trapezoidal method was used to estimate overall pond volume as well as the volume at several elevations. The storage capacity of the pond is approximately 122 million gallons, with a volume of 86 million gallons at the normal water elevation. The total possible volume was assumed to be the volume at the overflow Mr. Mike Grochala January 21, 2016 Page 3 elevation. The grading plans assume a normal water level of 900 feet, which was set as the initial lake volume for modeling purposes. Calculating Evaporation Based on the estimated volume contained in the lake, the surface area was calculated in Excel using the Forecast function. The Forecast function gives a predicted value of a variable using a linear regression analysis. In this case, the function uses the elevation-surface area data calculated in the pond volume analysis to predict what the surface area would be for any volume of water. This is a necessary component for the model because the volume analysis as outlined in the previous section gives volume at one foot increments only. Once the surface area is estimated, the amount of evaporation is predicted using the pan evaporation method with a pan coefficient, as outlined by the University of Minnesota. The guiding document recommends a pan coefficient of 0.75 for Minnesota. The equation used is below: ܧݒܽ݌݋ݎܽݐ݅݋݊ ൌ ܹܽݐ݁ݎ ܵݑݎ݂ܽܿ݁ ܣݎ݁ܽ ሺ݂ݐ ଶ ሻݔ 0.75 ݔ 36.98 ݄݅݊ܿ݁ݏ 12 ݄݅݊ܿ݁ݏ/݂ݐ The value of 36.98 inches is the average pan evaporation for the State of Minnesota between 1974 and 2004. The equation above provides annual evaporation. Therefore, in the water balance, the value was divided by 180, or the approximate number of days in which evaporation occurs annually. Calculating Irrigation Requirements Using aerials and plans provided by the developer, the irrigated area was estimated for the berms, park, townhomes, and single-family homes. It is estimated that to maintain a lawn, one inch of water is required per week (including precipitation). 1-inch of irrigation weekly results in an average of 1/7, or 0.14, inches per day. Therefore, if the rainfall is greater than 0.14 inches in a given day, it was assumed in the water balance that irrigation did not occur that day. Rice Creek Watershed District rules dictate that stormwater irrigation occurs, at maximum, from April 15 to October 15 for the generation of volume reduction credits. The water balance calculates irrigation between these dates. Phase Irrigation Volume per Day (gal) 1. Park and berms only 42,000 2. Park, berms, and townhome area 88,000 3. Park, berms, townhome area, single family area 546,150 Water Balance: Final Calculation and Results Once all of the above parameters were calculated, the balance was conducted to determine lake levels throughout the irrigation season. The overall water balance equation is as follows: ܲ݋݊݀ ܸ݋݈ݑ݉݁ ൌ ܫ݊݅ݐ݈݅ܽ ܲ݋݊݀ ܸ݋݈ݑ݉݁ ൅ ܵݐ݋ݎ݉ݓܽݐ݁ݎ ܴݑ݊݋݂݂ ൅ ܦ݅ݐ݄ܿ ܫ݂݈݊݋ݓ െ ܦ݅ݏ݄ܿܽݎ݃݁ െ ܧݒܽ݌݋ݎܽݐ݅݋݊ െ ܫݎݎ݅݃ܽݐ݅݋݊ The average annual precipitation, including snowmelt, was 33.5 inches. The model predicted that on average, irrigation will occur 156 days each year, out of 184 possible irrigation days. This Mr. Mike Grochala January 21, 2016 Page 4 leads to a weekly irrigation depth of 0.84 inches, resulting in a total water depth of 1.6 inches applied to the turf on a weekly basis, including precipitation. Studies conducted by the University of Minnesota indicate that this irrigation rate is likely slightly more than necessary given the soils and precipitation. A small overestimation of the irrigation rate is desired so that the model is conservative. Option 1: Irrigating Public Spaces with Storm Water Option 1 resulted in a daily irrigation rate of 42,000 gallons on days in which irrigation occurred (days in which precipitation was less than 1/7-inch). The water balance model indicates that the storage can sufficiently supply water for irrigation of the public spaces with minimal effect on storage levels. Evaporation and irrigation combined resulted in maximum storage level fluctuation of 36.8 million gallons (MG), or 4 feet in elevation change. Option 1 is feasible in terms of water supply. Option 2: Irrigating Public Spaces and Townhomes with Storm Water Option 2 resulted in a daily irrigation rate of 88,000 gallons on days in which irrigation occurred. The water balance model indicates that the storage can sufficiently supply water for irrigation of the public spaces and townhome properties with minimal effect on storage levels. Evaporation and irrigation combined resulted in maximum storage level fluctuation of 37.0 MG, or 4 feet in elevation change. Option 2 is feasible in terms of water supply. Option 3: Irrigating all of the Mattamy Development with Storm Water Option 3 resulted in a daily irrigation rate of 547,000 gallons. The storage cannot supply enough irrigation water to support this option. The model showed that storage levels will reach approximately two feet in depth during the summer if irrigating at this rate. A protective elevation can be set, such that at a certain storage depth the irrigation system does not run. Depending on the elevation chosen, the system will turn off for different time ranges. If, for example, the protective elevation is 896 feet (corresponding two an eleven foot depth), the system would run off of potable water an average of 22 days per summer. Given the system and operating cost, Option 3 is not feasible in terms of water supply. Please contact me at (763) 287-8319 with any questions. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Erin Heydinger Mr. Mike Grochala January 21, 2016 Page 5 Sources: Gulliver, J.S., A.J. Erickson, and P.T. Weiss (editors). 2010. Stormwater treatment: Assessment and Maintenance. University of Minnesota, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory. Minneapolis, MN. http://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/content/evaporation-and-evapotranspiration Minnesota Climatology Working Group. Nearest Station Precipitation Data Retrieval. Available online: http://climate.umn.edu/HIDradius/radius_new.asp USDA. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds – Technical Review 55. Available online: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1044171.pdf CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 6G STAFF ORIGINATOR: Michael Grochala MEETING DATE: April 11, 2016 TOPIC: Consider Resolution No. 16-27, Authorizing Update of Water Supply Plan VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION Staff is requesting City Council approval to authorize WSB and Associates to prepare the update of the City’s Water Supply Plan. BACKGROUND Every ten years, all public water suppliers in Minnesota that serve more than 1,000 people must have a water supply plan approved by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). This requirement, in place since the 1990s, is designed to encourage communities to deal proactively with providing sustainable drinking water for citizens, businesses and industry. The City’s updated Water Supply Plan is due December, 31, 2016. The Water Supply Plan is also a required component of the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update. The plan includes: 1. Review and evaluation of our existing water system; 2. Emergency Response Procedures; 3. Water Conservation Plan. WSB has submitted a proposal to complete the Water Supply Plan update in the amount of $16,400. Funding for the plan update is proposed to come from the City’s Trunk Utility Fund. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution 16-27 authorizing preparation of the Water Supply Plan update. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 16-27 2. Proposal from WSB & Associates, Inc. dated March 14, 2016. CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 16-27 AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF WATER SUPPLY PLAN WHEREAS, The City Council is required by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to prepare an update of the City’s Water Supply Plan; and WHEREAS, The City has received a proposal from WSB & Associates, Inc. to prepare said update; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota, hereby authorizes WSB & Associates, Inc. to prepare the update of the City’s Water Supply Plan for the amount of $16,400. Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 11th day of April, 2016. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member _____________and was duly seconded by Council Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: _____________________ Jeff Reinert, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________ Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Building a legacy – your legacy. 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com S:\Community Development\Projects\Planning Studies\2016 Water Supply Plan\Staff Reports\LTR PROP - Lino Lakes - Water Supply Plan.docx Date: March 14, 2016 TO: Michael Grochala, AICP City of Lino Lakes, MN RE: PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO COMPLETE THE CITY OF LINO LAKES’ WATER SUPPLY PLAN Dear Mr. Grochala: We are pleased to provide you with this proposal for services to assist the City of Lino Lakes(City) in completion of its Water Supply Plan (Plan) as required by the Minnesota Division of Natural Resources (DNR). Our multi-faceted team includes professionals in Water/Wastewater, Water Resources, City Planning, and GIS; ensuring that the City’s Plan will be a cohesive document that will not only meet state regulations but will be a useful planning document throughout the next decade. Not only does WSB have the technical skills to deliver high-quality Plans, but we are also experienced in navigating the regulatory process required for such submittals. The combination of our technical expertise and project management experience ensures that the final product delivered to the DNR will be Below is description of the required components and the method by which WSB will address them in the City’s Water Supply Plan Update. Task One: Water Supply System Description and Evaluation 1.1 Analysis of Water Demand Using the City’s Wellhead Protection Plan alongside appropriations permits and water use data, WSB will evaluate the past ten years of water demand data. The per capita usage and number of connections, large quantity users, and water used for essential versus non-essential uses will be considered, among other factors. 1.2 Treatment and Storage Capacity An evaluation of the City’s existing treatment and storage will be conducted. WSB will outline the treatment process and compare the capacity of treated water versus the demand. 1.3 Water Sources Three types of resources will be considered: groundwater, surface water, and interconnection. We will evaluate emergency interconnections and determine if there are any deficiencies. M. Grochala March 14, 2016 Page 2 S:\Community Development\Projects\Planning Studies\2016 Water Supply Plan\Staff Reports\LTR PROP - Lino Lakes - Water Supply Plan.docx 1.4 Future Demand Projections Future demand projections are listed as a Key Metropolitan Council Benchmark. Using data compiled in the previous sections, WSB will determine what trends, if any, are seen. We will attempt to determine the cause behind any significant patterns. Using this analysis, the Plan will project demands through 2040 by estimating population served, per capita water demand, and peak water usage. 1.5 Resource Sustainability WSB will outline water quality and quantity monitoring efforts currently undertaken by the City. From this data, it will be determined if there are any potential water supply issues or natural resource impacts as a result of permitted withdrawals. Each natural resource type will be evaluated to determine if water usage will have a negative impact. The results of the City’s Wellhead Protection and Source Water Protection Plans will be described. 1.6 Capital Improvement Plan The adequacy of each component of the existing water supply system will be determined. This includes wells, storage and treatment facilities, and distribution systems. Proposed future water sources will be outlined as well as any alternatives available. WSB will consider the feasibility of water reuse, including reclaimed stormwater and/or wastewater, as well as interconnection to nearby suppliers. Task Two: Emergency Planning and Response Procedures WSB will describe the current status of the City’s 1) Federal Emergency Response Plan; 2) Operational Contingency Plan; and 3) Emergency Response Procedures. We will include in the Emergency Response Procedures the method by which the City will augment water supplies (if required), the allocation and demand reduction procedures, any emergency demand reduction conditions or triggers in place, and several other related items. Task Three: Water Conservation Plan Component 3.1 Progress since 2006 WSB will describe any initiatives the City has undertaken since its last Water Supply Plan was approved by the DNR. Conservation practices the City is implementing – such as pricing, regulations, and education – will be included. M. Grochala March 14, 2016 Page 3 S:\Community Development\Projects\Planning Studies\2016 Water Supply Plan\Staff Reports\LTR PROP - Lino Lakes - Water Supply Plan.docx 3.2 Triggers for Allocation and Demand Reduction Actions This section will include future conditions and actions during a Governor’s “Critical Water Deficiency Order” or other instances in which usage reductions must occur. WSB will work with the City to determine what triggers should be selected to initiate short- or long-term demand reductions, and what actions will be taken should such an instance arise. 3.3 Conservation Objectives and Strategies This section of the Plan serves as a Key Benchmark for the DNR. It will include strategies by which the City will reduce unaccounted for water loss. The DNR has set a goals for each community, including the following: 1) Reaching 75 gallons per capita of water usage daily; 2) Achieving at least a 1.5% per year reduction for industrial, commercial, and agricultural water use; 3) Decreasing the trend in total per capita demand; 5) Reducing the City’s peaking factor to less than 2.6; 6) Implementing a conservation water rate structure; and 7) Support Wellhead Protection Planning. WSB will work with the City to highlight the goals that have already been achieved and to outline the method the City will implement to achieve the remaining benchmarks. Included in the analysis will be possible regulatory changes, retrofitting potential, and educational programs. Task Four: Items for Metropolitan Area Water Suppliers Because the City is within the seven-county metropolitan area, the Metropolitan Council requires additional information. WSB will include in the Plan water demand projections through 2040, potential water supply issues, possible approaches to meet extended water demand projections, and value-added water supply planning efforts (if desired by the City). Task Five: Project Management, Coordination, and Meetings Project management is a key task included in each project undertaken by WSB. This task consists of management and administration, project coordination, and overall communication with the City and DNR. Proper completion of this task will help keep all affected parties routinely updated and informed regarding project issues, as well as keep the project on schedule and within budget. The proposed work plan will include one City Council meeting and two meetings with the City prior to finalizing the Plan. Task Six: Estimated Fee WSB will complete the proposed work plan as proposed herein on an hourly, not-to-exceed fee of $14,600. This cost does not include additional hours that may be required as a result of the White Bear Lake settlement agreement. These hours will be billed hourly and are estimated at an additional $1,800. The hourly breakdown by task for each employee class proposed for the project is included on the attached spreadsheet. The proposed fee is based on our 2016 rate schedule. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. M. Grochala March 14, 2016 Page 4 S:\Community Development\Projects\Planning Studies\2016 Water Supply Plan\Staff Reports\LTR PROP - Lino Lakes - Water Supply Plan.docx Diane Hankee, PE Erin Heydinger City Engineer Project Engineer ACCEPTED BY: City of (CITY) Name Title Date 1 Water Supply System Description and Evaluation 2 16 12 30 2,692.00$ 2 Emergency Planning and Response Procedures 4 16 8 28 2,712.00$ 3 Water Conservation Plan Component 4 36 10 50 4,720.00$ 4 Items for Metropolitan Area Water Suppliers (7-County Metro Only)4 6 4 14 1,486.00$ 6 Project Management, Coordination, and Meetings 8 4 2 16 30 2,984.00$ 22 78 36 16 152 158.00$ 93.00$ 74.00$ 75.00$ 3,476.00$ 7,254.00$ 2,664.00$ 1,200.00$ 14,600.00$ Estimated Hours for Northeast Metro Area 4 12 16 Estimated Additional Fee for Northeast Metro Area 632.00$ 1,116.00$ 1,800.00$ 16,400.00$ Estimate of Cost City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Professional Services to Complete Division of Natural Resources Water Supply Plan DescriptionTask No.Project Manager Project Engineer GIS Specialist Grand Total with Northeast Metro Area Work Total WSB Direct Labor Costs Total Hours Total Labor Cost Total Hours Estimated Hours Hourly Billing Rate Admin S:\Community Development\Projects\Planning Studies\2016 Water Supply Plan\Staff Reports\WaterSupplyPlan_LinoLakes