The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/09/2005 Council Packet• • AGENDA CITY OF LINO LAKES Monday, May 9, 2005 Council Chambers City Council meeting 6:30 p.m. (Scheduled to be broadcast on Channel 16) Open Mike - Call to Order and Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Setting the Agenda: Addition or deletion of agenda items 1. Consent Agenda - A) Consideration of Expenditures: i) May 9, 2005 (Check No. 73628 through 73734 in the amount of $333,193.62). Pg. 4 -15 ii) Centennial Fire District (Check No. 14721 through 14735 in the amount of $18,925.16). Pg. 16 B) Consider minutes of April 6, 2005 Council Work Session C) Consider minutes of April 11, 2005 City Council Meeting D) Consider minutes of April 20, 2005 Council Work Session 2. Finance Department Report, Al Rolek A) None. 3. Administration Department Report, Dan Tesch A) Restructuring of VLAWMO (to follow) Pg. 17 B) Proclamation Declaring Mediation Services for Anoka County Day — 24 May 2005 Pg.18 • C) Consider Memorandum of Understanding with Local 49 Page 1 • • • AGENDA Pg. 19 4. Public Safety Department Report, Dave Pecchia A) Proclamation for Police Week / Law Enforcement Memorial Week Pg. 20 -21 5. Public Services Department Report, Rick DeGardner None. 6. Community Development Department Report, Michael Grochala A) Consideration of Resolution No. 05 -62 Declaring Adequacy of Petition and Ordering Preparation of Report, West Shadow Lake Drive Area Street and Utility Improvements, Michael Grochala Pg. 22 -27 B) Apollo Landing, Paul Bengtson i. Consider 1st Reading of Ordinance 01 -05, Rezoning Certain Real Property from R, Rural District to GB, General Business District ii. Consideration of Resolution No. 05 -63, Approving Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development, Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat, and MUSA Allocation Pg. 28 -75 C) Fairview Clinic, Paul Bengtson D) E) i. Consideration of Resolution No 05 -64, Approving Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development, Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat ii. Consideration of Resolution No. 05 -65, Approving Final Stage Plan/Final Plat Pg. 76 -99 Consideration of Resolution No. 05 -61, Approving Preliminary Plat, Marshan Meadows, Jeff Smyser Pg. 100 -120 Pavement Management Program, Jim Studenski i. Consideration of Resolution No. Management Report ii. Consideration of Resolution No. Management Financing Report Page 2 05 -65, Accepting Pavement Pg. 121 -164 05 -66, Accepting Pavement Pg. 165 -205 so AGENDA iii. Consideration of Resolution No. 05 -67, Adopting Pavement Management Policies Pg. 206 -218 7. Unfinished Business A) None. 8. New Business A) None. 9. Community Calendar, May 10, 2005 through May 23, 2005: A) Planning & Zoning Board Meeting, Wednesday, May 11, 2005, 6:30 p.m. B) Council Work Session, Wednesday, May 18, 2005, 5:30 p.m. C) City Council Meeting, Monday, May 23, 2005, 6:30 p.m. 10. Adjourn Revised 05/02/05 AJB 3:19 p.m. Page 3 EXPANDED AGENDA CITY OF LINO LAKES Monday, May 9, 2005 Council Chambers City Council meeting 6:30 p.m. (6:34 P.M.) (Scheduled to be broadcast on Channel 16) Open Mike THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT WHO WISHED TO SPEAK AT OPEN MIKE. - Call to Order and Roll Call ALL PRESENT. - Pledge of Allegiance Setting the Agenda: Addition or deletion of agenda items THERE WERE NO CHANGES TO THE AGENDA. 1. Consent Agenda - A) Consideration of Expenditures: i) May 9, 2005 (Check No. 73628 through 73734 in the amount of $333,193.62). Pg. 4 -15 ii) Centennial Fire District (Check No. 14721 through 14735 in the amount of $18,925.16). Pg. 16 B) Consider minutes of April 6, 2005 Council Work Session C) Consider minutes of April 11, 2005 City Council Meeting D) Consider minutes of April 20, 2005 Council Work Session COUNCILMEMBER DAHL REQUESTED THAT ITEMS 1B, 1C, AND 1D BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. THESE ITEMS WERE MOVED TO AGENDA ITEM 7, UNFINISHED BUSINESS. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER STOLTZ, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAHL, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA, INCLUDING ITEMS lAi and lAii. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. Finance Department Report, Al Rolek Page 1 EXPANDED AGENDA A) None. 3. Administration Department Report, Dan Tesch A) Restructuring of VLAWMO (to follow) Pg. 17 B) Proclamation Declaring Mediation Services for Anoka County Day — 24 May 2005 Pg. 18 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER DAHL, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER REINERT, DECLARING MAY 24, 2005 TO BE "MEDIATION SERVICES FOR ANOKA COUNTY DAY" IN LINO LAKES, PER THE PROCLAMATION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. C) Consider Memorandum of Understanding with Local 49 Pg. 19 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CARLSON, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER STOLTZ, APPROVING THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. Public Safety Department Report, Dave Pecchia A) Proclamation for Police Week / Law Enforcement Memorial Week Pg. 20 -21 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER DAHL, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CARLSON, APPROVING THE PROCLAMATION AND DECLARING POLICE WEEK / LAW ENFORCEMENT MEMORIAL WEEK, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. Public Services Department Report, Rick DeGardner None. 6. Community Development Department Report, Michael Grochala A) Consideration of Resolution No. 05 -62 Declaring Adequacy of Petition and Ordering Preparation of Report, West Shadow Lake Drive Area Street and Utility Improvements, Michael Grochala Pg. 22 -27 MAYOR BERGESON, A RESIDENT OF WEST SHADOW LAKE DRIVE, RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THE DELIBERATIONS ON THIS ITEM, AND TURNED THE MEETING OVER TO ACTING MAYOR DAN STOLTZ. Page 2 EXPANDED AGENDA THERE WERE A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS IN ATTENDANCE FOR THIS ITEM, AND THREE SPOKE IN SUPPORT OF RESOLUTION NO. 05-62. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER REINERT SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER STOLTZ, FOR ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 05-62 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. FOLLOWING EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION, THIS MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MAYOR BERGESON ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. FOLLOWING THIS ITEM, THE COUNCIL TOOK A BRIEF RECESS AT 7:55 P.M. THE COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 8:02 P.M., WITH MAYOR BERGESON CHAIRING THE REMAINDER OF THE MEETING. B) Apollo Landing, Paul Bengtson i. Consider 1St Reading of Ordinance 01 -05, Rezoning Certain Real Property from R, Rural District to GB, General Business District MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CARLSON, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAHL, APPROVING FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 01 -05, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. UPON ROLL CALL VOTE, THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ii. Consideration of Resolution No. 05 -63, Approving Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development, Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat, and MUSA Allocation Pg. 28 -75 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER DAHL, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER STOLTZ, FOR ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 05-63, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. C) Fairview Clinic, Paul Bengtson i. Consideration of Resolution No 05 -64, Approving Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development, Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat COUNCILMEMBER CARLSON RECUSED HERSELF FROM THE DELIBERATIONS ON ITEMS 6Ci and 6Cii, DUE TO HER MEMBERSHIP ON THE FAIRVIEW BOARD. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER REINERT, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAHL, FOR ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 05 -64, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER CARLSON ABSTAINED. Page 3 EXPANDED AGENDA ii. Consideration of Resolution No. 05 -65, Approving Final Stage Plan/Final Plat Pg. 76 -99 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER REINERT, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER STOLTZ, FOR ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 05-65, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER CARLSON ABSTAINED. FOLLOWING THIS ITEM, COUNCILMEMBER CARLSON RETURNED TO THE MEETING. D) Consideration of Resolution No. 05 -61, Approving Preliminary Plat, Marshan Meadows, Jeff Smyser Pg. 100 -120 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CARLSON, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAHL, FOR ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 05 -61, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. E) Pavement Management Program, Jim Studenski i. Consideration of Resolution No. 05 -65, Accepting Pavement Management Report Pg. 121 -164 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER REINERT, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAHL, FOR ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 05-65, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ii. Consideration of Resolution No. 05 -66, Accepting Pavement Management Financing Report Pg. 165 -205 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER REINERT, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER STOLTZ, FOR ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 05-66, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. VOTE: FOUR AYES, ONE NAY. THE MOTION PASSED. COUNCILMEMBERS REINERT, DAHL, BERGESON AND STOLTZ VOTED AYE. COUNCILMEMBER CARLSON VOTED NAY. iii. Consideration of Resolution No. 05 -67, Adopting Pavement Management Policies Pg. 206 -218 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER REINERT, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER STOLTZ, FOR ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 05 -67, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. VOTE: FOUR AYES, ONE NAY. THE MOTION PASSED. COUNCILMEMBERS REINERT, DAHL, BERGESON AND STOLTZ VOTED AYE. COUNCILMEMBER CARLSON VOTED NAY. Page 4 EXPANDED AGENDA 7. Unfinished Business COUNCILMEMBERS DAHL AND CARLSON SUGGESTED THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS BE TABLED AND DISCUSSED AT A WORK SESSION, AS THEY BELIEVED THEY WERE SOMEWHAT INCOMPLETE. A) Consider minutes of April 6, 2005 B) Consider minutes of April 11, 2005 C) Consider minutes of April 20, 2005 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER DAHL, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CARLSON, TABLING THESE THREE SETS OF MINUTES UNTIL THE MAY 18, 2005 COUNCIL WORK SESSION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. New Business A) None. 9. Community Calendar, May 10, 2005 through May 23, 2005: A) Planning & Zoning Board Meeting, Wednesday, May 11, 2005, 6:30 p.m. B) Council Work Session, Wednesday, May 18, 2005, 5:30 p.m. C) City Council Meeting, Monday, May 23, 2005, 6:30 p.m. 10. Adjourn MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER STOLTZ, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER REINERT, ADJOURNING THE MEETING AT 9:25 P.M. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Revised 05/02/05 AJB 3:19 p.m. Page 5 EXPENDITURES MAY 5, 2005 • Date: 04/21/2005 Time: 09:15:43 City of Lino Lakes FM Entry - Invoice Journal R�s Options: Vendor # 000110 000200 000287 000289 000537 001395 002000 002270 002339 002441 60 .1 003091 003491 004603 • Vendor #: (A) Invoice #: (A) Entry Journal #: (R) 4612 4612 Trans #: (A) Line #: (A) Due Date: (A) Bank #: (A) Detail / Summary: S Operator: JAL Page: 1 Invoice Status: A # of copies: 1 Sort: N Check Over Expend: N Discount Name # of items Net Gross Discount Lost CINGULAR WIRELESS 1 42.47 42.47 .00 .00 AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSUR, INC. 1 323.50 323.50 .00 .00 HOFFMAN, LORI 1 19.00 19.00 .00 .00 ODELL, DEBBY 1 5.00 5.00 .00 .00 CENTRAL PENSION FUND 1 2,150.40 2,150.40 .00 .00 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 1 1,082.46 1,082.46 .00 .00 INTL UNION OF OPER ENGR 1 420.00 420.00 .00 .00 LAKESIDE AUTO & PAINT, INC. 1 770.00 770.00 .00 .00 NATIONAL MCGRUFF HOUSE NETWORK 1 35.40 35.40 .00 .00 LIVING WATERS LUTHERAN CHURCH 1 1,559.32 1,559.32 .00 .00 MN. DEPT OF HEALTH 1 4,831.00 4,831.00 .00 .00 MN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTER 1 234.42 234.42 .00 .00 MN NCPERS LIFE INSURANCE 1 416.00 416.00 .00 .00 PETTY CASH 1 43.96 43.96 .00 .00 WYFFELS, KAREN 1 10.00 10.00 .00 .00 Grand Totals: 15 11,942.93 11,942.93 .00 .00 Date: 04/29 /2005 Time 07:14:21 Rang- s . Options: Vendor # 001100 • • Entry Vendor #: (A) Invoice #: (A) Journal #: (R) 4626 4626 Trans #: (A) Line #: (A) Due Date: (A) Bank #: (A) Detail / Summary: $ Sort: N Check Over Expend: N City of Lino Lakes FM Entry - Invoice Journal Invoice Status: A Name # of items Operator: JAL # of copies: 1 Net Gross CIRCLE PINES POST OFFICE Grand Totals: 1 510.75 510.75 1 510.75 510.75 Discount .00 .00 Page : 1 Discount Lost .00* Date: 04/29/3003 R0: Options: Time: 08:37:38 Vendor #: (A) Invoice #: (A) Entry Journal #: (R) 4623 Trans #: (A) Line #: (A) Due Date: (A) Bank #: (A) Detail / Summary: S Sort: N Check Over Expend: N 4623 City of Lino Lakes FM Entry - Invoice Journal Operator: JAL Page: 1 Invoice Status: A # of copies: 1 Discount Vendor # Name # of items Net Gross Discount Lost 000017 MINNESOTA CHIEFS OF POLICE 1 15.00 15.00 .00 .00 000057 PREMIUM WATERS, INC. 1 37.59 37.59 .00 .00 000072 STATE OF MINNESOTA BOARD OF ELECTRICITY 1 50.00 50.00 .00 .00 000080 ABLE HOSE AND RUBBER, INC. 1 258.05 258.05 .00 .00 000118 SNAP -ON INDUSTRIAL, INC. 1 28.36 28.36 .00 .D0 000143 BEACON SEMINAR /BEACON ATHLETICS 1 730.00 730.00 .00 .00 000160 ALLIED BLACKTOP, INC. 3 15,974.75 15,974.75 .00 .00 000162 BARNA, GUZY & STEFFEN, LTD. 1 24.00 24.00 .00 .00 000191 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT, INC. 1 1,144.50 1,144.50 .00 .00 000203 WINGFOOT COMMERCIAL TIRE SYSTEMS, LLC 2 612.46 612.46 .00 .00 �0 ; AMERICAN FASTENER & SUPPLY, INC. 4 74.29 74.29 .00 .00 WHITE BEAR LOCKSMITH, INC. 2 42.23 42.23 .00 •0( 000262 MITEL COMMUNICATIONS SOLUTIONS, INC. 1 2,476.00 2,476.00 .00 •0( 000283 PRIME- STRIPE, INC. 1 58.90 58.90 .00 .0' 000288 RYAN COMPANY, INC. 1 186.38 186.38 .00 000290 FULTON, BRANDY 1 5.00 5.00 .00 .0 000291 HILLESHEIM ELECTRIC 1 150.00 150.00 .00 .0 000292 NELSON DODGE -GMC 1 21,500.35 21,500.35 .00 •( 000293 WIPERS AND WIPES, INC. 2 343.75 343.75 .00 •1 000305 KEZAR LAURA 1 12.00 12.00 .00 000364 NORTHERN AIR CORPORATION 1 1,058.14 1,058.14 .00 000370 CENTRAL COMMUINICATIONS 4 1,709.57 1,709.57 .00 • VP Date: 04/29/2005 Time: 08:37:38 City of Lino Lakes FM Entry - Invoice Journal Name Operator: JAL Page: 2 Discount # of items Net Gross Discount Lost 000405 000421 000486 000541 000646 000720 000724 000822 000879 000911 000946 001044 001072 001094 001095 1100 0 001280 001292 001301 001349 001380 001480 001530 001540 001561 001621. • RYDEEN, LESTER 1 279.50 279.50 .00 .00 ANOKA COUNTY TREASURER 1 694.79 694.79 .00 .00 COORDINATED BUSINESS SYSTEMS, LTD. 1 466.58 466.58 .00 .00 ASPEN MILLS, INC. 1 49.95 49.95 .00 .00 NORTHLAND CHEMICAL CORPORATION 1 112.46 112.46 .00 ,.00 BLAINE, CITY OF 2 1,971.36 1,971.36 .00 .00 BLUE TOW SERVICE, INC. 2 244.95 244.95 .00 .00 HOFMANN, KELLI 1 9.00 9.00 .00 .00 PREFERRED ONE COMMUNITY HEALTH PLAN 1 36,431.84 36,431.84 .00 .00 WASHINGTON COUNTY 1 200.00 200.00 .00 .00 C. P. OFFICE PRODUCTS 3 525.29 525.29 .00 .00 CHOICEPOINT SERVICES, INC. 1 112.00 112.00 .00 .00 GAMETIME 1 437.12 437.12 .00 .00 APPLIED ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC. 1 1,115.00 1,115.00 .00 .00 DAHLGREN SHARDLOW AND UBAN, INC. 1 8,795.63 8,795.63 .00 .00 CIRCLE PINES, CITY OF 1 6,190.66 6,190.66 .00 .00 DALCO, INC. 1 174.72 174.72 .00 .00 DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT CO., INC. 1 404.35 404.35 .00 .00 DEHN OIL COMPANY, INC. 1 3,636.70 3,636.70 .00 .00 DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF MINNESOTA 1 3,970.35 3,970.35 .00 .00 E. H. RENNER & SONS, INC. 1 105.22 105.22 .00 .00 EARL ANDERSON ASSOCIATION, INC. 1 64.80 64.80 .00 .00 HAWKINS INC. 1 6,252.56 6,252.56 .00 .00 FOREST LAKE FORD, INC. 1 100.00 100.00 .00 .0C FORESTRY SUPPLIERS, INC. 1 271.78 271.78 .00 .0( EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECINOLOGIES, INC. 1 71.43 71.43 .00 .0i GREG LARSON SPORTS - GLS, INC.` 2 1,070.79 1,070.79 .00 .0 Date: 04/29/2005 t# Time: 08:37:39 Name City of Lino Lakes FM Entry - Invoice Journal Operator: JAL Page: 3 Discount # of items Net Gross Discount Lost 001700 001720 001765 001840 001847 001859 002340 002440 002550 002900 003123 003180 003220 003250 003443 .78 60 003880 003882 003900 003926 003927 004070 004100 004120 004150 004171 • GOVERNMENT TRAIN SERVICE 1 375.00 375.00 .00 .00 GRAINGER, INC. 3 166.12 166.12 .00 .00 VOLK SEWER AND WATER, INC. 1 23,112.32 23,112.32 .00 .00 HILLESHEIM, TIM 1 35.76 35.76 .00 .00 HIRSHFIELD'S PAINT MANUFACTURING,IN 1 377.01 377.01 .00 .00 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1 79.68 79.68 .00 .00 IMAGE PRINTING & GRAPHICS, INC. 1 136.08 136.08 .00 .00 LITTLE FALLS MACHINE, INC. 1 53.93 53.93 .00 .00 MENARDS, INC. 2 639.27 639.27 .00 .00 MN. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 3 2,380.22 2,380.22 .00 .00 NATURE CALLS, INC. 1 64.65 64.65 .00 .00 NEWMAN TRAFFIC SIGNS, INC. 1 127.59 127.59 .00 .00 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY, INC. 1 347.97 347.97 .00 .00 XCEL ENERGY 1 5,428.84 5,428.84 .00 .00 OTTER LAKE ANIMAL CARE CENTER, INC. 1 138.20 138.20 .00 .00 PECCHIA, DAVID CHIEF 1 334.56 334.56 .00 .00 ALPHA ATHLETICS 1 1,296.04 1,296.04 .00 .0C SHORT - ELLIOTT- HENDRICKSON, INC. 5 55,257.19 55,257.19 .00 .0C SHRED -IT, INC. 1 54.95 54.95 .00 •01 SAFETY KLEEN CORPORATION, INC. 2 157.15 157.15 .00 .0 SCHWAAB, INC. 1 35.20 35.20 .00 .0 HENRY'S WATERWORKS, INC. 1 566.58 566.58 .00 .0 REED BUSINESS INFORMATION 2 311.08 311.08 .00 •C SPRINGSTED, INC. 1 2,000.00 2,000.00 .00 •C ST. JOSEPH EQUIPMENT, INC. 1 12,534.00 12,534.00 .00 •l STAR TRIBUNE, INC. 1 111.80 111.80 .00 STATE OF MINNESOTA /BUILDING CODES & STAN 1 35.00 35.00 .00 Date: 04/29/2005 Time: 08:37:40 11110 $ Name 004240 004300 004340 004350 004427 004562 004590 004606 004788 004830 004840 004880 900448 900491 • • City of Lino Lakes FM Entry - Invoice Journal Operator: JAL Page: 4 Discount # of items Net Gross Discount Lost STREICHER'S, INC. 4 1,806.45 1,808.45 .00 .00 SUPERIOR FORD, INC. 3 60,342.00 60,342.00 .00 .00 T.A. SCHIFSKY AND SONS, INC. 1 105.84 105.84 .00 .00 T.K.D.A. 4 25,965.73 25,965.73 .00 .00 TIMESAVER OFF -SITE SECRETARIAL, INC 3 926.98 926.98 .00 .00 NATIONAL WATERWORKS, INC. 1 910.00 910.00 .00 .00 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED, INC. 2 507.34 507.34 .00 .00 U. S. BANK 1 1,035.00 1,035.00 .00 .00 SPRINT 1 81.07 81.07 .00 .00 FORSBERG, MELISSA 1 175.00 175.00 .00 .00 WINNICK SUPPLY, INC. 3 212.85 212.85 .00 .00 ZACK'S INC. MUN. INDUS. SUP 2 434.67 434.67 .00 .00 GEPHART ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. 1 162.00 162.00 .00 .00 ROSEVILLE, CITY OF 1 1,666.67 1,666.67 .00 .00 Grand Totals: 131 320,739.94 320,739.94 .00 .00+ -10- Date: 04/29/2005 Time: 08:44:03 Operator: JAL • Ranges: Options: Check ## 73628 0 73629 0 0 73 631 0 73 63 2 0 73634 73635 73636 73637 •640 0 0 0 7364 0 Page: 1 City of Lino Lakes FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Fund: (A) Dept Id: (A) Program: (A) Vendor #: (A) Invoice #: (A) Schedule Journal #:,(R) 4613 - 4629 Bank #: (A) Cash #: (A) Payroll Check Dates: (A) Print: D Report Format: 1 of copies: 1 Total By Account: Y Sort: D Print Ranges /Options: Y Process Payroll: N Page on Sort: N Vendor Alpha Name Description Dept Amount -- --- ----- --- -- - --- - -- --- ---- -- ------ --- -- -- -- -- - - - - -- ---- -- - - -- -- AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE A PAYROLL WITHHOLDING * * * * * * ** 323.50 BLUE TOW SERVICE, INC. TOW /FORD 250 * * * * * * ** 244.95 CENTRAL PENSION FUND PAYROLL WITHHOLDING * * * * * * ** 2,150.40 DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF M DENTAL INSURANCE * * * * * * ** 2,291.23 FULTON, BRANDY REIMBURSE PROGRAM REC * * * * * * ** 5.00 HOFFMAN, LORI REIMBURSE PROGRAM REC * * * * * * ** 19.00 HOFMANN, KELLI REIMBURSE PROGRAM REC * * * * * * ** 9.00 INTL UNION OF OPER ENG PAYROLL WITHHOLDING * * * * * * ** 420.00 KEZAR, LAURA REIMBURSE PROGRAM REC * * * * * * ** 12.00 LIVING WATERS LUTHERAN REIMBURSE ESCROW * * * * * * ** 1,559.32 MN CHILD SUPPORT PAYME MECKLE, TERRY J. /0014011 * * * * * * ** 234.42 MN NCPERS LIFE INSURAN PAYROLL WITHHOLDING * * * * * * ** 416.00 MN. DEPT OF HEALTH QUARTERLY STATE WATER FE * * * * * * ** 4,831.00 ODELL, DEBBY REIMBURSE PROGRAM REC * * * * * * ** 5.00 PREFERRED ONE COMMUNIT INSURANCE * * * * * * ** 7,982.58 SHORT - ELLIOTT - HENDRICK ANTENNA PROJECT /MARCH * * * * * * ** 584.90 T.K.D.A. ENGINEERING * * * * * * ** 1,346.15 WYFFELS, KAREN REIMBURSE PROGRAM REC * * * * * * ** 10.00 Total for Dept ** 22,444.45* GREG LARSON SPORTS - G SUPPLIES OTHER 140.96 Total for Dept 204 140.96* O ALPHA ATHLETICS T- SHIRTS YOUTH IN 1,296.04 O GREG LARSON SPORTS - G SUPPLIES YOUTH IN • 847.74 Total for Dept 207 2,143.78* O GREG LARSON SPORTS - G SUPPLIES YOUTH SP 82.09 Total for Dept 208 82.09* O TIMESAVER OFF -SITE SEC APR 20 MAYOR /CO 473.75 Total for Dept 401 473.75* O BARNA, GUZY & STEFFEN, LEGAL FEES ADMINIST 24.00 O CHOI CEPOINT SERVICES, DRUG TESTING ADMINIST 112.00 O DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF M DENTAL INSURANCE ADMINIST 148.76 Date: 04/29/2005 Time: 08:44:03 Operator: JAL • Page: 2 City of Lino Lakes FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check k Vendor Alpha Name 73639 0 0 0 73639 0 0 0 0 73639 0 Description Dept Amount NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONTHLY SERVICE /MARCH ADMINIST 44.77 PREFERRED ONE COMMUNIT INSURANCE ADMINIST 2,024.92 PREMIUM WATERS, INC. MONTHLY SERVICE /MARCH ADMINIST 37.59 SPRINT MONTHLY SERVICE /MARCH ADMINIST 81.07 Total for Dept 402 2,473.11* NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONTHLY SERVICE /MARCH SENIORS 45.84 Total for Dept 406 45.84* DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF M DENTAL INSURANCE FINANCE PREFERRED ONE COMMUNIT INSURANCE FINANCE ROSEVILLE, CITY OF JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT /A FINANCE Total for Dept 407 104.14 770.09 1,666.67 2,540.90* DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF M DENTAL INSURANCE ECONOMIC 29.75 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONTHLY SERVICE /MARCH ECONOMIC 13.79 PREFERRED ONE COMMUNIT INSURANCE ECONOMIC 352.18 Total for Dept 415 395.72* O DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF M DENTAL INSURANCE PLANNING 59.50 O GOVERNMENT TRAIN SERVI REGISTRATION /PERRY LADEN PLANNING 375.00 O PREFERRED ONE COMMUNIT INSURANCE PLANNING 704.36 O SHORT - ELLIOTT - HENDRICK GIS /DECEMBER PLANNING 1,054.00 O TIMESAVER OFF -SITE SEC APR 13 PLANNING 453.23 Total for Dept 416 2,646.09* 0 T.K.D.A. ENGINEERING ENGINEER 9,214.18 Total for Dept 417 9,214.18* O DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF M DENTAL INSURANCE Communit 59.50 O PREFERRED ONE COMMUNIT INSURANCE Communit 660.28 Total for Dept 416 719.78* • ASPEN MILLS, INC. UNIFORM SUPPLIES POLICE 49.95 O CENTRAL COMMUINICATION RADIO FEE /JAN, FEB, MAR POLICE 1,709.57 7363 0 CINGULAR WIRELESS MONTHLY SERVICE /MARCH POLICE 42.47 O DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF M DENTAL INSURANCE POLICE 416.72 O FORSBERG, MELISSA REIMBURSE TUITION POLICE 175.00 O IMAGE PRINTING & GRAPH LETTERHEAD POLICE 136.08 7363 3 LA SIDE AUTO & PAINT, REPAIR /REFINISH POLICE 35.00 O MINNESOTA CHIEFS OF PO T & SWEAT SHIRTS POLICE 15.00 O MN. DEPARTMENT OF PUBL PD SQUADS (3) TABS POLICE 52.50 7363 g NATIONAL MCGRUFF HOUSE START -UP KIT POLICE 35.40 7363 9 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONTHLY SERVICE /MARCH POLICE 601.14 O OTTER LAKE ANIMAL CARE ANIMAL CONTROL POLICE 138.20 O PECCHIA, DAVID CHIEF LODGING POLICE 334.56 O PREFERRED ONE COMMUNIT INSURANCE POLICE 12,243.46 O SHRED -IT, INC. DESTROY CONFIDENTIAL MAT POLICE 54.95 O STREICHER'S, INC. UNIFORM SUPPLIES POLICE 1,808.45 O SUPERIOR FORD, INC. '05 CROWN VICTORIA POLICE 60,342.00 • Date: 04/29/2005 • Time 06,44:03 Operator: JAL Page: 3 City of Lino Lakes FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description Dept Amount 0 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED, IN UNIFORM SUPPLIES 0 WASHINGTON COUNTY TRAINING, ADAM H 0 WHITE BEAR LOCKSMITH, KEYS 0 XCEL ENERGY MONTHLY SERVICE /MARCH Total for Dept 420 0 DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF M DENTAL INSURANCE 0 PREFERRED ONE COMMUNIT INSURANCE Total for Dept 421 0 DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF M DENTAL INSURANCE 73639 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONTHLY SERVICE /MARCH O PREFERRED ONE COMMUNIT INSURANCE O STATE OF MINNESOTA BOA CERTIFICATE BOOKS O STATE OF MINNESOTA /BUI REGISTRATION /VERN R O T.K.D.A. ENGINEERING Total for Dept 422 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73639 O • O O • ALLIED BLACKTOP, INC. AMERICAN FASTENER & SU ANOKA COUNTY TREASURER DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF M EARL ANDERSON ASSOCIAT HENRY'S WATERWORKS, IN NEWMAN TRAFFIC SIGNS, NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS PREFERRED ONE COMMUNIT T.A. SCHIFSKY AND SONS XCEL ENERGY ZACK'S INC. MUN. INDUS SWEEPER RENTAL PARTS SIGNAL MAINTENANCE DENTAL INSURANCE STREET SIGNS COLD PATCH STREET SIGNS MONTHLY SERVICE /MARCH INSURANCE ASPHALT MONTHLY SERVICE /MARCH PAINT Total for Dept 430 POLICE POLICE POLICE POLICE FIRE FIRE BUILDING BUILDING BUILDING BUILDING BUILDING BUILDING STREETS STREETS STREETS STREETS STREETS STREETS STREETS STREETS STREETS STREETS STREETS STREETS AMERICAN FASTENER & SU SPLICE /0 -RING FLEET DERN OIL COMPANY, INC. GASOHOL FLEET DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF M DENTAL INSURANCE FLEET EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE T FLANGE /LENS FLEET FACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO BATTERIES FLEET FOREST LAKE FORD, INC. BEARING ASSEMBLY FLEET LITTLE FALLS MACHINE; SEAL KIT FLEET MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT, IN FITTING /COUPLING /HOSE FLEET MN. DEPARTMENT OF PUBL LICENSE /2 TRAILERS FLEET NELSON DODGE -GMC 1 TON 4 X 4 P U WITH PLO FLEET PREFERRED ONE COMMUNIT INSURANCE FLEET RYDEEN, LESTER CLOTHING ALLOWANCE /SUPPL FLEET SNAP -ON INDUSTRIAL, IN EXTENSION ST. JOSEPH EQUIPMENT, TRAILERS /2 WHITE BEAR LOCKSMITH, KEYS WINGFOOT COMMERCIAL TI WHEEL TORQUE CHECK WINNICE SUPPLY, INC. REGULATOR Total for Dept 431 FLEET FLEET FLEET FLEET FLEET 507.34 200.00 20.13 3.20 78,921.12* 87.19 1,802.06 1,889.25* 119.02 76.63 2,266.74 50.00 35.00 1,232.77 3,780.16* 15,974.75 27.26 694.79 174.06 64.80 566.58 127.59 45.84 1,949.89 105.84 3,677.07 434.67 23,843.14* 11.10 3,636.70 34.20 71.43 347.97 100.00 53.93 1,144.50 2,327.72 21,500.35 646.83 117.62 28.36 12,534.00 22.10 612.46 73.49 43,262.76* Date: 04/29/2005 Time: 08:44:03 Operator: JAL • Page: 4 City of Lino Lakes FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73633 0 0 0 0 73641 0 0 0 0 0 • Description Dept AMERICAN FASTENER & SU C. P. OFFICE PRODUCTS CIRCLE PINES, CITY OF COORDINATED BUSINESS S DALCO, INC. DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF M GEPHART ELECTRIC COMPA GRAINGER, INC. HILLESHEIM ELECTRIC HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERV LAKESIDE AUTO & PAINT, MENARDS, INC. MITEL COMMUNICATIONS S NORTHERN AIR CORPORATI NORTHLA3D CHEMICAL COR PETTY CASH PREFERRED ONE COMMUNIT RYAN COMPANY, INC. SCHWAAB, INC. STAR TRIBUNE, INC. WIPERS AND WIPES, INC. PARTS OFFICE SUPPLIES MONTHLY SERVICE /MARCH MAINTENANCE CONTRACT SUPPLIES DENTAL INSURANCE LABOR /CHAMBERS LIGHTING SPRAYER INSTALL OUTLET PARTS /SUPPLIES REPAIR /REFINISH GOVERNME GOVERNME GOVERNME GOVERNME GOVERNME GOVERNME GOVERNME GOVERNME GOVERNME GOVERNME GOVERNME SEALANT /NAILS /SCREWS GOVERNME INSTALL HARDWARE PACKAGE GOVERNME CHECK AIR TEMP DISCHARGE CLEANER SUPPLIES /POSTAGE INSURANCE REGULATOR HAND STAMP SUBSCRIPTION 2 -05 - 2 -06 SUPPLIES Total for Dept 432 GOVERNME GOVERNME GOVERNME GOVERNME GOVERNME GOVERNME GOVERNME GOVERNME O CABLE TIE O SUPPLIES O MONTHLY SERVICE /MARCH O DENTAL INSURANCE O SUPPLIES O PAINT /BIKERACK O HIRSHFIELD'S PAINT MAN FIELD STRIPING O HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERV PARTS /SUPPLIES O NATURE CALLS, INC. PORTABLE RESTROOM RENTAL 73639 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONTHLY SERVICE /MARCH PARKS O PREFERRED ONE COMMUNIT INSURANCE PARKS O PRIME- STRIPE, INC. WAND PARKS O CLOTHING ALLOWANCE /SUPPL PARKS O MONTHLY SERVICE /MARCH PARKS Total for Dept 450 AMERICAN FASTENER & SU BEACON SEMINAR /BEACON CIRCLE PINES, CITY OF DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF M FORESTRY SUPPLIERS, IN GAMETIME PARKS PARKS PARKS PARKS PARKS PARKS PARKS PARKS PARKS RYDEEL LESTER XCEL ENERGY O BLAINE, CITY OF MEMBERSHIP /JUNE -MAY '06 O DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF M DENTAL INSURANCE 73639 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONTHLY SERVICE /MARCH O PREFERRED ONE COMMUNIT INSURANCE Total for Dept 451 O DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF M DENTAL INSURANCE O FORESTRY SUPPLIERS, IN SUPPLIES 73639 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONTHLY SERVICE /MARCH O PREFERRED ONE COMMUNIT INSURANCE Total for Dept 461 • RECREATI RECREATI RECREATI RECREATI ENVIRONM ENVIRONM ENVIRONM ENVIRONM Amount 4.52 525.29 5,870.34 466.58 174.72 29.75 162.00 70.31 150.00 29.35 735.00 639.27 2,476.00 1,058.14 112.46 24.93 352.18 186.38 35.20 111.80 343.75 13,557.97* 31.41 730.00 320.32 133.89 94.36 437.12 377.01 50.33 64.65 147.91 891.00 58.90 161.88 70.16 3,568.94* 25.00 95.20 14.86 1,131.26 1,266.32* 10.41 177.42 45.84 196.02 429.69* Date: 04/29/2005 Time 08:44:03 • Operator: JAL Page: 5 City of Lino Lakes FM Entry - Invoice Payment - Approval of Bills Check # Vendor Alpha Name Description Dept Amount 0 DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF M 0 PREFERRED ONE COMMUNIT 0 SAFETY KLEEN CORPORATI DENTAL INSURANCE INSURANCE RECYCLE USED OIL Total for Dept 462 0 DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF M 0 PREFERRED ONE COMMUNIT 0 SPRINGSTED, INC. 0 U. S. BANK 0 0 0 0 0 0 73639 73641 0 0 0 0 ABLE HOSE AND RUBBER, BLAINE, CITY OF QUARTERLY UTILITY BILLIN DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF M DENTAL INSURANCE HAWKINS INC. CHEMICALS HILLESHEIM, TIM REIMBURSE CLOTHING ALLOW NATIONAL WATERWORKS, I METER INSTALLATION NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MONTHLY SERVICE /MARCH PETTY CASH SUPPLIES /POSTAGE PREFERRED ONE COMMUNIT INSURANCE T.K.D.A. ENGINEERING /MARCH WINNICK SUPPLY, INC. ADAPTER XCEL ENERGY MONTHLY SERVICE /MARCH Total for Dept 494 DENTAL INSURANCE INSURANCE Total for Dept 463 DISCLOSURE SERVICES ADMIN FEE Total for Dept 470 SOLID WA SOLID WA SOLID WA FORESTRY FORESTRY DEBT SER DEBT SER PIN /CLAMP /HOSE WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER 111110 BLAINE, CITY OF QUARTERLY UTILITY BILLIN 0 DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT SEAL /EXTENSION O DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF M DENTAL INSURANCE O E. H. RENNER & SONS, I SUPPLIES O GRAINGER,_INC. CLAMP O PREFERRED ONE COMMUNIT INSURANCE O XCEL ENERGY MONTHLY SERVICE /MARCH Total for Dept 495 SEWER SEWER SEWER SEWER SEWER SEWER SEWER O APPLIED ECOLOGICAL SER CONSULTING HOURS /MARCH OTHER O DAHLGREN SHARDLOW AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES /AU OTHER O REED BUSINESS INFORMAT ADVERTISING OTHER O SHORT - ELLIOTT- HENDRICK LEGACY /MARCH OTHER O T.K.D.A. BIRCH STREET TRAIL /MARCH OTHER O VOLK SEWER AND WATER, CONTRACTOR /TRILIGHT ACRE OTHER Total for Dept 499 8.93 201.96 157.15 368.04* 10.41 196.02 206.43* 2,000.00 1,035.00 3,035.00* 258.05 605.36 93.73 6,252.56 35.76 910.00 45.84 19.03 1,206.10 105.36 139.36 1,073.35 10,744.50* 1,341.00 404.35 63.96 105.22 95.81 853.91 605.06 3,469.31* 1,115.00 8,795.63 311.08 53,618.29 14,067.27 23,112.32 101,019.59* 73643 ti CIRCLE PINES POST OFFI UTILITY BILLING POSTAGE WATER Total for Dept 494 255.38 255.38* 73643 M CIRCLE PINES POST OFFI UTILITY BILLING POSTAGE SEWER 255.37 255.37* Total for Dept 495 Grand Total 333,193.62 Centennial Fire District Check Register 5/2/2005 • The disbursements listed below are submitted by the Centennial Fire District for your approval: DATE CHECK# NAME 4/28/2005 14721 4/28/2005 14722 4/28/2005 14723 4/28/2005 14724 4/28/2005 14725 4/28/2005 14726 4/28/2005 14727 4/28/2005 14728 4/28/2005 14729 4/28/2005 14730 4/28/2005 14731 4/28/2005 14732 4/28/2005 14733 4/28/2005 14734 4/28/2005 14735 • • Allina Education & Research Allina Medical Transportation Anoka County Central Communications Bill's Rental Center Centennial Utilities CenterPoint Energy Emergency Apparatus Maintenance International Assn. Of Dive Rescue Image Printing & Graphics Milo Bennett SBM Fire Department Stellar Energy Services, Inc. Tierney Brothers, Inc. Verizon Wireless Viking Office Products Total ACCOUNT 42190 - Fire Prevention Supplies 42220 - Travel, Conf., School 42130 - Equipment Expense 42100 - Fuel and Lube 42251 - Station 1 - Gas 42253 - Station 2 - Gas 42000 - Vehicle Maintenance 42200 - Dues and Memberships 42180 - Office Supplies 42180 - Office Supplies 42220 - Travel, Conf., School 42110 - Other Maintenance 42130 - Equipment Expense 42240 - Telephone 42180 - Office Supplies AMOUNT 68.20 6,515.00 338.25 13.32 463.24 581.92 6,289.86 25.00 101.62 227.73 3,000.00 896.00 265.36 77.17 62.49 18, 925.16 R i) C ITEM 3B MEDIATION SERVICES FOR ANOKA COUNTY DAY MAY 24, 2005 WHEREAS, Mediation Services for Anoka County was formed in 1987 to provide voluntary mediation services to residents of Anoka County, to promote and educate the Anoka County community in ways that encourage peace and harmony, and to supplement the legal system by providing an alternative process all community members can easily access; and WHEREAS, Mediation Services for Anoka County k_ 's volunteer's contributed 3,492 hours service to the community totaling $204, 625.00 bringing peace and resolution to Anoka pounty individuals, families, schools, neighborhoods, community, workplaces and businesses; and WHEREAS, Mediation Services for Anoka County has provided a resource for law enforcement, Lino Lakes city staff and public officials, and school district; and WHEREAS, Sue Ditcher, MA Johnson, RW Johnson, Judy Rolow, and Paul Talbot, have worked to help the citizens of Lino Lakes to actively manage conflict and reduce violence through education and conflict resolution services; Now, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that 1, John Bergeson, Mayor of the City of Lino Lakes, do hereby proclaim that Tuesday, May 24th, 2005, as MEDIATION SERVICES FOR ANOKA COUNTY DAY in Lino Lakes, Minnesota and urge all citizens to recognize the importance of community service. - 1 8 - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 have set my hand and caused the seal the City of Lino Lakes to be affixe this day of , 2005. John Bergeson, Mayor • • STAFF MEMBER DATE SUBJECT AGENDA ITEM 3 C Daniel Tesch, Director of Administration 9 May 2005 Memorandum of Understanding with Local 49 Boiler's License VOTE REQUIRED 3/5 BACKGROUND When our Building Technician Wayne Meyers resigned earlier this year, we were left without anyone on staff with a Boiler's License. Rick DeGardner has assigned Mr. Tim Hillesheim, Lead 'Utility Worker the responsibility to obtain a boiler's license, perform daily checks and be first on the call list in case of emergency. Rick and I have met with Tim and his union representative (Local 49) and have agreed to S1,500.00/yr in additional compensation for this added responsibility. This amount is significantly less than what would have to spend to contract with a private company for the same service. OPTIONS 1. Approve the Memorandum of Understanding (M.O.U.)with Local 49 2. Not approve the M.O.U. RECOMMENDATION Number One. • • AGENDA ITEM 4A STAFF ORIGINATOR David J. Pecchia, Public Safety Director Chief of Police DATE May 9, 2005 TOPIC Police Week 2005 / Peace Officers Memorial Day VOTES REQUIRED Simple Majority r BACKGROUND L POLICE WEEK WAS DESIGNED TO RECOGNIZE THE SERVICE GIVEN BY THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO, NIGHT AND DAY, SELFLESSLY STAND GUARD IN OUR COMMUNITIES TO SAFEGUARD THE LIVES AND PROPERTY OF THEIR FELLOW AMERICANS. ON OCTOBER 1,1962 PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY, PROCLAIMED MAY 15 OF EACH YEAR AS PEACE OFFICERS' MEMORIAL DAY AND THE CALENDAR WEEK OF EACH YEAR DURING WHICH MAY 15 OCCURS AS NATIONAL POLICE WEEK. STAFF IS REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGE AND READ THE ATTACHED PROCLAMATION IN OUR SUPPORT OF DESIGNATING MAY 9 TO MAY 15, 2004, AS POLICE WEEK, AND MAY 15TH AS PEACE OFFICERS MEMORIAL DAY IN THE CITY OF LINO LADS. r i OPTIONS L 1. MOTION TO APPROVE 2. MOTION TO DENY RECOMMENDATION 1 L OPTION 1 - APPROVE SUPPORT OF POLICE WEEK • • • ITEM 4A Chief Pecchia announces that National Police Week is May 15 through May 21. Please join the citizens of Lino Lakes in recognizing Police Week 2005. PROCLAMATION POLICE WEEK 2005 WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States of America has designated the calendar week of each year during which May 15 occurs as "National Police Week" and May 1 5th of each year to be "Peace Officers Memorial Day "; and WHEREAS, the members of the Lino Lakes Police Department play an essential role in safeguarding the rights and freedoms of the City of Lino Lakes; and WHEREAS, it is important that all citizens know and understand the duties, responsibilities, hazards, and sacrifices of their Lino Lakes Police Department, and that members of our law enforcement agency recognize their duty to serve the people by safeguarding life and property, by protecting them against violence and disorder, and by protecting the innocent against deception and the weak against oppression; and WHEREAS, the members of the Lino Lakes Police Department play an essential role in safeguarding the rights and freedoms of the City of Lino Lakes; and NOW, THEREFORE, We, the Lino Lakes City Council, do hereby proclaim the WEEK OF MAY 15TH TO MAY 21ST to be POLICE WEEK and call upon all citizens of Lino Lakes and upon all patriotic, civic and educational organizations to observe the week of May 15 - 21, 2005, as Police Week with appropriate ceremonies and observances in which all of our people may join in commemorating law enforcement officers, past and present, who, by their faithful and loyal devotion to their responsibilities, have rendered a dedicated service to their communities and, in so doing, have established for themselves an enviable and enduring reputation for preserving the rights and security of all citizens. Ann Blair, City Clerk John Bergeson, Mayor • • • STAFF ORIGINATOR: CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: TOPIC: AGENDA ITEM 6A Michael Grochala May 9, 2005 Consideration of Resolution No. 05 -62, Declaring Adequacy of Petition and Ordering Preparation of Report, West Shadow Lake Drive Area Street and Utility Improvements ACTION REQUIRED: 3/5 Vote BACKGROUND In 2004 TKDA, the City's Engineer, completed an updated Pavement Management Report, which includes condition ratings of each city street to prioritize rehabilitation and /or reconstruction of roadways. While the overall Pavement Management Program is still being developed, TKDA's report identified the importance of timely maintenance and the need for reconstruction of certain streets within the City. The streets within the Shenandoah Area and West Shadow Lake Drive, Sandpiper Drive, and Shadow Court continue to warrant consideration for reconstruction. As such, and given the initial costs incurred (2003 Feasibility Studies) the City is currently proposing to move forward with the same two projects for consideration by the voters of the City in 2005. At the March 9th 2005 City Council work session, the council requested that sanitary sewer and water improvements be evaluated as part of the project. There is currently no sanitary sewer service to properties abutting West Shadow Lake Drive, Sandpiper Drive and Shadow Court. The streets within the Shenandoah Area are serviced by sanitary sewer but do not have access to municipal water. The City Council authorized preparation of the Shenandoah Area Feasibility study on March 28, 2005. The proposed cost for the West Shadow Lake Drive Area feasibility study is $55,000. The City Council considered authorizing the preparation of the feasibility study on April 11, 2005. However, the motion to approve Resolution No. 05 -45 failed for lack of a super majority vote. On April 25, 2005, the Council received a petition from property owners along West Shadow Lake Drive requesting that the council order the feasibility study. A revised petition was submitted to the City on April 29, 2005 with 52 signatures. Section 8.04 of • • the City Charter provides that an improvement may be instituted by a petition of at least twenty -five percent in number of the benefited property owners together with a resolution adopted by an affirmative vote of the majority of all the council (3/5 vote). 47 signatures have been verified with Anoka County property owner records, which represents 65 percent of the benefited property owners. Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Implications The proposed extension of sanitary sewer and water into the West Shadow Lake Drive area does create conflicts with the City's existing Comprehensive Plan. The plan currently guides the area as Low Density, Unsewered Residential. The council should be aware that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment will be required to service the area with municipal sanitary sewer and water. Additionally, portions of the project area will require the allocation of MUSA. It should also be noted that the project area is currently zoned Rural. Staff anticipates that a comprehensive plan amendment and extension of public utilities to the area will generate requests for rezoning to a sewered residential district (R -1, R -1X etc.) to allow for resubdivision of individual parcels. The potential for resubdivision will be a large factor in determining proposed individual lot assessments. The Growth Management Ordinance also creates some uncertainty as to when property owners could subdivide their property. This may also impact the City's ability to specially assess large Tots on the basis for future development potential. This issue will require further review by the City Attorney. Funding The feasibility study is proposed to be funded, on an interim basis, from the City's Trunk Utility Area and Unit Fund. If the project is accepted by the benefiting property owners and approved by the voters these costs will be recovered through assessments and voter approved tax levy. In the event that the project is not approved, the City will not be able to recover these costs. The council should be aware that the trunk utility fund cannot continue to absorb these engineering costs without a dedicated repayment source. Staff has previously suggested that future feasibility studies will need to be funded from the general fund to avoid the potential for deficit project funds. Questions were raised regarding conformity to City Charter requirements. The City Attorney has provided a written opinion confirming the City's ability to use general funds for the cost of feasibility studies. RECOMMENDATION The improvement of West Shadow Lake Drive, Sandpiper Drive and Shadow Court has been discussed by the City and property owners for several years. From an infrastructure standpoint, regardless of the outcome of this process, improvements to • • • this road will be necessary. In addition to the poor road condition, the area has a need for an improved stormwater conveyance system. Problems also exist regarding existing on -site sewage treatment systems. Given the proximity to Reshanau Lake it is in the best interests of the City to further evaluate improvements to this area. Based on the petition received, there also appears to be significant interest from adjacent property owners to, at a minimum, provide answers to the feasibility of improvements in this area and reduce the growing uncertainty of project timing, cost, and scope. Issues regarding the comprehensive plan will need to be addressed if the project goes forward with sewer and water. However, these issues are not substantially different from those addressed with the Comprehensive Plan amendments approved for Elm Street, Marshan Lane, and Lois Lane for similar sewer and water projects. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of Resolution No. 05 -62. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 05 -62 2. City Attorney Letter — Charter Interpretation • • • CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 05 -62 RESOLUTION DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF REPORT BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA: 1. A certain petition requesting the improvement of West Shadow Lake Drive between Birch Street and its northern terminus, Shadow Court, and Sandpiper Drive by street reconstruction, municipal water and municipal sanitary sewer, filed with the council on Friday, April 29, 2005, signed by 47 of the 72 property owners benefited by the improvement, is hereby declared to be signed by the required percentage of owners of property affected thereby. This declaration is made in conformity to City Charter and Minnesota Statutes. 2. The petition is hereby referred to the City Engineer and he is instructed to report to the council with all convenient speed advising the council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost - effective, and feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement both in unit price and in total thereof as recommended. Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 9th day of May, 2005. Ann Blair, City Clerk John J. Bergeson, Mayor • • LAW OFFICES OF William G. Hawkins and Associates WILLIAM G. HAWKINS BARRY A. SULLIVAN April 25, 2005 Legal Assistants TAMMI J. UVEGES HOLLY G. PROVO Michael Grochala Lino Lakes City Hall 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Re: Home Rule Charter Interpretation Dear Mr. Grochala: 2140 FOURTH AVENUE Norm' ANOKA, MINNESOTA 55303 PHONE (763) 427 -8877 Fax (763) 421 -4213 E -MAIL HawkLawl@aol.com am writing in response to your request for my legal opinion concerning the ability of the City to fund feasibility reports which are prepared in connection with a proposed local improvement within the City of Lino Lakes. The question that . has arisen is whether or not the City can use general funds for payment of the cost of the feasibility reports. Chapter 8 of the Lino Lakes City Charter governs the procedures that are applicable to the local improvements. The specific Charter provision that must be examined is found in Section 8.04, Subdivision 2. This provision states: "Regardless of the provisions of Subdivision 1 of this section, when less than one hundred (100 %) percent of the estimated cost of the proposed improvement is to be paid for by special assessments, connection charges, or any outside funding sources other than the city general fund, the Council shall within one hundred twenty (120) days after the conclusion of the public hearing, submit the proposed local improvement and its assessment formula to the voters of the City. If no election is scheduled during such one hundred twenty (120) day period, the Council shall schedule a special election by which said improvement and its associated assessment formula can be submitted to the City's voters. If a majority of those voting on said improvement and associated assessment formula are opposed, the Council shall not proceed with the local improvement as proposed." • • • Mr. Michael Grochala April 25, 2005 Page Two This provision indicates that the City cannot utilize monies from the City general fund for construction of a local improvement. It would seem upon the first reading that since the feasibility report is a part of the local improvement process under the City Charter and Minn. Stat. §429 that an expenditure of City general funds would be prohibited. Nevertheless, the Charter does require that if you are going to use the City general funds, you have to hold an election and submit to the voters the associated assessment formula. Without a feasibility report, there is no way that the City would know the costs of the improvement and the potential assessment and the formula for levying them. This would result in the City never being able to commence a local improvement project and submit this to the voters for approval. It is my opinion that such an interpretation prohibiting use of general funds for the feasibility report would make the process impossible to institute and not a reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, my opinion is that the City can use general funds for the cost of the local improvement since it is obligated under the Charter to provide this information to the voters on election. Even though this is an essential step of the local improvement itself and the costs would be included in the local improvement, I believe the other requirements of the Charter to develop a formula for an election would make it reasonable to use funds in this manner. Since this is the only cost that would be necessary for an election, I do not believe other local improvement expenditures, such as preparation of plans and specifications, costs of soliciting bids and costs of the actual improvements could be paid for by the general fund unless there is authorization by the voters as provided in subdivision 2. If you or the Council have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, e . William G. Hawkins WGH /hgp AGENDA ITEM 6.B. STAFF ORIGINATOR: Paul Bengtson CC MEETING DATE: May 9, 2005 TOPIC: PUBLIC HEARING Rezone to GB (General Business) Conditional Use Permit to allow a PUD (Planned Unit Development) Development Stage Plan / Preliminary Plat Allocation of MUSA reserve Apollo Landing VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 BACKGROUND Equinox Development is proposing a 5 lot commercial subdivision on property located at 540 Lilac Drive. The application submitted includes a Rezoning to GB (General Business), a Conditional Use Permit to allow a fpPlaruzed Unit Development, a Development Stage Plan/Preliininary Plat, and allocation of commercial MUSA reserve. The main occupant of the site will be an 80 room hotel proposed for Lot 1 of the Plat. The development also includes a restaurant pad on lot 5, and retail /commercial pads on lots 2, 3, and 4. ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan. Land Use and Zoning The table below identifies the existing land use and zoning as well as guided land uses for the area. Location Existing Land Use Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site Vacant Commercial Rural North Single Family Residential Industrial Rural South Apollo Drive, Industrial Commercial General Business East Vacant Commercial Rural West Single Family Residential Cemetery Industrial Rural General Industrial The comprehensive plan guides the site for Commercial land use. The site is within the stage 1 (pre -2010 growth area and a portion is within the existing MUSA boundary. Public water and sanitary sewer are availablf within the Apollo Drive right -of -way. Apollo Landing, page 2 •1?anned Unit Development The proposed commercial center will include five lots on which multiple buildings will be potentially built. Since each lot will not have street frontage a Planned Unit Development is necessary. In the case of a commercial development the procedure for doing a Planned Unit Development is through a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant is proposing to rezone the site to GB (General Business); however through the Planned Unit Development those base standards can be modified. Within each of the following development standards topics, the proposed standards will be discussed along with the base GB (General Business) zoning district standards, and of course recommendations from staff. Setback Standards The proposed setbacks are more restrictive than the GB (General Business) zoning district, and are therefore acceptable to staff. Buildings General Business Proposed _ Arterial Street 40 feet 105 Feet _ Side Yard 10 feet 30 feet Rear Yard 30 feet 40 feet The proposed setbacks are more restrictive than the GB (General Business) zoning district, and are therefore acceptable to staff. The proposed setbacks for parking are equal to or more restrictive than the GB (General Business) zoning district, and are therefore acceptable to staff. All signage will be required to be setback the typical 5 feet from any property line. This will be included in the architectural design standards for the site. Lot Sizes The Planned Unit Development allows deviation from strict provision of the zoning code related to lot area and width. Each lot is designed to accommodate a building pad and sufficient parking to serve the intended use of the lot. The proposed lot areas and widths are in conformance with the GB (General Business) zoning district, and are therefore appropriate. Architectural Design Standards The enclosed design standards address buildings, landscaping, signage, lighting, and site maintenance by an association. Staff has proposed some revisions to the submitted document. Strikeout text represents text to be deleted; underlining represents text to be added. Marks in the margins indicate where revisions were made. Most are for clarification purposes, but there are a few significant changes. Parking Lot General Business Proposed Arterial Street 15 feet 83 feet Side Yard 10 feet 10 feet Rear Yard 10 feet 10 feet The proposed setbacks for parking are equal to or more restrictive than the GB (General Business) zoning district, and are therefore acceptable to staff. All signage will be required to be setback the typical 5 feet from any property line. This will be included in the architectural design standards for the site. Lot Sizes The Planned Unit Development allows deviation from strict provision of the zoning code related to lot area and width. Each lot is designed to accommodate a building pad and sufficient parking to serve the intended use of the lot. The proposed lot areas and widths are in conformance with the GB (General Business) zoning district, and are therefore appropriate. Architectural Design Standards The enclosed design standards address buildings, landscaping, signage, lighting, and site maintenance by an association. Staff has proposed some revisions to the submitted document. Strikeout text represents text to be deleted; underlining represents text to be added. Marks in the margins indicate where revisions were made. Most are for clarification purposes, but there are a few significant changes. • Apollo Landing, page 3 Building Materials/ Elevations The elevation that was submitted with this application is strictly an artist's rendering of what a hotel built to the height standards of the zoning district, and to the commercial design standards of the city zoning code would look like. h is in no way an architectural elevation depicting exactly what will be built on site. The architectural elevations are intellectual property of the different hotel chains and since a specific user has not been tabbed to take the hotel location final architectural elevations are not available at this time. However, as a Part of the Planned Unit Development rezoning request, architectural design standards must be established to dictate the aesthetics of the buildings eventually built on this site. Staff has worked closely with the applicant to develop architectural design standards that are acceptable to the developer as well as enforceable by the City of Lino Lakes. Building Height Again, the final occupant of the hotel, and therefore the final design of that building can not be verified at this tune. The architectural design standards limit height to 45 feet, as is the limitation in all GB (General Business) Zoning district. Landscanlli In accordance with the Screening requirements of the zoning ordinance screening is required along the boundary of the residential property adjacent to this commercial use. Either a green belt with 80% opacity, six feet in height must be provided, or alternatively a solid screening fence six feet in height. The plans as submitted provide a six -foot fence augmented with some additional landscaping. The remainder of the landscaping on site looks rather minimal, but that is based on the lack of definitive users and building size/layout for the site. As each site is designed with the final user the landscaping would be designed to work with the layout. However, again the architectural design standards would be able to spell ou the types of allowable plant materials. This would create the cohesiveness desired. As requested by staff, additional landscape islands have been added to the parking area for lots 2, 3, and 4. Green Area 'The GB (General Business) zoning district requires that impervious surface coverage not exceed 75 %. Th submitted plans currently show the property at approximately 70.5% impervious surface coverage, well withi the limitations of the zoning district. Revisions to the plans depicting additional landscape islands in t1 Parking area shared by lots 2, 3, and 4 further reduces that percentage. Barking The Parking analysis is attached to the end of this report. It clearly shows that the site is providing parking at c above the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The lack of defined tenants for the retail /commercial /office _portiorls of the site makes the reduction of parking a difficult task to undertake. City staff certainly does not 'want to eliminate parking which then causes the tenant mix allowed on the site to be limited. With the parkin provided a variety of uses (as allowed within the zoning district) can be provided for with the parking depicter Apollo Landing. page 4 411V311 the site plan. Originally the applicant was proposing to use some parking spaces be eliminated in favor of trash enclosures, though staff is recommending that trash storage be seamlessly integrated into the designs of' the building Recommendations from the Environmental Board as well as city staff regarding increased landscaping in the parking area shared by lots 2, 3, and 4 have been implemented without reducing the parking Provided on site. • • Access /Circulation Access to the site is via an entry /exit driveway directly from Apollo Drive. As indicated in the City Engineer's iemoran.durn, approval for this access must be obtained from Anoka County. The applicant has submitted a separate application to Anoka County; however comments have not been made available at the time of this report. City staff is ready to proceed with the application, anticipating that the comments of the Highway Depaent will not greatly affect the layout of the project. Staff has recommended a condition that requires the applicant complies with all of the comments of Anoka County and obtain any necessary permits for work within the right of way. The Pla1nning and Zoning Board recommended a condition that stated the following: Examine the potential for future access to the property to the southwest along Lilac street, and if Possible provide for access between the two properties." City staff has had ongoing conversations with the applicant on this subject. The applicant is leery of putting easements across their property lines that essentially lead to no where but would then allow the neighboring property to access their site. The neighboring properties mentioned in the condition are zoned Rural and are guided for Industrial development. The applicant and City staff are both quite reluctant to allow an industrial site access through a commercial center like Apollo Landing. In the future staff and the current applicant are interested in the potential for connecting the two sites, but only if the other site was to be developed in cohesive manner. This would mean a commercial use with architectural design standards that would bt compatible with the rest of this master planned commercial center. The photometric lighting plan submitted with the application includes the lighting for the entry drive and tY hotel Property, and meets city standards. Staff is recommending a condition requiring all future development include a photometric lighting plan of the entire site that depicts all development so a comprehensive revie can be completed with each building. Exhibits for the lighting fixtures are included in the architectural design standards for the project. Si— e A.s the applicant is proposing multi -tenant buildings, and the architectural design standards for the site desiglied to create a cohesive design throughout the entire commercial center. The architectural des star1daxds also include the sign plan for the development. Apollo Landing, page 5 • Trash / Mechanical Eq_uinment The site plans submitted with this application do not clearly depict a location for trash enclosures. However, in meetings held between city staff and the developer, the developer agreed to include specific language within the architectural design standards that would address this issue. Trash enclosures will be required to be built into the buildings with roll up (garage) doors or swinging gates for access. This will eliminate the need for the accessory trash enclosures that detract from the aesthetics of the entire site. The exception is the restaurant pad which will use a detached trash enclosure for health code reasons. This is acceptable to staff because its location will be screened by the building itself. Mechanical equipment will need to be completely screened from the view of the right of way and the neighboring properties. The six foot high fence proposed around the majority of the property should do this rather effectively, with the exception of the view from Apollo Drive. All mechanical equipment and utility boxes located on the ground should be placed to be visible only from within the center, or should be effectively screened by either screen walls or appropriate landscaping materials. All roof mounted mechanical equipment should be architecturally screened by the roof structure or parapet walls as required by the zoning code. • • Utilities Water and Sanitary sewer service are available within the Apollo Drive right -of -way. Revisions to the Preliminary Plat drawing depict the correct location of the tie in to the municipal sewer system, thus any questions regarding easements on the neighboring property have been eliminated. A question still exists as to the size of service that will be required to serve the entire site, however the City Engineer feels comfortable proceeding with the application and determining that prior to construction as it has little impact on anything except the cost of the development. Stonnwater management The City Engineer has reviewed the submitted grading and drainage plan, and his memorandum is attached to this report. Evidence has been submitted to show that the existing wells for the residential properties to the north are well outside of the required setbacks from drainage ponds. The plat is subject to review and approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District. The city has received copy of the Conditional Approval Pending Receipt of Changes from the Watershed District. ENVIR0NMMIENTAL BOARD The En-vironmental Board reviewed this application at the February 23, 2005 regular meeting. They only requested that each building be brought back before them as the final plans for each lot were completed. With the recommended condition from the Planning and Zoning Board that each subsequent building be reviewed Apollo Landing, page 6 41) dministratively by staff, the environmental coordinator would review the plans rather than bring them to the .:nvironmental board. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed this application at the April 13, 2005 regular meeting. They recommended approval subject to fifteen conditions. Two of those conditions required adding the maintenance of the perimeter fence and the maximum height of the buildings to the design standards. These changes have been made and are indicated in the design standards attached to this report; therefore those conditions have been eliminated. OPTIONS 1. Approve ordinance 01 -05 for the rezoning to GB (General Business) and resolution 05 -63 for the Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development, Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat, and Allocation of Commercial MUSA. 2. Deny the project. 3. Return to Staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION • Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. By -laws for the developments association must be submitted for review and approval by city staff prior to the final plat being reviewed by the city council. These by -laws must include a joint access /shared parking agreement for the entire site. • 2. The architectural design standards approved as a part of this application must be supplied to each incoming tenant upon signature of a lease. 3. The architectural design standards required to be approved by the City Council as part of any Planned Unit Development can not be modified unless reviewed and approved by the City Council. 4. A development agreement must be executed between the developer and the city prior to the execution of a final plat for the site. 5. Appropriate drainage and utility easements must be shown on the final plat. 6. The proposed development is subject to Anoka County Highway Department requirements, review, and approval. 7. Prior to the issuance of building permits for each building city staff must review and approve a photometric lighting plan of the entire site including all previous construction on the site. • • Apollo Landing, page 7 8. Prior to the issuance of building permits for each building city staff must review and approve a landscaping plan of the entire site including all previous construction on the site. 9. City is willing to allow for a reduction in the number of parking stalls with the goal being to have the appropriate amount of parking. 10. Pedestrian access in addition to the sidewalk depicted along the entry drive must be added to the site. 11. Each building site plan and elevation shall be reviewed administratively by staff. 12. The applicant must comply with all comments of Anoka County and obtain the appropriate county permits for work within the street right of way. ATTACHMENTS 1. Parking Analysis 2. Architectural Design Standards revised April 26, 2005. 3. City Engineer's memorandum dated April 26, 2005. 4. Environmental Board memorandum from February 23, 2005 meeting. 5. Lighting Plan and Cut Sheets received February 28, 2005. 6. Elevation received January 10, 2005. 7. Apollo Landing Plan Set received January 10, 2005. 8. Revised Grading, Drainage, & Erosion Control Plan received April 4, 2005. • • Apollo Landing, page 8 CITY OF LINO LAKES ORDINANCE NO. 01 -05 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES BY REZONING CERTAIN REAL ESTATE FROM R, RURAL TO GB, GENERAL BUSINESS. The City Council of the City of Lino Lakes, Anoka County, Minnesota does ordain: SECTION 1. FINDINGS The City Council makes the following findings regarding the application for rezoning the property described below, based on the factors listed in Section 2, Subd.1E of the Lino Lakes zoning ordinance: 1. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan as the site is guided for mixed i r + guided for �ii�neu use. 2. The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and future land uses of the area. The site is guided for mixed use. Land in the area of the site is already developed with commercial uses or designated for such use. Subject to the conditions of site and building plan /conditional use permit approval the site is compatible with existing commercial and residential uses as well as future commercial and residential. 3. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained within the city's zoning ordinance and is subject to the Design Guidelines attached hereto. 4. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the City's service capacity. Existing sanitary sewer and water services are available to the site and will not overburden existing public services. 5. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property in conjunction with the public improvements proposed. The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Lino Lakes, Anoka County, Minnesota, passed by the City Council on March 10, 2003 is hereby amended by rezoning from R, Rural to GB, General Business [District pursuant to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Lino Lakes, the following described real estate: EXHIBIT A • SECTION 2. Apollo Landing; page 9 4s above amended, said Zoning Ordinance shall stand as initially passed and previously amended. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be in force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to the Lino Lakes City Charter. Passed by the Lino Lakes City Council this 9th day of May, 2005 ATTEST: Ann Blair, City Clerk • • John J. Bergeson, Mayor • • Apollo Landing, page 10 ;XHIB[T A Parcel A That part of the West 660.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota lying South of the North 500.00 feet and North of the South 500,00 feet thereof, according to the US Government Survey, Anoka County, Minnesota. AND That part of the West 500.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence Easterly along the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 320.00 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line to be described: thence Northerly at a right angle, a distance of 500.00 feet and there terminating, subject to easements of record, if any, and road right of way. Parcel B That part of the East 160.00 feet of the West 660.00 feet of the South 500.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 31, Range 22, according to the US Government Survey thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying North of a line being 50.00 feet North of the centerline of public street described as follows: Commencing at the South Quarter Comer of said Section 8, Township 31, Range 22; thence on an assumed bearing of West along the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 836.79 feet to the point of beginning of the centerline to be described; thence Northeasterly 1124.51 feet along the arc of a non - tangential curve, concave to the Southeast, having a central angle of 78 degrees 42 minutes 57 seconds, and a radius of 818.31 feet, the long chord of which bears North 67 degrees 05 minutes 31 seconds East 1038.14 feet; thence South 73 degrees 33 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 221.72 feet, more or less, to the centerline of Lake Drive and there terminating; subject to easements of record, if any. • • • Apollo Landing, page 11 CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 05 -63 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN /PRELIMINARY PLAT; AND ALLOCATION OF 2.5 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL M.U.S.A. FOR APOLLO LANDING WHEREAS, the City has received an application for conditional use permit, development stage plan/preliminary plat, and allocation of commercial MUSA approval for property currently described to -wit: Parcel A That part of the West 660.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota lying South of the North 500.00 feet and North of the South 500,00 feet thereof, according to the US Government Survey, Anoka County, Minnesota. AND That part of the West 500.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence Easterly along the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 320.00 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line to be described: thence Northerly at a right angle, a distance of 500.00 feet and there terminating, subject to easements of record, if any, and road right of way. Parcel B That part of the East 160.00 feet of the West 660.00 feet of the South 500.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 31, Range 22, according to the US Government Survey thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying North of a line being 50.00 feet North of the centerline of public street described as follows: Commencing at the South Quarter Corner of said Section 8, Township 31, Range 22; thence on an assumed bearing of West along the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 836.79 feet to the point of beginning of the centerline to be described; thence Northeasterly 1124.51 feet along the arc of a non- tangential curve. concave to the Southeast, having a central angle of 78 degrees 42 minutes 57 seconds, and a radius of 818.31 feet, the long chord of which bears North 67 degrees 05 minutes 31 seconds East 1038.14 feet; thence South 73 degrees 33 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 221.72 feet, more or less, to the centerline of Lake Drive and there terminating; subject to easements of record, if any. ; and WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into five parcels described as Lots 1 -5, Blocl 1, Apollo Landing; and Apollo Landing, page 12 WHEREAS, the conditional use permit for a planned unit development; the development stage plan/preliminary plat; and allocation of commercial MUSA approval request is based on the following submittals: • Architectural Design Standards revised April 26, 2005. • Lighting Plan and Cut Sheets received February 28, 2005. • Elevation received January 10, 2005. • Apollo Landing Plan Set received January 10, 2005. • Revised Grading, Drainage, & Erosion Control Plan received April 4, 2005. and WHEREAS, at their meeting on April 13, 2005, the Planning & Zoning Board conducted a public hearing and reconm ended approval of the conditional use permit for planned unit development; the development stage Plan/preliminary plat, and the allocation of commercial MUSA subject to the conditions listed in the meeting Minutes; and WHEREAS, the proposed conditional use permit; development stage plan/preliminary plat; and allocation of commercial MUSA meets the requirements of the City's zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance subject to certain conditions of approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Lino Lakes hereby approves the conditional .use permit for a planned unit development; the development stage plan/preliminary plat; and the allocation of commercial MUSA for Apollo Landing subject to the following conditions: 1. By -laws for the developments association must be submitted for review and approval by city staff prior to the final plat being reviewed by the city council. These by -laws must include a joint access /shared parking agreement for the entire site. • 2. The architectural design standards approved as a part of this application must be supplied to each incoming tenant upon signature of a lease. 3. The architectural design standards required to be approved by the City Council as part of any Planned Unit Development can not be modified unless reviewed and approved by the City Council. 4. A. development agreement must be executed between the developer and the city prior to the execution of a final plat for the site. 5 Appropriate drainage and utility easements must be shown on the final plat. 6. The proposed development is subject to Anoka County Highway Department requirements, review, and approval. 7. Prior to the issuance of building permits for each building city staff must review and approve a photometric lighting plan of the entire site including all previous construction on the site. Apollo Landing,page 13 4110 8. Prior to the issuance of building permits for each building city staff must review and approve a landscaping plan of the entire site including all previous construction on the site. 9. 10. 11. 12. City is willing to allow for a reduction in the number of parking stalls with the goal being to have the appropriate amount of parking. Pedestrian access in addition to the sidewalk depicted along the entry drive must be added to the site. Each building site plan and elevation shall be reviewed administratively by staff. The applicant must comply with all continents of Anoka County and obtain the appropriate county permits for work within the street right of way. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the development of the property shall be subject to the Apollo Landin Site Desi n Guidelines attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof. Unless otherwise specified herein the development shall be subject to the provisions of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable chapters of City Code. Passed by the Lino Lakes City Council this 9th day of May 2005. • ATTEST. =Sinn Blair, City Clerk • John J. Bergeson, Mayor EXHIBIT A APOLLO LANDING SITE DESIGN GUIDELINES TO BE ATTACHED. • • Apollo Landing, page 14 • • • DRAFT 5/2/05 Apollo Landing Site Design Standards CONTENTS Building Design Standards II. Landscaping and Aesthetics III. Sign Plan Data exhibits IV. Lighting Plan Data exhibits V. Site IVlaintenance Apollo Landing Site Design Standards page I DRAFT 5/2/05 I. BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS The design features of the individual buildings will include a select variety of design materials which will feature a combination of natural earth tones with appropriate accent colors, together in a very distinct, handsome architectural style that is in scale with the site and the surrounding land uses. Equinox Development may, at its discretion, retain review authority through restrictive covenants on the individual properties to insure compliance with the proposed commercial neighborhood architectural design theme. This authority, however, is subordinate to the City of Lino Lakes review authority. All Proposed buildings will be required to create a pedestrian friendly streetscape image. Limitations will be created for detached accessory structures. Building massing for all individual buildings and for the arrangement on the site will combine with landscape elements and lighting to highlight entry and sequence. Each building's exterior elevation will work within the time honored aesthetic vocabulary of three -part composition. A base, middle, and top will each be articulated to give clarity to the buildings as well as tie all elements of the site together in a simple cohesive composition. Color and texture will be used to denote these differences. Common materials will tie the complex together. Buildings shall generally relate in scale and design features to others on the site and to other developments in the area, showing respect for local context. Equinox' intent is to create a complex in tune with Lino Lakes Marketplace and Legacy at Woods Edge thereby creating triangular anchors supportive of a common architectural design and color theme. Buildings shall avoid long, monotonous, uninterrupted wall or roof planes. A wall surface shall be no longer than 30 feet without a break. Building wall offsets, including both projections and recesses, fenestration, and changes in floor elevations, where possible, shall be used in order to add architectural interest and variety, and relieve the visual effect of a single, long wall. Similarly, roofline offsets shall be provided, in order to provide architectural interest and variety to the massing of a building and relieve the effect of a single, long roof. The maximum building height shall be 45 feet. as defined in accordance with the City of Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance, The front facade of a building shall be architecturally emphasized through fenestration, entrance treatments and details. The architectural treatment of the front facade shall be continued, in its major features, around all visibly exposed sides of a building. All sides of a building shall be architecturally designed to be consistent with regard to style, materials, colors, and details. All visibly exposed sides of a building shall have an articulated base course and cornice. The top of the base course shall align with at least the sill level of the first story. The cornice shall terminate or cap the top of a building wall, and must project out horizontally from the vertical building wall plane and may be ornamented with moldings, brackets and other details. The middle section of a building may be horizontally divided at floor, lintel or sill levels with belt or string courses. Gable roofs must be constructed with a minimum pitch of 9/12 to the greatest extent possible. Where hip roofs are used, the minimum pitch must be 6/12. Both gable and hip Apollo Landing Site Design Standards page 2 • - Deleted: Lino Lakes • • • DRAFT 5/2/05 roofs should provide overhanging eaves on all sides that extend a minimum of one foot beyond the building wall. Flat roofs are required on buildings of two stories or more in height, provided all visibly exposed walls have an articulated cornice that projects out horizontally from the vertical building wall. Architectural embellishments that add visual interest to roofs, such as dormers, belvederes, cupolas, clock towers and other similar elements are encouraged. Fenestration shall be architecturally compatible with the style, materials, colors and details of a building. Windows shall be vertically proportioned wherever possible. Windows shall be recessed a minimum of two inches from walls or exterior trim to create shadow for visual interest. Clear or low -tint glass must be used for windows and doors; mirrored glass is prohibited. To the extent possible, the location of windows on the upper stories of a building shall be vertically aligned with the location of windows and doors on the ground level, including storefronts or display windows. Blank windowless walls are not permitted. All entrances to a building shall be defined and articulated by architectural elements such as lintels, pediment, pilasters, columns, porticos, overhangs, railing, balustrades, and others, where appropriate. Any such element utilized shall be architecturally compatible with the style, materials, colors and details of the building as a whole, as shall the doors. Storefronts that are an integral part of a building shall be designed with the upper floors of a building to be compatible with the overall character of the facade. Ground floor retail, service and restaurant uses may have large pane display windows on the ground level. Such windows shall be framed by the surrounding wall and shall not exceed seventy -five percent of the total ground level facade area. Glass curtain walls are discouraged. Buildings with multiple storefronts shall be unified through the use of architecturally compatible materials, colors, details, awnings, signage, and lighting fixtures. Fixed or retractable awnings are permitted at ground level, and on upper levels where appropriate, provided they complement a building's architectural style, are compatible with its materials, colors and details, do not conceal architectural features, such as cornices, columns, pilasters or decorative details, do not impair facade composition, and are designed as an integral part of the facade. Canvas is the preferred material, although other waterproofed fabric may be used: metal or aluminum are not permitted. In buildings with multiple storefronts, compatible awnings must be used as a means of unifying the structure. Light fixtures attached to the exterior of a building shall be architecturally compatible with the style, materials, colors, and details of the building and shall comply with local building codes. The type of light source used on the exterior of buildings, parking areas, pedestrian walkways and other areas of the site, and the quality of light produced, shall be the same or compatible. Facades shall be lit from the exterior and, as a general rule, lights should be concealed through shielding or recessed behind architectural features. Mounting brackets and associated hardware should be inconspicuous. Apollo Landing Site Design Standards page 3 • DRAFT 5/2/05 II. LANDSCAPING AND AESTHETICS Entry into the site will be facilitated by a large Pylon sign at the West side of the entrance . Upon turning into the site, a user will be visually led down the tree -lined main drive to the four - story hotel at the terminus. General site landscaping is detailed on the landscaping plan including: 1. 2rivacy fence at the perimeter of the property 2. Ten foot wide sodded area between fence and curb for parking lot /driveways 3. Planter islands down the main drive including Green Ash or other shade trees 4. Parking lot planter islands in Lots 2 and 3 including Flowering Crab tees 5. Additional Flowering Crab trees shall be planted throughout the site In regard to the items listed above, the following shall apply: 1. The visual impact of the privacy fence will be mitigated by clusters of vegetation plantings and /or tree plantings at a maximum of forty feet on center. For the west, north.. and the northern half of th.e east sides of the pronernv this landscaping will be on the inside of the fence. For the south half of the east property line the fence will be stepped in intermittently and in those areas the plantings will be required on the outside of the fence. 2. Both sides of the fence shall be maintained in good structural and visual condition. 3. Per the request of the City of Lino Lakes Environmental Board, native plant communities may be installed in lieu of sod. 4. Planter islands shall also include ornamental vegetation 5. Additional trees shall be planted at the perimeter and on individual lots. All building plans shall include a landscaping plan to be reviewed by the City of Lino Lakes. All landscaping will conform to the City of Lino Lakes requirements under "General Provisions" Section 3, Subdivision 4 -Q. All areas with sod, and curb islands with vegetation, will be irrigated. It is Equinox' stated desire that we encourage input from the City in regard to all aspects of landscaping elements. Site features such as water, public art, flags and banners are strongly encouraged provided they contain no commercial message. Should building planters be desired, they must be integral to the design of the building It is required that all constructed buildings in this development have a landscaping element, at a minimum of sixty percent of the lineal front facade, and sixty percent of one other side, at a minimum width of three feet. It shall be encouraged that these beds be lighted. All areas of land other than that occupied by building or impervious surface shall be landscaped with sod and /or mulch and/or ornamental vegetation and /or river washed rock material in planting beds. Final slope grades steeper than the ratio of 3:1 will not be permitted without special landscaping treatments such as terracing, retaining walls, or ground cover. All trees used within this site development shall be indigenous to the Apollo Landing Site Design Standards page 6 Deleted: Treated woodp • • DRAFT 5/2/05 appropriate hardiness zone and physical characteristics of this site. All deciduous trees proposed to satisfy the minimum requirements of this development shall be long-lived hardwood species. All landscaping incorporated in the plan shall conform to the following standards: 1) All plants must be at least equal to the following minimum size: Potted/Bare Root Balled & Burlapped Shade trees Half trees (Flowering C6rabtree) Evergreen trees Tall Shrubs & Hedge Material (Evergreen or Deciduous) Low Shrubs — Deciduous Low Shrubs — Evergreen Spreading Evergreen 6' 1 'h" 3 -4' 3 -4' 3 -4' 18 -24" 18 -24" Potted 18 -24" Potted 2) New Plantings include but are not limited to: a) Deciduous Trees: Common Name: Oak Maple Hackberry (Thornless) Birch Honeylocust Linden/Basswood (American and Little Leaf) Ash (Green and White) Ginkgo (male tree only) Kentucky Coffee Tree Ohio Buckeye Amur Chokecherry Delaware American Elm Amur Cork Robusta Poplar Niobe Weeping Willow Crabapple 24 -30" 24 -30" 18 -24" Apollo Landing Site Design Standards page 7 • • DRAFT 512/05 b) Evergreen Trees: Coranon Name: Fir Spraoe Pine Canadian Hemlock European Larch Cedar c) Shrubs: Couunon Naive: Dwarf - winged euonymus Winged euonymus Privet Mock Orange Sumac Common lilac Japanese yew American arborvitae d) Ground Covers: Common Name: Ground Juniper Periwinkle, myrtle e) Pond Plantings: All pond plantings shall require City review and approval 3) Prohibited Trees: a) Deciduous Trees: Amur Maple Norway Maple Silver Maple Siberian Elm Cottonwood b) Coniferous Trees: Apollo Landing Site Design Standards page 8 • • DRAFT 5/2/ 05 Colorado Spruce Apollo Landing Site Design Standards pave 9 DRAM 1 5/2/05 Ill. Sign Plan Data A. Description: 1. Apollo Landing 2. 540 Lilac St. - Lino Lakes 3. Graphic scale will be per exhibit B. Existing and Proposed Conditions: 1. At present, there are no existing freestanding or ground signs. 2. Proposed pylon sign, located to the West of main entrance, will total two hundred (200) square feet of sign area and will not exceed forty (40) feet in height and will not be closer than five (5) feet to property line. The Pylon Sign will conform to building design standards relating to composition, color, building materials and overall continuity with the Planned Unit Development. See Exhibit 1 Site identification may be added on the base or top of the pylon sign in addition to the 200 sf 3. Proposed individual Business signs will be attached to the building wall up to one hundred (100) square feet or twenty percent (20 %) of the building face area, whichever is greater. Variations on face colors, size and font style of letters is allowed within the guidelines, color of all returns and Trim Caps to be Bronze. See Exhibit 2: Channel Letter on Race - Way. Signs will be substantially in line horizontally with roofline and/or parapet line to maintain aesthetic continuity. One additional Business sign will be allowed for buildings with a secondary exposure, on the back or side of building, up to fifty (50) square feet or ten percent (10 %) of the building, face area, whichever is greater. The additional sign shall be for the tenant behind the wall giving the secondary exposure. For example, a sign on the end of a building shall be only for the business located on the end of the building. Specifications other than size are the same as Primary signage However, no signs shall be allowed on the northern walls of buildings 1, 2, 3, or 4 and no signs shall be allowed on the west side of building 1. Signs shall not be allowed on the east side of building_ 4 that are less than 100 feet from the north border of Lot 4. 4. All building wall signage will use 3M Scotchcal Translucent Film Series 230 or similar for color. SeeExhibit 3. C. General Regulations: 1. All signs shall be constructed in conformance with the provisions of the Uniform Sign Code published by the International Conference of Building Officials. 2. Signs shall not be painted directly to any exterior building surface, but shall be on a separate frame except for temporary display windows. 3. No sign shall be installed, which by reason of position, shape of color would conflict with proper function or interpretation of any traffic sign or signal. 4. There shall be no use of revolving beacons, flashing signs, zip flashers or similar lighted devices. Apollo Landing Site Design Standards page 10 -49- Deleted: Exhibit 3 Deleted: Exhibit 4 • • DRAFT 5/2/05 5. No sign shall be permitted to obstruct any window, door, fire escape, stairway or opening of any building or structure. 6. Signs which become unsafe or unkempt in appearance shall be repaired or removed by the Tenant / Owner upon notification by the Zoning Official. 7. The source of halt for any sign must be indirect or diffused and shall not be directed into any adjoining residential district. 8. Roof signs are prohibited. Apollo Landing Site Design Standards page 11 DRAFT 5/2/05 • IV. Lighting Plan Data A. Description: Apollo Landing 540 Lilac St. — Lino Lakes Graphic scale will be per exhibit C. Types of Lighting Applications: 1. Architectural: Accent lighting of architectural features is encouraged to highlight building massing and rhythm and enhance the pedestrian environment. Accent lighting shall not be a source of glare, reflected glare, or excessive light, especially when viewed from residences and streets, walkways or open spaces. 2. Building Entries: Building entries with high activity levels shall be illuminated. Appropriate treatments include: bathing entry surfaces and doorways with light, allowing the buildings interior light to glow through glazing, or using decorative lighting fixtures to announce entries. 3. Service Areas: Building mounted down light fixtures, in combination with pole fixtures, are preferred for the illumination of building service areas. Such fixtures do not cause glare of light leakage beyond the service areas. 4. Landscaped Frontages: Regular up lighting of walls or other structures in Landscaped Frontages may occur throughout Apollo Landing and must be coordinated to create a consistent and dramatic effect. 5. Landscaped Walkways: Landscaped Walkways and other pedestrian paths — unless adjacent to a building that provides adequate lighting — shall be lit by pole or bollard type fixtures that must be at least three (3) feet in height, to facilitate visibility in snow banks / drifts, but not to exceed four (4) feet in height. 6. Seating Areas: Where a more intimate environment is desired, light bollards and other forms of indirect illumination are appropriate. C. Existing and Proposed Conditions: This lighting plan is designed to use lighting systems that will reduce light pollution and to promote nighttime safety, utility, security and productivity. 1. Location and dimensions of all proposed structures and parking areas can be identified on the proposed Site Plan. See Exhibit 1 2. All lighting will be designed to conform with the following: a. Intensity —No light source or combinations thereof which cast light on a public street shall exceed one (1) foot candle (meter reading) as measured from the right -of -way line of said street. Any light source of combination thereof which cast light on adjacent residential property shall not exceed Apollo Landing Site Design Standards page 12 • 7 DRAFT 5/2 /05 four - tenths (0.4) foot candles (meter reading) as measured at the property line per the method outlined in Section 3, Subd. 4.F.5 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance. b. Cutoff— The luminaire shall contain a cutoff, which directs and cuts off the light at an angle of ninety (90) degrees or less, except lights highlighting architectural features or landscaping. c. Height — Parking and Roadway fixtures and poles will not exceed twenty five (25) feet above the ground grade, with all pole heights to be uniform. No fixture mounted on a building will exceed the height of the building. d. Location — All outdoor light fixtures shall be set back a minimum of ten (10) feet from a street right -of -way and five (5) feet from an interior side or rear lot line. No light source shall be located on the roof unless said light enhances the architectural features of the building. e. Hours of Operation — The use of outdoor lighting for parking lots serving commercial and industrial businesses shall be turned off one (1) hour after closing, except for approved security lighting. ] f. All illuminated on- premise signs for advertising purposes shall be turned off between 12:00 AM and sunrise except that said signs may be illuminated while the business facility on the premise is open for service. 3. Exemptions: a. This Lighting Plan does not prohibit the use of temporary outdoor lighting used during customary holiday seasons. b. This Lighting Plan does not prohibit the use of temporary outdoor lighting used for civic celebrations and promotions. Fixture Specifications: 1. Parking and Roadway lighting: a. Fixture — Ruud Lighting "Square Dome" with 6" extended pole mount; or approved equal. Color of all to be Bronze. See Exhibit 2 b. Pole Mount — Ruud lighting PS Series Crown -Weld poles; or approved equal. Color of all to be Bronze. See Exhibit 3 Wall and Accent Lighting: a. Fixture — Ruud Lighting 8" Series SE5 "Up/Down Cutoff'; or approved equal. Color to be bronze. See Exhibit 4 b. Fixture — Ruud Lighting, Medium Parabolic Floodlight LPM Series; or approved equal. Color to be bronze. Note: Apollo Landing Site Design Standards page 13 • • • DRAFT 5/2/05 this fixture to be used only to accent landscaping features, not to be used for buildings. See Exhibit 5 i. Ground Mount Post PFM -1; or approved equal. Color to be bronze. ii. Wall Mount Bracket WM -4; or approved equal. Color to be bronze. c. Fixture — Ruud Lighting "Recessed Canopy Light ", RC Series 12" MRC0410 -1; or approved equal. Color to be Bronze. See Exhibit 6 3. Landscape / After - Sunset Directional Lighting: a. Fixture — Ruud Lighting "Lama Directional Well Light" Series GL23S; or approved equal. Color to be Bronze. See Exhibit 7 4. Bollards: a. Bollard Panel — Ruud Lighting PACE Series; or approved equal. Color to be bronze. See Exhibit 8 b. Fixture — Perimeter Cutoff CE3 Series; or approved equal. Color to be bronze. See Exhibit 9 Apollo Landing Site Design Standards page 14 • • • DRAFT 5/2/05 V. SITE MAINTENANCE A. Apollo Landing Property Association (ALPA) will be formed and membership required for all purchasers of lots in the Planned Unit Development. ALPA will be funded by members, will address and be responsible for the following: 1. Pylon Sign and Monument Sign maintenance 2. Main drive maintenance including landscaping, lighting, asphalt, sidewalks etc. 3. Stormwater management preservation, snow plowing and removal 4. Irrigation system maintenance s. Perimeter fence maintenance. Both sides of the fence shall be maintained in a condition of good repair and shall not be allowed to become and remain in a condition of disrepair or danger, or constitute a nuisance. public or private. B. ALPA members shall agree to grant easements, in writing, to all members regarding utilities, joint access, shared parking etc. Apollo Landing Site Design Standards page 15 • Memorandum DATE: April 8, 2005 TO: Paul Bengtson FROM: James E. Studenski, City Engineer RE: Apollo Landing Attached for your use is the TKDA review dated April 8, 2005 for the Apollo Landing ro ect These items must he arir -h- ari before final approval is given to the Site.. Please contact me at 651!982 -2430 with any questions. 600 Town Center Park- - -io Lakes, Iviinnesota 5501 4 -1 1 82 Phone: 651- .5 5 -J0 Fax: 651 -902 -2499 TRDA •ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS MEMORANDUM To: Copies To: Prom: bate: 1500 Piper Jaffray Plaza 444 Cedar Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 -2140 (651) 292 -4400 (651) 292 -0083 fax www.tkda.com James Studenski, City Engineer Reference: Apollo Landing/Equinox Scott A. Brink, P.E. April 8, 2005 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Comm. No. 13265 -002 Routing: Introduction A review dated March 10, 2005 was previously provided for a proposed Planned Unit Development Project <ru.>J) at the northwest corner of the intersection of Apollo Drive and Lilac Drive. The proposed development would essentially consist of five separate buildings of varied types of use (hotel, restaurant, office /retail, office /commercial) on an 8.1 acre site. Ilk- Sine the previous review, the following additional items have been received and reviewed: 1 • Cover letter dated March 22, 2005 from Mattke Surveying and Engineering, Inc. 2. Spot elevations dated March 17, 2005 for the house located immediately adjacent to the site and existing pond. 3- Existing Drainage Calculations dated March 2, 2005. 4- Rate control calculations dated March 21, 2005. 5 • Storm sewer sizing calculations dated March 21, 2005. 6- Full size Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan dated March 21, 2005. Executive Summary Following is a General summary of the main items and issues that must be addressed. Further explanation of these items and additional items to be addressed are provided in the remainder of this review memorandum. 1 The revised drainage information has been reviewed and is acceptable with the following note: The HWL elevation of the pond furthest downstream (Pond 1) cannot be higher than the smaller upstrear. ponds. An Employee Owned Comp. - 5 6 -ling Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity • • • Apollo Landing /Equinox City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 2 April 8, 2005 2. Comments regarding a Traffic Study were provided in the previous review. A response has since been prepared and provided. Further comments regarding the traffic study are provided further in this memorandum. 3. A utility plan was provided for the previous review, and no revised copy has been. provided. The utility plan as previously presented was stated as acceptable in concept. However, additional details for construction purposes were not provided at that time. In addition, the applicant (in the March 22 letter) suggests some revisions to the plan, and comments are further provided. A final utility plan must be submitted and include storm sewer pipe sizes, structure invert and rim elevations, standard utility plates, details, construction notes, provisions for erosion control, and other pertinent information as required. 4. The applicant previously provided copies of correspondence to the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD). The applicant shall be responsible for assuring compliance with the RCWD accordingly. 5. The proposed site deve1op111G11L is located adjacent to two County roadways. The plat and site plan will therefore require the review and approval of Anoka County, both for the plat itself and with regards to driveway and site access. It is likely that the County will have comments with regards to right of way dedication and access from Apollo Drive. If specific improvement adjustments are required by the County (turning lanes, etc.), the applicant shall incorporate such improvements into the plans and install accordingly. 6. Drainage and utility easements must be provided on the Preliminary Plat as previously described. 7. The low floor and/or lowest floor elevation of the existing building on property directly west and adjacent to the pond has been verified against the proposed pond high water and emergency overflow elevations. The pond therefore meets requirements according to the information provided. Drainage 1. The first floor elevations shown for the proposed buildings would appear to be acceptable based on the information provided. However, because actual building plans are not provided, it is not known if there are proposed to be basements, lower openings, etc. In accordance with City standards, the lowest floor elevation must meet the City's minimum requirement of 2 feet above the 100 year flood level, 4 feet above normal water elevations and groundwater, and at least one foot over the emergency overflow elevation. 2. Long term maintenance responsibilities for the pond and infiltration areas must be eventually be clearly assigned in an Agreement between the City and applicant /future property owner. 3, An NPDES Phase II permit shall be required. All requirements of the Permit, including the submittal of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City, shall be completed prior to engaging in grading activities. Apollo Landing /Equinox Page 3 April 8, 2005 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Utilities 1.. An internal sanitary sewer main is intended to serve the properties and connect to an existing 6 -inch service at Apollo Drive. The existing 6 -inch PVC connects to an existing 21 -inch trunk main running down Apollo Drive. The existing manhole and service at the property line should be field inspected to verify that the size, condition, and connecting elevations of the existing facilities are adequate. The sewer main for the site itself must be at least 8 -inch diameter in accordance with City standards. A connection or downsizing from 8- inches to 6- inches is typically discouraged. However, if the applicant provides flow calculations and an adequate construction transition detail that assures flow sufficiency and avoidance of future maintenance issues, such a connection can be allowed. The most recent utility plan received proposes to connect a water main to the existing 12 -inch diameter main on Apollo Drive. No size for the main into the Apollo Landing property is shown, and it must be a minimum of 8 -inch diameter. Provisions must be included in the plans for wet tapping to the 12 -inch main and for the connection near the center of Apollo Drive. A permit from the County and establishment of traffic and safety control measures during:, construction, and repair of the street will be required in accordance with County standards. As an alternative, the March 22 letter from Mattke Engineering suggests connecting to an existing 6- inch hydrant line rather than to the larger 12 -inch main in the street. Because of the property's mixture of higher use development, and per standard City and industry practice, it is recommended that an 8 -inch pipe directly connected to the existing 12 -inch main remain as proposed. As previously mentioned, a revised (final) utility plan must also be submitted. 3. Individual sewer and water services are not shown on the plan. All trenches (including services) shall be backfilled and compacted and meet 100% maximum Standard Proctor Density in the upper 3 -feet from finished road elevation, and 95% maximum Standard Proctor Density below the upper 3 -feet. A minimum of two feet of cover over storm sewer pipe is desired. 4. Provisions for a future extension of utility services to the property located immediately adjacent and to the west of the Apollo Landing property have been suggested. h is therefore recommended that water and sewer stubs be extended from the newly installed 8 -inch sanitary sewer and water mains. The stubs would essentially extend to the NE corner of the neighboring property from near the center of the Apollo Landing property. A utility easement at this location should also be established. Other 1. Long term maintenance responsibilities for the development area, including the detention areas must be addressed appropriately in an agreement between the Developer and the City. 2. Apollo Drive and Lilac Drive are under the jurisdiction of Anoka County. The plat and site plans will therefore require the review and approval of Anoka County, both for the plat itself and with regards to driveway and site access. It is likely that the County will have comments with regards to right of way dedication and access from Apollo Drive. At a minimum, right of way dedication will • • • Apollo Landing /Equinox City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 4 April 8, 2005 be required at the south end of the property where the streets are located. Typically, the County has requested right of way dedication of up to 60 feet from the center of a roadway, and it is likely that an Agreement with the County will be needed. The proposed driveway entrance will also require a permit from the County. The County may have additional comments with regards to the driveway location, width, turning lanes, etc. 3. Drainage and utility easements are shown on the Preliminary Plat around all detention and infiltration areas. The drive easement should also be designated as a drainage and utility easement. Platted drainage and utility easements adjacent to property lines (10 feet) must also be provided per City requirements. 4. A proposed site landscaping plan has been provided. Screening from adjacent properties is proposed by the use of a Wood Privacy Fence, subject to approval by the City. The Landscape Plan should either include or refer to the Grading Plan the proper establishment around the ponds and infiltration areas. 5. Soil borings generally indicate a soil profile of topsoil underlain by coarse alluvium. For the building foundation and roadway and parking area subgrades, varying amounts of engineering fill and granular material will be required. Recommendations as provided in the Geotechnical Report must be provided throughout construction. 6. In addition to trees and vegetation, the existing site contains various remains of structures and facilities from previous site use (foundations, silos, etc.). All above and below ground abandoned facilities must be removed from site and disposed properly. The removal of any septic, well or other such facilities shall be also subject to the rules and regulations of the State of Minnesota and /or Anoka County as required. 7. A Traffic Study was previously prepared by Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik, and Associates (BRAA), and comments for the study were provided in an earlier TKDA review. A Memorandum dated March 9, 2005 has since been prepared by BRAA in response to the TKDA comments. Upon further review, the following comments and questions remain: A. An office development does not typically induce pass -by or diverted trips from existing background traffic. Also, with an office -only scenario, internal trips would be minimal or non- existent. For the office only scenario, it must be stated clearly if pass -by, diverted, and internal trips were added back into the project - generated trips for the a.m. peak hour analysis. B. The traffic study suggests that level of service will improve with the proposed development. It is understandable from a very technical modeling perspective how turn movement levels of service could actually improve under the with- project scenarios. However, this would likely be very difficult to explain during a public review process. It is recommended (if possible) that the future signal timing be modified such that the 0.1 or 0.2 second improvement in average vehicle delay would not appear under the with project scenarios. • • • Recommendations Of the February 23, 2005 Environmental Board Apollo Landing /Equinox Development/Environmental Site Plan Review The February 23, 2005 Lino Lakes Environmental Board made the following recommendations concerning Apollo Landing: Motion to approve the rezoning of the and with the condition of the Environmental Board future review of PUD and review each PUD phase level by O'Connell, 2nd by Baumann. All were in favor. Marshan Meadows. Bruqqeman Properties, 7364 Lake Drive, Preliminary Plat Review. The February 23, 2005 Environmental Board made the following recommendations concerning Marshan Meadows: • �rface Water Pfan should show access for pond and infltration area maintenance. • Surface Water volume calculations for pond and infiltration areas should be verified for adequacy. • Investigate removing storm pipe going into the lake and replace with a swale /rain swale design. • Direct all water from impervious areas to pervious. • Plan must address the 200 -foot area along the lake in terms of NPDES requirements that slopes be stabilized within 7 days in disturbance areas. • A temporary sediment pond diverting water on the SE side of the project would address BMP concerns for containing eroded materials. • A Conservation Easement should be described, for the Shoreiand impact zone and the surface water treatment areas. • Signage should be placed at the easement areas describing wetland conservation, no mow, no dumping areas, as well as important natural considerations such as nesting water birds and Blandings Turtle. • An information brochure should be published and given to all property owners describing the Classification and nature of Marshan Lake and that appropriate boating should be confined to non - motorized uses. It should also describe rare species habitat considerations for the area, and conservation easement requirements. • Ponding and infiltration areas should be planted with the City native seed mix. Planting soils should not be incorporated into these areas in order to preserve areas that turtles might still nest. • Curbing in the project should be designed so that turtles can cross roads. (The Lino Lakes Blandings Turtle Modal shows this area as a possible breeding site.) • • • • Transitional native seed mix should be used for 8 -10 feet from all sodded areas. A seed such as Blue gramma should be used for this. • Developer should submit a detailed NPDES plan for using BMP's on this site. For example, the rock entrance should say, "at least 50 feet of rock entrance shall be placed." The developer should indicate where on site the NPDS plan and inspection reports would be located on site. Motion to recommend approval with staff and Environmental Board recommendations by Grundhoffer, 2nd by Bor. All were in favor. RUUD LIGHTING .1 1.0 1.1 '0.2 1.0 1.3 1.: •.0 1.3 •.1 • 3 3 1.3 1 .3.3 •.1 .3.1 1.0 1.: 1.3 • '3.3 '3.2 1.5 • 3.2 0 3 0 1 0.. 3.3 1.0 '0.0 0 0 0 4.0 ra, 3.0 21 0 3 .0 .0 .5 1.2 1.1 '0.0 '3.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 '0.1 '0.0 '0.0 1.0 1.3 '0.0 '3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 '0.0 '0. 1.1 .3.7 1.2 1.2 1.4 '2.1 "3.0 '0.3 1.0 1.0 /.0 '0.0 1.0 1.0 1.D 1.0 1.0 1.5 '0.2 1.0 1.0 .0.0 .3. '3.3 '2.3 '3. L 214 144 1.3 1.1 1 1,1 '1.0 .0.1 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 34 1.3 1.2 .o 1.3 1.0 1.2 1.0 '0.0 1.2 1.0 3.2 1.0 '3.0 1.0 .0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 '0.0 "3.0 •.3 1.0 1. 1.2 0.7 '3.2 1.1 '0.0 .0.0 1.0 '3.0 '0.0 .0.0 1.0 '0.0 '0.0 1.0 1.0 '3.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 3. D •1.4 1.4 '0.2 '3.0 .D.D 1.0 '0.0 '0.0 1.0 '3.0 '3.0 1.0 '0.0 '2.0 '0.0 1.0 '3.0 1.0 1.0 •. .0 1.3 '0.3 1.2 •.0 '0.0 1.3 1.0 '0.3 1.3 .0.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 .0.0 .0.: 1.3 1.0 1.0 1. .0 .0 1.2 .3.1 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 .3.2 1.0 1.0 '0.0 .3.0 8.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 .0. .3 a 1.0 T..1 1.7 1.4 1.1 1.0 .1.3 1.3 1.0 '3.: 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0. 6 .1.2 1.3 1.1 1.0 '0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 .0.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 '3.0 '3.0 1.0 1. 0 0 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 '3.0 1.3 /.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 .0.0 1. .0 .0.5 1.1 1.5 1./ 1.1 1.0 '3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 '0.0 1.0 .0.0 'D. D 1.1 1.1 '3.0 1.0 .0.0 .3.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 .0.0 '0. .0 1.1 1.: '0.0 1.2 '2.0 '0.0 1.2 '0.0 1.3 1.0 '3. .3 1.1 1.0 •2.6 1.6 0,4 1.7 1.5 .0.1 1.D .D.3 .0.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 '0. 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.4 '2.0 0.7 1.1 .0.7 1.5 \.2 1.5 1.1 '1.1 9 1.3 1.5 .0 .2 1.3 1.9 1.6 1.2 .0 1.5 1.3 • 1.0 .1.2 1.0 •.2 1.0 1.7 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.3 • 0.1 0.5 2.1 0.1 PR2640-M ELE2122231 IFLATUIMi 1.13.11.1.11X,E7 'MURES /141,17161.:01:11GRE11, 1E4 M11.11111 11/017111.6111901,27AFG xrufma MULE. ISELTIMS ADIV111.131,171.11,151 r k POLE11. ME711.119.181,1iTAMEO*11726 WTI !MEWED 6IXIMMelfr 1.0 1.2 .0.2 1.1 •.1 1 1.4 .1 1.6 1.5 •.1 .0.0 1.0 '3.0 1.0 1.0 '0. J 1.0 •.0 '3.: 1.1 1.2 .0.6 1 1.` •3.5 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 .0. 1.3 1.3 0.3 1 a 1.1 1.0 1.3 .1 o.o .0 .3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 '0.6 •.5 .4 1.0 1.0 .0 1.3 1 1.0 .0.0 1.0 .0.0 '0.0 1.0 1.0 '0.0 1.0 .0.1 .0.1 '3.1 1.1 1.1 •:‘....4\.1.0 2 .1.0 .14 .1.1 1.0 .0.0 .0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 '0.0 1.2 1.0 1. 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 .0.0 '3.0 .0.0 1.1 .3.2 1.1 1.1 .a .0 1.0 1.0 1.0 '0.0 1.0 1.0 '3.0 1.0 1.0 %a 1.1 1.1 .1 .0 '3.0 1.0 1.3 1.3 .0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 .D.D 1.0 /7 1.2, 1.0 .0.0 -2.3 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.0 "3.0 1.3 .0.0 '0.0 • 1.0 1.0 .0.0 .3.0 '0.0 '0.0 .0.0 1.0 '0.0 '3.0 '0.0 '3 1.0 '0.0 1.0 1.3 '3.0 '0.0 1.0 '3.0 IA 1.0 'a 1.0 1.0 1.0 '3.0 1.0 .0.0 '3.0 1.0 .0 '3.0 .0.0 1.2 1.3 1.0 '0.0 '3.0 1.3 1.0 1.3 '24 1.4 1.0 1.0 -0.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.2 '0.0 3.2 '0.0 .0.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 14 .0.0 1.0 1.0 '3.3 '0.0 1.0 '0.0 1.2 .0.0 '0.0 0.0 '0.0 .2.0 •0.0 1.0 '0.1 1.1 .0.6 0.0 .0.0 .0 0 1 0 1 1.0 '0.0 '3.0 1.0 "FRONT ', "SIDE" *-444:24rEnzo=m6--4.4.4 FEB 2 g 2005 CITY OF LINO LAKES -1,411•11.1114346 10•16.1111111311■1■6051E0M11•1130.=1111.11•1=11_2341..03.1.44 RUUD LIGHTING Namr.:4111,54, •1114.1.0.1110. 110013171110 cover...N.4 IvnIg.tonu. 47.11214 .1mb 6.11Wro esk.aulaalusaham "".."'s¢ F917701NOLEE. c.n.uvrrto alum Luveri, • • SQUARE WALL MOUNT 2 (O5 mom) PROJECTION CUDOFF ealiast Sealing (casket Housing — Finish color. bronze Lens Spring -Clip Assembly Hidden from view Lamp (Included) Reflector Prefinished semi - specular aluminum — Lampholder Capacitor — 0.25" (6 mm) 3.1" (79 mm) - Silicone Gasket 5 "(127 mm) D 12" (305 mm) BOTTOM VIEW .-- t: 95i.. -.hIF METAL HALIDE 0 SPEC:* Wall Downlight 70W MH 0 . SPEC 11 Wall Downlight 100W MH SE4407- (a)(b) SE441 D- (a)(h) HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM 0 SPEC #, Wall Downlight 70W HPS SE4507- (a)(h) SPEC# Wall Downlight 100W HPS SE4510- (a)(13) FLUORESCENT .SPED 4. Any 26W FL ..SPECW Any 32W FL iSPECW Any 42W FL ' "SPEC# Any 57W FL Specify (a) Voltage & (h) Options. SE4226- (a)(h) SE4232- (a)(b) SE4242- (a)(h) SE4257- (a)(b) ti Fes° � �'•�.: Aluminum die -cast housing supplied. Knockouts are provided on the back of the housing for 1/2" conduit entry or for mounting over a single gang box, 4" square or 4" octagon boxes. Two #8 x 1" threaded studs and nuts are provided for mounting over a junction box. Housing also includes 1/2 " -14 NPT threaded hubs on four sides for conduit entry. Closed cell neoprene sponge gasketing on the back of the housing provides a watertight mounting seal. Silicone sponge cord gasket between housing and Tens ensures a water- and insect -tight seal. Injection molded clear polycarbonate lens and shroud assembly is held in place using a hidden spring clip assembly. Semi - specular reflector directs light downward to wash the wall below and to Me sides of fixture. Refiector projects light out aad away from fixture. 1/2 "•14 NPT Threaded Hub — Polycarbonate Lens 112 " -14 NPT Threaded Hub Bronze Polycarbonate Shroud D 120/277V (Standard: 70 & 100W MH) M 120/208/240/277V (Standard:100W HPS) T 120/277/347V (Canada Only) (70 & 100W MH; 100W HPS) 1 120V (26W FL Only) (Magnetic Ballast) 2 277V (26W FL Only) (Magnetic Ballast) 3 208V 4 240V 61 347V (26 - 57W FL) (Canada Only) UL 120 - 277V Universal Voltage (Standard: 26 - 57W FL) For voltage availability outside the US and Canada, see Bulletin TD -9 or contact your Ruud Lighting authorized International Distributor. Fluorescent fixture includes a 26W twin (quad) tube, 32, 42 or 57W triple tube, compact fluorescent lamp. HID fixtures include a clear, medium -base lamp and porcelain enclosed, 4kv- rated screw - shell -type Lampholder with spring- loaded center contact. Lamp ignitor included where required. HID and FL electronic ballast assemblies are high -power factor, FL magnetic are normal power factor and use the following circuit types: Reactor (120V HPS) 70 & 100W HPS HX — High Reactance 70 & 100W MH; 100W HPS Preheat – Magnetic (minimum starting temperature 32 °F [0 °C]) 26W FL Electronic (120 – 277V Universal Voltage & 347V) (minimum starting temperature 0 °F [- 18 °C]) 26 – 57W FL 9201 Washington Avenue Racine, Wisconsin 53406 -3772 USA PHONE (262) 886 -1900 Notes Fusing Tamperproof Lens Fasteners Photocell Quartz Standby (includes 1 DOW quartz lamp) (N /A on 277V Reactor) Specify (a) Single Voltage - See Voltage Suffix Key tCTY OF LINO LAKES ANSI lamp wattage label supplied, visible during relamping. UL Listed in the US and Canada for wet locations and enclosure classified IP54 per IEC 529 and IES 598. Housing is standard with our exclusive DeltaGuard® finish, featuring an E -coat epoxy primer with bronze ultra - durable powder topcoat, providing excellent resistance to corrosion, ultraviolet degradation and abrasion. The finish is covered by our seven -year limited warranty. TPS -1 Tamperproof Screwdriver FAX (262) 884 -3309 0 Ruud Lighting Inc. Printed in USA v4.rupdiight np.gorit -63- 01/08/04 Rc LIGHTING 6" EXTENDED POLE MOUNT 1E°r (40 m) P ,n om I / AMWAY Ut T Ballast Capacitor Ignitor (Where I--6° (152 mm) required) II r Cord 24 "(610 mm) long Extended Pole Mount Finish color: bronze Housing Seamless, die -cast aluminum Finish color. bronze 016" (406 mm) Reflector Hydroformed aluminum with brightened and anodized finish zz PULSE START METAL HALIDE SPEC ' 200W PSMH PR2620- (a)(b) L.J SPEC;' 250W PSMH PR2625- (a)(b) SPECS 320W PSMH PR2632- (a)(b) sPic #. 350W PSMH PR2635- (a)(b) :SPEC; 400W PSMH PR2640- (a)(b) METAL HALIDE sPEC;" 175W MH PR2417- (a)(b) :s?EC.# 250W MH PR2425- (a)(b) ED SPEC# 400W MH PR2440- (a)(b) HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM sPF.C# 250W HPS PR2525- (a)(b) SPECS, 400W HPS PR2540- (a)(b) Specfy (a) Voltage & (b) Options. Parking lot and roadway luminaire for HID lamp, totally enclosed. Supplied with IES Type III (250W MH is field adjustable to Type II) optical system. Housing is seamless, die -cast alumi- num. Mounting consists of a 1.8' (44 mm) wide by 4.5" (114 mm) high by 6' -(152 mm) long extruded aluminum arm. The arm is held in place with two 3/8" (9 mm) mounting rods fastened to a steel backing plate inside the pole, and by two nuts inside the fixture housing. Mounting rods are provided with sealing washers to prevent water leakage. Lens assembly consists of rigid aluminum frame and high- impact, clear - tempered glass. Ballast Compartment Cover Patented Hinge Assembly 6.5" (165 mm) Lamp (Included) Lampholder r Lens Frame ' Die -cast aluminum doorframe secures lens; sealed with silicone gasket Finish color: black r�l 1 2 7 4 5 6 120120812401277V (Standard) 120/277/347V (Canada Only) (Standard) 120V 277V 277V Reactor (PSMH Only) 208V 240V 480V 347V (Canada Only) For voltage availability outside the US and Canada, see Bulletin 7D-9 or contact your Ruud Lighting authorized Intemational Distributor. WO" Fixture includes clear, mogul -base lamp. Pulse -rated porcelain enclosed, 4W-rated screw - shell -type lampholder with spring - loaded center contact. Lamp ignitor included where required. All ballast assemblies are high -power factor and use the following circuit type: Reactor (277V PSMH) 200 —400W PSMH CWA — Constant Wattage Autotransformer 200 — 400W PSMH; 175 — 400W MH; 250 — 400W HPS Notes Ili I PI 1; -(a)F -(a)P -5P External Photocell (for 480V) Fusing Button Photocell ANSI lamp wattage label supplied, visible during reiamping. UL Listed in US and Canada for wet locations and enclosure classified IP65 per IEC 529 and IEC 598. 9201 Washington Avenue Racine, Wisconsin 53406 -3772 USA PHONE (262) 886 -1900 0 Quartz Standby (includes 100W quartz tamp) (NIA on 277V Reactor) Specify (a) Single Voltage — See Voltage Suffix Key r FEB 2 8 2005 CM' OF yNo LAKES Exclusive DeltaGuard® finish features an E -coat epoxy primer with medium bronze ultra - durable powder topcoat, providing excellent resistance to corrosion, ultraviolet degradation and abrasion. The finish is covered by our seven - year limited warranty. I=NS US 4,682,729 I ti FWG -16 Wire Guard SBL -16 Backlight Shield FAX (262) 884-3309 p Ruud Lighting Inc. Printed in USA www.ruudiighting.com l - 6 4 - 12/11/03 RUU[ L.IG -1TIN( •`A` R.A[ (!NE 6" EXTENDED POLE MOUNT 86 4 PAR M. etRei ADIA y G Isotootcandie plots show initial tootcandles at grade. (Footcandles _ 0.0929 =Lux) LPA 0.95 for single fixture with 0° tut (Consult factory for EPA rating on multiple units). Lighting Sciences inc. Certified Test Report No. LS1 10473 Candlepower distribution curve of 400W fOH Parking/Roadway Eight Lighting Sciences Inc. Certified Test Report No. LSI 4941 Cndial3n wer distribution curve Bi 409W HPS Parrin9/Roadway Light Vie- spacing Exampfie Data Oettalog # Lamp Type PF:12417 -N 175W MH pi12425 -N 250W MH 15-P1244 0-IV 400W MH I'iz12525 -1( 250W HPS P 2540 -yi 400W HPS 100' 80' 60' 40' 20' 100' B0' 60' 40' 20' 0' 20' 40' 60' B0' 100' 30.5 24.4 183 12.2 6.1 Om 0' 20' 40' 60' 80' 10D' 30.5 24.4 18.3 12.2 6.1 Om 6.1 12.2 183 24 4 30 5 6.1 122 163 24A 30.5 Isofootcandie plot of 250W MH Parking/Roadway Light at 25' (7.6 m) mounting height and 0° vertical tilt (Plan view) 100' 80' 100' 80' 60' 40' 20' 0' 20' 40' 60' 80' 100 30.5 24.4 16.3 122 6.1 60' 40' 20' 0' 20' 40' 60' 80' 100' 30.5 24.4 18.3 12.2 6.1 0m 6.1 12.2 18.3 24.4 30.5 0 m 6.1 122 18.3 24,4 305 Isofootcandie plot of 250W HPS Parking/Roadway Light at 25' (7.6 m) �msrsoting__eig_ht.ant=werlical tilt FEB 2 8 2005 C7Y OF UNO LAKES k Lamp Lumens 12,000 20,000 32,000 28,500 50,000 Mounting Height 15' (4.6 m) 20' (6.1 m) 20' (6.1 m) 25' (7.6 m) 25' (7.6 m) 30' (9.1 m) 20' (6.1 m) 25' (7.6 m) 25' (7.6 m) 30' (9.1 m) UD UCH TING 100' 80' 60' 40' 20' 100 80' 60' 40' 20' 0' 20' 40' 6D' 80' 100' 305 24.4 183 122 0' 20' 40' 60' 80' 100' 30.5 24.4 16.3 12.2 6.1 0m 6.1 12.2 18.3 24.4 30.5 0 m 6.1 12.2 18.3 24A 305 6.1 isofootcandie plot of 4001E RAH Parking/Roadway Light at 30' (9.1 m) mounting height and 0° vertical tilt (Plan view) 100' BO' 100 80' 60' 40' 20' 0' 20' 40' 60' 80' 100' 30.5 24.4 183 122 6.1 60' 40' 20' 0' 20' 40' 60' 80' 100' 30.5 244 18.3 12.2 61 0 61 12.2 183 24.4 30 5 Om 6.1 122 183 244 30.5 Isofootcandie plot of 400W HPS Parking/Roadway Light at 30` (9.1 m) mounting height and 0° vertical tilt (Plan view) Test area is centered within a (16) pole layout. Max. Recommended Pole- spacing XxY 90' (27.4 m) x 60' (18.3 m) 120' (36.6 m) x 80' (24.4 m) 120' (36.6 m) x 80' (24.4 m) 150' (45.7 m) x 100' (30.5 m) 150' (45.7 m) x 100' (30.5 m) 180' (54.9 m) x 120' (36.6 m) 120' (35.6 m) x 80' (24.4 m) 180' (54.9 m) x 120' (36.6 m) 150' (45.7 m) x 100' (30.5 m) 180' (54.9 in) x 120' (36.6 m) 9201 Washington Avenue Racine, Wisconsin 53406 -3772 USA Nvarage Initial Light Levels at Grade 2 Fixtures per pole @ 180° (Footcandles - 0.0929 = Lux) Footcandies 3.97 2.15 3.60 2.22 3.56 2.41 4.94 3.08 5.41 3.67 Lux 43 23 39 24 38 26 53 33 58 40 PHONE (262) 886 -1900 FAX (262) 884 -3309 © Ruud Lighting Inc. Printed in USA - 6 5 - www.ruudlighting.com 12111/03 STEEL CR '..r IN ©WEL POLES Square Steel Poles Square, non - tapered poke 12° (305 mm) r Carbon steel base plate Pole cap (Supplied if tenon is not used) 2': 6" (51 mm x 152 mm) Hand hole Hand -rite cover Two -piece steel base piste cover Slotted anchor bolt hole H (ft) x W (in) x Wall (in) SPEC# PS3S10C(a)BZ 10 x 3 x 0.125 SPEC# PS3S15C(a)BZ 15 x 3 x 0.125 1_21 SPEC* PS3S19C(a)BZ 19 x 3 x 0 125 SPEC# PS4S10C(a)BZ 10 x 4 x 0.125 i { sPEc s;. PS4S15C(a)BZ 15 x 4 x 0.125 7 SPEC PS4S19C(a)BZ 19 x 4 x 0.125 SPEC:# PS4S22C(a)BZ 22 x 4 x 0.125 SPEC n PS4S25C(a)BZ 25 x 4 x 0.125 SPEC *, PS4S25S(a)BZ 25 x 4 x 0.188 SPEC PS4S27C(a)BZ 27 x 4 x 0.125 El SPEC # PS4S30S(a)BZ 30 x 4 x 0.188 :SPEC" PS5S25S(a)BZ 25 x 5 x 0.188 SPEC t PS5S30S(a)BZ 30 x 5 x 0.188 E sPEC'rt PSBS30S(a)BZ 30 x 6 x 0.188 'SPEC. :; configuration. Pf SPEC .4 H (m) : W (mm) x Wali (mm) 3.0x76x3 4.6x76x3 5.8 x 76 x 3 3.0x.102 x3 4.6 x 102 x3 5.8x102x3 6.7x102x3 7.6x102 x3 7.6x102x5 8.2x102 x3 9.1 x 102 x5 7.6 x127 x5 9.1 x127x5 9.1 x 152 x5 � Xlwl l .;111-.1.,f,11174, Notes 1 -11 Single (direct mount) 5 El 2 e—® Twin Kg 180° (direct mount) 8 VIM 3 le Twin @ 90° (direct mount) For fixtures with fixed 20° mount, add prefb: 2 to co i.e. 21, 22, 23, 25 and 26. Triple (direct mount) Quad (direct mount) Tenon (order tenon separately) nfiguration numbers: Non - tapered steel poles are supplied with welded base with cover, four galvanized anchor bolts, masonite mounting template and a pole cap (except tenon mount). Each bolt is provided with two washers and two nuts. Steel pole base has slotted holes. Per National Electrical Code requirements, pole is standard with a 2" x 6° (51 x 152 mm) hand hole, located 12° (305 mm) above bottom of pole base. A 010 -32 stainless - steel weld stud with grounding lug is located inside pole, opposite hand hole; a hand hole cover is supplied but shipped separately. For EPA ratings, see "Windloading" sheet. US 5,820,255; 6,640,517 Square, non - tapered pole of structural steel tubing (ASTM A 500); with a minimum yield strength of 46,000 p.s.i. Welded to a formed carbon steel base plate with a minimum yield strength of 36,000 p.s.i. Exclusive DeltaGuardn finish features an E -coat epoxy primer with medium bronze ultra - durable powder topcoat, providing excellent resistance to corrosion, ultraviolet degradation and abrasion. The finish is covered by our seven -year limited warranty. 9201 Washington Avenue Racine, Wisconsin 53406 -3772 USA PHONE (262) 886 -1900 R FEB 2 8 2005 C TV OF LAO LAKES Ruud Lighting square poles meet or exceed National Electrical Code Requirements. In the US, Ruud square poles are classified by Underwriters Laboratories Inc. for electrical ground bonding; in Canada, they are CSA certified for electrical ground bonding and structural strength. mot Catalog # FREC -GFISZ (120V) Wet Listed In -use cover FAX (262) 884 -3309 C Ruud Lighting inc. Printed in USA { www.ruudlighting.com - 6 6 - 9/1/04 E✓FC Outlet Accessory RUUD LIGHTING STEEL CROWN-WELD' .FN WELD' PO PS3819C(a)BZ 10'(3.0rn)x3 (76 mm) Wall thickness - 0.125' (3 mm) Base plate- 10° (254 mm) square x 0.50' (13 mm) thick Anchor bolts -3/4'1D x 18' (457 mm) + 3° (76 mm) Bolt circle diameter -1 D° (254 mm) 9.3' - 11' (235 mm - 279 mm) Maximum fixture weight - 200 lbs. (91 Kg) Approximate shipping weight - 58 lbs. (26 Kg) 1253315C(a)8Z 15 (4.6 m) x 3" (76 mm) Wall thickness - 0.125" (3 mm) Base plate - 10" (254 ram) square x 0.750° (19 mm) thick Anchor bolts - 3/4' -1 Q x 18° (457 mm) + 3" (76 mm) Bolt circle diameter - 10" (254 mm) 9.3" - 11' (235mm- 279ram) Maximum fixture weight -175 lbs. (79 Kg) Approximate shipping weight - 82 lbs. (37 Kg) P83S19C(a)13Z • 19' (5.8 m) x 3` (76 mm) Wail thickness - 0.125" (3 mm) Base plate - 10" (254 mm) square x 0.750° (19 mm) thick Anchor bolts -3/4"-11)x 18° (457 ram) + 3' (76 mm) Bolt circle diameter -10" (254 mm) 9.3' - 11' (235 mm - 279 mm) Maximum fixture weight - 150 lbs. (68 Kg) Approximate shipping weight - 92 lbs. (42 Kg) PS4S10C(a)BZ 10' (3.0 m) x 4° (102 mm) Wail thickness - D.125' (3 mm) Base plate - 10° (254 mm) square x 0.750° (19 mm) thick Anchor bolts -314°-10 x 18" (457 mm) +3" (76 mm) Bolt circle diameter - 10' (254 mm) 9.3" - 11' (235 ram - 279 ram) Maximum fixture weight -300 lbs. (136 I(g) Approximate shipping weight -78 lbs. (35 Kg) PS;4S15O(a)BZ 16'(4.6m)x4'(102mm) Wall thickness -0.125° (3 mm) Base plate -10' (254 mm) square x 0.750° (19 mm) thick Anchor bolts- 314` -10 x30" (762 mm) + 3" (76 mm) Bolt circle diameter -10° (254 mm) 9.3' - 11' (235 mm - 279 mm) Maximum fixture weight - 300lbs. (136 Kg) Approximate shipping weight - 119 Ibs. (54 Kg) PS4319C(2)6Z 19' (5.8 m) x 4' (102 mm) Wall thickness- 0.125° (3 mm) Base plate -10 (254 mm) square x 0.750° (19 ram) thick Anchor bolts -3/4°10 x 30° (762 mm) + 3" (76 mm) Boit circle dianeter - 10' (254 mm) 9.3' - 11° (235 mm - 279 ram) Maximum fixture weight - 280 lbs. (127 Kg) Approximate ximate shipping weight -144 lbs. (65 Kg) PS4322C(aa)1112 • PS4S253(a)EZ 25' (7.6 m) x 4" (102 mm) Wall thickness - 0.188" (5 ram) Base plate - 10° (254 mm) square x 0.750° (19 mm) thick Anchor bolts -3/4°-10 x30' (762 mm) + 3' (76 mm) Bolt circle diameter - 10° (254 mm) 9.3" - 11° (235 mm - 279 mm) Maximum fixture Weight -325 lbs. (145 Kg) Approximate shipping weight -252 lbs. (114 Kg) PS4527C(a)BZ 27' (8.2 m) x 4' (102 mm) Wall thickness - 0.125' (3 mm) Base plate - 10° (254 mm) square x 0.750" (19 mm) thick Anchor bolts - 3/4°-113 x30° (762 mm) + (76 mm) Bolt circle diameter -10' (254 mm) 9.3" -11" (235 mm - 279 mm) Maximum fixture weight - 200 lbs. (91 Kg) Approximate shipping weight -195 lbs. (89 Kg) PS43311S(a)BZ 30' (9.1 m) x 4' (102 mm) Wall thickness - 0.188' (5 mm) Base plate - 10 (254 mm) square x 0.750' (19 mm) thick Anchor bolts -3/4'10 x 30' (762 mm) + 3" (76 mm) Bolt circle diameter -10' (254 mm) 9.3° - 11" (235 mm - 279 ram) Maximum fixture weight- 250 lbs. (113 Kg) Approximate shipping weight - 301 lbs. (137 Kg) 22 (6.7 rn) x9" (102 mm) Wall thickness-0.125' (3 mm) ease plate -10' (254 mm) square x 0.750° (19 mm) thick Anchor bolts - 3/4' -10 x30' (762 mm) + 3° (76 mm) Bolt circle diameter -10' (254 mm) 9.3° -11' (235 mm- 279 mm) Maximum tore weight - 240 Ibs. (109 Kg) Approximate shipping weight - 163lbs. (74 Kg) Pa4S25C(a)BZ 25' (7.6 m) x4° (102 mm) Wall thickness- 0.125' (5 mm) Base plate -10" (254 mm) square x 0.750° (19 ram) thick Anchor bolts- 3 /4 " -10 x30' (762 mm) + 3" (76 mm) Bait circle diameter -10° (254 mm) 93' - 11° (235 ran - 279mm) Maximum fixiJre weight - 210 lbs. (95 Kg) Approximate shipping weight -182 Ibs. (83 1(g) P35S258(a)BZ 25' (7.6 m) x 5° (127 mm) Wall thickness - 0.188" (5 ram) Base plate - 10" (254 mm) square x 0.750° (19 mm) thick Anchor bolts -1°43 x 36" (914 mm) + 4' (102 mm) Bolt circle diameter -10' (254 mm) 9.7' - 11.3" (248 mm - 287 mm) Maximum fixture weight -450 Ibs. (204 Kg) Approximate shipping weight - 320 lbs.(145 Kg) PS5S3DS(a)BZ 30' (9.1 m) x 5° (127 mm) Wall thickness - 0.188° (5 mm) Base plate - 10° (254 mm) square x 0.750' (19 mm) thick Anchor bolts - 1°-8 x36° (914 mm)+ 4' mm (102 mm) Bolt circle diameter - 10" (254 mm) 9.7' - 11.3' (248 mm - 287 mm) Maximum fixture weight -375 Ibs. (170 Kg) Approximate shipping weight -379 lbs. (172 Kg) RUUD 'LIGHTING PS5S30S(a)BZ 30' (9.1 m) x 6" (152 mm) Wall thickness - 0.188° (5 mm) Base plate - 12" (305 mm) square x 1' (25 mm) thick Anchor bolts -1 ° -8 x 36° (914 mm) + 4" (102 mm) Bolt circle diameter -11.5° (292 mm) 11.3° - 12.8' (286 mm - 324 mm) Maximum fixture weight - 525 Ibs. (238 Kg) Approximate shipping weight -457 lbs. (207 Kg) 9201 Washington Avenue Racine, Wisconsin 53406 -3772 USA REC FEB 2 8 2005 errY OF LINO LAKES PHONE (262) 686 -1900 FAX (262) 884 -3309 ® Ruud Lighting Inc. Printed in USA - 6 7 - www.ruudlighting.com 911/04 O • n v ii `S) C1 K � M z° 0 u» GI 0 A 7 0 la 0 7 nl • nz t. K 0 rt (D in c !D J m D t0 7 fD t0 5 0 0 LA 0 L` ). -4 1:LL NYAYM x 0- 0 Unt 0 O D a O 0) 31111 :orosa 0 0 0 D 0 5' c. M • t. :0 N00'44'46 "E 323.66 .4 SOO'46 \i23.35 7 • 3u. 2%t-. 5 I \ x / R \ y // / • * n▪ i.'.v1 a 111 o \ a r 3rrrli 1Rx \ \ Tr\ its / R x Di : y R Y / . C 7 x ,K R R 1 1 \ ".• : Y �!ou \ \ 0 \ \, x a. ° • ,R_ A �!R 8 \• 7\„ i 1 .b1i• R >E r` \ \0 p1 .1\ " 500'44'49 "W �5d1m�5L 2.11112 9 0 O o 8 o 8 -Pty �r� 0 .ii N . N t i IkaW I" PE O r Lii'ow PG 'o a8 r1ail. 41 ^ -J 11194 05 aA RI j0xaq SST i ;Pie 4 1�. 8 8 3'IVDS 3IHdVZID ,1IS 3PN CO t 33 . N LA 0 . o - n 7 M G � n C 3 .s v N r, n n � o 0 n ? 0 IF _ fCl Z U CnJ O 9 - j)7 d n A 0 n 2 0 7 0 C rD 7 m 10 ,TI ?. CD rD 10 3 ti C • 0 P z is iD yl � 1n CD 0 D 0 0 ✓ 0 7 Restaurant: 6,750 Square Feet Parking Required: 11 Spacc Proposed: 54 Spaces t 1I f M>•41a0 ^e0'i� N00'44'46 "E 323.60 2. 244 54 24 CO N00659'57'E 500.00 I I)urn'stt, Z CO d 0 0 o O i CD CD 7 0 \ 0 a \ \ 40, \ �o i 131 S00'44'46 "W 12 35 FT- TN if r It ro_ aW LLLQQQrrr � o ,r a 10) Io 0 IIII11:11 — I�E�IIm(II U. a V T1 0 RR 0 0 R ln 0 0 T T T aaa \ \ 0 01 0 0 In ?BO I)um COO S o 0 500'44'49 "W 531.75 8 TIV3S �IHdt'23J v m g 4415' s -on'E 3E4 ua2 '26.4- r REIr-: orP r- at 1 0 0 0 0 In m 55 v 3 v m t-7 x 0 0 0 g. O E v i 1.w 2 Pz oz 8 8 r g' � N a 5 5 $ S C c R. K -I I. co • co Z so 0 0 3 10 in rD CO O 0) O 0 -/70 E r>> Z O m> L O u Z O O� m D m- A Z m :'1 Z - D 0 ▪ 5R 2-, • -4 0 �;5 Z 0 F m m Z 2 �mmS —Oin O m m m D X N-t ZZ m 0 0 O M.20,00.69N 0 0 O 7 �l J 01 -• (rn 00 0 O 1 U, > Co U• (N O c Q N' z m 0 co 1n (D (0 •ouI '6uuaaui6u3 �g O J Q 31111 SNWAVel0 10 3 0 n buipuDi ollody z m 0 0 int0 W N N00'59'57 "E 500.00 C 4 O I I 7 I to 0 O I (. I I, f NN L 1 A »m • Q. I n� m I .lI 1 0 I° dmm j 1n 13 m 3 1/ I • " —k- � _ ---.1 - _ _ pit. I 0ti: ,,,i mo 1 m / X10 2, S00'44'46 "W 123.35 i e (n (NNco fs ulp 4 cl r • S00'44'49 "W 531.75 N r � 'i II U 0l •4 O. 0 01 N00'44'46 "E 323.60 40081 c,0 3 S00'44'49'W 214'10 rvi saJDy 10'9 3S C99•Btf Da-,y a 7 IS IDiwl x s 31VJS 31HdV 1J 500'44'46'W in O 4. Y 0 O N 0 A n an 0 191.89 N00'44'49'6 131.35 N O O A O T 0 U O .a 130.95 ,.. ..-- .. _ ... . .... .. ,' - C.814 . t'k-ediril lo 6 6/9 io5 - .. .., ....... • &I litmee wilt be installed around:the pertMetat of Luc site dB $11041i1 oll /11,1•IALL, 10 phoura star ir...tr: L.i. ak. ,•8. nitt •■ . , fC 909.a: .' 1( 9 1,53 erosion. Withal 5 day ,. of completion of Waling tif a alividual areas rif the sae. otaturbed areas )5;1116 se..0.1 ' . ' -...-.- -, - mulched. or smirls.41. Budding pacla that have been graded will be seeded isitimulclied. +.7 — c,.,,s _ — -- 050), .--„--- .,...,„ 1 ,, ,, ,-7-12.2.% lii..44 ------'• 5, ., ,,, .... 0 5% ....4 t I ■ ,N1 AgILG ' ti'''L. t÷:t.-3 -,,,,.. ., • !NM, kA UN itASINIS . '. r - trie.ss WI . „„,.. °5-5 "•,, • . .41•1-4 ,95.„...21, ! j2 1, ha. 0.5X 91L.11.4------------ 911: !.. 1 4r1 .1_,,,,,5,,,— • ..ito■pu.... ,.,....-...,ii C1313 "-I 9'•`.) I . - ' -, _ .... No mtroog of sand material will be rdlowtx1 to these basin areas. final glutting of thrise, twin w hi tit ten tio,i ,... .., _ . -17 1 1 ., — --.910 00 • --- • .• ! ......, _ j I surrounding altars have bevn stabiluhrl with sidewalk. and bitummous p11.,..tilleflt. Lilld Will Le: ge•.:0111111i.Sik'd wan a With ■ — . r , , , ----\ -- acP 0!,'-'• ^ _ 0.62 kis,- . 463 . 1 . . - - - ' FF 912.0 A traek iitiZer to minimize compaction. , e t!-- \ ILI . • •--. — , I 1 • . , ............, , , ••,/, -- : 3 -_-7/ %1 A 50-50 iii, of ou-sue Wit arid tiipsod win br.: spread v a muumuu' depth of o mulles. lliese urest will be (6o,,,i j_. .-- ., e uri N11.140., sw., _ _, - /II -- -- 1 1 ,. , , - W -,--_-1,, t--. -- 'FF_Jailo„. .- -) 1 1 .....,. se., mix 26f1 arid MnDol 3883 'in, i 1.1isk-411010t0.1 Midi. 1 t__ , -- I-._ ■ 4 " . - . ., ...,/ ...___ -- 1 ' , .rIk4, I 1 ' .. • , POND CONSTRUCTION . .., C ..; 9 '91,2'5 . . ':I.Ckiia \'. 1 .-, i 9- t , ( ,'..', I 1 F't: f,'-'r ' I 1 .4..i.-1-. .% .. __-.. .2 O / . dill • 1 - ' ..- ■ 1 '1). 19' A • • .. T.. ,,, • 9.4 - --. • ri .. ,,.. Pond Ct.,mkruciien Will InCitYIe CULP/410,1ot' a temporary sump to ram dewattming the pond 17(1(tOirl au pumped , ... . . . . @ fr - ibs . " , • , 06 7u, ,...'"7, 919 9., .93 • 911,30 4'55-, ' ;1)7— .' 911.9,9 •&31 •er, Cr 05 . / , . 1 • water to be discharged into the north ditch of Lilac Drive. , .. • , 49-1Fir • 1 ...1. 91571 gliatr 9.1 .84 Nizirs-6....,/ ,„,.. Nivilio . , .5..fl.,T1 4 , , . FF 91/1.0 the entire polar wilt be regraded to allow construction of a I ti-liiot wine l 10.1 •,tope) bench acound the etar6 pond • -'!/999.79 ' '' . __II-4mm_ t, ;;,,,. 55 ' ' 7 ,. ,, '''''... 9 I 1 ati- I i ---- -.. 910 ' ■ . Alit 55 ..,09 j mot) i :,. . 1.-F-p.. -,---.„ 221..,-r-- 6,,, 9,...... \ 1 1-,; between crevattons ',811.9-902.9, and reseeding of the entire pond. lite poisi e:<:',1,N anon will be ,..,111:Atr,, b) ' 1.M tft , , :'' AC / ., ,...,:09 52 .1...„.,..,,,, * • ...&,01.1-?(39, • ., I !_j• • , , .•!',= , - \:•9.11.4,1•D !! Illi!"..4”ir ..- - . - - ! • \ 85,. 1, I I ,.., R ill( 1 IIC 3 r !!,•11,[..!, areas below elm mon 900 Bad by 4 fivt betv&en the elevations 898 WA 904. Ells bottom and sides will he loam with • 1 • -- '---14 -1. t‘o.,' 0,11J b.. . - _At' 1..'''''' Ill- - 1 l' .1.-_-9.7" .. -..... I! 't.-P3B —.._ pB6 1 2-fuot Mick. betoonite-sand mixture (mixture and Macemem as reemumethicd by bentonite supplier to eli..relivelylmevt -999.75 I I !•!...'' . 9a 7,..:-.. - ..)‘ g,' 1, v"\7e,i.... 0, ,.. , L,Zt?4,..• ..,' ...1,9V,•,v7.:Ei4 1 ' -,,W,. .,77;;,„ I • " 7 css 524 .„.-,-'- I .; j seepage) Li to the elevation of9o2.4. Ge...w.u. flue i fabric under 2 ft-I rif boulder riptup will be placed armhs1 the .6 -.! - 1.' ------1----- - ..it. I ' ' '94'‘.,..-..., ii 1.14 . ! it,,,.„3,..,,,,,___. 0.91 #ier,. : pond between the elevations 898 and 904. Above the riprap, the pond will be acialed with Wild Fiowel ?,,lb. ander . ,.. .,967 03 .., „,' ...! , ' '5 .. r .• .„.....9el„ !". ,6 ''' Ali , ..- ''''-i' TC 999 99-- ' 1 , ' • _. -- erosion control fabric, mix to be approvtx1 by the lingtneet. _ . - I 1 ! ! ..,,,,. 7._ [ . ', • , \ :gitits..,-,1,r: 90,-4 ..01., . iirm,.: lo , ta— - i , . I '2; 1 , • __.. I . I . __.,, ,.,.ro'N k .; r; ..., 9in.61.1.---,13,,..7- 1,:„.4147; 7,., j - cEs5-. • IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: _ .... l 1 ., , . 1 • \ .." xrr. •Ii.,•- e--1 -0 A ,,.• , _____ , \ \ ..i.:„ • ' • -sli.,-•-ial :_„;-....• .•..,_ _-......-./sres. / ... . . . Remove trees. rostall situates, -- April I I- i 5 v 6:-.. ‘ - lin .- _.. _ Strip tavl stoat:rile topsoil, lemove existing beatings •Ir. debris -. April I 8...!.: : I .. . :!.. : 0 3 -- - Oft 9cle*N-: '9;1 ft.(' .1.'- .1,21 !‘45,--- --- Q90-,, I / ,,, 1 .'. - -- : 1 ,10.03 - - ., 4,___. 1 ral•• - I.'" - 11 - - '. 1 I i - 14 t /ti ivi.rvi -: ftacnvute Pond 84. line wl bentonite, riprap, fill with City water, grade she April ::5-May 6 --. .. , t v""i I 1.I1 ft. ' 1.1Cgiill-IOld Construction . ; --- ill tlet ., Y-,. ' .. . • ta --‘-', - . i i, • Instad water sower st tom - May 9-27 4'"'"L- - ■I ' V ': s'.:' 9.° • - ,, i 4 0.2' 1 '''' , - Grade boulevards and subgrade, install curb ar gutter - May 31 -June In , ... ---,--7, .."1 2,..) • J- ''' ••,-.• ° c 2:l 908 -.. ,,,I,70 . ,„!••;, • ! 5 r ,n. , _ FF 9 - '' ' • 5,, 91. -I vj, i 910 88- -- 7 -,,,_- .,____ ..„ s_. „_'•''''f:1-. . __-:±..-_a_L--._L , . , . ,,y w - 3,11, • / i ' laslall C 5 base, replace topsoil, seed & mukh -- lune 13-I 7 - / Pave Main Acce8; Road - Aar 20-24 - - _ „. _ _ _ - - - - • _ .. _ i i ce-acicsoce=c4 Stiffener:. • , Tfills. , , ' f'- -- _. t • / . , : 9 iprop gut:et **.• , ‘ :0-0- — ,. .,./ 1 ii, 916.Ks- \ I " VI .,ffz,., '''''' I I - I t 7'. 1 --- ____ / Note: SlItfance will be Installed around FLOODPLAIN o,. •1C / '." - -tig , - 01 / ';' all Clis until permanent erosion • I -:_rli- 4 ii41.1. -> - 7/--- ,141-- - ■' , control installattOn la, Imullhent. . . 1 herr t, no tuoidpittin in this site. it is assumed that buildings will a be 5181,011-grale. Fits; 1.10t, t.r.k..,,aii„, I IN --lib 911 • • r, , specked fol each imilding. flatly building is proposed to have a floor elevation lower than FFE. a separate g■ OuildWal • , : 10.24 inches -- .4, • ,t,e -,,,n 9,0 , 0-vaitation will be required-to determine. the lowest allowabk iimir elevation. Cdt 2, 2 to Fit , I. 1 . V i i - , o 9 • - ■Int, ramlan - 1.11. C1316_ ■ .904 -- lakh. .' ;Lz... - 1 .• -' •-• - te v,,,..A,._ .....■ 4 x , . 1 - •.' ° - - •I'lloir ?if-- .47- , j 8, „ jo, ! ' • • ,, • 09 S2910.24 , - •. r , *-,'• - -,,..9 ,F-- ii „ / Fasten Treated 2x12e on Pond Side , 909 1 9 ,e. gl * • , . -911 t ),-,, ''.f..;--- -',..,„ sis,42.ka of Existing Structure as shown above. -- -----4kZ11 '' 0\ ''' -- sh 1 .tri" • I . , , • •• • .• 1 , i I 'i151",... T.: ,,& , ,p,. Anto, j , .9.11 I , . ■ I I I 1 il-q11 PI i 9.°1 . '1,5 Pond Outlet Reconfiguration ,, •, •,,, -- .," ' • '11■.0,17 \ 91 :15, 410.82 I - ! ■44....,... ,.:. . . , I, ... .. r--- -- . .. 1 ; i ...:- .• ,.. „ 09., D ---- . _ -,:. : .,-.: 9,..4.1...., \ 911 00 eblb . ,--1 ....„...- .."., • -- tcut 1 ..---. --------- . 0 7 -...........' ' -- ,„ 910.50 7,5 9.1.0 44( ,... - - • ., .• . • • ,, — , .--_---1-il•-. I \ , i r 49 ' / 1,,,,, --, .. ;e •'3. , -- __,.- --.111 ' ..'' --. i 909 50 " 40`‘...1 •'''''.! . ... / 0 a' -1., • •-. /.....J.3..ip,.. / , .' ....,- ......- p., ...-,..e -,-0:1,.:., •-..,. ,;, j-E*.it ^ '7-900 ---,-, g7,-.,-- 6--,* - ,-•-• • ' . • • .. • 5 "4 --!' ' ' " • O''' • 5.....1."-" ..11.071,14I KITH HP • ;41,42 :.•44. '.... . I ) ,, . A, • rr a 1 1..av --‘_ 909!.,,* ...As 4ottaa• ' , ,... 1,.I• /AO 4C ' 4,/ ,. -'' •-:,,,;•••".,' , - - ..-11' ,,: AIVOlati,43:4- • . 'A-,. I ":1::',0, 11 1 I ''' ' - ing 9(6. €, 5, : 90' ,4 (1 , 9,08 ,o ...2758 •!'-',,,__\ .1 ... ' °,"• -'!' . <,:)\ 1 I I i ..,, \ ...", j; I 11( •''‘. '''''''. .411,1!.....:4:ftoo(h-ola , , • ,„,, ,...„,.. .. . i .,8,,•.-- • .. 59,t41;11:1:;:q1i'.0:1$.!:". -•••••-. I . _ j • / : :IIIMIPINIPIRtr -"---- ---..--3 ...'........1.1.11.k ' Ci. 4t• ' • / it's.- ,. - . b.,,,,,,L1 -,„ „,., 1111 ....."' t 4li , ,i ..' 1... j......... I Top View '). 904 • -- — . Vilikillifiq-1411*' 1 t ' 7-11- ----- 1-: ! 11! lv 1 ..- ' __'-.7 ,,,,,'R.... ;,....... . II 2 ...., . ' • ! • , i • • '•-•-= .4., ,...411- 4-, -I-. -----,,,,/,/:(,/ „ , , . • I . -4 -1 ,-- •-. GEOlenTLE TO ----- '1, "1 ., . CM:xik,, TfetCnrof TRENCH Iso's ..,~111 t ,, r.lotrot.on 98 • ' .. // ' , . / , • ; ' ..,0 / • ,.. Rook Entranc.0 ......, i • . ■.401109: 7 • 1 1 • . • / 4e. , '. '''' LO _I_ RCC.r.. CoNsilluC71014 ENTRANCE: ! ! !(r.;!,:-..•e:4!eol's :3•1",,Ya't.;.e!!!!"''''!".":" '''''' ' NOR ' •-......4.7■4C1. SHALL k.i■lir0411.1 TO . 1 ... 91,2 4. VI" Pipe I /V "/ I cil.1.■ 1:r1i C,. riJi2 Sft:'i,4: 51.WER it LI Top-4f term , „.. , , - . _- -902- ' - : 47' ,,. ,,, / 413401,1G •,-,441. BE ..LACE,, p.L0hC, L,..wirtkai op f.5 IrfiRECM BY EMBINCER. I ; . , SO 41 alIV. 008.4 . ' ; ,/ - - -.. -900---- - ,.... - ,./. t ,. • / / ...;-: I 1 it KDA , ,.. •••• ... .., , :,....: ,.....-1 20., Told .;,9'.' oL, . „ h i / , , , . 9C.c./. o " ' ..,/ .1"/ , SILT FENCE 1.1,......n. , - -- - .. I rsommis i.M.Wit.19 ft... ...u.moston. 1 ... ■ .. ...., I orrnal Pond 902.41 ..„1,,,,,_;,, -'' 3/10/. 1 • g yO7 . 1 , I. ,.1'. .46., i'' ----------- l ,..■ 2! I GO i 1 I 1 6'05 I i I . , . , • , (1/20/05' ,,y; //goo oil),,, . ,‘, Skimmer w/ Orifice Detail . A,, ",...„...,..1,2, l' ,' ......-2- -...v., cs (, - „detail) , ' _ iy:FIch ' ' . - • " - , '. ',•'. ,',..',, ,.. ___ .- 67',71:riv.'., 2.41 ' „, . , . . \-tr. ''' ; ,' . - • •-• . . (no scale) .. '-11.!," „-.. „.] ,.,„•.:::.›..;efrowgae.w.-:-..,...; ,. . i ..,:,>. tomu-,-......____ . ' .' • '"'''. '7..°P4G8:12.7-1.- ---..-.-A. ( / ,, v- • . fl IV r , VVV ,. . 5 4,..,, , 4,,,,,,!. •''. - . • --\;'-v . . e• \ -rx I u, • c, .9.f • , .• , , • 8eenive• CC , ... , . ' . . ! APR 0 4 7rfirw _,...,...,.) . a05 ae ' -----------F---- 7'-.7-!,---,. !'..96 . . , • . . . i. - -1 . -------- )- -9Y2C,....,. , . . . ,4." ... ... . .., ., .'/ , • . , f . . . . , - . ) / ,,,,.. . --- — — — , -- ; . NOTE: — . i Equinox Development, LLP Lino Loittia, MN 551 I hereby certify Mai trio pion, spe.:oicot■or.. 1 49r3iTiONF., i FtEv15,0tiS . , (612) 408-28.6' ' - - Tv 425 .Arrowheod Drive, .g ANY UT1L111ES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ,or report eros prepar5M cn, me or under rnY I NO ; DE kl,(1,,,,!(_-!• PPVC, ..... 1EN , ,.. •Al-L,.r_.1,2„L _._-________ . .. . ARE ONLY APPROXIMATE IN DEPTH AND dirECt superhsan, and mat I era a our, I-----.--F------ - H- . _ _._ t Mattke :)urveying & Engineering, inc. •r-- Apollo Landing LOCATION AND MUST BE VERIFIED BY ,_,celseci Prv,te.S5i0e, Erif.j■neef under the i-----i--. 1 3, v.,,.''' ,,...:- • . ,t,r .,.;r:-.. .'ir. THE CONTRACTOR. OTHER UTILITIES 1 v ! MAY EXIST, AND IT SHALL BE THE te 320.1 6. t—T— ---.1.-- ' - ...-... Grading Drainage & Erosion Control F ioitAvv:N.: ::L,, , RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR : 1 7,-,..-: - ,.:13v,l)t'.. 1-11:1P - -"Tr: -71.77:1Z7- ----.. -- --. 7-7:34:oiti.;,1:..,i, T.- Tedri W Melthca. P E D o z z 0 CD p o A r b Z o j OOmz 0 2 o mo o c > (Zn o Z o r c Z W_ z y C D o Z V U) 01� • � °0 DYNO -4 g A Z S-1mm O mm { Z Z 51N3Y0100 n 0 0 Z A I!: 7 n 1 v n TM Al -0 N <r r � Q �Y f _ v) 0 O (.71 n . 0 0 0 0 O O r a 7 a m IL1 J III1111111111 III 11 1 11111111 0 y�C IIIIIIII III II O �°Im Vi I11 I 11'1711 ,11,,tn 1 1 1 <I I ETVOS JltWdt -HO ET CP SVVI OW AO Wu -1 Z) C r D D Z O m D .1 O A3 2 I 0 QM { m D� m --IZ XOZ p 2C Z m:-i -<� Cy D O D9 N vi S �� Z 0 Al S 8 � ?1, 0 X 8 -1 f. U < o m Z m c b m '.1m to 0 ...- 0 v ?m a. 2 v)mZ z 0 J C 7 0 1 n > i z N O i G In 7 n 0 0 T A D III 0 U 7 Y C.' 7 C> - D a 7 - o O 0 I- 0 3 CL 5 Treated Wood Privacy Fence II 0urr4oIer aouaj (oonud pooh pa�oajj Treoted Wood Privacy Fence e I iIIIIIIIIIl C IIIIIIIIIIIIIII CC 3 11111111111 )11DM9P!S Pt IffterrTIMM L 'fil11(1111 iH 31VOS DIHdf'73J Dumpsters n c Treated Wood Privacy Fence 7- N 6 -4 co < • Z - (p I o (.7, (44 4, c CD ▪ IV 4, r �lll ONAsvaCI CD CD (/) 0 CD 31.1.11 133.'0bd 0 CT" .0 5 0 Q -13 ? 0 n z 0n PI 1 0 CD 17" K (/) C CD `5. CO CO CD CO 0 72 1,1 j, tA E. cm la u„ CO 0 a 0 (- ----- - --'. .. ---- -(7-7,___ . ) •-• ' .. - ...' - 0— -.)1 i , ----- .._ ----- ----'-' CD -/ ,. ------- - -------- — - 908 .. • cm N. -- --- • --- N. 7 Pi‘i Z 7 • • z 0 rrfl ru (1) 5— ; •Q g 9 -D 31V3S 3!HdV23D * N. • STAFF ORIGINATOR: CC MEETING DATE: TOPIC: • AGENDA ITEM 6.C. Paul Bengtson May 9, 2005 PUBLIC REARING Conditional Use Permit to allow a PUD (Planned Unit Development) Development Stage Plan / Preliminary Plat Final Plat Fairview Clinic City of Lino Lakes (Preliminary and Final Plat) VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 13ACKGRC T D Fairview Health Services is proposing a 10,455 square foot addition to their existing 9,610 square foot clinic building located at 7455 Village Drive. The application submitted includes a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Planned Unit Development, a Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat, and fnial plat. The Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development is being requested to allow the clinic to locate a portion of the addition closer to the right -of -way than would be allowed in the Limited Business zoning district. This will be more in keeping with the spirit and intent of the development standards for the Legacy at Wood's Edge project that will be constructed on the other side of the street from the subject property. The City of Lino Lakes has worked out an agreement to sell a portion of the property to the north to the applicant to allow this expansion. The rest of that city owned parcel (Outlot A) will then be used as right-of- Way for the realignment of the on -ramp of northbound Interstate 35W. Therefore the city is acting as a co- applicant on the preliminary and final plat portions of the project. ANALYSIS Corn reheisive Plan, Land Use and Zoning, The table below identifies the existing land use and zoning as well as guided land uses for the area. Location Site North South East ~West Existing Land Use Guided Land Use Cl nic Mixed Use Interstate 35W NA (Right of Way) Bank Mixed Use Vacant Mixed Use Gas Station Commercial Limited Business NA (Right of Way) Limited Business Planned Unit Development General Business • • • Fairview Clinic, page 2 Preliminary and Final Plat The plat drawings include the existing 1.72 acre Fairview Clinic property (Lot 1, Block 1 of The Village No. 1), and the 1.1 acre City of Lino Lake' s property (two parcels). The result of the plat will be the expansion of the Fairview Clinic property to 2.19 acres, and the remaining 0.64 acres will be retained by the City until it is needed for the on -ramp project. As part of the Legacy at Wood's Edge project the City will be reconstructing Lake Drive to accommodate the required street width. This reconstruction also includes a trail along the east side of Lake Drive. The city is requesting that Fairview dedicate a 10 foot wide trail easement parallel to Lake Drive. The appropriate drainage and utility easements are depicted on the plat. The final plat incorporates property owned by Fairview, the City of Lino Lakes, and property being purchased by the city from Glenn Rehbein et al. There appears to be some existing title issues with the Rehbein parcel, therefore staff is recommending that the Rehbein property be dropped from the final plat and the north line of Outlot A be modified to reflect this change. Planned Unit Development The proposed addition to the existing clinic is only required to obtain the conditional use permit for a Planned Unit Development in order to allow the expansion to be moved closer to the right of way in keeping with the spirit and intent of the development standards for the Wood's Edge project. Within the Limited Business oning; district the setback for this type of addition would be 30 feet. The applicant is proposing a 9 foot setback from Village Drive. Across the street the Wood's Edge project is requiring no more than 5 feet from the right of way. Buildin Materials/ Elevations The submitted elevations depict brick walls with cast stone capping in keeping with the existing construction -The matching of old and new construction has been hidden with facade articulations whenever possible, an ntry treatments have been used on the north side to emulate those used for the main entry on the south side. A conditioned by the Planning and Zoning Board, a second pop -out with windows and trellis has been added 1 the north portion of the east wall. The main concern of staff at this point is the matching of brick color to the existing building and the transitic frorn existing brick to new brick. For the most part the proposed design hides the transition points from existih 10 new brick, with the exception of the Lake Drive elevation. This transition point will be clearly the me visible and is therefore is the most cause for concern. Staff is recommending a condition requiring that t applicant match brick color as much as possible, and if the color difference is significant enough that sot architectural feature or embellishment be done on the Lake Drive elevation to hide the transition point in sot fashion. Fairview Clinic, page 3 1111)4ildina Height me applicant is proposing to limit the height of the addition to 14 feet, which is well below the 36 -foot axlmuan allowed in the Limited Business zoning district. tscaning and Green Space As the site is bound by right of way and commercially /mixed use property the landscaping requirements are muiimal. The applicant has worked with Marty Asleson, the city' s Environmental Coordinator, to make some changes to the proposed landscape plan. Staff is recommending a condition of approval requiring the applicant t0 follow the recommendations of the Environmental Board including irrigation of seeded areas and alternative landscape materials. Staff is also recommending that the landscape plan include the addition of two woodbine Plants at the base of the three trellises shown on the architectural elevations. The submitted plans depict impervious surface coverage at 75 %, which is slightly above the 65% allowed in the J-imited Business zoning district; however, it should be noted that this is well below the numbers included in the master planned Legacy at Wood's Edge project to the east. This slight increase can be allowed through the Planned Unit Development process and is supported by city staff as a modification that will further integrate tl'iis site into the Legacy at Wood' s Edge master plan. Pates the City of Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance, within Section 3,Subdivision 5.F.12, includes the followins requirement for medical clinic parking: Number Required of floor area. • Parking Factor \ Requirement Three spaces plus at least on two hundred square feet 20,065 square feet 104 -'he submitted plans depict 108 parking spaces, leaving a surplus of 4 additional parking spaces. Staff �ecolnnnending a couple of changes to the site plan that may result in the elimination of those 4 additior Iparkang spaces, however at no time will parking be reduced below that of the minimum. -As noted in the comments from S.E.H. the geometries of the parking lot drive aisle at the northwest corner the proposed building are problematic. As recommended in the memorandum two parking spaces should eliminated to allow realignment and improved sight lines. Additionally, the drive aisles within the n onstruetion portion of the site must be increased to the standard 24 foot width. This also will result in Potential need for parking elimination. A revised plan depicting conformance with these comments, as wel still providing the minimum 104 parking spaces will need to be submitted for staff review prior to the issua of building permits for the site. Considering the use of the site and the potential development of senior housing on the adjacent pa addiliornal handicapped parking should be dedicated on the south side near the entry of the clinic. Fairview Clinic. page 4 • Amass /Circulation Access to the site is proposed via a shared driveway from Village Drive (shared with the bank to the south) and anOther dedicated entry /exit driveway directly from Village Drive. The second access will mostly be used for employee parking and to allow two points of access to the clinic and bank in case either is blocked. pedestrian circulation is provided via sidewalks along the entire Village Drive right of way, and a system of Sidewalks around the exterior of the building. All new sidewalks shall be increased to 6 feet in width when abutted by parking to provide proper accessible routing. As mentioned above, a trail will be added to the Lake »ve right of way on the east side of the street. Staff would encourage the applicant to provide at least one Sidewalk access to that trail when the final design is implemented. • • The applicant has not completed a photometric lighting plan at this time. Staff is comfortable continuing with bus application with the recommended condition requiring that a photometric lighting plan in conformance with city standards be submitted for staff review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. Fixtures or Site will be in conformance with the fixtures used on the existing portion of the site, and with city standard; requiring them to be recessed, shoebox -style fixtures. Side The applicant is not proposing additional signs; however a spot on the northwest corner of the site is bein planned for a monument sign for the entire Wood's Edge development. This sign is not a part of th application and will be reviewed when an application is received by the Community Development Department Trash Mechanical Equipment . The existing trash enclosure will remain, and another is not needed at this time. All mechanical equipment IA be screened architecturally or with landscaping materials. Ltijes The existing facility is already connected to municipal services, and this expansion was planned when th Q' onnections were made. tOmiW aten management czi•E•R., the engineer for the Wood's Edge project has reviewed the submitted grading and drainage plan, a: eveloprnent of this site must be integrated into the overall grading and drainage plan for the area. ®laments from S.E.H. are attached to this report. Fairview Clinic, page 5 • eNNIRONMENTAL BOARD The Environmental Board reviewed this application at the March 30, 2005 regular meeting. There recommendations included a revised tree preservation plan, irrigation of seeded areas, lighting fixtures, monument lighting, landscaping materials, stormwater pollution, and the excess of parking. As all of the significant trees are on the city owned parcel, and were not planned to be saved as a part of the wood's Edge master plan. Staff wholly agrees with the need to irrigate seeded areas, and has included a condition of approval requiring it. Staff also understands the sensitivity in regards to lighting, and has recommended a condition requiring staff review of a photometric lighting plan and fixtures prior to the issuance of building permits for the site. The clinic is not proposing any additional signage, the monument sign shown on the plans is for the Wood's Edge master planned development and has not been designed at this time. The landscaping suggestions of the Environmental Board are included as a condition of approval below. Stornawater pollution prevention plan is required of all developments prior to construction, so this will be taken care of during the post- approval process with the building permit /development agreement. The excess of Parking is discussed in the parking section of the report and is addressed through conditions of approval. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD The Planning and Zoning board recommended approval of the project at their April 13, 2005 regular meeting.. Their concerns centered on the architectural treatment of the proposed addition. The conditions attached to this report are the same as those approved with the board's recommendation, with the exception of the condition that • asked the applicant to add a second window grouping to the east elevation, which was met with the revised elevations submitted by the applicant on May 2, 2005. OPTIONS 1. Approval of Resolution 05 -64 for the Conditional Use Permit, Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat, and Final Plat; subject to conditions of approval. 2. Denial of the application. 0. Return to Staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Conformance with the requirements of the S.E.H. memorandum. The landscape plan shall be revised to depict irrigation in all seeded areas; red maples in place of th sugar maples proposed along Lake Drive; and two woodbine plants at the base of all three trellises shown on the architectural elevation. 3. Additional handicapped parking must be provided along the southwest side of the building just we of the main entry of the clinic. Fairview Clinic, page 6 • 4. All sidewalks directly abutting parking stalls within the expansion area shall be increased to a minimum of six feet in width. 5. At least one connection between the clinics internal sidewalk system and the city trail planned for the Lake Drive frontage should be included. 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the site the applicant must submit a photometric lighting plan for staff review and approval. 7 Prior to the issuance of building permits for the site the applicant must submit a revised site plan depicting 24 foot wide drive aisles in the new construction portion of the parking lot and a realignment of the drive aisle at the northwest corner of the building to staffs satisfaction. The number of parking spaces provided shall at no time drop below the requirements of the Zoning Code. 8. A development agreement between the city and the developer must be executed prior to the execution of the final plat by the city. 9. The brick used for new construction must match that of the existing building, if staff feels the difference is significant enough, the Lake Drive elevation must have an architectural feature or embellishment to hide the transition from new brick to old brick as much as possible. 10. The applicant shall dedicate a 10 foot wide trail easement parallel to Lake Drive. 11. The proposed addition is subject to MnDOT and Anoka County Highway Department requirements, review, and approval. 12. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the site the applicant must submit a full revised set of drawings depicting conformance with all of the above requirements. 13. The `Rehbein Property' must be removed from the final plat and the north line of Outlot A be modified accordingly. ATTACHMENTS 1. S.E.H. memorandum dated April 8, 2005 2.. Environmental Board memorandum from March 30, 2005 meeting. 3. Fairview Expansion Plan Set received March 14, 2005. 4. Preliminary and Final Plat received March 31, 2005. 5. Revised Elevation and Floor Plan received May 2, 2005. • • • • Fairview Clinic, page 7 CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 05-64 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE FAIRVIEW CLINIC EXPANSION AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN / PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE VILLAGE N0.2 WHEREAS, the City has received an application for conditional use permit and development stage Plan/preliminary plat approval for property currently described to -wit: Lot 1, Block 1, THE VILLAGE NO. 1, Anoka County, Minnesota. Together with: That part of Outlot C, THE VILLAGE NO. 1, Anoka County, Minnesota, which lies southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the most southerly corner of said Outlot C; thence North 64 degrees 53 minutes 20 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the southwesterly line of said Outlot C, 240.00 feet to the most westerly corner of said Outlot C and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence northeasterly 277.76 feet along a non - tangential curve, concave to the north, having a radius of 384.00 feet, a central angle of 41 degrees 26 minutes 39 seconds and a chord which bears North 74 degrees 02 minutes 25 seconds East to the north line of said Outlot C; thence North 82 degrees 06 minutes 50 seconds East, along said north line 41.90 feet to the mos easterly corner of said Outlot C and said line there terminating. and EREAS, the applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into two parcels described as Lot 1, Block The Village No .9 and Outlot A, The Village No.2; and WHE EAS, the conditional use permit for a planned unit development and the development sta; plan/preliminary plat approval request is based on the following submittals: F airview Expansion Plan Set received March 14, 2005. Preliminary and Final Plat received March 31, 2005. Revised Elevation and Floor Plan received May 2, 2005. ;and AREAS, at their meeting on April 13, 2005, the Planning & Zoning Board conducted a public hearing ; reco]I L nded approval of the conditional use permit for planned unit development and the development st Plan./pre Timinary plat subject to the conditions listed in the meeting minutes; and Fairview Clinic, page 8 •WHEREAS, the ro osed conditional use permit and development stage plan/preliminary plat meet the p P requirements of the City's zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance subject to certain conditions of approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Lino Lakes hereby approves the conditional use permit for a planned unit development and the development stage plan/preliminary plat for the Fairview Clinic expansion (The Village No. 2) subject to the following conditions: 1. Conformance with the requirements of the S.E.H. memorandum. 2. The landscape plan shall be revised to depict irrigation in all seeded areas; red maples in place of the sugar maples proposed along Lake Drive; and two woodbine plants at the base of all three trellises shown on the architectural elevation. 3. Additional handicapped parking must be provided along the southwest side of the building just west of the main entry of the clinic. 4. All sidewalks directly abutting parking stalls within the expansion area shall be increased to a minim= of six feet in width. 5. At least one connection between the clinics internal sidewalk system and the city trail planned for the Lake Drive frontage should be included. 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the site the applicant must submit a photometric lighting plan for staff review and approval. 7. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the site the applicant must submit a revised site plan depicting 24 foot wide drive aisles in the new construction portion of the parking lot and a realignment of the drive aisle at the northwest corner of the building to staff's satisfaction. The number of parking spaces provided shall at no time drop below the requirements of the Zoning Code. 8. A development agreement between the city and the developer must be executed prior to the execution of the final plat by the city. 9. The brick used for new construction must match that of the existing building, if staff feels the difference is significant enough, the Lake Drive elevation must have an architectural feature or embellishment to hide the transition from new brick to old brick as much as possible. 10. The applicant shall dedicate a 10 foot wide trail easement parallel to Lake Drive. 11. The proposed addition is subject to MnDOT and Anoka County Highway Department requirements review, and approval. ® 12. Prior to the issuance of building pen-nits for the site the applicant must submit a full revised set of drawings depicting conformance with all of the above requirements. "Sassed by the Lino Lakes City Council this 9th day of May 2005. ATTEST: Alin Blair, City Clerk • • John J. Bergeson, Mayor Fairview Clinic, page 9 • Fairview Clinic, page 10 CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 05 -65 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT FOR VILLAGE NO. 2 WHEREAS, a request has been submitted to the City for the approval of a final plat, and WHEREAS, review and approvals of plats are governed by state statutes and City ordinances, and WHEREAS, the preliminary plat for The Village No.2 was approved with Resolution 05 -64 by the City Council °n May 9th, 2005 with conditions, and WHEREAS, the final plat for The Village No.2 complies with City requirements and the applicable conditions of Resolution 05 -64 have been satisfied. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes hereby approves the final plat for The Village No.2 • 1. Prior to execution by the City of Lino Lakes the `Rehbein Property' must be removed from the final plat and the north line of Outlot A be modified accordingly. assed by the Lino Lakes City Council this 9th day of May 2005. ATTEST. -Asia Blair; City Clerk John J. Bergeson, Mayor • • April 8, 2005 Paul Bengtson Associate Planner City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 -1182 Dear Mr. Bengtson: RE: Lino Lakes, Minnesota Fairview Lino Lakes Clinic Engineering Plan Review SEH No. A- LINOL0305.04 SPCV Identified below are our review comments for the proposed expansion of the Fairview Lino Lakes Clinic, prepared by Harris Architects. Plans for the proposed expansion were submitted to our office for review on April 4, 2005. Proposed Grading Plan 1. Note 14 states that all disturbed areas are to be seeded. The City will allow turf restoration by seeding, provided an irrigation system is installed. If an irrigation system is not planned, all disturbed areas must be restored with sod. 2. A temporary rock construction entrance must be shown at the proposed entrance on Village Drive. 3. Roof drain locations must be shown and called out on the grading plan. 4. Catch basins must be utilized to capture storm water runoff from the new parking lot rather than allowing the runoff to flow directly on to Village Drive. Correspondingly, details showing catch basins and catch basin manholes must be provided on the plans. 5. Proposed spot elevations at the building expansion corners must be shown. Proposed Landscape & New Site Plan 1. A 5 -foot wide sidewalk is shown on the north side of the proposed expansion, abutting the parking lot. Widening the sidewalk to 6 feet, thereby providing adequate pedestrian passage when parked vehicles overhang the sidewalk, should be considered. 2. A pedestrian curb ramp must be located in front of both proposed building entrances. 3. Proposed geometries of the parking lot drive aisle at the northwest corner of the building are problematic. Northbound vehicles turning westerly may result in them driving into the opposing lane of traffic. Westbound vehicles will likely have the same tendency. To improve sight lines and geometries, we recommend elimination of two parking stalls in this area: (1) the most northerly stall on the parking bay nearest to Lake Drive; and (2) the most westerly stall on the north side of the proposed building. Even with elimination of the two stalls, the applicant must demonstrate there is adequate space available to accommodate opposing vehicles. 4. Parking lot drive aisles must be at least 24 feet in width. Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center Drive, St. Paul, MN 5511D -5196 SEH is an equal opportunity employer www.sehinc.com 1 651.490.2000 600.325.2055 I 651.490.2150 tax - 8 6 - • • • Paul Bengtson April 8, 2005 Page 2 Proposed Site Details 1. Details must be provided for a pedestrian curb ramp. 2. Details must be provided for a driveway apron. 3. Details must be provided for storm sewer structures. Proposed Hydrocad Model 1. The total area of all subcatchments for pre- and post - development conditions should be equivalent. 2. Post - development discharge is slightly higher than pre- development conditions. This is acceptable, as the proposed Village Drive improvements will include storm sewer capable of handling this increased discharge. General Comments 1. Village Drive will be rebuilt as a part of the Legacy at Woods Edge Project, and as such, the proposed entrance to the Fairview Clinic expansion does not currently reflect the proposed changes to Village Drive. A discussion should be held between all involved parties regarding the coordiitation and timing of the Fairview Clinic expansion with the Legacy at Woods Edge Project. As a part of the reconstruction of Village Drive, a stoma sewer stub will be provided at the proposed drive entrance for the clinic, which can be used to address comment 4 in the Grading Plan section. 2. It is recommended that the construction specifications for the Fairview Clinic expansion reflect the need for the contractor to coordinate work with the City's contractor on the Legacy at Woods Edge project. Please call me at 651.490.2147 if you have questions. Sincerely, SHORT ELLIOTT P ENDRICK.SON INC. Robert L. Moberg, PE Project Manager sh c: Michael Grochala, City of Lino Lakes Troy Livgard, James R. Hill, Inc. John Harriss, Harriss Architects z:U:oUinol \030503\ iairview clinievinn review 040805.dnc • • Environmental Memo To: Paul Bengston From: Marty Asleson CC: Jeff Smyser /Mike Grochala Date: April 5, 2005 Re: Environmental Board recommendations /March 30, 2005 Fairview Lino Lakes Clinic /Expansion The Environmental Board met on April 30, 2005 and made the following recommendations concerning the Fairview Clinic Expansion: 1. The tree preservation plan should indicate size and species of significant trees on the plan. 2. Areas indicated as seeded should also be indicated as irrigated (assuming the Seeded areas are cultural grass (Turf) seed. 3. All lighting should be flush mounted, recessed, "Shoebox- type" fixtures. 4. All monument lighting should be checked for conformance to the City Guidelines. 5. Sugar maples on the West side of the building should be changed to something more drought tolerant and adapted to sandy soils. Hackberry, red maple, Locust, Ashares all appropriate substitutes. 6. A Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan must be submitted to the City and reviewed by the City prior to construction. The plan must be available on site (a described location) together with required inspection reports. The Environmental Division of the City of Lino lakes should be supplied with a copy of the Storm water pollution Prevention Plan. All initial SWPPP elements must be installed before ground disturbance occurs. Page 1 -88- • • • 7. Reduce the parking to 104, from 108 to meet the minimum required parking stall number. If more parking spaces are necessary, than add pervious parking stalls. 6 Page 2 -89- Nf 1 ,f \1 1 1� oc 4i I 'i 1 N m it I J f/ _t 3 � r 1 N - I 11� o t N ' —� r �. 1 1 1 I �,I mt 11 I „k 'N j u co ao...-6--- \ 1 }\ I 1 1 ` t1 (I13:,1 11 ='`! i -� I I \' ..l t y, I I i \ \ o 1 I I \'• ° ' it \1 c r, I 't r 1:6 of 1� I i !g, f; I q 0,2,rltd a-o o I oCA / N I \ ( t 1 JsN Al o zz� � z 0 00 0 a �7d II p v A IV A O li tri A M A*0 0 z N fa') U) mw <c) 0� z o 0 N '11 vtz kod H O z z 0 0 0 4 70 SJVHNRS 78AYND 3JVdNRS 3,LLNJNC3 #09- ,7Ngsao0Oa • 0 ° Z C]. M On yay C.Ga.4Yy tP+]C t-'��, 07000 SGT h70 tZ=',,74K [1 K CCf'7]7 x Zyzx O C '0 C] � [�J�'.j C1K z�n' O�OCy C _ mZ [yyn yy M [J yy r.,�z 00 x ZO� X M.-21X ° O ttg g zs-0 z oq° M O O Z ni yM M z '3 M bM M ALL ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON THE CITY OF LINO 01)00 K Z M N m= y O 'I'M m o Z coO • I PROJECT NO. 21804 I CAD FILE 21804S .'[1 5 in O N I DAE 3/7/T 05 I DRAWN BY KTB /SPH 0 C z a s. 'I.' Harold C. Peterson, Land Surveyor, Minnesota License No. 12294 FAIRVIEW LINO LAKES CLINIC LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA TOPOGRAPHIC /LOCATION SURVEY FOR HARRISS ARCHITECTS 331 SECOND AVE. N. SUITE 200, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 'SOOZ '4o.1eyy ;o Lap 418 0 'ouI 'IITH 2I sauna!' 1 0 A a- Lot 1, Block 1, THE VILLAGE NO. I, Anoka County, Minocsota. NOIldRIJS30 A1713dO2[d 41 It Ps tm James R. Hill, Inc. PLANNERS / ENGINEERS / SURVEYORS 1523 94TH LANE NE, SUITE B, BLAINE, MN 55449 PHONE: (763)792 -1136 FAX: (763)792 -1743 EMAIL: JRHINCOJRHINC.COM v xvmmmy 7/ RI TI > M X X X A ,� X O -( O VI to to m O to O m O Z Z Z — O 0 O m 0 F N N MC/0 M> oz R o z m • o S D O 0� � N FAIRVIEW LINO LAKES CLINIC LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA GRADING PLAN FOR HARRISS ARCHITECTS 331 SECOND AVE. N. SUITE 200, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 I hereby certify that Mile plan, specification or report . d b dera�n prepared sup« me and that 1 am s duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. TRO� LJyG 9.E. Date 03/11/05 Reg.No 42749 James R. Hill, Inc. PLANNERS / ENGINEERS / SURVEYORS 1523 94TH LANE NE, SUITE B, BLAINE, UN 55449 PHONE: (763)792 -1136 FAX: (763)792 -1743 EMAIL JRHINCOJRHINC.COM M7ld 3115 VNIISIX3 r *-9 AVMN21Vd ?131N30 NMOI AVMN21Vd e131N33 NMOI I— COUNTY HIGHWAY 23 EXISTING TRASH ENCLOBtME l u IMP aWWNWSo CQCRETE 05587 ;$ At VILLAGE DRIVE r L - - - -J COUNTY HIGHWAY 23 VILLAGE DRIVE DIM> Teri arniiv lig i c r V ® A 3N DATE : 3/14/05 R CITY SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION U rri O � r .5] p, co an 8 1 �� s s l g ; 331 Second Ave. No. Suite 200 Minneapolis MN 55401 g - ►'• . rni [INFORMATION I 4 se )NM)I2JVd eI31N30 NMOI 7 r P n • t io IC P- E I I s I k I y 'i4 S: 4S 4 RR g 4 COUNTY HIGHWAY 23 \ \ co- I dD !` 40 I NVAI �D VILLAGE DRIVE COUNTY HIGHWAY 23 AVM)ldVd ?J31N3D NMOI 7 I- L r 4 C erXe tnt ..L111111■IN11u1J P.? or >r VILLAGE DRIVE a Ir Li c:-.3 may I EX*T NEW WALK r. Prif .... o r 0 REVISIONS DATE : 3/14/05 I CITY SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION o l- n - E 331 Second Ave. No. Suite 200 Minneapolio MN 05401 rr.- n / ' I \'�'I��1� FBI ,.... tt INFORMATION P 5 0 n 11V13C1 9NI1N171d ®D V P 3 A 2 0 D ,q; vacs4 �� Dpi C 3 a it 4 ii -1,g! e oF,o$ oP ;: 21 i; X2 ; all 0 k P �� B p grR LA 101 04 ; Ac. R • ••Y 1•• a 5 co co a 5 PT S. PIN Fi JOB NUNBER 2410 rr��tt r=4 8 SITE LOCATION m � $ xi Vr�C m r �] � C r� a L+ O r� v) "' JOB NUNBER 2410 rr��tt r=4 8 ° m � $ CITY SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION r �] � C r� a L+ O r� v) "' 5 E ' ;Pill e 0t.a$am 9 sle 331 Second Ave. No. Suite 200 Minneapolis MN 55401 > . '► m CO CO �JL 1� � .. INFORMATION T F tiote b_ I; s 0�000r ©0000 1 1 a 1 a 1 a 1 a 1 1 5 a 1 1 a d 5 8 R A 3 3 h 3 1 h b F a wavil 3 J06 NUMS(R 1440 ii ® O o\ = N R. • N CITY SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION o til C r r, � mr C"' OC y.. r� C 1 b g 8 yy: gpqpy� E SA A x iAa g M 3q� $s> C� /�y /► m ::M:J CU Ham. INFORMATION P NOLLVA313 16311 me liilli�lll�l��i1i111�111 I��i•lil� i 11 ■.!.!.!!!.. {mQ 2 ,iii. .iA.. . iJ !IN■ I iII111A�l IIIi IJJa. I ig 1 N -T-: N c,- N DATE : 5/2/05 11 CITY SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION `; >� C m� la y t-' fl I I no /I /�/7ILLJJii// 1� 3F !< fi (C99� . 4" 1144 44 331 Second Ave. No. Suite 200 Minneapolis MN 55401 .,, ,- m yy I� y'• INFORMATION cst _9 Z CITY SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ° °> r, 5i 4 39 - L ■ -- I1 __ L IIIO _ E II m_ t __ 'T'2II ■ ' f y 1 ,• •' • �� •� � 1 4 � • rr 1■ ; ice: ■�I � I ■ - _____ -- - - - - -- -_ - -- - Z CITY SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ° °> r, 5i 4 39 v CCJj L� (C// a 41- ., =, City of Lino Lakes F='IREI...IMINAR`r PiL.4T ®; " vIJ_J_AE �tsction 1�, T31, R22 MAR 3 1 2005 , / / .w /' / c114- / / At / / / / / o // ry // ,.; • / - / ' // ry / _ , fo ,, / 7/ // om / / / „ U U.Qalo ., - / -1 - / ..y / __ <Y / - / am / r r . .4.� - ■ / / ` 4 therlY right °f- waylino.o35w :if W -`, - . / BO`` , 01 ,. aortheoat ramp of H 227.42 M / / ,- i 1,182° °06'50°' r1 ,-, 00 ,c' -. I I a , ;,c'„ g NORTH / / // i - -� • 'r -, , 1 �" I r,71,r,;. i NB2'06'S0'E . • / \o i 81�9',0'E -deed) O_ qµ.27 _ — — — 'o -% I/r ° ci / ,,,` ` / / 35, ^ (N N8296.50'E `p / . . Tp /Y a / / ,-, Found )P.K. In- - --TOTAL AREA = 573 59 w �9l} j / h~� _ % GRAPHIC SC ALE ' / - - o 4 bituminous 27,920± sq. ft. Ctdd 9d!g6pk ' -' �O «n / `1j /, _ 267' 00 • / :7 `6,f/ so 0 zs 50 lw xoa / / (0.64 acres) .3Bap39 z <��.� b / / w,39 5 D g9,0 / oO iiviiiiiiiiiimilimmi — ea / •J' / b' 1 � A�OBYS'40• o A.,,,3,21,,'42'. 69. ;. �wN ( IN FEET ) a 1 `1 Qa 56.72— • —' — / �^• -'""' 1 inch = 50 IL F- • • / •_- - / / w r'" ,, -' / • DENOTES 1/2' FOUND IRON MONUMENT MARKED RLS #41578 / .1 % I f o and / .. / `■ / -- -, . / / e0jao, r -- / I ;, ' '� °, • ' al //0 // PROPERTY DESCRIPTION / (R / TOTAL AREA = '7 ' - r `-- / / 3g� / 95,403± sq. ft. / ; l`` / Lot 1, Block 1. and Outlot C, all In the record plat of THE MUAGE NO. 1, Anoka County, Minnesota. / /, ° / / (2.19 acres) I and • / / W /T0 / ' / _ / p / r / / + L ' ' That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 31. Range 22• Anoka County, Minnesota, / / !7 /` rR / which lies southerly of the southerly right -of -way line of the northeast ramp of Interstate Highway No. 35W -390, and lying b mi �� / / /�.` r': northerly of the following described line: / / / / c ;/ / ` Beginning at a point on the easterly right -of -way line of Trunk Highway No. 8 and 66 feet southerly from the southerly / / S / ® / / - right -of -way line of the Northeast Ramp of Interstate Highway 35W -390 (sold 66 feet measured at right angles from sold k / I / ; southerly right -of -way line); thence North 81 degrees 39 minutes 10 seconds East (assumed bearing) on a line 66 feet from / / / l� / -" - • Northwest Quarter and southerly tright-of-way n line and Its' easterly extension to the east line of said Northeast Quarter of the • / �` 80 / / // �� j/ 3 I , ` . • / / / \/l./ / / Ob / i,'; ":!-• :A- / / / / __, j �h / - / / / -- / -" , I / / _ . ,t-_ All monuments required by Minnesota Statute, whether shown / I. I Tp // I / an this plat or not, will be set within one year of the I / -- �/ .. -Found 1/2 Inch iron PIPe / �;; recording date of this plat, and shall be evidenced by a 'sc. - ,r / 1/2 inch by 18 Inch iron pipe marked by RLS 41578. / marked by R.LS. #9808 I / _ c ` / / -.. / „. / / `' ) / I ' S64 .'' - \ / . NOTE: SEE BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC •/ SURVEY BY COMSTOCK & DAMS FOR For the purposes of this plat the west line of Lot 1, Block 1, (,.1., '31p� / / EXISTING CONDITIONS ON PROPERTY. THE VILLAGE NO. 1, Anoka County, Minnesota, is assumed to ■ / have a bearing of N25°06`50'E. / / 24 / '�O � I / / 000 /T0 ",„/ . / / I / / . ' / / / Found 1/2 Inch Iron pipe- / c' I , marked by R.LS. 0808 / / OR�SEMEN-..T ,. 3.;Gk':- -T . / I I I '- / I / / -` 'l 5.00 / / / -. / / / / or report was certify that by me or under ', NE50 .,, +r moo oo-- -� r i— ID.00 / / / P P P Y J"�A\N•......,T9 °''' — 1 — — —I L. / / / / my direct supervision and that 1 am _ _ - / / a duly Registered Land Surveyor under'' / / the laws of the State of Minnesota. _ RENOO / / - 25344 BEING 5 FEET IN 1807H AND ADJOINING SIDE LOT LINES, AND I BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING STREET AND REAR / / Q • �..v� ';CIRCLE PINES,,' LOT LINES, UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON THIS PUT. / / HN A. REND GPO�I{{'' �Q �• "'i• • MN o? / / '';v0 sue •isyr' / / Date: 31k3/ 5' Reg. No. 25344 ''Ir,,,,1 / / DRAB, BY: ERV JOB NO: 05156PP I DATE: 03 -24 -05 / / CHECK BY: JAR DWG NO: 05156.dwg I SHEE1: 1 of 1 E. G. RUD 4 SONS, INC. v . ii / ; 1 I Land vdyors /_. ., : - - o a - Chrd 0,82 p Ip m Chrci -- 0.02 R�p3281�N6--°12•1 �Y '� 80.41 4p p36p.96 2 — �'E • ' -East line of the NWI /a of -L'' N00 °08'37 "E See. 17, Twp. 31, Rng. 22 I ti hJ \ \ , I \ \ "/ 0/ \ , \ .. , - '/'- \\ ' \\ \ \ •;- \\ 1 \ \ N O n \ L p •?O 0 v \ @ 6 x /'- / / A3 xQ m \ mo 7- "Qjgnt \ \ doe 0y /� \ OO a Of . \ \ `f8gf� 35k' \ \ \ \ C C \ C` .... 11.,„_........_-34:-:....4:--- J 5+ \ z � \ 9 Z� �, \ �w 2� m we: - -A , to ; Dpp „ o. 3a. ,WOp`''�NN, Comp. -.1: ?' In '- ' tAYGiW Im0 "�i P"0,.O' t f'1NO,- oe • ,�*'� IIA '2 l�O •= £ - 1 7::. ' ,1 \\ le \ \ \\ \\ This plat has been checked and approved this _ day of sly) ow euofeq pebpeIMOwl < O 3" 3 P J v u O m d 2 President of Fairview Lakes Regional Medical Center of Fairview Health Services ...ton gtlo •H MelJloj o)oscuulry •()uno0 I0 1 3 = cqt 10 v.to A110 o P o 3 �i 0 s a m --'f 80.41 -Eost line of the 1011/4 of -1 ' N00 °08'37 "E Sec. 17, Twp. 31. Rng. 22 1 • z z O 0 in in ZO o Z • N o 555 , O Z Z 3; 0 Z O G Z ✓ G m ; ZZ A 0 (0 N P 200_, by John Bergeson, Mayor of the 0 2 0, hh "4p.p2 "{b. rg• 6 O p�0 6I2 2012, z 0 • • • AGENDA ITEM 6 D STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser C. C. MEETING DATE: May 9, 2005 TOPIC: Resolution 05 -61: Preliminary Plat Marshan Meadows Bruggeman Homes VOTE: 3/5 BACKGROUND Bruggeman Homes has requested approval of the a preliminary plat for a residential development called Marshan Meadows. The site is just north of the Gethsemene Church, between Lake Drive and Marshan Lake. The proposal includes the creation of 20 single family lots. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the zoning for the site. Design of this site is complicated by the location of an existing road, location of an existing road easement, and the shoreland requirements for larger lot sizes and a large setback along the lake. These factors resulted in the need for a variance for the dimension of one lot. ✓ ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan, Land Use and Zoning The comprehensive plan put the site within a Stage 1 (pre -2010) growth area, within the existing MUSA, and guides it for Low Density Sewered Residential development. This allows for three units per acre. number of units 20 gross area 11.41 acres upland (net) area 10.53 acres gross density 1.75 units /acre net density 1.90 units /acre • • Marshan Meadows page 2 The table below identifies the existing land use and zoning as well as guided land uses for the area. Location Existing Land Use Guided Land Use Site North South East West residential residential church and residence Low Density Sewered Residential Existing Zoning R -2 Marshan Lake industrial park Low Density Unsewered Resid. R -1 Public /Semi - Public and Low Density Sewered Residential R -3 and R -1 Marshan Lake Industrial Light Industrial The site is guided for Low Density (up to 3 units /acre) but zoned R -2, which is a medium density zone. This should have been corrected previously by amending either the zoning or the comprehensive plan. The application is for single family development, which is consistent with the comprehensive plan density. Single family homes are a permitted use in the R -2 zone. Therefore, the project complies with both the comp plan and the zoning. (Incidentally, the preliminary plat incorrectly lists the zoning as R -1.) Note that on property to the north and south, the zoning is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. This is something that should be corrected, but is not an issue for this project. Growth Management, MUSA Reserve and Units/Year: The site is within the existing MUSA, so there is no need to use MUSA reserve acres. The attached table at the end of this report shows the status of the staging plans for new residential units according to the growth management policy. No additional residential units can be final platted this year unless they are part of a conservation development. The 20 new units in Marshan Meadows could receive preliminary plat approval this year but must wait to be final platted in 2006. Preliminary Nat Streets and Driveways: The City holds a road easement on property south of the site. The road easement is a continuation of Stage Coach Trail. This easement was a condition of the subdivision in 1997 that created a separate lot for the parsonage for Gethsemene Church, which owns that land. The road was not constructed, but is to be constructed when the property develops. The Marshan Meadows plat includes the extension of Stage Coach Trail to the north and a connection to Lake Drive. These are important pieces of a neighborhood transportation system for the area. The plat also includes a short cul de sac street to serve eight interior lots. Submitted plans include a future development plan showing ghost plats for land to the north and south. The street as extended would allow for future development, though there may be some limitations on house sizes on individual lots. • Marshan Meadows page 3 It is possible that Bruggeman Homes may be able to acquire the property to the south. This Would facilitate developing that site and coordinating its design with this plat. All that may include realigning the road near where the properties meet. This can be accommodated with a new preliminary plat in the future that would alter the southern lots along the road. For now, however, the road is designed to align with the existing road easement on the south. An additional 20 ft. of right of way is being dedicated to Anoka County for Lake Drive. This will result in 60 ft. from centerline and a full 120 ft. right of way in this location. The additional right of way includes two triangles at the road intersection to accommodate future traffic signals. A right of entry will be dedicated to Anoka County to prevent direct access to Lake Drive from any of the new lots. The existing road system can accommodate the additional traffic generated by 20 new homes though there may need to be some improvement to Lake Drive. The existing situation includes a southbound right turn lane into Park Court, a southbound through lane, a northbound through lane, and a northbound bypass lane. In the northbound direction, the bypass lane allows vehicles to bypass vehicles turning left into the new business park. Improvements for Marshan Meadows likely will include a new right turn lane for northbound traffic. It also could include an extension of the existing bypass lane, making it a de facto through lane. The striping and new construction will have to be worked out. Anoka County will need to determine this. Lots: Under R -2 standards, the minimum single family lot area is 10,800 sf of upland. This site is within a shoreland overlay. Lots along the lake must be 20,000 sf, All lots meet the area requirements. The shoreland overlay requires a 150 ft. setback from the ordinary high water level. The plan meets this requirement. The minimum lot width for single family lots in an R -2 zone is 80 feet, with 100 feet for a corner lot. The minimum lot depth is 135 feet, with 145 for double - frontage lots. All lots meet these requirements except for one, a variance for which is discussed below. Lot 1, Block 1 and Lots 13 and 14, Block 2 may change in the future if Bruggeman acquires the land to the south. This could be accomplished with a new preliminary plat at that time. Variance: Lot 2, Block 3 is under the minimum lot depth. Block 3 is defined on the north by the property boundary and on the south by the need to align the new road with the existing Park Court on the west side of Lake Drive. In addition, the minimum lot areas for lots abutting the lake prevents the new extension of Stage Coach Trail from moving farther east. At 13,492 sf, Lot 2 is 2692 sf (25 %) over the minimum lot area of 10,800 sf. It also exceeds the minimum lot width of 100 ft. The combination of these physical factors justify a lot depth variance for Lot 2, Block 3. The appropriate findings and the variance approval are included in Resolution 05 -61. Park Dedication: The subdivision ordinance includes park dedication requirements. Park dedication is $2075 per residential unit, less any land dedication. There is no land dedication needed. The developer has agreed to construct a concrete sidewalk within the street right of way along the east side of Stagecoach Trail and the north side of Park Court. The cost will be • • • Marshan Meadows page 4 credited to the park dedication, as is the typical City policy. The park dedication will be $2075 x 20 new home lots = $41,500 less the cost of the sidewalks. Utilities: Water and sanitary sewer are available in Lake Drive. The water main must be constructed to the southern property boundary to allow for a future loop to the existing Shores of Marshan Lake neighborhood. The final piece of this loop will be created when the property between Marshan Meadows and Shores of Marshan develops. The existing home will be removed. The existing well must be properly capped and the existing septic system must be properly abandoned. The church on the south of the site has a septic system and well. The stormwater pond for the Marshan Meadows project must be 50 feet from these. Plans submitted in 1991 for the church's septic system show the system's drainfield approximately 90 feet from the property line. A 2002 plan shows the well 80 feet from the property line. Grading and Stormwater Management: The plan includes two ponds which ultimately discharge to the wetlands along Marshan Lake. The Rice Creek Watershed District issued a conditional approval on January 26, 2005. However, the review was of an earlier version with six lots along the lake. The reduction of two lots on the lake and addition of a lot elsewhere likely will not significantly differ from that plan from a water quality perspective. The new plan must receive a permit from RCWD prior to city council approval of the final plat. As noted above, the site is within a shoreland overlay. No disturbance will occur within the shoreland protection area, which is one -half of the 150' setback from the OHWL. Conservation Easement: Several rare species may exist in the area: Forsters' tern, a water nesting bird, and Blanding's turtle. The developer will provide a conservation easement as well as the normally required drainage and utility easement. Both easements will cover the same area —ten feet beyond the wetland edge but the conservation easement will include additional restrictions such as no mowing or dumping of clippings. There also will be a special packet of educational information supplied to homeowners and monuments at the property borders of all lake lots. Monument Sign: The tree and landscaping plan shows an "entry identification sign ", which would be located on Lot 1, Block 3. The sign ordinance allows such a sign (area identification sign) to be not more than 24 sf and no higher than six feet. The area applies to the actual sign portion only, but the entire structure cannot exceed six feet in height. The developer must submit information regarding ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the monument sign. At the very latest, this must be provided for city council review of the final plat. • Marshan Meadows page 5 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD The Environmental Board reviewed the project on January 26. The developer is responding to the Board's recommendations in numerous ways. Bruggeman has produced a brochure of environmental protection guidelines for homeowners. A conservation easement will be granted to the City to protect the wetlands along the lake. There will be native wetland plantings in and around stormwater ponds. Special attention to the possible presence of Blanding' s Turtles will be followed during construction, as recommended by the MN Dept. of Natural Resources. Tree species will be re- examined for viability near ponds. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD The P & Z reviewed the project at the April 13 meeting. The Board recommended that a trail or sidewalk be included outside of the roadway. This has been incorporated into the conditions. The Board recommended approval with conditions, which are incorporated into the resolution. OPTIONS. 1. Approve the project by approving Resolution 05 -61 (The resolution includes approval of the lot depth variance for Lot 2, Block 3 and the preliminary plat.) 2. Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option 1 • O .� Y` N r-1 ^ O O f O N O N Lc) C N r- CO O CO N ..— N f r r NI- N O N CO r) CO N r LC) r O LC) N -1 _29 -24 50 114 14 / 14/ 404 1 29 24 ., -'n. .4 n -70/ d n 20/ r M ' N O N t, C) 0 r N CO r CO N CO r- LCD - r t` T d' N CD ti T co er T to Phasing pl platted) year end 'c N O r N C O r CO r LC) r 201 Justin's Preserve Marshan Estates I Rice Ch leCleek urcl d ux Rice Church: Oakwood View C N 10 L 7) N W CO °= -3 - N 7 2 �— 7 -0 C )) a) r- Oj -, 2 CO = 'N N O N r a. O N _ 'O r co Fs U V) CO c N� C •° 0 -tea Q . = r B) 3 > N N N U J < N N C7) Q 3 CA = -p L N U Q F G CZ 0 m r i c I C 1 -105- • • BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a variance for the lot depth of Lot 2, Block 3 is hereby approved to allow the lot: as shown on the preliminary plat. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval apply: 1. The existing well must be properly capped and the existing septic system must be properly abandoned per all applicable requirements. 2. The new plan revised April 2005 must receive a permit from RCWD prior to city council approval of a final plat. 3. Park dedication shall be cash in the amount of $41,500 (20 lots @ $2075) less the cost of constructing sidewalks. 4. Issues discussed in the April 22, 2005 TKDA memo must be addressed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The grading plan revised to include Lots 13 and 14 must meet City requirements as determined by the City Engineer. 5. The Stage Coach Trail and the water line shall be constructed to the south property line as shown in the April 4, 2005 plans. 6. Lot line easements shall be shown on the final plat. 7. Right of entry along Lake Drive shall be dedicated to Anoka County on the final plat. 8. Anoka County permit requirements shall be met for the new road access to Lake Drive, including any required improvements to Lake Drive. 9. A conservation easement shall be granted over the drainage and utility easement along the wetlands bordering the lake. Easement restrictions shall be defined prior to city council approval of the final plat. 10. The entry monument sign must comply with the sign ordinance. The developer must submit information regarding ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the monument sign. This must be provided prior to city council review of the final plat. 11. The developer shall ensure that tree species near ponds are viable in those locations. 12. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed by the developer within the street rights of way along the east side of Stage Coach Trail and the north side of Park Court. 13. Special Blanding` s Turtle signage and other measures recommended by the DNR shall be observed by the developer during construction. - 106 - Resolution 05 -61, page 2 • • 14. The project shall not be final platted until 2006, in accordance with the City's growth management policy. 15. This review is based on the following plans and information: Preliminary Plat, 4/4/05 Preliminary Utilities Plan, 4/4/05 Preliminary Grading Plan, 4/4/05 Preliminary Tree and Landscaping Plan, 4/4/05 Future Development Plan, 4/4/05 Certificate of Survey, 12/10/04, received 12/13/04 Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this day of , 2005 ATTEST: Ann Blair, City Clerk John J. Bergeson, Mayor - 107 - Resolution 05 -61, page 3 • TKDA ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS MEMORANDUM To: Copies To: James Studenski, City Engineer From: Scott A. Brink, P.E. bate: April 22, 2005 1500 Piper JaflrayPlaza 444 Cedar Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 -2140 (651) 292-4400 (651) 292 -0083 fax www.tkda.com Reference: Marshan 1\,_eadows City of-Lino Lakes, Minnesota Comm. No. 13265 -032 Routing: The proposed Marshan Meadows development is located on just over 11 acres of property along the east side of Lake Drive (CSAH 23) across from newly constructed Marshan Lake Court, and just south of Marshan Lane. The proposed development provides for the construction of 18 single family residential units. Previous reviews dated March 2, 2005 and January 4, 2005 have been provided. Recently, the following additional documents have been received: 1. Full and half -size copies of the Preliminary Plan Set (Sheets T1, Cl-C.7.,) dated April 4, 2005. _txecutive Summary 1. The proposed development shall be subject to the review and approval of Anoka County, including to, but not limited to the following: a) The applicant must attain a penniit from the County for the proposed street access as shown. It is expected that the County will require at least some modifications and/or adjustments to Lake Drive (widening, turn lanes, etc.). These modifications (including construction details) shall be shown on the plans accordingly. b) The property may also be subject to any further right of way requirements of the County. The plan appears to provide for the County's typical requirement of providing 120 feet of right of way (60 feet each side of centerline) by providing 20 feet of additional dedication. In addition, it is anticipated that a traffic signal may eventually be needed at the street access intersection area, and the new street itself. c) Any work within the County right of way shall require a permit as required by Anoka County. 2. A temporary cul -de -sac must be constructed on the south end of the project. Both the north and south ends of the project must be signed "future street extension" per City requirements. 3. A Ghost Plat must be provided to show the road shift and lot splits to the south. The individual streets on the plans should also be identified or given names. 4. The utility plans must provide additional detail prior to approval for construction. Pipe lengths, slopes, and profiles must all be provided. An Employee Owned Company Prmmntinn Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity — 10 8 - • Marshan Meadows Ciiy of Lino Lakes, Minnesota April 22, 2005 5. The sanitary sewer plan provides for the extension of sanitary sewer to the site from an existing stub at Park Court, rather than from Stagecoach Trail. It is recommended that the extension into the property and subsequent run to the north end of the property be kept as low in elevation as possible (minimum grades) in order to maximize service to the north in the future. It would appear that the connection at Park Court may be slightly lowered to gain some additional elevation. 6. The watermain termination at the north end of the property must provide an additional stub for future service and looping. 7. The property shall be subject to the review and approval of the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD). A copy of an approved permit and conditions from RCV2L must be provided. 8. The low floor elevations of Lots 1 -5 (Block 2) do not meet the City's minimum elevation requirements with regards to the projected 100 -year elevation of the adjacent infiltration area (2 foot minimum clearance). In addition, the lowest around opening of each structure must be at least 1 foot above the emergency overflow elevation. Emergency overflow locations and elevations are not shown on the plans. 9. Development of the property will require the demolition and removal of existing structures and facilities (above ground and under around). This may include the capping of wells and /or removal of septic treatment facilities. All removal and disposal work shall be perfoim.ed in accordance with the requirements of the city of Lino Lakes, State of Minnesota, and any other agencies as applicable. 9ther Comments Geotechnical 1. The applicant shall be responsible for attaining any permits as required for de- watering. 2, Geotechnical information was provided in a previous submittal. Soil borings reported that much of the site consists of areas of lacustrine soils consisting of topsoil and sandy silts. These areas are considered unsuitable for buildings and the direct support of streets and utilities. In these areas, soils will need to be excavated, removed, and replaced with compacted granular material as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. It is recommended that notes be provided on both the grading and utility plans that provide for the removal and replacement of unsuitable soils as recommended, and that the geotechnical engineer be retained throughout the duration of construction to monitor actual site conditions and construction requirements. Any imported fill to the site must be approved by the City Engineer. Grading and Drainage • Drainage calculations were provided for a previous review, and comments were provided as follows: • • • Marshan Meadows City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota 3 April 22, 2005 1. An emergency overflow location and elevation must be provided and shown for the north infiltration basin. This is necessary to ascertain that the low floor and low building opening elevations provided meet requirements. Based upon the elevations provided on the plan, it would appear that the lowest opening elevation on at least some of the housing units do not meet the minimum requirements. A summary of the requirements are as follows: The lowest floor elevation must be at least 4 feet above normal water elevations (including groundwater), and at least 2 feet above the project 100 -year elevation. In addition, the lowest building opening must be at least 1 foot above the emergency overflow elevation. 2. An application must be made to the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD), and a copy of the application provided to the City. The plans shall therefore be subject to any further conditions and requirements of the RCWD. Final approval by the City shall be conditional upon approval of RCWD. 3. Proposed condition curve numbers shall use NRCS t_ type "A" soils exist under existing conditions. 4. City rate control requirements provide that the proposed 1, 10, and 100 year discharge rates not exceed the existing 1, 10, and 100 year discharge rates. The 1 and 10 year infounation must be submitted. "B" soil in all disturbed areas where NRCS 5. The infiltration basins shall be planted with native grasses and plants. The City of Lino Lakes has a specification for plantings which shall be referred to or included in the plans. tilities The utility plans as provided are not considered to be complete for construction purposes. Pipe sizes, slopes, pro files, construction details, etc. must be provided. Further comments will be provided-upon the receiving ©f full construction plans. The proposed 8 -inch water main for the proposed development is shown connecting directly to the end of the 12- inchwatermain crossing stub. A reducer and valve will be required at the connection point. However, in Qonsideration of possible future extension of main along the east side of Lake Drive, it is instead s-econurended that the 8 -inch main be connected to a cross that also provides for future 12 -inch extensions to the north and south as may be required in the future. i'onions of the storm sewer appear to be designed such that shallow portions may not provide two feet of Qover over the pipe, which should be provided. However, pipe sizes and complete storm sewer information Piave not yet been provided. Therefore, further comments will be provided when final construction plans are presented for review. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining permits for the utility extensions as required from the vvlinnesota Department of Health (MDH), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), and Met Council ,nvironrnental Services (MCES). Marshan Meadows City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota • Other Comments 4 April 22, 2005 1. The 30 foot street width (gutter to gutter) and 60 foot wide right of ways as shown are acceptable. A note should also be provided that existing subgrade material shall be removed and replaced with compacted granular at locations and depths as directed by the City Engineer or the geotechnical engineer. ?. The applicant shall be responsible for the verification of any existing well and septic locations on both the subject property and adjoining properties to assure compliance with the State of Minnesota requirements as previously expressed. In addition, development of the property will require the removal of existing, buildings, surface structures, and possibly underground facilities. The applicant shall be responsible for the proper removal of all facilities in accordance with State of Minnesota and City of Lino Lakes regulations. 3. As previously stated, the plat, including access from CS A H 23 will be subject to the review and approval of Anoka County. • • • • • p1n • W HIGNLAND ASDA• OIv E ' S,: • r in�n�ei :: • pao ' ©©" J - ,r i+d, ia1•h1.w • ITr B NO tS @' 1 I l W i t 11, 1 ISUN.SE' I 1 I I nIR•IL/jTY6i1 o1IS E.tii": • 0 /I.• 1. • lli•�..i•• ,•. +rvlvtiwlrw\ nir11 1s41,1 .- OARMFNORTN 1 R I 1 14 n�w!nlwll •ii:al•1•IU •t, w L1N0 AIR PARK NORTIiii. 11 I I i i. L SHe iW WOOD > a I , • I r LAKEI f 1 1111Ety ,, IS, II ▪ 111 lll1 1 i1 . 1 • GREEN '� rr to •;> ••1 r ; 2• •1 +l . ESTATES" , 2ND -A It)PARM ST,1{ADD CENT Rc,r�w ADD . ccisi � tl AU'D ,SUB NO„7 a • I pex a lat•• 1 a Ial, a IINO I •- f /a • ND7-A•RtK Z• P. •I r • George Watch I r:5- t It 11,11 til suiq D - 'Rrp"+{ -.• ,I ci uL 4ER- S- -RJCL� W KE- 2ND ADD 3. c Y(IIGWH▪ H US''ES F 'RESHA•NAV c ' ;- • AOD SUB �;NO.'i•5' REG LAND,- URVE.Y ND 07 N REG ARK 9" • EENANA4,P!MRKI EStA2 0:1'DD -112- • • • PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN LINO LAKES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LOW DENSITY UNSEWERED RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC /SEMI - PUBLIC LOW DENSITY SEWERED RESIDENTIAL • ZONING MAP • • r\ \\ I I ■ \� 0 _ — 2;1 ^m 1 aL 592 ox, ;2 ry�ry A ��r E0 '11 -9: t' - .4.., O . .**"7.c....- - 4; oL "",I. , —* N \` \�` tE c\ j. ?Sb '99 � .\ B,9\ f S3 \ 2'5 rg nE� NV' NV, � 9 A 4 p �4 NA (_ - - -- e NEM ., r" IJ a ` 1 b T, .Y .'- a If- c, 4pA ?,3-.Y M o . p I' nl nn0 ■ :90 O� ` i �._ N_ �4�- ______ - .900____________ � I C..1 -.{ � 0 -�i' a _ _. _____ � _______898_ �� - _ a _ ______________8g8 ey._____ _ _ •2aC my mro ---__ �' �, . -- -- ---894-- ----- ----_____ ::_-_-_-5-_-_-_-_-------_- _ -- -892-,.__ - - J-� - i£ ma. __ --890- -_ -' -- ___'__• + ::� ,-, h _ - } - - -- i..{ -_- r $ N ______,..-8811--- '.`_ P� Mai ,- _____, _________ p 4 & ° €'. °yi _yam -=;._ ,"^ 9---' ' -)pad Jj'� TI f' `�� A • V' 2 9 O Z i R. iii o a O N sQ ;moo ° AE t • 3 3 • a 5 • , a xi.- e • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C n n n a x 0 � • A3AbnS 3O 31VOldLW3O y 9� < A ipo;pykyi ,2° ,n,12� r0y�� pr•2i�0� °p 2 0 2 y 0p o ;Vs' So "wgo U (n .•fi• .•• ,?1 ?1 v 00 rg 0 g 7 Er >>>P 3 Ina i ?=5" rt g 1" C Pogii Wi � � F Oo0 3' C J 24 • e O1 A 1A N / ' 7'1 A - 80 / 53 Cy o �9l \ \ 40. - \ , v "\ /a�SFT6'?� y b I �a v vI 1 N 1 114 95' v7 4■ o •A O RI a ti u. 71 I R I ,SOI ,09 — co to a a I77' b 0 N V N G nrg 00 M 1 I/1 n N zx .08 101 '$3. o• L Ill 5 a 7 07 09 139• / Im Lp4 � / V -• / (NDtlB1 3S aV3 2) b t HO rv�a� , roy1 n l3s n ° N 1 � VJaI / �- - RI 1N3w3Si . _59. N 1MN o� 5 yN 1--Ti---, '6. WN • S£ Mt'66 Ay WL WC m A n • MI. -- IwPA'CI ., -- - - ^,p cP Qn�.nMl ° °=a.n w,rAI�N, n ale uwa rf nr sort w wwrsou. "7' nic MO ��° MARSHAN MEADOWS PRELIMINARY PLAT LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA PAS% ENCINEERAIG, INC. DA II , ° r/ / I / /5 /O� /' /O J/J/0 V;'1 /N5 4/4/° REVISIONS ov P cwrx nI Ic f(cI r /ru t CITY N/ VISIONS °/N r' 13 09 U(YCIM Mf NI rC rllN I NIMtONM/ NIAL BOARD /N VISIONS NrwvQNS to allay A -RINSE !AVOW RI SOWN RECORD DRAWING RP Y'G IlNL Nm, SING RW5 Irmi N CIVIL ENGINEERS • LAND SURVEYORS MINNEAPOLIS • HUDSON • CAMBRIDGE (763)780- 4100 (715)381- 1150 (763)689 -4042 -�Oi al IMO •••••,..•,, m r .,.�W n Email: passe@passe-eng.com s- 1, ABVLNYS .9 fly In D Z D .T7 S7VI'31VIN a VA, 7!-0709 A W AN ST'9Ci'E OACI� TRAIL \L IN3W3 poi 1L3' ° o?1 .13a 5V oN v3N -WL 7* N 1,00C "ON awY0 0310075 ✓3 NI 831VM Atl✓NIOtlO ' ..„Y r!; g2 w "7 I WL I. N - WAw ww MARSHAN MEADOWS PRELIMINARY UTILITIES LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA " I /b/US REVISIONS .._. P / OY «� I fl _11 /U / F3� SPG NNE WG SPG NNr� NMI Mrt IC/17/04 I O,CU r !Mr MIS RAN, swancAIKW. ON „MlR� ;�•r SCI sVI MT rov uq Mr LICK Oi IM TSSI NI MONCI MMOOR MA IC OAT „ / „/a NCO NO �s SPAS ENCINEE�' /N�, lNC'• 119 2///,/05 3/3/05 / /4/0 - 4/1-/05_ _ G!Y kF NSIaNS !L i> 2.3-04 G!Y LOLIMI NI II U N LN kG MLN /nL_ >onNO RI �� s ecWSrws io ouno! n ! �^' CIVIL ENGINEERS • LAND SURVEYORS MINNEAPOLIS • HUDSON CAMBRIDGE (763)7804100 (715)381- 1150 • (763)689 -4042 PROEM _a ___ orc.LU "I NCL+s'r I n rou! !0 5!0110 APPROWO N/ Email: passe @ paue- eng.com RECORD DRAWING AI ■ \11 14falp V4 all / ON3O37 OVd ON1071/18 J / r eIR r. 9 Fc % iV r 1 C ti 6 __N- -TRAIL S 6a 0 J WE 1 co Oa 22 - �� 2 2 2 2 II f N m go T N W UAW i; - srwii - - -- / cero ➢ w - " -- -- I I ➢Re•, a MC C. � OEN Air I A�rwY r rcrHSry a IN* cr us- VAIL ur swarm)rA. VA IT �I— xc — MARSHAN MEADOWS PRELIMINARY GRADING LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA 3J/DA / /!Y /O 7 /' /o s�1 /�, I%4/05 - REVISIONS rev us comment r l f( r -II IJ (M L91Y NE WSIONS r N r7 'J u, WY c HANCN] IF MP FN�N�NLNInr WARN N(N9W S cif HV2 N q: 5i'G KM: If➢41 -- - IP I PASSE ENQINEE�'INC, INC. IINC' CIVIL ENGINEERS • LAND SURVEYORS MINNEAPOLIS HUDSON CAMBRIDGE • • ( 763 )780 -41D0 (715)381 -1150 (76389 -4042 Rf NSIONS CO oun or n NI NSC Ln YO UT LU SCUM _ - -- RECORD DRAWING novUoVIII NI ISO Email: passe@passe- elg.com .... A Ang, OAR WIA/0, I trmfor a., ow .5 PLA1C swarm... OR KRIM" RAS MR-RAMO ER' I. OR (RICCIF Mr LW R CI 511PERNSON AND 11, A I I AY A ORLY RETRY° RROFESS,ONAI ENG.. LINOCR R. IAR5 OF RAF VAR 0, PAINNFSOIA am M. me. tin MARSHAN MEADOWS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PLAN LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA ()An I60p 1/19/00 2///05 3/.5/0.1i ....v24/05_ 4/4/o5 mi.visiONS rev as pc, coo common! Ic7(t-Cv. 12/10A14 cirr ROISIONS ITN 12-23-04 CITY COWAN! I.F1111? INVIRONMUNIAl. HOARD REW9ONS AIL4simys 10 OU ll 0 1- A Rrisi inrixn 10 CILIIII Rucoiro DRAWING I-31 'spc, hYlij RWG SPG _ Ilq. MIVA .0 pAcce EA/4tAIEERIA4 we, sr cowrie CIVIL ENGINEERS • LAND SURVEYORS AIIMEAPOLS MINNEAPOLIS . HUDSON CAMBRIDGE (763)780-4100 (715)381-1150 (763)689-4042 50R-04 _PAM ORM° WI APPRORI, ., 7.1 R Email: passe@passe-eng.com O O co A co CO A O CO A A co A W A co A O co N co co N -4 O O O Co -4 - • 0 CO 0 -4 N A CO O O V co A A co A A 03 V 0 CO -4 CO V -4 -4 O A V Co A V A 0 A (0 A A O V O A co A A O N N O N N O O O co O rn O N O A O W W W O O N 0 Cn V Cn m Co CO O A A W W W N 0 0 W Co O O O N O A O 41 O N O N N N CD O O 0) -4 (.) A O A Cn A G) N N N N N N N A W W CO C.) C.) N N -4 Co A N- • O ro N N N A N W N N N ro N O 040)040404 (0 O V O A 2f38114f1N INIOd 0 m Ts D W < C C 13 0 '0 71 '0 7/ v 11 1 1 -I 1 1 1 N N y 0) C0 -i 1 1 -1 1 -i 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 -� � 1� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � 1� 1 1�- �� - CO Co fn (r A A ¢ m' N < < < << <. «< ' 0 0 0 0 O. O p 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O D 43 D-0 3 v D Z o 0 0 o o 0 o 0 0 0 0 C A x1 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N co co co co o) 0) CO N N m C) A 0 0 0) A N. CO Co O 0 Z RI 10 (0 0 0 0 0 0 CO Co 03 CO Co CO CO CO O CO Co CO CO O 0. Co Co CO CO CO O(0 O O CO (D O O (D O. CO O (0 CO O O O O CO (0 O O CO O O O CO (0 (0 (0 CO O CO O O O O O O CO O O CO CO O f 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co. O O O. o O O. O O (O 0 0 0 0 0 0 07 O O O O O o 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O. 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O o 0 o O O O O O O O O 0000000000000000000) N N-) N N N N V Cn O O O O O CO O O Q CO V V O O CO V O O V CO O O O' O N N. O CO W W A W A. W W A A A A N Cn O O O , CA W N A N A AA CO W A W O A A A A W (n W W N W W O A O - • N A A - • O O (n O V A Cn CO 0 O O co O V N W O O A-_. V V CO O W j W 0-- 'co O Cn O N co O N O W N O A -+ O co' A O O O co' co' V CO 0 0 O 0 W A CO N - O O A O O V O I. O V O A N O O N A V N O W N O O O O O O W W' A O O 0) V O O O O ,„• V O W O N O N V C0 -.. C0 A W O V CO N-• O O W (n O-• -s O (n O O N (n _4 A O A O O W A A O N O O O O O co co O V co 0. O V N N N N O O A co N A (n W 01 co O Cn -• Co O O 0 0 CO W 0 Cn Co N O V O O O A O V A V A W V O O W O N O W CO N O V 0) 0) 0) CO A CO N V V W V W-• A O N N (n CD CD O-• O O (n -• V V N.O W-• N A V N O O O Co O V A N -+ O O CO V N O V A W In CO N O co V V O O (n CO N-• CO O (n W CO V-• V V CO N N O O CO CO O Z S331:11 INb'Dl3INDIS xxaaa:a,x:a:xaaa:a� 1 L =:a:x� a�S'i1 1111 111114 11111phill111 i1111HH RINI& foilif it C. Leixx:x::"aaxaxaGaaax : l Laa LN�xxyl 11 ifiiJIijiiJI!iV'"' . il l �ijllji 1 /1 m 0 a 1 :gaxxa q "Layx :xxx L� :: L0., t 1B 11111111111 1111 � 11�I ii' 111 1 1€ l /- II O 2 11. U 0 m m m 0 m 3OflddS S771H N3V7B 0 0) 0 0 S33111 G3S0dOMd ON3D37 NOIldThIOSIO 3381 JO 838V/IN GSA VS 533271 NUMBER OF TOTAL TREES ON SITE NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT TREES SAVED NUMBER OF SIGN /F /CANT TREES • v A ,0 3 W cb TREE DESCRIPTION /QUANTITIES r 39 01 533211 1 NVOIJINOIS o 0) co n p 01 53351 1 NVOIUINOIS -NON ON3037 3381 04 1 ti ti A A O A A `.1� CO n WL ^r ,L.----'--- l. _�'WIH 0 p 1H 1 5V 3N17 831 ✓M N'JIN AtlVN10tl0 2 )xH �L �7MH OOZ (`�'� • 3Y0 2n WL 0 s..� 2 yN m00 22 o r2' --I wN 2 y 1n a �o 'y 0 0) 2i 2: FTi (n W \`ro� \a2 oco WI. WL WL • J INA. DA II e. (,,,6«,;, m„ „.E.x,._., Y. w H R REPO" SlIFYINISION H�H IH - _ 0../.1323e.1 o wH FR H ,�( ,, Ha _.,666 MARSHAN MEADOWS PRELIMINARY TREE AND LANDSCAPINGPLAN LINO LAKES, MINNES01 A ()AIL %' /u5 _ - / c ✓I' l P 5 I I r NNrrwr rHrn`ru (in r)ASOUrry / "' er ns Ns IN r I n n cnrrl� »rr�, nn. 1 l7,' w M • AWE ENCINEE�'lN�, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERS • LAND SURVEYORS MINNEAPOLIS HUDSON CAMBRIDGE (763)780.4100 (715)381 1150 (763)689 -4042 Email: passeCvpasse- eng.com 4' • • • MEMORANDUM DATE: May 6, 2005 TO: City Council FROM: Michael Grochala RE: Feasibility Studies/Pavement Management Policy Questions During the May 4, 2005 City Council work session there were several questions asked regarding compliance with the City Charter, recouping feasibility costs and how costs appear on a ballot. They are as follows: 1. Does Section 8.04, Subdivision 4 of the City Charter prohibit the City Council from acting on the West Shadow Lake Drive Feasibility Study since the action previously failed at the April 11, 2005 council meeting? Response. Chapter 8.04, Subd. 4 of the City Charter states the following: "When a proposed improvement is disallowed under the foregoing subdivisions, the Council shall not vote on the same improvement within a period of one (1) year after the public hearing on said improvement." "Disallowed under the foregoing subdivisions" refers to either 1) a petition is received signed by the required number of property owners against the improvement; 2) A majority of voters in an election are opposed; or 3) the bids received on a project exceed 10% of the estimated engineers estimate provided at the public hearing. The West Shadow Lake Drive project was "disallowed" by the 2003 General Election. The public hearing for the project was held on October 13, 2003. More than one year has elapsed since the original public hearing. Therefore this section of the City Charter is not applicable to the council action taken on April 11, 2005 to initiate the new study. 2. Will feasibility study costs be recouped from projects? J:\Projects\Pavement Management\Response to Council Comments 5- 6- 05.dot • • Response. Costs associated with initial feasibility will be recouped if projects are approved. Assessments will be based on total project costs. 3. If a project fails, but is approved years later, can feasibility study costs still be recouped? Response. Soft costs incurred during project development (i.e., engineering, legal, and fiscal) can be recovered if the project is ultimately approved. However, without upfront financing in place those costs would need to be carried as a deficit for an indefinite period of time. 4. If general levy funds are used for feasibility studies, is that cost shown on the ballot as part of the tax - supported portion of the project? Response. While it is premature to speculate on the exact language, the ballot question is typically based on the total project cost and identifies the amount (percentage) that is tax levy supported. Assessments are based on total project cost, including feasibility studies. Any portion of the project not covered by special assessments and other non - general fund sources (i.e., municipal state aid) would be tax levy supported. If you should have any further questions please contact me. J: \Projects \Pavement Management \Response to Council Comments 5- 6- 05.dot • • • AGENDA ITEM 6Ei STAFF ORIGINATOR: James E. Studenski COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 9, 2005 TOPIC: Resolution No. 05 -65, Accepting Pavement Management Report VOTE REQUIRED: Simple Majority BACKGROUND: At the November 17, 2004 Work Session, staff presented the Pavement Management Report dated November 16, 2004 to the City Council. The report shows the current condition of City streets and presents optimum actions to extend the pavement life at the lowest overall cost. It was then requested, at the April 20, 2005 Work Session, that this report be accepted by the Council. OPTIONS: 1. Return to staff for further review. 2. Adopt Resolution Number 05 -65, Accepting Pavement Management Report. 3. Not adopt Resolution Number 05 -65. RECOMMENDATION: Option No. 2 - Staff recommends that Resolution No. 05 -65 be adopted. • • CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 05 -65 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT WHEREAS, the City Engineer has presented the Pavement Management Report to the Council for approval, and WHEREAS, it has been requested that this report be accepted by the Council; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA: 1. Accept the Pavement Management Report. Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 9th day of May, 2005. ATTEST: Ann J. Blair, City Clerk John J. Bergeson, Mayor • Pavement Management Report Table of Contents I. Executive Summary II. Introduction • What is a Pavement Management Program? • Why have a Pavement Management Program? III. Pavement Condition Report • Pavement Life Cycle • Roadway Pavement Condition Evaluation • Existing Roadway Pavement Conditions • Roadway Pavement Condition Projections • Maintenance Costs Increase as Pavement Gets Older • Extending Pavement Life Cycle By Special Maintenance Actions IV. Pavement Management Recommendation • Pavement Management Recommendations • Establish Pavement Management Policies • Establish Pavement Management Plan V. Appendices A. Pavement Ratings City Map B. OCI Ratings Numerical List C. Reconstruction Schedule D. CarteGraph (PAVEMENTview PLUS) Criteria E. Total Maintenance Costs at Current Conditions F. Annual Maintenance Costs • • • I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report represents the initial presentation of data and analysis to the City Council for their use in the development of an overall Pavement Management Program. It should not be construed to be a final public policy or plan and is subject to change pending further Council review and direction. Recognizing the continued deterioration of city roadways, a lack of specific information on the condition of roadways and a plan for maintaining and reconstructing roadways, the City initiated the preparation of a Pavement Management Program. The components of the Pavement Management Program are: 1. Pavement Condition Report 2. Pavement Management Policies 3. Pavement Management Plan As the first step in the establishment of the Pavement Management Program, this Pavement Conditions Report was prepared. The significant findings of this report are as follows: • • • • • • • • There are currently 84 miles of City roadways. The average city standard roadway (built to current City specifications) is 9 years old. The average non - standard roadway is 19 years old. 63% of roadways are in "adequate" category requiring sealcoating maintenance. 24 % of roadways are in a "marginal" category requiring overlays. 13% of roadways are in the "problem" category, requiring complete reconstruction. Continuing current maintenance practices over the next 10 years will result in the further decline of the overall pavement condition, with 28% of the City roadways being in the "problem" category, requiring complete reconstruction at a cost of $39 million in 2014 (Plan Year 10). By increasing roadway maintenance and reconstruction resources, roadways could be improved (81% "adequate ", 14% "marginal" and 5% "problem ") for the next 10 years at a cost of $28 million, a savings of $11 million in comparison with current maintenance levels. This report shows that the continuation of the current level of maintenance will result in the continued lowering of the overall condition of the City's roadways and will cost significantly more to restore over the long term than if increased funding was provided for roadways to be _maintained and reconstructed at a more optimum time. The next steps in this process would be to establish pavement management polices, and then to establish a pavement management plan. • • II. INTRODUCTION What is a Pavement Management Program? The Pavement Management Program sets forth a system for the optimal maintenance of roadways to extend their useful life and the reconstruction of roadways, which have exceeded their useful life, and establishes a funding strategy to maximize available resources to carry out the maintenance and reconstruction activities. The Pavement Management Program is comprised of three components: 1) the assessment of the current pavement conditions of the City's roadways and recommended maintenance and reconstruction actions, (2) policies which will guide the timing and type of maintenance actions and reconstruction activities and the financing of activities, and (3) a general schedule for the maintenance and reconstruction of streets, and strategies for the financing of these activities. Why Establish a Pavement Management Program? The City of Lino Lakes is developing this Pavement Management Program to preserve the City's $90 million asset of roadways, provide for the safe and efficient travel of its citizens, retain property values, keep the City attractive and desirable, and minimize costs to the property owners and taxpayers of the City. The City currently has no detailed database or plan as to how to most effectively schedule and budget for roadway maintenance and reconstruction actions. The Pavement Management Program will provide a guide for the City to make strategic decisions related to roadway maintenance and reconstruction activities to maximize the useful life of pavement and to minimize maintenance costs by performing proper actions at the optimum time. The program will also provide for financing strategies to make the most efficient use of available resources. • • III. PAVEMENT CONDITION REPORT PAVEMENT LIFE CYCLE Pavements have a useful life beginning from the time they are constructed until they have deteriorated to the extent of being unusable. Figure 1 shows the typical life expectancy of pavement. While the actual useable life of roadways can vary somewhat due to different factors, as indicated by this graph pavement begins to deteriorate shortly after construction at a fairly constant rate and then deteriorates more rapidly as the pavement ages and its condition declines. Figure 2 shows the timely scheduling of sealcoating and overlaying and their effect on extending the useful life of the roadway. The graph shows the normal performance (life cycle) curve of pavement from new condition to problem condition within 30 years. The graph also shows how the periodic sealcoating and overlaying reverses the declining condition, returning the pavement to a much better condition and extending its useful life to approximately 65 years. ROADWAY PAVEMENT CONDITION EVALUATION Over the past year, the City and TKDA investigated and evaluated every block of city pavement to establish its condition based upon what defects each block contained. City records were investigated to obtain knowledge of how old each block is and what maintenance has occurred throughout its history. This information was then entered into a computerized program (CarteGraph Navigator), a nationally accepted computer program. This computerized program identifies and analyzes all defects in each block of road and records it together with all relevant information concerning that block to determine the comparable condition of the roadway The program rates the roadways by using an Overall Condition Index (OCI) having a 1 -100 scale with 100 being a perfect new roadway. It then projects the OCI of a segment and gives budget - dependent maintenance protocols for a given time period. • PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE CURVE O CO O ti O -128- O L7 100 O Q M O N rJ O L7 Lii CD U- Years in Service (Age) tE L O CO O ti O -128- O L7 100 O Q M O N rJ O L7 Lii CD U- Years in Service (Age) • -129- ei�i inr 9 • • Engineering staff has established the following OCI categories to describe the conditions of the roadways: Adequate — Overall Condition Index (OCI) 70.01 -100 Marginal — Overall Condition Index (OCI) 40.01 -70 Problem — Overall Condition Index (OCI) 0 -40 Photographs of representative road sections for each OCI category are included as Figure 3. EXISTING ROADWAY PAVEMENT CONDITIONS Most of the roadway system at this time is in good condition, but is approaching a critical stage. The average city standard (a) roadway is 9 years old and has been sealcoated once. The average non - standard (b) roadway is 19 years old and has been sealcoated twice. A breakdown of the City's roadway overall condition is: Overall Condition Index Mileage Percent of System Adequate category - 70.01 -100 53 miles 63% Marginal category - 40.01 -70 20 miles 24% Problem category 0 -40 11 miles 13% (a) "Standard roadway" means a roadway within the City of Lino Lakes, which is in general conformance with the City standard as set forth in Section 302 of the City Code. They are commonly recognized as having a properly graded hard surface with normal crowns, width, strength, acceptable drainage systems and concrete curb and gutter on both sides. (b) "Non- standard roadway" means a roadway located in the City of Lino Lakes, which is not in general conformance with the City standards as set forth in Section 302 of the City Code. They are commonly recognized as lacking a critical component such as strength, adequate drainage or concrete curb and gutter but may have some or all of these or other components. 411 Appendix A is a map of all City roadways showing their OCI classification. The specific OCI rating for each roadway segment is contained in Appendix B. 7 -130- FIGURE 3 Lino Lakes Pavement Management Report November 16, 2004 LINO LAKES PAVEMENT RATING EXAMPLES OCI RATING <= 40 Holly Drive E (12th Avenue to East End) Andall Street (Wood Duck Trl. to #647) 1 -131- FIGURE 3 Lino Lakes Pavement Management Report November 16, 2004 OCI RATING = 55 Patti Drive (74th Street to Connie Lane) Patti Drive (74 Street to Connie Lane) 2 - 1 3 2 - FIGURE 3 Lino Lakes Pavement Management Report November 16, 2004 OCI RATING = 70 81St Street W (Lake Drive NE to Danube Street) 77th Street W (Carole Drive to Cul de Sac) -133- • • • FIGURE 3 Lino Lakes Pavement Management Report November 16, 2004 OCT RATING = 85 Avenue (Red Clover Lane to Green Briar Drive Woodridge Court (Woodridge Lane to Sac) • • • ROADWAY PAVEMENT CONDITION PROJECTIONS Using the computer analysis, the expected useful life of each block was projected. This was done using the maintenance approaches and the reconstruction levels that have occurred over the past years within the City. This analysis showed that if the City continues its current process of special maintenance and reconstruction at the same rate it has averaged over the past years, there will be serious deterioration of the roadway system and ultimately very high reconstruction expenses. It was projected that if current maintenance practices continue to be used over the next 10 years, the number of miles of "problem" roadways will likely increase from today's less than 13% of the system to more than 28 %. Not only would this reduction in the overall condition of the roadways most likely be unacceptable to the public, it would be very expensive, an estimated $39 million in 2014 (Plan Year 10), to restore the overall system at the end of that time to only its current condition today (Figure 4). Another example of the cost of deferring needed maintenance and reconstruction is illustrated by the 2005 estimated cost of $2,375,700 for the reconstruction of West Shadow Lake Drive. It is estimated the 2008 costs would be $2,750,000 due to increases in construction costs. MAINTENANCE COSTS INCREASE AS PAVEMENT GETS OLDER Maintenance costs increase considerably as the pavement gets older. The maintenance actions and costs required to keep the roadway in its present condition are much less when the roadway is relatively new and in good condition, allowing for sealcoating, rather than later when the roadway is older and deteriorated when overlaying is required. The cost of overlaying is typically 9 times the cost of sealcoating. Therefore, it is important that the proper maintenance actions be taken at the optimal time to minimize maintenance costs and maximize the useful life of the pavement. Figure 2 indicates that if the first sealcoating at year 7 was not done at a cost of S20,000 per mile, the condition of the pavement would have declined to the extent that overlaying would be warranted by year 14 at a cost of $180,000 per mile in today's dollars. The graph indicates that at year 14, two sealcoatings would have occurred at a total cost of $40,000 per mile, compared to a single overlaying of $180,000 per mile, for a savings of $140,000, illustrating the eventual cost of deferring maintenance actions in today's dollars. 12 -135- • o LC) CO N (NI LC) r r (sri ioQ Jo suol l l! W) ;so0 Current Practice 0 Proposed Pavement Management Plan • • • EXTENDING PAVEMENT LIFE BY SPECIAL MAINTENANCE ACTIONS Cities normally engage in periodic special maintenance activities to extend the life of a roadway. These special maintenance actions are defined as sealcoating, overlays or similar actions that are anticipated to last several years and be cost effective. Sealcoating includes pre - sweeping and filling of all cracks in the pavement. A layer of emulsified (liquid) asphalt is applied uniformly across the pavement surface. This is followed by a uniform cover of traprock chips. Sealcoating creates a surface seal to the existing pavement, which provides additional support for traffic loads, and protection from weather conditions. Overlaying includes patching, pothole filling, and crack filling to the existing pavement. This is followed by the placement of bituminous wearing course over the entire surface. For roadways that have curb and gutter, it will be necessary to perform some milling along the curb lines to match the overlay to the grade of the existing gutter. Overlays provide a structural improvement to the roadway. Reconstruction includes the complete removal of the existing pavement and aggregate base course. The roadway will be replaced with the City street standard of a minimum 32 -foot width (back of curb to back of curb) bituminous road with concrete curb and gutter. The pavement section will consist of a minimum 7 -ton design which is 1 V2" of bituminous wearing course, 2" of bituminous base course, and 8" of Class 5 aggregate base course. Reconstruction brings the pavement to an absolute 100 (perfect condition) rating. In order to maximize the life cycle of the pavement at minimum maintenance cost, the proper maintenance actions need to be undertaken at the optimum time. A proposed schedule for these special maintenance actions is as follows: Ave of Roadway Maintenance Action 5 — 7 years first sealcoating 10 —14 years second sealcoating 15 — 21 years third sealcoating 14 -137- 20 — 28 years first overlaying 25 — 35 years first sealcoating 30 — 42 years second sealcoating 35 — 49 years second overlay 40 — 56 years first sealcoating 47 - 65 years road reconstruction The report recommends that $330,000 annually be used for sealcoating and overlaying, and $1,176,000 annually be used for street reconstruction. The actual expenditures have been adjusted to incorporate the specific road reconstructions based on the 2003 -2007 Capital Improvements Program (Appendix C). IV. PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Using the computer analysis, many alternatives were run to determine the optimum actions to extend the pavement life at the lowest overall cost. It was found that the key to achieving that goal is doing the right action at the right time. This will require City initiated actions rather than waiting for complaints or petitions. It is recommended that the City institute a maintenance and reconstruction program in accordance with the CarteGraph Criteria (Appendix D) in order to reverse the declining overall condition of the City's roadway system and avoid the additional costs associated with the reconstruction of streets allowed to reach a "poor" condition. It is recognized that the desire to maintain a high overall condition must be balanced with the City's financial capabilities to fund the maintenance and reconstruction program. It is being recommended that it be the City's intent to maintain the cu rent roadway Overall Condition Index rating of 73 as the long term average condition rating of its roadway system. In order to maintain this "adequate" rating, it has been determined that the present level of maintenance and reconstruction activities, and therefore funding, must be increased. 15 -138- • Using the cost assumptions contained in the CarteGraph Criteria (Appendix D) and the Total Maintenance Costs (Appendix E) and Annual Maintenance Costs data (Appendix F), the proposed funding shown in Figure 5 for special maintenance and reconstruction activities will allow the city to maintain an Overall Condition Index rating of 73 as the long term average condition rating of its roadway system, comparable to the current overall condition. It is recommended that the total maintenance amount be budgeted in accordance with the plan year. In addition to these maintenance funds, any City funds necessary for reconstruction projects will also need to be budgeted. The estimated annual reconstruction costs are based on the 2003 -2007 Capital Improvements Program, supported by the CarteGraph program analysis (Figure 5). This level of increased special maintenance and reconstruction funding will result in a significant difference in the roadway conditions over the next 10 years in comparison to continuing the past maintenance and reconstruction funding or providing no funding. This comparison of the projected amount of mileage of roadways within each the condition category and the projected Overall Condition Rating is shown in Figures 6 and 7. This recommended maintenance program of spending $330,000 in maintenance and $1,176,000 in reconstruction would improve the roadways to approximately 5% "problem category" roadways while spending only $28 million over the next 10 -year time frame. As previously stated, continuing the past funding levels over the next 10 years would require an estimated $39 million in 2014 (Plan Year 10), to restore the overall system at the end of that time period to only its current condition today. The recommended funding level would achieve an $11 million savings while actually having better roadways at the same time. The following items would be the next steps in this process: Establish Pavement Management Policies o Pavement Maintenance and Reconstruction Policies o Pavement Maintenance and Reconstruction Financing Policies • • Establish Pavement Management Plan o General Schedule of Pavement Maintenance and Reconstruction Activities Costs, Funding Sources for Pavement Maintenance and Reconstruction Activities This report represents the initial presentation of data and analysis to the City Council for their use in the development of an overall Pavement Management Program. It should not be construed to be a final public policy or plan and is subject to change pending further Council review and direction. • • FIGURE 5 Lino Lakes Pavement Management Report November 16, 2004 PROPOSED FUNDING (5% INFLATION) econstrUcuon 2005 (1) 2006 (2) 2007 (3) 2008 (4) 2009 (5) 2010 (6) 2011 (7) 2012 (8) 2013 (9) 2014 (10) 80 $0 $1,435,000 $2,750,000 $3,035,000 $3,485,000 $1,577,500 $1,655,000 $1,737,500 $1,825,000 alntenan 2005 (1) 2006 (2) 2007 (3) 2008 (4) 2009 (5) 2010 (6) 2011 (7) 2012 (8) 2013 (9) 2014 (10) t?Verlay� $140,000 $190,000 $200,000 $210,000 $220,000 $230,000 $242,500 $255,000 $267,500 $280,000 alcoa $90,000 $157,500 $165,000 $175,000 $182,500 $192,500 $202,500 $212,500 $222,500 $235,000 7r $230,000 $347,500 $365,000 $385,000 $402,500 $422,500 $445,000 $467,500 $490,000 $515,000 • • • FIGURE 6 Lino Lakes Pavement Management Report November 16, 2004 10 -YR PAVEMENT ANALYSES SCENARIOS PROJECTED 10 -YEAR ROAD CONDITIONS NO FUNDS CURRENT PROPOSED 28% 28% 5% 32% 17% 14% 40% 55% 81% -.100 PRESENT CONDITIONS 13% 24% 63% • • • H U O 100 90 80 Scenario OCI Comparison 70 -1 60 50 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 Plan Year Chart Details 7 8 9 10 100 90 80 70 60 50 Current No Funds a Proposed Filter Working Set Sort Group By (((.. \.. \Model ID is equal to "FY Plan 5 ") And (.. \Scenario is not equal to "Unlimited ")) And (.. \Scenario is not equal to "Best First ")) Filter <Not Applicable> <Not Applicable> .. \Scenario, Plan Year -143- APPENDICES • • Report Title OCI_O -40 Route Marvy Street Route 64th Street Route Pheasant Run S Route Rondeau Lake Road W Route Diane Court Route Hokah Drive Route Oak Lane Route 64th Street Route Leonard Avenue Route Knoll Drive Route Woodland Drive Route Andall Street Route Rondeau Lake Road E Route Evergreen Trail Description #1004 to Sac Route Shadow Lake Drive Description 3353' N of Birch St to Shadow W Ct Route Red Maple Lane Description Red Maple Lane split to #6280 Route Rondeau Lake Description 81st St W to 2602' N Road W Route Oak Lane Description Carole Dr to Knoll Drive Route Shadow Lake Drive Description Birch St to3353' N of Birch St W Route Evergreen Trail Route Old Birch Street Route Lois Lane Description Leonard Ave to Jon Ave Description 20th Ave to Sac Description Birch St to Sac Description #8317 to 2602 N of 81st W Description West Sac to Diane St Description #6557 to #6631 Description Knoll Dr to Sac Description Otter Lake Road to Sac Description Bradley St to Lilac St Description Lois Lane to Oak Lane Description Main St to Sac Description 4th Ave to Blackbird Ln Description Main St to 3088' East APPENDIX B Today's Date Tuesday, November 16, 2004 Overall Condition Index 6.85 Overall Condition Index 8.92 Overall Condition Index 10.00 Overall Condition Index 10.80 Overall Condition Index 11.70 Overall Condition Index 13.30 Overall Condition Index 13.85 Overall Condition Index 14.08 Overall Condition Index 15.25 Overall Condition Index 19.17 Overall Condition Index 20.21 Overall Condition Index 22.04 Overall Condition Index 25.58 Description #980 to #1004 Description Birch St to Birch St Description Nottingham Ln to Meadow View Tr Description Sherwood Ln to Nottingham Description Shadow Lake Dr W to Sac Description Hse #647 to Wood Duck Tr Description Wood Duck Tr to Hse #647 Description Lake Dr NE to #790 Description Sunset Ave to Leonard Ave Description 81st St E to 1682' N Route Lois Lane Route Sandpiper Drive Route Andall Street Route Andall Street Route Lois Lane Route Marvy Street Route Rondeau Lake Road E Route Arrowhead Drive Route Arrowhead Drive Route Orange Street Route Rondeau Lake Road W Route Hokah Drive Route Peltier Lake Drive Route Phelps Road Route Rondeau Lake Road E Route Evergreen Trail Route on Avenue Route Rondeau Lake Road E Route Leonard Avenue Route Lois Lane Route Holly Drive E Description Totem Trail to 550' East Description Ware Rd to Totem Trl Description Dead end to Eva St Description Main St to 81st St W Description #6631 to Sac Description #7600 to 77th St E Description Service Rd to Otter Lake Rd Description Main St to 3088' East Overall Condition Index 26.35 Overall Condition Index 26.60 Overall Condition Index 26.76 Overall Condition Index 27.46 Overall Condition Index 27.70 Overall Condition Index 27.80 Overall Condition Index 27.91 Overall Condition Index 28.24 Overall Condition Index 29.37 Overall Condition Index 29.57 Overall Condition Index 30.64 Overall Condition Index 30.84 Overall Condition Index 30.96 Overall Condition Index 31.01 Overall Condition Index 31.48 Overall Condition Index 32.92 Description Lake Dr Ne to #980 Description Marvy St to 74th St Description 1682' N of 81st St. E. to N city limits Description Marvy St to Bradley St Description Meadow View Tr to Country Ln Description 12th Avenue to East End -145- Length 1,936.98 Length 373.30 ft Length 505.22 fi Length 1,966.13 Overall Condition Index 34.00 Overall Condition Index 34.00 Overall Condition Index 34.62 Overall Condition Index 35.28 Length 46.00 ft Length 868.54 f Length 2,018.2( Length 708.41 I Length 1,537.9 Length 1,018.8 Length 1,363.6 Length 904.84 Length 3,088.2 Overall Condition Index 36.21 Overall Condition Index 36.53 Overall Condition Index 36.78 Overall Condition Index 37.30 Overall Condition Index 37.34 Overall Condition Index 37.41 Overall Condition Index 37.46 Length 1,135.2 Length 3,327.: Overall Condition Index 38.49 Overall Condition Index 38.61 Overall Condition Index 38.80 Length 1,105.: Length 2,602.( Length 1,748." Length 3,353. Length 502.7 Length 2,262. Length 565.4E Length 1,084 Length 343.7 Length 960.0 Length 1,036 Length 572,6 Length 612.E Length 1,68 Length 550.( Length 779.! Length 814. Length 1,34 Length 475. Length 655. Length 1,31 Length 1,5C Length 884 Length 658 Length 2,4! Length 1,7 Length 69; Length 71( Page Number 1 Route Rondeau Lake Road W Route 81st Street W Route Diane Street • • Description #8399 to #8317 Description Rondeau Lake Rd W to Sac Description #8107 to Diane Ct -146- Overall Condition Index 39.34 Overall Condition Index 39.39 Overall Condition Index 39.70 Length.amount Length 1,196.57 Length 1,034.25 Length 1,548.05 57596.78 ft Page Number 2 • • Report Title OCI_40.01 -70 Route Red Maple Lane Route Hokah Drive Route Nancy Drive Route Carole Drive Route Shadow Court Route Wood Duck Trail Route Country Lane Route Hokah Drive Route Patti Drive Route Hokah Drive Route Tomahawk Trail Route Gordon Avenue N Route Totem Trail Route Bloom Court Route Tomahawk Court Route Carl Street Route Tolle Lane Route Olive Street Route Red Maple Lane Route Korth Road Route 77th Street E Description #6280 to Red Maple Lane split Description Bubble Sac to Birch St Description Vicky Ln to 79th St Description Oak Lane to 77th St W Description Shadow Lake Dr W to Sac Description Andall St to Andall St Description Prairie View PI to Lois Lane Description Birch St to #6557 Description Marcia Ln to Lilac St Route Peltier Lake Drive Route Rolling Hills Drive Route Meadowview Trail Route Arrowhead Drive Description Description Description Bubble Sac (Hokah Dr) Birch St to Tomahawk Ct Rehbeins St to 77th St E Description Hokah Dr to Rice Ct Description 20th Ave S to Sac Description Tomahawk Tr to Sac Description 4th Avenue to #346 Description Canfield Rd to Karth Rd Today's Date Tuesday, November 16, 2004 Overall Condition Index 40.05 Overall Condition Index 41.23 Overall Condition Index 41.41 Overall Condition Index 41.95 Overall Condition Index 42.08 Overall Condition Index 42.42 Overall Condition Index 42.79 Overall Condition Index 43.38 Overall Condition Index 43.50 Length 1,529.6 Length 664.89 Length 1,156.2 Length 1,484.2 Length 281.94 Length 676.87 Length 1,534.( Length 806.56 Length 736.81 Overall Condition Index 43.55 Length 152,76 Overall Condition Index 44.00 Overall Condition Index 44.18 Overall Condition Index 44.18 Overall Condition Index 44.60 Overall Condition Index 45.20 Overall Condition Index 45.20 Overall Condition Index 45.71 Description Eva St to West Sac Overall Condition Index 46.00 Description 62nd St to Red Maple Lane split Overall Condition Index 46.06 Description Talle Lane to Joyer Lane Overall Condition Index 46.27 Description Gordon Avenue N to 20th Ave Overall Condition Index 46.42 N Description Old Mill Road to #7600 Overall Condition Index 46.82 Description Deer Pass Tr to North Dead End Overall Condition Index 47.00 Description Lois Ln to Prairie View PI Overall Condition Index 47.12 Description Arrowhead Court to Chippewa Overall Condition Index 47.32 TrI Route Canfield Road Route Arrowhead Court Route Hokah Drive Route Fled Hawk Trail Route Totem Trail Route Lonesome Pine Trail Route Lonesome Pine Trail Route Coyote Trail Route Linden Lane Route Lonesome Pine Route Trail Coyote Trail Route 30yer Lane Route Totem Trail Rout Chippewa Trail Rout Nottingham Lane Rout Arrowhead Drive Description Gaage Lane to Talle Lane Description Arrowhead Dr to Sac Description Totem Tr to Bubble Sac Description Lonesome Pine Tr to Sac Description Rice Ct to Birch St Description Bubble Sac to Linden Lane R °1-0t Red Hawk Trail RO�te Arrowhead Drive Rot-rt e Chippewa Trail Overall Condition Index 47.52 Overall Condition Index 47.56 Overall Condition Index 47.67 Overall Condition Index 47.72 Overall Condition Index 48.00 Overall Condition Index 48.31 Length 533.61 Length 452.9: Length 325.7: Length 471.3£ Length 250.71 Length 1,312 Length 1,129 Length 799.3 Length 431.4 Length 1,220 Length 2,086 Length 2,907 Length 202.E Length 1,46' Length 535.' Length 562, Length 217. Length 473. Length 296. Length 541 Length 523 Description Coyote Tr to Red Hawk Tr Overall Condition Index 48.31 Length 586 Description Lonesome Pine Trl to Linden Ln Description Coyote Tr to Lonesome Pine Tr Description Linden Ln to Coyote Tr Overall Condition Index 48.31 Overall Condition Index 48.31 Overall Condition Index 48.31 Length 377 Length 1,3 Length 86] Description Linden Tr to Coyote Tr Bubble Overall Condition Index 48.31 Length 74£ Sac Description Karth Rd to Birch St Description Arrowhead Dr to Hokah Dr Overall Condition Index 48.62 Length 1,= Overall Condition Index 48.66 Length 28 Description Arrowhead Dr to Prairie Flower Overall Condition Index 48.68 Length 45 Rd Description Greenwood Ln to Lois Ln Overall Condition Index 48.76 Length 1,: Description 550' East of Totem Trail to Overall Condition Index 48.90 Length 5E Tomahawk Trail Description Hawthorn Rd to Lonesome Pine Overall Condition Index 48.90 Length 2E Tr Description Tomahawk Tr! to Arrowhead Ct Overall Condition Index 48.90 Description Tomahawk Trl to Arrowhead Dr Overall Condition Index 48.90 - 147 - Length 4! Length 7! Page Number 1 • Route Blackbird Lane Route Karth Road Route Tomahawk Trail Route Hawthorn Road Description Andell St to Sac Description Talle Lane to Sac Description Tomahawk Ct to Chippewa Tr Description Ware Rd to Red Hawk Tr Route Shadow Lake Drive Description Sandpiper Dr to Dead End W Route 77th Street W Route Coyote Trail Route Hawthorn Road Route Coyote Trail Route Coyote Court Route Lonesome Pine Trail Route Gaage Lane Route Hawthorn Road Route Rice Court Route Patti Drive Description Marilyn Dr to Country Ln Description Bubble Sac to Coyote Ct. Overall Condition Index 49.00 Overall Condition Index 49.05 Overall Condition Index 49.14 Overall Condition Index 49.20 Overall Condition Index 49.23 Overall Condition Index 49.42 Overall Condition Index 49.49 Description Red Hawk Tr to Lonesome Pine Overall Condition Index 49.49 Tr Description Coyote Ct. to Ware Road Description Coyote Trl to Sac Description Hawthorn Rd to Bubble Sac Description Birch St to Canfield Rd Description Lonesome Pine Tr to Painted Turtle Rd Description Totem Tr to Sac Description Connie Lane to Marcia Lane Route Tomahawk Trail Description Chippewa Tr to Arrowhead Dr Route Shadow Lake Drive Description Shadow Ct to Sandpiper Dr Route Rehbein Street Route Bradley Street Route James Street Route 12th Avenue S Route 77th Street W Route 12th Avenue S Route Jeanne Drive Route Lamotte Drive Route Marshan Lane Route Gordon Avenue N Route Connie Lane Route Rice Lake Court Route Jeanne Drive Route Cedar Street E Description Gordon Ave N to 20th Ave N Description Sunset Ave to Leonard Ave Description Lake Dr NE to #980 Description Buckthorn Ln to White Oak Rd Description Country Lane to Sac Description Peregrine Circle to Holly Dr E Description 74th St to Connie Lane Description #1597 to Lamotte Circle Description Lake Dr to Sac Description Sac to Rehbeins St Description Patti Dr to Jeanne Dr Description Rice Lake Ln to Sac Description Marcia Lane to Lilac St Description Clearwater Creek Dr to Otter Lake Rd Description Foxtail Ct to Woodchuck Cir Description County Rd 3 to Lamotte Cir Description 74th St to Connie Ln Description Main St to Sac Description Connie Lane to Marcia Lane Description Holly Dr N to Sac Description Birch St to Buckthorn Lane Description White Oak Rd to Peregrine Cir Description Rice Lake Ct to Elm St Description Patti Dr to Jeanne Dr Description Elm St to Fairmont Description Lake Dr NE to Sac Description Ulmer Dr to Elm St Description Country Ln to Meadow View Tr Description Sac to Woodchuck Cir Description Lamotte Dr to Sac Description #790 to Knoll Dr Route Foxtail Drive Route Lamotte Drive Route Fatti Drive Route Aenon Place Route :eanne Drive Route Holly Court E Route 12th Avenue S Route 12th Avenue S Route Rice Lake Lane Route Marcia Lane Route Lakeview Drive Route Maple Street Route Rice Lake Drive Route Praire View Place Route Woodchuck Court Route Lamotte Circle Route Lois Lane Overall Condition Index 49.49 Overall Condition Index 49.49 Overall Condition Index 49.61 Overall Condition Index 49.80 Overall Condition Index 49.84 Overall Condition Index 49.90 Overall Condition Index 49.95 Overall Condition Index 49.96 Overall Condition Index 49,96 Overall Condition Index 50.01 Overall Condition Index 50.17 Overall Condition Index 50.66 Overall Condition Index 50.80 Overall Condition Index 50.81 Overall Condition Index 51.60 Overall Condition Index 52.52 Overall Condition Index 52.82 Overall Condition Index 52.94 Overall Condition Index 53.27 Overall Condition Index 53.67 Overall Condition Index 53.71 -148- Length 751.55 ft Length 454.09 ft Length 291.52 ft Length 383.20 ft Length 433,94 ft Length 747.25 ft Length 773.45 ft Length 1,981.43 Length 377.94 f Length 335.28 f Length 333.82 f Length 831.47 f Length 595.49 f Length 404.081 Length 1,275.2 Length 344,01 Length 846.50 Length 2,080.7 Length 605.19 Length 2,202.1 Length 337.87 Length 594.95 Length 309.75 Length 658.79 Length 281.22 Length 937,69 Length 224.41 Length 661.1E Length 528.25 Overall Condition Index 53.76 Length 720.4E Overall Condition Index 54,00 Length 654.01 Overall Condition Index 54.65 Overall Condition Index 55.27 Overall Condition Index 55.32 Overall Condition Index 55.45 Overall Condition Index 55.58 Overall Condition Index 55.70 Overall Condition Index 56.0D Overall Condition Index 56.20 Overall Condition Index 56.71 Overall Condition Index 56,91 Overall Condition Index 57.02 Overall Condition Index 57.64 Overall Condition Index 57.83 Overall Condition Index 58.00 Overall Condition Index 58.00 Overall Condition Index 58.36 Overall Condition Index 59.03 Length 581.4: Length 306.8. Length 663.1 Length 1,118 Length 1,251 Length 1,603 Length 783.E Length 1,19'; Length 1,7& Length 750.E Length 1,31; Length 926,'. Length 1,77 Length 570. Length 420. Length 825. Length 2,1E Page Number 2 • • • Route Barbara Lane Route Lois Lane Route Glenview Drive Route Glenview Drive Route Elbe Street NE Route 4th Avenue Route Lois Lane Route 74th Street Route Rondeau Lake Road W Route 4th Avenue Route 77th Street E Route 81st Street W Route Oakwood Drive Route Holly Drive E Route Greenwood Lane Route Foxtail Drive Route Diane Street Route Danube Street Route 77th Street W Route Holly Drive E Route Diane Court Route Woodchuck Circle Route 77th Street W Route 81st Street W Route 77th Street W Description Marilyn Dr to Sac Description Greenwood Ln to Sherwood Ln Description Sunrise Ave to Lakeview Dr. Description Lakeview Dr. to Sunset Ave. Description Main St to 81st St W Description Main St to Andall St Description Knoll Dr to Sac Description Jeanne Drive to Patti Drive Description #8399 to City Limits Overall Condition Index 59.28 Overall Condition Index 59.69 Overall Condition Index 59.80 Overall Condition Index 59.80 Overall Condition Index 59.84 Overall Condition Index 60.35 Overall Condition Index 60.39 Overall Condition Index 61.00 Overall Condition Index 61.49 Description Andall St to Pine St Description Peltier Lake Dr to Gordon Ave N Description Danube St to Elbe St NE Description Rohavic Ln to Sac Description Holly Court to County Road 3 Description Lois Lane to Nottingham Ln Description Ash St to foxtail Ct Description #8107 to Lake Dr Description Sac to 81st St W Description Carole Dr to Lake Dr NE Description County Rd 21 to West End Description Diane St to East Sac Description Foxtail Dr to Bald Eagle Blvd W Description Lake Dr NE to Marilyn Dr Description Lake Dr NE to Danube St Description Carole Dr to Sac -149- Overall Condition Index 61.60 Overall Condition Index 61.82 Overall Condition Index 62.01 Overall Condition Index 62.55 Overall Condition Index 63.17 Overall Condition Index 64.93 Overall Condition Index 65.10 Overall Condition Index 66.10 Overall Condition Index 66.14 Overall Condition Index 67.06 Overall Condition Index 67.09 Overall Condition Index 67.35 Overall Condition Index 69.43 Overall Condition Index 69.61 Overall Condition Index 69.66 Overall Condition Index 70.00 Length.amount Length 542.71 ft Length 296.77 ft Length 1,298.30 Length 1,298.30 Length 864.09 f Length 3,837.7: Length 937.51 f Length 627.95 f Length 562.08 f Length 1,363.4! Length 623.831 Length 348.44 Length 570.25 Length 3,463.9 Length 575.02 Length 959.07 Length 510.87 Length 502.41 Length 1,248.1 Length 3,821.E Length 213.71 Length 836.13 Length 492.27 Length 414.95 Length 1,256.E 103215.67 ft Page Number 3 • Route Olive Street Route Andall Street Route Sherman Lake Road Route Ulmer Drive Report Title OCI_70.01 -100 Description Eva St to East Sac Description Blackbird Ln to Wood Duck Trl Description Timberwolf Tr to Pondview Cir Description Rice lake Dr to Rice Lake Ct Route Prairie Flower Road Description Chippewa Tr to Sac Route Linda Avenue Route Country Lane Route Lois Lane Description Hodgson Rd to Linda Ct Description 77th St W to Prairie View PI Description Country Lane to #595 Route Ash Street Description Bald Eagle Blvd to Foxtail Dr Route Prairie Flower Road Description Shadow Lake Dr W to Chippewa Overall Condition Index 73.29 Tr Route Aqua Lane Description Lake Dr to Aqua Cir West Route Black Duck Drive S Description Tamarack Ln to Birch St Route Ash Street Description Foxtail Dr to Sargent Court Route Partridge Court Description Partridge Ct to Sac Route Woodchuck Circle Description Woodchuck Ct to Foxtail Dr Route Lakeview Drive Description Fairmont to Gladstone Route Lakeview Drive Description Gladstone to Glenview Route Lakeview Drive Description Glenview to North Rd Route Rustic Lane Description Glenview Dr to Sunrise Dr Route Gladstone Drive Description Sunset Ave to Lakeview Dr Route Fairmont Drive Description Lakeview Dr to Sunset Ave Route Fairmont Drive Description Sunrise Dr to Lakeview Dr Route Sunrise Road Description Glenview Dr to Rustic Ln Route Gladstone Drive Description Lakeview Dr to Sunrise Dr Route Sunrise Road Description Gladstone Dr to Glenview Dr Route Carl Street Description #346 to sac Route Eva Street Description Olive St to Orange St Route Glenview Drive Description Sunrise Dr to Rustic Lane Today's Date Tuesday, November 16, 2004 Overall Condition Index 70.29 Overall Condition Index 70.62 Overall Condition Index 71.00 Overall Condition Index 71.16 Overall Condition Index 71.86 Overall Condition Index 71.90 Overall Condition Index 72.00 Overall Condition Index 72.43 Overall Condition Index 73.07 Overall Condition Index 73.60 Overall Condition Index 73.78 Overall Condition Index 74.52 Overall Condition Index 74.69 Overall Condition Index 74.72 Overall Condition Index 75.20 Overall Condition Index 75.20 Overall Condition Index 75.20 Overall Condition Index 75.20 Overall Condition Index 75.20 Overall Condition Index 75.20 Overall Condition Index 75.20 Overall Condition Index 75.20 Overall Condition Index 75.20 Overall Condition Index 75.20 Overall Condition Index 75.30 Overall Condition Index 75.32 Overall Condition Index 76.00 Length 497.92 f Length 699.31 f Length 481.81 f Length 643.14 i Length 243.041 Length 179.32 Length 811.46 Length 452.74 Length 900.00 Length 573,47 Length 448.52 Length 408.25 Length 1,263.( Length 448.75 Length 574.03 Length 1,310.1 Length 1,341. Length 1,321. Length 784.57 Length 643.3 Length 620.0£ Length 603.91 Length 505.0 Length 619.1 Length 1,317 Length 776.5 Length 325.3 Length 475.= Route Elbe Street NE Description 81st St W to Sac Overall Condition Index 76.20 Length 176.E Route Sargent Court N Description Ash St to Sac Overall Condition Index 76.20 Length 910.E Route Laurene Avenue Description Schiavin Ct to White Pine Rd Overall Condition Index 76.48 Length 469.£ Route Foxtail Court Description Sac to Foxtail Dr Overall Condition Index 76.64 Length 801. Route Oak Lane Description Lake Dr NE to Carole Dr Overall Condition Index 76.80 Length 832. Route Sunrise Road Description Rustic Ln to Cul de sac at cty Overall Condition Index 76.80 Length 586. 10 Description Birch St to Broken Oak Ct Overall Condition Index 77.00 Length 360. Route Pheasant Hills Drive Route Pine Street Route Schiavin Court Route Egret Lane Route Laurene Avenue Description Lake Dr to 4th Avenue Description Laurene Ave to Sac Description Hodgson Rd to Pelican PI Description Rohavic Lane to Schiavin Ct Route Orange Street Description Eva St to Lake Dr NE Route Baldwin Lake Road Description County Road J to Woodridge Ln Route Grey Squirrel Road Description Sunflower Ln to Sac Route Shadow Lake Drive Description Ironwood Cir to Painted Turtle W Rd Route Stage Coach Trail Description Forsham lake Dr to Sac Route 2nd Avenue Description Green Briar Dr to Ulmer Dr Route Stage Coach Trail Description Post Rd to Forsharn Lake Dr - 150 - Overall Condition Index 78.00 Overall Condition Index 78.88 Overall Condition Index 79.00 Overall Condition Index 79.12 Overall Condition Index 79.94 Overall Condition Index 79,97 Overall Condition Index 80.00 Overall Condition Index 80.40 Overall Condition Index 80.40 Overall Condition Index 81.28 Overall Condition Index 81.60 Length 7,19 Length 478 Length 463 Length 558 Length 1,0: Length 1,71 Length 265 Length 411 Length 58� Length 32' Length 291 Page Number 1 Route James Street 0 Route Lantern Lane Route Partridge Place Route Cedar Street E Route Killdeer Court Route Mourning Dove Road Route Service Road Route Rolling Hills Drive Route Antelope Drive Route 2nd Avenue Route Ruffed Grouse Road Route Fawn Lane Route Otter Lake Drive Route Laurene Avenue Route Antelope Drive Route Black Duck Drive Route Ware Road Route Ware Road Route Ware Road Route Ware Road Route Forsham Lake Drive Route Ware Road Route Ware Road Route Rohavic Lane Route Pest Road • Description #980 to Main St Description Lantern Cir to East Shadow Lake Dr E Description #6723 to Black Duck Tr Description #2310 to Clearwater Creek Dr Description Killdeer Dr to Sac Description Smoketree Lane to Sac Description Phelps Road to North Sac Description Bald Eagle Blvd W to Railing Rd Description Gladstone Dr to Wildflower Dr Description Sunflower Ln to Smoketree Ln Description Ruffed Grouse Ct to Sac Route Antelope Drive Route Rohavic Lane Route Oakwood Lane Route Woodridge Court Route 2nd Avenue Route Service Road Route Killdeer Drive Route Fox Road Route Deerwood Lane Route Ruffed Grouse Road Route Gray Heron Drive Description Muskrat Run to Beaver Trl Description Sac to Otter Lake Road Description Linda Ave to Sac Description Green Briar Dr to Green Briar Dr Description North End Sac to Crystal Ct Description 62nd Ave to County Road J Description Coyote Tr to Hawthorn Rd Description 62nd Ave to Linda Ave Description Linda Av to Coyote Tr Description Lake Dr to Stagecoach Trl Route Wood Duck Trail Route Stage Coach Trail Description Hawthorn Rd to Arrowhead Dr Description Arrowhead Dr to Birch St Description Hodgson Rd to Oakwood Dr Description Stagecoach Tr to #443 (Mid -Rad) Description Wildflower Dr to Ulmer Dr Description Oakwood Dr to Laurene Ave Description Woodridge Lane to Sac Description Woodridge Ln to Sac Description Description Description Description Description Description Overall Condition Index 81.84 Overall Condition Index 81.92 Overall Condition Index 82.00 Overall Condition Index 82.36 Overall Condition Index 82.40 Overall Condition Index 83.00 Overall Condition Index 83.00 Overall Condition Index 83,15 Overall Condition Index 83.30 Overall Condition Index 83.38 Overall Condition Index 83.60 Overall Condition Index 83.60 Overall Condition Index 83.80 Overall Condition Index 83.82 Overall Condition Index 83.96 Overall Condition Index 84.00 Overall Condition Index 84,00 Overall Condition Index 84.00 Overall Condition Index 84.00 Overall Condition Index 84.00 Overall Condition Index 84.00 Overall Condition Index 84.00 Overall Condition Index 84.00 Overall Condition Index 84.19 Overall Condition Index 84.20 Overall Condition Index 84.20 Overall Condition Index 84.36 Overall Condition Index 84.50 Overall Condition Index 84.80 Red Clover Ln to Green Briar Dr Overall Condition Index 84.92 Otter Lake Road to Phelps Overall Condition Index 85.76 Killdeer Ct to Tamarack Ln Overall Condition Index 86.00 White Owl Dr to Fox Cir Deerwood Circle to Fox Rd Wild Turkey Tr to Ruffed Grouse Ct Description Snow Owl Ln to Whippoorwill Ln Description Main St to Andall St Description Post Rd to Post Rd Route 2nd Avenue Description Route Shadow Lake Drive 1,11 Route Pheasant Run S Route Pelican Place Route Sunrise Road Route Smoketree Lane Route Black Duck Drive S Route Egret Lane Description Description Description Description Description Description Description Wildflower Dr to Gladstone Cir Painted Turtle Rd to River Birch PI Aspen Lane to Dead End Egret Lane to Egret Lane Fairmont Dr to Green Briar Dr Mourning Dove Rd to Sunrise Dr Aspen Ln to Tamarack Ln Blue Heron Dr to Sac - 1 5 1 - Overall Condition Index 86.30 Overall Condition Index 86.46 Overall Condition Index 86.50 Overall Condition Index 86.50 Overall Condition Index 86.50 Overall Condition Index 86.52 Overall Condition Index 86.66 Overall Condition Index 86.80 Length 441.90 ft Length 555.84 ft Length 796.74 ft Length 712.00 ft Length 155.02 f Length 268.32 f Length 1,702.9E Length 1,650.2.E Length 483.83 f Length 318.29 f Length 630.70 f Length 801.77 I Length 1,350.3 Length 795.64 Length 153.19 Length 1,651.7 Length 2,630.3 Length 1,461.1 Length 309.33 Length 541.64 Length 678.22 Length 624.98 Length 1,040.E Length 477.35 Length 486.65 Length 333.29 Length 445.45 Length 529.92 Length 262.11 Length 333.42 Length 1,360. Length 331.7( Length 462.51 Length 488.1 Length 269.5 Length 374.1 Length 3,124 Length 344.6 Length 338.2 Length 330.E Overall Condition Index 87.00 Length 398.E Overall Condition Index 87.08 Length 549.4 Overall Condition Index 87.10 Length 316.: Overall Condition Index 87.20 Length 328., Overall Condition Index 87.48 Length 583. Overall Condition Index 87.80 Length 183. Page Number 2 • • Route Mourning Dove Description Sunflower Ln to Smoketree Ln Overall Condition Index 87.80 Length 370.88 ft Road Route Fawn Lane Description Sac to Muskrat Run Route Stage Coach Trail Description Post Rd to Sac Route Laurene Avenue Description White Pine Rd to Linda Ave Route Glenview Drive Description Rustic Lane to Glenview Ln Route Aspen Lane Description Pheasant Run S to Black Duck Dr S Route River Birch Place Description Shadow Lake Dr W to Sac Route Green Briar Drive Description Sunrise Dr to Antelope Dr Route Muskrat Run Description Deerwood Ln to Fawn Ln Route Deerwood Lane Description Beaver Trl to Beaver Cir Route 81st Street E Description East rondeau Lake Rd. to Dead End Route Sunfish Court Description Sunflower Ln to Sac Route Sunflower Lane Description Mourning Dove Rd to Grey Squirrel Rd Route Beaver Circle Description Deerwood Ln to Sac Route Aspen Lane Description Black Duck Dr S to Killdeer Dr Route Beaver Trail Description Deerwood Ln to Fawn Ln Route Rolling Hills Drive Description Reiling Rd to Deer Pass Tr Route Black Duck Drive Description Crystal Ct to Mallard Ln Route Lantern Lane Description Black Duck Dr to Lantern Cir Route Antelope Drive Description Ulmer Dr to Green Briar Dr Route Gladstone Circle Description 2nd Ave to Sac Route Tamarack Lane Description Black Duck Dr S to Killdeer Dr Route Gray Heron Drive Description #7128 to Whippoorwill Lane Route Thomas Street Route Mallard Lane Route Gray Heron Drive Route Fox Road Route Sunrise Road Route Linda Circle Route Caribou Circle Route 2nd Avenue Route Deerwood Lane Route Cinnamon Teal Court Route Ruffed Grouse Road Route 2nd Avenue Route 2nd Avenue Route 80th Street E Route Pheasant Run S Route Post Road Route Elm Street Route Sherwood Lane Route Elm Street Route Elm Street Route Sunflower Lane Route 2nd Avenue Route White Pine Road Overall Condition Index 88.00 Overall Condition Index 88.00 Overall Condition Index 88.18 Overall Condition Index 88.20 Overall Condition Index 88,40 Overall Condition Index 88.50 Overall Condition Index 88.50 Overall Condition Index 88.50 Overall Condition Index 88.52 Overall Condition Index 88.60 Description 4th Ave. to Dead End Description Black Duck Dr to Sac Description Elm St to #7128 Description Deerwood Lane to Fox Cir Description Green Briar Dr to Gladstone Dr Description Linda Ln to Sac Description Wildflower Dr to Sac Description Elm St to Sunflower Ln Description Birch St to Beaver Trl Description Sac to Elm St Description Wild Turkey Tr to Sac Overall Condition Index 88.64 Overall Condition Index 88.88 Overall Condition Index 89.0D Overall Condition Index 89.00 Overall Condition Index 89.00 Overall Condition Index 89.00 Overall Condition Index 89.50 Overall Condition Index 89.50 Overall Condition Index 89.60 Overall Condition Index 89.60 Overall Condition Index 89.72 Overall Condition Index 90.00 Overall Condition Index 90.00 Overall Condition Index 90.00 Overall Condition Index 90.00 Overall Condition Index 90.02 Overall Condition Index 90.18 Overall Condition Index 90.20 Overall Condition Index 90.20 Overall Condition Index 90.32 Overall Condition Index 90.40 Overall Condition Index 90.50 Length 698.35 ft Length 251.53 ft Length 285.07 ft Length 363.24 ft Length 183.19 ft Length 651.60 f Length 383.61 f Length 330.87 f Length 222.91 f Length 1,252.5: Length 265,92 f Length 317.01 i Length 528.50 1 Length 641.59 1 Length 533.67 Length 551.11 Length 311.55 Length 527,06 Length 190.60 Length 311.21 Length 571,00 Length 328.72 Length 1,349.E Length 336.68 Length 1,159.: Length 1,056., Length 1,002.` Length 204.02 Length 333.64 Length 483.67 Length 230.1= Length 354.0E Overall Condition Index 90.50 Length 356.8E Description Gladstone Cir to Glenview Ave Overall Condition Index 90.60 Description Ulmer Dr to Wildflower Dr Overall Condition Index 90.70 Description 20th Avenue N to 24th Avenue Overall Condition Index 90.80 N Description Aspen Ln to Birch St Overall Condition Index 91.00 Description #443 (Mid -Rad) to Stagecoach Overall Condition Index 91.00 Tr Description Cinnamon Teal Ct to Gray Heron Dr Description Lois Ln to Carl St Description Lake Dr to 4th Ave Description 4th Ave to Cinnamon Teal Court Description Grey Squirrel Rd to Sunfish Ct Description Smoketree Ln to Red Clover Ln Description Oakwood Ln to Laurene Ave - 1 5 2 - Overall Condition Index 91.00 Overall Condition Index 91.00 Overall Condition Index 91.00 Overall Condition Index 91.00 Overall Condition Index 91.40 Overall Condition Index 91.42 Overall Condition Index 91.58 Length 331.3( Length 323.01 Length 5,336 Length 961.4 Length 804.2 Length 359.0 Length 492.7 Length 455.4 Length 405.7 Length 448.8 Length 343.: Length 1,21( Page Number 3 • Route Sunrise Road Description Elm St to Smoketree Ln Route 4th Avenue Description Sherwood Ln to Main St Route Ulmer Drive Description 2nd Ave to Rice Lake Dr Route 2nd Avenue Description Glenview Dr to Lake Dr Route Black Duck Circle Description Black Duck Dr to Sac Route Shadow Lake Drive Description Lantern Ln to Sac E Route Mourning Dove Road Route 4th Avenue Route Lantern Circle Route Ulmer Drive Route Sunflower Lane Route Pheasant Hills Circle Route Deerwood Circle Route Lea Court Route Wildflower Drive Route Glenview Lane Route Green Briar Drive Route Black Duck Drive Route Crystal Court Route Aqua Lane Route Deer Pass Trail Route White Pine Circle Route Linda Court Route Broken Oak Court Route Grey Squirrel Route Sandhill Drive Description Elm St to Sunflower Ln Description 479' N of Apollo to Lilac St Description Sac to Lantern Lane Description Antelope Dr to 2nd Ave Description 2nd Ave to Sunfish Ct Description Pheasant Hills Dr to Sac Description Deerwood Lane to West Sac Description Apollo Dr to Sac Description Caribou Cir to Antelope Dr Description Parkview Dr to Glenview Ave Description Antelope Dr to 2nd Ave Description Description Mallard Black Ln to Overall Condition Index 91.60 Overall Condition Index 91.60 Overall Condition Index 91.80 Overall Condition Index 91.90 Overall Condition Index 92.00 Overall Condition Index 92.00 Length 864.64 ft Length 2,661.12 Length 374.66 ft Length 653.44 ft Length 408.99 ft Length 558.28 ft Overall Condition Index 92.00 Length 486.18 ft Overall Condition Index 92.00 Overall Condition Index 92.00 Overall Condition Index 92.20 Overall Condition Index 92.20 Overall Condition Index 92.30 Overall Condition Index 92.40 Length 1,327,00 Length 582.30 fl Length 928.08 f Length 208.05 f Length 144.79 f Length 125.26 f Overall Condition Index 92.50 Length 360.56 f Overall Condition Index 92.80 Overall Condition Index 92.80 Overall Condition Index 93.00 Shadow Lake Dr E Overall Condition Index 93.00 Overall Condition Index 93.00 Overall Condition Index 93.15 Overall Condition Index 93.30 Overall Condition Index 93.30 Overall Condition Index 93.60 Overall Condition Index 93.90 Overall Condition Index 93.90 Overall Condition Index 93.90 Overall Condition Index 93.90 Overall Condition Index 93.90 Overall Condition Index 93.90 Overall Condition Index 93.90 Overall Condition Index 94.00 Overall Condition Index 94.00 Overall Condition Index 94.20 Overall Condition Index 94.20 Overall Condition Index 94.20 Overall Condition Index 94.50 Overall Condition Index 94.50 Overall Condition Index 94.50 Overall Condition Index 94.60 Duck Dr to Sac Description Aqua Cir East to Park Property Description Rolling Hills Dr to Whitetail Rdg Description White Pine Rd to Sac Description Linda Lane to Sac Description Pheasant Hills Dr to Sac Road Description Smoketree Ln to Red Clover Ln Description Blue Heron Dr to Sac Description Beaver Trail To Birch St Description Hodgson Rd to Sandhi!! Dr Description Glen Trail S to Sac Description Beaver Cir to Muskrat Run Description Lilac St to Thomas St Description Lacasse Dr to Sac Description Pelican PI to Pelican PI Description Lacasse Ct to Ellen Court Description 2nd Ave to Caribou Cir Description Glenview Ave to Parkview Description Lacasse Dr to W Sac Description Aspen Lane to Killdeer Description Timberwolf Tr to Sac Route Fawn Lane Route Blue Heron Drive Route Glen Circle Route Deerwood Lane Route 4th Avenue Route Ellen Court Route Egret Lane Route Lacasse Drive Route Wildflower Drive Route 2nd Avenue Route Lacasse Court Route Killdeer Drive Route Pheasant Hills Drive Route Oakwood Lane Ct Dr Description Woodridge Ln to White Pine Rd Overall Condition Index 94.80 Route Shadow Lake Drive Description Black Duck Dr to Lantern Ln E Route Fox Circle Description Fox Rd to Sac Route White Pine Road Description White Pine Cir to Oakwood Ln Route Baldwin Lake Road Description Woodridge Ln to White Pine Rd Route Lacasse Drive Route Whitetail Trail Route Egret Lane Route Lacasse Drive Description Lacasse Cir to Tele Ln Description Buckthorn Ln to Chokecherry Rd Overall Condition Index 95.00 Overall Condition Index 95.00 Overall Condition Index 95.10 Overall Condition Index 95.10 Overall Condition Index 95.20 Overall Condition index 95.20 Description Pelican PI to Blue Heron Dr Overall Condition Index 95.40 Description Clearwater Creek Dr to Lacasse Overall Condition Index 95.60 -153- Length 333.63 f Length 324.60 I Length 909.65 1 Length 487.35 Length 188.57 Length 534.19 Length 523.35 Length 208.48 Length 471.93 Length 301.19 Length 330.80 Length 891.47 Length 222.84 Length 639.44 Length 263,60 Length 484.75 Length 1,333.! Length 201.51 Length 418.81 Length 501.7E Length 603.1; Length 319.6E Length 236.6`. Length 259.2'. Length 323.4: Length 586.8 Length 2,166 Length 172.5 Length 576.5 Length 557.3 Length 418.E Length 555.5 Length 449.5 Length 764.: Page Number 4 Route Blue Heron Drive Route South Glen Trail Route South Glen Trail Route Wild Turkey Trail Route Snow Owl Lane Route Red Clover Lane Route Sunrise Road Route Deerwood Lane Route Clearwater Creek Circle Route Pondview Circle Route Sherman Lake Road Route Deerwood Circle Route Sioux Court Route Hollow Lane Route South Glen Trail Route Partridge Place Route Whitetail Ridge Route Smoketree Lane Route Glenview Avenue Route Linda Lane Route Gladstone Drive Route Snow Owl Lane Ct Description Sandhi ll Dr to Egret Ln Description 62nd Ave to Bubble Sac Description Hollow Ln to Glen Circle Description Birch St to Ruffed Grouse Rd Description Snow Owl Cir to Gray Heron Dr Description Grey Squirrel Rd to 2nd Ave Description Smoketree Ln to Fairmont Dr Description Muskrat Run to Deerwood Cir Description Sac to Clearwater Creek Dr Description Sherman Lake Rd to Sac Description Meadowlark Ct to Osprey Ct Description Deerwood Lane to East Sac Description Sioux Ln to Sac Description South Glen Tr to Sac Description Description Description Description Description Description Description Bubble Sac to Glen Cir Black Duck Dr to #6723 Reiling Rd to Deer Pass Tr Grey Squirrel Rd to 2nd Ave 2nd Ave to Glenview Lane Linda Cir to Linda Ave Sunrise Dr to Antelope Dr Description Gray Heron Dr to Elm St Route Grey Squirrel Road Description Sunflower Ln to Smoketree Ln Route Woodridge Lane Route Town Center Parkway Route Glenview Lane Route Linda Lane Route Timberwolf Trail Route Hollow Lane Route White Oak Road Route Woodchuck Circle Route Linda Avenue Route Killdeer Drive Route Clearwater Creek Drive Route Parkview Drive Route Woodridge Lane Route Timberwolf Circle Route Birch Court Route Lacasse Court Route 4th Avenue Route Villiage Drive Route Fox Road Overall Condition Index 95.70 Overall Condition Index 95.70 Overall Condition Index 95.70 Overall Condition Index 95.80 Overall Condition Index 96.00 Overall Condition Index 96.00 Overall Condition Index 96.00 Overall Condition Index 96.00 Overall Condition Index 96.00 Overall Condition Index 96.00 Overall Condition Index 96.00 Overall Condition Index 96.00 Overall Condition Index 96.00 Overall Condition Index 96.20 Overall Condition Index 96.20 Overall Condition Index 96.20 Overall Condition Index 96.20 Overall Condition Index 96.40 Overall Condition Index 96.40 Overall Condition Index 96.40 Overall Condition Index 96.40 Overall Condition Index 96.40 Overall Condition Index 96.40 Description Baldwin Lake Rd to Oakwood Ln Overall Condition Index 96.60 Description Lake Dr to Village Dr Description Parkview Dr to Glenview Dr Description Linda Ave to Sac Description Timberwolf Cir to Sherman Lake Rd Description South glen Tr to 62nd Ave N Description Chokecherry Rd to Velvetleaf Ln Description Bald Eagle Blvd W to Woodchuck Ct Description Linda Lane to Ware Rd Overall Condition Index 96.60 Overall Condition Index 96.60 Overall Condition Index 96.60 Overall Condition Index 96.60 Overall Condition Index 96.60 Overall Condition Index 96.60 Overall Condition Index 96.63 Overall Condition Index 96.80 Description Aspen lane to Aspen Lane Overall Condition Index 96.80 Description Tele Dr to Clearwater Creek Cir Overall Condition Index 96.80 Description Glenview Ln to 2nd Ave Description Oakwood Ln to Woodridge Ct Description Timberwolf Tr to Sac Description Birch St to Sac Description Lacasse Dr to E Sac Description Thomas St to Sherwood Ln Description Town Center Pkwy to Sac Description Shadow Lake Dr W to White Owl Dr Route Chokecherry Road Description Sac to Whitetail Trl Route Trappers Xing N Description Trappers Ct to Sac Route Shadow Lake Drive Description Birch St to Hickory PI W Route 4th Avenue Description Apollo Dr to 47q' N -154- Overall Condition Index 96.80 Overall Condition Index 96.80 Overall Condition Index 96.80 Overall Condition Index 96.80 Overall Condition Index 97.00 Overall Condition Index 97.00 Overall Condition Index 97.00 Overall Condition Index 97.00 Overall Condition Index 97.00 Overall Condition Index 97.00 Overall Condition Index 97.00 Length 474.95 ft Length 501.94 ft Length 518.93 fl Length 699.72 f1 Length 355.28 f Length 593,99 f Length 451.15 f Length 441.88 f Length 213.72 f Length 425.13 f Length 1,585.51 Length 278.921 Length 152.931 Length 656.85 Length 360.14 Length 719.82 Length 412.00 Length 603.10 Length 494.56 Length 331.96 Length 383.23 Length 1,361.2 Length 335.98 Length 1,378.-) Length 344.69 Length 824.14 Length 300.34 Length 468.54 Length 473.14 Length 232.67 Length 758.7C Length 379.91 Length 126.8z Length 350.4E Length 501.4: Length 1,442, Length 212.7. Length 128.6. Length 275.0 Length 1,283 Length 519.9 Length 338.6 Length 476.6 Length 396.E Length 206.2 Overall Condition Index 97.00 Length 479.0 Page Number 5 • • Route Painted Turtle Road Route Palomino Lane Route Country Lakes Drive Route Linda Lane Route Painted Turtle Road Route Deerwood Lane Route Killdeer Drive Route White Pine Road Route Aqua Lane Route Whippoorwill Lane Route Woodridge Lane Route Pheasant Hills Drive Route Deer Pass Trail Route Country Lakes Drive Route Tele Drive Route Lacasse Circle Route Description Hawthorn Rd to River Birch PI Overall Condition Index 97.00 Length 462.93 ft Description Behm Ln to Lilac St Overall Condition Index 97.20 Description Fawn Lane to Deeerwood Ln Overall Condition Index 97.20 Description Linda Ct to Linda Cir Overall Condition Index 97.20 Description River Birch PI to Sac Overall Condition Index 97.40 Description Fox Rd to Sac Overall Condition Index 97.40 Description Aspen Lane to Sac Overall Condition Index 97.40 Description Baldwin Lake Rd to White Pine .Overall Condition Index 97.40 Cir Description Aqua Cir West to Aqua Cir East Overall Condition Index 97.40 Description Gray Heron Dr to Elm St Overall Condition Index 97.40 Description Woodridge Ct to Ash St Overall Condition Index 97.40 Description Broken Oak Ct to Pheasant Hills Overall Condition Index 97,60 Cir Description Whitetail Ridge to Sac Overall Condition Index 97.60 Description Fawn Lane to W end Overall Condition. Index .97.60 Description Tele Ln to Clearwater Creek Dr Overall Condition Index 97.60 Description Lacasse Dr to Sac Overall Condition Index 97.60 Shadow Lake Drive Description Hickory PI to Prairie Flower Rd Overall Condition Index 97.60 W Route Kingfisher Court Description Birch St to Sac Overall Condition Index 97.60 Route Lacasse Drive Overall Condition Index 97.60 Route Aspen Lane Route Trappers Court Route Behrn Lane Route Pheasant Hills Drive Route Tele Lane Route White Birch Court Description Clearwater Creek Dr to Lacasse Cir Description Killdeer Dr to Sac Description Trappers Xing N to Sac Description Palomino Ln to Teckla Ct Description Hawk Ridge Cir to Timberwolf Tr Description Tele Dr to Sac Description Birch St to Sac Route Savanna Court Description Ash St to Sac Route Hickory Place Description Shadow Lake Dr W to Sac Route Marilyn Drive Description Arlo Ln to Highland Tr Route White Oak Road Description Birch St to Chokecherry Rd Route Snow Owl Circle Description Snow Owl Ln to Sac Route Linda Avenue Description Laurene Ave to Hodgson Rd Route Bluebill Lane Description Main St to Sac Route White Oak Road Description Whitetail Tr to 12th Ave S Route Black Duck Court Description Sac to Black Duck Drive Route Ruffed Grouse Description Ruffed Grouse Rd to Sac Court Overall Condition Index 97.60 Overall Condition Index 97.60 Overall Condition Index 97.80 Overall Condition Index 97.80 Overall Condition index 97.80 Overall Condition Index 97.80 Overall Condition Index 97.80 Overall Condition Index 98.00 Overall Condition Index 98.00 Overall Condition Index 98.00 Overall Condition Index 98.00 Overall Condition Index 98.00 Overall Condition Index 98.00 Overall Condition Index 98.40 Overall Condition Index 98.40 Overall Condition Index 98.40 Length 698.18 ft Length 1,410.53 Length 1,038.94 Length 152.35 fl Length 988.09 f Length 157.83 f Length 907.32 f Length 303.17 f Length 1,328.9: Length 1,058.81 Length 245.77 Length 119.75 Length 160.19 Length 630.87 Length 244.04 Length 510.66 Length 489.63 Length 531.87 Length 581.93 Length 327.13 Length 788.35 Length 873.7E Length 355.0( Length 578.2! Length 458.31 Length 142.7. Length 395.0 Length 452.9 Length 393.2 Length 935.4 Length 877.E Length 496. Length 318.: Length 311.: Route Timberwolf Trail Description Timberwolf Cir to Pheasant Hills Overall Condition Index 98.40 Length 423.' Dr Route Chokecherry Road Description Whitetail Tri to White Oak Rd Overall Condition Index 98.40 Length 425. Overall Condition Index 98.40 Length 385. Route Shadow Lake Drive Description Fox Rd to White Owl Dr W Route Teckla Court Description Behm Ln to Sac Route Cripple Creek Pass Description Cripple Creek Ct to South Trappers Xing Route Albert Court Description Tart Lake Rd to Sac Route Trappers Xing N Description Holly Dr to Trappers Ct Route Fox Road Description Sac to Shadow Lake Dr W Route Timberwolf Trail Description Hunters Ridge to Wolf Cir -155- Overall Condition Index 98.40 Overall Condition Index 98.40 Overall Condition Index 98.40 Overall Condition Index 98.40 Overall Condition Index 98.46 Overall Condition Index 98.60 Length 315. Length 558. Length 246 Length 794 Length 494 Length 461 Page Number 6 Route Palomino Lane Route Hawk Ridge Circle Route Terra Court Route Velvetleaf Lane Route Sherman Lake Road Route Tele Lane Description Appaloosa Ln to Palomino Ln Description Pheasant Hills Dr to Sac Description Apollo Dr to Sac Description White Oak Rd to Sac Description Sherman Lake Cir to Osprey Ct Overall Condition Index 98.80 Overall Condition Index 98.80 Overall Condition Index 98.80 Overall Condition Index 98.80 Overall Condition Index 98.80 Description Lacasse Dr to Tele Dr Overall Condition Index 98.80 Route River Birch Place Description Shadow Lake Dr W to Painted Overall Condition Index 98.80 Turtle Rd Route Shadow Lake Drive Description River Birch PI to White Owl Dr Overall Condition Index 98.80 W Route Buckthorn Lane Description 12th Ave S to Whitetail Trl Overall Condition Index 98.80 Route Town Center Description Village Dr to Sac Overall Condition Index 98.80 Parkway Route Clearwater Creek Description Clearwater Creek Dr to Sac Overall Condition Index 98.80 Court Route Red Birch Court Description Birch St to Sac Overall Condition Index 98.80 Route Sherman Lake Description Pondview Cir to Teal Ct Overall Condition Index 98.80 Road Route Cherokee Trail Route Lacasse Drive Route Timberwolf Trail Route Ironwood Circle ' Route Painted Turtle Road Route South Glen Trail Route Black Duck Drive Route Appaloosa Lane Route Meadow Court Route Snow Goose Trail Route Pheasant Hills Drive Route Mustang Lane Route Palomino Lane Route Cripple Creek Court Route Shadow Lake Drive Description Prairie Flower Rd to Ironwood W Cir Route Deerwood Lane Route Pheasant Hills Drive Route White Owl Drive Route Appaloosa Court Route Fox Road Route Cassiopeia Court Route Mustang Lane Route Lois Lane Route Arlo Lane Route Elm Street Description Hudson Trail to Sac Overall Condition Index 98.92 Description Ellen Ct to Iverson Ct Overall Condition Index 99.00 Description Hunters Rdg to Sherman Lake Overall Condition Index 99.00 Rd Description Shadow Lake Dr W to Sac Overall Condition Index 99.00 Description Shadow Lake Dr W to Hawthorn Overall Condition Index 99.00 Rd Description Hollow Ln to Sac Overall Condition Index 99.20 Description Partridge PI to Black Duck Cir Overall Condition Index 99.20 #6796 Description Appaloosa Ct to Palomino Ln Description Apollo Dr to Sac Description Pheasant Hills Dr to Sac Description Snow Goose Tr to Hawk Ridge Cir Description Pony Ct to Mustang Ct Description Palomino Ln to Behm Ln Description Cripple Creek Pass to Sac Route Arlo Lane Route Wood Duck Trail Route Goldenrod Circle Route Timberwolf Trail Route Nancy Drive Route Langer Circle Description Country Lakes Dr to Birch St Description Pheasant Hills Cir to Snow Goose Tr Description Shadow Lake DR W to Fox Rd Description Appaloosa Ln to Sac Description Deerwood Lane to E end Description Holly Dr E to Sac Description Mustang Ct to Lilac St Description Marilyn Dr to #595 Description Joseph Ct to Highland Dr Description Gray Heron Dr to Whipporwill Ln Description Joseph Ct to Henry Ln Description Main St to Henry Ln Description Pheasant Hills Drive to Sac Description Hunters Ridge to Hunters Rdg Description Main St to Vicky Lane Description Langer Lane to Sac - 1 5 6 - Overall Condition Index 99.20 Overall Condition Index 99.20 Overall Condition Index 99.20 Overall Condition Index 99.60 Overall Condition Index 99.60 Overall Condition Index 99.60 Overall Condition Index 99.60 Length 368.25 fi Length 163.19 f Length 365.90 f Length 277.51 f Length 515.82 f Length 377.34 f Length 769.47 1 Length 538.001 Length 499.75 1 Length 721.70 Length 407.74 Length 575.19 Length 323.88 Length 324.38 Length 411.23 Length 585.73 Length 220.62 Length 475.27 Length 134.39 Length 1,146.'. Length 1,203. Length 585.34 Length 289.32 Length 348.8E Length 357.3( Length 798.6: Length 345.41 Overall Condition Index 99.60 Length 157.1; Overall Condition Index 99.60 Overall Condition Index 99.60 Overall Condition Index 99.60 Overall Condition Index 99.60 Overall Condition Index 99.60 Overall Condition Index 99.60 Overall Condition Index 99.60 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 1,241 Length 259.5 Length 726.1 Length 359.9 Length 159.4 Length 360.1 Length 488.4 Length 1,28E Length 402.( Length 339.`. Length 772.i Length 237.: Length 264. Length 900. Length 392. Length 185. Page Number 7 Route Appaloosa Lane •Route Langer Lane Route Heather Court N Route Sioux Lookout Route Wolf Circle Route Elm Street Route Ware Circle Route Mustang Lane Route Century Trail Route Sherman Lake Circle Route Sherman Lake Road Route Palomino Lane Route Clearwater Creek Drive Route Market Place Drive Route Meadowview Court Route Elm Street Route Shadow Lake Drive W Route 62nd Avenue N Route Highland Drive Route Country Lakes Drive Route Tart Lake Road Route Sherman Lake Road Route Highland Drive Route Trappers Xing S Route Tart Court Route Molitor Drive Route Highland Drive Route Arthur Court Route Pheasant Hills Drive Route White Oak Road Route Black Duck Drive Route Palomino Lane Route Osprey Court Route Highland Circle Route 62nd Avenue N Route Trappers Xing S Route Oakview Court • Description Lilac St to Appaloosa Ct Description Tart Lake Rd to Flora Ct Description Apollo Dr to Sac Description Sioux Ln to Sac Description Timberwolf Tr to Sac Description Mourning Dove to Sunrise Dr Description Ware Rd to Sac Description Palomino Lane to Pinto Lane Description Sunset Road to Pinto Lane Description Sherman Lake Rd to Sac Description Birch St to Merganser Ct Description Pinto Ln to Mustang Ln Description Arthur Ct to Lacasse Dr Description Description Description Description Lake Dr to 1st Intersection Pheasant Hills Drive to Sac Whipporwill Ln to Snow Owl Ln Fox Road to 62nd Ave N Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Description Hollow Ln to Shadow Lake Dr W Overall Condition Index 100.00 Description Highland Ct to Highland Cir Overall Condition Index 100.00 Description Deerwood Lane to Sac Overall Condition Index 100.00 Description Clearwater Creek Dr to Lacasse Overall Condition Index 100.00 Dr Description Sherman Lake Ct to Sherman Lake Cir Description Highland Ln to Highland Tr Description Cherokee Tr to Hudson Tr Description Tart lake Rd to Sac Description Centerville Road to East Sac Description Marilyn Dr to Highland Ct Description Clearwater Crk Dr to Sac Description Meadowview Court to South Stoneybrook Drive Sac Description Velvetleaf Ln to Whitetail Tr Description Black Duck Ct to Birch St Description Appaloosa Ln to Sac Description Sherman Lake Rd to Sac Description Highland Dr to Sac Description Shadow Lk Dr W to Red Maple Length 451.42 ft Length 1,712.30 Length 477.66 ft Length 614.65 ft Length 310.25 ft Length 340.05 f Length 121.36 f Length 793.00 f Length 644.72 f Length 101.66 f Length 1,077.8: Length 586.10 Length 936.05 Length Length Length Length 275.00 249.74 342.95 1,578.1 Length 2,283.7 Length 798.34 Length 221.95 Length 335.45 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 611.38 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 156.7E Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 382.4C Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 311.3E Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Ln Description Cripple Creek Pass to Mineral Pt Overall Condition Index 100.00 Description Pheasant Hills Drive to Sac Overall Condition Index 100.00 Route Shadow Lake Court Description E Route Langer Lane Route Arlo Lane Route Fawn Lane Route Whitetail Trail Route Holly Drive E Route Clearwater Creek Drive Route Hudson Trail Birch St to Sac Description Flora Court to Langer Circle Description #665 to Marilyn Drive Description Birch St to Country Lakes Dr Description White Oak Rd to Buckthorn Ln Description Trappers Xing N to Trappers Xing S Description Delina Cir to #6465 Description Trappers Xing S to Cherokee -157- Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 790.0( Length 661.6: Length 548.5: Length 416.0, Length 851.5 Length 327.3 Length 481.5 Length 522.8 Length 152.9 Length 434.i Length 446..` Length 308.`. Length 407.: Length 453. Length 305. Length 473. Length 335. Length 244, Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 114 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 676 Page Number 8 Route Trappers Xing S Route 62nd Avenue Route Black Duck Drive Route Century Trail Route Northern Lights Boulevard Route Langer Lane Route Clearwater Creek Drive Route Highland Drive Route Reiling Road Route Trappers Xing S Route Clearwater Creek Drive Route Holly Drive E Route 65th Street Route Pheasant Hills Drive Route Flora Court Route Durango Point Route Marilyn Drive Route Henry Lane Route Holly Drive E Route Delina Circle Route Sherman Lake Road Route Trappers Xing S Route Wood Duck Trail Route Timberwolf Trail Route Black Duck Drive Trail Description Holly Drive to Mineral Pt Description Ware Road to South Glen Trl Description Captains PI to Black Duck Ct Description Stallion Lane to East #7790 Description 21st Avenue to East Dead End Route Trappers Xing S Route Stella Lane Route August Circle Route Highland Trail Route Elm Street Route Mustang Court Route Marilyn Drive Route Sioux Lane Route Black Duck Drive Route holly Drive E Description August Circle to Stella Circle Description Cedar St E to Clearwater Creek Ct Description Highland Cir to Highland Ln Description Rolling Hills Dr to Whitetail Rdg Description Cripple Creek Pass to Hudson Tr Description Tart Lake Rd to Delina Cir Description Royal Pines PI to South Trappers Crossing Description Stella Ln to 24th Ave Description Oak View Court to Stoneybrook Drive Description Langer Lane to Sac - Description Trappers Xing S to Sac Description Oak Ct to Oak Ln Description Woodduck Trl to Woodduck Description Trappers Xing S to Cripple Creek Pass Description Clearwater Creek Dr to Sac Description Stoneybrook Drive to Temp Tr Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 276.03 ft Length 617.37 ft Length 541.54 ft Length 839.60 ft Length 488.61 ft Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 713.00 ft Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 223.64 fl Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 498.22 f Length 871.78 f Length 273.29 f Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 1,224.02 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 255.04 f Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 769.12 1 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 278.611 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 349.98 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 474.86 Length 457,21 Length 1,357.6 Length 759.85 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 213.15 Sac Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 474.79 Description Durango Pt to Holly Dr E Description Henry Ln to 200' W Description Wolf Cir to Sac Description Shadow Lake Dr E to Black Duck Cir Description Cherokee Tr to Durango Pt Description 65th Street to Tart Lake Road Description Langer Lane to Sac Description Highland Dr to Marilyn Dr Description 2nd Ave to Rice Lake Dr Description Mustang Ln to Sac Description Oak Ln to Barbara Ln Description Sioux Ct to Sioux Lookout Description Partridge PI to Partridge PI Description Holly Court to Cripple Creek Pass Description Iverson Court to Tart Lake Rd Description Marilyn Dr to Oak Ct Description Pinto Lane to Stallion Lane Description Lakeview to Sunset Rd Description Highland Dr to Sac Description Lacasse Dr to Tele Dr Route Lacasse Drive Route Oak Lane Route Century Trail Route Elm Street Route Highland Court Route Clearwater Creek Drive Route Stoneybrook Drive Route Highland Lane Route Ware Road Description Pheasant Hills Drive to South Temp Sac Description Highland Dr to Sac Description Ware Cir to Sioux Ln - 1 5 8 - Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 218.77 Length 200.10 Length 268.49 Length 249.71 Overall Condition Index 100,00 Length 322.35 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 315,00 Length 182.0C Length 661.14 Length 361.3C Length 342.8E Length 1,077. Length 308.5. Length 426.2'. Length 809.2! Length 581.2 Length 473.0 Length 955.6 Length 1,070 Length 359.0 Length 679.1 Length 1,605 Length 213.2 Length 208.1 Page Number 9 Route Oak Court Description Marilyn Dr to Oak Ln Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 369.63 f Route Myrtle Lane Description Woodduck Tr to Joseph Ct Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 724.23 f Route Langer Lane Description Langer Circle to Hartford Circle Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 460.00 f Route Elm Street Description Rice Lake Dr to Rice Lake Dr Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 591.83 1 Route Black Duck Drive Description Lantern Ln to Captains PI Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 105.55 I Route Holly Drive E Description Cassiopeia Ct to Trappers Xing Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 449.41 I N Route 21st Avenue S Description Main St to Northern Lights Blvd Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 385.74 Route Elm Street Description Snow Owl La to Rice Lake Dr Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 486.34 Route Pheasant Hills Description Stoneybrook Drive to Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 985.00 Drive Goldenrod Circle _ Route Mineral Point Description Trappers Xing S to Sac Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 395.42 Route Sioux Lane Description Ware Rd to Sioux Ct - Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 779.51 Route Tart Lake Road Description Langer Ln to Albert Ct Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 175.96 Route Sherman Lake Description Teal Ct to Meadowlark Ct Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 491.85 Road Route Sioux Lane Description Sioux Lookout to #6629 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 352.00 Route 79th Street W Description Lake Dr NE to Nancy Dr Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 437.13 Route Highland Drive Description Arlo Lane to Highland Trl Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 395.24 Route Pheasant Hills Description Birch Street to Oak View Court Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 1,149.( Drive Route Vicky Lane Description Lake Dr NE to Nancy Drive Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 971.36 Route Merganser Court Description Sherman lake Rd to Sac Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 552.48 Route Wood Duck Trail Description Henry Ln to Myrtle Lane Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 693.5C Route Black Duck Drive Description Partridge PI to Lantern Ln Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 695.15 Route Century Trail Description Century Trail to Sac Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 122.2: Route Hunters Ridge Description Timberwolf Tr to Timberwolf Tr Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 983.2; Route Pony Court Description Mustang Ln to Sac Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 255.5E Route Captains Place Description Black Duck Dr to Lift Station Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 60.00 Route Pinto Lane Description Century Trail to North Sac Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 550.01 Route Apollo Drive Description Lake Dr to Kohl's Lot Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 293.21 Route Pinto Lane Description Mustang Lane to Century Trail Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 277.9: Route Marilyn Drive Description 79th St W to Arlo Ln Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 138.9 Route Tart Lake Road Description Tart Ct to 24th Ave Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 231.5 Route Ware Road Description Birch St to Ware Dr Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 432.6 Route Iverson Court Description Lacasse Dr to Sac Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 602.8 Route Stallion Lane Description Century Trail to 820' East Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 820.0 Route Teal Court Description Sherman lake Rd to Sac Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 649.8 Route 79th Street W Description Nancy Dr to Marilyn Dr Overall Condition Index 100.D0 Length 621.0 Route 62nd Avenue Description South Glen Trl to Hollow Ln Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 960.5 Route Lacasse Drive Description Tele Ln to Otter Lake Rd Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 200.5 Route Elm Street Description Sunrise Dr to Lakeview Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 595.1 Route Tart Lake Road Description Albert Ct to Clearwater Creek Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 325.( Dr Route Tart Lake Road Description Otter Lake Rd to Langer Ln Overall Condition Index 100,00 Length 671.E Route Clearwater Creek Description Stella Lane to Delina Cir Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 744.1 Drive Route Joseph Court _Description Myrtle Lane to Arlo Lane Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 330. Route Sherman Lake Description Sherman lake Rd to Sac Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 228.' Court Route Tart Lake Road Description Lacasse Dr to Stella La Overall Condition Index 100.0D Length 892. Route Mustang Lane Description Palomino La to Pony Ct Overall Condition Index 100.D0 Length 496. Route Sherman Lake Description Merganser Ct to Sherman Lake Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 458. Road Ct Route Tart Lake Road Description Stella Ln to Tart Ct Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 614. -159- Page Number 10 Route Clearwater Creek Drive 0Route Stoneybrook Drive Route Clearwater Creek Drive Route Sedge Court Route Marilyn Drive Route Pheasant Hills Drive Route Elm Street Route Marilyn Drive Route Cripple Creek Pass Route Sherman Lake Road Route 21st Avenue S Route Holly Drive E Route Hartford Circle Route Palomino Lane Route Behm Lane Route Behm Lane Route Pinto Lane Route Langer Lane Route Wood Duck Trail Route Sherman Lake Road Route Oak Court Route Peregrine Circle Route Quarter Horse Court Route Cherokee Trail Route Palomino Lane Route Henry Lane Route Timberwolf Trail Route Stella Lane • • Route Stella Lane Description Description Description Description Description Description Description Description Description Description Route Meadowlark Court Route Arabian Circle Route Arlo Lane Route Holly Drive E Route Stella Circle Route Joseph Court Clearwater Creek Ct to Arthur Ct Sherman Lake Road to Pheasant Hills Drive Clearwater Creek Cir to Tart Lake Rd Sherman Lake Road to Sac 79th St W to Oak Ct Goldenrod Circle to Meadowview Court Mourning Dove to 2nd 77th St W to Barbara Ln Holly Dr N to Cripple Creek Ct Birch Street to Sedge Court Description Northern Lights Blvd to 215' S Description 12th Ave to Royal Pines PI Description Langer Lane to Sac Description Sunset Ave to Pinto Ln Description Teckla Ct to Lilac St Description Palomino Ln to E end Description Palomino Ln to Mustang Ln Description Hartford Circle to Stella Circle Description Myrtle Lane to Henry Lane Description Sedge Court to Stoneybrook Drive Description Oak Ln to Sac Description 12th Ave S to Sac Description Lilac St to Sac Description Description Description Description Description Description Description Description Description Description Description Description Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 438.88 ft Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 369.69 ft Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 735.80 ft Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 353.28 ft Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 418.09 ft Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 447.00 ft Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 973.81 ft Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 1,043.50 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 278.03 ft Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 280.30 fi Hudson Trl to Trappers Xing S Mustang Ln to Sac Arlo Ln to Woodduck Trail Birch St to Pheasant Hills Dr Stella Circle to Clearwater Creek Drive Clearwater Creek Drive to 65th Street Sherman lake Rd to Sac Century Trail to Sac Highland Drive to #665 Cassiopeia Ct to Trappers Xing S Langer Lane to Sac Myrtle Lane to Sac, -160- Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 215.00 f Length 371.50 f Length 196.00 f Length 642.86 f Length 230.59 f Length 152.60 f Length 403.04 f Length 197.00 1 Length 330.10 I Length 722.10 Length 233.95 Length 345.86 Length 285.91 Length 514.12 Length 800.47 Length 429.96 Length 260.05 Length 341.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 530.00 Overall Overall Overall Overall Condition Index Condition Index Condition Index Condition Index 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Length 148.68 Length 346.00 Length 415.00 Length 582.99 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 137.00 Overall Condition Index 100.00 Length 220.00 Length.amount 281828.02 ft Page Number 11 • APPENDIX C Lino Lakes Pavement Management Report November 16, 2004 RECONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ROADS TO BE RECONSTRUCTED IN YEAR: 2005 (1) 2006 (2) 2007 (3) -ROUTE DESCRIPTION NONE I Failed Referendum NONE I Failed Referendum Arrowhead Dr. Arrowhead Dr. Hokah Dr. Hokah Dr. Hokah Dr. Totem Trl. Totem Trl. Totem Trl. Rice Ct. Ware Rd to Totem Trl. Totem Tr. to 550' E Bubble Sac to Birch St. Bubble Sac Totem Trl. to Bubble Sac Arrowhead Dr. to Hokah Dr. Hokah Dr. to Rice Ct. Rice Ct. to Birch St. Totem Trl. to Sac 2008 (4) W Shadow Lk Dr. Birch St. to 3353' N W Shadow Lk Dr. 3353' N of Birch St. to Shadow Ct. W Shadow Lk Dr. Shadow Ct. to Sandpiper Dr. W Shadow Lk Dr. Sandpiper Dr. to Dead End Sandpiper Dr. W Shadow Lk Dr. to Sac Shadow Ct. W Shadow Lk Dr. to Sac 2009 (5) Peltier Lk Dr. Peltier Lk Dr. 77 St. E 77 St. E Lamotte Dr. Lamotte Dr. Lamotte Circle Old Mill Road to #7600 #7600 to 77th St. E Peltier Lk Dr. to Gordon Ave. N Gordon Ave. N to 20th Ave. N #1597 to Lamotte Circle County Rd J to Lamotte Circle Lamotte Dr. to Sac 2010 (6) Red Maple Ln. Red Maple Ln. Red Maple Ln. Talle Ln. Karth Rd. Karth Rd. Joyer Ln. Canfield Rd. Gaage Ln. Red Maple Ln. Split to #6280 #6280 to Red Maple Ln. Split 62nd St. to Red Maple Ln. Split Canfield Rd. to Karth Rd. Talle Ln. to Joyer Ln. Talle Ln. to Sac Karth Rd. to Birch St. Gaage Ln. to Talle Ln. Birch St. to Canfield Rd. - 1 6 1 - APPENDIX D Lino Lakes Pavement Management Report November 16, 2004 • CARTEGRAPH (PAVEMENTview PLUS) CRITERIA The PAVEMENTview Plus software package, provided by CarteGraph, requires an initial setup of variables to run a pavement analysis. These variables must be determined by City staff to produce the most accurate projections possible for this analysis. Listed below are the variables that have been set for the AC — Asphalt Concrete 10 -Year Pavement Analysis: • BUDGET — Inflation Rate of 4.5% Assumed For Any Surplus o Major (Reconstruction): $1,176,000 for Year 1 with a 5% increase each year thereafter. o Minor (Overlay): $180,000 for Year 1 with a 5% increase each year thereafter. o Incidental ( Sealcoat): $150,000 for Year 1 with a 5% increase each year thereafter. • CONSTRUCTION COSTS — 3% Cost Factor Applied with 3% Inflation o Reconstruction: $7.10 per square foot (Includes standard roadway with curb and gutter.) • Perfouu when OCI <= 40 • Provides an Absolute 100 OCI increase to segment o Overlay: $1.20 per square foot (Approximately 1.5" overlay) • Crack filling included • Patching included • Pothole filling included • Milling included • Perform when 40 < OCI <= 66 • Provides a 50% OCI increase to segment o Sealcoat: $0.20 per square foot (Standard Surface Seal) • Crack filling included • Pothole filling included • Perform when 66 < OCI <= 83 • Provides a 20% OCI increase to segment • PAVEMENT LIFE (See attached OCI Performance Curve) • NETWORK PRIORITY RATING (NPR) o Establishes overall priority of each segment considered for improvements each year. o Parameters ■ OCI ■ System Designation • Functional Classification • Detour Length • ADT 11 Pavement Classification APPENDIX E Lino Lakes Pavement Management Report November 16, 2004 • TOTAL MAINTENANCE COSTS AT CURRENT CONDITIONS (2005 Dollars) SEALCOAT Cost to Sealcoat: Miles of Road in Need: Total Cost to Sealcoat All Roads in Need: OVERLAY Cost for Overlay: Miles of Road in Need: Total Cost to Overlay All Roads in Need: RECONSTRUCTION Cost to Reconstruct: Miles of Road in Need: Total Cost to Reconstruct All Roads in Need: • $20,000.00 per Mile 53.02 060, 500.00' $180,000.00 per Mile 19.68 $1,050,000.00 per Mile 11.24 811'.802.000.0 • SEALCOAT Cost to Sealcoat: Miles of Road in Need: Total Cost to Sealcoat All Roads in Need: OVERLAY Cost for Overlay: Miles of Road in Need: • Total Cost to Overlay All Roads in Need: RECONSTRUCTION Cost to Reconstruct: Miles of Road in Need: Total Cost to Reconstruct All Roads in Need: • APPENDIX F Lino Lakes Pavement Management Report November 16, 2004 ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COSTS (2005 Dollars) $20,000.00 per Mile 7.57 $180,000.00 per Mile 0.98 $177,500.00 $1,050,000.00 per Mile 1.12 - 164 - • • AGENDA ITEM 6Eii STAFF ORIGINATOR: James E. Studenski COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 9, 2005 TOPIC: Resolution No. 05 -66, Accepting Pavement Management Financing Report VOTE REQUIRED: Simple Majority BACKGROUND: At the March 9, 2005 Work Session, staff presented the Pavement Management Financing Report dated March 2005 to the City Council. The purpose of the report is to identify available funding sources to implement a Pavement Management Program and to project the impact of these funding sources on the user fees and property tax rates over the next 10 years, as well as to suggest associated financial policies required to implement the program in a fair and equitable manner. It was then requested, at the April 20, 2005 Work Session, that this financing report be accepted by the Council. OPTIONS: 1. Return to staff for further review. 2. Adopt Resolution Number 05 -66, Accepting Pavement Management Financing Report. 3. Not adopt Resolution Number 05 -66. RECOMMENDATION: Option No. 2 - Staff recommends that Resolution No. 05 -66 be adopted. • • CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO, 05 -66 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT FINANCING REPORT WHEREAS, the City Engineer has presented the Pavement Management Financing Report to the Council for approval, and WHEREAS, it has been requested that this financing report be accepted by the Council; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA: 1. Accept the Pavement Management Financing Report. Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 9th day of May, 2005. John J. Bergeson, Mayor ATTEST: Ann J. Blair, City Clerk 3 -167- Financing Report City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Pavement Management Plan March 2005 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 • 3 1 1 1 1 a a a. a. 1 a 3 Table of Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 INTRODUCTION ••••6 Purpose 6 3 ANTICIPATED COSTS OF PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 7 1 4 AVAILABLE FUNDING SOURCES 9 Property Tax Levy 9 General Obligation Bonds Repaid By Property Tax Levy 10 General Obligation Improvement Bonds Repaid By Special Assessments 13 General Obligation Street Reconstruction Bonds 16 General Obligation Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Bonds 17 Tax Abatement 18 Special Service District 19 Economic Development Authority 20 Housing and Redevelopment Authority 20 Capital Projects Funds 20 Storm Water Utility 22 Storm Water Improvement District 23 State and Federal Transportation Grants 23 Anoka County 23 Municipal State Aid (M.S.A.) Funds 23 5 RECOMMENDED FUNDING SOURCES 25 Summary of Recommended Funding Sources 26 RELATIONSHIP TO CITY CHARTER 31 7 COMPARISON OF FUNDING SOURCES 32 8 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT FINANCING POLICY RECOMMENDED CHANGES 34 Springsted provides high quality, independent financial and management advisory services to public and non- profit organizations, and works with them in the long -term process of building their communities on a fiscally sound and well- managed basis. Springsted -168- Springsted Incorporated 380 Jackson 'Street, Suite 300 Springsted Saint Paul, MN 55101-2887 Tel: 551-223-3000 Fax: 551-223-3002 www.springsted.com LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 1 March 9, 2005 1 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Mr.Gordon Heitke, City Administrator 3 Mr. Alan Rolek, Director of Finance City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 -1182 Re: Pavement Management Plan Financing Report Dear Members of the Council, Mr. Heitke and Mr. Rolek: Springsted Incorporated was retained to assist the City in determining the alternatives available for funding the City' s Pavement Management Plan and to make recommendations for changes in the City's Public Improvement Financing Policy consistent with those alternatives. The enclosed study contains our analysis and recommendations. 31 I would like to thank you for the opportunity to perform this special study. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance. Respectfully submitted, Nick R. Dragisich, Executive Vice President 31 Manager of Consulting Services 1 1 1 1 410 1 - 1 6 9 - Public Sector Advisors Executive Summary 1 1 Executive Summary During 2004, the City undertook a study as a first step in developing an overall pavement management program. The result of that study was a Pavement Management Report ( "PMR ") prepared by TKDA which included an evaluation of the current condition of the City's local streets and provided an estimate of the cost of maintaining and reconstructing those streets to maximize the useful life of these assets and to maintain an acceptable level of service. The purpose of this Pavement Management Plan Financing Report is to identify available funding sources to implement the PMR, to project the impact of these funding sources on the user fees and property tax rates over the next 10 years and to assist the City in developing the associated policies required to implement the PMR in a fair and equitable mariner. Within this purpose, a number of objectives have been as follows: • Determine a financing plan that is sustainable over the long -term • Allocate the costs of the PMR in a fair and equitable manner to the citizens of Lino Lakes • Obtain appropriate, to the extent reasonably possible, non -tax revenues to finance the PMR • Maximize the use of appropriate external financing sources • Minimize the utilization of City property taxes The PMR included an estimate of the costs to maintain the City's streets over the next ten years. These costs were divided into two categories, reconstruction and maintenance. Reconstruction costs are related to those streets that have outlived their useful lives so that the pavement condition is in need of removal and replacement. Maintenance costs are related to the cost to sealcoat and overlay those streets whose pavement life can be extended through on -going maintenance. It is important to note that these costs include only the streets in existence at the time the PMR was prepared. The total cost of the PMR is estimated to be $21,570,000 over the next ten years. Of this amount, a $4,070,000 is estimated to be needed for maintenance and $17,500,000 is estimated to be needed for reconstruction projects. There are a number of sources available to the City for the funding of the PMR. The City could designate a portion of its local property tax levy each year to pay for all or a portion of the PMR. We developed projections of the property tax rate impacts of levying a tax to pay for the entire cost of the PMR each year based on 5 %, 7.5 %, and 10% growth rates in the City's tax base. The largest tax rate impact was projected to occur in 2010 and ranged from 15.686% to 19.793 %. This resulted in a maximum property tax impact ranging from 31 approximately $358 to $452 on a home valued at $228,400. Property tax dollars do not lend themselves particularly well to funding capital projects on a pay -as- you -go basis because they tend to result in substantial volatility in the tax rate and in the resulting property taxes paid. In addition, the legislature haE imposed levy limits on local governments from time to time. If levy limits wei again imposed, a property tax levy for funding the PMR would most likely not be available to the City Property taxes do lend themselves fairly well to a Sprtngsted - 1 7 0 - City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financing Re Executive Summary 1 2 funding annual maintenance expenditures whose costs are generally stable in current year dollars. The City could issue General Obligation Bonds to be repaid from property taxes to finance the PMR. A general obligation is an obligation that pledges the full faith and credit of the City to the payment of principal and interest. The statutes require that the issuance of a general obligation bond must be approved by a majority of the voters voting on the question. We developed a projection of the property tax levy and tax rate needed through 2014 to pay for the sealcoating and overlay portion of the PMR on a pay -as- you -go basis and to the pay debt service on General Obligation Bonds issued to finance the reconstruction portion of the PMR each year beginning in 2007 when the first reconstruction project is scheduled to occur based on 5 %, 7.5 %, and 10% growth rates in the City's tax base. These projections showed the tax rate increasing each year as new debt is issued and would result in a tax rate ranging from 5.936% to 9.022% in 2014. This resulted in a maximum property tax impact ranging from approximately $136 to $206 on a home valued at $228,400. Additional tax impacts would continue through 2029 when all the bonds issued would be retired. One disadvantage of this funding source is that tax - exempt properties would not contribute to the funding of the PMR. .A. third alternative, would be to issue General Obligation Improvement Bonds repaid by special assessments. Special assessments are charges a city levies against benefited real property for local improvements. The City can issue General Obligation Improvement Bonds without a referendum provided that at least 20% of the City's share of the project costs are paid for with special assessments. We developed a projection of the property tax levy and tax rate needed through 2014 to pay for the sealcoating and overlay portion of the PMR on a pay -as- you -go basis and to pay the debt service on General Obligation 3 Improvement Bonds issued to finance the reconstruction portion of the PMR 3 each year beginning in 2007 when the first reconstruction project is scheduled to occur based on 5 %, 7.5 %, and 10% growth rates in the City's tax base. 311 These projections showed the tax rate increasing each year as new debt is issued and would result in tax rate ranging from 5.116% to 7.777% in 2014. 3 This resulted in a maximum property tax impact ranging from approximately $117 to $178 on a home valued at $228,400. Additional tax impacts would continue through 2029 when all the bonds issued would be retired. The advantage of special assessments include they are a means of raising money outside general city tax sources, they provide a means of levying charges for 31 public services against propertied otherwise exempt from taxation, and they a charged to the property owner for benefit received. The disadvantages of special assessments are the difficulty of relating assessment charges to the special benefit received. • General Obligation Street Reconstruction Bonds could be used to pay for reconstruction projects where the existing street width is adequate and wherf other elements not currently existing do not need to be added. The City wot need to follow the process prescribed in the enabling statute. The bonds do s r r t n r st e -171 - City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financinc Executive Summary 3 require that 20% of the costs be paid from special assessments and there is no voter approval requirement. However, there is a reverse referendum provision wherein a petition signed by voters representing 5% of the votes cast in the last general municipal election requires voter approval to issue the bonds. A portion of the reconstruction costs identified in the PMR include costs related to storm water facilities. These are estimated to be approximately $4,200,000. These costs could be paid for through a storm water utility established under Minnesota Statutes 444.075. A storm water utility would provide a dedicated source of funding for both the operational and the capital costs of the City' s storm water system. It would reduce the property tax impacts and the amount of special assessments needed to fund the PMR by providing a funding source for the storm water related costs. Tax - exempt properties would also be included in a storm water utility. Other funding sources we considered included: • General Obligation Tax Increment Financing Bonds • Tax Abatement • Special Service District • Economic Development Authority • Housing and Redevelopment Authority • Capital Projects Funds • Storm Water Improvement District • State and Federal Transportation Grants • Anoka County • Municipal State Aid Funds • Working with the City staff, we developed a proposed plan for financing the PMR that included the following elements: • A. property tax levy to fund the annual maintenance costs identified in the PMR and averaging $330,000 /year • General Obligation Improvement Bonds repaid by special assessments for reconstruction projects where the existing street width is inadequate. Benefiting properties would be assessed an amount equal to the special benefit they receive but no less than 20% of the City's share of the costs. The remaining amount would be repaid from a property tax levy. • General Obligation Street Reconstruction Bonds for reconstruction projects where the existing street width is adequate and where other elements not currently existing do not need to be added. Benefiting properties would be assessed an amount equal to the special benefit they receive. The remaining amount would be repaid from a property tax levy. • A storm water utility to pay for those costs of the PMR related to story water Springsted - 1 7 2 - City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financing Re • 1S 1 3. 1 1 Executive Summary 4 • Tax Increment Financing, Tax Abatement, EDA Levy and HRA Levy where their use is consistent with the City's statutory authority and there is a rational nexus between the use of these funding tools and a development or redevelopment project • M.S.A. should be used to maintain and reconstruct those streets designated as part of the City's M.S.A. system • The City should actively work with Anoka County to share in the cost of reconstructing C.S.A.H. routes within the City and the City should actively pursue State and Federal Grants. A summary of the recommended funding sources was prepared based on the following assumptions: • The City levies a property tax each year to pay for the maintenance related costs of the PMR (sealcoating and overlays) • There are no reconstruction projects that meet the requirements for 100% financing with a G.O. Street Reconstruction Bond (all of the reconstructed streets will require widening) so this funding source was not recommended • The City would specially assess benefiting properties 20% of the City' s share of the costs on reconstruction project • The City establishes a storm water utility to pay for the storm water related costs of the reconstruction projects These funding sources total $21,577,038 and include property taxes of $4,077,038 to pay for maintenance costs, $4,200,000 from a storm water utility, $3,500,000 from special assessments, and $9,800,000 from G.O. Improvement bonds. We developed a projection of the property tax levy and tax rate needed through 2014 to pay for the sealcoating and overlay portion of the PMR on a pay -as- you -go basis and to the pay debt service on General Obligation Improvement Bonds issued to finance the reconstruction portion of the PMR each year based on 5 %, 7.5 %, and 10% growth rates in the City's tax base. These projections showed the tax rate increasing each year as new debt is issued and would result in tax rate ranging from 4.039% to 6.140% in 2014 depending on the growth in the City's tax base. This resulted in a maximum property tax impact ranging from approximately $92 to $140 on a home valued at $228,400. Additional tax impacts would continue through 2029 when all the bonds issued would be retired. We did not provide any detailed impacts of a storm water utility on a typical homestead in the City because there are a number of issues outside the scope o: this study that would need to be resolved in order to provide a reasonable estimate of the impact. Changes were recommended to the City's Public Improvement Financing Polit to make it consistent with the financing recommendations in this report and to change the basis of special assessments for reconstruction to unit assessments Sprt fisted - 173- City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financing Re 1 1 Executive Summary 5 Springsted based on a minimum lot size in the zoning district in which the reconstruction takes place. The City charter provides that when less than one - hundred percent of the estimated cost of a proposed improvement is to be paid by special assessments, connection charges, or any outside funding source other than the City's general fund, the City must submit the proposed local improvement to a vote of the citizens. This would require that each PMR reconstruction project funded by our recommended sources would need to be approved by a vote of the citizens. This creates an additional requirement the City of Lino Lakes must follow if the PMR is to be implemented. However, the funding sources we have recommended provide the City with a method of financing their PMR that is widely used by most other cities in Minnesota. Implementing the PMR is clearly in the City's best interest because increasing pavement maintenance and reconstruction spending to the amounts we have recommended will result in a net savings of $11 million over the next ten years according to the Pavement Management Report prepared by TKDA. - 174 - City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financing Rei T Introduction 6 2 Introduction The City of Lino Lakes contains approximately 84 miles of local streets valued in excess of $90 million. During 2004, the City hired TKDA to develop an overall pavement management program to address the long -term needs of the City relative to its local street system. The result of that study was a Pavement Management Report ( "PMR ") which included an evaluation of the current condition of the City's local streets and provided an estimate of the cost of maintaining and reconstructing those streets to maximize the useful life of these assets and to maintain an acceptable level of service. Purpose The purpose of this Pavement Management Financing Report is to identify available funding sources to implement the PMR, and to project the impact of X these funding sources on the user fees and property tax rates over the next 10 years. In addition, the study will assist the City in developing the associated policies required to implement the PMR in a fair and equitable manner. Within this purpose, a number of objectives have been established relative to the funding of the PMR. These are as follows: 3 • Determine a financing plan that is sustainable over the long -term 3 • Allocate the costs of the PMR in a fair and equitable manner to the 3 citizens of Lino Lakes • Identify appropriate, and to the extent reasonably possible, non -tax lirevenues to finance the PMR 3 • Maximize the use of appropriate external financing sources • Minimize the utilization of City property taxes a a 1 1 1 3. • 3 3 3 Springsted - 1 7 5 - City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financing R, 1 a 7 Antici ated Costs of Pavement Recommendations 3 Anticipated Costs The PMR included an estimate of the costs to maintain the City's streets over of Pavement the next ten years. These costs were divided into two categories, reconstruction Recommendations and maintenance. Reconstruction costs are related to those streets that have outlived their useful lives so that the pavement condition is in need of removal and replacement. The cost of the reconstruction projects through 2014 is estimated to be $17,500,000 and are proposed to begin in 2007. The estimate expenditures in year -of- construction dollars are as follows: Year Reconstruction Cost 2005 $ 0 2006 0 2007 1,435,000 2008 2,750,000 2009 3,035,000 2010 3,485,000 2011 1,577,500 2012 1,655,000 2013 1,737,500 2014 1,825,000 Total Estimated Cost $17,500,000 Maintenance costs are related to the cost to sealcoat and overlay those streets whose pavement life can be extended through on -going maintenance. The PMR estimated maintenance costs are $4,070,000 over the next ten years. These costs in year -of- construction dollars are shown in the table below. Springsted Year 2005 2006 Maintenance Overlay $140,000 2007 2008 Sealcoat 190,000 200,000 Total $90,000 $230,000 347,500 365,000 385,000 182,500 402,500 422,500 202,500 445,000 467,500 490,000 235,000 515,00C $1,835,000 $4,070,001 157,500 210,000 2009 2010 2011 165,000 220,000 175,000 230,000 242,500 2012 2013 2014 Total Estimated Cost 192,500 255,000 267,500 212,500 280,000 222,500 $2,235,000 - 1 7 6 - City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financir a a 3 1 3 Total Estimated $. Cost Anticipated Costs of Pavement Recommendations 8 It is important to note that these costs include only the streets in existence at the time the PMR was prepared. As the City continues to develop and grow, additional miles of local streets will be added which will increase both the reconstruction and maintenance costs going forward. These increased costs will be somewhat offset by contributions collected by the City from developers which fund the first sealcoat on a new street seven years from its acceptance by the City. These funds are deposited in the Sealcoating Fund and subsequently used to pay for the seal coating of streets. The total cost of the PMR is estimated to be $21,570,000 over the next ten years as shown in the table below. Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Maintenance Reconstruct $ 230,000 $0 347,500 0 365,000 1,435,000 385,000 2,750,000 402,500 422,500 445,000 467,500 490,000 515,000 3,035,000 3,485,000 1,577,500 1,655,000 1,737,500 1,825,000 Total $ 230,000 347,500 1,800,000 3,135,000 3,437,500 3,907,500 2,022,500 2,122,500 2,227,500 2,340,000 3 3 3 $4,070,000 $17,500,000 $21,570,000 1 31 1 1 3 Springsted -177 - City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financing Rep Available Funding Sources 9 4 Available Funding Sources There are a number of sources available to the City for the funding of the PMR. This section of the report will discuss these funding sources, their potential amounts, and their applicability to the City's anticipated projects. Property Tax Levy The City could designate a portion of its local property tax levy each year to pay for all or a portion of the cost of implementing the PMR (in 2005, the City 2 levied $236,358 for street maintenance). This is generally referred to as pay -as- you-go financing. The pay -as- you -go method of financing is useful for smaller projects where the cost of the capital improvement has a negligible effect on the property tax rates or where improvements provide very short-term benefits or I whose useful life is short. The use of pay -as- you -go financing allows the City 3'. to minimize the total acquisition cost of a capital expenditure by using accumulated funds on hand to avoid interest cost on borrowed funds. However, 3 it can delay the improvement until adequate funds are available which may result in increased costs due to inflation. 1 We have developed a schedule of the projected property tax levy and tax rate needed each year to pay for the entire cost of the PMR over the planning period. 'i The tax rate for each year is projected based on three growth scenarios for the City's property tax base. The first assumes an annual growth rate in the tax 31 base of 5 %, the second 7.5 %, and the third 10 %. This provides the City with a • range of property tax rates within which the actual rates are likely to occur. The 2005 total levy amount and tax rate impact represents the City's property tax levy for street maintenance this year. The largest tax rate impact projected ranges from 15.686% to 19.793% in 2010 when the PMR projects its maximum annual expenditure of $3,907,500. 31 Projected Projected Projected Total Tax Capacity Tax Rate Tax Capacity Tax Rate Tax Capacity Tax Rate 31 Year Levy (5% Growth) Impact (7.5% Growth) Impact (10% Growth) Impact 2005 236,538 15,468,021 L529% 15,468,021 1.529% 15,468,021 1.529% 31 2006 347,500 16,241,422 2.140% 16,628,123 2.090% 17,014,823 2.042% 2007 1,800.500 17,053,493 10.558% 17,875,232 10.073% 18,716,305 9.620% 2008 3,135,000 17,906,168 17.508% 19,215,874 16.315% 20,587,936 15.227% 2009 3,437,500 18,801,476 18.283% 20,657,065 16.641% 22,646,730 15.179% 2010 3,907,500 19,741,550 19.793% 22,206,345 17.596% 24,911,403 15.686% 31 2011 2,025,000 20,728,628 9.769% 23,871,820 8.483% 27,402,543 7.390° 2012 2,122,500 21,765,059 9.752% 25,662,207 8.271% 30,142,797 7.041 ° / 3 2013 2,230,000 22,853312 9.758% 27.586,872 8.084% 33,157,077 6.726 °r 2014 2,340,000 23,995,977 9.752% 29,655,888 7.891% 36,472,784 6.416 °' We also calculated the property tax impacts on a residential home in the City valued at $228,400 which is the current average value in the City. The 2005 3 property tax impacts represent the City's actual 2005 levy for street maintenance. The maximum property tax impact occurs in 2010 and is projected to range from approximately $358 to approximately $452 depending allon the rate of growth in the City's tax base. S p r i n g ste d - 17 City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financing R 3 3 3 3 3 a Available Funding Sources • 10 Year Projected Tax Rate Impact (5% Growth) Annual Impact Projected Tax Rate Impact (7.5% Growth) Annual Impact Projected Tax Rate Impact (10% Growth). Annual Impact 2005 1.529% $ 34.93 1.529% $ 34.93 1.529% $ 34.93 2006 2.140% $ 48.87 2.090% $ 47.73 2.042% $ 46.65 2007 10.558% $ 241.14 10.073% $ 230.06 9.620% $ 219.72 2008 17.508% $ 399.88 16.315% S 372.63 15.227% $ 347.79 2009 18.283% $ 417.59 16.641% $ 380.08 15.179% $ 346.68 2010 19.793% $ 452.08 17.596% $ 401.90 15.686% $ 358.26 2011 9.769% $ 223.13 8.483% 8 193.75 7.390% $ 168.78 2012 9.752% $ 222.73 8.271% $ 188.91 7.041% $ 160.83 2013 9.758% $ 222.87 8.084% $ 184.63 6.726% $ 153.61 2014 9.752% $ 222.73 7.891% $ 180.22 6.416% $ 146.54 General Obligation Bonds Repaid By Property Tax Levy (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 475) Springsted Property tax dollars do not lend themselves particularly well to the funding of capital projects on a pay -as- you -go basis because they tend to result in substantial volatility in the tax rate and in the resulting property taxes paid. This volatility has the potential to disrupt the planning process of the City because taxpayers generally do not respond favorably to volatile tax rates. In addition, the legislature has imposed levy limits on local governments from time to time. If levy limits were again imposed, a property tax levy for funding the PMR would most likely not be available to the City. The use of the property tax levy would also result in tax - exempt properties not contributing to funding of the PMR. Property tax dollars do lend themselves fairly well to funding annual maintenance expenditures whose costs are generally stable in current year dollars. In this regard the property tax levy would be a reasonable source for funding the annual sealcoating and overlay portion of the PMR. A general obligation is as an obligation that pledges the full faith and credit of the City to payment of principal and interest. The bond owner correctly understands this to mean that all available assets and resources of the City, including the unlimited power to tax, will be used by the issuer to fulfill the contract to pay back the amount of the bond with the amount of interest agreed upon. The security for a general obligation bond is the pledge of those resources and taxing powers. The statute requires that the issuance of general obligation bonds must be approved by a majority of voters voting on the question. If a bond election fails, the same question for the same amount may not be resubmitted to the voters for six months, and if it fails a second time, a one -year delay is required. The statute read literally means that a change of $1 in the amount would permit an early resubmission, but general practice requires at least a 5% reduction in amount or a substantive change in the purpose. The bonds issued are subject to the net debt limit of the City which is 2% of Estimated Market Value. The City's estimated market value for pay 2005 is $1,535,208,800 which results in a current debt limit of $30,704,176. The City currently has net debt subject to the limit of approximately $5,169,000. The City's remaining net debt limit is approximately $25,535,176. - 1 7 9 - City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financing Repc 3 3 Available Fund in g Sources 3 3 2 3 3 3 34, 1 1 1 a 1 1 1 1 11 Chapter 475 requires that in the case of general obligations, the issuer must, at the time the bonds are sold (usually in the resolution awarding the sale), levy an irrepealable ad valorem tax for each of the years of the bonds equal to 105% of the principal and interest due in that year. The purpose of the 5% over levy is to cover possible deficiencies in tax collection. The resolution must be filed with the county auditor who must then levy the tax for the years indicated. If, however, other revenues are pledged as security for the bonds (special assessments, tax increments, utility revenues) the amount of reasonably expected revenues from those sources may be subtracted from the 105% levy. If there is excess revenue in the debt service fund for the bonds (from prepayments, investments or irrevocable appropriations) the issuer may notify the auditor of the excess and request that the levy for the ensuing year be reduced by that amount. We developed a projection of the property tax levy and tax rate needed through 2014 to pay for the sealcoating and overlay portion of the PMR on a pay -as- you-go basis and to pay debt service on General Obligation Bonds issued to finance the reconstruction portion of the PMR each year beginning in 2007 when the first reconstruction project is scheduled to occur. The bonds were assumed to have a term of 15 years and an average annual interest rate of 4.675 %. The tax rate for each year is again projected based on three growth scenarios for the City's property tax base to provide the City with a range of property tax rates within which the actual tax rates are likely to occur. The 2005 total levy amount and tax rate impact represents the City's property tax levy for street maintenance this year. The projected tax levy and tax rate for 2006 includes only the street maintenance items of sealcoating and overlays from the PMR. The tax levies and tax rates for 2007 through 2014 include both annual maintenance for sealcoating and overlays and debt service on the G.O. Bonds to be issued for the reconstruction projects each year. The tax rate is projected to increase each year as new debt is issued and is projected to range from 5.936% to 9.022% in 2014 depending on the growth in the City's tax base. Because the bonds are projected to have a term of 15 years, the corresponding debt service payments would affect the City's tax rate through 2029. Additional tax rate impacts after 2014 would depend on how the City decided to fund the PMR in subsequent years. The projected tax levies and tax rates are shown in the table on the following page. 1 Springsted -180 - City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financing F 6.446% 147.23 5.746% 6.715% 6.942% 7.134% 7.300% 153.37 158.56 162.94 166.74 5.850% 5.910% 5.935% 5.936% 46.65 61.11 86.48 109.22 $ 131.25 $ 133.61 $ 134.99 S 135.56 135.58 Available Funding Sources I2 Projected Total Tax Capacity (5% Growth) 15,468,021 16,241,422 17,053,493 17,906,168 18,801,476 19,741550 20,728,628 21,765,059 22,853,312 23,995977 Year Levy 2005 236,538 2006 347,500 2007 500,750 2008 779,500 2009 1,083.000 2010 1,431,500 2011 1.603,000 2012 1,781,500 2013 1.968,000 2014 2,165,000 Projected Tax Rate Tax Capacity Impact (7.5% Growth) Projected Tax Rate Tax Capacity Impact (10% Growth) 1.529% 15,468,021 2.140% 16,628,123 2.936% 17,875,232 4.353% 19,215,874 5.760% 20,657,065 7.251% 22.206,345 7.733% 23,871,820 8.185% 25,662,207 8.611% 27,586,872 9.022% 29,655,888 1.529% 15,468,021 2.090% 17,014,823 2.801% 18,716,305 4.057% 20,587,936 5.243% 22,646,730 6.446% 24,911,403 6.715% 27,402,543 6.942% 30,142,797 7.134% 33,157,077 7.300% 36,472,784 Tax Rate Im ctI 1.5ps 29% 2.042°/ 2.675° 3.786% 4.782% 5.746% 5.850% 5.910% 5.935% 5.936% The projected property tax impacts on a residential home in the City valued at $228,400 are shown in the following table. The 2005 projected property tax impacts represents the City's actual 2005 levy for street maintenance. The 2006 projected property tax impacts reflect only maintenance costs for sealcoating and overlaying from the PMR. The projected property tax impacts for 2007 through 2014 reflect both maintenance costs for sealcoating and overlays and debt service on the G.O. Bonds issued to finance the reconstruction projects each year. The maximum property tax impact occurs in 2014 and is projected to range from approximately $136 to approximately $206 depending on the rate of growth in the City's tax base. Property tax impacts would continue through 2029 when all the G.O. Bonds issued have been repaid. Additional property tax impacts after 2014 again would depend on how the City decided to fund the PMR in subsequent years. Year 2005 2006 2007 Projected Tax Rate Impact (5% Growth) 1.529% 2.140% Projected Annual Tax Rate Impact Impact (7.5% Growth) 34.93 48.87 67.07 1.529% 2.090% 2.801% Annual Impact 34.93 Projected Tax Rate Impact (10% Growth) 1.529% Annual Impact 34.93 47.73 2.042% 63.98 2.675% 99.43 4.057% 5.243% 92.65 119.74 3.786% 4.782% 7.251% $ 165.62 2014 , 8.185% 8.611% 176.63 186.95 196.69 9.022% $ 206.07 Springsted As stated previously, this funding alternative would require the City to obtain the approval of a majority of voters voting on the question. One disadvantage of using voter approved General Obligation Bonds is that tax exempt properties would not contribute to the funding of the PMR. - 1 8 1 - City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financing Re z 7 z 3 3 3 3 1 a a 3 1 • 1 Available Funding Sources General Obligation Improvement Bonds Repaid By Special Assessments (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429,01 - 429.31) Springsted 13 Special assessments are charges a city levies against benefited real property for local improvements. They provide a comparatively just and equitable means of financing capital improvements while minimizing the demand on the City's property tax levy and statutory debt limitations. Examples of public improvements that cities may finance through special assessment levies are: street and sidewalk improvements; storm and sanitary sewer systems; steam heating mains; street lighting systems; waterworks systems; parks and playgrounds; and recreational facilities. Additional public improvements include: street trees; dikes and other flood control works; retaining and area walls, including highway noise barriers; malls, plazas, or courtyards; district heating systems; fire protection systems; gas and electric distribution facilities; and parking lots. General Obligation Improvement Bonds are used in conjunction with special assessments to fund improvement projects. The City can issue General Obligation Improvement Bonds without a statute- required referendum provided that at least 20% of the City's share of the project costs are paid for with special assessments. In practice, the City issues bonds to finance the entire project. The bonds are repaid from special assessments received from benefiting properties and from other available sources including property tax levies. Special assessments apply only to real property. In theory, special assessments are more equitable than property taxes because they are only levied against properties that receive some direct benefit from the improvements. The advantages of special assessments include: • Special assessments are a means of raising money outside general city tax sources • Special assessments provide a means of levying charges for public services against property otherwise exempt from taxation • Special assessments are charged to the property owner for the benefit received The disadvantages of special assessments are the difficulty and the cost of administration and the subjective difficulty of relating assessment charges to the special benefits received. The statute provides that the amount assessed against a benefiting property cannot exceed the amount of the special benefit the property receives as a result of the improvement. The special benefit is defined as the corresponding increase in the market value of the property resulting from the improvement. This requires that administrative procedures be carefully followed and that the amount of special benefit received by the properties assessed can be established in order to avoid court litigation. The City of Lino Lakes currently uses special assessments as a financial tool. This includes both special assessments for improvement projects and special assessments that are negotiated prior to the development of public - 182 - City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financing Report 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 3 3 3. 3 • 3 a 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 a 3 • 3 Available Funding Sources 14 Springsted improvements as part of a overall development project. Developers provide letters of credit as security to guarantee payment. We developed a projection of the property tax levy and tax rate needed through 2014 to pay for the sealcoating and overlay portion of the PMR on a pay -as- you-go basis and to pay debt service on General Obligation Improvement Bonds issued to finance the reconstruction portion of the PMR each year beginning in 2007 when the first reconstruction project is scheduled to occur. The bonds were assumed to have a term of 15 years and an average annual interest rate of 4.675 %. We assumed that 20% of the debt service costs each year would be repaid from special assessments. We chose this amount because it is the minimum amount required by the statute and it provides the most conservative projection. The projected bond amounts, annual debt service, annual special assessments, and net tax levies are shown in the table below. Year Cost Total Bond Issue Amount Gross Average Annua Debt Service Less Special Assessments (20 %) Net Levy 2005 - - - - - 2006 - - - - - 2007 1,435,000 1,435,000 135,250 27,050 108,200 2008 2,750,000 2,750,000 394,500 73,580 320,920 2009 3,035,000 3,035,000 680,500 124,895 555,605 2010 3,485,000 3,485,000 1,009,000 183,895 825,105 2011 1,577,500 1,580,000 1,158,000 210,610 947,390 2012 1,655,000 1,655,000 1,314,000 238,660 1,075,340 2013 1,737,500 1,740,000 1,478,000 268,045 1,209,955 2014 1,825,000 1,825,000 1,650,000 298,880 1,351,120 The tax rate for each year is again projected based on three growth scenarios for the City's property tax base to provide the City with a range of property tax rates within which the actual tax rates are likely to occur. The 2005 total levy amount and tax rate impact represents the City's property tax levy for street maintenance this year. The projected tax levy and tax rate for 2006 includes only the street maintenance items of seal coating and overlays from the PMR. The tax levies and tax rates for 2007 through 2014 include both annual maintenance for seal coating and overlays and debt service on the G.O. Improvement Bonds to be issued for the reconstruction projects each year. The tax rate is projected to increase each year as new debt is issued and is projected to range from 5.116% to 7.777% in 2014 depending on the growth in the City's tax base. This is somewhat less than the projected impacts from the G.O. Bonds (5.936% to 9.022 %) because special assessments reduce the property tax levy required. Because the bonds are projected to have a term of 15 years, the corresponding debt service payments would affect the City's tax rate through 2029. Additional tax rate impacts after 2014 would depend on how the City decided to fund the PMR in subsequent years. The projected tax levies and tax rates are shown in the table below. -183- City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financing Rep 4.231 % 5.008% 5.081% 5.118% 5.127% 5.116 ° / Available Fu ndinq Sources 15 Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total Levy 236,538 347,500 473,700 705,920 958,105 Projected Tax Capacity (5% Growth) 15,468.021 16,241,422 17,053,493 17,906,168 2010 1,247,605 2011 1,392,390 2012 1,542,840 2013 1,699,955 2014 1,866,120 18,801,476 19,741.550 20,728,628 21,765,059 22,853,312 23,995 ,977 Projected Tax Rate Tax Capacity Impact (7.5% Growth) 1.529% 15.468,021 2.140% 16,628,123 2.778% 17,875,232 3.942% 19,215,874 5.096% 6.320% 6.717% 7.089% 7.439% 7.777% 20,657,065 22,206,345 23,871,820 25.662,207 27,586,872 29,655,888 Projected Tax Rate Tax Capacity Impact. (10% Growth) 1.529% 15.468,021 2.090% 17,014,823 2.650% 18,716,305 3.674% 20,587,936 4.638% 5.618% 5.833% 6.012% 6.162% 6.293% 22,646,730 24,911,403 27,402,543 30,142,797 33,157,077 36,472,784 Tax Rate Impact 1.529 % 2.042% 2.531% 3.429% The projected property tax impacts on a residential home in the City valued at 8228,400 are shown in the following table. The 2005 projected property tax impacts represents the City's actual 2005 levy for street maintenance. The 2006 projected property tax impacts reflect only maintenance costs for sealcoating and overlaying from the PMR. The projected property tax impacts for 2007 through 2014 reflect both maintenance costs for seal coating and overlays and debt service on the G.O. Improvement Bonds issued to finance the reconstruction projects each year. The maximum property tax impact occurs in 2014 and is projected to range from approximately $117 to approximately $178 depending on the rate of growth in the City's tax base. Again, this is less than the projected impacts from the G.O. Bonds ($136 to $206) because special assessments reduce the property tax levy required. Property tax impacts would continue through 2029 when all the G.O. Improvement Bonds issued have been repaid. Additional property tax impacts after 2014 again would depend on how the City decided to fund the PMR in subsequent years. Pro j ected Tax Rate Impact Year (5% Growth) 2005 1.529% 2006 2.140% 2007 2.778% 2008 3.942% 2009 5.096% 2010 6.320% 2011 6.717% 2012 7.089% 2013 7.439% 2014 7.777% Annual Impact Proj ected Tax Rate Impact (7.5% Growth) Projected Annual Tax Rate Impact Annual Impact (10% Growth) Impact $ 34.93 1.529% S 34.93 1.529% $ 5.081 % 5.118% 34.93 $ 48.87 2.090% $ 47.73 2.042% $ 63.44 2.650% $ 60.53 2.531% $ 46.65 $ 57.81 $ 90.04 3.674% $ 83.91 3.429 %, $ 78.31 $ 116.39 4.638% $ 105.94 4.231% $ 96.63 $ 144.34 5.618% $ 128.32 5.008% $ 153.42 5.833% $ 133.22 $ 161.90 6.012% $ 137.32 $ 169.90 6.162% $ 140.74 $ 177.62 6.293% $ 143.72 $ 114.39 $ 116.06 $ 116.91 5.127% $ 117.10 5.116% $ 116.86 Sprtr sted - 1 8 4 - City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financing Report a a a 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 • 1 Available Funding Sources General Obligation Street Reconstruction Bonds (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 475.58) 5pr ngsted 16 The 2002 legislature amended Chapter 475.58 of the state statutes to enable cities to issue General Obligation Street Reconstruction Bonds without the 20% special assessment requirement for General Obligation Improvement Bonds and without a requirement for voter approval through an election. This new legislation includes several requirements that must be met as follows: • The city must prepare a street reconstruction plan that describes the streets to be reconstructed, the estimated costs, and any planned reconstruction of other streets in the city over the next five years; • The construction must be confined to the improvement of the current street and cannot include any widening or expansion of the street or other added elements like curb and gutter if they do not currently exist. • The street reconstruction plan and the issuance of bonds require a unanimous vote of the City Council following publication of a public hearing for which at least ten days notice has been published in the official newspaper; • There is a reverse referendum provision requiring a vote on the issuance of the bonds when a petition signed by voters representing 5% of votes cast in the last general municipal election is filed within 30 days of the public hearing; • The bonds issued are subject to the net debt limit of the City which is 2% of Estimated Market Value. The City's estimated market value for pay 2005 is $1,535,208,800 which results in a current debt limit of $30,704,176. The City currently has net debt subject to the limit of approximately $5,169,000. The City's remaining net debt limit is approximately $25,535,176. • Taxes levied for the repayment of the debt are exempt from the City's levy limitation. This legislation enables the City to fund the entire cost of their portion of these projects with General Obligation Street Reconstruction Bonds if it meets the above requirements. The bonds are be repaid from ad valorem property taxes, special assessments or other revenues sources with the exception of M.S.A. allotments. We did not prepare any financial projections using G.O. Street Reconstruction Bonds because none of the reconstruction projects in the planning period are anticipated to be confined enough to comply with the requirement of this financing type. - 1 8 5 - City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financing RI 1 Available Funding Sources i7 General Obligation Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Bonds And Other Associated Obligations (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 469.174 — 469.1791) Springsted Tax Increment Financing (TIF) uses the increased property taxes generated by new real estate development within a defined geographic area to pay for certain eligible costs associated with the new development. The value that is "captured" (i.e. the increase in value over the year the TIF district was established) generates incremental property taxes. These incremental taxes are collected by the authority and then appropriated to the project. The incremental taxes are used to subsidize eligible project costs such as land acquisition, demolition, public and site improvements, and related consulting and administrative costs. The value of the property prior to development (i.e., the "non- captured" portion) continues to generate property taxes and is distributed to all appropriate taxing jurisdictions. The defined geographic area is referred to as a tax increment financing (TIF) district and is the area from which 111-,' funds are generated. A TIF District is located in a Project Area or a Development District, which is the area in which TIF funds may be spent (with certain restrictions). A Project Area or Development District may be the same size as the TIF District or they may be larger than the TIF District. Also, a Project Area or Development District may contain more than one TIF District. The formation of a TIF district is subject to stringent statutory requirements. The premise for all TIF districts is the "But For" test. In order for the City to create a TIF district it must make a finding that the new development would not occur "But For" the use of tax increment financing. The term (life in years) of a TIF district varies depending upon the type of district created. Project costs can be financed with general obligation tax increment bonds, non - general obligation revenue bonds, or pay -as- you -go notes. Tax increment revenues may be spent outside of the TIF district but within the boundaries of the Project Area, subject to certain restrictions. For redevelopment districts (certified after June 30, 1995), the maximum pooling percentage is 25 %. For all other TIF districts (certified after June 30, 1995), the maximum pooling percentage is 20 %. Pooled revenue must still be spent on TIF eligible project costs. TIF funds spent outside their districts may also be .subject to other restrictions. Legislative changes in the past have generally had an adverse affect on most cities tax increment districts, as a result it can be difficult for tax increment financing to serve as a viable financing tool for the PMR. The past changes in legislation compressed property classification rates, reduced tax rates on certaii classes of properties, and increased state aids to schools resulting in less tax increment being generated from a given development. However, there may be certain reconstruction projects within the PMR that could be financed with tax increments. - 1 8 6 - City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financing Re smi aw 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Available Fun 1Sources Tax Abatement (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 469.1812.469 Springsted 18 Minnesota Statutes refers to tax abatement as the capture of property taxes. Under Minnesota law, taxes .due on real property subject to tax abatement must .1815) still be paid as due. If tax abatement is'in place, the appropriate portion of the taxes can be captured and applied to development purposes. The captured taxes must be used to offset the costs agreed to under an abatement agreement. Tax abatement revenues can be used to fund eligible expenditures either on a pay - as- you -go basis or to pay annual debt service of general obligation tax abatement bonds. Tax abatement can be used to capture taxes on land and existing buildings as well as new improvements. Limited restrictions exist on the end use and current use of tax abatement. The maximum aggregate amount of abatement for a political subdivision is the greater of 10% of the current tax levy or $200,000. Examples of the use of tax abatement include, but are not limited to: • Commercial • Retail • Industrial Cities, counties, towns, and school districts all have the authority to grant abatements. In addition, the county and school district affected by the abatement have the option of declining participation. If one of the jurisdictions should choose to decline, the maximum duration of abatement is 15 years. In the case in which the city (or town), county, and school district all participate, the maximum duration of abatement is 10 years. In order for a city, town, county, or school district to utilize tax abatement, the following findings must be made: • The benefits gained must equal or exceed the cost to the political subdivision; and • The project must be in the public interest because it does one of the following: 1. Increases or preserves the tax base. 2. Provides employment opportunities. 3. Provides or helps acquire or construct public facilities. 4. Helps redevelop or renew blighted areas. 5. Helps provide access to services. 6. Finances or provides for public infrastructure. The abatement approval process is much simpler than tax increment and consists of the following steps: calling for a public hearing, publishing a notice of the hearing, conducting the hearing, and passing the abatement resolutions. Dollars generated through abatement carry less spending restrictions as compared to tax increment. The City's maximum aggregate abatement available based on the 10% limitation is approximately $652,964/year based a the City's 2005 net levy of $6,529,638. - 1 8 7 - City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financing Re Available Funding Sources 19 �• It is also important for the City to understand the implications of using all or a portion of its available tax abatement capacity for funding the PMR. Since the amount of' tax abatement available for use by the City is limited, any amount used for the PMR would reduce the amount available as an economic 3 development tool. For this reason, we have not recommended abatement as a funding source for the PMR. X Special Service District Minnesota Statutes Chapter 428A defines a special service district as a specific 3 (Minnesota Statutes area within the city where special services are rendered and the costs of the Chapter 428A.01.428A.101) special services are paid from revenues collected from service charges imposed rX within that area. The service charges can be fixed on any equitable basis, but shall be reasonably related to the special services provided and shall be as 3 nearly as possible proportionate to the cost of furnishing the service. The 1996 3 Legislature authorized cities to create special taxing districts to finance improvements and maintenance activities in commercial areas without special legislation. This authority is scheduled to sunset on June 30, 2005 and enabling legislation will be required for special service districts created thereafter. 1 The governing body of a city may adopt an ordinance establishing a special service district. Only property that is used for commercial, industrial, or public utility purposes, or is vacant land zoned or designated on a land use plan for commercial or industrial use and located in the special service district, may be 3 subject to the charges imposed by the city on the special service district. Other types of property may be included within the boundaries of the special service district but are not subject to the levies or charges imposed by the city on the 3 special service district. 3 Special service districts can be a viable financing tool when other traditional public finance options may not be available. For example, upgrading or 3 replacing public improvements in downtown areas do not lend themselves well to special assessments, user charges or jurisdictional -wide property taxes. 3 The primary disadvantage of special service districts lies with its creation. The process for using it is complicated. A city cannot initiate the process to create a 3 district unless it is petitioned to do so. Property owners representing 25% or more of the net tax capacity and 25% of the land area in the district subject to the service charge must sign the petition. The process to impose the service e charge is subject to the same petition requirements. The petition only starts the process. 1 3 3 3 a Springsted Following the receipt of the petition, the city schedules a public hearing. After the hearing, if the city decides to create a district or impose the service charge, then a copy of the summary of the ordinance or resolution taking the action must be mailed to the same property owners in the district notified of the hearing within five days of adoption. The resolution or ordinance may not take effect for at least 45 days. During that period, the action may be vetoed if - 1 8 8 - City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financing Repo 3 Available Fundinq Sources 3 3 3 3 3 1 a 3 3 3 1 20 Economic Development Authority (E.D.A.) (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 469) Housing and Redevelopment Authority (H.R.A.) (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 469) Capital Projects Funds Springsted property owners representing 35% or more of the net tax capacity and 35% of the land area in the district subject to the service charge file objections. If a service charge is initially proposed and approved for a multi-year period, then the second and subsequent years are not subject to petition and veto. One disadvantage of a special service district is that the cost is borne exclusively by the commercial, industrial, and public utility properties within the district as residential properties are not subject to the special service charges. The City could establish a special taxing district for various roadway reconstruction projects. The service charges imposed within this district could be established at rate sufficient to produce revenues required to pay principal and interest on Limited Tax General Obligation (L.T.G.O.) Special Taxing District Bonds to finance the needed improvements. This would result in a higher overall tax rate on those properties included in the special service district. An economic development authority is granted special tax levy authority through their respective city councils. The tax levy dollars can be used for a wide variety of economic and industrial development activities. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 469.107 limits the amount of an E.D.A. levy to 0.01813% of the taxable market value in the City. In certain instances, it could be possible to fund a street reconstruction project included in the PMR with an EDA tax levy. These would generally include a street reconstruction needed to facilitate a new development or a redevelopment project. The City's estimated pay 2005 taxable market value is $1,535,208,800 which would enable an E.D.A. levy of approximately $278,333 each year. Because E.D.A. levies have historically been included within the City's overall levy limit, we would not recommend this funding source be used. A housing and economic development authority is granted special levy authority to levy a tax to carry out housing and redevelopment activities within the City. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 469.033 limits the amount of an H.R.A. levy to 0.0144% of the taxable market value in the City. Here again, in certain instances, it could be possible to fund a street reconstruction project included ii the PMR with an HRA tax levy. These would generally include a street reconstruction needed to facilitate a redevelopment project. Based on the City' 2005 estimated taxable market value ($1,535,208,800), an H.R.A. levy could amount to approximately $221,070 each year. H.R.A. levies are outside of the City's overall levy limits. The City has created a number of Capital Projects Funds for various capital expenditures. The Sealcoating Fund was created to account for funds receive( from developers to pay for the first sealcoat on the streets in their developmer. -189- City of Lino Lakes • Pavement Management Plan Financing RI 2 dh 3 11 33 33 • Available FuncN Sources 21 thereby reducing the cost of the PMR to the City in the future because these streets are not currently included in the PMR.. We have developed a projected cash flow for the Sealcoating Fund over the planning period covered by this study. The projected cash flow is based on both assumptions provided by the City and from the PMR as follows: • Development in the City will add approximately 2.8 miles of new street each year over the planning period • Developers will contribute $20,000 per mile of new street developed to cover the cost of the first sealcoating in the first year of the planning period. Developer contributions will increase each subsequent year by 5% to account for inflation of sealcoating costs • Developer contributions received by the City will be held in the Sealcoating Fund until needed to pay for the first sealcoating • Cash balances in the sealcoating fund will be invested at an assumed conservative rate of 2% • The Sealcoating Fund had a balance of $103,573 at the end of 2004 The projected cash flow is shown in the table below. The fund had a cash balance of $103,573 at the end of 2004. The projections assume this balance will be spent down over the next seven years to pay for sealcoating the streets for which the funds were collected. The projected developer contributions of $56,000 in 2005 less sealcoating expenditures of $14,800 results in a projected fund balance of $144,773 at the end of 2005. The cash balance in this fund is projected to grow each year from both developer contributions and investment interest reaching a projected balance of $488,987 at the end of 2011. Beginning in 2012, the growth in this fund balance slows as the first expenditures for sealcoating are projected to occur to the streets constructed in 2005. The fund is projected to have a cash balance of $518,917 at the end of the planning period in 2014. When the City reaches build out, the developer contributions will cease and the fund will be spent down to pay for sealcoating streets. The table below shows the projected cash flow in this fund over the planning period Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Developer Mileage Contribution 2.8 56,000 2.8 58,800 2.8 61,740 2.8 64,827 2.8 68,068 2.8 71,472 2.8 75,045 2.8 78,798 2.8 82,738 2.8 86,874 Sealcoat Overlay I Interest Expenditure Expenditure @ 2.0% Levy Balance 14,800 144,77 14,800 2.895 191,6E 14,800 3,833 242,41 14,800 4,849 297,31 14,800 5,946 356,5: 14.800 7,131 - 420,3: 14,800 8,407 488,9 78,798 9,780 498,7 82,738 I 9,975 508,7 86,874 10,175 518,c 5pringsteri -190- City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financing Available funding Sources 22 Storm Water Utility (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 444.075) Sprinasted A portion of the reconstruction costs identified in the PMR include costs related to storm water facilities. These are estimated to be approximately $4,200,000 of the $17,500,000 in reconstruction costs as shown in the table below. Total Projected Storm Water Street Related Year Reconstruction Costs Related Costs Costs 2005 $0 $0 $0 2006 0 0 0 2007 1,435,000 344,400 1,090,000 2008 2,750,000 660,000 2,090,000 2009 3,035,000 728,400 2,305,000 2010 3,485,000 836,400 2,650,000 2011 1,577,500 378,600 1,200,000 2012 1,655,000 397,200 1,260,000 2013 1,737,500 417,000 1,320,000 2014 1,825,000 438,000 1,385,000 Totals $17,500,000 $4,200,000 $13,300,000 The cost related to the storm water facilities could be paid for through a storm water utility established under Minnesota Statutes 444.075. A storm water utility would be similar to the City's current Water Utility and Wastewater Utility. All the costs associated with the construction and operation of the storm water utility would be paid for through a user fee charged to customers. The user fee system can be established in a number of ways and is generally dependent on the level of information about each parcel readily available. The City would pay for the cost of the storm water improvements either with funds accumulated in the utility or through the issuance of general obligation revenue bonds that would be repaid with user fees. There are a number of advantages to a storm water utility for the City to consider. The utility would provide a dedicated source of funding for both the operational and capital costs of the City's storm water system. A storm water utility could reduce the current expenditures in the general fund by transferring those current operating expenditures for storm sewers like cleaning pipes and catch basins, street sweeping, and leaf collection to the utility. In addition, the utility could share in some of the general fund administrative costs like engineering, accounting, and the supervision of staff. The utility could also share the cost of equipment purchases with the general fund and the sewer funs A storm water utility would reduce the property tax impacts and the amount of special assessments needed to fund the PMR by providing a funding source for the storm water related costs. - 1 9 1 - City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financing Re 3 3 3 3 11 2 3 3 3 1 1 3 0 a Ea Available funding Sources 23 Storm Water Improvement District (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 444.16- 444.21) State and Federal Transportation Grants Anoka County Because all improved properties, including tax - exempt properties, can be charged in proportion to their storm water runoff contributions, a storm water utility can be a fair and equitable method of funding storm water needs. The City could establish a storm water improvement district or districts under Minnesota Statutes 444.16 - 444.21 as an alternative to a storm water utility. These districts are establish by an ordinance adopted by a two- thirds majority of the City Council after defining the area to be included within the district and holding a public hearing. After the creation of the district, the City would have the authority to construct and to maintain capital improvements and to levy a tax for the costs. The improvements can be financed through the issuance of bonds which are payable primarily from the proceeds of the tax levied on the district. One disadvantage of storm water improvement districts is that tax - exempt properties do not contribute to the funding of the improvements even though they often generate significant storm water runoff. The Pavement Management Financing Report did not assume that the City would receive any state or federal grants to pay for a portion of the costs. However, there are a limited number of grants that could be used provided the projects meet the requirements of a specific grant. These would include Community Development Block Grants funded through the State and projects that could be funded with federal funds through inclusion in the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) for the local MN DOT District in which the City is located. Grants are generally both limited in availability and competitive and are not a reliable source of financing the PMR on an annual basis. There are currently 18.9 miles of County State Aid Highways (CSAH) and 9.56 miles of county roads within the City. None of these roads are included in the PMR. However, the Pavement Management Financing Report assumes Anoka County will participate in the financing of the traffic control devices where City and County transportation routes intersect each other. Municipal State Aid (M.S.A.) The allocation of State Aid monies to urban municipalities is made on the basis Funds of a legislative formula pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 162.07 and 162.13. Under this formula, municipal state aid funds are apportioned to cities based on both money needs and on population. Fifty percent of the monies are allocated according to a needs study which is a report of the estimated construction costs required to improve the state aid system to standards adequate for future traffic. Each municipality's needs apportionment is determined as the prorated share that its needs bear to the total needs of all state aid eligible cities. The remaining fifty percent is allocated to each municipality based on population with each state aid eligible city receiving the prorated share that its population bears to the total population of all state aid eligible cities. 3 - Springsted - 1 9 2 - City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financing Repo 1 ■ Available Funding Sources 24 :4) 1 1 a The municipal state aid funds received by cities are divided into two allotments, a construction allotment and a maintenance allotment. The maintenance allotment cannot exceed 35 percent of the cities total state aid funds in any year and must be used for the maintenance of the city's municipal state aid street system. The City has historically appropriated its maintenance allotment to the General Fund for maintenance purposes. Maintenance allotments can also be appropriated to pay the interest due on municipal state aid bonds. The construction allotment must be used for the construction or the reconstruction of the City's municipal state aid street system to established standards. Cities receive their construction allotment only after a contract has been awarded for the construction of a street on the state -aid system. Cities do not receive any interest on unspent construction allotments. Construction allotments can also be used to pay the principal due on municipal state aid bonds. A city may issue municipal state aid bonds to finance construction of their state aid system; however, the average annual amount of principal and interest due in any subsequent calendar year on bonds sold by the city including any similar obligations outstanding cannot exceed 50 percent of their last annual construction allotment preceding the bond issue. For example, if the City received an annual M.S.A. construction allotment of $100,000 the average annual debt service payments for all outstanding M.S.A. bonds in future years could not exceed $50,000. The municipal state aid rules allow cities, subject to MN D.O.T. approval, to request advanced funding for municipal state aid eligible projects from any municipal state aid funds available provided that the amount of the advances do not exceed the city's total estimated apportionment for the three years following the advance. The City has currently advanced all of its MSA funds through 2008. Springsted - 193- City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financing Repo r r ■ d Recommended Funding Sources 25 5 Recommended Funding Sources Springsted Springsted, working with the City staff, has developed a proposed plan for the financing of the Pavement Management Plan. We recommend the City pursue the following plan with respect to the financing of the PMR. 1. Property Tax Levy: The City should levy a property tax to fund total annual maintenance costs identified in the PMR. These costs include sealcoating and overlays averaging $330,000 on an annual basis which are necessary to maintain the street infrastructure in the City in an acceptable condition. The PMR points out that continuing the current maintenance practices over the next ten years will result in serious deterioration of the City's street system. It projects that reconstruction costs of approximately of $39 million would be needed to restore the overall street system to its current condition. Increasing pavement maintenance and reconstruction spending to the amounts we have recommended would actually improve the overall pavement conditions in the City at a cost of $28 million resulting a net savings of $11 million over the next 10 years according to the Pavement Management Report prepared by TKDA. 2. General Obligation Improvement Bonds Repaid By Special Assessments (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 4291: For reconstruction projects where the existing street width is inadequate resulting in widening of the street and that cannot be financed with M.S.A. funds, state or federal transportation grants or County participation, we recommend the City issue General Obligation Improvement Bonds pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429. The benefiting properties should be assessed an amount equal to the special benefit they receive as a result of the improvement, but no less than 20% of the City's share of the costs. The remaining amount would be repaid from a property tax levied on all properties in the City. 3. General Obligation Street Reconstruction Bonds (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 4751: For reconstruction projects where the existing street width is adequate resulting in no widening of the street and where other elements not currently existing like curb and gutter do not need to be included in the improvement and that cannot be financed with M.S.A. funds, state or federal transportation grants or County participation, we recommend the City issue General Obligation Street Reconstruction Bonds pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 475. Benefiting properties should be specially assessed an amount equal to the special benefit they receive as a result of the improvement. The remaining amount would be repaid from a property tax levied on all properties in the City. However, the City would not need to specially assess at least 20% of the local. costs as required for General Obligation Improvement Bonds or hold a special election. - 1 9 4 - City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financing Report 1 1 1 1 3 a a a a 1 Recommended Funding Sources 26 4. Storm Water Utility (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 4441: We recommend the City establish a storm water utility to pay for those costs of the PMR related to storm water. This will reduce the both the amount of special assessments and property taxes needed to fund the PMR. 5. Tax Increment Financing. Tax Abatement. EDA Levy. and HRA Levy: The City should use these financing tools on reconstruction projects where their use is consistent with the City's statutory authority and where there is a rational nexus between the use of these funding tools and a development or redevelopment project. 6. M.S.A.: The City should use M.S.A. funds to maintain and to reconstruct those streets designated as part of the City's M.S.A. system. Benefiting properties should be assessed on M.S.A. projects in accordance with the City's Public Improvement Financing Policy. This policy provides that M.S.A. streets in unimproved areas be specially assessed at a rate equivalent to a standard residential assessment in other areas of the City. 7. Anoka County and State and Federal Grants: The City should actively work with Anoka County to share in the cost of reconstruction projects on C.S.A.H. routes within the City. The City should also pursue available State and Federal funds to minimize the local funds required to fund the PMR. Summary of Recommended We have prepared a summary of the recommended funding sources based on Funding Sources the following assumptions: • The City levies a property tax each year to pay for the maintenance related costs of the PMR (sealcoating and overlays) • There are no reconstruction projects at this time that meet the requirements for 100% financing with a G.O. Street Reconstruction Bond (all of the reconstructed streets will require widening) so this funding source was not recommended • The City would specially assess benefiting properties 20% of the City's share of the costs on reconstruction projects • The City establishes a storm water utility to pay for the storm water related costs of the reconstruction projects The funding sources recommended include property taxes of $4,077,038 to pay for maintenance costs and $4,200,000 from a storm water utility, $3,500,000 from special assessments, and $9,800,000 from G.O. Improvement bonds to pad for $17,500,000 in reconstruction costs. The special assessments amount of $3,500,000 represents 20% of the project costs and does not include any interest on the G.O. Improvement Bonds. The G.O. Improvement bond amounts include only the principal portion of the bond that will be repaid from property taxes levied. These are shown in the following table. Springsted - 1 9 5 - City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financing Rep a a a a a Recommended Funding Sources 27 Year Maintenance Costs Reconstruction Costs Total Costs Property Tax Levy 2005 G.O. Improvement Bonds Total Revenues Storm Water Utility Principal Repaid From Special Assessments Principal Repaid From Property Tax Levy - 236,538 - 236.538 236,538 - - 24,300 236,538 2005 347,500 - 347,500 347,500 - - 516,750 347,500 2006 365,500 1,435,000 1,800.500 365.500 344,400 287,000 803,600 1,800,500 2007 385,000 2,750,000 3,135,000 385,000 660,000 550,000 1,540,000 3,135,000 2008 402,500 3,035,000 3,437.500 402.500 728,400 607,000 1,699,600 3,437,500 2009 422,500 3,485,000 3,907,500 422,500 836,400 697,000 1,951,600 3,907,500 2010 445,000 1,577,500 2,022,500 445,000 378,600 315,500 883,400 2,022,500 2011 467,500 1,655,000 2,122,500 467,500 397,200 331,000 926,800 2,122,500 2012 490,000 1,737,500 2,227,500 490,000 417,000 347,500 973,000 2,227,500 2013 515,000 1,825,000 2,340,000 515,000 438,000 365,000 1,022,000 2,340,000 Totals 4,077,038 17,500,000 21.577,038 4,077,038 4.200,000 3,500,000 9,800,000 21,577,038 Springsted The impacts resulting from debt service on General Obligation Improvement Bonds issued to finance the reconstruction portion of the PMR each year begin in 2007 when the first reconstruction project is scheduled to occur. The bonds were assumed to have a term of 15 years and an average annual interest rate of 4.675 %. We assumed that the bond amount each year would include the principal amount of the special assessments and that 20% of the debt service costs each year would be repaid from special assessments. This results in $13,300,000 in bonds to be issued ($9,800,000 to be repaid from property taxes plus $3,500,000 to be repaid from special assessments). The projected bond amounts, annual debt service, annual special assessments, and net property tax levies through 2014 are shown in the table below. It is important to remember that the debt service payments, special assessments and tax levy will continue through 2029 when the bonds issued in 2014 are repaid. Year Total Bond Issue Amount Gross Average Annual Debt Service Less Special Assessments (20 %) Net Levy 2005 - - - - 2006 - - - - 2007 1,090,000 103,000 24,300 78,700 2008 2,090,000 299,750 70,830 228,920 2009 2,305,000 516,750 122,145 394,605 2010 2,650,000 766,750 181,145 585,605 2011 1,200,000 880,750 207,860 672,890 2012 1,260,000 999,500 235,910 763,590 2013 1,320,000 1,123,900 265,295 858,605 2014 1,385,000 1,254,420 296,130 958,290 We developed a projection of the property tax levies and tax rates that result from the recommended funding sources through 2014. They show the sealcoating and overlay portion of the PMR on a pay -as- you -go basis and the impacts resulting from debt service on General Obligation Improvement Bonds issued to finance the reconstruction portion of the PMR each year. The tax rate is projected to increase each year as new debt is issued and is projected to range from 4.039% to 6.140% in 2014 depending on the growth in the City's tax base, These projected tax rate impacts are less than the projected tax rate impacts from either the G.O. Bonds (5.936% to 9.022 %) or the G.O. Improvement Bonds (5.116% to 7.777 %) because the revenues from the special assessments - 1 9 6 - City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financing Repc 2 a :10 Recommended Funding Sources 28 and the storm water utility reduce the required property tax levy. The bonds are projected to have a term of 15 years so the corresponding debt service payments would affect the City's tax rate through 2029. Additional tax rate impacts after 2014 would depend on how the City decided to fund the PMR in subsequent years. The projected tax levies and tax rates are shown in the table below and the graph that follows. Year Total Levy Projected Tax Capacity (5% Growth) Tax Rate Impact Projected Tax Capacity (7.5% Growth) Tax Rate Impact Projected Tax Capacity (10% Growth) Tax Rate Impact 2005 236.538 15,468.021 1.529% 15,468,021 1.529% 15.468.021 1.529% 2006 347,500 16,241,422 2.140% 16,628,123 2.090% 17.014,823 2.042% 2007 444.200 17,053,493 2.605% 17.875,232 2.485% 18,716.305 2.373% 2008 613,920 17,906,168 3.429% 19.215.874 3.195% 20,587.936 2.982% 2009 797.105 18.801,476 4.240% 20,657,065 3.859% 22,646,730 3.520% 2010 1.008,105 19,741,550 5.107% 22.206,345 4.540% 24,911,403 4.047% 2011 1.117,890 20,728.628 5.393% 23,871,820 4.683% 27,402,543 4.080% 2012 1,231.090 21.765,059 5.656% 25,662,207 4.797% 30.142,797 4.084% 2013 1,348,605 22,853.312 5.901% 27,586.872 4.889% 33.157,077 4.067% 2014 1,473,290 23,995,977 6.140% 29.655.888 4.968% 36,472,784 4.039% City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota PMP Financing Plan - Projected Tax Rate Impacts 7.000% 6.000% 5.000% 4.000% 3.000% 2.000% 1.000% 0.000% -/"."-----.."' 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 -6- Projected Tax Rate Impact (5% Growth) -1E- Projected Tax Rate Impact (7.5% -iLw-- Tax Rate Impact (10% Growth) Springsted The projected property tax impacts resulting from the recommended funding plan on a residential home in the City valued at $228,400 are shown in the following table and graph. The 2005 projected property tax impacts represents the City's actual 2005 levy for street maintenance. The 2006 projected property tax impacts reflect only maintenance costs for seal coating and overlaying from the PMR. The projected property tax impacts for 2007 through 2014 reflect both maintenance costs for seal coating and overlays and debt service on the - 1 9 7 - City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financing Report 1 1 1 1 1 z 1 4 1 Recommended Funding Sources 29 G.O. Improvement Bonds issued to finance the reconstruction projects each year. The maximum property tax impact occurs in 2014 and is projected to range from approximately $92 to approximately $140 depending on the rate of growth in the City's tax base. This again is less than all the other options including paying for all the cost on an annual basis with a property tax levy ($358 to 452), G.O. Improvement bonds alone ($116 to $178) or G.O. Bonds ($136 to $206) because the revenues from both the special assessments and the storm water utility reduce the reliance on property taxes. Property tax impacts would continue through 2029 when all the G.O. Improvement Bonds issued have been repaid. Additional property tax impacts after 2014 would depend on how the City decided to fund the PMR in subsequent years. Year 2005 Projected Tax Rate Impact (5% Growth) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 1.529% Annual Impact $ 34.93 Projected Tax Rate Impact (7.5% Growth) 2.140% 2.605% 1.529% $ 48.87 2.090% 3.429% 4.240% 2012 2013 2014 $ 59.49 $ 78.31 2.485% Annual Impact $ 34.93 $ 47.73 Projected Tax Rate Impact (10% Growth) $ 56.76 3.195% $ 72.97 5.107% 5.393% 96.83 $ 116.63 3.859% $ 88.13 4.540% 5.656% 5.901% 6.140% $ 123.18 $ 129.19 4.683% $ 103.69 $ 106.96 $ 134.78 $ 140.23 4.797% $ 109.57 4.889% $ 111.66 4.968% 113.47 1.529% 2.042% 2.373% 2.982% 3.520% 4.047% 4.080% 4.084% 4.067% Annual Impact $ 34.93 $ 46.65 $ 54.21 $ 68.11 $ 80.39 $ 92.43 $ 93.18 $ 93.28 $ 92.90 4.039% $ 97 ,F $160.00 - $140.00 - $120.00 - $100.00 - $80.00 - $60.00 $40.00 - $20.00 - City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota PMP Financing Plan Property Tax Impacts On A Home Valued At $228,400 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 I-0 Annual Impact 5% Growth -* Annual Impact 7.5% Growth *Annual Impact 10% Growth 1 Springsted - 1 9 8 - City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financing Report a 3 3 • Recommended Funding Sources 30 We have not provided any detailed impacts of a storm water utility on a typical homestead in the City because there are a number of issues outside the scope of this study that would need to be resolved in order to provide a reasonable estimate of the impact. These would include, but not necessarily be limited to: > The make up of the customer classes for the utility > The basis of the storm water utility charges (i.e. impervious area versus customer classes) > Operational costs attributable to the storm water utility > Storm water credit system for on -site detention/treatment The other funding sources recommended have project specific applications that can be used to reduce the cost of the PMR that must be supported by property taxes, special assessments, and the storm water utility. The City should utilize these sources, as appropriate, for the projects they would fund. Springsted - 199 - City of Lino Lakes • Pavement Management Plan Financing Repo' 7 5 9 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 z 1 2 Recommended Funding Sources 30 Springsted We have not provided any detailed impacts of a storm water utility on a typical homestead in the City because there are a number of issues outside the scope of this study that would need to be resolved in order to provide a reasonable estimate of the impact. These would include, but not necessarily be limited to: > The make up of the customer classes for the utility > The basis of the storm water utility charges (i.e. impervious area versus customer classes) > Operational costs attributable to the storm water utility > Storm water credit system for on -site detention/treatment The other funding sources recommended have project specific applications that can be used to reduce the cost of the PMR that must be supported by property taxes, special assessments, and the storm water utility. The City should utilize these sources, as appropriate, for the projects they would fund. -200- City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financing Report Relationship to City Charter 31 6 Relationship to All City Charter 3 3 3 3 3 3 3l Springsted The City operates under a home rule charter that provides the enabling legislation which defines the powers of the City. Chapter VIII of the charter defines the City' s powers related to public improvements and special assessments. This section provides that when less than one - hundred percent of the estimated cost of proposed improvement is to be paid by special assessments, connection charges, or any outside funding source other than the City's general fund, the City must submit the proposed local improvement to a vote of the citizens. This would require that each PMR project funded by our recommended sources would need to be approved by a vote of the citizens. This creates an additional requirement the City of Lino Lakes must follow if the PMR is to be implemented. This is a rather unique charter requirement that we have not found in previous similar studies. However, the funding sources we have recommended provide the City with a method of financing their PMR that is widely used by most other cities in Minnesota. Implementing the PMR is clearly in the City's best interest because increasing pavement maintenance and reconstruction spending to the amounts we have recommended will result in a net savings of $11 million over the next ten years according to the Pavement Management Report prepared by TKDA. - 201 - City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financing Repor Corn parison of Funding Sources 4.1 a7 Comparison of The graphs that follow show a comparison of the property tax rate impacts of Funding Sources the various funding alternatives we have discussed in this report based on the three different growth projections in the City's tax base we have used. The purpose of these graphs is to provide a visual representation of the information contained in this report. It also enables the reader to see that the funding sources we have recommended will have the least impact on the City's property tax rate. a a a Springsted 32 25.1100 20.000% 15.000 10.000 5.000% % City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Comparison of Financing Alternative At 5% Growth In Tax Base 6.0011% % % - 8.1100% ■ ■ 20115 2006 20117 2008 20119 21110 2011 2012 2013 2014 -0 -Annual Property Tax Levy Only ---Annual Tax Levy For Maintenance, G.O. Bonds For Reconstruction -*- Annual Tax Levy For Maintenance, G.O. Improvement Bonds For Reconstruction _♦ Annual Tax Levy For Maintenance, G.O. Improvement Bonds For Reconstruction and Storm Water Utility 21 1 1 1 1 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Comparison of Financing Alternative At 7.5% Growth In Tax Base 8.000% 6.0011% 4.000% 2M00% 0.009% 8.1100% 6.1100% 4.IN111% 2.000% 11.01111% ■ 2005 211116 2007 21108 21109 211111 21111 2012 2013 2014 _4- Annual Property Tax Levy Only - 0-Annual Tax Levy For Maintenance, G.O. Bonds For Reconstruction -*- Annual Tax Levy For Maintenance, G.O. Improvement Bonds For Reconstruction -B- Annual Tax Levy For Maintenance, G.O. Improvement Bonds For Reconstruction and Storm Water Utility - 202 - City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financing Report comparison of Funding Sources 41) a 33 18.000% 16.000% 14.000% 12.000% 10.000% 8.000% 6.000% 4.000% 2.000% - 0.000% City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Comparison of Financing Alternative At 10% Growth In Tax Base 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -4- Annual Property Tax Levy Only -'*-Annual Tax Levy For Maintenance, G.O. Bonds For Reconstruction -is- Annual Tax Levy For Maintenance, G.O. Improvement Bonds For Reconstruction -e- Annual Tax Levy For Maintenance, G.O. Improvement Bonds For Reconstruction and Storm Water Utility The charts illustrate that: • Funding the PMR with on an annual basis with a property tax levy only result in volatile changes with spikes from 2006 through 2010 • Funding the PMR with bonding options results in less of a property tax rate impact and provides a more stable property tax rate. The projected impacts result in a gradual increases until 2010 and then level out as a result of: o Increases in the City's tax base o Impact of special assessment revenues o Impact of storm water utility fees Springsted - 2 0 3 - City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financing Repoil 1 4 4 1 a a Da 410 Public Im rovement Financing Plan Recommended Chances 34 8 Public Improvement We have reviewed the City's Public Improvement Financing Policy as it relates Financing Policy to our recommendations for funding the PMR. This policy lays out the process Recommended Changes and the basis for financing public improvements in the City. Our recommended changes are provided in this section of our report. Each section to be changed is shown with the recommended changes. Springsted Section 2 - EXISTING LAND USE (page 4) The following public improvements may be financed by the City to serve existing developed areas. The life cycle for improvements for assessment purposes is: • Trunk sanitary sewers — 30 years • Lateral sanitary sewers — 30 years • Storm sewers — 30 years • Reconstructed streets — 65 years • Sidewalks — 10 years • Watermain trunk lines — 30 years • Watermain lateral lines — 30 years • Drainage ditch cleaning —10 years (City Jurisdiction) The language referring to bituminous streets was eliminated and replaced with reconstructed streets which have an anticipated life of 65 years when properly maintained consistent with the PMR. Appendix A — 4. BASIC ASSESSMENT DATA REQUIRED FOR EACH PARCEL Area (used for storm water and area -wide assessments) Area used is the gross area of the parcel as it is benefited by each separate improvement. Unit assessments will be used for street reconstruction projects. One assessment unit will equal the minimum lot size for the zoning district in which the reconstruction project will take place. If a reconstruction project includes multiple zoning districts, the smallest minimum lot size allowed for the districts included will be used. The number of assessment units for parcels greater than the minimum size will be the number of minimum lots the parcel can be divided into. All property within district boundaries is to be included. District boundaries are determined by the City Engineer. In general, all property will be assessed. Permanent ponding areas platted as outlots and street right -of -way shall be exempted. - 2 0 4 - City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Plan Financing Repc Public Improvement Financing Plan Recommended Changes Springsted 35 We have added the language related to unit assessments for street reconstruction projects to this section of the Appendix. Unit assessments for street reconstruction projects make sense because it is difficult to quantify the special benefit from a street reconstruction project based on the front footage of a lot (ie. a lot with a front footage of 100 feet versus an adjacent lot with a front footage of 115 feet). Additionally, we understand that the City has based previous special assessments for street improvement projects on a unit basis for the reason we have stated. Changing your policy to agree with your current practice would make sense at this time. Appendix A — 4. BASIC ASSESSMENT DATA REQUIRED FOR EACH PARCEL Adjusted Front Footage (used for all improvements except storm sewer and street reconstruction) Corner Lots (used for street reconstruction projects) Corner lots will be assessed on a unit basis the same as interior lots. When the street reconstruction on one side of the lot precedes that along the other side, the lot will be assessed on a unit basis as determined by this policy. Street reconstruction subsequently occurring along the other lot side will be specially assessed only for the amount of units in excess of one. We added an exception for street reconstruction projects to Section B. We added a new Section C. to provide a method for determining the special assessment for corner lots to be consistent with the unit assessment policy, Appendix A — 6. COST ALLOCATION Street Surfacing and Reconstruction Benefiting properties will be assessed an amount equal to the special benefit they receive from grading, base, street surfacing improvement (except seal coating and overlays), and street reconstruction projects, bu no less than 20% of the City's share of the costs. We amended the language in this section to include special assessments for street reconstruction projects and to exclude seal coating and overlay which will be paid from property taxes. -205- City of Lino Lakes - Pavement Management Pian Financing Re • AGENDA ITEM 6Eiii STAFF ORIGINATOR: James E. Studenski COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 9, 2005 TOPIC: Resolution No. 05 -67, Adopting Pavement Management Policies VOTE REQUIRED: Simple Majority BACKGROUND: At the April 6 and 20, 2005 Work Sessions, staff presented the Pavement Management Policies to the City Council. The intent of the policy is to establish the procedures for implementation of the Pavement Management Program. It was then requested, at the April 20, 2005 Work Session, that these policies be adopted by the Council. Attached is a survey of other surrounding communities' storm water utility fees. OPTIONS: 1. Return to staff for further review. 2. Adopt Resolution Number 05 -67, Adopting Pavement Management Policies. 3. Not adopt Resolution Number 05 -67. RECOMMENDATION: Option No. 2 - Staff recommends that Resolution No. 05 -67 be adopted. • • • CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 05 -67 RESOLUTION ADOPTING PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT POLICIES WHEREAS, the City Engineer has presented the Pavement Management Report to the Council for acceptance, and WHEREAS, City staff has presented the Pavement Management Financing Report to the Council for acceptance, and WHEREAS, it has been requested that these policies be adopted by the Council; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA: 1. Adopt the Pavement Management Policies. Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 9th day of May, 2005. ATTEST: Ann J. Blair, City Clerk John J. Bergeson, Mayor • Draft Draft 4 -18 -2005 Draft PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT POLICIES TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PURPOSE 1 II. ESTABLISHMENT OF RATING SYSTEM 1 III. PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES 1 A. Street Reconstruction B. Street Maintenance IV. PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA 2 V. FINANCING 2 VI. STORM WATER UTILITY VII. ASSESSMENTS 3 VIII. MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT RAI'E IX. TERM OF ASSESSMENTS 5 X. INTEREST RATE ON ASSESSMENTS 6 XI. CORNER LOTS 6 XII. IRREGULARLY SHAPED LOTS 6 XIII. LOT WIDTH 6 ITV. COLLECTOR STREET CREDITS 6 XV. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 6 XVI. MAINTENANCE OF STREETS 6 XVII. MUNICIPAL UTILITIES 7 KVIII. CITY STANDARD STREET DESIGN 8 KIX. SENIOR CITIZEN/DISABILITY SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERRALS 8 Pavement Management Policy i 05/02/05 - 2 0 8 - Draft Draft 4 -18 -2005 Draft • I. PURPOSE • • The Pavement Management Program (PMP) sets forth a system for the optimal maintenance of streets to extend their useful life and the reconstruction of streets, which have exceeded their useful life, and establishes a funding strategy to maximize available resources to carry the maintenance and reconstruction activities. The Pavement Management Program Policies will guide the timing and type of maintenance actions and reconstruction activities and the francing of activities. These policies will preserve the City's asset of streets, provide for the safe and efficient travel of its citizens, retain property values, keep the City attractive and desirable, and minimize costs to the property owners and taxpayers of the City. II. ESTABLISHMENT OF RATING SYSTEM A. Background. In 2004, the City and TKDA investigated and evaluated every block of City pavement to establish its condition based upon what defects each block contained. City records were investigated to obtain knowledge of how old each block is and what maintenance has occurred throughout its history. This information was then entered into a nationally accepted computer program that identifies and analyzes all defects in each block of road and records it together with all relevant information concerning that block to determine the capable condition of the street. B. Index. The program rates the streets by using an Overall Condition Index (OCI) having a 1 -100 scale with 100 being a perfect new street. It then projects the OCI of a segment and gives budget- dependent maintenance protocols for a given time period. It is the City's goal to maintain an overall OCI rating of 70. C. Rating Procedure. Each City street shall be rated every four years by the public works /engineering staff. This will be accomplished by reviewing 25% of the street mileage every year. III. PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES The pavement management categories considered for City streets will be as follows: A. Street Reconstruction (OCI 0 -40. "Problem" category) Includes: Storm Sewer Grade Changes Subgrade Correction (Major /Minor) Install Concrete Curb and Gutter Pavement Management Policy 1 05/02/05 -209- • Draft Draft 04 -18 -2005 Draft Recycle Existing Pavement Financing: Lot/Unit Assessment Commercial /Industrial = 50% of project cost up to maximum assessment rate Residential = 50% of project cost up to maximum assessment rate City contributes balance from General Fund, State Aid Funds, or other sources. B. Street Maintenance. 1. Overlay (OCI Includes: 7 40 -70, "Marinal" category) Crack Filling Milling Surface Patching Pothole Subgrade and Base Correction Repair or Replace Concrete Curb and Gutters 1 1/2 Inch Bituminous Surface Overlay Financing: City General Fund or other sources Sealcoat (OCI 70 -100, "Adequate" category) Includes: Pothole Filling Crack Filling Sealcoat Financing: City General Fund or other sources IV. PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA The OCI rating shall serve as the base criteria for project selection. In addition to the OCI, streets shall be evaluated according to Average Daily Traffic (ADT), Stormwater Management, Public Utilities and project priority groupings to achieve economies of scale. The City Engineer shall annually prepare a five year Street Maintenance & Reconstruction Plan based on these criteria for review and approval by the City Council. V. FINANCING The components of the Pavement Management Program (PMP) will be financed as follows: A. Maintenance (Sealcoatina and Overlays) — The City will levy a property tax each year to pay for annual maintenance costs as outlined in the PMP. B. Local Street Reconstruction — The City will use: Pavement Management Policy - 2 1 0 - 05/02/05 • • Draft Draft 04 -18 -2005 Draft 1. General Obligation Street Reconstruction Bonds authorized under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 475 for reconstruction projects where the existing street width is adequate and /or where no additional improvements, such as curb and gutter, are needed. 2. General Obligation Improvement Bonds authorized under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 for reconstruction projects where the existing street width is not adequate and/or where additional improvements, such as curb and gutter, are needed and at least 20% of the project cost is to be assessed. 3. General Obligation Bonds authorized under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 475. for reconstruction projects where the existing street width is not adequate and/or where additional improvements, such as curb and gutter, are needed and less than 20% of the project cost will be assessed. Street reconstruction projects financed through these means will be funded from special assessments to benefited properties, proceeds from the storm water utility, and city tax levies and other sources. C. Municipal State Aid Streets. 1. MSA funds or bonds will be used to finance reconstruction of streets designated as part of the City's MSA system. 2. Properties benefiting from these projects will specially assessed according to the same formula used for benefited properties on local streets. 3. Other financing sources, including but not limited to, proceeds from the storm water utility and city tax levies may also be used. VI. STORM WATER UTILTY The City Council shall establish and maintain a storm water utility as authorized under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 444, for the purpose of financing those costs of the PMP related to storm water improvements, and for maintaining the stone water management system. VII. ASSESSMENTS A. The following is the general Street Reconstruction Policy for special assessments to benefiting property. 1. It is the policy of the City to special assess abutting benefiting property for street reconstruction costs, but not in excess of the special benefit to the Pavement Management Policy 3 05/02/05 -211- • • Draft Draft 04-18-2005 Draft property. This policy applies to all streets that are the responsibility of the City. 2. The maximum assessment rate for the reconstruction of previously paved streets shall be determined according to Section VIII of this policy. 3. Assessments shall not exceed any of the following: (a) the special benefit to the property being assessed; (b) the total project cost. (c) the maximum assessment rate. 4. Project cost includes both direct construction costs, including land acquisition, and all indirect costs such as engineering, legal, fiscal and administration. B. Method of Assessment The City Council, shall assess street improvements on the basis of a Lot /Unit assessment. The Lot/Unit assessment shall be calculated as follows: 1. Rural, Single Family, Two Family Residential Districts. (a) One half of the total cost of the improvements shall be divided by the total front footage for the improvement. The quotient of this shall be the Calculated Assessment Rate. (b) The Calculated Assessment Rate shall be compared to the Maximum Assessment Rate, as provided for under this policy and the lesser of the two shall be the Assessment Rate. (c) The Assessment Rate shall be multiplied by the minimum required lot width of the respective zoning district that applies. The product of this shall be the Lot/Unit Assessment (d) Exceptions. Where parcels in Rural Zoning Districts have less than the minimum required lot width they shall be evaluated under the lot width requirements of the most applicable single family district. ii. Where parcels within zoning districts have less than the minimum required lot width of the respective district the Lot /Unit Assessment shall be calculated by multiplying the individual lot width by the Assessment Rate. Pavement Management Policy 4 05/02/05 -212- Draft Draft 04 -18 -2005 Draft 411 2. Medium & High Density Residential, Commercial and Industrial Districts • (a) One half of the total cost of the improvements shall be divided by the total front footage for the improvement, as determined under this policy. The quotient of this shall be the Calculated Assessment Rate. (b) The Calculated Assessment Rate shall be compared to the Maximum Assessment Rate, as provided for under this policy and the lesser of the two shall be the Assessment Rate. (c) The Assessment Rate shall be multiplied by the minimum required lot width of the respective zoning district that applies. The product of this shall be the Lot /Unit Assessment. (d) Parcels shall be converted into an equivalent number of parcel units by dividing the area of the parcel by the minimum lot area of the respective zoning district. The quotient of this shall be the Unit Assessment Multiplier. (e) The Lot/Unit Assessment shall be multiplied by the Unit Assessment Multiplier. The product of this shall be the assessment amount. 3. When an assessable parcel from an improvement project is subdividable Linder City Code, the City will assign the maximum number of Lots/Units to the parcel that would result from a future subdivision under the current City Code. 4. Nothing herein shall preclude the City Council from assessing 100% of a project cost upon receipt of a Petition and Waiver of Irregularity and Appeal from 100% of the property owners benefiting from the project. VIII. MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT RATE The base year for the street assessment under the Pavement Management Program will be 2005. The maximum assessment rate shall be $77.00 per front footage. This rate shall be adjusted annually (January 1) using the National Engineering News Record (ENR) cost index. IX. TERM OF ASSESSMENTS Project costs assessed under this policy will be collected over a 15 year period. Pavement Management Policy 5 05/02/05 -213- • Draft Draft 04 -18 -2005 Draft X. INTEREST RATE ON ASSESSMENTS An interest rate of assessments shall be charged at 2% over the rate of bonds issued to finance the project. The minimum interest rate shall be 7% per annum. XI. CORNER LOTS Corner lots in Single Family, Two Family and Medium Density Districts where single - family homes, two - family homes, townhomes, or condominiums are- built, will be a part of the improvement and assessment process if the driveway for the subject corner lot is on the improvement street. Such lot shall be assessed on a unit basis the same as interior lots. However, regardless of driveway location, where a lot is subdividable and such subdivision fronts the improvement street, the parcel shall be assessed for all units in excess of the original lot. XII. IRREGULARLY SHAPED LOTS Irregularly shaped lots will be considered on an individual basis. Such lots will be measured and assessed on their average width with the lot width at the front setback line taken into consideration. XIII. LOT WIDTH Lot width is generally considered the lot width at the front setback line, with the exception of irregularly shaped lots. XIV. COLLECTOR STREET CREDITS All residential properties, with the exception of properties with a density of greater than 6 units /acre, will only be assessed for a city standard street as defined in Section XVIII., of this policy. Residential properties with greater than 6 units per acre density and commercial /industrial properties will be assessed toward the entire cost of street improvement as outlined in these policies. XV. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The Street Maintenance and Reconstruction Plan, established per Section IV, shall be part of the City's Capital Improvement Program which is prepared during the budgeting process. X'VI. MAINTENANCE OF STREETS A. General Maintenance. An important element of a good street Pavement Management Plan Program is to provide good maintenance practices. Streets should be swept as early as possible in the spring to help dry the streets; cracks should be filled as early as possible in the year to prevent moisture into the sub- Pavement Management Policy 6 05/02/05 -214- • Draft Draft 04 -18 -2005 Draft base; filling of potholes should be made as necessary to prevent travel hazards and damage to sub -base; and special maintenance shall be consistently performed to protect and prolong the life of the pavement. The City Council needs to provide the necessary funding in the budget to perform the necessary maintenance work in a timely and professional manner. B. Special Maintenance. Special maintenance shall be include timely seal coating and bituminous overlays on streets as follows: nor ,aintenanc (Under zeview by the LMC Insurance Trust ttornev) erforrn minor maintenance 'on the streets •to address .y, <. , m,, . _ ..: hen a street is scheduled for ei safety measures "wn11 occur on e City to' expend funds on has: deteriorated to the point )VII. MUNICIPAL UTILITIES. rti.'ons arrant, may post signs surface and recommending A. In instances where street reconstruction is proposed within areas not currently serviced by municipal sanitary sewer and /or water, the City shall provide for the extension of these services in conjunction with the improvement project subject to the following: 1. Municipal sanitary sewer and water are available to service the project area. 7 The City's Comprehensive Plan guides the area for sewered development. Pavement Management Policy 7 05/02/05 -215- Age of Street Maintenance Action 5 — 7 years First sealcoating 10 —14 years Second sealcoating 15 — 21 years Third sealcoating 20 — 28 years First overlay 25 — 35 years First sealcoating 30 — 42 years Second sealcoating 35 — 49 years Second overlay 40 — 56 years First sealcoating 47 — 65 years Road reconstruction nor ,aintenanc (Under zeview by the LMC Insurance Trust ttornev) erforrn minor maintenance 'on the streets •to address .y, <. , m,, . _ ..: hen a street is scheduled for ei safety measures "wn11 occur on e City to' expend funds on has: deteriorated to the point )VII. MUNICIPAL UTILITIES. rti.'ons arrant, may post signs surface and recommending A. In instances where street reconstruction is proposed within areas not currently serviced by municipal sanitary sewer and /or water, the City shall provide for the extension of these services in conjunction with the improvement project subject to the following: 1. Municipal sanitary sewer and water are available to service the project area. 7 The City's Comprehensive Plan guides the area for sewered development. Pavement Management Policy 7 05/02/05 -215- • Draft Draft 05 -6 -2005 Draft 1. With the exception of trunk improvements (i.e., oversizing or overdepth) sanitary sewer and water main extension shall be 100% assessed to benefited properties provided that such assessments do not exceed the following: (a) the special benefit to the property being assessed; (b) the total project cost. All sanitary sewer and water main improvements proposed to be paid for by special assessments shall be subject to the provisions and procedures of Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429 and City Charter, Chapter 8. Charter requirements. XVIII. CITY STANDARD STREET DESIGN A. The City Standard Street Design shall be 32 feet from back of curb to back of curb . 1. Exception. In cases were the existing street proposed for reconstruction is 29 feet wide or less, and not a Municipal State Aid Road, County, or other designated collector road, the street shall be reconstructed to a maximum width of 29 feet from back of curb to back of curb. All such streets constructed to such width shall be limited to parking on one side and be signed accordingly. B. The pavement section shall consist of a minimum 7 -ton design, which consists of 1 -1/2 inches of bituminous wearing course, 2 inches of bituminous base course, and 8 inches of Class 5 aggregate base course. XIX. SENIOR CITIZEN/DISABILITY SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERRALS. Owners of homestead property aged 65 or older, or who are retired by virtue of permanent and total disability may, if eligible, apply for deferral of special assessments in accordance with Ordinance 07 -90. Pavement Management Policy 05/06/05 • • • Storm Water Utility Survey City Blaine Blaine staff is in the process of developing a policy to present to their City Council this fall, 2005. They are modeling their Storm Water Utility policy after the policy that Coon Rapids has in place. Fees: Coon Rapids Circle Pines Ramsey Andover Mounds View Effective November 1, 2002 Fees: Billed quarterly Single family - $6.50 per unit Medium density (townhomes) - $4.70 per unit High density (apartments) - $2.50 per unit Commercial - $41.00 per acre Parks & open space - $4.00 per acre Elementary & middle schools - $12.00 per acre High schools - jr. colleges- $22.00 per acre Churches - 25.00 per acre Other public & semi - public property The Circle Pines Storm Water Utility policy will go into effect April 1, 2005 and will be part of the Centennial Utilities operation. Fees: Billed monthly Residential - $3.00 Commercial - Calculate surface run -off Implemented 3 years ago. Fees: Outsource their billing (Connexus) - billed quarterly Residential - $7.50 Commercial - Based on engineers calculations Effective June 17, 2003 Fees: Billed quarterly Single family - 5.44 per unit Multiple dwelling - $11.96 per unit Business, commercial, industrial & public - 22.84 per acre Elementary, middle & high schools - $10.87 per acre Churches - $10.87 per acre Increased fees January 26, 2004 Fees: Billed quarterly Single & 2- family residential - $7.50 per quarter Medium density - 40.99 per quarter High density - $49.72 per quarter /acre Industrial - $49.72 per quarter /acre School /church /public - $22.89 per quarter /acre Shoreview • Hugo • • Implemented in the 1980's Fees: Billed quarterly Single family - $9.96 per unit Multi- family & townhomes - $10.56 per unit Condos - $68.74 per acre Apartments, commercial, industrial, public instututions, churches & hotels - $83.36 per acre Hugo is in the preliminary stages of developing a policy. At the September 10, 2004 workshop, staff indicated to city council the projected everyday maintenance for storm water related projects and programs. Staff requested city council to consider directing staff to develop a scope of services needed to complete the steps to implement the storm water utility.