Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01-23-01
City of Lakeville. Economic Development Commission Regular Meeting: Agenda Tuesday, January 23, 2001, 6:00 p.m. Administration Conference Room OR-City Council Chambers- Subject to .Construction Schedule Lakeville City Hall 1. Call meeting to order. 2. Approve November 28, 2000 meeting minutes. 3. Election of Officers • Chair ¦ Vice-Chair ¦ Secretary 4. Incentive Study A.) Discussion with Springsted regarding study goals, :process, etc. 6.) Establish procedures to involve Lakeville businesses in incentive study. 5. Recommendation to City Council to enter into. a Grant Agreement wi#h Greg and Nancy Smith to provide a $70,000 Community DevelopmentBlock Grant for the improvement of their two downtowr? buildings. 6. Review Labor Force Subcommittee/Chamber of Commerce joint mee#ing with Industrial Businesses regarding Ai~lake Leadership and the HR Committee. 7. Status update on Park Dedication Fees 8. Letter from United States Postal. Service Real Estate Specialist regarding site .under consideration for new Lakeville Post Office. 9. Proposal toehold future EDC meetings off-site. 10, Appointments to the High-Tech Subcommittee. 11. Adjourn. 2001. January 23 1 G:~AFIad\ECON DEV~E DC12001 mtgs\012301 agenda.doc For Your Information: 1. Dates of'2001 Council meetings 2. Development Report,. including Current Residential. Development Projects, Current Non .Residential: Development Projects, and Lakeville's 2000 Building Permit Value Tops $150 Million -press release.. 3. January 14, 2001 letter from Flyteline Services to the Metropolitan Airports Commission regarding site plan development for Flyteline Lease Area. 4. Letter of intent to Dakota Electric and resolution accepting $3,500 from Dakota Electric for development of marketing materials. Attachments: 1. Lakeville Unveils Plans'for I-35 Retail Center. January 3, 2001 regarding the Avalon Group's proposed Timbercrest.'.development featuring a SuperTarget and retai{ campus at 1-35 and 185' Street. 2. Tax Dispute Hifs Woodbury., CityBusiness, regarding the controversial special assessment Woodbury proposed to finance a $22.5 million interchange project. 3. State Needs Transportation Funding Plan. City Business, December 29,2000, regarding the need for along,-term transportation financing plan as a part of the post-meter study strategy. 4. Flexibility is Key to the Real Estate Market's `Industrial Evolution.' CityBusiness, December 11, 2000. 5. Local Hero v. Regional. Champ. Governing, .December 2000, regarding. the .regional effect of Anoka's use of incentives to attract businesses to their industrial park. Fi- Shakopee River City Center Picks Up National Award. Minnesota Real. Estate Journal, December 11,.2000, regarding the national award-winning mixed-use senior housing development in downtown Shakopee.. 7. Met Council Te//s Suburbs to Add Affordable Housing.- Star Tribune, November 30, 2000; regarding the-Met Council's repercussions for communities that do not meet affordable housing and density goals. 8. Met Council takes Eagan to Task on Affordable Housing. Star Tribune, December 14, 2000, regarding the Met Council's intent to reduce Eagan's eligibility for regional infrastructure improvements and various other grants and #inancial aids if the City does not increase housing density and the number of affordable units that will be developed.: 9. Housing Study Derails Suburban Critics. Star Tribune, regarding a study that indicates affordable housing does not lower values. of near-by properties. 10. In Chaska, Some Wonder How Muchlnfluence Bernardis:Have.., Star Tribune, December 4, 2000, regarding the business efforts and influence the Bernardis'. have in'Chaska and elsewhere. 11.Dented But Undaunted. StarTribune,-December 11 2000, regarding the new business paradigm of Cub Foods. 12. Southern Twin Cities Association of Realtors home sales statistics for the first half of 2000. 2001, January 23 2 G:1AFIad\ECON DEVIEDC~2001 mtgs1012301 agenda.dac r City of Lakeville Economic Development Commission Meeting Minutes November 28, 2000, 6:00 p.m. City Hall Administration Conference Room Members Present: Schubert,. Miller, Tushie, Pogatchnik, Detjen, Brantly, Matasosky, Emond, Vogel, Ex-Officio member Bornhauser, alternate member Erickson.. Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Arlyn Grussing, Community & Economic Development Director, Ann Flad, . Economic Development Coordinator,. Robert Erickson, City Administrator. 1. Call Meeting to Order. Chair Vogel called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. in the City Hall Administration Conference- Room. 2. Approval of October 24, 2000 Regular Meeting Minutes. Comm. Matasosky indicated that he would like the first sentence in item three, paragraph five stricken from the minutes as he did not approve of the fees as stated. Motion 00.35 Comms. Erickson/Miller moved to approve the October 24, 2000 meeting minutes with the first sentence in item three, paragraph five stricken from the minutes. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Review Park Dedication Fees Subcommittee recommendation. Mr. Grussing reported that the Park Dedication Subcommittee met on November 20, 2000 and recommended to raise park dedication fees to $3,500 for industrial properties and $4,800 for commercial properties. EDC Comm. Tushie, a member of the subcommittee, also suggested to the Park Dedication Subcommittee that 25% of any increased. residential park dedication fees be reserved for the Corridor and Gateway projects in the future. The EDC is asked to make a recommendation regarding park dedication fees for consideration by the City Council on November 18, 2000.. A copy of the EDC's recommendation will also be given to the Parks Advisory Committee for review at their December 13, 2000 meeting. Mr. Grussing indicated that he, City Administrator Erickson, and Economic Development Coordinator Flad discussed the proposed park dedication fee increase with Airlake Development, Inc. representatives Patrick Regan, Sean Regan, and Mike Regan, along with Stan Palmer of Cerron Commercial Properties and Jack Matasosky of Appro Development per the EDC's .request from the October 24, 2000 meeting..: It was explained that while park dedication fees would increase, the EDC would take into consideration a rrequest from Airlake Development as to the level of increase that they would deem appropriate... 2000, November 28 1 G:1AFIad\ECONDEVIEDC~2000mtgs1001128 mtglmin 001 t28.doc Mr. trussing handed out a letter addressed to Chair Vogel from Pat Regan on behalf of Airlake landowner Airlake Development, Inc.. Comm. Matasosky added that Pat Regan regretted he was unable to be present to discuss the concerns contained in the letter. In the letter, Airlake Development, Inc. requested the park dedication fees remain at their current level. Airlake Development believes that an increase in fees would make the development of Airlake land more costly and thus less competitive with other communities. The letter also indicated that if the fees were increased, Airlake Development, Inc. may pay the park dedication fees on all of the land they own at the current rate before any increase would take .effect. Comm.'s Tushie and Vogel, wh.o represented the EDC on the Park Dedication Subcommittee, indicated that the following impacted their recommendation 1.) Commitment to the Corridor and Gateway plan must not be lost once the park dedication fee is determined; and 2.) Recognition that businesses and their employees do benefit from the Park system in Lakeville, and 3.) Fostering a cooperative relationship with the Parks Advisory Commission is very important to the long term success of EDC efforts. Discussion ensued about Airlake's competitiveness based on all applicable development fees and not. just park dedication fees. The EDC discussed whether increasing park dedication fees would benefit the implementation of Corridor and Gateway projects. City Administrator Erickson indicated there is a proposed commercial .project at County Road 46 and Cedar where the Corridor and .Gateway study proposed a serpentine wall as a gateway monument. While the sign itself may not be funded by park dedication fees, it is believed that the landscaping, benches and lighting that are designed to create open space linear park amenities may be funded in this way. A relationship must beforged with the Parks Advisory Commission in order to promote understanding the Corridor and Gateway projects as open space linear park .amenities. Discussion also ensued regarding the cost to fully implement the Corridor and Gateway Plan. It was speculated that the cost would be $3.5-$10 mil{ion. Comm. Emond asked what other alternatives there would be to fund Corridor and Gateway projects. City Administrator Erickson responded that a bond-referendum could be held in order#o obtain frauds o--seed Corridor and Gateway projects. The EDC also discussed the benefits property owners and .businesses in Airlake receive from the parks system. Many Airlake Park businesses have softball teams that play in Lakeville leagues. In addition, much of the Parks Department's budget goes toward the trail system. One trail will ultimately run along side South Creek through Airlake Park. City Administrator Erickson has also suggested that Airlake Development donate outlots on which "Airlake" monument signage they have been requesting could be located. Chair Vogel suggested that the-EDC had two options regarding this issue: 1.) take no action; and 2.) provide a recommendation and rationale for it. The Park Dedication Subcommittee recommended $3,500 as a compromise between the Parks Advisory Commission's originally recommended $4,000 and the $3,000 that was under discussion at the October 24, 2000 EDC meeting. 2000, November 28 2 G:\AFlad\ECONDEV\EDC\2000mtgs\001128 mtg\min 001128.doc A chart was handed out by Mr. trussing depicting the assessor's market value per square foot for parcels in Airlake Park. The parcels with lower assessor's market values do not have improvements. The parcels with higher assessor's market values have been platted and all fees have been paid. Comm. Matasosky reiterated that raising the fees impacts the bottom line of developers and that he must abstain from. voting as his firm is a land owner in Airlake Park. Administrator Erickson reminded the EDC that the park dedication fee was lowered in 1992 in order to assist the financial viability of Airlake Park's development when Airlake Park was coming out of receivership. Using the pre-1992 park dedication fee of $2,500 and increasing it 3% annually the EDC arrived at the figure of $3,167. This is the ratethe park dedication fee would be at today had it not been reduced and held steady since 1992. Comm. Tushie suggested the EDC change the recommendation for the commercial park dedication fee. Discussion ensued on what the market value for commercial property in Lakeville is. It was concluded that $2.50 per square foot is the low end of the range of commercial market values. Comm. Pogatchnick suggested using the low end of the range at $2.50 mulitplied by 5% to arrive at a flat fee of $5445/acre for all. commercial property. It was concluded that these figures would be rounded to $5,400/acre for commercial property and $3,200/acre for industrial property. Motion 00.36 Comms. Tushie/Brantly moved that the City Council increase park dedication fees to $5,400/acre for commercial property and $3,200/acre for industrial property. Comm. Matasosky abstained, all others in favor.. Motion carried. 4. Review Labor Force Subcommittee Recommendation Ms. Flad indicated that the Labor Force Subcommittee met on Thursday, November 9, 2000 _ to discuss_the Labor Forcea-Focus Group-Report. The-subc®n~mittee reviewed-the report and recommended 1.) To develop leadership in Airlake to implement labor force recruitment strategies, 2.) To market Lakeville and Airlake Park to heighten awareness and recruit employees, and 3.) To support individual business's recruitment efforts. The subcommittee was specifically interested in continued exploration of advertising Airlake Park and a job hotline on cable channels. The EDC reviewed the subcommittee's recommendations and discussed the need for businesses to take an active role in implementing labor force recruitment strategies. Without the businesses' active involvement, it was felt that any strategy implemented would not succeed. Comm. Bornhauser also discussed the Chamber of Commerce's Human Resource Network that could potentially be tapped to implement these initiatives, and Nation-Job, a Chamber of Commerce web site that is available to businesses for advertising their job openings. 2000, November 28 3 G:WFIad\ECONDEV\EDC\2000mtgs\001128 mtglmin 001128.doc City Administrator Erickson distributed a memo from Jeff Leuders, Cabte Coordinator, indicating that the City's Cable TV Franchise Agreement allows the City to run up to 1,500 30-second commercials annually on a variety of cable channels. This option may be used to advertise Airlake Park and the proposed job hotline or web site. Motion 00.37 Comms. Matasosky/Tushie moved to reconvene the Labor Force Subcommittee to create a plan for developing leadership in Airlake Park that will be responsible for marketing Lakeville and Airlake Park to potential employees. Motion carried unanimously. 5. Update on Community Development Block Grant Funds. Mr. Grussing Indicated that. the City Council approved reprogramming $70,000 of 2000 CDBG funds for a downtown code improvement project and a 2000 Subgrantee Agreement with Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) in order to implement the downtown code improvement project. A letter has gone out to all property owners and businesses in the downtown Special Service District requesting an indication of interest in accessing these funds. The deadline for indication of interest is Monday, December 4, 2000. The CDA will review the level of interest. and is preparing guidelines and policies for the program. Funds are expected to 6e available on or before January 1, 2001. The City Council approved the EDC's recommendation to reprogram $34,614 of 2000 CDBG funds to be applied toward the GDA's acquisition of a site for an affordable town house project in Lakeville, and the 2001 CDBG application for $109, 819 to also be applied to the CDA's site acquisition for this project. Comm. Tushie commented on the EDC's need for an affordable housing study, .indicating that more than 30 affordable housing units will be needed in the future. The study would provide information on the methods and resources available to develop more affordable housing. Comm. Emond requested that staff provide information at the next meeting regarding affordable housing resources. 6. Incentive Study update. Mr. Grussing indicated that the City Council reviewed the EDC's request for 2001 funds to commission an incentive study to be conducted by Springsted, Inc. The City Council requested support from the Chamber of Commerce for this study, and a letter of support from Chamber Director Todd Bornhauser was provided to the City Council. Approval of the request is anticipated at a budget amendment meeting in December. Comm. Matasosky questioned the process Springsted will use and suggested that the process include a brainstorming session with representatives of the business community. It was concluded that a brainstorming session to explore business motivations and innovative ideas be discussed with Springsted at the January EDC meeting. 7. Review mailing list for Airlake Park News. 2000, November 28 4 G:WFIad\ECONDEVIEDC12000mtgs\001128 mtg\min 001128.doc Ms. Flad provided the mailing list for Airlake Park News as requested at the last meeting. In reviewing the recipients of the newsletter, it appears that it is read by several commercial, industrial, and service businesses in addition to Airlake Park businesses. Elected officials and others also receive it. Staff has concluded that those outside of Airlake who have requested to receive the newsletter do so because of their interest in economic development in Lakeville. The focus continues to be industrial development primarily in Airlake, therefore the name of the newsletter is consistent with its purpose and no changes were recommended. Additionally, a Chamber Newsletter does highlight issues of relevance to commercial, service and industrial businesses and is available to all Chamber members. City Administrator Erickson suggested a periodic mailing of the Chamber newsletter to the Airlake Park mailing list recipients and an Airlake Park News mailing to Chamber newsletter recipients.. Discussion ensued regarding EDC packet attachments. Mr. trussing indicated that staff met with Metals USA regarding their interest in obtaining a site in Lakeville or Brooklyn Center. A recruitment packet was developed for Metals USA that contrasted Lakeville's property taxes and water rates with Brooklyn .Center's, along with providing additional information about fiber availability, transportation, labor force and the business community in Lakeville. A decision is expected from Metals USA by the end of December. Discussion also ensued regarding Lakeville's ranking for industrial wages compared to other communities and a letter from Finance Director Dennis Feller to a resident regarding the use of Tax Increment Financing. 8. Adjourn. Chair Vogel called the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: Attested to: Ann Flad, Recording Secretary R.T. Brantly, Secretary 2000, November 28 cJ G:\AFIad1ECONDEV\EDC\2000mtgs\001128 mtg\min 001128.doc 'Item loo. l~/Ie~nor~andum To: Economic Development Commission CC: Bob Erickson, City Administrator Arlyn trussing, Community & Economic Development D' ectar From: Ann Flad, Economic Development Coardinato .:Date: 01/19/0:1- Re: Election of Officers . Y:. , Thee February 22, .1994 Resolution Confirming and Defining the Purpose, Responsibilities and Terms of Office. for the Economic Development. Commission: states that "at tie first meeting of the year, the Commission shall elect a Chairperson, Viee Chairperson and Secretary from arnongsf its appointed members to serve for a term of one year." Currently Bob Vogel serves as the Chair, Jack Matasosky as the Vice-Chair, and Bab Brandy as the Secretary. Commissioners are asked to elect officers to serve-the 200.1 year.. CITY OF LAKEVILLE DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION Date Februar 22, 1994 Resolution No. 94-41 Motion By Ha_vey Seconded By 'tulvihill RESO UTION CONFIRiVIING Ai~1D DEFINING THE PURPOSE, SPONSIBILITIES, AND TERMS OF OFFICE ' FOR THE ON011%IIC DEVELOPME.N'I' COiVi~'IISSION WHEREAS, the City Co cil wishes to support, promote and assist in the economic development of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council be ' ves the requirements for maintaining the designation of the City as a "Star City" by the State of Mi esota will greatly enhance the development of the City in a sound, economic manner, and WHEREAS, it is a requirement for the Council to establish an Economic Development Commission to achieve a "Star City" designation by a State of Minnesota. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by e City Council of the City of Lakeville; 1. Establishment. -The Ciry's Economic Develo enf Commission is hereby confirmed. 2. Pur ose. The .purpose of the Commission to study and review economic development issues and needs, and to advise the City Cou '1 on what policies and programs the Council might. implement. to achieve therh. 3• COmDOS1tIOn, The Economic Development Commissio shall consist of nine (9) persons appointed by the City Council. One .member shall be board member. of the Lakeville Chamber of Commerce. IViembers shall serve three year sta eyed terms with three appointments made annually. The Mayor and the City Administrator ar ppointed ex-officio members of the Economic Development Commission. The members and -officio members of the Commission shall hold their positions until their resignation, eplacement or termination. Vacancies shall be filled by the Council for the unexpired por ' n of a term. All members. shall serve without compensation. 4. Qualifications. The qualifications of the members of the Commission shall those who, in judgement of the Council, are representatives of the community and are quah d by training, experience and interest useful for the fulfillment of the Commission's responsi ' ity in economic development. ' Resolution Repeal. Resolution No. 92-221 is hereby repealed. APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Lakeville City Council this 22nd day of Februar 1994. CITY OF I.AKFVII,LE sy ane R. Zau , ayor ATTEST: . Charlene Friedges, Ci Clerk _ - - . 5. Oraanizationlitiieetings. At the first meeting of the-year, the Commission shall elect a Chairperson, Vice Chairperson and Secretary from amongst its appointed members to serve for a term of one year. The regular meeting date of the Commission shall. be the fourth Tuesday of the month. Special meetings. may be called as needed by the Chairperson. Attendance at Meetin s. Any members of the Economic Development Commission w misses three. (3) consecutive meetings, or a total of one-third (1/3)~of all meetings in a cale ar year, shall automatically be removed from office without City Council action, and the Ci , dministrator shall notify the member of his or her removal. 7. Pow s. The Commission shall have no power to make contracts, levy taxes, borrow money. or con mn property, but shall have authority and responsibility to investigate and recommend the cessity of taking these and any other actions related to the .economic development of La ville. 8. Duties. The Co mission is an advisory body of the Council with responsibility to provide information and a ' tance and to cooperate with those interested in new, expanded or upgraded facilities which ill enhance the economic strength of the Ciry in a manner consistent with the goals an olicies of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and Economic. Development Plan. a Commission shall consult and cooperate with City .departments and other agencies and esent recommendations and advice to the City Council for appropriate action to enhance eco mic conditions in the City. The Commission shall review and make recommendations tot City Council regarding tax increment financing applications. The Commission shall activel romote the optimal and beneficial. use of land within the City in order to assist in the r lization of the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. As a part of its duties, the Commission shall: 1. Promote communications and interactions between the usiness commuriry, elected officials and the City's administration to improve the ciimate or economic development. 2. Develop- proactive policies and program recommendations to hance and facilitate economic development. 3. Develop a marketing plan which creates a positive image of Lakevill s a good place to Iive and work. 4. Suggest ideas to retain and enhance existing business as well as strategies to ing new business to Lakeville. The Commission shall annually issue a report to the City. Council outlining accomplish is of the previous year and explaining the proposed program of work and activities for t upcoming year as part of the Minnesota Star City program. It8ffi ~0. MEMORANDUM DATE: January 18, 2001 TO: Economic Development Commission FROM: Arlyn trussing, Community & Economic Development Director RE: Incentives Study 1 The City Council at their 1-16-2001 meeting approved the Incentives Study Agreement with Springsted in an amount not to exceed the budgeted amount of $12,500. Mr. Bob Vogel attended the City Council meeting and gave an excellent presentation on the EDC position. The attachments sent to the City Council are enclosed for your information and to simplify your individual filing systems. The approved December 11, 2000 agreement with Springsted is included in the previously mentioned attachments. Mr. David MacGillivray, Chairman of .Springsted will be present to discuss the study with the EDC. • Presentation by Mr. MacGillivray on Springsted and their expertise. • Presentation of process and products to be developed in the study. • Discussion on Study process. • Consideration of timing of Study (including potential legislative changes to incentive tools). • Input from businesses recently relocating to Lakeville. • What factors were important in their decision. • Meeting to include one EDC member and one CEDD staff member. • Establish subcommittee meeting schedule. This incentive study is an extremely valuable tool for the City as it will provide answers as to the potential incentive programs available. This knowledge is essential for Lakeville to select the tools the City determines are appropriate to our economic and financial well-being. /pb Attachment EDCmemolncentiveStudy::1 /18/01 t MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Arlyn trussing, Director Community & Economic Development DATE: January 11, 2001 RE: Approval of the letter of agreement to complete the Incentives Study The Economic Development Commission Strategic Plan includes studying incentives the City of Lakeville can offer to attract new businesses to the City and for expansion of existing businesses. The comprehensive incentive study will review all the funding options currently available for providing incentives for businesses and evaluate their appropriateness for the City of Lakeville. The proposed study will inventory the financial options, including their use by other municipalities, and make recommendations to Lakeville based on our Strategic Plan and Comprehensive Plan. The current tools used by the City, of Lakeville include tax increment financing, revolving loan program, assistance from the SBA, Department of Trade and Economic Developments (DYED) Minnesota Investment Fund, and Dakota. County Capital's low interest loans and venture capital. The Economic Development Commission, at their October 24, 2000 meeting, reviewed the proposal submitted by the Springsted firm. The EDC moved to form a subcommittee of the EDC to work on the incentive study and also moved to enter into a contract with Springsted. At the same meeting the EDC approved that Chair Bob Vogel request additional funding from the City Council to complete the study. EDC minutes and letter are attached. EDC members on the subcommittee include Barry Pogatchnik, Bob Brantly and Jim Emond. The .requested budget increase of $10,500 for 2001 to complete a financial incentives study has been approved by the City Council and has the support. of the Lakeville Chamber of Commerce (letter attached). The Springsted firm is a highly regarded public financial advisory company that has performed similar studies for many suburban communities (list included). The Springsted firm has submitted a December 11, 20001etter (attached) indicating their approach and work products to complete the financial incentives study. The proposal has been reviewed by the EDC and staff and should provide. an excellent roadmap for local decision making. The study will begin in January with the consultant meeting with the EDC at their January 23, 2001 meeting. Their proposal for the City of Lakeville and EDC is attached. The Economic Development Director and the EDC recommend the City Council approve the letter of agreement at a not to exceed the budgeted amount of $12,500. Bob Vogel will be at the meeting to answer questions. 1 e 85 SEVENTH PLACE EAST, SUITE 100 SAINT PAUL, MN 55101-2887 651-223-3000 FAX:651-223-3002 SPRINGSTED Public Finance Advisors December 11, 2000 Mr. Arlyn trussing, Community & Economic Development Director City of Lakeville 20195 Holyoke Avenue Lakeville, MN 55044-8339 Re: Proposal to Development of Economic Development Financial Incentives Program Dear Mr. trussing: We understand the City, through its Economic Development Commission (EDC), would like to develop a program for the effective application of financial incentives. Both, as city staff and as economic development advisors, we have assisted numerous cities with the educational background information, the discussion of pubiic policy issues, the drafting of the program itself with informational packets and application forms, as well as ongoing assistance with applicant review. We have a great deal of experience working directly with .economic development advisory bodies and city councils to cooperatively craft financial incentive policy documents fitting the municipality's needs and resources. Within this letter, we describe our general approach to establishing such a program, our method of compensation and a reference listing of similar experience in other suburban city environments. From our ongoing discussions with the City we understand these services and general approach would meet the City's needs. Approach 1. Meeting with City staff and/or EDC, City Council to determine objectives and parameters for this program. 2. Review of historical practices, current programs and estimated current financial capacity to provide financial incentives of this nature. 3. Provision of background information materials on the range of such. incentives covering suburban, municipal, state and federal programs. 4. Determine how to interface incentive policies with current economic .development plans and City's Comprehensive Plan. 5. Discussion with City staff and/or EDC, City Council on the various programs, their trade- offs, application to Lakeville's objectives and target industries, and potential impacts on the City's resources and objectives. t SAINT PAUL, MN ~ MINNEAPOLIS, MN ~ MILWAUKEE, WI ~ OVERLAND PARK, KS ~ WASHINGTON, DC ~ DES MOINES, IA City of Lakeville, Minnesota December 11, 2000 Page 2 6. Refinement of a list of programs for specific application in Lakeville, with a comprehensive profiling of uses and impacts for final acceptance by EDC and City. 7. Discussion of any related City fees for specific types of incentives. The City may wish to review its system of cost recovery or revenue diversification for its activities for various incentive programs. These fees can become an asset base to fund related activities or staff costs. This scope provides for a general review of such fees, not a complete cost recovery system. 8. Development of program informational materials for administration `by EDC and/or City staff. This scope would provide a general information piece on the City's overall ..program, with broad profile text on each individual program. The scope would not include actual program development for such complicated areas such- as revolving loan funds. 9. Development of any financial modeling for evaluation of individual applicants and overall impact on City financial resource capacities. 10. Integration of financial incentive program into City management structure, i.e. senior management, economic development and finance management.: Work Products 1. A written financial incentive program, to include a profile of policy positions, objectives, individual incentive options and their specific uses within the City, application forms, fees; approval process, anc+ ongoing managecre, ~ of the program: 2. If appropriate, financial evaluation form and process for applicants. 3. If appropriate, financial management systems relating to relevant incentive programs. Proposed. Compensation We envision providing you with a final compensation proposal after our joint. discussions on the specific objectives of the City and subsequent modification of the above work plan. Our expected .compensation methodology would be to begin on an hourly basis until such point as the City's needs and program approval process is clearly defined. .Based on our discussions to date, we anticipate anot-to-exceed amount of $12,500. In addition to our advisory service fees, we would expect reimbursement for the customary out-of-pocket expenses.__ Our hourly rates are as follows: Principal/Senior officer $150 Other Officers. $115 Other Professional Staff $ gp Support Staff $ 40 Regarding the printing cost of any final reports, we would not separately charge for the first ten copies, but would expect reimbursement for all related printing costs over that number. Assigned Staff Our service team would be led by myself and members of our .Housing and Economic Development Team, most notably Paul Steinman and Bruce Kimmel.. Resumes for each are enclosed. City of Lakeville, Minnesota December 11, 2000 Page 3 References This specific service is but one area of our overall economic development experience. Here, we first list references relating just to development of these types of incentive programs and our work directly with EDC's in this context. Following these references, we provide a brief sketch of our representative work of our overall experience. EDC Experience ? City of Eagan Mr. Tom Hedges, Administrator (612) 681-4600 ? City of Burnsville Mr. Greg Konat, City Manager (952) 895-4468 Ms. Judy Tschumper, Economic Development Director (952) 895-4436 ? City of Shakopee Mr. Mark McNeil, Administrator (952) 445-3650 ? City of Plymouth Ms. Anne Hurlburt, Community Development Director (763) 509-5401 ? City of Golden Valley Mr. Bill Joynes, City Manager (763) 593-8002 Mr. Mark Grimes, Planning and Economic Development Director (763) 593-8097 ? City of Vadnais Heights Mr. Jerry Urban, City Administrator (651) 429-5343 ? City of Eden Prairie Mr. Don Uram, Director of Community Development .and Financial Services (952) 949-8300 ? City of Savage Mr. Barry Stock, Deputy Administrator-Development (952) 882-2660 ? City of Woodbury Mr. Barry Johnson, Administrator (651) 714-3500 Mr. Dwight Picha, Community Development Director (651) 714-3500 * More references available upon request. Overall Experience ? Minneapolis Community Development Agency •3 Saint Paul Planning and Economic Development ? City of Bloomington HRA/Port Authority r City of Lakeville, Minnesota December 11, 2000 Page 4 Conclusion We believe this proposal, as endorsed, would meet any of your needs regarding the formality of this engagement. If the City would desire a more formal written contract, we are, of course, willing to participate in the drafting of such a document. We are prepared. to move ahead with this process immediately upon your direction. Respectfully, ~ ~ t David N. Mac illivray Chairman mlk a~~9,~s„~9,z„~~ enclosure cc: Mr. Bob Erickson, Administrator Ms. Ann Flad, Economic Development Coordinator Mr. Dennis Feller, Finance Director RESUME David. N. MacGillivray Chairman Experience Mr. MacGillivray is one of three principals of the firm and is responsible for overall client service. His direct. client responsibilities cover major cities and counties, as well as high-growth suburban jurisdictions. Mr. MacGillivray joined Springsted in 1985 as a Senior Analyst, and has attained. a succession of positions in the analytical and project management areas. Prior to joining Springsted, he worked for several municipalities in financial and city management. Mr. MacGillivray brings to his client relationships not only municipal bond industry experience, .but also an economics background based in comprehensively addressing infrastructure objectives. He is the author of numerous studies on fiscal impact analysis, economic development finance, debt management, and the use of particular revenue sources such as sales and admissions taxes. He has frequently testified before legislative bodies to enact new authority to expand financing options for public entities. Mr. MacGillivray's work is best exemplified in the recognition received by his clients. Four of his clients have received singular annual Government Finance Officers Association Awards for Excellence in Debt Management and Financial Planning. One of fiis clients has received the joint Ford Foundation-John F. Kennedy. School of Govemment Award for Innovation in Government. In addition to his duties at Springsted, Mr. MacGillivray frequently lectures on public sector financial management and the municipal bond industry. Education University of Minnesota, Minneapolis M.A., Economics .Specialized in Public Finance and Cost/Benefit Analysis University of Minnesota B.A., Economics Lectures National Government Finance Officers Association "Competitive vs. Negotiated Municipal Bond Sales" Numerous Regional Forums ex: Electronics in the Bond Market and Economic Development Finance Affiliations Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada Certified Independent Public Finance Advisor, National Association of Independent Public Finance Advisors RESUME Paul T. Steinman Vice President/Client Representative Experience As a Vice President/Client Representative for Springsted's Housing and Economic Development Team, Mr. Steinman provides technical and management assistance to clients on a variety of development, redevelopment, and housing financing projects. He has over 15 years of experience in housing and economic development. Mr. Steinman's skills include a comprehensive knowledge of tax abatement/tax increment financing, creative business retention and attraction methodologies, greenfield development, and core city redevelopment. He also brings to the firm a broad understanding ofpublic policy issues and the challenges of local government interaction with economic development and redevelopment projects. Prior to joining Springsted, Mr. Steinman served in three government management positions. Most recently he was Director of Economic Development for the City of Elk River, Minnesota where he was. fully responsible for the economic development activities for the City. He served as liaison to business and industry on behalf of the City, and he cultivated and maintained relationships with local industry in order to be prepared for the City's future expansion and growth. Mr. Steinman established five tax increment districts for the City, creating anticipated value in excess of $20 million. He also managed a $1 million revolving loan fund, completed a strategic planning process that focused on the City's economic development, and established a high-tech business incubator program that provided small firms with start-up equity and marketing/technical assistance. Mr. Steinman was instrumental in negotiating a $3million financial package for the development of 650,000 square feet of commercialrndustrial space. In addition to his work in Elk River,. Mr. Steinman also worked as the Community Development Specialist for the City of Hopkins, Minnesota. While in Hopkins, Mr. Steinman was responsible for structuring financial packages to facilitate business expansion and analyzing. pro formas and other financial information necessary #o process development proposals.. He also completed business evaluations, projected cash flows, analyzed feasibility of new business projects and managed numerous tax increment districts. Mr. Steinman. began his_caresr_in economic develaprnQnt-as the Maln-Street Project coordinator- - - - in Devil's Lake, North Dakota, and as Economic Development Director for the City of Big Lake, Minnesota. In Big Lake, he directed the City's economic development activities, which included administering the City's tax increment finance districts and revolving fund program. He also .implemented the Star City Program and other long-range plans and work programs. Education Bachelor of Science in Business Administration and Mass Communication, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND Professional Certified Specialist: Economic Development Business Finance by the National Development Council, St. Louis, MO Board of Directors, the Economic Development Association of Minnesota RESUME J. Bruce Kimmel Project Manager Experience As a member of Springsted's housing and economic development services team, Mr. Kimmel provides technical and management assistance to clients on a variety of special financing projects. Mr. Kimmel has experience with municipal debt structuring, tax increment financing, multi-family housing fnance, low income housing tax credits,. tax impact analysis, and other related areas. Prior to joining Springsted in 1998, Mr. Kimmel was a small business liaison with the Saint Paul Department of Planning. and Economic Development. At PED, Mr. Kimmel analyzed and negotiated public financing for business and real estate development projects, and built partnerships with community groups and lenders to promote redevelopment opportunities. Mr. Kimmel also worked as a legislative assistant for the Minnesota Senate Finance Committee as the communications director for a congressional campaign and as a government relations assistant for the IBM Corporation in Washington, D.C. Education Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts Master in Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Emphasis in economic development and real estate finance Amherst College, Amherst, Massachusetts B.A., magna cum laude, Political Science Certifications National Development Council Economic Development Finance Professional Affiliations Economic Development Association of Minnesota National Association of Housing.., and Redevelopment Officials Minnesota Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies .RESUME Kathleen A. Aho Principal Experience Ms. Aho became a principal of Springsted in 1993, having joined Springsted in 1990. Immediately prior, she had served for 10 years as a principal and president of Public Financial Systems, Inc.. of Minneapolis, a firm that merged with Springsted in 1990. Ms. Aho is responsible for developing new service areas, establishing standards and procedures for Springsted's service delivery,. and promoting professional development of staff. -She has over 25 years of experience as an advisor to the public sector. In addition to her management responsibilities, Ms. Aho serves many of the firm's major clients. During Ms. Aho's years of govemment advisory work, she has served as manager on hundreds of financing assignments that involved. both taxable and. tax-exempt obligations transactions and consulting engagements that assisted clients in developing sound management approaches to financial issues. Ms. Aho has a reputation for developing creative solutions for managing today's most challenging financial issues such as housing, economic development, advance refunding, sales and/or special tax-backed financings, and enterprise management. In addition to providing consulting services to the public sectcr, Ms. Aho has developed and marketed computer software to the securities industry. She also spent three years as business manager of a metropolitan area school .district. Ms. Aho frequently speaks on public-finance- related issues at national conferences and symposiums and is actively involved in professiona! organizations that address the needs of the public sector. Education University of Minnesota, Minneapolis B.S., Mathematics Practicing Law Institute Various Securities Related Programs University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Carlson School of Management Affiliations :Minnesota Institute of Public -Finance-Past President, Board Member 1985-present National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies Minnesota Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies Government Finance Officers Association National Association of Independent Public Finance Advisors - Board and Professional Member Council for Urban Economic Development Economic Development Association of Minnesota Professional Certified Independent Public Finance Advisor Series 7 and Series 66, 1999 Development Agency (CDA.) The proposed site for this project would be in close proximity Airlake Industrial Park employers. Pogatchnik indicated that the value in the study will be determined by how it ' sect. Motion 00.30 Comms. Emond/Erickson moved to se a Labor Force Focus .Group Report back to the Labor F e Subcommittee for their review and recommendatio otion carried unanimously. 5. Overview of Octover 16-22 Manufactur eek. Ms. Flad informed those present that s nd Mr. Grussing visited twenty-six manufacturers during Manufacturing Week and t e visits were very well received. The remaining manufacturers will be visited ' pcoming weeks. Ex-Officio member Mr. Bornhauser indicated that the Manuf urers Recognition Luncheon went very well, with sixty-six attendees. Nine facturers were represented by fifteen attendees. Discussion ensued about next ye Manufacturers Week activities. Mr. Bornhauser indicated that six months prior to 001 Manufacturers Week, inquiries will be made with manufacturers to de ine what activities or recognition they would find of value. Publicity will also be ' creased and the relevance of manufacturers to local residents' lives will be highlighted. 6. Consider convening Incentive Subcommittee. Mr. Grussing handed out a proposal from the City of Lakeville's financial advisory firm Springsted,. Inc. to conduct an incentivestudy. Springsted proposes to: 1. Meet with City staff and/or EDC, City Council to determine objectives and parameters of program.. 2. Review historical patterns, current programs and estimated current financial capacity for providing .incentives. 3. Provide background information on the range of incentive programs including other municipalities' incentives. 4. Determine how to interface incentive policies with current Economic Development and Comprehensive Plans. 5. Discuss various programs' trade-offs,. impact on resources, and relevance to Lakeville's objectives and target industries. 6. Refine a list of programs for specific application in Lakeville. 7. Discuss related City fees for specific types of incentives and their applicability to developing acost-recovery system. 8. Development of administrative materials for incentive programs.. 9. Development of financial modeling to evaluate applicants and impact on City resources. 10. Integration of incentive program into City management structure. Mr. Grussing indicated that Springsted has agreed to do the study for a fee not to exceed $12,500. The EDC's 2001 budget has $2,000 allocated forthis study. An additional $10,500 would need to be requested from the City Council to complete this task.... 2000, October 24 4 G:WFIad\ECONDEV\EDC12000mtgs1001024 mtg\min 001024a.doc Comm. Brandtly suggested that the consultant include development of innovative incentives for Lakeville. Comm. Matasosky noted that the proposal would examine conventional incentives. He suggested that a group of business people and professionals in fields such as law and public financing develop new incentive ideas for Springsted's analysis in the proposed financial incentive study. Mr. Bornhauser added that utilizing the expertise of companies with locations outside of Minnesota might uncover other incentive ideas. Motion 00.31:' Comms. Detjen/Matasosky moved to form a subcommittee of EDC Comm.'s Barry Pogatchnik, Bob Brandtly and Jim Emond to examine the issue of Financial Incentives. Motion carried unanimously. Motion 00.32: Comms. Emond/Pogatchnik moved to enter into a contract with Springsted for the study of Financial Incentives. Motion carried unanimously. Comm. Vogel indicated that he would proceed with requesting additional funds from the Council for the incentive study as recommended by the EDC in motion 00.24 on September 24, 2000. The request for funds to update the Strategic Plan for Economic Development will be postponed. Status report on Metropolitan Airports Commissions' Fixed Base Operator. Mr. Gru ing reported that he received a map from Garry Glenna regarding Glenna's proposed new ha er at Airlake Airport. Cost estimates have not been received yet, therefore a cost/bene I nalysis could not be prepared for the EDC's review. Mr. trussing also reported that Glenna re ated his offer to make his new hanger, bathrooms and lounge available to other businesses. Comm. Matasosky indica that he has checked with a number ofi additional businesses regarding their satisfaction wl the Fixed Base Operator (FBO) at Airlake, and many other businesses indicate the same pr ems reported by Heat-N-Glo. Mr. Erickson: indicated that Jeff Namiel, ecutive Director of the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) met with City staff rega g the FBO on October 20, 2000. Hamiel, Director of Reliever Airports Gary Schmidt, an 'rside Project Manager Bridget Rief were present at that meeting to discuss concerns and re ' w options.. Erickson explained thaf Flyteline leases the land from MAC but owns the build) they operate out of. Erickson also reported that Hamiel assured City staff that MAC would a ess the business's and City's concerns with the FBO. 8. Community Development Block Grant funds. A letter was distrl ted from Lee Smith, Community Development Supervisor with Dakota County Community De lopment Agency (CDA) which outlined the Department of Housing and Urban Development ( D) national objectives that must be met in order to use CDBG funds for downtown building improvements. Mr. Erickson explained that storefront improvements were unlikely t eet the HUD objective of "creating jobs for low-to-moderate income people", therefore it has een proposed to use the CDBG funds to meet the HUD objective of "eliminating slums and 2000, October 2a 5 G:1AFIad\ECONDEV\EDC\2000mtgs\001024 mtglmin 001024a.doc ' .Administrator Erickson distributed a memo from Jeff Leuders, Cable Coordinator, indi ting that the City's Cable TV Franchise Agreement allows the City to run up to 1,500 30-sec d commercials annually on a variety of cable channels. This option may be used to advertise irlake Park and the proposed job hotline or web site. Motion 00.37 Comms. Matasosky/Tushie moved to reconvene the Labor Force Subcommittee to create a plan for developing leadership in Airlake Park that will be responsible for marketing Lakeville and irlake Park to potential employees. Motion carried u nimously. 5. Update on Community Deve ment Block Grant Funds. Mr. Grussing Indicated that the City uncil approved reprogramming $70,000 of 2000 CDBG funds for a downtown code imp vement project and a 2000 Subgrantee Agreement with Dakota County Community Develop nt Agency (CDA) in order to implement the downtown code improvement project. A left has gone out to all property owners and businesses in the downtown Special Service DI rict requesting an indication of interest in accessing these funds. The deadline for indicatio of interest is Monday, December 4, 2000. The CDA will review the level of interest and is prepa ' g guidelines and policies for the program. Funds are expected to be available on or be a January 1, 200:1.. The City Council approved the EDC's recommendation to re gram $34,614 of 2000 CDBG funds to be applied toward the CDA's acquisition of a site for an ffordable town house .project in Lakeville, and the 2001 CDBG application for $109,.819 also be applied to the CDA's site acquisition for this project. Comm. Tushie commented on the EDC's need for an affordable housings dy, indicating that more than 30 affordable housing units will be needed in the future. The udy would provide information on the methods and resources available to develop more a rdable housing. Comm. Emond requested that staff provide information at the next meet) regarding affordable housing resources. 6. Incentive Study update. Mr. Grussing indicated that the City Council reviewed the EDC's request for 2001 funds to commission an incentive study to be conducted by Springsted, Inc. The City Council requested support from the Chamber of Commerce for this study, and a letter of support from Chamber Director Todd Bornhauser was provided to the City Council. Approval of the request is anticipated at a budget amendment meeting in December. Comm. Matasosky questioned the process Springsted will use and suggested that the process include a brainstorming session with representatives of the business community. It was concluded that a brainstorming session to explore business motivations and innovative ideas be discussed with Springsted at the January EDC meeting. 7. Review mailing list for Airlake Park News. 2000, November 28 4 G:WFIad\ECONDEVIEDC~2000mtgs1001128 mtgUnin 001128.doc ITEM M E M O R A N D U M DATE: November 20, 2000. To: Lakeville Economic Development Commission. FROM: Ann Flad, Economic Development Goordinator RE: Incentives Study update At the October 26, 2000 EDC meeting, the'EDC recommended requesting the City Council allocate. additional funds for the 2001 EDC budget in order to complete a financial incentives study.. Attached is information. presented to the City Council requesting an additional $10,500 in order to complete this task. The request was reviewed by the City Council. The Council wanted input regarding the Lakeville Area Chamber of Commerce's level of support for expending funds on an incentive study. The Chamber of Commerce's letter of support is attached. It is anticipated that the EDC request will be approved: at the Dec.18, 2000..City Council meeting. It is anticipated that the .incentive study as proposed by Springsted wilt commence in January,'2001. LAKEVILLE AREA / V~s,~ ~ , ~ - ~ CHAMBER OF COMMERCE l~ CONVENTION & VISITORS B UREA U www.lakevillechambercvb.org Z~FSOTa November I5, 2000 Mayor Duane Zaun City Council Members City of Lakeville 20195 Holyoke Avenue Lakeville, Minnesota 55044- Dear Mayor Zaun and City Council Members: On behalf of the Lakeville Area Chamber of Commerce and Convention & Visitors Bureau, this letteris to support the Economic Development Commission's request for additional funds for the 2001 budget in order to fund. a Financial. Incentive Study. Business development incentive packages have a major impact on the business community, both in enticing new businesses to relocate to Lakeville, as well as those companies currently in Lakeville looking to expand. The chamber strongly supports the development of innovative and cutting edge incentive packages that strengthen the development of the business community, and his study will assist the EDC in this - endeavor. Only by analyzing current market irends can the EDC identify potential opportunities for Lakeville to be both competitive and fiscally responsible in utilizing business incentive packages. The additional funding this study is requiring would be in the. best interest ofthe Lakeville business community and the Lakeville Area Chamber of Commerce. Thank you foryour consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Todd J. Bornhauser Mark Hutzler .Executive Director President Lakeville Area Chamber of Commerce _ Lakeville Area Chamber of Commerce CC: Robert Erickson, City Administrator Arlyn Grussing;'Community & Economic Development Director Ann Flad, Economic Development Coordinator Bob Vogel; Chair -Economic Development Commission P.O. BOX 12 • 20730 FIOLYOKE AVENUE • PH: 612-469-2020 • FAX: 612-469-2028 • LAKEVILLE, M1V 5044 Memorandum .~.~3$ To: Mayor and City Council CC: Dennis Feller, Finance Director Brian Kempa, Senior Accountant Bob Erickson, City Administrator Ann Flad, Economic Development Coordinator From: Arlyn Grussing, Community & Economic Development Director Date: 11/13/00 Re: EDC additiona12001 budget request The 2000-2001 Strategic Plan for Economic Development indicated the EDC would "review tools available for business incentives for economic development and recommend strategies to the City Council" (p.24.) Additionally, the EDC's 2000 workplan indicated this effort would begin in the third or fourth quarter of 2000. A subcommittee comprised of EDC Commissioners Bob Brandtly, Jim Emonds, and Barry Pogatchnik has been designated to guide the investigation of Financial Incentives and how they may be applied to Lakeville. Upon review of a proposal by the City's Financial Advisory Firm, Springsted, Inc., it has been determined that the actual cost for the Financial Incentives Study will be $12,500. Currently the proposed 2001 budget includes $2,000 for this activity, thus an additional $10,500 would be needed in order to complete this task. Attached you will find a letter from EDC Chair Bob Vogel requesting the additional $10,500 for this task. -Also attached is the proposal from Springsted which outlines the fees and activities involved. in the Financial Incentives Study. A copy of the relevant pages of the 2000-2001 Strategic Plan for Economic Development and the 2000 Strategic Work Plan are also attached for your reference. Mayor and Council City of Lakeville 20195 Holyoke Avenue Lakeville, MN 55044 October 27, 2000 Dear Mayor Zaun and Council Members: The Economic Development Commission for the City of Lakeville continues to develop methods of planning and evaluating business . development strategies for the City. At the September 26 meeting, the EDC recommended that additional funds be requested for the 2001 budget in order to fund a Financial Incentive Study. As identified in the 2000 Strategic Plan for. Economic Development ,the purpose of this study will be to gather comprehensive information on financial incentives and their appropriateness for Lakeville. Included in the study will be the following: I. Incentives offered by communities throughout the Twin Cities Metro Area. II. Inventory of Financial Tools (including description, strengths,. , weaknesses, statutory authority and limitations) A. TIF B. Tax Abatement C. Revolving Loan-Fund D. Special Assessments E. Federal, State and Local Grant programs F. Industrial Revenue Bonds G. Other Tools . III. Policy Issues A. What is appropriate/inappropriate B. Incentive Targets (location, type, economic benef t) C. Business Subsidy City of Lakevtlle 2019 Holtiroke Avenue • Lakeville, NI~V 55044 • (612J 985-4400 • FAX 985-4499 - _ Rrryded pr~per..wy ink. With the use of this data, the EDC-will be able to develop a business development incentive package for Lakeville that will be both competitive and fiscally responsible. Currently the proposed 2001 budget includes $2,000 for the study. The actual cost of the study is "not to exceed $12,500." This will require. an additional appropriation of $10,500 to complete this task. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Please feel free to contact Community 8~ Economic Development Director Arlyn Grossing or Economic Development Coordinator Ann Flad with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Bob Voge ,Chair Economic Development Commission CC: Robert Erickson, City Administrator Arlyn Grossing, Community & Economic Development Director Ann Flad, Economic Development Coordinator Dennis Feller, Director of Finance ~~t~romote airport for corporate use • Invite Airlake Fixed-Base Operator to present to EDC ~.Jnvite Metropolitan Airports Commission's mana er of 'r ort to s wi h EDC 9 Airlake Ai p eak • Dis ss with Metropolitan Airports Commission methods to develop make into an ai rt that would meet the needs of corporate users Promote a techn logy center for the Lakeville-business comm ity • Survey basin ses to identify potential users and needs • Research other chnology centers in Minnesota and ' consin • Research feasibilit of incorporating technology cent into City Hall expansion or Dakota County Herit a Library • Identify potential public d private partnership at could be utilized to provide financial and resource sup rt Research and identify fiber-optics a d othe merging technologies • Survey businesses for current an t e technology needs • Identify current fiber-optic capacity- • Research feasibility and interest ' coop rative stand-by-power forAirlake • Assess interest in district hea ' g and coob as acost-savings DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN P LICIES AND PROGRAMS T IMPROVE LAKEVILLE'S CAPACITY FOR ECONO DEVELOPMENT Ensure that zoning.. tstrict designations can serve different tail and office markets • Review Wing Ordinance district provisions. for uses • Provid input to Planning Commission on Zoning Ordinance revisi s Co ideration of implementation of new.urbanism concepts into Zoni O finance En urage retention of large tracks of land for future development • Identify uses and locations • .Develop City policies to discourage premature subdivision Complete annual review- and update of the Community Marketing Plan (see action items identified in Develop effective communication strategies consistent with the City of Lakeville Comprehensive Communications Plan strategy) Review tools available for business incentives for economic development and recommend strategies to the City Council • Review of current Tax Increment Financing (TIF) policy • • Review changes needed to comply with new legislation 2000-2001 Strategic Plan for Economic Development 24 ' --~i Update research of other economic development agencies' business incentives strategies • Research potential strategies (both financial and other) • Formation of subcommittee to review research and potential strategies DEVELOP AND MONITOR POLICIES-THAT PROMOTE QUALITY GROWTH .Develop policies and oversee the incorporation and implementation. of the Corridor and Gateway Design Study • Review by the EDC of the incorporation of the Design Guidelines of the Corridor and Gateway Design Study into the zoning ordinance -ensure consistency with principles. Develop in Phase Il a framework for project management and priority setting, aintenance policies, cost estimates, identification of funding sources, and e d elopment of educational materials. Review, and hance if necessary, .performance standards for future ' dustrial and commercia evelopment (work with the planning commission • Gather input om business owners and users • Review other ci ' s' standards • Review Lakeville's tandards to identify whether they are dequate for the next 5 or more years • .Develop performances Bards Continue to update the EDC on t Comprehensi Plan Process and provide opportunities for monitoring of the an ENHANCE AND MAINTAIN. COMMUNICA N FORTS WITH STAKEHOLDERS Qevelop effective corrrrunication r~tegies cons tent with the City~of Lahevi le Comprehensive Communicatio lan At an EDC meeting focu on analyzing economic de lopment communication needs - Identify and cat orize stakeholders- (i.e. legislature, ci ' ens, businesses, etc.) - Identify m sages for stakeholder groups - Develo methods of identifying attitudes and perceptions of var us stak older groups - St tegize methods of communication (i.e. mailings,.email, website, a - entify potential groups or organizations that can be a source of promo ' g Lakeville 2000-2001 Strategic Plan for Economic development 25 . r L. $N - ~ ° ID tp O Cm d nab ~ a ° ~ n n rn ° N p cD A ~ 3 3 m~ aQ^'~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ x ~ ~o~~ ~ ~ ~~m 3~0 c~ rn 3 ? o m ~ n 1 ~ y 41 3 01 f! ~ ~ N ~ 13 ~go3~ ~3c 0,3 v, o' ~ ° ° co ? m ~ yam cc~ co o cow i~ma n c .o~, HHa H, ~a Q°c moa v, 3 c v a 3 ~ ;c ~ a o < ~ D D co ~ ? ~ ~ o o ~ o.id ~ ~ H ~ m o n m~~ ~ N o~do ° 3 0 !0 3 ~ y y fD ~ ~ ~ N C W b ~ga~ ~ > X13 o~ ~.H y _ m m y sW N a D ~ 2 c y m ° m 3 q o _ m~y~ W 3 ~D °p~a D o ~ cu o o _ z < o ~ w~ ? N ~ r o~ D 3 ° a m ~ ~ ~m 3 < ~ m ~ y{~. D ° c~ ~ r T ~ is z 3co c ~ o ~ n ~f`. :v io ° W ~ ~ z n ~3 -m+ ; N S~ ° X D < ~ ~ ~ ' Z ~ N ~ ~ ~ rn n Q _ ;y ar` ~ 'gym m N -ay ~m ~ ~ 3 e~ p C) ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ o mD ~ a ~ ~ to 3 _ ~ ~ ~ D 3 ' ~ N p CCff ~ ~ ~ 3 oA ppD ~ o. j ~ o., c z o r ~ o y v ~ o ;r o m c m Z y ~ ~ f _ N m y N -i ~ o°Q H oQ tC O N ~ 3 p N tit a W ~ c x "x'x ~ A m a c A N o w Q7 m ° w X co N C O r w X. Op y ~ p~ y m _ OA ~ j pA ~ o ~ q ~ tV N N o 'X:x C O g - O Z o ~ ~ N x \ . c f m I II ~ ~ 1 I N Oi 47 C C N H ~ ~ ' n 0 Agenda Item 5 Me11101"dtldfU111- To: Economic. Development Commission CC: Bob Erickson, City Administrator Arlyn Grussing, Community & Economic Developme Director From: Ann Flad, Economic Development Coordinate Date: 01/19/01 Re: Recommendation to City Council to enter into a Grant Agreement with Greg and Nancy Smith to provide a $70,000 Community Development Block Grant for the improvement of their two downtown buildings The EDC, at the October 24, 2000 meeting, recommended and the Council agreed at their November 20, 2000 meeting to "combine $50,000 of 2000 CDBG funds allocated for Storefront Improvement Loans and $20,000 allocated for Storefront Improvement Grants and create one program to address code improvements done in conjunction with storefront improvements for downtown buildings (see attached.) Information on the $70,000 of available CDBG funds and apre-application foml was mailed to all businesses in the Special Service District of Downtown Lakeville on November 17, 2000 (see attached.) Nancy ~ Greg Smith, Rod Borg, and Shane Martin submitted pre-applications b;; the deadline of Decerribee 4, 2000 (see attached.) The three parties were then sent a letter on December 22, 2000 indicating that funds would be granted on a first-come, first serve basis to projects that submitted eight items of information (see attached.) No additional information was received regarding the Borg project or the Martin project. The Smiths have met the criteria by submitting the following information: ¦ Detailed drawings of the Code Improvement items to be addressing in this project; Exhibit A ¦ Bids from a licensed contractor for the Code Improvement items to be addressed; Exhibit B ¦ A drawing of the project's exterior elevation(s) incorporating the Historic Fairfield District of Downtown Lakeville Design Guidelines; Exhibit C ¦ Estimates from a contractor for facade work to be completed; Exhibit D ¦ Evidence that the building has adequate parking as outlined in the City Zoning Ordinance; Exhibit E ¦ Evidence of private funds and/or financing sufficient to complete the entire project; Exhibit F 01!18!01 11:53 A GaAFIad1ECONDEVIEDC\2001mtgs\CDBG recc re Smith.d~ ¦ Evidence of property ownership. Exhibit G. Final documentation of title ownership will be requried prior to releasing funds for reimbursement. ¦ Evidence from the Dakota County Auditor's office indicating all taxes are paid on both properties involved; Exhibit H. City Building Official Gene Abbott has indicated that the proposed improvements outlined and costs outlined in Exhibit B are considered code improvements with two exceptions. Rough carpentry and plumbing costs associated with the build out of additional office space should not be considered code improvements (see attached.) Therefore, if-the total cost of rough carpentry ($8,993) and the total'cost of the plumbing ($37,415) are removed from the list of eligible code improvements, the Smith project's. eligible code improvement items total $72,495, thus surpassing the $70,000 in available funds. The EDC is asked to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding entering into the attached Grant Agreement prepared by the Dakota County Community Development Agency (see attached). Under - this agreement, the City agrees to provide $70,000 of its CDBG funds to Greg and Nancy Smith for code improvements made to the buildings located at 20785 Holyoke Ave. West. and 20783 Holyoke Ave. West. The funds will be provided as a reimbursement for code improvement items completed as a part of an interior and exterior improvement project as outlined in Exhibits A-D listed above. Funds will be released once all improvements are complete to the satisfaction of the City Building Official and once title ownership, Davis-Bacon wage payments and .other requirements are satisfied with the CDA and the City. Created on 01/18/01 11:53 AM mm. Brandtly suggested that the consultant include development of innovative incentives for keville. Comm. Matasosky noted that the proposal would examine conventional incen ' es. He suggested that a group of business people and professionals in fields such as law and ublic financing develop new incentive ideas for Springsted's analysis in the proposed ancial incentive study. Mr. Bornhauser added that utilizing the expertise of companies locations outside of Minnesota might uncover other incentive ideas. .Motion 00.31: Comms. Detjen/Matasosky moved to form a subcommittee of EDC omm.'s Barry Pogatchnik, Bob Brandtly and Jim Emond to examine the is a of Financial Incentives. Motion carried unanimously. Motion 00.32: Comm Emond/Pogatchnik moved to enter into a contract with Springste for the study of Financial Incentives. Motion carried unanimous Comm. Vogel indicated that he woul roceed with requesting additional funds from the Council for the incentive study as reco ended by the EDC in motion 00.24 on September 24, 2000. The request for funds to updat he Strategic Plan for Economic Development will be postponed. 7. Status report on Metropolitan ,Airports Co fissions' Fixed Base Operator. IrAr. Grussing reported that he received a map from Gar Glenna regarding Glenna's proposed new hanger at Airlake Airport. Cost estimates haven been received yet, therefore a cost/benefit analysis could not be prepared for the EDC' eview. Mr. Grussing also reported that Glenna reiterated his offer to make his new hanger, ba rooms and lounge available to other businesses. Comm. Matasosky indicated that he has checked with a number o dditional businesses regarding their satisfaction with the Fixed Base Operator (FBO) at AI ke, and many other .businesses indicate the same problems reported by Heat-N-Glo. Mr. Erickson indicated that Jeff Hamiel, Execrative Director of the-Metropolit Rirparts Commission (MAC) met with City staff regarding the FBO on October 20, 200 Hamiel, Director of Reliever Airports Gary Schmidt, and Airside Project Manager Bridget fief were present at that meeting to discuss concerns and review options. Erickson explaine that Flyteline leases the land from MAC but owns the building they operate ouf of. Ericks also reported that Hamiel assured City staff that MAC would address the business's and Cit concerns with the FBO. 8. Community Development Block. Grant funds. A letter was distributed from Lee Smith, Community Development Supervisor with Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) which outlined the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD} national objectives that must be met in order to use CDBG funds for downtown building improvements. Mr. Erickson .explained that storefront. improvements were unlikely to meet the HUD objective of "creating jobs for low-to-moderate income people", therefore it has-been' proposed to use the CDBG funds to meet the HUD objective of "eliminating slums and 2000, October 24 5 G:WFIad~ECON0EV1EDC12000mtgs\001024 mtg~rnin 001024a.doc blights" by funding code improvements. Projects would be funded that propose to address both code improvements and storefront improvements consistent with the Historic Fairfield District of Downtown Lakeville Design Guidelines. The CDBG funds would be used to address the code improvement portion of the project. A letter was distributed from Christine Mondus, Executive Director of the Downtown Lakeville Business Association which supports using the 2000 CDBG funds for code improvements done in conjunction with storefront improvements rather than exclusively for storefront improvements with low to moderate income job creation as originally allocated. Mr. Erickson then referenced the $34,814 allocated from 2000 CDBG funds for the development. of an Affordable Housing Strategy. Erickson stated that Mark Ulfers, Executive Director of CDA, would be willing to develop another affordable rental townhouse project in Lakeville if the $34, 814 and the .City's 2001 allocation of CDBG funds estimated at $100,000 were committed to the project to offset the cost of site acquisition. The site proposed for the project is near Airlake Industrial Park. It has been used as a dumpsite in the past and can be considered a blighted. property. Additional funds will be sought from the Metropolitan Council to finance the clean-up costs associated with the project. The project would be consistent with the EDC's 2000 Strategic Plan for Economic Development which indicates the EDC will implement strategies to increase the availability of affordable housing in Lakeville. Additionally, the project would address the recommendation in the Labor Force Focus Group Report that suggests the City implement. affordable housing projects. Motion 00.33: Comms. Pogatchnik/Detjen moved to reprogram the $34,819 of 2000 CDBG funds that were allocated for development of an Affordable Housing Strategy, combine them with an application for $100,000 in 2001 CDBG funds in order to support the Dakota County Community Development Agency's acquisition of a site in Lakeville on which the CDA will develop an affordable housing project. Motion carried unanimously. Motion 00.34: Comms. Emond/Matasosky moved to combine $50,000 of 2000 CDBG funds allocated for Storefront Improvement Loans and $20,000 allocated for Storefront Improvement Grants and create one program to address code improvements done in conjunction with storefront improvements for downtown buildings. Motion carried unanimously. onsider recommendation to change name of Airlake Air News to include a broader base o 'nesses. Ms. Flad reporte Airlake Park News is distributed to a broader number of businesses than just those in Airlake trial Park.. Additionally, some articles in the newsletter feature businesses not in Airlake. Staff estioned if the name should be changed to reflect a broader range of business interests. Ms. u gested the purpose of the newsletter be examined before a change in name take place. r. hauser indicated the Chamber of Commerce prints a newsletterthat includes retail and com !businesses. Comm. Brandtly indicated that attention needs to be paid to retail. businesse air Vogel 2000, October 24 6 G:\AFlad\ECONDEVIEDC\2000mtgs\001024 mtg\min 001024a.doc CITY OF LAKEVILLE RESOLUTION DATE_ November 20 2000 RESOLUTION NO. 00-253 MOTION BY Luick SECONDED BY Mulvihill RESOLUTION TO REPROGRAM 2000 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT .FUNDS .FOR DOWNTOWN CODE IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Lakeville has been awarded $104,819 in Community Development Block Grant funds for the. year 2000; and WHEREAS, $50,000 of those funds were originally designated for Storefront Improvement Loans and .$20,000 for Storefront Improvement Grants; and WHEREAS, the federal department of Housing and Urban Devel~apmert's national objectives are bettermet by funding codeimprovementprojects, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lakeville that the $50,000 of 2000 CDBG funds allocated for Storefront Improvement . Loans and the $20,000 of 2000 CDBG funds allocated for Storefront Improvement Grants be combined to create one grant program to address code improvements done in conjunction with storefront improvements in downtown buildings. DATED this 20th day of November 2000. CITY OF LAKEVILLE BY: Du ne Zaun, M y r ATTEST: 4 n harlene Friedg s, City erk Reprogramming Resolution City of Lakeville Community Development Block Grant DOWNTOWN CODE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Grant Agreement This agreement is made and entered into this _ day of , 2000, by and between Gregory J Smith and Nancy Papatola Smith, trustees of the Nancy Papatola Smith Living Trust (hereinafter referred to as "Owners") and the City of Lakeville, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota, having its principal office in Lakeville, Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as "Grantor"). WHEREAS, Grantor acknowledges that Owner has qualified for a Downtown Code Improvement Program (DCIP) Grant, in an amount not to exceed $70,000 for the improvement of the real estate described below. PID # 22-44450-040-12 in Dakota County, Minnesota PID # 22-44450-044-12 in Dakota County, Minnesota NOW THEREFQRE, in consideration of said Grant and the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. (a) That said Grant will be used to .reimburse Owners for qualified code improvement costs described in Schedule A. (b) That said code improvements will adhere to the guidelines and requirements set forth in the DCIP policies attached in Schedule B. (c) That the Owners will complete exterior improvements as they are described in Schedule C. 2. That once the qualified code improvements and exterior improvements are completed to the satisfaction. of the Grantor, the Grantor will reimburse Owners for qualified code improvement costs not to exceed $70,000. 3. That if the improvements are not completed to the satisfaction of the Grantor, the Owners will be fully liable for the payment of all qualified code improvement and exterior improvement costs. 4. That if the qualified code improvements and exterior improvements are not completed to the satisfaction of the Grantor by December 31, 2002, this Agreement shall be declared null and void and the Grantor will provide no reimbursement for qualified code improvement costs. In testimony whereof, the parties have executed this agreement as of the day and year first written. Owners Grantor Gregory J Smith for City of Lakeville Robert Erickson, City Administrator Nancy Papatola Smith STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) On this day of , 2000, before me, a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared Gregory J Smith and Nancy Papatola Smith, trustees of the Nancy Papatola Smith Living Trust and Robert Erickson, City Administrator of the City of Lakeville, a .public body corporate and politic, to me known to be the persons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that they executed the same as their free act and deed. Notary Public (SEAL) SCHEDULE A Smith Dental Project Code Improvements Eligible for CDBG Funding Permits $ 3,150.00 Dumpsters $ 975.00 Demolition $ 2,340.00 .Gyp-Crete Floor $ 3,000.00 Masonry & Concrete $ 12,750.00 Metals $ 500.00 Finish Carpentry $ 255.00 Roofing $ 650.00 Doors $ 2,096.00 Drywall $ 2,445.00 Ceramic Tile $ 2,625.00 Rest Room Accessories $ 646.00 Cabinets (ADA Portion) $ 1,100.00 HVAC $ 14,935.00 Electrical $ 11,105.00 Architectural Fees $ 13,923.00 $ 72,495.00 SCHEDULE B City of Lakeville Community Development Block Grant Downtown Code Improvement Program In a continuing effort to support businesses and property owners in downtown. Lakeville, the City of Lakeville applied for and received Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for the purpose of upgrading the. condition of buildings in downtown Lakeville. Specifically, funds will be made available to offset the cost of code improvements made to buildings that are being renovated in accordance with the Historic Fairfield Downtown Lakeville Design Guidelines. The CDBG funds have been made available to the city of Lakeville through the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) on behalf of the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).. Projects which receive CDBG assistance are therefore required to meet HUD requirements. The following. policies and procedures have been adopted for code improvement projects undertaken with CDBG dollars in the City of Lakeville. These policies are subject to change as recommended by the Dakota County Community Development Agency and/or the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. Program Purpose: To provide financial assistance to property owners who are undertaking the restoration, preservation or improvement of downtown buildings; historic preservation; and/or elimination of slums and blighted conditions.. Type of Assistance: Commercial CDBG Grant Design Guidelines: All code improvement projects must be conducted in conjunction with a storefront improvement project, which conforms to the Historic Fairfield- Downtown Lakeville. Design Guidelines. Program .Objectives: The Lakeville Code Improvement Program is undertaken to meet the objectives of: a) Providing financial. assistance for property owners to correct certain health, safety or other deficiencies; and b) Eliminating blighting influences and preventing further deterioration of commercial properties; and c) Preserving properties of historic value; and d) Encouraging exterior improvements that comply with the Historic (airfield Downtown Lakeville Design Guidelines. Projects will be chosen for participation in the program based upon the degree to which they meet program objectives.. Priority will be given to properties with historical significance. Eligible Recipients 1. The recipients must individually or in the aggregate have at least 1) a one-third interest in the fee title, or 2) a one-third interest as purchaser in a contract for deed with respect to the structure to be improved. 2. All individuals having an ownership interest in such structure must join in the application and sign the Grant Agreement with the City, including contract holder. 3: Leaseholders are eligible to make application for CDBG funds. The Lakeville City Council on a case-by-case basis will review such applications to determine their eligibility for funding, based on the length ofithe lease on the property. The property owner must join in the application and subsequent requirements. 4. Projects that would. result in permanent displacement of either residential or business tenants will not be financed with CDBG Program funds. Any temporary displacement of tenants resulting from project activities shall be-the responsibility of the property owner. Tenants shall be fully informed of the project plans, and the expected impact on them, and shall receive a Notice of Nondisplacement or Displacement, as appropriate, prior to-the start of rehabilitation. Property owners will be required to provide relocation assistance to tenants as required under the Uniform .Relocation. and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. . 5. No member of the governing body of the locality and.. official, employee, or agent.of the local government who.exercises policy, decision-making function or responsibilities. in connection with the planning and implementation of the Rehabilitation program shall directly or indirectly benefit from this program. This prohibition shaft continue for one (1) year after an individual's relationship with the local government ends. Any potential conflicts of interest under Minnesota Statues 412.3.1..1 and 474.87-471.89 or Federal Regulations 24 CFR, Part 570, I~lniform Administration Requirements, shall be evaluated on the basis: of a legal opinion to be' requested from the Lakeville City Attorney. Program. Definitions Program Administrator: The Program Administrator shall be the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA), 2496 145' Street West, Rosemount, MN 55068, Phone (651) 423-4800. Staff shall coordinate all aspects of the Program. Applicant: Any person seeking to obtain rehabilitation assistance under the terms of this Program. Building .Inspector: The Building Inspector for the Program shall be an employee of the City of Lakeville and shall provide technical expertise relating to inspections, construction quality, code compliance and scope of work to be .accomplished. Project Coordinator: The Project Coordinatorfortke Program shall be an employee of the CDA and shall provide assistance and management relating to improvement activities. The Project Coordinator is responsible for program marketing, application. 4 intake, scheduling of inspections, preparation of contracts and grant documents, and processing of payment requests. The Project Coordinator serves as the contact person for rehabilitation from application to project close-out and shall be available during regular business hours. Target Area: Part of the central business district as delineated on the attached map. Eligible Improvements: Health and safety code violations, and/or structural/mechanicafi systems deficiencies (faulty wiring, fire exits; handicapped. accessibility, etc..) Special Conditions Contractors:. All code compliance work undertaken with CDBG funds must be completed by bona fide contractors who are licensed and provide proof of insurance. Historic Properties: Each project will be submitted for review following the procedures outlined by the Minnesota Historical Society. If the structure is listed or eligible for listing individually on the National Register, or within the boundaries of, or immediately adjacent to, a historic district which is listed or eligible for listing on the National Register or the unit was original{y built prior to 1950, the property will be evaluated for historical significance by the State Historic Preservation Ufficer. If it has been determined that the property is listed on the National Register or considered eligible to the National Register, a review of the proposed rehabilitation work is necessary, and the work must be in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines-for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Davis Bacon. Wage Rates: All contracts in excess of $2,000 that will be funded through the CDBG program require compliance with the Labor Standards Provisions of :the Davis-Bacon Act. Contractors are to pay their employees the prevailing wage rate as determined by the Department of Labor. Appropriate wage information musf be provided prior to the release of funds. Fair Housing & Equal Opportunity The City of Lakeville will work affirmatively to ensure that all persons, regardless of race, .color, creed, national origin, sex, religion, marital status, age, handicap, familial status or reliance. on public assistance will be treated .fairly and equally for purposes of participation in the Program. Access to program information and materials will not be denied to any person for any reason. The City will encourage the participation of women and minority-owned businesses and local businesses and suppliers who meet Section 3 Criteria. Lead Based Paint The City will conform to the requirements of the Residential Lead Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 for any assisted property that contains residential dwelling units. -All program applicants must provide notification of the hazards of lead based paint to impacted tenants. The Building Inspector shall inspect for defective paint surfaces at the time the property is being inspected for code compliance. All defective surfaces will be corrected in accordance with the regulations in 24 CFR Part 35 and Minnesota statutes and safe work practices. Additionally, contracts for rehabilitation .work will include language explicitly prohibiting the use of lead based paint. Data Privacy All information provided by applicants under the Lakeville Code Improvement Program shall be maintained in accordance with the Minnesota Data Practices Act and the City's. Subgrantee Agreement with the Dakota County Community Development Agency. Procedures Application and Selection Procedures All property and business owners in the Special Service District. of downtown Lakeville will be encouraged to apply for CDBG funds through the Lakeville Code Improvement Program. Parties will be notified by mail of the availability of funds and interested parties will be encouraged to submit apre-application form.: Applicants with projects determined to be eligible based on pre-application information will receive an invitation to submit afull-application-and- will receive all subszguert correspondence. Application Intake Applications will be selected for participation in the program based upon applicability to the program guidelines on a first-come, first-serve basis. Applications will be evaluated .based on the following: 1.) Whether the applicant. has clear title to the property to be improved.: Prior to project approval, the following will be ascertained: a.) Title verification; b.) All real estate taxes are current; c.) All individuals having an ownership interest, including contract holders, have agreed in writing to join in the application; 2.) The extent to which the project meets the program objectives; 3.) The degree of the project's overall impact on the target area. Projects that involve permanent displacement of either residential or commercial tenants or that are not financially feasible within the constraints of available funding will be eliminated from consideration. Property Inspections Upon determination that a property owner applying for rehabilitation assistance is eligible based on the program guidelines, the Building Inspector shall conduct an inspection of the property to determine the corrective actions necessary for the property to conform to Lakeville code standards. Scope of Work The Scope of Work will have two (2) components: 1.) Upon completion of the initial inspection, the Building Inspector shall prepare a report indicating the work necessary to bring the property into compliance with Lakeville codes inclusive of the Minnesota Energy Efficient Standards. This report, and any improvements deemed necessary by the Project Coordinator for the project to satisfy the intent of the Program;- shall. be included as a part of the Scope of Work. 2.) The property owner shall provifr a report or elevation drawing indicating the planned exterior improvements. This report will be reviewed by the City of Lakeville for compliance with the'`Historic Fairfield Downtown Lakeville Design Guidelines. Project Approval The final application will be reviewed by the City of Lakeville, including the Economic Development Commission and the City Council Improvements approved for CDBG funding will be based on the severity of the correction needed and the ability of the applicant. to complete the project with CDBG funds and private funds if necessary. The Dakota County Community Development Agency will determine final approval. Verification of availability of private funds will be required before final approval of the project. Competitive Bidding A minimum of two (2) competitive bids must be obtained for each improvement project the applicant proposes for CDBG funding. At the discretion of the Program. Administrator, a single bid that has been determined to be reasonable by the City's Building Official may suffice. Applicants may use any contractor they choose, as long as the contractor meets the requirements listed below.. All contractors must provide a Certificate of Insurance Coverage. Contractors must also certify that they will comply with the requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act. These rates will be provided to the applicant as a part of the contractor's instructions. Awarding. Contracts The contract will be between the applicant and the contractor. The contract awarded to the lowest bid unless one (1) of the following circumstances occur: 1.) The bid is determined to be unrealistically low and the contractor agrees to withdraw the bid; 2.) The contractor has failed to follow the procedures as outlined. in the instructions to the bidders; 3.) The owner does not want the low contractor to perform the work-and agrees to pay the difference between the lowest bid and the preferred .contractor's. bid. 4.) There appears to be collusion between two (2) or more contractors, in which case, all bids in the questionable trade category will be thrown out and different contractor's solicited for bids; and 5.) The contractor fails to bid according to the specifications, and it proves impossible to compare that contractor's bid with the other contractors'. Approval by City Council Once the applicant has. accepted a bid, staff will prepare the information for presentation to the Lakeville Economic Development Commission and City Council Upon City Council approval, a Grant Agreement will be signed by the applicant and a designated city official. This Agreement will outline the terms and conditions of the project, including the City's role and the applicant's responsibilities, and any corrective actions to be taken in the event of a dispute. Notice to Proceed A preconstruction conference will be held with the Program Coordinator, the applicant and contractors and subcontractors to ensure awareness and compliance with Davis- Bacon requirements and any other requirements necessary to begin the project.. A notice to proceed will be issued after the preconstruction conference. The contractor will normally have one (1) year in which to complete the awarded contract. Change Orders All change orders to the current contract require the approval of the Project Coordinator. as well as the signatures of the owner and contractor. Acceptance of Work Interim inspections may be scheduled with the Building Official to monitor work in progress. Final inspection shall be required to ensure that the work has been completed in a satisfactory manner. In the event of a dispute between the owner and contractor concerning the completion of work, the Project Coordinator shall. work with both parties to try to negotiate a satisfactory solution. Disputes that cannot be resolved by negotiation, and that result in lega action by either party to the contract,,shall be resolved in accordance with applicable State law. CDBG funds shall not be released to either the owner or contractor until such dispute has. been settled. Hold Harmless The owner and the contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless the City of Lakeville and the Dakota County CDA and their respective officers, employees, and officials from any damages or liability arising from, or occurring as a result of, the activities funded through this Program. CDBG Payment All CDBG funds will be disbursed by the Dakota County CDA upon authorization by the owner and. the City of Lakeville. Payments will be made only after all interior code improvements and exterior work is completed according to the authorized scope of work and has been accepted by the. owner. A Completion Certificate will be executed by the owner and the contractor, and submitted to the City. Payment. may be made directly to the contractor, or in reimbursement to the owner, upon presentation of paid receipts for approved work. No advance payments of CDBG funds shall be made for any reason. r The following must be presented to the Project Coordinator in order to process payment: 1. Billing Statement/Paid Receipt 2. Sworn Contractor's Statement 3. Completion Certificate 4. Weekly Payroll Reports Private Financing Applicants are responsible for all costs incurred for storefront improvements, the difference incurred as a result of not accepting the lowest bid, and costs above and beyond the availability of CDBG funds as outlined in fMe Grant Agreement. Applicants shall contact a lending institution of their choice to arrange financing for their portion of the project. Applicants should request a letter of credit or other suitable documentation from the lending institution to prove that private. funds have been committed. This letter is to be submitted with the completed application. If an applicant is not using a lending institution, other evidence of committed funds must be presented at the time of application. Escrow The property-owner may be requested to establish an escrow account or other private account for deposit of the private funds that will be used to complete the improvement project.. The CDBG funds shall be reserved on the Owner's behalf by the Dakota County CDA, at the time of execution of the MOA, but shall be drawn from the U.S. Treasury only when actually needed for disbursement to contractors or vendors, or in reimbursement to the Owner. Appeals Process Appeals concerning eligibility for the code improvement program or the proposed improvements shall be made in writing and addressed to the Project Coordinator. The Coordinator will contact the applicant and attempt to rectify any concerns. A written response will be made within fifteen (15) days. Z y' T Map of Proposed Special Service District No. 7 I ~ t f I ~ I~ w i ~ , r ~ i ~ L ~ ~ ~ Properties Assessed i I ~I I ~1~ 1 ~ LLB ? N ~ ~ + ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ I \ ~ E~I~ I i ~ ~ I ~ i ~ I ~ I~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ i t ~ ~ • ~ • • ~ Gregory J. Smith, DDS p A Date: Subject 1-09-01 Client EXTERIOR BUDGET Greg and Nancy Smith Type Exterior Renovation Total Sry~.h~i c:ootage 2, 904 Permits. ~ ~ : . , .np:'. .Ad Sss q:e Tem . Fa~_~h~,~~~ 1 750 0.60 ~ ~ Dumpsters-.. 550 0.1 arriers Project Clea~~;.:._- S97 0.34 Demolition- . 250 50.09 Curb 8 Gt,lt;;_... _ 2.Q75 x0.99 Landscapiii~~` ~ " ~ SO 50.00 uck Poirtt~.: 0 5 .00 Masan 8 ~~,:~~•;'..ae $1Z,0 0 4.13 Metals " - 5.300 51.83 Rou h Carpf~;,~..:,. _ 650 O.Z2 Finish Car e-ui 8,750 S3.01 Siding ' ' - $0 0.00 Insulation ~ ~ 0 $0.00 Roofing ~ _ ° 0 0.00 Sealants S1~7 0 .0.60 Flashin at stucco area Ooors 5500 017 Glass ~ SO .00 D al! • - 10,800 3.85 Ceramic Tile+ - 0 0.00 ACOUSficat Ce SO 0.00 Floorin ~ S0 0.00 } ~ 0.00 Misc. Paint ~ ' ' ~ 53.01 S ecialties 4.250 $ .48 Misc. Paint 6 Sandblast Rest Room A;;;gip.: dies S9, SO 3.1 5i Wage, awnin s Cabinets ~ ~ 3 0.00 Plumbin S0 0.00 Fire Protecti~r: ~ • 50 0.00 HVAC 0 0.00 Electrical SO.oo $0 $0.00 ubtotal ee's 6 ~ 3:43 Misc. 57,7 2.87 Supervision ~ $5,000 1.72 . 4,500 51.5 ur ~ ons ruc ion o 3280 GORHAM AvE t.QUIS PARK, MN 55426 PHONE (952 922-5 4 . - ) 512 Fi1X 922-5906 LlC. tf7948 L' . U i ~ ~I~ j I li j it ~ ~i i ~ ~ ~ 1 I ~ l If ~I il~ 1~ i I,~~ ii If II il~~~~ ~ I~ ~ 691~II~h~i~411;~1 ~I !I ~I~ II I,~~ii~iiu~ ~i~uu!uiiiiii~i:ii~nii! wz~ ~i ~I iIII~IpflliJllilill = ~ Q~~ ~i'~I ~ i~ i , ~i i t ~I I . i, I I ~ , ~a ~~I i I I ~ ~ ~ wu l .II i1, - ~ i ~ _ I Map of Proposed :Special Service. District No. 1 1 ~ ~ { f ~ ~ I W i ~ B ` j I ~ ~ Pro erne I ~ t~ f I I ' ~ ~ { I ~ P s Assessed ' ~ ~ I ~ ~ N 1 I , ~ ~ - _ ~ _ ~ ! ~ ~ r ~ - ~ , I I _ ~ { ~ i' \ I' ~f I I c ~ ' ~I { - LAKEVILLE DOWNTOWN CODE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PRE-APPLICATION .Please return this pre-application by December 4, 2000 Community & Economic Development Department, Attn: Ann Flad, ...20195 Holyoke Avenue Lakeville, MN, 55044. APPLICANT OWNER/TENANT(circie one) Name Address City State Zip Code Phone Fax E-mail OWNERS (if different than above) Name Address City State Zip Code Phone Fax E-mail Name Address City State Zip Code . Phone Fax E-mail Name Address City State Zip Code Phone Fax E-mail PROPERTY Property Address. Property ID Number DESCRIPTION of Proposed Project. Include both the code improvement portion of your project and the storefront improvement portion of your project. Provide cost estimates if available. In order to be eligible for: CDBG funding, projects must meet the following criteria: • The project must be a commercial building. located in the target area of downtown Lakeville (see map. attached.) • The application must include signatures of all owners of the property .who hold one-third or more interest in the property, or who have one- third interest as a purchaser in a contracYfor deed. Leaseholders may make application for CDBG funds jointly with property owners. • All projects will be reviewed by the State. Historic Preservation Officer for eligibility on the National Register prior to final approval of improvements using CDBG funds. • Projects must address a design component outlined in the Historic Fairfield District of Downtown Lakeville Design Guidelines, however, CDBG funds wit! only be applied~tc the code improvement portion of the project. Copies of the-Historic Fairfield Downtown .Lakeville Design Guidelines are available at City Hall or from the Downtown Lakeville Business Association (952 414-0458) upon request. • Projects must obtain at least two competitive bids. The lower of the two bids will generally be funded by CDBG, however the applicant may choose to use another contractorand -pay the difference between the low bid and the contractor chosen. • Contractors working on the project must pay federal Davis-Bacon prevailing-wages. A wage schedule will be provided. • The code improvement portion of the project cannot begin until program staff provides written notification. Additional information on all program requirements, including but not limited to those listed above, will be provided to applicants upon review of apre-application and determination of project eligibility. Lakeville CDBG Downtown Code Improvement .Program Examples of code improvement activities eligible for CDBG funding: • Improvements to enhance compliance with the accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1975. • Func#ional impeovements or necessary replacement of electrical systems, plumbing fixtures, heating units, etc. • .Improvements made to major structural deficiencies such as foundations. and roofs. • Improvements necessary to address health and safety issues related to lead based paint.. • Certain costs required by law or regulation, such as permits, title checks, recording fees, architectural and engineering fees, etc. • Improvements to bring a building into compliance with health, fire, building., and energy codes. November 17, 2000 Dear Property/Business Owner: In a continuing effort to support businesses and property owners in downtown Lakeville, the City of Lakeville applied for and received Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for the purpose of upgrading the condition of buildings in downtown Lakeville. Specifically, funds will be provided as a grant to offset the cost of code improvements made to buildings that -are being. renovated in accordance with the Historic Fairtield District of Downtown Lakeville Design Guidelines. All property owners and lease holders undertaking a building renovation project are encouraged to complete apre-application form to determine their eligibility for funds to offset the cost of code improvements. This form must be received at Lakeville City Hall at the address below no Later than 4:30 p.m. on Monday, December 4, 2000. Projects determined to be preliminarily eligible will then be invited to submit a full application. Eligible projects will be placed on a Project Priority List and funds will be distributed in the order applications are received. The CDBG funds have been made available to the City of Lakeville through the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) on behalf of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Projects which receive CDBG assistance are required to meet HUD requirements. A summary of the guidelines is enclosed with this letter. Please feel free to contact me at (952) 985-4425 with questions or concerns regarding the Lakeville CDBG Downtown Code Improvement Program. I look forward to working with you! Sincerely, Ann Flad Economic Development Coordinator CC: Christine Mondus, Downtown Lakeville Business Association Arlyn trussing, Community & Economic Development Director Robert Erickson, City Administrator LAKEVLLLE DOWNTOWN CODE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PRE-APPLICATION Please return this pre-application by December 4, 2000 Community & Economic Development Qepartment, Attn: Ann Flad, 20195 Holyoke Avenue Lakeville, MN, 55044. APPLICANT OWNER/TENANT(circie one) . Name ~t~2l.9A c v.~~~Y Ziv~., Address 25''0 8 F/r~~-y--l1/G~J,~.-" ~?v'.; City L~l~ ~~L~~ State ~N Zip Code ~ ~O Phone z - s~ 4~ - 7Ga~(m Fax E-mail cv.~c-~ ~ ~ OWNERS (if differentthan above) Name /'='~!~!s?- c-rJ . .y~~: ,¢-.rT~,'~~ Address /vrZ .~~'J~.~ L~/V~. City ,~v/~J~JS ~%L,.-~,- State ~-In.r Zip Code .5-S lv Phone ~~z 4J35' . a~y~ Fax E-mail Name Address City. State Zip Code Phone Fax E-mail .Name Address City State Zip Code Phone Fax E-mail PROPERTY Property Address ZJ ~ ~pL i' ~J/~,~' _ ~-.¢r~./?~~-~ ss~ ~y+ Property ID Number DESCRIPTION of Proposed Project. Include both the code. improvement portion of your project and the storefront. improvement portion of your project. Provide cost estimates if available.: icJ G ~ h ~ ~v Z sa7s ~ u - NAB E J~'2 A6~~a x ry'X ~z ° L tvi ~ uiJn.i~ y ~ SlJt1 ~ c -z~-H s'~S-4trs ,~~,~i l~~ .~dt~dL Sin, trr-F !`-,q~ug cvr~y,~> is w ~ w 1rr/ fJv~?tG ,~Fira~'rv7` u,J.~y~~~, 3~ ~~G.,~r T2RSN ~c vcysrJ.7.~ ~1 l~.a .~-~n~,.,,s~-~ ~y.s~lr ?~~ar~ /~z~ =,:x) F~On/!' Esc ~ w - ~ - L c. ~ s~ EY' ! 'P nGe' a ai i'!~~ S.! i- VVQ ,e i +i9 ~~iti/1 r' t- /elf c 2 7'J2rvr ~ ~J TiNC7tJ~ Str.~ s ~l~L'!1~>1'1 d L~"r'- '~il..-~~+ g~/~ 3 ~n ct i. 7` `~y i /N 4 ii~ ~UJ,'V i s~/!9f ~7 S'U'~ 3~c~ 1.1/27!2000 15:30 61985442'3- COMMUNITY. DEVELOPMEN PACE 02f~~; LAI~EVILLE DCIWNTOWN CQDE MPRQVEMENT PRCiGRAM PRE-APPLICATIQN . Please return fhis pre-applicafion by December 4, 240x7 Community & Economic Deveioprnent Department, Attn: Ann Fled, 2Q19.5 Holyoke Avenue . Lakeville, MN, 55044. . APPLICANT" OWNS TENANT(circle one) Name S ~ Address 3~/i-~,~2~ Irk _ . City ~ state Mnl Zip Code_ ti Ia Phone ? - - - Fax E-mail OWNERS (if different than above) - Name _ Address City State Zip Cade Phone Faxes E-mail Name - - Address City State Zip Code _ Phone Fax fr-mail . Name Address -City State Zip Cade Phone Fax E-mail PROPERTY ..Property Address _ v ~ , Property {Q Number ..DESCRIPTION of proposed Project. Include both the code improvement portion of your project and the storefront improvement portion of yQUr project. Provide cost estimates if available. ~~'~l~vs~~.~ ~fn~ c'~ l ~ a n ~1~.~r~ rQ ix~,~ ThtS m~~r hcv~ n~+ ~;~r\ ry,~{`acf-„rP r~nf+ rove; Hro ti~~,l~z I~fce f{r te~`Fnfe, ti~ ti ~ I II I a~.~k Were rusf rz ~ ~ti Ups,' ~n_~c.rd linuc ~:Ff_ et± c+cr ;ar.~ was nr. ~ +n .a~i~r; . ~ wa ht,Ja --i'~e_ave~(. 1~Q. art w; ~ f_ GS _ ~ 'F Ct+tA~_ ' w~ w W.. A,1 r F ~.I.~f , o "I'~M T~< c~ ,_,n,'~ c4~r,r'Ic.biQ c*.1 ~l~u ~;.a.~ DEC-05-2000 1224 DAKOTA COUNTY CDA _ 651.423 8180 P.02 11!28/2888 12:ie 6129854a29 COIw+4.1VITY DEVk:LOPh£N PAGE .02/82 • 11/28/2088 80; 01 91565628 6fiF,f~OFiY J SMSTH DD5 F'AtE 81 111kZ:1Ytln i~7~ ~yd5d1Z9 ~MZTY CiviLOP•i!~ - PA[~ 82td•1 LAK~1RUe oowNTOWN COCIE IMPROYl.NIlMI' l~OGIlAM ~•IIP'PLiG7zOM ~?aiw~o?Nepre-~pp~aAtbrtbypep9mbsr4 ~OQp c~rr~rnuNly ~ 6ConornlC ONNapn~ret b+~utn+~~ ASn: l1ru~ Fib. ?8106 NOlyola~ Avsnw L6iM9VM~ IJaI, 6b014. J1?RtufilT r r NANT~aee„nn Nem• .ivlr. SM.~i JWc'COi DnC'10 S F~t~ ~Alt~ OWIIl11,9 tN ~ws+~+e wM? ~ew.p _ 4 ~ ~4 = ~l Y ~ F MarrK IVddress ~ - ~ m SMee Lo cod. _ Fnc~;~ Fe:~~ Eaneil t7A~r. ~WJ?Ne ~'h' BMEe ZIQ G00! Nae1k AOCM•s~ C~ Thor. FIOa~~ ~ituy , 5'Rb~l1tYY Pmpert? ndd~'Mi l~ ~OI u bile. ? luc 1t.1[.~ Prcoeft, !D Number _ _ ~ ~ OHO ~ !al- DtiT[ON d. preOe090 PmJrd, ikYiee beTh ~ oode knprovaoer~t 0~ d ~ PRdect end tl:e ~eorerrb•-t r w:vav~,nne vo-t~o„ ar t?a* p~o~cG P?oNde ma ~tlmun. n n~.l~. ~ ti ics-- o~-s,. ~ ~ - rn ~ h~tn t/1ti t v~.0 ~ ~ `l rd-t'`-Gnva.~.4-f5 'b ~r n~` . _ TOTAL P.'02 Mr. Rod Borg 20908 Holyoke Ave. Lakeville, MN 55044 December 22, 2000 Dear Mr. Borg: Thank you for your interest in the Downtown Lakeville Code Improvement Program. .The City of Lakeville has received your pre-application and has reviewed it with the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA.) Your project has been determined to be preliminarily eligible for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds based on your pre-application information. Your preliminary application, along with the following information, will constitute a finaa application:. 1. A drawing of the exterior elevation(s) incorporating the Historic Fairfield District of Downtown. Lakeville Design Guidelines; 2. Evidence .that your building has adequate parking as outlined in the City Zoning Ordinance; 3. Bids from a contractor for facade work. to tie completed; 4. A detailed description of the Code Improvement items .you will be addressing in this project; 5. Bids from alicensed-contractor. for the Code Improvement items you will be addressing; b. Detailed information on the Davis-Bacon .wages to be paid by the contractors for the Code Improvement work to be done. 7. Proof of ownership of property and certificate of taxes paid. 8. Evidence. of private funds and/or financing sufficient to complete the entire project. Projects that have submitted apre-application are invited to submit the above information as a final application. Final application materials will be reviewed by the CDA and the City of Lakeville for conformance to HUD guidelines, Historic Fairfield District of Downtown Lakeville Design Guidelines, and City ordinances.. Funds will be awarded on a first-come, first- serve basis to those parties that submit final application material that is determined to comply with. all .criteria. `City of Lakeville 20195 Holyoke Avenue • Lakeville, MN SSO44 • (952) 985-4400 • FAX 985-4499 x~r~e~. wr;,~t * Gene Abbott,. the City Building Official, will contact you to arrange an inspection of your building.. Mr. Abbott or a member of his staff will draft a report of the proposed work that meets the Code Improvement criteria. Davis-Bacon wages are required by the U.S.- Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for all CDBG funded projects. Davis-Bacon wages must be-paid by 'the contractor who is doing the Code Improvement work., and must be paid for all work this contractor is responsible, regardless. of its eligibility for CDBG funding: For example, a General Contractor that is responsible for all code improvements, interior renovations, and facade improvements must pay Davis Bacon wages on all work. However, if one contractor is used for the facade and one for the code improvements, only the contractor responsible for the code improvement portion of the project must comply with Davis-Bacon wages. Please do not hesitate to contact Arlyn trussing, Community & Economic Development Director (952-985-4421), Jill Hutmacher, Project Coordinator for the CDA (651-423- 4800), or myself (952-985-4425) with any questions you may have. _ Sincerely, Ann Flad Economic. Development Coordinator CC; Robert Erickson, City Administrator Arlyn trussing, Community & Economic Development Director Gene Abbott, Building Official Christine Mondus, Executive Director, Downtown Lakeville Business Association Lee Smith, Dakota County Community Development Agency Jill Hutmacher, Dakota County Community Development Agency 4 ti Ann Flad City of Lakeville ..20195 Holyoke Ave. Lakeville, MN 55044 January 18, 2001 Dear Ms. Flad: Attached is the information you have requested for our final application for CDBG funds, including the following: ¦ Detailed drawings of the Code Improvement items to be addressing in this project; Exhibit A ¦ Bids from a licensed contractor for the Code Improvement items to be addressed; Exhibit B ¦ A drawing of the project's exterior elevation(s) incorporating the Historic Fairfield District of Downtown Lakeville Design Guidelines; Exhibit C ¦ Estimates from a contractor for facade work to be completed; .Exhibit D ¦ Evidence that the building has adequate parking as outlined in the City Zoning Ordinance; Exhibit E ¦ Evidence of private funds and/or financing sufficient to complete the entire project; Exhibit F ¦ Evidence of property ownership. Exhibit G. The policy attached lists us µs irsured but not fee owners. Please note that the Title Policy is being rewritten as satisfaction of contract for deed was fulfilled on January 16, 2001. The subsequent policy will list us as fee owners. The new policy will be provided prior to requesting reimbursement for code improvement activities. For further questions regarding this, call Norm Johnson at Dakota County Abstract (952) 432-5600 or Jim Walston (612) 340-7949. ¦ Evidence from the Dakota County Auditor's office indicating all taxes are paid on both properties involved; Exhibit H. We look forward to meeting with you on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 to discuss our application further. Thank you for this opportunity to improve downtown Lakeville. Sincerely, Nancy Pap tola Smith Q ~Sa - 4 3 5 - rya ~ 75a- ~(a5'-saf3 9Sa - ~~q - yv ~ ~ g~> L/.~~ /_nGC ZiT6-8zL (ZI9) 9095 NP'i 'sTiodaaau{p[ c~~~~ w+a yna cA ala 'y aamor g3nos anuany eysgauaTAi bBTfi Ve099 EII( '~~tP[ N`JIS$Q 2i0[2T3J,N! JNIAINt~'Id 3~I3,~0 'IV,LN3Q 7sax enaaey a;odlcH 9BtAZ T 'FYI P .1.IS Ni M nq V ++P~ I~.IM+y Q,l, Z ` Z H ~ d O x d ~ d Z S Rrv ~ >wn a. wa,,.tis OO/z i/z i Sr1~Ci/18hONA1[ teraar, 9:lld{0 7Ydl~Q ~ ,.,,.,,n.~ ~ R,aJ., ~ ~ gnssr a~ .~'"°~""""'°'"~°"'°"J0311"0°~~ Att~'Id OYN~Q .LN~)GY~sF'H ~d 'SQQ H~LINiS 't ~C2IOJ~?I~ V ? 2!- O H town w ? z xoz J Q Z n. U? JZ Za VI ~-a rz.ON R'a~~' .Z..L J Z ¢ 1- C1 N~ IJiU £ J l7£J Z.¢x aWW 2H W¢d ~o z z z°a~~.- X°wE ~wo¢ qua J W J J W y R 2 W W K~ J 2 m W m ~ a, _ °J y £a a aaa wad=aa warn az~£ arii maw ~ 00 o aoz u Jz--`. az a a ? ZZ apw a?WF VIU d' p0 FlK p O pad q¢1i00 dUW~ 7 Wr-~-W UU JZ~ H J J F-J W U W W Jn.W ZW W ZL~VI F-.. ad HO(~.I¢ A ¢WWVyI O SaL7 _ E I- F- E N .J. U d' J J WHd'¢¢ ~ twill ~ vwi~l¢- (JiW~Z2 NOJ ZOH ~ ££W ?2 NWZ 1.71~.UU a NU(w/I UIJ l7¢F- a~W WJ?Ww mly lL mlyo d'WUaq u}W~ W £O~¢PJO }u.:.. ~z.~. HW>1- > 11+. W.. WJ qqX q0 a (nN~. ~•N•`~4 xWWO W WW~SO WWQ 7°\ w>~v ~ a~Waa >qE mua O ~ Q Q a v, u a a ~ W WF- Jp F u¢ >OW mQa2 q lJ V7 U a~ a wm Y U ti U a J O OQ Q.~ W F- V WmUp W ¢ lr ~ ~W~-. ~2.W 2N60 N..a Q O Q 2nZ. aN rZi OW J~WJ ¢ Q'r~ W~ ~JS ¢N a Wa 1-v N m U ~ J £~WS ~ u o~w° F >a u ou u ~a ~a a wa~l- ~Z¢ •-ud'C30 O ¢R~ l7 H' V ?W V1W aV) F-p.' R¢' a W?J yWWWn Z Up M ¢W Z 7Z~Z W£ Zq ~q~ J2Q0 ~ w7 M ~O ao stn l-NZW a.~.y J°Wa N Z li F- ~HWN YO o QO X 1~ Ali °OWCi WZ¢OZ Z~ x F WQI ~N ON f°i7¢. wR'W lZ7 XWOf/1 _ ? Y- W F u W WQ' W H JN NU H...V) Sad 3°3~ FW-¢aQU J QW. .ziH M\ U\ W\ Q.+ NSW ZSl7 u... u.~ a~ WLI ..uuv, £~W Z~+I~.+N N t7J t~lY L7J ZJ ZJ ZU ZQH 17QR°'O ~d'^J °aH~--~ K ~ Z Q: F-K 1--~ J H170 l7 di W?(nW O'=zuw O ?2 WF ?O WF- yH JW _NZK ZZ_ a Z~+ W ?VWWa O J~-+ O.U ? dU XU XU XG7W aFi00 pRZ¢ O WaJZ W 07 mZ. W 7 W ~7 aZ W_JK pJ°J 1-1- W /-1- wH WF- W W~H H a ~ ~ UW U~ OU VN ON ON OU OQ11n vm31a a~ aW 2W £W £W £Wa aWaO: NO Nf/wl ~d (aAN KN Ky 2w'S Rw'N2. f¢/1 Vw1Z> a z ~ A ~ A ®Q ~ 0 0 pz zw? N m ~ o ti u z> w -r---- ~p q zoo au°z z I I W O ~ ~o a~~ } I I ° Z ~ aw wviti a I I o w° ??>wl'~w ¢ RS 3 WlY ~ I 1 J d s wic~.l~ ,J,~ WE f- I I Q z c~.l¢ci "Oa~fJ=wsw I I ~r-w w to°a••uv»x ¢ ~u~ tatn.,c~cw.l~uaa I I Q ~ F-w.. a~x Z ? ? J Z W a pew aaz I I 6 £ ua~ v~?~- I I ~ N I I 1 ®I i I®i i l I 1 1 ® l 'd 1 J i O i W Q ®I P ~8 .a I I 4 _ ~ zil6-6ZA (ZT9) 90695 NAf 'sllodeauuTyT o g ~'ei' g •q s a ac ~e"4~ gznog anuany agegaua[y~ LSI6 66059 tU('afl!~Aal N NJI53Q 2i0I2I3.LN[ ~NiNNtl'Id 3aldd0 'Itt,LM3Q ~ 'leak anuae~ wlo[log ~y no••+M ~ wns •a io .a ~ i I1IE''Id O YH~Q Q,L'-I `'-I H ~d d o x d ~d 2~.I, s A "."ate ~ , oo/z T/z i srr~eoaaA um~, sor~ro ~ru~ 0 <~~~„a>~~~~.~R~, ~nssi ao 2IOOT3 J.52IId ~d SQQ H,L[i~IS 'f AZI09~2IJ V ? TWO W o rA~ _~z ~~ocu ~a~`~ ~z mow... ?xm1- ¢ , q (1 y z¢z '`¢ww z1- waa ? ¢ w >v1 ?c.1 ~c.1¢ q S J N 6a~.gN 32R'Y qN ~3W J~4. 1W-OU¢ A QW WfN/1 p rn?z z ssw ?z v=iwi J?1- ~4.U? 7~ ZUVWI (0.141 IJi°N 17 Q,- F-lam>F- > Rte W~+ ~J qqX M~OVI ? WZSD_'Vl. ? _J O'W Z2 E H~-+OWN ~E)( O q X~ W O W W W~ S° W W¢ w>~u oe q~4.sn. >qx mWS q ~ ~ O O r.. a U F o ~ a ~ U ~ ~ ~ j O> W ~ ¢ ¢ ~u 1 q W ¢ W ZZ (~2~~~ ~ ~ ~ J = J N2 ¢Vi Z O JOfq M \ H ? 7 m a F- _ q O V~ ~ ~ y ?Z V1W qfn 1-~ 17173 'Z XH ¢41 ?Z HW Oq .Z. q.Z.. WU 1- 17 d' '1 R' ¢y OL Vi 1-N2W q1=' w ZK rte.4. F- ~F-WN ZH X X '-'O K~ U WUZ UR•+ ¢N W•,,, F, OJ KW1.7 XWOVI \ F WRI ~N ON N¢ OF-~+ W~ V] W Vi Vl W V) J Vl VI U_ 1- Vl = ~ \ ~ ~ ~ mW M\ F Z\ U\ 4.\ ¢a' UUG .Z.U~VI \ ' l'IJ 4.~ l7J _ZJ ~J 2U ZQ,- 17Qa°'~ \ v ? u ae t- ~ Q ~Z W4=- DO WI=- "N"j 'N-'? JW N.Z. tom.. WiZ.2U J~ dU ? dU XU XU ¢q XqW dq?p I q~ W~ W7 32 WJOL OJgJ ~ Y~yl 1-O 1-F- W 1-1- WH W~ W¢ W7~ I-~~} ' SI!LL~ ~~?,77W UN ?U UN pN ~N > >mvl ?mSl~ \ ~ 3Q: 3W E¢ 3W EW EW EQ ZW3 3W30.' X ~ 1' ¢ O ¢ W W J ¢ W W W W W W> W W W ¢ W W W \ I V/4. VlN O: 0_vl V! R'ln ~Vi R= R'Vi2 V1NZ> / q q .i / o \ i ~ :~?t...... u....' . . J~ :,r , b ~ ~ ~ Q q ~ t 1 _ q q ~ O . ~ ~ ~ q ~ I\ / - ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ q ~ ~ t ~ \ / \ o -----~.a===s.=ss~. b~~:~ ~V w i q o ~ o i ~ g b ~ ~ m ~ . ~ o ~~~!q ~ ~ , p tI i O .__t u. zTT6-8ZL (ZT9) 90699 NAI 'st[odBauuFyq o" ~ '1'e no annan v e auu[ a~Q~1s 'Y eaala~ Ki S d 4 K W ~.9i6 - 6099 TUI 'a111~RP1 NJIST3rQ-~2IORi3r-L~N[T ~NINNtl'Id 30Id.~0TI5J7.N3Q Teak anaas~ axoLfaH 981AZ Q ~ 1 t L .C7 V d Q Il d ~ Q J..~ ~ +taw+a ~ nns ws m nq .n +w~ ».ullv~ nwu+ai po . to t saa oue 1101llIiJWK OO/2 T/2 [ 6L1@I~AONdN ~LNYtBl1 B:ILldO 'IYlNFU 0 ~11; ;,"sue ~ t anssc a~ I+I~'Id 2I00'I,~ ~'d 'SQQ H,LII4IS 'P A2i0J~~J V s ~~#y-~ZI ~~~4-ELI a .b p ~ =Y ..Z-,Z~~S-. ~ I z e n o[.) v zJ v _ I- o ¢ I- i P4 Z a I J W a Z O W Q ~ . O x J W E ~ L - - ~ z v'ti i u 1-- vl 17 oc Q7 JQJ a~~ ~x a. I I Exs ~°vi a~ e ~ MQ Mm I ~ o~ \ ~ WW A Q' UIJiA A3 P?O to O N N ~ Q ~M,t m I -M1V N.17x. JZ_~ ~}l7 JZ EE ~ ~ I ~ ~I JZW fll .Ww .Z. IJi 2¢ I O I M U Q, WK 2dX OWE Zd YJ IQ}l a In I P~ Pub rn IL' o se e, ~ A ~ ae9~ b~~ I I an m ~ N F w ¢ E 1~ ~ W 2 I7 ~ ® m X I I ~ Y .r 7y I~ a ~ J ~ ,jb0 = a 3 ~ ~ I- w z u 0 0 n vi ~ 1 m w ~ ~ Q J I ~ o ~;,v o a ~ ¢ ~ ~ Ir\i Y ~ vii 8 ~ ~L~~L O Z W Z1-x I VS YOU. f~iIOJ z17 In ~ ~x a ~ W I-Q QYN H C.1 (~U3? ~ ~ B~1$Af~ Iv~1 Da OJO J. W J'. U Z~WEN z y ~ z aw os~ s z a zm~at-i z iN I tTl x u at'' ~ m ~N In a~ai~¢a N_ N Q ~ I ~ W W Z~ I V' ? 7 ?aOW1717 F ~+6 N2 W ~m ~ Q.' KQ 1 t W YW XO'O F \ W }QO:~ 2 W N a ~ I ~ ~ ~ ¢J mQN J ¢ WN 3 ZP?a~V~'iQZ w ILA Nmj Q a ~('1 ? ? [7WJ~+ Z W W 2 W Q W J ? 7 W J O d W m W Q ~ q c1W L7RJ Q 2 ?O J YV13 A\ t N A ~ l7 W .Ui Q x} y7 Z ~ Z B O > > > F- OC> H 0!}JXQ I p 91n `bl 10¢ W ~ KW ?Q'OW } O 2 ju O.NJ-+ d O_ N d tl N H U w O_ w I 11 Z N ~ ~ N Q N !7 O N t0 1~ m t o +''y L J ~0 ~ ~~Q yN? Z ^IN V ~ -I ® Y 1 I-Nm ~ 2 I N m Q70: O I ~ ~ 4. 1- Q H I 1 L7NO?9 Q ~ Z J d ~ ~ r O Q'la-~ AO U Q - Q W N W O m } Q a ozx wa m z ac I m I an ~ ~ °om a z~u Q'1- o v n:m~ wo 1°n nt T Z N _ M 1 (r- U"! m ~ W N U ~ K \ O W I ~ ~ J X .Z. 11 i. 1 ® 1 1' U I 1 -iN I , Q z I 1 O I ®OI I V I "m ~ ZI ~ N } ~ I°n m I o ~ ~ v Z IA U O m ~ IOm to (V ~ VI t l i f Z ~ 1 1 I b lV I I t Z 4 I D I O Q µ I I f o w ~ cfOVm u m I _ 0??p0 O}}W ?j t ~ ~ 13 A N I I - Nm 1 F-i-HI-? R' K¢ H Q Z pa I ~ I IA QQQQ~ C2Qt~.~~ N ~ ~ t U'nC~R'F- Y Z J>L..~1- I I RI W W W WNCgZ~J~Q ViV1 1 d Q. O_ W¢ Q¢ Q d' N W W. 7~ {p I N< I I. p p 0o m ~ ? ? ? O Q' J F- J S Q VI p: > N N - I ~ O I I v ~ i ; I 1 lV V ~ I I V O¢ O~ Im I ~ .IN N < ,f. `f' Z p m 'Q' I N t cu t ~ V y ? l7 vI } W W W F- W - O m I Yi1l Cl ~ I- W Q Z Z Z 2~ Q J J a_ rn z 3 W W w 2 ~ (~~~J ~ z q ~~LI ~-.b ~I~b-, ~ o ..L-~9 ~ I ~ I „Zs-,y ..L-.b Zy tnQUJN J V uL7 ZR JZ W L~~+ Z W W W..~6 }Q} Q?F. 1 1 ~YT-i >v~t~mxxxxaaxuv, ~i a, I m I NQ a y Iibt z - ~m ~ o o ~,~'in' ti O a cu G t~ j1~ N W O m ~ I! ~ N 1 I~I ~ 1 1~1 1 O m 1~ III ~I II _ ~m I Ill r / I I o III ~ ~ a ~ \tl m I < I Z 1 III w" i i I\ o ~ p I ~ uNNi m ~ ~ 'O N U )li ~ I °o m I !L e III t I N L O r in ..9-.Z4 I O I 1 -v - \ ~ - 3 1 Tg-,9 1~~-.B II~L~;6 " 4 Zit6-6Z4 (z T9) 90659 f[AI 's[Iodsauat c" I 's''I 'I'a g3nog an¢any e[{agausscAl .4916 ~ ° E ~ ° 1 1 S 'Y e a er e ~ ff094 t0[ 'a~~ r NJIS3Q 2I0[2I3.LNI JNINNV'id 3~[~30 'IdJ,N~Q t~l anmalr a;oirog 481AZ wwat to • w 1 faa lue ww+~ 00/$ T/2I Q.L`I ` Z H ~d d O }I d ~ ~,.L S nns .a M ,>„~la„ u~Ia surS~noaaA a~ueo 'rv,,wva c . ~nsst ao ~KPII~~ Q~,L~~'I~~2I ~d 'SQQ H,LINtS r ~C2i0~~2I~ V Z A ° oA ~Z W Z JL7QIw- p W U I i ~ OH I W.Z..m ZOO.. ? X H I m ~ p 0 W O Q i ~ " ~ ~ I ?JV ~2 U Q .U¢. U U. o ~ mC~iL `r--1--~ mavrzm~ ~ ~ r O ~o ~ ~ z W r2~(F I m w ~~o~z~' ~ w `W' ~ ~ v' w X> x> J J ~ W tYl I \ \ ~ i ¢ W VI ~ W 0! U J Cti ~ ~ \ VIJW WF-~ ? O d d o K z ui I \ qw WH02> H o Vl V >F- H .-1 W U li U Q I 1 ID I U J f Z t/i 0! W ~ O Vl d O ~ ~N F-NW W Y W T¢~W Z W .J.. 2~ ~ U Sw Sv,a v, s ~ zH ~r. I mamuu~ ? > J?a a ~W ~wN ~ O ,n ~[~~W ~mY ~ Vl V pH~WW> ~ ~ J J 2 3 Z 05 / J--- \ y!t WNUZ~ H W 2 WZ J2 U U'-' (rJ~J 12.7W m L. ~ cL'~ ~ r -1 \ F M47 Ju0 ¢ Z J W>~.Z~2 ~ z m6Wi W Q I I ~ W W W VI ¢ 0_ ¢ _ F- H o v) \ Q ~OQm WJ zwW, o ~o~ Y ? d! z i r I _ I 7 w o!a~ I- a v ~o~~as ~ m '"a H I ~ WNp? VZ 2 W WON ?U H O.'N O!'V7X ¢ ¢ 9 I I ti~1 ~ \ Z~r-IaJWV V J Q' aQ:?Vl > ~ ~C rU Fm l~ x u p ¢vi~~ LL W ors, wa was wa N w I Yn z ul-www w w W >~xwwa I ~ Y~ Z UZ~+O!W S 1- pWXa'S -J W _1 w z~ocpo c~ ~swa~w m ~ I ~°4 I wJf-W J W a? F-F- M ~ ~ Q. I ~ _ n I I ~ JRQ:WU J J 1.. aSW ¢ O ¢ p W O W O¢~ p I- W 2 U W o O V ~ l.~ J W U W N W W? G1 n U I w ~J~I--....m }Y.~ 2 mm 3 I ~1 ~ i~ 1 ocawa~uw~~ oc r x wl~ a ~a ~ I ~ wz mw U ~ w Svl~-zau ~g a °aa J ONHVi~J Z W W X I ~ ~ y~ WU¢¢¢V1W ¢ > y W I I I 1 1 ~ I _o ~a-_ 1 ~V I=-u -e dal WR W~ u a I ~E I-E Z I I I lea 2 ti~ ti~ ~ uZ z mo 'u " I OI I O.' H d' r J J W ~ N I , I J rn ~ I W 2 ~ w 4 ~ ~ na ~ iv $ ~ _ lv I I ~A U ~u ~ v .n o¢ ~o rn W p J I I ¢o aoec faw ~vw i~ m> 2 oa 11 I u In> o> i-.aln ~2 So mop? mWp VJN uw ~ J I I WNO! WNO! ?f` J~ J UJ OI cnxa rnxa 'ir. JJ do I I boa spa ¢~f wM w/- J ti WQO! WQ~ Vl JOB QZ QW I ~ I ~ ~ I 1 \ m~ I I/ I I ~ - u I ~ o I I~ ® ® ® Q 4 p I or 1_ ~ N H 1 ~ I ~a I I ~ 1 I I py~ ~ m ~ Yoe I I h° 1 ~ \ ~ ~ x ~~~0 COI I _ ~ ~ w ~ ~ to I 1 1 \ ~ ~ iD ~ ~ p x X m °a I \ I ~ I ~ w ~ ~ ~ I ~,,f I ~ ~ z zJxo I ~a ~ U ~ W W W p U W ~ .J N U U m CI I O~ 1 1 OV E J O! D:¢N> a ~ ~ ~ ~F u y ?o_x~ ~ I 1 1 ~p w 1¢,_ i WN 1`wa¢ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ / XX ~xU XX XUW~ i 1 QI \ ~ NW V!-~Q N W NO~Z? ~ 1 ~ \ o ~ - - ~ o ~ ~ _~o I ~Y I d v ~ ~ ~ i ° r ° r - o- I I ~ Y~ Z 1- ~ J d b , ~ w Ya / U I I - I O ~ ! of ~ II I ~ I W 1 ~ I 1-- U _ 0 ~ w u.. w= _ tY zii6-6ZL (zi9) 90699 NAI 'sT[odeauuly~ c~~~~eyp1' 'M° -r cl~nog anuany egegauu[pI L9I6 \ v R T S 'V s a ac e T r?oss t0f ~o11f~Ro1 ~ NOIS3Q 2IOI2I3.LN[ ONINNtl'Id 3a[,~,~0 'IV,LNBQ Taay arttms~ o;o[~og gglpg na..++l m ans •It m .,.I M > ~nwr NV'Id SLITSIIEAONd10 1NYlETd, 80Lld0 1YltCl0 T~ r-~TT~..7~?~TT away Rn • w t taut oue wwAtYe 00/2' T /Z [ Q II,Z ~ l i"1 V d Q I1 d~ Q~1J S A ~,:,~.:b;n ~ "',~I I 3nssI a~ ~IQIgN[fl'idlZd~I2I,L~3'I~ ~d 'SQQ H.LIIKS 'f Jt2I0~~K~ ~ V x lJ _ ~N 4 ~ lid K O H I. ° z ww z > u H o ~N ~ I I I ~ ~ ~~1~~ W ~ ~ b ~ ~ / I I aoe~ ~ ~I~avA~ ~ ~ ~ Gp~ WW a ~ J X J yl Z 1- J F- F- ° ~ ZJ J f / ~ I ~ y~r{,1 m yW...U y O U ~O U o~~ o~ j a u ~Ii d a o q / ~ Lo- J r ~ IG- O ZQ ~~(WWW~III y m ~ ~ I Ilil O I ~ I I~ yJy~Z6`> ~ yJy ZpaO~ J ~F m~ I. ~ W "!US" I I I ~6_O°~ ~aOLL ya~ W~ 4~ III..~~~~F far. KLLa QQQ y aaa ~J F J a W~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~~'a1i~ ~ ~~h'~°sa Aa ~ olh m~ gad ac ° W J II -1 ~ ~ ~~~iodb ~~m~~~ JF as J ~sd ~ W a S E I g~~~ I of ~yo ~yo Z Z ~ a m ~ a Q ~ ~ ~ II ~ NL~U3~ I ~ ~ ~a ~a ~ ~a Noo~~ Ilg - I ~I - ~ ~~~RR O JI T V ^ M1I M f Y{ ~ n OS OP ~ o N ~ ~~~•o® ~ -I W J O LLYa01':1~1 u-, o In _N I N y ~ ~I ~O i0 \ Z N I~ N I g ~ w anw anw h_. O t~ N l- U G O_' Y II A Y II A I ~ Y Z n.c¢ vl ¢Z .Z.,Y2 ~YZ ~ I J x.. Vl F-x In t-2 I ~ . Y u ~ w ~ J ? ~ w ? ~ w 2~'IdfiY 'N1N~A /M I L ~ I ~~u>wa vi¢> aa> MME °w ~ al..w ¢ww `D n°I J a i°.i P9 z J m Z J NOLLN70'I A,II~N JOY W. W 1 WH WOW WOW I I Q u Q Y 0 X Y IJ7 f W LJ7 ¢ 1J7 ¢ I I xWR NMZ3O Z~~ .Z..~0.J1 ~ I I ~ Rio°x wz¢ia >-w~ >w~ 21d'WcfK xOYL- J W F- I ¢ ¢ JO' ¢JK m OJ\.+ 2WJ-~ Y=7e YS3 '1/JNaA/M YW73 O0[W<~ JO\ JO\ YUG1 U7O WY3 WY3 I 0' ~ I i ~ - - ' I I ~ ~'41d16 'NJNaA /M I I I NOIlV7O'i A&1~ OI ~ I ~ I ° 'N1Ndd /M I ° r J z ~ ° V709 i1~ ~ ~ ~ t o - - - a ~w ~ ~ ~a a~ ® T ~J z>ioaz \ a ~ ° ~ J m w F- z o b~'Idcf K 'N1N~A /M ~ 3 ~ ~ o w u z¢ z ¢ J U rr z? i Q7i a w a i z a ro NOIIVXJ'1 A~Y3A ~iaoaa a°xo~a I I ~JO-'~+Vl 3(nu UQM I I ~ ~ ~UWO!J a In~mo_ I I F-a°I- ?o zl-I- n ~ ~ SQ 3 JUOI-W I O'Q'O! ~ ~ I \ ¢ww r~ axwwo_ F„ ~J z ~ USJ¢ ~ I I I O ZWVI¢VI WO L.tr70!Z 56 OJZUO! f ~OCX ¢ Z ¢ w 17 ~ \ f- w o! oc ZI~'IeIdIS ' ~ I I \ ~ °zs~W o!w~• Jwa 'N1N~CI/M I~ I-OWE-Y tim JL~N K1-~WW J~HG~QZ ~ ~ WOWwN O~.7 Yt~a Vl m Q' ¢ 0! 1 1 f I I I I I o a ~ a 1 ~ z I. ® m ~ ~ II q ~ / \~I I I I ~ i i ~ ~ N I I li i I\ /II I o V \ / I ii ~1 I~ ~ I I ,n ~ m L V ` N W n V- i I ~ - - II ~ W ~ N zI I6-8Z~ (zT9) 90685 NW 'sgodsauulyZ o' ~ ' x ~ ° j 1 s 'V c ° ~ e ~ 66055 !0[ 'OIIt~Avl q;nog anaan~ egeyauucy~ ~,gi6 \I-? 67~IS3a 2IORI3J,N[ ~NINNtl'Id 3~[,~30 'IV,LN3a '~QDk °°Q°"y D1~f°H ~IAZ ~w.aw°i ~n:w i 1u~lyu wee uan+'"+as OO~ZI~Z [ SyN5118A0i[d1U 1NYlHl BJfddO 'tYlMdO ~ Q.LZ `rIH~c3 O}Id~~1.LS u'. ~.,,;,,;n,~',~II anssi ao H~'Id HSINId ~8 2I0'I0~ ~d `SQQ H,LINIS 'P ~C?IO~~H~ ~ V ~ ~ i w _ ~ a~ ~ 1- u a a ~ z~ q ° OL i r ~I ~ I ~ ~ ~ >w°aJ c:d d t +i ad >z v zInEJ I wig>aZ e % INI ~ o wzzzp¢ ~ ~ ~ e i 1 I I 1 I \ ~ I x~ ~Z ~a Izim ~¢¢3~ as 2`~ V,Z ~e~n m ~ I wmm a M 3K° H F ti aG O~ 1-11 _ ~ I ~a aar• N ~r ~ as ~~x >LOU3F]F- ~mo~ 3Fm ~ o w ~ 3r W 4 w U ° mN Vl»>3N 1 m u m att. V ~ ~ ~ a m w ~ a l7 ~ > I I ~I`' ti .Z-. O ~ II U ~ 1 1 I J I- _ I J ¢ cW.ls w~ II ~ I -~I g I ~m ° JE JI ~ Y ~m J J ¢ ` ~v I NVIWSt-I-- o°~i m p7a¢v1Z am~ w:a Op KlY¢~ ¢¢uuaa ~ % I I I I I I I~ w a s w W o F- u ¢ ~ N I ° ~ 5pq{a ~ ~ P 5 ~ Y U3¢h-J/- O. t ~ Q 2 a¢uua ~~5-•Z ~ 1 1 1 m a ~ I~ ~ qg ~~z~ G1 u]s Q x z ti 'I ~ Ni M FF ~ ~fC~ 'ya Q ~n W ~ F a a W m N H ~o F o m w a - ~ N ~ ~w ~ w~ N a~~> am Q q`i av`~i ~ o I 1 1 I N V ~ m ,L U 4 w 's o o ° tll W of m' rn £ V` ~ z X 3 ~ I ~ > sj ~-----I ~ ~ x X m ~ f d N 5~ I N Y u ~ u u v u ~5 I ° X ~XJ 1 > J Xf-> aw0 JWM t 5 ~ i I a 3wm ~m~ _ i~ o Wo Wop F°W ~ ~ ~ ¢ JJ d0 aO.Lp d w ~ X33 uWUQ ~$c' S3. 1 N ~ ~ I- a~w wzw ° i ~ _ ~ z z oao aoo ~ a w r- qaJ ~uJw Ki W WNW W W W° N U F- F- W ~ 1- F- F- U ¢ rUi iUi .U- U rUi H 'U+ U ~ ~ ® I I I ~~1JJ ~ I J l7 A A q'--'L7 ¢QQA ~ OI I 1 5 Z I X? ~ ? zz~ zz~z ¢ o E> 1 I I I I J l l l a ~ II ~ )('l' i i ~ N I 14.~E" c~.1 u clv uXU ~fzf ~ d to >-J3 3 3'3 r-¢¢¢¢ N ¢ > > >Ia > J alaula a a o 0 3 n- ? I ° 1 ~ 1 N J a 5~ N I t ~ N I ZJ ~ ~7 1 4 I ~ U~ al °QO N x ~ I / hW° NUW N ¢ 1 qt' WW~~~ ~3 y ~ ¢~w p3u~ uo a ~ T i 1 ~ / SAS ydW vw,z ~^W jw ~ d ~ ~ ~NZ Ty SZZ x¢ W / 3F-"' 1-zwo¢ vim w ~ t ozw~ z¢mwvi ay N S~ ¢ Vl J 2 Z 1- y,l. N ZOq R.Qu~J fUp 1 a ozN ~~o~° o~ ~ ;o N WZ ° Wp O 1 M~. -1 °UH OZ~¢ JA U JQ~ N¢Z~Z w° 11 I I O fi O AWL.. Wl7° ° NS IN _ 11 6 p ~ZUQ. r+ V W It JU W¢ J Q 11 .U-. d R ¢Vl°Wa W°WQW. a3 °O 5~ ® 5 11 1 Jo~o~wa~x o¢ ¢ ~ ii I p fA F Z H 11 . <<11 1 QWUW"J 1-S~-'p N f II / \ U~ ~ I Iw-yz ~~o~~ 3° ° ii~ 1 ~ / ~ _ ii+ ~ N 1 z £i~z~uttzz~ zu~~ t ii ~ I I 33 LL ud ~ ~ ~,~~NUpQ°~a7~lxa ~ ~ ii ~ Y - - - - L 0e' a ~ i i ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ J n Ri ri v Ifi ~ i l n: d s: d a. o. ~ 0 V 1 I U w ~ a Z N N w ~ a = _ C9 J m ~ ¦ > U ~ ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~a x ~a~4~ 9 T-+ n t ka ~ J ~ V1 ~ ~f `x<~Sk~4F5~ .s eye ~ d ~ ~ v~?~ ~ ~ ~ ~z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x u rx "s ~ t ~1 J ~ F ~ a ~ 3 ~ ~ x i}f{ s F 1~ Yl n} Z l ~ ii4 ~~i ,q ~ tl v • } a ~ S «ll-,Z i7 o o _ l~ -a ~ 'C> N W u• g x ,ll-, M w .6-.£ Z W~ ~ O l y _ O V1 ~ _ + T wv ~ / 1 ~ ~ O Z O ~ _ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ rt Q ~ a ,U-.Z ~ S n .o I ° ~ z o J (U~~ g ~ w~y Z- ° ~ d _ Z F ~ a a _ ~ tgi 4 ~ ~ '/~1 p~ - - y L o~ ~ ? ~?1~f?l >Q; b ~ ? ^ •l ,Z ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a ~i a 4~ ~ z ~ x~ ~ I~---a N .-,7 trj ~ i ~~O.j ® W a S ~ ao ~ z ~w S ~~~~d~3 QY ; o ,~ap7~~ss~~ `9 ~ x zo z,ow Y ~ O o v S £~~d~~ t: o Z ~ p x x ~ ~~~~c~ ~ 1y J i ~ F~ 3 O x ~ e;8r~°9Y~ o ~t~~~ w ~ o 'd ~ a J ~ 3 oyl~~sts~~E u1~ m ~ a~'"w a G .~°:s~my~ w° aBZa~ ~Q Z~ ~ ~ ao ~ ~oX ~ Q ~ ~ AQ yy~~ ~ I Ci 7d 33 > > ~ Td `..l`9~8 ~ °I/f~ ~a , vii a i <o O u ~"Ii7Y zg ~dZl °n, a atl cW' ~ tb'''a < d ~ ~ .r < ~ ~ 3 d~ ~o~7~y`~1 ~o'$ dx~ x00~~~ 13y 0,~ 7~ o oa < Q ~a~~ ~ 4y^ Nm SJJ KO (jm LL'q~j ZZp a~ N < I ~K J J41 H F <~y1F VI CV O`!- wl- m N U I Q ~ U U b" VI 1_A K O~LL J ti 3vyIZ 8 ~ Z 8 > s ~ ~V/~ N m Vl N 1p<- 14-< ? Z N~Vj~1 ~1 ry 99 m Z2 ~ 30 (n i0 O< ~ Z Z Z i 1~1~/.p/.~1~1 W yry~;, O 8Q Zp i w 0 0< AEI Q w QZ~r H~ O N ?I W OZ O 8 O N V10Z yUj y~WmI i< 1 <O ry Vge W ~ S V<X~ j\ OO O< ~ ~ Q~ WO > ~V o ~0H WZ~'+ ~ X ti o 7zoOJ i~<F SS Sw w w5 zG o oz S S= 5~~ Z O~ o~ ~o~W~~ ``jj c~ & 37"& a. o SJ a oo S 6b66 = a' a~ _ ~aN ~/S17X ~ o~~ oo a~da~ S ao o IS pS pS$ Q W°o oz~~ ~ ~ V X OW~Wy V ~O N 2 ~K ~ K K Z ~ ~m U~ ~ Q' Cl+ ~I~yyma~~~T ~g ~~~yy~~ wm~ m~ ° m1~ Isla 1~~°~ ~ a~i ~~y~~n~ 0 ~w~Vi~~p ~jwF{ pl'3a~~~'i ~a\ ~ ~I~G~~ L7~25~~25 ~ ~al~ ~1.! Il~i~'~ Iw ~w< C,~ri~ Q N~~+wi1 333 11 41 1 I ~ I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I. 1 1 ~f I I 1 ~ I ~ I y i I 1 Z W ~ Q ® ® © ® ® ® ® ® ® 0 ® o Ulo m z Q o w ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ d 0 o m ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ < ~ ~ W Wei ~ X X ~ xm~~ ~ Z Z ~ ` 1~%`ZlV LL ~ ~ O F 7~F ~ ~ < X O Z a~ x Z (U~ ~M ~ < 1y VI O ~O ~.M 3 -0I~Z~ ~ U ~ of oK o O ~ t~ ~^,7i W r, 7 g o¢`iN W d O m < m IJ 3 O Z:K ~ l q ~ N~~t^o. Z a;<~ ~Z ~8 Fo i~ ~G7L~ ~ffi ~ N U' W~ F J ~ ~Ja~ ay ~ 30 ;m F Zv Zv ~ F V \ ~ w,a ~ n- ~ a ~ ~fi~IQ ' ~Sp~ v 1-- coia Zvi ~ u~"' ~ o ~ wN JQ rT11 ~ ~ o N w~u w. ;aw z rn ~v ~ a g_a~ > ~ ^ _ Q4'O F.1..~ o ~w~~ ~ acw-az < rc 7 uo~~ ~ ~ vOZ~ ~ w~ ~~a a~Z ?~".~I~ p- < w°KZJ. 7 ~~wy§~ FO a w o~x dWw Ndww~. ~Zd ~ u vtn (nJ~ l ~(,1 O ~~F++~~0.rW OtV ZC~O< ~ J ~1 ~ NWy~ \S2~ \SZ~ Ny aV~ ~ ~v~ OUP ~ C R'~ ~ ~Sc~~G~~g~~o ; 3 °~~Q ojQ~ it ~m~*y 5 ,A ° ~ ~p~ ~ ag ~a 3~V//1 zFw?S ~i~ \i~~ J~Zi ^3y ^3~7 ^ ^~i ~oa n~$ q~~ i1~ Z 3z. 7 ~tyOW<w!!~~ d1~,j z< 3 x J~ zp ~ z o< U Q ~lti < o 0-~viZ=S(7U ]~~O F~~~. xa oV <O ~ _ ~WOg <Wp$~ ~F~ p~~~ ~~~p 4 (,L] OV F ~d J.W 6. 0 FO J N4j f~/1]V tll]U t/l U< OF Xyi ~W 1 1 pM~Q yWak pJ Z O 31W01 N-Zyp~ aW a Z < ZU ~j1 2¢'W 2 20 Mm # Xp ¢O W m d 1~~ ~ NCil U~ NooV~ \~.~0 <yZl ~Z{~ d ~Z ~ O1W_]~~" ZaZZ~ O~~`{~a1~ OpJ Ng7N QQ~ mWF li I~j ~nF\_yp~~^JINW NO <cFiQR >a~~'~ ~pV <N~$ ~N(J~ ~a~Fp~ ^O~~Sj Fy~I. ~IK~ W~ /e.:. p~ Zp WOW N<~«]U OZ~ W ~ W~.-S ~W<~ W\~ W\,~ =W~y~ Wa ~jW #O VI~''~ aj ZZZN ~OyW x1 ~Z per' O^ 1y~ < (w~{(~~ ^ W ~ tp N3S iO~y OO N'~~Z' CO \W~~~'1' O~Q 0~~~ ~ppw~~ 5~~ 5~7 ZZZ~ ~ 55O5<6 1O~ s~ (YyV O~~ O pp k1U S~W 30JU W LL~O~ aOSW7 a$YW~ aU~ ~I'~ti UC~ b`J-F ~OF~ & N Z ~ OUa ~l aC1'~ CCR Ca OCSW 2U0 ~'s h~ O m pp~C ~ OC~~ 006 OZ J a~~ pssp @@ap ~ 3 ~ aW CWO O yF'aZ O~ a2~ J F d tid7 F~7 h- OF>2~F O H ~7 I~~ou°W~o1-~~~7 ~~~a3 ~w~~~ o~~~ ~°-~~I. ~FooF~Ln ~~OY~ ~ =0b O~~ NFp~ i £ i li 'j" cici 1$~ moFo m ~°~o ~,a ~ ~ u~ ~r-'o<z~ ~ <i3~~ ~~o ~-1 w 11yy~1".1~3 > »~c~yyi~c1yyi ~c~I coo ~ ~~tyy,~~1 $c~\7~I ~1c~~7 ~ Q7{~4 ~ ~'~mro ~ Z .-ti--r fJ~w< w1.~G1 ~-~~~d~fiQ ~a~iC~a ~ai~GyF ~~~a 1C $w3'a~ waa~ ~w~~ 3~~~~ ~UGri? Zia .r.y 11~ 1 I I 1 1~ 1 I I I I gg~ I I I ~7~ 1 1 1 I I I Z I I I I Z I I I I I 1 " 1 1 I~~ ~ 3 3 W Z Z a LS ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~ pQy-W-1 a o ~ w ~.Q -W1ZW~ ~ ryiZ D. W ~ ~ Z W K ~ Q U Z ~ ?1~+ N ' ~ EXHIBIT B Gregory J. Smith, DDS, PA Date: 1-15-01 Subject: ..Cost Breakdown-interior Code Issues Client Greg and Nancy Smith TYPe Remodel ~ Expansion Permits $3,150 $0 $3,150 Dumpsters $975 $975 $1,950 Demolition $2,340 $5,383 $7,723 G p-Crete Floor $3,000 $0 3,000 Mason 8~ Concrete $12,750 $0 $12,750 Metals $500 $0 $500 Rough Ca entry 8 993 $0 8,993 Finish Ca entry x255 $850 .$1,105 Roofin $650 $0 $650 Doors $2,096 $4,691 ,787 Drywall 2,445. $19,801 $22,246 Ceramic Tile $2,625 $0 $2,625 Rest Room Accessories $646 $0 646 Cabinets (ADA Portion $1,100 0 1,100 Plumbing $37,415 1,285 $38,700 HVAC $14,935 $2,265 $17,200 Electrical 11,105 21,880 32,985 Architectural Fee's 13,923 $0 13,923 [~y~~1jr :;;ucren : n~. cw art ~I~` 3280 GORHAM AVE • ST. LOUfS PARK, MN 55426 • PHONE (952j 922-5512 • FAX 922-5906 • LIC. #7948 l 19fr1'ON N~111(1NISNt~'1 d1~~N~~l Wd91:fi l(I(17. `9l'ue~ ' ~ ~ BUILDING CODE ANALYSIS - 12-12-2000 Construction Documents Phase: Dental Office ~ Lakeville, MN Minnesota State Building Code/UBC Chapter 3 - Use or Occupancy OCCUPANCY CLASS - Group B Occupancy, 304.1, 19. - Dental Office. ~ Chapter 4 - Special Use or Occupancy Section 410 Medical Gas Systems in Group B Occupancies .Fire rated tank room required. One hour fire rated walls, ceiling, door. - Ventilation - Mechanical ventilation. - Explosion-proof .fan. - 1 Hour shaft to side wall. - Sprinkler head from domestic water. Chapter S - General Building Limitations Section 504 Allowable Floor Areas Table 5B Basic Allowable Building Heights and Floor Area. Occupancy Group B, Construction Type V N. - Existing tenant space is one story with basement. - Tenant space 2904 square feet. Chapter 6 - Types of Construction Section- 606 Ass:,zmed Type V N Building. Chapter 7 - Fire Resistant Materials and Construction Section 704 Protection of Structural Members: none provided. Chapter 8 - Interior Finishes Table 8-B Maximum flame spread class. Occupancy Group B. - Exit ways: Class II. - Rooms: Class III. Section 807 Sanitation Proposed toilet room finishes Floor: ceramic floor the Base:. ceramic coved base file - Walls: ceramic wall the wainscot to 54 inches paint, eggshell finish above - Chapter 9 - Fire Protection Systems Section 904 Fire Extinguishing Systems 904.2.1 Where Required: This section does not. require an automatic sprinkler system for B occupancy. - Tenant space portable fire extinguishers - 1 required per 4000 sf 1 provided at lab 1 provided at staff Chapter 10 - Means of Egress: See diagrams 201A, 2018, 201C for occupant load calculations, exit distance, and exit separation. Summary of Egress Analysis: - Basement Exiting: ' a - - - 00 BUILDING CODE ANALYSIS 12 12 20 Construction Documents Phase: Dental Office Lakeville, 2•IId - Two separate basements, mechanical only, one exit from each. - The proposed tenant space is to be occupied. by a single tenant. - Individual spaces have access to two exits to grade. - A continuous hallway (not a corridor) provides exit access. - The hallway is classified as an intervening room. - Most individual spaces/rooms have calculated occupant loads less than 10; therefore, they may access exits through more than 1 intervening room. Space/room with occupant load of 10 (based on chair count) is the Seating Area. This room has access to exits through 1 intervening room (the vestibule). - No rooms have an occupant load of 30 or more; therefore none has a requirement for 2 exit access openings. Table 10-A Minimum Egress Requirements - Use: Office. Occupant load factor: 100. - Calculated occupant load does not exceed 30: one exit required, two exits provided. Section 1003 General 1003.2.2.2.1 Areas to be Included. Accessory areas are shown on diagram 201A Section 1004 Exit Access 1004.2.2 Travel through intervening rooms. In the proposed. building, access to exits is .through an intervening room, the continuous hallway, which passes through a reception room and a vestibule. This is permitted by the following exceptions: - 1. Access to exits may occur through foyers, lobbies, and reception rooms. - 3. Rooms with a cumulative occupant load of less than 10 may access exits through more than one intervening room. 1009.3.3 Hallways. Proposed hallways have the following characteristics: Width: 44 inches or more. - Construction: non-combustible materials, metal studs and gypsum board. - Openings: not protected. Chapter 11/I~i 1341 - Minnesota Accessibility-Code - HC Restrooms: - 2 single occupant accessible restrooms - See 201A plumbing .occupant load calculation - Accessible Path -Single Story, no ramps or stairs - Doors 36" wide with required clearances Chapter 24 Glass and Glazing Section 2906 Safety Glazing - Safety glass at: i - sidelights within 24 inch radius of door . - windows and borrowed lights within l8 inches of floor i Appendix Chapter 29 Table A-29-A Minimum Plumbing Fixtures. ' See 201A for plumbing occupant load calculation and fixture requirements. BUILDING .CODE ANALY3I3 - 12-12-2000. Construction Documents Phase: Dental Office " Lakeville, I~1 MECHANICAL, Refer to Design/Build Mechanical - Backflow preventers, RPZ valves at - dental equipment: film processor, other locations as determined. by Mechanical Engineer and Code Official. ELECTRICAL, Refer to Design/Build Electrical i 9 -~i U m X W I ~i I 4 j I j ~ ; ~ , I~ IL '~i ~ ~ , u~~l~llllllllllll . ~ Q ~'Ij'I~~ i II 'i I11i 6 F I,'.., ~ ~ i I y I e HISTORIC FAIRI7ELD DISTRICT. OF'DOWNTOWN LAKEVILLE - ~ ~ " ~ 4.8.3a Dentist Building REPLiCATE.ORIGINAL BRICK DETAIL ~ PARAPET WITH E1F5 PRECAST CONCRETE BUILDING SIGN ~ ~~~"`°~~-.~~Y., REMOVE VERTICAL CEDAR SIDING AND REPLACE W! SPANDREL GLAZING~~~~~ ~ REMOVE VERTICAL CEDAR SIDING AND - - REPLACE W/ PREFlNlSHED METAL PANELS . ABOVE NEW CURVED HANGING CANOPY . r,~~\_ ^ ~ a Z~ CORNER - - ~1 - i~ _ ! fit. i 11 e _ \ _ - 1.'_..._.. j; _ 4 ww 3~ _ ~1 1 ~ t i~ e 3 it 3 ~ : ' i. ~ ~ ' j- ADD AWNINGS TO COMPLEMEI~i' f I i ' ~ # . _ _ , ,r , BUILDING COLOR AND ENCOURAGE W1ND4W SHOPPING ADD PREFlN[SHED METAL PANELS t0 BRICK VENEER BELOW ALUMINUM W1ND04U5 SECTION FOUR -COMMERCIAL BUILDING DEVELOPMENT DESIGN GUIDELINES - PncE 36 ~ HISTORIC FAIRFIELD DISTRICT OF DOWNTOWN LAKEVILLE 4.8.3b Retail Building . , x f i?t wtrvaia ~caoa. ~oo~r~ w ~ C~ ~a SANDSLAST EN'i1RE BUILDING FACADE TO EXP05E EXISTING $RICK AND LIMESTONE SURFACE a.. ~Z. TUCKP~NT VENEER BRICK AND STONE ~ PRO6LEM AREAS 3. REMOVE CORRUGATED Fl6ERGLA55 AND WOOD 51GN BAND RESTORE ENTRY TO ORIGINAL CONDITION.. ,~,4; REMOVE VERTICAL CEDAR 51DING. F~.5. REMOVE RESIDENTIAL GRADE DOOR5 AND WINDOWS AND REPLACE WITH COMMERCJAL GRADE ALUMINUM STOREFRONT 6 ADD MULLIONS TO EXISTING WIDOW FRAMES FOR HISTORIC AL~Ni'IGt7Y. ADD DECORATIVE 5tGN5 BRICK RECESSED SIGN BADS, '"",8. ADA AWNINGS TO PROVIDE COLOR TO STOREFRONT. REMOVE WOOD CR055BUCK BELOW WIt~OWS AND REPLACE WITH PREFINlSHEO METAL PANELS 1N5TALLED OVER BRICK VENEER 3 ` SECi'ION FOUR'- COMMERCIAL BUILDING DEVELOPMENT DESIGN GUIDELINES PAGE 37 e~ HISTORIC FAIREIELD DI1'fRICT OF DOWNTOWN LAKEVILLE ~ 4.0 COMMERCIAL. BUILDING Any combination of the following should DEVELOPMENT DESIGN total 75% of the elevation with the excep- lion of the elevation facing Main Street >~i GUIDELINES. which should be at least 30% glass: • Stone (including limestone, marble, 4.1 MATERIALS AND granite, etc.) ' ACCEPTED RATIOS • Sand molded modular. sized brick • Architectural Pre-cast Concrete 4.1.1 Materials. Exterior facades of new buildings should be constructed of materials which will 4.1.3. Glazing. withstand the abuses of weathering and The objective of supplying storefront glaz- possible defacing due to vandalism. These ing at the street level is not only to reflect materials should be easily maintained and a historical character but also to encourage window shopping. Street level glazing attractive from any distance. shall be aimited to clear or glazing only. Spandrel glazing, mirrored finish glazing Acceptable materials-for any new con- or glazing with greater than 10% tint is struction with street facing facades are not acceptable at the street level. rock face concrete masonry units, stone, sand molded modular sized brick, pre-cast concrete (as a trim material), stucco, and Second level glazing may be clear,: tinted, glass. frosted or spandrel glazing: However, spandrel glazing andback-lit frosted-glaz- 4.1.2 Ratios. ing shall be limited to 10% of the total area of glazing for the specific elevation. Exterior materials shall be limited in quan- tits by means of the following ratios: Back-lit frosted glazing is preferred over. spandrel glazing. • Rock Face Concrete Masonry. Units 4.2 BUILDING DESIGN 5% of the-total area of the elevation in question 4.2.1 Objective. • Stucco/EIFS The objective of creating design guidelines 15% of the total area of the for individual buildings is to develop a uni- _ elevation in question fled character for all elements within the Fairfield District. The buildin sand land- _ g Figure x.2.2 scaping must convey the history of the dis- Typical One and T°•o Stort Buildings - ~ - - PRECAST CORNICE ~ - PRECAST OR STONE LINTEL - - 2000 s... - - BRICK - ta'-b' ALW7INUI'1 WINDOW V T.O. wiNDOW S0.FNER COURSE w/KErSTONE 116'-0' h IIS'-0' PRECAST CORNICE T.R _ nY-0' ~ - Lw[BVtLl.6 AWNING-~ DA[BRY - EFL- SHOES trrsuawNC6 - BRICK IIO'-0' ~ - T.Q _ ALUt71NUM WINDOW - CONCRETE EtLOCK ,r-:. 1, 103_0., ~ - - 100'-0. - 100'-0. ri - ~.•~FFE ~ ~ _ - ~ _ SECTION FOUR -COMMERCIAL BUILDING DEVELOPMENTDESIGN GUIDELINES _ ~d HISTORIC FAIRFIELD DISTRICT OF flOWNTOWN LAKEVILLE , trict while creating a sense of a true down- oke Avenue within the Historic District town. The intent of these guidelines is to shall have a flat roof. Sloped.roofs at allow for and encourage a variety of tower elements are permitted. Tower ' designs to create a unique overall character elements are allowed to exceed the.maxi- symbolic of a downtown that has been de- mum height by 20% for one, two and . veloped over a period of time. three. story buildings. Sloped roofs should be allowed on residential and religious 4.2.2 Historical Context. buildings within the district. New buildings should be designed with historical des to the existing significant 4.2.6 Building Entrances... . buildings within-the district- and the design The entrance to the building should be a guidelines described in this study. Intro- significantly important part of the build- duced character will create the architec- ings overall design. The .entrance should tural link to the.. historical past. The scale, be easily identified from a distance and .massing; color, materials; texture and de- designed to be the highlight or pinnacle of tails of the new building should reflect the the building. Many historically significant requirements set forth in Figure 4.2.2 main street buildings were symmetrically (page 26). designed with the entrance at the center of the building and the adjacent sides comple- 4.2.3- Building Function.. menting, not competing, with the central New development should be organized entrance. with their axis perpendicular to Holyoke. Avenue. Pedestrian Alleys shall link, park- A canopy can add a distinguishing element ing from behind stores to Main Street. and provide shelter for the occupants whether they are arriving or leaving the 4.2.4 Appearance. establishment. Double doors and addi- Each building should express their own tional lighting provide an inviting element individuality through size,. shape of win- to the entrance and allow vision into the doves; details, cornice design, etc. This space to demonstrate the hospitality found will enhance the sense of Downtown. within. New buildings should be designed to relate to the scale of pedestrians using a. 4:2.7 Building Articulation.. .number of techniques:. awnings to bring During the construction boom of the early the scale down,. heavier, more durable ma- twentieth century, buildings were con- terials located at the base of the. building; strutted quickly with durable materials. and lighter, more decorative materials lo- Owners of properties on the Main Street Gated at the pinnacle of the building. wanted their buildings to stand out from their adjacent neighbors with decorative 4.2.5 .Height Restrictions brickwork, carved stone and colorful awn- Corner buildings shall be a minimum of ings. These buildings were constructed two stories in height and a maximum of from the center of town to the outskirts. four stories in height. -The total height of Since the .property located at the center of the corner building shall not exceed SO'-0" town. was much more desirable, the den- above finished grade to the top of the Para- sity in this area was greater than the build- pet. Infill buildings between the corner ings located on the fringes of the down- buildings shall be one to'two stories in town. A number of elements are charac- height and-shall not exceed, 30'-0" in teristic of a high density downtown. ~.a height to the top of the parapet. All com- mercial buildings located adjacent to Holy- Zero lot lines should be incorporated into _ SECTION FOUR- COMMERCIAL BUILDING DEVELOPMENT DESIGN GUIDELINES .R, - . yi HISTORIC FAIRFIELD DIS'T'RICT OF DOWNTOWN LAKEVILLE ~ a the planning of any future buildings lo- will create a colorful and lively down- Gated at the center of downtown. These town. - setbacks will create a higher density at the center of town as is described on Figure As described elsewhere in this report, first 3.2, Lot Coverage Ratios. These zero lot,` floor windows should be aluminum store- line setbacks will also help the buildings to front with transom. windows where possi- address the street by creating a pedestrian ble. This element will encourage window friendly space. shopping and thus anchoring the individual shops to the streetscape. Each building should show its own indi- viduality by means of shape, color, tex- However, .second floor windows will ture, etc. The buildings should appear as serve a different function. This second though they have been constructed at dif: floor space is reserved for more private Figure x:1.7 ferent times, by different contractors and functions; Ofl`lces Or apartments. The win- Brickwork should incorporate ectensire have different owners. In addition, any Bows should respect these functions and cor6ellfng derails, arches over windows building which spans an entire. block and is the shapes should correspond. Tall, slen- and doors, and recessed sign bands. constructed at one time, must be visually.. differentiated at strategic locations within the street facing facade. This will help to reduce the.-mass of the building and pro- vide an interesting elevation at the street. The buildings located on Main Street should have varying parapet heights. This . will demonstrate that the buildings are ~ different from. each other and-add interest to the streetscape. It will also allow fora ~ possible entrance element. 4, The material selection should differentiate 'k:? ~ 1`: t~ .the buildings from each other. Varying the material palette from one building to the _ a'~ next will add to the authenticity of the , w:. downtown. Different materials, colors and , textures all add to the visual interest. der, punched openings are appropriate for, this area. Arched tops, columns framing The building should be broken into a num- the windows and decorative lintels are en-` ber of bays. This will allow for the col- couraged, lending to the scheme of a rug- umns within the building to engage the ged and.durable base metamorphosing the streetscape and add a rhythm to the fa- facade wall to a decorative parapet cor- cade. The bays will also be a place to in- nice. corporate awnings, storefront window design and exterior building lighting. The building should be rugged and durable at the base. Materials such as stone, rock Awnings have played a large part in intro- face concrete block or pre-cast concrete during color to the downtown. Awnings should be incorporated. As it rises to the should incorporate bright and interesting parapet, the structure should become colors which enhance the color palette of more intricately detailed: Brickwork the building facade materials. This element should incorporate extensive corlielling SECTION FOUR -COMMERCIAL BUILDING DEVELOPIvIENT DESIGN GUIDELINES - PAGE 28 1 HISTORIC FAIRFTELD DISTRICT OF DOWNTOWN LAKEVILLE ~ ~ ~ details,. arches over windows and doors, 4.4 PROJECTING BUILDING and recessed sign bands (see Figure 4.2.7)., 'SIGNS The top of the building should be termi- nated with a decorative cornice con- 4.4.T Location. strutted of precast concrete, EIFS, stone, Projecting building signs should be located or decorative brickwork. between 8 and 12 Feet above sidewalk grade and should be limited to businesses 4.3 STORE FRONT. DESIGN which have storefronts or oflicess facing the street on which the sign is displayed. 4.3.1 Storefront Windows.. Storefront windows should be required for 4.4.2 Size.. new buildings within the Fairfield District. For individual tenants or businesses the Display windows, or windows:allowing total surface square footage of projecting views into retail, office or lobby space, signs should not exceed 1 Z feet. -Only one shall be 30% of the exterior wall area at face of a flat or double-faced sign should the street level, or the first 15 feet above be included in the computation of sign sidewalk grade. In no such case shall blank area. walls be longer than 20 feet, except where unavoidable due to specific building code Signs that identify a building or complex requirements. All exterior sides of a bay may exceed the size limitations contained window may be used in calculating the in this section if itis determined by the - windowpercentages of this requirement. City Planning Department that the visual F;gure ~l.~S impact of the signs. are. compatible with the Signs can project ;nto the aght-of- 4.3.2 Window Illumination. signage of other buildings within the Fair- "'a}'• Display windows should be illuminated field District. until 1 l :00 PM. All lights should be prop- erly baffled by architectural elements or be 4.4.3 Projection. low brightness fixtures. Illumination lev- Projecting signs may project from the els should decrease to 10% of the total building facade no more than 3'-0" into window illumination at a distance of three the public right-of--way. ~ ~ ~ t ~ T ~ z, feet out from the window, measured at ~ " eye level height (5'-6").. 4.4.4 Inscription. The inscription of signs shall not contain 4.3.3. Display Window any graphic symbols, numerals or lettering - } ~ Encroachments. , other than those necessary to display the ~e` ri ~ ~ ~ Display windows may be allowed to en- business name, kind or nature of business, _ ~ , croach up to two feet into the public right business logo or year of establishment. '+x~,,,. _ of way. along the Main Street provided that '»'T ~ - a minimum of 8'-0" feet from window 4.4.5 Materials. ! roadvyay curb is maintained. Display win- Projecting signs shall be constructed of down that encroach into the public right of ornamental metal, carved wood or cloth_ way should not be continuous along the Back-lit plastic sheet signs should not be building facade. Windows should be lim- permitted: The design of the supporting. ited to a length of 20 feet or less when wires shall be incorporated into the overall fronting along a street and should provide sign design. Structure of any projecting _ a distance of 2 feet between windows. signs shall be ornamentally designed: See Figure 4.4.5. . , ~.1 SECTION,FOUR -COMMERCIAL BUILDING DEVELOPMENT DESIGN GUIDELINES _ _ HISTORIC FAIRFIELD DISrRICf DF DOWNTOWN L.AKEVILLE ' 4.4.6 Illumination. not exceed 36 inches in height. The in- Projecting igns that are externally illumi- scription shall not contain any graphic nated shall not emit more than i0% of the symbols, numerals or lettering other than. maximum candlepower to any point seen those necessary to display the business from the street or sidewalk at an angle less name, kind of business, business logo, year than 60 degrees from horizontal.... of establishment, or name of building. 4.5 AWNINGS AND CANOPIES 4.5.6 Materials Awning and canopy materials should be Awnings and canopies shall be installed at limited to cotton, acrylic or vinyl coated all new and renovated buildings. cotton., copper or bronze coated metal,: or clear glass. Fabric covered awnings shall 4.5.1 Projection. employ a striped pattern with historic Awnings and canopies shall not project references. Other materials may be used. Figure 4.5.1 more than 5 feet into the public right-of- if approved by the City Planning Depart- `The enuanre co Cooks of Crocus Hill way, except where located above an oper- ac 50th B~France has ame~al canopy- able building or shop entrance, in which ~ ~ 9,~ s ~ _ ~ ~ case the maximum projection shall not ~ ` , exceed 8 feet. In no event should the ~ - ~ ,~,~w awning or canopy be supported by poles ~~.~"1,, or other structural elements located in the public right-of--way. See Figure 4.5.1 4.5.2 Length. ~ r~r~ Awnings and canopies should emphasize - f the rhythm of the facade bays, windows -'-.y,~ and entrances, and shall not continue unin- _ terrupted along the building facade: Awn- ;;y ings and canopies shall not exceed 20 feet _ in length. along the direction of the street, ~ ~ ~ and shall be separated by a distance of at j ' ~ _ least 1'-4" ~i ! 4.5.3 Height. ~ ~ < The bottom of awnings and canopies ment. Structural supports shall be should be at least 8 feet above sidewalk constructed of steel and shall incorporate grade, except in the case of a movable val- ornamental features. ante which may be 7 feet above sidewalk grade. 4.6 BUILDING PERMANENT BANNERS . 4.5.4. Illumination. Back-lit awnings and canopies are not per- Colorful banners should be encouraged as - mitted. a means of providing a retail character to the district: 4.5.5 .Inscription. Lettering on awnings and canopies should 4.6.1 Projection. not exceed 16 inches in.height, except that Banners should not project out from the capital letters and the upward or down- building face more than 5 feet into the ti ward extensions of lower case letters shall public right-of-way. . • Ci:rnnN F(IItR - Cn1,4MFRC1A1_ RI111.1)INQ T7FVFL(]PMFNT I7F\1GN C:IIfIlF1.INES' HISTORIC FAIRFIELD DISTRICT OF DOWNTOWN LAI:EVILLE ~ 4.6.2 Size. should maintain a two foot setback from . The total square footage of banners shall the back of the roadway curb. not exceed 25 feet: ' Sidewalk cafes adjacent to the building 4.6.3 Height. should not obstruct any doorways neces- ~ The bottom of banners shall be at least 12 sary for safe and easy ingress and .egress feet above sidewalkgrade. with adjoining buildings. 4.6.4 Spacing. 4.7.2 Furnishings. Banners should be spaced no closer than Tables; chairs and other furnishings should 20 feet apart. be durable and sufficiently stable to pre- - vent removal by winds. The appearance of 4.6.5.. Inscription. furnishings shall also be high-quality and The inscription of banners should not con- consistent with the image of the Fairfield taro graphic symbols, numerals or lettering District. Plastic furnishings. will not be . other than those necessary to display the acceptable. business name, kind or nature of business, business logo or year of establishment. In 4.7.3 Removal. addition,. other permitted uses may- Tables, chairs and other furnishings shall include Fairfield District promotion or be promptly removed at the-end of the day display, holiday or festival display, -and at-the hour stipulated in -the permit: flags. 4.7.4 Cleaning. 4.7 SIDEWALK CAFES/RETAIL All tables and chairs should be maintained ~ SALES in a clean condition at all times. -Areas devoted to sidewalk cafes and retail sales 4.7.1 Location. shall be cleaned on a daily basis and. shall Sidewalk cafes and retail sales ace encour- be the responsibility of the cafe owner or aged and should be located in the sidewalk operator. Cleaning shall include litter area fronting the shop or cafe owner or pick-up, trash removal and washing of the operator's business. sidewalk to prevent stains.:. Sidewalk cafes not cleaned and maintained to the Fairfield Sidewalk cafes should be located either. District standards will be cleaned by the adjacent. to the building or adjacent to the city maintenance crew with the costs roadway depending upon the width. of the , assessed back to the cafe owner or opera- sidewalk; pedestrian circulation patterns tor:. along the sidewalk, and the nature of the adjacent building facades including loca- At least one durable garbage receptacle ; ~ tion of building and. shop entrances and within the sidewalk cafe zone shall be pro- presence of display windows. vided for sidewalk cafes without table ser- vice. In either case, where the width of the side- walk is 20 feet or less an 8 foot wide; clear and unencumbered path along the side- walk shall be provided: It is the responsi- bility of the cafe owner or operator to ~ keep their sidewalk clear at all times. Sidewalk cafes adjacent to the roadway SECTION FOUR -COMMERCIAL BUILDING DEVELOPMENT DESIGN GUIDELINES PAGE 31 I p~ HISTORIC FAIRFIELD DISTRICT OF DOWNTOWN LAKEVILLE 1 , 4.8 RENOVATED BUILDINGS - Significant buildings should be renovated to their original designto preserve their historic significance to-the district. Details which have. been lost due to weather or previous modifi- cations should be replaced to their original condition or re-constructed using similar con- struction techniques and materials. Some buildings may have to be sandblasted, the masonry and limestone tuck-pointed, and the windows. repaired or replaced as necessary. The following .pages demonstrate the possible effecEs of renovation to existing historically significant buildings. - 4.8.1 Daycare Center/School District Building L REMOVE SMALL ALUMINUM WtNflOWS-AND R1+PLACE WITH LARGE ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOWS. 2 ADD BRICK VENEER ENGAGED COLUMNS TO BREAK UP FACADE. 3. ADD PRECAST LINTEL ARCHES WITt•f KEYSTONES TO ADD YISUAL INTEREST. 4. ADD AWt~NGS TO PROVIDE COLOR TO 5TREETSCAPE AND COMPLEMENT BUILDING COLORS. 5, PROVIDE SHUdGLED MANSARD ROOF TO SGREEN ROOF TOP LINTS. 6. ADD CENTRAL ENTRANCE ELEMENT TO t3REAK UP FACADE AND STEP ELEYRTtON UP TD TOWER AT CORNER PROVIDE t3ACKLtT FR05TED GLAZED WINDOWS AT FALSE 5ECOND FLOOR. . 8. ADD JEI=FERSONIAN TOWER ELEMENT AT CORNER WITH ARCt~D ENTRANCE POSSIBLE SECOND a^TORY ADDITION a o SECTION-FOUR -COMMERCIAL BUILDING DEVELOPMENT DESIGN GUIDELINES 1'aGE 32 01!10!2001 18:36 31565620 GREGORY.) SMITH DDS PAGE 02 ~ - ExH~BT D Gregory. Smith, ADS, PA Date: i-Q9-01 Subject EXTERIOR BUDGET Client Greg and Nancy Smith .Type Exterior Renovation Total Sc~~.Mrr '~ootage 2,904 Tem . Far4ii(~ 1,750 0.60 Dumpsters- _ $50 0.1 arriers Project CIe:~7~;;: S97 0.34 ~emoliGon_ 260 $0.09 Curb 8 GuPtN;.. _ _ 2.875 30.99 landscapiri.: - . $0 $0.00 uck Point--'- ~ 0 $ .00 Mason 8 ~~r:i.;':.:~ie 512,0 0 4.13 Metals - - 5.300 $1.83 RoU h Carps ,t 650 0.22 Finish Car e.rr, : ,y,.. 8,750 S3.01 Siding . ~ - 50 0.00 Insulation ~ ~ 0 .30.00 Roofing 0 0.00 Sealants ~ 31,7 0 0.60 Flashin at stucco area Doors 3500 0.17 Glass - $0 .00 D all 10,800 3.65 Ceram+c Tile' ~ 0 0.00 ACOUStiCal Ce-ai.;.ti.. $0 0:00 Ftoorin ~ 30. 0.00 •a _ 0 0.00 Misc. Paint , $3.01 S ecialties ~ x.250 $ .48 Misc. Paint 8 Sandblast Rest Room a;:ra~;;.,~ieS 59, 50 3.1 5i Wage, awnin s Cabinets 5 0.00 Plumbin ~ SO 0,00 Fire Protecti~; - 30 -0.00 HVAC 0 0.00 Electrical 30 $0.00 $0 50.00 ubtotal _ _ 6 3:43 Se'S Misc. 57,7 2.67. Supervision - $5,000 1.72 _ 4,500 51.5 ur n ons ruc ion o - -L. , _ 3280 GORHAM AvE, • ~.C?UiS PARK, MN 55426 • PHONE (992).-922-5512 Fi1X 922-59 i , - : 06 ltC. X7948 _ EXHIBIT E PARKING LOT LICENSE AGREEMENT This Parking Lot License Agreement is entered into this sy- day ofd--~bcr I 2000, by and between MKL Enterprises, Ilc. ( Owner ) and Gr~c~„ ~ 5~,.,;a.~., qty 5 PA ( "Licensee") . WHEREAS, MKL Enterprises, Inc. owns thL parking lot shown on Exhibit A ("Parking Lot"), adjoining Licensee's retail business premises;. WHEREAS, .Licensee wants MKL Enterprises, Inc.. to permit its er.!ploye~L's and customers tc use the Parking Lot for a•~c•ss tc, Licensee's retail business premises and for parking while they are at Licensee's premises; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in this License Agreement, the parties agrees as follows: 1. License. MKL Enterprises, Inc, grants. Licensee, its employees, and customers the right to use the Parking Lot only for access to Licensee°s retail business premises, short term parking-while they are at Licensee's adjoining premises and eneral g parking for their residential tenants. Licensee may only allow its residential tenants to use the parking lot for overnight parking. .All .other uses am prohibited. Licensee may not. use. the Parking Lot .for storage of any kind. Licensee is entitled to ~,a, unreserved parking. spots within the parking lot to allow- for compliance with City of Lakeville Codes and Ordinances. 2. License Fee. Licensee agrees to pay MKL Enterprises, Inc. ~b0. oo per month, due and payable on the first day of each month, for the use of the Parking Lot. 3. Term. This License Agreement shall commence on November 1_, 2000 and shall be on a year-to-year basis. Either party may terminate. the license agreement by providing written notice to the other party 60 days prior to the end of a 12 month term. 4. Termination of License. In the event license fees are not paid on time, this license shall terminate until the fees have been received and .accepted by .MKL Enterprises, Inc. 5. No Warranties and Hold Harmless. MKL Enterprises, Inc, makes no warranties. concerning the condition of the Parking Lot. Licensee agrees that. its employees and customers shall use the Parking Lot at their own risk. MKL Enterprises, Inc.. shall not be responsible for any loss to person or 'property of Licensee, its 1 { 'r employees, or customers. Licensee agrees to hold MKL Enterprises, Inc. harmless from any claims arising from the use of the Parking Lot by Licensee, its employees, and customers. 6. Towina. Licensee acknowledges that MKL Enterprises, Inc. may tow any vehicles from its Parking Lot, except those of Licensee, its employees, and customers while they are at Licensee's adjoining business premises, so long as this License is in good standing. In the event this license has. been terminated, by failure to pay the license fee or other~tise, MKL Enterprises, Inc. may tow the vehicles of Licensee, its employees, and. customers. 7. Maintenance. MKL Enterprises, Inc. agrees to keep the parking.. lot maintained and available for parking and to be responsible for snow removal and sweeping. of .the parking lot as reasonably npcessa.; y f ~•r use under $ilis Licerise . gnaw plowing will be provided by 5~ea3L~,~s ~Q~A copy of the snowplowing contract is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". No lighting will be provided for the parking lot by the. MKL Enterprises, Inc. .Owner shall have the parking lot resurfaced and ~-e-striped on or before .July 1, 2001. 8. Cooperation. Licensee agrees to cooperate with owner and other Licensee's to make maximum use of the premises as owner sees fit. This agreement shall not prevent the cwner from making changes to the premises so long as the Licensee is able to use the license according to its. stated terms. This is not an exclusive license. 9. Insurance. Owner agrees to maintain liability insurance for the property. A copy of the Certificate of Insurance is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands as of the .day and year first written above. MKL Enterprises, Inc. Licensee X By s its 2 Y a ..rf:~ _ - .d .~•.h ll~~'i' ivY: , jw~ 0~' X! i~ Y~ y ~h• 4.;•~: ~ ;'.`-Siff:-vat~•.'i'rixki~i•`-: :iv~./•{.~•red~ j.: { }7w.p.~ ~~fYV.K- -S ss~'C~••~is~$yS t~.'~: .~.x+iiyS •'~v'~.<v tiffs :}t ~4--~5-}•••~i .::5:::.~:. 'L:h:•i :i}"v m_t.'d.ip:..i0 M.M x>n ~1.'~~~ - }:L{ r- _ . r.-•,-: . - - :::a,. - :~:2=:~_'~-i =:::::`tiff` ,S - . '?ti{=:. ~s _ xYm - ::35.:3a v.:::_v A yY# vi:::.:~:.- t::::•t: . _ :x:.~: _ {~-i3:{~ - _ _ :}-f{r _ - v: x::: _ - _ . _:L f _ _ .....en_..: rl r.~.-::ii.( ii:S:. ^j), _ .l ~.:f Y { \C d{:r jj r ~ x x yyy ~.p : fi ) . A i L a~ {-.SA J. j ti3 K I' ~ r ~ `D i ' - - :'c•% _ t0' Gn C^ ~ : ~ ' ~ ^-~__dv:Y t) - { 1: : • rcdaa}y ~ .~-'r'"r w=Ai n ~/.`L' ~ '::Vii:. 7 '.i~;v :.xv{>-:_~.~'l~i:: `~l ti:T>'--~%`~%'i%t~r' ~'i.~ 3. ti .,J rs .~p4.-:a ~~;i'•, ~ I9J1 w~. ).ssX++.:, -ic2iY~ :~a;:~t°:tiyy:: ts: x t ~ FY't~.l ~ ~ s ~ ,T„ A,;i-wd.\> ° ~ s'L1 1 ~ ti.~.x,•~La,~`^G`^-~.ti.^y~` K w Ate: is 1 ,i{N<~v r n - ~ k jam. ~Y :Jiit« Sin : ~ J ? {i::h' ~ iii \ :~'-h;::. - - _ _ ?:iYii L.y}y?.:-1iid:{MS: h: U ~SJr_r_ ^'~ix-- - vy.~.: ...-,1 T r , tt w ~:?-~':axr . ~ ^'i=~iY~'.--c-..':. I ' EEc=~':f~~c'.~ 3's x , ~ .--.-....._1• `"x` _ 1 :-^x wxxx~ >:~r' ~ i• k~ \,;,jq{~ ,d'1X... I I ~ ~ ~'_t ~?_Kv. ~^'i~~'v`wl;: ~"}:.~~fr~'?.•T'. ,fa>K~ ~ x%'V>~t16' __"w _yy. < ~ 7F~: • _ Ml L - 1 ~ ` - ;,;,...a;.x; L.-ir - <yi L' a S: iY9f"~~ wS Q~ J Iv ~ <S4 C - J~i yxYS~.- ~.h-~J"~(S vF'Y~ . }.T. w .,.,r,~~~~~,~ c - ' x%~ ~ k ~~-'x a . . - .~_f : ~w _ Memorandum To: Economic Development Commission CC: Bob Erickson, City Administrator Arlyn Grussing, Community & Economic Development Director From: Frank Dempsey, Associate Planner Date: 01/19/01 Re: Parking Requirements for Smith Dental Office I have reviewed the plans for the Smith Dental office expansion for compliance with parking requirements. The Smiths have submitted a written contract that states that they are entitled to 12 off-street parking spaces. According to the floor plan submitted with the building permit application, the space that the Smiths will occupy requires a total of 8 parking spaces as follows: Square Footage: 3,000 sf Parking Requirements:3 spaces per 1,000 sf of gross area Ten Percent Floor Area Credit: 3,000 sf - 10% = 2,700/333 = 8.1 spaces ' ~ ~ EXHIBIT F Marquette Bank U~ Lakeville Office of Marquette Bank, N.A. 8790 207th Street West P.O. BOx 458 Lakeville, MN 55044 (952) 469-2165 (952) 469-2174 Fax. January 17, 2001. Ann Flad-Economic Development Coordinator City of Lakeville 20195 Holyoke Avenue Lakeville, MN 55044 RE: Community Development Block Grant Gregory and Nancy Smith Dear Ms. Flad, As per. your request, this letter is highlighting item #8, (see copy), requesting evidence of private funds and/or financing sufficient to complete the project. My understanding of the project for the Smith's is as follows: 1) Interior project $176,033.00 2) Exterior project $ 85,305.00 3) (CDBG) Grant 70,000.00) Total Cost. $191,338.00 With available private funds of Gregory and Nancy Smith along with Marquette Bank's desire to loan funds to the Smith's, there would be sufficient funds to cover the total cost of $191,338.00. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to call me at 952-469- 2165.. Sir~erely i~ Sco J. retzmeyer Asst. Vice President Business Banking- t ~ y pp ~/IH~F.7~ 1 Decembe~~C~~ TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Gregory J: Smith and Nancy Papatola Smith 19127 Orchard Trail Lakeville, Minnesota. .55044 RE: Order Number DC00080505 C Documents indicated below are enclosed: Abstract of Title No.: xx Vendee's Policy 24 0.071 106 00000112 Vendor's Policy Title Binder Contract for Deed, Document No. Invoice - . Endorsement RE: The East 55 feet of the-South 10 feet 2 inches of'Lot 3, Block 12, and the East 55 feet of the North 8 feet of Lot _4, Block 12, Town. of. Fairfield Yours.-verytruly, DAKOTA COUNTY ABSTRACT. BY: Joyce LeGeault DAKOTA COUNTY ABSTRACT * 1250 HWY 55 * HASTINGS,_MINNESOTA * (651)437-5600.. c.. 3finn.p: 1;A1 ~Y~ ~ 'f', ' r a i~ AMER/CAN LAND T/TLE ASSOC/AT/ON - OWNER'S POLICY 1 (I0-17-92) 24 _0071 1"06..00000112. f.. i_ CHICAGO TITLE. INSURANCE COMPANY- - i~ i ~ , ~ I~~ ~ ~ SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, -THE EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE B AND THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS, CHICAGO TITLE } INSURANCE COMPANY, a Missouri corporation, herein called the Company, insures, as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A, against loss or damage, not exceeding the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A, sustained or incurred by the insured by reason of: ~ I . Title to the estate or interest described in Schedule A being vested other than as stated therein; 2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the title; ' _ IY j 3. Unmarketability of the title; - 4. Lack of a right of access to and from the land. ~ r The Company. will .also pay the costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in defense of the title, as insured,. but - f+ only to the extent provided in the Conditions and Stipulations. ( t ~,-I t /n Witness Whereof, CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY has caused this policy to be signed and sealed as i ~ ^ of Datc of Policy shown in Schedue; A, the policy to become valid when countersigned by an authorized signatory. . ~''I ~_I ~ I i._ I ` I. c• -4 Issued by: CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY .r, i`` DAKOTA COUNTY ABSTRACT & TITLE By' I; 1250 HIGHWAY 55 P.O. BOX 456 _ ~ < HASTINGS, MINNESOTA 55033-0456 (612) 437-5600 Ga-e~..._ President !!i FAX (612) 437-8876 I~~ ~TF~ Secretary - -J ~z. - _ ~ - ALTA Owner's Policy (10-17-92) TRiVS :SI INF • TYPE IND-END CODE CODE CODE CODE CODE REISSUE AMOUNT. ST CTY TYPE-- 24 037 40 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY SCHEDULE A FILE## POLICY .NUMBER DATE OF POLICY $ OF .INSURANCE PREMIU D000080505 C24 0071 106 00000112 October 25, 2000 $100,000.00 $400. 1. Name of Insured:` Gregory J. Smith and Nancy Papatola Smith, trustees of the Nancy Papatola Smith Living Trust dated October. 5, 1995 2. The. Title to the fee simple estate in said land is, at the date hereof, vested inc Jennifer L. Tuma, a single person and Judith A. Gustafson, a single`. person, as tenants in common 3. The land herein described is encumbered by the following mortgage or trust deed: _See- Schedule B. 4. The land referred.-to'in_this Policy is .described as follows: The South 10-.feet and 2 inches of the, East. 1/2 of Lot 3, and the North 8 feet of .the East 1/2 of Lot 4 and also the East 5 feet of tl- West 1/2 of the South l0 feet 2 inches of Lotr 3 and the East 5 feet of'the West 1/2 of the. North 8 feet of Lot 4, all in Block:. 12, Town of Fairfield, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate ir. Dakota County, Minnesota. • _ Fs CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY SCHEDULE B POLICY NUMBER: 24 0071 106 00000112 EXCEPTIONS FROM. COVERAGE In addition_to the Exclusions, you are not insured against loss, costs, .attorneys.' fees, and .expenses resulting from: 1. Taxes.,for the year 2000- in the amount of $2,213.28, are paid. (Base ax amount $1,945.76.)'(Tax No. 22-44450-040-12.) NOTE; Taxes .for. the year 1.999 and prior years are paid. Special assessments and taxes not. yet due and payable.. NOTE: There are no special assessments now a lien on the .premises. NOTE: Any charges for municipal services (i.e., water,-sewer, correction of nuisance conditions, etc.) are the responsibility of the parties of this transaction. 2, Terms .and conditions of that. certain Contract for Deed by and between Jennifer L. Tuma, a single .person and Judith Gustafson, a single person, as vendor, and Nancy Papatola Smith and Gregory J. Smith, Trustees, cr their living successors in trust, under the Nancy Papatola Smith Living .Trust dated. October 5, 1995 and any amendments thereto, as vendee, dated September 15, 2000, filed October 25, 2000, as Document No. 1726955, in the amount of .$100,000'.00. 3. Judgment dated ch 11, 1997, keted March 11, 19.99 -vs- Gregory ~F'" in favo thspan Serv' Rel' Recoverie e amount (Ser/Case No. 99012738) 4. Party walls shown. on survey of Jacobson surveyors dated September 13, 2000. 5. Facts which would be disclosed by a comprehensive survey of-the premises herein described. 6. Rights and claims'of parties in possession. F: 3649-02 R: 1181 Page : 3 CHICAGO.TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Countersigned 7 Authorized .Signatory .Upon the exercise by the Company of either of the options provided for in (b) When liabilify and the extent of loss or damage has been definitely.fi~ paragraphs (b)(i) or (ii), the Company's obligations to the insured under this in accordance with these Conditions and Stipulations, the loss or damp policy for the claimed loss or damage, other than the payments required o, be shall be payable within 30 days thereafter. made, shall terminate, including-any liability or obligation to defend, prose- cute orcontinue any litigation. 13. SUBROGATION UPON PAYMENT OR SETTLEMENT 7. DETERMINATION, EXTENT OF LIABILITY AND COINSURANCE (a) The Company's Right of Subrogation. This policy is a contract of indemnity against actual monetary loss ordain- Whenever the Company shall have settled and paid a claim under ti age sustained or incurred by the insured claimant who has suffered loss or Policy. all right ofsubrogation shall vest in the Company unaffected by any ; damage by reason of matters insured against by this policy and only to the of the insured claimant. extent herein described.. The Company shall be subrogated to and be entitled to all rights a~ (a) The liability of the Company under this policy shall not exceed the least remedies which the insured claimant -would have had against any person of: property in respect to the claim had this policy not been issued. If requested 1 (i) the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A; or, the Company, the insured claimant shalF transfer to the Company all righ (ii) the difference between the value of the insured estate or interest as and remedies against any person or property necessary in order to perte insured and the value of the insured estate or interest subject to the defect, this right of subrogation. The insured claimant shall permit the Company lien or encumbrance insured. against by this policy. sue, compromise or settle in the name of the insured claimant and to use tt (b) In the event the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A at the Date of -name of the insured claimant in any transaction or litigation involving the: Policy is less Than 80 percent of the value of the insured estate or interest or rights or remedies. the full consideration paid for the land, whichever is less, or if subsequent to If a payment on account of a claim does not fully cover the loss of th the Date of Policy an improvement is erected on the land which increases the insured claimant, the Company shall be subrogated to these rights and rem< value of the insured estate orinterest by at least 20 percent over the Amount of dies in the proportion which the Company's. payment bears to the whol Insurance stated in Schedule A; then this Policy is subject to the following: amount of the loss. (i) where no subsequent improvement has been. made, as to any partial lass, the Company shall only pay the loss pro rata in the proportion that the If loss should result from any acLof the insured claimant, as stated above amount of insurance at Date of Policy bears to the total value of the insured that act shall not void this policy, but the Company,. in that event, shall b. estate or interest at Date of Policy; or required to payonfy that part of any losses insured against by this policy whicl (ii) where a subsequent. improvement has been made, as to any partial shalt exceed the amount, if any, lost to the Company by reason of the impair loss, the. Company shall only pay the loss pro rata in the proportion that 120 ment by the insured claimant of the Company's right of subrogation. percent of the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A bears to the sum of (b) The Company's Rights Against Non-insured Obligors. the Amount of Insurance stated ih Schedule A and the amount expended for The Company's: right of subrogation against. non-insured obligors steal the improvement exist and shall include; without limitation, the rights of the insured to indem The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to costs, attorneys' fees pities, guaranties, other policies of insurance or bonds, notwithstanding any and expenses for which the Company is liable under this policy, and shall only terms or conditions contained in those instruments which provide for subroga- apply to that portion of any loss which exceeds, in the aggregate, 10 percent of lion rights by reason of This policy. the Amount of Ipsurapce stated in Schedule. A. (c) The Company will pay only those costs, attorneys' fees and expenses 14. ARBITRATION incurred in accordance with Section 4 of these Conditions and Stipulations. Unless prohibited by applicable law, either the Company or the insured may 8. APPORTIONMENT demand arbitration. pursuant to the Title Insurance Arbitration Ftules of the tf the land described in Schedule A consists of two or more paresis which American Arbitration Association. Arbitrable matters may include, but are not arenot used as a single site, and aloss is established affecting one or more of limited to, any controversy or claim between the Company and the insured the parcels but not all, the loss shalt be computed and set4ed on a pro rata arising out of or relating to this policy, any service of the Company in connec- basis as ifthe amount of insurance under this policy was divided pro rata as to tion with its issuance or the breach of a policy provision or other obligation. All the value on Date of Policy of each separate parcel to the whole, exclusive of arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance is $1;000,000 or less shall any improvements made subsequent to Date of Policy, unless a liabilit or be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the insured. All arbitrable value has otherwise been agreed upon as to each parcel by the Company ahd matters when the Amount of Insurance is in excess of $1,000,000 shall be the insured at the time of the issuance of this policy and shown by an express arbitrated only when agreed to by both the Company and the insured. Arbitra- statement or by an endorsement attached to this policy, lion pursuant to this policy and under the Rules in effect on the date the 9. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY demand for arbitration is made or, at the option of the insured, the Rules in effect at Date of Policy shat( be binding upon the parties. The. award may (a) If the Company establishes the title, or removes the alleged defect, lien include attorneys' fees only if the laws of the state in which the land is located or encumbrance, or cures the lack of a right of access to or from the land, or Permit a court to award attorneys' fees to a prevailing party. Judgment upon cures the claim of unmarketability of title, all as insured, in a reasonably the award rendered by the Arbitrator(s) .may be entered in any court having diligent manner by any method, including litigation and the completion of any lurisdictiop thereof. appeals therefrom, it shall have fully performed its obligations with respect to The law of the situs of theiand shall apply to an arbitration under the Title that matter and shalt not be liable for any loss or damage caused thereby. Insurance Arbitration Rules. (b) Irt the event of any litigation, including litigatioh by1he Company or with A copy of the Aules may be obtained from the Company upon request. the Company's consent, the Company shall have no liability.fortoss or dam- . age until there has been a final determination by a court of competent jurisdic- 15. LIABILITY LIMITED TO TNlS POLICY; POLICY ENTIRE CONTRACT tion, and disposition of all appeals therefrom, adverse to the title as insured.. (c) The Company shall not be ?table for toss or damage to any insured for (a) This policy together with all endorsements, if any, attached hereto by the liability voluntarily assumed by the insured in settling any claim or suit without Company is the entire policy and contract between the insured and the Com- the prior written consent of the Company. pang In interpreting apy provision of this policy, this policy shall be construed as a whole. 10. REDUCTION OF INSURANCE; REDUCTION. OR TERMINATION OF (b) Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on negligence, and LIABILITY which arises out of the status of tfie title to the estate of interest covered All payments under this policy, except payments made for costs, attorneys' hereby or by any action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to this policy. fees and expenses, shall reduce the amount of the insurance pro lento. (c) No amendment of or endorsement to this policy can be made except by 11. LIABILITY NONCUMULATIVE a writing endorsed hereon or attached hereto signed by either the President, a Itis expressly understood that the amount of insurance under this policy Vice President, the Secretary, an Assistant Secretary, or validating officer or shall be reduced by any amount the Company may pay under any polic authorized signatory of the Compahy. insuring a mortgage to which exception is taken in Schedule B or to which the insured has agreed,. assumed, or taken subject, or which is hereafter ex- 16. SEVERABILITY ecuted by an insured and which is a charge or lien on the estate or interest fn the event any provisiop of the policy is held invalid or unenforceable described or referred to in Schedule. A, and the amount so paid shall be under applicable law,. the policy shall be deemed not to include that provision deemed a payment under this policy to the insured owner. and all other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. 12. PAYMENT OF LOSS 17. NOTICES, WHERE SENT (a) No payment shall be made without producing this policy-for endorse- Ail notices required to be given the Company and any statementm wntmg ment of the payment unless the policy has been lost or destroyed; in which required to be furnished the Company shall include the number of this policy case proo/ of toss or destruction shall be furnished to the satisfaction of the and shalt be addressed to the Company. at the issuing office or to: Company. Chicago Title Insurance Company Claims Department Re«de~ Fo.m No: 92ss Rev. t o-, 7-s2) 171 No?th Clark Street Chicago, Illinois 60601-3294 - __~~Qf,$~_1-M WARRANTY DEED Minnesota Umfurm Conveyancing Olanks (filU97) Miller/Devle Co. ~ St. Peu6 MN 851.042.19lit3 Individual(s) to Individuals(s) No delinquent taxes and transfer entered; Certificate of Real Estate Value ( )filed ( )not required Certificate of Real Estate Value No. (Date) County Auditor by Deputy DEED TAX DUE: $ - - _ ___-.330.00 _ - - _ (reserved for recording data) Date: -__---_------January---ttn._,_2001 _ FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Jennifer_L.-_Tuma,__a_ _single. person,_and Jludith_A.:_ Gustafson,_a_single person, (marital status) Grantor, hereby conveys and warrants to Nancy__Papatola_Smith_.and_Gregory. J._.Stnith,__Trustees,_ or._their living successors_incrust,_under.the.Nancy_Papatola Smith-Living.Trustdated October 5,_1995_and any.amendments* Grantee, real property in - _ .-Dakota _ County, Minnesota, described as follows: The South 10 feet and 2 inches of the East 1/2 of Lot 3, and the North 8 feet of the East 1/2 of Lot 4 and also the. ~ East 5 feet of the West 1/2 of the South 10 feet 2 inches of Lot 3 and the East 5 feet of the West 1/2 of the North 8 feet of Lot 4, all in Block 12, Town of Fairfield, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Dakota County, Minnesota *thereto I adverse claims or other matters permitted to accrue from and after September 15, 2000. together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto, subject to the following exceptions: 1. _ Cove- nants,.conditions, .restrictions,. declarations and easements .of record, if any;.2. Reservations_of minerals or mineral rights_by the_State of Minnesota,_if any; 3. Building, zoning and subdivision laws_and regulations; 4. Real-.estate ~ taxes..and special assessments_due and payable in 2000 and thereafter, and; 5. Liens,_encumbrances, (see above) Check box if applicable: The Seller certifies. that the seller does not know of any wells cm the described real property. A well disclosure certificate accompanies this document. ~ ~ I am familiar with the property described in this instrument and I certify that the status and number of wells on the. described real property have not changed since the last prev'ously filed well disclosure certificate. i Jennifer L. Tuma _ _ ~ Affix Deed Tax Stamp Here ~ ~ - STATE OF MINNESOTA v Judith A. Gustat:con I COUNTY OF ss. This instrument was acknowledged before me on _ _ January.. /x',_2001 ~ Date ~ by Jetuufer_L.. Tuma, a_single_person,_and.Judith.A._Gustafson, a_single person, _ _ _ _ - - I NOTARIAL~S'TAMP OR SEAL IQR OTIIER TITLE R R F~,,~, ~ ~ ~/~r ,~..,,w,~i-.C:~.,~,..~.,i,,,.. ~ ~ . ~ ~--i:-~Q:.~lk- {~1~ , .Y'{~t.")~1CG7C -?°1Cti.(iA - - - til(iNATURE OF NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTIIER OI'FICIAI. ~ • JODELL M. PUNCOCHAR NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA > , `~s ` ' Check here if part or all of the land is Registered ('forrens) I I My Commission Ekpires Jan. 31, 2005 i ~ Tax Statements for the real property described in this instrument should he sent to (include name and address of Grantee):. TnIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED 6Y (NAME AND ADURF.SS): Nancy PapatOla Snllth and Gr<;gOry J. Smith, Trustees 19127 Orchard Trail Rider, Bennett, Egan & Arundel, LLP Lakeville; MN 55044 333 South 7th Street, Suite 2000 Minneapolis, MN 55402 JRW (15304/ 102). WARNING: UNAUTHORIZED COVYINO OF THtS FORM PROHIBITED. ,~~a~.h8. 200 1 2~34PM DAKOTA CTY TREASURER/AUDITOR No.2385 P. 2/3 EXHIBIT H 22 44450 044 12 2000 TAX INQUIRY GTBB T06 0X/18/2001 14:25:48 XINPN050 STAxB~IENT NAME:. ACTIVE STATEMENT VALUES: BOY STATEMENT MISC: TAX MKT: .143,800 SD: 194 0 SUB 00 GREGORY J TSTE SMI'Iht EST MKT: 180,200 WSHD V NANCY PAPATOLA TSTE SMITH 'rI TCAP: 0 PAY CDE: 19127 .ORCHARD TR FD TCAP: 702 HST PEN: NO HG1A TC : 0 SP 2~1D LAKEVZLLE MN 55044-9333 TAX CAP: 2,827 CONTIG STATEMENT TAXES AND CREDITS: RENTAL TAX: 71,6.04 LT FARM: NO COUNTY 578..99 QUAL TAX .00 NET TAX 3,.433.92 MUNC 413.65 STATE AIRS: 3,01&.12 TOT TX/A: 3,858.D4 SD Sx'A'S'E= 716.93 HS/AG CR .00 HALF PXT: 1,929.02 SD VOTER: 575.79 AP/DSTR CR: .00 GROSS 6,450.04 SD OTHER: 53.28 BAL DUE: .00 M&xR0 32..39. OLD HSE MK: 00 PEN PAID: .Op OTHER 18.39 NEW COAT MK: 00 TAX PAID;. 3,858.04 TAX INC .00 CONTAM TAX: .00 MSA TNT RFND: FISCAL 1,025.86 SPL ASMNTS: 424.12 MS REF 18.64 TRSFR TO: UTA: 2202 TAX RT: 1.071470 EA I4S RT: -0.280020 COOP: CBN: N MS REF RT; 0.0001297 AGH RT: 0.182180 AGNH RT: 0.168690 PF1-DLY-ST PF3-STUB SD REF R1': 0.0007825 Pk'5-T~T'I'-M1?N'U PF7-PRV-ID PF9-NXT-ID PF10-PST~DUE PF11-LST-YR-TX PF12-IM-ST 4-~ 1 ProdCICS 10.1.3.247 TNGTEB 21/12 Jan•18. 2001 2:34PM DAKOTA CTY TREASURER/AUDITOR No.2385 P' 3/3 h 22 44450 04p 12 200.0 TAX IN4Ux~tY GTEB T06 01/18/2001 14:26:27 XxNpN050 STATEMENT NAME: ACTIVE STATEMENT VALUES: BOY STATEMENT MISC: TAX MKT: 65,70 0 SD: 194 0 SUB 00 JUDYTH A GUFTAFSON EST MKT: 65,700 WSFiD : V JENNIFER L TUMA TI TCAP: 0 PAY CDE: 1045 45TH ST GP FD TCAP: 503 HST PEN: NQ HGlA TCc 0 SP IND NORTHFIELD MN 55057-4264 TA3~ CAP: 1,577. CONTZG STATEMENT TAXES AND CREDITSo RENTAL .TAX: .00 LT FARM:. NO COUNTY 292.63 QUAL TAX .00 NET 'FAX 1,945.76 MUNC 209.07 STATE AIDS: 1,.524.38 TOT TX/A: 2,213.28 SD STATE: 362.34 HS/AG CR .00 HALF PYT: 1,106.64 SD VOTER: 2$5..55 AP/DSTR CR: .00 GROSS 3,470,14 SD OTHER: 26.93 BAL, Dom; • 00 METRO, x.6.37 OLD HSE MPC: 00 PEN PAID: .00 OTHER 9.29 NEW CON MK: 00 TAX PAID: 2,213.28 .TAX INC .00 CONTAM TAX: .00 MSA INT RFND: FISCAL, 735.06 SPL ASMNTS: 267.52 MS REF 8.52 'I'RSFR T0: UTA: 2202 TAX RT: 1.071470 ED SAS RT: 0.280020 COOP: CBN: N MS REF RT: 0.0001297 AGH RT: 0.182180 AGNH RT: 0..168690 PF1-DLY-ST Pk'3-SYLPH SD REF RT: 0.0007825 FF5-INT-MENU PF7-PRV-ID PF9-NXT-IA PF10-PST-DLTE PF1~.-LST-YR-TX PFl2-IM-ST 4-® 1 ProdCICS 10.1.3.247 TNGTEB 21/12 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: ANNFLAD,ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT000RDINATOR FROM: GENE J. ABBOTT, BUILDING OFFIQAL SUBJECT; CODE IMPROVEMENTS FOR SMITH DENISTRY DATE: 1/ 17/2001 CC: ARYLN GRUSSING, COIv~vICJNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR I am in receipt of the cost breakdowns dated 1/15/2001 for the interior remodel of the Smith dentistry office prepared by Karkela Construction. I have reviewed the plans and the cost breakdown for the construction modifications. I am in agreement with the cost estimate of $118,903 for code improvement items except for the following: 1. The rough carpentryvalue should include onlythe construction of the accessible bathroom construction and structural improvements and not the buildout for the non- bearing walls of the office space. 2. The plumbing cost estimate should include onlythe costs associated with buildout of the accessible bathrooms, gas storage room and structural improvements and not the costs associated with adding plumbing to each exam room. If the code improvement items as discussed above are accomplished, building code compliance for the building will be greatlyenhanced. If you need further assistance in this matter, please give me a call. Memora~ndU~n To: Economic Development Commission CC: Bob Erickson, City Administrator Arlyn Grussing, Community & Economic. Development Director From: Ann Flad, Economic Development Coordinator Date: 01/22!01 Re: Grant Agreement for Smith's CDBG Application . Attached you will find the Dakota County Community Development Agency's draft grant agreement. It is proposed that the the City of Lakeville and Greg .and Nancy Smith enter into this agreement to provide $70,000 of grant funds for code improvements and subsequent exterior improvements of two buildings in downtown. This agreement is to be considered under item # 5 on your January 23, 20D 1 agenda. City of Lakeville Community Development Block Grant DOWNTOWN CODE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Grant Agreement This agreement is made and entered into this _ day of , 2000, by and between Gregory J Smith and Nancy Papatola Smith, trustees of the Nancy Papatola Smith Living Trust (hereinafter referred to as "Owners") and the City of Lakeville, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota, having its principal office in Lakeville, Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as "Grantor"). WHEREAS, Grantor acknowledges that Owner has qualified for a Downtown Code Improvement Program (DCIP) Grant, in an amount not to exceed $70,000 for the improvement of the real estate described below. a, PID # 22-44450-040-12 in Dakota County, Minnesota PID # 22-44450-044-12 in Dakota County, Minneso#a NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of said Grant and the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. (a) That said Grant wilt be used to reimburse Owners for qualified code improvement costs described in Schedule A. (b) That said code improvements wiA adhere to the guidelines and .requirements set forth in the DCIP policies attached in Schedule B. (c) That the Owners will complete exterior improvements as they are described in Schedule C. 2. That once the qualified code improvements and exterior improvements are completed to the satisfaction of the Grantor, the Grantor will reimburse Owners for qualified code improvement costs not to exceed $70,000. 3. That if the improvements are not completed to the satisfaction of the Grantor, the Owners will be fully liable for the payment of all qualified code improvement and exterior improvement costs. 4. That if the qualified code improvements and exterior improvements are not completed to the satisfaction of the Grantor by December 31, 2002, this Agreement shall be declared null and void and the Grantor will provide no reimbursement for qualified code improvement costs. In testimony whereof, the parties have executed this agreement as of the day and year first written. Owners Grantor Gregory J Smith for City of Lakeville Robert Erickson, City Administrator Nancy Papatola Smith STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) On this day of , 2000, before me, a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared Gregory J Smith and Nancy Papatola Smith, trustees of the Nancy Papatola Smith Living Trust and Robert Erickson, City Administrator of the City of Lakeville, a public body corporate and politic, to me known to be the persons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that they executed the same as their free act and deed. Notary Public (SEAL} SCHEDULE A Smith Dental Project Code Improvements Eligible for CDBG Funding Permits. $ 3,150.00 Dumpsters $ 975.00 Demolition $ 2,340.00 Gyp-Crete Floor $ 3,000.00 Masonry & Concrete $ 12,750.00 Metals $ 500.00 Finish Carpentry $ 255.00 Roofing $ 650.00 Doors $ .2,096.00 Drywall $ 2,445.00 Ceramic Tile $ 2,625.00 Rest Room Accessories $ 646.00 Cabinets (ADA Portion) $ 1,100.00 HVAC $ 14,935.00 Electrical $ 11,105.00 Architectural Fees $ 13,923.00 $ 72,495.00 SCHEDULE B City of Lakeville Community Development Block Grant Downtown Code Improvement Program In a continuing effort to support businesses and property owners in downtown Lakeville, the City of Lakeville applied for and received Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for the purpose of upgrading the condition of buildings in downtown Lakeville. Specifically, funds will be made available to offset the cost of code improvements made to buildings that are being renovated in accordance with the Historic Fairfield Downtown Lakeville Design Guidelines. The CDBG funds have been made available to the-City of Lakeville through the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) on behalf of the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).. Projects .which receive CDBG assistance are therefore required to meet HUD requirements. The following policies and procedures have been adopted for code improvement projects undertaken with CDBG dollars in the City of Lakeville. These policies are subject to change as recommended by the Dakota County Community Development Agency and/or the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. Program Purpose: To provide financial assistance to property owners who are undertaking the restoration, preservation or improvement of downtown buildings; historic preservation; and/or elimination of slums and blighted conditions. .Type of Assistance: Commercial CDBG Grant Design Guidelines: All code improvement projects must be conducted in conjunction with a storefront improvement project, which conforms to the Historic Fairfield Downtown Lakeville Design Guidelines. Program Objectives: The Lakeville Code Improvement Program is undertaken to meet the objectives of: a) Providing financial assistance for property owners to correct certain health, safety or other deficiencies; and b) Eliminating blighting influences and. preventing further deterioration of commercial properties; and c) Preserving properties of historic value; and d) Encouraging exterior improvements that comply with the Historic Fairfield Downtown Lakeville Design Guidelines. Projects will be chosen for participation in the program based upon the degree to which they meet program objectives. Priority will be given to properties with. historical significance. Eligible Recipients 1. The recipients must individually or in the aggregate have at least 1) a one-third interest in the fee title, or 2) a one-third interest as purchaser. in a contract for deed with respect to the structure to be improved. 2. All individuals having an ownership interest in such structure must join in the application and sign the Grant Agreement with the City, including contract holder. 3. Leaseholders are eligible to make application for CDBG funds. The Lakeville City Council on a case-by-case basis will review such applications to determine their eligibility for funding, based on the length of the lease on the property. The property owner must join in the application and subsequent requirements. 4. Projects that would result in permanent displacement of either residential. or business tenants will not be financed with CDBG Program funds. Any temporary displacement of tenants resulting from project activities shall be the responsibility of the property owner.. Tenants shall be fully informed of the project plans, and the expected impact on them, and shall receive a Notice of Nondisplacement or Displacement, as appropriate, prior to the start of rehabilitation. Property owners will be required to provide relocation assistance to tenants as required under the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. 5. No member of the governing body cf the.. locality and official, employee; or agent of the local government who.exercises policy, decision-making function or responsibilities in connection with the planning-and implementation of the Rehabilitation program shall directly or indirectly benefit from this program. This prohibition shall continue for one (1) year after an individual's relationship with the local government ends. Any potential conflicts of interest under Minnesota Statues 412.11 and 471.87-471.89 or Federal Regulations 24 CFR, Part 570, Uniform Administration Requirements, shall. be evaluated on the basis of a legal opinion to be requested from the Lakeville City Attorney. Program Definitions .Program Administrator: The Program Administrator shall be the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA), 2496 145' Street West, Rosemount, MN 55068, Phone (651) 423-4800. Staff shall coordinate all aspects of the Program. Applicant: Any person seeking to obtain rehabilitation assistance under the terms of this Program. Building Inspector: The Building Inspector for the Program shall be an employee of the City of Lakeville and shall provide technical expertise relating #o inspections, construction quality, code compliance and scope of work to be accomplished.. Project Coordinator: The Project Coordinator for the Program shall be an employee of the CDA and shall provide assistance and management relating to improvement activities. The Project Coordinator is responsible for program marketing, application t intake, scheduling of .inspections, preparation of contracts and grant documents, and processing of payment requests. The Project Coordinator serves as the contact person for rehabilitation from application to project close-out and shall be available during regular business hours. Target Area: Part of the central .business district as delineated on the attached .map. Eligible Improvements: Health and safety code violations, and/or structural/mechanical systems deficiencies (faulty wiring, fire exits, handicapped accessibility, etc.) Special Conditions Contractors: All code compliance work undertaken with CDBG funds must be completed by bona fide contractors who are licensed and provide proof of insurance.. Historic Properties: Each project will be submitted for. review following the procedures outlined by the Minnesota Historical Society. Lf the structur is listed or eligible for listing individually on the National Register, or within the boundaries of, or immediately adjacentto; a historic districf which is-listed or eligible for listing on the National Register or the unit was originally built prior to 1950, the property will be evaluated #or historical significance by the State Historic Preservation Officer. If it has been determined that the property is listed on the National Register or considered eligible to the National Register, a review of the proposed rehabilitation work is necessary, and the work must be in conformance with the Secretary. of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Davis Bacon Wage Rates: All .contracts in excess of $2,000 that will be funded through the CDBG program require compliance with the Labor Standards .Provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act. Contractors are to pay their employees the prevailing wage rate as determined by the Department of Labor. Appropriate wage information must be provided prior to the release of funds. Fair Housing ~ Equal Opportunity The City of Lakeville will work affirmatively to ensure that all persons, regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, religion, marital status, age, handicap, familial status or reliance on public assistance will be treated fairly and'equally for purposes of participation in the Program. Access to program information and materials wiN not. be denied to any person for any reason. The City will encourage the participation of women and minority-owned businesses and local businesses and suppliers who meet Section 3 Criteria. Lead Based Paint The City will conform to the requirements of the Residential Lead Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 for any assisted property that contains residential dwelling units. - All.. program applicants must provide notification of the hazards of lead based paint to impacted tenants. The Building Inspector shall inspect for defective paint. surfaces at the time the property is being inspected for code compliance. All defective surfaces will. be corrected in accordance with the regulations. in 24 CFR Part 35 and Minnesota statutes and safe work practices. Additionally, contracts for rehabilitation work will include language explicitly prohibiting. the use of lead based paint. Data Privacy . All information provided by applicants under the Lakeville Code Improvement Program shall be maintained in accordance with the Minnesota Data Practices Act and the City's Subgrantee Agreement with the Dakota County Community Development Agency. Procedures Application and Selection Procedures All property and business owners in the Special Service District of downtown Lakeville will be encouraged to apply for CDBG funds through the Lakeville Code Improvement Program. Parties will be notified by mail of the availability of funds and interested parties will be encouraged to submit apre-application form. Applicants with projects determined to be eligible based on pre-application information will receive an invitation to submit a full application and will. receive-all subseGuert correspondence. Application Intake Applications will be selected for participation in the program based upon applicability to the program guidelines. on afirst-came, first-serve basis. Applications wil{ be evaluated .based on the following: 1.) Whether the applicant has clear Title to the property to be improved. Prior to project approval,. the following wi(I be ascertained: a.) Title verification; b.) All real estate taxes are current; c.) All individuals having an ownership interest, including contract holders,. have agreed it writing to join in the application;. - - 2.) The extent to which the project meets the program objectives; 3.) The degree of the project's overall impact on the target area. Projects that involve permanent displacement of either residential or commercial tenants or that are not financially feasible within the constraints of available funding will be eliminated from consideration. Property Inspections Upon determination that a property owner applying for rehabilitation assistance is .eligible based on the program guidelines, the Building Inspector shall conduct an inspection of the property to determine the corrective actions .necessary for the property to conform to Lakeville code standards. 1 Scope of Work The Scope of Work will have two (2) components: 1.) Upon completion of the initial inspection, the Building Inspector shall prepare a report indicating the work necessary to bring the property into compliance with Lakeville codes inclusive of the Minnesota Energy Efficient Standards. This report, and any improvements deemed necessary by the Project Coordinator for the project to satisfy the intent of the Program, shall be included as a part of the Scope of Work. 2.) .The property owner shall provifr a report or elevation drawing indicating the planned exterior improvements. This report will be reviewed by the - City of Lakeville for compliance with the-hNistoric Fairfield Downtown Lakeville Design Guidelines. Project Approval. .The final application will be reviewed by the City of Lakeville, including the Economic Development Commission and the City Council Improvements approved for CDBG funding will be based on the severity of the correction needed and the ability of the applicant to complete the project with CDBG funds and private funds if necessary. The Dakota County Community Development Agency will determine final approval. Verification of availability of private funds will be required before final.. approval of the. project. Competitive Bidding A minimum of two (2) competitive bids must be obtained for each improvement project the applicant. proposes for CDBG funding. At the discretion of the Program Administrator, a single bid that has been determined to be reasonable by the City's Building Official may suffice. Applicants may use any contractor they choose, as long as the contractor meets the requirements listed below. All contractors must provide a Certificate of Insurance Coverage. Contractors must also certify that they will comply with the requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act. These rates will be provided to the applicant as a part of the contractor's instructions. Awarding Contracts The contract will be between the applicant and the contractor. The contract awarded to the lowest bid unless one (1) of the following circumstances occur: 1.) The bid is determined to be unrealistically low and the contractor agrees to withdraw the bid; 2.) The contractor has failed to follow the procedures as outlined in the instructions to the bidders; 3.) The owner does not want the low contractor to perform the work and agrees to pay the difference between the lowest bid and the preferred contractor's bid. 4.) There appears to be collusion between two (2) or more contractors, in which case, all bids in the questionable trade category will be thrown out and different contractor's solicited for bids; and J 5.) The contractor fails to bid according to the specifications, and it .proves impossible to compare that contractor's bid with the other contractors'. Approval by City Council Once the applicant has accepted a bid, staff will prepare the information for presentation to the Lakeville Economic Development Commission and City Council. Upon City Council approval, a Grant Agreement will be signed by the applicant and a designated city official. This -Agreement will outline the terms and conditions of the project, including the City's role and the applicant's responsibilities, and any corrective actions to be taken in the event of a dispute. Notice to Proceed A preconstruction conference will be held with the Program Coordinator, the applicant and contractors and subcontractors to ensure awareness and compliance with Davis- Bacon requirements and any other requirements necessary to begin the project. A notice to proceed will be issued after the preconstruction conference. The contractor will normally have one (1) year in which to complete the awarded contract. Change Orders All change orders to the current contract require the approval of the Project Coordinator as well as the signatures of the owner and contractor. .Acceptance of Work Interim inspections may be scheduled with the Building Official to monitor work in progress. Final inspection shall be required to ensure that the work has been completed in a satisfactory manner. In the event of a dispute between the owner and contractor concerning the completion of work, the. Project Coordinator shall work with both parties to try to negotiate a satisfactory solution. Disputes that cannot be resolved by negotiation, and that result in legal action by either party to the contract, shall be resolved in accordance with applicable State law. CDBG funds shall not be released to either the owner or contractor until such dispute has been settled. Hold Harmless The owner and the contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless the City of Lakeville and the Dakota County CDA and their respective officers, employees, and officials from any damages or liability arising from, or occurring as a result of, the activities funded through this Program. CDBG Payment. All CDBG funds will be disbursed by the Dakota County CDA upon authorization by the owner and the City of Lakeville. Payments will be made only after all interior code improvements and exterior work is completed according to the authorized scope of work and has been accepted by-the owner. A Completion Certificate will be executed by the owner and the contractor, and submitted to the City. Payment may be made directly to the contractor, or in reimbursement to the owner, upon presentation of paid receipts for . approved work. No advance payments of CDBG funds shall be made for any reason. The following must be presented to the Project Coordinator in order to process payment: 1. Billing Statement/Paid Receipt 2. Sworn Contractor's Statement 3. Completion Certificate 4. Weekly Payroll Reports Private Financing Applicants are responsible for all costs incurred for storefront improvements, the difference incurred as a result of not accepting the lowest bid, and costs above and .beyond the availability of CDBG funds as outlined irE fhe Grant Agreement. Applicants shall contact a lending institution of their choice to arrange financing for their portion of the project. Applicants should request a letter of credit or other suitable documentation from the lending institution to prove that private. funds have been committed. This letter is to be submitted with the completed application.. If an applicant is not using a lending institution, other evidence of committed funds must be presented at the time of application. Escrow The property-owner may be requested to establish an escrow account or other private account for deposit of the private funds that will be used to complete the improvement project. The CDBG funds shall be reserved on the Owner's behalf by the .Dakota County CDA, at the time of execution of the MOA, but shall be drawn from the U.S. Treasury only when actually needed for disbursement to contractors or vendors, or in reimbursement to the Owner. Appeals Process Appeals concerning eligibility for the code improvement program or the proposed improvements shall be made in writing and addressed to the Project Coordinator. The .Coordinator will contact the applicant and attempt to rectify any concerns. A written response will be made within fifteen (15) days. f Map of Proposed Special Service District No. 1 1 ~ ~ ' ~ I W ~ i I ~ l4'1 ~ I , I, ` = i Properties Assessed i i I1 ~1~ - ' 1 ~__t..L~ ~ , ~ N 1 ' ---_i__ i f ~ ~ _ ~ if i ~ ~ ~ ~f ' ' ' ~ i j !!i r I ~ ~ ~ .~4' ~ t s c ~ • s ~ • Gtegory J. Smith, D4S pq Date: Subject ~ -09-01 , Client EXTERIOR BUDGET TYPe Greg and Nancy Smith Exterior Renovation Total Sc~t.~;ri ~~ootage 2, 904 PerrTlits. ~ :.f ' lr .•.oti: a . `~n~r~ t~ Tem a- 1,75 e~°sr F r~jd~r ~ 0 0.60 ~-y. Dumpsters`~~ " 550 0.1 arriers Project Cle,;,;;: 597 0.34 Demolition' ' 250 50.09 Curb b G~+r;::" _ 2.875 .50.99 Landscapiiic" _ " - SO 50.00 uck Poin1~.:.__ . 0 3 .QO Mason 8 r~~~:.;:..~te 512,0 0 4.13 Metals " " - - 5,300 31.83 Rou h CarF,+:;,t.,, _ 650 0.22 Finish Car e~-'r,-' ti~~ 8,75D 53.01 Siding " - 30 0.00 Jnsulation ~ ~ ~ 0 50.00 Roofing - _ D 0.00 Sealants 31,7 0 0.60 Flashin at stucco area Doors ~ 5500 0.17 Glass " ~ SO .00 ~ alt ~ ~ 10,800 3.85 Ceram+c Tile _ ~ " 0 0.00 Acoustical Ce 30 0.00 Ftoorin ~ ~ _ 50 0.00 5t 0.00 Misc. Paint " ' ~ $3.01 S ecialties 4,250 ~ .48 Misc. Paint 6 S Rest Room : ~ 39, SO 3.1 5i Wage, awnin Sdblast - ties Cabinets ~ ~ 0.00 Plumbin 30 0.00 Fire Protecli~:~ ~ 30 0.00 HVAC 0 0.00 Electrical S0 30.00 - . $0 0.00 ubtotal _ Misc. 57,7 2.87 Supervision ~ ~ ' " 55,000 1_.72 4,500 315 of n ollS ruG ion .o -L. ~ ~ 3280 GORHAM AvE_ • r.C?UIS PARK, MN 55426 • PHONE (952 922- 4 ` - ) 5512 •yFi1X 922-5906 L1C. X7948 l~ . T ZC1 f� F l It I tit I MI I L El n Agenda Item.6 Memorandum To: Economic Development Commission CC: Bob Erickson, City Administrator Arlyn Grossing, Community & Economic Development irector From: Ann Flad, Economic Development Coordinato Date: 01/18/01 ire; Labor Force Subcommittee's meeting with Airlake businesses to transfer responsibility for implementing labor force recruitment recommendations At the November 28, 2000 Economic Development Commission meeting; the EDC requested that the Labor Force Subcommittee reconvene to "create ~ plan for developing leadership in Airlake Park that will be responsible for marketing: Lakeville and Airlake Park to potential:employees" {see attached minutes..) The ubcommittee met on December 20, 2000 and discussed'the implications of creating a new business group or utilizing: an existing organizational structure.such as the Human Resource Committee of the. Lakeville Area C~:amber of Commerce. The subcommittee then.. recommended "that the Chamber of Commerce and the EDC should hold a joint meeting in January, 2001 at an Airlake Park business in order to determine the level of interest on behalf of businesses in forming a leadership group o undertake'labor force recruitment and human resource strategies. All businesses classified as industri~l_ would be invited to attend" (see attached- meeting review.). The Labor Force Subcommittee of the EDC and the H.R. Committee of the. Lakeville Area Chamber of Commerce jointly hosted a meeting. of Airlake businesses on Thursday, January 18, 2001 at Ryt-Way Industries. Fifteen business people attended in addition to the EDC's subcommittee members and City and Chamber staff (see attached attendance record.) The EDC's incorporation. of labor force issues into the Strategic Plan for Economic Development was discussed. A copy of the Focus Group Study was provided to participants and its use in determining common. labor force issues was discussed. A copy of the suggested. action items was also discussed at length (see attached.) Gary Tholkes of Ryt-Way, who is a member of the Labor Force Subcommittee and: the H,R. Committee liaison to the Chamber Board. of Directors, then stated. the H.R. ir~M#s Committee's desire to gain rn©re members. Additional members would enable the committee to act as the entity that would implement the labor force recommendations. Tholkes noted thatbusinesses do not need to be member of the Chamber to participate in the H.R. Committee. Tholkes does hope, however, hat orree a business finds value in the activities of the committee they will support the Chamber through becoming: a member. The businesses present concluded that they would be interested in operating. under the auspices of the H.R. Committee. The group will meet in early February to discuss the following: • ..Structure of the H.R. Committee: specifically, who will call meetings, set agendas, and notify businesses, etc. • Demographics of Lakeville residents: what do we know about the income and commuting patterns of our residents? ¦ Which priority items will we pursue? ¦ Breakout into groups around the top priority :items, based on individual's interest in participating. Breakout groups will discuss topic goals, identify action items necessary to achieve goals, assign tasks. The role of the EDC will be to provide resources when appropriate.. Staff will participate. in the H.R. Committee is a limited capacity. Created on 01/18/01 10:47 AM chart was handed out by Mr. trussing depicting the assessor's market value per square foo r parcels in Airlake Park.. The parcels with lower assessor's market values do not have improv ents. The parcels with higher assessor's market values have been platted and ail fees have en paid. Comm. Matasosk eiterated that raising the fees impacts the bottom line of developers and that he must abstain m voting as his firm is a land owner in Airlake Park. Administrator Erickson remi ed the EDC that the park. dedication fee was lowered in 1992 in order to assist the financial viab ~ of Airlake Park's development when Airlake Park was coming out of receivership...Using pre-1992 park dedication fee of $2,500 and increasing it 3% annually the EDC arrived at the i re of $3,167. This is the rate the park dedication fee would be at today had it not been redo . d and held steady since 1992. Comm. Tushie suggested the EDC change the re mmendation for the commercial. park dedication fee. Discussion ensued on what the mark value for commercial property in Lakeville is. It was concluded that $2.50 per square foot ~ the low end of the range of commercial market values. Comm.. Pogatchnick suggested ing the low end of the range at $2.50 mulitplied by 5% #o arrive at a flat fee of $5445/acre fora ommercial property. It was concluded that these figures would be rounded to $5,400/acre fo ommercial property and $3,200/acre for industrial property. Motion fl0.36 Comms. Tushie/Brantly moved that the City Council increase ark dedication fees to $5,400/acre for commercial property and $3,2 /acre for industrial property. Comm. Matasosky abstained, ail others in favor. Motion carried. 4. Review Labor Force Subcommittee Recommendation Ms. Flad indicated that the Labor Force Subcommittee met on Thursday, November 9, .2000 to discuss the Labor Force Focus Group Report. The subcommittee reviewed the report and recommended 1.) To develop leadership in Airlake to implement labor force recruitment strategies, 2.) To market Lakeville and Airlake Park to heighten awareness and recruit employees, and 3.) To support individual business's recruitment efforts. The subcommittee. was specifically interested in continued exploration of advertising Airlake Park and a job hotline on cable channels. The EDC reviewed the subcommittee's recommendations and discussed the need for businesses to take an active role in implementing labor force recruitment strategies. Without the businesses' active involvement, it was felt that any strategy implemented would not succeed. Comm. Bornhauser also discussed the Chamber of Commerce's Human Resource Network that could potentially be tapped to implement these initiatives, and Nation-Job, a Chamber of Commerce web site that is available to businesses for advertising their. job openings. 2000, November 28 3 G:\AFlad\ECONDEV\EDC12000mtgs\001128. mtg\min 001128.doc City Administrator Erickson distributed a memo from Jeff Leuders, Cable Coordinator, indicating that the City's Cable TV Franchise Agreement allows the City to run up to 1,500 30-second commercials annually on a variety of cable channels. This option may be used to advertise Airlake Park and the proposed job hotline or web site. Motion 00.37 Comms. MatasoskylTushie moved to reconvene the Labor Force Subcommittee to create a plan for developing leadership in Airlake Park that will be responsible for marketing Lakeville and Airlake Park to potential employees. Motion carried unanimously.. Update on Community Development Block Grant Funds. M .Grussing Indicated that the City Council approved reprogramming $70,000 of 2000 CDB funds for a downtown code improvement project and a 2000 Subgrantee Agreement: with Da to County Community Development Agency (CDA) in order to implement the downtown ode improvement project. A letter has`. gone out to all property owners and businesses i he downtown Special Service District requesting an indication of interest in accessing these unds. The deadline for indication of interest is Monday, December 4, 2000. The CDA will revie the level of interest and is preparing guidelines and policies for the program. Funds are bx,~pected to be available on or before January 1, 2001. The City Council approvecl`the EDC's recommendation to reprogram $34,614 of 2000 CDBG funds to be applied toward tfi~ ~CDA's acquisition of a site for an affordable town house project in Lakeville, and the 2001`:CDBG application for $109, 819 to also be applied to the CDA's site acquisition for this project. .Comm. Tushie commented on the EDC's need for an affordable housing study, indicating that more than 30 affordable housing units`will be needed in the fu#ure. The .study would provide information on the methods and resources available to develop more affordable housing. Comm.. Emond requested that staff provide information at the next meeting regarding affordable housing resources. _ a 6, Incentive Study update. Mr. Grussing indicated that the City Council reviewed the~~DC's request for 2001 funds to commission an incentive study to be conducted by Springstech;,.lnc. The City Council requested support from the Chamber of Commerce for this stud~y~,~and a letter of support from Chamber Director Todd Bornhauser was provided to the City Council. Approval of the request is anticipated at a budget amendment meeting in December.''C~omm. Matasosky questioned the process Springsted will use and suggested that the proc s include a brainstorming session with representatives of the business community. It s concluded that a brainstorming session to explore business motivations and innovative ideas~e discussed. with Springsted at the January. EDC meeting. 7. Review mailing list for Airlake Park News. 2000, November 28 4 G:~AFlad1ECONDEVIEDC12000mtgs1001128 mtglmin 001128.doc Labor Force Subcommittee Meeting December 20, 2000 Review of Meeting: The Labor Force Subcommittee met on Wednesday, December 20, 2000 in the North Conference Room of City Hall. Present were Dale Detjen, Bob Vogel, Dennis Cottrel, Jeannie Schubert, Gary Tholkes, and staff Arlyn Grussing and Ann Flad. The purpose of the meeting was to identify a plan to foster leadership in Airlake that would implement labor force strategies as identified by the Labor Force Subcommittee through focus groups and discussion. Discussion ensued about the potential to use the Human Resource Committee of the Chamber for this purpose. Issues discussed relevant to using the HR group for this purpose included: ¦ The need to recruit businesses to participate in the HR committee, ¦ The need to foster leadership that includes non-Chamber members, - ¦ The need for strategic focus so the leadership group would have a long term reason for existence versus only immediate action items which when accomplished leave little reason for the group to continue, ¦ A question as to whether the industrial businesses would join forces with each other while competing for employees, ¦ A desire not to duplicate or confuse the efforts of the Chamber HR group by creating a new group, ¦ The EDC's desire to support overarching labor force recruitment. as opposed to internal company HR issues, ie: ADA, etc. ¦ Retaining the subcommittee's focus on industrial labor recruitment, while retail and service businesses could be addressed at a later date or with a differenfivehicle, ¦ Concern about the interest level of affected. businesses to actually do the work. Recommendation to EDC: The Subcommittee concluded by recommending to the EDC that the Chamber of Commerce and the-EDC should hold a joint meeting in January,. 2001at an Airlake Park business in order to determine the level of interest on behalf of businesses in forming a leadership group to undertake labor force recruitment and human resource strategies. All businesses classified as industrial would be invited to attend. Requested Action: Each EDC.member is requested to fax or e-mail their vote on the above recommendation to Penny Brevig, Community Development Secretary, at (985) 952-4429, pbrev i ~ci~ c i. l akev i l l e. mn. u s. w ' A, r ~N ~ k a ~ ` - ~ ~ 5th f~ ~St - - ~ s.~ r SUGGESTED aCTIVITES. , ~ ~ 4'' . ~ ~ s k ~ ~I~ `'3 S, The suggestions below were generated by businesses in many focus group and subcommittee discussions. It is uggested that the group's initial efforts 1 concentrate on these items, however there are many other activities that the ' businesses as a group may choose to undertake as well. - CAPITALIZE ON CONGESTION ON I-35 -REVERSE TRAFFIC FLOW - • Airlake as a place to work ¦ _ ~j... .J Reinforce Lakeville residents working here (match residents to jobs) INCREASE AWARENESS OF INDUSTRIAL BUSINESSES AND JOB OPPORTUNITIES IN LAKEVILLE = >~xf Hold community events in Airlake to generate traffrc b' residentslpoten ~ w 'r y n r seekers -Pan-O-Pro g .events, etc. - _ t. ~ 2 xr~1 ~ ~ . _ . Advertise Airla~Ce/job opportunities on Gabel t.v ` Advertise Airlake/'ob o - r ~ f ¦ 1 pportunities on billboards y r r-;.,.w_ - s,.- _ , ~ . _ PROVIDE EASY TOOL FOR JOB SEEKERS TO GET FIND POSITIONS - . Create a central. place for job openings to be listed, ie: ~ Employment'Hotline and/or web site,. , Use flyers and targeted mailings to advertise opening ~ - ¦ Use local cable channel to advertise=A~rlake/job hothne~we~aife`~ ~ Use billboards to advertise Airlake/job hotline/web site ~l _ #c . INCREASE ACESSABILITY (TRANSPORTATION) . ¦ Provide bus transportation between Lakeville and Northfield x _ PROVIDE JOINT TRAINING Y _ j ENHANCE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM EXISTING E~ 1;; . , UIPLOYEES.M ~ . r - r...nFt'J ~ 'l ¦ .Provide Spanish as`Second Languagefor current mana ers; su ,:ervisor~ : ' ¦ Market existing English as a~Second Language resources P k Raise level of professionalism and responsibilityV`(Life 8~~eade~sfiip Clashes?) 'iL .1 1 r- irk. . u s. ' ~ 4 rF ~ - ~F [mil ~,y K.r rtG w r' ~ ~ ri~ ~ . ~ S f L J ~ Ys 'y - ~ tom" J f F r T ~L 4 ~~~-lyZ ~ il ~ 1~ 1~ ~ a t~ ~H~ ~ ~ Ian .F;E ~ i 'dye,„'r - A ~sr ~ r - w.wc ~ r LAKEVILLE INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS MEETING ON LABOR FORCE AND H.R. ISSUES Thursday, January 18, 2001, 7:30 a.m. Ryt-Way Industries - 21850 Grenada Ave. (Please Print SIGN IN Name Title Com an Phone Fas E-mail „ ~ . :,ry! ~ ~ a~fe n~E- r(' ! K C'~sap., {v ~ `IOW ~ d Y~~ ~ ~T~ ~~r~ ~ P C'.~card. - ~-ir ,B~eN~a F'.T _ •~fNi~/'Tt/P . NC'_T' F ' -~,~zas c~ ~(Ce ~1- '7''3'7 Cc~ - lUty~ l~'-~vss~,~ ~~~,ash~x.c.om L(~~s A, ,l ~ , ti> (;.fit; c ~l ;c~ 4 . = ~ ~ ? ~ Vii' ~'j~"C) ~(s~~~ ' C,~ ~ f ft~~ ~ ~s~ ~ l6 ~ cG_r~ ~ /L~j~-!G'r. G/.,F~/~ ~~,~~-,f / ~ !!oc_a.~ ~y tUt Z~j~~tp;~t~J'.~L ,G? end."~~.CIJ„~< .~/IICCTC.ti- ~,~'i~~/'.l(a p~(rj°~- ~ . ~ E ~ .230 ! _ 17~} ~ _ ~-s . ~ Z ~ ~e lc~ ~-t ~ 1 C 5'-0'6 S - ~ 'S `~'GI ~.~tem Ida. ~ _ MEMORANDUM DATE: January 18, 2001 TO: Economic Development Commission FROM: Arlyn trussing, Community & Economic Development Director RE: Commercial/Industrial Park Dedication Fees The City Council at their December 15, 2000 Meeting approved new commercial/industrial park dedication fees and ordinance as recommended by the EDC and Park & Recreation Advisory Committee. Therefore, as of 1-1-01 the commercial park dedication fee is $5400/acre and industrial park dedication fee is $3200/acre. Attached is the information packet sent to the City Council and a 1-11-01 memorandum from Ann Flad regarding historical changes to the park dedication fees. Subsequent to the approval of the new fees, there has been communication with Airlake Development and their attorney. They met at a City Council Work Session in an attempt to negotiate a lower Park Dedication (using he old fee structure) fee based on a limited value versus the assessors .market value. The assessors market value represented a $159,020 Park Dedication Fee and Airlake Development offered a Park Dedication Fee df $11?,105, or a lo.~.er fee by $41, 915.00. /pb Attachments EDCmemoPa~kDedFees::1 /18/01 • O CITY OF LAKEVILLE .x COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 8, 2001 Mayor Johnson called the meeting too at 5:15 PM in the City Hall Administrative Conference Room. Present were: Mayor Johnson, Council Members Mulvihill, Ri nick and Bellows; Robert Erickson, City Administrator; John Hennen, Assistan .e City Administrator; Dennis Feller, Finance Director; Steve Michaud, Parks & Recreation Director;. Jeff Larson, Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee Chair; Roger Knutson, City Attorney.. ITEM NO. 1. DISCUSS PARK DEDICATION -FEE PAYMENT FOR AIRLAKE INDUSTRIAL PARK. City Attorney Roger Knutson stated the City Council, on December 18, 2000, adopted an ordinance amending Section 10-4-8(J) of the City Code, the subdivision ordinance, relating to park dedication fees for plats submitted after December 31, 2000. Mr. Knutson also reviewed a letter dated December 22, 2000, from Attorney Christopher J. Distzen from the law farm of Larkin, Hoffman, Daly and Lindgren representing Airlake Development Inc. Airlake Development _ Inc. is requesting City Council consideration of payment of park dedication fees for certain parcels which are not currently in the process of being platted Mr. Knutson stated the City Council is not required to accept the prepayment. Mr. .Knutson also reviewed a letter from Christopher Dietzen dated January 8, 2001 (received by fax at 3:47. PM, January 8, 2001). Airlake Development Inc. requested the prepayment should be based on taxable (limited) market value rather than the estimated market value. City Attorney Knutson recommended that the City Council not accept the Airlake Development prepayments for- the park dedication fees. At this time, Patrick O. Regan, Vice President of Airlake Development and Christopher Dietzen presented their request that the City Council accept prepayment of the park dedication fees based on taxable (limited) market value rather than estimated market value. Mr. Dietzen reviewed in detail his memo dated January 8, 2001. Mr. Regan stated that Airlake Development Inc. cannot compete with the neighboring cities of Rosemount,. Savage and Farmington which are selling industrial property for as little as one dollar. Mr. Roger Knutson stated that the establishment of the park dedication fee policy is solely at the. City Council's discretion. Since there are no Airlake Development plats before the City Council, it is the City Council's prerogative to acceptor reject Airlake Developments proposed prepayment. Mr. Knutson also expressed concern that the letter dated January 8 from Mr. Dietzen states, "In so tendering, i Airlake reserved the right to contest the amount of the fees." Mr. Dietzen stated that he was operating in good faith by presenting the checks to the City Council to resolve the .issue of prepaying the park dedication fees based on the taxable market value rather than the estimated market value. Mr. Roger Knutson stated that Minnesota statutes are very clear regarding the definition of market value. If the City Council takes no action, the checks will be .returned to the Regans. At this point Mr. Regan and Mr. Dietzen left the meeting. Mr. Erickson stated that the Econom+c Development Commission and the Parks & Recreation Committee were both in favor of City Council approval on December 18, 2000, of ordinance section 10-4-8(J) relating to the park dedication fees. He stated that most of the industrial developments in the neighboring cities of Savage, Farmington and Rosemount are competitively .priced even though certain tax increment financing projects result in land write downs. Mr. Erickson also pointed out that all industrial developments in Lakeville have paid .park dedication fees respective of whether or not they were fnar~ced with tax increment financing. Mayor Johnson stated that he was not in favor of accepting the prepayment of park dedication fees. from Airlake Development Inc. Council Member Mulvihill r stated that the City Council should not set a precedent of accepting prepayments for park dedication fees and therefore recommended returning the checks to Airlake Development Inc. Council Member Rieb stated that since there are no proposed plats pending for Airlake Development Inc. property, the park dedication prepayment should be returned to Airlake Development Inc. Council MemberLuick stated that any questions or issues regarding park dedication fees be addressed at the time Airlake Development Inc. submits the plat application and therefore would not recommend accepting any prepayment of park dedication fees at this time. M NO. 2. DISCUSS ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 60 ACRES OF .MET LITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION MAC PROPERTY. City Administrator Ro Erickson provided an overview of the Airlake Airport hanger expansion project. esult of the dual track airport process several years ago, the City of Lakeville pro to accept increased air traffic due to smaller planes utilizing the reliever airports. Erickson stated that MAC prefers to connect the airport hangers to municipa er and sanitary sewer systems rather than utilizing on-site sanitary sewer syste n order to be able to control and maintain its -water and sanitary sewer system, the hould not extend the utility lines beyond its: boundaries. Mr. Erickson stated that t 2 Larkin Hoffman 01/08/2001 3:47 PAGE 2/4 RightFAX '0""'"q"M"' LARKIN H oEaaoN.ra,EOEU , OFFMAN, DALY ~ LIND4REN, LTD.. Jv+oaEw?naaa EOWAaD J. aUa00U FA~dCKW. NaiaUNa oENE N wud ATTORNEYS A T LAW aEn~EE J~JxaoN wiLLUwo.7NwW7oN JOHN 0. RILL~a /aM1KlNAMK/ OaaIaTOMdK.WWa alMtbaS MDOEtL - - DDVOUVa M. MMUa a;aun~on;EaJ. aETZd iS00 WELL9 FARaO PLAL1 Ji~N M. NEYEN lNOAN. /Ii1Q IIEMEN J. KAYMIaRi ^'a"a'. a7ouN+N 7800 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH TN~ ~ua~+Daa MOIJKiI°. JJICRNAN NWtNAA WNILOREN J°"He.aua aLOOMINGTON,MINNESOTA bb431~7184 Jowl~.KlOa JON S. B+AEpk4WR; A'YM 8. WNTA' p, J~ TELEPHONE (972) 63S~3E00 naowAJ, vuE7oraA 7000 u NIEEW W JA?laa M. NJaaO QNVLLD 1. qqI FAX (9.12) E98J333 oau[. J. suIINTINE JOHN a. lUN000497 10/NA MACK JEFiaEr 0. Ci1Ntl OArlENOUw' DONNA OOTTN! • aFJW a RELLr rwl e. rwNKEn J ~w;i. ~ nrD JYJN KADOW IWTNUNM. ?100T7eNaANPN JONATNIW J. N7aEl NIOI;AEL a. ~Ew;DN YMRR OIWaIpaNEJ1EON 0aED0ar E a0a1TA0 oMrA vrw aen • NEJIL J. NJWa;ETT nMOnn J. KFANE 7AMAMONeKi MOKNJWD A6JN M. JWDlaiON JA1Ea A. M00aEEV7, is JarNAElw. eoNUEr tMOMAiA ouM?' aoNN a. KaE1V TODOA 7CROa 7NUl7q t. NalpP O;a;aTOPNd J. OHKE '.i~arA aE+WEKE aONVE M. aBYaaV aa;aron;Ea<J. NaawatNU JEaEMr C. mEK KEwDa J. oNUOOa aaueEJ. Dououa ooeouNS0. wuuw c cram;, Ja. Jwo v. uaan JONN a. Illl rETEaJ. aovtF JA°Kr. Dur 0. KENNETf wooaey IAaaY 0.0.dEN Yfi~i ~6~ ~ JONNJ, a1EFFENiMOd MO?IAeLJ. aMRN KaOADMRTEDIti VIA600NiM January 8, 2001 Mr. Robert Erickson City Administrator City of Lakeville 20195 Holyoke Avenue Lakeville, Minnesota 55044-8339 Re: Park Dedication Fees - Jaiirlake Development Our File 26,080-00 Dear Bob: We represent Airlake Development, Inc. (Airlake) in connection with increased park dedication fees proposed for the Airlake Industrial Park in Lakeville. Airlake has recently tendered amounts for these fees. In so tendering, Airlake reserved the right to contest the amount of the fees. The fees are calculated based on market value, but the County Assessor provides two valuations figures: "taxable market value" (Taxable value) and "estimated market value" (Estimated Value). Two of Airlake's properties have a Taxable Value significantly lower than Estimated Value. We write to request that the City calculate Airlake's fees on the Taxable Value rather than the Estimated Value. Three reasons support this conclusion. Firstly, Lakeville's ordinance requires park dedication fees calculated on the "current market value of unimproved land as determined by the County Assessor." City Code 10-4-8(J). The City Code does not specify whether "current market value" refers to Taxable Value or Estimated Value. State law provides that "market value" is the same as Taxable Value: .TAN-AR-7G1G1 tS:~.7 I orb;.. u..st,.,~.. GZV o ra^~ Larkin Hoffman 01/08/2001.3:47 PAGE 3/4 RightFAX LAxlclrt, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGRFN, LTD. Mr. Robert Erickson January 8, 2001 Page 2 Market Value Definition, For the purpo~ of determining any property tax levy limitation .....any net debt limit ...any limit on the issuance of bonds, certificates of indebtedness, or capital notes ...any qualification to receive state aid or any state aid amount based on market value, the terms "market value,." "taxable market value," and market valuation," ...mean the total taxable market value of property Unless otherwise provided, "market value," "taxable market value," and "market valuation"-refer to the taxable market value for the previous assessment year. Minn. Stat. § 273.03 2. We find no similar support in Minnesota statutes for the use of "estimated market value" as "market value." We believe it is advisable for the City to follow state law in resolving questions left open by the City Code. Secondly, using Taxable Value is the most rea~nable approach. Property taxes are based upon Taxable Value, not Estimated Value. The Estimated Value calculation has no legal implication, since no property obligation is based on it. Taxable Value is therefore the crucial calculation; Estimated Value fluctuations do not result in changing property obligations, and are therefore less important. Thera is no reasonable. basis for the City to use Estimated Value when the County Assessor uses Taxable Value. Thirdly, rules of legal construction also support using taxable market value rather than estimated marlaet value. The ordinance language "current marlaet value" creates ambiguity; ambiguity must be construed against the drafter of the document, since that drafter has the opportunity to protect itself. Current Tech. Concerts. Inc. v. Irie Enters Inc,, 530 N.W.2d 539, 543 (Minn.l995); NLrso y. Mankato Clinic Ltd., 153 N.W.2d 281, 289 (1967); Sterling Carital Advisors Inc y Herzog, 575 N.W.2d 121, (Minn.App. 1998). The City is the drafter ofthe City Code; ambiguity created by using "current market value" must be resolved against the City, i.e. by using the lower Taxable Value. Regardless of who drafted the City Code, Minnesota law dictates thaf ambiguity mustbe resolved strictly against the Ciiy and in favor of the grcperty owner. Frank's Nursery Sales rrc v City ofRoseyille 295 N.W.Zd 604, 608-09 (Minn.1980); Medical Servs.. Inc v Cit o Savage 487 N.W.2d 263, 266 (Minn,App.1992}. Using Estimated Value would place a higher burden on property owners, conflicting with this rule of statutory construction, Minnesota law also provides that ordinances be construed in lightofthe underlying policy goals. I~.; ~urerAmerica Inc y i y of Little Canada 539 N.W.Zd 264 (Minn.App, 1995). The underlying goal ofpark dedication policy is to balance the City's need for amenities with the impacts of development. Park dedications are based on a recognition that certain land uses create a need for public amenities. State and local tax policies, however, declare that certain uses provide a public benefit to be protected; these uses are commonly sheltered from some taxes. These tax policies are the basis for the Taxable Value. City policies must recognize these public benefits; it is contradictory to declare the same use simultaneously beneficial and detrimental to the public. JAN-08-?0Gt1 75:.''i7 I ar•4 tr I.d..tti..~n Gov n n~ Larkin Hoffman 01/08/2001 3:47 PAGE 4/4 RightFAX LARICIAI, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. Robert Erickson January 8, 2001 Page 3 For the reasons set forth above, the City must use taxable market value in calculating park dedications. and refund the excess monies paid by Airlake. Sincerely, !s/Christopher J. Dietaen Christopher J. Dietaen, for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.. ^ODMA~PCDOCSU~1~b4337011 701J_AA_'~01A1 1SOC'1 i __i.:~ ~~_r~_._._ - CAMPBELL KNLJTSON .Professional Assoc' cation. Attorneys at Law Thomas CampEell (6S 1~ ~}S ~-St~00 Fo;er Vii. Knutson :~ndrea ~1cDvwell Peehler Thomas fit. Scott Fax ~6S 1) ~}S2-SSSO .Ltatthew K. 6rokl* Elliva B. Knetsch Jahn F. Kelly Joel J. Jamnik Matthew J. Foli Direct Dist: (6St)134-61IS ~~farguerite ht. tifcCarron E-maitAddress: rknutso~k-law.com Gina L1. Brandt •.4(w iicrosrd in x'ixansin December 21, 2000 Christopher J. Dietzen Attorney at Law Larkin, Hoffman, Daly 8~ Lindgren, Ltd. 1500 Wells Fargo Plaza 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Bloomington, MN 55431-1 194. RE: AIRLAKE INDUSTRIAL PARK, LAKEVILLE, MN Dear Chris: Your letter of December 18, 2000 was distributed to the City Council. The City is well aware of Dolan and the constitution. The City's ordinance was drafted in conformance with both statutory and constitutional requirements. The amending ordinance did not increase a "park dedication fee." The purpose of the fee is set forth in Section 10-4-8 of the City Code: .-Is a condition of subdivision approval, subdividers shall dedicate a portion of any proposed subdivision for conservation purposes or for public use as parks, recreational facilities as defined and outlined in Minnesota Statutes Section X171.191, playgrounds, trails, wetdands, or open space; provided that the City may choose to accept an equivalent amount in cash for part or all of the portion required to be dedicated based on the fair-market value of the land at the time offinal approval. If your client does not believe that the presumptive fees set forth in the City Code are lawful as applied to your client's property, the City Code has a procedure for addressing the claim: The dedication requirements are presumptively appropriate. A subdivider may request a deviation from the presumptive requirements based upon the anticipated impact of that particular subdivision. The request must be made before ftnal subdivision approval by the City. Section 10-4-8(h17. Suite 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN SSlll Christopher J. Dietzen Attomey at Law - December 21, 2ppp Page 2 Follo~f~ing receipt of your letter, the City Council adopted the enclosed ordinance. Regards, ~"AM BP ELL K TSON Professional sociation t BY: . _ er N. Knutson RNKsrn Lakeville City Attorney Enclosure cc: Mayor and Councitmembers Robert Erickson, City Administrator Arlyn Grossing, Community & Economic Development Director Gerald S. Michcud, Parks and Recreation Director ORDINANCE NO. 681 CITY OF LAKEVILLE DAKOTA, COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1D OF THE L~YII.~LE CITY CODE, THE SYJBDIVYSION ORDINANCE TIC CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEVILLE, IViINNESOTA ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 10-4-8~.>) of the Lakeville City Code is amended to read follows: ~ Ia lieu of land dedication the City may require the following cash contn'bution: COQ 55,400 per acre Industrial $3,200 per acre Multi-family dwelling units $1,500 per dwelling tmit Single-family dwelling units $1,500 er dwellin . p g unit SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED this 18~' day of December, 2000, by the City Council of the Ci of Lakeville, Minnesota.. ty CITY OF LAKEVILLE BY: ATTEST: Duane R. Zaun, Ma harleue Friedges, City C Memorandum To: -Bob Erickson, City Administrator CC: ~yn Grussing, Community & Economic Development Director Steve Michaud, Parks & Recreation Director From: Ann Flad, Economic Development Coordinat Date: 01/17/01 Re: Historical changes to Lakeville's Pazk Dedication Fees I have reviewed the minutes of the Parks & Recreation Department and the Economic Development Commission from 1991-1992. I have also retrieved the changes in the Pazk Dedication ordinance. The ordinance changing the pazk dedication fee from $2,500 to 5% of the assessor's mazket value was adopted on August 26, 1991... Subsequent changes in 1992. lowered the amount.. of land considered when determining park dedication. Additionally, the August 15, 1991 Economic Development Commission minutes indicated that a change in fees "would be helpful to industrial development in the community..." The following records (attached) were reviewed to reach this determination: DOCUMENT/CONTENT DATE. ATCH., Ordinance 340 indicates that park dedication requirements for commercial or industry March 21, A plats will be based on 10% of the gross area of land being platted. 1988 In lieu of donating land, the City may accept a constant of $2,500.00 per acre { EDC Special Meeting Agenda indicates "The park dedication fee for commercial August 15, B industrial land is currently $2,500 per acre.. Staff is recommending changing this to 1991 5% of value." Packet attachments from this meeting show park dedication fees for other communitie however, no memo or staff discussion is included. Minutes of EDC Special Meeting .include motion 91.20: "Motion was made by August 15, C Emond, seconded by Matasosky to recommend approval of the changes to the pazk 1991 dedication fee requirement." Motion passed unanimously. No discussion was recorded. Parks & Recreation. Advisory Committee minutes indicate discussion about. which August 21, D market value to use in calculating new park dedication fees: fair market value or 1991 assessed value. The minutes also record motion 91.29: "Motion made by Illa, seconded by Messinger, recommend to City Council the approval of the change in the park dedication ordinance fees for commerciaUindustrial property to 5% of the assessor's marketvalue the land. It is the intent of the committee that the fees should be based on the higher formula of the 5%v of the fair market value, the assessed value, or the current market value at the time of platting." No further discussion was recorded. Ordinance No. 447 amends the commercial/industrial park dedication fee to "5% of August 26, E current market value of the unimproved land as determined by the County Assessor." 1991 Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee Minutes for four meetings in the fourth. October 7, F quarter of 1992 record discussions on changing park dedication fees: Changes 1992- discussed included language regarding the condition of lands donated, increases to December residential fees, payment for trails along subdivisions, and elimination of exemption fo 16, 1992 replatted properties. No discussion was recorded on commerciaUindustrial fees. Memo to Mayor and Council from Steve Michaud regarding a Park Dedication December G Ordinance Amendment references the 1991 change in commercial/industrial fees 17,:2000 j suggests reducing the land considered for park dedication from 10% to 5% as discusse in 1991. Ordinance 475 adopted which makes the requested changes, resulting in park December H dedication fees for commercial/industrial land as follows: 21,.1992 5% of the grass area of land being platted will pay 5% of the current market value of the unimproved land as determined by the County Assessor. G:1AFIad1ECONDEV1Misc16ob memoslPark Ded research.doc 2 a ORDIl~NCE NO. 340 CI'T'Y OF I~,KFVrr.rF OAIdJTA a7(JNI'Y, ~`II`~SO?rA AN ORDIl~INCE AI~IVDING TI'T'LE 10, f~~~AP'I'gt 4 OF Z~ TaKF:(TTT.rF CTl'Y OODE OOIJC~2NaIG CASH DONATIONS AND LAND DIDICATION RFJ~ FOR PARKS Zhe City Ccxmcil of Iaksville, Minnesota ordains: Section 1. Title 10, Chapter 4, ,Section 8, of the Lakeville City Code is amended to read as follows: ZO-4-8: PARK LAND .DEDICATION RDQUIREMEN'I5: A- As a prerequisite to plat approval, subdividers shall dedicate land for Parks, PlaYtl~'r7s, public open spaces or trails ar~/or shall make a cash contribution to the City's Park Fund as provided by this Sec,-tion. B- Larxl to be dedicated shall be reasonably a~;table for its intended use.` and shall be at a location convenient to the people to be served. Factors used in evaluating the adequacy of Proposed Park and recreation areas shall include size, shape, t~apographY, g~logY, hydrology, tree cover, access and .location. .Topography that exceeds 12~ slopes shall not receive cr~aditsunlessapproved by the City Council. C. Zhe Park and Recreation Advisory Comtaittee cha11 reownnerxi to the City Ccxmcil the land dedication and cash. ' on requirements for Proposed subdivisions. D • CbaixJes in density of plats shall be r~eviey~d by the Parks and Recre- ation CoaIInittee for ~nsideratioaz of park dedication and cash contri bution re E' When a P Park, PlaY~~, recreation area, scdrool site or other public groiaxl has been indicated in the City's official map or canpre- hensive plan and is located in whole or in part within a pressed plat it shall -be designated as such on tP~e plat arxi"shall be dedicated to the appropriate unit. If the subdivider elects not to .dedicate an area in e~aoess of the land required ~ for such P public site, the City may corLSider arn~,; r; ~ the site thrauc3h P or ration. F. Land area conveyed or dedicated to the City shall not be used in calcu- lating density requirements of the City Zoning Ordir~-u~ce aryl shall be in addition to and not in lieu of open-space re ~ for planned unit develaPtoents. G. Where private open space for Park and recreation purposes is provided in a Preyed subdivision, such. areas may be used for c~+edit, at th:e discretion of the City Camcil, .against the of dedication for park and nation purposes, provided the City Daancil finds. it is in the public interest to do so. Fi• ~e City, upon anSi~tation of the pay-t-; ailar - - require larger or lesser parcels of land to be dedicated ~t~CmaY detQ,,,,; that present or future residents ~ lesser land for wr~tld " rp 9r'~ter or P~'k arxi playgrua~d P"''TM'°~. In addition, the City ~Y .also require lots within the subdivision be held in ~crvw for future sale or develo¢nent. Zhe moneys derived frcia the sale of escrowed Iots will be used to develop or to putcha_Se par}c land in the futurL. (ord. 120, sec. 1,6-19-78) I. In residential plats where a land dedication is requited, the following fornaila will be used to determine -the p~k land dedication: DENSITY: UNITS PII2 ACRE IAND DEDICATION PE~2CEN~AGE 0 - 2.5 10$ 2.5+ - 4 4.+ - 6 13$ 6'+ - 8 15$ 8.+ - 10 17$ 10.+ 17-20~ In ~ercial or industrial plats where a land dedication is required, the following formula will be used to determine the land dedication. P~'k 10 v of the gross area of lard being Platted. J.- Iai lieu of a park land donation the City may require the folla~ring cash donations Singie family dwelling units $550.00 Per dwelling unit Multifamily dwelling units 5550.00 Per dwellir~q unit ~ Ir~fi~strial $2, 500.00 per acre In .lieu of a tra; i lam donation, the City may req~re the followir~q cash donation for the ccxnprehensive multipurpose pede~,ian trail system- For each dwelling unit 5150.00 ~e pity may elect to receive a ocmbination of cash, land and c3ev+~lop- meat of the. land for park use. ~e fair of the land the City wants and the value of the developne~rtt of the land shall be calcu- lated. Zhat aar.~uit shall be frun the cash ztion requited by subsection J above. ZY~e remainder shall be the cash contri- bution L- "Fair. market value" shall be ~a+~~ as of the time of f~t;m the Preliminary plat in accordance with the follow•ixxg: 1• Zhe City and the developer may agree as to the ~;r ~t val,ue, or 2. Zhe fair market value may be based upon a currnnt appraisal submit- ted to the City by the subdivider at the subdivider's expense,. aPPzaisal shall be made by appraisers whD are appY~ m~bets of the. SREA or MAI, or equivalent real estate appraisal societies. - 3. If the City disputes such appraisal the City may, at the subdivic~- er~s an appra;_~i of the property by a qualified real which a~raica~ ~t,at~ be elusive evidence of the fair market value of the land. (Ord. 157, sec. 1, 2-19-80) M. Planned develo~ents with mixed land uses shall make cash and/or land oantributions in accordance with this Section based upon the percentage of land devoted to the various uses. (Ord. 120, sec. 1,6-19-78). N• Park cash .contributions are to be calcul.ated'at the time of final plat approval. the may moire the Payment at the time of final plat approval or at a later time under terms aqx~ ~n in the develop- went agreement. Delayed Payment shall include interest at a rate set by the city. (ord. 220, sec. 1, 2-7-83) D. Cash contributions shall be deposited in the City's park and recreation fund and shall only be used for Park Planning, a~,;~ition opment. P. Wetlands, pcmdinq areas and drainage ways avicepted by the City shall not be considered in the park. lan3 and/or c~~h contribution to the City. (Ord. 120, sec. 1,6-19-78) Q • ~ro'P~tY wing r~latted with the same rnm~ber of lots shall be exempt from .all Park land dedication If the rnnnber of lots is irx~-aced or if land outside the previaLSly r+econ~i~ed plat is added, then the P~ .land dedication shall be based on the additional.. land beitx~ added to the plat. If the ac3d.itional land does not ct~eate additional .lots, then each one-thinl (1/3j acre added shall be considered a new lot for puiposes of calculati*~g the dedication rern,i~~T,+-~, (0~. 224, sec. 1, 3-21-83) Section 2 . Z~11S prrl i nanr~c? cha l l be effeCt].ve i nmu.~ i a~lY ~ j~~ passage and publication. Adopted by the Lakeville City Ca~uzci.l Chic 21st day of March 1988. QTY OF r AKF(TTT T F . ,1 61QvY j, l ~ t ~ % ~ I . < - / .~,..r f Patrick E. MaGazvey, City Cl CITY. OF LAKEVILLE . - AGENDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 15,1991 7:00 P.M. CONFERENCE ROOM A, CITY HALL 1. Call to order. 2. Roll ca11 of members. 3. Approval of the minutes of the June 25, 1991 EDC meeting. 4. Review tax increment financing application for Apothecary Products, Inc. (Terry Noble will be present to review the proposed project).. 5. Review and recommend park dedication fee changes. (The. park dedication fee for commercial/industrial land is currently $2,500 per acre. Staff is recommending changing this to S% of value. 6. New business.. T. Adjourn. c, - - _ • APPENDIX f3-SUDfI[YISIUN5 Sr 1)Lvl2 °o Q g 131.21 AI'PLI; VALLEY CAUL to rho city. Such payment alnull bo bused upon a formula established by tho city cautncil in effaet at the lima of ~ (i) The city aliall require pArlt er -public tlutcl declicatiun lpproval of rho final plat, in commercial, industrial or other nontesidoutiul sub, DoaicAtion crcclits for conatrlnction, Dedication credit shall ~ divid'ona whom clec+med necosaary to fulfill a daniott- not be ranted for the constlruction of recroatfonal facilt- strutted nand. In thoeo lnetancoa whora the city council b ~ deems it fa in the public intoroyt to rt)elufro purls docli• tics unloss a specific agreamotnt grunting credit is approvod ~ eatiorns flora such subdivisions, it iuuy roquiro dodfca- . by tlio city council. ~ Lion ®f alt amount of land oqual in valuo to Civo (13) (~i) Dedication of podding areos. ~ porccmt of tho t~ndevelopod land proposod to >JO aubdi- - ~ vided. Said dadicntod lands shall bo rosorvad far pub- (i) Ponding uroas, noedad ~iFi n part Of' the overall city ~ • lie ~ti+o i1e pal•Ice, bus slaps, playgrouade,'public opon storm dra~na6o plan, ~~ull be doclicated as land or apaco, or any cpmliinutlon thoroof. oasomant nl. the option of lira city and ns aeeoptad by ~ (fi) • Aa an altornativo, rho ally may roqufre tlto subdivfclor tlio city. I-Iowovor, no cr_odit shall bo given for parlc ~ to contributo un amount in cash. oquivalont to lha dedication unless acid ar•au tnaot); the oriloria for pub- a vulut~ of rho land rCquirod to bo dodlcatod by this lie parka na stated in rho city's pant dodication rosolu- ~ soction. Cash donations shall bo used only for rho uc• lion anti is approval by tlio ofty ccuacil, Said dodion• ~ ryuiaifon or doveloprnont of land Ii~r parltK or plnyl;munde. tfon of land or oaaomont: shall bo in a form approvod ~ (7) Timing o(' pnrlc doclicution. If a new cubcliviaiun is desl~nod ' by rho city council, ' {ii) Owners or aubdividors s1~u11 bo roryuirocl, us a prorcn• ~ to bo plai~lod into morn than. alas udclition, all .purls" and' ufsito to approval of a phat or subdiviafon, to dodicato, other public use lands contompluled under this section ill as Innd or ousc~tnont for p onclinl;, u minimtun of five (G) tho total aubctivision 'area, oxcopt ~struota, alloys or ciaao• percont of file urea to ba platted or subdivided. In tho meats other than thorn loading clfroctly to auc:h sites, Bliull ulternativo, the city counuil may requiro u aaslt dons- bo dodicatod by rho tuna of Approval of rho final plat far Lion for use in ncquisltiwn of podding Amos, Such pay, tho first uddition unloss othorwiso approvod by the city meat shall be lased upoly a formula established by the ~ council, All other lands contomplutod to bo dodicated under city counail fn affect at the time of upprnvul of tho m , tlifs subdivision shsali to cledicutod by tho limo of linal plot rnul plat. ~ approval by rho oiEy council.... (G) Land in excess of dedicatiart rnquieomonEs. Whara land N (8) Cnl~ditielt of arose to le dodicuted, Areas to bu dodicated proposod for. public uao oxca~ods rho pereontago normally m for public pm•!e, trail, or paneling shall bo brought to a roqufred by thQ city and file aubd[vidcr •lvill not dadfcate ~uftable condition by rho aubdfvidarprior to ucceptttnco by tho city, !~11 dead trues, trash, unlc, umvantod structures rho additional Amount, rho catty counofl shall ltAVC~ six (G) w 1 months from rho duto of init;.ial considoration ly tiro city. or ~imilut~ undos#ralrlo oIa?ztenEx shall bo telttoved by .tho o~vnar at ~iis oxponso. Ott grades or oxposad arose which council to procood slid purchase sultl nddittonul amount, Wltero u purchase is not initiu tod within said six{$) months, are not scaddod, luwn.gl•ass seed shall be soiwl at not loss than four (4) pounds to oath ono thousand (1,U00) square the plat shall bo revised to pormit anathor use And rho ~ Cost of land area, In rho spring, the eood altall be sown procosginl; of tho p]at slulll coantiuuo• belwemt Mnrclt 1.!i and Muy 1G; ttnd in rho fall, tiro weed (Q) Land dodication; comtnercitrl, induslriul and otltiar sitUdi- ahalI be sown ltottiveott August !G and SoptetnUe? 30.'I'he visions. o seed shall consfst of n tnctximwn of ton (f0) poreont rya 5upp, No.9 LABG ° 9upp. No. 3 148{i i.~.? sic oy~ ~~u~ CITI OF B-~'ILLE y-+-+ CITF>L.~KEZ'ILLE I~10 C2 . 11-4-8 r Al systerru. wales' ponding, public lands or to contribute, an equivalent amount ( of cash, based upon the conditions outlined below. The form of .contribution (cash or sand, or any combination ofl shalt be decided by the • City Council based upon. need and conformance with approved Ciry plans. • (B) A11 monies collected from cash contributions shalt be placed in a special fund from which only those public uses, as fisted in subsection (AI of this Section may be • constructed or improved, of land for those same uses may be acquired. The City may .elect to receive a combination of cash, land and development of the land for park use. Cash contributions shat! be due prior. to the issuance of the first building permit in the subdivision. (C} Where a proposed panic, playground or other recreational areas, propp,~ • school site or other public ground that has been indicated in the official map • 2nd/or master plan is (orated in whole or in part within a praposf,d subdivision, such proposed public site shalt be designated as such and should be dedicated to the City, school district or other proper governmental unit if tfie subdivider chooses not to dedic~rte an arEa in excess of the land - required under this. Section hereof for such proposed public site, the Council shall not be required to act to approve or disapprove. the pint of the subdivision for a period of ninety (90} days after the subdivider meats ai{ the . provisions of the Subdivision Tctie in order to perrltit the Council, school board or oti,er appropriate governmental unit to consider the proposed plat and to take the necessary steps to acquire. through purchase or coctdemnation all or part of the public site proposed under the official map yr master plan. T to such cases where the deve[ er is op n~uired to dedicate land area, the City Council shad. have tfie right to determine ttte geographic location arsd configuration of said dedication. (F} Dedication Formula: The dedication .formula .for residential land shall be based vn the national standard of providing ten (70) acres of panics. and open spaces per one thousand {.1000} population_and--residential-subdivisions shalt ~ computed on the proposed number of dwelling units in a project and the average population for dwelling unit type as established by the Mevopotitan Council The dedication formula for commercial and industrial district development steal( be fiive percent (596) of the gross land area. Where the City Council .elects to take cash in lieu of Land, such contr~ution shalt be based upon land dedication requirement multiplied by the average cost .per acre by zoning d'~striet as established from time to time by the City Council_ 1 y91 Parks Dedication ]?olicy Page 4 Said cash dedication, effective January 1, 1991 shall be: Cash Equivalcnt Units per Per Residential Housing'I~ne Average Market Value l(?O Population Unit Single Family $16,40Q per acre 2K $7(1(1' Duplex $18,112 per acre 35 621 TownhouseiQuad 521,735 per acre 47 553 Apts/~fultiple $24,2Q5 per acre 52. 559 Cush dedication shall be determined/computed at ilie rate in effect at the time of final plat. 5. INDUSTRTAI~COMI~+iERCtAL D1;DICATI4N RE [JIRI;MFN'i5 Subdividers and. developers of commercial/industrial land, including commercial/industrial portions of Planned Developments, shall be required at the time the site plan is approved and building permits. are issued to dedic2te to the City for park, playground and putslic open space purposes, ttn amount of land up to 7.5%a of the net land area within the development as determined by the City. In those cases where the City. daes not require -park or open spice within such ' develUpments, the City shall require payment of fees in lieu. of such land dedication in an amount equal to S.055 per square foot of net Iznd area, or such amount Fts determined by the City Coctncil. Cash shall be contributed at the time of approval of such -final plat or at the time. of site plan or building,, permit approval, as determined by the City. The fee dedication requirement for all commercialiindustrial Ptats which have received site plan approval prior to January 1, 1983, but have note.. been issued building Permit approval from the City, shall be in xn amount equal to $.025 Per square foot of net land which shall bee contributed at the time of building Permit approval. A credit of up to 25% of the required dedication tiiay be allowed by the City Council for on-site storm sewer, water, ponding And settling basins provided that such imprwemenis benefit identifiable park Knd recreation water resources. The City Council, upon review and tecommendatian ~f the Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission, ..may. annually review .and determine- by resolution, an adjustment. to the industrial/commerci~il fee based upon the City's estimate of the average value of undeveloped comtnercixl/industrial land in the City.. • Post•!t~ brand fax transmittal memo 7671 rofpay ? 1NUUSI'RJ.AI, ANU CO1t111'.ItC1AL 1)isDICATION ro - ~o+n ~1 G . I`RF,SENT FOIUIULA - NUKE C~~L Vr I C•~ /1 0'• i Opt. / ~ t)SU~~GfKf Photo N ~ 3 - / FAY N Fa: ~ J rAOrosEn FORrtULn - y~ - / a 3 _ 3 A. ~.L,,OP TOTAL LAND VALUE BASED UrON $22,000.00 rF,R ACRE ($.sa sQ. >:r.) ' D. .Sx OF TOTAL AMOUNT LISTED ON DUD.UING rEAM1T l)t:UICATION TO IIti tinDE AT TINF, OF FJATTING TsXAHPLP, rt 0 ACRES . A. .05 x lto (nasrs) x $z2,ooo.oo (1.11N1t vnl.~lr;) ^ $~~~t,ootl.aU c:ASu NO la1:UICATION MADE AT TIRE OP PLAT'TINC OF' I'ROrERTY rXANPLC - 1 CONSTRUCT BUILAINC FOR "DURGF:R DT:J,UX" IIUk.LUINC TO DE rUT ON I ACRE f~F LAND ($22,000.00 rER ACRE) $ 125,000.00 JSUII.AINC rF1t?iIT AMOUNT A. .45 (5X) X 1 (NUAtl3I•'.R OF ACRES) X $22,000.00.(LAND VAf,Uti)^ $1,100.00 CASii D. .005. (.SX} X $125,000.00 (DUILUJ:NG PERMIT Al•tOUNT) ~ $ 625.00 CAS1t C. SINCE PORHUI.A A itAS IiICI1ER ?1NN FORMtJl,A D T1tS AMOUNT. DUF FOR nEDICA?ION IS $1,1.00.00. +t ~t: EXAHCI.,E - 2 CONSTRUCT DUILDINC FOR "JEXF,L AP,rART71P.N'T STORK" JIUILDINC TO DE PUT ON 1 ACRE OF IhND ($22,000.00 rF,R ACRE) $~i50,000.06 DUTLDING PERM.LT AMOUNT A. .05 (SX) X 1 {NUCtnER OF ACRES) X $22,000.00 (LAND VALUE)-$i,i00.0U CA51t 13..005. (.5z) x $~~so,ooo.oo (OUILDINC rr.R1~tIT AMOUNT)$2,250.00 cnslt C. SJ.NCE FORTNIJ! D IS 11IGttP.Ft TiIAN FORMU1Jl A TtIF, AMOUtTT OP TILT; I)Ft)ICATJON IS $2,250.00. . UPt)Jt:ATJON Fi:fS ARF, pUF, AT THP. T1HF OP I'IATTING OR AT TiIF. Y1MB TtIR RUJGttJNC rrRMIT IS FA7t) FOR AN11 Ri'CFIVP,h. PARK DEDICATION FEES: OONIl~RCTAT, / INIXJSTRIAL ~ - AL~UST 9, 1991 C I T Y PRESENT DEDICATION AMOUN'T'. PROPOSED DEDICATION AMOUNT' APPIE An amount of land equal in value to 50 of the undeveloped land proposed to be subdivided; OR an amount in ca.~ equivalent to the value of the land. $J~NS~TTTTR Dedication Formula: Five percent (5%) of the gross land area. Where the City Council elects to take cash in lieu of land, such. contribution shall. be based upon land dedication requirement multiplied by the average cost per acre by zoning district as established. from time to time by the City Council. $.055 per square foot of net land area, or such amount determined by the City Council TRAITS: $854.00 per acre . (SEE ATTACEIED L)OCtI!'~I') ROSEr7Ot]t~r None Whichever is higher: A. Five percent of land value based on $22,000 per acre ($.50 per sq. ft.).; OR B. .50 of total amount listed on building permit. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 15, 1991 The Commission then took. a recess and reconvened to discuss the park dedication fee changes as proposed by staff. The Commission reviewed the . fairness of the current policy of $2,500 per acre for park dedication fees. Staff is recommended a change to 5% of value for all commercial/industrial land in the City. The Commission was supportive of this change and indicated that it would be helpful to industrial development in the community as well as be more competitive with the neighboring communities. The Commission further recommended that Performance Computer, Inc. receive a partial refund for park dedication fees they paid for their plat on June 3, 1991 to encourage further expansion. 91.20 Motion was made, by Emond, seconded by Matasosky to recommend approval of the changes to the park dedication fee requirements. Motion passed unanimously Meeting adjourned 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: .Michael Sobota, Recording Secretary ATTEST: Randy Berg, Chairman _ _„F, Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee minutes August 21, 1991 Page -4- Staff will keep committee informed of the. project's progress. Lulf suggested another article be put in Messages concerning funding for. the Casperson project. ITEM 14. Under .unfinished business, Messinger asked if the park policy plan had ever been approved by City Council. The document had been taken off an agenda previously but will be put on an agenda again soon. Staff is also updating the park facilities section of the Park. and Open Space System Plan. Bids for the LakeVillage playground equipment are due on August 28, 1991. A check has. been received from the Johnson's for purchase of the equipment. They will take care-of installation themselves. ITEM 15. A change in the commercial/industrial portion of the park dedication requirements was discussed by committee. Some confusion existed about the wording in the ordinance on whether the 5$ would..be based on 'the assessed value or the fair market value. Some communities have established values for property within certain city zones, eliminating any controversies over' property values. 91.29 Motion was made by Illa, seconded by Messinger, to recommend to City Council the approval of the change in the park dedication ordinance fees for commercial/industrial property to 50 of assessor's market value of land. It is the intent of the committee that the fees should be based on the higher formula of 5% of the. fair market value, the assessed value or the current market value at the time of platting. Committee discussed the Stonebriar plat and the property abutting Goose Lake. There are many wetlands and environmental issues associated with the plat. The committee had previously seen the property as part of the Lynwood plat. Both developers are working with the City to design a plan which is in the best interest of the developers and the environment. The drawing of the plat shows accesses to .the potential park property abutting the lake.. A possible future trail corridor around the lake was mentioned. - It was asked by a committee member. if there could be a trade made for the cash contribution from Lynwood North 6th Addition, which had been previously recommended under Motion 91.26, for. land from the Lynwood South plat where Goose. Lake is located. Staff will ask the attorney about rescinding the motion and will also keep the committee,~informed when it goes to council. ORDINANCE NO. 447 CITY OF LAKEVILLE DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 10-4-8 (J) OF THE LAKEVILLE CITY CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEVILLE ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 10-4-8 (J) of the Lakeville City Code is amended to read: In lieu of a parkland donation the City may require the following .cash donations: Single family. dwelling units - $550.00 per dwelling unit Multi-family. dwelling units - $550.00 per dwelling unit Commercial/Industrial - 5$ of current market value of the unimproved land as detenained by the County Assessor. In lieu of a trail Land donation, the City may require the following donations: For each dwelling unit - $150...00 Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its .passage and publication. ADOPTED by the Lakeville City Council this 26th day of Aul~ust , 1991... CITY OF ILLS Duane R. Zaun, or TTEST: arlene Friedges, ty Clerk r08/23/91 -Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Minutes October 7, .1992 Page -4- ITEM 9. -Review and discuss ..Royal Woods 4th Addition final plat and make park dedication recommendation to City Council. Staff informed the committee that this is the last phase of this plat and credits are owed to the developer for installation of the trail leading from Royal Woods development to Meadows Park.. 92.31 Motion was made by Larson, seconded by Lovelace, to recommend to City .Council that a cash .contribution be required for Royal Woods 4th Addition, less any credits still due to the developer, to satisfy the pa_ rk and trail dedication requirements. Motion passed. ITEM 10. - Review and discuss Crystal Lake Golf Estates 2nd Addition preliminary and final `plat and make park.. dedication requirement recommendation to City Council. The preliminary plat includes 86 townhomes and the final plat includes 20 of these townhomes. The townhome area is subject to park dedication fees. Staff discussed credits due to the developer for conveyance of Outlot D and dedication of wetland areas to the City. This credit is due to Crystal Lake Estates PUD, not the townhorr~es plat, and will be given to them at their next phase of platting.. 92.32 Motion was made by Lulf, seconded by Messin er, to recommend to Cityty Council that a cash contribution be reqquiredg for Crystal Lake Goif Estates 2nd Addition to satisfy the park dedication requirements. Motion passed. ITEM - Review ordinance establishing park dedication fees and. requirements. The current park dedication ordinance has been in effect since 1985 with no increase m fees. Committee had received copies of ordinances from other cities and had a chance to make comparisons with Lakeville, It was stated- that- even though the fees some cities charge are still lower than Lakeville, they do not have. the system needs. It was suggested that wording be included either in the park dedication ordinance or in development agreements that .land being dedicated by ordinance meet certain standards, i.e., free of debns, grading requirements, etc. Some cities also require black dirt and seeding be done on the property in specified amounts; others require benchcuts for trails .where appropriate. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee directed staff to prepare ,a .proposed ordinance, enhancing the lan_gguagge of the current narrative and raising the Parke dedication fees by $1W.00. No recommendation will be made at this time to .increase the trail dedication fees. The committee suggested the ordinance, if approved by Council, be in effect for any final plats coming in after January 1, 1993. Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Minutes October 21, 1992. Page -S- can be set. Staff stated it would be best. to wait until the roads are being built to put the trail in. Lulf suggested that "Future Trail Site signs be 'posted so potential property owners will be informed of future plans. Rest areas and observation areas will be considered, but no shelters or picnic areas will be designed into the plans. The ~roperty's name rs being considered the Goose Lake Conservation Area. ommittee felt the general concept of the park pproperty, as presented, is acceptable and concurs that the property will be a great asset to the park system... Renee Brekken has just finished a tournament reservation policy. which will be put on .the next agenda for the Parks and Recreation Committee to review. With the extreme growth, in programs and potential coaflicts in weekend tournament requests, it is necessary to have a policy. and a priority format. :ITEM 7. -Review of proposed. ordinance revisin ark d ' and requirements. g P edication fees The ordinance revisions were made with additional narrative concernin the condition of the property to be dedicated along with the increase o~ the fees by $100.00 per dwelling unit. Another area being discussed .for change is the section on exemptions being given for replats. Staff feels this portion of the ordinance has served the purpose for which it .was originally intended, .that .being to .clean u some .substandard lots in certain areas of the city.. The committee feels the ordinance should be effective on January 1, 1993 for all final plats. Staff feels .the trail dedication fees should adequately meet the system needs for some time in the future. Committee member Lovelace suggested that the trail fees also be increased possibly by $50..00 per lot. Staff didn't think that the per-foot cost of building .trails would justify an increase. at this time. This could possibly be examined again if lot sizes of R-1 and R-2 are significantly changed. ITEM 8. -Unfinished business. Committee members Larson, Illa, Raymond, G.renz and Messinger have volunteered - to work- at the I-launted Forest: Staff discussed some logistics with the committee concerning parking and traffic .controls. Volunteers were asked to be at North Park at 5:30 and to come in costume if possible. ITEM 9. -New business. Staff informed the committee that ISD #194 is planning once again. for a bond referendum for a new elementary school, possibly to be held in the spring of 1993. Committee discussed a possible park bond referendum to be held in the near future. Questions will be .directed to residents through the citizen. survey to .see what their feelings would be concerning a bond. referendum... Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Minutes .December 2, 1992 , Page -3- Staff discussed his ideas for access, parking and .possible. ballfield layout on the Quigley-Sime property.. Miscellaneous costs such as outfield fencing were also discussed. Costs and details of other potential projects on the acquisition and development list were discussed for ossible park bond referendum funding. There is a good possibility that fpelds wiIl be developed as .part of a joint school/park venture with Farmington and also as part of the proposed school site at Jacquard Avenue and County Road 64. Committee members felt that even though the economy is not good right now and even considering all the school referendums past and .future, people still want their children to be active and involved in sports and are also requesting the developpment of neighborhood parks. Committee chair .Ill. stated that he would be willing to bring the concerns of the committee t~ the City Administrator., ITEM 9. -Review final .draft of the Tournament Reservation Policy ant make recommendation to City Council. Committee had received an updated draft of the Tournament Reservatiot Policy :which .reflected the ~han~es as discussed at their last meeting. Or page 1, #1 under Application Guidelines, the number- of the new rules ant regulations resolution will be inserted pending City Council passage.. Oz page 2, further changes were suggested in pphrasin the .last sentence in #4. Number 6 should now .read, "Pathways may be usedgtemporarily by motorized vehicles for the sole purpose of transporting supplies to tournament center buildings at Aronson Park .and North Park. Cars may not remain parked around the concession: or community. center or in any No Parking zone. " 92.36 Motion was made by Larson, seconded by Grenz, to approve the Tournament Reservation Policy as amended. Motion passed. ""'~71" ITEM 10.= -Review and diseuss changes in-Park Dedication ordinance. Staff discussed the changes in content and terminolo y in the .most recent update of the park dedication ordinance xeceived~ from the attorney. Revisions. include addition. of the ' S/8 - 3/8 cost split for trail construction;. removal of the 2010 MUSA language .which now will require all subdivisions within City limits to pay park and trail fees• and finally several minor word changges to help .clarify.. the. intent of tie document. Further revisions may.. still be made by the attorney and a copy of the redrafted proposed ordinance..: will be sent to committee and put on the next agenda for a recommendation to City Council. ITEM 11. -Unfinished business. The committee received a copy of the Resolution Establishing Rules and Rental Fees for use of City ..Parks and Facilities. This resolution has been updated with an easier to read- format and more specific wording in Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Minutes - - December 16, 1992 Page -6- At this time Pat Messinger stated that there may be some merit in the LAA's proposal to purchase a 20-acre site south of Lakeville for a specialized baseball complex. Pat thought there .may be a problem of mixing youth and adults between Qui ley-Sime and Aronson Park. She also stated .there are many advantages for a single specialized athletic facility with respects to location, tournaments, etc. At this time the presenters thanked the Parks and Recreation Committee .for the opportunity to present .their state of the sport addresses. The Parks .and Recreation Committee thanked them for their efforts and time. in expressing .their needs. The committee then returned to the agenda. Item 5, at which time. staff, due to the lateness of the .hour, deferred his report to a later date. "'~~r ITEM 7. -Review of updated draft of Park Dedication Ordinance. Staff indicated that Roger Knutson. .had made several text changes., strengthening the' language in the overall document. Staff reiterated the four major changes m the document. They were .the strengthening of - 10-4-8.B, which refers to the condition of lands dedicated to the Cityty as park; the increase of park dedication fees per, dwellingg unit. from $SSD.00 to $650.00; the .addition of a requirement making developers responsible to pay 5/8 of the construction of trails along their subdivisions that are identified in the Compi*ehensive Trail Pian; and finally, the elimination of ..the .provision exempting developers from park. dedication fees on replatted properties. The committee had .few comments as they had reviewed this - several times previously. 92.38 A motion was made by Pat Messinger, seconded by Aee Raymond, to recommend City Council approve the revised park dedication ordinance. The motion passed unanimously. ITEM 8. -Discuss nominations for 1993 Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee officers. - Chairman Illa suggested that those committee members wishing to serve as an officer of the.:.. committee .please submit, ah~ir _ names.. o .Judi .at the Parks and Recreation Department` office prior ao the next packet mailing. -Those who express interest in a position will be placed on a ballot and an election will be held at our first. meeting in January. ITEM 9. -Unfinished business. Chairman Ilia, speaking for the committee, wished to thank the City. Council and the .Lakeville consulting firms responsible for the .appreciation dinner held last week. ITEM 10. -New business. There was no new business at this time. MEMO TO: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, .CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: GERALD S. MICHAUD, PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTO DATE: DECEMBER 17, 1992 SUBJECT: PARK DEDICATION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT The last review and update of the existing park dedication ordinance fees occurred in 198$. At that time minor changes were recommended including an increase in per unit costs from $SOO.OiI to $550.00. In addition,.. there were narrative changes in the text to enhance the overall document. The Parks and Recreation. Advisory Committee has reviewed the existing ordinance over .the ast several months and in conjunction with Roger .Knutson is recommending several improvements. Many of the revisions involve text editing to improve the language or to update the language. In addition to text improvements recommended by Roger Knutson, there are several ma'or amendments the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee. has recommended to the Council. SECTION 10-4-8.A.: The statement "within the 2010 Metroppolitan Service Area" has been removed. Its removal will require all platting actions, including administrative subdivisions to pay park dedication fees. Previously those areas outside the 2010 ~rban Service Area were exempt from park dedication requirements. SECTION 10-4-8.E.: The language describing property that. would be dedicated as ppark has been .enhanced to include a statement describing land which would be unacceptable. A recent example was property deeded to us by Hypomte Crossing lat that had barbed wire throughout the property. Once the pproperty was deeded to the City, we received several complaints from nei hbors about. the... barbed -wire fence. It required ~ -three days with- two _ - park personnel working in bad weather to remove the barbed wire .and the City liability. Other examples include property .that would have large piles of wood, debris, -old home foundations, dunk, .and ~ other pollutants. These would have to be cleared at the developer or owner s expense before the propertyy.. would be eligible.. to be dedicated to the City as park land. By doing tIus we reduce our liabilities and reduce the maintenance burden to our. park department.. SECTION 10-4-8.I.: In 1991 when` Council Chan ed the for commerciallindustrial plats: from $1 500 an acre to 5 %p of fair markge value, I .believe the intent was to also reduce the land dedication formula from 10% of the gross land area to 5%. Thin recommendation. reduces the .commercial/industrial land dedication requirement to the 5 % level. SECTION 10-4-8.J.: The fee for single family dwelling units and multi family dwelling units is recommended to be increased from $550.00 to Park Dedication Ordinance December 17, 1992 $650.00 per dwelling unit. This recommendation is based largely on systemwide costs which have increased substantially .over the ast five years. In a review of other municipalities, .Lakeville would rank in the upper one-third of fees charged for residential platting. Also .under this section, the language concerning trail dedication fees has been .removed and relocated to Section 10-4-8. N. SECTION 10-4-8.M.: The .past a several years we have required developers to share the cost of installing trails. adjacent their subdivisions that. were identified as MPTW's in the trail system plan. The trail construction s~lit has been S/8 by, the contractor, 3/8 by the City. The policy of the 5/8, 3/8 split, has existed in the Comprehensive Trail S stem Plan Discussions with .Bob Erickson and Roger .Knutson indicate ythis policy should be part of the Park Dedication Ordinance. For that reason we have added it to the Park Dedication Ordinance along -with putting . Section N which discusses the per unit charge for trails, in close proxiiruty to Section M, so that developers have a clear picture of their requirements concerning trail construction and trail fees. SECTION 10-4-8.P.: This section has been deleted; the provision under Section B will .allow the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee to take into consideration the value of wetlands, ponding areas, and drainways as they pertain to the park system needs.. SECTION 10-4-8.~.: ~ This section has been deleted. This provision was implemented severa years ago and basically exempted replat areas from park dedication fee requirements.. This rovision was implemented to .stimulate replathng of areas that were plattedp many years a o, such as ..the Orchard Lake area and some areas around Lake Marion. ~xamples include. Glenn Klotz's plats which did not pay park .dedication fees because they were replats of old, on inai plats, and the Marion Hills plat being developed by Mr. Fossum. ~ the past three to five ears there have been many sizable plats exempted from .paying park dedication fees. Every one of these -plats imppacts our park system.. The Parks. and: Recreations Advisory Committee 'feels very strongly that this provision should be removed from the ordinance and all platting actions should be required to pay the appropriate fees. This basically summarizes the changes associated with the revised park dedication ordinance. The Parks and Recreation Advisor Committee, at their December 16, 1992 meeting, unanimously recommendedyCouncil ap rove the changes. Staff also concurs and. recommends the changes as presentedp If Council has any .questions concerning the proposed changes, please feel free to contact me. GSM/jr . , J' ~ ?a. ~ L3~~ i _ - ORDINANCE NO . ~ D_ EC ~9~ - CITY" OF LAKEVILLE ~ - DAKOTA COUNTY MINNESOT A AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 4 OF THE LAKEVILLE CITY'CODE CONCERNING PARR AND TRAIL DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS • THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEVILLE ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 10-4-8 of the Lakeville.. City Code is amended in its entirety to ready 10-4-$ S PARK ~,~'1:`:~~t'~N$-DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS . +i1+:~r:::•iiv'iv.:Fvx .4ik:'r'.•:S:i: A. As a prerequisite to subdivision approval~ith~r-t-~i~-s-l.g~ r ~-~aa~r--S~~~ee~~ea, subdividers shall dedicate land for parks,_ playgrounds, public. open spaces, and trails and/or shall make a cash contribution to the :City's Park Fund .and Trail Fund as provided by this Section. B. Land t-e-ae dew-shall be reasonably suitable for its intended use and shall be at a location convenient to the .people to be served. Factors used in evaluating-the adequacy of proposed park and recreation areas shall include -size, shape, topography, geology, hydrology, tree cover, access, and • 6:~nf?N?:X iii!fv..;Y/Y: f:. ?C ni:::Vv.C%"}vr: ii;.. H.N:.• ^M';vC4., i.. <:r+ location ~ - ' - , -,~:...:.:..:,}.v;....:,..~,..:_..::~.:vr.::::.::~.:>rx::>:~::Y.>.~:..:.. ~tt.:;.w•....~;.~..~:..::..<. x:}~~:r~.:,..~:.~~~ ..~Yt~.~~.dea±~:..:~~~e~s.~,~ ~ras~: 4,. ~ {~~.~c~~~u.~an~~ ~ :gin }}^w?: .}Y,{^SY.?'ii..'~xt•Ji h\i.:i}'.tiu~~':' Kh;:i~}{.ji:'r4}'{ r%?-mtv:}{kv~krYY4~':iiW.l{~~~; ~Gnr.. v anrv..,.n~J9in..~`+ir:}ijJ}.:•.ri~Si: ~}.'.:•niirn m~xuvvvT:4n::32rii ~~t~:$:~*~~fi~~~:~ ?k~:~;~r"~,..:~..~~...~~~'.::.~Fege ~~y~ i.~,a~ a»eee~s :.s::f:.:.•r;s:C•:Y,•k'i£'.;.'.r::}<:r::JriS.7a>~5'. .a't,-:i..}}:'={~:'r'.`:..~{ti...:.?ti..~ck7cok~,~.ra::A'2.. y:;r.rry Syr ~ "C'~~CZr Y~•-0 L.. i.L. n, J... n.. .t 1 j a.y C. - The Park and. Recreation Advisory Committee shall. recommend to the City Council the land a-a ~ an ~'`o~ cash contribution ~ .;x:~ ,requirements for proposed subdivisions.• D. C-har~~~ in density of ~~~--shall be reviewed ~y he Parks and Recreation Committee for reconsideration.:' of park x` ~ ^a ~ ~-ands cash ~_.__e~ contribution requirements. ~y'~`~""~`°~'`4"`~``"' E. When a proposed park, playground, recreation area, Pis ?i-te;-or other public ground has been indicated in the City's official map or comprehensive flan and is located in whole or in art within a " ~ ~ y" ~ 'fi'" P proposed sa€~~xx~~, it shall be p •.t~c< :v ar:' •ai~ •?xex::~c>;:a;>h[::»'ot 'T designated as such on the lat"`and shall be _c~~:~~t-~ed to the ~~~~e~a~~ ge~ee~~--~=-t, If 'tie subdivider elects not to dedicate an area in excess of the Land required hereunder for such :proposed public site,:. the City may consider acquiring the site through purchase or condemnation. F. .Land area conveyed or dedicated to the City shall not be used in calculating density requirements of the City Zoning .1147.: r12/04/92 K. The City may elect to receive a combination of cash, land, and development of the land for park use. The fair market value of the land the City wants and the value of the development of the land shall be calculated. That amount shall be subtracted from the cash contribution required by subsection J above. The remainder shall be the cash contribution requirement.. L. "Fair Market Value" shall be determined as of the time. of filing the preliminary plat in accordance with the following: 1) The City and the developer may agree as to the fair market value, or 2) The fair market. value may be based upon a current appraisal submitted to the City by the subdivider at the subdivider's expense. The appraisal shall be made by appraisers who-are approved members of the SREA or MAI, or equivalent. real estate appraisal societies. 3) If the City disputes such appraisal the City may, at the subdivider's expense, obtain an appraisal of the property • by a qualified real estate appraiser, which appraisal shall be conclusive evidence of the fair market value of- the land.. ~~~~~rLai! q~ nv.:..:py..{.:..yx.{~•'{.~yrl.••i•K•!ffh: ~•'.":.N..;~T:::.... ~}•:~.4:X. Ky v:... ir.;C~viY.:i:{:: {.4 •?r:::,{i•:t'r$:S ij:?}: {C•Y ; Y v. ...Y . .•~1rS~;~Y~}i:~ : .:nr. t~~t sj.,~`~ a. ee~;,.des2(~na~e~ '.r{:.v hTt ,'i' .;4 }cti....{??Y {d:i' •ne ru;•~•'vAa•.: "~-::Fi3..:. lA:i::tiY_lly+.:yy:: v t~ i:`.•;:?:4ri.C,~:3?: h •~jy~... •;~u.?^+)°;'<i `tss::;{f:... ;c'~•~: ~ aY.•r•9;c::^.Y fi , ~:irutx:?r ,sr{$>` .~:r: { :.,.r>;?::,: ....:i::>;• .~'~„`~xr~;Q~yy:~~.~:`•:~ie21~~ ~y.,:'~•:;:..1e~ : =.~~..T?.;.~~Y ~M - .r{~?s. ...a - `.:....x. rn',\'t•.•}.U• .•?v......,..9 .r .,.,G`.,...:.{.:.,; : • .G,.ik •~Yv-'~'{+:iF.:?i? :'RZ'. :i§•} v 4ni~kv v... ~eQti~~}•:; ' J: j ]]}1}~.Y}i : :y4ti{'Ri LJ'.:. {n{f.~.:~X•.;i :µin •i}i{t'i:[.~v?0i~k?:i {?~j..~r}'{{~{ h ".JY.:r ..4?•.Y ''::INi}:fi':.: ix 1C~'~ .i.e'Y{'ir~~iT.i T.~~ :ry .i{ 9r r.Kr•: A:'~..::r•~~•.• r •J .A {?:t'{:.•+C~,3 :.+::;~:s?t7:•..s•yY+S::s•;:;.":;~:t•. x:G.a:?;rte}:.. a.. r•:. Y~~~.•~•`.+':.• ~:Y:.:~ r.y ...r.a.,,.>::::-..:aff..aa....t•.;•x:;2.,.eL:au::;:.?,•{.tc:;:5:.:.Msis.:'?~;?;:{;:: ,::222,:::2tit - •,.,•.~w,uv.Y.v.•......yx •w ~~'r'.'~?;(:. 'x ~:M+'~y ~icy~~tY'•'~~~.~'• • •4?'.:: ;~k>{: ,~,.•.,;:Y~.::.,... .:•Y „~.,,,,,ro, ...:::•?ix{{S:iw:..^t~::,.ti:tin;i"i;: a: {.:n.,..{;,Y.'•:•.:ir.:> ••~.::Y..'•.;:..%T:~~F.ii;,4r .ii!. .y y~'}:3a?5: a!~~ ~.P.es:' : ?3'.~,.. { , ...y... S; n.i:• . .•.tc?.{., :.;.t;..{ot~h~,¢.a: .:+.2'•.: . ?.,r.,,'•.;.t~~iti~Vtil:~:~R;?SS:y'2;:~ .:u•. Y:..<:.....-:. ~ may, . N`. :~•w~t ;C (2Q<•:a~ii`ri ~`.vwf L vTr•.~i{':::Y>: ......~•y{.~~~.; f~_?~ :+r.aai.~7•F•:L: w~~ky~y~(~?f..y.+.d•.. y. y~ y..a<{..!4, i ,Etrii2>„4N•.•`.:<....•a~•P,r.T.'~.f.~~:...3SZ:Pi.~~.uZ.~'e{~ 1;~.:1.uw,~:iw.•:~~.•.{r'`.~:'~ii~...t.. ::a: .'{iK`,'W.•w:::\{s:;•dn,'+%%;::~n~.:}:ii-}?:;r.):.;#:>:;:...:. {.:r... =:r;~:t::<:.::.:::{s:.w::..:.::>w.;?:.::~::~~:a,.~.::.:Y:<$:~ s~~~~~~.>{Y:~~~x:u.~r~dC~ ~c~~sb~x t~a~ s~~~ .?invx i.::i[::{~:: TiY+:~t{::G~f~ ..:..:•..rn::n.::nxxt•:.h~i{?x...:.t•:{•~ v:•?•}.i::{{•.`::::ii:::i::vi•3,::tfvi:%ii::ii:4...:..v. ~'vn U3~F. Planned developments with mixed land uses .shall make+.•.cash and/or land .contributions in accordance with-.this Section based upon the percentage: of land devoted to the various uses.. • Pte. Park cash contributions are to be calculated at the time of final plat approval_ The Council may require the payment at the time of final plat approval or at a Iater time under terms agreed upon in the development agreement. Delayed payment shall include interest at a rate set by the City.. . .Cash contributions shall be deposited in the City's Park and r~ Recreation Development Fund and shall only be used for park planning, acquisition, or development. ~e~--fie t-he-~I.=. ems.. r.._- }Z•-~_xa~ t i a ~@~ea-~-s6 1147 3 . r12/04/9Z ORDINANCE NO. 475 CITY OF LAKEVILLE DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 4 OF THE-LAKEOILLE CITY CODE CONCERNING PARR AND TRAIL DEDICATION REQIIIREMENTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEVILLE ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 10-4-8 of the Lakeville City Code is amended in its entirety to read: 10-4-8: PARR AND TRAIL DEDICATION REQIIIREMENTB. A. As a prerequisite to subdivision approval, subdividers shall dedicate land for parks, playgrounds, public open spaces, and trails and/or shall make a cash contribution to the City's Park. Fund and Trail Fund as provided by this Section. B. Land shall be reasonably suitable for its intended use and shall be at a location convenient'to the peaple to be served. Factors used in evaluating the adequacy of proposed park and recreation areas shall include size, shape, topography, geology, hydrology, tree cover, access, and location. Land. with dead trees, trash, junk, pollutants, and unwanted structures is not°acceptable. C. The Park and Recreation Advisory Committee shall recommend to the City Council the land and/or cash contribution requirements for proposed subdivisions. D. Any increase in density of subdivisions shall be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Committee for reconsideration of park land and/or cash-contribution requirements. E. When a proposed park, playground, recreation area, or other public ground has been indicated in the City's official map or comprehensive plan and is located in whole or in part within a proposed subdivision, it shall be designated as such on the plat and shall be conveyed to the City. If the subdivider elects not to dedicate an area in excess of .the land required- hereunder for such proposed public site, the City may consider acquiring .the site through purchase or condemnation. F. Land area conveyed or dedicated to the City shall not be used in calculating density requirements. of the City Zoning. Ordinance and shall be in addition to and not in lieu of open space. requirements for planned unit developments. G. where private: open space for park and recreation purposes is provided in a proposed subdivision, such areas. maybe used for rt2/03/92 -r credit, at the discretion of the City Council, against the land or cash dedication requirement for park .and recreation purposes, provided the City Council finds it is in the public interest to do so. H. The City, upon consideration of the particular type of development, may require larger or lesser parcels of land to be conveyed to the. City if the City determines that present or future residents would require greater or lesser land for park and playground purposes. I. In residential subdivisions where a land dedication is required, the following formula will be used to determine the park land conveyance requirements: Density• Units Pe Acre Land Dedication Percenta,_,ge 0 - 2.5 10$ 2.5 - 4 11$ 4.+ - 6 13$ 6.+ - 8 15$ 8.+ - 10 17$ 10.+ 17$-20$ ~.~.~.In commercial or industrial plats where a land dedication is required the following formula will be used to determine the park laid dedication: 5$ of the gross area .of land being platted. J. In lieu of a park land dedication the City may require the following cash contribution: • Single Family Dwelling Units $650 per dwelling unit • Multi-family Dwelling Units $650 per dwelling unit • Commercial/Industrial._ 5$_of..cur~ent-;..market value of the unimproved land as determined by the County Assessor. K. The City may elect to receive a combination of cash, land, and development. of the land for park use. The fair market value of the land the City .wants and the value of the development of the land shall be calculated. That amount shall be subtracted from the cash contribution required by subsection J above. The remainder shall be the cash contribution requirement. L. "Fair Market Value" shall be determined as of the time of filing the preliminary plat in accordance with the following: 1) The City and the developer may agree as to the fair market value, or 2 • r12l03/92 2) The fair market value .may. be based upon a current appraisal submitted to the City by the subdivider at the subdivider's expense.. The appraisal shall be made by appraisers who are approved members of the SREA or MAI, or equivalent real estate appraisal societies. 3) If the City disputes such appraisal the City may, at the subdivider's expense, obtain an appraisal of the property by a qualified real estate appraiser, which appraisal shall be conclusive evidence of the fair market value of the land. M. Subdividers of land abutting streets that have been designated in the City's Comprehensive Trail Systems Plan for .the construction of a trail shall be required to pay 5/8 of the cost of constructing the trail. N. Residential subdividers shall. pay a fee of $150.00 per residential dwelling unit for trails. This payment is required whether or not the subdivider is required to construct trails. O. Planned developments with mixed land uses shall make cash and/or land contributions in accordance with this Section based upon the percentage of .land devoted to the various uses. P. Park cash contributions are to be calculated at the time of final plat approval. The Council may require the payment at the time of final plat approval or at a later time. under terms agreed upon in the development agreement. Delayed payment shall include interest at a rate set by the City. Q. Cash contributions shall be deposited in the City's Park and Recreation Development Fund and shall only be used for park .planning, acquisition, or development. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage-and publication. _ ADOPT$D this 21st day of December ~ 1992, by the City Council of the City of Lakeville. CITY OF ILLS BY• ~ ane R. Zaun, Ma or TTES Charlene Friedges, City Clerk 1199 - 3 r12/03/92 t MEMORANDUM TO: ~Z~1YOR, CITY COUNCIL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROST: GER3LD S. l~IICHAUD, PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR ARLYIv GRUBBING, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2000 SUBJECT: APPROVE RESOLUTION AMENDING 2000 COMPREHENSIVE P ARK, TRAII. AND OPEN SPACE SYSTEM PLAN, INCORPORATING THE 1999 CORRIDOR AND GATEWAY DESIGN STUDY PLAN AND CONSIDERING t,PPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 ESTABLISHING CONIIvIERCIAL~INDUSTRIAL PARK DEDICATION FEES OF THE LAKES-'IEEE CITY CODE, THE SLBDNISION ORDINANCE The past several months, considerable attention has been given to amending the Comprehensive Park, Trail and Open Space System Plan by adding the Corridor and Gateway Design Study Plan. The Planning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee have both recommended approving the amendment. Additionally, the Economic Development Commission expressed support for this .amendment. A memo from Ron Mullenbach, Community and Economic Development, is attached providing information about the amendment to the Comprehensive Park, Trail and Open Space System Plan. As part of that amendment, a considerable amount of time was spent reviewing commercial and industrial park dedication fees. For your review please find two memos, one from Arlyn Grussing and one from myself, addressing the commerciaUindustrial park dedication fees. Both the Economic Development Commission and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee have recommended approval of the proposed increase. In summary, two actions are being recommended for consideration by the Lakeville City Council. A; Approve resolution amending 2000 Comprehensive Park, Trail and Open Space System Plan, incorporating the 1999 Corridor and Gateway Design Study Plan. B: Considering approval of an ordinance amending Title 10 (establishing commerciaUindustrial park dedication fees) of the Lakeville City Code, the Subdivision Ordinance. If City Council members have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact one of us. include sidewalks or trails and trail support .facilities (i.e. landscaping, plantings, lighting, benches, bike racks, etc.). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the .City Council of the City of Lakeville that the .2000 Park, Trail and Open Space System Plan is hereby amended, contingent upon the following: 1. Submission of the 2000 Park, Trail and Open Space System Plan. amendment to adjacent governmental units .and affected School Districts for review and comment in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 473.858. 2. Submission of the 2000 Park, Trail and Open Space System Plan amendment to ..the Metropolitan Council pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 473.864. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18`h day of December 2000 by the City Council of the City of Lakeville. CITY OF LAKEVILLE BY: Duane Zaun, Mayor ATTEST: Charlene Friedges, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ( CITY OF LAKEVLLLE _ ) I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution. No. is a true and correct copy of the resolution presented to and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lakeville at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the 18th day of December, 2000, as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession. .Charlene Friedges City Clerk (SEAL) t include sidewalks or trails and trail support facilities (i.e. landscaping, plantings, lighting, benches, bike racks, etc.). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lakeville that the 2000 Park, Trail .and Open Space System Plan is hereby amended, contingent upon the following: 1. Submission of the 2000 Park, Trail and Open Space System Plan amendment to adjacent governmental units and affected School Districts for review and comment in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 473.858. 2. Submission of the 2000 Park, Trail and Open Space System Plan amendment to the Metropolitan Council pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 473.864. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of December 2000 by the City Council of the City of Lakeville. CITY OF LAKEVILLE BY: Duane Zaun, Mayor ATTEST: Charlene Friedges, City Cierk STATE OF MINNESOTA.) ( .CITY OF LAKEVILLE ) I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. is a true and correct copy of the resolution presented to and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lakeville at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the 18th day of December, 2000, as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession. Charlene Friedges City .Clerk (SEAL) tu. ~ Item No. Memorandum Date: December 13, 2000 To: City Administrator, Mayor and City Council From:. Ron Mullenbach, Associate Planner RE: Packet Material for the December 18, 2000 City Council Meeting Agenda Item: Resolution Amending the 2000 Park, Trail and Open Space System Plan. On August 2, 1999, the Lakeville City Council adopted the 1999 Corridor and Gateway Design Study, which established design guidelines for the future enhancement of designated transportation corridors and gateways (Exhibit A). In March 2000, the Mayor,. Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Chair Jeff Larson, and the Economic Development Commission Chair Bob Vogel discussed an opportunity to finance these corridor and gateway improvements using park dedication funds. To integrate community gateways and associated amenities into the City's .park and trail system, the City must amend its 2000 Park, 'Trail and Open Space Sys#em Plan to adopt the Corridor and Gateway Design Study by reference. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission are unanimously recommending that the following language be added to Page 176 of the 2000 Park, Trail and Open Space System Plan: 9. The 1999 Corridor and Gateway Design Study is `hereby incorporated .into the. _ 2000 .Park, Trail and Open Space System Plan. The designated gateway locations within the 1999 Corridor and Gateway Design Study wil4 become an integral element of the City's .trail system. Gateway improvements will meet the design guidelines of the Corridor and Gateway Design Study, which will include sidewalks or trails and trail support facilities (i.e. landscaping, plantings, lighting, benches, bike racks, etc.).. The November 22 . Park _and...--Recreation Advisory .Committee meeting minutes and -the December 7, 2000 Planning Commission meeting minutes. are attached for your reference , (Exhibits B and C). RECOMMENDATION The Community and Economic Development .Department recommends approval of the. attached Resolution amending the 2000 Park, Trail and Open Space System Plan incorporating the community gateway design guidelines of the 1999 Corridor and Gateway Design _Study. c: Robert Erickson, City Administrator Arlyn Grossing, Community and Economic Development Director Steve Michaud, Parks and Recreation Director Roger Knutson, City Attorney _ r`. f ~ DR ~4FT CITY OF LAKEVILLE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING November 22, 2000 The meeting was called • to order in the Lakeville Council Cha s by Chairperson Larson at 6:00 PM. ITEM #2. Roll call. - Present were Committee .members H. Lovelace, L. Lu .Messinger, J. Larson, J. Berg, R. Boldus. Committee member altern , K. Manias was .unable to attend. Also present were Parks and Recre n Director Steve Michaud and ~ ~ Recording Secretary Pat Vinje. ~ x-`_ ITEM #3. Approval of Par d Recreation Advisory Committee minutes- of October 18, 2000. The minutes of the O er 18, 2000 Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee meeting were- used. There were no additions or corrections and the minutes wer pproved as printed. IT #4. Citizen comments. ~ . ITEM #5. To consider an amendment to the 2000 Comprehensive Parks and Open Space System Plan. The Lakeville Economic Development Commission is requesting the Corridor and Gateway Design Study be added to the Parks and Open Space System Plan. A gateway is defined: as a main roadway entering Lakeville. Examples include - Cedar Avenue at County Road 60, and County Road 50 between Farmington and Lakeville. A corridor and gateway design may include road designs, retaining walls (defining color and style of block), standardized landscaping, standardized signage, park benches, water fountains, and bike racks.. Funding for certain amenities may be through the park dedication fund and certain areas . maintained by the Parks and Recreation Department. Committee member P. Messinger stated. if the park dedication is included in the _ Corridor & Gateway Design .Study, it should allow the Parks and Recreation .Advisory .Committee to be involved with making responsible decisions ~a ..regarding the parks, trails and gateway projects. The Parks and Recreation - 4.- Advisory Committee have theopportunity to-make recommendations based on their vision for the system. , _ , ~ Parks and Kecreation Advisory Committee Minutes of November 22, .2000 ~ ~ ~ Page. -2- ~ T Motion was made by Messinger, seconded by Lulff to amend the Comprehensive Parks and Open Space System Plan to include the Corridor and Gateway Design Study guidelines. Motion passed. At this time, Mr. Tom Mork stepped forward to present a letter from the an family, owners of Airlake Development, Inc. Chairperson Larson accep d the letter on behalf of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee.. The committee was presented with a copy of the strategic plan for e Lakeville - Area Arts. Center. Parks and. Recreation Director Steve Micha updated ,the committee on the status of the Arts Center. Bid packages e to be opened November 28th. A special City Council work session is to b eld December 6th and bids will be awarded at the City Council meeting on cember 20th. Due to the shortage of labor in the construction industry, bids e expected to be higher than normal. Other items of interest concernin he Arts Center include working on establishing 501-C3 non-profit status, stablishing a foundation to accept donations, buy a chair campaign, polic issues, and subcommittee for fund-raising. Efforts are underway to fund ound system. The City Council and the telecommunications committee ar onsidering funding through cable franchise fees which will enable cable co ction to the Arts Center. The former rectory is complete and Jim Urie, Arts enter Coordinator is preparing to move in. Progress continues on the Hic ry Tech switching station at Ipava and 192~d Street. This rest area will i ude a shelter, park benches, public restrooms, landscaping, parking and -water fountain. It is proposed -.that Hickory Tech will construct the buildi and enter a land lease for 30 years with the City of = Lakeville. The cost to nstruct the public portion of the building is proposed to - be paid up front by ckory Tech in lieu of paying land lease... ITEM #7. N business. Parks and Re eation Director Steve Michaud read the letter delivered from the Regan fami of Airlake Development, Inc...In the letter Mr. Regan expressed his oppo ' on to the proposed increase in park. dedication fees. A copy of the letter w' be provided to Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Members. IT #8. Announcements.- T next meeting of the Parks and-Recreation Advisory Committee is scheduled r~~~ Planning Commission Meeting December 7, 2000 a`"1, ~ ~ _ Page 4 - 00.1 otion by Rieb, Second by Comer to close the public hearing at 6:15 p.m. Ay rotning, Rieb, Comer, Wulff, Bellows, Moates Nays: Commissioner Wu anted to know what happens to the existing- billboard located on the parcel Fron ' will deed to the City. Mr. Dempsey indicated that the City Attorney has stated that current billboard lease runs until 2033 .and has "grandfather" rights to remain on the erty. 00.130 Motion by Rieb, Second by Wulff to recommen e City Council approval of the proposed vacation of a portion of Kenrick Avenue r right-of-way adjacent to property located north of 210th Street (CR 70), south of th Street, and east of Interstate 35. _ Ayes: Rieb, Comer, Wulff, Bellows, Moates, Drotning Item 7: Public Hearing: Amendment to the 2000 Park, Trail and Open Space System Plan Chair. Drotning opened .the .public hearing for consideration of an Amendment to the 2000 Park, Trail and Open Space System Plan... Assistant. City Attorney. Poehler attested that the legal notice had been duly published and mailed in accordance with state statutes. - Community and Economic Development Director Arlyn Grussing presented the staff report. Mr. Grussing stated that on August 2, 1999, the City Council adopted the Corridor and Gateway Design Study, which established .design guidelines for the future enhancement of designated transportation corridors .and„ gateways within the City of Lakeville. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee is recommending that the 2000 Comprehensive Park, Trail and Open Space System Plan. be amended to incorporate the Corridor and Gateway Design Study. The community's gateway and corridor locations are closely associated with the City's trail system. Mr. Grussing stated that the gateway locations are. along major transportation corridors that are anticipated to .include sidewalks or trails. Mr. Grussing stated that to incorporate the Corridor and Gateway Design Study into _ the 2000 Park, Trail and Open Space System Plan, paragraph 9, is recommended to be added to Chapter 7, Community Trails. The added language is identified in the November 30, 2000 planning report. `y ~ M ; tG~A . , rym . , ' n Planning Commission Meeting - • ~ December 7, 2000 Pages Mr. Grussing indicated that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee reviewed the proposed amendment at their November- 22, 2000 special meeting and unanimously recommended approval: Mr. Grussing stated that the Community and Economic Development and Park and Recreation Departments recommend approval of the proposed amendment. There z~~ere no comments from the nacdience. 00.131 Motion by Bellows, Second by Moates to close the public hearing at 6:20 p.m. Ayes:. Drotning, Rieb, Corner, Wulff, Bellows, Moates Nays: 0 00.132 Motion by Bellows, Second by Moates to recommend to the City Council approval of an amendment to the 2000 Park, Trail and O en S ace S stem Plan incor oratin z r~' P P Y p g ~ the 1999 Corridor and Gateway Design Study. - Ayes: Rieb, Comer, Wulff, Bellows, Moates, Drotning. Nays: 0 it Drotning opened the public hearing for consideration of MESA III (Richard Schu -for the vacation of public drainage and utility easements located within lots 1-11, ck 6, Golden Pond First Addition and the preliminary and final plat of Golden Pond as. Assistant City Attorney Poehler attested that the legal notices had been mailed a ublished in accordance with state statutes. - Chair Drotning continued t ublc hearing for-Item 8,-MESA iI, until Mr. Schuller arrives. Item 9. Public Hearin: American Tower Corp. Chair Drotning opened the public hearing for c ideration of the application of American Tower Corp. representing AT&T Wireless ices for an amendment to Planned Unit. Development/Conditional Use Permit No. 7,14 to allow another service provider to co-locate communications equipment constructing an extension to increase the height of the existing telecommunicati tower by an additional 25 feet. The existing tower is located on Minnesota De tment 'of Transportation property at 16850 Kenrick Avenue. Assistant City Attorney ehler attested that .the legal notice had been mailed and published in accordance state statutes. - ~r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ; ~ o , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I 1 P~19o~1 i Ild ~,~r. h I aT L~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i a . ~ ~ o ',per ~ • ~ w: r ~ _ _ 1 1. ~ eta... 1 t '~Ad JY~ ~ i :f ~'l ~~ui~ ~ t xr ~ ~ ~ ~ aAd ~N4d~H ~ ~ $ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ W ^~A 4 , _ N ~ ` . 5 • • , ~ / i / s Y'.., ~ e $ K i , r#R-~R'ry~'„tea ~ ~.i ~ `~~i.*'''f~ i'-~• .~t • ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ s ~ . . 1 ~ g ~.x.:~~ .y..._ ~ ~ s F ' :T He?. ai M ~ OG V ..'r,r R,. ~.~a. c-°.~ti'~ -Y: ORDNANCE NO. CITY OF LAKEVILLE DAKOTA, COL~ITY, iV1htNESOTA x AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE LAKEVILLE CITY CODE, THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE THE CITY COL~;CIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEVILLE, iVI ~ : SOTA ORDANS: SECTION 1. Section 10-4-8(J) of the Lakeville City Code is amended to read as follows: J. In lieu of land dedication the City may require the following cash contribution: Commercial 55,400 per acre Lndustrial 53,200 per acre Multi-famih dwelling units 51,500 per dwelling unit Single-family dwelling units 51,500 per dwelling unit SECTIOr 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED this 18`h day of December, 2000, by the City Council of the City of Lakeville, Minnesota.- CITY OF LAKEVILLE BY: Duane R. Zaun, Mayor ATTEST: Charlene Friedges, City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: ~~L-~YOR, CITSc' COUNCIL, CITY ~D1~iINISTRr1TOR FROM: GERALD S. 1~IICHAUD, PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTO DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2000 SUBJECT: PARK DEDICATION FEE RECO~~IENDATION FOR COti~IERCL3L/INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES In 1992, the Economic Development Commission requested the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee consider reducing the existing commercial/industrial park dedication fee. The purpose of the request was to assist with making Lakeville more competitive and attracting new commercial and industrial businesses.. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee supported the EDC recommendation and reduced the fee from .the existing X2500 per acre to 5% of the .Dakota County- Assessor's .assessed market value. The fee has been in existence for nine years. During that time, considerable commercial/industrial development has occurred. It is anticipated that considerable new development will continue well into the future. The previous two years has seen commercial and industrial land sell for considerably more than the County Assessor has valued the property. Attachment A depicts recent sales compared to the Dakota County Assessor's assessed value for the land. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee: requested staff survey several other cities to determine how Lakeville's fees compare to other similar cities. Attachment B compares surroundingcities and. their present commercial/industrial park dedication fees. .Following the study, the committee requested that a process start to determine the steps necessary to increase the. fee to a more comparable level to cities of similar size.. During 2000, the Economic Development Commission completed the Corridor & Gateway Design Study Plan. Following the completion of the plan, the :EDC was looking for various funding sources to implement aspects of the Corridor. Gateway.. Plan. Because much of the Corridor Gateway Plan involves major transportation corridors including parkways, it was suggested the plan become an integral part of the Parks and Open Space System Plan, and that ongoing maintenance responsibilities fall within the jurisdiction of the Parks Maintenance Department. It was further suggested that increasing commercial and industrial fees beyond what the Parks and Recreation advisory Committee would normally consider could be a funding source towards implementing portions of the Corridor Gateway Plan. With this notion in mind, a subcommittee of the Economic Development Commission and the Parks and Recreation advisory Committee was formed. The committee met three times over the past several months. Utilizing the information at hand the .subcommittee began to focus on recommending an increase in the commercial/industrial park dedication fee. Towards the end of the subcommittee's work the Parks and Recreation advisory Committee unanimously recommended two changes. The first change involves eliminating the existing formula and going to a separate per acre .fee for each land classification. The committee then went on to recommend a commercial rate of X4800 per acre and a X4000 per acre fee for industrial platted property. Following that meeting, the subcommittee reconvened and recommended the commercial park dedication fee be $4800 per acre and the industrial fee be X3500 per acre. as part of the review process it was planned to meet with owners of airlake Industrial Park, and inform them of the subcom~~nittee and full committee's intentions to raise the Park Dedication fee. That meeting was held with the major property owners, the Regan Family, on November 21, 2000. as a result of that meeting, airlake _ Development Inc., submitted a letter dated November 22, 2000 expressing their opposition to increasing the park dedication fees for industrial land in Lakeville. a copy of that letter is attached for your review. The EDC reviewed the subcommittee's recommendation on 11/28/00. In addition to the surveys of adjacent communities, a rather detailed review of development fees for commercial/industrial properties was completed. There was a spirited debate about the fee culminating with a recommendation to increase the fee as follows: commercial property X5400 per acre; industrial property X3200 per acre (see attached memo). The EDC vote was unanimous except for one abstention. at their December 13, 2000 meeting Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee members reviewed their previous recommendation and, in consideration of the recommendation of the EDC, unanimously supported the EDC fee recommendation. If City Council members have any questions prior to the meeting, please feel free to contact Arlyn Grossing, Community and Economic Development Director, or myself. Subcommittee members included Gary Tushie, Bob Vogel, Jeff Larson and Pat Messinger. Airlake Park Vacant Property Sales: 1997 - 1999 Assessed Market. Value Date of Sale At time Cost per Sq. Ft~ Sale Amount of sale Market Assessed 1 22-11101-031-03 Jun-99 110,000 87,200 1.26 1.00 2 22-23500-01101 .Oct-98 695,000 344,500 1.00 ~ 0.50 3 22-11051-01101 Aug-98 .420,000. 214,000 0.98 0.50 4 22-' 1101-11 ~-04 filar-98 63,800 40,000 0.80 0.54 :i 22-11052-01:-~01 Mar-98 1,005,500 1,008,3C0 1.15 1.15 0 22-X8900-02-G1 Feb-98 435,000 129,400 1.17 G.35 7 22-X3300-01 '-?2 Oct-97 185,000 109,1 CO 0.99 0.58 22-_200-0' ~•~1 Apr-97 415,290 317,cOQ 1.25 ~°.96 9 22-11101-1~~c-~~4 Feb-97 200,000 128,2G0 1.70 1.09 ATTACHMENT A IndustriallCommercial Park Dedication Survey City Amount Per Acre 1.) Chaska 8,000 - 21,000 Champlin 7,550 Maple Grove (Commercial) 6,150 Chanhassen 6,000 Eden Prarie 5,775 Maple Grove (Industrial) 4,800 Burnsville (Commercial) 4,750 Plymouth 4,700 2.) Savage (Commercial) 4,550 Eagan 4,424 4.) Shakopee 3,880 2.) Savage (industrial) 3,150 Woodbury 3,000 6urnsville (Industria; 2,750 3.) Farmington 2,000 Apple Valley 5% of land value/acre Lakeville - 5% of Dakota county assessed market value I. Cha_'.;± ch__es t0° o of _e oresent land value being conside_ed ror cevelopme:a. Commercial lard :-_ice_ Chaska are :-esendr S?.00 to 5.00 per sq. Et. Ba_ed o.^. u-us vab~e, ~~eir Park De~?~c:nor:: e~ «-ould r--_e ber«-een S8,000 to S?1,000 per acre. Savage charges u of cre oresent land v clue being considered for development. Sarage prese :uv charges S~,»~ } : e. acre for commercial propert` and >;,151? per acre for industrial prope.~:. 3.7 Farmi.^gtor. c^arges S° she present land ~-alue being cor.:;dered Eor dec eloor.:znt. Present com:::ercia': o:operties r_-,e beRVeen $30,000 and S-X0,000 pe: scre..~t S' o o~ S~~?,000 the Par; Dedica~oa Fee wo:::~ be 53,000. Y. Shakopee preserde charg_s a Eee oES3,330 per acre for both commercial and i.^.dwtrial land. The fee is bases on a coa:.piicated Formula projecting cost to Fully develop the cities proposed parks a.Zd trails sc-stem i:.:o the future. ATTACHMENT B • Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee 1tilinutes o• f.• December 13, 2000 Page -3- ITEM #7. Review Economic Development Commission recommendation for commercial/industrial park dedication fees. Chair Larson explained that the joint subcommittee of the Parks .and Recreation Advisory Committee and the Economic Development Commission had met several times discussing the commercial/industrial park dedication fee. During. the subcommittee's review the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee recommended a fee increase of $4800 .per acre for commercial and $4000 per acre for .industrial Following that recommendation, additional research was completed by the subcommittee that included surveys of other cities, market value studies of industrial property. in Lakeville and acommercial/industrial building permit fee study. With that information, the subcommittee recommended. a fee increase of $4800 per acre for commercial and $3500 per acre for industrial . property. The full Economic Development Commission considered the subcommittee recommendation at their November 28, 2000 meeting and after review of all information the Economic Development Commission recommended to the City Council an increase in the park dedication requirement of $5400 per acre for commercial property and $3200 per acre for industrial property. In consideration of the Economic Development commission recommendation the Parks and recreation Advisory Committee concurred with the Economic Development Commission rationalization for their recommendation and unanimously supported their proposed increase. 00.28. Motion was made by Larson, seconded by Berg, based on additional information .received from the Economic Development Commission concerning .commercial/industrial park dedication fees, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Subcommittee supports the recommendation of the. Economic Development Commission and moves to amend the original recommendation and recommends for approval. to the City Council a commercial park .dedication fee of $5400 per acre and an industrial park dedication fee of $3200 per acre. Motion passed. a mee mg s edule for 2001._ The 2001 schedule for the Parks and Recreation Add mmittee was reviewed. 00.29 Motion was made by L conded by Lovelace to approve the 2001 Parks and recreatio sort' Committee schedule. Motio sed. r Memorandum To: Mayor and City Council CC: Bob Erickson, City Administrator Ann Flad, Economic Development Coordinator From: Arlyn Grossing, Community & Economic Development Director Date: 12/ 12/00 Re: Recommended Changes in Industrial and Commercial Park Dedication Fees s4. :r Economic Development Commission Chair Bob .Vogel met with Mayor Zaun, Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Chair Jeff Larson and staff in March, 2000 to discuss Park - Dedication Fees and the funding needed to implement the Corridor and Gateway Design Study. In order to maintain a competitive development fee structure while also collecting revenue to ` support Parks, Trails, Corridor and Gatewayprojects, the EDC took into consideration the following: _ 1. A Park Dedication Fee Subcommittee (corrY:ised of Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission and EDC members) reviewed information on park dedication fees charged ' in other communities in the Lakeville area. The subcommittee then recommended at their November 20`h meeting to increase the fees to $3,500/acre for industrial and $4,800 for commercial property. 2. The EDC reviewed an inventory of development fees to determine Lakeville's position in relationship to our surrounding municipal neighbors (see attached.) In comparing the fees there are many variables on building projects that make a true ranking of the fees very subjective. Lakeville appears to be near the middle overall as compared to other municipalities. 3. Additionally, a letter from Airlake Development to EDC Chair Bob Vogel requested that the park dedication fees for. industrial property remain.. at the current level: 5% of the . . assessor's market value, in order to remain more competitive than other communities. in recruiting new businesses to Airlake Park. 4. Commitment to the implementation of the Corridor and Gateway Design Study must t., continue. .i - ~.r.. ' 'd%e ` ° w _ - K„~~, 5. Fostering a cooperative relationship with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee is very important to the long-teen success of EDC efforts to implement the`Corridor and Gateway Design Study... At their November 28`h meeting, the EDC recommended the City Council increase the park dedication fees to $5,400/acre for commercial property and $3,200/acre for industrial property. These figures were determined from the chart (see attached) as follows:..: • Industrial: The EDC arrived at $3,200/acre by using the 1992 Park Dedication Fee of $2.,500 an acre and compounding it by a 3% annual increase. The resulting $3,167 was rounded to $3,200 and reflects where the fee would be today had it not been lowered in 1992 in order to assist Airlake Development. • Commercial: To arrive at $5,400, the EDC used $2.50/sq ft.as the mazket value for commercial property. The $2.50 sq/ft was multiplied by 5% to arrive at $5445/acre, , rounded to a recommended park dedication fee of $5,400 for commercial property. Note: In order to use pazk dedication fees for benches, lighting, and landscaping of Corridor and Gateway projects, the Corridor and Gateway Study must be incorporated into the Comprehensive .Park; Trail & Open .Space Plan. The Pianning Commission held a public hearing on December 7, 2000 to consider adding the Comdor and Gateway Design Study to the Comprehensive Park, Trail & Open Space Ilan. The Planning Commission is .recommending to incorporate the Corridor and GatewayPlan into the Comprehensive Park, .Trail & Open Space Plan. _ j Yt~'. ~I': 4 December, 2000,~~'" G:1AFIad1ECONDEV1City CouncillPark Ded rec.do~ _ ~~x, r - ' _ : '~u:. City of Lakeville D rift Economic Development Commission Meeting Minutes November 28, 2000, 6:00 p.m. .City Hall Administration Conference Room sky, Emond, Voge , x-Officio member Bomhauser, altema e Members Absent:. None. Staff Present: Arlyn Grossing, Community & Economic opment Director, Ann Flad, Economic Development Coordinator, Robert Ericks y Administrator. 1. Call Meeting to Order. Chair Vogel c the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. in the City Hall Administration Conference 2. Approval of October 2 00 Regular Meeting Minutes. Comm. Matasosky indi d that he would like the first sentence in item three, paragraph .five - stricken-from the m' es as he did not approve of the fees as stated. .Motion Comms. Erickson/Miller moved to approve the October 24, 200Q . . meetin mi to with the first sentence in item three, aragraph nc en rom a mm c 3. Review Park Dedication Fees Subcommittee recor~:mendation. Mr. Grossing reported that the .Park Dedication Subcommittee met on November 20, 2000 and recommended to raise park dedication fees to $3,500 for industrial properties and $4.,800 for commercial properties. EDC Comm. Toshie, a member of the subcommittee, also suggested to the Park Dedication Subcommittee that 25% of any increasedresidential-:park dedication fees be reserved for the- Corridor and Gateway projects in the future: " ` " The EDC is asked to make a recommendation regarding park dedication fees for consideration by the City Council on November 1'8, 2000. A copy of the EDC's recommendation will also be given to the Parks Advisory Committee for review at their December 13, 2000 meeting. Mr. Grossing indicated thatfie, City Administrator Erickson, and Economic Development Coordinator Flad discussed the proposed park dedication fee increase with Airlake Development, Inc. representatives Patrick Regan, Sean Regan, and Mike Regan,. along with.:, _ Stan. Palmer of Cerron Commercial Properties and Jack Matasosky of Appro Development , per the EDC's request from the. October 24, 2000 meeting. It was explained that while~park N ..dedication fees would increase, the EDGwould take into consideration a rrequest from , ,a Y,_ Airlake Development as to the level of increase that they would deem appropriate. ;_4'. 2000, Novemt~er 28 1 - r:~~: G:WFlad1ECONDEVEEDC\2000mtgs\001128 mtglmin 001128.doc . . N a of ~:~.~~~ti r@ ~ Mr. trussing handed out a letter addressed to Chair Vogel from Pat Regan on behalf of Airlake landowner Airlake Development, Inc. Comm. Matasosky added that Pat Regan ` ' regretted he was unable to be present to discuss the concerns contained in the letter. In the letter, Airlake Development, Inc. requested the park dedication fees remain at their current level. Airlake Development believes that an increase in fees would make the development of Airlake land more costly and thus less competitive with other communities. The letter also .indicated that if the fees were increased, Airlake Development, Inc. may pay the park dedication fees on all of the land they own at the current rate before any increase would take effect. - Comm.'s Tushie and Vogel, who represented the EDC on the Park Dedication Subcommittee, indicated that the following impacted their recommendation 1.)-Commitment to the Corridor and Gateway plan must not be lost once the park dedication fee is determined; and 2.) Recognition that businesses and their employees do benefit from the Park system in Lakeville, and 3.) Fostering a cooperative relationship with the Parks Advisory: Commission is very important to the longterm success of EDC efforts. Discussion ensued about Airlake's competitiveness based. on all applicable development fees. ,~,.fi and not just park dedication fees. t}' The EDC discussed whether increasing park dedication fees would benefit the .implementation of Corridor and. Gateway projects. City Administrator Erickson indicated. there is a proposed commercial project at County Road 46 and Cedar where the Corridor and - Gateway study proposed a serpentine wall as a gateway monument. While the sign itself - may not be funded by park dedication fees, it is believed that the landscaping, benches and ` _ lighting that are designed to create open space linear park amenities maybe funded in this way. A relationship must be forged with the Parks Advisory Commission in order to promote _ understandingthe Corridor and Gateway projects as open space linear park amenities. Discussion also ensued regarding the cost to fully implement the Corridor and Gateway Plana It was speculated that the cost would be $3.5-$10 million. Comm. Emond asked what other alternatives there would be to fund Corridor and Gateway projects. City Administrator Erickson responded that a bond referendum. could be held in order to obtain funds to seed Corrid©r and Gateway projects.. _ _ The EDC also discussed the benefits property owners and businesses in Airlake receive from the parks. system. Many Airlake Park businesses have softball teams that play in Lakeville leagues. In addition, much of the Parks Department's budget goes toward the trail system. One trail will ultimately run along side South Creek through Airlake Park.. City Administrator. Erickson has also suggested that Airlake Development donate outlots on which "Airlake" monument signage they have been requesting. could be located. Chair Vogei suggested that the EDC had two options regarding this issue: 1.) take no action; y~.Ep. and 2.) provide a recommendation and rationale for it. The Park Dedication Subcommittee - recommended $3,500 as a compromise between the Parks Advisory Commission's origifialfy recommended.. $4,000 and the $3,000 that was under discussion at the October 24, 2000 ~ .EDC meeting. 2000, November 28 2 1 G:WFIad1ECONDEVIEDC~2000mtgs\001128 mtglmin 001128.doc ~:a F,.~~ 4 < 1 (d' 1 3;}, , a - A chart was handed out by Mr. trussing depicting the assessor's market value per square foot for parcels in Airlake Park. The parcels with lower assessor's market values do not have improvements. The parcels with higher assessor's market values have been platted and all fees have been paid. Comm. Matasosky reiterated that raising the fees im-pacts the bottom line of developers and that he must abstain from voting as his firm is a land owner in Airlake Park. Administrator Erickson reminded the EDC that the park dedication fee was lowered in 1992 rn order to assist the financial viability of Airlake Park's development when Airlake Park was . coming out of receivership. Using the pre-1992 park dedication fee of $2,500 and increasing it 3% annually the EDC arrived at the figure of $3,167.. This is the rate the park dedication fee would be at today had it not been reduced and held steady since 1992. Y ~~~4 Comm. Tushie suggested the EDC change the recommendation for the commercial park dedication fee. Discussion ensued on what the market value for commercial property in n,# Lakeville is. It was concluded that $2.50. per square foot is the low end of the range of commercial market values. Comm. Pogatchnick suggested using the low end of the range at _ $2.50 mulitplied by 5% to arrive at a flat fee of $5445/acre for all commercial property. It was concluded that these figures would be rounded to $5,400/acre for commercial property and $3,200/acre for industrial property. , E Motion 00.36 Comms. Tushie/Brantly moved that the City Council increase ark ~ dedication fees to $5,400/acre for commercial property and $3,200/acre Y-~ for industrial property. Comm. Matasosky abstained, all ot0~ers in favor. Motion carried. Ms. Flad indicated that the Labor Force Subcommittee met on Thursday, Novem _ , 0 to discuss the Labor Force Focus Group Report. The subcommittee _revi ~e report and recommended 1.) 7o develop leadership in Airlake to implement I cs~ce recruitment strategies., 2.) To market Lakeville and Airlake Park to hei areness and recruit `r_ employees, and 3.) To support individual business's ment efforts. The subcommittee was specifically interested in continued explor of advertising Airlake Park and a job hotline on cable channels. The EDC reviewed the. subc ee's recommendations and discussed the need for businesses to take an role in implementing labor force recruitment strategies. Without ~~F the businesses' a nvolvement, it was felt that any strategy implemented would not succeed. C . Bornhauser also discussed the Chamber of Commerce's Human Resource Netwo could potentially be tapped to implement these initiatives, and Nation-Job, a C er of Hu~c b T ~r' t 2000, November 28 3 G:\AFIad1ECONDEV\EDC\2000mtgs\001128 mtg\rnirt 001128.doc ~i +a~- r,,~ w ~ j'1~•~. - ~Y 1~'.~'c~ PARK DEDICATION/INDUSTRIAL YEAR %INCREASE $ INCREASE P-D/ACRE 1992 $2,500 - 1993 3% $75 $2575 1994 3% $77 $2652 1995 3% $80 $2732 1996 3% $82 $2814 1997 3% $84 $2898 .1998 3% $87 $2985. 1999 3% - $90 $3075 - 2000 3%° $92 $3167 EDC RECOl'VIIVIENDED $3200/acre _ P A I)?ED-ICATION/COIY~!IEI~CIAL Y~- - Market Value $2.50 /sq. ft. X 5%=$5445/acre EDC RECOMMENDED. $5400/acre - { tt..J - e~~z,; _ ~~j= _ COMMERCIAL b INDUSTR14l nwcr pMENT FEES ` October 20, 2000 LAKEVILLE APPLE VALLEY BURNSVILLE FARMINGTON ROSEMOUNT SAVAGE SHAKOPEE Sewer Connection Charge Stt43/unit 5250/unit 514.84/unit 3360/unit " 51,000/unit 3739/unit 3420/unit per facture Sanitary Sewer Arca Charge 5098/acre 31,000/acre 51,799/acre 51,590/per acre $900/acre 52,339.31/acre 31,485/acre to MWCC Sac Unit 53,509.70Vacre > 51,1001unit 51,100/unit 31,10aunit 51,100/unft 51,100/unit 51,100/unit 51,100Junit Water Connection Charge 51,222lunit 3525/acre 52,161/acre 5615 to 339,406 .35,000 to SZ0,000 51,020/unit 5524/unit (3/4`. to 8" meter) (1" to 6" meter) • + Water Treatment Plant Fee=3508/•REU WaterMain Area Charge NA 31,520/acre NA 52,059/acre 33,300/acre . 51,698/acre 5790/acre tc Storm Sewer Area Charge 50.171/SF 52,547/ecre 35,130/acre 50.195/SF 50.24/SF 33,700/acre 50.159/SF to SF =Square Foot 50.077/SF 50.118/SF + •SWQM=5115/acre 50.085/SF 50.23/SF (add 50.14/SF Park Dedication Fee 52,2001acrc 52,000/acre 34,750/acre = C ~ ~ ponds ) C = Commerrlal 52,000/acre 51, t OO/acre 54,550/acrc =C 53,8801acre 596 of land 52,740/acre = t 596of land 33,150/acre =1 l = Industdai 343,560/acre 322,OOp/acre Infrastructure Responsibility Devel City Devebper Devebper Devebper Devekper Developer , (Cost assessed to 'SWQM = Surface Water Quaity Management 'REU'= Resldertda/ Equivalency Urtk ,w~~~~ ,r,.,.Y,,_ ' r~, ' kc -mow Mr. Bob Vogel, Chair ` `F Lakeville Economic Development Commission 20195 Holyoke Ave. ~ - Lakeville, MN 55044 AIRLAKE November 22, 2000 .DEVELOPMENT`; Dear Mr. Vogel: This letter is in response to recently proposed increases in Park Dedication . Fees for Industrial Land in Lakeville. We own approximately 176 unplatted acres ic1 the Airlake Industrial Park. Since we purchased the land at Airlake in.1994, we have platted six subdivisions totaling approximately 107 acres. Park Dedication-Fees on those platted parcels havebeen calculated at 5% of Assessed. Market Valuation. Micnaer o. Regan The City has used the .Estimated Madcet Valuation assessed by Dakota County in Presldenr these calculations. We pay our Real Estate taxes on the Tower Taxable Market. stis7 Keats Ave. No. Valuation assessed by Dakota County. The Park Dedication Fees we have. Stiuwater, MN ssoa2 contributed to date total approximately $97,000.00.. : ss1~7o-zso~ y~ t~=., Fax: ss~n7o-2so2 The Park Dedication Fee burden on our un tatted 176 acres is alread p y =t~.; scheduled to go up by 10% next year based on an increase in Estimated Market , , Valuation by Dakota County. The proposed increase to_$3500 per acre would Patr;ck o. Regan increase the Park Dedication Fee burden on our remaining 176 acres from vlcs President/Sares $139,000.00 to $616 000. That re resents an increase of $477,000 or 343%! 210a4 Chippendale Court ~ p Farmington, MN 55024 _ Airlake Development, Inca is opposed to any increase in Park Dedication i3su4ss-ssas Fees for the following reasons: F2x: ss1/aso-stsa 1. fn an economic climate where most market inflation indexes are`: Cen: sl2nss-z7as running around 3%, we are already faced with a 10% increase. We have simply. never paid a 343% increase in any cost of doing seas o. Regan business' in any of our business experiences. L'easurer/Sales 18~s w. Highway 3s 2. We are not aware of any direct benefit to our Airlake Industrial Roswille, MN ss11a Park land as a result of our already expended $97,000. We are s51/sas-a8ao not agreeable to any increase in fees without a fully developed Fax: ssl~sss-sass plan wherein our payments show. a direct benefit back to us. We cen: sst/so3a2so have offered in the past to deed land tq the City for Parks in Airlake, but were told they were not interested in receiving land. , Katie Regan Nath Secre:ary/t_egal Counsel zass wnite sear Avenue 3. Park Dedication Fees are- just one. of many fees imposed upon Maplewood. MN s51o9 development in Airlake by the City of Lakeville. We believe a sslnn-noo review of all those fees and a concurrent review of the City's policy towards incentives to Industrial Development is necessa"ry Home Office: 651/698-3805 ; ; Fax: sslnn-291s before we can support increasing any one particular fee. _a , . Your proposed-fee seems to be based on the listed rates for Park Dedicatron~~ Andrew D. Nath Fees in surrounding cities. We compete for business against these cities Marketing every day, and we question how many of these fees are actually paid by the :=~'w 2866 vdhite Bear Avenue µ , j,; Maplewood, MN ss~o9 end users in these cities. ' s51n77-700 ~j; Faf:651/777-3761 ~ y 'n sir -5 .r November 22, 2000 ' Page 2 I met just this morning with a potential banking client who is paying $1 to the City of Rosemount for 5 acres of industrial land in a 6-year TIF District. Yes, that's $1. Most of the Farmington Industrial Park has been sold on a TIF basis. South Saint Paul's Park is a City/ HRA redevelopment project. Burnsville is virtually sold out of industrial property. Industrial Parks in Shakopee, Savage, and Cottage-Grove are experiencing much more development than we here at Airlake. In our experience, city fees imposed on unplatted land at Airlake are a major factor in nearly every client's decision whether or not to locate in Airlake. It is never a pleasant conversation. Should the City of Lakeville decide to proceed with these fee increases without some relief on other City fees, we believe Airlake would be put at a serious competitive disadvantage against the other Industrial Parks in our , market. Airlake Development will be forced to immediately pay all of our - ~"~fi's` pending Park Dedication fees at current rates rather than assume the future: liability for a rate increase of this magnitude. Please consider our need to protect our own private investment and meet our private `obligations when comparing Airlake to other similar publicly owned facilities. Our recent . private investment in the 27 lots which comprise the Airlake Fourth Additiori~ amounts to well over $1 million. To date we have sold five lots. We like Lakeville. We value its quality of life. We believe its park and w~j:' recreation amenities are a,significant, valuable, positive factor in attract~n eo le to Lakeville. We also believe a health balance must exist between r<, Wit, *rc - Lakeville's ability to attract industrial development and residential development.. We think these increased fees;as proposed would cause ar~~- . unhealthy imbalance between those two worthy goals. Thank you for your consideration. rely yours ~ ~ t Patrick O. Regan,President • CC: Mr. Jeff Larson, Chair Parks & Recreation Commission r,: . x+~#. r • Via; - ti ;:~+r., • } - h • .i. ~s a e. . d December 11, 2000 ~ ~ Mr. Patrick O. Regan Airlake Development, Inc. ~ ~ ,u, 21044 Chippendale Court Farmington, MN 55024 Dear Mr. Regan:. ~ ' Thank you for submitting your November 22, 2000 letter regarding park dedication .fees for industrial land. The letter was received by both -the Parks. & Recreation Advisory << Committee and the Economic Development Commission. A number of issues were carefully considered in the review of the park dedication fee .structure.. A Park Dedication Fee Subcommittee (comprised of Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission and EDC members) reviewed information on park dedication fees - charged in other communities in the Lakeville area. r ,,.f The EDC also reviewed a recent survey of development-fees in order to determine ~ Lakeville's competitiveness in relationship to our surrounding municipal neighbors. ,a...: Lakeville appears to be near the middle for the. overall development fees as compared to other municipalities. Careful consideration was also given to your request to leave the park dedication fee for industrial property at its current rate: 5% of the assessor's market value. It was noted. by the EDC that park dedication fees were reduced in 1992 from $2,500 to 5% of the assessor's market value in order to assist Airlake Development after the purchase`of Airlake properties from the Resolution Trust Company.. ~.Y c<: The EDC also recognizes-the need to maintain a competitive fee structure as well as the possibility of offering incentives in order to attract quality businesses to the community. A study of incentives has been recommended by the EDC to the City , Council and is expected to begin in January, 2001. ~Y - After lengthy deliberation, the EDC, at their November 28, 2000 meeting, recommended that the City Council increase the park dedication fees to $5,400/acre for commercial ' .property and $3,200/acre for industrial property. This recommendation will be considered , :'by the City Council at the December 18, 2000 meeting. k,, ,fl, City of Lakeville ' 20195 Holyoke Avenue • Lakeville, MN 55044 • (952) y~gS-4400 • FAX 985-4499. - `fi + ~ ~ ~ ,~}f~', . 2 ~ .The park dedication fees recommended by the EDC were determined as follows: • Industrial: The EDC arrived at $3,200/acre by using the 1992 Park Dedication Fee of $2,500 an acre and compounding it by a 3% annual increase.. The resulting $3,167 was rounded to $3,200/acre and reflects where the fee would be today had it not been lowered in 1992 in order to assist Airlake Development .and other industrial land owners (see attached.) • Commercial: To arrive at $5,400, the EDC used $2.50/sq ft. as the median market value for commercial property.. The median market value of $2.50. sq./ft was multiplied t~..; by 5% to arrive at $5445, Pounded to a recommended park dedication fee of F~ $5,400/acre for commercial property (see attached.) .One of the purposes of increasing park dedication fees is to obtain funding for implementing Gateway and Corridor projects including signage, landscaping-and _ lighting that enhances the desirability of Lakeville for residents and businesses, .including Airlake Industrial Park. The EDC and City staff are dedicated to supporting business and industrial development in Lakeville while maintaining fiscal accountability. Your ongoing input on development issues, including park dedication fees, continues to ensure the .viability of industrial development in the Lakeville community. Should you, have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me at (952) 985- 4421. Sincerely . c~ .mss :.ei" c Arlyn trussing, Commu ' & Economic Development Director CC: Bob Vogel, Economic Development Commission Chair - Jeff Larson, Parks. and Recreation Advisory Committee Chair Robert Erickson, City Administrator Steve Michaud, Parks and Recreation Director Ann Flad, Economic Development Coordinator _ Jack Matasosky, Appro Development ~ Stan Palmer, Cerron Properties Mfr ..Y _ - -.,~y ir' . i+' ~ c:. ~ y Item I~~'o. Imo. MEMORANDUM j DATE: .January 18, 2001 TO: Economic Development Commission FROM: Arlyn trussing, Community & Economic Development Director RE: Letter from United States Postal Service Real Estate Specialist Enclosed is a letter received. from Stephen Muyskens of the US Postal Service indicating the only sate. being considered fora new-40,000 sq. ft. postal facility is the Heritage Commons location. It has also been stated that with. the post office construction, the Heritage Commons landowner (Mr. Bernardi) proposes to construct another retail building. /pb Attachment EDCmemoPostOffice::1 /19/01 KANSAS CITY FACILITIES SERVICE OFFICE ~R~~~ L~r~ January 5, 2001 BOB ERICKSON LAKEVILLE CITY ADMINISTRATOR 20195 HOLYOKE AVE .LAKEVILLE MN 55044-0207 Re: Proposed Postal Facility Lakeville, MN 55044-9998 Dear Mr. Erickson: In my last fetter dated August 3, 2000, I advised. that the Postal Service planned to advertise for existing buildings and sites that could serve as the new Lakeville Post Office. Based on the results of the advertisement, the enclosed list of properties was reviewed by our Site Review Committee as possible locations. This list includes properties looked at and rejected for various reasons noted. The listing of possible sites is not in any particular order. In compliance with postal regulations, any member of the community, or your office, may offer written comments on any of these properties within the next 30 days. Letters should be directed to Vice President, Facilities, and addressed to my attention at the address shown in this letter. A response will be provided within 15 days. Sincere) , Stephe G. Muyskens Real Estate Specialist, Sr. cc: Postmaster -NOTICE -Please date stamp and post in publiclobby for 30 days, then return to me. District Manager Corporate Relations Project A/E Enclosure: Map of sites 6800 W 64TH STREET STE 100 OVERUINO PARK KS 66202-4171 (913) 261-2461 FAX: (913) 261-2510 SITES CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW Site "A" located in Heritage Commons, .northeast of the intersection of Dodd Blvd.. and Hwy. 50 SITES REJECTED FROM FURTHER REVIEW Site "B" was not chosen due to its location and topography. - s ~ ~ - ~ ' Y l ' T ~ J Iii Fdr/, ~ ~r Y ~ r ' ~ ~ f 11++4 f;;,; ; t Site ~ , - ;t ,~'~%f ~ f,%'~ ~ p,~~. ` r - ~ c n ~ . f f ,f ~ ~ : r B-2, ~ l - - - ~ ~ : t t _ . ~ ~ r~ i . t- tw„~.r . , R.2 r. ~ - . F `fit. W ~ . ~ lt1D R-2 _ ~ _ N a-2 ~ L' i _ .~.z ~ _Y - - ~ ~ R , { aa~~.wtsa ..ate _ _ •f; ' { _ sus f i € ~ ~ ~ N ~ + ~ `,11.2. - i xa. ~ f r ii~i~~:L~r ~ ~ R-2 Rd *r, Zoning Map - ~ ~ j t Site _ bite loca#ion s,~ fF rr ~ li~~#"~' I f 1 ~ u,rT j {,fr x it { ~ ~7 j Item l~'©. MEMORANDUM DATE: January 18, 2001 TO: Economic Development Commission FROM: Arlyn trussing, Community & Economic Development Director RE: EDC Meeting Locations The construction activity for expansion and remodeling of City Hall will disrupt the availability of our current meeting room through April 2001.. This presents an opportuni~~r to hold EDC meetings in off-siie locations at various private business locations within Lakeville. The Staff will set up locations, but would like to get"recommendations and input from the EDC. The location must be determined in advance for proper notification to comply with the Open Meeting Law. /pb EDCmemoCHexpansion::1/18/01 item ~o.,_~O . 'MEMORANDUM , DATE: January 18, 2001 TO: Economic Development Commission FROM: Arlyn trussing, Community & Economic DevelopmAnt Director RE: High-Tech Subcommittee . The Economic Development Commission (EDC), at its meeting on September 26, 2000, decided to create aHigh-Tech Subcommittee to study opportunities for Lakeville. At the- same meeting it was determined that the Economic Development Commission Chair appoint members of the EDC to the Subcommittee._ Members of the Telecommunications Commission attended the EDC meeting and offered to contribute to the High-Tech Subcommittee. Two members nave been appointed to participate on the Subcommittee. At the September EDC meeting it was decided to convene the Subcommittee after the first of the year 2001 because of existing work loads. It is time to appoint at least two members of the EDC to the High-Tech Subcommittee. The initial meeting of this Subcommittee will be held prior to the next regular EDC meeting. Ann Flad, Economic Development Coordinator will be the primary staff person assigned to the High Tech Subcommittee. /pb Attachment ArIynEDCHightechmemo::1 /18/01 rk & Open Space Plan.. This process may allow the plan to use Park Dedication Fe venue. City Admi ' trator Erickson suggested the Sub-Committee meet with the private property own who would be impacted by a change in fee structure. Matasosky indicate at he would abstain from voting on any final recommendation, as he is both an industn roperty owner/developer and an EDC commissioner. Bornhauser suggested raising fee over several years to lessen the initial impact of the increase. Tushie suggested the EDC look at all oft development fees. of the City,. along with Burnsville, -Apple Valley, Rosemount, Shakop Savage, and Farmington to determine if the proposed increase in Park Dedi 'on Fees would still allow the City to be competitively priced for business developmen . Motion 00.22 Comms. Tushie/Pogatchnik move table any recommendation on Park Dedication until a matrix of City and surrounding.communities' develo ent fees is compiled and reviewed by the subcommittee. otion 4. Consider recommendation by Telecommunications Committee to explore development of a High-Tech Business Park and related examination of #elecommunications providers. Jeff Lueders, Cable Coordinator, and Robin Selvig and Greg Stattman. of the Telecommunications Committee were present to discuss forming a subcommittee to study the feasibility of developing aHigh-Tech Business Park. Lakeville is at the confluence of major lines connected from the east to west coast and south to Texas. Selvig, a MN Valley Transit Authority employee, indicated that trafhc on 1-35 is projected to increase. A High-Tech Business Park may increase professional employment opportunities in Lakeville, thus allowing more residents. to work in the city. Stattman indicated the City. has been approached by WOW for a Gabel and high speed communication systems franchise. The Franchise Subcommittee felt it was important to look at the long-term needs of the `city and explore other providers to determine who could provide the best products for the community, including the support for aHigh-Tech Business Park. Chair Vogel indicated. this fit within the .Economic Development Strategic Plan. Motion 00.23 Comms. Tushie/Miller moved to create a subcommittee to explore the feasibility of developing aHigh-Tech.Business Park, with EDC members to be appointed by the Chair. Motion carried unanimously. evelopment. Grussing asked the EDC to identify the top priorities from the ategic. Plan. The High-Tech Business Park feasibility appears to be one priority, wh reviewing incentives and completing the labor force study are others. Tushie uggested that the comparative study of incentives include communities that compete ith Lakeville for development, regardless of whether they were adjacent to Lakeville. ditionally, it was suggested that a review of previous projects be conducted.. ministrator Erickson suggested the EDC budget for a consultant to conduct this st , as it is very labor intensive. Vogel indicated it w time to do another Comprehensive Strategic Plan during the first quarter of 2001. Motion 00.24: Comms. aptly /Emond moved that Chair Vogel write a letter to the City Co cil indicating the intention of the EDC to request 2001 funds for a C prehensive Strategic Plan and an Incentive Study. - Motion Carrie nanimously. - 6. Consider Heat-N-Glo request to pr ide funding to Garry Glenna of International Chemtex Corp. for upg de of hanger at Airlake Airport. Grussing stated that Garry Glenna of International emtex intends to build a new hanger at Airlake Airport. Glenna would consider bui 'ng the hanger within the City of Lakeville boundaries of the airport and would dd a facility with bathrooms and an aircraft tie-down area for other businesses use ntingent upon the EDC providing funds for those amenities. This would alleviate a ncern brought to the City's attention by Heat-N-Glo and their parent company, OM Industries, about the Fixed Base Operator's (PRO's) facilities and safety practice The proposed location would also allow the city to capture taxes from the new tiger. Under thisproposal, Glenna would own the hangerand the City/EDC would ha an agreement that would allow Heat-N-GIo and other Airlake Businesses to util the lounge and bathrooms. Emond questioned when the FBO planned to upgrade their faciliti as others using Airlake Airport would still. use the FBO. Administrator Erickson Indic d that the Metropolitan Airports Commission has addressed the safety issues, an that the FBO is not interested in upgrading the facility. Tushie reiterated the nee o address the issues with the FBO, as this is a gateway to the community and the fac ' ies must be accommodating. Motion-00.25: Comms. Pogatchnik/Emond moved to have the EDC Chair write letter to the Metropolitan. Airports Commission expressing concern FYI Item 1 Me~norand~um To: Economic Development Commission CC: Bob Erickson, City Administrator Arlyn Grussng, Community & Economic Development Director. From: Ann Flad, :Economic Development Coordinator Date: Ol/18/O 1 Re: 2001 City Council meeting dates Attachedyou will find the City Council's regularly scheduled meeting dates for 2001. EDC information and recommendations will. be presented to the City Council for their review and/or action at these meetings. CITY OF LAKEVILLE RESOLUTION DATE: RESOLUTION NO.: MOTION BY SECONDED BY: RE'SOL UTION SETTING BATES OF REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS FOR 2001 .WHEREAS, the City .Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City to promote and provide ample time for the Council and staff to prepare for. each Council meeting; and. WHEREAS, the public should receive advance notice of each Council meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE I'T RESOLVED that the regular meeting dates in 2001 for the Lakeville City Council are established as follows: January 2* 16* February 5 20* March 5 19 April 2 1 ~ May 7 21 June 4 18 Jay 2 16 August 6 20 September 4* 17 October 1 15 November 5 19 December 3 17 * - 1~leeting date is Tuesday `due to Monday being a legal holiday. The Council meetings shall be held in the City Hall Council Chambers at 20195 Holyoke Avenue. The meetings shall begin at 7:00 PM. The Council may hold special meetings deemed necessary for the ~cient and ~ective conduct of the City's business. Said meetings shall be called pursuant to legal notice required by Minnesota statute. APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Lakeville City Council this 6`h day. of November 2000. CITY OF LAKE MLLE Duane R. Zaun, Mayor ATTEST.• Charlene Friedges, City Clerk MEMORANDUM DATE: January 18, 2001 TO: Economic Development Commission FROM: Arlyn trussing, Community & Economic Development Director RE: -Current Residential Development Projects - Confidential Commercia!/lr.dustria!!!nsti±utiora! Projects - Press Release - Lakeville's 2000 Building Permit Value Tops $150 Million Attached is the current Residential Development Project Report. This report is up-to-date and reflects the status of current single family and townhouse developments, including available sites for construction. The Community and Economic Development Department Staff is also reviewing several sketch plans with approximately 365 single family lots, 70 twinhome lots, 340 detached townhouse lots and 850 attached townhouse lots. Total units in the sketch plan stage is 1625 units. The updated Confidential Commercial/Industrial/Institutional Projects list is attached, along with a recent press release on building activity in Lakeville. /pb Attachments EDCmemoResDevProjects::1/18/01 ~ ~ De artment of p Communit and Economic Develo merit Y p Curr n R e t es~dent~al Develo went Pro ects p 1 January 3, 2.001 This report can be accessed by visiting our web site at www.ci.lakeville.mn. us Select Housing & Building Inspections & click on the appropriate link c:Uiles\word\developmtcurrent developments City of Lakeville, .r ~ l: Minnesota Current Development Projects January 3, 200/ ' CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS (Does not include fully developed subdivisions) Single Family Lots .PROJECT NAME LOCATION DEVELOPER DESCRIPTION PERMITS DATE OF FINAL & latest Phone-# of single Family tots) ISSUED APPROVAL East side of Ipava Avenue at 178th Shamrock Dev. (James Stanton) ndersons Centu Farm Addition Street 763 421-3500 55 54 5-18-98 East side of Ipava Avenue at 178th Shamrock Dev: (James Stanton) ndersons Centu .Farm 2nd Add' n. Street 763 421-3500 70 67 5-18-98 Bracketts Crossing Association racketts Estates East of Judicial & North of 185th 952 435-7600 29 28 7-6-87 Northwest Comer of Cedar Avenue Country Joe, Inc. Ron DahlenlJoe Miller her Hi hlands'fhird & Dodd Boulevard 952 469-4066 33 30 6-7-99 South of Interlachen Blvd, West of Mesenbrink Construction & Eng. stal Lake Fairwa s Hi hview Avenue 952 447-5058 18 15 7-7-97 Doug Durst stal Lake Golffstates East of I ava & South of 165th 952 432-1119 49 45 1-21-92 Doug Durst , stal Lake Golf Estates 3rd Addition 165th & Interlachen 952 432-1119 44 42 5-17-93 Doug: Durst stal Lake Golf Estates 4th'Addition 165th Street & Interlachen 952 432-1119 14 13 5-17-93 Doug Durst s stal Lake Golf Estates 5th Addition 165th & Interlachen 952 432-1119 73 69 3-21-94 South side of Dodd Blvd; West of North Suburban Dev, Inc. (BNce Kerber) odd Valle Estates Fair reen Ave. 763 786-6000 23 19 5-18-98 North Suburban Dev, Inc. (Bruce Kerber) odd Valle Estates 2nd Addition South of Dodd Valle Estates 763 786-6000 75 71 5-18-98 South side of 202nd St; East of Wallace Potter. Arden Estates Kensin ton Wa 763 544-8826 3 2 6-2-97 Meadowood real Oak Shores Point I-35 & Orchard Trail 952 890-1272 10 8 5-1-95 West of Flagstaff Avenue; South of Greenridge Corp.. (Lyle Nash) reenrid a Second Addition 175" Street 952 929-2116 67 64 3-15-99" North Side of 170"' Street, East of Country Joe, Inc. (Ron Dahlen/Joe Miller) arris Acres Third Fieldcrest Avenue 952 469-4066 82 56 6-7-99 Easf of Highview Avenue, South of Country Joe, Inc. (Ron Dahlen/Joe Miller) awthom Hei hts' 160"' Street 952 469-4066 68 0 10-2-00 SW comer of 160th St. & Harmony George Fredrickson i hcroft Addition Path 952 933-6692 29 27 3-17-97 *Indicates streets & utilities currently under construction 1 c:lfileslwordldevelopmlcurrent developments. City of Lakeville,. dlinnesota Current Development Projects January 3. 1001 DEVELOPER DESCRIPTION PERMITS DATE OF FINAL PROJECT NAME LOCATION & Latest Phone # of Singte Family Lots] ISSUED APPROVAL U.S. Homes (Lee Johrison) ointe Crossin South of-C . Rd. 46 & H land 763 544-7333 36 35 7.6-92 South of InteAachen Blvd; East of U.S. Home (lee Johnson) ointe Crossin 7th Addition Cr slal Lake Golf Course 763 544-7333 40 35 5-18-98 Cove Dev. Partnership abut Cove Orchard Trail; South of 188th SL 952 $94-9455 9 5 11-1-93 East side of Flagstaff; South of 175" Marell, Inc. (Lyle Nash) enrid a Street 952 929-2116 74 73 3-17-97 Render Dev. enwood Oaks 2^d Addition C . Rd. 46 & Kenwood Trail 952 844-1555 38 37 6-20-94 Fortune Realty ' Lake Villa Golf Estates 8th Addition Lanesboro Cf. & 179' Trail 952 835-3363 25 20 10.4-93 Winkler. Dev. Lakeview Estates 2nd Addition 205th Street: & Ju iter Avenue 952 '432-7101 36 35 5-6-96 Northeast corner of 210' Street .Shamrock Development (James Stanton) Marion Fields Dodd Boulevard 763 421-3500 114 75 4-19-99 Shamrock Development (James Stanton) arion Fields 2^d Addition NW Corner of Dodd and 210I" Street 763 .421-3500 103 24 10-4-99 East side of Dodd Blvd., South of Shamrock Development (James Stanton) anon Fields 3~d Addition" 207" Street 763 421-3500 8 0 6/19/00 West of Hwy; 5t), North of Jasper Shamrock Development (James Stanton) arion Hills 1:Addition Trail 763 421-3500 23 22 9-16-85 Marion Pines Dev. Marion Pines 2nd Addition Hw . 50 ~ Jaguar 763) 421-3500 19 18 4-26-93 Consumers Real Estate aK Rid e Hei hts 2nd Addition South of 175'h, West of Ja uar 952 435-7500 9 8 7-21-86 West side of Judicial Road at 168th Weston Real Estate Corp (Michael Falk) rchard Hills 1st Addition Street _ 952 435-5592 8 6 5-4-98 SW corner of Judicial Road & 167th Weston Real Estate Corp (Michael Falk) rchard Hi{{s 2nd Addition Street 952 435-5592 7 6 5.4-98 West oflpava Avenue at 196th Tollefson Development aradise Hills Street alt nment 952 890-9431 41 40 6-17-96 South of 192^d between Kenwood Tollefson bevelopment aradise Hills 2^d Addition` Trail and Dodd Boulevard 952 890-9431 28 3 6119100 West side of IpavaAvenue, South of Shamrock Development (James Stanton) ark Overlook 175" Street 763 -421-3500 15 10 7-19-99 North of 185v' Street & East of T.N.C. Inc. (Tom Grouch) aYen Lake Second Addition Kenwood Trai! CR 50 612 925-5990 29 22 3-3-97 Registered Prop. ollin Oaks South Plal Four South of 165'; East of Kenrick 612 828-9876 50 49 5-6-85 East of Kenrick Avenue, South of Dale and Frances Fexa t. Frances Woods 7"' Addition 205"' Street 952 461-2881 22 8 716199 * Indicates streets & utilities currently under construction 2 c:lfiieslwordldevelopmlcurrenfdevelopments City o, f Lakeville, Minnesota Current Development Projects January 3, 2001 DEVELOPER L3ESCRIPTION PERMITS DATE OF FINAL PROJECT NAME LOCATION & Latest Phone # or Sir?gle Fatuity Lots) ISSUED APPROVAL Render Development tonebriar 2^d Addition East of Jackson Trail at 171sU172nd 952 831-3201 66 65 4-17-95 East side of Highview Avenue, south Sampair Companies a Creek of 110th St CSAH 46 651 426-6626 56 51 7-7.97 West side of Highview Avenue, D.R. Horton, Inc. - MN (Don Patton) ermillion S rin s" North of 165" Street 651 454-4663 91 0 8-7-00 North of 210th at Laredo Path & Wildwood Portds, Inc. ildwood Ponds South Lucerne Trail 952 884-5341 11 10 11-19-79 East of Highview Avenue along oodbu 1st Addition 172nd Street Dakota Land Dev. 45 44 9-9-74 North of 185th Street between Terrain Corporation(Brlan Olson) Idewood Oaks Jamaica Path & lxonia Av 522 854-8803 - ~ 36 31 6-15-98 West side of Highview Ave.; South D.R. Horton, Inc. - MN (Don Patton) weber Farm Second of Che View Elem. School 651 454-4663 40 38 5-4-98 North of Dodd Boulevard, West of D.R. Horton (Don Patton) weber Farm Sixth Hi hview Avenue 651 454-4663 41 ' 19 6-7-99 West of Highview Avenue, North of D. R. Horton (Don Patton) weber Farm Seventh Dodd Boulevard 651 454-4663 6 3 6-7-99 West of Highview Ave,, North of D.R. Horton (Don Patton) weber Farm FJ hth Dodd Boulevard 651) 454-4663 37 20 9-7-99 West of Highview Ave., North of D.R. Horton (Don Patton) weber Farm Ninth' Dodd Boulevard 651 454-4663 26 0 11-6-00 TOTAL 1931 1422 * Indicates streets & utilities currently under construction 3 c:\files\word\developm\current developments City of Lakeville, Minnesota Current Development Projects January 3, 1001 Pending Single Family Residential Development Projects (Application submitted, but not yet approved) PROJECT NAME hOCATION DEVELOPER DESCRIPTION and latest hone # number of units South of 202^d Street, East of Lakeview Shamrock Development (James Marion Fields Fourth Addition Elements School Stanton 763 421-3500 73 TQTAL 73 * Indicates streets & utilities currently under construction 4 ~ c:~fleslwordldevelopmtcurrent developments City of Lakeville, . ` Minnesota Current Development Projects January 3, 2001 Townhomes/Condominiums PROJECT NAME LOCATION DEVELOPER DESCRIPTION PEF2MTTTED DATE OF FINAL and latest` hone # number of units UNITS APPROVAL J.C. Holdings (Jeff Hultgren) Boulder Villa a 1st Addition 165th and I ava Avenue 952 431-1999 26 22 8-21-95 The Sovoll Corporafion (Robert Boulder Villa a 2nd Addition 165th and I ava Avenue Kissel) 952.888-G866 28 ' 26 9-8-98 South of 165" Street, West of Ipava J.C. Holdings (Jeff Hultgren) Boulder Villa a 3rd Addition Avenue 952 431-1999 30 20 8-16-99 SW comer of Kenyon Avenue and 179th Fortune Realty (Byron Watschke) Lake Villa Golf Estates 9th Addition Street 952 835-3363 21 5 5-18-98 Pulte Homes of MN (Dennis Orchard Meadows of Lakeville South of 185th Street; West of C.R. 50 Griswold 651 452-5200 35 32 6-1-98 College City Construction Rock {stand Townhomes 2~ Addition Kiamath Trail; West of C.R. 5 952 431-1211 32 30 5-6-96 East of Kenrick Avenue, South of 205' .Dale and Frances Pexa St. Frances Woods 7~^ Addition Street 952 461-2881 32 9 7-6-99 Sottth bf 162nd St; North of 165th at Town & Country Homes, Inc. (Bill Town and Count .Estates Ja uar Avenue Anner 952 944.-3455 50 46 8-18-97 North side of 165"' Street at Jaguar Town & Country Homes, Inc. (Bill Town and Count Estates Third Avenue Anner 9522 944-3455 62 40 9-7-99 ' TOTAL 316 230 Pending Townhome/Condominium Development Projects PLAT NAME LOUTION DEVELOPER NO. OF UNITS PRELIMltJARYPLATTED (NOT YET FItJPJ_ PLATTED) ensmann omes Centur Ride East of I ava, North of 190 Street 651 406-4400 108 Dale & Frances E. Pexas St. Francis Woods South of 205"' St & East of Kenrick Avenue 952 461=2881 91 TOTAL 199 * Indicates streets & utilities currently under construction 5 c:UileslwordWevelopmlcurrent developments City of Lakeville, Minnesota ' Current Development Projects January 3, 2001 Recap SINGLE FAMILY HOMES Total single family lots final platted in current. active developments ................................................1931 Total building permits issued in current active developments .........................................................1422 Total vacant single family final platted Tots ........................................................................:.....:.........509 Total single family lots preliminary platted pending final plat ...............................................................73 TownhomelCondo Units Total townhome/condominium units final plat approved .......................:..........................:........316 units Total building permits issued for townhomes/condominiums .........................................:..:.......230 units Total vacant townhome/condominium platted lots ......................................................................86 units Total townhome/condominium lots preliminary platted pending final plat 199 units 6 f CONFIDENTIAL Commercial /Industrial /Institutional Projects UPDATE: 7ANUARY 16, 2001 NOTE: Revisions are underlined co„~~t Name Location/Address Project Actions Required Status Staff Contact 12.99 AI~I Saints Catholic Church 19795 Holyoke Avenue. Education facility expansion.. Final Plat/CUP Amendment. As-built grading plan of 2" Addition required. Daryl Morey 2 Addition Temporary Certificate of Occupancy issued 1/4/Ot on classrooms and offices only. s-oo AI~I Saints Catholic church 19795 Holyoke Avenue Detached Garage CUP Amendment Permit issued. Under construction. Ron Mullenbach 2 Addition Allison Specialty 21463 Grenada Avenue 20,000 s.f. Site Plan and Parking Certificate of Occupancy issued 10124/00. Turf Ron Mullenbach Components Office/manufacturing Facility Deferment. restoration and as-built grading plan reauired. Applied Power Products 21005 Heron Way 64,000 s.f. Site Plan Review; Parking Temporary Certificate of Occupancy issued 11/9/00: Ron Mullenbach Office/manufacturing facility deferment; Building Permit, Lot Turf restoration and as-built grading plan required. Combination.. Appro Development Inc. 21476 Grenada Avenue 4,320 s.f. Office Building Site Plan Review Certificate of Occupancy issued 10/10/00. Turf Ron Mullenbach restoration and as-built grading remain. s-s~ Arden International 21150 Hamburg Avenue 18,000 sq. ft. expansion CUP Amendment; Easements; Temporary Certificate of Occupancy issued 3/10/98. Tim Nanson Kitchens Replat; Parking Deferment; As-built Grading Plan remains. Easement Vacation. sioo AT&T - MnDot Site MnDot Maintenance Facility, Cellular telephone equipment PUD/CUP Amendment. City Council approval 12/18100.. Awaiting letter of Frank Dempsey Kenrick Avenue. on US West tower. Neighborhood meeting.. credit. Landscaping inspection Spring, 200E 20' extension on 2n 80' tower, Building Permit. total 100': Celebration Church 16655 Kenyon Avenue New Church Building Rezoning from C-3 to PUD Awaiting revised plans and rezoning applications. Frank Dempsey Preliminary and final plat ldch_serverlc:ommdevelgblcommindusprojectslmastecdoc0l /18101 Page 1 of 6 s • CONFIDENTIAL Commercial /Industrial /Institutional Projects UPDATE: JANUARY 16, 2001 NOTE: Revisions are underlined co w~~ Name Location/Address Project Actions Required Status Staff Contact Charter Communications 16900 Cedar Avenue Building Addition. Parking Lot. CUP Amendment 9/18/2000. City Council approved 9/18/2000. Frank Dempsey Antenna.. To allow outside storage. Building Permit issued. Under construction. Gene Abbott City Hall Expansion 20195 Holyoke Avenue Addition Site Plan Review, Building Building Permit issued. Under construction. Gene Abbott Plan Review. John Hennen 7.98 Great River Energy Kenrick Hamburg & Transmission Line CUP Transmission Doles installed and operational on entire Frank Dempsey Cedar/Hamburg Upgrade/Distribution Burial. Record CUP on all affected route. Hamburg Avenue landscaping installed properties. 10/2000. final inspection in Spring, 2001. ~2-ss Crystal Lake Automotive 16055 Buck Hill Road 25,000 s.f. auto repair facility CUP; Grading Plan, Building Grading Permit issued to Bill Jackson for Jackson and Ron Mullenbach Permit. Welsh Property. Final C.O. issued 11/16/00. Landscape review in Spring. 2001. s-sa Cr r~ steel 21470 Grenada Court 40,000 sq. ft. Building; CUP Half of landscaping escrow released 10/18/99 and Ron Mullenbach (County Road 70 North of Outdoor Storage review in Spring, 2000. Slope restoration needed. Car Quest) Final Certificate of Occupancy issued 8117/99. D.R. Horton 20860 Kenbridge Court New Office Building TIF Agreement Building Permit issued week of 9/18/00. Under Arlyn trussing Building Permit construction: Gene Abbott iz-ss Dakota County Community Holyoke and 208 Street Approx: 51 units, elderly. Preliminary and Final Plat; Approved by City Council on 9/5/00. Building Permit Frank Dempsey Development Agency Approx. 7,800 s.f. of PUD;. Building Permit. issued. Under construction. commercial Dakota County Library 20085 Heritage Drive New Library NW of City Hall in Site plan review/building Temporary C.O. issued 2-25-2000. Storm Sewer Leif Hanson (NW of City Hall) Town Square permit; land acquisition; plat; connection by service driveway may need manhole. As-built grading plan. Landscaping along Heritage Drive needs to be completed. Final C:O. issued. 11Ich_serverlcommdevelgblcommindusprojedslmasler.doc01118101 Page 2 of 6 4.. CONFIDENTIAL Commercial /Industrial /Institutional Projects UPDATE: JANUARY 16, 2001 NOTE: Revisions are underlined Fist Name Location/Address Pro ect Actions Re wired Status Staff Contact contact 1 p DeGidio 21033 Heron Wav 8,000 s.f. office/warehouse Building Permit/Site Plan. Drainage & Utility Easement recorded. Requires Frank Dempsey Review grading as-built. Temporary Certificate of Occupancy issued 12/19/00. Landscaping and Parking lot to be completed June, 2001. Landscape inspection 2001. Delmar Plastics Heywood Avenue 7,185 s.f. Site Plan review Building Permit issued. Under construction. Parking Frank Dempsey Lot 4, Block 4, Airlake Office/manuf./warehouse Building permit/Parking Deferment recorded. Site/landscaping inspection in Industrial Park, 2nd Addition Deferment s~ririg, 2001. Designed Cabinets 7965 - 215 Street Addition Office/Showroom Site Plan review Permit issued. Under construction. Parking Deferment Frank Dempsey Building Permit recorded. Inspect landscaping in Spring, 2001. Parking Deferment Gateway Center SW corner of C.R. 5 & 172nd Final Plat: Two Lots: one Preliminary/Final plat; Cul-de- Wear course for Kenyon Avenue to be completed in Tim Brown St "Holiday Station" & one sac variance; building permits. 2000 with Gateway 2"d Addition;. As-built grading plan vacant. and record drawing received and accepted. Pond cleaning must be completed prior to final C.O. issued for Perkins. ~nroi Harley Davidson 10770 -165 Street Building Addition CUP City Council approval 12/18/00. Awaiting Mylars. Frank Dempsey Preliminary & final Plat Easement Vacation Buildin Permit Heritage Commons Holyoke Ave. to Dodd Blvd. & 30,000 square feet of retail Comp. Plan Amendment, As-built drawings accepted. Restoration completed. Bob Erickson C.R. 50 to 192nd St. space. First Phase Rezoning, Preliminary and Lighting, landscaping and weir facade to be completed Tim Hanson Final Plat; Architectural by City. Heritage Drive west of Iberia under Controls; Admin. construction. Subd./Assessment Agreement; TIF Agreement. HOM Furniture Xxxxx Kenyon Avenue 151.922 sq. ft. Furniture CUP Scheduled for January 18. 2001 Planning Commission Ron Mullenbach Store. Preliminary & Final Plat Meeting• Administrative Permits Assessment Agreement 11~h_serverlcommdevelgblcommindusprojecaMaster.doc01 /18101 Page 3 of 6 CONFIDENTIAL Commercial /Industrial /Institutional Projects UPDATE: 7ANUARY 16, 2001 NOTE: Revisions are underlined Ftrst Name Location/Address Pro ect Actions Re uired Status Staff Contact Contact ~ p Industrial & Environmental 21390 Heywood Avenue 12,800 Square feet; Site Plan review; building Complete site grading prior to pond reimbursement. Frank Dempsey Concepts office/warehouse permit lot combinations Grade east swale. Temporary Certificate of Occupancy issued 12/99. Ipava Marketplace Ipava Avenue and 163' Commercial Strip Mall. Site Plan Review. Readv#o issue Building Permit. Ron Mullenbach Street. ISD 194: Century Junior 18610 Ipava Avenue New Junior High School Preliminary/Final Plat; CUP; Storm Sewer Credits being evaluated 5-99. Work Frank Dempsey High School Easement Vacation. remaining;. Overlay trail on North side of 185'" and Re- Gene Abbott grade Ditch. Public Works Punch List. As-built Tim Hanson grading plan still needed. Temporary Certificate of Steve Michaud Occupancy issued 2-8-00. fi_9$ ISD 194:9 Elementary 8640 -165 Street West New Elementary School Plat; CUP; Public As-built Grading Plan needed; Temporary Certificate Daryl Morey School Improvements. of Occupancy issued 1-7-00. Public Works punch list. Tim Hanson (Oak Hills Elementary) Landscaping completed. Frank Dempsey J & J Enterprises Lot 3, Block 4, Airlake 6,696 s.f. office/warehouse Site Plan Review Building Permit issued. Under constructin. Landscape Frank Dempsey Industrial Park Second inspection. spring 2001. Addition y_ot Ji Lube Kenyon Avenue, next to Lube Facility CUP Sketch Plan submitted. Awaiting CUP application. Frank Dempsey Holiday Station LaFavre Racing .21540 Hamburg Avenue .3,000 s.f. Building Expansion Building Permit; cross Pending new tenant that may affect parking deferment Ron Mullenbach for NASCAR Racing Teams.' easement; site plan Parking and parking requirements. As-built grading plan Deferment. received and restoration/seeding completed. Temporary Certificate of Occupancy issued 6/22/00. Latter-Day Saints Church County Road 60 (185 ) & Church CUP Approved at the 5-15-00 City Council Meeting. Frank Dempsey County Road 50 Awaiting building plan submittal Illch_serverlcommdevelgblcommindusprojec4slmaster.doc0111 tS101 Pagi; 4bf 6 CONFIDENTIAL Commercial /Industrial /Institutional Projects UPDATE: 7ANUARY 16, 2001 NOTE: Revisions are underlined First Name Location/Address Pro ect .Actions Re uired Status Staff Contact .Contact ~ q Leo's South 16375 Kenrick Avenue Building Addition CUP Temporary Certificate of Occupancy issued 12/7/00. Frank Dempsey Landscaping, Spring 2001. North building to be removed by October 1, 2001. tt-1o-s7 Malmberg-Bond Addition 10487 -165th Street West Plat and Daycare. Plat; CUP; Accepted Final as-built for Outlot A. Need Turf Tim Brown (Children's World) Restoration and Tree Replacement on Outlot A. 6.99 Minnesota Valley Day Highview and Co. Road 46 Day School CUP Amendment; parking lot Certificate of Occupancy issued..Holding tank installed Tim Hanson School - MN Valley paving; Accessory Building. and being monitored. Need inspection of Storm Lutheran Church Sewer. As-built grading plan required. 1 z-sa Oak Corner Development 10440 and 10450 -185 Two 8000 square foot Preliminary and final Plat; Approved by the City Council on 12/20/99. Building Daryl Morey Street. Professional Office Buildings. PUD/CUP; Rezoning; Permit issued 4-27-00. Water main layout revised per Easement Vacation; Dakota Fire Marshall. As-builts required. County Access Variance a-ss Perkins Restaurant .17387 Kenyon Avenue Perkins Restaurant Building Permit; Site Plan Pond Cleaning and landscaping must be completed Ron Mullenbach Review. prior to final C.O. Certified. grading plan required. T.C.O. issued 3-13-00. Quality Contour 21323 Heywood Building Addition. Site plan review. Permit ready to pick up 9/12/00. Developer put Frank Dempsey construction on hold. 8.9.97 Tutor Time 9475 -176 Street West Daycare Center CUP; Final Plat; Rezoning to Remove all dead and damaged trees, storm drain and Frank Dempsey R-B; Purchase Agreement. rip rap. Temporary Certificate of Occupancy issued Gene Abbott Certified grading and utility 8/27/99.Landscaping completed. Certified Grading plan needed: and Utility Plans needed.. 5-200o U.S. Postal Service Heritage Commons 40,000 sq. ft. Operations Site Selection; Plat; Building Awaiting Plan Submittal Bob Erickson Center for Permit Farmin ton/Lakeville carriers 11kh_senrer\commdeveVgblcommindusprojectslmaster.doc01118101 Page 5 of 6 CONFIDENTIAL Commercial /Industrial /Institutional Projects UPDATE: JANUARY 16, 2001 NOTE: Revisions are underlined c n a~~c Name Location/Address Project Actions Required Status Staff Contact Valley Christian Church 17297 Glacier Way New Church Final Plat; CUP. Revised Grading Plan approved; $5,000 security Tim Hanson received 10-16-98 for grading; As-built Grading & Bob Erickson Utility. Plan needed; Letter of credit reduced 14,781.50 on September 6, 2000. Awaiting as-builts and lot irons. 5.99 Walgreens Southwest corner of Cedar 15,050 s.f. drugstore, other Preliminary/Final Plat; Comp. Tabled at the 6-5-00 City Council meeting. Daryl Morey Avenue/160'h Street commercial uses, 5 single Plan amendment; rezoning; family lots variance; vacation. Water Treatment Facility 18600 Ipava Avenue Expansion Site Plan Review Building Permit issued. Under construction. Keith Nelson expansion Wells Fargo 17365 Kenyon Avenue Bank Facility Site Plan review. Easement Building Permit issued. Easement Vacation received. Ron Mullenbach Vacation. Scheduled for February 15, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting. 111ch_serverlcommdevelgblcomminduspmjecGslmaster.doc01118/01 Page 6 of 6 Press release City of Lakeville For more information contact: 20195 Holyoke Ave. Robert Erickson, City Administrator Lakeville, MN 55044 (952) 985-4401 Lakeville's 2000. building permit value tops $1 SO million A record setting year for commercial/industrial permits led the way to a blockbuster year in Lakeville as building permit value topped $150 million. Permits issued in 2000, including new residential, commerciaUindustrial and major remodeling additions, totaled $152,564,847. This $4 million increase over 1999 was due in large part to commercial/industrial construction projects. CommerciaUindustrial permits with a value of $31,471,000 were issued in 2000, more than double the 1999 total of $14,366,000. Several new office and industrial building and expansion projects were among the developments initiated in 2000, including; Applied Power Products, with. a 64,000-square-foot office and manufacturing facility; Wausau Supply, with a 48,000-square-foot expansion; Perma Groove, with a 27,000- square-foot industrial building; Crystal Lake Automotive, with a 25,000-square-foot auto body and mechanical repair facility; DR Horton with a 23,000-square-foot regional corporate headquarters; and Allison Specialty, with a 20,000-square-foot office/manufacturing facility. Two professional office buildings, with a total square footage of 16,000, are also nearing completion. The thriving commercial valuation is expected to continue, as several large commercial projects are in the planning stages. The largest project is the TimberCrest at Lakeville development. This proposed center, anchored by a SuperTarget, would offer approximately 540,000 square feet of retail, restaurant and office space. Residential construction, which represents about 75% of the permit value increase for 2000, saw a shift in focus from single-family homes to townhouses. There were 440 new single-family home permits issued, down from previous years due to the City's residential plat moratorium. Even with the moratorium, townhouse permits increased from 115 to 167. (more) Since the moratorium was lifted in July, nine new residential subdivisions, representing 3.24 units, were approved, and new housing starts are expected to return to the 600-700/year level in 2001. The prominence of townhouses as a life-cycle housing choice is expected to continue. Permits for 80 apartment units were also .granted in 2000, primarily for Dakota County Community Development Agency projects. Two affordable housing projects are currently under construction including a 30-unit rental townhouse development across from Airlake Industrial Pazk, and a 50-unit senior housing and retail development in downtown Lakeville. The housing construction market shows no signs of slowing down,. with several residential developments in the planning stages. -30- - . _ . - I~-b - FL _=-y~ - YTELINE SERVICES, INC. r Minneapolis Airlake Airport, 22100 Fi3mburg Avenue, Lakeville, MN 55044-0101 Ph: 952-469-4414 Fax: 952-469-3535 Email: Flyteline(czCharter.net Flyteline Services, Inc. Web Site: c~-cvw.flvtelinesenices.com January 14, 2001 Mr. Jack Eberlein, Manager Minneapolis Airlake Airport 8891 Airport Rand Blaine, MN 55449-7220 - Subject: Site Plan development for Flyteline Lease Area Dear Jack: As you know we have such a dire shortage of hangar storage at Airlake Airport that we are constantly turning away new tenants/customers because we have no hangar space for their airplanes.. We understand that you also have a waiting list of over 150 for the 50-70 hangar sites MAC is developing on the south side of the field. . Therefore, we are currently in the process of planning for hangar construction on our leased site at Airlake Airport. In doing so we have been doing intensive study of our land and the possible land uses and providing access to the buildings. In going through this. process we came up with a _ list of questions and.issues v~re need answered before we go Fartherwith-cur.plans:---' _ 1. Lease Boundaries.. Our lease states that we have 216,400 SF on MAC Lot 16 and 1?(?,000 SF on MAC Lot 18 for a total of 386,400 SF. The boundary's of the lease do not seem to be well defined In determining the potential development area of our site we developed the "Flyteline Services Site Plan" attached hereto. This is an AutoCAD 2000 drawing using the.base map for-the airport we obtained from Mark Ryan. Note that the developable area appears to be only 353,340.8 SF. This assumes we can only build on the west and north side of the west parcel to the limits designated in the field when we laid out the 200' x 100' ramp addition last fall (55' from the ditch bottom to just past the top of the slope). For the Hamburg Avenue extension a 60' R/W is assumed which is a common standard for city streets. For the north side of the east parcel we used. 50'_from the edge of the.. service: road. which would approximately line up with the private hangars to the east. For the east side of the east lot we used 35' rsom the edge of Alley A which would provide the standard QO' from face to face of hangars -MAC used at Airlake: We need to reach an agreement as to exactly what area we can develop. Please let us know if you are in agreement with this. If the developable area is less than what we have been paying for will there be an adjustment to our lease? Will the adjustment be retroactive? 2. Setbacks. What will be our applicable setback from the rumvay for hangar construction on Alley A? Will it be the same as for the existing hangars on the east side of Alley A? Or would it be the same as our East Hangar? Or something. in between? _ 3. Site Preparation. Aplsoximatety the north have of our west parcel has not been graded up to proper grade and I do not think it has the 3' sand base. It is our understanding that under the terms of the MAC leases it is the policy of MAC to do the site preparation so it is up close to the proper grade for construction of improvements by the tenant. What arrangements can be made to have this work coordinated with our site development work? Is it right that we should have been paying full lease rates for land that was not even ready to build on? Can an adjustment be made here? 4. Ta~way access to new ramp. We had discussed the possibility of MAC providing us with another access to the taxiway near the southwest corner of our leasehold (where the new ramp addition was F - _ _ _ Mr. Jack Eberiein O1/I41'O1 Page 2 ail - built last fall . Can we count on MAC - - - - - _ _ ) providing that to as next summer when you pave the main _ - - nmwayT _ _ - 5. Utilities. Can we count on getting access to Lakeville sewer and water utilities for new buildings on _ our leasehold? If so, when? Can we count on MAC 5mncial assistance in getting lateral sewer and water laterals extended to provide access to the fimue hangars? 6. Hamburg Avenue. Who maintains Hamburg Aveni~'~outh of 220` street? $ is in Eureka township but they have not done airy maintenance on it Lakeville as done work on Hambuug to the north of 220`s St but has not done anything on the portion to the south. MAC has been plowing it in the winter, - - however, the road needs to be resurfaced or sealed What plans are there for taking care of this portion - - _ - of Hamburg Avenue? _ 7. Access Alleys. When we develop our site we will have to construct additior>dl access aIleys. All of the other tenants at the airport only pay for their useable building sites plus about 5' setback on each _ _ _ side. The 90' alleyways are not included in their lease area. Wouldn't it be fair to treat us the same way? 8. Odd shaped lot. Because of the rather odd shape of our leasehold it is not possible to make full efficient use of the site. Don't you think it would make sense to make an adjustment for this fact? 9. Glenna Hangar. We had discussions with Gary Glenna about his building a "pole" type hangar on the north east corner of our Leasehold Last year. He has not followed up on that plan and has apparently chosen other options. Accordingly, that option is now off the table and we are planning to develop oiir entire site with buildings that we will Lease to others. 10. Pole Buildings. We have had indications that tbe City of I.akevi'IIe is not favorable to "pole" type buildings. Since we are seeking utility services fmm Lakeville and may uhimately be annexed by them and we currently have no "pole" type construction oa our leasehold, we are considering planning only steel buildings or buildings with standard foundations. What is your position or opinion on-this issue? 11. Lease Extension. Our current 1ea~se expires on June 1, 2010. We Trade a substantial investment of about X34,000 in ramp improvements in 2000. We are planning much more signifiraiit investment in 2001 in the development of our site with additional hangars. To make this type of additional investment we need more time to ina,-ver our iimeni and assure lendees that we willhave a - _ _ revemie stream over a long enough time to amortize loans. Would you consider extending ourlease - _ - - - - - for another 25 years so it would expire June 1, 2035? As .you know the economics of FBO development are very tough and as a consequence we need - all the help we can get to make iE work out financially.- I would like to sit down with you and/or other appropriate MAC staffto review and discuss and try to reach resohrtion on these items and get guidance from you regarding our plans. I know the City of Lakeville has a vital imerest in the airport and the FBO development as it affects city economic developmenrt. T1lerefore, I would also be glad to include City of Lakeville staff at points you and they think would be appropriate. Sin ely, - _ cline Services, Inc. ohn C Houston, President Cc: Bob Erickson, Lakeville City Manager, 20195 Holyoke Avenue, Lakeville, MN 55044-8339 Cc: File ~ ~ q ..rw,o. sm any i 'Jtii `S31L12I3S 3'~I'I~.L.~-I3 : W ' a°~r a w " " '~NI 'S37{Al[3S 3I673U1! t I - ~ ' j - ~ _ ~ - i t . r m ~ ~ W ~ y i l N ~ d d N O)~0 ~ c O i ;n ~ Oi N~N ~ ~n HQ(~7v0_~11. _ o ~ _.~_y. W, _ E ~ ~'~n _ a w i , n '-n ~~~a.. i' LaDonna Boyd Dakota Electric Association 220th Street Farmington, MN 55024 January 16, 2001 DearMs. Boyd: Each. year the City of Lakeville and. Dakota Electric work together through the Partners of Progress program to enhance business retention and attraction in Lakeville. The City of Lakeville is entering an exciting time. in the development of the community and is therefore proposing to use $3,500 of Partners in Progress funds to support business attraction activities. With the influx of new residents, the location along 1-35, proximity to the international airport, and a short line railroad, Lakeville is now poised to attract substantial new business to the community. The City of Lakeville is proposing to use $3,500 to develop professional marketing materials which will become part of a comprehensive .recruitment strategy. The printed materials that are developed wits providedetailed information on items of interest to prospective businesses..The City's advisory committees are focusing on the elements needed to attract high-tech businesses to Lakeville, and information of relevance to high-tech. businesses will be a focal point in the literature. In 2000, Partners in Progress provided $1,500 to fund a Manufacturer's Luncheon held in October. The support provided by Partners in Progress for retention activities has become a very important element in Lakeviile's business retention strategy. -The addition of $3,500 to support the development of recruitment materials would complement existing activities and assist in making Lakeville the location of choice for new businesses. Thank-you foryour past generosity. We look foiward to a long and successful partnership with Dakota Electric. Please contact Ann Flad at (952) 985-4425 should you wish to discuss this further or should you require additional information.. Since,~ely, n ~ Robert J nson Mayor CC: Bob Vogel, Chair, Economic Development Commission Robert Erickson, City Administrator Arlyn trussing, Community & Economic Development Director Ann Flad, Economic Development Coordinator City of Lakeville 20195 Holyoke Avenue • Lakeville, MN 55044 • (952) 985-4400 •FAX 985-4499 Recyekd paper. tq ink 1• CITY OF LAKEVILLE RESOLUTION DATE January 16, 2001 RESOLUTION NO. 01-15 .MOTION BY Luick SECONDED BY yellows .RESOLUTION ACCEPTING GRANT WHEREAS, Dakota Electric's Partners in Progress program has offered $3,50D to the Economic Development Department of the City of Lakeville to be used toward development of business development marketing materials; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires that all gifts and donations of .real or personal property be accepted only with the adoption of a resolution of the governing body. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lakeville thatthe grant of $3,500 from Dakota Electric is hereby accepted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the .City of Lakeville sincerely thanks Dakota Electric for its generous grant. DATED this 16th day of January, 2001: CITY OF LAKEVILLE BY: t~( Robert John n, Mayor ATTEST:. r~ ~ Charlene Frie ges, Ci Clerk donation 1: ~I<"~~i~'~~' ~ That cusp, it now appears, is Iricksor~ ar;ij ether city officials joined developers Tuesday to i}i3ltG f?E7~R~ ss-~rF~:wpi{~R announce a t~ropased iOO-acre retail and ~:o`mmercial develilp- as` gyring; ..Lakeville city .went at 185t;t Street and Inter- adminisrator Bob Erieks~~n state 35-that would feature two of said his com.~,4nity :vas "on the the i~ep itezs,s en Lake~~ille's wish cusp'' of attracting big-name list: abig-bo~c retailer and a major retailers and beginning to reverse grocer-,~ sure. a longtime trend of residents Tlie developrctent, called Tim- spending their money out of town: berGrest at Lakeville, would be Developers had flirted. for years anchored by a S~.ioerTarget store, with big-box retailers and ,major. which combines a Target Great- grocery chains, fiat time after land store ann afull-service gro- . tine, deals -would -fall. through or .stores would go elsewhere. R~TA~i. ce~v~irvi;EO rah 28 ~ ~ 1 ~ 5th St. VJ _ I rim r _ _ i '~'~n~berCrest pla~i . corvnNUEO FROM sa ~ Crest at - - ~ ldkevlUe , ~ ~ ~`lhen completed, TimberCrest ' at Lakeville°would provide p ~ ~ more than 500,000 square eery. Plans cah for the I82,O0O i square foot superstore to be. joined ~ ; ~ j feet of retail, commercial and by another. 370,000 square feet of ; ' ` office space on. about 100 ~ acres. if ail ` oes as planned, retail space, restaurants and office 185th St ar _ g space when the development is , - - ~ ~ the development's first phase, `.--t inciudin a SuperTar et store, .finished several years from now. ~ g g The first phase will include the ? 1.35; ~ ~ ~ N will be open by fall 2002. SuperTarget and several other k 2 - r~ ~ ~ - retailers restaurants and office ' ~ ~ ~ DAKOTA space, said Barbara Van Auken, `r j ' f COUNTY .executive vice president of The r, '>~a~..,.,~`-?"' While TimberCrest will attract Avalon Group, a .Minneapolis- ~ PiorveeR PRESS those who -.are looking.: for big-box based development company that retail .shopping, downtown mer- will own and manage the develop- other communities. In 1999, 96 chants wilt retain their niche-with ment. percent. of .respondents to a com- specialty businesses and a more Current plans call lot constiuc- munity survey said they did their intimate atmosphere.. And getting lion to begin next summer and fore daily-.shopping out of town. Most- Lakeville residents to shop in the first phase to open in Cictober ventured to Burnsville or .Apple Lakeville, even -out an the inter- 2002, Van Auken -said. The Bevel- .Valley, Name to the nearest big- state, .eventually .could lead to opment plans must gn through an box retailers and major grocery increased business. downtown. . environmental review.chains. "It's- good for Lakeville, fo be Most recently, plans called fora ` By providing .snore shopping able to shop in your awtt town," major grocery chain to anchor the ~ y.op~sortunties in Lakeville, Timber- Mondus said.. "It'll help.. dawn- fledgling Heritage Commons retail :Crest -.also -could help other Bevel- town." ' development near the Heritage opments, such as Heritage Com- Van Auden couldn't. provl:de Library and Lakeville's .govern- coons, Van Auken said. details Tuesday tin ,ghat .olrher ment center, just north of the " "I don't think our announcement businesses may be.cbming ao community's historic downtown does anything- -but bolster. other berCrest, but she. said that- rest ` business district. developments," she said. ~ among retailers ti Lakeville loos-: Van Auken and her partners Christine Ivlondus, executive lions, especially along I-35, is Ligh:. hope TimberCrest at Lakeville caa .director of the Downtown 'The development coincides ~iQ' break Lakeville residents of their Lakeville Business Association, planned- improvements to `the;. long-standing. tendency to shop in agreed: - 185th Street interchange with I'35 Proposed interchange tax rates Tax dais ute hits Woodb . ~ , _ _ _ , p U.~y Prom I ~x/Sgfc Class By.Sam Black ~ . • Assessment an ers businesses Staff reporter g 50.18 Interchange Office 6 Coartnercial A special assessment tax for The tax, which was passed Some business owners ~s so.o~ Cemamrd~uaera,i a new interchange on Interstate by the Woodbury City Council argued against the tax at .the ~ ' 494 in Woodbury has drawn Dec. 13, is a 15-year, special council meeting, and at least Anew I-494 inter- ~su,oa ~rr,rmt8jod m~d~t' the ire of some local business assessment that will raise about two property owners say they change is planned 30.03 Bustnas-bite ~ ' owners and may spark a legal $4 million to help pay for the will probably file a legal chat- ' at Tamarack Road h Inda:trial challenge. Tamarack Road interchange. TAMARACK to a e 33 ~ 'SO.DI High tknri j P S Residenoa4~rerftgi} , TAMARACK sponsored. The other also was on 494, at Muir also developed the 750,000-square- "It comes down to aline-drawing issue," Lake Road. That one was completed in 1995 foot open-air shopping center called LeClair said. from page I for about $13 million and included a special Tamarack Village at Radio Drive, right off of LeClair said the formal appeal would lenge [o the tax. No official written objec- assessment district, albeit a smaller one.. I-94 on the north side of Woodbury. That likely challenge the city's authority to levy ..lions had been filed as of Jan. 3, but they can The city estimates that the Tamarack project also is within the new interchange special assessment taxes on a federal inter- be filed with the Washington County District interchange will spark about $90 million. in district. state project. Court up to 30 days after the assessment dis- new development on what is mostly farm- The city passed the assessment district Lammers said he believes it is legal. trio is approved. A judge would then con- land' based on the results of two independent St. Paul developer Jerry Trooien, who cider the case. Casper of Ciatti's said he doesn't dis- appraisals, said Jim Lammers, city. attorney. owns about 65 acres adjacent to the inter- The special assessment was the last piece agree with the city's need for another inter- The rates of benefits and boundaries, which change and is negotiating to sell about one- of the 6naneing puzzle for the $22.5 million change, but he doesn't think it is fair to tax vary from 18 cents per square foot to 1 cent third to the city, said he thinks the entire city interchange. It's also being funded with tax him or other businesses in the 600,000- per square foot, also were drawn by the should pay for. part of the interchange abatements from the city, School District square-foot Woodbury Village retail devel- appraisers, he said. because it benefits everyone. But he also 833 and Washington. County in cogjunction opment for it. Brian LeClair, an insurance salesman and understands that the biggest benefactors with federal and state grants. He called the assessment boundaries spokesman for the Woodbury Chamber of should pay a greater share. "I'rn getting hammered with these assess- "completely subjective," adding that he Commerce, said the chamber disagrees with Where the city draws the line is what menu;' said 'Thomas Casper, owner of the doesn't want to subsidize new development the specral assessment, buC declined to ,join upsets Casper, who will pay $6,_500 over 15 Ciatti's Italian Restaurant near the Valley that will reduce his custorner base and prob- Muir's appeal because it didn't think it was years for the assessment. Creek Drive interchange with 494 in ably add more competitors. the chamber's role. "T can't take any more assessments," Woodbury. Casper said he would file an "It's the opposjte of benefit," Casper said. The problem with the tax is figuring out Casper said. "I'm selling spaghetti here:' ¦ The Robert C. Muir Co., which. devel- which businesses benefit, he said. objection with the court. am ac can a reac a of - The interchange has been planned by .the oped and owns Woodbury Village, also will Businesses also .have complained about. the 2103 or sblack@bizjournals.com. city since about 1988. It is the second inter- Probably challenge the assessment in court, exclusion of single-family residential prop- change that the fast-growing suburb has according to a company executive. erty from the zone, he said. . - _ ~ ~ _ 34 CityBusiness December 29, 2000 • • ~ r,. . . , State ne~~cls ~s orl~ation fi~nd~~n lan p gp he Minnesota Department of State University, traffic congestion was facing the metro area and the state. Transportation recently, in the wake rated one of the most significant problems With 2001 a biennial budget year, and of the just-completed metro area facing the metro azea. with citizens from across the state voicing ramp-meter study, turned -back on the During the recent campaign season, their support, the Legislature should also majority of ramp meters, operating them legislative candidates from across the state be more amenable to considering a long under revised guidelines. The final results reported that transportation was one of the term transportation-funding plan. of the study are due to the state Legislature primary issues of concern for voters. While the ramp meter study helped in February.. At Gov. Ventura's Nov. 13 budget focus attention on the growing congestion Regardless of the short- or long-term forum with local government officials and crisis in the metro area, ramp meter strate- modifications MnDOTchooses to employ,.. business leaders from across the state, par- gies alone cannot .address Minnesota's one thing is clear: With ramp ticipants rated .increased transportation needs. Gov. Ventura, meters on or ramp meters off, transportation funding as the iV1nDOT and the state. Legislature - tak- trafficcongestion in the metro . state's top financial priority, ing full .advantage of transportation azea is :bad and growing outpolling second-ranked K- momentum remaining from the 2000 leg- :worse. To address this reality, 12 education funding by islative session and current public support a. comprehensive; long-term more than 2-to-1. -should work together to fashion a corn- state transportation-funding :Gov. Ventura put forward prehensive, long-term transportation fund- plan should be a major .corn--. a bold transportation funding ing strategy for alt of Minnesota. portent of-the Ventura admin- proposal during the 20001eg- istration's post-meter study islative session, one that Fred Corrigan is executive vice president of strategy. ~l ~~/P~~NT would have provided $3 bil- the Minnesota Tronsportation Alliance The. 'Twin Cities is now _ ~ ,Fred Cortigan lion over 10 years for trans- (~'N'tronsportationaUiance.com) and a ranked-the 19th most congest- ~ portation projects statewide: member of the Invest2000 Transportation ed region in the nation, up; The governor's proposal Funding Coalition. frotm 37th just 10 years ago. focused investments on what , Sixty-five percent of freeway travel in the he termed the 'ABCs" of transportation: metro azea occurs under congested condi- (A)dvantages for transit, (B)ottleneck lions. With 500,000 new residents and removal, and (C)orridor connections ~ ~ ~ Y-~ 285,000 new jobs expected in a metro between regional economic centers. ~ ~Ubl'Y11SS10i1S area by 2020 -adding neazly 20 million -While stilt falling short of Minnesota's _ .vehicle -miles traveled daily on area road- estimated $10 billion in unfunded trans- , , , . , ~C',tYE3r? . ways -congestion will only get worse, portation needs, the governor's plan was ~ . ; stness wrelcomes according to a 1999 University of Texas the most thoughtful and significant admin- wriai commentarte5~;,' Center for Transportation Research study. istration-sponsored transportation propos- Interest tR, the bust~~ The region needs more highway lanes, a1 in more than a decade. The 2000 tt~~oyS more transit options and an aggressive Legislature gave the governor's plan con- program of removing highway .bottle- sideration, but .opted instead to address p necks. State leaders must focus on bold immediate transportation needs with a be:retti ,`subrit initiatives and significant investments to limited, one-time infusion of $600 mil- efi improve the region's mobility, economic lion. erv`V7s~-r`e-used +rt~ competitiveness and quality of life. For the 2001 legislative session Gov. ,~`'~Send to ;C'iX~ , , Citizens and local government officials Ventura should.. again propose abold, ,a cleazly recognize that transportation fund- long-term funding strategy, for iransporta- ~ tai F~ ~ , , ing is one of the state's most pressing pri- Lion, one. that is lazger than the 2000 pro- t .ioritres. In recent opinion.polls gonducted _ posal and comescloser to financing all the 1 t b`-_lfhc`MetropoHtan Cottncrl~ aMet~o state,htghway, loGal,road ana transit needs yam, .e: 4 c ,d: •S+nSkSt.. t ~ ~ Ti.~7ig~'41+.++ ~Y.r`p,:k:F ~ f C'~ •Y.-..J ~ - f _u - December J 1, 2000 INDUSTRIAL ' Pcges25 ~ECTION Fle~ib' ' • ~y ~ •ke to the .real a 1. . Y state market's..`Ind~al: , . Evol~t~on\s~:~ 1 by Chris Hickok and Jon Yanta ~``1 ~t+Owing companies searching for t.J combined office/warehouse space arc often advised tcxlay to look beyond the beat- ctt paths of the inner-ring ctth111?>,ti t,l tncct GUEST I~lu•il n1'c11~. 1 . \n~ I In.1 ;I~ lllc T ~ , COLUMNfISTS 1 .1 1' II i ~ I•~,un~l u11 ~ 1,I.Ihc , ;r IvvIII ( ilir~ ttu.l ~ ' 1~•1~~~11t;1n ,nr;l ,ur I~rnl!~ X111 Iclu'11. C1, r,., _ 't~ .u r y ;Y, ,m i~ a ~ ~r Ilu~ 11clutitllnt~ 1, ~ ~ t I "111111 1, :ttt11 u'atc W ! , ~~`~,tet II"It~1'.. hutlllin!~~ I~,v111 ink :nul }*rlnving. 1 ~4` ` ~ r~ ~1'hcrc lhhsc tt1'11 IIrn11c r1,n1 1'rl,c. slmtc G nllrrt•~lin}' n11t 11111•Inllnn'nl~ ~ w 111;111• Ihal 11111 r 111 n1 III I11 11•nanlc. 1lcvcl- l~" ~ '-',w; t ° nhcr~ anll ntuntcip,tliU1.~ ~h :Ilikc ~ ~ ~1.~ _ ~ ( „I1111111C11 ~III~I1 ~ ~ ~`•a ..w., .~M 011,11-III „I tln• ftl nl r NI<•~ rrnnllnn 11:1•. •l,nllr~f irll~rca~rll ~I~n1.m~l Ian ~~III ,In,l 11~ In,n - 1;n r .~~I 111„~„ ~I,~n1t 111 ~ ~u~u ~ I ~ I~~ i 11i1nu~ II,,~IIt1i". ~ illlul ,11111 ,il~~ll,. tll~. Inlrl .I,IIr I'11;(,'I I ~ ,.il" L~~~I, It,nC r~1,r111'Ix1'~I n1r11~,l1hlr 1,11~«IIr1, y, ~ 1 ~~~I ;III Illl ll';Itilfl ).[I1 \1;1111' I('~11111 ('t', land. y ~ ~ ~tunicipalilic.~. such ati I'I`ntlwlh. I;dcn I'rliric, Coon IL•tpids. 131ainc and Roseville, that curly a decade or so ago competed avidly for new industrial devel- opment now exercise more restraint in the The 242,000 square foot Rogerg QigtributiOn Center Phase I, deY@IO E,a PHOTO COURTESY OF UNITED PROPERTIES types of development they encourage. office/warehouse "flex" uses, is nearly ready for occupancy. Rising costs of close-in development p d by Mayfield, Belgarde & Yaffe for drive flight to outer trim suburbs Companies looking to expand vithin these municipalities often disSOKer hal the z\c~\c fcx c~evcll,pcncnl has KonC 1117. Shakopee to the west and southwest. "additional concern is creatin a ro riate four spaces. _ , Land costs on the fringe of the working erivironments for screnps s, engi- Going where the Iaborr pools are more metropolitan area .can be.lower than in the veers and other technically oriented per- abundant - - more mature inner ring suburbs. The wet- sonnet. Work spaces for these types of Greater access to new labor mar- come mat for new- development is also employees may include well-lit, win- kets is another benefit of moving to the inure readily displayed. Many outer-ring Bowed office and collaborative work outer rings. By moving to outer suburban municipalities provide incentives no spaces, lab space, light manufacturing and loauions, companies are more accessible longer available from more fully Bevel- more. oped cities. to potential workers living in nearby coca( Neither a traditional office structure nor and ex-urban areas. Lr the Rogers/Maple 'tenant needs drive market for `t7ex' a prototypical "concrete block" warehouse Grove area, for example, companies can . space building meets this type of tenant need. hope. to attract new workers from as far It's not just the location side of 'fhe m~u'ket has responded with more tlex- away as Monticello, Annandale and St. the development e~ualion that's than ~m E ihle, multiple-use buildings to accomnur- Cloud. Developers are responding tc~ evolving ten- date almost any type of user. For all of the above reasons, the Businesses that look beyond the loop market 1'or office/flex warehouse has can benefit evolved rapidly in recent years. At the end Businesses scouting the outer of the: day, companies generally decide rings tier flex space often discover apleas- their next real estate move based on a vari- ^a' anlly surprising v-ray of advantages. ely of factors. Cost and availability uC land Newly constructed flex buildings can be arc usually two key elements in their Jeri- x aesthetically pleasing and functional and siuns. When those two variables are taken more suited la their current and future into account, the choice to lease ur build needs. in the outer ring suburbs when becomes p Anew Ilex-Type building may overwhelmingly cleat feature an image-friendly exterior office. Consider all the possibilities before finish on one side, with windows for vat- making a move PHOTOS COURTESY OF UNITED PROPERTIES Ural Ilght, floor coverings, painted walls When Gage Marketing decided to Chris Hickok " ~ , and an inviting public entryway. Less expand and consolidate its operations into ' obviously, part of the building may house Q00,0U(1 square feet of space, it found what x.". distribution operations, with higher cell- it was looking fur in Rogers.'I'rying to find Assuming they can even find enough land 4 ing clearances and ample dock access in ;rod develop a package of rent estate tdrat for development, companies are facing place. large closer-in would have been far more additional restrictions and demands from ~ Automated warehousing technol- costly and challenging for the company. municipal governments now seeking more y ogy is making many companies' space Similarly, Department 56 expanded into control over everything from the types of needs for distribution operations more a 130,O(10 square foot "flex" distribution business activities they will permit to the sophisticated and specific. Higher ceiling center in Rogers. ]n Maple Grove, United aesthetics of a given development. Jon Yanta clearances, enhanced sprinkler systems Farrel Service is building its 497,000 These restrictions exact a toll on new and a plan for orderly future growth are all square feet north regional center on a 56- development in the form of increased highly desirable characteristics for these acre site. These companies worked with costs. In Eden Prairie, fur exam le, land ant needs by building flex' properties that companies. Older buildings often can't municipal governments eager w add com- P combine some of the best features of office accommodate such users unless extensive nrercial development to create bread-win- prices have basically doubled for and industrial buildin s. office/warehouse development in the past g -and expensive -retrofitting takes Wing jabs and increase the tax base. four to five years. Flex property tenants range from place. well-established companies to small- and Office/warehouse flex buildings can in othersouter-ri g rsuburbs includes to The result is a continued push raid-size firms experiencing rapid growth. also allow for more parking than that pro- 2130,000 square foot site office/warehouse outward for new, affordable space to sub- A common theme is a need to combine dif- vided by more traditional .warehouse consolidation site for Skyline Displays in orbs such as Rogers and Maple Grove to ferent business functions, such as office buildings. A call center operation may Eagan. Seagate Technology consolidated the northwest, Champlin and Lino Lakes and light manufacturing operations with require a parking ratio of eight or nine .its Twin Cities operations into one con- to the north, Woodbury, Inver Grove warehousing and distribution capabilities. spaces per 1,000 square feet versus the Heights and Eagan to the southeast and For high-tech companies, an more standard warehouse ratio of three to INDUSTRIAL to next page 0 ~ .r .......•....w..wr~w-n.w+.w~ww~.......rww•~.~. ~ ~.,wi+y..ar..........hr ~ • r • / / Page 26 ~ NDUSTI~IAL ~ December 1 a;~ 2000 SECTION . INDUSTRIAL from previous page tiguous corporate campus totaling 350,000 ' ~ ~ 7; ~ n'' square feet in Shakopee's Valley Green r - ~ ' ~.Y•. R j~ Industrial Park. Also in Shakopee, ADC ~ ~ - fr I Telecommunications absorbed over 1.5 ~ ~ ~1'' million square feet and USCG Lo istics K recently moved in. Psychologically, some companies perceive a proposed move to the outer ring suburbs as a potential negative. They may . q, fear the potential disruption to their bust- a, Hess from relocating existing employees to . anew site. They may feel there is a disad- . ; vantage to locating a crucial part of their business further away from the metropoli- r, , tan center cities. ~ - Flc~tc rt•cl. as companies of all sizes hate ,lisr,ncrc~l. there ran he ~i~nil- m._ Ir;ml a,ltantal~r~ I„ nu,t int: rcmrp:cnV cipcr . .Ili,m~ II, Ihr ,wirl line ~nhnrh~. II is t~„ril~ , u lur ant r„nll~ant ~c,u,_~hin~ Il,r Sparc I., ,•~I,I„re the I,~~~.ihililic~ „f huilcline .,r ~ ~ ~ ~ s, • . I, ;I~in!~ in Ihr~r c•nu n~n~h rral rslalr near ' i y~' K kct~. r ~ p~ ~ ' I Chri,c liirhnk nncl Jnrt ?'anlu r(rr' rh•!' - '~~r!-,~_ ~ ~F~"~"~' ~,rc,ci(lc~nl.c, !n~lu.cir~rul I3rukrrc(s;'c'./ur Unr!- - !'!I /'1'n~r!'17(!',t. ~ PHOTO COURTESY OF UNITED PROPERTIES This 128,000-square foot "flex" building in the Park Southwest 2000 development in Shakopee is a model of the new efficiencies available by combining office. and warehouse functions under one roof. WILLIAM FULTON Tonal Cham Local Hero v. Re p J few years ago, I heard a transportation expert in Los pellingly, but with impressive use of geographical data, the report Angeles offer up an almost perfect illustration of the argues that the Anoka relocations contribute to regional sprawl difference between local and regional goals. "When because most of these relocations came from close-in suburbs, I step off the curb to cross the street and almost get and workers must relocate to the metropolitan fringe or com- flattened by a car going 50 miles per hour," he said, mute out from central locations in order to retain their jobs. "that's a triumph of regional goals over local priorities." Needless to say, the Good Jobs First report has infuriated city The same can be said for economic development. Whether officials in Anoka, who have spent a lot of time defending their some economic development effort is achieving its goal depends project as good for both their struggling city and the regional econ- on how you define the outcome. Very often, some project does omy. No one doubts Anoka's assertion that the industrial park a fine job of achieving local aims but amounts to little more than has revived the town economi- rearranging things at the regional level. Or, conversely, a project rally. But on the regional front, (often a big one, such as an airport) achieves regional goals but the city's main argument is that does so only by flattening a local community. most of the space vacated by the For the past several months, a rhetorical battle between the companies that moved to city of Anoka, Minnesota, and the Washington, D.C.-based pol- Anoka was quickly leased to icy organization Good Jobs First has brought this local-versus- other companies. In other regional conflict into view once again. words, Anoka's free land did not Anoka is an older community some 20 miles north of Min- subsidize pointless business relo- neapolis. It has been struggling economically since the loss of a cations to Anoka. Rather, it major industrial employer, the Federal Cartridge Corp. Under subsidized a needed increase in the leadership of the late economic development consultant the metropolitan region's supply Gary Stout, Anoka used atax-increment-financing mechanism of industrial real estate. to attract dozens of companies to its 300-acre industrial park. A ~ This is where the regional- - major lure to the companies was free land. local conflict in economic There is little question that the industrial park has been aroar- development gets a little dicey. ing success for Anoka; today the industrial park is home to at If the purpose of these subsidies is to stimulate regional eco- . least 1,600 jobs, mostly in manufacturing. But Good Jobs First, a nomic growth-well, the Twin Cities region already has the most group that has a history of questioning the impact of deep eco- prosperous economy of any metropolitan area in the Upper Mid- nomic incentives, looked at the Anoka situation from a regional west, so it's hard to believe subsidies are really needed. If, on the perspective. other hand, the purpose is to rearrange economic growth to Using Minnesota's unusually broad public disclosure require- where it is most needed within the region, then Anoka might be menu for economic development projects, Good Jobs First found one candidate for a target location, but it's certainly not the only that all 29 companies that had been lured to the park had come .target. Anoka was struggling, but underlying the Good Jobs First from elsewhere in the Twin Cities metro area, mostly from other critique was that there are many other communities in the region northern suburbs closer in to the central city.. Based on inter- that are struggling just as much or more. They had no say in how Anoka used its subsidy, and they may be Very often a big development project losers when Anoka wins. Despite the city's arguments, the Anoka achieves regional goals bUt does SO by Enterprise Park wasn't a regional economic development effort at all. It was a pretty typ- flattening alocal community. Or vice versa. ical job-subsidy effort-and a successful one-by one struggling community that had views with the companies, Good Jobs First concluded that, while access to certain financial levers with which to manipulate the most of the companies were looking to expand, virtually all of regional economy, and the brains or the luck to hire a guy who them were planning to stay in the Twin Cities area no matter knew what to do with those levers.. what. Their report also noted that the free land played a major Whether you're an economic Darwinist or a metropolitanist role in luring them to Anoka-largely because, as one neighbor- at heart, it shouldn't be very surprising how this one turned ing city official put it, "I don't see how companies can say no to it." out. The Anokas of this world are the towns that usually suc-' Good Jobs First concluded that Anoka had simply spent tax reed at the economic development game. And why should they r dollars to subsidize the relocation of companies and jobs that care whether their region has won or lost as a result of all their ~ would have stayed in the vicinity anyway. A little less com- moves? ~ 76 GOVERNING December 2000 Governing.COm ~ ~ ..w..~.-.... - + Ikcember 11, 2000 Minnesota Rea) Estate Journal _ Page 11 • • , ~ • 1 nt~rre ~ lc~~s u national ~~av~Tard~ Shako ee I-~iver C Cie p p- p SERVES AS MODEL awaiting list, Jaffa says. St. Paul-based FOR OTHER PROJECTS Suntide Realty Services Inc. leases the commercial portion and continues to work to attract a deli. Take a drive down Main Street in _ Minneapolis-based Symmes, Maini downtown Shakopee and it's ~ ' c & McKee Associates Inc. was the pro- night and day from what the town ~ ~ ~ ~ ject architect and Minneapolis-based looked like two years ago. - , , Kraus-Anderson Construction Co. was The Scott County Housing and Rede- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ the general contractor. velopment Authority (HRA). is being ~ River City Centre has an all-brick recognized nationally for its efforts in exterior, flat-roof architecture and bay converting two rundown blocks into a ~t fi ` ~ windows. "The architecture reflects the ° late 180Os and earl 1900s and mirrors thriving mixed-use, senior housing ~ ~ Y redevelopment.. ~ ~ ~ - # other buildings downtown," Jaffa says. The HRA has been named a 2000 a• ~ ~ ' 4 He adds that there were several goals ,t recipient of the National Association of ' ~ _ ~ ~ of the project: to create a gateway to the Housing and Redevelopment Officials' ~ ~ ~ . 's;~ city, to preserve the downtown's histor- "Award of Excellence" for its River City ~ d - 4 , r ~ ical character, to create a retail base and ~ f „r. Centre project. The agency accepted the ~ '°i~~;. ~ ~ L } ~ ~F seniors vide affordable. housing for award, which recognizes outstanding " ~ . achievement in housing and community 'a ; ~s Because of its success, it is serving development programs nationally, last ~ ~ 3 ~ as a model for other developments month in Phoenix. locally and nationally. Downtown Sav- PHOTO COURTESY OF SCOTT COUNTY HRA a e, for exam le, recentl com leted a The HRA was in charge of organiz- g P Y P ing and overseeing a team to develop Shakopee River City Centre includes two three-story buildings connected similar project called "The Hamilton," the project, which combines apartment by a 60-foot, two-story archway displaying a clock tower. and plans for another similar develop- living over retail storefronts. River City ment are being proposed for New Centre sits within a tax increment Prague. Jaffa says out-of-state housing William Jaffa, executive director of the clock tower. Fifty-two units of market- and communit develo ment re resen- financing district, and the HRA invest- Y P P ed $2.5 million to acquire and clean up Ham' rate senior apartments are located on the tatives also have contacted him, The redevelopment includes two upper floors with retail, restaurants and ex resin interest in re licatin the the site. The city maintains the land and P g P g is leasing it to the HRA for 30 years, the three-story buildings connected by a 60- office space at street level. model. -Liz wolf length of the bond issue, explains foot, two-story archway displaying a The apartments are fully leased with Thursday Metro NOVEMBER 30, 2000 Edltlol2 ~r. p NEWSPAPER OF THE TWIN CITLES ¦ ~/y " Met Council tells suburbs to add affordable housin a~ g ~ ff they don't, Drive for cd/'ordable housing cities run the risk Poverty and school districts The Metrgwuta,t CouncB Wednesday endorsed an Of losing funds, aggressive strategy to Increase Bte,;ytpply of aHardable the 11.5. census u totlay released its latest estimates of povertyrates wittwt The counc0 pledged to - scltod district boundar~es.The statewide map, based on 1997 data, shows the _ agency says. . range of economic WosPedty N Mimesota sdtod datrkts.The inset map of the > Penal'¢e suburbs > Lobby the 2001 Minnesota Twin Cities metropol'rtmt area capdsestlte wide tlisPartties artang Mircteapofts, St By Dav1d Peterson that don't address Legsiatwe for a major _ Pout and ttiei suburban rieigNiors. The Pamarrtages measue the portbn of and Duchesae PaW Drew - Ore housing strort- increase in funding for school dv'Idren, ages 5 to 17, Gvir~g in inpover~hed twusehokls.These Povarb Star 77iburre StafjWriters age. Those sub-. -affordable-Iwusing projects. estimates are used to determine dstrkts' Title I Slant%. Suburbs that don't do orbs could use R Met Council task force of. - _ - enough to increase afford- sometransports- .suburban mayors, stressing 0.9% lion funding for im- the importance of supptying r l~].0.19'K able housing will bepenal- scttoal c1~Gdren ized, the Metropolitan provements such reasonably priced housing to p-~; X20.2996 Council decided Wednes- as widening toads working people,recom- ! ' ~.i I^t>a~Y ~3091,andover day. [f communities ignore or adding inter- mended $230 milfwnbver rl~.% ~ "~3J1 the housing deficit, they'll changes. two years. ~9 L t~ ~urAv Rr -y~_ risk losing funds for trans- ~ ^ 5 t Because of that, advocates for Minnea olis Ma or Sharon rr ° r~i portation projects, starting P Y ~ } affordable housing were cautious Sa es Belton, a co-chairwoman of next yeaz. yl 338 ` i fi htevo area school dLatrkts: And the council signaled in their approval. the task force, said the report pro- i, v that it plans to take the "We're holding our breath that vides "a blueprint for a strong, f { ~ same aggressive approach the final form of this is meaningful shared- legislative agenda," one G { ~ _ 3 when handing out money and has significant impact," said that would address all kinds of ~ }~r ~ } "l.tiravrts 6 for communities' other -Russ Adams, executive director of obstacles to affordable housing. t` r ',1~' needs, such as parks and the Alliance for Metropolitan Sta- The mayors conceded that one ~ ° I ~ ~ Fa ~ open space. bility, a coalition of groups favor- big obstacle can be their own city 1 ~ 5 Twin 2 &l0 1 The council's decision ing transit, affordable housing and councils and citizens. New Hope r, q~ r 1 4 ~ Y social ustice: ~ ~ ! came on the same da that: ] Mayor Peter Enck said the key will ~ . ~ msnn > A council task force, But Caren Dewar, the Met be to emphasize that the issue is ~'7R ti+_-i, 7?''9•` - ~ f~~~ made up mainly of subur- Council's director of community "housing for the work force" and `2, W r c ban mayors, issued a report development, said the step the not For "'those people' who will ~ rt-~-~-1~- i 8 ~r.., in which the mayors ac- council did take is "very big" and do something adverse to our city." ~--f-,---~-- -~-L- -1-r-=-. , i, r, 1w knowledged that their cities is not the last: The next step willbe Accordingly, the .report in- _ l , ~_.-,y -~.i,__.,yt~ 8`a°k" and. others need to expand to link other kinds of funding the chides a chart showing that child- affordablehousing. council provides to local commu- care workers, school bus drivers, POOREST scHOas (twttom 10) alc~sT sckioots (top 1oi > The U.S. Census Bu- nities to their track record in sup- travel agents and people in many 33a Cos ° % x L or,xb i , reau released figures chat Plying affordable housing. "We other occupations earning the 33swo t t.,c sae; 2~Tnr,eten-'y i-"'" have limited funds," she said, "and median salary for their job cote- 340. Mimeap°n' do.os'~` 3. F"~ f'" underscore how segregated [he need to o to those whoare 341 Nett Lake 31.31% 4. Edr ~ 246% the Twin Cities area is by Y g gory cannot comfortably afford 3a2wum~ 31.38% B. St rt,t,~u.rcr;~,w 2.76% income. For example, some doing the right thing." the average monthly. rent for a suburbs and exurban cities The council's motion doesn't two-bedroom apartment (just 343.Onamia 3323% 6. St nntnony7Jew Brip~ton 323% say how a community's afford- over $800). 344. frowns Valley 37,43% 7. New Prague 3.33% suchasSt.Michaelhaveasbt- able-housing efforts will be 345.Hi6CRy 37.85°,~ 3. Byron 3.58% tle child povertyas such affiu- judged. But one guidepost is likely The report emphasized that yyf, Red take 43.67% 9. south WasNrgton Co. 3.69% ent enclaves as Grosse Pointe, to be whether. a community has suburbs will not accept affordable 347. Pete Point 59.49% lO.Eden Pravie 3.91% Mich., or Scarsdale, N.Y. agreed to participate in the coon- or subsidized housing unless it's Meanwhile, kids in households cil's Livable Communities pro- done well and integrated seam- sowcesuscensrsau,eauanaM;,,,resotapepa,vnerrcoacrewtenFamaieesanatearnv~g within the Minneapolis school dis- gram, which involves negotiating lessly into market-rate housing trict have one of the higher with the council on goals for developments, as was done at poverty rates among comparable affordable housing. Most cities, Minnetonka's West Ridge, near poverty rankings How Minneapolis rates U.S. central cities, the figures and all but a handful of the larger the Ridgedale Shopping Center. In a related development, the On pOVerty scale show. ones, do participate. It agreedwith complaints of the Census Bureau released updated T7,e Met Council, the lead plan- homebuilding industry that cities' estimates on poverty by school Minneapolis ttas one of the higher nin a enc for the core seven- The rrlayOrS' nlOVe dwn rules make it tough to provide district thatwill be used to allocate rates of schooFage children in poverty, g g Y affordable housin For exam le, compared to centralcity schopl dis- the p t for relying too much on ing, the task force of mayors con-. cities often impo a setback and sclio ~ funding for high-poverty Victs in comparaby-s¢ed metro areas. incentives to get its goals vened by the councIl released its street-width requirements than eat The figures showed that Orono, Percentage of advanced and not enough an 28-page report full of recommen- up valuable land and push up with a 1.74-percent poverty rate didren S37 penalties for those failing to com- dations as to how to increase the prices. It also agreed that some among school-aged children, is ~s °a'ra~ ply, supply of affordable housing. cities' fees imposed on developers the most affluent district in the School to head of h°°s° On Wednesday, however, it The problem, they said - in might be considered"excessive;' state. It ranks 246th nationally dstrkt hoWNpoverty took a concrete step toward the the words of Plymouth Mayor Joy seeing as how they vary so widely amoni; more than 14,000 school Atlanta 42 latter. It voted toBnkdecisionson Tierney - is that "many, many fromanejurisdictiontothenezt. districts - Cleve-land 37 who getsup to $160 million every good workers cannotafford hous- At the same time, though, they The highest-poverty districts MIM+aukee 3 two years in federal transportation ing," especially in suburbs. InPly- said the state needs to step up to tended to be in northern Minne- Mlmaapolk 30 funds on who is approving some- mouth, she said, just since 1993 the plate, now thatthefederal gov- sots, rimaril in and around In- San Diego 2b times controversial affordable- the share of housing units that ernment has withdrawn much of dian reservations. Highest of all P~u<8n' 28 housing projects. could be purchased for $100,000 its housing subsidies. The mayors was tiny Pine Point, in eastern St PaW 2s About 350 points of the 1,400- or less has sunk from 35.6 percent said they will "support the a orts Becker County, 59.49 percent. MiamP(Oacx G~unry) 26 of those advocating that the state "I'm not su nsed.I'm not stir- Denver ~ 5 point transportation funding eval- to 10.6 percent. rP nation system could relate to so• The mayors will seek funding dedicate 1 percent of its general prised at aB,".said Superintendent Seatt~ 1`-I called "smart growth" topics, and from the Legislature -perhaps fund to affordable housing, which Neil Trottier, adding that the PortiarrOlJrc.l 18 100 of the 350 on affordable and $I15 million per year, Tierney would provide around $230 mil- effects of thecdmmunity'spoverty ~roe;p ,censuseureau1s97estimates senior housing. said. lion per biennium." are evident in his classrooms. Council officials left themselves Met Council Chairman Ted The mayors' report will be «A lot of it is daily challenges," star rrburre graphic some wiggle room in terms of the Mondale said the mayors' report available an the Met Council's he said. "Basicallyyou do one day details, partly because there are represents a "huge shift in this Web site, http:!lwww.metrocoun- at a time." parts of the region -notably region,".away from a debate aver cil.org, or by calling the Regional Peterson can be contacted Dakota County-that have been whether suburbs need to increase Data Center, 651-602-1140. atdavida.petersonCastartribun- highly praised for affordable- their affordable housing to how to e.com housing efforts even as individual geethat dons. Duchesne Paul lhew can be rnn- communities within the county tactedat612-673-71]1 or have been criticized for not doing Met Council links housing goals ddrerp@starrrilrarre.com enough. lt's tricky m penalize the one while paring the other with. funding for transportation THURSDAY, DECEMBER 14.2000 1V~e (,1 ~~~74Q hP * STAR TRIBUNE • PAGE )83 Met Coun it c takes Ea ~n to task on affordable housin g ~ The planning agency The council, which oversees Minneapolis or a Richfield, she at a local Catholic church, St pie don't know council members'. Council staff report said, its plan threatened to curtail Planning for the seven-county .said, when in fact "people: move John Neumann, on behalf of that positions on the issue, he said, to designate only 1 of its 2,239 area, said that unless the Dakota here from the inner city because idea, and that they will work with and many others think that. af- acres'of vacant land and 6 of its or reduce grants and County suburb plans far more. they want to live on asafe cul-de- other churches to gather more. fordable housing means " Ghica- 1,381 acres of underutilized land affordable housing that includes sac. If people. wanted to live in William Hodapp, a retired go-style housing projects forpeo- for high-density residential Bevel- aid to the Dakota 160 owner-occupied housing Richfield or Minneapolis, they University of Minnesotd adminis- pie on'welfare," not .moderately opment "is extremely low." Neaz- units and 381 high-density apart- woWdn't drive the extra distance trator'who spoke:for the group, priced housing .for "our work by Apple Valley and Burnsville. County suburb. menu, it "will curtail or siggnnifi- to get here." said that even some staff mem- force, seniors and students." are agreeing to develop densities candy reduce the city's eligibility Awada said nearly half the tiers of St John Neumann can't The Met Council says that if two o three times as high, itsays. By David Peterson for regional infrastructure im- city's housing stock is already afford to live in the city. His own Eagan develops to the relatively Affordable-housing advocates Star Tribune StaJj'Writer provements and for a wide range. multifamily. But `than doesn't 4ownhouse has gone up in value low density it seeks, it will make said that one Met Council target of grants and rmancial aids." make it affordable: Many are by $60,000 in 10 years, he said. transit inefficient; .squander could 'be the suburb`s desire to Just days after agreeing to put Eagan Mayor Pat Awada did $300,000 townhouses. 1n an interview, he said that wastewater treatment facilities redevelop its .aging Cedarvale the clamps on suburbs that dori t not attend the meeting, but in a A group of Eagan citizens ap- although.affordable-housing op- that have been built in anticipa- area, at Cedar Av. and Hwy. 13. do enough to provide affordable telephone .interview Wednesday geared before the Met Council. to ponents outnumber proponents lion of higher density and .con- .Awada said the city hasn't asked housing, the Metropolitan Coun- night, she retorted: "I think urge that it pressure the City 4 to 1 on the City Council, he said tribute to sprawl. for Met Council help on `that cil on Wednesday made it clear to they've given us one $10,000 Council into allowing more af- he believes community sentiment ' While Eagan's overall mix of front and doesn't plan to. Eagan that it is first in line for grant in the last decade." The fordable housing. They said hat is or can be the opposite if the single-family and multiple-family DavtrlPeterson can be contacted that sort of treatment. council is trying to reproduce a they had gathered 300 signatures ituation is explained. Most peo- housing is "excellent," a Met at davepeterson@startrtburtncom . , y S,y StarTribune _ ¦ ¦ House n stud derails suburban ri i c t cs . y A.~ffordable housing By Mike Kaszuba based in Minneapolis. The study family earning 80 percent of the Bernhard said the study, in c StarT'ribuneStaffWriter looked at home sales. surround- region's median income or less. which Maxfield Research Inc projects In ~Viil ing 12 such developments in That translated to a sale price of tracked the sale of more than G00 When Oak Ridge Townhomes Twin Cities suburbs in the 1990s, $1'L8,000 or less. single-family homes and town Cities suburbs have was proposed in Eagan, nearby including Oak Ridge, and found That falls short of the pace houses near affordable-housing homeowner5and even some City "similar or stronger market per- needed to meet a 1997 Met projects, was not designed to find rarely lowered the Council members quickly orga- formance" after the develop- Council goal to have more than a preordained conclusion. "We ' nized to fight it. One big reason: ments were built. 81,000 new affordable-housing didn't know what we were going Values Of nearby Affordable housing, critics said, With the Metropolitan Council units by 2010. to find," she said. ' would drag down "the caliber of last week announcing new incen- Angie Bernhard, research and Researchers compared those propertteS aS the neighborhood," including fives for affordable housing, the policy director at the Family sales with more than 1,800 sales i home values. study tackles an issue that has Housing Fund, said she doesn't in a control group of homes that neighbors. had feared, But such declines have rarely long vexed many suburbs. think the study is "going to make weren't neaz such a development. aeeOrding t0 a report occurred, according Y a study A Met Council report shows residents change their minds, released this month b the Fam- that about one-third of new met- ]but] I hope it gives elected offi- HOUSING continues on 69: . b an adVOC1C U ily Housing Fund, a nonprofit af- ro-area homes surveyed in 1998 cials the cover that they need to -FamilyHoresingFund shows ; - y y ~ h fordable-housing advocacy group were considered affordable to a do the right thing." impactof affordable housing. H~SIN~tt ff01!!1 B1 the study focused on affordable- for newer single-family homes. housing developments built be- St. Croix Village. also didn't (fordable-housing study needs tween 1993 and 1997, a period appear to have a significant im- AffOKlable Sale prices of single-family homes generally considered to be a fa- pact on the amount of time near- ~ in the area studied near Oak Rklge a close looJ~ Eagan mayor says vocable housing market. But Ho- by homes were on the market, housing's (Median price per square foot tf,ree years ~ vet said the findings would prob- the study said. 'Two years before before and after start of construction of ' ably be similar in a soft housing construction began, single-family impact affordable housing) Oct. 4, 1995 In the Case of Oak Ridge, the home values in Eagan have risen market, because suburban hous- homes were on the market fora A report by the family ~ <t:onstructlon started study found that the median sale 5 percent to 7 percent annually ing values have been moving up- median of 90 days. A year before Housing Fund says that ~ SfiR.50 ~ price per square foot for nearby over the past five years. If values ward for years. construction began, the median home values do not suffer . gTp existing single-family homes rose near Oak Ridge are rising more In Washington County, the was 30 days. In the three years when affordable hcwsing ; I` 859.95 ' b 4.6 ercent annual] durin a slow] , she said, "the 're er- Pamir Housin Fund's stud fo- after work be anon St. Croix Vil- is built nearby.0ak Ridge ~ ~ ~ . I s5 y P. Y g Y Y P Y S Y g S562ry! y A 567.67 ; period that began one year before forming wider the market." cused on S!. Croix Village, a 20- ]age, the median was 58 da s, 4G Townhomes, a 42-emit 60. Y affordable~housn i ~ + S6485 J construction began and. ended But Scott Hovet, Washington unit affordable townhouse devel- days and 54 days. ~ ~ - 55 three ears afterward. Converse- County's assessor, said the stud o ment that o ened in Stillwater Even when a nearb net hbor- devebpment in Eagan, $5914 , y Y p p Y g .was one of 12 in the ~ 50 ly, the study said, the. price .grew confirmed what he long ago de- in 19911. Although the median hood had poorer market perfor- metro area that was by just 26 percentannuaily dur- tennined: "We have never been sale price per square foot for mance after work began on an studied. Though critics ~ - ing the years before work began able to measure any impact or a newer single-family homes near- affordable-housing development, said it would harm ' ~ i 5 on Oak Ridge. detriment to the value ic~f nearby by had declined before work on it corresponded to similar perfor- property values, the study ~ ' p Eagan Mayor Pat Awada, who housing]. St. Croix Village began, it rose mance in a control group. "Such found that the sales prices Theme Two one one Two 72xee opposed:; Oak Ridge as a City "The marker. will accept what's from $79.20 per square foot be- poorer performance was almost of stxrounding single- years years year year years years Council member, said that she there. It's kind of contrary to fore to at least $78.67 per square always limited to one year, or family homes rose after before before before after alter after hadn't seen the study but that what you might think." foot afterward. isolated among one group of work began on Oak Ridge. Data: Maxfield Research Inc. scrutinyvrould be in order. Two years after construction homes," according to the study. _ _ ' She said that the development MOt market on St. Croix Village began, it rose Mike Kaszuba can be contacted at Sauce: Fartxly tbusiig Fund Star Tribune graphic by Jane friedmam has been well-managed but that Bernhard acknowledged that as high as $92.46 per square foot rrekaszuba~startribune.mm - ouder hove Kaska, Some w in ~ rs have cur a Bernard. .,much ~nfluen~ ' ~ ~ ~ since Elie Bernardis sho ~ o tht that way decades ago and g ; almost .two. most half of ~ ; ' • gy Mike KasZUba 3,70p acres, including ro er- ~ ~ Writer ed residential p P ~ Star Tribuxre Staff Chaska s undevelop ercent of yk I At ag t at the tinge and ns ndustoi~a park. e 75, Vasco ou hra`~e e ~ dhe ghat today is the city ected daily life w the question often g from The Bernardis lib eared small - and his~bh~~seems 1 ke the entire'~crtY ° in Chaska zn way' g to buy to decide where a neN!ri alan- Chaska? hel ing o to joining the city P ~,ui~i gernardi oversees his Many people in this midsized, arercu- store will g suburb, he acknowledg that ning a golf course. land- I Vasco Bernardi heads father Antonio's hotdings~ County ' Most developing cities have key ' Chaska Investment. rious. 'They mention somethin Bernardi ~ we were related io the Vaaccent, "All ba- owners; but the Ber ~ a nr~cantldings in a fallec~ deVelOpment said in a heavy Italian Chaska are unusually' g After buY~~ S a ~T0~1erS Loney. CHASicA continues on As: ear ~ `pven that we We1rnakingmela gh a _ The failure of the Planned comma-rni.ty it does seem o fJonathan contributed in large ~2e ' almost 2 y I~ern~ have fia. All ridiculous. All as though VaSCO and A11t0~]]0 At times, sure to the Bernardis'success. ~ ]andowners• nothing happens in Chaska without the become SllC~ two colorful brothers. And it has been . . ,o ~ c ~ ~ v o~ 'o ~ 0 0 n.~ MONDAY, DECEMBER 4.2000 But by the early 1960s, Anto- tried to give the land back, he city. Aurora Investment has Luigi nio found his way to Minneapolis said, the bank kept offering to Bernardi as its president and has as he helped oversee the compa- renegotiate a better deal for the only a smattering of parcels left ny's oil drilling in Oklahoma and brothers. "We never put money" in Chaska. Texas. "He had, at the time, zero in initially, Antonio said - "very Relatives insist the breakup experience in real estate," said little." was fueled hyAntonio Bernardi's Luigi Bernardi, one of Antonio's Bob Lindall, the former presi- desire to give Luigi, 38, a business two sons, who helps oversee his dent of the Jonathan Develop- to run. But some city residents father's real-estate, holdings in ment Corp., the foreclosure of said they remembered Antonio the Twin Cities area... which led to the demise of Jon.a-. and Vasco Bernardi .arguing at Driving back and forth to work than, said, "My guess is it could meetings where they were lobby- along Hwy. 100, however, Anto- have been $6 million or $7 mil- ing for development before the .nio eyed a 390-acre farm in Edi- lion.... That would have been a breakup. "Consider the scenario," na, He bought it, he said, with a real good price because of the said Main, the Jonathan Associa- $100,000 down payment. A short amount of sewer and water that tion director. "You have two time Later, .General Motors of- was already in place." Lindall is brothers with pretty strong Italian fered him $500,000 for just 20 now a Chaska City Council accents ....[and) then you get acres of it. member. some raised voices." "Ithink I am a very intelligent But the .two brothers today fellow -but not like that," Anto- DIVId@a bUt StIII CIOSe telephone. each other regularly nio, 79, said recently from his Just how much money the from Edina offices that are barely Edina office. "It `was all pure Bernardis have made in Chaska is three blocks apart. Even as Anto- luck." speculation. Antonio Bernardi nio Bernardi was being inter- . By 1968, he .was pictured in bristles at estimates in area mag- viewed for this article, he called area newspapers alongside Curt azines that he was worth $40 mil- his brother to seek advice, con- . Carlson, the Radisson Hotels lion in the early 1990s or that he ducting the entire conversation owner, as they :developed the is, as one described him in the in Malian. Radasson South Hotel on another 1970s, the "Howard Hughes of As Chaska continues to grow, part of the property. Today the the Twin Cities." Vasco Bernardi is often part of rest of the farm is a major Indus- "It's just insulting," he said, the plan. This autumn, he sold a trial and office park along Hwy. declining to reveal his net worth. parcel of land for a large Target 100 and Interstate Hwy. 494. Similarly, the Bernardis de- store in the city. 'The develop- . After spending 70 years devel- dined to disclose the identities of ment drew loud criticism from oping real estate in Mexico City, a half-dozen partners -mostly, nearby homeowners, who asked Vasco Bernardi joined his older according to Bernardi family city officials to conduct an envi- brother in Minnesota in 1978, members, wealthy Italian, Swiss ronmental review but were Antonio Bernardi had long been a and Canadian investors -who turned down. customer of the First National have helped bankroll thebroth- "Everybody sort of assumes if Bank of St. Paul, which agreed in ers' real-estate ventures. it's a Bernardi deal it's going to go the early 1980s to buy Jonathan's And then there is the matter of through," said Jim Aiken, a undeveloped land and a nearby the brothers' splitting their Chas- homeowner opposed to the Tar- shopping center for $5 million ka land holdings five years ago in get store. So is there anything from a trustee for the federal gov- what relatives said was an arnica- improper. in the Bernardi's rela- ernment. Shortly .afterward, ac- ble parting. Chaska Investment, tionship with City Hall, Aiken was cording to the family, bank offi- the brothers' original company, asked? "No smoking gun that I've cials approached the Bernardis.. remains with Vasco at the con- seen," he replied. "[They] said, `Vasco, do you trols and with an estimated 800 Mike Kaszuba can be contacted at want to buy Jonathan?' "Vasco acres of undeveloped land in the mkaszuba@startribune.com said. "I know barely anything i about Jonathan.. I :barely speak - English." However, he added: "It was good for us. It was a good deal." But not initially, Antonio Ber- nardi said. He said he turned down the bank's offer to buy the land at least a-dozen times. "Ev- erybody -not [onlyl me - ev- erybody in town turned them down." The bank:. wanted $12 million at first, he said, but kept lowering the price in a desperate attempt to find a buyer. Finally, .Antonio said, he agreed to buy the 3,700 acres with a small down payment. Even after it anneared` to he a had S~a~'TI'ibU11@ Monday, December 11, 2000. + S _ r . - } t x; s , r . c.} . tk~ A4 k rr `t` , A netiv Supervalu executive team _ v, . ~~"~~s aims to freshen earnings, in part by . , - - ~ . a ~ £ta4 ~ Y~ z~e jtlvenating some G~'~.ib Foods stores. w,. 'T ~ r ` By Ann Merrill ` t 5}, . Star Tribune Staff Writer o much for a honeymoon period. , ' ~ ~ < ` When Jeff Noddle takes the helm at Supervalu Inc. sometime in the next six months, he'll already r, ~ ~ be in the thick of a battle. Heightened competition - ~ from supercenters, membership clubs and tradi- tional grocers has eroded Supervalu earnings esti- _ r ` ? mates-and.pummeled its stock + The challenge, which last week forced the Eden Prairie company to announce a 20 percent cut in capital spending along with the possibility of a charge against earnings, ' 4 comes at a time of transition for the. nation's largest grocery wholesaler and 10th-largest retailei: Noddle, with Supervalu since 1976, will replace retiring CEO Mike Wright before the company's annual meeting in F` ~ June. He'll be working with a newly established three-man team of retail executives and a new leader of distribution .u who came to Supervalu when it acquired RichfoodHold- ings Inc.last year. "It will-bean interesting time," said George Dahlman, senior analyst at U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray in Minneapolis. , Dahlman downgraded his recommendation on Super- - valu's stock from."strong buy" to "buy" last week when the company xevealed it wo~ild fall short of analysts' estimates. ,rr "I was morE disappointed thane.:others, perhaps because I had been fairly~bullish," Dahlman said. I had to eat ~incontaniinateci craw." . . -~~~~.l~~~ , w ,~i SUP~RYILLU cantulues on D2: Lagging Cab :stores are "hi~Iz~t priority:" Chief executive Mike Wright will refire as chief executive of ~ f RetaA leadership.. Supervalu in the coming months; retaining the ~ ~ i BiW Bolton, head of the companys retaa title of chairman. He wiN be replaced as C£0 by ~ I operations, left the company this month His job is JeN Noddle, currently president and chief . ~ i ~ being filled by a retail team of Uttee: operating officer. Noddle has been with the I I ~i' > John Hooley, who rejoined Supervalu less than company for 24 years. f two wi~eks ago after leaving ri 1999. He Noddle's shopping Alit Jeff Noddle John Hootey spent more than two decades withCub Foods > Jumpstart saks~and > Trim capital spending: and Supervalu and now is president and cJtief margins at Cub Foods more remodeling, Since 1987, Supervaiu has lagged behind its peers and well ~ .executive of Cub. beh'r~d competitor Safeway Inc. I > Mike Jackson, who rred Supervalu in 19'r 9 > Expand customer fewer new stores to base > Cut distribution costs' 2% > Indexed prke appreciation (kn. 31,1997) and now serves as senior vice president of operations. He's in charge of Supervalu's eight Dlstrfbution lead~shi r~w;;y ~G r•; other retail chains such as Hornbadters, Noddle prevrously led Supervak~'s distribution 1 i - x=-~--" Shoppers Food Warehouse and Scott's Foods. operations. He was replaced ri October byAlec 0 ~ l ~ > Ed McManus, who came to Supervalu in Govingtaq formerly president and chief operating lrr:> n rr x, ~ cam ~ 5: n cx x supcrraw Inc : ~ March. He is head'mg the merchandising and offuxx pf Virginia~ased Richfood Holdings Inc. -1% marketing operations.. _ _ _,,.,,....v~.. , - Supervalu acquired Richfood fast year. 1997.. 199$ 1 l " 2000 "We do think -they (super- ary that could ,include closing centers and clubs) are formida- stores or distribution centers. It ble. We watch their ricin and also said it will trim its $550 mil- Chicago-area Cub stores are P g lion capital spending budget by development plans," Noddle about 20 percent. ,,7 t said. However, he. believes it's ntDVe to cut development new Pi~iPiCl.~i~luPiJ tQp prtOr~L~ unrealistic to think that the vast . o f new stores at a hme wltert the 3; To turn things around at the grocery and everything-else com m faces ~o itiucti coin efi ! As Noddle, 54, and others in troublesome Cubs; Noddle a stores will appeal to all people at p` Y P P- -lion may seem nsky, but Dahl- leadership roles adjust to their proached Iohn Hooley -who all times: Many shoppers will man, the analyst, said he supports new positions, the short-term fo- left the company in 1999 - tackle the huge stores occasion- it. cos of company energies is clear: about returning. "Iohn not only atjy but will slick to a more. man- 'It's.a smart move. You've got a Improve Cub's earnings perfor- was part of Cub's founding fora- ageable trip for regulaz shopping, company with a highlevel of debt, mance in-areas where is it lag- ily, but had worked at building "I think there is a lot of con- , so it's better to conserve cash. ping, especia}Iy Illinois and In- Cub and expanding it," he said. cern about what I call the W- tVh1e Supervalu is working on drone. Hooley, who rejoined the word (Wal-Mart1, but I think it. ,keeping a better lid an costs, this "That'-sotrr highest priority," company Nov. 30 as president [the arrival of a supercenterJ is a will free up cash that can lie used Noddle said. 5upervalu cunentiy and CEO of Cub Foods; said he short-term problem;" said Alice- to a down debt" he said. has two dozen Gub stores in the will focus on the "in-store ex eri- . Richter, a partner at KPMG in P Y P Gun expects to open new stores Chicago market, nine. of them once... Cub is not like.a normal Minneapolis who directs .the in tlte; coming .fiscal year in opened inxhe past yeaf through supermarket. It should give company's .national food and Chicago and in Rosemount, Blaine acquisitions and new construe- -shoppers the thrill of the hunt beverage unit. "Everyone wants and'Mankato, Mfnri., and to add lion. Cub ranks a distant third in looking for deals," he said. Cub to go to the new place -it's big, only. a couple more the following the Chicago market inretailsales also needs to play up.its strnng. .hot acid se.~cy. But over time year.-:The cost of land, building . with about an 8 percent market produce quality and srilection; he 'shoppers are less enamored.: and inventory far a Cub store i in share, behind well-established said. "You see a surge, but in amat- the range of $8 million to $10 mil- ` operators Dominick's Finer ter of months a good portion of lion. The com an will remode130 Foods and Jewel-Osco. ' the business returns to strpng P Y NOOIe S fE~ltfil stores in the coming year, com- The stores have faced tough y players," she said. "I don t think paredwith nine thiayear. "I think competition in Chicago, and . After leaving Cub last year, overthelong term it's abig prob- ~ .we're balancing out our capital a have found thatthe quick fix of Hooley, 48, went to .work for lem, but it is o visible, so in- ; little," Noddle said. additional advertising and`: 24k.com, an online incentive your-face .that it contributes to Goin forxard,'as 5u ervalu promotional spending did not venture by Carlson Companies the uneasiness in the industry:" g P garner hoped-for results. In Inc. Ever the grocer, he contra- seeks performance improvement addition, a move in that market ued to visit supermarkets, even from its retail operations, it also away. from the -Cub's typical on vacation in Santa Fe, N.M.. "I StOCI(SIIdC will continue to look for growth on bare-hones format to a more drove my wife crazy," he said. The stock performance of i its wholesale side, which ; ac- conventional grocery-store Hooley's return "is a real plus" many food industry companies ( counted for about 60 percent of atmosphere appears to have for Cub and Supervalu, said Bill has been giving executives and revenue last year. . been a mistake. Peazson, president of Local 789 :investors indigestion for months. ~ "We've got. to drive do4vn the "Cub seemed to be trailing. of the United Food & Commer- The,: companies paled in ~ .cost of goods and develop a.c~l- ' off -of its core price-impact strat- ' cial Workers Utuon. Hooley is an comparison to the high=potential i lure of continuous productivity x egy, Noddle said: attorney by profession, "but has .dot-corns and came hack only improvements," Noddle said. Results at Cub have been un- the, grocery business in his slightly when so many of the Supervalu,like other distribu- even, and "we seemed to have blood," Peazson said. "lNe ddn t technology companies faltered. tors, needs to find new supply cos- - lost a little passion," he said. always agtee, but Iohn is a "I'm very disappointed with the tomers, said Richter a[ KPMG. Its There are a total of 140 Cub hands-on guywhohas been'will- [SupervatuJ -stock performance, relationship with Krnart is an stores, -about -half corporate- ing to listen to those around and not just this week," Noddle. example of expanding its custom- owned and the rest franchised, him." said. The stock dropped more erbasebeyondtraditionaigrocers, . Forty-five of the stores are in Cub stores in Chicago and than 20 percent on Tuesday on she said, but there are ail sorts of Minnesota, 35 of them in the elsewhere are facing the rapid Supervalu's earnings estimate technology-based applications Twin Cities area, where Cub bat- expansion of supercenters and armouncement and-has been at wtith e-grocers and e-toilers. ties Rainbow Foods for the mar- membership clubs such as 52-week lows in recent days. "Smart companies are thinking ket leader. position. The stores Costco. Supervalu's comparable- To help prove to Wall Street about where. else they can use here are performing well, Noddle store sales, which compare. that it inputting its house in order, theirexpertise. Bigger is definitely said. stores open at least a year, slid.3 5upervalu said that it might take a better,"she said. percent in both the second and ...restructuring charge betiveen now As Supervalu grapples with its ' third quarters and the fiscal year's end in Febru- retail and wholesale operations, ' Noddle said it is important to keep things in perspective. Although the company will not hit analysts' expectations this year and has revised its fiscal 2002 .earnings forecast; it still is .on track for ' i . record results, he said. "Next year willbe a more solid growth year." s Ann Merrill cart be contacted at anterritlC~startriJrune.com SOUTHERN TWIN CITIES ' • • • ~ December 1, 2000 Dear Elected Official: Enclosed you will find home sales statistics for the first half of 2000 for your use.. The data is compiled by the Southern Twin Cities Association of REALTORS®, and includes sales of existing single-family homes and median prices. The median is the mid-point. Half the home sold for more, half for less. On about January 20''', we will send you the preliminary sates numbers fo~the entire year 2000. This will come to you prior to our press release, scheduled for January 25 . You will also receive updates periodically throughout the coming year. Feel free to contact us whenever you have a question about the housing market. We are also including our Association's statement on regional growth. The main principles of the statement are 1}preserving affordability and 2} protecting property rights. We hope that you will utilize our resources when faced with growth issues. If you have questions, feel free to contact me at 651-772-6341, or by a-mail at iperiardnaspaaz.com. We hope you will find this. information valuable. S' cerely, hn Periazd Government Affairs Director 2005 Pin Oak Drive, Eagan, Minnesota 55122-2327 Office (651) 452-6611 Facsimile <651) 452-2911 REALTOR' www.stcar.com o«~oR~«,N;~ Dakota, Goodhue, Scott Counties ~ Existing Single-Family Home Sales and Median Prices ,Fh_,,;,,.-; First halfofthe Yeaz +la% Percent is change in median price from first half of 1999, west sa;nt Paul 1998/ 120 /$110,000 Key: Year/ Sales /Median Price . 2°~a 1999189 /$l la,ooo Source: Southern Twin Cities Association of REALTORS, and the Regional lviendota Hts/Lilydale 2000! 73 /$133,500 Multiple Listing Service 1998/ 44 /$182,000 +19% 1999/ 38 /$260,000 South St. Paul 2000/ 47 /$255,000 1998/ 124 /$92,500 SFL 1999/ 88 /$105,000 +19% Eagan +22% 2000/ 100 /$124,900 Savage 1998/ 373 /$152,500 +39% 1998/233 /$139,900 1999/ 309 /$172,500 Inver Grove Heights 1999/ 208 /$158,500 2000/ 294 !$210,000 1998/ 125 /$140,400 2000/ 179 /$189,400 +Il% 1999/ 129 !$175,000 +19% Btunsville 2000/ 101 / $243,000 Shakopee 1998/ 306 /$144,000 1998/ 127!$131,200 1999/ 274 1$161,500 +10% ' 1999/ 97./$144,900 2000/ 217 /$179,900 Roaemoutrt +8.3% 2000/ 114 /$179,900 Apple Valley +5°!0 1998/ 1361$134,900 Hastings 1998/ 342 /$152,900 1999/ 125 /$145,800 1998/ 84 /$120,000 1999/ 238 !$169,900 2000/ 103 /$160,000 1999! 87 /$130,000 2000/ 213 /$178 500 2000/ 100 /$148,000 +24°/a ' +214/0 Prior Lake Area Lakeville +9% Jordan 1998/ 186 /$150,000 1998/ 338 /$155,500 1998/ 31 /$118,000 1999/ 201 /$192,500 19991 336 /$184,000 +11% Eastern Dakota County 1999/ 31 /$131,000 2000/ 187 /$214,000 2000/ 320 /$199 900 Farmington (vermillion,Nitdngereues) 2000/ 41 /$158,000 1998/ 170 /$132,000 1998/18 /$140,000 1999/ 140 /$144,300 1999/ 24 /$184,000 2000/ 103 /$160,000 2000! 13 /$193,000 +6% +23% +4% Belle Plaine Area New Prague Area +4°/a Southern Dakota County (Indudes part of LeSueur County) (Indudea parts of LeSueur end Rica Counties) (Hampton, Miesville Area) 1998/ 21 /$99,000 1998/ 54 /$124,000 Northfield Area 1998/ 11 /$129,900 +14 1999/ 39 /$127,900 1999/ 65 /$120,000 (IndudespertofRweCounty) 1999/ 11 /$157,500 1998/ 75 /$134,900 2000/ 10 /$162,900 Red wing (city ot) 20001 46 /$135,000 2000/ 75 /$148,000 1999/ 102 /$139,900 1998/91 /$88,000 2000/ 146 /$146,000 1999/ 102 /$99,700 Percent Change lri 'F'12% 2000! 94 /$113,500 +10% Median Price from 199g z6 /$13s o00 Rosemount 1999 19991 26 /$137,500 1998/ 136 /$134,900 2000/ 39 !$153,600 1999/ 125 /$145,800 2000/ 103 /$160,000 Year Sales Median Price Total Sales Metro .area Most Existu[g Su[gle-Faintly Hotnes (Includes Anoka; Hennepin, Ramsey, Soid 1999 Dskots, Chisaed, Caner; Wright, Minneapolis S3U9 l~Y 1999 Existing Single-Family Saint Paui 3153 ' ~ Goodhue, Rice, Pierce, St Croix, Brooklyn Park 369 Home Sales and Median Sherburne and Isanti Counties) Pl}Tr[outh 362 Pr1CeS. Coon Rapids 362 Sales 1593: 38191 Bloomineton 789 Medlan 1S the mld-pomt. Maple Grove 783 Half the homes sold for more, Sales 1999: 35656 (Decrease of 7.1%) Eden Prairie 746. 2 half for less. Perceent Median 1998: 5129,900 Woodbury " 6 Lak~Viue 714 Change is median price from Median 1999: 5142,000 (Increase of Eagan 622 1998 Blaine 682 9.3°io) Saint Louis Pazk 57 Eaina ssz Statistics complied by the Butnsvilie sag Southern Twin Cities Highest ~Sedians 1999 Minnetonka 548 R;chsela s3a Association of REALTORS, Dellwood $419,000 Apple Valley 520 the hlor'th Meh'O Grono 5415,000 Andover 491 REALTORS Association, Medina 5409,000 Conage Grove 442 Minne[ris[a $330,000 savage a17 and the St Paul Area Sharozrood $359,000 Prior Lakr 374 Association of REALTORS West Lakeiand$349,900 Brooklyn Crnter 359 using data from the Regional North Oaks 5333,400 Crystal 364 c Deephavrn $320,000 Chanhassrn 344 Multiple Listing Service. All Indeprndrnce 5304,400 Champlin 336 Sales are "C10Sed" between Lake Elmo S257s00 Edina S255,000 Farmington 33I January 1, 1999 and Mrndota Hts $246,000 Ramsey 323 December 31, 1999. Edrn Prairie 5243,000 i:lk River 327 Statistics may change slightly Chanhassrn 5739,900 Maplewood 318 Afton S239,000 Whi[e Bear Lske 3os because all 1999 sale may not victoria $z25,9oo be recorded when statistics Elko sz~,ooe were taken (January 23; way~ta $zz9,ooo marine osc $z2~,oo0 2000). Statistics are deemed P:}a,nuth $z2o,ooo reliable, but norguaranteed. blinnetonlta 5215.100 Woodbury 5213,700 Excelsior $205,000 Corcoran 5200,000 Lowest t~iedians 1999 Hector 551,000 Hinckley $62,000 Ogilcrie $T. ,000 Litch&eld 584,600 bfontgomery 538,000 1vIiiaca 539900 Eden Valley $90,000 xa: iVIOr3 591),()00 f n : 4 : 9, v . :h k~ c n Glrncoe 591,900 ~ 5 5 L3 C t A~ E Q N' Dassel 596,000 ~ ~ ~ A j j ~ ~ Pine City S97600 Nonvaod 599,000 Hamburg $10(,000 Red Wing 5101600 Fazibault $104,000 Sain[ Paul u, r ;r:<::v>:,,v.::w-.~.,x ~c S t 04,000 n?.`~ ax•>~;;:,::,,,.:a, Le Sueur 5108,000 t - Columbi~ Hts 5109,000 • ~ ° ~~L~,~.°.w£F:.:.L~~--•-°°- 8au[h St Paul $ 110,000 Isanti $110600 Montrose $112,000 S,xcskaY~7v°tnCiyas>1eaa.~ngavikY3t,TUSasb Hutchinson SIJ2,30U Cambridge $112900 ~>~~r Lexington $113,000 Saint Paul Parks 113,000 i"• Minneapolis S113,600 :F Princeton S 1 13,900 v. 'x'^ Brooklyn CrnterSl 14,700 "Xonr Paius,.r Ir titrttrtrrs"