Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03-12-18-R
APPROVAL OF AGENDA PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONAL Public inquiries/informational is an opportunity for citizens to bring to the Council ’s attention any items not currently on the agenda. In addressing the Council, please state your name and address for the record, and a brief summary of the specific item being addressed to the Council. To allow adequate time for each person wishing to address the Council, we ask that individuals limit their comments to three (3) minutes. Written documents may be distributed to the Council prior to the meeting, or as bench copies, to allow a more timely presentation. STAFF COMMENTS Rice Creek Commons (TCAAP) And Joint Development Authority (JDA) Update Dave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDF APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 12, 2018 Special City Council Work Session 02 -12 -18 -SWS.PDF February 12, 2018 City Council Regular 02 -12 -18 -R.PDF February 20, 2018 City Council Work Session 02 -20 -18 -WS.PDF February 26, 2018 City Council Regular 02 -26 -18 -R.PDF CONSENT CALENDAR Those items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion under a Consent Calendar format. There will be no separate discussion of these items, unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event, the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda. Motion To Approve Claims And Payroll Dave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDF Motion To Approve Contract For City Hall Cleaning Services –MN Services Dave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF Motion To Approve Purchase Of Wetland Banking Credits From The Minnesota Board Of Water And Soil Resources Sue Polka, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF Motion To Approve Marketing Agreement With Utility Service Partners Private Label, Inc., -National League Of Cities Service Line Warranty Program Sue Polka, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF Motion To Approve Quote From Arnt Construction Company -Johanna Marsh Tennis Court Removal Sue Polka, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDF ATACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF Motion To Approve Resolution 2018 -021 –State Of MN Bureau Of Criminal Apprehension Joint Powers Agreement And Court Data Services Subscriber Agreement Amendment Julie Hanson, City Clerk MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF Motion To Approve Change Order No. 1 -Michels Pipe Services -2017 Sewer Lining Project Sue Polka, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Those items that are pulled from the Consent Calendar will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS Quarterly Special Assessments For Delinquent Utilities Dave Perrault, City Administrator Pang Silseth, Accounting Analyst MEMO.PDF Vacation Of The Sewer Easement For The Arden Hills Lift Station #12 At 3685 New Brighton Road As Proposed In Planning Case 17 -029 Matthew Bachler, City Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF NEW BUSINESS Resolution 2018 -020 Adopting And Confirming Quarterly Special Assessments For Delinquent Utilities Dave Perrault, City Administrator Pang Silseth, Accounting Analyst MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF Planning Case 17 -029 -3685 New Brighton Road –Preliminary Plat And Final Plat And Resolution 2018 -019 Approving The Vacation Of The Sewer Easement For Arden Hills Lift Station #12 Matthew Bachler, City Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF ATTACHMENT H.PDF ATTACHMENT I.PDF ATTACHMENT J.PDF ATTACHMENT K.PDF ATTACHMENT L.PDF ATTACHMENT M.PDF ATTACHMENT N.PDF ATTACHMENT O.PDF ATTACHMENT P.PDF UNFINISHED BUSINESS COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURN Mayor: David Grant Councilmembers: Brenda Holden Fran Holmes Dave McClung Steve Scott Regular City Council Agenda March 12, 2018 7:00 p.m. City Hall Address: 1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone: 651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City Vision Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. CALL TO ORDER 1. 2. 3. 3.A. Documents: 4. 4.A. Documents: 4.B. Documents: 4.C. Documents: 4.D. Documents: 5. 5.A. Documents: 5.B. Documents: 5.C. Documents: 5.D. Documents: 5.E. Documents: 5.F. Documents: 5.G. Documents: 6. 7. 7.A. Documents: 7.B. Documents: 8. 8.A. Documents: 8.B. Documents: 9. 10. APPROVAL OF AGENDAPUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONALPublic inquiries/informational is an opportunity for citizens to bring to the Council ’s attention any items not currently on the agenda. In addressing the Council, please state your name and address for the record, and a brief summary of the specific item being addressed to the Council. To allow adequate time for each person wishing to address the Council, we ask that individuals limit their comments to three (3) minutes. Written documents may be distributed to the Council prior to the meeting, or as bench copies, to allow a more timely presentation.STAFF COMMENTSRice Creek Commons (TCAAP) And Joint Development Authority (JDA) UpdateDave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDFAPPROVAL OF MINUTESFebruary 12, 2018 Special City Council Work Session02-12 -18 -SWS.PDFFebruary 12, 2018 City Council Regular 02 -12 -18 -R.PDF February 20, 2018 City Council Work Session 02 -20 -18 -WS.PDF February 26, 2018 City Council Regular 02 -26 -18 -R.PDF CONSENT CALENDAR Those items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion under a Consent Calendar format. There will be no separate discussion of these items, unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event, the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda. Motion To Approve Claims And Payroll Dave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDF Motion To Approve Contract For City Hall Cleaning Services –MN Services Dave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF Motion To Approve Purchase Of Wetland Banking Credits From The Minnesota Board Of Water And Soil Resources Sue Polka, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF Motion To Approve Marketing Agreement With Utility Service Partners Private Label, Inc., -National League Of Cities Service Line Warranty Program Sue Polka, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF Motion To Approve Quote From Arnt Construction Company -Johanna Marsh Tennis Court Removal Sue Polka, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDF ATACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF Motion To Approve Resolution 2018 -021 –State Of MN Bureau Of Criminal Apprehension Joint Powers Agreement And Court Data Services Subscriber Agreement Amendment Julie Hanson, City Clerk MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF Motion To Approve Change Order No. 1 -Michels Pipe Services -2017 Sewer Lining Project Sue Polka, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Those items that are pulled from the Consent Calendar will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS Quarterly Special Assessments For Delinquent Utilities Dave Perrault, City Administrator Pang Silseth, Accounting Analyst MEMO.PDF Vacation Of The Sewer Easement For The Arden Hills Lift Station #12 At 3685 New Brighton Road As Proposed In Planning Case 17 -029 Matthew Bachler, City Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF NEW BUSINESS Resolution 2018 -020 Adopting And Confirming Quarterly Special Assessments For Delinquent Utilities Dave Perrault, City Administrator Pang Silseth, Accounting Analyst MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF Planning Case 17 -029 -3685 New Brighton Road –Preliminary Plat And Final Plat And Resolution 2018 -019 Approving The Vacation Of The Sewer Easement For Arden Hills Lift Station #12 Matthew Bachler, City Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF ATTACHMENT H.PDF ATTACHMENT I.PDF ATTACHMENT J.PDF ATTACHMENT K.PDF ATTACHMENT L.PDF ATTACHMENT M.PDF ATTACHMENT N.PDF ATTACHMENT O.PDF ATTACHMENT P.PDF UNFINISHED BUSINESS COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURN Mayor:David Grant Councilmembers:Brenda Holden Fran HolmesDave McClungSteve Scott Regular City Council Agenda March 12, 20187:00 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone:651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play.CALL TO ORDER1.2.3.3.A.Documents:4.4.A.Documents:4.B.Documents: 4.C. Documents: 4.D. Documents: 5. 5.A. Documents: 5.B. Documents: 5.C. Documents: 5.D. Documents: 5.E. Documents: 5.F. Documents: 5.G. Documents: 6. 7. 7.A. Documents: 7.B. Documents: 8. 8.A. Documents: 8.B. Documents: 9. 10. APPROVAL OF AGENDAPUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONALPublic inquiries/informational is an opportunity for citizens to bring to the Council ’s attention any items not currently on the agenda. In addressing the Council, please state your name and address for the record, and a brief summary of the specific item being addressed to the Council. To allow adequate time for each person wishing to address the Council, we ask that individuals limit their comments to three (3) minutes. Written documents may be distributed to the Council prior to the meeting, or as bench copies, to allow a more timely presentation.STAFF COMMENTSRice Creek Commons (TCAAP) And Joint Development Authority (JDA) UpdateDave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDFAPPROVAL OF MINUTESFebruary 12, 2018 Special City Council Work Session02-12 -18 -SWS.PDFFebruary 12, 2018 City Council Regular02-12 -18 -R.PDFFebruary 20, 2018 City Council Work Session02-20 -18 -WS.PDFFebruary 26, 2018 City Council Regular02-26 -18 -R.PDFCONSENT CALENDARThose items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion under a Consent Calendar format. There will be no separate discussion of these items, unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event, the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda.Motion To Approve Claims And PayrollDave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDFMotion To Approve Contract For City Hall Cleaning Services –MN ServicesDave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFMotion To Approve Purchase Of Wetland Banking Credits From The Minnesota Board Of Water And Soil ResourcesSue Polka, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFMotion To Approve Marketing Agreement With Utility Service Partners Private Label, Inc., -National League Of Cities Service Line Warranty ProgramSue Polka, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF Motion To Approve Quote From Arnt Construction Company -Johanna Marsh Tennis Court Removal Sue Polka, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDF ATACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF Motion To Approve Resolution 2018 -021 –State Of MN Bureau Of Criminal Apprehension Joint Powers Agreement And Court Data Services Subscriber Agreement Amendment Julie Hanson, City Clerk MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF Motion To Approve Change Order No. 1 -Michels Pipe Services -2017 Sewer Lining Project Sue Polka, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Those items that are pulled from the Consent Calendar will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS Quarterly Special Assessments For Delinquent Utilities Dave Perrault, City Administrator Pang Silseth, Accounting Analyst MEMO.PDF Vacation Of The Sewer Easement For The Arden Hills Lift Station #12 At 3685 New Brighton Road As Proposed In Planning Case 17 -029 Matthew Bachler, City Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF NEW BUSINESS Resolution 2018 -020 Adopting And Confirming Quarterly Special Assessments For Delinquent Utilities Dave Perrault, City Administrator Pang Silseth, Accounting Analyst MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF Planning Case 17 -029 -3685 New Brighton Road –Preliminary Plat And Final Plat And Resolution 2018 -019 Approving The Vacation Of The Sewer Easement For Arden Hills Lift Station #12 Matthew Bachler, City Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF ATTACHMENT H.PDF ATTACHMENT I.PDF ATTACHMENT J.PDF ATTACHMENT K.PDF ATTACHMENT L.PDF ATTACHMENT M.PDF ATTACHMENT N.PDF ATTACHMENT O.PDF ATTACHMENT P.PDF UNFINISHED BUSINESS COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURN Mayor:David Grant Councilmembers:Brenda Holden Fran HolmesDave McClungSteve Scott Regular City Council Agenda March 12, 20187:00 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone:651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play.CALL TO ORDER1.2.3.3.A.Documents:4.4.A.Documents:4.B.Documents:4.C.Documents:4.D.Documents:5.5.A.Documents:5.B.Documents:5.C.Documents:5.D.Documents: 5.E. Documents: 5.F. Documents: 5.G. Documents: 6. 7. 7.A. Documents: 7.B. Documents: 8. 8.A. Documents: 8.B. Documents: 9. 10. APPROVAL OF AGENDAPUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONALPublic inquiries/informational is an opportunity for citizens to bring to the Council ’s attention any items not currently on the agenda. In addressing the Council, please state your name and address for the record, and a brief summary of the specific item being addressed to the Council. To allow adequate time for each person wishing to address the Council, we ask that individuals limit their comments to three (3) minutes. Written documents may be distributed to the Council prior to the meeting, or as bench copies, to allow a more timely presentation.STAFF COMMENTSRice Creek Commons (TCAAP) And Joint Development Authority (JDA) UpdateDave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDFAPPROVAL OF MINUTESFebruary 12, 2018 Special City Council Work Session02-12 -18 -SWS.PDFFebruary 12, 2018 City Council Regular02-12 -18 -R.PDFFebruary 20, 2018 City Council Work Session02-20 -18 -WS.PDFFebruary 26, 2018 City Council Regular02-26 -18 -R.PDFCONSENT CALENDARThose items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion under a Consent Calendar format. There will be no separate discussion of these items, unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event, the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda.Motion To Approve Claims And PayrollDave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDFMotion To Approve Contract For City Hall Cleaning Services –MN ServicesDave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFMotion To Approve Purchase Of Wetland Banking Credits From The Minnesota Board Of Water And Soil ResourcesSue Polka, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFMotion To Approve Marketing Agreement With Utility Service Partners Private Label, Inc., -National League Of Cities Service Line Warranty ProgramSue Polka, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFATTACHMENT D.PDFATTACHMENT E.PDFMotion To Approve Quote From Arnt Construction Company -Johanna Marsh Tennis Court RemovalSue Polka, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDFATACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFMotion To Approve Resolution 2018 -021 –State Of MN Bureau Of Criminal Apprehension Joint Powers Agreement And Court Data Services Subscriber Agreement Amendment Julie Hanson, City Clerk MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFATTACHMENT D.PDFATTACHMENT E.PDFMotion To Approve Change Order No. 1 -Michels Pipe Services -2017 Sewer Lining ProjectSue Polka, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFPULLED CONSENT ITEMSThose items that are pulled from the Consent Calendar will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda.PUBLIC HEARINGSQuarterly Special Assessments For Delinquent Utilities Dave Perrault, City AdministratorPang Silseth, Accounting Analyst MEMO.PDF Vacation Of The Sewer Easement For The Arden Hills Lift Station #12 At 3685 New Brighton Road As Proposed In Planning Case 17 -029 Matthew Bachler, City Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF NEW BUSINESS Resolution 2018 -020 Adopting And Confirming Quarterly Special Assessments For Delinquent Utilities Dave Perrault, City Administrator Pang Silseth, Accounting Analyst MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF Planning Case 17 -029 -3685 New Brighton Road –Preliminary Plat And Final Plat And Resolution 2018 -019 Approving The Vacation Of The Sewer Easement For Arden Hills Lift Station #12 Matthew Bachler, City Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF ATTACHMENT H.PDF ATTACHMENT I.PDF ATTACHMENT J.PDF ATTACHMENT K.PDF ATTACHMENT L.PDF ATTACHMENT M.PDF ATTACHMENT N.PDF ATTACHMENT O.PDF ATTACHMENT P.PDF UNFINISHED BUSINESS COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURN Mayor:David Grant Councilmembers:Brenda Holden Fran HolmesDave McClungSteve Scott Regular City Council Agenda March 12, 20187:00 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone:651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play.CALL TO ORDER1.2.3.3.A.Documents:4.4.A.Documents:4.B.Documents:4.C.Documents:4.D.Documents:5.5.A.Documents:5.B.Documents:5.C.Documents:5.D.Documents:5.E.Documents:5.F.Documents:5.G.Documents:6.7.7.A. Documents: 7.B. Documents: 8. 8.A. Documents: 8.B. Documents: 9. 10. APPROVAL OF AGENDAPUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONALPublic inquiries/informational is an opportunity for citizens to bring to the Council ’s attention any items not currently on the agenda. In addressing the Council, please state your name and address for the record, and a brief summary of the specific item being addressed to the Council. To allow adequate time for each person wishing to address the Council, we ask that individuals limit their comments to three (3) minutes. Written documents may be distributed to the Council prior to the meeting, or as bench copies, to allow a more timely presentation.STAFF COMMENTSRice Creek Commons (TCAAP) And Joint Development Authority (JDA) UpdateDave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDFAPPROVAL OF MINUTESFebruary 12, 2018 Special City Council Work Session02-12 -18 -SWS.PDFFebruary 12, 2018 City Council Regular02-12 -18 -R.PDFFebruary 20, 2018 City Council Work Session02-20 -18 -WS.PDFFebruary 26, 2018 City Council Regular02-26 -18 -R.PDFCONSENT CALENDARThose items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion under a Consent Calendar format. There will be no separate discussion of these items, unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event, the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda.Motion To Approve Claims And PayrollDave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDFMotion To Approve Contract For City Hall Cleaning Services –MN ServicesDave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFMotion To Approve Purchase Of Wetland Banking Credits From The Minnesota Board Of Water And Soil ResourcesSue Polka, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFMotion To Approve Marketing Agreement With Utility Service Partners Private Label, Inc., -National League Of Cities Service Line Warranty ProgramSue Polka, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFATTACHMENT D.PDFATTACHMENT E.PDFMotion To Approve Quote From Arnt Construction Company -Johanna Marsh Tennis Court RemovalSue Polka, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDFATACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFMotion To Approve Resolution 2018 -021 –State Of MN Bureau Of Criminal Apprehension Joint Powers Agreement And Court Data Services Subscriber Agreement Amendment Julie Hanson, City Clerk MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFATTACHMENT D.PDFATTACHMENT E.PDFMotion To Approve Change Order No. 1 -Michels Pipe Services -2017 Sewer Lining ProjectSue Polka, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFPULLED CONSENT ITEMSThose items that are pulled from the Consent Calendar will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda.PUBLIC HEARINGSQuarterly Special Assessments For Delinquent Utilities Dave Perrault, City AdministratorPang Silseth, Accounting Analyst MEMO.PDFVacation Of The Sewer Easement For The Arden Hills Lift Station #12 At 3685 New Brighton Road As Proposed In Planning Case 17 -029Matthew Bachler, City Planner MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFATTACHMENT D.PDFATTACHMENT E.PDFATTACHMENT F.PDFATTACHMENT G.PDFNEW BUSINESSResolution 2018 -020 Adopting And Confirming Quarterly Special Assessments For Delinquent UtilitiesDave Perrault, City AdministratorPang Silseth, Accounting Analyst MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFPlanning Case 17 -029 -3685 New Brighton Road –Preliminary Plat And Final Plat And Resolution 2018 -019 Approving The Vacation Of The Sewer Easement For Arden Hills Lift Station #12Matthew Bachler, City Planner MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFATTACHMENT D.PDFATTACHMENT E.PDFATTACHMENT F.PDFATTACHMENT G.PDFATTACHMENT H.PDFATTACHMENT I.PDFATTACHMENT J.PDFATTACHMENT K.PDFATTACHMENT L.PDFATTACHMENT M.PDFATTACHMENT N.PDFATTACHMENT O.PDF ATTACHMENT P.PDF UNFINISHED BUSINESS COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURN Mayor:David Grant Councilmembers:Brenda Holden Fran HolmesDave McClungSteve Scott Regular City Council Agenda March 12, 20187:00 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone:651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play.CALL TO ORDER1.2.3.3.A.Documents:4.4.A.Documents:4.B.Documents:4.C.Documents:4.D.Documents:5.5.A.Documents:5.B.Documents:5.C.Documents:5.D.Documents:5.E.Documents:5.F.Documents:5.G.Documents:6.7.7.A.Documents:7.B.Documents:8.8.A.Documents:8.B.Documents: 9. 10. Page 1 of 1 STAFF COMMENTS – 3A MEMORANDUM DATE: March 12, 2018 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Dave Perrault, City Administrator SUBJECT: Rice Creek Commons (TCAAP) and Joint Development Authority (JDA) Update Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: $ $ $ A verbal update will be provided at the City Council meeting. Approved: March 12, 2018 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION FEBRUARY 12, 2018 5:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Grant called to order the Special City Council Work Session at 5:30 p.m. Present: Mayor David Grant; Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Fran Holmes, Dave McClung and Steve Scott Absent: None Also present: City Administrator Dave Perrault; Public Works Director/City Engineer Sue Polka; and City Clerk Julie Hanson 1. AGENDA ITEMS A. Utility Rate Study City Administrator Perrault stated the City Council requested a Special Work Session to discuss 2018 capital projects as they relate to the Ehlers Rate Study presented to the City Council at the January 16, 2018 Work Session. He explained Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka would be reviewing the proposed capital projects, anticipated cost, and the reasoning as to whether or not the project needs to be completed in 2018, or could be delayed. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka discussed in further detail the proposed water projects for 2018 as detailed in the agenda packet. Mayor Grant questioned if the Council would support pushing the Indian Oaks/Floral Drive PMP into 2019. Councilmember Scott commented the neighborhood was very receptive to the work beginning in 2018. Councilmember Holden stated she would like to keep the bonding level as low as possible for this project. She supported this project going forward in 2018 because the neighbors were asking for the improvements. Council consensus was to keep the Indian Oaks/Floral Drive project in the 2018 PMP. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION – FEBRUARY 12, 2018 2 Further discussion ensued regarding future PMP projects and the bonding process. Councilmember Holmes asked if the City would ever bond over the amount estimated in the PMP. City Administrator Perrault reported the City would only bond for what needed to be paid for in a specific year. Councilmember Holden asked if the Council should be considering a water rate increase. City Administrator Perrault discussed the timeline that would have to be followed by the City Council in order to consider a water rate increase. Mayor Grant suggested a water rate not be considered until providing the residents with proper notification. Council consensus was to bond for $2 million. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka discussed in further detail the proposed sanitary sewer projects for 2018 as detailed in the agenda packet. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka discussed in further detail the proposed stormwater projects for 2018 as detailed in the agenda packet. Mayor Grant requested further information regarding the City’s sewer lining program. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka provided the Council with an overview on the City’s sewer lining program and noted at the end of 2010, 47% of the sewer system was still clay pipe. She was pleased to report that as of 2018, 22% of the lines will be clay pipe. This meant the City was making great progress. Mayor Grant commented on the dollars available from the Met Council to assist with lining sewer pipes. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka noted the City would receive $25,000 in Met Council funds for 2018, with a chance for more. Mayor Grant asked if the Council supported spending $200,000 on sewer lining for 2018. Council consensus was to spend $200,000 on sewer lining for 2018. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka discussed potential expenses for lift stations and noted the lift station on Cleveland Avenue was in need of repairs. Councilmember Holmes suggested $500,000 be set aside for sanitary sewer projects for 2018, with $175,000 for sewer lining, $270,000 for Indian Oaks/Floral Drive PMP and $60,000 being used for lift station repairs. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION – FEBRUARY 12, 2018 3 Mayor Grant suggested the Council levy $525,000 to ensure the City had adequate funding for these three projects. Councilmember Holden stated she would like to review the City’s utility rates prior to setting the levy amounts. The Council turned their discussion to the City’s proposed water and sewer rates. Councilmember Holden feared that the City was losing money based on its current rates and would not be able to cover further bonding. City Administrator Perrault discussed the amount of money the City would have to generate in order to cover its expenses and future bonding. Mayor Grant requested staff speak with Ehlers and ask them to further show their work on the numbers and projections. Councilmember Holmes suggested Ehlers also show how the City would be paying off its bonds through the proposed rates. Councilmember Holden recommended the rates be adjusted to encourage water preservation for larger commercial users. She stated she did not want to see any water rates decreasing for any user. Councilmember Holmes agreed that Ehlers should reconsider the rates in order to ensure no user has a rate decrease. She suggested the rates go up by 2% or 3%. City Administrator Perrault thanked the Council for their input and noted he would speak with Ehlers. 2. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND STAFF UPDATES Councilmember McClung reported he would not be able to attend the February 26, 2018 City Council meeting. Mayor Grant recommended the lot split item for Thom Drive be placed on the March 12, 2018 City Council agenda. ADJOURN Mayor Grant adjourned the Special City Council Work Session at 6:55 p.m. __________________________ __________________________ Julie Hanson David Grant City Clerk Mayor Approved: March 12, 2018 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2018 7:00 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor David Grant called to order the regular City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. Present: Mayor David Grant, Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Fran Holmes, Dave McClung and Steve Scott Absent: None Also present: City Administrator Dave Perrault; Public Works Director/City Engineer Sue Polka; City Planner Matthew Bachler; City Attorney Joel Jamnik; and City Clerk Julie Hanson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Grant requested the Council amend the agenda adding Item 6K to the Consent Agenda. MOTION: Councilmember McClung moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to approve the meeting agenda as amended. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 2. PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONAL Richard Wenzel, 1931 Noble Road, expressed concern about the property at 3415 Lake Johanna Boulevard noting the owners had moved a garage onto this property with no permit or variance. He explained the Planning Commission had recommended denial of a variance request for the garage and he would like to see the City take action. City Planner Bachler reported the City had followed up with the property owner and he had until April 1, 2018, to have the garage removed from the property. He commented the property owner was given additional time to remove the garage given the fact it was winter. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – FEBRUARY 12, 2018 2 Tim Graff, 3753 New Brighton Road, commented on the lot split being proposed for the property at 3685 New Brighton Road. He explained his family moved to Arden Hills two and a half years ago after searching for a property with wide open spaces. He stated his family loves their property and home as it is surrounded by woods, wildlife and wetland. He feared the new homes would impact the surrounding wetlands. He indicated he opposed the proposed lot split as it would take away from the neighborhood for the gain of a few. He reported there were a large number of children in his neighborhood and he requested the Council consider installing a trail or sidewalk segment to Perry Park along New Brighton Road. Lastly, he expressed concern with the speed of traffic along New Brighton Road. Mayor Grant explained Arden Hills has a Parks and Trail Committee that sets priorities for the City’s trail segments. He clarified that New Brighton Road was a County Road and not a City street. He noted the County sets the speed limit for this roadway. Council Member Holden requested staff speak with the County to see if there could be a speed reduction on New Brighton Road. She asked that a crosswalk also be considered for this roadway. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka stated she would speak with the County. Mayor Grant reported the Council would be reviewing the lot split request on Monday, March 12, 2018. Joe Federer, 3695 New Brighton Road, addressed the proposed lot split of 3685 New Brighton Road. He noted he sent an email to the Council regarding his concerns. He explained this lot was U-shaped and would become three lots. He expressed concern with the number of trees that would be lost from this parcel and feared how the wetlands would be impacted. He did not believe it was keeping in line with the neighborhood to have three homes on one parcel. He commented on the proposed maintenance plan for the stormwater basin and believed it was sketchy. He did not believe it was in the City’s best interest to have a private homeowner responsible for maintaining and rebuilding this stormwater basin. He questioned how the basin would be rebuilt by a private party in 30 to 40 years when it failed. He reported 78% of the trees on the lot would be removed, which would dramatically impact the site. He commented on how additional driveways along Thom Drive would increase traffic and could become a safety concern. He encouraged the Council to not support the proposed lot split. Mayor Grant stated for the record he received Mr. Federer’s email. Ivan Gilbert, 3707 New Brighton Road, stated he wanted to address the Council regarding the proposed lot split at 3685 New Brighton Road. He indicated the real concern he had was with the fact the property owner had already sold one of the lots prior to the lot split even being approved by the City of Arden Hills. He questioned if the concerns being voiced by the neighbors would even be heard. City Attorney Jamnik reported it was not uncommon for developers to offer options or purchase agreements that were conditioned on a plat being approved. He explained a closing or transfer on the property could not occur until the subdivision was approved by the City. He advised any monies exchanged for the proposed purchase would be at the risk of the Purchaser. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – FEBRUARY 12, 2018 3 Eric Sanford, 3731 New Brighton Road, stated he agreed with the comments raised by his neighbors and he also opposed the lot split at 3685 New Brighton Road. He explained he loved his neighborhood and would be sad to see the density changed. He commented that an even less impressive proposal came before the City in 2006 for this property and was denied by the City. He indicated he did not trust the developer and encouraged the City to deny the lot split request. 3. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS A. Mayoral Proclamation in Recognition of Susan Cathey and Mary Nosek, Communications Committee Members Mayor Grant read two proclamations in full for the record recognizing Susan Cathey and Mary Nosek for their years of dedicated service to the Communications Committee and Arden Hills Notes. He presented the proclamations to Ms. Cathey and Ms. Nosek. A round of applause was offered by all in attendance. 4. STAFF COMMENTS A. Rice Creek Commons (TCAAP) and Joint Development Authority (JDA) Update City Administrator Perrault provided an update on TCAAP stating the JDA meeting for February was canceled. He reported the group would meet again on Monday, March 5. He explained the optimization study was now complete by the Army and was on the PCA website. He reported this document was being reviewed by the County and developer. Staff did not anticipate any changes would occur to the development based on the results of the study. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. January 16, 2018 City Council Work Session B. January 16, 2018 City Council Work Session (Closed Session) C. January 22, 2018 City Council Regular Councilmember Holmes requested a change to the January 16, 2018, work session minutes and stated she would provide the City Clerk with her request. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember McClung seconded a motion to approve the January 16, 2018, City Council Work Session meeting minutes as amended, January 16, 2018, City Council Work Session (Closed Session) meeting minutes; and January 22, 2018, Regular City Council meeting minutes. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 6. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Motion to Approve Consent Agenda Item - Claims and Payroll B. Motion to Approve Hiring and Termination Policy C. Motion to Approve Lake Johanna Fire Department Capital Expenditures ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – FEBRUARY 12, 2018 4 D. Motion to Approve Professional Services Agreement with WSB and Associates for Engineering and Other Support Services E. Motion to Approve Resolution 2018-010 Accepting a Joint Powers Agreement with Ramsey County GIS Users Group F. Motion to Approve Ramsey County Cooperative Agreement – County Road F G. Motion to Approve Findings of Fact and Decision Regarding Application for Site Plan Review at 1504 Edgewater Avenue in Planning Case 17-028 H. Motion to Approve Rice Creek Watershed District Maintenance Agreement for Stormwater Management Facilities – 3930 and 3928 Northwoods Drive I. Motion to Approve Resolution 2018-012 Approving Purchase of Recycling Carts and Replacement Parts from Cascade Engineering J. Motion to Approve Resolution 2018-013 Approving LG230 Application to Conduct Off-Site Gambling for Merrick, Inc. at Flaherty’s K. Motion to Accept the Resignation of Accounting Analyst and Authorization to Post for this Position Mayor Grant wished the City’s Accounting Analyst well in her new position. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember McClung seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar as presented and to authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 7. PULLED CONSENT ITEMS None. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. County Road F Improvements • Resolution 2018-011 Ordering the Improvements and Approving Plans and Specifications Prepared by Ramsey County Pursuant to the Cooperative Agreement Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka stated Ramsey County has completed the design of the County Road F Improvements between Lexington Avenue and Hamline Avenue. The project includes widening County Road F, intersection improvements at County Road F and Innovation Way, a trail along the south side of the roadway, and City watermain replacement between Hamline Avenue and Innovation Way. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka reported on November 27, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution 2017-045, accepting the feasibility report for the project. On January 8, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution 2018-004 ordering the Public Hearing to be held on February 12, 2018. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka explained in November of 2017, the City Council accepted the feasibility report which outlines the proposed improvements and financing for the ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – FEBRUARY 12, 2018 5 County Road F improvements. Two properties are proposed to be assessed for traffic signal and intersection improvements – Land O’ Lakes and Boston Scientific. Staff has provided each property owner with the Feasibility Report and has conducted several meetings with the affected parties. The total project cost outlined in the feasibility report is approximately $200,000 lower than the current estimate due to plan revisions between 60% design and final design. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka reported a portion of the City cost is proposed to be assessed to the Land O’ Lakes and Boston Scientific properties. The assessment method laid out in the Feasibility Report has 100% of the cost of the traffic signal evenly split between the two properties, with the turn lanes associated with the Land O’ Lakes project being assessed to them as well per their development agreement with the City. Staff anticipates further discussions between and among the parties to revise and reach agreement on the final cost share allocation for the traffic signal costs. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka commented the purpose of the Public Hearing is to approve plans and specifications prepared by Ramsey County and to order the improvements as required by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 for projects that include special assessments. Mayor Grant clarified the plans and specifications for this project were drawn up by Ramsey County. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka reported this was the case and noted the City’s portion of the project would be bid out in separate line items. Councilmember Holden stated the last time the County worked on County Road F there were problems with the soil. She asked if enough borings have been completed to understand the soil conditions. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka stated borings have been completed and this should not be a concern. Mayor Grant stated under the Public Hearing section, citizens would have an opportunity to discuss ideas regarding the TCAAP development. Mayor Grant opened the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. With no one coming forward to speak, Mayor Grant closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember McClung seconded a motion to adopt Resolution #2018-011 Ordering the Improvements and Approving Plans and Specifications Prepared by Ramsey County Pursuant to the Cooperative Agreement. Councilmember Holden requested the signal timing at County Road F and Land O’Lakes be adjusted to meet the traffic needs. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – FEBRUARY 12, 2018 6 Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka commented that the signal timing will be adjusted. The motion carried (5-0). 9. NEW BUSINESS A. Resolution 2018-014 Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Ad for Bids – 2018 Old Snelling Trail and Watermain Project Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka stated final plans and specifications have been completed for the Old Snelling Trail from County Road E to Bethel Drive, Old Snelling Trail from Bethel Drive to County Road E2, County Road E2 Trail from Cleveland Avenue to New Brighton Road, and the Old Snelling/County Road E2 Watermain Loo Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka explained staff recommends bidding the Old Snelling Trail from Bethel Drive to County Road E2 and the watermain loop along Old Snelling Road as bid alternates. Staff recommends constructing the watermain replacement along CR E2 as there have been six breaks in this line since 2015. The watermain loop in Old Snelling Road is recommended to better feed the low-pressure system as with past watermain breaks, the system has to rely on temporary feeds from the high-pressure system (north of I694). Councilmember Holden asked if the City held neighborhood meetings for the proposed trails. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka stated the City held two separate neighborhood meetings and noted adjustments were made to the plans based on public feedback received at these meetings. Councilmember Holmes requested further information regarding the cost breakdowns for each of the trails. Jim Stremel, WSB engineer for the project, provided the Council with a breakdown on the costs for each of the trails being proposed for completion. He noted one section was higher in price due to the need for retaining walls, the wetlands and storm sewer improvements required. Mayor Grant explained the different trail segments would be bid separately to allow the Council to consider which would be completed and which would not. Councilmember Holmes stated she did not support the completion of a trail from Bethel Drive to E2 given the high expense for the small segment. Councilmember McClung commented it was the City’s goal to have a trail along this route whether now or at some point in the future. He indicated because of the topography of the land, this segment would be more expensive per foot than other trails in the City. He stated he was interested to see how the bids came in. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka discussed how the County was allowing the City to use a portion of the shoulder for this trail segment to assist in reducing costs. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – FEBRUARY 12, 2018 7 Councilmember Holden questioned if the trail at Bethel Drive should be moved to the east side of the roadway given the fact there was crosswalk. She anticipated this may reduce costs. Mr. Stremel reported he had evaluated the trail being placed on the east side of the road and stated there would be similar impacts to the wetlands noting retaining walls would still be required. MOTION: Councilmember McClung moved and Councilmember Holmes seconded a motion to adopt Resolution #2018-014 Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Ad for Bids – 2018 Old Snelling Trail and Watermain Project. The motion carried (5-0). B. Communications Coordinator Temporary Hour Increase City Administrator Perrault stated it is being proposed to temporarily increase the Communications Coordinator’s hours to forty hours per week for up to eight weeks. Assessing current workload with the website, increased Rice Creek Commons demand, and miscellaneous projects that the City would benefit from an increase in the Communications Coordinator’s hours. The main drivers for the needed increase are the website platform upgrade, Rice Creek Commons and miscellaneous projects. City Administrator Perrault stated it should be noted that the Communications Coordinator continues to work on the newsletter, which accounts for about a quarter (or more) of their time. The administrative update is planning on being moved to the Communications Coordinator when possible, but still remains with the City Clerk Councilmember Scott asked if the Communications Coordinator would be able to accommodate the increased hours for up to eight weeks. City Administrator Perrault stated this was only a temporary increase and noted she could accommodate the increase hours. Councilmember Holden explained the Personnel Committee was split on this item. She stated the duties of the Communications Coordinator were going to be addressed by the Council at their upcoming retreat and for this reason, she supported the Council holding off on the increased hours until after the retreat was held. Mayor Grant asked if the hours could be pushed back to June and July versus March and April. City Administrator Perrault stated he would have to speak with the Communications Coordinator. Mayor Grant commented the Council would have to consider if they wanted to front load some of this work in order to get it completed. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – FEBRUARY 12, 2018 8 City Administrator Perrault reported the expense for the additional hours would cost the City $3,600 and he believed that staff has demonstrated the need for the additional work. He explained the work would be beneficial to the City. Councilmember Holden stated she would still like to wait to expand the hours until after the Council retreat was held. Councilmember McClung commented staff was not requesting a great deal of money for the extended hours, which was a plus for him. He noted the five items listed by staff would be nice to have completed, however he too supported the Council providing more direction to staff before work began on these tasks. Councilmember Holmes supported the extended hours beginning after the Council retreat as well. Councilmember Holden stated she could support the Communications Coordinator working on TCAAP and the website now. She recommended work on the other items be held off until after the Council retreat discussion. Councilmember Scott indicated he did not oppose the extended hours beginning right away given the amount of work the Communications Coordinator was facing with the website, the City newsletter and TCAAP communications. Mayor Grant proposed the Communications Coordinator be allowed to have six weeks of extended hours and that further consideration on the prescribed work list be given at the Council retreat. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Holmes seconded a motion to approve the temporary increase for the Communications Coordinators hours for up to six weeks for TCAAP and website development work. The motion carried (5-0). 10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Scott stated last month he attended the League of Minnesota Cities conference for experienced officials. He discussed the sessions he attended during the event. Councilmember Scott noted he attended two neighborhood meetings last week for the upcoming street reconstruction projects. Councilmember Holmes commented Arden Hills was no longer in the running for the Amazon headquarters. She discussed the great press the Minneapolis/St. Paul area received from the Washington Post and the Star Tribune. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – FEBRUARY 12, 2018 9 Councilmember McClung stated he would not be able to attend the Council meeting on Monday, February 26. He indicated he would be late to the meeting on Tuesday, February 20. Councilmember Holden congratulated the Arden Hills Health Partners Clinic on their recent sock drive. Councilmember Holden commended Jim Tolaas with Ramsey County on a great career noting he worked for the County for over 43 years. She wished him well in his retirement. Councilmember Holden recommended the City draft a clarifying article in an upcoming newsletter regarding how the City manages snow removal. Councilmember Holden requested further information on how lot split requests from developers were reviewed by the City. City Planner Bachler explained these proposals were reviewed by himself, Public Works Director Polka, WSB and other agencies to ensure the plans meet all City requirements before being brought forward for consideration. Mayor Grant commented on the Amazon proposal and stated he was really pleased with how the document turned out. He was proud of the positive press the Twin Cities metro area received. Mayor Grant requested staff track the removal of the garage and fine the property owner for their actions. City Planner Bachler stated staff would be tracking the property owner to ensure the garage was removed by April 1, 2018. Mayor Grant reported he and Councilmembers Holden and Scott attended the grand opening for the new mental health facility that was opened by Health Partners and Regions Hospital at their Northwoods location. He believed that this new facility would be an asset to the community. ADJOURN MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Holmes seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Mayor Grant adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting at 8:35 p.m. __________________________ __________________________ Julie Hanson David Grant City Clerk Mayor Approved: March 12, 2018 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION FEBRUARY 20, 2018 5:00 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Grant called to order the City Council Work Session at 5:00 p.m. Present: Mayor David Grant, Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Fran Holmes, and Steve Scott Absent: Councilmember Dave McClung Also present: City Administrator Dave Perrault, Public Works Director/City Engineer Sue Polka, City Planner Matthew Bachler, Deputy Clerk Jolene Trauba, Utility Service Partners Representative Deryck Freudeman, WSB & Associates Project Manager Steve Foss, and WSB & Associates Senior Planner Eric Zweber 1. AGENDA ITEMS A. National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program Public Works Director/City Engineer Sue Polka noted that Utility Service Partners provides residents with insurance for their water and sewer services through the National League of Cities. There is no cost to the City, but there is a marketing agreement that the City would need to sign. The City can choose to collect royalties which would raise the cost to residents. Councilmember Brenda Holden asked for an explanation of what In-Home Plumbing would cover. Utility Service Partners Representative Deryck Freudeman responded that included all the supply and drain lines in the home except fixtures. For example internal lines that burst, a drain line that clogs, or valve repair. He also noted there is no obligation on the part of the resident to continue the policy for a specific period of time, but there is a 30 day wait period before they can file their first claim. There is no pre-inspection and everyone gets the same plan no matter the length of the service line. They partner with local contractors to do the necessary work. Mayor Grant noted this is no cost to the City but an advantage to the residents that would like it. He felt there wasn’t a downside risk to the plan and didn’t want to charge for the royalties. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – FEBRUARY 20, 2018 2 Councilmember Fran Holmes asked what more specifically would be covered under the plans. Mr. Freudeman said he would provide a list of terms and conditions. The goal of the program is to be affordable and to be sure residents can use it when they need it, so there is a low exclusion limit and they encourage homeowners to call. Aging infrastructure, education to residents and cost are three reasons for the City to partner with Utility Services. Residents can choose to enroll in one, two or all three programs. Campaign letters are sent up to three times a year. Councilmember Holden noted that some Arden Hills homes have an individual sewer line that comes to a manhole and the line is shared to the street. She wondered what part of that line would be covered. Mr. Freudeman stated that if each property has its own lateral line it could be covered. He said he will look into that situation to be sure what would be covered. Councilmember Holmes asked if the City had any marketing responsibilities with the program. Mr. Freudeman said if the City decides to enroll, there will be an onboarding call with the contact person at the City, samples of the campaign letter would be provided and edits can be made, and all campaigns thereafter would also be approved by staff. There are no telesales or door-to-door sales. All mail and marketing costs are paid for by Utility Services. Councilmember Holden asked about rate increases. Mr. Freudeman responded that their rates have been stable for approximately three years. Some partners that have been with the program for a long time may have higher rates, but most cities are within a dollar of the costs list provided. Mayor Grant asked about exclusivity. Mr. Freudeman said there is an exclusivity provision in the agreement but they are willing to delete it if that would hold the City back from becoming a part of the program, but they would want to have the right to terminate the contract if the city partnered with another entity. Mr. Freudeman will follow up with a marketing letter, terms and conditions, separate lines/shared lines information, a revised version of the non-royalty marketing agreement and optional language removing the exclusivity clause. B. Johanna Marsh Park Public Works Director/City Engineer Sue Polka noted the Capital Improvement Plan includes $100,000 for resurfacing the tennis court. Playground equipment was ordered last fall. WSB provided concept plans that have been reviewed, the latest version shows the playground areas, a concrete pad with a picnic shelter and two tables, and a viewing platform with seating overlooking the marsh. Site work is estimated at about $139,000, design and construction services are $33,000. Total estimated cost is $219,096. She said a suggestion was made to complete the platform and picnic shelter at a later date, bringing the cost down to $185,000. The installation ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – FEBRUARY 20, 2018 3 cost for the playground equipment is not listed on the estimated cost chart and that will be around $11,000. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka also noted that quotes for demolition of the tennis courts could be requested and the work could possibly be done right away. Councilmember Holden asked if maintaining the seeding was included in the estimated cost. WSB & Associates Project Manager Steve Foss said it would be included. He also noted that the viewing platform could be expanded in the future. The platform could be raised up to 2 ½ feet without railings being necessary that may block the view. Councilmember Holden asked if any benches near the play areas were included. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka said they could be added at a cost of $650 each. Councilmember Holden and Councilmember Steve Scott felt the project should go ahead as set forth in the outline, including the shelter and viewing platform. Councilmember Holmes said a resident had asked about a wood chip entrance that doesn’t go past the lift station. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka said that could be an additional trail, but the current plan is ADA compliant. A wrap could be put on the lift station box to conceal it at a later time. Councilmember Holmes agreed that the plan should move forward as presented, and as soon as possible. Mayor Grant felt the viewing platform was reasonably priced and was in favor of moving ahead as designed, and directed staff to put the item on the Council agenda. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka said she could bring back a demolition price separately and once the plans and specs are ready she can bring it back for authorization for bids. Councilmember Holden stated that she’d like to see benches included in build, with the possibility of donations from residents or the Arden Hills Foundations. Mayor Grant said the concrete pads for the benches could be put in during construction, whether or not the benches were actually available. A resident in the audience offered to pay for a bench and suggested that some savings could be made in cement costs. Another resident asked how long this current plan had been available for viewing, and also wondered about possible changes. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka said the Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee favored this concept. She also said there are safety zones that are required to be placed around playground equipment. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – FEBRUARY 20, 2018 4 C. 2018 Vehicle Purchase Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka noted that the building inspection vehicle was purchased in 2004 and she provided a document with the repair history. Two quotes were received, one for an all-wheel drive 2018 Ford Escape and one for a two-wheel drive 2018 Ford Escape. The all-wheel drive vehicle is lower because of incentives being offered. Councilmember Holden suggested that because work was done on the vehicle in 2017 another use be found for the vehicle within the City and to not use it as a trade-in. Councilmember Holmes said she didn’t think a new vehicle was necessary, that we could repair it and continue to use it until it was irreparable. She did agree that all-wheel drive was needed. City Administrator Dave Perrault said that from a finance perspective, they should also consider at what point a decision would be made to replace the vehicle, if more repairs necessary. Councilmember Scott said he is in favor of replacing the vehicle at this time. Councilmember Holden was concerned about the downtime that staff would have if the vehicle need repairs again and felt it should be replaced. City Administrator Perrault it wouldn’t make much sense to keep the current vehicle because it would be used so infrequently. Mayor Grant was also in favor of replacing the vehicle. D. TCAAP Plat City Planner Matthew Bachler provided a verbal update on the TCAAP Plat, noting a land use application has been received from Ramsey County for a preliminary and final plat for the TCAAP property. The plat is to define the boundaries of the site and clean up the legal description which is currently very complicated. The plat would transfer some land as right-of- way to MnDOT for the County Road H interchange, and to Ramsey County for the new roadway connecting County Road H and County Road I. A small outlot would be transferred to Ramsey County Parks and Recreation and two large outlots would be defined to help facilitate the transfer of land to the master developer. This will be presented to the Planning Commission March 7 and City Council March 26. E. Draft Comp Plan City Planner Matthew Bachler noted that the City has until December 31, 2018 to submit the final Comp Plan update to the Metropolitan Council, but there needs to be a six month review period for adjacent and affected jurisdictions to review the Draft before submittal. The public hearing is anticipated to be at the April 4 Planning Commission meeting with the final Draft Plan to be brought to the City Council on April 23. WSB & Associates Senior Planner Eric Zweber gave a summary of the updates that have been made to the Housing and Land Use chapters of the Comprehensive Plan. He mentioned that the ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – FEBRUARY 20, 2018 5 Metropolitan Council had updated its housing requirements from ten years ago, and Arden Hills now has to have an average density of five units an acre for new development. Adding housing in TCAAP will bring the City well over that. The second component is affordable housing – existing and future affordable housing needs have to be addressed. Review continued of the draft Land Use, Housing, and Implementation Chapters and Council provided recommendations on changes. A page by page review was also done of the entire 2040 draft Comp Plan. City Planner Bachler stated the next steps for the draft 2040 Comp Plan include the Planning Commission and Economic Development Commission reviewing the entire draft on March 7. He noted that a red-lined version of the draft plan would be brought back to the March 19 work session based on the changes the Council provided this evening. On April 4, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing, and the draft will be presented again to the Council on April 23 for approval. 2. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND STAFF UPDATES Councilmember Holden mentioned that Betty McCullum’s office is meeting with EPA and MPCA and the Army about Round Lake soon. Councilmember Holden asked if the TCAAP roads would be designed to work with autonomous cars. City Administrator Perrault said that Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka went to a presentation on autonomous vehicles, and it is difficult to plan for that because we don’t know what those vehicles will actually consist of or what the needs will be. Councilmember Holden said a Colonel from Fort Ripley spoke with the Rotary Club about the new Readiness Center. The funding isn’t in place but they hope to start yet this year, and completed in 2020. ADJOURN Mayor Grant adjourned the City Council Work Session at 8:53 p.m. __________________________ __________________________ Jolene Trauba David Grant Deputy Clerk Mayor Approved: March 12, 2018 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2018 7:00 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor David Grant called to order the regular City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. Present: Mayor David Grant, Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Fran Holmes, and Steve Scott Absent: Councilmember Dave McClung (excused) Also present: City Administrator Dave Perrault; Public Works Director/City Engineer Sue Polka; and City Clerk Julie Hanson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Grant requested Item 8A under New Business be placed on the Consent Agenda. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Mayor Grant seconded a motion to approve the meeting agenda as amended. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). 2. PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONAL Joe Federer, 3695 New Brighton Road, discussed the lot split being proposed for 3685 New Brighton Road. He explained the proposed subdivision would hurt the City by removing a large number of trees while also requiring one household to maintain and inspect a large stormwater basin. He recommended that the low density residential standards be followed and that the City not allow three lots to be created for this property. He stated this was not in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. He was of the opinion it would be unsafe to put two additional driveways onto New Brighton Road. In addition, he did not support the City reducing the size of the easement for the lift station. He stated he would like to speak with the City Attorney to see what could be done to stop the subdivision. He discussed the expense he went through to save trees on his lot while building and noted he even moved his home on his lot in order to save ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – FEBRUARY 26, 2018 2 additional trees. He suggested only one home be placed on the lot at 3685 New Brighton Road and not three. He spoke to the Council regarding the discretion they had, believing the proposed lot split would hurt the City, and he encouraged the Council to not support the requested subdivision. Mayor Grant reported the Council would be reviewing this item on March 12, 2018. He noted the City Attorney does not attend every Council meeting. Councilmember Holden questioned how Mr. Federer could have built on his lot without removing a single tree. Mr. Federer stated it was his understanding the lot was cleared in the 1970’s and cars were possibly stored on it. Councilmember Holden requested staff research the discretion the Council had regarding the proposed lot split and to forward this information to the Council prior to March 12, 2018. She stated she was very concerned about the water and drainage issues within the proposed subdivision. Mayor Grant requested the City Administrator speak to the City Attorney regarding the Council’s discretion and to report back to the Council well in advance of the March 12, 2018 meeting. 3. STAFF COMMENTS A. Rice Creek Commons (TCAAP) and Joint Development Authority (JDA) Update City Administrator Perrault provided an update on TCAAP stating negotiations between the County and Alatus continue. He explained the MDA deadline was March 8, 2018. He noted the JDA would be meeting next on Monday, March 5, 2018. Councilmember Holden discussed the potential phasing of TCAAP and how this could negatively impact the overall development. She requested staff speak with the County and the developer regarding these concerns and proposed a penalty clause be written into the Development Agreement. She noted the City would bear the brunt of the cost of trying to salvage this development if the developer were allowed to cherry-pick which areas to build and be allowed to walk away. City Administrator Perrault stated he would speak to the developer and County regarding this matter. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – FEBRUARY 26, 2018 3 A. Motion to Approve Consent Agenda Item - Claims and Payroll B. Motion to Appoint Accounting Analyst C. Motion to Approve Contract for Impound Services with St. Paul Animal Control D. Motion to Approve Resolution 2018-016 – Limited Use Permit with MnDOT for Pedestrian Trail in the Right-of-Way of TH 51 at County Road F E. Motion to Approve Inspection Vehicle Purchase F. Motion to Approve Resolution 2018-015 Accepting Donation from Arden Hills Foundation G. Motion to Approve Resolution 2018-017 – Spring Lake Park Lions Charitable Gambling License at Welsch’s Big Ten Tavern H. Motion to Approve Resolution 2018-018 Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids – 2018 Pavement Management Program MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Holmes seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar as presented and to authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). 6. PULLED CONSENT ITEMS None. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Resolution 2018-018 Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids – 2018 Pavement Management Program This item was moved to the Consent Agenda. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Holmes stated the League of Minnesota Cities had recently posted a notice encouraging cities to host a Green Core Intern. She acknowledged that managing an intern places extra work responsibilities on staff but explained these interns could assist with green projects. She questioned if the City should consider pursuing an intern to assist with green initiatives for TCAAP. Mayor Grant encouraged staff to investigate this further. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – FEBRUARY 26, 2018 4 Councilmember Holden asked about the status of the GreenStep program. Councilmember Holden stated she would like to see the Council review the R-1 and R-2 zoning district standards. Councilmember Scott stated he would support the consensus of the Council on this matter. Council consensus was to review the R-1 and R-2 zoning standards. Councilmember Holden requested the City send a thank you note to the individual that donated a park bench for Royal Hills Park. ADJOURN MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Holmes seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). Mayor Grant adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:24 p.m. __________________________ __________________________ Julie Hanson David Grant City Clerk Mayor Page 1 of 1 CONSENT ITEM 5A MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: March 12, 2018 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator SUBJECT: Claims & Payroll Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: NA NA NA Council Should Consider the Following Options A.Approve Claims and Payroll Or B.Reject Claims and Payroll Supporting Documents: Payroll 2018 Payroll #4 ...................................................................................... $ 98,406.43 Total Payroll $ 98,406.43 Accounts Payable Claims Through 03/09/2018 Paid Claims 13.02.2018 (Check No 47351 – 47359 and ACH Checks) $ 11,441.99 Paid Claims 14.02.2018 (Check No 47360 – 47365 and ACH Checks) $ 34,507.57 Paid Claims 01.03.2018 (Check No 47366 – 47367 and ACH Checks) $ 30,856.82 Paid Claims 02.03.2018 (ACH Checks) $ 47,815.25 Total Accounts Payable $ 124,621.63 Total Claims $ 223,028.06 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS PAYROLL # 5 CHECKS DATED: 03/09/18 Biweekly: 02/17/18 - 03/02/18 EMPLOYEE DEDUCTIONS AMT.Payment Method FIT 5,639.97 EFT SIT 2,811.62 EFT FICA Oasdi 3,909.03 EFT FICA Medicare 3,909.03 EFT TOTAL TAXES 16,269.65 Health Premium 445.77 A/P Check* Dental Premium 261.93 A/P Check* FSA Health Care Reimb. 0.00 A/P Check* FSA Dependent Care Reimb. 416.66 A/P Check* TOTAL FLEXIBLE SPENDING 1,124.36 HSA Health Saving 272.92 Health Care Savings Plan-Retirement EFT Health Care Savings Plan-2% 286.34 EFT Health Care Savings Plan-4% 640.53 EFT TOTAL HEALTH SAVINGS 1,199.79 PERA 3,695.26 EFT ICMA 697.86 EFT Central Pension Fund-Union 537.60 A/P Check* MN State Retirement System 464.00 EFT TOTAL RETIREMENT 5,394.72 IUOE 49 Dues (Union) 120.75 A/P Check* LTD/STD Insurance 1,011.30 A/P Check* PERA Life Insurance 24.00 A/P Check* Life/Addl/Dep Life 155.70 A/P Check* UNUM 19.51 A/P Check* AFLAC 64.56 EFT TOTAL VOLUNTARY 1,395.82 Total Employee Deductions 25,384.34 Net Payroll 0.00 Direct Deposit 42,777.76 EFT Gross Payroll Tie-Out 63,934.22 STD/LTD Gross - Up Plus City Paid Benefit 34,472.21 ICMA Benefit Held 0.00 TOTAL PAYROLL COST 98,406.43 FICA TIE-OUT Gross Payroll 63,934.22 Less Total FSA 1,124.36 Plus Employer Match ICMA 0.00 Plus ICMA Benefit Held 0.00 Net P/R Subject to FICA 62,809.86 FICA Oasdi @ 6.20% 3,909.03 FICA Medicare @ 1.45% 3,909.03 Note: Federal and State Payroll Tax obligations are satisfied by means of utilizing the "Taxtel" Electronic Tax Deposit Service. Trans- fers are typically made two business days after the payroll date. * A/P Checks can be found on the ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Check Approval report. Checks may be paid this week or the following week. 7,818.06 CITY BENEFIT 3,909.03 3,909.03 348.00 19,933.64 458.75 20,392.39 1,650.00 1,650.00 4,263.76 0.00 4,611.76 Accounts Payable User: Printed: dave.perrault 3/7/2018 2:28 PM Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Check Amount Invoice No ReferenceDescription 0319 City of Roseville 02/22/2018ACH 0224162 Laserfiche Renewal Laserfiche Renewal 3,118.24 3,118.24Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0319: 0382 ICMA Retirement Trust - 106944 02/22/2018ACH PR Batch 00200.02.2018 ICMA Employer Percent 401PR Batch 00200.02.2018 ICMA Employer Percent 401 348.00 PR Batch 00200.02.2018 ICMA Employee Percent 401PR Batch 00200.02.2018 ICMA Employee Percent 401 301.60 649.60Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0382: 0387 ICMA Retirement Trust- #302482 02/22/2018ACH PR Batch 00200.02.2018 ICMA Employee DeductionPR Batch 00200.02.2018 ICMA Employee Deduction 25.00 PR Batch 00200.02.2018 ICMA Employee PercentPR Batch 00200.02.2018 ICMA Employee Percent 318.36 343.36Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0387: 0750 Verizon Wireless 02/22/2018ACH 9801248615 Jan/Feb 18 Expenses Jan/Feb 18 Expenses 105.03 105.03Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0750: 0922 North Suburban Access Corporation 02/22/2018ACH 2018-004 Jan 18 Expenses Jan 18 Expenses 257.40 257.40Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0922: 1223 Adam's Pest Control, Inc.02/22/2018ACH 2631073 Feb 18 Pest Control Feb 18 Pest Control 66.29 66.29Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 1223: 2112 Parker, Ashley 02/22/2018ACH 02212018-AP Feb 18 Expense Report Feb 18 Expense Report 6.87 02212018-AP Feb 18 Expense Report Feb 18 Expense Report 20.00 26.87Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 2112: 5587 CES Imaging 02/22/2018ACH INV081958 Feb 18 Rental Feb 18 Rental 60.00 60.00Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 5587: 8029 MMKR & Co, PA 02/22/2018ACH 43486 Jan 18 Audit Expenses Jan 18 Audit Expenses 47.42 43486 Jan 18 Audit Expenses Jan 18 Audit Expenses 67.74 43486 Jan 18 Audit Expenses Jan 18 Audit Expenses 54.20 43486 Jan 18 Audit Expenses Jan 18 Audit Expenses 302.58 43486 Jan 18 Audit Expenses Jan 18 Audit Expenses 302.58 43486 Jan 18 Audit Expenses Jan 18 Audit Expenses 302.58 43486 Jan 18 Audit Expenses Jan 18 Audit Expenses 302.58 Page 1AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (3/7/2018 2:28 PM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Check Amount Invoice No ReferenceDescription 43486 Jan 18 Audit Expenses Jan 18 Audit Expenses 54.19 43486 Jan 18 Audit Expenses Jan 18 Audit Expenses 302.58 43486 Jan 18 Audit Expenses Jan 18 Audit Expenses 293.55 2,030.00Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 8029: CANON Canon Financial Services 02/22/2018ACH 18277704 Mar 18 Rental Mar 18 Rental 1,215.08 18277704 Mar 18 Rental Mar 18 Rental 214.42 1,429.50Total for this ACH Check for Vendor CANON: 2597 AARP 02/22/201847351 02202018-AARP Feb 18 AARP Class Feb 18 AARP Class 105.00 105.00Total for Check Number 47351: 1033 Comcast 02/22/201847352 9672443-020318 Feb/Mar 18 Expense Feb/Mar 18 Expense 6.31 6.31Total for Check Number 47352: 0841 Ehlers & Associates, Inc.02/22/201847353 76190 TIF Expenses TIF Expenses 120.00 120.00Total for Check Number 47353: 0155 Office of MN IT Services 02/22/201847354 W18010595 Jan 18 Expenses Jan 18 Expenses 777.16 777.16Total for Check Number 47354: 2020 OPG-3, Inc.02/22/201847355 2400 Technology Expenses Technology Expenses 555.00 555.00Total for Check Number 47355: 0383 Pitney Bowes Inc 02/22/201847356 1006608885 Postage Supplies Postage Supplies 237.98 237.98Total for Check Number 47356: 6748 Reliance Standard 02/22/201847357 GL154938-0318 March 18 Premium March 18 Premium 963.30 963.30Total for Check Number 47357: 1193 SelectAccount 02/22/201847358 1219486-0118 Jan 18 Participant Fee Feb 18 Participant Fee 48.10 1219486-0218 Feb 18 Participant Fee Feb 18 Participant Fee 48.10 96.20Total for Check Number 47358: 0576 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial 02/22/201847359 M23557 2/7 & 2/12 Mtgs 2/7 & 2/12 Mtgs 212.25 M23557 2/7 & 2/12 Mtgs 2/7 & 2/12 Mtgs 282.50 494.75Total for Check Number 47359: 11,441.99Total for 2/22/2018: Page 2AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (3/7/2018 2:28 PM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Check Amount Invoice No ReferenceDescription 0192 Grainger, Inc 02/27/2018ACH 9699594835 PW Expenses PW Expenses 78.53 78.53Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0192: 0285 Xcel Energy 02/27/2018ACH 580799781 Jan/Feb 18 Expenses Jan/Feb 18 Expenses 1,923.29 580913587 Jan/Feb 18 Expenses Jan/Feb 18 Expenses 79.32 2,002.61Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0285: 0319 City of Roseville 02/27/2018ACH 0224186 Feb 18 Phone Services Feb 18 Phone Services 392.57 0224223 Jan 18 IT Services Jan 18 IT Services 4,120.00 0224263 Feb 18 IT Services Feb 18 Phone Services 4,120.00 8,632.57Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0319: 0750 Verizon Wireless 02/27/2018ACH 9801476628 Jan/Feb 18 Expenses Jan/Feb 18 Expenses 914.53 914.53Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0750: 1110 Pitney Bowes 02/27/2018ACH 02232018-PB Feb 18 Postage Feb 18 Postage 1,244.99 02232018-PB Feb 18 Postage Feb 18 Postage 613.37 1,858.36Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 1110: 1330 MN CLN SERVICES LLC 02/27/2018ACH 0318NN01 Feb 18 Cleaning Feb 18 Cleaning 1,478.75 1,478.75Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 1330: 2645 Federal Signal Corporation 02/27/2018ACH 6810374 PW Equipment PW Equipment 15,400.00 15,400.00Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 2645: 6129 Fast Signs 02/27/2018ACH 204-46073 Government Building Supplies Government Building Supplies 469.75 469.75Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 6129: 8023 Voss Lighting 02/27/2018ACH 15314863-00 PW Expenses PW Expenses 170.00 170.00Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 8023: APPB Apple Business Forms, Inc.02/27/201847360 11300 Regular #10 Envelopes Regular #10 Envelopes 286.73 11301 Deposit Tickets Deposit Tickets 83.00 11314 Return Envelopes Return Envelopes 243.09 612.82Total for Check Number 47360: 0131 Beisswenger's How-To Store 02/27/201847361 985524 PW Expenses PW Expenses 5.70 985710 PW Expenses PW Expenses 3.49 987825 PW Expenses PW Expenses 23.26 32.45Total for Check Number 47361: Page 3AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (3/7/2018 2:28 PM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Check Amount Invoice No ReferenceDescription CPF1 Central Pension Fund 02/27/201847362 02282018-CPF Feb 18 Contributions Feb 18 Contributions 1,075.20 1,075.20Total for Check Number 47362: 4372 DLT Solutions, LLC 02/27/201847363 4649037 2018 Agreement 2018 Agreement 1,031.95 1,031.95Total for Check Number 47363: 1698 Metro Heating & Cooling 02/27/201847364 2017-00936 Permit 2017-00936 Refund Permit 2017-00936 Refund 240.00 240.00Total for Check Number 47364: 0327 Staples Business Advantage 02/27/201847365 3367729248 Office Supplies Office Supplies 11.19 3367729253 Office Supplies Office Supplies 187.46 3368302057 Office Supplies Office Supplies 16.99 3368302058 Office Supplies Office Supplies 98.17 3368700265 Office Supplies Office Supplies 139.99 3368700266 Office Supplies Office Supplies 56.25 510.05Total for Check Number 47365: 34,507.57Total for 2/27/2018: 1115 WSB & Associates, Inc.03/09/2018ACH 01 Johanna Marsh Playground Engineering Fees WSB Charges 508.00 01 Graduate Engineer Services WSB Charges 4,639.25 11 2040 Comp Plan Work January WSB Charges 426.00 11 2040 Comp Plan Work January WSB Charges 71.00 11 2040 Comp Plan Work January WSB Charges 191.50 11 2040 Comp Plan Work January WSB Charges 105.00 11 2040 Comp Plan Work January WSB Charges 718.50 14 Old Snelling Trail Engineering Fees January WSB Charges 4,666.00 15 2018 Water Tower Rehab January WSB Charges 90.00 16 PZ Professional Services January WSB Charges 262.50 16 PC 17-029 January WSB Charges 577.50 16 PC 18-001 January WSB Charges 672.00 16 PZ Professional Services January WSB Charges 477.75 4 Johanna Marsh Playground Engineering Fees Johanna Marsh Playground Engineering Fees 5,488.00 8 County Road I and Old Highway 8 Project County Road I and Old Highway 8 Project 6,698.00 25,591.00Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 1115: TOII Tokle Inspections, Inc 03/09/2018ACH TOKLEFEB18 February Inspections February Inspections 1,124.00 1,124.00Total for this ACH Check for Vendor TOII: 1115 WSB & Associates, Inc.03/09/2018ACH 09 2018 PMP Engineering Services 2018 PMP Engineering Services 12,828.25 09 2018 PMP Engineering Services 2018 PMP Engineering Services 34,987.00 47,815.25Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 1115: 3015 HCA Asset Management 03/09/201847366 18-0864 Onsite Appraisal for LMCIT Onsite Appraisal for LMCIT 2,400.00 Page 4AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (3/7/2018 2:28 PM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Check Amount Invoice No ReferenceDescription 2,400.00Total for Check Number 47366: 1450 League of MN Cities Inc. Trust (SP)03/09/201847367 MARCH18REST Restitution Payment March 2018 Restitution Payment March 2018 1,741.82 1,741.82Total for Check Number 47367: 78,672.07Total for 3/9/2018: Report Total (39 checks): 124,621.63 Page 5AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (3/7/2018 2:28 PM) DATE: March 12, 2018 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Dave Perrault, City Administrator SUBJECT: Updated Cleaning Services Contract for City Hall Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: $21,000 N/A Public Safety Council Should Consider The Council should consider approving the updated contract for cleaning services for City Hall with MN Services. Background The City of Arden Hills has been utilizing MN Services LLC for general cleaning services for City Hall. The vendor has notified the City that their prices are increasing one dollar per hour to $20.50 from $19.50 per hour. This increase is minimal, and will not put the City over budget for cleaning services. The total anticipated cost is $18,655 with the increase, the original anticipated cost was $17,745. Our budget for the year is $21,000. Attachment Attachment A: Contract for Cleaning Services CONSENT ITEM –5B MEMORANDUM MN Services, lnc. 11301 West 47th Street Minnetonka, MN 55343 Office: 952-988-8567 Cell: 952-217-9360 The following is a proposal presented to ,A@nrs FACTS Over 45 years of cleaning experience, serving the Twin Cities Area since 1-959 . Over 6 million square feet cleaned daily ' Top 10 ranking in customer service among all cleaning com pa n ies . Better Business Bureau I A+ Rating Building Service Contractors Association lnternational Minnesota M ulti Housing Association Minnesota Association of Church Facility Managers Edina Chamber of Commerce Hffi-" ADVANTAGES Large Enough - MN Services is large enough to tackle any janitorial issue Smal! Enough We provide individual attention that caters to your specific needs Pricing Transparency - Our clients take part in the pricing process so there are no surprises Worker Selection & Training ,/ We recruit workers in the area near your facility. ,/ New facilities cleaned with management personnel for up to two weeks ./ A manager checks each new employee's work until they are well-trained ,/ Facilities are inspected at a minimum of two times per week Adhere to a plan that offers the least disruption to your business & its operations QUALITY CONTROL Our management philosophy is based on the conviction that it's our job to manage the quality of your facilities cleaning, not yours. Most cleaning companies take a passive approach to managing, and assume that if they don't hear from you everything is fine. By contrast, w€ do weekly inspections while crews are onsite to make sure that any problems are taken care of immediately. We will provide you with inspection reports upon request. ln addition, we would like to arrange for joint tours of the facility with you or a designated representative on a scheduled basis. MN Services will design a supervisory program detailed to your buildlng maintenance requirements. Each building will have one person responsible for daily communications with the customer's representative. They will handle any minor issues that arise and provide oversight of day-to-day cleaning needs and arrangements. GENERAL PROVISIONS Frequency: after normal M N Services contract. Maintenance will be performed 5 times per week business hours. The exact hours are to be set by and the client as dictated by the needs of the Security: Your security procedures will be strictly adhered to by MN Services and its management. Al! employees will be required to have identification badges and wear our company- issued shirt if the contract requires it. Supplies: All supplies such as plastic bags, liners, toilet tissue, hand towels, hand soap, sanitary napkins, etc. are to be supplied by the customer. All cleaning supplies such as disinfectants, window cleaners, etc. will be supplied at their point of use by MN Services. G EN ERAL PROVISIONS (continued) lnsurance: MN Services has in force the following policies: Public Liability, Property Damage, Workers Compensation and Blanket Fidelity Bond. Certificates will be mailed to you upon request directly from our insurance provider. Adjustments: The price set forth in this proposal is based on the necessary labor, supplies, equipment and supervision necessary to maintain your facility properly as set forth by the areas serviced and the frequency of the work. ln the event of any major changes in such conditions, the contract may be either increased or decreased accordingly with thirty (30) days written notification. These adjustments shall be by mutual agreement. Terms: Should this proposal be accepted, it will form the basis of the agreement and will continue in effect from year to year, except that it may be modified from time to time as set forth above. The contract may be terminated in its entirety by either party at any time by giving notice in writing of their desire to do so at least ninety (90) days prior to the selected date of termination. A longer period may be effected should you require this. SCHEDULE OF MAINTENANCE Five Times Per Week Entrances & Lobbv Area. Clean entrance door glass and adjoining interior glass I I I I Vacuum all carpeted areas and entry runners Sweep or dust mop hard surfaced floors, making sure to get edges, corners and under furniture Wet mop hard surfaced floors Empty trash & recycling receptacles and replace liners as needed Clean and sanitize drinking fountains Spot clean switch plates, walls, doors, kick plates and moldings as needed Dust horizonta! surfaces, ledges and lobby furniture throughout week as needed Offices I Conf. Rooms I Council Chambers I Elevator I Stairs & lower Level ' Dust or wipe down horizontal surfaces. We will not disturb papers or personal items. Use appropriate cleaner on reception counter Vacuum all carpeted areas and mats Sweep or dust mop hard surfaced floors Wet mop hard surfaced floors Empty trash & recycling receptacles and replace liners as needed Wipe down conference room tables & chairs as needed and arrange furniture neatly Spot clean switch plates, walls, doors, kick plates and moldings as needed Spot clean smudges on interior glass as needed Clean & sanitize drinking fountains Keep elevator cab and tracks clean inside and out I I SCHEDULE OF MAINTENANCE Five Times Per Week Lavatory Maintenance. Empty waste receptacles and replace liners Clean & disinfect counter tops, sinks and chrome fittings Clean & disinfect door handles, push plates and switch plates Clean and disinfect all toilets, seats and urinals Clean walls & partitions around sinks, towel cabinets, partitions, bowls and urinals Clean & polish mirrors and frames Clean and restock all non-vending dispensers Sweep & wet mop all lavatory floors with detergent and disinfectant Weekly pour water down floor drains to keep traps from drying out Monthly dust tops of partitions Break Room ' Empty waste receptacles and replace liners. Spot clean walls behind receptacles as needed. Sweep or dry mop hard surfaced floors. Wet mop hard surfaced floors Janitorial Closetr Room, equipment and supplies wil! be kept clean and well-ordered T T T a I T I I I I I r I SCHEDULE OF MAINTENANCE Periodic Cleaning Services Weekly dust reachable high ledges, moldings, picture frames, corners to keep from dust and cobwebs Monthly edge vacuum all carpeted areas Quarterly dust reachable vents and air diffusers Quarterly dust bottoms of chairs Semi-annually completely wash ceramic walls in lavatories Optional Services Provided At Your Request Carpet Shampooing - S0.18 per square foot Stripping and waxing of tile floors - 50.50 per square foot Window Washing PERSON N EL SELECTION: Aside from proper management we feel the single most important part in any building maintenance program is the personnel who are actually doing the cleaning. We hire those who are not only visually presentable, but also capable of being responsible for their actions within a client's building. All persons who we consider for employment must have both business and persona! references that we can check. TRAINtNG: A person's training always begins by working with an experienced worker or manager. For instance, in a new facility we clean the building exclusively with management personne! for a period of up to two weeks, depending on the individual circumstances. The manager will then continue to check the employee's work until the time the manager feels comfortable that the employee is well trained. After this time, we will continue inspections at a minimum of two to five times per week, depending on the size of the contract. BUILDING SERVICE AGREEMENT MN Services hereby agrees to perform the contract cleaning services as set forth in a good and workmanlike manner. MN Services further agrees to furnish all labor and materials necessary to perform the services set forth in the specifications, except the furnishing of lavatory supplies such as hand soap, towels, toilet tissue, sanitary napkins or deodorants, unless items of this type are specifically included in the aforementioned specifications. MN Services represents that its employees are covered by public liability insurance, property damage insurance, workers compensation insurance and a fidelity bond. lnsurance certificates will be provided upon request. The terms of this agreement shall remain in force and effect subject to the right of termination by either party with a ninety (90) day written notice from the first of any month. The 90-day period shall run from the time the terminating party mails a termination notice to coincide from the last day of any given month. MN Services agrees to the services set forth in the specifications, at the times and for the consideration as set forth below. The Customer agrees not to hire any of MN Services, lnc. personnel to work for them in any capacity for a period of one year after termination of this contract, unless written approval is given by MN Services. Services to be performed as specified in the Schedule of Maintenance that accompanies this agreement. Contract Price: S1,554.58 Services to commence at Client's Request. Dated this 21st dav of Februarv 2018 MN Services, lnc. MN Services, lnc. 11301 West 47th Street Minnetonka, MN 55343 952-988-8567 952-2L7-9350 By: By: City of Arden Hills, MN Pricing Sheet Our Current General Cleaning rate is 520.50 per hour. This rate includes the following: Employer's share of FICA & Medicare, Fed. & St. Ul lnsurance, Workman's Compensation lns, Supplies, Equipment, and Equipment Repair, On-site Supervision, Genera! Liability lns., Bonding, Umbrella lns. Policy, General Overhead expense and Profit. We recommend 3.5 hours of cleaning per day for your facility. However, you have the option to tailor your cleaning needs specifically to the budgetary and functional demands of your building and its personnel. Hours Days/Week Price Month 3.5 5 s20.so S1.ss4.s8 Page 1 of 1 CONSENT ITEM – 5C MEMORANDUM DATE: March 12, 2018 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator FROM: Sue Polka, Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: 2018 Trail and Watermain Project Wetland Banking Credits Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: $20,000.00 $4,842.84 Capital Improvement Funds Council Should Consider Approving the purchase of wetland banking credits from the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) in the amount of $4,705.20, and the withdrawal and stewardship fees in the amount of $137.64 for a total of $4,842.84 (Attachment A). Background/Discussion The Old Snelling Avenue Trail project requires minor wetland disturbance to construct storm sewer outlets for the project. The area of the impact is 0.03 acres or 1,307 square feet. Due to the right of way constraints and the size of the impacted area, it is most cost effective for the City to purchase wetland banking credits from BWSR for the project. The engineer’s estimate includes $20,000 for wetland and rain water garden improvements. The proposed cost for purchasing wetland credits is less than estimated and will not require ongoing maintenance. Attachments Attachment A: Purchase Agreement for Wetland Banking Credits & Transaction Form to Withdraw Credits M1 Transaction Form to Withdraw Credits BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES Minnesota Wetland Bank Program If the layout of this form looks incorrect,click on View,Edit Document,then save it to your computer. 1. Credit User This space for BWSR use only. Name:Susan Polka, PE Organization:City of Arden Hills Address: 1245 Hwy 96 W Email:spolka@cityofardenhills.or 9 Phone:612-289-1175 LGU File#:17-109R t'1-Oq°L Consultant:Shawn Williams -WSB &Associates, Inc. 2. Wetland Impact Information To be completed for the project impacting wetlands and with which this withdrawal is intended to replace. Project Name:Old Snelling Ave Trail Impact Size(acres):0.03 Impact County:Ramsey Impact Wetland type:Fill Impact Major Watershed/BSA: 20 /7 Replacement Ratio::2:1 Sec/Twp/Range: Sec. 28, T3ON,R23W Projects with multiple locations should use the most central location in relation to the project as a whole. Are Federally authorized credits required for this impact'JYes 14 No Corps Regulatory File Number: MVP-2017-01673-LMG Comments:Per USACE meeting on 11/28/2017, no mitigation will be required from USACE 3. Credits to be Withdrawn To be completed by the seller of the credits(account holder) Account Information Account: 1618 County: Anoka Bank Service Area: 7 Credit Credit Wetland Type/Plant Community Type Federally Cost per Credit Subgroup Approved? Amounts B Shallow Marsh No 578.408 0.06 Per Credit Withdrawal Fee by BSA Enter the Withdrawal Fee for Total Credits: 0.06 BSA 1 $520 BSA 6 $1,083 the BSA of the account: (withdrawal Fee x total credits) BSA 2 $371 BSA 7 $1,992x1.992 I Withdrawal Fee: $119.52 BSA 3 $725 BSA 8 $2,577 Easement Stewardship Fee: (Easement Stewardship feex total credits) BSA 4 $1,412 BSA 9 $2,628 302 Stewardship Fee: $18.12 BSA 5 $685 BSA 10 $3,099 Total Fees: $137.64 Please make checks payable to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources.BWSR does not accept cash. BWSR fee policy:http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/wetlandbanking/fee and sales data/Wetland Banking Fee Policy Effective Junel 2017.pdf BWSR form updated 5/31/2017 Page 1 of 2 Disclaimer:All transactions in the Wetland Bank system are public information Project Name:Old Snelling Avenue Trail and Utility Improvements Confirmation email will be emailed to the user,seller,and regulatory representative when the transaction is complete. If anyone else should be notified please indicated their emails below: spolka@wsbeng.com jstremel@wsbeng.com 4. Regulatory Authorization By signing below,the identified agency and authorized representative hereby certifies that they have:a)verified that the subject wetland credits are deposited in the account of the owner/seller,b)approved a wetland replacement plan or similar agreement under their jurisdiction,and c)approve the proposed use of the wetland bank credit described above. WCA LGU/Agency: ea*. LSI) LGU Representative: “ie-k ^r`"`-e''' Email Address: e.1kow-e-"-`/(---°``.kejs'e":" .6 Affj Sign re Date For NRCS, DNR,etc.as applicable Agency Name and Location:Representative: Email Address: Signature Date 5. Credit User Signature By signing below the proposed credit user attests that he/she owns or has purchased the credits identified in this form and has received approval from the regulatory authority(ies). Signature Date 6. Account Holder Signature By signing below I,the seller and holder of the aforementioned account in the State of Minnesota Wetland Mitigation Bank,certify that: 1) The credits described in this transaction form have been sold to the credit user or will be used for my own project; 2) I have received payment in full from the buyer(if applicable); 3) The credits described in this transaction form have not been sold or used in any way to mitigate wetland losses other than for the project and location identified in the wetland impact information block on the previous page; 4) The credits described in this application should be withdrawn from my account;and 5) I will not have a negative balance of credits after the subject credits are debited from my account. Name/Representative:Patricia L Preiner Email Address: P1954R@AOL.com 12/1/2017 Signature Date Send complete forms and fee payments to: Wetland Bank Administration Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources 520 Lafayette Road North Saint Paul,MN 55155 BWSR form updated 5/31/2017 Page 2 of 2 Disclaimer:All transactions in the Wetland Bank system are public information The following is a sample of a possible Purchase Agreementfor the sale of Wetland Banking Credits. This Purchase Agreement does not necessarily cover all of the issues that would be important to Sellers and Buyers, nor does it address the terms that would be appropriate for any particular transaction. Sellers and Buyers should obtain the services of qualified legal counsel to adapt this Purchase Agreement to meet their specific needs. PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR WETLAND BANKING CREDITS THIS AGREEMENT is made this 1 day of December ,2017 between Patricia Preiner Seller)and City of Arden Hills Buyer). I. Seller agrees to sell to Buyer, and Buyer agrees to buy from Seller,the wetland banking credits Credits)listed below: Credits to be Sold Credit Wetland Type/Plant Community Type Cost per Credit Credit AmountsSubgroup B Shallow marsh 78,408 0.06 Per Credit Withdrawal Fee by Total Total BSA Enter the Withdrawal Fee Cost: $4,705.20 Credits: 0.06 BSA 1 $520 BSA 6 $1,083 for the BSA of the account: Withdrawal Fee x total credits) BSA 2 $371 BSA 7 $1,992 I 1,992 I Withdrawal Fee: 119.52 BSA 3 $725 BSA 8 $2,577 Easement Stewardship Fee: Easement Stewardship feextotal credits) BSA 4 $1,412 BSA 9 $2,628 I 302 per credit Stewardship Fee: 18.12 BSA 5 $685 BSA 10 $3,099 Total Fees: 137.64 BWSR fee policy:imp U'r,„b u.,tate.mn.usti atind.wc1Iandbanking'lee and sale,: kata1V`ethnd Banton Fez Niter Effective Junel 2017.ndf 2. Seller represents and warrants as follows: a) The Credits are deposited in an account in the Minnesota Wetland Bank administered by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources(BWSR)pursuant to Minn.Rules Chapter 8420.0700-.0760. b) Seller owns the Credits and has the right to sell the Credits to Buyer. Page 1 of 2 BWSR Example Purchase Agreement Updated July 14,2017 3. Buyer will pay Seller a total of$ 4,705.20 for the Credits, as follows: a) $ 0 as earnest money,to be paid when this Agreement is signed;and b) The balance of$_4,705.20 to be paid on the Closing Date listed below. 4. [1 ] Buyer, [0 ] Seller agrees to pay to a withdrawal fee of$ 119.52 to the State of Minnesota based on the per credit fee of $1,992 for Bank Service Area 7 and a stewardship fee of$ 18.12 based on the per credit fee of$ 302 . At the Closing Date, [0] Buyer, [0 ] Seller will execute a check made out for this amount,payable to the Board of Water and Soil Resources. 5. The closing of the purchase and sale shall occur on_March 1 , 2018 (Closing Date)at The Closing Date and location may be changed by written consent of both parties. Upon payment of the balance of the purchase price, Seller will sign a fully executed Transaction Form to Withdraw Credits provided by BWSR,provide a copy of the Transaction Form to Withdraw Credits to the Buyer and forward the same to the BWSR along with the check for the withdrawal fee and stewardship fee. 6. Buyer has applied or will apply to Rice Creek Watershed District (Local Government Unit(LGU) or other regulatory authority)for approval of a replacement plan utilizing the Credits as the means of replacing impacted wetlands. If the LGU has not approved the Buyer's application for a replacement plan utilizing the Credits by the Closing Date, and no postponement of the Closing Date has been agreed to by Buyer and Seller in writing,then either Buyer or Seller may cancel this Agreement by giving written notice to the other. In this case, Seller shall return Buyer's earnest money,and neither Buyer nor Seller shall have any further obligations under this Agreement. If the LGU has approved the replacement plan and the Seller is ready to proceed with the sale on the Closing Date, but Buyer fails to proceed,then the Seller may retain the earnest money as liquidated damages. e,, •, e/`/ /- 4X7 Signature of Seller) Date) Signature of Buyer)Date) Page 2 of 2 BWSR Example Purchase Agreement Updated July 14,2017 Page 1 of 2 CONSENT ITEM – 5D MEMORANDUM DATE: March 12, 2018 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator FROM: Sue Polka, Public Works Director/ City Engineer SUBJECT: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: $ $ $ Council Should Consider Authorizing the Mayor to execute the Marketing Agreement (Attachment A) with Utility Service Partners Private Label, Inc. to allow the company to offer and market their utility service line warranty products to residential property owners in the City of Arden Hills. Background/Discussion At the February 20th Work Session, a representative from Utility Services was present to discuss the National League of Cities Service Line Warranty program. The warranty program is a voluntary program for homeowners which provides repair protection for leaking, clogged or broken water and sewer lines from the point of utility connection to the home exterior. Coverage includes education, $8,500 coverage per incident, no deductibles, 24/7/365 availability, and repairs made by a licensed local contractor. In order for the City to partner with Utility Services for this program, a marketing agreement would be required (Attachment A). The City has the option to collect royalties from the program (50 cents per plan) or waive the royalty option for which the charge to the resident would be lowered by 50 cents per plan. The attached agreement does not include any royalties to the City. The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement. A summary of costs is as follows: Coverage Cost to Resident Water $5.25/mo Sewer $7.25/mo In Home Plumbing $9.49/mo Page 2 of 2 Local cities that also offer this program include Columbia Heights, Edina, Falcon Heights, Richfield, St. Louis Park, Mounds View, Rochester, and New Brighton. The terms and conditions for each of the warranty options (water line, sewer line and interior piping) are included in Attachments B, C, and D. Please note that although the terms and conditions for water have listed “Thawing service lines” as an exclusion, thawing frozen services will be a covered repair for Arden Hills’ residents as expressed in the marketing agreement. At the work session a question also came up regarding the “shared line” scenario as it relates to sewer services. Utility Services has indicated that they would cover the entire line up to the point where the lines converge. They are also not ruling out the possibility of repairs to the shared portion, but that would depend on the specific situation. Attachments A – Marketing Agreement B – Water Service Lines Terms and Conditions C - Sewer Service Lines Terms and Conditions D - Interior Plumbing and Drainage Terms and Conditions E - Sample Letter to Residents . 1 MARKETING AGREEMENT This MARKETING AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into as of ___________, 20__ ("Effective Date"), by and between the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota ("City"), and Utility Service Partners Private Label, Inc. d/b/a Service Line Warranties of America (“Company”), herein collectively referred to singularly as "Party" and collectively as the "Parties". RECITALS: WHEREAS, sewer and water line laterals between the mainlines and the connection on residential private property are owned by individual residential property owners residing in the City ("Residential Property Owner"); and WHEREAS, City desires to offer Residential Property Owners the opportunity, but not the obligation, to purchase a service line warranty and other similar products set forth in Exhibit A or as otherwise agreed in writing from time-to-time by the Parties (each, a “Product” and collectively, the "Products"); and WHEREAS, Company, a subsidiary of HomeServe USA Corp., is the administrator of the National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program and has agreed to make the Products available to Residential Property Owners subject to the terms and conditions contained herein; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, and with the intent to be legally bound hereby, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Purpose. City hereby grants to Company the right to offer and market the Products to Residential Property Owners subject to the terms and conditions herein. 2. Grant of License. City hereby grants to Company a non-exclusive license ("License") to use City's name and logo on letterhead, bills and marketing materials to be sent to Residential Property Owners from time to time, and to be used in advertising (including on the Company’s website), all at Company's sole cost and expense and subject to City's prior review and approval, which will not be unreasonably conditioned, delayed, or withheld. In the event that City extends a similar license to a direct competitor of Company during the Term and any Renewal Term of this Agreement, Company may immediately terminate this Agreement. 3. Term. The term of this Agreement ("Term") shall be for three (3) years from the Effective Date. The Agreement will automatically renew for additional one (1) year terms ("Renewal Term") unless one of the Parties gives the other written notice at least ninety (90) days prior to . 2 end of the Term or of a Renewal Term that the Party does not intend to renew this Agreement. In the event that Company is in material breach of this Agreement, the City may terminate this Agreement thirty (30) days after giving written notice to Company of such breach, if said breach is not cured during said thirty (30) day period. Company will be permitted to complete any marketing initiative initiated or planned prior to termination of this Agreement after which time, neither Party will have any further obligations to the other and this Agreement will terminate. 4. Indemnification. Company hereby agrees to protect, indemnify, and hold the City, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively or individually, "Indemnitee") harmless from and against any and all third party claims, damages, losses, expenses, suits, actions, decrees, judgments, awards, reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs (individually or collectively, "Claim"), which an Indemnitee may suffer or which may be sought against or are recovered or obtainable from an Indemnitee, as a result of or arising out of any breach of this Agreement by the Company, or any negligent or fraudulent act or omission of the Company or its officers, employees, contractors, subcontractors, or agents in the performance of services under the Products; provided that the applicable Indemnitee notifies Company of any such Claim within a time that does not prejudice the ability of Company to defend against such Claim. Any Indemnitee hereunder may participate in its, his, or her own defense, but will be responsible for all costs incurred, including reasonable attorneys' fees, in connection with such participation in such defense. 5. Notice. Any notice required to be given hereunder shall be deemed to have been given when notice is (i) received by the Party to whom it is directed by personal service, (ii) sent by electronic mail (provided confirmation of receipt is provided by the receiving Party), or (iii) deposited as registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, with the United States Postal Service, addressed as follows: To: City: ATTN: Dave Perrault City of Arden Hills 1245 Highway 96 W Arden Hills, MN 55112-5743 Phone: (651) 792-7800 To: Company: ATTN: Chief Sales Officer Utility Service Partners Private Label, Inc. 11 Grandview Circle, Suite 100 Canonsburg, PA 15317 Phone: (866) 974-4801 6. Modifications or Amendments/Entire Agreement. Any and all of the representations and obligations of the Parties are contained herein, and no modification, waiver or amendment of . 3 this Agreement or of any of its conditions or provisions shall be binding upon a party unless in writing signed by that Party. 7. Assignment. This Agreement and the License granted herein may not be assigned by Company other than to an affiliate or an acquirer of all or substantially all of its assets, without the prior written consent of the City, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. 8. Counterparts/Electronic Delivery; No Third Party Beneficiary. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, all such counterparts will constitute the same contract and the signature of any Party to any counterpart will be deemed a signature to, and may be appended to, any other counterpart. Executed copies hereof may be delivered by facsimile or e-mail and upon receipt will be deemed originals and binding upon the Parties hereto, regardless of whether originals are delivered thereafter. Nothing expressed or implied in this Agreement is intended, or should be construed, to confer upon or give any person or entity not a party to this agreement any third- party beneficiary rights, interests, or remedies under or by reason of any term, provision, condition, undertaking, warranty, representation, or agreement contained in this Agreement. 9. Choice of Law/Attorney Fees. The governing law shall be the laws of the State of Minnesota. In the event that at any time during the Term or any Renewal Term either Party institutes any action or proceeding against the other relating to the provisions of this Agreement or any default hereunder, then the unsuccessful Party shall be responsible for the reasonable expenses of such action including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred therein by the successful Party. 10. Incorporation of Recitals and Exhibits. The above Recitals and Exhibit A attached hereto are incorporated by this reference and expressly made part of this Agreement. [Signature Page Follows] . 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year first written above. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS _____________________________ Name: Title: UTILITY SERVICE PARTNERS PRIVATE LABEL, INC. _____________________________ Name: Tom Rusin Title: Chief Executive Officer . 5 Exhibit A NLC Service Line Warranty Program City of Arden Hills Term Sheet February 21, 2018 I. Initial Term. Three years II. License Conditions. a. City logo on letterhead, advertising, billing, and marketing materials b. Signature by City official III. Products. a. External water service line warranty (initially, $5.25 per month) b. External sewer/septic line warranty (initially, $7.25 per month) c. Interior plumbing and drainage warranty (initially, $9.49 per month) Company may adjust the foregoing Product fees; provided, that any such adjustment shall not exceed $.50 per month in any 12-month period, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties in writing. IV. Scope of Coverage. a. External water service line warranty: - Homeowner responsibility: From the curb stop to the external wall of the home. - Covers thawing of frozen external water lines. - Covers well service lines if applicable. b. External sewer/septic line warranty: - Homeowner responsibility: From the exit point of the home to the main. - Covers septic lines if applicable c. Interior plumbing and drainage warranty: - Water supply pipes and drainage pipes within the interior of the home. V. Marketing Campaigns. Company shall have the right to conduct up to three campaigns per year, comprised of up to six mailings and such other channels as may be mutually agreed. Initially, Company anticipates offering the Interior plumbing and drainage warranty Product via in-bound channels only. Service Line Warranties of America 1 SC-WSL1300-NAW-SLWA [XXXX] SC-WSL1300-NAW-SLWA-H055-021317 Exterior Water Service Line Terms and Conditions YOUR ENCLOSED DEC LARATION PAGE IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF YOUR SERVICE AGREEMENT AND ALONG WITH THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONSTITUTE YOUR ENTIRE AGREEMENT Utility Service Partners Private Label, Inc., known as Service Line Warranties of America (“SLWA”), a subsidiary of HomeServe USA Corp. (“HomeServe”), is the entity that will administer the service under this Service Agreement. You may contact SLWA by mail at 1232 Premier Drive, Chattanooga, TN 37421 or by calling toll-free 1-866-922-9006. North American Warranty, Inc. (“NAW”, “Provider”, “We”, “Us” or “Our”) is the entity obligated to provide service under this Service Agreement. You may contact NAW by mail at 175 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, or by calling toll-free 1-866-918-4680. What’s Covered: We will arrange and pay for the repair or replacement due to normal wear and tear of a leaking, low pressure, or permanently blocked Exterior Water Service Line for which You have sole responsibility, that supports Your Residence. You must call SLWA to arrange for service in order for repairs to be covered. See “How to Call for Repairs” below. Your Exterior Water Service Line is the line that supplies fresh water to Your Residence from Your utility’s responsibility or external wall of Your well casing to the external wall of Your Residence, including any water lines either buried or embedded in concrete in the outer wall of Your foundation. If Your Exterior Water Service Line is embedded in concrete, reasonable efforts will be made to avoid cutting through the concrete. This may mean relocating Your water meter as a means of repairing or replacing Your Exterior Water Service Line. Any part of Your Exterior Water Service Line beyond these linear limits will not be covered. Low pressure means less than 30 pounds per square inch with two or fewer fixtures open. Restoration: Restoration to any area disturbed by the repair that is on Your Property and outside Your Residence is limited to: filling, raking and reseeding of grass, and reinstallation of existing soft landscaping and shrubbery. We cannot guarantee the survival of any living materials disturbed by the repair and will not be responsible for the replacement of any decorative paving, pathways or landscaping features. If concrete cutting is necessary to repair Your Exterior Water Service Line, the resulting trench will be filled with gravel and covered with asphalt, cement, or concrete, as appropriate. Debris will be removed from the restoration area. Benefit Li mit: Th e maximum benefit limit is up to $8,500 for each Service Call. Any repair or replacement charges beyond Your Service Call benefit limit are Your responsibility. What’s Not Covered: We will not be responsible for any of the following: 1. Damages, losses and expenses, whether from negligence or otherwise, caused by: (a) You or any person or entity other than Us or SLWA or (b) unusual circumstances, including a natural disaster, or an act of God; 2. Consequential, incidental, or punitive damages arising from conducting repair work or as a result of the covered repair; for example, damages necessary to reasonably access the repair area. Your rights and remedies may vary depending on the state where Your Property is located; 3. Any correction, upgrade, or move of Your existing Exterior Water Service Line, not directly related to the necessary covered repair, in order to meet any code, law, regulation, or ordinance; 4. Repairs to any section of Your Exterior Water Service Line that You share with any third party or is covered by a homeowners’, condominium or like association; 5. Repairs to any line that branches off the main line, for example lines for sprinklers, pools, hot tubs, radiant floor heating, and/or other outdoor systems; 6. Thawing of frozen pipes; 7. Any shared Exterior Water Service Line that provides service to multiple properties or secondary buildings, whether known or unknown; 8. Repair or replacement of any part of Your Exterior Water Service Line that is not expressly stated to be covered in "What's Covered" above. Eligibility: A single structure owned by You, used and zoned for residential occupancy (“Residence”) that is permanently secured to the ground, and the land it is located on is also owned by You (“Property”). Any recreational vehicle or other type of home on wheels that is intended to be moved and/or property used for commercial purposes is not eligible. If You are aware of any pre-existing conditions, defects or deficiencies with Your Exterior Water Service Line, prior to the Start Date of Your first Term, then Your Property is not eligible for this coverage. If You reside in a multi-family structure and do not own the entire structure, it will be Your responsibility to provide SLWA with a signed release from all other homeowners for any work which may affect their portion of the structure. This release must be signed and submitted before any work will begin. Any failure by You to submit such signed releases shall discharge Service Line Warranties of America 2 SC-WSL1300-NAW-SLWA [XXXX] SC-WSL1300-NAW-SLWA-H055-021317 SLWA from its obligations to complete any work for which such releases are required. To obtain a release form call SLWA. Length of Service Agreement: Your Service Agreement begins on the Start Date listed on Your Declaration Pag e and will continue for twelve (12) months (“Term”) provided neither You nor We cancel. See “Cancellation/Refund” below. There is an initial waiting period of thirty (30) days, within which You will not be able to request a Service Call. This means You will receive less than twelve (12) full months of coverage during the first year. Upon renewal (if applicable), You will not be subject to a waiting period. How to call for repairs: Y ou must call SLWA and a service representative will assist in the diagnosis of Your repair and the scheduling of a visit fro m one of SLWA’s approved local technicians. You will not be reimbursed for work done by technicians who are not authorized by SLWA. Technicians must have safe and clear access to, and safe working conditions at and around the wor k area. Ther e is no Service Call fee. Covered repairs: Whether Your Exteri or Water Service Line is to be repaired or replaced is entirely within the discretion of SLWA. Covered repairs are guaranteed against defects in ma terials and workmanship for one year. Under the guarantee we will arrange at Our expense and discretion for repair or replacement. We disclaim any and all statutory or common law warranties (whether express or implied) other than Our covered repair guarant ee and any implied warranties that cannot be excluded un der applicable law. Receiving Documents Electronically: You can receive Your Service Agreement and all related documents electronically. If You consented to electro nic delivery, these docu ments will be sent to the email address listed on Your Declaration Page (“Email Address”). Documents sent to the Email Addr ess will be deemed to hav e been received by You. Y ou may stop receiving documents electr onically by calling SLWA or by updating Your pref erences in Your profile on HomeServe’s website. You may also call SLWA to update Your Email Address or to receive a paper copy of Your Service Agreement. Renewal: If You pay through Your utility bill, by credit/debit card or by direct debit this Service Agreement will automatically renew for a further ter m of 12 months. If You paid by check, or if You pay by credit/d ebit card and requested that We not automatically renew this Servi ce Agreement, You must renew this Service Agreement prior to the end of the Ter m to ensure continuous coverage. We reserve the right to not offer this Service Agreement upon renewal. Cancellation/Refund: You may cancel this Service Agreement at any time by calling SLWA. If You cancel within thirty (30) days of the Start Date, You will receive a full refund less any clai ms paid by Us. If You cancel mor e than thirty (30) days after the Start Date, Your cancellation will be effective at the end of the then current b illing month. If applicable, You will be entitled to a pro-rata refund less any claims paid by Us. If Your local utility company or municipality provides similar coverage to You at no charge, You can contact SLWA to cancel and You will receive a refund of the payments You have made less any claims paid by Us. You may be required to provide evidence of the similar coverage. If We find that You have such coverage or are otherwise ineligible for the coverage provided by this Service Agreement, We may cancel on no less than fifteen 15 days’ written notice to You and will refund the payments You have made less any clai ms paid by Us. We may cancel for any reason on sixty (60) days’ written notice to You. We can also cancel, on no less than fifteen (15) days’ written notice to You for: (a) non-payment of the Price; or (b) Your fraud or misrepresent ation of facts that are material to this Service Agreement or benefits provided under it. If We cancel un der (b) above, You will be entitled to a pro-rata refund less any claims paid by Us. Written notices from Us under this section will tell You exactly when Your Service Agreement will be cancelled and why it has been cancelled. The notice periods referred to in this section begin when We send the notice to You. Key Terms: “Declaration Page” - The enclosed document that forms a part of this Service Agr eement, listing important information regarding You, Your Property and other vital information. “Price” – The amount You agree to pay for this Service Agreement, as listed on Your Declaration Page. “Service Agreement” - Th e docu ments that constitute all of Your rights and responsibilities as a Service A greement holder; which consist of these terms and conditions and Your Declaration Page. “Service Call” – A visit to Your Property by one of SLWA’s approved local technicians, where work is performed to diagnose and co mplete a single covered repair, or where it is determined the repair is not covered. “You” or “Your” - The pu rchaser of this Service Agreement who is the Service Agreement holder listed on the Declaration Page. Service Line Warranties of America 3 SC-WSL1300-NAW-SLWA [XXXX] SC-WSL1300-NAW-SLWA-H055-021317 Privacy Policy: Any information You provide SLWA will be accessed, collected, used, transmitted, disclosed, stored, maintained and otherwise handled to administer Your Service Agreement by SLWA or its group of companies, including, but not limited to, disclosing Your address, telephone number, and other contact information to third parties who conduct services on SLWA’s behalf. SLWA or its group of companies and their selected partners may also use Your data to keep You informed by mail, telephone or email of any products or services which they consider may be of interest to You and related to this Service Agreement. For further details on how SLWA uses Your information, please see their Privacy Policy at www.homeserveusa.com/Customer_Data_Privacy_Policy.html. Should You have any questions or concerns about SLWA’s Privacy Policy or how they are using Your information or to update Your privacy preferences, please contact SLWA. Assignment/Amendment: We reserve the right to change this Service Agreement (including the price or to charge an additional fee) and to delegate any of Our obligations at Our sole discretion provided We give You thirty (3 0) days’ prior written notice of the chang es. The changes will beco me effective thirty (30) days after We send You the notice. If You do not like the changes, You may cancel this Service Agreement. You may not change this Service Agreement or delegate any of Your obligations. Should certain terms or conditions in this Service Agreement be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the r emainder of the ter ms and conditions in this Service Agreement shall remain valid. Transfer: This Service Agr eement is not transferable by You. Responsi bility for benefits owed to You: This is not an insurance policy; it is a Service Agreement. SLWA will serve as Your point-of-contact for all questions or concerns. Our obligations under this Service Agreement are insured under a service contract reimbursement insurance policy. If We fail to pay or to deliver service on a claim within sixty (60) days after proof of loss has b een filed, or in the event You cancel this Service Agreement and We fail to issue any applicable refund within sixty (60) days after cancellation, You are entitled to make a claim against the insurer, Virginia Surety Company, Inc., 175 West Jackson Blvd., 11th Floor, Chicago, IL 60604, 1-800-209-6206. Our Liability: To the extent permitted by applicable law, (1) You agree that We, SLWA and HomeServe, and all of their parents, successors, affiliates, approve d technicians and our and their off icers, directors, employees, affiliates, agents and contractors shall not be liable to You or anyone else for: (a) any actual losses or direct damages that exceed the lowest a pplicable per covered repair benefit limit set out above; or (b) any amount of any form of indirect, special, punitive, incidental or consequential losses or damages, including those caused by any fault, failure, delay or defect in providing services under this Service Agreement, and (2) these limitations and waivers shall apply to all claims and all li abilities and shall survive the cancellation or expiration of this Service Agreement. You may have other rights that vary fro m state to state. Arbitration: YOU, NAW, SLWA AND HOMESERVE ALL AGREE TO RESOLVE DISP UTES ONLY BY FINAL AND BINDING ARBITRATION OR IN SMALL C LAIMS COURT as follows: A. EXCEPT FOR S MALL CLAIMS COURT CASES THAT QUALIFY, ANY DISPUTE THAT IN ANY WAY RELATES TO OR ARISES OUT OF THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT OR FROM AN Y OTHER AGREEMENT BETWEEN US, OR SERVICES OR BENEFITS YOU RECEIVE OR C LAIM TO BE O WE D FROM NAW, SLWA, OR HOMESERVE, WILL BE RESOLVED BY FIN AL AND BINDING ARBITRATION BY ONE OR MORE ARBITRATORS BEFORE THE AMERICAN ARBIT RATION ASSOCIATION (“AAA”), OR ANOTHER ARBITRATION ADMINISTRATOR THAT WE MUTUALLY AGREE UPON . Arbitration will apply not only to claims against NAW, SLWA, or HomeServe, but also claims against the officers, directors, managers, employees, agents, affiliates, insurers, technicians, successors or assigns of NAW, SLWA or HomeServe. Arbitration and this paragraph shall apply to claims that arose at any time, including claims arising before this paragraph became binding on the par ties. The federal arbitration act (9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.) and not any state law applies to this agreement. B. For claims of $10,000 or less, the party bringing the claim can choose to proceed by way of binding arbitration pursuant to the AAA’s rules or, alternatively, can bring an individual action in small claims court. C. YOU GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN A CLASS ACTION. This means that You may not be a represent ative or member of any class of claimants or act as a private attorney general in court or in arbitration with respect to any claim. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Service Agreement, the arbitrator shall not have the power to deter mine that class arbitr ation is permissible. The arbitrator also shall not hav e the power to preside over class or collective arbitration, or to award any form of class -wid e or collective remedy. Instead, the arbitrator shall have power to award money or injunctive relief only in favor of the individual p arty seeking relief and only to the extent necessary to provide relief warranted by that party’s individual claim. No class or representativ e o r private attorney general theories of liability or prayers for relief may be maintained in any arbitration held under this Service Agreement. D. SLWA will pay any filing fee, administration, service or case manag ement fee, and arbitrator fee that the AAA charges You for arbitration of the dispute, up to a maximum of $1,500; pro vided, however, that the arbitr ator may award costs and expenses to any p arty, if allowed by law. If You provide us with signed written notice that You cannot pay the filing fee, SLWA will pay the fee directly to the AAA. Service Line Warranties of America 4 SC-WSL1300-NAW-SLWA [XXXX] SC-WSL1300-NAW-SLWA-H055-021317 E. If for some reason the prohibition on class arbitrations set forth in Subsectio n C cannot be enforced, then the agreement to arbitrate will not apply. F. IF FOR ANY REASON A C LAIM PROCEEDS IN COURT RATHER THAN THROUGH ARBITRATION, YOU, N AW, SLWA AND HOMESERVE AGREE THAT THERE WILL NOT BE A JURY TRIAL. You, NAW, SLWA and HomeServe unconditionally waive any right to trial by jury in any action, proceeding or counterclaim arising out of or relating in any way to this Service Agreement or from any other agreement between us, or the services or benefits You receive or claim to be owed from NAW, SLWA or HomeServe, including as to claims asserted against any of the officers, directors, managers, employees, agents, affiliates, insurers, technicians, approved technicians, successors or assigns of NAW, SLWA or Ho meServe. State variations: The following shall apply if inconsistent with any other terms and co nditions of this Service Agreement: [Please click here to see if any state specific variations apply to You.] Service Line Warranties of America 1 SC-SSL-1100-NAW-SLWA [XXXX] SC-SSL-1100-NAW-SLWA-H048-021317 Exterior Sewer/Septic Line Terms and Conditions YOUR ENCLOSED DEC LARATION PAGE IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF YOUR SERVICE AGREEMENT AND ALONG WITH THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONSTITUTE YOUR ENTIRE AGREEMENT Utility Service Partners Private Label, Inc., known as Service Line Warranties of America (“SLWA”), a subsidiary of HomeServe USA Corp. (“HomeServe”), is the entity that will administer the service under this Service Agreement. You may contact SLWA by mail at 1232 Premier Drive, Chattanooga, TN 37421 or by calling toll-free 1-866-922-9006. North American Warranty, Inc. (“NAW”, “Provider”, “We”, “Us” or “Our”) is the entity obligated to provide service under this Service Agreement. You may contact NAW by mail at 175 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, or by calling toll-free 1-866-918-4680. What’s Covered: We will arrange and pay for the repair or replacement due to normal wear and tear of a leaking or permanently blocked Exterior Sewer/Septic Line for which You have sole responsibility, that supports Your Residence. You must call SLWA to arrange for service in order for repairs to be covered. See “How to Call for Repairs” below. Your Exterior Sewer Line is the line that takes waste water from the exit point within Your Residence to Your utility’s responsibility. Your Exterior Septic Line is the line that takes waste water from the exit point within Your Residence to the point of connection to Your septic tank on Your Property. If Your Exterior Sewer/Septic Line is embedded in concrete, reasonable efforts will be made to avoid cutting through the concrete. This may mean relocating Your Sewer or Septic Line as a means of repairing or replacing Your Exterior Sewer/Septic Line. Any part of Your Exterior Sewer/Septic Line beyond these linear limits will not be covered. Restoration: Restoration to any area disturbed by the repair that is on Your Property and outside Your Residence is limited to: filling, raking and reseeding of grass, and reinstallation of existing soft landscaping and shrubbery. We cannot guarantee the survival of any living materials disturbed by the repair and will not be responsible for the replacement of any decorative paving, pathways or landscaping features. If concrete cutting is necessary to repair Your Exterior Sewer/Septic Line, the resulting trench will be filled with gravel and covered with asphalt, cement, or concrete, as appropriate. Debris will be removed from the restoration area. Benefit Limit: The maximum benefit limit is up to $8,500 for each Service Call. Any repair or replacement charges beyond Your Service Call benefit limit are Your responsibility. What’s Not Covered: W e will not be responsible for any of the following: 1. Damages, losses and expenses, whether from negligence or otherwise, caused by: (a) You or any person or entity other than Us or SLWA or (b) unusual circumstances , i ncluding a natural disaster, or an act of God; 2. Consequential, incidental, or punitive damages arising from conducting repair work or as a result of the covered repair, for example damages necessary to reasonably access the repair area. Your rights and remedies may vary depending on the state where Your Property is located; 3. Any correction, upgrade, or move of Your existing Exterior Sewer/Septic Line, not directly related to the necessary covered re pair, in order to meet any co de, law, re gul ation, or ordinance; 4. Repairs to any section of Your Exterior Sewer/Septic Line that You share with any third party or is covered by a homeowners’, condominium or like association; 5. Repairing or replacing septic tanks, leach fields, grinder pumps, lift stations, or any non -conforming drain line, such as a basement or storm drain, connected to Yo ur Exterior Sewer/Septic Line. 6. Any materials that have been deemed by law to be defective; 7. Any shared Exterior Sewer/Septic Line that provides service to multiple properties or secondary buildings, whether known or unknown; 8. Repairs to any line that branches off Your main Sewer/Septic Line; 9. Repair or replacement of any part of Your Exterior Sewer/Septic Line that is not expressly stated to be covered in "What's Covered" above. Eligibility: A single structure owned by You, used and zoned for residential occupancy (“R esidence”) that is permanently secured to th e ground, and the land it is located on is also owned by You (“Property”). Any recreational vehicl e or other type of ho me on wheels that is intended to be moved and/or p roperty used for commercial purposes is not eligible. If You are aware of any pre-existing conditions, defects or deficiencies with Your Ex terior Sewer/Septic Line, or have had any roots removed from Your Exterior Sewer/Septic Line prior to the Start Date of Your first Term, then Your Property is not eligible for this coverage. If You reside in a multi-family structure and do not own the entire structure, it will be Your responsibility to provide SLWA Service Line Warranties of America 2 SC-SSL-1100-NAW-SLWA [XXXX] SC-SSL-1100-NAW-SLWA-H048-021317 with a signed release from all other homeowners for any work which may affect their portion of the structure. This release must be signed and submitted before any work will begin. Any failure by You to submit such signed releases shall discharge SLWA from its obligations to complete any work for which such releases are required. To obtain a release form call SLWA. Length of Service Agreement: Your Service Agreement begins on the Start Date listed on Your Declaration Pag e and will continue for twelve (12) months (“Term”) provided neither You nor We cancel. See “Cancellation/Refund” below. There is an initial waiting period of thirty (30) days, within which You will not be able to request a Service Call. This means You will receive less than twelve (12) full months of coverage during the first year. Upon renewal (if applicable), You will not be subject to a waiting period. How to call for repairs: Y ou must call SLWA and a service representative will assist in the diagnosis of Your repair and the scheduling of a visit fro m one of SLWA’s approved local technicians. You will not be reimbursed for work done by technicians who are not authorized by SLWA. Technicians must have safe and clear access to, and safe working conditions at and around the wor k area. Ther e is no Service Call fee. Covered re pairs: Whether Your Exterior Sewer/Septic Line is to be repaired or replaced is entirely within the discretion of SLWA. Covered repairs are guaranteed against defect s in materials and workmanship for one year. Under the guarantee we will arrange at Our expense and discretion for repair or replacement. We disclaim any and all statutory or common law warranties (whether express or implied) other than Our covered repair guarant ee and any implied warranties that cannot be excluded un der applicable law. Receiving Documents Electronically: You can receive Your Service Agreement and all related documents electronically. If You consented to electro nic delivery, these docu ments will be sent to the email address listed on Your Declaration Page (“Email Address”). Documents sent to the Email Addr ess will be deemed to hav e been received by You. Y ou may stop receiving documents electr onically by calling SLWA or by updating Your pref erences in Your profile on HomeServe’s website. You may also call SLWA to update Your Email Address or to receive a paper copy of Your Service Agreement. Renewal: If You pay through Your utility bill, by credit/debit card or by direct debit this Service Agreement will automatically renew for a further ter m of 12 months. If You paid by check, or if You pay by credit/d ebit card and requested that We not automatically renew this Servi ce Agreement, You must renew this Service Agreement prior to the end of the Ter m to ensure continuous coverage. We reserve the right to not offer this Service Agreement upon renewal. Cancellation/Refund: You may cancel this Service Agreement at any time by calling SLWA. If You cancel within thirty (30) days of the Start Date, You will receive a full refund less any clai ms paid by Us. If You cancel mor e than thirty (30) days after the Start Date, Your cancellation will be effective at the end of the then current b illing month. If applicable, You will be entitled to a pro-rata refund less any claims paid by Us. If Your local utility company or municipality provides similar coverage to You at no charge, You can contact SLWA to cancel and You will receive a refund of the payments You have made less any claims paid by Us. You may be required to provide evidence of the similar coverage. If We find that You have such coverage or are otherwise ineligible for the coverage provided by this Service Agreement, We may cancel on no less than fifteen 15 days’ written notice to You and will refund the payments You have made less any clai ms paid by Us. We may cancel for any reason on sixty (60) days’ written notice to You. We can also cancel, on no less than fifteen (15) days’ written notice to You for: (a) non-payment of the Price; or (b) Your fraud or misrepresent ation of facts that are material to this Service Agreement or benefits provided under it. If We cancel un der (b) above, You will be entitled to a pro-rata refund less any claims paid by Us. Written notices from Us under this section will tell You exactly when Your Service Agreement will be cancelled and why it has been cancelled. The notice periods referred to in this section begin when We send the notice to You. Key Terms: “Declaration Page ” - The enclosed document that forms a part of this Service Agr eement, listing important information regarding You, Your Property and other vital information. “Price” – The amount You agree to pay for this Service Agreement, as listed on Your Declaration Page. “Service Agreement” - Th e docu ments that constitute all of Your rights and responsibilities as a Service A greement holder; which consist of these terms and conditions and Your Declaration Page. “Service Call” – A visit to Your Property by one of SLWA’s approved local technicians, where work is performed to diagnose and co mplete a single covered repair, or where it is determined the repair is not covered. “You” or “Your” - The pu rchaser of this Service Agreement who is the Service Agreement holder listed on the Service Line Warranties of America 3 SC-SSL-1100-NAW-SLWA [XXXX] SC-SSL-1100-NAW-SLWA-H048-021317 Declaration Page. Privacy Policy: Any information You provide SLWA will be accessed, collected, used, transmitted, disclosed, stored, maintained and otherwise handled to administer Your Service Agreement by SLWA or its group of companies, including, but not limited to, disclosing Your address, telephone number, and other contact information to third parties who conduct services on SLWA’s behalf. SLWA or its group of companies and their selected partners may also use Your data to keep You informed by mail, telephone or email of any products or services which they consider may be of interest to You and related to this Service Agreement. For further details on how SLWA uses Your information, please see their Privacy Policy at www.homeserveusa.com/Customer_Data_Privacy_Policy.html. Should You have any questions or concerns about SLWA’s Privacy Policy or how they are using Your information or to update Your privacy preferences, please contact SLWA. Assignment/Amendment: We reserve the right to change this Service Agreement (including the price or to charge an additional fee) and to delegate any of Our obligations at Our sole discretion provided We give You thirty (3 0) days’ prior written notice of the chang es. The changes will beco me effective thirty (30) days after We send You the notice. If You do not like the changes, You may cancel this Service Agreement. You may not change this Service Agreement or delegate any of Your obligations. Should certain terms or conditions in this Service Agreement be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the r emainder of the ter ms and conditions in this Service Agreement shall remain valid. Transfer: This Service Agr eement is not transferable by You. Responsi bility for benefits owed to You: This is not an insurance policy; it is a Service Agreement. SLWA will serve as Your point-of-contact for all questions or concerns. Our obligations under this Service Agreement are insured under a service contract reimbursement insurance policy. If We fail to pay or to deliver service on a claim within sixty (60) days after proof of loss has b een filed, or in the event You cancel this Service Agreement and We fail to issue any applicable refund within sixty (60) days after cancellation, You are entitled to make a claim against the insurer, Virginia Surety Company, Inc., 175 West Jackson Blvd., 11th Floor, Chicago, IL 60604, 1-800-209-6206. Our Liability: To the extent permitted by applicable law, (1) You agree that We, SLWA and HomeServe, and all of their parents, successors, affiliates, approve d technicians and our and their off icers, directors, employees, affiliates, agents and contractors shall not be liable to You or anyone else for: (a) any actual losses or direct damages that exceed the lowest a pplicable per covered repair benefit limit set out above; or (b) any amount of any form of indirect, special, punitive, incidental or consequential losses or damages, including those caused by any fault, failure, delay or defect in providing services under this Service Agreement, and (2) these limitations and waivers shall apply to all claims and all li abilities and shall survive the cancellation or expiration of this Service Agreement. You may have other rights that vary fro m state to state. Arbitration: YOU, NAW, SLWA AND HOMESERVE ALL AGREE TO RESOLVE DISP UTES ONLY BY FINAL AND BINDING ARBITRATION OR IN SMALL C LAIMS COURT as follows: A. EXCEPT FOR SMALL CLAIMS COURT CASES THAT QUALIFY, ANY DISPUTE T HAT IN ANY WAY RELAT ES TO OR ARISES OUT OF THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT OR FROM ANY OTHER AGREEMENT BETWEEN US, OR SERVICES OR BENEFITS YOU RECEIVE OR C LAIM TO BE OWE D FROM NAW, SLWA, OR HOMESERVE, WILL BE RESOLVED BY FINAL AND BINDING ARBIT RATION BY ON E OR MORE ARBITRATORS BEFORE THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION (“AAA”), OR ANOTHER ARBITRATION ADMINISTRATOR THAT WE MUTUALLY AG REE UPON . Arbitration will apply not only to claims against NAW, SLWA, or HomeServe, but also claims against the officers, directors, managers, employees, agents, affiliates, insurers, technicians, successors or assigns of NAW, SLWA or HomeServe. Arbitration and this paragraph shall apply to claims that arose at any time, including claims arising before this paragraph became binding on the parties. The federal arbitration act (9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.) and not any state law appli es to this agreement. B. For claims of $10,000 or less, the party bringing the claim can choose to proceed by way of binding arbitration pursuant to the AAA’s rules or, alternatively, can bring an individual action in small claims court. C. YOU GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN A CLASS ACTION. This means that You may not be a representative or member of any class of claimants or act as a private attorney general in court or in arbitration with respect to any claim. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Service Agreement, the arbitrator shall not have the power to determine that class arbitration is permissible. The arbitrator also shall not have the power to preside over class or collective arbitration, or to award any form of class-wide or collective remedy. Instead, the arbitr ator shall have power to award mon ey or injunctive relief o nly in favor of the individual party seeking relief and onl y to the extent necessary to provide relief warranted by that party’s individual claim. No class or representative o r private attorney general theories of liability or prayers for relief may be maintained in any arbitration held under this Service Agreement. D. SLWA will pay any filing fee, administration, service or case manag ement fee, and arbitrator fee that the AAA charges You for arbitration of the dispute, up to a maximu m of $1,500; provided, however, that the arbitrator may award costs Service Line Warranties of America 4 SC-SSL-1100-NAW-SLWA [XXXX] SC-SSL-1100-NAW-SLWA-H048-021317 and expenses to any party, if allowed by law. If You provide us with signed written notice that You cannot pay the filing fee, SLWA will pay the fee directly to the AAA. E. If for some reason the prohibition on class arbitrations set forth in Subsectio n C cannot be enforced, then the agreement to arbitrate will not apply. F. IF FOR ANY RE ASON A C LAIM PROCEEDS IN COURT RATHER THAN THROUGH ARBITRATION, YOU , NAW, SLWA AND HOMESERVE AGREE THAT THERE WILL NO T BE A JURY TRIAL. You, NAW, SLWA and HomeServe unconditionally waive any right to trial by jury in any action, proceeding or counterclaim arising out of or relating in any way to this Service Agreement or from any other agreement between us, or the services or benefits You receiv e or claim to be owed from NAW, SLWA or HomeServe, including as to claims asserted against any of the officers, directors, managers, employees, agents, affiliates, insurers, technicians, approved technicians, successors or assigns of NAW, SLWA or Ho meServ e. State variations: The following shall apply if inconsistent with any other terms and co nditions of this Service Agreement: [Please click here to see if any state specific variations apply to You.] Service Line Warranties of America SC-IPD230-00-00-NAW-SLWA 1 [xxxx] SC-IPD230-00-00-NAW-SLWA-H068-021517 Interior Plumbing and Drainage Terms and Conditions YOUR ENCLOSED DEC LARATION PAGE IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF YOUR SERVICE AGREEMENT AND ALONG WITH THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONSTITUTE YOUR ENTIRE AGREEMENT Utility Service Partners Private Label, Inc., known as Service Line Warranties of America (“SLWA”), a subsidiary of HomeServe USA Corp. (“HomeServe”), is the entity that will administer the service under this Service Agreement. You may contact SLWA by mail at 1232 Premier Drive, Chattanooga, TN 37421 or by calling toll-free 1-866-922-9006. North American Warranty, Inc. (“NAW”, “Provider”, “We”, “Us” or “Our”) is the entity obligated to provide service under this Service Agreement. You may contact NAW by mail at 175 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, or by calling toll-free 1-866-918-4680. What’s Covered: We will arrange and pay for the repair or replacement due to normal wear and tear of a broken, leaking, low pressure, or permanently blocked Interior Plumbing and Drainage system for which You have sole responsibility, that supports Your Residence. Your Interior Plumbing and Drainage includes all of the water supply pipes, and all of the drainage pipes connected to the main sewer stack, within the interior limits of Your Residence. We will also unclog a toilet pipe that has been clogged by a material that is intended to be handled by a toilet. Coverage extends to Interior Plumbing and Drainage that may be embedded under a slab or basement floor. Any part of Your Interior Plumbing and Drainage beyond these limits will not be covered. Low pressure means less than 30 pounds per square inch with 2 or fewer fixtures open. You must call SLWA to arrange for service in order for repairs to be covered. See “How to Call for Repairs” below. Restoration: Restoration to any floor inside Your Residence disturbed by the repair is limited to leaving You with a floor that it is sufficiently safe to walk on. We will not be responsible for reinstating floor coverings, fixtures, fittings, walls or wall coverings to their original state. Debris will be removed from the restoration area. Benefit Limit: The maximum benefit limit is up to $3,000 for each Service Call. Any repair or replacement charges beyond Your Service Call benefit limit are Your responsibility. What’s Not Covered: We will not be responsible for any of the following: 1. Damages, losses and expenses, whether from negligence or otherwise, caused by: (a) You or any person or entity other than Us or SLWA or (b) unusual circumstances, including a natural disaster, or an act of God; 2. Consequential, incidental, or punitive damages arising from conducting repair work or as a result of the covered repair, for example damages necessary to reasonably access the repair area. Your rights and remedies may vary depending on the state where Your Residence is located; 3. Any correction, upgrade, or move of Your existing Interior Plumbing and Drainage not directly related to the necessary covered repair, in order to meet any code, law, regulation, or ordinance; 4. Repairs to any section of Your Interior Plumbing and Drainage that You share with any third party or is covered by a homeowners’, condominium or like association; 5. Repairing or replacing any non-conforming drain line, such as a basement or storm drain; 6. Appliances; Any fittings or fixtures, for example water tanks, water heaters, radiators, bathroom fittings, faucets, toilets, baths, shower pans, shower/bath diverters and sinks, pressure reducing valves and backflow prevention devices, sprinkler systems, spigots, garbage disposals, pumps or grinders; 7. Thawing of frozen pipes; 8. Repair or replacement of any part of Your Interior Plumbing and Drainage that is not expressly stated to be covered in "What's Covered" above. Eligibility: A single structure or a single Unit within a structure owned by You, used and zoned only for residential occupancy and not intended to be moved (“Residence”) is eligible. Residences include single family homes (inclusive of manufactured housing), townhomes, and apartments. A single structure that is owned by You and used and zoned only for residential occupancy that includes multiple Units (“Multifamily Residence”) is also eligible. If You own a Multifamily Residence, You must provide the specific Unit mailing address for each Service Agreement You purchase. Any recreational vehicle or property used for commercial purposes is not eligible. If You are aware of any pre-existing conditions, defects or deficiencies with Your Interior Plumbing and Drainage, prior to the Start Date of Your first Term, then Your Residence is not eligible for this coverage. Length of Service Agreement: Your Service Agreement begins on the Start Date listed on Your Declaration Page and will continue for twelve (12) months (“Term”) provided neither You nor We cancel. See “Cancellation/Refund” below. There is an initial waiting period of thirty (30) days, within which You will not be able to request a Service Call. This means You will Service Line Warranties of America SC-IPD230-00-00-NAW-SLWA 2 [xxxx] SC-IPD230-00-00-NAW-SLWA-H068-021517 receive less than twelve (12) full months of coverage during the first year. Upon renewal (if applicable), You will not be subject to a waiting period. How to call for repairs: You must call SLWA and a service representative will assist in the diagnosis of Your repair and the scheduling of a visit from one of SLWA’s approved local technicians. You will not be reimbursed for work done by technicians who are not authorized by SLWA. Technicians must have safe and clear access to, and safe working conditions at and around the work area. There is no Service Call fee. Covered re pairs: Whether Your Interior Plumbing and Drainage is to be repaired or replaced is entirely within the discretion of SLWA. Covered repairs are guaranteed against defects in materials and workmanship for one year. Under the guarantee we will arrange at Our expense and discretion for repair or replacement. We disclaim any and all statutory or common law warranties (whether express or implied) other than Our covered repair guarantee and any implied warranties that cannot be excluded under applicable law. Receiving Documents Electronically: You can receive Your Service Agreement and all related documents electronically. If You consented to electronic delivery, these documents will be sent to the email address listed on Your Declaration Page (“Email Address”). Documents sent to the Email Address will be deemed to have been received by You. You may stop receiving documents electronically by calling SLWA or by updating Your preferences in Your profile on HomeServe’s website. You may also call SLWA to update Your Email Address or to receive a paper copy of Your Service Agreement. Renewal: If You pay through Your utility bill, by credit/debit card or by direct debit this Service Agreement will automatically renew for a further term of 12 months. If You paid by check, or if You pay by credit/debit card and requested that We not automatically renew this Service Agreement, You must renew this Service Agreement prior to the end of the Term to ensure continuous coverage. We reserve the right to not offer this Service Agreement upon renewal. Cancellation/Refund: You may cancel this Service Agreement at any time by calling SLWA. If You cancel within thirty (30) days of the Start Date, You will receive a full refund less any claims paid by Us. If You cancel more than thirty (30) days after the Start Date, Your cancellation will be effective at the end of the then current billing month. If applicable, You will be entitled to a pro-rata refund less any claims paid by Us. If Your local utility company or municipality provides similar coverage to You at no charge, You can contact SLWA to cancel and You will receive a refund of the payments You have made less any claims paid by Us. You may be required to provide evidence of the similar coverage. If We find that You have such coverage or are otherwise ineligible for the coverage provided by this Service Agreement, We may cancel on no less than fifteen 15 days’ written notice to You and will refund the payments You have made less any claims paid by Us. We may cancel for any reason on sixty (60) days’ written notice to You. We can also cancel, on no less than fifteen (15) days’ written notice to You for: (a) non-payment of the Price; or (b) Your fraud or misrepresentation of facts that are material to this Service Agreement or benefits provided under it. If We cancel under (b) above, You will be entitled to a pro-rata refund less any claims paid by Us. Written notices from Us under this section will tell You exactly when Your Service Agreement will be cancelled and why it has been cancelled. The notice periods referred to in this section begin when We send the notice to You. Key Terms: “Declaration Page ” - Th e enclosed document that forms a part of this Service Agr eement, listing important information regarding You, Your Residence and other vital information. “Price” – The amount You agree to pay for this Service Agreement, as listed on Your Declaration Page. “Service Agreement” - Th e docu ments that constitute all of Your rights and responsibilities as a Service A greement holder; which consist of these terms and conditions and Your Declaration Page. “Service Call” – A visit to Your Residence by one of SLWA’s approved local technicians, where work is performed to diagnose and complete a single covered repair, or where it is deter mined the r epair is not covered. “Unit” – A self-contained space that includes, at minimum, a living area, kitchen and bathroom within Your Residence. “You” or “Your” - The pu rchaser of this Service Agreement who is the Service Agreement holder listed on the Declaration Page. Privacy Policy: Any information You provide SLWA will be accessed, collected, used, transmitted, disclosed, stored, maintained and otherwise handled to administer Your Service Agreement by SLWA or its group of companies, including, but not limited to, disclosing Your address, telephone number, and other contact information to third parties who conduct services on SLWA’s behalf. SLWA or its group of companies and their selected partners may also use Your data to keep Service Line Warranties of America SC-IPD230-00-00-NAW-SLWA 3 [xxxx] SC-IPD230-00-00-NAW-SLWA-H068-021517 You informed by mail, telephone or email of any products or services which they consider may be of interest to You and related to this Service Agreement. For further details on how SLWA uses Your information, please see their Privacy Policy at www.homeserveusa.com/Customer_Data_Privacy_Policy.html. Should You have any questions or concerns about SLWA’s Privacy Policy or how they are using Your information or to update Your privacy preferences, please contact SLWA. Assignment/Amendment: We reserve the right to change this Service Agreement (including the price or to charge an additional fee) and to delegate any of Our obligations at Our sole discretion provided We give You thirty (30) days’ prior written notice of the changes. The changes will become effective thirty (30) days after We send You the notice. If You do not like the changes, You may cancel this Service Agr eement. You may not change this Service Agreement or delegate any of Your obligations. Should certain terms or conditions in this Service Agreement be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the r emainder of the ter ms and conditions in this Service Agreement shall remain valid. Transfer: This Service Agr eement is not transferable by You. Responsi bility for benefits owed to You: This is not an insurance policy; it is a Service Agreement. SLWA will serve as Your point-of-contact for all questions or concerns. Our obligations under this Service Agreement are insured under a service contract reimbursement insurance policy. If We fail to pay or to deliver service on a claim within sixty (60) days after proof of loss has b een filed, or in the event You cancel this Service Agreement and W e fail to issue any applicable refund within sixty (60) days after cancellation, You are entitled to make a claim against the insurer, Virginia Surety Company, Inc., 175 West Jackson Blvd., 11th Floor, Chicago, IL 60604, 1-800-209-6206. Our Liability: To the extent permitted by applica ble law, (1) You agree that We, SLWA and HomeServe, and all of their parents, successors, affiliates, approve d technicians and our and their off icers, directors, em ployees, affiliates, agents and contractors shall not be liable to You or anyone else for: (a) any actual losses or direct damages that exceed the lowest a pplicable per covered repair benefit limit set out abo ve; or (b) any amount of any form of indirect, special, punitive, incidental or consequential losses or damages, including those caused by any fault, failure, delay or defect in providing services under this Service Agreement, and (2) these limitations and waivers shall apply to all claims and all li abilities and shall survive the cancellation or expiration of this Service Agreement. You may have other rights that vary fro m state to state. Arbitration: YOU, NAW, SLWA AND HOMESERVE ALL AGREE TO RESOLVE DISP UTES ONLY BY FINAL AND BINDING ARBITRATION OR IN SMALL C LAIMS COURT as follows: A. EXCEPT FOR SMALL CLAIMS COURT CASES THAT QUALIFY, ANY DISPUTE T HAT IN ANY WAY RELAT ES TO OR ARISES OUT OF THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT OR FROM AN Y OTHER AGREEMENT BETWEEN US, OR SERVICES OR BENEFITS YOU RECEIVE OR C LAIM TO BE OWE D FROM NAW, SLWA, OR HOMESERVE, WILL BE RESOLVED BY FINAL AND BINDING ARBIT RATION BY ON E OR MO RE ARBITRATORS BEFORE THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION (“AAA”), OR ANOTHER ARBITRATION ADMINISTRATOR THAT WE MUTU ALLY AGREE UPON . Arbitration will apply not only to claims against NAW, SLWA, or HomeServe, but also claims against the officers, directors, managers, employees, agents, affiliates, insurers, technicians, successors or assigns of NAW, SLWA or HomeServe. Arbitration and this paragraph shall apply to claims that arose at any time, including claims arising before this paragraph became binding on the parties. Th e federal arbitration act (9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.) and not any state law applies to this agreement. B. For claims of $10,000 or less, the party bringing the claim can choose to proceed by way of binding arbitration pursuant to the AAA’s rules or, alternatively, can bring an individual action in small claims court. C. YOU GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN A C LASS ACTION . This means that You may not be a representative or member of any class of claimants or act as a private attorney general in court or in arbitration with respect to any claim. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Service Agreement, the arbitrator shall not h ave the power to determine that class arbitration is permissible. The arbitrator also shall not hav e the power to preside over class or collective arbitration, or to award any form of class-wide or collective remedy. Instead, the arbitr ator shall have power to award mon ey or injunctiv e relief only in favor of the individual p arty seeking relief and onl y to the extent necessary to provide relief warranted by that party’s individual claim. No class or representative o r private attorney general theories of liability or prayers for relief may be maintained in any arbitration held under this Service Agreement. D. SLWA will pay any filing fee, administration, service or case manag ement fee, and arbitrator fee that the AAA charges You for arbitration of the dispute, up to a maximum of $1,500; provided, however, that the arbitr ator may award costs and expenses to any party, if allowed by law. If You provide us with signed written notice that You cannot pay the filing fee, SLWA will pay the fee directly to the AAA. E. If for some reason th e prohibition on class arbitrations set forth in Subsection C cannot be enforced, then the agreement to arbitrate will not apply. F. IF FOR ANY RE ASON A C LAIM PROCEEDS IN COURT RATHER THAN THROUGH ARBITRATION, YOU , NAW, SLWA AND HOMESERVE AGREE THAT THERE WILL NO T BE A JURY TRIAL. You, NAW, SLWA and HomeServe unconditionally Service Line Warranties of America SC-IPD230-00-00-NAW-SLWA 4 [xxxx] SC-IPD230-00-00-NAW-SLWA-H068-021517 waive any right to trial by jury in any action, proceeding or counterclaim arising out of or relating in any way to this Service Agreement or from any other agreement between us, or the services or benefits You receiv e or claim to be owed from NAW, SLWA or HomeServe, including as to claims asserted against any of the officers, directors, managers, employees, agents, affiliates, insurers, technicians, approved technicians, successors or assigns of NAW, SLWA or Ho meServ e. State variations: The following shall apply if inconsistent with any other terms and co nditions of this Service Agreement: [Please click here to see if any state specific variations apply to You.] 16 0 8 _ N G _ B P SL W A _ X X _ B L U P K _ C CITY LOGO <<MR. SAMPLE A SAMPLE>> <<MAIL_ADDRESS1>> <<MAIL_ADDRESS2>> <<MAIL_CITY, ST ZIP>> Important Information for <<City Name>> Homeowners Please reply by: <<Month X, 2017>> Ma i l c o d e <<Utility Service Partners Private Label, Inc., known as Service Line Warranties of America (“SLWA”), with corporate offices located at 11 Grandview Circle, Suite 100, Canonsburg, PA 15317, is an independent company separate from <<the City of City>> and offers this optional service plan as an authorized representative of the service contract provider, North American Warranty, Inc., 175 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604. Your choice of whether to participate in this service plan will not affect the price, availability or terms of service you have with your local utility or municipality.>> ACQUISITION HEADLINE Reminder: Please Reply by <<Month X, 2017>>REMAIL HEADLINE Dear <<Mr. Sample>>, This letter contains important information about your responsibilities as a homeowner in the event of an emergency with your water service or sewer/septic line. The exterior water service and sewer/septic lines, which run from your utility’s point of maintenance to your home, are your responsibility. If you were unfortunate enough to suffer a leak, break or clog in these lines, it would be up to you to find a plumber and get the lines repaired. <<The City of City>> has partnered with Service Line Warranties of America (SLWA) to help eligible customers be prepared and have the best possible service in the case of such an emergency. So you're invited to enroll in <<Product_Name>> and <<Product_Name>> from SLWA. Accept this optional coverage and you'll receive as many service calls as you need up to $X,XXX per call for covered water service or well line repairs, and as many service calls as you need up to $X,XXX per call for covered sewer/septic line repairs (30-day wait with a money-back guarantee for both) and no deductible. You will also have access to a 24/7, 365-day-a-year emergency repair service hotline. Once you have made your service call, SLWA will take care of your covered repair, dispatching a qualified plumber to your home and paying the bill directly. Peace of mind starting for as little as $X.XX per month. Your emergency is dealt with and your water service or sewer/septic line is back to normal. In the event of an emergency, these plans can save you a significant amount of money—a service line replacement may cost you thousands of dollars. They can also save you the time of finding a plumber, which can be difficult in the best of times, let alone in an emergency. Having these plans also helps eliminate worry, as you can be sure of a professional job completed by local, licensed and insured plumbers. <<These are the only service line protection programs for homeowners fully supported by <<City Name>> and endorsed by the National League of Cities.>> Please take the time to read the information on the back of this letter. If you would like to sign up for a plan, simply complete and return the enclosed form or call toll-free 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX. I certainly hope that you never have an exterior water service or sewer/septic line emergency, but if you should ever have a problem, you'll be glad you're covered. These programs are managed by SLWA, and no public funds were used for the mailing of this letter. For fastest processing, please visit www.slwofa.com. Sincerely, Name Title <<The City of City>> Form size: 17.5”w x 11”h Letter Trim Size: 8.5”w x 11”h Fold: Tri Fold to #10 size Color: 2/2; 10% Cyan, K / 10% Cyan, K Window 4.5”w x 1.5”h Window placement .375”L x .5” from fold 1 1 " l o n g 8.5" wide 8.5" wide0.5” GUTTER fold fold 3.75" 3.75" 3.5" 0.5” GUTTER F17_USP_CONTROL_CHOICE_BLPK_TEMPLATE.indd 1 12/1/17 12:21 PM Acceptance FormPlease confirm your name and address below and make any changes if necessary. E-mail Address Phone # By providing my e-mail address, I request that I be notified when my current and future service agreements and any related documents are available at www.slwofa.com, and I acknowledge that I can access these documents. I can change my preferences or request paper copies online or by calling SLWA. SL W A _ X X _ B L U P K _ C Choose Your Protection Plan(s) BEST VALUE FIRST-YEAR SAVINGS OF XX% OFF when you select both plans MONTHLY YEARLY For fastest processing, please visit www.slwofa.com. To protect your privacy, we do not share your information except to deliver this service. Yes, please sign me up for the protection plan(s) from SLWA I have selected above. By signing below, I agree to the terms on the reverse side, understand there are limitations and exclusions, and meet the eligibility requirements for this coverage. SLWA will invoice me based on my selection above and I will select a payment method in the invoice. I understand this optional coverage is based on an annual contract and will automatically renew annually on the same payments terms I selected at the then current renewal price. I can always cancel at any time. Signature (required) Important Questions & Answers Visit www.slwofa.com to protect your exterior lines Or call toll-free 1-8XX-XXX-XXXX | Available: <<hours>> What am I responsible for?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae.Does my homeowners insurance cover this?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo volecus ea que omnis estius raest rem quidus, quia aut ea suntist. Henis eatios aliquatur. Agnis voloria nienihil invende.Who is eligible for coverage?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo volecus ea que omnis estius raest rem quidus, quia aut ea suntist. Henis eatios aliquatur. Agnis voloria nienihil invendere dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo volecus ea que omnis estius raest rem quidus, quia aut ea suntist. Henis eatios aliquatur. Agnis voloria nienihil invende nitates doluptam, que mi, voluptat et aspiducilic temod ut que et ant. Cerspientus solleniam, omnihit as dolo maximi, a ipsamet res sunt odi conse cori as Explignate cuptatem hilla eum con re quam faccumq.What should I know about this coverage?What’s covered: Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestisisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam. Not covered: Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestisisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo. When can I make a service call?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo volecus ea que omnis estius raest rem quidus, quia aut ea suntist. Henis eatios aliquatur.What is the cancellation policy?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo volecus ea que omnis estius raest rem quidus, quia aut ea suntist. Henis eatios aliquatur. Agnis voloria nienihil invende.What is the term of my service agreement?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo volecus ea que omnis estius raest rem quidus, quia aut ea suntist. Henis eatios aliquatur. Agnis voloria nienihil invende.What is E-Z Pay?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo volecus ea que omnis estius raest rem quidus, quia aut ea suntist. Henis eatios aliquatur.What quality of repair can I expect?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae.Who is SLWA?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo volecus ea que omnis estius raest rem quidus, quia aut ea suntist. dellaccus voles eosItam. SL W A _ X X _ B L U P K _ C Take A Look At The Benefits You'll Receive <<Product Name>> <<Product Name>> 1. Covered Repairs – Guaranteed for one full year. 2. 24-Hour Emergency Repair Service Hotline – Open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. 3. Our Promise to You – If you are ever dissatisfied with your coverage, simply call SLWA toll-free 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX, and it will be discontinued at your request. What would you do in an exterior line emergency? ‡ National average repair costs as of January 2016. No charge for covered repairs up to the benefit amount. The illustration shows where things may go wrong with your exterior lines and how much a licensed and insured plumber would typically charge customers who don't have coverage. How would you cope if it happened to you? With coverage, it's not something to worry about; you'll have no bill to pay for covered repairs up to the benefit amount.Replace water service line $2,587Plan Members: No Charge‡ Replace sewer/ septic line $3,929 Plan Members: No Charge‡ <<The water and sewer/septic lines beyond the <<property boundary>> may be an additional responsibility of the homeowner and are included in this coverage.>> <<Septic tanks, leaching fields, pumps or grinders>> are not covered.>> Property Boundary Water Meter/ Main Shut-Off ValveWater Service Line Sewer/Septic Line Typical Homeowner’s Responsibility FPO Ma i l c o d e <<Sample A. Sample_xxxxx>><<Serv_Address1_xxxxxxx>><<Serv_Address2_xxxxxxx>><<Serv_City_xx, ST Zip>> $XX.XX $XX.XX $XXX.XX $XXX.XX $X.XX $XX.XX $X.XX $XXX.XX <<Mailcode-xxxx>> <<Mailcode-xxxx>> <<Mailcode-xxxx>> <<Product Name>> and <<Product Name>> <<Product Name>> <<Product Name>> <<Mailcode-xxxx>> 1 1 " l o n g 8.5" wide 8.5" wide0.5” GUTTER fold fold 3.75" 3.75" 3.5" 0.5” GUTTER F17_USP_CONTROL_CHOICE_BLPK_TEMPLATE.indd 2 12/1/17 12:21 PM Acceptance FormPlease confirm your name and address below and make any changes if necessary. E-mail Address Phone # By providing my e-mail address, I request that I be notified when my current and future service agreements and any related documents are available at www.slwofa.com, and I acknowledge that I can access these documents. I can change my preferences or request paper copies online or by calling SLWA. SL W A _ X X _ B L U P K _ C Choose Your Protection Plan(s) BEST VALUE FIRST-YEAR SAVINGS OF XX% OFF when you select both plans MONTHLY YEARLY For fastest processing, please visit www.slwofa.com. To protect your privacy, we do not share your information except to deliver this service. Yes, please sign me up for the protection plan(s) from SLWA I have selected above. By signing below, I agree to the terms on the reverse side, understand there are limitations and exclusions, and meet the eligibility requirements for this coverage. SLWA will invoice me based on my selection above and I will select a payment method in the invoice. I understand this optional coverage is based on an annual contract and will automatically renew annually on the same payments terms I selected at the then current renewal price. I can always cancel at any time. Signature (required) Important Questions & Answers Visit www.slwofa.com to protect your exterior lines Or call toll-free 1-8XX-XXX-XXXX | Available: <<hours>> What am I responsible for?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae.Does my homeowners insurance cover this?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo volecus ea que omnis estius raest rem quidus, quia aut ea suntist. Henis eatios aliquatur. Agnis voloria nienihil invende.Who is eligible for coverage?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo volecus ea que omnis estius raest rem quidus, quia aut ea suntist. Henis eatios aliquatur. Agnis voloria nienihil invendere dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo volecus ea que omnis estius raest rem quidus, quia aut ea suntist. Henis eatios aliquatur. Agnis voloria nienihil invende nitates doluptam, que mi, voluptat et aspiducilic temod ut que et ant. Cerspientus solleniam, omnihit as dolo maximi, a ipsamet res sunt odi conse cori as Explignate cuptatem hilla eum con re quam faccumq.What should I know about this coverage?What’s covered: Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestisisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam. Not covered: Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestisisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo. When can I make a service call?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo volecus ea que omnis estius raest rem quidus, quia aut ea suntist. Henis eatios aliquatur.What is the cancellation policy?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo volecus ea que omnis estius raest rem quidus, quia aut ea suntist. Henis eatios aliquatur. Agnis voloria nienihil invende.What is the term of my service agreement?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo volecus ea que omnis estius raest rem quidus, quia aut ea suntist. Henis eatios aliquatur. Agnis voloria nienihil invende.What is E-Z Pay?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo volecus ea que omnis estius raest rem quidus, quia aut ea suntist. Henis eatios aliquatur.What quality of repair can I expect?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae.Who is SLWA?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo volecus ea que omnis estius raest rem quidus, quia aut ea suntist. dellaccus voles eosItam. SL W A _ X X _ B L U P K _ C Take A Look At The Benefits You'll Receive <<Product Name>> <<Product Name>> 1. Covered Repairs – Guaranteed for one full year. 2. 24-Hour Emergency Repair Service Hotline – Open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. 3. Our Promise to You – If you are ever dissatisfied with your coverage, simply call SLWA toll-free 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX, and it will be discontinued at your request. What would you do in an exterior line emergency? ‡ National average repair costs as of January 2016. No charge for covered repairs up to the benefit amount. The illustration shows where things may go wrong with your exterior lines and how much a licensed and insured plumber would typically charge customers who don't have coverage. How would you cope if it happened to you? With coverage, it's not something to worry about; you'll have no bill to pay for covered repairs up to the benefit amount.Replace water service line $2,587Plan Members: No Charge‡ Replace sewer/ septic line $3,929 Plan Members: No Charge‡ <<The water and sewer/septic lines beyond the <<property boundary>> may be an additional responsibility of the homeowner and are included in this coverage.>> <<Septic tanks, leaching fields, pumps or grinders>> are not covered.>> Property Boundary Water Meter/ Main Shut-Off ValveWater Service Line Sewer/Septic Line Typical Homeowner’s Responsibility FPO Ma i l c o d e <<Sample A. Sample_xxxxx>><<Serv_Address1_xxxxxxx>><<Serv_Address2_xxxxxxx>><<Serv_City_xx, ST Zip>> $XX.XX $XX.XX $XXX.XX $XXX.XX $X.XX $XX.XX $X.XX $XXX.XX <<Mailcode-xxxx>> <<Mailcode-xxxx>> <<Mailcode-xxxx>> <<Product Name>> and <<Product Name>> <<Product Name>> <<Product Name>> <<Mailcode-xxxx>> 1 1 " l o n g 8.5" wide 8.5" wide0.5” GUTTER fold fold 3.75" 3.75" 3.5" 0.5” GUTTER F17_USP_CONTROL_CHOICE_BLPK_TEMPLATE.indd 2 12/1/17 12:21 PM 16 0 8 _ N G _ B P SL W A _ X X _ B L U P K _ C CITY LOGO <<MR. SAMPLE A SAMPLE>> <<MAIL_ADDRESS1>> <<MAIL_ADDRESS2>> <<MAIL_CITY, ST ZIP>> Please reply by: <<Month X, 2017>> Ma i l c o d e <<Utility Service Partners Private Label, Inc., known as Service Line Warranties of America (“SLWA”), with corporate offices located at 11 Grandview Circle, Suite 100, Canonsburg, PA 15317, is an independent company separate from <<the City of City>> and offers this optional service plan as an authorized representative of the service contract provider, North American Warranty, Inc., 175 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604. Your choice of whether to participate in this service plan will not affect the price, availability or terms of service you have with your local utility or municipality.>> ACQUISITION HEADLINE Reminder: Please Reply by <<Month X, 2017>> REMAIL HEADLINE Dear <<Mr. Sample>>, This letter contains important information about your responsibilities as a homeowner in the event of an emergency with your water service or sewer/septic line. The exterior water service and sewer/septic lines, which run from your utility’s point of maintenance to your home, are your responsibility. If you were unfortunate enough to suffer a leak, break or clog in these lines, it would be up to you to find a plumber and get the lines repaired. <<The City of City>> has partnered with Service Line Warranties of America (SLWA) to help eligible customers be prepared and have the best possible service in the case of such an emergency. So you're invited to enroll in <<Product_Name>> and <<Product_Name>> from SLWA. Accept this optional coverage and you'll receive as many service calls as you need up to $X,XXX per call for covered water service or well line repairs, and as many service calls as you need up to $X,XXX per call for covered sewer/septic line repairs (30-day wait with a money-back guarantee for both) and no deductible. You will also have access to a 24/7, 365-day-a-year emergency repair service hotline. Once you have made your service call, SLWA will take care of your covered repair, dispatching a qualified plumber to your home and paying the bill directly. Peace of mind starting for as little as $X.XX per month. Your emergency is dealt with and your water service or sewer/septic line is back to normal. In the event of an emergency, these plans can save you a significant amount of money—a service line replacement may cost you thousands of dollars. They can also save you the time of finding a plumber, which can be difficult in the best of times, let alone in an emergency. Having these plans also helps eliminate worry, as you can be sure of a professional job completed by local, licensed and insured plumbers. <<These are the only service line protection programs for homeowners fully supported by <<City Name>> and endorsed by the National League of Cities.>> Please take the time to read the information on the back of this letter. If you would like to sign up for a plan, simply complete and return the enclosed form or call toll-free 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX. I certainly hope that you never have an exterior water service or sewer/septic line emergency, but if you should ever have a problem, you'll be glad you're covered. These programs are managed by SLWA, and no public funds were used for the mailing of this letter. For fastest processing, please visit www.slwofa.com. Sincerely, Name Title <<The City of City>> Form size: 17.5”w x 11”h Letter Trim Size: 8.5”w x 11”h Fold: Tri Fold to #10 size Color: 2/2; 10% Cyan, K / 10% Cyan, K Window 4.5”w x 1.5”h Window placement .375”L x .5” from fold 1 1 " l o n g 8.5" wide 8.5" wide0.5” GUTTER fold fold 3.75" 3.75" 3.5" 0.5” GUTTER F17_USP_CONTROL_CHOICE_BLPK_TEMPLATE.indd 1 12/1/17 12:21 PM Acceptance FormPlease confirm your name and address below and make any changes if necessary. E-mail Address Phone # By providing my e-mail address, I request that I be notified when my current and future service agreements and any related documents are available at www.slwofa.com, and I acknowledge that I can access these documents. I can change my preferences or request paper copies online or by calling SLWA. SL W A _ X X _ B L U P K _ C Choose Your Protection Plan(s) BEST VALUE FIRST-YEAR SAVINGS OF XX% OFF when you select both plans MONTHLY YEARLY For fastest processing, please visit www.slwofa.com. To protect your privacy, we do not share your information except to deliver this service. Yes, please sign me up for the protection plan(s) from SLWA I have selected above. By signing below, I agree to the terms on the reverse side, understand there are limitations and exclusions, and meet the eligibility requirements for this coverage. SLWA will invoice me based on my selection above and I will select a payment method in the invoice. I understand this optional coverage is based on an annual contract and will automatically renew annually on the same payments terms I selected at the then current renewal price. I can always cancel at any time. Signature (required) Important Questions & Answers Visit www.slwofa.com to protect your exterior lines Or call toll-free 1-8XX-XXX-XXXX | Available: <<hours>> What am I responsible for?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae.Does my homeowners insurance cover this?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo volecus ea que omnis estius raest rem quidus, quia aut ea suntist. Henis eatios aliquatur. Agnis voloria nienihil invende.Who is eligible for coverage?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo volecus ea que omnis estius raest rem quidus, quia aut ea suntist. Henis eatios aliquatur. Agnis voloria nienihil invendere dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo volecus ea que omnis estius raest rem quidus, quia aut ea suntist. Henis eatios aliquatur. Agnis voloria nienihil invende nitates doluptam, que mi, voluptat et aspiducilic temod ut que et ant. Cerspientus solleniam, omnihit as dolo maximi, a ipsamet res sunt odi conse cori as Explignate cuptatem hilla eum con re quam faccumq.What should I know about this coverage?What’s covered: Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestisisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam. Not covered: Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestisisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo. When can I make a service call?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo volecus ea que omnis estius raest rem quidus, quia aut ea suntist. Henis eatios aliquatur.What is the cancellation policy?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo volecus ea que omnis estius raest rem quidus, quia aut ea suntist. Henis eatios aliquatur. Agnis voloria nienihil invende.What is the term of my service agreement?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo volecus ea que omnis estius raest rem quidus, quia aut ea suntist. Henis eatios aliquatur. Agnis voloria nienihil invende.What is E-Z Pay?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo volecus ea que omnis estius raest rem quidus, quia aut ea suntist. Henis eatios aliquatur.What quality of repair can I expect?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae.Who is SLWA?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo volecus ea que omnis estius raest rem quidus, quia aut ea suntist. dellaccus voles eosItam. SL W A _ X X _ B L U P K _ C Take A Look At The Benefits You'll Receive <<Product Name>> <<Product Name>> 1. Covered Repairs – Guaranteed for one full year. 2. 24-Hour Emergency Repair Service Hotline – Open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. 3. Our Promise to You – If you are ever dissatisfied with your coverage, simply call SLWA toll-free 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX, and it will be discontinued at your request. What would you do in an exterior line emergency? ‡ National average repair costs as of January 2016. No charge for covered repairs up to the benefit amount. The illustration shows where things may go wrong with your exterior lines and how much a licensed and insured plumber would typically charge customers who don't have coverage. How would you cope if it happened to you? With coverage, it's not something to worry about; you'll have no bill to pay for covered repairs up to the benefit amount.Replace water service line $2,587Plan Members: No Charge‡ Replace sewer/ septic line $3,929 Plan Members: No Charge‡ <<The water and sewer/septic lines beyond the <<property boundary>> may be an additional responsibility of the homeowner and are included in this coverage.>> <<Septic tanks, leaching fields, pumps or grinders>> are not covered.>> Property Boundary Water Meter/ Main Shut-Off ValveWater Service Line Sewer/Septic Line Typical Homeowner’s Responsibility FPO Ma i l c o d e <<Sample A. Sample_xxxxx>><<Serv_Address1_xxxxxxx>><<Serv_Address2_xxxxxxx>><<Serv_City_xx, ST Zip>> $XX.XX $XX.XX $XXX.XX $XXX.XX $X.XX $XX.XX $X.XX $XXX.XX <<Mailcode-xxxx>> <<Mailcode-xxxx>> <<Mailcode-xxxx>> <<Product Name>> and <<Product Name>> <<Product Name>> <<Product Name>> <<Mailcode-xxxx>> 1 1 " l o n g 8.5" wide 8.5" wide0.5” GUTTER fold fold 3.75" 3.75" 3.5" 0.5” GUTTER F17_USP_CONTROL_CHOICE_BLPK_TEMPLATE.indd 2 12/1/17 12:21 PM Acceptance FormPlease confirm your name and address below and make any changes if necessary. E-mail Address Phone # By providing my e-mail address, I request that I be notified when my current and future service agreements and any related documents are available at www.slwofa.com, and I acknowledge that I can access these documents. I can change my preferences or request paper copies online or by calling SLWA. SL W A _ X X _ B L U P K _ C Choose Your Protection Plan(s) BEST VALUE FIRST-YEAR SAVINGS OF XX% OFF when you select both plans MONTHLY YEARLY For fastest processing, please visit www.slwofa.com. To protect your privacy, we do not share your information except to deliver this service. Yes, please sign me up for the protection plan(s) from SLWA I have selected above. By signing below, I agree to the terms on the reverse side, understand there are limitations and exclusions, and meet the eligibility requirements for this coverage. SLWA will invoice me based on my selection above and I will select a payment method in the invoice. I understand this optional coverage is based on an annual contract and will automatically renew annually on the same payments terms I selected at the then current renewal price. I can always cancel at any time. Signature (required) Important Questions & Answers Visit www.slwofa.com to protect your exterior lines Or call toll-free 1-8XX-XXX-XXXX | Available: <<hours>> What am I responsible for?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae.Does my homeowners insurance cover this?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo volecus ea que omnis estius raest rem quidus, quia aut ea suntist. Henis eatios aliquatur. Agnis voloria nienihil invende.Who is eligible for coverage?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo volecus ea que omnis estius raest rem quidus, quia aut ea suntist. Henis eatios aliquatur. Agnis voloria nienihil invendere dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo volecus ea que omnis estius raest rem quidus, quia aut ea suntist. Henis eatios aliquatur. Agnis voloria nienihil invende nitates doluptam, que mi, voluptat et aspiducilic temod ut que et ant. Cerspientus solleniam, omnihit as dolo maximi, a ipsamet res sunt odi conse cori as Explignate cuptatem hilla eum con re quam faccumq.What should I know about this coverage?What’s covered: Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestisisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam. Not covered: Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestisisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo. When can I make a service call?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo volecus ea que omnis estius raest rem quidus, quia aut ea suntist. Henis eatios aliquatur.What is the cancellation policy?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo volecus ea que omnis estius raest rem quidus, quia aut ea suntist. Henis eatios aliquatur. Agnis voloria nienihil invende.What is the term of my service agreement?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo volecus ea que omnis estius raest rem quidus, quia aut ea suntist. Henis eatios aliquatur. Agnis voloria nienihil invende.What is E-Z Pay?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo volecus ea que omnis estius raest rem quidus, quia aut ea suntist. Henis eatios aliquatur.What quality of repair can I expect?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae.Who is SLWA?Nisit officii sintotatius et aturest emolore, ipitas dem et is exero con pa net, aspel exceptae laturestis re dellaccus voles eosItam etur quam nonsequo volecus ea que omnis estius raest rem quidus, quia aut ea suntist. dellaccus voles eosItam. SL W A _ X X _ B L U P K _ C Take A Look At The Benefits You'll Receive <<Product Name>> <<Product Name>> 1. Covered Repairs – Guaranteed for one full year. 2. 24-Hour Emergency Repair Service Hotline – Open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. 3. Our Promise to You – If you are ever dissatisfied with your coverage, simply call SLWA toll-free 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX, and it will be discontinued at your request. What would you do in an exterior line emergency? ‡ National average repair costs as of January 2016. No charge for covered repairs up to the benefit amount. The illustration shows where things may go wrong with your exterior lines and how much a licensed and insured plumber would typically charge customers who don't have coverage. How would you cope if it happened to you? With coverage, it's not something to worry about; you'll have no bill to pay for covered repairs up to the benefit amount.Replace water service line $2,587Plan Members: No Charge‡ Replace sewer/ septic line $3,929 Plan Members: No Charge‡ <<The water and sewer/septic lines beyond the <<property boundary>> may be an additional responsibility of the homeowner and are included in this coverage.>> <<Septic tanks, leaching fields, pumps or grinders>> are not covered.>> Property Boundary Water Meter/ Main Shut-Off ValveWater Service Line Sewer/Septic Line Typical Homeowner’s Responsibility FPO Ma i l c o d e <<Sample A. Sample_xxxxx>><<Serv_Address1_xxxxxxx>><<Serv_Address2_xxxxxxx>><<Serv_City_xx, ST Zip>> $XX.XX $XX.XX $XXX.XX $XXX.XX $X.XX $XX.XX $X.XX $XXX.XX <<Mailcode-xxxx>> <<Mailcode-xxxx>> <<Mailcode-xxxx>> <<Product Name>> and <<Product Name>> <<Product Name>> <<Product Name>> <<Mailcode-xxxx>> 1 1 " l o n g 8.5" wide 8.5" wide0.5” GUTTER fold fold 3.75" 3.75" 3.5" 0.5” GUTTER F17_USP_CONTROL_CHOICE_BLPK_TEMPLATE.indd 2 12/1/17 12:21 PM Page 1 of 1 CONSENT ITEM – 5E MEMORANDUM DATE: March 12, 2018 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers David Perrault, City Administrator FROM: Sue Polka, Public Works Director/ City Engineer SUBJECT: Johanna Marsh Tennis Court Removal Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: $11,760.00 $5,460.00 Park Capital Equipment Council Should Consider Authorize Arnt Construction Company, Inc. to remove the tennis court and fencing at Johanna Marsh Park in the amount of $5,460.00. Background/Discussion The 2018 Capital Improvement Plan includes $100,000 for resurfacing the tennis court at Johanna Marsh Park. A geotechnical investigation was completed in August of 2016 and it was determined that the court needed to be reconstructed and due to the underlying soils, reconstruction was cost prohibitive. The City Council authorized WSB to complete plans and specifications for the Johanna Marsh Park improvements at the January 8th City Council meeting. In an effort to expedite the project, staff solicited quotes to remove the existing tennis court in anticipation of the upcoming project. Staff obtained two quotes which are included as Attachments A and B. Arnt Construction Company, Inc. provided the low quote of $5,460.00. Minnesota Wisconsin Playground quoted $20,515.00. The engineer’s estimate for the removal is $11,760.00. Staff has worked with Arnt Construction in the past and recommends that Council approve the quote in the amount of $5,460.00. Attachments A – Quote – Arnt Construction B – Quote - Minnesota Wisconsin Playground QuantityQuantityQuantityQuantity Part #Part #Part #Part #DescriptionDescriptionDescriptionDescription Unit PriceUnit PriceUnit PriceUnit Price AmountAmountAmountAmount 1 INS Install play equipment, fabric and wood fiber.$12,728.00 $12,728.00 1 CONC Install concrete border - 6" W x 12" T. Site preparation and grading by others. $7,804.00 $7,804.00 1 INSTALL GameTime - Remove and dispose of existing fence and existing asphalt $20,515.00 $20,515.00 Contract: USC SubTotal: Total Amount: $41,047.00 $41,047.00 This quotation is subject to polices in the current Gametime Park and Playground catalog and the following terms and conditions. Our quotation is based on shipment of all items at one time to a single destination, unless noted, and changes are subject to price adjustment. Purchases in excess of $1,000.00 to be supported by your written purchase order made out to Gametime, c/o Minnesota/Wisconsin Playground. Pricing: f.o.b. factory, firm for 30 days from date of quotation. A tax-exempt certificate is needed at time of order entry for all orders whether from tax-supported goverment agencies or not. Sales tax, if applicable, will be added at time of invoice unless a tax exempt certificate is provided at time of order entry. Payment terms: net 30 days for tax supported governmental agencies. A 1.5% per month finance charge will be imposed on all past due accounts. Equipment shall be invoiced separately from other services and shall be payable in advance of those services and project completion. Retainage not accepted. Shipment: order shall ship within 30-45 days after GameTime's receipt and acceptance of your purchase order, color selections, approved submittals, and receipt of deposit, if required. EWF Shipment: order shall deliver within 14 - 21 days after our receipt and acceptance of your purchase order as well as schedule and weather allowing. Bulk material will ship via semi-truck/trailer with a live floor system in trailer which allows driver to deposit EWF directly onto a specific area provided proper access is available. Driver has final say whether the site has proper access. Site restoration is not included and will be the responsibility of the owner/owner's representative. Road restrictions may be in effect and cause delays depending on time of year. Minnesota / Wisconsin Playground 5101 Highway 55, Suite 6000 Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 Ph. 800-622-5425 | 763-546-7787 Fax 763-546-5050 | harlan@mnwiplay.com QUOTE #20044 10/24/2017 Johanna Marsh Park D8751H - Install City of Arden Hills Attn: Sara Knoll 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 Phone: 651-792-7845 sknoll@cityofardenhills.org Ship To Zip: 55112 Page 1 of 3 Project Scope: ~ INCLUSIONS ~ ~ One mobilization ~ Public utility locates only ~ Marking and digging of footings to accept direct embedment supports ~ Unpacking of play equipment ~ Assembly of play equipment ~ Concrete for footings of play equipment ~ Pouring of concrete for footings ~ Spreading of engineered wood fiber (EWF) ~ Concrete border ~ Standard insurance offerings ~ Standard warranty offerings ~ Standard industry accepted labor wages - EXCLUSIONS - - Clear access path to play area for installation equipment - Staging area for materials and installation equipment, trailers, etc. - Unobstructed space for maneuvering installation equipment as well as performing work - Private utlitiy locates such as, but not limited to, irrigation, fiber optics, private lighting, etc. - Accepting, unloading and storage of order(s)/shipment(s) prior to installation - Sitework of any kind such as, but not limited to, grading (play area to have max slope of 1%), site restoration, drainage, etc. - Removal of existing play equipment, border, safety surfacing, etc. - Digging in rock, hard pan, tree roots, unstable soil conditions, etc. - Digging/maneuvering in sand, pea gravel, mud, etc. - Offsite removal of spoils from footing holes (can be stockpiled near play area for owner/owner's representative removal or spread within play area) - Disposal of packing material (can be deposited in owner/owner's reprsentative onsite dumpster or stockpiled for removal by others) - Bonding of any type - Permits of any kind - Prevailing, Davis Bacon, Union, or similar, wages Please note, installation is based on ideal conditions existing for a timely completion of your project. Ideal meaning we are able to complete your installation as quoted. Unless addressed prior to the installation quote being provided or specifcally mentioned herein, any issues that arise that will impede the completion of your project as quoted will result in additonal charges. Order Information: Bill To: _____________________________________________ Ship To: _____________________________ Company: ___________________________________________ Project Name: ________________________ Attn: ________________________________________________ Attn: _____________________________ Address: _____________________________________________ Address: ____________________________ City, State, Zip: _______________________________________ City, State, Zip: ______________________ Contact: ______________________________________________ Contact: ____________________________ Tel: _________________________________________________ Tel: ________________________________ Fax: _________________________________________________ Fax: ________________________________ Minnesota / Wisconsin Playground 5101 Highway 55, Suite 6000 Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 Ph. 800-622-5425 | 763-546-7787 Fax 763-546-5050 | harlan@mnwiplay.com QUOTE #20044 10/24/2017 Johanna Marsh Park D8751H - Install Page 2 of 3 Acceptance of quotation: Accepted By (printed): _________________________________ P.O. No: _____________________________ Signature: ___________________________________________ Date: ________________________________ Title: _______________________________________________ Phone: ______________________________ Facsimile: __________________________________________ Purchase Amount: $41,047.00 Minnesota / Wisconsin Playground 5101 Highway 55, Suite 6000 Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 Ph. 800-622-5425 | 763-546-7787 Fax 763-546-5050 | harlan@mnwiplay.com QUOTE #20044 10/24/2017 Johanna Marsh Park D8751H - Install Page 3 of 3 Page 1 of 1 CONSENT ITEM – 5F MEMORANDUM DATE: March 12, 2018 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator FROM: Julie Hanson, City Clerk SUBJECT: Resolution 2018-021 Approving Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Master Joint Powers Agreement Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: $ $ $ Council Should Consider Resolution No. 2018-021 Approving the State of Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the City of Arden Hills on behalf of its Prosecuting Attorney and the Court Data Services Subscriber (CDSS) Amendment to CJDN Subscriber Agreement. Background/Discussion In April 2013, the City Council approved a new BCA Master JPA along with a CDSS Amendment to the JPA. Attached is a copy of the April 29, 2013 Council memorandum. The City’s Prosecuting Attorney, Joseph Kelly, recently received notification that the BCA JPA and CDSS Agreement Amendment are expiring soon (see attached March 1, 2018 email). As Attorney Kelly indicated, there are no startup fees or changes to costs. This agreement is for continuing access for Attorney Kelly to communicate with the BCA on behalf of the City. Attached for your review are the JPA and CDSS Amendment together with Resolution 2018-021 giving approval to execute these documents. Attachments Attachment A: April 29, 2013 Council Memorandum Attachment B: March 1, 2018 Email from Joseph Kelly Attachment C: Resolution 2018-021 Attachment D: JPA Agreement Attachment E: Court Data Services Subscriber Amendment to CJDN Subscriber Agreement DATE: April 29, 2013 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Patrick Klaers, City Administrator SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Joint Powers Agreements Background/Discussion The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) is requesting that the City Council approve a new BCA Master Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) along with a Court Data Services Subscriber Amendment (Amendment) to the JPA. The change relates a new service that is called eCharging. The attached Resolution approved both documents. Attached for your information is a cover letter from the BCA regarding the request for the City to approve the JPA and Amendment; a brief email and memo from our City Prosecuting Attorney Joseph Kelly recommending the approvals as requested; a City Resolution approving the two documents (Legal Assistant Jessica Forstner, from Kelly and Lemmons, is identified in the Resolution as the as the designee for Joseph); and the JPA and Amendment. This topic was discussed at the last meeting of the Contracted Communities group. Sheriff Matt Bostrom was at this meeting. Discussion related to the fact that eCitiations are currently being issues and that eCharging is expected to be mandated to cities in the future. There is very little cost to the City associated with this request and hopefully there will be some efficiencies resulting from the program. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution 2013-023, approving the State of Minnesota Joint Powers Agreements with the City of Arden Hills on behalf of its City Attorney and Police Department. Attachments Attachment A: BCA Letter Attachment B: Joseph Kelly Email Attachment C: Resolution 2013-023 Attachment D: JPA and Amendment CONSENT MEMORANDUM From:Joseph Kelly To:Julie Hanson Subject:FW: JPA and Court Services Amendment Renewal-Arden Hills Prosecuting Attorney Date:Thursday, March 1, 2018 3:14:46 PM Attachments:Draft RESOLUTION NO.docx Arden Hills Pros Atty Master JPA.doc Arden Hills Pros Atty Court Amendment.doc Memo re BCA JPA.doc Good afternoon Julie, It appears the JPA with the BCA is expiring soon. Below, please find the email notifying our office of the need to renew the BCA with draft documents. This is for our office to have access to criminal justice data network and to file criminal charges all of which are functions of our prosecution on behalf of the City. It also lists me as the authorized representative to speak with the BCA about issues that may come up. There is no startup fee because this is for continuing access that we already have and the monthly costs have not changed and are spread out equally among the prosecution clients that our office has. I have also attached the memorandum from 2013 explaining the need for the access. Please let me know if you have any questions. V/R Joseph A. Kelly Attorney at Law Kelly & Lemmons, P.A. 223 Little Canada Road East Suite 200 Little Canada, MN 55117 651-224-3781 651-223-8019 (FAX) Attention: Any tax advice in this message is not intended or written to be used and cannot be used for the purpose of avoiding any federal tax penalties. This message and any attachments are intended only for the named recipient(s), and may contain information that is confidential, privileged, attorney work product, or exempt or protected from disclosure under applicable laws and rules. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that the dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you receive this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please notify the sender at either the email address or the telephone number included herein and delete this message and any of its attachments from your computer and/or network. Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege, protection, or doctrine. Thank you. From: MN_DPS_BCA MNJIS Administrative-Support [mailto:bca.mnjis.administrative- MEMORANDUM DATE: April 24, 2013 TO: Pat Klaers FROM: Joe CLIENT: Arden Hills Prosecution RE: BCA Joint Powers Agreement I have reviewed the Joint Powers Agreement supplied by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (“BCA”). It is the standard required agreement for municipalities to enter into with the BCA. Ramsey County Criminal Courts are converting to all electronic filing. All prosecuting agencies must now convert to the “eFiling” system. The costs of the conversion to eFiling are $100 startup fee and $45 per month for the programs and to have access to the databases required to eFile. Because our firm represents multiple municipalities, the cost will be divided up between the cities. This will reduce the financial burden on each of the cities. Our office recommends passing the resolution as it is necessary for us to prosecute cases under the new filing system. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2018-021 RESOLUTION APPROVING STATE OF MINNESOTA JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS ON BEHALF OF ITS CITY ATTORNEY AND POLICE DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, the City of Arden Hills on behalf of its Prosecuting Attorney and Police Department desires to enter into Joint Powers Agreements with the State of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension to use systems and tools available over the State’s criminal justice data communications network for which the City is eligible. The Joint Powers Agreements further provide the City with the ability to add, modify and delete connectivity, systems and tools over the five year life of the agreement and obligates the City to pay the costs for the network connection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA: 1. That the State of Minnesota Joint Powers Agreements by and between the State of Minnesota acting through its Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and the City of Arden Hills on behalf of its Prosecuting Attorney and Police Department, are hereby approved. 2. That the Sheriff of Ramsey County, Jack Serier, or his successor, is designated the Authorized Representative for the Police Department. The Authorized Representative is also authorized to sign any subsequent amendment or agreement that may be required by the State of Minnesota to maintain the City’s connection to the systems and tools offered by the State. To assist the Authorized Representative with the administration of the agreement, Steve Frazer, is appointed as the Authorized Representative’s designee. 3. That the City of Arden Hills Prosecuting Attorney, Joseph Kelly, or his successor, is designated the Authorized Representative for the Prosecuting Attorney. The Authorized Representative is also authorized to sign any subsequent amendment or agreement that may be required by the State of Minnesota to maintain the City’s connection to the systems and tools offered by the State. To assist the Authorized Representative with the administration of the agreement, Carly Whitcomb is appointed as the Authorized Representative’s designee. 4. That David Grant, the Mayor for the City of Arden Hills, and Julie Hanson, the City Clerk, are authorized to sign the State of Minnesota Joint Powers Agreements. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018. ______________________________________________ David Grant, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________________ Julie Hanson, City Clerk SWIFT Contract # 138335 MN062021A 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT AUTHORIZED AGENCY This agreement is between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension ("BCA") and the City of Arden Hills on behalf of its Prosecuting Attorney ("Agency"). Recitals Under Minn. Stat. § 471.59, the BCA and the Agency are empowered to engage in those agreements that are necessary to exercise their powers. Under Minn. Stat. § 299C.46 the BCA must provide a criminal justice data communications network to benefit authorized agencies in Minnesota. The Agency is authorized by law to utilize the criminal justice data communications network pursuant to the terms set out in this agreement. In addition, BCA either maintains repositories of data or has access to repositories of data that benefit authorized agencies in performing their duties. Agency wants to access these data in support of its official duties. The purpose of this Agreement is to create a method by which the Agency has access to those systems and tools for which it has eligibility, and to memorialize the requirements to obtain access and the limitations on the access. Agreement 1 Term of Agreement 1.1 Effective date: This Agreement is effective on the date the BCA obtains all required signatures under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subdivision 2. 1.2 Expiration date: This Agreement expires five years from the date it is effective. 2 Agreement between the Parties 2.1 General access. BCA agrees to provide Agency with access to the Minnesota Criminal Justice Data Communications Network (CJDN) and those systems and tools which the Agency is authorized by law to access via the CJDN for the purposes outlined in Minn. Stat. § 299C.46. 2.2 Methods of access. The BCA offers three (3) methods of access to its systems and tools. The methods of access are: A. Direct access occurs when individual users at the Agency use Agency’s equipment to access the BCA’s systems and tools. This is generally accomplished by an individual user entering a query into one of BCA’s systems or tools. B. Indirect access occurs when individual users at the Agency go to another Agency to obtain data and information from BCA’s systems and tools. This method of access generally results in the Agency with indirect access obtaining the needed data and information in a physical format like a paper report. C. Computer-to-computer system interface occurs when Agency’s computer exchanges data and information with BCA’s computer systems and tools using an interface. Without limitation, interface types include: state message switch, web services, enterprise service bus and message queuing. For purposes of this Agreement, Agency employees or contractors may use any of these methods to use BCA’s systems and tools as described in this Agreement. Agency will select a method of access and can change the methodology following the process in Clause 2.10. 2.3 Federal systems access. In addition, pursuant to 28 CFR §20.30-38 and Minn. Stat. §299C.58, BCA may provide Agency with access to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) National Crime Information Center. SWIFT Contract # 138335 MN062021A 2 2.4 Agency policies. Both the BCA and the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Systems (FBI-CJIS) have policies, regulations and laws on access, use, audit, dissemination, hit confirmation, logging, quality assurance, screening (pre- employment), security, timeliness, training, use of the system, and validation. Agency has created its own policies to ensure that Agency’s employees and contractors comply with all applicable requirements. Agency ensures this compliance through appropriate enforcement. These BCA and FBI-CJIS policies and regulations, as amended and updated from time to time, are incorporated into this Agreement by reference. The policies are available at https://bcanextest.x.state.mn.us/launchpad/. 2.5 Agency resources. To assist Agency in complying with the federal and state requirements on access to and use of the various systems and tools, information is available at https://sps.x.state.mn.us/sites/bcaservicecatalog/default.aspx. Additional information on appropriate use is found in the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Policy on Appropriate Use of Systems and Data available at https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bca- divisions/mnjis/Documents/BCA-Policy-on-Appropriate-Use-of-Systems-and-Data.pdf. 2.6 Access granted. A. Agency is granted permission to use all current and future BCA systems and tools for which Agency is eligible. Eligibility is dependent on Agency (i) satisfying all applicable federal or state statutory requirements; (ii) complying with the terms of this Agreement; and (iii) acceptance by BCA of Agency’s written request for use of a specific system or tool. B. To facilitate changes in systems and tools, Agency grants its Authorized Representative authority to make written requests for those systems and tools provided by BCA that the Agency needs to meet its criminal justice obligations and for which Agency is eligible. 2.7 Future access. On written request by Agency, BCA also may provide Agency with access to those systems or tools which may become available after the signing of this Agreement, to the extent that the access is authorized by applicable state and federal law. Agency agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement that when utilizing new systems or tools provided under this Agreement. 2.8 Limitations on access. BCA agrees that it will comply with applicable state and federal laws when making information accessible. Agency agrees that it will comply with applicable state and federal laws when accessing, entering, using, disseminating, and storing data. Each party is responsible for its own compliance with the most current applicable state and federal laws. 2.9 Supersedes prior agreements. This Agreement supersedes any and all prior agreements between the BCA and the Agency regarding access to and use of systems and tools provided by BCA. 2.10 Requirement to update information. The parties agree that if there is a change to any of the information whether required by law or this Agreement, the party will send the new information to the other party in writing within 30 days of the change. This clause does not apply to changes in systems or tools provided under this Agreement. This requirement to give notice additionally applies to changes in the individual or organization serving a city as its prosecutor. Any change in performance of the prosecutorial function must be provided to the BCA in writing by giving notice to the Service Desk, BCA.ServiceDesk@state.mn.us. 2.11 Transaction record. The BCA creates and maintains a transaction record for each exchange of data utilizing its systems and tools. In order to meet FBI-CJIS requirements and to perform the audits described in Clause 7, there must be a method of identifying which individual users at the Agency conducted a particular transaction. If Agency uses either direct access as described in Clause 2.2A or indirect access as described in Clause 2.2B, BCA’s transaction record meets FBI-CJIS requirements. When Agency’s method of access is a computer to computer interface as described in Clause 2.2C, the Agency must SWIFT Contract # 138335 MN062021A 3 keep a transaction record sufficient to satisfy FBI-CJIS requirements and permit the audits described in Clause 7 to occur. If an Agency accesses data from the Driver and Vehicle Services Division in the Minnesota Department of Public Safety and keeps a copy of the data, Agency must have a transaction record of all subsequent access to the data that are kept by the Agency. The transaction record must include the individual user who requested access, and the date, time and content of the request. The transaction record must also include the date, time and content of the response along with the destination to which the data were sent. The transaction record must be maintained for a minimum of six (6) years from the date the transaction occurred and must be made available to the BCA within one (1) business day of the BCA’s request. 2.12 Court information access. Certain BCA systems and tools that include access to and/or submission of Court Records may only be utilized by the Agency if the Agency completes the Court Data Services Subscriber Amendment, which upon execution will be incorporated into this Agreement by reference. These BCA systems and tools are identified in the written request made by Agency under Clause 2.6 above. The Court Data Services Subscriber Amendment provides important additional terms, including but not limited to privacy (see Clause 8.2, below), fees (see Clause 3 below), and transaction records or logs, that govern Agency’s access to and/or submission of the Court Records delivered through the BCA systems and tools. 2.13 Vendor personnel screening. The BCA will conduct all vendor personnel screening on behalf of Agency as is required by the FBI CJIS Security Policy. The BCA will maintain records of the federal, fingerprint-based background check on each vendor employee as well as records of the completion of the security awareness training that may be relied on by the Agency. 3 Payment The Agency understands there is a cost for access to the criminal justice data communications network described in Minn. Stat. § 299C.46. At the time this Agreement is signed, BCA understands that a third party will be responsible for the cost of access. Agency will identify the third party and provide the BCA with the contact information and its contact person for billing purposes so that billing can be established. The Agency will provide updated information to BCA’s Authorized Representative within ten business days when this information changes. If Agency chooses to execute the Court Data Services Subscriber Amendment referred to in Clause 2.12 in order to access and/or submit Court Records via BCA’s systems, additional fees, if any, are addressed in that amendment. 4 Authorized Representatives The BCA's Authorized Representative is Dana Gotz, Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, Minnesota Justice Information Services, 1430 Maryland Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55106, 651-793-1007, or her successor. The Agency's Authorized Representative is Joseph Kelly, City Attorney, 223 Little Canada Road E, Suite 200, St. Paul, MN 55117, (651) 224-3781, or his/her successor. 5 Assignment, Amendments, Waiver, and Contract Complete 5.1 Assignment. Neither party may assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this Agreement. 5.2 Amendments. Any amendment to this Agreement, except those described in Clauses 2.6 and 2.7 above must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been signed and approved by the same parties who signed and approved the original agreement, their successors in office, or another individual duly authorized. 5.3 Waiver. If either party fails to enforce any provision of this Agreement, that failure does not waive the provision or the right to enforce it. 5.4 Contract Complete. This Agreement contains all negotiations and agreements between the BCA and the Agency. No other understanding regarding this Agreement, whether written or oral, may be used to bind either party. SWIFT Contract # 138335 MN062021A 4 6 Liability Each party will be responsible for its own acts and behavior and the results thereof and shall not be responsible or liable for the other party’s actions and consequences of those actions. The Minnesota Torts Claims Act, Minn. Stat. § 3.736 and other applicable laws govern the BCA’s liability. The Minnesota Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 466, governs the Agency’s liability. 7 Audits 7.1 Under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 5, the Agency’s books, records, documents, internal policies and accounting procedures and practices relevant to this Agreement are subject to examination by the BCA, the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from the end of this Agreement. Under Minn. Stat. § 6.551, the State Auditor may examine the books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of BCA. The examination shall be limited to the books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices that are relevant to this Agreement. 7.2 Under applicable state and federal law, the Agency’s records are subject to examination by the BCA to ensure compliance with laws, regulations and policies about access, use, and dissemination of data. 7.3 If Agency accesses federal databases, the Agency’s records are subject to examination by the FBI and Agency will cooperate with FBI examiners and make any requested data available for review and audit. 7.4 To facilitate the audits required by state and federal law, Agency is required to have an inventory of the equipment used to access the data covered by this Agreement and the physical location of each. 8 Government Data Practices 8.1 BCA and Agency. The Agency and BCA must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, as it applies to all data accessible under this Agreement, and as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the Agency under this Agreement. The remedies of Minn. Stat. §§ 13.08 and 13.09 apply to the release of the data referred to in this clause by either the Agency or the BCA. 8.2 Court Records. If Agency chooses to execute the Court Data Services Subscriber Amendment referred to in Clause 2.12 in order to access and/or submit Court Records via BCA’s systems, the following provisions regarding data practices also apply. The Court is not subject to Minn. Stat. Ch. 13 (see section 13.90) but is subject to the Rules of Public Access to Records of the Judicial Branch promulgated by the Minnesota Supreme Court. All parties acknowledge and agree that Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subdivision 4(e) requires that the BCA and the Agency comply with the Rules of Public Access for those data received from Court under the Court Data Services Subscriber Amendment. All parties also acknowledge and agree that the use of, access to or submission of Court Records, as that term is defined in the Court Data Services Subscriber Amendment, may be restricted by rules promulgated by the Minnesota Supreme Court, applicable state statute or federal law. All parties acknowledge and agree that these applicable restrictions must be followed in the appropriate circumstances. 9 Investigation of alleged violations; sanctions For purposes of this clause, “Individual User” means an employee or contractor of Agency. 9.1 Investigation. Agency and BCA agree to cooperate in the investigation and possible prosecution of suspected violations of federal and state law referenced in this Agreement. Agency and BCA agree to cooperate in the investigation of suspected violations of the policies and procedures referenced in this Agreement. When BCA becomes aware that a violation may have occurred, BCA will inform Agency of the suspected violation, subject to any restrictions in applicable law. When Agency becomes aware that a violation has occurred, Agency will inform BCA subject to any restrictions in applicable law. 9.2 Sanctions Involving Only BCA Systems and Tools. The following provisions apply to BCA systems and tools not covered by the Court Data Services Subscriber SWIFT Contract # 138335 MN062021A 5 Amendment. None of these provisions alter the Agency’s internal discipline processes, including those governed by a collective bargaining agreement. 9.2.1 For BCA systems and tools that are not covered by the Court Data Services Subscriber Amendment, Agency must determine if and when an involved Individual User’s access to systems or tools is to be temporarily or permanently eliminated. The decision to suspend or terminate access may be made as soon as alleged violation is discovered, after notice of an alleged violation is received, or after an investigation has occurred. Agency must report the status of the Individual User’s access to BCA without delay. BCA reserves the right to make a different determination concerning an Individual User’s access to systems or tools than that made by Agency and BCA’s determination controls. 9.2.2 If BCA determines that Agency has jeopardized the integrity of the systems or tools covered in this Clause 9.2, BCA may temporarily stop providing some or all the systems or tools under this Agreement until the failure is remedied to the BCA’s satisfaction. If Agency’s failure is continuing or repeated, Clause 11.1 does not apply and BCA may terminate this Agreement immediately. 9.3 Sanctions Involving Only Court Data Services The following provisions apply to those systems and tools covered by the Court Data Services Subscriber Amendment, if it has been signed by Agency. As part of the agreement between the Court and the BCA for the delivery of the systems and tools that are covered by the Court Data Services Subscriber Amendment, BCA is required to suspend or terminate access to or use of the systems and tools either on its own initiative or when directed by the Court. The decision to suspend or terminate access may be made as soon as an alleged violation is discovered, after notice of an alleged violation is received, or after an investigation has occurred. The decision to suspend or terminate may also be made based on a request from the Authorized Representative of Agency. The agreement further provides that only the Court has the authority to reinstate access and use. 9.3.1 Agency understands that if it has signed the Court Data Services Subscriber Amendment and if Agency’s Individual Users violate the provisions of that Amendment, access and use will be suspended by BCA or Court. Agency also understands that reinstatement is only at the direction of the Court. 9.3.2 Agency further agrees that if Agency believes that one or more of its Individual Users have violated the terms of the Amendment, it will notify BCA and Court so that an investigation as described in Clause 9.1 may occur. 10 Venue Venue for all legal proceedings involving this Agreement, or its breach, must be in the appropriate state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota. 11 Termination 11.1 Termination. The BCA or the Agency may terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 days’ written notice to the other party’s Authorized Representative. 11.2 Termination for Insufficient Funding. Either party may immediately terminate this Agreement if it does not obtain funding from the Minnesota Legislature, or other funding source; or if funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow for the payment of the services covered here. Termination must be by written notice to the other party’s authorized representative. The Agency is not obligated to pay for any services that are provided after notice and effective date of termination. However, the BCA will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed to the extent that funds are available. Neither party will be assessed any penalty if the agreement is terminated because of the decision of the Minnesota Legislature, or other funding source, not to appropriate funds. Notice of the lack of funding must be provided within a reasonable time of the affected party receiving that notice. 12 Continuing obligations The following clauses survive the expiration or cancellation of this Agreement: 6. Liability; 7. Audits; 8. Government SWIFT Contract # 138335 MN062021A 6 Data Practices; 9. Investigation of alleged violations; sanctions; and 10.Venue. The parties indicate their agreement and authority to execute this Agreement by signing below. 1. AGENCY Name: _____________________________________________ (PRINTED) Signed: ____________________________________________ Title: ______________________________________________ (with delegated authority) Date: ______________________________________________ Name: _____________________________________________ (PRINTED) Signed: ____________________________________________ Title: ______________________________________________ (with delegated authority) Date: ______________________________________________ 2. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION Name: _____________________________________________ (PRINTED) Signed: ____________________________________________ Title: ______________________________________________ (with delegated authority) Date: ______________________________________________ 3. COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION delegated to Materials Management Division By: ______________________________________________ Date: _____________________________________________ 1 COURT DATA SERVICES SUBSCRIBER AMENDMENT TO CJDN SUBSCRIBER AGREEMENT This Court Data Services Subscriber Amendment (“Subscriber Amendment”) is entered into by the State of Minnesota, acting through its Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, (“BCA”) and the City of Arden Hills on behalf of its Prosecuting Attorney (“Agency”), and by and for the benefit of the State of Minnesota acting through its State Court Administrator’s Office (“Court”) who shall be entitled to enforce any provisions hereof through any legal action against any party. Recitals This Subscriber Amendment modifies and supplements the Agreement between the BCA and Agency, SWIFT Contract number 138335, of even or prior date, for Agency use of BCA systems and tools (referred to herein as “the CJDN Subscriber Agreement”). Certain BCA systems and tools that include access to and/or submission of Court Records may only be utilized by the Agency if the Agency completes this Subscriber Amendment. The Agency desires to use one or more BCA systems and tools to access and/or submit Court Records to assist the Agency in the efficient performance of its duties as required or authorized by law or court rule. Court desires to permit such access and/or submission. This Subscriber Amendment is intended to add Court as a party to the CJDN Subscriber Agreement and to create obligations by the Agency to the Court that can be enforced by the Court. It is also understood that, pursuant to the Master Joint Powers Agreement for Delivery of Court Data Services to CJDN Subscribers (“Master Authorization Agreement”) between the Court and the BCA, the BCA is authorized to sign this Subscriber Amendment on behalf of Court. Upon execution the Subscriber Amendment will be incorporated into the CJDN Subscriber Agreement by reference. The BCA, the Agency and the Court desire to amend the CJDN Subscriber Agreement as stated below. The CJDN Subscriber Agreement is amended by the addition of the following provisions: 1. TERM; TERMINATION; ONGOING OBLIGATIONS. This Subscriber Amendment shall be effective on the date finally executed by all parties and shall remain in effect until expiration or termination of the CJDN Subscriber Agreement unless terminated earlier as provided in this Subscriber Amendment. Any party may terminate this Subscriber Amendment with or without cause by giving written notice to all other parties. The effective date of the termination shall be thirty days after the other party's receipt of the notice of termination, unless a later date is specified in the notice. The provisions of sections 5 through 9, 12.b., 12.c., and 15 through 24 shall survive any termination of this Subscriber Amendment as shall any other provisions which by their nature are intended or expected to survive such termination. Upon termination, the Subscriber shall perform the responsibilities set forth in paragraph 7(f) hereof. 2. Definitions. Unless otherwise specifically defined, each term used herein shall have the meaning assigned to such term in the CJDN Subscriber Agreement. 2 a. “Authorized Court Data Services” means Court Data Services that have been authorized for delivery to CJDN Subscribers via BCA systems and tools pursuant to an Authorization Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement for Delivery of Court Data Services to CJDN Subscribers (“Master Authorization Agreement”) between the Court and the BCA. b. “Court Data Services” means one or more of the services set forth on the Justice Agency Resource webpage of the Minnesota Judicial Branch website (for which the current address is www.courts.state.mn.us) or other location designated by the Court, as the same may be amended from time to time by the Court. c. “Court Records” means all information in any form made available by the Court to Subscriber through the BCA for the purposes of carrying out this Subscriber Amendment, including: i. “Court Case Information” means any information in the Court Records that conveys information about a particular case or controversy, including without limitation Court Confidential Case Information, as defined herein. ii. “Court Confidential Case Information” means any information in the Court Records that is inaccessible to the public pursuant to the Rules of Public Access and that conveys information about a particular case or controversy. iii. “Court Confidential Security and Activation Information” means any information in the Court Records that is inaccessible to the public pursuant to the Rules of Public Access and that explains how to use or gain access to Court Data Services, including but not limited to login account names, passwords, TCP/IP addresses, Court Data Services user manuals, Court Data Services Programs, Court Data Services Databases, and other technical information. iv. “Court Confidential Information” means any information in the Court Records that is inaccessible to the public pursuant to the Rules of Public Access, including without limitation both i) Court Confidential Case Information; and ii) Court Confidential Security and Activation Information. d. “DCA” shall mean the district courts of the state of Minnesota and their respective staff. e. “Policies & Notices” means the policies and notices published by the Court in connection with each of its Court Data Services, on a website or other location designated by the Court, as the same may be amended from time to time by the Court. Policies & Notices for each Authorized Court Data Service identified in an approved request form under section 3, below, are hereby made part of this Subscriber Amendment by this reference and provide additional terms and conditions that govern Subscriber’s use of Court Records accessed through such services, including but not limited to provisions on access and use limitations. 3 f. “Rules of Public Access” means the Rules of Public Access to Records of the Judicial Branch promulgated by the Minnesota Supreme Court, as the same may be amended from time to time, including without limitation lists or tables published from time to time by the Court entitled Limits on Public Access to Case Records or Limits on Public Access to Administrative Records, all of which by this reference are made a part of this Subscriber Amendment. It is the obligation of Subscriber to check from time to time for updated rules, lists, and tables and be familiar with the contents thereof. It is contemplated that such rules, lists, and tables will be posted on the Minnesota Judicial Branch website, for which the current address is www.courts.state.mn.us. g. “Court” shall mean the State of Minnesota, State Court Administrator's Office. h. “Subscriber” shall mean the Agency. i. “Subscriber Records” means any information in any form made available by the Subscriber to the Court for the purposes of carrying out this Subscriber Amendment. 3. REQUESTS FOR AUTHORIZED COURT DATA SERVICES. Following execution of this Subscriber Amendment by all parties, Subscriber may submit to the BCA one or more separate requests for Authorized Court Data Services. The BCA is authorized in the Master Authorization Agreement to process, credential and approve such requests on behalf of Court and all such requests approved by the BCA are adopted and incorporated herein by this reference the same as if set forth verbatim herein. a. Activation. Activation of the requested Authorized Court Data Service(s) shall occur promptly following approval. b. Rejection. Requests may be rejected for any reason, at the discretion of the BCA and/or the Court. c. Requests for Termination of One or More Authorized Court Data Services. The Subscriber may request the termination of an Authorized Court Data Services previously requested by submitting a notice to Court with a copy to the BCA. Promptly upon receipt of a request for termination of an Authorized Court Data Service, the BCA will deactivate the service requested. The termination of one or more Authorized Court Data Services does not terminate this Subscriber Amendment. Provisions for termination of this Subscriber Amendment are set forth in section 1. Upon termination of Authorized Court Data Services, the Subscriber shall perform the responsibilities set forth in paragraph 7(f) hereof. 4. SCOPE OF ACCESS TO COURT RECORDS LIMITED. Subscriber’s access to and/or submission of the Court Records shall be limited to Authorized Court Data Services identified in an approved request form under section 3, above, and other Court Records necessary for Subscriber to use Authorized Court Data Services. Authorized Court Data Services shall only be used according to the instructions provided in corresponding Policies & Notices or other materials and only as necessary to assist Subscriber in the efficient performance of Subscriber’s duties 4 required or authorized by law or court rule in connection with any civil, criminal, administrative, or arbitral proceeding in any Federal, State, or local court or agency or before any self-regulatory body. Subscriber’s access to the Court Records for personal or non-official use is prohibited. Subscriber will not use or attempt to use Authorized Court Data Services in any manner not set forth in this Subscriber Amendment, Policies & Notices, or other Authorized Court Data Services documentation, and upon any such unauthorized use or attempted use the Court may immediately terminate this Subscriber Amendment without prior notice to Subscriber. 5. GUARANTEES OF CONFIDENTIALITY. Subscriber agrees: a. To not disclose Court Confidential Information to any third party except where necessary to carry out the Subscriber’s duties as required or authorized by law or court rule in connection with any civil, criminal, administrative, or arbitral proceeding in any Federal, State, or local court or agency or before any self-regulatory body. b. To take all appropriate action, whether by instruction, agreement, or otherwise, to insure the protection, confidentiality and security of Court Confidential Information and to satisfy Subscriber’s obligations under this Subscriber Amendment. c. To limit the use of and access to Court Confidential Information to Subscriber’s bona fide personnel whose use or access is necessary to effect the purposes of this Subscriber Amendment, and to advise each individual who is permitted use of and/or access to any Court Confidential Information of the restrictions upon disclosure and use contained in this Subscriber Amendment, requiring each individual who is permitted use of and/or access to Court Confidential Information to acknowledge in writing that the individual has read and understands such restrictions. Subscriber shall keep such acknowledgements on file for one year following termination of the Subscriber Amendment and/or CJDN Subscriber Agreement, whichever is longer, and shall provide the Court with access to, and copies of, such acknowledgements upon request. For purposes of this Subscriber Amendment, Subscriber’s bona fide personnel shall mean individuals who are employees of Subscriber or provide services to Subscriber either on a voluntary basis or as independent contractors with Subscriber. d. That, without limiting section 1 of this Subscriber Amendment, the obligations of Subscriber and its bona fide personnel with respect to the confidentiality and security of Court Confidential Information shall survive the termination of this Subscriber Amendment and the CJDN Subscriber Agreement and the termination of their relationship with Subscriber. e. That, notwithstanding any federal or state law applicable to the nondisclosure obligations of Subscriber and Subscriber’s bona fide personnel under this Subscriber Amendment, such obligations of Subscriber and Subscriber's bona fide personnel are founded independently on the provisions of this Subscriber Amendment. 6. APPLICABILITY TO PREVIOUSLY DISCLOSED COURT RECORDS. Subscriber acknowledges and agrees that all Authorized Court Data Services and related Court Records disclosed to Subscriber prior to the effective date of this Subscriber Amendment shall be subject to the provisions of this Subscriber Amendment. 5 7. LICENSE AND PROTECTION OF PROPRIETARY RIGHTS. During the term of this Subscriber Amendment, subject to the terms and conditions hereof, the Court hereby grants to Subscriber a nonexclusive, nontransferable, limited license to use Court Data Services Programs and Court Data Services Databases to access or receive the Authorized Court Data Services identified in an approved request form under section 3, above, and related Court Records. Court reserves the right to make modifications to the Authorized Court Data Services, Court Data Services Programs, and Court Data Services Databases, and related materials without notice to Subscriber. These modifications shall be treated in all respects as their previous counterparts. a. Court Data Services Programs. Court is the copyright owner and licensor of the Court Data Services Programs. The combination of ideas, procedures, processes, systems, logic, coherence and methods of operation embodied within the Court Data Services Programs, and all information contained in documentation pertaining to the Court Data Services Programs, including but not limited to manuals, user documentation, and passwords, are trade secret information of Court and its licensors. b. Court Data Services Databases. Court is the copyright owner and licensor of the Court Data Services Databases and of all copyrightable aspects and components thereof. All specifications and information pertaining to the Court Data Services Databases and their structure, sequence and organization, including without limitation data schemas such as the Court XML Schema, are trade secret information of Court and its licensors. c. Marks. Subscriber shall neither have nor claim any right, title, or interest in or use of any trademark used in connection with Authorized Court Data Services, including but not limited to the marks “MNCIS” and “Odyssey.” d. Restrictions on Duplication, Disclosure, and Use. Trade secret information of Court and its licensors will be treated by Subscriber in the same manner as Court Confidential Information. In addition, Subscriber will not copy any part of the Court Data Services Programs or Court Data Services Databases, or reverse engineer or otherwise attempt to discern the source code of the Court Data Services Programs or Court Data Services Databases, or use any trademark of Court or its licensors, in any way or for any purpose not specifically and expressly authorized by this Subscriber Amendment. As used herein, "trade secret information of Court and its licensors" means any information possessed by Court which derives independent economic value from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use. "Trade secret information of Court and its licensors" does not, however, include information which was known to Subscriber prior to Subscriber’s receipt thereof, either directly or indirectly, from Court or its licensors, information which is independently developed by Subscriber without reference to or use of information received from Court or its licensors, or information which would not qualify as a trade secret under Minnesota law. It will not be a violation of this section 7, sub-section d, for Subscriber to make up to one copy of training materials and configuration documentation, if any, for each individual authorized to access, use, or configure Authorized Court Data Services, solely for its own use in connection with this Subscriber Amendment. Subscriber will take all steps reasonably necessary to protect the copyright, trade secret, and trademark rights of Court and its licensors and Subscriber will advise its bona fide personnel who are permitted access to any of the Court Data Services Programs and Court Data Services Databases, and trade secret information of Court and its licensors, of the restrictions upon duplication, disclosure and use contained in this Subscriber Amendment. 6 e. Proprietary Notices. Subscriber will not remove any copyright or proprietary notices included in and/or on the Court Data Services Programs or Court Data Services Databases, related documentation, or trade secret information of Court and its licensors, or any part thereof, made available by Court directly or through the BCA, if any, and Subscriber will include in and/or on any copy of the Court Data Services Programs or Court Data Services Databases, or trade secret information of Court and its licensors and any documents pertaining thereto, the same copyright and other proprietary notices as appear on the copies made available to Subscriber by Court directly or through the BCA, except that copyright notices shall be updated and other proprietary notices added as may be appropriate. f. Title; Return. The Court Data Services Programs and Court Data Services Databases, and related documentation, including but not limited to training and configuration material, if any, and logon account information and passwords, if any, made available by the Court to Subscriber directly or through the BCA and all copies, including partial copies, thereof are and remain the property of the respective licensor. Except as expressly provided in section 12.b., within ten days of the effective date of termination of this Subscriber Amendment or the CJDN Subscriber Agreement or within ten days of a request for termination of Authorized Court Data Service as described in section 4, Subscriber shall either: (i) uninstall and return any and all copies of the applicable Court Data Services Programs and Court Data Services Databases, and related documentation, including but not limited to training and configuration materials, if any, and logon account information, if any; or (2) destroy the same and certify in writing to the Court that the same have been destroyed. 8. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. Subscriber acknowledges that the Court, Court’s licensors, and DCA will be irreparably harmed if Subscriber’s obligations under this Subscriber Amendment are not specifically enforced and that the Court, Court’s licensors, and DCA would not have an adequate remedy at law in the event of an actual or threatened violation by Subscriber of its obligations. Therefore, Subscriber agrees that the Court, Court’s licensors, and DCA shall be entitled to an injunction or any appropriate decree of specific performance for any actual or threatened violations or breaches by Subscriber or its bona fide personnel without the necessity of the Court, Court’s licensors, or DCA showing actual damages or that monetary damages would not afford an adequate remedy. Unless Subscriber is an office, officer, agency, department, division, or bureau of the state of Minnesota, Subscriber shall be liable to the Court, Court’s licensors, and DCA for reasonable attorneys fees incurred by the Court, Court’s licensors, and DCA in obtaining any relief pursuant to this Subscriber Amendment. 9. LIABILITY. Subscriber and the Court agree that, except as otherwise expressly provided herein, each party will be responsible for its own acts and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts of any others and the results thereof. Liability shall be governed by applicable law. Without limiting the foregoing, liability of the Court and any Subscriber that is an office, officer, agency, department, division, or bureau of the state of Minnesota shall be governed by the provisions of the Minnesota Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes, section 3.376, and other applicable law. Without limiting the foregoing, if Subscriber is a political subdivision of the state of Minnesota, liability of the Subscriber shall be governed by the provisions of Minn. Stat. Ch. 466 (Tort Liability, Political Subdivisions) or other applicable law. Subscriber and Court further acknowledge that the liability, if any, of the BCA is governed by a separate agreement between the Court and the BCA dated December 13, 2010 with DPS-M -0958. 7 10. AVAILABILITY. Specific terms of availability shall be established by the Court and communicated to Subscriber by the Court and/or the BCA. The Court reserves the right to terminate this Subscriber Amendment immediately and/or temporarily suspend Subscriber’s Authorized Court Data Services in the event the capacity of any host computer system or legislative appropriation of funds is determined solely by the Court to be insufficient to meet the computer needs of the courts served by the host computer system. 11. [reserved] 12. ADDITIONAL USER OBLIGATIONS. The obligations of the Subscriber set forth in this section are in addition to the other obligations of the Subscriber set forth elsewhere in this Subscriber Amendment. a. Judicial Policy Statement. Subscriber agrees to comply with all policies identified in Policies & Notices applicable to Court Records accessed by Subscriber using Authorized Court Data Services. Upon failure of the Subscriber to comply with such policies, the Court shall have the option of immediately suspending the Subscriber’s Authorized Court Data Services on a temporary basis and/or immediately terminating this Subscriber Amendment. b. Access and Use; Log. Subscriber shall be responsible for all access to and use of Authorized Court Data Services and Court Records by Subscriber’s bona fide personnel or by means of Subscriber’s equipment or passwords, whether or not Subscriber has knowledge of or authorizes such access and use. Subscriber shall also maintain a log identifying all persons to whom Subscriber has disclosed its Court Confidential Security and Activation Information, such as user ID(s) and password(s), including the date of such disclosure. Subscriber shall maintain such logs for a minimum period of six years from the date of disclosure, and shall provide the Court with access to, and copies of, such logs upon request. The Court may conduct audits of Subscriber’s logs and use of Authorized Court Data Services and Court Records from time to time. Upon Subscriber’s failure to maintain such logs, to maintain accurate logs, or to promptly provide access by the Court to such logs, the Court may terminate this Subscriber Amendment without prior notice to Subscriber. c. Personnel. Subscriber agrees to investigate, at the request of the Court and/or the BCA, allegations of misconduct pertaining to Subscriber’s bona fide personnel having access to or use of Authorized Court Data Services, Court Confidential Information, or trade secret information of the Court and its licensors where such persons are alleged to have violated the provisions of this Subscriber Amendment, Policies & Notices, Judicial Branch policies, or other security requirements or laws regulating access to the Court Records. d. Minnesota Data Practices Act Applicability. If Subscriber is a Minnesota Government entity that is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, Subscriber acknowledges and agrees that: (1) the Court is not subject to Minn. Stat. Ch. 13 (see section 13.90) but is subject to the Rules of Public Access and other rules promulgated by the Minnesota Supreme Court; (2) Minn. Stat. section 13.03, subdivision 4(e) requires that Subscriber comply with the Rules of Public Access and other rules promulgated by the Minnesota Supreme Court for access to Court Records provided via the 8 BCA systems and tools under this Subscriber Amendment; (3) the use of and access to Court Records may be restricted by rules promulgated by the Minnesota Supreme Court, applicable state statute or federal law; and (4) these applicable restrictions must be followed in the appropriate circumstances. 13. FEES; INVOICES. Unless the Subscriber is an office, officer, department, division, agency, or bureau of the state of Minnesota, Subscriber shall pay the fees, if any, set forth in applicable Policies & Notices, together with applicable sales, use or other taxes. Applicable monthly fees commence ten (10) days after notice of approval of the request pursuant to section 3 of this Subscriber Amendment or upon the initial Subscriber transaction as defined in the Policies & Notices, whichever occurs earlier. When fees apply, the Court shall invoice Subscriber on a monthly basis for charges incurred in the preceding month and applicable taxes, if any, and payment of all amounts shall be due upon receipt of invoice. If all amounts are not paid within 30 days of the date of the invoice, the Court may immediately cancel this Subscriber Amendment without notice to Subscriber and pursue all available legal remedies. Subscriber certifies that funds have been appropriated for the payment of charges under this Subscriber Amendment for the current fiscal year, if applicable. 14. MODIFICATION OF FEES. Court may modify the fees by amending the Policies & Notices as provided herein, and the modified fees shall be effective on the date specified in the Policies & Notices, which shall not be less than thirty days from the publication of the Policies & Notices. Subscriber shall have the option of accepting such changes or terminating this Subscriber Amendment as provided in section 1 hereof. 15. WARRANTY DISCLAIMERS. a. WARRANTY EXCLUSIONS. EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY PROVIDED HEREIN, COURT, COURT’S LICENSORS, AND DCA MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR MERCHANTABILITY, NOR ARE ANY WARRANTIES TO BE IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION, SERVICES OR COMPUTER PROGRAMS MADE AVAILABLE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT. b. ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS OF INFORMATION. WITHOUT LIMITING THE GENERALITY OF THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH, COURT, COURT’S LICENSORS, AND DCA MAKE NO WARRANTIES AS TO THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE COURT RECORDS. 16. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES. Subscriber is an independent contractor and shall not be deemed for any purpose to be an employee, partner, agent or franchisee of the Court, Court’s licensors, or DCA. Neither Subscriber nor the Court, Court’s licensors, or DCA shall have the right nor the authority to assume, create or incur any liability or obligation of any kind, express or implied, against or in the name of or on behalf of the other. 17. NOTICE. Except as provided in section 2 regarding notices of or modifications to Authorized Court Data Services and Policies & Notices, any notice to Court or Subscriber 9 hereunder shall be deemed to have been received when personally delivered in writing or seventy- two (72) hours after it has been deposited in the United States mail, first class, proper postage prepaid, addressed to the party to whom it is intended at the address set forth on page one of this Agreement or at such other address of which notice has been given in accordance herewith. 18. NON-WAIVER. The failure by any party at any time to enforce any of the provisions of this Subscriber Amendment or any right or remedy available hereunder or at law or in equity, or to exercise any option herein provided, shall not constitute a waiver of such provision, remedy or option or in any way affect the validity of this Subscriber Amendment. The waiver of any default by either Party shall not be deemed a continuing waiver, but shall apply solely to the instance to which such waiver is directed. 19. FORCE MAJEURE. Neither Subscriber nor Court shall be responsible for failure or delay in the performance of their respective obligations hereunder caused by acts beyond their reasonable control. 20. SEVERABILITY. Every provision of this Subscriber Amendment shall be construed, to the extent possible, so as to be valid and enforceable. If any provision of this Subscriber Amendment so construed is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or otherwise unenforceable, such provision shall be deemed severed from this Subscriber Amendment, and all other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. 21. ASSIGNMENT AND BINDING EFFECT. Except as otherwise expressly permitted herein, neither Subscriber nor Court may assign, delegate and/or otherwise transfer this Subscriber Amendment or any of its rights or obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the other. This Subscriber Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns, including any other legal entity into, by or with which Subscriber may be merged, acquired or consolidated. 22. GOVERNING LAW. This Subscriber Amendment shall in all respects be governed by and interpreted, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the United States and of the State of Minnesota. 23. VENUE AND JURISDICTION. Any action arising out of or relating to this Subscriber Amendment, its performance, enforcement or breach will be venued in a state or federal court situated within the State of Minnesota. Subscriber hereby irrevocably consents and submits itself to the personal jurisdiction of said courts for that purpose. 24. INTEGRATION. This Subscriber Amendment contains all negotiations and agreements between the parties. No other understanding regarding this Subscriber Amendment, whether written or oral, may be used to bind either party, provided that all terms and conditions of the CJDN Subscriber Agreement and all previous amendments remain in full force and effect except as supplemented or modified by this Subscriber Amendment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have, by their duly authorized officers, executed this Subscriber Amendment in duplicate, intending to be bound thereby. 10 1. SUBSCRIBER (AGENCY) Subscriber must attach written verification of authority to sign on behalf of and bind the entity, such as an opinion of counsel or resolution. Name: _______________________________________ (PRINTED) Signed: _______________________________________ Title: ________________________________________ (with delegated authority) Date: ________________________________________ Name: _______________________________________ (PRINTED) Signed: _______________________________________ Title: ________________________________________ (with delegated authority) Date: ________________________________________ 2. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION Name: ____________________________________________ (PRINTED) Signed: ___________________________________________ Title: _____________________________________________ (with delegated authority) Date: _____________________________________________ 3. COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION delegated to Materials Management Division By: ______________________________________________ Date: _____________________________________________ 4. COURTS Authority granted to Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Name: ____________________________________________ (PRINTED) Signed: ___________________________________________ Title: _____________________________________________ (with authorized authority) Date: _____________________________________________ Page 1 of 1 CONSENT AGENDA – ITEM 5G MEMORANDUM DATE: March 12, 2018 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator FROM: Sue Polka, Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Change Order No. 1, Michels Pipe Services 2017 Sewer Lining Project Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: $200,000 $213,344.98 Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund Council Should Consider Approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $15,946.98 and a 92 day extension for the 2017 Sewer Lining Project as submitted by Michels Pipe Services (Attachment A). Background On September 11, 2017, the City Council awarded the 2017 Sewer Lining Project to Michels Pipe Services in the amount of $197,398.00. Discussion Due to incorrect information in the City’s GIS system, the information provided with the 2017 Sewer Lining specifications showed an 18” storm sewer to be lined on Lake Valentine Road (Attachment B). During Michels Pipe Services completion of the work, it was discovered that this storm sewer is a 24” pipe. Michels dos not carry 24” CIPP liner in their inventory so it will have to be ordered and shipped causing a 3-4 week delay. Due to this delay, Michels will have to re-mobilize to install this segment of storm sewer lining. Point repairs are necessary on Boussard Court and Arden Place as sewer pipes can’t be repaired with the CIPP lining. Michels will complete the lining of Boussard Court, Arden Place, and the Lake Valentine Road storm sewer in the spring after point repairs are completed. Change Order No. 1 also proposes a substantial completion date of May 31, 2018. Attachments Attachment A – Change Order No. 1 Attachment B – Lake Valentine Road Storm Sewer " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") #* #* #* #* " " " ") #* 1 8 " Valentine Lake Rd V a l e n t i n e A v e N F a i r v i e w A v e V a l e n t i n e C r e s t R d CB-229 68 #*2017 Storm Sewer Lining Outfalls ")2017 Storm Sewer Lining Catch Basin "2017 Storm Sewer Lining #*Outfalls !(Manholes ")Catch Basin "Stormwater Pipe 0 100Feet¯Project Location2017 Storm Sewer Lining ProjectArden Hills, MN D o c u m e n t P a t h : K : \ 0 3 4 5 5 - 0 0 0 \ G I S \ M a p s \ 2 0 1 7 S t o r m S e w e r L i n i n g V a l e n t i n e . m x d D a t e S a v e d : 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 7 1 2 : 3 1 : 3 9 P M 1 inch = 100 feet Page 1 of 1 PUBLIC HEARING – 7A MEMORANDUM DATE: March 12, 2018 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault., City Administrator FROM: Pang Silseth, Accounting Analyst SUBJECT: Public Hearing Regarding Quarterly Special Assessments for Delinquent Utilities Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: $ $ $ Council Should Consider the Following Hold a Public Hearing regarding delinquent utilities. Background Water customers whose account is 90 days past due were informed that the City intends to certify delinquent charges to Ramsey County to be collect with property taxes. These customers have the right to a hearing in front of the City Council to discuss this matter prior to certification. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for March 12, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 1 of 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS – 7B MEMORANDUM DATE: March 12, 2018 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Dave Perrault, City Administrator FROM: Matthew Bachler, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #17-029 Applicant: Richard Kotoski and Timothy Horita Property Location: 3685 New Brighton Road Request: Vacation of Easement Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider the Following Hold the required Public Hearing for the requested Vacation of Easement at 3685 New Brighton Road as proposed in Planning Case 17-029. Background The applicant has requested a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement in order to subdivide the existing lot located at 3685 New Brighton Road into three lots for single-family residential dwellings, as proposed in Planning Case 17-029. A request for a Vacation of Easement requires a public hearing before the City Council. The full application for the Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement will be reviewed by the City Council under New Business on March 12, 2018 (Item 8B). No action is required as part of this agenda item other than holding the public hearing. The City’s sanitary sewer system includes a total of 14 lift stations. Lift Station 12 is located at 3685 New Brighton Road along the southern property line of the lot along Thom Drive. This lift station was originally built in 1970. The pump, wet well, and controls for the lift station were last reconstructed in 2012. As part of the reconstruction in 2012, the fore main and electrical services were relocated, which resulted in an overall smaller footprint for the facility. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for March 12, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 2 of 2 Lift Station 12 is located on private property and an easement has been dedicated to the City that allows for the operation and maintenance of the lift station. The existing easement covers the area of land that includes the pump, wet well, electrical panel, and the driveway section used for City vehicles. Additionally, the easement area includes an 8-inch sanitary sewer line that runs along the west side of the lift station facility. Due to the reconstruction and updates to the lift station in 2012, the easement covers an area larger than the facility footprint and utility lines. Planning Case 17-029 includes a request to vacate the existing easement for the lift station facility. The proposed Final Plat includes the dedication of a new easement for the lift station covering a small area of land. The easement would be reduced on the eastern side to accommodate a driveway to access a future dwelling. The revised easement area would still include the pump, wet well, electrical panel, driveway section, and 8-inch sanitary sewer line. The Public Works Director/City Engineer has reviewed the new easement area and determined that it provides adequate area for the City to continue to operate and maintain Lift Station 12. The easement area is sufficient if the City needs to reconstruct the lift station in the future. In the event a larger area of land was needed by the City for staging and completing a reconstruction of the lift station, the City would be able to obtain a temporary construction easement from the property owner at that time. Notice and Public Comments Notice of the public hearing was published in the Arden Hills-Shoreview Bulletin on February 21, 2018. Notice was prepared by the City and mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. Staff has received several email correspondences from residents regarding Planning Case 17-029 that include comments on the proposed easement vacation. Copies of these correspondences have been provided in Attachment E. The minutes from the January 10 and February 7, 2018 Planning Commission meetings have been included in Attachment F and G. Attachments A. Land Use Application B. Site and Aerial Maps C. Proposed Easement Vacation D. Proposed Horita Acres Preliminary Plat and Final Plat E. Public Comments F. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, January 10, 2018 G. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, February 7, 2018 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. © Ramsey County Enterprise GIS Division 600.0 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 1: NAD_1983_HARN_Adj_MN_Ramsey_Feet Feet600.00300.00 3685 New Brighton Road 3,600 Enter Map Description Notes This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. © Ramsey County Enterprise GIS Division 200.0 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 1: NAD_1983_HARN_Adj_MN_Ramsey_Feet Feet200.00100.00 3685 New Brighton Road 1,200 Enter Map Description Notes S h e e t Description Sketch for:1 o f 1 c 2015 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Tim Horita CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 2422 Enterprise Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 (651) 681-1914 www.pioneereng.comFax: 681-9488 Cad File: 117282-EASEMENT VACATE.dwg Folder #: 4378 Drawn by:TSS 01-ENG-117282-SHEET-EXCOND 3PRELIMINAY PLAT & EXISTING CONDITIONS c 7OF JMM Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2017 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota 42299 Peter J. Hawkinson HORITA ACRES ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA 11-08-2017 PJC/JMM 11-08-2017 HORITA 3685 NEW BRIGHTON ROAD ARDEN HILLS, 55112 1. 11-29-17 City Comments2. 01-10-18 City Comments CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS From:Tim Graff To:Matthew Bachler Subject:PC #17-029 Date:Thursday, January 04, 2018 9:18:36 PM Dear Mr. Bachler, I am replying to you in regards to the upcoming public hearing for the property at 3685 New Brighton Rd on January 22. I have several concerns with this proposal and a few questions. The first question would be what does a partial vacation of the sanitary lift station mean. I would understand that as the city would be giving up our public easement so applicant can divide up his lot. In doing so who would absorb the costs involved with relocation of the lift station and what would said costs be? It looks as though there would be a lot of cost incurred with the removal and replacement of water lines and water drainage. My utmost concern with doing this and building on that land would be the effects this would have on the wetlands behind that property and my property. It is very important to my family that this is preserved at all cost. If any of these costs would be past on to Arden Hills residents, I feel there would be better use of these monies. For example, a path could be built so that the 30+ kids in the neighborhood could safely access Perry Park along the high speed New Brighton Rd. My family has been in this neighborhood for 2.5 years now and the appeal of our lot on the west side of New Brighton Rd was the size and the nature. I feel dividing up these amazing lots only to cram more houses in takes the uniqueness and appeal out of it for future buyers of lots and especially for current residents. Please advise me on defining partial vacation and what cost my neighbors and I would incur with the proposed building. I would also like to know the environmental impacts of any plans. Thanks, Tim Graff Sent from my iPhone From:BRIAN JORGENSON To:Matthew Bachler; Brenda Holden; David Grant; Fran Holmes; Dave McClung; Steve Scott; Pellegrin, Vince Subject:planning case #17-029 Date:Tuesday, January 09, 2018 8:37:53 PM Matthew Jane and I received the information from the city regarding the sub division of the lot at 3685 Thom drive. After reading the available information I wanted to let you know that I do have some concerns about how this may affect our neighborhood. It seems like it may be out of the character of the area to try to shoehorn 3 lots with homes on that parcel of land. Most of the lots on Thom are larger than what is to platted out at 3685 Thom. What makes it more problematic is it is part of the RCWD drainage system that involves our very important wetlands. That drainage ditch has been in place and effective for a very long time. This area is blessed with an abundance of wildlife. I have seen deer and foxes, turkey, possum and other land animals. I have also enjoyed eagles, falcons, owls,ducks,woodpeckers, hummingbirds, and dragon flies who visit or live in this area. There is also a variety of trees and plants that are unique to the area. Any time we over- develop an area we lose a little bit of what makes Arden Hills a special place to live. Jane and I want to share the beauty of our neighborhood with new neighbors but feel that 1 home site may work better at that location. That would keep more of the area natural with less need to cut down so many trees. One concern I have is the drainage ditch and holding ponds and who will maintain it ? That water flows through the railroad easement and across Thom drive north into that lot.I am sure that there are city employees there who remember that several years ago it became blocked raising the water levels substantially. These last few years have seen a lot of development in similar areas, for example, Katie lane, the E2 library site and Thom. We have lost a lot of open areas. Our 2008 build on Thom Drive involved a similar situation where 1 large lot was divide into 3 lots, Same developer as 3685, We had issues with the way the lots were graded and still have some concerns about a current build going up west of our property. Also, In hindsite, the decision to sub divide the existing lot at 1998 where we built, into 3 lots instead of 2 was also non conforming and resulted in some justifiably unhappy neighbors. It would be wrong to make the same mistake a second time. Our hopes are that, in spite of our strong opposition to the proposed plan , that if approved the city will be very diligent in making sure all the building regulations are followed,including the replanting of trees at that location and full payment of the "park dedication " fee. To sum it up. We feel that having 3 homes on that divided lot is detrimental and non- conforming to our neighborhood. There are risks involved with the upkeep and maintenance of the wetlands that are part of RCWD. Also a vacation of any easement sets a bad precedent for any future requests for any easement vacation. There is no way to deny the fact that the plan poses a significant risk to to the drainage and utility easements in place there. Brian and Jane Jorgenson 1978 Thom Drive Arden Hills From:Joe Federer To:Matthew Bachler Subject:PC 17-029 - Request for denial Date:Wednesday, February 07, 2018 5:28:20 PM Attachments:image.png Matt -- I've corrected some incorrect information since the last email I sent. I'd prefer if this email replaces the previous email I sent last time. Some examples include not knowing that the lift station was rebuilt in 2012 (I said it was still from 1971) and getting the new easement square footage incorrect... I still apologize for reference, spelling, or other errors... I did my best to be accurate, honest, and clear... but I only have so much time -- 3 kids, 2 dogs, 2 jobs, etc -- and the notices this time just went out with a few days lead time. I appreciate your patience. I only plan to read the last section if I speak. 17-029 should be recommended for denial for the following list of reasons: Incomplete plan application: Chapter 11 of city codes on necessary data when applying for a preliminary plat requires that "a one-hundred year flood plan study, including flood fringes and floodways" (1110.02 Subd 2, section B, item 8) be included with the plans. I do not see this. 1150.03 Subd1 would allow the commission to exempt the plan from this requirement: "The provisions from which the subdivision may be exempted shall be specified by the planning commission at its first meeting at which the subdivider's application under this paragraph is presented.". I don't see anything providing said exemption in the Jan 10 meeting notes. Wetland protection: The wetland protection plan in inadequate. It seems to be putting more water directly into the wetland and does not include a viable maintenance plan. First - by the submitted plans own hydrologic flow analysis, water that hits the lot 1 driveway will run down a steeply graded driveway (7.7 and 8.3 grade on driveway) away from the stormwater storage basin and then goes down an even steeper slope (steepened to allow for driveway) to wetland. I showed the plans to a hydrologist that specializes in groundwater-surface water interaction at a federal science agency and he indicates that almost none of the water that hits the driveways would infiltrate - this is backed up by the RCWD requiring filtration basins rather than infiltration basins - and none of it would make it into the southerly basin and, instead, would flow south of the basin "creating erosion and potential water quality issues and additional sedimentation in the wetland" for lot 1 and added flow to the street. He further notes that depending on the Lot 1 house design, water hitting that roof would flow unimpeded down into the extreme slope[11] wetland or onto the driveway. He notes the basins, particularly the southern one, are simply not located in the right places and appear to be crammed into the available location rather than an effective location (this statement further supported by the RCWD comments). I contacted RCWD directly about the appeal process or if they took the 2012 steepening of the grade into account but have not hear back. Secondly, and equally (more?) concerning: stormwater basins require maintenance. The city has stated multiple times they are not responsible for maintenance; the plan says the city is not responsible for maintenance; the RCWD simply says "there must BE a plan" but does not indicate what it is. What wording is being included to ensure they are maintained and inspected properly and what penalty is there for not doing so? The proposed plan involves cutting the grass, removing sediment, removing debris, and inspecting (now that it's a proposed filtration basin there should be additional maintenance steps); the homeowner would be responsible for it with the current plans and would be required to do the work. (one would assume) Who will be ensuring their they are maintained, safe (there are lots of very young children in the area - including my pair of 2 year olds and the potential neighbors 2 and 4 year olds), don't stagnate and turn into mosquito nests, and remain effective? There are no comments in the plans about ensuring the swales, catchment basin, and under-driveway piping is maintained. Who foots the bill when they fail? (particularly concerning given these are filtration, not infiltration basins due to the lack of space, closeness to wetland, and soil for the lower-maintenance infiltration style) A cost study by Barr Engineering seems to show the average cost (in 2010 dollars) of basins that covers a commensurate amount of land in St. Paul is around 30k-50k. That seems like an amount higher than we could expect a single homeowner to cover quickly in the event of a freak storm. These are not cheaply created, not cheaply repaired, and the PCA/USEPA and Weiss study on costs effectively says that one can expect to pay 5-12%[10] of the construction costs per year when amortized... It's worth noting that the cost survey index seems to show these basins are almost exclusively owned and run by cities/counties or large organizations like universities. With the owner moving and the applicant not being from the city, I'm concerned this won't be well done in the out years and the city will be stuck with a bill and/or the wetland will be damaged. Property Sizes: Previous attempts to split lots in this area have resulted in comments about density[2][7] as well as being less willing to split "when there is currently reasonable use of the property."... which there certainly is. In 2006 [7] a development with 3695 and 3685 New Brighton Road was proposed with less density (it included the same total number of houses, but included 3695 New Brighton Road as well) and there were significant concerns about it - many are the same now, but worse. The future use plan labels this area "low density residential". As platted with drainage, easements, and wetland, it will/could be 3 houses, all 15 feet from each other. That's not low density and certainly doesn't fit with the neighborhood - where, during summer, people can barely see neighboring homes from their back yards. These lots are extremely skinny - lot 2 is functionally 66 feet wide. It flares at the road by way of including the easement to meet the minimum road width rules. It's only actually 31 feet wide at the road if you remove the lift station easement. Lot 2 isn't much wider in the back and has even less functional road frontage if you take out the wetland (with only a couple feet of unencumbered land abutting the road isn't easement of some sort - lot 2's driveway runs right through the city lift station easement). The fact the original property is being squeezed so much that they have to 1) move their driveway, 2) change the orientation of their home so it fronts Thom drive, and 3) still rip off a deck to meet minimum side setbacks[1] speaks to this overdevelopment. These three properties will average .6 acres - with the smallest two are under half an acre and the biggest being largely made up of wetland and need-to-be-constructed retaining ponds. [3] The smallest lot includes the proposed, smaller, lift station easement and is still 45% easement by land area (leaving less-than-R2-lot-size-minimum about 10.5k sqft buildable land, in two sections) and lot 1 is being 74% easement or wetland (or 11.3k sqft of buildable land, split into 3 sections). This is compared to the average property size on New Brighton Road from near the corner of E2 ot the train tracks is 1.32 acres.. all but 3 larger than .9 acres (and those are .62,.69 and .81 acres). If you include adjacent properties on Thom adjacent to property the average is 1.25 acres. Lot 2 and 3 would set the new standard for smallest properties on NBR by a large margin and be less than 1/3 the size of the average property. While they fit the R-2 minimums, they are too cramped for the area, don't fit in at all, and the myriad of issues uncovered in this email are directly due to the overdevelopment of this parcel. The planning commission has historically cared about keeping lots similar in size and has felt that cramming houses in is not in the best interests for the city. Denied case PC 07 005, also involving Richard Kotoski, involved creating lots roughly the size we are talking about by splitting 2015 Thom Dr.... which has adjacent properties much smaller than 3685 does. With the denial of that case, specifically, the commission stated that "Density was not the objective [of the city]" and that "reasonable use exists in its' current state" Further, the current planning commission has said "Given the wetland and protected drainage areas, a significant area of Lots 1 and 2 could not be built on." [1] and Tim, himself, said in a previous application for development that much of the lot [3685] was lift station or wetlands and "to look at the entire square footage was misrepresenting the fact that there was space to build on and[or] there was room to encroach into his back area" [7] He is right -- even though the raw sqft exists, this is not a property that should have 3 homes on it. Easement: The lift station has been around long before the current owner owned the property. The easement and lift station have been there well before Tim bought his property. The 2007 attempt to place one additional house on 3685 New Brighton road resulted in the easement potentially shrinking by 2000 square feet. (roughly going through where the current lot 2 driveway is) At that time, it was stated from the city engineer that the shrunken easement "may not be sufficient for reconstructing the lift station in the future".[5] Staff review recommended enlarging the easement by 10 feet on the [west] side opposite the proposed vacated area and then noted that only "with the boundary adjustment, the city engineer [and public works director] determined that partially vacating the easement would not impact the function, maintenance, or reconstruction of the lift station."[6] That engineer proved to be prophetic, as the lift station was rebuilt in 2012 and the rebuild required space beyond the western boundary of the easement. By using the photos combined with the location of the trees (which can be assumed to have not moved and are accurate on the survey) and other known sizes, then perspective shifting the plans we can pretty accurately lay out the proposed site on top of the area needed to construct the lift station in 2012. I did not tweak my added lines for lens distortion but being mid-frame it should be minimal. I expect the extent goes so far beyond the surface-viewable elements because the lift station goes >24 feet underground and (based on sizes of the plans provided by staff) is person-accessible to that depth). I'll note that according to discussions they used directional boring for this rebuild, so that won't be a panacea for 'saving space' in the future. The below image shows where lot 1's driveway would go -- you'll notice it's clearly within the area needed for construction in 2012. (in fact, the city sewer runs under much of it's length) The below image should highlight the many added items that will be traversing through the easement, area needed for the 2012 construction. I'd like to specifically point out the city sewer going under the private driveway - this isn't the private sewer connection but is, instead, the actual city sewer going into the lift station. Also note that it goes under the catch basin and stormwater management items as well. Further, the utilities running through this area will clearly make the next rebuild more expensive -- exactly the reason the easement was made this large in the first place. The NE corner that was not disturbed in the photos In the below image, I wanted to highlight how close the proposed 40' retaining wall is to the actual lift station (not just the easement... but the lift station itself). A catch basin would be at the base of this wall with a pipe that runs to the filtration basin. The full impact might not be had from this angle but the adjacency should come through. The current proposal shrinks the easement to roughly what was suggested and deemed unacceptable in 2006 and was shown to be unacceptable in the 2012. As shown above, the proposal also includes utility lines, driveways, new trees, and an engineer-required retaining wall that will be going under, on top of, around, and beside the easement/lift station... this will result in additional expenses down the road when a rebuild is required. The city should not have to bear additional costs and/or lost capabilities just to cram an extra home (let alone two!) on a lot that already has reasonable use in it's current state. Additional Driveways on Thom When this was attempted in 2006, the western part of 3685 New Brighton Road was not considered developable by both the planning commission, the developer, and the owner. Putting in a private drive (not going to Thom drive... but out to New Brighton Road) was requested and the planning commission considered it a finding of fact that connecting to Thom drive was "hardship" and not just an inconvenience. [7] They further found a finding of fact that, "4 lots adjacent toThom drive and New Brighton road with separate driveways... which would not be desirable." [7] The developer, on Tim's behalf, went on further to indicate "there is no other way to access the new lots without the creation of a central outlot because of lot size and topology".[8] This plan involves adding three driveways to a non-conforming, skinny, winding road. When this came up, modified, with one driveway on Thom, multiple people stood up or wrote about adding traffic to that road, safety, etc (in addition to concerns about wildlife, wetland, grading, trees, additional development where everyone assumed there would be no more, etc).[7] The same happened with the same realtor wanted to split other properties on Thom drive and was rebuffed. Thom is a very small, winding road with no shoulder that doesn't meet minimum dimensions (1130.03 subd 1) that gets used extensively by people trying to avoid traffic on 35W every evening. The New Brighton Road / Thom drive intersection also doesn't meet the safe intersection rules in the subdivision section of city codes ("subd 8: Safe intersections: The angle formed by the intersecting of streets shall not be less than sixty (60) degrees") and, in fact, 3685 New Brighton Road is only a degree or two off from not being able to labled as a 'corner lot' at all. Thom is almost too skinny to park on and the proposed driveways are too skinny to allow parking either. Putting 2 new driveways basically at this mostly- blind (when coming off southbound NBR onto Thom) intersection is a public safety issue. Retaining wall: The 40' long retaining wall is only a couple of feet from the lift station. Any work on the list station would surely be made more difficult and/or costly due to this wall. Who pays when it's injured by lift station rebuilds and maintenance work? Who pays when it fails and the lift station is damaged / compromised? This complicates a currently-simple process. This retaining wall is 4 feet from the top of the wall to the surface at the bottom. City code requires a building permit for retaining walls that are over four feet from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall. As such, this wall will require a building permit (and the extra time and cost associated) any time it its damage, fails, or work needs to be done on/under it for the lift station needs. Tree preservation: The 2006 plan involved clearing 17% of the land of trees.[2] At that time the, even with no tree preservation ordinance, the planning commission had concerns about this "major tree removal", preservation of natural space, and the fact "it does not appear there would be much tree cover left".[7] This plan is clear cutting 40% of all the combined land...[3] and if you exclude the untouched lot 1, the untouchable wetland, and the new smaller (currently treeless) easement... they are clear-cutting 78% of the land area [3]. Unacceptable as that may be, half a dozen trees designated 'save' are only a couple feet from the construction entrances and/or building site pads. I contacted a landscape architect about this and she informs me construction traffic needs to stay outside the drip line, especially oaks (oaks are very susceptible to soil compaction issues). City rules also say that XXXXX. Construction traffic and soil compaction will kill more trees than are currently in the list for removal. I contacted a builder and asked further about tree removal and was informed that trees that overhang (or are near) building pads are almost always directly cut down for construction access regardless of the plan. Additionally, I have 3-4 significant trees trees on my property that will assuredly be killed by the creation of the northern basin[3]. Further, other trees marked as 'save' are diseased including trees labeled as “Major decay on trunk”, “Mechanical damage at base”, and “Top broken, internal decay at base”. The number of trees labeled for removal on this plan, while already tragically egregious, is lower than reality. The following trees should be counted as additional removed caliper inches: 931 (oak, mere feet from construction entrance and permanent driveway) 844 (oak, mere feet from construction entrance and permanent driveway) 843 (oak, mere feet from construction entrance and permanent driveway) 873 (adjacent to basin) 874 (adjacent to basin) 875 (adjacent to basin) The caliper inches of the above trees is an additional 91 inches that should be counted as being removed. City staff told me diseased trees do not count as caliper inches on site. There are 70 total caliper inches of trees marked as 'save' that are also marked as diseased. This should lower the total caliper inches on site by 70. Using the proposals plan [3] base numbers we should lower the total number of caliper inches to 1624" and increase the caliper inches removed to 635" results . This results in total inches over threshold being 473". At a 1:2 ratio, the total inches to be mitigated should be 236". This is more than 188" the plan[3] calls for. I should note that tree 925 (28" oak), 926 (26" oak) and 871 (18" box elder) will likely die, with plenty of work being done inside their dripline...however, the encroachment into the dripline is less than 25% (the the recommendation XXXX (by who) is zero). Further, even the submitted plans say: "All Trees not listed for removal shall be protected. Do not operate equipment within the drip line, root zones, or within tree protection fence areas".[9] When the submitted plans include the above, while still having the construction entrances and driveways move through no less than 5 trees' drip lines, one must question the accuracy and care put into the rest of the plan. The proposed mitigation of this outrageous destruction of natural habitat is woefully inadequate. These are large, mature, healthy trees that define the city character and add value to the whole area - mostly oaks with a few elm and cottonwoods. Of the ~30 healthy trunks this plan has removing, the average size is 5 and a half FEET around (65 inches) at chest height. Some of these trees have been here since before MN was state. The mitigation plan involves replacing them with 30 trees, mostly evergreens, averaging 3.5 caliper inches. What is the point of a tree preservation plan if this is allowed to happen?? All of this (including lot sizes and other items) to the fact this just doesn't fit the area. People move to this area of Arden hills for the large private lots with mature trees and nature... it is an essential - I'd say defining - characteristic of our area of Arden Hills. The plan, as stands, significantly and permanently damages that character. Developers: Tim Horita, the owner of 3685 New Brighton Road is moving away from the area soon. He won't be around to follow this through and as he's not selling the homes, just the lots, he won't care if how things fit within the neighborhood. Richard Kotoski, the applicant, has done (or attempteed) this in multiple places in the immediate vicinity... 1978 Thom, 2015 Thom, 3985 New Brighton Road, and perhaps others. The 3-property subdivision around 1978 Thom was not finished according to the original plans, promises to retain trees were not kept, grading was not done to plan causing erosion, drainage, and maintenance problems. I'm concerned that with Tim moving away (and having no vested interest in maintaining the area) and Kotoski's history, any plans here would not be followed through fully or correctly.. Previous Planning Commissions and City Councils have found this to be a bad idea: In 2006 the planning commission considered it a finding of fact that connecting to Thom drive was "hardship" and not just an inconvenience. [7] though I understand a plan allowing this was eventually passed that included my land and only one additional home in the 'backyard' of 3685 New Brighton Road. The plan that eventually passed included only one additional house on 3685 out to Thom, removed considerably fewer trees, encroached on the easement less (and only on one side - a request to expand on the other side to maintain access for lift station was made by city engineer and accepted), and involved much less complications and 'design by conditions'. (the proposed subdivision has 19 planning commission coniditions as well as a host of additional conditions from RCWD) During the discussions for the subdivision that was denied, they further found that while large enough, "4 lots adjacent to Thom drive and New Brighton road with separate driveways... which would not be desirable." [7] During that meeting, the developer, on Tim's behalf, went on further to indicate "there is no other way to access the new lots without the creation of a central outlot [through my property] because of lot size and topology [of the western side of 3685]". [8] Later in that same meeting, when challenged as to why the new houses were being put mostly on 3695 New Brighton Road, Tim, himself, said that much of the lot [3685] was lift station or wetlands and "to look at the entire square footage was misrepresenting the fact that there was space to build on and[or] there was room to encroach into his back area" [7] Injures my property and home: Homes placed in the proposed locations will require us to pay $26,895[p7] to maintain the viability of our home. We looked at this property and saw the nature, privacy, neighborhood character and density would work for us. Because of the tree maintenance plan the city has and the neighboring lots being fully wooded and 3685 already being fully developed felt we could count on privacy to the south / southwest. Further, from talking to neighbors, we learned that property had been more-or-less deemed undevelopable by the planning commission unless our lot was included when they gave a variance for a private road through our property in 2006. I've subsequently found that past city councils and planning commissions had issues with attempts to develop this land. Either way, we felt our expectation of having a private lot was very very solid.... enough so that we banked the viability of our house on it. We designed our house per various city guidelines and recommendations. We included all the recommendations for design that the JDA, city, and county, has been suggesting for years[p2]. Our windows are unique and were sized and located such that, combined with the other efficiency measures taken in our house, almost all of our heating needs comes from solar gains; we do not have a traditional furnace or venting system in our home.[p3] This is only possible if our windows have full solar access -- which means blinds or planted privacy walls closer to the house than a 23 degree angle angle are not an option. We bought this property specifically with this type of house in mind, knowing that to the south we'd have, and need to have, the privacy to give us the access to solar we needed. Everything was calculated, angled, sized, and situated according to an energy model that falls apart if we cover the east, south, or west-facing windows. To be clear, our house's viability in winter is dependent on clear access to the sun. From a privacy standpoint [p4], functionally, our windows are effectively floor-to-ceiling - including rooms like our bedroom.[5] This is acceptable if woods are next door or people are at grade level - it's unacceptably public if multiple houses are in the proposed locations. Legally, you can't knowingly be 'indecent' in a place where the public can see you. Two new houses next door would require we get blinds. But this isn't merely about blinds; if it were, this objection could (rightly) be ignored. This is not mere inconvenience or me liking my 'view'. As I stated, if we put up blinds we are required to get a furnace (including ducting, venting, etc in a house that is already finished). I've gotten quotes and the sum total of $26,895[p7] is what would be required to maintain the viability of our home through the winter. We cannot afford either the upfront nor the ongoing costs (especially given we paid a hefty premium to NOT have to do these things) and would potentially have to move It's worth noting that access to passive solar was noted as a reason for approval of variance in setback of a house at siems court and arden place[p8] so Arden hills has a long standing position of valuing solar as well as it being enshrined more recently in various rules and regs: it was suggested be part of TCAAP guidelines, the 2040 comprehensive plan, the minimum requirements for Arden Hills and other places.[p9] Beyond direct costs and impact to the viability of our home, the proposed stormwater plan includes basins so close to some of the trees on my property that it would most assuredly kill them. City code 1150.04 states "the City Council, upon review and after report of the planning commission, may approve the subdivision or consolidation, upon compliance with the following conditions" with condition #3 being, " the proposed division or consolidation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to adjacent tracts in the area in which the subdivision tract is located." This this is quite injurious to my property, an adjacent tract... not even counting the harm to the essential character of the area. ---- [1] Memo_4 - staff notes [2] May 3, 2006 [3] Attachment C with property sizes... also in Memo_4 somewhere [4] http://www.cityofardenhills.org/documentcenter/view/1344 [5] Attachment F [6] 03-12-07-R - city council meeting discussion of partial easement vacation [7] PCP 06-07-2206 - Planning commission discussion of PC06-013. It's worth noting there is a file error on the system taht caused these to the be notes for the previous month meeting. [8] PCP 05-03-2006 - Includes plans and discussion of PC06-013 [9] Attachment C, details, item #8. [10] https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/p-gen3-13x.pdf [11] At Jan 10 meeting, someone defined 'extreme topology' or 'extreme slope' for the shed case... and this is steeper. [p1] - historical comments [p2] - City/County/JDA recommendations for resiliency - The JDA, Cityt, and County have, for years, assessed and indicated it desires passive solar building design. The policy white paper from 11-03-14 andd again in 2015 and elsewhere recommends that the city could consider including prioritization of energy efficiency, climage change adaptation, or energy resilience as party of it's comprehensive plan. (TOD: look into JDA response to 11-03-14 JDA memo) They include ene for design sthat include proper orientation, large south-facing glazing, massing, building transparecy to maximize solar heat gain, etc, etc... even going so far as to show that passive solar can cover 60-80% of their needs with passive solar. (we cover more) [p3] - There is a small aux heating system, roughly the power of a space heater, spec'd to kick in as needed when the temps drop below -4 and the sun is not out for a few days. It did not get turned on at all in the 2016-2017 winter. [p4] We sited our house on our property, combined with wall and window location, so as to minimize views (both in and out) of other existing houses and to maintain our privacy. [p5] A good example is that our master bedroom contains a window that is 8 feet wide and goes down to my knees. This window looks out upon our backyard and the wooded area in the back of 3685. For someone on the ground, it's quite private. If a houses are located at the proposed locations, it makes blinds almost a requirement for any semblance of privacy in our previously perfectly-private bedroom. [p6] Due to the inward-tilt-and-turn design of our windows, blinds cannot go on the inside of many of our windows. [p7] Quote provided from Total Air and Furnace and builder upon request [p8] 81-24 [p9] 07-25-16-SWS, JDA policy white paper from 11-03-14 andd again in 2015. In 2016, (07-25-16-SWS) indicates that access to direct solar is important in the 2040 comprehensive plan as well as being included in the checklist of minimum requirements for arden hills and a requirement to protect solar access within the 7-county metro area. [p10] kill tree info . From:Holdenbj24 To:Matthew Bachler Subject:Fwd: Subdivision of 3685 New Brighton Road Date:Wednesday, February 14, 2018 9:02:45 AM Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: Resent-From: <bholden@cityofardenhills.org> From: Julie <jroliverius@hotmail.com> Date: February 13, 2018 at 6:41:01 PM CST To: "dgrant@cityofardenhills.org" <dgrant@cityofardenhills.org>, "davemcclung@comcast.net" <davemcclung@comcast.net>, "sscott@cityofardenhills.org" <sscott@cityofardenhills.org>, "bholden@cityofardenhills.org" <bholden@cityofardenhills.org>, "fholmes@cityofardenhills.org" <fholmes@cityofardenhills.org> Cc: Rich Oliverius <rloliverius@hotmail.com> Subject: Subdivision of 3685 New Brighton Road Dear City Council Members, My husband and I would like to add our voices to those of other neighbors who have concerns regarding the proposed sub-division of 3685 New Brighton Road into 3 home lots. Our initial concern is that this proposal feels like an attempt to take every possible short cut to "meet" minimum property requirements to allow this one-home property to be sub-divided to allow 3 homes. The fact that the current home must be modified by 1) moving their driveway 2) changing the orientation and address of the home 3) removing the deck ; just to meet the minimum side setbacks speaks to over-development of the property. Additionally, there several variances that must be put into place with regards to the existing lift station to allow for 2 additional driveways. In 2007 when this same developer attempted to place 1 additional home on this same property the city engineer raised concerns about how the shrunken easement "may not be sufficient for reconstructing the lift station in the future" [1]. This statement by the engineer proved to be true when the lift station was rebuilt in 2012 and the size of the existing easement had to be increased. If there are driveways running through this easement when work needs to be done on the lift station in the future who would be responsible for covering the cost of having to remove and replace portions of these driveways? If there was not enough space to consider adding 1 driveway in the past how can it make sense to allow the addition of 2 driveways now? There is also a great concern regarding how the existing wetlands would be impacted by the addition of non-permeable space in such close proximity. The addition of these hard spaces will impact the existing water flow, and may lead to additional contamination of the existing wetland areas due to having road salt and other contaminates brought into the area by the driveways that will now run along side. The addition of 2 new drainage ponds will not help to resolve this issue. Another concern is the impact that clear-cutting so many of the existing deciduous trees will have on all of the surrounding properties. This area is currently habitat for a large variety of wildlife. Here again the developer has seemed to attempt to circumvent building codes by including dead and/or diseased trees as trees to be "saved". Additionally, there were trees labeled as "save" that are either too close to the building pads, or that would be impacted because their root systems would be compacted by construction traffic. Old growth trees, such as the oaks on this lot, are much more susceptible to this type of stress and would take years to recover (if they recover at all). Finally, this is the 3rd attempt by this developer, to partition this particular lot. Each proposal has felt like an attempt to get as much money out of his invest as possible without taking into consideration the typical lot sizes and tree cover that are prevalent in this neighborhood. Please consider all of this information and the impact it will have on our neighborhood as you make your decision regarding this proposal. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration, Rich and Julie Oliverius 2029 Thom Court Arden Hills, MN 55112 From:Jeanne To:David Grant; Dave McClung; Steve Scott; Brenda Holden; Fran Holmes; Matthew Bachler Subject:Subdivision at 3685 New Brighton Road Date:Sunday, February 11, 2018 1:04:38 PM We’ve been talking to others in the community and learned of their concerns about more than just this situation. An item of interest other than the "character of the neighborhood” is how can the realtor come in, divide the property and sell it to two prospective buyers before committee and RCWD even come to a decision. An opinion about the wildlife, natural habitat being disrupted is also a concern for this neighborhood, as well as other parts of our community such as the arsenal project. Hopefully local voices can be heard! Has anyone looked at the Rohleder prospectus regarding the acreage of the properties on New Brighton Road (I.e. between City Rd E2 and Thom Drive and beyond to the railroad, each property is at least one acre)? By virtue of moving Tim’s driveway to Thom Drive, does that change the “character” because now it isn’t part of the block of homes facing New Brighton Road, including Mark’s which is certainly an acre or more facing New Brighton Road? (Just a thought without looking into it). Someone told us the property that was the fire station will now become four homes; before you know it, we’ll be condensing our neighborhoods to look like the projected three homes on the eastern end of Thom Drive with a 15 foot variance between homes! The vacation of the easement seems to pose a problem for the neighborhood; a cost to the new homeowners can't possibly be predicted regarding maintenance and repair for unpredictable weather conditions either! We have lived here since 1973 and until recently, there has not been major home construction and changes to this neighborhood. Without knowing what changes will come about regarding wildlife, traffic, taxes, additional costs and complications, to name a few, we are concerned. ONE home in this space might be tolerable but TWO in such close proximity again is troublesome. Attached is a copy of the City of Arden Hills "Vision" , which is what we in the neighborhood appreciate. Let's keep it this way! Ivan and Jeanne Gilbert Approved: February 7, 2018 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2018 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL PLANNING CASES C. Planning Case 17-029; Preliminary Plat, Final plat, Vacation of Easement – 3685 New Brighton Road – Public Hearing City Planner Bachler explained the existing property at 3685 New Brighton Road is approximately 1.9 acres in size and is comprised of a single-family residential dwelling, detached garage, and shed. The dwelling and accessory structures are located towards the eastern side of the property and the one access driveway for the lot is on New Brighton Road near the intersection with Thom Drive. The property as approximately 124 feet on frontage on New Brighton Road and 378 feet of frontage along Thom Drive. City Planner Bachler commented the existing topography of the lot generally slopes west from New Brighton Road to a wetland complex located on the western parcel boundary. This wetland complex covers approximately 0.3 acres of the property and extends off the property to the north and south. The City has a sanitary lift station located on the southern edge of the property approximately in the middle of the lot. The remainder of the lot is heavily wooded. City Planner Bachler reported the applicant has proposed a subdivision of the existing property to create three lots for single-family residential dwellings. The existing dwelling and other improvements would be retained and located on the proposed Lot 3. Two new lots (Lot 1 and Lot 2) would be located to the west of Lot 3 with frontage and driveways on Thom Drive. The existing access driveway for Lot 3 would be located to Thom Drive so that all three parcels are similarly oriented with their principal frontage on Thom Drive. There is a purchase agreement in place for the easterly lot (Lot 2) and the applicant expects construction to begin on this lot immediately if City approval is received. The westerly lot (Lot 1) is being marketed for sale. City Planner Bachler stated in order to support the proposed development, a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement is requested. The easement vacation is needed to vacate a portion of the public utility easement for the City lift station on the property. The development is required to meet Rice Creek Watershed District regulations and the proposed grading plan shows that two basins would be constructed on Lot 1 to capture stormwater runoff from the site and allow it to discharge into the adjacent wetland. Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be graded to direct water flow from these properties to one of the two basins. The site is heavily wooded with 72 significant trees. A Tree Preservation Plan has been provided indicating 22 of these trees would be removed. Replacement tree plantings are proposed as part of the Tree Preservation Plan. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 2 Site Data Land Use Plan: Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single Family Detached Residential Zoning: R-2: Single & Two Family Residential Current Lot Sizes: 83,253 square feet (1.91 acres) Topography: Property slopes east to west approximately 28 feet from New Brighton Road to the wetland complex on the western boundary. City Planner Bachler reviewed the surrounding area, and the Plan Review. Staff offered the following Findings of Fact for review: 1. The property at 3685 New Brighton Road is located in the R-2 – Single and Two-Family Residential Zoning District. 2. The subject property is 83,253 square feet in size with approximately 124 feet on frontage on New Brighton Road and 378 feet of frontage on Thom Drive. 3. The subject property is currently comprised of a single-family residential dwelling, detached garage, and shed. 4. The City has an existing lift station located along the southern line of the subject property along Thom Drive. This lift station is located on private property and the City has a utility easement that permits the City to operate and maintain the lift station. 5. The applicant has requested a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement in order to subdivide the subject property to create three (3) lots for single-family residential dwellings. 6. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision meets the Minimum Subdivision Design Standards included in Section 1130 of the Arden Hills City Code. 7. The park dedication requirement for this application is six percent of the buildable land area in the subdivision or a park dedication fee of $6,500 per lot. Six percent of the development would be 0.11 acres which would not allow for a feasible park area. The park dedication fee of $6,500 per new lot will be applied in this case. 8. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision meets or will be required to meet the Required Improvements for subdivisions included in Section 1140 of the Arden Hills City Code. 9. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision would result in three (3) lots that would conform to the minimum lot area and dimension requirements for the R-2 District. 10. The R-2 District permits residential densities of up to five (5) units per net acre. 11. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision would have a density of approximately 1.86 units per net acre. 12. The proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 could be developed for a single-family residential dwelling and meet the setback, lot coverage, height, and FAR requirements for the R-2 District. 13. The proposed Lot 3 would meet the lot coverage requirements for the R-2 District. 14. The existing dwelling on Lot 3 has a deck that would encroach into the proposed western side yard setback and within a drainage and utility easement. 15. The existing accessory structures on Lot 3 would meet the accessory structure setback requirements for the R-2 District. 16. Based on the submitted Tree Preservation Plan 193.5 caliper inches of new tree plantings are required based on the amount of significant tree caliper inches removed. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 3 17. The applicant has proposed a Landscape Plan that includes 92.5 caliper inches of new tree plantings. 18. Section 1325.055 of the City Code states that replacement trees are required to planted on the same site from which significant trees are removed, unless the City determines that the number of replacement trees exceeds the number of trees that can practically fit on the site. The City may require the additional replacement trees be planted off-site, or a fee in lieu of the off-site plantings may be collected set as the cost of materials and installation, plus ten percent. City Planner Bachler stated Based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff recommends approval of Planning Case 17-029 for a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement at 3685 New Brighton Road. If the Planning Commission votes to recommend approval of Planning Case 17-029, staff is recommending the twenty-two (22) conditions of approval listed below. The first recommended condition is that the Preliminary Plat approval be contingent on the City Council approval of the Vacation of Easement request, which will be reviewed at a public hearing on January 22, 2018. Staff noted the applicant has submitted a letter responding to the recommended conditions on tree replacement requirements and park dedication fees. 1. The Preliminary Plat approval shall be contingent upon City Council approval of the request to vacate a portion of the existing easement for the City lift station on the proposed Lot 2. 2. The Final Plat shall be revised to provide for a twelve (12) foot wide drainage easement to the north of the building pad site on the proposed Lot 2. 3. The Final Plat shall be revised to provide for a drainage easement around Basin 1 on the proposed Lot 1 at an elevation of 891.00, and for a drainage easement around Basin 2 on the proposed Lot 1 at an elevation of 889.00. 4. The project shall be completed in accordance with the submitted plans as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 5. A Development Agreement shall be prepared by the City Attorney and subject to City Council approval. The Development Agreement shall be executed prior to execution of the Final Plat. 6. The Developer shall submit a park dedication fee in the amount of $13,000, subject to the approval of the City Council. The park dedication fee shall be submitted prior to the execution of the Final Plat. 7. The Developer shall provide the City with a copy of the approved Rice Creek Watershed District Permit prior to the execution of the Final Plat by the City. 8. The developer shall file the Final Plat with the Ramsey County Recorder and provide the City with a recorded copy within sixty (60) days of approval. 9. The proposed project may require permits, including, but not limited to, MPCA-NPDES, Rice Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Department of Health, MPCA- Sanitary Sewer Extension, Ramsey County and City Right of Way, and City Grading and Erosion Control permits. Copies of all issued permits shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of any development permits. 10. Final grading and drainage plans shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to the commencement of any construction on the site. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 4 11. The Developer shall be required to meet the requirements as outlined in the memo from WSB & Associates dated December 7, 2017. 12. The signed Maintenance Agreement between the RCWD and the Developer for the drainage basins on Lot 1 shall be provided to the City before the issuance of any development permits. The City shall not be responsible for the maintenance of the drainage basins located on Lot 1. 13. Before construction, grading, or land clearing begins, trees or tree areas that are to be preserved shall be visibly marked and city-approved tree protection fencing or other method shall be installed and maintained at the critical root zones of the trees to be protected. The location of the fencing shall be in conformance with the approved tree preservation plan. 14. A Letter of Credit in the amount of 125 percent of the cost of materials and installation for the required replacement tree plantings shall be provided prior to the issuance of a Grading and Erosion Control permit. The Letter of Cred shall be valid for two full years from the date of installation of the replacements trees. 15. The Developer shall work with the City to find alternative locations for the 101 caliper inches of replacement trees off-site, or a fee in lieu of the replacement tress will be required equaling the cost of materials and installation plus ten percent, as determined by the City Council. 16. Survey monuments shall be placed and installed at all block corners, angle points, points of curves in streets, and at intermediate points as shown on the Final Plat. Pipes or streel rods shall be placed at the corners of each lot. 17. The Developer shall be required to stake metal markers along the drainage easement abutting the infiltration basis and wetland with signs stating the area is a natural vegetation/infiltration area and no dumping is allowed. The design of the signs shall be approved by the City prior to installation. 18. Sewer and water for the subdivision shall be obtained by connections to the City water and sewer systems. Extension of City services shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and all associated costs shall be the responsibility of the developer. 19. A grading as-built and utility as-built plan shall be provided to the City upon completion of grading and utility work. 20. The deck on the existing single-family dwelling at 3685 New Brighton Road shall be removed or modified in order to meet the side yard setback requirement and not encroach on any drainage and utility easement prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 or Lot 2, or the Developer shall be required to submit a cash escrow with the City to ensure the removal of the deck within six (6) months from the approval of the Final Plat. 21. The driveway for the existing single-family dwelling at 3685 New Brighton Road shall be relocated to Thom Drive prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 or Lot 2, or the Developer shall be required to submit a cash escrow with the City to ensure the relocation of the driveway within six (6) months from the approval of the Final Plat. 22. The Developer shall conform to all other City regulations. City Planner Bachler summarized the comments he has received from concerns residents and reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted. 3. Recommend Denial ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 5 4. Table Chair Thompson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Jones asked if the DNR would also have to review this request. City Planner Bachler explained the DNR does not have jurisdiction over this waterway. He provided further comment on the RCWD’s permitting process and noted the applicant was in the process of applying for a permit from this organization. Commissioner Bartel requested further information regarding the easement. City Planner Bachler commented that the City has an easement for operating the lift station on the property and noted that the proposal was to modify the dimensions of the easement. He reported the change to the easement would not impact the operation of the lift station. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka noted this lift station was reconstructed in 2012 and the area requested to be vacated was not part of any necessary construction area. Commissioner Bartel asked what the minimum lot size was for the City of Arden Hills. City Planner Bachler stated the minimum lot size was 11,000 square feet in the R-2 zoning district. Commissioner Lambeth questioned if there had been any thought given to the use of imported fill to make this site buildable and what impact this might have on erosion control. City Planner Bachler indicated he was uncertain as to the amount of fill that would have to be brought in. He recommended the applicant address this question. He noted that a Grading and Erosion Control permit would be required for the proposed subdivision. Chair Thompson opened the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. Chair Thompson invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. Joe Federer, 3695 New Brighton Road, stated he sent a lengthy letter to the City. He described how the proposed request would drastically impact his house. He discussed the privacy in his neighborhood along with the number of trees. He reported he was told in 2012 that the subject property was undevelopable. He commented on the amount of wetland in Tim Horita’s backyard and expressed concern with the development of this property. He provided further comment on the history of the easement on this property. He described the energy efficiency methods that were used in constructing his home noting his windows cannot be covered during the day. He explained with homes being constructed as proposed he would need to have blinds and he would not be able to effectively heat his home. He stated it would cost him $10,000 to $11,000 to install a furnace and an additional expense would be incurred to install blinds on the exterior of his home, which would be another $15,000. He stated he could not afford to make these improvements when the heat for his home was currently free. He believed that the proposed ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 6 homes would be injurious to adjacent tracts. Lastly, he indicated it would not be desirable to add three driveways to Thom Drive. Jewell Perry Martin, 3670 New Brighton Road, stated she lives next to Perry Park. She explained she was born and raised on New Brighton Road. She discussed the quaint neighborhood she lives in and did not support the construction of new homes in the lowland. She believed this area was made to be natural wetlands. She feared the new homes would destroy the wetlands and recommended the Planning Commission deny this request. Andy Berg, 3744 Brighton Way, indicated he opposed this project. He stated the developer was trying to cram three homes onto a property with a wetland. He expressed concern with how the wetland would be impacted. He asked if this development would have funds set aside to protect and maintain the wetland. He commented he was concerned with the amount of trees that would be lost, along with the vacation of the sewer easement. He questioned if the City would be able to adequately maintain the lift station if the easement were decreased in size. He inquired who would be paying for the retaining wall next to the lift station. He noted Thom Drive was not a standard City street as it was only 23 feet wide. He stated he feared how Thom Drive would be impacted by the additional traffic from the three proposed driveways. Ivan Gilbert, 3707 New Brighton Road, stated he understood the three lots met the City’s standards but reported the new homes would change the character of the neighborhood. He explained he has lived in his home for 42 years. He indicated he moved to this area of Arden Hills for the view and openness of the surrounding area. He feared how his neighborhood would be impacted by cramming three homes onto this property. Dick Kotoski, Coldwell Banker Burnett and representative for the applicant, discussed the amount of fill that would be brought onto the property noting it would not be extensive. He anticipated fill would only be placed on the building pads. Commissioner Jones questioned why the applicant had requested the cottonwood trees not be counted as significant trees. Mr. Kotoski, stated in 2013 the City drafted a newsletter article that claimed buckthorn and cottonwoods were a nuisance. He provided the Planning Commission with a copy of this article. He commented on the expense the developer would have to incur to mitigate and replace the trees for this development. He stated most of the trees in the area of basin one were cottonwoods. He understood that these were heavily wooded lots and noted the lots would remain heavily wooded. Chair Thompson requested further information on the RCWD permit. Mr. Kotoski explained the developer has been in talks with them. He stated he did not anticipate any problems in receiving a permit from the watershed district. Chair Thompson asked if the stormwater management plan was in progress. Mr. Kotoski reported this was the case. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 7 Commissioner Jones questioned if this roadway ever floods at the low point. Mr. Kotoski stated he was uncertain but noted a culvert was in place. Commissioner Lambeth inquired if this property was currently for sale and asked if there were any contingencies. Mr. Kotoski commented this was the case and noted he was the broker for this transaction. He reported the sale of the property was contingent upon the lot splits. He noted he had offers already for both lots. Ashley Farmer, resident of New Brighton, stated she was hoping to purchase Lot 2. She explained she and her husband worked for the New Brighton Fire Department and her husband was a police officer. She indicated they both enjoy giving back to their community. She addressed some of the concerns raised by the public. She stated she wanted the same things as these neighbors, which was the privacy, woods and nature. She understood this was a quaint and desirable neighborhood and she hoped to be able to live in this area too. Eric Sandard, 3731 New Brighton Road, stated this was a difficult issue for him as there were many moving parts. He explained he was opposed to this proposed project as it was a money- making scheme. He encouraged the City to not let this sway their decision on the matter. He expressed concern with the great loss of trees as well. He discussed the character of the neighborhood and stated the three proposed houses would be out of character as they would be crammed tightly together. For this reason, he recommended the Commission not support the request as it was not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Brian Jorgensen, 1978 Thom Drive, expressed concern with who would be maintaining the basins and stormwater ponds. Dan Aberg, 3766 Brighton Way North, stated he was concerned with safety along New Brighton Road given the number of homes that have been added to this area of the City. He stated there has been an influx of homes and families, which was making traffic hazardous. He feared how the neighborhood would be impacted by three additional homes. There being no additional comment Chair Thompson closed the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. Commissioner Bartel asked if Thom Drive would ever be expanded or widened. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka stated the City did not have plans to widen this roadway as it serves a small number of homes. She reported the City had 50 feet of right-of-way along this street if the roadway needed to be widened in the future. Chair Thompson questioned if the City had any plans to add trails in this area. City Planner Bachler indicated the City’s Comprehensive Plan includes a future pathway on New Brighton Road, but that this trail had not yet been budgeted for. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 8 Commissioner Jones expressed concern with the number of wholes in this project, noting the plans were incomplete. He stated he would like to have more information regarding the drainage and stormwater runoff plans. He indicated he also did not approve of the removal of the cottonwood trees. He commented he would like to table action on this item until the City had all of the necessary plans in place, and to learn if the watershed district offered the applicant a permit. City Planner Bachler commented staff was not recommending the cottonwood trees be excluded from the tree preservation plan. He reported it was common for Planning Cases to be reviewed by different government entities and noted the Planning Commissions could choose to table this request. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka noted the plans presented to the watershed district were also incomplete and explained there were questions regarding the storm basins. Chair Thompson stated she appreciated the comments from Commissioner Jones and from staff. She commented that because of the topography and the uncertainty on the wetlands she wanted to be assured the watershed district supported this project and that all information was complete. She understood that new developments were not always welcomed, but noted the City had to follow the zoning code. She questioned if staff had considered how the neighborhood would be impacted by three additional driveways. City Planner Bachler stated a traffic study was not completed and was typically only required for larger developments. Commissioner Jones moved and Commissioner Lambeth seconded a motion to table Planning Case 17-029 for a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement at 3685 New Brighton Road to the February 7, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, based on the fact the Planning Commission requires further information on the proposed plans. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Approved: March 7, 2018 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2018 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 17-029; Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, Vacation of Easement – 3685 New Brighton Road – Public Hearing City Planner Bachler stated the Planning Commission held the public hearing for Planning Case 17-029 at their meeting on January 10, 2018. The Planning Commission voted to table this planning case to allow staff and the Rice Creek Watershed District additional time to review the stormwater management plan for the development. Since that time, staff has completed its review of the stormwater management plan and has no additional comments. City Planner Bachler explained the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) has reviewed the plans and granted the project CAPROC status (Conditionally Approved Pending Receipt of Changes) as of January 29, 2018. Site work cannot begin until all pending items are satisfied. This includes providing RCWD with a Declaration for Maintenance of Stormwater Management Facilities that is acceptable to the RCWD engineer and attorney for the onsite stormwater management features. The Maintenance Agreement would between RCWD and the developer, and RCWD will be responsible for monitoring and enforcing the agreement. City Planner Bachler commented the existing property at 3685 New Brighton Road is approximately 1.9 acres in size and is comprised of a single-family residential dwelling, detached garage, and shed. The dwelling and accessory structures are located towards the eastern side of the property and the one access driveway for the lot is on New Brighton Road near the intersection with Thom Drive. The property has approximately 124 feet of frontage on New Brighton Road and 378 feet of frontage along Thom Drive. City Planner Bachler reported the existing topography of the lot generally slopes west from New Brighton Road to a wetland complex located on the western parcel boundary. This wetland complex covers approximately 0.3 acres of the property and extends off the property to the north and south. The City has a sanitary lift station located on the southern edge of the property approximately in the middle of the lot. The remainder of the lot is heavily wooded. City Planner Bachler noted the applicant has proposed a subdivision of the existing property to create three lots for single-family residential dwellings. The existing dwelling and other improvements would be retained and located on the proposed Lot 3. Two new lots (Lot 1 and Lot 2) would be located to the west of Lot 3 with frontage and driveways on Thom Drive. The ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 7, 2018 2 existing access driveway for Lot 3 would be relocated to Thom Drive so that all three parcels are similarly oriented with their principal frontage on Thom Drive. There is a purchase agreement in place for the easterly lot (Lot 2) and the applicant expects construction to begin on this lot immediately if City approval is received. The westerly lot (Lot 1) is being marketed for sale. City Planner Bachler stated in order to support the proposed development, a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement is requested. The easement vacation is needed to vacate a portion of the public utility easement for the City lift station on the property. The development is required to meet Rice Creek Watershed District regulations and the proposed grading plan shows that two basins would be constructed on Lot 1 to capture stormwater runoff from the site and allow it to discharge into the adjacent wetland. Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be graded to direct water flow from these properties to one of the two basins. The site is heavily wooded with 72 significant trees. A Tree Preservation Plan has been provided indicating 22 of these trees would be removed. Replacement tree plantings are proposed as part of the Tree Preservation Plan. Site Data Land Use Plan: Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single Family Detached Residential Zoning: R-2: Single & Two Family Residential Current Lot Sizes: 83,253 square feet (1.91 acres) Topography: Property slopes east to west approximately 28 feet from New Brighton Road to the wetland complex on the western boundary. City Planner Bachler reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and the Variance Evaluation Criteria. City Planner Bachler provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The property at 3685 New Brighton Road is located in the R-2 – Single and Two-Family Residential Zoning District. 2. The subject property is 83,253 square feet in size with approximately 124 feet on frontage on New Brighton Road and 378 feet of frontage on Thom Drive. 3. The subject property is currently comprised of a single-family residential dwelling, detached garage, and shed. 4. The City has an existing lift station located along the southern line of the subject property along Thom Drive. This lift station is located on private property and the City has a utility easement that permits the City to operate and maintain the lift station. 5. The applicant has requested a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement in order to subdivide the subject property to create three (3) lots for single-family residential dwellings. 6. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision meets the Minimum Subdivision Design Standards included in Section 1130 of the Arden Hills City Code. 7. The park dedication requirement for this application is ten percent of the buildable land area in the subdivision or a park dedication fee of $6,500 per lot. Ten percent of the development would be 0.19 acres which would not allow for a feasible park area. The park dedication fee of $6,500 per new lot will be applied in this case. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 7, 2018 3 8. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision meets or will be required to meet the Required Improvements for subdivisions included in Section 1140 of the Arden Hills City Code. 9. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision would result in three (3) lots that would conform to the minimum lot area and dimension requirements for the R-2 District. 10. The R-2 District permits residential densities of up to five (5) units per net acre. 11. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision would have a density of approximately 1.86 units per net acre. 12. The proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 could be developed for a single-family residential dwelling and meet the setback, lot coverage, height, and FAR requirements for the R-2 District. 13. The proposed Lot 3 would meet the lot coverage requirements for the R-2 District. 14. The existing dwelling on Lot 3 has a deck that would encroach into the proposed western side yard setback and within a drainage and utility easement. 15. The existing accessory structures on Lot 3 would meet the accessory structure setback requirements for the R-2 District. 16. Based on the submitted Tree Preservation Plan 193.5 caliper inches of new tree plantings are required based on the amount of significant tree caliper inches removed. 17. The applicant has proposed a Landscape Plan that includes 92.5 caliper inches of new tree plantings. 18. Section 1325.055 of the City Code states that replacement trees are required to planted on the same site from which significant trees are removed, unless the City determines that the number of replacement trees exceeds the number of trees that can practically fit on the site. The City may require the additional replacement trees be planted off-site, or a fee in lieu of the off-site plantings may be collected set as the cost of materials and installation, plus ten percent. City Planner Bachler stated based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff recommends approval of Planning Case 17-029 for a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement at 3685 New Brighton Road. If the Planning Commission votes to recommend approval of Planning Case 17-029, staff is recommending the nineteen (19) conditions of approval listed below. The first recommended condition is that the Preliminary Plat approval be contingent on the City Council approval of the Vacation of Easement request, which will be reviewed at a public hearing on February 26, 2018. It was noted the applicant has submitted a letter responding to the recommended conditions on tree replacement requirements and park dedication fees. 1. The Preliminary Plat approval shall be contingent upon City Council approval of the request to vacate a portion of the existing easement for the City lift station on the proposed Lot 2. 2. The project shall be completed in accordance with the submitted plans as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 3. A Development Agreement shall be prepared by the City Attorney and subject to City Council approval. The Development Agreement shall be executed prior to execution of the Final Plat. 4. The Developer shall submit a park dedication fee in the amount of $13,000, subject to the approval of the City Council. The park dedication fee shall be submitted prior to the execution of the Final Plat. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 7, 2018 4 5. The Developer shall provide the City with a copy of the approved Rice Creek Watershed District Permit prior to the execution of the Final Plat by the City. 6. The developer shall file the Final Plat with the Ramsey County Recorder and provide the City with a recorded copy within sixty (60) days of approval. 7. The proposed project may require permits, including, but not limited to, MPCA-NPDES, Rice Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Department of Health, MPCA- Sanitary Sewer Extension, Ramsey County and City Right of Way, and City Grading and Erosion Control permits. Copies of all issued permits shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of any development permits. 8. Final grading and drainage plans shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to the commencement of any construction on the site. 9. The signed and recorded Maintenance Agreement between the RCWD and the Developer for the stormwater management facilities on the site shall be provided to the City before the issuance of any development permits. The City shall not be responsible for the maintenance of the onsite stormwater management facilities. 10. Before construction, grading, or land clearing begins, trees or tree areas that are to be preserved shall be visibly marked and city-approved tree protection fencing or other method shall be installed and maintained at the critical root zones of the trees to be protected. The location of the fencing shall be in conformance with the approved tree preservation plan. 11. A Letter of Credit in the amount of 125 percent of the cost of materials and installation for the required replacement tree plantings shall be provided prior to the issuance of a Grading and Erosion Control permit. The Letter of Cred shall be valid for two full years from the date of installation of the replacements trees. 12. The Developer shall work with the City to find alternative locations for the 101 caliper inches of replacement trees off-site, or a fee in lieu of the replacement tress will be required equaling the cost of materials and installation plus ten percent, as determined by the City Council. 13. Survey monuments shall be placed and installed at all block corners, angle points, points of curves in streets, and at intermediate points as shown on the Final Plat. Pipes or streel rods shall be placed at the corners of each lot. 14. The Developer shall be required to stake metal markers along the drainage easement abutting the infiltration basis and wetland with signs stating the area is a natural vegetation/infiltration area and no dumping is allowed. The design of the signs shall be approved by the City prior to installation. 15. Sewer and water for the subdivision shall be obtained by connections to the City water and sewer systems. Extension of City services shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and all associated costs shall be the responsibility of the developer. 16. A grading as-built and utility as-built plan shall be provided to the City upon completion of grading and utility work. 17. The deck on the existing single-family dwelling at 3685 New Brighton Road shall be removed or modified in order to meet the side yard setback requirement and not encroach on any drainage and utility easement prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 or Lot 2, or the Developer shall be required to submit a cash escrow with the City to ensure the removal of the deck within six (6) months from the approval of the Final Plat. 18. The driveway for the existing single-family dwelling at 3685 New Brighton Road shall be relocated to Thom Drive prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 or Lot 2, or ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 7, 2018 5 the Developer shall be required to submit a cash escrow with the City to ensure the relocation of the driveway within six (6) months from the approval of the Final Plat. 19. The Developer shall conform to all other City regulations. City Planner Bachler reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted. 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Thompson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Lambeth asked who the developer would be for the project. City Planner Bachler explained the current owner of the property was Timothy Horita and the application was from Mr. Horita and Richard Kotoski, a real estate agent. He indicated Mr. Horita would be the developer. Commissioner Dixon questioned if there were any costs to the City with regard to the lift station. City Planner Bachler stated the City would incur ongoing maintenance costs for the lift station over time. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka reported the developer would be responsible if any damage were to occur to the lift station during construction. She explained the majority of the equipment for the lift station was underground. She stated the concerns regarding the lift station could be addressed in the Development Agreement. Further discussion ensued regarding Rice Creek Watershed approval and maintenance of the stormwater basins. Commissioner Jones questioned if the required maintenance would be done quarterly, every six months or yearly. City Planner Bachler explained the property owner would be required to inspect the basins annually. If this was not done in accordance with the Rice Creek Watershed Permit, notice would be given of the deficiency and steps may be taken to correct the deficiency. In addition, the property owner would be responsible for covering the expenses to maintain the facilities. Chair Thompson opened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. Chair Thompson invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 7, 2018 6 Ivan Gilbert, 3707 New Brighton Road, expressed concern with the fact that the owner of Lot 1 would be responsible for the maintenance of the storm basins. He questioned who would be responsible if this lot never sold. He encouraged the Planning Commission to hear the concerns of the neighbors regarding this development and not approve the request. Joe Federer, 3695 New Brighton Road, commented on how this development would injure his property and home. He indicated he sent a lengthy email to the Commission addressing his concerns. He stated after speaking with a hydrologist, the proposed basins were not put in the correct place, but rather where they would fit. He noted he spoke with the Rice Creek Watershed District as well and explained the cost to maintain this basin would be $30,000 to $50,000 to replace once it fails. He explained these basins are typically owned by municipalities and not homeowners. He discussed the proposed lot sizes and noted they were quite a bit smaller than the adjacent properties. He encouraged the Commission to keep the lot sizes more closely aligned with the existing neighborhood. He commented on the lift station and discussed how the easement location was relocated after recent reconstruction on this structure. He noted 78% of the trees on this property would be removed if this development were to go through and noted the diseased trees should not be considered for salvaged caliper inches. He recommended staff review the tree numbers more closely. Richard Kotoski, Coldwell Banker Burnett, explained he was working with Tim Horita to market and sell his lots. Commissioner Jones questioned how the maintenance agreement for the storm basins would be handled by the developer. Paul Cherne, Pioneer Engineering, stated the maintenance agreement would run with the land. Chair Thompson requested further information on how the storm basins will be graded. Mr. Cherne discussed how the basins would be graded and seeded for the development. He reported these basins were not complicated but would simply be used for holding and discharge to the wetlands. He explained the maintenance for the basin would be quite minimal and would simply involve keeping the pipe free and clear of debris. He noted no street runoff would be managed by the storm basins on Lot 1. Commissioner Lambeth asked if the grading on the property would have a natural grade. Mr. Cherne described how the site would be graded and noted one pipe would be needed for one of the driveways. Commissioner Dixon requested staff summarize the list of variances needed to approve this Planning Case. City Planner Bachler stated this request has no variances and noted all of the lots met the City’s minimum size requirements. Commissioner Dixon asked if the City could successfully replace the lift station in 20 or 50 years with the proposed development in place. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 7, 2018 7 City Planner Bachler explained that staff has reviewed the proposed plans and believes the lift station could be successfully reconstructed with the reduced easement area and the addition of the two new homes. Commissioner Gehrig thanked staff for providing the Commission with additional information from the Rice Creek Watershed District and on the basin maintenance. Commissioner Jones stated the Commission did not really have a leg to stand on in order to deny the request, given the fact the applicant had not requested any variances and the proposed development met all City requirements. Chair Thompson indicated this was the case and noted the final decision for this request would be made by the City Council where the comments and concerns expressed by the neighbors would have to be considered. Commissioner Jones requested that staff take a closer look at the tree preservation plan to address the concern expressed by Mr. Federer this evening. City Planner Bachler discussed the tree preservation plan and noted all diseased trees had been removed from the City’s calculations. He commented further on the bond the City would require for the new tree plantings on the site. He noted if trees that are to be protected are removed or significantly damaged during construction, the City would require the trees to be replaced at a ratio of two caliper inches for every one inch removed. Chair Thompson reported the tree replacement and bond requirement was addressed in Conditions 11 and 12. She stated she supported keeping the cottonwood trees as significant trees within the calculations. Chair Thompson thanked the neighbors for coming forward and voicing their concerns regarding this development. Commissioner Gehrig moved and Commissioner Lambeth seconded a motion to recommend approval of 17-029 for a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement at 3685 New Brighton Road, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, as amended by the nineteen (19) conditions in the February 7, 2018 Report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Page 1 of 1 NEW BUSINESS – 8A MEMORANDUM DATE: March 12, 2018 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator FROM: Pang Silseth, Accounting Analyst SUBJECT: Adopting and Confirming Quarterly Special Assessments for Delinquent Utilities Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: $ $ $ Council Should Consider A motion to approve Resolution 2018-020 certifying delinquent utilities to Ramsey County. Background Delinquent utility amounts are certified to Ramsey County quarterly. A list of utility accounts with a delinquent balance was compiled and notices dated February 6, 2018 were mailed. These customers were informed of their delinquent status and were asked to make payment of the delinquent balance by March 6, 2018. Utility accounts with an unpaid delinquent balance after March 6, 2018 would be certified to Ramsey County to be added to property taxes payable in 2019. The certification amount is equal to the unpaid delinquent balance plus an eight percent penalty. The list of remaining delinquent utility accounts, as of March 8, 2018 is attached. The City will request that Ramsey County levy the delinquent balances against the respective properties. Attachments Attachment A: Resolution No. 2018-020 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2018-020 RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING QUARTERLY SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DELINQUENT UTILITIES WHEREAS, the amount to be specially assessed for DELINQUENT UTILITIES has been duly calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code and Minnesota Statues; and WHEREAS, notices have been duly mailed as required by law; and WHEREAS, said proposed assessments have at all times since their filling been open for public inspection, and an opportunity has been given to all interest parties to present objections if any, to the proposed assessments; and WHEREAS, there were no oral or written objections received. 1. The amounts so calculated and set forth in said notices are hereby levied against the respective parcels of land described therein, and 2. The proposed assessments are hereby adopted and confirmed as special assessments for each of said parcels of land and the assessments together with an additional penalty of eight percent (8%) of the original unpaid amount, inclusive of any previous delinquency penalty, shall be a lien concurrent with general taxes upon such parcel. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota, that the City Administrator be authorized and directed to transmit to the County Auditor a certified duplicate of the assessment roll to be extended upon the property tax lists of the County, and the County Auditor shall collect said special assessments with taxes levied in 2018, payable in 2019: ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018. ____________________________________ ATTEST: DAVID GRANT, MAYOR __________________________________________ JULIE HANSON, CITY CLERK Parcel ID Account No Water Test Water Surface Water Mgmt Standby Sewer Late Penalty Undeveloped Utility Arrears 8% Cert Fee Total Assessment 223023130039 000158-000 1.59 79.37 14.72 8.32 97.69 16.24 0.00 217.93 17.43 235.36 223023340036 000231-000 1.59 80.64 14.72 8.32 158.36 22.71 0.00 286.34 22.91 309.25 223023240275 000290-000 1.59 101.34 19.08 8.32 132.66 21.33 0.00 284.32 22.75 307.07 223023240335 000366-000 1.15 0.00 13.76 5.99 66.75 0.00 0.00 87.65 7.01 94.66 223023240336 000367-000 1.59 44.41 19.08 8.32 92.61 0.00 0.00 166.01 13.28 179.29 223023240326 000375-000 1.59 35.71 19.08 8.32 92.61 12.64 0.00 169.95 13.60 183.55 223023210083 000446-000 1.59 82.00 19.08 8.32 115.39 18.06 0.00 244.44 19.56 264.00 223023210057 000454-000 1.59 38.68 19.08 8.32 92.61 13.16 0.00 173.44 13.88 187.32 223023240171 000533-000 1.59 43.20 19.08 8.32 92.61 14.24 0.00 179.04 14.32 193.36 223023120013 000569-000 1.59 95.93 14.72 8.32 146.10 22.68 0.00 289.34 23.15 312.49 223023340047 000602-000 1.48 2.84 13.74 7.77 86.43 0.00 0.00 112.26 8.98 121.24 223023340009 000739-000 1.27 0.00 11.80 6.68 74.25 0.00 0.00 94.00 7.52 101.52 223023420032 000777-000 1.59 209.92 14.72 8.32 92.61 0.00 0.00 327.16 26.17 353.33 223023120007 000990-000 1.59 70.13 14.72 8.32 99.67 0.00 0.00 194.43 15.55 209.98 283023130051 001065-000 1.59 77.94 14.72 8.32 110.91 17.10 0.00 230.58 18.45 249.03 273023340048 001102-000 0.39 0.00 3.62 2.05 22.78 0.00 0.00 28.84 2.31 31.15 283023120027 001125-000 1.59 53.52 14.72 8.32 92.61 14.64 0.00 185.40 14.83 200.23 283023240018 001154-000 1.59 83.25 14.72 8.32 106.84 16.77 0.00 231.49 18.52 250.01 283023330013 001255-000 1.59 66.50 14.72 8.32 118.40 18.86 0.00 228.39 18.27 246.66 213023140007 001276-000 0.00 0.00 14.72 8.32 92.61 9.25 0.00 124.90 9.99 134.89 163023340015 001285-000 1.59 57.42 14.72 8.32 92.61 14.23 0.00 188.89 15.11 204.00 283023410038 001344-000 1.59 110.98 14.72 8.32 127.53 19.92 0.00 283.06 22.64 305.70 273023340019 001496-000 1.59 115.20 14.72 8.32 96.78 16.22 0.00 252.83 20.23 273.06 333023110036 001551-000 1.59 122.87 14.72 8.32 126.10 26.15 0.00 299.75 23.98 323.73 283023120052 001575-000 1.59 67.36 14.72 8.32 92.61 13.98 0.00 198.58 15.89 214.47 213023410051 001584-000 1.59 28.27 19.08 8.32 92.61 12.93 0.00 162.80 13.02 175.82 343023330050 001671-000 1.59 41.36 14.72 8.32 92.61 13.70 0.00 172.30 13.78 186.08 333023340062 001711-000 1.59 105.43 14.72 8.32 191.10 0.00 0.00 321.16 25.69 346.85 343023410055 001808-000 1.59 136.99 14.72 8.32 203.58 28.92 0.00 394.12 31.53 425.65 333023340019 001880-000 1.59 71.21 14.72 8.32 92.61 15.41 0.00 203.86 16.31 220.17 333023340020 001884-000 1.59 61.35 14.72 8.32 92.61 14.45 0.00 193.04 15.44 208.48 333023340066 001897-000 1.59 89.49 14.72 8.32 108.47 19.39 0.00 241.98 19.36 261.34 343023210016 001920-000 1.59 60.04 14.72 8.32 92.61 13.78 0.00 191.06 15.28 206.34 343023210046 002029-000 1.59 69.99 14.72 8.32 92.61 13.99 0.00 201.22 16.10 217.32 333023240032 002096-000 1.59 122.37 14.72 8.32 127.03 21.76 0.00 295.79 23.66 319.45 343023420053 002098-000 1.59 32.12 14.72 8.32 92.61 0.00 0.00 149.36 11.95 161.31 333023240094 002105-000 1.59 58.38 14.72 8.32 92.61 14.02 0.00 189.64 15.17 204.81 343023440077 002194-000 1.59 46.00 14.72 8.32 92.61 12.89 0.00 176.13 14.09 190.22 343023310015 002293-000 1.59 28.14 14.72 8.32 92.61 11.41 0.00 156.79 12.54 169.33 343023230017 002369-000 1.59 47.11 14.72 8.32 92.61 12.98 0.00 177.33 14.19 191.52 343023140046 002424-000 1.59 45.14 14.72 8.32 92.61 13.22 0.00 175.60 14.05 189.65 333023320003 002476-000 1.59 44.45 14.72 8.32 92.61 12.68 0.00 174.37 13.95 188.32 343023140042 002482-000 1.59 29.68 14.72 8.32 92.61 11.66 0.00 158.58 12.69 171.27 343023140051 002484-000 1.59 76.41 14.72 8.32 92.61 0.00 0.00 193.65 15.49 209.14 333023330034 002487-000 1.59 47.72 14.72 8.32 92.61 13.18 0.00 178.14 14.25 192.39 333023240108 002512-000 1.59 85.02 14.72 8.32 92.61 17.18 0.00 219.44 17.56 237.00 283023310016 002879-000 1.59 106.92 14.72 8.32 98.66 16.63 0.00 246.84 19.75 266.59 213023430025 003225-000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.89 23.60 25.49 2.04 27.53 333023330057 003236-000 1.59 69.72 14.72 8.32 97.50 16.38 0.00 208.23 16.66 224.89 223023240240 003444-000 1.59 41.66 19.08 8.32 92.61 13.07 0.00 176.33 14.11 190.44 343023420040 003660-000 1.59 50.14 14.72 8.32 92.61 13.66 0.00 181.04 14.48 195.52 343023140009 003823-000 1.59 118.52 14.72 8.32 92.61 0.00 0.00 235.76 18.86 254.62 223023240283 003898-000 1.59 50.24 19.08 8.32 92.61 13.84 0.00 185.68 14.85 200.53 223023330015 004713-000 1.59 67.74 14.72 8.32 113.48 17.10 0.00 222.95 17.84 240.79 343023440024 004881-000 1.59 42.77 14.72 8.32 92.61 0.00 0.00 160.01 12.80 172.81 333023320008 005251-000 1.59 72.63 14.72 8.32 192.36 0.00 0.00 289.62 23.17 312.79 343023130010 005286-000 1.59 89.11 14.72 8.32 119.75 0.00 0.00 233.49 18.68 252.17 223023210117 005368-000 1.59 152.57 19.08 8.32 97.06 17.39 0.00 296.01 23.68 319.69 Parcel ID Account No Water Test Water Surface Water Mgmt Standby Sewer Late Penalty Undeveloped Utility Arrears 8% Cert Fee Total Assessment 223023320016 005412-000 1.59 203.19 14.72 8.32 92.61 24.52 0.00 344.95 27.60 372.55 223023240302 006150-000 1.59 45.36 19.08 8.32 92.61 13.23 0.00 180.19 14.42 194.61 343023410005 006399-000 1.59 76.10 14.72 8.32 92.61 0.00 0.00 193.34 15.47 208.81 213023430004 006414-000 1.59 24.47 14.72 8.32 92.61 11.37 0.00 153.08 12.25 165.33 213023410028 006494-000 1.59 45.20 19.08 8.32 92.61 13.24 0.00 180.04 14.40 194.44 223023240248 007082-000 1.59 53.94 19.08 8.32 92.61 14.36 0.00 189.90 15.19 205.09 283023330011 007090-000 1.59 29.91 14.72 8.32 92.61 11.68 0.00 158.83 12.71 171.54 333023310030 007153-000 1.59 93.77 14.72 8.32 115.18 12.44 0.00 246.02 19.68 265.70 223023230016 007235-000 1.59 59.95 14.72 8.32 92.61 14.04 0.00 191.23 15.30 206.53 223023320026 008331-000 1.59 112.27 14.72 8.32 124.81 21.24 0.00 282.95 22.64 305.59 333023310012 009130-000 1.59 60.92 14.72 8.32 92.61 13.84 0.00 192.00 15.36 207.36 213023440014 009246-000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.78 22.28 24.06 1.92 25.98 213023440015 009247-000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.29 28.68 30.97 2.48 33.45 213023440013 009248-000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.42 42.80 46.22 3.70 49.92 223023210033 009299-000 1.59 92.58 19.08 8.32 92.61 0.00 0.00 214.18 17.13 231.31 223023310044 010039-000 1.59 54.22 14.72 8.32 92.61 11.22 0.00 182.68 14.61 197.29 213023140012 011270-000 1.59 317.50 14.72 8.32 92.61 27.76 0.00 462.50 37.00 499.50 343023340013 011406-000 0.90 19.41 8.34 4.71 52.48 0.00 0.00 85.84 6.87 92.71 333023340102 011447-000 0.16 2.49 53.07 0.83 0.10 0.00 0.00 56.65 4.53 61.18 110.29 5,119.18 1,151.61 585.47 7,310.43 888.12 117.36 15,282.46 1,222.60 16,505.06 City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for March12, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 1 of 13 NEW BUSINESS – 8B MEMORANDUM DATE: March 12, 2018 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Dave Perrault, City Administrator FROM: Matthew Bachler, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #17-029 Applicant: Richard Kotoski and Timothy Horita Property Location: 3685 New Brighton Road Request: Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider the Following Options Vacation of Easement Request 1. Approve: Motion to approve Resolution 2018-019 for the Vacation of a Sewer Easement for Arden Hills Lift Station #12 at 3685 New Brighton Road based on the findings of fact and submitted plans in the March 12, 2018 Report to the City Council. 2. Deny: Motion to deny Resolution 2018-019 for the Vacation of a Sewer Easement for Arden Hills Lift Station #12 at 3685 New Brighton Road based on the following findings of fact: findings to deny should specifically reference why the vacation of the easement is inconsistent with the current or future needs for the easement. 3. Table: Motion to table Resolution 2018-019 for the Vacation of a Sewer Easement for Arden Hills Lift Station #12 at 3685 New Brighton Road for the following reasons: a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Preliminary and Final Plat Request 1. Approve with Conditions: Motion to approve Planning Case 17-029 for a Preliminary Plat and Final Plat at 3685 New Brighton Road, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for March12, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 2 of 13 as amended by the nineteen (19) conditions in the March 12, 2018 Report to the City Council. 2. Deny: Motion to deny Planning Case 17-029 for a Preliminary Plat and Final Plat at 3685 New Brighton Road based on the following findings of fact: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. 3. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 17-029 for a Preliminary Plat and Final Plat at 3685 New Brighton Road for the following reasons: a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Overview of Request The existing property at 3685 New Brighton Road is approximately 1.9 acres in size and is comprised of a single-family residential dwelling, detached garage, and shed. The dwelling and accessory structures are located towards the eastern side of the property, and the one access driveway for the lot is on New Brighton Road near the intersection with Thom Drive. The property has approximately 124 feet of frontage on New Brighton Road and 378 feet of frontage along Thom Drive. The topography of the lot generally slopes west from New Brighton Road to a wetland complex located on the western parcel boundary. This wetland area covers approximately 0.3 acres of the property and extends off the property to the north and south. The City has a sanitary lift station located on the southern edge of the property approximately in the middle of the lot. The remainder of the lot is heavily wooded with a large number of significant trees. The applicant has proposed subdividing the existing property to create three lots for single- family residential dwellings. The existing dwelling and other improvements would be retained and located on the proposed Lot 3. Two new lots (Lot 1 and Lot 2) would be located to the west of Lot 3 with frontage and driveways on Thom Drive. The existing access driveway for Lot 3 would be relocated to Thom Drive and the three parcels would be similarly oriented with principal frontage on Thom Drive. All three lots meet the minimum requirements for the R-2 District and no variances are needed for the subdivision proposal. A Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement is being requested for the proposed subdivision. An easement vacation is needed to vacate a portion of the public sewer easement for the City lift station on the property. The City Council will hold the required public hearing for the easement vacation at their regular meeting on March 12, 2018 (Item 7B). The applicant has submitted a development plan set (Attachment D), Final Plat (Attachment E), and proposed easement vacation plan (Attachment F). City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for March12, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 3 of 13 Planning Commission Review The public hearing for Planning Case 17-029 was held at the Planning Commission meeting on January 10, 2018. The Planning Commission voted to table the application at this meeting to allow staff and the Rice Creek Watershed District additional time to review the stormwater management plan for the development. Minutes from the January 10 meeting are included in Attachment M. Staff brought the application forward to the Planning Commission on February 7, 2018 after completing its review of the stormwater management plan and receiving a copy of the CAPROC (Conditionally Approved Pending Receipt of Changes) notice from Rice Creek Watershed District on January 29, 2018 (Attachment J). A full evaluation of the proposal was presented to the Planning Commission on February 7, 2018. The staff report to the Planning Commission on this case is provided in Attachment L. Minutes from the February 7 meeting are included in Attachment N. The following section provides additional information on components of the development that is in addition to the information in the staff report to the Planning Commission. Lift Station Easement Lift Station 12 is located at 3685 New Brighton Road along the southern property line of the lot along Thom Drive. This lift station was originally built in 1970. The pump, wet well, and controls for the lift station were last reconstructed in 2012. As part of the reconstruction in 2012, the force main and electrical services were relocated, which resulted in an overall smaller footprint for the facility. Lift Station 12 is located on private property and an easement has been dedicated to the City that allows for the operation and maintenance of the lift station. The existing easement covers the area of land that includes the pump, wet well, electrical panel, and the driveway section used for City vehicles. Additionally, the easement area includes an 8-inch sanitary sewer line that runs along the west side of the lift station facility. Due to the reconstruction and updates to the lift station in 2012, the easement covers an area larger than the facility footprint and utility lines. The applicant has requested that the City vacate the existing easement for the lift station facility. The Final Plat includes the dedication of a new easement for the lift station covering a small area of land. The easement would be reduced on the eastern side to accommodate a driveway to access the future dwelling on Lot 2. The revised easement area would still include the pump, wet well, electrical panel, driveway, and 8-inch underground sanitary sewer line. The Public Works Director/City Engineer has reviewed the new easement area and determined that it provides adequate area for the City to continue to operate and maintain Lift Station 12. The easement area is sufficient if the City needs to reconstruct the lift station in the future. In the City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for March12, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 4 of 13 event a larger area of land was needed by the City for staging and completing a reconstruction of the lift station, the City would be able to obtain a temporary construction easement from the property owner at that time. The development plans include a retaining wall located on the west side of the lift station and within the proposed public easement. The retaining wall would be approximately 40 linear feet with a maximum height of four feet. The applicant has proposed constructing a retaining wall in this location to accommodate the access driveway on Lot 1. The retaining wall would not be constructed on top of the 8-inch underground sanitary sewer line within the easement and is not expected to impact the operation of the lift station. The draft Development Agreement includes a provision that the developer and/or subsequent property owners would be responsible for the construction and maintenance of this retaining wall. Staff also requested that the City Attorney include a provision in the draft Development Agreement on the use of the lift station paved area during construction. The developer would not be permitted to park vehicles, store materials, or use this paved area in any way during construction of the two new dwellings. Stormwater Management Stormwater Management Plan The City’s Subdivision Ordinance requires that stormwater management plans comply with Rule C – Stormwater Management Plans for the Rice Creek Watershed District Rules. In order to address stormwater management on the site, two rate control basins would be constructed on Lot 1 adjacent to the large wetland area on the western side of the property. Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be graded to direct stormwater runoff from these properties to the two basins. Both City and Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) staff reviewed the stormwater management plan for compliance with Rule C. The following design requirements must be satisfied as part of Rule C of the RCWD rules: • Peak Stormwater Runoff Control: the applicant is required to provide peak rate control for the 2, 10, and 100-year 24-hour rainfall events beyond the existing condition peak runoff by reducing the peak rate to 80 percent or less of the existing condition (Rule C.7). RCWD determined that the submitted information indicates the project would meet the peak runoff control requirements. • Water Quality: the applicant is exempt from the water quality treatment requirements (Rule C.2.g). • Volume Control: the applicant is exempt from the volume control requirements (Rule C.2.g). City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for March12, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 5 of 13 • Low Entry Requirements: for all new residential structures, stormwater basins must be constructed so that the lowest entry elevation is a minimum of two feet above the highest 100-year water level. RCWD determined the highest 100-year water level would be located at 888.8 (Basin 1) and the lowest floor opening is located at 893. Maintenance Agreement for Basins A Maintenance Agreement is required between RCWD and the developer to ensure proper maintenance of the rate control basins. The maintenance requirements would become the responsibility of the future property owner of Lot 1 once the property has been sold. Neither the City nor RCWD would bear the cost of maintaining the basins. The Maintenance Agreement is recorded against the property and runs with the land. The City will require that a copy of the recorded Maintenance Agreement be provided prior to the issuance of development permits. The Maintenance Agreement requires annual inspections of the facilities and reporting to RCWD on conditions and actions taken. If the property owner is not maintaining the facilities, RCWD may take steps to complete the maintenance and invoice the property owner for the costs. The draft Development Agreement includes a provision that if RCWD fails to enforce the Maintenance Agreement, the property owner will allow the City to access the property, complete the necessary maintenance, and assess the cost back to the property owner if necessary. Staff contacted RCWD about the expected maintenance requirements for the type of basin proposed for the site. RCWD commented that the maintenance requirements will primarily be the removal of leaves and other debris to keep the drain pipe clear. Park Dedication The Subdivision Code requires developers of subdivisions to dedicate to the public a reasonable percentage of the tract to be developed. Section 1130.08 Subd. 3 of the Subdivision Ordinance indicates that for a subdivision that results in new dwelling units of less than 2.5 units per acre, the applicant shall dedicate 10 percent of the buildable land area in the subdivision or pay a park development fee of $6,500 per residential unit. Ten percent of the development site would be 0.19 acres which would not allow for a feasible park area. As a recommended condition of approval, the developer would be required to pay a park dedication fee of $6,500 per new single-family residential lot for a total fee of $13,000. The applicant has submitted a letter requesting a reduction in the park dedication fee to a total of $6,500 for both lots (Attachment H). Staff has recommended that a park dedication fee of $13,000 be required, but a decision on the park dedication requirement will need to be determined by the City Council. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for March12, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 6 of 13 Tree Preservation The City adopted a Tree Preservation Ordinance in 2008 to minimize tree and habitat loss during development and to establish mitigation requirements for environmental impacts resulting from tree removal. The Tree Preservation Ordinance does not prohibit the removal of significant trees, but if more than 10 percent of the total caliper inches of significant trees are removed from a site then a developer or property owner is required to provide new tree plantings at a ratio of one new caliper inch for every two caliper inches removed. The City collects a financial surety in the amount of 125 percent of the estimated cost of the replacement trees, which is held for two years after planting to ensure the health of the new trees. If any trees that are identified as being preserved are removed or in a severe state of decline after this two-year period the City can require those trees to be replaced at a ratio of two new caliper inches for every one inch removed. The City may use the required financial surety for the new tree plantings to accomplish this if necessary. A Tree Preservation Plan is required as part of a Preliminary and Final Plat application. The applicant has provided a Tree Preservation Plan and a Landscape Plan (Attachment D). The survey indicates there are 72 significant trees on the sites, and 22 would be removed for the development. The majority (18) of these trees would be on Lot 1 to accommodate the building site and two basins. Four significant trees would be removed from the proposed Lot 2 and no significant trees would be taken down on Lot 3. The 22 significant trees that would be removed total 544 caliper inches. The required mitigation for this removal is 193.5 caliper inches of new tree plantings. Since the Planning Commission meeting on February 7, the applicant has submitted a revised Landscape Plan that increases the number of trees proposed to be planted on the site (Attachment D). The Landscape Plan now includes 53 new trees including 43 evergreen trees, 3 Red Oaks, and 7 Swamp White Oaks. The total number of replacement caliper inches would be 162.6 for a deficiency of 30.9 caliper inches. Caliper Inches Number of Trees Total Existing Significant Trees 1,567 72 10% Permitted Removal 157 -- Proposed Removal 544 22 Trees Preserved 1,037 50 Replacement Trees Required 193.5 -- Replacement Trees Proposed 162.6 53 Replacement Deficiency 30.9 -- The Zoning Code states that replacement trees are required to be planted on the same site from which the significant trees are removed, unless the City determines that the number of replacement trees required exceeds the number of trees that can practically fit on the site. The City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for March12, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 7 of 13 site is heavily wooded and does not provide many areas where replacement trees could be planted. The City may require that the 30.9 caliper inches of additional trees be planted off-site, or a fee in lieu of the off-site plantings may be collected. The fee amount is set as the cost of materials and installation, plus 10 percent. The draft Development Agreement currently includes a provision that a fee in lieu of the plantings be paid before the issuance of development permits. The applicant submitted a letter requesting that all Cottonwood trees on the site not be counted as significant trees because they are a nuisance tree (Attachment H). Seven Cottonwood trees are proposed to be removed on Lot 1. If Cottonwood trees were removed from the Tree Preservation Plan, the required replacement tree amount would be 140 caliper inches and there would be no tree replacement deficiency. The Zoning Code includes the following definition for a significant tree: A tree that is important to the site and the neighborhood character, that is structurally sound and healthy, and that meets at least one of the following standards: • A deciduous hardwood tree that is at least ten (10) caliper inches, including but not limited to, ironwood, catalpa, oak, hard maple, walnut, hickory, birch, black cherry, hackberry, locust and basswood. • A deciduous softwood tree that is at least twelve (12) caliper inches, including but not limited to, cottonwood, poplars/aspen, box elder, willow, silver maple and elm. • A coniferous evergreen tree having foliage on the outermost portion of the branches year- round and which is at least fifteen (15) feet or more in height. • A group of deciduous trees that are at least eight (8) caliper inches or coniferous trees that are at least fifteen (15) feet in height, that provide a buffer or screening along an adjacent public street or between differing land uses. Cottonwood trees that are at least 12 caliper inches in size and are structurally sound and healthy are defined as significant trees under the Zoning Code. Staff would recommend that the Cottonwood trees on the site continue to be counted as significant trees. Traffic and Public Safety For new developments and subdivisions, the City may require that a traffic impact study be completed to ensure that additional traffic resulting from a project will not place an undue strain on the local street network. The proposed subdivision would result in two new single-family residential dwellings on Thom Drive and staff determined that a traffic impact study was not warranted in this case. Staff has reviewed the proposed driveway locations on Thom Drive and does not have concerns at this time regarding their placement. The Zoning Code requires a minimum distance of 20 feet between a driveway on Thom Drive and the intersection with New Brighton Road. The first driveway on Thom Drive is approximately 20 feet from the New Brighton Road intersection. A City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for March12, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 8 of 13 Zoning Permit will be required for this driveway and the distance from New Brighton Road would be verified at that time. Concerns were raised at the Planning Commission meetings about the amount and speed of traffic on New Brighton Road and the lack of adequate facilities for pedestrians. New Brighton Road is a Ramsey County roadway and the County has jurisdiction over the speed limit. The City can request that the County look at the current speed limit and whether a reduction is possible. The City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan shows a future pathway along New Brighton Road between County Road E2 and County Road D. The current 2018-2022 Capital Improvement Plan does not include funding for the completion of any section of this pathway. Any plans for a pathway on New Brighton Road would need to be coordinated with the County. Planning Case History In 2007, the City approved a Final Plat for the Burroughs Lane subdivision in Planning Case #06-038. This subdivision reconfigured the existing lots at 3685 New Brighton Road and 3695 New Brighton Road into four single-family residential lots. Two of the lots would have accessed New Brighton Road and the other two lots Thom Drive. All four lots met the minimum requirements for the R-2 District and no variances were needed. The Final Plat for Burroughs Lane was never recorded with Ramsey County and its approval has expired. Since that time, 3695 New Brighton Road has been redeveloped for a single-family residential dwelling. The current subdivision plan is only comprised of the property at 3685 New Brighton Road. In 2006, the City reviewed a subdivision plan for 2015 Thom Drive in Planning Case #06-005. This property is located further west on Thom Drive from 3685 New Brighton Road. In this case, the applicant proposed to subdivide the property into two single-family residential lots. A variance was requested for one of the lots to be 81 feet in width, which is less than the minimum 85-foot width requirement for interior lots in the R-2 District. Planning Case #06-005 was denied by the City Council because the findings of fact did not support the variance request. Additional Review City Building Official The City’s Building Official has reviewed the plans and has no comments at this time. Public Works Director/City Engineer The Public Works Director/City Engineer and WSB & Associates have reviewed the plans. WSB provided a memo dated December 7, 2017 with items to be addressed (Attachment G). The applicant revised the development plans and the Public Works Director/City Engineer has City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for March12, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 9 of 13 reviewed the plans and provided a memo with their comments (Attachment I). A City Grading and Erosion Control permit will be required for the project. Ramsey County New Brighton Road is a County roadway and plans were provided to Ramsey County for review. The existing right-of-way on New Brighton Road meets the County Master Street Plan. Since the three lots would have access off Thom Drive, a County right-of-way permit would not be required. Lake Johanna Fire Department The Lake Johanna Fire Department has reviewed the plans and does not have any comments at this time. Rice Creek Watershed District The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) is charged with reviewing and approving the stormwater management and drainage plan for the project. RCWD has reviewed the plans and granted the project CAPROC status (Conditionally Approved Pending Receipt of Changes) as of January 29, 2018 (Attachment J). Site work cannot begin until all pending items are satisfied. A copy of the approved RCWD permit will need to be provided before the City signs the Final Plat. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case 17-029 at their meetings on January 10 and February 7, 2018. Draft minutes from the meetings are included in Attachment M and Attachment N. The Planning Commission offers the following findings of fact for consideration: 1. The property at 3685 New Brighton Road is located in the R-2 – Single and Two-Family Residential Zoning District. 2. The subject property is 83,253 square feet in size with approximately 124 feet on frontage on New Brighton Road and 378 feet of frontage on Thom Drive. 3. The subject property is currently comprised of a single-family residential dwelling, detached garage, and shed. 4. The City has an existing lift station located along the southern line of the subject property along Thom Drive. This lift station is located on private property and the City has a utility easement that permits the City to operate and maintain the lift station. 5. The applicant has requested a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement in order to subdivide the subject property to create three (3) lots for single-family residential dwellings. 6. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision meets the Minimum Subdivision Design Standards included in Section 1130 of the Arden Hills City Code. 7. The park dedication requirement for this application is six percent of the buildable land area in the subdivision or a park dedication fee of $6,500 per lot. Six percent of the City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for March12, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 10 of 13 development would be 0.11 acres which would not allow for a feasible park area. The park dedication fee of $6,500 per new lot will be applied in this case. 8. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision meets or will be required to meet the Required Improvements for subdivisions included in Section 1140 of the Arden Hills City Code. 9. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision would result in three (3) lots that would conform to the minimum lot area and dimension requirements for the R-2 District. 10. The R-2 District permits residential densities of up to five (5) units per net acre. 11. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision would have a density of approximately 1.86 units per net acre. 12. The proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 could be developed for a single-family residential dwelling and meet the setback, lot coverage, height, and FAR requirements for the R-2 District. 13. The proposed Lot 3 would meet the lot coverage requirements for the R-2 District. 14. The existing dwelling on Lot 3 has a deck that would encroach into the proposed western side yard setback and within a drainage and utility easement. 15. The existing accessory structures on Lot 3 would meet the accessory structure setback requirements for the R-2 District. 16. Based on the submitted Tree Preservation Plan 193.5 caliper inches of new tree plantings are required based on the amount of significant tree caliper inches removed. 17. The applicant has proposed a Landscape Plan that includes 162.6 caliper inches of new tree plantings. 18. Section 1325.055 of the City Code states that replacement trees are required to planted on the same site from which significant trees are removed, unless the City determines that the number of replacement trees exceeds the number of trees that can practically fit on the site. The City may require the additional replacement trees be planted off-site, or a fee in lieu of the off-site plantings may be collected set as the cost of materials and installation, plus ten percent. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends approval (5-0) of Planning Case 17-029 for a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement at 3685 New Brighton Road, based on the submitted plans and findings of fact in the March 12, 2018 Report to the City Council, as amended by the following nineteen (19) conditions of approval. Since the Planning Commission review of this application on February 7, the applicant has submitted a revised Landscape Plan that includes additional tree plantings and reducing the tree replacement deficiency. Staff has updated the recommended condition number 12 based on this. 1. The Preliminary Plat approval shall be contingent upon City Council approval of the request to vacate a portion of the existing easement for the City lift station on the proposed Lot 2. 2. The project shall be completed in accordance with the submitted plans as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for March12, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 11 of 13 Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 3. A Development Agreement shall be prepared by the City Attorney and subject to City Council approval. The Development Agreement shall be executed prior to execution of the Final Plat. 4. The Developer shall submit a park dedication fee in the amount of $13,000, subject to the approval of the City Council. The park dedication fee shall be submitted prior to the execution of the Final Plat. 5. The Developer shall provide the City with a copy of the approved Rice Creek Watershed District Permit prior to the execution of the Final Plat by the City. 6. The developer shall file the Final Plat with the Ramsey County Recorder and provide the City with a recorded copy within sixty (60) days of approval. 7. The proposed project may require permits, including, but not limited to, MPCA-NPDES, Rice Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Department of Health, MPCA- Sanitary Sewer Extension, Ramsey County and City Right of Way, and City Grading and Erosion Control permits. Copies of all issued permits shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of any development permits. 8. Final grading and drainage plans shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to the commencement of any construction on the site. 9. The signed and recorded Maintenance Agreement between the RCWD and the Developer for the stormwater management facilities on the site shall be provided to the City before the issuance of any development permits. The City shall not be responsible for the maintenance of the onsite stormwater management facilities. 10. Before construction, grading, or land clearing begins, trees or tree areas that are to be preserved shall be visibly marked and city-approved tree protection fencing or other method shall be installed and maintained at the critical root zones of the trees to be protected. The location of the fencing shall be in conformance with the approved tree preservation plan. 11. A Letter of Credit in the amount of 125 percent of the cost of materials and installation for the required replacement tree plantings shall be provided prior to the issuance of a Grading and Erosion Control permit. The Letter of Credit shall be valid for two full years from the date of installation of the replacements trees. 12. The Developer shall work with the City to find alternative locations for the 30.9 caliper inches of replacement trees off-site, or a fee in lieu of the replacement trees will be required equaling the cost of materials and installation plus ten percent, as determined by the City Council. 13. Survey monuments shall be placed and installed at all block corners, angle points, points of curves in streets, and at intermediate points as shown on the Final Plat. Pipes or streel rods shall be placed at the corners of each lot. 14. The Developer shall be required to stake metal markers along the drainage easement abutting the infiltration basins and wetland with signs stating the area is a natural vegetation/infiltration area and no dumping is allowed. The design of the signs shall be approved by the City prior to installation. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for March12, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 12 of 13 15. Sewer and water for the subdivision shall be obtained by connections to the City water and sewer systems. Extension of City services shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and all associated costs shall be the responsibility of the developer. 16. A grading as-built and utility as-built plan shall be provided to the City upon completion of grading and utility work. 17. The deck on the existing single-family dwelling at 3685 New Brighton Road shall be removed or modified in order to meet the side yard setback requirement and not encroach on any drainage and utility easement prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 or Lot 2, or the Developer shall be required to submit a cash escrow with the City to ensure the removal of the deck within six (6) months from the approval of the Final Plat. 18. The driveway for the existing single-family dwelling at 3685 New Brighton Road shall be relocated to Thom Drive prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 or Lot 2, or the Developer shall be required to submit a cash escrow with the City to ensure the relocation of the driveway within six (6) months from the approval of the Final Plat. 19. The Developer shall conform to all other City regulations. Public Comments Staff has received emails from seven residents within the surrounding area. Copies of these emails have been provided in Attachment K. Staff received a phone call from the resident at 2033 Thom Court who expressed concerns about drainage issues. Staff also spoke to the resident at 2027 Thom Drive who had concerns about the proposal. The Planning Commission held the official public hearing for Planning Case 17-029 at their meeting on January 10, 2018. Public comments were also taken at the Planning Commission meeting on February 7, 2018. Minutes from the meetings have been provided in Attachments M and N. The following is a summary of the comments provided at the meetings: • The resident at 3695 New Brighton Road described how the proposed development would affect energy efficiency systems and designs within their home. The resident also expressed concerns about the number of trees removed, the impact on the wetland, the number of additional driveways on Thom Drive, the size of the lots in comparison to other properties in the area, the proposed stormwater management plan, and the easement vacation. • The resident at 3670 New Brighton Road expressed concerns about the impact of the development on the wetland area. • The resident at 3744 Brighton Way expressed concerns about the impact of the development on the wetland area, the number of trees that would be taken down, and the proposed partial vacation of the easement area for the lift station. The resident also had concerns about additional traffic on Thom Drive. • The resident at 3707 New Brighton Road expressed concerns about how the character of the neighborhood would be impacted by the development. The resident also expressed City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for March12, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 13 of 13 concerns about the owner of Lot 1 being responsible for the maintenance of the stormwater basins and what would happen if the lot was never sold. • The resident at 3731 New Brighton Road expressed concerns about the loss of trees and the character of the neighborhood changing. • The resident at 1978 Thom Drive questioned who would be responsible for maintaining the stormwater basins. • The resident at 3766 Brighton Way North stated they were concerned about the amount of traffic on New Brighton Road and recommended a walking path be constructed to help improve safety. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on December 4, 2017. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City was required to act on this request by February 2, 2018 (60 days), unless the City provided the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60 day review period. The applicant was notified on January 11, 2018 of the City’s request for an additional 60-day review period. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must now act on this request by April 3, 2018. The City may, with the consent of the applicant, extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. Attachments A. Land Use Application B. Site and Aerial Maps C. Site Photographs D. Horita Acres Preliminary Plat and Site Plans E. Horita Acres Final Plat F. Depiction and Legal Description for Vacation of Easement G. Memo from WSB & Associates, December 7, 2017 H. Letter from Timothy Horita, January 3, 2018 I. Memo from Public Works Director/City Engineer, dated January 16, 2018 J. Rice Creek Watershed District Status Update, January 29, 2018 K. Public Comments L. Planning Commission Report, February 7, 2018 M. Planning Commission Minutes, January 10, 2018 N. Planning Commission Minutes, February 7, 2018 O. Draft Horita Acres Development Agreement P. Resolution 2018-019 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. © Ramsey County Enterprise GIS Division 600.0 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 1: NAD_1983_HARN_Adj_MN_Ramsey_Feet Feet600.00300.00 3685 New Brighton Road 3,600 Enter Map Description Notes This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. © Ramsey County Enterprise GIS Division 200.0 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 1: NAD_1983_HARN_Adj_MN_Ramsey_Feet Feet200.00100.00 3685 New Brighton Road 1,200 Enter Map Description Notes View of existing dwelling looking towards New Brighton Rd View of lift station looking north and west View of approximate location of Lot 1 View of wetland 3685 New Brighton Road Existing Conditions IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE SUMMARY LOT PRO. IMP. (SQFT)COVERAGE 1 5251 12.5% 2 4610 + 845 29.4% 3 4595 21.4% (LIFT STATION) LOCATION MAP 01-ENG-117282-SHEET-COVR 1 PRELIMINARY PLAT/EXISTING COND. GRADING PLANSITE/UTILITY PLAN LEGEND SHEETCOVER SHEETSHEET INDEX1.2. 4. 5.6. HORITA ACRES PRELIMINARY PLAT & SITE PLANS ARDEN HILLS MINNESOTA COVER SHEET Know what's below. before you dig.Call R I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 7OF JMM Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2017 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS HORITA ACRES ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA 11-08-2017 PJC/JMM 19860 11-08-2017 Paul J. Cherne HORITA 3685 NEW BRIGHTON ROAD ARDEN HILLS, 55112 1. 11-29-17 City Comments2. 01-10-18 City Comments 7.DETAILS 3. EROSION CONTROL PLAN L1.LANDSCAPE PLANT1.TREE PRESERVATION PLAN 01-ENG-117282-SHEET-LEGEND 2LEGEND SHEET I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 7OF JMM Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2017 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS HORITA ACRES ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA 11-08-2017 PJC/JMM 19860 11-08-2017 Paul J. Cherne HORITA 3685 NEW BRIGHTON ROAD ARDEN HILLS, 55112 1. 11-29-17 City Comments2. 01-10-18 City Comments 01-ENG-117282-SHEET-EXCOND 3PRELIMINAY PLAT & EXISTING CONDITIONS c 7OF JMM Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2017 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota 42299 Peter J. Hawkinson HORITA ACRES ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA 11-08-2017 PJC/JMM 11-08-2017 HORITA 3685 NEW BRIGHTON ROAD ARDEN HILLS, 55112 1. 11-29-17 City Comments2. 01-10-18 City Comments 01-ENG-117282-SHEET-SITE-UTIL 4SITE / UTILITY PLANI hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 7OF JMM Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2017 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS HORITA ACRES ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA 11-08-2017 PJC/JMM 19860 11-08-2017 Paul J. Cherne HORITA 3685 NEW BRIGHTON ROAD ARDEN HILLS, 55112 1. 11-29-17 City Comments2. 01-10-18 City Comments 01-ENG-117282-SHEET-GRAD 5GRADING PLAN I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 7OF JMM Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2017 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS HORITA ACRES ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA 11-08-2017 PJC/JMM 19860 11-08-2017 Paul J. Cherne HORITA 3685 NEW BRIGHTON ROAD ARDEN HILLS, 55112 1. 11-29-17 City Comments2. 01-10-18 City Comments LEGEND 01-ENG-117282-SHEET-EROS 6EROSION CONTROL PLAN I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 7OF JMM Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2017 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS HORITA ACRES ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA 11-08-2017 PJC/JMM 19860 11-08-2017 Paul J. Cherne HORITA 3685 NEW BRIGHTON ROAD ARDEN HILLS, 55112 1. 11-29-17 City Comments2. 01-10-18 City Comments · · · · · · 01-ENG-117282-SHEET-DTLS 7DETAILS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 7OF JMM Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2017 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS HORITA ACRES ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA 11-08-2017 PJC/JMM 19860 11-08-2017 Paul J. Cherne HORITA 3685 NEW BRIGHTON ROAD ARDEN HILLS, 55112 1. 11-29-17 City Comments2. 01-10-18 City Comments 00-PLAN-117282-SHEET-LAND L1LANDSCAPE PLAN c OF Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2017 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763 Jennifer L. Thompson HORITA ACRES ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA 11-08-2017 HORITA 3685 NEW BRIGHTON ROAD ARDEN HILLS, 55112 1. 11-29-17 City Comments2. 01-10-18 City Comments 1TML TML 3. 02-27-18 Landscape Plan Revisions 00-PLAN-117282-SHEET-TREE T1TREE PRESERVATION PLAN c OF Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2017 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763 Jennifer L. Thompson HORITA ACRES ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA 11-08-2017 HORITA 3685 NEW BRIGHTON ROAD ARDEN HILLS, 55112 1. 11-29-17 City Comments 1TML TML CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS S h e e t Description Sketch for:1 o f 1 c 2015 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Tim Horita CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 2422 Enterprise Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 (651) 681-1914 www.pioneereng.comFax: 681-9488 Cad File: 117282-EASEMENT VACATE.dwg Folder #: 4378 Drawn by:TSS 701 Xenia Avenue South | Suite 300 | Minneapolis, MN 55416 | (763) 541-4800 Building a legacy – your legacy. Equal Opportunity Employer | wsbeng.com K:\03455-000\Admin\Docs\Plan Reviews\2017-12-07 Horita Acres\3455-000 Horita Acres Review Submittal 171207.docx Memorandum To: Sue Polka – Arden Hills Public Works Director / City Engineer From: Matt Schulz – WSB Date: December 7, 2017 Re: Horita Acres Stormwater Review Comments WSB Project No. 03455-000 WSB has reviewed the documents provided by Pioneer Engineering P.A. on 12/04/17 for the Horita Acres Project. Documents reviewed include: · Storm Water Management Plan dated 11/03/17, Revised 11/29/17 · Full Plan Set Dated 11/08/17 We offer the following comments based on review of the above documents. 1. General a. Please note, a permit will need obtained from the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) for Rule D and Rule F. Additional RCWD Rules may apply. Verify with RCWD as necessary. b. Provide a maintenance agreement to ensure that the BMPs will be inspected and maintained long term. The agreement at a minimum shall include the following: i. Who will conduct maintenance ii. Inspection frequency. iii. Maintenance necessary to ensure effective performance. iv. Maintenance intervals. v. Removal of settled materials. vi. Maintenance of vegetation. 2. Plat a. Drainage easements shall be at least twelve feet wide per City Code 1130.05. Drainage easement to the north of lot two is shown as a 10’ easement. Please revise. b. Ponding easements shall be taken to two feet above the emergency overflow elevation per City Code 1130.05. On this site that equates to elevation 891.00 around Pond 1 and 889.00 around Pond 2. Easement line around ponding areas appear to be lower that this elevation on the proposed grading plan. Please revise. 3. Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) a. The drainage areas listed in Table in section III.A of the SWMP do not match the drainage areas in the HydroCAD report. Please correct the discrepancy or explain the difference. Example, 1.636 acres total in HydroCAD and 1.879 acres total in table. This comment was also made on previous submittal. b. The site appears to receive off site drainage from New Brighton Road and Thom Drive based on the existing contours in the drainage area maps. Please verify and revise the proposed and existing drainage areas as necessary to account for all offsite drainage tributary to the site and Pond 1. This comment was also made on previous submittal. Horita Acres Review Comments December 7, 2017 Page 2 K:\03455-000\Admin\Docs\Plan Reviews\2017-12-07 Horita Acres\3455-000 Horita Acres Review Submittal 171207.docx 4. Stormwater, Grading, and Drainage a. We recommend that the outlet control structures be revised to use larger orifices. The proposed outlet control structures will likely clog with debris at the 1” and 1.5” orifices without sufficient protection, especially when the orifice is located at the pond invert. A trash grate should be installed. Efforts should be made to protect the low orifices from ice formation. If clogging of the small orifices occurs the ponds will fill with stormwater which will degrade the aesthetics of the pond and attract mosquitos and other insects. The MPCA stormwater manual highly recommends a minimum orifice of 3” when in tandem using an external trash rack and minimum of 1” when using an internal orifice protection. If a small orifice is utilized, the basin should be modeled assuming this orifice is clogged to verify that the stormwater basin still meets freeboard and peak rate discharge requirements. b. We recommend installing a type of trash rack, grate, or end treatment over the top of the 8” riser to prevent clogging of the outlet device from debris and floatables. c. We recommend sloping the stormwater basins to provide adequate overland drainage to the outlet device. This will prevent the creation of small ponding depressions which will degrade the aesthetics of the ponds. 5. Storm Sewer a. Culvert analysis in HydroCAD shows the same drainage area parameters for both drainage areas routed to the culvert. Please verify drainage areas are correct, revise as necessary, and verify culvert is still sized appropriately. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Matt Schulz Highway Drainage Engineer (612) 322-2124 mschulz@wsbeng.com Page 1 of 1 DATE: January 16, 2018 TO: Matthew Bachler, Senior Planner FROM: Sue Polka, Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Horita Acres – Preliminary Plat/Easement Vacation I have completed a review of the subject plans and have the following comments: 1. A City grading and erosion control permit will be required. 2. Rice Creek Watershed District approval will be required prior to issuance of City permits. 3. All other comments have been addressed. MEMORANDUM Rice Creek Watershed District Administrative Permit Application Status Update THIS IS NOT A PERMIT Permit Application Number: 17-121 Applicant: Timothy Horita Project Location: 3685 New Brighton Road Application Received: 12/05/2017 Date of Administrative Action: 01/29/2018 Current Status:Conditionally Approved Pending Receipt Of Changes(CAPROC) CAPROC Expiration Date: 01/29/2019 Please note the following: Status- Pursuant to RCWD Resolution 2009-09,this application is being granted CAPROC status administratively after staff review and notice to the RCWD Board of Managers.. You are not authorized to begin site work until all pending items are satisfied as enumerated in the attached Staff Review. If the project is initiated without obtaining an RCWD Permit, it will be stopped by the District Inspector until the permit is obtained. You have 12 months from the Date of Administrative Action to submit/satisfy all pending items and receive a permit.Otherwise the conditional approval expires and a new application, materials and fee will need to be submitted to the RCWD for consideration. To satisfy pending items,applicants must submit two(2) paper copies of all submittal items to the District with the exception of plan sheets. Plan sheets must include 1 full-sized copy, and 1 reduced size(11 by 17 inches or smaller) or an electronic file. Surety-for surety amounts of$5000 or less,the applicant must submit a check made out to the RCWD. For surety amounts over$5000,the applicant must provide the first$5000 in the form of a check and has the option of providing the remainder of the surety amount in the form of a check, Letter of Credit(see website for template) or performance bond. Easements— if an easement is required per your list of pending items in the attached Engineer's Report,then the legal descriptions of these easements must be prepared by the applicant, reviewed and approved by the District,and then submitted to the County Recorder's Office for recording. An easement template is on the District's website. Wetland Conservation Act Forms- For projects involving wetland impacts and replacement,State law requires the preparation and recording of Wetland Legal Forms for replacement wetlands. Instructions for completing and recording these forms are included in the wetland legal forms document on the website. The wetland legal documents require the applicant to prepare legal descriptions of all replacement wetlands. These legal descriptions and the forms must be reviewed and approved by the District prior to submittal to the County Recorder's Office for recording. Stormwater Operation &Maintenance- For projects involving stormwater ponds and infiltration features,applicants must complete and record a Stormwater Operation and Maintenance Agreement(see website for template) for these features unless a City assumes the maintenance responsibilities of these features as indicated in a letter to the District. An exhibit and/or legal description that clearly delineates and identifies all stormwater and infiltration features must accompany the stormwater operation and maintenance agreement. A draft of this agreement with accompanying exhibit must be submitted to the District for review and approval prior to submission to the County Recorder's office. Authorized Signature: 6Q Phil Belfiori,Admi strator Date of Issuance: 01/29/2018 cc: City of Arden Hills;Timothy Horita, 3685 New Brighton Road,Arden Hills,MN 55112 timhorita@yahoo.com;Jerry Carlson (Lee Homes),409 lake Ave,White Bear Lake,MN 55110 leehomescorp@gmail.com; Paul Cherne (Pioneer Engineering, PA), 2422 Enterprise Drive, Mendota Heights,MN 55120 pcherne@pioneereng.com; Richard Kotoski (CB Burnet), 100 Village Center Dr., North Oaks,MN 55113 rkotoski@CBburnet.com mo R Cvur D OFFICIAL DOCUMENT:The Recommendations and Stipulations below are incorporated as bindingf, RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT terms of RCWD Permit 17-121 issued by the Administrator under delegated authority of the RCWD Board of Managers. Permit Application Number: 17-121 Permit Project Name: Horita Acres Applicant: Consultant: Timothy Horita Richard Kotoski 3685 New Brighton Road CB Burnet Arden Hills, MN 55112 100 Village Center Dr. Ph: 612-986-8549 North Oaks, MN 55113 timhorita@yahoo.com Ph: 651-486-5507 Fx: 651-483-3681 rkotoski@cbburnet.com Paul Cherne Pioneer Engineering pcherne(a pioneereng.com 2422 Enterprise Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 651-681-1914 Prosect Name: Horita Acres Purpose: FSD— Final Site Drainage, LD—Land Development; splitting lots, 1 lot into 3 lots Site Size:Site size is 1.88 acres, existing and proposed impervious area is 0.12 ±acres and 0.34± acres, respectively Location: 3685 New Brighton Road, Arden Hills T-R-S: SW1/4 Section 28, T3ON, R23W District Rule: C, D Recommendations: CAPROC It is recommended that this Permit Application be given Conditional Approval Pending Receipt of Changes (CAPROC) and outstanding items related to the following items. Rule D— Erosion and Sediment Control 1. Submit the following information per Rule D.4: c) Name, address, email, and phone number of party responsible for maintenance of all erosion and sediment control measures. Administrative Rice Creek Watershed District Page 1 of 4 1/31/2018 RCWD Permit Number 17-121 2. The applicant must submit a Draft Declaration for Maintenance of Stormwater Management Facilities acceptable to District engineer and attorney for proposed onsite stormwater management features. 3. The applicant must provide an attested copy of any and all signed and notarized legal document(s)from the County Recorder. Applicant may wish to contact the County Recorder to determine recordation requirements prior to recordation 4. The applicant must submit the appropriate cash surety amount of$1,000 along with an executed escrow agreement acceptable to the District. If the applicant desires an original copy for their records, then two original signed escrow agreements should be submitted. Stipulations: The permit will be issued with the following stipulations as conditions of the permit. By accepting the permit, applicant agrees to these stipulations 1. An as-built survey of all stormwater BMPs (ponds, rain gardens, trenches, swales, etc.) is to be submitted to the District for verification of compliance with the approved plans before return of the surety. Exhibits: 1. Revised project plans dated 1-10-2018 (revisions date) and received 1-11-2018, including cover sheet, legend, preliminary plat/existing conditions, site utility plan, grading plan, erosion control plan, details, landscape plan, and tree preservation plan 2. Revised Stormwater Calculations, dated 1-10-2018 and received 1-12-2018, containing narrative, soils information, drainage maps, HydroCAD report for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year rainfall events for proposed and existing conditions. 3. Braun Intertec Boring logs dated 6-1-2006 and received 1-11-2018 4. Earth Science Testing boring logs (for home locations) dated 11-8-2017 and received 1-11-2018 5. Proposed plat including drainage and utility easement information undated and received 1-11- 2018 6. Revised project plans dated 11-29-2017 (revision date) and received 12-12-2017, including cover sheet, legend, preliminary plat/existing conditions, site utility plan, grading plan, erosion control plan, details, landscape plan, and tree preservation plan 7. Revised Stormwater Calculations, dated 11-29-2017 and received 12-08-2017, containing narrative, soils information, drainage maps, HydroCAD report for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100- year rainfall events for proposed and existing conditions. 8. Project plans dated 11-08-2017 and received 11-16-2017 including cover sheet, legend, preliminary plat/existing conditions, site utility plan, grading plan, erosion control plan, details, landscape plan, and tree preservation plan. 9. Stormwater Calculations, dated 11-03-2017 and received 11-16-2017, containing narrative, drainage maps, HydroCAD report for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year rainfall events for proposed and existing conditions. 10. Permit application dated 12-04-2017 and received 12-05-2017. Rice Creek Watershed District Page 2 of 4 1/31/2018 RCWD Permit Number 17-121 11. Application fee dated 12-04-17 and received 12-05-17. 12. RCWD Review File#17-208R Findings: 1. Description—This project proposes the subdivision of an existing 1.88±acre lot into 3 total lots. An existing home located on the lot will remain, while 2 additional lots with single family homes will be created. The existing and proposed impervious area is 0.12 ± acres and 0.34 ± acres, respectively. Approximately 0.75 ± acre of land will be disturbed. Flows onsite will be directed into two rate control basins, before discharging to a large public water wetland (Farrel's wetland), then ultimately Long Lake, the Resource of Concern. The applicant has submitted a$100 application fee which correspond to less than 2.5 acres of land disturbance. 2. Stormwater—The applicant is proposing the following rate control BMPs as described below for the project: Proposed BMP Volume Required EOF Description Location Filtration Basin 1 NW Corner of Site Rate Control Only 887.0 Filtration Basin 2 West Side of Site Rate Control Only 889.0 Per Rule C.2(g), the applicant is exempt from the water quality treatment requirement, however the filtration basins are required to meet the rate control requirements of C.7. Based off the submitted geotechnical and soil survey information, the soils on site are primarily loamy fine sands and peat(HSG B/D). Due to the proximity of the adjacent wetland and the groundwater elevation (883.5), infiltration is not considered feasible onsite, thus filtration is acceptable to meet the rate control requirements. The applicant will wrap the drain tile with a course filter aggregate before discharging through an orifice and into the adjacent wetland. Emergency overflow spillways will be stabilized with seed and erosion control blanket. 2-year(cfs) 10-year(cfs) 100-year(cfs) Drainage Area Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed West to Public Water Wetland 0.62 0.42 2.17 1.72 6.91 5.15 Totals 0.62 0.42 2.17 1.72 6.91 5.15 80%of Existing 0.50 1.74 5.53 The project is located within the Flood Management Zone. The submitted information indicates that the project will not increase peak runoff leaving the site. The highest 100-year water level is located at 888.8 (Basin 1) and the lowest floor opening is located at 893, thus meeting the 2-foot freeboard requirement of Rule C.9 (g). The applicant has met the bounce and inundation hydroperiod standards of Rule C.B. Rice Creek Watershed District Page 3 of 4 1/31/2018 RCWD Permit Number 17-121 3. Wetlands—Wetlands are located on site; however, no wetland impacts are proposed. The applicant submitted a wetland delineation dated 10-16-2017 and received on 10-20-2017 under RCWD permit file#17-208R. The District issued a WCA Notice of Decision on 11-22-2017. 4. Floodplain—The site is not in a regulatory floodplain. 5. Erosion Control— Proposed sediment and erosion control measures include silt fence, rock construction entrance, bio-logs and riprap. Basins will be blanketed and seeded. Turf areas will be stabilized with seed and mulch. Less than 1 acre of soil will be disturbed, thus an NPDES permit is not required. The information listed under the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Recommendations needs to be submitted. Otherwise, the project complies with RCWD Rule D requirements. 6. Documenting Easements and Maintenance Obligations— Draft drainage and utility easements are shown on the plan and a proposed plat has been provided. The future homeowner will be required to maintain the basins onsite. Applicant must provide a draft maintenance declaration for stormwater features and receipt showing recordation once approved. 7. Previous Permit Information—RCWD Review File#17-208R relates to the wetland delineation and associated Wetland Notice of Decision for the site; RCWD Permit File#06-036 was for a previous proposed subdivision project that was never completed. Rice Creek Watershed District Page 4 of 4 1/31/2018 From:Tim Graff To:Matthew Bachler Subject:PC #17-029 Date:Thursday, January 04, 2018 9:18:36 PM Dear Mr. Bachler, I am replying to you in regards to the upcoming public hearing for the property at 3685 New Brighton Rd on January 22. I have several concerns with this proposal and a few questions. The first question would be what does a partial vacation of the sanitary lift station mean. I would understand that as the city would be giving up our public easement so applicant can divide up his lot. In doing so who would absorb the costs involved with relocation of the lift station and what would said costs be? It looks as though there would be a lot of cost incurred with the removal and replacement of water lines and water drainage. My utmost concern with doing this and building on that land would be the effects this would have on the wetlands behind that property and my property. It is very important to my family that this is preserved at all cost. If any of these costs would be past on to Arden Hills residents, I feel there would be better use of these monies. For example, a path could be built so that the 30+ kids in the neighborhood could safely access Perry Park along the high speed New Brighton Rd. My family has been in this neighborhood for 2.5 years now and the appeal of our lot on the west side of New Brighton Rd was the size and the nature. I feel dividing up these amazing lots only to cram more houses in takes the uniqueness and appeal out of it for future buyers of lots and especially for current residents. Please advise me on defining partial vacation and what cost my neighbors and I would incur with the proposed building. I would also like to know the environmental impacts of any plans. Thanks, Tim Graff Sent from my iPhone From:BRIAN JORGENSON To:Matthew Bachler; Brenda Holden; David Grant; Fran Holmes; Dave McClung; Steve Scott; Pellegrin, Vince Subject:planning case #17-029 Date:Tuesday, January 09, 2018 8:37:53 PM Matthew Jane and I received the information from the city regarding the sub division of the lot at 3685 Thom drive. After reading the available information I wanted to let you know that I do have some concerns about how this may affect our neighborhood. It seems like it may be out of the character of the area to try to shoehorn 3 lots with homes on that parcel of land. Most of the lots on Thom are larger than what is to platted out at 3685 Thom. What makes it more problematic is it is part of the RCWD drainage system that involves our very important wetlands. That drainage ditch has been in place and effective for a very long time. This area is blessed with an abundance of wildlife. I have seen deer and foxes, turkey, possum and other land animals. I have also enjoyed eagles, falcons, owls,ducks,woodpeckers, hummingbirds, and dragon flies who visit or live in this area. There is also a variety of trees and plants that are unique to the area. Any time we over- develop an area we lose a little bit of what makes Arden Hills a special place to live. Jane and I want to share the beauty of our neighborhood with new neighbors but feel that 1 home site may work better at that location. That would keep more of the area natural with less need to cut down so many trees. One concern I have is the drainage ditch and holding ponds and who will maintain it ? That water flows through the railroad easement and across Thom drive north into that lot.I am sure that there are city employees there who remember that several years ago it became blocked raising the water levels substantially. These last few years have seen a lot of development in similar areas, for example, Katie lane, the E2 library site and Thom. We have lost a lot of open areas. Our 2008 build on Thom Drive involved a similar situation where 1 large lot was divide into 3 lots, Same developer as 3685, We had issues with the way the lots were graded and still have some concerns about a current build going up west of our property. Also, In hindsite, the decision to sub divide the existing lot at 1998 where we built, into 3 lots instead of 2 was also non conforming and resulted in some justifiably unhappy neighbors. It would be wrong to make the same mistake a second time. Our hopes are that, in spite of our strong opposition to the proposed plan , that if approved the city will be very diligent in making sure all the building regulations are followed,including the replanting of trees at that location and full payment of the "park dedication " fee. To sum it up. We feel that having 3 homes on that divided lot is detrimental and non- conforming to our neighborhood. There are risks involved with the upkeep and maintenance of the wetlands that are part of RCWD. Also a vacation of any easement sets a bad precedent for any future requests for any easement vacation. There is no way to deny the fact that the plan poses a significant risk to to the drainage and utility easements in place there. Brian and Jane Jorgenson 1978 Thom Drive Arden Hills From:Sean O"Ryan To:Matthew Bachler Subject:Planning Case #17-029 Date:Monday, January 08, 2018 3:34:06 PM Mr. Bachler, I’ve got concerns regarding the subdivision of 3685 New Brighton Road (Planning Case #17- 029). The largest concern of mine is the owner is planning to subdivide the lot into three lots, and then move out. If the owner were to stick around after the fact, it wouldn’t feel as much like the neighbors are getting a raw deal. Outside of what appears to be a cash grab, the loss of trees changing the landscape of the area, and the Drainage Engineer’s concerns about the water pooling at the drainage ditches gives me concern for the Horita Acres plan going forward. Thanks for your time, Sean O’Ryan 3724 Brighton Way Arden Hills, MN 55112 From:Holdenbj24 To:Matthew Bachler Subject:Fwd: Opposed to the proposed subdivision at 3685 New Brighton Rd Date:Saturday, February 10, 2018 4:14:38 PM Attachments:image.png image.png image.png image.png image.png Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: Resent-From: <bholden@cityofardenhills.org> From: Eric Sanford <ericsanford@gmail.com> Date: February 9, 2018 at 4:23:10 PM CST To: bholden@cityofardenhills.org Subject: Opposed to the proposed subdivision at 3685 New Brighton Rd Councilmember Holden- I'm writing to express my strong opposition to the subdivision of 3685 New Brighton Rd being proposed by developer Richard Kotoski. Kotoski has coerced owner Tim Horita, who is moving away from the city, to allow him to ramrod this proposal through for no other reason than a tidy profit for all involved. The proposal is a poorer, sketchier rehash of the same proposal he attempted in 2006, which was rejected by the planning commission for numerous reasons. How he's managed to push this worse one through the planning commission this time around I hesitate to ask. There are many environmental, policy, and cost problems with the plan that cannot be ignored, which are outlined in the thorough research done by our neighbor Joe Federer and attached to the bottom of this email. My main concern is the over-dense development and tree removal, which destroys the character of the neighborhood and Arden Hills. This character is the first and last reason we moved here, and to see it lost through this over-dense development trend would be saddening and discouraging. The fact that this type of development is "by the books" here leads me to believe we need to revise city ordinance to prevent this, most likely via increasing side yard setbacks or something of the sort. I will pursue this, but would like you to consider rejecting the plan for 3685 New Brighton at the meeting Feb 26. I would also urge you to read Mr Federer's findings below. They are compelling. This is why we live in this neighborhood (representative section of New Brighton Rd): NOT THIS (the overdeveloped eyesore at NBR & E2, former site of the library): Thank you! Eric & Molly Sanford 3731 New Brighton Rd ===================================== Research complied by Joe Federer: Wetland protection: The wetland protection plan in inadequate. It seems to be putting more water directly into the wetland and does not include a viable maintenance plan. First - by the submitted plans own hydrologic flow analysis, water that hits the lot 1 driveway will run down a steeply graded driveway (7.7 and 8.3 grade on driveway) away from the stormwater storage basin and then goes down an even steeper slope (steepened to allow for driveway) unfettered into wetland. I showed the plans to a hydrologist that specializes in groundwater-surface water interaction at a federal science agency and he indicates that almost none of the water that hits the driveways would infiltrate and none of it would make it into the southerly basin and, instead, the water would flow south of the basin "creating erosion and potential water quality issues and additional sedimentation in the wetland" for lot 1 and added flow to the street. He further notes that depending on the Lot 1 house design, water hitting that roof would flow unimpeded down into the extreme slope[11] wetland or onto the driveway (which we just noted, does not direct water to the basins). He notes the basins, particularly the southern one, are simply not located in the right places and appear to be crammed into the available location rather than an effective location (this statement further supported by the RCWD comments). I contacted RCWD directly about the appeal process or if they took the 2012 steepening of the grade into account but have not hear back. Secondly, and equally (more?) concerning: stormwater basins require maintenance. The city has stated multiple times they are not responsible for maintenance; the plan says the city is not responsible for maintenance; the RCWD simply says "there must BE a plan" but does not indicate what it is. What wording is being included to ensure they are maintained and inspected properly and what penalty is there for not doing so? The original proposed plan involves cutting the grass, removing sediment, removing debris, and inspecting (now that it's a proposed filtration basin there should be additional maintenance steps than on the original plan). There are other items like doing inspections themselves, logging said inspections with RCWD, and reporting maintenance tasks to the RCWD. As Mr. Bachler read at the Feb 7 meeting, some of the requirements are "submitting report annually listing inspections, dates, conditions, actions taken, etc.". These read like municipality tasks, not individual homeowner tasks (who would be responsible for their own inspections rather than a 3rd party). Further, this is protecting a city resource affecting dozens of homes -- yet the city wouldn't be party to the maintenance at all? Who will be ensuring their they are maintained, safe, don't stagnate and turn into mosquito nests, and remain effective? There are no comments in the plans about ensuring the swales, catchment basin, and under-driveway piping is maintained by this homeowner or subsequent homeowners. Who foots the bill when they fail? This is particularly concerning given the closeness to the wetlands, the lack of space to do a true infiltration basin (which has a longer lifecycle), and inadequate soil for the lower-maintenance infiltration style basins. A cost study done for the MN PCA and US EPA by Barr Engineering shows the average cost (in 2010 dollars) of basins that covers a commensurate amount of land in St. Paul is around 30k-50k. That seems like an amount higher than we could expect a single homeowner to cover quickly in the event of a failure. These are not cheaply created, not cheaply repaired, and the PCA/USEPA and Weiss study on costs effectively says that one can expect to pay 5-12%[10] of the construction costs per year when amortized to keep these effective. It's further worth noting that the cost survey index seems to show these basins are almost exclusively owned and run by cities/counties or large organizations like universities. Contrary to the incorrect statement by the applicant's engineer during the Feb 7 Planning commission meeting when he said "there is no infiltration, there is no filtration, those items are the high maintenance situations [and aren't applicable here]", the RCWD is specifically requiring filtration basins (RCWD Permit Number 17-121, Findings section #2). With the owner moving and the applicant not being from the city and having a poor history of follow through in the area, as well as unknown future owners taking on the task (both physically and financially) of protecting our shared wetlands, I'm concerned this won't be well done in the out years and the city will be stuck with a bill and/or the wetland will be damaged. Property Sizes: Previous attempts to split lots in this area have resulted in comments about density[2][7] as well as being less willing to split "when there is currently reasonable use of the property."... which there certainly is. In 2006 [7] a development with 3695 and 3685 New Brighton Roadwas proposed with less density (it included the same total number of houses, but included 3695 New Brighton Road as well) and there were significant concerns about it - many are the same now, but worse. The future use plan labels this area "low density residential". As platted with drainage, easements, and wetland, it will/could be 3 houses, all 15 feet from each other. That's not low density and certainly doesn't fit with the neighborhood - where, during summer, people can barely see neighboring homes from their back yards. These lots are extremely skinny - lot 2 is functionally 66 feet wide. It flares at the road by way of including the easement to meet the minimum road width rules. It's only actually 31 feet wide at the road if you remove the lift station easement. Lot 2 isn't much wider in the back and has even less functional road frontage if you take out the wetland (with only a couple feet of unencumbered land abutting the road isn't easement of some sort - lot 2's driveway runs right through the city lift station easement). The fact the original property is being squeezed so much that they have to 1) move their driveway, 2) change the orientation of their home so it fronts Thom drive, and 3) still rip off a deck to meet minimum side setbacks[1] speaks to this overdevelopment. These three properties will average .6 acres - with the smallest two are under half an acre and the biggest being largely made up of wetland and need-to-be-constructed retaining ponds. [3] The smallest lot includes the proposed, smaller, lift station easement and is still 45% easement by land area (leaving less-than-R2-lot-size-minimum about 10.5k sqft buildable land, in two sections) and lot 1 is being 74% easement or wetland (or 11.3k sqft of buildable land, split into 3 sections). This is compared to the average property size on New Brighton Road from near the corner of E2 ot the train tracks is 1.32 acres.. all but 3 larger than .9 acres (and those are .62,.69 and .81 acres). If you include adjacent properties on Thom adjacent to property the average is 1.25 acres. Lot 2 and 3 would set the new standard for smallest properties on NBR by a large margin and be less than 1/3 the size of the average property. While they fit the R-2 minimums, they are too cramped for the area, don't fit in at all, and the myriad of issues uncovered in this email are directly due to the overdevelopment of this parcel. The planning commission has historically cared about keeping lots similar in size and has felt that cramming houses in is not in the best interests for the city. Denied case PC 07 005, also involving Richard Kotoski, involved creating lots roughly the size we are talking about by splitting 2015 Thom Dr.... which has adjacent properties much smaller than 3685 does. With the denial of that case, specifically, the commission stated that "Density was not the objective [of the city]" and that "reasonable use exists in its' current state" Further, the current planning commission has said "Given the wetland and protected drainage areas, a significant area of Lots 1 and 2 could not be built on." [1] and Tim, himself, said in a previous application for development that much of the lot [3685] was lift station or wetlands and "to look at the entire square footage was misrepresenting the fact that there was space to build on and[or] there was room to encroach into his back area" [7] He is right -- even though the raw sqft exists, this is not a property that should have 3 homes on it. Easement: The lift station has been around long before the current owner owned the property. The easement and lift station have been there well before Tim bought his property. The 2007 attempt to place one additional house on 3685 New Brighton road resulted in the easement potentially shrinking by 2000 square feet. (roughly going through where the current lot 2 driveway is) At that time, it was stated from the city engineer that the shrunken easement "may not be sufficient for reconstructing the lift station in the future".[5] Staff review recommended enlarging the easement by 10 feet on the [west] side opposite the proposed vacated area and then noted that only "with the boundary adjustment, the city engineer [and public works director] determined that partially vacating the easement would not impact the function, maintenance, or reconstruction of the lift station."[6] That engineer proved to be prophetic, as the lift station was rebuilt in 2012 and the rebuild required space beyond the western boundary of the easement. By using the photos combined with the location of the trees (which can be assumed to have not moved and are accurate on the survey) and other known sizes, then perspective shifting the plans we can pretty accurately lay out the proposed site on top of the area needed to construct the lift station in 2012. I did not tweak my added lines for lens distortion but being mid-frame it should be minimal. I expect the extent goes so far beyond the surface-viewable elements because the lift station goes >24 feet underground and (based on sizes of the plans provided by staff) is person-accessible to that depth). I'll note that according to discussions they used directional boring for this rebuild, so that won't be a panacea for 'saving space' in the future. The below image shows where lot 1's driveway would go -- you'll notice it's clearly within the area needed for construction in 2012. (in fact, the city sewer runs under much of it's length) The below image should highlight the many added items that will be traversing through the easement near the lift station and the area needed for the 2012 reconstruction. I want to specifically point out: The area needed for the 2012 construction extends significantly beyond the boundaries of the proposed easement. The city sewer going under the private driveway - this isn't the private sewer connection but is, instead, the actual city sewer going into the lift station. Who is going to pay for that driveway when repairs are needed? The city sewer also goes under the catch basin and storm-water management items as well - further complicating and increasing the costs of any future work here. The myriad utilities (nat gas wasn't noted on plans but would likely go through here as well) running through this area will clearly make the next rebuild more complex and expensive -- exactly the reason the easement was made this large in the first place and exactly what the 2012 rebuild shows was needed. In the below image, I wanted to highlight how close the proposed 40' retaining wall is to the actual lift station (not just the easement... but the lift station itself). The 40' long retaining wall is only a couple of feet from the lift station. Any work on the list station would surely be made more difficult and/or costly due to this wall. Who pays when it's damaged by lift station rebuilds and maintenance work? Who pays when it fails and the lift station is damaged / compromised? A catch basin would be at the base of this wall with a pipe that runs to the filtration basin. The full impact might not be had from this angle but the adjacency should come through. The current proposal shrinks the easement to roughly what was suggested and deemed unacceptable by the city council (by suggestion of the then-city engineer) in 2006 and was shown to be unacceptable in the 2012 rebuild. As shown above, the proposal also includes utility lines, driveways, new trees, and an engineer-required retaining wall that will be going under, on top of, around, and beside the easement/lift station... this will result in additional expenses down the road when a rebuild is required. The city should not have to bear additional costs and/or lost capabilities just to cram an extra home (let alone two!) on a lot that already has reasonable use in it's current state. Additional Driveways on Thom and public safety: When this was attempted in 2006, the western part of 3685 New Brighton Road was not considered developable by both the planning commission, the developer, and the owner. Putting in a private drive (not going to Thom drive... but out to New Brighton Road) was requested and the planning commission considered it a finding of fact that connecting to Thom drive was "hardship" and not just an inconvenience. [7] They further found a finding of fact that, "4 lots adjacent to Thom drive and New Brighton road with separate driveways... which would not be desirable." [7] The developer, on Tim's behalf, went on further to indicate "there is no other way to access the new lots [that would have been in the back of 3695] without the creation of a central outlot because of lot size and topology".[8] This plan involves adding three driveways to a non-conforming, skinny, winding road. When this came up, modified, with one driveway on Thom, multiple people stood up or wrote about adding traffic to that road, safety, etc (in addition to concerns about wildlife, wetland, grading, trees, additional development where everyone reasonably assumed there would be no more, etc).[7] The same happened with the same realtor wanted to split other properties on Thom drive and was rebuffed. Thom is a very small, winding road with no shoulder that doesn't meet minimum dimensions (1130.03 subd 1) that gets used extensively by people trying to avoid traffic on 35W every evening. The New Brighton Road / Thom drive intersection also doesn't meet the safe intersection rules in the subdivision section of city codes ("subd 8: Safe intersections: The angle formed by the intersecting of streets shall not be less than sixty (60) degrees") and, in fact, 3685 New Brighton Road is only a degree or two off from not being able to labeled as a 'corner lot' at all. Thom is almost too skinny to park on and the proposed driveways are too skinny to allow parking either. Putting 2 new homes and with driveways basically at this mostly-blind (when coming off southbound NBR onto Thom) intersection and road is a public safety issue. Tree preservation: The 2006 plan involved clearing 17% of the land of trees.[2] At that time the, even with no tree preservation ordinance, the planning commission had concerns about this "major tree removal", preservation of natural space, and the fact "it does not appear there would be much tree cover left". [7] This plan is clear cutting 40% of all the combined land...[3] and if you exclude the untouched lot 1, the untouchable wetland, and the new smaller (currently treeless) easement... they are clear- cutting 78% of the land area [3]. Unacceptable as that may be, half a dozen trees designated 'save' are only a couple feet from the construction entrances and/or building site pads. I contacted a landscape architect about this and she informs me construction traffic needs to stay outside the drip line, especially oaks (oaks are very susceptible to soil compaction issues). Construction traffic and soil compaction will kill more trees than are currently in the list for removal. I contacted a builder and asked further about tree removal and was informed that trees that overhang (or are near) building pads are almost always directly cut down for construction access regardless of the plan. Additionally, I have 3-4 significant trees trees on my property that will assuredly be killed by the creation of the northern basin[3]. Further, other trees marked as 'save' are diseased including trees labeled as “Major decay on trunk”, “Mechanical damage at base”, and “Top broken, internal decay at base”. The number of trees labeled for removal on this plan, while already tragically egregious, is lower than reality. The following trees should be counted as additional removed caliper inches: 931 (oak, mere feet from construction entrance and permanent driveway) 844 (oak, mere feet from construction entrance and permanent driveway) 843 (oak, mere feet from construction entrance and permanent driveway) 873 (adjacent to basin) 874 (adjacent to basin) 875 (adjacent to basin) The caliper inches of the above trees is an additional 91 inches that should be counted as being removed. City staff told me diseased trees do not count as caliper inches on site. There are 70 total caliper inches of trees marked as 'save' that are also marked as diseased. This should lower the total caliper inches on site by 70. Using the proposals plan [3] base numbers we should lower the total number of caliper inches to 1624" and increase the caliper inches removed to 635" results . This results in total inches over threshold being 473". At a 1:2 ratio, the total inches to be mitigated should be 236". This is more than 188" the plan[3] calls for. I should note that tree 925 (28" oak), 926 (26" oak) and 871 (18" box elder) will likely die, with plenty of work being done inside their dripline...however, the encroachment into the dripline is less than 25% (the the recommendation from the MN DNR is zero). The zoning code prohibits the "routing or parking of heavy equipment, inclduing cars, trust, and bulldozers" through the drip line of a tree. (1325.055 Subd 7, B, 3) Further, even the submitted plans say: "All Trees not listed for removal shall be protected. Do not operate equipment within the drip line, root zones, or within tree protection fence areas".[9] When the submitted plans include the above rule, city code prohibits it, and they still put construction entrances and driveways through no less than 5 trees' drip lines, one must question the accuracy and care put into environmental protection for the rest of the plan. The below image is taken from the north of the property looking southwest and shows the trees (green arrows) marked for saving. The dots are trees on my property and red indicates they'll likely be killed in the creation of the northern stormwater filtration basin. Everything not marked is being removed. The below image is taken from the south of the property looking north-northwest. I've roughly marked the two treetops way in the back that belong to trees that will be saved. Everything else visible in the image is being clear cut. The proposed mitigation of this outrageous destruction of natural habitat and city character is woefully inadequate. These are large, mature, healthy trees that define the city character and add value to the whole area - mostly oaks with a few elm and cottonwoods. Of the ~30 healthy trunks (some trees were marked with multiple trunks) this plan has removing, the average size is 5 and a half feet around (65 inches) at chest height. Some of these trees have been here since before MN was state. The mitigation plan involves replacing them with 30 trees, mostly evergreens, averaging 3.5 caliper inches. Even if they pay to have the trees put elsewhere or simply use some of their profits on the project to pay the minimal fee - you can't just replace an oak tree that's nearly 10 FEET around. The next generation of trees, which you can see in the above photos, help provide shelter for wildlife and fully flesh out the density of this wooded lot, aren't even noted on the plan. What is the point of a tree preservation plan - which at least 3 of the current city council voted to approve in 2008 - if this is allowed to happen?? All of this (including lot sizes and other items) points to the fact this just doesn't fit the area. People move to this area of Arden hills for the large private lots with mature trees and nature... it is an essential - I'd say defining - characteristic of our area of Arden Hills. The plan, as stands, significantly and permanently damages that character. Developers: Tim Horita, the owner of 3685 New Brighton Road is moving away from the area soon. He won't be around to follow this through and as he's not selling the homes, just the lots, he won't care if how things fit within the neighborhood. What power does the city have to force his compliance once he no longer lives there. Richard Kotoski, the applicant, has done (or attempteed) this in multiple places in the immediate vicinity... 1978 Thom, 2015 Thom, 3985 New Brighton Road, and perhaps others. The 3-property subdivision he was responsible for around 1978 Thom was not finished according to the original plans. I'm concerned that with Tim moving away (and having no vested interest in maintaining the area) and Kotoski's history, any plans here would not be followed through fully or correctly.. Previous Planning Commissions and City Councils have found this to be a bad idea: In 2006 the planning commission considered it a finding of fact that connecting to Thom drive was "hardship" and not just an inconvenience. [7] though I understand a plan allowing this was eventually passed that included my land and only one additional home in the 'backyard' of 3685 New Brighton Road. The plan that eventually passed included only one additional house on 3685 out to Thom, removed considerably fewer trees, encroached on the easement less (and only on one side - a request to expand on the other side to maintain access for lift station was made by city engineer and accepted), and involved much less complications and 'design by conditions'. (the proposed subdivision has 19 planning commission coniditions as well as a host of additional conditions from RCWD) During the discussions for the subdivision that was denied, they further found that while large enough, "4 lots adjacent to Thom drive and New Brighton road with separate driveways... which would not be desirable." [7] During that meeting, the developer, on Tim's behalf, went on further to indicate "there is no other way to access the new lots without the creation of a central outlot [through my property] because of lot size and topology [of the western side of 3685]". [8] Later in that same meeting, when challenged as to why the new houses were being put mostly on 3695 New Brighton Road, Tim, himself, said that much of the lot [3685] was lift station or wetlands and "to look at the entire square footage was misrepresenting the fact that there was space to build on and[or] there was room to encroach into his back area" [7] Contrary to City Vision: At the top of every agenda you see the city vision: Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well-maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long-standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. The VERY FIRST THING that the city says it values is it's "unique environmental setting" - passing this flies in the face of protecting said setting. This project also negatively impacts the infrastructure of the city and/or will cost the city additional monies. If our vision is something we live by rather than just mere platitude... this proposal, in it's current 3- house form, must be denied. From:Holdenbj24 To:Matthew Bachler Subject:Fwd: Subdivision of 3685 New Brighton Road Date:Wednesday, February 14, 2018 9:02:45 AM Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: Resent-From: <bholden@cityofardenhills.org> From: Julie <jroliverius@hotmail.com> Date: February 13, 2018 at 6:41:01 PM CST To: "dgrant@cityofardenhills.org" <dgrant@cityofardenhills.org>, "davemcclung@comcast.net" <davemcclung@comcast.net>, "sscott@cityofardenhills.org" <sscott@cityofardenhills.org>, "bholden@cityofardenhills.org" <bholden@cityofardenhills.org>, "fholmes@cityofardenhills.org" <fholmes@cityofardenhills.org> Cc: Rich Oliverius <rloliverius@hotmail.com> Subject: Subdivision of 3685 New Brighton Road Dear City Council Members, My husband and I would like to add our voices to those of other neighbors who have concerns regarding the proposed sub-division of 3685 New Brighton Road into 3 home lots. Our initial concern is that this proposal feels like an attempt to take every possible short cut to "meet" minimum property requirements to allow this one-home property to be sub-divided to allow 3 homes. The fact that the current home must be modified by 1) moving their driveway 2) changing the orientation and address of the home 3) removing the deck ; just to meet the minimum side setbacks speaks to over-development of the property. Additionally, there several variances that must be put into place with regards to the existing lift station to allow for 2 additional driveways. In 2007 when this same developer attempted to place 1 additional home on this same property the city engineer raised concerns about how the shrunken easement "may not be sufficient for reconstructing the lift station in the future" [1]. This statement by the engineer proved to be true when the lift station was rebuilt in 2012 and the size of the existing easement had to be increased. If there are driveways running through this easement when work needs to be done on the lift station in the future who would be responsible for covering the cost of having to remove and replace portions of these driveways? If there was not enough space to consider adding 1 driveway in the past how can it make sense to allow the addition of 2 driveways now? There is also a great concern regarding how the existing wetlands would be impacted by the addition of non-permeable space in such close proximity. The addition of these hard spaces will impact the existing water flow, and may lead to additional contamination of the existing wetland areas due to having road salt and other contaminates brought into the area by the driveways that will now run along side. The addition of 2 new drainage ponds will not help to resolve this issue. Another concern is the impact that clear-cutting so many of the existing deciduous trees will have on all of the surrounding properties. This area is currently habitat for a large variety of wildlife. Here again the developer has seemed to attempt to circumvent building codes by including dead and/or diseased trees as trees to be "saved". Additionally, there were trees labeled as "save" that are either too close to the building pads, or that would be impacted because their root systems would be compacted by construction traffic. Old growth trees, such as the oaks on this lot, are much more susceptible to this type of stress and would take years to recover (if they recover at all). Finally, this is the 3rd attempt by this developer, to partition this particular lot. Each proposal has felt like an attempt to get as much money out of his invest as possible without taking into consideration the typical lot sizes and tree cover that are prevalent in this neighborhood. Please consider all of this information and the impact it will have on our neighborhood as you make your decision regarding this proposal. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration, Rich and Julie Oliverius 2029 Thom Court Arden Hills, MN 55112 From:Jeanne To:David Grant; Dave McClung; Steve Scott; Brenda Holden; Fran Holmes; Matthew Bachler Subject:Subdivision at 3685 New Brighton Road Date:Sunday, February 11, 2018 1:04:38 PM We’ve been talking to others in the community and learned of their concerns about more than just this situation. An item of interest other than the "character of the neighborhood” is how can the realtor come in, divide the property and sell it to two prospective buyers before committee and RCWD even come to a decision. An opinion about the wildlife, natural habitat being disrupted is also a concern for this neighborhood, as well as other parts of our community such as the arsenal project. Hopefully local voices can be heard! Has anyone looked at the Rohleder prospectus regarding the acreage of the properties on New Brighton Road (I.e. between City Rd E2 and Thom Drive and beyond to the railroad, each property is at least one acre)? By virtue of moving Tim’s driveway to Thom Drive, does that change the “character” because now it isn’t part of the block of homes facing New Brighton Road, including Mark’s which is certainly an acre or more facing New Brighton Road? (Just a thought without looking into it). Someone told us the property that was the fire station will now become four homes; before you know it, we’ll be condensing our neighborhoods to look like the projected three homes on the eastern end of Thom Drive with a 15 foot variance between homes! The vacation of the easement seems to pose a problem for the neighborhood; a cost to the new homeowners can't possibly be predicted regarding maintenance and repair for unpredictable weather conditions either! We have lived here since 1973 and until recently, there has not been major home construction and changes to this neighborhood. Without knowing what changes will come about regarding wildlife, traffic, taxes, additional costs and complications, to name a few, we are concerned. ONE home in this space might be tolerable but TWO in such close proximity again is troublesome. Attached is a copy of the City of Arden Hills "Vision" , which is what we in the neighborhood appreciate. Let's keep it this way! Ivan and Jeanne Gilbert Reasons to Deny 3685 New Brighton Road Subdivision Wetland Protection Easement Vacation Suitability and Road Safety on Thom Drive Tree and Habitat destruction Developers Property Sizes Contrary to City Vision Wetland protection: The wetland protection plan in inadequate. It will put more water and sediment directly into the wetland and does not include a reasonable maintenance nor replacement plan. With the current owner moving soon, the applicant not being from the city and having a poor history of follow through in the area (not completing the grading plan on the Thom development, erosion issues, etc), as well as unknown future owners taking on the physical and administrative tasks of maintaining the basin system. Plus, the very significant financial burden of protecting our shared wetlands falling on a single household. There is reasonable concern that this won't be well done in the out years and the city will be stuck with a bill and/or the wetland will be damaged. Weak Maintenance Plan The homeowner of the newly proposed Lot 1 will be solely responsible for inspection, maintenance, and when the time comes, rebuilding the stormwater filtration basins... in perpetuity.. The tasks for inspections and maintenance read like municipality and large organization tasks - logs, reporting, inspections, etc. City council members inform me there are no other agreements like this within the city with single homeowners. During the planning commission meeting that this was passed, the developer incorrectly stated that the RCWD would be responsible for inspections. While the RCWD is able to come and perform inspections and make fixes - billing back to the homeowner and/or the county/city if the homeowner is unable to pay, the RCWD indicate these inspections are purely "complaint driven" and there is no regular inspection included int the agreement. Given the non-public location of these basins, complains are unlikely even when grossly deserved. In effect, the untrained and biased homeowner is judge, jury, and executioner as it relates to a basin system that is protecting a large city resource. The city is not even party to the maintenance agreement; though rebuild costs eventually be backstopped by the county/city if/when the homeowners fail in their significant duty to protect the city's shared natural resources. These are to be maintained in perpetuity - at some point, the homeowners will fail in their duties to protect the city's natural resources, or fail ensure their they are maintained, safe, don't stagnate and turn into mosquito nests, and remain effective? Again, with only self-inspection the conflict of interest is large and risk to our city unnecessary. There are no notes in the plans about ensuring the swales on both sides of the houses and driveway, upper-most catchment basin, and under-driveway piping is maintained as-is in perpetuity by this homeowner or subsequent homeowners. At the least, these should be included in the maintenance agreement. Ineffective Basin locations A hydrologist that specializes in groundwater-surface water interaction at a federal science agency reviewed the plans and he indicates that almost none of the water that hits the driveways would infiltrate and none of it would make it into the southerly basin and, instead, the water would flow south of the basin "creating erosion and potential water quality issues and additional sedimentation in the wetland" for lot 1 as well as added flow to the street (which is not supposed to be allowed). This scientist further notes that depending on the Lot 1 house design, water hitting that roof would flow unimpeded down the extreme slope[11] at it's edge and directly into wetland or onto the driveway (which we just noted, does not direct water to the basins). He notes the basins, particularly the southern one, are simply not located in the right places and appear to be crammed into the available location rather than an effective location (this statement further supported by the RCWD comments). The developer's submitted plans agree with this assessment based on their hydrological flow marks showing water that hits the lot 1 driveway running south down a steeply graded driveway (7.7 and 8.3 grade on driveway) away from the stormwater storage basin, then go down an even steeper dirt slope (steepened to allow for driveway) unfettered into wetland. I contacted RCWD directly about the poor locations of the basins and the clear erosion issues in the plan. I also asked if they took the 2012 steepening of the grade into account. The RCWD indicated they only review what is provided them by applicants and/or the consultant the developer did not make them aware of the 2012 changes. They further did not review this plan for erosion or sedimentation controls beyond the construction period - only max Page 1 of 12Reasons to Deny 3685 New Brighton Road Subdivision 3/9/2018http://joefederer.com/subdivision/Reasons.html stormwater runoff rates. A city-required flood plan was also not included in the application documents. Unfortunately, they also told me there is no appeal process through RCWD directly. No Viable Replacement Plan The RCWD expects this basin system to last 20-30 years with good maintenance. So every couple of decades, the single homeowner of Lot 1 will required to replace the $40,000 system ( the timing of which is based on the homeowners own inspections - quite the conflict of interests) at the peril of our cities natural resources. There are no other arrangements like this in Arden Hills. Contrary to the incorrect statement by the applicant's engineer during the Feb 7 Planning commission meeting when he said "there is no infiltration, there is no filtration, those items are the high maintenance situations [and aren't applicable here]", the RCWD is specifically requiring filtration basins (RCWD Permit Number 17-121, Findings section #2). These are not cheaply created, not cheaply repaired, and not cheaply maintained. A cost study done for the MN Pollution Control Agency and US EPA by Barr Engineering shows the average cost (in 2010 dollars) of similar basins that cover commensurate watersheds in St. Paul is around 30k-50k[10]. The MN PCA's "Minnesota Stormwater Manual" basin cost estimate worksheet puts the cost of the proposed BMP solution smack in the middle of that range, $39,000, in fact.[12] 40 thousand dollars seems like an amount higher than we could expect a single homeowner to cover quickly in the event of a failure - and it would need to be remedied quickly to avoid prolonged and increasing damage to our city's wetlands. (and they would be required to self-report the failure - but could, without penalty, appear to simply wait until it was eventually discovered) The MNPCA/USEPA and Weiss study[13] on BMP costs effectively says that one can expect to pay 5-12%[10] of the construction costs per year when amortized to keep these effective (this matches reasonably well with the 20-30 year lifespan RCWD gave for these basins). It's further worth noting that the cost survey index, which includes both small and large basins, seems to show these basins are almost exclusively owned and run by cities/counties or large organizations like universities or apartment complexes. Easement vacation: Allowing the vacation of easement and other plans to go through as they stand will result in additional costs to the city for future maintenance and rebuilding of the lift-station. The easement and lift station have been there well before the current owner bought his property. It's size, location, and atypical "very deep" lift station structure combined with the rather extreme and unique topology of the site and myriad items being added in, on top of, and around the lift station make shrinking the easement a bad financial deal for the city. Past city engineers (current city engineer was appointed Feb 13, 2017) have have noted the easement cannot be shrunk this much and still be sufficient for reconstruction. The driveway location on Lot 1 (which is directly on top of the main city sewer line) effectively cuts an additional ~1500 square feet from the actual size of the easement - space needed for maintenance and rebuilding of the site. The 2007 attempt to place one additional house on 3685 New Brighton road would have resulted in the easement shrinking by less than what is currently being proposed. At that time, the city engineer said that the shrunken easement "may not be sufficient for reconstructing the lift station in the future".[5] Staff review recommended widening the easement by 10 feet on the other side. The City Engineer and Public Works Director at the time then noted that only "with the boundary adjustment, the city engineer [and public works director] determined that partially vacating the easement would not impact the function, maintenance, or reconstruction of the lift station."[6]. That 2007 City Engineer proved to be prophetic, as the lift station was rebuilt in 2012 (before the current city engineer was in the position) and photographs show the rebuild required space beyond the current western boundary of the easement and well beyond the boundaries of the proposed easement. This is not a theoretical estimate of the extent; this is exactly how much land an actual rebuild needed. Contacting the construction company that did the rebuild, I'm to understand the amount of space is needed due to the "very deep" nature of this lift station. Even the company that won the bid and actually built the lift station in 2012 says that a rebuild would be more expensive with the plans as-is; they further said they would be required to use a sheeting box in order to 'save' the driveway (if even possible), the retaining wall, upper catch basin, swale, and piping within 30 feet would need to be removed and replaced. ... presumably all at the cost of the city. To summarize: • previous city engineers saying it can't shrink that much (and requiring it be expanded on the other side if they really want to cut off that corner) • previous city engineers requiring there be nothing added in the ground within the easement (the one pipe in the previous plan, they required be moved... this plan has 5 underground pipes (plus nat gas), 6 trees, retaining wall, 2 driveways, and a catch basin) • historical photos showing the space actually needed goes beyond the current extent of the easement... and, by extension, goes beyond the proposed shrunken easement. • the actual company behind the 2012 rebuild saying that a rebuild, given the proposed plans, would be more expensive and also would require demolishing/rebuilding various items on the plan. This plan will cost the city additional money and make any future work in the area more complicated... forever. The easement was put there for a reason: specifically to avoid private development from increasing city infrastructure maintenance costs. Easement imagery I created the below images by using the 2012 photos[15] and the current plans[3]. Using location of the trees (which can be assumed to have not moved and are accurate on the survey) and other known sizes, then perspective shifting the plans we can pretty accurately lay out the proposed site on top of the area needed to construct the lift station in 2012. This sanity checked against the rebuild plans well.[16] I did not tweak my added lines for the rectilinear wide angle lens distortion but being mid-frame said distortion should be minimal. The below image shows where lot 1's driveway would go -- you'll notice it's clearly within the area needed for construction in 2012. In fact, the driveway is Page 2 of 12Reasons to Deny 3685 New Brighton Road Subdivision 3/9/2018http://joefederer.com/subdivision/Reasons.html running directly through the SW quarter of the easement and the city sewer runs under much of the driveways' length. The driveway's location would require more expensive construction techniques for any future lift station rebuilds. The below image should highlight the many added items that will be traversing through the easement near the lift station with the area needed for the 2012 reconstruction overlayed. I did not include natural gas lines due to them not being on the plans. I want to specifically point out: • The area needed for the 2012 construction extends significantly beyond the boundaries of the proposed easement. • The city sewer going under the private driveway - this isn't the private sewer connection but is, instead, the actual city sewer going into the lift station. Any work on this line will require digging up the driveway. Who is going to pay for that driveway when it is damaged? Who pays the additional costs of maintaining or replacing that line? The city sewer also goes under the catch basin and underground storm-water management items as well - further complicating and increasing the costs of any future city work here. (A comment supported by the construction company that did the work) • The private driveway cutting right through the easement - making it, effectively, much smaller than just the proposed north and north east vacation. • The myriad utilities running through this area will clearly make the next rebuild more complex and expensive (something previous engineers have required not happen) -- exactly the reason the easement was made this large in the first place and exactly what the 2012 rebuild shows was needed. Page 3 of 12Reasons to Deny 3685 New Brighton Road Subdivision 3/9/2018http://joefederer.com/subdivision/Reasons.html In the below image, I wanted to highlight how close the proposed 40' retaining wall is to the actual lift station (not just the easement... but the lift station itself). The 40' long retaining wall is only a couple of feet from the lift station. Any work on the list station would surely be made more difficult and/or costly due to this wall - the construction company that previously built the lift station indicated they would simply have to tear it out and rebuild it. Who pays when it's damaged by lift station rebuilds and/or simple maintenance work? Who pays when the retaining wall ages and eventually fails and the lift station is damaged / compromised because of it? I imagine the city would end up paying these costs. These are "when" questions, not "if" questions. A catch basin would be at the base of this wall with a pipe that runs to the filtration basin. The full impact might not be had from this angle but the adjacency should come through. These items were also on the list of things that would have to be removed and then rebuilt (at the city's expense) for a lift station rebuild and/or maintenance work on the lines in the area. Page 4 of 12Reasons to Deny 3685 New Brighton Road Subdivision 3/9/2018http://joefederer.com/subdivision/Reasons.html The extent goes so far beyond the surface-viewable elements because the lift station is really >24 feet underground with significant piping in-and-out (much of said piping being under the lot 1 driveway).[16] I'll note that according to discussions in 2012 they used directional boring for this rebuild, so that won't be a panacea for 'saving space' in the future. Again, the construction company that did the build in 2012 says this plan would make future rebuilds more expensive. The city should not have to bear additional costs and/or lost capabilities just to cram an extra home (let alone two!) on a lot that already has reasonable use in it's current state (and has all these other issues as well). Suitability of property for development and added driveways to Thom drive: Thom is a very narrow, small, winding road with no shoulder that is only 75% of minimum city road width (1130.03 subd 1) in this area (though other areas of Thom are slightly wider... the area beside 3685 NBR is considerably narrower). It has zero boulevard or shoulder in this area. A car parked on this part of the road would not leave enough access for The New Brighton Road / Thom drive intersection at this subdivision also doesn't meet the safe intersection rules in the subdivision section of city codes ("subd 8: Safe intersections: The angle formed by the intersecting of streets shall not be less than sixty (60) degrees") and, in fact, the intersection is so far out of standard that 3685 New Brighton Road is only a degree or two off from not being able to labeled as a 'corner lot' at all. Street arrangements, alone, explicitly can't be used to deny a plat... but public safety can. The proposed driveways are skinny such that they wouldn't allow parking and access at the same time - meaning more people parking in a dangerous part of the street. While this isn't a road that gets state aid, the Minnesota Municipal State Aid Standards for Streets and Lane Widths (MN DoT - https://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/programlibrary/stateaidrules.pdf) requires at least 26" for appropriate emergency vehicle, and even then, there can be no parking on the road. The MN State Fire Code requires 20 clear feet of access. Thom, in this area, around 21 feet (though less in winter due to snow). Other parts of this road are wider. A single car parked on this part of the road would almost block a fire truck (and likely would in winter)... cars parked on either side would make even a small car passing through almost impossible. Page 5 of 12Reasons to Deny 3685 New Brighton Road Subdivision 3/9/2018http://joefederer.com/subdivision/Reasons.html It gets used extensively by people trying to avoid traffic on 35W every evening. Further, this above-mentioned non-conforming (to narrow) road and non-conforming (to straight) intersection is also a blind intersection, going down hill, from a 40mph county road. This is an unsafe location. This plan involves adding two houses and three driveways right at this spot. When this came up, modified, with just one driveway on Thom, multiple people stood up or wrote about adding traffic to that road, safety, etc (in addition to concerns about wildlife, wetland, grading, trees, additional development where everyone reasonably assumed there would be no more, etc).[7] The same happened with the same Realtor wanted to split other properties on Thom drive and was rebuffed. When this was attempted in 2006, the western part of 3685 New Brighton Road was not considered developable by both the planning commission, the developer, and the owner. In fact, putting in a private drive (not going to Thom drive... but out to New Brighton Road) was requested and the planning commission considered it a finding of fact that using the back of 3685 and connecting to Thom drive was "hardship" and not just an inconvenience. [7] The commission further found a finding of fact that, "4 lots adjacent to Thom drive and New Brighton road with separate driveways... would not be desirable." [7] The developer, on Tim's behalf, went on further to indicate "there is no other way to access the new lots [that would have been in the back of 3695] without the creation of a central outlot [to NBR] because of lot size and topology [of 3685 near Thom]".[8] Tim, himself, when asked in 2006 why he was cramming homes on the 3695 property rather than putting them on the west side of 3685 said that much of the lot [3685] was lift station or wetlands and "to look at the entire square footage was misrepresenting the fact that there was space to build on and[or] there was room to encroach into his back area" [7] He is right -- even though the raw sqft exists, this property has unique features and unique topology such that it should NOT have 3 homes on it. The road is also not a safe spot to add additional driveways. Tree preservation: The city has a tree preservation plan that requires trees be marked 'save' or 'remove'... the preservation plan saying "it is the City's intent to protect, preserve, and enhance the natural environment of Arden Hills". You are allowed to remove a certain percentage and anything beyond that you must mitigate/replace. This plan does not comply with neither the letter nor the spirit of that ordinance. It further fails to even attempt to maintain the nature/wildlife or character of the area. The site is being clear-cut The denied 2006 plan involved clearing 17% of the land of trees.[2] At that time the, even with no tree preservation ordinance (which wasn't in effect until 2008), the planning commission had concerns about this "major tree removal", preservation of natural space, and the fact "it does not appear there would be much tree cover left".[7] This plan is clear cutting 40% of all the combined land (ie: including the existing, untouched, property).[3] If you exclude the untouchable wetland, and the new smaller (currently almost treeless) lift station easement they are clear-cutting 78% of the land area of the two new lots [3]. The city code explicitly states: "Clear cutting of an entire stand of trees is prohibited on all parcels." (1325.05 Subd 1 Sec A part 7) The below image is taken from the south of the property, looking north-northwest, of the stand of trees being clear-cut. I've roughly marked the two treetops way in the back that belong to trees that will be saved. Everything else visible in the image is being clear cut... Page 6 of 12Reasons to Deny 3685 New Brighton Road Subdivision 3/9/2018http://joefederer.com/subdivision/Reasons.html A landscape architect indicates a different grading plan, designed with a better balance of protection and preservation vs purely for profit and ease, would be able to save many more trees (as well as potentially fix some of the easement issues). I've highlighted the trees below that are not located on a building site and are being killed simply due to grading and it being 'easier/cheaper to kill them than work around them' motives (directly killed in yellow, being kept but will likely die in red... including some on my property). Many (most?) of those trees, some over a hundred years old, are being taken out out of convenience... not necessity. A new grading plan that emphasized saving more mature, healthy, trees rather than clear cutting (as required by city code) would serve to avoid "clear cutting" as well as help with the tree removal mitigation deficiency. Page 7 of 12Reasons to Deny 3685 New Brighton Road Subdivision 3/9/2018http://joefederer.com/subdivision/Reasons.html Page 8 of 12Reasons to Deny 3685 New Brighton Road Subdivision 3/9/2018http://joefederer.com/subdivision/Reasons.html Tree removal list is incomplete Unacceptable as that may be, half a dozen trees designated 'save' are only a couple feet from the construction entrances and/or building site pads. Construction traffic and soil compaction will (slowly) kill more trees than are currently in the list for removal. A landscape architect reported on this and she informed me construction traffic needs to stay outside the drip line, especially oaks (oaks are very susceptible to soil compaction issues) to avoid this fate. This is confirmed by DNR fact sheets on tree protection. A builder further indicated some of these trees will need to be removed for overhang/construction access. Additionally, I have 3-4 significant trees trees on my property that will assuredly be killed by the creation of the northern basin[3]. As such, the number of trees labeled for removal on this plan, while already tragically egregious, is lower than reality. The following trees should be counted as additional removed caliper inches: 931 (oak, mere feet from construction entrance and permanent driveway) 844 (oak, mere feet from construction entrance and permanent driveway) 843 (oak, mere feet from construction entrance and permanent driveway) 873 (adjacent to basin) 874 (adjacent to basin) 875 (adjacent to basin) The caliper inches of the above trees amounts an additional 91 inches that should be counted as being removed. Given these trees are so very likely to die, and the homeowner will be moving before any additional penalty could be assessed (soil compaction issues can take longer than 2 years to manifest) the number of total caliper inches calculated for removal should increase. This would result in increasing the replacement deficiency. The "2 year checkup" is inadequate assurance for soil-compaction damage as the MN DNR information on construction damage states it can take years to for soil compaction damage to appear. [17] The current owner will be long gone, surety back in hand, before any damage may show. I should note that tree 925 (28" oak), 926 (26" oak) and 871 (18" box elder) will also likely die, with plenty of work being done inside their dripline...however, the encroachment into the dripline is less than 25% (the the recommendation from the MN DNR is zero) and thus per-emptively saying they will die might be unfair. The zoning code prohibits the "routing or parking of heavy equipment, including cars, trust, and bulldozers" through the drip line of a tree. (1325.055 Subd 7, B, 3) Further, even the submitted plans say: "All Trees not listed for removal shall be protected. Do not operate equipment within the drip line, root zones, or within tree protection fence areas".[9] The zoning code further prohibits water retention ponding to be within the dripline of trees marked as saved (1325.005 Subd 6, C) during construction... yet this plan includes permanent ponding within the dripline of adjacent properties trees marked as 'saved'. Mitigation plan is unacceptable The proposed mitigation of this outrageous destruction of natural habitat and city character is woefully inadequate. These are large, mature, healthy trees that define the city character (we are Arden Hills, after all) and add value to the whole area - mostly oaks with a few elm and cottonwoods. Of the ~30 healthy trunks (some trees were marked with multiple trunks) this plan has removing, the average size is 5 and a half feet around (65 inches) at chest height. [3] Some of these trees have been here since before MN was state. The mitigation plan involves replacing them with 30 trees, mostly evergreens, averaging 3.5 caliper inches. Even if they pay to have the trees put elsewhere or simply use some of their profits on their money grab to pay the minimal fee - you can't just replace an oak tree that's nearly 10 FEET around. These large, mature trees are essential to the character of this area of Arden Hills. "The tree preservation plan shall be reviewed by the city to assess the best possible layout to preserve significant trees and to enhance the efforts to minimize damage to significant trees." (1325.055 Sub 2, C) -- is the city really saying this is the best plan they can come up with, or did they just accept what the developer sent them? It also states "Replacement trees shall be of a species similar to the trees which are lost or removed" (1325.005 Sub 6 A, 2) and "Trees planted in accordance with mitigation requirements shall not be comprised of more than 25 percent of the same species or size" (1325.005 Sub 6 A, 3, a) - they are removing a ton of oak, elm, box elder, and cottonwood... yet about 75% of the replacement trees are evergreens (which may make good screens for too- close houses, are not in match with the character of the area), all the replacement evergreens are the same size, and about 33% (of the total) are the same species. This speaks even further to the disregard for the character and preservation of trees/nature/wildlife by the developer. For visualization purposes, the below image is taken from the north of the property looking southwest and shows the trees (green arrows) marked for saving. The dots are trees on my property and red indicates they'll likely be killed in the creation of the northern stormwater filtration basin. Everything not marked is being removed. Page 9 of 12Reasons to Deny 3685 New Brighton Road Subdivision 3/9/2018http://joefederer.com/subdivision/Reasons.html The next generation of trees, which you can see in the above photo, help provide shelter for the excellent wildlife (Deer, rabbits, foxes, owls, possum, and turkey's (that we use to teach our kids to count as they waddle out of this area daily)... and of course tons of birds and smaller fauna ... the stuff people brag about being 'in their backyard' when they talk about living in Arden Hills. Again, this is city character stuff.) and fully flesh out the density of this wooded lot, aren't even noted on the plan. What is the point of a tree preservation ordinance - which at least 3 of the current city council voted to approve in 2008 - if this is allowed to happen?? This is clear cutting (forbidden) and even if you don't believe it is 'clear cutting' the mitigation goes against the spirit and the letter of the tree preservation ordinance. Further, while the city staff caught it, the applicant attempted to claim 70 caliper inches of trees as 'saved' even though they were diseased - including trees labeled as “Major decay on trunk”, “Mechanical damage at base”, and “Top broken, internal decay at base”. When the submitted plans include the boilerplate rules about not encroaching on drip lines, city code explicitly prohibits it, and they still put construction entrances and driveways through no less than 5 trees' drip lines (and further they attempt to claim diseased trees as 'saved' and that 'cottonwoods shouldn't could' and 'we don't want to pay the park dedication fee'), one must question the accuracy and care put into environmental protection and follow-through for the rest of the plan. This is our city character, being ravaged and sold off to an outside developer. Areas like this define this part of town and should be protected from needlessly destructive development. A different grading plan, stormwater plan, or building/driveway plan could save some of these trees. The current plan is clearly designed to maximize profits rather than following the letter (or spirit) of our city codes, which are in place to offer protection and preservation of our city's character and resources. In addition to the flat-out forbidden nature of clear-cutting, the intent of the tree preservation ordinance is right there, in black and white: "It is the City's intent to protect, preserve, and enhance the natural environment of Arden Hills and to encourage a resourceful and prudent approach to development. The city council finds it is in the best interest of the city to protect, preserve, and enhance the natural environment of the community and to encourage a resourceful and prudent approach to development and property alteration." All of this (including lot sizes and other items) points to the fact this just doesn't fit the area. People move to this area of Arden Hills for the large private lots with mature trees and nature... it is an essential - I'd say defining - characteristic of our area of Arden Hills. The plan, as stands, significantly and permanently damages that character. Page 10 of 12Reasons to Deny 3685 New Brighton Road Subdivision 3/9/2018http://joefederer.com/subdivision/Reasons.html Developers: Tim Horita, the owner of 3685 New Brighton Road is moving away from the area soon. He won't be around to follow this through and as he's not selling the homes, just the lots, he won't care if how things fit within or effect the neighborhood. He hasn't proactively discussed ways to mitigate concerns of the neighbors nor has he attended any planning commission or city council meetings on the topic. What power does the city have to force his compliance once he no longer lives there? When he started and then abandoned his attempt to develop 3695 & 3685 together, the applicant left the half-started site in unsafe disarray: The foundations of the old buildings, concrete blocks and chunks of tar, damaged and deteriorating retaining walls, rebar sticking from the ground, utilities (for example, the fuel oil tank and furnace were just laying on the site), pipes, siding, desks, acetylene tank, tires, rolls of carpet, shingles, and literally tons and tons of other debris - either on the surface or buried in and around the old house location. The various re-grading of the site or removal of the retaining walls laid out in the conditions and agreements was not done. They also left a large, unsafe, hole in the ground as well as a half-demolished 'under garage-floor shed'. After we purchased, excavating and cleanup of the site was bid at more than 24k. ...and that was when he was staying next door. Imagine the disregard he will have when he moves away. Richard Kotoski, the applicant, realtor, and only person that has attended any city meetings on this, has done (or attempted) this in multiple places in the immediate vicinity... 1978 Thom, 2015 Thom, 3985 New Brighton Road, and perhaps others. The 3-property subdivision up the road on Thom that he was responsible for was not finished according to the original plans, has grading and erosion issues, and the current owners of that subdivision say it was a mistake to split it into 3 rather than two[18]. I believe Kotoski has found an area of Arden Hills with large lots that is, through trick of history, mistakenly zoned R2 -- and he's systematically exploiting it. (this proposed development could not happen in an R1 district because the setbacks are slightly larger... and this plan is code-minimum on all sides with only a foot or two to space across all three lots) Current city council members seem interested in rezoning this area specifically to avoid these issues. I'm concerned that with Tim moving away (and having no vested interest in maintaining the area or following through on the myriad long-term issues) and Kotoski's history, any plans here would not be followed through fully or correctly and minimal thought would go into what's best for the city/area. Property Sizes: Previous attempts to split lots in this immediate area have resulted in comments from the public, planning commission, and council about density[2][7] as well as being less willing to split a property "when there is currently reasonable use of the property."... which there certainly currently is. In 2006 [7] a development including both 3695 and 3685 New Brighton Road was proposed with less density on 3685 (it included the same total number of houses, but included 3695 New Brighton Road as well) and there were significant concerns about it then - many are the same now, but worse. The future use plan labels this area "low density residential" and the average lot size of the Rohleders Home and Gardens from E2 to the train tracks is 1.32 acres.[14] As platted with drainage, easements, and wetland, it will/could be 3 houses, all 15 feet from each other. That's not low density and certainly doesn't fit with the neighborhood - where, during summer, people can barely see neighboring homes from their back yards. This area is unique within Arden Hills. These lots are skinny - lot 2 is functionally 66 feet wide.[3] It flares at the road by including the lift station easement to meet the minimum width rules. Removing the lift station land, it's only actually 31 feet wide at the road. Lot 2 isn't much wider in the back and has even less functional road frontage if you take out the wetland (it's so tight the only solution was to run the driveway through the lift station easement directly on top of the main city sewer). The fact the original property is being squeezed so much that they have to 1) move their driveway, 2) change the orientation and address of their home so it fronts Thom drive, and 3) still rip off a deck to meet minimum side setbacks[1] speaks to this over-development. These three properties will average .6 acres - with the smallest two are under half an acre and the biggest being largely made up of wetland and need-to-be- constructed retaining ponds. [3] While not 'small' overall, the smallest lot includes the proposed, smaller, lift station easement and is still 45% easement by land area (leaving less-than-R2-lot-size-minimum square footage of about 10.5k sqft buildable land, in two separate sections) and lot 1 is actually 74% easement or wetland (and only contains 11.3k sqft of buildable land, split into 3 separate sections). These lots (.9, .46 and .49 acres - lots 1 and 2 being most easements) fall very short of the average property size on New Brighton Road from near the corner of E2 to the train tracks, which average 1.32 acres with minimal easements... all but 3 of those are larger than .9 acres (and those are .62,.69 and .81 acres). [14] If you include adjacent properties on Thom adjacent to property the average is 1.25 acres.[14] Lot 2 and 3 would set the new standard for the smallest of these properties by a large margin and be less than 1/3 the size of the average property. (though there are some commensurate and smaller lots around the corner and further up Thom drive) The planning commission has historically cared about keeping lots similar in size and has felt that cramming houses in is not in the best interests for the city. Denied case PC 07 005, also involving Richard Kotoski, involved creating lots roughly the size we are talking about by splitting 2015 Thom Dr.... which has adjacent properties much smaller than 3685 does. With the denial of that case, specifically, the commission stated that "Density was not the objective [of the city]" and that "reasonable use exists in its' current state". Further, the current planning commission has said "Given the wetland and protected drainage areas, a significant area of Lots 1 and 2 could not be built on." [1] and Tim, himself, when asked by he wasn't putting homes in these locations in a previous application for development said that much of the lot [3685] was lift station or wetlands and "to look at the entire square footage was misrepresenting the fact that there was space to build on and[or] there was room to encroach into his back area" [7] He is right -- even though the raw sqft exists, this is not a property that should have 3 homes on it. While they fit the R-2 minimums (but would not meet R1 minimums), they are too cramped for the general character of the area, don't fit in at all with the surrounding properties, and the myriad of issues uncovered in my research for this document are directly due to the overdevelopment of this parcel. Splitting this land into two would be a shame but plans could be made that mitigate almost ALL of the problems raised in this document or by the many other members of the public that have written or spoken against this development.... splitting into three, however, is an absolute travesty in so many ways. Page 11 of 12Reasons to Deny 3685 New Brighton Road Subdivision 3/9/2018http://joefederer.com/subdivision/Reasons.html Contrary to City Vision: In addition to the city council's duty to uphold the city code in order to protect us the city from destructive development like this...At the top of every agenda you see the city vision: Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well- maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long-standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. The VERY FIRST THING that the city says it values is it's "unique environmental setting" - passing this plan as it currently stands flies in the face of protecting said setting. This project also negatively impacts the infrastructure of the city, will cost the city additional monies, and make this area less desirable. If our vision is something we live by rather than just mere platitude... this proposal, in it's current 3-house form, must be denied - or at the very least, sent back to have them come up with a less destructive plan. Page 12 of 12Reasons to Deny 3685 New Brighton Road Subdivision 3/9/2018http://joefederer.com/subdivision/Reasons.html City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 1 of 15 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 7, 2018 PC Agenda Item 3.A TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Matthew Bachler, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #17-029 – Public Hearing Not Required Applicant: Richard Kotoski/Timothy Horita Property Location: 3685 New Brighton Road Request: Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement Requested Action The applicant has requested a Preliminary Plat and Final Plat in order to subdivide the existing lot located at 3685 New Brighton Road into three lots for single-family residential dwellings. A Vacation of Easement is also being requested in order to vacate a portion of the public utility easement for the City lift station on the property. The City Council is required to hold the public hearing for the Vacation of Easement request. The official public hearing for this case was held on January 10, 2018. A second public hearing is not required at the Planning Commission meeting on February 7, 2018, but the Planning Commission may take public comments. Background The Planning Commission held the public hearing for Planning Case 17-029 at their meeting on January 10, 2018. The Planning Commission voted to table this planning case to allow staff and the Rice Creek Watershed District additional time to review the stormwater management plan for the development. Since that time, staff has completed its review of the stormwater management plan and has no additional comments. The Public Works Director/City Engineer has provided a memo with her comments in Attachment I. The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) has reviewed the plans and granted the project CAPROC status (Conditionally Approved Pending Receipt of Changes) as of January 29, 2018. A copy of the approval is provided in Attachment K. Site work cannot begin until all pending City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 2 of 15 items are satisfied. This includes providing RCWD with a Declaration for Maintenance of Stormwater Management Facilities that is acceptable to the RCWD engineer and attorney for the onsite stormwater management features. The Maintenance Agreement would between RCWD and the developer, and RCWD will be responsible for monitoring and enforcing the agreement. 1. Overview of Request The existing property at 3685 New Brighton Road is approximately 1.9 acres in size and is comprised of a single-family residential dwelling, detached garage, and shed. The dwelling and accessory structures are located towards the eastern side of the property and the one access driveway for the lot is on New Brighton Road near the intersection with Thom Drive. The property as approximately 124 feet on frontage on New Brighton Road and 378 feet of frontage along Thom Drive. The existing topography of the lot generally slopes west from New Brighton Road to a wetland complex located on the western parcel boundary. This wetland complex covers approximately 0.3 acres of the property and extends off the property to the north and south. The City has a sanitary lift station located on the southern edge of the property approximately in the middle of the lot. The remainder of the lot is heavily wooded. The applicant has proposed a subdivision of the existing property to create three lots for single- family residential dwellings. The existing dwelling and other improvements would be retained and located on the proposed Lot 3. Two new lots (Lot 1 and Lot 2) would be located to the west of Lot 3 with frontage and driveways on Thom Drive. The existing access driveway for Lot 3 would be located to Thom Drive so that all three parcels are similarly oriented with their principal frontage on Thom Drive. There is a purchase agreement in place for the easterly lot (Lot 2) and the applicant expects construction to begin on this lot immediately if City approval is received. The westerly lot (Lot 1) is being marketed for sale. In order to support the proposed development, a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement is requested. The easement vacation is needed to vacate a portion of the public utility easement for the City lift station on the property. The development is required to meet Rice Creek Watershed District regulations and the proposed grading plan shows that two basins would be constructed on Lot 1 to capture stormwater runoff from the site and allow it to discharge into the adjacent wetland. Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be graded to direct water flow from these properties to one of the two basins. The site is heavily wooded with 72 significant trees. A Tree Preservation Plan has been provided indicating 22 of these trees would be removed. Replacement tree plantings are proposed as part of the Tree Preservation Plan. The applicant has submitted a development plan set (Attachment C), Final Plat (Attachment D), and proposed easement vacation plan (Attachment E). City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 3 of 15 2. Surrounding Area: Direction Future Land Use Plan Zoning Existing Land Use North Low Density Residential R-2: Single & Two Family Residential Single Family Detached Residential South Low Density Residential R-2: Single & Two Family Residential Single Family Detached Residential East Park and Open Space Park and Open Space Park and Open Space West Low Density Residential R-2: Single & Two Family Residential Single Family Detached Residential 3. Site Data: Future Land Use Plan: Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single-Family Detached Residential Zoning: R-2: Single & Two Family Residential Lot Size: 83,253 square feet (1.91 acres) Topography: Property slopes east to west approximately 28 feet from New Brighton Road to the wetland complex on the western boundary. Plan Review 1. Chapter 11, Subdivision Regulations Review A. Street Plan and Streets No new streets would be constructed for the Horita Acres subdivision. All three lots will have access on Thom Drive. The existing property has an access driveway on New Brighton Road. Staff has recommended as a condition of approval that the driveway be relocated to Thom Drive. New Brighton Road is a Ramsey County roadway and the County has reviewed and approved the access relocation. All other requirements pertaining to driveway location and grades are met by the proposed plans. B. Easements City subdivision regulations require a 12-foot wide utility and drainage easements dedicated to the City along the right-of-way and centered on common lot lines. The Preliminary and Final Plats include 12-foot utility and drainage easements centered on the common lots lines throughout the development and a 12-foot easement along the Thom Drive and New Brighton Road right-of-way, and along the shared lot line with the property to the north. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 4 of 15 The property is traversed by a wetland area along the western boundary of the lot that extends off site to the north and south. In order to satisfy Rice Creek Watershed District requirements, the development will be required to construct two basins on Lot 1 that will capture stormwater runoff from the entire site and allow water to discharge into the adjacent wetland area. The Subdivision Code requires that a drainage easement be provided for wetland areas and stormwater management facilities. The plat provides adequate easements for the wetland, the basins, and the other drainage facilities on the site. The City has an existing lift station located along the southern property line of the lot along Thom Drive. This lift station is located on private property and the City has an easement that permits the City to operate and maintain the lift station. The existing easement for the lift station is larger in area than the footprint of the facility. The proposal includes a partial vacation of this easement to accommodate the access driveway for Lot 2. The Public Works Director/City Engineer has reviewed the new easement area and determined that it provides adequate area for the City to continue to operate and maintain the lift station. The easement area would also be sufficient if the City need to reconstruct the lift station in the future. The vacation of a public easement requires a public hearing before the City Council. At the time Planning Case 17-029 is reviewed by the City Council, a public hearing will also be held for the proposed vacation. C. Lots Location and Size All lots are required to abut by their full frontage on a public street and meet the minimum lot dimensions required by the Zoning Code. All three lots have full frontage on a public street and meet the minimum standards for the R-2 District. Watercourse Lots abutting upon a wetland are required to have additional width or depth to assure building sites are not subject to flooding. All building areas should be located outside the natural feature and a minimum of two feet above the 100-year flood elevation. Lot 1 abuts a wetland area on the west side of the property. The building pad site is located outside of the delineated wetland area. The lowest level of the proposed dwelling on Lot 1 is 893 feet, and the 100-year high water level for Basin 1 is 888.9 feet and for Basin 2 886.1 feet. Corner Lots Corner lots shall be platted at least 10 feet wider than the minimum requirement for interior lots. The minimum lot width for the R-2 District is 85 feet. Lot 3 is a corner lot and would have a width of 120 feet. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 5 of 15 Drainage Lots shall be graded so as to provide drainage away from building locations and directed down lot lines within drainage and utility easements. The proposed grading plan satisfies this requirement. D. Park Dedication The Subdivision Code requires developers of subdivisions to dedicate to the public a reasonable percentage of the tract to be developed. Section 1130.08 Subd. 2 of the Subdivision Ordinance indicates that for a subdivision that results in new dwelling units of less than two units per acre, the applicant shall dedicate six percent of the buildable land area in the subdivision or pay a park dedication fee of $6,500 per residential unit. Six percent of the development site would be 0.11 acres which would not allow for a feasible park area. As a recommended condition of approval, the developer would be required to pay a park dedication fee of $6,500 per new single-family residential lot, for a total fee of $13,000. The applicant has submitted a letter requesting a reduction in the park dedication fee to a total of $6,500 for both lots (Attachment G). Staff would recommend that a decision on the park dedication requirement be deferred to the City Council. E. Required Improvements All other required improvements, including sewer, water, utilities, and driveway connections to Thom Drive will be constructed in accordance with the City Code. 2. Chapter 13, Zoning Regulations Review Section 1320 – District Provisions (R-2 Single & Two Family Residential District) A. Lot Area and Dimensions The applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing 1.9 acre property into three single-family residential lots. The westerly lot (Lot 1) would have an area of 42,594 square foot. The central lot (Lot 2) would have an area of 18,936 square feet. The easterly lot with the existing dwelling (Lot 3) would have an area of 21,723 square feet. The minimum lot size for the R-2 District is 11,000 square feet. All three lots would meet the minimum lot area requirement. The Zoning Code requires lots in the R-2 District to have a minimum width of 85 feet measured at the 40-foot front yard setback line, and a depth of 120 feet. Lot 3 is a corner lot and is required to have an additional 10 feet of width for a total width of 95 feet. All three lots meet the minimum dimension requirements for this district. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 6 of 15 Lot Total Lot Area (Square Feet) Width (Feet) Depth (Feet) R-2 District Minimum 11,000 85 (Lots 1 & 2) 95 (Lot 3) 120 1 42,594 141.6 338 2 18,936 97.8 240 3 21,723 120 124 B. Setbacks The minimum principal structure setbacks in the R-2 District are 40 feet in the front yard, 30 feet in the rear yard, and a 5-foot minimum in the side yard with both side yards required to add up to a total of 15 feet. In addition to the structure setback requirements, no structures could be placed within any of the drainage and utility easements on the lots. Given the wetland and protected drainage areas, a significant area of Lots 1 and 2 could not be built on. The development plans include the approximate building pad areas for Lots 1 and 2. Structure setback distances would be verified at the time Building Permit applications are submitted. Based on the preliminary plans, all setbacks could be met for Lots 1 and 2. The table below provides approximate setback distances based on the preliminary building pad areas. Lot Front Yard (Feet) Rear Yard (Feet) Side Yard (Feet) R-2 District Minimum 40 30 5/15 1 140 83 65 (West)/ 6 (East) 2 88 72 9 (West)/ 6 (East) *All setback distances are approximate. Structure setbacks would be verified at the time a Building Permit application is submitted The existing residential dwelling on Lot 3 includes a deck on the west side of the dwelling that would encroach on the side yard setback and drainage and utility easement on the western side of the property. As a recommended condition of approval, the deck would need to be modified or removed so that it does not encroach into the required setback or the easement area. The accessory structures on Lot 3 and the remaining portion of the dwelling meet the 10-foot setback requirement from the side and rear property lines. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 7 of 15 Lot Front Yard (Feet) Side Yard Corner (Feet) Rear Yard (Feet) Side Yard (Feet) R-2 District Minimum 40 40 30 5 3 42 60 82 *Deck encroaches over western lot line C. Structure Coverage and Landscape Lot Area The maximum structure coverage permitted in the R-2 District is 25 percent and the minimum landscape lot area is 65 percent. The approximate structure coverage and landscape lot area for Lots 1 and 2 was calculated based on the proposed building pad dimensions and the approximate dimensions of the driveways. The structure coverage and landscape lot area requirements would be verified at the time Building Permit applications are submitted. Based on the submitted plans, all three lots would meet the lot coverage requirements. D. Building Height and Density The maximum building height in the R-2 District is 35 feet. Building height would be verified at the time Building Permit applications are submitted. The applicant has provided example front elevation drawings for the dwellings on Lots 1 and 2 (Attachment A). The maximum residential density permitted in the R-2 District is 5 unites per net acre. There are approximately 1.6 net acres of land that could be built on after subtracting the wetland area. The proposed three lot subdivision would have a net density of 1.86 units per acre. E. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the sum of the gross horizontal area of all floors of a building divided by the total lot area. Floor area is measured from the exterior sides of the exterior walls, but not including covered porches; decks; any space where the average floor-to-ceiling height is less than six feet; attached or detached garages; and other detached accessory structures. The R-2 Lot Structure Coverage (Square Feet) Structure Coverage (Percentage) Landscape Lot Area (Square Feet) Landscape Lot Area (Percentage) R-2 District Requirements -- 25% (max) -- 65% (min) 1 3,000 7.04% 37,343 87.67% 2 3,000 15.84% 13,481 71.19% 3 2,396 11.03% 17,128 78.85% City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 8 of 15 District allows for an FAR of up to 30 percent for residential structures. The FAR of the new residential dwellings would be verified at the time Building Permit applications are submitted. Section 1325 – General Regulations A. Accessory Structures No accessory structures are proposed to be constructed on Lots 1 or 2 as part of this application. Future homeowners who choose to construct accessory structures will be required to do so in accordance with the requirements of the Zoning Code. There are two existing accessory structures on Lot 3. Both structures would meet the side and rear yard setback requirement of 10 feet. The maximum number of accessory structures permitted on a residential lot is two and no additional accessory structures would be allowed on Lot 3. B. Tree Preservation The Zoning Code requires that a Tree Preservation Plan be submitted as part of an application for a plat. The development plan set includes a Tree Preservation Plan and a replacement Landscape Plan (Attachment D). The survey indicates there are 81 trees on the site. Nine of these trees are damages or diseased and are not counted as significant trees. Of the remaining 72 significant trees, 22 would be removed for the development. The majority (18) of the removed trees would be on the proposed Lot 1 to accommodate the building pad site and two stormwater basins. Four significant trees would be removed from the proposed Lot 2 and no significant trees would be taken down on Lot 3. The 22 significant trees that would be removed total 544 caliper inches. The required mitigation for this removal is 193 caliper inches of new tree plantings. The Landscape Plan includes 30 new trees including 21 evergreen trees, 3 Red Oaks, and 6 Swamp White Oaks. The total number of replacement caliper inches would be 92.5 for a deficiency of 101 caliper inches. Caliper Inches Number of Trees Total Existing Significant Trees 1,567 72 10% Permitted Removal 157 -- Proposed Removal 544 22 Trees Preserved 1,037 50 Replacement Trees Required* 193.5 -- Replacement Trees Proposed 92.5 30 Replacement Deficiency 101 -- * Replacement trees are calculated by subtracting the ten percent permitted removal from the proposed removal and dividing by two. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 9 of 15 The Zoning Code states that replacement trees are required to be planted on the same site from which the significant trees are removed, unless the City determines that the number of replacement trees required exceeds the number of trees that can practically fit on the site. The City may require that the 101 caliper inches of additional trees be planted off-site, or a fee in lieu of the off-site plantings may be collected. The fee amount is set as the cost of materials and installation, plus 10 percent. The applicant submitted a letter requesting that all Cottonwood trees on the site not be counted as significant trees because they are a nuisance tree (Attachment G). Seven Cottonwood trees are proposed to be removed on Lot 1. If Cottonwood trees were removed from the Tree Preservation Plan, the required replacement tree amount would be 140 caliper inches and the deficiency would be 47.5 caliper inches. The Zoning Code includes the following definition for a significant tree: A tree that is important to the site and the neighborhood character, that is structurally sound and healthy, and that meets at least one of the following standards: • A deciduous hardwood tree that is at least ten (10) caliper inches, including but not limited to, ironwood, catalpa, oak, hard maple, walnut, hickory, birch, black cherry, hackberry, locust and basswood. • A deciduous softwood tree that is at least twelve (12) caliper inches, including but not limited to, cottonwood, poplars/aspen, box elder, willow, silver maple and elm. • A coniferous evergreen tree having foliage on the outermost portion of the branches year-round and which is at least fifteen (15) feet or more in height. • A group of deciduous trees that are at least eight (8) caliper inches or coniferous trees that are at least fifteen (15) feet in height, that provide a buffer or screening along an adjacent public street or between differing land uses. Cottonwood trees that are at least 12 caliper inches in size and are structurally sound and healthy are defined as significant trees under the Zoning Code. Staff would recommend that the Cottonwood trees on the site continue to be counted as significant trees. Additional Review City Building Official The City’s Building Official has reviewed the plans and has no comments at this time. Public Works Director/City Engineer The Public Works Director/City Engineer and WSB & Associates have reviewed the plans. WSB provided a memo dated December 7, 2017 with items to be addressed (Attachment F). The applicant has since revised the development plans and the Public Works Director/City Engineer has reviewed the plans and provided a memo (Attachment I). A City Grading and Erosion Control permit will be required for the project. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 10 of 15 Ramsey County New Brighton Road is a County roadway and plans were provided to Ramsey County for review. The existing right-of-way on New Brighton Road meets the County Master Street Plan. Since the three lots would have access off Thom Drive, a County right-of-way permit would not be required. Lake Johanna Fire Department The Lake Johanna Fire Department has reviewed the plans and does not have any comments at this time. Rice Creek Watershed District The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) is charged with reviewing and approving the stormwater management and drainage plan for the project. RCWD has reviewed the plans and granted the project CAPROC status (Conditionally Approved Pending Receipt of Changes) as of January 29, 2018 (Attachment K). Site work cannot begin until all pending items are satisfied. A copy of the approved RCWD permit will need to be provided before the City signs the Final Plat. Findings of Fact Staff offers the following findings of fact for consideration: 1. The property at 3685 New Brighton Road is located in the R-2 – Single and Two-Family Residential Zoning District. 2. The subject property is 83,253 square feet in size with approximately 124 feet on frontage on New Brighton Road and 378 feet of frontage on Thom Drive. 3. The subject property is currently comprised of a single-family residential dwelling, detached garage, and shed. 4. The City has an existing lift station located along the southern line of the subject property along Thom Drive. This lift station is located on private property and the City has a utility easement that permits the City to operate and maintain the lift station. 5. The applicant has requested a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement in order to subdivide the subject property to create three (3) lots for single-family residential dwellings. 6. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision meets the Minimum Subdivision Design Standards included in Section 1130 of the Arden Hills City Code. 7. The park dedication requirement for this application is six percent of the buildable land area in the subdivision or a park dedication fee of $6,500 per lot. Six percent of the development would be 0.11 acres which would not allow for a feasible park area. The park dedication fee of $6,500 per new lot will be applied in this case. 8. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision meets or will be required to meet the Required Improvements for subdivisions included in Section 1140 of the Arden Hills City Code. 9. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision would result in three (3) lots that would conform to the minimum lot area and dimension requirements for the R-2 District. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 11 of 15 10. The R-2 District permits residential densities of up to five (5) units per net acre. 11. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision would have a density of approximately 1.86 units per net acre. 12. The proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 could be developed for a single-family residential dwelling and meet the setback, lot coverage, height, and FAR requirements for the R-2 District. 13. The proposed Lot 3 would meet the lot coverage requirements for the R-2 District. 14. The existing dwelling on Lot 3 has a deck that would encroach into the proposed western side yard setback and within a drainage and utility easement. 15. The existing accessory structures on Lot 3 would meet the accessory structure setback requirements for the R-2 District. 16. Based on the submitted Tree Preservation Plan 193.5 caliper inches of new tree plantings are required based on the amount of significant tree caliper inches removed. 17. The applicant has proposed a Landscape Plan that includes 92.5 caliper inches of new tree plantings. 18. Section 1325.055 of the City Code states that replacement trees are required to planted on the same site from which significant trees are removed, unless the City determines that the number of replacement trees exceeds the number of trees that can practically fit on the site. The City may require the additional replacement trees be planted off-site, or a fee in lieu of the off-site plantings may be collected set as the cost of materials and installation, plus ten percent. Recommendation Based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff recommends approval of Planning Case 17-029 for a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement at 3685 New Brighton Road. If the Planning Commission votes to recommend approval of Planning Case 17-029, staff is recommending the nineteen (19) conditions of approval listed below. The first recommended condition is that the Preliminary Plat approval be contingent on the City Council approval of the Vacation of Easement request, which will be reviewed at a public hearing on February 26, 2018. The applicant has submitted a letter responding to the recommended conditions on tree replacement requirements and park dedication fees (Attachment G). 1. The Preliminary Plat approval shall be contingent upon City Council approval of the request to vacate a portion of the existing easement for the City lift station on the proposed Lot 2. 2. The project shall be completed in accordance with the submitted plans as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 3. A Development Agreement shall be prepared by the City Attorney and subject to City Council approval. The Development Agreement shall be executed prior to execution of the Final Plat. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 12 of 15 4. The Developer shall submit a park dedication fee in the amount of $13,000, subject to the approval of the City Council. The park dedication fee shall be submitted prior to the execution of the Final Plat. 5. The Developer shall provide the City with a copy of the approved Rice Creek Watershed District Permit prior to the execution of the Final Plat by the City. 6. The developer shall file the Final Plat with the Ramsey County Recorder and provide the City with a recorded copy within sixty (60) days of approval. 7. The proposed project may require permits, including, but not limited to, MPCA-NPDES, Rice Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Department of Health, MPCA- Sanitary Sewer Extension, Ramsey County and City Right of Way, and City Grading and Erosion Control permits. Copies of all issued permits shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of any development permits. 8. Final grading and drainage plans shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to the commencement of any construction on the site. 9. The signed and recorded Maintenance Agreement between the RCWD and the Developer for the stormwater management facilities on the site shall be provided to the City before the issuance of any development permits. The City shall not be responsible for the maintenance of the onsite stormwater management facilities. 10. Before construction, grading, or land clearing begins, trees or tree areas that are to be preserved shall be visibly marked and city-approved tree protection fencing or other method shall be installed and maintained at the critical root zones of the trees to be protected. The location of the fencing shall be in conformance with the approved tree preservation plan. 11. A Letter of Credit in the amount of 125 percent of the cost of materials and installation for the required replacement tree plantings shall be provided prior to the issuance of a Grading and Erosion Control permit. The Letter of Cred shall be valid for two full years from the date of installation of the replacements trees. 12. The Developer shall work with the City to find alternative locations for the 101 caliper inches of replacement trees off-site, or a fee in lieu of the replacement tress will be required equaling the cost of materials and installation plus ten percent, as determined by the City Council. 13. Survey monuments shall be placed and installed at all block corners, angle points, points of curves in streets, and at intermediate points as shown on the Final Plat. Pipes or streel rods shall be placed at the corners of each lot. 14. The Developer shall be required to stake metal markers along the drainage easement abutting the infiltration basis and wetland with signs stating the area is a natural vegetation/infiltration area and no dumping is allowed. The design of the signs shall be approved by the City prior to installation. 15. Sewer and water for the subdivision shall be obtained by connections to the City water and sewer systems. Extension of City services shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and all associated costs shall be the responsibility of the developer. 16. A grading as-built and utility as-built plan shall be provided to the City upon completion of grading and utility work. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 13 of 15 17. The deck on the existing single-family dwelling at 3685 New Brighton Road shall be removed or modified in order to meet the side yard setback requirement and not encroach on any drainage and utility easement prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 or Lot 2, or the Developer shall be required to submit a cash escrow with the City to ensure the removal of the deck within six (6) months from the approval of the Final Plat. 18. The driveway for the existing single-family dwelling at 3685 New Brighton Road shall be relocated to Thom Drive prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 or Lot 2, or the Developer shall be required to submit a cash escrow with the City to ensure the relocation of the driveway within six (6) months from the approval of the Final Plat. 19. The Developer shall conform to all other City regulations. Proposed Motion Language 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 17-029 for a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement at 3685 New Brighton Road, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, as amended by the nineteen (19) conditions in the February 7, 2018 Report to the Planning Commission. 2. Recommend Approval without Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 17-029 for a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement at 3685 New Brighton Road, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans in the February 7, 2018 Report to the Planning Commission. 3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 17-029 for a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement at 3685 New Brighton Road based on the following findings of fact: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. 4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case Planning Case Planning Case 17-029 for a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement at 3685 New Brighton Road for the following reasons: a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Notice Notice for the public hearing that was held at the Planning Commission meeting on January 10, 2018 was mailed to property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property and published in the Arden Hills-Shoreview Bulletin. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 14 of 15 Public Comments Staff has received emails from four residents within the area. Copies of these emails have been provided in Attachment H. Staff received a phone call from the residents at 2033 Thom Court who expressed concerns about drainage issues. Staff also spoke to the resident at 2027 Thom Drive who had concerns about the proposal. The Planning Commission held the official public hearing for Planning Case 17-029 at their meeting on January 10, 2018. Draft minutes from the meeting have been provided in Attachment J. The following is a summary of the comments provided at the meeting: • The resident at 3695 New Brighton Road described how the proposed development would affect energy efficiency systems and design within their home. The resident also expressed concerns about the number of trees removed, the impact on the wetland, and the number of additional driveways on Thom Drive. • The resident at 3670 New Brighton Road expressed concerns about the impact of the development on the wetland area. • The resident at 3744 Brighton Way expressed concerns about the impact of the development on the wetland area, the number of trees that would be taken down, and the proposed partial vacation of the easement area for the lift station. The resident also had concerns about additional traffic on Thom Drive. • The resident at 3707 New Brighton Road expressed concerns about how the character of the neighborhood would be impacted by the development. • The resident at 3731 New Brighton Road expressed concerns about the loss of trees and the character of the neighborhood changing. • The resident at 1978 Thom Drive questioned who would be responsible for maintaining the stormwater basins. • The resident at 3766 Brighton Way North stated they were concerned about the amount of traffic on New Brighton Road and recommended a walking path be constructed to help improve safety. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on December 4, 2017. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City was required to act on this request by February 2, 2018 (60 days), unless the City provided the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60 day review period. The applicant was notified on January 11, 2018 of the City’s request for an additional 60-day review period. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must now act on this request by April 24, 2018. The City may, with the consent of the applicant, extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 15 of 15 Attachments A. Land Use Application B. Site and Aerial Maps C. Horita Acres Preliminary Plat & Site Plans D. Horita Acres Final Plat E. Depiction and Legal Description for Vacation of Easement F. Memo from WSB & Associates, December 7, 2017 G. Letter from Timothy Horita, January 3, 2018 H. Public Comments I. Memo from Public Works Director/City Engineer, dated January 16, 2018 J. Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, January 10, 2018 K. Rice Creek Watershed District Status Update, January 29, 2018 Approved: February 7, 2018 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2018 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL PLANNING CASES C. Planning Case 17-029; Preliminary Plat, Final plat, Vacation of Easement – 3685 New Brighton Road – Public Hearing City Planner Bachler explained the existing property at 3685 New Brighton Road is approximately 1.9 acres in size and is comprised of a single-family residential dwelling, detached garage, and shed. The dwelling and accessory structures are located towards the eastern side of the property and the one access driveway for the lot is on New Brighton Road near the intersection with Thom Drive. The property as approximately 124 feet on frontage on New Brighton Road and 378 feet of frontage along Thom Drive. City Planner Bachler commented the existing topography of the lot generally slopes west from New Brighton Road to a wetland complex located on the western parcel boundary. This wetland complex covers approximately 0.3 acres of the property and extends off the property to the north and south. The City has a sanitary lift station located on the southern edge of the property approximately in the middle of the lot. The remainder of the lot is heavily wooded. City Planner Bachler reported the applicant has proposed a subdivision of the existing property to create three lots for single-family residential dwellings. The existing dwelling and other improvements would be retained and located on the proposed Lot 3. Two new lots (Lot 1 and Lot 2) would be located to the west of Lot 3 with frontage and driveways on Thom Drive. The existing access driveway for Lot 3 would be located to Thom Drive so that all three parcels are similarly oriented with their principal frontage on Thom Drive. There is a purchase agreement in place for the easterly lot (Lot 2) and the applicant expects construction to begin on this lot immediately if City approval is received. The westerly lot (Lot 1) is being marketed for sale. City Planner Bachler stated in order to support the proposed development, a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement is requested. The easement vacation is needed to vacate a portion of the public utility easement for the City lift station on the property. The development is required to meet Rice Creek Watershed District regulations and the proposed grading plan shows that two basins would be constructed on Lot 1 to capture stormwater runoff from the site and allow it to discharge into the adjacent wetland. Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be graded to direct water flow from these properties to one of the two basins. The site is heavily wooded with 72 significant trees. A Tree Preservation Plan has been provided indicating 22 of these trees would be removed. Replacement tree plantings are proposed as part of the Tree Preservation Plan. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 2 Site Data Land Use Plan: Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single Family Detached Residential Zoning: R-2: Single & Two Family Residential Current Lot Sizes: 83,253 square feet (1.91 acres) Topography: Property slopes east to west approximately 28 feet from New Brighton Road to the wetland complex on the western boundary. City Planner Bachler reviewed the surrounding area, and the Plan Review. Staff offered the following Findings of Fact for review: 1. The property at 3685 New Brighton Road is located in the R-2 – Single and Two-Family Residential Zoning District. 2. The subject property is 83,253 square feet in size with approximately 124 feet on frontage on New Brighton Road and 378 feet of frontage on Thom Drive. 3. The subject property is currently comprised of a single-family residential dwelling, detached garage, and shed. 4. The City has an existing lift station located along the southern line of the subject property along Thom Drive. This lift station is located on private property and the City has a utility easement that permits the City to operate and maintain the lift station. 5. The applicant has requested a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement in order to subdivide the subject property to create three (3) lots for single-family residential dwellings. 6. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision meets the Minimum Subdivision Design Standards included in Section 1130 of the Arden Hills City Code. 7. The park dedication requirement for this application is six percent of the buildable land area in the subdivision or a park dedication fee of $6,500 per lot. Six percent of the development would be 0.11 acres which would not allow for a feasible park area. The park dedication fee of $6,500 per new lot will be applied in this case. 8. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision meets or will be required to meet the Required Improvements for subdivisions included in Section 1140 of the Arden Hills City Code. 9. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision would result in three (3) lots that would conform to the minimum lot area and dimension requirements for the R-2 District. 10. The R-2 District permits residential densities of up to five (5) units per net acre. 11. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision would have a density of approximately 1.86 units per net acre. 12. The proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 could be developed for a single-family residential dwelling and meet the setback, lot coverage, height, and FAR requirements for the R-2 District. 13. The proposed Lot 3 would meet the lot coverage requirements for the R-2 District. 14. The existing dwelling on Lot 3 has a deck that would encroach into the proposed western side yard setback and within a drainage and utility easement. 15. The existing accessory structures on Lot 3 would meet the accessory structure setback requirements for the R-2 District. 16. Based on the submitted Tree Preservation Plan 193.5 caliper inches of new tree plantings are required based on the amount of significant tree caliper inches removed. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 3 17. The applicant has proposed a Landscape Plan that includes 92.5 caliper inches of new tree plantings. 18. Section 1325.055 of the City Code states that replacement trees are required to planted on the same site from which significant trees are removed, unless the City determines that the number of replacement trees exceeds the number of trees that can practically fit on the site. The City may require the additional replacement trees be planted off-site, or a fee in lieu of the off-site plantings may be collected set as the cost of materials and installation, plus ten percent. City Planner Bachler stated Based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff recommends approval of Planning Case 17-029 for a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement at 3685 New Brighton Road. If the Planning Commission votes to recommend approval of Planning Case 17-029, staff is recommending the twenty-two (22) conditions of approval listed below. The first recommended condition is that the Preliminary Plat approval be contingent on the City Council approval of the Vacation of Easement request, which will be reviewed at a public hearing on January 22, 2018. Staff noted the applicant has submitted a letter responding to the recommended conditions on tree replacement requirements and park dedication fees. 1. The Preliminary Plat approval shall be contingent upon City Council approval of the request to vacate a portion of the existing easement for the City lift station on the proposed Lot 2. 2. The Final Plat shall be revised to provide for a twelve (12) foot wide drainage easement to the north of the building pad site on the proposed Lot 2. 3. The Final Plat shall be revised to provide for a drainage easement around Basin 1 on the proposed Lot 1 at an elevation of 891.00, and for a drainage easement around Basin 2 on the proposed Lot 1 at an elevation of 889.00. 4. The project shall be completed in accordance with the submitted plans as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 5. A Development Agreement shall be prepared by the City Attorney and subject to City Council approval. The Development Agreement shall be executed prior to execution of the Final Plat. 6. The Developer shall submit a park dedication fee in the amount of $13,000, subject to the approval of the City Council. The park dedication fee shall be submitted prior to the execution of the Final Plat. 7. The Developer shall provide the City with a copy of the approved Rice Creek Watershed District Permit prior to the execution of the Final Plat by the City. 8. The developer shall file the Final Plat with the Ramsey County Recorder and provide the City with a recorded copy within sixty (60) days of approval. 9. The proposed project may require permits, including, but not limited to, MPCA-NPDES, Rice Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Department of Health, MPCA- Sanitary Sewer Extension, Ramsey County and City Right of Way, and City Grading and Erosion Control permits. Copies of all issued permits shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of any development permits. 10. Final grading and drainage plans shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to the commencement of any construction on the site. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 4 11. The Developer shall be required to meet the requirements as outlined in the memo from WSB & Associates dated December 7, 2017. 12. The signed Maintenance Agreement between the RCWD and the Developer for the drainage basins on Lot 1 shall be provided to the City before the issuance of any development permits. The City shall not be responsible for the maintenance of the drainage basins located on Lot 1. 13. Before construction, grading, or land clearing begins, trees or tree areas that are to be preserved shall be visibly marked and city-approved tree protection fencing or other method shall be installed and maintained at the critical root zones of the trees to be protected. The location of the fencing shall be in conformance with the approved tree preservation plan. 14. A Letter of Credit in the amount of 125 percent of the cost of materials and installation for the required replacement tree plantings shall be provided prior to the issuance of a Grading and Erosion Control permit. The Letter of Cred shall be valid for two full years from the date of installation of the replacements trees. 15. The Developer shall work with the City to find alternative locations for the 101 caliper inches of replacement trees off-site, or a fee in lieu of the replacement tress will be required equaling the cost of materials and installation plus ten percent, as determined by the City Council. 16. Survey monuments shall be placed and installed at all block corners, angle points, points of curves in streets, and at intermediate points as shown on the Final Plat. Pipes or streel rods shall be placed at the corners of each lot. 17. The Developer shall be required to stake metal markers along the drainage easement abutting the infiltration basis and wetland with signs stating the area is a natural vegetation/infiltration area and no dumping is allowed. The design of the signs shall be approved by the City prior to installation. 18. Sewer and water for the subdivision shall be obtained by connections to the City water and sewer systems. Extension of City services shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and all associated costs shall be the responsibility of the developer. 19. A grading as-built and utility as-built plan shall be provided to the City upon completion of grading and utility work. 20. The deck on the existing single-family dwelling at 3685 New Brighton Road shall be removed or modified in order to meet the side yard setback requirement and not encroach on any drainage and utility easement prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 or Lot 2, or the Developer shall be required to submit a cash escrow with the City to ensure the removal of the deck within six (6) months from the approval of the Final Plat. 21. The driveway for the existing single-family dwelling at 3685 New Brighton Road shall be relocated to Thom Drive prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 or Lot 2, or the Developer shall be required to submit a cash escrow with the City to ensure the relocation of the driveway within six (6) months from the approval of the Final Plat. 22. The Developer shall conform to all other City regulations. City Planner Bachler summarized the comments he has received from concerns residents and reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted. 3. Recommend Denial ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 5 4. Table Chair Thompson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Jones asked if the DNR would also have to review this request. City Planner Bachler explained the DNR does not have jurisdiction over this waterway. He provided further comment on the RCWD’s permitting process and noted the applicant was in the process of applying for a permit from this organization. Commissioner Bartel requested further information regarding the easement. City Planner Bachler commented that the City has an easement for operating the lift station on the property and noted that the proposal was to modify the dimensions of the easement. He reported the change to the easement would not impact the operation of the lift station. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka noted this lift station was reconstructed in 2012 and the area requested to be vacated was not part of any necessary construction area. Commissioner Bartel asked what the minimum lot size was for the City of Arden Hills. City Planner Bachler stated the minimum lot size was 11,000 square feet in the R-2 zoning district. Commissioner Lambeth questioned if there had been any thought given to the use of imported fill to make this site buildable and what impact this might have on erosion control. City Planner Bachler indicated he was uncertain as to the amount of fill that would have to be brought in. He recommended the applicant address this question. He noted that a Grading and Erosion Control permit would be required for the proposed subdivision. Chair Thompson opened the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. Chair Thompson invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. Joe Federer, 3695 New Brighton Road, stated he sent a lengthy letter to the City. He described how the proposed request would drastically impact his house. He discussed the privacy in his neighborhood along with the number of trees. He reported he was told in 2012 that the subject property was undevelopable. He commented on the amount of wetland in Tim Horita’s backyard and expressed concern with the development of this property. He provided further comment on the history of the easement on this property. He described the energy efficiency methods that were used in constructing his home noting his windows cannot be covered during the day. He explained with homes being constructed as proposed he would need to have blinds and he would not be able to effectively heat his home. He stated it would cost him $10,000 to $11,000 to install a furnace and an additional expense would be incurred to install blinds on the exterior of his home, which would be another $15,000. He stated he could not afford to make these improvements when the heat for his home was currently free. He believed that the proposed ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 6 homes would be injurious to adjacent tracts. Lastly, he indicated it would not be desirable to add three driveways to Thom Drive. Jewell Perry Martin, 3670 New Brighton Road, stated she lives next to Perry Park. She explained she was born and raised on New Brighton Road. She discussed the quaint neighborhood she lives in and did not support the construction of new homes in the lowland. She believed this area was made to be natural wetlands. She feared the new homes would destroy the wetlands and recommended the Planning Commission deny this request. Andy Berg, 3744 Brighton Way, indicated he opposed this project. He stated the developer was trying to cram three homes onto a property with a wetland. He expressed concern with how the wetland would be impacted. He asked if this development would have funds set aside to protect and maintain the wetland. He commented he was concerned with the amount of trees that would be lost, along with the vacation of the sewer easement. He questioned if the City would be able to adequately maintain the lift station if the easement were decreased in size. He inquired who would be paying for the retaining wall next to the lift station. He noted Thom Drive was not a standard City street as it was only 23 feet wide. He stated he feared how Thom Drive would be impacted by the additional traffic from the three proposed driveways. Ivan Gilbert, 3707 New Brighton Road, stated he understood the three lots met the City’s standards but reported the new homes would change the character of the neighborhood. He explained he has lived in his home for 42 years. He indicated he moved to this area of Arden Hills for the view and openness of the surrounding area. He feared how his neighborhood would be impacted by cramming three homes onto this property. Dick Kotoski, Coldwell Banker Burnett and representative for the applicant, discussed the amount of fill that would be brought onto the property noting it would not be extensive. He anticipated fill would only be placed on the building pads. Commissioner Jones questioned why the applicant had requested the cottonwood trees not be counted as significant trees. Mr. Kotoski, stated in 2013 the City drafted a newsletter article that claimed buckthorn and cottonwoods were a nuisance. He provided the Planning Commission with a copy of this article. He commented on the expense the developer would have to incur to mitigate and replace the trees for this development. He stated most of the trees in the area of basin one were cottonwoods. He understood that these were heavily wooded lots and noted the lots would remain heavily wooded. Chair Thompson requested further information on the RCWD permit. Mr. Kotoski explained the developer has been in talks with them. He stated he did not anticipate any problems in receiving a permit from the watershed district. Chair Thompson asked if the stormwater management plan was in progress. Mr. Kotoski reported this was the case. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 7 Commissioner Jones questioned if this roadway ever floods at the low point. Mr. Kotoski stated he was uncertain but noted a culvert was in place. Commissioner Lambeth inquired if this property was currently for sale and asked if there were any contingencies. Mr. Kotoski commented this was the case and noted he was the broker for this transaction. He reported the sale of the property was contingent upon the lot splits. He noted he had offers already for both lots. Ashley Farmer, resident of New Brighton, stated she was hoping to purchase Lot 2. She explained she and her husband worked for the New Brighton Fire Department and her husband was a police officer. She indicated they both enjoy giving back to their community. She addressed some of the concerns raised by the public. She stated she wanted the same things as these neighbors, which was the privacy, woods and nature. She understood this was a quaint and desirable neighborhood and she hoped to be able to live in this area too. Eric Sandard, 3731 New Brighton Road, stated this was a difficult issue for him as there were many moving parts. He explained he was opposed to this proposed project as it was a money- making scheme. He encouraged the City to not let this sway their decision on the matter. He expressed concern with the great loss of trees as well. He discussed the character of the neighborhood and stated the three proposed houses would be out of character as they would be crammed tightly together. For this reason, he recommended the Commission not support the request as it was not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Brian Jorgensen, 1978 Thom Drive, expressed concern with who would be maintaining the basins and stormwater ponds. Dan Aberg, 3766 Brighton Way North, stated he was concerned with safety along New Brighton Road given the number of homes that have been added to this area of the City. He stated there has been an influx of homes and families, which was making traffic hazardous. He feared how the neighborhood would be impacted by three additional homes. There being no additional comment Chair Thompson closed the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. Commissioner Bartel asked if Thom Drive would ever be expanded or widened. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka stated the City did not have plans to widen this roadway as it serves a small number of homes. She reported the City had 50 feet of right-of-way along this street if the roadway needed to be widened in the future. Chair Thompson questioned if the City had any plans to add trails in this area. City Planner Bachler indicated the City’s Comprehensive Plan includes a future pathway on New Brighton Road, but that this trail had not yet been budgeted for. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 8 Commissioner Jones expressed concern with the number of wholes in this project, noting the plans were incomplete. He stated he would like to have more information regarding the drainage and stormwater runoff plans. He indicated he also did not approve of the removal of the cottonwood trees. He commented he would like to table action on this item until the City had all of the necessary plans in place, and to learn if the watershed district offered the applicant a permit. City Planner Bachler commented staff was not recommending the cottonwood trees be excluded from the tree preservation plan. He reported it was common for Planning Cases to be reviewed by different government entities and noted the Planning Commissions could choose to table this request. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka noted the plans presented to the watershed district were also incomplete and explained there were questions regarding the storm basins. Chair Thompson stated she appreciated the comments from Commissioner Jones and from staff. She commented that because of the topography and the uncertainty on the wetlands she wanted to be assured the watershed district supported this project and that all information was complete. She understood that new developments were not always welcomed, but noted the City had to follow the zoning code. She questioned if staff had considered how the neighborhood would be impacted by three additional driveways. City Planner Bachler stated a traffic study was not completed and was typically only required for larger developments. Commissioner Jones moved and Commissioner Lambeth seconded a motion to table Planning Case 17-029 for a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement at 3685 New Brighton Road to the February 7, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, based on the fact the Planning Commission requires further information on the proposed plans. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Approved: March 7, 2018 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2018 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 17-029; Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, Vacation of Easement – 3685 New Brighton Road – Public Hearing City Planner Bachler stated the Planning Commission held the public hearing for Planning Case 17-029 at their meeting on January 10, 2018. The Planning Commission voted to table this planning case to allow staff and the Rice Creek Watershed District additional time to review the stormwater management plan for the development. Since that time, staff has completed its review of the stormwater management plan and has no additional comments. City Planner Bachler explained the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) has reviewed the plans and granted the project CAPROC status (Conditionally Approved Pending Receipt of Changes) as of January 29, 2018. Site work cannot begin until all pending items are satisfied. This includes providing RCWD with a Declaration for Maintenance of Stormwater Management Facilities that is acceptable to the RCWD engineer and attorney for the onsite stormwater management features. The Maintenance Agreement would between RCWD and the developer, and RCWD will be responsible for monitoring and enforcing the agreement. City Planner Bachler commented the existing property at 3685 New Brighton Road is approximately 1.9 acres in size and is comprised of a single-family residential dwelling, detached garage, and shed. The dwelling and accessory structures are located towards the eastern side of the property and the one access driveway for the lot is on New Brighton Road near the intersection with Thom Drive. The property has approximately 124 feet of frontage on New Brighton Road and 378 feet of frontage along Thom Drive. City Planner Bachler reported the existing topography of the lot generally slopes west from New Brighton Road to a wetland complex located on the western parcel boundary. This wetland complex covers approximately 0.3 acres of the property and extends off the property to the north and south. The City has a sanitary lift station located on the southern edge of the property approximately in the middle of the lot. The remainder of the lot is heavily wooded. City Planner Bachler noted the applicant has proposed a subdivision of the existing property to create three lots for single-family residential dwellings. The existing dwelling and other improvements would be retained and located on the proposed Lot 3. Two new lots (Lot 1 and Lot 2) would be located to the west of Lot 3 with frontage and driveways on Thom Drive. The ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 7, 2018 2 existing access driveway for Lot 3 would be relocated to Thom Drive so that all three parcels are similarly oriented with their principal frontage on Thom Drive. There is a purchase agreement in place for the easterly lot (Lot 2) and the applicant expects construction to begin on this lot immediately if City approval is received. The westerly lot (Lot 1) is being marketed for sale. City Planner Bachler stated in order to support the proposed development, a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement is requested. The easement vacation is needed to vacate a portion of the public utility easement for the City lift station on the property. The development is required to meet Rice Creek Watershed District regulations and the proposed grading plan shows that two basins would be constructed on Lot 1 to capture stormwater runoff from the site and allow it to discharge into the adjacent wetland. Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be graded to direct water flow from these properties to one of the two basins. The site is heavily wooded with 72 significant trees. A Tree Preservation Plan has been provided indicating 22 of these trees would be removed. Replacement tree plantings are proposed as part of the Tree Preservation Plan. Site Data Land Use Plan: Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single Family Detached Residential Zoning: R-2: Single & Two Family Residential Current Lot Sizes: 83,253 square feet (1.91 acres) Topography: Property slopes east to west approximately 28 feet from New Brighton Road to the wetland complex on the western boundary. City Planner Bachler reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and the Variance Evaluation Criteria. City Planner Bachler provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The property at 3685 New Brighton Road is located in the R-2 – Single and Two-Family Residential Zoning District. 2. The subject property is 83,253 square feet in size with approximately 124 feet on frontage on New Brighton Road and 378 feet of frontage on Thom Drive. 3. The subject property is currently comprised of a single-family residential dwelling, detached garage, and shed. 4. The City has an existing lift station located along the southern line of the subject property along Thom Drive. This lift station is located on private property and the City has a utility easement that permits the City to operate and maintain the lift station. 5. The applicant has requested a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement in order to subdivide the subject property to create three (3) lots for single-family residential dwellings. 6. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision meets the Minimum Subdivision Design Standards included in Section 1130 of the Arden Hills City Code. 7. The park dedication requirement for this application is ten percent of the buildable land area in the subdivision or a park dedication fee of $6,500 per lot. Ten percent of the development would be 0.19 acres which would not allow for a feasible park area. The park dedication fee of $6,500 per new lot will be applied in this case. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 7, 2018 3 8. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision meets or will be required to meet the Required Improvements for subdivisions included in Section 1140 of the Arden Hills City Code. 9. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision would result in three (3) lots that would conform to the minimum lot area and dimension requirements for the R-2 District. 10. The R-2 District permits residential densities of up to five (5) units per net acre. 11. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision would have a density of approximately 1.86 units per net acre. 12. The proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 could be developed for a single-family residential dwelling and meet the setback, lot coverage, height, and FAR requirements for the R-2 District. 13. The proposed Lot 3 would meet the lot coverage requirements for the R-2 District. 14. The existing dwelling on Lot 3 has a deck that would encroach into the proposed western side yard setback and within a drainage and utility easement. 15. The existing accessory structures on Lot 3 would meet the accessory structure setback requirements for the R-2 District. 16. Based on the submitted Tree Preservation Plan 193.5 caliper inches of new tree plantings are required based on the amount of significant tree caliper inches removed. 17. The applicant has proposed a Landscape Plan that includes 92.5 caliper inches of new tree plantings. 18. Section 1325.055 of the City Code states that replacement trees are required to planted on the same site from which significant trees are removed, unless the City determines that the number of replacement trees exceeds the number of trees that can practically fit on the site. The City may require the additional replacement trees be planted off-site, or a fee in lieu of the off-site plantings may be collected set as the cost of materials and installation, plus ten percent. City Planner Bachler stated based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff recommends approval of Planning Case 17-029 for a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement at 3685 New Brighton Road. If the Planning Commission votes to recommend approval of Planning Case 17-029, staff is recommending the nineteen (19) conditions of approval listed below. The first recommended condition is that the Preliminary Plat approval be contingent on the City Council approval of the Vacation of Easement request, which will be reviewed at a public hearing on February 26, 2018. It was noted the applicant has submitted a letter responding to the recommended conditions on tree replacement requirements and park dedication fees. 1. The Preliminary Plat approval shall be contingent upon City Council approval of the request to vacate a portion of the existing easement for the City lift station on the proposed Lot 2. 2. The project shall be completed in accordance with the submitted plans as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 3. A Development Agreement shall be prepared by the City Attorney and subject to City Council approval. The Development Agreement shall be executed prior to execution of the Final Plat. 4. The Developer shall submit a park dedication fee in the amount of $13,000, subject to the approval of the City Council. The park dedication fee shall be submitted prior to the execution of the Final Plat. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 7, 2018 4 5. The Developer shall provide the City with a copy of the approved Rice Creek Watershed District Permit prior to the execution of the Final Plat by the City. 6. The developer shall file the Final Plat with the Ramsey County Recorder and provide the City with a recorded copy within sixty (60) days of approval. 7. The proposed project may require permits, including, but not limited to, MPCA-NPDES, Rice Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Department of Health, MPCA- Sanitary Sewer Extension, Ramsey County and City Right of Way, and City Grading and Erosion Control permits. Copies of all issued permits shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of any development permits. 8. Final grading and drainage plans shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to the commencement of any construction on the site. 9. The signed and recorded Maintenance Agreement between the RCWD and the Developer for the stormwater management facilities on the site shall be provided to the City before the issuance of any development permits. The City shall not be responsible for the maintenance of the onsite stormwater management facilities. 10. Before construction, grading, or land clearing begins, trees or tree areas that are to be preserved shall be visibly marked and city-approved tree protection fencing or other method shall be installed and maintained at the critical root zones of the trees to be protected. The location of the fencing shall be in conformance with the approved tree preservation plan. 11. A Letter of Credit in the amount of 125 percent of the cost of materials and installation for the required replacement tree plantings shall be provided prior to the issuance of a Grading and Erosion Control permit. The Letter of Cred shall be valid for two full years from the date of installation of the replacements trees. 12. The Developer shall work with the City to find alternative locations for the 101 caliper inches of replacement trees off-site, or a fee in lieu of the replacement tress will be required equaling the cost of materials and installation plus ten percent, as determined by the City Council. 13. Survey monuments shall be placed and installed at all block corners, angle points, points of curves in streets, and at intermediate points as shown on the Final Plat. Pipes or streel rods shall be placed at the corners of each lot. 14. The Developer shall be required to stake metal markers along the drainage easement abutting the infiltration basis and wetland with signs stating the area is a natural vegetation/infiltration area and no dumping is allowed. The design of the signs shall be approved by the City prior to installation. 15. Sewer and water for the subdivision shall be obtained by connections to the City water and sewer systems. Extension of City services shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and all associated costs shall be the responsibility of the developer. 16. A grading as-built and utility as-built plan shall be provided to the City upon completion of grading and utility work. 17. The deck on the existing single-family dwelling at 3685 New Brighton Road shall be removed or modified in order to meet the side yard setback requirement and not encroach on any drainage and utility easement prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 or Lot 2, or the Developer shall be required to submit a cash escrow with the City to ensure the removal of the deck within six (6) months from the approval of the Final Plat. 18. The driveway for the existing single-family dwelling at 3685 New Brighton Road shall be relocated to Thom Drive prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 or Lot 2, or ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 7, 2018 5 the Developer shall be required to submit a cash escrow with the City to ensure the relocation of the driveway within six (6) months from the approval of the Final Plat. 19. The Developer shall conform to all other City regulations. City Planner Bachler reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted. 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Thompson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Lambeth asked who the developer would be for the project. City Planner Bachler explained the current owner of the property was Timothy Horita and the application was from Mr. Horita and Richard Kotoski, a real estate agent. He indicated Mr. Horita would be the developer. Commissioner Dixon questioned if there were any costs to the City with regard to the lift station. City Planner Bachler stated the City would incur ongoing maintenance costs for the lift station over time. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka reported the developer would be responsible if any damage were to occur to the lift station during construction. She explained the majority of the equipment for the lift station was underground. She stated the concerns regarding the lift station could be addressed in the Development Agreement. Further discussion ensued regarding Rice Creek Watershed approval and maintenance of the stormwater basins. Commissioner Jones questioned if the required maintenance would be done quarterly, every six months or yearly. City Planner Bachler explained the property owner would be required to inspect the basins annually. If this was not done in accordance with the Rice Creek Watershed Permit, notice would be given of the deficiency and steps may be taken to correct the deficiency. In addition, the property owner would be responsible for covering the expenses to maintain the facilities. Chair Thompson opened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. Chair Thompson invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 7, 2018 6 Ivan Gilbert, 3707 New Brighton Road, expressed concern with the fact that the owner of Lot 1 would be responsible for the maintenance of the storm basins. He questioned who would be responsible if this lot never sold. He encouraged the Planning Commission to hear the concerns of the neighbors regarding this development and not approve the request. Joe Federer, 3695 New Brighton Road, commented on how this development would injure his property and home. He indicated he sent a lengthy email to the Commission addressing his concerns. He stated after speaking with a hydrologist, the proposed basins were not put in the correct place, but rather where they would fit. He noted he spoke with the Rice Creek Watershed District as well and explained the cost to maintain this basin would be $30,000 to $50,000 to replace once it fails. He explained these basins are typically owned by municipalities and not homeowners. He discussed the proposed lot sizes and noted they were quite a bit smaller than the adjacent properties. He encouraged the Commission to keep the lot sizes more closely aligned with the existing neighborhood. He commented on the lift station and discussed how the easement location was relocated after recent reconstruction on this structure. He noted 78% of the trees on this property would be removed if this development were to go through and noted the diseased trees should not be considered for salvaged caliper inches. He recommended staff review the tree numbers more closely. Richard Kotoski, Coldwell Banker Burnett, explained he was working with Tim Horita to market and sell his lots. Commissioner Jones questioned how the maintenance agreement for the storm basins would be handled by the developer. Paul Cherne, Pioneer Engineering, stated the maintenance agreement would run with the land. Chair Thompson requested further information on how the storm basins will be graded. Mr. Cherne discussed how the basins would be graded and seeded for the development. He reported these basins were not complicated but would simply be used for holding and discharge to the wetlands. He explained the maintenance for the basin would be quite minimal and would simply involve keeping the pipe free and clear of debris. He noted no street runoff would be managed by the storm basins on Lot 1. Commissioner Lambeth asked if the grading on the property would have a natural grade. Mr. Cherne described how the site would be graded and noted one pipe would be needed for one of the driveways. Commissioner Dixon requested staff summarize the list of variances needed to approve this Planning Case. City Planner Bachler stated this request has no variances and noted all of the lots met the City’s minimum size requirements. Commissioner Dixon asked if the City could successfully replace the lift station in 20 or 50 years with the proposed development in place. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 7, 2018 7 City Planner Bachler explained that staff has reviewed the proposed plans and believes the lift station could be successfully reconstructed with the reduced easement area and the addition of the two new homes. Commissioner Gehrig thanked staff for providing the Commission with additional information from the Rice Creek Watershed District and on the basin maintenance. Commissioner Jones stated the Commission did not really have a leg to stand on in order to deny the request, given the fact the applicant had not requested any variances and the proposed development met all City requirements. Chair Thompson indicated this was the case and noted the final decision for this request would be made by the City Council where the comments and concerns expressed by the neighbors would have to be considered. Commissioner Jones requested that staff take a closer look at the tree preservation plan to address the concern expressed by Mr. Federer this evening. City Planner Bachler discussed the tree preservation plan and noted all diseased trees had been removed from the City’s calculations. He commented further on the bond the City would require for the new tree plantings on the site. He noted if trees that are to be protected are removed or significantly damaged during construction, the City would require the trees to be replaced at a ratio of two caliper inches for every one inch removed. Chair Thompson reported the tree replacement and bond requirement was addressed in Conditions 11 and 12. She stated she supported keeping the cottonwood trees as significant trees within the calculations. Chair Thompson thanked the neighbors for coming forward and voicing their concerns regarding this development. Commissioner Gehrig moved and Commissioner Lambeth seconded a motion to recommend approval of 17-029 for a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement at 3685 New Brighton Road, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, as amended by the nineteen (19) conditions in the February 7, 2018 Report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 196456v5 (reserved for recording information) DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (Developer Installed Improvements) HORITA ACRES [PC #17-029] THIS DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (“Agreement”) is dated ____________________, 2018, by and between the CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”), and Timothy L. Horita, (the “Developer” and “Owner”). 1. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL. The Developer has asked the City to approve a Development Application for the Final Plat of HORITA ACRES (referred to in this Contract as the “Development”). The Developer desires to subdivide the existing lot at 3685 New Brighton Road, Arden Hills, Minnesota, into three single-family residential lots with access from Thom Drive. The land is situated in the County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, and is legally described as set forth on Exhibit A hereto (“Subject Property”). 2. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. A. The City hereby approves the Development on condition that the Developer enter into this Agreement and furnish the security required by it. 196456v5 B. The City hereby grants approval to the Development as identified in Plans A through N in paragraph 4 of this Agreement and compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and all other City requirements which are in effect. 3. RIGHT TO PROCEED. Within the plat or subject property, the Developer may not grade or otherwise disturb the earth, remove trees, construct sewer lines, water lines, streets, utilities, public or private improvements, or any buildings until all the following conditions have been satisfied: 1) this Agreement has been fully executed by both parties and filed with the City Clerk, 2) the necessary security has been received by the City, 3) the plat, if any, and this Agreement have been recorded with the Ramsey County Recorder's/Registrar’s Office within sixty (60) days of City Council approval, and 4) the City’s Administrator has issued a letter that the Developer may proceed. If the plat and this Agreement are not recorded within sixty (60) days of City Council approval, the approval shall be considered void. 4. DEVELOPMENT PLANS. The plat or property shall be developed in accordance with the following plans (“Plans”). The Plans shall not be attached to this Agreement. The Plans may be prepared, subject to City approval, after entering the Agreement, but before commencement of any work in the plat or on the property. If the Plans vary from the written terms of this Agreement, the approved plans shall control. The Plans are: Plan A – Cover Sheet, dated 01/10/2018 Plan B - Legend Sheet, dated 01/10/2018 Plan C – Preliminary Plat and Existing Conditions, dated 01/10/2018 Plan D - Site/Utility Plan, dated 01/10/2018 Plan E – Grading Plan, dated 01/10/2018 Plan F – Erosion Control Plan, dated 01/10/2018 Plan G – Details, dated 01/10/2018 Plan H – Landscape Plan, dated 02/27/2018 Plan I - Tree Preservation Plan, dated 11/29/2017 Plan J – Final Plat Plan K - Storm Water Management Plan, dated January 10, 2018 196456v5 Plan L - Wetland Delineation Report, dated 10/16/2017 Plan M – Preliminary Building Elevations Plan N – Proposed Easement Vacation Sketch 5. IMPROVEMENTS. The Developer shall install and pay for the following as required to be built within the project as private improvements in accordance with the approved Plans: A. Sanitary Sewer System B. Water System C. Storm Sewer System D. Driveways E. Site Grading, Ponding, and Erosion Control F. Landscaping G. Underground Utilities H. Setting of Iron Monuments, including Monuments described in the Wetland Overlay District I. Surveying and Staking The improvements shall be installed in accordance with the City Code. The Developer will not use power equipment between the hours of 9 o’clock p.m. and 7 o’clock a.m. on any weekday or between the hours of 9:00 o’clock p.m. and 8:00 o’clock a.m. on any weekend or holiday. The Developer shall submit plans and specifications for permit which have been prepared by a competent registered professional engineer to the City for approval by the City Engineer which approval shall be provided on the condition that such submittals comply with the Plans and this Agreement. The Developer shall instruct its engineer to provide adequate field inspection personnel to assure an acceptable level of quality control. In addition, the City may, at the City's discretion and at the Developer's expense, have one or more City inspectors and a soil engineer inspect the work as the City may reasonably determine. The Developer, its contractors and subcontractors, shall follow all instructions received from the City's inspectors. 6. IRON MONUMENTS. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes 505.021 and Arden Hills City Code Section 1140.01, the final placement of iron monuments for all lot corners must be completed 196456v5 before the applicable security is released. The Developer's surveyor shall also submit a written notice to the City certifying that the monuments have been installed. 7. PERMITS. The Developer shall obtain or require its contractors and subcontractors to obtain all necessary permits, including but not limited to the following to the extent required: • Ramsey County for County Road Access and Work in County Rights-of-Way • Minnesota Department of Health for Watermains • MPCA for Storm Water Issues, Sanitary Sewer and Hazardous Material Removal and Disposal • DNR for Dewatering • City of Arden Hills for Building Permits • City of Arden Hills for Grading and Erosion Control Permits • Rice Creek Watershed District 8. DEWATERING. Due to the variable nature of groundwater levels and stormwater flows, it will be the Developer’s and the Developer’s contractors and subcontractors responsibility to satisfy themselves with regard to the elevation of groundwater in the area and the level of effort needed to perform dewatering and storm flow routing operations. All dewatering shall be in accordance with all applicable county, state, and federal rules and regulations. DNR regulations regarding appropriations permits shall also be strictly followed. 9. LICENSE. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors a license to enter the plat to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the City in conjunction with plat development. 10. EROSION CONTROL. Prior to initiating site grading, the erosion control plan shall be implemented by the Developer and inspected and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion control requirements if reasonably required. All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded within five (5) days after the completion of the work, weather permitting, or in an area that is inactive for more than ten (10) days unless authorized and approved by the City Engineer. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion control plan, seed shall be in accordance with the City's current seeding specification which may include certified oat seed to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be maintained as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that 196456v5 time is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the Developer does not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule or supplementary instructions received from the City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and City's rights or obligations hereunder. If the Developer does not reimburse the City for any cost the City incurred for such work within ten (10) days, the City may draw down the letter of credit or escrow to pay any costs. No development, street or utility construction will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the plat is in full compliance with the approved erosion control plan. 11. GRADING PLAN. The plat shall be graded in accordance with the approved grading development and erosion control plan. The plan shall conform to City of Arden Hills specifications. Within thirty (30) days after completion of the grading the Developer shall provide the City with an "as constructed" grading plan certified by a registered land surveyor or engineer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City may issue building permits to the Developer, prior to completion of all grading, provided the City Engineer has determined that adequate erosion control measures are in place. The "as constructed" plan shall include field verified elevations of the following: a) cross sections of ponds; b) location and elevations along all swales, wetlands, wetland mitigation areas if any, ditches, locations and dimensions of borrow areas/stockpiles, and installed "conservation area" posts; and c) lot corner elevations. The City will withhold issuance of building permits until the approved certified grading plan is on file with the City and all erosion control measures are in place as determined by the City Engineer. 12. CLEAN UP. The Developer shall clean dirt and debris from streets that has resulted from construction work by the Developer, subcontractors, their agents or assigns. Prior to any construction in the plat, the Developer shall identify in writing a responsible party and schedule for erosion control, street cleaning, and street sweeping. 13. CLAIMS. In the event that the City receives claims from labor, material, or others that work required by this Agreement has been performed, the sums due them have not been paid, and the laborers, material, or others are seeking payment from the City, the Developer hereby authorizes the City to 196456v5 commence an Interpleader action pursuant to Rule 22, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts, to draw upon the letters of credit in an amount up to 125 percent of the claim(s) and deposit the funds in compliance with the Rule, and upon such deposit, the Developer shall release, discharge, and dismiss the City from any further proceedings as it pertains to the letters of credit deposited with the District Court, except that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to determine attorneys' fees pursuant to this Agreement. 14. PARK DEDICATION. The Developer will pay at the time of final plat approval, the amount of $13,000.00 in satisfaction of the City's park dedication requirements calculated as follows: $6,500.00/ residential unit x 2 new units = $13,000.00 15. LANDSCAPING. A. The Developer shall provide a Letter of Credit in the amount of 125 percent of the cost of materials and installation for the required replacement tree plantings as shown on the approved Plans prior to the issuance of development permits. The Letter of Credit shall be valid for two full years from the date of installation of the replacements trees. B. For any tree that is not in accordance with the approved Landscape Plan at the end of two growing seasons, the Developer shall replace the material to the satisfaction of the City before the Letter of Credit is released. Where it is not done, the City, at its sole discretion, may use the proceeds of the performance guarantee to accomplish performance. 16. TREE PRESERVATION. A. Before construction, grading, or land clearing begins, the Developer shall visibly mark trees or tree areas that are to be preserved and install city-approved tree protection fencing or other method at the critical root zone of trees to be protected. The location of the fencing shall be in conformance with the approved tree preservation plan. 196456v5 B. The Developer shall pay a fee in lieu of the required replacement trees not installed on the site that shall equal the cost of materials and installation, plus ten percent. The required fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of development permits. C. If a tree that was required to be preserved is removed or damaged so that it is in a state of decline within two growing seasons from the date of the project closure, it must be mitigated at a rate of 2:1, or two caliper inches of trees replaced for every caliper inch of tree removed. The City may use the performance guarantee provided for the Landscape Plan to accomplish this. 17. SPECIAL PROVISIONS. The following special provisions shall apply to the Development: A. Developer is responsible for the construction and maintenance of the retaining wall within the easement area for the lift station as shown on the approved Plans. B. Developer is prohibited from parking vehicles or storing materials on the paved surface adjacent to the lift station. C. Developer will enter into and record a Maintenance Agreement with the Rice Creek Watershed District for the maintenance of the stormwater basins as shown on the approved Plans. A copy of the recorded Maintenance Agreement will be provided to the City prior to the issuance of development permits. D. Developer agrees that if in the event the Rice Creek Watershed District fails to enforce the Maintenance Agreement for the stormwater basins, the Developer will allow the City to access the property, perform the necessary maintenance, and assess the costs back to the property owner. E. Developer will relocate the driveway for the existing single-family dwelling from New Brighton Road to Thom Drive prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 or Lot 2, or the Developer shall submit a cash escrow in the amount of $2,850.00 to the City to ensure the relocation of the driveway within six (6) months from the City approval of the final plat. 196456v5 F. Developer shall remove or modify the deck on the existing single-family dwelling at 3685 New Brighton Road in order to meet the side yard setback requirement and not encroach on any drainage and utility easement prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 or Lot 2, or the Developer shall be required to submit a cash escrow in the amount of $500.00 to the City to ensure the removal of the deck within six (6) months from the approval of the Final Plat. G. The Developer shall be required to stake metal markers along the drainage easement abutting the stormwater basins and wetland with signs stating the area is a natural vegetation/infiltration area and no dumping is allowed. The design of the signs shall be approved by the City prior to installation. H. The Developer shall conform to all other City regulations. 18. RESPONSIBILITY FOR COSTS. A. Except as otherwise specified herein, the Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with the development of the plat, including but not limited to Soil and Water Conservation District charges, legal, planning, engineering and inspection expenses incurred in connection with approval and acceptance of the plat, the preparation of this Agreement, review of construction plans and documents, and all costs and expenses incurred by the City in monitoring and inspecting development of the plat. B. The Developer shall reimburse the City for reasonable costs incurred in the enforcement of this Agreement, including engineering and attorneys' fees. C. The Developer shall pay, or cause to be paid when due, and in any event before any penalty is attached, all special assessments referred to in this Agreement. This is an obligation of the Developer and shall continue in full force and effect even if the Developer sells one or more lots, the entire plat or property, or any part of it. 196456v5 D. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this Agreement within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt plat development and construction until the bills are paid in full. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of eighteen percent (18%) per year. E. In addition to the charges herein and special assessments referred to herein, other charges as required by City ordinance may be imposed such as, but not limited to, sewer access charges ("SAC"), water access charges, and building permit fees. 19. DEVELOPER’S DEFAULT. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer, except in an emergency as determined by the City, is first given notice of the work in default, not less than forty-eight (48) hours in advance. This Agreement is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part. 20. MISCELLANEOUS. A. The Developer represents to the City that the plat complies with all city, county, state, and federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to, subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances, and environmental regulations. If the City determines that the plat does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow construction or development work in the plat until the Developer does comply. Upon the City’s demand, the Developer shall cease work until there is compliance. B. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the Subject Property. The Developer covenants with the City, its successors and assigns, that the Developer is well seized in fee title of the property being final platted and/or has obtained consents to this Agreement, in the form attached hereto, from all parties who have an interest in the Subject Property; that there are no unrecorded interests in the property being final platted; and that the Developer will indemnify and hold the 196456v5 City harmless for any breach of the foregoing covenants. Any transfer of an ownership interest in the Subject Property is an assignment of the rights and obligations herein to the subsequent owner. C. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City or Developer under this Agreement. D. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement. E. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not be a waiver or release. F. Developer will hold the City and its officers, agents, and employees harmless from claims made by third parties, including but not limited to other property owners, tenants, contractors, subcontractors, and materialmen, for damages sustained, costs incurred, or injuries resulting from approval of this Planned Unit Development and the development of the Subject Property unless such claims are caused by the City’s negligent, reckless or willful misconduct. The Developer will indemnify the City and its officers, agents, and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses, including reasonable engineering and attorney's fees, which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, except if caused by City negligence, reckless or willful misconduct. G. In addition to all legal or equitable remedies, breach of any material term of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, including lots sold to third parties, and Certificates of Occupancy. H. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be 196456v5 deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. I. Developer shall be responsible for ensuring that all vacant lots comply with the City’s Code regarding nuisances. J. Retaining walls that require a building permit shall be constructed in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by a structural or geotechnical engineer licensed by the State of Minnesota. Following construction, a certification signed by the design engineer shall be filed with the City Engineer evidencing that the retaining wall was constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. All retaining walls within the development plans, or special conditions referred to in this Agreement required to be constructed shall be constructed before any Certificate of Occupancy is issued for a lot on which a retaining wall is required to be built. 21. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. The Developer may not assign this Agreement without the written permission of the City Council. This Development Contract shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respected successors and assigns, including without limitation, any and all future and present owners, tenants, occupants, licensee, mortgagee and any other parties with any interest in the Property. Should the Developer convey any lot or lots in the Plat to a third party, the city and the owner of that lot or those lots may amend the Development or this Development Contract, with City approval, or use of those lots without the approval or consent of the other lot owners within the Plat. Private agreements between the owners of lots within the Plat for shared service or access and related matters necessary for the efficient use of the Property shall be the responsibility of the lot owners and shall not bind or restrict City authority to approve applications from any lot owner. 22. COUNTERPARTS. This Development Contract may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one instrument. 23. NOTICES. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified mail at the following address: 3685 New Brighton Road, Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112. Notices to the City shall be 196456v5 in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Administrator, or mailed to the City by certified mail in care of the City Administrator at the following address: City of Arden Hills, 1245 West Highway 96, Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112. 196456v5 Signature page to Development Contract Horita Acres CITY OF ARDEN HILLS BY: _____________________________________ David Grant, Mayor (SEAL) BY: _____________________________________ Dave Perrault, City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of _________________, 2018, by David Grant and by Dave Perrault, respectively the Mayor and City Administrator of the City of Arden Hills, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. ______________________________________________ Notary Public 196456v5 Signature page to Development Contract Horita Acres DEVELOPER: BY:______________________________________ Timothy L. Horita STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF ___________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of _________________, 2018, by Timothy L. Horita, a single person. ______________________________________________ Notary Public DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL, KNUTSON Professional Association Grand Oak Office Center I 860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone: (651) 452-5000 JJJ 196456v5 MORTGAGE HOLDER CONSENT TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FIFTH THIRD MORTGAGE COMPANY, which holds a mortgage on the subject property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Development Contract, which mortgage is dated ___________ and recorded March 22, 2010 with the Ramsey County Registrar as document number T2104263, agrees that the Development Contract shall remain in full force and effect even if it forecloses on its mortgage. Dated this _____ day of ____________, 2018. FIFTH THIRD MORTGAGE COMPANY By ______________________________________ _______________________________ [name] Its ____________________________ [title] STATE OF _______________ ) ( ss. COUNTY OF ___________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ___________, 2018, by ____________________________, the __________________________.Fifth Third Mortgage Company, a _____________________________, on behalf of the entity. ________________________________________ Notary Public DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL, KNUTSON Professional Association Grand Oak Office Center I 860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone: (651) 452-5000 JJJ 196456v5 MORTGAGE HOLDER CONSENT TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ND, a national banking association organized under the laws of the United States, which holds a mortgage on the subject property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Development Contract, which mortgage is dated July 2, 2010 and recorded July 26, 2010 with the Ramsey County Registrar as document number t2115694 agrees that the Development Contract shall remain in full force and effect even if it forecloses on its mortgage. Dated this _____ day of ____________, 2018. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ND By ______________________________________ _______________________________ [name] Its ____________________________ [title] STATE OF _______________ ) ( ss. COUNTY OF ___________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ___________, 2018, by ____________________________, the __________________________ US Bank National Association ND, a national banking association organized under the laws of the United States, on behalf of the entity. ________________________________________ Notary Public DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL, KNUTSON Professional Association Grand Oak Office Center I 860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone: (651) 452-5000 JJJ 196456v5 EXHIBIT “A” TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT Lot 18, Rohleder’s Home and Garden Acres, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (torrens) 196456v5 IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT No. ___________________ Date: _________________ TO: City of Arden Hills Dear Sir or Madam: We hereby issue, for the account of (Name of Developer) and in your favor, our Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $____________, available to you by your draft drawn on sight on the undersigned bank. The draft must: a) Bear the clause, "Drawn under Letter of Credit No. ________, dated _____________, 2______, of (Name of Bank) "; b) Be accompanied by an affidavit signed by the Mayor or City Administrator of the City of Arden Hills certifying that ________________________________ is in default of the Development Contract with the City of Arden Hills and that five (5) business days prior written notice has been given by the City to the Developer with respect to the existence of such default, and such default has not been cured. c) Be presented for payment at (Address of Bank) , on or before 4:00 p.m. on November 30, 2______. This Letter of Credit shall automatically renew for successive one-year terms unless, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date (which shall be November 30 of each year), the Bank delivers written notice to the Arden Hills City Administrator that it intends to modify the terms of, or cancel, this Letter of Credit. Written notice is effective if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, and deposited in the U.S. Mail, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date addressed as follows: Arden Hills City Administrator, 1245 Highway 96, Arden Hills, MN 55112, and is actually received by the City Administrator at least thirty (30) days prior to the renewal date. This Letter of Credit sets forth in full our understanding which shall not in any way be modified, amended, amplified, or limited by reference to any document, instrument, or agreement, whether or not referred to herein. This Letter of Credit is not assignable. This is not a Notation Letter of Credit. More than one draw may be made under this Letter of Credit. This Letter of Credit shall be governed by the most recent revision of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 600. We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this Letter of Credit shall be duly honored upon presentation. BY: ____________________________________ Its ______________________________ CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 18-019 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VACATION OF THE SEWER EASEMENT FOR ARDEN HILLS LIFT STATION #12 AT 3685 NEW BRIGHTON ROAD. WHEREAS, on December 4, 2017, Richard Kotoski, the representative for Timothy Horita of 3685 New Brighton Road, submitted a completed application with the City of Arden Hills to vacate the sewer easement at 3685 New Brighton Road on Lot 18 in the ROHLEDER’S HOME & GARDEN ACRES Plat located within the City of Arden Hills, as proposed in Planning Case 17-029; and WHEREAS, the subject sewer easement was created by Document No. 579400 and is depicted in Exhibit “A”; and WHEREAS, Planning Case 17-029 included a concurrent request for a Preliminary Plat and Final Plat that would dedicate a new drainage and utility easement to the City for the operation of Lift Station #12 as depicted on the Final Plat in Exhibit “B”; and WHEREAS, on the 12th day of March, 2018, a Public Hearing preceded by published, posted, and mailed notice as required by Minn. Stat. §412.851 was conducted before the Arden Hills City Council; and WHEREAS, vacating the existing sewer easement and accepting the new drainage and utility easement will not impact the function or use of Lift Station #12; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the Arden Hills Council determined that vacating the existing sewer easement and accepting the new drainage and utility easement was in the public’s interest. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills: 1. The existing sewer easement legally described and depicted on the attached Exhibit “A” is hereby vacated, conditioned on the City Council approval of the Final Plat as proposed in Planning Case 17-029 and as depicted on the attached Exhibit “B”. 2. The City Clerk is directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the County Auditor and County Recorder/Registrar of Titles. ADOPTED this ____ day of March, 2018, by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS By: ________________________________ David Grant, Mayor ATTEST: Julie Hanson, City Clerk EXIBIT “A” To RESOLUTION NO. 2018-019 EXIBIT “B” To RESOLUTION NO. 2018-019