The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCCP 06-26-2000 . CITY OF ARDEN HILfJ LE 4364 WEST ROUND LAKE ROAD ARDEN HILLS, MN 55112-5794 REVISED AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING, CITY HALL MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2000, 7:30 P.M. THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA) HAS BEEN CANCELLED. City Philosonhv To provide a basic and necessary scope of quality services through the innovative and purposeful use of resources. 7:30 P.M. . 7:30 P.M. 2. 7:30 P.M. 7:40 P.M. . 1. Call to Order Approval of Meeting Agenda 3. Consent Calendar Those items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and will he enacted by one motion under a Consent Calendar format. There will be no separate discussion of these items, unless a Council member so requests. in which event, the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its nonnal sequence on the agenda. a. Claims and Payroll b. Planning Consultant Proposals c. Mounds View High School, Fire Suppression Request d. Res. #00-23, Request for Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOn to Conduct a Speed Study on Old Highway 10 and Snelling Avenue 4. Public Comments This 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. PHONE: (651) 633-5676 . FAX (651) 633-7839 The above times may vary depending upon length of issue discussion. . .llln-?7-?nnn nA:1R::Im ~rnm-ICNm:' r.m"S~r.IAI n'lA RRI A" RllR T-lAR P nn,/nn, ,-7Al ~~ 0 li r rJ.p ~G ?D 1f c:o--w VV\tr+~ gt;f)) . - , .... . ~ ~ r 0 5'-0" 1'0 '" I 1'0 () 1'0 . f1l >< X X CD CD (JJ '-- j r '" "'! IY'O I Cll q - D- :::'5 0- W . La l.D OJ 0 rt" Cll n (JJ r ., u 7'\ n QJ (JJ 0 ., 7' ., rt" Cll n 0 --! I l.D '" y .... :J'L I '" '" 0 ::T 0 QJ Q.I -""':::'5 0- :::s E QJ QJ lC CP 3/-011 < . (l, 1 ~~ v\.;Lle 1r5D~ I . Electronic Media Technology Budget Description For the Arden Hills, Minnesota City Council Chambers . REVISED May 9, 2000 Prepared by Electronic Interiors, Inc. 40 Mackubin Street . St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 (651) 292-1035 Z I/G . d mPN S~OI~31N[ OINO~103l3 NdSS:ZI OOOZ 'sz.unr . . . . ,,:!..;,.~I.' .:", I .1, i:,:,.;l!' ..:::.':,;:"!i!)f,:i,:;;.: "1""'1" '''''''1'''' :1"':'j.I..I": ..;n;iil:Y,:~": .,..,',.",..'."..'1",....'..1.' ''1'''''''' " i:': ;i !1.1 i.111~ il. ~, . : . ."'1 T':II']'I'i~i', ""'1"'" . """11 "i,"" ":,,, : !::~ (;~: ! !' , . 'llll!.!I!'I"'i'i'''', 'iilihll":!I':':" " :', !.h !Ii ~;II: ,ii,;" "I . . . "'I'''nr' .'h" ,Ji'IIDlcK' , ". illND ,.j"r).!::I',,'II,:.1' ,.,1":...1:1.,:." . Document Introduction This document will explain in detail the currently recommended expenses related to the audio/visual system for the City of Arden Hills Council Chambers. While this document is modular, the system is not. Removing one of the budget figures will have drastic effects on the total system design as all of these components work together schematically for a complete and operational system. Value engineering can be accomplished using this document as a general guide for the cost of each major component. However, eliminating any component within this document will require additional design work for a complete and operational system. Electronic Interiors has suggested that the quality of the equipment purchased not be compromised. It is recommended that the City purchase less equipment (eliminating features) rather than sacrificing quality in order to obtain more features. Project History Electronic Interiors began this project with input from the Council Subcommittee and Brian Fritsinger. The ''Electronic Media Technology Upgrade Reco=endatioDS and Planning Report" dated November 12, 1998 was created from this information. This report was based on several meetings and a tour of other facilities in 1he metro area. The report included a Preliminary Budget Estimate section where the estimated budget was broken into several systexn sections totaling $234,550. This estimate was higher than the City would like to pursue and without negotiating system performance (luxury items only), Electronic Interiors has revised the system 1hat the budget estimate is based on to approximately $180,00. This was accomplished by designing the system to define all of the individual components that are needed. After this effort, the City had a new direction to budget between $90,000 and $120,000. Cutting system performance quality, and user-friendly items pl'Oduced a new design of $119,00, without cutting features desired in the original design. Dickson Stewart presented to the Council the document explaining the budget cuts and the reduction of the system. Electronic Interiors has now been requested to revise the budget and design by adding components to the previous budget of $119,000 to obtain the new budget goal of $175,000. The following is an assemblage of the sub-system costs, with brief explanations of each system, Electronic Interiors, Inc 1 DRAFT S~OI~31NI JINO~lJ3l3 May 9,1999 ZI/S'd 9t29'oN ~dSS:ZI OOOZ 'sz.unr . . . ,I ";::!:.!ii.![;'ii,:,:: ""1'1<'" , "!':I'[!:I\.\: lH!;::.;':" :IItn>GlI:i'ST.1fJ\~ Sound System The sound system includes several essential components such as microphones, sound processing, and speakers. There are a total of thirteen microphones - seven for coverage of the council members, four for coverage of the staff, one for the lectern, and one for the presentation area. The microphones are quality items and will provide excellent sound reproduction for the cable cast audience as well as the live audience. This price includes the microphone, shock mounts, windscreens, connectors, adapters, and installation. Estimated cost for each microphone is approximately $300 each. In addition, "cough" buttons will be added with each microphone. These buttons will act as a momentary route of the microphones. The cost for these switches is about $3,000. Estimated cost for thirteen microphones: $6,900 The microphones are a small part of the overall sound system, and for a complete and operational system, processors, amplifiers, and speakers are required. Sound processing maintains the quality sound generated from the microphones and establishes a well-balanced, quality sound for the live audience, council members, presenters, as well as the cablecast. Es~mated _cost of sound processing equipment: $5,600 Amplifiers are needed to power the speakers. Estimated amplifier cos!:_ ~},.soo Speakers are required for audio within the room and the lobby, the microphones, and presentation equipment such as a VCR. Estim!~ speaker Sys!C1n cost: $4,000 To meet ADA compliance an assisted listening system (ALS) is required for the hearing impaired. TotalALS cost: $1,200 For audio transcription and public record of the meeting, a four-channel audiocassette recorder is provided. Estimated cost for cassette recorder: $3,500 Sound System Estimated Total: $23,000 Electronic Interiors, !nc 2 DRAFT S~OI~31NI JINO~lJ3l3 May 9, 1999 Zl/t'd 9HPN ~d9E:ZI OOOZ 'EZ'unr .' . . . 'i,11i:1:" ,<'1:[1:,. ""'I'.: .....1"". . I,':i.;;f(::' 'fW' ..:;::i,I",'lii!I!.;' : : . \. ,I ~ I. I : , ~:,'!!:!:,~:!!.' ':" ", i'I,II,li( .",",1...1" :, 1:!lillll~::; .:';i:;!;\.)!1ti!':' ,~I,:JIWII;' . .II'I,'r',:!:.,. .",1,1" "':11'1.]"" ;':'j,rVl"" : :1. Ii ,II, .;' ~ . ""1:J1:""'B' ",_<il'iJli.'i~. .i . :iiinJ!'" :~!pG;E.;ii~~~~'S'~~~YJn. ~l Presentation Tools Presentation tools are required for individuals to display infounation to the council and televised audience. These items include a document camera, laptop interface, and VCR. Documents, photographs, blueprints, and 3D objects are presented using a document camera, which is recommended to be located in the ceiling. This camera has the capacity to clearly reproduce text from a distance. The camera requires remote control for zoom and focus as well as a powerful lens to be able to view the documents. Estimated cost for the document camera: $8,000 A computer connection is provided at the presentation lectern for easy interconnection for individuals who wish to present computer-based materials using their own laptops. A personal computer, provided by the city, is also located at the presentation lectern. Estimated cost for integration equipment: $1,600 A new S- VHS VCR will be added to the presentation lectern. Estimated cost for VCR: $700 Presentation Tools Estimated Total: $10,300 Electronic Interiors, Ine 3 DRAFf S~O]~31NI JINO~lJ3l3 May9,1999 ZI/9d 9t89'oN ~d9E:ZI OOOZ 'EZ'unl' . Ji: ~i;:iif~::i::;':~:; . . .... '._ ;',.:',I..:!.!i,.,:,li.'.!! '.:I:!li:r, ' . .,.,t.,.. 'II f I." '~T".,'.:._'.','"',',",',liliii,r>..'.,'I;;,,.' 'T... D:"",....'",..'-'-,,'.,'i.,',',',;.. '. ~ , . 'if... E, ..,':. ,'::Y!i;iiiiiJii;.;r::': ~.~~~~ ~:\I;'J.l"~ Video Display Presenters use a variety of materials to exhibit video displays to the council members, staff, audience, and the lobby. The most efficient way to cover a large space, such as the audience area, is by using a rear screen projection system. The rear screen projection system will provide easy viewing of presentation materials for the presenter, audience, staff, and presenter locations. f!stimated ~ost for the video projector and lens: $15,000 The other key element for the rear screen system is the mirrors required for the projector to display a large image within a small space. Estimated installed cost for the mirrors: $3,000 ....------ New flat screen computer monitors will be added to the dais to assist council members with the video display. Estimated cost to include monitors: $15,000 . .- One monitor will be added to the presentation lectern for use with preview/program. .~stimat~_C?ost for monitor: $1,500 The lobby will be equipped with a 32" TV to display the access channel carrying the City Council meetings. . Cabling and installation of~onitor: $1,500 Video Display Estimated Total: $36,000 . Electronic Interiors, Inc 4 DRAFT SHOIH31NI JINOH1J3l3 May 9, 1999 W9'd 9VE9'oN f~d9S:ZI 0002 'sz'unr . . . :,jjii!;j!!!;l;!i\!,'~:" . ,,";::r;i'!I!iiii!l!j,:!i\!iY; .,,'::;i"ii:l:':!:;':' 'li'IIIIII,',,;, .:;:11:1.'.:.:"'" . BTi~l~t Eli1,'''''';''''''' IE ..,.!I~~:' '-_.J'"~~,,, Video Processing All of the user components such as computers, VCRs, etc, connect to the processing equipment to make the system operationaL The video processing section of the budget could easily be referenced as the "magic black box" section. It includes components that are located in the equipment J.'2ck fo~ a complete and operational system. These components (switchers, converters, and distribution gear) are all budgeted within this section. Estimated video processin!L'?ost: $8,750 Video Processjng Estimated Total: $8,750 Electronic Interiors, Inc 5 DRAFT S~OI~31NI OINO~103l3 May 9, 1999 lI//'rl ~ts9'oN ~d9E:ZI DDDZ 'EZ'unr ,"I',. .).:{i;~:r'!,F' ","", ,',,,. "''''II'' ""."'.'1"'.'''' i lid!!; :' ,:jr1[,'i,:,'!,'" ,', ;ii'fl,i~' n .".,', i".'I,.,,!!!):::' .!lli' !.ii" : ',..II"'lli~:~., , '1;1')]eH :.' 1.1, ij ";~. ., ,,;i.ll:,.'. . .J. j:' 1 : .~. . "r:lii1": '1'"'' ,. "':"I;I'I'I!I.,'~uiI"';'iUJ::"""E.m,.'!.Iiii\','" "s' """",!lI";(itl"'.', T......" : !1;:Ir!!'~' ., ..""!".;,,,:!i'.ij!;.!;i;?" D t:i' I~f ~I!J ,J1!nV" :D' !:i,II::: ';"!IJ!!'ll'" ..:,"Itl,.' ,,;1:'" ;:"1, .., ,:,::";:::Ih'" . Cablecasting/ITV System Cameras are required for citizens watching the cablecast. Two' cameras are considered minimum requirements to maintain a professional cablecast persona, however a three-camera system is recommended. Estimated co~! for a three,~.amera system: $33,000 The control room operator will need a camera controller for these cameras. Estimated camera controller cost: "-,~~------ The control room operator is positioned in front of an equipment console, which holds the audio/visual equipment required for the cablecast. Estimated cost for equipment console: $5,800 Recording and playbaCk of the council meetings will require the purchase of two new SVHS VCRs. ~stimated i~stalled cost f?! the control.room vCR system: $2,600 Equipment is required to interconnect all of the control room gear for a complete and operational system. These components of switchers, monitors, converters, and distribution gear are all budgeted within this section. !?tal estimat:d cablecast interconnection equipment c~st: $19,600 Besides a video signal, an audio signal is also required to achieve sound for the cable audience. A small, separate sound control system is recommended. Estimated cost for the sound c~ntrol system: ~_ $3,100 The quality signal to the citizens watching the cablecast is largely the responsibility of the cable provider. There are a few processing equipment pieces that the City needs to provide to ensure that a quality signal is available to the cable company for distribution. Estim.ated processing equipment_~ost: $3,500. Many cities are choosing to display announcements and messages over their local cable access channel. The existing Scala bulletin board system will be integrated into the new system.. Estimated cost for the int~tion into ~e new system: $2,000 Cablecasting/ITV System Estimated Total: $73,100 $3,500 . . Electronic Interiors, Inc 6 DRAFT SHOIH31NI JINOH1J3l3 May 9, 1999 11/8'rl QVS9'oN WdLS:ZI OOOZ 'sz.unr J . . . '!; ,...j,.'" .",:ir )' : il:'- ,,'!, j;V;'i':~ ~':;B . .'!GE;iijWt . ilt~AJi:~ .~ .."I.... ~..,.,,,..,... ,:j Control System Presenters, staff members and control room operators require control of the system for presentation and cable cast coverage. All of these controls are available with a small touch screen panel, similar to an all-in-one remote control. The control system interprets a simple one-button co=and from the user and controls several components. The control system has three major components, a control panel, processors, and interfaces. The control panel is the end user item or the big remote control. There will be two - one at the lectern, and a wireless panel that can be located at the staff location or the mayor's location. I!:stimated to cost for both t~uch panels: $7,000 Processors are the "brains" behind the control system. The processors are programmed specifically for the City's media system and receive the commands from the touch panel to . provide the appropriate commands to the media equipment. Estimated cost for control ~~tem proces~ing: $2,500 Interfaces are the links between the processor and the media equipment such as VCRs, projectors, etc. These links carry the control information from the processor to the media equipment. Estimated cost for interfaces: $900 Contr-ol System Estimated Total: 510,400 Electronic Interiors, Inc 7 DRAFl' SBOI~31NI JINOB1J3l3 May 9, 1999 7,1/6'd 9VSg'oN ~dLE:ZI DDDZ 'EZ'unr . . . :; :.hJJ~i" ',I:,l~ . I ,:j:.~};lii.;:li;~!'" .i:':i]ir~it:!!i';::" ,:;,il;{j!:,!i!~I;':! ','I'lliT", ,',:'liiilF" j'I'I"'r"" "'iii:!!"'''' "1'11',11['["", ,.,"::i"I~..cdiliii>" ..;!;1',~'Wlo;S"~' ",,;, ~' "It'''''' ,,,,"ll!!""',' ,'11"'1; 'd',..' .,.II,HI'; "11'1 ," 'Iii""'" n,!!!IJI"".Yl<1'Jlof eJl" , " I'E., ;,i.A!!'. ,-:111).11: . ,;~II:!.I!,. !i~I',,,::' . i:'llij,i' ..:;;iJ:'~" ..-,;!jll"I:~ ,~I'~ ,.1:,11 I:' . ~."I~l.i'" Estimated Totals Summarized Miscellaneous equipment racks Sound System Esthnated Total Presentation Tools Estimated Total Video Display Estimated Total Video Processing Estimated Total Cablecasting/ITV System Estimated Total Control System Estimated Total ESTIMATED SYSTEM TOTAL $ 3,375 $ 23,000 $ 10,500 $ 36,000 $ 8,750 $ 73,100 $ 10,400 $165,125 Electronic Interiors, Inc Zl/Ol'd 9V89'oN 8 DRAFI S~OI~31NI OINO~103l3 May 9, 1999 ~dLS:ZI OOOZ 'sz'unr Jun-26-2000 16:48 From-PETERSON FRAM BERGMAN 6612281763 T-882 POO2l004 F-101 ""-' Warren E. Pet~rson ........ Jerome R Filla Daniel Witt Fram Glenn A. Bergman .hl'l Michael Mjllc~ ichaeJ T. Obed..:: Steven H. Bruns. PSI.l! w, Fahf1in~ E..';.[ht;:J" E. McCinni::i Jeffrey J. coh~n p~DCfll\T F'RMif~2RGMAN ~~~~::7~fffrcl~A~"~~~~~~ Suite 300 '50 East Fifth Street Sr. Paul, MN 55101.1197 lo51! .91.8955 lb51 J '2:!8~1753 facsimile Direct Dial #(65 I) 290-6907 June 26, 2000 Terry Post Finance Director City of Arden Hills 4364 W. Round Lak,~ Road Arden Hills MN 55112 YlA FACSIMILE NO. 633-7839 RE: Arden Manol' Park Property Resolution PF&B File No. 10460.920003 Dear Teny: . In order to authorize the recording of the Deed for the Arden Mauor Park property, the City needs to do two things. L The City Council needs to waive the requirement that the minor subdivision be reviewed by the Planning Commission, 2. The City Council needs to waive the requirement that the property be platted and approve the minor subdivision. The proposed Resolution contains a brief historical background and the information needed to suppon City Council action. The Resolution should be approved by three affIrmative votes. A copy of the Deed of Conveyance previously forwarded to you should be attached to the Resolution as Exhibit A. If you have any questions, please contact me. JPF:lk truly yours, .Fl~ Enclosure 00: Joe Lynch (via fax) . .^L',O AOMln"l:::D 11'1 WJ:-i(;Qf\I!oil{\l .... CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA . RESOLUTION NO. 00-24 RESOLUTION RELATING TO A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR THE ARDEN MANOR PARK PROPERTY WHEREAS, by document dated July 2,1979,550 Associates conveyed a public recreational easement to the City of Arden Hills ("City") over certain property described on the Deed of Conveyance ("Arden Manor Park Property") attached as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, by document dated September 13, 1999, the City agreed to construct certain stormwater drainage improvements beneficial to other property owned by 550 Associates adjacent to the Arden Manor Park Property and 550 Associates agreed to convey fee title to the Arden Manor Park Property to the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the followil1g special circumstances apply to the Arden Manor Park Property: A. The legal description for the property was effectively created twenty (20) years ago when the City accepted the conveyance of the permanent recreational easement. . B. The property has been used as a park for approximately twenty (20) years and is clearly defined in relationship to surrounding property. C. The City signed an agreement to purchase the property by use of a meets and bounds description and without the necessity of platting the property. WHEREAS, the conveyance of the Arden Manor Park Property will effectively result in a minor subdivision of a larger parcel of property that normally requires Planning Commission review unless the City Council varies the provisions of its subdivision regulations. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota that: A. The provision of the City subdivision regulations that require Planning Commission review of minor subdivisions is waived; . .. e e e RESOLUTION NO. 00-22 PAGE TWO JUNE 26, 2000 B. The minor subdivision of the Arden Manor Park Property as described on Exhibit A is approved; and PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS 26th DAY OF JUNE, 2000. ATTEST: DENNIS PROBST, MAYOR JOSEPH P. LYNCH, CITY ADMINISTRATOR . . , ,. . EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Ramsey County, Minnesota: A parcel of land lying in the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of Section 16, Township 30, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the west line of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (SWl/4) of said Section 16 and the northerly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway No. 96 said point of intersection being 85 feet North of the South line of said Section 16; thence N86"47'44"E along the said northerly right-of-way line, said bearing being assumed, a distance of 662.07 feet to an intersection with the west line of the Southeast Quarter (SEl/4) of the Southeast Quarter (SEl/4) of the Southwest Quarter (SWl/4) of said Section 16; thence NO"20'19"W along said west line a distance of 251.31 feet; thence S86047'44"W a distance of 35 feet to the actual point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence S86047'44"W a distance of 457.21 feet; thence Nl 025'2.9"[ a distance of 345.11 feet; thence N19005'29"E a.distance of 50.88 feet; thence N46041'07"E a distance of 216.50 feet; thence S38"56'21"E a distance of 300.73 feet; thence S26"00'00'W a distance of 133.00 feet; thence S64000'00"E a distance of 73.00 feet; thence SO"20'19"E a distance of 70.00 feet; thence S51 "20'08'E a distance of 98.60 feet to the point of beginning and there terminating. Together with a perpetual easement in favor of the public for egress and ingress to said recreational park easement area as described hereinabove and for public parking purposes adjacent thereto, the legal description of which is as follows, to-wit: A tract of land lying in the Southwest 114 of Section 16, Township 30, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the west line of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 16 and the northerly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway No. 96 said point of intersection being 85 feet North of the South line of said Section 16; thence N86047'44'E along the said northerly right-of-way line, said bearing is assumed, a distance of 662.07 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract to be described; a point on the west line of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 114 of the Southwest 114 of said Section 16; thence No020'19"W along said west line a distance of 251.31 feet; thence S86047'44"W a distance of 35 feet; thence N51 020'08''W a distance of 98.60 feet; thence NOo020'19"W a distance of 70.00 feet; thence N89"39'41'E a distance of 20.00 feet; thence N77"24'44'E a distance of 93.73 feet; thence N86"47'44"E a distance of 30.04 feet; thence SOo020'19'E a distance of 401.50 feet; thence S86047'44"W a distance of 30.04 feet to the point of beginning and there terminating. 2 .. e . e .1 Jun-26-2000 15:48 From-PETERSON FRAM BERGMAN 6512281753 T-862 P.002/004 F-101 \ Warren E, PetQ:tSQn Jerome R Filla Daniel Witt Fram Glenn A. BerGman .hn Michael Mjl(~r' ichael T. Obed~ Steven H. Bruns. Paul W, Fahning E..."ith~T E. Mc:Cinnis Ie ffrey l. Cohen pr::Tl:'DCnJ\ T FRAM(~RGNlAN ~~;sr;;:~~~m':;r~~,('"ry-~~~~m Stilte 300 '50 Eils[ fifth Sueer S,. Paul, MN 55101.1197 'oSII ~91.8955 (t61l 2:J8~1753 facsimile Direct Di.l #(651) 290-6907 June 26, 2000 Terry Post Finance Director City of Arden Hills 4364 W. Round Lalc:,~ Road Arden Hills MN 55112 VIA FACSIMILE NO. 633-7839 RE: Arden ManaI' Park Property Resolution PF&B File No. 10460.920003 Dear Terry: e In order to authorize the recording of the Deed for the Arden Manar Park property, the City needs to do two things. L The City Council needs to waive the requirement that the minor subdivision be reviewed by the Plarming Commission, 2. The City Council needs to waive the requirement that the property be platted and approve the minor subdivision. The proposed Resolution contains a brief historical background and the information needed to suppon City Council action. The Resolution should be approved by three affirmative votes. A copy of the Deed of Conveyance previously forwarded to you should be attached to the Resolution as Exhibit A If you have any questions. please contact me. JPF:1k truly yours. .Fd$- Enclosure cc: Joe Lynch (via fax) . "^I..'.o 1\O~IT'l1::D II>! ~J~:()I'II!iI[ll . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA . RESOLUTION NO. 00-24 RESOLUTION RELATING TO A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR THE ARDEN MANOR PARK PROPERTY WHEREAS, by document dated July 2, 1979, 550 Associates conveyed a public recreational easement to the City of Arden Hills ("City") over certain property described on the Deed of Conveyance ("Arden Manor Park Property") attached as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, by document dated September 13, 1999, the City agreed to construct certain stormwater drainage improvements beneficial to other property owned by 550 Associates adjacent to the Arden Manor Park Property and 550 Associates agreed to convey fee title to the Arden Manor Park Property to the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the following special circumstances apply to the Arden Manor Park Property: A. The legal description for the property was effectively created twenty (20) years ago when the City accepted the conveyance of the permanent recreational easement. . B. The property has been used as a park for approximately twenty (20) years and is clearly defined in relationship to surrounding property. C. The City signed an agreement to purchase the property by use of a meets and bounds description and without the necessity of platting the property. WHEREAS, the conveyance of the Arden Manor Park Property will effectively result in a minor subdivision of a larger parcel of property that normally requires Planning Commission review unless the City Council varies the provisions of its subdivision regulations. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota that: A. The provision of the City subdivision regulations that require Plarming Commission review of minor subdivisions is waived; . , t e e e RESOLUTION NO. 00-22 PAGE TWO JUNE 26, 2000 B. The mil10r subdivision of the Arden Manor Park Property as described on Exhibit A is approved; and PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS TillS 26th DAY OF JUNE, 2000. ATTEST: DENNIS PROBST, MAYOR JOSEPH P. LYNCH, CITY ADMINISTRATOR . . ".,. .... EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Ramsey County, Minnesota: A parcel of land lying in the Southwest Quarter (SW 114) of Section 16, Township 30, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the west line of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (SW1I4) of said Section 16 and the northerly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway No. 96 said point of intersection being 85 feet North of the South line of said Section 16; thence N86"47'44'E along the said northerly right-of-way line, said bearing being assumed, a distance of 662.07 feet to an intersection with the west line of the Southeast Quarter (SE1/41 of the Southeast Quarter (SE1I4) of the Southwest Quarter (SW1I4) of said Section 16: thence NO"20'19"W along said west line a distance of 251.31 feet; thence S86"47'44"W a distance of 35 feet to the actual point of beginning of the parcel to be described: thence S86"47'44"W a distance of 457.21 feet; thence Nl "25'29'E a distance of 345.11 feet;thonce NI9"05'29'E a distance of 50.88 feet; thence N46"41'07"E a distance of 216.50 feet; thence S38"56'21'E a distance of 300.73 feet; thence S26"00'00'W a distance of 133.00 feet; thence S64"00'OO"E a distance of 73.00 feet: thence SO"20'19'E a distance of 70.00 feet: thence S51 "20'08'E a distance of 98.60 feet to the point of beginning and there terminating. Together with a perpetual easement in favor of the pubiic for egress and ingress to said recreational park easement area as described hereinabove and for public parking purposes adjacent thereto, the legal description of which is as follows, to-wit: A tract of land lying in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 16, Township 30, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota and more particula~y described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the west line of the Southeast 114 of the Southwest 114 of said Section 16 and the northerly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway No. 96 said point of intersection being 85 feet North of the South line of said Section 16: thence N86"47'44"E along the said northerly right-of-way line, said bearing is assumed, a distance of 662.07 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract to be described: a point on the west line of the Southeast 114 of the Southeast 114 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 16: thence NO"20'19''W alongsilid west line a distance of 251.31 feet; thence S86"47'44"W a distance of 35 feet: thence N51 "20'08''W a distance of 98.60 feet: thence NOO"20'19"W a distance of 70.00 feet; thence N89"39'41'E a distance of 20.00 feet; thence N77"24'44'E a distance of 93.73 feet: thence N86"47'44"E a distance of 30.04 feet, thence SOO"20'19"E a distance of 401.50 feet: thence S86"47'44"W a distance of 30.04 feet to the point of beginning and .there terminating. :2 , I t e e e . . . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS 4364 WEST ROUND LAKE ROAD ARDEN HILLS, MN 55112-5794 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING, CITY HALL MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2000,7:30 P.M. THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA) HAS BEEN CANCELLED. City PhilosoDhv To provide a basic and necessary scope of quality services through the innovative and purposeful use of resources. 7:30 P.M. 1. Call to Order 7:30 P.M. 2. Approval of Meeting Agenda 7:30 P.M. 3. 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 Council member 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. a. Claims and Payroll b. Plannil1g Consultant Proposals c. Mounds View High School, Fire Suppression Request d. Res. #00-23, Request for Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to Conduct a Speed Study on Old Highway 10 and Snelling Avenue 7:40 P.M. 4. Public Comments This 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 thc meeting, or as bench copies, to allow a more timely presentation. PHONE: (651)633-5676 . FAX (651) 633-7839 AGENDA - PAGE TWO . CITY COUNCIL MEETING, CITY HALL MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2000, 7:30 P.M. 7:45 P.M. 5. Unfinished and New Business a. Planl1ing Cases 1. Case #00- I 7b, 1887 and 1987 Gateway Blvd., Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Welsh 2. Case #00-14, 3491 Lake Johanna Blvd., Variance, Mertensotto b. New City Hall Facility 1. Consideratiol1 of Awarding Construction Bid 2. Electronic Interiors, Revised Budget for AudioNisual Component a. Parks and Recreation Department, Authorization for Comprehensive Plan 8:30 P.M. 6. Administrator Comments 8:40 P.M. 7. Council Comments and Committee Activity Reports . 9:00 P.M. 8. Adjourn The above times may vary depending upon length of issue discussion. . 06/23/00 FRI 08:44 FAX 6126337839 TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID ST. TIME USAGE T PGS. SENT RESULT . . City of Arden Hills ~001 ********************* *** TX REPORT *** ********************* 2755 61242195111 06/23 08:43 00'46 2 OK 06/23/00 FRI 08:45 FAX 6126337839 TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID ST. TIME USAGE T PGS. SENT RESULT . . City of Arden Hills ~001 ********************* *** TX REPORT *** ********************* 2756 6286833 06/23 08:44 00'40 2 OK 06/23/00 FRI 08:47 FAX 6126337839 TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID ST. TIME USAGE T PGS. SENT RESULT . . CIty of Arden Hills ~001 ********************* *** TX REPORT *** ********************* 2757 6333846 06/23 08:45 01'16 2 OK 06/23/00 FRI 08:48 FAX 6126337839 TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID ST, TIME USAGE T PGS, SENT RESULT . . City of Arden Hills ~001 *** ********************* *** TX REPORT ********************* 2758 4810551 06/23 08:47 00'38 2 OK 06/23/00 FRI 08:49 FAX 6126337839 TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID ST, TIME USAGE T PGS, SENT RESULT . . City of Arden Hills ~OOi ********************* *** TX REPORT *** ********************* 2759 2279371 06/23 08:48 00'38 2 OK 06/23/00 FRI 08:50 FAX 6126337839 TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID ST. TIME USAGE T PGS, SENT RESULT . . City of Arden Hills ~001 ********************* *** TX REPORT *** ********************* 2760 4821262 06/23 08:49 00'52 2 OK 06/23/00 FRI 08:42 FAX 6126337839 TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID ST, TIME USAGE T PGS, SENT RESULT . . City of Arden Hills ~001 ********************* *** TX REPORT *** ********************* 2754 6123701378 BRW, INC, 06/23 08:41 00'48 3 OK 06/23/00 FRI 08:41 FAX 6126337839 TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID ST, TIME USAGE T PGS, SENT RESULT . . City of Arden Hills ~001 ********************* *** TX REPORT *** ********************* 2753 6461220 KMWB WB23 MPLS M 06/23 08:40 00'48 3 OK 1 , e . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CLAIMS REPORT TO BE APPROVED AT 06/26/00 COUNCIL MEETING CLAIMS PAID SINCE LAST COUNCIL MEETING (06/13100) PAGE 1 OF3 17815 17816 17817 17818 17819 17820 17821 17822 17823 17824 17825 17826 17827 . 06/14/00 06/14/00 06/14/00 06/14/00 06/14/00 06/16/00 06/19/00 06119/00 06/19/00 06/19/00 06/21/00 06/21/00 06121/00 Lake Count Service Coo erative Fortis Benefits Fortis Benefits US West Communications Pe Cash Olson Michelle Affini Plus Federal Credit Union Public Em 10 ees Retirement Association leMA Retirement Trust - 457 leMA Retirement Trust - 457 Health Partners Northern States power Com an DCA, Inc. . FSA De artment 1897.38 316.80 163.25 1,687.50 216.17 73.15 4 066.96 3,109.34 1,624.62 55.29 575.30 5365.73 208.82 Subtotal ~ Paid Claims 19,360.31 Paid Claims From Above - 19,360,31 Add Unpaid Claims, Page 3 of 3 - 113 466.03 Total Accounts Payable Claims for Council Approval, 06f26JOO- 132 826.34 Note: Checks fOf unpaid claims totaling $188,859.31 were mailed on June 13,2000 after approval at the June 12,2000 Council Meeting. They were check numbers 17755 -17814. This sequence corresponds to unpaid temporary numbers Tl _ T60. Check numbers 17753 - 17754 were used for alignment. Insurance - 1ul June Short Term Disabili June Lon Term Disabili Ma Phone Service P Cash Re lenishment Mile e1Ex eDse Reimbursement Second June Pa 011 Second June Pa all Second June Pa roll Second June Pa oil-Savin s Match Dental Insurance-Jut June Service Medical Reimbursement 6/21/00 "~,"poyabl"'cloi,,,,1 t CITY OF ARDEN HILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CLAIMS REPORT TO BE APPROVED AT 06/26/00 COUNCIL MEETING . PAGE20F3 e UNPAID CLAIMS REGISTER: ttMIM1UkliiAtit TOI 06/27/00 Abdo Abdo Eick & Mevers 2,500.00 1999 YE Audit-Payment #3 T02 06/27/00 Able Hose & Rubber loc 33.43 Hose AdaDlorlNozzle T03 06/27/00 Accurate Press, Inc. 738.85 Election Post Cards!Window Envelones T04 06/27/00 Advantage Signs & Graphics Inc. 199.69 Custom Signs-Perrv Park T05 06/27/00 American Planning Association 185.00 Membership-Chaput T06 06/27/00 Arden Hills Nurserv 2048.66 2000 Flower Gardens T07 06/27/00 Arden Hills Tire & Service Ctr 55.95 Toro #4298- Tire T08 06/27/00 AT&T 52.09 Long Distance T09 06/27/00 Bav West 1,315.83 TeMP Silo TestIRemove TIO 06/27/00 Berres Sandra 15.28 Milealle Reimbursement Tl1 06/27/00 BifEs Inc. 562.08 Portable Toilets T12 06/27/00 Bover Ford Trucks, Inc. 350.55 # 109 Repair Parts T13 06/27/00 Brock White Companv . 1 753.48 Cmfco Rental T14 06/27/00 Brunn LuAnn 240.00 June Cleanin.e: - City HaIJ TIS 06/27/00 BRW, Inc. 10,691.15 Engineering Services-May TI6 06/27/00 Cartwriaht Georae 29.00 Refund-Soccer Mini~amD T17 06/27/00 City of Excelsior 25.00 MCFOA Mta-S. Stowell TI8 06/27/00 Camorate Express 412.43 Office Supplies/Copy Paper T19 06/27/00 Donald Salverda & Associates 14.91 "The Effective Executive"_Lvnch T20 06/27/00 Electro Watchman Inc. 25.00 Proaranunin. Char.e_ Thill T21 06/27/00 Erickson Lvnn 32.00 ToumamentlMembership_UST A T22 06/27/00 Fratta/lone's Hardware 21.36 June Purchases T23 06/27/00 GOPher State One-Call 192.00 May Service T24 06/27/00 HiM Point Creative 2 682.00 Rec Guide Re-Design T25 06/27/00 Hvdro Suoolv Co. 19811.21 ResidentiaJ Meter Install & UOl!rades.Release #14 126 06/27/00 ICI Dulux Paint Center 398.58 White Field Markln!! Paint T27 06/27/00 Impact Planning 10,400.32 EBS.Modification IIFOST Pav #1 T28 06/27/00 Indenendem Sports Network 819.00 Umpire Services 6/6-6/15/00 T29 06/27/00 Independent School Dist #621 5.00 Transfer Fee-Moore-Word 130 06/27/00 Instv Prints 89.35 (300) Purchase Orders 131 06/27/00 Kath Auto Parts 229.98 June PurChases 132 06/27/00 Kimball Beth 62.00 Refund-Pre-Basketball 133 06/27/00 Knox Lumber Co. 42.49 PJastic TubillJ;~.-Lift Modification T34 06/27/00 Labor Relations Associates Inc. 260.00 Consultant Fees 5/23-Union 135 06/27/00 Lan!!lie Sonia 55.00 RefWld-Tyke Time 136 06/27/00 Lealffie of MN Cities 645.00 Annual Conf.Aplikowski Rem Lvnch 137 06/27/00 Lillie SUburban Newspapers 845.40 Le,ga] Notices-Ad-Intem 138 06/27/00 Lindber~. Kathryn 24.00 Refund-Soccer Mini-Caron U Total- Unpaid Claims ._ 57,863.07 II . >ondyi.<"O"''''POl'>b1~J . e e . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CLAIMS REPORT TO BE APPROVED AT 06/26/00 COUNCIL MEETING PAGE 3 OF 3 UNPAID CLAIMS REGISTER: ;;!rttI'ill!ilnlitkjiA't~;.; .........l\MooNt....... :,::,::;,'.":. .:.:. : ".:/", T39 06/27/00 MCFOA- Treasurer 35.00 7/00-6/0 I Membership T40 06127/00 Met Council Environmental Services 37 280.00 Julv Sewer Charge T41 06/27/00 Michaels 31.07 Plavg:fOund SUDolies T42 06/27/00 Midwest Asphalt Corporation 59.01 Road Reoair Material T43 06/27/00 MN Pollution Control A~encv 23.00 Class SD Operator Cert-JM T44 0612 7/00 MN Recreation & Park Assoc 150.00 Summer Leadershio Workshop T45 06/27/00 Moore Thomas 161.06 Mileage/Exnense Reimbursement T46 06127/00 Peterson Fram & Bergman 5,163.41 Mav Leg:al Services T47 06/27/00 Post, Terrance 53.58 MileagelExpense Reimbursement T48 06/27/00 Resha, Charlene 26.00 Refund-Pre-Basketball T49 06/27/00 Sam's Club 51.06 Soan for C rack Seal Proiect T50 06/27/00 Scherer Brothers Lwnber Co. 9.32 Wood Lath (J Bdll T51 06127/00 Sham Htg & AlC Inc. 35.50 Refund-Permit#MOO-114 T52 06/27/00 Shoreview City of 5,873.87 Mar-May Building Inspector-Thill T53 06/27/00 Soecial Events America 2,997.98 Dav in the Park T54 06/27/00 Star Tribune 810,00 Ad-Planning Inlem-6/11 T55 06127/00 State of Minnesota 350.00 CPV Membership 7/00-6/01 T56 06/27/00 Stowell Sheila 112.17 Mileage/Expense Reimbursement T57 06/27/00 TimeSaver Off-Site Secretarial 338.00 Recording Secretarv-CC-6112 T58 06/27/00 Tomhave, Wendy 58,00 Refund-Soccer Mini-Camp T59 06/27/00 Triarco Arts & Crafts 352.60 PlavPTound Supplies T60 06/27/00 TruGreen Chetnlawn 509,08 Weed Control- Lindv & Arden Oaks Parks T61 06/27/00 United Business Machines, Inc. 65.39 Oki Ribbons (4) T62 06/27/00 USTA 73.00 MembershiD Fees T63 06/27/00 US West Communications 211.17 638-0998, Public Works T64 06127/00 Walton & Sons Inc. 225.00 Pettinl7 Zoo-Day in the Park T65 06/27/00 Xerox Corporation 548.69 Julv Conier Lease Subtotal, Page 3 of 3 - 55,602.96 Page 2 of 3 Brought Fornrard . 57 863.D7 Total Unpaid Claims-- 113,466.03 .....yI."""""bpoyabWcWrn.1 o o ;;; l::' ... o C W I- <( C Ul l<: o W :r o 0' ..Jo 6~ o::iO ).0 <l:,S 11.0 w!2 Z'" :J!2 .....:g c>; Z:;;: o Gl (J~ W;:::; II)~ II) ..J ..J 3: Z w c 0:: <l: IL o i:: o ... .. _0 "'- - .. Gl D:: Ol - '" e:,ll. . '.~ :1: ! ~ ~ @@lKi '."............ .;.:.:......,.;." :}:.~::~ .-.-.,. ~l\11 ii!ii:~ :.:-;.;.:.,.:.".; ;,-:.".-.:.:.:. ;~i;,\! 'i;/:iii ~IW \~i;1 ,2 Ht'ill: -.; m !>:! If: ill o ~ % :~ g g ~ '" '" .~ .~ W' "<t ~~ i ~~ '"""A :..... ...., ... ~ :g ~ ii!!: ~ti~;ei N" :~: .....~. ~ ~ :;: 'C ~ :~: N" }l!: il " :E "! ~ i "! ;> :E :E ~ ~ n:\. ;:~'<::i ~ ~ .~i ~ M N vi ~ "', .i!l: .:~: ;:::;:;:: "."." .., .'. ~ M il! M '" '" "" 00 M " "', ;z -' :':'::::' .,.;.:.:. ....,." .:.",. :~:::::. .::...;< "..;.". ::~:::-=:: ;$~ .'lji i I ~ i I w 8 "- M M M M 00 00 ..... ..... ,;;;. .;;; 0000 0000 060.0 ~~R~ ~....,~~ ,,' ;:: M 00 00 ~i 0 - ..... :~; '" ;;; 00 1:. " ~ 00 0 00 M or{ d or{ ,,' I.m M M ,..... ,. '" ~t)!:\ c I' .g 0 s .s , '" <;> 0 0 c p 0 " ..i " ;.: '" " '" s ! &! ~ 'is. '0 ,~ E !>. '" w &: c I :g ~ '" ;; e , .... z '" 0: :.... ,..... ~ ~ ._ 0 ~ ~ 0;:;: "" "" I:: U U (I) G: ti: . . . o 0 o 0 ci ci ~ ~ ~ ::;1 ~ fi ~ ;~11 N:':' .:.".". >:,.:.: ",.;.: .,.~:< ..c;~ .~ E ~I ~ ~ ~ :::~: i ~ rl J: ~ ~ ;;111 "" "" "" f2f2[; :,v.... 00 M :;: '" " ".W," - M ~ ~ 00 '" '" '" -0 " 00 '" '" 0 ... "" 00 ~ ~ -..:.: ~ ,,' M- :";~;: M .... .".,., :<.,.,< x~: :~:;::~ "" '$. 'W' U <n , fi: ~ '" ,','v, is - I .s ~ ~ - '" '" ol~ '" 0 :. '0 .~ 0 .':'>>; "' ~ '- JM: !>. :g , ~ 'iJ '" ~ " e &: ~ 0 ;:;: .~. ~ .... "" ~ '" e .!l ;; U ~ '" z fi: . . "' ,...... ,:.:,.'. ,.,.;.,. "';':'. ..~. );( iilt S ~ ~ '" ';, t; >:g -O:E :i: B ~ ~ "'"! - ~ ~ '" ~ .::! "" f-u o "! t; ~ :E . :E ::c: on ::E on N g; 0-. ....; ~ 0 Vi v > :E E:E ~ ] ~ ,...: .n ~ 8 :;: '" 0 '2 ::> 'iJ e U g ""@ '2 "2- ~ ~ '" , .;: Q '" p.. 0-. ~ "''' " 'E W E !E 0 ~ ~2.s M 00 ..... . . ~ ~ fi jj 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ P:E ... ~ tc il u; ,g ~ 'ii > ;; :E :E o ~ ~ ~ o :: ~ ~ '" - - gig g ~ j ~ g g ~ g g g g ~ i g ~ i ~ 80 8. ~ g N g g N ~ N ~ g g gg g g gNg:ri N g gOON ~'CI~~~~~~~8~S;S v:i r-: ~ ..,f \.Ci 0: 0:;:: v:i ..,f \.Ci..... r-: ~~I't!1.d"$.~("'Jr--~::;t 'J.. ONOO'<t'ooO'\OOOOl'O '<t 0 <.0 NOM..... 00 \0 "1 \0 00 g~~~~~~~~,~~~ "'"!. t'-^ _ q ;:} "<t. c--f It) l"t t'-. "'"!. ""l w =e~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I B & Q ~ I ~ ~ ~]~1j m ~ r/3 CI.l ill ~Ii!i o M " "" .... M .... ..... .......... '" ~ 'il "! ~ , "- CIl _ ~ ~ " c E u "0 ~ :r:CIl " ...I:: ~ <U <U e-gU:2 <fl <U ~ <U .s; ~ t U .ci~E-o~ g ~ <fl ~ 3uci:~ ~ 0 ~ 0: "'100. v ~ ~ ~ ~ r:: ~ ~ ~ ~ .... NoON 00 t' r-: 00 00 ;q~~~~IJ)~~OO~ u~ E " l ~ .* ~ ~ ~ ~ : 8. ~ 8 ~ g l:i 'l:l ',,= f- u .~ u .~ :g ] ..s ~ & I 1$ ~ ! ~ s ~ ~ =f ij :f ]: E 'E ~ u ..= ~ ~ 0 ~ ii . z ..."" '" ~:!9 . ~:., ~: '"':~ .,. o ~ ~M N' ci .....N M 0 'd OOoor--o 00 M 0-. "<t O:-.:iNNoO o N ~ 00 '<t 00.. ... ~ ~ '" N N - '" M "),M "l"l Wi 'il (':l ~ v- "fi ~.l:;" '8~ o_...!! ~~ ]~~5;o~g~~~~ g ~] ~ ~ ~ ..c 0 ~ ~ ..8 ~ 8 ~i.~ CI.l <U "-< ~ ~ -.I-g .. <n ~ f- <1} 00 ~ "2~"::':C^U5"2;5:"'O "-<-."-< ~.- ^ t2 c: coo ~ ~.. '""' ~ ~ i::^ !::: ~ "'0._ 0 E <If ~I~ ;5: 0 c;>-, 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cE ~ J31~ ~ :E ~ ~ J: 5 " 00 00 NN ~g8~;g~r;~ 00000000 0000000 NM(""JMMMM("") f") v IJ) ~ I' 00 '<t V .., "<t "<t "<t ~~~~~~ O"lO N ("'J V It) It) IJ) IJ) ~ ~ ~ ~ r:2 -M 00 00 "'''' MM NM\O 0000 0000 0000 '"'t""l:t"<::t'~ N 2~ '<:t ilii ~il::' ~ -;Q; '<t'Vl\Ot'-OOO\O V)lt)lt)V"lV)IJ)\.C)\O f")<""lM<"'lMMMM l"-r--r--I' r--....... r--r- . N ~ ~ f . . . o o ;::; 1i: o Q w I- ~ l/) :.: o w :r o . 0 ..Jo ..J- o:e a::Ci; ~S 0..0 we Ze :3... -'0 C ,.:; z:;< 8 i w.- m!!!. m ..J ..J 3: z w C a:: <( ~ i3 N ~ _0 "'N ~ .. .. cr: Ol - IV e:,ll. i i I . j . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ] ~ . .5 . .. J . !i I ~ . . .. :; ~ ~ ~ .. ~ Ii ij g ~ E 0: ~ ~ ~ ~ 0: ~ 0: 0: oS '" ~ t I ] ~ j I I I .~ ~ . !!i ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ . . 5 '" . i. ~ . 0 ~ . 0 ~ eo ~ eo ~ ~ ~ eo ~ eo ~ :,<:< ~!~~ 4 "'."p 'it I 0 0 is 1S 8 8 is 8 1S 0 8 8 >! :q 1S ,.... ". 0 0 0 'W;" : ~ g 0 ~ :q " ::!: '" N " = N :q cliJ:; ~ ~ ~ " = ;; '" ~ Gl ~ ::: ::: ,.. '" N '" '" :::! ~ ~' '" " ~ ~ ,.. '" ~ N ~ Ili 0 .. ;; N '" ~ 00 0 00 ,..: :e :e M " I '" N '" S ,.. ~ :! ~ :! ~ I ~ - ~ N ~ - ".w &: ....".. If! ,1m " " " " " " " " " " " " " I ~ ~ " g " " " " " " " g " " " " ,..: 0 '" .. 0 0 -D ,..: 00 0 ~ -D N g 0 I '" '" N N ~ N :::! ,.. '" ~ - :::! '" " '" N '" N '" N e jf.: .....,... .. I~ ;.,.','. .S "W I 5 " E "" '"" ;~;:;:;: 1l " ~ 1l " ,l( ~ i2 ::s " '" ~, .~ " " ~ ~ ~ '" <l'l ".,' " <.> ..>< 0 ~ ij '" "" " " <.> <<: ".,,~ 1<1 .~ ~ 0 " ~. ~ ~ "- '" ~ ~ '~ t> ::s ~ " " ~- co .n .n !'iI: c- .: co ~ " " ~ :i " " 1l .: ~ " c' " i i 5 :~~ 'S ~ ..>< " " 6 ,,- " 0 ~ c ~ B .S " ~ " ..>< :.0 0 ,~: 0 " '0 .-l ~ ij - - Ci ~ " " is 0 ij b '0 " .;; u co U :I: ~ :I: '" c:l '~ w .. .... 0 '11 ;::; ..... - - c: ... '" ,.. 0 ... '" 0 0 i 0 N ..., '" 8 0 0 c: N ... ... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 iiZ o.D ,.. "" "" "" a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, iili; ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... i: ~ '" ~ '" ,.. ~ '" " ;:: N ~ '" ~ '" ,.. '" '" '" '" '" '" '" ,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ M M ~ P ~ M M ~ P ,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. \: ., e e e CITY OF ARDEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 TO: Mayor and City Council Jennifer Chaput, City Planner~ - Plauuiug Consultant Proposals FROM: SUBJECT: At the beginning of year, the City Council has typically appointed a firm for planning consultation whose services may be used as necessary. In the past, this firm has been Sanders Wacker Bergley. For the year 2000, a firm was not appointed. The City has contracted with firms in the past for plarming assistance on a project by project basis (ex. the neighborhood business and civic center rezoning; comprehensive plan update) but this service has not been used to its full potential. Earlier this year, proposals were submitted to Nancy Randall for general plarming assistance by two firms: McCombs Frank Roos Associates and Michael Cronin and Associates. The two firms proposed to offer ongoing assistance to staff and to provide extra assistance with planning cases or workload, when necessary. Although MFRA has worked with the City in the past and appear to be a very knowledgeable firm, I am very familiar with Mike Cronin's work from past experience and I would like to recommend Mr. Cronin, Mr, Cronin has a great deal of experience in many areas of plarming and has practiced as a plarmer in the private and public sector ofthe metro area of Minneapolis and St. Paul for many years. He is a very knowledgeable individual and I have had the pleasure ofleaming a great deal from him in the past. He would be an asset to the Plarmer position as well as the City for plarming assistance. Since the original proposals were submitted, Mr. Cronin has resubmitted his proposal to meet the current needs of the City, as attached to this memo. He is offering a monthly retainer fee of$125, This fee only applies when his services are used and includes any number of phone calls made to him within one month. Ifhe is assisting with Planning Cases where his services are reimbursable by the applicant, his hourly rate would be $95. If he is assisting with planning issues directly related to the City that are paid by the City, his hourly rate for meetings and related work would be $75 per hour. If you require any additional information prior to the meeting, please do not hesitate to ask. ., " MICHAEL CRONIN & ASSOCIATES 8 February 8, 2000 rv11W 2 ~j zooa tit Ms, Jeonifer Chaput City of Arden Hills 4364 West Round Lake Road Arden Hills, MN 55112 - 5794 ow Or Dear Jennifer, From our conversations and my experience as a consultant for other cities I believe I can offer the City planning consulting assistance in at least three areas. They are: A, Support for City Planning Staff This set of services could also be described a~ coaching, and, once a relationship is established would typically be provided over the telephone. Using my experience I couId help the City staff by explaining common and or best metro planning practices and their application to the issue at hand, lead them through the process of interpreting and justifying regulations, and answer any planning questions. The fee stlUcture for this service would be a monthly $ 125 retainer that would cover ail work that could be done over the telephone. This fee would be assessed only for the months this service is actually used. B. Advocacy for the City From time to time a planning issue, development application, or topic arises where additional professional . planning assistance is immedialely desirable and face to face meetings with City staff, proponents, opponents, and or other public officials are required. Working as part of the City's team, I \vould pro\ide professional planning assistance in developing and justifying the City's position in these situations. This work involves meetings (often adversarial), preparation of worksheets and alternatives and draft and final reports, public presentations, and would include assisting or, as needed, substituting, for the City Planning staff at Commission and Council meetings, The fee structure for this service would be an hourly rate of $75 per hour for services directly paid by the City, and $95 per hour for services when the City is reimbursed through a development or other agreement. C. Response to Initiatives These are projects in the City's work program where the City can be proactive rather than reactive. I could serve as an "in house" consultant, completing the work at the hourly rate, or, on a case by case basis, negotiating an altemative ra1e, a flat fee, or a "not to exceed" fee for my services and the services of any additional professionals that may be required, I think its strength of this arrangement is its flexibility for the City, its ability to change to match the City's needs and respond efficiently to the changing opportunities and challeoges the City will always face. I appreciate your consideration.' nook forward to working with you again. Please call if you or Joe have any questions or I can provide additional detail or'clmification,' Sincerely," . ..~ . 8809 West Bush Lake Road. Minneapolis, MN 55438. (612) 941-7487 . FAX (612) 941-2645 -.. e e . MICHAEL CRONIN & ASSOCIATES MICHAEL CRONIN, PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE MICHAEL CRONIN & ASSOCIATES 1994 to Present Principal, Practice includes: - Land use and planning advocacy, with emphasis on public process and development controls, for private and public clients NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING 1985 to 1994 Director of Government Relations, creating and maintaining a viable place for billboards in Twin Cities communities - Worked with hundreds of local elected and appointed officials and their staffs, - Developed innovative and custom regulatory approaches - Mediated settlement of lawsuit with the City of Jacksonville, FL Success required recognizing and understanding conflicting and often hostile goals and objectives, development of alternatives and a path to reduce these conflicts, and education and promotion to gain acceptance and support, MINNEAPOLIS CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1972 to 1985 Manager of Development Controls - Responsible for quality and efficiency of staff recommendations and operation of City Planning Commission - Developed ordinances, amendments, and procedures to respond to issues, mandates (Shoreland, Floodplain), and obsolescence - Directed and participated in the preparation of all Environmental Documents required by MEPA in Minneapolis from 1972 to 1985, created procedures to enforce the changing rules of the EQB, negotiated all MPCA Indirect Source Permits Community Planner - Organized, educated and staffed resident and business groups on city development issues 8809 West Bush Lake Road. Minneapolis, MN 55438. 16121941-7487. FAX (612) 941-2645 Michael Cronin Professional Experience Page Two DAYTONS DEPARTMENT STORE 1969 to 1972 Manager - Line manager in the operations division, staff in industrial engineering division EDUCATION University of Minnesota, B,A, Geography and Economics, 1969 Hubert Humphrey Institute, Reflective Leadership Program, 1983 Instructor, Urban Studies Program, University of Minnesota, "Planning in a Local Democracy". December, 1999 ~ I e . . e . . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: June 15,2000 TO: Mayor and City CounCilmembersl1 fW.lt ~ Joe Lynch, City Administrator ~r - FROM: SUBJECT: Mounds View High School Fire Suppression Exemption Backeround Previously, you were presented with a request by Mounds View High School for an extension to the State Fire Marshal's corrective orders issued in 1996. The School District had three (3) years to take those corrective measures, Because the Referendum passed, the Mounds View High School is now requesting an extension on the requirement to complete the protective orders, due to the fact that making some of the corrective orders will necessitate additional expense because of the changes in the building, The corrective orders were issued in 1996; Mounds View High School requested an extension, which was granted for a three (3) year period, and now are requesting an additional extension, which can be granted by the State Fire Marshal for an additional two (2) years. This makes the entire timeframe almost seven (7) years between the issue of the original corrective order and potential completion of all items. Greg Johnson, Project Manager with Stahl Construction, wrote to the City Council asking for consideration of approval of an extension from the State Fire Marshal Division for corrective orders for fire suppression and fire safety equipment, until such time as the entire addition can be completed. At the time of your meeting on May 30, 2000, questions were raised about why the City of Arden Hills was being asked to weigh in on this measure, and if by denying or deferring any action, it would delay the construction project for the High School. I spoke to Lint Edgerly, Assistant State Fire Marshal, about these two questions. The local municipality is asked to give its approval, because the State Fire Marshal's office would like to know if a particular project or participant is being difficult or has not complied in the past with corrective orders, It's an opportunity for the local government, through its action, to let the State Fire Marshall know whether the applicant or the project has been cooperative and been complying with past requests. Mr. Edgerly indicated to me that, by deferring the decision back to the State Fire Marshal, it would in no way endanger the project or delay the project. A communication (letter) would need to go back to the State Fire Marshal indicating that the City of Arden Hills defers the decision to the State Fire Marshal's office. They have monthly meetings, at which time they take action based on information from the local municipalities (i.e., approval, denial, and deferral). His boss, Tom Brace, the State Fire Marshal, has the authority to grant an additional two (2) year extension one time only, for requests such as this. Memorandum, Mounds View High School Fire Suppression Exemption Page Two June 15,2000 Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council consider approving deferral of this extension request by Mounds View High School, at your regularly scheduled meeting on June 26, 2000. I've included this item with your non-agenda information due to the fact that there are so many items on the Worksession Agenda, and you wanted to have information back to you answering those questions that were outstanding. Once the City makes its decision, as I indicated earlier, communication needs to be sent to the Office of the State Fire Marshal, as well as an official copy of the City Council meeting Minutes, indicating the City Council's action, provided to Mounds View High School. Taking action on June 26th, instead of June 19th, would not delay the ability of the School District to receive exception as requested. The State Fire Marshal's office meets once each month, and would not be scheduled to meet again until July for action on this request. I will schedule this on the Consent Agenda for the June 26th City Council meeting unless otherwise directed. If there are further questions, I would be glad to answer them before the meeting or at the Worksession on June 19th. . . . . . . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: June 20, 2000 TO: Joe Lynch, City Administrator FROM: Dwayne Stafford, Public Works Director ~ SUBJECT: Old Highway to/Snelling Avenue Speed Study Backl!round The City of Arden Hills has received numerous complaints over the past five years relating to traffic speed on Old Highway 1 O/Snelling Avenue, between County Highway 96 and Minnesota State Highway 51, Several accidents have also occurred on that roadway in the past few years, The north portion of this roadway from County Highway 96 to County Road E is under County jurisdiction and has speed limits of 40 & 45 miles per hour. The southern segment from County Road E to Minnesota State Highway 51 was turned over to City jurisdiction in 1997 and has a speed limit of 40 miles per hour. The Public Works Department, as well as the Ramsey County Sheriffs Deputies patrolling that roadway, would like to see a uniform speed limit on the entire roadway which is safe and proper for that roadway. Recommendation The Arden Hills Public Works Director recommends the City Council adopt Resolution No. 00-23, requesting the Minnesota Department of Transportation to conduct a speed study on Old Highway 10/Snelling A venue to determine a uniform, safe and proper speed limit for that roadway. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY CITY OF ARDEN HILLS RSOLUTION NO. 00-23 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO CONDUCT A SPEED STUDY ON OLD HIGHWAY 10/SNELLlNG A VENUE BETWEEN RAMSEY COUNTY HIGHWAY 96 AND MINNESOTA STATE HIGHWAY 51 WHEREAS, increasing traffic numbers and speed complaints have been realized on Old Highway 10/Snelling A venue, between Ramsey County Highway 96 and Minnesota State Highway 51; and WHEREAS, current speed limits on this roadway do change frequently; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Arden Hills seeks a consistent speed limit throughout this roadway, which is deemed safe and proper by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA, that the Minnesota Department of Transportation is hereby requested to conduct a speed study on Old HighwaylO/Snelling Avenue between Ramsey County Highway 96 and Minnesota State Highway 51 for the pmpose of finding and recommending a uniform, safe, and proper speed limit for such roadway. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS 26TH DAY JUNE, 2000. DENNIS PROBST, MAYOR ATTEST: JOSEPH LYNCH, CITY ADMINISTRATOR . . . I 'JoE Planning Case #OO-17b Planned Unit Development Amendment Welsh Properties, 1887 and 1987 Gateway Blvd. ~o 00 o ID ( J 0 .0- ( ~ n I 1000 , o 1000 2000 Feet , Cl) . e e CITY OF ARDEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: June 8, 2000 TO: Mayor and City Council Jennifer Chaput, City PlannerW Case #OO-17b, Planned Unit Development Amendment Welsh, 1987 and 1887 Gateway Blvd FROM: SUBJECT: Request The applicant is requesting to modify the existing Planned Unit Development to allow for staff approval of the following list of items for both 1987 and 1887 Gateway Blvd.: . Enlarging overhead dock doors . Installing additional dock doors . Installing drive-in ramps or platforms, . Installing windows or entry/emergency exit doors, . Relocation and replacement or striping of additional parking spaces, . Increasing the percentage ofthe allowable office build-out square footage for each property. The owner has found it difficult to sign tenants who need modifications to the exterior of the building due to the two-month PUD amendment process. They would like to streamline this allowing staff to approve several ofthe more common modification requests. Backl!round The Planning Commission heard this request at the April 5, 2000, Planning Commission meeting. At that time, the request was tabled pending further information from the applicant (as provided in Exhibit A). A letter was submitted by the applicant and heard by the Planning Commission at their meeting on June 7, 2000. The City of Arden Hills Zoning Ordinance, Section VIII, F, 3 states, "Any structural alteration, enlargement or intensification, change in site plan, or similar change not specially permitted, shall require city action and all procedures shall apply as if a new applicant were being requested; provided, however, that when such changes are deemed to be insignificant by the zoning administrator, the requirements of a public hearing may be waived". Administrative Anproval Staff does have some ability to approve insignificant changes. Staff has added a few items to the list below that were not requested by the applicant, however, have been requested by prospective tenants in the past, Staff would reserve the right to attach conditions as needed or request a formal application with public hearing, if warranted. e 1. The loading dock areas are permitted to have additional overhead dock doors no greater than 15 by 15 feet in size. 2. The installation of drive-in ramps or platforms with the condition that no exterior storage is permitted on the platform areas. 3. The installation of windows or enlIy/emergency exit doors as long as the door(s) as long as they do not affect the aesthetic value of the building, lighting, and pedestrian traffic. 4, Increasing the percentage of the allowable office build-out square footage for each property. 5. Permitting the relocation and replacement or striping of additional parking spaces. 6. Modifications to the exterior lighting plan. 7. Modifications to the exterior storage requirements of the plan. Deadline for Al!encv Actions The City of Arden Hills received the complete application for this request on Thursday, March 9, . 2000. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by Monday, May 8, 2000 (60 days), unle5s the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60- day review period. A letter was sent to the applicant, extending the review period an additional sixty days, to Friday, July 7,2000. The City may, with the petitioners' consent, extend the review period beyond the Friday, July 7, 2000, date. Lastly, if the City denies the petitioners' request, "". it must state, in writing, the reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request." Ontions 1. Recommend approval as submitted. 2. Recommend approval with conditions. 3. Recommend denial with reasons for denial. 4. Table for additional information, Recommendation For Planning Case #00-I7B, amendment of the planned unit development to allow certain administrative approvals for the properties at 1887 and 1987 Gateway Blvd, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the following items: 1. The loading dock areas are permitted to have additional overhead dock doors no greater . than 15 by 15 feet in size. 2 e 2. The installation of drive-in ramps or platforms with the condition that no exterior storage is permitted on the platform areas, 3, The installation of windows or entry/emergency exit doors as long as the door(s) as long as they do not affect the aesthetic value of the building, lighting, and pedestrian traffic. Un date The applicant withdrew the request for items 6 and 7 of the "Administrative Approval" section ofthis memo, Items 4 and 5 have been tabled and continued to the next Plarming Commission meeting as Plarming Case #OO-17C. e e 3 - -- " \ - P~Pi\ e::t '[!\ y ~ Welsh Companies Comprehensive Real I3state Servi~es 8200 Normundale BQulcv;\yd, Suite20Q MinnC"i1PQli~. Minnesota 55437-10bO 952.897.7700 Fal( 897.7104 May 26, 2000 Ms. Jennifer Chaput Planner Oty of Arden Hills 4364 W. Round Lake Road Arden Hills, MN 55112 RE: Planning Case #OO-17b, PUD Amendment REF: Arden Hills Commerce Center and Arden Hills Lakeside Center 1987.2071 Gateway Blvd. 1887-1971 Gateway Blvd. Arden Hills, MN 55112 Arden Hills, MN 55112 Dear Ms, Chaput: This letter is to clarify our application regarding the above referenced planning case. Our request to amend the Planned Unit Development (PUD) per article 1, 2, and 3 as outlined in the letter dated AprilS, 2000 from Nancy Randall, Associate Planner, Lo the Planning Commission reflects standard type of details requested by prospective tenant:; for an industrial product. The owners understand that any proposed modificationS need to adhere to the building's III ate rials, quality of construction, aesthetic of the developmen tand all building code requirements. Our request for staff approvlll is to meet the furie constraints placed on the owner by prospective tenants to execute a lease and build-out premises fOl' occupancy. The owner a1ld Welsh Compmlies feel the proposed modifi"ltions to the project are positive and do not alter in a negative manner the appearance of the Project, but rather enhance the design layout of the building necessary to meet the busi.ness needs, The owner would like to request that approval of proposed modifications, if any, should be reviewed and approved at staff level. Tn regards to article 4 and 5 as oUllined in Nancy Randall's letter, the parking lot was striped to provide a maximum 20 percent office build-out per building. However, the development agreement states thllt the project may exceed the 20 percent office build- out in any building. The owner requests to relocaLe, replace or add additional striping of the parking, if necessary, to comply with building code requirements llnd that the proposed modifications be reviewed and approved at staff level. Ai; this request was conceptually approved, we believe staff can appropriately deal with this issue. The owner would agree to submit the necessary drawings or documentation to show compliance to all building code requirements and agree to permit only en~ployee parking in rear of building. The owner did not make a request to change the PUD regarding article 6 and 7 as outlined in Nancy Randall's letter, As such, there is nO pending issue in this regard, EO/GO 'd B17EoL6B 'ON X\;I.:I lWDW Al~3dO~d 'SOO HS13M W\;I BI:6o nHl oo~IO-Nnr - -- -- EO/EO 'd , . Please submit this letter along with our application for review and approval by the City of Arden Hills. Welsh Companies and the owner appreciate the City of Arden Hills staff assistance and diligence in working toward successfully attracLing new business to Arden Hills. If you have any questions regarding this application, please contact me at (612) 897-7830. Sincerely; ~~ Donna Becker Senior Property Manager (J/4' " 1Il>EOL611 'ON X\;l:l lW~W Al~3dO~d 'SOO HS13M W\;l 111:60 nHl'OO-IO-Nnr ,IUW l' . !II II! ul n1llllOI l!' I':;; Ul ~ ill. ~ . ~ r e~ ~ r r r 111111I1 Iii ~ 1111 ~ II .. I II !! II" " 'Mil II!! IiBI~ i~1 IP ~ U Iii ~ 'I ~ ;;C' i m -z n I ~ (J> 'Il' . all ~l ~ e 111111 11 I' il II I r , I ..--..-... . I , , , i -, ~~_#--~#' ~';/' ..-----------------...-..-----------......-----. .................. ! 'I l'I' I, :: --::::~:.:::~::.:::::--::il::t: ---. .----- u_-==:::==-::-==:::::: I '! . nt , 'I ,. I ':___., I -- -I \-- ~ ~~ :;D ~~ i . ...._.2---. ---::-:.:-::=::::=-.-=-::~:.:-:~=.-11 .un...... -- -1 I '<Jl --'--" -S I I' U III .~ liu ;m ill illllll ~ I e1d i ~ F !' Ii tll I. ! I II em I ~ I' ~II ~ ~B ~ I ~. . ~ I E ~ I t I I i Q' ~l ml ~ e "ii mq II '. T .' il 'I: i= II II! II" UI! I I ----- ---------..::-------\, -- - ------- GIltyl,T eo.uvNI:I _ ___-------- --- r I i! --------~--------- - -'"1: ___ l J. ~ 'I r-=- - ----- - JIi " .-1 I - ___ - II __ _ __-- II - : ,1 _ 1 1 I J 1 ,\1 I --~ _ 'I \,: _ 1 _ ' I __. , , , I ~ ~t-I--tl ,::_ I ~: ' t =t j 1 ' I:: I pi , ' ,- ,i ", Ii i : lil~-~t-I--t~ \\ ,,' I I ' ' ' " " I " ' \\ Ii i : ~ 1-I-i1 \~, ii i 1111 - J'- 1-------,'- J' { \\ .,' IIIII --- -' .. ", ,,' 1'\ _ ' - ~ - I," \ \~ I" I - - ~ t I' I I \ '~\ ,I: -t ' ," Ii: I -, -- i - \", ,,' I ___1' ' \"', ii i : - - '-- cr j i ~,p \~\ I" I - J" ,- ,1 II \ II \'\ " : ' ' " 'I:' I ' ,)) " I ,;, , i! -'. I 4 T -:-1' it-f - -- ;,",:;:/ ,,' I ,,--/ I:: ,'" --// I:: : I I' /;;':/ , I ,;/,/ 8I1J1fJ!~~~~~fHHW~/ __ ________,------ i! I p Ii ....s:. ~ ~ j~ 'loe-- Planning Case #00-14, Corner Side Yard Setback Variance Chuck Mertensotto, 3491 Lake Johanna Blvd. ~ .. ... . ., . ..- . .. ... ... . . . . .. .. ---.- -.. . r..._- 300 , o 300 600 Feet , Cl) e CITY OF ARDEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: June 8, 2000 SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council Jennifer Chaput, City Planne~ Planning Case #00-14, Variance (Corner Side Yard Setback) Chuck Mertensotto, 3491 Lake Johanna Blvd. TO: FROM: Request The request by the applicant is for a variance from the comer side yard setback requirements (12 feet proposed when 40 feet is required) for a porch addition on a single-family lot zoned R-2 (Exhibit A). . Backl!round The applicant made application for a comer side yard setback variance that came before the Planning Commission in March of this year. At that time, his plan showed a porch on the rear and side of the property (Exhibit B), This proposal was for a porch of approximately 4' x IT on the southeast side and 8' x 14' on the northeast side. The Planning Commission made a recommendation that the variance for a comer side yard variance (7 feet where 40 is required) be approved with the condition that the 8' x 14' proposed construction on the northeast side of the house be eliminated. This application and recommendation went to the Council meeting on March 13, 2000 at which time it was tabled. At that time, the drawings were being modified by the applicant. The sixty day time period was extended on this application and then waived by the applicant at the May 8, 2000 City Council meeting. New plans were also provided at this meeting. Therefore, since the original variance request had been modified, the applicant went back to the Planning Commission for review of the proposal. In the new proposal, the applicant took into consideration the Planning Commission's recommendation to eliminate the 8' x 14' section of the porch on the side of the house. However, it was not completely eliminated and an area of 11'.6" x 2'-8" continues to remain on the northeast side of the house. In addition to this change, the southeast portion of the porch was enlarged to approximately l' x 14' in the new plans. Findinl!s - Corner Side Yard Setback Variance Staff concludes that the following factors relate to the requested variance: . 1. Circumstances Unique to the Prooertv: The house currently is 15.37 feet (where 40 feet is required) from the easement line. The house was built (moved) prior to the current setback restrictions. It appears at one time (due to some existing footings) there was a porch approximately 5 by 8 feet in front of the door. However, the original porch are was nonconforming and when it was removed, it lost its nonconforming rights and can not be rebuilt, per Section IX (J) of the Zoning Ordinance. . 2. Variance not greater than necessary: The original variance was reduced on the northeast side of the structure by reducing the 8 x 14 foot section to 2' x 11'. The proposed 2' encroachment is permitted into a required setback area (up to 3' as long as the encroachment does not bring the structure closer than 6' to the property line) per Section VI (C) 2 (a) of the Zoning Ordinance. However, this variance was increased on the southeast of the structure at the same time that it was reduced on the northeast side. Deadline for Al!encv Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on January 31, 2000. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City provided the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period on March 31,2000. The additional review period was extended to Monday, May 29,2000. On May 8, 2000, the applicant waived the sixty-day review period Lastly, if the City denies the petitioners request, "...it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request". Note: Zoning Ordinance Section VIII, E, 4, states no application which has been denied . wholly or in part shall be resubmitted for a period of six (6) months from the date of said order of denial. Updates: Mr. Mertensotto will not be able to be present at the City Council meeting, He intends to send his architect to represent him, Options 1. Recommend approval as submitted. 2. Recommend approval with conditions, 3. Recommend denial with reasons for denial. 4. Table for additional information. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends denial of Planning Case #00-14, a comer side yard setback variance (12 feet where 40 is required) for a porch addition at 3491 Lake Johanna Blvd., based on the following findings: 1. The applicant was unable to demonstrate that any possible alternative solutions to the proposed construction had been fully investigated; and 2. The approval of the variance would not improve the existing nonconformity. . 2 II -. -. D D 5i6~~ . RECeiVED t-><<11tlll A 14 MAY 0 8 zooo CITY OF ARDEN HILLS -,' - l' L_ . , --. I I -. B D -. B .=::L' N ..._,h .-..". . I 1/'1 --. .'-.11 ft'-.L . N l.:. , N <J) -. ~ \tJ crl \J lU .....J en X N -. .O-,E ">(/')'.'/'>./ / J ,/'\->y' '/.:',J, /-'> .. ..... ,., 'Ie" " ,""(>,::','/.//. ,'-: "'! "',." ~ ~/ " 'f' " <,/~""/"" j' , ,,' /' /' .,1' '!:.' /y. / " I (f) './'y,.r: " "./.. ,0 / -,/ , / / / ,.I .' ./ /.-- ,-, ,-' j' / .,J /', .,/ -~< :~~,/>,~/>,/ ,::; , ""'/. "':::';::.'." . /:>1--, '~"" ~,- '- ,- ,\ '0 ...;g" ) J , /;.,' ~ ,'1' ;/'/'j'/ ... '~""- " / /'^..1~-._, ///! ,,-,/,-// /':///1 "- -', "',t"/', il,f.,_ -\'-':~:~'~/~~;;>;'?'; - . ..".~,),rf:~:-c(:j. b '. ('\iI'/. J" ~ ~~~E.~~'<;;;%:~';) . .0-,5 [J 7/if t.. I ;,. ~ . ':' 1- 9 i<l b I ill / y,' .. , :t 1- .. -- ~ --- . ..... t-tJ L{ ~ /' e_- n n co. - - - N 89'41'42" E E / /' .-----o~ / .,.........,.....- ,,/ - / ..--' ," ROAD --- 208,71 - -::...:::-- , o o I"'l .n ._ _ O' .__ _ _ _.' ,-"cO,-.'"'''' _.,o,=,=---,-~o,,~~'-" ""~""~'~"==='''''==''--:_~~\ II 'To' I:, 10B.rOO ~.~ 7 .._;cp,j 2~,/ / ~ / II' / /' 10 4.i I ; ,:' , Y~~cl ~}Lt / f / J,/./ ( / ' ( <1- J- / '- / /.. /1 \ G-: 7' /: ~ . , .f " \~y." / / il~!' if) l ~ "BD~ld.bl,. 1\ '0 Ii Z' J,t' / · 0) fi,eD" d r:f \\ / 1:)::/ JI ~ / 0'<' " j. 1 0/ I iii' ..... .. q "'~ ~i. . / / ;, /r/ ..' ,;f'" ~ . s' ':5 I Ii /:j .;' 00/' ,/;.?-./ J .j...... l.j </ ofJ' > / If .... f.... 11 / /\~x . / . l.<< ,/ J3/~..... 1/ ! / II! /.... '- L, LJi< c.o"-''''-'~! / //~ I / / oj> r s.d..L '{~'0 / 1/ .' .' I, I ~ 7S;/SCJ. I '/ /'.'1/ '\! to Ii l,""1r:. 'i 3d Kw, Y~N__\ - J I """'1/0 Hw ~ i /~! /1. I .. I I ~:t,/~di, ., I' . , , ..'/ .' ( 0 /.' 74,59 'I I ii' o. / ,a -- I 68'31 (" rv' t. , - ' ..... ~ T~ \~ ~-.!?~/9'4.!'42",:E 208~i7--- ,\ I !' /!' \ . ;, II . SOUn- LINE OF GOV'T. LOT 2 SEe " I' f ,. ,~.3, T, 30, R 2.3 I I _ S 89'41'42" W g "';.19 " N .Ji;lJ . /; II II /1 II </ " ~ N , ;' - l !.< ,/ / / I ,tl '2 < I r~ i r--: II 'co o II Nil II // .c / I.;. . /'--.:.--- I~" I ~ /. 'f '<t o '.0 ?J ::) ::) z I -S !:! ~Y: --........j . t::1Gm~t117' \)J -- IV ~ n K ~ D \'p ~ !, fj7 "T ~ , ~I l c = ~ ~ EJ .d- V ~ ~ // \ \ \ D I ~ '. , ..~. , , - - - I I - -- -. -- I I I D __ CJ D f; U1; . . . b-t c ,.;--., ., ~ " OJ -u " --' co X N .>""-..,, >~; :,............ ...., . ~ ..... '- ~,>-,-> ,',)"> '" OJ C ..." 0_ 00 ~ ...0 "'- 0- ~ u.. ",<, o f;1J/~ Q . " . " o " g )- '., e . . MINUTES CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7,2000 7:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER Chair Steve Erickson called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m, ROLL CALL Present were Chair Steve Erickson, Commissioners Stephen Baker, Terri Duchenes, Therese Galatowitsch and Dave Sand. Absent were Commissioner Marty Rye and Brent Nelson. Also present were Councilmember Gregg Larson and City Planner Jennifer Chaput, and Recording Secretary Heidi Guenther. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 3. 2000 Commissioner Sand moved, seconded by Commissioner Duchenes, to approve the May 3,2000 minutes. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). PLANNING CASE #00-14 - CHUCK MERTENSOTTO- 3491 LAKE JOHANNA BOULEVARD - CORNER SIDE YARD VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING City Planner Chaput explained that the applicant requests approval of a variance from the comer side yard setback requirements (12 feet proposed, when 40 feet is required) for a porch addition on a single-family lot, zoned R-2. City Planner Chaput reviewed that the applicant came before the Planning Commission in March of this year. At that time, his plan showed a porch on the north and east sides of the existing structure. The Planning Commission made a recommendation that the variance be approved with the condition that the 8' x 14' proposed construction on the north side of the house be eliminated. This application and recommendation went to the next regular Council meeting at which time it was tabled. At that time, the drawings were being modified by the applicant. The sixty-day time period was extended on this application and then waived by the applicant at the May 8, 2000, City Council meeting and new plans were also provided at this meeting. Since the variance request had changed with the submission of new plans, the applicant was asked to return to the Planning Commission for review of the application. The applicant took into consideration the Planning Commission's recommendation to eliminate the 8' x 14' section of the porch on the side of the house. However, it was not completely eliminated and an area of 11' -6" x 2' -8" still remained on the north side of the house on the new proposal. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 7, 2000 2 , City Planner Chaput reviewed the conditions of the surrounding area, noting the property is located on the comer of Lake Johanna Boulevard and County Road E. The property is zoned It R-2, Single and Two Family Residential District, and the land use is a single family home in a neighborhood of single family homes. The lot is one square acre; however, Lake Johanna Boulevard, County Road E, and Lake Johanna encompass over half the parcel. Approximate lot dimensions minus the road and lake is 180' by 190' by 75' by 175 feet. City Planner Chaput presented the criteria as contained in Minnesota State Statue required for variance consideration and staffs analysis of each. Staff has concluded that the following factors relate to the requested variance: 1. Circumstances Unique to the ProDertv: The house currently is 15.37 feet (where 40 feet is required) from the easement line. The house was built (moved) prior to the current setback restrictions. It appears that at one time (due to some existing footings) there was a porch approximately 5 feet by 8 feet in front of the door, Any front entryway will require a vanance, 2. Variance not greater than necessary: The variance can be reduced by eliminating the 11 '-6" x 2'-8" section on the northeast side. However, Section 6 C #2, Permitted Encroachments, of the City's Zoning Ordinance, does allow for features which are a part of the principle structures including, but not limited to, decks and balconies, to extend three feet into the required side yard setback as long as the setback to this encroachment is not less than six feet. Since the section of the porch that is jutting into the side yard setback is less than three feet in depth, it meets the requirements for a permitted encroachment. . City Planner Chaput stated that Staffrecommends approval of Planning Case #00-14, a comer side yard setback variance (12 feet where 40 is required) for a porch addition for property owner Chuck Mertensotto, 3491 Lake Johanna Boulevard, based on the "Findings - Comer side Yard Setback Variance" section of the Staff report, with one condition. If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on this Planning Case, it will be heard at the Monday, June 26, 2000, regular City Council Meeting. Chair Erickson asked if the proposed addition was meeting the front entrance and sitting area requested by the applicant. The applicant, Mr. Mertensotto, stated his needs were being met by the proposed porch and front entry addition. Chair Erickson stated concern for having the sitting area so close to Lake Johanna Boulevard due to the fact that this roadway could be widened in the near future. Commissioner Baker stated the proposed deck is roughly four feet closer to the roadway than the previously proposed structure, Although the porch area has been decreased on the north side of the house, it has been extended on the east side. Chair Erickson noted he was in favor of the open trellis design of the addition but noted it was still an expansion towards the road. He added that the addition would increase the already large encroachment of structures onto the comer side yard easement. . Commissioner Sand noted a portion of the porch addition is closer than 12 feet. He questioned if the porch was in compliance with the encroachment due to the fact it was less than three feet into the setback area. Mr, Mertensotto stated he would not be creating any additional footing for this addition due to the fact there was an existing porch on this site with footings, . e . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 7, 2000 3 City Plarmer Chaput stated that the nonconforming section of the Zoning Ordinance does not allow nonconforming structures that have been removed to be rebuilt. The footings from the previous porch are nonconforming and the structure was removed in the past. Chair Erickson stated this situation brings about past discussions of staff s ability to approve slight variances for non-conformity for property owners, Commissioner Baker concurred and stated the only way he would support this would be if it were to be maintained as an open structure. He noted that because the site does have footings in place, the addition would improve the aesthetics of the home greatly. Commissioner Baker asked if the stairs to the front of the home were included in the plans. Mr. Mertensotto stated the stairs are within the current plans. Commissioner Galatowitsch asked if the two-foot wide porch would be used for an entry. Mr. Mertensotto stated it is an aesthetic addition and would not be used as an entrance, but rather as a sitting area. Commissioner Baker asked if a survey of the parcel was included within the packet. City Plarmer Chaput noted that the only survey present in the case file had been reduced and was not to scale, Commissioner Sand stated he would like to see the additional porch approved but with changes made to the layout. He encouraged the applicant to redesign the east side of the porch so that it wasn't so close to the road, as was presented in his previous proposaL Commissioner Duchenes stated she agrees with a variance of some sort, but would like to minimize the encroachment with this addition. She felt this was a minimal intrusion but noted she was concerned about the east portion of the deck being too close to the street. Chair Erickson asked if there was any precedence for allowing a non-conforming use to become a greater non-conforming use. City Plarmer Chaput stated she was unaware of any planning cases at this time but noted that the Zoning Ordinance does not allow for an expansion of a nonconforming use. Commissioner Sand indicated concern with this proposal due to the fact the home does not meet the current 40-foot setback, which is non-conforming. Chair Erickson noted past variances have been allowed where they did not increase the current non-conformity, Commissioner Sand concurred. Chair Erickson noted it was not the responsibility of the Commission to design and draft the proposal for the applicant. He asked if additional plans had been submitted to Council without being reviewed by the Plarming Commission. City Plarmer Chaput noted that the most recent update of the plan was before the Commission. Commissioner Sand stated this is a difficult situation because the lot is currently non-conforming and if this item were approved the Commission would create additional non-conformity. He explained the home is very unique but noted he is tom between the Ordinance and benefit to the applicant. Commissioner Sand suggested that the applicant review the plans and comply with the minimum encroachment. He stated the goal of the project is right but the current plans increase the non-conformity ofthe lot, which does not meet the goals of the Ordinance. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 7, 2000 4 . Commissioner Galatowitsch asked if the applicant would like a continuation to redraft the plans for additional consideration. Mr. Mertensotto stated he was not interested in changing the plans . and the application would be dropped if not approved as is, He explained that he has tried to revise this plan and he is still not meeting the wishes of the Commission. Chair Erickson reiterated an addition would be feasible on this site if the applicant was willing to minimize the encroachment concerns. Commissioner Sand concurred and noted the first sketch proposed to the Commission was compliant and he would support a redraft of the original plan. Commissioner Baker moved, seconded by Commissioner Sand to recommend denial of Planning Case #00-14, a comer side yard setback variance (12 feet where 40 is required) for a porch addition, Chuck Mertensotto, 3491 Lake Johanna Boulevard, based on the fact the Commission feels there are alternative plans that could meet the Ordinance, reduce the proposed encroachment, and that the proposed addition does not improve the existing non-conformity. The motion carried unanimously (4-1 Duchenes opposed). This Planning Case will be reviewed at the Monday, June 26, 2000, City Council meeting. PLANNING CASE #OO-17b - WELSH COMPANIES -1987 AND 1887 GATEWAY BOULEVARD - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT City Planner Chaput explained that the applicant requests approval to modify the existing .. Planned Unit Development to allow for staff approval of the list of items outlined in the staff ..- memo for both 1987 and 1887 Gateway Boulevard. The owner has found it difficult to sign tenants who need modifications to the exterior of the building due to the two-month PUD amendment process. They would like to streamline this, allowing staff to approve several of the more common modification requests. The Planning Commission heard this request at the April 5, 2000, Planning Commission meeting. At that time, the request was tabled pending further information from the applicant. The requested information had not been provided for the May meeting. The applicant's sixty days were extended and notice was sent that this application would come before the Planning Commission at their June meeting, At this time, the applicant was to submit a letter, stating her requests. The letter, although submitted at a late date, was before the Planning Commission for discussion. The City of Arden Hills Zoning Ordinance, Section VIII, F, 3 states, "Any structural alteration, enlargement or intensification, change in site plan, or similar change not specially permitted, shall require City action and all procedures shall apply as if a new applicant were being requested; provided, however, that when such changes are deemed to be insignificant by the zoning administrator, the requirements of a public hearing may be waived." City Planner Chaput reviewed the requests previously considered regarding this development as detailed in the Staff report. She indicated staff does have some ability to approve insignificant changes. However, in the past, staff has felt uncomfortable with several of the requested modifications. Staff would reserve the right to attach conditions as needed or request a formal application with public hearing, if warranted, . e e e ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 7, 2000 5 1. Enlarging and additional overhead dock doors. Staff would suggest the loading dock area be allowed to have additional overhead dock doors and a change in size for the doors to be no larger than 15 by 15 feet. 2. Installing drive-in ramps or platforms. Several requests have been for ramps and platforms, The concerns that arise are the maneuverability of trucks around the ramps and potential for exterior storage on platforms, The Zoning Ordinance does not allow exterior storage. Staff has approved ramps and platforms in the past with the condition that there be no exterior storage on the platform area, Staff would only consider ramps and platforms in the loading dock area. 3. Installing windows or entry/emergency exit doors. Depending on the proposed layout of the interior space, emergency doors are sometimes needed to meet the building code requirements, Staff is comfortable with allowing emergency and entry exit doors as long as the door(s) do not affect the aesthetic value of the building, lighting, and pedestrian traffic, 4. Increasing the percentage of the allowable office build-out square footage for each property. The original proposal was to have 20 percent office/80 percent warehouse per building. Staff has no problem increasing the office build-out for a particular tenant as long as the building does not exceed 20 percent. The existing parking was setup for a maximum of20 percent office, Currently the two buildings are owned by the same company. However, if they were allowed to increase the percentage of office in one building due to tenants in the other the City would run the risk of the buildings being sold. 5. Relocation and replacement or striping of additional parking spaces. A request to relocate parking was made with the installation of the ramp for NSP. The City Engineer reviewed the plan to relocate two parking spaces in the loading dock area.and staff approved the modification. Additional parking, however, may cause problems with traffic in the future. The reason for the limitation on the amount of office allowed and, subsequently, the parking was due to the proposed traffic counts for this area. 6. Exterior Lighting. Modifications to the lighting plan were discussed with a potential tenant at one time. Staff is uncomfortable with this issue due to the large amount of discussion and objection by residents during the original PUD process. 7. Exterior Storage. Staff has had several requests for exterior storage, such as the oxidizer and storage tanks. Staff would suggest any exterior storage of equipment go through the full PUD amendment process. City Planner Chaput stated that Staff recommends approval of Planning Case 00-17b, Planned Unit Development Amendment, to allow staff approval as presented in the "administrative approval" section of the Staff report. Donna Becker, Welsh Companies Representative, stated two potential tenants have brought about this discussion for the City. She explained that as requested by staff, she was present to address the Planning Commission to have administrative issues approved by Staff, Ms, Becker noted she agreed to remove items six and seven from the approval list noting that exterior ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 7, 2000 6 lighting and exterior storage would continue to go through the planning process as is and would _ not be requesting administrative approval for those items. ... Ms, Becker noted items one through five needed clarification and discussion from the Commission as to if they are comfortable with administrative approval for these items. Commissioner Baker stated that without the development agreement for this PUD it would be difficult to make changes on the percentage of office/warehouse space allowed within this development. Commissioner Baker asked where additional parking would be gained if the percentage of office space were to be increased, Ms. Becker stated the loading dock areas would be used for additional parking ifthe office space ratio were to change. Chair Erickson noted item four and five of the administrative approvals could not be properly acted on until the Development Agreement could be brought back to the Commission. The Commission members concurred. Commissioner Baker stated he had concern with approving an increased percentage of office space for the PUD because ifthe two buildings were not held by the same owner, they could alter the ratio at will. Ms. Becker agreed and stated that this stipulation would bring about concern for a potential buyer as well. She explained they have tried to lease this space for the past 19 months and the owner is just looking for additional options for future tenants to gain flexibility. Commissioner Sand stated a proof of parking might need to be required ifthe ratio of office/warehouse space were to vary. Ms. Becker stated this could be completed and is what the e owner is looking for to allow the tenant mix additional flexibility and to speed the approval process at a staff level without having to address the Commission with each request. Chair Erickson advised staff to review the Development Agreement for the PUD with regard to the percentage of allowable office build-out square footage for each property and relocation/replacement of additional parking spaces. He stated that this item would need to then be reviewed by the Commission for comments and suggestions at a future meeting, Ms. Becker asked if the first three items could be approved for administrative approval. Chair Erickson stated he was in support ofthe administrative ability to approve these items if there was some form of additional screening provided for the loading docks. Ms. Becker indicated she expressed this concern to the owner and stated that this is a functional portion of the building and not considered exterior storage on the site, She stated that the owner felt because it was only a function it would not require additional screening. Commissioner Duchenes asked ifthe first three administrative approvals were only going to be allowed in the loading dock area, Commissioner Baker stated emergency doors and windows could be added at any location within the PUD. Commissioner Galatowitsch asked ifthe PUD Ordinance was being reviewed or just the statements within the Welsh Companies PUD. City Planner Chaput stated the proposed amendment is only for buildings referred to by this application within the PUD. e Commissioner Duchenes indicated support to allow staff to approve items one through three with conditioned approval to provide for screening, She explained that if the applicant was not in favor of staffs request the item could come before the Commission. e e e ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 7, 2000 7 Commissioner Baker asked, if this administrative policy was approved and an agreement couldn't be reached at the stafflevel, would it be reviewed by the Commission? City Planner Chaput stated that the Commission could have this stipulation placed in the recommendation or she could bring all concerns to her supervisor, the City Manager for approval at the stafflevel. Chair Erickson asked if any leases were being held up at this time due to insignificant changes to the POD. Ms. Becker stated there was one lease that had been sent out and is awaiting approval Commissioner Sand moved, seconded by Commissioner Duchenes to recommend approval of Planning Case #00-17b, Planned Unit Development Amendment, for Welsh Properties, 1887 and 1987 Gateway Boulevard, to allow staff to approve administrative issues items 1,2 and 3, that items 4 and 5 be reviewed by staff for further clarification and that items 6 and 7 be removed at the applicants request as presented in the "administrative approval" section of the Staff report. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). This Planning Case will be reviewed at the Monday, June 26, 2000, City Council meeting, PLANNING CASE #00-11 - CITY OF ARDEN HILLS - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS (DISCUSSION ONL Yl City Planner Chaput explained that a few months ago, staff brought forward information regarding proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments, specifically focusing on variance procedures. Since that time, the previous Planner has made staff aware of other Zoning Ordinance issues that should be addressed. Many of these issues have been raised due to code enforcement and not being able to respond to resident complaints because it was not stated in the City Code, This list of proposed changes has been discussed and reviewed with the City's Building Inspector as well. City Planner Chaput noted a number of cities were contacted and their Zoning Ordinances were reviewed according to those concerns outlined by the previous Planner. City Planner Chaput stated she received information back from the cities of New Brighton, Shoreview, Plymouth, Orono, and Long Lake, City Planner Chaput explained the City has had a number of complaints on single family homes that have been converted into "dormitories" for students attending the local colleges. The current code does not have any language in it to deter this type of activity. She indicated this could be rectified by amending the definitions of dwelling, dwelling units, and family within the Ordinance. City Planner Chaput presented the draft ordinance language, noting deletions as being stricken and additions in capital letters. City Planner Chaput stated Staff recommends the Commission review of the proposed language and discuss the need for revisions or additions. This discussion will be brought back to the next Planning Commission meeting in July when a public hearing will be held. Commissioner Galatowitsch asked how the dormitory units within the City could be eliminated by a change within the Ordinance definition. City Planner Chaput stated by redefining the definition of a family, along with the parking and driveway restrictions, the Ordinance would limit the use of single family homes as dormitories, She explained that this type of housing is ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 7, 2000 8 not typical in a single-family zone (dormitories) and would be better classified in another zoning .- district if they wished to permit this type of housing in the City. .. Commissioner Baker asked if roommates would be allowed within the changed language. City Planner Chaput stated this would be allowed as long as it would not be more than five people within one structure. Commissioner Sand suggested having a group of no more than four non- related people living within a dwelling unit. The Commission concurred. Commissioner Baker stated that the proposed changes are a step in the right direction for the City, He questioned the ability to add a bump out section of a driveway and if it could be within 25 feet ofthe right of way, City Planner Chaput stated she would investigate this item, Commissioner Sand stated he agreed with the additional language for bituminous surfaces for parking, He suggested that masonry pavers be added to this language for acceptable driveway surfaces. Commissioner Sand asked ifthe proposed language would allow for more than two vehicles in a driveway for a limited time. City Planner Chaput stated any number of cars could be parked in a driveway short term and no more than two vehicles could be left in a driveway long term. In response to the proposed changes to the antenna section ofthe ordinance, Commissioner Baker asked if TV antennas or Direct TV satellite dishes were allowed, City Planner Chaput noted that currently, any type of antenna is permitted in any district of the City through a special accessory use permit. Antennas for home use are permitted without any application and they e would not be affected by this change. Commissioner Sand asked if non-conforming uses would be grandfathered into this portion of the Ordinance updates. City Planner Chaput stated that anything that becomes nonconforming may continue to exist in this manner until such time as a land use application is brought forward on that property, which would require the applicant to meet the current code. The Planning Commission continued to discuss the number of cars that may be parked on a driveway at anyone time. Chair Erickson stated the RV parking limitations allows for RV's less than 24 feet to park for 180 days with a renewal of an additional 180 days. He explained that RV's over 26 feet can park up to seven days with one permit and 14 days after a renewal. Commissioner Sand asked that RV parking be addressed by the Commission in the near future and that the parking limitations for any vehicle be addressed in the same manner. Commissioner Sand asked how the proposed number of accessory structures per property was determined. City Planner Chaput stated she reviewed numerous ordinances and found that other cities typically allow for one detached garage and one accessory structure, Commissioner Duchenes suggested having the language read no more than two detached accessory structures. Commissioner Baker asked if the total square footage of accessory structures had to meet the 728 square feet or if each accessory structure could meet that limit. City Planner Chaput noted that the Ordinance at this time allows for each structure to meet those limits, . Commissioner Sand suggested allowing two accessory structures along with a detached garage for all single-family lots. Chair Erickson recommended leaving the original "25% of the minimum required rear yard area" in the Ordinance and that residents also be limited to two e . . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 7, 2000 9 accessory structures since this would meet what the Planning Commission was trying to accomplish. Commissioner Baker asked if a minimum size should be set to the accessory structures and what exactly was considered to be an accessory structure, City Planner Chaput stated that a definition was proposed and that accessory structures are used secondary to the main structure. The Commission came to a consensus to request staff to revise the language as stated above and bring the Zoning Ordinance Amendments before the Commission for a public hearing in July, PLANNING CASE #00-28 - CITY OF ARDEN HILLS - WATER TOWERS' ANTENNA MASTER PLAN (DISCUSSION ONLYl City Planner Chaput explained that Staff has been directed by the City Council to review the City's water tower antenna locations and establish a "master plan" of how to handle requests for the location oftelecommunication antennas on the tower and their ground-related structures. At their regular meeting on May 8, 2000, the City Council passed Resolution 00-20 to direct staff to no longer accept applications for the location of telecommunication antenna and ground structures on the water towers in Arden Hills. The intent of the resolution was for the City to develop a long term plan for the water tower sites, guiding future applications. The City has two water towers: Red Fox Road and Femwood Avenue North, City Planner Chaput presented a list of the applications by telecommunications companies and location on the water towers to date. The Red Fox water tower already has at least three ground mounted structures to support the antennas on the tower (on the top and side). It is difficult to plan how to use the ground space more effectively and better, aesthetically, since it is already developed in this manner. However, recommendations for a better overall screening plan or landscaping plan could be made so that landscaping does not continue to have to be moved to accommodate another applicant. The Fernwood water tower has one ground mounted structure. A different recommendation could be made on this site for either landscaping or housing ground mounted structures in one facility at the base of the tower. City Planner Chaput indicated that an overall plan needs to be established for both properties. She presented information regarding each site related to zoning, land use plan, and size. She advised there have been a number of companies that have expressed interest in potential co-location of antennas on the City's water towers. With these applications, ground structures are necessary, utilizing the land surrounding the water towers. Currently, the City does not have a plan for the ground structures or antennas that may be located on or around the water tower, City Planner Chaput stated she has contacted a number of cities to review how they dealt with applications for antennas on City water towers. She received information back from Shoreview, Minneapolis, Bloomington, Wayzata, Plymouth, St. Louis Park, and Long Lake. She also requested information from the League of Minnesota Cities on this topic. Generally, cities seem to deal with antennas on City water towers through an administrative review process, often requiring a building permit or special form for review by staff. The City of Shoreview uses the administrative review process and provides a lot of useful information ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 7, 2000 10 regarding the design requirements, criteria for ground mounted structures, landscaping, and screening. The City of Minneapolis provides a comprehensive application packet to applicants . for administrative review of antennas. She noted the memorandum from the City of St. Louis Park regarding their water tower policy. City Planner Chaput stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and discuss this information at the meeting. The City's current antenna section of the zoning ordinance should be reviewed and proposed amendments should be made to address the above listed issues. Staff will bring proposed ordinance changes to the next Planning Commission meeting for discussion or a public hearing at that time, depending on the outcome of the first discussion meeting, Commissioner Galatowitsch asked how current tenants would be handled if the City were to limit the clustering. City Planner Chaput stated this is up for discussion by the Commission. Commissioner Baker stated he would like to see the towers maintain antenna rental due to the fact he doesn't want to see additional towers throughout the City, City Planner Chaput concurred and noted the only concern is that the ground equipment needs to be organized and planned better for the future. Commissioner Sand asked ifthe plan before the Commission was to amend the current antenna Ordinance. City Planner Chaput stated she is only asking that the Commission considering adding language to allow for antennas on the water towers and to organize the current and future ground equipment. . Chair Erickson asked if all ground units were exposed to the elements. City Planner Chaput stated a fence was placed around the Ariel ground units and that all ground equipment is weather tight. Chair Erickson asked for the primary objection ofthe Water Tower's Antenna moratorium, City Planner Chaput stated the City has received numerous requests at this time and that the antenna companies are not willing to work together for conformity ofthe ground structures surrounding the tower, City Planner Chaput asked for a recommendation on the ground structure organization from the Planning Commission. Chair Erickson suggested approaching the City of St. Louis Park for direction in this area, Commissioner Galatowitsch concurred. City Planner Chaput noted she would contact them for additional information. Commissioner Sand asked if the City could look into stealth antennas for additional architectural screening and design. Commissioner Baker concurred and stated he would like to eliminate the open tower design, The Commission asked staff to revise the current Antenna Master Plan as stated above and review it with the Commission at the next Commission meeting. COUNCIL REPORT e Councilmember Larson reviewed the City Council's actions of their last meeting where they dealt with and approved all three planning items. He explained local residents south of Lake , e e . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 7, 2000 11 Joh31llla approached the Council regarding dormitories or boarding houses within the City. Councilmember Larson indicated that brought about the discussion for the Commission. Councilmember Larson stated the antenna issue needs to be addressed for the additional capacity and ground equipment organization to better benefit the City. He indicated the City is able to gain revenues for the rental of the water tower site. Councilmember Larson explained all bids have been received for the City Hall and that Rushon Contracting came in with the low bid at $3,000,000. Commissioner Sand asked if an easement was needed for access to the new City Hall. Councilmember Larson stated access would be gained from County Road 96, Councilmember Larson noted this Saturday is the "Day in the Park" event, starting at 11 :00 a,m. in Perry Park. He encouraged all PI31llling Commissioners to participate. COMMISSION COMMENTS There was nothing new at this time. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Duchenes moved, seconded by Commissioner Baker to adjourn the meeting at 10:32 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). / 'i . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: June 22, 2000 FROM: Joe Lynch, City Administrator TO: Mayor and City Council SUBJECT: City Hall Construction Bids Backl!:round The City received bids for construction of the new City Hall on Wednesday, May 24, 2000, Bids were received from ten (10) bidders, with base bids ranging from $2,735,000 to $3,470,000. The bids included: . Base Bid for Project . Alternate 2, deduct (remove stone masonry) . Alternate, add windows (different style than first floor windows) . Alternate, to add windows (same style as first floor windows) e The apparent low bidder was Rochon Corporation. Their full bid was as follows: . Base Bid = $2,735,000 . Alternate No, 1, Deduct = ( 315,000) (Brick) . Alternate No.2, Add = 16,000 (Windows) . Alternate No, 3, Add = 25,000 (Windows) The architect's preliminary estimate for the construction of the project was $2,500,000. This estimate was for the base bid. What follows is a comparison between the bids received in 1999, and those received in 2000 for the City Council to observe the differences and make some determinations about the alternates proposed. 1999 2000 Base Bid $2,489,000 $2,735,000 Furnishings 135,000 140,000* Water/Sewer Utilities 180,000 166,000 AudioNisual 188,000 180,000 Phone System 70,000 72.500* e $3.062.000 $3.293.500 * Adjusted for Inflation Memorandum, City Hall Bid Results Page Two June 22, 2000 The alternates in 2000 included the following: Alternate No.2 = Add $16,000 Add second floor windows of a different style and height than the windows on the first floor; Alternate No.3 = Add $25,000 Add second floor windows of the same style and height as the first floor Alternate A = Add $16,000 Install a 12" watermain from Hamline A venue to City Hall Alternate B = Add $16,000 Construct left hand turn lane off Highway 96 Total of Alternates = $73.000 Without any of the Alternates, less the deduct on Alternate No.1, makes the total project costs: Base Bid Stone Masonry (Deduct) Total Project Costs (without other alternates) 1999 $3,062,600 (313,000) 2000 $3,293,500 (315,000) $2.749,000 $2,978,500 How does this compare to the Architect's Estimate? The original architect's estimate as $2,500,000. If you took the proposed apparent low bid amount of $2,735,000 and deducted the $315,000 amount to have brick instead of masonry, you would have a cost of $2,420,000. If you add back in the municipal utility work, which is the sanitary sewer and water connection, you arrive at a cost of $2,586,000, which is approximately $86,000 higher than the architect's estimate. Further Discussion Items At the City Council's June 19,2000 Worksession, the consensus of the City Council was for the following Alternate considerations for the construction of the project: , . e e ........ . e e Memorandum, City Hall Bid Results Page Three June 22, 2000 . Alternate B. Construction of a Left Hand Turn Lane off Hiehwav 96 (in the amount of $16.000) After discussion, it was the consensus to include Alternate B as part of the construction bid. . Alternates No.2 and 3 (Variations of Window Stvles for the Second Floor (at a cost of $16.000 and $25.000 resDectivelv) After discussion, it was the consensus to include Alternate No.3, in an amount of $25,000, as part of the construction bid. . Alternate No. A (Installation of a Twelve Inch 02") Watermain from Hamline Avenue to Citv Hall (in the amount of $16.000) The purpose of this pipe upsizing was to accommodate future cross connections to the City of Shoreview for emergency purposes, Public Works Director Stafford and City Administrator Lynch met with representatives of the City of Shoreview regarding this opportunity, but the City of Shoreview did not express any interest, due to the apparent prohibitive cost of tunneling under Lexington A venue. Without the cost sharing of the City of Shoreview, a twelve-inch line is not be feasible for Arden Hills to pursue. Mr. Stafford indicates that a six inch (6") line would be sufficient for City Hall purposes, installation of an eight inch (8") line would allow for future expansion, and potential cross-connection to our own line. Mr. Stafford recommends installation of the eight-inch (8") line in conjunction with the City Hall infrastructure construction. This is part of the base bid, and will not increase or decrease the construction bid. After discussion, it was the consensus of City Councilmembers to authorize installation of an eight-inch (8") water line as part of the construction bid. . Alternate No. 1. allowine for brick masonry. rather than stone masonry (a Dotential deduct of $315.000) Mr. Vesterholt and Ms. Sterner reviewed the two (2) options, advantages and disadvantages of stone and/or brick masonry. After extensive discussion of both options, budgetary concerns and aesthetics, it was the consensus of City Councilmembers to ratify inclusion of the stone masonry, rather than the deduct for brick masonry as part of the construction bid. Memorandum, City Hall Bid Results Page Four June 22, 2000 The total project costs would be as follows: . Base Bid . Furnishings . Water/Sewer Utilities . AudioNisual . Phone System . Alternate No.3 . Alternate B Sub-Total Project Cost = . Alternate No, I, (Deduct) = Total Project Cost = = $2,735,000 140,000 166,000 165,125 72,500 25,000 16,000 = = $3,319,625 ( 315,000) $3,004,625 Recommendation City Councilmembers need to determine whether or not to let the bid for proposed construction of the City Hall. ".-- . e . I e . . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: June 22, 2000 TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers., I, A IA P j .- Joe Lynch, City Administrator ~v~""..........- FROM: SUBJECT: AudioNisual Component - City Hall Facility At our last City Council Worksession, on May 15,2000, you gave Electronic Interiors, Inc, (Ell) further direction on the audio/visual proposal for the new City Hall facility, The estimated budget was $180,000, exclusive of their firm's consulting fees. The report from Mr. Skoog should include the following changes from the previous presentation: . Re-use of the City's existing SCALA system at an estimated cost savings of$2- 3,000 . Three (3) cameras for the City Council Chambers . Eighteen inch (18") gooseneck microphones at the Council and staff areas . Total budget, exclusive ofthe Ell fee, of$165,125. cc: Terry Post, City Accountant e . . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: June 21, 2000 TO: Joe Lynch, City Administrator FROM: Thomas J. Moore; Parks & Recreation Director-r;'J,m. SUBJECT: Proposal for a Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan Backl!round The City will soon be approaching its 50th Anniversary and there has never been a comprehensive study of the City's parks, recreation facilities, open spaces and trail systems. There currently is no long range-planning tool in place for Staffto refer to. This study will look at the development of the park system to date, evaluate how well it is meeting the needs ofthe community, and define future development needs. A 10- year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) will be developed for incorporation to the City wide CIP. This project will take 12-18 months to complete. Parks and Recreation Committee The concept of a Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan was presented to the Parks and Recreation Committee at the Tuesday, April 25, 2000 meeting, The City's Administrator, Accountant, and the Parks and Recreation Director made the presentation. The Parks and Recreation Committee voted unanimously to support a Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan, The Committee also voted unanimously to present the concept of a Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan to the Council for approval. Expenses Anticipated cost of the Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan is Sixty Thousand Dollars ($60,000). The City Accountant is recommending that the funding of this project be through the Community Services Fund, Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve funding of a Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan at a cost not to exceed Sixty Thousand Dollars. That the cost of this project be funded through the Community Services Fund. e . e - j CITY OF ARDEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: June 22, 2000 TO: Mayor and City councilmember~ If M ~ Joe Lynch, City Admini8tratord1 v Day in the Park 2000 FROM: SUBJECT: At a recent Operations and Finance Committee meeting on June 15,2000, during the course ofa staff report for update and information purposes, it was reported that the costs for the Day in the Park had risen from approximately a budgeted amount of$1,500 to approximately $6,000. It was pointed out, during the course of that discussion, thai a majority of the cost was related to the staff attending the event. The cost is actually related to the fact that, on Monday, July 3, 2000, City Hall will be closed in an agreement reached between employees and myself who attended the Day it the Park to assist in the event. During the course of that report, apparently the Chairperson indicated his displeasure with the vote of the City Council to allow this exchange of work dates, and wondered why the Operations and Finance Committee had not been involved in such a discussion, and indicated a need to present his displeasure to the City Council at the next available opportunity. I wanted to take this opportunity to give you some background to this issue, and my rationale and reason for making this decision, and provide you with information if the Chairperson of that organization should come before you and ask the kinds of questions that he posed during the course of the Operations and Finance Committee meeting. Backl!round In discussing the Day in the Park with Tom Moore, he indicated to me that he wanted to ramp up the event to a larger status because of the fact that there was an expectation on the part of the City that the event would combined with the Fiftieth Anniversary celebration in 2001. He indicated concern that he did not want to go from a very small, local event to a very large community-wide event without some practice, preparation and understanding of the issues involved in going from one type of event to another. During the course of those discussions, Mr. Moore also indicated to me that at least in his brief experience with the City of Arden Hills, the event had not been widely supported by staff. Most of the volunteers came from the Parks and Recreation Committee, City Council and other interested individuals, but not from staff to a great extent, He expressed an idea to me that it would be wonderful to have City staff be involved in the setup, dismantling and actual operation of the event. He indicated that the Parks Maintenance employees had provided support in the past, but they had worked out a "deal" that employees that were at the event would then not have to come in during other requested times. I agreed with Mr. Moore that it would be ideal for City . Memorandum, Day in the Park 2000 Page Two June 22, 2000 e staff to be involved in such an event to show their support, lend their physical abilities, and to assist in developing a team attitude, I have been meeting, on a monthly basis with Public Works employees at the maintenance facility to talk about topics of interest to both myself and these employees to get to know them better, and show that there can be communication between Administration and Maintenance employees. During the course of one of these meetings, I was asked the question of what the City Hall staff was going to do on July 3'd, The question was asked in regard to the fact that several individuals were contemplating taking July 3'd off as a vacation day, and was the City going to be fully staffed, and if they were not going to be fully staffed, were we going to be open restricted hours, or would we be open at all? At that time, I did not know what we would do on July 3'd, but indicated that I would find out from the Department Heads and office support staff their intent for taking time off, to determine how much staff we would have at City Hall, and indicated I would get back to the Public Works Maintenance employees about this date. I started to think aboutthe question that had been asked, and the conversation I had had with Mr. Moore about Day in the Park, and tried to put the two events together. I subsequently received some requests for vacation on July 3'd, and saw that we were going to be about half-staffed on that date at City Hall. In conversation with Mr. Moore, Mr. Post and Mr. Stafford, three . individuals I thought should be aware of my idea and would be involved in either financial or physical outcomes of a decision about July 3'd, to weigh in on my idea to offer voluntary involvement with Day in the Park, in exchange for a day off on July 3'd. All parties contacted indicated that they were in favor of such an idea. None indicated that it would cause them operational concerns. I then met with the Public Works employees, and indicated that I would offer July 3'd as a day off, in exchange for working at the Day in the Park, June 10, 2000. On call coverage would still be occurring as usual for weekends and holidays. I subsequently made the same announcement at a Department Head meeting, and an office support staff meeting. We drafted up a list of tasks and responsibilities and asked employees to sign up for those areas that they had a particular affinity, or ability. All staff indicated that they would be in attendance, with the exception of Mr, Stafford and Mr. Post. Exnlanation In my attempt to both encourage and allow employee flexibility, I wanted to find a way to support a growing community event. I felt that the City staff should support, be active and visible at Day in the Park. I wanted to combine these two factors in an offer to all employees. It was never made mandatory that they attend Day in the Park, but I did indicate that if they did not participate, they had the choice of either coming to work on that day, and City Hall would be . closed, or they could take their personal time and have that day off. -, e . . " Memorandum, Day in the Park 2000 Page Three June 22, 2000 As City Administrator, I felt that this was an administrative issue, and a decision that I have the ability and discretion to make. Mr. Kelliher may come to you with the question about why the City Council decided to allow this to happen. I believe I informed you through a non-agenda item that these were my thoughts. However, I never requested, nor did you ever vote on making this an official action of the City Council. If this was not my place, nor my decision to make, I need to have you indicate that to me, but as the Chief Administrative Officer of the City, I felt that it was. After talking to many different parties, weighing all of the information and experiencing a lack of unity between and amongst employees, I thought this was the right decision and still do, Also, I felt that the cost to the City for the time off for the employees attending the Day in the Park event was worth the effort. I saw people at that event smiling, interacting with one another, showing off their equipment and vehicles with pride, asking if there was anything else that they could do for either Mr. Moore or in preparation for any of the events and activities at the park. To this point, I felt that there was no interaction between City Hall staff and the Maintenance employees, and saw this as an opportunity to create that interaction. In addition, most of the interaction that the employees have with each other is during a work situation, and this was another opportunity for employees to interact with each other outside of the normal work envirorunent. cc; Day in the Park file Tom Moore, Parks and Recreation Director Terry Post, City Accountant/Treasurer Dwayne Stafford, Public Works Director