Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCP 08-28-2000 . '-' J _ ,,,' <il CITY OF ARDEN HillS 4364 WEST ROUND LAKE ROAD ARDEN HILLS, MN 55112-5794 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING, CITY HALL **MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 2000, 7:30 P.M.** 7:30 P.M. 1. 7:30 P.M. 2. . 7:30 P.M. 3. 7:40 P.M. . City Philosophv To providc a basic and necessary scope of quality services through thc innovative and purposcful use ofresources. -1 J 11 ! THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA) HAS BEEN CANCELLED. Call to Order Approval of Meeting Agenda Approval of Minntes a. August 14, 2000 Regular Council Meeting b. August 15, 1999 Special Council Meeting c. August 21,2000 Closed Exccutive Session d. August 21,2000 COilllcil Worksession 4. 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 \\'ill 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. 2000 Busincss License Renewals c. Res. #00-26, A Resolution Requesting Ramsey County to Restrict Parking Along a Portion of County Road I d. County Road E, Light Standards 1. Authorization to Repair Existing Light Standards (in an amount not to exceed.) 2. Chargc to Operations and Finance Committee and Planning Commission, Study of City Light Standards PHONE: (651) 633-5676 . FAX (651) 633-7839 AGENDA - PAGE TWO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, CITY HALL MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 2000 7:30 P.M. . 7:45 P.M. 5. 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 [or 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. 7:50 P.M. 6. Unfinished and New Business a. Planning Casc #00-17c, United Properties, 1998 and 1987 Gateway Blvd., PUD Amcndmcnt b. 2000 Pavement Management Program (PMP) 1. Ingerson Neighborhood Revicw Group, Receive Final Recommendations 2. Receive Staff Recommendations 3. Schcdule Public Informational Meeting c. Final Pay Request, 1999 Sanitary Sewer Project, Lametti and Sons . 8:20 P.M. 7. Administrator Comments 8:30 P.M. 8. Council Comments and Committee Activity Reports 9:00 P.M. 9. Adjourn The above times may vary depending upon length of issue discussion. . . . . We, residents of Arden Hills, are requesting the City to continue the many year tradition of having a Skatinq Rink at Valentine Park. We believe the Rink is an important neighborhood asset that will be stror]gly supported by the residents. Name Address Daytime Telephone TF . .... ..... . ij6..'~V"....J:(d\J.- ...,al . JG, 1- +- LAl<'L V(rl--!lI;1f I/.Ji. ~. 0S'{ - 22)"-- (~37- I & S-( Lzk / /JpJ~ VCc{ &:;;; ~ iP 3 t -w.~ ("I 1 J C'-.~p--.~ (~?><:G,7'J -"6? G r /165 [Ie.' b,::;7-{,3 - of? (/f<; Lie:, <15 J I t.3J -0/;/ / 74-'-- G/~':r/JI.~..J-,'C (6S'/ {;>{'-~1 /L'/ bJj- Lff;;/ A J/ b'SlC- ?3/- 36'15 -0306 fr ---J~77 . &<;I-/..- 33 -tl'?:7 (5(-0' 64-0&S0' 1- ~> 3~- -0 ~;-J - {,M - 'b tl ~ if (. j;~. 7 t3' z. Z/ 1o~~/_~S3 7a~ (Lf 0.0. ~{) (b) ?;, ~~ . , ,. . We, residents of Arden Hills, are requesting the City to continue the many year tradition of having a Skatinq Rink at Valentine Park. We believe the Rink is an important neighborhood asset that will be strongly supported by the residents. Name Address Daytime Telephone rrr "II / ok'.- iJ1'(fui (, /(' ,1!,,' ,/' I/" o lei! ~~" (pv)'u /'fY---~' c-~:l~ C q ) 1 k~ ~'C~)"JtJ1eAc6 f\_ ,I, 6L 1!ISCOlT L/)^J6UE D(\, ii'~O CfiZ tt c J~ ( L (L. 0 ~ / . If /. r.! ( I ' ..',,' /I..rt./ . "'<""'" . '-UII1 &1///",,) !; c.~ Ii &3 3' '-1 Lj J J-.. / i \ \ ; I h LE/'JVI~Lu cr ~lWN lKSl G, ~~~l8 C,3/-30'(S (.J) ,- oG J~J" 0..-) 0 QJ)_d2 LJ'YS ~ -;1 I); /1 A -1-1 ;;\ .!vlaJIL ' ili "1 :1, ;i' HI 111 IH (0 LIe . CJ, . 0,1\ J...:- n.o..~ iji j,! ~ ; 1 ;!.' 1 ~ ; ; ~ I, lP ;11 Hi il; Hi '11 il! ;;1 Iii Jjl ,'-I ';.i: , . . Ii! ~ i i IP .ji! Ii; !!i " . We, residents of Arden Hills, are requesting the City to continue the many year tradition of having a Skatinq Rink at Valentine Park. We believe the Rink is an important neighborhood asset that will be strongly supported by the residents. Name '\ o\<"'m \ . ., :\ Address \ C) \A OVCV1V,'7 Ave &5 k 1707 Glen\! r€-w Ave 1'14& \bus ~ r (' ~"':\& ( ") :H Q L:J/ 1-; VI 12 C~ULL'I) !ii~(lr~r1 TIIl(J(\. 0\, iUllm ~ b~ 1114;e~ . ]1: (f"iQ l,e k.) :1: (."SJ &3'6.QY<l7 3jt/~ J!.j/,;, 0 ihils I2cL , 0,;)/- &()~ -1);0 7 Ok () ~ ".. ". 1j! 01,( 'I: -. ol~ oj( oK.. OIL 371<1 '11 v V!'-fJ ,N I\~ {{ VI~lY A \..r Io.r / b l / / '7 'j '3'773 1~3'1 VW(/$; .;JH. (d C -,. I - G '3 b - 0;; ;>J- (;, $-;- (f2'l-09s-'/ iii\dl 'd'-j\ ", ' J'{i I- ./ I iiii, '/') '\ 11/ .' ;;T v 6)' - /oOd &5/ b ,i h - /::L 79 05/-6-31- ~.f:, [I "1 iij \,~ c.[),,\) c~ ~~~ :ii ill iii )\1 1 ~ I 'iil iH '" 1:: . ]j: :!i . ;;i Hl 1:1 11: !1" ,';, . . . . We,. :esidents ~f Arden Hills, are requesting the City to continue the many year tradition of having a Skatinq Rink at Valentine Park. We believe the Rink is an important neighborhood asset that will be strongly supported by the residents. Name Address Daytime Telephone TT! ii! '~ h ~ / jft' iJ! t<-<.AJ.. ijl b' ~~ . ~~~ (loll!! . .A>-e~ lJerll<l' . '.1' i'l ~;JIv" D / I r7 G / &Ii/{ '4..0 kx liSg" ~~~ c;: \ 7 S! ((' J .~ /'14 &t6Mv,e...-; flsYL (., f? - ;)J. 7 -(;, I':J., t~~~~~~ b 1-~o"'2? 38- 144 oK oL OK c.~~[L "..,,S floE~ \ 0 r. D. .~o::f: ',L-\,~ 08/25/00 FRI 09: 07 FAX 6t26.137839 City of Arden Hills 141 001 ********************* ~ I **:i: TX REPORT ?:=:Z ********:~************ TRA:\SMISS10N OK TX/RX :\0 CONNECTION TEL CONNEcn01\ ID ST. TBIE USAGE T PGS. SENT RESlILT 3316 4821262 08/25 09:06 00'54 2 OK . . 08/25/00 FlU 08: 02 FAX 6t26337838 City of Arden Hills i4J 001 ********************* *** TX REPORT *** $$$*$$$*$$***$*$$**** I. TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO CONNECTIO:\ TEL CONNECT I ON ID ST. T1ME CSAGE T PGS. SENT RESeLl' 3311 6124218511 08/25 08:01 00'50 2 OK . . 08/25/00 FRI 08:09 FAX 6126337838 City of Arden Hills I4i 001 I ~*$****************** :i:*$ TX ImpORT :!:** ********************* ~ I TRA'iSlll SS I ON OK TXlRX :\0 CONNECTION TEL CONNECTlO!\ lD ST. TIME USAGE T PGS. SENT RESULT 3.31 () 6461220 KMWB W1l23 MPLS II 08/25 08:58 00'49 3 OK . . 08/25/00 FRI 08:58 FAX 6126337838 TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX ,0 CO,NECTION TEL CONNECTION I D ST. T DIE l'SAGE T PGS. SENT RESULT . . City of Arden Hills 4!J 00 t ********************* *** TX REPORT *$::: ***s***************** 3308 6123701378 08/25 08:57 00'50 3 OK 08/25/00 FRI 09:05 FAX 6126337839 . . TRANSIII SSION OK TX/RX NO CONNECT! 01\ TEL CONNECTION ID ST. TIllE tlSAGE T PGS. SE:\T RESULT City of Arden Hi l1s IiZI 001 ********************* *** TX REPORT :t:** ********************* 3314 4810551 08/25 09:04 00'48 2 OK 08/25/00 FRI 08:06 FAX 6126337839 . . TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX 'l0 CONNECTIO~ TEL CO:\NECTION ID ST. TIME l"SAGE T PGS. SENT RESCLT City of Arden Hills 411 001 ~~~**s*************** :j;** TX REPORT *1]:* ********************* 3315 6512278371 08/25 08:05 00'41 2 OK 08/25/00 FRI 09:10 FAX 6126337839 TRANSMISSIO'i OK TX/RX NO CONNECT! OK TEL CONNECTION ID ST. TIME CSAGE T PGS. SENT RESCLT . . City of Arden H.ills ~OOI I :~******************** $$:!: TX REPORT **:\= ********************* 3313 6333846 08/25 09:09 01'26 2 OK 08/25/00 FRI 09:13 FAX 612633783B Cjty of Arden Hills I4i 001 I *************************** *:i:* ERROR TX REPORT *** *************************** ~ I TX FC;;CTION WAS NOT COMPLETED TX/RX '10 CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID ST. TIME lTSAGE T PGS. SEj\T RESlTLT 3312 7637060891 09:12 08/25 00'00 o NG ~018 . . 1l8/25/00 FRI 09:31 FAX 6126337839 City of Arden Hills ~ 001 ********************* *"* TX ImpORT .,.,.,. ********************* ~ I TRANSMISSIO'i OK TX/RX NO CONNECTlO!\ TEL CONNECTION ID ST. TIME USAGE T PGS. SENT RESULT 3317 61270lill891 D8/25 OA:3D OO'4t 2 OK . . . . . CITY-OF-AROJ9l-IIlLLS, MINNESOT ,\ CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 14,2000 7:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS BR-AFT CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Acting Mayor Gregg Larson called to ordcr the regular City Council meeting at 7:30 p.m. Prescnt: Councilmcmbers Bcverly Aplikowski, David Grant, Gregg Larson, and Lois Rem. Absent: Mayor Dcnnis Probst. Also present wcre City Administrator, Joe Lynch; Public Works Director, Dwaync Stafford; City Enginccr, Greg Brown, BRW; City Planner, Jennifer Chaput; and Recording Secretary, Mary Mullen. ADOPT AGENDA MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion to adopt the agenda for the August 12,2000, regular City Council mccting, with the following change: Under Item 7, Unfinishcd and New Business, inseli Item 7B, 2000 Sealcoating Project, before Item 7 A, Plarming Cases. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. July 31, 2000 Regular Council Meeting Councilmember Grant requestcd thc following change: On page 4, 3rd paragraph, 3rd line, replace "whenever they wish" with "on whatever day they prefer". Councilmember Rem requested the following changes: On pagc 1, under Roll Call, note that City Attorney Jerry Filla was present. On page 16, Under Item E, Wcbsite Development Task Force, 2nd paragraph, 2nd line, rcplacc "complete" with "available". On page 21, 6th paragraph, 2nd and 3rd lines, replace "the Mayor, Mr. Kelliher. . ." with "Mr. Kellihcr, thc Mayor. . .". MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmcmber Aplikowski seconded a motion to approvc thc meeting minutes of the July 31, 2000 Regular Council Meeting, as amended. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). A R.DENHIUjSCITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 14,_2DOO ? CONSENT CALENDAR A. B. C. Claims and Payroll Appoint Election Judges for Primary Election 2000 Business License Renewals . MOTION: Counci1member Grant moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to approvc the Conscnt Calendar and authorize execution of all neccssary documents contained therein. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). PUBLIC COMMENTS Acting Mayor Larson invited those present to come forward and address the Council on any items not alrcady on the agenda. There were no publie comments. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A. 2000 Sealcoating Project, Allied Blacktop Mr. Brown explained that two actions were required by the Council with regard to the 2000 Sealcoating Project. He stated that Change Order #1 pertains to additional work requested by the Council at Trinity Lutheran Church parking lot and the Lake Joharma Fire Department parking . lot. He addcd this change increascs the contract amount by $8,323.64. Mr. Brown stated that Paymcnt Request #1 is for final payment on the contract in the amount of $48,886.14. He added that thcre was no retainagc as work was done in conjunction with City staff. Councilmember Grant asked whether City staff were pleascd with the work that was done. Mr. Stafford confirnled that the project turned out well, adding that the contractor changed the scbedule to accommodate National Night Out as well as a delay in the removal of a boat trailer parked in the street. He added that response from residcnts has been positive. Acting Mayor Larson stated that this projcct was discussed briefly at thc Plarming Commission's last meeting, where positive feedback was expressed by Commission members who thought the new material uscd was superior to that which was used in previous years. Councilmember Rem stated that several residents had expressed their appreciation of the way the project was handled and the end result. MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to approve Change Order #1 and Pay Estimate #1 (Final Payment) for Allied Blacktop Co., Maple Grove, Minnesota, in the amount of $48,886.14. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). . e . e ARDENHIL~CTTY COUNCIL - AUGUST 14, 2ilQQ ., B. Planning Cases 1. Case #00-11, City of Arden Hills, Ordinance Amendment Ms. Chaput explained that in response to resident complaints, staff has identificd some portions of thc Zoning Ordinance that rcquirc rcvision in order to properly address complaints. The revisions are a result of researching other cities' ordinanccs as well as staff and Plarming Commission discussions. Ms. Chaput stated that the recommendations of the Planning Commission came before the City Council on July 31, 2000. At that time, the City Council tabled discussion of the amendments. Sincc that time, the City's planning consultant had been consulted on the dcfinition of "family" as it is used in othcr cities and some additional rccommendations were made. Ms. Chaput reviewed amendments to Section II (D), Definitions, with rcgard to Item 1, pertaining to single family homes that are being used as student housing. Ms. Chaput also statcd that Councilmembcrs have been prcscnted with a handout, outlining the definitions used for "family" by thc Univcrsal Building Code, thc City of Rose vi lie and the City of Shoreview, all of which are similar to what is being proposed. Thc City has had a number of complaints on single family homes that havc been converted into housing for numerous students attending the local colleges. The current codc does not have any languagc in it to deter this type of activity, essentially allowing multifamily dwcllings in singlc- family zoning districts. Following discussions with the City's planning consultant, it was also recommended that thc dcfinition of "household" be amended since it did not match the other definition amendments being proposed. Some additional language has also been added to the definition of "family" in order to address state law regarding group homes, as recommended by the City's plarming consultant. Councilmember Aplikowski asked how the amendmcnt would affect the status of group homes. Ms. Chaput stated that there is a definition for a group facility in a residential setting, adding that this falls under State law and as such would be subject to State regulations. Shannon Johnson, 1902 Noble Road, stated she lives next to a home which is rented to students. She added there are currently eleven students living in the home which, in her opinion, is excessive. She expressed concern that the garbagc at the home might attract dogs and raccoons. Ms. Johnson stated that every student has a vehicle, and thcre arc nine to twelve cars parked in the drivcway cvery morning. She added that when the students have friends over, there are cars parked up and down the street. She expresscd frustration over the number of vehicles in the driveway. She noted that the students are friendly and quiet. Ms. Johnson stated that parking is the main issue, adding that if the City limits thc number of people living in a home, that would solvc the problem. Ferdinand Peters, 1708 Portland Avenue, St. Paul, stated hc is an attorney representing Jerry and Julie Warner, the owners of the home on Noble Road which is currently rented to students. He addcd that his clients feel the ordinance amendments have been generated because of thc ."~RDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL A TTGTTST 14, )000 4 Warner's property although it has Citywide implications. He notcd that if the amendments are adopted, it will severely restrict his client's use of their property. e Mr. Peters statcd that the issues raised by Ms. Johnson should bc brought directly to the Warner's as the owners of the property to give them an opportunity to address the problems. He added that the phrase "on a regular basis" in the section pertaining to drivcways is vague. Mr. Pcters stated that his clients havc applied for all the neccssary permits with regard to thc changes made to their property, and have attemptcd to accommodate parking. He added that he has checked with the sheriff who confirmed that no report has ever been made against the property . Mr. Peters stated that other conununities allow five unrclatcd people in a dwclling. He expressed his client's opposition to any definition that limits the use oftheir property. He addcd that studcnts should be integrated into the community. Leon Godeke, 1895 Noble Road, stated he lives across from the homc bcing discussed, adding that the homeowner lives in Pine City. He expressed doubt that the Warner's would be willing to drivc to the home if telephoned. He added that thirteen cars were parked in the drivcway until midnight one night, and one car used his driveway to turn around. He stated that all the residents on the street might decide to rent their homes out, which would greatly affect the neighborhood. Dick Wenzel, 1931 Noble Road, statcd he has never had a problem with the home, although he does not live next door. He added, in his opinion, that City ordinances in general are not . enforced. Acting Mayor Larson stated that City staff deal with ordinance violations on a complaint basis. Councilmember Rem stated that the Noble Road neighborhood had mobilized effectively in opposition to this particular home being used as a rental property, adding that it is not the only neighborhood in the City with such a complaint. She noted that there had been some discussion among City staff with regard to efforts to ensure that neighborhoods are made aware of such ordinances. Councilmember Rem stated that the ordinance amendments are intended to put a reasonable limit on residential properties to make them tolerable to other residents. Jerry Warner, owner of 1898 Noble Road, stated both his daughters live at thc property and are available if the neighbors havc complaints. He added hc understands that parking is a problem, and hc has provided sufficient parking. Hc noted that he is unable to regulate the street parking ofthe students' friends. Joelle Warner, 1898 Noble Road, stated her father owns the home and she lives there with hcr sister and several renters. She added that the neighbors on the strcet know her and her sister, and are welcome to bring complaints to them. Councilmember Grant stated that the definitions of single-family, two-family, and multiple- family dwellings are unclear and should be more clearly defined. e e e e ARDEN HILLS CIT-Y~AUGUSI-lA,2DDD 5 Councilmember Aplikowski asked for clarification with regard to the nmnbcr of entrances to the home at 1898 Noble Road. Mr. Warner stated the home is a split entry with one main entrance, and a locked door leading to the lower unit. Mr. Godeke stated it is a regular split entry home. Councilmember ApIikowski expressed concern with regard to the definition of "family". She stated she would prefer that the definition specify that five unrelated people are acceptable rather than four. Councilmember Grant stated that the definition is confusing, as it appears that no more than four people are allowed. Ms. Chaput stated that four peoplc refers only to unrelated people. She added the number of related pcoplc is not limited. Councilmember Grant asked whether Mr. Warner's two-family dwelling would be allowed to have ten people ifhe has two daughters and four renters in each unit. Ms. Chaput stated that four unrelated people would be allowed in cach household as well as an unlimitcd numbcr of pcoplc related by blood. Councilmember Aplikowski stated that ifthe sisters live in separate units, they could each have three unrelated roommates. She added if the house is considered a single family dwelling, the sisters could have four unrelated roommates. Acting Mayor Larson stated that the problem of converting homes to student housing is a problem throughout the City, adding that Mr. Warner's property is onc such homc and should bc separated from thc issuc as a whole. He added this issue has been before the Council several times as many residents are concerned with how student housing affects neighborhoods and property values. Acting Mayor Larson stated that, in his opinion, four unrelated people is a reasonable number. He added the Plarming Commission recommended it as reasonable, and expressed his agreement with their recommendation. Acting Mayor Larson stated he reviewed the zoning ordinance and found only two instances of the use of the definition for "household". He addcd that he would suggest deleting the definition for "household" and inscrting "See Fan1ily", which would accomplish the same end and would he less confusing. Councilmember ApIikowski stated that the definition of "household" was includcd to explain why it was used in the definition of "family". Councilmember Rem stated thc definition of "household" tends to be more inclusive than the definition of "family". Acting Mayor Larson stated, with regard to the definition of "family", that two categorics arc possible: all people in the home are related, or the home contains some unrelated individuals. Councilmember Grant expressed agreement with that interpretation, adding it seems restrictive. Ms. Chaput stated that the wording could be changcd to clarify that all the residents need not be rclated. COlmcilmember Aplikowski asked whether there are currcntly other neighborhoods within the City with similar rental properties. Ms. Chaput confirmed there are other homes rcntcd to students. Councilmcmber Rem stated thc issue arose because of a home in her neighborhood --ARDEN HILLSCL1YCOUNCIL-=-AUGUST 14, 2000-- _____~__------D which was going to be sold for the purpose of converting it to a multiple family use, and residents came to the Council. She addcd that the Council had fclt it was worth addressing thc Issue. . Acting Mayor Larson statcd that the property to which Councilmember Rem referred was located in an R-l zoning area. Mr. Godeke asked for clarification with regard to zoning districts. Ms. Chaput stated that Noble Road is located in an R-2 zone, which allows single and two-family uses. Katic Nelson, 388 Bucher Avenue, Shoreview, stated she currently lives in a home converted for students, and noted that most complaints are related to garbage and parking. Shc added that the allowed number of unrelated people should be raised. Councilmember Aplikowski proposcd a motion pertaining to Item I. Mr. Lynch stated it would be ncccssary to determine whether the amendments should be adopted individually or as a whole. Acting Mayor Larson stated he would not support the motion. He added that, in his opinion, four unrclated people is sufficient. Councilmcmbcr Grant asked whether, in the Mayor's absence, the voting on the motion would require a four/fifths majority. Mr. Lynch confirmed that a super majority would be required. He added that the ordinancc amendments should bc adopted as a whole and not section by section. Councilmember Rem agreed, stating the amendmcnts were put forward as a single planning case. . Ms. Chaput stated that the Council's recommendations would be incorporated into a fOllnal document for approval at the Council's next meeting. Ms. Chaput reviewed amendments to Section II (D), Definitions; Section VI (A) #5, Sizc; and Section VI (F) #1 h, Parking Structures, with regard to Item 2, pertaining to accessory structures. The definition for "building, accessory" is not inclusive of all structurcs. Since there are rcstrictions on acccssory buildings, it should be clearly defined. Also, there is no limit on the amount of accessory structures pcrmittcd. The accessory structure sctbacks are in conflict in somc scctions (10' for accessory but some principlc structures only require a 5' setback) so this languagc is proposed to be amended. Finally, the term "parking structure" is not defined in the code so it has been amendcd for "private garage" which is defined. Mr. Wcnzel asked whether a fishhouse would be considcred an accessory structure, adding he has a neighbor with six fishhouses in his back yard. Ms. Chaput confirmed it would be considered an accessory structure. Ms. Chaput rcviewed amendments to Section VI (F) #3, Traffic and Circulation, with regard to Item 3, pertaining to accessibility to public streets. It is not clear in the ordinance that all newly created properties nced to abut a public street. The only information that is provided does not refer to all districts. . Ms. Chaput reviewed amendments to Section VI (F) #1 C, Construction Standards, and Section VI (F), #3 C, Driveways, with regard to Item 4, pertaining to driveways. The number of e . e ARDEN HILLS CITYCOUNCILAUGUST 14,2000 7 driveways or cUTb cuts for a residential property is not limited. There are no requirements to pave driveway surfaces, setbacks to a driveway or permitted parking locations on a lot. Complaints rcgarding the numbcr of vchicles on a propcrty at one time are addressed by limiting the number of vehicles permitted outside of a garage. Other cities were rcscarchcd specifically on this issue and it was found that it was generally dealt with by limiting thc width of a driveway which in turn limits the number of vehicles that can park at any given time. Generally, cities havc a minimum (not maximum) number of spaccs rcquired of two per dwelling unit. The proposed numbcr of a maximum of three cars on a driveway was a result ofP1anning Commission discussion and the proposed number has not changed from further rescarch. Finally, State and County regulations for streets should be confirmed with these regulatory bodies at that time and the code should not list their rcquirements, in thc case that they have changed or arc incorrect. Mr. Peters stated that changcs to this scction would havc a major affect on his client's use of his property. He addcd the garage on the property had been convertcd to a study area and the driveway widened with the necessary permits. He noted the amendment should be broadencd to take multiple dwelling units into account. Councilmember Aplikowski stated that some property owneTS have circular driveways. Ms. Chaput stated they can remain until the driveway is changed in some way. She addcd the amendment is intended to provide limitations to prevent such uses from occurring in the future. Councilmember Aplikowski stated that lots of a certain size might be able to accommodatc more than one access. She added, in her opinion, the City should not restrict that. Ms. Chaput reitcratcd that there are currcntly no restrictions at all. Councilmember Rem stated that points of street access was the concern, adding that large lots don't necessarily need two entrances. She added the amendments are not intcnded to limit rcsident's preferences. Councilmember Grant stated that many homes have landscaping rock which is used for parking purposes. He asked for clarification with regard to the term "directly into a garage" to dcfine parking areas. Ms. Chaput agreed that it would not make sense iftherc was no garagc on thc property and it should be changed accordingly. Acting Mayor Larson stated that the word "those" should be replaced with "these" under "Construction Standards". He agreed that the term "directly into a garage" is not necessary. He added he is comfortable with the limit of three vehicles in the driveway, but agreed this could bc a problem for multiple family dwellings. Mr. Lynch statcd, with regard to voting on the ordinance amendments, that the Planning Commission prcpared the ordinance changes with recommendations for adoption, and must be adopted by a four/fifths vote of all members of the Council. Councilmember Aplikowski stated that numerous residents do not have paved driveways, adding she is unwilling to impose restrictions on residents who are not causing any problems. She ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - AUGUSTI4, 2000 8 expressed concern that the Council is attcmpting to appcasc a few complainants by restricting the entire community. . Acting Mayor Larson stated that the City will not require properties which currently do not meet the requirements to be in immediate compliance. Ms. Chaput agreed, adding that residents will be required to conform when they attcmpt to improvc that portion of the property that is being affccted. Ms. Chaput reviewed amcndments to Scction VI (E) #4 D, Barbs or Spikcs on Fences, with regard to Item 5, pertaining to fences. The City does not have any agricultural districts, yet there arc regulations for agricultural fences and agricultural uscs. From a planning perspective, encouraging agricultural uses do not meet the intentions of the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Aplikowski asked how businesses would be affected. Ms. Chaput stated they would be required to obtain a Special Use Permit for their electric or barbed fenccs. Ms. Chaput reviewed amcndments to Section IX (H), Amortization of Nonconforming Use, with rcgard to Item 6, pertaining to amortization. In the 1999 Legislative Session, the City's powcr to amortize land uscs was revoked, as stated in Chapter 96-S.F. No. 854. The only uses that a city may amortize are thosc rclating to, " . . . adult-only bookstorcs, adults-only theatres, or similar adults-only business as dcfined by ordinance. . ." and for ". . . the prevention or abatement of nuisances. . . or eliminating a use determined to be a public nuisance. . .". Therefore, thc language that is cillTently in the Zoning Ordinance regarding amortizing nonconforming uses should be revised. . Acting Mayor Larson stated he had raiscd the issue of omitting the statute language in case it might change. He added that he was attempting to refercnce the fact that the City can amortize whatcver is allowed to be amortized, but not that the City has the authority to enact an ordinance. He noted he would prefer to retain the amendment as originally written. Ms. Chaput reviewed amendments and renumbering of all pagcs, Sections and the Table of Contents in the City of Arden Hills Zoning Ordinancc, with regard to Item 7, pertaining to thc ordinance numbering system. The numbcring system of the ordinancc is currently in Roman numerals and is difficult to follow. Staff proposes that this be changed for ease of use as well as the page numbcring system, numbering pages from one (I) to the last page of the document. Also, for ease of future revisions, the document should be placcd in a binder with section tabs. MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion to approve changes to Item I of Planning Case #00-11, as outlined in the staff memo dated August 2,2000, Dcfinitions of "dwelling", "dwelling unit", and "family", with the following amendments: Itcm 53. Family. Replace "four" with "five"; dclete "some or all of whom"; replace "are" with "who need not be". . Voting on the motion: Aplikowski, Rem and Grant voted aye. Larson voted nay. The motion failed (3-1). . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 14, 2000 9 MOTION: MOTION: MOTION: MOTION: MOTION: MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmembcr Grant seconded a motion to approvc changes to Item 2 of Planning Case #00-11, as outlined in the staff memo dated August 2, 2000, pertaining to Accessory Structurcs. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion to approve changes to Itcm 3 of Planning Case #00-11, as outlined in the staff memo dated August 2, 2000, pertaining to access to a public street. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to approvc changes to Item 4 of Planning Case #00-1 1, as outlined in the staff memo dated Augnst 2,2000, pertaining to driveways, with the following amendments: Section VI (F) #l C, Construction Standards, replacc "Those" with "These" Section VI (F) #3 C, Driveways, (7) Prohibited Areas, delete "leading directly into a garage" and "on a regular basis"; rcplace "three" with "four" Voting on the motion: Larson and Rem voted aye. Aplikowski and Grant voted nay. The motion failed (2-2). Councilmcmber Aplikowski moved and Counci1member Grant seconded a motion to approvc changes to Item 5 of Planning Case #00-1 I, as outlined in the staff memo dated August 2, 2000, pertaining to electric fences. The motion carricd unanimously (4-0). Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to approvc changes to Item 6 of Planning Case #00-1 1, as outlined in the staff memo dated August 2, 2000, pertaining to amortization. The motion carricd unanimously (4-0). Councilmember Grant moved and Counci1mcmbcr Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve changes to Item 7 ofP1anning Case #00-11, as outlined in the staff memo dated August 2,2000, pertaining to thc nunlbering system of the ordinance. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). Acting Mayor Larson stated that City staff has the approval necessary to proceed with five of the seven proposed changes. Councilmember Aplikowski suggested the remaining changes might be discussed at a worksession with the Planning Commission. Acting Mayor Larson stated thc City Attorney's input would also have been helpful. C. Hunters Park Request Mr. Lynch stated the audience members had left the meeting but requested that the Hunters Park Request portion of the agenda be held ovcr until the Council's next meeting. Acting Mayor Larson asked whether it was necessary to act on the item. Mr. Lynch stated a delay would give staff the opportunity to research thc situation further. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 14,2000 10 Acting Mayor Larson stated that thc Ingerson Task Force was scheduled for the Council's . August 28 mecting, adding the Hunters Park Tequcst might be discussed at a meeting with fewer agenda items. Councilmembcr Rem stated the tenant's organization should be notified that the item had becn held over, and when it would be discussed. Councilmember Grant statcd he is aware that affordable housing in the aTea is extremely limited. COlillcilmember Aplikowski stated that affordable subsidized housing is necessary. ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS Mr. Lynch reminded the Council of the special meeting to be hcld August 15 at 8:00 p.m. in Council chambers. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND COMMITTEE/COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS Councilmembcr Grant stated that the Parks & Recreation Committee will meet on August 22. Councilmcmber Grant stated that the AMM'S Metropolitan Agencies Committee met to discuss affordable housing. He added their upcoming meeting is scheduled for Thursday August 17 at which water quality will be discussed. Councilmember Aplikowski stated, in her opinion, it is not the City's responsibility to advocate on behalf of the Hunters Park residents. She added a petition might be made to the County or . another party. Councilmember Aplikowski noted that two Plarming Commissioners, Marty Rye and Brent Nelson, will be leaving, and thankcd them on behalf of thc COlillcil for their hard work. Councilmember Aplikowski stated that the Newsletter Committee did an exccllent job on the water quality report. CounciJmember Aplikowski statcd she will attend the N\1M meeting to be held August 15. Councilmember Rem stated the National Night Out on August 1 was a succcss, adding that the Fire Department visited the neighborhoods. Councilmember Rem stated the RAE met on August 7 and reviewed rcmediation updates. Councilmember Rem stated the Turtleman Triathlon was hcld recently in Shoreview, all proceeds from which will go to the Northwest Youth and Family Services. Councilmember Rem statcd that a County budget proposal to cut diversion funding would greatly affect thc Northwcst Youth and Family Services. Councilmember Rem stated she has had positive comments from residents with regard to the watcr quality brochure and Parks & Recreation brochure. . , ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 14,2000 II Councilmember Rem stated the Operations & Finance Committee is scheduled to meet Thursday e August 17. Acting Mayor Larson stated the Planning Commission met on Wednesday August 2. He added therc was a discussion regarding thc Gateway business areas, as well as the antenna request. He notcd both issues will bc presented to the Council at their August 28 meeting. ADJOURN MOTION: Couneilmembcr Aplikowski moved and Counci1member Rem seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:12 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). Deunis Probst Mayor Joe Lynch City Administrator NOTICE OF MEETINGS Thc next regular City Council mecting will be held Monday, August 28, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. at thc Ardcn Hills Council chambers. . . e e e DRAFT MINUTES CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 15,2000 8:00 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDERlROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Dennis Probst called to order a Special Meeting of the Arden Hills City Council at 8:02 p.m. Present: Mayor Probst; Councilmembers Beverly Aplikowski, David Grant, Gregg Larson and Lois Rem. Absent: None. Also present were City Administrator, Joe Lynch; Parks and Recreation Director, Tom Moore; Recreation Program Supervisor, Michelle Olson; City Attorney, Jerry Filla; and Recording Secretary, Sheila Stowell. PURPOSE OF MEETING The purpose of the meeting was to consider approval of the Right of Early Entry to the City Hall site on the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP); and award of a partial or whole construction bid to Rochon Construction for construction of the new City Hall. ADOPT AGENDA MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Aplikowski scconded the motion to adopt the agenda as presented. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). APPROVAL OF RIGHT OF EARLY ENTRY Mayor Probst introduced thc City Hall construction project, and briefly revicwcd the lengthy process involved in obtaining the land conveyancc and arriving at this phase of the project. Mayor Probst stated that most recent conversations with thc Department of Army (DoA) indicated that the City was due to receive Fee Title to the City Hall site by September 29,2000. Mayor Probst recognized this milestone, making the City of Arden Hills one of the first non- military cntities to be granted ovmership of any property on the TCAAP site, with the exception of several minor rights-of-way having been granted. Mayor Probst invited Councilmembers to comment at this time. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - August 15, 2000 DRAFT 2 . Councilmember Aplikowski referrcd to the proposed "Right of Entry" document, spccifically addressing the wording, ".. .whcn and iJ'..." in Itcm 2, "Consideration," on page threc (3) of the document. City Attorney Filla addrcssed the document language, stating that is was standard language for fedcral government contracts, and as legislation had already deternlined the suitability of conveyance, Mr. Filla saw no reason for concern. Councilmemher Rem addressed conccrns regarding the outstanding public comment period for the Finding of Suitability for Transfer (FOST) remaining open until September 5, 2000, and thc Council taking any action prior to the end ofthe comment period. City Attorney Filla stated that the FOST simply documented a small portion of the agreement; and there was minimal chance of any controversy or even public comment on the document, as the transfer was not a controversial issue. Councilmember Rem further expressed concerns regarding the limited time frame - six (6) months - of the Right of Entry Agreement, while waiting for the Fee Title paperwork to be proccssed, as it related to start of constmction. Mayor Probst addressed Councilmember Rem's concerns, stating that Congress had acted and a thc land convcyance was cmincnt, with only the federal bureaucracy and paperwork process with . thc DoA remaining outstanding. Mayor Probst reiterated his confidence that this will happen. Mayor Probst expressed his conccrn that continued delays were escalating costs to taxpayers, with the City having to bid thc project twice, as we were unaware of the required paperwork process. Councilmember Grant concurred with Councilmember Rem's concerns regarding the Right of Entry Agreement's six (6) month term, and continued delays by the DoA for the land conveyance. Councilmember Grant refcrenced several dates addressed in the July 21, 2000 lcttcr from Rochon Corporation to the City of Arden I-lills. City Administrator Lynch stated that the dates in the letter were based on conversations with the Army Corps of Engineers, and since those conversations the dates had further changed. Mr. Lynch defcrrcd to City Attorney Filla to address several minor legal conccrns, hut stated that stalT had verified that awarding the contract conditionally, with a limited Notice to Proceed, in accordance with limitations ofthe DoA's Right of Entry document, would not commit the City to ordering of the steel for the project, a major financial undertaking, and the City would be committing to the work done to-datc. Peter V csterhoIt, Architect with Architectural Alliance, stated that the letter from Rochon Corporation had been rcviewcd and drafted at the recommendation of Rochon Corporation's attorney, and concurrcncc with the City's Architect. e . . . D~'I'..".'i.... Ii' t:T :~(A~- . ARDEN HlLLS CITY COUNCIL - August 15,2000 3 Mr. Robert Dcw, Project Manager with Rochon, clarified his intentions in the July 21st letter, stating that at thc timc of writing, the dates specified were used as a "hopeful milestone," and were used, as directed by their compallY's legal counsel, to protect their firm from any fallout should the City invoke suspension of thc contract, and to protect from ramifications with their subcontractors. Mr. Dew stated that, should the City award the full contract, with conditions for partial work, - there was limited liability to Rochon, or their subcontractors, as all contracts with subcontractors would contain thc same verbiage in a flow-through clause. Mr. Dew assurcd the City that, according to bid proccdure and the way the contract documents arc writtcn, the City still maintained control in the amount of work the contractor would be authorized to proceed with. Mayor Probst askcd for City Attomey Filla's opinion on public bidding laws and the City's responsibility regarding awarding of the full contract, and the inability to modify thc contract without a rebid process. City Attorney Filla clarified that the City could not issue a partial contract. Mr. Filla reviewcd several of the contract's terms; specifically the ramifications if the City were not able to acquire titlc to the property after part of contract is partially started and that the contract stated that either party can terminate contract for cause. Mr. Filla statcd that the contract speaks in terms of damages to partics; with arbitration binding after contract issue; and that the City would only be liable for the work done to-datc, and would not need to proceed further. Mr. Filla stated that there was limited liability to thc City, and if the contract werc terminated, it would need to be deteDnined what loss/profit thcrc would be, and the contractor would need to be reimbursed for costs to-date. Mr. Filla referenced the July 21, 2000 lcttcr from Rochon Corporation, addressing thcir company's exposure and the City's risk to approximately $330,000. Mr. Filla stated that thc City's options were either to award the contract before thc contract award expiration, or rebid thc project once Fee Title to the property is obtained. Councilmember Larson concurred with Mr. Filla's comments, stating the small risk to the City was not a great concern, as there was minimal risk that the propcrty conveyance would not happcn. Councilmember Larson emphasized that the legislation had officially authorized transfcr of the property. Councilmember Larson stated that hc fully supported award of the contract, that it was time for the City to take the step, that it was a great design, a symbol of thc business of government, and a facility that the citizens and staff could be proud of. Mayor Probst again addressed the minimal risk to the City, stating that the City's environmcntal consultant had held up the proccss due to discussions with the Mil11lesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA); and that the DoA was making every attcmpt to process the paperwork in a timely way. Councilmember Aplikowski statcd that she continued to havc rcservations without the actual Fee Title, but concurrcd that, at this point, there was minimal risk to the City and she was willing to DP"> Ci, if" T' ~ ,~~t(~~\r ' ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - August 15, 2000 4 support thc project going forward. Councilmember Aplikowski did express concerns about the . additional costs projected due to winter construction. Councilmember Grant stated that he concurrcd with Councilmember Rem's comments, and continucd to have concerns about the language in the Right of Entry documcnt, and questioned whether this was standard language for the DoA. Councilmember Grant was concerned that the document fully protected the DoA' s rights, but the City had little recourse. City Attorney Filla stated that the document appeared to be standard for a DoA document, with the first paragraph addrcssing their right to essentially revoke thc document at any time. Mr. Filla stated that he wouldn't expcct any othcr documcnt from a federal agency, as they usually maintained all authority. Mr. Filla rcmindcd Councilmembers that the DoA had also been working on the land conveyancc for tcn (10) years, and that the City was dealing with a branch ofthe U.S. Government, and should have evcry rcasonable expectation that the land conveyancc will occur. Mr. Filla stated that, if the Council was looking for a document that guaranteed no financial risk to the City, the DoA would not cooperatc with such verbiagc. Mr. Filla stated that, the only reasonable event that they would not convey, would be for an environmental issue, and the property has been reviewed so thoroughly, there should be no reason to suspect any environmental issue. Councilmember Rem stated that the City's environmental consultant had found environmental issues that the DoA had missed before, and while the City had received the Icgislation, we still . had no firm datc, and since the City had been pursuing the property for ten (10) years already, she was not confident of that process. Councilmember Rcm expressed rcsidents and her personal concerns about what the cost had been to the City in bidding the project twice, prior to possession ofFec Title. Mayor Probst concurred with the comments made by Councilmember Larson, and City Attorney fills regarding the good faith action by the DoA in providing an early Right-of-Entry document to accommodate preliminary construction work, and that the small parcel for City Hall had been held to a higher standard of cnvironmental conccrn than any othcr portion of TCAAP. Mayor Probst encouraged Councilmembers to move the project forward at this time. Councilmember Grant expresscd further concerns that the DoA had all the legal authority in thc Right of Entry document, with thc City being required to take the legal document at face valuc and take a "leap of faith" hoping that all would work out. Councilmember Larson acknowledged Councilmember Rem's comments regarding actions of previous City Council's in decisions regarding moving forward with construction bids prior to having Fee Titlc to the property, but stated that the current City Council had followed suit in rccent Council actions. . e . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - August 15,2000 W"''''':t I.,cY T 5 MOTION: Councilmcmber Larson moved, and Councilmembcr Aplikowski seconded a motion to authorize Mayor Probst to cnter into a Right-of-Entry Agrecmcnt as prepared by the Department of ArnlY (Do A) Materiel Command, Document No. DACA45-3-00-6088. Thc motion carried (4-1, Council member Rem opposed). AWARD OF PARTIAL OR WHOLE CONSTRUCTION BID City Attorney Filla initiated discussion on the contract, and its potcntial award as addressed in thc July 21, 2000 letter from Rochon Corporation and subsequent July 24, 2000 lcttcr from Architectural Alliance regarding conditions for a Notice to Proceed and stipulating the work to be authorizcd. Architect, Peter V csterholt, clarified the referenced turn lane condition as being one in the same with the median cut on Highway 96. Councilmember Grant requested Mr. Dew to address thc extcnt of Rochon's cost for the proj ect at the start of the project, provided the City gives a Notice to Proceed. Mr. Dew stated that preconstruction mobilization costs typically amount to 70% of their total cost and include site setup; on-site office for their construction superintendent; and temporary utilities. Councilmember Aplikowski asked Mr. Dew to clarify what happens, from Rochon's perspective, ifby September 29,2000 the City still does not have Fee Title to the property. Mr. Dew explaincd that from his perspective, he's in much thc same situation as the City, and that lack of the Fee Title document is a step of faith for their company as well. Mr. Dew emphasized the cooperative work relationship required by the City and Rochon in getting the project completed. Mr. Dew stated that, once the project is begun the City and Rochon would need to decidc the feasibility of winter construction (i.e., concrete pour), or whethcr the project needed to be shut dO'Nll for a time and resumed in the spring. Mr. Dew further stated that his company had a proven ability to work out an equitable solution for all parties, and that he was hopeful that all parties could agrce on a workable time frame. Mr. Dcw addressed Couneilmember Aplikowski's concerns regarding winter construction costs, stating that they were already built into the contract. City Attorney Filla stated that the tenn of the standard construction agrcement was for one (1) year; and that whcn there were delays, the time for completion is sometimes extended, with somc cost adj ustments, as agreed upon by both parties. Mr. Filla furthcr stated that the contract documents address all of these issues. D.. .'. F() A' ri:T : b\. i '\ ~ ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - August 15, 2000 6 . Councilmember Rem stated that her conccrns were not with the contractor, but with the DoA, and that as a Councilmcmber, she needcd to be concerned about where the City's money was spent. Mr. Dew stated that he had previously worked for thc Departmcnt of Army, and as a general rule, they operated in good faith. He stated that he was confident that, if the City had gotten this far in the land conveyance process, the DoA would fulfill their obligations and take the ncxt step. Mr. Dew expressed his prcvious experiencc with the bureaucratic process, and stated the City's experiencc is not unusual, or more lengthy than the usual process. Mr. Dew clarified that the elevator construction would not affect line item costs. MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski movcd and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to award the contract for construction of a ncw City Hall facility to Rochon Corporation; authorizc Mayor Probst to enter into an agreement identified as a "Standard Form of Agrcement Between OW11er and Contractor where thc basis of payment is a Stipulated Sum;" and authorize issuance of a partial Notice to Proceed to Rochon Corporation in an amount not to exceed $329,150.00, for the following work: 1. Earthwork ($54,100.00); 2. Outside utilities ($174,400.00); 3. Turn lane work described as "Alternate No. B," Highway 96 median cut . ($16,000.00); 4. Shop Drawings for long lead items, inclusive of structural steel, joist, deck, precast concrete, stone masomy, concrete reinforcement, electrical switchgcar, elevator, and air handling equipment ($18,000.00); and 5. Rochon's Costs, inclusivc of mobilization and set up ($65,650.00). The motion carried (4-1, Councilmember Rem opposed). Mayor Probst annOlillced that this concluded the "Unfinished and New Business" to be conducted at the meeting. Mr. Vesterholt requested that thc contract be executed by Mayor Probst immediately to allow preparation of the formal Notice to Proceed to the contractor. GROUNDBREAKING CEREMONY, PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION On a related note, conclusive of the two actions takcn by the City Council. Mayor Probst inquired as to thc Council's willingness to schcdule a public groundbreaking on the new City Hall site, after Rochon Corporation has mobilizcd. . . . . !oi4W" F- l.:,; ~ ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - August 15, 2000 7 City Councilmember concurred that staff bc directcd to bcgin prcparations for a public groundbreaking ceremony in early Scptember, with invitations to include dignitaries (i.e., Congressman Vcnto; Senator Grams; former Mayors and Councilmembers and others as observed.) MOTION: Councihnember Grant moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to adjourn the Special Mecting of the Arden Hills City Council at 9:03 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Dcnnis Probst Mayor Joscph P. Lynch City Administrator e . . \~ ~,.."'1li '" '.. B"'. \? '\ Q,,Q &~'" !\,'" ." ~~~FT CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 21, 2000 5:45 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS/CONFERENCE ROOM CALL TO ORDER Pursuant to duc call and notice thereof, Mayor Dennis Probst called to ordcr a Special Meeting/City Council Worksession at 4:45 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Present: Mayor Probst; Councilmembers Beverly Aplikowski, Gregg Larson; and Lois Rem. Absent: Councilmember David Grant, who had previously notified Mayor Probst of his inability to attend this meeting. Also present were City Administrator, Joe Lynch; City Treasurer, Terrancc Post; Public Works Dircctor, Dwayne Stafford; and City Attorney, Jerry Filla. PURPOSE OF MEETING Mayor Probst, upon convening thc meeting, adjourned to the City Hall Conference Room for a Closed Executive Session to discuss pending litigation entitled, "Josephine East, LLDC, a MN Limited Liability Corporation, Plaintiff; vs. Robert Wesslund, an Individual, Dee Rushenberg, an Individual and the City of Arden Hills and through its City Council, Defendants." There was no action takcn. RECESS Mayor Probst adjourned the Closed Executive Session at 5:53 p.m., and reconvened the regular City Council Worksession at 5:56 p.m. in the City Council Chambcrs. Dennis Probst Mayor Joseph P. Lynch City Administrator i . . . DRAFT MEETING MINUTES CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION MONDAY, AUGUST 21, 2000 4:45 P.M. - CITY HALL, 4364 WEST ROUND LAKE ROAD CALL TO ORDER Mayor Probst callcd the meeting to order at 4:45 p.m. Those present included Councilmembers Bcverly Aplikowski, Gregg Larson and Lois Rcm. Councilmembcr Grant had previOLlsly notified Mayor Probst of his inability to attend tonight's Worksession. Staffprcsent included City Administrator, Joe Lynch; City Accountant, Tcrry Post; Public Works Dircctor, Dwayne Stafford; Parks and Rccreation Director, Tom Moore; Recreation Program Supcrvisor, Michclle Olson; Planner, Jennifer Chaput; and Recording Secretary, Sheila Stowcll. Mayor Probst closed the Council Worksession at 4:47 p.m. for a Closed Exccutive Session to discuss pending litigation. Mayor Probst reconvencd the Council Worksession at 5:56 .m. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. County Road I and Schutta Road City Administrator Lynch introduced Mr. Jim Tolaas, Ramsey County Department of Public Works. Mr. Tolaas was in attendance to discuss the design process with Ramsey County's County Road I and Schutta Road project in the City of Shoreview related to Shorcview's Wispark Development; and the future development ramifications with the City of Arden Hills. Discussion itcms included Ramsey County's policy regarding semiphore cost participation betwecn the City and County; the elevcn (1 I) warrants to be met for County installation ofa semiphore; the status of thc West Round Lake Road signal rcimbursement; and work to-datc regarding area transportation issues and future planning needs. Staff was directed to bring back the parking resolution for County Road I at the August 28, 2000 regular City Council meeting. Highways 96/1 OIntersection Mr. Tolaas discussed the current status of final design for thc Highways 96/1 0 intersection. Discussion items included the study bcing conducted through work with the 1-35W Corridor Coalition, a process of approximately seven (7) months, which is tied to the build out study; cost sharing and revenue sources; right-of-way acquisition; availability oftumback dollars; ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION - AUGUST 21, 2000 2 Mayor Probst requested that Mr. Tolaas advise Mr. Mayasich of the City of Arden Hills' desire to be included in any current or future discussions regarding any Twin Citics Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP) development and/or access points. Mr. Tolaas stated that Ramsey County and the National Guard were in discussions about thc potential resiting ofthe joint maintenance facility to comply with City zoning requircments. . County Road E, Streetlight Standard Replacement Mr. Stafford presented evidcnce ofthe need to replace the seventeen (17) strectlight standards along County Road E due to the deterioration of the underground mountings. Mr. Stafford estimated the cost of replacement to be between S 1,700 - $2,300 per standard, exclusivc of mounting and lightheads, Mr. Stafford was working with a firm that suggestcd replacement of the concrete pillars, at approximately $3,000 per pole. Ivl1'. Stafford rccommended to the Council that they direct the City's Operations and Finance Committee to review the City's currcnt street light policy and potential design of a City streetlight standard. Discussion items included thc immediatc safety issues; involvement ofthc Planning Commission in any future city-wide lighting design process Staff was directcd to bring a recommendation to the City Council at their August 28, 2000 regnlar mceting with an estimatcd cost for a temporary repair solution; as well as a recommendation to the Operations and Finance Committee and thc Planning Commission for further study. . b. Ingerson Road Mayor Probst stated that the purpose of this agenda item tonight was for an informal presentation of the two (2) rcports; that ofthe Ingerson Neighborhood Review Group and that of City Staff and the Consulting Engineer. Mayor Probst asked that any further elaboration on specific points in cither report be held until the August 28, 2000 formal presentation to thc full City Council at their regular meeting. Mayor Probst statcd that, at the August 28th meeting, a public information meeting date would be established, with further Council action to follow that public mceting. Ms. Linda Swanson, representing the Ingerson Neighborhood Review Group, thanked Mayor Probst, Councilmembers, City staff, and Consulting Engineer, Greg Brown, for the opportunity to rcview the proposed 2000 Street Improvemcnt Project, and to provide recommendations to the City Council. Ms. Swanson reviewed the specific items of agrecmcnt, and those conflicting items, between the staff and neighborhood groups. Mayor Probst expressed his appreciation that therc appeared to be more commonality than differences in the reports. Discussion items included the detriment of increased road widths to yard drainage; potcntial . closure of Ham line Avenue and lack of consensus ofthe neighborhood group; increased traffic . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION - AUGUST 21, 2000 " ~ on Ingerson and Dunlap; Lake Josephine Association and the Fernwood Channel rccreational land value; untreated stormwater into wetlands; the presentation on raingardens by reprcsentatives of the City of Maple wood, and the varying soils involved; protection or insulation of water and sewer lines in some areas proposed for raingarden installation. Mayor Probst complimented the Review Group, and again thanked them for their research and prcsentation. Councilmember Aplikowski requested comments from anyone else in the audience. Two (2) lillidentified representatives of thc Lake Josephine Association, werc present and requestcd more definitive information on the plan for the Fernwood Channel, as it dircctly affected their property. They asked the City Council to be included in any future discussions. Mayor Probst stated that the City Council anticipated the public informational meeting to be scheduled at one of the September regular Council meetings, and assured the residents that the neighborhood would be notified. Staff was directed to establish an orderly fashion to address the specific issues involved in the report, to allow the City Council to dircct the consulting engineer to prepare a revised fcasibility report. c. 2001 Budget Mr. Post stated that staff was continuing to work on the previous dircctive of the City Council to provide a 2001 Budget, based on a maximum levy increase of2.5%. Mr. Post addressed the proposed unbudgeted streetlight standard repair and/or replacement, and stated that this should possibly bc considered as a 2000 project as funding was more readily availablc at this time. Mr. Post also addressed the Council's proposal for thc 2001/02 Pavement Management Plan (PMP), and the possibility of pending development in the Gateway Business District and the need to rcprioritize the West Round Lake Road Phase II project. COlillcilmember Aplikowski lobbied for increasing the 20011cvy to three percent (3%). Mr. Post advised that the optional datcs for the City's Truth in Taxation datcs would be Deccmber 4th or December II t\ with the Preliminary Levy due to Ramsey County by Septcmber 15,2000. Staff was directed to plan for the Ingerson Neighborhood Project as the PMP Project for 2001, and that future proj ects would most likely continue on a two-year cycle and process; and to continue with thc proposed 2.5% maximum lcvy increase. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION - AUGUST 21, 2000 4 STAFI<' COMMENTS . Parks Director Moore rcported on various activities of the Parks and Recreation Dcpartment including, rccent trail grooming and brush clcaring; Ingerson Park playstructure installation; fall aeration; Cummings Park warminghouse rcpair done by staff at an (approximate savings of $4,000; addition of a practice soccer ficld at Floral Park; soccer ficld #3 at Perry Park now being operational; ongoing improved working relationship with Northwestern Collegc regarding the Presbyterian Homes ficlds and fccs. Plarmer Chaput reported on various issues before the Planning Commission regarding future proposed zoning and sign ordinancc changes; as well as seeking Council input at a future joint Planning Commission/City Council Worksession on these issues. Recreation Program Supervisor Olson updated the Council on various Recreation activities including increased socccr teams; need for additional fields; addition of a new pre-school soccer league; and increased nunlbers reflected from thc new recreation guide. Public Works Dircctor Stafford reported that the City was making good use ofthe easement machine in maintenance rccently purchased jointly with the City of White Bear Lake; a planned meeting with BRW staff on Thursday to discuss the Highway 96 median cut; testing and repair of the City's civil defcnse sirens; status ofthe requested speed study for Highway 51; staff research and drafting of an ordinance requiring installation of grease traps to prevent recurring grease problems in City sewer lines from food processors and restaurants. Mr. Stafford reported . that more ofthese problems were being found with thc advanced televising of the sewer lines. Mr. Brown stated that a report on thc recent televising of the City's sanitary sewcr system would be forthcoming, with the Edgewater and Ingerson neighborhoods having the most immediate areas for concern. City Treasurer Post rcported that he would be secking Council authorization in the near future for submitting a grant proposal to the Minncsota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for potential financing and reimbursement of property acquisition costs at the Indykiewicz site. Mr. Post also stated that additional Finance Department activities included work on the 2001 Budget and election training. City Administrator Lynch reported on the upcoming Preconstmction meeting for construction of the City Hall facility; meeting with MnDOT and Ramsey County for potential rcloeation of a National Guard site and commcrcial driver's facility fTOm Fort Snelling to the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP); and a recent meeting with the St. Paul Water Utility regarding their interest in purchasing the City of Arden Hills' water system. Relatcd discussion items included the viability of ownership of the water system by another party; capacities of neighboring communities; and thc status of the request for the City to acquire the TCAAP infrastructure system. . . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION - AUGUST 21, 2000 5 COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Larson requested further Couucil follow up to staff recommendations regarding revisions to the City's Zoning Ordinance and why the Council failed to reach a consensus. Councilmember Larson asked that the Council reconsider their decision regarding continuing parking issues; nou-owner-occupied residenccs; property valuation repercussions; and further public information of the proposed changes. It was the consensus of the Councilmembers and staff was directed to schedule a joint Worksession in September between the Planning Commission and City Council to discuss various zoning ordinance revisions, including the above-referenccd item and antennas. Another concern raised by Councilmembers was the numerous complaints received rcgarding the home-based business on County Road E. Planner Chaput advised that there was an application forthcoming to the Planning Commission from the resident for a Special Usc Permit for a Class Two Home Occupation. Councilmember Rem adviscd that Mayor Probst would be presenting a historical perspective on thc lengthy process for the construction of the new City Hall facility at thc next Operations and Finance Committee meeting. Councilmember Aplikowski adviscd that the City Events Task Force was moving forward with plans for the City's Fiftieth Anniversary celebration and that a onc-time annual calendar was being planned, with historical photographs being solicited. Councilmember Aplikowski also reported on the Communications Committee and their continued diligence and dedication. Mayor Probst discussed upcoming vacancies in the City's Planning Commission; and requested clarification of thc schedule for the revised City logo and its inclusion in the next Recreation Guide printing. City Administrator Lynch advised that the three options for the logo would be presented to the City Council at one of their Scptember meetings. Discussion ensued regarding the process to be followcd by staff and the consulting engineer for the Ingerson Ncighborhood Street Improvement Project. Staff was dirccted to provide a topic by topic report to allow the City Council to reach agrcement on the direction to provide to the consulting enginecr for an amended fcasibility study; to then hold a public informational meeting; then call for detailed plans and spccifications; then the formal Public Hearing related to the Chapter 429 assessment proccss. Staff was furthcr directed to consult with Ms. Swanson, as the spokesperson for the Ingerson neighborhood prior to the public information mecting; to provide an adequate number of visuals for ease of presentation and understanding; and to prepare for a review of the City's Assessment Policy regarding the basis of road width for assessment purposes. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION - AUGUST 21, 2000 6 ADJOURN MOTION: Councilmcmber Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Larson scconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:27 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). . . . I ~ . . . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CLAIMS REPORT TO BE APPROVED AT 08/28/00 COUNCIL MEETING CLAtMS PAID St[\"CE LAST COe"lCIL MEETING (08/14/001 18145 18146 18147 18148 18149 18150 18151 18152 18153 08/10/00 08/11/00 08/15100 08/1 5100 08/1 5/00 08/16/00 08117/00 08117100 08121/00 ~:X::,~'t~iW#):::::-:-: '. .... ....... '. 'AMorm." Petty Cash Northern States Power Com an Affinitv Plus Federal Credit Union leMA Retirement Trust - 457 Public Em 10 'ees Retirement Association DCA, Inc. - FSA De artment Met Council Environmental Services Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Allied Blackto 210.46 2,509.47 3,966.96 1,779.91 3.152.21 743.00 8.712.00 285.30 48.88614 I Subtotal. Paid Claims 70.245.45 I Paid Claims From Above - 70.245.45 Add Unpaid Claims, Page 3 of 3 - 40737.20 Total Accounts Payable Claims for Council Approval, 08/28/00- 110,982.65 Note: Checks for unpaid claims totaling S250,430.15 were mailed on August 15,2000 after approval at the August 14,2000 Council Meeting. They were check numbers 13083 - 18144 This sequence corresponds to unpaid temporary numbers T I - T62. Check numbers 18081 - 18082 were used for alignment. Pe Cash Re lenislunent Jul ServLee Second Au ust Pavroll Second Au ust Pa 'Toll Second Au ust Pavroll Medical Reimbursement 8/04/00 SAC Char es - Jul 2000 Se tembcr Life Insurance 2000 Seakoating - Final Pa ent PAGE10F3 _""dV'''''''"'''p,_vah'""".",, \ CITY OF ARDEN HILLS ACCOUNTS PAY ABLE CLAIMS REPORT TO BE APPROVED AT 08/28/00 COUNCIL MEETING ~ . PAGE20FJ UNPAID CLAIMS REGISTER: ......jjtMr~....I.tK..llAtll. 1'01 08/29/00 Accurate Press, rne 61238 August Newsletter 1'02 08/29/00 Anderberg-Lund Printing: Co. 6,056.66 Fall 2000 Recreation Guides (Otv 5300) T03 08/29/00 AT&T 98.28 Lone Distance T04 08/29/00 Berres, Sandra 16.25 Mileage Reimbursement 1'05 08/29/00 Rirfs, Inc. 521.92 Portable Toilets 1'06 08/29/00 Bover Ford Trucks, Inc. 48.80 Tensioner # I 06 1'07 08/29/00 Bradley, Cynthia 36.00 Refund-Soccer 1'08 08/29100 Bmnn, LU.4.tUl 240.00 Au,,"sl Cleaning-City Hall 1'09 08/29100 Ca<;e Credit Cornoration 54.08 Transmission Filters #20 1'10 08/29/00 c.c. Sharrmv Co., Inc. 16.87 Backhoe Lifting Bracket TlI 08/29/00 Connellv Industrial Electronic 331.57 Chart Recorder/Scanner Module-Labor 1'12 08/29/00 Comorate Express 72.11 Office Supplies 1'13 08/29/00 Electronic Interiors, Inc. 546.44 Electronic Techn for New Council Chambers 1'14 08/29/00 Em,en, Gat\! 351.00 2000 MV Mustangs Football Camp Tl5 08/29/00 Franallone's Hardware 62.64 August Purchascs 1'16 08/29/00 Galvan's Trudino Company 15000 Gift Certificates- Temn Park Maint Emoloyees 1'17 08/29/00 Gonher Sport 105.56 Chin Straps TI8 08/29/00 GaDher State Om~-Ca1J 92.80 Julv Servicc 1'19 08/29/00 Hvdro SUDolv Company 18.915.27 Meter Install & Uogrades #1 8 & #19 1'20 08/29/00 ICI Dulux Paint Centers 701.93 Paint-Soccer GoalslWarmio2: House/Fields 1'21 08/29100 Indenendent Sports Network 1,033.50 Umpire Services 7/25-8/10 1'22 08/29/00 LV.a.E. Local 49 262.00 Au::mst Payroll Deductions 1'23 08/29/00 Kath Auto Parts 18.20 Belt # 107 1'24 08/29/00 Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren 263.60 Prof Services throuph 7/31~Citv Hall Site T25 08/29/00 Mac Queen EClUipmeor, Tnc. 681.05 CleanJRcoair Blower 1'26 08/29/00 Midwest Asphalt Com 130.79 Road Repair Material 1'27 08/29/00 Mike's Tree Service 1.411l3 Stonn Damage-Trees on Public Pronertv T28 08/29100 Natale's Caffe 86.09 Council W orksession 8/21 1'29 08/29/00 Perrnn,James 21.25 Cell Phone Case-Reimbursement 130 08!29100 Peterson, Fram & Bcr.Qman 3.433.26 Jul'll Legal Services Tl1 08/29/00 Pitney Bovlo'cs 463 00 Service Postage Metcr 1'32 08/29/00 Ramscy County 1,498.34 Fuel Purchases-Jul\' T33 08/29/00 Roseville, Citv of 20.10 Vikinas Trip Lunch 134 08/29100 S & S Tree Specialists 516.53 Tree Removal-Tno-erson Park T35 08/29/00 Shorevie\-v, Citv of 132.29 2000 Summcr Trios 1'36 08/29/00 Stafford, Dwa'rnc , 2568 , Mileage Reimbursement I I . Total- unpaid Claims ~~. 39,027.37 I ,",J"'"'""",,,,p.y.bl.,,Io;",,1 . I , e . . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CLAIMS REPORT TO BE APPROVED AT 08/28/00 COUNCIL MEETING UNPAID CLAt~IS REGISTER: T37 T38 T39 140 T41 T42 T43 ':.;KnAT~. . 08/29/00 08/29100 08/29100 08/29100 08/29100 08/29100 08/29/00 Stowell, Sheila TC Field & Co Timesaver Ofl-Site Secretarial United Rentals US West Communications West V....eld Xerox Co oration SubLoLal, Page 3 of 3 ~ Pa e 2 of 3 Brouo-ht Forward - Total Unpaid Claims PAGE J OF 3 80.89 91.00 630.13 47.18 213.36 98.58 548.69 1,709.83 39,027.37 40,737.20 I Milea CIEx ense Reimbursement Add De osit For e Covera e Recordin Secret '-CC & PC #202 Roller Parts Phone Service-Public Works Sho Su lies Sc tember Co ier Lease ""dy""""u""p,yablo'ohim,J . 7 ~ ~' g, ;;' ~ g- o "- :;; F ~ " ~ [ ~ ~ , " ~ ~ . " i g- ~ ~ m ;! " ~ , [ 0 0 '" ~. ~ rP." ;! " 0 ~ , " -a E > . 0 f ~. . if ~ ~ ~ .. ~. ~ " ~ g, ~ ! ~ . " 0 . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u, .~ ~ ~ v, '0, ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v, ~ ~ ~ ~ v, '0 N '0 N N ~ N '0 N :0 - :::; - ~ - - . - ;0 0 0 0 0 X ~ ~ u, ~ w N - 0 X 7. ~ w ~ . - ~ 00 ~ ~ '* '* '* '* '* v, w w w w w w ,~ '<; N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 'C 'C 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q - - - :;: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 N N N - - - N 00. W N - W - "" -..> 00 ~ '* w N ~ '* N - 0 '" "" ~ W 0 OJ :e "" 2;: - :>0 if; if; '" :;: m :>0 :;: OJ if; '" 0 n r m ::r: m m 1; '" ~ F= 0' ~ " ~ ~ n 0 ~ '< 0 C "" '< ~ C n 0 " 0 X 0 "" C P "" '< ~ :;: 0 F " ~ 0 0 a 0 "" 0 ,,;- -" a 0 ~ po 7' <1 0. a ~ ~ i' cr- " ~ o 0 0 p " "0 ? 0 -~ 0 0 .j!. :;0 -" " ~ P- m ? " 9 OJ ;;. J" o-J ." .f. 0 a cr- " :;: ri<i 0. ::< 0 n " a -~ [!.. 0 o-J . ~'t, ~ ~ " ~ m ~ 0 ~ ~ ::< Fil ,,' 0 0 0. "" :;: ~ ~ 0 ~ [!.. " 0 m S!2 ~ -" ~ 8 :;: 0. ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ C 0 " ;;. g 5 0 '" 0 ~. M "" ,,' 8 ~ " ~ 0 0 .g :;: '" 0 "0 S ~ ~ !, " m p: '" Q~ 0 ~ ,,' 0 a '" ~ < z 0 "" ~ ~ " ~ 0 S" ~ 0 0 ~ "" "" 0' 0 p: j;iI:: '" ~ g ~ "" S" ~ ~ [!.. ~ [!.. :tii F :Vii" :N: :~ $I ~ ~ ow: ':Q'!; - - - - '0 - - - - .N - N - - ~ M M: '" .~ .~ 'w W '00 w g 0 .~ '" 'w 'w W 00 .~ ~ .~ '" 0 - .~ '0' l.:I.l ~ ,,,",",0 w w - ~ 00 N l5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ .~: .i;ij * 'u - oc N N 0 ~ ~ N N N 0 - ~ '0 0 N ~ ~ w ~ 0 '" Co ~ ~ 0 Co 0 c w ~ Co '" 00 ~ "' N 00 - 0 Co - N '" 0 ~ q;: ~ oc ~ 0 ~ 00 0 0 00 ~ N 0 0 ~ 00 0 ~ 0 00 ~ 0 0 N 0 8- .~. ~: := :~ ::~: B ~ - - - - ~ .f!l' :~ ,.,. ~ '" 00 N W 'N ~ ~ ~ '0 N w ~ '0 '" ~ w 00 -~: 00 c N ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ,.". " ~ v. 0 ~ 7 " 00 ~ ~ w 0 N N N w 0 ~ - ~ ~ ~ 'if .\i'l .itj. '" - N 0 "' '" ~ Co c., w 0; - N c., N 0 ;0 0 " N 0 "' "' ~ w ~ w ~ N X ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ '0 w ~ 0 - ~ N ~ N N 00 " 00 N ~ ~ N 00 00 00 00 00 00 ~ N 0 N N 00 00 N 00 )# c 0 0 0 @ ~ c " ~ " 0 .~ 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 ~ " ~ ~ 0 0 ~ 0 p 0 g 0 0 0 " " 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 " 8 '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - N 00 ;; ~. ~ 0 " " 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ w ~ ~ ;! ~ - 0 ~ 0 g: o' ] g e '" if '" - if ~ , ~ ~ ~ , if if N ~ ~ s. " " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;2 ~ ~ 5' ~ ~ ~ < ~ ~ ~ :a o' " " w w m ~ ~ " ~ " ~ ~ f- [ ~ 9 ~ ~ if " ~ i ~ " "' 0 '" ~ " " g 2 I 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ! ~ , ~ Ii' :;; ~ '" ,. ~ ~ ~ ~ (") :::j -< o ." :I> ;0 o m z :t ;= r 00 roOO _. m :: (") ~ 0 !!:Z :< 0 !::l:l> NC lOG') oC 000 S'-1 o"ll ~~ ~;o go r r OJ OJ Z r< 0 '" [ C >- :~::: OJ OJ OJ " 0 n '" ~ 8' m 81 '" '" '" J: " " 0 :~I:: >- >- >- > >- "" ~ >- m 2. t) m ,;a ~ " " ~ "' " :<: ~ o' " r< n " 0 0 0 0 ~ '" "- 0 ~ g ~ '" '" " 3 " ~ 0 s: 0. 9- 0 0 " ~ h(' 0 2' '" " ~ OJ " c !!' ~ n 3 ~ @ ." '" il g '" 0 C 0 ~ >- c' 0 0 ~F a ~ " ~ ~ il ~ C ~ :In:: " 0 0 ", N 0 Q ~ 0 0 OJ 0 0 .. I @ < m '" 0 ,,' " "' n 2- " " 8 C ~ > @ 0 .~ " 0 $: g: '--'- a 0 !1!! ,Z.,: C .~::: 0" ~ '" 2. 0 0 w w w J~ .w "..0 'L.., 'w ~: " ~ ~ 8: :0: 0 N 00 N ~ w ~ 0 v, ~ 0' ~ ~ 0 N ~ ~. 0, N ~ '" "' w N 0 V, c., 0 '" "' '" N 0 0 w 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 'w 0 m:: "C 3! ~ ill " '" '" .. 1 'ii, '" N ", ~ ~ 0 c; ill' 0 .::! 0 0 0 0 0 w 0 0 ill, ~ 0 0 0 0 0 "' 0 0 ~: " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., () ~ ~ v, ~ ~ v, ~ w w w 'W w w N ::j V, '" W N 0 ~ -< e ... ... ... '" ... ... ... 0 'D 'D 'D co co OX> '-' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "TI 0 0 '^ W '" S c. c. '-' :l> ;ll '" ::r: tJ n o:J '" tJ ffl' 0 ~ 0 o' " ~ '" m '" j 3 a i.l ;;:.. * f;l. z '" ~ "~ ~ ~: ~ ~~ v- i!- ~ 0: :I: to '" ? :.< '" ~. (3 0 C'. ~ '"d C;t r "" 5' ~ ~ ii' n' ~ ;~ r 0 ~. 0 ~ ;<! en '" o' ~ '" '" :~ n' ;~ h @ N ~ w :::I:iI: ..... W :;:: '" .0: .~ '" 00 w ~ '" .~ '" '" 0 '" '0 0 0 :~ ~ ~ 00 " 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 :~ m en m z ;,j' m N '" W ~ () ;,;.;;J "' ~ 0 0 ~: .. 0 w '" ~ w 0 .~ v, :f .. .~ :. .c ~ :;:: w '" ,.. Z N 00 A 00 '" .g;: 0 ~ N ~ ~ N ~ 0 :l> ~ ~ .... ~ N ~ C C c: ~ ~ g 6 g g N 0 0 !e G) 0 c: 0 en 8' -i v. v. ~ ~ ~ v. ;;' 0 "tI ! 5 ! 3 0 ~ :l> " 3 l ~ l -c ~ ~ ~ ~ -< ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ 0 ;:0 ~ ;;- 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ " .8 . ~ ~ r " 0 ,. ,. I' r 5. ii. ~ " 8 ! ! g C1 :t: m C1 " en o > .... m o o 00 - ~ 00 o o ;; .,,-:C III - co ;ll .. 'It "'~ 0- - '" i . e . ~ 0- '< ..c- o ~ ~ ~ '" ~ 8' '" ~ 0 0 ~ . .. . N . ~ S ~ 0- ,~ ~ ~ " " S .., "' . ~ .~ ~ 0 g, ? ...; 0 g ~ ~ ~. a it ~ 0 '" " . fr ...; ~ ~ ';"i ?, ~ . if ~ ~ . S' g; 0 ;{' ~ 0 ~ , ~ g ~ g, " ~ ..; ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ -, ~ -, -, ~ ~ ~ ~ -, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -" ~ ~ -, ~ ~ i: ~ i: ~ i: ~ i: i: ~ ~ ~ ~ 0"; ~ 0"; ~ 0"; " '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 B: 00 00 -, -, ~ ;j ~ ~ ~ ~ e: 0 :;; 0 0 ~ 00 0 ~ w ~ 0 ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ - 0 ~ 00 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ w w ~ w ~ o- W w ~ N N N ~ N N ~ ~ ,~ c c c c 0 I 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 is 0 C 0 0 0 0 is is 0 0 5 0 0 s 0 0 0 0 g 0 0 is 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 s 0 0 8 ~ 0 s ~ 0 8 ~ 0 ~ N ~ N '" g s ~ 0 0 w ~ 00 0 ~ N ~ N 0 ~ 00 ~ w ~ C ~ " "~ ?: s " 2 ;c-. ." " if " ?: i:' ~ ." " n ti ~ S' ~ ~ " ; r- '" i ~ i'iI" ~ . s 0 ?' ~ 0- S " ~ c;; ~ 0 ~ 0 2C J. n ,? ,~ Q ,~ 0 0 a 0 .~ , ~ if 0 '" ~ ~ ~ 3" ~ ~ ,[ ~ 0 if 0 " Jt 0 ~ ""=' ."- .. ~ 0 jl. ,0 i? ~ ..; .0 ;; ,I:'; 0 - .0 0 8 ?: ~ @ :j ~ , '" ~ c< 9' ~ ~ g ~ " J!- tJ ~ tJ , ~ g: tJ ;; g F tJ ~ ~ ~ 0 , ~ " tJ " 0 '" ~ " Q 0 .&-: '" m " c 0 ~ ?: ~ ~. [ g ~ ." tJ if 5: " ~. < " ~ ~ g ?: , " ~ . ~ "- if a; ~ & t @ 0 it ~ < " ~ " " g , -g. t a; 0 'l" . " ~ :ill;" " ili' m +:" w:: m ~. :f.i1: lJl: ifi ~.. -e. ;<;4: - - - N - - p - N - - - - ~ ~fJ:: ~ .~ 'w ~ '00 ~ 00 '0 0. .~ W 'w 'w '00 l! 0 w 'to '~ '0 .~ 'w ~ ~ ,~ w ~ '" N " ;;; " 0 0 ~ 0"; ;j ~ -, 2 N ~ W 0 ~ ;j 00 ~ 0 0 e: 0 e: :ci'::: lli' :w.: 0 0 0 0 ~ N 0 N ~ N 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 " w 0 ~ ~ 'w <0 0 :;: w 00 '" '" 00 00 '" 0 - <0 W " ~ ~. 0 ~ <0 0 0 <0 <0 $: :;r.:o;;:: ~ ::;0.::: 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 ~ 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 00 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 I~ - - - - - '" :tl:: :~: ;; 0 ~ .~ ~ 'N '-" " ~ ~ ~ t;: w '0 '~ ~ oj 00 N ~ ~ '" :8 0 ~ '^ ~ " " ~ '" u, ~ ~ 0 8 ~ N ~ 0 ~ :: :: ;; ~ :~~/ :~:: 0 ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ w - 00 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 '" w '0 ~ " ;; w " 00 0 ;; os ~ b. '" " .. v, v, Co ~ 0 '" .. ~ 0 c; ~ i:: ~:: ::\!? W -, ~ ~ ~ ~ N W 0 00 ~ w ~ 0 c_ ~ 0 w 0 N 00 00 00 N ~ 00 ~ 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 00 ~ 00 - - - - - " 0 0 0 " ~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 w ~ " " 0 0 " 0 3: ?: 3: ?: 3: [f 0 0 <0 " <0 0 0 g <0 <0 0 <0 <0 <0 ~ " " <0 " <0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 w ~ 0 <0 0 0 0 0 :;; - d' ;;J ;;' ~ ~ 'W 00 ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ - " > w g ~ ~ [ [ [ [ "' ~ 0 ;} g g g' il' ~ [ " :r ~ [ , g 0 n (") ~ ;:: ." ." ~ < i < ~ ~ < ~ ..; ...; '" ;:: ~ 0 0 ~ g ~ , s ~ . 0 z ~ ~ '" n " 0 Vi c: co Vi @ g, " " " g :;; ~ g ~ " o. ~ :;; p " ~. '" :;.:.J: 3 < Q Q go ~ ~ go ~ 00 B , " " ~ 0 g w " ~ " , (") ~ (") ~ ~ ...; ~ - '" i:' . " < ~ 0 , C'l ~ -< o " )> ;c o m z ;;: ,... ,... U> -" Ol_ -. ;c ~ U> ro -I 15:)> ~c oGl ~c: ",U> 0-1 0-0 c,)> ....-< ~::o 00 s~ " ;; 0 0 B: "; ~ ~ if c- o ." ~ " ~ ~ () () () a ~ '" 0 ~ I :!: " " " " '" " ~ too 0 tJ rn ..; :Z" ~ 0 " 0 ;; n ~ 0 () ~ '" e: ~ ~ ~ ~ ." i " ~ ~ tJ ~ en fj' 2-. f v.; ~ ~ , (;li > 0 :s' :0::'.: 0 ~ " "" > i: 0 s j C i?' ~J -< ,~ .. 0 ~ 0 11 rn i: ;ft o' 0 () "'" i ;ft " 0 "" ~. '" 0 c .. "~ " N 0 ~ ,~ .~ :>;, 0 ~ o~ 00 .~ :;; '" '~ 0. :;; ~. 00 ;;: ':: 0; ,~ ~ ;;: t;: 0 ~: 00 00 0 ,~ ~ 0 .. N 0 <0 V, " g '" 0 v, .. ~ ~ w ~ 0 0 0 ~ N ~ 0 n: " ~: ;u ~ N ~: "l: '~ '" o~ ",. ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 ;;: 0 0 ~: 0 0 03 <0 0 '" <0 <0 ~. 0 0 0 0 ,~ 0 0 ;j:: . \ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ -, () ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ :5: ~ ~ ~ :s .a' N 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 g, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "T1 co co co .~ co co 00 00 00 00 ~ '" "9' c 2 c c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > .c ::; C c 0 0 2 .~ C' N 2 ::: ~ '" A ~ ;lJ 0 N 0 ~ :t Q " () OJ '" :;1 Q iO::I m g ~. r ~ c ". g Q "'.. z " ! fr 0 00 " " ." " 5 " " "'ii. :I: " 11 9 ," p }1 ,Q ? p" >""; " OJ W ~ " r= cr' " r- S. () :;: t;' 3: ~.. r- ~ !i ~ 5 !i '" cr' ~ P " " ~ #{ C/l fr ~ 0 ~ , . " " 0 0; ~.. ~ ~ " ~ (i" n ,. E- S '" " j(' o' " S- ~: i1i' tr ~ w " w w N ~ ~ ~ ~ '" ~ ~ ~,. c ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ti..i ~ ~ ~ C N 0 C 0 0 "-l:. " 0 w " 0 '" :;: ~ " 0 " " ~ ~. "$(1 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ OJ :!J ~ :;2;: ~. ;lJ or,:.;.: N w ;; N N ;; "' ~ OJ OJ ~ w i;,'.r: C/l "* ~ w :s ~ ~ il) :0: ~ ro -I :~ ,~ .~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ H' "' 0 >- .~ ~ '" 0 ;: ~ ~ 8: Co '" > :~ ~ ::; c 0 w 0 N N ~ 0 -:< c ~ > " ~ w ~ ~ '" G) ^ < . 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ::! c N <0 0 0 N ~ 0 " " " " ~ C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 !!' C/l '" -I '" -c S > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ " ~ " " ~ '" -< l l l l c 0 ~ l ~ ~ l ... ;lJ I > ~ ! ! E ! ! ff ! ;;:; 0 . " ~ " " '" . . . ~ . ~ " I ~ ~ ~ . 2; r- ( ~ ~ ~ ,f . '" f ~ " ~ ., .8 r- [ [ , 1 I I l ~. ~. ~ ] ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ l (') :I: m (') '" (J) ~ -i m " <:> '" 2; ~ '" '" "tJ"ii Jl ;u ro .. "'~ o~ - '" e . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: August 24, 2000 FROM: Joe Lynch, City Administrator TO: Mayor and City Council SUBJECT: 2000 Bnsiness License Renewals Requested Action The City Council is asked to consider the approval of 2000 Business License renewals. Back!!round Attached is a list of businesses that, to date, have completed the license renewal process for 2000. Staff is in the process of sending remindcr letters to those businesses that have not responded. . Recommendation Staff would recommend City Council approval of the 2000 Business Licenses identified on the attachcd sheets. JUseh . e . . City of Arden Hills 4364 W. Round Lake Road Arden Hills, MN 55112-5794 Phone: 651-633-5676 Business License Summary For: 8/10/2000 through 8/24/2000 Printed:8/24/00 Page1 of 9 License Type: Business Contact: Sewall Bros. Local License: L1C2000-22 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees:$20.00 Total Receipts: $20.00 Issued: 8/24/00 Issued By: Susan Contact Phone: 651 /633-9222 Comments: Business 10 State License: Issued: Expiration: License Type: Business Contact: Blue Fox Local License: L1C2000-31 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees: $555.00 Total Receipts: $555.00 Issued: 8/1 0/00 Issued By: Contact Phone:651/483-6000 Comments: Business 10: State License: Issued: Expiration: License Type: Business Issued: 8/1 0/00 Issued By: Contact: Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, Contact Phone:651/49-2666 Local License: L1C2000-32 Comments: Business 10: Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees: $60.00 Total Receipts: $60.00 State License: Issued: Expiration: License Type: Business Contact: MSllnsurance Local License: L1C2000-33 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees:$340.00 Total Receipts: $340.00 Issued: 8/1 0/00 Issued By: Contact Phone:651/631-7000 Comments: Business 10: State License: Issued: Expiration: Business License Summary For: 8/10/2000 through 8/24/2000 Printed :8/24/00 Page2 of 9 -- License Type: Issued: 8/10/00 Issued By: Contact: Adecco Employment Services, Contact Phone:651/483-1627 Local License: LlC2000-34 Comments: Business 1041-1786549 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees:$.OO Total Receipts: $.00 State License: Issued: Expiration: License Type: Business Issued: 8/21/00 Issued By: Susan Contact:Allina Medical Transportation Contact Phone:651/222-3728 Local License: LlC2000-35 Comments: Previously Healthspan Business 10 30078 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees: $20.00 Total Receipts: $20.00 State License: Issued: Expiration: License Type: Business Issued: 8/21/00 Issued By: Susan Contact: Equity Commercial Services Contact Phone:651/481-8070 . Local License: LlC2000-36 Comments: Previously Madison Marquette Realty Services, Expiration: 12/31/00 State Li~~~se: Total Fees: $20.00 Issued: Total Receipts: $20.00 Expiration: License Type: Business Contact: First Student Inc. Local License: LlC2000-37 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees: $20.00 Total Receipts: $20.00 Issued: 8/21/00 Issued By: Susan Contact Phone: Comments: Business 10 650005982 State License: Issued: Expiration: . . . . Business License Summary For: 8/10/2000 through 8/24/2000 Printed:8/24/00 Page3 of 9 License Type: Business Issued: 8/11/00 Issued By: Susan Contact: INX International Ink Company Contact Phone: 612/483-2300 Local License: L1C2000-38 Comments: Business 10 # 6478082 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees: $20.00 Total Receipts: $20.00 State License: Issued: Expiration: License Type: Business Issued: 8/21/00 Issued By: Supervisor Contact: National Surface Cleaning Inc. Contact Phone:651/636-6829 Local License: L1C2000-39 Comments: Business 10 04-2936185 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees: $20.00 Total Receipts: $20.00 State License: Issued: Expiration: License Type: Business Contact: Sl. Katherine's Ukranian Local License: L1C2000-40 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees: $20.00 Total Receipts: $20.00 Issued: 8/21/00 Issued By: Susan Contact Phone: 651/636-0206 Comments: State License: Issued: Expiration: License Type: Business Issued: 8/21/00 Issued By: Susan Contact: FailWay Outdoor Advertising Contact Phone: 612/735-8717 Local License: L1C2000-41 Comments: Business 10 #58-1093347 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees: $40.00 Total Receipts: $40.00 State License: Issued: Expiration: License Type: Business Contact: Kennedy Transmission Local License: L1C2000-42 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees: $40.00 Total Receipts: $40.00 Issued: 8/21/00 Issued By: Susan Contact Phone:651/482-9233 Comments: Business 10 #41-1648189 State License: Issued: Expiration: Business License Summary For: 8/10/2000 through 8/24/2000 Printed:8/24/00 Page4 of 9 -- License Type: Business Contact: Resistance Technoiogy Local License: LiC2000-43 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees:$40.00 Total Receipts: $40.00 Issued: 8/21/00 Issued By: Supervisor Contact Phone:651/636-9770 Comments: Business 1041-1305251 State License: Issued: Expiration: License Type: Business Contact: St. Paul Metalcraft Local License: LiC2000-44 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees: $4000 Total Receipts: $40.00 Issued: 8/21/00 Issued By: Pam Contact Phone: 651/483-6641 Comments: Business 10 0587279-0-00 State License: Issued: Expiration: License Type: Business Contact: Land O'Lakes Local License: LiC2000-45 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees:$70.00 Total Receipts: $70.00 Issued: 8/22/00 Issued By: Susan Contact Phone:651/481-2927 Comments: Business 10 8801629 . State License: Issued: Expiration: License Type: Business Contact: Land O'Lakes Local License: LiC2000-46 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees: $200.00 Total Receipts: $200.00 Issued: 8/22/00 Issued By: Supervisor Contact Phone: Comments: Business 10 8801629 State License: Issued: Expiration: License Type: Business Contact: Alliant Techsystems, Inc. Local License: LiC2000-47 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees: $80.00 Total Receipts: $80.00 Issued: 8/22/00 Issued By: Susan Contact Phone:651/931-5315 Comments: Business 10 1031564 State License: Issued: Expiration: . e e e Business License Summary For: 8/10/2000 through 8/24/2000 Printed:8/24/00 Page5 of 9 License Type: Business Contact: Office Machines Sales & Local License: L1C2000-48 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees: $70.00 Total Receipts: $70.00 Issued: 8/22/00 Issued By: Susan Contact Phone:651/464-1194 Comments: Business ID - MN-2594589 State License: Issued: Expiration: License Type: Business Contact: Sims Deltec Local License: L1C2000-49 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees: $40.00 Total Receipts: $40.00 Issued: 8/22/00 Issued By: Susan Contact Phone:651/633-2556 Comments: State License: Issued: Expiration: License Type: Business Contact: United Properties Local License: L1C2000-50 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees: $40.00 Total Receipts: $40.00 Issued: 8/22/00 Issued By: Contact Phone: 6121359-3030 Comments: Business ID - 41-1655940 State License: Issued: Expiration: License Type: Business Contact: International Paper Co. Local License: L1C2000-51 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees: $49.00 Total Receipts: $49.00 Issued: 8/22/00 Issued By: Contact Phone:651/636-3300 Comments: Business 10 0077398265-7 State License: Issued: Expiration: License Type: Business Contact: Edward D. Jones & Co. Local License: L1C2000-52 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees: $50.00 Total Receipts: $50.00 Issued: 8/15/00 Issued By: Contact Phone:651/483-0859 Comments: State License: Issued: Expiration: Business License Summary For: 8/10/2000 through 8/24/2000 Printed:8/24/00 Page6 of 9 e- License Type: Business Contact: Northwestern College Local License: L1C2000-53 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees: $50.00 Total Receipts: $50.00 Issued: 8/11/00 Issued By: Contact Phone:651/631-5100 Comments: Business 10: 41-0711610 State License: Issued: Expiration: License Type: Business Contact: Catholic Aid Association Local License: L1C2000-54 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees: $60.00 Total Receipts: $60.00 Issued: 8/11/00 Issued By: Contact Phone:651/490-0170 Comments: Business 10 41-0182070 State License: Issued: Expiration: License Type: Business Contact: China Wok Restaurant Local License: L1C2000-55 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees: $60.00 Total Receipts: $60.00 Issued: 8/14/00 Issued By: Contact Phone:651/482-0442 Comments: Business 10 0021093464 It State License: Issued: Expiration: License Type: Business Contact: Clean N' Press Local License: L1C2000-56 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees: $70.00 Total Receipts: $70.00 Issued: 8/15/00 Issued By: Contact Phone:651/481-1711 Comments: Business 10 (MN-2015143) (FED 41-1590150) State License: Issued: Expiration: License Type: Business Issued: 8/22/00 Issued By: Contact: Frattallone's Ace Hardware Contact Phone:651/484-3327 Local License: L1C2000-57 Comments: Business 10 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees: $70.00 Total Receipts: $70.00 State License: Issued: Expiration: e . Business License Summary For: 8/10/2000 through 8/24/2000 Printed:8/24/00 Page7 of 9 License Type: Business Contact: Sun Place Tanning Studio Local License: L1C2000-58 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees: $70.00 Total Receipts: $70.00 Issued: 8/22/00 Issued By: Contact Phone: 651 /482-0395 Comments: Business 10 41-1681489 State License: Issued: Expiration: License Type: Business Contact: Northwestern College Local License: L1C2000-59 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees: $80.00 Total Receipts: $80.00 Issued: 8/16/00 Issued By: Contact Phone:651/631-51 00 Comments: Business 10 State License: Issued: Expiration: . License Type: Business Contact: Natale's Cafe. Inc. Local License: L1C2000-60 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees:$110.00 Total Receipts: $110.00 Issued: 8/22/00 Issued By: Contact Phone:651/486-7770 Comments: Business 10 41-1867869 State License: Issued: Expiration: License Type: Business Contact: Line Orive Sports Local License: L1C2000-61 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees:$17000 Total Receipts: $170.00 Issued: 8/18/00 Issued By: Contact Phone: 651/490-7898 Comments: Business 10 (MN 1964111/FED 41-1731035) State License: Issued: Expiration: . License Type: Business Contact: Big Ten Supper Club, Inc. Local License: L1C2000-62 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees: $380.00 Total Receipts: $380.00 Issued: 8/15/00 Issued By: Contact Phone:651/633-7253 Comments: Business 1041-0830574 State License: Issued: Expiration: . Business License Summary For: 8/10/2000 through 8/24/2000 Printed:8/24/00 Page8 of 9 License Type: Business Contact: Presbyterian Homes Local License: L1C2000-63 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees: $1 ,082.00 Total Receipts: $1,082.00 Issued: 8/23/00 Issued By: Contact Phone: Comments: Business 10 - 41-1482075 State License: Issued: Expiration: License Type: Contact: Measuretech Local License: L1C2000-64 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees: $20.00 Total Receipts: $20.00 Issued: 8/23/00 Issued By: Contact Phone:651/633-7651 Comments: Business 10 - 41-1567386 State License: Issued: Expiration: License Type: Business Contact: Arden Hills Texaco Local License: L1C2000-65 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees: $51 0.00 Total Receipts: $510.00 Issued: 8/21/00 Issued By: Contact Phone: 651/536-9577 Comments: Business 1041-1518980 . State License: Issued: Expiration: License Type: Business Contact: Firstar Bank of Minnesota, Local License: L1C2000-66 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees: $60.00 Total Receipts: $60.00 Issued: 8/10/00 Issued By: Contact Phone: Comments: State License: Issued: Expiration: License Type: Business Contact: Flaherty's Arden Bowl Local License: L1C2000-67 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees: $945.00 Total Receipts: $945.00 Issued: 8/21/00 Issued By: Contact Phone:651/633-1777 Comments: Business 1041-6028894 State License: Issued: Expiration: . . . . Business License Summary For: 8/10/2000 through 8/24/2000 Printed:8/24/00 Page9 of 9 License Type: Business Contact: Star Liquor Local License: L1C2000-68 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees: $270.00 Total Receipts: $270.00 Issued: 8/15/00 Issued By: Contact Phone: 763/566-4040 Comments: Business 10 41-0979082 State License: Issued: Expiration: License Type: Business Contact: Great Clips Local License: L1C2000-69 Expiration: 12/31/00 Total Fees: $70.00 Total Receipts: $70.00 Issued: 8/24/00 Issued By: Contact Phone: 651/482-8397 Comments: Business ID State License: Issued: Expiration: . . . STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY CITY OF ARDEN HILLS RESOLUTION 00-26 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING RAMSEY COUNTY TO RESTRICT PARKING ALONG A PORTION OF COUNTY ROAD I WHEREAS, the County has planned the improvcment of County Road I from I-35W to Schutta Road; and WHEREAS, the County will be expending County Statc Aid Highway Funds (SAP. 62-603- 03) on the improvement of said strect; and WHEREAS, the improvcment does not conform to the approved minimum standards as previously adopted for such County State Aid Streets and that approval ofthe proposcd construction as a County State Aid Street project must, therefore be conditioned upon ccrtain parking restrictions; and WHEREAS, the cxtent ofthese restrictions, that would be necessary prerequisite to the approval of this construction as a County State Aid project in the City, has been determined. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED that the City Council of the City of Arden Hills rcquests Ramsey County to restrict parking of motor vehicles on the south side of County Road I from 1-3 5W to Schutta Road. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS 28th DAY OF AUGUST, 2000. DENNIS PROBST, MAYOR ATTEST: JOSEPH P. LYNCH, CITY ADMINISTRATOR ~ . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: August 24, 2000 SUBJECT: Joe Lynch, City Administrator Dw'Y" S"""n!, P,'b, W,d" Di='" .'9) County Road E Street Light Poles TO: FROM: Background At the August 21,2000, City Council Work Session, the Council was provided evidence ofthe deterioration of the 17 street light poles on County Road E. These poles are between Lexington Avenue and Highway 51 and are owned and maintained by the City. . Council Direction The City Council instructed staff to seek costs for reinforcing the bottom of those poles and have the Opcrations and Finance Committee research other design options for replacing the existing streetlights on County Road E in the near future. The Operations and Finance Committee should provide a list of 2 or 3 design options and present this list to the Planning Commission. Both committees will discuss the options jointly and provide a recommendation to Council. This process would need to begin immediately to insure the new streetlights will be installed in time for the City's 50-Year celebration. Existing Street Li~ht Reinforcemcnt Costs The Public Works Director has contacted Boe Ornamental Iron Inc. ofLino Lakes to inspect the cxisting street lights and prcpare an estimate for reinforcing 16 of the 17 street light poles on County Road E. The 17th pole, which had broken off previously, will bc replaced by one that was removed years before during signalization ofthe intersection by McDonalds. Thc attached estimate indicates a cost of $31 04. 00 for the reinforcing. Recommendation The Public Works Director has worked with Boe Ornamental previously with excellent results and recommends that Council authorize staff to enter into an agreement with Boe Ornamental Iron, Inc. to reinforce 16 City streetlight poles at a cost not to exceed $3,104.00. . FROM BOE ORNAMENTAL INC. PHONE NO. 612 780 8274 Awg. 23 2000 06:38PM P1 e BOE ORNAMENTAL IRON, INC. 484 Lilac Street LIND LAKES, MN 55014 JOB ESTIMATl (651) 780-2627 FAX (651) 780-8274 Tcf" ~-{ C2F"_~----t\11 IS /lr-r-r",J ~ fZJA ~h''::::_ .4..... ~ ,",~IOJ'\JI~ 1L)~!i ~ ---7-> -~ 1?""L~ f2.:=--=-- (f?_ JO(~ N~I:./LO(;"'fIO/U L ~ 6:~-r JOB DESCRIPTION: >=~~~~=~~a::~-!:~-~?~~~~~t~,_-~~=:._:.. .._.~.............Jd.laH:.r-:".""'.""."".".~m......-,...~.L~....._..J.k'_..I..A.C-_..__..._..........._..........._....__....................._..._ ..-.,._._~_.,..._-_._._-,----_...,-_.,-_.._._._._--_.-.-.....--.---..--..--__._._.._..._..H.....H.___.__-'____--.--.--.-----..-..........'...H...__.._.._.H..........._..._._..__........._.._._. .,......."....".,._,-...._._-"....~_......'.- H'_'''''--H"...''h_",'''''.."".._H' ... ............,... ,,,.,. "",,,"''''''0... ..--............."."".-"'......_",......_....., ........--...............w'......H...._...__...H..........H._....__._.'''''--''_'_'''''''''_'''''_'M''''_m_ ... -..............--..-..-..--..-.-..--.--.-----..---,.......- C."_.c:d....I?:f!::~~i?_.........................:&.>.o .............-:::t.~..J.2.e.............w.B~ .....<2If...r'- ...K..s.......,,_._~. e ........_~".,,,m,~"WU,,".mu~,~~,,_,..~....n..':".-.._.-_- ......"...._._.'.._n..~........_.....v,"~..,."'~..""......."..,,.~...,_~,.."."".."".,."'.."....."".".,...,,,. .... ".....m.'.~....-.....n....m.~.'.'.....""......,.....'~"..~.H'~~........___ :> ""........",.".,...."....",............""".'.,,'.....N."..'. "................._......,..._.. ..... ...-..---.-....-..--...-.-.....,.......-.-..-.--..-.___......_"..__....._ ....... n...... ...__ .....".....__._m___....__......_...._.........__m._..._...._.__._ 41,s E:STlMATE IS FOR COMPLETING THE JOB AS DeSCRIBED ABOVE IT IS SAsEDON.QUR EVALUATION AND OOE:S NOT INCLUDE MATEI11AL PRICE INCREASES OR ADDITIONAL LABOR AND MATERIALS WHICH MAY. BE REQUIRED SHOULD UNFORESEEN PROBLEMS OR ADVERSE WEATHE:RCONDITIONS ARISE AFTER THE: WORK HAS STARTED. E:STIMATED. ...tP s 10+ "dO JOBC0$T ~ - fi _ :~TIMATED ~~ _ j yz;.~ Planning Case #00-17 c United Properties, PUD Amendment 1887 and 1987 Gateway Blvd. ...", _,.::..~:__---:.,~.=~._:..-..o:.., --~_..._..._--_...._~ ---'-- \) ~ ---- Q 1000 , o 1000 2000 Feet , 00 e CITY OF ARDEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: Augnst 14, 2000 TO: Mayor and City Conncil FROM: Jennifer Chapnt, City Planner~ . SUBJECT: Case #00-17c, Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment United Properties, 1987 and 1887 Gateway Blvd ReQnest The applicant is requesting to amend the POO for the above listed properties to request administrative approval on the following items: increasing the percentage of the allowable office build-out square footage for each property; and relocation and replacement or striping of additional parking spaces. e Backl!round As of July 1, 2000, the management company for the abovc listed properties changed to United Properties from Welsh Companies. The Plamling Commission tabled Planning Case #00-17c at the July 5, 2000 Plamling Commission meeting due to the changc in management and lack of representation. Since that time, the sixty day time limit was waived by the previous applicant and the current management company was contactcd and expressed his desire to continue with the application. On Scptember 22, 1997, the City Council approved Planning Case #97 -06, POO Master Plan and Final Plan (including variances), prcliminary and final plat, and street vacation for the construction ofthrcc office/industrial buildings, addressed 1787, 1887 and 1987 Gateway Blvd. Included for background information are as follows: Staff review and recommendation of the application to the Plarming Commission, datcd July 2, 1997 (Exhibit A) and rclevant attachments (Exhibit B); thc Plarming Commission's rccommendation to the City Council, dated July 14, 1997 (Exhibit C); final City Council action on the application (Exhibit D). The Planning Commission heard this request at the April 5, 2000, Planning Commission meeting as Planning Case #00-17. At that timc, the requcst was tabled pcnding further information from the applicant. The Planning Commission rcviewed this request a second timc as Plarming Case #00-17b at the Junc 7 meeting. A rccommendation was made on all but two items, pending further information from staffregarding the development agreement. The remaining two items becamc Plarming Case #00-17c. . The following is a list of past plarming cases that have been heard for the threc Gateway Blvd. properties: Plannin Case 99-23 99-21 99-20 00-17a 00-17b (A) Approved (D) Denied Re uest Additional Parkin Trash Com actor Si Modification. Catalytic oxidizer, solvcnt storage tanks, dock door enlar ement Administrative approval for: enlarging dock doors; installing drive-in ramps/platforms; installina windows CC Action A A A A . A Review Two requests were caJried over from the previous planning casc (PC #00-17b) for administrative revicw considcration at 1987 and 1887 Gateway Blvd.: 1. Increasing the percentage of allowable office build-out square footage per property The original PUD, approved in Planning Casc #97-06 (see Exhibit E for site plan), specified parking requircmcnts for the three buildings on Gateway Blvd. that were proposed by Welsh Companies. Since it was unknown who the tenants would be of these buildings at tbat time, a presumption was made on the ratio of office to warehouse within thc buildings. The PUD was approved with the requiremcnt that each of the three . buildings have 20% office space aJld 80% warehouse space. In Section VI (F) #1 (j) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires office users to provide one parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area and industrial users to providc one parking space for each 1,000 square feet of gross industrial space provided. The following is the anlOunt of parking that was required for each propcrty at the time the PUD was approved: 1987 Gatewa Blvd.: Plannin Case #97-06 Use Square Feet Parking Ratio Parking Re uired 84 s aces 84 s aces Total 104,532 s . ft. 168 s *The required parking was reduced through thc approval process. 1887 Gatewav Blvd.: Plannin Case #97-06 Square Feet Parking Ratio Parking Re uired 91 s aces 91 s accs 182 s aces Use 2 Parking Provided 164* s aces Parking Provided 189 s aces . . Planning Casc #99-23 (Exhibit F) amended the parking requircments for thc propcrty at 1987 Gateway Blvd. from the original PUD to allow for a greater percentage of office to warehouse. Use Case #99-23 Parking Required 143 s aces 69 s aces 212 s aces Parking Provided 214 s aces As a result ofreviewing the original PUD, it appears that each of the buildings were set up with thc proper amount of parking for 20% office and 80% warehouse. If the office component was to expand within one building, the amount of parking would need to expand ,md there just is not sufficient room on site to accommodate this. In my opinion, this would require further review by the planning commission and could not be approved administratively due to the site constraints. Also, Section VI (F) #1 (f) states that proof of parking may be shown ifthe number of parking spaces (by the ordinance) are not required by the use, requiring approval from the Planning Commission and the City Council. . Although these buildings were all devcloped together, parking requirements for each building are calculated separately. Each building is only pcrmitted to have 20% office and 80% warehouse, with the exception ofthe property at 1987 Gatcway Blvd which is permitted 34% officc and 66% warehouse by a variance granted following the construction of the buildings. Staff does not recommend that changes to the allowable officc build-out square footage be made administratively. 2. Relocation and replacement or striping of additional parking spaces Relocating parking on a site to accommodate minor changes should be attainable at an administrative leyeJ. Staff can review relocation and parking space striping to ensure that it mcets the zoning and building code. Ifthe requcst does not meet the minimum requircments of the codes (ex. Landscape requirements) as a result of the request thcn the applicant would need to go before the Planning Commission. Staff would recommend that the relocation and replacement or striping of additional parking spaces for these propcrties be permitted administratively. . Deadline for A!!cncv Actions The City of Arden Hills received a complete application for this request (PC#00-17) on March 9, 2000. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by May 8, 2000 (60 days), unless the City providcs the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review pcriod. A letter was sent to the applicant, extending thc review period and additional sixty days to July 7, 2000. A letter was also scnt to the City waiving the sixty-day time limit on this application on July 7, 2000. 3 Lastly, ifthe City denies the petitioncrs' request, "... it must state in writing, the reasons for denial at the lime that it dcnies the request" . Options 1. Recommend approval as submitted. 2. Recommend approval with conditions. 3. Recommend denial with reasons for denial. 4. Table for additional information. Updates None at this time. Recommendation For Planning Case #00-17c, Planncd Unit Developmcnt Amendment for the propcrties at 1987 and 1887 Gateway Blvd., the Planning Commission recommends that: 1. Administrative approval to changes in the allowable office build-out square footage for thc propcrty at 1887 Gateway Blvd. is permitted for up to 25% office and 75% warehousc on the condition that if staff docs not feel comfortable with the requcst for any reason, the applicant must go before the Planning Commission. 2. The property located at 1987 Gateway Blvd. was grantcd a variance in Planning Case #99-23 to allow 34% office and 66% warehouse with no changes being madc to this variance as a result of this planning case. 3. Administrativc approval of rclocation and replacement or striping of additional . parking spaces for the propertics at 1887 and 1987 Gateway Blvd. is permitted on thc condition that if thc staff does not feel comfortable with the request for any reason, the applicant must go before the Planning Commission. . 4 . -- -- ~oo~ l-:t Ci Brftlt>l1 A ~ ' JO CITY OF ARDEN IDLLS MEMORANDUM DATE: July 2, 1997 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kevin Ringwald, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Case #97-06, PUD Master and Final Plans (including variances), Preliminary and Final Plats, and Street Vacation Welsh Companies, 4000 Round Lake Road Request The applicant is requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Plan and Final Plan (including variances), preliminary and fmal plat, and a street vacation to facilitate the construction of a three phase office/industrial project consisting of a 104,532 square foot building (phase II), 113,524 square foot building (phase III), and a 111,972 square foot building (phase IV) on a 31.76 acre site zoned Gateway Business (Exhibit A). Background The Gateway Business (GB) zoning district was adopted in 1988, after a lengthy study by the Planning Commission. The Planning Study For NE I-694/I-35W was the basis for the zoning district which was adopted. The property within the OB district was viewed upon at that time as being the last major undeveloped parcel in the City and its most visible. Consequently, it represented an opportunity to maximize the return of the City's invested assets and enhance the image of the City as a fme place to live and work. The Zoning Ordinance in Section V, D, 9, states that the purpose of the Gateway Business zoning district is as follows: a. To implement that part of Arden Hills Comprehensive Development Plan known as the 1- 694/I-35W Plan; To promote high quality, unified, large scale development in a manner similar to a planned unit development; To take full advantage of the site's location as documented and described in the I-694/I- 35W Plan; To allow only development that will create an attractive environment and a positive image for this site which is one of the most visible in the community and represents the City's last major development site; To protect the site's environmental resources; To promote flexibility in land uses and development standards to achieve the objectives of the I-694/I-35W Plan; and To allow development that will insure reasonable traffic operation on the internal and surrounding transportation systems. b. c. d. e. f. g. e e - ?-f1O Surroundinl! Area , Direction Land Use Plan Zoning Current Use North Industrial GB Phase I Arden Hills Interstate Center (planning Case 96-12) East Industrial GB Vaughn Towers property South Industrial GB A TS Steel and Vacant (across railroad spur) West Interstate 35- W (across Round Lake Road) . Site Data Land Use Plan: Industrial Zoning: Gateway Business (GB) Current Use: Vacant Size: 31.76 acres Topography: 42 feet, Northeast (932) to Southwest (890) respectively Soils: Hayden Kingsley Complex, well drained and moderately permeable, 3-15% slopes; and Hayden fine sandy loam, well drained and moderately permeable, 6-12% slopes Vegetation: Wooded, mature hardwood adjacent to Round Lake, pioneer species on remainder Floodplain: Northeast corner adjacent to Round Lake (elevation of 893) according to FEMA Wetland: Eight (8) isolated basins, per Wetland delineation (Exhibit B) Shoreland: Round Lake (DNR 62-70), Recreational Development Truck Access: Interstate 35W, Interstate 694, and U.S. Highway 10, via Highway 96 . PUD - Master & Final Plan 1. Access. The Phase II building has four points of access. Two access points (one parking and one delivery) are provided by the cul-de-sac, while other two access points are provided via the relocated 14th Street (both parking). The Phase III building has two points of access. The two points of access (one parking and one delivery) are both located off of the relocated 14th Street. The Phase IV building has two points of access. The two points of access (one parking and one delivery) are both located off of the relocated 14th Street 2. Circulation. The PUD does a good job of separating the delivery circulation requirements from the employee and visitor parking circulation areas on all phases of the project. . . . . '() / 1G 3. 14th Street (relocated). As a part of the development of the GBD, it has been anticipated that 14th Street (aka, Butcher's Street) would be relocated to the south to provide access and act as a land use transition between the office/industrial uses to its north and the office uses to it south. Given, that rail users were not anticipated within the GBD, the City was hopeful that the existing right-of-way for the railroad spur could be used for this purpose. However, the owner of the railroad spur (MT Properties) is not currently willing to sell the right-of-way. Therefore, the relocated road is being planned to be located to the north of the railroad right-of-way. 4. Vacation of 14th Street. If 14th Street is relocated to the south edge of this project, then that portion of the existing 14th Street which is not required for this development should be vacated. 14th Street is currently is a dirt trail which currently services (Exhibit C) the Phase I building, the Pentair property (purchased by Welsh Companies), the Naegele property (being purchase by the City), the Harstad property (purchase agreement by Welsh Companies, closing mid-July), the City of Arden Hills property (closing end of July), the Truhler/Zafke parcel (Welsh Companies, closing mid-July), and the Vaughn Towers property (not part ofthis development proposal). Given, that the intent of this proposal is for Welsh Companies to purchase all of these properties, except for the Vaughn Towers property, the relocated 14th Street will work. However, the access for the Vaughn Towers property will have to replicated off of the east end of the relocated 14th Street to ensure that access to this property is maintained. The applicant is not proposing to vacate all of the existing 14th Street right-of-way, some of the right-of-way will be retained for a short cul-de-sac (Gateway Court) which will service the delivery needs of the Phase I and Phase II buildings. The cul-de-sac does not provide for boulevard or setback area for the delivery area on Phase II. The lack of this area does cause Staff concern for snowplowing and general maintenance. It is likely that the Staff and the developer could come to verbal agreement on the treatment and responsibilities for these areas. However, the Staff is concerned about the interpretation of these verbal agreements over time with either new Staff or new owners. The applicant is currently working on language to be included as a covenant on the property which may solve these issues. The applicant stated that the language for inclusion into this document will be available for review before or at the meeting. 5. Road names. The Staff would prefer that the new roads located within this development not be called either 14th Street nor Butcher's Street. If the Planning Commission has any preferences or guidance in this area, then the Staff would appreciate receiving it. Otherwise, the Staff will direct the applicant to propose a street names (relocated 14th Street) prior to City Council consideration of the final plat. 6. Parking. The Zoning Ordinance in Section VI, F, I, j, requires office users to provide one parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area and industrial users to provide one parking space for each 1,000 square feet of gross industrial space provided. The following summarizes the relationship of the required parking spaces to those that are provided: e e e '1/ ?-f. Iq~ /_~.. ,/,\,j ~\..l/P Phase II Building (104,532 Square Feet) Use Square Feet Parking Ratio Parking Required Parking Provided Office 20,906 sq.ft. . I p.s. per 250 sq.ft. 84 p.s. 168 p.s. Industrial 83,626 sq.ft. 1 p.s. per 1000 sq.ft. 84 p.s. Total 104,532 sq.ft. NA 168 p.s. 168 p.s. . Phase III Building (113,524 Square Feet) Use Square Feet Parking Ratio Parking Required Parking Provided Office 22,705 sq. ft. I p.s. per 250 sq.ft. 91 p.s. 196 p.s. Industrial 90,819 sq.ft. I p.s. per 1000 sq.ft. 91 p.s. Total 113,524 sq.ft. NA 182 p.s. 196 p.s. l~'" Gr~WfN p,t,..Vp. Phase IV Building (111,972 Square Feet) Use Square Feet Parking Ratio Parking Required Parking Provided Office 22,394 sq.ft. I p.s. per 250 sq. ft. 90p.s. 186 p.s. Industrial 89,578 sq.ft. I p.s. per 1000 sq.ft. 90p.s. Total 111 ,972 sq.ft. NA 180 p.s. 186 p.s. . 7. Traffic Impact Study. The Zoning Ordinance in Section V, K, 5, f, requires that both <.-/ internal and external traffic and parking plans and traffic generation studies prepared by a registered traffic engineer will be required for all projects within the GB district. -'" The applicant has had a registered traffic engineer prepare a traffie impact study to analyze the potential impacts of this proposed development. The applicant states in Exhibit A, page 12 of 47, paragraph 4, that "... the project will have no significant impacts on the signalized intersection at County Highway 96 and Round Lake Road...". 8. Highway 96 (Ramsey County reconstruction). Ramsey County is currently reconstructing Highway 96 from l-35E in White Bear Township to Old Highway 8 in New Brighton. The section of Highway 96 in Arden Hills from Lexington Avenue to Highway 10 is scheduled for reconstruction in the year 2000, although there is some discussion that it may occur later. . . . -- 0/10 Highway 96 from Highway 10 to Old Highway 8 is planned for reconstruction in 1998. Although there is some discussion by Ramsey County that the bridge over Interstate 35W will be reconstructed in 1998 and the roadway will be reconstructed in 1999. The reconstruction plans (Exhibit D) include relocating the Round Lake Road intersection with Highway 96 as far east as possible at a full movement intersection (signalized when warranted). As with most things, in development timing is everything. As the Traffic Engineer has stated, in Exhibit A, page 12 of 47, paragraph 4, that "... the project will have no significant impacts on the signalized intersection at County Highway 96 and Round Lake Road...". However, the intersection of Round Lake Road and Highway 96 has not yet been relocated nor signalized. Therefore, linkage is required between the approvals granted in this request and the completion of certain minimum improvements on Round Lake Road to facilitate those approvals. 9. Building Design. The Zoning Ordinance in Section V, K, 5, d, (2), states that exterior building treatment (wall surfaces) shall be of brick, stone, glass, or any combination thereof, except trim and accessories may be metal. However, the exterior materials of the proposed structure do not consist of brick, stone, or glass. The proposed exterior consists of approximately 30 percent brick (on the bottom) and a painted smooth finish insulated concrete panel with architectural reveals (ie., saw cut into the panel to provide visual depth and delineation). The principal exterior colors of the building would be soft earth tones (ie., off-white, tan, browns, etc.,). The exterior of the Phase II, III, and IV buildings are similar to the Phase I building, with the addition of brick on the bottom and a slightly different entry element. The City Council when it reviewed the Phase I development of the Arden Hills Interstate Center in Planning Case 96-12, accepted a building exterior which was not consistent with the GB district requirements. The rationale was that there would be a increased aesthetic progression as one got closer to the intersection ofInterstate 694 and 35W. Also, that the first building would be the trigger for future development in the area. The Phase I building is now almost complete and the Staff would encourage the Planning Commission to visit the structure and to evaluate the relative aesthetics of the structure. The Staff is generally pleased with how the aesthetics of the Phase I building turned out relative to the "artists sketch" that was reviewed as part of Planning Case 96-12. The part that was most positive for Staff was the that the additions required by the Planning Commission to the west side of the building (facing Interstate 35W) improved the aesthetics of the building. Another positive aspect was that the dock doors in the loading area are not as massive or imposing as originally thought. The part that was not so positive for Staff was that the "finished exterior" should have wrapped further around the side of the building (southwest and southeast corners of the building) onto the rear of the building (close to the first dock doors). " e I l;(JO 10. Height. The Zoning Ordinance in Section V, F, 4, states that the maximum height ofa structure in the GB zoning district shall be 35 feet. The proposed structure has a maximum height of33 feet. . 11. Floor Area Ratio. The Zoning Ordinance in Section V, K, 5, a, (4), (b), states that the maximUTU Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for a parcel in the GB zoning district shall be 0.3. The applicants Phase II building would provide for an FAR of 0.323 (104,532 sq.ft. / 323,544 sq. ft.). The applicants Phase III building would provide for an FAR of 0.292 (113,524 sq. ft. / 388,714 sq. ft.). The applicants Phase IV building would provide for an FAR of 0.206 (111,972 sq. ft. / 544,255 sq. ft.). The applicants Phase II, III, and IV buildings would provide for a total FAR of 0.263 (330,028 sq. ft. / 1,256,513 sq. ft.). The Zoning Ordinance in Section V, K, 5, a, (4), allows for the FAR of individual lots in a mixed use project to vary from the requirement (0.3) as long as the overall FAR is within the requirement. The FAR of the Phase II building is 0.323 which is greater than 0.3. However, the overall FAR of the project is 0.263 which is less than the maximum. 12. Landscape Lot Area. The Zoning Ordinance in Section V, K, 5, a, (4), (b), states that the minimum landscape lot area for a parcel in the GB zoning district shall be 35 percent. The applicants Phase 11 building would provide for a landscape lot area of25.3 percent (81,886 sq. ft. / 323,545 sq. ft.). The applicants Phase III building would provide for a landscape lot area of36 percent (139,900 sq. ft. / 388,714 sq: ft.). The applicants Phase IV building would provide for a landscape lot area of 54 percent (293,973 sq. ft. ! 544,255 sq. ft.). The applicants Phase II, III, and IV buildings would provide for a total landscape lot area of 41 percent (515,758 sq. ft. ! 1,256,513 sq. ft.). . The Zoning Ordinance in Section V, K, 5, a, (4), allows for the Landscape Lot Area of individual lots in a mixed use project to vary from the requirement (35%) as long as the overall Landscape Lot Area is within the requirement. The Landscape Lot Area of Phase II is 25.3 percent which is less than 35 percent. However, the overall Landscape Lot Area of the project is 41 percent which is greater than the minimum of35 percent. 13. Setbacks. The Zoning Ordinance in Section V, K, 5, b, (4), states that the minimum building setback for a parcel in the GB zoning district shall be 50 feet from all streets and project boundaries and 20 feet from all interior property lines. The following summarizes the relationship of the required building setbacks and those that are proposed: Phase II Building Setback Setback Required Setback Provided Front Yard (Round Lake Road) 50 feet 150 feet Rear Yard (East) 20 feet 20 feet Side Y 3rd (North) 50 feet 90 feet Side Y 3rd (relocated 14th Street) 50 feet 85 feet . . . 1/1)0 . Phase III Building Setback Setback Required Setback Provided Front Yard (Relocated 14th Street) 50 feet 63 feet Rear Yard (North) 50 feet 68 feet Side Yard (West) 20 feet 85 feet Side Yard (East) 20 feet 140 feet Phase IV Building Setback Setback Required Setback Provided Front Yard (Relocated 14th Street) 50 feet 57 feet Rear Yard (North) 50 feet 82 feet Side Yard (West) 20 feet 137 feet Side Yard (East) 20 feet 120 feet - The Zoning Ordinance in Section V, K, 5, e, states that the minimum parking setback is 50 feet from any right-of- way line and 20 feet to any other property line. The City Code (Shoreland Ordinance) in Section 20.5-43, (I) and (2), states where feasible and practical the parking setback shall be the structure setback and in no instance shall the parking setback be less than 50 feet from the Ordinary High Watermark (Round Lake). The following summarizes the relationship of the suggested parking setbacks, required parking setbacks and those setbacks as proposed by the applicant: Phase II Parking Setback Setback Setback Setback Suggested Required Provided Right-of-Way (Round Lake Road) na 50 feet 72 feet Rigbt-of-Wa)' (Gateway Court) na 20 feet o feet Property Line (North) na 20 feet 50 feet Property Linc (East) na 20 feet 20 feet . Phase III Parking Setback Setback Setback Setback Suggested Required Provided Right-of-Way (Relocated 14th Street) 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet Property Line (Round Lake-OHW ) 75 feet 20 feet 140 feet Property Line (West) 50 feet 20 feet 20 feet Property Line (East) 50 feet 20 feet 1 0 feet - I I t7/ JO Phase IV Parking Setback Setback Setback Setback Suggested Required Provided Right-of-Way (Relocated 14th Street) 50 feet 50 feet 58 feet Property Line (Round Lake-OHW) 75 feet 20 feet 144 feet Property Line (West) 50 feet 20 feet 1 0 feet Property Line (East) 50 feet 20 feet 33 feet e The suggested setback is from the Shoreland Management regulations (Chapter 20.5 of the City Code) and is designed to pull parking lots as far from water bodies as possible. The west and east parking setbacks for Phases 1lI and IV do not meet the suggested setback, but they are also not adjacent to the water body (ie., Round Lake). Therefore, the Staff is comfortable with the setback being provided. 14. Grading. The applicant has provided a grading, drainage and erosion control plan for the proposed building. The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) has approved the proposed grading plan (Exhibit E). The development of this site will disturb more than five (5) acres ofland. Therefore, the developer is required to receive a General Construction Storm Water Permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). These permits are required pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) which is administered by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The purpose of the permit is to ensure that the grading plan includes and that the contractor carries out Best Management Practices (BMP's), as it pertains to erosion and sediment control. e The City Engineer has reviewed the grading plans and has offered his comments (Exhibit F). The City Engineer has raiscd several concerns and points of clarification regarding the grading plan. The applicant is in the process of preparing a reply to this letter and it will be available for your deliberations. The applicant did respond to one of the City Engineers points of clarification regarding the location of a particular easement (Exhibit G). 15. U.S. Army Pipeline Easement. The U.S. Army currently has a pipeline (12 inch- natural gas) easement through the western portion of the Phase II property. The pipeline supplied natural gas from Minneapolis to the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP). The U.S. Army no longer requires thc pipeline and is in the process of vacating the easement. . - . . i1Jx 16. Wetlands. The property contains eight jurisdictional wetlands (isolated basins). The Rice Creek Watershed District has approved the wetland replacement plan on behalf of the State of Minnesota (Exhibit E) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approval is anticipated. 17. Shoreland Ordinance. The subject property is located in the Shoreland Management area, per the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The City Code in Chapter 20.5-22, Subpart 12, a, defines Shoreland as land located within 1,000 feet from the ordinary high water mark oflake, pond, or flowage. The subject property is within 1,000 feet of Round Lake, a DNRprotected water. The City Code in Chapter 20.5-47, (a), (I), permits the selective removal of natural vegetation, provided that sufficient vegetative covers remains to screen cars, dwellings and other structures when viewed from the water. The project should not be visible from Round Lake given, the topography of the area. The City Code in Chapter 20.5-47, (b), allows for grading and excavation in shoreland areas. If a permit is granted to grade and excavate in a shoreland area, then the permit is required to be conditioned on the following: a. b. The smallest amount of bare ground is exposed for as short as time as feasible; Temporary ground cover, such as mulch, is used and permanent ground cover, such as sod, is established; Methods to prevent erosion and trap sediments are employed; and Fill is stabilized to accepted engineering standards, approved by the city engineer. c. d. 18. Landscaping. The proposed landscaping contains a variety of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs. The site is required to have a minimum total caliper inches of trees provided per the Zoning Ordinance (Appendix A, page 27 and 28). The minimum amount is calculated by dividing the gross square footage of the building by 320. The relationship of the landscaping required to that which is being proposed can be summarized as follows: Phase II @ 104,523 Square Feet Caliper J nches Pcrcentage Caliper Inches . Required Required 2" to 3" 50 percent 164 inches 3.5" to 4" 30 percent 97 inches 4.5" to 5" 20 percent 66 inches Total 100 percent 327 inches e Phase II @ 104,532 Square Feet Caliper Total Caliper Total Caliper Code Inches Inches Required Inches Provided Differential 2" to 3" . +85.5 inches 164 Inches 249.5 inches 3.5" to 4" 97 inches 35 inches -62 inches 4.5" to 5" 66 inches 30 inches -36 inches Total 327 inches 314.5 inches -12.5 inches e Phase III @ 115,575 Square Feet Caliper Percentage Caliper Inches Inches Required Required 2" to 3" 50 percent 181 inches 3.5" to 4" 30 percent 108 inches 4.5" to 5" 20 percent 73 inches Total 100 percent 362 inches Phase III @ 115,575 Square Feet Caliper I Total Caliper Total Caliper Code Inches Inches Required Inches Provided Differential 2" to 3" 181 inches 193.48 inches + 12.48 inches 3.5" to 4" I 08 inches 24.5 inches -83.5 inches 4.5" to 5" 73 inches 25 inches -48 inches Total 362 inches 242.98 inches -119.02 inches I Phasc IV @ 111,779 Square Feet Caliper Percentage Caliper Inches Inches Required Required 2" to 3" 50 percent 1 75 inches 3.5" to 4" 30 percent 105 inches 4.5" to 5" 20 percent 70 inches Total 100 percent 350 inches !o/w . . . tit . . lV70 Phase IV @ 111,779 Square Feet Caliper Total Caliper Total Caliper Code Inches Inches Required Inches Provided Differential 2" to 3" 175 inches 163.47 inches -11.53 inches 3.5" to 4" 105 inches 28 inches -77 inches 4.5" to 5" 70 inches 25 inches -45 inches Total 350 inches 216.47 inches -133.53 inches Phases II, III, and IV @ 331,886 sq. ft, Caliper Perccntage Caliper Inches Inches Required Required 2" to 3" 50 percent 520 inches 3.5" to 4" 30 percent 31 0 inches 4.5" to 5" 20 percent 209 inches Total 100 percent 1,039 inches Phases II, III, and IV @ 331,886 Square Feet Caliper Total Caliper Total Caliper Code Inches Inches Rcquired Inches Provided Differential 2" to 3" 520 inches 606.45 inches +86.45 inches 3.5" to 4" 310 inches 87.5 inches -222.5 inches 4.5" to 5" 209 inches 80 inches -129 inches Total 1,039 inches 773.95 inches -265.05 inches The applicant is proposing to save existing vegetation adjacent Round Lake, which they may receive credits for. However, the number size, and species of those plants to be saved have yet to be identified by the applicant so the preservation credit calculation cannot be made at this point in time. 19. Refuse. The Zoning Ordinance in Section VI, G, 3, b, (1), requires that all exterior storage shall be screened from public view. The site plan does not provide for any trash enclosures. The location and style of the trash enclosures should be provided for in the plans. - - - I?--JIO 20. Signage. The Zoning Ordinance in Section V, K, 5, g, (1), requires that a sign plan be submitted in conjunction with site plans in the GB district that show the location, type, size and design of the individual signs. The applicant is proposing one Area Identification Sign with each of the three phases. However, the size and design of the sign have not been included in the submittal. Also, the applicant is providing for two business signs which are 60 square feet in area at each of the four entries to the building for a total of 480 square feet of signage on the building (60 sfx 2 signs x 4 entries) which is less than 10 percent of the buildings facade as required by the Sign Ordinance, Schedule VII, B, 1. . 21. Rooftop Mechanical. The Zoning Ordinance in Section VI, E, 4, j, requires that all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened so as to prevent direct viewing of said equipment. The rooftop mechanical equipment will consist oflow profile units painted to match the buildings exterior and are located such that they will be screened to prevent direct viewing. 22. Lighting. The Zoning Ordinance in Section V, E, 3, a, b, and c, states that the lighting shall be directed away from adjacent properties, the source of illumination shall be concealed, and the intensity oflighting from developments shall not exceed one footcandle onto public right's-of-way. The applicant is proposing to use quick cut-off, shoe-box type lumenajres which would meet the Code requirements. 23. Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W). Given, the size of the project (phases I, II, III, and IV are in excess of 300,000 square feet) an EA W was required to prepared pursuant to Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410. An EA W has a 30 day comment period. The comment period for this EA Wends on July 2, 1997. Therefore, the Planning Commission will have all the public comments, and hopefully all of the applicants responses, available for your deliberations. The Staffhas included in your packet a copy of the EA Wand all public comments which have received to date, including applicant responses, if any. . 24. Indirect Source Permit (ISP). The project (Phases I, II, III, and IV) does not contain an adequate number of parking spaces (ie., greater than 1,000) to fall under the jurisdiction and therefore require and ISP (Exhibit H). Variances A. General Ordinance Requirement. The conditions required for the approval of a variance are found in Section VIII, D, 4, c, of the City Code which states the following: "Adherence to the provisions of this ordinance is required except for special cases which arise because of the configuration of a particular parcel. The condition shall not have been created by the landowner. A variance or variances may be granted from specific provisions of this ordinance because such land factors as length of a side of a lot, the shape of the lot or the unusual terrain prohibit reasonable development equivalent to that which would be permitted without variance on a similar size lot located in the same district, but which lot has no unusual configuration. Economic conditions alone shall not be grounds for a variance." . . . II t?JI'JO B. Other Zoning Ordinance Requirements. 1. The variance shall not impair the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the public; 2. The variance shall not be contrary to the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan, Official Map or any ordinances of the City; 3. Variances shall not allow a use in a district that is not otherwise allowed; and 4. The Council may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and protect adjacent properties. C. Other criteria or conditions often associated with variances. 1. Previous eases of a similar nature which have been reviewed by the City, whether the action taken was for approval or denial; The variance should not be greater than necessary to accomplish the landowner's objective; Existence of alternative locations, development concepts or space requirements which require consideration; The variance would allow a condition that is consistent with the surrounding development (Was an area developed under standards different than current regulations would allow or in an era that had different requirements). The State Statutes state in Chapter 462.357, Subpart 6, (2), the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality (neighborhood); Conforming to the literal provisions would result in an "undue hardship" such that the property could not be put to a "reasonable" use and "...economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship"; The variance would improve an existing non-conforming condition and ordinance compliance without major demolition and reconstruction would be impossible; and The variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Action to approve or deny a request for a variance should contain specific reference to any of the above requirements or criteria that apply. D. Requested Variances (see Exhibit A, pages 9, 10, and 11 of 47). 1. Minimum office component requirement within each office/warehouse building reduced from 25 percent to 10 percent. 2. Minimum landscape area requirement for the Phase II development reduced from 35 percent to 25.3 percent (Exhibit I). e e I l'i/Q(J 3. Minimum front yard parking setback for the Phase II development reduced from 50 feet to 13 feet (Exhibit 1). . 4. Minimum side yard parking setback for the Phase III and IV building loading dock/service areas reduced from 20 feet to 10 feet (Exhibit K). 5. Allowable building finish expanded from stone, brick, and glass to also include pre-cast, insulated concrete panels with architectural detailing and modulation of the building massing at the entrances with Exterior Finished Insulate Structural System (EIFSS) (Exhibit L). E. Other Variances (Staff initiated). 1. Maximum Floor Area Ratio for the Phase II development is 0.323 when the maximum is OJ (Exhibit M). 2. Minimum side yard parking setback from the right of way (Gateway Court) in the Phase II development be reduced from 50 feet to zero feet (Exhibit N). 3. Maximum driveway width in the Phase II development be enlarged from a rnaximum of 32 feet to 250 feet (Exhibit 0). Findings - V9rianee #1 (Minimum offiee requirement- Phases II. III. and IVI 1. The GB zoning district requires high quality buildings. . 2. The applicant is proposing an appealing building 3. The applicant has stated that they will attempt to attract tenants which meet the requirements of the zoning district (City Council meeting of September 30,1996). The Phase I project received a similar variance. The tenant MSL which was put into the Phase I building has an office percentage in excess of 25 percent. 4. The applicant has stated that they would not lease to bulk distribution tenants. Findin!':s-Variance #2 (Minimum Landscape Lot Area - Phase II) 1. The Zoning Ordinance in Section V, K, 5, a, (4), allows for the Landscape Lot Area of individual lots in a mixed use project to vary from the requirement (35%) as long as the overall Landscape Lot Area is within the requircment. The Landscape Lot Area of Phase II is 25.3 percent which is less than 35 percent. However, the overall Landscape Lot Area of the project is 41 percent which is greater than the minimum of35 percent. Findin!:s-Variance #3 (Minimum parkin!: setback - 14th Street - Phase Il) 1. The variance allows the applicant to sufficient buildable depth so as to have standardized bay depths which are required for a successful project. . - . . lfijJ1J 2. The applicant has provided enhanced landscaping in the area of the variance. However, the landscape materials provided are on the small side. If the landscape materials were upsized (ie., 2"-3" upsized to 3.5" to 4" and 3.5" to 4" upsized to 4.5" to 5"), then a balance may be reached between the applicants market needs and the aesthetics of the project from the road. Findinl:s- Variance #4 (Side yard parkinl!" - Phases III and IV) 1. The Landscape Lot Area provided are 36 percent and 54 percent for Phases III and IV respectively. 2. The maneuvering distance of 130 feet from the building to the edge of the parking lot is a reasonable maneuvering distance. 3. The project from an aesthetic standpoint may be better served if the setback is zero and the buildings are brought even closer together. Currently the buildings (phases III and IV) are 280 feet apart, conceivably the buildings could be brought to within 200 feet of one another and an additional 80 feet of green space could be gained to one side of the buildings or both sides. Findinl:s-Variance #5 (Allowable exterior finish -Phases II. III. and IV) I. The applicant is proposing an appealing building. 2. The proposed exterior of the building is upgraded from the Phase I building through the addition of brick on approximately the lower one-third (front and sides) of the building. 3. The west and east elevations of the Phase II building should have the same brick treatment as the north elevation. 4. The west elevation of the Phase II building should contain some glass. 5. The "finished exterior" of the west and east elevations of the Phase II building shouldbe wrapped around onto the north elevation up to the first dock doors. 6. The elevations of the Phase III buildings are mislabeled (Exhibit A, page 37 of 47) and should be labeled as follows: Phase III building Currently labeled as To be labeled as North Elevation West Elevation West Elevation South Elevation East Elevation North Elevation South Elevation East Elevation ~ e I /I#/JO 7. The south (revised) and north (revised) elevations of the Phase III building should have the same brick treatment as the west (revised) elevation. . 8. The south (revised) elevation of the Phase III building should contain some glass. 9. The "finished exterior" of the south (revised) and north (revised) elevations of the Phase III building should be wrapped around onto the east (revised) elevation up to the first dock doors. 10. The elevations of the Phase IV buildings are mislabeled (Exhibit A, page 43 of 47 and should be labeled as follows: Phase IV building Currently labeled as To be labeled as South Elevation East Elevation West Elevation South Elevation East Elevation North Elevation North Elevation West Elevation II. The south (revised) and north (revised) elevations of the Phase IV building should have the same brick treatment as the east (revised) elevation. . 12. The south (revised) elevation of the Phase IV building should contain some glass. 13. The "finished exterior" of the south (revised) and north (revised) elevations of the Phase IV building should be wrapped around onto the west (revised) elevation up to the first dock doors. Findinl;:s - Other Variances #1 (Maximum FAR - Phase In I. The Zoning Ordinance in Section V, K, 5, a, (4), allows for the FAR of individual lots in a mixed use project to vary from the requirement (0.3) as long as the overall FAR is within the requirement. The FAR of the Phase II building is 0.323 which is greater than 0.3. However, the overall FAR of the project is 0.263 which is less than the maximum. Findin~s-Otber Variances #2 (Minimum narking setback - Gateway Court - Phase II) 1. The parking setback can be met on the site. However, if the setback is met, then loading docks would have to be eliminated from the westerly one-half of the building which would effect the feasibility of the project. 2. The owners of Phase I of the GBD and the applicant desire to have Gateway Court as part of this project. . . . . . . 11j~ 3. The parking spaces (approximately 8) which are located in the parking setback could be relocated elsewhere on the site to minimize the extent of this variance. Findings-Other Variances #3 (Maximum drivewav width - Phase In I. This variance is closely linked with the above-mentioned variance. The maximum opening allowed for a drive access is 32 feet. The Staff would conclude that there are ways to minimize the extent of this variance and the applicant should propose a modification to minimize the variance. Plat - Gateway Addition I. Minimum Lot Area. The Zoning Ordinance in Section V, F, 2, states that the minimum lot area for lots in the GB zoning district shall be at least 5 acres. All lots in this plat are at least 5 acres in area. Lots Required Lot Area Provided Lot Area Lot I 5 acres 7.43 acres Lot 2 5 acres. 8.92 acres . Lot 3 5 acres 12.49 acres 2. Minimum Lot Depth. The Zoning Ordinance in Section V, F, 3, states that the minimum lot depth in the GB zoning district shall be at least 130 feet. All Lots in this plat have at least 130 feet of depth. Lots Required Lot Depth Provided Lot Depth Lot 1 130 feet 485 feet Lot 2 130 feet 720 feet Lot 3 130 feet 750 feet 3. Minimum Lot Width. The Zoning Ordinance in Section V, F, 3, states that the minimum lot width in the GB zoning district shall be at !cast 100 feet: All Lots in this plat have at least 100 feet oflot width. Lot Required Lot Width Provided Lot Width Lot 1 100 feet 658 feet Lot 2 100 feet 421 feet Lot 3 100 feet 700 feet . . . 1'6/70 4. Easements. The preliminary plat is required to show typical utility and drainage easements for the lots as required by the Subdivision Ordinance in Section 22-8, (e). The easements are twelve feet in width centered on the side property lines and at least twelve feet in width on the front and rear property lines. The plat also provides for the drainage and utility easements which encompass the ponds and wetlands on the site. e The plat should provide an easement across the southeastern side of Lot 3 from the relocated 14th Street to the Vaughn Towers property to maintain access to this property. The easement should be twenty feet in width. The dedication of 14th Street should be continued done to the southernmost lot line of the plat (southeastern side of Lot 3). Also, the cul-de-sac bulb should be shown as an easement which could be terminated when the road is extended at some point in the future, if ever. 5. Park dedication. The proposed plat provides for no dedication of park land. The Planning Study for NE l-694/I-35W area does include a trail along Round Lake (Exhibit P). The Staff has been working with the Parks and Recreation Director and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine the appropriate placement of the trail along Round Lake. The Parks and Recreation Director will be forwarding to the City Council her recommendations for the dedication of any land needed to facilitate the trail and the amount of park dedication fee that is owed, pursuant to the Subdivision Ordinance in Section 22-9 of the City Code. . 6. Final Plat. The City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) in Section 22-4, (b), (4), states that; "If the final plat is approved by the city council, the subdivider shall record it with the county recorder or rcgistrar of titles within sixty (60) days after the date of approval; or otherwise, the approval of the final plat shall be considered void ...". Therefore, if the City Council approves the final plat on Monday, July 14, 1997, then the final plat would have to be recorded by Friday, September 12, 1997 or the final plat approval would be void. Prior to City Council consideration of the final plat all development agreements (ie., development, minimum assessment, TIF, etc.,) must be executed by the applicant and the City of Arden Hills. Discussion Due to the length of this report, 1 will keep my discussion topics to the two areas which I believe are most critical: aesthetics between Phases III and IV; and the timing of this project relative to the timing of road improvements to serve this project. I believe that the relative aesthetics of the "I" area (Exhibit Q) between Phases III and IV will playa significant role in the City's ability to attract a quality office tenant on the "30 Acres" .at the corner oflnterstate 694 and Interstate 35W. The City should examine and be comfortable with the grades, ponds, parking areas, landscaping, and exterior elevations of this area. . . - . IVJIW As previously mentioned the Traffic Engineer has stated, in Exhibit A, page 12 of 47, paragraph 4, that "... the project will have no significant impacts on the signalized intersection at County Highway 96 and Round Lake Road...". However, the intersection of Round Lake Road and Highway 96 has not yet been relocated nor signalized. Therefore, linkage is required between the approvals granted in this request and the completion of certain minimum improvements on Round Lake Road to facilitate those approvals. Deadline for Al!ency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the complete application for this request on June 13, 1997. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute the City must act on this request by Tuesday, August 12, 1997 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60 day review period. The additional review period would extend to Friday, October 10,1997. The City may with the petitioners consent extend the review period beyond the Friday, October 10, 1997 date. Lastly, if the City denies the petitioners request, "... it must state in the writing the reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request." 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 Staff recommends approval of Planning Case 97-06, PUD Master Plan and Final Plan (including variances as amended by Findings), preliminary and fmal plat, and street vacation, subject to the following conditions: 1. Provision of an acceptable street name for the relocated 14th Street; 2. Issuance of occupancy permits until such time that the relocated Round Lake Road is open for traffic and capable of accepting increased traffic; 3. Compliance with the approval of the Rice Creek Watershed District; 4. Approval of and compliance with an NPDES permit by the MPCA; 5. Compliance with the City Engineers letter dated June 24, 1997; 6. The smallest amount of bare ground is exposed for as short as time as feasible; 7. Temporary ground cover, such as mulch, is used and permanent ground cover, such as sod, is established; 8. Methods to prevent erosion and trap sediments are employed; 9. Fill is stabilized to accepted engineering standards, approved by the city engineer; 10. Approval of and compliance with wetland permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; II. Modification of the landscape plan to provide the required landscape material; 12. Provision of style of trash enclosures; 13. Provision of the type and size of the three (3) Area Identification signs; 14. Provision oflow profile rooftop units painted to match the buildings exterior and located such that they will screened to prevent direct viewing from public right's-of-way; IS. Compliance with the lighting requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; 16. . 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Notes 1. 2. 3. . 4. . ?V/X Determination by the City Council that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not warranted (negative declaration) or an EIS adequacy determination is made; . Modification of the landscaping as outlined in Findings - Variance #3, item 2; Modification of the buildings exteriors (Phases II, Ill, and IV) as outlined in Findings _ Variance #5, items 2 through 13; Modification of the parking spaces to eliminate the variance as outlined in Findings _ Other Variances #2, item 3; Provision of the necessary drainage and utility easements on the plat; Provision of the necessary access easements (Vaughn Towers) on the plat; Extension of the relocated 14th Street to the southeastern most portion ofLot3; Payment and/or dedication of park land as recommended by the Director of Parks and Recreation; Execution of all development agreements prior to consideration of the final plat by the City Council. If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on this Plarming Case, then it would be heard at the Monday, July 14, 1997 (applicants request) regular meeting of the City Council. Pursuant to Section VIII, D, 6, c, of the Zoning Ordinance, "A vote of at least four-fifths (4/5) of the full council is required for approval of the Master Plan. Pursuant to Section VIII, F, 2, of the Zoning Ordinance the PUD approval "... shall automatically expire and become void one (1) year from the and after the date on which the council granted such approval if the building permit or other approved improvements have not been issued a permit by the building inspector...". The City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) in Section 22-4, (b), (4), states that; "If the final plat is approved by the city council, the subdivider shall record it with the county recorder or registrar of titles within sixty (60) days after the date of approval; or otherwise, the approval of the final plat shall be considered void ...". . . .. . . E)dt\\bit- 1? (r~fvrU1cc.. -h> ~e- 1";;/1--0 of -Bxhi\?i-t Pr) V;:l- VARIANCE REOUEST The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Arden Hills, Section V(K)(I) "Procedure," states as follows: "The prescribed procedure may be modified by the City to allow planning flexibility and to encourage cooperative dialogue between the applicant and the City. " These requests for modification are being presented to the City of Arden Hills in the context of a request for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval. The City's PUD Ordinance allows for some design flexibility. The premise for justifYing these variance requests include the unique character of the land, the nature of it's context within this area of the City and the overall goalsof the City for development in the Gateway Business Zoning District. Again, the following specific but modest variances are being requested from the City of Arden Hills' Gateway Business (OB) Zoning District requirements: 1. Minimum office component requirement within each office/warehouse building reduced from 25% to 10%. 2. Minimum landscape area requirement for the Phase II development reduced from 35% to 25.3%. 3. Minimum front yard parking setback for the Phase II development reduced from 50 feet to 13 feet. 4. Minimum side yard parking setback for the Phase III and Phase IV building loading dock/service areas reduced from 20 feet to 10 feet. ~ 5. Allowable building finish expanded from stone, brick and glass to also includepre-cast, insulated concrete panels with architectural detailing and modulation of the building massing at the entrances with Exterior Finished Insulate Structural System (EFISS). . (e.~"IoH PI. .{l(orO Ju1L.t'2-,ltt1-l MINIMUM OFFICE COMPONENT PERCENT AGE .~ 1"lI ~ flot.nt)!~ lA?mj"l"l i s$1 0l"I") The buildings will be a high profile, high quality office/warehouse building which will service distribution and light manufacturing companies desiring space with easy access to Interstate 35W and Interstate 694. Each $5,000,000 (Five million dollar) phase investment in the community of Arden Hills is based on Welsh's knowledge of the desire for, and need of, such space by many tenants. This project will be highly successful and will set the stage for further completion of development in the Gateway District. HKS ASSOCIATES, INC. June 13, ] 997 Page 8 GA TEW A Y BUSINESS CENTER for Welsh Development Company, LLC ~ e , ?-/~ The typical tenant for the office/warehouse market which is being targeted is likely to have an office component from 10% to 20%. The desire is to continue the on-going relationship with the City of Arden Hills with the understanding that tenants of this type do not typically have a 25% or greater office requirement. Therefore, the variance request to 10% is designed to allow for the flexibility to meet tenant requirements. . The City of Arden Hills shall be assured that there are no plans to be leasing space to bulk distribution tenants. Based upon the total cost of the project, this development would not be competitive with other bulk distribution projects, nor is it intended to be. The intent MINIMUM LANDSCAPE AREA (PHASE II DEVELOPMENT ONLY) The Code contemplates a 35% green space allocation. We are requesting a modest variance, based on our site plan for Phase II, to 25.3%. This design will allow for appropriate vehicle parking, truck access, maneuvering and dock area facilities within the Phase II development site. Justification for this variance is accommodated through the P.U.D. The overall landscape area percentage is 41 %. MINIMUM FRONT YARD PARKING SETBACK (pHASE II ONLY) In order to create a visually arresting and attractive building design and layout, with reasonably marketable bay sizes and bay depths, we are also requesting variance from the 50 foot Front Yard Setback to 14 feet (30 feet in some areas). The average front yard green space, created in the Phase II development, is greater than the City code's minimum of 50 feet. This variance will accommodate an efficient parking area design which maximizes the landscape area created on this property. e MINIMUM SIDE YARD PARKING SETBACK (pHASE III AND IV) Due to the truck apron length, we are also requesting a variance for the Side Yard Setback from the suggested 20 feet to 10 feet. This green space is more effectively utilized in other portions of these two phases. The green area percentage for Phases II and III are 36% and 54%, respectively. When reviewing the site plan as a whole, and particularly when considering it in the context of the use and layout of the undeveloped areas in this portion of the Park, each of these modest variances make great design sense. Furthermore, these modifications insure compliance with the City's request to keep truck areas interior facing and obscured from freeway visibility, . HKS ASSOCIATES, INC. June 13, 1997 GA TEW A Y BUSINESS CENTER for Welsh Development Company, LLC Page 9 b . ~)(hi ~i + C Yi JUf.,,<{ Iq-~ I'H1- memo +0 -fM ~~ . Planninl! Commission recommendation The Planning Commission recommends approval of the PUD Master Plan and Final Plans (including variances) and preliminary plat in Planning Case 97-06, subject to the following condluons: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. . 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Notes 1. . Provision of the street name for the relocated 14th Street as Gateway Boulevard. No issuance of occupancy permits until such time that the relocated Round Lake Road is open for traffic and capable of accepting increased traffic. Compliance with the approval ofthe Rice Creek Watershed District. Approval of and compliance with an NPDES permit by the MPCA. Compliance with the City Engineer's letter dated June 24, 1997. The smallest amount of bare ground is exposed for as short a time as feasible. Temporary ground cover, such as mulch, is used and permanent ground cover, such as sod, is established. Methods to prevent erosion and trap sediments are employed. . Fill is stabilized to accepted engineering standards, approved by the City Engineer. Approval of and compliance with wetland permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Modification of the landscape plan to provide the required landscape material. Provision of style of trash enclosures. Provision of the type and size of the three (3) area identification signs. Provision oflow profile rooftop units painted to match the building's exterior and located such that they will be screened to prevent direct viewing from the public's right-of-way. Compliance with the lighting requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Determination by the City Council that an Environmental Impact Statement is not . warranted (negative declaration) or EIS adequacy determination is made. Modification of the landscaping as outlined in Findings - Variance #3, item 2. Modification of the building's exteriors (Phase II, III, and IV) as outlined in Findings - Variance #5, items 2-13. Modification of the parking spaces to eliminate the variance as outlined in Findings - Other Variances, item 3. Provision of the necessary drainage and utility easements on the plat. Provision of the necessary access easements (Vaughn Towers) on the plat. Extension of the relocated 14th Street to the southeastern-most portion of Lot 3. Payment and/or dedication of park land as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Director. Execution of all development agreements prior to consideration of the final plat by the City Council. Provision of revised design with more 3-D relief for the entrances and sides of Phase II building to the City Council. Approval by the Fire Chief of all building address locations. Pursuant to Section VIII, D, 6, c, of the Zoning Ordinance, "A vote of at least four-fifths (4/5) of the full council is required for approval of the Master Plan". 18. . 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. . . , t;.yh~ b i-t b k: :3 Modification of the building's exteriors (Phase 11, III, and IV) as outlined in Findings- Variance #5, items 2-13. Modification of the parking spaces to eliminate the variance as outlined in Findings _ Other Variances, item 3. Provision of the necessary drainage and utility easements on the plat. Provision of the necessary access easements (Vaughn Towers) on the plat. Extension of the relocated 14th Street to the southeastern-most portion of Lot 3. Payment and/or dedication of park land as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Director. Execution of all development agreements prior to consideration of the final plat by the City Council. Provision of revised design with more 3-D relief for the entrances and sides of Phase II building to the City Council. Approval by the Fire Chief of all building address locations. t . The City Council on July 14, 1997, approved the PUD Master Plan. including Landscape Plan and Variances, and Preliminary Plat in Planning Case 97-06, subject to the following conditions: 1. Provision of the street name for the relocated 14th Street as Gateway Boulevard. STATUS - (Condition Satisfied). The plans provide for the new street names. 2. No issuance of occupancy permits until such time that the relocated Round Lake Road is open for traffic and capable of accepting increased traffic. STATUS - (pending). The applicant's traffic engineer has reviewed this condition and is requesting a modification of this condition. The discussion on this modification can be found in the Update section of this memorandum item number one. 3. Compliance with the approval of the Rice Creek Watershed District. STATUS - (pending). This condition is reviewed for compliance during construction. 4. Approval of and compliance with an NPDES permit by the MPCA. STATUS - (pending). This condition is reviewed for compliance during construction. 5. Compliance with the City Engineer's letter dated June 24,1997. STATUS - (Pending). The grading plan has been modified in an attempt to minimize the exportation of material from the site. Therefore, the engineers letter is dated and he will be providing a revised letter at the meeting. 6. The smallest amount of bare ground is exposed for as short a time as feasible. STATUS - (pending). This condition is reviewed for compliance during construction. 7. Temporary ground cover, such as mulch, is used and permanent ground cover, such as sod, is established. STATUS - (pending). This condition is reviewed for compliance during construction. 8. Methods to prevent erosion and trap sediments are employed. STATUS - (pending). This condition is reviewed for compliance during construction. 9. Fill is stabilized to accepted engineering standards, approved by the City Engineer. STATUS - (pending). This condition is reviewed for compliance during construction. 10. Approval of and compliance with wetland permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. STATUS - (pending). This condition is reviewed for compliance during construction. Stpte-w\~ '),'].., Iqq-:r ~o to ~ &.--h-t ~I -~-'._-._-'"""",,'._-"--'-- -"--,~,-'-'---"- -.,'- ,':'-"i;;;~:, .11. Modification of the landscape plan to provide the required landscape material. STATUS - (Pending). The revisions to the building locations and grading require additional modifications to the landscape plan. The detailed discussion ofthis occurs in the Updates section of this memorandum under item number ten. 12. Provision of style of trash enclosures. STATUS _ (Condition Satisfied). The applicant previously provided details of the style of trash enclosure that is being proposed (Exhibit B). 13. Provision of the type and size of the three (3) area identification signs. STATUS - (Condition Satisfied). The applicant previously provided details of the style of trash enclosure that is being proposed (Exhibit C). 14. Provision of low profile rooftop units painted to match the building's exterior and located such that they will be screened to prevent direct viewing from the public's right-of-way. STATUS - (Pending). This condition is reviewed for compliance during constructiO'n. 15. Compliance with the lighting requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. STATUS - (pending). This condition is reviewed for compliance during construction. 16. Determination by the City Council that an Environmental Impact Statement is not warranted (negative declaration) or EIS adequacy determination is made. STATUS - (Condition Satisfied). The City Council approved a negative declaration on the need for an EIS with this project. 17. Modification of the landscaping as outlined in Findings - Variance #3, item 2. STATUS - (Condition Satisfied). The applicant has upgraded the size of the landscape material . provided along Gateway Boulevard (southwest corner of Phase II) in the area of the parking setback variance as requested by the Staff. 18. Modification of the building's exteriors (Phase II, III, and IV) as outlined in Findings - Variance #5, items 2-13. STATUS - (pending). The satisfaction of this condition is dependent on the City Councils acceptance of the proposed modifications to the exterior of the building which is discussed in the Updates section of this memorandum under item nine. 19. Modification of the parking spaces to eliminate the variance as outlined in Findings - Other Variances, item 3. STATUS _ (Condition Satisfied). The parking spaces on the northeast corner of Phase II which required a variance have been eliminated from that part of the plan. 20. Provision ofthe necessary drainage and utility easements on the plat. STATUS - (pending). The satisfaction of this condition is discussed in the Updates section of this memorandum under item number four. 21. Provision of the necessary access easements (Vaughan Towers) on the plat. STATUS _ (Condition Satisfied). The plat shows the required access to the Vaughan property. 22. Extension of the relocated 14th Street to the southeastern-most portion of Lot 3. STATUS - (Condition Satisfied). The plat shows the required street extension. 23. Payment and/or dedication of park land as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Director. STATUS _ (pending). The recommendation of the Director of Parks and Recreation as to park e dedication is attached to this memorandum (Exhibit D). '.J../!? - .~ -" .-l . . u ' ~ .... . . . ~/-;; 24. Execution of all development agreements prior to consideration of the final plat by the City Council. STATUS - (pending). The development agreement is being reviewed by the City Council at this meeting 25. Provision of revised design with mote 3-D relieffor the entrances and sides of Phase II building to the City Council. STATUS - (pending). The satisfaction of this condition is dependent on the City Councils acceptance of the proposed modifications to the exterior of the building which is discussed in the Updates section of this memorandum under item nine. 26. Approval by the Fire Chief of all building address locations. STATUS - (pending). The applicant has attempted on several occasions to engage the services of the LNFD as to their requirements in this and other areas without success. 27. The modifications for relief to corners visible from Fourteenth Street would be researched. STATUS - (Pending). The satisfaction of this condition is dependent on the City Councils acceptance of the proposed modifications to the exterior of the building which is discussed in the Updates section of this memorandum under item nine. 28. The review of corner relief to be undertaken by the City Council at the time of the fmal plat submittal. STATUS - (pending). The satisfaction of this condition is dependent on the City Councils acceptance of the proposed modifications to the exterior of the building which is discussed in the Updates section of this memorandum under item nine. Updates 1. Applicant's Traffic Engineer modification to Condition #2. The applicant requested that their traffic engineer review the capacity of the existing intersection of Highway 96 and West Round Lake Road to determine the maximum amount of development that could be accommodated under the existing condition (Exhibit E). In short, the applicant's traffic engineer concludes that up to 200,000 square feet of additional development can be accommodated under the existing condition, before the upgrade intersection is required. Also, the applicant's traffic engineer concluded that the upgrading of West Round Lake Road from a two lane facility to a four lane divided facility is not required as a part of this project. Therefore, it would appear to be appropriate to modify this condition to state; "No issuance of occupancy permits for that part of the project (phases II, III, and IV) greater than 200,000 square feet until such time that the relocated Round Lake Road is open for traffic and capable of accepting increased traffic." 2. Road (Gateway Boulevard) is shifted six feet to the north (plan Sheet C4.0). The' applicant in an effort to minimize the extent to which they export soil from this project is proposing to increase the relative elevation of the site approximately two feet. In doing this relative increase in site height the street height also had to increase to keep grades stable. The railroad right-of-way to the south of Gateway Boulevard was a limiting factor in the grading scheme. The road bed of Gateway boulevard needed to be shifted six (6) feet to the north within the right-of-way to accommodate the increased height of the road. Even with the shift, the City will still need a slope easement from the railroad company. . . ~n!\~1 \~);' \ L....J-...I ! 0... i w " I- / ~ I / / / . ...;!'~ ,. J.> ..~ '. ~~ ~! .". ~~ /-._._-~ \ ./ \ j < ! i ~ /. '.' " .~'<- (,. 1..< . d 'o: Ii ',L , . '\\_;;-' .'.;C--- ../ ----" .";:'rrrmmrrmm1.. ,.,,/~- l~ ~ ITS {$-./' .--- :3 " .....< .\,#,: 'i r III I I .c i,~ ;:1, 'i - \1 'I ---L...L_l. ' t: (0 "_ ! I i J' ~ i. O! I - '1-;-1:-1:=: . i" ! i - !-'-l '.1 ('r f ] =-+j~E : ~ I III I -- -- ~- jl>~!=: ' g >f. -- ! ;:: . <= - II -'--'-!--'1;- r- _._., I I ! ! (l'"- ---(.,'.1"- ; . 1- ...i .J.__.i.-. : ~ ; -. =~=.~-_.t.- : to , ....LL.L ~ ~l I 1 ! ,i= ==!,j , : g ~I ~ .:. ll' ~r=l~_J . ;--. -- ,,/ .iN J~~1?J*'7~ .....,.-- " r I ....-.-'. l.r'.... , \ J . I '. , ~ ., '~ )\.~-- ~ \ .... I \ -""-, " , .-.~. J I' / --- '< 1/ .... '"' ~ ." 1..........:::...",......../.. ./ .' f /f .,/ / .' , \ ., , ,/1 .'" / /.'/ ./ " Ii , , ....--- -."'~ l~!ff" ~~../I~JPIUP,., . 9ffi;.- 'PU'rN CF ^l-L- ~~~ (:fi~'( 'O~ 170* C1-:::r .0& '}""it ! Li -' -' c5 " 'Z III IE C> ....l ~ ~ III ,I ~ i i~!hl !~Il11 JiS ~ ~ ~ > ... .0 -i~ ~ ~oo u l" ~g~1 'l'<t~ ili~n hm~ lIrii' n!ili .,.i.- ~!!..~ , , , , : ~------------------------ I-::::-=---::=Iilf-::::---~-~~----~~-;J- ----------. "r------------- -----------1-------l- ~---_L___ ------ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ' J~i , , . . , , I ,- . /J--:~ II i :} I j j j _.----~ ... (61f:j1- Gr,l'(ft31.lJfW BLW' pc -:#' qq ~J-? CAw\~) '( v '-, .II/&... / m -~ ._~ E;)O H1 f'I1' f VI ~ Is I- . Is z <:( ..J U 0... , , Wi I !I~ : i 1-- j- I <l) , i\ ) , / , I - , i ,;1/ / - I iiI- , / i ( I~ ~, ~. I :4 I i i i i ! i , , , I , , , ,- I I , , !. , , , , , I I , i , , , , ) , , , , ! I I i ! i i ; i i I I , I I , J' :: : ! I' . .1 ~i-~-~----T~-----~---------------------- , I I I -I I . d... ."' .... .. ---~~.-;: I : 1 ~ : : I I I: ~: c-------------n--------n------1-- I I.! &~ Ln___________________________________ i ': 5i~ I I:' . L_______~__________________________~------ -- - -- I , I , , . ,ff : ' I , ' , , ' ' , , ' ~ ___.~_L_____ ! "I I" 'I , , , I __J : : I ' , __J I , !l : ' 9~ ~ _________J i I ! t I j i I I I < .j I i i i i r i i i I I I i i I -- - 1 -- -1~..=.u......"' , , , I ~ 1 ~ ~. _______________________________J_ _~5.__.__;~..' ------- ---------------------~-------------------- "~__.'__.......___H.~.'~"~~_ . ~ . FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INGERSON PAVEMENT PROJECT REVIEW GROUP August 17, 2000 . Linda Swanson, Resident and Chairperson Steve Baker, Member ofthe Arden Hills' Planning Committee Teresa Cain, Resident Representative Dick Hanson, Resident Terry Nygaard, Member of the Arden Hills' Operations and Finance Committee Christine Peterson, Resident Yvonne Wilken, Resident . TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................... ........ ...................................... 3 GENERAL STREET DESIGN ....................................................................................................................... 7 STREET CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ......................................................................................................1 0 STREET WIDTHS............................................................................... .................................... ..................... 11 STORMW ATER MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................................16 Alternative Methods/Rain Gardens ........ .................................. ......................... ....................................... 18 Acceptance of Rain Gardens by Ingerson Project Residents.....................................................................20 Financial Resources for Alternative Methods .................................... ................. ......................................21 Curbs and Gutters...................................................................................................................................... 22 Water Holding Ponds................................................................................................................................ 23 Closure of Hamline ........................ ........... .............................. ............................................ .............. ........25 STREET STRUCTURE ................................................................................................................................27 LAKE JOSEPHINE .................................................................................................................... ..................28 NEIGHBORHOOD/RESIDENT INVOLVEMENT .................................................................................... 29 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... ........................................... ........30 APPENDIX A - BACKGROUND ............................................................ .................................. ..................32 APPENDIX B - REFERENCED ARTICLES.................. .... ... ......................................................................35 2 August 17. 2000 ~ . . . ; . INGERSON PROJECT RE VIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following summarizes the recommendations ofthe Ingerson Project Review Group ("Review Group"). Information relevant to the recommendations and background information follow the Executive Summary: . Should the Ingerson Project roadways! be included in the pavement program? The majority of the Review Group members do not believe or recommend that the Ingerson Project should proceed unless major modifications are made to the original BRW feasibility report, alternative methods are devcloped and designed and the necds and desires of the residents are incorporated into the final proposal. Some Ingerson Project residcnts feel that the implementation of the original BRW feasibility report would be destructivc to the acsthetic quality of the neighborhood. If the Council believes the original BRW feasibility proposal should be incorporatcd, it is the Review Group's recommendation that the residents be allowed to reject the project in its cntirety. In years past, Pavemcnt Managcment Programs (PMP) dealt only with roadway projects. The amount ofimpcrvious surface drastically affects water quality. In today's society and environment, any PMP currently adopted should not only serve thc needs of the City and the residents but must incorporate good sound water quality standards. . . If the Ingerson roadways are included in the pavement program: . General Street Design Comments The Review Group members agree and acknowlcdge that thc City has a responsibility to maintain existing roadways. The Review Group recognizes that it is the desire of the City and Council to deal with entire "neighborhoods" as opposed to only certain streets within a neighborhood in thc various PMP projects. Howcver, each roadway within a PMP should be rcviewed and the PMP proposal should not merely incorporate rigid standards for every roadway within the project. Thc rcvicw should include, but not be limited to, the purpose of the roadways; the amount of traffic on the roadways; thc current condition of each roadway within the projcct; the needs of the City; thc needs and desires of the affectcd community/neighborhood; the end effect of the project on the neighborhood; the value of any projcct to the neighborhood; the end effcct of the project on any watcr quality issues; etc. For example, both Fcrnwood Court and Ingerson Court only provide access to two (2) homes each whereas the remaining roadways within the Ingerson Project provide multiple vehicle access. Femwood Court was repaved in the 90s and is in excellent shape. However, Ingerson Court has not been repaved lately and is not in good shape. The Review Group does not believe that Fcrnwood Court should be included within the Ingerson Project and/or held to the same standards and dcsigns as Ingerson Court. In other words, each roadway within a PMP projcct should be reviewcd to determine how it "fits" within the project. . 1 The roadways included in the Ingerson Project include Ingerson Road, Ingerson Court, Fernwood Road, Fernwood Court, Hamline A venue, Cannon A venue, Tiller Lane, and Carlton Drive. 3 August 17. 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS . . Street Widths It is the recommendation ofthe majority of Review Group members that the current widths of the project roadways be maintained.2,] . Alternative Methods All Review Group members recommend that feasible cost effective and efficient alternative methods such as rain gardens be reviewed and analyzed for the Ingerson Project as a possible means of avoiding the installation of a storm sewer piping system. . Curbs and Gutters All Review Group members recommend that the Ingerson Project not include the installation of 6", or more, concrete curbs and gutters. The majority of neighborhood residents that responded to the Dec. 1999 neighborhood survey indicated that they are opposed to the installation of any curb and gutter system. From a water quality standpoint, installation of curbs and gutters may be detrimental. To maintain the integrity of the roadway without increasing the road width flat concrete edge bands could be installed. Surmountable curbs could or should be installed in areas that require control of water drainage. . Water Holding Ponds In the Area Between Hamline Ave. and Snelling Ave. Four (4) members of the Review Group believe that by incorporating alternative methods to e addrcss stormwater runoff, the holding ponds in the area between Hamline Ave. and Snelling Ave. are unnecessary. Three (3) members ofthe Review Group believe that the project should incorporate the installation of a holding pond in this area. Before any final decision about holding ponds is made, the City and Engineering staff should obtain additional information regarding the area, including whether it currently meets the needs from a water quality standpoint and information regarding the anticipated water quantity for this area. . Closnre of Hamline Avenne The Review Group is split on whether Hamline Ave. should be permanently closed. If, however, Hamline Ave. north ofIngerson Road is not reconstructed and is closed, all Review Group members recommend the area be landscaped appropriately to maintain the natural setting ofthe area. A concern the Review Group has about the closure of Hamline Ave. is the detrimental effect it may have on the traffic speed in this area. Based upon current knowledge of the traffic speed in this area (fast speed around the Hamline/Ingerson intersection), some Review Group members believe traffic speed may increase in this intersection if the stop signs are removed and/or if the 2 One member felt that the roads should only be increased to obtain unifonnity with the rest of that road. In other .- words, if a portion of the road was e.g. 24' and another portion of the same road was e,g. 26'; the entire road should .- be increased to e.g. 26'. ] One Review Group member felt that Hamline Ave. should be rebuilt to MSA standards and the remaining streets sbould be increase to 30'. 4 August 17, 2000 . . . INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDA nONS area is designed without taking into account area traffic speed. By landscaping appropriately, residents will utilize this area for recreational benefit. It is the recommendation of the Review Group that this area not only be landscaped appropriately but that design considerations be given in regards to the potential effect on traffic speed and residents' safety. . Street Structure Thc original BR W feasibility report suggested that all roadways within the Ingerson Project be reconstructed down to the subbase. The Review Group members recognize and acknowledge that the City must maintain the life of a roadway. The majority of Review Group members recommend that the current subbase structure of each roadway be reviewed individuallv, taking into account the roadway usage, to determine if it is necessary to reconstruct the subbase for that particular road. If a subbase does not need to be reconstructed, the road should merely undergo a 2"- 6" cold recycle overlay, provided that the end product is a road with a consistent life expectancy throughout, which is commensurate with reconstructed roads of the same type. . Lake Josephine Stream The original BR W feasibility report proposed to reconstruct the stream that runs into Lake Josephine by Fernwood Court and Ingerson Road. A resident and/or the Lake Josephine Association (comprised of residents along Fernwood Court and Ingerson Road) privately own this land. The Review Group acknowledges that water quality standards must be addressed. By incorporating altemative methods for stormwater runoff in the Ingerson Project, the City can significantly decrease the amount of water flowage into the Lake Josephine stream offIngerson Road. Before any design proposal is undertaken for this area, the City and Council should obtain further information about whether or not the area/stream currently meets the needs of the City and water quality standards and the water quantity anticipated. The Review Group acknowledges that the Council has received recommendations submitted by the Lake Josephine Association. This land provides not only recreational value but also homeowner market value to the owners. For these reasons, as well as the reasons cited below, the Ingerson Project residents as well as the Review Group members are opposed to the taking of any of this land. If, however, any changes are made to this private property (e.g. increase stream width by approximately 6"), the City should provide tangible and/or monetary consideration to the owners of any land impacted by the change. . Neighborhood/resident involvement Although the Review Group was not charged to make recommendations about future PMP projects, the Review Group does recommend that the process be modified to allow residents an 5 August 17, 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS earlier opportunity to have input into each project. Specifically, the Review Group suggests the following process: 1. City staff prepare and publish a map of anticipated projects scheduled over the next five years; 2. City staff present conceptual designs to thc affected residents of a project one (I) year in advance of the final feasibility report; 3. City staff provide a process and adequate time for residents' input by holding meetings with affected residents to explain details of the proposed project design once preliminary survey and design work has been completed; and 4. City staff consider residents' comments on the proposed design in developing the final feasibility report to the Council. 6 August 17. 2000 . . . e e e INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL STREET DESIGN Review Group Recommendations: The Review Group memhers agree and acknowledge that the City has a responsibility to maintain existing roadways. The Review Group recognizes that it is the desire of the City and Council to deal with entire "neighborhoods" as opposed to only certain streets within a neighborhood in the various PMP projects. However, each roadway within a PMP should be reviewed and the PMP proposal should not merely incorporate rigid standards for every roadway within the project. The review should include, but not be limited to, the purpose of the roadways; the amount of traffic on the roadways; the current condition of each roadway within the project; the needs of the City; the needs and desires of the affected community/neighborhood; the end effect of tbe project on the neighborhood; the value of any project to the neighborhood; the end effect of the project on any water quality issues; etc. For example, both Fernwood Conrt and Ingerson Court only provide access to two (2) homes each whereas the remaining roadways within the Ingerson Project provide multiple vehicle access. Fernwood Court was repaved in the 90s and is in excellent shape. However, Ingerson Court has not been repaved lately and is not in good shape. The Review Group does not believe that Fernwood Court should be included within the Ingerson Project and/or held to the same standards and designs as Ingerson Court. In other words, each roadway within a PMP project must be reviewed to determine how it "fits" within the project. The Review Group recognizes and acknowledges that eventually all roadways within a City must undergo some type of maintenance. However, there is a major distinction between roadway improvement and neighborhood redesign. It is the belief of some Review Group members that the original feasibility report prepared by BRW is too intrusive, broad and invasive. As stated by the American Society of Civil Engineers, National Association of Home Builders and The Urban Land Institute: Residential strcets should provide not only safe, efficient circulation for vehicles and pedestrians but should create positive aesthetic qualities for the users. The "character" of a residential street is influenced to a great extent by the paving width, horizontal and vertical alignments, and the landscape treatment of the street edges. Residential streets are community spaces that should convey an image and scale appropriate to the neighborhood.4.5 4 Residential Streets, Second Edition, 1990, American Society of Civil Engineers, National Association of Home Builders, The Urban land Institute. 5 References to published articles herein are based upon research conducted principally by Linda Swanson, Chairperson. The Review Group as a whole did not undertake exhaustive research of available authorities. Copies of articles cited are not attached to this report. If the Council desires copies of all or any ofthe cited articles they should contact Linda Swanson. 7 August 17, 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS . Although residents expect good and safe streets, they also desire aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods.6 The American Society of Civil Engineers, National Association of Home Builders and The Urban Land Institute further state that: The design of a residential street should be appropriate to its functions. A residential street's functions include not only its place in the transportation system but its role as part of a residential community's living environment.... [And] [t]he design of a residential street should be appropriate to its functions. A residential street's functions include not only its place in the transportation system but its role as part of a residential community's living environment.7 According to the Recommended Guidelines for Subdivision Streets, 1984, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), four (4) factors - safety, efficiency of service, livability, and economy - should guide the design of residential streets. The two most notable factors are: . First, local streets should be designed to discourage excessive speeds; and . Second, minimum area should be devoted to streets.8 The Institute of Transportation Engineers believes that the "design oflocal street systems must recognize the following factors"; . Safety for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic; . Efficiency of service for all users; . Livability ofthe residential environment; . Economy ofland use, construction, and maintenance.9 . Guidelines for street design include: . Street planning should relate to overall community plarming. . Traffic in residential areas should be kept to a minimum to reduce noise, congestion, and hazards to pedestrians. . The street is an important component of overall residential community design. Properly scaled and designed streets can create more attractive communities and contribute to a clearly defined sense of place. . Street design standards should permit flexibility in community design. They should allow street aligrunents to follow natural contours and preserve natural features or to respond to other design objectives such as the creation of more intimate urban-or village-scaled streetscapes. . Wherever possible, street layouts should be plarmed to avoid excessive storm water runoff and the need for storm sewers. 6 Residential Streets, supra 71d.. 81d. , Id. . 8 August 17. 2000 e e e INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDA TJONS . The amount of paved area should be kept to a minimum to reduce construction and maintenance costs, stomlwater runoff, and heat buildup. . In the interest of keeping housing affordable, street costs should be minimized. . Overdesign of streets should be avoided. Excessive widths or an undue concern with geometry more appropriate for highways encourages greater vehicle speeds. . Different streets have different functions and need to be designed accordingly. Blanket standards are inappropriate. 10 The Institute of Transportation Engineers have also provided recommend guidelines for streets: . Street system design should discourage through traffic on local residential streets. . To discourage excessive speeds, streets should.. .not be designed to be wider than is necessary. . Local streets should be responsive to topography and other natural features from the standpoint of both economics and amenity. . The residential street should enhance the community's visual imageY As stated above, we recognize that the City of Arden Hills' rcsponsibility to its residents include street maintenance. However, the Review Group members believe it is imperative that the City also be flexible in its proposed projects so that the end project not only meets the needs (e.g. road pavement, water quality, etc.) ofthe City but also the needs and desires of the affected community. Surrounding cities such as Golden Valley and Maplewood have also designed and developed PMPs. These cities recognize that although PMP programs are essential to the continuous growth and maintenance of the community, it is also imperative to meet the needs of the residents that are served by the PMPs. For any PMP project, both the City of Golden Valley and Maplewood attempt to maintain the existing neighborhood design.12 Water quality standards propounded by Federal and State EPA and local Watershed Districts continue to improve and be more extensive and stringent. Incorporating the current standards and recommendation in the Ingerson Project will avoid future expensive retrofit costs. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) officials state: [T]hat areas previously at low risk [to flood waters] may not remain so because development changes the watershed, making unwanted water appear in new places. 10 Id. "Id. 12 Ken Haider, Public Works Director, City of Maplewood, May 2, 2000 Review Group Meeting; City of Golden Valley PMP, http://www.ci.golden-valley.mn.us/streets/pmp.htrn. 9 August 17. 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS . Dcvelopment tends to alter the flow of runoff during heavy rains. When you have citics that are growing quickly, the runoff patterns can be altered very easily by things like parking lots, driveways, sidewalks, streets and landscaping.13 As stated by numerous Arden Hills' residents at the January 10, 2000 Council meeting, one of the reasons why the residents moved to the Ingerson neighborhood was because of its aesthetic beauty. It is the recommendation of a majority of the Review Group members that the Ingerson Project not disturb the current design and makeup of the Ingerson neighborhood. STREET CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM In order to determine the types of improvements and the type of standards that should be imposed and incorporated into a street, including the streets within the Ingerson Project, one needs to determine how streets are classified.14 The American Society of Civil Engineers, National Association of Home Builders and The Urban Land Institute provide the following street classification system: 15 Arterial. An arterial is a high-volume street that should have no residences on it. Its function is to conduct traffic between communities and activity centers and to connect communities to major state and interstate highways. (e.g. Snelling Avenue) Collector. As the principal traffic artery within residential or commercial areas, the collector . carries relatively high traffic volumes and conveys traffic from arterial streets to lower-order streets. Its function is to promote the free flow of traffic; as such, communities should not encourage parking or residences along a collector. The collector's secondary function is to serve abutting land uses. A collector street may also accommodate public transit such as buses. (e.g. Lexington and "main" Hamline [not residential Hamline])_ Suhcollector. The sub collector provides passage to access streets and conveys traffic to collectors. Like the access street, the subcollector provides frontage and access to residential lots but also carries some through traffic to lower-order (access) streets. The subcollector is a relatively low-volume street. (e.g. residential Hamline, Ingerson Road, Tiller Lane) Access Street. Thc access street is designed to conduct traffic between dwelling units and higher-order streets. As the lowest-order streets in the hierarchy, the access street usually carnes no through traffic and includes short streets, cul-de-sacs, and courts. (e.g. Carmon., Carlton Ave., Dunlap Ave., Femwood Ave., Femwood Ct., Ingerson Ct.) \J Flood Insurance, STAR, July 29,2000. 14 Residential Streets, supra. 15 The MN Local Road Research Board recommends that streets no longer be referred to as local, collector or arterial but rather living, mixed or traffic purpose streets. Such designations classify streets according to their intended purposes which then "dictates the most appropriate traffic calming devices to implement." Effective Traffic Ca1m ine Apvlications and Imvlementation, MN Local Road Research Board, October 1998. . 10 August 17. 2000 . . . INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDA TlONS Street Classes Based upon Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volume: Access Street 0-250 cars Subcollector 250-1,000 cars Collector 1,000-3,000 cars16 Accepting the above classification, the streets within the Ingerson Project would be classified as 17 subcollectors or access streets. STREET WIDTHS Review GrouD Recommendations: It is the recommendation ofthe majority of Review Group members that the current widths of the project roadways be maintained. The initial BRW feasibility report for the Ingerson Project proposed the widening ofthe current street widths of approximately 24' - 28' to approximately 32'. The majority of Review Group members are opposed to the widening of any streets within the Ingerson Project from their existing widths. From the standpoint of safety, traffic, water quality and stormwater management, numerous articles have been written regarding the width of a neighborhood street. From a safety and traffic management aspect, the American Society of Civil Engineers, National Association of Home Builders and the Urban Land Institute have made the following observations and comments: The width of a street should be based upon both the volume and type of expected traffic and the amount of on-street parking that will be generated as well as upon the place of the street in the street hierarchy (access street, subcollector, collector). Designers should select the minimum width that will reasonably satisfy all realistic needs, thereby minimizing construction and average annual maintenance costs. The tendency of many communities to equate wider streets with better streets and to design traffic and parking lanes as though the street were a "micro freeway" is a highly questionable practice. To discourage excessive speeds, streets should.. .not be designed to be wider than is necessary... [because ] [wider lanes] tend to encourage higher-speed driving. A wide access street also lacks the more intimate scale that otherwise makes it an attractive setting for housing. 16 Residential Streets, supra. 17 An average daily traffic volume and traffic speed study was conducted by the Ramsey County Sheriffs Department on behalf of the City of Arden Hills on Ingerson Road on August 30,1999. The results ofthe study indicated that the ADT for Ingerson Road was 559 vehicles. 11 August 17. 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS . On subcollectors, a 26 foot-wide pavement provides either two parking lanes and a moving or traffic lane or one parking lane and two moving lanes. A Federal Highway Administration study found that narrow street widths tend to reduce the speed at which drivers travel. The Institute of Transportation Engineers as well as The Urban Land Institute have also noted this study. IS The Center for Watershed Protection also believes that from a safety aspect, residential street width should be reduced: [WJide residential streets are designed to promote relatively rapid traffic flow, at an average speed limit of 30 mph on level or rolling terrain. The wider streets and better sight distances, however, encourage many drivers to exceed even this relatively high speed. High speeds, however, are not desirable in residential neighborhoods. One way to force drivers to slow down is to reduce street width. 19 In its traffic calming guidelines, the Public Technology, Inc. offers the following insights: One myth is that straighter, wider streets are safer. In fact, they encourage higher speeds. Narrower streets, in contrast, calm traffic. Vehicle speeds decline. Drivers behave less . aggressively and are more likely to obey traffic signs and signals. Pedestrians are more comfortable. Traffic calming is used most often in residential areas to try to reduce speeding and 'cut- through traffic' that uses the neighborhood as a short-cut or a by-pass from clogged major roads. Traffic-calming design changes are self-enforcing, prompting motorists to instinctively slow or requiring them to take other routes. Americans engineer their roads to accommodate a fast speed, and then spend countless millions of dollars trying to enforce a lower speed limit. [Motorists J speed because the road allows them to speed.2o In addition to safety and traffic concerns, it is readily recognized that significant construction costs savings can be achieved by building narrower streets.21 18 Better Site Desirm: A Handbook for Chanrzinf{ DeveloDment Rules in Your Community. Center for Watershed Protection (August, 1998). 19 Site Planninrz for Urban Stream Protection, The Center for Watershed Protection and US EPA December, 1995). 20 Slow Down You're f{oinf! Too Fast! The Community Guide to Traffic Calminf!. Public Technology, Inc. (1998) . t2 August 17, 2000 . . . INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDA TIONS The American Society of Civil Engineers, National Association of Home Builders and The Urban Land Institute recommend the following pavement widths: Access Street Subcollector Collector 22-24 ' 26'* 36'** * If on-street parking lines both sides of the street continuously, a 28-foot pavement may be preferable.22 **Ifresidences do not front on the collector, a 24- to 26-foot pavement with shoulders is ff!' 23 su lClent. From a safety aspect, Greg Brown, BRW, acknowledged that a 24' -28' wide street was more appealing.24 The traffic speed survey ofIngerson Road conducted on August 30,1999 by the Ramsey County Sheriff's Department on behalf of Arden Hills showed that although the average vehicle speed for the 559 vehicles recorded that date was 27.79 mph, the maximum speed recorded was 44 mph. 170 vehicles, or 30.4% of the 559 vehicles monitored, traveled at speeds greater than 30 mph on that date. In other words, the City possesses concrete evidence that indicates traffic speed on Ingerson Road is at times excessive for the neighborhood. A 1998 study conducted by the MN Local Road Research Board stated: The 'old way' of traffic planning with wide, straight streets no longer seem to be suitable for maintaining a livable neighborhood.25 The study also noted that one way to reduce traffic speed was to narrow the street.26 In addition to safety aspects, through articles and meetings, the Review Group became educated on the major effects impervious surfaces play in stormwater management and water quality considerations. One of the principal causes of stormwater pollution is impervious surfaces. 27 21 Better Site Desizn, supra. 22 The City of Arden Hills currently bans parking on the roadways from 2 a.m. - 6 a.m. daily, all year round. Review Group members and project residents have advised the Review Group and the Council that resident driveways provide adequate parking space and that on-street parking rarely occurs and/or is necessary. 23 Residential Streets, supra. 24 May 16, 2000 Review Group meeting. 25 Effective Traffic Calminz Avvlications, supra. 26 Id. Also noted in Slow Down You're Goinz to Fast, supra and The Solution to Urban Traffic and A New Vision (or Neizhborhood Livabilitv, Citizens Advocating Responsible Transportation (1993). 27 National Resources Defense Council. Inc., http:/www.nrdc.org 13 August I7. 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDA TIONS . Even with the best management practices (BMP) enforced, moderate levels of impervious surfaces block the natural infiltration of stormwater into the ground and increase the amount of pollutants collected and accumulated which are eventually transported to aquatic systems.28 Many communities require that residential streets be 36 feet wide or more, even when they serve developments that produce small volumes of traffic. These wide strects result from blanket application of high volume and high speed highway design criteria, as well as a perceived need to supply both on-street parking and unobstructed access for fire trucks. However, residential streets are often unnecessarily wide and the excessive widths contribute to making them the largest single component of impervious cover in a subdivision. Narrowing residential street widths can help reduce the amount of impervious cover created by excessive street widths requirements.29 Minimizing imperviousness, which is prevention focused, is more cost-effective than treating stormwater runoff and much more cost-effective than restoring waterbodies after they have been polluted or damaged. 30 According to Kate Drewry, Rice Creek Watershed District, District Administrator, the wider the street the more impervious surface, which in turn creates more runoff and decrease of natural infiltration. During her presentation to the Review Group, Ms. Drewry showed that the percentage of runoff water increased dramatically and the percentage of infiltration decreased dramatically when there was a higher percentage of paved surfaces.3! According to Derek Knapp, P.E., Montgomery Watson, consulting engineering for the Rice Creek Watershed . 28 Landscaoe Practices. The Roue-e River Proiect, https://www.Waynecounty.com/rougeriver/ getinvol/tipland.htrnl, National Resources Defense Council. Inc., http:lwww.nrdc.org and The Imoortance of Imoe",iousness, Watershed Protection Techniques, Vol. I, No.3, Fall 1994. 29 Better Site Desie-n, supra. 30 Better Site Desie-n: A Handbook for Chane-in&, Develooment Rules in Your Communitv. August, 1998 and Consensus Ae-reement On Model Develooment Princioles to Protect Our Streams. Lakes and Wetlands. April, 1998, Center for Watershed Protection Jl April 4, 2000 Review Group Meeting, Slide: Typical changes in runoff flows resulting from paved surfaces. . 14 August 17, 2000 . . . INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS District, fTom a water quality standpoint, the roadway options are as follows: . Worst: (32' wide, full storm sewer, curb/gutter, regional ponds) Increased volume, increased rate, increased water quality treatment requirements, full ponding necessary, most costly. . Better: (28' wide, full storm sewer, curb/gutter, regional ponds) Maintained volume, increased rate, increased water quality treatment requirements, full ponding necessary, slightly less costly. . Best: (26' wide, needed storms ewer, surmountable curb, rain gardens) Maintained volume, decreased rate, drastically reduced water quality treatment requirements, elimination of regional ponds, significant cost savings.32 From a water quality standpoint, the Rice Creek Watershed District would like to see Arden Hills maintain the existing street widths within the Ingerson Project and thereby reduce the amount of impervious surface that contributes to stormwater runoff/pollution. 33 The Review Group learned that neither the surrounding City of Golden Valley nor Maplewood increase street width during their PMP projects. Maplewood's streets are primarily 28' wide with some streets as low as 20' wide.34 One ofthe arguments to increasing the street width within the Ingerson Project was to "standardize" the widtlls of all Arden Hills streets. In view of the fact that rigid standards as to street width have not been used in the past, the Review Group found this argument unconvincing. Although some streets such as Stowe Ave. were reconstructed at 32', other Arden Hills streets have been reconstructed at 24' (Pascal Ave.), 28' (Oak Ave.) and 30' (Dunlap and portions of Tiller Ave.). Therefore, even if any ofthe streets within the Ingerson Project were increased from 28' to 32', as proposed in the BRW feasibility report, the streets within Arden Hills still would not be "standardized." One Review Group member recommended that Hamline Ave. be rebuilt to MSA standards. MSA representatives have advised that it is common for cities to request variances in street- widths for MSA designated roadways and that such varianccs are often granted. Greg Brown acknowledges the accuracy of this statement. There have not been any significant changes within the Ingerson neighborhood (e.g. increase of traffic, additional roadways added to the neighborhood, additional homes added to the neighborhood, etc.) since the neighborhood streets were built in the 1950s. County and City snowplows have navigated the roadways successfully for over 40 years. To the Review Group's knowledge, there have not been any traffic or pedestrian accidents within the neighborhood that could be contributed to the design of the current street width. However, there have been resident complaints regarding the speed some motorist travel on the streets within the Ingerson Project. 32 April 4, 2000 Review Group Mceting. 3J Id. 34 City of Golden Valley web site and May 2, 2000 Review Group Meeting. 15 August 17, 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDA nONS . Residents do not want to see excessive speed on the Ingerson neighborhood streets and this can only be accomplished through proper street design (e.g. not excessive street width).35 Some of neighborhood residents advised the Council at the January 10, 2000 Council meeting that for nwnerous reasons, they were opposed to the widening of any streets within the Ingerson Project. Greg Brown, BRW, has acknowledged that he would be agreeable to maintaining the existing 'd h 36 street WI t s. For a variety of reasons, the majority of Review Group members believe the widening of the streets within the Ingerson Project is unnecessary and recommend that existing street widths be maintained. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Provisions for stormwater management were contained and discussed in the initial BR W feasibility report and included: . Digging up of all streets within the Ingerson neighborhood and installing storm sewer piping; . Curbs and gutters on all streets; . Closure of Ham line Ave. north ofIngerson Road and installation of water holding ponds; and . . Rework of the stream that flows into Lake Josephine. The Ingerson Proj ect residents were advised that one of the primary reasons for the inclusion of a storm sewer was to eliminate "flooding" water that occurred on portions of Ingerson Road.37 A numbcr of facts and issues were discussed at the various Review Group meetings: . The area that accwnulates standing water spans only approximately 300' out of the total Ingerson Project; . The sloping ofthe existing roadway contributes to the ponding of water; . The ponding of water dissipates after a few hours or days; . Ponding water only occurs after major rain fall or spring snow melt; . Ponding water occurs on the edge of the roadway but seldom occurs on the roadway, and if on the roadway, only for short periods oftime; and . Ponding water occurs in the residents' front and back yards, which would not be corrected by any roadway improvement. 3S Residential Streets, supra. 36 May 16, 2000 Review Group Meeting. 37 It should be noted that photographs of the area in question showing standing water were taken after the 1998 spring snow melt. In March, 1998, there was a total precipitation accwnulation at the Minneapolis Airport of 4.56" compared to 0.32" in March, 1994; 2.11" in March, 1995; . 1.39" in March, 1996; 1.18" in March, 1997; and 1.86" in March, 1999. The average March precipitation accumulation for March 1994-1999 is 1.9". Local Climatological Data, NOAA, National Climatic Data Center, 1994-1999. 16 August 17, 2000 e e e INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDA TIONS The American Socicty of Civil Engineers, National Association of Home Builders and The Urban Land Institute acknowledge that Even during a minor storm, some ponding of water at low points in the grade is inevitable and, in some cases, may even be desirable when the expense of constructing an additional . 1 . f: 38 In et IS a actor. The residents of the Ingerson neighborhood acknowledge that it is prudent to attempt to eliminate ponding water and instigate stormwater management policies. However, factors such as cost, effectiveness, efficiency, needs, etc. must be incorporated into such decisions. It is the belief of some of the Review Group members that the original feasibility proposal for stormwater management are not cost effective or efficient and do not meet the needs of either the City or the Ingerson Project community. The Review Group recommends that the City review and evaluate alternative methods of stormwater protection such as the incorporation of rain gardens, catch basins, vortex basins, centrifugal basins,39 concrete edge bands vs. curbs and gutters, etc. within the project Through her slide presentation, Ms. Drewry showed that: Stormwater is a major contributor to water pollution in urban areas. Although each storm sewer inlet contributes only a small number of pollutants, when added together, pollution concentrations often exceed the limits established for industries and wastewater treatment plants. If the pollutants entering each of these inlets can be reduced, so will the pollution . t 40 In area wa ers. Through articles and discussions, the Review Group has learned that ground water infiltration methods are effective BMPs. Numerous articles support this contention: The principal reason why infiltration is often a preferred method is that runoff is cooled as it flows though the ground, thereby reducing the detrimental thermal effects that runoff . 41 has on aquatIc ecosystems. A primary goal of sustainable design in building and site development should be, wherever possible, to retain water where it falls, treating the water as a resource, not discharging it as a waste product. 42 38 Residential Streets, supra. 39 Since these types of drains are to ensure better water quality, Greg Brown felt that the City could look to outside resources for funds or grants or the City's water quality fund. 40 April 4, 2000 Review Group Meeting. 41 Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc., http:/www.nrdc.org. 42 The Ecolorrv and Culture of Water, James M. Patchett, ASLA and Gerould S. Wilhelm, Pd.D. (Revised June 4, 1997). 17 August 17. 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS . Principles for Better Site Design [include] [w]here density, topography, soils, and slope permit, vegetated open channels should be used in the street right-of-way to convey and treat stormwater runoff.43 Plants absorb nutrients and metals to a certain extent and facilitate microbal breakdown, but most of the pollutant removal from these practices occurs when the presence ofthe plants physically blocks the stormwater flow, slowing the flow and allowing contaminants to settle out. 44 [I]nfiltration practices also recreate, to a greater or lesser extent, the natural pattern of water infiltration into the ground that existed before increased imperviousness covered the land. When designed and installed correctly and maintained regularly, infiltration practices are among the most effective structural BMPs.. ..Studies have shown that infiltration of the [sic] can get 98 percent of storm water into the earth, cool stormwater to 550F, remove up to 83 percent of nitrogen, and remove up to 98 percent ofcopper.45 Alternative MethodslRain Gardens Review Grono Recommendations: All Review Group members recommend that feasible cost effective and efficient alternative . methods such as rain gardens be reviewed and analyzed for the Ingerson Project as a possible means of avoiding the installation of a storm sewer piping system. Through discussions with Rice Creek Watershed District and Ken Haider, Maplewood, the Review Group has learned that there are alternative methods to managing stormwater other than the standard installation of a storm sewer system. The majority of the Review Group's discussions centered on an alternative method known as rain gardens which utilize vegetation to clean storm water at the location where the water falls. Rain gardens consist of a vegetation garden that is placed in the City's right-of-way on residents' lots. In simplistic terms, rain/water that falls on homes, lots, and streets, migrates to the rain garden where it filters into the ground. "[Rain gardens] would enhance watershed ecological quality, by slowing down storm water to infiltrate in sandy soil or be detained on heavier soils, rather than sending storm water laden with sediment and urban pollutants directly through gutters and pipes into area lakes or wetlands.'.46 43 Better Site Desirm: A Handbook for Chanf!inf! Develooment Rules in Your Communitv. August, 1998 and Consensus Af!reement On Model Develooment Princioles to Protect Our Streams, Lakes and Wetlands. April, 1998, Center for Watershed Protection. 44 Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc., http:/www.nrdc.org. "Id. . 46 Brini!inf{ Garden Amenities into Your Neif{hborhood: Infrastructure for Ecoloi!ical Oualitv A Guidebook for Cities and Citizens. Joan Iverson Nassauer, Brady Halverson and Steve Ross (June 1997). 18 August 17, 2000 -. '. INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS e Rain gardens are not only aesthetically pleasing but "they manage storm water inexpensively and build urban ecological health."47.48 Utilization of rain gardens is not only beneficial from a stormwater management and water quality perspective but from a cost effective and efficient standpoint as well as an aesthetic standpoint. Rain gardens have been installed and utilized in a number of locations in the United States and a number oflocations within the Twin Cities. In the Twin Cities, the "leader" in utilizing rain gardens is the City of Maplewood. Maplewood's first rain garden project was constructed in 1996/1997. The year after construction, the Twin Cities experienced a 100 year rainfall. Even with the incredible amount of rain that fell, there was only a little puddle of water in the area and there was not any standing water on the roadway:9 Since construction of its first rain garden proj ect, Maplewood has completed its second rain garden project and started it third rain garden project in the summer of2000. Maplewood has found that street improvement projects that incorporate rain gardens tend to cost only 65-75% of the cost of "conventional" street improvement projects. The Rice Creek Watershed District is a proponent of the utilization ofrain gardens for stormwater management and water quality. Derek Knapp, P.E., Montgomery Watson, Consulting Engineering Firm for the Rice Creek Watershed District, believes that the Ingerson neighborhood is amenable to alternative methods such as rain gardens. 50 e Greg Brown has presented preliminary plans/drawings identifYing the areas within the Ingerson Project where he believes rain gardens could be utilized. Rain gardens are installed in the City's existing right-of-way land and, therefore, there is no need to redefine easement rights. Although it is desirable to have as many rain gardens as possible to foster better water infiltration, it is not necessary to install rain gardens on every residentiallot,51 Derek Knapp believes that a rain garden in the front of every 3'd home equates to two (2) National Urban Runoff Program ponds. 52 According to Greg Brown, an issue that he feels needs to be addressed is thc location and depth of any utility line/pipe. Greg Brown believes that certain portions of the utility lines/pipes may need to be insulated or relocated if rain gardens are installed. It should be noted that because these utility lines/pipes are currently believed to be near the existing roadway, it would probably e 47 Id. 48 Decrease in traffic speed may be another benefit of rain gardens. The MN Local Road Research Board determined that "landscape plantings are thought to cause the average driver to pay closer attention to his or her surroundings. If drivers have more to focus on, they will tend to slow down." Effective Traffic Calminl!.. supra. 49 May 2, 2000 Review Group Meeting. 50 April 4, 2000 Review Group Meeting. 51 May 2, 2000 Review Group Meeting. " April 4, 2000 Review Group Meeting. 19 August 17, 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS e be necessary to insulate and/or remove and relocate all portions if the roadway width was increased from its current width. Although Greg Brown does not believe the east end of Ingerson Road (hill) is conducive to rain gardens53, he does believe that catch basins, vortex drains or centrifugal chambers could be installed at the bottom of the hill (by Femwood Ave. and Femwood Ct.). These devices would capture runoff water and reduce the amount of runoff water flowing to the rain gardens located at the west end/flat portion of Ingerson Road. Both Rice Creek Watershed District and Greg Brown acknowledge and agree that the incorporation of rain gardens would greatly reduce the need and/or size of any water holding pond. The Review Group believes that the rain garden concept could not only meet the needs of the City's PMP but also help ensure improved water quality. Because rain gardens may satisfy the dual objectives of effective water drainage and improvement of the area's water quality, a majority of Review Group members feel the Council, City and engineering firm should work in conjunction with a qualified independent landscape architect who is familiar with and has expcrience in alternative stormwater management methods and the Rice Creek Watershed District to determine the feasibility of such concepts within the Ingerson neighborhood. Acceptance of Rain Gardens by Ingerson Project Residents e In July 2000 a survey was conducted to determine iflngerson Project residents accepted both the concept of rain gardens and placement of rain gardens in their residential lots. The survey was limited to residents that resided in areas that Greg Brown believes would be conducive to rain gardens: Carlton Ave. and the lower portion of Ingerson Road. The residents were asked to indicate yes or no to the following: I(we) am (are) interested in having a Rain Garden in the street right-of-way part of our property as an alternative to having the street modified to include storm sewers, curbs and gutters. 53 The majority of Review Group members recommend that the City consider consulting with individuals such as Derek Knapp, consultant for The Rice Creek Watershed District and/or Fred Rozumalski, consultant for the rain garden projects in Maplewood, Como and other areas, who have the expertise to determine ifrain gardens are feasible and appropriate within the area. e 20 August 17, 2000 e e . INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDA TIONS Survey questionnaires were given to 30 residents. The survey results are as follows: 20 Yes 1 No 2 Maybe* .8. No response and/or residents not at home 31 Total *2 residents were in favor ofrain gardens but did not want them installed in their yard because they felt they could not maintain the rain gardens due to their age. One of these 2 also did not want her existing hedges removed. The survey results indicate that the majority of polled residents are in favor of the concept ofrain gardens in lieu of a storm sewer system and would be agreeable to installation of rain gardens in the City right-of-way on their property. Financial Resonrces for Alternative Methods A number of recognized local organizations believe that alternative methods such as rain gardens are viable and should be incorporated into a city's PMP. The following organizations provide financial resources/grants to cities for the construction of altemative stormwater management methods: Minnesota Department of Natural Resource Environmental Partnership Grant Program and/or Conservation Partners Grant Program Sharon Pfeifer, Metro Region Grants Coordinator 651/772-7900 Rice Creek Watershed District Kate Drewry, District Administrator 651/766-4191 Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District Tom Peterson, District Manager 651/488-1476 Metropolitan Council MetroEnvironment Partnership Grant Program Gary Oberts, Senior Environmental Plarmer 651/602-1079 21 August 17. 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATfONS . Curbs and Gutters Review Grouo Recommendations: All Review Group members recommend that the Ingerson Project not include the installation of 6", or more, concrete curbs and gutters. The majority of neighborhood residents that responded to the Dec. 1999 neighborhood survey indicated that they are opposed to the installation of any curb and gutter system. From a water quality standpoint, installation of curbs and gutters may be detrimental. To maintain the integrity of the roadway without increasing the road width flat concrete edge bands could be installed. Surmountable curbs could or should be installed in areas that require control of water drainage. Although there are some benefits to curbs and gutters, there are also disadvantages to such structures: The lack of a curb eliminates a major trap of airborne pollutants. In addition, runoff can infiltrate into the soil during small and moderate storm events. Performance monitoring, however, has shown that drainage channels only realize these benefits under ideal conditions.. ..[D]ust, pollen, leaves, grass clippings, and organic matter can be trapped by . the curb, where they remain until they are washed into the stormdrain system. 54 Both the City of Golden Valley55 and Maplewood56 acknowledge that some individuals do not want curbs or gutters in the neighborhood and, if the majority ofthe residents do not want curbs and gutters, the City does not propose or install curb and gutters in the roadway projects. For water quality purposes, the Rice Creek Watershed District would prefer that curbs and gutters not be installed. 57 According to information presented to and discussed by the Review Group, it is not necessary to install curbs and gutters in areas that are utilizing rain gardens. 58 Arguments for the installation of curbs and gutters have included adding stability to the street and/or facilitating snowplowing. Greg Brown has advised that, if necessary, the roadway can be stabilized by the installation ofan approximately 16"-18" concrete edge band along the side of the roadway. The roads within the Ingerson Project have been snowplowed by both County and City personnel for over 40 years without any detrimental effect. Ken Haider, Maplewood, 54 Site Planninf! (or Urban Stream Protection, The Center for Watershed Protection and US EPA (December, 1995). 55 City of Golden Valley web site. 56 May 2, 2000 Review Group Meeting. " April 4, 2000 Review Group Meeting. " See also Residential Streets, supra. . 22 August 17, 2000 -. . . . INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS advises that his personnel have not encountered any snowplowing problems/issues where curbs and gutters have not been installed. 59 Some Review Group members believe the incorporation and cost of installing curbs and gutters for snowplowing purposes is neither cost effective nor efficient and these arguments for curbs and gutters are without merit. The majority of residents within the Ingerson neighborhood have expressed their view that they do not want curbs and gutters installed in their neighborhood.60 The Review Group recommends that if the majority of residents do not want curbs and gutters that the City follow the examples of both the City of Golden Valley and Maplewood and not install curbs and gutters. If, however, the Council does not accept the recommendations of the Review Group and determines that curbs and gutters are to be installed, some Review Group members recommend that surmountable curbs like those constructed on Oak Ave. be installed and, if installed, a dye to dull the color be mixed into the concrete. They feel that at the maximum, only 4" curbs should be installed in areas that require control of water drainage. Water Holding Ponds Review GrOUD Recommendations: Four (4) members of the Review Group believe that by incorporating alternative methods to address stormwater runoff, the holding ponds in the area between Hamline Ave. and Snelling Ave. are unnecessary. Three (3) members ofthe Review Group believe that the project should incorporate the installation of a holding pond in this area. Before any final decision abont holding ponds is made, the City and Engineering staff should obtain additional information regarding the area, including whether it currently meets the needs from a water quality standpoint and information regarding the anticipated water quantity for this area. The initial BRW feasibility plans called for the construction of two (2) large water holding ponds in the area between Hamline Ave. and Snelling Ave. According to BRW, the sole purpose of these holding ponds would be to infiltrate water before entering Lake Joharma, which is located in another Arden Hills area. Some residents of the Ingerson neighborhood believe the construction of such ponds in this location is unnecessary, would create children safety issues and would be destructive to the aesthetic view of the neighborhood as it would disrupt and change the current contour ofthe land. In addition, any removal of existing trees and vegetation to create these holding ponds would substantially decrease the current natural noise and visible barrier it provides and thus decrease the market value ofthe area. A pond created by the City of Eagan proved to be extremely damaging after the July 8, 2000 rainfall. The use of rain gardens for stormwater management would reduce the need for installation of holding ponds in the Ingerson neighborhood since a rain garden in front of every 3 homes "May 4, 2000 Review Group Meeting. 60 January 10,2000 Council meeting. 23 Augus/17, 2000 INGERSON PROJECT RE VIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS . equates to double the size of a regional pond.61 Ms. Drewry stated that if water is given the opportunity to infiltrate (e.g. through rain gardens) there is no need to build ponds. Ms. Drewry further advised that the best National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) ponds remove only 60% of the phosphorous, a major pollutant, from water. Elimination of the holding ponds would also reduce overall construction costs and future City maintenance and clean-up expenditures. The initial BRW feasibility report failed to take into account the fact that a large portion of the land situated between Hamline Ave. and Snelling Ave. is privately owned. Before any installation of ponds could take place a land survey would be necessary to determine the boundaries ofthe privately owned land. Although topographical maps indicate that runoff water from the Ingerson and Tiller neighborhood flows into this area, the BRW report failed to identify the current amount of water and the anticipated amount of water that will flow into this area. Some Review Group members and Ingerson Project residents have been monitoring this area as well as the Lake Josephine stream both before and after rainfall including substantial rain fall. This area and its streams in their current structure do collect water. However, neither the area nor the streams have ever overflowed and it appears that the current structure, with some clean- up modifications and/or weirs, is sufficient for its purposes. Assuming this information to be . accurate, some Review Group members and Ingerson Project residents believe that if a holding pond is built in this area, the pond will sit at a low or empty level the majority of time. If this occurs, the pond has not met its purpose and it would be unsightly and an unnecessary costly expenditure to the City and thus the residents of Arden Hills. Holding ponds are not just bodies of water that do not require regular expensive maintenance at the cost of the City. If sediment that is collected by holding ponds is not removed on a regular basis, the holding ponds are no longer effective. In addition to regularly scheduled maintenance and clean-up, the ponds must be cleaned after significant rainfall so that the sediment collected does not flow through if another significant rainfall occurs shortly thereafter. It should be noted that the Rice Creek Watershed District is budgeting $75,000 annually for sediment removal from holding ponds. It was recommended by some Review Group members that if any type of holding ponds are considered, they should be located on the west side of Snelling Ave. which would not be as aesthetically disruptive to a neighborhood yet serve the same purpose as a pond constructed on the east side of Snelling Ave. Greg Brown advised the Review Group that his PMP proposals for future projects may utilize the area on the west side of Snelling Ave. for holding ponds for that area. Natural, but overgrown, streams currently run within the area between Hamline Ave. and Snelling Ave. and flow westward under Snelling Ave. and natural wetlands are located between Ingerson Road and Tiller. Ifrain gardens are incorporated within the Ingerson Project, the need . 61 May 2, 2000 Review Group Meeting. 24 August 17. 2000 -. . INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS and/or size of the holding ponds are decreased substantially, ifnot eliminated. Instead of installing holding ponds, the existing natural streams could be cleaned,62 the natural area should be revegetated for maximum water control improvement and weirs could be incorporated The City should work closely with the Rice Creek Watershed District, the Arden Hills water quality committee and an cnvironmentallandscape architect or engineer on the development and design of any water quality methods for this area. Any work done to this area should maintain the existing natural setting and should be landscaped so it continues to provide the natural setting desired by the residents. Closure of Hamline Review Cronp Recommendations: The Review Croup is split on whether Hamline Ave. should be permanently closed. If, however, Hamline Ave. north of Ingerson Road is not reconstructed and is closed, all Review Croup members recommend the area be landscaped appropriately to maintain the natural setting of the area. . A concern the Review Croup has about the closure of Hamline Ave. is the detrimental effect it may have on the traffic speed in this area. Based upon current knowledge of the traffic speed in this area (fast speed around the Hamline/Ingerson intersection), Review Group members believe traffic speed may increase in this intersection if the stop signs are removed andlor if the area is designed without taking into account area traffic speed. By landscaping appropriately, residents will utilize this area for recreational henefit. It is the recommendation of the Review Group that this area not only be landscaped appropriately but that design considerations be given in regards to the potential effect on traffic speed and residents' safety. Those Review Group members that favor permanent closure cite the significant cost of reconstruction due to the poor soil conditions at the site. Traffic considerations were the factors for those Review Group members that believe Hamline A ve_ should remain open. (One Review Group member was not present for the discussion.) The initial BRW feasibility report proposed to permanently close Harnline Ave. north of Ingerson Road. The major argument for the closure of Ham line Ave. is due to the significant cost that would be incurred by the City to improve the roadway. City staff advises that Hamline Ave. north of Ingerson was improperly constructed. For the most part, homes do not abut this portion of Hamline Ave. so any repairs would need to be absorbed by the City. The original BRW feasibility report also indicated that this portion of Hamline Ave. needed to be closed in order to constructed the recommended holding ponds. If holding ponds are eliminated . 62 At the 7/6100 Review Group meeting, Dwayne Stafford advised that one of the natural streams running from the wetlands has been plugged by debris. 25 August 17, 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS or their size reduced, a significant reason for closing this portion of Hamline Ave. would be eliminated. From June 13 to July 4, 2000, vehicle traffic counts were taken on Hamline Ave. south of Ingerson Road, Ingerson Road and Dunlap Ave. Barricades were installed on June 23, 2000 north of the Ingerson Road/Hamline intersection that prevented traffic flow on Hamline Ave. north ofIngerson Road and the vehicle traffic count continued.63 The meters were only operating part of the day on June 13 and July 4,2000, so those numbers were discounted in our calculations. June 23 was a transition day with the barricades up for less than the complete day, so those numbers were also eliminated from the calculations. Since July 1 through July 3 were days just prior to the July 4 holiday, we discounted those numbers as well. Then we arbitrarily discarded the numbers for June 21 and June 22 so that we ended up with data for seven sequential days with the street open and seven sequential days with the street closed. The subsequent distilled metering results are as follows: June 14 - 20, 2000 June 24 - June 30, 2000 In erson Road 2755/7 = 393.6 4330/7 = 618.6 Dunla Ave. 694/7 = 99.1 2071/7 = 295.9 Hamline Ave. 4532/7 = 647.4 4391/7 = 627.3 These vehicle metering results indicate that the number of vehicles traveling on Ingerson Road increased by an average of 57% after the barricades were placed on Harnline Ave. The results also indicate that the number of vehicles traveling on Dunlap Ave. increased by an average of 198% after the barricades were placed on Hamline Ave. At the same time, traffic counts taken on Hamline Ave., which counted virtually all vehicles that approached or left the intersection where the closure actually occurred, decreased slightly. In other words, ifHarnline Ave. north of Ingerson Road is closed to traffic, traffic will increase substantially on Ingerson Road and especially on Dunlap Ave. where traffic counts nearly tripled. Increased traffic may also equate to increased traffic speeds on the roads in question. The Revicw Group acknowledges that according to Dwayne Stafford, only 4 Ingerson Project residents called the City to complain about the Hamline Ave. closure. The Review Group is concerned that the Ingerson Project residents may not have realized that they needed to contact the City and voice any concerns about the Hamline Ave. closure. Another concern of some Review Group members is the residents on Dunlap Ave. where traffic more than tripled. None of the residents on Dunlap Ave. received a notice explaining why the roadway was temporarily closed nor information on who to contact ifthey had concerns. Before any decision is made about the closure of Harnline Ave., the Review Group recommends that the Council poll the affected residents, both the Ingerson Project residents and the Dunlap Ave. residents, to OJ In addition to vehicle count, the meters also read vehicle speed. However, because of the placement of the meter readers (e.g. right in front of a stop sign where one would obviously decrease their vehicle speed), the Review Groups feels that any results from the vehicle speed meters should be discounted and void. Greg Brown concurs. 26 August 17, 2000 . . . e "'\ I: ~~' e INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS determine if they are or are not in favor of the closure. If Hamline Ave. north of Ingerson Road is closed, the Review Group recommends that not only the design/landscaping be appropriate for the area but also that considerable safety design consideration be given (e.g. installation of stop sign on Hamline Ave. at the Ingerson Road intersection). STREET STRUCTURE Review GrouD Recommendations: The original BRW feasibility report suggested that all roadways within the Ingerson Project be reconstructed down to the subbase. The Review Group members recognize and acknowledge that the City must maintain the life of a roadway. The majority of Review Group members recommend that the current subbase structure of each roadway be reviewed individuallv, taking into account the roadway usage, to determine if it is necessary to reconstruct the subbase for that particular road. If a subbase does not need to be reconstructed, the road should merely undergo a 2"- 6" cold recycle overlay, provided that the end product is a road with a consistent life expectancy throughout, which is commensurate with reconstrncted roads of the same type. There was considerable debate during the Review Group meetings over the existing street subbase. Greg Brown contends that the roads in questions should be dug up approximately 2- 2.5'and that the subbase should be replaced. This is obviously a costly endeavor to both the City and the residents. Some Review Group members believe that, based upon the appearance of the roads in the area, a complete reconstruction of all roads in the neighborhood is not warranted. The roads in the Ingerson Project area were constructed in the 1950s. Some or all of the subject roads have undergone 1-2 pavement overlays. The majority of roads within the project do not show any evidence of deterioration such as cracking, crumbling, etc., which would be signs of a poor subbase.64 Femwood Ct. was constructed in 1961, was overlaid in 1989 and was sea1coated in 1996. If the roadways are not deteriorating, it would seem reasonable to assume that the current subbase is adequate and sufficient for the neighborhood needs. According to Greg Brown, an overlay would not "seal"/correct any underlying roadway cracks. However, both Dwayne Stafford and Greg Brown acknowledge that even a newly installed road will eventually show cracks and deterioration. Some Review Group members believe that the cost ofreconstruction is exorbitant to both the residents and the City. Greg Brown advised that the cost of a full reconstruction of the roadway would cost approximately $ I 80-$200 per foot vs. $65-$85 per foot for the cost of a 4" cold 64 There are areas on the roadway that do appear to have "sunk" or cracked. However, these areas were dug up by the City and/or utility workers for repair of utilities. Poor repavement/patching is the cause of any deterioration in these areas. 27 August 17, 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS . recycle with Bituminous curb.65,66 It is obvious from a cost standpoint that the cold recycle approach would provide an enormous cost savings to both the City and the residents67 The Review Group acknowledges that some roadways within the project (e.g. Ingerson Ct., Carmon) may need to undergo full reconstruction due to their present condition. However, not all streets within the project may be in need of full reconstruction. Greg Brown advises that "dual" improvements (some roadways undergo full reconstruction and some roads only undergo cold recycle replacement) are possible68 The Review Group suggests that this approach be used for the Ingcrson Project provided, however, that the end product is a road with a consistent life expectancy throughout, which is commensurate with reconstructed roads of the same type. LAKE JOSEPHINE Review Group Recommendations: The original BRW feasibility report proposed to reconstrnct the stream that runs into Lake Josephine by Fernwood Court and Ingerson Road. A resident and/or the Lake Josephine Association (comprised of residents along Fernwood Court and Ingerson Road) privately own this land. The Review Group acknowledges that water quality standards must be addressed. By incorporating alternative methods for stormwater runoff in the Ingerson Project, the City . can significantly decrease the amount of water flowage into the Lake Josephine stream off Ingerson Road. Before any design proposal is undertaken for this area, the City and Council should obtain further information about whether or not the area/stream currently meets the needs of the City and water quality standards and the water quantity anticipated. The Review Group acknowledges that the Conncil has received recommendations submitted by the Lake Josephine Association. This land provides not only recreational value but also homeowner market value to the owners. For these reasons, as well as the reasons cited below, the Ingerson Project residents as well as the Review Group members are opposed to the taking of any ofthis land. If, bowever, any changes are made to this private property (e.g. increase stream width by approximately 6"), the City should provide tangible and/or monetary consideration to the owners of any land impacted by the change. The original BR W feasibility report included reconstruction of the stream that runs into Lake Josephine near the intersection ofFernwood Court and Ingerson Road. The BRW feasibility report failed to take into account that the land that the stream flows through is privately owned by a residcnt and/or the Lake Josephine Association, failed to identifY the current amount of 65 Greg Brown's estimates are based upon a 32' roadway. 66 Cold recycle can be done in increments of2", 4", 6", etc. 67 It needs to be noted and acknowledged that BRW's project monetary compensation is based upon the total project costs. Obviously, if the roadways are not reconstructed, the project costs decrease significantly. 68 July 6, 2000 meeting. . 28 August I7. 2000 tit . tit INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDA TlONS water that flows into the stream, failed to identify the anticipated amount of water that will flow into this stream and failed to identify accurate elevation information. Mu.f'r"ttJ:..-. The Review Group recognizes that "clean water and healthy equRtic [sic] environments have significant value to the community and economy.,,69 However, the subject property not only provides its owners with private access to Lake Josephine and aesthetic value but considerable market value to the homes. When selling homes within the neighborhood, it is not unusual for the homeowner to include lake land ownership as a market consideration and value. Nor is it unusual for a buyer to recognize the market value of such land. Loss of any portion of this land would not only reduce the property's recreational value but could also decrease the market value of their homes. As stated above, some Review Group members and Ingerson Project residents have been monitoring this area both before and after rainfall, including substantial rainfalls. Rarely is water seen flowing through the stream into Lake Josephine. When the water level of Lake Josephine rises, lake water flows into the stream. The Lake Josephine waters nurture wetlands in the area, which provide habitat for various fish and animals. No analysis has been conducted to determine if any BRW design proposed would have a detrimental effect to the wetlands and/or its inhabitants. If rain gardens and/or proper drain basins are incorporated into the project, the amount of water runoff into the stream is decreased significantly ifnot eliminated. It is the recommendation of the Review Group that the Council, City and engineering firm work with the private homeowner and the Lake Josephine Association members in designing methods that would provide water quality benefits to Lake Josephine and the surrounding area without reducing the current recreational and market value of ownership of this property. If the stream and surrounding area needs to be modified, such methods might include just the deepening of the stream, installation of a weir, etc. which would not have a major detrimental effect on the property but yet provide water quality management of water entering Lake Josephine. NEIGHBORHOOD/RESIDENT INVOLVEMENT Review Group Recommendations: Although the Review Group was not charged to make recommendations about future PMP projects, the Review Group does recommend that the process he modified to allow residents an earlier opportunity to have input into each project. Specifically, the Review Group suggests the following process: 1. City staff prepare and publish a map of anticipated projects scheduled over the next five years; 69 National Resource Defense Council. supra. 29 August 17, 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS It 2. City staff present conceptual designs to the affected residents of a project one (1) year in advance of the final feasibility report; 3. City staff provide a process and adequate time for residents' input by holding meetings with affected residents to explain details of the proposed project design once preliminary snrvey and design work has been completed; and 4. City staff consider residents' comments on the proposed design in developing the final feasibility report to the Council. Lessons have been leamed by the Review Group and hopefully the Council, City staff and engineering firm that would be applicable in future pavement management projects. The major complaints from the residents have been lack of information, insufficient time in which to respond to the Council's proposed project, and lack of resident involvement in the proposed project. The Review Group obtained an explanation of the process used in Maplewood during one of its meetings. Ken Haider, Maplewood, stated that it was Maplewood's objective to involve its residents in all the projects. Haider and/or his staff meet 1-2 times with the residents in the spring to discuss the residents' pavement/street needs. It is not until after these meetings that a e feasibility report is drafted in the fall for Council's review. Haider advises that at times, plarmed projects were discontinued in the spring, before any feasibility report was prepared, when it was determined that projects would or could not meet the needs of the residents and/or were not readily accepted by the residents.7o From the design of its web site, one can tell that the City of Golden Valley strives to continuously keep its residents informed of its pavement improvement projects. One page of their web site describes their pavement policy program and other web site pages are dedicated to . 71 current projects. Once the City of Arden Hills develops its web site, information regarding current and future projects should be posted for easy access by all concerned. CONCLUSION One of the recommendations ofthe Review Group to the Council, staff and engineering firm is that the needs, wants and values of the residents be considered in the final recommendations for the Ingerson Project. There were and are certain values the residents took into consideration when they chose to move into the area and they want these values to continue and not be destroyed. We believe the recommendations incorporated within this report provide sound, economical and feasible alternatives to the City's PMP for the Ingerson Project. It 70 May 2, 2000 Review Group Meeting. 71 City of Golden Valley web site. 30 August 17, 2000 ". . . . lNGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATiONS The Review Group wishes to express its gratitude to the Council for allowing the formation of such a group and recognizing the benefits of project input from residents. The Review Group also wishes to acknowledge the commitment of the Council, staff, Greg Brown and the Review Group members. Ifthe Council desires additional information, input and/or involvement from the Review Group, they should contact Linda Swanson, Chairperson. 31 August 17, 2000 CoU,...C.I"" frPP~ ?l~(1tIAVGf ."' INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDA TIONS . APPENDIX A - BACKGROUND In 1999, at the request of the Arden Hill's City Council, BRW, the City's outside engineering consulting firm, developed a PMP neighborhood priority plan.72 The Ingerson neighborhood was slated as the first neighborhood that fell under the City's PMP. On November 30, 1999, the City of Arden Hills, through its consultant Greg Brown, BRW Engineering, prescnted a feasibility study to the residents that reside on Ingerson Road, Ingerson Court, Femwood Road, Fernwood Court, Hamline Avenue, Carlton Drive, Canon Avenue, and Tiller Lane (collectively referred to as the Ingerson Project area). The feasibility report included, but was not limited to, the following designs: . Widening of streets from their existing widths (24'-28') to 32'; . Possible removal of trees, shrubs and other plant life to accommodate a 32' road; . Curb and gutters along all roads; . Installation of storm sewer piping; . Reconstruction of the ditch that flows into Lake Josephine (which flows through land privately owned by a resident and by the Lake Josephine Association); . Closure of Harnline Avenue north of Ingerson Road; and . Installation of two (2) holding ponds in the land situated between Harnline and . Snelling Avenue. On January 10, 2000, the City of Arden Hills held a public hearing to discuss the Ingerson Project. At the January 10, 2000 public meeting, numerous residents of the Ingerson Project area vigorously and vocally advised the Council that they were opposed to the BRW feasibility plans as designed. (See January 10,2000 meeting minutes for summaries ofresident comments.) At the February 14, 2000 Council meeting, the Council decided to temporarily table the Ingerson Project as designed and formed a Review Group to review the Ingerson Project and make recommendations to the Council. The Review Group consisted ofthe following individuals: Linda Swanson, Resident and Chairperson* Steve Baker, Member ofthe Arden Hills' Plarming Committee' Greg Brown, BRW engineer Teresa Cain, Resident representative' Dave Grant, Arden Hills Council Member Dick Hanson, Resident' Gregg Larson, Arden Hills Council Member Terry Nygaard, Member of the Arden Hills' Operations and Finance Committee' Christine Peterson, Resident' Yvonne Wilken, Resident' *Voting Member . 72 "Commercial" roadways were not incorporated into this plan. 32 August 17, 2000 . . . INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS The Review Group resident members were composed of residents from various locations within the project: Ingerson Road (east end/top of hill [Swanson] and west end/lower portion [Wilken]); Hamline Ave. (Hanson and Cain, Executive Director of Little Brothers Friends of the Elderly, property owner on Hamline) and Carlton Drive (Peterson). The charge of the Review Group was: To evaluate and make recommendations regarding the scope of a road improvement project for the Ingerson neighborhood. February 14,2000 Council Minutes. The Review Group met twice a month (every 1st and 3rd Tuesday) from March 21, 2000 through August I, 2000. After the first Review Group meeting, a notice was mailed by the City to the Ingerson Project residents advising them ofthe formation of the Review Group; the identity of the Review Group members; the dates, times and location of the meetings and a tentative agenda for the following two (2) Review Group meetings. It was neither the intent nor the purpose of the Review Group to determine specific project specifications. Rather, the Review Group attempted to assimilate and review information that would be pertinent to the Ingerson Project. Although all Review Group meetings were open to the public, questions/comments raised by the public were not addressed during the meetings. Rather, questions/comments could be raised and discussed by participants after the meetings and/or could be addressed by individual Review Group members at any time. Through written and verbal communications, the Ingerson Project residents were encouraged to contact the Review Group members if they had any questions and/or information relevant to the Ingerson Project. The majority of the meetings consisted of discussions and/or comments by Greg Brown that pertained to the original design and and/or altemative designs. Additional meeting speakers included: Kate Drewry, District Administrator Rice Creek Watershed District; Derek Knapp, P.E., Montgomery Watson, Engineering Consulting Firm for the Rice Creek Watershed District; Ken Haider, Public Works Director, Maplewood; and Terry Nygaard/Terry Post, Arden Hills representatives, re: Assessment information. In addition to discussion meetings and speakers, the Review Group reviewed various printed materials. The final recommendations ofthe Review Group were formulated by the voting members of the Review Group. 33 August 17, 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDA TIONS The Ingerson Project is the first of many projects scheduled under Arden Hills' PMP. It is the hope of the Review Group that some of the recommendations put forth to the Council for the Ingerson Project may also be applicable for future roadway projects within Arden Hills. 34 AugustI7,2000 . . . . . INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDIX B - REFERENCED ARTICLES Asvhalt Rebellion. The. Alan Ehrenhalt, Executive Editor of Governing Magazine, http://www.islandnet.comlITE_BClNov97_Asphalt.html Better Site Desir;n: A Handbook for Chaneinr; Develovment Rules in Your Communitv. August, 1998 and Consensus Aereement On Model Develovment Princivles to Protect Our Streams. Lakes and Wetlands. April, 1998, Center for Watershed Protection Brineine Garden Amenities into Your Neiehborhood: Infrastructure for Ecolovical Oua/itv. A Guidebook for Cities and Citizens. Joan Iverson Nassauer, Brady Halverson and Steve Ross (June 1997) Bulletin. The, March 22, 2000 City of Golden Valley PMP, http://www.ci.golden-valley.mn.us/streets/pmp.htrn Ecolof!V and Culture of Water. The, James M. Patchett, ASLA and Gerould S. Wilhelm, Pd.D. (Revised June 4, 1997) Effective Traffic Calmine Avv/ications and Imvlementation. MN Local Road Research Board (October 1998) Flood Insurance, STAR, July 29,2000 Imvortance of Imverviousness. The. Watershed Protection Techniques, Vol. I, No.3 - Fall 1994 Landscape Practices. The RoufEe River Project, http://www.Waynecounty.com/rougeriver/getinvol/tipland.htrnl Local Climatoloeical Data, NOAA, National Climatic Data Center, 1994-1999 Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc., http:/www.nrdc.org Residential Streets, Second Edition, 1990, American Society of Civil engineers, National Association of Home Builders, The Urban land Institute Site Plannine for Urban Stream Protection, The Center for Watershed Protection and US EP A (December, 1995) Slow Down You're Goin,? Too Fast! The Communitv Guide to Traffic Calminr:. Public Technology, Inc. (1998) Solution to Urban Traffic and A New Vision for Neir:hborhood Livabilitv. The, Citizens Advocating Responsible Transportation (1993) 35 August 17, 2000 ~, -" " e CITY OF ARDEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: August 17, 2000 TO: Joe Lynch, City Administrator FROM: Dwayne Stafford, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Ingerson Road Improvement Group e Backl!round The Arden Hills City Council was presented with a preliminary feasibility report at a council meeting last November, which idcntified the Ingerson Road/Hamline Avenue area for street improvements in 2000. Many residents attended an informational meeting and the council meeting and expressed dissatisfaction with the proposed improvements for various reasons. At the February 14th, Council Meeting, the Council approved the formation of a review group to study the need for the project, (what brought us to this point) and to review city street standards and other design options, followed by a recommendation to Council from their point of view. Council appointed Linda Swanson, an Ingerson Road resident to chair the group. The review group would consist of five residents ofthe proposed project area, including the chairperson, two council members to act as liaisons, two Arden Hills residents not from the project area, the City Engineer and the Public Works Director. City Council members, the City Engineer and the Public Works Director would not have input on the group's final recommendation to the City Council. Review Group Meetin~s The Ingerson Road Improvement Group met ten times over a period of six months. Discussions ranged over all aspects of street improvements and storm water quality improvements. Guest speakers included the Public Works Director from Maplewood and representatives from the Rice Creek Watershed District. City Accountant, Terry Post, also attended one meeting to explain the City's Assessment Policy. About half ofthe discussions were related to rain gardens. The meetings were open to anyone, and many residents attended one or more of the meetings. Outcome Although the City Engineer and Public Works Director's recommendations may differ from those offered by the review group, the City is very appreciative of the group's open- mindedness, hardwork and dedication. Everyone learned from the experience and a mutual respect was gained for each other among all participants. e Attachments Attached are recommendations from the Arden Hills City Engineer and Public Works Director for improvements to streets in the Ingerson Road/Hamline Avenue area. 2000 Pavement Management Program Ingerson Neighborhood Draft Recommendations from Staff The following recommendations from staff are provided for the use of the City Council in determining the direction to proceed with the 2000 PMP. The recommendations are a result of discussions held at task force meetings and discussions between the Public Works Director and City Engineer during the past several months. Does the selection of the Ingerson Neighborhood for the 2000 PMP have merit? YES The neighborhood was selected due to several factors which independently may not be significant enough to raise the neighborhood priority, but collectively push this neighborhood to the top of the list for reconstruction. . Pavement Condition Index: The weighted neighborhood index is approximately 56 and at the lower end of the spectrum of City neighborhoods. In the past reconstruction of streets has been generally done when PCI's are below 60. . Drainage: The neighborhood has low, flat areas along Ingerson Road between Hamline Avenue and Fernwood Street and along Cannon Avenue which routinely pond water for several hours following rainfall events. Drainage infrastructure in the neighborhood is lacking in these areas and several backyards apparently experience routine flooding. . Water Quality: The eastern neighborhood runoff empties directly into Lake Josephine untreated and the western neighborhood runoff empties into a wetland/ditch system on the west side of the neighborhood. The potential for improvement of the water quality of runoff running directly into natural water bodies is a contributing factor in the selection of this neighborhood. . State Aid Funding: The city state aid construction account balance will be approximately $430,000.00 in 2001. Of the five highest priority neighborhoods, only Ingerson Road and Hamline Avenues are eligible for state Aid funds. The only other city street programmed for reconstruction in the near future that is also eligible for state aid funding is West Round Lake Road. The timing is right for use of these funds for a neighborhood project. . Standards: The streets identified for reconstruction do not meet current city standards for width, pavement section or curb and gutter. Although as a part of the city wide review of street conditions, staff is recommending revisiting some standards. The underlying goal of the city PMP is to bring some level of uniformity of design throughout the city - currently this neighborhood does not have much uniformity. . City Infrastructure Management: The City has the responsibility of insuring safe, functional streets and utilities throughout the city. Since financial resources are limited, a consistent program of improvements is necessary to insure that the City is not saddled with excessive costs to improve its infrastructure down the road. The complete reconstruction of a street is financially viable about every 40-50 years based upon current city budgeting and mileage of streets under city jurisdiction. The proposed improvements are on streets that have not been reconstructed since their original construction (approximately 40 years) and have several deficiencies as noted above. ...... r e . . r~ ~ . e e e . The proposed improvements are a substantial investment into City infrastructure which should have a positive effect on the neighborhood property values as well. The City of Eagan had estimated typical residential street improvements to add $3,000.00 to $4,000.00 of value to properties. . Should the reconstructed streets include concrete curbs and gutters? Yes The existing streets do not have concrete curb and gutter however some sections of the streets have deteriorated bituminous curbs while others have "sod" curbs at the edge of the bituminous pavement. Ramline Avenue currently does have an existing rural section with ditches or low areas on both sides of the roadway. The area grades range from very flat to moderately hilly and most front yards slope into the roadway and have trees relatively close to the edge of the road. Staff recommends that concrete barrier (vertical face) curb and gutter be installed throughout the project with the exception of areas that may be selected for rain gardens or the rural section of Hamline A venue. Concrete barrier curbs provide a solid "bookend" to the bituminous pavement, provide for better snow plowing, less potential of cars running over front lawns and increased efficiency of the drainage system. The existing topography of the neighborhood lends itself to curbing and concrete curbing is a great deal more durable than bituminous curbing as is apparent by the dilapidated condition of the existing bituminous curbing. In rain garden areas or rural section areas, a 24 inch concrete edge strip (with no vertical curb) is recommended in order to provide the "bookend" for the bituminous pavement and also blend with the concrete curb look throughout the rest of the neighborhood. Street Structure Staff recommends that the streets be removed and reconstructed to current standards including a sand subbase, gravel base and bituminous surface. The sand subbase is desirable in order to provide subdrainage for the integrity of the roadway section. The task force discussed the possibility of overlays or cold-in-place recycling of the pavements without a 2 foot cut. Cold-in- place recycling is significantly cheaper in the short run however the roadway subbase would still be more susceptible to freeze thaw and saturation after rainfall events than the recommended sand subbase section. In addition, overlays and in place recycling don't allow for corrections to low points, humps or other undesirable surface irregularities which would be corrected with a full depth reconstruction. The existing pavement of Fernwood Court is in very good condition today (1999 rating of 86) and may not warrant replacement due to the very limite;d amount of traffic on it. Staff recommends constructing edge strips and/or concrete curbing around Fernwood Court and overlaying the surface in lieu of full reconstruction. :' The merits of a drainage subbase along the Ingerson Road "hill" east of Fernwood Street were discussed since hills generally shed water very well as opposed to flatter profiles and therefor have less need for subdrainage. Although these points are true, the monetary savings would be approximately $25.00/per foot of roadway (10% of roadway cost), differential settling at the transition from sand subbase to no subbase would likely cause a dip or bump in the roadway in that area and a lower level of performance would still be expected from the non subbase roadway over the long run. Staff recommends that a drainage subbase be included throughout Ingerson Road. f' e Street Width Hamline A venue and Ingerson Road; 30 feet face to face of curb. (local collector) Carlton Drive, Cannon Avenue and Fernwood Street: 28 feet face to face of curb. (local) Ingerson Court and Pernwood Court: 24 feet face to face of curb. (special case) Either driveway aprons or concrete valley gutters are proposed for Pernwood Court and Ingerson Court to help delineate these two minor cul-de-sacs from Ingerson Road. Hamline A venue Closure Staff recommends that Hamline A venue be closed and removed between Ingerson Road and .- Tiller Lane. The cost to reconstruct this segment of roadway would be much greater than the . average for the neighborhood and may cause some encroachment into the adjacent wetland if widened to 28-32 feet. Virtually no assessable properties lie on this segment of roadway raising the city cost of the project. The traffic movements provided by the roadway could be replaced by Dunlap Street and Pernwood Street. Traffic on those two streets will increase, the test performed earlier this summer indicated an ADT increase on Dunlap Street from 100 to 300 however, an ADT of 300 is still considered typical for a residential type street. A moderate speed increase was also measured during the test apparently as a result of the closure however speeds generally stayed below 30 mph. The project would include reconstructed curves and landscaping as necessary at the Harnline A venue and Ingerson Road intersection and at the Tiller Lane and Cannon A venue intersection to present a smooth, finished design and not have the closure appear as an afterthought. A pedestrian/bicycle trail should be included between Ingerson Road and Tiller Lane in the general area of Hamline A venue however the trail could meander to highlight any regrading, ponding or stream construction which may occur in the area. Water Quality Improvements A. Pemwood Channel Staff recommends that some permanent ponding be created in the Pemwood Channel in order to improve the water quality of runoff entering Lake Josephine. The existing picnic area on the west side of the channel should essentially remain intact. Some of the edges of the channel should be extended to the east in a serpentine nature to create the additional volume. A weir . ." \ e e e should be installed as close to Lake Josephine as possible to retain the maximum amount of runnoff (thereby increasing water quality). A pedestrian crossing should be incorporated into the channel improvements connecting Femwood Court and Ingerson Court (this could be incorporated into a weir, bridge or culvert crossing. Landscaping should be included with the channel improvements including trees, shrubs and natural grasseslflowers etc. B. HamlinelTH 51 area Staff recommends that some permanent ponding be created in this area in order to improve the water quality of runoff generated from the Tiller Lane storm sewer system, TH 51 and the western end of Ingerson Road. The ponding improvements should be in the form of expanded channels with weirs to retain water (in lieu of one large pond) prior to releasing it from the neighborhood. The channels should be regraded to look as natural as possible. A significant portion of this area is privately owned and would not be available for ponding unless the City acquires drainage easement rights or fee title to the property. The existing wetland between Tiller Lane and Ingerson Road could be modified to include a small peninsula on the west side to create better circulation of runoff through the wetland. A pedestrian/bike trail should be included in this area to connect Ingerson Road and Tiller Lane. Landscaping should be included to give the area a more natural look. Removal of existing trees should be minimized in the area and the existing screening effect of the trees along Hamline A venue should be maintained and enhanced where possible. C. Rain Gardens During the course of the task force meetings, the feasibility of incorporating of rain gardens into the project was investigated. Rain gardens are small depressions (planted with shrubs and flowers etc.) adjacent to the roadway which are intended to capture runoff from very small areas (typically a single lot and the adjacent street) and allow that runoff to seep into the ground in lieu of collecting it in storm sewers. Rain gardens are excellent for enhancing water quality and theoretically reduce the size of storm sewers and regional ponding in a given area. In order to be most effective, the gardens should be constructed in several lots in a given area and best results occur with granular subsoils which promotes a high amount of infiltration. Three areas were identified within the project area as possible locations for rain gardens due to the relatively flat terrain in these areas. The areas identified are Ingerson Road west of Femwood Street, the low area of Carlton Drive (approximately 4 lots), and the stretch of Hamline Avenue south ofIngerson Road (approximately 6 lots). Although these areas have been identified based upon the flatness of the existing terrain a number of additional factors must be considered before proceeding with rain gardens. Resident Approval Conflicts with driveways Conflicts with water services Conflicts with trees Gardens should not span over property lines (two owners would need to approve) Reduction of soil cover over watermain (requires insulation) Reduction of soil cover over sanitary sewer (requires insulation) Conflictslimpacts to underground utilities NSP, US West, Media One etc. Acceptance of design by MnDOT State Aid Cost of gardens Based upon the above factors staff recommends that rain gardens be considered for further study only along Hamline A venue south of Ingerson and the Carlton low point. . . l . e e . f . . . RUG-23-2000 07:58 612 373 6526 P.02/07 BRW III B~W Emi1!IiI A O.&.Mg;.:s. -MoonE GROUP OOMPANY MEMORANDUM BRW TIu-eshcr Square 700 Third Street South Minne<ij>Olis. MN 554]5 Phone: (612) 370-0700 Fax: (612) 370-1378 To; Joe Lynch/Arden Hills City Administrator File: 37951-011-0lD1 From: Gregory S. Brown Arden Hills City Engineer Dale: August 22, 2000 Subject: Pay Estimate #3 (Final Payment) 1999 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Program Background The City of Arden Hills awarded Lametti and Sons, Inc. of Hugo, Minnesota the 1999 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project On November 8, 1999 for a total contract amount of $251,265.00. Payment #1 for the sum of $120,478.05 was paid on April 10,2000. Payment #2 for the sum of $59,371.73 was paid on May 8, 2000, Project Status Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation The Contractor has completed the sanitary sewer rehabilitation and site restoration. Televising Sanitary Sewer The Contractor has completed the sanitary sewer cleaning and televising. Sa!! Pipe Repair The Contractor has completed the sag pipe repair and site restoration. RecommendatioDs The Arden Hills City Engineer recommends the Council approve Pay Estimate #3 (Final Payment) in the amount of $37,815.78 to Lamelli and Sons, Inc. No retain age is being held for the project. Cc; Mark Lynch/BRW Dwayne Stafford/Ardcn Hills . . . AUG-23-2000 07:58 BRW APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT FINAL PAYMENT NO. 3 project 1999 SANITARY CITY OF ARDEN Owner CITY OF ARDEN Owner's Project No. Contractor LAMETTI & SONS, Application Date 8/28/00 SEWER HILLS HILLS REHABILITATION 612 373 6526 P.03/07 INC. Engineer'S File No. 37951-011-0101 For Period Ending 8/18/00 ------------~-------~---------~~-------------~------~--------------- ----------------------~--------~-------~---------------------------- STATEMENT OF WORK Original Contract Amount Net Change By Contract Amendment Contract Amount to Date Total Amount of Work Completed to Date Material Suitably Stored on Site but not Incorporated into Work Gross Amount Due to Date Less 0.00% Retainage Amount Due to Date Less Previous Payments Payment Due this Application $ 251,265.00 $ 0.00 $ 251,265.00 $ 217,665.56 $ 0.00 $ 217,665.56 $ 0.00 $ 217,665.56 $ 179,849.78 $ 37,815.78 . . . RUG-23-2000 07:58 BRW 612 373 6526 P.04/07 I hereby certifY that all items and amounts shown are correct for the work completed to date, Contractor Lametti & Sons rnc By (Name and Title) Date The work on this project and the application for payment have been reviewed and the amount shown is recommended for payment. BRW, INe. By (Project Engineer) APPROVEDFORPA~ENT Owner City of Arden Hills By (Name and Title) Date Date RUG-23-2000 07:58 ~ ERW File; 37951-011-DIOl Seq. No/ MnDot No Item BRW APPLl:CATl:ON FOR PARTIAL .PAYMENT 1999 SANITARY SEWER REHABl:LITATION CITY OF ARD~ Hl:LLS Unit Unit price Bid Schedule: A - SANITARY SEWER RSBABILITATION 1 MOBILIZATION 2021.501 2 SITE RESTORATION 2105.601 3 SEWER BYPASS 2503.601 4 MANHOLE SEAL, CHEMICAL 2503.602 5 MANHOLE SEAL MORTAR 2503.602 6 F & I MANHOLE STE~S _.602 7 SEWER MAIN CLE~~ING 2503.603 8 TRENCHLESS PIPE LINING 2503.603 (12") 9 RECONSTRUCT MANHOLE 2506.602 INVERT 10 INSTALL 2-FOOT, 48" 2506.602 BARREL SECTION 11 LOCKING MANHOLE COVER 2506.602 12 MANHOLE MARKER POST 2564.532 LS 0100.00 LS 3000.00 LS 1500.00 GAL 50.00 GAL 50.00 EA 40.00 LF 6.00 LF 33.00 EA 2000.00 EA 800.00 EA 1000.00 EA 70.00 1 2021. 501 MOBILIZATION Bid Schedule: B - T~L2VIS~ SANITARY SEWER 3000.00 2 _.603 TELEVISE SANITARY SEWER (8"-18") LS LF 0.40 Contract Quantity 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 200.00 100.00 65.00 2300.00 2300.00 1.00 2.00 1. 00 13.00 1. 00 49500.00 512 373 5525 Contract Amount 6100.00 3000.00 1500.00 10000.00 5000.00 2600.00 13800.00 75900.00 2000.00 1600.00 1000.00 910.00 To Date Quantity 1.00 1.00 1. 00 200.00 100.00 57.00 2262.00 ~~62.00 1_00 2.00 1. 00 13.00 Subtotal: $ 3000.00 19800.00 1.00 42961. 00 P.05/07 8/22/00 Page: 1 To Date Amount. 6100.00 3000.00 1500.00 10000.00 5000.00 2280.00 13572.00 74646.00 2000.00 1600.00 1000.00 910.00 121,608.00 3000.00 17184.40 AUG-23-2000 07:58 ~ BRW File: 37951-011-0101 Seq. No/ MnOot No Item 3 SANITARY SEWER CLEANING 2503.603 (811-1811) Eid Schedule, ~ - SAG PIPE RBPA~R 1 MOSILIZATION 2021_ 501 2 REMOVE BITUMINOUS 2104.503 PAVEMENr 3 2104.501 REMOVE BITUMINOUS CURB 4 2104_501 REMOVE 8 II PVC _.521 GRANULAR BORROW 6 2105.601 DEWATERING 7 2105.601 srTE RESTORATION 8 TRENCH EXCAVATION 2105.607 9 BITUMINOUS PATCH 2331.521 10 FURNrSH AND rNSTALL 2503,511 B" I'VC 11 SEWER BYPASS 2503.601 12 JOINT TEST (8" I'VC) 2503.602 13 JOINT SEAL (8" PVC) 2503_602 . BRW APPL~CATION FOR PART~AL PAYMENT 1999 SANITARY SEWER RBBABILITAT~ON CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Unit Unit Price LF 0.60 LS 4000.00 SY 10.00 LF 4.00 loF 6.00 TON 6,00 LS 3500.00 LS 4500.00 LF 50.00 SY 35.00 LF 20.00 loS 2500.00 Ell. 95.00 GAL 7,00 Contract Quantity 49500.00 1.00 113 . DO 70,00 355_00 100.00 1.00 l. 00 355.00 113.00 355.00 1.00 60.00 1S0_00 612 373 6526 Contract Amount 29700.00 To Date Quantity 43311.00 Subtotal: $ 4000.00 1130.00 280.00 2130.00 600.00 3500.00 4500_00 17750.00 3955.00 7100.00 2500.00 5700_00 1050.00 1.00 68.00 39.00 84_00 25_00 l. 00 1_00 321.11 68.00 89,98 1. DO 64.00 0.00 P.06/07 8/22/00 Page: 2 To Date Arnoun t 25986.60 46.171_00 4000.00 680.00 1.56 _ DO 504,00 1.50_00 3500.00 4500.00 16055.50 2380_00 1799.60 2500.00 60&0_00 0_00 AUG-23-2000 07:59 BRW 612 373 6526 P.07/07 APPLICATION FOR PARTIAL PAYMEN'J: 1999 SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION CITY 0<' AR.DllN lULLS eBRW File: 37951-011-0101 B/22/00 Page: 3 Seq. No/ Unit Contra.ct Contra.:::::t To Date To Date MnDot No Item unit Price Quantity A.mount Quantity Amount -------~ ------------------------ ------~ ~--------- --------- --~-------- --------- ----------- 14 FURNISH AND INSTALL LF 82.00 50.00 4l00.00 52.03 4266.46 2504.602 16"!1 STEEL CASING 15 CONNECT TO EXISTING EA 750.00 2.00 1500.00 2.00 1500.00 2504.602 16 BITUMINOUS CURB LF 5.00 70.00 350.00 39.00 195.00 2535.50l 17 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1000.00 l. 00 1000.00 l. 00 1000.00 2563.604 (DETOUR ONLY) 18 BALE CHECK EA 3.00 10.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 2573.501 19 SILT FENCE LF 2.00 590.00 ll80.00 310.00 620.00 2573.502 .0 PIPE SHORING EA 1000.00 10.00 10000.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 2l PIPE SUPPORT LF 20.00 150.00 3000.00 0.00 0.00 0000.000 Subtotal, $ 49,886.56 Grand Total: $ 217,665.56 . TOTAL P.07