The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCCP 01-29-2001 , , . . . FILE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS 4364 WEST ROUND LAKE ROAD ARDEN HILLS, MN 55112-5794 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING, CITY HALL MONDAY, JANUARY 29, 2001, 6:30 P.M.** II II **NOTE MEETING TIME ** Citv Philosophy To provide a basic and necessary scope of quality services through the innovative and purposeful use of resources. 6:30 P.M. 1. Call to Order 6:30 P.M. 2. Approval of Meeting Agenda 6:30 P.M. 3. Jim Tolaas, Ramsey County Public Works, County Road I and Highways 96110 Interchange Discussion 7:30 P.M. 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. January 2, 2001 Organizational Council Meeting b. January 8, 2001 Regular Council Meeting c. January 16, 2001 Council Worksession 7:40 P.M. 5. 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 fonnat. There will be no separate discussion of these items, unless a Council member so requests, in which event, the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda. a. Claims and Payroll b. Authorization to Schedule Special City Council Meeting on February 5, 2001 for the Purpose of Conducting Regular Business of the City Council c. Authorization to Relocate the Regular City Council Meeting Scheduled for February 12,2001 (To Initiate the City's Fiftieth Anniversary Celebration and Ceremony) PHONE: 1651) 633.5676 . FAX 1651) 633.7839 " AGENDA - PAGE TWO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, CITY HALL MONDAY, JANUARY 29, 2001, 6:30 P.M. . 7:45 P.M. 6. Public Comments This is an opportunity or citizens to bring to the Council s attention any items not currently on the agenda. In addressing the Council, please state your name and address for the record, and a brief summary of the specific item being addressed to the Council. To allow adequate time for each person wishing to address the Council, we ask that individuals limit their comments to three (3) minutes. Written documents may be distributed to the Council prior to the meeting, or as bench copies, to allow a more timely presentation. 7:50 P.M. 7. Unfinished and New Business a. Planning Cases 1. Case #00-34, Metro Community Credit Union, 3533 North Lexington Avenue, Sign Variance 2. Case #00-46, Chesapeake, 1-35W and 1-694, Preliminary Plat/Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) 3. Case #00-41, City of Arden Hills, Neighborhood Business District Language Amendment, Formal Ordinance #324 b. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), 1-35W Noise Wall Discussion . c. Res. #01-06, Resolution Approving an Application for Authorization to Conduct One-Day Off-Site Gambling d. Pay Estimate #2, Water Main Improvements Project, Old Highway 10/ Arden Manor Park Improvements e. City Hall Construction I. Change Order #2 2. Pay Request #4 3. Professional Design Services Fee, Architectural Alliance 8:40 P.M. 8. Administrator Comments a. Valentine Hills Elementary School, PTA Request for Cooperative Financing of Playground Equipment 8:45 P.M. 9. Council Comments a. Fire Board Discussion b. Ramsey County/MnDOT - TCAAP 9:00 P.M. 10. Adjourn The above times may vary depending upon length of issue discussion. . . Tentative March Meetin!! Schedule Meeting dates, times and locations are subject to change. Please contact City Hall for the most current schedule March 7 Planning Commission 7:30 P.M. March 12 Council Meeting 7:30 P.M. March 15 Operations & Finance 7:00 P.M. Committee rch 19 Council Worksession 4:45 P.M. March 26 Council Meeting 7:30 P.M. March 27 Parks & Recreation 7:00 P.M. Committee March 28 Communications 7:00 A.M. Committee . Tentative Fehruarv Meetin!! Schedule Meeting dates, times and locations are subject to change. Please contact City Hall for the most current schedule. Fehruary 5 Special Council Meeting? 7:30 P.M. February 7 Planning Commission 7:30 P.M. February 12 ""Council Meeting 7:30 P.M. stJl' Anniversary Kkk-Off Holiday Inn Sf. Paul North February 15 Operations & Finance 7:00 P.M. Committee February 19 Holiday February 20 Council Worksession 4:45 P.M. ("Tuesday) February 26 Council Meetiog 7:30 P.M. February 27 Parks, Trails & Recreation 7:00 P.M. Committee February 28 Communications 7:00 A.M. Committee ,01/26/01 FRI 13:56 FAX 6126337839 City of Arden Hills 141001 ********************* *** TX REPORT *** ********************* . TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID ST. TIME USAGE T PGS. SENT RESULT 4550 7634219511 01/26 13:55 01' 11 3 OK . . 01/26/01 FRI 13:58 FAX 6126337839 TRANSMISSJON OK TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID ST. TIME USAGE T PGS. SENT RESULT . . City of Arden HlIIs ~001 ********************* *** TX REPORT *** ********************* 4551 6286833 01/26 13:56 01'04 3 OK 01/26/01 FRI 13:59 FAX 6126337839 TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID ST. TIME USAGE T PGS. SENT RESULT . . City of Arden Hills I4i 001 ********************* *** TX REPORT *** ********************* 4552 7637060891 01/26 13:58 01'22 3 OK 01/26/01 FRI 14:02 FAX 6126337839 TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECT ION ID ST. TIME USAGE T PGS. SENT RESULT . . City of Arden Hills ~001 ********************* *** TX REPORT *** ********************* 4553 6333846 01/26 14: 00 01'58 3 OK 01/26/01 FRI 14:03 FAX 6126337839 TRANSMISSIO~ OK TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION 10 ST. TIME USAGE T PGS. SENT RESULT . . City of Arden Hills ~001 ********************* *** TX REPORT *** ********************* 4554 2282BJ 01/26 14:02 00.56 3 OK 01/26/01 FRI 14:05 FAX 6126337839 TRANSMISSION OK TXlRX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION TD ST. TIME USAGE T PGS. SENT RESULT . . CIty of Arden Hills ~001 ********************* *** TX REPORT ... ********************* 4555 6512279371 01/26 14:04 00'58 3 OK 01/26/01 FRI 14:07 FAX 6126337839 TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID ST. TIME USAGE T PGS, SENT RESULT . . City of Arden Hills I4J 001 ********************* *** TX REPORT *** ********************* 4556 4821262 01/26 14: 05 01'20 3 OK 01/26/01 FRI 14:08 FAX 6126337839 TRANSMISSION OK TXlRX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID ST. TIME USAGE T PGS, SENT RESULT . . City of Arden Hll1s IgJ 001 ********************* *** TX REPORT *** ********************* 4557 6123701378 BRW. INC, 01/26 14:07 01.06 4 OK 01/26/01 FRI 14:10 FAX 6126337839 TRANSMISSION OK TXlRX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID ST. TIME USAGE T PGS. SENT RESULT . . City of Arden Hills I4J 001 ********************* *** TX REPORT *** ********************* 4558 6461220 KMWB WB23 MPLS M OJ/26 14:09 01.05 4 OK . . e CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 2, 2001 7:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS OP'7 fi I!""T ; ".,';:' 11\ 1..:-1 llf~li"~i CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Dennis Probst called to order the special City Council meeting at 7:32 p.m. Present: Mayor Dennis Probst, Councilmembers Beverly Aplikowski, David Grant, Gregg Larson, and Lois Rem. Absent: None. Also present were City Administrator, Joe Lynch; City Accountant, Terrance Post; and Recording Secretary, Carla Wirth. ADOPT AGENDA MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to adopt the agenda for the January 2, 2001, Special City Council meeting, as presented. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). OATH OF OFFICE The oath of office was administered to Councilmembers Beverly Aplikowski and David Grant, City Clerk/Administrator Joe Lynch, and Treasurer Terrance Post. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. December 11, 2000 Regular Council Meeting B. December 18, 2000 Special Council Meeting C. December 18,2000 Council Worksession The Council requested the following corrections to the December 11, 2000 Regular Council Meeting minutes: Page 3, first paragraph, last sentence: "Mr. Moore acknowledged the attendance of Committee members at the meeting tonight." Page 3, fifth paragraph, second sentence: "She noted the applicable sign ordinance sections state that attaching to sign posts. .." Page 8, sixth paragraph, first sentence: "Councilmember Larson noted that the City never reached a conclusion the tower was too unsafe to continue and nothing prevents the applicant from continuing operation but the applicant would be prohibited from adding to the tower to . " mcrease revenue. ARDEN HILLS SPEC1AL CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 2, 2001 0" R" -, n., -I' T : ..'._/'."':-J- .;\. f-'t.~ 2 Page 8, eighth paragraph, first sentence: "Councilmember Larson stated the only instance with the present operation is if the Council were to move to find..." e Page 8, eleventh paragraph, first sentence: "Mayor Probst reviewed the issues that had been discussed and thus determine that the antenna may have been constructed. . . " Page 8, twelfth paragraph, first sentence: "Mr. Bannigan stated the issues related to the land use will be returned to at a later date. Page 16, first paragraph, second sentence: "She stated she would appreciate being able to ask someone other than the consultant who had done the specifications for alternatives." Page 16, fifth paragraph, first sentence: "Councilmember Rem reported on the two Community Development Block Grants received by Northwest Youth and Familv Services which were. .." The Council requested the following corrections to the December 18, 2000 Special Council Meeting minutes: Page 1, first paragraph, first sentence: "Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Acting Mayor Gregg Larson called to order the special. . ." MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion to approve the December 11, 2000 Regular Council meeting minutes as corrected above, the December 18, 2000 Special Council meeting minutes as corrected above, and the December 18, 2000 Council Worksession meeting minutes as presented. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). e CONSENT CALENDAR A. Claims and Payroll B. Resolution #01-01, Designating Depositories and Corporate Authorization C. Resolution #01-02, Designating Additional Money Market Depositories for Investment Purposes D. Resolution #01-03, Designating Brokerage Firms for Investment in Financial Instruments Authorized by State Statute Consistent with City Investment Policy E. Resolution #01-04, Transfer of Funds by Telephonic Instructions F. Designation of200l Official Newspaper MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar and authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Probst invited those present to come forward and address the Council on any items not already on the agenda. There were no public comments. e e e e ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL C1TY COUNCIL - JANUARY 2, 2001 O....n r. P"""Ii" ;-,~d ,'"-\-, 1,"iA'< f jl",F~,,~ i 3 UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A. Appointment of Acting Mayor, Council Liaisons, Professional Consultants, and Statutory Appointment of Planning Commission Members/Chairperson for 2001 Mayor Probst adviscd that Ray McGraw has asked to not be appointed to the Operations and Finance Committee. He presented his recommendation for committee, task force, and Council liaison appointments as follows: Plarming Commission Stephen 1.. Baker, Chairperson Steve Erickson Terri Duchenes Therese Galatowitsch Warren Pakulski David Sand Clayton Zimmerman Staff Liaison City Planner Council Liaison Aplikowski Parks, Trails & Recreation Committee Jim Johnson, Chairperson Jim Crassweller Patrick Krenn Don Messerly Louis Speggen Rich Straumarm Don Tix Steve Zilmer Staff Liaison Park & Recreation Director Council Liaison Larson Communications Committee Sue Schroeder, Chairperson Elwood Caldwell Sharon Hanzalik Fran Holmes Mary Nosek Staff Liaison City Administrator Council Liaison Rem Operations and Finance Committee Mark Kelliher, Chairperson Chuck Mertensotto Terry Nygaard Chuck Stoddard Staff Liaison, City Acct. & Pub.Works Dir. Council Liaison Grant City Events Task Force Council Liaison Aplikowski Web Site Development Task Force Council Liaison Rem Public Works/Parks Maintenance Facilitv Task Force Council Liaison Grant Miscellaneous Appointments Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) Lake Johanna Volunteer Fire Department - Fire Board Lake Johanna Volunteer Fire Department - Fire Board Alternate Lake Johanna Volunteer Fire Department - Relief Association North Suburban Communication (Cable) Councilmember Aplikowski Council member Larson Councilmember Grant Councilmember Larson Dave Sand or Councilmember Grant Councilmember Rem Councilmember Grant Councilmember Rem Northwest Youth & Family Services Ramsey County League of Local Governments (RCLLG) Restoration Advisory Board/TCAAP (RAB) ARDEN HILLS SPEClAL CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 2,200] ['"' r>, P, 1,,-,' 'W" , ., ".-' ;i::, ,:_ ~ :",,:::.' L \.;;.. /--"""\ il Professional Consultants City Consulting Engineer Attorneys City and Prosecution Attorney Development Attorney Miscellaneous Bond Counsel External Auditor Planning Consultants URS/Gregory Brown Project Manager Peterson, Fram & Bergman; Jerry Filla Bradley & Deike; Bob Deike Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, LTD. Kennedy and Graven, Chartered; Steve Bubol Abdo, Abdo, Eick & Meyers Mike Cronin McComb Frank Roos Associates, Inc. Labor Relations Associates, Inc. TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Ehlers and Associates, Inc. Labor Negotiations Recording Secretary Financial Advisors Inspections Electrical Inspector Health Officer North Metro Inspections; Dick Nelson Ramsey County Official Acting Mayor City Clerk! Administrator Treasurer David Grant Joseph P. Lynch Terrance R. Post Mr. Lynch explained that McComb Frank Roos Associates, Inc. had been involved with the City's Comprehensive Plan and does not need to be reappointed, unless the Council so desires. He reviewed the types of plarming issues that have been reviewed by PI arming Consultant Mike Cronin and McComb Frank Roos Associates, Inc. Councilmember Larson asked if there was an advantage to identifYing them as Plarming Consultants. Mr. Lynch stated that since McComb Frank Roos Associates, Inc. had been involved in drafting the City's Comprehensive Plan, they may be better able to help writing a scope of services for a Phase II Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP) plarming exerctse. Mayor Probst noted the $25,000 cap on services unless an RFP process is followed. Mr. Lynch explained that cap applied to purchases, but not professional services. Councilmember Rem stated that as long as the Comprehensive Plan is not completed, it makes sense to keep McComb Frank Roos Associates, Inc. on board. Councilmember Grant stated he has no preference either way. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to ratifY the Mayor's appointments as indicated above and direct staffto 4 . . . e . . ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 2,2001 D 5 l~i'"T""-T // -;, ; ';.;,.;;,~ I i"<<'t.t" .Ii notify each member to advise them of their appointment/reappointment. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS City Administrator Lynch noted the QuitClaim Deed that is ready for signature. Upon return from Washington, D.C., the deed will be recorded. He advised that the deed had been reviewed by City Attorney Filla and no problems were detected. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Grant announced the first Board meeting of the Ramsey County League of Local Government on Friday, January 5,2001, at the AMM building. Councilmember Larson commented on the information from Osseo regarding the Local Oovermnent Aid (LOA) increase and asked about the intent to pursue a change in LOA. Mr. Lynch stated this information was received from Osseo at the request of the Chair of Operations and Finance Committee and is being provided to the Council to aid in their decision making process. He advised that Representative Krinke, Senator Reiter, and Operations and Finance Committee members are expected to be in attendance at the January 16, 2001 W orksession. Councilmember Larson stated he believes it would be worthwhile to proceed if the City can marshal similar arguments and rationale. Discussion occurred regarding the level of HAC A and LOA received by Arden Hills and other communities that have had HACA and LOA levels adjusted. Councilmember Rem reported the Web Site Development Task Force final report will be available for the January 8, 2001 Council meeting. With regard to 2001 City appointments, Councilmember Rem stated she would attend the Restoration Advisory Board/TCAAP meetings if it doesn't conflict with Council meetings. Councilmember Rem reported that everyone is quite pleased with the Valentine Park rink and an open skating event will be held on Sunday, January 7, 2001 with refreshments provided. Councilmember Rem asked about the sump inspections. Mr. Post stated this was an attractive inspection program because it was a cost effective method at an incremental cost of $8 per inspection. However, the City received mixed results since the subcontractor had both good quality and poor quality crews doing the inspections. He advised that staff met with the City's contractor, and a compromise was reached to pay one-half of the inspection bill. Mr. Post stated the inspection program did not turn out the way it was envisioned due to the subcontractor's performance. ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 2,2001 D<.,,,<,,,"~. l'i ,~,.- J ":~:L reo,!' i~ ; "';'._' ':: ..... ;....'FA ;_-;, h.h-'.'I.~ 11 Councilmember Aplikowski asked if a lot of the sump pumps are operating illegally. Mr. Post stated the sump pumps identified have been followed up on. He noted this inspection program provided an educational benefit for all of the residents. Councilmember Aplikowski asked if the City will take further steps. Mr. Post stated nothing is plaillled at the present time. Mayor Probst stated he was surprised by the Walgreens proposal and wanted to assure traffic issues on that corner are fully addressed. He noted this is a "gateway" location into Arden Hills and he had understood the flower garden was on right-of-way but it appears that may not be the case. Mayor Probst reported the new City Hall construction is now above grade and encouraged staff to address a move-in date prior to June 23, 2001. Mr. Probst stated a move-in date of June 15, 2001 had been mentioned. Mr. Lynch advised of an LMC leadership conference for experienced City officials. ADJOURN MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:18 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Dennis Probst Mayor Joe Lynch City Administrator NOTICE OF MEETINGS The next regular City Council meeting will be held Monday, January 8, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. at the Arden Hills Council chambers. 6 e e e r , e e e D...o qF' T '~",,-A CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2001 7:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDERlROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Deilllis Probst called to order the regular City Council meeting at 7:31 p.m. Present: Mayor Deilllis Probst, Councilmembers Beverly Aplikowski, David Grant, Gregg Larson, and Lois Rem. Absent: None. Also present were City Administrator, Joe Lynch; Public Works Director, Dwayne Stafford; City Accountant, Terrance Post; Plamler, Jennifer Chaput; Parks and Recreation Director, Thomas Moore; City Engineer, Greg Brown, BRW; and Recording Secretary, Kathleen Altman. ADOPT AGENDA MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to adopt the agenda for the January 8, 2001, regular City Council meeting. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). CONSENT CALENDAR A. Claims and Payroll B. Res. #01-05, 2001 Fee Schedule MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar and authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Probst invited those present to come forward and address the Council on any items not already on the agenda. Elizabeth Garski, 1795 Lake Valentine Road, expressed concern regarding the lighting at Mounds View High School remaining on until 12:00 midnight each night. She stated she had spoken with the school, but could not come to an agreement regarding lighting. Ms. Garski stated she spoke with Jan Witthuhn, LS.D. No. 621 Superintendent, who indicated she was surprised the lighting was still on at that hour. Ms. Garski stated that Ms. Witthuhn indicated she would contact the appropriate parties regarding this. Ms. Garski asked this issue be put on record 1 ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 2 , considering the school was not following the special use permil. Ms. Garski asked for suggestions from Council as to what she should do next. e Mayor Probst stated they have had further conversations with staff, and unfortunately staff was not in a position to do a lot about it at this time, but they were aware of the problem. He asked if this was a 7- day a week occurrence. Ms. Garski replied this was an every night occurrence, and the lights do stay on until midnight even though the events get over with at 10:00 p.m. or 10:30 p.m. and there is nobody around the school. Councilmember Aplikowski stated she parked in front of Ms. Garski's home to see what the effect would be, but it was difficult sitting in the car. Ms. Garski responded the way her property was graded, the lighting was above her home and, therefore, would light up the whole house. Councilmember Aplikowski suggested the school use a yellow light instead of a bright white light. Ms. Garski replied she had asked a different color oflight on several occasions, but she never received any response from the school. Mayor Probst stated the lights could not simply be changed because they have different ballast. Mr. Lynch stated the lights would eventually be changed out, but this would not be done until the end of the school renovation. He stated that Julie Wikelius, Mounds View High School Principal, Rocenius (?sp), had indicated the school district would be willing to pay for landscaping or window treatments if that would help with this problem. The school district had also discussed motion detection lights. Mr. Lynch stated the lights were controlled until 11 :30 p.m. and the controls would not be brought inside again, until the renovation was done. e Ms. Garski indicated she did not object to the lights being on when there was an activity taking place, but did not understand why the lights could not be turned off earlier than midnight. Mr. Lynch responded the school had informed him the light box controls were difficult to get at. Councilmember Larson stated he was surprised by the reaction of the school district. He stated he had not heard the school district say they would move the controls inside. Mr. Lynch replied the school district had recently indicated the lights would be moved inside once renovation was completed. Councilmember Larson stated he could not understand why the school district could not run a line inside the building to run the controls. He indicated the school district had not been very responsive, and needed to be a good neighbor. He stated the City had a right to ask for some consideration regarding this issue. Ms. Garski stated that was why she had come to the Council again. She stated she was frustrated that nothing had been done. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A. City Logo Presentation, Derek Hames e e . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 [,,,,,f'"'>'P' f:. T '. j,;!'\# r\, ~ "'~"" "" 3 Derek Hailles explained he volunteered his services in developing a new logo for the City. He presented the proposed new logo for the City and explained that through a series of work sessions they had come up with a tree and trail image that captured what the City was all about. The logo would have an updated look. He presented the layout ofthe logo and applications it could be used for. Mayor Probst indicated it was time for the City to have a new image and was using the opportunity of the 50'h Armiversary of the City was a good time to incorporate the new logo. He believed they had come up with a good logo for now and into the future. Councilmember Aplikowski indicated she liked the green border around the pages. Mr. Hames explained that was done for the presentation purposes only. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to approve new City logo and to commend the work of Mr. Hames. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). A. Planning Cases 1. Case #00-37, Thomas Whittles, 1867 Glen Paul Avenue, Front Yard Variance Ms. Chaput explained applicant was requesting a front year setback variance for a kitchen addition at 1867 Glen Paul Avenue, zoned R-2. ln September, 2000, Mr. Whittles prepared a building permit application. This application was incomplete because the applicant did not address the five hardship criteria. Mr. Whittles subsequently submitted an additional letter addressing the five hardship criteria. Currently, the central front portion of Mr. Whittles' home was situated 35.5 feet from the front yard setback. It was currently non-conforming because it did not meet the front yard setback requirement. The remainder of the home was 39.5 feet from the front yard setback. Mr. Whittles' wished to build an addition onto his home from the 39.5 feet to be in line with the portion that was 35.5 feet from the property line. The front yard setback for the B-2 zoning district was 40 feet. Therefore, he required a front yard setback variance. The application was completed in November, 2000. Ms. Chaput stated Mr. Whittles installed the foundation for this project already, without a building permit. Plus, the foundation was not installed to meet ffost requirements and, if the variance was granted, this will have to be re-done. Ms. Chaput explained in order to grant a variance, a hardship must be identified. Applicant had responded to the hardship criteria in a letter. For this application for a front yard setback variance, staff made the following findings: 1. Whether the circumstances for which the variance is requested are unique to the property. Ms. Chaput indicated the properties along Glen Paul Avenue were generally between thirty-five and forty feet from the front yard setback. The current Code required that the homes be placed forty feet from the front property line. There were no plans to amend the language of the Ordinance, nor does the comprehensive D. T.~ .(, I'--r : ..~-~ ','.w1 ~;f \\. ir- - ., ~\. .r'\ ~ ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 4 plan forecast any future changes to this area. The location of the home, terrain or shape of the property was no different than its neighboring properties. Therefore, this . request did not possess any unique circumstances. 2. Whether granting the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning Code. Ms. Chaput explained the zoning ordinance was to n.. .fix reasonable standards to which building, structures and land shall conform for the benefit of all". The zoning ordinance also stated that a variance should only be granted ifthe configuration of the property prohibits reasonable development that may be permitted on a similar sized lot within the same district. This lot was no different from other lots in the district. There was no physical feature of this property that was prohibiting development so that it needed to occur within the setbacks. Any reasonable development that could be constructed on any lot in the district could also be duplicated on this lot according to the standards that have been set. Therefore, granting a variance for this application would not meet the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance. 3. Whether the property in question can be put to a reasonable use without granting a variance. Ms. Chaput explained a single family home was currently constructed on the property. Therefore, the property in question had already been put to reasonable use. The applicant was proposing to add on to the front of his because of the interior layout and location of the kitchen. However, it was possible to reconfigure the addition in some manner to avoid requiring a variance from the Ordinance. It could not be said that without this variance, the property could not be put to a reasonable use. . 4. Whether the hardship was created by the property owner. Ms. Chaput stated although the shape of the lot and position ofthe house was not the fault of the current owner, the owner was proposing the addition within the setback area, creating the need for the variance. This could be avoided by reconfiguring the addition so that it was not within the required setback area. The need for this variance was being created by the property owner. 5. Whether granting the variance would alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Ms. Chaput stated the current structure was situated at 35.5 feet from the front yard line. Therefore, to expand the home by four feet to match this setback would not significantly alter the character of the neighborhood. However, it should be noted that the structure was currently nonconforming by building placement and, by Ordinance, nonconforming structures should not be expanded. If this was not the intent ofthe City, then the Ordinance should be amended. Ms. Chaput stated staffrecommended denial of this variance for the following reasons: 1. The circumstances of the request were not unique to this property in the Glen Paul Avenue area or the R-2 zoning district; . . . e l'\. t..r-T.. ill; \l- f""t.fi ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 5 2. By not meeting the provisions of the ordinance, the application does not meet the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning Code; 3. The property can be put to a reasonable use without this variance and the proposal could be reconfigured outside of the setback area; and 4. The hardship is being created by the property owner by proposing an addition within the setback area. Ms. Chaput stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance for the following reasons: 1. The hardship was not created by the property owner since the home existed before the Ordinance was adopted; and 2. The granting of the variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood; and 3. The property could not be put to a reasonable use without allowing for the addition of the kitchen in its proposed location due to the location of the kitchen within the structure; and 4. The variance proposal meet the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Mayor Probst asked if the front face of the addition was farther out than the house. Ms. Chaput replied no, it would not go farther than the porch. Mayor Probst asked in terms of the remainder of the neighborhood, if this type of a request was a common occurrence. Ms. Chaput replied it was not uncommon. Councilmember Grant asked ifItem No.3 made reference to the location of the kitchen within the structure. He asked for explanation of that reference. Ms. Chaput stated everything she had for this application had been submitted to Council. Councilmember Grant asked the applicant where his kitchen was located in the home. Mr. Whittles indicated where the kitchen was located on the diagram. He also stated there was one no vote at the Planning Commission, and it was suggested that he move his kitchen to the back of the house. Councilmember Grant asked if this addition would enlarge Mr. Whittles' kitchen. Mr. Whittles replied it would. Councilmember Grant read Item No.3 and asked if Mr. Whittles if the kitchen was in need of expansion. Mr. Whittles replied the kitchen was very small and needed enlarging. He indicated the end of the neighborhood where his home was was built in the 1940's and the home is very small. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 D:\'. """.";;' te" <~.'.- T' "f,.. ,. , f1-(","~"'. 6 Councilmember Aplikowski commented she was prepared to follow the Plarming Commission's recommendations, however, the staff recommendation stated it did not meet with the spirit of the . Ordinance. She requested this be looked at by staff because Council cannot consider requests such as these both ways. Mr. Whittles replied the house was built in the 1940's, before the City even existed, and commented he could not go anywhere else with an addition. Councilmember Aplikowski replied she understood his situation, but the Council would need to look at the Ordinance so citizens in Mr. Whittles' position do not have to go through all of the problems Mr. Whittles encountered. Mayor Probst stated this area was not built to the same standards as they would build today and given the state of the Ordinance as it existed now, this was the process and he understood that staff needed to follow the Ordinance. He stated he was prepared to support this application because the facts supported it. Councilmember Larson stated this situation was the same as the lots around the lakes with the small and unusual shaped lots not fitting the Ordinances very well. He stated he believed this situation was unique because there was a portion of the house that already sat in the setback. He stated staff was doing the right thing with their recommendation and believed this also needed to be looked at. He stated his support of his application. He indicated the City needed to support homeowners who were trying to improve their property. Mr. Whittles indicated the foundation was part of the house and was not added. Councilmember Rem indicated she agreed with this application and also agreed that the Ordinance needed to be looked at to come up with guidelines that worked with the citizens rather than putting homeowners through this type of a process. e Mr. Whittles indicated he was unhappy with the Planning Commission because only one person took the time to look at his property and the other properties in the neighborhood. He indicated he was very angry nobody took the time to deal with this. He stated the one no vote on the Planning Commission was from a member who did not even look at the area or his home. Mayor Probst indicated he understood Mr. Whittles' frustration with the process in general, but indicated Mr. Whittles' did receive professional opinions and treatment. Councilmember Grant indicated Item No.3 was important to him, and he supported the Planning Commission's recommendation given the set up of the house, and the fact that the addition would not extend past the existing structure in addition to the home being built prior to the City's Ordinances being in effect and, therefore, this did present a hardship to the applicant. Councilmember Larson stated the Planning Commission voted for Mr. Whittles' request. Mr. Whittles replied he realized that, but he would have been very angry if things had not gone his way. e . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 r'. ....;;' ~ . \t u~ 7 MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve Plarming Case #00-37, Thomas Whittles, 1867 Glen Paul Avenue, Front Yard Variance. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 2. Case #00-40, Manufacturer's Services, 4300 Round Lake Road, Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment Ms. Chaput explained the applicant was requesting to amend the Planned Unit Development for 4300 West Round Lake Road for expansion of a trash compactor from an eight-yard compactor to a forty-yard compactor. Ms. Chaput stated applicant's business had grown significantly in staff size and business volume, requiring the need for an expansion to their compactor. The expanded forty-yard compactor would allow the business to operate more efficiently with a more cost -effective way of disposing of solid waste. Ms. Chaput stated the Zoning Ordnance required that, "Screening shall also be provided where mechanical operating equipment is located on the ground or on the roof of the premises... constructed and located to present direct view of the equipment". Screening types may be a fence, wall or landscaping area. It was the property owner's responsibility to provide screening, as required. Currently, the eight-yard trash compactor was not screened. It was situated outside a large screened area, holding liquid nitrogen tanks. The compactor was not currently enclosed because it was pulled five days a week for servicing and could not be accessed from within an enclosure. Also, it was not visible from the road since it was screened by the adjacent enclosure. Since the proposed compactor was significantly larger than the existing compactor, the applicant had proposed a screening fence that juts out from the enclosure to solely screen the compactor from the road. This would be on one side of the screening, not an enclosure. The applicant proposed that it match the materials and height of the existing screening that was currently beside the compactor and extend for the length of the compactor surpasses the enclosure. The proposed forty-yard compactor was an overall length of 26' plus the doghouse, which was an additional 5 feet. Ms. Chaput stated the Plarming Commission recommended approval for the expansion of the trash compactor from eight-yard to forty-yards with the following conditions: 1. Construct a screening fence in the location shown on the applicant's plan of the same materials, opacity and height of the existing screened enclosure to the west of the existing compactor, screening liquid nitrogen tanks; and 2. Application for a building permit must be made with the Building Inspector; and 3. The compactor may be installed immediately on the condition that the screening will be in place by no later than June 1,2001. Ms. Chaput indicated while reviewing this case, the Plarming Commission expressed some dissatisfaction with an existing dumpster on the property. She stated staff would contact United Properties to discuss the issue of dumpster screening for this location as well as the buildings along Gateway Boulevard. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 ., ~.7"'....'... P'.~'}'.. fJ'll- .:'<,-$ 11.. '<, ,,l;!l!Il j. f: ~'\~ h~~ '8 8 Mayor Probst asked Ms. Chaput to point out the location of the compactor in relation to the . dumpster. Ms. Chaput indicated the area Mayor Probst was inquiring about. Ms. Chaput stated the applicant was present if Council had any questions. Councilmember Aplikowski stated she understood the business had grown a lot, but was concerned that the Council kept reviewing this issue about the garbage and trash compactor. She asked what could be done about this. Ms. Chaput replied maybe the whole area needed to be screened in. Mayor Probst stated the original applicant was no longer the owner of the property. He made a request of applicant that they deal with these issues more comprehensively. He stated the Council had a variety of requests for the same issues and Council did not like these issues coming to them in bits and pieces instead of on a comprehensive basis. Sue Compton, Manufacturing Services, stated they did look at the whole issue before they moved into the building. She indicated at the time they moved into the building, they had 350 employees, they now had over 600 employees. She stated part of the problem was petroleUlll waste and that took up a large portion of the waste. She indicated they used to have a 40-yard compactor before they moved into this facility, and stated he did not think it would be this soon that they would grow out of the current compactor. Mayor Probst indicated he did not have an issue with Manufacturing Services, but did have a problem with United Properties. He stated Manufacturing Services was a good business to have in the City, but he was frustrated with United Properties indifference to this situation. Ms. Chaput stated United Properties was willing to do something about this, but does not know if the solution was to enclose each dumpster. She stated she would be talking to United Properties again about this issue. . Councilmember Aplikowski asked if applicant was okay with the recommendations being made. Ms. Compton indicated they were. She explained the screening would be put on one side of the compactor because of the dock doors. She indicated if they put screening on the side of the dock doors, they run the risk of the screening getting hit by the semi-tractors. Councilmember Grant asked if they had problems with the current compactor getting hit by the semi-tractors. Ms. Compton stated the current compactor did not get hit by the semi-tractors. Councilmember Grant asked with the new compactor being larger would that create a problem. Ms. Compton replied they would have to be a little more careful turning around, but there would be no other problems. Councilmember Larson stated it was nice to see the business growing, but he did not believe they would ever get a solution to this until Council finally made it clear to the owners of the building that they needed to add wing walls to the building or more landscaping. He agreed that enclosing . each dumpster could be a solution. He indicated he would vote against this until the management took a more global approach to this problem. . . . Ul'(Ar i ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 9 Councilmember Rem asked if they wanted the compactor to be screened in on an individual basis, or did they want the building management to come in with a proposal. Councilmember Larson replied he did not think they should be fencing this in individually, even though that is what has been done in the past. He stated each time they dealt with this issue, they had asked the building management to deal with the problem. Councilmember Rem asked when the project was done, did they want screening on an individual basis. Mayor Probst responded no. The building management should be responsible for this and the original idea was that all of this was going to occur inside the building, but as requests had been made, each one was getting addressed individually. He stated part of it was good news that the businesses are being successful and growing, but the bad news was that the plan the building management originally presented was not being followed. He stated Councilmember Larson was correct in that if they understood this going in, they would have required a more aggressive screening approach, not individual screening. Councilmember Rem asked if turning down a tenant's request was the most effective way to deal with this problem, or should the building management company be contacted directly. She stated this issue should not be given to the building management indirectly through the tenants. Mayor Probst replied the building management seemed to be more responsive when the tenants were trying to get something. Ms. Compton stated they were the only tenants in the facility and they had a ten-year lease with seven (7) years remaining on the lease. She indicated the compactor they currently had is on "its last leg", and if they were not allowed to get the new compactor, they would have a pile up of garbage in the parking lot, which would lead to a lot of problems. She stated the current compactor did not run properly in the cold weather. Councilmember Aplikowski stated she was in favor of this application. She indicated there were two issues - one being enlarging of the compactor and the other being the screening issue. She asked if there was some way that they could approve the compactor issue, and then get the management company in to deal with the screening issues. She stated she did not have a problem with the enlargement of the compactor. Mayor Probst replied if they were going to approve this tonight, they should approve it with the screening in case the building management did not deal with this issue. He stated there was still some time before the screening was required to be put up, and in that period of time they may be able to get the management company to address these issues. MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion to approve Planning Case #00-40, Manufacturer's Services, 4300 Round Lake Road, Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, with the Planning Cormnissions' recommendations being taken into consideration. The motion carried (4-1, Larson). ARDEN HILLS ClTY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 10 Councilmember Grant stated he understood Councilmember Larson's position, but he was going ... to vote in favor of this applicant's request. ., Councilmember Aplikowski suggested getting the building management in to address this issue as soon as possible. C. Web site Development Task Force Recommendations Roger Aiken explained upon Council's request, the website construction, design, oversight responsibilities, web development, ongoing operational issues, and initial costs were explored by Committee. A packet was presented to Council containing a general outline ofthe initial Arden Hills website and page examples, a general matrix that outlines the process considerations for development, and a possible phasing of steps to meet basic goals. A budget was not included since the initial development was planned to be worked into existing staff time and consultant help would be sought on a pro-bono basis from the community. Future phases would include evaluations and budgets. Mr. Aiken stated the phasing reflects the two main goals of the web site. The first being informational, and the second being transactional. The initial phase of development would concentrate on development of the site and internal procedures to maintain it in a qualitative marmer at a minimum oftime expenditure. Once this stage could be implemented and evaluated, the possibilities for further use of the web site and the inherent savings to the City should be ... explored. Phase two and three should be considered after some review and demonstrated value ., of the initial web site. Real cost savings and improved services would be most likely realized with the further development of the transactional stages ofthe Site. Mr. Aiken recommended that phase one actions be implemented as soon as possible. The Committee also recommended the Web Site task force continue as a plarming and operational body to facilitate development. Mayor Probst asked for clarification regarding informational and transactional references. He asked if phase one would be the informational phase and stage two the transactional phase. Mr. Aiken responded that was correct; that was what they were envisioning. He stated it may go faster than anticipated because technology kept getting easier. He stated the major benefits were enhancing staff time by relieving them of some minor duties and allowing them to go to higher, better use duties. This would come in the transactional phase. He stated the initial costs were basically quite small. Councilmember Aplikowski indicated she was excited about the website development because of finally getting to the point of putting information out to citizens by this method. Mr. Aiken stated it should work out fairly well and pretty quickly once they received the appropriate assistance. He stated the City was going to get out a fairly simple format for ease of use. He stated the initial site would probably not have all of the items fully mapped out in the secondary pages, but the secondary pages would all be there ready to add on to in the future. . Councilmember Rem stated one of the more interesting brainstorming sessions the task force had was going through the layout of the website and realizing how much of it was already on paper at . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 Ir\ 1'/, fCT t;Y5~; k-~, a 11 City Hall, so it was assumed that not a lot of time would be invested reinventing these documents. Councilmember Grant stated he was excited about the website because the lnternet was an outstanding way to get information to the citizens and he was looking forward to doing this. Councilmember Larson stated this was long overdue. MOT10N: Council member Larson moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to accept the report of the Arden Hills Web Site Task Force and proceed to phase one, and continued to utilize the Task Force and solicit additional resources from the community The motion carried unanimously (5-0). D. A ward of Bid, 2001 Lift Station #8 Reconstruction and Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project Gregory Brown explained bids were received from three contractors. A bid from Jay Bros., Inc. was not received at the Engineer's office by the submittal deadline and therefore was returned unopened. The tabulation bid was as follows: Contractor Gridor Construction, Inc. Moorhead Construction Co., Inc. Lametti & Sons, Inc. Jay Bros., Inc. BidAlt.#l $56,920.00 32,722.00 30,500.00 Bid Alt. #2 $32,310.00 28,810.00 27,050.00 Base Bid Amount $302,484.00 313,521.00 318,275.00 Returned Unopened All bids had proper bid guarantees in the amount of ten percent of the total bid as required by the Project Manual. Bid alternative #1 included open trench sewer spot repairs in the Ingerson Road, Shoreline Lane and Lake Lane neighborhoods. Bid alternative #2 included sewer cleaning and televising in the area bound by 1-694, Old Highway 10 and Chatham Avenue. Mr. Brown stated Gridor Construction, Inc. submitted the low base bid with a total base bid anlount of$302,484.00. This included $184,700.00 for the lift station reconstruction and $117,784.00 for the sanitary sewer line testing and sealing and trenchless spot repair of the sanitary sewer mains flowing into lift station #8. MCES would reimburse the City for $5800.00 of the $184,700.00 for the installation of a new flow-monitoring meter to this station. The remaining $178,900.00 was approximately 5% greater than the Engineer's estimate of $170,000.00 for this portion of the project. Considering the other two bids, the Engineer felt that this bid was representative of the current market value of the improvement and the City would not likely see a significant savings by rebidding the work. Therefore, although the base bid was approximately 12% ($32,000.00) greater than the Engineers estimate of $270,000.00 the bids submitted were all relatively close in price and represented fair market value for the improvements. Therefore, the City Engineer recommended the Council award the base bid for this project to Gridor Construction, Inc. Mr. Brown explained Bid Alternative #1 included various open trench spot repairs to 8" clay sewer mains Bid prices received varied from $56,920.00 to $30,500.00. They believed the prices ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 n ~j' f" E:T' il~"""h ~: 12 varied greatly because this work could become labor intensive. Although this work should be completed fairly soon, it was not required to be completed with the lift station reconstruction. a Bid Alternative #1 was included with this project in order to solicit construction costs and . accomplish the work if budget allowed. The bid prices were higher than expected for this work and it was not a necessary component in the reconstruction oflift station #8. Therefore, the Engineer recormnended that Bid Alternative #1 not be included in this project and be completed separate from this contract at a later date either by a separate contract or with City forces, under a pavement management program, or with the following year's sanitary sewer program. Mr. Brown explained Bid Alternative #2 included about 22,000 linear feet of sanitary sewer cleaning and televising. The average price of the three bids was approximately 17% higher than the Engineer's estimate and budget of$25,000.00. The Engineer's estimate was based on bid prices of previous sanitary cleaning and televising projects. The work associated with Bid Alternative #2 was not necessary for the reconstruction of lift station #8. Because the bid prices for Bid Alternative #2 were higher than expected and were not necessary to the reconstruction of lift station #8, the Engineer recommendation that Bid Alterative #2 not be included with this project and be bid as a separate project at a later date. Mr. Brown stated although he did not have any direct experience with Gridor Construction, Inc., the contractor had supplied him with a resume and an extensive list of references for projects of this nature. The Engineer had checked the references and was confident that Gridor Construction was capable of successfully completing this project. The City Engineer recormnended the award of the Base Bid for the 2001 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project to Gridor Construction, Inc. for the total base bid amount of $302,484.00. Both Bid Alternative from all Contractors were higher than estimate based on previous cost of projects with the same elements. Therefore, the City Engineer recommended not awarding Bid Alternative #1 or Bid Alternative #2. e Councilmember Aplikowski asked where was the closest location Gridor Construction had done work. Mr. Brown replied Gridor Construction had done work all over the Twin Cities, as well as work for the Metropolitan Council. He stated all of the people he had spoken with had nothing but good things to say about their work. In addition, because this is all Gridor Construction does, it gave him a high level of confidence. Mr. Stafford stated he had a list of projects Gridor Construction had completed since 1992, and they were all over the upper Midwest, including work done for the Metropolitan Council. Mayor Probst asked if Bid Alternative #1 allowed them to do other things, as allowed by staff. Mr. Brown replied that was correct. In Bid Alternative # 1 it might come in cheaper than estimated, but it turned out the rehab work came in higher in the base bid and therefore, there was not enough left for the bid alternatives. Mayor Probst asked if the work in the Ingerson area would still be done. Mr. Brown stated this could be bid next year, which would allow it to be done properly. It was not critical this project be done this year, and it did not need to be done right away. e e e e ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 ~1 ,( ~ 13 Mayor Probst asked if the City should consider rebidding this. Mr. Brown stated the base bid amount was competitive and rebidding it probably would not change the figures much. Mr. Brown stated he felt comfortable with the base bid because it was competitive looking at the market and it was good winter work. Also, if it was rebid, they run into the difficulty of spring time and the possibility of having the bids come in higher. Mayor Probst asked if the City could absorb the additional costs. Mr. Post responded the City had the funds for the additional costs. Councilmember Larson asked what was the policy regarding the Jay Brothers bid. He asked if Jay Brothers had made the mistake. He stated it made sense if Jay Brothers had failed to get the bid in time to the City, but inquired if there was any possibility the City could still look at that bid. Mr. Post replied he had not had any contact with Jay Brothers regarding their bid, but in fairness to the other bidders, it was the responsibility of the contractor to see that the bid was received by the City Engineer at the designated bid opening location on time. Councilmember Larson asked if the City knew what the circumstances were surrounding the bid being received late. Mr. Post replied he did not know. Mr. Stafford stated the bid was brought in to the City Hall at 10:15 a.m., which was not the sated location for bids to be accepted. The bid opening was at the BRW offices not at City Hall. Mayor Probst stated this was the procedure, and if they would have opened the bid, the City could open itself up to a bid protest. Councilmember Grant asked clarification regarding the $117,000.00 for sanitary sewer and sewer line testing and sealing and trenchless spot repair of the sanitary sewer mains flowing into lift station #8. He asked how extensive that was. Mr. Brown explained the layout of the lift station and stated they were testing and sealing the trunk line that heads north along Highway 51 toward County Road E and the industrial area. He explained they expect a lot of infiltration in this area. He stated the repairs can be accomplished from above ground would not disturb anything. He stated the trenchless technology, which previously was very expensive, is getting more reasonable in cost. Councilmember Grant asked if the repair would extend the life ofthe line. Mr. Brown replied that was correct. The initial benefit should be savings in treating infiltration. Some of the costs, approximately $6,000.00 would be reimbursed from the Metropolitan Council. Mayor Probst stated the total cost to MCES for processing services was approximately $40 - 50,000.00 - $60,000.00 per quarter. Mr. Post replied that amount was per month. The annual cost was approximately $475,000.00 per year. Mayor Post stated this project could result in flow reduction savings of approximately 3 - 4% percent per year. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 h F"'-r '" ~....-~ l: l""'-';';'"$F ~ J4 MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion to award the base bid amount for the 2001 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project to Gridor Construction, Inc. for the total base bid amount of$302,484.00. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). e E. Water Towers, Recommendation to Accept Proposal for Maintenance Mr. Stafford explained the City had two water towers that supplied water for the City. The City has a 1,000,000-gallon tower south ofI-694 on Red Fox Road and a 500,000-gallon tower north of 1-694 on the north end of Fernwood Road near the Friskies Plant. The City has these towers inspected every eight years for structural or coating failures. In the spring, 2000, AEC Engineering of Minneapolis, a company that specialized in water storage facilities, inspected the north tower. The AEC inspection report for the north water tower indicated the tower was in good condition. AEC identified areas where spot repairs of the tank coating, both inside and out were recommended. The estimated costs for the recommended repairs to the North tower were $J 1,500.00 plus an additional $9,200.00 for AEC Engineers specifications for the repairs and inspection costs. The south water tower was inspected in 1996 with follow-up repairs made in 1997. This tower was also in good condition and only minor coating repairs were made. An exposed ladder on the interior of the tower support structure provides access to the top of the south tower. Public Works employees have long sought a safety cage surrounding the ladder, which would bring the ladder up to OSHA standards. AEC estimated it would cost $7,000.00 to install a steel safety cage around the ladder that climbers could lean back and rest against. .. Additional costs for specifications and inspection of the cage installation were estimated to be .. $3,000.00, bringing the total costs for the south tower ladder cage to approximately $10,000.00. Mr. Stafford stated staff had budgeted $42,500.00 for water tower engineering and maintenance in 2001. Mr. Stafford recommended that Council authorize staff to accept the proposal from AEC Engineering to provide the City with the scope of work identified in the AEC proposal, but not limited to: 1. Specifications for the project; 2. Bid administration; 3. Necessary forms and documents; 4. Field inspection; 5. Recommendation to the City to accept the project. Staff would then proceed with the necessary work to begin the project. Mayor Probst asked if total estimated cost was $37,700.00 against budgeted amount of $42,500.00. Mr. Stafford replied affirmatively. e . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 ~! W 15 Councilmember Larson concurred with Mr. Stafford regarding climbing the tower. He stated he had climbed the water tower and they were exhausted when they reached the top of it. It would have been very nice to have a cage around the ladder. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve making the necessary repairs to the north water tower in the amount of $11 ,500.00 plus an additional $9,200.00 for AEC Engineers specifications for repair and inspection costs, and to provide for ladder cage installation at a cost of $10,000.00. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). F. Metro East Development Partnership, Membership Renewal Request Mr. Lynch advised he had received the 2001 invoice for the Metro East Development Partnership investment in the amount of$I,OOO.OO. Mr. Lynch stated he had previously encouraged the Councilmembers to join last year and to evaluate the services they received. He indicated the City had received information on businesses that were in the process of relocating or were looking to locate. He staled there were professional opportunities to review what other cities had done. He stated he did not have strong feeling one way or another as to the continued membership. Mayor Probst stated he concurred with Mr. Lynch's evaluation that since they were not active in this at the moment, he believed the question was if they wanted to leave the organization at the present time with the possibility of rejoining at a later date. Councilmember Grant stated he would be voting no on this because he did not think they had received enough benefit for this compared to the amount of dues. He did not believe the City was getting the $1,000.00 benefit from the dues. Councilmember Larson concurred. He stated if staff was not enthusiastic about this, he could think of any reason to renew this at this time. Mr. Post replied he concurred with the statements of Councilmembers Grant and Larson, and stated most of the prospects out there were looking for land to purchase or land to build on. Rarely, was there anybody looking to lease space. He stated the City did not have any suitable sites available for purchase at the present time. MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to deny not participating in Metro East Development Partnership for the year 2001. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). G. City Hall Construction 1. Combined Change Order #1 Mr. Lynch stated the total amount of Change Order #1 was $12,443.00. This included $2,891.00 for underground duct board insulation, $3,195.00 for PVC coated ductwork, $3,653.00 for costs associated with underground ductwork, $1,081.00 for air supply into basement toilet rooms and $1,724.00 for 6 ml polyethylene vapor barrier under the slab on grade. Staff had met with "> .'"C.'."" ~,.T" ~:." t;j """ !;~..- ~.U.. .. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 16 representatives of the architect, contractor and contractor consultants to review the need for the changes and to review the costs associated with such changes. The costs for all of the items, e except the 6ml polyethylene barrier, reflect an agreement on costs and responsibility of those costs. Staffrecommended Council approve the request for items in Change Order #1 and pay Rochon Corp. in the amount of$12,443.00. Mr. Lynch indicated he was not pleased with this situation because the City had not been notified about construction meetings and this work was started before the City was contacted. He stated he had spoken with the architects, contractor and contractor consultants about this and the City will be added to all meeting notices in the future. He indicated he did not anticipate this to be a regular occurrence and this was a code compliance issue and therefore needed to be done. 2. Payment Request #3 Mr. Lynch stated Payment Request #3 was for work completed through November 30,2000. There was a retainage of 5% and the total amount year-to-date requested was approximately 12% of the total amount of the contract. Staff recommended Council approve the request for Pay Order #2 and pay Rochon Corp. $169,479.17. Councilmember Grant asked what the ductwork was, how it was missed and who caught it. Mr. Lynch replied the building inspector caught that it was galvanized ductwork and not PVC ductwork and the Fire Inspector informed the City this needed to be Code compliant and would need to be done correctly. Mr. Lynch stated he had a discussion as to who would pay for this. The amount before the Council was the result of that compromise. . Councilmember Grant asked who inspected the work other than the building inspector. Mr. Lynch responded he was now at the construction meetings. The architects were not responsible for inspection. He indicated at one time Council had discussed getting a construction manager, but this was never decided upon. Mayor Probst stated Rochon Construction was responsible for the management of the project. He applauded staff for the effort they made in catching this. Councilmember Aplikowski also applauded staff for catching this mistake, even though she stated she wished the City did not need to pay this. She requested staff to continue to monitor all contractors closely so mistakes are caught in time to eliminate any future problems. Councilmember Grant also applauded the efforts of staff in finding and negotiating this settlement. He recommended the building inspector keep a close watch on City Hall to catch things up front and make things go smoothly. He inquired if the $169,479.17 included sales tax. Mr. Lynch responded he assumed it does include sales tax. Councilmember Grant asked if there would be legislation coming up at some point in the future that would return some of the sales tax the City had spent. Mr. Lynch replied if the could get the . legislation to be retroactive to January 1, 2000 there would be a refund, but the League of Minnesota Cities stated they did not believe it would be retroactive to that date. e . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 -,'~ --,!,?,-, 17 Councilmember Grant asked if the refund would be retroactive to January 1,2001. Mr. Lynch replied that would be more realistic. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve Change Order #1 and pay Rochon Corp. $12,443.00, and approve Pay Order #3 and pay Rochon Corp. $169,479.17. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS A. City's Legislative Objectives Council discussed legislative issues and decided the following were priorities: 1. Sales tax exemption; 2. HACAlLGA discussion; 3. Telecormnunications COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Grant cormnended staff for the different style agenda, which included the calendar for the next two months. He stated this looked very nice and was going to be very helpful. Councilmember Grant stated the Ranlsey County League of Local Govermnent would have a meeting on January 25, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. at the League of Minnesota Building, 145 University A venue, and the topic would be meeting with Ramsey County Legislators, and the City had been asked to submit the top five legislative priorities for the community. The Council decided to submit the following three issues: sales tax exemption; transportation funding; and levy limits. The following Councilmembers indicated they would be present at the meeting: Mayor Prost (indicated he would try to be at the meeting), Councilmembers Grant, Aplikowski, and Rem. Councilmember Larson stated the top two checks on the consent calendar was nice to see get resolved. Councilmember Aplikowski stated she did not take a good look at the business card with the new City Logo, but indicated she wanted the printing to be Y. inch up from the bottom. Councilmember Aplikowski gave an update of the 50'h Anniversary plans. She stated Presbyterian Homes had Offered both financial and physical assistance for the event. Mr. Stafford stated Northwestern had also made a similar financial commitment. Councilmember Aplikowski stated the banners were under construction and they needed to decide if they were going to have a professional business install and maintain them. She stated the banners should be up as close to February 12,2001 as possible. She stated they had also received substantial corporate gifts so far. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 18 Councilmember Aplikowski asked if the sponsors should be given something for their _ contributions. She suggested a cup or a plaque with the new City's logo on it. She showed ,. Council some samples of coffee cups with various logos on them. She stated if the coffee cups were approved, it needed to be approved by the Council and brought to the committee as this being a gift from the Council to the people working on the Anniversary preparation. She indicated a plaque for the corporate sponsors might be more appropriate. Councilmember Larson agreed, and indicated the cups were a good idea because it was a nice appreciation gift to acknowledge people. Councilmember Aplikowski stated they would continue to pursue this and get back to the Council. Councilmember Aplikowski stated the AMM was going to have a board meeting on Thursday, January 11,2001. Councilmember Aplikowski requested staff look at the Ordinance on variances, especially if it involved an older House or the lot was unusual. She stated citizens in these situations should be "cut some slack" so they did not have to go through a lengthy process. Councilmember Rem stated the Northwest Youth and Family Services 25'" Anniversary Celebration would be on February 8, 2001 in the Shoreview Community Center at 5:30 p.m. Mayor Probst indicated he had received a certificate from the U.S. Census Bureau and asked if the Certificate should be framed. He indicated if the Certificate was going to be framed the name on the Certificate should be changed from Arden Hills City to the City of Arden Hills. He gave Mr. Lynch the Certificate to have it changed. . Mayor Probst stated on January 19,2001, there was an affordable housing speaker at the Midway Sheraton. He indicated he would not be able to attend this. Councilmember Aplikowski responded she was going to try and attend this. Mayor Probst indicated he had received information regarding the Minnesota Housing and Financing Agency, but stated he believed the City did not qualify to participate in this program. Mayor Probst stated they were trying to get a meeting with Representative McCollum and would continue to pursue this. ADJOURN MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:17 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). e Dennis Probst Mayor Joe Lynch City Administrator ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 !""} 1..".' ~~~ 1\- ~ 19 tit NOTICE OF MEETINGS The next regular City Council meeting will be held Monday, January 29, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. at the Arden Hills Council chambers. . . , DRAFT . MEETING MINUTES CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 2001 4:45 P.M. - CITY HALL, 4364 WEST ROUND LAKE ROAD CALL TO ORDER Mayor Probst called the meeting to order at 4:50 p.m. Those present included Councilmembers Beverly Aplikowski, Gregg Larson, and Lois Rem. Councilmember David Grant had previously informed the City Council of his inability to attend tonight's meeting. Staff present included City Administrator, Joe Lynch; Public Works Director, Dwayne Stafford; Parks and Recreation Director, Tom Moore; Planner, Jennifer Chaput; and Recording Secretary, Sheila Stowell. STAFF COMMENTS e I-35W Noise Wall City Administrator Lynch provided an overview of the request from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for the proposed noise wall along 1-35W adjacent to Arden Manor Mobile Home Park. Mayor Probst requested whether or not MnDOT was notifying residents regarding their preference for the noise wall aesthetics, or whether or not they were interested in the noise walls. Staff was directed to provide more information to the City Council and pursue several issues with MnDOT, prior to future City Council action adopting a resolution of support. Staff was also directed to request a representative of MnDOT to attend a future Council meeting. County Road D Development Planner Chaput provided an overview of the recent meeting with potential developers regarding the triangular piece of property in the area zoned Neighborhood Business District along Count Road D. Arden Hills Notes Readership Survey City Administrator Lynch referred to the survey recently conducted by Mary Nosek, also a volunteer of the Communications Committee. Mr. Lynch advised that the Committee might need to review the future of the avenues used by the City for communication purposes. e Councilmembers discussed various options for the future of the newsletter. DRAFT ~. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION - JANUARY 16,2001 2 STAFF COMMENTS Public Works Director Stafford advised that he and his maintenance staff would be attending various courses for continuing education requirements as needed. . Plarmer Chaput reviewed various upcoming plarming cases (i.e., Walgreens; Corporate Express; and CPI Guidant). Ms. Chaput also advised that a Concept Plarmed Unit Development (PUD) would be coming before the Council at the end of January for comment for Chesapeake for a potential development in the Gateway Business District. Parks and Recreation Director Moore provided an overview of the recreation programs; upcoming training and continuing education; and other activities of his department. City Administrator Lynch referred to the speed zone study on Old Snelling. Mr. Stafford provided input from his conversations with City Attorney Filla. Mr. Lynch also advised that the City Hall contractor had assured him that the City could be in their new facility by June 23,2001. Mr. Lynch briefly reviewed a meeting held earlier today with MnDOT consultants and plarmers regarding future cooperative maintenance facility ventures; and next week's meeting with Ramsey County Commissioners along the same subject. COUNCIL COMMENTS e Councilmember Rem reported that she would be taking Councilmember Grant's place as Council Liaison at the Operations and Finance Committee meeting. Councilmember Larson advised that he had recently attended the armual Fire Relief Association meeting. Councilmember Aplikowski reported on an interview held earlier today regarding the City Events Task Force plans for the Fiftieth Anniversary events, begiillling with the February 12'h kick-off meeting. Mayor Probst discussed potential dates for the Council/Department Head Retreat, stating that he preferred not to use the weekend of the President's day holiday. Mr. Lynch sought further Council direction regarding a facilitator for the Retreat. Councilmember Aplikowski expressed concerns regarding Salverda and Brimeyer, and the advantages of using a past facilitator (i.e., Benke) for continuity. Councilmembers Larson and Rem had no preference, other than that Councilmember Larson was glad we were not using TeamWorks. It was the consensus of the City Councilmembers that the Retreat be held as soon as possible. Mayor Probst advised Councilmembers that Mr. Lynch's review needed to be completed in the near future. Councilmember Larson commented on the review format, and stated e t e DRAFT ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION - JANUARY 16,2001 3 that the questions were not a fair assessment of his day-to-day operations of the City. Councilmember Aplikowski spoke to the need for staff input in the review process. Mayor Probst and Councilmember Aplikowski were designated to perform the annual review of City Administrator Lynch. Mayor Probst asked Councilmembers to provide feedback as soon as possible to facilitate the review. Mayor Probst reminded Councilmembers of the need for memorials for two former mayors (i.e., tree, flagpole) at the new City Hall facility. Councilmember Larson asked for the Council's intent regarding a revised Pavement Management Program for the City. Mr. Lynch advised that staff had tentatively scheduled this item on the February Worksession agenda. ADJOURN MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:20 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). e e . . . . - CITY OF ARDEN HILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CLAIMS REPORT TO BE APPROVED AT 01/29/01 COUNCIL MEETING PAGE 1 OF3 CLAIMS PAID SINCE LAST COUNCIL MEETING (01I08/0Il ??IlKy......?I...j)K.NH~....I.... YIlMIDlt . .........n t~HtUHN1\( (!bMMtNtS? . 18837 01109101 Citv of New Bri8:hton 15.50 License Tabs for '96 Fellin!! Trailer 18838 01109/01 Rochon Comoration 169.47917 Pay #3 - Citv Hall Proiect 18839 01/l6/01 Davanni's 50.00 Denartment Head MeetioD 01116/01 18840 011l7101 Affinitv Plus Federal Credit Union 3,58 n 96 Second Janu~r\l Pa'''roll 18841 01/17/01 lC!vlA Retirement Trust-457 1.79207 Second Januarv Payroll 18842 011l7101 Public Emniovccs Retirement Association 3,172.08 Second Januarv Pavroll 18843 01/l7/O1 MN Denartment of Revenue 415.00 December lOOO-Sales Tax 18844 011l9101 University of Minnesota 135.00 Munic~ais Winter Workshon 2/0 I/O 1 18845 01/23101 Citv of Anoka 24.00 200 I TUG MaHin!! Dues 18846 0\123101 Phil Gustafson 105.56 Sheriffs Meetinl! 1/18/01 18847 01/23/01 Mad Science of Minnesota 635.00 Dav in the Park 6/23/01 18848 01/23/01 MN DenartmentorHealth 3,243.011 Water Connect Fee 4(100 18849 o 1I23/0 I MRPA 180.00 200 I Membershio Fee - Moore 18850 o 1I231O I Sam's Club 42.92 Snccial Event Sunnlies 18851 01123101 Transit Service's, Inc. 100.00 Denosit-Trollev 6/23/0 I 18852 01l23/01 Xed Enero\, 7,102.42 December Service 18853 o l/24/0 1 MRPA 160.00 2001 Memhershin Fee - Olson II Subtotal - Paid Claims 190,233.68 II Paid Claims From Above- 190,233.68 Add Unpaid Claims, Page 3 of 3 - 190495.14 Total Accounts Payable Claims for Council Approval, 01129/01 - 380,728.82 Note: Checks for unpaid claims totaling $]54,784.49 were mailed on January 9, 2001 after approval at the JanU3l)' 8, 2001 Council Meeting, They were check numbers ] SSO} .]8836. This sequence corresponds to unpaid temporary numbers TOI . T34. Check numbers 1880 I - 18802 were used for alignment. ","J";""'"""p"',hlo.',b;",,i . . . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CLAIMS REPORT TO BE APPROVED AT 01/29/01 COUNCIL MEETING PAGE20F3 UNPAID CLAl\IS REGISTER: ......rt;Mliiii..ltW.l1M;irW.. .\iilKlii:ill.". :. ....AMjjpNtil.. CjjMM~NtW(. r I TOI I 01/30/01 I Accmate Press, Inc. 591.0S December Newsletter T02 01/30/01 AICP 250.00 Planning Exam - Chaput T03 01/30101 American PlaMing Assoc. 150.00 AICP Exam Prep ~ Chaput T04 01130/01 Apple Business Fanus, Ine 208.32 Utility Billing Statements T05 01/30101 Arden Hills Tire & Service Cenler 1400 Tire Change - Balance T06 01/30/01 AT&T 23.52 638-0998, Long Distance T07 0l/30101 Beisswenger's How-To Store 6.87 Workbench Hook T08 o l/301O I Berres, Sandra 22.43 Mileage Reimbursement T09 01/30/01 Braun Tntertcc C~oration 2.05000 Engineering Services - CH Construction Tl0 01/30/01 Breyfogle, Nancy 30.00 Refund-Stickv Fingers TII o l/30/0 I Brink, Michelle 55.00 Refund-Sticky Fingers Tl2 01/30/01 BrUlUl, LuAnn 240.110 January Cleaning - CH TI3 01/30/01 BRW, Inc. 41)8234 October-December Engineer(ng TI4 01/30101 Cable, Nopaluck 30.00 Refund-Flag Football Tl5 01/30/01 Case Credit Corporation 495.25 Repair Steering System - Case #621B TI6 01/30/01 Certified Laboratories 327.72 Rust Preventer TI7 01/30/01 Corporate Express 712.15 Offiee Supplies & COOy P_?per TI8 01/30101 Eagon, Diane 30.00 Refund-Flag Football Tl9 01/30/01 Ehlers and Associates, Inc. 262.50 Chesapeake Proposal no 01/30/01 Electro Watchman, Inc. 25.00 PrQgTammine Charge - Holmes T21 01/30/01 Electronic Interiors, Inc. 1.597.00 Electronic Tech Desion - CC Chambers T22 01/3010 I Frattallone's Hardware 50.50 JanuarvPurchases T23 01/30/01 Glemvood lnglewood 21.57 Sprinowater - City Hall T24 01/30/01 Grosse, Gloria 42.00 Refund-Shadow Pupoetry T25 01/30101 Hanzalik, Sharon 142.50 December Newsletter n6 01/3010 I H 'dro Supply Como3l!Y [,339.09 Meter Purchases T27 01/30/01 LU.O.E. Local 49 262.00 January Payroll Deductions T28 01/30/01 Katll Auto Parts 16.04 Headlight # III T29 01/30/01 Kennedv Transmission 100.29 Replace TPS Sensor T30 01/30/01 Kinko's 5511 Utilili:' Rate Notice - 2001 T31 01/30/01 Krawczvk Sarah 42.00 Refund-Shadow Pupoetrv T32 01/30/01 Kuhne, .T ohn 30.00 Refund-Snow Football T33 01/30/01 Labor Relations Associates, Inc. 580.00 Consultant Fees 9/1-10/3 ]/00 T34 01/30/01 Leaoue of Minnesota Cities Ins. Trust 1499800 Worker's Camp Prem - 2001 T35 01130/01 Menards 169.39 Router, Bits & Saw Blades T36 01/30101 Met Council Environmental Services , 40,745.40 , February Sewer Charge Total- Un aid Claims --- 107,097.07 "n;v.'"""'"""I'"."I.lo'd,;n,,1 . . . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS ACCOUNTS PAY ABLE CLAIMS REPORT TO BE APPROVED AT OI/29/01 COUNCIL MEETING PAGt:: J OF 3 UNPAID CLAIMS REGISTER: Ml9i? ......'....,.,. ...,'.,....".J? T37 0113010] Metrocall 174. ]5 Annual PaGer Fees - 2001 T38 0]/30/0] Microage Computer Centers 404.93 Repair HP Printers T39 01/30/01 Mooney, Joseph ]5.34 Windshield Spray Nozzle 140 01/30101 Morton Salt 1.324.5 ] Road Mix T4] 01130101 MTJ Distributinl! Co. 29.20 Lower Hose #42 142 01130/0] MunLci~pals 20.00 2001 Membership Dues T43 01/30/01 Natale's Cafk Inc. 83.84 Council Worksession 1I16/01 T44 01/30/01 North Metro Inspections, Inc 447.20 December Electrical Inspections 145 01/30/0] Northern Water Works Sunolv 400.64 Maintenance Supolies T46 01130/0] One Call Concents, Inc. 41.60 December Service 147 01/30/0] Pace Analvtical 199.91 Water Testing - January T48 01/30/01 PeoDle's Electrical Contractors 3325.29 Rcolace Street Licrht Pole & Fixture 149 01/30101 Peterson, ham & Remman P A 5.548.58 December Le!!al Fees TSO 01/30/0] Post, Terrance 37.26 Mileage Reimbursement TSI 0]/30/0] Purchase Power 930.00 Postage-Meter T52 0]/30/01 Ramsev County LeaQue of Local Govts 577.50 200 I Membershio Dues T53 01130/0] Ramsey County 57,737.15 .Tan Law Enforcement/FueJ PurchlIVfisc TS4 01130/01 Roseville Parks & Recreation ]24.04 12/28/00 Trip Transportation T55 01/30/0] Scheele, Terrv 30.00 Refund-Flag Football TS6 01/30101 Scherer Bros. Lumber Co 26.75 Sil!n Material- Cedar T57 01/30/0] Smithknecht, Cathv 30.00 Refund~Snow Football T58 01130/111 Sprint PCS 68.68 Cellular Phone Service T59 01130/0] Stafford, Dw~ne 8.29 Mileage Reimbursement T60 01/30101 Stanton Group ]00.00 FSA Administration Fee - December T61 0]/30/01 Target Stores 24.68 After School Art Supplies T62 01130/01 TimcSaver Off-Site Secretarial 591.00 Recording Secretarv 1/2-1/8 T63 01130/0 I Top Temporary ],01175 Temp Office Assist - ] 2/24/00-01114/0] T64 01/30/01 Triarco Arts & Crafts 72.85 Art Supplies T65 0]/30/01 Truck Utilities Mfg Companv 122.48 Plow Springs #13 T66 01130101 Vemleer of Minnesota 551.15 #48 Chinoer - Exhaust Chute T67 01130/01 Viking Electric Co. I3AO Electrical Connection T68 01130/0] Wrobel, Gretchen 42.00 Refund-Shadow PUDDctrv T69 01130/0] Wubben, Regina 30.00 Refund-Flag Football T70 01/30/0] Xcel Energv 8.130.30 Januarv Service 171 01/30/01 Xerox Corporation ],]23.60 .Ian Copier Lcase/Dec Base Charge Subtotal, Page 3 of 3 - 83,398.07 Page 2 of 3 BroWIht Forward _ 107.097.07 Total L'npaid Claims ~~_ 190,495.]4 "'l".":"'''''''-< fI'~',"lo.',I';",,1 . g- o 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ;: 0 0 '" " "' ~ N '" C 7 . ,!li M ~ 'It a:: b i ~ 9 ~ '0 ~ 7 ~ ~ M 0 ~ ~ N M '" ~ ~ :14 ,,; '" 0 r-' '" r-' '" 0 'il! M N 'n 00 '~ M ~, ~ 00 M "' 0 .,. '" 00 C 7 ::~ M ci ~' ~ ci ~ ~ ~ 0 c;; 2 ~ .0 .;w'o => - Z,: ~ "' 0 E .~.' '0 0 '" @ ~ 'Z e '" " c :9 E '" u " u ~ Ii! 0 " .,. w ,Ij " Z e e '2 iO: > '" 0 I- " '" " 3 N " U ~ " 2 <( '" 0 e IJ ~ ~ c e u . C " " '" u @ e "' " " E u " B " ~ ~ " In u 0 ~ 0 "2 "- u '0 0 -" 0 " '0 :.: " " E " " :e,g' 0- ^ " en " 0 " <0 . <..l 0 ~ e u " .~ ~, C '- ~ 0 ~ w '" '" 0- J: 0 ;;i '" 2 " " ~ '" '" J: '" '" '" :t;.< ~ i'i " ~ 0 " ~ u u 16 " a ~ 0; U U '" ;r.: '" :0 w u 0 0 0 <..l '^ iO: G: 0- '" ~ Z 0: "" z G: G: N ;:; 7 . . . 00 00 00 00 . ....J ....J 0 ~ D:: 0 >- N <( !::: a. ~ >- 0 0 D:: - <I: 0 :::l 0 2; Z M <I: N ..... ~ C ,;; Z :;;: 0'" U ; W.- Vl!!!. . Vl ....J ....J J: Z W C D:: <I: LL o >- I- 13 ~ .i:# C- ~ V ~ ,,. ~ C- > C- . :ell: c E V > is N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g - ~ M ~ ~ ~ i:l , i:l ~ i:l v ~ i:l v " " " 0 " " " ;;; > ~ u; v .g .g E > C- > " ~ " ~ ~ " ~ u; ~ ~ ~ > u; ~ ~ U u; ~ -< ~ -< < " < ~ ~ ~ @ :'2 " " , , :'2 ~ ~ :'2 :'2 .. -;: .. -;j ~ .. ~ ~ ~ C- - u; '" ~ ;r '" a a " a . ~ 00 00 00 ~ s ~ ~ ,. 00 M ~ 00 00 M M 00 & ;;! ;;! & it ~ 8 0 0 M 0 0 ,0 ~ N N ~ g 0 " 0 8 !l !l j 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 !l . 0 0 " 0 ~ 0 " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ " 8 g ~ g ~ ~ ~ g g g g g g g ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 N N N M, ~ .; ~ g g g ;;! ~ ~ '0 ~ - "" N c, N N N N N N M ;; ~ N M - r' '" 'n N ~ ~ '" ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ !:: 7 00 ~ '0 ~ '0 0 '" ~ 00 '" 0 ~ '" 00 .,. ~ 00 0 N '" 7 '" '" 7 ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 C "', C - ~ '" M '" '" - b '" '" "' <i ;;; :0 N S 'n 0 00 0 M '" :0 0 M <i ~ <i ~ ~ '" - '" "' ~ 7 <i 0 ~ 7 00 M 0 N ~ 00 ~ ~ 0 .,. '" ~ !:: M :: ~ :'C ~ '" 00 "' 00 ~ ~. C. N ~, ~ ~ 00 ~ '" -, '" r! - ~ ~ '" N N N ? - - - - C M C C ~ C C ~ M "', ~ C 00 '" C 00 00 C C C 00 C 'r ~ ~ M ~ C '" 7 C ~ M C ~ C ~ ~ - ~ 00 N ~ 00 M M M ~ C ~ C ~ ~ C - ~ ~ OJ> 0 ~ ~ "' "' '" ~ '" '" N 'n '0 M 7 7 M - ci r-' r-' 0 ci '" r-' '" 00 M M N '0 '" 00 ~ ~ 7 C '~ ~ ~ '" ~ ~ M ~ ~ M 00 N 'r M ,r M ~ ~ M '" ~ ~ ~ M. ~. O. 7 '" 'r N 00 ,! ~. 7. M. 7. "', "' 00. M. 'c, r~ 7, M M ~ - M - - - - M - N. - - - - N' - - - - - Cii ] ~ 0 '" ~ "' " U '" ~ ~ "0 " ~ U ro "' I ~ ~ 0 ~ " Z -'3 .~ 0 E "' v " :E "' D- -'" "0 U " ~ " ~ " '-' U v ~ u u ~ ~ E u if; " .~ -;;; it 'il " ~ " D- o .C @ ,9 "0 ~ ~ V V ~ .~ .~ "' "' E 0 v 0 2! ~ "' Q 0 0- v ~ 0 0 E ] 0 " U " " "' ~ u :.;,) ,:: "0 Q "' v ~ '-' f:: :;;: ? 0 " C/J C/J ~ " " '-' ~ " "0 Q v ~ :E f': '" ~ r-.. " ,:: ~ ~ c u C/J v ct ,:: i? ~ v fo- ~ ~ c ~ 81i oO v v ~ 0 -'" '" "2 ,,; roe C E' C " -e v 0 "' "i v 0- oO 0 '" v' "- " '-' " ,S ~ " "'II ~ v E v u g. "2 ~ :2 -d 0 g ,,' <oS a -'" .D ~ V -'" ~ E E .E u "" :.E 8 Zl 0 >, 0 > ~ ~ -- a "' "0 0 ~ t '-' v x 0 '-' ~ 0 0 " "0 ~ 0 '-' ~ .3 "' c c >0 v '-' v " " ~ 0 V .D V U '" :is :is :is ~ (5 !/i S2 w ~ C/J :r: C/J u Z 0- C/J '" " C/J 0- C/J C/J '" "- " N " f0- B ;::; '" oo ~ 0 N - ..,. '" N ~ ..,. '" "" r- oo - N ~ "" N '" a- - :": 0 oo '" - - - N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oo oo oo oo oo oo a- N N N N N N N N N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..,. ..,. ..,. ..,. ..,. ..,. ..,. ..,. ..,. ..,. ..,. ..,. M M 7 ~ '" ~ ~ '" 0 M M 7 ~ '" I", 8 ~ " .n '" ~ 00 '" 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 '" '" '" '" '" ~ '" c c 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ~ 00 ~ ~ 00 00 00 00 00 '" '" ~ '" ~ '" '" '" r-- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r-- r-- ~ ~ r-- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r-- ~ ~ r-- ~ ~ ~ ~ " " " ~ ~ 6 ;: "0 > " '" ~ v ~ .~ ~ " .s 1 ~ , -M " ~ " ~ i2 ~ ~ ~ 0 " " ~ u ~ 2 .~ 0 0 B z I " " C- O; ~ "8 ~ ~ ;: 1 '" 2c . " ~ "' ~ " l' ~ . B ~ " " 0 e ~ 0 '" . "0 ~ . 0;;- N .. 0:: ~ ~ 0 Ol ~ - ~ 0 Cl LlJ ... ;3 '" '" 0 W I 0 '" 9 o. " ci: v " " c a .~ ,'" 0 " . > ..J ..J 0 a: ~ >- ~ . <t ci Il. '" >- 0:: <t :::l Z <t ...., ..J ~ Z w :0 W W ..J 0 a. I<:: a. \of :::l Ul . Ul ..J ..J I Z w Q a: <t u. o >- I- o C:; "" M C:; 0 C:; '" 0 ~ 'n 0 r- ~ 06 ci '"' 06 ci 06 '"' "" "" oe ~ "" "" N "" M "" "" ~ -~: fL'1: c 0 ~ g Q -< v; ~ " '" ~. u ~ "" -6 SO " 0;; 0 " c 8 M @! 0 " " "" " f:: '" '" 13 0 " ,"!l ;? " @J ~ = " = E ~ 0 ~ 0": Z -6 u " "8 ~ -6 i;' ~ i;' c .. '" ~ " "" OJ " "" ~ C ;< " 0": ~ C i( -< '" ~ 03 " ~ " 0 15 ~ 0 0 .0 " " u u is is p: " 0;; 0;; i- -:1;0(: h !;: ~: Z ...' ~: )i;i" ";;o;;i: .~. \.i 00 00 00 * * h z ~ ::;: :~ '~ 1==' ~: 0:: .... o 1 > ~ ~ ~ .~ " , " " ~ " I ~ '" ~ & " Ii " * ~ " ~ ~ . " B ] ~ 1 " " , ~ r 1 > - ~ ~ ~ i , 0 ~ " " , ~ ~ * ~ "2 ~ ~ ~ ~ " . ., ~ " " z } ] ~ 1 . tit . . MINUTES CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 3, 2001 7:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL DRAFT CALL TO ORDER Chair Steve Erickson called lhe meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were Chair Stephen Baker; Commissioners Therese Galatowitsch, Clayton Zimmerman, Warren Pakulski and Dave Sand. Steve Erickson and Terri Duchenes were absent. Also present were Councilmember Beverly Aplikowski; Planner Jennifer Chaput, and Recording Secretary Heidi Guenther. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 6. 2000 Cormnissioner Sand moved, seconded by Cormnissioner Zirmnemlan, to approve the December 6, 2000 minutes as presented. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). APPROVAL OF VICE CHAIR Cormnissioner Galatowitsch moved, Commissioner Zimmerman seconded, to appoint Dave Sand as Vice Chair for the year 2001 for the Arden Hills Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). PLANNING CASE #00-34 - METRO COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION - SIGN VARIANCE - 3533 NORTH LEXINGTON A VENUE - PUBLIC HEARING Chair Baker opened the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. Ms. Chaput explained that the applicant is requesting a sign variance for an additional wall sign at 3533 N. Lexington Avenue. Ms. Chaput explained that in June of2000, Metro Cormnunity Credit Union made application for two permanent wall signs at their new location within Arden Plaza, located at 3533 N. Lexington Avenue. She indicated the sign permit application was approved for only one permanent wall sign, as stated in the Sign Ordinance. Ms. Chaput indicated the applicant was told that a variance application was required for the additional wall sign. She stated the application was made for a variance in August but it was found incomplete but noted additional materials were submitted and the application was found complete in November. Ms Chaput noted the previous tenant at this location had two wall signs. She indicated the building juts out in this area, creating two different faces to the building and the need for two wall signs, facing in both directions. Ms. Chaput stated the applicant is requesting that an ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION ~ JANUARY 3, 2001 2 additional sign be permitted as it was for the previous tenant. She noted staff could not find a a. record of a sign permit for the previous tenant or any variances granted in the past at this .. location. She noted currently, Metro Community Credit Union has a temporary banner sign in the location where the permanent sign application was denied. Ms. Chaput noted that application was not made for this temporary sign nor are bamler signs permitted in the City by the Sign Ordinance. Ms. Chaput noted in order to grant a variance, findings of fact must be identified to prove that an undue hardship exists, according to Section IX of the Sign Ordinance. According to the criteria, staff can make the following findings: 1. Hardship. The case could be made that the physical structure of the building creates the need for two wall signs to make the business more visible at this location. However, a hardship is defined by the physical characteristics of the land (specifically topography or the shape of the parcel of land) that creates a need for a variance from the Ordinance. A hardship can not be based on economics, by State Statute. The circumstances of this tenant are not unique at this location. The property can still be put to a reasonable use without the granting of a variance for an additional wall sign. The business continues to be visible in its location from Lexington Avenue with one wall sign. Also, granting a variance is not in keeping with the intent of the Ordinance to, "...encourage effective and orderly communication by reducing clutter..." and ". ..for an attractive and orderly environment by reducing visual clutter.. .". It can be determined that no undue hardship exists, creating the need for a variance. . 2. Materially Detrimental. The granting of this variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or zone. However, if permitted, other businesses within the mall with only one exterior entrance would also have the right to apply for a variance, adding to the number of wall signs on the overall building, not meeting the intent ofthe Sign Ordinance. 3. Special District Regulations. The Metro Community Credit Union is located within the B-2 Zoning District. The regulations of this section do not apply to this district. Ms. Chaput indicated staff recommends denial of Planning Case #00-34, variance for a second wall sign for Metro Community Credit Union, located at 3533 N. Lexington Avenue, for the following reasons: 1. Undue hardship does not exist because the application does not meet the spirit and intent of the Ordinance; the circumstances of the request are not unique to the property; and the property can still be put to a reasonable use without the granting of a variance. Ms. Chaput reviewed the placement and arrangement of the signs at Arden Hills Plaza and asked for comments from the applicant. Sherrie Canges, representative of the Metro Community Credit Union, noted the sign was being requested for the north entrance due to the fact it would allow those entering the mall from the . east visual location of the credit union. Commissioner Galatowitsch asked how long the credit union has been at this location. Ms. Canges stated the credit union has been at this site since July of 2000. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 3, 2001 3 . Chair Baker asked how long the credit union had a lease for this space. Ms. Canges stated the credit union has a five-year lease at this time with two three-year options. She indicated members of the community are welcome to this credit union. Chair Baker closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Commissioner Galatowitsch asked for clarification on the sign ordinance requirements. Ms. Chaput indicated an additional sign could be granted if the business had additional entrances. Commissioner Galatowitsch asked if Ace Hardware had two signs at this time. Ms. Chaput noted Ace Hardware does have two signs. Since they have a second entrance on the south side of the building, they do not require a variance for the second sign. Commissioner Zimmerman noted he did visit the site and indicated from the east, it was difficult to see the placement of this establishment within the Arden Hills Plaza. Chair Baker indicated he felt the request before the Commission was not overwhelming but approval may bring future cases seeking approval with no hardship. He asked that the improvements on this site be addressed by staff. . Ms. Chaput indicated the topography does playa role in this request and could be considered a hardship. Commissioner Pakulski indicated there seems to be no additional room for signs, if this were to be a concern by the Commission. Commissioner Zimmerman agreed stating he felt the topography did create a hardship for this request. He added that the signs would be on two separate surfaces, which he supports. Commissioner Pakulski moved, seconded by Commissioner Sand, to recommend approval of Planning Case #00-34, sign variance, 3533 North Lexington Avenue, for Metro Community Credit Union for the following reasons: 1. Due to the topography and inability to see the credit union sign from the east entrance into the Arden Hills Plaza. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). This Planning Case will be reviewed at the Monday, January 8, 2001, City Council meeting. PLANNING CASE # 00-45 - SEMPER DEVELOPMENT - LOT SPLlTN ARIANCE/ SUP/SITE PLAN REVIEW - NE OUADRANT OF COUNTY ROAD E AND LEXINGTON AVENUE - PUBLIC HEARING . Chair Baker opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. Ms. Chaput eXplained that the applicant is requesting a lot split, variance, SUP and site plan review for the northeast quadrant of County Road E and Lexington A venue for the development of a Walgreens requiring a lot split of the property located at 1201 County Road E creating two ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 3, 2001 4 parcels from one; a variance from Section 6 (D) #1 (b), proximity to drive-in businesses; a Special Use Permit for a drive-in business in a B-2 District; and site plan review of a proposed . Walgreens on the newly created parcel. She stated each application is contingent on the other, which is why they are a part of one planning case. Ms. Chaput indicated the applicant met with staff to discuss plans for construction on the Holiday Inn site, 1201 County Road E, in early fall, 2000. She explained the Holiday Inn currently operates on the entire parcel, under utilizing the eastern portion of the site. Ms. Chaput noted the applicant is proposing to build a Walgreens store on the corner of County Road E and Lexington Avenue, requiring the subdivision of the parcel into two separate parcels. Ms. Chaput reported while reviewing the required applications with the applicant for a lot split and site plan review, drive-in businesses were found to require a special use permit and a section of the code was identified that drive-in facilities were not permitted within 1320 feet of another drive-in. She indicated the language of the Zoning Ordinance was discussed with the City Attorney and it was determined that the language did apply to any type of drive-in, not just fast food facilities. Ms. Chaput continued by stated the application for a variance from this section was made in conjunction with the other applications. Ms. Chaput noted in order to grant a variance, a hardship must be identified, as defined by the City and State criteria. She stated the applicant has responded to the hardship in this case in Exhibit C, since the Zoning Ordinance, in Section 6 (D) #1 (b) states that a drive-in business can not be located within 1320 feet of another drive-in business, a variance application is required. Ms. Chaput explained the definition of a drive-in business, Section 2 #42, does not specifically . address a drive-in for a pharmacy but does mention other businesses that may be similar. She stated for this application for a variance for proximity to other drive-in businesses, staff can make the following findings: ]. Whether the circumstances for which the variance is requested are unique to the property. The circumstance in question (the need for a drive-in) is not unique to this particular property. There are a number of properties within 1320 feet of this property that have drive- ins (i.e. TCF, Wells Fargo, McDonald's). It is not a physical hardship of the property that is requiring the need for a variance (nor specifically dimensional) but more related to the use. Typically, a use can not be varied from the ordinance but this is a use accessory to the principal use and the City Attorney has advised staff that this is the best way to proceed with this request. The request is driven by the need for this type of business to have a drive-in window to be competitive which is, essentially, an economic hardship. State Statutes clearly state that economics can not be identified as a hardship in a variance case. However, the type of drive-in business that is being proposed is not specifically listed in the definition of a "drive-in business" and may not have been identified when the Ordinance was written, since it is fairly new to drugstores. 2. Whether granting the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning Code. The Ordinance appears to be more concerned with fast-food restaurants with drive-in facilities rather than less used drive-in businesses. Although "drugstores" are mentioned . within the definition of "drive-in businesses", they are only mentioned with reference to take home food services which are permitted. Staff does not believe that the intent of the Ordinance was to deter drugstores in this area or to include them within the "drive-in businesses" definition. Again, this Ordinance was written and adopted before drugstores . . . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 3, 2001 5 began serving customers throllgh drive-in prescription pick-up windows, which is what is being proposed. Therefore, staff believes that the variance request for a drive-in for a Walgreens meets the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. 3. Whether the property in question can be put to a reasonable use without granting of a variance. The property can be put to a reasonable use without the granting of a variance. The proposal for a Walgreens on the property meets all of the dimensional requirements of the lot (area, setbacks, width, etc.). However, Walgreens may choose to not build in this location if a drive-in is not permitted, as it has become an integral part of their business and a requirement to be competitive in the metro area. Therefore, althollgh the property could be put to a reasonable use without the variance, the applicant requires the variance for operation. This particular use could not operate without the variance. 4. Whether the hardship was created by the property owner. Again, the hardship on the property can not be identified as a physical hardship of the land. This hardship is being created by the applicant through the proposal to construct a facility that relies on a drive-in within 1320 feet of another drive-in facility. The hardship is not of the shape of the land or its terrain. As referred to previously, it is based on a use that was not identified in the Ordinance at its time of adoption and the requirement of this accessory use for operation ofthe business at this location. 5. Whether granting the variance will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. A drive-in for a drugstore has very little vehicle stacking compared to a fast-food restaurant. The addition of a drive-in for this type of facility will hardly be noticeable and will not alter the character of the neighborhood. Again, staff does not believe that it was the intent of the Ordinance to prohibit drive-ins for drugstores. Although the hardship is not a physical hardship of the land and that the hardship is at the request of the applicant, this use is accessory to the primary use on the property and will not negatively affect the neighborhood as it is proposed. Ms. Chaput indicated staff recommends approval of Planning Case #00-45, for the following applications, each contingent on the other's approval: 1. Lot split of the property at 1201 County Road E from one lot into two lots, for the following reason and with the following conditions: a) The proposal meets the minimum requirements of Section 22-12, (e) of the City Code; b) The subdivision shall be recorded with Ramsey County within sixty days of approval from the City Council; and c) Following recording with Ramsey County, the applicant will provide a final plat plus evidence ofrecording to the City of Arden Hills. 2. Variance from Section 6 (D) #1 (b), proximity to drive-in businesses, for the following reasons; a) The Zoning Ordinance was adopted without identifying this particular drive-in use and it appears, by definition, that the application does meet the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance; b) Although the property can be put to a reasonable use without this variance, it is required for the operation of the business which is a permitted use within the district; and c) The granting ofthe variance will not alter the essential character of the District. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 3, 2001 3. Special use permit for a drive-in bnsiness, for the following reason: a) The application meets the requirements of Section 6 (D) of the Zoning Ordinance, "Additional Minimum Requirements for Drive-In Businesses, Fast Food Restaurants and Automobile Service Stations" if granted in conjunction with the variance application for "Proximity to Other Establishments". 4. Site plan review for a Walgreens in the northwest quadrant of County Road E and Lexington Avenue, with the following conditions: a) Review proposed French drains with Rice Creek Watershed District per the City Engineer's memo; b) Lower the elevation of the sidewalk cut on County Road E from 943.0 to 942+/- for better drainage; c) Final plans shall indicate how the depression in the northwest corner of the site is drained, the diameter and invert of the existing culvert located under the railroad, and show grading and restoration through the ditch on the northern edge of the site to the lowpoint; d) A silt fence shall be placed along the northern limit of the project; e) The Site Engineer shall provide drainage calculations to the City for review and City files; j) Obtain the required permits from Rice Creek Watershed District; g) Obtain permits from Ralllsey County for curb cuts on Lexington Avenue and County Road E, addressing any issues that the County may have with the County Road E curb cut; h) Elimination of the northern accesses from the Walgreens property onto the Holiday Inn property. Only the southern property access will remain with approval from the property owner. i) Reconfigure the location of the curb cut and parking spaces to accommodate fifteen feet of landscape area between the curb cut and the rear property line; j) A cedar screening fence of no more than six feet in height, final design approved by staff, shall be installed along the side and rear lot lines; k) Exterior lighting must be directed away from adjoining lots or public streets and must be hooded so that light is only directed onto the Walgreens property; and l) The changeable copy on the freestanding sign shall not change more than once in a 24- hour period. John Kohler, architect for Semper Development, thanked Ms. Chaput for her thorough review of the application. He indicated he was present to respond to any questions or comments from the Commission. Commissioner Pakulski indicated he felt it was odd that traffic had to circle the entire building to reach the drive-in. Commissioner Zimmerman concurred noting the Walgreens in Blaine, Minnesota, has some traffic concerns for those parking and those making their way to the drive- Ill. 6 e e Commissioner Galatowitsch asked if a directional sign would be placed in the Holiday Inn _ parking lot. Mr. Kohler stated a sign could be placed there but this was not the request before the .. Commission at this time. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 3, 2001 7 . Commissioner Zimmerman indicated he has concern for the reduced number of parking spaces for the Holiday Inn. He stated he understands it still meets the City requirements but explained there could be issues during State Fair events. Commissioner Zimmerman asked for the predicted volume of traffic for Walgreens. Mr. Kohler indicated they are predicting mostly neighborhood traffic, which meets the Walgreens market. He stated the maximum number of cars at peak time would be 36-40 cars. Dan Ashback, 1580 Oak Avenue, indicated he was a local resident and business owner. He stated he was concerned about increasing traffic in this area. Mr. Ashback indicated he would like to see an office type business at this location to minimize the in and out traffic of a drive- through. He indicated to the Commission there was already two drugstores within the City at this time. Larry Frattalone, Ace Hardware Store, stated he lives in the area and has found the traffic on County Road E has become extremely difficult. He stated this site would pull traffic from more than a one-mile radius and increase the chaos at this intersection. Chuck Erickson, 4032 Wilshire, Shoreview, indicated he works at the pharmacy in Arden Plaza and has concerns for the traffic on County Road E. Mr. Erickson indicated this business would impact Holiday Inn traffic as well. . Ron Johnson, 1280 Nursery Court Hills, stated he has concerns for the entrance and exiting of traffic from this site. He indicated traffic is heavy on County Road E as it is right now. Chair Erickson closed the public hearing at 8:32 p.m. Commissioner Sand noted this property is a gateway designated property and asked how this designation would effect the proposal. He stated this comer, in the future, needs to hold a City of Arden Hills sign with berming. Commissioner Sand indicated he did not feel the style of the Walgreens building was aesthetically pleasing because the parking was in front and the building was similar to all other Walgreens. He added that the signs are to be no higher than 16 feet or below the eaves. Commissioner Sand noted the eave was approximately 13 feet high. Commissioner Sand noted the landscaping met the minimum requirements. He indicated this was a gateway-designated property and asked that it be held to higher standards. Commissioner Sand stated he would like the developer to increase the landscape designing on this property. Commissioner Sand asked for clarification on the screening plan. He indicated the lighting plan should have also been submitted for the Planning Commission to review. Commissioner Sand stated he is also concerned about the traffic flow, with conjunction to the drive-though pharmacy. Commissioner Sand asked if the exterior would be similar to the Holiday Inn. Mr. Kohler noted . the exterior would be a dark reddish brick to blend with the Holiday Inn property. Commissioner Galatowitsch stated she understands the concern for the gateway designation but noted the Holiday Inn owns this property. She indicated she felt sufficient landscaping should buffer the parking in the front of the building. She explained she was concerned about traffic ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 3, 2001 8 along County Road E. Commissioner Galatowitsch indicated she felt this was a good alternative to leaving the space a parking lot. e Commissioner Sand indicated the Comprehensive Plan names both the north and south portions of this intersection, within the City of Arden Hills, as gateway properties. Chair Baker thanked him for the clarification. He stated he was uncomfortable with approving the drive-in facility with it being closer than 1320 feet to several drive-in facilities. Ms. Chaput indicated there were three facilities within the 1320 feet at this time, being the TCF, Wells Fargo and McDonalds. Chair Baker asked if the access through the Holiday Inn would have an easement. Mr. Kohler noted there would be an easement with Holiday Inn and stated that this has been approved by the Holiday Inn owners. Chair Baker stated he was glad to see the building would be fully faced with brick on all sides. He indicated the development does not address the future downtown development issues with a pedestrian friendly enviromnent. Commissioner Sand asked if the additional curb cut was a concern on County Road E. Ms. Chaput stated the County reviewed this application and agreed with extending the curb on County Road E and allowing access through the Holiday Inn parking lot. Commissioner Zimmemlan noted concern for the contingencies within each of the four .. applications before the Commission. He indicated additional information should be brought ., back from the applicant on lighting, signage, etc. before the Commission should move on this item. Chair Baker asked for direction from staff. Ms. Chaput noted she would like to see this item tabled to allow the applicant time to gather additional information. Commissioner Zimmerman indicated he would like the City to work closely with this site to increase appeal at this highly visible intersection and gateway property. Chair Baker stated the Commission needs additional information on traffic studies for County Road E and Lexington Avenue with regard to the drive-in, the obligations of the designated gateway corner and the impacts on landscaping and signage, input from Holiday Inn as to their approval in the use of the parking lot, hours of operation, a lighting plan, the height of the pylon sign, and screening plan. Commissioner Zimmerman moved, seconded by Commissioner Galatowitsch, to table Plarming Case #00-45, Lot SplitlVariance/SUP/Site Plan Review for the Northeast Quadrant of County Road E and Lexington Avenue for the creation of a Walgreens to allow for the presentation of additional information on the items stated above. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). This Planning Case will be reviewed at the Wednesday February 7, 2001, Planning Commission meeting. e Chair Baker called for a recess at 9:07 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:20 p.m. . . . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 3, 2001 9 PLANNING CASE #00-46 - CHESAPEAKE COMPANIES - PRELIMINARY PLAT/ CONCEPT PUD - NORTHEAST OUADRANT OF 1-35W AND 1-694 - PUBLIC HEARING Chair Baker opened the public hearing at 9:20 p.m. Ms. Chaput explained that the applicant is requesting preliminary plat and concept PUD review for the northeast quadrant ofI-35W and 1-694 for the consolidation of the four properties located in the Northeast quadrant of 1-694 and 1-35W into one property, replatted to accommodate the existing billboards (as Outlots) and a concept plarmed unit development on the remaining parcel. Ms Chaput indicated Chesapeake Companies has been working on assembling the parcels at the comer ofI-35W and 1-694 for over a year (Exhibit B). She noted they are proposing to combine and replat parcels currently owned by Morris Communications, ATS Steel and Burlington Northern Rail. Ms. Chaput stated several members of the Chesapeake Companies were in attendance with a presentation for the Commission. Peter Carlson, principal of Chesapeake Company, introduced the nUlllerous members of his development team. Mr. Carlson reviewed the project goals for this site and the key issues for the Preliminary Plat and Concept PUD. He indicated the purchase agreement took 14 months to establish with Morris Companies. Mr. Carlson indicated he feels this site holds a great deal of potential. He noted the developer's key issues at this time were project density, City flexibility, timing, availability of outdoor advertisement and the use of eminent domain from the City. Mr. Carlson indicated the tenants are unknown at this time which means a great deal of flexibility on the density issue would be needed from the City. Mr. Carlson indicated there are a great deal of variables involved in this project, which calls for the City to work in conjunction with Chesapeake Companies. He reviewed the barriers that must be overcome at this time. Mr. Carlson indicated he is working with ATS Steel in negotiations to purchase their company and land. John Schardalo, president ofSchardalo Architects, reviewed the background of the concept plan. He gave an overview of the plat with the Commission and the location of the stormwater ponds and wetlands. Mr. Schardalo noted the PUD site was currently 26.5 acres. He noted the site would be developed in several phases but indicated the preliminary plan would need to be reviewed and approved by the City before the first phase would begin. Mr. Schardalo indicated the PUD site could be used for a large office building with parking. He reviewed the potential layout of this design with the Commission. Mr. Schardalo explained a second option for this site would be a three building office configuration with parking. He then reviewed the second option with the Commission. Mr. Schardalo stated the building images would be extremely professional. He noted his firm has taken part in several PUD's with similar layouts. Mr. Schardalo indicated the developer is interested in a successful culmination of the City's gateway vision, to create a high quality complex and be able to create high tax value. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 3, 2001 10 Mr. Schardalo explained the keys to success with the Commission. He indicated he feels the project must be brought to the market as soon as possible and asked for questions or comments . from the Commission. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if Mr. Carlson would manage this property. Mr. Carlson indicated he does manage all properties that he owns and does not use third party management with single or multi-tenant users. Ms. Chaput stated Morris Communications is a willing seller to Chesapeake Companies on the condition that the land around their two existing billboards be platted as their own lots, which is why the proposal shows a three lot plat (two outlots for the billboards and one developable lot). She indicated Chesapeake's conversations with Morris Communications have found that this is a nonnegotiable item. Ms. Chaput noted if the City wishes to fully develop this key piece of property on the corner ofI-35W and 1-694, there should be careflll consideration made to this request. Ms. Chaput explained discussion is still underway between ATS Steel and Chesapeake Companies regarding their property. She noted the ATS Steel property is included in the proposed concept plan for development. Ms. Chaput explained it is a necessary part of the concept as this parcel is central to the property as a whole. She added, also important to this development is the vacation of the existing Burlington Northern Railway's right-of-way. Ms. Chaput explained Chesapeake is also in discussions with the Railway regarding their property. She noted currently, the rail line serves ATS Steel on this site on a minimal basis. Ms. . Chaput indicated the rail line enters the property across a bridge from New Brighton and ends at the 1-694 intersection. She noted the existence of the rail line is largely dependent on the existence of A TS Steel. Ms. Chaput stated staff recommends approval of Planning Case #00-46 for the following applications, each contingent on the other's approval: 1. Lot consolidation of four properties at the Northeast quadrant of 1-35W and 1-694, for the following reasons and with the following conditions: a) The proposed consolidation meets the minimUlll requirements of Section 22-12, (e) of the City Code; and b) The consolidation is contingent on the property owners' consent and applicant's purchase of the properties before a final platting may be recorded with Ramsey County and filed with the City. 2. Preliminary Plat of the existing parcel into two outlots designated Outlots A and B, at the Northeast quadrant ofI-35W and 1-694, for the following reasons and with the following conditions: a) The proposed preliminary plat meets the minimum design standards of Section 22-8 of the City Code, except for the proposed Outlots; b) The proposed Outlots, A and B, do not meet the minimum requirements for a developable lot and will not be developed in the future, as platted; c) All proposed easements, newly created or vacated as per the submitted plan, must be properly filed and recorded with Ramsey County and proof of this action provided to the City; . . e e ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 3, 2001 11 d) Approximately 10% of the property for development should be dedicated to the City for trails, as required by Section 22-9 of the City Code; e) Application must be made for a final plat no later than three months after action is taken on this application by the City Councilor the preliminary plat becomes void; 1) The preliminary plat is contingent on the property owners' consent and applicant's purchase of the properties before a final platting may be recorded with Ramsey County and filed with the City. Staff can offer the following preliminary comments on the concept PUD in Planning Case #00-46: 1. Concept A appears to meet the intent of the Gateway Business District more than Concept B by offering a greater architectural presence, taking full advantage ofthe site's location; 2. The conflicting text regarding the maximum height requirement and percentage of office within the District should be discussed and clarified by the City; 3. Exterior building finishes should utilize brick, stone, glass or some combination of these materials, compatible with what exists within the District; 4. The proposed western entrances to the site should be relocated to eliminate two 90 degree comers; 5. Entrances to the property should be considered opposite to those that exist on the north side of Gateway Boulevard; 6. Reconstruction of the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and Round Lake Road should be considered to accommodate development; 7. Consideration and discussion of the use of the railway bridge in conjunction with this development needs to occur; 8. Development of the site should include a pedestrian trail along the south side of Gateway Boulevard and/or within the site; 9. Further consideration to setbacks from the surface parking areas should be made since neither proposal meets the minimum requirements; 10. Existing wetlands and ponds should be interconnected with proposed ponds and wetlands for maximum circulation ofmnoff and positive flood control; 11. Final outlet of the wetland system should use the City's storm water pond on the western portion of the site; 12. Movement ofthe City's storm water pond to the east, as proposed, is not recommended; and 13. Wetland mitigation should consider the existing trunk sanitary sewer since this would not be relocated by the City when other options may exist. Commissioner Pakulski asked if the proposed building height was within zoning code requirements. Ms. Chaput indicated it is conflicting at this time, but the City is looking for a stately presence at this comer. Chair Baker concurred with Ms. Chaput stating he would like to encourage a staggered height above the maximum allowed within City code, at this time, for the gateway district. Commissioner Sand asked why the western entrance was being relocated. Mr. (engineer) stated the topography for the site calls for a 90-degree turn into the site and noted they have chosen to swing traffic down into the parking lots versus the 90-degree turn. Commissioner Sand asked if traffic lights would be needed. Mr. Schardalo indicated this would be known after the traffic study was completed. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 3, 2001 12 Commissioner Sand asked if the City's portion of the preliminary expenses were budgeted for 2001. Mr. Post indicated the roadway improvements were not budgeted for 2001 but were in the . road improvement plan. Ms. Chaput indicated the bridge issues are still in discussion with the City of New Brighton as well. Commissioner Zimmerman asked for the possibility of using eminent domain to acquire the ATS Steel property. Mr. Carlson indicated after recontacting them a second time, the owner was more hopeful as to the possibility of the sale. He noted ATS Steel was creating a proposal for the value of their property and business. Mr. Carlson explained they are aware the City would step in if negotiations were not successful. Chuck Hagager, consultant representing Mr. Vahn, noted he is in the process of proposing a 17 acre business site to the east of the proposed property along Gateway Boulevard. Mr. Hagager noted Mr. Vahn is concerned with the available capacity of the roadways to this development. Chair Erickson closed the public hearing at 10:04 p.m. Chair Baker questioned the timing of this project. Mr. Carlson noted after approval of the preliminary plat and concept PUD, the project would move forward to final plat. Chair Baker asked why there was a sense of urgency in approving the preliminary plat. Mr. Carlson stated if the Commission is not interested in allowing them to move forward with this type of development, then they would not proceed with purchasing additional land. e Chair Baker questioned if the suggested easements by the applicant could be reviewed as proposed. He stated a public trail would be desired along the boulevard or freeway. Mr. Carlson stated he would not have this incorporated within this plan as a formal request has not been made to date. He indicated this could certainly be accomplished though, as park dedication was a requirement. Commissioner Zimmerman asked how the billboards would exist relative to the outlots. Mr. Carlson stated only one of the billboards would be in front of the proposed building but there was enough space to overcome the obstacle. Commissioner Sand asked if the Commission should first act on the lot consolidation and replatting. Ms. Chaput stated she felt the most important portion of the applicant's request was to replat the outlots for the billboards. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if eminent domain could be used for the taking of the billboard outlots. Mr. Post indicated the taking of those billboards would be too expensive for this site to remain profitable. Commissioner Galatowitsch asked if a representative was present from Morris Companies. Ms. Chaput noted they were notified of the Planning Case by the City. Mr. Carlson indicated he has had conversation with representatives from Morris Companies who indicated they are aware of the preliminary plat and concept PUD issues before the City. e Commissioner Sand moved, seconded by Commissioner Galatowitsch, to recommend approval of Planning Case #00-46, Preliminary Plat of the existing Morris parcel into two outlots e . . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 3, 2001 13 designated Outlots A and B, at the Northeast quadrant ofI-35W and 1-694, for the following reasons and with the following conditions: 1. The proposed Outlots, A and B, do not meet the minimum requirements for a developable lot and will not be developed in the future, as platted; 2. All proposed easements, newly created or vacated as per the submitted plan, must be properly filed and recorded with Ramsey County and proof of this action provided to the City; 3. Application must be made for a final plat no later than three months after action is taken on this application by the City Councilor the preliminary plat becomes void. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Staff was advised to forward additional cormnents onto the Council for the PUD development as noted within the staff report. This Planning Case will be reviewed at the Monday, January 11, 2001, City Council meeting. PLANNING CASE #00-41 - CITY OF ARDEN HILLS - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (NB DISTRICT LANGUAGE) SECTION 5 (E) AND (H) #3 - PUBLIC HEARING Chair Baker opened the public hearing at 10:36 p.m. Ms. Chaput explained that the City of Arden Hills requests that Section 5 (El and (H) #3 of the Zoning Ordinance #291 be amended to allow multiple family dwelling units in the neighborhood business district, with restrictions. She noted there were several changes from last month, when this item was tabled. Ms. Chaput stated that on September 27, 1999 (Planning Case #99-04), the language for a new zoning district, the neighborhood business district, was adopted by the City Council and inserted into the City's Zoning Ordinance. She added that while reviewing the proposed rezoning for seven groups of properties for this district at the November 1, 2000 meeting (Planning Case #00- 38), the Planning Commission recognized that the neighborhood business district language did not permit any types of dwelling units. Ms. Chaput noted that the Planning Cormnission directed staff to propose an ordinance amendment for the December meeting, addressing this issue. Ms. Chaput stated this issue was also raised at the November 27, 2000 City Council meeting. She indicated the City Council unanimously approved the change in zoning of the seven groups of properties to neighborhood business, as recommended by the Planning Cormnission. Ms. Chaput noted there was some concern about the limitations of the district language since dwelling units are not permitted. She stated staff informed the City Council that the Planning Cormnission would be reviewing this isslle at the December 6, 2000 meeting. Ms. Chaput stated the Zoning Ordinance lists a number of different dwelling types that are permitted in various districts of the City. She explained the purpose of the neighborhood business district was to promote pedestrian friendly, mixed-use enviromnents, similar to the popular planning concept of new urbanism. Ms. Chaput noted this type of district should encourage live/work enviromnents within it. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 3, 2001 14 Ms. Chaput indicated the Zoning Ordinance lists a number of different dwelling types that are permitted in various districts of the City. She continued by stating typically, multiple family or . two-family dwelling units are the more appropriate dwelling type to mix with a business in a district such as this. Ms. Chaput noted that since this is a business district, some restrictions should be placed on permitting dwelling units as a sole use on a property. She noted, dwelling units should be mixed with a business use to ensure that the use continues to meet the intent of the district and the City's Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Chaput explained, currently, the neighborhood business district does not permit any types of dwelling units. She stated all of the dwelling unit types, and their corresponding district regulations, are shown in the "Dwelling" section of the Land Use Chart, Section 5 (E), below. Ms. Chaput indicated staff proposes that "Multiple Family" and "Two-Fanlily" dwellings be allowed in the neighborhood business district through a special use permit. She stated that by making this use a special use in the district, an additional restriction can be placed on it to ensure that dwelling units can not be the sole use on the property, as proposed in Section 5 (H) #3. Ms. Chaput reported that by adding in certain dwelling units as permitted uses in this district, other language Section 5 (H) needs to be addressed. She noted this is specific to where the text references certain requirements when "adjacent to residential uses". Ms. Chaput explained this could have negative implications to a development if the language is not anlended to ensure that the residential reference applies to uses outside of the NB District. Ms. Chaput stated at the previous Planning Cormnission, staff was asked to define the use "Mixed Residential Types", as shown in the Land Use Chart. She indicated staff did not locate this term anywhere else within the Zoning Ordinance and was able to find a definition to match it from Ordinances of surrounding communities. Ms. Chaput stated staffrecormnends that this term be stricken from the Zoning Ordinance instead of proposing a definition that may indirectly include or prohibit certain uses. She added it also appears that there is some uncertainty in what this term should mean, creating a great deal of difficulty in developing a definition. e Ms. Chaput reviewed the overall additions and changes of the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and noted staff recommends approval of Plamling Case #00-41, anlending Section 5 of the Zoning Ordinance #291 as presented in the "Proposed Amendments to Section 5 ofthe Zoning Ordinance" section of this memorandum. Cormnissioner Sand asked that the residential zoning districts be added to Section 5 of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Chaput noted this change would be completed as it was an oversight. Chair Baker closed the public hearing at 10:45 p.m. Chair Baker indicated he was comfortable with the language changes within this Ordinance. He stated this allows for those difficult parcels near residential areas to be developed. Commissioner Galatowitsch moved, seconded by Cormnissioner Zirmnerman, to approve Planning Case #00-41, Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 5 (E) Land Use Chart and (II) #3, Special Requirements for the Neighborhood Business District of the Zoning Ordinance #291 as presented. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). e REPORTS e e e ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 3, 2001 15 A. Council Liaison Councilmember Aplikowski noted anniversary banners were purchased with a new City logo. She indicated events will begin February 12th at the City Council meeting with a parade on June 23rd. Councilmember Aplikowski indicated a three-year law enforcement contract was signed at the last Council meeting. She indicated the 2001 budget was approved as well. B. Planning Commissioners There was nothing new at this time. C. Staff There was nothing new at this time. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Zimmerman moved, seconded by Commissioner Sand, to adjourn the meeting at 10:56 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). ., e . . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: January 5, 2001 TO: Mayor and City Council Jennifer Chaput, City Planner ~ Case #00-34, Sign Variance Metro Community Credit Union, 3533 N. Lexington Avenue FROM: SUBJECT: Request Metro Community Credit Union is requesting approval of a sign variance for an additional wall sign at 3533 N. Lexington Avenue (ExIUbit A). Back2round In June of this year, Metro Community Credit Union made application for two permanent wall signs at their new location within Arden Plaza, located at 3533 N. Lexington Avenue. The sign permit application was approved for only one permanent wall sign, as stated in the Sign Ordinance. For each exterior entrance per business within a strip mall, one permanent wall sign is allowed, by Ordinance. The applicant was told that a variance application was required for the additional wall sign. The previous tenant at this location had two wall signs. The building juts out in this area, creating two different fuces to the building and the need for two wall signs, fucing in both directions. The applicant is requesting that an additional sign be permitted as it was for the previous tenant on the other face of the building, even though there is only one exterior entrance for this tenant. Staff could not find a record of a sign permit for the previous tenant or any variances granted in the past at this location. Variance Review In order to grant a variance, findings of fact must be identified to prove that an undue hardship exists, according to Section IX of the Sign Ordinance. According to the criteria, staff can make the fullowing findings: 1. Hardship. A hardship is defined by the physical characteristics of the land that creates a need for a variance from the Ordinance. A hardship can not be based on economics, by State Statute. The circumstances of this tenant are not unique and the property can still be put to a reasonable use without the granting of a variance for an additional wall sign. Also, granting a variance is not in keeping with the intent of the Ordinance to, "...encourage effective and orderly communication by reducing clutter. .." and "...for an attractive and orderly enviromnent by reducing visual clutter...". It can be determined that no undue hardship exists, creating the need for a variance. 2. Materially Detrimental. The granting of this variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or zone. However, if permitted, other businesses within the mall with only one exterior entrance would also have the right to apply for a variance, adding to the number of wall signs on the overall building, not meeting the intent of the Sign Ordinance. 3. Special District Regulations. The Metro Community Credit Union is located within the B-2 Zoning District. The regulations ofthis section do not apply to this district. e Deadline for Al!encv Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on November 21, 2000. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by January 20, 2001 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. A letter was sent to the applicant, extending the review period to March 21, 2001. The City may with the petitioners consent, extend the review period beyond the date. Lastly, if the City denies the petitioners request, ....it must state in writing the reasons fur 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 fur additional information. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended denial of Planning Case #00-34, variance for a second wall sign fur Metro . Community Credit Union, located at 3533 N. Lexington Avenue, for the following reasons: 1. Undue hardship does not exist because the application does not meet the spirit and intent of the Ordinance; 2. The circumstances of the request are not unique to the property; and 3. The property can still be put to a reasonable use without the granting of a variance. Planninl! Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission reconnnends approval of Planning Case #00-34, variance for a second wall sign for Metro Community Credit Union, located at 3533 N. Lexington Avenue, for the following reasons: I. The hardship is attributable to the physical surroundings of built structures and topography that block views of this portion ofthe building; 2. The design of this portion of the building requires two signs for visibility from either entrance onto the property; 3. The proposed sign aesthetically matches the surrounding tenants and does not negatively impact the area Updates None at this time. . 2 (_ COMMUNIIY ""'----__~ CREDIT UNION E:x\-\- \ B>IT A tG- ~ ro~~Lf ~ August 3, 2000 J City of Arden Hills 4364 W. Round Lake Road Arden Hills,.MN. 55112-5794 Dear Sirs: Enclosed you will find our application for a Sign Ordinance Variance and a check for $125.00. We are located in the Arden Plaza Center, which is on the southwest corner of Lexington Avenue and County Road E. This center has an entrance on both streets. With the shape of the building our name is only visible from the Lexington Avenue entrance. We are requesting permission to put our sign on the north side to be visible from the County Road E entrance. This sign will be compliant with the criteria that the City of Arden Hills and Arden Plaza require. We have done extensive marketing to the people who work and live in Arden Hills and will continue to promote the credit union whenever possible. In order for us to succeed with our marketing efforts we feel it necessary to be as visible as possible. Metro Community Credit Union will bring many people into the City of Arden Hills, therefore, benefiting other businesses as well as ours. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ~an~ President 3533 N. Lexington Avenue' Arden Hills. Minnesota 55126 . Phone: (65 I) 490-60] 5 . Fax: (651) 494-0861 E-A1ail: mccu@uswest.net COUNTY R 0 A D E )> ~c::: -:::o~:Z: -i - fT1 0 ... , fT1 '" ~"UZtlCl . r 'V, )>:c '" _ z- 0 r ... r '" y> .. ... s:: '" Z ~ z O~ :r .. Ii ..!: ....-::.o.e1iiiililiiiP" ~Jl g..... SSjl ""3- " ~ Co c g~F ire.... ~-~t Cl < 'i.. ~-Co .- "..-, <t~ ~...,...... no)> rrl .., :::0 Z .., 0 --1nrrl rrlrrlZ ;:;0 --0 );: N )> / // ~\\\\\~\\\~\\\~ A '2-/5" .. f"T1 X :z .. ~ ' GJ -! 0 :z >- <: f"T1 :z c: f"T1 Vl -c i"; , I -'__......~OJ""-JCI)(JI4>-(..o.lN_,.., I c...> l-.:I __ Co ..... : .. >U'l>>-l ~ ~-lC>:Z;;O<;;/J')<c::onrT1 0 1.5 CD I""'l ;:0 ~ 8 ~ :I:;:o C ~ ~ ~ :z. 0 f"'1 ~ S2 :.: ~ s;M~Ar;u 1"T1~~Vi ~~2~:z .:__ . Q~~Vl~Qo~~M~5M~"'O~-1 -0 ,', g Z_.....R:- '"'0 ~^':::t: r-C f'T'I:r:=ez ~ (;"') (') 0 0;;0 (/)I~ - n 0 0 ~ >- :>: : r"l b (::. > ~ s; [ri ~I~ ~ 6;:0::0 ~ 3: ~ ~ !:. -I ::0 r:- :z ~ V') ~ ~ ~ Z z f; U') " S r70 (,,)""'6~fTlt""1M z-< :J: . - . ~ ~Q)~ i~~ G ~ ! g (/)~ ~oc ~ ~ M VlZ~ Z ~ ~ ~o~ n, o n ~ ~ ~ ....'"'~",.::;~ g o~ ~N~~~~~~~O~~~8~ ~ :"'-':1(~g~~1~8~~~~~~lo~ ?: ;:j~IO-..Jo""'li / / / / t.)(\SiltJ"- ~\vOJrJr;. Wlntt:5Llj S!'-N .. .. A '+l;; . A '0/5 WVl/01N G W!1l+ ~(-"oseo .f!:t(..N flit - I. . e . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: January 5, 2001 TO: Mayor and City Council Jennifer Chaput, City Planner ~/ FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Case #00-46 Preliminary Plat/Concept PUD Chesapeake Companies, NE Quadrant ofI-694 and I-35W Request The applicant is requesting the replatting of the existing Morris Communications property from one parcel into three, accommodating the existing billboards as their own separate lots (Outlots A and B) (Exhibit A, proposed plat) and for comments on a concept plamled unit development for development of the properties southwest of Gateway Boulevard (Exhibit B, booklet, provides all information and maps). Backl!round Chesapeake Companies has been working on assembling the parcels at the corner of 1-35W and 1-694 for over a year. In the future they intend to combine and replat the parcels currently owned by Morris Communications, A TS Steel and Burlington Northern Rail (currently unused rail right-of-way) into one developable parcel. Morris Communications is a willing seller to Chesapeake Companies on the condition that the land around their two existing billboards be platted as their own lots, which is why this application has been made at this time (two outlots for the billboards and the remainder of the lot for later combination with other lots and development). Chesapeake's conversations with Morris Communications have found that creating separate parcels for the billboards is a nonnegotiable item. If the City wishes to fully develop this key piece of property on the corner ofI-35W and 1-694, there should be careful consideration made to this request. Preliminarv Plat Review Approval of the preliminary plat of three lots (one developable and two undevelopable outlots, A and B) may be granted if minimum design standards (from Section 22-8 of the City Code) are met: a) Lots i) Location All lots are to abut their full frontage on a publicly dedicated street by City Code. Of the three lots, two do not abut a public street, accessed by an access easement and platted specifically for the existing billboards as outlots or undevelopable lots. \ ii) Size Th bl bel lin th f h sed e eta e ow out es e SIZe 0 eac l propos . property: GB District Zoning LotI Lot 2 Lot 3 Requirements (Outlot A) (Outlot B) Lot Area 5 acre minimwn Approx. 6,500 sq.ft. or 4,500 sq.ft. or 19 acres 0.15 acre 0.1 acre Lot 100/130 feet Exceeds 66.3/982 55.7/80.4 Widtb/Denth Minimum Min. 20,000 sq. ft. Possible Not Possible Not Possible Buildin" Size iii) Natural Features The site currently has five wetlands and two stormwater ponds, approximately 4.7 acres in size. The wetlands subdivide the site into small portions of land and will require mitigation for future development. b) Streets and Safe Intersections There is no street proposed in the preliminary plat. Access to the proposed lots would be from the nearest public street, Gateway Boulevard. c) Easements i) Existing The existing utility easements (strips 1 through 4) and the peffilallent road easement would need to be vacated for a development to occur. Also existing is a sanitary sewer easement, electric transmission line easement, pipeline easement, and a drainage and utility easement for the Gateway Addition. ii) Proposed There is an area between the two billboard properties that is proposed to be a sight line easement, as per the Morris Communications agreement. Within this easement are 25 foot wide maintenance easements along side the parcels. The billboard parcels are accessed by an access easement, located along 1-694 and 1-35W, off of Gateway Boulevard. There is also a proposed ten-foot wide power line easement in various areas of the parcels. d) Public Use Dedications Section 22-9 of the City Code states that the developer must dedicate the following back to the City: Sewers, electric, gas and water facilities; storm water drainage and holding ponds; and not more than 10% of the property for recreation and conservation (for nonresidential projects) or cash equal to the percentage of land to be dedicated. Dedication will be required for this project at the time of final platting of all of the consolidated parcels for development purposes. e PUD Concept Plan Review A Concept PUD is a discussion process that allows the applicant to present preliminary ideas to the City and to receive feedback from the City. No suggestions made by the Planning Commission or City Council are binding to future stages of the PUD process. Special requirements for the Gateway Business District are outlined in Section 5 (M) of the Zoning Ordinance. The following is a review of those components: e 2 .f e 1. Allowable Use In the Gateway Business District, "office" is a permitted use. There is a stipulation by this Section that states that office uses can not occupy less than 25% or more than 50% of a project's total floor area. Both Concept Plans are proposing 100% office. However, the purpose of this language was to accommodate a maximum percentage of office for traffic reasons. The Welsh Developments along Gateway Boulevard were limited in their office component to 20% (warehouse for the remaining area) so that more office use could be accommodated on this property when future development occurred. If 100% office is permitted on this site, this has major implications for the development of the remaining parcels in the District, allowing for mainly warehouse development. e 2. Development Standards a) Building Height The District Requirements Chart of the Zoning Ordinance states a maximum structure height of35 feet for the District. However, Section 5 (M) #5 (b) contradicts this by stating that, "multi-story buildings will be encouraged", "the use of stepped buildings in encouraged" and "the location of buildings relative to their heights will consider views" within the Gateway Business District. The intent ofthe District is to promote high quality, large scale development and take full advantage of the site's location. i) Concept A Concept A is the most intense proposal ofthe two. It proposes two five story office buildings, joined by a two-story entrance atrium in the center. The total office development is 450,000 square feet. The project is stepped with significant heights, creating an important presence at the comer of the interstates. ii) Concept B This concept proposes one central five-story office building and a separate one story office building on either side. The total office development is 315,000 square feet. This singular building would have less of an architectural presence than Concept A although still visible at the intersection. b) Building Setbacks Building setback requirements for the District are as follows: 50 feet from streets and exterior property lines; 20 feet from side and rear property lines. The front lot line is defined as that which abuts a public street. Since this property abuts both Interstates and Gateway Boulevard, it appears that the applicant has chosen the front to be on the comer ofthe Interstates. i) Concept A. It appears that this concept meets the minimum building setback requirements. ii) Concept B. It appears that this concept meets the minimum building setback requirements. c) Building Exteriors and Views At this stage, there have been no detailed elevations provided. However, it is important to note that exterior wall surfaces must be of brick, stone or glass and must be compatible with other buildings in the District. The arrangement, e 3 '- geometry and massing of the buildings must be responsive to the entire District. Specific elements such as lighting and signage have not been identified for location or design at this stage. i) Concept A. The building faces the Interstates with a small row of parking separating the two. The north side of the building fuces two parking decks across a landscaped area. The view from Gateway Boulevard includes two single level parking decks, upper levels of both office wings and the atrium. ii) Concept B. The five-story building faces the southwest with a small parking area between it and the Interstate. The smaller buildings are angled away from the Interstates to minimize intrusion to the existing wetlands and avoid the power transmission lines. The middle building faces a to level parking deck, connected to the building from the upper level. The smaller buildings face the parking deck across small parking areas. d) Traffic, Site Access and Parking A traffic study for the District was completed by BR W in 1998, analyzing potential development and still keeping Highway 96 and Round Lake Road within design capacity. The conclusion was that the roadway could accommodate 1,100 additional trips in the afternoon peak hours. Concept A was evaluated by the applicant's engineers, SEH, and found that the maximum number of trips generated during this time, as a result of this development, would be 675 trips. The City Engineer has provided comments in a memorandum in Exhibit C. . In addition to the roadway design, the existing railway bridge will need to be discussed as to its use and maintenance responsibilities if the railway vacates its right-of-way. There has been past discussion of a trail connection, in cooperation with the City of New Brighton. The concepts should include a trail along the south side of Gateway Boulevard, leading up to the railway bridge. e By the Zoning Ordinance, the parking requirement for an office development is 1 parking space for every 250 square feet. There must be a 50-foot landscape setback from all public streets and 20 feet from other property lines to surface parking areas. i) Concept A Two parking decks provide 716 spaces, surfuce parking provides 1330 spaces and 150 spaces are provided under the office building. This is a total of2196 spaces, 58 spaces more than the 2138 spaces that are required. The minimum setback requirements from surfuce parking are not met in this proposal. The parking setbacks vary between 10 and 40 feet in width along the freeway and between 20 and 75 feet from the paved portion of Gateway Boulevard. There are three accesses off of Gateway Boulevard onto this property. ii) Concept B The parking deck provides 414 spaces, I, I 00 spaces in the surface parking and 60 spaces under the office building for a total of I ,574 spaces. One space is provided for every 200 square feet. Parking setbacks vary between 10 and e 4 '" . 40 feet along the Interstates and 20 to 65 feet along Gateway Boulevard. There are four accesses shown from Gateway Boulevard to this property. e) Drainage, Wetlands and Floodplain Final plan approvals are required by the Rice Creek Watershed District. The Zoning Ordinance states that on-site ponding is encouraged as a visual and functional amenity. Due to the locations of wetlands, poor soil conditions and the location of the power transmission lines, development must be concentrated in the center of the site. Again, the City Engineer has offered cormnents in his memorandum regarding drainage in Exhibit C. i) Concept A There is some unavoidable wetland encroachment with this proposal, requiring mitigation, but the major portion of the existing wetland systems remain intact. Wetland mitigation and storm water ponding requirements are provided adjacent to the western wetland system. A total of 46,305 square feet of wetlands located in the central part of the site need to be filled to develop this concept. This requires mitigation at a ratio of2:1 or 71,730 square feet of new wetland and 35, 289 square feet of stormwater treatment pond in the northwestern comer ofthe site. ii) Concept B The same conditions exist as Concept A; however, a total of 46,551 square feet of wetlands located in the central part of the site are required for this concept. Mitigation requires the creation of 70,496 square feet of new wetland and 36,852 square feet of stormwater treatment pond. . Deadline for Aeencv Actions The City of Arden Hills received the complete application for this request on December 6, 2000. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statue the City must act on this request by February 4, 2001 (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 April 5, 2001. The City may, with the petitioner's consent, extend the review period beyond the AprilS, 2001 date. Lastly, if the City denies the petitioner's request, "... it must state in writing the reason for the denial at the time that it denies the request." Options I. Recormnend approval as submitted. 2. Recormnend approval with conditions. 3. Recormnend denial with reasons for denial. 4. Table for additional information. . Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat of the existing Morris owned property into three properties, including two outlots, designated A and B, in Planning Case #00-46, subject to the following conditions: 5 1. The proposed outlots, A and B, do not meet the minimum requirements for a developable lot and will not be developed in the future, as platted; 2. All proposed easements, newly created or vacated as per the submitted plan, must be properly filed and recorded with Ramsey County and proof of this action provided to the City; and 3. Application must be made for a final plat no later than three moths after action is taken on this application by the City Councilor the preliminary plat becomes void. The Planning Commission also offered the following comments on the Concept PUD: 1. Concept A appears to meet the intent of the Gateway Business District more than Concept B by offering a greater architectural presence, taking full advantage of the site's location; 2. The conflicting text regarding the maximum height requirement and percentage of office within the District should be discussed and clarified by the City to encourage the goals as established by the Gateway Business District language; 3. Exterior building finishes should utilize brick, stone, glass or some combination of these materials, compatible with what exists within the District; 4. The proposed western entrances to the site should be relocated to eliminate two 90 degree comers; 5. Entrances to the property should be considered opposite to those that exist on the north side of Gateway Boulevard; 6. Reconstruction of the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and Round Lake Road should be considered to accommodate development; 7. Consideration should be given to budgeting for Round Lake Road improvements by the City; 8. Consideration and discussion of the use and acquisition of the railway bridge in conjunction with this development, the City of New Brighton and the County needs to occur; 9. Development of the site should include a pedestrian trail along the south side of Gateway Boulevard andlor within the site; 10. Further consideration to setbacks from the surface parking areas should be made since neither proposal meets the minimum requirements; 11. Existing wetlands and ponds should be interconnected with proposed ponds and wetlands for maximum circulation of runoff and positive flood control; 12. Final outlet of the wetland system should use the City's storm water pond on the western portion ofthe site; 13. Movement of the City's storm water pond to the east, as proposed, is not recommended; and 14. Wetland mitigation should consider the existing trunk sanitary sewer since this would not be relocated by the City when other options may exist. Updates None at this time. 6 , , . . e e ,I . . Jt . . . . . . . . . . . -- . . . . . . . . . . . . e . . . Highway 694/35W Gateway Business Center Arden Hills, Minnesota pun Concept Plan Chesapeake Companies 12 December 2000 . . )t Highway 1-694/1-35W - Gateway Business Center Arden Hills, Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . A Planned Unit Development Concept Plan Chesapeake COnlilanles I. Introduction 11. Property Description 111. PUD Development Concepts IV. Wetland Mitigation V. Traffic VI. Public Services/Utilities VII. Timing -- . . . . . . . . . . . . 4t . . . VIII. Planned Unit Development Standards IX. Summary of Key Issues X. Exhibits Short Elliot Hendrickson Traffic Memorandum Acriall'hotognlph Survey Legal Description Concept Alternative A Concept Alternative B Existing Conditions Wetland Mitigation Plan Option I (Concept A) Wetland Mitigation Plan Option 2 (Concept B) . . 3t 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . The Chesapeake Companies are pleased to submit our application for Concept Plan Approval for our Planned Unil Development (PUD) proposal for the prominent site located in the northeast quadrant ofI694 and I 35W, in Arden Hills. This land is a key part of the Gateway PUD that has been the focus of great hope and effort on the part of numerous community leaders f'Jf l11a:ny yeat's. We have assembled a highly skilled and experienced team to assist us in al1 aspects of this project, from planning, design and engineering, through financing, construction and leasing. The following is a summary of our team and their respective roles and responsibilities: Chesapeake Companies - Developer Dahlgren Shardlow, & Uban, Inc. (DSU) - Planners and Landscape Architects Pope Associates, Inc. - Architects Sunde Engineering - Civil Engineering, Environmental Services Short Elliot Hcndrid(,on (SI';U) - Transportation Engineers Fredrickson & Byron P A ,-- Legal - . . . . . . . . . . . . e . . . The Subject Property is a highly visible site and it truly has the potential to serve as a gateway into Arden Hil1s. We fully understand that the site's location is strategic and the image and character of the development that ultimately occupies this property is very important to the city. We believe that we share your vision for a high quality development for this site. We are fully committed to aggressively pursuing the highest quality development that the market will support for this land. We also recognize that there are a number of issues thai must be addressed to our mutual satisfaetion in order to realize our shared vision, We would like to identify those issues early Oil in the process and discuss th"ltl ful1y, It is critical that we start our working relationship with very good COmmUnicll!iOn !lnd th,;! we pwceed with II clcar understanding of one another's perspectivcs and interests. There is too much at stake to proceed without a clear understanding of all of the issues. This narrative continues on to address in summary form al1 of the information requested by your application materials. You will note that there have been two illustrative concept plans submitted for your review. Concept A contains two five-story office sections joined by a two-story atrium. The buildings are served by both underground parking and a two-level parking deck. Concept B consists of a five level office building, flanked by two single level office buildings. The five story building has underground parking and the projcct would be scrved by a two-level parking deck. Tbis narrative concludes with a ~:ummarY of the key issues and a brief descriptkJll of the factors that must be addressed through this planning and approval process. There may be other issues that you are aware of that we have not yet identified. We encourage you to bring such issues up immediately so that they are fully reviewed and properly resolved. Page I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. Property Description e Size The proposed project site is localed in the northeast quadrant of the intersection ofI-694 and 1-35W. Tl1e proposed site will require combining and replatting four separate parcels. Parcell ovmed by Morris Communications [mnts on the freeway and include;; 19.9 acres, Pareel 2 and 1m exception parcel owned by ATS Steel both front on the existing railroad right-of-way and include 1.1 acres and 3.1 acres respectively. The railroad right-of-way that is owned by MT Properties/Burlington Northern Railroad, parallels Gateway Boulevard and includes 2.4 acres. The total size of the assembled site will be approximately 26.5 acres. The site includes utility and road easements that must be vacated to allow development. It also includes two billboard outlots (Outlots A and B - Morris Communications) and a sightline easement that will need to be addressed and replatted to facilitate development. The electric transmission line easement in the western part of th.e site will remain. A "opy of the survey and legal descriptions are allached. Existing Development The site includes the following development. e The A TS Steel property is currently developed with an industrial building, parking and loading areas and a stonnwater pond. A portion of3rd Avenue N. and 13th Street NE and a storm water pond are located in the northwestern corner of the site. The Minnesota Transfer (MT Properties) railroad right-of-way includes a spur line and siding to A TS SteeL This spur line crosses 1.35W immediately south of Gateway Boulevard and is not ~urrelltly used. Morris Signs h~" two billboards located along the 1.694 frontage. An NSP electrk transmission line and pipeline run north through the western part of the site, . The remainder of the site is undeveloped. Natural Systems The site is generally rolling with three upland areas separated by wetlands and storm water ponds. The elevations range between 879 and 901. The south central part of the site and an area adjacent to the western stormwater pond are wooded. The remainder of the undeveloped site is open with scattered trees. I~isting W gtland~ "Ine existing site includes f1ve wetlands and two stoflllwater ponds. The tot'll ,lCre,lge of wetlands is approximately 4 acres. The two existing ponds total approximately .7 acres. All wetlands have been delineated. The western most wetland is a PEMC Type 2 Wet Meadow. The central and larger southeastern wetlands are PEMC Type 2/3 Wet - Page 2 . . , . . . . . . . . . . . e . . . . . . . . . . . . -- . . . Meadow and PEMCd Type 2/3 Wet Meadow respectively. There is also a narrow PEMC Type 3 Shallow Marsh along the southeastern pati of the freeway and a PEMC Type 3 Shallow Marsh south east of the Gateway Boulevard cul-de-sac. These wetlands subdivide the site into smaller areas that cannot be developed to meet market needs and development stnndards without filling portions of the wetlands. HI. PUD Devc!oplIlellt Coneepts The development teatn has prepared two different site development alternatives for review. The PUD Concepl Plan that evolves lhrough this approval process wilJ need to contain both flexibility to adapt to different development scenarios and performance standards to ensure that the community objectives for quality and image are met. COllceot A SikLayoJ!! Concept A is the preferred and more intense alternatiw, It includes two mid-rise oflice buildings connected by a common entrance atrium, elevator lobby and service core. The oflice buildings are both five stories high and the entrance atrium is two stories high. One level of tempered parking is provided under the oflice buildings. The office floor area tolals are 192,500 square feet (GF A) and 257,500 square feet (GF A) for the western and eastern buildings respectively. The total oflice development proposed for Concept A is 450,000 square feet (GFA). The southwest facing facade of this linked structure is located closer to the freeway to ertl1iUlce visibility and to establish a strong architectural presence and image. The ends of the buildings are angled away trom the fi.eeways to minimize intrusion into the existing wethmds in the western and so\nheastcm parts of \he site and to avoid conflicts with the existing power transmission lines. The view and image from the freeway wilJ be of two large connected five story office buildings. The buildings' northern facades face two large parking decks across a landscaped parking area. These two level parking decks front on Gateway Boulevard and are separated by the landscaped main entrance into the office complex. The view from Gateway Boulevard will include the two large single level parking decks, the upper levels of both office wings and a focused view of the office atrium. The parking decks will be separated from the road by a significant landscaped buffer area. Site Circulation and Parking Vehicular access to the offiee development is provided by three drive connections to Gateway Boulevard. The internal layout ofthe parking and drives provides for alternate circulation routes within the site. Page 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parking is provided in the two parking decks (716 spaces), surface parking surrounding the structures (1330 spaces) and parking under the office buildings ( 150 spaces). A tolal of 2196 spaces are provided with 58 spaces more that the 2138 spaces required. The proposed parking ratio is 5.14 spaces per 1000 square feet of parking gross floor area (GFAx 95%). . Opcn $Qace!Wetlands The locations of the wetland systems and poor soil conditions, in combination with the power transmission lines require concentrating development on the central part of the site. Given the location of the wetlands, bad soils and other site constraints, development of this project will require a limited amount of wetland encroachment. However, unavoidable wetland encroachment will be properly permitted and mitigated and the major portion of the existing wetland systems will be preserved intact. The wetland mitigation and stonn water ponding requirements of the development will be provided adjacent to the westcl11 wetland system. This in combination with the preserved wetlands will result in significant open space ill both the western <md soutlNastern paris ofthe site. The proposed concept also includes large islands within and between the surface parking areas. It also includes open space areas (parking setbacks) that vary between 10 and 40 feet in width along the freeway, and a setback and boulevard with a combined width of between 20 and 75 feet in width along Gateway Avenue. These islands and the perimeter open space will provide substantial room for landscaping to buffer and enhance the development. e Con~elJt B Site Layout Concept B is a less intense alternative. This concept includes a five story mid-rise office building located in the central part of the site flanked by two single story office buildings. One level of tempered parking is provided under the five story office building. The office floor area totals are 45,000 square feet (GFA) for each ofthe single story buildings and 225,000 square feet (GF A) for the five story building. The total office development proposed for Concept B is 315,000 square feet (GFA). The five story building faces to the southwest and is separated from the freeway by a small parking area. This building and the office complex will hilve good visibility but will have much less of an architectural impact and image. The sm,tller buildings are also angled away from the freeways to minimize intrusion into the existing wetlands and to avoid conflicts with the power transmission lines. The view and image from the freeway will be of one mid-sized five story office building flanked by two low office buildings. -- Page 4 II II ~ II II . II II II II II . II II ..- II II . . II II II II II . . II e II II II The five story buildings' northern facade faces and is within 55 feet of a large two level parking deck. The office is connected to the upper level of the deck by an elevated walk/plaza. The parking deck will effectively screen the lower floor of this building from Gateway Boulevard. Both single story office buildings face the parking deck across small parking areas, The predominanf view from Gateway Boulevard will be the parking lots and upper parking deck surrounded by low offices, and the upper four floors of the mid-rise offJce building, Site Circulation and Parking Vehicular access to the office development in this alternative is provided by four drive connections to Galeway Boulevard. The western and eastern drives provide access to the surface parking, underground parking and lower deck level. The two central drives provide access to the upper level of the deck The internal layout of the parking and drives provides for alternate circulation routes within the site although the upper level of the deck can only be accessed from G,tteway Boulevard, Parking is provided in the parking deck (414 spaces), surface pMking surrounding the structures (11 ()O spaces) and parking under the office buildings (60 spaces). This alternative provides a total of I 574 spaces. The proposed parking ratio is 5.00 spaces per 1000 square feet of gross parking area. Open Space/Wetlands This alternative will also require concentrating development on the central part of the site and will result in a limited amount of wetland encroachment. Unavoidable wetland encroachment will be properly permitted and mitigated and the major portion of the existing wetland systems will be preserved intact. The wetland mitigation and storm water ponding requirements will again be provided adjacent to the western wetland system and will result in significant open space in both the western and southeastern parts of the site. This proposed concept includes smaller islands within and between the surface parking areas and parking deck It also includes open space areas (parking setbacks) that vary between 10 and 40 feet in width along the freeway and a setback and boulevard with a combined width of between 20 and 65 feet in width along Gateway Avenue. These islands and perimeter open space will provide adequate room for landscaping to buffer and enhance the development. IV, Wetland Mitigation Wetland mitigation required for Concept A is identified on Wetland Mitigation Plan Option 1. A total of 46,305 square feet of wetlands located in the central part of the site will need to be filled to develop Concept A. Wetland filling will require creating new Page 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . wetlands at a 2:1 ratio. Thc rcquired mitigation will be accomplished on site by the creation of71,730 square feet of new wetland and 35,289 square feet (75% allowed as mitigation) of storm water treatment pond in the northwestern corner of the site. The total proposed wetland mitigation (98,196 square feet) exceeds the required mitigation (92,610 square feet) by 5,586 square feet. tit Wetland mitigation required !()f Concept B is identified on Wel!;md Mitigation Plan Option 2. A total of 46,551 square feet of wetlands located in the central part of the site will need to be filled to develop Concept B. The required mitigation will be accomplished on site by the creation of 70,496 square feet of new wetland and 36,852 square feet (75% allowed as mitigation) of storm water treatment pond in the northwestern corner of the site. The total proposed wetland mitigation (93,487 square feel) exceeds the required mitigation (93,102 square feet) by 385 square feet. V. Traffic Please refer to the attached traffic memorandum prepared by Short Elliot Hendrickson for a :mmmary ofthes\! issues. VI. Public Scrvlcesrutilities Utilities are available for the development of this project. This project will also require the highest level of communications service and technology available. This project will pursue obtaining access to the fiber optic lines planned for the area. e VII. Timing The Chesapeake Companies intends to move this project forward and into construction as quickly as the process and market conditions will pem1il. VUI. Planned Unit Devcliipmelll Standards The concept alternatives submitted for consideration are preliminary. As the process advances and a concept is selected and refined, the ultimate development standards and potential need for variances will be identified and addressed. A detailed set of design standards will be proposed as part of the next stage of the PUD process. When these standards are refined they will be incorporated by reference into the PUD and will be enforced as the zoning standards to govern the subject property into the future. IX. Summary of Key Issues Jhe Planned Unit Developmentjll1W(lvljl {:rl)(;~li\'.,.Jir!1ing and AtlJ19inated Flexibility .Ine Subject Property is zoned PUD and we agree that the PUD approach is the correct one for a project that is complicated by as many factors and constraints as this development will be. The City of Arden Hills has a very complete and lhorough PUD - Page 6 . . p approval process and we are certain that we will work effectively with the city through this process and that the results of that inleraction will be a stronger project. . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . The key to creating and sustaining the positive working relationship that we aspire to is communication. The following issues and concerns are not offered as red flags, but rather as items that will need to be addressed to our mutual satisfaction l,)r the project to be ;rucccssfuL The tirst gcneral concern is with the timing ofthe approval process and our nbiJity to take this project to the market in the spring. Jt is no secret that there have been a number of other proposals for this property and they have not been completed for a variety of reasons. We believe that both Chesapeake and the City of Arden Hills must bring this development to the market place while the strong economy continues. We will see a downturn at some point in the future and we cannot afford (0 wait. In addition, we believe it is equally important for this project to be developed and marketed as far in advance ofthe New Brighton I-694/I-35W development as possible in order to avoid direct competition that will weaken both projects. It is also important to take advantage of the as much of the remaining Tax Increment Financing District as possible to maximize the useti.J1ness of this financialtO()1. This project must move into eonstmction thi~ spring in order to avoid the loss of another year. Therefore, it is critical that the PUD process be completed in a timely mmll1er so that the developer is in a position to bring this project to the market in the Spring of2001. We also anticipate that there will be a need to request some flexibility to the letter of the standards ofthe Gateway PUD District. We do not believe that we will have allY concerns about the spirit, intent, or core objectives contained in this ordinance, but we believe the unique constraints facing this property will necessitate some variances from the letter of this ordinance. Land Acquisitions The development thilt W(1 are proposing contains some land thl1t we do not cum'nt!y control. We havctried to work with the owners of the ATSproperty, but we have not been successful to this point. The Minnesota TransferfSurlington Railroad property has also been complicated, but we are more confident that we will be able to secure this land without the City of Arden Hills' intervention. Creation of Out lots Related to the Outdoor Advertisement Signs One issue that must be fully understood from the outset is the seller's insistence that the outdoor advertisement signs remain on the property. We have reviewed, discussed and debated this issue with them and they arc absolutely set in their position. Oll[ purchase agreemenl eal1s for these signs to remain on outlots to h(1 created through this process. This is not an bS\lc th(1t we arc in H position to negotiate on. Page 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wetland Mitigation . All of the wetlands on the property have been delineated by Sunde Engineering. They are illustrated on the Existing Conditions map submitted as part of this package. You will note that there are some wetlands that extend across the center of the property. In Qrder to develop the site eft1ciently and to place attractive structures where they can serve as gateway features, these wetlands must be mitigated. Our preliminary engineering studies indicate, that all of the necessary mitigation can be accomplished on our site, Soil Correction We are also working hard to determine the full scope of soil correction that will be needed to develop this site efficiently. We will soon have the reports from our soil investigation consultants and we will share this information and its cost implications with you at this time. Environment Assessm~Dt Worksheet.lndirest Source Pennit. Traffic Memorandum The anticipated scale of this development will exceed the established thresholds for the mandatory prepar;ltion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and ,Ill lndirect Source Permit (ISP). Although all of the questions asked in these review documents are important and will be fully addressed, we anticipate that traffic will be among the key issues. Short Elliot Hendrickson (SEH) is on the team because of their general expertise in the area, but also because of their considerable familiarity with this area. Please note the preliminary traffic analysis memo that has been attached to this application narrative. e Frontage Road lmprovement The development of the Subject Property will necessitate tbe improvement of the trontage road. We expect that this improvement project will be undertaken by the City of Arden Hills and coordinated with our construction schedule and activities. Development Agreement. Tax Increment Financing We anticipate that this development will involve a significant development agreement, as well as separate finar1cing agreements. There is an existing tax increment finance district in place and we expect that TIF will be a key part of the project financing. Our legal and financial advisors are meeting with their counterparts at the city to establish the framework for these agreements. We want to be certain that we are aligned in our respective expectations about these vital issues. before we proceed too far into the p1'Oject design refinement process. . Page 8 . . , Signage on TH96 . . . . . . . . . . . -- . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . One of the issues that we know will be important to us will be the opportunity to place some project identification signs near the entrance to the area along TH96. This does not have to be exclusive to our development, or OUf key tenants, but we do believe it will be very important to guide visitors and others to our development This off premises signage is not currently authorized in the Arden flills Zoning Ordinance. You ccrminly have the flexibility to permit it through the PUD procl'SS, but this may also require some zoning amendment. Railroad Bridge 'lbere has been considerable discllssion about the potential for a trail extension to Long Lake Regional Park, utilizing the existing railroad bridge. MT Properties will insist that the Cities of Arden Hills and New Brighton take responsibility lor the bridge the bridge or that il be removed as part of the right-of-way vacation. This may require ajoint venture between the two communities, The timely resolution of the railroad bridge and right-of-way vacation is important to Chesapeake, and we will coopcMe with the City, the City of New Brighton Iwd others as this trail rlmmcd rUld evcnt@1 improvements are implemented. Page 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ ::SBi MEMORANDUM 3535 Vadnais Conter Drive, 31. Paul. MN 55110-5196 551.490.2000 800.325.2Q55 651.490.2150 FAX e TO: John Shardlow, DSU Inc. fROM: Glen Van Wonner, P.R., Tnutsportaticm Engineering Group DATE: December 4, 2000 RE: Chesapeake Co/Gateway Business Center Arden Bills, Minnesota Traffic Study SEH No. A-CHESA0101.00 We have reviewed the concept development for the most southerly portion of the Gateway Center in Arden Hills. The concept consists of 450,000 square feet of office space located in the northea$t quadrant of the interchange of 1-694 and !.35W. 'The dcvelopmelll will generllte 4,950 vehicle trips per day. For this type of office building, both the a.m. and p.m. peal< hours will generate 675 vehicle trips. We have further analyzed both peak hours by distributing traffic to inbound and outbound from the development and then to the adjacent roadway system. In distributing traffic, we utilized a area population concentration, peak. hour operational characteristics of the adjacent roadway "WI' system and experience and familiarity with the area. This distribution was compared to past studies and was consistent. In the a.m. peak hour, this development will generate approximately 210 westbound left turns from County Road 96 to Round Lake Road. The development will also generate approximately 400 eastbound right tUITIS. Major impacts on adjacent intersections are 138 &ollthbound left turns from I-35W to County Road 96 and 257 l1OrthbOund right turns from the nor1hbound 1~35W off ramp. The third major approach volume is 148 additional northbound left turns fmrn Highway 10 to westbound County Road 96. In the p.m. peak hour, it is anticipated that there will be 574 outbound trips, 373 will turn left toward 1-35W with 242 turning left to go south on 1-35W and 201 vehicles will make right turns from Round LaI<e Road onto County Road 96. A study done by BRW, dated September 15, 1998, analyzed potential additional development in the Gateway Center area to determine the number of additional developments that could take place and still keep the intersection of County Road 96 and ROllnd Lake Road within design capacity. The conclusion was that an increase of 1,100 trips in the p.m. peak hour from the 52 acres still undeveloped could be accommodated, This concept generates 67S trips which is less than that Mticipated as ITlllximum in the BRW study_ While tbe total number of trips appears to fall within the guidelines of the BRW report, II morc detailed analysis should be done of the intersections as the development concept becomes more Short Elliott Hendrick.on Ino. . Ollice.localea throughout the Upper MidWest . E~ual Opportunity EmPIOye_ W, help you plan. de,ign, ana achi<n>e . . :e . II . . . . . II . . . -- . II Ii II II . . . . II . . 4t . . . John Shardlow December 4, 2000 Page 2 finalized. Specific concerns are the 242 westbollnd left turns at the west 1-35W interchange and the inbound trips in the morning peak period. These may be critical in terms of the existing geometries. With proposed geometries, the number of lanes over 1-35W is significantly iucreased and there is Jane continuity between Highway 10 and Old Highway 8. Additionally, potential development of an interchange between Highway 10 and County Road 96 would reduce the conflicts significantly and makll that route more attractive, potentially reducing some of the traffic volumes and potential problems through the 1-3SW imer<;:hange. Since the volume of traffic and the sqllare footage of development falls below that which was found acceptable in the BRW report, it appears that the concept would not create traffic problems that cannot be resolved. However, as the concept continues to be developed, some additional study of traffic should be made. Specifically, existing traffic volumes at the Round Lake Road and County Road 96 intersection should be counted and also the volumes at both ramps of 1-35W and Couuty Road 96. The forecasted traffic volumes from the Gateway Business Center should then be added to these three intersection volumes and a capacity level of service analysis made. . Additionally, the BRW report was based on 52 acres of development in the south end of ROllnd Lake Road, Preliminary analysis of the additional acreage available after development of the Gateway Business Center indicates that much of it is in wetlands or is difficult to build on. This would somewhat lhnit the additional traffic, beyond the Gateway Business Center, that cOllld be added to existing volumes. Contact should be made with both Ramsey County and MnlDOT relative to the operation of the intersections along County Road 96. It would be appropriate to begin this as soon as possible so any potential traffic concerns can be resolved. If you have questions on our brief evaluation or comments, please call me. $ah Q: Cynthia Dnl.ke, SEn Mike Martinez, SEn \~f1kgl\<:;C1T...IC.':\WF\pr(lP."h>ci~\QJ01'll:\d1rs!d\Q.....l104.dll.;: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ~ ~ , , " " ~ " ~ ~ ::i::::: 'tIJ ie nit I " l"'! ~!f~ =:' ~~,~ . ""6 .- 81t~, IL ;~~ ,~ ..... ~ <~ ~ ~ .:,~J ! "'''' ! ~ttii ~ >:>'.J",I~ {~";'Ii.. ~;-;~: == ,b ;n ~ ;,,~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h! il1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ INTERSTA TE \ \\ ,.. \<:. II ~~ \I ".. \ ",\ , .. fIG7 i r...- - . , ~ ~ , " --.---t- " ~ CO) ~ ., ~ ......::t: ~~ ~~ .~ a, tti ~ t ~ ", . ~ ., 'i\ ~ ~ :g.";]~;:~ . z o ~ m M " " N ~~'g~~ ~ ?.g~~1} r; ~ 3", "'"' IW~ if~ ~ " ,,, g 1; '" ~. 35W ,1 .\."~d~ R~8tf:J~~1 ~ t\>=<f.... m:::-NM"2Ii?8't- '; i,..., ",,<-., "':': , , ~':,J ';" " r:': " ~..... . . f'.) \' ~l .. .. ,. , '. " -, -, '. "-...:::..~' () c::)~ ~i ...." :,. "-.'-...1"'- '..J "" ,^ v .'.... ~! g M ',) Z L____-----' ~._,-- k ~ g i B I~; . . . . . . 0:)] ~i ~tj :..tJ~ ~~ ~~ ()~ ~~ ~~ ~~ Vj~ 1 . . , . . . . . . . . . . . -It . . . . . . . . . . . :. . . . ;~u~~ua~a~~dD~~a~~c~a~~~ei~~~r~;/~~~Played?> (Y/N)y "ouse Condo Street Name 09/29/1999 ~~i . 0 GATEWAY BIND LVal TaxP NAEGELE OUTDOOR ]>J)V CO BVal TxP2 Tax Addr n 5 BROAD ST Curl> Addr Addr l>UGUSTl> GA 3090~-1305 GreenAer Ownr NAEGELE INC Mtgll g~ddr 7751 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE EDEN PAAIRIE Sec-2~ Twp-30 Rng-23 00-34 Lot- Blk- 2 LY'V C 148,100~Tot 148,100-Land SECTION 21 TOWN 30 JU>,NGE 23 Zip T H TotVal 55112 V Y 259,200 259,200 PropTyp B8~ o Lot 148,104 10,278.80 saleAmt 160.14 SaleDate Age 0 OpenLand Seh IIUts 0 postal !'IN 55344-3708 Plat- O-BIdg 0.00 / Dis 62~ Acrs 5592. 84-Tax 17'2.02~Asmt 30 RANGE 23 PAAT, SBLY OF BLlC 2 IlUTCHERS SPUR & NLY OF HWY 694, OF SW 1/4 OF SEC 21 ~1 Deecri!,Tinn:..7SECTION 21. TOWN TMENT NO 1 AlID ELY OF BUTCHERS TN 30 RN 23 ......__.....I._.~_"l tv 1'tJ' ...v 09/29/99 WED 11:54 FAX 612 347 7077 FREDRIKSON & BYRON -A- Ii!J 002 /.1.1fr;~ / 11ff~ / PID Number R "- 2J.3023320008 House Condo . a TaxP NAllGLE TxP2 Addr 725 BROAIl ST Addr Addr AUGUSTA GA 30901-1305 Ownr N1\.EGELE INC GreenAer Own2 OWnAddr 7751 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE EDEN PRA~ii: See-21 Twp-30 Rng-23 QQ-32 Lot- J.4 Blk- 1 LY,V C 243,100-Tot 243,100_Land SECTION 21 TOWN 30 RANGE 23 ::'Zec~l neAerictio~ECTION 2J. TOWN 30 RAN 175 FT SWL":! OF SWLY L OF BUTCHERS SPUR ~E 0~3 ~~~~ ~~"yl/4 DESCRIBED AS BEG OF BUTCHERS ALLOTMENT NO 1 TH .."~ L OF LOT 14 BLK 1 WLY THEREON TO ELY L OF awY 35~L~ O~E~~ ~r:g~D L TO SO SWLY L OF SPUR TH N THEREON TO BEG (SUBJ TO RD) IN SEC 21 TN 30';;: 2~ L OF W 1/2 OF SW ~/4 TH Cont~nue? (Y/N}~y Street Name 13TH ST OUTDOOR ]>J)V CO 09/13/1999 Muni ArHl LVal BVal TaJ< CurA 243,065 eq ft SaleAmt SaleDate Age 0 OpenLand Soh D~e 621 #Uts 0 Postal Acre MN 55344-3708 Plat- O-Bldg Zip 'I' H 55112 V Y 425,400 PropTyp B o Lot 18,199.88 1,123.76 0.00 / 10793.60~Tax 1207.00aAsmt 09/29/99 WED 11:54 FAX 812 ~47 7077 FREDRIKSON & BYRON -A- ~003 f 11j1''''' j ./ Itri~ I -..., Pause at end of each ecreen?> (Y/N)y Do you want Detail Sales Reports dieplayed?~ (Y/N)y House Condo . a TaxI? FAIRWAY TxP2 Addr 1818 WOODDALE DR UNIT 103 Addr Addr ST PAUL MN 55~25-2940 Owm.- NAEGELE INC GreellAer Own2 Mtg# ownAddr 32'25 SPRING ST NE MPLS MN 55413-2908 Seo-21 Twp-30 Rug-23 00-31 Lot- ~4 Blk- 1 LY:V C 446,7005Tot 446,700_Land SECTION 21 TOWN 30 RANGE 23 ~gal nABcription;:SECTION 21 TOWN 30 RANGE 23 P~T OF SW 1/4 BEG 175 FT SWLY ~wLY L OF BUTCHIlRS SPUR ON SWLY EXTENSION OF NWLY L OF LOT J.4 BLK ~ BUTCHERS ALLOTMENT NO 1 TH SELY TO A PT ON SwLY EXTENSION OF NLY L OF LOT 21 BLK;2 SD BUTCHERS ALLOTMENT NO 1 DrST 175 FT FROM SWLY L OF BUTCHERS SPUR TH SWLY ON SO EXTENDED NLY L 30.64FT TO A L 30FT SWLY AmJ PAA TO LAST DESC L Tll SELY ON SD PAR L 282.18 FT TO SL OF NIl 1/4 OF SII 1/4 TIl ELY ON Continue? (Y/N)~y Street Name 09/13/1999 13TH ST NE; OUTDOOR ADVERTISING CO Mun1 ArHl LVal BVal Tax curA Zip T H Totva 55112 V Y 781,800 781,800 PropTyp B81. o Lot 446,723 35,186.10 SaleAmt 379.42 SaleDate Age 0 OpenLand Seh lIute 0 poeta1 PID Number R B02331001S a eq ft 0.00 I Di e 621 Acrs I?lat- O=Bldg 22010.76-Tax 407. 54><Asmt House Condo Street Name 09/13/1999 Muni Zip T H TotVal PID Number R (?)aHELP (Q)_Quit Current County: Ramsey PID NUMB~?>213023310017 .p. I;!~ ~ ~~> ~~ ~ 0 i ~ ~ ~oo i ---------------- -- -------------~-----.- - ------ - ----,-- ~----- - '" '" '" --------.--.-..'T" .--~-,- .'1 ! -' , i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I 1 , I /,(~ I / '''.., I I ;" 1 I I I I ; I J I j 1 I I ;' I I I I I I I ! I I : ! I r I w I' ii1 i! I ,I I :1 ... :1 II 1/ III II :c I"____ I 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 , ~ I i I I + I j B I , ~ ~8! ~ I I I ~ ~~~ ~ I I I I I I I ! I 1 i , ,. [ !{'~ ;!;! l; ~ jri' 0)> J>. ~,~! m Q ~ E-!I' ~ ~ m , .! ~ a ~ """ I;j i ~ n~~ s~z ~~c:; ~~ ~ ~ ~~ i ~ ~Zl 01 AJ' ---1 I ~ .!!/,;; ~ l~ ;>> ~r~ o/: i;::~ rn Q -= ~ " =- I ~ ~!l p ~ _. -"-.- '- ..- -- - ,-,- -" -- -..- .. "-.. -- -" "_. --" -."- '--. ~.~ --.. -- -- . '--'-'--"'-"_'_m__. -- - -- - - --- --- '- ---T' --- - ----) "r" ....-.-A7F fDMA)f NO. MWi \ "'~H I ,! \ t! \ / / < /'., ., / / / / / / / / < / :' / / / < / /'-. / " // .......,,, / " / / ! ! I ! ! I ! i I ! I ., ! iiI i I 1 " I I ~ I ,: ! II < t..._____ "d "d S U'..l ;~i ~ ~n~i ~ ~ @l~~+ ~ ::s: ~ ~lS$8 !J ~ ~ ~~~ ~ i i ~ . ~ ~ I . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . · . .. · . ' i ! j , I g I j I I I ! ~ ~ ~ "~ "'- g~ 0< ~ . " (f) ;:: -< A1fTllJ"'U CO " CO -< " 0 ;oXOO -< 0 > o , , X " s;: :u "' ;:0(11(')(') ;:: :u r u m m z < ...............-~ 0 ~ 0 (f) ::E ~r f',,) -> (f) C =< ~".j!ij!i -< i) "' (f) "' ,) :u :u )> ,. ii: ~ m m CO " () () Q (b Q Q Z 1'; 0 :u :u \D 0.0 <.C Z CO <;' Cbo.gC'llf\l OJ CO 0 1'; OJ ',t., i) "' CO () ~ ") :u 0 ~ <;' Z ~ OJ CO 0 " " " " -< '" ... 0 '" '" N VJ _HO 0 " "' '" :c..:""":""'i.o 0 H- H- H- H- H-It-I-Ht Z 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 ~ 0(') n n (f) " ~ ~ m m m ~ lb " " " " UI UlCllUl ?! " O!"' "'C~~ "n. " ~ /0 ~ - ~ ~ / / ~". ,,'i!~ :o~ " 0 ~ :-> p ~=--- ~ / ~ // ~ / / / / / / / / - ~ '" . 1 < ~ o o . / / / / , / / / / -/-- / / / / / / / / 1-- -----7" H~ '7ru~ /'Jh~ ; - " < / g 0 . , ! ! I 'it (.-'-=, I l; R '( ~ " " ~~~ :2~ " 0 ~ " ~ v' ~ o o . , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , I 1iI I 1 I i '( ~'. "'C~~ en, " Z o ~ - F lD o . /'" '~ /" '",- / '" V / / "'- / \ / V ~ ! ~ ~ " --- --- ---------..-- --------------- ---- --- 7 ! ! ntTl 0><:: z- 0'" _O-J ::!z OCl Z '" nttlc)~ tT:e>-~ ~ ~ -l I' --jZMm [T"rr1::;::8 ::O(fj >-,./"- "'-< nn 00: ';;;"[T1 c; en >>- ~~ &i~ M ~ (") o ..... 1'1' " '~ , , ' -:':0' "I ,~ F ;! I' Ii o '" I" />' '" o~ zO o. ! " 1/ / / -) /,rrJC/1 {IZC ;[!s.lS iLl z r:1 t'1 z~I'" 0Cl ..-. ... . . . . . . . . . . . ~. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . / _, I "_ ,,: ;;; ~-t!>>-~~ / / / / / / / / 1_- , 1 1 J' / / / J/ / // I ----"'-- /// I / / { ~ j j , , , , 5 l i I ! ! ----------/ / / ~ ill i! -, ii1 ;j; -- ~ \ r , " ~ ~ "') ;-'~b <0 -l()()-l !" 0:;:0;:00 ---0---1 ~rr\rr1~ "~~ <0 rt2S2, " '" -<-< ;_:o~ '" ~ c-< '" ~bbF ",," p s;:"'''' ,.,. C1 ()(j)ZII nn f'T1-lfT1.J'. ",,,, '"'" V ~O~O'l .,.,. '"'" - "" z~:::Eu '"'" <0 -l:::E1"'10 '" ,.-<,-" " " '" 1Ir;:1):m ~'" 0 "-I;;oZO ",,,, ~ 0- - -< -u, Vl ";::Oll~ j'i'ft D ~): - ,.,. C1 -<'-' . ""., nO + ~.--' tv ",,,, z'-' " '"'" ~-l~1I Vl'" 0 ".f:>.([l(/)l(> ^ Ol>Otv a')(JJ. . Z '" " 21~ " !.D II. 0 ~f...J g " ~'-" - <0- ",f:;; ~ ",<0 c< " D . 21U: ->0 '" '" '" '" '" '" 0 ~ c< /-~ ~ /', " / ',j ''.'- "' \ -I ----------~ -=-~ I' I / I I' , '" () I: I; , -- , 0 0 I: - ; '" I\) I' , ~~~~ -j>--1tT'1 ---,--I 0<- r- 0,. z >- '-.. --J L. -0 o Z (ltl:lO~ t"l")(::; >- ~ ~ ~ -j I' ~ZM01 ~tT1~jE rn,. rn.." nn 00:: '7' M ~rn ~> ~~ [;j~ t'1 ; 'i 11~ ~ ,OZ ~11: IZ t:l ","", M t'1 z~I'" 00 ................................ / / / / / I. I "' I ~ $ =--~ I I I I I i ~ l i . , I t 1 _/ - / / / I 'I /1 / / / / / --/----- / / I / / / / / ! I 1- , / / / / I I / I I I I I "~d cu~ ,g~ ,< -,O~ <=~ Vl~ >> nn ;0;0 1;'<;; 0'" ~~ ", ~ ~ !1 II ~" '-"'''' -u, ::iH- f)f; ;0'" ~Ul " ~ ill i! ii1 ~ -, "!\ ~- , \ \i , ~ I " \ , ~ -j._- /" ". (1: ~- '" ~ ;^---, -./ ... . .. -. /- ----.- -I , IIIII .'.,'--..'--' I' , ! r , i~ I , I I , ' I , I , , Oo:lOc....i (T;C::>~ :Z;~~ I' --jZMm ~M~~ "'> "'-< nn 00:: "'" ~ '" ~> z"'O -'" tTJ:l:- "'''' '" (') !~ ,., '" , . I" ! .. ~ 0 " !i W . '" I ,. I 0""'<:$ "'!;:=rii jz:J-J o '. GJ r Z >-> N -1'2; -v o z <D '-"' .. co '" Vl ,., --l()()-l 0::0::00 ~88> '=:j:::j' '" ." ~bb~ S;"'''' () (/] Z II f'Tl-lfTl.". F;~::E.?"' z:!:::;E(,]l -l~~~ 1Ir;:1S;:(/) -..j::Ozo ?-lo. ~~1I;:l O'l~'-J.. +~.? ",,,,, ~~~ II 'lornVl<.D ~Gip~ z ~ II .,,0 11 ;-1r-.J ~---. (/] ~~co : -"'()l :-l Vl" 0, Cl'?l <D 8 ." :-< v <D ."' o " Vl " C1 o ?' . '" '" .. " " io <D Vl " ." :-< , / "\ // \ / \ / 'I ;[Tj(f] 'I'ZC ::loZ 'I'll-v ,(i,:,Zl-1 M z~",r 00 , I I I I I ~ , '" ,; II =- f ! ~ '" t:' ~~,;; ; ;;;~J ... "".~1 - ~~g {I'J :!!I~ :~~ ft "'-,'~ j~ri= ~ ~!(!O. '~ I~ I I I I I L_____ ~ ; ~ ;;r;; ~ ~ '-<; ~ ~ II ~ ~ , .~~ ~~ " !! II ,I ., " .' ~~ ~, II~ .. , " ~ ~ ;;~E '" ~ "- ~~~~ : il!!I! ~~g~ - ~H~ ,.. ,,8.~ , ~ $ z: ~ I f"I---~ ~ I ! l l ! I ! , ; I ! ! I I t , l l /NTERSTA TE Of lHE<""/'~S2l. T.... ~>J ~'~ , I I II \~ I; \ I ~. II:' ~~ / ~-N(H'21'08.r: \>-',8,,'J , I "" ~ \\ :"'/J'J6:21.!JI~ I -=-______ ~ l~20064 :: -- ---- _ I ~ " - > '!j?;"~'--~-NE-"- I u _ 3FIG-- rA , " - -h-C~~-:. --I I ' . , !l'1 !j! I ~ ! lil I ~ I :~ ~ii I ~ I l'~ ~~ ~!; L_, j ul-'I.M~n,r:N"'/' -'1 ~':'''''S''''/'DF_",,~~_ - r,""] .Hr""'''''~MI/O''' 1><'" 1/'~5CC""">' ::: ~ ~ , , , I , HlGHWA Y NO 35W l, -; qj () (, " '0 L If /! I ) I i',,____...'Y i"~~ / .41,:',/ r'// 'v'--. L/ ~vA\ r~' v / -----~/ + / / / / L.-J/ c) c) ~ ~l () ~--.::-: -, 'l~ :> c~ I I _J 'i'j;""'O~PQ~Hl@~ 0~";)::i~::t;:;;:;;;I~~~~1lI~~q~~~~ii<;;l;qJ~f.lf,J ","'''' -0-0;;"' ...'" ~ ",'", I-' rrr!!!!!r!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!i!~!!f!!~!Iff!!!!f ~ '~"~~~~~ii~~81~~'~i!ggi~lln~~'.3rl..i~~~~~~ p:,!!!!!!!, il~llill'; "lil, 'W, i1i/l!": , " ~fHf ~j~H ~~~~ ~~8 ~-~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~;; ~~~ ; ill i WI! II i! ;ij ~ ~~~'" ~~ ' "'. ,- j,. ' , , i;;1 Il " "'''' '-' ':;- ~ !f ~ 1 H~i Ill! r ] ii' 8~' f. i ;~l f ~ ~ Hi! ~ ~ I;i f,_' i~! . ~' ~- ~ .~ ~~~ S~e It !f~III~I~ ~ ~: t' !:-~~ ",i 1 oh~p~-ir~ . i i lllll i Ill! fJ;!! ! ~ljfm mUU!!H I i mml~ HI 1 ~JI" f O.~;>."iD .~r."~€,n~-:l-~ ~ :I: l\I""~'l-~_~F~ "'ii'::r o. i !lii~! lji!!~l!!i II 1\11Iil! 11 r I"".. "'0',." < "'""""" 1 II!!;!! !Ilifilll! ; 'Il!i!!i II i '."l! ;''''<0,'' - "llet, If !mu !!HHnli }.' mUH I.~_, fH!:"i ~.h~Q~~ il~ -. H[L<h~ .,_ !~:!f: !1!1!!~:!! }!~;~~~!l ~~~o.f" .g~[~~l'?[;:.", ~g~'~o'"-. i;; f~.;r iii:[~ra r i!~; gl ~ 0" .. ... , ~ . ? ~----l I I I I I I ~ ::fj ~ ~ Ct) 'i () ~ ~ ::ti ):,. B ""'" ;;:j ~ ~ '"' ~ }> 'll '< ~ .... 'il I I I I I .J .. e e e CITY OF ARDEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: January 5, 2001 TO: Mayor and City Council Jennifer Chaput, City Planne4J Planning Case #00-41, City of Arden Hills, Zoning Ordinance Amendment Section 5 (E), Land Use Chart and (H) #3, Special Requirements for the Neighborhood Business District FROM: SUBJECT: Request The City of Arden Hills requests that Section 5 (E) and (H) #3 of the Zoning Ordinance #291 be amended to allow dwelling units in conjunction with a business in the Neighborhood Business District, with certain restrictions. Bac\Q!round On September 27, 1999 (planning Case #99-04), the language for a new zoning district, the neighborhood business district, was adopted by the City Council and inserted into the City's Zoning Ordinance. While reviewing the proposed rezoning for seven groups of properties for this district at the November 1,2000 Planning Commission meeting (Planning Case #00-38), the Planning Commission recognized that the neighborhood business district language did not permit any types of dwelling units. At this time, the Planning Commission directed staff to propose an ordinance amendment, addressing this issue. Review The Zoning Ordinance lists a number of different dwelling types that are permitted in various districts of the City. Typically, muhiple family or two-family dwelling units are the more appropriate dwelling type to mix with a business in a district such as this. Since this is a business district, some restrictions should be placed on permitting dwelling units as a sole use on a property. For instance, dwelling units should be mixed with a business use to ensure that the use continues to meet the intent of the district and the City's Comprehensive Plan. Currently, the neighborhood business district does not permit any types of dwelling units. All of the dwelling unit types and their corresponding district regulations are shown in the "Dwelling" section of the Land Use Chart, Section 5 (E), below. Staff proposes that "Multiple Family" and "Two- Family" dwellings be allowed in the neighborhood business district through a special use permit. By making this use a special use in the district, an additional restriction can be placed on it to ensure that dwelling units can not be the sole use on the property, as proposed in Section 5 (H) #3. By adding in certain dwelling units as permitted uses in this district, other language Section 5 (H) needs to be addressed. This is specific to where the text references certain requirements when "adjacent to residential uses". This could have negative implications to a development if the language is not .. . amended to ensure that the residential reference applies to uses outside of the NB District. The Planning Commission directed staff to define the use "Mixed Residential Types", as sho'WIl in the Land Use Chart. Staff did not locate this term anywhere else within the Zoning Ordinance and was unable to find a definition to match it from Ordinances of surrounding communities. The Planning Commission recommended that this tenn be stricken from the Zoning Ordinance instead of proposing a definition that may indirectly include or prohibit certain uses. Also, there was some uncertainty in what this term should mean, creating a great deal of difficulty in developing a definition. The current Zoning Ordinance language is shown in regular type, removed language stricken and all additions in BOLD type. Proposed Amendments to Section 5 oftbe Zonin!! Ordinance (E) Land Use Chart 11~"'~ IU II.' 1>-> " . ~D D. IU II. ...... C(" "II '-' I.' '.'" ..v Dwelling: , Single-Family Attached - S S D D - - - - - - - - = Single-Family Detached ~ = p p p p - = - - = = = = Single Family under density zoning D n = ~ = = = = D D - - - = Two-Family S S P P S - - - - - - - - - :Milied Re.idooool TYfles 9 9 1= = S = = = Multiple Family D D S - S D - - - - - - - - (J1ris chart is shown as it is within the current Zoning Ordinance with the proposed addition of "S" (Special Use Permit) under the N-B District column/or Two-family and Multiple Family Dwellings. The use "Mixed Residential Types" is proposed to be completely stricken from the chart). (H) #2 Special Regulationsfor Permitted Uses in the NB Distrid Pennitted uses are allowed as specified in the Land Use chart, Section 5, E, for the NB District. However, this ordinance specifies additional requirements for: Clinics; Financial Institutions & Service; and Retail Sales & Service. These uses can, if unrestricted, place unacceptable levels of traffic on these sites and streets that would negatively impact adjacent uses OUTSIDE THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT. (H) #3 Special Regulations for Special Uses in the NB District Special Uses are allowed as specified in the Land Use Chart, Section 5, E, for the NB District. However, this ordinance specifies additional requirements for restaurants AND MULTIPLE F AMlL Y AND TWO.F AMlL Y DWELLING UNITS. This HSe THESE USES can, if unrestricted, place unacceptable levels oftraffic on these sites and streets that would negatively impact adjacent residential uses OUTSIDE THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT. a. Restaurants shall not exceed 3,000 gross square feet. Exterior seating will be considered based . on its impact on adjacent residential uses OUTSIDE THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS 2 4 . . . DISTRICT. B. DWELLING UNITS SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING NON-RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. (H) #5 Building Exteriors, Site Features and Site Development (b) Bufferyards 30 feet in width shall be provided adjacent to all residential uses OUTSIDE THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT. The bufferyard shall be landscaped with a combination of evergreen trees (six foot high minimum) and deciduous trees (three inch caliper minimum) such that the use is effectively screened from the adjacent residences. The bufferyard landscaping shall not be included in the minimum landscaping calculation (Section A, 5, a). (d) Sloped Roofs shall be utilized on all principal and accessory structures. Roofing materials and design shall be consistent with those found in the adjacent residential neighborhoods OUTSIDE THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT. ODtions I. Recommend approval as submitted. 2. Recommend approval with conditions. 3. Recommend denial with reasons for denial. 4. Table for additional information. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case #00-41, amending Section 5 of the Zoning Ordinance #291 as presented in the "Proposed Amendments to Section 5 ofthe Zoning Ordinance" section of this memorandum, adopting formal Ordinance #324. Notes 1. Pursuant to Section VIII, D, 1, b of the Zoning Ordinance a ". ..four-fifths (4/5's) majority ofthe full council is required for action to amend the zoning ordinance. In the event an application for amendment is approved, an appropriate amending ordinance shall be executed and published." 3 . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 324 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 291, THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS' ZONING ORDINANCE The Arden Hills City Council hereby ordains that the City of Arden Hills' Ordinance 291, Zoning Ordinance, is amended to read as follows: Section 5 (E) Land Use Chart I TN." " Dwelling: Single-Family Attached Single-Family Detached Single Family under R_l R_2 R_l R_4 NB B-1 11_2 11_1 11_4 CC r.1I T_1 1-2 I-FLEX s p s D P D P p . density zoning D S D S D P D D P D S S s D Two-Family Multiple Family Section 5 (H) Special ReQuirements for the Neil!hborhood Business District #2 Special Regulations for Permitted Uses in the NB District Permitted uses are allowed as specified in the Land Use chart, Section 5, E, for the NB District. However, this ordinance specifies additional requirements for: Clinics; Financial Institutions & Service; and Retail Sales & Service. These uses can, if unrestricted, place unacceptable levels of traffic on these sites and streets that would negatively impact adjacent uses outside the Neighborhood Business District. #3 Special Regulations for Special Uses in the NB District Special Uses are allowed as specified in the Land Use Chart, Section 5, E, for the NB District. However, this ordinance specifies additional requirements for restaurants and multiple family and two-family dwelling units. These uses can, if unrestricted, place unacceptable levels of traffic on these sites and streets that would negatively impact adjacent residential uses outside the Neighborhood Business District. a. Restaurants shall not exceed 3,000 gross square feet. Exterior seating will be considered based on its impact on adjacent residential uses outside the Neighborhood Business District. B. Dwelling units shall be located within a mixed use development including non-residential . structures . . . #5 Building Exteriors, Site Features and Site Development (b) Bufferyards 30 feet in width shall be provided adjacent to all residential uses outside the Neighborhood Business District. The bufferyard shall be landscaped with a combination of evergreen trees (six foot high minimum) and deciduous trees (three inch caliper minimum) such that the use is effectively screened from the adjacent residences. The bufferyard landscaping shall not be included in the minimum landscaping calculation (Section A, 5, a). (d) Sloped Roofs shall be utilized on all principal and accessory structures. Roofing materials and design shall be consistent with those found in the adj acent residential neighborhoods outside the Neighborhood Business District Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective the _ day of ,2001 AdoDtion Date. Passed by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills the day of , 2001. DENNIS PROBST, MAYOR ATTEST: JOSEPH P. LYNCH, CITY ADMINISTRATOR Publication Date. Published on the ,2001 of 2 . . . . , CITY OF ARDEN HILLS r~,ri '~ , 'I ""w",. "1:"""1 -j~ MEMORANDUM DATE: January 26, 2001 TO: Joe Lynch, City Administrator_ Terrance Post, City Accountant @) I-35W Arden Manor Noise Wall FROM: SUBJECT: Backl!round This subject was discussed at the January 16,2001 Council Worksession. Subsequent discussion reflects that Councilmembers had additional questions concerning more detailed drawings, wall location, proximity to existing Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) fence and mobile homes, design options available to the City and on what cost basis and finally a process question regarding how the proposed project has been communicated. Discussion Uodate On December 18, 2001, staff met with representatives from MnDOT and MnDOT's noise wall engineering subcontractor (Yaggy Colby Associates) to obtain additional project information requested by the City Council. The following information is enclosed for Council review and information: . A1 - G2 color copies reflecting a range of design options, colors and prices. . MnDOT noted that any fence design over the $14.00/square foot level would be the obligation of the City. . H1 - H6 Segments from the February 1997 MnDOTNoise Abatement Study Legislative Report. This is the source ofthe proposed project priority and funding. ($400,000). . I-I - A January 25, 2001 letter of support from Deborah Dykema endorsing the proposed project. Ms. Dykema and Mr. Husnik are the general partners of D & H Enterprises, owners of the Arden Manor Mobile Home Park. MnDOT has also indicated that they will listen to "one voice" (presumably the property owner) and will not be conducting a public hearing on the matter. MnDOT staff will also have an easel board at the meeting showing location and elevations. Recommendations MnDOT representatives will be in attendance at the January 29,2001 regular City Council meeting to address questions that the Council may have regarding the proposed 1-35W noise wall project. MnDOT would like to have the City Council indicate design and color preferences. Two (2) open items that staff discussed with MnDOT are tree landscaping plans, and the possibility of incorporating the new City logo on the most southerly fence panel as a form of City identifier. If Council is comfortable with advancing this project, remaining requested follow-up action on the February 5, 2001 City Council meeting would be formal adoption of a City resolution approving the project. Enclosure J-I is a sample resolution from the City of St. Louis Park for a similar project. Enclosures $12 sq. ft. -f\- e e l ~~<-~. .. . -y.---;.,';',i~/~$l~ 1-_ . -" ~ ','-' {, .," ,. , . $12. sq. ft. e _ J- r-"- ..--1'. .- ___Jl" ~r--, .--' .--- ~ .---.-c. ,..--, -, I .- i----; - C-- r- r ~- ~ - .. r r e L__ -~. . ~, '\ t 1- \ $12 sq. ft. e e . c L L - e ~: C;i:. " ~\\ ~\ ,;; - '"'''''1:-''' -.' .' ~"',','.'~ ".. l:" '~~~" " ,'~' " :'J!'} ~:j~~, D ... 1 , L..... $14 sq. ft. e ~ 't-; I I " - "'- ..~.._- ... .-,...,- - - ;~iJ.x--,._~~;/--~- _~.$~'.::;.;.i e . 6~ I 1-~ e \~ l,YD -'\ e . '~.~"'~., .'fIr'f: ,., .~. f, I, 'L~ $17 - $20 sq. ft. c , e --------- , e I. . 1-" -;;- ^ -::~r-:-:: .., ..~~. ;;;.;,----~-, ,~;'"- v..",!_ ~;. ~.-'~-:'_~.- 'f'-.-- ./-"- 'i\ . LEGISLATIVE DIRECTIVE 161.125 Sound abatement along highways. Subdivision 1. Implementation. The commissioner of transportation shall implement a noise abatement study and noise abatement measures within or along the perimeter of freeways and expressways in incorporated areas contingent on the availabilityoffunding, in accordance with section 116.07, subdivision 2a. The commissioner shall report to the legislature by February 1, 1997, on noise abatement studies and measures undertaken during the previous calendar year and planned for the next three years under this subdivision. The study must include a survey of all applicable noise standards and feasible noise abatement measures, and an evaluation of their ability to protect citizens. Subd. 2. Repealed, 1977 c 454 s 49 Subd. 3. Sound abatement measures. For the purpose of this section, sound abatement measures include but are not limited to the following: . traffic management measures, including reduced speed limits or exclusion and rerouting of excessively noisy vehicles; (a) (b) design and construction measures, including use of sound absorbing road surface materials, landscaping and planning, acquisition of buffer zones or noise insulation of buildings on abutting property; (c) enforcement of the motor vehicle source noise limits of the pollution control agency and of the federal bureau of motor carrier safety; and (d) other measures designed for the purpose of reducing motor vehicle source noise or reducing the effects of that noise. The commissioner of public safety shall cooperate with the commissioner of transportation in implementing any sound abatement measures that include law enforcement activities. 1975 c 203 s 20; 1976 c 164 s 1; 1976 c 166 s 7; 1977 c 454 s 13,14; 1978 c 791 s 18; 1981 c 357 s 49; 1983 c 326 s 1; 1995 c 265 art 2 s 16 161.13 MS 1957 u Repealed, 1959 c 500 art 6 s 13 . 6 I - , \-\1- ~!OO~OdO~O~IIIC~SSO~~IIIII ~~ooo~~OO~OIOOOOOIIOOOIOII oBwwQwwwowQQ~QwooowQo~QQQQ oowwwoo~wowQwwwwwQ~wwwQwQQ ~0~~I~~~~~IIII~~~~~I~~II~I ~~~~~~~~~~~I~~~~~XI~~~I~II ~ > ~~~~~~~go~g~g~o~~o~~~~g~~~ ~~~~~oo~~og~gg~go~~g~~~ggg it"ii w ~li~~g~~~~~~gg~g~OO~gOg~gg~ ~o~~~~~~~~~g~~~oggg~~~g~gg &:.! ~ ~;OOOOOOOO~~OOWOOOOOW000~OOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO~O O~ZZZZZZZZWWWWZZZZZWZWWWWW ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ>% O~ >>>> >- >>>>> W " ~ ~~~~~~~<~~~~~<~~<~~~~~~~~ ~~g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m~~~~~~ i~~~~~~Z~NNNNZ~~Z~_~__NNN ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ " ~ M"M" MM ~~""M"" 0 U !~ww~w~~w~3~ww~~w~~ww~~ww ~~~w~w~w~w~w~w~w~~wz~~~~ww ~~~N~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~ ~~~:~~:~~:~~~;~:~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ . . . 'N~ . '~NNNN~~M~...~~~ ~~ ~--- ~~~------- ------ ___________ ____ M ...... z., ll!li; (/)U)(/)ClJ ., 00000 0 WWLLlW W 0::- >->>->- >- ZZZZZ Z "... U., ... Z W ~. ~ ~, . . .. ,..~ ~~ .~cd wO . .wo::dooc ..0 0, ~.w ~_ >zw o::z.. WW ~~ ~ .~~~cn~~~~ .~~~~~d~~ . . u~~<~<~z~~~~>~<><~>cn~<~~ <g~~~< ~~~~~~~<~~>-~>~~~>z ~z U)x I~O><< <w(/)<ClJ<<~<cn<< en .cn~~c<~cncncncncncn~~cn=~5<zz~~~ ~g~IO~Q~~~ww~ozzczwc wzcc zWz >ZO.,... 'I I~ Z 0 . .~C W~W~<5SIQ~~~~~<~<3affiS~~ C< ! ~~O~ _OZZOZ~~ZWZZ~ZWZZ I L I ~~N ~ZO 0 <<<O~ ~O~ O-C~~ZWW~NW N>wNCW>NN ~~lli0~~~~m0~W~~~~~OZ~W~~~O~ ~~~-~~~~85~~~0~~0~~0~~~00 ~N~ 0 ~~~ w ~m .OZ~ >00 ~Q ~O~ ~ ~~~C_~0~0~~ ~0~~ 0~08~~~m~ N~~N~~~~~~~~:i~~ W~ ~~~offi@.,~~~~~~~.,~~.,~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~N_~~ --~~~~ ~mg__u~m ~ ~ ~- ._~~~ W_ - ~~~ v ~ N _~ _~_ ~ - - - ~ WWWWWW~~OC~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ zzz ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 00000 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~W~~~~~~ ~~j~jj~~~~OOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO~~= ~L~W ~>55555~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-5~~O~ z .,~~.,~.,--~~~~<~~<<<~~<~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S UZZZZZZ~~~~ W WWW W ~~~~~~OOUOZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ C Om ~~~~~~OO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o::~~~o:: mmmmm~~S ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ <~~~I~ " ~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~8~~~~~~~~~~ ~!~~g~~~~~~~g~g~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~ >~~O~ .~~ .~~~~o~~~~m~m .__00 <~m~~~~~~~ m~~ ~~~~~~~ ." ~~m~~~~~~~~m~~~N~~~~~~~~~m OW~~NN~w~~~~~m~~__w~_~~~~~ z~ - - --- --- =~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g88~~8~~~~N ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~oOooOOOoooooooooooooOooo oOoooooOoOOoooooOociOOcioooo ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ t~m~-~~8~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~a~~~~ ~ ~ ~~N ~~_N~-N ~ _~~N~~~ ~ ~N ......N ~CON (DU')U') ~N CON _N_ ~__ N *' . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . t1-3 SUMMARY OF NEXT STEPS In the Metro Division, 10 of the 48 highest priority areas are included as part of projects already planned for in either MnIDOT's 1997-1999 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) or Metro Division's Transportation System Plan (TSP). In Greater Minnesota, 1 of the 6 highest priority areas is included as part of a project already planned for in the STIP. The future is less certain for noise mitigation retrofit (Type II) projects located along existing freeways and expressways where construction and major reconstruction projects have not been identified. Restrictions on the eligibility of Type II projects for federal funding means that retrofit noise mitigation projects will have to rely entirely on state funding. The availability of state funds and the status of competing transportation priorities will influence the extent to which progress can be made in addressing the high and medium priority areas identified in this report. MnIDOT's Metro Division has identified sufficient funding for advancing the following seven projects in the next few years. Tentative Noise Wall Construction Projects For 1999 Route Location Terminus Terminus Length Approximate From To Cost Interstate 35W East Side 35th Avenue 40th Avenue 0.65 Miles $650,000 Interstate 35W West Side 35th Avenue 40th Avenue 0.65 Miles $650,000 9 ~Lt-- . Tentative Noise Wall Construction Projects For 2000 Route Location Terminus Terminus Length Approximate From To Cost , TH 100 East Side 41st Avenue 44th Avenue 0.5 Miles $500,000 Interstate 35W East Side TH96 RR Bridge 0.4 Miles $4QO,OOO TH47 West Side 44th Street Interstate 694 0.6 Miles $600,000 . Tentative Noise Wall Construction Projects For 2001 Route Location Terminus Terminus Length Approximate From To Cost Interstate 94 North Side SI. Albans Victoria 0.5 Miles $500,000 Interstate 94 South Side Milton SI. Albans 0.6 Miles $600,000 Based on the noise analysis that was conducted, the following next steps have been identified: 1. MnlDOT will move ahead with preliminary design and final design studies to ensure that proposed noise wall construction in the seven priority areas is feasible, reasonable and cost effective. 2. MnlDOT will begin working with municipalities, residents and area transportation partners in the seven priority areas, where noise wall construction is proposed, to assess the public's acceptance of noise walls. . 10 . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . +t~ 3. For noise walls proposed for construction after the year 2001, site selection will be based on this priority study and MnlDOT will identify funding by working through the STIP investment process. Mn/DOT will have discretionary authority over the use of state funds. As a part of this effort: a. Federal and state funds will continue to be sought for any noise mitigation needed in conjunction with proposed new highway construction and major reconstruction projects. b. A state funded only program will be initiated and managed through the STIP investment process for funding retrofit highway noise mitigation projects along existing freeways and expressways. 4. Mn/DOT will continue working with local units of government to coordinate land use planning adjacent to transportation facilities. Maps showing the locations of the seven priority areas where noise walls are proposed are included on the following pages. 11 . , . - ~ ~ , - MINNESOTA HIGHWAY 1-\fp NOISE ABATEMENT STUDY PROPOSED NOISE WALL LOCATIONS LEGEND + N Nolo. Wall N MnDOT Roads N City Str..ts N Railroads . Hwy Symbols MN/DOT III NOISE ANALYSIS DIVISION ARDEN HILLS "t:J 0::: OJ .:>t:. ra ...J Cl C o ...J i ,.--L~__ ~_L_.__~..,. >--------- - \...._..._..,____ 7 ~ Z III > <: ... (j) i ..... I , I I I ::~ "- ,', f \ / >. //('u.'\ ,/ ','/"'-'--... \V ,'" ! ~--- 1....1 r I-I . . . D&H ENTERPRISES 3570 N. Lexington Ave Suite 321 St. Paul, MN 55126 51 January 25, 2001 TO THE MAYOR OF ARDEN HILLS AND THE ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL: In regards to the noise abatement wall project that is to be constructed on the west side of 35W, the owners of Arden Manor Mobile Home Park approve of this project. Sincerely, 2>~A,~ ~r~ Deborah Dykema partner, Arden Manor Mobile Home Park 01/25/2001 THU 09:15 FAX ~ I . IMAGE RUNNER qq -l~o RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING MINNESOT A DEPARTMENT OF' TRANSPORTATIONS PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A NOISE WALL WHEREAS, lhe City Council of the Cily of St Louis Park has received a report from the City Engineer related to the proposed noise wall along the east side of Trunk Highway 100 from W, 41 st Street to W, 44'h Street.' . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City ofSt. Louis Park, MinneSOTa that; 1, The noise wall will be construcled from W. 41" Street to W. 44'h Slreet along the east side ofrlunk Highway 100 only, 2. The noise wall will be constructed with concrete posts and wooden planks. The P.OSIS will be located on the highway side. . 3, Wall height will be 20 feet above the mainline. . 4, Post and planks will be the same color. The color selected by the residents at the meeting will be used. Attest: Adopted by the City Council October 18, I ~99 City Clerk Mayor Reviewed for Administration: City Manager . 38 I4J 005/006 ::f1 . . - ! i \ \ \ l \ \ '-' I \ ~\ or \ \ \ \ \ ~ \ . \ . . ""lit _ ~ . . . . Q I (l\ I. I I \ -~= , F.I"'J.j~ltoo!- \ ' \ . ~ I \ \ . \ \ \ \ \ ( . . to I \ ~\ I I . \ ,01\ J '. . I I I '- I I , . g \~ I . I , \ \ . V I . [I . . . . . .~ . \ 0 ",d . '00+.1.0 \ -::. \ iJ----- , () )~:J ..~ H Ii -~=::o , 41 I f 1/ ~"'"'l 'so+~ d i Q 11 ~ i , I 01 -- '--1 i ~- ~ " I I 1"'\ I . I . I .cd 'd " , 1 C . A .' . ... . . . . '-< , , \ . ~ \ r \ . '" .. \ ~'ot, . 'I-~ >- \ iib \ Z'tn)+l \ :::0 , I I 1::1 tJ tt'J lUll Z 'Z96'0i9 -X-- \ 60 'VV+S r: Id ::z: \ , , , '" 0 .... , '" '" t"" \ , ~ ~ ~ '" t"" z ;;; " r:n , /-1:Ji c \ m ~ \ I ! \ \ : ' . 0 Vl ::r: rrl rrl --j Z o N 0 I ~ ~ EO -0 ;0 0 -0 0 Vl rrl 0 Z 0 ...... Vl rrl ::E l> r r --= _fT m m.~" '\.; . ". . . . ~ r ~. o " ((I ::r: rT1 rT1 --j ((I ~ e e e CITY OF ARDEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: January 25, 2001 TO: Joe Lynch, City Administrator Terrance R. Post, City Accountant @ Circle PineslLexington Lions Club One-Day Off-Site Gambling Application FROM: SUBJECT: Backl!round Minnesota Statutes allow a licensed charitable gambling organization to conduct a one-day, off- site (i.e., away from organization locations with existing premises permits) with the consent of the establishment and the approval by resolution of the City in which the proposed event is located. Item The Circle Pines/Lexington Lions Club is requesting approval to conduct a one-day raffle event at the Arden Hills Holiday Inn on March 31, 2001. This organization has been approved to conduct similar events at this location for the past three (3) years. The applicant is aware of the City's fifty percent (50%) trade area spending requirement, and has indicated its willingness to comply with this City ordinance. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Arden Hills City Council approve Resolution No. 01-06 entitled, "A Resolution Approving an Application to Conduct One-Day, Off-Site Gambling" at the regular meeting of January 29,2001. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 01-06 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION TO CONDUCT ONE-DAY, OFF-SITE GAMBLING THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota that: The City of Arden Hills agrees to approve the application for authorization to conduct one-day off-site Class D raffie gambling activity for the Circle PinesILexington Lions Club (License No. A-01106) at the Holiday Inn, 1201 West County Road E, Arden Hills, Minnesota on March 31, 2001. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS 29 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2001. DENNIS PROBST, MAYOR ATTEST: JOSEPH P. LYNCH, CITY ADMINISTRATOR ~ e e e ... ~, ...:.:: e - -' e PagelC1t2 Mlnne$otll Lawful Gambling 4100 I'ar e...,rd Uo. Only Application to Conduct Annual Off-Site Gambling _ LG230 Licensed Organization Information (ple_ print elllnfonnatlan) Organization Name ('j /lciE ~IVS - U:XIIV{; 7lJ'>J ,L_.IIJVJ'f License Number (5 dIgits) .a // () t License E>.piration Date (]~ I D,/ I b I Class of Organization License (A, e, C, 01' D) Daytime Phone Name of Chief Execufive OffICer (' HAl LE:J t.J kUA#.1 7""1./ WI~ Number ( 'J l. J )' (DtJ not lI.t th. gambling man_g.r) Gambling'Premls.. Information Name of establishmenUlunclicn where gambling activity will be conducted /lVil I)/} 7' .:r,ufo.J Street Address and City 0 .' (D, not ..... . poet oflIce baK. It no It root odd....., write In the raid deolgn.lIon., Ex ; 3 miles ..ot of Lease Requl...~ent. Does your organIzation own the gambling premises? o II yes, no Ie... is required. [2Sl11 no, a la.se agreement must be attached (you mllY use lease form LG224, evallable from the BOllrd). However, no leaslIls required i1' Ihe only gambling activity to be conducted Is a raffle. 1/. <:;'5" II ).. . 63 IIn County RaId 42) Dele{S) for off../te actlvltyupto 12 consecutive days: Begin dateC2.3.....JJ.LLi2L End date O~3.L.J..tu... Typa of Gambling Activity. Check the box(es) for the gembling activity your organization will be' conducting. o Pull-Tabs D Bingo [:::JTipboElld$ ~ Raffles D PaddJewheels Local Unit of GovernmentAcknowledgment If the gambling premises Is within city limits, the city must sign this sppllclltlon and provldl' s resolution. On behalf of the city, I acknowfedgethat this P~ofcltyJR.tlf:l.J, )11\..'-S application will be forwarded to the appropriate city officials, the city must pass a resolution s!)eclflCally approving or denying this ap!)lIcation, and a copy of tM/YvAP IL. t(JrMJ the resolution will be forwarded to the applying (Signature of clly personrwi r8Cflivlng application) organization. Tille Gll'f -rIll4-SI.i!Lt.'(ft Dale \ ,'1,01 If tha gambling pl1lmlsu Is located In I township, both the county 8, township must sign thls s!)plh:ation. The county must provide a resolution. Forth. town.hID: On behalf of the tOlNnshlp, J acknowledge that the organization Is epplying for Print name cf lownltlllp Onlrday, off-site gambling activity within the tOlNnShip limits. A tOlNnshlp has no statutOI)' authority to approve or (Signature of township official acknowledging applic.tion) deny an application (Minn. Stat. i 349.213, subd, 2). Title Date , , For the county: On behalf of the county, I acknowl- edge that Ihis application will be forwarded to the Print nlme at county appropriate counly offICials, the county must pass a resolution specifically approving or denying this (Signature of county peraannel receiving 'PPllcation) application, and a copy of the resolution will be forwarded to the applying organization, Till. Oate I I Chief Executtve Officer (CEO) Acknowledgment and Oath I have read this application. and all information is true, accurate, snd complete, I hereby authorize thEI Gambling Control Board to modify the class of organization license to be consistent with the class of permit being applied fer. CEO Signature Date I I "OO~ '~w~w S~ H1~IAaSOH ZOISS~9IS9 xv~ ~S:~l craM IO/LI/IO Jan W. Kreminski Circle Pines - Lexington Lions Club P. O. Box 13, Circle Pines, Minnesota, 55014 To Whom It May Concern: e Please put us on the agenda for consideration of a resolution supporting our application for a one-day off site Gambling pennit within your city limits at the Holiday Inn on March 31 st, 2001. Attached Please find an Application to Conduct One- Day Off Site Gambling - LG230 form. This fonn must also be signed and returned to me for processmg. We intend to comply with Section 4 - 43 of your Ordinances, regarding expenditures of Net Profit. Circle Pines - Lexington Lions have contributed to charitable purposes within its operating area in the past, in particular the Northwest Youth and Family Services Organization, for $500 in our last fiscal Year. We again hope to raise funds to be placed in our local Communities this year. The Lions are a Non-Profit Service Organization, dedicated to helping others through World Service in the Local Communities we serve. We appreciate your consideration in this matter, and look forward to working in your Arden Hills Co unity. , an W. Kreminski Lucky 500 Dinner Chairman Circle Pines - Lexington Lions Phone 651-635-5520 TOO IilI .~w~w SJ 3"IA3S0N ZOTSSC9TS9 xv~ tS:CT 03M TO/LT/TO ~/'/o/e e . . . .BRW Em!IiI A DI\1v\ES & MOORE GROUP COMPANY MEMORANDUM BRW lhresher Square 700 Third Street South Minneapolis, MN 55415 Phone: (612) 370-0700 Fax: (612) 370-1378 To: Joe Lynch/Arden Hills City Administrator File: 37951-018-0101 From: Gregory S, Brown Arden Hills City Engineer Date: January 23, 2001 Subject: Pay Estimate #2 Water Main Improvements Project, Old Highway 10/ Arden Manor Park Improvements Background The City of Arden Hills awarded Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc, of Ramsey, Minnesota the Water Main Improvements, Old Highway 10 and Arden Manor Park Improvements project on September 11, 2000 for a total contract amount of $227,828,00, Payment #1 was approved on November 13, 2000 for the amount of $87,110.25, Project Status Old Highwav 10 Watermain Improvements The Contractor has installed all of the watermain, hydrants and services and the 36 inch culvert extension, Driveway restoration, clean up and sodding will be completed this spring, Arden Manor Park Improvements The Contractor has begun installing the fence around the basketball courts and has planted all of the trees according to plan, The remaining fence work, driveway paving and sodding will be complete this spring, Work for both the watermain improvements and Arden Manor park will be completed no later than May 5, 2000. Recommendations The Arden Hills City Engineer recommends the Council approve Pay Estimate #2 for Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc, of Ramsey, Minnesota in the amount of $44,257.67. A retainage of 5.00% is being held for this project. .' APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT PA YMENT NO.2 Project: Water Main Improvements Project, Old Highway 10 Arden Manor Park Improvements City of Arden Hills e Owner: Owner No.: Contractor: DAVE PERKINS CONTRACTING INC. 37951-018-0101 BRW Job No.: Application Date: For Period Ending: 1/29/01 1/5/01 Original Conlract Amount: Contract Amendments: Contract Amount To Date: Total Amount of Work Complete To Date: Material Suitably Stored On-Site but not Incorporated into Work: Gross Amount Due To-Dale: Less 5.00% Retainage: Amount Due To-Date: Less Previous Payments: Total Due This Applicalion: $227,828.00 $0.00 $227,828,00 $138,282.02 I hereby certify that all items and amounts shown are correct for the work completed to- date. Contractor: DAVE PERKINS CONTRACTING INC. By: Date: The work on this project and the application for payment have been reviewed and the amount shown is recommended for payment. BRW, Inc. By: Date: APPROVED FOR PAYMENT Owner: City of Arden Hills By: Date: $0.00 $138,282.02 $6,914.10 $131,367.92 $87,110.25 $44,257.67 e e Page 1 oJ 5 e Payment No. 1 Payment History Payment End-Date 11/3/00 Payment Application Date 11/13/00 Amount $87,110.25 e e Total Payments: $87,110,25 Page 2 of 5 ------- "- Application for Payment: Itemization Schedule: A - WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS To-Date e Unit Contract Contract To-Date No. Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount 1 IRRIGATION SPRINKLER HEADS EA $25.00 50.00 $1,250.00 0.00 $0.00 0000.000 2 IRRIGATION SYSTEM LF $3.00 300.00 $900.00 0.00 $0.00 0000.000 3 MOBILIZATION LS $3,500,00 1.00 $3,500.00 1.00 $3,500.00 2021.501 4 REMOVE ORIVEWAY CULVERT LF $10.00 664.00 $6,640.00 541.00 $5,410.00 2104.501 5 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL MAIL BOX EA $50.00 18.00 $900.00 0.00 $0,00 2104.505 6 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY $3.00 746.00 $2,238,00 300.00 $900.00 2104.505 7 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY $5.00 125.00 $625.00 88.00 $440.00 2104.505 8 CLEARING AND GRUBBING TREE $450,00 6.00 $2,700.00 3.00 $1,350.00 2105.502 9 COMMON BORROW CY $6.00 1,800.00 $10,800.00 500.00 $3,000.00 2105.522 10 SITE RESTORATION LS $3,500.00 1.00 $3,500.00 0.00 $0,00 2105.601 11 STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM) HR $150.00 5.00 $750.00 0.00 $0.00 2123.601 12 BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY $29.00 746.00 $21,634.00 85,63 $2,483.27. 2340.521 13 CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY $46.00 125.00 $5,750.00 0.00 $0.00 2340.521 14 12' HOPE DRAINAGE CULVERT LF $15.00 664.00 $9,960.00 160.00 $2,400.00 2501.511 15 36' RCP PIPE APRON WITH TRASH GUARD EA $2,200.00 1.00 $2,200.00 1.00 $2,200.00 2501.515 16 12' CMP FES EA $75.00 30.00 $2,250.00 8.00 $600.00 2501.515 17 DIRECTIONAL BORING 8' PEP WATER MAIN LF $65.00 200.00 $13,000.00 245.00 $15,925.00 2503.541 18 36' RCP LF $82.00 30.00 $2,460.00 40.00 $3,280.00 2503.541 19 8' PVC WATER MAIN LF $22.00 2,900.00 $63,800.00 2,736.00 $60,192.00 2503.603 20 6' PVC WATER MAIN LF $25.00 50.00 $1,250.00 34.00 $850.00 2503.603 21 l' PVC SERVICE WITH CURB STOP EA $750.00 19.00 $14,250.00 18.00 $13,500.00 2503.603 22 HYDRANT WITH 6' GATE VALVE EA $1,700.00 5.00 $8,500.00 5.00 $8,500.00 2504.602 23 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN EA $1,200.00 2.00 $2,400.00 2.00 $2,400.00 2504.602 24 DIP FITTINGS LB $3.00 680.00 $2,040.00 757.00 $2,271.00 2504.602 25 8' GATE VALVE EA $650.00 4.00 $2,600.00 4.00 $2,600.00_ 2504.602 26 RIP RAP, CLASS III CY $95.00 10.00 $950.00 0.00 $0.00 2511.501 Page 3 of 5 Unit Contract Contract To-Date To-Date No. Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount 27 SILT FENCE TYPE HEAVY DUTY LF $3,00 500.00 $1,500.00 0.00 $0.00 2573.502 28 SOD WITH 4' TOPSOIL SY $2.50 4,500.00 $11,250.00 0.00 $0.00 2575.501 e 29 SEEDING AC $1,500.00 0.50 $750,00 0.00 $0.00 2575.505 Subtotal: $200,347.00 $131,801.27 Schedule: B. ARDEN MANOR PARK IMPROVEMENTS Unit Contract Contract To-Date To-Date No. Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount 1 MOBILIZATION LS $500,00 1.00 $500.00 1.00 $500.00 2021.501 2 BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY 4' SY $18.00 470.00 $8,460.00 0.00 $0.00 2340.521 3 a'X8' WOOD BOLlARD EA $150.00 4,00 $600.00 0.00 $0.00 2540.602 4 FALL GOLD ASH, 3' CAL, B&B TREE $550.00 3.00 $1,650.00 3.00 $1,650.00 2571.503 5 SWAMP WHITE OAK, 3' CAL, B&B TREE $575.00 3.00 $1,725,00 3.00 $1,725.00 2571.503 6 CRIMSON KING MAPLE, 3' CAL, B&B TREE $650.00 4.00 $2,600.00 4.00 $2,600.00 2571.503 7 SOD WITH 4' TOPSOIL SY $2.50 2,000.00 $5,000.00 0.00 $0.00 2575.501 8 10' GALVANIZED CHAINLlNK FENCE, 9 GA LF $23.00 302.00 $6,946,00 0.25 $5.75 3376.602 Subtotal: $27,481.00 $6,480.75 . Grand Total: $227,828.00 $138,282.02 . Page 4 of 5 .. , Application for Payment: Itemization Summary Contract To-Date Amount of Schedule Amount Work Completed e A - WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS $200,347.00 $131,801.27 B. ARDEN MANOR PARK IMPROVEMENTS $27,481.00 $6,480.75 Grand Total: $227,828.00 $138.282.02 e e Page 5 of 5 e e e TRANSMI1TAL City of Arden Hills Round Lake Business Center 4364 West Round Lake Road Arden Hills, MN 55112-5794 Altn: Mr. Joe Lynch To: Date: January 3, 2001 Comm. No: 1997149 Time: 9:15 am Copies to: file We are sending you the following: Item No. Caples Sheet No. Miscellaneous cosl #3 12-21.00 Description RFl #2 9-28-00 BRW Memo 11-10-00 Via: . Facsimlle_6_pp. [J Regular Mail Original to follow by mall For: . Approval [] Distribution o As requested o Bids due on Remarks: By: Jeamle Sterner Direct 612-874-4123 TOO~ STTIH N::!OHV ~ ::!JNVI"V ,VID1LJ::!iliIHJHV XV~ 01:01 IO/tO/IO ARCHITECTURAL ULlANCE 400 C L IFTll N AVEN IJ E S II UT H MltlNEAf'OI.lS, MINNE~UTA S54[13-3B9 TElEPHDN; (fil2l H11-S7{l3 F!d l61 Zl all. 7212 Subject/Project: Arden Hills City Hall Enclosure to: [] Overnight Mall Cl Courier_hr. [] Review [] Vour use o Accepted as noted [] emair~jstemer@archalliance.com !fj~)~")~~On CQWfH,\>I~~.t~n~p~~ " :. ( lii;~ ~: \: " ""](j'.,:I'\'11 "lfh!li:-; :.111' 1",;:1111 I-'i/i, ;},_'II Mt,j ;,:-:,1..1, I .' 1i i i ;' i ,:-.J ! - , ~ . I ~. 1:- i: j ::' /(:.;:;;,:1,:-'1:.:-1 Arden Hills City Hall Rochon # 0028 Miscellaneous Cost #3 12/21/2000 Description: Pull out 400' of signal wire from handho/e to intersection manhole. Cost Breakdown en or ate rial ther i u contractor i a or ota .':..!.l!YP_~~_~~_?"-~~!~~___.________m_~_________________________~J------------2-!?"p-~-~------------------LL--.--_~_1..~:9.Q_ : It: -----..~--~---~----..-......~..-....-----------1----..--..--..-------------..t---..---...---~-----..----...t------~------------t---.,----'----------- I I I I I I I I .._____~_________~____________..________.....---..-..-..-----__________..op_______________.._______t-_________________--,.--~----~'-----..----- I : t I , . I . ___n___.___________ Subtota/l I ! ____~.__.._______~~~ OH&PI I i 1$ 11.20 ~::~:~~~~~~~~::~~~~~:~~:::~9:~~~2?~tt~:::::~~:~::::::::::~~~:t:::~:::::::~~:~:~::::~r::::::::::::::::::t!:::::~:::~:::!~~Q. Total I I , I $ 124.60 / /7(j(/.-.~C'"/""..-.). ;: . ';;r7 _-~.-..-_.-.---. v LC.;.:lI"''';::''-'-.._~ Robert S. Dew, Project Manager Total Proposal Request Coste: 1251 SubcontractorNendor Proposals Attached: Polyphase Electric 000 lEI STIIH N,mllV ~ 38NVITIV 1VlIll.L83.LIH811V XVd 01:01 10/~0/10 e e e .' -P.O~YPHASE ELECTRIC, INC. -2631 West Sup€lrlorStreet ~ P.O. Box '6151. Duluth, Minnesota 5581 S-Q1S, Phone (218) 723.1413 2325 Endicott Str~et. S1. Paul, Minnesota 155114 Phone (612) 644-9614 OCT 3, 2DOD DATE: 27-Oct~J - [ . INVOICE No. 3500.01 .'....] . . ~;, , . '-c--" ..' SOLD TO: . Rocho" CDrpDl'lltiDn ". Atln: Accounts Payable 3650 Annapoli'" Lane .Nor1h.. ' PlyiiKitrtti, MN.?5Y? ' Purchase Order No. Customer No.. 1517 NET 30 DAYS ~ 3500 J\.ib lu....aU.UlI {jrJ'b, t:d Bt! PtuJecr MOrrdfJf::I, Wally Buc:N Ardin. Hills I(jrby Thompson DESCRIPTION: Pull out 400' signal wire from handhole to Intersection manhole LABOR: Reg O.T. O.T. Reg O.T. O.T. Emclo~ee Class ~ !:!r;a ~ .!:im ~ Rate B@!! Totals ..- -.. Foreman 0.0 0.0 0.0 $60.00 $85.94 $112.17 $0.00 Foreman 0.0 0.0 0.0 $60.00 $85.94 $112.17 SO.OO .cian Journeyman 10J0!lIOO 2.0 0.0 0.0 $56.00 S8O.49 $104.92 5112.00 Journeyman 0.0 0.0 0.0 $56.00 $80.49 $104.92 $0.00 Journeyman 0.0 0.0 0.0 556.00 $80.49 $104.92 $0.00 Apprentice 0.0 0.0 0.0 $28.55 $40.20 $51.84 SO.OO Apprentice 0.0 0.0 0.0 $47.60 $70.15 $96.70 $0.00 Apprentice 0.0 0.0 0.0 $47.60 $70.15 $96.70 50.00 2.0 0.0 0.0 Labor Total: $112.00 Vendor Per Attached MllTERIAL: Desaiction elecltlcal Cost SO.OO 150/. Mark Uc $0.00 $0.00 Material TotQl: $0.00 $0.00 15% Mar1<Uc 50.00 SO.OO $0.00 SO.OO $0.00 OTHER: ~ Permn Pflone Chargas Equipment Rental other Total: SO.oo INVOICE TOTAL $112.00 e Job # Q)d--~ Code "# Approved by:. A SeRVICE CHARGe OF % PER MONTH ON All ACCOUNTS OVER 30 DAYS 1:00 III S11IH N~aKV ~ ~~NVI11V 1VKaL~aLIH~KV XVd 11:01 10/1:0/10 LABOR & MATERIAL RECORD POLYPHASE ENTERPRISES, INC. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING & ENGINEERING 2325 Endicott St, St. Paul, Minnesota 551114 . Phone 644-9614; FAX 644.9617 P.O. Box 16151, Duluth. MinnesotaSS81S-0151 _JOB COMPLETE JOB NOT COMPLETE :J READY TO BILL o INSP.CTION R.OUESTED.RoUGH IN o INSPECTION IlEoUESTBl.FINAL CUSTOMER GENERAL CONTRACJPE ~ JOB lOCATION. 7 BilLING ADDRESS s', 7 r i4 -t: {..,;... "7 J -.!J.. ' JOB NO, .a.. /O/cJ.. - DATE MAN HOURS TrCLASS ~~S RATE AMOUNT I I i '](,1 ..L ~J!..K><~ b.:'" :;t" - ({\ <J 'CJ,;) .~--_.. I , . . --!-- + I .;...--~ ..- i I I F--,... I I TOTAL W I TOTALI..::z. ._...L .. ~ WORKPERFOHMED: 1};./iJ -~i "!,~('/ -s..~ W~ ,i;~ /i ;--f~. _ -L___~ >-Pl.I:__ r7A/'l.,,-~_------, I YWL..... . MATERIAL LIST DATE t=URCE I I .. ....- I r-= P.O. NO. OTY. DESCRIPTION I DELI I CHG. PRICE (ea.) AMOUNT -, =t= =-- M "-- !t. I .'r.--. " IlL DISCOUNT TOTAL TAX M1U TOTAL too~ S11IH N~aHV ~ ~~NVI11V 1VHnL~~LIH~HV XVd ll:Ol lO/CO/lO e e e UDA URS BRW, Inc. MEMORANDUM RECEiVED 00(1':& 1 I) - .'1Hllll [1,1;\1\, ~1.'d~li1i@\k TIuesher Square 700 Third Street South Minneapolis.MN 55415 Phone: (612) 370-0700 F",,: (612) 370.1378 To: Mr. Robert Dew Rochon Corporation Suite 120 Annapolis Lane North Plymouth. MN 55447 Copy: Dwayne Stafford! City of Ar-den Hills File: 37951-005-3001 Greg BrownJBRW Mark LynchlBRW Jeanne Sternerl Architectural Alliance From: Nick Landwer Date: November 10, 2000 Subject: Arden Hills City Hall Utilities RFl #002 In response to RFI # 002 regarding a traffic loop detector that was in conflict with the installation of the watermain. It is OUI understanding that the Contractor was able the move the loop detector wire out of the way by hand when it was necessary. We belicve this matter was appropriately dealt with and had no adverse effects on this project. Ramsey County worke(S will replace the wire that was moved out of the way as necessary. If you have any comments or questions please call me at (612) 373-6500. SOO Iii S11IH Naa~v ~ a~NVI11V 1~~aLIH~~V XVd ll:O. lO/CO/.O SEP-28-2800 09:22 I'lXHlN CDRPnRATlON 6125598255 P.81'01 Request for Infonnation :J Del::iiled (wilhcut CoIllIbOl>Ilian), Grouped by Number e ~".' ==_.1!IIb1211 """'dIII. 1IIinnMal15!iW7 UIlial ~ fum.55!.:tll'l Arden Hills C~ Hall 12411 West Highway 96 Arde" Hills. Minnesota 55112 ProJect.. GD28 T81: Fax; Rocohon eorp,..lIllon . Author COlbpany Accf>on corporation 3SSO Annapolis Lan.. North Suite 120. Dlscipli.... CMI. Dale ereatBd, !II28/OO Authored By Robert Dew RFl #; C02 ~ Company Answered By Architectural .AJ'~ Jeanne stemer .400 Cliflgn Avenu. South Minneapolis, MN 5540s.a288 , Subject Waterline conflict with loop delector Cost Impact Commenb: Amount Scheel Impact Comments Days D""ll Impaet Com ments Cc: Company Name Can'tad. Naale CoP. NOIeC OU_ion Dale Fleqlllrecl;DI29IOD Wehave'1oem.med a loop dete<llor thai runs from the traffle signal on the NE r;cmer eN the intefseclion of Hemline end Hwy' 96 east approximately 550', This line Is ngt depiotlld "" the documents and is in direc:llXlnfll<:t with 1IIl> instal\a\:ion of the water line. Please adVise on how to proceed. Sugll"stion Answer Company ArchitectJJral Alliance A..- By Jeanne Stemer Co-Respondent BRW e Answer Date ARSl~; 'torwr;vJ-t.J ~ ~ "ll1.I/1O PfD!CJJ M1llTager Prj.-on: = c:'my """"!I'>....L.._..... hile ~ ""lI\ahch pr<lIOg.prrd P_ 1 011 .- e TOTRL P.01 900 iii S11IH NH<ll:IV <- HJNVI11V 1VKaLJaLIHJHV XVd ll:Ol lOICOllO , e ....-.~ e ~. e TRANSMmAL RESENT 11/07/00 BRW Thresh er Sq uare 700 Third Street SouUl Minneapolis, MN 55415 Actn: Mr.GreggBrown I AJ'~ l'p.x; 61~11;-O~ 137y To: Date: September 29. 2000 Hall Comm, No: 1997149 Time: 4:00pm Copies to: file We are .ending you the fonowing: Item No, Copies Sheet No. RFI # 002 9128100 Description Via: . f'acsimile_2_pp. n Regular Mall For: o Approval o Distribution o As requested o Bids due on Remarks: By: Jeanne Sterner ARCHITECTURAl ALI.lANCE LNJrJtII-U.. ~ilQ CllFTllN A"~NUE SOUTH MINNE.4PllLIS:, MINNESOTh 5.54il3-32.!!' TElHHDNE (elll &71-5103 FH \6121 a71-72.11 Subjecttproject: Arden Hills City Enclosure to: o Overnight Mail . Review IJ Accepted as noted o Courier_hr, o Your use o Direct Number: 612-874-4123 LOa IjIJ 511 IH Nll<IlIV ~ 1l~NVf11V-1V~1i~afIH~av XVd .1:01 10lCOIIO .: e e e ARCHIHCTURAl ALLIANCE January 15,2001 p " I. 400 CLIFTON AVEN U E SOUTH Joe Lynch. City Administrator Arden Hills City Hall Round Lake Business Center l/j1\1 1 ~1, '.;.:~:11 ",", "," -- ,. - -..- MIN NEAPO LIS, M IN NESOTA 55403-3299 CiTY ce. TELEPHONE (61n 871-5703 4364 West Round Lake Road Arden Hills, MN 55112.5794 FAX (612) 871-7212 Re: Arden Hills City Hall Payment Application Number 04 Comm. No. 1997149 Dear Joe: We have reviewed Rochon Corporation's Application and Certificate for Payment No 4 lor the Arden Hills City Hall Project. We have visited the site and find that the percentages for work completed are accurate. This pay application covers the period ending Dedember 30,2000. The percentage of the contract amount applied lor is 19.7% (minus a 5% retainage 01 $28.996.99). We recommend payment in the amount of $195,892.45. I have enclosed a spread sheet that summarizes payments to date for your reference. Please call me if you have any questions. IL PETER VESTERH OL T Principal cc: Jeanne Sterner Oetter only), file 3 copies of Payment Application, spreadsheet Enclosure: 1997149 I&-CA IPay ApplicationslPA Y APP04.DOC ...... c.:l ;c:: cc ::::::i ..... cc ~ """ = = >- c....o ~ >- = c....o = """ 00'0 0 m,!;~'I~II~ilml~ o 0 0 CO m:co r;"f"). "1:1' ..... 0 ci ci N 0) cD N1cilN r---:!t'-: g ~!~ ~ ~;~j~ ~ ~I~ N, I,Nm~'lol,~,~I~1 -..r: '(I.)."""" '" r.l':l U') ,0> !m 0')_1 : l{) tA-,LO M:_,<'?I ~I : tA- iW,(I.).'~I'~! , I! I I ! oIIO'O;NlliIDI~ m ,....,..I~ # OOOjN,COIM..........mO g:gll'g ~I:g,:g ~ ~ ~ ~ o 0 I'- (0,0 L() V m ..... N: INIMi~i~,~m<D- V: ,V '1'-'..... IU') lro <D CO ml Im',M'~IMI'~'~ ~ NI iNIW ,Wy}'IW N (1.)., IY}., ,W, I I ,i I' oia'a,m olmvjLO ..... * ~iq qlqi,~'~It'-:I~ ~ V o,o'oleo'<D;..... MIl'- CO ~ O.WI,OM!,<DiI'-INIV N ~ 0, iOMI!'--'LOI'--COV Ni IN:~lm'~NN m V', vl,m'W'COIlJ') C") U') en: ,(,),..... l.....w.....,....,.. NI :N!W !ER-I ~w N Wi iWi I!' WI Ii, oioo.l'-lr;"f")ivo v <D:~ 010 ol<o,mll'- 0 ,....,.. N'O ci:ci;cilro!~ ~Ici M ID q O.WiO,O')i,....,..,INjW N ,....,.. N 0; IO,Vir--.,r--. I'- N NI INj~!NN N m v IV ,I,[') jW LO l!) co m~1 Im_:ER-1 :w! fA. tOh NI ,NI . N1' ~I jW'W , I ' , I I I I .....!"'!C") V!U')!'<Dil'- : ml .~,~;~i,~ .~ .~ ~ ..J~ ..J~' --.Ji..J,...J!-1 ...J,...J ...J I ' ::;: I ~j2i"O ::;l ID'C'tliID (f.l11"EiO! (5 J- OI.8i05 Olll.li E:-o <( , 0>: =' C 0: "(f) <Il I- <Il z.r::. ,"'0 00 ,2 i >.' i Q) () 1..0 I 10.. ...J: Q.)' 'E <(0) 0 z c, U (5~i ro (( u' 15 o 1i) +- Z 8, &i :31 g: ~ 1:"* > ~ ~i ~:rn c :5 liD::: ~ .(ij;.(iji~I" LL E <:( QijQiIi:' ~ .9 0::;; 0:0: '" E ",'0::;; 00,0, >" ul '" ::::l ::3i~'I:~i.ffi N~ ,- 0 _ m c: "'0 -- l:: .....1.., LLJ 1(1) ~ cU LUlU C ! ~ 0: I:: '~D:: W "'1'<3 a.. 0 '" W ro (I) C) a -I, z f- <( :J: o Q; 16 CO ",0: O"'N ",,,,,~ '" '" ~ ",..J~ :!Q ,~ -g LO I~5~ ai Q) n::: "'Otii1ii~ ~~~i: o c: """ c: ~5~-E OO:v<( en V ~ r-- ~e ae U> ~ - ~ ~ o >- 0: <( ::;: ::;: ~ ~~e W ::;: '" >- 0> <( '" CLCL .:1 . WAIVER OF CONSTRUCTION LIEN, PAYMENT BOND AND LIEN FUNDS January 1,2001 For good and valuable consideration, the undersigned hereby irrevocably and unconditionally waives and releases any and all (a) rights and claims for a construction or other lien on land and bnildings being constructed, altered, erected or repaired and to the appnrtenances thereunto, (b) rights and claims on any payment bond(s) furnished in conjunction with said construction, alteration, erection or repair, and (c) rights and claims for lien on money, bonds, or warrants due or to become due to the prime contractor therefor. The property covered by this waiver is owned by the City of Arden Hills (owner), is located at 1245 West Hi~hway 96. Arden Hills MN is described as Arden Hills City Hall and this waiver pertains to a portion of the work to be performed by Rochon COJ:poration (prime contractor). This waiver covers alllaboIJ material and supplies for construction, alteration, erection, and repairs furnished by the undersigned under a contract with City of Arden Hills through the date of this waiver in the amount of ONE HUNDRED NINETY FIVE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY TWO AND 451100 Dollars 1$195892.45) . This lien waiver is not valid until the amount listed above has been received. . . 1 GRACE L BURGHARDT I NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA t.1y Corr:m E,..PlfBS Jan. 31, 2005 ~~,"D< .;1 /3 "p. Company Name Rochon COI:poration ::v:~- Contractor Waiver Form . .1 PAGE ONE OF 2 PAGES e APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT (SUBSTITUTE AlA DOCUMENT G702) TO (OWNER): City of Arden Hills 4364 West Round Lake Rd Arden Hills. MN 55112-5794 PROJECT: Arden Hills City Hall 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 fROM (CONTRACTORl: Rochon Corporation APPLICATION NO: 4 PERIOD TO: 31-Dec>00 VIA (ARCHITECT]: Architectural Alliance 400 Clifton Avenue S. Minneapolis, MN 55403 ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 3650 Annapolis Lane North, Suite 120 Plymouth, MN 55447 CONTRACT FOR; General Construction CONTRACTOR'S APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT CONTRACT DATE: 08/1512000 CHANGE ORDER SUMMARY Change Orders approved in ADDITIONS OEDUCTIONS previous months by Owner TOTAL 0.00 Approved this Month Number Date Approved TOTALS 0.00 Net change by Change Orders 0.00 The undersigned Contractor certifies thijt to the best of the Contractor's k:nowledge, Information and belief the Work: covered by this Application for Payment has been completed in accordance with the Contract Documents, that all amounts have been paid by the Contractor for Work: for which previous Certificates for Payment were issued ijnd payments received from the Owner, and that current payment shown herein is now due. By: Date: January 1, 2001 Jeff ce President . . l~'" GRACf: ~: ;p.GHAPm , ~~', I\:OTt '; { i ,_,,': - 1.m~;~'::SOTA ;,,'~, L'y C~- r.: ~ ~ ,:'~.;1. 31, 2005 .""""^",,AlVv"N~"'^",~/v~~. Application is made for Payment, as shown below, in connection with the Contract, Continuation Sheet, Substitute AlA Document G703 is attached. 1- ORIGINAL CONTRACT SUM 2. Net Change by Change Orders.. 3. CONTRACT SUM TO DATE (Line 1 +/-2).. . ......$ 4. TOTAL COMPLETED & STORED TO DATE ICoiumn G on G703} 5. RETAINAGE: ,. % of Completed Work: IColumn D + E on G703l b. % of Stored Material IColumn F an G703) Total Retainage (Line 5a+5b or Total in Column I of G703)... . 6. TOTAL EARNED LESS RETAINAGE.. .$ IUne 4 less Line 5 Total) 7. LESS PREVIOUS CERTIFICATES FOR PAYMENT (Line 6 from prior Certificate).. ,. CURRENT PAYMENT DUE.... 9. BALANCE TO FINISH, PLUS RETAINAGE (Line 3 less Line 6) 2,942,000.00 0.00 2,942,000.00 579,939.80 28,996.99 550,942.81 e 355,050.36 195,892.45 2,391,057.19 State of: Minnesota County of: Hennepin Subscribed ond sworn to before me this 1st day of January, 2001 Notary Public: .-<1.cuc'- ~ g +H My Commission expires: January 31, 2005 ARCHITECT'S CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT In accordance with the Contract Documents, based on on-site observations and the dijta comprising the above application, the Architect certifies to the Owner that to the best of the Architect's knowledge, information and belief the Work has progressed as indicated,the quality of the Work: is in acc ordance with the Contract Documents, and the Contractor is entitled to payment of the AMOUNT CERTIFIED. AMOUNT CERTIFI:I.~5;l.~~.?::'K$ (Attach explanation if amount certified differs from the amount applied fOL) ARCH IT;' I J . j I. A, BY~~ This certificate is not negotiable. only to the Contractor named herein. Issuance, payment and acceptance of payment are without prejudice to any rights of the Owner or Contractor under this Contract. e '.) e e e PAGE 2 OF 2 CONTINUATION SHEET Substitute AlA Document G703 APPLICATION NUMBER: APPLICATION DATE: PERIOD FROM: TO: CONTRACTOR'S PROJECT NO: 4 01-Jan-Ql 01"Dec-OO 31-Dec-OO Arden Hills City Hall 0028 SCHEDULED PREVIOUS THIS STORED TOTAL BALANCE CODE DeSCRIPTION VALUE APPLICATION APPLICATION MATERIAL TO DATE % TO FINISH RETAlNAGE 01000 GEN'L RQMTS 155,234.00 55,087.13 8,734.75 0.00 63,821.88 41 91,412.12 3,181.09 02200 EARTHWORK 60,300.00 39,575.00 0.00 0.00 39,575.00 66 20,725.00 1,978.75 02480 LANDSCAPING 32,797.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 32,797.00 0.00 02513 ASPHALT PAVING 57,252.00 9,790.09 0.00 0.00 9,790.09 17 47,461.91 489.50 02600 SITE UTILITIES 143,700.00 40,000.00 0.00 0.00 40,000.00 28 103,700.00 2,000.00 04200 CONCRETE/MASONRY 836.800.00 149,000.00 40,000.00 0.00 189,000.00 23 647,800.00 9A50.00 03410 PRECAST CONCRETE 44,565.00 0.00 32,998.43 0.00 32,998.43 74 11,566.57 1,649.92 05100 STEEL FABRICATION 110,000.00 27,500.00 55,000.00 0.00 82,500.00 75 27,500.00 4,125.00 05600 STEEL ERECTION 67,150.00 15,000.00 0.00 0.00 15,000.00 22 52,150.00 750.00 05500 EXPANSIN JT COVERS 2,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2,000.00 0.00 06100 CARPENTRY 203,699.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 203,6S9.00 0.00 06400 MILLWORK 56A38.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 56A38.00 0.00 07160 WATERPROOFING 10,000.00 8,500.00 750.00 0.00 9,250.00 93 750.00 462.50 07530 ROOFING 62,670.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 62,670.00 0.00 07900 CAULKING 3,342.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 3,342.00 0.00 08100 HM/DOORS/HARDWARE 27,120.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 27,120.00 0.00 08360 OH DOORS/AUTO OPERA 6,031.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 6,031.00 0.00 08800 ALUM STOREFRONT 193,559.00 2,735.00 910.00 0.00 3,645.00 2 189,914.00 182.25 09300 CERAMIC/OUARRY TILE 40,545.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 40,545.00 0.00 09500 ACOUSTICAL CEILING TI 17,847.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 17,847.00 0.00 09680 CARPTE/VINYL TILE 32,240.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 32,240.00 0.00 09900 PAINTING 12,125.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 12,125.00 0.00 I ACCESS PANELS 300.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 300.00 0.00 10200 LOUVERS 1,900.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1,900.00 0.00 10100 VISUAL DISPLAY BOARD 2,185.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2,185.00 0.00 10160 TOILET PARTITIONS 1,971.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1,971.00 0.00 10800 TOILET ACCESSORIES 3,057.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 3,057.00 0.00 12690 FLOOR MATS 2,519.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2,519.00 0.00 10520 FIRE EXTINGISHERS 1,200.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1,200.00 0.00 12490 WINDOW BLINDS 1,675.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1,675.00 0.00 10990 WARDROBE SPECIALTIES 243.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 243.00 0.00 10440 SIGNS/FLAGPOLE 6,987.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 6,987.00 0.00 11500 FIREPLACE 1,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1,500.00 0.00 ? AUDIO VISUAL EQUIP 3,200.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 3,200.00 0.00 14200 ELEVATOR 36,900.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 36,900.00 0.00 15500 MECHANICAL 354,000.00 0.00 41,829.40 0.00 41,829.40 12 312,170.60 2,091.47 15300 FIRE SPRINKLER 19,526.00 0.00 10,230.00 0.00 10,230.00 52 9,296.00 511.50 16000 ELECTRICAL 1540423.00 3,800.00 3,500.00 0.00 7,300.00 5 147,123.00 365.00 SUBTOTAL 2,767,000.00 350,987.22 193,952.58 0.00 544,939.80 20 2,222,060.20 27,246,99 FEE 175,000.00 22,750.00 12,250.00 0.00 35,000.00 20 140,000.00 1,750.00 TOTAL 2,942,000.00 373,737.22 206,202.58 0.00 579,939.80 20 2,362,060.20 26,996.99 ARCHIHCTURAl ALLIANCE e January 18, 2001 400 eLl FTO NAvE N U E SOUTH Mr. Joe Lynch City Administrator Arden Hills City Hall Round Lake Business Center M INN EAPO II S, M INN ESOlA 55403-3299 Rr=r;:.:.'[" i.-"-'~, "~.o TEl E P H 0 N E 1612) 871" 5703 JAN 2, 9, ZOO'[ FAX 1612137 '.7212 4364 W. Round Lake Rd. Arden Hills, MN 55112-5794 CiTY Or:: ,. ;.y, I r" ,~, HiLLS Re: Professionat Design Services Fee New City Hall Project Comm. No. 97149 Dear Joe: This is a follow up to our March 8, 2000 lelter and our January 17,2001 meeting regarding additional professional design fees for two phases of the New City Hall project. . Bac..kQrollnd Our Basic Services fee of $162,500 was established in 1998 at 8.6% of an estimated construction budget of $1,887,750. The City has decided to proceed with a $2,942,000 construction project. Reauest for Additional Fee Per our March 8, 2000 letter, we indicated that we would request an adjustment of our fee based on the accepted construction budget less the cost for the extension of the utilities and the $65,000 budget allocation for the basement. The basis for our fee request therefore is: Accepted Construction Budget: Less Utility Work Less Basement Allowance Fee Basis $2,942,000 (166,000) (65 000) $2,711,000 . Mr. Joe Lynch January 18, 2001 Page 2 of 2 e On behalf of Architecturaf Alfiance and our consultants, we are requesting fee for assistance during the (second) bid period and an adjusted fee for the construction administration phase of the project based on the adjusted fee basis amount $2,711,000 as follows: 1. Re-Bid Assistance Phase 5% of 8.6% of $1,887,500 $8,116 2, Construction Administration Phase Adjustment a. 20% of 8.6% of 2,711,000 b. Less 20% of 8.6% of 1,887,500 c. Adjusted Construction Administration Phase Fee 46,629 (32 465) 14,164 3. Total Additional Fee Request (8,116 + 14,164) = $ 22,280 We very much appreciate your consideration in this matter. Please call me if you have any questions, e Thank You! Sincerely, &!!1l!&!!i/WL Principal PV/lld cc: Ellsworth Elliott Sterner File H:\HQ PROJECfS\1997\1997149\Office\O I] 80 I Ll.DOC e \. e e e December, 2000 V AN IWAARDEN ASSOCIATES 840 LUMBER EXCHANGE TEN SOUTH FIFTH STREET MINNEAPOUS MN 55402-1010 612.596.5960 f: 612.596.5999 WWW.VAI.1IWAARDEN.COM VAN IWAARDEN J LAKE JOHANNA VOLUNTEER FIREMEN'S BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, INC. e December 31, 2000 Actuarial Valuation Table of Contents Introduction and Actuarial Certification....................,.......", .................................,....... ......,... Valuation of the Current Plan... .... ................................................ ....................... ........ ............ , ~ Changes in the Unfunded Actuarial Liability.......................................................................... 4 Impact of Benefit Increases......... ................ ....... ...................... ....... ........ .......... ............... ........ 5 Accrued Benefit Liabilities as of January 1,2000................................................................... 6 Summary of Participant Data......... .... .............. ...................... ........ .... ." ......... .......... ...... .......... 7 Age Service Distribution..... ......................... ......... .................,.. .................... .......... ................, 8 Summary of Plan Provisions.......... .......................................... ........... ............... ...................... 9 e Actuarial Methods and Assumptions....................................................................................... 11 e VAN IWAARDEN 1 LAKE JOHANNA VOLUNTEER FIREMEN'S BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, INC. December 31,2000 Actuarial Valuation e Introduction and Actuarial Certification PUTTJoses of the valuation This report presents the results of the December 31, 2000 actuarial valuation for the Lake Johanna Volunteer Firemen's Benefit Association. Its primary purposes are: to develop the minimum obligation to the plan, . to review the plan's funded status as of December 31, 2000. Sources of data and data "ro;ections The Lake Johanna Volunteer Firemen's Benefit Association supplied current data for all plan participants as of November 25, 2000 and asset data for the trust as of September 30, 1999 and estimated checking account activity from September 30,2000 through December 1,2000. We have relied on that data in preparing the actuarial valuation of the plan. The actuarial valuation was conducted on a projected basis at December 31, 2000 assuming there would be the same active and inactive members as of the reporting date. The Special Fund assets were projected to December 31, 2000 assuming no return. The development is shown in the report. e Chanl!es from the "rior vear The prior actuarial valuation of the plan was prepared as of December 31, 1999. All actuarial assumptions and methods are identical to those used last year. Since the last valuation, the By-Laws of the Association were amended to increase the monthly service pension from $500 per month plus $25 per month for each year of service in excess of 20 (maximum $750.00) to $28.15 per year of service. The lump sum benefit was increased as well from $4,100 per year of service (maximum $138,450) to $4,615. The amendment increased the Accrued Liability by $429,721. e VAN IWAARDEN 2 LAKE JOHANNA VOLUNTEER FIREMEN'S BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, INC. December 31, 2000 Actuarial Valuation . Introduction and Actuarial Certification (continued) Actuarial certification This valuation has been conducted in accordance with our understanding of Minnesota Statues governing this plan. Chapter 356.216 of Minnesota Statues requires than an actuarial valuation of the fund be conducted periodically. An actuarial valuation is a calculation to determine the normal cost and accrued liability of the fund and includes a determination of the payment necessary to amortize the unfunded liability over the stated period and a determination of the payment necessary to keep the unfunded liability fro increasing. The actuarial valuation is conducted according to a stated actuarial cost method, Entry Age Normal Cost, and, as prescribed in Chapter 356.215, Subdivision 4(4), an interest assumption of5% must be utilized. MembershirJ There were 64 active members, 8 early retired deferred members, 4 fully retired deferred members and 25 a retired members as of the valuation date. Member statistics are shown on page 7. .. rf)..ro~ gl.~ lfi-y--' James R. Bordewick, FSA Consulting Actuary Enrollment No. 99-1467 Brenda K. Hardy, ASA Consulting Actuary Enrollment No. 99-4885 November, 2000 e VAN IWAARDEN " ~ LAKE JOHANNA VOLUNTEER FIREMEN'S BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, INC December 31, 2000 Actuarial Valuation . Actuarial Assets and Liabilities Assets The projection oflhe market value of special fund assets from September 30,2000 is shovm below: 1. Market Value 9/30/00 $4,207,538 2. Estimated Accrued State Aid 160,381 , Benefit Payments (269,399) J. 4. Estimated Expenses (343) 5. Transfer in - Dain Rauscher 225,000 6. Estimated Investment Return 0 7. Estimated Market Value 12/31/00 $4,323,177 Actuarial Balance Sheet e The actuarial balance sheet is shovm below as of December 31, 2000 Assets Market value of current assets Unfunded accrued liability Present value of future normal costs Total $4,323,177 (242,459) 941,130 $5,021,848 Liabilities Present value of benefits - active members - retired members - deferred members Total $3,120,303 1,382,604 518,941 $5,021,848 e VAN IWAARDEN 4 LAKE JOHANNA VOLUNTEER FIREMEN'S BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, INC. December 3 I, 2000 Actuarial Valuation e Analvsis of Chan!!e in Unfunded Accrued Liabilitv The unfunded accrued liability decreased by $161,461 from December 31, 1999 to December 31, 2000. The analysis of this change is shown below: 1. Unfunded Liability 12/31/99 2. Amount by which contributions were greater than normal cost and interest requirements 3. Increase in accrued liability due to by-law changes 4. Actuarial gain for the period 5. Unfunded accrued liability 12/31//00 (1) - (2) + (3) - (4) ~L.'1~'7 4~.(YZ.(" The net actuarial gain of $477,747 was due to in part to an estimated asset value as of the last valuation which was significantly less than the actual December 31, 1999 asset value. $(80,998) 113,435 429,721 477,747 $(242,459) e Contribution Requirements Section 69.773, Subdivision 4 of the Minnesota Statutes states that the contribution requirement is equal to the normal cost and expenses less 10% of the surplus. The following is a summary of the valuation results utilized in determining the contribution requirements. Normal Cost Expenses 10% of Surplus Contribution Requirement* $119,886 26,000 (24,246) $124,644 * Assuming mid-year payment The minimum obligation of the municipality is generally equal to the contribution requirement, $124,644 less fire state aid. Fire state aid is expected to be $160,000 in 2001. In addition, a contract with Alliant Techsystems, Inc. will provide an additional annual contribution to the special fund of approximately A $13,390 in 2001. . VAN IWAARDEN . . . 5 LAKE JOHANNA VOLUNTEER FIREMEN'S BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, INC. December 31,2000 Actuarial Valuation Imoact of Future Benefit Increases It was requested that we determine the funding implications if both the service and lump sum pension were increased. The following parameters were applied: 1) The increases would apply to all active, early retired deferred, fully retired deferred and retired members; 2) The funding ratio after the change would be about 90%; 3) The expected annual contribution after the change would be approximately $220,000. The Alliant contribution was eliminated for this parameter. Based on the above, the service pension could be increased from $28.15 to $33.10 and the lump sum pension from $4,615 to $5,432. The actuarial results are shown below and compared with the current benefit level. Accrued Liability Assets Funded Ratio Funding: Normal Cost Estimated Expenses Amortization Payment Interest Totals - mid-year Current $4,080,718 4,323,177 105.9% After Increase $4,803,005 4,323,177 90% 119,886 26,000 141,105 26,000 (24,246) 36,336 3,004 124,644 5,024 208,465 As mentioned above, these increases are within the expected contribution range without the Alliant contribution. The plan reaches the 90% funded ratio before the expected contribution reaches $220,000. VAN IWAARDEN LAKE JOHAt"mA VOLUNTEER FIREMEN'S BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, INC. December 31, 2000 Actuarial Valuation Accrued Benefit Liabilities The summary below shows the actuarial value of benefits accrued to December 31,2000. This value represents the liability on December 31, 2000 if no member had any service after December 31, 2000. Vested Active Retired Early Retired Deferred Fully Retired Deferred Total Not-Vested Active Number 29 25 8 4 Liability $1,436,007 1,382,604 162,731 356,210 $3,337,552 35 479,466 Total 101 $3,817,018 * Members with ten or more years of service. Liability includes only vested portion of benefit. ** Members with less than 10 years of service. Liability includes non-vested portion of benefit for all members. The market value of assets covers 113.3% of this liability. For on-going situation with periodic benefit improvements, it is unlikely that this coverage ratio will always be 100% or greater. 6 e e e VAN IWAARDEN . . . 7 LAKE JOHANNA VOLUNTEER FIREMEN'S BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, INe. December 31, 2000 Actuarial Valuation Member Statistics Active Members 1. There were 64 active members included in the actuarial costs. An age/service distribution is shown on the next page. 2. The average entry age for the 65 active members was 29.5. Retired Members 1. There were 25 retired members included in the actuarial costs. 2. The total annual retirement benefits payable to these members is $170,995. 3. The average retirement age for these members was age 54.6 and average current age of these members is 70.0. Deferred Members 1. There were 8 early retired deferred members and 4 fully retired deferred members included in the actuarial costs. 2. The total annual retirement benefits payable to these members is $44,686. 3. The current age of these members is 44.7. VAN IWAARDEN cj ;z .. z o .. f-< ...: .. u o " r..rJ .8 (/] - ...: ~ f-<_ ~~ '"'- ;Z .~ ~ g (/]<3 Z""<: '"'''' ~2 '"'''' c:.: -; ......., I';. >.. ...:.25 ;Z :: ;Z ~ ...: " ~Q o .., '"' ~ ...: ,..l _. 01 -; ":1 ._, .. - "', ~i '" '" os:; .. '" ~ "01 =: '" '" "" "':i 8~ '> ('4 ~ 0 " - (/]0 -0'"" ..g -0 " ~ U , t ~I '" ""' ~ '" " >- ; g' c '" o .". 0, M '" ""' M .". M '" o M 0, '""I 01 ~I , "'" '" o 0, o - ""' o ;Z Cacac::ccoooa o 8 o ;Z cocoooaoooo e o o o r-- e o '"" .". '" ci Vi(".lOM-"TOOOOC ""' .". Z '-0 ~ ~ ;a " ci 00000.00000.00 0 a. "0 :~ " z ;:J ;a a.. " "0 .2: " ~ ""' 3' t5 e .5 '"" 0, .". 0, .". 0, .". 0, .". 0, --< :g ~ '"" M '" .". .". ""' ""' '-0 '-0 "0 --<I " '" '" '" '" 3 '" 8 .9 .9 = '" '" --< -0 '" = ""' 0 ""' 0 ""' 0 '" 0 ""' 0 ,S ,S ;:J '"" M '" .". .". ""' '" '-0 '-0 r-- o Z .00000000.000 o Z 0000000000000 ci Z OOOO-"T--OOO ci Z OOOMO"T('.l--OO o Z aO-N':::t'':::t'OOOOO I .1 o z -NI.""!C'\V'")-OOOOO VAN IWAARDEN . . . 9 LAKE JOHANNA VOLUNTEER FIREMEN'S BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, me. December 31, 2000 Actuarial Valuation Summary of Plan Provisions A. Plan vrovisions as of December 31.2000 1. Eligibility: (a) Members covered: Active members of the Lake Johanna Volunteer Fire Department who have been elected to membership in the Lake Johanna Volunteer Firemen's Benefit Association, Inc: 2. Retirement dates: (a) Normal retirement: The later of age 50 or after completion of20 years of service with 1(l years of membership. 3. Pension Amounts: (a) Monthlv Benefit: $28.15 per month for each year of service. A lump sum of$4,615 per year of service can be elected in lieu of the monthly benefit. (b) Deferred Service Pension: Termination prior to age 50 with at least 10 years of service and 10 years of membership. The monthly benefit payable at age 50 is based on the retirement pension formula and service at date of the termination times a vesting percentage. The vesting percentage is 50% after 10 years of service increasing at 5% per year of service thereafter to 100% after 20 years of service. 4. Disability Pension: Disability resulting from injury or sickness in the line of duty and unau doctor's care. The benefit payable is $80 per week not to exceed one week. 5. Death and Survivor Benefits: Eligible if death occurs prior to commencement of benefits with at le~st 10 years of service. (a) Funeral Benefit: $25.00 per month per year of service times vesting percentage, payable for five years certain. VAN IWAARDEN 10 LAKE JOHANNA VOLUNTEER FIREMEN'S BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, INC December 31, 2000 Actuarial Valuation . Summary of Plan Provisions (continued) (b) Widows and Children's benefits: Pre-retirement widow receives monthly benefit, based on retirement pension formula and service at date of death, for five years certain if death occurs prior to benefit commencement with at least 10 years of service. If widow dies before five years' payments have been made, the remaining payments are made to any minor children and then to designated beneficiary or estate, if applicable. Post-retirement widow receives monthly retirement for the remaining five year period, if any, if death occurs after benefits have commenced. Any remaining payments after the death of the widow payable to designated beneficiary or estate. B. Plan provisions effective after December 31, 2000 No future plan improvements beyond December 31, 2000 were recognized in determining the cash contributions to the plan. C Chanf!es in plan provisions since prior vear e Benefits were amended to increase in year 2000 as outlined in the introduction. e VAN IWAARDEN e e e 11 LAKE JOHANNA VOLUNTEER FIREMEN'S BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, INe. December 31, 2000 Actuarial Valuation Actuarial AssuIDotions & Methods A. Economic Assuml1tions Interest rate 5.00% B. DemOflral1hic Assuml1tions Mortality Turnover Retirement Disability Asset Basis: 1951 Group Annuity Mortality Table set back one year 6% at age 20, reducing to 0% at age 45. The latest of age 50 or after 20 years of service. None assumed. Market value projected from 9/30 to 12/31. VAN IWAARDEN 12 LAKE JOHANNA VOLUNTEER FIREMEN'S BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, INC. December 31, 2000 Actuarial Valuation e Actuarial Assumptions & Methods (continued) C. Actuarial Methods Funding basis Normal Cost and Actuarial Accrued Liability The Entry Age Normal actuarial cost method. This actuarial funding method is one of the projected benefit cost methods. The normal cost for each active member is the annual amount required from the member's entry date to retirement date so that the accwnulated contributions at termination or retirement will equal the liability at that time. This cost is expressed as a level annual amount. Actuarial Value of Assets The actuarial value of assets is equal to the market value of assets projected from 9/30 to 12/31. All benefits summarized in the plan provisions section of this report. e Benefits Valued The actuarial methods used in this valuation are identical to those used last year. e VAN IWAARDEN