The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCCP 09-30-2002 Mayor Dennis Probst onneil Members Beverly Aplikowski David Grant Gregg Larson Lois Rem ~ ~HILLS Arden Hills City Council SPECIAL MEETING Monday SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 6:30 p.m. 1245 W. Highway 96 Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 651.634.5120 City Philosophy To provide a basic and necessary scope of quality services through the innovative and purposeful use of resources. Agenda City Council Special Meetin2 Convenes 6:30 p.m. Economic Development Authority (EDA) Meeting originally scheduled for September 30, 2002 is POSTPONED to the Regular Council Meeting, Tuesday, OCTOBER 15, 2002. (No Monday Meeting this week due to the recognition of Columbus Day, Monday, October 14, 2002. HOWEVER, Arden Hills City Hall IS OPEN Monday, October 14, 2002.) 6:30 p.m. -7:00 p.m. SPECIAL MEETING Karth Lake Pumping File Copy . . . URS MEMORANDUM Thresher Square 700 Third Street South Minneapolis, MN 55415 Phone: (612) 370-0700 Fax: (612) 370-13783 To: Joe Lynch/Arden Hills Copy: Tom Moore/Arden Hills File: 37951-005 Jim Perron/Arden Hills Nick LandwerfURS From: Gregory Brown, PE Arden Hills City Engineer Date: September 26, 2002 Subject: Karth Lake Pumping Station As directed by Arden Hills City Staff we have pursued further investigation into solutions for the high water level problem ofKarth Lake. As part of the process we have applied for and received a Temporary Basin Dewatering Permit from the DNR. In addition we have applied for a Water Appropriation Permit from the DNR, which is currently in the review process for the permanent pumping solution. We have solicited several pump suppliers for quotes for the rental and installation oftemporary pumping equipment and have received quotes from Braun Pump and Controls and Northern Dewatering, Inc. Northern Dewatering has the lowest quote of $8870 for the rental, installation and removal of the pumping equipment for one month. The rental pumping equipment is approximately $1821 per week if additional time where required. Northern Dewatering has indicated the equipment is readily available. As part of the rental agreement the City Crews will provide access to Karth Lake for the installation of the pumps, provide a generator to power the pumps and maintain the system while it is installed. The city crews will also have to assist in the placement ofthe pumping equipment in the lake. Because the piping system will run across some paths and playing fields in Cummings Park the City will need to ramp over the pipe when it crosses paths and provide appropriate safety markers of the exposed pipe. It is anticipated that the pumping will take 3 to 4 weeks to draw the lake down to an elevation of 934 feet, this is a volume of approximately 20 million gallons. The DNR will require a fee of $50 for any volume over 15 million gallons. The volume pumped will be determined when the pumping is complete. If you have any questions please contact me at (612) 373-6479. C:\Documents and Settings\CynthiaY\Local Settings\Tcmporary Internet Files\OLK3\CouncilMemo9~30.02.doc 5EP-25-2002 15:50 BRW 512 373 5525 P.03/05 ~ e Soptember 19,2002 Nick Landwer Fax, 612.370-1378 Re: Pumping Equipment Nick, Nonhem Dewatering is pleased \0 offer the following quote for dewatering on the above r(':fer.enced projuct. Northern Dewatering will furnish the following equipmel1t for a period of ,>n. month for the sum of,.. $5,463.00. l!<!uipment would be $1,821.00 pCI' "'l!e~, I I VW'",:~\ C. eC{v tJ&VTe-v" ~'pmentinCJUde" - Sc.~"'''''''' fA^""f.3 (2 51!P Pumps 480-volt. 3.phase de.\IIt-v'1 'Ioat to suspend pun\ps in pond i 750 feet of HOPE pipe wit!) Bauer clamps 1J-. 0P'1 750 feet of electric cord l' ~",vClol<JV\ Your responsibilities include: Operation and maintenance of NOI C!l:q!-lipment Power source 480-volt, J-ph..e Sel "p and removo I DNR perlllit State and local taxes. . A.~ our p()rtion of this projett due... /Jot leave product behirzd to be covered by an)' type of warranty we wifl no! accept redur;r;ol1fot r~tQinage_ Should the Cnntracl'or f,el It tje(~e.!!Qry 10 hold rt!lainagc fhf! contract 'Va"" wnuld be increased by IWAto cover rhr: curt and infefr,,,1 nr 1,5% pSI' r1t(JH.r11 will be cha,.gf;td on tn.e unpaid betlanct!. IILSO, Please b. advj".d us pi April I, 21111/ Norrhern Dewatering, III", w1l1 b. charged :SSW IIOfnr ;1'IS'lu'cnce cerrtficaJes naming .vallr company or owner as (]ddillonaJ ins.tAred. The (.'O.!I of miming your campeny or owner as additional il'lSureJwilJ he hilled to you at your cost. There Is no charge f()y cel'liflt.'ole1 as p,oof of in.turancc c()verinK a/J work performed Included are our standard terr", and conditions, which will be attached to any contract documents, If you have further que.tion., ple.se call the office at 763-428-2616, T~~n 0\1, , V ' (MQ.~~ ~ff ~in estimator Enclosure ~...I,ll~I~~ @ .~..... 14405 Northdale Blvd.. Rogers, MN 55374 (763) 428-2616. FAX (763) 428-2671 . ndwtr@NorthamDewaterlng.com . . e . . SEP-25-2002 15:51 BRW 512 373 5525 P.04/05 September 26, 2002 Nick Lnndwer Fax: 612-370-1378 Re:PulIlplng Equiplncnt Niok, Northern Dewatering is pleased to offer the following quote for installation of piping equipment quoted 9/19/02. Northern Dewatering will mobilize, furnish, install, and remove PUmpinll equipment for the sum of... S3,408.00 We will need nccess to the area along with help trom a tractor backhoe to get the pumps into the water. qjdThank you, . . ,. 7JtdMv Je elin Estimator J~ Ore- \.M6Y'~: .e~L-l~fl~ Se---t "'- P ~ 5L-fb ') 1\ Jy O~ ~Wc.\ -~ @)"'''''&. .\.~\ -,' '""...:;;;;PI 14405 Northdale Blvd. . Rogers, MN 55374 (763) 428-2616' FAX (763) 428-2671' ndwtr@NorthernDewaterlng.com I) SEP-25-2002 15:51 8RW 512 373 5525 P.05/05 :P1!~U~."!J~~_~~QNJ'_RQ~~ S('p~ .; l{J(j2 e September 23, 2002 Nick Landwehr URS Engineering TIlresher Square 700 3 rd Street South , Minneapolis, MN 55415 Dear Nick, We are pleased to offer you this quotation for the installatiOJi of a rental pump on a raft and" approximately 800' po!yethyleJJe pipe secured at the lake in AJ-den Hills; MN. This jn~tallation will pUmp down 20,000,000 gallons of water to drop the lake level approximately.4 feet, Included ,iJJ the installation are temporary controls at the generatorIocation to power up and test. The price includes complele installation and tear down. . TnstalledPrice $ 24,612.50 Note: The City shall be responsible for any sales iax related to rental pump and piping. Notc: The City will need to provide asphalt for ramps over ,the piPes at the three paths. The City must also provide suitable lake acccss for our large service trucks, safetysignagclbarriers or fencing and any erosion control measures necessary. Any and all pennits shall also be by the City. Any restoration upon oompletion shall be provided by the City. Note: The City will have the option to purchase the pipe upon completion ofthe project. Please feel free to call with any questions. Sincerely, .,~, Dave'Braun DB/jb 1574 Third Ave. S.w. . Suite 2 . New Prague, Minnesota 56071 952-758,6600 · Fax 952-758-7778 . TOTAL P.05 Warren E. Peterson Jerome P. Filla Daniel Witt Fram Glenn A. Bergman _hn Michael Miller -::hael T oberle even H. Bruns~ Paul W. Fahning"- Esther E. McGinnis Cameron S. McLelland P~ERSQ\J, FAAM BERGMAN Suite 300 50 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55 ]0]-1 ]97 1651) 29]-8955 (651) 228-1753 facsimile PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Direct Dial #(651) 290-6907 September 17, 2002 Mr. Joe Lynch City Administrator City of Arden Hills 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 I RECf;~~V{~j:r~ SEP 1 9 2002 I I CITY OF N<DEi\i i11~LIl RE: Karth Lake Outlet Lake Improvement District Our File No.: 10470.02-3 Dear Joe: . Generally, the City has the authority to improve and regulate bodies of water located wholly within its corporate boundaries (MS 459.20). This includes the power to establish and administer a lake improvement' district (MS 10$8.501 c 1038.581) in accordance with guidelines and criteria adopted by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MR 6115.0900 - 6115.0980). DNR PermitS/lnvestil!ative Data The City would retain its consulting engineer to obtain DNR permits and to prepare a document which would: 1. Define the circumstances which require the creation of the lake improvement district; 2. Identify necessary improvement projects and maintenance programs; 3. Identify the manner of financing the improvements and maintenance programs; and 4. Identify the area to be included within the lake improvement district and the owners of the parcels. Public Hearinl! . : . .. ,.." -: . -, ',. :,.;: Once the appropriate data has been collected, thecityiwpuld conducthearingsanddetermJ~: 1. If the lake improvement district is necessary; 'A~SO ,~.DMITTED IN WISCONSIN September 17, 2002 Page 2 . 2. Which parcels would be included within the district; 3. Whether the district would cause or contribute to long range environmental pollution; and 4. The boundaries of the district. Order Establishin!! District At the conclusion of the heari ng or an adjournment thereof, the Citj( would adopt an order establishing the district. The order would: 1. Specify the boundaries of the district; 2. Identify the waters and related land research programs which will be undertaken; 3. Identify how the programs will be financed; . 4. Indicate the number, qualifications, terms of office, method of election, removal and fill- in of vacancies for district board members; and 5. Include the first Bylaws for the District. Separate Taxin!! District The first board of directors is appointed by the City Council. Subsequent boards are elected by the people owning property within the district. The lake improvement district becomes a separate taxing district. The board can be, given authority to make decisions or it can be an advisory body to the City Council. Council Authorization Required Any proposals to specially assessed project costs, imposed service charges, issue City obligations, or levy ad valorem taxes on property within the district must be approved by the City Council. In many cases, the lake improvement district board is required to adopt an . . . . September 17, 2002 Page 3 annual budget in advance of the time for the City's adoption of the City budget. The City Council can then decide whether to include all or part of the lake improvement district costs within its annual budget. The County auditor is then instructed to levy taxes against lake improvement district property for lake improvement district costs. Alternative Homeowner Association The owners of property within the district could also form a homeowners association and adopt a declaration of restrictions, which defines the manner in which improvement projects and maintenance costs will be allocated against property owners. Normally, this is impossible to set up unless it is done prior to the sale of any of the lots within the district. I realize that you are a long way from making decisions in regard to the creation of the lake improvement district and that the DNR may determine that it will not issue the appropriate permits. However, I thought that it would be helpful to have a general outline of the process which must be followed by the City. If you have any questions, please contact me. JPF:jtc F;\userslJanice\DaiJy Dictation (l3-02).wpd . . . (!{1U/l.LC~:/( ~,-&1IVL~t- 1/;1")/02-- KARTH LAKE HYDROLOGY DATA Tributary Area: Arden Hills: Lexington Ave: Shoreview: Total 91 Acres (73%) 5 Acres (4%) 19 Acres (23%) 125 Acres Approximate Lake Volume (between 938.3 and 934.0): 70 ac ft Annual Precipitation: 29.4 Inches (306.35 ac -ft) Annual Runoff: 184 ac ft Annual Evaporation at Lake: 45 ac-ft 2002 (to date) Precipitation (10 inches above normal) = 104 ac-ft 2002 (to date) Estimated Runoff above normal = 68 ac.ft ~ uwt C2 (! (! WfJ r q /~/{)"2- . 1 September 2002 To whom it may concern, We are writing you concerning the new Neighborhood Business (NB) zoning that was passed by the City Council last year. Fourteen properties have been rezoned with this new classification. Over the past several years, these properties have been undeveloped because of the strict zoning guidelines and the size and location of the property to neighborhoods. The City developed the new Neighborhood Business zoning so that these properties could be developed. So fur there's only been one approved development under this new NB District zoning. This development will set the precedence for others with this zoning. What the City Council lets this developer get away with will affect many homeowners and neighborhoods in Arden Hills. The property is located on the comer of CleveJand and County Road D. The adjacent neighbors are not happy with the landscaping and size of the building approved by the City Council. It clearly states in the Zoning Ordinances in more than one area that major consideration must be given for the following: . 1. Limitations on the type, size and intensity of uses within this district, given its proximity to residential uses. 2. To ensure adequate buffering is used to screen and visually separate: business sites from residential uses; business sites from public streets; and one site from another. 3. Buffer yards 30 feet in width shall be provided adjacent to all residential uses. The buffer yard 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 buffer yard landscaping shall not be included into the minimum landscaping calculation (Section A, 5, a). In the final building plans, the City Council approved a variance to the 30 foot buffer yard on the north and to the east. To the north, the buffi:r yard will be 14-112 feet to allow for the parking lot. To the east, they are allowing a turf block driveway access to the basement within the 30 foot buffi:r yard. The reason why they had to allow a variance for the buffer yard to the north was to accommodate the required parking for the size of the building. In other words, the large size ofthe building requires special variances in order to accommodate the parking. . Another issue that has just arisen is that the developer, Mr. Nelson, is now proposing an amendment to his original plans. The new proposal will change the building from the approved story and a haIfto two stories (oversized for property). It will increase the square footage by 1300 square feet. The outward appearance of the building has changed to reflect a more commercial appearance ( unattractive), and decks will be added to all comers ofthe upper level (privacy). New street parking is also proposed along Cleveland and County Road D which will affect the flow of traffic and change the landscaping. . We want the Planning Commission and City Council to know that we want them to enforce the requirements of the zoning ordinance. We want them know that homeowners will not be taken advantage of by businesses or anyone else trying to exploit the new neighborhood business district zoning ordinances. We are concerned about our property values and proper screening as adjacent and close proximity neighbors. In the last approval process, the homeowners felt overwhelmed by the developer who is a lawyer and has the advantage of knowing how to work the law and ordinances to his benefit. We are asking the city council to help protect us by enforcing the neighborhood business district ordinances. This time, we are using our collective voice to let our elected officials know our concern as neighborhood homeowners. We have also talked with many neighbors who have agreed with us and are willing to support us jfthis new proposal goes any further. We will not support city council members who do not uphold our zoning ordinances or protect us from developers who have an advantage against us. We see the PUD as a way for developers to get around zoning ordinances. It is a loophole that works in the mvor of the businesses. The land was recently rezoned neighborhood business because it was too restrictive. We are concerned the PUD will not take into account the intent of the current zoning. All we ask is that you follow the ordinances set up by Arden Hills. Please require the developers live by the spirit of the zoning ordinance. . 1. We do not want the building to be oversized! All the adjacent houses are one story ramblers. The neighborhood business district purpose states in C: To place limitations on the type, size and intensity of uses within thi~ district, given its proximity to residential uses. 2. We want proper screening! If the building is going to be bigger, the ordinance states in Appendix A that there should be more screening provided. At the last November planning commission meeting, Mr. McGuire explained the difference in elevation between the property being developed and neighboring properties and was assured the existing fence was going to stay were it was. Mr. Nelson changed his mind or was confused as to what was said. He told the city council the fence would go on the property line. This change results in very little screening to the north. 3. We want the new building to blend in with the surrounding homes and make sure there is proper landscape screening for adjacent neighbors. The proposed river birch trees provide very little screening in the winter, grow slowly and were not recommended by a landscape design engineer or the Minnesota horticultural society. However pyramidal arborvitae will provide screening . . and thrive in moist to wet fertile soil. This hedge should be a minimum of six feet tall as stated in the zoning ordinances. 4. On street parking will create traffic problems. There is no room for it unless you cut down trees that screen the business across the street. I was told by Aaron Parrish that he does not recommend this. 5. We want the trash moved over to the other side to prevent odors to the adjacent neighbors. This has caused problems in other neighborhood business areas and has had to be moved. Kens Market has their trash facing county road D. 6. Mr. Nelson has not contacted any of us for input. 7. Some ofus feel we have not been told tbe whole story by Mr. Nelson. The fence location. Arborvitae not being able to grow along north property lines. Being told an office complex is better than a fast 100d restaurant or gas station which is prolnbited under the current zoning. 8. If Mr. Nelson has a problem with providing proper landscaping or snow removal he should have read the city ordinances. . 9. Mr. Nelson has clearly not met the conditions outlined by the planning commission regarding proper screening. He has replaced a deciduous with another deciduous tree. The leaves will full in the winter. 10. When we bought this property we asked our real estate agent what could be built next door. We were told very little due to the size of the lot and current zoning regulations. There was a concept PUD submitted but nothing had been approved. If the neighborhood business zoning was upheld Mr. Nelson would only be able to build a one story building due to tbe parking required. There would also be a thirty foot buffur yard landscaped with six foot taIl evergreens screening the property. Furthermore I would not be apposed to him building on the lot ifhe would meet the zoning requirements. Thank you so much for your help!! Mark and Ruth McGuire 2030 Glen Paul Ave (651) 631-2220 Monte and Bonnie Arhart 2014 Glen Paul Ave Don and Melanie Ristow . 2033 County road D Kim Luger 2026 GlenPaul Ave . Here are applicable excerpts from the Arden Hills City Code of Ordinances-Zoning Ordinances. This document can be found at the following web site: http://www.ci.arden- hills.rnn.us/Documents/Citv Code/main.htm. Section 5: District Provisions D. Purpose of Districts S. NB Neighborhood Business a. To be located at the edge of residential neighborhoods b. To provide a limited range of over-the-counter, convenience, retail and service uses to accommodate the needs of the adjacent residents. c. To place limitations on the type, size and intensity of uses within this district, given its proximity to residential uses. d. To place emphasis on convenience for pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportations access to the use. e. To accommodate where possible a public commons giving residents a place to gather and interact with one another. f. To ensure adequate buffering is provided on these sites for the adjacent residential uses. g. To require, where applicable, compliance with the City's gateway requirements. . Section 5: H. Special Requirements for the Neighborhood Business (NB) District. S. Building Exteriors, Site Features and Site Development . Accomplishing the stated purpose of the NB District requires particular concern for the design of buildings, site features (such as landscaping, lighting, and signage) and site design. The arrangement, geometry, massing, materials and colors shall be responsive to existing buildings, site features and site design on adjoining sites in the district. The City Council will make the final determination on the compatibility and consistency with this provision. a. Landscaping for the site shall comply with Appendix A of the Zoning Ordinance. In addition to Appendix A landscaping shall be provided at the rate of three caliper inches per 40 feet of public street frontage. b. Buffer yards 30 feet in width shall be provide adjacent to all residential uses. The buffer yard 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 buffer yard landscaping shall not be included into the minimum landscaping calculation (Section A, 5, a). c. Hours of Operation shall be prohibited between the hours of II :00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. All deliveries and loading shall be done during normal hours of operation. 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. e. Exterior Materials shall include only face brick, stone, glass, or natural wood products. All walls shall be treated with the same exterior materials. f. Lighting shall adhere to the requirements ofScction VI, E, 3, of the Zoning Ordinance. Lighting shall not be permitted to wash the building, except for accent lighting to delineate the main entryway into the building. Security and parking lot lighting shall be on pedestals not to exceed 14 feet in height. g. Trash shall be fully screened in a masonry enclosure or shall be stored within the principal structure. h. Vending Machines shall be located on the interior of the principal structure. i. Bicycle Racks shall be provided in an area that is convenient to the main entryway into the building. J. Sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to all public rights-of-way. k. Gateways, where applicable, should be incorporated into the layout of the site. The 1985 Parkway System Feasibility Study and the Comprehensive Plan provide additional guidance on the incorporation of gateways. Appendix A-Landscape Plan ( excerpts) A. City Review Procedure--In the submission requirements for some development proposals (such as Site Plan Review, Special Use Permit and Planned Unit Development) the following landscape requirements shall be followed in addition to the submission requirements for "Landscape Plan" as defined in each type of application. B. Design Requirernents--3. Landscape berms and buffers will be used to screen and visually separate: business sites from residential uses; business sites from public streets; and one site from another. 4. The required height of evergreens used fur required screening may be increased by the City. 5. Minimum landscaping requirements shall relate to the gross square footage of all floors of a building and the building height and shall be expressed as the minimum number oftotaI inches required per building site. a. Minimum total caliper inches = Gross Square Footage of all Floors of Building. 6. Adjoining sites shall be considered in terms of species, location of trees, screening and overaUlandscape design. 8. A reasonable attempt shall be made to protect and preserve existing trees and incorporate them into the landscape plan. . . . Where to Plant . Site and Light Arborvitae grows well in full sun or partial shade. In deep shade it becomes open wirh sparse foliage. Its branches may break off if covered with heavy snow or ice. There is linle you can do about this other than (0 brush snow off after a storm. You can avoid some damage by planting the shrub away from roof lines. ~. -1I '.' ,-, . .n'n:!~ ~ht . Ii'''''''' I'.' . <l I&-, ~"!Ii,,. ~ r ~ ilL - Ir~'1iiY"-.L ll,'m.am ~"'Qd:.b.. .' . J1i$ ...d _ JI:.1>-_. till 1i/:,1lllnllllilfillrilll1 " T' 11 -, . - I ~ J '1 :1T 1 - 11 ~ 'jl 'iII' Spacing Space shrubs according to tbeir porential size at maturity. If using Arborvitae for hedges or screens, plant them closer together. Landscape Use . Upright varieties are commonly used as specimen plants at the corners of homes to provide a vertical con- tfast (0 horizontal roof lines. Upright varieties are extremely useful as tall screens or backdrops for other plants, including shrubs and perennials. Arborvitaes have such dense, tidy growth tbat they make excellent informal hedges with minimal pruning or lovely for- mal hedges if closely sheared. Fo.rwinter interest, plant Arborvitaes near shrubs with persistent fruits and seed heads. Good choices include flex verticillata (Winter- berry), Malus (Crabapple), Syringa reticulata (Tree Lilac), and many varieties of Viburnum (Viburnum). Arborvitaes also combine well in the winter landscape with other evergreens. One especially interesting design is a combination of globe types with Clethra (Summer- sweet) and Perovskia (Russian Sage). Planting Bare Root Not sold this way. . ..!IIl' ntainerized Plants Plant Arborvitaes as early in the season as possible. If the soil in the container is dryt soak it and let it drain overnight before plant- ing. Place a small amoum of superphosphate in the base of the hole and cove, with 3 inches (7.5 em) of soil. Carefully remove the plant from the container so as not to break the root ball. Plam at the same depth as in the container. Fill tbe hole with well- prepared soil, firm with your fingers. and water imme- diately. Dissolve water-soluble fertilizer in a gallon (about 4 liters) of water following the directions on tbe label. Pour V2 cup (about 120 ml) of this starter solution around the base of each plant. If you prefer organic fertilizer. use :fish emulsion instead. Balled and Burlapped Plant as you would a containerized plant with these added precautions: Place the plant in the hole making sure that that the top of the balled and burlapped roOt ball is about I to z inches (Z.5 to 5 em) above the surrounding soil. Cut and remove any twine around the stems. Remove as much of the burlap and wire holding the root ball in place as possible, but avoid breaking the roOt ball. Transplanting Dig up plants as soon as the soil can be worked in very early spring. Keep as much of the soil around the roots as possible. With larger plants this is quite difJiculr. Plant immediately as you would a balled and burlapped plant. How to Care for Arborvitaes Water Keep the soil evenly moist from spring umil the soil freezes in falL Consistentwater.ing is important every year. Always satura[e [he soil deeply with each watering. When the top 2 inches (5 em) of soil dry our, water. Note thac for evergreens it is especially important [0 water deeply in the fall as an aid in prevemingwinrer Thuja 307 ",..; \ >/ '): '1- :t J~ .i Wet locations are defined. as having periodic (usually spring) excess water. Woody plan.. are. not water plants, so none will grow in aquatic conditions. Some. however, are much more tolerant of excess water than others in this listing. Abies balsamea . Balsam fir Arer rubrum & cultivars . Red maple Alnus g/utinosa . European alder Alnus imana . White alder Alnus "'go'" . Spedded alde, And",,,,,,,. polift/i4 . Bog rosemary &tukt nigra & cultivars .. River birch Betula pumila . Swamp bi,ch CephaJanthus ocddmtalis .. Buttonhush Chamaedaphn' <aIycu/4ta . Leathedeaf Om= olbiqua . Saky dogwood Comus stolonifira & cultivars . Redosier dogwood Fraxi1tUS nigra & cultivars .. Black ash flex vmidU4ta & culcivars . Wmrerberry K41mia polifi>/i4 . Bog !awe! Larix buid1lll . Tamarack Ledum gromkmdicum . Labrador tea NySS4 JYJvu:tit:a . Sow gum Piaa maria7Ul . Black spruce Populus species & culrivars . Poplar. aspen, cottonwood QJInrus bicowr .. Swamp white oak RIwd1Jdmd.ron tIlnadmse .. Rhodora Stt/ix species & cultivars .. Willow Sambums caruulmsis . American elder TdXOdium distichum . Bald cypress r' ,. ~. Viburnum lmtago . Nannybeuy Viburnum trilobum . American highbush cranberry XA.nthorhiza simplirimma . Yellowroor . Shadbush (Ame/Boch/'n and other woody plants give a wasb of color In earty spring In a naturallstll;: Slfllng al lhe ArbuRltum. . .~. ~ ~HlLLS Arden Hills City Council REGULAR Monda Se tember 30, 2002 City Philosophy uality services thrOll h the innovative and Mayor Dennis Probst oUDeil Members Beverly Aplikowski David Grant Gregg Larson Lois Rem To 1245 W. Highway 96 Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 651.634.5120 oseful use of resources. Agenda City Council Meeting Convenes 7:00 PM Can to Order 1. AGENDA 2. MINUTES A. September 9, 2002 Council Meeting B. September 16, 2002 Work Session 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Claims and Payroll B. Resolution No. 02-47: Approving the 2002 General Election Judges C. Resolution No. 02-48: Approving Amended 2002 Fee Schedule (False AlamJ Fee) D. Resolution No. 02-50: Ordering the Feasibility Study for the 2003 Pavement Management Program (PMP) 4. PUBLIC INQUlRIES/INFORMATIONAL 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:00 Those items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion under a Consent Calendar format. There will be no separate discussion of these items, unless a Council Member so requests, in which event, the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda. Public InquirieslInformational is an opportunity for citizens to bring to the Council's attention any items not currently on the agenda. In addressing the Council, please state your name and address for the record, and a brief summary of the specific item being addressed to the Council. To allow adequate time for each person wishing to address the Council, we ask that individuals limit their comments to three (3) minutes. Written documents may be distributed to the Council prior to the meeting, or as bench copies, to allow a more timely presentation. NONE Arden Hills City Council Agenda September 30, 2002 Page 2 6. COMMUNITY SERVICES A. PLANNING 1. Planning Case No. 02-20: Amend PUD: Aaron Parrish Nelson 2. Planning Case No. 02-24: Zoning Text Amendment: Trinity Lutheran Church 3. DRAFT Guidant AUAR 4. Resolution No. 02-49: Endorsing the 1- 35 Build-Out Study B. FINANCE Terry Post C. TCAAP - Update Aaron Parrish 7. OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE Tom Moore 8. ADMINISTRATION Joe Lynch A. Resolution No. 02-51: Approving the Phase I Services Agreement with Ramsey County for the Joint Maintenance Facility B. Appointment: Cynthia Young-Personnel DirectorlDeputy Clerk CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: A. Council Member Grant B. Council Member Larson C. Council Member Aplikowski D. Council Member Rem E. Mayor Probst TCAAP: Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant PMP: Pavement Management Plan PTRC: Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee MFTF: Maintenance Facility Task Force (Ramsey County/Arden Hills) PUD: Planned Unit Development . . . ~ ~HILLS MEETING MINUTES Draft CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2002, 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 1245 WEST HIGHWAY 96 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Dennis Probst called to order the regular City Council meeting at 7:02 p.m. Present: Mayor Dennis Probst, Council Members Beverly Aplikowski, David Grant, Gregg Larson, and Lois Rem. Absent: None. Also present: City Administrator, Joe Lynch; City Attorney, Jerry Filla; Director of Community Services, Aaron Parrish; City Planner, Peter Hellegers; City Accountant, Terry Post; Director of Operations and Maintenance, Thomas Moore; City Engineer, Greg Brown; and Recording Secretary, Kathleen Altman. 1. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA MOTION: Council Member Grant moved and Council Member Aplikowski seconded a motion to adopt the agenda for the September 9, 2002, regular City Council meeting. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. August 12,2002 Council Meeting B. August 19,2002 Council Work Session C. August 26, 2002 Council Meeting ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 2 . Council Member Grant requested no changes. Council Member Larson requested the following changes: August 12, 2002 Council Meeting Minutes, page 7, 5th paragraph should read: Ms. Thompson stated they had reevaluated these priorities, and felt that based on the needs and usage of Perry Park, it paFk should be addressed first. Council Member Aplikowski requested no changes. Council Member Rem requested no changes. Mayor Probst requested the following changes: August 19, 2002 Council Work Session, page 1, under 2A, second paragraph should read: Representative McCollum's assistant said the sum property, minus 276 acres, which is licensed to National Guard, left 774 acres of which 113 acres is Ramsey County Parks, leaving 661 acres for Title 10 for the full early transfer process. MOTION: Council Member Aplikowski moved and Council Member Rem seconded a motion to approve the August 12, 2002 Council Meeting Minutes and August 19, 2002 Council Work Session Minutes as amended, and August 26, 2002 Council Meeting Minutes as presented. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). . 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Claims and Payroll B. Generator/City Hall FINAL Council Member Rem requested the Miracle Recreation Equipment Co., Twenty 6' park benches for Parks & Trails be pulled from the Consent Calendar and moved to item A.5. MOTION: Council Member Larson moved and Council Member Grant seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar as amended and authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). . . . . ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 3 4. PUBLIC INQUlRIES/INFORMATIONAL None. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 6. COMMUNITY SERVICES A. PLANNING 1. Planning Case No. 02-228: Arden Tower Special Use Permit, 1777 Gateway Boulevard Mr. Parrish explained based on previous Council direction, staff had negotiated a settlement agreement to address outstanding building, zoning, and code enforcement issues on the Arden Towers property. He stated one of the primary components of the settlement agreement was an amendment to the existing Special Use Permit. He indicated the Planning Commission recommended approval of the revised Special Use Permit. Council Member Larson asked if they were willing to pay the building permits for the additional six antennas. Mr. Vaughan replied US West had already paid for the building permits for those six antennas. MOTION: Council Member Grant moved and Council Member Aplikowski seconded to approve Planning Case No. 02-228: Arden Tower Special Use Permit and Settlement Agreement, 1777 Gateway Boulevard as presented. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 2. Guidant Alternative Urban Area Wide Review Mr. Parrish explained in anticipation of the environmental review under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act, Guidant wanted to begin the environmental review process required. He explained as the Responsible Governmental Unit, the City must make the determination of what type of environmental review was most appropriate. ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 4 . Donna Alexander, representative of SRF, explained what AUAR and EIS were, and the differences, requirements and advantages between them. She indicated this project was on an expedited schedule. MOTION: Council Member Aplikowski moved and Council Member Grant seconded a motion to approve Resolution #02-42, a resolution to order an alternative urban area wide review (AUAR) for the Guidant Campus in the City of Arden Hills. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3. Chesapeake Master Plan POO Extension Mr. Parrish explained in March, 2001, the Council had approved a Master Plan Planned Unit Development for Chesapeake Companies. He stated since the eighteen months timeline for submitting a final plan would lapse in the near future, the applicant was requesting a twelve-month extension of the Master Plan PUD . approval. He noted A.T.S, Steel, Inc. and HPMK, LLC were opposed to any extension for reasons as noted in their attorney's letter dated September 4, 2002. Mr. Filla stated he had read the correspondence from A.T.S. Steel, Inc. and HPMK LLC's attorney. He indicated there were some recent Minnesota and National cases that dealt with matters such as this, and most of those cases involved cities entering into development agreements, which indicated the cities would exercise their power of eminent domain. In his judgment, the facts in this case did not rise to that level. He stated the Minnesota courts probably would not accept those arguments at this time, considering the facts it had before them. He stated the City at no time indicated it would exercise its eminent domain or interfere with A.T.S. Steel, Inc.'s property. In conclusion he stated the City had the authority to extend and if they chose to do that, the City Code gave them that power. Daniel Beeson, Attorney representing A.T.S. Steel, Inc. and HPMK, LLC, stated his clients were adamantly opposed to any extension of the 18-month deadline for the Chesapeake development proposal. He indicated his clients were opposed to this because there had been absolutely no attempt on behalf of Chesapeake over the past year to acquire the property. He stated his clients had . owned their property for 20 years, and had successfully operated their business from the building. He stated his clients had not opposed the Master Plan PUD or ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9,2002 5 . . the original18-month extension because they believed Chesapeake was intending to negotiate, and intended to acquire this property. He stated his clients believed 18 months was reasonable, but there had been no due diligence in proceeding on this or acquiring the property, and Chesapeake has had no communication with his clients for the past year. He stated his clients had listed the property for $300,000 below the market rate from two years ago. He noted nobody was interested in purchasing this property for market value as long as there was a cloud of redevelopment. He stated his clients wanted to be released from this cloud of redevelopment so they could market their property. In the alternative, he suggested they extend the Master Plan PUD approval for as minimal time as possible, and to require Chesapeake to negotiate with due diligence. However, he respectfully requested that the extension be denied. He noted their appraiser had indicated it was very unlikely that anyone who had an interest in this property was going to buy it and then move their business operation into it knowing that at anytime they could be forced out because of a possible redevelopment. He stated this significantly affected what interest there was in the marketplace. He asked the City hold Chesapeake to a standard of good faith and due diligence. He stated AT.S. Steel, Inc. had communicated directly with Mr. Carlson, but there had been no willingness on Chesapeake's part to engage in negotiations, and the previous Chesapeake offer had been withdrawn. . Peter Carlson, Chesapeake Companies and CUK Holdings, updated Council on what had happened since they had granted the PUD. He stated they were not able to start marketing the property until after the closing with Morris Communications on December 31, 2001. He indicated it took approximately one month after that to start the marketing of the property. He indicated they have had seven full months to market the property, and they had spent a substantial amount of money to market it and finalize different analysis from civil engineering, surveys, etc. He indicated they had been pleased with the response, but with the economics of the nation at this time, the market had gotten worse from when they first started this process. He stated they were right now talking with a national company and were hopeful these negotiations would work out. In response to AT.S. Steel, Inc. comments, he believed Chesapeake had attempted to negotiate with AT.S. Steel, Inc. on this. He stated they could not pay a premium however as this would ruin the viability of their project. He stated their first offer had been rejected. He indicated when he had met in August with Mr. Beeson and A.T.S. Steel, Inc. they had an asking price of 3.4 million. He indicated Chesapeake was trying to be reasonable, but could not afford $88.00 per square foot, so they turned ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 6 . that offer down. He indicated the next proposal was 2.6 million and Chesapeake pay '!. of the real estate taxes in 2002. He noted, this again, was approximately $66.00 per square foot and after touring the building, they had to turn that offer down also because they did not believe the property was worth that much. He stated they had told A.T.S. Steel, Inc. that they could not pay the $2.6 million, but they would not interfere if A.T.S. Steel, Inc. chose to market or lease the property. He stated he had learned a month ago that A.T.S. Steel, Inc. was marketing the property for 2.0 million. He stated once they found that out, they had been attempting to contact A.T.S. Steel, Inc. because this was a range they felt was more reasonable for this property. He stated they had never refused to meet or talk with A.T.S. Steel, Inc. or their attorney. He indicated he believed they could still work something out that would work for both parties. He stated their interest was to do the best thing for both A.T.S. Steel, Inc. and Chesapeake Properties. He stated he hoped to have this ready in 12 months, but there was a possibility he might need to come back to the Council in 12 months and request another extension. He indicated it took a lot of time to work out this type of a development with a large company. He indicated an extension of their PUD was separate from . their negotiations with A.T.S. Steel, Inc. Council Member Aplikowski indicated she was struggling with the request for the 12-month extension. Mayor Probst noted it was not the Council's job to negotiate a selling price between the buyer and seller and it appeared both the buyer and the seller were at least willing to sit down and negotiate the sale of this property. He indicated it was in the City's best interest to extend the time and urged the Council to approve this. Council Member Grant asked if they had the authority to extend this extension past the 12 months, if necessary. Mr. Filla replied the Council had this authority and noted this was not a City redevelopment project, and it was not a project the City had agreed to exercise its powers on and beyond that, the City had the authority to do what was in the City's best interest. MOTION: Council Member Grant moved and Council Member Larson seconded a motion to approve the twelve-month extension of the Chesapeake Master Plan Planned Unit Development. The motion carried (4-1) . (Council Member Aplikowski). . . . ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 7 4. Planning Case #02-18, Cub Foods/Oppidan; Master and Final Plan PUD, Lexington and Grey Fox Mr. Parrish explained that the applicant was requesting Master and Final Plan Planned Unit Development approval to construct a grocery store at the comer of Grey Fox Road and Lexington Avenue. He stated that in response to the Council's direction at their August 26, 2002 Council meeting, the applicant had submitted revised building elevations for the Council's consideration. Paul Tucci, Oppidan, Inc., clarified that on the south side, the sign was basically the same square footage as the original pharmacy sign. He also indicated where the architectural changes were made. Council Member Larson thanked the applicant for listening to the Council and coming forward with suggestions he thought was better architecturally. He noted, however, that he thought there was still a lot of signage on the front of the building. He indicated he had driven by five different grocery stores today and noted there were too many signs in this proposal. He stated the signs far exceeded any other grocery stores in the area. He noted the Rainbow Store in Shoreview had also done a good job with landscaping around their building. He suggested the additional space gained from not putting in the drive-through pharmacy be used for additional landscaping. Mr. Tucci noted where they could add additional landscaping to their design and stated they were willing to work with staff on the additional landscaping. Council Member Larson requested the three Cub signs be dropped from the building. He believed the two large signs on the front, and the monument sign was sufficient to identify this as a Cub Foods Store. Mr. Tucci noted one of the things that was unique to this building as opposed to the other Cubs was the liquor store, and that would need to have a separate entrance and separate signage for that. He stated they were willing to take signs offthe sides. Council Member Larson asked if it would be possible to move the liquor sign under the pharmacy sign. Craig Mephas, Super Value, stated Cub Liquor was a legal entity that Cub was marketing, and they did not want to market the pharmacy and the liquor store together. He stated the liquor store sign was very important. ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 8 . Mayor Probst also agreed that there were too many signs on the building and did not want this amount of signage to be set as precedence. He suggested some elevation of the landscaping, including tree caliper. He stated if it were possible to eliminate some of the signage and elevating the landscaping, his concerns would be addressed. Mr. Tucci indicated he believed they could work the landscaping issue and signage out with staff. Council Member Rem noted that the most important issue for her was the traffic impact. Council Member Grant asked why they removed the drive-through pharmacy. Mr. Mephas replied that after looking at this again, they decided having additional parking was more important than the drive-through pharmacy. MOTION: Council Member Larson moved and Council Member Grant seconded a motion to approve Planning Case #02-18, Cub Foods/Oppidan, . Master and Final Plan PUD, Lexington and Grey Fox with the following conditions beyond the staffs conditions noted in their September 6, 2002 report: 1. The signs on the north and south side of the building are removed, as well as removal of the Low Priced Leader sign. 2. The changes in the architecturally detail be incorporated and if there were any further changes, it is to come back to staff. 3. Landscaping be added on the north and south sides of the building to break-up and further soften the long walls that exist on each side. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). s. Accounts Payable, Miracle Recreation Equipmeut Co., Twenty 6' Park Benches for Parks & Trails . ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9,2002 9 . Mr. Moore explained where the benches would be located and that this was a part of the Comprehensive Park Plan approved by the Council previously. He indicated the Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee was recommending these benches. The Council requested in the future that the Council approve all funds requested from the Park Fund. MOTION: Council Member Grant moved and Council Member Aplikowski seconded a motion to authorize payment of accounts payable, Miracle Recreation Equipment Co., Twenty 6' Park Benches for Parks & Trails in the amount of $6,027.90. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). B. FINANCE 1. Resolution No. 02-42 Approve the 2002 Revised Budget . My. Post explained that the Council had approved several items this year that had not appeared in the adopted 2002 budget. He summarized the various changes with respect to overall revenues and expenditures. Council Member Rem requested this information on a "play by play" process as they were going through the year so they could keep track of what needed revisions. My. Post replied one of the reasons they tracked these changes was because they had to report to the State Auditor the 2002 budget and the revisions. He stated with her suggestion, they would need a Resolution with each item. Council Member Rem stated she was not looking for a Resolution, just a spreadsheet showing the revisions. Mr. Post noted in his ten years with the City, this was the first time the Council had adopted a revised budget. MOTION: Council Member Grant moved and Council Member Larson seconded a motion to approve Resolution No. 02-42 Approve the 2002 Revised Budget as presented. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). . 2. Resolution No. 02-43 Approve the 2003 Preliminary Levy ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9,2002 10 . Mr. Post explained at the August 26, 2002 Council Meeting, a 2003 levy supported budget was presented supported by a 2.94% levy increase. He indicated the baseline scenario resulted in an approximate break-even situation and several needs were unmet. He then presented the proposed 2003 General Fund budget changes from baseline. He recommended the Council approve the 2003 Preliminary Levy. MOTION: Council Member Grant moved and Council Member Larson seconded a motion to approve Resolution No. 02-43 2003 Preliminary Levy. Council Member Aplikowski indicated she did not understand why they did not start with a higher levy amount initially instead of revising the budget down the road. She stated she would like more time to talk about things that were being taken out. Council Member Rem stated she was concerned that they would end up doing a revised budget next year also. She indicated she wanted to see a more realistic . breakdown of where they are going to take money from to do the things they wanted to do rather than raise the levy. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Council Member Aplikowski left the meeting at 9:24 p.m. and returned at 9:28 p.m. 3. Resolution No. 02-44 Approve the 2003 Preliminary Budget MOTION: Council Member Grant Larson and Council Member Grant seconded a motion to approve Resolution No. 02-44 2003 Preliminary Budget. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 4. Resolution No. 02-45 Determining Dates for 2002 Truth and Taxation Public Hearing Mr. Post requested the Council set the dates for the 2002 Truth and Taxation Public Hearing. . . . . ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 11 MOTION: Council Member Aplikowski moved and Council Member Larson seconded a motion to set December 2, 2002 for the Public Hearing, December 9, 2002 for a continuation, if needed, and December 16, 2002 for the Adoption Hearing for the 2002 Truth and Taxation. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). C. TCAAP - Update Mr. Parrish stated DSU had begun Phase I work. He noted the regularly scheduled Development Team meeting was held August 20, 2002, which focused on the next steps and land transfer issues. He indicated staff was attempting to follow up with MNDOT to discuss potential interest in TCAAP. He stated on September 3, 2002, staff attended the TCAAP Restoration Advisory Board meeting for a discussion between the Army and the RAB regarding the clean up of Site C. He noted The McKnight Foundation had initiated an "Embrace Open Space" campaign and TCAAP was listed as one of the open spaces that required protection. He informed the Council that Bill Harper was no longer Representative McCollum's Chief of State and Michaela Toomey would be the primary staff contact. Mayor Probst requested staff expedite a meeting with Ramsey County Parks to discuss the transfer of additional land and how the transportation connection would be made. 7. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE A. INFORMATION: URS Analysis of Karth Lake Pumping Station Mr. Brown presented the URS Karth Lake Pumping Station Report. He stated from a visual survey it appeared that all permanent structures were about 10 to 15 feet above the current lake elevation and did not appear to be of any risk of flooding. He stated although no permanent structures appear to be endangered, there were numerous items such as private docks and landscaping submerged as well as numerous mature trees that have water one to three feet up their trunks. He presented a couple of alternatives and noted if Council elected to pursue either the temporary and/or permanent options to pumping Karth Lake it was recommended that the water be routed to the Wyncrest Court storm sewer system via Cummings Park. He stated it was recommended that a permanent pumping station include a submersible pump compatible with the pumps used in sanitary lift station #3. He ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9,2002 12 . stated it was also reconunended that any pumping option would not draw down the lake level lower than a surface elevation of 934.0. He indicated they still needed to contact the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Rice Creek Watershed for their reconunendations and approvals regarding this. Council Member Larson stated it seemed more reasonable to look at the temporary option compared to the cost of the permanent option and also taking into consideration how often they have had this problem in the past. He stated if Council was looking at a cost sharing with the residents, they needed to make that clear to the residents. He indicated he believed there should be a cost sharing with the residents. He stated they also needed to work out the details and get approval from the DNR and Rice Creek Watershed before they could approve either option. Mayor Probst suggested the capital cost and the temporary pumping be shared fifty percent with the City and the other fifty percent be assessed to the property owners based on front footage on the lake, and any operating cost be assessed through a special improvement district in which the residents on the lake would pay the ongoing operating cost so it would not be a burden on the City. He reconunended they prepare a proposal and have a public hearing as soon as possible. He noted the purpose of this would be to protect the public property as well as save as many trees and vegetation as possible. . Council Member Rem noted that Karth Lake was also unique in that it was the only landlocked lake in the City. Council Member Rem requested staff talk to the DNR and the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to scheduling a public hearing. MOTION: Council Member Larson moved and Council Member Grant seconded a motion to continue the meeting to 10:30 p.rn. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 8. ADMINISTRATION A. Introduce Planner Peter HelIegers . My. Lynch introduced the new City Planner Peter Hellegers. . . . ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 13 The Council welcomed Mr. Hellegers to the City. B. Recommendation: Operations & Maintenance Worker Aaron Andrews Mr. Lynch eXplained at the May 13, 2002 Council meeting, the Council authorized the City Administrator to begin the hiring process for replacement of one 0 & M employee, with a 60-day overlap period to train and to return to the City Council with a recommendation for hire. He stated at the conclusion of the final interview process and completion of a successful Criminal Background Check, Aaron Andrews was selected for the position. MOTION: Council Member Grant moved and Council Member Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve the hiring of Mr. Andrews to the position of 0 & M employee at a starting salary of $ 17.67 per hour, with a probationary start date of Monday, September 16, 2002. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). C. Election Day Mr. Lynch reminded the residents that tomorrow was Election Day and encouraged everyone to get out and vote. He noted that Precinct #4 was located in the City Hall. 10. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Council Member Grant updated Council on the Maintenance Facility Task Force. Council Member Larson commented about the trail underpass at Tony Schmidt Park and the upkeep of the park. He stated he would be gone from September 17 through October 6 and would miss the next Council meeting as well as the Park, Trails and Recreation meeting. Council Member Aplikowski had no comments. Council Member Rem asked if the City was doing anything to commemorate September I 1, 2002. Mr. Moore replied the flag would be flown at half-staff, staff would wear red, white, and blue for that day to show their support, there would be ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9,2002 14 a moment of silence at 7:26 a.m., and vehicles would be driven with their headlights on. Council Member Rem noted on Tuesday, September 24 from 7:00 - 9:00 p.m. the League of Women Voters would be making a presentation at Northwestern Family Services. Mayor Probst updated Council on various meetings being held in the next couple of weeks. RECESS Mayor Probst adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting at 10:29 p.m. Dennis Probst Mayor Joe Lynch City Administrator NOTICE OF MEETINGS The next Council Meeting will be held Monday, September 30, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. at the Arden Hills Council Chambers. . . . t . . e ~ ~HILLS MEETING MINUTES DRAFT CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2002, 4:45 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 1245 WEST HIGHWAY 96 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Probst called the meeting to order at 4:50 p.m. Present: Council Members Beverly Aplikowski, David Grant, Gregg Larson, and Lois Rem. Also present: Administrator, Joe Lynch; Director of Operations and Maintenance, Tom Moore; Director of Community Services, Aaron Parrish; Planner, Peter Hellegers; Engineer Greg Brown; and Deputy Clerk, Cynthia Young. 2.A Community Services - 1-35 Build-Out Study Mayor Probst introduced Bob Benke, 1-35W Corridor Coalition and Carol Swenson, University of Minnesota Design Center for American Urban Landscape. Mr. Benke reviewed and discussed the conception and goals of the 1-35W Corridor Coalition as it relates to Arden Hills and the entire seven-city area. Ms. Swenson introduced the 2000-2020 Subregional Growth Study which includes the cities of Blaine, Circle Pines, Mounds View, Arden Hills, New Brighton, Shoreview and Roseville. She explained the Coalition Operating Structure, and discussed growth patterns and how to balance development as found in the study. Planning Commissioner Brad Lemberg asked where the data was found, and how it was developed. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 2002 ~ 2 . Mr. Benke said the data came from analysis of nationwide traffic models and said the results were not saying everyone will want to live in a mixed community, but the mixed use center concept offers more choices for the work force. Mayor Probst mentioned this was a very high level analysis. He said there may be a high percentage of people in the workforce who may want to stay within the coalition boundaries. Planning Commissioner Clayton Zimmerman said every city wants to development a fiscally productive city center. He said cities could provide incentives for people to work in the city they live. Council Member Rem asked what kind of jobs and the number of jobs that might be available within the coalition boundary area. She said higher paying jobs may not be found within the city. She said more choices for shopping and other services seemed feasible, but Arden Hills currently has a population that is traveling out of the city to work at higher-end jobs. Mr. Benke said that was certainly a policy question which the City Council must address. He suggested high-end jobs, and dual working households may provide more balance. . Mayor Probst said Arden Hills had a model in Guidant which provides many jobs at higher earning levels. He suggested the policy makers think globally, and attract businesses where the CEO's might live within five miles of their corporation. Mr. Benke suggested the City consider several scenarios for growth, such as senior housing and younger family homes, which are a good customer base for local businesses. Mayor Probst reminded the panel that the coalition area population was aging, and that issue had huge implications to the City and other communities as a whole. He applauded the wealth of data available to help make the decisions with special issues, noting Arden Hills is noticeably in the center of the coalition area. Commissioner Lemberg said, being one of the aging population group, he'd suggest the City consider approving development of townhouses in more desirable . I e . e ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 2002 3 areas of the City, rather than approve that kind of development as buffers in areas which may not be as pleasing. Council Member Larson stated he had not been a supporter of the Highway 10/1- 694 area as the solution to the traffic problems, and suggested the City follow the City of Mounds View lead to make it more of a boulevard, rather than a shortcut. Mr. Benke encouraged participation at the Coalition Summit for an opportunity to share thoughts with neighborhood communities. Council Member Aplikowski asked if funding for this issue was going to stem from Cities. Mr. Benke answered that if the Coalition could not manage the outcomes, they would need to scale back on the solutions. 2.B Design Center Final Community Dialogue Presentation -POSTPONED 2.C TCAAP Master Planning Advisory Panel Director of Community Services Parrish presented an overview of the TCAAP Master Planning Advisory Panel. Mr. John Shardlow said the Advisory Panel does not supercede the Planning Commission, and they were planning on conducting seven meetings. He suggested the Council, as it approached the appointments, think about it as an opportunity to grow in community leadership, and stress the vital educational factor. He noted the process was designed to support the City Council's ideas. Administrator Lynch stated two groups which could be included in the choices for panel participants were representatives from Northwestern College and Bethel College. He also suggested a representative from the public safety agencies may be appointed, as well. The Council Members suggested appointing representatives from the Arden Hills small business owner community, Audubon Society, Guidant (not an Arden Hills resident) Chamber of Commerce, and Commissioner Bennett. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 2002 , 4 . 3.A Operations and Maintenance - Maintenance Facility Task Force Presentation Director Moore said the Maintenance Facility Task Force (MFTF) had met several times during the past 6 months, with Council Member Grant as the Council Liaison, Clayton Zimmerman is the Chairman. He noted their task was to look at the facility and come up with some recommendations to City Council. Commissioner Zimmerman thanked the City Council for the opportunity to chair the task force. He noted there had been good representation and good input with some additional dialogue toward the integration of a stand alone facility with a joint facility. He explained that the committee was successful in reducing the size of the facility to 25,000 square feet of space, which also reduced the cost from 3.6 million to 1.9 million without incurring any site improvements. He stated a concern was whether the City Council wanted the Arden Hills space to be separate from the rest of the facility. He asked what was expected of the task force at this time. Council Member Aplikowski asked if staff had any concerns regarding the reduced space. . Mayor Probst thanked the Task Force members for their effort, and said he hoped the task force would be willing to do some periodic review of the design and help the City Council with any other review issues. Director Moore reviewed the phased timeline for the project, stating the National Guard has moved all its equipment and Ramsey County had laid down a road into the facility site. Mayor Probst suggested the City elevate the Arden Hills presence to the County Board regarding the Maintenance Facility Task Force by having a staff member and a City Council member attend the meetings. Council Member Larson said it was important to maintain enough flexibility to accommodate a future consideration. Administrator Lynch said Ramsey County will not proceed until they knew the building and site plan were approved by the City. . I . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 2002 5 3.B Maintenance Facility - Agreement with Ramsey County Mayor Probst Mayor said he saw the previous discussion item as a segway to this discussion item. It was agreed that Administrator Lynch bring a revised draft agreement to the City Council at its September 30, 2002 meeting. 3.e 2003 PMP Update Engineer Brown explained that at the second neighborhood meeting, the intent was to revisit previous comments. He noted that after the meetings, at the next City Council meeting he would recommend the Council authorize the feasibility report, and proceed to the more formal design and development of the project. 3.D Karth Lake Update Director Moore said staff was directed to get URS on the job, and Engineer Brown had pursued the site elevations. Engineer Brown said the [DNR] permit cost would be four hundred dollars and would take 45-60 days to process. He said he would request they [the DNR] move things along in that regard, if possible, due to the circumstances. He noted that the Watershed District had no issues with this process. Mayor Probst said the City needed to get back to neighborhood residents within the next ten days regarding the issue. He requested a cost estimate for the project be presented at the September 30th, 2002 Council Meeting. The City Council directed staff to notify just those residents whose property is directly affected. Engineer Brown said there would be long-term and permanent solution by utilizing a small submergible pump that would be invisible, if installed for this project, at an operating cost ofless than twenty dollars a year, per resident. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 2002 \ 6 . ADMINISTRATION REPORT: Administrator Lynch said the landscape architect would redo the city hall landscape plan. He explained, regarding the interior roof problems, he would be meeting with Rochon. He said, regarding TCAAP, he had received a call from Representative McCollum, who requested a meeting on September 23, 2002, with GSA, DNR, and the Department of the Army, to discuss the excess land issues. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: A. Council Member Grant: Council Member Grant said the Maintenance Facility Task Force did a good job. He asked if the City actually planted alfalfa on the City Hall site. Administrator Lynch said that is one of the reasons the landscaping issue at City Hall would be revisited. B. Council Member Larson - NONE C. Council Member Aplikowski: Council Member Aplikowski called . attention to the Metropolitan Council 2030 Blueprint changing the timeline for Comprehensive Plans, stating this action puts a real "crunch" on cities. She said another concern was the change of the focus of the MUSA line, and the idea that cities must proactively address affordable housing. D. Council Member Rem: Council Member Rem asked that the TCAAP Advisory Panel appointment procedure be posted on the City website. E. Mayor Probst: Mayor Probst complimented staff regarding the repair of a water main break. He said he was concerned that the recent Nelson Planned Unit Development had been addressed three times. He stated he would be meeting with Administrator Lynch and The National Guard regarding TCAAP, to further build that partnership. e . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 2002 7 Mayor Probst adjourned the Work Session at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cynthia Young - Deputy Clerk Mayor Dennis Probst Administrator Joe Lynch f . . . ~ ~ EN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: September 26, 2002 Agenda Item 3.A TO: Mayor Dennis Probst Council Member Beverly Aplikowski Council Member David Grant Council Member Gregg Larson Council Member Lois Rem Terry Post, City Accountant ~ I ~ Claims and Payroll FROM: SUBJECT: Attached: Claims Payroll for period 8/24/02-9/6/02 and 9/7/02-9/20-02, and Supplemental Payroll . . . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CLAIMS REPORT TO BE APPROVED AT 09/30/02 COUNCIL MEETING PAGEIOF3 CLAIMS PAID SINCE LAST COUNCIL MEETING 109/091021 cit#'.lcitJiAt~. ~6i.li;'t .tp~lm!ltt~>.' 21775 09/09/02 lakes Country Service Coonerative 5,713,86 October Insurance 21776 09/09/02 Stanton Groun 277,26 MedicallDavcare Reimbursement 9/06 21777 09/09/02 Affinitv Plus Federal Credit Union 4,898,87 FiTst Sentember Pavrol1 21778 09109/02 leMA Retirement Trust - 457 2,316,82 First Scntember Pavroll 21779 09109/02 Xcel Enerpv 1,750.3S Citv Hall Service 21780 09/10/02 EDAM 105,00 Develbnment Workshoh.:OP, LR, PH 21781 09/10/02 Donald Salverda & Assoc. 1,644,86 Effective ~ WorkshQ;:AP, TM 21782 09/10/02 Dennis Probst 154.53 TCAAP T;;;;::Washin~ DC .Hotel Reimb 21783 09/12/02 MNAPA 100.00 2002 MNAP A Conference-PH 21784 09/12/02 Cvnthia Yaung 113.45 Mil~e/Exnense Reimbursement 21785 09/12102 Davanni's 80,74 Council Worksession 7/15/02 21786 09/13/02 PettY Cash 263,69 Peftv Cash RPnlenishmcnt 21787 09/13/02 MN DNR 100,00 Permit Annlication Fee.Water Drainao-e(J(llrth Lake 21788 09118/02 Julie Bateman 26,79 ~ense Reimbursement 21789 09/18102 lYIN Mutual Ufe 244,00 October life Insurance 21790 09/18/02 Health Partners 753,95 Dental Insurance-October 21791 09/18/02 Xcel EnCtgy 1,039,04 Street Liuhtinu 21792 09/18/02 MN Fall Maintenance Exoo 180.00 2002 Fall Maint Ex1Vl Reoistration (9) O&M 21793 09/24/02 AffInitv Plus Federal Credit Union 4,898.87 Second SPntember Pavroll 21794 09/24/02 leMA Retirement Trust - 457 2,319.60 Second SPntember Pavrnll 21795 09/24/02 Post, Terrance 123.74 MGFOA Conference-Ex....ense Reimbursement 21796 09/24/02 Purchase Power 988.75 Postaoe- Meter 21797 09/24/02 Stanton Group 166.67 Davcare Reimbu:rsement 9/20/02 Subtotal - Paid Claims 28,260,87 Paid Claims From Above - 28,260.87 Add Unpaid Claims, Page 3 of 3 - 161.040,66 Total Accounts Payable Claims for Council Approval, 09130/02- 189,301.53 Note: Checks for unpaid c1alms totaling $32,441.49 were mailed on September 10, 2002 after approval at the September 9, 2002 Council Meeting. They were check mnnbers 2]732 -21774. This sequence corresponds to unpaid temporary numbers Tal - '1'43. Check numbers 21730 - 21731 were used for alignment. ..t>lyI..oow'..p.,.obIo'<I....., CITY OF ARDEN HILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CLAIMS REPORT TO BE APPROVED AT 09/30/02 COUNCIL MEETING PAGE20FJ . UNPAID CLAIMS REGISTER, : <Ai\WUl'ff ~:~ >>>,11 ,'" 1'1 09/30/02 Accurate Press, Inc. 138.45 Business Cards-Po Hcllcger T2 09130/02 Andrews, Aaron 118,44 2002 Uniform Allowance Purchase T3 09/30102 Aramark Uniform Service 80,91 Rue Service.CH.9/09.9/24 14 09/30/02 Arcltitectural Alliance 132,25 Professional Services 7 /27 ~8/23/02-CH T5 09130/02 Arden Hills Tire & Service 537,50 Brakes/Tires-V#13lToro Tires T6 09/30/02 Art for You 239,63 CH-ConnilUnitv Room-Art T7 09/30/02 Berres, Sandra 57.79 MileagelExnense Reimbursement T8 09/30102 BFI ofMN, Inc. 244.54 Waste Removal-Sentember T9 09/30/02 Biff, Inc. 42658 Portable Toilets-Parks T10 09130102 Connelly Industrial Electronics 597.47 Lift#2-R-P.nair TIl 09130/02 Corporate Express 261.05 Office Surmlies/Conv Paner Tl2 09130/02 Dahlgren Shardlow & Uban, Inc. 1,553.27 TCAAP-Professional Services 7/27/02 1'13 09130/02 Dehmer, Sandra 32.00 Refund-BasebalVSoccer Tl4 09130102 B-2 Recyclin~, Inc. 4,855,00 SP.i1tember Service T15 09/30102 Ehlers & Assoc, Inc. 1,225,00 TIF ProtectlTCAAP Professional Services T16 09/30/02 Elder Jones 103,87 Refund-#B02~80l8-Building Permit T17 09/30/02 Fast Signs 1,240,73 Lop"o SiPn~CC Chambers Tl8 09/30102 FlexiblePipe Tool Company 1,773.44 Hose/Root Cutter-Jetter # I 03 T19 09/30102 Frattallone's Hardware, Inc. 53,35 September Purchases T20 09130102 Frevberger, Scott 69,98 2002 Uniform Purchase T21 09130102 Glenwood Ini:dewood 51.76 Sorin2Water-CHlO&M-AuPl1st T22 09130/02 Governmental Business Systems 51.55 Ribbons-Vote Tabulator-Elections T23 09130/02 Grainger, Inc. 14.76 Maintenance Supplies-Lift #2 T24 09130/02 Green Mill 28,06 EE Recognition Committee-Lunch T25 09130/02 LO,S. Capital 314,81 CoPier-Excess Prints-8/24/02 T26 09/30/02 leI Dulux Paint Centers 79.72 White Field Markin9 Paint T27 09/30102 LU.O.E. Local 49 240.00 Se.ntember PaYroll Deductions T28 09/30102 Kath Auto Parts 12.77 Taro Tire RP.tmlr T29 09130102 Kim, Yuniung 116,00 Refund-Piano Plavhouse TJO 09130102 Labor Relations Associates, Inc. 11,785,00 LRAComm~~tionSmdv TJl 09130/02 Lake Country Chapter 175,00 Nov 2002 Seminar-D. Scherbel TJ2 09/30102 League ofMN Cities 6,385,00 Annual Membershin Dues TJ3 09/30/02 Leavens, Lvnne 121.00 Refund-Piano Plavhouse T34 09130/02 Mcnards 39,96 Fluorescent Bulbs-Citv Hall . Total- Unpaid Claims --- 33,156.64 I .....l'i"'''''''''p'yablei,...,..] . . . . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CLAIMS REPORT TO BE APPROVED AT 09/30/02 COUNCIL MEETING PAGE 3 OF3 UNPAID CLAIMS REGISTER, ..ftMi>:# Ij,kCl>Atl;.i...' .ii.i\(()(iIi:1d COMiVItiftF.'.'" T35 09/30/02 Met Council Environmental Services 49.113.9Q October Sewer CharlIe T36 09/30/02 Metro Communications 110.00 Phone Moves-Citv Hall T37 09/30/02 Midwest Asphalt Corporation 25,00 Road Renair Materials T38 09/30/02 Mike's Tree Service 57.51 Tree Removal-Guidant T39 09/30/02 "MN Safety Council 260.00 2003M~bcrshinFee T4(J 09/30/02 MTI Distrib1itin~ Co. 289,61 TOTO PartslBlades T41 09/30/02 NCPERS Grouo Life 60,00 PERA life.October T42 09/30/02 North Metro Inspections, Inc. 4,764,4(J AUlmst Electrical In.-mections T43 09/30/02 Northern Traffic Sunt>lv, Inc. 223.65 161S"mSim< T44 09/30/02 Nosek, Milrv 120.00 S~teniber Ne"",'sletter T45 09/30/02 Office Depot 12,74 Office Supplies T46 09/30/02 Olson, Michelle 39.42 Mileage Reimbirrsement T47 09/30/02 Peterson, Fram & BenmmD, P A 6,535,71 Au~st Legal Fees T48 09/30/02 Pitney Bowes 556.74 Postage Meter Rent/Rate Increase Software T49 09/30/02 Post, Terrance 36,87 Mileage Reimbursement T50 09/30/02 Ramsev County 59,614.32 Sept Law Enforccmen:tlMisc Purchases T51 09/30/02 Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc 1,348,76 Local SWM Plan 02102 T52 09/30/02 Sorint pes 127,34 Cellular Phone Service T53 09130/02 Stanton GrOUD 100.00 FSA Administration Fees-Aug T54 09130/02 State of :MN-Deot of Admin 1,503,00 Centrex Phone Service T55 09/30102 State Treasurer 105,00 2002 Fall SIde: Code Seminlii-ScherbeVNordeen T56 09/30102 Tar~et Stores 40,]2 Refreshments-Election Training Class T57 09/30/02 Tessman Seed ComDanv 1,665,05 Ferti.lizer Mix T58 09/30/02 Timesaver Off Site Secretarial 691.50 Rec Sec.CC 8/26 & 9109/PC 9/04 T59 09/30/02 United Retitals 97,13 Field Markin!? Paint T60 09/30/02 West Weld 341.95 Shoo Suonlies T61 09130/02 Zee Medical Service 4430 First Aid SupDlies Subtotal, Page 3 of 3 - 127.884.02 Pa2e 2 of 3 BTOU1!ht Forward - 33.156,64 Total Utmaid Claims 161 040.66 ""-ly.'_p.y..bki,Io....1 . ~ ~ :J i ! ~ ff a' 0 ., ~ ~ " . ~ "- i!- . N' . ~ 5' 0 "' ~ . ~ ~ "- ,; -< ~ S oJ .., ~ , 1 ~ ~ OJ .. C' i , ~. 0 z ~ 0' '[ t .. 6' , " . tJ . '" . '" . ~ 1 ~ :{ g, ~ 3 e- " ~ , ~ " :!l z " ~ &2 ~ if OJ ..; 0 .g 0 ~ E. 80 0 OJ ~ ::; :;:: .. fl ~ ~ G "# >- ~ N ~ 00 ~ w N ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ N W 0 ~ ~ '-' .. '-' '" N ~ ~ 00 ~ 0 :~::: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ is ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ :Z::::O g,' N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ~ ~ 8i ~ ~ ~ '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :z; -!'!O:' ~ ~ W N 0 ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ W N 0 ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ w 'k<':. ~-.-- g; ;\l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w w ~ w ~ W N N N N N N N N N N N :.:.:::~ 00 :; 0 0 0 0 ~ 8 8 8 8 0 8 :; :; :; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "'\; :$::. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 B ~ B i8 B 0 0 S p:" w ~ 0 0 0 B s 0 0 0 0 0 0 S ~ 'i ~: 0 N ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ W N ~ ~ ~ w 0 ~ ..... (') "' i;1 ~ :i1 "' g:: .., ~ " g:: ~ f:' :;:: ~ "' " '" '" " z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ? ~ ~ ~ g . g . 0 . 0 ~ . N . 3. ir "' 0 g .. ,~ 0 0 P- i':' ~ r ~ " 3- Jl " . 0 0 ~ ~ tl p- o Jl- 0 3- '" J~ ? ;r 0 ~ p I!! 5 ~ ;;' ;: ~ ~ ~ :;:: 1\1 ;l z ,; ~ ~ ~ il ~ '" . "- N tJ .. 8- 0 il ~ )- g 0 ~ ~ ." 0' 3 ~ :;:: '" ~ '" " 1>: tJ N e f'i" . 0 0- 0 .., a . ~ < " s i5 . ~ :;:: g ,. '" 3 . . ~ g- o: 0 0 g g: ~ g 0 C' s, '" . ,,- . " ..... . "- ,.. ~ ~ ~ . 0' . . ~ z 0 "- 0- .. . i "- .:Q' ;;; "00", <:> ~:: - - N N - - - N - N - - N :<0 N ~ ~ ~ b 00 '" ~ '" ~ g ~ V. 'N ~ ~ '" ~ v. ~ ~ '-' N '" '" '.~'. 0 ~ ~ w :;; ~ B N W ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ::; W N ;!3 ~ ~ tl 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ w 00 w ~ 00 w 0 ~ N '" f N C U. U. 00 i:: $ c i:: '-' '" '" '" u. '" N .. " .. c c U. N 8 0 '" ~ 0 ~ '" 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 '" '" 00 0 0 0 00 ~.' - - - 'i :00:' w b ~ ~ '~ ~ b N <: ~ ;!3 u; w ~ b N ~ 00 00 ~ w i:J. .V(: ~ ~ w ~ ~ w :;; ~ ~ 1: 00 ;": ~ N ~ !'; ~ w :; ~ ~-. ~ '" 00 w ~ N ~ ~ w '" w 0 0 0 ~ ~ '" '-' .. 00 .. N C 00 ~ :;; ~ u. ~ :;; " 00 2: 0 '-' '" 00 '-' .. '" 0 N '~.'- w ~ ~ N ~ 00 ~ ~ w w ~ ~ '" 00 N ~ 00 N p,;" N ~ 00 00 00 N ~ 00 N 00 00 00 00 ~ 00 N N N N 00 N 00 00 N ~".' w ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ N 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ '" 0 ~ N 0 C C :;;: C C C C C :;;: :;;: c c 8 c ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B <: 9' " ?' N ~ 0 N 8 c :;;: u. 0 c ~ 0 0 0 0 .. .., ~ ~ w ..; N ~ 00 'i ~ N Z ~ w ~ )- b "" ~ ~ 00 g '" 0 ~ I w . 0 '-' '" is ~ ~ g " ~ ~ ~ ~ g: ~ " ~ ~ '" g; g: .., ~ 0 ~ 0 g: <: ~ .., .., ..; ;: i'l ~ '" l" . ;; ..; 0 (j "- " ~ 0 (') 0 g a: '" ~ 0 !:l ;;j '" W N ~' 0 , '" if g: if :~ , ~ , " ;f ~ '" ~ :l " ;;' ~ '" ~ ,,- ~ ~ 0 )0; '" ~ '" g: , ~ g: '" ;;' ,,- ~..'. ~ .., ~ z ..; if ~ 0 >-:.:. (') .., E. 1:"!":: ~ Q' .., i !l' :;f:: . 0 " .r . . 0 ~ 0: = ~" if "' ::;j ~ 0 tJ :r.l->> 0: 6 . g g. " ~ " 0 .-.;:: 0, 0 g @ w W N :;; 00 0 ,~,.. '" 00 V. N ~ ~ N 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ w :0;>> '" '" c '" 0 -~:-: ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ,,:' a: 1:. .., if c >- '" Ell ...:r:. ~. ~ s;: 5 0 If a OJ ~. ~ 0 ~ '!... >1 r'l c 0 ~ g::" '" g " ~ r" tJ " e.: ii> if ~ . ~'.. " ~ ., . .. 1f " i!- 0 0 0 =- (') <I 80 ;:; tt ~ N 00 Ilt :; N W 00 ~ N 0 ~ 0 00 00 c u. C t;; C 00 ~:': 0 0 0 0 ~ ..;e-: ,00 0;:;,.-: ~" ~ !W:. 0 0 0 0 0 t:;i.:. C C C N C C ~:-: 0 0 0 N 0 0 r-= ~ . :tl" R .., '" 'If' ~ s;: ~,'. ,~, .. 'i<:" !i' :":'!..:- .~:.: - ilf 00 '" w S '~'. 0 ;:.:-:. u. '" ~:': ~ N ~'. N yj:: ~ " ~'. 00 '" 00' ~ N i;;i.:. N N ~:-: ~ 00 n !':i:::: n :>: ~:; >- m a: n ~.:.: " '" S ~ o' II> ~-:.: ~ C ~ m C e ~ ~ OJ N c; I ~ w '^ '" ~ '" ~ N W N 'lji,' j;! !-; 2l ~:- "0 ;;; j;;i: N .. -.D':': ~ ~ ~ lo'4':, ~ ~ 0 -!:! 0\':. N W . ~.: '-' .. C ~.:: ~ ~ 0 ~" ;;l ;;l .." ~ >- >- >- tJ if .., IF ~ ;0 C m Z ::I: r= r- (fl . -." "'- -. ;0 :Ii (fl :g -I !!:(fl ::'m e"ll ",-I i;lm ~3: ell! "'m g;o c;"ll r5~ "!'!;o o r- r- . . . . 5" a, ~ <ol 2-. 8' 2. ~ e!- .: ~ ~.: e; ~ . . '." - ~ . ~ ~ &; !!<!!l !i"!!... Cl i ~ ~ [ :; 0 S' ~. Z &l ..., ~_', . ~ 0 ! ~ . ~ -g " ~ la. ~ ~ ~ ,; 1l 3. g. ':l ~ .'i g, o.j ~ It - . . I ~:::1Z~ (jn~~ ~>~l:Tj ~5>~~ &. ~ s:: 0' ~~*~ ~;~ ~ ~ ~~ N 0 f'l .... ~:::1 a- t;~Q~ '$. ,....- '" ~ ....., c..>:" N QO 00:" V.W 0 V.N~':." ...... a-,-.l.".v. 00.... !'-" 0 -.) v..... VO.....: N~~'f~~P:... , . ~ a " . .Q::l ~ ~ :~ ;;' ""'8" a';::j : ~~: . " .~ ','~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ o ._ ._ ._ ''''' N N tv N N N N N N N IV N N S~~~~~~~~8~~~~~:~~ :~: ~ ~ s :~: ~ N 8 ,~ :b () a 0 "'7j ~ I:l:;j E;::""tl ,'" ~ !i- .. 'l H' g, 8 9 .~:gogcr-~~ ~o ','..,'~ 0- ~ !!.1!.""_? ..,',,5. .::"- ".,:- ()~,'~ tJ ~ ;;l?;: ::.::. ~ [ g. ~ ~. ~ s ~ .:.:.:.:~ ~ I:::: () 0.. ::0:" ~ ',."", -" LSl 0 !lc ... t:ll~ ~ . z o " ~+:.+:.~I.,.o.)t..:> 88gg~g gwf38:E~ ww 00 00 00 ...'" ~~:S~~~~~~~~~~~r3 ggggoo~S@S8so00 Ul..f:;>.t...o.lNO'IV'l-Vt_Wt00\o-lVl >cn"':S::Ul:A:l;S::1;l:l =o..~~og.go'$.. ~ i3 0 I"i. Q. ~- ~ - t:l t:l ;;:r> - . VI . lZ>- ," '" "" . Y' ~......~ '.;< d ~ 6- >-g.So~Q.~~ tjU.[g: 1;; t:l P'1Il g. !!. . !!. :t.;;;i: .. ~;:Li~~8~~id~ :QO-E~t::~~b::~8~~ .~ v. 00 'D 0 0..... 0 'D '0 \0 \0 N tv N N 00 ~ ~ ~ tc"'::r:~'" a g ~ 0 el or", g :I, ~ ralO ~ ~~ = .,,~ ~ g ~eo= ~ ~. oo~o.. "w ~ ~" ~ :c..~\o ~ ~ ~ ~ - b-. j,. V. u, j,. "t.> ~t ~~88~i:N o...o...a..o...i-;.~i.u ......OOOOO\lV ... ... ~~~~~t}s 00 00 0 ::g v: !V .... ~~8;S!:5=~ ~ :~:::;::5~N(j-of~t;: :~~?"~EoE:~_~ :'~o\~~.fo,o\o ,~ ~ IS ;e ;e tS :j ~ ;:.i ~ ~ H' 0.. n ~ ~ tn g ~, .g. en Q lZ> ~ :J. g. ~~~Et = ~ u ~ ~ p.. ."e;:tJ e . . " ~. !!. 0.. . "''''ooooggN........~N~~~~....'''''''N'''N ~~~~ 8 g ~~ 88~8 8 g 8 ~ g ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i; ~ H ~ '" . ~"" n .., Q z >-l ~.. if " 0 ~ 0 E- o' ;? t":': ~ ...., '" ~'. Q~ g.~ pc iF.- ~- ~ _0:- >-l r.': to ". 0 r.': 0 " ~": il ~ g, Q, ;;0 w 0 ~"" n 0, 0 g ~, w ... .'^ ~ " ~ :!l c, ;. 'C> .. '" ~ w '" 0' ~ '" '" ~ '" ?;i: 0- w '" ':l ::; ~" ~ " ~ ~t~ u,~:c:.. '" ~ ~ U,Vl.l;o w~~c~,-ooooobw NOOOCU,.f:>. ~""".fo,~......u,oo ..,. u, -...l .0 .0""" .0"'" -.) V'I 0\ 00 ~$~~V.i:3~f~;-Jt:i~~f-.J . o " . ~ g g: i i g: g 00 g; I ~ ~ ~ . o :i" Q. ~ 6 ~ ~ :E " ~, !i . " .. "" .., 5' 8 " ~.. [I':: ~ ~ ell ~~ '" 0 ~ ~ .:;' :<:- ~ ~ Q' '" ~ ~ O! i ~ t:: ~ " '" ;r 1':'\"" ~ ~.. " ~ 8 2, .. 0 .EO 0 @ g: " e, ~. ~ ;:; '" = ~ w " ~ m, " ~ " " ~ :Oii" b <> b ~ b '" ~, " " " 00 " ~ "c;" " " " " " " '0" b b " 8 8 8 ? " " " u ~ o ;;; ;: g g: ~ q ~ ~ ~ ~ g: < . ffl:?1 '"Q & 3: ;;J Ii"," " 1:1. I "~:. ~ 1:; "", '" ".Iio"" ~ W W 0"" w ill ~": w ~-: ~ 'Zii- ~ "0 = ~ ~ ..' ~ '" t.i-: N ;; ~, ~ ~ 00 ~ c=- " Zl Zl Zl ';;' " " " ~.. " ~ l ~.. 4 .. 0 ~ 6' ~ () g ~ 0 1;" 0 . ~ "ar. ~ 1:' .~.' 1:' ~ . 15' ~.' ~ 0 t" ~ :0; 00 m' " ~ =" ~ ~ " ~: ':l <> " '" " w -0-: " " " :0:" b " b :?.: " " " ~ u g ~ u " " ~ 8 8 " ..., "" ..... ;: 3- g: g: g: I 8 8 ~ ?> t i g: Q ~ z.:.:"r:f' f2: ~){:)if: 10"';' :~ ~~ ;a - C ~= "0; tl~ ii'i "" a ~ ~ " ~ " m " Q i'i ~ ~ g: ~ ~ ~ ... III ~ h" VI . . . . '", .'~" ~: "p,1".. ~ ~ ~ ~ .. "0"'- =; ~, .~.'. 0 0 >-l " " S 3: 0 !;;I":" . . ~. l ~ e, ~. " ~:": g, '" g 0, ~" f ~ w ~. '^ 'C> '^ C, ~' '^ s s "u."" ,., ~t ~: ;; '-' '-' .. .,... ~ w ~ ~. :~". t '"', ,",' ~:" '" ... '" ~ I:l' ~' ... " " " :~:: ;; '-' b b ::l ~ " " o ~ o ." > ;tJ c m z :I: ;= ... I/> -I/> tlIm i"o :go ""z :Zo 01/> ~m 0"'lJ ::!.... :;lm -:!: o III Om ~;u e"'lJ ~~ ;tJ o ... ... Cl :I: m Cl ;>; III o :!< m o o ... ;:; g '" -=0 ;i; .. '" .9 i. i -- , ~ z 1~IFl " ~ OJ tf "- ~ '~ ~ ~ a ,*, s ~ ,,,. . ~ m f 0 ~ ~ g ~ R ~ II .~. ... ~ ~ ~ ~ i ; , , 0 ~ ., '2' [ 8' . ';;, g. ~' 0 ~ .. ~ . ~ ., " . , ~ { . g ~, ~ ~ I l ~ ",- :w: N I :,J:.:. 0 ... ~ r 'Z:;;i- '" ~ :.ilIi<: 0 'W N ~. 0 0\ :a g ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ J!1' ("] ("] ~ (j :>- :>- " ;' ~ l!" is: 0 f;3 " :)4 g, ~ '" g, ~ ....,... & ~ :m ~ s: OJ ~ @ '" .~ ~ it :>- @ ~ S f-> " 0 ~ :.. ... '" ~ oR 0 w ... ... 00 00 --> 0 '" 0 '" '" '" '" '" '" w --> <:> 0 <:> 6 ~. . . . . 1';" ":;!;t.:. ICln~ ~ '" "', :.: : () ("] ::i ::i ,,",, :>- :>- 'IS' '" ~iS: 0 ~- .;;. ~ ~ 0 &. ;j' '!:i' ~ ,,,, ',', ~ ~, :!Zi: @ <::t' "1'\' ';;0 - '0 "~ 1>' ;;(, ~. w '':1 "' --> <:> <:> <:> :~: '" '" '" '" :0:' w --> <:> <:> h: -, ,~, .:ta:. '" :~: w 2' om. .~. --> <:> <:> <:> :g,: .;::,:- '" '" '" '" :~: w --> 0 <:> '"' " ~ Z ;' ~ 'Sl f ~ , , g, ,~, ("] ~ " . ,;;' " ~ OJ " .~. " ~ '" .iJ ~ ~, { g, 0. '" OJ '"' ro ,g, ~ 'i '" = 0 ~ :~-: ro g- g> g n 8 ", 0 :~: a -!:A' ... ... ... 'ii, ~ 00 N ~ 00 w '" "' '" ;e. Co '" :;; "" is :~: w <:> ... :H ";I' 'D .", N --> .~,.':~ :~.: N :>:0 ';i' ~ O'=fc- .e-l;;l:I?- .~: Ill;::-: "' ft 1 ih (1)' -.:, N ~ ~ 15~ ~t~ r;;;i= .~ .... "", ,0 .~ z i o ::i o "T1 )> ;0 c m z J: ;= .... en . en .~ c: 'tI :~: 'tI ... 0 .... oo 00 '" m 'u.' '" .'((? .~,. '" ;;: <:> ,:;;: m z );! .... ,~ en m :~: ... :~ 'tI '" N -l ,", "' -4i' - m . :~ ~ ;;;, ;;: !II 't:l. m N ;0 'D c., :~: 'tI <:> ~ I- Q, ;0 :Zg :jjl' 0 f,:;- g .... ~ .... " 10 11 " :-\(1. " ..; 0 '6' " :H \' ; " '^ " C> N 0 ::I: m 0 i:j ~ m c 0 <0 " !!!! 0 '" " ., '!l <0 i!J . . ~ ~ EN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: September 26, 2002 TO: Joe Lynch, Administrator FROM: Cynthia Young, Personnel Director/Deputy Clerk SUBJECT: 2002 General Election Judges ATTACHMENT: Resolution No. 02-47 Agenda Item 3.B . BACKGROUND: . Staff is pleased to provide the Mayor and Council with the following recommendation to approve a resolution appointing those fine Arden Hills residents who will serve as Election Judges for the upcoming 2002 General Election, November 5, 2002. One student, Andrew Leiben (16), has agreed to serve as a "student election judge" at Precinct 3, Valentine Hills Elementary School. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution No. 02-47, A Resolution approving the 2002 General Election Judges. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA . RESOLUTION NO. 02-47 RESOLUTION APPOINTING 2002 GENERAL ELECTION JUDGES WHEREAS, the City of Arden Hills is dependent upon and appreciative of citizen assistance for its election process and, WHEREAS, the Arden Hills 2002 General Election Judge appointments consist of individuals recommended by the Deputy Clerk with the approval of the majority of the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED that the Mayor and the City Council do hereby approve the following appointments for 2002 General Election Judges: Lois Anderson, Elwood Caldwell, William Canine, Ileane Cook, Mary DePrey, Eric Enrooth, Betty Erickson, Larry Erickson, Vicki Glasgow, Carolynn Granquist, Kenneth Granquist, Jackie Gritz, Faith Gudding, Jane Hagedorn, Marilyn Hathaway, Andy Holewa, Julianne Hovind, Clara Janisch, Rita Johnson, Joan Jones, Catherine Kelley, Sharon Klumpp, Julie Krenn, Raymond Kreps, Evelyn Lawyer, Lucia Miklas, Jan Nelson, James Otto, Kayton A Palmer, Marilyn Palmer, Elizabeth Stenglein, Pam Sweeney, Judith Tekautz, Frances Thelen, .. Margaret Thor, Dorothy Zehm, and Andrew Leiben. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS 30th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2002. DENNIS PROBST, MAYOR ATTEST: JOE LYNCH, CITY ADMINISTRATOR . " . . . ~ ---A~HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: AGENDA ITEM 3.e September 25, 2002 TO: Joe Lynch, City Administrator FROM: Terrance R. Post, City Accountan~WI6"\ SUBJECT: Amendment to 2002 Fee Schedule Background At the City Council meeting of December 17, 2001, the Arden Hills City Council adopted the 2002 fee schedule (Resolution No. 01-28) and recodification of the City Code of Ordinances (Ordinance No. 335). Chapter 2.5 SectiQn 5 of the previous code specified specific user fees for false alarm situations (Ordinance No. 240 adopted 7/14/86). However, the Code of Ordinances adopted by Ordinance No. 335 Chapter 620.05 subdivision 5 refers to non-specific user fees "established from time to time by Council resolution. Issue False alarm fees were not identified on the 2002 fee schedule adopted by the City Council by Resolution No. 01-28. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 02-48, "A Resolution Amending the Fee Schedule for 2002", at the regular meeting of September 30, 2002. The only change to the previously adopted 2002 Fee Schedule is the inclusion of fee category XI, "False Alarm Fees". . . . ~ ~HlLLS CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 02-48 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR 2002 WHEREAS, the City of Arden Hills Code of Ordinances provides that fees be established from time to time by Resolution adopted by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Council has expressed a desire to review the fee schedule on a regular basis; and WHEREAS, the Council previously approved Resolution #01-28, establishing the 2002 fee schedule on the same date the recodification of city ordinances was approved in Ordinance No.335; and WHEREAS, staff has completed a formal review of all fees charged by the City, and would recommend that the attached fee schedule be in effect for the balance of year 2002; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills that the attached fee schedule be adopted: (See Attachment) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that these fees shall become effective September 30, 2002. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS 30th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2002. ATTEST: DENNIS PROBST, MAYOR JOSEPH P. LYNCH, CITY ADMINISTRATOR ~ ~~HILLS CITY OF ARDEN HILLS 2002 FEE SCHEDULE (includes sales tax where appropriate) (As amended September 30, 2002) 1. ADMINISTRATIVE Administrative Animal Handlin Dis osal: 1m oundment: Residential Do Kennel License Meetin Documents Minutes A endas Re ular Cit Council Meetin Regular Planning Commission Meetin Re lar Cit Council Meetin Regular Planning Commission Meetin Re ular City Council Meetin Regular Planning Commission Meetin er sheet/staff labor/ osta e as a A enda Packets Cost based on . $22.00 22.00 5.00 12.00 12.00 2.00 22.00 20.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 10.00 . $64.00 51.00 12.00 6.00 VARIES VARIES Miscellaneous Administrative Fees Counter and/or Per Side (any size) $ 0.25 Special Document Photocopy Requests Assessment Search Per half hour 20.00 Res. #02-52, Adopted 09/30/02 - Page 2 . . . II. BUILDING CONSTRUCTION Building Permits Fees are based upon Table IA ofthe 1997 U.B.C. and are determined by the City's Building Official. Plan Review Fee 65% of Building Permit Fee Re-Inspection $20.00 STATE SURCHARGE .0005 x construction value Mobile Home $50.00 Location Permit Demolition Includes: Wrecking, 50.00 relocating and moving buildings (for all types of buildings, including mobile home relocation) Swimming Pool 50.00 STATE SURCHARGE 0.50 . Fence Construction Base Fee $15.00 Plus Per 100 Feet 6.00 STATE SURCHARGE 0.50 Blacktop or Base Fee $18.00 Concrete Sidewalks, Parking Lots, Driveways Plus Per 100 Feet 6.00 STATE SURCHARGE 0.50 . Plumbinl! Minimum Fee $35.00 . Residential First Fixture 15.00 Each Additional Fixture 7.50 . Commercial, 1.25% of Total Bid Industrial, plus $50.00 Institutional STATE SURCHARGE **0.50 **Surcharge computation is based on the permit fee. Surcharge equals 0.0005 of each permit fee, or $.50, whichever is creater. Res. #02-52, Adopted 09130102 - Page 3 III. . *$22.00 0.50 Heating or Minimum Fee $35.00 Mechanical Permit . Residential 2% of total bid . Commercial, 1.25% of Total Bid Industrial, plus $50.00 Institutional STATE SURCHARGE **0.50 Surcharge computation is based on the permit fee. Surcharge equals .0005 of each permit fee, or $.50, whichever is greater. Fire Protection Fees are based upon Table IA Permit of the 1997 U.B.C. and are determined by the City's Building Official. Plan Review Fee 65% of Fire Permit Fee Re- Inspection $20.00 STATE SURCHARGE .50 Surcharge computation is based on the permit fee. Surcharge equals .0005 of each permit fee, or $.50, whichever is greater. . LIOUOR/ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES (Fees Paid AnnualM Liquor (Annual - No ro-ratine) On-Sale 1,999 square feet (SF) or less $3,300.00 2,000 - 2,999 SF 4,400.00 3,000 - 3,999 SF 5,500.00 4,000 SF or more 6,600.00 Sundav On-Sale 200.00 Off Sale 200.00 Club Fee 300.00 Investigation Fee 150.00 Malt Beverages On-Sale 120.00 Off-Sale 40.00 Wine On-Sale *2,000 (*or half of On-Sale License Fee - whichever is less) Strong Beer *No Charge (*as part of On-Sale Wine License) . Res. #02-52, Adopted 09/30/02 - Page 4 . . . IV. MAPS AND ORDINANCES Ordinances Zoning $27.00 Sign 11.00 Subdivision 11.00 Code of Ordinance 107.00 Comprehensive Plan 60.00 MailS Zoning (11 x 17) - BIW 1.00 Zoning (11 x 17) - COLOR 4.00 Streets 2.00 Copies of As-Builts 5.00 V. PARKS AND RECREATION FEE SCHEDULE Ball Field Rental** Per Dav $30.00+ Ice Rink Rental** Per Dav 30.00+ Warming House Per Day 30.00+ Rental** Picnic Shelters Includes two (2) picnic tables 30.00+ and one (1) trash container per day *Plus a Refundable $100.00 Dama e Deposit Additional Picnic Tables Each 25.00 Additional Trash Containers Each 5.00 Community Annual 20.00 Garden Plots **Only allowed during non-public use hours. +Non-Resident Fees are $70.00 Per Hour or Day as applicable. VI. PLANNING AND ZONING Preliminary Plat *25.00/10t + consulting fees *$250.00 and escrow Final Plat *Included in Preliminary Plat N/A + consulting fees Lot Split/Minor * + consulting fees *175.00 Subdivision Rezoning/Comprehen * + consulting fees *250.00 sive Plan Amendment Variance * + consulting fees *125.00 Special Use Permit * + consulting fees *200.00 (SUP)/Amended SUP Planned Unit * + consulting fees and escrow *300.00 Development (PUD) Res_ #02-52, Adopted 09/30/02 - Page 5 Vacation of Easement * + consulting fees and escrow *125.00 Apportionment of * + consulting fees *30.00 Assessments Zoning Ordinance *+ consulting fees and escrow *250.00 Amendment VII. UTILITY HOOK-UP CHARGES Water Permit Water Service Installation $35.00 Interior Plumbing (New 5.00 Home) Interior Plumbing (Existing 10..00 Home) Temporary Water Shut 30.00 Off/Turn On Permanent Water Disconnect 200.00 Fee Curb Box and Service Lead: 150.00 . 1" Service connection on unsurfaced street Restoration of typical road 60.00 mix street Restoration of higher-type *Set by Engineer street Larger than 1" Service *Set by Engineer Connection Plan Check Fee *Set bv Inspector Re- Inspection 10.00 STATE SURCHARGE 0.50 Water Meter/Soacer Charl'es Customer Fee includes removal of meter, $100.00 Requested Water bench test at maintenance Meter Accuracy facility, and returning meter to Test residence** ** Fee will not be applied if the meter is found to be inaccurate to a degree exceeding three percent (3%) from the result ofthe bench test. Res, #02-52, Adopted 09/30/02 - Page 6 . . . . . . Water Meter/Spacer Charges . Radio Read Water Meter/Spacer Charges Meter Size* Total Denosit/Installed 3/4" x 7-1/2" Meter $325.00 3/4" x 9" Meter 350.00 I" Meter 390.00 1-1/2" Meter 630.00 2" Meter 790.00 *Iflarger than 2", call the Director of ()Perations and Maintenance for Price Quote. Sewer Permit New Connections $35.00 Alterations/Repairs 35.00 (Minimum Fee) Plan Check Fee *Set by Inspector Inspections *Set by Inspector Re- Inspection *YARIES *(Consult City Building Official) S.A. C. *YARIES *(Included in Building Permit Fee) STATE SURCHARGE 0.50 Storm Utility Prohibited Sump Pump $100.00 Connection Surcharge per month VIII. MISCELLANEOUS/RETAIL ACTIVITIES Boutique/Garage Application/notification of N/A Sale City Hall required Casual Roadside Application/notification of N/A Stands City Hall required Tent Permit $50.00 Sidewalk Sales 50.00 Amusement Includes: Arcade, dance hall, 100.00 Facilities movie theater, pool/billiard tables, bowling alleys, indoor tennis, skating facility, outdoor tennis, driving ranges, etc. (Refer Code) Bulk Fuel Storage Wholesale - Liability 200.00 Insurance Required Res. #02-52, Adopted 09/30/02 - Page 7 Charitable Investigation Fee 100.00 Gambling Premises Permit Grocery Per 1,000 Square Feet (SF) or 20.00 fraction thcreof Hotel/Motel Per Room 6.00 Courtesy Bench Non-Advertising per bench 25.00 With Advertising per bench 75.00 Massage Per Facility 3,000.00 Parlor/Sauna Personal Service License 100.00 Mechanical and/or Includes: Amusement devices, Refer Code Electronic musical devices, amusement Recreation Device rides, bowling alleys, etc. I Device 50.00 2 - 4 Devices 100.00 5 - 10 Devices 275.00 11 - 15 Devices 605.00 16 and over 900.00 Retail Sales Includes: Antique shops, 50.00 beauty/barber shops, boat dealers, Christmas tree sales, dry cleaning, laundry, bakery, candy, meats, wholesale foods, caterers, motor vehicle sales, optometrist, mortuary, video sales/rentals, over-the-counter cigarette sales, vending machines (excluding cigarettes), and the selling of retail goods or services not listed Retail Cigarette 200.00 Sales Restaurants - Cafes, Per 1,000 Square Feet (SF) or 20.00 Coffee Houses, etc. fraction thereof Restaurants - 300.00 Drive-thru Service Stations Liabi1itv Insurance Required 100.00 Res. #02-52, Adopted 09/30/02 - Page 8 . . . . IX. SIGNS Initial FeefPer Sign $50.00 STATE SURCHARGE 0.50 (per permit) Annual Renewal 100 Square Feet* (SF) or less 20.00 Fee/Per Sign *Maximum allowable size Temporary 50.00 STATE SURCHARGE .50 Impoundment First Offense N/C - Warning Second Offense 20.00 Third Offense 40.00 X. MISCELLANEOUS FEESfPERMITS Annual Rubbish $100.00 Hauler Contractor' License 30.00 . XI. FALSE ALARM FEES False Alarm First Three Alarms N/C - Letter Four through Fifteen Alarms 50.00 per Alarm Over Fifteen Alarms 150.00 per Alarm . Res. #02-52, Adopted 09/30/02 . Page 9 . . . URS AGENDA ITEM 3.0 MEMORANDUM Thresher Square 700 Third Street South Minneapolis, MN 55415 Phone. (612) 370-0700 Fax: (612) 370.13783 To: Tom Moore/Arden Hills File: Jim Perron/Arden Hills Nick Landwer/URS 37951 023 Joe Lynch/Arden Hills Copy: From: Greg Brown, PE fA &' J~)!1 Arden Hills City En~jeer/ l.. \ Date: September 26, 2002 Subject: 2003 Pavement Management Program Background These two neighborhoods were selected by the City Engineer for improvements based upon a comprehensive survey ofthe City's pavement and drainage infrastructure condition. The City has conducted five neighborhood informational meetings over the past three months regarding the proposed 2003 Pavement Management Program (PMP) for the Karth Lake East and the Ingerson neighborhoods. The informational meetings generated a significant amount of interest and comments/suggestions from residents regarding the proposed improvements. The proposed 2003 PMP also includes sealcoating of the the neighborhoods bound by Snelling Avenue, Hamline A venue, Highway 96 and TH 10. Sealcoating work is not proposed to be assessed and residents of the sealcoating neighborhoods have not been directly informed of the project to date. Recommendation The City Engineer recommends that the Council approve Resolution 02- authorizing the preparation of a feasibility report for the 2003 Pavement Management Program including the Ingerson and Karth Lake East neighborhoods as well as sealcoating. The following is the proposed project schedule based upon Council authorization September 30, 2002. Authorize Feasibility Report Receive Feasibility Report Public Hearing Contract Document Preparation Assessment Hearing Bid Opening Begin Construction September 30, 2002 October 28, 2002 November 12,2002 December - February, 2003 February, 2003 Aprii, 2003 May, 2003 C:\Documents and Settings\CynthiaY\LocaI Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\OLK3\CouncilMemo9~30-02 (Feasibility Authorization)l.doc City of Arden Hills Ramsey County, Minnesota . Resolution 02-50 A Resolution Ordering Report on the Improvement of The Ingerson Neighborhood Streets and The Karth Lake East Neighborhood Streets WHEREAS, it is proposed to improve the Streets in the Ingerson neighborhood and the Karth Lake East neighborhood, and to assess the benefited property for a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA: . That the proposed improvement be referred to City Engineer, Greg Brown/URS for study and that he is instructed to report to the Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. ADOPTED by the Council this 30th day of September, 2002. Dennis Probst, MAYOR ATTEST: . Joseph Lynch, Administrator . . . - ~ EN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: Agenda Item 6.A.1 September 26, 2002 TO: Mayor and City Council Joe Lynch, City Administrator FROM: Aaron Parrish - Community Services Director SUBJECT: Planning Case #02-20, Aaron Nelson, Master and Final Plan PUD Amendment, County Road D and Cleveland Avenue ENCLOSURES: 1. September 25, 2002 Letter from Applicant 2. Revised Landscape and Site Plan 3. Planning Commission Meeting Minute Excerpt 4. American Linden and American Arborvitae Fact Sheets 5. August 27,2002 Memo to Planning Commission Reauest The applicant is requesting an amendment to a previously approved Master and Final Planned Unit Development to construct an office building at the corner of County Road D and Cleveland Avenue. ' Deadline for Aaencv Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on August 6, 2002. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statue, the City must act on this request by October 5th, 2002 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60 day review period. The City may with the petitioners consent extend the review period beyond the 120 days. Options 1. 2. Recommend approval as submitted. (4/5's Vote Required) Recommend approval with conditions. (4/5's Vote Required) - Page 2 September 25,2002 Planning Case #02-20 . 3. Recommend denial. If the City denies the petitioners request, "...it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request". 4. Table for additional information. Plannina Commission Recommendation In Planning Case #02-20, the Planning Commission recommends that the proposed Master and Final Plan Planned Unit Development amendments be approved with the following conditions: 1. On-street parking not be allowed and be removed from plan. 2. The Developer work with City staff regarding the requirements of the neighborhood business district to come to a development resolution that takes into consideration the neighborhood business district requirements understanding this is a PUD, but that they pay special attention to the buffer zone specifically on the north and the east side of the property, and they try to meet the full intent of the buffer zone. . To address the second condition, the applicant has submitted a revised landscape and site plan. As the applicant's letter indicates, the building on the revised site plan has been moved approximately 4.5 feet to the south. The landscape plan has been modified in the following manner: 1. On the northern border of the property, six linden trees have replaced six river birch trees. Both are deciduous trees that do not retain their leafage through the winter months. 2. Two additional linden trees have been added on the northern portion of the site where sod had previously existed. Based on discussion at the Planning Commission meeting, it is staff's interpretation that the revised landscape plan does not meet the requirements outlined in the second condition. From staff's perspective, this condition would be more appropriately met by placing a screen wall of Arborvitae on the entire northern border of the property and a portion of the eastern border. If the PUD amendment were to be approved, this is the screening preference of the neighbors to the north. However, it should be noted that the neighbors proximate to the site are generally not in favor of the PUD amendment. Fact sheets for both Linden and Arborvitae have been included for your reference. . LAURENCE M. NELSON 1909 - 2000 STEPHEN L. NELSON & ASSOCIATES ATIORNEYS AT LAW 665 NORD I SNELLING AVENUE SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55104-1893 (651) 646-5000 Fax (651) 642.2619 LEGAL ASSISTANT . STEPHEN L NELSON SHARON E. LYNCH September 25, 2002 Mr. Aaron Parrish, City Planner c/o Arden Hills City Hall 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112-5794 Re: Applicant: Aaron S. Nelson Property Address: 3130 North Cleveland Avenue Application for Master PUD and Site Plan Review Dear Aaron: . Enclosed herewith please find the following documents: I. A reduced revised site plan; and 2. A reduced Landscape Plan. The changes to the site plan include moving the building approximately 4' 6" to the south so we are at the minimum from the south line. The homes to the north are all buffered by a fair amount of distance from their homes and most of them have garages that are adjacent to the common boundary. The only additional office spaee which has increased on the north side is one office on the second floor and with the narrowing of the building and the placement of the stairwell, there actually is an overall reduction of office area on the north side of the building. . The north boundary was the biggest concern raised at the planning commission meeting. I just received the landscape plan so I have only briefly glanced at it while it was being reduced. The two trees from the island have been moved to the north side. There are some spacing issues with respect to the trees on the north side and some biodiversity considerations which may suggest some changes to the type of the trees along the north boundary. The landscape architect chose American Lynden trees instead of swamp white oak which I had requested. The reason was that they are more dense crown but they also lose their leaves. The swamp white oak will retain their leaves some winters which would give some additional buffer during the winter. The additional trees are shown very close and I personally would like to space them out a little more so as they mature they have room to fill out the full crown. I probably would also like to substitute a clump of river birch trees near the trees to be placed closest to the culvert on the west side and maybe alternate types of trees. Since I was not given a chance to review this plan before filing some of my ideas were not incorporated. -............- '- Mr. Aaron Parrish September 25, 2002 Page 2 . Two other items. The fence along the north boundary is not shown on this plan. For some unknown reason the fence did not print. The fence will be the same as previously proposed on the last plan ai1d will run from the west end of the arborvitae to the west end of the lot. The second item is that along the north boundary of the parking lot there will be planted perennial plants such as hostas or some other type of low maintenance plants. The more I have investigated trees the more I have learned about need to diversifY the trees. It is recornmendedthat the same trees notl3e used adjacent to each other so that you will not lose all of the trees in the event of a disease. A couple of passing thoughts. The area on the north is difficult due to the need to allow water drainage for all homes in the neighborhood, not just our development. The type of trees proposed can withstand high concentrations of water and extremely moist soils. The trees are all deciduous because the area on the north will have very moist soils and there will be a need to have some snow storage in this area. Very few coniferous trees can stand extremely moist soils. Also, the placement of snow up against coniferous trees will harm and damage the lower branches. All three of the homes have garages tat back up to the north common boundary line. Mr. McGuire's . second detached garage is at least 30+' long and blocks most of his property from our land. The other two homes also have fairly large garages and/or breeze ways. I believe that the Mr. McGuire purchased his house after the preliminary PUD had been approved. The preliminary PUD contained only a 10' setback between on the north adjacent to the parking lot. Thus, if Mr. McGuire had investigated he would have known what was proposed before he purchased the property. We feel that this is an excellent project which will be very compatible with the neighborhood. Upon completion of the project, it will be a tremendous improvement to the comer and will hopefully bring in some new businesses that will benefit and serve 0 mmunity. SLN/sln cc: Burce Caulfield SLN\Blair\NewBldg\ParAar02.ltr . e ~~ ~~ "0 U) ~ m "U ~ (') C) (,;..a Z ~ ::a o )>0 ., Cl :J: o~& ~c ~~ ~ ~"l f J .8 ~ i ~ ~ i ~ 'H . ~! h~ ~~ ~m" ~ , ,.', . H I!! ~ ~;..t ~ fd~ !;!tl", ~ ~ ri ~~ n~ "" 'i! , :'~ ~~ .; c ~ ii 1 P s <" ~ ~~ W [!:,,, it ~ m m ! ' ~ ~:{=l ~ ~ . . I,@ ~ tI.... ..... ......~ ~ ",!Il'q: -..H"I ~~": ; -, 0 ~ (/) :::0 0 m m -n " C1 }> .,., ;0 m 0 ~ < m '" z m J: = = c ;= '" r (j) . ----".~'_... - . ' , , "__H,:,".-.--:e ...-..... ' '.'H.e..- CLEVELAND AVENUE . ","'.J\" P I 1 _ 1/ -", 'I-- ~ - - -- - --~ V ffJ ~~~., 8 ~ nl >I ~L ~ (1:- / ~ , " -.IS? ~ ~ ~'~ \\ r' '( :J j =rll~ 1I. ~~ ~ . r ~19 , ~i--( , i';" p. ~ ' III i\~~ 1),4 ,::: .J.~ -I "R" r ,.;. ,/' ., , --f- lU 'i' ~'.~ ---!--- - ~ ;~ \ I" /" ~ ihr:::", ~i 1'\ ~ .......,./ 'III '\ -~ /--. : k/ J , --i" " ~ i i\ --: : J R ,:/ : . "." I gJ I ell'> Qj;j I "D r"" ~ .~ y ~ I j i r , ,-[ " , '" , , , , , , \ -R (^,~^r-t'X J~I3J \ /1 _~ Wyl\ '-Jj, ^. - , , 146067' ~ , " u ~ ~ i ! ~ ~~ ~ p ,~ II I ~ Up' I ~ tD m ~ ~1: ~ ~ ! ~ ~ c: ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ z n ~ ~ en ~ - n ~ ; Ii~P (") . ~ ~ ~ . - ~ ~ I :J: m ! ~ , ' .. t R ~ ~r- ~ ~ i> i m - ,(") S ~ ~ ~ m - ~ I " . . . ~ p z !i ~ > ~ ~ 5 .h ~ I c: "', n I ~I II - ~ C;; m ~ ~ S ffi i ~ L, " r- C .. . ~~ ~s: ~z o (f) o :>- " m " s: z n o c z ,~ :Ill o )0 a a (i ~ -< V> :::c 0 rn 'T1 -0 m 5i "'" (") 0 on m m <: z ,..., :I: c::> m ;= c::> 0 e- N (j) __ .:e;~ H~-I gl' , I iii : ! I , , I It : i I , di ~, , I , I I , , I I I U I , , I , , I I , h , I I I --~ ~ __________J. . CLEVELAND AVENUE ,jo....-----1H.. ~,,~",==,.,.,=, o l~._'J=J V -~---- .F-"---=---- I ((r="=~~--7;=-- 1 ~'j~ I ;r--" _n~ I. ~(ITI W ! ~-lil.~-:=-'l . I' , i'" 1-) \ I~ I .m : :;! IiI I ,.. -- ! ~ . -I'''. !i ..1 i : 1..-- \ ,: 1"--' __ ~--~__~l. I'L=c~~=: - . ~_.~:-"::) , I I ! ~r' , q,=\jJ~__ Ip i _~ It' , ",D:"'~-:-~ ~'~~~l' I] ,. - IJ: -- I, ' ,I", ",' '-;' - . ., :_- - - ,~ ,. r - - - - - \ I,: I!'\ ',P Pii;J; --,,:;; I ~==nJ o~- I I~ :",", - - ", ~~~ " I I " \"-,,, hi I [,// // ) l;de /,,: I .;" ',"::I:'~ /' ; i ","",'! ' . - -..L ,:,;"j.. / I ,: -'I---,~~~~~~ : ~ i '. ' ~--- " ,~~. I -. I __ _ --L- ~ " . -- - _J.8':C' '... l , -~ c__ - ,. '\ . . b I~ '" !l .~ II ~. !!la <;; ~ ~ z Z m ~ 0 o ~ I"~ ~ ~ ~ ~ } . ~ ~~ . ~ n pi ~ I ' z ~ ~ ~nH m F J:>... ~ " ~ ~ ! r- ;!1 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ " . ~ m ~ ~ "- ~ I nil ~ I ....I. 9 0 f n ~ ~ ~ 1i , ~ ~ 0 ' - ~. q ~ ~ id ~ ~ ~ . . . m m 0 ~ g , ~ p ~ i ~ q m !! I ~ . ~ ' :: ~ ~ ~ .p ~ E , " '" ,,~#---L ~',(1': ~ \, , I i I ! WI! l ~ , . .; ~. ii I~ ~::::::::::::::~-:- , I ) ) -.--------. __..102'.0" --,.----- ",,,..,",,,,, , '" or - :~:'<_'S~:~~~~~' S~~ ~:X(<~s::~\t~~;'~~' ... ' , """.",;",,~ ~ ~')O~,>,~~~<;..icW8 ~, 't\,"5\",""i~,~.. '?'~~-'"- "'~~, >:x:.<:".:.,;,:<->:.~~ ~~ " -~~~:~:..::",<:...''-;";;; ',', . . . . . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 4,2002 2 Patricia Johnson, 2986 Meldew Drive, Roseville responded they would be charging for the music lessons to both members and non-members of the church. Chair Sand requested for future reference they may want to look at what uses were permitted for a house of worship. Commissioner Ricke asked if it was possible there would be requests for drama lessons, etc. for other buildings. Mr. Parrish replied that was why they limited it to music lessons and did not open this up to general issues. He stated it was a balancing act to decide what was an accessory use and what was not. Commissioner Ricke moved, seconded by Commissioner Lemberg, to approve Planning Case #02-24, Trinity Lutheran Church, 1700 Highway 96, Zoning Ordinance Amendment. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). PUBLIC HEARING - PLANNING CASE #02-20 - AARON S. NELSON, 3475 SIEMS COURT, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. Staff reviewed their report dated August 27, 2002. Staff recommended approval of the proposed Master and Final Planned Unit Development amendment with conditions as outlined in their report. Steve Nelson, speaking on behalf of his son, Aaron Nelson, stated with respect to the building materials, the architect felt that stucco would be more residential in nature where brick would not be. He indicated a lot of the changes were as a result of prospective tenant requests. He stated they wanted to make this more flexible for tenants. With respect to on-street parking, he understood the concerns noted and suggested putting two parking spaces to the east of the building. He stated there would be sufficient room to put two on-street parking sites there. With respect to coniferous trees, he stated they had looked at that initially, but because of the high water, it was recommended they not use those types of trees. In addition, if they had a fence there, there would be less screening at the top. He noted a large pine tree would also almost be in the parking lot. He stated they would not assume any problems with drainage issues if this were done. Commissioner Zimmerman asked what was the rationale for wanting on-street parking. Mr. Nelson replied they did not know the exact needs ofthe tenants and they had checked with the property across the street to see if they could lease excess parking spaces from them. He stated that business did not have an issue with leasing their parking lot. However, when he contacted the City of New Brighton the City had concerns about leasing of the parking lot and recommended against it. He the only option they had at this time was additional on-street parking. Chair Sand asked if the overall height of the building would be less. Mr. Nelson replied it would go down two feet. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 4, 2002 3 Chair Sand asked for the overall height of the building. Mr. Parrish replied it was 29 feet . and the building height limitation was 35 feet. Cathy Smithknecht asked if the decks would be used and how big would they be. l\1r. Nelson replied they could be used the tenants and they were 12 feet by 12 feet. He indicated this design was by far the most attractive design they had seen. Paul W. Muilenberg, Manager of Corporate Affairs, Croix Oil Company, 1749 South Greeley Street, P.O. Box 15, Stillwater, MN 55082, by letter dated Augnst 30, 2002 stated Croix Oil Company owned the Spur-branded gasoline station/convenience store located at 3110 Cleveland Avenue, across the street from the proposed development. He expressed support of this project, and believed that an office building would be an excellent addition to that intersection and encouraged support of the development project. Mark McGuire, 2030 Glen Paul Avenue, stated the following neighbors were opposed to this proposal: Ruth McGuire, 2030 Glen Paul Avenue; Monte and Bonnie Arhard, 2014 Glen Paul Avenue; Don and Melanie Ristow, 2033 County Road D; and Kim Luger, 2026 Glen Paul Avenue. He stated the neighbors did not want the proposed building to be oversized. He stated the adjacent houses were one story ramblers. He stated they wanted proper screening. He noted if the building was going to be bigger, there needs to be more screening provided. He stated there would be very little screening to the north. He indicated they wanted the new building to blend in with the surrounding homes and to make sure there was proper landscape screening for adjacent neighbors. He stated the proposed river birch trees provided very little screening in the winter, they were slow . growing, and they were not recommended by a landscape design engineer or the Minnesota horticultural society. He stated pyramidal arborvitae would provide screening and thrive in moist or wet fertile soil. He indicated on-street parking would create traffic problems. He noted there was no room for on-street parking unless the City cut down trees that screened the business across the street. He noted they wanted the trash moved over to the other side to prevent odors to the adjacent neighbors. He asked why decks and balconies were necessary on an office building, and expressed concern that the tenants would be able to look into their yards and properties, which would impose upon their right to privacy. He stated applicant had not contacted any of the neighbors for their input. He indicated the neighbors felt they had not been told the whole story by the applicant with respect to the fence location and trees not being able to grow along the north property lines. He expressed concern about pollution on the site and encouraged the Planning Commission to request the applicant enroll in the VPIC program. He expressed concern about snow removal on the site. He stated the neighbors would not be taken advantage of by businesses or anyone else trying to exploit the new neighborhood business district zoning ordinances. He noted they were concerned about their property values and proper screening as adjacent and close proximity neighbors. He stated the neighbors were in support of some type of a development on that property, but they wanted the City to follow the Zoning Ordinances. Commissioner Lemberg asked what was the minimum setback on the south side of the property. Mr. Parrish replied it was 20 feet. . Commissioner Lemberg asked if the trash could be moved to the south side. Mr. Parrish replied that was a possibility. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 4, 2002 4 . Kim Luger, 2026 Glen Paul Avenue, strongly opposed this because of the buffer zone going from 30 feet to 15 feet. She stated the building was proposed to be shorter, but it was going to be wider, which would move it closer to her property line. She stated she needed more landscaping along her property line. She expressed concern about the decks and balconies on the building and asked why they were needed. She stated she agreed with all ofthe concerns Mr. McGuire noted. Mrs. Osborn, 2020 Glen Paul Avenue, also stated she was strongly opposed to this because the lot was too small for such a large building proposal. She expressed concern about parking issues. She stated when the gas station was there, they had drainage problems, but since the gas station had been removed, they no longer had drainage problems. She stated an office building on this site would cause drainage problems again. She stated the site would be suitable for a single-family home. . Don Ristow, 2033 County Road D, believed there has been manipulation going on over time. He expressed concern about privacy issues. He expressed concern about the size of the building. He stated before they moved into their home, they had contacted the City and were informed that in order for a commercial property to be built on that site, it would be necessary for a 100 foot buffer. He noted this development would not have a 100- foot buffer. He stated the building would be taller than the landscaping and it would be years, if ever, before the trees would buffer the building from the neighborhood. He expressed concern about what the storage area would be used for. He asked what would the ramp be used for. He expressed concern about the security lighting by the ramp and that his dog would set off that lighting each time it was let outside. He expressed concern about his property values decreasing with an oversized office building next to his home. He expressed concern about drainage and traffic issues. He stated the proposal showed a significant sloping of the land and asked where would the water drain to. With respect to traffic, he stated there were a lot of neighborhood children in the area and the safety issues with increased traffic. He stated an 8-foot fence would not only be ugly, a straight line wind would knock it down. He expressed concern about the decks/balconies and the tenants looking down into his back yard. He indicated he would not object to an one- story office building, but this proposal was oversized for the lot. He stated he believed most of the neighbors would prefer to see this lot not be developed. He requested the blueprints, drawings, drainage plans, etc. be accurate. Duncan Clyborne, 1850 Glen Paul Avenue, stated he moved into his home a month ago. He stated he was not objecting to the use of the land, but he did not believe this development was appropriate for that lot. He stated he was concerned about the portion ofthe zoning ordinance that addressed neighborhood businesses. He stated neighborhood businesses were to serve the needs of the residences. He asked what type of services this development was going to give to the neighborhood. He stated if the building was proposed to be larger, the landscaping should also be increased. He questioned why there were variances given in every single area of the buffer and the buffer area had not been followed. . Mr. Nelson replied this was a PUD proposal and there was a difference between a PUD and a neighborhood business. He stated there would be many businesses that would serve the neighborhood, such as attorneys, accountants, optomologists, etc. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 4, 2002 5 Mr. Parrish explained the difference between a PUD and a neighborhood business . district. Shawn Kennedy, 620 Cleveland A venue, stated he was looking into moving into this community and expressed concern about the City not taking the concerns of the neighbors seriously. He stated this development would not benefit the neighborhood. He expressed concern about the increased traffic. He stated this intersection was very congested and there were children and elderly in the area and expressed concern for their safety. He stated he was not opposed to development and there was nothing wrong with developing property, but it should fit the needs and concerns of the already existing neighborhood. He stated Mr. Nelson has not paid attention to the concerns of the residents. He stated things would benefit him, but there was no benefit to the neighbors. He stated he did not believe decks were necessary on an office building. He stated the proposed decks would be obtrusive to the neighbors and they would lose their privacy. Mr. Clyborne stated he would be willing to take a survey of residents in the area to see if they would use the services proposed for this development. Mr. McGuire requested an official traffic study for this corner to see what the impact of this development would be with respect to traffic. He noted all of the homes in the area were one-story homes. Mr. Nelson replied changes were difficult and development was hard to accept, but this would be an office building that would be used 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday with limited use on the weekends. He stated the purpose of the building would be for people to work and not lounge around on the decks. He stated there would be a solid wall on the decks. With respect to the screening, they had spoken to the neighbor to the east to find out what type of screening they wanted. He stated the west would not support arborvitaes. He stated his architect was recommending River Birch. He stated they would plant 10-12 feet trees and they grew fast, up to 50 feet. He stated his proposed tenants were lawyers, accountants, dentist, and a sales representative. He stated the storage were for files. He stated they were only requesting small amendments, which was to size. He stated the gentlemen who had his home appraised and indicated they offering $20,000.00 less than the appraisal, had his appraisal go to the middle of the street. When the appraisal was reworked to end at the property line, it indicated a fair value of $146,000.00. He stated the gentlemen turned down that proposal and stated he wanted over $190,000.00 for his property. He explained where the drainage would flow and stated an engineer had looked at this. He stated parking on the west side of Cleveland was in New Brighton and they had no control over parking in that area. He noted they had looked into the VPIC plan and did know what to do with any contaminated soil that was found. With respect to the location of the trash, they had never had a problem with odors. He stated they would recycle. He indicated there would be no restaurant in the building, so there would be limited food in the trash containers. He indicated the landscaping would be very nice and they had worked hard on a landscape plan attempting to take everyone's concerns into consideration. Commissioner Ricke inquired about the existing fence along the lot line. Mr. Nelson stated the current fence would come down and they would need to address snow issues. He stated he would be willing to put a berm in, but this would create drainage problems . . . . . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 4, 2002 6 and he would not take responsibility for any drainage problems for the neighbors if he was required to put in a berm. Commissioner Ricke asked about the location of the trash containers. Mr. Nelson replied the area they chose for the trash containers would be the least obtrusive and most convenient area on the site. Commissioner Ricke asked if the tenants would have any lunch room area for their employees. Mr. Nelson stated it would be up to the tenants if they wanted a break room, but there was no plan at this time for one. Commissioner Ricke stated it was very common for tenants to want decks for cook outs and after work parties. She asked if there were any covenants proposed. Mr. Nelson replied he did not believe his insurance company would allow grills on the decks and this was a non-smoking building. He stated he would not be opposed to covenants. Commissioner Ricke asked if they had considered non-functional decks. Mr. Nelson decks enhanced the value of the property. He stated they would be willing to make the decks non-smoking. Commissioner Ricke stated the new design did not appear to be as pleasing as the original design and asked if they gave up something by the new design and asked if a smaller square footage area would work. Mr. Nelson replied the building was designed and laid out to accommodate four tenants. Commissioner Ricke asked if the storage area would be used to store other things other than paper. Mr. Nelson stated he might store his boat or other items in the storage area and this had been addressed previously. He stated there would be one light in the ramp area. Commissioner Ricke asked if the ramp led to a garage door. Mr. Nelson replied it did and that had not changed from the original proposal. Commissioner Ricke asked if they had looked at adding additional lighting by the ramp area. Mr. Nelson replied the lighting they were proposing was sufficient and any further lighting would intrude upon the neighborhood more. Commissioner Zimmerman stated stucco was not an allowable building material for a neighborhood business district. He agreed with Commissioner Ricke that this new design had lost some of the appeal of the original design. Mr. Nelson replied stucco was more of a residential look than brick and would fit into the neighborhood better. Chair Sand asked if they had given thought to additional landscaping, even though he did realize they were over what was required by the City. He asked how many ofthe existing trees there now along the east side would stay. Mr. Nelson stated most of the trees were oriental elm, cottonwood, ash, willows and they were told that they were not worth saving, and they were better off taking them all out and starting over with appropriate trees. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 4, 2002 7 Commissioner Smithknecht asked if the trees could stay if they wanted them to stay. Mr. . Nelson replied they could not stay; they had not been maintained and they were considered scrub trees and would be replaced with much better trees. Commissioner Bezdicek asked if the City Engineer had looked at the drainage plan. Mr. Parrish replied given the fact that it was less than an acre in size, the Rice Creek Watershed District had not done any review, but the City Engineer had seen the original plan and they had identified a few issues and it would be necessary that a final draining plan be presented and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. Mr. Nelson replied that their civil engineer had addressed the drainage issue and the drainage plan would be submitted prior to them applying for a building permit. Commissioner Bezdicek asked if the City Engineer had looked at the traffic impact for this area. Mr. Parrish replied the City Engineer had not looked at the traffic impact yet. Chair Sand asked why a one-story building would not work. Mr. Nelson replied they had an architect look at a possible one-story building, but it would not allow for enough interior space and there would be a lot of wasted space. Also, there would not be sufficient parking if they went with a one-story building. He stated this was not an economic Issue. Commissioner Ricke suggested a two-story building, but one which was smaller to meet . the buffer yard requirements. Mr. Nelson replied they did meet the buffer yard requirements, but there was a possibility to move the building to the south, which they might end up doing. Mr. Parrish replied there had been tlrree actions with respect to this development. The first one being a concept review and the neighborhood business ordinances were just being established. He stated the next action was last December and it was determined a 15 foot buffer was sufficient because the parking would be encroaching and not the building. He stated a buffer yard requirement was essentially that there should be some type of a buffer zone, but under the POD, it allowed for a deviation from the buffer zone. He stated the buffer zone was the primary issue. Commissioner Bezdicek asked if the north fence would be six feet high and had they considered the fence being 8 feet high. Mr. Nelson replied this architect did not recommend a higher fence because they were susceptible to coming down in straight-line winds and they were not very attractive. He stated if the neighbors wanted the additional two feet added to the proposed 6-foot fence, he would be willing to do that, if the neighbors wanted to pay for the additional two feet. He also stated there was nothing precluding the neighbors from adding additional landscaping to their property if they were concerned about screening. Commissioner Smithknecht asked what type of drainage problems would there be if they added a berm. Mr. Nelson replied, the water would stay on the neighbors property and would not drain properly. He indicated he was not objecting to adding a berm and adding a fence to the top of the berm, but he would not take responsibility for drainage issues on . . . . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 4, 2002 8 the neighboring property because a berm was added and he would want a signed release from each of the neighbors. Mr. Parrish replied the City would not allow a berm due to the impact on the drainage. Chair Sand if they were limited to dealing with the amendments or were they at liberty to address the entire site plan. Mr. Parrish replied they could address the entire site plan. He stated if applicant was unhappy with the Commissioners suggestions, they could withdraw their proposal and the previous approved plan would stand. Chair Sand closed the public hearing at 9:03 p.m. Commissioner Ricke moved, seconded by Commissioner Smithknecht, to deny Planning Case #02-20, Aaron S. Nelson, 3475 Siems Court, Planned Unit Development Amendment because the new plan was not consistent with the standards that were in the neighborhood business zoning requirement, it was not as aesthetically pleasing as the previous plan, the decks invaded the privacy ,of the neighbors, and the proposed amendment is not equal to or better than the previously approved plan. Commissioner Lemberg noted that this building would not be any higher than a two-story home. Chair Sand expressed concern that this has been a vacant land for a long time and he stated they did not have any alternatives ifthey did not accept this development, except to leave it vacant. He stated he did not want to see this land remain vacant. He stated this was a gateway comer and he wanted to see more buffering from the north and east. He stated he wanted to see more trees planted along both borders. He expressed concern that if they did not approve this, the land would remain vacant and this would not be a good situation for the City. Commissioner Lemberg suggested they push the building farther south and west, which would allow for additional landscaping. Mr. Nelson replied there was a possibility of moving the building four feet further to the south, depending on what they discovered with the soil. With respect to moving it farther to the west, they needed that space to meet the parking requirements and to buffer the parking area. He stated they had spent a lot of money looking at many different designs and this was a compromise that seemed to work well for the site. Commissioner Zimmerman stated even though this was a PUD, the basic underlying district was a neighborhood business district and stated they needed to try to make their developments as consistent and fair to the neighborhood as possible following the Ordinances. He expressed concern about the buffer zone. The motion failed 2-4 (Ayes: Commissioners Ricke and Smithknecht. Commissioners Lemberg, Bezdicek, Zimmerman and Chair Sand.) Nays: Commissioner Zimmerman moved, seconded by Commissioner Lemberg, to approve Planning Case #02-20, Aaron S. Nelson, 3475 Siems Court, Planned Unit Development Amendment with following recommendations: ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION ~ SEPTEMBER 4, 2002 9 1. On-street parking not be allowed and be removed from plan. . 2. The Developer work with City staff regarding the requirements of the neighborhood business district to come to a development resolution that takes into consideration the neighborhood business district requirements understanding this is a PUD, but that they pay special attention to the buffer zone specifically on the north and the east side of the property, and they try to meet the full intent of the buffer zone requirements to separate the buffer from the neighborhood. Mr. Parrish asked if they were looking to address the landscaping issues, or relocate the building. Commissioner Zimmerman replied they wanted a combination of the two. Chair Sand replied he wanted to see continuous screening with no breaks. The motion carried 4-2. (Ayes: Commissioners Bezdicek, Zimmerman, Lemberg, and Chair Sand. Nays: Commissioners Ricke and Smithknecht). Chair Sand recessed the meeting at 9:23 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:32 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING - PLANNING CASE #02-22 -ARDEN TOWERS. 1777 GATEWAY BOULEVARD. AMENDED SPECIAL USE PERMIT Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 9:32 p.m. . Staff reviewed their report dated August 28, 2002. Staff recommended approval of the Amended Special Use Permit. Commissioner Zimmerman asked what happened when the tower reached the end of its useful life. Mr. Parrish replied there were specific requirements as to how non- conforming uses could be maintained on the property. He stated at this particular time the tower was the principal use of the property, but when it reached the end of its useful life, it would not be allowed to be reconstructed. Commissioner Zimmerman clarified that if this tower became unsafe at some point, it would not be replaced. Mr. Parrish replied that was correct, it would be a nonconforming structure. Chair Sand noted there was a typo in Paragraph 3(b) to reflect today's date. Commissioner Zimmerman noted they needed to reinforce the fact that all antennas were required to have building permits. He asked if any more antennas would be allowed on the tower. Mr. Parrish replied there would be no more antennas allowed, but they could rearrange the existing antennas if they wanted. He stated the Commission could make a recommendation that that all future antennas needed a building permit. Applicant did not wish to make a comment. . Chair Sand closed the public hearing at 9:47 p.m. AMERICAN LINDEN - Tilia americana Page 1 of2 Outstanding Features: AMERICAN LINDEN · Tilia americana Large tree with nice form. Well adapted to the climate of much of the upper midwest. Description: Height: 50-75' Width: 25-40' Hardiness Zone: 3a American Linden or Basswood is an excellent landscape tree for large scale sites. It is a large tree with an oval to rounded crown. The rounded leaves are quite large, reaching 4-6" in both length and width. Fall color is pale yellow. The small yellowish flowers open in June and are very fragrant; they are a favorite source of nectar for honey bees. American Linden is native throughout the upper midwest. Requirements and Culture: Lindens prefer a rich, well drained soil with ample moisture but are fairly tolerant to a broad range of . soil conditions. Full sun or partial shade. Tolerates clay soils better than many tree species. Removal of suckers from the base of the trunk may be required. Limitations: No serious insect or disease problems in the upper midwest but are quite susceptible to the Japanese beetle where it occurs. Susceptible to leaf scorch in dry urban sites. Selected Cultivars: 'Redmond' - has an excellent pyramidal form. Twigs of current season's growth are reddish. Often listed as a cultivar of T. x euchlora. It is questionable as to species origin. Probably a hybrid. 'Fastigiata' - is a very attractive tree with a narrow pyramidal crown. Photo Credit: 1 & 2 MLA. Mipnesota Power I University. of Minnesota I Northern States Power Company . http://www.mpelectric.com/treebooklfactll1.html 9/25/2002 AMERICAN LINDEN - Tilia americana Page 2 \lf2 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, in any form or by any means, without written permission. http://www.mpelectric.com/treebooklfactlll.html 9/25/2002 . . . AME~CAN ARBORVITAE - Thuja occidentalis Page I of2 Outstanding Features: AMERICAN ARBORVITAE · Thuja occidentalis Winter color in the landscape, good plant habit. Description: Height: 15-25' Width: 6-20' Hardiness Zone: 3a American Arborvitae is a dense, pyramidal evergreen tree that is native in moist sites in North America from Minnesota east. Main trunk often divides into several leaders. The branches with scale-like foliage are displayed in horizontal sprays. Fruit is a small (3/8") light brown cone. Native trees will get much larger than size listed above. Selected compact cultivars are usually planted in the landscape. Requirements and Culture: Needs a moist rich soil, somewhat tolerant to wet soils. Will tolerate light shade but will be more open . in growth habit. Can be sheared readily. Limitations: V cry susceptible to deer browsing in winter. Foliage of the species can turn an unattractive yellow- brown in winter. Cultivars have been selected that maintain a better winter color. Selected Cultivars: 'Brandon' - has spire like growth with medium green foliage. Quite resistant to winter browning. 'Emerald'- compact pyramidal form to 15'. Retains green color in winter. 'Fastigiata'- has a narrow columnar growth habit. Foliage color is medium green. 'Hetz Wintergreen' - narrow columnar form with dark green foliage. Develops a strong central leader and therefore it resists damage from accumulation of ice or snow. 'Techny'- has dark green foliage and a broad pyrimidal habit. Smaller growing than the species. Maintains good winter color. 'Wareana' - extremely winter hardy cultivar with thick, leathery green foliage, tinged blue. . Photo Credit: 1 Bailey Nurseries, Inc.; 2 & 3 MLA, Photo 1 is 'Pete's Colunmar' 2 is 'Techny', http://www.mpelectric.com/treebooklfactl1 O.html 9/25/2002 AMERICAN ARBORVITAE - Thuja occidentalis Page 2 <,>f2 MinJ!l~s_ota Power I UniversityQf Minnesota I Northern States Power Company All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, in any form or by any means, without written permission. http://www.mpelectric.com/treebooklfactll0.htm1 9/25/2002 . . . . . . ~ ~ EN HILLS FilE COpy MEMORANDUM DATE: 3.B August 27, 2002 Agenda Item TO: Planning Commission Aaron Parrish - Community Services Director jIf FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Case #02-20, Aaron Nelson, Master and Final Plan PUD Amendment, County Road D and Cleveland Avenue ENCLOSURES: 1. Location Map 2. Letter from Applicant 3. Plan Set Provided by Applicant 4. December 5, 2002 Memo to City Council (Includes Previous Plan Set) Reauest The applicant is requesting an amendment to a previously approved Master and Final Planned Unit Development to construct an office building at the corner of County Road D and Cleveland Avenue. Overview Surrounding Area Direction Future Land Use Plan Zoning Existina Land Use North Low Density Residential R-1 Residential East Low Density Residential R-1 Residential South N/A N/A Office (Roseville) West (New N/A N/A Ken's Market I Office Briahton Page 2 August 27, 2002 Planning Case #02-20 . Site Data Future Land Use Plan: Nei~hborhood Business Existing Land Use: Vacant Zoning: Nei~hborhood Business Size: .74 acres Topography: Relatively flat Background As the Commission may recall, last December the City Council approved a Master and Final Plan PUD for an office building at the corner of County Road D and Cleveland Avenue. The approval was subject to the following conditions: 1. Access ramp on the east side of the building use concrete pavers and have a surmountable curb, without an apron for the curb cut treatment, and not be utilized for a public access. .- 2. The 6 parking stalls on the southwest corner of the property be designated for ,., compact cars only. 3. A masonry trash enclosure be provided. 4. Decorative lighting as approved by City staff replace the current shoebox light fixtures contemplated in the site plan. 5. Two freestanding signs not to exceed 60 total square feet be allowed on the property. The signs be placed so that a clear vision triangle is maintained. 6. A detailed utility plan be submitted to the City Engineer for his approval. 7. A revised grading and drainage plan responsive to the issues outlined in the November 29, 2001 Memo from City Engineer be submitted to the City Engineer for his approval. 8. A 6 foot wide bituminous trail be placed along the public right-of-way on Cleveland Avenue and County Road D. 9. The applicant provide a sign easement for gateway signage near the intersection of County Road D and Cleveland with an area, dimension, and at a location approved by City staff. 10.A bicycle rack be provided in an area that is convenient to the main entryway into the building. 11. The applicant submit a landscape performance bond or other surety for 125% of the cost of materials and installation valid one full year from the date of installation prior to the issuance of a building permit. 12.A PUD Permit be approved by the City Council prior to the issuance of a building permit. . 13. The applicant obtains all necessary permits from the Rice Creek Water Shed District and Ramsey County. 14. Compliance with the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance e . . Page 3 August 27, 2002 Planning Case #02-20 See the attached memo provided to the City Council in conjunction with the original request for additional information. Subsequent to this approval, the applicant has identified several changes to the previous proposal for the Commission's consideration. PUD Amendments See the attached narrative statement from the applicant outlining the PUD Amendments being requested. Generally speaking, they can be broken down into the following areas: Footprint The applicant is requesting that the footprint of the building be revised from 6,264 square feet down to 5,458 square feet. The depth has been reduced while the width has slightly increased. This change keeps the building within the applicable setbacks. The overall building square footage has increased from 8900 square feet to 10,279 square with the expansion of the partial second story. This is discussed further below. Parking The Zoning Ordinance requires 1 parking space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area. With 10,279 gross square feet of office being proposed in the amendment, it is necessary to provide 41 spaces to meet the code requirement. The applicant is proposing 45 total spaces. The following table summarizes the provision of parking on the site: Pro osed Parkin 45 S aces In addition, the site plan reflects the applicants desire to have on-street parking on Cleveland Avenue and County Road D. These spaces are located within Ramsey County right-of-way. However, it appears as if Ramsey County defers to municipalities on this issue. From staffs perspective, while it may be appropriate to have on street parking in certain areas, this particular area would appear to be problematic for two reasons. First, all of the stalls are proximate to a four way signalized intersection. Second, the right-of-way provides an additional green buffer around the property to compensate for the reduced parking setbacks along Cleveland and County Road D (generally 16 feet where 20 feet is required). Building Design Page 4 August 27, 2002 Planning Case #02-20 . While the overall site plan has not changed a great deal, the original design of the building has changed significantly with the expansion of the partial second story to a full two story. In particular, the Commission will note the following: · Since the second story is no longer setback, the entrance canopy has been reduced in height, size, and design. . A deck area has been added at each corner. · The building materials are proposed to remain the same. Stone or brick would be utilized or the base and columns while stucco would be the primary material. For reference, the Neighborhood Business District requires the following with regard to building design: · Accomplishing the stated purpose of the NB District requires particular concern for the design of buildings, site features (such as landscaping, lighting, and signage) and site design. The arrangement, geometry, massing, materials and colors shall be responsive to existing buildings, site features and site design on adjoining sites in the district. . 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. · Exterior Materials shall include only face brick, stone, glass, or natural wood products. All walls shall be treated with the same exterior materials. . As discussed during the original approval, stucco is not one of the allowable building materials within the Neighborhood Business District. At the time, it was pointed out that brick or stone could not be used as the primary building material because it would be difficult to support it structurally on the partial second story. Since the building is now being proposed as a full two story, the Commission may want to evaluate whether brick or stone would be more appropriate as the primary building material. Deadline for Aaencv Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on August 6, 2002. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statue, the City must act on this request by October Sill, 2002 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60 day review period. The City may with the petitioners consent extend the review period beyond the 120 days. Options . 1. Recommend approval as submitted. 2. Recommend approval with conditions. . . . Page 5 August 27,2002 Planning Case #02-20 3. Recommend denial. If the City denies the petitioners request, ....it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request". 4. Table for additional information. Staff Recommendation In Planning Case #02-20, staff recommends that the proposed Master and Final Plan Planned Unit Development amendments be approved with the following conditions: 1. The on street parking outlined on the revised site plan be removed. If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on this Planning Case, then it would be heard at the Monday, September 30, 2002 regular meeting of the City Council. c: o .- a. ~'" o:E ..J ~ " ~ ~ ~ E " ... ~ " > " ~ ~~~ No..::! ;: j ~ a. ~ ~ '" """> ~ " u:;: 0'1:': I";! " ~ ';: CD Q " ~ ... ~ .. ~ ii:=~ o ,., " ~ o " ~ :: ;; u z - (]) (]) lL o o o ..... - 0 Z 0 (U 0 Ii) ~ (]) - 0 0 z "0 CO 0 0 0:: >- +-' C :J 0 0 0 Ii) () ~ z ~ tZl ~ -t ~, . . . DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO PROPOSED BUILDING LOCATED AT 3130 NO. CLEVELAND AVENUE 1. The proposed building as revised contains a partial two story office building designed in the Prairie style with low pitched hip roof to be consistent and compatible with the neighborhood, Exterior building materials will remain the same (stone or brick and stucco). Entrance canopy has been reduced in height and size. 2. The building has been partially redesigned to address some issues which came up during leasing and discussion with contractors. The purpose and intent is to make the space on the second floor more flexible for leasing purposes. 3. The size of the building has been changed slightly and the actual foot print has been reduced from 6,264 square feet down to 5,458 square feet. The depth has been reduced from 66 feet to 54 feet and the width has been increased slightly from 96 feet to 102 feet. 4. Overall height of the building as shown on the plans will be lower due to the narrowing of the building. It is anticipated that due to changes in the location of the north stairwell (fire exit) and the elimination of the structural components for the prior partial second floor and suggested changes in the thickness of the 1st floor precast concrete, the height will more than likely decrease even further from what is shown. 5. Basement floor will continue to be at the same elevation (i.e. 909 feet). The configuration and plarmed use of the basement space will not change except for the location of the stairwelL 6. Parking will continue to be located on West side of building. The entrance to the parking lot is being moved further to the east which will provide more space between the corner and the entrance which will make the Ramsey County traffic engineers pleased. Parking has been increased from 36 stalls to 45 stalls to meet anticipated tenant needs based on our preliminary discussion with prospective tenants. (Note - Although there is no current on street parking, the site plan reflects on street parking adjacent to the development on both Cleveland A venue and on County Road "D." The width of the boulevard would allow for parking even with a 6 foot walkway which is shown. County engineers have indicated that this is a municipal issue and that they abide by the city's wishes. I would like to see a preliminary approval for on street parking in the areas shown if and when County Road "D" is upgraded between Cleveland and Fairview.) 7. The proposed grading plan will not be altered. The same basic drainage plan will be used. The current plan is that the direction of the flow of the water for the property will not be altered from the prior approved plan as amended. " '\ '. 8. The overall landscape plan will not be changed except for two minor changes, The two trees which we planned to place in the island will not be able to be planted in the island due to its current size. All proposed fencing, shrubs and trees as indicated on the prior plan will be installed except for the above notation. BlairlNewBldglAmended Descript.Proj . . . (e CLEVELAND AVENUE In' If:T I U' ill i: !: N H: ..:z: .." ,... 8 ;tl ~ ~ ~ " u~ g~1 ,~ '\ I i ! 111;1 I '4 ~ I~I a .lU , , I! I II ~ i I I I =' .' '9 ~ _ _ S _____________~RO~:.~LI~------------ > !:- ~,... ~~ 4gj .." ,... o o ;tl ~ ~ G> (J) .." I I I I I ~ ~II ~ 4 ," (J) ,~ .." I. ~ !:~ ~c " ." :;:;:R ;tl .." 8 ;tl ." ~ .... . co 'i ..... c.n Gl en .." ~I ----------- ------------ ~i ~ft iOT-O' \ . ~ I - -- EJ: - --.. u - - - -f"- - - -- ".--- '-------r--- '. ----- I =U iU I I , :: :13::::::::::::cr:::::.. ~ ltt.D' ~------7--: : ~ II ~: I fSJl l!I~ --------- --------- ~! ~I . ~! [gJ -------------------------1-- J L~ I "';II m ~ ~. P; I p ~ UI ~ UIU I ~ tEl i'iIg ~ ~ c: ~ ~" ~ i !II lip ~ ~ tn ; ~ lUll ~ ~ ; I (') ~ ' ~ B ::c )> ! { !!! !! ~ ~ ~ ~ it Ii' I n I ! i p . ~B c: ; I ~ ~ < I I r;; m " M ~ m ...a. J i I ~ !Il ~ ffi I ~U ~ I; ,..0 ~ it CLEVELAND AVENUE . = If:-i I ii' ill i: ~ N ;~ <:% : g I ~ I ~ ~I ~ :i "T1 I . iU git ~ 'i i I I II~U . ' . ' ,~I ~! . ~ '9 . ! I I ;~ I ~~ I ~ i I I I I ~~______~IIll'__~___ > . ._.____1112'Q -, \ -,..... I ,~ ~m ;0 "T1 8 ;0 ~ I I , ::: 0::::::: If::r: =: = = I III n~ , : _ = 0= = = = : = : = = = = II : : : : = ,.0 ~ ~ I III ijhi = li ~s III ~hi ~- ~ rc- r , ===::==:::J\i '" "" 00 ..... Gl en "T1 . -- ; 1 . i------7--l : 1!Zl II 1!:;1l: I ! I I ~i ~! 3i ~! ~ll ,~ ~ II ~ ~I ~ ~n t. ~ ~ ~ ~ i PI! ~ ~ q n ~ UUII I OJ ~ 2 ! ~ ~ c ~:n I ~ !ir tn n ~ ~ c (") ~ . ~ ~ I I II l ; A t J ~ I :r: )> !E ! { ~ ~ ~ Ii' ~ m m I ~ I ~ '" n ~B . P c ; I S ~ . . I I - ~ l;; ~ ~ ! I · ~ m ffi i ~u . r- c !St ' ll.'l ~ I I ~! ~!I III ~~ III ~~ ~ ~i ~~ ~c: ,,-0 ~-o ~m ~ ;0 ~ -0 ~ U ~. q ~ --ijl----- --------- ~: U III i~ ~u ~ll ~l.'l ~ll i~ ~~ ~II u [gJ ~n ~u u 3~ ll.'l 511 l~ !ll ll.'l .'.............. '. ....-... .... S..' q=-- -- "~ ~U si lSl If. I cr-u- I~I I, ~ ~I -_._- II I ~ I II' 1 III 1 , ~-- , -- I II I II m m II " .- .- 11 ~ ~ ~ ~ " 0 a II :z 11 :z " :1 " II :1 il " II " " II il " II Ii=:: II , , :1 ~I::i ~I.I " ~I" ." 0=--- I :~ I . []:- - -- ~ ~ m ; I ~U I n q II ~ Uill I ~ IlD ~ i c: ~ ~ I CIl ~ I ~ p ~ I ill! ~ u J I n ", ~ ::c )> ~ I i l!i !!! n ~ ~ m Ii' i II I ! i )00 > ~ ~ ~ p ;/ ~ i c: ~ ~ fi , liB I;; ~ ~ I ! I ffi i ;U .... c it .~ . ., m hi ~ '-l a :z /~) - I r1----- L..{l'----- I " II if " 11 11 I II I II I II " III III I" ill 11,1 " If- - I: I, II , 'I. _ :r-~ I II I I II! I II. L I~ - II III '" HI II II' , \1 i " II! ~-- ,-- I I I I [Jr::::: I I I I lrl . m ~ ~ a :z " :1 " 11 II :1 " il 'I JI [1::---- ---- I I ~~I ~I m . --. e I' \\,f" ./ ~ rc-- '11 -- T~~~ !i I~ ~ 1 I ~;::~~ "In ~I ~ I ~ I I 111 II~~I II~I II" II I II I ~== II :1 II II :1 II II II II II II :1 II II II II II II II II :1 II rlI---- Lf---- I I I m r- m :;; -I o Z I I [r::::= I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I" I" II/ I" I" ,I/ 1/ If- - I: !, ,I, " 'L _ :r ~ I , , , Ii I I 1'- L 'e- - II 1/1 1/1 1/, 1/ I' I I, " I " "I ~== I I I I [Jt:== , I I I ~~i ~I I ~ cr==== II II I' II II II II II II :1 II :1 II :1 II :1 II :1 II II II II :1 II tJ= = I ~~~ ~r~ I $ Q::= = ce 29'.()' II I I~",,, !(j I~~~ 5 ;j ~ '!! I~ ~ ~ $ ~ I 1"1"'1 . ~ ,,11n ~ ~I ~ $~ JJ, 1:- ~.." ,,;0 ~O ~z -I ~ en I I rlr----- ~---- II il II II II m r- m < ::; o z II :1 II II :1 II II II II II :1 II II II :1 II II II :1 II il II :1 II II II II 'I ,JI hh L.Jl=---- I I il~~ 'I ~ . . , , (- ~ ~~HILLS FILE COpy CITY OF ARDEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: December 5, 2001 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Aaron Parrish, City Planner SUBJECT: Case #01-30: . Master Plan PUD Approval; and . Final PUD/Site Plan Approval Aaron Nelson Property Located at County Road D and Cleveland ~ Request The applicant is requesting the following actions to facilitate the construction of a 8900 square foot office building: L Master Plan PUD Approval 2. Final Plan PUD/Site Plan Approval Overview The applicant is requesting the actions referenced above to facilitate the construction of an 8900 square feet neighborhood office building. This project previously went through a concept PUD review in 1999, and represents the first project to be evaluated utilizing the Neighborhood Business Zoning District standards. The property was formerly a gas station. Copies of the site plan were distributed to neighborhood block coordinators in the area. Please see the attached narrative statement submitted by the applicant for additional information. The following highlights information pertinent to the site. Surrounding Area \- ~y Direction Future Land Use Plan Zoning Existing Land Use North Low Densitv Residential R-l Residential East Low Densitv Residential R-1 Residential South N/A N/A Office Memo to Pliuming Commission Planning Case #01-30 Page 2 of8 (, (Roseville) West N/A N/A Ken's Market I Office (New Brighton Site Data Future Land Use Plan: Neighborhood Business Existinf( Land Use: Vacant . Zoninf(: Neighborhood Business Size: .74 acres Topowaphy: Relatively flat Master and Final Planned Unit Development According to the Zoning Ordinance, "the 'PUD' District promotes the development of/and in a unified marmer by treating the entire development as a single entity. . .." Since this project went through a concept review process in 1999, the applicant has elected to have both the Master and Final PUD considered concurrently. Generally, the purposes of the Neighborhood Business District are: c, a To be located at the edge of residential neighborhoods. b. To provide a limited range of over-the-counter, convenience, retail, and service uses to accommodate the needs ofthe adjacent residents. c. To place limitations on the type, size and intensity of uses within this district, given its proximity to residential uses. d. To place emphasis on convenience for pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation access to the use. e. To accommodate, where possible, a public commons giving residents a place to gather and interact with one another. [ To ensure adequate buffering is provided on these sites for the adjacent residential uses. g. To require, where applicable, compliance with the City's gateway requirements. The following provides an evaluation of site plan and related requirements based on the attached plan set: 1. Lot Area, Size and Setbacks -All Code Requirements Met As the site data in the overview section indicates, the property is .74 acres, or 32,234 square feet. The Neighborhood Business Zoning District requires a minimum lot area of 13,000 (~ 2 (e ~ (. '--" Memo to Planning Commission Planning Case #01-30 Page 3 of8 square feet for non-residential uses. The following table highlights the setback requirements: Minimum BuiJdinl! Setbacks Reauired Proposed at Shortest Point Front Yard 20 Feet 129 Feet Rear Yard 20 Feet 30 Feet Side Yard -Interior 5 Feet 20 Feet Side Yard -Comer 20 Feet 30 Feet 2. Lot Coverage - Code Requirement Met The Neighborhood Business District requires that no more than 35% of the lot be covered by structure. The proposed building footprint is 6,254 square feet, while the parcel is 32,234 square feet. This results in 19 percent of the lot being covered by structure, or approximately half of the code maximum. 3. Floor Area Ratio - Code Requirement Met The floor area ratio is obtained by dividing the sum of a buildings floor area by the amount of the lot area. The floor area ratio cannot exceed 0.7 for the Neighborhood Business District. The FAR for this project is 0.28, much less than the maximum permitted. 4. Landscape Lot Area - Code Requirement Met The minimum amount oflandscape area for the Neighborhood Business District is 35% of the lot area. The proposal shows 14,400 square feet oflandscape area of the total lot area of32,234 square feet or 45%. A detailed landscape plan is also included in the plan set. Under the City's landscape plan design requirements, 28 caliper inches of landscaping is required The applicant has exceeded this requirement by proposing 143 caliper inches of trees. The applicant also meets the requirements of caliper inches relative to building height. 5. Height - Meets Code Requirement The maximum building height allowed in the Neighborhood Business District is 35 feet. The proposed elevations show a building height of 30 feet when measured from the first floor. 6. Parking. - Slight Deviation from Requirements The Zoning Ordinance requires 1 parking space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area. 3 Memo to Planning Commission Planning Case #01-30 Page 4 of8 With 8900 gross square feet of office being proposed, it is necessary to provide 36 spaces to meet the code requirement. The applicant is proposing 36 total spaces. The following table summarizes the provision of parking on the site: Pro osed Parkin 36 S aces In addition, the Zoning Ordinance requires that the spaces be not less than 9 feet by 18 feet in size. As the site plan indicates, the applicant is proposing the 6 stalls in the southwest corner of the property be 9 feet by 16 feet. These stalls will be designated for compact cars only. Parking setback requirements are highlighted below: Minimum Parkin!! Setbacks Required . ProDosed at Shortest Point Parking ROW 20 Feet CountyD: I7 Feet Cleveland: 18 Feet Parking Side and Rear 5 Feet 14 Feet As the table above indicates, the proposed parking setback from the County Road D and Cleveland Avenue right-of-way is slightly less than the required 20 feet. Since this is a PUD,a deviation from the code requirement is permissible without granting a variance. The entire parking area will be curbed, surfaced and striped in accordance with City design standards. 7. Access and Circulation. - Meets Code Requirement Access to the property is proposed from Cleveland Avenue and County Road D. The access to the public street is proposed to be 24 feet wide. A permit from Ramsey County would need to be obtained for the curb cut. Their minimum requirement is typically26 feet. Based on the City's zoIiing code requirements, both of the accesses are located a sufficient distance from the intersection. The Fire Inspector has reviewed the plans and is satisfied with the access and circulation of the property. 8. Screening - Meets Code Requirement Significant landscaping is proposed to screen both the parking on site and adjacent properties. Board on Board fencing is proposed for screening the residential properties on the north, while substantial landscaping, including three 16' high spruce trees, and two large sugar maples are proposed to screen the residential property on the east.. A wall ofapproximately twenty-seven 6 foofhigh couiferous trees will also provide screening to these properties. While the above does provide a high level of screening, the neighborhood business district also 4 (~ ~ ~ (~ c9 (- Memo to Planning Commission Planning Case #01-30 Page 5 of8 requires that 30 foot buffer yards be maintained adjacent to all residential uses "such that the use is effectively screened from the adjacent residences." The required buffer yard is substantially maintained on the east side of the property. On the northern part of the property, a 14 foot buffer yard is provided. However, this would seemingly be an acceptable deviation given the landscaping and fencing provided. Since this is a PUD, deviation from certain requirements is pennissible. A trash enclosure is proposed for the property. Based on the requirements of the neighborhood business district, it must be a masonry enclosure. 9. Lighting ~ Meets Code Requirements Lighting is identified on the site plan. A photometric was not provided,but this will be detailed in the architectural package. The Zoning Ordinance requires that all lighting be directed away from adjoining lots or public streets and must be hooded so that light is only directed onto the subject property. Additional neighborhood business requirements include the following: . Lighting is not permitted to wash the building. Accent lighting delineating the main entrance to the building is permissible. . Secllrityand parking lot lighting shall be on pedestals not to exceed 14 feet in height. Two 14 foot high shoebox style lights are contemplated on the landscape island. Given the requirements of the neighborhood business district, the lighting proVided should go beyond standard shoebox lighting contemplated in the site plan. A condition requiring decorative lights as approved by City staff has been incorporated into the recommendation. 10. Signage ~ Exceeds Code Requirement The newly revised sign code allows for 60 square feet of freestanding signage. Additionally, the sign ordinance only allows for one freestanding sign per property. The proposed site plan contemplates two 50 square foot monument signs adjacent to each ofthe accesses. After discussion with the applicant, he indicated that he would like to revise the proposal to include two 30 square foot signs. Since the property has access to two public streets, the revised request would seemingly be reasonable. The signs should be located to maintain a clear vision triangle. 11. Grading and Utilities. Requires Revision based on Evaluation by City Engineer The property would be serviced by existing utilities (sewer, water, gas, electric, and telephone), Please see the November 29, 2001 Memo from the City Engineer regarding other issues surrounding drainage and utilities. Master and Final PUD approval should be conditioned on 5 Mcmo to Planning Commission Planning Casc #01-30 Page 6 of8 approval of a detailed utility plan by the City Engineer. A revised grading and drainage plan addressing the issues in the City Engineer's memo will also need to be submitted and approved by the City Engineer. Silt fencing will be placed around the property during construction. 12. Aesthetics A colored building elevation will be provided at the meeting for your review. The ueighborhood business district requires the following with regard to building exteriors: . Accomplishing the stated purpose of the NB District requires particular concern for the design of buildings, site features (such as landscaping, lighting, and signage) and sitc design. The arrangement, geometry, massing, materials and colors shall be responsive to existing buildings, site features and site design on adjoining sites in the district. . 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. . Exterior Materials shall include only face brick, stone, glass, or natural wood products. All walls shall be treated with the same exterior materials. In the applicant'silroject description, he indicates that the building will be a combination of stone or brick and stucco. The stone or brick element would meet the Neighborhood Business District criteria. However, stucco would be the primary building material. Since stucco is a plaster based building material, this does not appear to meet the specific criteria. However, given configuration ofthe building, brick or stone may not be a viable option. Accordingly, stucco would seem to be an appropriate substitute material. 13. Additional Neighborhood Business Reqnirements . The Neighborhood Business District requires that sidewalks be pnt in place along public rights of way. An existing bituminous trail currently runs North/South on Cleveland Avenue. There is currently no sidewalk running EastIWest on County Road D. According the Park and Recreation Director, this is a planned trail connection. The applicant should install a publicly dedicated trail adjacent to the right-of-way on County Road D, and replace the existing trail on Cleveland. Both should be at least 6 feet wide and interconnect at the intersection. . This area is designated as a community "Gateway" to the City of Arden Hills. The applicant has agreed to provide and easement at the intersection of County Road D and Cleveland for. Gateway signage purposes. 6 (~ ~ ~ (., ~ (- Memo to Planning Commission Planning Case #01-30 Page 7 of8 . The Neighborhood Business District requires that "Bicycle Racks shall be provided in an area that is convenient to the main entryway into the building." Deadline for Aeencv Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on November 6, 2001. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statue, the City must act on this request by January 5, 2001 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60 day review period. The City may with the petitioners consent extend the review period beyond the 120 days. Options 1. 2. 3. Recommend approval as submitted. Recommend approval with conditions. Recommend denial. Ifthe City denies the petitioners request, "...it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request". Table for additional information. 4. Plannine Commission Recommendation In Planning Case #01-22, the Planning Commission recommends that the Master Plan Planned Unit Development, and Final Planned Unit Development I Site Plan review be approved with the following conditions: 1. Access ramp on the east side ofthe building use concrete paver and have a surmoWltable curb, without an apron for the curb cut treatment, and not be utilized for a public access. 2. The 6 parking stalls on the southwest corner of the property be designated for compact cars only. 3. A masomy trash enclosure be provided. 4. Decorative lighting as approved by City staff replace the current shoebox light fixtures contemplated in the site plan. 5. Two freestanding signs not to exceed 60 total square feet be allowed on the property. The signs be placed so that a clear vision triangle is maintained. 6. A detailed utility plan be submitted to the City Engineer for his approval. 7. A revised grading and drainage plan responsive to the issues outlined in the November 29, 2001 Memo from City Engineer be submitted to the City Engineer for his approval. 8. A 6 foot wide bituminous trail be placed along the public right-of-way on Cleveland Avenue and County Road D. 9. The applicant provide a sign easement for gatewaysignage near the intersection of County Road D and Cleveland with an area, dimension, and at a location approved by City staff. 10. A bicycle rack be provided in an area that is convenient to the main entryway into the building. 7 Memo to Planning Commission Plarming Case #01-30 Page 8 of8 (~ 11. The applicant submit a landscape performance bond or other surety for 125% of the cost of materials and installation valid one full year from the date of installation prior to the issuance of a building permit. 12. A PUD Permit be approved by the City Council prior to the issuance of a building permit. 13. The applicant obtains all necessary permits from the Rice Creek Water Shed District and Ramsey County; 14. Compliance with the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Applicants Project Description 3. Plan Set 4. Letter from Arborist regarding existing vegetation on property 5. November 29,2001 Memo from City Engineer. 6. December 4, 2001 Memo from Ramsey County Traffic Engineer Dan Soler 7. December 1, 2001 Memo from Applicant's Engineer. ~ ~ 8 1 I " Q) C :J (f) - I 0 I - 0 II z I1l ~ I .. . Qj - 0 1/1 Z II ~ I I rill .:E i N I c:i I I ,J II ... . i:::J 'q "': I ~ I. e --. I I . . e ,.. j .... AaJ8 c:i / ->. Ot Q)Q) .~ a.. .00 :J.... (f)a. 8 C 0 ~ t'} W 0 ... 2 0 0 ~ Q. Sl c; & ..- ~ z . .. tV c %' z VJ ~ Ol e c :lI c: ~ <3 ~ c l. ~ c i$ 0 IlJ ~ c ..J .. <t ~ 0 Il/l; /I~ J- ;r/pl L-V7 ~J'J,~ /( Q.c5G r~. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT FOR 3130 NO. CLEVELAND AVENUE The project consists of construction of a one and one-half (1-1/2) story office building on the vacant lot located on the northeast corner of County Road "D" and Cleveland Avenue. The lot (146.67' x 225') consists of .758 acres (33,000 s.f.) of land. Ramsey County recently upgraded this intersection by widening the adjacent streets alongside most of the property. The building has been designed in the prairie style. It will have a foot print of 6,264 total square feet. The building will have a low pitched hip roof to be consistent and compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. The exterior will be ) a combination of stone or brick and stucco. The building will contain approximately 8,900 s. f. of office space. It will have offices on the main floor and the partial second floor. The basement area will be used for storage and mechanical equipment. The building is designed to be flexible to meet the needs of businesses that need smaller office spaces. The main floor will accommodate up to 4 individual tenants and the second floor has been designed to be used by 1 or 2 tenants. Setbacks, landscaping and parking have been placed to minimize impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood as determined in the concept PUD approved on August 30, 1999. J Blair\Descript_Prj , " ~ ~ ~ . ~ ,...---." I,. CLEVELAND o o c ~ :0 CJ CJ 161.hll Ih'."," 22'.",' 18'.",' 18'."''' 24',"," le'..~!! 141.."11 .. .. -- .. .. .. ., I^ . ~ \ m( ~ , , , ~2!~~ ~ - Q~~ 0 (J> <l> ~'>! ~~ ." ~~ -i(J> J>- _-i 5;lm (J> ~ ~ ~ z- 0 (J> ~ ti: i o'-i If :!l :!l If (J> i ~~'O -i 1=: 1=: l> E '--~ .- "_0' J> .- .- .- .- (J> 0 (J> (J> ~( LJ ~~ .. .. !;.....(J>J;: .. -i . 1=: ;!; "! "! ~~ ~ "! ._"-_.,,~.,,, , , , Iii.r= ~ 0 ~ ~ . . ?' .~ . , o'U> " " " . . ~ '" '" ~f: .., ~ ~ .., . _........."..~,. , 0 , ~ , ~-i ~ ~ ~ . . 'f' . ~ )X ,.......- , ~"-,. .,. -~,.. l> ~~~: . 0 ) , , , Q~ '] .....,,-.-.---.-.- -OJl> r~ tI'-i\J , m~ m~~ ..l~-- j;~ "l LJ , '" ~~ '" ~~ , , .., .., rii , . , ~ ~ :ill ---~_.._- .. :, 5TALL5- e ~'..,,": 451-011 e'..tl-I -4 STALLS. 9'.",", 36' 0" , - ~l.......J \ \ , '" I II \ , . ~ i , , (J> ~ \. :-n , <l> / :J , i ! i : . '\ , I I I II I I I I III , , , -\ I- !---Jill r -"-'1' ,. ... \ ~ T\~------- \II -- -- - I I,: - I H! " \ 1/ ~ I i~\1 I,: " , I - Cj1 , . I \ 1/ I , I I - X I I I ~ I 1 - " 0 I I z I I " . U , , ;;J I . I ~ I I ... , , ~ I , I I I . I I , . I I , I I I I I I I I I . I I , , , - ------------- , I q SOD COVEI'<ED, LOJJER LeVEL ~ , IS) SLOPE DILN . r \ , ~ 961.."''' 2""."," I 3",'.h" . . .. .. .. .. .. - .. ----T ~~8 ~~ Z' F zl> .~~~ .- ffi .. ~ cD (J> ~ l> r- r- (J> .. "! q , Q!, q ~ ~ ..., q ti' ti' ~ -1lcn l::::::t ~m Q-U ~ Z '" ~ q z o :;0 -1 I \ '} ....' . / _:- " - , . ~ V" I >..:, , r ,r---, :\.1 ." /". w , :1 . , " CLEVELAND " I. \~ it, , ~ ._----'> '" J .....~ '~~4 12:'-rOl' . 14'.~11 I' ! !. ' /' '. ,.'" ",,- ; ''', . r:-b" ..Ib'-q" o r;; uJ -i~" L -. i I i/:~ : ~I~~ J ~ =I:~~ ~( ! / i' /" @ ~ E ~ ,2J ~' J ( ~~I ~ ) ~l ~ I 1; ..... <J> i: ~\';'!..--. ..~ oJ! -;. ~ \( " :'r~,~ ~JH.>lb ~ " ,"" ~I r> ,q -~ ~: ~l l-/--:-, "j '''-..'' ff' n -II ~_ _. "I (~~' .:, ~!.'? '- j ~, \,l' _____ '..~ r:; - i ~~ .~ B j~ ~ ;'1) ~ ;q , :- ~i~LL:; t ~'.6'~*,..1S',C",: I'!'.c ..!..- ' , I ll~ I 'I ! i I I i' i" 1: ! 'J l'> il I I I , I I I I e"-.r;",,, ~~,..+_~ .-:roo I. . t"/-- -"\""-""-1 , I L +....__ J !,' <'" ::'.0. Ie-.O" If'..Oij :4'aOn :1, I , I I J ,I_....J.. , I ..L r- i'Q ---,-1<- \, (--.. r'1:;, lij I' ~. ,,' "-f'~ '. ,-.... " .- r ...:. l, .(\ ~ ~~ (J> -; ~ r- <J> . U> .. (;) I". .... g; r '" S-- ) ~ ~ ~~', u -~ , ( 1l~ It ~ 'J' " ~ s q ~ ill I> " ,,' " q '5:i q "Q ::: ,,'ll C\" ~ ~ "' ; " o ., O. c z ~ :0 o o ,...- !' i r '\ ;.J . ~ - I) , \.. Y ~~ Q~~ E~ ~1 ~~, \I- ;l) \l J, S7~~.5 t ~ .C"I 3a, C. " ,.. ~$ i~. "0 ~ 4 ."." ~ '" J ~ I ....A I . I "", \1',.11'" \ '" I I , I I : .11 t;~ (J. ~ , , , , , i , I I , , I ! I I ) dt.., (j;J , , ,. r I' : l ~ r '\!. (,1 , "1'-. ,=", _0 \_.. -. I -, (: -- 1 \. \1 ~ p ",: ," " ~" ~, COOt,llIGIJIRI/oIIt.rT HI,tOO 10 FT BLOGI uO. ... J.:rTAlrs .1.rTA€ts U'Mfr' """'" ~- . , - / I 1... ' ~ p r~-- -t jil . of' I ~ ~ ~~ Il~~ 'i' I . <h .21~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /. -, ,- _. -- '''' -- -' - _.- -- - - -- - - - - - - -:.~ '('If"f' F"-"';r, .. C"N~'n"_ = ) -,,~ ~ !lii" :' , =6: 0?\~~~~(:-- ~-f:,,, ". . ,~ ,~'~'~"_ I~ v' ')(';. '~r~\1rl"' I I'~';\('I. i' "~, " ..ir,.r-, (~l'" \ ~'KI ':1(. i' ><' -1" y . , ,.,-, ,,,,,"", E~ ..... iU , u " " eN , , . , ~" ." " , "" ," \ ,...-'---" ------' ,l~ / '---", "', il~l:J:i'-' .... r .1:.1; d" lWr." i . l ( 1 -' ......"" r/ 1 1','0'1......,.11 ,.1:;.', ~ 1,"\"1<';.,.,,1... i r"-" r_ \....., , , . .. 0, . \f\ ~f ~ ~ : ~ ' .. 71 ~ IJ' ~ ~ ... ~.~ &:} tj. ~ ~. lij e . I:l ." ~ '" <l' ~ _.1"'" - ""~ .' ...........-'--, == , . r--------, === _, _ 0... r;~'w~;;"~::;':;:--~ N~ ~~r~ I'f"'f'ta. ~. , :~.~.~ HU....~..~~N WINDSOR CO"" P . 1\ I . . . ..ftl.olMll....,... to. """~ 1l1l1l'....1oU1 'fll) "....", ..-: i' ii . .1 ~(,> . -co \ "l> ~m Qs:: ~ "tl ~ :z !$- i!:- ~~ o " ~ "tl r ~ !-$ %"o!" ~ . I~'. . I.... ........,~ j 18'.0' I~ I, L II ~~~I~ ~e~.~.~ en CLEVELAND . ~'.6. 11>'.", 71'.~' IB'_e' l.'.&, ~'.<:>' 1.'.(1" .. . I. ~ , ~ ut 0 . I ~~ \ . " . I ~~: " ~ ~ ~ I . " . l , . 8. " ~ ~ < ~ I . 0 , , . mj , I() I " " -' , ~ " ~l . ~~ I ~ ~~ ) I , a 0 ~ ,. ~ i. i' I~ ~... . \ ~ , ~ u '~ ~ \ ~~ Q~ ~ dh. ~w , ~COYI!~p """''''" '!>Eo'.otl' ..l'.~ o ".' 0 I .l'.~' '.' , ~"". .-.. -1 " ,. ,. G~ a , u ~oo 'I ~~~ I, .n ~~ , \ 1'.1" ". ' ", . I~'. . I ~ ~ r I ~ I . . s ~ ~ ii~ ~! , ~~ ~t , '!6,.". 6~'_ ---- ---- X ~~ U 7111111111111 . '-- , I , ! II le'.l' ,..' Ill'.)" d , NELSON PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING ARDEN HILLS, MN .J ~ ..ilf~l>lQ U .~~I3=E ~~~~e~2 ~I UI~~!i i~ ; r- i ~ j IIII1 0 ! ~p~n; ~ I II/II . j ~j;€I!s ~ lis! f' ~u~ i~~ !i; .d~ IU , i ~ I [D ( fill ~ i ~I ~ I:r !! c::m ' ~~~ ~ 011 ji~ ~ ~51 ~ _0 d~ ~ j.. ~~ ~~~ ;: i ~i Ii i~i ~ I ~ ~ i~ ~~! ~' I If ;! ~ II !!l Q __J~ ! ! J ~,'L~_ _EVELAND~A~ENUE ____ 1 I r" ~' 1'\ ~~t' a\<t' ti .xt' o'UT a\<t' , o'U'=a\<t' ol(t'. oXt'=oXtT ti ! .' ~.... TeL. - TEL Ttl. ---: To.. - TeL. - TO. - ttL. - Tel. -:-"- To.. - TCL. ~AT --1- ---_--..4--'----------- ___../__ -~ - " ;;; _ "" , ..~sn ~- . "'.<I1'~. . __ ,rlCP ~/ ! I ~ . $AN-$.-N~ ._~ I I << ,.... 41 \J..r , ATrltlilflVl!. '2~Z.-:-- \Mt~ \fI.....1~ \./...., ~, ~, p.l . OA, .""'....... ,,- - -1 -..., . ~ T- : 1 r~ H '\. 14 C - / -. V, I "'!, ~, e:1 ",-,/1 i'\' .. l ... ij.' ,~ 1 III I :: < ~ PI' . I~ I~I ( n , I:~I~ I I~i I~ r--! J/ '-, ~ " Ih ' 1/1 " ~ < to; /oJ (). I' o I ~ Ii ~'I' I~ -, ... ----LIt ,C ::I 1 ~I .,. jp I = ", ~..J Z I. I II i ' ~ ~ ~ I ~I ~/ pi ~ ~ \ l, " 1 I I' I II I I ' '\. ~tj III. ~N :I' ~: ~ I P j ~ ~ ' r - ,.-. , ... . ,I ~~ 21 1:1 1 " lll~ I~, ~Q " j' , - '\. . / II' I ~8 =:; I "', ... ~. ...' .....----:;:?"------.-).-----~~)I /~ I w I ~I I I 'I \ :~, -; ~ \, ~ \ ...11 ~ I ~ ' . pl,~/ i ~ \" ,\./J. r:~ \\ ./1/1'" .....~ w ~r'\[~ ,b i l~ '''' .1 'I' : IS~ \ ;J ...... I .... /: ~ ' I f I I I ~ \,.1'-/ ......."" I y/ /.. I "" II/'.,I /' I. II <~..., >' " '\ I ""'""'---.I I "43 ., /--... J...... /' _ - - "I // I"": 1 1'-- " I" I ~~ pI',,' ,I...........). . 1'-'" I i 11 ! 1'\)1 'ft. c~~~~(7"-::~-------.. \ ~ I I l.n ~ ,"p :~. ,_ _"-.I '~-..:' _ \", I .. ~"~' ~ - -J 1 II 8 I, 811 : ITI ~ ,4 - ~ 2 ' . ~"~ .~ .' ~ 6 8l .. ;lJ r- f;; ,Q 0 3- " "'- ~ "'''' "" 0 (')lO! ,.., 00 III '" 0 (') .~ "" :xl - 'ii ':"!" ::l ~o ~ ~ Q ~ c;; :J: >l 0'" -~ o .)> Q. Q. ;:;: ~r $D :"-l pt !Jl ~j.>ff').... ~l~ Hrs{UPj~~i t ~ ~ ~ i[~~;l[.~~,.l~itd ~. g~r~~~r ?~;.~l~.i ~~I /~ilu. ~}(fH .I~~~o.~ i!.1~!~3 ~~f.hh il'''!1..~~ .~ ~r!~~li~ ~I'i.~ ~ f~i8.~~ ~ i~gj::~ ~ ;p ~&da [lOg i~il\ .i ~: ft,p.ii' H~li: ! H' Ii!}" !~~!h ! '~ ...1 'Il. 9'Ol.i!~~ b' ~8 ~ Q '< ton Pi 5 ~ ~i~' !~-~' ~I~? << ~ ~ ~.. ~9~~ ".. f~' ~ . ~!::l II - It -. en ~ c ":! 0.. CD -a'< CDa' i~ = i 52- I ~ll I ~~ . . I h . "< I ~'" ~ ;~ ~ ~ ~ i ~~ ~" ,~ , ~ I ~ " .. ~ " ~ f ~'~ I " ~ III ~ ~ 'II j 8 r I - ~ f. . ::! hg ! !f!l ~." f "j ~ i ~ ~ pi I: , f . Iii ~ ; ~ ~ . ~. . f t I " r f1l Ii r~.. 52'-" , . l ~ !~ ~ &. ~~ I ! . '. , ~ I .. (') c> II ~ f~ :I: - II ~ H - . 9- ~ II 3' .. II ; .. ... QlQ ~~~~ ~ n ~ I ilh ! '~~ ~ ~ l~ il t :1' .. ;1 ~ ; .., ~ }.I . " I "i ~ Q !6 :>> =<OJS! !;:Z ~ ~ ~;;j0 ~ '" :>>~f<> c '" '" c: ;r:: ..... ~16:j :z: ~ z"'~ ?o :t '" -< r==<~ r- r- Vl :>> :z: .'il., , ' .~ '- . . _J H ~ _CLEVELAN~ AVENU~ - - o...~J~G;r \.IAGFlS I.!AGFI:' \,/AG , ' TEL TEL TEL TEL Q ~-~ ~ ~ . ~~ 0-- o t:l .~. _I." X. - ;;:m, ICl .- . l> l 0:( 0 t:ll> -., " nl " Cl " l> ~~ 0 l> 01 -., c . ZI Cl ~I l> '" 0:( w t:ll> ~I -., )II al al Cl l> W:( 0 t:ll> -., . I ! .., I ,. .. " ~~;~ ;or- r- 00 f'1 3r- 0) ~- >- ~i~ ~'" r- ",. 0 ~- oS!! f'1 d~ o 0 ~ c " m ,,,. 21 -7!'J " ~ Ii ::I "0 0 5'0 z ,- m Q o ~ r-, p >- a. a. '" .g' . , ~ ~ " Z .. ~ . . . " ~8 2~ ~g a2 ~ S ~ ~~:~~ i m~~Uia~~ ~ t~~!~ > ~i'~~~i~~~~,i ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~~"<~.~j~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ Q d~:~~~ is U~~~ ~ ~~~~~.~~~~ ~~ I~;~a d~~I~~:!~~ ~~~n U~~~U~~I; ~~ ~;~ ~ da~~I~ ~~ o~~8~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~l~ ~~ ~!~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~! ~~ ~e~~ ~~ ~~~S r ~Hi~i' ~~i ~ ~~h~~~~ ~~} ~~~;~~~! ~ ~ ~~~; SH i i ;a~d ~ ~ ~! ~~ ~ ~ ~ 8~ ~ ~ :j! i a . I I I I jill' j 1111 . j · , g · I I 11liili i 'I~ IHJ~I"I-"If;i nnnunnUUUUUU~ nnuqp pnnPIP; ~I!~h !~H~d I~~ S n~ ~! ~ n~ - '''j . .q"; ;:,<r. \ \J \ e.~ - le .. . .' 30' NORTH ELEVATION '1/16" 4/12 ,-.. CLAD WOOD WINDOWS STUCCO 2'.,.,..- CLAD WOOD WINDOWS SOUTH ELEVATION '1/16' srucco, ,TUCCO L. . ~ ;. - fl! LJII WEST ElEVATION ,1/16" NELSON. PROFFESIONAL OFFICE, BUILDING ARDEN HILLS, MN. ... .. " . ~v~~li~rf;,'l,.. . . .t~.ib.~." I'll ~,',t~ ~,,~'r lt~~'l' ~.~Ial ",'61., Rainbow lfeecore (- J Aaron S. Nelson 3475 Siems Ct. Arden Hills, MN 55112 September 28, 2000 Mr. Nelson, On September 25, 2000.1 inspeCted the lot at 3130 Cleveland Avenue North, Arden Hills. At the North end of the 101 along the fence and ditch, there are several mature Siberian Elms. These elms are growing in and through the fence and are in potential danger of falling apart (due to the internal decay). They are also a hazard because many of these elms don't have any support roots along the concrete edge of the ditch, ) The remaining trees on the property are Boxelder; Siberian Elm, and Willow. They are either young (weedy) or over grown and are a haza~d, They have notbeen maintained at all as far I can tell. These trees are considered weed trees (volunteer trees}. ~ In my professional opinion, ,the s~tely and future aesthetic value of the property demands an entire renovation of plant material. I am recommending several replacement options. These trees include River BirCh, Thornless Honeytocust, American Linden, and Austrian ,Pine. These tree~ are fairly f..st gr~wing and can grow well in the most soils. These new trees can then be slrategiqJly placed for the maximUm benefit of shade, visual and sound barrier from the existing surroundings, Please contact me 'with questions,or concems'at 952-252-0526, Sincerely, ffi b ", " . t,Z( . C4~.fJ? Amv D. Caldwell Ceniliell ArboriSl MN- 01117 ~J ~ Rainbow Tree Company 2239 Edgewood Ave S Minneapolis MN 55426-2822 Phone: (952)922-3810 (651)251-3810 Fax: (952)252-4720 www.i:ainbowtreecare.com . j'w,wf ...... R~,""W r..,,~. ~(- ) ~ ~~ .'/'Uol-29-2001 12:00 BRW 612 373 6526 P.Ol/0l . .. URS MEMORANDUM ThresheT Square 700 Thil"d Stt~ Soulh Minno.polis, MN 55415 Phone: (612) 370-0700 Pax: (612) ~70-1378 To: Aaron Parrish, Arden Hill City Planner Copy: Greg Brown, URS File: 37951-005-2001 From: Nick Landwer, PE Date: Subject: November 29, 2001 County Road D and Cleveland A venue Site Plan, Plan Review I have reviewed the site plan for the proposed development on the northea~t comer of the intersection of County Road D and Cleveland A venue. Following are my comments: 1. Jt appears theR: could be potential drainage problems with the drainage/grading design. The proposed drainage design h3$ substalllial amount of site runoff flowing ITom the driveway entrances into County Road.D and Clevel.and A venue. Runoff from the site. into the roadways should be limited by modifying the proposed grade or by adding catchbasins. There is a1~0 a concern of potential flooding of the properties to the nurth from the ~ite runoff via the ditch on the north side of the property. An alternative collection area could be a swale in the boulevard at the intersection comer with an outlet piped to the existing stormsewer. Thedevelopershould submit existing and proposed drainage calculations for the site runoff to the City Engineer for review. 2. Rice Creek Watershed District will require the developer to apply for a drainage pemlit and provide for stounwater runoff treatment. 3. The developer should submit a detailed utility plan. 4. Details are not clear on the heights of the proposed retaining walls. Some of the taller sections of wall will require safety railings. 5. The proposed area drain in lhe lower level will be required to drain into the storm drainage s~tem. A detail of the connection should be included in the utility plan. It appears that a sump pump will be required for th.is drain. This shall not be connected to the sanitary sewer service. 6. The ramp on [he west side of the proposed building is very steep at 12.75%. This ramp should not be used for public access. TOTAL P.OI ~,.....v,........ II.......... _........... ... 4~'" .............~...._.........._ .....-~................ ........ ~ .......&.0....... .. V~""".... '\!:IV"" .' .o' ~ AAM1SE'f COUNTY TO: FROM: Department of Public Works Kenneth O. Halder, P .E., DlrectGr iIJId County Engineer (- ./ ADMINISTRATIONILAND SURVEY 50 West Kellogg Blvd, Suite 910 Sl Paul, MN 66102' (661) 26&-2600' Fax 266-2615 E.mail: PubUc-Worh@co_ramsey.mn.us ENGINEERINOIOPERATIONS 3377 N. Rice Street Snoreview, MN 66126 (661) 484.9104' Fax 482.5232 MEMORANDUM Stephen Nelson Dan Sol~cvl'- Ramsey C'~y Public Works SUBJECf: Proposed Site Plan Nelson Professional Building DATE: December 4, 2001 The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the preliminary site plan for development of the site .at Cleveland Avenue at County Road D in the City of Arden Hills. It is our understanding that you are proposing a two-story office building on that site. Ramsey County has the following comments regarding access Ilnd traffic flow for the site plan. ~ i. Both Cleveland Avenue and County Road D are county roadways under the jurisdiction of Ramsey County. The traffic count on County Road D is 9450 vehicles per day. The traffic count on Cleveland Avenue is 4400 vehicles per day. These are 2001 traffic counts taken by Ramsey County Public Works. Additional traffic generated by this development should not have a detrimental impact on the county road system. 2. Two Ilccess points are proposed for the site, one on County Road D and one on Cleveland Avenue. The access point on Cleveland A venue should be located as far north on the property as possible and the access on County Road D should be located as far east on the property as possible. This will provide the maximum separation between the driveways and tbe intersection. It is my understanding that the City has requested placement of the building in this configuration in order to provide a buffer to the residential properties to the east. Based on the proposed location of the building the access on County Road D is only 95 feet east of Cleveland Avenue. While this is within county standards for driveway placement it will make left turns into and out of the site ClI,tremely difficult at peak hours of the day. 3_ Minimum driveway width is 26 feet on Counry right of way. The driveway width can narrow down to 24 feet at the property line. 4. Permits from Ramsey County will be required for all work: in the County right-of-way. This includes access and utility permits. ~ Mhmeoota'. FIrst BOIlle Role Co1llll1 p{i1ltA4<IQf'tClo$OlMP'WlI4th.nu"'l.lIfRof18JItl(l~""IWI:'" ... r-' "'_. -- " ..." (- ~. ~ ...................... ....... ........................... 11"'..."......... ~VV.J 5. The developer shall protect all in place traffic signal equipment at tbe intersection of County Road D and Cleveland Avenue. 6. Ramsey County bas a project programmed to reconstruct County Road D between Cleveland Avenue and Pairview Aven~ in 2004. It appears that the proposed development will not be significantly impacted by the reconstruction project based on preliminary scoping of the project. Thanks for tbe opportunity to make comments regarding this development. If you have any questions or need any additional information please give me a call. Cc: Aaron Parrish - City of Arden Hills " " FROM : HALL 1 NG ENG lNEER I NG , .... '" FAX NO. :9524613310 Dec. 05 2001 03; 04PM Pi ' . . ~atti1J9" " .........". ~neerinfJ . . 3727 255th Street E. . Webster MN 55088. Phone (952) 461-3320. Fax (952) 461-3310 (~ MEMO To: Nick Landwer, PE Aaron Parrish., Arden Hills City Planner From: Gregory R. Halling, PE ~t~ Date; Decelllber 1, 2001 .Re: Co Rd D & Cleveland Ave. Sitc Plan, Blair Properties Plan Review November 29. 200i This memo responds 10 the items brought up in the plan review by Nick Landwcr. " I: Attached are calculations and a copy of thc topo showing the property as it was previously developed. 'Ibese calculations show that the existing storm sewer is adequate to handle this development. Additional spot elevatioM on the Cleveland entrance will ensure that surfacc water is dircctcd to the spillway. Also the driveway has a negligible amount of runoff going directly to COlUlty Road D. ~' 2. Attached is a letter from the Rice Creek WSD showing that ao permit is required. 3," Utility details will ht: added to the final plans when a building permit is applied tor and the details which have been requested from Nick will be placed on the plans" 4. Retaining walls will be finalized on the final pl'lns and railings will be shown" 5. Final details with a sump pump draining the exterior ramp at the lowcr level will direet . the runoff to the swale on the north. 6. The ramp on the cast side of the building will not be used by the public and will tlnly bc"' used occasionully by thc owner. ..t9 ( . . . ~ ~ EN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: Agenda Item 6.A.2 September 23, 2002 TO: Mayor and City Council Joe Lynch, City Administrator Aaron Parrish - Community Services Director Af FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Case #02-24, Trinity Lutheran Church, Zoning Ordinance Amendment ENCLOSURES: 1. Plarming Commission Meeting Minute Excerpt Overview Trinity Lutheran Church of Lake Joharma is requesting a zoning ordinance amendment that would allow music lessons as an accessory use for Houses of Worship. Currently, the zoning ordinance considers music lessons a studio use. Studio uses are only allowed in the commercial zoning districts (Neighborhood Business; B-1 to B-4; and Civic Center). See the attached Land Use Chart for additional information. ProDosed Zoninl1: Ordinance Amendment Currently, the zoning ordinance allows Daycare Facilities as an accessory use in Houses of Worship. The following language from Section 6.B.2. of the zoning ordinance is illustrative: Day Care Facilities for Houses of Worship and Schools. Day care facilities for over ten (10) persons shall be considered as accessory uses for houses of worship and schools within all residential districts if located in the principal building. Much like day care facilities, music lessons are often an ancillary use for churches and other quasi public buildings. To accommodate this, the ordinance language above could be redrafted in the following marmer: Day Care Facilities IRI.i'i<llil!tJl~:I.~ for Houses of Worship and Schools. Day care facilities for over ten (10) persons shall be considered as accessory uses for houses of worship Page 2 September 23, 2002 Plarming Case #02-24 located in the principal building. M#~'~ Planninl! Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission is recommending approval of the proposed ordinance revision. Requested Action Consider approval of the proposed ordinance amendment ~ . . . . . . MINUTES CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4,2002 7:00 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER Chair Sand called the meeting to order at 7:02 p,m. ROLLCALL Present were Commissioners Ken Bezdicek, Brad Lemberg, Megan Ricke, Cathy Smithknecht, Clayton Zimmerman, and Chair David Sand. Absent: Commissioner Terri Duchenes. Also present were Council Member Beverly Aplikowski, Council Member Lois Rem, Director of Community Services Aaron Parrish, City Planner Peter Hellegers, and Recording Secretary Kathleen Altman. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Zimmerman moved, seconded by Commissioner Bezdicek to approve the agenda for the September 4, 2002 Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 7. 2002. Commissioner Zimmerman moved, seconded by Commissioner Lemberg to approve the August 7, 2002 minutes as amended. The motion carried unanimously (6-0), PUBLIC HEARING - PLANNING CASE #02-24 - TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH. 1700 HIGHWAY 96, ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Mr. Parrish introduced the new City Planner Peter Hellegers and welcomed him to the City. Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 7:03 p,m. Staff reviewed their report dated August 26, 2002. Staff recommended approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. There was no one present for or against the Zoning Ordinance amendment. Chair Sand closed the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if there would be a charge for the lessons, or would it be strictly to enhance the abilities of the people in the choir, ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 4, 2002 2 Patricia Johnson, 2986 Meldew Drive, Roseville responded they would be charging for . the music lessons to both members and non-members of the church, Chair Sand requested for future reference they may want to look at what uses were permitted for a house of worship, Commissioner Ricke asked if it was possible there would be requests for drama lessons, etc. for other buildings. Mr. Parrish replied that was why they limited it to music lessons and did not open this up to general issues. He stated it was a balancing act to decide what was an accessory use and what was not. Commissioner Ricke moved, seconded by Commissioner Lemberg, to approve Planning Case #02-24, Trinity Lutheran Church, 1700 Highway 96, Zoning Ordinance Amendment. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). PUBLIC HEARING - PLANNING CASE #02-20 - AARON S. NELSON, 3475 SIEMS COURT, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. Staff reviewed their report dated August 27, 2002. Staff recommended approval of the . proposed Master and Final Planned Unit Development amendment with conditions as outlined in their report. Steve Nelson, speaking on behalf of his son, Aaron Nelson, stated with respect to the building materials, the architect felt that stucco would be more residential in nature where brick would not be. He indicated a lot of the changes were as a result of prospective tenant requests. He stated they wanted to make this more flexible for tenants. With respect to on-street parking, he understood the concerns noted and suggested putting two parking spaces to the east of the building. He stated there would be sufficient room to put two on-street parking sites there. With respect to coniferous trees, he stated they had looked at that initially, but because of the high water, it was recommended they not use those types of trees. In addition, if they had a fence there, there would be less screening at the top. He noted a large pine tree would also almost be in the parking lot. He stated they would not assume any problems with drainage issues if this were done. Commissioner Zimmerman asked what was the rationale for wanting on-street parking. Mr. Nelson replied they did not know the exact needs of the tenants and they had checked with the property across the street to see if they could lease excess parking spaces from them. He stated that business did not have an issue with leasing their parking lot. However, when he contacted the City of New Brighton the City had concerns about leasing of the parking lot and recommended against it. He the only option they had at this time was additional on-street parking. . Chair Sand asked if the overall height of the building would be less. Mr. Nelson replied it would go down two feet. j' '!~. , . ~ EN HILLS . . MEMORANDUM DATE: 6.A.3 September 23, 2002 Agenda Item TO: Mayor Dennis Probst Council Member Beverly Aplikowski Council Member David Grant Council Member Gregg Larson Council Member Lois Rem Joe Lynch, City Administrator FROM: Aaron Parrish - Community Services Director SUBJECT: Guidant Alternative Urban Areawide Review ENCLOSURES: 1. Guidant AUAR Document Overview At the September 9, 2002 City Council meeting, the Council adopted a resolution directing Guidant to prepare an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for their campus master plan. Subsequently, the AUAR document has been developed by SRF (project consultant) and modified based on suggestions from City staff. In the City Engineer's review of the document, it was suggested that a draft mitigation plan be incorporated into the draft AUAR. After discussions with the project consultant, staff is comfortable not including the draft mitigation plan until comments have been received from the reviewing agencies. In addition, agencies will have the opportunity to comment on the mitigation plan prior to City Council approval. The process and timelines below are illustrative: 9/0911002 9/30/2002 10/14/2002 11/13/2002 11/21/2002 12/0512002 12/20/2002 12/30/2002 Page 2 September 23, 2002 Memo to Mayor and City Council Generally speaking, the only area where substantive mitigation measures will be required is in the area of traffic improvements. Appropriate safeguards will also need to be in place for blandings turtles that have been sited predominantly in the TCAAP area. It will also be necessary replace a small amount of wetland on a 2: 1 basis. A representative of SRF, the consulting team preparing the AUAR, will be available to answer any questions that the Council might have. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review for the Guidant property. Requested Action Consider approval of the draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review for the Guidant property. \ , , . . . . . . . GUIDANT CAMPUS MASTER PLAN DRAFT ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW (AUAR) FOR CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL September 2002 Prepared for: City of Arden Hills Prepared by: SRF Consulting Group, Inc. SRF No. 0024547 . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction.....,............................,.............,............................,.............,.........,............................ .2 . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. Proj ect Title....,...............................................................................,........,..................... 2 Proposer ........ ... ...............,....., ",.. ........ ................ ,.................... ",.............. .,............. ..... 2 RGU .............................................................................................................,............... 2 Reason for EA W Preparation ....................................................................................... 2 Project Location .......... .... .............. ....... ....,..... ........"......... ......... .... ..... .... .... .... ...... ,...... 2 Description ,....,...........".....,..........................................,...,........,....................,............. 3 Project Magnitude Data ............................................................................................... 6 Permits and Approvals Required ................................................................................. 8 Land Use ................ ....... ........'.... ..... .............".. ........ ............... ....... ,....,.,.,. ,... ..... .......... 9 Cover Types ................................................................................................................. 11 Fish, Wildlife, and Ecology Sensitive Resources ........................................................ 13 Physical Impacts on Water Resources ......................................................................... 15 Water Use ..................................................................................................................... 17 Water-Related Land Use Management Districts .......................................................... 18 Water Surface Use ....................................................................................................... 18 Erosion and Sedimentation .......................................................................................... 19 Water Quality.. Surface Water Runoff ........................................................................ 20 Water Quality.. Wastewater ........................................................................................ 24 Geologic Hazards and Soil Conditions ........................................................................ 25 Solid Wastes; Hazardous Wastes; Storage Tanks ........................................................ 27 Traffic ............. ...... ................... ............... ..............,.... ................ ......... .......,................. 28 Vehicle-Related Air Emissions ...........,................,...........................................,........... 40 Stationary Source Air Emissions ................................................................................. 44 Dust, Odors and Noise ...........,......,.....................,........................................................ 44 Sensitive Resources .. ...... ........ .....,...... .................... ........ ............ .......... ........ ............". 52 Visual Impacts ..... ......,... .."... ..... ..., ......, ..... ......... ...... ................ .... .... ,... ,. ,... ... ...... ......... 54 Compatibility with Plans ,.......................................................................... ................... 55 Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services .............................................................. 56 Cumulative Impacts ...........................................................,....................,.................... 56 Other Potential Environmental Impacts ....................................................................... 57 Summary of Issues ......., ........... ........, .............. ......, ......,... .................. ..... ........... .......... 57 . APPENDICES: Appendix A: Figures Appendix B: City Council Resolution Ordering the AUAR Appendix C: Correspondence H:\Planning\4547\ReporfICouncil Draft cmb 092002.doc . -1- . Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 . Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 LIST OF TABLES Page Staging Intensity of the Proposed Development ............................................"... 5 - Building and Parking Ramp Heights (Existing and Proposed)............................ 7 - Required Permits and Approvals ....."............."...."............................................ 8 - Existing and Proposed Cover Types ........................."........................................12 - Wetland Summary ......."........"...........""........................"..,."........................."..16 - Existing and Proposed Impervious Surface and Proposed Treatment Strategy .. 23 - Existing A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Capacity Analysis LOS Results - Signalized Intersections .. ..."...,................ ..................... ..... ..,.... ,... ,....,................ 31 Existing A.M. and P,M. Peak Hour Capacity Analysis LOS Results- Unsignalized Intersections "....................."......"................................................. 32 Future No-Build A.M, and P.M. Peak Hour Capacity Analysis LOS Results- Signalized Intersections .........."...................................,.."...,...,.......................... 33 Future No-Build A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Capacity Analysis LOS Results- Unsignalized Intersections ......."".....................".."."........................"......,,,......34 - Future Build A,M. and P.M. Peak Hour Capacity Analysis LOS Results- Signalized Intersections ............. ..... ........... ........... ". ..."..."...... ..... ....., ........ "...... 36 Future Build A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Capacity Analysis LOS Results- Unsignalized Intersections .. ......." ...... ,..... .."... ............ ..... ..... ......... .....,......, ........ 37 - Future 2005 A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Capacity Analysis LOS Results- Signalized Intersections ...... ........ """,...... ......... ..". .... ...... ..... ...... .......... .,....., .."" 38 Future 2005 A,M. and f .M. Peak Hour Capacity Analysis LOS Results- Unsignalized Intersections ."............. .."...... ..... ........... ".. ....... ....... ."... .,. ....... ......38 Future 2020 A.M. and P ,M, Peak Hour Capacity Analysis LOS Results- Signalized Intersections . ....... ,.... "..""" ..........."............ .................. .............. ...... 39 - Future 2020 A.M. and P ,M. Peak Hour Capacity Analysis LOS Results- Unsignalized Intersections "........... ....... ......., ...... "."... ..... ................. ..... ......... ....39 Table 17 - Carbon Monoxide Modeling Assumptions ..............".........................................42 Table 18 - Calculation of CO Background Concentrations ......."."."...................................43 Table 19 - Carbon Monoxide Modeling Results - 2020 A.M. ..."....".................................. 45 Table 20 - Carbon Monoxide Modeling Results - 2020 P.M. ........"...................................46 Table 21 - Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels at 50 Feet ............."...................47 Table 22 - Minnesota State Noise Standards ............."....,."........................................."......49 Table 23 - Noise Monitoring and Modeling Results - Daytime ..........................................50 Table 24 - Noise Monitoring Results - Nighttime ......................................."......................51 . -ii- . INTRODUCTION This Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) was completed by the Guidant Corporation to provide environmental planning and documentation for further development of the Guidant Campus in Arden Hills. As provided for in Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410.3610, Subpart 1, this AUAR substitutes for preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for future developments in the study area, provided they are consistent with the assumptions of the AUAR. The land uses described in the proposed development are consistent with those designated by the City's land use plans and zoning identified in both the adopted 1982 City of Arden Hills Comprehensive Development Plan and the conditionally approved November 1998 City of Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan. (The Metropolitan Council conditionally approved the 1998 Comprehensive Plan pending minor additions and changes to the document including the completion of a Local Storm Water Management Plan. The City completed the Local Storm Water Management Plan and submitted it to the Metropolitan Council in September 2002.) THIS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW WAS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD (EQB) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROGRAM, MINNESOTA RULES 4410.3610, AND THE EQB MEMORANDUM, "RECOMMENDED CONTENT AND FORMAT: ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW DOCUMENTS," DATED OCTOBER 2000. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS GUIDANCE, THE STANDARD EAW FORM HAS BEEN USED TO COMPLETE THIS REVIEW. FOR EACH ITEM DISCUSSED BELOW, A NOTE HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN ITALICS INDICATING EITHER THE EQB'S RECOMMENDATION OF INFORMATION NEEDED FOR THE AUAR (WHERE IT DIFFERS FROM THAT NEEDED FOR THE EAW) OR THAT THE EA W ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE AUAR. . NOTE TO REVIEWERS: Comments must be submitted to the City of Arden Hills, the Responsible Government Unit (RGU) for this document, during the 30-day comment period following notice of the Draft AUAR in the EQB Monitor. Comments must address the accuracy and completeness of the information provided in this draft analysis; potential impacts that warrant further analysis; additional information that may be required in order to secure permits for specific projects in the future; and/or mitigation measures or procedures necessary to prevent significant environmental impacts within the area when development occurs. Commenting governmental units should state in their comments whether or not they wish to be notified by the RGU upon receipt of applications for specific development projects within the area. Comments on this Draft AUAR will be addressed in a Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan that will include an appendix specifically responding to each timely, substantive comment received and indicating how the comment has been addressed. The Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan will be distributcd to all Draft AUAR recipients and commentors as required by state regulations. . Guidant Campus Master Piau Draft AUAR -1- September 2002 . 1. PROJECT TITLE: Guidant Campus Master Plan 2. PROPOSER: Guidant Corporation CONTACT PERSON: Mr. Dave Reimer TITLE: Director of Facilities ADDRESS: 4100 Hamline Avenue North Arden Hills, MN 55112 PHONE: 651/634-5125 3. RGU: City of Arden Hills CONTACT PERSON: Mr. Aaron Parrish TITLE: Community Services Director ADDRESS: 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112-5794 PHONE: 651/634-5125 EMAIL: aaron.parrish@ci.arden-hills.mn.us 4. REASON FOR EAW PREPARATION: Not applicable to A UAR, . 5. PROJECT LOCATION SECTIONS -..lL COUNTY CITY/TOWNSHIP TOWNSHIP 30N Ramsev City of Arden Hills RANGE 23W EAW: A. A COUNTY MAP SHOWING THE GENERAL LOCATION OF THE PROJECT. The county map is not needed for an A UAR. B. COPY(IES) OF USGS 7.5 MINUTE, 1:24,000 SCALE MAP INDICATING THE PROJECT BOUNDARIES, c. A SITE PLAN SHOWING ALL SIGNIFICANT PROJECT AND NATURAL FEATURES. AUAR: Instead of a site plan, include: (I) a map clearly depicting the boundaries of the AUAR and any subdistricts used in the AUAR analysis; (2) land use and planning and zoning maps as required in conjunction with Items 9 and 27; and (3) a cover type map as required by Item 10. Additional maps may be included throughout the document wherever maps are . useful for displaying relevant information. Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR - 2- September 2002 The required graphics are provided in Appendix A: . . Figure I Project Location-Local Area . Figure 2 AUAR Boundary . Figure 3 Existing Site Plan . Figure 4 Proposed Site Plan . Figure 5 Existing Land Uses (November 1998 Conditionally Adopted Comprehensive Plan) . Figure 6 Planned Land Uses (1982 Adopted Comprehensive Development Plan) . Figure 7 Planned Land Uses (November 1998 Conditionally Adopted Comprehensive Plan) . Figure 8 Zoning Map (1982 Adopted Comprehensive Plan) . Figure 9 Zoning Map (November 1998 Conditionally Adopted Comprehensive Plan) . Figure 10 Existing Cover Types . Figure 11 Proposed Cover Types 6. DESCRIPTION . AUAR: Instead of the information called for on the EAW Form, the description section of an A UAR should include the following elements for each major development scenario: . anticipated types and intensity (density) of residential and commercial /warehousellimited industrial development throughout the AUAR area; . infrastructure planned to serve the development (roads, sewers, water, stonn water system, etc.). Roadways intended primarily to serve the adjoining land uses within an AUAR area are normally expected to be reviewed as part of an AUAR. More "arterial" types of roadways that would cross an A UAR area are an optional inclusion in the AUAR analysis; if they are to be included, a more intensive level of review, generally including an analysis of alternative routes, is necessary; . information about the anticipated staging of various developments, to the extent known, and of the infrastructure, and how the infrastructure staging will influence the development schedule. Note: The RGU must assure that the development described complies with the requirements of MN Rules 4410.3610, Subpart 3 (and also that it properly orders the AUAR and sets the description in that order as required by 4410.3610, Subpart 3). . Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR - 3- Seplember 2002 e INTRODUCTION This Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) was initiated by the Guidant Corporation (Guidant) to identify and document potential cumulative environmental impacts and infrastructure needs related to the further development of the Guidant Campus through the year 2019. The AUAR allows the City to evaluate the cumulative effects of all anticipated development in the area at once rather than reviewing individual phases of development separately. Although the training center (Building L) received site plan review approval from the City in April 2002 as an independent action prior to the actions for the proposed Master Plan, the entire Guidant Campus (including Building L) will be included in the AUAR. The City of Arden Hills City Council ordered the preparation of an AUAR for the Master Plan on September 9, 2002. See Appendix B, STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION . The Guidant Campus (the AUAR study area) is a 92.7-acre site in the northwestern part of the City of Arden Hills (see Figures 1 and 2), While the campus lies entirely within the City of Arden Hills, its eastern boundary is directly adjacent to the City of Shore view. Major highways in the area include Interstate 694 (1-694) approximately one quarter-mile to the south, and 1-35W approximately 1.5 miles to the west. The 1-35W/I-694 interchange is approximately 2 miles west of the proposed campus. The campus is south of Guidant Drive North, north of County Road (CR) F, west of Lexington Avenue and east of Ham line A venue. Hamline Avenue and Lexington Avenue both have interchange access to 1694 south of the proposed campus area. Traffic traveling west on 1-694 can exit at Hamline Avenue and gain access to the site; however, traffic traveling east on 1-694 can only travel south on Snelling A venue thereby not providing access to the Guidant Campus. The entire site is owned by Guidant, including Building 0, a 7.1-acre parcel located in the northwest corner of the site known as the Nestle's property. This parcel was purchased by Guidant in August of 2002. The AUAR study area currently includes office and limited industrial land uses, as well as approximately 28.5 acres of vacant land. The study area is within the Metropolitan Council's current Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUS A) and is served by City sewer and water. The Guidant Campus Master Plan is consistent with the proposed land use and zoning found in the both the City's adopted 1982 comprehensive plan, and the conditionally approved 1998 comprehensive plan. DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO TO BE STUDIED IN THE AUAR . The AUAR process studied one development scenario that represents the "worst case" (i.e., most intensive) development concept being considered for tlle site, The Guidant Campus Master Plan has a three-stage development concept (see Table 1 and Figure 4). Phase 1 is planned for construction within the southern half of the campus and includes Addition I to existing Building D, Buildings K (with only three floors to be occupied, initially) and L and Ramps #1 (600 cars) and #5 (900 cars). The location for Phase II is primarily in the western half of the campus with a new ramp on the most southeastern Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR -4 - September 2002 portion ofthe campus and includes Buildings G and H and Addition J to Building E as well as Ramps #2 (750 cars), #3 (400 cars) and #6 (900 cars). Phase ill will conclude the development and occur in the northern half of the campus and includes Buildings M and N and Ramps #4 (1,335 cars) and #7 (2,142 cars). The proposed development will add 1,029,000 square feet of office/limited industrial space to the existing 1,158,893 square foot of office/limited industrial uses for a total of 2,187,893 square feet of office/limited industrial. To accommodate the additional parking demand on the campus, seven new parking ramps will be constructed and will provide 7,027 parking spaces. The proposed development will also include 615 surface parking spaces. The proposed parking spaces will replace the existing 3,331 surface parking spaces, resulting in a net increase of 4,31 I parking spaces. Figure 4 shows the Master Plan for development of the Guidant Campus through 2019. Table 1 shows the worst-case development scenario assumptions for intensity and staging of development within the AUAR study area. TABLE 1 STAGING AND INTENSITY OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Sta2ing Existing (2002) Intensity 1,158,893 GSF office/limited industrial (includes Building 0) 3,331 surface parking spaces' Phase I (2005) 419,800 GSF office/limited industrial 1,500 parking ramp stalls Phase II (2010) 332,000 GSF office/limited industrial 2,050 parking ramp stalls Phase ill (2015) 277,200 GSF office/limited industrial 3,477 parking ramp stalls Total 2,187,893 GSF office/limited industrial 7,027 parking ramp stalls and 615 surface parking spaces * All but 615 surface lot parking spaces ofthe existing 3,331 will be replaced by parking ramp stalls through a phased process to meet the parking demands of the added office space, Surface parking areas may not be replaced by the parking ramps but may be replaced by other coyer types. INFRASTRUCTURE . . Infrastructure improvements to facilitate the development of the Guidant Campus include transportation and storm water conveyance/treatment systems. The City of Arden Hills has confirmed that the existing water and sanitary sewer service to the site has the capacity for the additional proposed campus needs. . Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR - 5 - September 2002 . Roadways One public road, Femwood Avenue, currently bisects the campus (see Figure 3), Fernwood Avenue serves the AUAR study area buildings as well as the businesses just north of the study area along Guidant Drive North. The other main roadway on the site is Guidant Drive North. Although this is a private roadway owned by Guidant, the roadway is also used by businesses to the north to gain access to and from Lexington Avenue, The concept plan for Phase I (see Table I) of the Master Plan proposes to convert Guidant Drive North to a public roadway and ultimately vacate Fernwood A venue to provide safer movement of employees through the proposed campus, Although these roadway improvements are included in the Master Plan concept that is currently being developed for the site, the improvements have not been approved by the City. Refer to Items 21 and 25.C for more details, Sanitary Sewer The study area is currently served by city sanitary sewer. Three lines serve the campus and are located in CR F, Hamline Avenue and in Fernwood Avenue. The City of Arden Hills has confirmed that the existing sanitary sewer main lines have adequate capacity to serve the proposed development. Lateral line extensions will be made, as needed, to the existing sanitary sewer main line in Fernwood Avenue to serve the new buildings. Refer to Item 18 for more details. . Water Supplv Existing water mains are located in CR F, Hamline Avenue and in Fernwood Avenue. The City of Arden Hills has confirmed that the existing water mains have adequate capacity to serve the proposed development. Connections from the existing water lines in Fernwood Avenue to the new buildings will be required and added as needed. Refer to Item I3 for more details. Storm Water Storm water runoff from the existing site condition discharges directly into the wetlands on and adjacent to the campus. The campus expansion will provide for treatment prior to storm water entering the wetlands by methods of infiltration, retention and NURP ponds in accordance with the City of Arden Hills and Rice Creek Watershed District requirements. The overall storm water runoff volumes will decrease from existing conditions as the proposed campus expansion will decrease the amount of impervious surface area. Refer to Item 17 for more details. . 7. PROJECT MAGNITUDE DATA AUAR: The cumulative totals of the parameters called for should be given for each major development scenario, except that information on "manufacturing," "other industrial, " "institutional," "agricultural." and "building heights" is optional. TOTAL PROJECT AREA (ACRES): 92.7 OR LENGTH (MILES) NA Guidant Campus Master Plan DraftAUAR .6- September 2002 The scope of the Master Plan is based on Guidant's growth over the next 18 years. Guidant plans to have a net increase of 4,000 employees on the 92.7-acre site currently used for office/limited industrial uses. The total development will include six new office buildings, two additions to current buildings and the use of the recently acquired Building o (refer to the project description in Item 6 for more detail), The proposed development will add 1,029,000 square feet of office/limited industrial space to the existing 1,158,893 square foot of office/limited industrial uses for a total of 2,187,893 square feet of office/limited industrial. To accommodate the additional parking demand on the campus, seven new parking ramps will be constructed and will provide 7,027 parking spaces. The proposed development will also include 615 surface parking spaces. The proposed parking spaces will replace the existing 3,331 surface parking spaces, resulting in a net increase of 4,311 parking spaces. The buildings and parking ramps proposed in the Master Plan will range in height from 30 to 135 feet. Table 2 identifies the height of the existing and proposed buildings and ramps. TABLE 2 BUILDING AND PARKING RAMP HEIGHTS (EXISTING AND PROPOSED) Building/Parking Ramp Existing (feet) Proposed (feet) Building A 57 Building B 42 Building C 42 Building D 25 Building E 30 Building F 46 Building G 60 Building H 60 Building I 30 Building J 30 Building K 135 Building L 62 Building M 75 Building N 75 Building 0 40 Ramp I 40 Ramp 2 50 Ramp 3 30 Ramp 4 30 Ramp 5 40 Ramp 6 40 Ramp 7 40 Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft ADAR -7 - September 2002 . . . . In plarming for the needs of the Guidant Campus, the architect had the opportunity to maintain visibly compatible building heights by taking advantage of the lower elevation in the southern portion of the campus. Buildings planned for the southern portion of the campus will accommodate more of the capacity needs of the proposed campus and therefore, be taller but will appear similar in height to the existing and proposed buildings and ramps due to the lower grade elevation. 8. PERMITS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED EAW: LIST ALL KNOWN LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL PERMITS, APPROVALS AND FUNDING REQUIRED. AUAR: A listing oj major approvals likely to be required by the anticipated types oj development projects should be given. This list will help orient reviewers to the idea that the AUAR process is only one piece oj the regulatory Jramework that will protect environmental resources. The list can also serve as a starting point Jor the development oj the implementation aspects oj the mitigation plan to be developed as part oj the A UAR. . TABLE 3 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS . Unit of Government Permit or Approval City of Arden Hills Preliminary and Final Plat Approval, Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development Approval; Land Disturbance and Erosion Control Plan and Permit; Water Connection Permits; Building Permits; Street Vacation; Site Plan Reviews for Each Building . Rice Creek Watershed District Storm Water and Water Quality Plan Review and Approval; Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Replacement Plan review and approval ..~ Ramsey County Contiguous Plat Review Ramsey County Department of Public Health Plan Review of any Food Services; Small Quantity Hazardous Generator license -.. .. Metropolitan Council Permit for Utility Connection; Industrial Waste Discharge Permit - -- Minnesota Department of Transportation Contiguous Plat Review . Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NPDES Construction Permit .. Army COIpS of Engineers Section 404 approval for wetland impacts, Guidan! Campus Master Plan Draft ADAR - 8 - September 2002 9. LAND USE . EAW: DESCRIBE CURRENT AND RECENT PAST LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE AND ON ADJACENT LANDS, DISCUSS THE COMPATmn.JTY OF THE PROJECT WITH ADJACENT AND NEARBY LAND USES; INDICATE WHETHER ANY POTENTIAL CONFLICTS INVOLVE ENVIRONMENTAL MATI'ERS. IDENTIFY ANY POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD DUE TO PAST LAND USES, SUCH AS SOIL CONTAMINATION OR ABANDONED STORAGE TANKS. AUAR: No changes from the EA W form. The AUAR study area is an approximately 92.7-acre site in the eastern central part of the City of Arden Hills located approximately three-quarters of a mile north of the Lexington AvenuelI-694 interchange (see Figure 2), The AUAR study area has been developed for approximately 40 years and currently includes office and limited industrial land uses. Approximately 28.5 acres of undeveloped land has remained on the site including wetlands, wooded areas, brush and grassland. Guidant Corporation has owned a rectangular parcel of the site encompassing approximately 45 acres in the southwest corner (where existing Buildings A, B, C, D and E are located) since the mid-1970s. The eastern portion of the site (where existing . Building F is located) was owned and occupied by Control Data Systems from 1962 until 1998. The site was originally used in 1962 by Control Data Systems as a computer manufacturing facility but was converted into office spaces for Control Data Systems and individual tenant spaces when manufacturing was discontinued at the site in the 1980s. Control Data Systems occupied a majority of the office space and the remainder was leased to tenants that had limited manufacturing or office space needs. The site was owned by LNCBBC, Inc., a California firefighter's pension, from 1998 until 2000. Several tenants including Guidant, lease space in Building F. Guidant has been a tenant of Building F since 1995, and they purchased the majority of the site (all properties except for Building 0) in 2000. The other tenants will not continue to occupy the campus as part ofthe Master Plan. The 35,000-square foot Building 0 (the former Nestle's building) situated on a 7.l-acre lot located northwest of the existing Guidant structures was recently (August 2002) purchased. Building 0 was formerly used for manufacturing dog food but will be used by Guidant for a research team (consisting of 25 to 30 employees) as well as for storage. As part of this acquisition, proccss equipment will be removed from the west side of the building. . Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR -9 - September 2002 . The land uses proposed for the campus Master Plan are consistent with the existing site land use, as well as the City's adopted 1982 and conditionally-adopted 1998 Comprehensive Plan (see Figures 5, 6 and 7). (The 1998 Comprehensive Plan has been conditionally-adopted by the Metropolitan Council pending the approval of the City's recently submitted Local Storm Water Management Plan, and so both the currently- effective 1982 plan and the conditionally-adopted 1998 plan are discussed.) The 1982 and 1998 Comprehensive Plan zoning maps identifY the proposed campus and areas north and south of the campus as I-I (Limited Industrial District) (see Figures 8 and 9). The purpose for an I-I (Limited Industrial District) is to allow only those types and intensities of industrial uses that do not detract from the surrounding area and to maintain performance standards to keep the intensity of land utilization lower than in the general Industrial District. The Guidant Master Plan proposes campus development within the area currently occupied by office/limited industrial uses and maintains a "green" buffer between the campus and adjacent land uses in conformity with zoning regulations. . Land use in the areas northwest and west of the AUAR study area (in the City of Arden Hills) includes single-family residential. Land use immediately north and south of the study area (also in the City of Arden Hills) is dominated by commerciallbusiness development (office buildings). The CSM Corporation owns and occupies office buildings north of the campus. The Fair Isaac Company is a tenant of this office complex and employs approximately 700 people. An Xcel Energy electrical sub-station is located directly south of the campus, north of CR F. Arden Woods Office Building, located south of CR F and the campus, is a three-story multi-tenant office building. Also located south of the campus is the Land 0' Lakes corporate headquarters. Land use east of the study area (in the City of Shoreview) is dominated by business campuses, including the Medtronics business campus, and also includes townhomes and apartment buildings, The land use zoning districts in the area are identified by the City of Arden Hills as I-I zoning to the north and south, and R-I (single-family residential) zoning to the west and northwest. Currently, office buildings are located in these areas zoned as I-I. Cummings Park, located north of the site, is zoned as R-I in the 1982 Comprehensive Plan but as I-I in the November 1998 conditionally adopted comprehensive plan. The zoning districts identified in the adopted 2000 City of Shoreview Comprehensive Plan are R-3 (multi-dwelling residential) and Planned Unit Development (PUD). PUD zoning in Shoreview allows the city flexibility in determining land uses. The existing land uses are consistent with these zoning districts, Potential Environmental Hazards Prior to purchasing the property formerly owned by Control Data Systems, two Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) were completed for this portion of the site. The 1997 ESA covered Building F and its boilers (see Figure 3) and the 1998 ESA covered the 37.21-acre Control Data Campus in Arden Hills, which includes Building F and adjacent land. . Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR - 10- September 2002 The 1997 ESA revealed no indications of recognized environmental conditions. The 1998 ESA concluded that operations on the Control Data Campus did not pose a significant environmental concern. However, it was the recommendation of the 1998 ESA that a limited subsurface investigation be conducted in the vicinity of the former fuel oil underground storage tanks (USTs) and that sampling of elevator hydraulic fluids for polychlorinated biphenyls be conducted. A Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan and Risk Management Plan (RMP) was recommended for the Control Data Systems operations occurring on the site at the time of this ESA. The Guidant Corporation has an SPCC and RMp for their operations. . A subsurface investigation in the former UST area (identified in the 1998 ESA) was conducted. Fuel oil impacts were noted in two of the boring locations. Further investigation was conducted at these locations and it was determined that the impacts were limited to the shallow subsurface soils. The fuel oil impacted soils were removed and the MPCA stated that no further action was required related to the former fuel oil USTs. A liquid oil sample was taken from each of the four elevator hydraulic oil reservoirs. The test results revealed there were no concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at or above laboratory method detection limits and therefore, no recommendations were provided for further investigation. No further studies have been completed by Guidant for the remainder of the Guidant Campus not included in the aforementioned ESA's; however, in September 2001, as part of . the completion of the Arden Hills Local Storm Water Management Plan (February 2002), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency provided the City of Arden Hills information regarding contaminated site in the vicinity of Arden Hills. No sites of concern were identified on or immediately adjacent to the AUAR study area. It is not anticipated that other environmental hazards will be encountered on the Guidant Campus site. 10. COVER TYPES EAW: ESTIMATE THE ACREAGE OF THE SITE WITH EACH OF THE FOLLOWING COVER TYPES BEFORE AND AFTER DEVELOPMENT (BEFORE AND AFTER TOTALS SHOULD BE EQUAL), AUAR: Thefollowing information should be provided instead: A. A cover type map, at least at the scale of a USGS topographic map, depicting: . wetlands - identified by type (Circular 39) watercourses - rivers, streams, creeks, ditches lakes - identify protected waters status and shoreland management classification woodlands - breakdown by classes where possible . . . Guidan! Campus Master Plan DraftAUAR -1]- September 2002 . . . . grassland - identifY native and oldfield cropland current development . . Table 4 summarizes the estimated acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development. Figures 10 and 11 depict existing and proposed cover types, respectively. TABLE 4 EXISTING AND PROPOSED COVER TYPES (WORST -CASE SCENARIO) Before acreage After acreage (square feet) (square feet) Type 1-8 wetlands 5.9 (257,004 ft2) 5.3 (230,868 fYl . W ooded/F orest 17.6 (766,656 ft2) 14.7 (640,332 fY) Brush! grassland 5.0 (217,800 f2) 2.6 (113,256 ft2) Cropland - 0- - 0- Lawn/Landscaping ] ].4 (496,584 ft2) 24.8 (1,080,288 ft2) Impervious (Buildings & pavement) 52.8 (2,299,968 fY) 45.0 (1,960,200 fY) Other - Created ponding** - 0- 0.3 (13,068 fY) TOTAL 92.7 (4,038,012 fe) 92.7 (4,038,012 fe) Wetlands lost as a result oj the development are proposed to be mitigated on-site. However, since a specific wetland mitigation plan has not yet been finalized, acreage for new (replacement) wetlands are not included in this table, .. Not including infiltration areas. B. An "overlay" map showing anticipated development in relation to the cover types; this map should also depict any "protection areas," existing or proposed, that will preserve sensitive cover types, Separate maps for each major development scenario should generally be provided. . Figure 10 in Appendix A illustrates existing cover types within the AUAR study area, along with current development. . Figure I I in Appendix A depicts proposed redevelopment parcels with proposed cover types, Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR -]2 - September 2002 11. FISH, WILDLIFE, AND ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE RESOURCES . EAW: A: DESCRIBE FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES ON OR NEAR THE SITE AND DISCUSS HOW THEY WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT. DESCRIBE ANY MEASURES TO BE TAKEN TO MINIMIZE OR AVOID ADVERSE IMPACTS. AUAR: A: The description of wildlife and fish should be related to the habitat types depicted on the cover types maps of Item 10. Any differences in impacts between development scenarios should be highlighted in the discussion. As identified in Item 9, the majority of the AUAR study area and surrounding property is developed. Wooded and grassy areas on the property and residential yards near the project provide habitat to small mammals suited to urban environments (typically including squirrels, raccoons and chipmunks). Birds commonly found in urban areas include grackles, robins, starlings, crows, blue jays and cardinals. Several wetlands on the site and adjacent land may provide habitat for frogs and turtles (see discussion of Blanding's turtles in Item 1J.B, below). Construction of the project will necessitate some wetland filling and tree removal. As a . result, the proposed project will result in some negative impact on habitat. Impacts to wildlife will be minimized by avoiding disturbance to most of the wooded areas around the perimeter of the site and avoiding impacts to wetlands where possible. A wooded area at the northeast comer of the property will remain undisturbed. Wetlands and associated undeveloped uplands at the northwest corner of the property will also remain largely undisturbed, Impacts to wetlands are described in detail in Item 12. EAW: B. ARE THERE ANY STATE-LlSTED ENDANGERED, THREATENED, OR SPECIAL- CONCERN SPECIES; RARE PLANT COMMUNITIES; COLONIAL WATERBIRD NESTING COLONIES; NATIVE PRAIRIE OR OTHER RARE HABITAT; OR OTHER SENSITIVE ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES ON OR NEAR THE SITE? NO lL YES IF YES, DESCRIBE THE RESOURCE AND HOW IT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT. INDICATE IF A SITE SURVEY OF THE RESOURCES WAS CONDUCTED. DESCRIBE MEASURES TO BE TAKEN TO MINIMIZE OR AVOID ADVERSE IMP ACTS. . Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR - 13- September 2002 . . . AUAR: B. For an AUAR, prior consultation with the DNR Natural Heritage program for information about reports of rare plant and animal species in the vicinity is required. If such consultation indicates the need, an on-site habitat survey for rare species in the appropriate portions of the A UAR area is required. Areas of on-site surveys should be depicted on a map, as should any "protection zones" established as a result. A search (ERDB# 20030006) of the MnDNR's Natural Heritage database was conducted for an area within an approximate I-mile radius of the project site. The DNR report is included in Appendix C. No observations of rare plant or animal species or significant natural features were identified on the project site. However, the database search revealed that the project site is within a "known concentration" area of Blanding's turtles (Emydoidea blandingii), a species listed as threatened in Minnesota. The DNR has identified 13 such "known concentration" areas in the state and gives these areas highest priority for research and management activities. In addition, these areas are relied upon to maintain the species' security in the state. The preferred habitat of the Blanding's turtle is calm, shallow water and dense aquatic vegetation. The Blanding's turtle prefers to nest in large areas of undisturbed, sandy uplands. The Blanding's turtle's late maturation, low reproductive potential, long-lived adults and high mortality of eggs and juveniles are factors that make it particularly susceptible to human disturbances. As stated in the excerpt from the MnDNR publication Minnesota's Endangered Flora and Fauna (included in Appendix C), "Population and reproductive dynamics suggest viable populations of Blanding's turtles are dependent on large numbers of animals and adequate areas of undisturbed habitat." The DNR report includes nine observations of Blanding's turtles near the project site. The dates of these observations range from 1988 to 1998. The sightings of Blanding's turtles included in the DNR report were noted near Marsden Lake (located one-half to one and one-half miles north of the project site along the east side of the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP) site) and Snail Lake (located approximately one half mile northeast of the project site). Three of the sightings were observed within approximately one half mile of the site to the north, presumably around Karth Lake. No survey of the AUAR study area has been conducted to determine the presence of Blanding's turtles. Almost all of the land between the project site and the areas where turtles have been identified is developed, medium density, residential land and is not considered favorable habitat for Blanding's turtles. Nevertheless, there is a possibility that Blanding's turtles could use portions of the site, particularly the shallow wetland (see Figure 11, Wetland L) and surrounding undisturbed sandy loam (132B and 132C) upland located at the northwest corner of the property. Refer to Items 12 and 19 for more details on wetlands and soils on the campus. Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft ADAR -14- September 2002 A list of recommendations for avoiding and minimizing impacts to Blanding's turtles and their habitat is included in the DNR report. These recommendations will be implemented were feasible. The measures that will likely be appropriate for project construction include: . 1) Placement of silt fencing around construction areas to keep turtles out of construction areas in the spring. 2) NotifYing contractors of the possibility of threatened turtles III the area and instructions on how to avoid harm to turtles if they are spotted. 3) Minimization of impacts to wetlands on the site. 4) Preservation of un-mowed upland buffer around wetlands on the site. 5) Preservation of some undisturbed upland at the northwest corner of the site. 12. PHYSICAL IMPACTS ON WATER RESOURCES EAW: WILL THE PROJECT INVOLVE THE PHYSICAL OR HYDROLOGIC ALTERATION . (DREDGING, FILLING, STREAM DIVERSION, OUTFALL STRUCTURE, DIKING, IMPOUNDMENT) OF ANY SURFACE WATER (LAKE, POND, WETLAND, STREAM, DRAINAGE DITCH?) NO l YES IF YES, IDENTIFY THE WATER RESOURCE TO BE AFFECTED AND DESCRIBE: THE ALTERATION, INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS; VOLUMES OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL; AREA AFFECTED; LENGTH OF STREAM DIVERSION; WATER SURFACE AREA AFFECTED; TIMING AND EXTENT OF FLUCTUATION IN WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS; SPOILS DISPOSAL SITES; AND PROPOSED MITIGA nON MEASURES TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS. AUAR: The information called for on the EAW form should be supplied for any of the infrastructure associated with the AUAR development scenarios, andfor any residential or commercial development expected to physically impact any water resources. Where it is uncertain whether water resources will be impacted, depending on the exact design of future developments, the AUAR should cover the possible impacts through a "worst case scenario" or else prevent impacts through the provisions of the mitigation plan. . Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR .]5. September 2002 . . . Wetlands Twelve wetlands were identified within the AUAR study area. Wetlands on the project site were identified, characterized and delineated by Sanders Wacker Bergly, Inc. The results of this work are presented in a Wetland Delineation Report dated May 28, 2002. Twelve wetlands were identified on the site and labeled A, B, D through K1, and K2 (see Figure 10). Impacts to wetlands will be avoided where possible. Based on preliminary design information, four of the twelve basins will be impacted with the Guidant Campus expansion. A summary of the wetlands identified on the project site and proposed impacts is presented Table 5. TABLE 5 WETLAND SUMMARY Wetland Name Wetland Type Approximate Size of Approximate Area Wetland ofImpact Wetland A Deep marsh (Type 4/5) 0.4 Acre 0.3 Acre Wetland B Wet meadow (Type 2) 0.2 Acre No Impact Wetland D Shallow marsh (Type 3/4) 2.3 Acres No Impact Wetland E Deep marsh (Type 4/5) 1.7 Acres No Impact Wetland F Deep marsh (Type 4) 0.2 Acre No Impact Wetland G Deep marsh (Type 4) 0.2 Acre No Impact Wetland H Deep marsh (Type 4) 0.1 Acre No Impact Wetland I Deep marsh (Type 4) 1.2 Acre No Impact Wetland J Deep marsh (Type 4) 0.1 Acre 0.1 Acre Wetland KI Shallow marsh (Type 2/3) 0.1 Acre 0.1 Acre Wetland K2 Shallow marsh (Type 2/3) 0.1 Acre 0.1 Acre Wetland VlJ Shallow Marsh (Type 3) 0.1 No Impact Total Area: 6.7 Acres(2) 0.6 Acre (I) Wetland was not delineated, size and type are estimated. (2) Not all of the wetlands lie entirely within the AUAR Study area boundary. To comply with requirements of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, wetland impacts will be off set by creating mitigation at a 2: 1 ratio (2 acres of mitigation area for each acre of impacted area). A detailed mitigation plan has not yet been developed, however wetland mitigation will be accomplished by creating new replacement wetlands on the project site. Existing wetlands located near the northwest comer of the site will likely be enlarged to create new wetland area. Guidant Campus Master Plan DraftAUAR - 16- September 2002 As outlined in Item 8, permits will be required from the Army Corps of Engineers and the Rice Creek Watershed District for wetland alterations. As part of the permit approval process, a fmal mitigation plan will be submitted to these agencies documenting proposed wetland impacts and detailed mitigation. . Item 17 describes mitigation for storm water impacts, including impacts on existing wetlands of the proposed development, The proposed storm water treatment plans will improve wetland quality by removing sediment, organics and other debris prior to the storm water entering the wetlands as it does under the existing condition. 13. WATER USE EAW: WILL THE PROJECT INVOLVE THE INSTALLATION OR ABANDONMENT OF ANY WELLS, CONNECTION TO OR CHANGES IN ANY PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY OR APPROPRIATION OF GROUND OR SURFACE WATER (INCLUDING DEWATERING)? NO lL. YES . IF YES, AS APPLICABLE, GIVE LOCATION AND PURPOSE OF ANY NEW WELLS; PUBLIC SUPPLY AFFECTED, CHANGES TO BE MADE, AND WATER QUANTITIES TO BE USED; THE SOURCE, DURATION, QUANTITY AND PURPOSE OF ANY APPROPRIATIONS; AND UNIQUE WELL NUMBERS AND DNR APPROPRIATION PERMIT NUMBERS, IF KNOWN. IDENTIFY ANY EXISTING AND NEW WELLS ON THE SITE MAP. IF THERE ARE NO WELLS KNOWN ON SITE, EXPLAIN METHODOLOGY USED TO DETERMINE. AUAR: If the area requires new water supply wells. specific infonnation about that appropriation and its potential impacts on groundwater levels should be given; if groundwater levels would be affected, any impacts resulting on other resources should be addressed. The City of Arden Hills has confirmed that the existing water lines servicing the proposed campus have the capacity to handle the additional volume of water required for campus needs. The City has also confirmed that their drinking water source, the St. Paul Water Utility, can provide the additional drinking water required for the proposed campus through the City of Roseville. As discussed in Item 6, existing water Jines servicing the study area are located in CR F, Hamline Avenue and Femwood Avenue. These additional connections will be made as needed during the phased development of the AUAR study area, The proposed campus will require approximately 41,715 additional gallons of water . per day over the existing need of 47,560 gallons per day for a total of 93,866 gallons per day, These quantities do not include water used by Building F, which is served by two Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR -17 - September 2002 . . . wells. No additional connections will need to be made to the City water lines located in CR F or Hamline Avenue with the campus expansion. However, additional connections to the water and sanitary mains will need to be made in Fernwood Avenue. Calculations for determining the amount of water assume that for office/limited industrial space there is three employees per 1,000 square feet, requiring 15 gallons of water per person per day. There are two wells located on the campus (see Figures 3 and 4). These wells serve Building F and will continue to serve only Building F. The water tower, located on the campus, is no longer used. At one time water was drawn from the tower for fire protection. The existing automatic fire sprinkler system is now connected to City water. 14. WATER-RELATED LAND USE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS EAW: DOES ANY PART OF THE PROJECT SITE INVOLVE A SHORELAND ZONING DISTRICT, A DELINEATED 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN, OR A STATE OR FEDERALLY DESIGNATED WILD OR SCENIC RIVER LAND USE DISTRICT? ~ NO YES IF YES, IDENTIFY THE DISTRICT AND DISCUSS THE COMPATffiILITY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE LAND USE RESTRICTIONS OF THE DISTRICT, ALSO, SUCH DISTRICTS SHOULD BE DELINEATED ON APPROPRIATE MAPS AND THE LAND USE RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE IN THOSE DISTRICTS SHOULD BE DESCRIBED. IF ANY VARIANCES OR DEVIATIONS FROM THESE RESTRICTIONS WITHIN THE AUAR AREA ARE ENVISIONED, THIS SHOULD BE DISCUSSED, AUAR: Such districts should be delineated on appropriate maps and the land use restrictions applicable in those districts should be described. If any variances or deviations from these restrictions within the A UAR area are envisioned, this should be discussed. Not Applicable. 15. WATER SURFACE USE EAW: WILL THE PROJECT CHANGE THE NUMBER OR TYPE OF WATERCRAFT ON ANY WATER BODY? THIS ITEM NEED ONLY BE ADDRESSED IF THE AUAR AREA WOULD INCLUDE OR ADJOIN RECREA TIONAL WATER BODIES, l NO YES Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft ADAR - ]8- September 2002 IF YES, INDICATE THE CURRENT AND PROJECTED WATERCRAFT USAGE AND DISCUSS ANY POTENTIAL OVERCROWDING OR CONFLICTS WITH OTHER USERS OR FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES. AUAR: This item need only be addressed if the AUAR area would include or adjoin recreational water bodies. . Not Applicable. 16. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION EAW: GIVE THE ACREAGE TO BE GRADED OR EXCA V A TED AND THE CUBIC YARDS OF SOIL TO BE MOVED: ACRES ; CUBIC YARDS , DESCRIBE ANY STEEP SLOPES OR HIGHLY ERODIBLE SOILS AND IDENTIFY THEM ON THE SITE MAP. DESCRIBE ANY EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES TO BE USED DURING AND AFTER PROJECT CONSTRUCTION. AUAR: The number of acres to be graded and the number of cubic yards of soils to be moved need not be given; instead, a general discussion of the likely earthmoving needs for development of the area should be given, with an emphasis on unusual or problem areas. In discussing . mitigation measures, both the standard requirements of the local ordinances and any special measures that would be added for A UAR purposes should be included. While it is premature to determine the detailed earthmoving requirements for the future development phases, because the redevelopment sites are relatively flat and most areas have been previously developed, unique and/or unusual earthwork requirements for the proposed redevelopment are not anticipated. The potential for erosion and sedimentation of soils exposed during redevelopment of the AUAR study area will be minimized by using Best Management Practices (BMPs) during and after construction. Erosion control practices will be identified in the final site grading and construction plans as required by the NPDES permit and in accordance with the City of Arden Hills and Rice Creek Watershed District's erosion/sedimentation control standards. All erosion control measures shall be installed prior to grading operations and maintained until all disturbed areas have been restored. Streets will be swept as necessary where construction sediment has been deposited, Also, NURP ponds must be constructed before main grading. After construction, all disturbed arcas will be either paved or vegetated to eliminate exposed soil surfaces. Removal of erosion control measures will not occur until all disturbed areas have been stabilized. . Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR .19- September 2002 . . . 17. WATER QUALITY - SURFACE WATER RUNOFF EAW: A. COMPARE THE QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF SITE RUNOFF BEFORE AND AFTER THE PROJECT. DESCRIBE METHODS TO BE USED TO MANAGE AND/OR TREAT RUNOFF. B. IDENTIFY THE ROUTE(S) AND RECENING WATER BODIES FOR RUNOFF FROM THE SITE. ESTIMATE THE IMPACT OF THE RUNOFF ON THE QUALITY OF THE RECEIVING WATERS. AUAR: For an AUAR, the following additional guidance should befollowed in addition to that in the "EA W Guidelines. " . It is expected that an A UAR will have a detailed analysis of storm water issues. . A map of the proposed storm water management system and of the water bodies that will receive storm water should be provided. The description of the storm water management should identify on-site and "regional" detention ponding and also indicate whether the various ponds will be new water bodies or converted existing ponds or wetlands. Where on-site ponds will be used but have not yet been designed, the discussion should indicate the design standards that will be followed. . . Ifpresent in or adjoining the AUAR area, the following types of water bodies must be given special analyses: Lakes: Within the Twin Cities metro area a nutrient budget analysis must be prepared for any "priority lake" identified by the Metropolitan Council (see Appendix E of "EA W Guidelines" (1990) or contact the Council stafJ). Outside of the metro area, lakes needing a nutrient budget analysis must be determined by consultation with MPCA and DNR stoffi;; Traut streams: If storm water discharges will enter or affect a trout stream, an evaluation of the impacts an the chemical composition and temperature regime of the stream and the consequent impacts on the trout population (and other species of concern) must be included. According to the February 2002 Local Storm Water Management Plan (LSMP) for the City of Arden Hills, the AUAR study area is located within the Valentine Lake district in the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD). There are 13 wetlands in or near the study area. Seven of the wetlands are affected by the existing and future drainage from the proposed project. These seven wetlands include Wetlands A, C, D, E, F, G and L and are shown in Figurc 12. Guidant Campus Master PIau Draft AUAR .20. September 2002 The City's storm water management plan lists the seven wetlands and Valentine Lake as Tier 3 water bodies, which indicates that the intended uses do not include direct human contact with the water. Tier 3 water bodies include all DNR protected lakes, wetlands, and watercourses not included in Tiers I and 2. Tier I consistently supports swimming and Tier 2 lakes are capable of supporting swimming or having significant public use. . Based on the site and utility plan and storm water analysis provided by Rehder and Associates, Inc., the AUAR study area can be divided into six unique drainage areas as shown in Figure 12. The areas are defmed by topographic boundaries, storm drain alignments and where water discharges from the site. The areas are addressed individually within this section. For most of the existing site, runoff from pavement (parking lots and roadway surfaces) is carried via storm sewer to the receiving wetlands and carries with it the sediment and pollutants associated with these types of areas untreated to the water body. A few areas drain into municipal storm sewer either via overland flow or via storm sewer connections. Area I, which will not undergo any site plan changes at this time, flows to the existing storm sewer system on Lexington Avenue to the east. Area n drains into Wetland A, which crosses the southem property line in the southeast quadrant. Area ill drains to Wetland D within the study area at the northwest corner of the intersection of CR F and Fernwood Avcnue. Drainage from Wetland A flows into Wetland C outside of the study area and subsequently flows into Wetland D. Wetland D then discharges to the south through a culvert under CR F. . Area IV drains to Wetlands E, F and G. These are linked wetlands, which eventually drain out of the AUAR study area north along Hamline Avenue. Area V flows into Wetland I and then out of the site to the northwest. The northeastern portion of Area V (the Building 0 site) is not expected to undergo any site plan changes at this time, Area VI, which will undergo only slight site plan changes at this time, drains onto the adjacent roadways and into existing storm sewer at the northeast corner of the study area. According to the Comprehensive Drainage Survey Maintenance Plan and Ponding Recommendations prepared for the City of Arden Hills (dated May 1999), there are no planned regional storm water ponds in or near the AUAR study area. Design criteria for on-site storm water treatment arc listed below. . The total phosphorous removal efficiency for each pond or pond network must be at least 65 percent. (LSMP) . The permanent pool for wet ponds should have a volume equal to or greater than the runoff resulting from a 2.5-inch rainstorm under complete watershed development. (RCWD Rules, adopted August 12, 1998, and LSMP) . Storm water runoff rates for the proposed project must not exceed existing runoff rates . for the critical one-year or two-year and IOO-year frequency events. (RCWD Rules) Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR - 21 - September 2002 . . . . While not a requirement, the RCWD promotes the use of infiltration devices capable of infiltrating the impervious surface runoff from the Minneapolis-St. Paul median storm in 72 hours. (RCWD Rules) The drainage patterns proposed for the expanded campus are similar to the eXlstmg condition, but provide for storm water treatment prior to discharging to any wetland, wherever feasible. Small diversions of water from an existing drainage area may result in order to provide treatment for changes in other parts of the campus. The quantity of storm water runoff will likely increase in some drainage areas due to the increased impervious surfaces proposed for these areas, however, there will be an overall decrease in impervious surface area within the AUAR study area compared to existing conditions. The mitigation measures for treating storm water runoff associated with the proposed development include several surface water treatment strategies for each identified drainage area undergoing site plan changes. The strategies proposed are based on the best available information, but will require further study and discussion with the Watershed District prior to final design. During the design phase of this project, soil and groundwater data will be required to ensure that appropriate treatment areas and Best Management Practice (BMP) designs are selected. [The Rice Creek Watershed district received the storm water treatment strategies, outlined in this AUAR, in mid-September for their review and comment.] To the extent possible, storm water runoff from new impervious areas will be directed into infiltration basins and wet ponds prior to leaving the site. Infiltration basins provide mitigation for the increase in runoff volume by infiltrating storm water and provide water quality treatment by filtering particulate matter from the runoff. Wet ponds provide water quality treatment by settling out sediment and attached nutrients and by skimming floating debris and provide rate control for the water leaving the site. Design of the treatment devices will be in accordance with the City and Watershed District water quality guidelines. Design of the outlets for the treatment devices will be in accordance with the Watershed District rate control guidelines. Table 6 summarizes the existing and proposed impervious surface and proposed treatment strategies for each drainage area shown in Figure 12. As can be seen in Table 6, while three individual sub-watersheds show an increase in total impervious area, the overall amount of impervious acreage will decrease by approximately 2.2 acres. In particular, the amount of pavement (parking lot and roadway surfaces) will decrease by roughly 7,2 acres, which is significant in terms of the types and levels of pollutants associated with pavement versus rooftop runoff. Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft ADAR - 22- September 2002 TABLE 6 EXISTING AND PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND PROPOSED TREATMENT STRATEGY . Existing 0/0 Future 0/. Descriptio Area (3) Impervious Impervious Surface (4) Surface Comments TreatmentslStrategy n (acres) Paved/Rooftop Paved/Rooftop Area Area Areal 9,7 69.0 69.0 None (no changes to 4.1 ac / 2.6 ac 4.1 ac / 2.6 ac existing) Area II 38.5 65.2 56.3 Approximately 3.3 ac of Infiltration basins/wet 20.9 ac /6.6 ac 13.2 ac / 8.5 ac the existing su b- ponds watershed moved into Area III. (2) Area III 19.2 38.5 49.0 Thi s area experienced a Infiltration basins/wet 4.7 ac 71.9 ac 5.5 ac /3.9 ac net increase of ponds approximately 2.1 ac. (2) Area IV 10.6 57.3 33.9 Approximately 2.2 ac of Infiltration basin 4.9 ac /2.4 ac 1.1 ac / 2.5 ac the existing sub- watcrshed movcd into Area V. (2) Area V 15.5 12.1 38.2 This area experienced a Infiltration basins/wet 1.0 ac / 0.5 ac 4.4 ac / 1.6 ac net increase of approx. ponds 3.3 ac from Areas III and N. (2) Area VI 3.4 30.4 32.1 This area experienced a None (small drainage 0.9 ac / 0.0 ac 1.1 ac / 0,0 ac net increase of area connects to approximately 0.4 ac existing municipal from Area II. (2) storm sewer) TOTALS 96.9 (I) 52,1 49.9 Overall impervious area 36.5 ac /14.0 ac 29.3 ac /19.1 ac decreases by roughly 2.2 ac, Pavement acreage decreases by roughly 7,2 ac . Source: Rehder and Associates, Inc., site and utility plan and storm water analysis (August 22, 2002). (I) Total acreage is higher than that of the AUAR study area because drainage areas extend beyond the ADAR study area. Notes: (2) Numbers arc based on current proposed site and storm water utility plan. The acreages shown arc for the proposed condition. See Conunent section for description of changes in area between the existing to proposed conditions. Percent-impervious numbers for the existing condition were calculated based on the existing total drainage area, which may be different than the acreage shown. See the Comment section for a . description of the changes in total acreage. (3) (4) Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft ADAR - 23 . September 2002 . . . 18. WATER QUALITY - WASTEWATER EAW: A. DESCRIBE SOURCES, COMPOSITION AND QUANTITIES OF ALL SANITARY, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER PRODUCED OR TREATED AT THE SITE. B. DESCRIBE WASTE TREATMENT METHODS OR POLLUTION PREVENTION EFFORTS AND GIVE ESTIMATES OF COMPOSITION AFTER TREATMENT. IDENTIFY RECEIVING WATERS, INCLUDING MAJOR DOWNSTREAM WATER BODIES, AND ESTIMATE THE DISCHARGE IMPACT ON THE QUALITY OF RECEIVING WATERS. IF THE PROJECT INVOLVES ON-SITE SEWAGE SYSTEMS, DISCUSS THE SUITABILITY OF SITE CONDITIONS FOR SUCH SYSTEMS. C. IF WASTES WILL BE DISCHARGED INTO A PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT FACILITY, IDENTIFY THE FACILITY, DESCRIBE ANY PRETREATMENT PROVISIONS AND DISCUSS THE FACILITY'S ABILITY TO HANDLE TIIE VOLUME AND COMPOSITION OF WASTES, IDENTIFYING ANY IMPROVEMENTS NECESSARY. D. IF THE PROJECT REQUIRES DISPOSAL OF LIQUID ANIMAL MANURE, DESCRIBE DISPOSAL TECHNIQUE AND LOCATION AND DISCUSS CAPACITY TO HANDLE THE VOLUME AND COMPOSITION OF MANURE, IDENTIFY ANY IMPROVEMENTS NECESSARY, DESCRIBE ANY REQUffiED SETBACKS FOR LAND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS. AUAR: Observe the following points of guidance in an A UAR: . Only domestic wastewater should be considered in an AUAR - industrial wastewater would be coming from industrial uses that are excluded from review through an A UAR process. . Wastewater flows should be estimated by land use sub-areas of the AUAR area; the basis offlow estimates should be explained. . The major sewer system features should be shown on a map and the expected flows should be identified. . If not explained under Item 6, the expected staging of the sewer system construction should be described, . The relationship of the sewer system extension to the RGU's comprehensive sewer plan and ([or metro areas) to Metropolitan Council regional systems plans, including Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR -24 - September 2002 MUSA expansions, should be discussed. For non-metro area AUARs, the AUAR must discuss the capacity of the RGU's wastewater treatment system compared to the flows from the A UAR area; and necessary improvements should be described, . . If on-site systems will serve part of the AUAR the guidance in "EAW Guidelines" (pages 16-17) should befollowed. Parking garage drainage and other site-generated wastewater will be discharged directly into the City's sanitary sewer system, which is processed by the Metropolitan Council Enviromnental Services (MCES) system. The City of Arden Hills has confirmed that the existing sanitary sewer lines servicing the proposed campus have the capacity to handle the additional wastewater volumes required for the campus needs. There was also coordination with the MCES to confirm that their system could handle the additional volumes of wastewater. The proposed campus will add approximately 46,305 gallons per day of wastewater to the existing 52,150 gallons per day for a total of 98,456 gallons per day. While the proposed project will not require additional connections to the sanitary sewer lines located in CR F and Hamline Avenue, the development will require additional connections to the sanitary line located in Fernwood Avenue. These additional connections will be made as needed during the phased development of the AUAR study area. Calculations for determining the amount of wastewater assume that for office/limited industrial space there are three employees per 1,000 square feet, producing 15 gallons of wastewater per person per day. Guidant will work with the City of Arden Hills to determine the marmer in which the internal drainage from the parking garage will be . treated prior to entering the sanitary sewer consistent with Section 1010.08 Subd. 1 of the City of Arden Hills ordinance. Drainage from the top uncovered level of each parking ramp will enter the city storm water system. 19. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND SOIL CONDITIONS EAW: A. APPROXIMATE DEPTH (IN FEET) TO GROUND WATER: 0 Feet MINIMUM, 90 Feet AVERAGE Source: Water table elevation data was calculated using the USGS 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map for Ramsey County, Minnesota-New Brighton quadrangle (1997) and the Geologic Atlas of Ramsey County, Minnesota Surficial Hydrogeolgy map (1992). APPROXIMATE DEPTH (IN FEET) TO BEDROCK: 250 FEET MINIMUM, 300 FEET AVERAGE Source: Bedrock information obtained from the Phase I ESA (November 21, 1997). . Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR - 25 - September 2002 . . . DESCRIBE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING GEOLOGIC SITE HAZARDS TO GROUND WATER AND ALSO IDENTIFY THEM ON THE SITE MAP: SINKHOLES, SHALLOW LIMESTONE FORMATIONS OR KARST CONDmONS. DESCRIBE MEASURES TO A VOID OR MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS DUE TO ANY OF THESE HAZARDS. B. DESCRIBE THE SOILS ON THE SITE, GNING NRCS (SCS) CLASSIFICATIONS, IF KNOWN. DISCUSS SOIL GRANULARITY AND POTENTIAL FOR GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION FROM WASTES OR CHEMICALS SPREAD OR SPILLED ONTO THE SOILS. DISCUSS ANY MmGATION MEASURES TO PREVENT SUCH CONTAMINATION. AUAR: A map should be included to show any groundwater hazards identified. A standard soils map covering the area should be included. The Bedrock Geology (1992) portion of the Geological Atlas for Ramsey County was reviewed for the AUAR study area and does not identif'y any geologic features (karst topography, shallow limestone, etc.) that will result in potential groundwater hazard conditions, The Washington and Ramsey County Soil Survey (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 1980) was reviewed and indicates that native soils within the AUAR _ study area consist mostly of the Hayden-Urban variety which are undulating to steep, well- drained, moderately coarse textured soils and urban lands; or uplands. Much of the AUAR study area is now considered Urban Land, which includes 70 percent coverage by buildings and pavement, and native soil has been greatly altered by excavation and grading. Figure 13 shows the location of various soil types in the study area, including slope percentages for each soil subgroup. Soils information for the study area was obtained from the Washington and Ramsey Counties Soil Survey (U.s. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1980). The following soil types occur in the study area (slopes are given in parentheses): . 1039 . 132 B . 132 C . 860C 1055 Urban Land Hayden fine sandy loam (2-6%) Hayden fine sandy loam (6-12%) Urban land-Hayden-Kingsley Complex (3-15%) Aquolls and Histolsols, ponded The permeability of the soils in the area is moderate. Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR - 26- September 2002 Small areas of Hayden fine sandy loam with 2 to 6 percent slopes are found within the . AUAR study area and are classified as prime farmland. None of this land is actively farmed at this time, however. The AUAR area is not part of any agricultural land protection program, consistent with the area's urban-related land use designations identified in the Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan and the area's inclusion within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary, 20. SOLID WASTES; HAZARDOUS WASTES; STORAGE TANKS EAW: A. DESCRIBE TYPES, AMOUNTS AND COMPOSITIONS OF SOLID OR HAZARDOUS WASTES, INCLUDING SOLID ANIMAL MANURE, SLUDGE AND ASH, PRODUCED DURING CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION. IDENTIFY METHOD AND LOCATION OF DISPOSAL. FOR PROJECTS GENERATING MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, INDICATE IF TIlERE IS A SOURCE SEPARATION PLAN; DESCRIBE HOW TIlE PROJECT WILL BE MODIFIED FOR RECYCLING. IF HAZARDOUS WASTE IS GENERA TED, INDICATE IF THERE IS A HAZARDOUS WASTE MINIMIZATION PLAN AND ROUTINE HAZARDOUS WASTE REDUCTION ASSESSMENTS. AUAR: Generally only the estimated total quantity of municipal solid waste generated and . information about any recycling or source separation programs of the RGU need to be included. The proposed office/limited industrial uses in the AUAR study area will produce typical municipal solid waste. The project proposer estimated 9,878 additional pounds per day of municipal solid waste will be produced by expansion of the campus. This will be in addition to the estimated 11,461 pounds of municipal solid waste created per day for the existing uses, Calculations for determining the amount of solid waste produced assume that for office/limited industrial space there are three employees per 1,000 square feet, producing 3.2 pounds of solid waste per day. B. IDENTIFY ANY TOXIC OR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TO BE USED OR PRESENT AT THE SITE AND IDENTIFY MEASURES TO BE USED TO PREVENT THEM FROM CONTAMINATING GROUNDWATER. IF THE USE OF TOXIC OR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WILL LEAD TO A REGULA TED WASTE, DISCHARGE OR EMISSION, DISCUSS ANY ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED TO MINIMIZE OR ELIMINATE THE WASTE, DISCHARGE OR EMISSION, AUAR: No response is necessary. There are a variety of hazardous chemicals used by the Guidant Corporation for production. Fresh chemicals are supplied to Guidant to derive the necessary production chemicals. The fresh chemicals are stored in areas separate from the rooms and cabinets where the production chemicals are stored, Spill absorbent are readily available for all . chemicals in case of accidental spill. Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR - 27- September 2002 . . . The production and fresh chemicals stored on-site include the following with an approximate 0.9 tons used each month. [This is the total tons of chemicals that are classified as Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).J . Isopropyl alcohol . Heplane . DT 4 (organic binder) . Oxyfume . DT 6 (organic binder) . 1P AlCyclohexane . Acetone . Dynasolve 210 (Methylane chloride) . Tabcoat 100 . The chemicals are regulated by the MPCA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) and the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA). In addition, Guidant conforms with all requirements for the Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generators license from the Ramsey County Department of Environmental Health. An Emergency Response Plan is filed with the local fire and emergency response officials. C. INDICATE THE NUMBER, LOCATION, SIZE AND USE OF ANY ABOVE OR BELOW GROUND TANKS TO STORE PETROLEUM PRODUCTS OR OTHER MATERIALS, EXCEPT WATER. DESCRIBE ANY EMERGENCY RESPONSE CONTAINMENT PLANS. AUAR: Potential locations of storage tanks associated with commercial uses in the A UAR should be identified (e.g., gasoline tanks at service stations). All below-grade storage tanks have been removed from the site. An above ground liquid petroleum storage tank exists on the site as a backup fuel source for the Building F boiler house. There are no tanks planned for commercial purposes within the AUAR study area. 21. TRAFFIC EAW: PARKING SPACES ADDED 4.311 spaces EXISTING SPACES (IF PROJECT INVOLVES EXPANSION) 3.331 spaces ESTIMATED TOT AL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) GENERA TED 2020: CR F CR96 Hamline Ave. Lexington Ave, 1-694* = 15,100 ADT 26,100 ADT = 16,000 ADT 24,400 ADT 135,000 ADT * Count between Hamline Ave. and Lexington Ave. interchanges. Guidant Campus Master Plan Drall AUAR - 28 - September 2002 ESTIMATED MAXIMUM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC GENERA TED (IF KNOWN) AND ITS TIMING . 2005: 1,645 trips onto the campus during the A.M. Peak 7:30-8.30 A.M. 1,474 trips off the campus during the P.M. Peak 4:30-5:30 P.M. 2020: 2,860 trips onto the campus during the A.M. Peak 7:30-8:30 A.M. 2,573 trips offthe campus during the P.M. Peak 4:30-5:30 P.M. AN ESTIMATE OF THE IMPACT ON TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON THE AFFECTED ROADS AND DESCRIBE ANY TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS WHICH WILL BE NECESSARY. IF THE PROJECT IS WITHIN THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITlAN AREA, DISCUSS ITS IMPACT ON THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. AUAR: For most AUAR reviews a relatively detailed traffic analysis will be needed, especially if there is to be much commercial development in the AUAR area or if there are major congested roadways in the vicinity. The results of the traffic analysis must be used in the response to Item 22 and to the noise aspect of Item 24. Instead of responding to the information called for in Item 21, the following information should be provided: . . A description and map of the existing and proposed roadway system, including state, regional, and local roads to be affected by the development of the AUAR area. This information should include existing and proposed roadway capacities and existing and projected background (i.e" without the AUAR development) traffic volumes, . Trip generation data - trip generation rates and trip totals - for each major development scenario broken down by land use zones and/or other relevant subdivisions of the area. The projected distributions onto the roadway system must be included, . Analysis of impacts of the traffic generated by the A UAR area on the roadway system, including: comparison of peak period total flows to capacities analysis of Levels of Service and delay times at critical points (if any). . A discussion of structural and non-structural improvements and traffic management measures that are proposed to mitigate problems. NOTE: In the above analyses the geographical scope must extend outward as far as the traffic to be generated would have a significant effect on the roadway system and traffic measurements and projections should include peak days and peak hours, or other appropriate measures related to identifYing congestion problems, as well as ADTs, . Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft ADAR -29- September 2002 . . . A traffic impact study was completed by Parsons Transportation Group for the AUAR study area in July 2002 to determine the impacts resulting from traffic anticipated to be generated by the planned development scenario. The study included an analysis of existing (2002) traffic conditions, future (2005 and 2020) traffic conditions with and without the proposed development (Build and No-Build), and operational impacts to area roadways. The traffic study included an analysis of roadways within and immediately adjacent to the AUAR study area that are anticipated to be impacted by the proposed Guidant Campus expanSIOn, The traffic impact study forecasted future traffic volumes and examined the operational characteristics of existing and future conditions. The primary measure that is used to analyze these conditions is level of service (LOS). The LOS characteristic is an operational comparison of the ability of a road or intersection to accommodate traffic flow and remain uncongested. The LOS of an intersection is generally presented as an alphabetic rating from A to F, with A indicating minimal delays and F indicating significant delays. Intersections are generally considered to be operating at capacity at LOS D and to exceed capacity at LOS E and F. The following text summarizes the findings of the traffic impact study, Existing Roadwav Svstem The Guidant Campus (the AUAR study area) is located northwest of the Lexington AvenuelI-694 interchange. Access to the site is currently provided via CR F, CR 96, Hamline Avenue, Lexington Avenue, and 1-694. Following is a brief description of these roadways, including how they provide access to the site and existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes. . CR F is a two-lane collector roadway that runs east-west and provides access to the Guidant Campus on the south via Fernwood Drive and two driveways (known as the west and east driveways), The existing average daily traffic (ADT) for CR F is 8,400, . CR 96 is a four-lane minor arterial roadway that runs east-west and bisects Lexington A venue and Hamline A venue, north of the study area. The existing ADT for CR 96 is 19,000. . Hamline Avenue is a two-lane minor arterial roadway. Visitor access to the Guidant Campus is currently provided via Hamline Avenue. Hamline Avenue becomes Snelling Avenue south ofI-694. Traffic traveling west on 1-694 can exit at Hamline Avenue and gain access to the site; however, traffic traveling east on 1-694 can only travel south on Snelling Avenue thereby not providing access to the Guidant Campus. Hamline Avenue has an existing ADT of 12,000. . Lexington Avenue, a minor arterial roadway, has two lanes southbound, between 1-694 and CR 96. Northbound Lexington Avenue is two lanes, from 1-694 to Guidant Drive North; however, it is only one lane from Guidant Drive North to CR 96, There are currently two access points to the Guidant Campus from Lexington A venue - Guidant Drive North and Guidant Drive South. Lexington Avenue has an existing ADTofI7,100. Guidant Campus Master Plan DraftAUAR - 30- September 2002 . 1-694 is a four-lane principal arterial interstate highway providing access to the Guidant a Campus via the Lexington Avenue interchange. The existing ADT on 1-694 is 99,000 .. (between the Hamline Avenue and Lexington Avenue interchanges). There are two roadways within the AUAR study boundary that provide for internal site circulation - Fernwood Drive and Guidant Drive North. These roadways also provide access to businesses and a park (Cummings Park) north of the study area, just north of Guidant Drive North. Fernwood Drive is currently a two-lane public roadway that runs north-south and bisects the existing campus, Guidant Drive North is currently a private roadway that runs east-west along the study area's northern boundary. Existing Traffic Operations The capacity of nearly every roadway segment is determined at the nodes of each end of the segment. Capacity is hardly ever restricted along the segment itself. In the case of a freeway, the nodes are the interchanges. For an arterial roadway, the nodes are the intersections. It is at these interchanges and intersections where the operational issues and capacity deficiencies of a roadway will be observed. A traffic operations analysis was conducted for the A.M. and P.M. peak hours at key intersections to determine how traffic currently operates in the vicinity of the AUAR study area. Refer to Table 7 for key signalized intersections analyzed and Table 8 for key unsignalized intersections analyzed. Figure 14 shows existing geometries and A.M. and . P.M. peak hour traffic volumes at these intersections. Results of the operations analysis indicate that with the existing traffic controls and intersections geometries, there are several intersections within the project area that currently operate at LOS D or worse during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours (see Tables 7 and 8). Table 7 shows that the signalized intersections of Lexington Avenue/Eastbound 1-694 and Lexington Avenue/CR 96 operate at a LOS E in the P.M. peak hour. The other three signalized intersections operate a LOS D or better, Table 8 shows that five of the unsignalized intersections currently experience LOS E or F. TABLE 7 EXISTING A.M. AND P ,M. PEAK HOUR CAPACITY ANALYSIS LOS RESULTS - SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Signalized Intersection Existing (2002) A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Lexington Avenue & CR F C B Lexington Avenue & WB 1-694 Ramps C C Lexington Avenue & EB 1-694 C E Lexington Avenue & CR 96 D E Hamline Avenue & CR 96 C D . Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR .31 - September 2002 . . . TABLE 8 EXISTING A.M. AND P.M. PEAK HOUR CAPACITY ANALYSIS LOS RESULTS - UNSIGNALlZED INTERSECTIONS Unsignalized Intersection Existing (2002)* A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Lexington Avenue & Guidant Drive North E F Hamline Avenue & CR F F F Lexington Avenue & Victoria St C F Lexington Avenue & Guidant Dr S D F Fernwood Drive & CR F B C East Drive & CR F B C West Drive & CRF B B Hamline Avenue & West Floral Dr E E "Note: Unsignalized LOS shows the worse LOS for the.stopped movement. Proposed Roadwav Svstem In the future, without the proposed AUAR development, the surrounding roadway system will remain the same as the existing roadway system, except for the following planned improvements: . Lexington A venue will be expanded to two northbound lanes between Guidant Drive North and CR 96 in 2003-2004 as planned by Ramsey County and included in their Capital Improvement Program. . A signal will be added at Victoria Street and Lexington Avenue by 2003-2004 as planned by Ramsey County and included in their Capital Improvement Program. Per discussions with the City, it is also assumed that by 2020, a north-south connection will be extended north of CR 96 to CR 1. Future No-Build Conditions Traffic Forecasts Traffic forecasts were determined for the 2005 and 2020 No-Build conditions. To produce the 2005 No-Build base traffic conditions, existing (2002) background turning movement counts were increased by 2 percent for 3 years. To establish 2020 baseline traffic volumes, the average annual growth rates on roadways around the Guidant site were determined using the 2000 and 2020 Metropolitan Council regional travel demand model. The growth rates were than appointed to the base year background traffic counts to provide future background traffic. Guidant Campus Master Plan DraftAUAR - 32- September 2002 Projected 2020 No-Build ADT volumes are as follows: . . CR F = 12,350 ADT . CR 96 = 25,500 ADT . HamlineAvenue= 15,000ADT . Lexington Avenue = 21,300 ADT . 1-694 = 133,000 ADT Roadway Improvements As discussed under the "Proposed Roadway System", it was assumed for 2005 No-Build that there were no changes from the existing (2002) roadway system except for the expansion of northbound Lexington Avenue to two lanes between Guidant Drive North and CR 96 that are planned by Ramsey County in 2003. Ramsey County also has plans to add a signal at Victoria Street and Lexington A venue by 2005. The roadway system for the 2020 No-Build was assumed to be the same as the 2005 No- Build with one exception - 2020 analysis assumed that a north-south connection would be extended north of CR 96 to CR 1. Traffic Operations Analysis Table 9 shows the results of the signalized intersection analysis for the 2005 and 2020 No- Build traffic conditions. Similar to existing conditions, all signalized intersections will operate at an overall level of service (LOS) D or better in 2005, except for the intersections of Lexington Avenue/eastbound 1-694 ramps and Lexington Avenue/CR 96, which will operate at LOS E in the P.M. peak. By 2020, all signalized intersections, except for Lexington AvenueIVictoria Street, will operate at a LOS F in the P.M. peak. . TABLE 9 FUTURE NO-BUILD A.M. AND P.M. PEAK HOUR CAPACITY ANALYSIS LOS RESULTS - SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS No-Build No-Build Signalized Intersection (2005) (2020) A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Lexington Avenue & CR F C B F F Lexington Avenue & Victoria St A B A A Lexington Avenue & WB 1-694 Ramps B C D F Lexington Avenue & EB 1-694 C E D F Lexington A venue & CR 96 D E F F HamJine Avenue & CR 96 C D F F . Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR - 33- September 2002 . . . Table 10 displays the results of the unsignalized intersection analysis for the 2005 and 2020 No-Build traffic conditions. Four intersections will experience LOS E or F in 2005 and 2020, It should be noted that these four intersections also experience LOS E or F under existing (2002) conditions, TABLE 10 FUTURE NO-BUILD A.M. AND P.M. PEAK HOUR CAPACITY ANALYSIS LOS RESULTS - UNSIGNALlZED INTERSECTIONS No-Build No-Build Unsignalized Intersection* (2005) (2020) A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Lexington Ave & Guidant Drive North F F F F Hamline Avenue & CR F F F F F Lexington Avenue & Guidant Drive South E F E F Fernwood Avenue & CR F B C C D East Dr & CR F B C C D WestDr& CR F B B B B I Hamline & West Floral Drive F F F F -Note: Uusignalized LOS shows the worse LOS for the stopped movement. No-Build Conclusions The cause of the declining LOS from 2005 to 2020 at many of the intersections is the increase in background traffic volumes and the lack of planned improvements on the adjacent roadways. In order to obtain a LOS D or better at these intersections, additional roadway improvements would need to be implemented. The following improvements are recommended to improve traffic operations on adjacent roadways: 2005 Recommended Improvements: . An additional northbound left turn lane at Lexington Avenue/CR F. A southbound and northbound right turn lane at the intersection of the 1-694 ramps with Lexington Avenue. Installation of traffic signals at Lexington Avenue/Guidant Drive North and Hamline Avenue/CR F. . . 2020 Recommended Improvements: . A dedicated westbound right turn lane at Hamline Avcnue/CR F. Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft ADAR - 34. September 2002 . An additional eastbound left turn lane at the intersection of the 1-694 ramps and Lexington Avenue. . If a north-south connection is extended north of CR 96 to CR I, a new lane configuration is recommended to be built for the southbound movement at the intersection of this connection and CR 96. . Improvements to Lexington Avenue, Guidant Drive South, Hamline Avenue and West Floral Drive are not recommended due to low cross street volumes and signal spacing constraints. Future Build Conditions Traffic Forecasts/Trip Generation The traffic analysis for future (2005 and 2020) Build conditions incorporates the background traffic growth assumptions used in the No-Build analysis plus estimated trips that will be generated by the proposed Guidant Campus expansion. The 1997 ITE Trip Generation manual was used as the basis for trip estimates. With the additional office/limited industrial space to be added to the campus in 2005 (Phase n, there will be approximately 1,893 total trips in the A.M. peak and 1,819 trips during the P.M. peak by comparison to the existing (2002) and 2005 No-Build 1,541 A,M. peak and 1,401 P.M. peak total trips. In 2020, (full build-out scenario), the additional office/limited industrial . space will result in approximately 3,261 total trips in the A.M. peak and 3,120 total trips during the P.M. peak. The directional trip distribution for the site-generated traffic was determined based on information provided by Guidant on current employee home addresses and likely travel routes for those employees as well as actual traffic counts and the regional travel demand model that is based on individual cities' planned growth, The 2005 site trip distribution during the A.M. peak hour estimates 47.9 percent of the trips to the campus originate from the north and 52.8 percent originate from the south. During the P.M. peak hour, 59.2 percent of the trips leave the campus and travel south and 41.5 percent travel to the north. The 2020 site trip distribution during the A.M. peak hour estimates that 48.0 percent of the trips to the campus originate from the south and 52.7 percent originate from the north, During the P,M, peak hour, 59.5 percent of the trips leave the campus and travel south and 41.1 percent travel to the north. Projected 2020 Build ADT volumes are as follows: . CR F ~ 15,100 ADT . CR 96 = 26,100 ADT . Hamline Avenue = 16,000 ADT . Lexington Avenue = 24,400 ADT . 1-694 = 135,000 ADT . Guidaut Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR .35 - September 2002 . . . Roadway Improvements In addition to the roadway improvements assumed in the 2005 No-Build condition, the 2005 Build condition assumes that existing Guidant Drive North will be turned over to the City and will become a public street requiring the street to be modified to meet the City of Arden Hills public street design standards. These improvements will likely require a traffic signal to be added to the intersection of Guidant Drive North and Lexington Avenue. Traffic signal timing was also assumed to be optimized along Lexington A venue to account for the higher volumes of traffic being experienced on the roadway network due to the Guidant Campus site growth. The roadway geometry for the 2020 Build conditions are the same as the 2005 Build conditions, with the addition of a north-south connection being extended north of CR 96 to CR I. This improvement was also assumed in the 2020 No-Build. Traffic Operations Analysis Tables II and 12 display the results of the signalized and unsignalized intersection analysis for the 2005 and 2020 Build traffic conditions. With limited public improvements planned between 2005 and 2020 and traffic volumes estimated to increase, the LOS at roadways will continue to decline and the majority of intersections will experience a LOS E or F by 2020. TABLE 11 FUTURE BUILD A.M. AND P.M. PEAK HOUR CAPACITY ANALYSIS LOS RESULTS - SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Signalized Intersection Build (2005) Build (2020) A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Lexington Avenue & Guidanl Drive North A A E B Lexington A venue & CR F C B F F Lexington Avenue & Victoria St A A A A Lexington Avenue & WB 1-694 Ramps B C D F Lexington Avenue & EB 1-694 C F D F Lexington Avenue & CR 96 D D F F Hamline Avenue & CR 96 C D F F Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR -36- September 2002 . TABLE 12 FUTURE BUILD AND P.M. PEAK HOUR CAPACITY ANALYSIS LOS RESULTS - UNSIGNALlZED INTERSECTIONS Unsignalized Intersection* Build (2005) Build (2020) A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Hamline Avenue & CR F F F F F Lexington Avenue & Guidant Drive South F F F F Fernwood Avenue & CR F C D E F East Drive & CR F B C F F West Drive & CR F C C D D Hamline Avenue & West Floral Drive F F F F 'Note: Unsignalized Level of Service shows the worse LOS for the stopped movement. Comparison of No-Build and Build Conditions Table 13 compares the 2005 No-Build and Build signalized intersection analysis. A . comparison of the 2005 No-Build to 2005 Build conditions identifies that with the Build condition the intersection of Lexington Avenue/Guidant Drive North will have improved operations with the addition of a traffic signal. As part of the installation of the traffic signals at Victoria Street and Guidant Drive North, the 2005 Build condition assumes that the timing of other traffic signals along Lexington A venue will be coordinated with the timing of the new signals, optimizing the signals along Lexington Avenue. This will result in improved operations over the 2005 No-Build at Lexington Avenue/CR 96 and Lexington AvenueNictoria Street during the P.M. peak hour. Operations at Lexington Avenue/eastbound 1-694 ramp will continue to worsen with the Build scenario and will operate at a LOS F in the P.M. peak hour. An additional eastbound left-turn lane onto Lexington A venue is needed to improve operations at this intersection. . Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR - 37- September 2002 . . . TABLE 13 FUTURE 2005 A.M. AND P.M. PEAK HOUR CAPACITY ANALYSIS LOS RESULTS - SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Signalized Intersection No-Build (2005) Build (2005) A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Lexington Avenue & Guidant Drive North!') - - A A Lexington Avenue & CR F C B C B Lexington A venue & Victoria Street A B A A Lexington Avenue & WB 1-694 Ramps B C B C Lexington Avenue & EB 1-694 C E C F Lexington Avenue & CR 96 D E D D Hamline Avenue & CR 96 C D C D (1) This intersection is currently unsignalized and was analyzed as an unsignalized intersection in the 2005 No-Build condition. The 2005 Build condition includes the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection. Table 14 compares the 2005 No-Build and Build unsignalized intersection analysis, As with the 2005 No-Build conditions, the unsignalized intersections of Lexington Avenue/Guidant Drive South and Hamline Avenue/West Floral Drive will continue to experience poor traffic operations in the 2005 Build conditions; however, volumes are not high enough to warrant signalization. The un signalized intersection of Hamline Avenue/CR F will continue to operate at a LOS F in the 2005 Build conditions as well as the 2005 No-Build conditions, This intersection experiences poor traffic operations and has high enough volumes and delay under both conditions to warrant signalization. TABLE 14 FUTURE 2005 A.M. AND P.M. PEAK HOUR CAPACITY ANALYSIS LOS RESULTS - UNSIGNALlZED INTERSECTIONS Unsignalized Intersection* No-Build (2005) Build (2005) A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Lexington Avenue & Guidant Drive North!') F F - - Hamline Avenue & CR F F F F F Lexington Avenue & Guidant Drive South E F F F Fernwood Avenue & CR F B C C D East Drive & CR F B C B C West Drive & CR F B B C C Hamline A venue & West Floral Drive F F F F * Note: Unsignalized LOS shows the worse LOS for the stopped movement. (I} This intersection is currently unsigllalized and was analyzed as an unsignalizcd intersection in the 2005 No-Build condition. The 2005 Build condition includes the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection. Guidant Campus Master Plan DraftAUAR .38 - September 2002 Tables 15 and 16 compares 2020 No-Build and Build intersection analysis. The 2020 Build conditions show that intersection operations will improve over the 2020 No-Build conditions at the intersection of Lexington AvenuelGuidant Drive North during the A.M. and P ,M. peak due to the installation of a signal. However, even with the installation of a signal this intersection will experience a LOS E in the A.M. peak Build conditions as a result of the heavy left turns into the site. The rest of the intersections analyzed are anticipated to have similar or worse LOS in the Build conditions than the No- Build conditions due to increased traffic generated by the site. TABLE 15 FUTURE 2020 A.M. AND P.M. PEAK HOUR CAPACITY ANALYSIS LOS RESULTS - SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Signalized Intersection No-Build (2020) Build (2020) A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Lexington Avenue & Guidant Drive North - - E B Lexington Avenue & CR F D C F F Hamline Avenue & CR F - . Lexington Avenue & Victoria Street A B A A Lexington Avenue & WB 1-694 Ramps C E D F Lexington Avenue & EB 1-694 C F D F Lexington A venue & CR 96 F F F F Hamline Avenue & CR 96 F F F F TABLE 16 FUTURE 2020 A.M. AND P.M. PEAK HOUR CAPACITY ANALYSIS LOS RESULTS - UNSIGNALlZED INTERSECTIONS U nsignalized Intersection * No-Build (2020) Build (2020) A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Lexington Avenue & Guidant Drive North F F - - Hamline Avenue & CR F F F F F Lexington & Guidant Drive South E F F F Fernwood Avenue & CR F C D E F East Drive & CR F C D F F West Drive & CR F B B D D Hamline A venue & West Floral Drive F F F F *Note: Unsignalized Level of Service shows the worse LOS for the stopped movement. Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR - 39- September 2002 . . . . . . Mitil!ation Guidant is currently working with the City, County and MnlDOT to identify appropriate roadway improvements and potential finding sources for these improvements. The Final AUAR will include a Mitigation Plan that identifies measures proposed to minimize traffic impacts. The Mitigation Plan will also identify the timing and financial responsibility of proposed improvements. Travel Demand Manal!ement Traffic impacts created by the proposed development can be minimized through the application of Travel Demand Management (TDM) measures. TDM measures can help to minimize the number of trips generated by the proposed development. Guidant Corporation is currently working with Metro Commuter Services to identify potential TDM measures that will be successful in reducing site-generated trips during the peak hour. A survey of existing Guidant employees is currently underway to identify current commuter routes and practices, interest in alternatives to driving alone, attractiveness of incentives for using alternative modes of travel, and other issues that will influence the effectiveness of a TDM plan. Once the results of the survey have been reviewed and analyzed, Guidant will work with Metro Commuter Services to develop TDM strategies that Guidant can promote to their employees. Examples of possible TDM measures include: . Carpooling, including preferential parking spaces for carpoolers Flexible work schedules . . Providing a display of commuter information for employees, including information on rideshare, transit schedules and bicycling commuting routes . Discounted commuter passes provided by employer paying a share of the total pass The Final AUAR will summarize the results ofthe survey and will include TDM measures Guidant is interested in promoting. It is reasonable to expect that a long-term commitment to coordinated application of TDM measures by Guidant could be successful in reducing trips generated during the peak hours. 22. VEHICLE-RELATED AIR EMISSIONS EAW: PROVIDE AN ESTIMATE OF THE EFFECT OF THE PROJECT'S TRAFFIC GENERATION ON AIR QUALITY, INCLUDING CARBON MONOXIDE LEVELS. DISCUSS THE EFFECT OF TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS OR OTHER MITIGATION MEASURES ON AIR QUALITY IMPACTS. (IF THE PROJECT INVOLVES 500 OR MORE PARKING SPACES, CONSULT "EAW GUIDELINES" ABOUT WHETHER A DETAILED AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS IS NEEDED.) Guidant Campus Master Plan DraftAUAR -40- September 2002 A~ _ The guidance provided in "EA W Guidelines should also be followed for an A UAR. .. Mitigation proposed to eliminate any potential problems may be presented under Item 21 and merely referenced here. The MPCA staff should be consulted regarding possible ISP requirements for certain proposed developments; although the RGU may not want to assume responsibility for applying for an ISP for specific developments, it may be desirable to coordinate the A UAR and ISP analyses closely. Motorized vehicles affect air quality by emitting airborne pollutants. Changes in traffic volumes, travel patterns, and roadway locations affect air quality by changing the number of vehicles in an area and altering traffic flow patterns. The effect of the development on air quality was assessed by considering the changes in carbon monoxide, the primary airborne pollutant that emitted from motorized vehicles. Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide (CO) is the traffic-related pollutant of most concern in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Concentrations of CO are generally highest at intersections with poor levels of service and, consequently, more idling vehicles. The MPCA has established state standards (or maximum permissible concentrations) for CO of 30 parts per million (ppm) for a I-hour period (average concentration), and 9 ppm for an 8-hour period. The MPCA I-hour standard is more stringent than the federal standard of 35 ppm. The Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) reclassified Minneapolis/St. Paul as an attainment area for CO in 1999. The attainment status is contingent upon the implementation of measures to assure that CO concentrations remain below standards. In compliance with this contingency, air quality analyses of "worst-case" conditions were performed for the study area to estimate the effect of the proposed campus expansion on future CO concentrations at key intersections the study area. These analyses include monitoring of existing background CO concentrations and modeling future CO concentrations at worst-case intersections, . Carbon Monoxide Modeling Methodology and Assumptions Carbon monoxide concentrations near the intersections were predicted using forecasted traffic volumes, current and proposed intersection geometries, optimized signal timing, and with computer models, including the U,S. EPA MOBILE5A1 emission model and the U.S. EP A CAL3QHC dispersion model. The scope of the air quality analyses was developed based on input from MPCA staff. The modeling assumptions used in this analysis are shown in Table 17. I The EP A has recently released the improved MOB1LE6 emissious model. At the time of this analysis, the MPCA . had not yet approved regional assumptions for MOBILE6 inputs, The MOBILE5A model is still approved for use by the EPA, Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR -41 - September 2002 . TABLE 17 CARBON MONOXIDE MODELING ASSUMPTIONS Analysis Year: 2020 Cold Start Percentage: 20,6 percent for all traffic Hot Start Percentage: 27.3 percent for all traffic Cruising Speed: Posted Speed Limits Traffic Mix: National Default Values Wind Speed: 1 meter/second (3.3 feet/second) Temperature: -6.6 degrees Celsius (20 degrees Fahrenheit) Surface Roughness': 108 centimeters (42.5 inches) Stability Class2: D Inspection Maintenance: No Oxygenated Fuel: Yes 8-Hour Persistence Factor3: 0.7 Wind Direction: 36 directions at 10 degree increments . Notes: The Surface Roughness, Stability Class and g.Hour Persistence Factor are discussed in Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis Volume 9 (Revised): Evaluating Indirect Sources, U.S. EP A, 1978, and are summarized below, j Surface Roughness indicates the initial ground level turbulence into which the exhaust plume will be released. Generally, the higher the roughness, the lower the concentration. The number used here is conservatively low for the project area (results in a worst-case). 2 Stability Class characterizes the mixing potential of the atmosphere, Stability Class D is used as a worst- case in suburban and urban areas. The 8-Hour Persistence Factor is used to determine 8-hour localized CO contributions, and takes into account fluctuating wind directions, temperature and traffic, which are more likely to occur over eight hours than during one hour. The factor is multiplied by the I-hour modeling result. Background Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Background CO concentrations are needed for air quality analysis purposes to represent conditions without the influence of nearby vehicles. By definition, the background CO concentration in any particular area is that concentration which exists independently of direct contributions from nearby traffic. The background concentrations are added to intersection-scale modeled results to yield predicted CO levels at modeled spot receptors adjacent to intersections. . Previously monitored CO background concentrations were used for this project. The Minnesota Department of Transportation monitored background CO concentrations for two weeks (May 21, 1999 - June 12, 1999) at Little Canada Elementary School at 400 Eli Road in Little Canada, (approximately four miles southeast of the Guidant development). Maximum monitored concentrations of 1.23 ppm and 0.82 ppm for I-hour and 8-hours, respectively, were found. Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR - 42- September 2002 For purposes of the 2020 analyses, the background concentrations were adjusted for region-wide increases in traffic volumes and vehicle emissions. The adjustment factor for traffic growth was based on the regional travel forecast model. The adjustment factor for vehicle emission was based on the MOBILE5A emissions model, which incorporates anticipated decreases in CO emissions from motor vehicles due to emission controls. The Holzworth (temperature) correction factor was required to adjust for worst-case winter conditions. The results are summarized in Table 18. . TABLE 18 CALCULATION OF CO BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS 2020 Factor I-Hour 8-Hour Maximum 1999 Monitored Concentration (ppm) 1.23 0.82 Background Traffic Volume Adjustment Factor 2.28 2.28 Emission Adjustment Factor 0.89 0.89 Holzworth (temperature) Correction 2.00 2.00 Worst-Case Background Concentration (ppm) 5.0 3.3 State Standard (ppm) 30 9 Federal Standard (ppm) 35 9 . Intersection Carbon Monoxide Modeling Carbon monoxide analyses were performed for the Build alternative in the year 2020 at the following key intersections: Lexington AvenuelTH 96, Hamline Avenue/TH 96, Lexington Avenue/County Road F, Hamline Avenue/County Road F, and Lexington A venue/I-694, These intersections, both signalized and unsignalized, were chosen after consultation with the MPCA because of their low levels of service and their impact on the surrounding area. The No-Build Alternative was not modeled because the 2020 Build Alternative represents a worst-case situation. Forecast traffic volumes and optimized signal tlmmg was obtained from the Guidant Corporation Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Parsons Transportation Group in July 2002. Locations of likely outdoor human activity adjacent to the analyzed interchanges were selected for air quality modeling receptors; Figure 15 depicts the receptor locations. Carbon monoxide concentrations modeled for peak traffic volumes for the year 2020 are shown in Tables 19 and 20. The CO concentrations shown for each receptor are the predicted maximum CO concentrations taken from the results of all modeled wind angles . (0 - 360 degrees). Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR - 43- September 2002 . . . Surnmarv of Carbon Monoxide Study Results CO concentrations for the 2020 Full Build-Out scenario are below state and federal standards in 2020 for all receptors in both the A.M. and P.M. modeled conditions. The highest modeled concentration is found at Receptor 7, and is 7.4 ppm in the afternoon peak. Full model results are presented in Tables 19 and 20. 23. STATIONARY SOURCE AIR EMISSIONS EAW: WILL THE PROJECT INVOLVE ANY STATIONARY SOURCES OF AIR EMISSIONS (SUCH AS BOILERS OR EXHAUST STACKS)? NO YES IF YES, DESCRffiE THE SOURCES, QUANTITIES, AND COMPOSITION OF THE EMISSIONS; THE PROPOSED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICES; THE QUANTITIES AND COMPOSITION OF THE EMISSIONS AFTER TREATMENT; AND THE EFFECTS ON AIR QUALITY. AUAR: This item is not applicable to an AUAR. Any stationary air emission source large enough to merit environmental review requires individual review. 24. DUST, ODORS AND NOISE EAW: WILL THE PROJECT GENERATE ODORS, CONSTRUCTION AND/OR OPERATION? NOISE OR DUST DURING NO YES IF YES, DESCRIBE THE SOURCE, CHARACTERISTICS, DURATION, AND QUANTITIES OR INTENSITY, AND ANY PROPOSED MEASURES TO MITIGATE ADVERSE IMPACTS. ALSO, IDENTIFY THE LOCATIONS OF SENSITIVE RECEPTORS AND ESTIMATE THE IMPACTS ON THEM. DISCUSS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH OR QUALITY OF LIFE. AUAR: Dust, odors, and construction noise need not be addressed in an A UAR, unless there is some unusual reason to do so. The RGU might want to discuss as part of the mitigation plan, however, and dust control or construction noise ordinances in effect. If the area will include or adjoin major noise sources a noise analysis is needed to determine if any noise levels in excess of standards would occur, and if so, to identify appropriate mitigation measures. With respect to traffic-generated noise, the noise analysis should be based on the traffic analysis of item 21. Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR -44 - September 2002 ::E In w 0: C) z ::::i w c o ::E w c x o z o :a;; ~Z wO ...JID IDO: <(<( 1-0 " 0> <= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 <{ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ <D '" ~ 0 ~ ~ '" '" N 0 '" ~ N N ... N <D <D '" '" 0 ;ljgj '0 ~ N N '" N ~ ~ ~ N N N '" N '" N ~ '" <= ~ <= .2 E _0; ",,:, NN '" '" '" ~ "''''' ~ '" ~ ~ <D '" .... ;C; .... '" co .... '" '" a. -<= ~ ~ 0 .... ~ <ci ...", N ... '" N N '" ~ ..; ..; '" to .... '" ... ~ ... .e, 0" '" '" >D >D ,..; mID ..; oi ..; ..; ... >D '" ... >D ... ... ... >D ~() Q) <= 0 0 D> () c>> l! Q) ~ '0 ~ <= ::J => 0 e '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" ::to 0> oi oi oi oi oi oi oi oi oi oi oi oi oi oi oi oi oi oi oi '" oi oi '" '" '" , -'" eo u '" lD '0 " N N '" '" '" '" .... '" <D '" ~ '" <0 .... ~ '" '" 'ijj '" ~ I'-; ... <0 ~ ~ '" Oi "" to 0; "'! "! ~ "= '" "= q '" "= ~ "": ~ I'-; '0 N oi N oi oi ci ~ N ~ N 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :2 " 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 ~ ~ to '" ~ 0 ~ ~ '" '" N 0 '" ~ N N ... N to to '" '" 0 ... '" '0 ~ N N '" N ~ ~ ~ N N N '" N OJ N ~ OJ OJ N <= ~ <= 0 E -~ '" ~ "'- to to '" '" '" '" '" '" OJ <0 .... '" '" "= ~ '" .... .... - <= ci '" a. 0" "" .... .... <0 oi 0 <ci to >D <ci <ci <ci ,..; .... oj .... <ci <0 ,..; ,..; to ,..; to .e, ~u ~ ~ Q) <= 0 0 ci D> 0 '" '" ~ Q) ~ '0 ~ <= ::J => 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 q q J; C, >D >D >D >D '" '" >D >D >D >D >D >D >D >D >D >D >D >D >D >D >D >D >D '" '" -'" ~ u '" lD '0 " 'ijj <D <D '" '" '" 0 >q ~ '" q '" '" '" <0 .... 0 '" 0 '" "= ~ '" .... .... 0 '0 N N N oi >D ... ... '" ~ ~ ci ~ ~ ~ N N '" N ~ '" N N ~ N ~ 0 :2 co co '" '" ::to ::to <{ lL ... en <{ '" lL 0: ~ '" 0 0: U U '" U '" '" '" ,,; '" ,,; ,,; 'E ,,; > ,,; > > .. <= <{ 0 ~ N '" ... '" <{ 0 ~ N <{ '" ... U) '" "" eo '" 0 >~ N '" ... '" '" "" eo > N N N N N N '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '0 <{ ~ " <{ " " " :;::: ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. u Q) 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 " ":; ?- ?- ?- - - ~ ?- ?- ?- .:; - - - - - - - 15 - 15 ?- - ?- ~ ?- ?- ?- - - U5 a. 0> a. a. a. c- o. c- O> a. D> a. a. .. " " <= ~ - Q) " .. .. Q) " " " E .. .. " .. .. .. " .. " " .. Q) .. .. .. .. Q) " " E (J u u () "x (J () u u () () (J () u () 'x () () () () 'x () (J () u u () (J - - .. Q) " Q) .. " Q) " " Q) .. .. .. Q) " Q) " .. " " " " Q) " " .. " " .. " .. .:: ::tOO: 0: 0: 0: ...J 0: 0: 0: 0: ::to 0: 0: 0: 0: 0: 0: ...J 0: 0: 0: 0: ...J 0: 0: 0: 0: 0: 0: 0: U5 ~- '1l'W -S " fr UJ v; ... . " '" 0:: ~ B ~ '" ;;: ~ " !e ,,<<: {l<t: .- '" " ~ 00 . . :i: Q. 0 N 0 N I (fl I- ..J ;:) (fl w e::: Cl Z ..J W C 0 :i: w c X 0 Z 0 :i: 0 . NZ wO ..JCQ CQe::: <l:<l: 1-0 Q) c, ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 '" "' "' OJ N 0 OJ N 0 '" OJ 0 '" '" N 0 ~N .... '" 0 N '" ..,...,. '0 ~ N N '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N ~ ~ '" "'N c: ~ c: ~ E -~ "'- ~ '" '" '" OJ OJ ..,. .... '" ~ 0 "? '" .... '" "? ~ N OJ ~ ~ "'..,. "' .... 0 Q. -" ,,; ar)U-; <ci <ci ,..: -i -i -i -i -i ,,; ,,; ,,; M -i -r:i~ ,,; M ,,; S: ~~ '" '" ..,. ..,. '" .. " 0 Cl <.l E .. ~ '0 ~ " :> " 0 e '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" "l "l "l "l '" '" '" '" '" '" "l "l "l '" "l '" "l :I: OJ M M M M M M M M '" '" '" '" M M M M M M '" '" '" '" '" '" '" . -" CO " '" '" '0 Q) " "< 0 0 N '" '" ~ ..,. ~ <0 .... ~ "? ": 0 ~ "< ~ '" <0 <0 "? "': N ..,. '0 ~ N N M M M -i M ~ ci ci ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ci N ci ~ ~ N ci 0 :::;; Q) c, CO 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 '" "' "' OJ N 0 OJ N 0 '" OJ 0 '" <0 N 0 0 N .... '" 0 N '" ..,. ..,. '0 ~ N N '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N ~ ~ '" '" N c: ~ CO 0 "" E -~ N ~ <0 0 "'- '" OJ OJ '" <0 ..,. ~ ~ '" ~ ~ "l '" "' .... '" 0 ~ ~ "? ~ '" Q. '5 " ,..: ,..: m 0 ci ci m <ci ,..: <ci ,..: oj ,,; .,; S: ....~ .... ~ ~ ~ '" '" '" .... .... .... '" .... "' OJ '" '" Q) CO 0 Cl <.l '" ~ Q) ~ '0 ~ CO :> " 0 e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :I: OJ ,,; ,,; ,,; ,,; ,,; u) '" "' u) u) u) u) u) "' u) u) u) u) ,,; u) ,,; ,,; ,,; ,,; ,,; . -" ~ U '" '" '0 Q) " '" OJ OJ '" ~ ~ "< <0 ": ~ ~ '" N 0 OJ '" "' .... '" 0 "': ~ "' ~ <0 '0 N N N ..,. "' u) '" -i ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N ~ N N ci -i ~ N ~ M 0 0 :::;; '" '" '" en :I: II. ..,. :I: <( " '" <( '" II. ~ '" (.) " (.) (.) "" (.) "" "" "" ,.; "" ,.; ,.; '0 ,.; > ,.; > > ~ " <( <( <( '" > ~ 0 ~ N '" ..,. '" 0 ~ N '" ..,. "' '" .... '" OJ '0 0 <(~ N '" ..,. c: "' '" .... '" N N N N N N c: OJ ~ ~ ~ c: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c: '" Q) ~ " .9 " 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " " " ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ " 0 " " " " " ~ " '" u ~.9 - .s .s 0 0 .. 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - .. 0. 0. Cl 0. 0. 0. 0. " 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Cl 0. 0. 0. 0. Cl 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. '" ~ Q) .. " " c: Q) Q) Q) Q) " " .. " " " c: Q) " " " c: " " " " " " .. .. .. E " " u " .x " " " " E u " " " u u 'x " " " " >< " u " u " " " - - '" Q) Q) " " .. Q) Q) " " '" " " " " " " .. " " " " .. " " " " " " .. '" .E :r:a:: a:: a:: a:: .J a:: a:: a:: a:: :I: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: .J a:: a:: a:: a:: .J a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: a:: in '" o o '" k " ~ " - "- " '" '0 ..,. " " 0: k E 00 " ::s 00 " "- ~~ U::> d~ -i1", ,- " " k 00 Odors & Dust Durio!! Construction . The proposed project will not generate any odors during construction. Dust normal to construction will occur as a result ofthis project. Dust generated during construction will be minimized through standard dust control measures such as watering, After construction is complete, dust levels are anticipated to be minimal because all soil surfaces will be in permanent cover (i.e., pavement or grassed areas). Construction Noise Typical construction noise will be generated during project construction. Noise impacts caused by construction activities in the project area will vary depending on the type of equipment in use, the location of equipment on the construction site, and the operating mode. During a typical work cycle, construction equipment may be idling, preparing to perform a task, or operating under a full load. It may be congregated in a specific area or spread out over a larger area. For this reason, the total noise impact on a single receiver point resulting from construction of the project will vary both day-to-day and hour-to-hour. The range of average noise levels monitored at 50 feet from a variety of types of construction equipment is shown in Table 2 I. These types of equipment are generally associated with site grading and site preparation, generally the noisiest phases of construction. TABLE 21 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET . Equipment Type Peak Noise Level Range (dBA) (dBA) Average Scraper 80-93 88 Dozer 72-84 80 Compactor 73-75 74 Truck 82-94 91 Source: From the most recent information published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances, December 31, 1971. The actual noise levels that may be experienced near a construction zone depend on: . The distance between the construction equipment and the receiver. . The type of equipment in use. . The percentage of the time the equipment attains the peak level. . Noise control features incorporated into the equipment. . Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR -47 - September 2002 . . . In accordance with city ordinance 630,01, construction activities (i.e., construction noise) will be limited to daytime hours, from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. during the week, and 8:00 a,m. to 9:00 p.m. on the weekend. Contractors will be required to ensure that equipment has been properly maintained and fitted with mufflers and other noise controls, as specified by the manufacturer. Traffic Noise Traffic is a common source of noise in a suburban setting and is regulated in Minnesota by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) under Minnesota Statute 1l6.07 Subdivisions 2 and 4. The proposed project is located in a developing suburban setting with commercial, light industrial and residential land uses surrounding the project site. High traffic roads such as Lexington Avenue, Hamline Avenue and 1-694 are located adjacent to or close to the project site to the east, west and south, respectively. A detailed noise analysis was completed to assess existing traffic noise levels in the project area and to determine what effect the proposed project will have on future noise levels. The proposed project will increase traffic volumes in some parts of the study area. Increases in traffic can result in increased noise levels, which can be perceived as an annoyance by adjacent residents. The noise analysis consisted of monitoring existing noise levels at adjacent residential receptor sites and predicting future noise levels using computer modeling. Noise Analvsis Noise is defined as any unwanted sound. Sound travels in a wave motion and produces a sound pressure level. This sound pressure level is commonly measured in decibels. Decibels (dB) represent the logarithmic increase in sound energy relative to a reference energy level. A sound increase of 3 dB is barely perceptible to the human ear, a 5 dB increase is clearly noticeable, and a 10 dB increase is heard as twice as loud. For example, if the sound energy is doubled (e.g., the amount of traffic doubles), there is a 3 dB increase in noise, which is just barely noticeable to most people. On the other hand, if traffic increases to where there is 10 times the sound energy level over a reference level, then there is a 10 dB increase and it is heard as twice as loud. To approximate the way that an average person hears sound, an adjustment, or weighting, of the high- and low- pitched sounds is made. The adjusted sound levels are stated in units of "A-weighted decibels" (dBA). In Minnesota, traffic noise impacts are evaluated by measuring and/or modeling the traffic noise levels that are exceeded 10 percent and 50 percent of the time during the hours of the day and/or night that has the heaviest traffic. These numbers are identified as the LIO and Lso levels. For example, an LlO value of 65 decibels means that the noise level was at or greater than 65 decibels during 10 percent of the measurement period (i.e., more than 6 minutes per hour). Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR - 48- September 2002 Regulatory Framework . The MPCA is the governmental regulatory agency responsible for implementing regulations controlling traffic noise in Minnesota. Minnesota State noise standards have been established specifically for daytime and nighttime periods. For residential land uses (identified as Noise Area Classification 1 or NAC-1), the Minnesota State standards for LIO are 65 decibels for daytime and 55 decibels for nighttime; the standards for Lso are 60 decibels for daytime and 50 decibels for nighttime. For parkland with no overnight uses (such as Cummings Park), NAC-l daytime standards apply to both daytime and nighttime noise levels. Minnesota Statute 116.07, Subd. 2a. states that municipal and county roads, except in the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, are exempt from state noise standards. All the roads near the proposed project site are county or city roads (with the exception ofI-694) and are therefore exempt from standards. State standards are included in this study for reference only and are depicted in Table 22. TABLE 22 MINNESOTA STATE NOISE STANDARDS MPCA State Noise Standards Land Use Code Day (7 a.m. -10 p.m.) dBA Night (10 p.m. -7 a.m.) dBA Residential NAC-1 LIO of 65 L50 of 60 LIO of 55 L5oof50 Commercial NAC-2 LIO of70 L50 of 65 LIO of 70 L5oof65 Industrial NAC-3 LIO of 80 L5oof75 LIO of 80 L5oof75 . Noise Level Monitoring Noise level monitoring is commonly performed during a noise study to document existing noise levels at selected receptor locations. Existing monitored noise levels can be used as a "baseline" against which future scenarios are compared. In addition, when studying future noise levels projected with computcr models, monitored noise levels are compared to modeled results for existing conditions to validate the computer modeling techniques and results. Existing noise levels were monitored at three sites (R2, R4 and R 7) in the project area on July 9, 2002, Monitoring site locations were chosen to represent areas of outdoor human activity, i.e., residential yards (Figure 16). Noise monitoring results are presented in Table 23. Monitoring results are presented along with the results of computer modeling for existing daytime noise conditions, The computer-modeled results are within . o to 2 decibels of the monitored levels; therefore, the computer model can be considered to be a valid predictor of future noise levels. Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR -49- September 2002 . . . Noise Modeling Methodology Traffic noise impacts were assessed by modeling noise levels at "sensitive" receptor sites (i.e., existing and future residences) likely to be most affected by changes in traffic volumes and roadway alignment resulting from construction of the proposed project. Eight noise modeling receptors (R1 - R8) were selected at existing residential properties in the project area to represent those sites most sensitive to potential project-related traffic noise impacts (Figure ]6). Modeling was also performed for Cummings Park, which is located north of the Guidant campus and is represented by R9. All receptor sites are classified within the definition of State of Minnesota Noise Area Classification One (NAC-]). Noise modeling was done using the noise prediction program "MINNOISE," a version of the FHW A noise model "STAMINA" adapted by MnlDOT and approved by the MPCA. This model uses vehicle numbers, speed, class of vehicle, and the typical characteristics of the roadway being analyzed, The computations for the proposed improvements were based on existing and projected traffic volumes, existing and proposed traffic speeds, and vehicle class percentages. Projected traffic volumes for peak daytime and nighttime hours one year after completion of the full build out scenario (i,e., year 2020) were used to predict future noise levels. Noise Modeling Results Noise modeling results for existing (2002) conditions and for the year 2020 are presented in Tables 23 and 24. Both daytime and nighttime LlO and LSD are shown for the existing (2002) condition and for year 2020 with the two project alternatives: No-Build and Build. TABLE 23 NOISE MONITORING AND MODELING RESULTS - DAYTIME Modeled Modeled 2020 Modeled 2020 Receptor Monitored Existing (2002) No-Build Build LIO L5D LIO L5D LIO L5D LIO LSD Rl 67 61 67 62 68 63 R2 68 63 68 61 69 63 70 64 R3 62 57 63 58 63 59 R4 66 63 68 61 69 63 70 63 R5 69 61 70 63 70 64 R6 67 61 67 62 68 63 R7 64 60 64 59 65 60 66 61 R8 61 56 62 56 63 58 R9 55 52 56 53 56 54 State Standards 65 60 65 60 65 60 65 60 Bold numbers arc above state standards. Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR -50- September 2002 TABLE 24 NOISE MODELING RESULTS - NIGHTTIME . Modeled Modeled 2020 Modeled 2020 Receptor Existing (2002) No-Build Build LIO Lso LIO Lso LIO Lso RI 66 60 67 61 67 61 R2 67 60 68 62 69 62 R3 61 55 62 57 62 57 R4 67 60 68 61 69 62 R5 68 60 69 62 70 62 R6 66 60 66 60 68 62 R7 63 58 64 58 65 60 R8 60 54 61 55 62 56 R9* 54 51 55 52 55 53 State 55 50 55 50 55 50 Standards Bold numbers are above state standards. * As stated previously, as there are no overnight uses within Cummings Park (represeuted by R9) nighttime noise standards do not apply. . Residential Receptors (Rl- R8) Based on projected traffic increases, daytime and nighttime noise levels will increase by up to 3 dBA over existing conditions with the No-Build or Build Alternatives. Increases in traffic noise between the 2020 No-Build and 2020 Build conditions range from 1 to 2 decibels. Noise levels at Receptors 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 currently exceed state daytime standards and will continue to do so with both the 2020 No-Build and Build Alternatives. Noise levels at Receptor 7 are currently just below state daytime standards and will be at state daytime standards for the 2020 No-Build Alternative, and just above these standards for the 2020 Build Alternative Nighttime noise standards are currently exceeded at Receptors 1 -8, and will continue to be exceeded with the 2020 No-Build and Build Alternatives. Violation of the more stringent nighttime standards is common in developed urban and suburban areas, because the "nighttime" period is defined by the MPCA as including the 6:00 a.m, to 7:00 a.m. hour, which is the beginning of the morning rush hour. . Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR .51 - September 2002 . Park Receptor (R9) Daytime and nighttime noise levels at R9 are predicted to increase by up to 2 decibels over existing levels with the No-Build and Build Alternatives. Build noise levels are predicted to be up to 1 decibel higher than No-Build noise levels at R9. State daytime noise standards will not be exceeded at R9 for the No-Build or Build conditions. Conclusions As stated previously, it takes a doubling of traffic volumes to result in a perceptible (3 dBA) increase in noise. The increase in Build peak hour traffic volumes over No-Build volumes will not increase noise levels by perceptible amounts (less than 3 dBA) compared to No-Build levels, Therefore, no noise mitigation is being considered in conjunction with the proposed project. 25. SENSITIVE RESOURCES EAW: ARE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING RESOURCES ON OR IN PROXIMITY TO THE SITE? IF ANY ITEMS ARE ANSWERED YES, DESCRIBE THE RESOURCE AND IDENTIFY ANY IMP ACTS ON THE RESOURCE DUE TO THE PROJECT. DESCRIBE ANY MEASURES TO BE TAKEN TO MINIMIZE OR AVOID ADVERSE . IMPACTS. A. ARCHAEOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL, OR ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES? --'L NO YES AUAR: For an AUAR, contact with the State Historic Preservation Office is required to determine whether there are areas of potential impacts to these resources. If any exist, an appropriate site survey of high probability areas is needed to address the issue in more detail. The mitigation plan must include mitigation for any impacts identified. On June 14, 2002, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was contacted to determine whether there were cultural resources within the AUAR study area that could be potentially impacted by the proposed campus expansion. No archaeological or historic sites were found in the SHPO datasets for the AUAR study area. B. PRIME OR UNIQUE FARMLANDS? --.2L NO YES AUAR: The extent of conversion o( existing farmlands anticipated in the A UAR should be described. If any farmland will be preserved by special protection programs, this should be discussed. . Guidant Campus Master PIau Draft AUAR - 52. September 2002 c. DESIGNATED PARKS, RECREATION AREAS, OR TRAILS? NO l YES . AUAR: If development of the A UAR area will interfere with or change the use of any existing such resource, this should be described in the AUAR. The RGU may also want to discuss under this item any proposed parks, recreation areas, or trails to be developed in conjunction with development of the A UAR area. Parks Cummings Park is a city park located north of the AUAR study area (north of Guidant Drive North) (see Figure 2). The park is approximately 17.5 acres in size and includes tennis and basketball courts, a hockey/skating rink and warming house, a soccer field, a softballlbaseball diamond, playgronnd equipment, a picnic shelter and a trail system. Main access to the park via automobile is currently gained via Guidant Drive North or Fernwood Avenue, with parking available in a parking lot off of Guidant Drive North. With the proposed development, there are plans to ultimately vacate Fernwood Avenue as a public street. This vacation will limit vehicles wishing to access the park to just one access point-Guidant Drive North. A two-lane campus drive will be constructed to replace the existing Fernwood Avenue. Traffic will be unable to travel on the road between the business hours of 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, with the use of sensitively designed control arms. One of the barricades will be located just north of the . east-west drive to parking ramps 5 and 6 (see Figure 4). The other barricade will be located just south of the new Guidant Drive North cui de sac. The gate will be activated by guards and able to be opened by emergency personnel. Bicyclist and pedestrian users will continue to be able to access the park via local and regional trails, as described below. The proposed project will not result in the acquisition of park property. Trails Existing city trails in or near the AUAR study area include an asphalt walk/trail that runs through the northwestern portion of the study area, connecting Cumming Park with Floral Park, which is just west of Hamline Avenue. This trail connects to existing asphalt walk/trails along Hamline Avenue and Lexington A venue. Planned city trail connections in the study area are identified in the City's conditionally approved 1998 Comprehensive Plan and include a 0.7-mile trail connection on CR F from Lexington Avenue to Hamline Avenue with an extension north to the existing trail on Hamline Avenue. The proposed campus will not impact any of the City trails. Sidewalks planned for the campus will provide internal circulation on the campus for employees and other pedestrians. . Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR - 53 - September 2002 . . . D. SCENIC VIEWS AND VISTAS? ..x.-. NO YES AUAR: Any impacts on such resources present in the AUAR should be addressed. This would include both direct physical impacts and impacts on visual quality or integrity. "EA W Guidelines" contains a list of possible scenic resources (page 13). There are no scenic resources for which the visual quality or integrity will be impacted by the proposed campus expansion. Refer to Item 26 for more discussion ofvisuai impacts. E. OTHER UNIQUE RESOURCES? ..x.-. NO YES 26. VISUAL IMPACTS EAW: WILL THE PROJECT CREATE ADVERSE VISUAL IMPACTS? (EXAMPLES INCLUDE: GLARE FROM INTENSE LIGHTS; LIGHTS VISIBLE IN WILDERNESS AREAS; AND LARGE VISIBLE PLUMES FROM COOLING TOWERS OR EXHAUST STACKS.) IF YES, EXPLAIN. l NO YES AUAR: If any non-routine visual impacts would occur from the anticipated development covered by the A UAR review, this should be discussed here along with appropriate mitigation. The proposed development will not create non-routine adverse visual impacts, although it will alter views of the AUAR study area from the adjacent properties. Adjacent residences could experience visual impacts such as increased light. However, the addition of multi- story buildings to the area is not visually inconsistent with other development in the area. In addition, the proposed development is consistent with the City's existing and future land use for this site. Existing vegetation located along the western and northwestern portion of the site between the study area and adjacent residents will continue to provide a visual buffer. Additional mitigation will be incorporated into site development plans that will be submitted to the city, including lighting in the parking ramps that will be shielded and directed downward to minimize glare that could be transmitted to adjacent residences. Additional planting of deciduous, overstory, and coniferous trees will be planted all along the west and northwestern portion of the site. Visual impact of the parking ramps will be further minimized by constructing two levels below grade, thereby reducing the overall height of the ramps. Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR - 54- September 2002 27. COMPATIBILITY WITH PLANS . EAW: IS THE PROJECT SUBJECT TO AN ADOPTED LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN OR ANY OTHER APPLICABLE LAND USE, WATER, OR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN OF A LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL AGENCY? NO l YES IF YES, IDENTIFY THE APPLICABLE PLAN(S), DISCUSS THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE PLAN(S), AND EXPLAIN HOW ANY CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE PROJECT AND THE PLAN(S) WILL BE RESOLVED. IF NO, EXPLAIN. AUAR: The AUAR must include a statement of certification from the RGU that its comprehensive plan complies with the requirements set out at 4410.3610, Subpart 1. The AUAR document should discuss the proposed AUAR area development in the context of the comprehensive plan. If this has not been done as part of the responses to Items 6, 9, 19, 22, and others, it must be addressed here; a brief synopsis should be presented here if the material has been presented in detail under other items. Necessary amendments to comprehensive plan elements to allow for any of the development scenarios should be noted. If there are any management plans of any other local, state, or federal agencies . applicable to the A UAR area, the document must discuss the compatibility of the plan with the various development scenario studies, with emphasis on any incompatible elements. The City of Arden Hills certifies that its 1982 Comprehensive Development Plan and final 1998 Comprehensive Plan (conditionally adopted by the Metropolitan Council pending approval of the City's Local Storm Water Management Plan) are consistent with the requirement set out in 4410.3610, Subpart 1, including a land use plan; a public facilities plan (including transportation, sewer and water supply systems); and an implementation program. The proposed project is consistent with the existing and proposed land use plans identified in the City of Arden Hills adopted 1982 and 1998 Comprehensive Plans as well as the zoning for this area (see Figures 5 - 9). The 1982 and 1998 Comprehensive Plan zoning maps identify the proposed campus and areas north and south of the campus as I-I (Limited Industrial District). The purpose for an I-I (Limited Industrial District) is to allow only those types and intensities of industrial uses that do not detract from the surrounding area and to maintain performance standards to keep the intensity of land utilization lower than in the general Industrial District. The Guidant Master Plan proposes the development of the campus within an area currently used for office/limited industrial and maintains a "green" buffer between the campus and adjacent land uses in conformity with zoning and existing and proposcd land uses. . Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR - 55- September 2002 . . . 28. IMPACT ON INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SERVICES EAW: WILL NEW OR EXPANDED UTILITIES, ROADS, OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE, OR PUBLIC SERVICES BE REQUIRED TO SERVE THE PROJECT? _ NO.x. YES IF YES, DESCRIBE THE NEW OR ADDmONAL INFRASTRUCTURE/SERVICES NEEDED. (ANY INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS A "CONNECTED ACTION" WITH RESPECT TO THE PROJECT MUST BE ASSESSED IN THE EA W; SEE "EA W GUIDELINES" FOR DETAILS.) AUAR: This item should first of all summarize information on physical infrastructure presented under other items (such as 6, 19, and 22). Other major infrastructure of public services not covered under other items should be discussed as well - this includes major social services such as schools, police, fire, etc. As noted above and in the "EA W Guidelines, " the RGU must be careful to include project- associated infrastructure as an explicit part of the A UAR review if it is to be exempt from project-specific review in the future. As previously detailed in Items 6, 13 and 18, existing public water and sanitary sewer services can accommodate the additional needs of the proposed campus. Lateral line extensions from the existing water and sanitary sewer mains in Fernwood Avenue will be required for the new buildings. Storm water treatment and conveyance infrastructure will be necessary as described in Item 17. Item 6 describes roadway improvements planned for the Guidant campus. Increased fire and police protection will need to be provided to the area with the proposed expansion. However, the need for these services has been anticipated by the city and will be provided, as required, as the site develops. As there is no residential land use associated with the planned site development, no impacts to the local school system will result. 29. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS EAW; MINNESOTA RULE PART 4410.1700, SUBPART 7, ITEM B REQUIRES THAT THE RGU CONSIDER THE "CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF RELATED OR ANTICIPATED FUTURE PROJECTS" WHEN DETERMINING TIlE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. IDENTIFY ANY PAST, PRESENT OR REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE PROJECTS THA T MAY INTERACT WITH THE PROJECT DESCRIBED IN THIS EA W IN SUCH A WAY AS TO CAUSE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS. DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF THE CUMULATIVE IMP ACTS AND SUMMARIZE ANY OTHER A V AILABLE INFORMATION RELEVANT TO DETERMINING WHETHER THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR - 56- September 2002 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS DUE TO CUMULATIVE IMPACTS (OR DISCUSS EACH CUMULATIVE IMPACT UNDER APPROPRiATE ITEM(S) ELSEWHERE ON THIS FORM). AUAR: This item does not require a response for an AUAR since the entire AUAR process deals with cumulative impacts from related developments within the A UAR area. . 30. OTHER POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS EAW: IF THE PROJECT MAY CAUSE ANY ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS . WHICH WERE NOT ADDRESSED BY ITEMS 1 TO 28, IDENTIFY AND DISCUSS THEM HERE, ALONG WITH ANY PROPOSED MITIGATION. AUAR: If applicable, this item should be answered as requested by the EA W form. No additional adverse environmental impacts are anticipated. 31. SUMMARY OF ISSUES EAW: . LIST ANY IMPACTS AND ISSUES IDENTIFIED ABOVE THAT MAY REQUIRE FURTHER INVESTIGATION BEFORE THE PROJECT IS COMMENCED. DISCUSS ANY AL TERNA TIVES OR MITIGATIVE MEASURES THA T HAVE BEEN OR MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR THESE IMPACTS AND ISSUES, INCLUDING THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN OR MAY BE ORDERED AS PERMIT CONDITIONS. AUAR: The RGU may answer this question as asked by the EAW form, or instead may choose to provide an Executive Summary to the document that basically covers the same information. Either way, the major emphasis should be on: potentially significant impacts, the differences in impacts between major development scenarios, and the proposed mitigation. Item 11: Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources The MnDNR's Natural Heritage database identifies the project site is within a "known concentration" area of Blanding's turtles (Emydoidea blandingii), a species threatened in Minnesota. Almost all of the land between the project site and the areas where turtles have been identified is developed, medium density, residential land and is not considered favorable habitat for Blanding's turtles. Nevertheless, there is a possibility that Blanding's turtles could use portions of the site, particularly wetland L which is a shallow wetland and . the surrounding undisturbed sandy loam upland located at the northwest corner of the property. Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR - 57 - September 2002 . . . A list of recommendations for avoiding and minimizing impacts to Blanding's turtles and their habitat is included in the DNR report. These recommendations will be implemented were feasible. The measures that will likely be appropriate for project construction include: 1. Placement of silt fencing around construction areas to keep turtles out of construction areas in the spring. 2. Notifying contractors of the possibility of threatened turtles III the area and instructions on how to avoid harm to turtles if they are spotted. 3. Minimization of impacts to wetlands on the site. 4. Preservation ofnn-mowed upland buffer around wetlands on the site. 5. Preservation of some undisturbed upland at the northwest corner of the site. Item 12: Physical Impacts on Water Resources within the AUAR Study Area Based on preliminary design information, four of twelve wetland basins will be impacted with the Guidant Campus expansion resulting in a total of 0.6-acre of impact. To comply with requirements of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, wetland impacts will be off set by creating mitigation at a 2: I ration (2 acres of mitigation area for each acre of impacted area). As part of the permit approval process, a final mitigation plan will be snbmitted to the Army Corp of Engineers and the Rice Creek Watershed District, which identifies wetland impacts and detailed mitigation. Item 16: Erosion and Sedimentation Erosion and sedimentation will be minimized during redevelopment of the AUAR study area by the implementation of erosion control measures that will be identified in the final site grading and construction plans. The control measures, including those required by the City of Arden Hills, Rice Creek Watershed District and the MPCA NPDES permit, will be implemented prior to the grading operation and will be maintained nntil all disturbed areas have been restored. Item 17: Water Quality; Surface Water Runoff The proposed development will decrease the amount of existing impervious surface area within the AUAR study area, thus decreasing the overall surface water runoff volumes. However, unlike existing surface water runoff which discharges directly into adjacent wetlands, surface water runoff generated from the proposed development will be treated Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR - 58- September 2002 prior to entering adjacent wetlands. To accommodate and treat surface water runoff, . methods of infiltration, retention and NURP ponds will be implemented. Mitigation measures will be further defined during final design and will be in accordance with the City of Arden Hills and Rice Creek Watershed District requirements. Item 21: Traffic The Traffic Impact Study completed by Parsons Transportation Group for the AUAR study area provided information on anticipated traffic impacts resulting from the campus expansion. The existing traffic operations analysis identified that several intersections within the project area currently operate at LOS D or worse during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. For comparison to the proposed expansion traffic operations, future no build traffic operations were analyzed including planned improvements. The planned improvements included expanding Lexington Avenue to two northbound Janes between Guidant Drive North on CR 96 in 2003 (as planned by Ramsey County) and adding a traffic signal at Victoria Street and Lexington Avenue by 2005 (as planned by Ramsey County). Per discussions with the City, it is also assumed that by 2020, a north-south connection will be extended north of CR 96 to CR 1. Similar to existing conditions, all signalized intersections will operate at an overall level of service (LOS) D or better in 2005, except Lexington Avenue/CR 96 and Lexington Avenue/eastbound 1-694 ramps, which will operate at LOS E in the P.M. peak. By 2020, all signalized intersections, except Lexington AvenueNictoria Street will operate at LOS F in the P.M. peak. The four unsignalized intersections experiencing LOS E or F in 2002 will experience LOS E or F in 2005 and . 2020. The cause of declining LOS from 2005 to 2020 at many of the intersections is the increase in background traffic volumes and lack of planned improvements on the adjacent roadways. In order to obtain a LOS D or better at these intersections, additional roadway improvements would need to be implemented. The following improvements are recommended to improve traffic operations on adjacent roadways: 2005 Recommended Improvements . An additional northbound left turn lane at Lexington Avenue/CR F. A southbound and northbound right turn lane at the intersection of the 1-694 ramps with Lexington Avenue. Installation of traffic signals at Lexington Avenue/Guidant Drive North and Hamline Avenue/CR F. . . 2020 Recommended Improvements . A dedicated westbound right turn lane at Hamline Avenue/CR F. An additional eastbound left turn lane at the intersection of the 1-694 ramps and Lexington Avenue. . . Guidant Campus Master Plan Draft AUAR - 59- September 2002 . . . . If a north-south connection is extended north of CR 96 to CR I, a new lane configuration is recommended to be built for the southbound movement at the intersection of this connection and CR 96. Improvements to Lexington Avenue, Guidant Drive South, Hamline Avenue and West Floral Drive are not recommended due to low cross street volumes and signal spacing constraints. In addition to the roadway improvements assumed in the 2005 No-Build condition, the 2005 Build condition assumes that existing Guidant Drive North will be turned over to the City and will become a public street requiring the street to be modified to meet the City of Arden Hills public street design standards. These improvements will likely require a traffic signal to be added to the intersection of Guidant Drive North and Lexington Avenue. Traffic signal timing was also assumed to be optimized along Lexington Avenue to account for the higher volumes of traffic being experienced on the roadway network due to the Guidant Campus site growth. The roadway geometry for the 2020 Build conditions are the same as the 2005 Build conditions, with the addition of a north-south connection north of CR 96 to CR 1. This improvement was also assumed in the 2020 No-Build. With limited public improvements planned between 2005 and 2020 and traffic volumes estimated to increase, the LOS at adjacent roadway will continue to decline and the majority of intersections will experience a LOS E or F by 2020. Item 26: Visual Impacts The existing vegetative buffer along the western and northwestern portions of the site will be enhanced with additional deciduous, overstory and coniferous trees. Visibly compatible building heights will be maintained by taking advantage of the lower elevation in the southern portion of the campus. Buildings planned for the southern portion of the campus will accommodate more of the capacity needs of the campus and therefore, be taller but will appear similar in height to the existing and proposed buildings and ramps due to the lower grade elevation. The parking ramps have also been designed with underground levels thereby reducing the overall height. Additional mitigation will be incorporated into site development plans, to be submitted to the City, including lighting in the parking ramps that will be shielded and directed downward to minimize glare that would be transmitted to adjacent residences. Guidant Campus Master Plan DraftAUAR -60 - Scptember 2002 CERTIFICATIONS BY THE RGU EA W: ALL THREE CERTIFICATIONS MUST BE SIGNED FOR EQB ACCEPTANCE OF THE EA W FOR PUBLICATION OF NOTICE IN THE EQB MONITOR. A UAR: In an A UAR document, no certifications as listed at the end of the EA W form are necessary. But, the RGU is legally responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the document and for properly distributing it nonetheless. Guidant Campus Master Plan DraftAUAR September 2002 - 61- . . . . Figure I Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 . Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 . APPENDIX A FIGURES Project Location-Local Area AUAR Boundary Existing Site Plan Proposed Site Plan Existing Land Uses (November 1998 Conditionally Adopted Comprehensive Plan) Planned Land Uses (1982 Adopted Comprehensive Development Plan) Planned Land Uses (November 1998 Conditionally Adopted Comprehensive Plan) Zoning Map (1982 Adopted Comprehensive Plan) Zoning Map (November 1998 Conditionally Adopted Comprehensive Plan) Existing Cover Types Proposed Cover Types Drainage Areas and Potential Surface Water Treatment Locations Soils Map Existing (2002) Turning Movement Counts Carbon Monoxide Modeling Locations Noise Monitoring and Modeling Receptor Sites , ~ ~ f--! ('~ (-!J --; . 1....,....-"'--: 1! H~' "" 1/'0~"" ~ SY ('\@;."'. " '~~"'~~ ~ '11,,,.'~ ~l2( <~. '~'-........ ~ .; i./) ....... , i~ b<, .,~~ : " ,I' '" o \Iib!. 0 " . c -. .' L. "'-..." i':- "":\0 -;.(.~.'=='...' 01..," "" ''-~'/[L ,/ _1""+ "_. .. ' if~~:~' @; _~-'~ . 0--' _ " .... (,.,. _" " IV. ' "'!F ,u, R'1'" 1/ - I ... _Ice' ; ,.......,.. '; "', /, .,-.. '-0 - ; . J:> ' .,. 1\\ " - "'~i'" lIppaNS ,e_A. ~ I a . "": P i --' -~,~e-- i' ~ "~ ~\ "~\ !~M / ~,,- ~ (__Jt:J, ~\. j,Jj -'j / / -~];;-. '~ ~~ ~ l "fI.o. ,.;)..~ ~ ~." w -"7" ~.~~ \1,. J- .,,, '( ,., .J' ~~ ~ ~) . -'0: 4! RI~l w> ..~ ~ .!. -ll '~~_ ". , ~ ,_____"i\- :'" ."~'.........::Jiijl: ,-, <1 (?'"'~ " 1. / ~JL 0 L/ -,.L ~~"NP!'IR>. "",'9 /'14.1 '~""", ~ 1--..., i .,,-;C \ .,~~ -..JDA~.~;, , . .""". \~J,1 J. _ '.' ~..~ &_~t: ,- _.J , ,..." GOy - J:i_ 1M ~ i -J~' ..". ..~. ~V-) '- ~~..- .,,,,,l. '._..,' I \112; jI lIi"! ...\. -', ,,~, ; . -, '-_I, I,', \ .;l' PLEGROVE m": ". ,: "",,_ ~ 1W8~ ~ , ~ . ~~.",ij!Il":,_~fC!O~;\'f;. ~ - ,,->'):\, rct'j, _ '-i'i'-1:: 'j; ..:... i--I~~~f' yo , rr b,;7 ,_~"..' , ,,~ d .rjJ r ~,- \';/1- ~. , ~ ~ /i}. " " , , ~c1,,) _' c~ l,ce ;ilr_ll,i--- . T"r.1~-~' _" '----'- .,'--_-F A &J ~:r ~ -~ ,.c '<", \:;" p;!D},~.. ' ~'.0; , ....... I I i".' I~ I ',>- -, , "I-- _ ,'c. 7rc_,/@., '. 1fci<.JJ]C~- ';: -, fir';"'); 11+, W~:!!1-_-.-o~ ~ ~ " 7' R~~:~l . ~ \, . .~ ''''iL I (' . PROJECT LOCATION c --. ..Jl\'" .d, ~ '<W li5"HOREkw "* .\h -L", i' -, j " :j~ I- '" i-I "I!n' ~ i-' I i ,- '''>1 ,,,' -'0 >/PY I 1/' '",\" ~E '!0". ~;I, ,;1',1/.. .. :;Tr'" ." '... ... ! ,,," "'il" _...~ ""''> "'-- ' ST. PAUL <:_~ 6J -'-- J~ ill . " ~~~ -, '" , , . -- ~ 'u.... I" . ",,' . - 1-7: i ,,: . - 1\ __ ~ . ",,~,; .,1)1'(' ';' . 11.~ T\1 ',~ _~-Jf'i! ,I. "~~ , Q.. q...... r. , ~ CoNsulTING GElO\IP, 1Nc. PROJECT LOCATION. LOCAL AREA GUIDANT CAMPUS MASTER PLAN Alternative Urban Areawide Review Figure 1 Job No. 4547 rmII CONSULTINGGROur,1Nc. Job No. 4547 AUAR BOUNDARY GUIDANT CAMPUS MASTER PLAN Alternative Urban Areawide Review Figure 2 ~--- 0 '" -~----- o 0 " Ji , , .. ---'3nN31IrNOJ.~NI^.:I1 ttmmm.. IIIl1lh~ IL "J' ,. < ~ " o z 51 . o _:0 '~ -'':-- '9 .... I I :1" . .' ~ , o ::< ~ D D ..., ~ " '" ii: . , 0 < . 0 ~ r ~ z ~ 0 u ~ < ~ o ~ , ~ ~ w ~ r......,....r',"'''''.....,.\'''''''''''''.~ oc .. ""Oi' "<z ~:-:i IU~ >--~ -~ "'~ <>.. ",,'" - ~ >--z "'.. _ '" "<3 IU", ~ i;l ~ < , ~ ~ w U ~ ~ JgJj, .~ ~~ ~i ;<0 w 5' w oc w o '" .. w oc .. z .. m oc ~ w > >= .. z oc w ':; .. . . o o ^ o < o ., o o o w ~ ~ " ~ ~ o < '"'~ 0 ] o CJ . 3nN3AV N015NIX31 CDl ~~ ~ ~ o rE3 L = ! "j' g. ~ U;h " ~ " " <'- _gt;]u:~ o.1:i*i.O"" --;:::e:-',:lf~.'; li"~""" o , 1 3nN3^'" 3N[1~'1'H w o ~ D ~ < ~ D ~ ~ ~ ~ W '" ""'"'"""'"'<1\,,"V>'_,,,,.., < z ""~ <(~ ....<< o..z ",:5 .....~ -~ "'w Q~ "'~ "'''' O~ o..Z o<'i "'- o..iS ~ ~ u w ~ ~ ~ :i' w u !3 g ~i_. .8 i ~~ ~ g~ ... '" ~ '" ", "= >: w 5' w ~ w a " '" w ~ '" z '" m ~ ~ w > ;CO '" z ~ w ':; '" rmIi CoNSUl.l1NGGllOOl',lNC. Job No. 4547 ~ EN HILLS . Existing Land Use Map Legend D D - - ~ ~ 11II1I - - - ~ - ~~ D - - - - - - -, ~ Existing land Us& SFD:~IeFlIIYlHyDatad1edRaliidanliBl SEA:. Slngll Famly Al:taehed RNidental tJI': Mulliple FamityReeidantial !.t-l:MoblJaHome NC::NelghbortloodCoII'IIYI$I'ciIll cc: Cc:mmurlty Comnordal RC:RsgiOl'llllCommert:ial HC: Highway Corwenlern;:e OFC;01noo U: Light InduWial 1-1: HeIl'o'Ylndu&trial 1N:lnstltullonal SRO:o..tdoorSporttRecr1llllion OSN:NIIb.noI~Spac:e asP: PlI&llIYll Open Space RR:Rai Road VT\.: U1i1lty VAC:Vacanl WaletFealllt8$ . RIght-of-Way Source: City of Arden Hills conditionally approved 1998 comprehensive plan. -.... ~, n.~PI",~" ]If'IIHMtd..."""_~"'tMa.,, <#.w...H/JJs1'oilqjtJr1...JLW~ .@.<<lSMl".,..,.,.,..tJwl.-lLH.u. I1t6ltIJNJ/Jw.1ItJlt>"Ory~ArdmHl1Jo. L41IIlthe~""'.,J,jra"'~ J1M-1'f!for"'du~PJ.mP' ~1-'VH~ -, -- Cilyof__ 2000 + o 2000 Feet , MapDale: OaI:eriIer21l,2001 . EXISTING LAND USES (November 1998 Conditionally Adopted Comprehensive Plan) GUIDANT CAMPUS MASTER PLAN Alternative Urban Areawide Review Figure 5 ARDEN HILLS MINNESOTA LAND USE PLAN RESIOENl1Al. trlW OEI<SITY r--I '""""'" 0ENSI1Y r-1 HKJ-I 0ENSnY. COMMERCW.. ~ tDJSTFlW. ~ se.H'U!lUC p_s. OPEN SPAce ~ OnER PUIlUC ~ (1982 APPROVED CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) rmD CONSULllNG GIlOUI',INC- PLANNED LAND USES (1982 Adopted Comprehensive Development Plan) GUIDANT CAMPUS EXPANSION Alternative Urban Areawide Review Figure 6 Job No. 4547 ~ ~ --A~HILLS . I FUTURE LAND USE Legend Future Land Use D LDR: Low Density Residential EJ MDR: Medium Density Residential - HDR: High Density Resldentlel - MR: Mixed Residential - NB: Neighborhood Business . - COM: Commercial - MB: Mixed Business INO: Industrial - P\I: Public & Institutional - Pari< - Park Preserve EJ Right-of-Way - Water s-, <c. .'. Source: City of Arden Hills conditionally approved 1998 comprehensive plan. ","",-, 1JIo~,..../'f4,oo..(pIOIoou.... ~...IItb..~Ilo~cu, "'.l_.htI&PD&yf<1rlaJu...~ ~~tV1-I{b""" _"'~",u..CllyqfAnlmHfk. LanJu.".~_...bj_"'~ pk.-"/t)*~""P"'fr ","""I.-Iu..~ N + - -- ae,oI:........HilIo 2000 2000 Feet ~ o Map Oalll: Dec:ernb8r 20, 2001 . PLANNED LAND USES (November 1998 Conditionally Adopted Comprehensive Plan) GUIDANT CAMPUS MASTER PLAN Alternative Urban Areawide Review Figure 7 CONSULTING GItOlJl>.INC. Job No. 4547 , ~ ~ ARDEN HILLS MINNESOTA A I; . ~ " ';, . j,w' , f -~. '^:;:., . r i R:-1 ZONING DISTRICT MAP 1-:-2 )'W/N G^IlH,;-:;'- ()1,'1.)f(I:.Ni:;r PLAAT Olsti"tets B-1 "'..... GY R_I Single f'._lly Ru.l- dentta' O'strIG~ R.2 SlnSI. and Two '..,Iy R.sld.ntl.. D.$trl~t ~-} T~wnho~$. .nd ~Ow D_nslty Mvltlpl. Ov.,llttg IH51dct R-~ MUft'pt. OwelJlng DI stdet 8-1 ll.lt.d evsr~.ss District" 8-2 Gon.ral 6~sIA.SS Olstrh:t I-I ll~lt.d tn4Q~trl.t District 1-2 G.n.re' lndu$trlal Dhtdct PROJECT LOCATION . B-1 .~ l-L~ ~ ' , .,.,.i. .' I I ~ .....,'.., j 10 Source: 1982 approved City of Arden Hills comprehensive plan. ~ ZONING MAP (1902 Adopted Comprehensive Plan) GUIDANT CAMPUS MASTER PLAN Alternative Urban Areawide Review Figure 8 CONSULTING GROur, INc. Job No. 4547 . ~"~ .. y$> 19 10 Q oB ; 6 ~? , ,~ R-1 , " Q ~ ~ ~~LLS . ZONING MAP City of Arden Hills ZoningDls1rlcts D R-1: Single Family Rttaidential o R-2: Slngle & TWI)Fam~yRasidenlial District Ii!III R-3: TownhouslI & Low Density Mlltilte DwElllIng .. R-4:M.lllipleOw&lnngDlstrlct I~~ g.1:Um~edBllsinllSsDi6trict ~ B-2:GeneralBu$inessDIstrlct _ B-3; Sel"llloa BuslnessDJstrict _ IH:RatailCentarDistrict _ N-8: N&IgtlborhDod BusiT1eSll _ G-B:GaIoWlfYBusil'ltlS3 _ 1-1:Umlt&dlndusb1ll1Dlstr\CI _ l-2:GenerallnduslriBlDl$lrlcl. _ l-F: I-FLEX DI&tr1ct _ CC: Civic CtIIlll:ll' District - ""''''''' I ~...; ::::'-W"' . Sou rce: City of Arden Hills conditionally approved 1998 comprehensive plan. I NClly Limit. N_dway l N Parcel LInes ;;;;.~~,::~- +N I ~~~~~ 'I. HUb.z-.~...ni!/<dIo~ 1*-rofr"''''~o>-':'.__ -- I Data: ~17,2001J - -- OIy.t_KilII -...,u.c. GooInIti<_~ 1000 ,....., o 1000 Feet ~ . ZONING MAP (November 1998 Condilionatly Adopted Comprehensive Plan) GUIDANT CAMPUS MASTER PLAN Alternative Urban Areawide Review Figure 9 ~TmGGROUP,INC. Job No. 4547 " '" w - 0 0 ~ " ~;: " " ~i\ , '" ; ::1.3 ;;: ;~ ~ ~ " w 0 < 0 . a "" " " ~ ;~ 0 0 0 z z 00 w ~ " ~~ 0 0 ~ . ~ ~ ~ . ~ D~ID . o . "'~ 0 o ~ '-' ~ ~ ~ " . . ~ ~ " . r ~1-I/---71 J ~ . o J ~ ~ ~ W ~ . =~9"""j''''J\h,.,""'''''M~ L ~ o ~ o . r ~ z ~ o u '" UJoc 0..< >-~ ....< z <>:< u.o~ ,.~ offi UF ~ ",< :>:'" i::~ "'< _ 0 ~~ ~ u W " =[; ~ a g '" w '> w oc w o :!< < w oc < z < m oc ~ w > " < Z oc w '=' < :is .~ 80 o o " w o o u =~ I ~ ~~ g ~ ~ VI ~"- j ~ >= ~ ~~ ;g e ~ ~ ~V1 5 l5 VI ~ ;3 " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ 0 oii ""~~- 0 g H ;" 2 . 1/[J"""""",'W,".w.",,.,'<f'<V '" lU "-~ >-<< ....=> << O:z lU<< ".~ o~ offi Qt; lU<< "'''' o~ ,,-z 0"" 0:5 "-co ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ JgJi S ~J g - - e " '" il: . . 50 w '" w ~ w o '" << w ~ << z << ~ ~ => w > >= << z ~ w ':; << . d .. . z o g ~ z ~ '" '{f .... 5 z <D :. ;j 2 6 ~ ;:: ~ ~ ;:::' ~ >- -<< g ~ Cl z i 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 i ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ 8 ~ ~ w ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ : ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ;:::' ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "~;;~00n 1 ~ ~ "" --'"'---- ~-~v~ 0 0 ~ " ~ ~ " w . -- --~ C:4P IT ,I I I I 'L 1 ~- \ r~..~D m a V " '., " ~ ~ i \ I t~ -- =- ~ - -- - - u ;. ~ " w . ~ ~ w ~ n ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ . w u ~ g {al>"V'O_MJ."""'_,dW ~ e '" .'" u: 1 ~ ;::: ~ o .... .... ~ lti l:': ~ ~ .... <> ~ ~ '" ." ~ .... 50 :z: w ~ ;> o :i' "- w o ~ ~ ~ q::i i"5 '" z oc t:i:3 ~ '" ~ << q: ffi ~ lI.I ~ :::J (,!)...o;:: ~ ~;:: i= ~ ~;z ~ ~ ~ ~ ffi ~ Q 5 ~ ~ ~ ffi 5' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ,,8 ;; ~~ ~ ~I:' o "' ~ CoNSULTlNGGROUl',INc. SOILS MAP GUIDANT CAMPUS MASTER PLAN Alternative Urban Areawide Review Figure 13 Job No. 4547 CSAH 96 -Y~ ~MO -~~ ~$: t.19 (83) ""C>t.:)~1107(556) .1$'" '1691 {705) .. (1088)43 (99J 3-,: . . . CSAH96 '" .S E <1l I .. __m .-- (137) at.... (l77J34.... <"l~<'> (409)56 ';l~"" ,. ,,1=:'0 ,~~"'-"-" M_ ~~ .!') ;n~ii1 ~~m ~~::::.- ~ .~ ~~ to. m ~g to ""'1 ! I '31~~-"9(~;:~..."",361 ,J ['=_'242'-' hl ~ ~- aa m 8m ~~ i "t..35 (233) J ".r231~46_~~"'105~2_16) , 101 Dot., t r+ ;(38)l~,~;:!;g . -.......... lr o N ::8- I,(]!S . A ( I AM Turning Movements (PM Turning Movements) '----.- l Guidant Traffic Impact Study Source: Parsons Transportation Group traffic impact study (July 2002) ~ EXISTING (2002) TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS GUIDANT CAMPUS MASTER PLAN Alternative Urban Areawide Review Figure 14 CONSULTING Gaovr,lNc. Job No, 4547 . .....; .....-11I..',. ._IiIII.... ...-.' '1Ii'-'" , II ..... III'.' III. ..... ........,,11. ....... ..'. .,\ ....<.' ..'.,'.. ".,. '. ....c'.. ..'-';' I _. .... . . . II' ..,_.11. ..IIP... "." ".'.. _i . ,..... . .... ....._....11II'-..."'.. ...... . 11III ...... II.... .." '. ..' .......11....,._....................-- ,,' . - .....', .-... '. ..,...,...,.,-..... " . '. ". I' '....._ "'11"_.'" II" iii .... . ....... . ... II' .- .-'''' '11I', .." '. ".~" ..... _.'. ..........11..,11,......-. ." '.',...., .... " .. - . -.... ' .-.....' ..- .. III,.;,. ._, "._ ........ . ....__ .-....., ..".-..... ,'" ..11.., '.,' ......... ..,.,,_,.:.,. . ,.,_11I lilt., "., -. .....:... ....,. '. ......... ..'......., ,.,.. ..,.,...,....-.1.... 11.11-.-,.".. .' ../ ..,.,....-,.,-..'.. ....-:......', .............-. .-"- C,. -i I"'. :' ... ;.._...1.:...." '.".11..,... ..... .'-.:-'.' :.I!.' ....,:. .....'..'..,. .." ...,......... ". ,'...'....'..:...-'. .' ....: 11I11 . III .... -. ...,11I", __..,...,........... .......,."... ,._.._.!llll _III." ..-.:-.........'.- ".,. . .".. 11II._ _,.,,:.,_. ' . ......._!l1I _po. ..... ..c... · c.' -.' - .' ...._ ........ .,...., iI. .-. ,.'. . iii. . _..... .. ... .,_. A; ....' '...... ,..- - . II II!IIIIIIIIIIIII .- - .-.. III -.....,'. ~..IIII:.II II..' · · 1'.... . .... _.~!!f-,.,r... I II.. I · II ,. .,.,p- . ... III ,... II, _.'." ,....--.. _, _. ._'. ... - _.,. III --:.._ _.11' ..,. : . - .- ....-. "i ': II tJ'" II III III ."" . ,- '" " '_ .._.--......11II,,-."".'..' '. ....i..' 1I'~1IIiiI .~ ........... II'.' -.... :.....-.' -..." -JI .. .... I .- II. III ._.,...1 I....i~' ~. ... ...:.=, ...._lI.".".......',I'.L..:.......'....<....:......:.-.,..-....:.; , ., _ .... .... .... .._..... _"11III'........ .,.. '...'."" -' -.:; ... '. -!lII" ........'.... ",' < 11'I_ i I' -......... ...." ",..>: "', ,i, ..""'" ...' ..,.,,'.."- : I ........, ..' ..-......,.,.,<'_. -: . .-,Il.. ..!II..'.-...,."."'.':" ,III LEGEND , -I 1- 1 Carbon Monoxide Modeling Location AUAR Study Area - , ....... .... ....... .......~.. III'" ,'. .. ';.... .. II. ..:.' . . I -II ... ...... - .,' . . 11II11 ......11."... 11II .c' .. . II ,'o' .' m - CARBON MONOXIDE MODELING LOCATIONS Figure 15 C"N~tJL1JN(; GKUL't,.INL GUIDANT CAMPUS MASTER PLAN Job No. 4547 Alternative Urban Areawide Review o Noise Monitoring and Modeling Receptor . Noise Modeling Receptor .~ NOISE MONITORING AND MODELING RECEPTOR SITES Figure 16 GUIDANT CAMPUS MASTER PLAN CUNbUlI lNt.: GIIUUI'.mL Allernalive Urban Areawide Review Job No_ 4547 APPENDIX B CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION ORDERING THE AUAR . ~.' .~ . . e . . . .. . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 02-42 A RESOLUTION TO ORDER AN ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW <AUAR) FOR THE GUIDANT CAMPUS IN THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS. WHEREAS, Minnesota Rules Part 4410.3610 provides for a substitute form of Environmental Review know as an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) process; and WHEREAS, an Alternative Urban Areawide Review <AUAR) process allows for the environmental review of development and associated infrastructure in a particular geographic area within a jurisdiction if the local government unit has an adopted comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the adopted comprehensive must contain at least the following elements: a land use plan; a public facilities plan including a transportation plan, and sewage collection system policy plan; and an implementation program; and WHEREAS, the City of Arden Hills has an adopted Comprehensive Plan containing the required elements; and WHEREAS, the specified boundaries for the Guidant Campus AUAR are shown in the attached exhibit and are as follows: County Road F on the south, Guidant Drive North on the north, Hamline Avenue on the west and Lexington Avenue on the east in the City of Arden Hills; and WHEREAS, the City of Arden Hills (the "City") is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part 4410.3610 Subp. I; and WHEREAS, there is uncertainty as to the exact timing of the development stages on the site with anticipated development to begin in 2005; and WHEREAS, the Guidant Campus is consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and with known development plans of property owners within the area; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, that an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) is the most appropriate form of environmental review provided for in the Minnesota Environmental Review Program. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills that an AUAR be initiated and completed for the area shown on the attached exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN mLLS THIS ," DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2002. ~ ~ DENNIS PROBST, MAYOR ATTEST: ~~ JOE LYNCH, CITY ADMINISTRATOR , ~ " ~ . . . . . e . " . g j ~~o ~ ~ Cj. 3flN3Nf NOl!lNIX31 '-- nJ ~i~ ~~I !l! "' Q ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ HBJjt;j -\l'4'" ~ ..... ""~ :5~ ....= ~~ -'" "'W c,l;; ....<< ..,'" 0.. ....= 0;:3 ""5 ....'" l' o I" ~ ~id ~~ ... '" ~ '" '" i<: 3: w '" w '" w '" ,. ;:j '" << = << ~ '" => w > >= << = '" w ~ << "'. .\"1 . . APPENDIX C CORRESPONDENCE . e . . . . < , Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Box 25 Phone: (651) 296-7863 500 Lafayette Road 51. Paul, Minnesota 55155-40 -- ..------ Fax: (651) 296- t 811 E-mail: sarah.hoffmann@dnr.state.mn.us .--;::;: ',3 'i.'~ ,fi;: . <i;;\ ",- .t .. ....... ... /c)~":' 7' 10 Ii'.,. !C~ !~S July 9, 2002 JUL 2002 Received SRr, Inc. Courtnay Bot SRF Consulting Group, Inc. One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150 Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443 ',';;"') \c~. , .... '\~~2i'~" ..... '",--" >'-~/ V'~"_ -:/ Re: Request for Natural Heritage information for vicinity of proposed Guidant Campus Master Plan, T30N'.... R23W Section 22, Ramsey County NHNRP Contact #: ERDB 20030006 Dear Ms. Bot, The Minnesota Natural Heritage database has been reviewed to detennine if any rare plant or animal species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one-mile radius of the area indicated on the map enclosed with your information request. Based on this review, there are 13 known occurrences of rare species or natural communities in the area searched (for details, see enclosed database printout and explanation of selected fields). Following are specific comments for only those elements that may he impacted by the proposed project. Rare feature occurrences not listed below are not anticipated to be affected by the proposed project. . The project area is within a "known concentration" area of Blanding's Turtles (Emydoidea blandingii), a state threatened species. There are 13 such areas in the state. These areas have been detennined by the DNR to be locations of highest priority for research and management activities, and are relied upon to maintain the species' security in the state. Although no turtle records have been reported directly from the project site, it is highly likely Blanding's Turtles use the site, if habitat is suitable. Blanding's Turtles spend much of their time in shallow wetlands (1-3 feet deep), but they nest in open, sandy uplands up to I mile from wetlands. Nesting is in June and eggs hatch in September, at which time young turtles enter deep wetlands where they over-winter in soft sediments. Factors believed to contribute to the decline of this species include wetland drainage and degradation, development on upland nesting areas, and possibly collection for the pet trade. In addition, because of the tendency for Blanding' s T~rtles to travel long distances over land, they are often forced to cross roads in developed areas. Many of the records we have of Blanding's Turtles are from turtles killed crossing roads. For your information, I have attached a fact sheet and a flyer about the Blanding's Turtle. The fact sheet is intended to provide you with background information regarding habitat use, life history, and reasons for the species' decline, as well as recommendations for avoiding and minimizing impacts to this rare turtle. As you will note, there are two lists of recommendations. The first list contains recommendations to prevent harm to turtles during construction work, and is relative to all areas inhabited by Blanding's Turtles. The second DNR Information: 651..296..6157 . 1.888..646..6367 . TTY: 651.296.5484 . j..800..657..3929 An Equal Opportnnity Employer Who Values Diversity o Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a Minimum of l(}<'/o Post-Consumer Waste --, ... ~ CAUTION . J.-u.<..a- . BLANDING'S TURTLES MAY BE ENCOUNTERED IN THIS AREA The unique and rare Blanding's turtle has been found in this area. Blanding's turtles are a State Threatened species and are protected under Minnesota Statute 84.095, Protection of Threatened and Endangered Species. Please be careful of turtles on roads and in construction sites. For additional information on turtles, or to report a Blanding's turtle sighting, contact the DNR Nongame Specialist nearest you: Bemidji (218-755-2976); Brainerd (218-828-2228); New Ulm (507-359-6033); Rochester (507-280-5070); or SI. Paul (651-297-2277). DESCRIPTION: The Blanding's turtle is a medium to large turtle (5 to 10 inches) with a black or dark blue, dome-shaped shell with muted yellow spots and bars. The bottom of the shell is hinged across the front third, enabling the turtle to pull the front edge of the lower shell firmly against the top shell to provide additional protection when threatened. The head, legs, and tail are dark brown or blue.gray with small dots of light brown . or yellow. A distinctive field mark is the bright yellow chin and neck. Illustration by Don Luce, from Turtles in Minnesota, Natural HistOl')' Leaflet No.9. Jone 1989, James Ford Bell Museum of Natural History '" ... ~ . . . AUAR MITIGATION PLAN (NOTE TO REVIEWERS: THE MITIGATION PLAN WILL BE PROVIDED WITH THE FINAL AUAR) . . . ~ ~ EN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: 6.A.4 September 23, 2002 Agenda Item TO: Mayor Dennis Probst Council Member Beverly Aplikowski Council Member David Grant Conncil Member Gregg Larson Council Member Lois Rem Joe Lynch, City Administrator )WV\ FROM: Aaron Parrish - Community Services Director SUBJECT: 1-35W Build-Out Study Resolution ENCLOSURES: 1. Resolution 02-49 Endorsing Principles Outlined in the I-35W Corridor Coalition Build-Out Study Overview As a follow up to the presentation the Council heard at their September 19, 2002 Work Session, attached is a resolution endorsing the I-35W Corridor Coalition's multi-year Build-Out Study. The resolution essentially endorses concepts within the study as opposed to the entire study. Copies of the summary findings of the Build-Out study were provided at the Work Session. Please feel free to contact me if you should require an additional copy of the document. ReQuested Action Consider approval of Resolution 02-49 Endorsing the I-35W Corridor Coalition Build-Out Study. e . e CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 02-49 RESOLUTION ENDORSING PRINCIPLES OUTLINED IN THE I-35W CORRIDOR COALITION BUILD-OUT STUDY WHEREAS: The North Metro I-35W Corridor Coalition is a Joint Powers Authority comprised of the cities of Arden Hills, Blaine, Circle Pines, Mounds View, New Brighton, Roseville and Shoreview, and Ramsey County, and, WHEREAS: The Coalition has completed a study (the Build Out Study) of future growth scenarios and the potential impacts of each scenario, and, WHEREAS: The Coalition desires to mitigate the impacts of anticipated growth in the member cities while providing for economic growth and individual city initiatives, and, WHEREAS: The Build Out Study demonstrates the value of incorporating transit supportive and mixed use design concepts in development and redevelopment efforts, and, WHEREAS: The North Metro I-35W Corridor Coalition Board of Directors has received and considered the [mdings, conclusions and recommendations from the Build Out Study, WHEREAS: The Board recommends that the individual member cities: 1. Adopt transit supportive and mixed use center design concepts as a means to guide growth in the I-35W Corridor, 2. Amend their Comprehensive Plans to include mixed use options, 3. Use overlay zones as an implementation strategy, 4. Incorporate changes in roadway networks to support mixed use development and walkable neighborhoods. 5. Develop and implement transit service strategies needed to support the Coalition's growth scenario, and, 6. Integrate lifecycle housing options into community planning activities. BE IT RESOLVED: The City of Arden Hills endorses the principles outlined in the Build- Out Study and supports the concepts of transit supportive and mixed use designs, and, intends to apply these concepts wherc possible and practical in making local decisions. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS 30th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2002. DENNIS PROBST, MAYOR ATTEST: JOSEPH P. LYNCH, CITY ADMINISTRATOR e . e . ~ ~HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: September 23, 2002 Agenda Item 6.C TO: Mayor Dennis Probst Council Member Beverly Aplikowski Council Member David Grant Council Member Gregg Larson Council Member Lois Rem Joe Lynch, City Administrator FROM: Aaron Parrish, Commnnity Services Director , SUBJECT: TCAAP Update The following highlights pertinent TCAAP reuse activities since the last Council meeting: . No meetings with the Development Team have occurred since the last update. · Staff and the project consultant are in the process of finalizing letters to be sent to potential members of the Advisory Panel. These will be available for the Conncil's signature at the September 30, 2002 meeting. · Representative McCollum facilitated a meeting on September 23, 2002. The meeting focused on a presentation by the General Services Administration. · The Ramsey County Board has authorized the inclusion of the 49 acre wildlife corridor into the existing 113 acre Rice Creek Corridor. This corridor is consistent with the Vento Plan. However, the City will need to work with Ramsey Connty and the Minnesota Army National Guard regarding access to the primary tracer area. This area is essentially landlocked between the wildlife corridor on the south and Minnesota Army National Guard property to the north. In past meetings with the DNR, they have indicated that it is acceptable to have a road through a wildlife corridor under certain circumstances. · The Rice Creek Watershed District has included $30,000 in their 2003 budget for TCAAP planning activities. Staff is in the process of getting additional information on this. · The Army and GSA are in the process of developing a scope of services for a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. It is hoped that the sampling called for the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment can occur this fall with a final report being issued sometime in the Spring. . . . . ~ ~HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: Agenda Item S.A September 26, 2002 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Joe Lynch, City Administrator SUBJECT: Recap of Meeting with Ramsey County on Public Works Facility ENCLOSURE: Resolution No. 02-51, Public Works Facility Operations & Maintenance Estimate On Thursday, September 19, 2002, I met with Paul Kirkwold, Ramsey County Manager and Jolly Mangine, Director of Ramsey County Property Management to discuss three items. Those items were: 1) ability to have ownership of our portion of the facility on Ramsey Connty property; 2) negotiation on ability to pay for services as they are delivered instead of an up front cash basis; 3) aesthetic design and approach to layout of the site. Ownership Both Mr. Kirkwold and Mr. Mangine indicated that having the City of Arden Hills own a portion of the building or require a stand-alone building presented problems for Ramsey County. They indicated that Ramsey County does not want the City of Arden Hills to decide who will replace us a user in the event that we decide to vacate the premises. Their concern is that we will sell to the highest bidder and that use may be incompatible with the remaining portion of the property. I indicated to Ramsey County representatives that we still had zoning issues to deal with and we would not sell or sublease the building to a use that was incompatible or inconsistent with zoning regulations. Another issue they raised was their ability to recover some of initial costs and they would be approaching the initial agreement with a five year minimum time frame for the City of Arden Hills to be in the joint use building. Jolly indicated the Ramsey County Attorney would work on an agreement that might satisfy the City on this issue. Payment for Costs for Phase I and Phase II Services I indicated that the City was concerned about paying for Phase I and/or Phase II services up front and the County then being unable to complete those services or having a delay unforeseen by Ramsey County or uncontrolled by either party. Ramsey County indicated that they could agree that they will bill the City of Arden Hills on a monthly basis for our prorated share of Phase I services depending on the final negotiated service cost. . . . 2 September 26, 2002 Joint Maintenance Facility Meeting Recap Aesthetic Desil!n and Zoninl! Compliance I stressed the importance of the look of the look, design, and the material selection used for the building and bringing forward a plan that would be acceptable to the Planning Commission and the City Council. I tried to emphasize the fact that we believe there will be at least three "front door" sides depending on access to or from the north side of the building. I indicated to both representatives that although it was unintended, there was already a picture in the minds of some people about the layout of the property and the look and feel of the building did not appear to be suitable to our needs. Ramsey County said that they understood the concern about the design and the materials used and pointed to the Juvenile Detention Center and the new Law Enforcement Center as being first class buildings and their intention is to build this building in a similar manner. Operations and Maintenance Costs The other part of the discussion we had was the operations and maintenance cost projections from Ramsey Connty for the maintenance of the new facility. I expressed a concern regarding the estimate of cost per square foot and inquired whether or not there were alternatives to maintaining our own space. Mr. Mangine responded that the cost per square foot is in-line with an organization called Building Owner's and Manager's Association (BOMA) and is an estimate at this point. As a part of the cost structure they do have a $0.50 per square foot charge for replacement of capital items such as roof, carpet, etc. If the operations and maintenance figure turns out to be higher than actual costs for maintenance, cleaning, repairs, etc., the balance will be kept in a fund and used to reduce the operations and maintenance costs for the following calendar year. They indicated a building committee will be formed which the City will have one representative to discuss and decide maintenance and other building policy issues. If the cost figure is not covering actual costs for Ramsey County an adjustment will be made for the following calendar year for the operations and maintenance costs to the building partners. Ramsey County Property Management will manage the property and will contract out the janitorial and mechanical system maintenance and repairs. Mr. Mangine will be in attendance at your Council meeting on September 30, 2002, to answer any questions you may have regarding these particular issues or any others. Recommendation After discussion with Mr. Mangine, if the Council is comfortable, the resolution enclosed would allow for acceptance of the Revised Space Needs Analysis and would allow us to enter into an agreement with Ramsey County for Phase I Design Services. If the Council is not comfortable proceeding, this issue can be returned to your regular meeting on October 15, 2002. Ramsey County Board will be meeting on October 8, 2002, to decide whether or not to proceed with Phase I Design Services. Attachment 5 Ramsey County Public Works Facility Estimated 2005 Annual Operating Budget (Ramsey County) June 20, 2002' . Heated Cold Building starag~ Cast Pe. Cos-tPer Total $q,Ft. sq. ft. !la,s!>> $1.13 $!l.00 $86,057 1.58 0.79 298,100 S",-R~poit 268.zoll 1'00 O.iJO 0.66 0.33 124.5110 0.66 0.33 124,500 0.511 0.25 94,300 $6.19- $1.70 $995,65T JanitoriaIlCleanr~ll(full raw1lpplies ~Qfflca 5pace and ~diusted raht'i:\pplia, to otber are~s.) MepairslM;lnte,nancs Utilities P"r TKOAR'eport(adjusted forS.,4-flscata,ion) Gr:C)lmds/S8curity Property Manag~ant Capitallritprovements Tofal OperaUngCosts OSF GSF HealSd COlq Annlial Building SUml~Ut Cost 1581344 53t011 S973.$11 2IO,QO 0 12;380 0 '1,200 %,040 1i232 0 7.026 332 0 N/A 16t,llIl8 54.211 S9Q6.65T . Rams.eyCoonty:Public 'Wor'ks Ramsey County 'SOil and ConservaUonBoard RamseyCoonty L1tlrary Ram$8y-County Emergency r"anageffiWlt Services Ramsey County PropeltyMa_nagornenl Totats . . . . ~ ~LS CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO, 02-51 A Resolution to Approve the Identified Space Needs for the City of Arden Hills Operations and Maintenance and to Move Forward with Phase I Design Services in Conjunction with Ramsey County for a Joint Maintenance Facility WHEREAS, the City of Arden Hills had a Public Works Space Needs Analysis performed in 1998 by Toltz, King, Duval, and Anderson (TKDA), and WHEREAS, the City of Arden Hills had TKDA perform an update to that Public Works Space Needs Analysis in 2002 in conjunction with a Ramsey County Public Works Space Needs Analysis Study Update, and WHEREAS, TKDA has returned a Space Needs Analysis Program calling for a main building of21,628 square feet and a cold storage facility of2,261 square feet to meet the operational needs of the City of Arden Hills Operations & Maintenance Department, and WHEREAS, Ramsey County would like to begin Phase I Design Services for a Joint Public Works Facility which will include an application for a Special Use Permit to be located on the 36 acre parcel obtained by special legislation on TCAAP property, and WHEREAS, Ramsey County needs to know whether or not the prospective partuers agree with the proposed Space Needs Revised Space Needs Analysis, and WHEREAS, Ramsey County needs to know from the prospective partners in the Joint Public Works Facility whether or not they will participate in the Phase I Design Services including costs for their share of services upon selection of the design team, and WHEREAS, Ramsey Connty Board of Commissioners will select a [mal design team at its board meeting October 3, 2002, and WHEREAS, Ramsey County Board of Commissioners will authorize Ramsey Connty staff to negotiate the final price for Phase I Design Services with the selected design team, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council ofthe City of Arden Hills that the City of Arden Hills: I. Agrees with the Revised Space Needs Analysis by TKDA for a main building of 21,628 square feet and a cold storage facilityof2,261 square feet. 2. The City of Arden Hills agrees to pay for its share of the prorated costs for Phase I Design Services with the final selected design team based upon on a negotiated ATTEST: 3. final contract price between Ramsey County and the design team. The City of Arden Hills agrees to pay Ramsey County on a monthly basis upon receipt of an invoice showing the overall costs paid and the prorated share due and owed by the City of Arden Hills. That by participating in the Phase I Design Services, the City of Arden Hills does not imply approval or acceptance of any proposed site plan as Ramsey County proceeds through the Special Use Permit process with the City of Arden Hills. The City of Arden Hills has the right at the end of Phase I Design Services to decide whether to proceed with Phase II services or to end the relationship with Ramsey County and the design team and seek alternatives for the location of an operations and maintenance facility for the City of Arden Hills. 4. 5. ADOPTED by the City Council this 30th Day of September, 2002. DENNIS PROBST, MAYOR JOSEPH P. LYNCH, CITY ADMINISTRATOR . . . e . e ~ ~ EN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: Agenda Item 8.B September 26, 2002 TO: Mayor and City Council Joe Lynch, Administrato~1 ~ Appointment of personnUirectorlDeputy Clerk to Regular Employment Status FROM: SUBJECT: CC: Personnel File Cynthia Young BACKGROUND: Cynthia Yonng began working for the City of Arden Hills as the Deputy Clerk on March 18, 2002. Approximately one month ago, the Council adopted a change in the job description for this position to Personnel DirectorlDeputy Clerk. Ms. Young has completed her six month training period as the Personnel DirectorlDeputy Clerk. Per the Arden Hills Personnel Policy, Ms. Young was evaluated at the end of that period and her performance has been excellent. RECOMMENDATION: Per the Personnel Policy of the City of .Arden Hills, staff recommends that the City Council appoint Cynthia Yonng as Personnel DirectorlDeputy Clerk on a regular, full-time basis. HP Laser Jet 3200 (If)@ . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS 651 634 5137 OCT-II-2002 9:05AM i n v e n t Fax Call Report Job Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result 334 101ll/2002 8.57:01AM Send 9 7634219511 1: 26 2 OK 335 101l1/2002 8:58:33AM Send 9.6516286833 1: 12 2 OK 336 10/ll/2002 8:59:50AM Send 9.7637060891 0:52 2 OK 337 101l1/2002 9:00:47AM Send 9.6516333846 1: 20 2 OK 338 10/ll/2002 9:02:12AM Send 9.6512282191 1: 18 2 OK 339 10/11/2002 9:03:36AM Send 9.6512279371 0:48 2 OK 340 10/11/2002 9:04:29AM Send 9.6514821262 1: 02 2 OK ,a I. HP Laser Jet 3200 [Ii]@ . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS 651 634 5137 OCI-II-2002 2'34PM i n v e n t Fax Call Report Job Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Resu It 351 10/1112002 2:28:41PM Send 9.7634219511 0:46 1 OK 352 10111/2002 2:29:33PM Send 9.6516286833 0:44 1 OK 353 10111/2002 2:30:23PM Send 9.7637060891 0:41 1 OK 354 10/1112002 231:09PM Send 9.6516333846 0'53 1 OK 355 10/11/2002 2:32:07PM Send 9.6512282191 0:51 1 OK 356 10111/2002 2:33:03PM Send 9.6512279371 0:32 1 OK 357 10111/2002 2:33:40PM Send 9.6514821262 0:32 1 OK 1--'c/)H ('C!lIt',:!It',liil' 16j;5fr~ .;Mn J;y5Jt -r ,It- 7' LWnctu /Urfer/ Jt'C;- . . Petition to Stop the Pumpinq of Karth Lake It is hereby petitioned that the pumping of water out of Karth Lake to lower its' surface level to an arbitrary point, set by the Minnesota Department of Resources, should be stopped. Any continued effort is a waste of city tax dollars and should be terminated. The Arden Hills City Council should rescind the motion made on September 30th at its meeting which authorized this waste of city tax dollars. Karth Lake is not a lake, but a natural depression in the landscape left by the last glacial period. As the climate and precipitation total changes each season, so changes the water level in the depression known as Karth Lake. This depression collects the run-off from the local landscape and underground flowage from at least 9 different springs. The depression does not have an outlet and the water level has varied over 15 feet in the past 20 years. The current higher level of Karth Lake has been caused by the unusual amount of precipitation received this spring and summer season. Every body of water in the local area has been affected by the unusual amount of precipitation. . Lowering the level of Karth Lake as currently ordered will lower the water table in the surrounding area and may seriously affect the local environment. This change in the water table will lower the level of the surrounding ponds and may eliminate their use for winter activities. It will also decrease the ground moisture available this winter and next spring for vegetation. Furthermore, the residents of the Wyncrest neighborhood were not notified that this pumping of Karth Lake was being considered and scheduled, though the pipes are going across Wyncrest private property and the pumped water is being dumped into their storm sewers. This dumping, since the pumps are not monitored 24 hours a day, could result in Wyncrest neighborhood houses and basements being flooded if a blockage occurs. This problem has happened in the past. We, therefore, petition the Arden Hills City Council to rescind their motion to pump Karth Lake from its current water level to an arbitrary lower water level. Furthermore, we hereby request that the Arden Hills City Council notify the residences around the drainage depression, known as Karth Lake, that the climate and weather control the level of this body of water and no pumping to change the natural level of the water is authorized. See attached sheets for those Arden Hills community members who have endorsed this petition. . t ~~ e I IJ(;S-11J2 /l47Ir. ( GUIDANT . R. Frederick McCoy, Jr. President, CAM October 14, 2002 Mayor Dennis Probst City of Arden Hills Arden Hills, MN 55112 Re: Park Dedication Fee Dear Dennis: Guidant Corporation appreciates the willingness of the City of Arden Hills to consider alternative means of accommodating the Park Dedication Pee (PDF) requirement of our pending Planned Unit Development (PUD) and re-pJatting of land. Through discussions with City Staff, we have developed three actions/projects Guidant is prepared to undertake. We propose that these actions/projects would satisfy the PDF requirement of the PUD/re-plat. . First, as you are aware, the current City park trail crosses onto Guidant property. This was inadvertently done during the original construction of the trail and was discovered during a survey we recently completed. As a part of this agreement Guidant would agree to an easement allowing City access and use of this trail and not require you to remove it from our property. Second, as part of our long-term development of our campus, it is our intention to create a trail system around the perimcter of the property. We currently have some trails in place. Our future plans add to the existing system and connect to the City's system. As part of this agreement in lieu of a PDP payment, Guidant would allow the City and neighborhood unencumbered use of these trails, providcd of course that nothing untoward takes place. We do request the clear opportunity to reclaim or encumber use of these trails if, at Guidant's sole discretion, it becomes necessary to establish a perimeter fence security approach to safe-guarding the company and its employees. . Finally and most significantly, we have discussed with City Staff the idea of contributing towards improvements in Cummings Park. Internally your staff has determined that the top priority for Cummings Park would be the construction of a picnic/warming shelter. They have providcd us with conceptual plans and preliminary cost estimates for such a structure. Wc would like to include the construction of this shelter as our final contribution to the City, thus fulfilling the PDP requirements for thc PUD/re-plat. Guldant Corporation Cardiac Rhythm Management Group 4100 Hamline Avenue North, MIS A300, 81. Paul, MN 55112-5798 I. . . . Page 2 Mayor Dennis Probst Because of the magnitude of the shelter contribution, there are several conditions to our proposal. First, the amount of the contribution is capped at $350,000. Second, we would like input into the final design of the shelter. Third, Guidant would like to hire the contractors and manage the constmction. Finally, we would like to place our name tastefully on the structure (e.g. Guidant Pavilion). Dennis, we appreciate all that you, the Council, the Planning Commission and City Staff have done to help us with this Master Plan. We are excited about our growth and are pleased that the City shares this excitement. We hope you and the city will accept our offers above.