The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-12-05 f~:;i"'.'<j _' ~ ~HILLS Arden Hills City Council Mayor: Beverly Aplikowski Councilrnembers: David Grant Brenda Holden Gregg Larson Lois Rem 1245 W. Highway 96 Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 651.634.5120 www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us REGULAR MEETING Monday September 12, 2005 City Vision A strong community that values our unique environment, our fiscal soundness~ and our tradition as a desirable cit in which to live, work, and la . Agenda City Council Meeting Convenes 7:00 PM Call to Order PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. August 29, 2005 City Council Minutes B. August 29. 2005 City Council Work Session Minutes C. August 19, 2005 Special City Council Meeting Minutes D. August 15,2005 City Council Work Session Minutes 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Claims and Payroll B. Lift Station #4 and #9 Rcconstruction- Partial Payment #2 to Gridor Construction, Inc in the amount of $105,579.39. C. 2005 Red Fox-Grey Fox PMP Project Partial Payment # 1 to Amt Construction in the amount of $289,021.88. D. Final Payment to Allied Blacktop for 2005 Seal Coat Project in the amount of $38,547.84. E. Final Payment #7 to Amt Construction for the 2004 PMP Project in the amount of $61,030.17 . 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. Arden Hills City Council Agenda September 12, 2005 Page 2 F. Street Sign Replacement-Final Payment to Northern Traffic Supply, Inc in the amount of$55,514.02. 4. PUBLIC INQUlRIES/INFORMATIONAL A, Ramsey County Sheriffs Department Discussion Regarding Vehicle Pursuits Public Iuquiries/luforllliltional 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 tbe 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. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Establish the Payable 2006 Preliminary Tax Levies/2005 Truth in Taxation Dates Murtuza Siddiqui B. Planning Case 01-05; Chesapeake Companies; Extension of Master Plan PUD Peter Hellegers 7. Unfinished Business A. No Smoking in the City Parks Policy B. TCAAP Update CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Tom Moore Michelle Wolfe A. Councilmember Holden B. Councilmember Grant C. Council member Rem D. Councilmember Larson E. Mayor Aplikowski ADJOURN Work Session-Immediately Following the City Council Meeting: 1. Shared Civil Engineering Services with the City of RoseviIle 2, Recruitment Update L - ... , -~ Message Page 1 of 1 Jackie Gritz From: Jackie Gritz Thursday, September 08, 2005 1 :31 PM sschroeder@smithmicrotech.com; bob. fletcher@co.ramsey.mn.us; bulletin@lillienews.com; cwilson@ctv15.org; dprobst@mspmac.org; etopinka@pioneerpress.com; info@mnsunpub.com; kgprophet@aol.com; kmaltman@msn.com; mlsmith@startribune.com; smccann@startribune.com Subject: Council Agenda for 9/12/05 Meeting Sent: To: Jackie Gritz, Office Support Specialist City of Arden Hills Phone 651.634.5120 Fax 651.634.5137 www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us 9/8/2005 -' . . . ~ ~!fILLS Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 29, 2005, 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 1245 WEST HIGHWAY 96 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALLED TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Beverly Aplikowski called to order the regular City Council meeting at 7:05 p.m. Present: Mayor Beverly Aplikowski, Councilmembers Gregg Larson, Lois Rem (left the meeting at 9:25 p.m.), and Brenda Holden. Absent: Councilmember David Grant (excused). Also prescnt were City Administrator, Michelle Wolfe; Director of Operations & Maintenance, Thomas Moore; Finance Director/Treasurer, Murtuza Siddiqui; City Engineer, Greg Brown; Assistant to City Administrator, Schawn Johnson; City Planner, Pete Hellegers; and Recording Secretary, Kathleen Altman. 1. APPRO V AL OF MEETING AGENDA The agenda was approvcd as prcsented. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. August 8, 2005 City Council Meeting Minutes B. August 8, 2005 Spccial City Council Meeting Minutes MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to approve the August 8, 2005 City Council Meeting Minutes as presented, the August 8, 2005 Special City Council Meeting Minutes as presented. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). 3. CONSENT CALENDAR a. b. Claims and Payroll Authorize City Staff to Prepare Final Plans for the 2006 Highway 96 Landscaping Project Change Order No. 2 to Amt Construction for the 2004 PMP in thc amount of $55,607. Payment No.5 to MC Builders, Inc. for the Perry Park Pavilion c. d. I I:'vIetro- inet. nslArdenHillslAdmin IConnc illMinuteslRegularl2005108- 29-05 Drafl.doc ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNC1L MEETING MfNUTES AUGUST 29, 2005 , 2 . MOTION: Councilmember Rem moved and Couneilmember Larson seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar and to authorize execution of all ncccssary documcnts contained therein. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). 4. PUBLIC INOUIRIES/INFORMATIONAL A. Representative Char Samuelson and Senator Satveer Chaundrv Representative Char Samuelson presented a 2005 Legislative Update. Senator Satveer Chaundry summarized what had been accomplished in the 2005 Legislative sessIOn. Couneilmember Larson suggested for they look at the possibility of drafting legislation to determine if police/sheriff pursuit policies should be standardized. Senator Chaundry stated he would be willing to attend any meeting the City had regarding this. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS . A. 2006 Rid!!ewood Nei!!hborhood PMP Publie Hearin!! Mr. Brown stated the feasibility report was received by Council at the August 8, 2005 meeting and outlined the anticipated improvements, options, costs and funding associated with the 2006 PMP projcct. Two general neighborhood meetings have bcen held to date as well as a meeting with the Lake Johanna Beach Club and a meeting with Rice Creek Watershed and the Beach Club leadership. The public hearing will allow residents to voice their opinions, raise concerns and ask questions about the project in a formal setting. Couneilmember Larson asked for additional information as to where they were in discussions with the landowner on the comer of Siems Court and Lake Johanna Boulevard. Mr. Brown replied they had met with a representative of the owner as well as Rice Creek and the comments at the time were they would like the pond to happen, but they alluded to they might have something imminent. He indicated he would approach them again. Couneilmember Larson requested Mr. Brown to pursue this further. Hc asked what the condition of thc sub-base and base on Ridgewood was. He inquired as to how long that road would hold up. Mr. Brown responded Ridgewood was overlaid, but he did not believe it had been rebuilt. He stated he did not have anything to show what the sub-base was, but he believed it was probably fairly heavy clay. He indicated it was still in good surface condition. He believed it would remain in good condition for another decade with a reasonable amount of serviceability. He stated the only coneem he had with Ridgcwood was possible drainage issues that had been . ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 29, 2005 3 . brought to his attention by a couple of residents along Ridgewood. He did not believe reconstructing this street at this time would be money well spcnt. CounciImember Larson asked if the residents of the Beach Club were the same residents in this project. Mr. Brown replied he believed therc wcre three or four less people in the association than the neighborhood at large, CounciImember Larson asked if the Siems Court driveway was on City property. Mr. Brown replicd part of it was, but it was not maintained by the City. CounciImember Larson asked if there was any reason [or the City to maintain that driveway rather than dced it over. Mr. Brown responded he believed this functioned as a private drive, but he was not sure how this fit in legally, He suggested they might want to have some type of an easement agreement. CounciImember Holden asked if the anticipated costs were current. Mr, Brown responded they figured this project on 2006 dollars. CounciImember Holden asked what the rating on Ridgeway Court was. Mr. Brown replied the rating was in the high 80's and it was performing well, . CounciImember Holden asked ifvisibijjty was a problem on Lake Johanna Boulevard if they did not have a sidewalk. Mr. Brown noted Lake Johanna Boulevard was a different situation and he believed there was a fair amount of right-of-way for a sidewalk if the Council wanted to look at a sidewalk on this street. COllnciImember Holden inquired about the additional cost of a roundabout. Mr. Brown replied it would be approximately $35,000 additional. He indicated a roundabout was not necessary because the amount of cars on the streets were minimal, so they would only be for aesthetic purposes. Mayor Aplikowski opeued the public hearing at 8:21 p,m. Janet Connor, 3489 Siems Court, inquired about the accessibility, She asked if accessibility would be by foot or by car. Mr. Brown responded it would be generally by car and the only time they would not be able to access their garages was when the concrete was poured, which would need a couple of days to cure, Ms. Connor asked if the residents be able to vote on the options presented tonight or would the Council make the decision. Mayor Aplikowski responded the Council wanted to hear from the residents tonight and the decision would be made by the Council. . Ms. Connor stated she did not like curbing and she wanted to keep the "country feel". She expressed concem the neighborhood would lose its character with curbing, She indicated she was ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 29, 2005 4 . completely against the roundabouts. Shc stated she was under the impression that buying into the neighborhood that she was automatically a member ofthc Beach Club. Tom Ostby, 3517 Siems Court, stated he would be materially aflected by the changes to the retaining wall. He indicated hc would like to see the street continue to go through and they have been maintaining it, not the City. He did not believc an easement agreement would be necessary. He stated he wanted more information with respcet to the vegetation on the hill and the retaining wall look. He stated he was willing to compromise and would like to meet with the City Engineer. He stated he wanted to kcep the right-of-way open becausc they owned two lots and believed his property value would be affected if the right-of-way wcre closed. Steve Erickson, 3442 Siems Court, stated he was in favor of a 4" surmountable curb. He agrced a surmountablc curb would lead to a less structured appearance. He stated he had done an informal poll and several of the surrounding cities and neighborhood residential areas had surmountable curb. He indicated was not in support of the roundabouts and did not believe there was enough traffic to warrant them, but requcsted the City take an aggressive stancc on roundabouts and adding them on Old Snclling. With respcct to drainage, he did want to see more information as to what was being proposed, including the design. He stated he believed the membership of the Beach Club was 50-55 residents, which was 10-12 under the assessed number of homes. Hc also noted there were somc Snelling A venue residents that were also members, approximately 3-4, that would need to also be taken into consideration when the assessment was . put together. He requested more information as to how the water main decision was going to be made. Mr. Brown responded in the past they rcplaced the mechanical parts of the system and if they found a main that was in poor condition, it was replaced, but in this case, they would first start with the budget. Mr. Erickson statcd he was not in favor of sidcwalks and there was not enough traffic to justify them. He asked about the construction on lift station 4 and the fill being placed in there, as well as the trees being removed. Mr. Brown replied with respect to fill, there should not be any sizable change when it was done, but temporarily there were spoil piles which would be graded down whcn the old lift station was removed. With respect to the trees, whcre the force main came out, some trees needed to be removcd, and would not be replanted ovcr the main. He stated they would attempt to provide screening though. Mr. Eriekson noted he had volunteered to be the Beach Club's liaison. Phil Henry, 3520 Ridgewood Court, Beach Club Secretary, stated they had a Beach Club meeting and there was a general enthusiasm for the storm water runoff project and using the Beach Club marsh as some part of that, but questions wcre raised as to the compensation to the Beach Club. He stated they did not want roundabouts and they wanted to preserve as many trees as possible. Hc stated in general he belicvcd everyone was looking favorably toward this. Steve Nelson, 3475 Siems Court, pointed out there was a 2-inch overlay placed on Siems Court a few years ago which raised the elevation up. He asked them to take that into consideration when . . . . ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 29, 2005 5 setting the elevation. He stated he would rather see the sunnountable curb. He was not in favor of the roundabouts or sidewalks_ With respect to the watennain, he inquired as to how much would that increase the assessments_ Mr. Brown replied replacement of the watennain was a City expense and would not be assessed to the residents. Mr. Nelson stated he did not believe the Beach Club should be assessed. Bill Thorton, 3510 Siems Court, stated he was opposed to roundabouts imd traffic did not support a roundabout. He stated he was also opposed to sidewalks_ He expressed concern about the assessmcnt cost and asked someone take a look at what was behind the cost and obtain additional bids, He asked they possibly look at some kind of a tradc off for the Beach Club marsh lands. Jim Connor, 3489 Siems Court, stated he had daily jogged, biked, or walked to his offices in Downtown Minneapolis_ He stated the sidewalk they had was nice, but it went nowhere, He stated the roundabouts wcre nicc, but they did not have the room for one, He asked ifthe purpose of a water system was to help the lake or a resident who had drainage problems. He stated if it was to clean the lake, they needed to include everyone that emptied into the lake, If the purpose was drainage problems, then the entire neighborhood should be assessed. Mayor Aplikowski stated the purpose was to fix the road and if they could fix drainage also that was one of the goals. Lisa Abraham, 3511 Siems Court, opposed the roundabouts. With respect to drainage and curbs, she was in favor of curbs_ She stated it was her driveway that had a lot of drainage issues, She expressed concern about the road being brought down to 22 feet and asked parking restrictions be put in place if this was done, With respect to the extra road, there was an easement on both sides, with her house being on one side. She exprcsscd concern if they closed off this that would increase traffic for her and she believed this would affect her property values. She stated she was in favor of the retaining walls and removing some of the trees, or else putting up a sign that said 'Blind Driveway'. She asked if Siems Court elevation would be decreased. Mr. Brown respondcd the elevation would be a little lower, but the general idea was to have the street act as a drain and not go out into pcople's yards. He stated there would be some adjustments to the grade. He indicated this would be looked at case-by-case, Ms. Abraham stated if the elevation would be brought down in front of her house, she was in favor of it. Jean Price, 3471 Siems Court, stated she was not interested in the rOlmdabouts and sidewalks, but she thought a roundabout would be nice on Snclling Avenue and Lake Johanna Boulevard. She stated she was not in favor of the additional options of colored concrete or exposed aggregate, but she had no opinion with respect to curb, She stated she was not in favor of signage if there were parking restrictions put in place. ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 29, 2005 6 . Councilmember Larson asked for clarification on the reduction of the road. Mr. Brown stated the back-to-back was comparable to thc existing width, but there would be a loss of 2 drivable feet. Councilmember Holden asked if roundabout were included in the price. Mr. Brown replied they were not. Dave Carlson, 3535 Siems Court, thanked thc City Enginecr for his work and stated he was excited about this project. He appreciated that the residents were given the opportunity for input. He stated the residents had a lot of stake in this neighborhood. He stated if the City needed his northern yard, they could have it. He noted he got most of the drainage from Siems Court and the drainage was eroding the lot between him and his neighbor and now he would now need to get somc fill. He expressed concern about tree loss on his lot and stated ifhc was to lose any trees, he wanted to lose trees along the strcct and not along the lake. With respect to the drivcway, he has been maintaining it and the retaining wall since he had moved in and put over $10,000 into the driveway before he realized the City owned it. He stated if the retaining wall was not replaced now, they would spend three fold in a few years. He indicated the retaining wall was falling down and he would like to see it rebuilt, but he did not want to see the driveway extendcd. He stated hc wanted to see thc driveway vacated and put in something morc accessible and user friendly. With respcct to the roundabouts and sidewalks he was opposcd to these and did not believe they were . nccessary. He stated he was also opposed to curb. Diane Pearson, 1556 Arden Place, stated she was opposcd to the roundabouts. She inquired about the wetlands and the ponds. She askcd if rain gardens were a part of this plan. Mr. Brown stated he had met with thc Beach Club and Rice Creek Watcrshed and rain gardens werc infiltration basins and in this neighborhood thcrc were some areas conducive to rain gardens, but noted they would need plumbing to drain them. He stated in his report they had a mcrging of two ideas with infiltration basins along the wetland itsclf where there was natural vegetation. As a general rule, they had to have the rigbt type oftopograpby and he did not believe the topography was right for this project. Ms. Pearson stated she was not in favor of curbs, but if thcre had to be curbs, sbe was not opposed to surmountable curbs. She stated she was not in favor of sidewalks. Steve Nelson, 3475 Siems Conrt, asked how they could allow buildings to be built in tbe high water mark on Lake Johanna. He requested the Council look at this. Mike Hagen, 1540 Arden Place, stated he was opposed to sidewalks and roundabouts. He asked if there was any difference in drainage with the curb options. Mr. Brown stated a 6-inch curb would get them another couple of inches of protection and the surmountable and 4-inch curb were the same protection. He stated whether there were sunnountable curbs or not, they would have individual driveway aprons. He stated there was not a "no curb option" because the drainage issues would not be addressed with no curbs. He noted with surmountable curbs, there was the possibility of sod bcing pulled up in the wintcr by the plows. . . . . ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 29,2005 7 Mike Hagen, stated he was in opposition to assessing the Beach Club. He asked if there were going to be storm sewers put in along Arden Place. Mr. Brown stated there would be curb and gutter, which would be collected in structures and put into treatment ponds. He noted it would eventually get put into the lake underground. Mayor Aplikowski closed the public hearing at 9:23 p.m. Councilmember Rem left thc meeting at 9:25 p.m. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Accept Refuse Hauler Task Force Final Report Mr. Siddiqui stated in the fall of 2004, the City Council revised the purpose and scope of the Assessment Policy Task Force and requcsted the group review and examine the impact garbage trucks havc on the City's streets and to explore options that may reduce the wear and tear of the streets. The Task Force explored numerous options by seeking input from the garbage haulers, studying reports published by various consultants, and obscrving the process and outcome the City of Falcon Heights was going through as it studied organized collection. The Assessment Policy Task Forcc has completed their work and presented their report to thc City Council at their Work Session on August 8, 2005. The Council appeared to be satisfied with the report and it is being presentcd at this meeting for the final approval. He recommended the City Couucil accept the Assessment Task Force's Report on Refuse Hauling and to jointly sign the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and thc Refuse Haulers. Bill Gillies, Task Iforce Member, stated he bclieved the City benefited with respect to the garbage haulers in this process and he had noticed a difference in the way the garbage haulers handled the garbage. MOTION: Councilmembcr Holden moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to accept the Assessment Task Force Report on Rcfuse Hauling and to jointly sign the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and thc Refuse Haulers. The motion camed unanimously (3-0). B. Variance Extension for 3459 Siems Court. PC #03-14 Mr. Hellegers asked Council to consider a 6-month extension to the variance that was approved on August 25, 2003 and granted a I-year extension on September 13, 2004. ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 29, 2005 8 . He stated at their August 25, 2003 meeting the City Council approved a 9-foot structure setback variance to the Shoreland and Zoning Ordinances subject to the conditions that all necessary applications for building permits shall bc filed with the Building Official for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Typically, a variance expires one year from the date thc variance was approved if the applicant does not file for a building permit within that period of time. On July 28, 2004 the City received a letter from Ms. Mohn requesting a one-year extension for the variance. Ms. Molm cited the number of surgeries and health issues that she has had over the past year which have not allowed her to finish thc planning, writing of specs, and seeking bids from builders. The City Council granted thc extension on September 13, 2004. Reccntly staff met with Ms. Molin regarding the upcoming deadline for issuance of a building permit. She submitted a letter on August 21, 2005 explaining thc reasons why they were not yet ready to submit for building permits. The Ictter explained that Ms. Molm has encountered some severe respiratory problems; the resolution to which understandably bccame their main focus. In addition, the new architect was brought on board to resolve design issues related to the roof structure and storage issues. The revised design would actually pull the structure back two (2) feet thereby requiring less of a variancc than was approved. In addition to the letter, the new architect had provided a timetable that outlincs what would be accomplished over the next six months through to the anticipated start of construction on February 20, 2006. . He stated it appeared the resident was acting in good faith to try and mcet the City's guidelines and that the health issues had been the primary reason they had not been ready to submit for building permits. Based on the extcnuating circumstances surrounding the resident's health and the fact that the resident had a schedule to bc ready for building permit within 6 months, staff recommends approval of the extension for the requestcd 6-month period. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmembcr Holden seconded a motion to approvc the requested 6-month period for variance extension for 3459 Siems Court, PC #03-14. The motion carried unanimously (3-0). 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Shade Tree Ordinance Mr. Johnson stated in 2004, City staffreccived a number of concems from residcnts regarding the removal of diseased trees. After rcviewing the City's existing shade tree ordinancc, it appeared that it was in need of some revision. The existing ordinance had not becn updatcd in many years and with the recent outbrcak of tree related illncsses throughout the State of Minncsota it was important that the City implement a rcvised ordinance that is more proactive in the prevention of Dutch Elm and oak wilt diseases. The intention of thc proposed ordinance was . to more clearly define the tree removal process and the City's regulations regarding the role of the . . . ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 29, 2005 9 City Forester and proper procedures for removing shadc trees that were considered diseascd or unsalvageable. Based upon the City Council's recommendations at the July 18 work session meeting, City staff reviewed the shade tree ordinances for the Cities of Blaine, Elk River, and Minneapolis. Additional language has been added to the proposed shade tree ordinance in order to more clearly dcfine tree nuisance and the root grafting procedurc. In addition, City staff asked a few "expcrts" in the field to review the ordinance and providc City staffwith feedback regarding the proposcd ordinance. At this time, Dr. Bob Blanchette and Jennifcr Juzwick Larmour, have reviewed the proposed shade tree ordinance and have recommcnded a few changes to the proposed ordinance. City staff is requcsting City Council approvc Ordinance #365, section 710.12 an Ordinance Relating to Protection of Shade Trees and repeal section 710.11. Conncilmember Holden asked how long the City had to remove diseased trees off of City property. Mr. Moore replied the City followed the samc rules. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmembcr Holden seconded a motion to adopt Ordinance #365, Section 710.12 an Ordinance Relating to Protection of Shade Trecs and repeal Section 710.11. The motion carried unanimously (3-0). Conncilmember Larson suggested a letter be sent to Mr. Blanchette and Ms. Larmour and signed by the Mayor thanking them for their assistancc. B. TCAAP Update Ms. Wolfe updated the Council on recent TCAAP developments. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Holden - Thanked the two seasonal cmployees for coming to the aid of a resident who had fallen. She stated the Newsletter Committee mects this Wednesday at 5:30. Councilmember Larson - No report. Mayor Aplikowski - Stated there was a 35W coalition tomorrow night. She statcd there was an 800 mg. meeting on September I at the Public Works building. Shc stated there was also a series of Arden Hills Library Task force mcetings coming up on September. ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 29, 2005 10 Mayor Aplikowski adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting meeting at 9:47 p.m. Bcverly Aplikowski Mayor Michelle A. Wolfc City Administrator NOTICE OF MEETINGS Thc next Council Meeting will he held Monday, September 12, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. at the Arden Hills Council Cbambers. . . . . ~ ~HILLS Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AUGUST 29, 2005, 9:54 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 1245 WEST HIGHWAY 96 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Aplikowski called the meeting to order at 9:54 p.m. Present: Mayor Beverly Aplikowski, Councilmembers Gregg Larson and Brenda Holden. Absent: Councilmembers Rem and Grant. Staff Present: City Administrator, Michelle Wolfe; Director of Operations & Maintenance, Thomas Moore; Finance Director/Treasurer, Murtuza Siddiqui; and Recording Secretary, Kathleen Altman. . Others Present: David McClung, Planning Commissioner and PTRC Member. Proposed Smokinl! Poliev for Arden Hills City Parks Mr. Moore stated at the March 22, 2005 Parks, Trails & Recreation Committee (PTRC) meeting, discussion took place regarding the possibility of establishing a Tobacco-Free Parks and Trails policy for the City Parks and Trail system. Committee member David McClung indicated that he would take the lead on this project and would gather any and all relevant infOlmation and report back to the PTRC at the April 26, 2005 meeting. At the April 26, 2005 PTRC meeting, Ms. Katie Engman from the Ramsey County Tobacco Coalition made a presentation. In addition, three Mounds View High School Students, Suzanne Florey, Christina Florey, and Nicole Holm also made a presentation. The three students arc members of Peers Acting to Challenge Tobacco (PACT). At the May 24, 2005 PTRC meeting, the PTRC discussed the possibility of establishing a Tobacco - Free Parks and Trails Policy. The PTRC passed a motion (5-0) stating that the PTRC recommendcd to the City Council that they give consideration to adopting a Tobacco-Frec Parks and Trails Policy for the City of Arden Hills Parks and Trails System. At the June 20, Council Work session, Council heard a presentation from the PACT students. Council directed staff to bring a draft policy back to the Council at a later date. . He noted this proposed policy only applied to City owned Parks and Trails. This proposed policy would not apply to Ramsey County Parks (Tony Schmidt) or any other future Ramsey Park or \\MetTo- inct. us\ArdenI-lills\A.dmin\Council\Minutes\ Vv' orksession\2005\08- 29-05 Draft.doc ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 29, 2005 2 . trails located within Arden Hills, unless Ramsey County adopted a similar policy. Staff is recommending that one 'Tobacco Free' sign be placcd at the entrance of each City Park. Signage could be installed on existing poles, fences, or buildings within a particular park. Thus minimizing 'sign pollution' and saving time and money on locates and the installation of sign posts. Any additional park signage requests would be submitted by staff to the PTRC for review and then forwarded to thc City Council for approval. Trail signage would be limited to a trail head or the intersection of two trails. Signage could be installed on existing sign posts. Any additional trail signage requests would be submitted by staff to the PTRC for review and then forwarded to thc City Council for approval. Staffis estimating that 22 signs would be required for City parks and 25 for trails, for a combined total of 47 signs. He stated currently there were no designatcd funding sources for this proj ect in thc 2005 CIP Budget or in the General Fund. The 'Tobacco Free' signage would be supplied, tree of charge, by thc Ramsey Tobacco Coalition and the members of PACT will provide the labor to install the signs. City staff will provide the labor for 'locates' oC utilities by submitting a work order to Gopher-Onc and then physically going out on the location site to mark the City's utilities. Estimatcd staff costs are based on approximately three hours of work at a cost not to excced $60.50. In addition, thc City will supply the posts for the signage. These sign posts arc leftover posts from the City of Arden Hills equipmcnt inventory. Some of thcse posts are too short for regulatory street signage becausc they were damaged by a snow plow, a car, or vandalism. While the City made an initial investment to purchasc these posts, thc present condition of the posts does . not allow for them to be used for strcct signage. In addition, 0 & M staff will scek assistancc from Ramsey County Public Works in securing thcir extra non-rcgulation posts. Ramsey County Public Works indicated that they would supply their 'extra' posts at no cost to the City. Councilmember Holden asked how they would establish when someone was chcwing something ifit was gum or tobacco. Ms. Katie Engman, Director of PACT, stated this was an awareness issuc only and she was not aware of anyone being asked to spit something out of their mouth to see what it was. Mayor Aplikowski asked what the difference was bctween parkland and opcn space. Mr. Moorc rcsponded parkland was a designated City owncd park and open space would be Ramsey County open space bctwccn Tony Schmidt Park and Mounds View High School. He noted there wcre informal trails in thcre and this was the only designated open space in the City. Mayor Aplikowski stated she belicved open space was too vague and extreme and asked whcre enforcemcnt would stop. Councilmember Larson stated he took this to mean open space would stop at the border of City owned property and private property. He believed the language was self limiting. David McClung stated the issue was if they did have City owned open space this would apply. . lIe did not believc at the present time the City did havc any City owned open space. He notcd . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 29,2005 3 opcn space would apply to City owned non- designated park and the intention of this would be for land under the control of the City only. Mayor Aplikowski asked how this would be enforced and how much staff time would it take to make this work. She stated she understood this would be on a voluntary effort and therefore they were "watering this down" and she could not support it as proposed. Councilmember Larson stated he believed this would point out that the City did not condone smoking or tobacco use on City property and while he did not expect 100 percent compliance, it would make people aware of the City's policy. He indicated he did not have any problem with the language and while this is not the perfect policy, he bclieved it is a good policy. Mayor Aplikowski stated she would not vote in favor of telling an adult they could not smoke on City property. She stated she was not for banning things, but she was not opposed to educating people. She stated she was not in support of signs being postcd and she had a real concern with enforcement. Councilmember Holden noted a lot of policies the City had were not necessarily followed, such as the dog and cat ordinance. Councilmember Larson noted this was a voluntary policy and they were not saying they were going to go out and enforce it. He indicated staff was only gathering infonnation to report back to Council and not to enforce the policy. However, he stated he would not be opposed to the enforcement languagc being removed. Mayor Aplikowski statcd she did not know how they could enforce this with adults. Councilmember Holden stated they required athletic associations abide by an alcohol policy and she did not see a difference between an alcohol policy and a smoking policy. Mayor Aplikowski stated she had a problcm with having this policy being so broad and not limiting it to specific times when children's games were being played. Ms. Wolfe stated this would be placed on a future agenda. Mayor Aplikowski thanked the PACT representatives for their time and effort they have put into this. She suggested they publish this in the City's newslettcr. Extension of Roval Oaks Purchase Al!reemcnt - Verbal Update Ms. Wolfe statcd they had met with the developcr two weeks ago after thc last meting and it was his intention to submit in the near future two different options of what Council would consider with different levels of density and she anticipated there would be another work session item in ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 29, 2005 4 . the future, She stated it might make sense to request an update to the appraisal. She asked if Council wanted her to proceed with talking to the appraisal to see what options they had. Councilmember Larson asked if it was her expectation that the sale price would be different. Ms. Wolfe responded she believed there was a good likelihood of that and as long as the issue of land value as a concern, she believed it should be clarified, Councilmember Larson stated he believed they should go ahead and update the appraisal. Hc asked what the City's standard for dcnsity was and what were they suppose to use as the right density for the property, He stated he was concerned that the City would realize less on the sale of the property, unless there was strong indication that the value of the property was more than being offered. Councilmember Holden asked if the propcrty was valucd more or less with one or two accesses. She stated she wanted more information on square footage value. She stated she wanted to see what this land was compared to. She stated she would like to see the appraisal updated. Ms. Wolfe stated she also nccded clarification with respcct to the square footage. Councilmember Larson noted the value of the property was only as high as the offer. He stated . he did not believe they needed to go out and make more of an cffort to market this. Ms. Wolfe stated she did not know if an update to the appraisal was possible, or if a new appraisal would need to be done and the high cnd of a new appraisal was $2,500.00, She indicated she would obtain further infonnation regarding this. Councilmember ),arson stated it might be a good idea to have another appraiser look at the original appraisal for their opinion, He stated he would prefer to do this rather than go back to the same apprmser. Councilmember Larson stated he wantcd a future work session discussion/presentation on the Ramsey County Sheriff pursuit policy, Councilmember Holden stated she wanted a discussion on animal control at a future work SCSSlOn. The meeting adjourned at 10:43 p.m. Beverly Aplikowski Mayor Michelle A. Wolfe City Administrator . ~ "^~HILLS Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 19,2005,7:30 A.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 1245 WEST HIGHWAY 96 e PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Beverly Aplikowski called to order the Special City Council meeting at 7:39 a.m. Present: Mayor Beverly Aplikowski, Couneilmembers Gregg Larson, Lois Rem, and Brenda Holden. Abscnt: Councilmembcr David Grant . Also present wcre City Administrator, Michelle Wolfe; City Attorney, Jerry Filla; and Finance Director/Treasurer, Murtuza Siddiqui. Ms. Wolfe stated that she was recommending that the City Council approvc a motion to terminate the employment of Sandra Berres, Finance and Human Resources Assistant. She outlined the reasons for her recommendation of termination and the activities that led to the discovcry and the actions taken to investigate two "missing checks". Ms. Wolfe stated that after reviewing the checks in question with the Ramsey County Sheriffs Department, the City Auditor, and City Attorney, it was very clear that Ms. Berres prepared and altered the checks that were to bc forwarded to Ramsey County Public Works for the purchase of fuel into her name and cashed them at City and County Employee's Credit Union. Ms. Wolfe stated that according to the City of Arden Hills Personnel Policy, the City will administer disciplinary proccdures which incorporate the principles of just cause. Evidence of just cause will provide the basis for all disciplinary action. Cause for discipline and discharge includes "Dishonesty in the performances of duties." Ms. Wolfe stated that on August 10, 2005, Ms. Berres was notified of the intent to recommend termination and was offered the opportunity for a hearing in front of the City Council. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to terminate Ms. Sandra Berres' employment with the City. The motion carricd unanimously (4-0). It Mayor Aplikowski adjourned the Special City Council Meeting at 7:43 a.m. Iltvletro- inel. uslArdenHillslAdnrin ICouncll\1\1tinutcslSpccial12 005108-19-05 Dran. doc ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 19,2005 Respectfully submitted by Murluza Siddiqui. Beverly Aplikowski Mayor Michelle Wolfe City Administrator 2 e . - . . . ~ ~~ILLS Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 2005, 5:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 1245 WEST HIGHWAY 96 Call To Order Mayor Aplikowski called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM. Present: Mayor Aplikowski, Councilmembers: Gregg Larson, David Grant, Brenda Holden, Lois Rem Absent: None Staff present: City Administrator, Michelle Wolfe; Finance Director, Murtuza Siddiqui; Assistant to the City Administrator, Schawn Johnson; City Engineer, Greg Brown OthCl's: Kathy Ryan, URS Engineering CSAH 96 LandscapiUl:! Proposal City Engineer Greg Brown provided the City Council with an overview of the proposed Highway 96 landscaping improvements. The intent of the discussion was to review the concept plan prepared by the URS and consider whether or not the installation of an irrigation system should be included in thc futurc CIP projcct. If the City Council decides at this time not to pursue the enhanccd landscaping improvements in 2006, Ramsey County will proceed with the planting oftrecs along the median in the spring of2006. City Administrator Michelle Wolfe said that she is concerned about thc $150,000 in state aid funding that would be needed for this project. The City may have to borrow state aid funding in the future or delay othcr projccts ifthis projcct proceeds as planned in 2006. Councilmcmber Holden asked if the $5,000 to $10,000 for maintenancc costs were engineering estimates. City Engineer Greg Brown said that the maintenance costs were estimates and that it would likely include expenses for water irrigation and maintenance costs. Mayor Aplikowski suggcstcd that thc City proceed with installing an irrigation system for this project. She asked if the City could install the irrigation system this year and plant the flowers and shrubs the following year. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION MINUTES August 15, 2005 2 Councilmember Holdcn recommended that membcrs of the City Council review the CIP and determinc whether or not this project is feasible. . Councilmember Larson asked if the selected plants could survivc without an irrigation system. Kathy Ryan said that selected plants could survive, but they may not look very good if they do not receive enough water. Mayor Aplikowksi suggested that the City leave the medians as grass areas. If not, we should plan on installing an irrigation system along the Highway 96 medians in order to provide water and protect the plants in the future. Councilmember Larson said that he believes the irrigation system is nccessary to maintain the plants. Councilmember Grant asked if an irrigation system was installed, would this change the typc of plant that were selected for this project. Kathy Ryan said that all of the plant materials were selected bccause they are drought and salt tolerant. She wound not recommend that the plant selections be changed at this time. Councilmember Grant asked URS staff members if this would bc an attractive project for a . landscape firm. City Engineer Greg Brown thought that this would be a good project for a landscaping firm. The projected project cost the City approximately $195,000. City Administrator Michelle Wolfe asked if the City Council was in agreement to plan for this project in 2006. Members of the City Council werc in agrcemcnt and requested that the projected be bid in 2006. 2006 Budl!et Update Finance Director Murtuza Siddiqui provided the City Council with a brief overview of the budget guidelines for 2006. City staff is seeking City Council guidancc on the following items: . COLA Salaries-2.75%; . Inflationary Increases for Routine Operations; . Projectcd 15% Incrcases in Employcc Medical Premiums; . Proposed 4% levy. The 2005 Statc Lcgislature did not cnact any lcgislative restrictions regarding levy limits. In 2004, thc avcragc levy incrcasc for Ramsey County cities was slightly under 8%. The 2005 levy for the City of Arden Hills was $2,426,670. The City must certify a levy amount to Ramsey County for 2006 by September 15th . 2 . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION MINUTES August 15,2005 3 As part of the budget preparation process, City staff is reviewing the five-year CIP, fuel costs, utility fees, and other services that are impacted by inflationary costs. Also, City staff is reviewing our existing revenuc collections. At this timc, thc City is expccting a reduction in revenue in the arca of building permits due to a reduction in the number of projects (Guidant and Bethel Univcrsity) occurring in the City this year. The projected shortfall is $150,000. StafT is looking at either eliminating smaller projects or pushing back these proj ects into future years in order to ofTset a portion of the anticipated shortfall. Councilmember Holdcn asked if the City Council would considcr a levy of 5% and then lower the rate at a future meeting ifthe additional revenue were not needed. City Administrator Michelle Wolfe said that City staff could provide the City Council with a number of different funding options to consider. Mayor Aplikowski stated that she would bc comfortable with a 5 or 6 percent levy, Councilmember Holden said that she would be comfortable with a 4 percent Icvy. Councilmember Larson said that he would be comfortable with a 4 percent levy, but would like to see a 5 percent levy and have the additional funding used for park improvements. Councilmember Rem also suggested that a 5% levy be approved by the City Council and utilize the I perccnt for future park improvement projects. It is a one year increase and future City Councils could decide if this practice should be continued in the future. Mayor Aplikowski said that the levy tool is there for the City Council to ralse additional revenues. Finance Director Siddiqui stated that an additional 1 % lcvy would result in $24,000 of additional funding dedicatcd to the park fund. COlillcilmember Larson recommended that the City Council approve a 4% levy for 2006 and explore other funding options that could lead a more permanent funding mechanism for future park improvement projects. Members ofthe City Council agreed to a 4% preliminary levy for 2006. Finance Director Siddiqui asked the City Council if they were comfortable with offering City staff a 2.75% cost of living increase for 2006. The 2.75% salary increase is the same increase that the Local 4gers are scheduled to receive in 2006. Members of the City Council were in agreement with the proposed 2.75% salary increase for City stafT in 2006. 3 ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION MINUTES August 15,2005 4 Finance Director Murtuza Siddiqui asked thc City Council if they would like to see their compensation increased in 2006. Members of the City Council have not received a salary increase since the early or mid 1990' s. . Councilmemher Grant said that hc was concerned that the City Council has not received a pay increase for many years. Councilmember Holden notcd that a number of residents arc concerned about thc City's health rates and contribution levels. City Administrator Wolfe stated that the City's insurance broker is currently reviewing our insurance rates. The City is currently part of a cooperative agreement for hcalth and dental insurance. Typically our health insurance costs are lower than our neighboring citics because of our membership in the cooperative. Finance Director Siddiqui noted that he would like to hire a consultant or temporary employee to assist with the implementation of softwarc upgrades for the Finance Department The proposed improvement costs are estimated at $15,000 to $20,000. The proposed improvements would allow City staff the ability to track expenses and trends in a more efficient manner. In 2005, the City had budget cd for a document imaging system and an on-line credit card transfer system. These two projects have been pushed back to 2006. . Councilmember Larson asked if the Laser Fische software could be funded as a capital improvement project. Finance Director Siddiqui said that he will explore this option further. Councilmember Holden asked if cable funds could be used for this purchase. Finance Director Siddiqui said that a draft budgct is scheduled to be reviewed at a work session meeting in September. 2006 Capital Improvement Plan City Administrator Michelle Wolfe provided the City Council with an ovcrview of the draft ClP for 2006-2010. The CIP has not bcen finalized due to the following issues: . The PCI ratings are not yet complete and this information will be valuable to the City Council and City staff in determining the priority ranking for futurc projects. . City staff is in the process of acquiring more detailed cost figures for the 2006-2010 PMP projects. . The City has not yet completed the inspcction of the South water tower. Thc inspection is budgeted for this year. Thc inspcction is needed to more accurately budget and plan for future water tower improvements. . 4 . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION MINUTES August 15,2005 5 · Finance staff needs more timc to analyze the utility funds due to project activity in the past and future. Planning and budgeting for future CIP projects is somewhat dependent upon our philosophy or policies regarding fund balances. We have some internal policies regarding our utility fund balances, but it is also important to discuss the importance of fund balances in the following areas: · Permanent Improvement Fund (PIR) . Special Revenue Park Fund · Non-Assessable Fund These funds arc typically used by the City to cover project cost overruns. The permanent improvemcnt fund was established to temporarily finanec pavement management projects. The special revenue park fund was established for park/trail acquisition and development. Revenue for this fund comes from developer park dedication fees, contributions, state grants, and investment interest. The problem with this fund is that the funding from park dedication fees is very unpredictable. The non-assessable fund was created to account for other projects that the City of Arden Hills is requested to participate-in. Councilmember Holdcn asked if the playground equipment at Valentine Hills is a legal liability to thc City. City Administrator Wolfe said that she would review this situation and report back to the City . Council on the liability concerns. Councilmember Larson askcd if the proposed fund balances included rate Increases and projected revenues. . Finance Director Muturza Siddiqui said that the CIP revenues do not take into account increased revenues. Councilmember Holden asked City staff how long does a mill and overlay last. City Engineer Greg Brown said that it depends on the foundation of the roadway, but typically it lasts seven to twelve years. Councilmember Holden asked if the City should be concentrating on mill and overlay repairs. City Engineer Brown said that the only problem with utilizing mill and overlay is that it will not correct water or drainage issues in a neighborhood. Although, it is a policy issue for the City (0 consider at this time. Rcconstruction costs are very expensive. Councilmembcr Grant believes that the City should concentrate on the PCI ratings and not storm and water issues. 5 ARDEN IIILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION MINUTES August 15, 2005 6 Councilmember Larson said that road improvement decisions cannot be made solely on the bases of PC! ratings. The curb, gutter, storm watcr, water mains, and sewer lines must also be a part of the improvement decision. . City Administrator Wolfe said that the City does not want to miss an opportunity to utilize mill and overlays. Mayor Aplikowski askcd if the City Council would be interested In bonding for future improvement projects. Councilmember Grant said that he would not be in favor of bonding for future improvement projects. City Administrator Michelle Wolfe askcd the City Council if they were comfortable with a balance of$3,656,236 in the PIR Fund. Finance Director Murtuza Siddiqui said that the City's general fund balance is very healthy at this time. Councilmember Larson asked ifthere were any larger projects scheduled for the future. City Engineer Greg Brown said that Snelling A venue and the Floral neighborhood would be . considered large projects that arc scheduled for the future. Councilmember Holden asked about thc status of County Road D. City Engineer Greg Brown said that Ramsey County does not have County Road D on its projected five year plan. Councilmember Larson said that he does not feel comfortable with the projected PIR fund balance. Councilmcmber Grant stated that the City Council previously discussed using a budget guideline of one million dollars per year in improvement projects. Councilmember Larson askcd if the revenues from the Holiday Station Store were included in the ClP. Finance Director Mutuza Siddiqui said that internal borrowing was used to purchase the Holiday property. Typically thc PIR fund is credited when a land sale occurs. Mayor ApIikowski stated that the City used to repair the worst roads first, before the City Council adopted the neighborhood PMP approach. . 6 . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION MINUTES August 15, 2005 7 Councilmember Grant asked what type of shape the Glenhill Neighborhood was in. He asked if this project could be pushed back a few years. City Engineer Brown stated that the Glenhill project could be pushed back. City Administrator Michelle Wolfe said that a number of projects havc been pushcd back. The City has been more proactive recently with PMP projects. Councilmember Larson said that the PTRC has additional projects planned for the future that exceed the special reserve park fund. The City will need to find an additional revenue stream for future PTRC projects other than park dedication fees. Mayor Aplikowski asked the City Council what would be considered an acceptable funding level for the park fund. Councilmember Larson noted that there were other park projects that were not included on the five year CIP list. It should be a priority for the City to find additional revenue sources for park related projects. Mayor Aplikowski asked if a fund balance of S 178,048 was acceptable to the City Council. Couneilmember Grant said that the City must create a spending threshold before it can determine what the proper funding level for a fund should be. Mayor Aplikowski suggested that the PTRC become more involved in grant writing or sceking private donations for the park fund. The City Council is open to increasing the funding for the PTRC in the future. City Administrator Michelle Wolfe stated that the City is currently utilizing the non-assessable street fund account in the form of a savings account. In the past it has been used for cost overruns and engineering expenses. Councilmember Holden asked if the City really needs this fund. Finance Director Mutuza Siddiqui said that the City could combine the PIR and Non-Assessable Street Fund into one account. Couneilmember Holden asked what is the definition ofthe park fund. Councilmember Larson said that anything related to the park, except for playgrOlmd cquipment, is considered park fund expenditures. Mayor Aplikwoski said that the City has used the park fund for reconstructing wanning houses, trails, athletic fields, hockey rinks, and other park related projects. 7 ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION MINUTES August IS, 2005 8 Councilmember Rem asked if the City had any written guidclines for utilizing diffcrent funding sources in thc past. . Finance Director Murtuza Siddiqui said that it 1S important for the City to create fund descriptions in the future. City Administrator Wolfe said that she is not aware of any policy the dcfines what funding sources should be used for a particular itcm. Mayor Aplikowski said that the City Council and City staff have an internal understanding for utilizing funding sourccs, but have never had a written policy. City Administrator Wolfe said that City staff is not comfortable with recommending to the City Council borrowing ahead using MSA dollars. Councilmember Grant asked if staff was going to review the utility funds. Finance Dircctor Siddiqui said that the proposed budget is in balance over the five year CIP, as compared with last year's version. City Administrator Wolfc noted that staff is already proposing to push back SCADA and the testing or relining of sanitary sewer lines. . Councilmembcr Grant questioned the need for purchasing a new front cnd loader, water tanker, Toro Grounds Master, and trail maintenance plowing machine. Is this a want or a need at this time? City Administrator Wolfe mentioned that the trail maintenance machine is bcing recommended due to safety concerns for maintaining the sidcwalks during the winter months. Councilmcmber Holden asked why the City does not maintain the basketball and tennis courts. She questioned if the City should have a policy for maintaining the courts. Councilmember Rcm added that the PTRC used to walk tl1rough the parks on an annual basis and evaluate their condition. The proposed five-year CIP will be reviewed again at the September 19th work session. 1-35W Corridor Coalition/Solutions Task Force City Administrator Michelle Wolfe provided the City Council with some background information regarding the City's membership in the I-35W Corridor Coalition. In 2005, the City did not join the I-35W Corridor Coalition. The member communities are in agreement that some regional efforts and discussion are needed to pursue future transportation goals. However, some cities have left the coalition due to various concerns with the organization and membership fees. . 8 . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION MINUTES August 15,2005 9 In response to these concerns, the current members of the I-35W Corridor Coalition have offered the City a proposed membership fee of $4,038 for 2006. If the City is not interested in joining, the City has been asked to contribute money to the I-35W Solutions Task Foree for research materials. The City's contribution for the research matcrial would be $976.00 for 2005. City Administrator Wolfe asked the City Council if they would be interested in rejoining the 1- 35W Corridor Coalition for 2006. Councilmember Larson stated that he recommends the City rejoin the coalition for 2006. Mayor Aplikowski also recommends that the City rejoin this group. Councilmember Grant does not agree that the City should rejoin the I-35W Corridor Coalition in 2006. City Administrator Wolfe asked the City Council if they were concerned about the membership costs or were there other reasons for these concerns about joining the coalition. Mayor Aplikowski said that it is important for the City to have a connection with MnDOT. Cowlcilmember Holden asked about the I-35W Solutions Task Force. She is concerned that the group was not meeting on a regular basis and that the group is not very organized in its efforts. Mayor Aplikowski said that somebody has to take the lead on this project in order for future improvement projects to occur. Couneilmember Larson stated that the City's membership fees have been cut by one-third. It is a small investment for the City to make to become a part ofthe coalition group. City Administrator Wolfe has been asked by coalition members what it will take to get the City of Arden Hills more involved in the I-35W Corridor Coalition. It is important that we work together with other communities on these issues. Is there a City Council consensus to add this line item to the 2006 budget? Couneilmember Rem stated that this is the only group that the City can turn to rcgarding issues pertaining to the 1-35W. We should evaluate the situation for one year and determine if there are any other coalition groups for the City to consider joining in the future. At this time there are no other alternatives for the City to consider. The City also must be willing to make this coalition group work. The consensus of the City Council was for the City to pay its fair share of the research costs and materials for the I-35W study. The City's portion of this cost would be $976.00 for 2005. City staff will include the 2006 membership fee for I-35W Corridor Coalition group in next year's budget. Members of the City Council will continue to discuss this issue at the next 2006 budget meeting. 9 ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION MINUTES August 15, 2005 10 . Councilmember Rem left the meeting at 8:25 PM. 2005 Nei2hborhood Meetin2s For the past 1:\vo years, the City Council has held a series ofncighborhood meetings in the fall. City staff is seeking input from the City Council regarding the following questions: 1. Does the City Council wish to hold neighborhood meetings in 2005? Members of the City Council were in agreement that neighborhood meetings should be held in 2005. 2. Staff is proposing a similar time line and format as in 2005. Is the City Council comfortable with this type of meeting? Members of the City Council were comfortable with the format used in the past. It was suggested by the City Council that the meetings not bc divided by precinct locations, but rather allow any Arden Hills resident to attend any of the four meetings. Members of the City Council also askcd City staff to see if the Army would bc willing to offer tours ofthc TCAAP site prior to the Octobcr 12th neighborhood meeting. . Council Reports Staff Reports Community Dcvelopment Director Scott Clark reported that a meeting with the GSA has been tentatively scheduled for Septembcr 6th or 7th City Administrator Wolfe rep0l1ed the Ramsey County Library Task Force meeting is scheduled for September 21 't, Members of the City Council thanked Scott Clark for his efforts with the TCAAP project and the Economic Development Committee. They wished him luck with starting his ncw position at the City of Elk River. Councilmember Holden Councilmember Holden attended a meeting recently regarding the proposed consolidated dispatch center in Ramsey County. Local mayors are proposing that the costs for this service be split in the following manner: . 60% Emergency Calls . 40% Population Tax Base The objective is to propose a plan for the consolidated dispatch center that is fair and equitable to all parties involved. . 10 . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION MINUTES August 15, 2005 11 Counci1member Holden asked if the City was planning on having a ribbon cutting ceremony for the Cummings Park Pavilion. City Administrator Wolfe said that the City could have a ribbon cutting ccrcmony in the future if the City Council is interested. Mayor Aplikowski Mayor Ap1ikowski noted the City Administrator's job performance review is due in Septembcr. Members of the City Council asked the City Administrator to provide sample job evaluation forms that other citics use to evaluate their City AdministratorlManager. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 PM Respectfully submitted by Schawn P. Johnson Beverly Aplikowski, MAYOR Michelle A. Wolfe, CITY ADMINISTRATOR 11 < ~ ~HILLS City 01 Arden Hills Request for Council Action ......s. . Prepared by: Murtuza Siddiqui Dept.: Finance Council Mtg. Date: September 12, 2005 Final Action Needed By: September 12, 2005 Council Action Request: Review and Approve Consent Agenda Item 3.A. - Claims and Payroll Staff Recommendation: Approve Consent Agenda Item 3.A. - Claims and Payroll Advisory Commission Action: Commission Date Supporting Documents (which are attached to this Action Form): . D Memo/letter: D Resolution (No. ) D Ordinance (No. ) D Engineering Recommendation: D Attorney Recommendation: DOther: Payroll and Claims Reports Financial Implications: Claims Total $211,198.50 No Payroll Report included (pay day is 9/9/05) Administrator/Staff Comments: . Agenda Item~~I~ Claims & Payroll Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: Action Not Applicable Not Page 1 of 1 " PAGE10F2 CITY OF ARDEN IIILLS ACCOllNTS PAYABLE CLAIMS REPORT TO BE APPROVED AT 09/12105 COllNCIL MEETING . CLAIMS PAID SINCE LAsr COUNCIL MEETING 108129/05) : '" tij::.:~::: l :t~;tJ:A'rti:: .. . .. ':':A:MQt,"N't:::k:C9MME~rii/ ............ .VE""""'. ............--- ............--..- ......... 27252 09/01105 A & L Sunerior Ouahl" Sod 64.70 45 Rolls of Sod 27253 09/01/05 Acclaim BenefitsiStanlon Group 1,789.79 Flex Spending: Payroll Sn6l0-5 27254 09/01/05 Accoulllem>>s 2,708.48 Finance Asst: Pavroll: 8/05 & 8112 & 8119105 27255 09/0]/05 Accurate Press, Inc. l32.33 Maimenance Forms 27256 09!OllO5 AllePT3 Print & lmaving 609.38 Newsletter: Printed & Mailed 27257 09/01/05 Aloha Video & Audio Inc. 130.81 Control Cables 27259 09/01/05 AscI Supplv & Paper, Inc. 282.65 CH: Storaj/;c BoxeslPT &TP 27260 09/0ll05 Atlas Foundation 689.50 Refund: Deoosit on Meter Rental 2726] 09/0]/05 Beisswen~er's How -To-Store 82.72 Supply Materials 27262 09/0]/05 Bill's Rental Center 14.03 FC: H. P. Tiller Rental 27263 09/01/05 Canon Business SollLlions ]60.37 Prinler Reading: July, 2005 27264 09/01/05 CDW Government [ne 296.76 ComnUIer: Kevboards & Mouse 27265 09101/05 Cemsl0ne Readv Mix ]nc. ]45.9] U-Cart Rental & 1 Yd. of Rock 27266 09/0]105 Dell Marketinl!,LP 1,286.6] 4 Dell Monitors 27267 09/0]105 Department of Administration 976.23 Phone Service: July, 2005 27268 09/01/05 ElectroWatchman,]ne 300.00 Radio SVSlem for Lift 9 27269 09/0]105 Fortis Benefits 432.20 Lon/;! Tenn Disability: 9/01-10/01105 Subtotal - Paid Claims 10,102.47 Paid Claims - 154,390.30 Add Unpaid Claims, 56808.20 e Total Accounts Payable Claims for Council Appmval, 08129/05- 211198.50 Notc: Checks for unpaid claim, totaling $56,808.20 to be mailed September ]3, 2005 after apprllval atlhe September 12,2005 Council Meeting *Exp. Re]ated 10 TCAAP Pro)ecL . , . . . PAGE2QF2 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CLAIMS REPORT TO BE APPROVED AT 09112105 COUNCIL MEETING PAID CLAIMS REGISTER: ~::I::_&~..h~:; :.> ::0 :::, '0 T:: :XMoui;ff" :'.,',.........':::..:... 27270 09/01/05 Frattallone's Hardware, Inc. 103.17 Glue, Drum Lint:rs, Mortar & Concrete Mix 27271 09/0]/05 Grainl2er,lnc 96.66 Safety Evcwear & Cuttin!! Kit 27272 09/0J/05 GridorConstruclion, Inc. 94,172.36 Payment I: Constmction: Lifts 4 &9 27273 09/01105 Hallock Com any 75.34 3 Meters: LiftSlatioos 27275 09/01/05 l\1AACO CollisioIl and Paint l,30G,OO Logo Painted On Truck 27276 09/0I/05 Void 0.00 Void 27277 09/01/05 Metronolitan Area Manap-cmenl Assn 1800 MAMA Luncheon: 8/l5/05-MWolfe 27278 09/01105 Midwest Asohalt Com. 894.59 Asphalt 27279 09101/05 Minnesota Rear Estate Journal 85.00 Subscrintion Renewal 27280 09/01/05 Mounds View Commullilv Ctr., YMCA 60,00 Field Trio: 5 Youth & ! Adult 2728] 09/01/05 MultiCenter Physical TIlerapy 75,00 0& M: Recruitment Phvsical 27282 09/01/05 Nexte] Communications lWUO Phone Service: 7/]6-8/19105 2728J 09101/05 North Subwban Access Corp. ]03.69 ProcramWeb:June 2005 272&4 09/01/05 Pace Analvtical 732.05 WaterTesling:]une 2005 272&5 09/01105 ]imPerron 393 Reimb : Parks Materials 272R6 09/01/05 PattvPiener 42,00 Reimb: Soccer: Grades 3"4 27287 09/0]/05 PRQ- TEC DESIGN fNC 75R.09 LaborlT cch: DSX Access 27288 09/01/05 Roseville Parks & RecreatiOll 1l2,50 Rec. Program: Wild l\.1nt: 7/29/05 27289 09/01105 RovalOaksRea]ty 25.000.00 Refund: Escruw/Eamest Funds: Old CH 27290 09/01105 Sam's Club 2]6.48 Rdriger<llor & Supplies 27291 09/0]/05 Shoreview P<lrks & Recreation 118.39 Bus Rental: Field Trip-Summer, 2005 27292 09/0]/05 Skvbawks Snorts Academv 486.00 Basketball: 8/0]-8/04/05 27293 09/01/05 T. A. Scllil1sv & Sons, Inc. 82.2l Fine Asphillt: Road Patch 27294 09/0]/05 Tareet Stores 98,28 Misc.SuDulies 27295 09101/05 TimeSavcr Off Site Secretarial 1 ]2.00 Recording Secretilrv: PC: 8/03/05 27296 09/0]/05 Traffic Control Corvoration 9,51l6.25 LEDTraffic Light Materials 27297 09/0]/05 Truck Utilities Mfp- Company 6,6392] Utilities for F 350 Pi~k Up Truck 2729& 09101105 United Rentals ]45.3] 3 Gallons - Marking Paint 27299 09/01/05 Marv Van Sickle 32.00 Reimb: Co-Rec Succer 27:100 09/01/05 Wm. J. Business Inleriors/MN Dent. OfReve 30353 r.,':!NSalesTax 2730] 09/01/05 XcelEnerrrv 1,987.54 Ekc. Service: 7/20-8116105 Paid Claims - Parre 2 144.28783 IJ;'IlPAID CLAIMS Rt:GISTER : ~t~~!:: P,>.-n 'AMOl.l~ 27258 27274 27302 09/lJ/05 091]3/05 09/]3/05 Arden Hills Devclo menl Co oration Lea 'ue of MN Cities Insurance Trust Met Council Environmental Servi~e 20,590.20 7,508.00 28,71000 1st Ha]f 2005, Tax Increment We: Fina] for 2004 SAC Char es: JuJ ,20051 Holida Station Un aid Claims 56.808.20 . ~ ~HILLS City of Arden Hills Request for Council Action / Prepared by: GSB Dept.: O&M Council Mtg. Date: 9.12.05 Final Action Needed By: 9.12.05 Agenda Item I~g 2005 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Proiect Budgeted Amount: $280.000.00 Actual Amount: $280,000.00 Funding Source: Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund Council Action Request: Approve Pay Estimate #2 for Gridor Construction Inc., of Plymouth, MN in the amount of $105,579.39 for the Lift Stations #4 and #9 Reconstruction Project. Staff Recommendation: The Arden Hills City Engineer recommends the Council approve Pay Estimate #2for Gridor Construction Inc., of Plymouth, MN in the amount of $105,579.39. A retainage of 5.00% is being held for this project Advisory Commission Action: Commission Date Action : Not Applicable Not ,/\.pglicable N()t~pplicable m~I<3l"lnil1g PTRC . Supporting Documents (which are attached to this Action Form): o Memo/Letter: D Resolution (No. ) D Ordinance (No. ) o Engineering Recommendation: See attachment D Attorney Recommendation: o Other: Application for Payment #2 Financial Implications: Administrator/Staff Comments: . Page 1 of 1 , URS AGENDA ITEM 3.B BRW: Inc. URS 1bresher Square 700 Third Street South Minneapolis, MN 55415 Phone: (612) 370-0700 Fax: (612) 370-1378 . To: Murtuza Siddiqui/ Arden Hills Finance Director Michelle Wolfe/ Arden Hills Tom Moore/ Arden Hills File: 31809733.00301 Cc: From: Gregory S. Brown Arden Hills City Engineer Date: September 2, 2005 Subject: 2005 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project, Pay Estimate #2 Background The City of Arden Hills awarded Gridor Construction Inc., of Plymouth, MN the 2005 Sanitary . Sewer Rehabilitation Project on April 25, 2005 for a total contract amount of $236,758.00. Pay Estimate #1, in the amount of $94,172.36, has been approved by the Council. Project Status Lift Station #9 Lift Station #9 has been operational for approximately a month. Site restoration and driveway paving are the major items which need to be completed and this work will be done in conjunction with Lift Station #4 within the next few weeks. We will then host a punchlist meeting with the Contractor and the Operations and Maintenance Staff to review the work. Lift Station #4 Gridor has just completed the start-up at Lift Station #4 this week. Work completed includes, but is not limited to, the installation of the 72" wet well manhole and the 60" valve manhole as well as the plumbing for both. All accessories needed for each pump assembly were also installed, as well as the installation of the pumps themselves. The electrical control panel is complete including all required wiring and the forcemain connection has been made. As with Lift Station #9, site restoration and driveway paving are the major items left to be completed and once they are done we will host a punchlist meeting to review the site. Recommendations The Arden Hills City Engineer recommends the Council approve Pay Estimate #2 for Gridor Construction Inc., of Plymouth, MN in the amount of $105,579.39. . . APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT PAYMENT NO.2 . Project: Lift Stations #4 and #9 Reconstruction Project Owner: Owner No.: Contractor: URS Job No.: Application Date: For Period Ending: City ot Arden Hills "'.... i t?:)(~ 1'1"'"'' ! ;J, ,,~~ v"~'YY Copy Gridor Construction, Inc. 31809733.00201 9/6/2005 8/26/2005 Original Contract Amount: Contract Amendments: Contract Amount To Date: Total Amount of Work Complete To Date: Material Suitably Stored On-Site but not Incorporated Into Work: Gross Amount Due To Date: Less 5.00% Retainage: Amount Due To Date: Less Previous Payments: Total Due This Application: $236.758.00 $0.00 $236,758.00 $210,265_00 $0_00 $210,265.00 $10,513.25 $199,751.75 $94,172.36 $105,579.39 I hereby certify that all items and amounts shown are correct for the work completed to date. . Contractor: Gridor Construction, Inc. By: jU)11 /( li /0 L,,] Date: (I --. . - , j ."'; (') The work shown on this project and the application for payment have been reviewed and the amount shown is recommended for payment. URS Corpotation /) By: ./-;~t/~t-"1 ~ - . I I " , ~r / ; / ' /1: //: /~tv'-<---"- Date: , / / 0/2'/0 5' ; I , I APPROVED FOR PAYMENT Owner: City of Arden Hills By: Date: . Payment History Payment Number 1 2 Payment Application Date 8/3/2005 9/6/2005 Payment End Date 8/1/2005 8/26/2005 Amount $94,172.36 Total Payments: $94,172.36 Page 2 of 5 . . . . Application for Payment: Itemization Schedule: A - LIFT STATIONS #4 & #9 RECONSTRUCTION . Unit Contract Contract To Date To Date No. Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount MOBILIZATION LS $1,000.00 100 $1.000.00 1.00 $1.000.00 2021.501 2 CLEARING TREE $100.00 19.00 $1,900.00 19.00 $1.900.00 211)1.502 3 GRUBBING TREE $20.00 10.00 $200.00 10.00 $200.00 2101507 4 LIFT STATtON NO.4 REMOVAL LS $2.530.00 1.00 $2,530.00 0.00 $000 21(0.601 5 LIFT STATION NO.9 REMOVAL LS $2.530.00 1.00 $2,530.00 1.00 $2.530.00 2103.60\ 6 REMOVE SEWER PIPE (6' CIP) LF $10.00 50.00 $500.00 0.00 $0.00 21{).UOl 7 REMOVE MANHOLE (SANITARY) EA $120.00 2.00 $240.00 1.00 $120.00 2104.509 8 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT LF $160 75.00 $120.00 75.00 $12000 2\04513 9 SALVAGE SIGN TYPE C EA $60.00 2.00 $120.00 2.00 $120.00 2104..523 10 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY $2.60 215.00 $715.00 275.00 $715.00 2104.601 11 GRANULAR BORROW (LV) CY $16.00 360.00 $5,76000 0.00 $0.00 2105,521 12 TOPSOIL BORROW (LV) CY $20.00 100.00 $2.000.00 0.00 $0.00 _5520 3 STABILIZING AGGREGATE TON $19.00 60.00 $1.140.00 50.00 $950.00 2H15M3 14 STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM) HR $82.00 24-00 $1,968.00 24.00 $1.968.00 2123.61 15 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (3B42) CY $380.00 3.00 $1,140.00 300 $1,140.00 2301605 16 BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT (3") SY $28.70 350.00 $10.045.00 000 $0.00 2.%0_521 17 DEWATERING LIFT STATION NO.4 LS $3,220.00 LOO $3.220.00 0.50 $1,610.00 2451,601 18 DEWATERING LIFT STATION NO.9 LS $3,220.00 1.00 $3,220.00 1.00 $3.220.00 2451501 19 4" SWING FLEX CHECK VALVE EA $510.00 4.00 $2,040.00 4.00 $2,040.00 2500~O3 20 4" DIP FORCEMAIN, C150 LF $57.00 52.00 $2.964.00 52.00 $2,964.00 2503503 21 6" DIP FORCEMAIN, C150 LF $57.00 25.00 $1,425.00 25.00 $1,425.00 2503.5Q] 22 8' PVC SDR 26 PIPE SEWER LF $79.00 10.00 $790.00 to.OO $790.00 2503.503 23 10" PVC SDR 26 PIPE SEWER LF $44.00 10.00 $440.00 10.00 $440.00 25ll3.503 24 DIP PIPE FITTINGS LB $5.00 510.00 $2,550.00 510.00 $2.550.00 2503503 2S CONNECT TO EXISTING MANHOLE EA $440.00 2.00 $880.00 2.00 $880.00 .'~ Page 3 of 5 Unit Contract Contract To Date To Date No. Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount 26 3' STEEL VENT PIPE EA $270.00 2.00 $540.00 2.00 $540.00 2503.503 27 4" FLANGE GATE VALVE EA $425.00 4.00 $1,700.00 4.00 $1,700.00 . 2503.503 28 6" FLANGE GATE VALVE EA $730.00 4.00 $2,920.00 4.00 $2,92000 2503.503 29 SEWER BYPASS LIFT STAnON 4 LS $3,790.00 1.00 $3,790.00 1.00 $3,790.00 2503.603 30 SEWER BYPASS LIFT STATION 9 LS $3,790.00 1.00 $3,790.00 1.00 $3:190.00 2S03.6D3 31 CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY FORCEMAIN EA $980.00 2.00 $1,960.00 2.00 $1,960_00 2503.6OJ 32 F & I LIFT STATION NO.4 PUMP SYSTEM LS $45,100.00 1.00 $45,100.00 1.00 $45,100.00 :?50;,.603 33 F & I LIFT STATION NO.4 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM LS $28,600.00 1.00 $28,600.00 1.00 $28,600.00 2503_603 34 F & I LIFT STATION NO 9 PUMP SYSTEM LS $30,800.00 1.00 $30,800.00 1.00 830,800.00 :?503.603 35 F & I LIFT STATION NO. 9 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM LS $30,100.00 1.00 $30,100.00 1.00 $30,100.00 2503.603 36 72" LIFT STATION #4 WET WELL WITH LS $9,530.00 1.00 $9,530.00 1.00 $9,530.00 2500.602 ACCESS HATCH 37 72" LIFT STATION #9 WET WELL WITH LS $9,530.00 1.00 $9,530.00 1.00 $9,530.00 2500.602 ACCESS HATCH 38 60' VALVE MANHOLE-LIFT STATION #4 LS $5,93000 1.00 $5,930.00 1.00 $5,930.00 2506602 39 60" VALVE MANHOLE-LIFT STATION #9 LS $5,930.00 1.00 $5,930.00 1.00 $5,930.00 2506.602 40 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS $1,150.00 1.00 $1,150.00 1.00 $1,150.00 . 2563605 41 INSTALL SIGN TYPE C EA $60.00 2.00 $120.00 2.00 $120.00 2504.602 42 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FENCE LF $1.72 275.00 $473.00 275.00 $473.00 '573502 43 SILT FENCE, TYPE HEAVY DUTY LF $3.60 450.00 $1,620.00 450_00 $1,620.00 2573.502 44 RESTORATION/SITE GRADING LS $3,240.00 1.00 $3,240.00 0.00 $0.00 2575.5Q2 45 WOOD FIBER BLANKETS, TYPE REGULAR LS $1.20 415.00 $498.00 0.00 $0.00 2575.523 Subtotal: $236,758.00 $210,265.00 Grand Total: $236,758.00 $210,265.00 . Page 4 of 5 . . . Application for Payment: Itemization Summary Schedule Contract Amount To Date Amount of Work Completed A - LIFT STATIONS #4 & #9 RECONSTRUCTION $236,758.00 $210,265.00 Grand Total; $236,758.00 $210,265.00 Page 50f 5 .' ~ ~HILLS .. Prepared by: GSB Dept.: O&M Council Mtg. Date: 9/12/05 Final Action Needed By: 9/12/05 City of Arden Hills Re~st for Council Action Agenda ltem3.~ 2005 PMP- Pavment #1 Budgeted Amount: $1,680,000 Actual Amount $289,021.88 Funding Source: Multiple Council Action Request: Motion to approve Payment #1 for the 2005 Pavement Management Program to Arnt Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $289,021.88. A retainage of 5% is being held for this project. Staff Recommendation: City Staff recommends the Council approve Pay Estimate #1 for Arnt Construction Company, Inc of Hugo. Advisory Commission Action: Commission Planning PTRC Date Action Not Applicable Not applicable . Supporting Documents (which are attached to this Action Form): o Memo/Letter: o Resolution (No.) o Ordinance (No. I2J Engineerin9 Recommendation: See Attachment o Attorney Recommendation: I2J Other: Application for Payment #1 Financial Implications: Administrator/Staff Comments: . Page 1 of 1 URS AGENDA ITEM 3.C Thresher Square 700 lbird Street South Minneapolis. MN 55415 Phone: (612) 37lJ.-0700 Fax: (612) 37lJ.-1378 . To: Cc: Murtuza Siddiqui I Arden Hills Finance Director Michelle Wolfe I Arden Hills Tom Moore I Arden Hills File: 31809691 From: Gregory S. Brown Arden Hills City Engineer Date: September 6 Subject: Pay Estimate #1 2005 Pavement Management Program Background The City of Arden Hills awarded Arnt Construction Company, Inc. of Hugo, MN the 2005 Pavement Management Program on August 8, 2005 for a total contract amount of $1,375,247.66. . Project Status The Contractor has completed storm sewer and roadway base along Dunlap Street. The Contractor has begun replacing hydrants and valves along Dunlap Street, Northwoods Drive and Red Fox Road. The Contractor has completed curb and gutter spot repairs along Grey Fox Road and Red Fox Road. Recommendation The Arden Hills City Engineer recommends the Council approve Pay Estimate #1 for Arnt Construction Company, Inc. of Hugo, MN in the amount of $289,021.88. . . . . APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT PAYMENT NO.1 URS Copy City Copy Contractor Copy Inspector Copy Project: 2005 Pavement Management Program Owner: Owner No.: Contractor: URS Job No.: Application Date: For Period Ending: Cily of Arden Hills ARNT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. 31809691.00301 9/12/2005 8/31/2005 Original Contract Amount: Contract Amendments: Contract Amount To Date: Total Amount of Work Complete To Date: Material Suitably Stored On-Site but not Incorporated Into Work: Gross Amount Due To Date: Less 5.00% Retainage: Amount Due To Date: Less Previous Payments: Total Due This Application: $1,375.247.66 $0.00 $1.375,247.66 $304,233.56 $0.00 $304,233.56 $15,211.68 $289,021.88 $0.00 $289,021.88 Contra I hereby certify that all items and to date. By: 9-<=--'C/j~ The work shown on this project and the application for payment have been reviewed and the amount shown is recommended for payment. ;:7'" / ~ / / URS Cor ration / I By: // C Date: y- c5',?1~ APPROVED FOR PAYMENT Owner: City of Arden Hills By: Date: Page 1 of 5 Payment History Payment Number Payment Application Date 9/12/2005 1 Payment End Date 9/9/2005 Amount $289,021.88 Total Payments: $289,021.88 Page 2 of 5 . . . Sr.h lIem No. MnDOT No. Op.5cription e: e: e: A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 2 , 4 5 6 7 8 2021.501 2101.502 2101.507 2102.502 9 2104.501 2104.501 2104501 2104503- 2104.505 2104.505 2104.509 2104.509 2104.509 2104.50~ 2104.509 2104509 2105.509 2104-.509 '0 " 12 " ,. " '6 " " " 20 2104.511 2104.523 2104.513 2104.513 2' 22 23 2104523 " 2104.52:) 2104.523 2104525 2104.525 2104.601 2105.501 25 26 27 28 29 30 2105507 2105.511 2105.522 3' 32 33 " 3S 36 37 36 38 '" 2105522 2105.607 2123.~JOl 2123.501 2130.501 2123.610 2221_501 2211.503 2232.501 2301.529 2331.508 2350.501 " 42 43 44 '" 2350-502 2300.501 2360501 46 47 " 2350.604 2357,502 2501.602 2501.60? 2501602 2501.602 2502.541 2503,541 2503,541 2503.541 2503.541 2503.541 43 50 " 52 53 '" 55 56 57 58 59 MOBilIZATION CLEARING GRUBBING PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM) REMOVE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER REMOVE GUARD RAil REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT REMOVE HYDRANT AND VAlVE REMOVE GATE VALVE & BOX (g") REMOVE GATE VALVE & BOX (12") REMOVE GATE VALVE & BOX (16") REMOVE FLARED END SECTION (15" - 24") REMOVE MANHOLE REMOVE CATCHBASIN REMOVE BOllARD SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT (FUll DEPTH) SALVAGE SIGN TYPE D SAWING BIT PAV[MENT (FUU_ DEPTH) SAWING BIT DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SAlVAGE SIGN TYPE C SAlVAGE STREET SIGN SALVAGE STORM SEWER FES ABANDON PIPE SEWER (Fill WITH SAND) ABANDON STORM MANHOLE HAUlSAlVAGEO MATERIAL COMMON EXCAVATION (EV) [PI SUBGRAOE EXCAVATION (EV) COMMON CHANNEL EXCAVA TlON SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (CY) (P) SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (CV) EXCAVATlON SPECIAl(EV) COMMON LABORER UNILOADED SKIDSTEER WATER STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM) AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE (CY). CLASS 5 (P) Mill BITUMINOUS SURFACE (P) DOWEL BAR (REINFORCEMENT FOR CONCRETE PAVEMENT) BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAYS-TYPE lV 3 WEARING COURSE TYPE LV 3 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (B) TYPE LV 3 NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE IC) TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3,8) TYPE SP 125 NON.WEAR COURSE MIX (3,B) BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT PATCHING BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT TRASH GUARD FOR .w" PIPE APRON 48" AC PIPE APRON 24" RC PIPE APRON 15" RC PIPE APRON 4" PERF pve PIPE DRAIN 15" RC PlPE SEWER DES 3006 Cl V 18" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 Cl V 21' AC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 eLUI 24" RC PIPE SE'iVER DES 3006 CllI 27" AC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 Cl1ll lS TREE TREE IF LF LF IF SY SY SY EACH EACH EACH EACH EACH EACH EACH EACH LF EACH LF LF EACH EACH EACH LF EACH LS CY cv Cy cv CY cv HOUR HOUR MGAL HOUR TON cv SY LBS TON TON TON TON TON SY GAL EACH EACH EACH EACH LF IF LF LF LF IF Unit Contract Quantity Application for Payment:: Itemization Contract Amoon. 550.00 2"79.00 1,361.00 150_00 100.00 11.186.00 1,730.00 1600 5.00 BOO 2.00 700 '00 '00 300 100.00 '00 973.00 675.00 S300 300 200 563.00 '.00 '00 10,290.00 100.00 10,750.00 3,34400 60000 500.00 20,00 2000 500.00 60.00 600.00 2,270.00 22,246.00 10000 255.00 4,695.00 1,257.00 76_00 3600 2,800.00 3,465.00 '00 '.00 '00 200 2,79200 1,132.00 647.00 88200 106.00 2000 UnilPrice 1.00 15.00 15.00 $54,000.00 $135.00 $135.00 $0.50 $24.00 $1.50 $3.80 $4.00 $1.50 $300 $930.00 $520.00 $520.00 $52000 $154.00 $206.00 $154.00 $25,00 $4.00 $7500 $2.00 $2.00 $25-.00 $25.00 $715.40 $1540 $105.00 $500.00 $9.46 $9.46 $7.24 $12.00 $12.00 $9..116 $55.00 $94.00 $0.01 $0.01 $10.16 $24..116 $1.22 $412 $55.20 $34.00 ","00 $82.00 $63.00 $2200 $190 $1,500.00 $1,800.00 $1,13000 $624.00 $3.00 $26.00 $27_00 $36.00 $36.00 $4000 $54,000.00 $2,025.00 $2,025.00 $275,00 $6,695_00 $2,071.50 $570.00 $4IXLOO $16.779.00 $5,190.00 $16,74000 $2,600.00 $3,120.00 $1,040.00 $1,Q76.oo $206.00 $154.00 $7500 $400.00 $75.00- $1,946.00 $1,750.00 $1,325.00 $75.00 $1,43080 $8,978,20 $105.00 $50000 $97,343.40 $1:M6.00 $77,830.00 $40,12800 $7,200.00 $4,730.00 $I.lOOOO $1,880.00 $5.00 $0,130 $6.108.00 $55,524.20 $27,140.12 $472.00 $14,07".00 $166,430-1)0 $50,280.00 $6,23200 $3,154.00 $61,600.00 $6,583_50 $1.500.00 $1,80000 $1,130_00 $1,648.00 $8,376.00 $::'9,43200 $17,469.00 $31,752.00 $-4,026.00 $920_00 TO dale To date Quantity Amount 32 32 o 100 600 o o "00 900 " o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o $54.000.00 $4,320.00 $-4,320.00 $0.00 $2,400.00 $900_00 $0-.00 $0.00 $6,150.00 $2,70000 $10,230.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $000 $0.00 $0.00 $tl00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $000 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $34.669.56 $0_00 $0.00 $21,22600 $0,00 $0.00 $tl00 $0.00 $0,00 $000 $0.00 $24,460,00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $000 $0.00 $0.00 $7,410.00 $19,690.00 $16.200.00 $0.00 $0,00 $0.00 3686 o o 1769 o o o o o o o '000 o o o o o o o o o 8 o o o 2470 765 600 o o o ''''5 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 60 6' 62 63 6' 65 66 67 68 69 70 " 72 73 74 75 76 n 78 79 80 8' 82 83 6' 85 86 87 8B 89 90 " 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 >02 103 104 >05 H16 >07 >08 109 110 11' 112 113 114 2503541 2503.541 2503.602 2503602 2504,602 2504,602 2504.602 2504.602 2504603 2504.603 2504J308 2506.501 2506.501 2506.5U1 2506.501 2506.501 2506.511.; 2.506.516 2506.516 2506.516 2506522 2506.522 2SDEU,Ol 2506,602 2511.501 2531501 2531501 2531.501 2531.503 2531503 2531.507 2554.523 2554_60..1 2563,601 2564_531 2564.531 2564531 2564.552 2564.552 2564.602 2!Xi3-.602 2564.602 2564.603 2564.603 2564.603 2564.603 2564.603 2564.618 257::-1502 2573501 2573.602 2575501 2575.502 2575.502 2575.505 115 2575511 116 117 ,oa 2575.519 2575.532 2575.523 42" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V 48' Re PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER CONS1RUCTTEMPORARYBULKHEAD F&I HYDRANT AND VALVE 8" GATE VALVE AND BOX 12" BUTTERFLY VALVE AND BOX 16" BUTTERFLY VALVE AND BOX 6" WATER MAIN DUCTILE IRON CL52 8" WATER MAIN DUCTILE IRON CL52 WATER MAIN FITTINGS CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTUAE DESIGN SPEC 2 (48.) CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPEC 2 (66") CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPEC 2 (72") CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPEC 2 (108") CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPEC 2 (2 X 3\ CASTING ASSEMBLY (J067-V). CASTING ASSEMBLY (fl-2561 -A) CASTING ASSEMBLY (MH GRATE) ,POND OUTlET CASTING ASSEMBLY (R-1733) ADJUST SANITARY MANHOLE ADJUST STORM STRUCTURE MODIFY SlRUCTURE CONSTRUCT WOODEN SKIMMER STRUCTURE RANDOM RIPRA? CLASS III (INCLUDES GEOTEXTILE FABRIC) CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 CONCRETEcunB & GlJfTEA DESIGN B618 {SPOT REPAIRS} CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN 0418 8- CONCRETE PAVEMENT 3" CONCRETE WALK 7" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT APRON END TREATMENT - FlARED TERMINAl PLATE SEAM GUARD RAIL TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGN PANELS TYPE C SIGN PANELS TYPE 0 INSTALL SPECIAL SIGNS (TEMPORARY) HAZARD MARKER X4-2 HAZARD MARKER X4-11 INSTAll SIGN PAVEMENT MeSSAGE (AR CROSSING) EPOXY PAVEMENT MESSAGE (R11L1 ARROW) EPOXY 4- SOLID tiNE WHITE-EPOXY 4' SOUD UNE YEllOW-EPOXY 4" BROKEN UNE WHITE.EPOXY 4- BROKEN UNo: YFLLOW-EPQXY 12" STOP UNE WHITE-EPOXY ZEBRA CROSSWALK-WHITE SILT FENCE, TYPE HEAVY DVll' HAY BAlE TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SEEDING (WlTH 4" TOPSOIL) SEED MIXTURE 350 (WITH 4" TOPSOIl) SEED MIXTURE 310 (WITH 4" TOPSOIL) SODOlNG - SALT RESISTANT TYPE WtTH 4' TOPSOIL MULCH MATERiAl TYPE 3 DISK ANCHORING FERTILIZER (18'1-18; EROSION CONTROL BtANKETS CATEGORY 3 GRANO TOTALS LF LF EACH EACH EACH EACH EACH EACH LF LF LB LF LF LF LF LF EACH EACH EACH EACH EACH EACH LS EACH C'i LF LF LF SY SF SY EACH LF LS SF SF SF EACH EACH EACH EACH EACH LF LF LF LF LF SF LF EACH EACH AC LB LB sv TON AC LBS SV 275.00 445.00 10.00 1.00 18.00 5.00 6.00 2.00 172.00 100.00 50000 58.20 18.40 19.30 22.80 19.20 12,00 1.00 100 500 BOO 24,00 1.00 '00 37.00 4,581.00 2,445.00 25000 35,00 480,00 73500 100 600.00 1.00 239,10 32.00 50.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 200 500 4,591.00 10,360.00 200,00 315.00 80.00 630 00 1,250.00 25.00 4.00 3.00 22500 41.00 10,258.00 400 2,00 30000 1,000.00 $118.00 $134.00 S1,55O.00 $51500 54,120.00 $2,600.00 $3,lcnoo $4,620.00 52600 $26.00 $3,50 $230.00 $360,00 $310.00 $900.00 $180.00 $400.00 $480.00 $900.00 $550.00 $450.00 $400.00 $1,050.00 $3,100.00 $100.00 $8.50 $2200 $9,20 $46,00 $280 $44,00 $2,10000 $16,40 $4,500.00 $25.00 $27.00 $13.00 $4700 $47.00 $8&00 $560.00 $128.00 $0.24 $0.45 $0.12 $0.12 $6.20 $1.04 $0.01 $6.00 $1.00 $960.00 $6.00 $800 $3.00 $140.00 $9500 $0.60 $180 $32,450.00 $59mo.oo $15.50000 $515.00 $74,16000 $13,000.00 $18,600.00 $9,240.00 $4,47200 $2,600,00 $1,75000 $13,386.00 $6,624,00 $5,983.00 $20,520.00 $3,456.00 $4,800.00 $480,00 $900.00 $2,750.00 $3,600.00 $S,6OO.00 $1,050,00 $3,100.00 S3JOO.OO $38,938.50 $5..1,790.00 $2,300.00 $1,610.00 $1,344.00 $32,34000 $2,10000 $13,120.00 $4,SOOOO $5,977.50 $864.00 $650.00 $47.00 $188.00 $264.00 $1,120.00 $640,00 $1,101.84 $4,662.00 $24.00 $37.80 $372.00 $655.20 $12.50 $150.00 $400 $2,940.00 $1,350.00 $326.00 $30,774.00 $560.00 $190.00 $18000 $1,800.00 $1,375,247,66 o o o o o o o 1200 o o o o o o 0.77 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 100 o o o o o o o o o o o o 4 o " o o o '00 o o " o o o 15 $0.00 $0.00 $5,20000 $0.00 $45,320.00 $0,00 $0,00 $0.00 $2,600.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,370.00 $O.DO $0.00 $0.00 $2,700.00 $3,600.00 $0,00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $000 $000 $0.00 $26,400.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $000 $0,00 $3,465.00 $000 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 50,00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $000 $000 $0.00 $000 $1.00 $0.00 $000 $0.00 $0.00 $000 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 . . o . $304,233,56 4of5 . . . Application for Payment: Itemization Summary A B C D Schedule Contract Amount Total Work To-Date Retainage Held Previous This Payment 5"'/<> Payments (BxO%) (B-(C+D)) A - ROADWAY $838,504.16 $170.697.56 $8.534.88 $0.00 $162,162.68 B - STORM SEWER $386.496.50 $72.461.00 $3.623.05 $0.00 $88.837.95 C-WATERMAfN $150,247.00 $61,075.00 $3,053.75 $0.00 $58,021.25 TOTAL $1.375.247.66 $304,233.56 $15,211.68 $0.00 $289,021.88 UPDA TE FROM PREViOUS PAYMENT Page 5015 . Prepared by: GSB Dep\.: O&M Council Mtg. Date: 9,12.05 Final Action Needed By: 9.12.05 ~ ~~HILlS City 01 Arden Hills Request for Council Action Funding Source: Agenda Item I~ 2005 Seal Coatinl! Proiect Budgeted Amount: $50.000.00 Actual Amount: $50.000.00 Non-Assessable Street Fund Council Action Request: Approve Pay Estimate #1. Final Payment, for Allied Blacktop Co., of Maple Grove. MN in the amount of $38.547.84 for the 2005 Seal Coating Project. Staff Recommendation: The Arden Hills City Engineer recommends the Council approve Pay Estimate #1, Final Payment for Allied Blacktop Co., of Maple Grove, MN in the amount of $38,547.84. No retainage is being heldfor this project. Advisory Commission Action: Commission Date Action Planning PTRC . . Noti\0Jll<:flIlJe. . .__N()t t\ppJic.ab1e Not applicable . Supporting Documents (which are attached to this Action Form): o Memo/Letter: o Resolution (No. ) o Ordinance (No. ) IZI Engineering Recommendation: See attachment o Attorney Recommendation: 1ZI0ther: Application for Payment #1. Final Payment Financial Implications: Administrator/Staff Comments: . Page 1 of 1 URS BHVV, I AGENDA ITEM 3.0 URS TIuesher Square 700 Third Street South Minneapolis, MN 55415 Phone: (612) 37M700 Fax: (612) 370-1378 . To: Cc: Murtuza Siddiqui/Arden Hills Finance Director Michelle Wolfl Arden Hills Tom Moorel Arden Hills File: 31809831 From: Gregory S. Brown Arden Hills City Engineer Date: September 2, 2005 Subject: 2005 Seal Coat Project Pay Estimate #1, FINAL PAYMENT Background The City of Arden Hills awarded Allied Blacktop Co., of Maple Grove, MN the 2005 . Seal Coating Project, including Alternate, on June 27, 2005 for a total contract amount of $39,714.58. Project Status Allied Blacktop posted signs to perform the work on Sunday, August 21 and then completed the project completely on Monday, August 22. The work included street sweeping, application of binder, and then placement and rolling of aggregate. Signs are still posted indicating loose gravel until the City Operations and Maintenance department performs sweeping operations on the remaining loose gravel. Recommendations The Arden Hills City Engineer recommends the Council approve Pay Estimate #1, Final Payment, for Allied Blacktop Co., of Plymouth, MN in the amount of $38,547.84. . APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT PAYMENT NO.1 - FINAL PAYMENT . Project: 2005 Seal Coating Project Owner: Owner No.: Contractor: URS Job No.: Application Date: For Period Ending: City of Arden Hills "fURS Copy City Copy Contractor Copy Inspector Copy Allied Blacktop Co. 31809831.00000 91612005 812612005 Original Contract Amount: Contract Amendments: Contract Amount To Date: Total Amount of Work Complete To Date: Material Suitably Stored On-Site but not Incorporated Into Work: Gross Amount Due To Date: Less 0.00% Retainage: Amount Due To Date: Less Previous Payments: Total Due This Application: $39,714.56 $0.00 $39,714.56 $38,547.84 $0.00 $38,547.84 $0.00 $38,547.84 $0.00 $38,547.84 . I hereby certify that all items and amounts shown are correct for the work completed to date. Contractor: Allied Blacktop Co. "'--. By: Kk:- "Y'1 (l ~~ , Date: '1- "d- - c:J-~ The work shown on this project and the application for payment have been reviewed and the amount shown is recommended for payment. By: ~ Date:. 9-1 O~ APPROVED FOR PAYMENT Owner: City of Arden Hills . By: Date: Page 1 of4 Payment History Payment Number Payment Application Date Amount Payment End Date Total Payments: $0.00 Page 2 of 4 . . . Application for Payment: Itemization . Unit Contract Contract To Date To Date No. Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount Bituminous Seal Coal with Aggregate SY $0.64 54,304.00 $34,754.56 53.921.00 $34,509.44 2021.501 Subtotal: $34.754.56 $34,509.44 Bid Alternate 1 Unit Contract Contract To Date To Date No. Rem Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount Bituminous Seal Coat wth Aggregate for 1 Cummings Park Drive SY $0.64 7750.00 $4.960.00 6,310.00 $4,038.40 2575..525- Subtotal: $4,960.00 $4.038.40 Grand Total: $38,547.84 . . Page3of4 Application for Payment: Itemization Summary Schedule Contract Amount To Date Amount of Work Completed Bituminous Seal Coat with Aggregate Bituminous Seal Coat wth Aggregate for Cummings Park Drive $34,754.56 $34,509.44 $4,960.00 $4,038.40 Grand Total: $39,714.56 $38,547.84 Page 4 of 4 . . . - e . . ~ ~HILLS City of Arden Hills Request for Council Action Prepared by: GSB Dep\.: O&M Council Mtg. Date: 9-12-05 Final Action Needed By: 9-12-05 Agenda Item~[tlt;~ 2004 PMP Payment #7 /Final Payment) Budgeted Amount: $1,059,189.76 Actual Amount: $61,030.17 Funding Source: Multiple Council Action Request: Approve Final Payment for the 2004 PMP to Arnt Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $61,030.17. Staff Recommendation: City Staff recommends the Council approve Pay Estimate #7 for Arnt Construction Company, Inc. Advisory Commission Action: Commission Date . .. ... . Planning PTRC Supporting Documents (which are attached to this Action Form): o Memo/Letter: o Resolution (No. 05-"") o Ordinance (No. [gJ Engineering Recommendation: See Attachment o Attorney Recommendation: [gJ Other: Application for Payment #7 Financial Implications: Administrator/Staff Comments: Action N()t Applicable Not Applic<lble Not. ajJjJli<eable URS " AGENDA ITEM 3.E Thresher Square 700 Third Street South Minneapolis. MN 554 I 5 Phone: (612) 370-0700 Fax: (612) 370-1378 . To: Murtuza Siddiqui I Arden Hills Finance Director Michelle Wolfe I Arden Hills Tom Moore I Arden Hills File: 31809367 Cc: From: Gregory S. Brown Arden Hills City Engineer Date: September 6 Subject: Pay Estimate #7 2004 Pavement Management Program Edgewater Neighborhood - Final Payment Background The City of Arden Hills awarded Amt Construction Company, Inc. of Hugo, MN the 2004 . Pavement Management Program on June 28,2004 for a total contract amount of $1,059,189.76. Change Order #1 was approved by the Council on December 13, 2004 for an amount of $34,170.00 increasing the contract amount by $34,170.00 to $1,093,359.76 and Change Order #2 was approved by the Council on August 29, 2005 for an amount of $55,607.00 increasing the contract amount by $55,607.00 to $1,148,966.67. Payment #1 - #6 in the amount of $1,080,860.92 have been approved by Council. Project Status The Contractor has completed all project work. Recommendation The Arden Hills City Engineer recommends the Council approve Pay Estimate #7 for Amt Construction Company, Inc. of Hugo, MN in the amount of $61,030.17. This is the final payment for the 2004 Pavement Management Program. . , . . APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT PAYMENT NO.7 I FINAL PAYMENT Project: 2004 Pavement Management Program Edgewater Avenue Neighborhood ADDENDUM NO.1 City of Arden Hills URS Copy.....-- City Copy Contractor Copy In~<;tQr Copy $1,059,189.76 $89,777.00 $1,148,966.76 $1,141,891.09 $0.00 $1,141,891.09 $0.00 $1,141,891.09 $1,080,860.92 $61,030.17 I hereby certify that all items and amounts shown are correct for the work completed to date. Owner: Owner No.: Contractor: URS Job No.: Application Date: For Period Ending: ARNT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. 31809367.00101 9/12/2005 8/31/2005 Date: 9 - {.,.~ay-- The work shown on this project and the application for payment have been reviewed and the amount shown is recommended for payment. URS Cor /::ation Original Contract Amount: Contract Amendments: Contract Amount To Date: Total Amount of Work Complete To Date: Material Suitably Stored On-Site but not Incorporated Into Work: Gross Amount Due To Date: Less 0.00% Retainage: Amount Due To Date: Less Previous Payments: Total Due This Application: Co By: APPROVED FOR PAYMENT . Owner: City of Arden Hills By: Date: 9-;'0 t Date: Payment History , Payment . Payment Payment Application Number End Date Date Amount 1 7/30/2004 8/3/2004 $227,906.99 2 9/4/2004 9/7/2004 $495,596.25 3 10/212004 10/6/2004 $191,911.40 4 10/30/2004 11/23/2004 $45,723.45 5 1/7/2005 1/18/2005 $81,808.35 6 7/30/2005 8/8/2005 $37,914.48 Total Payments: $1,080,860.92 . . Page2of9 I Application for Payment: Itemization Schedule: A - ROADWAY . Unit Contract Contract To Dale To Date No. Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount 1 MOBILIZATION LS $36.000.00 1.00 $36.000.00 1.00 $36.000.00 2021.501 2 CLEARING TREE $300.00 8.00 $2.400.00 2.00 $600.00 2101.502 3 GRUBBING TREE $100.00 8.00 $800.00 2.00 $200 .00 2101.507 4 CLEARING AC $2.100.00 0.20 $420.00 0.32 $672.00 210L501 5 GRUBBING AC $2,100.00 0.20 $420.00 0.32 $672.00 2101.506 6 REMOVE CURB & GUTTER LF $3.00 150.00 $450.00 135.00 $405.00 2104.501 7 REMOVE STONE/BLOCK RETAINING WALL LF $8.00 75.00 $600.00 55.00 $440.00 2104,501 8 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY $1.25 7.600.00 $9.500.00 7,600.00 $9,500.00 .2104.505 9 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY $3.00 2,450.00 $7.350.00 2,050.00 $6, t 50.00 2104.:>05 10 REMOVE CONC. DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY $3.00 672.00 $2,016.00 456.00 $1,368.00 2104.505 11 REMOVE PEDESTRIAN RAMP EA $240.00 2.00 $480.00 2.00 $480.00 2104.509 12 SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT (FULL OEPTH) LF $3.00 275.00 $825.00 239.00 $717.00 .04.511 3 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) LF $2.00 975.00 $1.950.00 912.00 $1,824.00 2104.513 14 SALVAGE SIGN TYPE C EA $25.00 9.00 $225.00 9.00 $225.00 2104.523 15 SALVAGE SIGN. STREET SIGN EA $26.00 2.00 $52.00 2.00 $52.00 2104.523 16 SALVAGE MAILBOX EA $54.00 43.00 $2,322.00 43.00 $2,322.00 2104.523 17 REINSTALL PRIVATE LANDSCAPING LS $1,500.00 1.00 $1.500.00 0.00 $0.00 18 SALVAGE PRIVATE LANDSCAPING LS $1,200.00 1.00 $1.200.00 0.00 $0.00 19 HAUL SALVAGE MATERIAL LS $500.00 1.00 $500.00 1.00 $500.00 2104.601 20 COMMON EXCAVATION (P) CY $11.46 7,763.00 $88,963.98 7,763.00 $88,963.98 2105.501 21 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION (EV) CY $11.46 150.00 $1,719.00 150.00 $1,719.00 2105.507 22 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (CV) (P) CY $19.78 2.616.00 $51,744.48 2.616.00 $51,744.48 2105.522: 23 COMMON BORROW (LV) CY $6.00 100.00 $600.00 150.00 $900.00 2105.523 24 TOPSOIL BORROW (LV) CY $9.00 150.00 $1,350.00 552.00 $4,968,00 2105.5.25 25 COMMON LABORER HR $55.00 40.00 $2.200.00 38.00 $2,090.00 _350' Page 3 019 Unit Contract Contract To Date To Date ~ No. Rem Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount 26 UNILOADER . SKIDSTEER HR $72.00 40.00 $2,880.00 38.00 $2.736.00 2l23.505 27 DOZER HR $112,00 40.00 $4,480.00 32.00 $3,584.00 . 2123.509: 28 T ANDUM DUMP TRUCK HR $70.00 40.00 $2,800.00 24.00 $1,680.00 2123.510 29 FRONT END LOADER HR $118.00 40.00 $4,720.00 24.00 $2.832.00 2123.514 30 TRACTOR MOUNTED BACKHOE HR $90.00 40.00 $3.600.00 0.00 $0.00 2.123.501 31 STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM) HR $125.00 35.00 $4,375.00 32.00 $4.000.00 2123.610 32 AGGREGATE BASE. CLASS 5 TON $10.30 500.00 $5,150.00 1.013.00 $10,433.90 2211-'>01 33 AGGREGATE BASE (CV). CLASS 5 (P) CY $25.62 1,975.00 $50.599.50 1,975.00 $50.599.50 2211.503 34 CONCRETE PAVEMENT SY $27.00 1.375.00 $37.125.00 1,286.00 $34.722.00 ""'''" 35 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE CY $83.00 25.00 $2.075.00 0.00 $0.00 :2301.511 36 STRUCTURALCONCRETE,HE CY $91.00 205.00 $18,655.00 214.00 $19.474.00 2301.513 37 REINFORCEMENT BARS (EPOXY COATED) LB $1.00 1.000.00 $1.000.00 108.00 $108.00 2301.529 38 BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY SY $14.00 2.075.00 $29,050.00 2,483.00 $34.762.00 233l.604 39 6' CONCRETE DRIVEWAY SY $41.00 500.00 $20,500.00 685.00 $28.085.00 2531.507 40 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL $1.80 307.00 $552.60 425.00 $765.00 . 2357.502 41 TYPE LVWE35030C WEARING COURSE MIXTURE TON $41.00 685.00 $28.085.00 695.00 $28,495.00 2350.501 42 TYPE LVNWE35030C BASE COURSE MIXTURE TON $41.00 685.00 $28,085.00 723.00 $29,643.00 2350.502 43 AGGREGATE BEDDING MATERIAL (CV) CY $30.00 50.00 $1.500.00 0.00 $0.00 2451.509 44 ADJUST CURB STOP BOX EA $200.00 5.00 $1.000.00 3.00 $600.00 250(.602 45 ADJUST GATE VALVE EA $300.00 5.00 $1.500.00 0.00 $0.00 2521.511 46 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 LF $7.80 6.185.00 $48,243.00 5.195.00 $40.521.00 2531_501 47 6' CONCRETE DRIVEWAY APRON SY $41.00 482.00 $19,762.00 463.00 $18.983.00 2531.507 48 CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN RAMP EA $600.00 4.00 $2,400.00 4.00 $2,400.00 2531.602 49 7' CONCRETE V ALLEY GUTTER LF $15.00 80.00 $1.200.00 45.00 $675.00 2531.603 50 MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL SY $180.00 85.00 $15.300.00 70.00 $12.600.00 2563.001 51 FURNISH AND INSTALL MAILBOX AND SUPPORT EA $64.00 43.00 $2,752.00 0.00 $0.00 2540.602 52 INSTALL MAILBOX EA $50.00 43.00 $2,150.00 43.00 $2.150.00 2540.502 S3 REVISE SIGNAL SYSTEM SYS $8.300.00 1.00 $8.300.00 1.00 $8,300.00 . 2565.604 Page 4 of 9 Unit Contract Contract To Date To Date . No. Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount 54 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS $2,200.00 1.00 $2,200.00 1.00 $2,200.00 2563.601 .5 INSTALLSIGNTYPEC EA $100.00 2,00 $200.00 2.00 $200.00 64.602 56 F & I SIGN PANEL TYPE C SF $31.00 28.00 $868,00 36.20 $1,122.20 2564.531 57 BALE CKECK EA $6.00 200.00 $1.200.00 0.00 $0,00 2573.501 58 SILT FENCE, TYPE HEAVY DUTY LF $2.80 1,090.00 $3,052.00 700.00 $1,960.00 2573.502: 59 ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EA $100.00 2.00 $200.00 0.00 $0.00 2573.502 60 3'><6' CROSSWALK PAVEMENT - EPOXY MARKING SY $10.00 8.00 $80.00 0.00 $0.00 2564604 61 12" STOP BAR. EPOXY MARKING LF $50.00 2.00 $100.00 0.00 $0.00 2564-.603 62 SEEDING AC $1,600.00 0.30 $480.00 0.50 $800.00 2575.501 63 SODDING, TYPE LAWN SY $2.80 10,186.00 $28,520.80 10,096.00 $28,268.80 25-7S.~ 64 MULCH MATERIAL TYPE 1 TON $130.00 3.00 $390.00 5.00 $650.00 25-75,Sll 65 DISK ANCHORING AC $400.00 0.30 $120.00 0.50 $200.00 2575.519 66 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER ANALYSIS 22.5.10 LB $0.50 450.00 $225.00 400.00 $200.00 25-75.532 67 CONSTRUCTION FENCE LF $3.00 150.00 $450.00 150.00 $450.00 25-75.603 . Subtotal: $601,512.36 $586,711.86 Schedule: B - STORM SEWER Unit Contract Contract To Date To Date No. Item UnJl. Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount CLEARING AC $1,850.00 1.50 $2,775.00 0.90 $1,665.00 2101.501 2 GRUBBING AC $1,850.00 1.50 $2,775.00 0.90 $1,665.00 2101.506 3 REMOVE RCP PIPE SEWER (STORM) LF $15.00 245.00 $3,675.00 166.00 $2,490.00 2104.S01 4 REMOVE CMP PIPE CULVERTS AND APRONS LF $15.00 100.00 $1,500.00 102.00 $1,530.00 2104.501 5 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EA $525.00 5.00 $2,625.00 6.00 $3,150.00 2101.509 6 REMOVE RCP APRON EA $320.00 4.00 $1,280.00 2.00 $640.00 2104.509 7 COMMON CHANNEL EXCA V A TION CY $'2.64 1120.00 $14,156.80 1.500.00 $18,960.00 2105.511 8 12' RC PIPE APRON EA $320.00 3.00 $960.00 3.25 $1,040.00 2501.515 9 2'" RC PIPE APRON EA $440.00 1.00 $440.00 1.00 $440.00 2501.515 10 27' RC PI PE APRON EA $630.00 1.00 $630.00 1.00 $630.00 e"'" ,1 12" TRASK GUARD FOR 12" PIPE APRON EA $260.00 2.00 $520.00 6.28 $1,632.80 2501.602 Page 5 of 9 Unit Contract Contract To Date To Date . No, hem Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount 12 4" PERF PVC PIPE DRAIN LF $3.00 920.00 $2,760.00 600.00 $1,800.00 2502.541 13 12' RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CL V LF $27.00 1359.00 $36,693.00 1,349.00 $36.423.00 . 2503.541 14 15" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CL V LF $30.00 290.00 $8,700.00 284.00 $8,520.00 2500.541 15 21' RC PI PE SEW ER DESIGN 3006 CL II LF $36.00 92.00 $3,312.00 89.00 $3,204.00 2503.541 16 27' RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CL III LF $50.00 133.00 $6,650.00 107.00 $S,350.00 2S03.541 17 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER EA $640.00 2.00 $1,680.00 6.17 $5,182.80 2503.602 18 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE OES 48-4020 LF $240.00 65.00 $15.600.00 92.99 $22,317.60 2506.501 19 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 54-4020 LF $340.00 15.00 $5,100.00 12.51 $4,253.40 250&501 20 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE OES 60-4020 LF $360.00 12.00 $4.320.00 13.66 $4,917.60 2506.501 21 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 2'X3' LF $175.00 30.00 $5.250.00 31.05 $5,433.75 2506.501 22 CASTING ASSEMBLY EA $580.00 19.00 $11.020.00 31.00 $17,980.00 2506.516 23 ADJUST RING FRAME ANO CASTING EA $370.00 12.00 $4.440.00 0.00 $0.00 2506.522 24 RIVER RUN BOULDERS (RIP RAP) CY $160.00 32.00 $5.120.00 48.00 $7,680.00 2511.501 25 DECIDUOUS TREE 2.5" CAL B&B TREE $464.00 3.00 $1,392.00 9.00 $4,176.00 2571.502 (NORTHWOODS MAPLE) 26 DECIDUOUS TREE 2.5' CAL B&B TREE $440.00 3.00 $1,320.00 3.00 $1,320.00 . 2571.502 (HERITAGE RIVER BIRCH) 27 ORNAMENTAL TREE 6 FT HT B&B TREE $310.00 9.00 $2,790.00 12.00 $3,720.00 2571.5In (AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY) 28 DECIDUOUS SHRUB #5 CONT SHR $52.00 71.00 $3.692.00 63.00 $3.276.00 2571.505 (WHITE SNOW BERRY) 29 DECIDUOUS SHRUB #5 CONT SHR $52.00 6.00 $312.00 3.00 $156.00 2571.505 (WITCHHAZEL) 30 DECIDUOUS SHRUB #5 CONT SHR $52.00 32.00 $1,664.00 31.00 $1,612.00 2571.505 (CAROINAL DOGWOOO) 31 PERENNIAL (BLUE FLAG IRIS) PLAN $15.00 70.00 $1,050.00 43.00 $645.00 2571.507 32 PERENNIAL (BEAKED SEDGE) PLAN $6.40 166.00 $1,062.40 60.00 $384.00 2571.507 33 PERENNIAL (BEBB'S SEDGE) PLAN $6.40 316.00 $2.022.40 120.00 $768.00 2571.507 34 PERENNIAL (VENUS ASTILBE) PLAN $10.50 77.00 $808.50 29.00 $304.50 2571.507 35 PERENNIAL (TURTLEHEAD) PLAN $10.50 107.00 $1.123.50 0.00 $0.00 2571.507 36 SILT FENCE, HEAVY DUTY LF $2.80 236.00 $660.80 0.00 $0.00 2573.502 37 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SY $10.00 3.00 $30.00 0.00 $0.00 2575.523 38 SEEDING MIXTURE #30B LB $6.00 18.00 $108.00 30.00 $180.00 2515.606 39 SEEDING MIXTURE #25B LB $14.00 9.00 $126.00 10.00 $140.00 e 2575.502 Page 6 of 9 unn Contract Contract To Date To Date No. Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount 40 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN H LF $400.00 2.00 $800.00 3.78 $1,512.00 .2500.S02 27" - 4006 . Subtotal: $160,943.40 $175,098.45 Schedule: C - WATER MAIN Unit Contract Contract To Date To Date No. nem Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount REMOVE WATER MAIN LF $21.00 510.00 $10,710.00 699.00 $14.679.00 2104.501 2 REMOVE GATE VALVE & BOX EA $420.00 10.00 $4,200.00 10.00 $4.200.00 21(14.509 3 REMOVE HYDRANT & VALVES EA $2,600.00 10.00 $26,000.00 9.00 $23,400.00 2104.509 4 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN EA $1,260.00 8.00 $10,080.00 8.00 $10,080.00 2504.602 5 F & I HYDRANT EA $2,600.00 11.00 $28,600.00 10.00 $26,000.00 2504.002 6 6" GATE VALVE AND BOX EA $740.00 10.00 $7,400.00 9.00 $6,660.00 2504.602 7 l' CORPORATION STOP EA $130.00 1.00 $130.00 1.00 $130.00 2504.602 B I" TYPE K COPPER PIPE LF $12.60 100.00 $1,260.00 100.00 $1,260:00 """" 9 6' x 6' WET TAP EA $4,200.00 1.00 $4,200.00 0.00 $0.00 2504.602 .",,6" DIP WATER MAIN LF $32.00 BOO.OO $25,600.00 802.00 $25.664.00 11 INSULATION SY $26.00 120.00 $3.120.00 8.00 $208.00 2504.604 12 WATER MAIN FmlNGS LB $3.20 700.00 $2,240.00 617.00 $1,974.40 2504.620 Subtotal: $123,540.00 $114,255.40 Schedule: 0 - SANITARY SEWER Unit Contract Contract To Date To Date No. Item Unit Price Quantjty Amount Quantity Amount 1 REMOVE VCP PIPE SEWER (SANITARY) LF $21.00 160,00 $3,360.00 319.00 $6,699.00 2104.501 2 TRENCHLESS SANITARY SEWER RELINING LF $31.00 4500.00 $139,500.00 4,500.00 $139.500.00 """"" (8'CIPP) 3 4" PVC SANITARY SERVICE LF $21.00 150.00 $3.150.00 96.00 $2,016.00 """"" 4 CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EA $1,600.00 1.00 $1,600.00 1.00 $1,6Q0.00 2504.602 MANHOLE 5 EXTRA DEPTH MANHOLE LF $200.00 2.00 $400.00 14.34 $2,868.00 2506.506 6 8' PVC SOR 26, 0' -10' LF $42.00 13.00 $546.00 27.00 $1,134.00 2503.603 . 8" PVC SDR 26, 10' - 12' LF $52.00 205.00 $10,660.00 112.50 $5,850.00 .506 8 8' PVC SDR 26,12' .14' LF $63.00 56.00 $3,528.00 228.00 $14.364.00 Page 7 of 9 Unit Contract Contract To Date To Date No. Rem Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount ,,"'- 9 S' PVCSDR 26, 16' -18' LF $80.00 5.00 $400.00 11.00 $880.00 . 2506.506 10 STANDARD MANHOLE 0' - 10' EA $2,300.00 1.00 $2.300.00 1.00 $2.300.00 2506.508 11 MANHOLE SEALING GAL $31.00 250.00 $7,750.00 0.00 $0.00 Subtotal: $173,194.00 $177,211.00 Schedule: E - CHANGE ORDER #1 Unit Contract Contract To Date To Date No. Rem Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount 1 6' OIP WATER MAIN LF $32.00 490.00 $15.680.00 490.00 $15,680.00 25114.603 2 l' TYPE K COPPER PIPE LF $12.60 250.00 $3,150.00 250.00 $3.150.00 2504.602 3 1" CORPORATION STOP EA $130.00 13.00 $1,690.00 13.00 $1.690.00 2504.602 4 REMOVE WATER MAIN LF $21.00 650.00 $13,650.00 650.00 $13.650.00 2104.501 Subtotal: $34,170.00 $34.170.00 Schedule: F - CHANGE ORDER #2 . Unit Contract Contract To Date To Date No. Rem Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount REMOVE CURB STOP & BOX EA $55.00 14.00 $770.00 14.00 $770.00 2104.509 2 RECONNECT WATER SERVICE EA $275.00 14.00 $3,850.00 14.00 $3,850.00 2504"" 3 1" CURB STOP EA $165.00 14.00 $2,310.00 14.00 $2,310.00 ""''''' 4 TEMPORARY WATER SERVICES EA $825.00 21.00 $17,325.00 21.00 $17,325.00 251l4.602 5 REPAIR OUTSIDE WATER SPIGOTS EA $165.00 6.00 $990.00 6.00 $990.00 251)4.602 6 WATERMAIN FITTINGS LBS $3.20 700.00 $2,240.00 59B.00 $1,913.60 2504620 7 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN EA $1,260.00 4.00 $5.040.00 3.40 $4.284.00 2504.602 8 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION CY $11.46 1700.00 S19,482.00 1693.00 $19,401.78 2105.50-7 9 48" MANHOLE CATCHBASIN LF $240.00 15.00 $3,600.00 15.00 $3.600.00 2506501 Subtotal: $55.607.00 $54,444.38 Grand Total: $1,093,359.76 $1.141.891.09 . Page 8 of 9 . " '" ., c .. ~ lC 1::3 ~ ro ~"OON~~~O~ >o-=+r--:-<riCSLril';-o::t mgO(()(()""''-~~ ~ - lJ:l_ ""':.O:"!.(l') ~ UI ~. CDlt)'.-"<t&9-~ :EaimY.l-{f)-E?Ef.). (f) I- E '" .. n. .. c ~ rn '5 rn . ~ ~ r- ~ ci '" q ~ '" o ...12 " C o " C-E ii", ~ ., Q.Q. 1000......f'.O ~~~~(<) -o::tC\lOlOoj ~~~~~ ~~~~cri 1O........--.-i4 El)W-'EA-m N '" ci <0 <0 o <0 o ~ o "0 ;; :J: 0 " <f' 00000 0 0 m;;;.!?: 0 00000 0 ., 0 >< cocicio ci .= 0 a:a ~Vf-(f)(h(h 0 ., . ~ lC $ .. ." 0 !Oll)OOoro b CX?"'>l:"",:qOM q >- I- ......OOlO.....o--<i a; .... lD~ ..-0>10..--('-."1" <0 III t-:.~<\!.C\!......"'<t ~ E 0 (()l(}"<tf'- - - .. ;;: OOf'-..-,......"<t"<t ~ It)...........-Ml{) E .. -Efl-Vf-(I}(I}** ~ 0 ::J " (/) l- e 0 ;: :;:: " COOOOoo <0 III 0 r- .t:! E ~"'t:~qoo .,; <>: C\I(t)o-o::tci""': g: E ......o:t-o::tm"'o <- lLlq~---:...---{O :i Ql () .-O(f)(I)..,fui ., :: ~ O<DC\lt-('f')l{} '": ;: ~;;~(;Ef.).~ ~ .;.; 0 0 e 0 Ql E >- III D. ~'" cr:.... .... WlCcr: 0 cr: 5:ww - WZWOO e 5:-encr:cr: 0 >-w~>-oo :;:: <((I) a:ww III " 5::;;[5;::CJCJ 0 Occ/-_zz :; <(O<(Z<(<( ..J . ii "0 OI-5:<II <( Q) OCUJ (/)00 l- e. .c () 0 <l: en <(mOOWLL I- ~ ~HILLS City ot Arden Hills Request for Council Action . Prepared by: GSB Dept.: Engineering Council Mtg. Date: 9,12.05 Final Action Needed By: 9.12,05 Funding Source: Agenda Item ~.I .-~'-ff~m. Street Sil!n Prol!I'am Budgeted Amount: $60,000.00 Actual Amount: $60.000.00 Non Assessable Street Fund Council Action Request: Approve Change Order#! and Pay Estimate #2 (FINAL) for Northern Traffic Supply, Inc., of Anoka, MN in the amount of $10,653.12 for the Street Sign Program. Staff Recommendation: The Arden Hills City Engineer recommends the Council approve Change Order #1 and Pay Estimate #2 (FINAL) for Northern Traffic Supply, Inc., of Anoka, MN in the amount of $10,653.12. Advisory Commission Action: Commission Date Action __ Planning PTRC _ u_ __ _____l':I(jt Applic~ble.._ _ ______ Not Applicable Notapfllj(;able ____ __ . Supporting Documents (which are attached to this Action Form): o Memo/Letter: o Resolution (No. ) o Ordinance (No. ) l8:J Engineering Recommendation: See Attachment o Attorney Recommendation: l8:JOther: Change Order #1 and Application for Payment #2 (FINAL) Financial Implications: Administrator/Staff Comments: . Page 1 of 1 URS AGENDA ITEM 3.F Thresher Square . 700 Third Street South Minneapolis, MN 55415 Phone: (612) 370-0700 Fax: (612) 370-1378 . To: Schawn P. Johnson lArd en Hills Assistant City Administrator File: 31809367 From: Gregory S. Brown Arden Hills City Engineer Date: October 6, 2004 Subject: Change Order #1, Pay Estimate #2 (Final Payment) Street Sign Replacement Project Background The City of Arden Hills awarded Northern Traffic Supply of Anoka, MN the Citywide Street . Sign Replacement Project in 2004 for a total contract amount of$51,620.00 Project Status The Contractor has completed installation of all the original street signs as well as three additional locations which did not have signs previously and two signs for the new Ramsey County facility. The Contractor has also swapped out sign placards which listed CR as the abbreviation for Circle for placards which used CIR_ The Contractor has replaccd posts which had "white rust" on them with new posts and has straightened a number of posts throughout the City as a part of punchlist work and final approval of the contracL Recommendation The Arden Hills City Engineer recommends the Council approve Change Order #1 increasing the contract amount by $3,894.02 to $55,514.02. The Arden Hills City Engineer recommends the Council approve Pay Estimate #2 for Northern Traffic Supply, Inc. of Anoka, MN in the amount of$10,653.12. This is the final payment and no retainage is being held for this project. . SEP--I'lEr2005 12'32 BRW 4W . sm~ Slgu RepIa~ NDeutPro eel City of Al'llen Hills 124s West Hi ~way 96 Arden Hills, lIlN 55112 COlIlractor: Northern Traf: ic Supply AQoka. MN Appmved By: City of Arden Hills . 612 373 6522 CHANGE ORDER NO.1 URS Engineer. URs Colponujon Thresber SqtI8I.'e Bui1dillg 700 Third Street South MinneapQijs. MN SS415 Approved // By: ,L5~<<- NOrtlwn TmfflCS1lpp1y ~ APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT PAYMENT NO. 2/ FINAL PAYMENT Project: Street Sign Program . Owner: Owner No.: Contractor: URS Job No.: Application Date: For Period Ending: City of Arden Hills Northern Traffic Supply 37951-005-0101 9/6/2005 8/26/2005 Original Contract Amount: Contract Amendments: Contract Amount To Date: Total Amount of Work Complete To Date: Material Suitably Stored On-Site but not Incorporated Into Work: Gross Amount Due To Date: Less 5.00% Retainage: Amount Due To Date: Less Previous Payments: Total Due This Application: $51,620.00 $0.00 $51,620.00 $55,514.02 $0.00 $55,514.02 $0.00 $55,514.02 $44,860.90 $10,653.12 I hereby certify that all items and amounts shown are correct for the work completed to date_ Contractor: Northern Traffic Supply. P~u.~ . By: Date: 1'- 2 ~CJS The work shown on this project and the application for payment have been reviewed and the amount shown is recommended for payment. By: /) ~</ Date: 7- b'O~ APPROVED FOR PAYMENT Owner: City of Arden Hills By: Date: . . . . Payment History Payment Number 1 Payment Application Date 12/13/2004 Payment End Date 12/3/2004 Amount $44,860.90 Total Payments: $44,860.90 Application for Payment: Itemization Schedule: A - Signage . Unit Contract Contract To Date To Date No. Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount RURAL ROADWAY SIGNS, 9" WIDTH, REFLECTIVE SHEETING & 6" 3M SCOTCHLlTE VIP GRADE REFLECTIVE SHEETING LEGEND, AS PER SIGN SPECIFICATIONS fY'I3/8" $30.454.17 1 BORDER) EA $33.95 800.00 $27,160.00 897.03 2021.501 ANCHOR POSTS. 2.114" x 2-1/4" x4' 2 AS PER SPECIFICATION EA $11.15 200.00 $2,230.00 205.00 $2,285.75 2101502 3 2"x2' 0.0. (12.GA) GALVANIZED POST LF $2.63 2,800.00 $7,364.00 2,870.00 $7,548.10 2101.507 4 MPJ SOIL STABILIZERS EA $23.30 20.00 $466.00 20.00 $466.00 2103.1301 INSTALLATION OF SIGNS, POSTS, 5 ANCHORS AND HARDWARE EA $72.00 200.00 $14,400.00 205.00 $14,760.00 2103.601 Subtotal: $51,620.00 $55,514.02 Grand Total: $51,620.00 $55,514.02 . . . . . Application for Payment: Itemization Summary Contract Schedule Amount To Date Amount of Work Completed A - SIGNAGE $51,620.00 $55,514.02 Grand Total: $51,620.00 $55,514.02 . . . ~ ~HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: Agenda Item 4.A. September 8, 2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Michelle Wolfe, City Administrator FROM: Schawu Johnson, Assistant to the City Administrator SUBJECT: Discussion Regarding Ramsey County Sheriffs Department Vehicle Pursuit Policy Bob Fletcher, Ramsey County Sheriff, will be in attendance at the September 12th mecting to provide an overview of the Sheriffs Department's vehicle pursuit policy and answer any questions or concerns that the City Councilmember's may have regarding this issue. \\Mctro-inet.uslArdenlhllslAdrninlAssistant City AdministratorlMemo's and Letters\2005\Bob Fletcher-9-12- 05.DOC e Prepared by: PH ~ Dept.: Com. Dev. Council Mtg. Date: 9/12/2005 Final Action Needed By: 9/12/2005 ~ ..-A~ HILLS City ot Arden Hills Request for Council Action Agenda ltem.~WB PC #01-05: Chesapeake Cos., 1 vear Extension of Master Plan PUD Budgeted Amount: $0.00 Actual Amount: $0.00 Funding Source: N/A Council Action Request: Consider the applicant's request for a one year extension of their existing Master Plan PUD. Staff Recommendation: Approve the requested one-year extension subject to the 14 conditions of approval as stated in the staff report date 9/12/05. Advisory Commission Action: Commission Planning PTRC Date Action Not Applicable NotApplicabie Not applicable Supporting Documents (which are attached to this Action Form): e [8J Memo/Letter: Staff Report to the City Coundil- 9/12/05 D Resolution (No. ) D Ordinance (No. ) D Engineering Recommendation: D Attorney Recommendation: DOther: Financiallmptications: Administrator/Staff Comments: e Page 1 of 1 . ~ ~~HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: September 12, 2005 Agenda Item 6.B TO: Mayor and City Council Peter Hellegers, City Planner .~ FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Case #01-05, Chesapeake Companies NE Quadrant ofI-694 and 1-35W Extension for Mastcr Plan POD - NE Quadrant/Interstate Crossing Requested Action Consider thc applicants' request for a one-year extension for their Master Plan POD. (The Zoning Ordinance slates that "within six months after obtaining Master Plan approval, or within such extended period of time as the council has agreed to" [Sec. 5N6a], the applicant shall submit a Final Plan PUD). . Backl?:round At their meeting on March 26, 2001 the Arden Hills City Council approvcd a Master Plan PUD for Chesapeakc Companies subject to 13 conditions. Condition 13 states that "Due to thc time requirements of land acquisition and securing major tenants, the time requirement for the final plan to be submitted no more than six months after the datc of City Council's approval of the Master PUD be changed to eightccn months for this proposal." It is clear that the Council at that timc recognized that this project would not bc ready for development within the standard POD framework. Subsequent to this approval thc office market fell to its lowest level in ycars and has not since fully reboundcd. Chesapeake has come back to thc Council on three times now for extensions to their PUD. Last fall thc City Council revicwed Chesapeake's request for an extension and addcd new condition number 14, which would reserve the City's right to require an updated traffic study or EA Wand would also require Chesapeake to comply with new development regulations of substantial changes to the City's development regulations are made. Acquisition of the propcrties within the project area was a stumbhng block for this development for quite some time but these issues have now been resolvcd. Chesapeake acquired the ATS Stcel property in March of this year. In addition, Chesapeake has an executed purchase agreement with MT Propcrties for the old rail spur and is under contract to close in September 2006. . \\1\.1etro-inct.us\ArdenHil1s\Planning\Planning Cases\2001 '.OJ-OS Chcsapeake\09- J 2-05 CC :v1emo 01-0S.doc Page 10[4 The property assemblage having been resolved, Chesapeake has been working with Northstar Partners to market the property to potential tenants. Marketing activities include executive marketing letters, monthly broadcast e-mails, marketing material preparations, and even sponsoring a hole at a MNCAR golf tournament. However, even with all the marketing activities, thc office market has been slow to improve. Petcr Carlson of Chesapeake states in his letter that the extension of their Master Plan PUD would allow them to be more successful in promoting the sites to major tcnants who tend to be very risk averse. One of the items submilted with this extension was a bound }rd quarter market update prepared for Chesapeake by their group that is marketing the property. I havc includcd as attaclunents two sheets, one which summarizes the marketing activities, the other is a listing of current prospects (the prospects have a range of different needs, thosc listed include users with a one story 50,000 square foot facility up to a potential two-phase project with a six story and 100,000-200,000 square feet office component for their first phase). It is important to recognize that the Chesapeake Mastcr Plan PUD showed a fcw differcnt plan renditions, one which could include up to two eight story office huildings. This sort of development is prominent at major interstate jWlctions in the metro area and is a much higher quality project than the undcrlying Gateway Business Zoning would othelwise produce. The Gateway Business Zoning District is geared toward modem office/warehousing users and was used to redevelop the area west of Round Lake with these sots of uses. However, while providing good opportunities for modern office/warchousc or officc/showroom uscrs the Gateway Business Zoning District did not adequately plan for the real potential of the Northeast Quadrant property. Granting an extension to the Chesapeake Master Plan PUD not only gives Chesapeake certainty, it gives the City of Arden HiJls certainty that a high caliber developmcnt would be built on the property within the parameters established through the PUD. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval ofthe requested one-year extension (to allow Chesapeake Companies to submit a Final Plan PUD no later than September 24, 2006) subject to the applicant continuing to abide by the following 14 existing conditions of approval: 1. Revisions to thc Proposed PUD Design Standards. The proposed document "Gatcway Business Center--Arden Hills, MN, Proposed Planned Unit Developmcnt Design Standards", revision dated March 7, 2001, be amended accordingly (additions arc shown in CAPS, language removed is stricken): a) Page I, Purpose and Intent, third linc of the tirst paragraph should read, "... consist of A PREDOMINATELY office DEVELOPMENT and supporting ancillary uses... "; b) Page 1, Permitted Uses, strike #1 relating to antennas and add it under Pernlitted Accessory Uses; c) Pagc 1, Permilted Accessory Uses, #1 should read, "Any incidental assembly, repair, processing, CLASS I manufacturing..." \\Mctro-inet,lIs\ArdenHills\Planning\Planning Cases\2001\OI-05 Ches3pcakc\09-12-05 CC Memo OJ-OS,doc Page 2 of4 . . . . . . d) Pagc 2, Permitted Accessory Uses, #7 should read, "Day Care Nursery WITH LESS THAN TEN CHILDREN"; e) Page 2, Lot Arca, Lot Width, and yard Requirements, # I, should read, "Lot Area: Onc acre minimum, NOT TO EXCEED TWO LOTS OF THIS SIZE" f) Page 4, Building Design and Materials, #4, last line of the paragraph, should read, ".. .of the fayade. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS SHALL MEET THE SAME BUILDING MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS AS PRlNCIP AL BUILDINGS. Allowable matcrials... "; g) Page 4, Building Design and Matcrials, #4 B, should read as follows, "Sccondary exterior building materials may bc decorative block (LIMITED TO SINGLE STORY STRUCTURES), integrally colored stucco, or heavy gauge aluminum or prefinished architectural mctal panels OR EIFS (TO A MAXIMUM OF 10% OR THE STRUCTURE); h) Page 5, Building Design and Materials, #4 C, should read as follows, "Synthetic stucco ill' mF&(Exterior Insulation and fiHisfl Systcms) may bc permitted as a secondary matcrial on upper floors only"; i) Page 5, Building Design and Materials, #4 F, should be strickcn completely; j) Page 5, Building Dcsign and Materials, #10 should be stricken completely; k) Page 5, Building Design and Materials, #11, second line, should rcad as follows, ".. .submittcd for sffiffPLANNING COMMISSION review AND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL at the time of submittal for building pcrmitfsf FINAL POD"; I) Page 6, parking Requirements, #3, second linc should read, "...shall be screen cd with a decorative wall OF COMPATIBLE MATERIALS..."; m) Page 6, Loading Docks, third line, should read, "... by means of landscaping which is at least 80% opaque within two years ill' AND by a screen wall..." and n) Pages 8 and 9, Signage, be removed in its entirety from the document for review during the final POD process, with the exception of#2 J, which should read as follows, "Temporary leasing signs and marketing signs will be allowed AS RECOMMENDED TO CITY COUNCIL BY STAFF". 2. Maximum Office Component. Maximum office component requiremcnt be increased from 50% to 100% as per the "Variance Requests and Findings, (a)" scction of the staff memorandum; 3. Minimum Building Size. Minimum building size be reduccd from 20,000 square fcct to 6,000 square feet, as per the "Variance Requests and Findings, (b)" section ofthe staff memorandum, allowing no more than two stmctures of this size on thc property; 4. Maximum Building Height. Maximum building height be incrcased from 35 feet to cight stories as per the "Variance Requests and Findings, (c)" scction of the staff memorandum; 5. Parking Ramps/Decks within Front and Side Yard Setbacks. Parking ramps/decks be permitted within the front yard setback and the side yard/comer setback as per the "Variancc Requests and Findings, (d)" section ofthe staff memorandum; 6. Side Yard Interior and Corner Setbacks. Side yard interior and comer setbacks for thc principal structurc(s) must meet the requirements of the Gateway Business District and are not pcrmitted as proposed to be decrcased to 10' on the interior (where 20' is required) and 20' on the comer (where 50' is required); 7. Reduced Landscaping Requirements. Reducing the specific landscape requirements (calipcr inches) outlined in Appendix A, Zoning Ordinance, relating to the square footagc of \\Metro-inctus\ArdenHills\Planning\Planning Cases\2001\Ol-05 Chesapeake\09-12-05 CC Memo OJ-OS.doc Page 3 of 4 floors of a building and building height to rel1ect the proposed requirements in the applicant's Design Standards as per the "Variance Requests and Findings, (I)" section of the staff memorandum; 8. Landscape Performance Bond. A landscape perfonnance bond at 125% of the cost of materials and installation must be provided prior to the issuance of a building pcrmit; 9. Satisfaction of Park Dedication. Park land dedication will be required as part of the final plat, not to exceed ten percent of the area of the property or, if providing cash in lieu ofland, the fair market value ofthc property at the time of approval; 10. Permits from Rice Creek Watershed District. A permit from Rice Creek Watershed District will be rcquired following City approval; II. Monument Sign for the Development. A monument sign at the comer of Highway 96 and Round Lake Road (City property) would need to be reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to construction; 12. Extension of Time to Submit Final Plan PUD. Due to the time requirements ofland acquisition and securing major tenants, the time requirement for the final plan to be submitted no more than six months after the date of the City Council's approval of the Master POO be changed to eighteen months for this proposal; and 13. Acquisition of All Properties within the Proposed Development. Approval ofthe master plan is contingent on the applicant's acquisition of all properties shown in the proposal. 14. Traffic Studies, EA W's, Significant Changes to Development Regulations. At the time of application for thc Final POO the City would reserve the right for an updated traffic study, EA W, or other supplementary documents as necessary. Ifthere are additional development regulations that change significantly prior to the application for the Final Plan POO, the City would reserve the right to have Chesapeake comply with thosc new development regulations. (the conditions have not been changed but headings were added to make the conditions clearer) Attachments 6B-1 6B-2 6B-3 Location Map and supporting documents August 30, 2005 Letter from Peter Carlson of Chesapeake October 4, 2004 - Marketing Activity Summary, Northstar Partners \\Melro-inet.us\ArdenfJiJls\Planning\Planning Cases\2001\OJ-05 Chesapeake\09-12-05 CC Memo OJ-OS.doc Page 4 014 . . . . . . City Council Meeting September 12, 2005 Attachment 6B - 1 '~ ill 11 ,- r "' c:: o 11I- Q. ~aJ 0:2 -' ~ '" ~~;:;:;=: \ ~~;:;:;:c: ~ :I:>>....j;}~ ~ ~~ "- ! O::....~c-v .....:;::='='1'2 Os:I:;:;:; ~ ~ IJ) -.... (; U~2~~ ~ <( - ,. "' . "' ~ o <j= ~ ill ill LL o o CD 0 0 - CD 0 0 co II = ~ Q) OJ 0 0 rJ) o o CD ~-~ , \-0-- ~<:) <Q'I'< X. ~4 ~ o ~ V'J ~:" 1'.H ~ ~~ im _ <t'; ~~tJ ~ ~ 1~ < i 1il Hld~1 I I 11 ~ i ~d n ! .. ~ ~ , , , , , , , , , , o ' , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ~--1i " ~ I: , I' I' " " " " . " ;" ! r , ' ! i / ! / I , ' , ' , , , ' , , " , , ' , ' / ' , ' , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ~~ . ~ U ~~ ~;i ~~ ~23 o~;1 sg $ffi ~~~ , , , ///// //'// ~ , , / / / ~_// ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ "'- '0 ill ..:.. <co \-- " ~ {{ t ;,} , - -5-- J \ \ , , , w ~ " " w " u ~ <- "I' :5 " 0. o. [~rll~l I lJ: Hll'll [L: UIil O~ ~~ til 11: H ~ 1 I 3 ~ co . ~ 1$ ~-- ~ ~ " , " ~ is > ~ . ~ 0 " @ " ~~~"' "0/" -3---~~- ,,,,: JfS83m _L---- <<: ~ <<: Q eLl >=c <: u [fj Q Z j " > ~ o , o ~ ~ "''''~~ ~~~:g c. ~6~~ e; "'-"-00 ~ ~!t&:~ ~ ~~~~ <:> -...... (.,,-;-,:"50 " r.o~,w !~~~ u; ",Z(IlZ '" iSd6g o8~i1S;i;' .... )- WOC>\-,V[u 0 ~:-n,,:,~,:::;':' ~ W[ " ~ o " ";0 ~~ "" ~~ z " <, < " / <:> fij~ i. ~~ "' z < o < ~ "" ~ z "" u [fj [fj "" z 0:(;] roO ~'"' >=C,..., .,..,<<:<< ~~ (l)E-<g Q<<:", ::::~..z 0'-' z. u~s: .(0 ~oo _ o.~;2 -::tl-..rH ~~~ ~ " "" z 0 ::::?::,W I Cl:l~~ ~ H::C--:r1<') " o '" :;; ~ " " !:l . /~"", / / , CITY OF ARDEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: February 20, 2001 TO: Planning Commission Jeunifer Chapnt, City Planner ~ Planning Case #01-05 Master PUD (inclnding variances) Chesapeake Companies, NE Quadrant of 1-694 and 1-35W FROM: SUBJECT: Request The applicant is requesting a Master Planned Unit Development of the properties located in the Northeast quadrant ofI-694 and 1-35W. . Backl!TOund A Concept PUD and preliminary plat of the properties in question was reviewed and commented on at the December Planning Conunission meeting. The City Council approved the preliminary plat and provided comments on the Concept PUD. With this feedback in mind, the applicant is now making formal application for a Master PUD. To eventually make the proposed PUD a reality, Chesapeake Companies is continuing discussions with propcrty owners on the potential acquisition of parcels owned by Morris Communications, ATS Steel and Burlington Northern Rail (currently unused rail right- of-way). Although not all ofthe properties are currently secured, the applicant wishes to proceed with a Master PUD so that the site can be marketed for development according to approved standards. The applicant has submitted the following information with this submittal: 1. Letter ofIntent(Exhibit A) 2. Proposed PUD Design Standards (Exhibit B) 3. Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) (Exhibit C) 4. Maximum Development Plan (maximum possible development on the site) (Exhibit D) 5. Landscape Concept Plan (gcnerallandscape plan with medium development on site) (Exhibit E) . PUD Master Plan Procedures & Review The Master PUD application is the first step in the PUD approval process. The applicant has already made application and received comments on a concept PUD that is an optional application. The applicant must first obtain Master PUD approval and then make application for Final Plan approval and go through the same process. TIle Zoning Ordinance states that application for the Final Plan and plat must be made no later than six months following Master POO approval. However, Chesapeake Companies has stated that they will not be able to meet this timeframe due to site acquisition time requirements and securing major tenants for the structure(s) before final platting. Staff would recommend waiving this requirement in this case. Special requirements for the Gateway Business District are outlined in Section 5 (M) of the Zoning Ordinance. The following is a review of those components, according to the submittal infOlmation: 1. Allowable Uses a) Permitted Uses. The uses are acceptable by the Zoning Ordinance with the following additional restrictions: i) All antennas are special accessory uses; ii) Offices are permitted as long as they are not less than 25% or greater than 50% of the total floor area; iii) Hotels are permitted with a Special Use Permit. b) Permitted Accessory Uses. All accessory uses identified are acceptable with the following additional restrictions: i) Class II manufacturing is 110t permitted (requires outdoor storage); ii) Day cares are permitted as an accessory use as long as there are less than 10 children on the premises; and iii) All antennas are special accessory uses. 2. Development Standards. a) Minimum Project and Lot Size. i) Lot Size. Single use projects must be no less than 10 acres whereas multiple use projects must be no less than 20 acres, with lots no less than 5 acres each. The proposed project area is approximately 14.6 acres in total. The Design Standards mistakenly identifY a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. This should be referred to for minimum building size. ii) Building Size. The minimum building size in the G-B District is 20,000 square feet of ground floor area with 100 foot width and 130 foot depth. The Design Standards propose a minimum building size of not less than 6,000 square feet, 50 foot width and 120 foot depth. The applicant has requested a 6,000 square foot building size due to the possibility of a smaller free standing structure (ex. a bank) as a potential user within a larger complex. b) Building & Parking Structure Setbacks. Accessory structures, by Zoning Ordinance, are not pennitted in the front or side/corner yard. The Design Standards refer to parking ramps and decks as accessory structures. Therefore, they are subject to accessory structure standards. The applicant needs to have the flexibility to build parking ramps/decks within the front yard within ten feet of the 2 . . " T . right of way. The reduced setback is needed to allow intense and unified development of the central part of the site. The following table compares the Zoning Ordinance requirements to the proposed Design Standards: Setbacks ]'ront Yard Side Yardl Side Yardl Rear Yard Interior Corner Desi'ln Standards Prineivle Structure 50 10 20 20 Accessorv Structure 10 10 20 10 Surface Parkin)!, 10 10 10 10 Zonim' Ordinance Prineivle Structure 50 20 50 20 Aceessorv Structure NlA 10 N/A 10 Surface Parkin!! 50 20 50 20 . c) Building Height & Floor Area Ratio. The Gateway Business District language encourages multi-story structures. However, the maximum building height for the District is 35 feet by the Zoning Ordinance. The Design Standards state a height of a maximum of eight stories. The maximum floor arca ratio (total floor area of buildings divided by total lot area) can not exceed 0.5 by Ordinance. According to Section 5 (M) #5, this can only be accomplished by a structure that does not exceed three floors and meets the minimum 35% landscape area. However, the maximum build-out plan shows a total square footage of 499,900 over 26.5 acres, totaling aFAR of 0.43 (less than the maximum, even with an eight story structure). d) Landscaping. The proposed Design Standards refer to landscaped area within the developable portion of the site, not the total percentage of greenspacc within the development (as shown in Exhibit E). The Zoning Ordinance requires that a minimum of 35% of the total area of the parcels be landscaped. Within the developable portion of the site, 2.35 acres oflandscaping have been provided (or 9% of the developable area). However, the total site contains an additional 11.9 acres of permanent greenspace (wetlands and ponds), totaling 45% of the entire sitc area. In total, 54% of the entire site is considcred landscaped area (14.25 acres), exceeding the minimum Zoning Ordinance requirement. Certain requirements for landscape types are identified in Appendix A ofthe Zoning Ordinance. The following table outlines the landscape requirements from the Zoning Ordinance, in comparison to the requirements outlined in the Applicant's Design Standards: Vegelation Type 8'hi h 18" hi h 24'1 hi h Proposed Desi n Standards 211 cali r 1-1 1/2" cali er 6'hi h 18" hi h . Deciduous Oversto Trees Deciduous Ulldersto Trees Coniferous Trees U ri ht Shrubs--srnall U ri hI Shrubs--rnediurn 3 Appendix A also outlines minimum landscaping requirements relating to the square footage of the floors of a building and the building height. The maximum buildout plan identifies 499,900 square feet ofbuilding area. The area (499,900), divided by 320, requires 1562 minimum total caliper inches for this plan. Appendix A also outlines required percentages of trees at various caliper inches according to the building height. For buildings over 5 stories in height, 30% must be 2.0" to 3.0", 50% must be 3.5" to 4.0" and 20% must be 4.5" to 5.0". However, the applicant has stated that landscape standards and practices have changes significantly over the last decade which is why differing Design Standards have been proposed. One of the changes involves ongoing recommendations from horticultural, forestry 'and nursery professionals to plant smaller overstory and understory trecs due to significant local shortages of commonly planted varieties and sizes oftrees (2 to 5 inch caliper for overstory and I 112 to 3 inch caliper for understory) and to minimize transplant shock and tree loss. Smaller trees are easily handled, less susceptible to planting damage, more adaptable to their environment and less likely to decline or die. A landscape performance bond at 125% of the cost of materials and installation must be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit. The proposed PUD will also require replatting of all of the properties into one developable property, requiring park land dedication by the Subdivision Ordinance requirements. Section 22-9 of the City Code requires dedication ofland or cash or both, not to exceed ten percent of the area of the property or the fair market value ofthe property at the time of project approval. Park land dedication should be easily satisfied through the preservation of 54% of the site as landscape area. . e) Building Exteriors. The Design Standards identify primary (brick, stone, glass integrally colored architectural precast) and secondary (decorative block, integrally colored stucco, heavy guage aluminum, prefinished architectural metal) exterior building materials which are acceptable by the Zoning Ordinance and will compliment surrounding buildings. All service entrance areas and loading docks, mechanical equipment and trash handling devices are proposed to be screened to match the building materials, as required by Ordinance. 1) Parking. The Design Standards propose to meet the Ordinance requirements for individual parking space size and aisle width. Parking areas will also be screened. All off-street parking areas will have a paved surface, be curbed and accessible to a public street. The Design Standards propose a parking ratio of one space per 200 square feet of floor area, one of the stricter parking requirements in the Ordinance, with the stipulation that those uses requiring additional parking by Ordinance will be required to adhere to the Ordinance. Landscape islands of approximately ten percent ofthe total surfaced parking area, are required by Ordinance and outlined in the landscaping section of the Design Standards. . 4 ,.. ~ g) Traffic Impact Study. A traffic study for the District was completed by BRW in 1998, analyzing potential development and still keeping Highway 96 and Round Lake Road within design capacity. The conclusion was that the roadway could accommodate 1,100 additional trips in the afternoon peak hours. The maximum buildout plan was evaluated by the applicant's engineers, SEH, during the Concept POO phase and found that the maximum number of trips generated during this time, as a result of this development, would be 675 trips. - h) Signs. All proposed signs must comply with the City's Sign Ordinance, Schedule VII, business and industrial districts and Section VI, special regulations for multiple occupancy structures and planned unit developments. The following proposed signs conflict with the Sign Ordinance: i) A monument sign on the comer of Highway 96 and Round Lake Road, with the wording "Gateway Business Park". Signs are not permitted in the road right-of-way. Since the applicant is proposing to locate this sign on the City's property, the City would have to agree that a sign is permissible and the City would have to determine the standards to which the sign would be constructed; ii) Wall signs will be 10% ofthe building fayade, not to exceed 100 square feet in area. The Design Standards calculate allowable area of wall signs in a different manner; and iii) Temporary leasing and marketing signs will only be allowed up to six months following issuance of the certificate of occupancy or when 85% of the units are sold or rented, whichever is earlier. The' applicant does not believe that they can successfully market the site and meet this requirement. They would like to have the opportunity to utilize this type of sign on an ongoing basis. The Sign Ordinance is proposed to be revised in its entirety in the near future. This issue has been raised by other property management companies within the City and it will be addressed in the Ordinance re;"ision. Staff suggests that no action be taken on this item until the Sign Ordinance is revised or final POO application is made, whichever comes first. i) Lighting. The Zoning Ordinance requires that all sources of illumination be hooded, concealed or controlled in a manner so as not to be visible from adjoining lots, streets or highways or residential areas east and south of Round Lake. The Design Standards meet these requirements. i) Pedestrian Circulation. The City has identified a potential pedestrian trail along Round Lake, connecting to this property and possibly across the railway bridge to New Brighton. The parkland dedication rcquired as part of the replatting the property for this project is proposed to be partially utilized for pedestrian circulation. This will be a requirement at the time of development of this property. - j) Drainage, Wetlands and Flood Plain. The Engineer's comments (Exhibit F) state that the applicant has met all of the requirements stated earlier in the 5 Concept PUD. The applicant has submitted a full EA W, with comments received by the Minnesota Department of Natura] Resources, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Historica] Society. This document includes a map of existing conditions, showing all significant natura] features, and grading, utility and erosion control plan. Development of the project will require a limited amount of wetland encroachment. Proposed mitigation includes 2:] replacement of the impacted wetland with on-site ponding. A permit will be required from Rice Creek Watershed District. k) Shoreland Ordinance. The subject property is located in the Shoreland Management area, per the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The City Code, in Chapter 20.5-22, subpart 12 (a) defines a Shoreland as land located within 1,000 feet from the ordinary high water mark of a lake, pond or f1owage. The subject property is within ],000 feet of Round Lake, a DNR protected water. The City Code, in Chapter 20.5-47 (a)#1 permits the selective removal of natural vegetation, provided that sufficient vegetative covers remains to screen cars, dwellings and other structures when viewed from the water. Grading and excavation is allowed in a shoreland area, as long as the following conditions are satisfied: i) The smallest amount of bare ground is exposed for as short a time as feasible; Temporary ground cover, such as mulch, is used and permanent ground cover, such as sod, is established; Methods to prevent erosion and trap sediments are employed; and Fill is stabilized to accepted engineering standards, approved by the City Engineer. . ii) iii) iv) I) Easements & Utilities. There are a total of eight easements on the site. Utility lines are required to be underground in all development within the Gateway Business District by the Zoning Ordinance. There are abandoned water and sewer lines running east to west through the property. There is also an abandoned gas main filled (presumed) with concrete running north to south across the west edge ofthe property. Variance Procedures and Review The Gateway Business District was, ".. .established specifically to provide a flexible framework for the development of the area of the City generally located in the northeast quadrant of the interchange at 1-694 and 1-35W". The purpose of a POO is to relax the strict application of standard zoning and subdivision requirements to realize benefits of custom site design (i.e. preserving open space, ctc.). Howcver, the Zoning Ordinance language is vague regarding flexibility of standards within a PUD. Therefore, past PUDs have been evaluated according to the underlying ,4 6 ~ . . . zoning and proposed "flexibility" to the Zoning Ordinance language has been addressed through a variance review as a part ofthe POO. 1. City Requirements Section Vill, D, 4, c and d, of the City's Zoning Ordinance state that, "Adherence to the provisions of this ordinance is required, except for special cases which arise because of the configuration of a particular parcel. The condition shall not have been created by the landowner. A variance or variances of a side of a lot.. the shape of the lot or the unusual terrain prohibit reasonable development equivalent to that which would be permitted without variance on a similar size lot located in the same district, but which lot has no unusual configmation. Economic conditions alone shall not be grounds for a variance, In no case shall the granting of a variance impair lbe health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the public, nor will it be contrary to the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan, the official map or this or any other ordinance of the City". 1. Requested Variances and Findings To avoid redundancy, each variance request does not impair the health, safety, comfort or general welfare of the public. Each request also meets the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Gateway Business Zoning District by allowing, "... development that will create an attractive environment and a positive image for the site..." and". ..promoting high quality, unified, large-scale development...". The rcquested variances may be summarized as follows: a) Maximum office component requirement be increased from 50% to 100% (Zoning Ordinance Section 5 (M) #3 (a)). I. A traffic study completed for the District, outlining maximum traffic by a certain type of build out, and the Welsh Development was rcstricted in its use, with approvals for variances (P.c. #97-06) for less office space and greater warehouse. These restrictions have been put in place so that the future development of the comer property could increase the amount of permitted office space and have a prominent image; and 11. The proposed use is a reasonable use for the property and can be accommodated due to regulations placed on other developments in the District in the past. b) Minimum building size reduced from 10,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet (Zoning Ordinance Section 5 (M) #5 (a) #4 (a)). I. The applicant is requesting a smaller building size for marketing reasons. Depending on the tenants, buildings may be on individual parcels or part of a larger whole. The applicant wants the flexibility of marketing the site to potentially smaller tenants (ex. banks) within a predominately office-oriented complex; and 11. The proposed building size is reasonable for the uses being proposed and flexibility in building size should be permitted to allow for, ".. .mix, relationship and intensity of uses and buildings (that) will be compatible and complimentary both internally and with adjacent uses". 7 c) Maximum building height be increased from 35 feet to eight stories (Zoning Ordinance Section 5 (F)) and to accommodate proper wall signage at a height to be determined duringfinal design. i. It was the intent of the Gateway Business District to have the comer ofI694 and 135W display prominent office building(s). The Zoning Ordinance states that, ".. .multi-story buildings will be encouraged..." within the District; and Il. The proposed use is reasonable for the District and should be established according to the vision outlined by the Gateway Business Zoning District. d) Parking ramps/decks be permitted within the front yard setback (10' where not currently permitted) and the side yard/corner setback (20' where not currently permitted) (Zoning Ordinance Section 5 (F)). i. The Zoning Ordinance does not define parking ramps/decks nor does it allow for accessory structures in thc front yard setback. The Design Standards define these structures as accessory structures. The proposed parcel fronts onto many public streets. The best location for large parking stmctures is out of view from the prominent comer of I35W and 1694, although this is considered the "front" of the property; and II. The applicant needs to have the flexibility to build parking ramps/decks in the front yard within ten feet of the right of way. The reduced setback is needed to allow intense and unified development of the central part of the site, where it is developable, and preserve the rest of the site. e) Side yard setbacks Jar the principal structure(s) be decreased to 10' on the interior (where 20' is required) and 20' on the corner (where 50' is required) (Zoning Ordinance Section 5 (F)). i, In order to develop the central part of the site as an intense and unified project, the applicant requires the reduced setbacks identified in the proposed Design Standards. The reduced setbacks will also bc needed to allow development of individual phases and any lots replatted for those phases; and n. The proposed development may include shared drives, parking and cross parking/access easements/agreements. In order to develop in this manner, side yard interior and corner setbacks will need to be reduced. f) Reducing the specific landscape requirements (caliper inches) outlined in Appendix A, Zoning Ordinance, relating to the square footage oj floors of a building and building height to reflect the proposed requirements in the applicant's Design Standards, i, The requirements in Appendix A are outdated according to ongoing recommendations from horticultural, forestry and nursery professionals; n. The landscape industry has experienced significant local shortages of commonly planted varieties and sizes of trees; iii, Smaller tree sizes minimize transplant shock and tree loss, often outgrowing and overtaking larger trees. Smaller trees are more casily handled, less susceptible to planting damage and more adaptable to their 8 . . ~I .... ii -;~ . - - environment. Deadline for Al!enev Actions The City of Arden Hills received the complete application for this request on February 14, 200 I. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statue the City must act on this request by April 15, 2001{60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60 day review period. The additional review period would extend to June 14,2001. The City may, with the petitioner's consent, extend the review period beyond the JlUle 14, 2001 date. Lastly, if the City denies the petitioner's request, "... it must state in writing the reason for the denial at the time that it denies the request" Options 1. Recommend approval as submitted. 2. Recommend approval with conditions. 3. Recommend denial with reasons for denial. 4. Table for additional information. Recommendations Staff recommends approval of a Master Planned Unit Development of the properties located in the Northeast quadrant ofI-694 and 1-35W, with the following conditions: 1. The identified uses in the Design Standards must state that: antennas are only permitted as special accessory uses; no outdoor storage will be permitted; and dayeares (with less than ten children) and drive-thrus are allowed as an accessory use; 2. Maximum office component requirement be increased from 50% to 100% as per the "Variance Requests and Findings, {aY' section of the staffmemorandum; 3. Minimum building size be reduced from 20,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet as per the "Variance Requests and Findings, (b)" section of the staff memorandum; 4. Maximum building height be increased from 35 feet to eight stories as per the "Variance Requests and Findings, (c)" section ofthe staff memorandum; 5. Parking ramps/decks be permitted within the front yard setback (IO' where not currently permitted) and the side yard/corner setback (20' whcre not currently permitted) as per the "Variance Requests and Findings, (d)" section of the staff memorandum; 6. Side yard setbacks for the principal structure{s) be decreased to 10' on the interior (where 20' is required) and 20' on the corner (where 50' is required) as per the "Variance Requests and Findings, (e)" scction of the staff memorandum; 7. Reducing the specific landscape requirements (caliper inches) outlined in Appendix A, Zoning Ordinance, relating to the square footage of floors of a building and building height to reflect the proposed requirements in the applicant's Design 9 Standards as per the "Variance Requests and Findings, (0" section of the staff memorandum; 8. A landscape performance bond at 125% ofthc cost ofmatcrials and installation must be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit; 9. Park land dedication will be required as part of the final plat, not to exceed ten percent of the area ofthe property or, if providing cash in lieu of/and, the fair market value of the property at the time of approval; 10. A permit from Rice Creek Watershed District will be required following City approval; I L A monument sign at the'corner of Highway 96 and Round Lake Road (City property) would need to be reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to construction; and 12. Time requirement for the final plat of no more than six months after the date of the City Council's approval of the Master PUD be waived due to the time requirements of land acquisition and securing major tenants. Updates Thc applicant had a chance to review the staff memorandum in advance and provide staff with feedback regarding certain aspects ofthe proposal. Some minor errors were realized within the Design Standards which will be revised and presented to the Planning Commission at the meeting. Notes 1. If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on this Planning Case, then it would be heard at the Monday, March 26, 2001 regular meeting of the City Council. 2. Pursuant to Section 8 (D) #6 (c) of the Zoning Ordinance, "A vote of at least foUT- fifths of the full Council is required for approval ofthe Master Plan". 10 ". . ~I ~ -.. ;', .? ,. . 'fuitOI-OS c.x:I-\If7\1 ^ Jz I"COTlrOR.~_.rEP 14 February 2001 CONSUL T1NG PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 300 FIRST A VENUE NORTH SUITE 210 MINNEAPOLlS, MN 5.')401 612'339-3300 City Council and Planning Commission City of Arden Hills 4364 W. Round Lake Road Arden Hills, MN 55112-5794 RE: 1-694/I-35W Gateway Center PUD Dcar City Council and Planning Commission Members: On behalf of the Chesapeake Companies, we want to thank you for the opportunity to bring the 1-694/I-35W Gateway Center PUD before you and the City of Arden Hills. As we discussed during the Planning Commission meeting on January 3, 2001 and subsequently at the City Council meeting on January 29, 2001, this unique project represents an exciting and challenging opportunity for the City to fulfill a long standing goal: to sccure a prominent and successful development for this important site. As you will recall, we indicated that in order for the project to advance and succeed, it must be a market driven development. We reported that the Chesapeake Companies was actively assembling the property and seeking tenants, and that they would continue to do so after the City's PUD approval process. We discussed that they would not be able to provide a definitive development plan until after tenants were found and their needs, resources and expectations known. We also discussed the Chesapeake Companies' willingness to market and develop the site with an approval based on a minimum to maximum range of office square footages and in accordance with an approved set of detailed design standards. This type of approach has been used successfully in other communities with similar challenging sites. The range of office development being proposed for the Gateway Center is between 225,000 and 499,900 square fcet of gross floor area. The proposed design standards identifY detailed requirements for architecture, building materials, maximum height, setbacks, and landscaping. The current information that has been submitted for your review and consideration includes an Environmental Assessment Worksheet that is based on the proposed range of office development, a site plan that illustrates the maximum square footage allowable under the PUD, a set of detailed design standards, and a conceptual landscape plan. This landscape concept plan is based on a medium amount of office development and illustrates thc requISIte landscaping under the proposed design standards. As we explained in our recent presentations, we do not believe it is beneficial or meaningful to produce a serics of landscape concept plans for a series of hypothetical development scenarios. Rather, we prepared the conceptual landscape plan for the mid intensity office plan because we believe it is illustrative of the landscaping commitment that the Chesapeake Gateway PUD will require, no matter the development intensity that is ultimate! y constructed. When a tcnant(s) is securcd, the detailed site, utility, building, landscaping and other required plans will bc prepared in rcsponse to their objectives and submitted to the City for review and approval. With the approval of the PUD, the developer can market the propcrty to prospective tenants and owners with the necessary level of certainty about the community's expectations and the development costs and the City can be assured that the final plans will be presented for review prior to construction. Again, we want to thank you for your time and consideration, and we look forward to working with the City of Arden Hills as this important project is planned, marketed, designed and constructed. Respectfully, Dahlgren, Sbardlow, and Uban, Inc. ~:;1~~ ~ . -. Gateway Business Center - Arden Hills, MN Proposed Planned Unit Development Design Standards Prepared for: 0..... - Chesapeake Companies 11100 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 766 Minnetonka, MN 55305 By: Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc. Pope Associates .. February 2001 . . . . . I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CHESAPEAKE GA TEW A Y CENTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS PURPOSE AND INTENT The Purpose and Intent of the Chesapeake Gateway Center Planned Unit Development (PUD) is to provide for a compact, concentrated, high quality development. It shall consist of office and supporting ancillary uses, made mutually compatible through a combination of careful design and coordinated public and private investment. These standards are intended to implement and effectuate the objectives of the Arden Hills Gateway District. Where these standards vary from the Gateway District or any other applicable City Ordinance, these standards shall govern. PERMITTED USES Within the Chesapeake Gateway Center PUD, no structure or land may be used, except for one or more of the following uses: I. Antennas mounted on an existing structure, if integrated architecturally into the design of a building, not exceeding five (5) feet above the highest point of the structure. 2. Banks. e 3. Clinics for human care. 4. Medical and dental clinic. 5. Offices, both professional and medical. 6. Hotels PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES Within the Chesapeake Gateway Center PUD, permitted accessory uses shall include the following: I. Any incidental assembly, repair, processing, manufacturing, laboratory, or storage necessary to conduct a permitted principal use, as long as it does not occupy more than 60% of the gross floor area of any building, provided that such use may not exceed a maximum of 50% of the gross square footage of the entire development. 2. Buildings temporarily located for purposes of construction on the premises for a period not to exceed the time necessary to complete construction. . 1 WI ~ ra ~ - .( .,... February 8, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Private garages, parking structures, off-street parking and loading spaces. 4. Project identification and directional signage, both on and off premises. 5. Convenience retail providing service primarily to the tenants of the development. 6. Coffee shops, restaurants, cafeterias providing service primarily to the tenants ofthe development. 7. Day Care Nursery. 8. Dry cleaning and laundry pick up stations. 9. Florists. 10. Health clubs. I 1. Newsstands. 12. Single satellite earth station antenna two (2) meters or less in diameter of a single antenna design, to receive direct broadcast services or multi-channel distribution services one (l) meter or less in diameter and antennas designed to receive television broadcast signals. LOT AREA. LOT WIDTH, AND YARD REQUIREMENTS Within the Chesapeake Gateway Center PUD, the lot area, lot width, yard and sethack requirements for principal and accessory structures and uses shall be as follows (excluding outlots for existing billboard structures): I. Lot Area: 6,000 square feet minimum 2. Lot Width: 50 feet minimum 3. Lot Depth: 120 feet minimum 4. Setback - Principal Structure Front Yard: Side Yard/Interior: Side YardlCorner: Rear Yard: 50 feet minimum 10 feet minimum 20 feet minimum 20 feet minimum 5. Setback - Accessory Structure (Including Parking Decks) 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Front Yard: Side Yard/Interior: Side YardlCorner: Rear Yard: 10 feet minimum 10 teet minimum 20 feet minimum 10 feet minimum 6. Setback - Surface Parking Front Yard: Side YardfInterior: Side YardlCorner: Rear Yard: 10 feet minimum 10 feet minimum 10 feet minimum 10 feet minimum 7. On lots with more than one street frontage, the' front yard setback shall apply to each side fronting on a street. 8. Parking Structures. A new parking structure shall maintain a setback equal to the setbacks required in this section for other structures, exccpt that where such parking structure is adjacent to other parking in a side or rear yard condition, the parking structure may have a zero setback. Where a new parking structure is adjacent to an existing use in a side or rear yard condition, the parking structure must maintain at least a ten (l0) foot setback. 9. Drive-Through Lanes. Drive-through or drive-in lanes are not allowed within the front yard of any building; they must be located to the side or rear of a building. This does not pertain to driveways. - 10. Building Height: In the Gateway Center PUD the maximum building height shall be up to eight stories, not including mechanical and screening appurtenances and penthouse structures. Building height is defined as the vertical distance from the average elevation of the adjoining ground or the established grade, whichever is lower, to: A. The top of the cornice of a flat roof; B. The deck line of a mansard roof; C. A point directly above the highest wall of a shed roof; D. The uppermost point of a round or other arch-type; E. The mean distance from the eave line to the peak of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof. . 3 ~ ~ ....... /~> .:...~.... '. February 8.2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . I I il I BUILDING DESIGN AND MATERIALS I. All buildings shall be designed to accomplish the goals and policies of the Chesapeake Gateway Center PUD and the Comprehensive Plan. Building rnaterials shall be attractive in appearance, durable with a permanent finish, and of a quality that is consistent with the standards and intent of the Chesapeake Gateway Center PUD. Where appropriate, buildings shall carry over materials and colors of adjacent buildings, with the exception of prohibited materials. 2. All buildings shall include the following four elements: A. Accent materials, which shall be wrapped around walls that are visible from a public street or open space; B. Buildings containing office and retail uses shall maintain 25% mlmmum window coverage on each first floor front that faces a street or public open space; C. Complimentary major material colors; and D. A combination of vertical and horizontal pattern designs m the building facade. 3. Any exterior building wall adjacent to or visible from a public street, public open space, or abutting property may not exceed sixty (60) feet in length without significant visual relief consisting of one or more of the following: A. The facade shall be divided architecturally by means of significantly different materials or textures, or B. Horizontal offsets of at least two (2) feet in depth, or 4. Exterior building materials shall be classified as primary, secondary, or accent materials. Primary materials shall cover at least sixty percent (60%) of the facade. of a building. Secondary materials may cover no more than thirty percent (30%) of the facade. Accent materials may include door and window frames, lintels, cornices, and other minor elements, and may cover no more than ten percent (10%) of the facade. Allowable materials are as follows: A. Primary exterior building materials may be brick, stone, glass, or integrally colored architectural precast. Allowable finishes of architecturaI precast are retarded, sand blasted, or acid etched. Mirror glass is prohibited as an exterior material in the Chesapeake Gateway POD. B. Secondary exterior building materials may be decorative block, integrally- colored stucco, or heavy gauge aluminum or prefinished architectural metal 4 I I I February 8. 2001 I panels. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I C. Synthetic stucco or EIFS (Exterior Insulation and Finish System) may be permitted as a secondary material on upper floors only. D. Accent materials may be wood or metal if appropriately integrated into the overall building design and not situated in areas that will be subject to physical or environmental damage. E. All primary and secondary materials shall be integrally colored. F. Structured parking facilities to be architectural precast or decorative masonry. 5. Decorative block shall be colored only by means of a pigment integral to the block material, not applied to the surface. 6. Sheet metal, corrugated metal, asbestos, iron, shakes, plain flat concrete block (whether painted or integrally colored or not) are not acceptable as exterior wall materials on buildings within the Chesapeake Gateway Center PUD. 7. All mechanical equipment, whether roof-mounted or ground-mounted, shall be completely screened from the ground-level view of adjacent properties and public streets, or designed to be compatible with the architectural treatment of the principal building. Wood screening shall not be allowed. Roof-top units to be located in an organized pattern, and be placed in such a manner to minimize visual impact. 8. All exterior trash enclosures or other accessory structures shall be constructed of the same materials and colors as the principal building. 9. Consistent interior window treatments are required for windows that are visible from a public street or open space in offices and multiple residential complexes. 10. All buildings containing non-residential uses on the ground floor shall have entrances that are oriented conveniently to the street frontage and to on-street and off-street parking serving the use. II. A color and materials finish board, elevations, and architectural renderings shall be submitted for staff review at the time of submittal for building permit(s). ACCESSORY BUILDINGS Accessory buildings will not be permitted in this PUD, with the exception of trash enclosures. No outdoor storage of any type other than that for parking employee vehicles during business hours shall be permitted. .~ . 5 Ir;~.,.".. ""1'1' r-/: ,:C:o ,if" . . . February 8, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PARKING REQUIREMENTS I. Off-Street Parking Calculation. Off-street parking for office development shall be provided as combination of surface parking, under building underground parking and structure parking to a ratio of five (5) parking spaces per one thousand (1000) square feet ofparkiIlg gross floor area (GFAx 95%). Parking ratios for restaurants and other uses with higher parking demands are to be in accordance with the parking provisions of the Arden Hills zoning ordinance. 2. Off-Street Parking Dimensions. With the exception of accessible parking spaces, all off-street parking for the development shall have a dimension of nine (9) feet in width by eighteen (18) feet in length. Accessible parking spaces shall meet the current dimension, location and quantity guidelines and standards. The parking aisle dimension for off-street parking areas shall be twenty-four (24) feet in width. 3. Screening of Parking Areas. Wherever a surface parking area faces a street frontage, such frontage shall be screened with a decorative wall, railing, hedge, or a combination of these elements, to a minimum height of three (3) feet and a maximum height of four and one half (4-J/2) feet above the level of the parking lot. LOADING DOCKS Loading docks shall be not located in the front yard and shall be completely screened from eye-level view of public streets and public open spaces, by means of landscaping which is at least 80% opaque within two years, or by a screen wall of the same materials and colors as the principal building. LANDSCAPING I. All land area not occupied by buildings, parking, driveways, sidewalks, or other hard surface shall be sodded, seeded with native grasses and forbes, or mulched and landscaped with approved ground cover, flowers, shrubbery and trees. , 2. At least ten percent (10%) of the total land area within the perimeter of private' parking and driveway areas shall be landscaped (excluding natural land areas). All undeveloped existing natural land areas are to be included within the 10% requirement. 3. Parking lot landscaped islands shall be a minimum of one hundred fifty (150) square feet in area and include at least one overstory or evergreen tree meeting the requirements of this ordinance. The minimum width of the parking island shall be 7-1/2 feet measured from the backs of the curb. 4. Where parking abuts the site perimeter there shall be provided at least one overstory tree per twenty-five (25) feet of site perimeter. 6 5. At least one overstory tree shall be provided for every five hundred (500) square feet oflandscaped area on the entire site. 6. The landscape plan shall include a full complement of overstory, ornamental and evergreen trees, shrubbery, and ground covers that are hardy and appropriate for the locations in which they are planted, and which provide year-round color and interest. 7. lbe following trees may not be used to satisfY the landscaping requirement of this section: Acer negundo Acer saccharinum Catalpa speciosa Elaegnus Ginkgo Biloba Morus alba Populus deltoides Populus species Box Elder Silver Maple Northern Catalpa Russian Olive Ginkgo (female prohibited, male permitted) Mulberry Cottonwood Poplars The following trees may be used to satisfY the landscaping requirement of this section, but only in areas that are reasonably protected from winter wind conditions: Picea pungens glauca Pinus alba Pinus resinosa Colorado Blue Spruce White Pine Red Pine The following trees may be used to satisfY the landscaping requirement of this section, but only in areas that are not on, or immediately adjacent to, a public street boulevard: Tilia cordata Fraxinus mandshurica mancana Little Leaf Linden Mancana Ash 8. All landscaping shall meet the following minimum sizes and planting conditions: A. Deciduous Overstory Trees B. Deciduous Understory Trees C. Evergreen Trees D. Large Shrubs E. Small Shrubs F. Spreading Evergreen Shrubs 2 inch caliper 1-1/2 inch caliper 6 feet height 4 feet height 18 inch height 18 inch spread BB BB BB CG/BB CG/BB CG/BB 9. All landscaped areas are to be irrigated and maintained to meet the requirements of the specific plantings throughout the life of the development. :. \. 7 ~/ ~ r. ~ ~ February 8.2001 II II II II II II I I I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SlGNAGE l. All signs erected on any building or land within the Chesapeake Gateway Center PUD must comply with the standards of this section. A. A Gateway Business Park Monument sign will be allowed along Highway 96. The sign location and design must follow all Gateway design guidelines and be mutually acceptable to the developer and the City of Arden Hills. B. Building monument signs will be allowed to identifY major anchor tenants within the buildings 2. Wall signs: A. Wall signage is allowed on buildings in the Chesapeake Gateway Center PUD within a horizontal band no more than three feet (3') in height, at least ten feet (10') and no more than fifteen (15') above the ground. B. Wall signage may be either: (I) Attached: flat and parallel to the surface of the building and projecting no more than one (I) foot from it, or (2) Projecting: perpendicular to the surface of the building and no more than one (I) foot in thickness. C. Attached wall signage shall consist of individual letters or script logos mounted on the building. D. Box signs or cabinet signs, whether on a wall or on canopies, are prohibited, except for logo signs as approved as part of the overall signage plan. E. Allowable area of wall signs is one and one half (1- 1/2) square feet of signage per lineal foot of building frontage on a public street, public open space, or' private parking area. Each wall shall be calculated individually and sign area may not be transferred to another side of the building, In calculating the total allowable area of wall signage, only one side of a two-sided projecting sign shall be counted. F. The overall and maximum allowable sign sizes shall be as allowed under the sign section of the City of Arden Hills zoning ordinance. G. Temporary signs for the purpose of marketing leasing and build to suite provisions shall be allowed for the duration of the project. The overall and maximum size of these signs shall be as allowed under the sign section of the City 01 Arden Hills zoning ordinance. 8 . I I I I I I I H. All signs are to be reviewed and approved by the Arden Hills City Council. I. Monument signage shall be designed to minimize direct glare to adjacent roadways or adjacent uses. The monument signage shall be of a material compatible with the buildings comprising the park. J. Temporary leasing signs and marketing signs will be allowed. LIGHTING I. All exterior lighting in the Chesapeake Gateway Center PUD shall be downcast cutoff type fixtures. The styles and types are to be detennined by the project designers and approved by the Arden Hills City Council. No light Source may be more than twenty-five (25) feet above the ground. The fixture material selection shall be consistent with the building materials. 2. The applicant shall provide light standard and fixture details, and a photometric lighting diagram prepared by a qualified professional showing light levels, in foot- candles, from all exterior artificial lighting for all points on and within ten (10) feet of the site. 3. Lighting levels in exterior parking areas shall average one half (1/2) foot candle, with a minimum of one tenth (1/10) foot-candle in all locations. 4. Lighting levels in interior parking areas shall average two (2) foot-candles, with a minimum of one half (1/2) foot-candle in all locations. 5. Lighting levels shall not exceed one half (1/2) foot-candle at the abutting property line or right-of-way line, and no direct glare from lighting on site shall extend onto the public street, public open space orneighboring properties. 6. Lighting shall be provided at the entrances to the buildings to provide identity and pedestrian accent. Additional accent building and signage lighting will be allowed. TRASH HANDLING All trash, recyclable materials, and equipment for handling them, including compactors, shall be totally screened from eye level view from public streets and adjacent properties, whether in the front, side or rear, either by being stored within the principal Structure, totally screened from view by the principal building, or stored within an accessory Structure. Trash handling areas, if provided, shall be in enclosed areas built of the same materials and colors as the principal building, with gates comprised of metal. Wood fences and gates will not be allowed. PROJECT NAME 9 . v. ~I ~1. ;- '- . - FebruaryS, 2001 .. III . . . . . . . . . . . . II II iii iii iii II II II IIiI II .. II II II I I . The actual project name for the Chesapeake Gateway Center PUD development will be determined by the developer during the marketing and development of the project. 10 CITY OF ARDEN J1ILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA . RESOLUTION NO. 02-15 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE ADEQUACY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR THE GATEWAY BUSINESS CENTER AT THE INTERSECTION OF 1-35W AND 1-694 WHEREAS, the Chesapeake Companies propose to develop a 225,000 sq. ft, to 495,000 sq. ft. office building at the northeast quadrant ofl-35W and 1-694; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Assessment W orksheel (EA W) has been prepared for said project, and WHEREAS, the EA W was completed and sent to all the required agencies on the Environmenlal Quality Board's distribution list on January 10,2002, and WHEREAS, the reviewing agencies have had the required 30 days to review the FA W, and WHEREAS, responses have been received from the Minnesota Department of Transportation, The Army Corps of Engineers, and the Metropolitan Council, and . \VHEREAS, none of Ibose agencies have made eommenls that find the EA W inadequale or Ihat would require an Environmental Impact Statement, and WHEREAS, the City of Arden Hills is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) to review and make findings of adequacy concerning the EA W. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Arden Hills tbat il finds Ihe Gateway Business Center EA W is adequate and that no Environmental Impact Slatemenl is needed for Ihis project. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS 25'" DAY OFMA:Rt:H, 2002. r<p,,/ "' ,.yN~~STR^TOR . . . . City Council Meeting _____~_ Septe~ber l~, 2005 Attachment 6B - 2 . Augusl 30, 2005 Mr. Peter Hellegers City Planncr City of Arden Hills 1245 Wcst Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112-5794 RE: Intcrstate Crossing - Ardcn Hills Dcar Mr. Hellegers: We respectfully request an extension to the Master POO for an additionallwelve months. Since last year, wc arc pleased to report that we have been successful on several major issues. First, we closed on the acquisition of the ATS property. It was a long arduous process that took almost four years to accomplish. Second, we were able to !:et the abandoned rail cars removed. Third, we have the rail property under contract to close in September 2006, and are proeeedi..!: with the process to have the rail abandoned and the lines removed. I. Status of ATS and Rail Property . A TS Property - Purchascd property March of2005. Rail Property - Executed Purchase Agreement. Working on railroad abandonmenl. II. Slatus of Proiect a) Market is slowly improving with more activity seen by larger companies planning for consolidations and new facilities. Ii) We relained Cushman WakefieldINorthstar Partners to markct Ihe sitc for us. They arc one of the top national firms in the Twin Cities and have been very active in marketing Ihc property throughout Ihe Twin Cities. See attached for a brief summary of their activities. Ill. Master PUD ExtensioJJReQucst PUrt:lQse for having Master J'{jD in placc: a) Modify the limitations of the current Gateway Business Districl zoning. The currenl Galeway zoning limits the use and quality of potential users to nol less than 25% nor more than 50% of the projecls total floor area and a maximum 35 foot building heighl restriction. The Master PUD increases the height to allow for up to an eighl story office building, 100% office use, and other changes Ihat provide more flexibility for a higher quality developmcnt. PUD in place reduces uncertainly for potential corporate user. Faster approval process for corporate user. . b) c) (jOI C:\RLSON PARK\\'AY. SUITE 900. t....lINNETO>iKA, MINNE...<;OTA 55305 TELEPHONE (952) 347-2444. FAX (952) 595-8247 . . . Mr. Peter Hellegers August 30, 2005 Page Two d) PUD defines the development and building guidelines for corporate user. e) We have prepaid for Ihe EA Wand other entitlement PUD expenses which reduces Ihe predevelopment expenses to a potential corporate user. f) Competilive advantage over most sites in competing cities. Our strategy is to continue to aggrcssively pursue quality companies when they come to the market. By having our approvals/zoning in place, we eliminate a significant unccrtainty in tbe analysis from tbe prospcctivc company. In Jighl of the current economy, mosl corporate executives are very risk adverse. They do uot want 10 spend time or money pursuing a site that has any uncertainty or risk. Thereforc, they frequently reject sites if they pose any risk of zoning problems. If you approvc tbe PUD cxtension, it puts Ihe site and tbe City of Ardcn HilIs cfforts to sccure a bigh Quality tenant at an enbanccd position in any compctitive marketplace. Some of the other landowners, developers, and City's do not have these advantages and will have to overcome the issues of uncertainty of City approvals, cxcessive lime to achieve approvals, and additional expense Ihat we have proactivelyachieved. Conversely, if Ihe sile does not have the current PUD in place, it will put Interstate Crossing at a substantial competitive disadvantage. We invested a lot of time and mouey to make the site as marketable as possible 10 the best potential users. At our expense, many of Ihe essential issues have been completed such as wetland delineation, civil engineering, survey, tapas, environmenlal, EA W, and Master PUD. We appreciate your continued support of our efforts to develop Inlerslate Crossing into the highest and best use, quality campus which will provide substanlial jobs and economic benefils to the City of Arden Hills. Extension of the PUD approval places Inlerstate Crossing in an ideal situation to capiure business growth opp0l1unilies as soon as possible in a manner that advances the specific policies and goals stated in the City's comprehensive plan. Sincerely, CMK ARDEN HOLDINGS a Minnesota Limited Partnership ;~~ / Peter C. Carlson Chief Execulive Officer PCC/amb ec: Diane Fredecn . . . City Council Meeting Septclllber 12, 2005 Attachment 6B - 3 *NORTHSTAR PARTNERS Interstate CrossingslA TS Steel Building Marketing Activity Summary August 29, 2005 . Client Name: Chesapeake Companies To: Pete Carlson & Diane Fredeen From: Northstar Partners Marketing Team. Gordie Hampson, Connie Grady, Scott Kummel, Jason Butterfield, Jon Holm Marketing Activities . Interstate Crossings . 2nd phase of "Billboard Postcard" sent to Top 100 Companies . Follow up with companies such as Medtronic, Guidant, Bethel College . Monthly em ail of project e-brochure sent to brokerage community . ATS Building . Mailing completed to businesses in immediate vicinity of building . The marketing team suggests expanding the scope of the mailings and utilizing the attached' . Monthly email to brokerage community announcing short term/flexible space opportunity . . Discussion Items . Medtronic Strategy . Positioning project for 2006 construction start . Pricing - Demolition of ATS Building An independently owned and operawd member of the 111111', CUSHMAN & .,~:,. WAKEFIELD" ALLIANCE . . . . *NORTHSTAR PARTNERS Current Prospects: Interstate CrossinQs Semper Financial - Client has requested a proposal to include price of land and construction of a two phase office project. First phase would be 100,000 - 200,000 SF, six story office project. Client has 2 - 3 national partners involved. Timing for a decision is 12/31/05 and they view the Interstate Crossings site as strategic for their business plan. Undisclosed European User - Company considering a consolidation into the Twin City area. Interested in a purchase of 20 acres for a corporate headquarters type site. Information forwarded to Hoyt Properties. Undisclosed User (Guidant?) - Package submitted to Jones Lang LaSalle who represent a 50,000 SF, single story office user in close proximity to our site. Occupancy timing is August 2006. Parametric Technology - Package submitted to Trammel Crow who represent PTC. PTC requires 50,000 SF, of single story office space by September 2006. The Hartford Development Group - Hartford is attempting to meet with the Mayor of Arden Hills to discuss their plans for the site. ATS BuildinQ Mindware - Lease out for 17,520 SF of storage space. An .nd.ecpendcmly owned and opera(ed member of me 111111_, CUSHMAN & .~~. WAKEFIELD@ ALLIANCE I e . - . Prepared by: T JM Dept.: O&M Council Mtg, Date: 9/12/2005 Final Action Needed By: 9/12/2005 ~ ~HILLS City of Ardcn Hills Rcqucst :f()r_ COlUlCil Action Agenda Item I~'I ,,-,wE""0>, Tobacco-Free Parks & Trails Policv Budgeted Amount: $0.00 Actual Amount: $60.50 Funding Source: General Fund Council Action Request: Review attached memo and draft tobacco-free policy. Staff Recommendation: Approve the Tobacco-Free Policy for the City of Arden Hills' Parks and Trails System, Advisory Commission Action: Commission Date Action PI"nning Not Not applicable Supporting Documents (which are attached to this Action Form): fZJ Memo/Letter: Memo dated 9/7/2005 D Resolution (No. ) D Ordinance (No, ) D Engineering Recommendation: D Attorney Recommendalion: fZJ Other: Tobacco-Free Policy for the City of Arden Hills' Parks and Trails System Financial Implications: Administrator/Staff Comments: Page 1 of 1 . \ ~ ~~HILLS MEMORANDUM . DATE: September 7,2005 Agenda Item 7 A TO: Mayor and COill1cil Michelle Wolfe; City Administrator \:. ~ Thomas J. Moore; Director of Operations & Maintenance ~~, Tobacco-Free Parks & Trails Policy F'ROM: StJBJECT: B.ackl!round At the March 22, 2005 Parks, Trails & Recreation Committee (PTRC) meeting, discussion took place regarding the possibility of establishing a Tobacco-Free Parks and Trails policy for the City's parks and Trail system. Committec member David McClung indicated that he would take [he lead on this project and would gathcr any and all relevant information and report back to the PTRC at the April 26, 2005 meeting. . At thc April 26, 2005 PTRC meeting, Ms. Katie Engman from the Ramsey County Tobacco Coalition made a presentation. In addition, three Mounds Vicw High School Students, Suzanne Florey, Christina Florey and Nicole Holm also made a presentation. The three students are members of Peers Acting to Challenge Tobacco (PACT). At the May 24, 2005 PTRC meeting, the PTRC discussed the possibility of establishing a Tobacco - Free Parks & Trails Policy. The PTRC passed a motion (5-0) stating that the PTRC recommends to the City Council that they give consideration to adopting a Tobacco-Free Parks and Trails Policy for the City of Arden Hills Parks and Trails System. A DRAFT COpy of the proposed Tobacco-Free Parks and Trails Policy is attached for your review and consideration. At the June 20, Council Worksession, Council heard a prescntation from the PACT students. Council directed Staff to bring a draft policy back to the Council at a later date. /\l the August 29, 2005 Work Session immediately following the regularly scheduled Council Meeting, the City Council reviewed and discussed the draft Tobacco-Free Parks and Trails Poliey . The City Council directed Staff to present the Tobacco-Free Parks and Trails Policy at the September 12, 2005 City Council meeting for approval. e \\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\PR&PW\Parks\Memos\No Smoking in Parks Policy II rewrite. doc . . . Memo City Council Tobacco-Free Parks & Trails Policy 2 Implementation This proposed policy only applies to City owned Parks and Trails. This proposed policy would not apply to Ramsey County Tony Schmidt Park or any other future Ramscy Park or Trails located within Arden Hills, unless Ramsey County adoptcd a similar policy. Staff is recommending that onc 'Tobacco Free' sign be placed at the entrance of each City Park. Sign age could be installed on existing poles, fences or buildings within a particular park. Thus minimizing 'sign pollution' and saving time and money on locates and the installation of sign posts. Any additional park signage requests would be submitted by Staff to the PTRC for rcview and then forwarded to the City Council for approval. Trail signage would bc limited to a trail head or the intersection of two trails. Signage could be installed on existing sign posts. Any additional trail SigIlage requests would be submiIted by Staff to the PTRC for review and then forwarded to the City Council for approval. Staff is estimating that 22 SigI1S would be required lor City parks and 25 for trails, [or a combined total of 47 signs. The Budl!.et Currently there arc no designated funding sources for this project in the 2005 ClP Budget or in the General Fund. The' Tobacco Free' signage will bc supplicd, frec of charge, by the Ramsey Tobacco Coalition and the members of PACT will provide the labor to install the signs. City Staff will provide the labor for 'locates' of utilities by submiIting a work order to Gopher-One and thcn physically going out to thc location site to mark the City's utilities. Estimated Staff costs are based on approximately three hours of work at a cost not to exceed $60,50. In addition, the City will supply the posts for the signage. These sign posts are leftover posts from the City of Arden Hills equipment inventory. Some of these posts arc too short for regulatory street signagc because they were damaged by a snow plow, a car or vandalism. While the City madc an initial investment to purchase the posts for a specific purpose, the current condition of the posts no longer allows the posts to be used for the its' originally intcndcd purpose. In addition, 0 & M Staff will seek assistance from Ramsey County Public Works in securing their extra non regulation posts. Ramsey County Public Works indicaled thai they would supply their 'extra' posts at no cost to the City. Requested Council Action Approve the Tobacco-Frcc policy for the City of Arden Hills' Parks and Trails System. City of Arden Hills, Minnesota Parks and Recreation Tobacco-Free Parks and Trails Policy . Policy Statement: Tbe City of Arden Hills is committed to tbe quality of life for all residents of tbe city; tberefore, we believe tbat: I. Tobacco product use in tbe proximity of children, youtb and adults engaging in or watcbing recreational activities is unhealtby and detrimental to tbe bealth of others. 2. Tobacco products once consumed in public spaces arc often discarded on the ground, posing a risk of ingestion to young children and animals and cause a litter problem requiring additional maintenance expense. 3, As parents, coaches, and leaders we are role models, and the use of tobacco products around youth has a negative effect on their lifestyle choices. 4. The prohibition of tobacco use at the City's recreational facilities serves to protect the bealth, safety and welfare of the citizens of Arden Hills. Tobacco-Free Park Policv: . The Arden Hills City Council finds that the use of tobacco products in city recreational facilities, whicb include all city parks and trails, is detrimental to tbe health, safety and welfare oftbe citizens of Arden Hills, No person sball use tobacco products on city-owned -Bfukland,Jlark facilities. open snace, or trails, except within the confines of a vehicle in a d~~gnated jJiuking area or an adjacent public street, This policy will become effective immediately upon the date of adoption by tbe City Council, Compliance Procedures: Emphasis on enforcing the Tobacco-Free Park Policy will be through voluntary compliance, and will include: L Appropriate city-owned parkland, park facilities, open space, and trails will be sign ed, 2, City staff will meet with activity organizations, group leaders and coacbes to discuss tbe policy and to distribute flyers witb the Tobacco-I1ree Park Policy, as well as notify residence tbrough the local media and tbe City newsletter. 3. City staff will make periodic observations of activity sites to monitor compliance. 4, Atbletic associations aud groups tbat utilize City-owned facilities must commit to enforcing this policy during all scbeduled activities, . . - e ~ ~HILLS City of ArdenlIills Request for COlmcll Action Prepared by: MW DepL: CD Council Mtg. Date: 9112/2005 Final Action Needed By: 9112/2005 Agenda Item 'l.S TCAAP Verbal Update Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Sourc;e: Council Action Request: Staff Recommendation: Advisory Commission Action: Commission Planning Date Action Not Applicable Not Applicable Not applicable Supporting Documents (which are attached to this Action Form): D MemolLetter: D Resolution (No. ) D Ordinance (No. ) D Engineering Recommendation: D Attorney Recommendation: DOther: Financial Implications: Administrator/Staff Comments: A verbal update of TCMP will be provided to Council. Page 1 of 1 . ~ ~~HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: September 12, 2005 AGENDA ITEM #1 Work Session TO: Mayor and Cily Council SUBJECT: \ I, \ Michelle Wolfe, City Administrator (i\.V~) September 12 Work Session: Shared Civil Engineering Services with the City of Roseville FROM: Following the September 12 Regular Meeting, staff would like to take the opportunity to update you regarding the proposal to share civil engineering services with the City of Roseville. Staff ahs been actively engaged with Roseville staff in evaluating this possibility. BACKGROUND . The City Council authorized a new position of Civil Engineer a few years ago. The position has been included in the budget since 2004. Last fall, we conducted a recruitment process which was unsuccessful. Then, in February 2005 staff presented several option to Coucnil. These options included: 1. Try another recruitment process a. With no changes to the salary or job description b. With changes to the salary and job description i, Increased salary/title/responsibilities ii. Change to a Engineering Technician position of some kind 2. Partner with a neighboring City for some engineering services 3. Explore a different model for our consulting engineering contract services* *This would involve a model used in several cities, where the contract engineering firm provides a "City Engineer" who keeps an office at City Hall and primarily works out of City Hall. Council directed staff to look at Option #3. We then began working closely with Roseville staff to determine the viability of this option. In July, both the Arden Hills and Roseville City Councils discussed this topic at work sessions, and both Councils directed respective staff members to proceed (cautiously) wilh further development of this option. Since that time, we have been developing a Joint Powers Agreement. e DISCUSSION PCI Ratings for City Streets May 12,2005 Page 2 of2 . At this time, we are recommending that we proceed with this proposal per the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) attached. City Attorney's for both cities have reviewed the document. In developing the JP A, we feel we have reviewed the issues pertinent to the success of this partnership. A job description (attached) has been prepared. In addition, a salary range has been proposed. City of Roseville has evaluated the position and feels the appropriate salary range would be $45,801-$62,558. This is actually very close to where we had evaluated the position of Civil Engineer, which was $46,900 - $62,900. I believe that this is a very promising venture that will provide many of the benefits of a staff engineer, at the same cost, while providing us more flexibility and access to other engineering expertise and GIS assistance. Both cities ackuowledge that we may need to revisit the agreement after the first year, in order to determine if changes are necessary. I believe the compensation arrangement proposed is quite reasonable and fair. If approved at the end of September, we would begin recruitment and hopefully have someone on board at the beginning 01'2006. CONCLUSION If Council is comfortable with the JP A as presented, we would like to bring it to the September 28 meeting for approval. The City of Roseville would be acting on the JPA that same evening. MW Attachments . \\Metro-inet.usl,ardenhills\Admin\Human ReSOlJrces\Recmitment Information\2005'i09-/2-05 Memo RE Recruitment Update.doc . . JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS PART-TIME UTILIZATION OF CITY OF ROSEVILLE ENGINEERING EMPLOYEES THIS AGREEMENT, entered into by and hetween the CITY OF ROSEVILLE ("ROSEVILLE"), a Minnesota municipal corporation, and the CITY OF ARDEN HILLS ("ARDEN HILLS"), a Minnesota municipal corporation, is effective upon the execution of this Agreement by the named officers of both cities. RECITALS WHEREAS, ARDEN HILLS is in need of additional engineering and technical support services; and WHEREAS, ROSEVILLE has a full service Engincering Department and other . technical employees that are able to provide the services required hy ARDEN HILLS; and WHEREAS, Minncsota Statute 471.59 authorizes political subdivisions of the State to enter into Joint Powers Agreements for the joint exercise of powers common to each, and also authorizes one of the parties to an agreement to cxercise powers on bchalf of another party. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually stipulated and agreed to as follows: 1. SERVICES. ^- ROSEVILLE shall provide qualified engineering services employees ("Employees") to perform civil engineering and related technical services required by . ARDEN HILLS. These serviccs include thc following: 81872 o Coordination and necessary updating of Statc Aid system requirements, projects, reports, funding, etc. o Oversight of intrastructure record drawings and mapping. o Coordination of infrastructure replacement and construction, capital improvements planning, development review, project coordination with contractors and consultants, and coordination with residents of ARDEN . HILLS. o Provision of customer service to the residents of ARDEN I IILLS. o Provision of assistance to other ARDEN HILLS staff regarding building projccts, traffic control and management, infrastructure issues, and maintenance management assistance. o Attendance at City Council, Planning Commission, and other City-related meetings as necessary. . o Staffing of an office at ARDEN HILLS City Hall by a Civil Engineer a minimum number of hours as agreed upon by the parties for service to ARDEN HILLS residents. B. ROSEVILLE shall be solely responsible for compensating the assigned Employee(s) engaged in providing technical services under this Agreement, including any overtime wages incurred, as wcll as any insurance or employee benefits provided under the policies or agreements ofROSEVILLE. In addition, ROSEVILLE shall be solely responsible for training, workers' compensation, reemployment insurancc benefits, and other employee related laws, including OSHA, ERISA, RLSA, and FMLA. . 81872 2 . . ROSEVILLE shall retain the sole authority to control the employees, including the right to hire, fire and disciplinc thcm. C. ARDEN HILLS will provide the necessary office, equipment, and supplies for the assigned Employee(s) when holding office hours in ARDEN HILLS City Hall, and will bear all costs attcndant thereto. D. ARDEN HILLS and ROSEVILLE shall coordinate scheduling of work to be perfonned by the assigned Employee(s) and shall reccive prior approval of all scheduled hours to be performed under this Agreement from the ROSEVILLE City Manager or the Manager's designee. E. The assigned Employce will bc under the direct supervision of the ROSEVILLE City Engineer for the purpose of performance review and ,my discipline related issues. It is understood that while the assigned employee is providing services forARDEN HILLS, the employee will be under the work direction of the ARDEN HILLS City Administrator. ARDEN HILLS shall notifY ROSEVILLE of any and all complaints about the services rendered by the assigned Employee and cooperate in the documentation, investigation, and resolution of the same in any manner. F. ARDEN HILLS and ROSEVILLE will participate jointly in the intcrvicwing of applicants and hiring of the primary assigned staff (Civil Engineer), including replacement for this position if necessary. However, the tlnal decision on sclcction shall be made by ROSEVILLE. G. All costs related to training, liccnsing, equipment, and other matters . concerning the professional development of the primary assigned Employee necessary to 81872 3 provide these scrvices contemplated by this Agreement shall be bome by ROSEVILLE. Reimbursement for these costs shall be included in thc reimbursement formula under the payment section for engineering services. 2. PAYMENT, ARDEN HILLS \vill compensate ROSEVILLE for services rendered in the amount of 1.9 times the base salary of all staff, including the assigned Employee, providing services to ARDEN IIILLS. ARDEN HILLS agrees to a minimum annual billing of 1670 hours of engineering staff time. ARDEN HILLS shall make monthly payments, upon presentation by ROSEVILLE of a monthly billing equal to costs incurred for that month. The last monthly bill in a years' cycle shall, if necessary, include an amount required to meet the minimum annual billing set forth above. 3. INDEMNIFICA TION. ROSEVILLE agrees to assume sole liability for any negligent or intentional acts of the assigned EmpJoyee(s) while performing the assigned duties within the jurisdiction of either City. Each City agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the other from any claims, causes of action, damages, loss, cost or expenses including reasonable attorney's fees resulting from or related to the actions of each City, its officers, agents or employees in the execution of the duties outlined in this Agreement, cxcept as qualified by the previous sentence. 4. TERMINATION, SEPARABILITY. ^- This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon thirty (365) days' written notice provided to the respective City Manager ofRQSEVILLE or Clerk/Administrator of ARDEN HILLS. 81872 4 . . . e . . B. Upon termination, any and all records or property of the respective Cities will be returned to thc appropriate City within 90 days. C. This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. D. In the event that any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, the other provisions remain in full force and etlect. E. In the event ARDEN HILLS elects to terminate this agreement, and ROSEVILLE incurs reemployment insurance or other costs attributable to the termination, ARDEN HILLS shall compensate ROSEVILLE for these costs based on the percentage of the assigned Employee's time spent on ARDEN IIILLS work compared to the total amount work pcrformed by the assigned Employee. For example, if 80% of the assigned Employee's time is spent on ARDEN HILLS work, ARDEN HILLS would bc responsible for 80% of the costs. 5. REVISIONS TO AGREEMENT. Both parties acknowledge that moditications to this Agreement may be necessary to ensure an cffective, on-going working relationship. To that end, ARDEN HILLS and ROSEVILLE shall use thcir best cfforts to cnsure the viability of this Agreement into the future. Howevcr, any alterations, variations, moditication, or waivers of provisions to this Agreement will only be valid when they have been reduced to writing and duly signed, and attached hereto. 81872 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Cities ofROSEVILLE and ARDEN HILLS have caused this Agrccment to be duly executed effective on the day and year last entered below. CITY OF ROSEVILLE Dated: By: By: Craig Klausing Its Mayor - Neal Beets Its City Manager Dated: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS By: By: 81872 Its Mayor Its City Manager 6 . . . . . . ~SBV:EbbE CITY OF ROSEVILLE JOB DESCRIPTION ..~- Job Description Title: Civil Engineer FLSA Status: Exempt / Non Union Departmentffiivision: Public Works Position Status: Regular Full-Time -- Accountable To: Assistant Public Works Salary Grade: Exempt Level 2 Director/ City Engineer Prepared By: Duane Schwartz Revision Date: Aug. 2005 Job Summary: To perform complex and complete, professional civil engineering services for the City and its partnership cities including: infrastructure design, construction and maintenance, plan review, and public record keeping of engineering projects. Partnership cities include those where the City has an agreement for provision of cnginccring scrviccs. Scope of Rcsponsibility: ';> Works under the general supervision of the Asst. Public Works Dir. /City Engineer. ';> Receives work direction from City Administrator or designee from partnership citics as assigned. ';> Applies knowledge of State statutes, directives and approved practices pertaining to City engineering. Applies engineering principles, mcthods, and techniques involved in construction, land surveys, and public works infrastructure. ';> Demonslrates written and verbal communication skills with internal staff, other departments, council, and the public at the City of Roseville and its Partncrship Cities. Requires public contact on a daily and continuous basis, requiring a high degree of tact, courtesy, and sound judgment. ';> Has indirect supervision specifIc to current projccts over: . GIS Technician . Project Coordinator (2) . Engineering Technician Essential Duties and Responsibilities: I. Directs or conducts preliminary investigation, design and completion of plans and specifications, and assessments to provide accurale information for implementation and optimum utilization of dollars budgeted for each project. Prepares fcasibility studies as dirccted. 2. Collaborates with engineering personnel in the inspection of all current projects in the City, providing direclion as needed, to assure they are meeting specificalions and schedules. 3. Investigates citizen complaints and/or makcs inquiries pertaining to City engineering projects or conditions and resolves such matters in a tactful and equitable manner. Page lof3 ~SIMbbE 4. Coordinates constmction projects with other government units or businesses in which the . Cily of Roscville or partner City has an interest-.-maintains a cooperative work relationship at all times. 5. Communicates with residents and property owners regarding proposed projects and engineering- related issues. 6. Works cooperatively with devclopers to achieve high quality developmcnt in conformance with City ordinance requirements and sound cngineering principles. Reviews public infrastructure planning and design for private development projects. 7. Analyzes existing procedures and programs to recommend improvements to these systems. 8. Assists in providing supportive technical information to the Council, related boards, and other dcpartments on problems under consideration so the solution will best meet the needs of the community. 9. Keeps supervisor or designee of partnership cities informed of important developmcnts in arca of accountability to insure prompt resolution of problems and stcady progression on assigned duties. Works with supervisor, management, or designee ofpartncrship cities to plan, direct, and coordinate a comprehensive engineering program for replacement and maintenance of City infrastructurc. 10. Directs the acquisition of easements and rights-of-way to assure equitable trealment of all . parties involved. 11. Responsible for maintaining appropriate records of all engineering work performed so thai it will be available for reference when needed. 12. Acts as project manager for engineer contracts with private consultants. 13. May supervise others in the performance of engineering-relatcd duties. 14. Assists in development of Engineering/Public Works budgets, capital improvements program, and monitors annual budget expenditurcs. 15. Directs tratlic counts as required. 16. Performs othcr duties and assumes other responsibilities as apparent or assigned. Minimum Qualifications: Minimum job requiremcnts are a l3achelor's Degree in Civil Engineering and 3 - 5 years ol'related experience, or equivalent. Working knowledge of computer systems including GIS and CADD software applications. Experiencc in municipal engineering is desirable. Valid Minnesota driver's Ii ccnse. . Page 2 of 3 ~SSVfbbE . Physical Demands & Workinl!: Conditions: . . Most work is in a nonnal office environment. Limited Ii fting of twenly five pounds or less is required up to 15% of the time. Travel within the City or region to view projects or attend mcetings is likely to occur two to three times weekly. Therc is some exposure to field or construction site conditions when visiting projects within the City. Occasional attcndance at evening Council meetings and related meetings is required. The Civil Engineer is responsible for divcrse matters, many of which have deadlines and require significant attention to detail. Up to 45% of the timc, work is performed at the highest level of detail and pressure of deadlines. \ \Metro-inet. uslardenhills'v1dmin'ICity AdministralorlEngineering\200 5\Civil Engineer 8-05 Rosed lIe. doc Page3of3 . . e ~ /]'\~ HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: AGENDA ITEM #2 Work Session September 12, 2005 TO: Mayor and City Council ( FROM: Michelle Wolfe, City Administrator SUBJECT: September 12 Work Session: Recruitment Update Following the September 12 Regular Meeting, statJwould like to take the opportunity to update you regarding recruitment activities. Assistant to the City Administrator Schawn Johnson is actively working on the recruitment of four positions: 1. Opcrations & Maintenance Worker The first round of interviews will take place Thursday and Friday, September 8 and 9. We will have a verbal update as to nexl sleps in this process. Communitv Development Director The deadline for applications was last Friday, September 2. Mr. Johnson has reviewcd thc applications and I am in the process of reviewing them. We would like to review with you the process tor proceeding with recruitment of this position. We may also touch on the topic of how we will proceed in the interim, until the position is tilled. Accounting Analvst Finance Director Murtuza Siddiqui has reviewed the vacant position "Finance and Human Resources Assistant" (formerly held by Sandra Berres) and is recommending some changes to the position in terms of job responsibilities, job title, and possibly salary range. We will give you a brief update. Planner With recent notice of Peter Hellegers' resignation from the Planner position, Mr. Johnson has been reviewing the job description and pay rangc in preparation for a recruitment effort to begin very soon. We will also discuss the options we are looking at for how to cover these responsibilities in the interim, until the position is filled. 2. 3. 4. \1,Metro-inet.uslardenhlils\Admin\Human Resourcesl,Recruitment lnjormation\2005W9-J2-05 Memo RE Recruitment Update. doc