Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-25-05 ~r\e-- ~ ~HILLS Arden Hills City Council Mayor: Beverly Aplikowski Councilmembers: David Grant Brenda Holden Gregg Larson I,ois Rem 1245 W. Highway 96 Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 651.634.5120 www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us REGULAR MEETING Monday April 25, 2005 City Vision A strong community that values our unique environment, our fiscal soundness, and our tradition as a desirable ci in which to live, work. and Ia , Agenda City Council Meeting Convenes 7:00 PM Call to Order LEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. April I I, 2005 City Council Meeting 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Claims and Payroll B. Final Payment of$3,508.40 to EnCornm Midwest mc, for the Booster Station Rehabilitation Project. C. Awarding of Tree Removal Contract to S&S Tree Services 4. PUBLIC INQUlRIES/INFORMA TJONAL Those items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be TOuti::!e 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 nonnal sequence on the agenda. Public Inquiries/Informational is an opportunity for citizens to bring to the Council's attention any items not currently on the agenda. In addressing the Council, please state your name and address for the record, and a brief summary of the specific item being addressed to the Council. To allow adequate time for each person wishing to address the Council, we ask that individuals limit their comments to three (3) minutes, Written documents may be distributed to the Council prior to the meeting, or as bench copies, to allow a more timely presentation, Arden Hills City Council Agenda April 25, 2005 Page 2 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Clandestine Drug Lab Ordinance B. Authorizing Feasibility Study for 2006 PMP Project C. Planning Case 05.09, Driveway Variances for 4365 and 4367 Lexington Avenues D. Planning Case 05.11, Karjalahti Variances E. Planning Case 05.07, Covered Front Porches as Permitted Encroachments Schawn Johnson Greg Brown/Tom Moore Peter Hellegers Peter Hellegers Peter Hellegers 7. UDfiDished Business A. A ward Bid for 2005 Lift Station Project B. TCAAP Update Greg Brown/Tom Moore Scott Clark CITY COUNCIl REPORTS A. Councilmember Holden B. Councilmember Grant Co Councilmember Rem D. Councilmember Larson E. Mayor Aplikowski ADJOURN . . . ~ ~~HILLS DRAFT CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 11, 2005, 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 1245 WEST HIGHWAY 96 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Beverly Aplikowski called to order the regular City Council meeting at 7:04 p,m, Present: Mayor Beverly Aplikowski, Councilmembers David Grant, Gregg Larson, Lois Rem, and Brenda Holden, Absent: None, Also present were City Ad.'1linistrator. Michelle Wolfe; City Attorney, Jerry Filla; Director of Operations & Maintenance, Thomas Moore; Finance Director/Treasurer, Murtuza Siddiqui; Community Development Director, Scott Clark; City Engineer, Greg Brown; City Planner, Pete Hellegers; and Recording Secretary, Kathleen Altman. 1. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to approve the meeting agenda as presented, The motion carried unanimously (5-0), 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. March 28, 2005 City Council Work Session B. March 28, 2005 City Council Meeting C. March 21, 2005 City Council Work Session D. March 14,2005 City Council Meeting E. March 14,2005 City Council Work Session Council member Holden requested the following changes: None, Councilmember Grant requested the following changes: Page 5, March 28, 2005 City Council Work Session Minutes, last sentence to read: Councilmember Grant noted they needed to be aware that Council should not be emailing each other as a wav to conduct discussions outside of official meetings, Councilmember Rem requested the following changes: None, IIEarth IAdminlCouncil'M inutesIRegular\2005104.11-05 ,doc ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 11, 2005 2 . Councilmember Larson requested the following changes: Page 4, March 28, 2005 City Council Work Session Minutes, seventh paragraph, first sentence to read: Councilmember Larson stated he was comfortable with the goal of not burdening... Page 4, March 28, 2005 City Council Work Session Minutes, seventh paragraph, last sentence to be deleted and replaced with: "Therefore, the best goal would be to limit levy increases to the rate of inflation." Page 3, March 28, 2005 City Council Meeting Minutes, last paragraph, last sentence to read: He acknowledged the role of the late". Mayor Aplikowski requested the following changes: None, Ms. Wolfe requested the following changes: None. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to approve the March 28, 2005 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended, the March 28, 2005 Council Work Session Minutes as amended, the March 21, 2005 City Council Work Session as presented, the March 14, 2005 City Council Meeting as presented, and the March 14, 2005 City Council Work Session as presented, The motion carried unanimously (5-0), . 3. CONSENT CALENDAR a, Claims and Payroll b, City Hall Summer Hours c. Authorization to Begin the Recruitment Process for Two Operations and Maintenance Department Employees d Authorize to Prepare Plans and Specifications for the 2005 Seal Coating Project MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar and to authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein, The motion carried unanimously (5-0), 4. PUBLIC INOUlRIES/INFORMATIONAL None, 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 2005 PMP Red Fox/Grev Fox Assessment Hearln!! Mayor Aplikowski opened the public hearing at 7:11 p,m, . . . . ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 11, 2005 3 Mr. Brown stated the feasibility report for the 2005 PMP was received by Council on January 10,2005 and a public hearing was conducted on February 14, 2005, The design of the project is nearly complete, Final plans were sent to MnDOT on April 8, 2005 for review and approval to allow for the use of State Aid Funds, The project scope includes overlay of Grey Fox Road, Red Fox Road and Northwoods Drive, reconstruction of Dunlap Street and reconfiguration of the access to TH 51 from Grey Fox Road as well as a cul-de-sac for the west end of Red Fox Road. No sidewalk improvements are proposed with the project. Storm drainage and watermain improvements are included throughout the project area, Councilmember Holden asked if they went with option two would they have to reconstruct the right turn lane also, Mr. Brown replied no, the turn lane would match up to the edge, so the turn lane was an additional cost with this option. Mayor Aplil:owski invited the public to make comment. John Ritt, Co-owner of property at 1315 Red Fox Road, indicated he has owned his property for 15 years and they have never had any issues with access or egress on the property. He stated their first notice of any of this activity was after the last hearing which was las', week of March, 2005, He further noted that apparently the mailings were sent out to an address they used in 2002 and they no longer used that address, He indicated that they have been receiving their property tax notices, but they had not received these project notices, He asked why the project had reached the enormity that it had, Mr. Brown replied in the feasibility report they outlined their pavement management policy and this neighborhood needed rehabilitation and it had been in the Capital Improvements Plan for a few years, He indicated this was a part of the normal process and this area had been identified as needing reconstruction, He stated Dunlap would be a reconstruction and Red Fox and Grey Fox were going to be an overlay. He noted there were drainage and access issues in this area and that this reconstruction would alleviate these issues. He stated fixing the drainage would allow for improved water quality within the City, Mr. Ritt asked that by improving water quality, where the water would flow, Mr. Brown replied the water flows to Bethel ditch, which then flows to Lake Valentine, He noted this project would slow the water down and settle out some of the sediments, which would improve the quality cfthe water flowing in Lake Valentine. Mr. Ritt asked where trucks made U-turns, Mr. Brown noted turns were being made on the frontage road and this blocked other traffic, He stated the intersection functioned, but this was not an ideal intersection, Mr. Ritt expressed concern about access for fire protection and emergency vehicles. He noted if there were cars on the railroad track, it would affect access, Mr. Brown replied any emergency vehicles would access the property via Lexington Avenue or Grey Fox, He noted that was the reason the Grey Fox access was the desirable access, Mr. Ritt expressed concern about the cul-de-sac and if emergency equipment could turn around in the cul-de-sac, Mr. Brown replied all emergency vehicles, including large semi trailers would ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 11, 2005 4 . be able to turn in the cul-de-sac. He indicated street parking would be allowed on Red Fox with no parking on Dunlap or Grey Fox, Mr. Ritt asked if they could not condemn property along the roadside for the pond and keep everything else the way it was. Mr. Brown noted this area rose very steeply and when they were dealing with water, they would be building a pond in ground that was higher than the surrounding area. He noted they would also need to install a large wall with this suggestion, which would be expensive, He stated the proposed pond would be grading a little bit into that slope, but not right into the building, Mayor Aplikowski asked for clarification on the mailing of the notice, Steve Ritt, Co-owner 1350 Grey Fox Road, stated someone in his commercial brokerage firm had faxed him the information after the March 21 hearing and therefore they never had any say for the project. He indicated he contacted the City and changed the address at that time and addressed his concerns as to why they were not notified. He stated the address they sent the address to was 1578 University and that business did not forward the letter to them for at least a month. John Comalo, representative of eight properties in the area, stated he was in approval of the project, but asked for an explanation of the assessments. Mr. Siddiqui replied they would have 30 days from today to pay the assessment in full and if they chose not to pay it in full they could . spread the cost of mill and overlay for five years and for reconstruction for ten years, with interest. Mayor Aplikowski closed the public hearing at 7:38 p,m. Mr. Filla asked for the property which had not received the notice, what process did the City follow for notices. Mr. Moore replied that staff sent the first notice to an address they had received from Ramsey County, When that notice was returned, staff then sent the notice to the utility billing address, He noted this was a standard process that staff followed. It was only after they received the correct address from the property owner, that they changed their records to that address, Jobn Ritt asked if Council could hold off making a decision on this for a couple of weeks until they had the opportunity to look at this in more detaiL Mayor Aplikowski replied she did not believe they could hold the project because it was on a time schedule. Councilmember Holden stated she would not change the way she voted because they had looked at different options and she believes this is the best option for the area, Jobn Ritt asked what options he had since they did not receive sufficient notice, Mr. Filla . replied if they wanted to appeal this, they needed to object to this in writing at tonight's meeting, . . . ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 11,2005 5 AI. APPROVE RESOLUTION #05-27 ACCEPTING PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS FOR THE RED FOX/GREY FOX 2005 PMP PROJECT MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to adopt Resolution 05-27, A Resolution Adopting the Final Assessment Roll for Red Fox/Grey Fox 2005 Pavement Management Program, The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Mayor Aplikowski mentioned that assessments paid after the 30 days from the assessment adoption date will be subject to an interest charge of 7.75%, which is 2% above today's prime rate. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. PURCHASE OF TWO REPLACEMENT RUCKS - VEHICLES #002 AND #013 Mr. Moore stated the City Council and staff began preparing for the 2005 Budget on June 21, 2004, The process concluded on December 13, 2004 with Resolution No. 04-69, adopting the 2005 budget. A component of the 2005 Budget is in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) which included the proposed purchase of two replacement trucks, a Ford F450 and a Ford F350. There were four Council meetings devoted to CIP discussions. During one of those Work Sessions, the two trucks were on display in the City Hall parking lot. He recommended Council approve the purchase of a new 2005 Ford F350, Super Heavy Duty, 4x4 Truck and a 2005 Ford F450, Super Heavy Duty, 4x4 Truck painted according to Arden Hills' specifications and installation of proper truck utilities, at a cost not to exceed a final combined total of$99,187,07, Councilmember Grant asked what was the high maintenance cost and front end repairs refer to, Mr. Moore summarized what he considered front end repairs and that was due to the plowing and the vehicles not being sized to the job they were doing, He indicated that changing to super heavy duty trucks should cut the maintenance cost of the vehicles, Councilmember Grant asked if the vehicle maintenance history had been set up. Mr. Moore replied the Ramsey County maintenance system was in and all oil change or other fluids were measured and registered on each vehicle, He stated that City staff did not have in place yet their own maintenance system but he was working on this program, MOTION: Mayor Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to approve purchase of a new 2005 Ford F350, Super Duty, 4x4 Truck and a 2005 Ford F450, Super Heavy Duty, 4x4 Truck painted according to Arden Hills' specifications and installation of property truck utilities, at a cost not to exceed a final combined total of $99,187,07, The motion carried unanimously (5-0). ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 11, 2005 6 . B. PURCHASE OF WORK TOOLS FOR THE OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT Mr. Moore stated this will be the first major tool purchase for the 0 & M Department since 1986, Currently, tools are replaced on an individual basis and only when funds are available, Over the past 19 years, tools have not been replaced due to a shortage of funds, In addition, 0 & M staff has been bringing their personal tools from home to complete City projects. This is especially the case with any automotive work. He indicated the tools would be purchased from Sears and would be from the Craftsman line. This will be the first 0 & M purchase that does not use the Minnesota Cooperative Purchase Venture (CPV), Sears was able to beat the price of the vendor that holds the State contract, Snap-On Tools. He noted the City Council has allocated $10,500 in the 2005 Budget for the possible purchase of tools for the 0 & M Department Based on the final total cost of $8,945,52 for the purchase of new tools, there would be a cost savings realized of$1 ,554.48. He recommended the City Council authorize the purchase of new tools for the 0 & M Depaliment at a cost not to exceed $8,945,52, . Councilmember Holden asked how much was usually spent on work tools, She asked what would happen as the year went on and other tools might be needed, Mr. Moore replied this was funding was coming out of the Capital Improvement Plan and this was a one time purchase and staff did not expect any other tools being needed, If they needed additional tools, they would purchase that particular tool at the hardware store and this would come out ofthe General Fund. Ms. Wolfe stated it was her understanding that they did not have a complete set oftools on hand and that she did not foresee a need to have a large expense like this again in the near future. She also stated that as tools needed to be replaced, they would be replaced on an individual basis. MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to authorize purchase of new tools for the 0 & M Department at a cost not to exceed $8,945,52. The motion carried unanimously (5-0), C. PLANNING CASE 05-06: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS. 1245 W. HIGHWAY 96: CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES AMENDMENT FOR THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE Mr. Hellegers requested the Council consider Ordinance #356 which would repeal the existing Section 330.03 of the Arden Hills Code relating to Massage, Rap, and Sauna Parlors and add Section 330,04 and is subdivisions to the Arden Hills Municipal Code. In addition Ordinance . #356 would amend Sections 5(E) and ]O(G) of the Arden Hills Zoning Ordinance No, 291 which refer to massage businesses. He also requested Council consider Ordinance #361 which would . . . ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 11, 2005 7 repeal the eXlstmg Massage Parlor/Sauna fees and create new fees for Massage Therapy Establishments and Massage Therapists. He indicated the Planning Commission recommended approval, MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to adopt Ordinance #356 repealing the existing Section 330,03 of the Arden Hills Code relating to Massage, Rap, and Sauna Parlors and add Section 330.04 and its subdivisions to the Arden Hills Municipal Code, and amend sections 5 (E) and 10 (G) of the Arden Hills Zoning Ordinance No. 291 which refer to massage businesses, The motion carried unanimously (5-0), MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to adopt Ordinance #361 repealing existing Massage Parlor/Sauna fees and creating new fees for Massage Therapy Establishments and Massage Therapists. The motion carried unanimously (5.0), D. PLANNING CASE 05-07: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, 1245 W. HIGHWAY 96; ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS FOR to-FOOT FRONT ROAD EXCEPTION TO FRONT AND SIDE-YARD CORNER SETBACKS IN R-t AND R-2 ZONING DISTRICTS Mr. HeIlegers requested Council consider Ordinance #357 which would amend Section 6.C,2,a of the Zoning Ordinance and insert new section 6,C,2,d into the Zoning Ordinance, allowing for front porches of up to ten feet and with a minimum setback of 30 feet from the front or side-yard comer property lines, which meet design standards to be allowed subject to staff review and approval and to consider Resolution #05-29 which would add the front porch language and Front Porch Design Guidelines to Appendix A of Zoning Ordinance #291, Mayor Aplikowski asked if they had any design standards for steps. Mr. Hellegers replied the City did not have design standards for steps. Council member Larson stated he liked front porches and they did a lot of enhance neighborhoods and property values as well as helping keep crime down, but he believed the setbacks established in neighborhoods for homes were intended to provide for a consistent look as to where the houses were on the property as well as sight line concerns, He stated if this was an open porch proposal, he would not have a problem with the proposal, but he expressed concern about enclosed porches, He asked if the Planning Commission had discussed this. Mr. HeIlegers replied the Planning Commission had decided they would go with the recommendation to allow the homeowner to have some design flexibility, He stated there is a little bit of difference between a glassed in porch and an open porch, but even with a glassed in porch, it would be limited as to use because of the winter weather. He noted this would allow more flexibility for an inviting front entry way, while still maintaining some of the setback. He ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 11, 2005 8 . noted this would change the look of the homes some, but he believed the Planning Commission wanted the residents to have some flexibility, Councilmember Rem left the meeting at 8:12 p.m. Councilmember Holden stated it was nice to have windows to keep the rain out She asked if there was any size limit to the porch. Mr. Henegers replied as it was worded right now a porch could run the entire length of the house. Councilmember Grant asked what had been changed between the Planning Commission and the Council meeting as noted in staffs report. Mr. Henegers replied grammatical changes had been made, but the intent and body of the Ordinance was the same as the Planning Commission had approved. Councilmember Larson expressed concern about extensions being allowed into the side yard. Mayor Aplikowski suggested they not deal with this any further tonight due to the concerns expressed and discuss this at a future work session, MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to table Ordinance #357 amending Section 6.C.2.a of the Zoning . Ordinance and insert new section 6,C.2.d into the Zoning Ordinance, allowing for front porches of up to ten feet and with a minimum setback of 30 feet from the front or side-yard comer property lines. The motion carried unanimously (4.0). E. PLANNING CASE 05-08: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS. 1245 W. HIGHWAY 96: SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS FOR ATHLETIC FIELD SIGNAGE AT BETHEL UNIVERSITY. NORTHWESTERN COLLEGE. AND MOUNDS VIEW HIGH SCHOOL Mr. Hellegers requested Council approve Ordinance #358 (and Ordinance #358 Summary) which would amend Ordinance No. 333 "An Ordinance Regulating Signage Standards within the City of Arden Hills" to establish standards for athletic field signage at Bethel University, Mounds view High School, and Northwestern College where such signage is visible from a public roadway or property outside of these educational institutions, Mayor Aplikowski asked if there would be signs on the general fence area. Mr. Henegers replied there would be one or two spots along the fences that would have signs. The signage would be directed inward toward the sporting event and not outward toward the neighborhood or street He noted most of the signage would be along the visitor bleachers as well as in the end zone, . Mayor Aplikowski asked if the back of the signs would bc opaque, Mr. Henegers replied the back of the signs would be white, . . . ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 11, 2005 9 Councilmember Grant stated since they were putting the names of the institutions into the Ordinance, what happened if the institution changed its name. Mr. Filla replied if the name changed, the Ordinance would need to be revised, He stated they could use Universities, Colleges, and High Schools and not include specific names. Mr. Hellegers replied it was the Planning Commissioners concerns that they did not want signage at Elementary Schools or City Parks. Council reached the consensus to change the wording to Universities, Colleges, and High School fields and not name specific institutions, MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to adopt Ordinance #358 (and Ordinance #358 Summary) amending Ordinance No. 333 "An Ordinance Regulating Signage Standards within the City of Arden Hills" to establish standards for athletic field signage at the Universities, Colleges, and High Schools where such signage is visible from a public roadway or property outside of these educational institutions, The motion carried unanimously (4-0). 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. TCAAP - PUBLIC FINANCING POLICY Mr. Clark stated pursuant to direction from the City Council, the Economic Development Commission's (EDC) "TCAAP Public Financing Policy Recommendations" is being considered, He indicated this policy documents includes both the modifications that were discussed at the joint EDCICouncil meeting on February 22,2005 and the comments supplied by the City Attorney, In addition, Attachment II in the plan is a flow chart that illustrates how the policy document, and the implementation of its principles, works in the overall TCAAP process. He recommended Council adopt Resolution No. 05.28: Resolution Adopting "TCAAP Public Financing Policy Recommendations" Dated April II, 2005, Councilmember Holden asked how the 25 percent reduction was calculated at the end of26 years. Mr. Clark replicd Mr. Inman had done this analysis, but they assumed an expenditure cost of I million and new revenue of2.5 million, Councilmember Holden asked if this was based on the additional staff and recreational needs that would be required, Mr. Clark responded that had not been taken into consideration and they were looking at the base operational needs only, He indicated the idea was not to say this was a definitive25 percent reduction, but rather there was a large enough of a gap between revenues and expenditures that the TCAAP project would not affect existing tax payers when, and if, a TlF district is removed. ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL II, 2005 10 . Councilmember Holden stated it was her understanding when she voted for the framework plan that those costs were part ofthat vision. Mr. Clark stated in the framework plan, that plan had been changed to eliminate the recreational center and instead they put it in as a potential community civic use. He noted they might or might not have a recreational center on the plan, Councilmember Holden stated at the time she approved this, she believed this was in the framework plan and she wanted the residents to know that there might not be a reduction. Mr. Clark noted there was enough of a spread that there would be a positive result. Sid Inman, Ehlers & Associates, stated if they financed this with the general levy, this was not included in the analysis, but if they did not use the general levy to finance this, it was included in the analysis, Council member Grant asked for a clarification on page 4 of9 under C. Mr. Filla replied the proposal had to comply with very strict provisions ofthis policy before they would favorably consider this. He stated there was a legal difference between the two things. He noted this was not a legal commitment Councilmember Holden asked ifthe proposal came in with all of the terms, she would have to agree with it. Mr. Filla replied that was correct, but the Council still had some latitude. He . noted all they were doing was approving this document tonight and this was not obligating the City to any amounts. Councilmember Holden asked for clarification on Page 7 of9 6H regarding fees. She asked if fees could only be applied to certain areas ofthe City. Mr. Filla stated as he read it, there had to be some kind of a connection between fees and costs, He stated they could structure fees for the TCAAP area only. Councilmember Grant stated one ofthe goals was to minimize risk to the residents of Arden Hills. He stated he believed this was the one document that future Councils would look back to and he was not comfortable leaving the language on Page 4 of9 with reference to the bonding. He wanted this limited to general non-obligation bonds, Mr. Clark stated the intent was that the primary focus of this would be City assessment bonds and that this had been discussed at the February 22 meeting and they had a very general statement in there that the City might consider the issuance of general obligation bonds, Mr. Filla stated when proposals were made to the City for a certain kind of financing tool, the policy indicates that Council would not select one that puts the public at risk and this policy said they would chose the onc that would not affect the existing taxpayers, Councilmember Holden stated if the sole purpc.se of the policy was to not affect the existing taxpayers in the community, why would they leave the general obligation bonds in, She stated before they went forward with this she wanted to know if the bottom line would be that TCAAP was going to cost the current taxpayers money, Mayor Aplikowski stated the actual . . . . ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL II, 2005 11 development ofTCAAP would paid for by itself, but the maintenance costs would be shared by both TCAAP and the current taxpayers as a part of the City as a whole. Councilmember Holden stated current citizens would be responsible for emergency services. Mayor Aplikowski noted the cost of maintenance would be shared by all residents within the City. Mr. Clark stated they were talking about two different things, public financing and local resources. With respect to public financing, he believed the majority of discussions constructing the majority ofthe public financing to not affect the existing taxpayer. With respect to general obligation bonds for specific infrastructure improvements this would carry a minimum risk because the bonds carried a senior obligation to any mortgage, The second level of discussion was local resources, He stated the struggle was that they did not have the strategy before them and how did they as a City match up what was a potential shortfall. He stated that was what they would need to resolve in the next few months and this would become a part of the local resources plan, If there was a small amount of taxes to be paid there had to be an understanding that the TCAAP area was not 100 percent segregated from the City because there would be tangible and intangible benefits to the rest of the City. Council member Holden ask.:d for an explanation on Page 8 of9, 7A. She indicated in her opinion this was a meaningless sentence and asked why this was in there, Mr. Clark stated this statement was important to the EDC, Mr. Filla stated whether people agreed with this or not, it was a clear statement and as they need to look at the Master Development Agreement, this documents was only a guiding principal, and unless they changed the wording, the direction was that they shall not put the burden ofthis project on existing taxpayers and they needed to figure out how to word the Master Development Agreement to reflect this as well as the Resource Plan, Councilmember Grant stated while this was the EDC recommendation, once this was adopted, it would be City policy, Ms. Wolfe stated it was important that with a statement this strong, that would assume that services would stay at the same level. She indicated they had to keep in mind that if they wanted an increase in services, changes in their desire for levels of services may impact the cost of those services citywide, Councilmember Holden stated this sentence was also on Page I of9 and this theme was reflected throughout the entire document. Stacie Kvilvang, Ehlers & Associates, stated with the City bond issue, there were other bonds that could be used also. Dennis Probst, Former Mayor, 3395 Lake Johanna Boulevard, stated he was probably the first person to suggest that this development not cost the other residents in the City any money and he still stood by that proposal, but cautioned the Council not to segregate the TCAAP area from the rest of the City, He stated with the growth of residential areas, this would create some ARDEN HII..LS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL II, 2005 12 . incredible recreational opportunities within the community that would be shared by all residents of the community. He stated he believed it was important not to set up two sets of books to divide the north and south parts ofthe City, He urged Council to proceed with this policy and these details more appropriately belong in the Development Agreements to follow and not in the Financing Policy. He asked Council to support this, but be careful about the wording about protecting the existing community so the City did not become divided, Bruce Kunkel, Arden Road, Chair of the EDC, stated the statement on page 8 of9, 7A was something the EDC discussed at some length amI it was something the EDC did not want the City to move away from. He understood Council did not want to split the City, but this was a concept that they wanted to keep in front of everyone in that they did not want the current residents paying for the development of TCAAP. However, with respect to recreational development, if all residents were going to share in the benefits ofTCAAP, they would need to look at the financing ofthose recreational developments to be shared by all of the residents of the City, and in the resource plan, the needed to make sure this was not a tax burden on the current residents of Arden Hills. In terms of the general operating expense, the City needed to work with the developer that the development would pay for its own operating costs, Mayor ApIikowski asked if this was addressed in the Resource Plan. Mr. Kunkel replied it was. . Collin Barr, CRR, stated the common mechanism seen for redevelopment was to use General Obligation Bonds secured by TIP and minimum assessment. The burden to pay the bonds back were put on the property owner and not the City, but there were instances where they did not want to issue General Obligation Bonds. With respect to the TIP structure, it was his understanding that the EDC put this forth as a challenge for the developer to draft budgets for local services and understand what the costs would be as well as the revenue expected and once they finished their work, they would have firm costs, Mr. Filla noted Council would see how all of this would play out in the Master Development Agreement. Councilmember Grant asked if they used levy dollars for emergency services was that legaL Ms. Kvilvang replied they could not use tax increment levy dollars for emergency services, Mr. Clark stated they could change Page 7, I, first paragraph, to read: To assist reducing TCAAP project expenditures, the City mav consider issuance, as a last resort, of general obligation bonds for infrastructure improvements", Mr. Filla replied he liked the statement the way it was and the Council only had to use General Obligation Bonds if they knew they were not going to affect the current residents of Arden Hills, Mr. Inman noted Council would have the opportunity to discuss this issue two more times, once in the Master Development Agreement and again if they decided to issue bonds, . . . . ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 11, 2005 13 Councilmember Holden asked why Council wanted to go with a 26-year TIP District if the development was only going to take 13-15 years, Mr. Inman replied the statues allowed them to go with a 26 year TIP District and they recommend they set it at 26 years in the beginning, but Council could chose to go shorter if they wanted to and then restrict it in the Development Agreement process. Councilmember Holden asked what the cost to the existing residents was going to be, Councilmember Larson stated he would prefer to have other language regarding the cost to existing residents in this Policy because he believed this was creating something that could be impossible and he did not know how they could do this in reality, He stated it made sense that as a Councilmember he would not vote for an increase in levies that would exceed the rate of inflation, He stated he wanted to make sure the Resources Plan developed accomplished this, He noted the City would benefit from what developed at TCAAP, but they might have to wait some time to see that benefit. He stated he was comfortable with the limguage because it was important to others on the Council and as a goal, it was something they should try to accomplish and he would prefer to see the word burden added, but he would support it as it was, Leslie Reindl, 1233 Ingerson Road, commended the Council for all of the work they have done on this. She stated the City was noted among its residents for its fiscal conservatism and its careful spending of tax dollars and the residents appreciated that. She believed most of the residents were unaware of the enormity of this development and it seemed to her that now they were being presented with a large development that was the largest development in Minnesota. She realized this was a superfund site and it was one ofthe last huge undeveloped sites this close to the inner city that was available and it was desirable land. She asked if they had looked at different developers to get other ideas as to what could be done with the land. She stated it was not clear if there would be any risk to the taxpayer now living in Arden Hills, She indicated it was not a definite thing that there would not be a risk to the residents. She noted they were making decisions that would affect all of the residents in the future and she had not heard any plan tonight that there was a guarantee that this would not affect taxpayers. She stated if there was a risk, the residents needed to know there was a risk and they needed to be presented with the benefits, She noted they had not addressed the "non-benefits" of developing this property, such as increase of traffic. She stated they have not let the residents know how many additional residents would be added and what this would mean to the existing residents. She stated she did not understand the recreational opportunities they were discussing and she had not seen any recreational opportunities. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Mayor Aplikowski seconded a motion to adopt Resolution No, 05-28: Resolution Adopting 'TCAAP Public Financing Policy Recommendations" dated April II, 2005. Councilmember Larson stated Council needed to think about what they were doing tonight. Council was not approving TIP financing for TCAAP or a timeline for TCAAP and they were not approving any form of public financing for TCAAP, He stated they were adopting a policy that said if public financing was needed in the future, it would have to meet certain criteria, ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL II, 2005 14 . which criteria would minimized the risk to the City of Arden Hills and he would support adoption of this policy. Councilmember Grant asked if this EDC recommendation would become a City policy. He indicated it would and this would guide the financing of the development and it would form the basis for negotiations with the developer to construct the business terms for this development, which would form the foundation of those discussions, He stated this was a major policy and probably one of the more important policies the City has or might ever adopt. He stated the alternative was that the City could elect to not do the project, in which case the GSA would put the project up for public auction and it would be difficult to say who would buy it and the City would need to control the development through the Codes and the City would be unable to desigu what they wanted on this development. He stated ultimately, they ended up with a community based plan. He indicated at this point he did not want to tie the negotiating team with the developer, so he would not object to the bonding language, He asked if this document would be used for the smaller TIF districts used for the next 26 years, Ms. Kvilvang replied they were looking at the development in full and they intended on working with the Council to get these things resolved, Councilmember Holden stated they had already identified that there was a public financing need and by passing this they were approving public financing, even though they were not . specifically approving the public financing tonight. She expressed concern of the real interest to the current taxpayers of Arden Hills. Mayor Aplikowski stated she would vote for this as written, but she would have preferred to have addressed the operational costs and this was an important next step to get them to where they needed to go, The motion carried unanimously (4-0), B. TCAAP VERBAL UPDATE Mr. Clark updated the Council on recent TCAAP developments and upcoming events, Councilmember Holden asked if there was any update on the wildlife corridor and the sports field, Mr. Clark replied they had discussed the sports field today and this was a slow process, but it was progressing. With respect to the wildlife corridor, no discussions had taken place yet. Mayor Aplikowski stated she had received a suggestion that they incorporate the word "Prairie" into the description of this property, She asked all residents to make any suggestions for this area, . . ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 11,2005 15 CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Ms. Wolfe - None. Councilmember Holden - None. Councilmember Grant - Stated they have been in the new Maintenance Facilities for a half year and he asked staff to approach Ramsey County for the operational costs and if those costs were tracking to the budget they were originally presented with. Mr. Siddiqui replied based on the bills submitted they were on target at this point. He stated the bills were not consistent month to month so he believed they were calculating bills each month. Councilmember Larson - Updated the Council on the agreement with the Lake Johanna Volunteer Fire Board, Mayor Aplikowski - Stated she had met with the Mayors and City Admini<;trators from the surrounding Cities to bring everyone up to date on what was going on in their Cities, She noted they were losing bus service in the City of Arden Hills and asked how many people this impacted. She asked residents impacted to let stafflmow how it impacted them. . Mayor ApIikowski adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting at 10:02 p.m, . Beverly Aplikowski Mayor Michelle Wolfe City Administrator NOTICE OF MEETINGS The next Council Meeting will be held Monday, April 25, 2005 at 7:00 p,m, at the Arden Hills Council Chambers. t ~ ,~LS. CIty ot Arden HIlls . Request for Council Action Prepared by: Murtuza Siddiqui ''0.._ Dep!.: Finance "'.5. Council Mtg. Date: April 25, 2005 Final Action Needed By: April 25, 2005 Agenda Item Claims & Payroll Budgeted Amount: Across City BudQet - All Funds Actual Amount: See Financial Implications Funding Source: Across City BudQet - All Funds Council Action Request: Review and Approve Consent Agenda Item 3A - Claims and Payroll Staff Recommendation: Approve Consent Agenda Item 3A - Claims and Payroll Advisory Commission Action: Commission Date Action Not Applicable . ........ ...f\J()tAppli(;abIEl Notllpjllicable Planning PTRC . 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: Payroll #7 Total Cost $64,151,89 Claims Total $324,547.26 Administrator/Staff Comments: . Page 1 of 1 . . . ,. ;::: .. 0: ~ :~ 0 0 i2 N ...J;! ~ 0 0 ~ .~ " " ; " r:-; ~ ~ ~ . N >:~: ~ .~ 0 ~ ~ 0 N .~ N N ~ ~ 'Q ~ ~ " ; " '\t N ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ :.-=. ~ .. - N :-~. ";;' .~ 0 6 .~ Q W Q _ r "..rJ> '" :.10: .~ ":.:><: ] ~ ":.>tC: 0 ":"" .~ o ::;; ":0;( ~ < '" :::g .~ !: !: SJ SJ ""I':'. I"~ . . . . '~:":U ~ g g g g g ::l ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ .,f ~ i2 ..; " ~ 8 "i:i\ N .::~ '" ~ 0 :;: 00 ; ~ N ":N. ~ ~ 0 :./oIl' 0 N ~ .r." ~ :i: ~ ..)i M ~ ~ .",r,." " - ::~ 0 0 '. :0 ...!ii ] "W '" :::~ 0 ,. .".= Ii :.;; ...~ ~ ";!:Ii'; ;:i < 1 :::~ ::;; ','" w SJ :.0 ~ U .~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 '" 00 " ~ ~ ~ " :;: :;: 0 0 ~ "' .. .. '.~ 00 ~ ~ M M 'eM ":M .c .c ,s ~ ::::~ Ii E fl ~ I ,2 " .~ 5 ~ u 1i dO dO u ~ i ~ " .. fi " " ~ Ii ~ Ii ...~ '" '" < < ..;l ~ ~ ~ ~ '.~ ~ ~ -:.\.'0 gg;:2gggg~ ooo\ciocio~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :Ii ~ ~ 0 :':"6=. ~ ~ ~ M 0 ..00 " g .. "' r;j '" :::s ~ N " N ~ ~ 0 0 M N ~ ~ ":.'<1" N I ~ .:~ ~ 0 .:.~' '~ 0 " ~ ...~. ~ ';\ " Ii fi ~ ::,:.,l r '" ~ ::::g ,Iii J ~ 'li ...~ f ? " 1 .~ fi ::.;e ~ Ii ~ ::"" ~ .:.:.;,) . u < ....~ ~I ~ 8 0 ~ J; ;- is '" 0: SJ .:~ ~ N ~ 0 N ~ N N ~ ~ ~ "' ~ &i ,.; "' " " ::: ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ N ;; N ~ '" ::;; ;f. SJ < ~ g ~ ~ I~ . B N If ~ "I; < . 11 ~ ~ ! ,~ ~ ~- (~ 'j! t o ~ -a ~ . :ii ~ o E ~ 0 ;- "' It ~ ; ~ '" '" :l ;l' u u :::;: 0: Ii: Ii: '" o 0; e ... o Cl W ... .. Cl <n '" <> W :J: <> " cl ~ ";;j a ., il;: ~ ~ '" &: E 8 .5 I ~ 0\ 0 I.s ~ ~ IE 0 .... -< 2 ~ ~ ~ t ~ 3..J ~ f- ~@'o,.~ IU ill t1l 0 :J '0;) ~ :sl ~ "C :.2....l ~~~u~ ~ :J :5 ~ S -,on -,0 O~ 0::- >-;1; ..;;; 0..0 -,," t2;; 0..0 ...:,;; ..... '" m 0:: m - ~ u..~ g " ;- 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ is 0 ~ 0 2 '2 g 0 ;- ;- r:; ;- 0 ;- ;- 0 0 ;- 0 ~ ;- ;- ~ ~ ;- ~ ;- ~ u ;- '" ;- u ;- ~ ~ ~ . ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ '" 0 , - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ '" '" ~ '" ~ ~ - 00 ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ .. M N 00 - ~ ~ v.;~ :;: 0 0 0 '!Z:.Q. "' .0 c Q... " g':.:., 0 $ 0 c Ji 0 ~ Ji " 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ Ji 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ...~ ~ >illl 0 0 0 ~ 0 N ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 " 0 g g g " " g g 0 g g g g g :;; 00 N N ~ N N ~ N N ~ N N N 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ :!' M 0 0 0 iii 0 0 0 0 00 .;,:r.. "iiJ ~ ~ 00 0 ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ on. ~ ~ ~ g :;: ~ '" g " .0 ~ " :; :;; :;; .. :;; ;i :;; :;; " :;: -:cii II ~ " ~ ~ :^ ~ ~ :0: ~ '" ~ Q ~ 0 :0 ~. 0 ~, N N ~, ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ '" ~ - " M - - N N N N N' - N N - - - '-""'" '" -'$ ::-:t". .. :>1 .:.( ~ . ~ " z -" ~ 0 Ii 0 t:l ] ~ E ~ u .~ , 0 8 E . .. ~ :h-. -;; ~ . ij ~ 0 ~ ','11::. 0 ~ . " ~ c " ~ 0 0 ~ .. ~ ~ g ~ g "' ~ '" ] ~ ~ 0 . .::;;1 ~ ~ o ' '" .. .? ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ 'if " ~ ~ J: 0 ~ -.';':' '" 1 ~ " ~ ~ fi '" ~ ~ ~ . '" ~ ~ 0 . 8 ~ .; " ~ " ~ ::0: " 0 ~ " ;;; . 'B " .. 0 5 0 fj ~ ..~ " !l (3 ~ 0 -;; ~ ~ 0 . 0 i ~ ~ i> 0 ~ '" Vi ~ ~ '" z ~ Vi '" ~ ::;; ~ ~ ~ '" :.:...; ~....... ,.p.:, ;!; N ~ ~ ~ " 00 '-WI "-::0 p " " Q " " Q 0 0 " " Q A :<l " c :<l ~ :<l ~ ~ " ~ ,., "'Z p " " " A " " c " 0 :0: A " " A P :0: :0: :0: A :0: .~. - - - - l " ~ ;; E 1= ~ ~ 1i 1 ~ .~ II ~ 'ii ~ .. '0 , 0 ~ , ~ 2l a ~ ~ 0 ;- ~ '0 .; .~ . :g ~ .a 0 ~ ~ '" l 1 '2 " . ~ E ~ r- '" . .. ~ "' 0 :~ ~ , ] " . 0 , II ~ '" ~ 0 " z '" -' -' I z w o 0:: ...: u. o ~ <3 " PAGE 1 OF3 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CLAIMS REPORT TO BE APPROVED AT 04/25/05 COUNCIL MEETING . CLAIMS PAID SINCE LAST COUNCIL MEETING I04/1I/05l >~Cj(=;CJ~~;tj{j:D.ATiF i<<<< <AMOUNi!> '::::COMMISNTS:':" 26555 04/09/05 A~ 1 Contract Cleanin~, luc 1,315.28 CH-CleaninJl' 26556 04/09/05 Accurate Press, IDe 2,553,87 * March NewslctterrrC.AAP Insert 26557 04/09/05 Andcrbefil' Lund Printing Co. 3,381.38 2005 Snrim./Summer Rec Guide 26558 04/09/05 Animal Control Services, Ine 851.81 DOl'/Cat Enforcement 26559 04/09105 Aramark Ui1ifonn Service 37,69 CH-Rul!: CleaninQ 26560 04/09/05 BFI of~, lue 499,67 Waste Removal-CH/O&M 26561 04/09/05 Carlson Tractor & Eauin Co. 72.52 Owners Manual-O&M 26562 04/09/05 Central Pension Fund 1,228,80 Union Pension 26563 04/09/05 Comorate Express 619.48 Office Supplies 26564 04/09/05 E-Z Recvclinl'_Inc 5,248,00 Curbside Recvc1iup 26565 04/09/05 Ehlers & Associates, Ine 1,2()(),00 JvIN Goal SettiDl:! 26566 04/09/05 Fortis Benefits 417,29 Long Term Disability 26567 04/09/05 Frattallone's Hardware 2.33 Kev Rille 26568 04/09/05 Goober State One-Call, lne 67,50 Februarv Service 26569 04/09/05 Grainger, Ine 48,82 Batteries 26570 04/09/05 Home Depot 325.33 BldlUMaint SUDDlies-O&M 26571 04/09105 Ideal Advertisinll. Inc 18750 Staff Shirts I Subtotal ~ Paid Claims 18.057.271 . Paid Claims - 72.684.49 Add Unpaid Claims, 251.862,77 Total Accounts Payable Claims for Council Approval. 04/11/05- 324.547,26 Note: Checks for unpaid claims totaling $162,855.35 were mailed April 12, 2005 after approval at the Aprilll, 2005 Council Meeting. *Exp. Related to TeAAP Project. ",.I,.."""....r.y..I~.".;"'" . .<:~~Tt~1ij(;;:ilTVllNii6"'>.. ....'.'...'....'.....:.,.":.:.::;:.:J, ::1\M'6iti#:::: .toi\i!iillNts:;':.' ........... 26572 04/09/05 Kath Auto Parts 304.58 Fuel punln #203 26573 04/09/05 Lakes CoWltrv Service Coooerative 8,137,00 Insurance Premium 26574 04/09/05 Jerald Laumever 254,75 Sewer Utilitv Overcharoe 26575 04/09/05 League of l\.1:N" Cities 75,00 2005 State ofthe Cities-Anlikowski 26576 04/09105 Leaeue oflYfN Cities 336.54 Directorv of Citv Officials 26577 04/09/05 Little Falls Machine, Ine 579.30 Truck # 102.Renair 26578 04/09/05 MacOuecn Efluinment Ine 1,338,88 Broom/Dirt Shoe Runner # 1 05 26579 04/09105 McDonald Batterv Comnanv 130,00 Batteries 26580 04/09/05 Met Council Environmental Services 5,742,00 Mar 2005 SAC Ch"rocs 26581 04/09/05 MAMA 18,00 MAMA Luncheon 3/17-Wolfe 26582 04/09/05 :MN State Treasurer 1,845.59 1 Q05 Bldp' Pennit Surcharl1es 26583 04/09/05 Nextel Communications 639.20 Cell Phone Service 26584 04/09/05 North Metro Inspections, Ine 732.40 March Electrical Jnsne:ctions 26585 04/09/05 Northern Traffic Snnntv, Ine 3,564,90 2004 Street Sign Renlacement 26586 04/09/05 Office Denot 22.49 Office Sunnlies 26587 04/09/05 Michelle Olson 11730 MilealZeffixoense Reimbursement 26588 04/09/05 Oriental Tradinl! Co., Ine 108,45 Craft Sunnlies 26589 04/09/05 Paul & Jackie Padeett 45,68 Overnaid Final Utilitv BiIJ 26590 04/09/05 Palmer West Construction Co. 31.44 Refund-State SurchartJe 2659] 04/09/05 Peterson, Fram & BertJman 5,999,4 I LeQ:al Fces 26592 04/09/05 Prior Lake Water Ski Association 950,00 CAH-Water Ski Denosit 26593 04/09/05 Purchase Power 1,172.08 Postaoe-Meter 26594 04/09/05 Ramsev County 60,00 CnniesIM"ilino 26595 04109/05 Schulties Plumbing, Inc 1,035,50 Eme,oencv R~air-3806 N Brioh,on Rd 26596 04/09/05 Patrick & Marearet Stokes 778.53 Refund-Ovffl'nd 2004 Assessment 26597 04/09/05 Svncom, lnc 403,65 Maintenance Call-Sewer 26598 04109105 Tarl!et Stores 48,01 Easter El!i! Hunt Sunnlies 26599 04109/05 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial 413.38 Recordinl! Secretarv 26600 04109/05 TKDA 680.39 Watermain Break. Locate 26601 04109/05 Tokle Inspections, In 576,80 Electrical Insnections-Mar 26602 04/09/05 Tousle:v Motor Sports 17,87 Filter #308 26603 04/09105 ViTllil Schaaf Construction Co. 1,089.50 Watermain Break..Hoe & 625Hammer 26604 04109/05 Weart!uard 164,74 Uniform Purchase-A. Andrews 26605 04/09/05 Xcel Enerl!V 2,318.20 Electric/Gas Service 26606 04113/05 Broadwav Pizza 30,56 '" Dinner for TCAAP Meetino 26607 04/19/05 Sears 8,744.28 Craftsman Tools-200S CIP 26608 04/20/05 Acclaim Benefits 526.48 FSA Reimb 4/08/05 26609 04120/05 Affinitv Plus Federal Credit Union 3.038.87 Second Ami! PaYroll 26610 04/20/05 ICMA Retirement Trust-457 2.184,83 Second Anril Pavroll 26611 04/20/05 lv1N Child SUDnort Pavrnent Center 370,64 Second Amil PaVToll . PAID CLAIMS REGISTER: . . PAGE20F3 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CLAIMS REPORT TO BE APPROVED AT 04/25/05 COUNCIL MEETING Paid Claims. Page 2 54,627.221 PAGE 3 OF 3 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CLAIMS REPORT TO BE APPROVED AT 04/25/05 COUNCIL MEETING UNPAID CLAIMS REGISTER: ...... ill....... WWHH ...........HHHI........................I. n:::2kJ? :@~~~:D.#~ :~;~:.mQUNt:::: ... . . ........... 26612 04/26/05 Abdo, Eick & Mevers 17,000,00 Audit Services through 3/25/05 26613 04/26/05 Den!: of Emnlovrnent & Economic Devclonme 150,083.30 Guidant Grant 26614 04/26/05 Me!: Council Environmental Services 43,888,06 Waste Water Service-Anril 26615 04/26/05 URS Comoration 40,891.41 Engineering Services I Unpaid Claims - Page 3 251,862,77 I . . . ~ ~HlLLS City of Arden Hills Request for Council Action Prepared by: FDT Depl.: O&M Council Mtg. Date: 4.25.05 Final Action Needed By: 4.25.05 Agenda Item Booster Station Rehabilitation Proiect Budgeted Amount: $175.420.00 Actual Amount: $175.420.00 Funding Source: Citv's Water Utilitv Fund Council Action Request: Motion to approve the Final Payment to EnComm Midwest Inc, of Isanti, MN for the Booster Station Rehabilitation Project for the final payment amount of $3,508.40. Staff Recommendation: The Arden Hills City Engineer recommends the Council approve Pay Estimate #5, the final payment, for EnComm Midwest Inc, of Isanti, MN in the amount of $3,508.40, Advisory Commission Action: ,__._____"'___.._.,,_____..._________ ________m__.________.._..__________..,_ _ ___ ______.~..__'_....""'.".._.._"_.__'_""_______,_.._--.-----.....- Commission Date Action Planning-- .---..,-- -- - . _J..=_====- -===-Not .A.ppifcable___=__= ' __,YJRC__ _____ __ _ _ __ Not .A.J:l[l~c.ablt:l_ ______,_________ u_ u__ .. Ln___,__I'Je>.tOlPP~cat>lt:l_ . 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: Financial Implications: This project has been funded entirely by the City's Water Utility Fund and is completed within the budget Administrator/Staff Comments: . Page 1 of 1 URS . BRW, Inc. AGENDA ITEM 3.8 URS TIuesher Square 700 Third Street South Minneapolis, MN 55415 Phonc; (612) 370-0700 Fax; (612) 370-1378 To: Murtuza Siddiqui/Arden Hills File: 37951-026-0101 From: Gregory S. Brown Arden Hills City Engineer Date: April 20, 2005 Subject: Pay Estimate #5 FINAL PAYMENT Booster Station Rehabilitation Project . Background The City of Arden Hills awarded EnComm Midwest, Ine. of Isanti. MN the Booster Station Rehabilitation Project on November 24, 2003 for a total contract amount of $175,420,00, Pay Estimate #1, #2, #3, and #4 in the amount of $171,911.60 have been approved by the Council. This project is being paid through the City's Water Utility Fund, Project Status Booster Station Rehabilitation The Booster Station Rehabilitation has been completed in its entirety. The final work included the installation and testing of the second pump and motor and was completed on March ih The Booster Station has been operating on two pumps for about six weeks without incident, A 2% retainage, being held solely for the installation and testing of the second pump, is all that remains for Contract payment. All other project items have previously been inspected and are complete. Recommendations The Arden Hills City Engineer recommends the Council approve Pay Estimate #5, the final payment, for EnComm Midwest Inc, of Isanti, MN in the amount of $3,508.40. This final amount represents the remainder of the retainage, . APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT PAYMENT NO.5 URS Copy City Copy Cotllractor Copy Inspector Copy . Project: Booster Station Rehabilitation Project Addendum No, 1 City at Arden Hills Owner: Owner No,: Contractor: BRW Job No,: FINAL PAYMENT ENCOMM MIDWEST, INC, 37951-026-0201 Application Date: For Period Ending: 3/31/2005 3/31/2005 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 0,00% Retainage: Amount Due To-Date: Less Previous Payments: Total Due This Application: $175,420,00 $0,00 $175,420,00 $175,420,00 $0,00 $175,420,00 $0,00 $175,420,00 $171,911.60 $3,508.40 I hereby certify that all items and amounts shown are correct for the work completed to- . date. Contractor: ENCOMM MIDWEST, INC, By: Date: The work on this project and the application for payment have been reviewed and the amount shown is recommended for pen!. By: Date: 1- / <6-05 APPROVED FOR PAYMENT Owner: City of Arden Hills By: Date: . Page 1 of 4 Payment History . Payment Payment Payment Application No. End-Date Date Amount 1 1/6/2004 1 /6/2004 $2,137,50 2 3/6/2004 3/9/2004 $11,447.50 3 4/3/2004 4/5/2004 $104,090,55 4 6/11/2004 6/15/2004 $54,236,05 Total Payments: $171,911,60 . . Page 2 of 4 Application for Payment: Itemization Schedule: A- . Unit Contract Contract To~Oate T a-Date No, Item Unit Price Quantity Am ount Quantity Amount MOBILIZATION LS $4,500,00 1,00 $4,500,00 1.00 $4,500,00 2021.501 2 WALL MOUNTED SHELVING LS $350,00 1.00 $350,00 1.00 $350,00 2100.603 3 MASONRY RESTORATION LS $3,250,00 1.00 $3,250,00 1.00 $3,250,00 2100.603 4 BUILDING STRUCTURAL WORK LS $13,150,00 1,00 $13,150,00 1.00 $13,150,00 2100.603 5 INTERIOR PAINTING/COATING LS $5,050,00 1,00 $5,050,00 1,00 $5,050,00 2100.603 6 10FT BY 7 FT ROLL GARAGE DOOR EA $2,650,00 1,00 $2,650,00 1,00 $2,650,00 2100.603 7 MISCELLANEOUS FACILITY REMOVALS LS $2,150,00 1.00 $2,150,00 1,00 $2.150,00 2104.601 8 BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (DRIVEWAY SY $15,00 150,00 $2,250,00 150,00 $2,250,00 PATCHING) 2350.504 9 F & I PUMPS AND MOTORS LS $15,500,00 1.00 $15,500,00 1.00 $15,500,00 2504.602 10 F & I ELECTRICAUMECHANICAL SYSTEM LS $87,240,00 1,00 $87.240,00 1.00 $87,240,00 2504.602 11 FITTtNGS LB $2,50 1,500,00 $3,750,00 1,500,00 $3,750,00 2504.502 $2,010,00 . 12 S' BUTTERFLY VALVE EA $1,005,00 2,00 $2,010.00 2,00 2504.502 13 10' BUTTERFLY VALVE EA $1,410,00 2,00 $2,820,00 2,00 $2,820,00 2504.502 14 8' ANGLE CHECK VALVE EA $6,460,00 2,00 $12,920,00 2,00 $12,920,00 2504.502 15 6' CONCRETE SLAB LS $2,500,00 1,00 $2,500,00 1,00 $2,500,00 2531.521 16 WOOO FENCE 8 FT HIGH LS $2,650,00 1.00 $2,650,00 1.00 $2,650,00 2557.503 17 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FENCE IF $1.50 800,00 $1,200,00 800,00 $1 ,200,00 2573.502 18 SOODING LAWN TYPE SY $4,50 1,000,00 $4,500,00, 1,000,00 $4,500,00 2575.505 Subtotal: $168,440,00 $168,440,00 Schedule: B - Bid Alternate 1 Unit Contract Contract To-Date To-Date No. Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount 1 16 FT 8Y t 6 FT ROLL GARAGE DOOR LS $6,980,00 LOO $6,980,00 1,00 $6,980,00 2100_603 Subtotal: $6,980,00 $6,980,00 Grand Total: $175,420,00 $175,420,00. Page 3 of 4 Application for Payment: Itemization Summary . Contract To-Date Amount of Schedule Amount Work Completed A- $168,440,00 $168,440,00 B. Bid Alternate 1 $6,980,00 $6,980,00 Grand Total: $175,420,00 $175.420,00 . . Page 4 of 4 J . . ~ ~1-UllS City of Arden Hills Request for Council Action Prepared by: SJ Dep!.: Admin Council Mtg, Date: 4/25/2005 Final Action Needed By: 4/25/2005 Agenda Item" AwardinQ of the Proposed Tree Removal and Related Services Contract to S&S Tree and Horticultural Specialist Companv Budgeted Amount: NA Actual Amount: NA Funding Source: NA Council Action Request: Awarding of the tree removal and related services contract to S&S Tree and Horticultural Specialist Company Staff Recommendation: Awarding of the tree removal and related services contract to S&S Tree and Horticultural Specialist Company . ..Adv isorYC:lllll.lll.iss,ion.Acti.on: Commission Date Action . Not Al'l'licable ,1\J()tfl.Eplic:~~I.e..... Not applic<lt)I~ Planning PTRC "--i' ,.... ... ....... .....""", ",.....................,.......... ..1 Supporting Documents (which are attached to this Action Form): r:>;J Memo/Letter: o Resolution o Ordinance (No, o Engineering Recommendation: o Attorney Recommendation: r:>;JOther: . 2005 Tree Removal Proposal-Bid Overview Financial Implications: The bid proposal has been broken down by size and location of the tree, Please see the bid proposal overview for more information, AdministratorlStaff Comments: Although the City only received one bid for this service, City staff believes that a thorough process was conducted ensuring due diligence was taken in securing tree removal services for the City, The City received the required bid proposal, bid bond, and insurance information which are on file with the City, . \\Earth\Admin\Assistant City Administrator\Requests for Council Action\2005\S&S Tree Contract-2005.doc . . . " ~ ~HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: Agenda Item 3.e. April 20, 2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Michelle Wolfe, City Administrator ~ Schawn Johnson, Assistant to the City Administrator-? Thomas J, Moore, Operations and Maintenance Director FROM: SUBJECT: City Council Approval of the Proposed Tree Removal and Related Services Contract Submitted by S&S Tree and Horticultural Specialist Company ENCLOSURES: 2005 Tree Removal Proposal.Bid Overview Backl!round In March, City staff advertised a request for proposal (RFP) for the removal of trees and stumps in Arden Hills, City staff mailed out eighteen bid packets to area tree removal contractors. Five of the bid packets were returned to City Hall with no forwarding address, The City also advertised the tree removal RFP on the League of Minnesota Cities website, Shoreview.Arden Hills Bulletin, and on the City's website. On March 315" the completed bid forms were due at City Hall by 4:30 PM, The City received two potential bids for the tree removal contract One of the bids that was submitted was incomplete, The bid did not have the required employee compensation insurance, bond information, or bid signature that was required in the RFP. Also, the bidder was only interested in the stump removal portion of the contract The City received one bid that met all of the requirements set forth in the RFP, That bid was submitted by S&S Tree Service, As noted in the 2005 Tree Removal Proposal-Bid Overview, the bids that the City received were very comparable to the 2004 prices given to the City by S&S Tree Services, In addition, the City also received price quotes rrom S&S Tree Service for the removal of private trees, usage of large equipment/staff for storm related tree removal activities, and professional/consultation services, Recommendation Staff recommends that City Council award the contract to S&S Tree Services for tree removal and related services from April 1, 2005 to April I, 2006, \\Earlh\Admin\Assistant City Administrator\Memo's and Letters\2005\S&S Tree Contract-CC Memo,DOC 11'i? cnfCf3' ~~a~ ~ogg ~ ~ 00 oC?'? ."" ,,~~ ~"" :N~ """ ::l.~::l. 000 . . . "U '" '" ro ~ 3 o $ !!. ~ ~ E 3' o ~ ~ "- '" o o 01 -; ro ro ::0 ro 3 o < Q!. "U , o '0 o U> '" ~ 0- o < ro =< (j;' :E cO ~ " 'J! ii' . ;;' 3 . ~ . e $ " 0' ~ . " ,. '3 :~ ~ 3' o ~ I 1 i+ II ~I 0' 0' ~. ;U - Ii '" .. '" --< "' . '" . < il ~ m " o C S: " ~ ~ ~ " o c ~ " ~, o . o~ c: i>> C ~ 3 3 ~.'t) "10'" "". 0-3 . ~ 0 0< ~'" I I, zt ,.1 I 1 I ;I; o . ',. go" -one: 1lIo=!:!: ,00 ;I;~' o o!!. ~ 'if:E ~ 0 ", ~ IZI I" I m o '" o " . , ;I; o . I,. "'" "'U~9: .. =!:!:. , 0 0 :t:~; 00- ~ ;,:E ~ 0 "* M Z ,. ~ ~ ~ '" o " ~ :I: o . I ,,. ",,, ;fii~ :,og ~~~ 00- ~ ;,~ ~ 0 "* y Z ,. [I):;:~ fh e: 5:;:;;: Dl~_ ..... lD' n ~ ... ~-.tlgge:o !tI 0 _C.1lIo :Ia. a:Si'l ll;n' ~I~R~~~I~ ~. 0 iil!:;; :::;; 1 I__L I I "',. "." 0....0a. g~g-a: In CI!lo ::)" 0 E.!2o; -0'- S-:J~:iE ~;1.~ ~ ~ i 1 " o 3 - ~I . ~ o o ~ ;u . " . ~, ~ NI .N ~ ~ b :..., o '" C C ~ ~ " '" o . ~ ... ~ '" o C ~ 'J! " . ~ ~ y '" o C ~ " 'J! " . Z ,. 1 -. zl ", U> .. --< ~ . U> . < ii' . o o 3 ~ ~ m ~ o " . . o .. ",0: ".. . 0 ~ " m ~ o " . . ( <- . ~ "'OO ",e n' . . -~ g-g ., ~ :Q "U ~m.w~ ::r-c- "'IJ~~!!.~ 5' c::i!S:;; III . ~ 11> -~ 00 IE I~ I" 'J! " . ~ " ~ :Q "tI Cat i me ;!~~ ~ ~"'!!.-I --<0' Col:::r.... ~. . :;:1 If) ~ I~ y '- t-.:!C) -0 I~"-o i 3 m ~ .. o&: i no <""--I "I'D ~;! ~ i I ::; gl : i Ooi I- 1 : I In QI "U ~ll~~ ;:I ~ ~ lit C:;!IO~ '-I' : ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ m ~ . " Ul!DQ "'tI c!:;; m~' ~ ~ ~~ ~ :;rfDAl<D ~~~o:;t ~ Col~'" CD ~;:II = I ~ M , ~ y 1 g ~ ~Im ~ C... 1>>.0 I>> ~ o~,; S' ~ ~ -Ilo:;t (i" :,~"":g IlIo ~:Sl '" " . '" o o 01 -; , ro ro ::0 ro 3 !. a '0 o U> '" T CD 0: o < ro =< (j;' :E . , e . . ~ ~LS City of Arden Hills Request for Council Action Prepared by: SJ Dept: Admin Council Mtg, Date: 4/25/2005 Final Action Needed By: 4/25/2005 Agenda Item" Citv Council Approval of Clandestine Dr"!!: Lab Ordinance #354 Budgeted Amount: NA Actual Amount: NA Funding Source: NA Council Action Request: City Council approval of Clandestine Drug Lab Ordinance #354 Staff Recommendation: City staff recommends City Council approval of Clandestine Drug Lab Ordinance #354 AdvisoryC:()l11l11issi()n.ll.ction: Commission Date Action ..."""...1 ..........-...". 1 --.J I I _u,_==_ p~;~~g. .... --=-~- __L___ Supporting Documents (which are attached to this Action Form): . Not Appli.c:a_bl~_ Not Applicable _ .._1'19_~licable t8J Memo/Letter: D Resolution D Ordinance (No, ) D Engineering Recommendation: D Attorney Recommendation: t8J Other: . Copy of Clandestine Drug Lab Ordinance #651 Financial Implications: Not Applicable- AdministratorlStaff Comments: City staff recommends City Council approval of Clandestine Drug Lab Ordinance #354 \\Earth\Admin\Assistant City Administrator\Requests for Council Action\2005\Clandestine Drug Labs-April 25, 2Q05.doc , ~ ---A~HILLS MEMORANDUM . DATE: April 20, 2005 Agenda Item 6.A. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Michelle Wolfe, City Administrator FROM: Scbawn Johnson, Assistant to the City Administrator SUBJECT: City Council Approval of Clandestine Drug Lab Ordinance #354 Backl!round Due to the more prevalent use of methamphetamine drugs, City staff believes that it would be in the City's best interest to pass an ordinance that reduces the City's exposure to health risks associated with hazardous chemicals or residue from a clandestine drug lab site, The intent of this ordinance is to protect and reimburse the City for expenses associated with court fees, investigations, and clean-up costs. This ordinance would place the responsibility on to the property owner for costs associated with services performed in connection with a clandestine drug lab. . The proposed ordinance grants the City's Building Official, Ramsey County Sheriffs Department, and the Lake Johanna Fire Department more legal authority to declare a structure that is associated with a clandestine drug lab site as a public health nuisance. The proposed ordinance also addresses the proper procedures and steps that must be followed while inspecting or cleaning-up a clandestine drug lab site, The proposed ordinance has been reviewed by the City's Attorney, Building Official, Ramsey County Sheriffs Department, and the Lake Johanna Fire Department. All of the aforementioned parties believe that the new ordinance would be a valuable tool in minimizing the City's risk and liability when dealing with future clandestine drug labs in Arden Hills. Recommendation City staffis requesting that City Council approval of the Clandestine Drug Lab Ordinance #354, Attachments: . Proposed Clandestine Drug Lab Ordinance #650 . IIEarth\Admin\Assistant City AdministratorlMemo's and Letters\2005\Clandestine Drug Lab 4-25-05,DOC '. . . . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 354 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO CLANDESTINE DRUG LAB SITES The Arden Hills City Council ordains that Chapter 650 is hereby added to the Arden Hills Municipal Code, to read as follows: Section 650, Clandestine Dru!! Lab Sites 650.10 Purpose and Intent. The purpose of Chapter 650 is to protect public health, safety and welfare, and reduce public exposure to health risks where law enforcement authorities have determined that hazardous chemicals from a suspected clandestine lab site or associated dumpsite may exist, The City Council finds that such sites may contain hazardous chemicals, substances, or residues that place people, particularly children or women of child-bearing age, at risk of exposure through inhabiting or visiting the site or being exposed to contaminated personal property, Chemicals used in the production of illicit drugs can condense, penetrate and contaminate surfaces, furnishings, and equipment of surrounding structures, These conditions present health and safety risks to occupants and visitors of structures through fire, explosion, skin and respiratory exposure to chemicals, 650.11 Interpretation and Application. The provisions of this Chapter 650 shall be interpreted and applied as the minimum requirements necessary to protect public health, safety and welfare. Where conditions imposed by any provision of this Chapter 650 are either more or less restrictive than comparable provisions imposed by any other law, ordinance, statute, or regulation of any kind, the regulations which are more restrictive or which impose higher standards or requirements shall prevaiL 650.12 Definitions (A) Chemical Dump Site, Any place or location where chemicals and/or other hazardous waste material used in a clandestine drug lab have been deposited. (B) Chemical investigation site. A Clandestine drug lab site that is under notice and order for cleanup and/or remediation as a public health nuisance, and this Chapter 650. (C) Clandestine drug lab operation. The unlawful manufacture, or attempt to manufacture, a controlled substance(s). (D) Clandestine drug lab site. Any place or area where law enforcement has determined that conditions associated with the operation of an unlawful clandestine drug lab exist. A clandestine drug lab site may include dwellings, accessory buildings, or structures, a chemical dumpsite, vehicle boat, trailer or any other land. (E) Cleanup. The proper removal and/or containment of substances hazardous to humans and/or the environment at a chemical investigation site. (F) Controlled substance. A drug, substance or immediate precursor described under Schedules I through V of Minnesota Statute 152.02, and as amended in the future. The term shall not include distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, intoxicating liquors or tobacco. (G) Health Authoritv. Ramsey County Department of Public Health (H) Household hazardous wastes. Waste generated from a clandestine drug lab operation. Such wastes shall be treated, stored, transported, or disposed of in a manner consistent with Minnesota Department of Public Health, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Ramsey County Health Department rules and regulations. (1) Law Enforcement Agency. An agency or a person designated by the City CounciL Manufacture. In places other than a pharmacy, shall mean and include the production, cultivation, quality control, or standardization, by mechanical, physical, chemical or pharmaceutical means, packing, repacking, tableting, encapsulating, labeling, relabeling, or filling, of a controlled substance. (K) Occupant. Any person who occupies real property, whether with or without any right, title, or interest in the property, and any person in possession or charge or such property in the event the owner resides or is located elsewhere. (J) (L) Owner. Any person, firm or corporation who owns, in whole or in part, the land, buildings or structures associated with a clandestine drug lab site. Unless information is provided to prove otherwise, the owner of real property is deemed to be the property taxpayer of record in the Ramsey County records, and the owner of a vehicle, boat or trailer as deemed to be the person listed as the owner of the most recent title to said vehicle boat or trailer. (M) Public health nuisance. All dwellings, accessory structures and buildings or adjacent property associated with a clandestine drug Jab site deemed unsafe due to potential health hazards. (N) Remediation. Methods such as assessment, evaluation, testing, venting, detergent scrubbing, enclosure, encapsulation, demolition, and/or removal of contaminate materials from a chemical investigation site. 2 , . . . . . . 650.13 Public Health Nuisance. A clandestine drug lab site or chemical dump site is hereby determined to be a public nuisance subject to the regulations of this Chapter 650 in addition to any and all applicable federaJ, state, or local laws and ordinances. No person may occupy, enter or allow occupancy or entrance to property declared a public health nuisance under this Chapter 650 until such declaration is vacated or modified to allow occupancy. 650.14 Notice to Other Agencies ("Agencv Notice"). Law enforcement authorities, if other than the City's Law Enforcement Agency, upon identification of a clandestine drug lab site or a chemical dump site shall promptly notifY the City's Law Enforcement Agency. The City's Law Enforcement Agency shall notify the Building Official, appropriate health authority and other appropriate agencies of the property location, property owner if known, and conditions found. 650.15 Notice to Owner and Occupant ("Owner/Occupant Notice"), Upon notification by law enforcement authorities, the Building Official will promptly notify the following parties by U.S. Mail: (A) The owner of the property, if known. (B) Occupants of the property. (C) Any neighbors determined to be at risk to the extent that they can be located. (D) Other appropriate state and 10caJ authorities including, but not limited, to the Minnesota Department of Health, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, which are known to have applicable public and enviromnental protection responsibilitieso The Owner/Occupant Notice must, at a minimum, include the location ofthe chemical dump site or the clandestine drug lab site; the name ofthe property owner, if known; the type and nature of the contamination; and the extent of the contamination. The Building Official must also cause a copy of the Owner/Occupant Notice to be posted at each appropriate access point to such site. Removal ofthe posted Owner/Occupant Notice by anyone other than the Building Official, City's Law Enforcement Agency, or their designees, is prohibited. 650.16 Issuance of Abatement Order ("Abatement Order"). The Building Official shall notify and order the property owner and occupant to have the public health nuisance abated as provided in and this Chapter. The Abatement Order shall include a description of the site and all portions thereof that are determined to be contaminated and shall include statements indicating: (A) That all or portions of the site are determined to be contaminated and at risk to occupants or visitors are immediately vacated. (B) That the owner commence and complete all testing and clean up procedures and other required remedial actions on the site by dates specified in the order or such other dates agreed to by the City. (C) That the site may not be re-occupied or used in any mamler until it has been completely cleaned in accordance with the guidelines established by the MDH. 3 (D) That if the owner does not commence testing and complete the clean up procedures by the dates established in the order, the City, its officials, employees, or agents, will arrange appropriate on-site assessment and cleanup services at the owner's expense. (E) That the owner is responsible for all costs associated with the on-site assessment and clean up of the site including all costs incurred by the City and other public agencies, and that if the owner does not promptly pay those cost they will be assessed against the property and collected in the manner of a special tax, . 650.17 Service of Abatement Order. The Abatement Order shall be deemed to be properly served if a copy thereof is delivered in one of the following methods: (A) Delivered personally (B) Sent by certified or first class mail addressed to the last know address, (C) A copy posted in a conspicuous place in or about the dwelling or area affected by such order. 650.18 Property Owner and Occupant Responsibility to Act. Property owner(s) and occupant(s) provided with an Owner/Occupant Notice, which may include the posted warning notice informing them about the chemical investigation site public health nuisance, shall promptly act to vacate within twenty-four (24) hours all occupants from those parts of a structure that are a chemical investigation site public health nuisance, including dwellings, buildings, motor vehicles, trailers, boats or other vehicles and . appliances. (A) In the event the property owner(s) and occupant(s) who received the Owner/Occupant Notice fail to vacate parts of a structure that are a chemical investigation site public health nuisance, the Building Official shall order all persons to vacate the premises. Failure to leave is a misdemeanor. Where a person fails to vacate the premises as ordered by the Building Official, the City's Law Enforcement Agency may be summoned to assist in vacating the premises and issuing such citations or in making such arrests as may be necessary to comply with this subsection. (B) Except as hereinafter provided, within ten (10) business days of receiving the Abatement Order, the property owner(s) and/or occupant(s) shall act to accomplish the following: L Notify the Building Official that the affected parts of the structure has been and will remain vacated and secured until the health authority acts to remove the chemical investigation site public health nuisance declaration; Contract with one or more acceptable enviromnenta1 hazard testing and cleaning firms (acceptable firms are those that have provided the Minnesota Department of Health and/or Building Official assurance of appropriate equipment, procedures and personnel) to accomplish the following: . 2. 4 . . . a. Conduct a detailed on-site assessment; b. Determine the extent of contamination; c, Carry out and lor direct remediation operations; d. Perform and/or direct follow-up sampling and testing; and e. Determine that the risks are sufficiently reduced, according to Minnesota Department of Health guidelines, to allow the structure to be reoccupied; 3. Provide the Building Official with the identity of the enviromnental bazard testing and cleaning firm with whom the owner has contracted, for remediation of the structure as described above; and 4. Provide the Building Official with the contractor's plan and schedule for remediation leading to removal of the chemical investigation site public health nuisance declaration. (C) The property owner(s) or occupant(s) may seek authorization for an extension of time to allow the owner to consider options for arranging cleanup or removal of the affected parts of the structure. The owner(s) or occupant(s) must show good cause for any such extension. Any extension shall be dependent on the owner(s) assurance that the affected parts of the structure will not be occupied pending appropriate cleanup or demolition. (D) The owner(s), occupant(s) or their contractor shall provide documentation of the cleanup and remediation, including but not limited to follow-up environmental testing as deemed necessary, to tl1e Building Official. Review and determination of acceptable cleanup must be made by the Building Official prior to re-occupancy of the property. 650.19 Owner's Responsibility for Cost. The owner ofthe site is responsible for the costs of vacating the site and surrounding areas, testing, clean-up and public expenses. Public expenses include all costs that have or may be incurred by the City and other public agencies including but not limited to, costs for: (A) Emergency Response (B) Posting and physical security of site (C) Notification of affected parties (D) Expenses related to the recovery of costs, including the assessment process (E) Laboratory fees (F) Clean-up fees (G) Administrative fees 650.20 Recovery of Public Costs. The City is authorized under Minnesota Statutes 463 to proceed within ten (10) business days after mailing of notification, to initiate the assessmcnt and cleanup when the property owner (a) is not located, (b) is located but fails to respond appropriately, or ( c) notifies the City that the owner refuses to or cannot pay 5 the costs or arrange timely assessment and cleanup that is acceptable to the Building Official. . (A) The City may abate the nuisance by removing any hazardous structure, building, or otherwise, in compliance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 463 or by any other means provided under law, (B) If the City abates the public health nuisance, it may recover all costs associated with such abatement. (C) In addition to any other Jegal remedy, the City may recover costs by civil action against the person or persons who own the property or by assessing such costs as a special tax against the property in the manner that taxes and special assessments are certified and collected pursuant to Minnesota Statutes g429,10l 650.21 Authority to Modify or Remove Declaration of Public Health Nuisance. The Building Official is authorized to modify the Declaration of chemical investigation site public health nuisance, Such modifications or removal shall be only after the Building Official has determined levels of contamination are sufficiently reduced through remediation to warrant modification or removal of the declaration. The Building Official may rely on information from competent sources, including those supplied by the property owner(s) and/or others such as state and local health, safety, and pollution control authorities to reach such decisions, Adoption Date. Passed by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills on the _ day of . ,2005. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective the day following its publication in the City's official newspaper. Publication Date. Published on the of ,2005, SEAL Beverly Aplikowski, Mayor . 6 . Prepared by: GSB Dept.: Engineer Council Mtg, Date: 4/25/05 Final Action Needed By: 4/25/05 ~ ~HlLLS City of Arden I1ills Request for Council Action Agenda Item ~:I 2006 PMP Proiect Budgeted Amount: 1,60M Actual Amount: 85K Funding Source: Council Action Request: Authorize URS to perform field survey, preliminary engineering activities and prepare a feasibility report for the 2006 PMP project. URS professional services will be accomplished in accordance with contract terms based upon the construction value of the project as outlined in work authorization letter dated April 25, 2005, Engineer's Summary: The current 5 year CIP includes the Ridgewood neighborhood for reconstruction in 2006, URS and City staff have conducted two informational neighborhood mectings earlier this year to inform residents of the project and to solicit input from residents on infrastructure issues within the neighborhood. Based upon feedback from residents at the two public informational mcetings to date there appears to be general acceptance of the project and many residents are hopeful that the project will solve neighborhood drainage problems. If the field survey work begins soon, we will be able to complete a feasibility report this summer and confirm the project scope and budget during the annual CIP update process. In addition, an early start this year will allow us to bid the project during the winter months and hopefully receive very competitive bids. . Advisory Commission Action: Commission Date Action . Notl\ppilcablEl._ Not Applicable .. Not app1ical:lle_ u_f>IClrlrling. PTRC Supporting Documents (which are attached to this Action Form): [2J Memo/Letter: Scope Outline Letter from City Engineer to Michelle Wolfe dated 4/25/05. o Resolution (No. ) o Ordinance (No. ) o Engineering Recommendation: o Attorney Recommendation: o Other: Financial Implications: The CIP included a total project budget of 1,6 million for this improvement. The field survey, preliminary engineering and feasibility report preparation fees are estimated at approximately $85,000. . Administrator/Staff Comments: Page 1 of 1 . April 25, 2005 Ms, Michelle Wolfe City Administrator City of Arden Hills 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 RE: Work Order 05-02 2006 PMP - Ridgewood Neighborhood Dear Ms. Wolfe, The following proposal is offered as a confirmation of our scope of work, estimated fees and scheduJe for the above-referenced project. . GENERAL PROJECT SCOPE The proposed scope of work includes services for preliminary engineering, preparation of final plans and construction services for the proposed street improvements throughout the Ridgewood neighborhood in the City of Arden Hills. BASIC SERVICES Preliminary En~ineering& Feasibility Report URS will provide preliminary engineering services for the proposed project including the evaluation of alternatives which may be appropriate, URS will conduct field reviews of the project site as necessary and prepare presentation graphics and exhibits for public information and Council review. URS will make modifications to the proposed improvement scope as directed by City staff and CounciL URS will work with City staff to prepare for and conduct one additional neighborhood meeting during the preparation of the feasibility report (two public informational meetings have been held to date), URS will present the findings of the feasibility report to the Council at a formal Public Hearing. FinaJ Design Phase URS will prepare final plans and specifications for the project in accordance with the Professional Services Agreement. City staff will provide as-built information as needed for the project FinaJ plans and specifications will be prepared to City standards and will include removal plans, utility reconstruction plans, grading plans, details, and public utility adjustments necessary for the 2006 Pavement Management . . Ms. Michelle Wolfe April 25, 2005 Page 2 Program. Final plans and specifications will be submitted to City staff for review and comment URS will conduct a formal assessment hearing for the project near the completion of the final design phase. Bidding Phase URS will provide bidding phase services in accordance with the Professional Services Agreement. URS will submit advertiscments for bidding, produce bidding documents, answer contractor questions, issue addendums and conduct the bid opening. URS will check bids and provide a detailed bid tabulation and recommendation of award to City Council. Construction Phase URS will provide construction services in accordance with the Professional Services Agreement. The services will include contract administration, field inspections and construction staking. Construction testing will be coordinated by URS but will be provided by others and will be billed directly to the City by the firm performing the work. ADDITIONAL SERVICES In addition to the Basic Services detailed above, IJRS will provide additional services for field survey necessary for the project. . Field Survey Field surveying will be compJeted for the project during both the Preliminary and Final Design Phases of the project. 1t is anticipated that the Survey will be a construction survey to include right of way, existing utilities and all topographic points which, will be impacted by this project. All survey information will be based upon the Ramsey County Coordinate System in order to allow easy correlation with City GIS mapping information, ESTIMATED COSTS We propose that the basic services identified above be completed on a percentage of construction cost basis consistent with the terms of our Professional Services Agreement. The budgeted construction costs for the project include approximately $1,050,000.00 of roadway improvements, $240,000.00 in storm drainage improvements and $80,000.00 in waterrnain improvements and $30,000 in sanitary sewer improvements. The current estimate of the total construction costs for the project is approximately $1,400,000.00. The total budgeted project cost (including engineering and construction inspection/administration) in the CIP is 1,670,000. An outline of our estimated fees and direct expenses for the project arc detailed below: Estimated Fees for Basic Services Percentage Multiplier to be used for Basic Services based upon estimated construction cost of $1,400,000.00 and curve included on Exhibit D of the Professional Services Agreement: 5.95% . Thresher Square 700 Third Street South Minneapolis, MN 55415 Phone: (612) 370-0700 Fax: (612) 370-1378 Ms. Michelle WoJfe April 25, 2005 Page 3 Breakdown of Basic Services Feasibility Study Preliminary Engineering Phase Final Design Phase Bidding Phase Subtotal Basic Services (5.8% of construction) 35% 30% 30% 5% 100% Estimated Fees for Additional Services (hourJy, not-to-exceed) Field Survey: CAD Technician: 80 Hours @ $65.00 Survey Coordinator 12 Hours @$80.00 Survey Crew (2 man) 176 Hours @$125.00 Subtotal Additional Services (hourly) . Construction Services 10.0% of Construction Cost per the URS Contract Agreement Subtotal Construction Services $29,155.00 $24,990,00 $24,990.00 $ 4,165.00 $83,300.00 $ 5,200,00 $ 960,00 $22.000.00 $28,160.00 $140,000.00 Direct Expenses Direct expenses for the project include items such as mileage, parking, photography, printing and delivery services. URS will bill all expenses incurred on the project directly to the City with no URS markup. . Expenses are anticipated to include geotechnical subconsultant ($4,000) printing and distribution of plans and specifications ($2,500), construction materials testing ($4,500) and mileage ($1,500). The total estimated amount for direct expenses is $12,500.00 ESTIMATED FEE SUMMARY Basic Services (percent of construction cost) Additional Services (hourly, not-to-exceed) Construction Services (percent of construction cost) Expenses (estimated, no markup) Total Estimated Cost $ 83,300,00 $ 28,160,00 $140,000,00 $ 12.500.00 $263,960.00 All work, therefore is estimated to be complete for a total amount of$263,960.00, F;nal amounts for Basic Services and Construction Services will be based upon the actual construction cost of the project in accordance with the Professional Services Agreement. Additional Services will be performed on an hourly basis based upon the parameters outlined in the Professional Services Agreement. Expenses will be billed directJy to the City with no URS markup. . Thresher Square 700 Third Street South Minneapolis, MN 55415 Phone: (612) 370-0700 Fax: (612) 370-1378 . Ms, Michelle Wolfe April 25, 2005 Page 4 SCHEDULE The following is the proposed schedule for the project: Field Survey of Neighborhood Preliminary Engineering/Feasibility Report Preparation 3rd Neighborhood Meeting Public Hearing Final Design Period Assessment Hearing Bid Opening Begin Construction Complete Construction May, 2005 May-July, 2005 June, 2005 July 25,2005 August - October, 2005 November 14, 2005 February, 2006 May, 2006 September, 2006 Thank you for the opportunity to provide these services. We look forward to working with you and City staff on this proj"ct. Please call if you have any questions or we can provide any additional information. A completed Work Order Form is attached for your execution. Sincerely, . URS Corporation Gregory S, Brown, P.E Arden Hills City Engineer Copy Tom Moore/Arden Hills Tom Geear/URS Frank Ticknor/URS Matthew Harder/URS Mark Lynch/URS File: Pending Thresher square 700 Third Street South Minneapolis, MN 55415 Phone: (612) 370-0700 Fax: (612) 370-1378 , l ~ ~HILLS City ot Arden Hills Request for Council Action . \ . . Prepared by: PH f1-- Dept.: CD Council Mtg. Date: 4/25/2005 Final Action Needed By: 6/16/2005 Agenda Item II .:hOU,,,,,,1 PC #05-09, Drivewav Variances for 4365 and 4367 Lexin!lton Avenue Budgeted Amount: $0.00 Actual Amount: $0.00 Funding Source: $0,00 Council Action Request: Consider the applicants' variance requests to keep the existing shared driveway and add one additional driveway for each of the applicants' properties. Staff Recommendation: Approve the requested variances to keep the existing shared driveway and add one additional driveway for each of the applicants' properties subject to the seven conditions of approval as outlined in the staff report to the City Council dated April 25, 2005. Advisory Commission Action: Commission Planning PTRC Date 4/6/2005 Action i '""'f""'" i Approved (3-1 ) NotApplicable Not applicable . Supporting Documents (which are attached to this Action Form): ~ Memo/Letter: Staff Report to the City Council - April 25, 2005 Staff Report to the Planning Commission - April 6, 2005 o Resolution (No. ) o Ordinance (No. ) o Engineering Recommendation: o Attorney Recommendation: ~Other: Planning Commission Minute excerpt - April 6, 2005 Financial Implications: Administrator/Staff Comments: . Page 1 of 1 . . . ~ ~ ~~HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: 6.C April 25, 2005 Agenda Item TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Peter Hellegers, City Planner ~ SUBJECT: PC #05-09, David Radziej and Roger Sabot 4365 and 4367 Lexington Avenue Driveway Variances Requested Action The applicants have requested variances to allow them to retain the existing shared driveway and add an additional driveway for each of the applicants' properties in Arden Hills, Planninl!" Commission Recommendation Recommendation and Conditions of Approval At their April 6, 2005 meeting the Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case #05-09 and recommended approval (3-1) (Modesette opposed) ofthe variances to retain the existing shared driveway and add one additional driveway for each ofthe applicants' properties subject to the following conditions: I. The applicants shall submit Zoning Permits with plans to the Building Official a minimum of two (2) weeks before the planned start of construction, 2, The applicants will require approval from Ramsey County for the curb-cuts prior to the installation of any new driveway, 3. The driveways shall be constructed within the City standard for driveway widths of a 12 foot minimum and a 22 foot maximum. 4, There shall be at least 60 feet between each driveway access. 5, Auxiliary signage shall be installed which identifies the entry drive and tl:1e exit drives, 6, The access drives shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and County Traffic Engineer, installation ofthe access drives can only proceed after approval of the access drive design by both the City Engineer and County Engineer. 7. Parking shall comply with the Arden Hills Zoning Ordinance requirements of no parking on any areas except for driveways and parking lots, and shaIl not have more than 4 vehicles may be parked on any driveway. \\Earth\Planning\Planning Cases\2005\05-09 Radziej and SabOl Driveway Variances (PI:::NDlNG)\04-25-05 CC Report OS-09.doc Page I of2 Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on February 17, 2005 Pursuant to Minnesota State Statue, the City must act on this request by April 18, 2005 (60 days), unless the city provides the petitioner with written reasons for and additional 60 day review period. The City may with the petitioners' consent extend the review period beyond the 120 days. In light of the additional time required for this case to return to the Planning Commission before being heard by the City Council, the applicants were notified that the City had extended the review period on this case. The City must now act on this request by June 16, 2005, Options L Recommend approval as submitted. 2. Recommend approval with conditions. 3, Recommend denial with reasons for denial. If the City denies the petitioners request, "" ,it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time it denies the request." 4, Table for additional information, Attachments 6C-1 6C-2 Staff Report to the Planning Commission - April 6, 2005 Planning Commission Minute Excerpt - April 6, 2005 \\Earth\Planning\Planning Cases\2005\05-09 Radziej and Sabol Driveway Variances (PENDING)\04-25-05 CC Report 05~09.doc Page 2 of2 : . . . . . . l City Council Meeting April 25, 2005 Attachment 6C - 1 . . . ( ~ ~~HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: PC Agenda Item 5.A April 6, 2005 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Peter Hellegers, City Planner SUBJECT: PC #05-09, David Radziej and Roger Sabot 4365 and 4367 Lexington Avenue Driveway Variances Requested Action The applicants have requested variances to allow them to maintain the existing shared driveway and add an additional driveway for each of the applicants' properties in Arden Hills, UPDATE At their March 2, 2005 meeting the Plarming Commission voted unanimousJy (5-0) to deny the requested vpnances to maintain the existing shared driveway and add one additional driveway for each of the properties. The reasons for deniaJ were as follows: 1. The lack of detail plans and the engineering necessary to show exactly what the dynamics of the access are going to be, The owners have the opportunity to work this out between the City and the County Engineers and come up with a better engineered plan than submitted. 2. The shared access was a condition of approval for the original development of the site and other conditions of approval, which was the turnaround was not met, so therefore, the Commission did not know how the site functions if that condition was in place. 3. Multiple accesses to the property and the proximity to the Victoria and Amble intersection would be more confusing and dangerous to traffic on Lexington Avenue and to the occupants, The applicants have reviewed the Planning Commission's direction and have attempted to answer some of the Planning Commission's previous questions. Attachments 5A-2 and 5A-3 include additional information that was submitted by the applicants. The information includes \\Earth\Planning\p1anning Cases\2005\05-09 Radziej and Sabot Driveway Variances (PENDING)\04-06-GS PC Report Rodziej and Sabot Driveway Variances,doc Page 1 of7 ~ additional narrative, pictures and site plans with better definition. In general the information looks at the lack of area for constructing turn-around spaces off of the driveway without . removing or damaging the large trees around the entryway, and small auxiliary signs (to meet code) which would read "enter only" and "exit only" to improve the functionality of the proposed driveways, The applicants are proposing that the existing shared driveway would be the entrance and the two proposed driveways would be the exit drives. Site Overview Section 6F3c6 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows single family uses only one (1) access per property. The applicants are requesting a variance to allow the existing shared driveway to remain while installing two additional driveways; one for each property. The new driveways would connect to the existing shared driveway and allow the applicants to more safely access their properties. The applicants have stated that the property can be very dangerous to access in its current shared drive arrangement since oftentimes a vehicle will be trying to exit at the same time a vehicle is attempting to enter the driveway, In addition to the access issues, the applicants do not have any on street parking due to the location along Lexington A venue, Therefore, any guests that the applicants may have would need to park in the space provided in the driveway, The Zoning Ordinance onJy allows four vehicles to be parked in a driveway at a time, if those spaces are occupied it would be very difficult to access either property. As part ofthe Lexington Avenue reconstruction project a center median will divide the northbound and southbound traffic directly . in front of the access for these two properties. The applicants have been in contact with Ramsey County and the County has agreed to allow the three driveways to Lexington provided that the driveways are at least 60 feet apart. The Ramsey County project engineer stated that it is the County's preference to have vehicles entering Lexington Avenue front first rather than attempting to back out onto the roadway. Variance Criteria A. State Requirements Minnesota State Statue in Chapter 462.357, Subdivision 6, (2), defines "undue hardship" as: ".. . means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstance unique to the propcrty not created by the landowner, and thc variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. . ," \\E<lrlh\Planning\Planning Cases.\2005\05-09 Radziej and Sabot Driveway Variances (PENDlNG)\04-06-05 PC Report Rodziej and Sabot Driveway V3riances.doc Page 2 of7 . e e e , B. City Requirements Section VIII, 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 may be granted from specific provisions of this ordinance because such land factors as length of a side of a lot, the shape of the lot or the unusual terrain prohibit reasonable development equivalent to that which would be permitted without variance on a similar size lot located in the same district, but which lot has no unusual configuration. Economic conditions alone shall not be grounds for a variance, In no case shall the granting of a variance impair the 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 ordinancc of the City." Variance Findings Minnesota State Stature 462.357, subd. 6, requires that Cities consider the following five matters when hearing requests for zoning ordinance variances, 1. Are tbe circumstances for wbicb tbe variance is requested unique to tbe property? (YES) The properties have the unique feature of a shared driveway. While there are other properties in the City that have shared driveways, the combination of the shared driveway with several other features such as; no on-street parldng at the location, the speed of traffic on Lexington Avenue, the amount of vehicle trips per day on Lexington Avenue, and the lack of shoulders to provide a safe access; create a very unique situation for the applicants. The properties are located with Karth Lake on the west, the park to the south and are cut off from any access except for directly to Lexington Avenue, Since the properties will have some access removed with the installation of the center median in the Lexington A venue Reconstruction, the additional driveways would provide better access for the property owners. Other properties in Arden Hills may be located along busy streets or have shared driveways but staff has not encountered any other properties that have the same combination of situations as outlined above. Properties along Highway 96 or Hamline Avenue may have access to a busy roadway but these properties either have roadway shoulders where they can move to when trying to access their properties or have far less \\Earth\Planning\Planning Cases\2005\05~09 Radzicj and Sabot Driveway Variances (PENDING)\04-06-05 PC Report Rodziej and Sabot Oriveway Vari::mccs.doc Page 3 of7 } traffic, Furthermore, staff has not seen an instance where one of these properties also has a shared driveway. e The applicants have expressed concern that with the existing shared drive is difficult for vehicles to enter and exit the properties at the same time. Since there is no shoulder on Lexington and the reconstruction would eliminate any left-turn in access, a vehicle could be stuck on Lexington Avenue waiting to access the property. The proposed additional driveways would eliminate such situations and provide safer access for both properties. 2. Would granting the variance be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance? The stated Purpose and Intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance includes thirteen purposes, of those the following statements appear to be applicable: This ordinance is enacted for the following purposes: . To promote the general public health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota, (l,B,l) . To promote the proper use of land and structures, (1,B,6) . To fix reasonable standards to which buildings, structures and land shall conform for the benefit of all (1 ,B, 7) The stated purpose of the R-l: Single Family Residential District as stated in Section 5,D,1 is as follows: . To establish areas for the development of singJe family detached housing at a maximum density of approximately 3 units per acre, . To reserve development areas for single-family housing. . To restrict encroachment of incompatible uses. . To maintain density limitations. . To take advantage of municipal utilities, . To preservc open space. e (YES) The applicants' proposal is consistent with the R-l District and the Zoning Ordinance purposes. The applicants are requesting the variances due to the reduced access (created by the new center median that will be installed in Lexington Avenue) and concerns about difficulty accessing their properties. The standard for one driveway access per property is intended to limit access on residential property to maintain a residential appearance for single-family homes. However, there is a large difference between aesthetic impact on a residential property on a typical neighborhood street where the traffic is only traveling 25 or 30 miles per hour, versus a property on a major arterial where traffic is traveling 45 to 50 miles per hour. \\Earth\Planning\Planning Cases\2005\05-09 Radziej and Sabot Driveway Variances (PENDlNG)\04-06-05 PC Report Rodziej and Sabot Drivcv.ray Variances.doc Page 4 of 7 e , . . . 3. Could the property in question be put to a reasonable use without the granting of the variance? (NO) The properties were subdivided and granted a lakeshore setback variance in 1995 subject to 3 conditions of approval, One of the conditions was the shared access drive; another was the installation of one turn-around for each property, While the shared driveway was constructed, it appears that the turn-arounds were not. However, with the limited amount of space between the homes and Lexington Avenue, a turn-around may interfere with the limited off-street parking areas. In addition, the residents have stated that there have been several times where one vehicle is exiting and another is attempting to enter the drive, the shared driveway makes it difficult to access the properties. Traffic that has to wait on Lexington Avenue to access the property presents a real safety hazard for the applicants and for others traveling on Lexington A venue. 4. Was the hardship created by the owner? (NO) The hardship appears to be that the City allowed these lots to be subdivided in 1995 and in the process did not leave the properties with adequate access, Neither of the property owners was present at the time the properties were subdivided and this situation was created, Furthermore, the properties do not have on-street parking on Lexington Avenue and the lack of adequate roadway shoulders makes turning to access the driveways difficult and potentially dangerous. The applicants are seeking the additional driveways as a way to have a safer and better access situation. 5. Would granting the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? (NO) Outside of the applicants' properties no other property in the Karth Lake North neighborhood has direct access to Lexington Avenue. Furthermore, the speed and amount of traffic on Lexington Avenue, decreased access to the applicants' properties due to the impending center median, lack of a shoulder area for making turns. and the current shared driveway, can make it very difficult for the applicants to access their properties. The variances would allow for safer access for the residents of the two properties. Plan Review Comments A. Zoning Permits with plans shall be submitted to the Building Official a minimum of two (2) weeks before the planned start of construction. B. No construction shall bcgin before plans and permits are approved by the City of Arden Hills' Building Official. \\Earth\Planning\Planning Cases\2005\05-09 Radziej and Sabot Driveway Variances (PENDlNG)\04-06-05 PC Report Rodzicj and Sabot Driveway Variances.doc Page 5 of7 C. The City standards for driveways indicate a minimum width of 12 feet and a maximum width of 22 feet. Ramsey County indicated that they require 60 feet between driveways. . D. Applicants will need to contact Ramsey County about curb-cut permits prior to the installation of any new driveway. E. Zoning Ordinance regulations state that in all residential districts, parking is prohibited on any area of the property except on designated driveways or parking lots. The Zoning Ordinance also prohibits more than four vehicles from being parked on a driveway, Recommendation In Planning Case #05-09, staff recommends that the request for variances to allow one new driveway at 4365 and one new driveway at 4367 while maintaining the existing shared driveway be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicants shall submit Zoning Permits with plans to the Building Official a minimum of two (2) weeks before the planned start of construction. 2, The applicants will require approval from Ramsey County for the curb-cuts prior to the installation of any new driveway, 3. The driveways shall be constructed within the City standard for driveway widths ofa 12 foot minimum and a 22 foot maximum, 4. There shall be at Jeast 60 feet between each driveway access. 5. Auxiliary signage shall be installed which identifies the entry drive and the exit drives. 6, The access drives shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and County Traffic Engineer, installation of the access drives can only proceed after approval of the access drive design . by both the City Engineer and County Engineer. 7. Parking shall comply with the Arden Hills Zoning Ordinance requirements of no parking on any areas except for driveways and parking lots, and shall not have more than 4 vehicles may be parked on any driveway. Options I. Recommend approval as submitted, 2. Recommend approvaJ with conditions, 3. Recommend denial with reasons for deniaL If the City denies the petitioners request, "...it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time it denies the request." 4. Table for additional information, Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills rcceived the completed application for this rcquest on February 17,2005 Pursuant to Minnesota State Statue, the City must act on this request by April 18,2005 (60 days), unless the city providcs the petitioner with written rcasons for and additional 60 day review \\Earth\Planning\Planning Cases\1005\05-09 Radziej and Sabot Driveway Variances (PENDING)\04-06-05 PC Report Rodziej and Sabot Driveway Variances.doc . Page 60f7 ( period, The City may with the petitioners' consent extend the review period beyond the 120 . days. . . Attachments 5a-l City Maps, 03-02-05 PC Report (no attach,), 03-02-05 PC Minute excerpt, County Right-of-Way plan for Lexington Avenue (Sheet 8 of 16) 5a-2 Additional plans and information submitted by the Sabots, 5a-3 Additional plans and information submitted by the Raziejs. \\Earth\Planning\Planning Cases\1005\05-09 Radziej and Sabot Driveway Variances (PENDING)\04~06-05 PC Report RodzieJ and Sabot Driveway Variances.doc Page 70f7 . . . Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 2005 Attachment SA - 1 . ~ ~HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 2, 2005 TO: Plarming Commission PC Agenda Item 4.A FROM: Peter Hellegers, City Planner SUBJECT: PC #05-09, David Radziej and Roger Sabot 4365 and 4367 Lexington Avenue Driveway Variances Requested Action The applicants have requested variances to allow them to maintain the existing sharcd driveway and add an additional driveway for each of the applicants' properties in Arden Hills. Background . Surrounding Area . North Low Density Residential South East (Shareview West Park R-l: Single Famity Residential District Single Family Detached Residential Outdoor SportlRecreation Single Family Detached Residential 1-1: Limited Industrial District R-l: Detached Residential Karth Lake RL Residential (up to 4 upa) Karth Lake Karth Lake Site Data (4365/4367) Low Density Residential / (same) Single Family Detached Residential I (same) R-I: Single Family Residential District / (same) 1.01 acres (43,996 square feet) /1.31 acres (57.064 square feet) N/A / (same) Steep grade at the western part of the property along Karth Lake / (same) \\Earth\Planning\Planning Cases\2005\05-09 Radziej and Sabot Driveway Variances (PENDlNG)\02-02-05 PC Report Rodziej and Sabot Driveway VarianceS.doc Page 1 of7 Notice Notice was published in the Arden Hills/Shoreview Bulletin on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 . and notice was prepared by the City and mailed to residents within threc-hundred fifty (350) feet of the subject property, Site Overview Section 6F3c6 ofthe Zoning Ordinance which allows single family uses only one (1) access per property. The applicants are requesting a variance to allow the existing shared driveway to remain while installing two additional drivcways, one for each property. The new driveways would connect to the existing shared driveway and allow the applicants to more safely access their properties. The applicants have statcd that the property can be very dangerous to access in its current shared drive arrangement since oftentimes a vehicle will be trying to exit at the same time a vehicle is attempting to enter the driveway, In addition to the access issues, the applicants do not have any on street parking due to the location along Lcxington Avenue. Therefore, any guests that the applicants may have would need to park in the space provided in the driveway, The Zoning Ordinance only allows four vehicles to be parked in a driveway at a time, if those spaces are occupied it would bc very difficult to access either property, As part of thc Lexington A venue reconstruction project a center median will divide the northbound and southbound traffic directly in front of the access for these two properties. The applicants have been in contact with Ramsey County and the County has agreed to allow the three driveways to Lexington provided that the driveways are at least 60 feet apart. The Ramsey County project engineer stated that it is the . County's prefercnce to have vehicles entering Lexington Avenue front first rather than attempting to back out onto the roadway. (One of the resident comments included in this packet brings up a question about a home occupation. There are two types of home occupations in Arden Hills which differ based on the nature of the occupation, the area of the home occupied by the business, and whether customers visit the home occupation. In a situation where customers are visiting the home occupation, the home occupation is classified as a Class II Home Occupation and are required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council for a Special Use Permit. No Class II Home Occupation Permits or SUP's have been issued for the applicants' properties. Staff has begun looking into this but the home occupation question would be handled as a separate matter, not as part of this case). 1. Setbacks - Meets Requirement Driveway setbacks call for all driveways to be a minimum of 5 feet apart and may be constructed up to a property line. In addition driveways are not permitted to be any closcr than 3 feet from \\Earth\Planning\Planning Cases\2005\05-09 Radzicj and Sabot Driveway Variances (PENDlNG}\02-02-05 PC Report Rodziej and SabOl Drive'WaY Variances.doc Page 2 of7 . e e . any single or two-family residence. The proposed driveways appear to be located a minimum of 10 feet from the property lines and would connect to the existing shared driveway; therefore the properties would continue to comply with this regulation, 2. Lot Coverage - Meets Requirement The requirement for the R-J: SingJe Family Residential District is a maximum of 25%, The proposed plans do not alter the lot coverage, and would continue to comply with this regulation, 3. Landscape Lot Area - Meets Requirement The requirement for R-l: Single Family Residential District is a Minimum Landscape Lot Area of 65%, The proposed plans show approximately 2,400 new square feet of impervious surface, together with the existing impervious surface, the properties would still be compliant with this regulation. Variance Criteria A. State Requirements Minnesota State Statue in Chapter 462,357, Subdivision 6, (2), defines "undue hardship" as: "...means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstance unique to the property not created by the landowner, and thc variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the propcrty exists under the terms of the ordinance..." B. City Requirements Section VIII, D, 4, c and d, ofthe City's Zoning Ordinance state that, "Adherence to the provisions ofthis ordinance is required, except for special cases which arise because of the configuration of a particular parcel. The condition shall not have been created by the landowner. A variance or variances may be granted from specific provisions of this ordinance because such land factors as length of a side of a lot, the shape of the lot or the unusual terrain prohibit reasonable development equivalent to that which would be permitted without variance on a similar size lot located in the same district, but which lot has no unusual configuration. Economic conditions alone shall not be grounds for a variancc. In no case shall the granting of a \\Earth\Planning\Planning Cases\200S\OS-09 Radziej and Sabot Driveway Variances (PENDfNG)\02-02-05 PC Report Rodziej and Sabot Driveway Variances.doc Page 3 of7 variance impair the 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." .. Variance Findings Minnesota State Stature 462,357, subd, 6, requires that Cities consider the following five matters when hearing requests for zoning ordinance variances, L Are the circumstances for which the variance is requested unique to the property? (YES) The properties have the unique feature of a shared driveway. While there are other properties in the City that have shared driveways, the combination of the shared driveway with several other features such as; no on-street parking at the location, the speed of traffic on Lexington Avenue, the amount of vehicle trips per day on Lexington Avenue, and the lack of shoulders to provide a safe access; create a very unique situation for the applicants, The properties are located with Karth Lake on the west, the park to the south and are cut off from any access except for directly to Lexington Avenue. Since the properties will have some access removed with the installation of the center median in the Lexington Avenue Reconstruction, the additional driveways would provide better access for the property owners. Other properties in Arden Hills may be located along busy streets or have shared driveways but staff has not encountered any other properties that have the same combination of situations as outlined above. Properties along Highway 96 or Hamline A venue may have access to a busy roadway but these properties either have roadway shoulders where they can move to when trying to access their properties or have far less traffic. Furthermore, staff has not seen an instance where one of these properties also has a shared driveway. . The applicants have expressed concern that with the existing shared drive is difficult for vehicles to enter and exit the properties at the same time. Since there is no shoulder on Lexington and the reconstruction would eliminate any left-turn in access, a vehicle could be stuck on Lexington Avenue waiting to access the property. The proposed additional driveways would eliminate such situations and provide safer access for both properties. 2. Would granting the variance be in keeping with the spirit and intent ofthe City's Zoning Ordinance? The stated Purpose and Intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance includes thirteen purposes, of those the following statements appear to be applicable: \\Earth\Planning\Planning Cases\2005\05-09 Radziej and Sabot Driveway Variances (PENDING)\02-02-05 PC Report Rodziej and Sabot Driveway Variances.doc Page 4 of7 . . . . This ordinance is enacted for the following purposes: . To promote the general public health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota, (1 ,B, I) . To promote the proper use ofland and structures. (I,B,6) . To fix reasonable standards to which buildings, structures and land shall conform for the benefit of all (1,B,7) The stated purpose of the R-t: Single Family Residential District as stated in Section 5,D,1 is as follows: . To establish areas for the development of single family detached housing at a maximum density of approximately 3 units per acre. . To reserve development areas for single-family housing. . To restrict encroachment of incompatible uses. . To maintain density limitations, . To take advantage of municipal utilities. . To preserve open space. (YES) The applicants' proposal is consistent with the R -1 District and the Zoning Ordinance purposes. The applicants are requesting the variances due to the reduced access (created by the new center median that will be installed in Lexington Avenue) and concerns about difficulty accessing their properties. The standard for one driveway access per proper'" is intended to limit access on residential property to maintain a residential appearance for single-family homes. However, there is a large difference between aesthetic impact on a residential property on a typical neighborhood street where the traffic is only traveling 25 or 30 miles per hour, versus a property on a major arterial where traffic is traveling 45 to 50 miles per hour. 3, Could the property in question be put to a reasonable use without the granting of the variance? (NO) The properties were subdivided and granted a lakeshore setback variance in 1995 subject to 3 conditions of approval. One of the conditions was the shared access drive; another was the installation of one turn-around for each property. While the shared driveway was constructed, it appears that the turn-arounds were not. However, with the limited amount of space between the homes and Lexington Avenue, a turn-around may interfere with the limited off-street parking areas. In addition, the residents have stated that there have been several times where one vehicle is exiting and another is attempting to enter the drive, the shared driveway makes it difficult to access the properties. Traffic that has to wait on Lexington Avenue to access the property presents a real safety hazard for the applicants and for others traveling on Lexington A venue. \\Earth\Planning\Planning Cases\2005\05-09 Radziej and Sabot Driveway Variances (PENDING)\02-02-05 PC Report Rodziej and Sabot Dri\'ew<lY Variances.doc Page 5 0/7 4. Was the hardship created by the owner? . (NO) The hardship appears to be that the City allowed these lots to be subdivided in 1995 and in the process did not leave the properties with adequate access. Neither of the property owners was present at the time the properties were subdivided and this situation was created. Furthermore. the properties do not have on-street parking on Lexington Avenue and the lack of adequate roadway shoulders makes turning to access the driveways difficult and potentially dangerous. The applicants are seeking the additional driveways as a way to have a safer and better access situation. 5. Would granting the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? (NO) Outside of the applicants' properties no other property in the Karth Lake North neighborhood has direct access to Lexington Avenue. Furthermore, the speed and amount of traffic on Lexington Avenue, decreased access to the applicants' properties due to the impending center median, lack of a shoulder area for making turns. and the current shared driveway, can make it very difficult for the applicants to access their properties. The variances would allow for safer access for the residents of the two properties. Plan Review Comments A. Zoning Permits with plans shall be submitted to the Building Official a minimum of two (2) weeks bcfore the planned start of construction, B. No construction shall begin before plans and permits are approved by the City of Arden Hills' Building OfficiaL C. The City standards for driveways indicate a minimum width of 12 feet and a maximum width of22 feet. Ramsey County indicated that they require 60 feet between driveways. D. Applicants will need to contact Ramsey County about curb-cut permits prior to the installation of any new driveway. E, Zoning Ordinance regulations state that in all residential districts, parking is prohibited on any area of the property except on designated driveways or parking lots. The Zoning Ordinance also prohibits more than four vehicles from being parked on a driveway. . Recommendation In Planning Case #05-09, staff recommends that the request for variances to allow one new driveway at 4365 and one new driveway at 4367 while maintaining the existing shared driveway be approved subject to the following conditions: \\Earth\Planning\Planning Cases\2005\05-09 Radzicj and Sabot Driveway Variances (PENDlNG)\02-02-05 PC Report Rodziej and Sabot [)riveway Yariancesdoc Page 6 017 . L . 2. 3. 4. 5. The applicants shall submit Zoning Permits with plans to the Building Official a minimum of two (2) weeks before the pJanned start of construction. The applicants will require approval from Ramsey County for the curb-cuts prior to the installation of any new driveway. The driveways shall be constructed to meet the City standard width of a 12 foot minimum and a 22 foot maximum. There shall be at least 60 feet between each driveway access. Parking shall comply with the Arden Hills Zoning Ordinance requirements of no parking on any areas except for driveways and parking lots, and shall not have more than 4 vehicles may be parked on any driveway. Options L Recommend approval as submitted. 2. Recommend approval with conditions. 3. Recommend denial with reasons for denial. If the City denies the petitioners request, "" .it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time it denies the request." 4. Table for additional information. . Deadline for Al!ency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on February 17, 2005 Pursuant to Minnesota State Statue, the City must act on this request by April 18, 2005 (60 days), unless the city provides the petitioner with written reasons for and additional 60 day review period. The City may with the petitioners' consent extend the review period beyond the 120 days. . n Map, Aerial Map Ian d statement submitted by the applicants. Commen rom residents . \\Earth\Planning\J>lanning Cases\2005\05-09 Radziej and Sabot Drivcv.'aY Variances (PENDING)\02-02-05 PC Report Rodziej and Sabot Driveway Variances.doc Page 70f7 ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 2, 2005 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS . A. PLANNING CASE #05-09: DAVID RADZIEJ AND ROGER SABOT, 4365 AND 4367 LEXINGTON AVENUE; DRIVEWAY VARIANCES Mr. Hellegers stated applicants were requesting variances to allow them to maintain the existing shared driveway and add an additional driveway for each of the applicant's properties in the City, Staff recommended approval based on the following conditions: 1. The applicants shall submit Zoning Permits with plans to the Building Official a minimum of two (2) weeks before the planned start of construction. 2, The applicants will require approval from Ramsey County for the cub-cuts prior to the installation of any new driveway. 3. The driveways shall be constructed to meet the City standard width of a l2-foot minimum and a 22-foot maximum. 4. There shall be at least 60 feel between each driveway access. 5. Parking shall comply with the Arden Hills Zoning Ordinance requirements of no parking on any areas except for driveways and parking lots, and shall not have more than 4 vehicles may be parked on any driveway. Commissioner Zimmerman asked why previous conditions that had not been met had not been checked on. Mr. Hellegers replied he did not know why those conditions had not been checked up on by staff in 1995. Commissioner Zimmerman asked whose responsibility was it that conditions imposed on the property were met. Mr. Hellegers replied it was City staffs responsibility. . Chair Sand stated there was an e-mail received from a neighbor on 1090 AmbJe Drive objecting to the request on five grounds. Commissioner Bezdicek asked why where they retaining the eXlstmg driveway and adding two additional ones. Mr. Hellegers replied it would provide better access for the applicants. Chair Sand asked if there was anything in the Zoning Ordinance or the Comprehensive PJan that would limit the addition of a driveway here. He noted mature trees would be lost to make room for the new driveways. Mr, Hellegers replied there were no conditions protecting those trees. Chair Sand asked if it would be a right turn in and right turn out. Mr. Hellegers replied that was correct. Commissioner Larson asked who crcatcd the hardship. Mr. Hellegers replied this was done by a previous owner. Commissioner Larson asked if they had originally agreed to the shared driveway. Mr. . Hellegers rcplicd that was correct. Commissioner Larson noted with Lexington being a commuter street, he assumed the reason for the shared driveway was to climinate accesses on Lexington. He stated it . . . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 2, 2005 3 appeared to him that whoever built these homes did not comply with the conditions of approval and because they did not comply, they were being asked to add two more access to this. He indicated they had never tried this and now there would be no left turns. He stated it seemed to him that whoever did the initial construction did not follow the direction of the conditions of approvaL Commissioner Larson stated since each of these homes were allowed to have an access to the street in front of it, the site could have been modified to allow a driveway for each of these houses and that could be approved by staff. Mr. Hellegers replied Council would have needed to remove the original condition of approval. He noted one of the problems with a shared access drive was the 20 foot access point, which was a tight access point. Commissioner Thompson asked if a turnaround option was looked at. Mr. Hellegers replied that option had not been discussed and he could not find any prior documentation regarding that option, Commissioner Zimmerman asked how wide the existing driveway was. Mr. Hellegers replied the existing driveway was 20 feet. Commissioner Zimmerman noted it appeared the driveway was at least 2 cars wide. Chair Sand asked if they had looked at the option of widening the existing driveway, Mr. Hellegers replied they had not looked at that option. He noted both the County and the applicants had indicated it was a problem for a single access point and that was the reason they had not looked at that option. Chair Sand noted widening the existing driveway would save a lot of the vegetation. Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. Chair Sand invited anyone for or against this application to come forward and make comment. Email dated February 19, 2005 from Aladin Hassan, 1090 Amble Drive, Shoreview: "I. More driveways on Lexington Ave at that spot is creating more dangerous situation for everyone going south on Lexington from east of Amble Dr. because the only way to get to the free way 694 is to turn south on Lexington. 2, It is already very bad during rush hours at the prcsent time. 3, My understanding everywhere is eliminating the number of driveway access on busy roads for PUBLIC safety reasons and the plan I received in the mail showed that there will be THREE DRIVEWAYS instead ofONE!!' 4. I'm sure it is more hazardous for that very busy main road. 5. How many driveways in very short distance (and close to two cross sections) the drivers on that Extremely busy rood (sic) will be watching ??') And if the city agree on that whey (sic) they want to retain the existing driveway isn't bad enough now? 1 hope the city of Arden Hills docs not approve that plan,. .Thanks." Kathy Rodziej, 43565 Lcxington Avenue, statcd they had lived in their home for six months and previous to them moving in the home had been owned by a single person. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 2, 2005 4 Beverly Sabot, 4367 Lexington Avenue, stated it was difficult to make the turn into the . driveway with the speed limit of 40 mph on Lexington Avenue, She noted there the Rodziej's had teenage drivers and this was a safety issue. Roger Sabot stated two huge mature trees would need to be removed if they widened the driveway, He noted the driveway was not wide enough for two cars to go in and out comfortably, He believed the driveway was 22 feet. He stated they were the first owners after the people who originally built it. He noted putting in two additional driveways would not take out any substantial vegetation. Chair Sand noted for safety purposes, it might be safer to eliminate the existing driveway and put in the two new driveways. Ms. Rodziej stated in that type of a situation, they would have to go past their garage and would need to turn around to get into their garage, She noted they also had recreational vehicles where it would be difficult to get into the driveway if the existing driveway was eliminated, Commissioner Zimmerman asked if they had talked about a turnaround. Ms, Rodziej stated tonight's meeting was the first time they had heard about a turnaround. Chair Sand asked if this were to be approved, who would approve the geometry of the driveway to ensure it was angled properly onto Lexington, Mr. Hellegers replied the City Engineer and/or the Ramsey County Engineers would need to work out the geometry of the driveways. . Commissioner Bezdicek stated more driveways on a busy road were more dangerous. Ms, Rodziej stated they would enter in the center driveway and exit out the other driveway. Mr. Sabot replied they felt they could get into the traffic on Lexington Avenue faster with their proposal. He expressed concern that the speed on Lexington Avenue would increase, which will also make the existing driveway unsafe. Ms. Sabot noted most of their vegetation was removed when the sewer system came through. Mr. Sabot indicated they wanted to preserve their large trees, Commissioner Thompson stated the natural tendency would be to take the first driveway. She expressed concern that if these homes were sold at some point in the future, the new owners may not be as cooperative. Letter from Leonard E. Gallus, 1104 Amble Drive, dated February 21, 2005: ~'L I need to have further information to understand how an extra 12' x 100' driveway extension starting by my backyard, and angling across the front of the property and connecting (0 the existing driveway will help the Sabots to access Lexington Ave. They still can only turn to the right and go South at any of the driveways. . . . . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 2, 2005 5 2. When these 2 lots were developed some 7 years ago, it was my understanding that for safety reasons there would be a common entrance to the residences. Today, with increased traffic flow on Lexington Ave. the addition of two entrances could make for an even less safe condition than was thought of 7 years ago. This would be a short distance on a roadway like Lexington and could add to motorist confusion. 3. The entire neighborhoods of Karth Lake Hills and Karth Lake Estates are able to access Lexington Ave, with little backup and only 2 entrances/exits to Lexington Ave, Additional Concerns: Trees and natural woodland removal Lights from vehicles using the Sabot driveway shining into my backyard Water runoff toward my yard; their property elevation is slightly higher than mine Visual privacy My home value It has recently come to my attention that the Sabot residence is not complying with some Arden Hills residential regulations, The Sabots have conducted an internet shopping business out of their Lexington Ave. home since shortly after moving in. (about 4 years) Apparently clients come to their home to learn how to use the internet site and do their own business. This business seems to be sporadic, and has been less activity recently. I have been recently informed by Peter Hellegers of the following reguJations regarding home businesses: 1. A license is needed 2. Driveways should not have more than 4 cars on them 3, Time restrictions for conducting the business The Sabots have not complied with the above regulations. At times the Sabot's have customers whose cars take up their driveway and sometimes require additional parking in front of my house on Amble Drive. The days of the week vary, but it seems that most activity is on the weekends, The time is generally early evening, and ending usually by 11 :00 PM I am very concerned that the real need for the driveways is for their business concerns. If they get the additional driveway and are able to use the new extension for business parking, I will at times have a parking lot view from both inside my home and even morc lack of privacy in my backyard." Chair Sand closed the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 2, 2005 6 Commissioner Larson moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman to recommend denial of Planning Case No. 05-09: David Radziej and Roger Sabot, 4365 and 4367 . Lexington Avenue; Driveway Variances, reasons for denial: I. The lack of detail plans and the engineering necessary to show exactly what the dynamics of the access are going to be. The owners have the opportunity to work this out between the City and the County Engineers and come up with a better engineered plan than submitted, 2. The shared access was a condition of approval for the original development of the site and other conditions of approval, which was the turnaround was not met, so therefore, the Commission did not know how the site functions if that condition was in place. 3. multiple accesses to the property and the proximity to the Victoria and Amble intersection would be more confusing and dangerous to traffic on Lexington Avenue and to the occupants. Commissioner Larson believed the appJicants did have access problems and he could look much more favorably on this if there were detailed engineering plans. Commissioner Thompson agreed. Commissioner Zimmerman understood applicant's thoughts wanting two additional driveways, but he did not see how the logistics would work. Chair Sand stated he believed it was not the applicant's fault that the turnaround was not put in, but this should have been taken care of at the time the building permit was issued. He shared the other Commissioner's concerns and indicated he might be more amenable going along with this proposal with detailed Engineering's plans, . The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Roger Sabot stated they were not informed by the County that they needed a detailed drawing; that they only needed a sketch, which is what they presented, B. PLANNING CASE 05-06: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS. 1245 W. HIGHWAY 96; CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES AMENDMENT FOR THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE. Mr. Hellegers stated staff was recommending repealing eXlstmg City Code Section 330.03 relating to massage, rap, and sauna parlors; adopting proposed Section 330,04 relating to Massage Therapy Establishments and Massage Therapists; and Amending Sections 5.E and 10.G of the Zoning Ordinance to reference Massage Therapists and Massage Therapy Establishments. Chair Sand requested a distinction be put in that the license went with the person and not the house, so ifnew owners were to come in and they wanted licensing, they would need to acquire it. Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 8:13 p,m. . Chair Sand invited anyone for or against this Ordinance to comc forward. Corrine Vahle, 1365 Arkwright St. #201, St. Paul, stated she was licenscd in New Brighton and she had just surrendered her St. Paul license bccause the office where she /1 - j ol f<: <1 z -_J I ~ ~ ~ I '0~~ l00~ () :> . .. --- "aA ~V uo:a6u!xa, . o . . c o < " ~ M '" . M W }E~~;g ~ i ~:::i x E c.r: '" '" alOlZIL= uf2 .<:: ~$i2~ >->I;:;)_m 5'" ~..- u . oM I N"~ _4* c o :;=C- ~co o~ ..J ~ Q} Q} LL o o <0 0 0 M b C> C'0 II = ..- Qj 0 IU () (/) o o M ~g~~ 8;~ @~~~~~~.t! ~~~i1~Ng"[ _~~~~~:g~:e ~~!l~i:~g~ E:~~5g~~ cr:i a:;;noEo:i;;:* a <lI]!!?[g.....~:& o -~2>!2.E~~-~~ ('\J ~~!~J~!~ i- ~ ~~~~~~t co ,,;~5"'.1~~~~ 2 5...~_Ql:r:.s....dl ..0 :d~~E~~;!- (f ~~~2~~.~ ~o...:!'2~~ ~; l:-g~~~~gE ~; ~~11 o.~~ ."..il:Ic;c.~c;'" ~~~ l'S~'> '" g -8(ij5~~~Sn mum ~ng:::og~~ ~~8lDg'g~lij~ ..~-o~-~~5%P atJ~g..=a..,.:o;; ~_~o::~.2:!~-::;:c. E~~~r-~~~ '" 6 8 c~ filE" E.:ii~-o::!;; Ol~"O 0" of':'O . i:~ ~ l!!.s:lOo~~E;: ~~'B1!E...'-~~~ g,~~~~~~16~ .!'9<>'''' ~"a.<:: <.> ::~~i~~ln~: ll!mlll 0. I1l 2' '" '" I1l en en (') .c c :J o o >. '" '" E {2 Gi ~ :I o IJl (.- .- U--B' CIJ > <{ c o ...... Ol C X CIJ ...J I"- <.D C') '<t ~ lO <.D C') '<t 8 v , , t= L- ~ <t> <t> LL o N ..- o <.D o ---- -------~ "1e- ~. -~ ~wc."",,'IIJ ~ ,,- -15~ - ,..,...". - . ~ C4' WATE,. (' "" /~ . ....c~.('- ."...;~"""1-'L ::>G:E OF UJ.4TE~ n.4~1 =/ noNR OHUJ LiN7" t LEv 'nh.lh -/" I . __ ~ - ..~#j ~IJ / :1 TRACT B , ~Te.Al:K. LN::: (TYPICAL) . , ----------- &1141':11 1 LAI<..E Pc.?ND :v ~3Ah E 14~1 . RECF'''~' I"I"R 1 7 2005 Ty OF ARDEN HILLS CI =: CU-R.t?e.,.Jf j;),e'-V,,-WA I CC~_~ -~-_._,.__..... j \ 'Y''l{YY\1 t , I ( . ~{l{Sb'7 i J:>C \ II c Wct. 4"'50 ~ U .. !l .. ~ I w R' . ~ ~I~ 11 FOe PROP< EA6t L &Eel" P'~ ~I' . ~ ~ .... i~ '- n'<ACt , ~~LJJ'.IE ELEv 53b2&. -~ w . , a. - ~ ~I~ ;;w.f+ w;J)e. b II ~17 .s~DII, / b~ 'J-- iJ.p.;v.ew~ . d-- ~ perZt1--L"-/- l?e~4.e.~( /!or(. if '3 & 5' L~ {J.-;{.^'!jfu.J /IV€.... "-.... \ '" " or c fTl :3 x :3 Z _, C"J ::J -; o '" Z up ~ < ^S2-o OC;;{J :-' fTlo ~ C- o fTl o 0 g -j ::J ~ ;:0 o o a. <0 01 () (f) 0 p c: ::J U ~ "< lJ 01 '" N 0 .,... J lJ 01 C"J <..n ~ ~ en I '-l .j>. V-J 1.11 (J);;{J :;- -, (1)1..O (1) :;- ,-+'-+ zO o -+, ~ CXl~ -0 o - -+,0 ::J --' O'l (J) :;- (1) (1) ,-+ (f) ;!~_... T ~ I ~i'1 ,,~ II -I } ~ .> I> ;/ (( II II II , I 1-.1=_~ l.L:_L I-_~= -=- +~8J+S~. . t-......- Lj +J 0 M S+ 0 LfJ <:~ . ._~_." I / I.~ I I I I , I I I I ( " " ~~ ~" ,,!;l >! ~ {$ I~ {$ ~ ""-"-"~-"'""""'-"'"--'''';:+"'v:r "'I'" " gO TZ +.; " "'(0 Ol + o o '" ..........111 .... I' I I , I , 1- . I , I I I I I 1 ~ 1 I I I t i I I I" ~ // I I ['l I I 1 .......... I I I 'i!::::::;:"::: I::::';:.::. / I I :::~:}~({ ':' ;u ~ ',',',',',,',',',' ""-. / :::;:::::;:::;:.::: .:E~ :;:;;:::::~:::: :;: S' ,IIWi- ,- ~ I ~ + o o oa~17-17 L ~17 ~ ".I 0 " ~ i:;J ... ::0 5'..... ~ > "'0 ..... ..... g.s: 00 ::r:: '0'0 II t:l >-< t'O~ n ~~ CI.l ..... ~ 0 ..... ... I! n '0 0 ,... > ~ t"" 0 t?:J L a~17-S L ~17 I_~ ,. /; t> en 3 0 _,::J ~Ul ---..!!!.- ,." -- ~-."'-.--..-._.N ._ ___~ :::o~ "" -. ~~ ~ I,J I ~ (Ml ~ t I I 0 ~ I N CD OJ + o o en 3 0 -.'" ~Ul "'r+ N CD I ~ ~ i I(M I~ ~ g I " ~ ['l " I:> A - .9'd , j 9 -a~lli-\f. bJ o N +. o o ~n UlI f'Tl o --1 o Z r Z fTl '. ... .. ..rT ~I iiji!I!~i -j -0 ~ (1) (1) Q. ~ 3 o 0 ., ::J o (]) ., ::J '< ,-+ fTlfTl o 0 (f) (f) (]) (1) :3 :3 ---- (1) (1) ::J ::J '-+,-+ \ \ \ \ t~~:~:::;:,' .:s .....'.'..........,... ::::~::;:;::::::: :;:. ~ W 0- Ln <.,"'Z . / j ( \ \ "'-., .~-~- '" \. ----. ~ W 0- '-J (' ('. :-< ['l "1- " Ix I ~ ~)i x " 1104 ., [ , ./ 'J(] ---- " / '----- / '-=-= ----... - --~-..J ~'-- ..-- 81iLW V--___ - ---::=-- '"iiii;~ '- _..,__.. l (''''''~ --f---' I I. I \J ......- ,9'6~ ;:; . . . "" Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 2005 Attachment SA - 2 . . . March 23, 2005 . . Mr. Peter Hellegers City Planner City Of Arden Hills Dear Mr. Hellegers, This letter is in response to the concerns of the Arden Hills Planning Commission from the meeting dated March 2, 2005, Planning Case #05-09. The homeowners would like to address the following three areas of concern: 1. The need for detailed plans and the dynamics of the accesses, Please note the enclosed detailed pictures showing distances between accesses, tree removal, and driveway details, The existing access would be a shared entrance, The mailboxes mark the entrance, with address numbers, and address signage to show a potential visitor where to turn into the properties. The requested accesses would be for exiting the properties and would not have address signage on them. The correlation of the access to the properties is not obvious because the homes are screened by foliage. Designating an entrance and exit for the properties would eliminate the dangerous situation of a vehicle exiting the existing access and a vehicle traveling south on Lexington turning into the access with inadequate turn radius requiring them to stop on Lexington while the exiting car moves into traffic. The danger from two lane traffic traveling at a speed of 40 mph or higher towards a stopped vehicle and a vehicle hurrying to exit could be fatal, Homeowners and visitors will utilize the main entrance because of high signage visibility and homeowners verbal instruction and they will exit because of ease of traffic pattern. 2, The second concern was the original condition of developing the property with turnarounds, This condition was imposed on the original builders and was not enforced when the properties were developed, Both homeowners were unaware of this condition and neither property has area planned for a turnaround, Other properties in Arden Hills are allowed at a minimum of one access each. The homeowners are not asking for three accesses for one property but 1 1/2 for each property. Most homeowner that live on a residential street can back out of their driveway onto the street and do not require a tumaround. Because the properties would back onto Lexington, a busy, county road, this is not a safe option, The Commission could suggest each property owner have a separate access but this would require both homeowners to destroy additional trees as each would be required to construct driveways that are a minimum of 20' verses the proposed 12' drives. Both homeowners would like to limit the destruction of foliage a~ it acts as a visual and audio screen from the traffic on Lexington, . 3, The last concern was multiple access could be confusing and dangerous to intersections at Victoria and Amble, Referring to the previous concern of the dynamics of entering and exiting: entering the properties would be to the existing access and would be no more confusing than is the present situation. The exiting of a vehicle would be the responsibility of the driver existing in a careful, prudent manner no different than the present situation. The safety factor is allowing the traffic turning in to be unrestricted by exiting traffic thereby requiring them to stop on Lexington before having the turning radius to enter safely. The proposed reconstruction of Lexington does not allow traffic to cross over from the north bound because an island will restrict a left turn into the entrance of the properties. Thereby this will not effect the traffic coming south on Lexington including the traffic coming off Amble. The reverse is true for the intersection at Victoria as the island restricts a left turn out of the proposed exits effecting the traffic coming north or off of Victoria. It will not effect the traffic moving south off Victoria as a traffic light is being proposed for that intersection. Northbound traffic turning onto Amble will not be confused because traffic is restricted from turning into the proposed accesses because of the proposed island. A left turn is not possible. People looking to turn onto Amble will not be confused because they will see the street sign, turn and not pass either of the three accesses as they are south of . the Amble turn. In conclusion, the homeowners feel that their proposal is the best use possible for both of the properties. They also feel that when they were approached by the county concerning the road improvements, they discussed this proposal with the county and the county directed them to petition the city for the accesses, Their only concern was that the accesses were at least 60' apart. We do not believe they would have made this suggestion if they felt the proposal was not a safe one and in the best interest of the homeowners and the public. We respectfully resubmit to you our proposal and apologize that we were not as prepared for your concerns at the last meeting. We respect your time and consideration, R:JJk Roger and Beverly Sabot ~/;~ ? . . . -Ar;~~ 171' --..-..--- -- - - \1 ..or//" .i~ I(~(" ~ ~ 1.:1 I ~~ <"\'1' r" _---., a , l ;;) I J 1', '-0 ,." '<:j" vOll I I I II ~...,,-~' II.: . ll' t t I I ~ ' I 1'/) i r--//tl I .~~ . ~ {~)...._.l: II \~ -.J1l -~. (l)~ I; Ii oF -- ~c.: I~ ,r' w 2: i--1 --- I I I I ~ I --L " \ I~L J--- -- Ie} :: iii! !~ \, ' ::~ \ ";'J ....... I.. i~,;.: . ~ i,j /l 8 (i', I t I .." . -. I ", H~~; ,- 1 ',.~' ,;:::'.~ .Il ~ I ';:;~ni ~ iUI (-1\-,"" .~ ~~ -~~:..::.."l:jl "n I ~~ .:!:0~ I ! / ~. ,-,,' , / ...r,i I /~ '.:;'.::.:@:.'.I.I c "':~;':.'::.": ..... II l ~ :,':-:-:'-:-:-:-:-' I \ ....J@i;~ ~ I (CIi~ "'. ~@~... I \ [.., J~"'" :'\<i):) I' I II \.:;;.....;/ ......~I i'. 15 :"" /- cL~' '"' C'\: Ji'" .- I .I I I I / ! ! ...J j ~, , '" "- U:J :;:E u-' \,,\. --- '. ....-C~},.... li'l >0 N"l '<d' " -"T" . . ~;;:Ch(JL~ . ..----+- .~~ .--:1Il1:..".-....;::"..,. .. 18.~' ~~_ ~w ~-) tr- e ( . .~_ -.::..Ji _I'~/' .Jo--,I iJ ---.. I ~I(~) j (- r ~ h '," , C +- ,~ I , I " E:"l r') t r... I I t I~ I g t o c) '.... ','"",- ~- ,-... ."] --'/"') . 't "-r.: I ,. I r .I .p;.,. EI ,. :;;] " . " u "" ........... I i , o UI +... en OJ C-~ i r; , f T , -- -- o r.;J + O'J cr, N I [::;.Jr~ ~ T~ ~ ..J J ~~ I- OJ 0- o -- ~ ... .., . .--. r 4315. // (-- 1 " ~ 'i: 'I, :~ I.! !;!;, IiI' i' if ~ 'ii ~ t , I: . }l <ll E o I '" ::l C\J <..9 :\ ~~ ~' ~ ',)t. ",if; ,..1" ,:1 l<\ t, "\ , \ , ,,- 'ft , J f '" Ql <ll ~ ~ (") o 3: ~ ~ ~ 0'::- E1D ~ o Ql ~ c: -0 0 <ll-o <ll c: Z t1l ~N Ql~ $-0 I.l') <ll ~ <ll c: <ll <ll c: E .- 0 -fi5I ~ '" g'''' ::l ",= <ll t1l 0<..9 -0 . c: '" ~ ~ ",::2' <ll <ll ~ () ~ 0 c: Ol.o 0 <ll ..c: () <ll Ol '" ....c.- .- ~<ll..c: .... c: '" o ~ ro <ll ~ 3: Ol",'" c: -0 t1l t1l ~ - <llro= ..c: 3: t1l l-.9cc en Q) Q) ~ ~ M >. ~ Q) > 'c o .. \ l , . . . , . . . Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 2005 Attachment 5A - 3 . . . Mr. Peter Hellegers City Planner City of Arden Hills 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 March 23, 2005 Re: Variance Request Dear Mr. Hellegers: As property owners at 4365 Lexington Avenue North in Arden Hills, Minnesota would like to have a variance for one and half driveways allowed for our property, Enclosed are our site plans and photos of our driveway to clarify our request. At the March 2, 2005, Planning Meeting Commission three points were raised as a basis for motion to deny. #1, Lack of detailed plans for the new driveway. #2, The shared access was a condition of approval for developing the properties at which time no turnarounds were developed on the properties. #3, Multiple accesses would be more confusing and dangerous to Lexington Avenue. In response to the three points raised as stated above, we're submitting detailed plans on the location . of the additional requested driveway. The specifications are as follows: #1, The proposed driveway will be positioned 30 feet from the southeast property line; having a width of 20 feet, length of 48 feet and will be 70 feet from the existing driveway. This location of the proposed driveway would be the least disruptive to the existing vegetation, Causing the removal of one five-inch diameter tree and transplantation of five others with varying trunk sizes all smaller than four Inches in diameter. #2, Upon review of the site plan, logical location for the turnaround on our property would cause the removal of a 25-inch Norway Maple with a Ramsey County accessed in value of $10,309. We feel that the addition of a turnaround at this point in time just does not make sense. (See enclosed photo.) #3, We'd like to see the existing shared driveway remain as the main entrance to the properties. The additional driveways would be exists out of the properties. To establish this traffic flow we wilkpost an "Enter Only" sign near the center driveway and "Exit Only" signs be placed on the proposed driveway. Also, our house number signs would be placed near the center driveway. We feel that this configuration would eliminate vehicles from backing out onto Lexington Avenue when we have visitors over, Which we feel is a dangerous situation under present conditions. We have also enclosed a photo that shows just how much room there currently is with the shared driveway when two cars meet coming and going to the properties. Currently, when two cars meet on the driveway at the same time one car usually drives on our lawn to avoid the neighbors' block wall. On garbage pickup day this single entrance becomes even more confining. Since we are new to the neighborhood as of June 2004 we have not had time to landscape our . property near the walking path. Our landscaping plans are to add a similar matching block wall when the construction is completed on Lexington Avenue. Adding this block wall will cause the appearance of the shared driveway to be narrower and cars will no longer be able to drive over our lawn. Our neighbors expressed concems over the proposed changes and as good neighbors we are inviting them over for coffee, We look forward to discussing our mutual issues and ideas to preserve harmony. The open house is planned for Saturday April 2 at 10:00 a.m. and all are welcome to attend. kind consideration, Sincerely, ~L,..... , . . . . I I 4367 I F=: -=- J I / / .-1 \., " I / ,,_/ Existing R~ II - . +- SECTION LINE / '" J 298tOO 299tOO 300tOO -I I I ""'" - ~ ~ Con st, limits T.E. Etistin I R/ " 109L " 1 ..p, Q .p, .. 109~ LN j -.. LN " .p,. -.. I lJ1 l .p, CD 1(1)1 . LN .p, GRAPHlt 1'0 I r+ .=2: LN 0 tl ~! to "2. -.. <0 0 40 r-.-.,. , .1 ~I ;:=, 'I -__J (INF ~: I 110 1 inch = ---'- ~~ . I I, I, " NAS PREPARED BY WE: OR UNDER PROJECT SAP. 62-651-43 - 'ff DUl. Y UCENSED ~ ' ~ Sf A 1E or- t.CINNESOTA. LEXINGTON A VENUE County Proj. P3167 /1. ~q-.,C/ Cumminos Pork Dr. to Countv Road 96 """"""'" "-'''' (AW\\COJ'\Ts ~ -1-ttts, \flU;+edlffi -b -ti~r (\~V\1lx:r& '0 . March 28, 2005 To: The Radziej's at 4365 Lexington Ave. North are asking the City of Arden Hills to grant permission to allow Kathy and I to create a horse shoe shaped driveway onto Lexington Ave, We have been notified that neighbors have expressed concerns about traffic flows and changes that granting this request may create. In the spirit of being good neighbors we are inviting you to our home at 10:00 a.m, - 1 I :00 a.m. on Saturday April 2 to have coffee and a discussion on each of our concerns. . If you have any questions please contact us at our home number: 651-787-0527, Thank you for your time, Sincerely, David and Kathy Radziej . , ^ . .; '" E ~ '" <..> o 1: c '" ..c:: '" >. '" '" ~ 'C '0 '- o <J) '" '" :> . / . , . , . c .; ~ 0 .a c ~ Q) . -e: .9 .~ 0. -0....... = >.ccuG> +:;COi3:;Q) C:5:~';:;'::' ~Q)o.9 5sec: (.) . "'0 m .~ <U -g ~ - E-oQ) '" oS c " '" "'1ii ." ro Q) Q) .s= ~ <> 0.- '" '" ." Q) cc~Q) 5Q)-o-P ro~C:Cl -'5"'05 . . + . . . . J ~~ '. .'. ..,,\. "." ".. .'. .";fo.- .~ '1 "'Z- .. . '.. ~ . . . , """f . .' . . . "\ ..... ) . City Council Meeting . . April 25, 2005 Attachment 6C - 2 ,_ If..... . . . e ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 6, 2005 6 Chair Sand closed the public hearing at 7:56 p.m. Commissioner Bezdicek stated he understood staffs comments with respect to the replatting, but asked if there were any alternatives that would be acceptable to comply with the guidelines. Mr. Hellegers replied there was a lot line that would run down the middle of the house and this was the reason they needed to have this replatted. He noted two alternatives they have in the Ordinance, did not apply to this type of a situation, He indicated he believed replatting would be the correct procedure, Mr. Clark stated they might be able to state in requirement 4 that the applicant should be required to replat or convey by minor subdivision, which would give staff the opportunity to reexam tl1is. Commissioner Bezdicek, seconded by Commissioner Modcsette, to recommend approval of Plalming Case No. 05-11: Roland KarjaJahti, 1137 Edgewater Avenue, Front/Side Yard Comer Setback Variances subject to the recommendations made in staffs April 6, 2005 and modifying recommendation four to read: The applicant shall be required to replat or convey by minor subdivision the property prior to the issuance of any building permits, The motion carried unanimousJy (4-0). UNfiNISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A. PLANNING CASE 05-09: DAVID RADZIEJ AND ROGER SABOT, 4365 AND 4367 LEXINGTON AVENUE; DRIVEWAY VARIANCE. Mr. Hellegers stated the applicants have requested variances to allow them to maintain the existing shared driveway and add an additional driveway for each of the applicants' property in Arden Hills, He noted at the March, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission voted unanimousJy to deny the requested variance to maintain the existing shared driveway and add one additional driveway for each of the properties, He stated the applicants have reviewed the Planning Commission's direction and have attempted to answer some of the Planning Commission's previous questions. Staff recommended approval of the request for variance to allow one new driveway at 4365 and one new drivcway at 4367 while maintaining the existing shared driveway subject to the following conditions: I. The applicants shall submit Zoning Permits with plans to the Building Official a minimum of two (2) weeks before the planned start of construction. 2. The applicants will require approval from Ramsey County for the cub-cuts prior to the installation of a new driveway. '. .').; ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 6, 2005 7 3. The driveways shall be constructed within the City standards for driveway widths of a 12 foot minimum and a 22 foot maximum. . 4, There shall be at least 60 feet between each driveway access, 5. Auxiliary signage shall be installed which identifies the entry drive and the exit drives, 6, The access drives shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and County Traffic Engineer, installation of the access drives can only proceed after approval of the access drive design by both the City Engineer and County Engineer. 7. Parking shall comply with the Arden Hil1s Zoning Ordinance requirements of no parking on any areas except for driveways and parking lots, and shall not have more than 4 vehicles parked on any driveway, Chair Sand stated it appeared applicants had addressed some of the concerns the Commission had last month. He asked if staff was comfortable with this new proposal. Mr. Hellegers replied he believed this was a better proposal than what had presented at the previous meeting, Chair Sand stated it helped applicants included the photographs with the computer generated lines and thanked the applicants for these, . Commissioner Modesette asked how wide the existing driveway was, Mr. Hellegers replied the existing driveway was 19', Chair Sand stated one of their concerns was if the new driveways were not allowed, then the existing driveway might have to be widened to allow cars to pass each other easily. Chair Sand moved, seconded by Commissioner Thompson to recommend approval of Planning Case No. 05-09: David Radziej and Roger Sabot, 4365 and 4367 Lexington Avenue; Driveway Variances, subject to the seven conditions as outlined in staffs April 6, 2005 report, Commissioner Modesette asked if staff had received any further comments from the neighbors regarding the concerns with this additional driveway being added. Mr. Hellegers replied the neighbors had not been notified of this meeting as it was not a public hearing, but he had checked with the City Engineer and he did not have a concern with this proposal and it also met the County requirements. The motion carried (3-1) (Commissioner Modesette opposed). B, DISCUSSION ON FENCE HEIGHT Mr. Hellegers stated recently a resident inquired about amending the City's regulations e for fence height. The resident had just constructed a red cedar fence which was 6 feet 6 inches in height with ornamental post caps somewhat higher stilL Apparently, the materials are sent to the fence company pre-cut and when the frame is assembled the fences would be taller than the 6 foot height currently permitted. The resident stated the . ~ ~HILLS City ot Arden Hills Request for Council Action Prepared by: PH ,;...- Dept.: CD Council Mtg. Date: 4/25/2005 Final Action Needed By: 4/25/2005 Agenda Item PC #05-11. Karialahti Variances BUdgeted Amount: $0.00 Actual Amount: $0.00 Funding Source: $0.00 "'~ '11 " Council Action Request: Consider the applicant's request for a 5-foot front yard setback variance and a 10-foot side yard corner setback variance to allow the applicant to construct a new house at 1137 Edgewater Avenue. Staff Recommerdation: Approve the requested 5-foot front yard setback variance and 1 O-foot side yard corner setback variance subject to the conditions of approval as noted in Staffs report to the City Council dated April 25, 2005; and substituting alternatives A, B, or C for condition number 4. Advisory Commission Action: Commission Date Action Not . Supporting Documents (which are attached to this Action Form): [2J Memo/Letter: Staff Report to the City Council - April 25, 2005 Staff Report to the Planning Commission - April 6, 2005 D Resolution (No, ) D Ordinance (No. ) D Engineering Recommendation: D Attorney Recommendation: [2J Other: Planning Commission Minute excerpt - April 6, 2005 Sections 1150.01 and 1150.04 of Chapter 11: Subdivision, Arden Hills City Code Financial Implications: Administrator/Staff Comments: . Page 1 of 1 . . ~ ~~HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: April 25, 2005 Agenda Item 6.D TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Peter Hellegers, City Planner ~ SUBJECT: PC #05-11, Roland Kmjalahti 1137 Edgewater Avenue Variance Requested Action The applicant has requested a 5-foot front yard setback variance and a 10-foot side yard corner setback variance for the construction of a new single family detached house on the applicant's property at 1137 Edgewater Avenue in Arden Hills, Planninl! Commission Recommendation Recommendation and Conditions of Approval At their April 6, 2005 meeting the Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case #05-11 and unanimously recommended approval (4-0) ofthe Side Yard Comer and Front Setback variances subject to the following conditions: I, The applicant shall file all necessary building permits with the Building Official for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building permit plans shall be submitted to the Building Official a minimum of two (2) weeks before the planned start of construction, 2, A drainage swale should be constructed along the western portion of the property to collect the drainage water flowing westward down the hill of the property and carry the drainage toward the street. A revised grading the drainage plan showing this drainage swale shall require the approval of the Arden Hills City Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permits. 3. A revised grading and drainage plan showing the elevation of the first floor and basement and the surrounding property shall be submitted to the City and shall require approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. The applicant shall be required to re-plat or convey by minor subdivision the property prior to the issuance of any building permits, . \\Earth\Planning\Planning Cases\2005\05-11 Karjalahti Variance (PENDING)\04~25-05 CC Report OS-II.doc Page 1 of3 Update The property that the applicant is proposing to build the new home on is one and one half lots previousJy platted lots. The Jots were platted as 50 x 129.94 feet which is not consistent Witll the City's current standards for single-family lots in the R-2 Zoning District. Subsequent to the original platting of these lots, the applicant acquired half of a lot to the north (Lot 4, Lake Josephine Villas) of his 50 x 129,94- foot lot (Lot 5, Lake Josephine Villas) to create one tax parcel of 75 x 124.94 feet. The applicant is proposing to build the new home based on the tax parcel (75 x 124,94 feet) but the platted lot line would still exist and would run through the north 5 to 15 feet of the house. In order to eliminate the platted lot line running through the middle of the house; staff recommended a condition of approval that the property be re-platted into one lot (and thus make the tax parcel and platted lot lines consistent at 75 x 124,94). The Planning Commission discussed the issue of platting but desired a less cumbersome (or abbreviated) process for this particular situation, The result was the current wording of Condition number 4. . Staff has reviewed the PJanning Commission recommendation, the City's subdivision regulations (City Code Chapter 11: Subdivisions) and has consulted with the City Attorney about how to handle Condition number 4, First, no property is being conveyed as the applicant already owns the property considered for development. Second, the Minor Subdivision is not the correct process for this particular instance, Staff wouJd suggest one of the following alternatives to condition number 4: A. Require the applicant to plat the property as one 75-foot by 124,94-foot property. B. Consider the property under Chapter 11, Sections 1150.01 (Granting Variances) and . 1150,04 (Division or Consolidation ofPlalted Lots of Record) of the City Code. Section 1150.04, Subdivision 2 (Relation to Zoning Ordinance) states that "the parcels or tracts resulting from the division or consolidation, as depicted in the surveyor registered land survey, shall not have an area, dimensions or setbacks which are less than the minimum requirements specified for the zoning district in which the parcels or tracts are located in the zoning ordinance," Step 1: The City Council could grant the applicant a variance from the provisions of Section 1150,04, Subdivision 2 after making the following findings (under consideration of variances from Section 1150,01 of City Code Chapter 11): i, The hardship is not a mere inconvenience 11. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. 111. The gr3Uting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Following Step I the applicant's proposal would be able to be considered under Section 1150.04 of Chapter 11, and since the applicant has already submitted surveys showing the proposed development as one lot, no further platting procedure would be required, If \\Earth\Planning\Planning Cases\2005\05-11 KaTjalahti Variance (PENDING)\04-25-05 CC Report 05-II.doc . Page 2 of3 . the Council elects to go this route staff would also suggest the following step to further tie the proposed development site together: Step 2: The City Council could include as a condition of approval for the Side Yard Corner and Front Yard Setback variances, that the applicant have a restrictiye covenant (an agreement that the applicant could have drafted up by an attorney, which restricts the use or development of a lot) placed on his half of Lot 4, Lake Josephine Villas stating that the half lot could not be built on separate from Lot 5 of Lake Josephine Villas, The condition of approval should also require that the applicant file the restrictive covenant with Ramsey County and provide the City with a copy ofthe recorded covenant. c. Require the applicant to return to the Planning Commission and City Council with requ0sts for variances to the platted lot line (the properties would in effect be treated as the two platted lots and not the one tax parcel). Deadline for Agencv Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on March 7, 2005 Pursuant to Minnesota State Statue, the City must act on this request by May 6,2005 (60 days), unless the city provides the petitioner with written reasons for and additional 60 day review period, The City may with the petitioners' consent extend the review period beyond the 120 days, . Options 1. Recommend approval as submitted, 2, Rccommend approval with conditions, 3, Recommend deniaJ with reasons for deniaL If the City denies the petitioners request, ",. ,it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time it denies the request." 4. Table for additional information. Attachments 6D-1 Staff Report to the Planning Commission - April 6, 2005 6D-2 Planning Commission Minute Excerpt - April 6, 2005 6D-3 Sections 1150.01 and 1150.04 of Chapter 11: Subdivisions, Arden Hills City Code . \\Earth\Planning\Planning Cases\2005\05-11 Karjalahti Variance (PENDING)\04-25-05 CC Report OS-i).doc Page 3 of3 , . City Council Meeting Attachment 6D - 1 . . April 25, 2005 . . . ~ ~HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: April 6, 2005 TO: Planning Commission PC Agenda Item 4.B FROM: Peter Hellegers, City Planner SUBJECT: PC #05-11, Roland KaJjalahti 113 7 Edgewater Avenue Variance Requested Action The applicant has requested a 5-foot front yard setback variance and a 10-foot side yard comer setback variance for the construction of a new single family detached house on the applicant's property at 1137 Edgewater Avenue in Arden Hills, Background Surrounding Area North Low Density Residential South Low Density Residential East Low Density Residential West Low Density Residential Site Data R-2: Single and Two Family Residential District R-2: Single and Two Family Residential District R-2: Single and Two Family Residential District R-2: Single and Two Family Residential District Single Family Detached Residential Single Family Detached Residential Single Family Detached Residential Single Family Detached Residential Low Density Residential Single F amity Detached Residential R-2: Single and Two Family Residential District ,214 acres (9,327 square feet) Moderate grade to the western portion of the property \lEarlh\PlanningIPlanning Cases\1005105-1 J Karjalahti Variance (PENDING)I04-06-05 PC Report Karjalahli Variance. doc Page 1 of7 Notice Notice was published in the Arden Hills/Shoreview Bulletin on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 and . notice was prepared by the City and mailed to residents within three-hundred fifty (350) feet of the subject property. Surrounding Properties Some of the surrounding properties in the area appear to be closer to the property lines that the current Front Yard or Side Yard Comer setbacks of 40 feet. After checking the GIS system, staff would estimate that 10 properties in the Edgewater/Lake/Shoreline neighborhood have closer front or side yard comer setbacks than the standard. Of the ten properties 3 of the properties have setbacks of 12 feet or less. The neighboring property to the west has a 16-side yard comer setback, and the three properties across Edgewater from the applicant's property have front or side yard corner setbacks of 30 feet, 35 feet, and 35 feet. According to City records there have been 2 variances granted for properties in the Edgewater/Lake/Shoreline neighborhood. These variances include a front setback variance of 10 feet for 1146 Edgewater Avenue (2001-31) and a 5-foot front setback variance for 3224 Lake Lane (1997-18). Building Permits Building permits were issued in 1955 for a room addition to the west side of the property and in 1969 for the garage, County records indicate that the house was constructed in 1938, . Site Overview The applicant has requested a 5-foot front yard setback variance and a lO-foot side yard comer setback to allow for the construction ofa new house on the property at 1137 Edgewater Avenue, Currently the property has a small existing house and single-car garage on all of Lot 5 and part of Lot 4, of the Josephine Lake Villas plat. The existing house is small, fairly close to the road, and has been used as a rental property. The proposed 2-story house would have a larger footprint and would be set back greater distances from the road that the existing house and garage. The applicant has stated that he intends to make this new house his permanent residence, This property was originally pJatted in the Lake Josephine Villas as I \1,50 x 124.36 foot lots. It appears that the building was constructed on Lot 5 and the south 25 feet of Lot 4 was acquired later on, While the width of 75 feet is preferabJe to the original 50-foot lot dimension, both the lot dimensions and lot area are still smaller than the current R-2 requirements. In addition, since this was originally plattcd as multiple properties and has since been joined together as one tax parcel, the property is not one legal lot. The property should be re-platted to be one lot; otherwise the structure is technically being constructed over a property line. It appears that a similar situation with an applicant (1146 Edgewater [across the street and one property west of llEarthlPlanninglPlanning Cases\lfl05105-11 Karjawhti Variance (PEND1NG)\04~06-05 PC Report KarjaJahti Varian~e,doc Page 2 of7 . e . the current applicant's property]) proposing construction of a home over two legal lots occurred in 2001 but was erroneously not re-platted. The trigger for the platting is the tear down and construction of a new structure over the legal lot line. Therefore, staff has included a recommendation that re-platting the property be a condition of approvaL The property would require a platting variance due to the lot size and dimensions (75 x 124.36 and 9,327 s.f. where 85 x 120 and 11,000 s.f. are required). 1. Setbacks - Does Not Meet Requirements Front Yard (Shoreline Lane) Rear Yard Side Yard Interior Principal Side Yard Corner - Principal and Accessory (Edgewater Avenue) 40' 19' (to garage) 19' 15.41' / 54.41' 35' 30' 5' smallest side / 15' total 30' 11' /41' 40' 15.41 ' 30' 2. Lot Coverage - Meets Requirement The requirement for the R-2: Single and Two Family Residential District is a maximum of 25%. The proposed plans show 18 % as lot coverage, 3. Landscape Lot Area - Meets Requirement The requirement for R-2: Single and Two Family Residential District is a Minimum Landscape Lot Area of 65%. The proposed plans show 70.10% of the lot as landscape area. 4, Lot Size/Dimensions - Does Not Meet Requirement The rcquirement for R-2: Single and Two Family Residential District are Minimum Lot Width of 85 feet and a Minimunl Lot Depth of 120 feet. The dimensions of the applicant's property are 75 by 124.26 feet. The requirement for R-2: Single and Two Family Rcsidential District Lot Size is 11,000 square fect. The size of the applicant's property is 9,327 square feet. Variance Criteria . IIEarthlPlanninglPlanning Cases\2005\05-11 Karjalo.hti Variance (PENDING)\04-06-05 PC Report Karjalahti Varwnce..doc Page 30/7 A. State Requirements Minnesota State Statue in Chapter 462.357, Subdivision 6, (2), defines "undue hardship" as: . ". ..means the property in question cannot bc put to a rcasonable use if used under conditions allowed by thc official controls, the plight ofthc landowner is duc to circumstance uniquc to the property not created by the landowner, and thc variance, if grantcd, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the propcrty exists under the terms of the ordinance..." B. City Requirements Section VIII, D, 4, c and d, ofthc City's Zoning Ordinance state that, "Adherence to the provisions ofthis ordinance is required, except for special cases which arise because of the configuration of a particular parcel. The condition shall not have been created by the landowner. A variance or variances may be granted from specific provisions of this ordinance because such land factors as Jength of a side of a lot, the shape of the lot or the unusual terrain prohibit reasonable development equivalent to that which would be permitted without variance on a similar size lot located in the same district, but which lot has no unusual configuration. Economic conditions alone shall not be grounds for a variance. In no case shall the granting of a variance impair the 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." . Variance Findings Minnesota State Stature 462.357, subd, 6, requires that Cities consider the following five matters when hearing requests for zoning ordinance variances. 1. Are the circumstances for which the variance is requested unique to the property? (YES) The property was platted as a very small lot plus half of another small lot, and the house was built with a very small side yard corner setback and front yard setback, The location of the property as a corner lot further reduces the buildable area of the lot. The neighborhood where the property is located was originally platted with all of the lots as 50 by 124.36 feet. Many of the homes in the area have been built on two or more lots. The remaining homes that were built on the original lots could not be built today while still complying with the City's setbacks. The number of lots this small in the City is very small, smaller still is the number of those lots which are corner properties and therefore have to comply with the side yard corner setbacks as well. \\EarlhIPlanninglPlanning Casesll005\05-11 Karjalaflti Variance (PENDING)\04~06-05 PC Report Karjdlahti Variance. doc Page 4 of7 . 2. Would granting the variance be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance? . The stated Purpose and Intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance includes thirteen purposes, ofthose the following statements appear to be applicable: This ordinance is enacted for the following purposes: . To promote the general public health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota, (1 ,B, 1) . To promote the proper use ofland and structures. (I,B,6) . To fix reasonable standards to which buildings, structures and land shall conform for the benefit of all (I ,B, 7) The stated purpose of the R-2: Single and Two Family Residential District as stated in Section 5, D, 2 is: . To establish areas for the development of single and two family housing at a maximum density of approximately 5 units per net acre. . To reserve development areas for single and two family housing. . To restrict encroachment of incompatible uses. . To maintain density limitations. . To take advantage of municipal utilities. . To preserve open space. . (YES) The applicant's proposal for the subject property complies with the intent of the R-2 District and the Zoning Ordinance by maintaining density limitations and allowing the applicant to maintain the property for a single-family residential structure. Many of the structures surround the applicant's property are as close or closer to the front property line and the construction of the new house would create larger front and side- yard corner setbacks than the existing house while allowing the applicant to improve the property with construction of the new house. The variance would allow for the construction of a new house on this property while improving the setback situation over the existing non-conforming building. 3. Could the property in question be put to a reasonable use without the grauting of the variance? (NO) The additional setbacks due to the corner location create a very small building envelope on what was already a small lot. A reasonable house and garage structure could not be built and meet both the front and rear setbacks without a variance. If the building were shifted to the north it may destroy several of the existing trees on the site and would leave very little space for drainage between the house and the north property line. . IIEarthlPlanninglPumning Ca,esI2005105-J 1 Karjalahli Variance (PENDlNG)I04-06-05 PC Report Karjawhti Variance.doc Page 5 of7 4. Was the hardship created by the owner? (NO) The lot was platted long before the City's current size standards and setback . regulations. Any construction on this site of a reasonable structure would result in the need for a variance of so me kind. 5. Wonld granting the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? (NO) The new house would enhance the character of the neighborhood by removing a substandard structure and replacing it with an attractive modern home. Several of the properties in the surrounding area are closer to the front or side yard property lines than the City's standard setbacks would otherwise allow. Recommendation In Planning Case #05-11, staff recommends that the request for a 10- foot Side Yard setback variance and a 5-foot Front Yard setback variance be approved to allow for the construction of a new home on the property at 1137 Edgewater Avenue subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall fiJe all necessary building permits with the Building Official for approvaJ prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building permit plans shall be submitted to the Building Official a minimum of two (2) weeks before the planned start of construction, 2. A drainage swale should be constructed along the western portion of the property to . collect the drainage water flowing westward down the hill of the property and carry the drainage toward the street. A revised grading and drainage plan showing this drainage swale shall require the approval of the Arden Hills City Engineer prior to the issuance of any buiJding permits, 3, A revised grading and drainage plan showing the elevation of the first floor and basement and the surrounding property shall be submitted to the City and shall require approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. The applicant shall be required to plat the property prior to the issuance of any building permits. Plan Review Comments A, Building Permit Plans shall be submitted to the Building Official a minimum of two (2) weeks before the plarmed start of construction. B. No construction shall begin before plans are approved by the City of Arden Hills' Building Official. C. Appropriate sediment and erosion controls shall be installed prior to any construction activity to insure that any sediment disturbed during construction shall maintain on the applicant's property and not affect the neighboring properties. \\EartllIPlanninglPlanning Cases12005105-J 1 Karjalahii Variance (PENDING)\fJ4-06-05 PC Report Karjalahti Variance.doc Page 60f7 . . D, The plans show that half of the height of the first floor and the basement will be located at an elevation below that of the garage, The result may be that the structure would have water seepage into the first floor or basement of the home, The applicant should review the grading and elevation and shall provide a revised grading and drainage plan, showing the elevations of the floors and the elevations of the surrounding property, which shall require the approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permits. E. According to the proposed plans, the location of the proposed patio appears to encroach into the root area of the large Maple tree. The applicant should review the plans and may want to have a longer, rectangular patio that stretches out along the side of the house to help preserve the health and root structure of the Maple tree, F. Ramsey County property information shows that the existing structure has asbestos siding which will require that the siding be removed and disposed of properly, Options 1. Recommend approval as submitted, 2. Recommend approval with conditions. 3, Recommend denial with reasons for denial. If the City denies the petitioners request, "...it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time it denies the request." 4. Table for additional information. . Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on March 7, 2005 Pursuant to Minnesota State Statue, the City must act on this request by May 6, 2005 (60 days), unless the city provides the petitioner with written reasons for and additionaJ 60 day review period. The City may with the petitioners' consent extend the review period beyond the 120 days. Resident Comments The neighboring property owner from 3233 Shoreline Lane visited City Hall with questions about the variance, The neighbor had some concerns about the preservation of the spruce trees at the NE comer of the property, the direction of drainage, property lines, and the proximity of the proposed structure to the neighbor's property line, Staff has not received any other comments from residents on this variance request. Attachments 4b-1 Location Map, Vicinity Address Map 4b-2 Plans and statement submitted by the applicant. . 11EarthlPlanninglPfanning GJSes!2005105-11 Karjalahti Variance (PENDING)104-06-05 PC Report Karjalahti Varumce_doc Page 70f7 . . . Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 2005 Attachment 4B - 1 [JiIJ ~ L. ro a.. c o ~ Q) OJ c . ~ a ~ ~ 2 8~:;; ~ ~ ~:g: ~ iJ"5,Z~-~ 1:'I2 "" <(,&;";0 a; 0.",=""-':::> ~s: I;;; l;; G'" :$"'U .1."E'16~ ~4:~~ ~ ..-J L I'~ jlj; .~ .. Ii t c .,2 ~ ~ ~ ~~ o ...J j-__...J anuaAV I ~~ uo:t6u!xa <{z 1- ----r-:fl i"ctij\ 0>1 'J""Frl ;;",:r :=l -'<' 1 ~ ~<{ r, Q) 1il ~ ~ ji I I im~;'-.'.. I'ii.' r. · L auel a)jel r \] \ I i o ~"., /,""",1, .:n;, . .. III - <l> <l> LL o o "'" o o N o o '<t II = ...... o Q) ro <..l (/) o o N ~2! --'.,gz ::;.....8 *8... OJ: f:;fe..tia~-~ olii~a5i~i'5 ~f9.~i:g~i ~~~~~~E~ E~~5i~~f';;~ M 8~5olm~~ O ...1)(;)- .."'CI .!!5(!j~ ""liI' o g.:?~ii=:a-;;; N E'E~~~~~&1 23 ~ ~!~i~j~ (13 ~;n;~-~a.~ 2 ~t''i:.2'~.5~'" ~ :~s~~~i~ u.. il~E:gic'-~ !'3;:;.2"i o::>~ ~ .8~i~O~~5 0" b>.! 6 c.":>' :;8ic~~~~ ~~<;~i~"'~ ~_:5!1"'ii.2 2 .E ~iii~~-~~~ 15i=(I)'- G;".5 .~i~C)-~~i~ ..,,,,t;~n-oo" lij q;-~:: ~~ ","'" i~g~ ~;~ ~ ~i8 ii~~~:iai ~5,,~~~o!5:!2 o <>.<':-l6-:!: o.CI.l::;; ~.g~i~2it~ E...t=.."' €..,1ii ~~z;~~~ !~~ t~15~~~il~~ ~.5*uo;o~E: "",'2 g <II~ ' "," 0 ""_ 6i.bi'i~Zl :if'815~ E~ <ti'O:'l __c...l'?u~"'<> "'.!!I 8 ,,;~.!!I e'" II> ~~i~g:8~~~ ~-g.!ix~:5~!!:l c"'l'?~E;Oc" ~l5~.!!~a.~~-5 E;;'ggg>~~S:~ ~~~;~Q~-g~ t-5~~ ~~~i~ 0- ro ::;; '" '" ro In '!1 G >, 1:: :J o <..l >, '" ., E &. Gl l! ::s o l/) _.J__ , L~__J ~ ~ ro Q. c o (/) ~ Q) en c C") C") N C") N <D N C") co o N ~ Iill' ~~ I.!) C") N C") 1M L_ I'-LJ C")~,o., ~l~:;'-; ~_-c.,_,,'.- ..,--~", :;:,; .,,' o C") N C") ('() r-.. 9 N ..- -'--./'",< '-, '~"-.. o o N ~ I.!) I'- "'" Q) ~ ~ 1 ..- ..- ..- ..- I"- Q) ::J ..- C ..- Q) .i( ..- i I.!) N ..- ..- l 1 L f--- I anUaAV uOJ6U!X N N r--" , , r-;: I I.!) ~,. !,:.,:,O::, Ed \ 10/f-;' I, '" <' .:: (J) ',"' (J) C") ..- IJ C") o [1;"-'- i..c',,_ _~n -- ........ ~-~: <:~, _.' (j) ..- C") ~ Q)"- cr;..- 3: Q)L-- Ol -0 UJ I'- CO ..- C") I"'" : ('f) i I~ ! 11, ~-~.* :"" F1 ~ BUEll a~el I "c';) ..- (J) ..- ('f) [ I I ,--.l I I I I I I I 1. "'" I'-- ..- ..- / <Iz' b ~. 0 N 0 0 11 ~ = ~ 0 ill i!'l ('(l 0 0 (J) 0 i!'l '" f;{u;H co co i5!Hil~ N jc....::_:.;i~f <" ~~h';;~i~ '" l.!lli'i => ~iit~~i .0 " !H.W lL f ItS] ~ ... ';~H...-:s '" ~~~ii;$$ ''''.''1 '" ii!~!!~i~ ::< :;!'ll'i " ~ $l:li!h"l~ '" j'ill'" CD ~hKll'~li (/) ~181~1€~ (5 :;!.~! &I! >- iHU~~~-:;: c d';"_ => ~;~iU 0 iU!:!,:,; 0 >- h~!iiuJ: " H,,~,nH! ., E u!~5!~~i '" ~di_H;!~ << Jg&~~~l~; ;; ~i~~;:;"ll1~ .z-::'d'.~~'l!~ e ""'t~" "ii~n ~~ ~ ~21;U~i~ 0 ., u.ili:hi if) ~ ~ ~". ~~-,:~~: ~ ~:;;~:ri~ o~~ I' -< <t __L-__ L._ ..:.::: "- co 0... c o en "- Q) 0> C N (Q N (") T -I "<""" "<""" "<""" "<""" t-- "<""" "<""" "<""" to (") to N N (") ..- T"" .....-... '-.... '--" ~ (") (") N (") o M N (") -:t ...-. N to N ...- (") T"" r to ...... .-r- ...- co o N ..- o o N T"" ...... (") T"" ..- L--... .J anUaAV uOJ6u!x 1 ~.. I . to 0) 0 0) (") N en (") ..- (") "<""" (") OJ :J ~.\ c ~ OJ N .> <( N .q- '- T"" en Q) ..- - T"" co (") ~ OJ .~ 0). u ...... ill ex) I ..- -:t (") ('I) ...- ...- LO en ..- (") ......0 0)0 N ~ ~I(")I :uell~el Lf I[ 0; ] --t L ~ I"- ....... ....... ..q- m ...- ...- <{z o o N II Q) OJ LL o o ~ - ~ o to Q) ro o en o o to 2 f:I!!!!t ~ <>li~~a~h g~-~;.~!_a. c' ,1'...', ~ HIUHI ~ "':l'iB;;~.." .f E!ll':;;gii-.;!. H.1i!iH n. ~Htdi~ ro ;~ii-"i~l ~ "h ~O'!.!!i ~ Q) H!i51fii (h 9: g! ~llg ~ ~ HHt:li (f) !j8iibli Cl hHa;s.l!~ - ~FH~l~. >- . -1--; _ <l; E f~!!!~i.J!~ :J :i~a!dii 00 -1!,""~!,,,,10,, l"Ud;U~ ~ ...~~_i!~~i; Ul ~j~",~Jill:: E ~1:Hb,t~ f}. ilIHH~~ ~~;!H~ii ii ,l:-H-lill":"",, l:! ~H nill~_: :I :~i;z ;;i~ ~ zHHllhi (f) ~~ ~ ON ,- j~~ ~::E~ ll;i;J :;::1:;; .<0 ;:'.;-E -< {I b 0 N II , ~ 0 iJj ro () (f) o to '" o o '" ~ '" ~ .0 " LL ~ f~ . ~Hri~! I:~a:i~i .f!HHi: !li~:";;1l;'! ! .gH-2i~ p~j~!.~; - i~ ~ fi: I- :~ii~~~~ ~!hH!' ~ ~~ :li.,j ~Hi~F~ ~~6",~~1!~ I ii<lj~ ;!i ~ ~ i~ .Ij ~ 9:U~H~ ~~U~I;" h~iif;! gjH;~'H ;lill_'" ~~H~ - - j;'h':: ;n~L <u ~~; i H!;liU; Ht~i!f!i t~ !~h~f~ ;; U""H.! ljlii.h~ i i!h!!lU .l~ tlio'12 :'lil lj!. ' '11 :];; .. ~ :....~ :<..J. ~a" a. ~ " ID '" Ql '!! C9 >- E ~ o (j >- " ID E tl ;; l! ~ o l/l en ..-l ..-l ~::2 .~. ~z.. """"" i~~~~ uH , -< , -t :;"~r..;;~~:"~r:2:;.:~~...,,;" ~.~"~ '" tEl ;1';*~!~~~:' l.L <{z o o N II Q) OJ LL o o ~ , o lO ~ Q) <1l () (fl o 0 lO " .j <lIS ,(2- '" i!l~!~~:i 0 0 Hiiili: N i';"!.hH ~ ,HI"l' ro p." " ~.2;ij .1 15 :;:p ~H w il.31~ ~ i'; LL !ttH[n :.1,1.. ~~ n. 13&i;:.P~ ro :!!,,~Pt ::; tl ~~I~.!;;; w ziU.,Jii '" ~..:lil~o_ ro HI!"l, lO h'II~5; lJ) ",;:" ~ I . i3 !-"l!j;'ll >- t ~ ~ J~! ld" E :-3:~i~uJ " H@jl 0 () 'd",&~__E ~ _0 l~:: ~ J! >- if!..i;n w ih!Pl~ '" E 3 ~"! = J..,; i2 HI;ih" j:ni=~il ......;;.8 ..., ;; .!I~~.r\! j 11 & ~ I_~ l! ~h!U~: ::I ~ ~l ~ a3._1 0 Il\W". III H,H~h if) H ~~~- ~i~. Z .~Z Ox> ~"$ ~ O~I .i<'..,:,3 U~~ 't i oz .0S' .6~ .os .~'L" ocrOf 00'011 ~ ~ ~~ U " '" :!!'< . ::s d ....II! ~I fl"l~ ... ... II!l -\ .~'" ;c:~::.L: :\::~,:,::~:' 9 t -' - .!rtU ,$:" - i .Sf[ ~_~ "::.: .~'.:-.-<4~'~~',::~:':,::,::' _;:~~:~~:<':;'- ~'.--;:,:'; ~;:';~:,::-;.~;'~':~ ::;:-;:,": ....:':~~:: :::'; .~_\:'~~ ~~::l'-"": ;r' '\i:: :": ;:'::'f":'~ ":\: ::~~~:.' -~. :....:~ '. ,ntl . '" t,rl'Dt-J .... 'oi It l:'l ia ~ = a '" 8 c:l ~. ,l"trt eo ~ E- . .... .. .. d ,f..... ,os I . 1 - Ni fl"l yt: , ".".~,~. .-.._-',~ I <<"ol~ i1.t ,..... i ...... o ...... S 8 r "~ ,co t,: ~ l u-~ , . 0;:' . @ . , " i ,-.. \C ;) ~ AS .os ~ '" ... ~ .tn,; "." I L . '..; ", -,~-.._' .. ;.. ;:":.'.: ~.... 8 a~ -~ r , BJIW7 BJlrtIttt1ii :..",-...... . < . ..-~,.>-:. , -. 110'01 CIO'OI ! - - - -~ 'f0t+4 -"'" -- -& ~ ~N .ti ,/ c:5 / .......... .'.:;...- ~,~ - .' , ,.',/,.'" -. ':," .... ;,'.-;\ ..'-." . . - - - ,'. :; :.-:. ~-: " ....., .,- -,.<_:,> .{~.- '-,",.' '.' ",:. ., -' ~ '.' -:' -:...... : :~/._,~.~.: ~- -, c';: ~ -;~:-:~ "'. ~;:, ....-.,. . . ~. -'. ~ ~ . . Planning Commission Meeting Attachment 4B - 2 . . April 6, 2005 / .f # /, . . . 1 FilinCl ReQuirements and Payment of Fees The City requests that you make a pre-application meeting with the City Planner to discuss the application process, requirements. and deadlines, The undersigned acknowledges that shelhe understands that before this request can be considered, all required information and fees (including all deposits) must be paid to the City in advance, If additional fees are required to cover costs incurred by the City, the City Planner has the right to require additional payment from one or more of the undersigned. who shall be jOintly I.iable for such fees. Such expenses may include (but are not limited to) direct city payroll and overhead costs, fees paid to consultants and other professionals, and the cost of printing, maRinQ. and supplies. The City may withhold finat action on a land use application andlor rescind prior actiOn untit all miscell<lneous fees have been paid. Applicants are advised that an escrow deposit is required at the. time of the submittal of the land Use Application to offset costs associated with the proposed project. ReauiredSUbmittallnformation The City of Arden Hills requires the following submittals for alllilnd Use Applications: . A certified land survey. . Site plan(s) {for ail development projects}. . Five (5) larQe scale copies, folded in sets no larger than 8 )/," x 14" with the print side facing out. . Fifty (50) copies of 11" x 1r reductions of ALL PLANS MUST BE 3-HOLE PUNCHED AND Z- FOLDED. . Mailing labels of all properties within 350 feet of the property (this infonnation may be obtained from Ramsey County). True and acqurilte representation of the requirements outlined in the procedural form for the specified type of request is the responsibility of the applicant. Completellncomplete Applications An incomplete application will delay the processing of land use requests. The application approval time commences and an application is considered officially filed when the City Planner has received and examined the application and determined that the application is complete. A decision on whether the application is complete or incomplete shall be made within fifteen (15) days following the submittal of the application. When the application is deemed to be 'complete" it shall bi, placed on the agenda of the first possible Planning Commission meeting occurring at least thirty (30) days from the date of offICial submission of the application. Page 2 on March 7, 2005 . To the City of Arden Hills, The reason for this variance request is to enable the construction of a new 2 story single family home, The house that is currently on the property is very old (85 yrs.) and doesn't represent the nature or standard of other homes in the neighborhood that were built more recently. The proposed building will more closely match the homes directly adjacent to 1137 Edgewater and also throughout most of the neighborhood. There are several reasons that prompted the need for a variance, The small 50 ft. Jot sizes make the 40 ft. setbacks impractical. The property at 1137 Edgewater is 1 '/, lots or 75 ft. by 124 ft. A smaller building plan will be needed to fit this size lot but a variance would also still be needed, Another feature that is unique to this lot is the location on Edgewater Ave and Shoreline Lane. Because of the recent pavement improvement project, Shoreline lane is now a city street making 1137 Edgewater Ave, a corner lot. Prior to the project, Shoreline lane was just a driveway to the single family home to the north of 1137 Edgewater. Even now that it is a city street, it still only serves the 1 home and is only 20 ft. wide and is a dead end, Arden Hills zoning code for corner lots requires a setback of 40 ft. from both Edgewater Ave, and ShoreJine Lane making this an undue hardship on the property (1137 Edgewater) which otherwise would have had a smaller setback if it were not considered a corner Jot. The final reason for the needed variance is the location of the mature trees on the property, In order to preserve a large Silver Maple and 6 or 7 Spruce, White and Red pines the variance would allow the building to be placed 10 feet closer to Edgewater Ave" giving these trees the space they need to grow, The granting of this variance would provide several things to the Edgewater Ave, neighborhood and to the City of Arden Hills. First it would provide a safe, modern, up to current standards home that would add to the value of all the neighboring properties, It would also solve the problem of how to build on a difficult to build on lot, due to the unusuaJ street layouts and the differing lot sizes. It would aJso preserve the natural features and trees on the lot. And finally it would enhance the character of the neighborhood by precisely locating and buiJding a modem single family home that would closeJy resemble the style and features of the other nearby homes and also provide enough space for new trees and landscaping for future growth in the Edgewater/Lake Josephine area, I hope to make this home my permanent residence and perhaps retirement home and look forward to working with the staff at the City of Arden Hills to make this home a reality. . Thank you for your consideration, /UJ1I~, . ~n ~trJ ~~ b......::l ~P"""-::J ~ ~. ~. n > !,......::l !" P"""-::J gtrJ " :r ~O ~ :r: c: z: c: c: N ~ ~ Z ~ ~ i f i ~ i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r;' I I I ~ ;;g N fJ .::: ~ ~ g 0 ;lI ~ ~ ~ I 6 ~ (J) .., coP ~ ~ t... ;:I ~ Fli " !!l " !Z! :! .,. ~~ ~ ~i I ~ 2 ~ <> ~ ~ ~i~Il1~;a~~~a ~ ~ ~ a~ ~~rni:~~I~ 2 a ~a :i~~~id ~ ;~@~h,.\'l ~ ~;gill,.:rl:~~ ~ ~~!edh~ a zF ~ <!! <>z z o 0 .... .. .,. \ $ ;g~ ;g ~~ ~ "2 ~~ () ~~ ~ ~~ i ~ ~ ~ i o :r ~ g ~ I ~ ll: ~ a ~ z " N o z z G') ;0 rrI o C ;;0 rrI ~ rrI Z -i (J) a f-'- -l -< f-'- :r: ~u:Jm ~ ~ ~ i : ~z: J;; - P)> ~ ~ t::rj t- o ~ ~:> ~CIl~:r: ~~_-l 2 L~.J_ mg~'"V ~ ~ ~ b i5 t::rj '"V z Z m ~~t:' ~ t::rj ~ 11~Q~:g!li!~1 II ~UllloO"'IID~r ~~~~~;g~~\'l\'lf;; ~~~I:~~,"I:~~G') ~~~i!l-<,,~~i'S<>rr1 "C:1ii~i!l~ ~~6 ~E ~~ ....~ ~ ~ I: ~ :0 Z % > > t: l:l ~ ~ ~ 11\ z . 1:("" ~2!Z! E~ !Z!'" -....~ "'" a 'i~~ 8~ -< ~ .!'J " ~ 22.36 ~~ U I P;o I ~~ '0 _ - N 00'28' 43~ W 75.00....... ~ ADJACENT GARAGE I ~ " -I N1151 EDGEWATER AVE. P I'" \ "'ill '0 ~ ell ADJACENT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY '" lil ~ --- --- w. C ~ < trJ ~ I .~ <,' I Y ~,. I Y ;;-" I ~ ~~ 'il~ I .... 5:2 I ... ..c I z '" >"'g8'ili!i 1I\~...~o~ !i~~a! ~~\1""'!O ziil-~2;!i ;~~::~~ "'~"""m g <"\1 .... ,.!6 ""'fil.,. ~~~zi" >i~ClCl~ j;1",~:s 21 -~ ?z '" ~ ADJACENT RESIDENCE N3233 SHORELINE LN. 33,11 iQ I 2" ~ dSPRUCE :2 '" .,. p>g-' I z:2 3' '" 2 RUCE 5:2~ I :~~ ~ 2" 01-. I PRUC I I I I ...L- (;. '" .. !:Ii " .. 922.81 ^ [T1 r :s: )> 2 Z -0 "" 0 [T1 ~ ",'" (f) ::D art 22~ c > 0 ;:0 R> XOlJ:O < ",..,r fT1 0').....00 -< )> ~ J,~Z ~ Z 1'-';;::0 C) (f) IJ)...._::I: (f) '-'12~ . --.oz>- 0 1,-,,,,-< fT1 "''''''' Z () OJ-'"OCD Q o -t )> '" >2 Z ",io;: fT1 -f '" rTl [T1 ~ :;0 (f) N Z C) .^, f:l ,,' ~. f:l ., J>f:l, ,J'o ,J",b.(\ ,I\).t::, ,.t. , (.oj 'SHOREl.INELAN{'^ . . ~ " ,~, (20' RIGHT OF WAY) ,.. . ~ L' ",<,~~;,,:",>';\,;:;::(),"~:.:<:,:,~'>: .~" ".."~ , " '" '.::, <, " -Z.'6' '" '~ '~", '. , , , , , I ~ ~, . '. .. '" . 'li'~ ~:'~:i~~" :tl"'"'''' II1I ..>" " 11// .:..,: - \::J ,,~ ....... ....;:. ,,'-"~/ '."':Vf'1. ...~ :}, I~-/' (, "'. ~~ :t,,;? '.."."9~ \~h', '.'~,;,l) ~ :~~~'!i""::"">/ 5! l~~~~t/~llIn\\H\\~'~Ol .... ;g Vi '" !S c-<-t:::l UlUlUl~-p 'tI k: ~ ~ff~~,"~ 2 ~F!l!!::i~ ~ 1_l'jlI ~ !1~::i (gt~% "t'l '" ~ >;j! ;:;.... --.:.~~ ~ 'ili~~~~ ~!!!;!,.:! '"lai-<lO ~ N 2~~~ ","':22. ;j~~ ;2 ;;I" r< .~, ./:- i>> " . , ~Ei J;- 1-". ~ :... ~" ~, '.b-.' "..... ,;".. J>' , , ,J-j:..' . - -0 -0 -0 )>- ::u ::u ::u ;0 0 0 ~ -0 -0 rrI 0 0 '" )>- ~ l<1 ::u '" ::;! (J) '" J: :> C ~ rig: b =E r ::u 0 ::u s::: )> rrI ~ c "" cO<t.... :;0 G') '" :> s::: :1 ~~.jl. :;0 )>- ~ '" II )>- ;- c...~" )> r -< b 0.0 ;;0 I:~O~ Z 0 -< -. ((l :J () ~ 0 II il k! 5-g.a.fT1 rrI !?l o"j ((l 5'0 ~ (J) ::u ~ = 0 '" z '" So Ro rl' fT1 (") '" .., P Q~s.~fTl ;;0 P II ." =r 0 -0 002 ~ ~ :-< "'......0 0 :::! ;" 0 ",;:I. 0 0 '" ::u ;:0. :r () OJ o"'~. Z Ul P 3 0''< Z P N ::: 0 NO ~ "< ~(Jl.. ~ ~ ~ > <>'N () ~cn ::u --J '" ~ '" (Xl "" 0 Nd <0.., (oF=: N oif "'-0 -0"" ::u::U oS; -og !Xl", ::;!~ >::u ::u." ",,> .?;~ > ::u "" > II .N '" '" '" '" P ." :-< -0 -0 ::u ::u ~ ~ o 0 '" '" ~ a -0 Ul > - ::l ~ o ~ II F: ^ ~ 8 II Ul !::l P .... Ul ~ P ." :-< z () . " ~1~~~~~~n g~~~ ~ 0 If " I:!II Z ~ !;'J!!li:l!O~l:i~~ . ~'" 2 :0 ~z "'l '" ill)> :'-i ~~~lil Z IIg;;l,","~ll! ,.2 E 0 ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ i!;IJ)Z~ G ;; ~o\:g " .... "'!; o:<......lfi!" ~~ z 0 !!. %~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ fJ a l:l g ,.~ .... .;:; .... Ii ! - G:>lt? .;)- . _._-~-- ._._-~-'----_.. e I II II ~- - ....~/ .....~I . II ml II I~ . ~ ~/------ ../ ------ ~--------~---- FRONT ELEVATION -...------ e . ~ ~ ~. ~ -~"~ ~ ~. .--<-J--=--- ~ ~ ~ 7~ . ~.-..- .~ . ~ .~ ~ ??'/ , f= ffi] f--. -"---~ 8B ~ /'" . --..... ~-,------,-----,." V /""'--- .n__ ///- ~.~~~ I-- /.... f= I :L-:i ~. .... .~~ ~.L ... ~m '" 'c=-- . ._-. ~ ~. ~..-_. 'n~ ~ .--- --..- n_ ~~ ~ . .. n ~._- HE ~ ... . ..~ f------. ~.~ r= 1--. n m.. f- - .. Jl r= ~~~ -------------- ---- ~-~ .~ ~ _n -~ -------------- .~ ~ . ------------ .~-~-.- ----- ------- ----------------- ~- --------- -- ~-~-~~-~~ J' -------------------------------- ~- REAR ELEVATION . . . . __J-' g ~. ~ I /~~"" ~ /~------ ",--' ~ 'r~~~?~::~", ~. . /~- ~ - -L - .. -- II . RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION r-. ,---~~-. itJ 1[.:1 . ~ ~ c'r' /"-... ~~':::."" :5 /' /L=~~ .", u " ,'"- 'p ~. M__ ~ tEB ---.--,_.. ~ , , , , --.--~ ''p ~ , .~ ~i'I - -'-'~ , ,- T u u -, --'~-"'--- .~-- ,,- _.'--- .-_. , h D , __'M . LEFT SIDE ELEVATION . CJ o " .. ... ... 0 " <:6lt ~EJ .... 8 ~ D- O' " " ... ~ l> ~ ~ r.t z o < o ~ !l o u " u i o ii ~ z ,. " " ,. ~ ... a ~ o "~ ~ ' ... ~ ii! ~ l' o " \:I ~ " . a ." '\. - \- ,,"" "~\, . \.. "\,\ .d~ _~ _ ~_ ~o:",-, ~~.-'~ .~<\~~.:~~:\;;~" ~~it, . ~,' ~~ ",,"~ j.' 3t'-~ >t- ! I ~,.;rf' " ..."r "'fE' i . ,/ I , " i " I '/.' r-' j,l !i .~~' . t , '~ " { 'j; , ~~r , -/ J'- .-..,- l 1, ;),,:/.., _.2 ~....~,. i 'f . , , '\ . -i ..11 ..1 r 1 11 " " . /' . " o"'~ ,i t ~ , , , " .. ^ '"' ~ r , (" . '" L ...~ t i .,.1- ., \ .~ " l ~, i.'" .\ "1 l ; , q 1, , '!' r i :;<;p'0. ''Jr., ....ttr...... '..............'..... '", .,:.,. 1t " ,- --I ,: _' - -. ~'":~ , f' . "'j"". :f. , . .,' +,;. ',"f ~ . . -~ t;~t 'I,.; ','J "!, . "tf ,d 4\.1 .~ ';i , ,->:.. .~ 'il', 'l' I , . :~..C'".'..' ", .~~., .0 ~,'. . . ... .. -- '~,; -. ." ~.. --.. .-;!c>"" -1J~"~', #. . . .-%""',.- ,,' ,---.; .' - .... ~ .' ~. .) . 'j \: '. '. . ", i ,J",' -'~I---::'<:,: - :''''1' . l' :J-.. Ii! .,,'~ .' :~~;.1 ,li 1,1 \ ." "~, .~. " l" 1 :ji l):i: ,'~:\ i~l~~ ll<~' . -,t,., ~,tf' , .~' -,;~ . . . i'i.:; '1' rJi.: . !>i\~. " ' if!} ~; I (", ' 1i/^' -,~-'~ . . City Council Meeting Attachment 6D - 2 . . April 25, 2005 . . . . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 6, 2005 4 Chair Sand moved, seconded by Commissioner Thompson, to recommend tabling Planning Case No. 05-10, Ramsey County, 1425 Paul Kirkwold Drive (Ramsey County Public Works and Sheriff Station), Sign Variance for additioual factuaJ and visual information to give staff sufficient time to make a recommendation. The motion carried unanimously (4-0), B. PLANNING CASE 05-11: ROLAND KARJALAHTI. 1137 EDGEWATER AVENUE; FRONT/SIDE YARD CORNER SETBACK VARIANCES Mr. Hellegers stated applicant was requesting a 5-foot front yard setback variance and a 10- foot side yard corner sctback variance for the construction of a new single family detached house on the applicant's proper:y at 1137 Edgewater Avenue in Arden Hills, Staff recommended approval of the variance subject to the following conditions: I, The applicant shall file all necessary building permits with the Building Official for approvaJ prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building permit plans shall be submitted to the Building Official a minimum of two (2) weeks before the planned start of construction, 2. A drainage swale should be constructed along the western portion of the property to collect the drainage water flowing westward do'W'Jl the hill of the property and carry the drainage toward the street. A revised grading the drainage plan showing this drainage swale shall require the approval of the Arden Hills City Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permits, 3. A rcvised grading and drainage plan showing the elevation of the first floor and basement and the surrounding property shall be submitted to the City and shall require approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4, The applicant shall be required to plat the property prior to the issuance of any building permits. Chair Sand asked if condition four should have the applicant replat the property, Mr. Hellegers replied that was correct. Commissioner Thompson asked for an explanation of the drainage swale. Mr. Hellegers summarized the drainage swale for the Commission. Commissioner Modesette asked if the curb cut and concrete driveway would remain. Mr. Hellegers replied there should only be one access and so it should be removed. Chair Sand asked if the retaining wall that was currently there was close to where the new retaining wall was being proposed. Mr. Hellegers replied it appeared to be close, Commissioner Modesette stated she was not certain the engineering was complete enough to run the water to the street. Mr. Hellegers replied it might need a little more space and he would have the City Engineer review this before it would go forward. . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 6, 2005 5 Chair Sand asked if the neighbors concern had been addressed, Mr. Hellegers replied the neighbors wanted to see the proposal and make sure the trees were preserved, . Chair Sand asked if the trees on the Certificate of Survey were ~ew plantings or were they existing vegetation. Mr, Hellegers showed the current aerial photograph and where the landscaping presently was located, He noted most of the trees on th" Certificate were existing trees, Chair Sand asked if there had been any contact to the neighbor to the west regarding the drainage issues. Mr, Hellegers replied they had not been spoken to yet, but they were given notice of his proposal. Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 7:47 p,m. Chair Sand invited applicant to come forward and make comment. Roland KarjaJahti, 1137 Edgewater Avenue, stated presently they had a couple of retaining walls on the property, which would be redone and the reconfiguration of the retaining walls had not been decided on yet until he knew if the variance was approved or not, but he would work with City staff on these retaining walls. He noted with the new retaining walls, this would address any drainage issues, He stated he had spoken to the property owner to the west and he has not had any unusual flooding or drainage probJems on this property. He indicated he had also spoken with the property owner to the north . about the trees and they definitely wanted to keep the trees to the north. He stated due to the pavement management project in the area, much of the landscaping in the front had been removed, but he wanted to put in more landscaping in the front. He asked if the City Zoning Ordinances required replatting in this type of a situation. He noted in Shoreview they would not require a replatting in this type of a situation, He indicated a full final plat procedure was very expensive and because of the proximity to Lake Josephine, the surveyor needed to follow certain State guidelines. He asked ifreplatting was absolutely necessary. He noted this was two platted properties, but one tax parcel. Chair Sand stated they would have to defer to staff as to whether or not this needed to be replatted. Mr. Hellegers replied during recent meeting with staff and the City Attorney this exact type of an issue was brought up and it was agreed upon that this process of platting was the correct procedure to follow, Chair Sand stated staff wouJd not change recommendation number 4, Mr, Hellegers replied he believed this was the correct recommendation. Chai~ Sand stated he liked this plan and it was a beautiful house and he believed this would be an improvement to tl1e neighborhood. Chair Sand invited anyone for or against the Varlance to come forward and make comment. . Dave Monson, 1175 Edgewater, stated these plans looked very nice and he was very much in favor ofthis proposal. There were no further comments madc. . .. . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - APRlL 6, 2005 6 . Chair Sand closed the public hearing at 7:56 p,m, Commissioner Bezdicek stated he understood staffs comments with respect to the replatting, but asked if there were any alternatives that would be acceptable to comply with the guidelines. Mr. Hellegers replied there was a lot line that would run down the middle of the house and this was the reason they needed to have this replatted. He noted two alternatives they have in the Ordinance, did not apply to this type of a situation, He indicated he believed replatting would be the correct procedure. Mr, Clark stated they might be able to state in requirement 4 that the applicant should be required to replat or convey by minor subdivision, which would give staff the opportunity to reexam this. Commissioner Bezdicek, seconded by Commissioner Modesette, to recommend approval of Planning Case No, 05-11: Roland Kmjalahti, 1137 Edgewater Avenue, Front/Side Yard Comer Setback Variances subject to the recommendations made in staffs April 6, 2005 and modifying recommendation four to read: The applicant shall be required to replat or convey by minor subdivision tile property prior to the issuance of any building permits. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). . UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A. PLANNING CASE 05-09: DAVID RADZIEJ AND ROGER SABOT, 4365 AND 4367 LEXINGTON A VENUE; DRIVEWAY VARIANCE. Mr. Hellegers stated the applicants have requested variances to allow them to maintain the existing shared driveway and add an additional driveway for each of the applicants' property in Arden Hills. He noted at the March, 2005 Plaillling Commission meeting, the PJanning Commission voted unanimously to deny the requested variance to maintain the existing shared driveway and add one additional driveway for each of the properties, He stated the applicants have reviewed the Planning Commission's direction and have attempted to answer some of the Planning Commission's previous questions. Staff recommended approval of the request for variance to allow one new driveway at 4365 and one new driveway at 4367 while maintaining the existing shared driveway subject to the following conditions: . 1. The applicants shall submit Zoning Permits with plans to the Building Official a minimum oftwo (2) weeks before the planned start of construction. 2. The applicants will require approval from Ramsey County for the cub-cuts prior to the installation of a new driveway. ." ~J. . . City Conncil Meeting Attachment 6D - 3 . . April 25, 2005 '" ~1O " . Ie (.. City of Arden Hills Chapter 11 Subdivisions 1140.06 Sidewalks. Sidewalks may be required along both sides of all streets; pedestrian ways shall be paved and fenced as approved by the City Council. 1140.07 Curb and Gutter. Coucrete curb and gutter shaIl be required. Section 1150 - Variances and Exemptions 1150.01 Granting Variances. Subd. 1. The City Council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all ofthe followiug conditions exist: A. The hardship is uot a mere iuconvenience; B. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generaIly applicable to other property; C. The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. 11 - 41 Adopted August 12,2002 .~ ".. ..- City of Arden Hills Chapter 11 Subdivisions . Subd. 2. In making theSe findings, the Council shall consider the natnre of the proposed nse ofland and the existing use ofland in the vicinity, the number of persons to reside or work in the proposed subdivision and the probable effect of the proposed sUbdivision upon traffic cOnditions in the vicinity. In granting a variance as provided in this section, the Council shaIl prescribe only such conditions that it deems desirable or necessary to the public interest. 1150.02 Applications. Application for any variance shall be in writing by the subdivider at the time when the preliminary plat is filed for the consideration of the City Council, stating fully and clearly all facts relied up'on by the petitioner, and shaIl be supplemented with maps, plans . or other additional data which may aid the Council in the analysis of the proposed project. The plans for the development shall include the covenants, restrictions or other legal provisions necessary to guarantee the fuIl achievement of the plan. 1150.03 Minor SUbdivisions of Unplatted Property. Subd. 1. General. In the case of a proposed subdivision of an unplatted tract of land, which subdivision is smaIl in size and of minor importance and which tract is located in an area where conditions are weIl-defined, the City Council, upon review and after report of the planning commission, may exempt the subdivider from compliance with some ofthe provisions of this chapter. The provisions from which the subdivision may . 11 - 42 Adopted August 12, 2002 .. ... -- . Ie . City of Arden Hills Chapter 11 Snbdivisions 1150.04 Division or Consolidation of Platted Lots of Record. In the case of an application to divide one or more lots platted into lots and blocks and designated in a sUbdivision plat on file and ofrecord in the office of the recorder or registrar oftitIes for the county, into one or more separately described parcels, or an application for the consolidation of two or more such platted lots or parts thereof into one or more tracts, the City Council, upon review and after report of the planning commission, may approve the subdivision or consolidation, upon compliance with the following conditions: Subd. 1. Survey. The owner(s) of the platted lot(s) to be so divided or consolidated shaIl file with the zoning administrator a surveyor registered land survey ofthe lot(s) to be divided or consolidated. The surveyor registered land survey shaIl be prepared and certified by a Licensed Surveyor. Subd. 2. Relation to Zouing Ordinauce. The parcels or tracts resulting from the division or consolidation, as depicted in the surveyor registered land survey, shaIl not have an area, dimensions or setbacks which are less than the minimum requirements specified for the zoning district in which the parcels or tracts are located in the zoning ordinance. 11 - 47 Adoptcd August 12, 2002 <I .J<. City of Arden Hills Chapter 11 Subdivisions Subd.3. Public Welfare. It is determined that the proposed division or consolidation . will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to adjacent tracts in the area in which the subdivision tract is located. Subd. 4. Conformity. The proposed division or consolidation shaIl conform to such other requirements of this chapter, which the planning commission has specificaIly made such division or consolidation subject to at its first meeting at Which the application for the division or consolidation is submitted. The City Council may add to or subtract from the requirements specified by the planning commission additional requirements ofthis chapter which it deems necessary for the protection ofthe health, safety, general welfare and convenience of the City and to secure the objectives of this e chapter. Prior to the City Council's granting the owner(s) an exemption pursuant to this paragraph, the owner(s) shall comply with all the requirements of this chapter Which the planning commission or City Council have specifically made the division or consolidation subject. Subd.5. Such filing fee as has been established in a resolution adopted by the Council shall be paid the zoning administrator with every application for an exemption under this paragraph. e 11 - 48 Adopted August 12, 2002 ~ '1'\1~~.JIlLLS City ot Arden Hills Request for Council Action Prepared by: PH Dept: CD Council Mtg. Date: 4/25/2005 Final Action Needed By: 4/25/2005 Agenda Item c <<. PC #05-07. Covered Front Porches as Permitted Encroachments Budgeted Amount: $0.00 Actual Amount: $0.00 Funding Source: $0.00 Council Action Request: 'Consider Ordinance #357 which would amend section 6.C.2.a of the Zoning Ordinance and insert new section 6.C.2.d into the Zoning Ordinance. allowing for covered front porches of up to ten feet and with a minimum setback of 30 feet from the front or side-yard corner property lines, which meet design standards to be allowed subject to staff review and approval. 'Consider Resolution #05-29 which would add the covered front porch language and Front Porch Design Guidelines to Appendix A of Zoning Ordinance #~91.. Staff Recommendation: 'Approve Ordinance #357 which would amend section 6.C.2.a of the Zoning Ordinance and insert new section 6.C.2.d into the Zoning Ordinance, allowing for covered front porches of up to ten feet and with a minimum setback of 30 feet from the front or side-yard corner property lines, which meet design standards to be allowed subject to staff review and approval. 'Approve Resolution #05-29 which would add the covered front porch language and Covered Front Porch Design Guidelines to Appendix A of Zoning Ordinance #291.. Advisory Commission Action: -~::~~.:._~ Commission Date Action ",._Planning PTRC . -j "'--4/612005- i Approved (3~1J NotApplic;i3tJlE! _______ Not applicablE! . Supporting Documents (which are attached to this Action Form): 1ZI Memo/Letter: Staff Report to the City Councii - April 25, 2005 1ZI Resolution (No. 05-29) 1ZI Ordinance (No.357) D Engineering Recommendation: D Attorney Recommendation: DOther: Financial Implications: .Administrator/Staff Comments: Page 1 of 1 e . e ~ ~HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: Agenda Item 6.E April 25, 2005 TO: Mayor and City Council Peter Hellegers, City Planner ~ FROM: SUBJECT: PC #05-07, The City of Arden Hills Covered Front Porches as Permitted Encroachments (subject to administrative approval) Requested Action · Consider Ordinance #357 which would amend section 6.C.2.a of the Zoning Ordinance and insert new section 6.C.2.d into the Zoning Ordinance, allowing for front porches of up to ten feet and with a minimum setback of30 feet from the front or side-yard comer property lines, which meet design standards to be allowed subject 10 staff review and approval. . Consider Resolution #05-29 ~.-hich would add the front porch language and Front Porch Design Guidelines to Appendix A of Zoning Ordinance #291. Planninl!. Commission Recommendation Recommendation and Conditions of Approval At their March 2, 2005 meeting the Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case #05-07 and unanimously recommended approval (5-0) of the Zoning Ordinance Amendments as proposed. Update At the April 18, 2005 City Council Work Session the City Council directed staffto remove language that would allow for enclosed porches by eliminating glass from a material that could be used as part of the 65% open area. The City Council also directed staff to insure that the steps leading to the covered front porches would meet the building code requirements. The attached documents reflect this discussion. Options 1. Recommend approval as submitted. 2. Recommend approval with conditions. \\Earth\Planning\Planning Cases\2005\05-07 Zoning Ordiance Amendments for Front Porch Encroachments (PENDING)\04-25-05 CC Report 05-07.doc Pagel of 2 3. Recommend denial with reasons for denial. If the City denies the petitioners request, "...it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time it denies the request." Table for additional information. 4. Attachments 6E-1 Ordinance #357 6E-2 Ordinance #357 (with edits shown) 6E-3 Resolution #05-29 6E-4 Staff Report to the City Council- April 18, 2005 \\Earth\Planning\PJanning Cases\2005\OS-07 Zoning Ordiance Amendments for Front Porch Encroachments (PENDING)\04-25-05 CC Report 05-07 _doc Page 2 of2 . e e . City Council Meeting Attachment 6E - 1 . . . April 25, 2005 . . . ~ ~~HILLS CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 357 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO COVERED FRONT PORCHES AS PERMITTED ENCROACHMENTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS THE ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL ORDAINS THAT SECTION 6(C)2(a) OF ARDEN HILLS ORDINANCE 291 IS AMENDED; AND SECTION 6(C)2(d) IS ADDED TO ARDEN HILLS ORDINANCE 291 TO READ AS FOLLOWS; Section 6(C)2( a). Parts of the Principal Structure. Features which are part of a principal structure, including but not limited to eaves, cantilevered areas, cornices, canopies, awnings, decks, balconies, steps, ramps, fire escapes and chimneys, may extend three (3) feet into the required front, side, and rear setbacks but in no case shall these encroachments be less than six (6) feet from any lot line, except that steps, decks, uncovered porches, and ramps may extend six (6) feet into the required front, side, and rear setbacks but in no case shall these encroachments be less than six (6) feet from any lot line. Section 6(C)2(d). Covered Porches for Sinele-Family Detached DwelIines. 1. In required single-family residential front yard setbacks, covered porches attached to the principal structure may extend no more than 10 feet into the required front setback; provided that; the porch is no closer than 30 feet from the front lot line, the porch complies with the side yard interior setbacks, the design of the porch is consistent with the City's Porch Design Guidelines, and the porch has been approved by the Community Development Director or Development Director's designee. The Community Development Director or Development Director's designee must make the following findings to approve a porch encroachment of up to 10 feet: (a) The exterior materials of the proposed porch are consistent or complementary in color, texture, and quality with those visible at the front of the dwelling; (b) The roof of the proposed porch is properly proportioned to and integrated with the roof of the dwelling and has no less than a 3/12 slope; (c) The base of the porch is not open, the base must be a concrete block perimeter foundation with frost footings, and its appearance is consistent with the base of the dwelling. . (d) At least sixty five (65) percent of the exposed porch fat;ade is open or occupied by screens and/or screen doors; and the fat;ade constitutes the area from the floor level of the porch to the porch ceiling; up to thirty five (35) percent of the fat;ade may be solid and may only be occupied by columns and spaced railings; solid walls (even partial) are prohibited. (e) Building Permits shall be required before construction can begin. 2. In required single-family residential side-yard comer setbacks, covered porches attached to the front of a principal building facing the side yard comer setback may extend no more than ten (10) feet into the required side-yard comer setback, provided that; the porch is no closer than thirty (30) feet from the side-yard comer lot line, that the design of the porch is consistent with the City's Porch Design Guidelines, and the porch has approved by the Community Development Director or Development Director's designee. The Community Development Director or Development Director's designee must make the findings required by Section 6.C.2.d.1, letters (a)-(e) as listed above in order to approve a porch encroachment of up to ten (10) feet. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective the 12th day of May, 2005. . Adoption Date. Passed by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills the _day of ,2005. ATTEST: BEVERLY APLIKOWSKI, MAYOR MICHELLE WOLFE CITY ADMINISTRATOR Publication Date. Published on the of ,2005. F:\users\Jantce\Jerry\Arden HiIIs\Ordinance 357 - 3.doc . 2 . City Council Meeting Attachment 6E - 2 . . April 25, 2005 . . . ~ ,-A~ILLS CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 357 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO COVERED FRONT PORCHES AS PERMITTED ENCROACHMENTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS THE ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL ORDAINS THAT SECTION 6(C)2(a) OF ARDEN HILLS ORDINANCE 291 IS AMENDED; AND SECTION 6(C)2(d) IS ADDED TO ARDEN HILLS ORDINANCE 291 TO READ AS FOLLOWS: Section 6(C)2(a), Parts of the Principal Structure. Features which are part of a principal structure, including but not limited to eaves, cantilevered areas, cornices, canopies, awnings, decks, balconies, steps, ramps, fire escapes and chimneys, may extend three (3) feet into the required front, side, and rear setbacks but in no case shall these encroachments be less than six (6) feet from any lot line, except that steps, decks, and ramps may extend six (6) feet into the required front, side, and rear setbacks but in no case shall these encroachments be less than six (6) feet from any lot line. Section 6(C)2(d), Covered Porches for Sinl!:le-Familv Detached DweIIinl!s. I. In required single-family residential front yard setbacks, covered porches attached to the principal structure may extend no more than 10 feet into the required fron~s.e~;~.~~~; p~?~id:d~at;th:po~ch}s;ee des~;;~~ 30 feet from the front lot line, ~~~mpw!1 H.~jTI'i~li~itl'liH~~~~iq~iiiool'!Ii,i,~~'J~r~~l~I~~~ the design of the porch is consistent with the City's Porch Design Guidelines, and the porch has been approved hy the Community Development Director or Development Director's designee. The Community Development Director or Development Director's designee must make the following findings to approve a porch encroachment of up to ] 0 feet: (a) The exterior materials of the proposed porch are consistent or complementary in color, texture, and quality with those visible at the front of the dwelling; (b) The roof of the proposed porch is properly proportioned to and integrated with the roof of the dwelling and has no less than a 3/]2 slope; (c) The base of the porch is not open, the base must be a concrete block perimeter foundation with frost footings, and its appearance is consistent with the base of the dwelling. . (d) At least sixty five (65) percent of the exposed porch fa9ade is open or occupied by windows, screens and/or screen doors of trBlliiflarent material; and the fa ade constitutes the area from the floor level of the to the orch ceilin ; lhirti}iv~ (35) p~rcenl of,~ colUnjils and spa~ed railings: (e) Building Permits shall be required before construction can begin. 2. In required single-family residential side-yard corner setbacks, covered porches attached to the front of a principal building facing the side yard corner setback may extend no more than ten (10) feet into the required side-yard comer setback, provided that; the porch is no closer than thirty (30) feet from the side-yard corner lot line, that the design of the porch is consistent with the City's Porch Design Guidelines, and the porch has approved by the Community Development Director or Development Dilector's designee. The Community Development Director or Development Director's designee must make the findings required by Section 6.C.2.d.l, letters (a)-(e) as listed above in order to approve a porch encroachment of up to ten (10) feet. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective the 12th day of May, 2005. . Adoption Date. Passed by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills the _day of ,2005. BEVERLY APLIKOWSKl, MAYOR ATTEST: MICHELLE WOLFE CITY ADMINISTRATOR Publication Date. Published on the of ,2005. F:\usersIJallice\Jerry\Arden Hills\Ordinancc 357 - J.dot: . 2 . . . City Council Meeting Attachment 6E - 3 April 25, 2005 . . . ~ '1'\~ HILLS CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 05-29 RESOLUTION AMENDING APPENDIX A OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 291 TO INCLUDE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND PROCEllURES FOR COVERED FRONT PORCHES AS ENCROACHMENTS INTO FRONT AND SIDE YARD CORNER SETBACKS WHEREAS: Arden Hills has adopted new regulations allowing covered front porches in front and side-yard corner setback areas subject to certain conditions. WHEREAS: These regulations include a specific procedure and design guidelines for covered porches proposed to encroach in the front yard or side-yard corner setback areas up ten feet but in no case leaving a setback of less than thirty feet from the porch to the property lines. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Council of the City of Arden Hills directs staff to include in Zoning Ordinance No. 291, Appendix A, the de~ign guidelines and application procedure for covered porches which encroach into the front and side- yard corner setback areas. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS 25th DAY OF APRIL, 2005. Beverly Aplikowski, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle A. Wolfe, City Administrator \\Earth\admin\Council\Resolutions\2005\05_29, Amending Appendix A of the Zoning Ordinance to Include Front P(lfch Design Guidelines and procedures.doc COVERED FRONT PORCHES AND COVERED PORCH DESIGN GUIDELINES . A. CITY REVIEW PROCEDURE 1. Applicant reviews proposal with City Planner before plans are finalized. 2. Applicant submits application and snbmission documents to City. 3. Community Development Director or their designee reviews application and review the findings to determine compliance wi1h City regulations 4. The Community Development Director or their designee provides a written review of application to the City Building Official and the applicant. 5. If the Community Development Director or their designee has approved the porch addition the applicant may submit an application for a building permit. B. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS LOCATION MAP Applicant provides a general map (8 y," x 11" is acceptable) illustrating the genera110cation of the properly for which the application is being made. OWNERSHIP REPORT 1. Record Owners of the properly; 2. Applicant if different than Owner; 3. Addresses and phone numbers of Owner and Applicant; 4. Owners and addresses of all property abutting or across the street from the property for which a Variance is proposed. . WRITTEN STATEMENf 1. The applicant shall provide a written description of the proposed porch addition including; the general style and form of the porch, roof materials, exterior wall materials, floors and interior materials, ceiling materials, colunm materials, railings and base materials, to provide an accurate description of the porch addition and demonstrate compliance with the City's porch design guidelines. SURVEY The applicant shall provide the City with a survey showing the properly lines, existing setbacks and proposed setbacks so that staff may determine if the porch addition is compliant with City Design Guidelines and Zoning Ordinance Regulations. Surveys shall include the following: 1. The date, north point, map scale, name and address ofthe applicant, owner, operator, surveyor, engineer and designer, including their license numbers and seals; A correct boundary survey and legal description of the subject properly made and . 2. . . . 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. SITE PLAN certified to by a registered Land Surveyor indicating total acreage of site; Depiction of all watercourses, lakes, marshes, wooded areas, rock outcrops, power transportation poles and lines, gas lines, single trees with a diameter of eight (8) inches or more as measured three (3) feet above the base of the trunk, and any other significant existing features; Delineation of topography of subject property with contour intervals of not more than two (2) feet and supplemental of one (I) foot in extremely flat areas, the data for which shall be derived from the fifth general adjustment of 1929; The location, right-of-way width, dimensions and names of existing or dedicated streets or other public lands, permanent buildings and structures, easements, section and corporate lines within the subject property and within a distance of one hundred (100) feet from the property boundaries; Descriptions, reference ties and elevations of all benchmarks; Location of all monuments existing at the time of the survey, and those which the surveyor shall have located at the corners ofthe subject property; Reference to and relations of municipal, township, county or section lines to lines of the subject property by distances, angles, radii, internal angles, points and curvatures, tangent bearings and lengths of all arcs; and Boundary lines of adjoining property within one hundred (100) feet, identifying owners. Sufficient detail to clearly show the conditions of the property, the location of the proposed porch, and the area surrounding the proposed porch. This may be shown on the surveyor included as a separate document. Plans should be drawn to scale (engineer's or architect's scale). DRAINAGE PLAN 1. Existing and generalized proposed drainage facilities 2. Potential ponding areas STRUCTURAL PLANS 1. Sketches 0, illustrations indicating the architectural treatment of the proposed porch addition. C. COVERED FRONT PORCH DESIGN GUIDELINES The following are general design guidelines and criteria that will help you in the planning, design, and construction OfYOllI porch addition. Porches that enc:oach into the front or side-yard comer setback areas shaH be required to meet the following design guidelines and shall require approval of the Communlty Development Director or their designee prior to any building pennits being issued (per Section 6.C.2.d of the Zoning Ordinance). . General Form The form of your porch addition is the outer shape created by the exterior walIs and roof. The form of the addition should be and to the form of your existin!;home. Roofs The roof or your porch addition should be properly proportioned in shape and pitch to the rooflines of the existing house. Roofing materials should match as closely as possible to the materials of the existing home. Exterior Walls The exterior walIs are considered to be those exterior surfaces from the floor line to the ceiling of the porch. This surface is to be at least 65 perccnt open and 35 percent solid. The open surfaces are to be open air or occupied by screens, and/or screen doors. The solid surfaces are to be exterior materials that are consistent or complementary in color, texture, and quality to those of the front of the existing home. Solid surfaces may only include columns and spaced railings; solid walls (even partial) are prohibited. Base of the Porch The base of the porch is not open, the base must be a concrete block perimeter foundation with frost footings, and its appearance is consistent with the base of the dwelling. Floors Open-air porches must have floors of durable exterior grade materials such as concrete, painted solid wood or brick. . Ceilings Open-air porches must have ceilings of durable grade materials such as beadboard or painted or stained wood. Columns Structural columns should be clad in finish grade, wood trim or be a decorative shape that is compatible with the design of the existing house. The columns should be expressed on the exterior of the porch to help articulate the porch fa9ade. RaiIin gs The height and spacing of railing must meet the requirements of the International Building Code. Acceptable railing materials are painted or stained wood and painted metal. The design of the railing assembly should be compatible with the details of the existing house. Landscaping Integrating your porch addition into your yard is as important as its integration to your house. Plant materials and landscape features should transition the porch into your yard, providing a visual base. Landscaping could also be placed along the entry path. . . . . APPENDIX A PROCEDURAL MANUAL SITE PLAN REVIEW ...................................................................................................................3 REZONING....................................................................................................................................7 SPECIAL USE PERMIT ...............................................................................................................8 VARIANCE ..................................................................................................................................11 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT .........................................................................................12 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ..................................................................................18 SIGN PERMITS...........................................................................................................................19 PRELIMINARY PLAT (PLAN).................................................................................................22 FlNAL PLAT ................................................................................................................................25 MINOR SUBDIVISION/LOT SPLIT OR CONSOLIDATION ..............................................27 LANDSCAPE PLAN ...................................................................................................................29 COVERED FRONT PORCHES AND COVERED PORCH DESIGN GUIDELINES .........31 This Procedural Manual is not adopted as part of the Zoning Ordinance but has been adopted by resolution. Amendments to this Procedural Manual will therefore be made by subsequent resolutions. . . . City Council Meeting April 25, 2005 Attachment 6E - 4 . . . . ~ ~~HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: 'York Session Agenda Item 2.D April 18, 2005 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Peter Hellegers, City Planner qt\ ~ SUBJECT: PC #05-07, The City of Arden Hills Setback Exceptions for Front Porches Discussion At the April 11,2005 City Council meeting the Council was asked to consider Ordinance #357 and Resolution #05-29 which would establish standards for allowing front & side-yard corner porches of up to ten feet with a minimum setback of 30 feet. Council members expressed concern about potential materials for front porches (open-air or screened versus allowing glass enclosed three season porches) and resulting setbacks and how those items may affect the look and feel of the neighborhood. Staff has attached the materials from the April 11,2005 meeting as Attachment 2D-I. Ordinance #357 (Attachment 6D-2) Staff has included a list of potential modifications to Ordinance #357 which may address some of the concerns expressed by Council members at the April 11th meeting. I. Exterior Materials. Council members expressed concern with allowing three season porches enclosed with windows or full lite doors. In particular the concern was that the enclosed porch may detract more from the sightlines and feel of homes along a particular street. Also, a three season porch could be stretched to be more on an addition than a porch, and may not be consistent with the purpose of Ordinance #357. The following alternative language could be included (in Ordinance #357, under 6C2d): o Allows ()Pen-Air and Screen Porches. Subsection ld (6C2dld) strike the words windows and transparent material and add text to read: "At least sixty jive (65) percent of the exposed porch far;ade is open or occupied by screens and/or screen doors; and the fat;ade constitutes the area from the floor level of the porch to the porch ceiling; up to thirty jive (35) percent of the far;ade may be solid and may only be occupied by columns and spaced railings; solid walls (even partial) are prohibited. " IlEarthIPlanningIPlanning-Cases1200j\05-07 Zoning O,.diance AmendmentsJor Front Porch Enaoachments (PENDING)\04-/8-05 CC Work Session Report Front Porch Exceptions-doc Page 1 of4 o Allows Only Open-Air Porches. Subsection Id (6C2dld) strike the words windows, screens, and/or doors of transparent material and add text to read: "At . least sixty five (65) percent of the exposed porch far;ade is open; and the far;ade constitutes the area from the floor level of the porch to the porch ceiling; up to thirty five (35) percent of the far;ade may be solid and may only be occupied by columns and spaced railings; solid walls (even partial) are prohibited. " 2. Setbacks Distance to Property Lines: Council members expressed concern with the impact that porches may have in relative distance to neighboring property owners. In particular Council members raised questions of distance to side yard property lines. As currently proposed the language would allow the porches to extend up to ten (10) feet into the front yard or side yard comer yard (only applicable to corner lots) but limiting the minimum setback to 30 feet. This means that existing side yard setback regulations would still pertain to the porches and they would not be able to encroach into those side yard interior setback areas. In order for a porch to wrap around the sides of the home would require space beyond the existing side yard interior setbacks (5/15 in R-2 and 10/25 in R-I). Ordinance #357 does allow for encroachment into side yard corner setbacks similar to that of the front setback area. The side yard comer setbacks are for corner lots which essentially have two fronts (one front, and one side yard corner). While the zoning definitions may call one side the "front", the side yard corner side may functionally be the "front" of the home and therefore would be a better porch location. Again this side . yard comer setback is adjacent to the roadway and not another adjoining lot. Staff has included some alternative language that would give the Council the option to I) clearly state that porches caunot encroach on side yard interior or rear setbacks, 2) allow side yard corner lots to have porches that wrap around from the side yard comer to front side, and 3) would require that comer lot properties choose either the side yard comer side for a porch or the front side but would preclude having a porch on both sides. The following alternative language could be included (in Ordinance #357, under 6C2d): o Clarify That Front Porches Cannot Encroach on Side Yard Interior Setbacks. Under subsection I (6C2dl) on the third line before "".the design of the..." add the following language: "; the porch complies with the side yard interior setback requirements. " o Clarify That Side Yard Comer Porches Cannot Encroach on Front or Rear Setbacks. Under subsection 2 (6C2d2) on the end of the fourth line before "...that the design..." add the following language: "; the porch complies with the front and rear setback requirements. " \\EarthIPlanningIPlanning Casesll005\05-07 Zoning OrdlanceAmendmentsfor Front Porch EncrQachments (PENDING)104-18-05 CC Work Session ReptJrt Front Porch Exceptions.doc Page 2 of4 . . . . o Allow Comer Lots to Have Wrap Around Porches. Under subsection 2 (6C2d2) at about the middle of the third line after "...into the required side-yard corner..." (setback) add the following language: "and/or front setbacks." Strike the existing word "setback. " o Require Corner Lots to Choose Between Porches into the Side Yard Comer or Front Yard and Not Both. Under subsection 2 (6C2d2) at the beginning of the third line strike the word 'front" and replace with "side-yard corner face." On the fourth line near the end after" ...side-yard comer lot line,. .." add the following language: "the porch shall be limited to either the side-yard corner encroachment or the front porch encroachment and shall not be permitted to have both a front side-yard corner and front porch encroachment," 3. Steps to Access A Porch. Staff has also included the following suggestion for amending Ordinance #357, relating to steps to access a porch: I. Steps to porches. Include the following language to allow steps to porches to be allowed outside of the front porch exceptions (in Ordinance #357, under 6C2a at the end of that section): o "Steps, decks and ramps, leading to covered porches as described in Section 6C2d may extend (3) feet beyond the covered porch into the front or side setback area, but in no case shall these encroachments be less than six (6) feet from any lot line. " DesiS!n Guidelines - ZoninS! Ordinance Appendix A per Resolution #05-29 (Attachment 6D-3) 3. Exterior Materials - Allowing Only Open-Air and Screen Porches. Consistent with the Ordinance #357 alternatives, changes could be made to the design guidelines to create only open-air and screen porches as permitted. In particular changes could be made to the sections on Exterior Walls, Floors, and Ceilings. o Exterior Walls. On the third line delete "operable windows" and "full lite "and add the word "screen" before doors. Clarify that solid surfaces should include railings and not partial walls. The resulting text would read as follows: "Exterior Walls. The exterior walls are considered to be those exterior surfaces from the floor line to the ceiling of the porch. This surface is to be at least 65 percent open and 35 percent solid. The open surfaces are to be open air or occupied by screens and/or screen doors. The solid surfaces are to be exterior materials that are consistent or complementary in color, texture, and quality to those of the front of the existing home. Solid surfaces may only include columns and spaced railings; solid walls (even partial) are prohibited. " 1. Alternate - remove the words "screen" and "screen doors" to allow only open-air porches. llEarthlPlanninglPlo.nning CasesI2005\05-07 Zoning Ordiance Amendments for Front Porch Encroachments (PENDING)\04-18-05 CC Work Session Report Front Porch Exceptions.doc Page 3 of4 " o Floors. On the second line delete the last sentence, related to cnclosed porches. o Ceilings. On the second line delete the last sentence, related to enclosed porches. Requested Action Consider the currently proposed Ordinance #357, currently proposed Resolution #05-29, and potential modifications and inform staff of any desired changes for these documents. Attachments 2D-l 2D-2 Staff Report to the City Council wi attachments - April II, 2005 Graphics showing potential modifications for R-l and R-210ts IIEarlh\PlaiminglPlanning Co.sesl2005\05-07 Zoning Ordiance Amendmentsfor Front Porch Encroachments (PENDING)I04-18-05 CC Work Session Report Front Porch Exceptions.doc Page 4 of4 . . . . . . City Council Work Session April 18, 2005 Attachment 2D - 1 . . . ~ ~~HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: 6.D Aprilll,2005 Agenda Item TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Peter Hellegers, City Planner SUBJECT: PC #05-07, The City of Arden Hills Setback Exceptions for Front Porches Requested Action · Consider Ordinance #357 which would amend section 6.C.2.a of the Zoning Ordinance and insert new section 6.C.2.d into the Zoning Ordinance, allowing for front porches of up to ten feet and with a minimum setback of 30 feet from the front or side-yard corner property lines, which meet design standards 10 be allowed subject to staff review and approval. · Consider Resolution #05-29 which would add the front porch language and Front Porch Design Guidelines to Appendix A ofZorung Ordinance #291. Planninj! Commission Recommendation Recommendation and Conditions of Approval At their March 2, 2005 meeting the Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case #05-07 and unanimously recommended approval (5-0) of the Zoning Ordinance Amendments as proposed. Update I have fielded questions from several residents interested in the front porches as permitted encroachment language. Two residents have raised the question of exterior wall material; one was advocating for only open-air porches, the other for open-air or full screen porches and not 3- season porches. As currently proposed, the language from the proposed design guidelines reads that: "The exterior walls are considered to be those exterior suifaces from the floor line to the ceiling of the porch, This suiface is to be at least 65 percent open and 35 percent solid. The open surfaces are to be open air or occupied by operable windows. screens. and/or full lite doors. The solid suifaces are to be exterior materials that are consistent 'or complementary in color, texture. and quality to those of the front of the existing home. " \\Earth\Planning\Planning Cases\2005\05-07 Zoning Ordiance Amendments for Front Porch Encroachments (PENDING)\04-11...Q5 CC Report Front Porch Exceptions.doc Page 1 of2 This language would allow for open-air porches but also screen porches and porches that are mostly glass (minimum of 65 percent glass surface). The 65 percent open to 35 percent solid . ratio would prevent the porches from becoming full year-round room additions. The 35 percent solid area would generally be an area for railings or a wall base around the edge of the porch. A second question that has been raised a couple of times is in regard to the solid base requirement for the porches. As currently proposed the language would require that all porches be built on a solid base (i.e. concrete block, etc.). The intent of the solid base was to have the porch base appear consistent with the base of the house. This requirement may also create porches that are structurally superior and therefore should make them last longer. The Planning Commission reviewed both of these design questions and unanimously (5-0) approved the language as proposed by staff. In addition to the front porch language, Ordinance #357 would also amend Section 6.C.2.a to allows steps, decks, and ramps to extend up to six (6) feet into the required front, side, and rear setbacks but in no case could the resulting setback be less than 6 feet (i.e. in a side yard where there is 15 feet between the side of the house and the property line a step, deck, or ramp could extend a full six feet into the setback area because there would still be 11 feet remaining; if the side yard was only 10 feet the step could only extend 4 feet from the house). The intention of this amendment is to allow more space on top area of the steps, decks, and ramps, so that people have a flat surface they can stand without having to back down the stairs when a door is opened outward. Attached are Ordinance #357 which would amend the Zoning Ordinance as described above and Resolution #02-59 which would include the Porch Design Guidelines in the Zoning Ordinance Appendix A. The language in these documents has changed slightly since the Planning Commission staff report, so please refer to Ordinance #357 and Resolution #02-59 for the correct language. . Options I. Recommend approval as submitted. 2. Recommend approval with conditions. 3. Recommend denial with reasons for denial. Ifthe City denies the petitioners request, "... it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time it denies the request." 4. Table for additional information. Attachments 60-1 Staff Report to the Planning Commission - March 2, 2005 60-2 Proposed Ordinance #357 60-3 Proposed Resolution #05-29 60-4 Planning Commission minute excerpts (0110512005 and 03/0212005) \\Earth\Planning\Planning Cases\2005\OS-07 Zoning Ordiance Amendment.. for Fron! Porch Encroachments (PENDING)\04-11-05 CC Report Front Porch Exceptions.doc Page 2 of2 . . City Council Meeting Attachment 6D - 1 . . April II, 2005 . ~ ~~HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 2, 2005 PC Agenda Item 4.D TO: Planning Commission FROM: Peter Hellegers, City Planner SUBJECT: PC #05-07. The City of Arden Hills Setback Exceptions for Front Porches ReQuested Action Consider staff recommendations to amend section 6.C2.a of the Zoning Ordinance and insert new section 6.C2.d into the Zoning Ordinance. . Overview At their January the Planning Commission discussed allowing Front Porches as "Permitted Encroachments" under section 6.C2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff included example handouts from the City of Richfield and included potential amendment language. Subsequent to that meeting staff has received the questions which need to be addressed. . Should the front porch design guidelines allow for an open base of the porch or should the porch base be consistent with the base of thc dwelling? . Should the front porch be only an opcn or screen porch or should 3-season porches be allowed? . Would the Arden Hills Front Porch Design Guidelines be similar to the Richfield Front Porch Design Guidelines? The following is the language relating to the first two questions which has been included in staff's proposed amendment: 3. The base of the porch is not open and its appearance is consistent with the base of the dwelling. . 4. At least sixty five (65) percent of the exposed porch fa,;ade is open or occupied by windows, screens, and/or doors of transparent material; the fa~ade constitutes the area from the floor level of the porch to the porch ceiling; \\Eal1h\Planning\Planning Cases.\2005\05-07 Zoning Ordiante All1cndmcllb Il" From P0rch EnCIl)lKhnwnlS WENOlNG)\Q3-01-05 PC Report 05--07.doc Page I "I4 In regard to the third question, the City may want to adopt Front Porch Design Guidelines. If the language from the City of Richfield is acceptable, staff would recommend adding that language (or any other design guideline language) to the end of Section 6.C2.d so that the design guidelines are easily accessible. . In addition to language regarding front porches, staff has also proposed providing an exception to Section 6.C2.a for steps. decks. and ramps to extend 6 feet into setback areas as opposed to the currently permitted 3 feet. This change will allow space at the top of the stairs so that people standing at the door will not have to back down the stairs any time a door is opened. Proposed Zonlnl!: Ordinance Amendments for Front Porch Exceptions / Steps. Decks. Ramps Amendment #1 -- (Section 6.C2.a - Permitted Encroachments) add the following at the end of the paragraph "Exception: Steps, decks, and ramps may extend six (6) feet into the required front, side, and rear setbacks but in not case shall the setback to these encroachments be less than six (6) feet."- see attachment 4d-l for the full amended text of Section 6.C2 as proposed. Amendment #2 - (Section 6.C2. - Permitted Encroachments) Insert new subsection "d" and the following language: "d. Covered Porches for Single-Family Detached Dwellings. In required front yards, covered porches attached to the principal structure may extend no more than to feet, provided that the porch is no closer than 30 feet from the front lot line and that the design of the porch is consistent with the City's Porch Design Guidelines and approved by the Community Dcvelopment Director. The Community Development Director must make the following findings to approve a porch encroachment of up to 10 feet: . I. The exterior materials of the proposed porch are consistent or complementary in color, texture, and quality with those visible at the front of the dwelling; 2. The roof of the proposed porch is properly proportioned to and integrated with the roof of the dwelling and has no less than a 3112 slope; 3. The base of the porch is not open and its appearance is consistent with the base of the dwelling. \\Earth\Planning\Planning Cases\2005\05-07 Zoning Ortliance Amendments for Front Porch Ex.ceptions (pENDING)\OJ-{)2"()5 PC Report05.(J7.doc . Page 2 of4 . . . 4. At least sixty five (65) percent of the exposed porch fayade is open or occupied by windows, screens, and/or doors of transparent material; the fayade constitutes the area from the floor level of the porch to the porch ceiling; and 5. Building Permits shall be required before construction can begin. The Community Development Director may attach conditions to the approval of the porch encroaclunent as needed to make the required findings; and In required residential street-side yards, covered porches attached to the front of a principal building may extend no more than ten (10) feet, provided that the porch is no closer than thirty (30) feet from the street-side lot line and that the design of the porch is consistent with the City's Porch Design Guidelines and approved by the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director must make the findings required by (Section - wi 1-5 listed above). The Community Development Director may attach conditions to the approval of the porch encroaclunent as needed to make the required findings." - see attachment 4d-l for the full amended text of Section 6.C.2 as proposed. Recommendation In Planning Case #05-07, staff recommends approval of: . Zoning Amendments #1 and #2 (as listed above) to allow for steps, decks, and ramps as Permitted Encroaclunents of up to 6 feet in all Zoning Districts and to allow Front Porches as Permitted Encroaclunents of up to 10 feet, provided that the front porch is no closer than 30 feet from any front or side lot line, for Single- Family Dwellings. Options L Recommend approval as submitted_ 2. Recommend approval with conditions. 3. Recommend denial with reasons for denial. If the City denies thc petitioners request, "...it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time it denies the request." 4. Table for additional information. \\Earth\Platming\Planning Cases\2005\05-07 Zoning Ordiance Amendments for Front Porch Exceptions (PENDING}\03-02-Q5 PC Report Q5..{}7.doc Page 3 of4 Attachments . 4d-1 Section 6.C.2 ~ Permitted Encroachments (as proposed per amendments I & 2) 4d-2 Sample handout and design guidelines from the City of Richfield . \\Earth\Planning\Planning Cases\200S\OS-07 Zoning Ordiance Amendments for Front Porch Exceptions (pENDrNG)\OJ-02..QS PC Report 05-07.doc . Page 4 of 4 . Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 2005 Planning Commission . Attachment 4d - 1 . . Arden Hills Zonint! Ordinance Section 6C2 (with proposed amendments) 2. Permitted Encroachments. C.p4p)' a. Parts of the Principal Structure. Features which are part of a principal structure, including but not limited to eaves, cantilevered areas, cornices, canopies, awnings, decks, balconies, steps, ramps, fire escapes and chimneys, may extend three (3) feet into the required front, side, and rear setbacks but in no case shall the setback to these encroachments be less than six (6) feet. Exception: Steps, decks, and ramps may extend six (6) feet into . the required front, side, and rear setbacks but in not case shall the setback to these encroachments be less than six (6) feet. b. Parts of the Principal Structure. Equipment Attached to the Ground or Other Structure. Recreational equipment, gym sets, picnic tables, patios, barbeque grills, and clotheslines which are more or less permanently attached to the ground or are attached to some other structure having a location on the ground may be located in side or rear yards provided these are not less than two (2) feet from any lot line. . l>~4.c c. Traffic visibility. On a comer lot, nothing shall be placed or l' . allowed to grow in such a manner as to impede vision between a height of two and one-half (2-1/2) and ten (l0) feet above the center line grades of the intersecting streets within fifteen (15) feet of the intersecting street rights-of-way. d. Covered Porches for Single-Family Detached Dwellings. In required front yards, covered porches attached to the principal structure may extend no more than 10 feet, provided that the porch is no closer than 30 feet from the front lot line and that the design of the porch is consistent with the City's Porch Design Guidelines and approved by the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director must make the following . findings to approve a porch encroachment of up to 10 feet: L The exterior materials of the proposed porch are consistent or complementary in color, texture, and quality with those visible at the front of the dwelling; 2. The roof of the proposed porch is properly proportioned to and integrated with the roof of the dwelling and has no less than a 3/12 slope; . i . b~4~J' The base of the porch is not open and its appearance 3. is consistent with the base of the dwelling. 4. At least sixty five (65) percent of the exposed porch f~ade is open or occupied by windows, screens, and/or doors of transparent material; the fayade constitutes the area from the floor level of the porch to the porch ceiling; and 5. Building Permits shall be required before . construction can begin. The COmDluf1ity Development Director may attach conditions to the approval of the porch encroaclunent as needed to make the required findings; and In required residential street-side yards, covered porches attached to the front of a principal building may extend no more thaIl ten (to) feet, provided that the porch is no closer than thirty (30) feet from the street-side lot line and that the design of the porch is consistent with the City's Porch Design Guidelines and approved . by the COmDlunity Development Director. The Community i b~ D"e1opmoo' Di'~ID' m~' m,'e <he 'lidi.", reqoired by S~"'" ~~'. 6.C.2.d, numbers 1-5 as listed above. The Community Development Director may attach conditions to the approval of the porch encroachment as needed to make the required findings. . . . Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 1005 Planning Commission . Attachment 4d - 2 . . . . Tip Sheet. Addinq A Front Porch Why Should I add a porch onto my home? A well-designed porch can do the following for your home: . Increase its value and improve its 'street appeal" . Provide a transition space from the public street to the privacy of your home . Provide a gathering place for neighbors . Provide for a welcoming, sheltered entry . Provide an opportunity to add architectural detail to the front of your home. A well-designed porch can also do the following for your neighborhood and community: . Create a more interesting streetscape . Increase activity to the street side of the neighborhoods . Encourage social interaction between neighbors, which helps to strengthen the neighborhood and the entire community . . Allow for the casual supervision of the street and adjacent homes. which creates saferneighbo~s My house is located 30 feet from the front property line; how can I add on a front porch? I thought there were rules about adding to the front of my house? The Richfield Zoning Ordinance requires houses be set back 30 feet from the property line. In the past. unless you had extra room in your front yard. you were fimited to a six- foot, uncovered landing and steps. The City recently changed the rules so that you can , add a porch that extends up to 10 feet from the house as long as it is no closer than 20 feet from your front property fine, and as long as it meets design requirements. What are the requirements I need to follow to build a porch within the 30-foot front setback? · The porch can extend no more than 10 feel . The porch can be no closer than 20 feet to the .front property line (the street is not the property fine; the property fine is usually located 12 - 13 feet behind the curb). . The design of the porch needs to be consistent or complementary to that of the house. This includes the types and colors of materials used. . The roof of the porch must be integrated with or carefully imitate the roof of the dwelfing. . The roof must have at least a 3/12 slope (it can't be "at). . The base of a porch can't be open; it has to have an appearance that is consistent with and blends in with the dwelling_ . It is possible to add screens or combination windows on a porch addition. but 65 percent of the facade muSt be open to or consist of transparent materials such as screens. . The regulations are designed to allow front porches. not front additions that add another room to the house or expand an existing room. Such additions do not meet design requirements. ----- Richfiek:l Rediscovered New Lifr: For Old_ Homes Questions? Call1he Remodeling Advisor at 612-861-9112 w'ww.ci .richjieJd.mn.us Tip Sheet #31 Adding A From Porch 2 The Community Development Director will determine whether or not a porch meets these design requirements. What do I need to do to get a permit for a front porch? 1. Detennine how much buildable area exists in the front yard . Locate your property irons and develop a site plan that shows the location of your house and property lines with all relevant dimensions c1earty marked_ . You may want to have a certifICate of survey done. It costs money. but it can save you problems later. The City somelimes has old surveys on file in its Inspection Division. If you are using an old survey, you should confirm its accuracy by lOcating your property irons and measuring the conditions on your property. 2. Contact an architect and/or builder to begin developing p1ans_ If you don't use an architect to design the porch plans, you may need to review your plans with the city's Design Advisor. You can start this process by meeting with the city's Remodeling Advisor (612-861-9772). He can provide assistance with developing ideas, finding a contractor, financing the project and other parts of the remodeling process. He can refer you to the Design Advisor, if necessary. 3. Optionat Step: Submit preliminary plans to the Community Development Department for review. This may save time later if you get staff feedback before you get too far in the process. 4. Submit a building permit application to the Inspections Division along with two (2) sets of the following: construction plans, site plans, and building elevations. . The plans win be sent to the Community Development Department for review . The plans will be reviewed by an Inspector . It is important that you or your builder/architect submit complete plans with detailed information; the review process can go much quicker if the plans indude all the infonrnation that staff needs to conduct their review . If you met with the city's Design Advisor, you should indicate how his or her suggestions were incorporated into the porch design . Be prepared for the fact that the additional review can add to the amount of time needed to review plans 5. Respond to any comment, questions or changes requested by the Community Development Department or Inspections Division. 6. Once you have received approval from the Community Development Director and a building permit from the Inspections Division, you can start construction. My house has "extra" room in front, and I don't plan on building my porch any closer than 30 feet to the front property line. Do I have to tollow the same rules and process? No_ If your porch doesn't infringe on the front setback, you or your builder can just apply for a building permit as usual. Remember that you'll need to show the Building Inspector where your properly lines are so your "extra room" can be verified. Richfield Rediscovered New Life For Old Homer Questions? CaD the Remodeling Advisor at 612-861-9772 MlWW.ci.Tichfield.mn.us . . . . . . I rip Shut #3 I Addillg A Front Por-ch 3 Porch Design Guidelines The following are general guidelines and criteria that w~1 help you in the planning, design and construction of your porch addition. General Form The form of your porch addition is the outer shape created by the exterior walls and roof. The form of the addition should be appropriate and compatible to the form of your existing home. See specifIC recommendations for two story. one and one-half story and rambler style homes in the following page. Roofs The roof of your porch addition should be properly proportioned in shape and pitch to the rooflines of the existing house. Roofing malerials should match as closely as possible to the materials of the existing home. Exterior Walls The exterior walls are considered to be those exterior surfaces from the floor line to the ceiling of the porch. This surface is to be at least 65 percent open and 35 percent solid. The open surfaces are to be open air or occupied by operable windows, screens and/or full lite doors. The solid surfaces are to be exterior materials that are consistent or complementary in color, texture and quality to those of the front of the existing home. Floors Open-air porches must have floors of durable exterior grade materials such as concrete, painted solid wood or brick. Enclosed porches may have flooring materials such as tile, wood, vinyl and exterior grade carpet Ceilings Open-air porches must have ceilings of durable exterior grade materials such as headboard or painted or stained wood. Enclosed porches may have ceiling materials of sheet rock, paneling material or wood. Columns Structural columns should he clad in finish grade, wood trim or be a decorative shape that is compatible With the design of the existing house. The columns should be expressed on the exterior of the porch to help articulate the porch facade. Railings The height and spacing of raifing must meet the requirements of the City of Richfield. Acceptable railing materials are painted or stained wood and painted metal. The design of the railing assembly should he compatible with the details of the existing house. Landscaping Integrating your porch addition into your yard is as important as its integration to your house. Plant materials and landscape features should transition the porch into your yard, providing a visual base. Landscaping could also be placed along the entry path. Richfield Rediscovered New Life For Old Homes Questions? Can the Remodeling Advisor at 612-861.9772 wwwci.richjield.mn_us TIpShul #31 Adding A Fron, Porch 4 . Who can I call for help? CITY OF RICHFIELD Richfield Remodeling Advisor Dave Schaffer Remodeling assistance at no cost to you. (612) 861-9772 Community Development Department 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 (612) 861-9760 Inspections Division (612) 861-9860 The foRowing organizations may assist you in locating qualified professionals for the design and construction of your porch addition. Architects American institute of Architects 275 Market Street Minneapolis, MN 55405 (612) 338-6763 . Landscape Architects American Society of Landscape Archilects 275 Market Street Minneapolis, MN 55405 (612) 339-0797 General Contractors Builders Association of the Twin Cities 2960 Centre Point Drive Roseville. MN 55113 (651) 697-1954 RIchfield RealScovered New Life For Old Homes Questiorls? Call1he Remodeling Advisor 31612-861-9772 www.ci.nchjield_mn.lu . , . . . Tip Sheet #31 Addi"g A Front Porch 5 Front Porch Add;tion Suggestions Two Story House Slory and a HaW House Richfield Rediscovered New Life For Old Homes Questions? CaR the Remodeling Advisor aI612-361-9772 lVWW_cLrichfield.mn.us . City Council Meeting Attachment 6D - 2 . . Aprilll,2005 . . . ~ ~~HILLS CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 357 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO FRONT PORCHES AS PERMITTED ENCROACHMENTS THE ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL ORDAINS THAT SECTION 6(C)2(a) OF ARDEN HILLS ORDINANCE 291 IS AMENDED; AND SECTION 6(C)2(d) IS ADDED TO ARDEN HILLS ORDINANCE 291 TO READ AS FOLLOWS; Section 6(C)2(a), Parts of the Principal Structure. Features which are part of a principal structure, including but not limited to eaves, cantilevered areas, cornices, canopies, awnings, decks, balconies, steps, ramps, fire escapes and chimneys, may extend three (3) feet into the required front, side, and rear setbacks but in no case shall these encroachments be less than six (6) feet from any lot line, excElpt that steps, decks, and ramps may extend six (6) feet into the required front, side, and rear setbacks but in no case shall these encroachments be less than six (6) feet from any lot line. Section 6(C)Ud), Covered Porches for Sinl!le-Familv Detached DweIlinl!s. I. In required single-family residential front yard setbacks, covered porches attached to the principal structure may extend no more than 10 feet into the required front setback; provided that; the porch is no closer than 30 feet from the front lot line, the design of the porch is consistent with the City's Porch Design Guidelincs, and the porch has been approved by the Community Development Director or Development Director's designee. The Community Development Director or Development Director's designee must make the following findings to approve a porch encroachment of up to 10 feet: (a) The exterior materials of the proposed porch are consistent or complementary in color, texture, and quality with those visible at the front of the dwelling; (b) The roof of thc proposed porch is properly proportioned to and integrated with the roof ofthe dwelling and has no less than a 3/12 slope; (c) The base of the porch is not open, the base must bc a concrctc block pcrimctcr foundation with frost footings, and its appearancc is consistent with the base of the dwelling. (d) At least sixty five (65) percent of the exposed porch fayade is open or occupied by windows, screens, and/or doors of transparent material; and the fayade constitutes the area from the floor level of the porch to the porch ceiling; and (e) Building Permits shall be required before construction can begin. 2. In required single-family residential side-yard corner setbacks, covered porches attached to the front of a principal building facing the side yard corner setback may extend no more than ten (10) feet into the required side-yard corner setback, provided that; the porch is no closer than thirty (30) feet from the side-yard corner lot line, that the design of the porch is consistent with the City's Porch Design Guidelines, and the porch has approved by the Conununity Development Director or Development Director's designee. The Community Development Director or Development Director's designee must make the findings required by Section 6.C.2.d.l, letters (a)-(e) as listed above in order to approve a porch encroachment of up to ten (10) feet. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective the 21 st day of April, 2005. Adoption Date. Passed by the City Council ofthe City of Arden Hills the _day of ,2005. ArrEST: BEVERLY APLIKOWSKI, MAYOR MICHELLE WOLFE CITY ADMlNISTRA TOR Publication Date. Published on the of ,2005. F:\users\laniceIJerry\Arden Hills\Ordivance 357 - 3.doc 2 . . . . . e City Council Meeting Aprilll,2005 Attachment 6D - 3 . . . ~ ~HILLS CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 05-29 , RESOLUTION AMENDING APPENDIX A OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 291 TO INCLUDE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES FOR FRONT PORCHES AS ENCROACHMENTS INTO FRONT AND SIDE YARD CORNER SETBACKS WHEREAS: Arden Hills has adopted new regulations allowing front porches in front and side-yard corner setback areas subject to certain conditions. WHEREAS: These regulations include a specific procedure and design guidelines for porches proposed to encroach in the front yard or side-yard corner setback areas up ten feet but in no case leaving a setback of less than thirty feet from the porch to the property lines. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Council of the City of Arden Hills directs staff to include in Zoning Ordinance No. 291, Appendix A, the design guidelines and application procedure for porches which encroach into the front and side-yard comer setback areas. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS lIth DAY OF APRIL, 2005. Beverly Aplikowski, Mayor ATTEST: Michelle A. Wolfe, City Administrator \\Earth\admin\Council\Resolutions\2005\05_29. Amending Appendix A of the Zoning Ordinance to include Front Porch Design Guidelines and procedures.doc FRONT PORCHES AND PORCH DESIGN GUIDELINES . A. CITY REVIEW PROCEDURE I. Applicant reviews proposal with City Planner before plans are finalized. 2. Applicant submits application and submission documents to City. 3. Community Development Director or their designee reviews application and review the findings to determine compliance with City regulations 4. The Community Development Director or their designee provides a written review of application to the City Building Official and the applicant. 5. !fthe Community Development Director or their designee has approved the porch addition the applicant may submit an application for a building permit. B. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS LOCA nON MAP Applicant provides a general map (8 \1.," x II" is acceptable) illustrating the general location of the property for which the application is being made. OWNERSHIP REPORT I. Record Owners of the property; . 2. Applicant if different than Owner; 3. Addresses and phone numbers of Owner and Applicant; 4. Owners and addresses of all property abutting or across the street from the property for which a Variance is proposed. WRITTEN STATEMENT 1. The applicant shall provide a written description of the proposed porch addition including; the general style and form of the porch, roof materials, exterior wall materials, floors and interior materials, ceiling materials, colwnn materials, railings and base materials, to provide an accurate description of the porch addition and demonstrate compliance with the City's porch design guidelines. SURVEY The applicant shall provide the City with a survey showing the property lines, existing setbacks and proposed setbacks so that staff may determine if the porch addition is compliant with City Design Guidelines and Zoning Ordinance Regulations. Surveys shall include the following: 1. The date, north point, map scale, name and address of the applicant, owner, operator, surveyor, engineer and designer, including their license numbers and seals; A correct boundary survey and legal description of the subject property made and certified to by a registered Land Surveyor indicating total acreage of site; . 2. . . . 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. SITE PLAN Depiction of all watercourses, lakes, marshes, wooded areas, rock outcrops, power transportation poles and lines, gas lines, single trees with a diameter of eight (8) inches or more as measured three (3) feet above the base of the trunk, and any other significant existing features; Delineation of topography of subject property with contour intervals of not more than two (2) feet and supplemental of one (1) foot in extremely flat areas, the data for which shall be derived from the fifth general adjustment of 1929; The location, right-of-way width, dimensions and names of existing or dedicated streets or other public lands, permanent buildings and structures, easements, section and corporate lines within the subject property and within a distance of one hundred (100) feet from the property boundaries; Descriptions, reference ties and elevations of all benchmarks; Location of all monuments existing at the time of the survey, and those which the surveyor shall have located at the comers of the subject property; Reference to and relations of municipal, township, county or section lines to lines of the subject property by distances, angles, radii, internal angles, points and curvatures, tangent bearings and lengths of all arcs; and Boundary lines of adjoining property within one hundred (100) feet, identifying owners. Sufficient detail 10 clearly show the conditions of the property, the location of the proposed porch, and the area surrounding the proposed porch. This may be shown on the surveyor included as a separate document. Plans should be drawn to scale (engineer's or architect's scale). DRAINAGE PLAN I. Existing and generalized proposed drainage facilities 2. Potential ponding areas STRUCTURAL PLANS L Sketches or illustrations indicating the architectural treatment of the proposed porch addition. C. FRONT PORCH DESIGN GUIDELINES The following are generat design guidelines and criteria that will help you in the planning, design, and construction of your porch addition. Porches that encroach into the front or side-yard comer setback areas shall be required to meet the following design guidelines and shall require approval of the Community Development Director or their designee prior to any building permits being issued (per Section 6.C.2.d of the Zoning Ordinance). . General Form The form of your porch addition is the outer shape created by the exterior walls and roof. The form ofthe~dditio~sh~uld be~Rpr~p~~te a~d.com atible to the form of your existing home. ' . . '$!1~tfqq~,'i$r~qsh\iy,;!:in~@iid . Roofs The roof or your porch addition should be properly proportioned in shape and pitch to the rooflines of the existing house. Roofing materials should match as closely as possible to the materials of the existing home. Exterior Walls The exterior walls are considered to be those exterior surfaces from the floor line to the ceiling of the porch. This surface is to be at least 65 percent ooen and 35 percent solid. The open surfaces are to be open air or occupied by operable windows, screens, and/or full lite doors. The solid surfaces are to be exterior materials that are consistent or complementary in color, texture, and quality to those of the front of the existing home. Base of the Porch The base of the porch is not open, the base must be a concrete block perimeter foundation with frost footings, and its appearance is consistent with the base of the dwelling. Floors Open-air porches must have floors of durable exterior grade rriaterials such as concrete, painted solid wood or brick. Enclosed porches may have flooring materials such as tile, wood, vinyl, and exterior grade carpet . Ceilings Open-air porches must have ceilings of durable grade materials such as headboard or painted or stained wood, Enclosed porches may have ceiling materials of sheet rock, paneling material or wood. Columns Structural columns should be clad in finish grade, wood trim or be a decorative shape that is compatible with the design of the existing house. The columns should be expressed on the exterior of the porch to help articulate the porch fayade. Railings The height and spa~ing of railing must meet the requirements of the International Building Code. Acceptable railing materials are painted or stained wood and painted metal. The design of the railing assembly should be compatible with the details of the existing house. Landscaping Integrating your porch addition into your yard is as important as its integration to your house. Plant materials and landscape features should transition the porch into your yard, providing a visual base. Landscaping could also be placed along the entry path. . . . . APPENDIX A PROCEDURAL MANUAL SITE PLAN REVIEW ...................................................................................................................3 REZONING.................................................................................................................................... 7 SPECIAL USE PERMIT ...............................................................................................................8 V ARIANCE ..................................................................................................................................11 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT .........................................................................................12 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ..................................................................................18 SIGN PERMITS...........................................................................................................................19 PRELIMINARY PLAT (PLAN).................................................................................................22 FINAL PLAT ................................................................................................................................25 MINOR SUBDIVISIONILOT SPLIT OR CONSOLIDA nON ..............................................27 LANDSCAPE PLAN ...................................................................................................................29 FRONT PORCHES AND PORCH DESIGN GUIDELINES..........................._.......................31 This Procedural Manual is not adopted as par! of the Zoning Ordinance but has been adopted by resolution. Amendments to this Procedural Manual will therefore be made by subsequent resolutions. . City Council Meeting Attachment 6D - 4 . . Aprilll, 2005 e . . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 2, 2005 8 the land should include an "if visible" clause to regulate the signage. The signs that are not visible would not be subject to the regulation; those that are would have to comply with the new size standards and would be required to file sign permit applications as described in the ordinance. In addition, members of the Planning Commission recommended that the "if visible" clause should establish who was determining if the signage was visible. Staff has included language that would ultimately give that authority to the City Councilor City Administrator. He recommended approval of the seven Sign Ordinance Amendments as proposed. Commissioner Larson recommended they designate a certain staff member or designee to look into the sigoage. He noted as it was worded that City Councilor City Administrator shall determine if the signage is visible was poor wording for an Ordinance. Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Chair Sand invited anyone for or against the variance to come forward and make comment. Bruce Kunkel, 3452 Glen Arden Road and Administrator at Bethel College, thanked staff and the Commission for their work on this. He believed this would work well for both Bethel College and the residents. Chair Sand closed the public hearing at 8:31 p.m. Commissioner Larson moved, seconded by Commissioner Bezdicek to approve Planning Case No. 05-08: City of Arden Hills, 1245 W. Highway 96; Sign Ordinance Amendments for Athletic Field Signage at Bethel University, Northwestern College, and Mounds View High School. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). D. PLANNING CASE 05-07: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, 1245 W. HIGHWAY 96. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS FOR 10-FOOT FRONT PORCH EXCEPTION TO FRONT SETBACK IN R-l AND R-2 ZONING DISTRICTS Mr. Hellegers requested the Commission consider staff's recommendation to amend Section 6.C.2.a. of the Zoning Ordinance and insert new section 6.C.2.d into the Zoning Ordinance. He recommended approval of Zoning Amendments #1 and #2 to allow for steps, decks, and ramps as Permitted Encroachments up to 6 feet in all Zoning Districts and to allow Front Porches as Permitted Encroachments of up to 10 feet, provided that thc front porch is no closer than 30 feet from any front or side lot line, for Single-Family Dwellings. Chair Sand asked what for the definition of residential street side yard. Mr. Hellegers replied that would be a corner property. Chair Sand askcd if they wanted to allow some flexibility in the footing and foundation materials so it was complimentary to the home. He expressed concern that it might be ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 2, 2005 9 too rigid. Mr. Hellegers replied this language was taken from the City of Richfield's . language and he believed that City wanted to have a consistent appearance in the front of the homes. He indicated he had spoken with the building official about this and he was okay with either following the Richfield ordinance or not following the Richfield ordinance. Commissioner Larson noted a perimeter foundation was a sturdier structure. Chair Sand stated if they were referring to an enclosed structure, then he could see needing better footing and foundation materials. Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 8:46 p.m. Chair Sand invited anyone for or against the variance to come forward and make comment. There were no comments. Chair Sand closed the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. Commissioner Bezdicek asked if they were only talking about front yard porches. Mr. Hellegers replied this would include front yard and side yard porches. Chair Sand moved, seconded by Commissioner Thompson to approve Planning Case No. . 05-07: City of Arden Hills, 1245 W. Highway 96; Zoning Ordinance Amendments for JO-foot Front Porch Exception to Front Setback in R-I and R-2 Zoning District. Zoning Amendments #1 and #2 to allow for steps, decks, and ramps as Permitted Encroachments of up to 6 feet in ail Zoning Districts and to allow Front Porches as Permitted Encroachments of up to 10 feet, provided that the front porch is no closer than 30 feet from any front or side lot line, for Singe-Family Dwellings. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS None. REPORTS A. Planning Commissioners Commissioner Larson noted he would not be next month's meeting. B. Staff Mr. Hellegers updated the Commission on upcoming application requests. . C. Council Member Council Member Grant updated the Commission on recent City Council actions. . . . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 5,2005 7 Commissioner Bezdicek stated he agreed with the language as presented. Commissioner Larson agreed with Commissioner Bezdicek. Chair Sand stated they should also add holiday hours to be the same as weekend hours. Chair Sand noted they should also add a percentage of space that could be used for this home occupation. Mr. Clark replied they could add that. Commissioner Larson stated this might be discriminating against smaller homes, but with the portable tables, this would not be a permanent space anyway. Mr. Clark noted what they were really talking about was the size of the table and he believed it would be more important to limit the number of employees. Chair Sand asked if they should limit the number of customers at a time. Mr. Clark replied staff could eliminate the need for a waiting room, which would basically limit it to only one customer. Chair Sand noted the resident at the previous meeting had indicated her intent was to eventually teach couple massage and asked if they wanted to limit it to only one customer at a time. Commissioner Holmes stated she did not want to have more than one customer vehicle at a time on the premises. However, she understood there might be some overlap of customers once in awhile. Commissioner Bezdicek noted that this language gave the City the ability to inspect the property and asked if the City would know what to inspect. Mr. Clark replied this was a precaution in the event the City needed to inspect the premises, the business owner could not keep them out. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if the resident who was at the previous meeting was given a copy of this report. Mr. Clark replied he was not sure, but it was his intent to come up with firmer language and then send it to her. D. DISCUSSION ON FRONT PORCHES/SETBACK EXCEPTIONS Mr. Clark stated staff had received several telephone calls from residents inquiring about adding porches onto their homes. Currently, porches would be permitted if they either met the front setback or did not extent beyond 3 feet into the front, side or rear setback. This setback exception currently applied to structural items like: Eaves, cantilevered areas, cornices, canopies, awnings, decks, balconies, steps, ramps, fire escapes and chimneys. Not only did this exception not allow much space for porches, on homes that currently meet the front setback, it barely provided enough space for people approaching a front door without having to back down the steps. He stated recognizing that front porches can offer a wclcoming presence for homes and better curb appeal, the City of Richfield crcated a mechanism within their codes to allow porches to be counted as setback exceptions, but required staff review and established specific design criteria. He asked if the City should pursue amending the Zoning ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 5.2005 8 Ordinance to include setback exceptions for front porches and should the existing . language be maintained and porches allowed only if they meet the current regulations. Chair Sand asked if they were going to go ten feet into the setback from the most extended portion of the house, they could go ten feet beyond the garage point. Me. Clark stated this would be measured from the principal structure and not the garage. Chair Sand asked if it made sense to have a shorter encroachment for an open deck than an enclosed porch. Commissioner Larson noted steps. decks and ramps were considered a part of the principal structure. Chair Sand stated it did not make sense to have a 6 foot setback for an open deck and a 10 foot setback for an enclosed porch. Commissioner Larson stated a deck was not integrated into the primary structure, where an enclosed porch needed to be compatible with the existing roofline. Commissioner Holmes believed New Brighton also had this type of a program and suggested staff check with that City as to what their ordinance said. E. PLANNING COMMISSION 2005 TENTATIVE MEETING DATES Me. Clark presented the tentative meeting dates for the 2005 Planning Commission meetings. e Commissioner Zimmerman asked if they wanted to hold a Planning Commission meeting on July 6 or should they hold it the following week to avoid vacation conflicts. Me. Clark asked if they also wanted to move the September meeting to the following week because of the Labor Day holiday and that start of school. Chair Sand also noted they might need to change the June meeting due to Memorial Day. F. PLANNING COMMISSION 2005 PC WORK PLAN Me. Clark noted the Planning Commissioner 2005 Work Plan would be presented at the February meeting. REPORTS A. Planning Commissioners None. B. Staff Me. Clark updated the Commission on recent TCAAP developments and the old City Hall site. e . . . City COilncil Work Session April IS, 2005 Attachment 2D - 2 . 11I - s:: CIl .~ CIl E <C Q. CIl - en '0 s:: III ..s:: o ... o a.. I ...... It) M ~ CIl o s:: III s:: :0 ... o ...... o .~ ~ o a.. . c w :: o ..J ..J <C >- ..J .... Z W a:: a:: :J (.) - 1 I I I -I b. 01 ~ . ~I .a '_._. +-' Q) (f) Q) "0 en III 0- (I) ..... tJ) "C (I) 3l: o <( >- ;:; c: (I) .... .- ....1 :::So 01 ~I (c. -I >; III ~ .;: c - - b ::!- ~ o co .a ....., Q) (/) >. -".c: '(1) :ii 3l: ~ 1:,,20 c3<tI. .-... ~ ?"- M .......... +-' c: o L... LL I I I I -..- .....-.0...-- ~.o.;;...;... ........ ..-." - b M -.....- ~ () CIl .a +-' Q) (/) L... CIl Q) a: III a. (I) .... tJ) "C CIl 3l: o :( ~ '+iI c: (I) t:: :::s o fI_ N ..... ~. Q) Cl ~ III Cl "C Q) J::: c..l .f! - III C III J::: - ~ iii .. c Q) "C 'iij Q) a:: ~ 'E III LL Q) C1 c en --. - lo ~ .~ T'" . a:: "C Q) C o N >. t:: Q) a. e a. III Cl I:: 'iij ;j .!!! Q) C. E III >< Q) fIl :i: l- . ~ () CIl .a (j) (/) Q) "0 en " en w C) z c( :I: (..) C W en o a.. o a:: a.. III - c: CI) E "C c: CI) E <( 0.. CI) - (/) "C c: III .c (J ... o Q. I ..... It) M ::J:I: CI) (J c: III c: "C ... o -- ..... o . It) o ::J:I: o Q. - "C CJ).c III (J o ... 0..0 OD.. ... D.. III Q. (\) - en "C (\) III &.1'- o. "'1 Q.. ~I <c. - >; lIS := Q) > "i: C - o '<t .......... - ~ o M - -'<:: () ...... ro e.o 0...... L- Q) LL(/) +-+ I I I -I o 01 ~ () 1 C\J .0 ..... Q) (/) Q) "0 (/) '_._._.~.-.-._._._._~_._.~ --. o C') .......... ~ () l\l .0 ..... Q) (/) '- l\l Q) (Y . III 0.. (\) .., en "C (\) III o 0.. e Q. Q) 01 lIS ... lIS 01 "0 Q) ..r:: u lIS ::: lIS c lIS ..r:: - 'i Iii ;ij c Q) "0 VI Q) 0:: ~ E C'CI LL Q) m c Ul . J_ - in ...... .......... .. .... . 0:: "0 Q) C o N >- t:: Q) c. o ... C. lIS 01 C 'w ::J .!!! Q) C. E C'CI >< Q) .!!! .c l- . . ~ () C\J .0 ..... Q) (/) Q) "0 (/) . 111 ..- s:: Q) .~ s:: Q) E <( Q. Q) ..- UJ "C s:: ell .s:: u ... o a.. I ...... It) M 'It: Q) u s:: ell s:: ~ o ...... .~ 'It: o a.. c w s: o ..J ..J <( >- ..J .... Z W a:: a:: ::) (..) - - b '<t ............ .::s:- o III .0 ...... Q) CI) III C. Q) - (J) "0 Q) 3: o - <( >. >. --"OJ:: ';tQ)O ~ ~ ~ ""-... ::l-..... 0<( - t-... (") - Q) Cl f! '" Cl 'tl Q) oJ: C,) '" - Q) 'tl '" oJ: - .~ fti .. c: Q) 'tl 'w Q) 0:: ~ 'E '" u. o ~ all Q) Cl c: iii ....... c E u. - - !: Q) ... ... ::l U - t-. - - b ..- "--' I ~., !!?.I .::s:- . 01 III .0 . -as I CI). Q) L._._._._. "C U5 ..l<: t) III .0 .... Q) (/) Q) :Q (/) .. N . 0:: 'tl Q) c: o N >- t: 8- o ... a. '" Cl c: 'iii :;, .!!! Q) Q. E '" >< Q) .!!! oJ: l- . .-." ...-.. b \0 ............ ~ >. ro ~ Q) > .C o ~ .::s:- O III .0 ...... Q) (/) l... III Q) ~ (f) w C) z <( :I: o C w (f) o c.. o ~ c.. Ul ..... r:: CI) E 'C r:: CI) E c( c. CI) ..... U) 'C r:: III .r:: u .... o a.. I ...... It) M 'It: CI) u r:: III r:: .- 'C .... o -- ...... o . It) o 'It: U a.. ---. o "<t - '0 Q).c I/) 0 o "- 0.0 00.. "- D.. ~ t) <1l ..c ..... Q) (j) - - o M ........... ---., ---. o (") - ~ >. ro ~ > 'C Cl ~ ~ t) <1l ..c ..... Q) (j) '- <1l Q) 0:: . I/) 0. Q) ...., en "0 Q). II) o 0. o I- 0.. <Il Ol ~ C'll Ol 'tl <Il .c: CJ C'll - <Il 'tl C'll .c: - .~ --.. C'll := c <Il 'tl 'iii <Il 0::: .?;> E C'll u. o ~ all ~ Ol .!: I/) . o ...... - ~ t) <1l ..c .... Q) (j) CI) :2 (j) ~ 0::: 'tl <Il c:: o ... >. t <Il Q. o ... Q. C'll Ol c:: 'iii ::l .!!! <Il Q. E C'll .~ . .c: l- . eo. Prepared by: GSB Depl.: O&M Council Mtg. Date: 4.25.05 Final Action Needed By: 4.25.05 ~ ~ILLS City of Arden Hills Request for Council Action Agenda Item ~~I 2005 Sanitarv Sewer Rehabilitation Proiect Budgeted Amount: $200,000.00 Actual Amount: $280.000.00 Funding Source: Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund Council Action Request: Motion to approve the award ofthe 2005 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project to Gridor Construction, Inc. for the total amount of$236,758.00. This will require a budget amendment of$80,000. Staff Recommendation: The City Engineer recommends the awarding the 2005 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project to Gridor Construction, Inc. for the total amount of$236,758.00. Advisory Commission Action: Commission Date Action i - -------__________J Noti\pplic;i3tJlE! ................I\J()tAppiicable.. . .... ....... .................j ...___11I0.1 <lppHcatJiEl.______.J . Supporting Documents (which are attached to this Action Form): 1ZI Memo/Letter: o Resolution (No. ) o Ordinance (No. ) o Engineering Recommendation: o Attorney Recommendation: o Other: Financial Implications: The total construction cost for this project is $280,000.00 including construction, engineering, inspection and expenses, This project is to be funded through the Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund. $200,000,00 had been budgeted for this project in the CIP therefore a budget amendment of $80,000 will be required for 2005 in the Sanitary Sewer Utility fund. The 5 year sanitary sewer CIP will be re"iewed (and adjusted as necessary) in 2006 in light of the additional impacts to the Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund balance from lift station rehabilitation. AdministratorlStaff Comments: . Page 1 of 1 . I . AGENDA ITEM 7.A April 25, 2005 Ms. Michelle Wolfe City Administrator City of Arden Hills 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 RE: 2005 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project Lift Stations #4 and #9 Reconstruction Dear Ms. Wolfe, Bids were received and opened for the above-referenced project on February IS, 2005. Bids were received from nine (9) contractors. Gridor Construction, Inc. submitted tbe low bid with a total bid .mount of$236,758.00. The Engiueer's Estimate reflects current market prices based on recent projects in the Twin Cities metro area. The low bid is approximately 1.4% lower than the Engineer's Estimate indicating a reasonable price for the scope of work included with the project. In general, construction costs have increased significantly during 2004 when this project was budgeted due to increased cost of steel, higher fuel prices and increased labor costs. Considering the large field of bidders, the low bid appears to be very competitive in the current market. We have reviewed the 5 year sanitary sewer crp in light of the additional funding required for this project and presumably the remaining lift station rehabilitation work included in the CIP. The highest priority of Arden Hills Operations and Maintenance department relative to the sanitary sewer infrastructure is to upgrade all of the city's lift stations to current technology. Based upon the recent discussions with Council and staffregarding the sanitary sewer systcm we believe it is in the City's interest to take advantage of the bid received in February to rehabilitate lift stations 4 and 9 and develop a project later this year to rehabilitate the remaining four lift stations as a part of one project to be performed in 2006 (subject to receipt of favorable bids). Recommendation The City Engineer, therefore, recommends the award of the 2005 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project to Gridor Construction, Inc. for the total amount of $236,758.00. The project schedule outlined below is based upon award by the City Council on April 25, 2005 and subsequent negotiations with the Contractor. . Notice to Proceed Begin Construction Complete Construction April 27, 2005 May 31, 2005 August 5, 2005 , \ . Ms. Michelle Wolfe February 22,2005 Page 2 Please call me at (612) 373-6479 if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, URS Corporation Gregory S. Brown, P.E. Arden Hills City Engineer cc: Tom Moore/Arden Hills Murtuza Siddiqui/Arden Hills Mark LynchlURS Frank TicknorlURS File 31809733 . . . Prepared by: SC Dept.: CD Council Mtg. Date: 4/25/2005 Final Action Needed By: 4/25/05 ~ ~HILLS City of Arden Hills Request for Council Action Agenda Item II IL,.])t.:" TCAAP Verbal Update Budgeted Amount: $0.00 Actual Amount: Funding Source: Council Action Request: None Staff Recommendation: Verbal update on TCAAP progress Advisory Commission Action: Commission Date Action Not Supporting Documents (which are attached to this Action Form): . o Memo/Letter: o Resolution (No. ) o Ordinance (No. ) o Engineering Recommendation: o Attorney Recommendation: o Other: Financial Implications: AdministratorlStaff Comments: Staff will be making a TCAAP verbal update on progress to date, items will include GSA discussions, interim agreement and athletic field discussions. . Page 1 of 1