Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCP 09-11-2006 "' ::_",,..' ~ ~HlLLS Arden Hills City Council Mayor: Beverly Aplikowski Councilmembers: David Grant Brenda Holden Gregg Larson Vincent Pellegrin 1245 W, Highway % Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 651.634.512(} www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us REGULAR MEETING Monday Se tember 11, 2006 City Vision A strong conununity that values our unique environment, our fiscal soundness, and our tradilion as a desirable city in which to live, work, and la . Agenda City Council Meeting Convenes 7:00 PM Call to Ordcr PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE L APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. August 28, 2006 City Council Meeting B. August 2], 2006 Work Session Meeting 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Claims and Payroll B. Motion to Approve Payment #2 to Amt Construction in the amount of $259,527.12 for Ihe 2006 PMP Ridgewood Neighborhood Project C. Motion to Approve Resolution 06-46: Authorizing City Funds for the Deve]opment and Implementation of an Inflow and Infi]tration Reduction Program in 2007. D. Motion to Approve Payment to Ramsey County Parks and Recreation in Ihe amount of $32,000 for the Tony Schmidt Park Underpass Project 4. PULLED CONSENT ITEMS . Those items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion under a Consent Calendar format. There will be no separate discussion of these items, unless a Council Member so requests, in which event, the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda. Those items that are pulled from the Consent Calendar will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its nonnal sequence on the agenda. Arden Hills City Conneil Agenda September 11, 2006 Page 2 S. PUBLIC INQUlRIES/INFORMA TIONAI, Public InquiriesJInformational is an opportunity for dtizens 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. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continuation of the 2006 PMP Ridgewood Neighborhood Kris Gigo Assessment Hearing 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Planning Case 06-025; Site Plan Review-AMT Inc., 1300 Grey James Lehnhoff Fox Road B. Planning Case 06-026; Preliminary Plat-Arlene Boutin, 1600 James Lehnhoff Lake Johanna Blvd C. Motion to Establish the Payable 2007 Preliminary Tax Michelle Wolfe/Schown Johnson Levies/2006 Truth in TaxaIion Dates Resolulion 06-43: Selling the Preliminary Levy for Taxes Payable in 2007 . Resolution 06-44: Setting Ihe Preliminary Special Levy for the Karth Lake Improvement District Payable in 2007 Resolution 06-45; Adopting Truth in Taxation Public Hearing Dates for Proposed Taxes Payable in 2007 D. Boston Scientific Water Signage Discussion James Lehnhoff 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Motion to extend Closing for Old City HalllPublic Works Karen Barton property B. County Road E Sidewalk Discussion Kris GigalMichelle Olson C. Planning Case 01-05; Chesapeake Companies-Extension of James Lehnhoff Master PUD D. TCAAP Update Karen Barton 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND REQUESTS ADJOURN Jackie Freppert Subject: Jackie Freppert Thursday, September 07,20062:58 PM timesaver02@aol.com; bob. fletcher@co.ramsey.mn,us; bulletin@lillienews,com; cwilson@ctv15,org; dorrick@pioneerpress,com; dprobst@mspmac,org; focus@mnsun,com; kmaltman@msn,com; mlsmith@startribune.com; smoran@startribune,com; sschroeder@smithmicrotech,com CC Agenda for 9/11/2006 Meeting 10m: nt: ~ 6fj" 09-11-06,doc (73 KB) e ., 1 - .. . ~ ~~HILLS Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 28, 2006; 7:00 P.M. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL TO ORDERlROLL 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, and Vincent Pellegrin. Absent: Councilmember Brenda Holden. Also present were City Administrator, Michelle Wolfe; City Attorney, Jerry Filla; Community Development Director, Karen Barton; City Engineer, Kris Giga; Assistant City Administrator, Schawn Johnson; City Planner, James Lehnhoff; Parks and Recreation Manager Michelle Olson; and Recording Secretary, Kathleen Altman. 1. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Mayor ApIikowski requested item 7(c) "Extension of Proposal Date for Unit Development of Royal Oaks" be added to the agenda. MOTION: Councilmember Pellegrin moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to approve the meeting agenda as amended. The motion carried unanimously (4- 0). 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. July 31, 2006 City Council Meeting B. July 17, 2006 Work Session Meeting MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to approve the July 31, 2006 City Council Meeting Minutes as presented and the July 17, 2006 Council Work Session Minutes as presented. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 2 3. CONSENT CALENDAR a. b. Claims and Payroll Motion to Approve Payment #1 to Amt Construction in the amount of $487,812.59 for the 2006 Ridgewood Neighborhood PMP Project Motion to Amend Ordinance No. 365 Relating to the Protection of Shade Trees Planning Case 06-021; Minor Subdivision & Variance; Bruce & Kathy Haglund; 3300 & 3294 Lake Johanna Blvd Planning Case 06-022; Site Plan Review; Greg Peterson; 1105 Amble Drive Motion to Amend the Budget for the 3153 Shoreline Lane Driveway Replacement Motion to Amend the Budget for Inflow and Infiltration Mitigation - c. d. e. f. g. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilrnember Grant seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar and to authorize execution of all necessary docwnents contained therein. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). 4. PULLED CONSENT ITEMS None. 5. None. PUBLIC INQUlRlES/INFORMATIONAL ", 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 2006 Ridl!ewood Neil!hborhood PMP Assessment Hearinl! Ms. Giga stated that Council awarded the contract for the 2006 PMP improvements to Amt Construction Company on June 12,2006. She gave a brief summary of the improvements to the neighborhood, as well as a current proj ect update. Ms. Giga stated that the total project costs, including construction and engineering fees, are $2.1 million. Funding for this project comes from the General Capital Fund and Utility Enterprise Funds. Following the assessment policy adopted in 2004, 50% of the roadway improvement costs will be assessed. She reviewed the projects costs associated with each of the funds and the assessable amounts. Approximately 29% of the project costs are proposed to be received from assessments, and the remaining 71 % will be funded by the City. Ms. Giga indicated that there are two assessment payment options. The first is to pay the entire amOlmt within 30 days of the adoption of the assessment roll. This can be paid at City Hall and will accrue no interest. The second option is for cqual installments to be added to the residents' . - - - ARDEN HlLLS CITY COUNClL -AUGUST 28, 2006 3 property taxes over a I O-year period. Per the assessment policy, the interest is based on the prime rate plus 2%, set on the date of the adoption ofthe assessment roll (current prime rate is 8.25%.) Ms. Giga also noted that there is a payment deferral option for seniors- residents must be 65 or older, need to fill out an application form available at City Hall, and provide supporting documentation of economic hardship. She recommended if there are any questions or concerns received at the hearing that the final adoption of the assessment rolls be continued to the September I I, 2006 City Council meeting to allow staff time to research questions and objections raised at the initial hearing. If Council receives no comments regarding the assessments, staff recommended approval of the resolution adopting and confirming assessments for the 2006 PMP improvements. Councilmember Grant noted the only assessable cost in this project was the road. Mayor Aplikowski opened the publie hearing at 7:16 p.m. Mayor Aplikowski noted there would be no deeision made at this meeting. A deeision would be at the next Council meeting. Esther Dant,35 I I Ridgewood Road, stated she understood there were two payment options. She asked if they would get an additional statement from Ramsey County if it went through their taxes, or would it be on their tax statement. Mr. Filla responded if the City certified the assessment; it would appear on their tax statement as a separate line item, which would go to their mortgage company for payment. Steve Nelson, 3475 Siems Court, asked what was the cost to replace the retaining wall on the west side of Siems Court, and what was the rationale for why they were paying for this as part of the assessment. Ms. Giga responded the cost was $40,000 and it needed to be reconstructed to support the road and utilities along Siems Court. Mr, Nelson stated in order for the property owner to get a driveway in, the retaining wall was put up. He stated the retaining wall serviced the private lot and the only reason the retaining wall needed to be there was because of the driveways. He stated he would like to see when the retaining wall installation was approved by the City and he did not believe the retaining wall was a benefit to all of the homeowners. He believed the wall only benefited the residents in that area. He stated it appeared to him that each resident was paying $600 for the retaining wall when it only benefited a couple of residents. He asked how the City ealculated the double lots. Ms. Giga responded she believed the double lots were assessed on a per lot basis where there was an existing home, but she was not 100 percent sure of this because thc preliminary assessment rolls were generated before she was employed by the City. Mr. Filla noted if there was ever a cOlmection, the City would recapture the cost. Mr. Nelson stated it did not appear to be fair that the homeowners who owned two lots were not assessed double. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 Mike Aamoth, 3550 Ridgewood Road, stated he had received some information from the City that was inaccurate and was not clear. He stated this was a problem and an inconvenience for the residents. He recommended the construction company be more accurate. He asked if there was any place he could go and look at the bids submitted for this project from the various construction companies. Ms. Wolfe stated the bids were available at City Hall and ifhe left his name with the City Engineer, they would be provided to him. Mr. Aamoth asked if there was an assessment meeting in June. He noted initially he was told the assessment was going to be around $7,000 and now it went up 45 percent. He stated he was concerned the project had now been started and there was no assessment hearing. Ms. Giga stated the feasibility report was done last August and there might have been a tentative schedule in that rcport. Ms. Wolfe stated initially they thought the assessment hearing would be held earlier than it ended up being. She indicated in the feasibility study they estimated between $6,500 and $8,800 for the assessment, but the bids came in higher than anticipated. Mr. Aamoth stated it would be nice if there was better communication all around. Ms. Giga stated they were distributing information as best they could, but the contractor's schedule often changes hour by hour and not day by day. If the contractor conveys the information in a timely manner the City will do their best to distribute the information. Lisa Abraham, 3511 Siems Court, asked if everyone had received the letter she sent. She stated if they were going to go back and consider lots in different areas, the Island Lake Beach Club also had two separate areas, which were having their fees waived. She requested they look at this also. She stated hcr assessment should be waived because of her driveway access. Ms. Wolfe stated the basis for not assessing the Beach Club was because the parcels were not developable. Ms. Abraham believed there was a value to the islands and it should probably be assessed accordingly. Jennie Michael, 3436 Siems Conrt asked how many units was the Beach Club. Ms. Giga responded it was two parcels. Ms, Michaels noted the parcels were huge and a lot of residents did not use the Beach Club and therefore, they should not have to pay for that portion. She stated she was under the impression the City was going to pick up the shortfall difference between the estimate and the bid. Ms. Wolfe responded the City had increased their contribution to the project. Tom Mulcahy, 3530 Siems Court, stated when he was working and a project catne in as much over budget as this one did, they would ask who should be fired. He stated they needed an explanation as to why the costs came in so high. He stated if they had a feasibility study in August 2005 he believed they should rely on that feasibility study and why was the feasibility study so inaccurate. He asked if the City just accepted the bids. Councilmember Larson noted the City was subject to the market fluctuations at the time and in this instance that was what had happened. He stated they had met with the contractor to corne up with some changes to reduce 4 - - -- ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 5 - the cost. He indicated they were not happy that this had happened, but that this is part of the process when going out for public bids. Mayor Aplikowski stated they had to have some help in paying for the project and that is how they got where they were. Mayor ApIikowski continued the public hearing until September 11, 2006. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Planninl! Case 06-024: Planned Unit Development Amendment & Site Plan Review; Boston Scientific; 4100 Hamline Avenue North Mr. Lehnhoff stated the applicant was requesting a Master Plan PUD (7th) Amendment and Site Plan Review to construct a 10,225 square foot addition to Building N, which is located in the northwestern portion of the Boston Scientific campus. The building was purchased just before the Master Plan was approved in 2002, and the Master Plan does not reflect the proposed addition to this application, which is the reason for the PUD Amendment. According to the applicant, the addition will be used to integrate a new product component into an existing manufacturing process and approximately ten employees would be added to Building N with this addition. The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan. No parking stalls would be removed or added with this proposal; however, the applicant has indicated that there is sufficient . parking space on the campus and a proof of parking had been submitted. The proposal in this application would be the second addition to Building N. A 38,000 square foot addition was approved in 2003, The planning case report reviews all of the additions and amendments to the Master Plan and to the campus since 2002. He stated the Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case 06-024 and unanimously recommended approval of the Planned Unit Development Amendment and Site Plan Review based on the submitted plans and a finding that the proposal would not have negative impact on the neighborhood or City ifthe following thirteen conditions are included: . I. The applicant shall continue to abide by the conditions of approval as stated in the approved Master Plan POD except as amended by the six subsequent amendments. A PUD Amendment form, drafted by the City Attorney, shall amend the POD and encompass all seven amendments to the Master Plan POD. A building permit may only be issued after the POD Amendment document receives the approval of the City Council and is executed by both the City Council and the applicant. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as part of the master plan amendment and site plan review application. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission. The master plan amendment and site plan review shall automatically expire and become void one (I) year from and after the date on which the Council granted such approval if work on the project has not begun within that time period. 2. 3. 4. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 6 5. The applicant shall obtain any necessary permits from Rice Creek Watershed, the Pollution Control Agency, and any other necessary permits before a building permit is issued. The City shall be copied with all required permits. Any changes to the grading, erosion, or drainage plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. The applicant shall comply with the conditions recommended by the City Engineer in the July 24, 2006, memo to the City Planner. Updated site plans shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer and Fire Marshal before any building permits are issued. If noise from the building exceeds MPCA noise regulations for residential areas at the property line, the applicant shall reduce noise by any means necessary to be in compliance with MPCA regulations. If any complaints regarding noise are to be made to the City, the applicant shall be responsible for providing decibel measurements from the property line. A traffic study shall be conducted and submitted to the City for review to determine if road improvements are needed prior to the submission of any application(s) that would cause the total new square footage to exceed 419,500 square feet since the Master Plan was approved in 2002. The landscaping plan shall be modified so that at least 30 percent of the trees are in the 3.5" to 4" caliper range and 20 percent of the trees are in the 4.5" to 5" caliper range. The number of trees in the 2" to 3" caliper range shall not be more than 50 percent of the trees in the landscaping plan. The modified plan shall be submitted prior to the insurance of any building permits and is subject to approval by the City Planner. The mechanical equipment shall be fully screened from all adjacent properties and the public right-of-way. The applicant shall provide four handicap access parking spaces per the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. The applicant shall provide an "as built" survey upon the completion of the project that includes all required changes, 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. II. 12. 13. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Pellegrin seconded a motion to approve Planning Case 06-024, Planned Unit Development Amendment & Site Plan Review; Boston Scientific; 4100 Hamline Avenue North, subject to the thirteen conditions as outlined in staffs August 16, 2006, report. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). B. Planninl!: Case 06-023: Master Planned Unit Development & Preliminary Plat; Roval Oaks Realty, Inc., 1440 -1450 West Hil!:hwav 96 Mr. Lehnhoff stated the applicant proposes to construct 62,432 square feet of office space on the former 6.83 acre City Hall and Public Works garage property. The total footprint of the office would be 4 I ,024 square feet. The office space was proposed to be divided into 23 for-sale condos in seven separate buildings, though individual condos may be combined to form a single unit. The property was proposed to utilize the exiting driveway approach from Ramsey County Highway 96 and to construct a new driveway across an exiting access easement to Hamline - . . -. tit . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 7 Avenue. The applicant proposes to share the access road off of Hamline with the daycare that is located at the intersection of Highway 96 and Hamline Avenue. Thc revised application for less office space, fewer parking spaces, and more landscaped area was submitted in July 2006. In June and July of2005, the City reviewed a proposal from Royal Oaks Realty for a 76,000 square foot office condominium development that would be divided into 30 officc condos in seven separate buildings. In that proposal, the property was proposed to utilize the existing driveway approach from Highway 96 and construct an access across an existing access easement to Hamline Avenue. At the July 2005 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission voted 6-1 to recommend approval of the proposal subject to a number of conditions related to landscaping, drainage, access, and layout. The City Council reviewed the application in July 2005. A motion was made to approve the POD, which resulted in a vote of 3-2. Since a PUD approval requires a 4/5's majority, the PUD was not approved. He indicated the Planning Commission recommended (6-1) approval of the Planned Unit Development Amendment and Site Plan Review based on the revised plans and the following thirty-two conditions: I. Final Plat. The applicant shall submit an application for a Final Plat within six (6) months following City Council approval ofthe POD and Preliminary Plat. 2. PUD Permit. A Planned Unit Development Permit shall be drafted by the City Attorney and be subject to approval by the City Council prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 3. Revised Plans. The applicant shall submit revised plans that are in conformance with the plan review comments from the City Engineer, Fire Marshal, and Building Official prior to approving the Final Plat, and any other applicable conditions. 4. Timelinc. The applicant's timeline for development shall be as follows: a. Phase 1: Fall 2006 - the developer may begin grading, installing utilities, and construction of storm water improvemcnts. b. Phase 2: Fall/Winter 2006 ~ The developer may bcgin construction on units 1-9. c. Phase 2: 2008: Project completed. Extensions beyond December 31, 2008, shall require an application and be subject to City Council review and approval. At the time of application for extensions, the City Council may include such conditions of approval as they determine necessary for compliallce with City Code. 5. Bylaws. The bylaws, covenants, deed restrictions, or any other similar documents shall be subject to review by the City Attorney and shall be submitted prior to filing the Final Plat. 6. Occupancy. No more than one business shall be permitted to occupy anyone office condominium within the development. 7. Uses. Retail, restaurant, fast-food, and residential uses shall not be permitted to occupy any of the units in the proposed development. Retail uses may be permitted if they are incidental or accessory to the primary use. 8. Outside Storage. Outside storage shall not be permitted under any circumstances. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 8 14. 15. 16. 9. Landscaping Plan Revisions. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan for review and approval by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits that conforms to the following: a. Additional coniferous trees shall be provided along the west buffer yard of the development to increase screening for the trail and residential properties. b. At least 30 percent of the trees shall be in the 3.5" to 4" caliper range and 20 percent of the trees are in the 4.5" to 5" caliper range. The number of trees in the 2" to 3" caliper range shall not be more than 50 percent of the trees in the landscaping plan. c. The Northwood Red Maple and the Honey Locust to thc southeast of unit #1 shall be supplemented with coniferous trees and/or other vegetation to reduce headlight glare from southbound traffic. d. The office condominium association shall be responsible for maintaining the landscaping indefinitely. Diseased or dead landscaping shall be replaced within six months. Significant changes to the landscaping plan, as determined by the City Planner, shall require Planning Commission approval. e. The landscaping shall be irrigated. f. The applicant shall be responsible for replacing any damage to the landscaping on neighboring properties. Landscaping in the right-of-way. The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the landscaping in the Highway 96 right-of-way. The City shall be provided with a copy of the letter of permission for the landscaping in the Highway 96 right-of-way. If the applicant is unable to obtain pennission from Ramsey County to landscape a portion of the Highway 96 right-of-way, the applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan that meets the City's landscape plan requirement within the boundaries of the property. Landscaping Bond. The applicant shall submit a performance bond or other surety acceptable to the City Attorney for all landscaping or screening in the amount of 125 percent of the cost of the materials and installation. The bond shall be provided prior to the issuance of any building permits. Screening. If the landscaping does not provide at least 60 percent coverage as viewed from neighboring residential properties, as determined by the City Planner, the City may require additional landscaping. Dust and Noise. The applicant shall make reasonable efforts to reduce dust and noise during construction. Construction Activities. The applicant shall comply with Section 630.01 of the City Code limiting construction times to between 7:00 a,m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. on 9:00 p.rn. on weekends and holidays. However, the City shall reserve the right to further limit times in which construction may occur if a complaint is received and the complaint is verified to be a nuisance by the City. Dumpster Enclosures. The dumpster enclosures shall use Hardie Plank siding that matches the siding of the office buildings in place of the proposed stucco. Tree Preservation. The applicant and their contractors shall work with the City Planner and City Forester to save as many existing, healthy, and well placed trees as possible in the areas designated as landscape space. . - 10. .. 11. 12. 13. tilt . . ARDEN HlLLS CITY COUNClL -AUGUST 28, 2006 9 17. Mechanical Screening. All mechanical operating equipment shall be screened to meet City regulations. Mechanical equipment shall not be visible from the neighboring residential areas or the daycare. 18. Fencing. Decorative fencing shall be erected around the pond at the northeast corner of the property to increase pedestrian safety. The fence shall require a permit and shall not exceed six feet in height. ]9. Park dedication. The applicant shall pay a park dedication fee of $40,000.00 prior to filing the Final Plat with Ramsey County. 20. Rice Creek Watershed. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Rice Creek Watershed District and Ramsey County prior to filing the Fina] Plat. 21. Highway 96 access. The Highway 96 access shall be right-in and right-out only. The applicant shall be responsible for the signing and striping to provide a right turn lane on eastbound Highway 96 to the development's driveway. 22. Ham]ine Avenue Access. a. The Hamline Avenue access shall be a right-in and right-out access only. No left turns shall be permitted. b. To facilitate movement in and out of the development, a minimum 30-foot radius shall be built on the northwest and southwest corner of the Ham]ine Avenue intersection. Revised entrance plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer and Ramsey County Engineer for approval prior to approving the Final Plat. The applicant shall be responsible for placing all necessary traffic signage. 23. Daycare Access. The applicant shall provide the daycare with a no-cost access easement to allow vehicles to access the day care from the office park's access on Highway 96. 24. Stop Signs. A stop sign shall be placed on the southbound exit to the access easement from the daycare per the recommendation of the 2005 traffic study. A stop sign shall also be placed at the eastbound exit to the access easement before the daycare exit/entrance to the access easement per the recommendation of the 2005 traffic study. 25. Signs. The following shall apply to all signage in the development. a. Each unit shall be permitted one 2'x I 0' sign on the front of the building centered above the entrance to the unit provided that these signs are uniform in color and arc not illuminated. b. If any units are combined for use by one occupant, the combined units shall be considered one unit in terms of signage and shall be permitted one 2'x]0' sign centered between the combined units provided that the sign is in conformance with the other primary signs in the development as permitted in condition 20.a. c. Units I, 9, 10, and 18 may be permitted one sign facing Highway 96 provided each sign does not exceed twenty square feet, the signs are in a uniform location on the end units, are uniform in color with other signs in the development, used by only one occupant, and is not illuminated. d. If units] 9-23 are combined into one unit, the combined units may have one shared sign on the rear of the building provided that the sign is no greater than 60 square feet, is centered on the building, is only used by the single occupant of the combined units, and is not illuminated. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 10 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. e. Each individual unit or combined units shall be permitted up to one square foot of signage for address and business name adjacent to the door. The address and business name shall be uniform throughout the development in size, placement, and color. These signs may be illuminated. f. Each sign shall be require a separate permit. g. Off-premise advertising shall not be permitted under any circumstances. Drainage and Utility Easement. The applicant shall provide a 12-foot drainage and utility easement along the exterior lot lines and the right-of-way. Lighting Plan. The applicant shall amend the lighting to be in full compliance with the City's lighting regulations prior to approving the Final Plat. Sidewalks. The applicant shall submit revised site plans that include sidewalk connections to each building, where feasible, within the development and to the City and County trail systems. The plan shall be submitted to the City Planner and City Engineer for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. Trail. The trail along the western edge of the property shall be conveyed to the City in a manner that is acceptable to the City Attorney. Easement Vacation. The twcnty foot wide pedestrian easement near the center of the property shall be vacated prior to filing the Final Plat. Sprinkling. All ofthe units shall be sprinkled for fire suppression. Sand Cushion. One-foot sand cushion shall be added under any sidewalk provided in the development. 31. 32. Councilmember Larson asked if the extra landscaping was part of the Planning Commission conditions. He asked if that should be in the conditions. Ms. Barton responded it was in Condition 9.a. Councilmember Grant inquired about the drainage. Mr. Lehnhoff responded the drainage was currently being reviewed by Rice Creek Watershed District and at this time they did not have final approval by them, but final approval would be necessary before the final plat would be issued. Ms. Giga stated there were two infiltration basins, one on the northwestern portion of the property and one on the eastern portion of the property south of the wetland. The storm runoff from the site would go to one or the other and ultimately end up in the pond. She stated there was some runoff on the south side of the property that would continue to go in that direction, but based on her review of the site, the proposed drainage area were less than the existing drainage areas that were going off to the south side. She stated ultimately the water would discharge into the storm sewer system on Highway 96, which eventually went to Sunfish Lake. Councilmember Grant inquired about the wetland area and asked if that was an infiltration pond and if so, how would the water escape. Ms. Giga responded that wetland would remain and if it would ever overflow they would have a catch basin. Councilmember Grant inquired about the infiltration pond on the northwestern portion of the property. He asked if therc was an ovcrflow for that. Ms. Giga rcsponded there was an overflow for that pond. II .. . -. . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 II Councilmember Grant asked for a further explanation on the lighting plan. Mr, Lehnhoff responded the lighting might need to be moved slightly to the north, or additional covers might need to be added to diffuse the light and bring the plan into compliance with City Code. Councilmember Grant asked if the original plan had two-story units in it. Mr. Lehnhoff responded he believed there were some two-story units in the original plan. Mike Black, Royal Oaks Realty, responded they originally had 30 units with the center units being loft units and the outside units being rambler units. He stated the plans have not changed in terms of square footage except the rambler units are slightly large in square footage because the unit numbers got smaller. He noted they had two walk-out buildings and this was where the two levels came in. Councilmember Grant asked about the two units occupying the one building. Mr. Black responded they did not have a signed contract with the realty company at this time, but they had a company interested in taking that unit. He stated it was important for this company to have advcrtising on the back of that building facing Highway 96. Marcel Eibenhsteiner 14 Evergreen Lane, North Oaks, President of Royal Oaks Realty, statcd they had no plans in occupying any units and the reason their name was on the building was for demonstrative purposes only. Mayor Aplikowski stated on the lighting plan, whatever they did on the corner needed to be extremely sensitive because that was the closest area to the townbome development. She stated she had reviewed the Planning Commission minutes and they had covered all of the questions she had. Councilmember Larson asked who owned the access along the daycare center. Ms. Giga responded it was an easement that was granted to the City back in 1988, so it will be maintained as an easement by the City. Councilmember Larson asked, given the fact that the Planning Commission had recommended a right-in, right-out only, it appeared to him they should put in a triangular island in that area. He stated he believed it had been determined there was not enough room for this. Ms, Giga responded it would be difficult for emergency personnel to get in this area if a triangular island was put in. Mr. Lehnhoff stated there also not sufficient room to allow people in and out comfortably. Mayor Aplikowski asked if the daycare had been asked about the right-in, right-out. Mr, Lehnhoff responded he has not heard from them, but they had been given the notice. Mayor Aplikowski stated the daycare center should be informed of the possible change to the access. She asked if they could post a sign for "No turns during peak hours" during rush hour. Mr. Lehnhoff stated that Ramsey County had offered that as an option. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 12 Dan Soler, Ramsey County Public Works Traffic Engineer, stated there were different ways to restrict access, but they would only be as good as they were able to be enforced. He statcd one of thc ways to restrict left turns was with signs and the ability to control those turns would be based on the level of cnforccmcnt. He stated in order to make the pork chop islands they needed sufficient space to prevent people from driving ovcr them. He stated one solution would be to add a median on Hamline Avenue to block off all left turns. tit Stan Harpstead, 1277 Nursery Hill Lane, stated he had a concern about the size of the project. He stated this project was the incorrect size for this property. He stated this property would eventually be landlocked and the development would become non-marketable. Kingsley Hahn, 4365 Arden View Court, stated he was concerned about the environmental impact of this development. He asked if the Army Corp of Engineers had done a study on this to see what would happen with the wildlife. He believed the wildlife would be heavily impacted. He asked where would all of the oil, gas, and antifreeze from the cars run off to. He stated the garbage would need to be picked up daily also and expressed concern about the garbage that missed the garbage trucks and ended up blowing all over the neighborhood. He expressed concern the parking area at night would end up having broken bottles and used condoms. He stated this was not the right place for this development. He stated this development was creating "bad blood" in the City. He stated they needed something entirely different. He stated he did not belicve any Councilmember would want this development in their backyard. Mark Majors, 4521 Keithson Drive, stated this project was wrong and it was too large. He asked them to listen to the people and hold another public hearing to resolve the neighborhood's concerns. . Gale Van Buskirk, 1390 Arden View Drive, stated she has been a resident of the City for 20 years. She stated she has obtained 268 signatures of residents who were opposed to this development. She noted this was 100 more signatures than they had last year. She stated their concerns were traffic, access on Harnline A venue, reduction of property values, etc. She asked why this property was not offered for public sale. She asked why they did not have another assessment of the property. Major Aplikowski asked Ms. Buskirk to speak to the issues at hand and not past issues. Ms. Buskirk stated people were suspicious that this sounded questionable. She asked the Council members if they or their relatives would be benefiting from this development. Councilmembers Pellegrin and Grant stated neither they nor their relatives were benefiting from this development. Councilmember Larson stated he had never spoken with Mr. Eibenhsteincr before and the only time he has spoken with him was at public hearings in front of the residents. He stated the information Ms. Buskirk had received was incorrect. He noted he was not benefiting from this development. He stated they had received a second appraisal. He asked Ms. Buskirk to be more carcful about the accusations she was making and the things she was saying. He stated nobody on the Council had any relationship with Mr. Eibenhsteiner. Mayor Aplikowski stated neither she nor any of her relatives were benefiting from this developmcnt. . - -. . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 13 Ms. Buskirk presentcd a "cut and paste" suggestion on how to improve the Royal Oaks development. She indicated they could eliminate the Hamline access. She noted this would reduce a lot of the asphalt because the road would not be there. She stated the access could be added to the northcrn part of the property and put in a signal at Keithson. She stated this would assist this development, as well as the residents on Keithson. She noted if they did not want to put in a signal on Keithson, they could speed up the signal installation at North Heights Church. She stated they could flip-flop the building by the townhouses, which would provide better screening for the townhomes. Ms. Buskirk asked if Mayor Aplikowski's son worked for ReMax Realty. Mayor Aplikowski stated her son worked at ReMax as a real estate agent. He was 36 years old and was independent of her. She statcd she would not receive any benefit if her son's office was in this building at some point in the future. She stated if the agency he worked for decided to move into this building, she would not at all benefit from her son working for this agency. Councilmember Larson stated he resented the innuendo Ms. Buskirk was putting forward. He stated his vote was an independent vote and it would be based on what was best for the City. He stated the Mayor did not tell him or any other Councilmember how to vote. He noted in this case the vote would require a 4/5ths vote. Mayor Aplikowski stated she had not given Mr. Eibenhsteiner an "insidc track" and Mr. Eibenhsteiner has been aware of this property since they took down the City building. She stated Mr. Eibenhsteiner was the Met Council representative and she has had two breakfast meetings with him to discuss City matters, but she did not discuss this development. She noted there had been other developments proposed, but staff did not feel those developmcnts were appropriatc and recommended this development. She stated the Planning Commission rccommended this development and shc had no influence over the Planning Commission decisions either. She stated she would not be benefiting from this development. Ms. Buskirk stated they care about their community and she urged them to deny the POD and work with the residents. Diane Phillippi, 1442 Arden View Drive, handed out and read from a prepared statement to be put into the City's file. She stated shc would prefer they not approve this plan, but if they did approve the plan, she recommended seven conditions with respect to eighteen wheeler access in and out ofthe site and the landscaping provided by the developer. Richard Roessler, 1261 Nursery Hill Lane, stated he lived in his home for 17 years. He acknowledged this development was a developmental challcnge. He stated in this case, they needed to sell the benefits to the residents, the City, and the developer. He expressed concerns about traffic control and management, the wildlife, drainage, storm water management, wetlands, and infiltration systems. He asked the City to slow down the development. He stated he was in favor of a development on this property, but they needed to take the resident's concerns into account. Larry Stark, 1460 Arden View Drive, stated the main focus on traffic issues so far has been on volume and access, when he believed the real issues were traffic flow and safety. He presented and explained photographs he had taken regarding his traffic concerns. He asked how traffic from ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL ~AUGUST 28, 2006 14 the south would get into the development. He believed this development would create a lot of accidents in the area. He stated the traffic patterns should bc considered in a lot more detail and a lot more care before they approved this. He believed this development was too large and would be landlocked. He stated they were taking too much risk with respect to traffic to approve this project at this time. - Jan Stodola, 1281 Karth Lake Circle, stated she has had business dealings with Marcel Eibenhsteiner and she was impressed with his work. She noted she has lived in the City for 25 years. She stated this proposed development was wrong for this location. She stated many rcsidents at the Planning Commission expressed concern about the loss of trees, loss of wildlife, increascd traffic, etc. She agreed thcre would be no degradation in the traffic because the intersection was already rated at an "F". She stated what would change though is the length of time people would have to wait to make turns off of and onto Hamline Avenue. She stated the rcsidents did not mind developing this property, but this particular usage was wrong. She stated the residcnts worked very hard on this and she encouraged the developer to come up with a different usage fot this property. She stated this was not the only usage for this land and encouraged the City to look at this further and listen to the passion of the residents. Elwood Caldwell, 1451 Arden View Drive, representing the Board of Directors of Arden Hills North Homes Association, stated they have looked at the latest sign proposal and they wanted the signage reduced per their recommendation. He requested they strike the permission for extra signage on the north side of buildings 19-23 and replace condition 25 with their recommended condition. He recommended they look at their comments regarding gutters and downspouts. He stated while they were not happy about having the development, if this parcel gcts developed, he encouraged them to keep their concerns and recommendations in mind. tit Mr. Lehnhoff stated he had discussed gutters and downspouts with the City Engineer and it was determined it would probably not make a difference, but they could accommodate either one. Jim Hartso, President of Townhouse Villages Homeowners Association, stated their only access to get out was on Hamline Avenue and at 7:30 a,m. they had to wait at least five minutes to get out of their development. He expressed concern that this development would add to that congestion. He stated the development was fine, but should be more limited than it was. Gerry Guzi, 1266 Nursery Hill Lane, stated this development did not work at this location. He statcd this would be a nightmare for traffic and it would be a pedestrian safety issue. I.,arry Stark stated the kinds of businesses going into this development would bring into the City a lot of people who were not from the area and with the strange traffic flow they were proposing, people would get lost and create a lot more accidents. Jeanine Yates, 1394 Arden View Drive, stated she has almost gotten hit twice because people going south did not like the fact that people were turning right onto Arden View and passed them in the turning lane. She stated there was so much opposition that that she felt the Council needed to listen to the residents. She stated traffic would get worse with this development. Mayor Aplikowski stated Council was listening and they acknowledged there was a traffic issue in this area. . -. . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 15 Ben Stevens, Rice Street, Shoreview, stated he understood nothing has changed hands yet. He indicated he was pro development and he liked to see development with jobs being created. He stated when someone owned property and it was zoned appropriately, they can do what they want with their property. Hc stated Rice Creek Watershed had not said yes to this development. He expressed concern the daycare would need to purchase a large sump pump. He stated all of the comments regarding traffic were right. He expressed concern about the added dangers of people trying to exit and enter the daycare center. He stated when TCAAP came in that would really add to the problems. He stated the residents needed the 6.38 acres as a buffer from Highway 96 and the arsenal. He asked what was wrong with leaving 6.38 acres as open space when they had all of the TCAAP property they can develop. He stated if the Council did not listen to its residents, the residents would make their decisions at the polls. Mike Black, Royal Oaks Realty, stated they have been working with the City for almost three years and they were really trying to work with the residents. He stated one message that has been sent was that the citizens had to participate in the Planning Commission, the Comprehensive Plan, etc. because that was what the developers relied on. He stated they attempted to work within the zoning standards set by the City and they were not exceeding the zoning standards with this proposal. He stated according to the zoning guidelines, this development fit into the City's plan. He believed this was an appropriate use for the property. He stated if anything had gone wrong, thc citizens should have been working with the City on the Comprehensive Plan and zoning standards a long time ago. He stated if the zoning would not allow this type of a development, they would not be here tonight. He stated they had substantially increased their offer for the property based on the appraisal. He acknowledged these decisions were not easy. He stated they had no issues with revising the landscaping plans as requested. He stated they were willing to put in additional green space in the parking areas. He stated the issue of lighting was not an issue and they would work with staff on this. He stated they would look at the downspouts and drainage and work with staff on this also. Mayor Aplikowski asked if they could add a signal at Keithson or North Heights Church. She asked if this would make any difference. Mr. Soler stated obviously putting in a traffic signal at Keithson and 96 would make it easier to access Keithson and it would make U-turns easier, but traffic signals were not without problems. He noted traffic signals increased rear end accidents. He stated they had to weigh the benefits and negatives of adding signals at these points. Councilmember Larson stated he agreed the visibility off of Keithson was not good. He asked if the need warrants a no U-turn sign at that location. Mr. Soler stated if they find a location where a lot of U-turns were being made and there was a site problem, a "No U-turn" signs could be added. He stated right now they were not seeing any issues with U-turns at this location. Council member Grant inquired about another access point on Highway 96. Mr. Soler responded he would prefer only one access, but they could work with two accesses with appropriate signage and separation of traffic. Councilmember Larson left the meeting at 9:39 p.m. and returned at 9:40 p.m. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 16 Mayor Aplikowski asked if the drainage was going to be appropriate. Ms. Giga responded it was common for Rice Creek Watershed District to request additional information after receiving the initial information. e Mayor Aplikowski asked if there was some value to the "green" parking lots. Mr, Black responded there could be, but they have not looked at this option. He stated right now they were exceeding the open space requirement on this development and this was not a dense development. Councilmember Grant stated he believed a big issue was the signage and he supported four square foot sign age. He stated he proposed they went back to the previous motion for four square foot of sign age. Mr. Lehnhoff stated that the motion from last year permitted up to four square feet of signage, but this did not refer to the monument signage, which was 33 square feet. Mr. Black stated they had made a lot of compromises, but they could not have four square feet of signage if the City really wanted an office park in this location. He indicated they needed the signage they were requcsting. He stated they cannot and would not compromise on signage. He reviewed the signage they wcre proposing. He stated people who drove into these facilities, had to find the business they were looking for. He indicated they wanted a quality development. He noted the City Hall had signage facing Highway 96 on the building that exceeded four square feet. He did not bclieve their signage was out of character for what they had already approved in the corridor. Councilmember Grant stated he believed the signage they were looking for was for cars traveling on Highway 96 at 50 mph, but he did not believe people in a parking lot needed those large of signs. He noted 14" letters were too large . Council member Larson stated he was in favor ofthe project going forward. He noted they had a number of people who had expressed concern about this development going in their backyard, which he understood because he had a similar issue in his neighborhood. He stated for him as a City Councilmember, he could not think of one major development that did not have a group of people objecting to the development because it did change their neighborhood, but he did not find the argument persuasive as to how he should vote on this property. He stated the City should not be in the business of land speculating and the City had always intended on developing this property. He indicated the City would realize approximately 2 million dollars from this project. He stated the City would also be receiving tax revenue on this property and to not develop the property would affect the entire City and not just this neighborhood. With respect to trdnsportation issues, they have a proposal for a right-in, right-out on Hamline Avenue as well as a traffic study. He stated he had to put his trust in the traffic engineers and their recommendations/decisions. He stated when he looked at this development, part of the value of the POD was that they could ask the developer to do things that under regular zoning they could not ask him to do. He believed this development was attractive and he had a difficult time understanding what argument was going to be made that they should not go forward with this development. He indicated he did believe there was too much signage on this development and agreed with Councilmember Grant. He suggested they increase the size of the monument sign on Highway 96. He stated the best way to make decisions was to use his best judgment and weigh all of the arguments and listen to what the people had to say and then cast a vote. He stated he did want to see less signage on the property.a . - tit ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 17 Councilmember Pellegrin stated he lived in a similar situation where a wooded area was being subdivided. He stated he had approved this subdivision, even though he would like to see it remain as it was, but he could not do that because tbe subdivision was the best thing for the City. He stated he supported this development and it was the right thing to do. He agreed the signage needed to be reduced. He acknowledged change was never easy and it would not be accepted by everyone. He stated he had heard a lot of emotion, but not very many facts and he had to look at the facts. He believed the right-in, right-out was a good compromise for the traffic on Hamline Avcnue. He stated no Councilmember would have any personal gain from this development and there was nothing further from the truth. He stated the Council had spent many hours on this development. He noted "one man's freedom, was another man's hardship" and they needed to do the greatest good for the entire community. Councilmember Grant statcd he was reminded of a couple of other developments in the City (County Road E2 and Cleveland specifically) where the residents opposed the development. He stated the perceived amount of impact of traffic, environment, etc. was great. He stated the development had gone in and there had been no concerns about traffic and hc had received positive comments regarding the development. He noted the fears were larger than the reality. He stated another development of great concern for the residents was off of County Road D and Cleveland. He stated once the development went in there was also no negative comments. He noted the perception of what was going to happen was far worse than the reality. He stated they needed to make their decision based on the best interest of the City. He indicated the property would be dcveloped and would not remain open space. He stated they had to make a decision and it appeared to be a reasonable use of the property. He stated the question they needed to determine was how to make this happen in a reasonable manner. He stated he had issues with signage, as well as many other issues to discuss. Mayor Aplikowski stated she also had concerns that needed to be addressed. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Pellegrin seconded a motion to approve Planning Case 06-023; Master and Final Planned Unit Development & Preliminary, Plat Royal Oaks Realty, Inc., 1440 - 1450 West Highway 96 subject to the plans submitted and the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and as amended by the City Council. COllncilmember Grant stated there was too much sign age on thc project and it cheapened the development. He recommcnded signage of 10 inches x 8 feet. Mr. Black stated they were only asking for one sign per tenant. He noted if a building was occupied by one tenant, there would only be one sign. Mayor Aplikowski stated she was having a problem with the 14" signage. She asked if the letters would have to be 14". Mr. Black responded if they had to go to smaller signage, they could reluctantly do that. . Mayor Aplikowski askcd if Councilmember Grant would be willing to allow them 12" letters. COllucilmember Grant stated he believed 10" lettering across the parking lot was reasonable. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 2S, 2006 IS Councilmember Larson stated he could live with the signage as it was proposed now, but he would like to not see the lettering on the sides of the building. Mr. Black stated if they had to go to 10" lettcrs, they could consider that, but they needed the signage on the end units. II Mr, Filla askcd what was the date of the completed application. Mr. Lehnhoff responded July 25, 2006. Mr. Filla noted Council needed a motion to go beyond 10:00 p.m. MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Mayor Aplikowski seconded a motion to extend the mecting to no later than midnight. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Pellegrin seconded a motion to amend his motion that the signage proposed adjacent to the entrances be allowed as proposed, but the signs on the ends of the buildings be removed facing Highway 96 and they approve the larger sign on the outside of the single building that has its back to Highway 96 recognizing there is no signage on the south side ofthc building. Mr. Lehnhoff noted under Condition 25a. 2'xlO' would need to be changed to 14"xlO'. Under 25b. 2'xI0' would need to be changed to 14"xlO'. Condition 25c. would be struck. Condition 25e one square foot would need to be changed to two square feet. .. Council member Larson withdrew his motion. MOTION: Councilmember Larson movcd and Councilmember Pellegrin seconded a motion to amend Condition 25 to be amended as follows: Paragraph 25a. bc revised to state...each unit shall be permitted one 14"xI0' sign.... Paragraph 25b. be revised to state ...shall be permitted one 14"xI0' sign... .Paragraph 26c is struck. Paragraph 25d to remain as proposed. Paragraph 25e to be revised to state ...permitted up to 1.3xl.6 square foot. The motion carried (3- I Councilmember Grant opposed). Councilmember Grant stated he wanted conditions added for the downspouts. MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to add Condition 33 to add the downspouts consistent with the 2005 amendment. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Pellegrin seconded a motion to provide sufficient space for landscaping in two islands in the western parking lot and six islands in the central parking lot subject to approval by the City Planner. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). . - . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 19 MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to move units 19-23 be moved to the south and the parking lot be placed to the north thereby removing the parking lot facing the townbome association and the Hamline Avenue access still remain. Mayor Aplikowski stated she did not see any rationale for this. Councilmember Grant stated he was not proposing to remove the trees or the green space. Councilmember Larson asked what the developer's reaction was to this. Mr. Eibenhsteiner responded this was a total deal breaker and if that is what they wanted, they would not build the development. He noted this put the huildings farther from Highway 96 and it would eliminate the walkouts. He stated they wanted them to vote on their proposal presented. He stated this would require them to reengineer the entire project. The motion failed (1-3 Councilmembers Pellegrin, Larson and Mayor Aplikowski opposed). MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to add a condition number 35 the design of the retention pond to flow only toward the County ditch. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Pellegrin seconded a motion to add a condition number 36 to require the retention pond have an aerator, water feature or decoration so the pond remains e1ean. The motion failed (2-2 Councilmember Larson and Mayor Aplikowski opposed). Councilmember Grant asked if any drainage would go to the City's storm sewer system. Mr. Black responded there would be some drainage into the storm sewer system, but it would be a small amount. Councilmember Larson asked for comments regarding the citizens who had a concern about 18 wheel vehicles. Mr. Eibenhsteiner responded this would not be a problem because they would post a sign that there is no construction traffic allowed on Hamline Avenue, so the only access would be off of Highway 96. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Pellegrin seconded a motion to add condition number 36 that all construction vehieles entering the site enter from only eastbound Highway 96. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). Councilmember Grant asked what types of trees they were putting in for barriers. He asked if they could put in all coniferous trees. Mr, Black responded there would be a mix of trees and they would be willing to work with staff on this. Mr. Lehnhoff responded it was staffs recommendation to put in a mix of trees in the event a disease killed one tree species. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 20 Councilmember Grant asked what the material of the canopies would be. Mr. Eibenhsteiner responded they would be plain canvas in color to coordinate with the rest ofthe materials. - MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved a motion to remove the canopies from the project. The motion failed for a lack of a second. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Pellegrin seconded a motion to add condition 25h. to state the canopies shall be without numbers or words. The motion carried (3-1 Councilmember Grant opposed). Councilmember Grant asked how long did the Council have until they had to make a decision. Mr. Lehnhoff responded they had two months with a 60 day extension. Councilmember Grant stated he did not believe they should vote on this motion because he did not believe they would have the votes for this and they should wait for Councilmember Holden to attend thc meeting. MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved a motion to table this decision to a Council meeting when all Council members are present. The motion failed for lack of a second. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Pellegrin seconded a motion to have a ten minute recess. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). . The meeting was rcccssed at 11:0 I p.m. and reconvened at 11: 12 p,m. MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to remove Condition 25.h. and add condition 37 that there shall be no awnings/canopies. The motion carried (3- I Mayor Aplikowski opposed). MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to amend items 25a. and 25b. to read JO"xJO' rather than 14"xJO'. Councilmember Pellegrin asked how the developer felt about this. Mr. Eibenhsteiner responded this was a deal breaker. Councilmember Pellegrin stated he did not see Councilmember Grant's concerns regarding the signage. Mayor Aplikowski agreed. She asked Councilmember Grant to explain his rationale. Councilmember Grant stated large signage would not blend into the development and he was concerned it would look like a strip mall. Councilmember Larson stated he was an advocate of the City establishing expectations different from other cities and signage was part of this. He stated he agreed that this was a place they werc going as a destination and not a place someone would happen on. He stated the signage was there to guide someone to a location and he supported the amendment. . - tit . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 21 Mayor Aplikowski stated while it might be thought the tougher a City was the better development they would get, but she did not believe this was always the case. She stated signage in the long TUn really did not make a difference and she would vote no on this amendment. The motion canied (3-1 Mayor Aplikowski opposed). Original motion canicd unanimously (4-0). C. Extension of Closing Date for Unit Development of Roval Oaks Mr. Filla asked thc developer if they still wished to have the closing date on the Development Agreement extcnded to September 29, 2006. Mr. Eibenhsteiner responded he agreed to the extension of the closing date, but he wanted the City to realize he still had the option to not close on thc property. MOTION: Mayor Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to approve extending the closing date to September 29, 2006. The motion canied unanimously (4-0). D. Celebrating Arden Hills Recap Ms. Olson recapped the Celebrating Arden Hills event for the Council. Councilmember Larson asked if there was anyway to gauge an increase or decrease in the event by ticket sales. Ms. Olson stated she had tried to corne up with a system this year with log sheets, but she believed the bad weather was a big factor this year. She stated when it started to rain, attendance fell off, but the event started out very well. Mayor Aplikowski stated she liked the idea of getting more volunteers for this event in the future. She thanked staff for all of their hard work at the event. She believed this was a worthwhile event for the City, but they needed to increase the revenue. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Motion to Approve the Chesapeake Propertv - Brownfield Remediation Grant Contracts Ms. Barton stated at the April 24, 2006 City Council meeting, Council approved Resolutions 06- 31 and 06-32 authorizing the application for contamination clean-up grants from the Minnesota Department ofEmployrnent and Economic Development (DEED), Ramsey County, and the Metropolitan Council, on behalf of Chesapeake Companies for Brownfield remediation at the former ATS site, 1901 Gateway Boulevard, subject to the following conditions: 1. Execution of a secured reimbursement agreement between the City and Chesapeake Companies, in a form approved by the City Attorney; 2. Execution of a performance agreement between the City and Chesapeake Companies, in a fornl approved by the City Attorney; and ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 22 3. Chesapeake Companies must apply for a Final Plan approval prior to any grant-related remediation work being started on the site. MOTION: Councilmember Pellegrin moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to approve the DEED and the Met Council grant contracts for the Brownfield remcdiation at the Chesapeake property, located at 1901 Gateway Boulevard, and authorize staff to execute said contracts. Diane Fredeen, representative of Chesapeake, updated Council on the Chesapeake development. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). B. TCAAP Update Ms, Barton updated on the Council on recent TCAAP developments. 9. COUNCIL REQUESTS None. Mayor Aplikowski adjourned the Regular City Council meeting at 11:45 p.m. Beverly Aplikowski Mayor Michelle Wolfe City Administrator NOTICE OF MEETINGS The next Council Meeting will be held Monday, September 11, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. at the Arden Hills Council Chambers. . - " . .. . . ~ ~HILLS Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA WORK SESSION MEETING AUGUST 21, 2006; 5:00 P.M. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Beverly Aplikowski called to order the work session meeting at 5:05 p.m. Present: Mayor Beverly Aplikowski, Councilmembers David Grant, Gregg Larson, Brenda Holden (6:15 pm), and Vincent Pellegrin Absent: None Also present were City Administrator, Michelle Wolfe; Community Development Director, Karen Barton; Civil Engineer, Kris Giga; Assistant City Administrator, Schawn Johnson; Parks and Recreation Manager, Michelle Qlson; Public Works Superintendent, Jim Perron; Ramsey County Sheriffs Department Undersheriff, George Altendorfer; and Ramsey COlmty Lieutenant, Mike Salter Ramsev County Sheriffs Department Annual Update- City Administrator Michclle Wolfe provided the City Council with an overview of the proposed 2007 Ramsey County Sheriffs Department budget for the contract cities and the possible implementation of administrative tags for traffic violations. Ramsey County Undersheriff George Altendorfer provided members of the City Council with a power point presentation reviewing the number of emergency calls, crime statistics, and proposed changes in the 2007 budget. The proposed changes in the 2007 budget are the following: I. Full year of the 2nd Traffic Deputy (Implemented in 2006); 2. I % Salary Increase; 3. PERA increase to 11.7%; 4. Insurance Benefit Increases; 5. Increase in Motor V chicle Supplies. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 21, 2006 2 Councilmember Grant asked what is causing the increased number of calls in Arden Hills from the years 2000 to 2005. e Undersheriff Altendorfer stated that the increased number of calls is due to an increased demand by the public for non-emergency services and an increase in the number of auto thefts in this area. Councilmember Pellegrin asked if Ramsey County Sheriffs Department responds to medical calls. Undersheriff George Altendorfer said that the Ramsey County Sheriffs Department are trained first responders and have oxygen and defibrillators in their vehicles. Councilmember Larson asked if it was necessary to have Ramsey County Sheriffs Department, Lake Johanna Fire Department, and Allina Medical responding to the same medical call. Undersheriff Altendorfer agreed that it would appear to be inefficient to have all three groups respond to medical calls, but the fire, police, and ambulance services do have overlapping scrvices that work together at the scene of an accident. Councilmember Larson asked what is the basis for the cost difference between the seven contract citics for law enforcement services. Undersheriff George Altendorfer noted that each community has different staffing needs. For example, North Oaks recently requested a full time Community Service Officer. The additional costs for this service were passed on to the City of North Oaks. . Councilmember Pellegrin asked how the City is being billed for law enforcement services. He noted that he rarely sees a squad car in his neighborhood. Undersheriff Altendorfer said that the City of Arden Hills pays for twenty-four hours of law enforcement service. The City does receive more service on major roadways due to the location of the station. It is a shared resource amongst the seven contract cities. Councilmember Pellegrin expressed concern about the lack of twenty-four hour patrol service in Arden Hills. Undersheriff Altendorfer staled that the Ramsey County Sheriffs Department has a maximum of nine squad cars out during the afternoon shift and a minimum of five squad cars after midnight. The delivery of service will vary from city to city due to the call level. Councilmember Larson asked how the Ramsey County Sheriffs Department assigns shifts to the differcnt deputies. . e . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 21, 2006 3 Undersheriff Altcndorfcr said if a deputy does call in sick, the squad is not filled for that particular shift. If the deputy is scheduled to be on extended absence, the squad coverage will be split between the different squad cars that are available on the streets. City Administrator Michelle Wolfe noted that the deputy assigned to squad #2458 has been injured on duty twice this past year. Therefore, the City received less patrol coverage during that time period. COlmcilmember Grant asked why the Rice Creek back-up squad does not back-up the #2458 squad car. City Administrator Wolfe said that the Rice Creek squad car works the 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM shift. There is no back-up for the evening or midnight shift. Councilmember Grant said that he is concerned about the lack of police presence m the neighborhoods. Undersheriff Altendorfer said that it may be a good time for the City to evaluate the nced for additional law enforcement resources in the community. Councilmember Larson said that he is concerned about the City issuing administrative tags. City Administrator Wolfe said that the intent of using administrative fines is to minimize legal fees and be morc proactive in changing the behavior of an individual. The contract cities are currcntly studying the administrative fine process. Councilmember Holden noted t11at she has seen an increased law enforcement presence in her neighborhood. CIP Uodate- Civil Engineer Kris Giga provided the City Council with an overview of the City's proposed Capital Improvement Plan based upon their previous discussions. The following is a list of projects that are scheduled to be completed in 2006: . 2006 PMP Project; . Vaughn Tower Access Road-$17,603.28; . 3 I 53 Shoreline Driveway;-$15,562.56; . Sanitary Sewer (1&1) Mitigation-$ J 5,000. The following projects have been delayed or removed from the 2006 CIP list; . Emergency Vehicle Preemption Devices-2007; . Gateway Signs-Reevaluating the project at this time. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 21, 2006 4 The 2006 PMP project has begun. The general contractor is beginning street work along Skiles Lane. Work is scheduled to begin on Ridgewood Road next week. Ms. Giga noted that the contractor's schedule could change frequently due to site conditions and unexpected delays. - Ms. Giga noted that the Beach Club has signed a right of entry to allow the City onto the property to construct the storm water ponds. Once the construction is complete, the final easement document will be signed by the two parties. Civil Engineer Kris Giga noted that staff is currently working on a memorandum of understanding for each of the rain garden recipients. The memorandum will summarize the process for constructing the rain gardens. The assessment hearing is scheduled for the Augnst 28th City Council meeting. Civil Engineer Kris Giga noted that she has received residential concerns regarding the assessment of the retaining wall proposed on the west side of Siems Court. Some of the residents believe that the retaining wall only bcnefits a few of the residents. rfthe retaining wall is removed from the project the City would have to spend similar amount of funding for grading and driveway reconstruction which would still require some retaining wall construction. City staff is also recommending that the City Council consider holding the public hearing on August 28th and continue the hearing until the next meeting. Staff would have the opportunity to prepare a report addressing the concerns being expressed by the residents. . Councilmember Larson agreed that it would be beneficial to the City Council to have the background information available to make a final decision regarding the assessments. Also, it is helpful to have staff s report available for review. Resident Arlene Boutin (1600 Lake Johanna Boulevard) has submitted a preliminary plat for review at the September Planning Commission meeting to reconfigure her existing land from four lots to three lots. A portion of this area would be reconfignred to a storm water pond and enhanced wetland area. A number of trees will be removed from 1600 Lake Johanna for the installation of the stonn water pond area. The City has also received pa request from the property owner to place construction fill on her land as part of the easement acquisition agreement. City Administrator Michelle Wolfe stated that City staff will expand the public notice area regarding the storm water project due to the removal of trees along Lake Johanna. Councilmember Larson suggested to staff that they attempt to promote the win-win nature of this project to the residents. City Administrator Michelle Wolfe statcd that City Attorney Filla recommends that the City have an appraisal completed to review the sustainability of the proposed assessments. . -. . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 21,2006 5 Councilmember Larson said that this may be a bad precedent for the City to follow. He agrees that improvements should increase the value of the property, but sometimes it can be difficult to prove. Mayor Aplikowski noted that every property owner has the right to appeal the proposed assessment as an unacceptable dollar amount. Councilmember Grant stated that the project value increased due to the dollar value of construction materials, bituminous, and cement. City Administrator Wolfe said that state law requires the City to justifY the proposed assessment cost. Mayor Aplikowski requested that future 2006 PMP project letters be included in their weekly packets. Civil Engineer Kris Giga provided the City Council with an overview of the proposed 2007 CIP projects. The following is a list of the proposed 2007 Capital Improvement Projects: . 2007 Mill and Overlay/Sealcoat PMP Project; . Old Highway 10lCP Rail Bridge Project; . Storm Pond Maintenance; . Inflowllnfiltration (I&I) Project; . Cummings Park Reconstruction of the Hard Courts; . Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption Devices; . Water Tanker; . Trail Maintenance Plan. Councilmembcr Grant asked why the proposed 2007 CIP splits the Amble and McCracken neighborhoods for mill and overlay improvements. According to the map put together by GoodePointe Technologies, the road conditions were considered adequate. Civil Engineer Kris Giga noted that all streets are segmented block by block by GoodPointe Technologies. City staff and GoodPointe Technologies have reviewed the grading of the road surface and agree with the rating. City staff will continuously reevaluate the road conditions of the areas that are scheduled for mill and overlay or seal coating prior to recommending an improvement project to the City Council. City Administrator Michelle Wolfe recommended to the City Council that GoodPointe Technologies may be able to evaluate the condition of the City's current trail system. This would assist City staff in creating a future maintenance plan tor the City's trail system. Councilmember Holden asked about the status of the lift station improvements. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 21, 2006 6 City Administrator Michelle Wolfe said that the City has placed the lift station project in the unassigned project list until 2012. City staff will review the need for a new SCADA system prior to recommending the reconstruction of the four remaining lift stations. e Assistant City Administrator Schawn Johnson provided the City Council with a status report regarding the current condition of the City's 1989 International Water Truck. City staff is concerncd that the brake system on the existing water truck is not adequate for safely hauling large quantities of water throughout the City. Members of the Public Works Department have reported that the brake pads, rotors, valves, springs and brake line have all been replaced in the last three years due to wear and tear and corrosion on the vehicle caused by routinely transporting 1800 gallons of water. Also, a number of the U-bolts that are attached from the water tank to the truck chassis are beginning to rust away and the timbers located between the tank and the truck body is showing signs of rotting. Members of the City Council werc in agreement that the City should budget $105,000 for a new water truck in the 2007 CIP. Civil Engineer Kris Giga stated that at the last work session, members of the City Council requested additional information from staff regarding the proposed County Road E sidewalk improvement project. City staff anticipates submitting an application to the State of Minnesota for Cooperative Agreement funding for installing a new sidewalk along County Road E. Councilmember Grant asked about Ramsey County's future plans for County Road E. . Civil Engineer Kris Giga said that County Road E is listed as eligible for funding in 2008, but the earliest funding available would 201 I and only if the County applies for federal funding. Councilmember Larson said that the County Road E sidewalk issue has been a divisive issue amongst the City Council. Mcmbers of the City Council will have to openly discuss this issue and see if we can get public support for this project. He recommended that the County Road E sidewalk issue be discussed at a future public hearing. COlmcilmember Holden noted that it is important for the City Council to review the engineering reports for this project. City Administrator Wolfe said that City staff has kept the project figures for County Road E up- to-date and it should be fairly easy for staff to complete the cooperative agreement funding application information. Mayor Aplikowski stated that the City Council must also address utility issues and the relocation of a garage prior to making any final decisions. Councilmember Grant noted that the utility lines run on both sides of County Road E. . - . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 21, 2006 7 CounciIrnember Pellegrin requested background information pertaining to the County Road E sidewalk discussion. Civil Engineer Kris Giga asked the City Council if they would like to have a neighborhood meeting on this issue. Councilmember Larson said that it would be good to receive resident input regarding this project. Members of the City Council agreed that a discussion should be held at the September 11th City Council meeting to gain public input on this matter. Councilmember Larson said that it is important for the City to find additional revenue for park improvement projects. Members of the City Council need to have a discussion regarding how we are going to fund future park improvements. City Administrator said that it would be in the City's best interest to review the City's philosophy for funding improvement and maintenance projects. Councilmember Grant said that he agrees that additional funding is needed for park improvements, but the City had invested a lot of money in the Cummings Park shelter, Perry Park ball fields, park signage, and other improvements that have been completed over the past two to three years. City Administrator Michelle W oJfe noted that the City of Shoreview has recently started to bond for street improvement proj ects such as mill & overlays and that a fiscal analysis of this approach would be helpful to the City of Arden Hills. Councilmember Pellegrin said it scems like the City Council is always trying to play catch-up with important improvement projects. Members of the City Council were agreeable to revlewmg the funding option for future improvement projects. City Administrator Michelle Wolfe recommended to the City Council that the City should also review the utility rates for 2007. She is concerned about available funding in the enterprise funds for future utility improvements. 2007 Budl!et Uudate- City Administrator Michelle Wolfe provided the City Council with an overview of the proposed 2007 budget and levy. The following is an overview of some ofthe proposed changes to the 2007 budget; I. Salaries are currently based on the existing compensation plan and a 2.75% annual adjustment on January 1,2007. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 21, 2006 8 2. Since the July meeting, the City was notified that our health insurance premiums will increase 7%, which is significantly less than the 20% we projected. The 7% figure has hccn included in the preliminary budget document. The summary includes the 2007 CIP proposals as reflected in the CIP program outlined in Item 2B of the August 21 Work Session. Other employee benefit rates have been included and the City is not expecting any significant changes to those numbers. Utility rate changes and rate increases (i.e. water) have been included. - 3. 4. 5. City Administrator Michelle Wolfe noted if the council adopts a preliminary levy of 4%, this will translate into a $100,949 increase from 2006 budget. The preliminary levy needs to be certified to Ramsey County by September IS, 2006. City Council approval of the preliminary levy can be done at the August 28th or September I I th meeting. At the July Work Session, the City Council directed staff to assume a 4% levy increase for purposes of preparing the hudget. At this time, City staff is recommending that the preliminary levy, at a minimum, include a 4% increase. Staff believes the 4% levy would cover the City's estimated expenditures in 2007. The 4% increase would leave minimal savings for the City to cover any unexpected costs that may arise next year or for future capital expenditures. A final levy will be established and certified in December. Ouce a preliminary levy is established, the amount can be reduced, but it cannot be increased. Mayor Aplikowski suggested that the City Council adopt a preliminary levy of 6%. The City Council could always drop the final levy down to 4% if desired by the City Council. City Administrator Wolfe said that she is also concerned about future public safety capital expenditures. . Councilmember Grant recommended a 4% levy for 2007. Councilmembcr Larson supports the idea of a 6% preliminary levy. It will give City Council and City staff more time to review the needs of the City. Mayor Aplikowski said that it is important for the City to have a cushion to address unexpected costs that may arise next year. A majority ofthe City Council was in agreement that the preliminary levy should be set at 6%. This itcm will be discussed further at the September 11 th City Council meeting. Members oftl1e City Council requested information regarding the City's previous levies and information regarding the proposed levies for other neighboring communities. Auditor's RFP Report/Recruitment Update- City Administrator Michelle Wolfe provided members of the City Council with an overview of the Auditor's RFP process. Members of the City Council directed staffto conduct a Request-for- Proposals (RFP) process for the City Auditor. The City has had the same firm as City Auditor . - .. . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 21, 2006 9 for many years and it was agreed that it would be appropriate to conduct an RFP and evaluate the proposals we receive. Former Finance Director Siddiqui prepared an RFP and distributed it in June 2006. The City received five proposals. Mr. Siddiqui and Accounting Analyst Michelle Bruley have reviewed and scored the proposals. Originally Mr. Siddiqui had hoped to select a City Auditor by the end of August. However, his resignation has resulted in a delay in the auditor selection process. City Administrator Wolfc rccommcnded that one or two members of the City Council participate in the interviews process. The following is an outline of the proposed selection process: Staff review of proposals and selection of finalists Interview of two-three finalists Appointment of Auditor Augnst Late August-Early September September 25 Regular Meeting Councilmember Pellegrin said that he would be interested in serving on the interview panel for the auditor. City Administrator Michelle Wolfe also noted that City staff has started the recruitment process for the vacant Finance Director and Public Works Director positions. The first round of interviews will take place the week of September 4th. City Administrator Wolfe asked if any of the City Councilmembers would be interested in participating in the second round of interviews for the two positions. Councilmember Larson said that he would be interested in participating in the Finance Director interview process. Councilmember Pellegrin said that he would like to participate in the Public Works Director interviews. Councilmembers Holden and Grant indicated thcy would be interested in participating in the interview process iftheir schedules allow. Public Input at City Conncil Meetinl!s- City Administrator Michelle Wolfe noted at the July 31 City Council meeting; there was consensus amongst the City Council to have a work session discussion regarding public input at public meetings. The following is a list of discussion items: ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 21, 2006 10 I. Public Hearings - The purpose for a public hearing is typically based in statute or city code. The purpose of a public hearing is to hear public input, and there are processes and formats for conducting public hearings. Items not on the Agenda - We have a specific item on the regular meeting agendas tor anyone wishing to address Council regarding an item not on the agenda: "Public Inquiries/Informational" . Items on the Agenda, and not a Public Hearing - This is often where city councils are unclear in terms of if and when to provide for public comment. This is one area that may need some discussion. Work Sessions - Work sessions are specifically designed for the Mayor and City Council to discuss topics as a Council. Work sessions are open to the public but typically the public is not invited to speak. 2. 3. 4. Councilmcmber Holdcn inquired about the rules for public input at City Council meetings. Councilmember Larson said in the past, the City COlillcil has allowed the public to speak at mcctings. Mayor Aplikowski said that the City Council typically allows the public to speak at the City Council meetings. It is important that the City Council requires the public to complete a public comment form and set time limits for comments. In the future City staff will forward the completed comment cards to thc Mayor during the City Council meetings. City Administrator Michelle Wolfe asked for input from the City Council regarding the scheduling of a neighborhood meeting or town hall meeting. Members of the City Council agreed at a previous work session meeting not to schedule four neighborhood meetings in 2006 due to declining attendance, Mayor Aplikowski recommended hosting one neighborhood meeting at City Hall on a Tuesday or Wednesday night. Councilmembcr Larson suggested a Saturday morning event where mcmbers of the Ramsey County Sheriffs Department, Lake Johanna Fire Department, and other City related organizations could attend and set-up informational booths for the residents. Members of City staff will review the City's calendar and suggest a future date for the town hall mecting. Council Comments and ReQuests- Councilmember Larson asked for an update regarding the removal of the antenna next to Mounds View High School by the MnDOT. - .. . - - . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 2 I, 2006 II Councilmember Larson reported that approximately six to seven cars are being parked in front of home on the north side County Road E. He requested that the City's Building Inspector investigate the situation. Councilmember Larson requested that the TCAAP signs located on Highway 96 and Highway 10 be saved by the City for historical purposes. Mayor Aplikowski adjourned the Work Session meeting at 9:05 p.m. Beverly Aplikowski Mayor Michelle A. Wolfe City Administrator ... Prepared by: Michelle BruleYulL .. Depl.: Finance \'\V Council Mtg. Date: September 11,2006 Final Action Needed By: September 11, 2006 ~ ~HILLS City ot Arden Hills Request for Council Action Agenda Item~t~~ Claims & Payroll Budgeted Amount: Across City BudQet - All Funds Actual Amount: See Financial Implications Funding Source: Across City Budllet - All Funds Council Action Request: Reyiew and Approve Consent Agenda Item 3.A. - Claims and Payroll Staff Recommendation: Approve Consent Agenda Item 3.A. - Claims and Payroll Advisory Commission Action: Commission Planning PTRC Date Action Not Applicable Not Applicable Not applicable " -SupportingDocunlllnts fwhichareattachedlO thjsActionForm): o Memo/Letter: ... o Resolution (No. ) o Ordinance (No, ) o Engineering Recommendation: o Attorney Recommendation: o Other: Payroll and Claims Reports Financial Implications: Payroll #17- $54,085.89 Accounts Payable Claims Since 8/28/06 Council Meeting: 1. Paid Claims - Batch 011-08-2006: 2. Unpaid Claims - Batch 012-08-2006: Claims Total AdministratorlStaff Comments: $ 517,149.99 $ 100.153.10 $ 617,303.09 . Page 1 of 1 - . . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS CHECKS DATED 812512006 (PIR . 17) SECOND ALGUST PAYROLL ~EMPLO\'EENil.l\Ili> ' 'II (Biweeklv, 8/5/06 to. 8/18/06) 1,..'F.iVInW..El<:'J)Wl)(i:rIONS'.. I" '..'A~(f, :,:,'\qTY~l<:N};fnJ FIT 3,816_79 SIT 1,684,08 FleA Oasdi 2,821.79 2,821.79 FICA Medicare 659,97 659.97 ITOTAL TAXES I 8,982.631 3,481.76 1 Freppert, Jackie Johnson, Schawll Silseth, Pang Sweeney, Pamela Wolfe. Michelle Barton, Karen B'lL Sandra Bruley, Michelle Lehnhoff, James Mennenga, John ScheIbel, David Siddioui, Murtuza .Andrews. Aaron Freyberger, Scott Mooney, Joseph Perron, James Nowlan, Anthonv Saxe, PeLe Schifskv. Mike Winkel, David Frid, Jeffrev Olson, Michelle Bcr~cr, Brian Bruhn-Ding, jake Harris. Robert Krue2.cr, Elizabeth Lynch, Rvan Wei~elt, Matthew Bellan, Colleen Carlson, Kristie Diemer, Christopher Ccronsky, Katherine Dahlberg., f\manda Delano, Daniel Delano, Jennifer Hoxmeier, Peter Rheault. Kathleen FSA Health Premium 1,260,00 FSA Dental Premium 229,99 FSA lIealth Care Reimb_ 459.37 FSA Denendenl Care Reimb. 416,66 rrOTAL FLEXIBLE SPENDING 1 2,366.021 0,00 t PERA ',308.86 2.51878 leMA 1,418,98 432_93 Central Pension Fund~Union 614.40 ITOT AI. RETIREMENT 1 4,342,241 2,951.71 t Atlinitv Plus Federal Credit Union 3,09333 IUOf 49 Dues Union ]2000 L TD!STD Insurance 20624 PERA.. Life Insurance 30,00 Life! AddllDeo Life 147,30 UnitedWav Mn Child Sunnort 391.50 3,782.13\ 206,24 t ITOTAL VOLUNTARY Total Emolovee Deductions 19,473,02 NetPavroU 10.344,61 Direct Denosit 20,72 J.85 Gross PavIOII Tie~Out 47.446, I 8 Plus Cit" Paid Benefit 6,639,71 IC!\1A Benefit Held 0,00 ITOTAL PAYROLL COST 1 54,085.89 I II'Kil.'n'!S"DUT I Gross Payroll ,"17.446]8 Less Total FSA 2,366_02 Plus Employer Match ICMh.. 432.93 Net PIR Subject to FICA 45,513.09 FICA Oasdl@ 6.20% 2,821.79 FICA Medicare@ 1.45% 65997 Note: Federal and State Payroll Tax obligations are satisfied by means of utilizing the liT axteI" Electronic Tax Deposit Service. Trans- fers are typically made two business days after the payroll date. " CD ro 0- ~ 00 e 00 e 00 00 00 '" '" M M ~ ~ 00 e 00 e 00 " "' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N .., .., e 0 0 '" ~ 00 " i> M N 0 .:; ~ ,.: N 0; E C; ::l ~ ~ M ~ 00 - .., .., 00 00 00 " -. 00, ~" 0 " ~ ~ N N " " -< N N ~ .n ,.: M 00 V, ~ " M .., " 00 '" 00 00 00 00 N N M 3 M M N N M N .c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 '0 ~, ~ ~, ~ ~ M ~ ~ i " " " .c W ~ ..,; 00 0 0 'D \0 0 i2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~, N " ~ ~ " " " i2 ~ ~ 0 -e >::' " :1 " v N "7 M M M 00 0 ~ 'd 'd "' "' N 00 0\ , u .., o? o? Pi Pi ~ ~ 00 '" 00 "- "- i2 .,; S- O " "- '" tC 0 '" M "- :>: :>: :>: :>: a 0 'D , 0 '7 '" '" '" '" J; "- 0 " " "7 0 ~ e 0 E ~ ~ ~ ~ " 0 0 ~ 0 00 00 0 0 0; ~, .~ N 0 il :1 " " 0 0 0 0 " cO 1 '" "! "! "! "! 6 .c " ~ ~ :;;; :;;; ~ v '" '? '" " " " Cl :>: u 0 " " .D ~ E u E E E E 0 5. ~ :3 >> o<l co ill 0; ;:;s " v " >> >> >> >> ~ c -< p:) :Ii 0 00 0 '" '" e- o. '" W 0 "" .D ..,; C B " 00 ro ro <!) " 0 B o:l >> 6 'D 0 ~ ~ :Ii " ~ <<: ~ u co ,; ro 0; '+- 0 8 0 '" 'l Z 'D 0- " - " 0.... 0 'D " ..,; ~ .3 "- " 0 ;;: 0 co " 0 E 0 .g 0 " U'J ~ 0 > " " 00 " N 0 00 00 00 00 co 00 0 0 "' N " H U C' " ~ g. ~ ~ '" u 00 00 00 00 00 C M 0 ~ ...... 0 ~ " ;D ~ ~ 00 M M N " ~ 0 .;; ~ > :::: '" 0 .., 0 ~ .., .., .., " 00 N P- p., " '" ~ ro ro .c .., '" M .~ .., .., .., -; 2-; .., N o<l " Z b Z u 0, 0, .;, 0, 0, , 0, 0, ~ ;::l <!) .8 ~ v 00 - 0 " ~ '" c ~ 00 00 .., '" ~ es; 0 00 "3 0::: ~ '" I-< E " 0 ~ .~ CLl 0 '" .., 0 00 'n .., .., ~ c or: ~ ro 1:: 0 " M co C 00 '" '" ~ '" 0 " c o:l 0 N -i;j >. 'D e j 'T 9 0 'T 'T .., 'T 'T 'T '" 9 " >.Ll S ~ 0 0 E E ell a " ro 'lJ " 'lJ " 0 N .., ~ " 0 p:) '" E S 0 . " c 0 " 00 u 0 0 c c e 0 0 0 0 E CD " E -< 0 'r, ~ ~ ~ " 0 0 <r; 0 u 0 CI ~ 'r:: 'r:: " " a 0 ..i' -< " " a 0- 0 0- 0- (I) Z -< U U u <<: N " OIl '" p., ~ 0 ~. ~ ,~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ N ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 N N "" ~ ~ ~ '^, ~ N ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 @ '" N 6 .,; 0 .; M 6 .,; 00 vi on 6 0; .,; '<i N M ~ ....ci ~ on ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ N ~ N ~ ~ ~ 00 00 ~ ~ N N N N .;; ~ ~. ~ N c. '.0 '" - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ 0 N . N ~, N N N N N N N N N N ~ ,^, ~, .0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '^. ~ ~ ~ ," ~ '^, Z '" - ~ u 5? <( 00 0 0 - "" 0 ~ 0 0 ciS '" :;; g ~ ~ ~ b '" ~ '? 03 5 c- on :e :E '? .e 0 -< ~ ~ u 2; -< '" ~ .c f 2 " i3 8 0 ~ ~ S 0 ~ 00 '" B -i;; OJ OJ :;; :;; ;;; :0 :i: i:' ~ .e :r; :r; ~ .~ ro '" '" '" '" " , " p: " 0 '\- '-i '\- " ,;: .f' c- .~ ~ ~ :;; " u u . :;; E u 0 ~ ~ '" 0 0 u 0 u; 0<; 0 00 c;> .~ 5- 5- iC w .~ "E E EO '" ro ~ ~ 00 0 u 00 00 00 0 " " " " ~ z 9 0. 0 " ~ :': :': c 00 00 00 00 .g " >, .: "- "- c. 0 0 " - OJ " '1 ~ 0 " " f7 . p. ,= ~ 0<; 0<; 0<; 5 c ..J C. " E 00 " 0 c. 0 " ~ ."! :r; .c .c U ~ 0 0 > " Q - 0 0 0 u p: p. p. u '" 0: 0 00 "'" co :; o:l >, z ~ ~ ~ ~ ;;: l!- e :3 Z ~ s 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 , c ~ S 0 0 0 1:: '" '" '" ~ ~ ~ ::; " ~ 0 0 0 ~ c u 0 0 0 ~ N N N .5 p. 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ jj ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ N N ~ ~ Po ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'E l' l' ~ 0<; ~ '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -< ~ " 0 " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 PO '" EO c 0 " ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 " '" ~ 0 " 0 ~ ~ '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N .c ~ 0 ~ :r; c ;; ~ "" = '" ~. S N ~ " ~ ~ 0 o:l " <: ;;: ~ " 0 l' l' 0 l' l' l' l' l' l' l' l' l' 0 l' .0 l' ~ '? l' a 0 ~ ~ 0 eo . '" ;; ;; c 0 ;; N ;; ;; " - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 Ui 0 ;;: 0 -< c. ~ 8 " '5. i. u .c " ~ " " " " " ~ p., 0 i;j ~ " ,;: ,;: <( 0 0 "- C". " bD " 0.. N ~ 0 .~ ~ ~ <>- 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 N N 0 0 0 ,- ~, ~ ., .., ~ ., ., ~ '" 0 Q ~ <>- 0 Q .., '" 0 Q 0 0 ". M 0 0 0 N ... 00 ,,; '" 0 '" 0 ~ '" 0 Q 0 0 06 E :;; 0 Q '" M M ., ., ~ <>- ~ '" M '" ~ ~ N N M '" N <: ~, d: - ," M M .., ~ ~ ~ ., ~ 0 '" M " M M. M M M M M M M .., .., .=> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e 0 0 ;; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M M. M M M M ," M M M M, i '" " ~ u ~ <( 00 0 0 ''''' 0 " ~ 0 ~ '" 0 N - - "@ 0 ~ V:; C " " M 0 ~ ~ -" " " 0 C p E 0 " ,^ 0 6: . 0 "' M 0; " " ~ a :'0 E '" 2- " '0 " ,~ " " " " '" ~ :'0 " :e '" " P- o '0 " , 0 c '" " " 0 ? ? 0; E ~ c en N 0 '" " 0 en ;; c ~ ";' 3 ~ i '" c " ";' c 0 > ~ " " ~ ~ 0 0 Ci " " 0 .~ 1: @ ~ '" 00 i. :>: :>: c 6: :'0 x " 0 8- 'i' <i/j " 0 " <: ~ 'C ~ ~ '" u ,g. .s E .E 'i' ~ ~ " 0 ~ ~ u "- E " ~ " 0- 0 '" " '" " 0 ro :3 '" ~ u ~ :>: " '" en 0. u:: '" u :;; o:l oj .2 Si " C u .:( " .E e ~ '" l' 0 '" t " E 0 0 0 0 ~ S 0 E-o '0 0 .., 0 ~ ;:j .E c " M c. ~ ~ C; ~ c ~ M M M E 00 . M M N 0 N M U M " ~ :'0 M '" ~ 0 Po "2 M N N 8 .., " .., M .., N .., C M .., .., ~ '1 g .., ~ ~ .., " .., 0 N '" .., ;:j :;' u '1 " .Q 6 6 6 .~ 0 6 6 6 6 " 6 c 6 en . 0 <<: ~, 'r, ~ v 0 c 'r, " 0 0 "- 0 :>: 0 0 0 '" C N W " ,^ ~ en N 0 ~ 0. .., .:( 0 0 .~ 0 " = 'u M, M. U ", U 0 M M M " 0 ~ '" 0 > 'r, o:l 8 c '1 '1 " u '1 '1 " '1 '1 '1 ~ 9 C '1 '" 9 '1 CY .E .,f c '" U '- u ~ '" ;; ~ ;; '" ;; >- u .~ ;; 0 ;; ~ ;; '" " 0 0 0 . 0 0 z c 0 ~ N E c. 0 ;;; ." :2 '" " Z Z 0 ';c 6: "' ~ :'0 :>: :>: :>: :'0 :>: '" " co '" p., :: 0 ~ ~ N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ '" ~ 0 0 '=< 00 00 0 <:> 0 <:> '" '" 'n '" <:> '" '~ ~ ;; 00 ~ N M 0 0 0 0 c' r' ,~ r' 0 ~ V; .,; .,; E ~ ~, ~ ~ 0 <:> '" '" m m m ~ ~ 00 m ~ ... ~ " " " 0 <:> m ~ m '" <:> .., N M ,..; '" '" . ," ~ '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 00 0 7 ~ 7 7 7 7 ~ 7 7 7 .c ~ '~ ~ '~ ~ ~ >D ~ >D ~ E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 " m ," ~ m ~ ~, m m m m Z " 0 .l! w ~ <C 00 0 0 '" 0 00 '2 ~ '2 0 .:; ~ " <:::' " 0 '" 0 :'S '" ;r: <n '" >, '1 0 0 " " 00 00 0 ~ u ~ v " "' 0; OJ, N < < < < .~ ~ " " " " . .~ 2- "C:: " . " " ':\ E ~ 5 ~ ,.Q ,.Q ,.Q ,.Q " '" " " '< '< '< '< i?' ~ 0 " '" '" <;j 0 bO " t 0 00 00 ~ 00 DO " r;' " c a < < 0 DO .~ " ~ " "' :c :c :c :c 2 cO 00 0. < ~ 2 15 15 15 15 " '" '" " . " u u u u C? ::;1 ." iY ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ,\1 ~ ~ ~ ~ " u 0 ~ <;j g 0 0 0 0 " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '" N "" W N N N N iii iii -" u -;; cc !s >. " p. 'iO. " 5 p. :;; u " " '" Z ~ 0 " iO 0 0 0 S '" 1:: u C N N :: 0 u N N N ~ 00 00 < N '" N ~ U m i N N N N m m P- o ~ 7 ~ "f ~ ~ "f 7 ~ "f " " 6 , 6 5 6 .5 6 '" 6 6 '" " 0 0 0 ~ -e " ~ " 0 .; 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ '" 0 0 :;< ~ 0 '" iO :-:; :;: N ~ 7 ,. N 7 " .0 ~ ~ "" " ~ '" ~ ~ e;> '" ~ <:Q 0 " "f E ~ ~ "f 0 "f co "f "f "f 7 ~ "f "f CY u '" 00 N :;< N .;J N U N ~ 0 " 0 0 v 0 0 0 0 0 0 .., i' ~ " N ~ U " '~ ~ v ~ ~ < p., 0 c 5 ~ " z z "" :;< >< <C ----- '" tJl '" '" ~ ;; ~ ~ '" ~ N OC " " ~ ~ 00 '" '" ~ , vi vi 0 ci N N ,,; ..; 0 . ," N <>, ~ 0 N N ~, ;;' ~ ~ "'. '" "' "'. ~ ~ ~ 0 d of d ~ ~ N N N N ;; r - ffi 0 . ~ ~ ~, ~ "' ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 0 0 0 0 , N N r. r, Z '" " . "' ~ U ..,; 00 0 0 '>0 0 \0 N "' 0 0 " N N " >, '" ;n 0 .n U " N 5 ~ " 0 " BZ 0; , 15. " t 00 " " 0- 0 2- co u " 0 0 ,., ~ I' ~ . >0 , " " " 0 N '" 0 '" ~ 00 0 '2 :;: t ~ " ~ t " N . 00 0 -a _2 " 3 j 0. . 0 ~ 15. '" "- ~ ~ N ,., 'C -< <> "- Q .D u ~ -< >, ~ t;j :'3 . " ; 0 0 Il) :;s . u 0 ~ Q '" e- o: N "" ~ p:) ..,; c j,J .0 " 00 '" oj <l) '" 0 8 o:l "'" oc ,.J :>-. ~ ~ 0 ~ " u 0; ..,; ~ u E oj 4-< 0 "?" ~ "'" '" ~ Z 0 '0 " ..,; " E 0 0 '" ::/J 00 ~ 0 > 0 ... 0 '<l <> 0 0 rn '-< U N '" '" [5 '" ~ 0 0 ..... 0 ;n " :D " 00 0 00 00 0- '" " N N ~ ~ ~ P. d :;; '" 0 ~ Ji "t 0 ~ "t '" 0 :g :z: f-< Z . 6 .3 .;, <=<: ;:l <l) .S ~ w 0 ~ "" 1:' ffi g 0 e 0 p::: :;; 0 f-< 1:: ~ E '0 ~ ... 0 ~ ,~ w '" , ffi c: ~ ~ oc 00 o:l N -i:j C 5 "t ~ "t "t (.) >.r-I .8 " "V " , " a '" .~ on " Ul u 20 N " d- u 0 (.) '" " " . " u 0 g N 0 p:) tJl '-' E -< ~ N co ~ ~, -< CI ~ ';:: ~ '" " " " '" '" 0 '" '" on z ~ ~ " ..,; .:;r) ~ ~ ,^~HILLS City of Arden Hills Request for COlUlCil Action _ Prepared h\!: KG ~' Dept.: Engineering Council Mtg. Date: 9/11/06 Final Action Needed By: Agenda Item ~$ ""..,/;..: Motion to approve Payment #2 to Amt Construction Com pan v, Inc. for the 2006 PMP Proiect Budgeted Amount: $1.764.000.00 Actual Amount: $2,101,114.16 Funding Source: Various Council Action Request: Motion to approve Payment #2 to Amt Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $259,527.12 for the 2006 PMP Project. Staff Recommendation: Approval of Payment #2 to Amt Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $259,527.12 for the 2006 PMP Project. Advisory Commission Action: Commission Planning PTRC Date _upporting Documents (which are attached to this Action Form): o Memo/Letter: o Resolution (No. ) o Ordinance (No, ) IZl En9ineering Recommendation: See attached memo o Attorney Recommendation: IZl Other: Pay request No, 2 Financial Implications: The following breakdown shows the funding sources and amounts for Payment #2: General Fund: $150,339.55 Storm Sewer Fund: $97,624.17 Sanitary Sewer Fund: $7,744.40 Watermain Fund: $3,819.00 Administrator/Staff Comments: . Action Not Applicable . u Not Applicable Not applicable Page 1 of 1 , - - . URS AGENDA ITEM 3.8 Thresher Square 700 Third Street South Minneapolis, MN 55415 Phone, (612) 370-0700 Fax: (612) 370-1378 To: Cc: Kristine GigaJ Arden Hills Michcllc Wolfe! Arden Hills Greg Brown! URS Corp Mark Lynch! URS Corp File: 31809837 Fl'Om: Frank Ticknor! URS Corp Date: September 6, 2006 Subject: 2006 Pavement Management Program, Ridgewood Neighborhood Construction Contract Request for Payment #2 Background The City of Arden Hills awarded Amt Construction Company, Inc. of Hugo, MN the 2006 Pavement Management Program on June 12,2006 for a total contract amount of$I,808,584.32. Change Order # 1 and Change Order #2 havc been approved by Council resulting in a current contract amount of$I,703,314.16. Project Status The utility contractor has completed stonn sewer installation on all streets except for the n0l1hem end of Siems Court. The sanitary sewer forcemain work is complete and the last section of water main along Arden Place between Siems Court and Ridgewood Road is currently under construction. There was a fair amount of planting completed around the two ponds off of Ridgewood Road. A good portion of roadway base was completed along Arden Place and Ridgewood Road and those streets will be completed after the underground utilities are done. Recommendation URS recommends the Council approvc Pay Estimate #2 for Amt Construction Company, Inc. of Hugo, MN in the amount 01'$259,527.12. ~ APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT PAYMENT NO.2 t.m Copy ;':CIy Copy Contractor Copy IlllIp€Ctor Copy - Project: Owner: Owner No.: Contractor: URS Job No.: Application Date: For Period Ending: 2006 Pavement Management Program 1 Ridgewood Neighborhood City of Arden Hills Arnt Construction 31809837 9/6/2006 9/1/2006 Original Conlract Amount: Contract Amendments: Contract Amount To Date: Total Amount of Work Complete To Date: Materiat Suilably Stored On-Site but not Incorporated Inlo Work: Gross Amount Due To Date: Less 5.00% Retainage: Amount Due To Date: Less Previous Payments: Total Due This Applicalion: $1.808,584.32 -$105,270.16 $1,703,314.16 $786,673.38 $0.00 $786,673.38 $39,333.67 $747,339.71 $487,812.59 $259,527_12 I hereby certify that all items and amounts shown are correct for the work completed 'odo'o. C~~~~N~~ C7 By: t/ ~ ~ \j Date: 9- &. -0 <== I - The work shown on this project and the application lor payment have been reviewed and the amount shown is recommended for payment. By: Date: 9- 6'06 APPROVED FOR PAYMENT Owner: City of Arden Hills By: Date: . 1 of 10 ~ - .. Payment History Payment Number Payment Application Date 8/22/2006 9/6/2006 2 Payment End Date 8/17/2006 9/1/2006 Amounl $487,812.59 Total Payments: $487,812.59 20110 Contract Contract To Dilte 10. MnOOT No, Hem D€scription Unit Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity To Date Amount " ORIGINAL CONTRACT CHEDULE A - ROADWAY 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS $128.00000 0.62 $79.36000 0.62 $7'9.36000 2101.502 CLEARING TACE $320,00 42.00 $13,440,00 40.00 $12,800.00 2101.507 GRU8/lING TREE $120.00 42,00 $5,040.00 29.00 $3,480.00 21O'L50r REMOVE BfTl.iMINOUS CURB & GUffin LF $100 SOOO $60.00 0,00 $0.00 2104.501 REMOVE TIMBER/ Vl'OOlJ REf AINING WAll I,F $6.00 1,190_00 $7.140.00 0.00 $000 2104.50:; REMOVE BITVMINO\JSPAVEMENT sv $1.7~ 1:',823.00 $n,690:'>S 20,000.00 $35.00000 2104505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRI\'EWAY PAVEM[NT SY $:1.00 2,04000 S6,120.00 1.00000 $3.000.00 210450::' REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMeNT sy Hoo 900,00 $3,60000 30000 $1,200.00 2104511 SAWING CONCRETE f'AVEMENI (fUll DePTH) LF $200 517.00 $1.03400 100.00 1200.00 2104513 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FUll DfPTH) Lr $2,00 895.00 $1,790.00 500.00 $1,00000 2104.523 SALVAGE SIGN TYPE C EA $:l{}tXJ 800 $240.00 000 $000 2104.523 SALVAGE SIGN - STREET SIGN EA $<;(J.OO 7.00 $28000 000 SOO() 2104_523 SALVAGE MAIL BOX AND POST EA $20.00 54.00 $1,00000 3500 $!OO{){) - 2104523 SALVAGE AND INSTALL Pr,VER BRICKS sy $2000 30.00 $600.00 000 $000 2104_523 SALVAGEANO iNSTALL PRIVATE LANDSCAPING LS $90000 1.00 $900.00 000 $000- 2104.601 I iAUl SALVAGED MATERIAi i.S $40lJOO 1.00 $400.00 "YJ $40000 2104.603 BtJlK1-jEADPIPf I:A $52000 800 $4,16000 200 $1,04000 2105 501 COMMON HCAVATlON !PI CY $12.34 12,779.00 $157,69286 10.00000 $123.400.00 2105.507 SUBGRADE EXCAVi\TlON (EV) CY $12.34 10000 $1,23400 000 $0.00 2105.522 SElECT GRANULAR BORROW (CV) (P) OY $14.22 5,705,00 S81,125,1O 4,000.00 $56,880.00 2105525 TQPSOIL BORROW lLV} CY $12.00 50.00 S600.00 000 $0.00 2123_610 STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM) HOUR $001 64.00 SO.64 16.00 So. 16 2211-501 AGGREGATI: BASE, CLASS 5 TON $1152 1,000,00 $11,520,00 600,00 $6.912.00 2211.503 AGGREGATE BASE (CV). CLASS 5 IFI OY $3114 2,73000 $85,01220 2,000.00 $62.280.00 2350.501 lYPE LV:J WEARING CQURSJ:' MIXTURE (B) TON $51.00 113100 $57.98700 000 $0.00 .. 30t 10 , Contract Contract To Date No. MnOOT No. Item Oescriplion Unit Unit Price auantity Amount Quantltv To Date Amount .5~ TYPE LV 3. NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE 16) TON $4800 1,405.00 $67,440.00 000 $0.00 27 2350,504 TYPE LV 3. WEAEING CDURSE MIXTURE jOrlIVEWAYS) 5Y $22.00 1,492.00 $32,824.00 000 $0.00 " 2357502 BITUMINOUS MATERIA!... FOR TACK COAT GAL $2.40 900.00 $2,160.00 0.00 $0_00 '9 2411.607 WOOD STAIRS SF $32.0:) 99.00 $3,16800 000 $000 30 2411.618 MOOULAR BlOCK RE1AINING WAll Sf' S2060 5,871.00 $120,942.60 0_00 $0.00 11 2504,603 REPAIR IRRIGATION SYSTEM (RESIDENTIAL) EA $800.00 20,00 $16,00000 000 $000 12 2506.522 ADJUST RING FRAME AND CASTING (SAWf ARY SEWERI EA $450.00 21.00 $9,45000 000 $000 .3 2,>21618 SPEClALWALK sr $1240 138.00 $1./11;'0 000 SO.OO ~ 2531.501 CONCRETE CURn & GlmER lli:SK;N 13618 LF $914 2,2/400 $20J84.36 000 $0.00 , 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER OESIGNS5~B <F $8.98 8,72000 $78,305.60 0.00 $DOO ., 2531507 fi'('"ONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY $4400 438.00 $19,27200 000 $0,00 " 2531 SOl r CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT APRON SY $48,00 598.00 $23.10400 Q~) $000 . 2531.603 r CONCRETE VAUEY GlJIl"ER Lr $29.00 36,00 $1,044 00 000 5000 9 2535501 SfTlJMINOUS CUR8 IF $9.00 113.00 $1.0lJOO 000 $000 0 254{]6W F &- I TEMPORARY MAILBOX AND SUPPORT [A $10.00 54.00 $54000 40,00 $400.00 '_602 FURNISH AND INSTALl MAILBOX AND SUPPORT EA $15000 "00 $2,85000 000 $0.00 2 ;>540.602 INSTIILlMAILBOX fA $10000 35,00 $3,50000 000 $0,00 , 2557.603 F!lFENCE(SPUTl-'.AIL) " $1200 300.00 $3,60000 O.X. ,,'.1,1..'"" 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROl LS $4.00000 100 $4,00000 100 $4,00000 2564.531 F& I S](,,,NPANFL TYPEC SF $4000 3600 $1,440,00 ',00 $0.0..1 2564.602 INSTAll SIGN I YPE C (STREET SIGNS) EA $14000 7,00 5980.00 000 $000 2571502 lJECIQUOUS TREE Z.S' CAL B&8 TREE $494.00 13,00 $6,42200 000 $0.00 2573.501 INLET PROTECTION (CATCH BASIN) EA $20.00 4DOO $800 00 000 $0.00 2573.502 EROSION CONTAOl FENCE, TYPE HEAl{'( DUTY CA $0.01 9,250.00 $9250 3,000.00 $3000 2573.602 ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTfW./Cf [A $50000 4,00 $2,QOOGO 000 $0.00 2575.505 SOODING, TYPE lAWN WITH 4' TOPSOiL SY $340 6,309.00 $21,45060 000 $0.0) 2575.532 COMMERCIN..fEP.r ANALYSIS 22.5.10 (200 LBSIACI '8 $0.70 260.00 $182.00 0.00 $0.00 25'75603 CONSTRUCTION FENCE (ORANGE) LF $3,00 100.00 $300.00 000 $0.00 Schedule A. Roadway Subtotal $999,105.91 $392,082.16 .. 4ot10 , Conuact Contract To Date No. MnDQT No. Item Description Unit Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity To Date Amount SCtiEDULE B - STORM DRAINAGE ~ 2021.501 MOBIUlATION LS $128,00000 021 $26,fl8000 0.21 $26,880.00 2 2101_~;O2 CLEARING TREE $320_00 3600 $11,520,00 35,00 $11,20000 3 2101.507 GRUBBING TREE $l?OOO 36,00 $4,320.00 35,00 $4,200.00 4 2101.501 ClEARING ACRE $4.000,00 0.95 $3,800,00 0.20 $800.00 0 2101.506 GRVBOING ACRE $500,00 0,95 $475.00 0.20 $100,00 6 2104,501 REMOVE PIPE SEWER (Rep, STORM) Lr $16,00 14500 52,320.00 14400 $2.30400 7 210i\,501 flEMOVE CMP PH CULVERTS AND APRONS U' "'.00 212,00- $1,69600 17600 $1,424.00 8 2104,509 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EA $520.00 400 $2.080,00 4,00 $2,OflOOO 9 2104.523 fURNISH AND INSlAlL UMESTONE ROCK WAll sc $24.00 81.0r) $1,944.00 0,00 $000 W 2104525 A8ANDON MANHOLE EA $520.00 lOO $520.00 000 $000 " 2104.603 BULKHEAD PIP~ EA $52000 ?OQ $1,04000 200 SU>4000 12 2105.511 COMMON CHANNEL EXCAVATION CY S14."fl 1 ,:,~l?_()(l $20.29536 707,00 $10.:l0R06 13 2105.522 SEt,Eel GRANULAR W/30% ORGANIC PEAT (RAINGARDENSj CY $22,90 26150 $5,988.35 uoo SO.OO - 14 2105.602 AAINGARDEN GRAOING CY $1400 26150 $3,66100 000 $000 15 2411-618 FURNISH AND INSTALL LIMESTONE ROCK WAU SF $24.00 81,00 $1,944.00 000 '000 " 2501515 12" RGPlPF APFlON FA $""'-"'" . u~ $52000 000 ..", vv 7 2501.515 15. RG PIP!: APRON EA $52000 2,00 $1,040,00 200 $1,04000 8 2501.515 18" RC PIPE APRON [^ $680,00 , 00 $68000 000 $0.00 9 2~Ol_515 21' RC PIPE APRON FA $700.00 3,00 $2,WOOO 100 $700,00 " 2501.515 24"RCPIPEAPRQN EA $780.00 200 $1,560-,00 ',00 $780CXI , 2501.515 29" ~ lB' AG ARCH PIPE APRON EA $1,46DQO 500 $7,30000 000 $000 2 2501.602 TRASH GUARD FOR 12" PIPE APRON FA $236.00 100 $23600 000 $0.00 3 2!iQl,602 TRASH GUAnO fOR 15" PIPE APRON EA $274.00 2.00 $54800 2.00 $54B,00 4 250t,602 TRASH GUARD FOR 16" PIPE APRON EA $306 00 '00 $306.00 000 $0,00 5 2-501,602 TRASH GUARD FOR 21" PIPE APRON EA $360.00 300 $1.0(1000- , 00 $J60.00 6 :>501.602 TRASH GUARD fCR24" PIPE APRON EA $434.00 2,00 $HliB 00 100 $434,00 . SoilO , Contract Contract To Dale No. MnDOT No. Item Description Unit Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity To Date Amount _'602 TRASH GUARD FOR 29' J IS" ARCH PIPE APRON EA $506.00 3.00 51,518,00 0.00 SO_DO 28 2502.541 4 INCH PERF. rvc !'IPE DRAIN LF $3.50 2,750_00 $9,62500 880.00 nOOO{){J 2.9 2503.541 12 INCH Re PIPE SEWER DfSlGN 3006 Cl V LF $3400 2,00900 $68.306 DO 1,101.00 537.'134.00 30 2503.541 15 INCH Re PIPE SFWI:-H DESIGN 3006 CL V Lf $36.00 2691)() $9.684.00 21500 $7,740.00 J1 2503,541 18 INCH Re PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006Cl V LF $40.50 67.00 $2.713.50 52,00 $2,10600 J2 2503.541 21 INCH RG PIPE S[WEROESIGN 3OQ5CL IV <,F .$4340 33300 $14.452.20 278.00 $12,065.20 33 2503.[>41 21INCHRCPIf'ESE\lYEP.DESIGN300iJ.CL'" LF $48.00 560,00 $26,880.00 S~l800 $26,78400 l4 25m.541 ?4INCHRCPIPfSEWEflDESfGN3OOfiCIIII Lr $49.00 258.00 $12,U42,rYJ 263,00 $12,88HJO l5 2503 ~>41 29 XI8lNCH fiC ARCH PIPER SEWER DESfGN 3006 CL III ~24" EQ:jIVALHrr~ LF $78.00 111.00 Se,6S800 000 $0.00 l6 2~,o3,541 18 INCH HOPE PIPE SEWER (DIHECllONAL BORED) Lf $15400 2~O(}.1 $35.420,00- 000 so 00 '7 2503,541 3() INCH RC PiPE SEWER DESIGN 300& CL li! LF $63lXl 151,00 $9.513.00 000 $0,00 ~ 2503.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER EA $1,02000 300 $3,060,00 '00 $1,020.00 ~ 2506.501 CONST DRAINAGE STFlUCTURE DES 48-4020 LF $250,00 155,43 $38_857.-"0 87,15 $21.78750 D 2506.501 CONST DRAINAGE S1 RUCTURE OES SH()2{t L $294.00 22.84 $6,714.% 22,M $6,714,96 2506.501 CooST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 65-402() l $442.00 15.6& S6,93498 9,67 $4,;>7414 _50' CONST DRAINAGE STHUCTURE DES &1-4020 $86000 5,71 $4,910.60 :,/0 $4,90200 3 2506.501 CONSTDAAINAGE STHUCTURE DES2X3 l $204,00 61.49 $12,54396 42.09 $1:l,586,36 d 2500.516 CONST Dfl-'\!N,,,(.;c STRUCTUPE SPE!~,l - WOO!)H~ ~K!W.~EP, c. $3,Su^QOC "~ $7,7C0 OG u $3,6Cn'}I]O 5 2506.516 CASTINGASSEMElLY FA $S4200 4600 $24.'J32.00 000 $0.00 6 2511.501 RIVf:R RUN BOUWf:HS (HIP RAP) TON $156.00 110.00 $17.160.00 J600 $5,6HiOO 7 2571.501 CONIFEROUS 1 Af':E S' HT B&B TfiEE $414.00 20.00 S8,280.00 0,00 $000 8 2571.502 DECIDUOUS TREE 2.5" GN. O&B TREE $494,00 21.00 $10,374.00 000 $000 , 2571SG::! DECIDUOUS TREE -MULT!STEM W' HT HilS TRE[ $464.00 ',00 $921300 ',00 $828.00 , 2571505 DECIDUOUSSHRU8 #5CONT SHAUR $::;800 ;>7400 $15.892.00 97.00 $5,626.00 2571.507 PERENNIAl-4" PLUG PLANT S800 1,534.00 $12,272.00 617.00 $4,93(;.00 2571.508 DECIDUOUS TREE. t.nJLTISTEM 10 GAL (RAINWATER GARDEN) TI1EE $135.00 400 $540.00 000 $0.00 , 2571509 DEClWOUS SHRUBilS CONT {RAINWATER GARDENI SHRUD $58.00 24.00 $1,39200 000 $000 2571.510 DECIOUOOS SHRUB #1 CONT (RAINWATER GARDEN) SHRUB $1480 44.00 $651.20 000 $000 -. 60110 , Contract Contr<lct To Dale No. MnDOT No. Item Description Unit UnIt Price Quantity Amount Quantity To Date Amount 55 2511.511 PERENNIAl.. .1 CONT, (f1AIN\'VATERGARDEN) PLANT $1500 20500 $3.07500 000 $0.00 ~ " 2571.512 fERENN[Al- 4" PLUG {RAINWATER GARDEN} PLANT $7J)0 776,00 $5,43200 000 $0,00 57 2575.511 MULCH TYPE 6 (RAINWATER GARDEN) CY $41100 "00 $2,11200 000 $0.00 " 2575.604 PLANTER fDGING LF $2.50 1.125.00 $2.812.50 000 $0.00 59 2573.501 HALE CHECK [A kOO 50.0::> $:>00.00 WOO $6000 60 2573.505 flOATING SilT CUATAIN " $12,Ql) n,,(Y.J $2,700,00 000 $0.00 61 2575.501 SEEDING IHYDROSEHl) ACRE S8081~ 156 $1,260,70 ',00 $0,00 62 2575.505 SODDING. TYPE LAWN WITH.(" TOPSOil SY $320 1,300,00 $4,160,00 000 $000 53 2575.!i32 COMMERCIAL ~ERT ANALYSIS 22-5-10 f200 18S1AC) LS $0,70 332.00 $2-1240 D.OO $0.00 54 2575608 SEWMIXlUAE#325{34lBSlAC) LB SHO 9!HXl $172.<'0 000 $0,00 35 2575.60fl ~EEOMlXTURE 1i33(] (84lBSfAC) LS $S.OO 31.00 $15500 000 $0.00 Schedule B - Storm Drainage SubtQlal $499,788.41 $234,J45.22 SCHEDULE C - W A TERMAIN 2D2t501 MOBILIZATION LS $'28,00000 011 $14,08000 0.11 $.4,08000 - 2 2104.501 REMOVE WATfRMAIN LF $1600 120,00 $1,920.00 108.00 $l,1?BOO , 2104.509 REMOVE GATE V/lJ..'.E & BO;((6" ") fA $52000 10,00 $5.200.00 0:.00 $2J;00.OO 4 2104509 REMOVE HYDRANT &. VALVE fA $780.00 12.00 $9,J&JOO 2.00 $1.560.00 5 2104.509 REMOVE CURB STOP AND BOX EA $520.00 14.00 $7,20000 ~'OO $1/140.00 6 2504.603 a" HOPE WATERMAIN (DIRECTIONAL BORED) Lr $3800 1,446.00 $,":,94800 1:!5000 $32,300.00 7 2504.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN fA $l,!j6000 SOO $1,80000 ::;00 $4.68000 B 2504602 ABANDON WATER SEfWICE EA $52000 14.00 $7.280.00 500 $2,600.00 , 2.504.502 F&l HYDRANT AND GATE VALVE EA $3.520.00 12.00 $42,24000 200 $7,040.00 10 2504,602 6" GATE VALVE AND80X EA $1,10000 4,00 $4,40000 ',00 $2.200.00 11 2504.602 lr GATE VAlVE AND BOX fA $1.66000 800 $13.28000 300 $4,980.00 " 2504.602 6'WATmMAlNDUCTlLE IRONCL52 Le $37110 200 00 $7,43000 4300 $1,601l.20 13 2504602 0' WATERMAIN OUent f IRON CL 52 LF $4120 300.00 S12,360.00 20<100 $6,404.80 .- 70110 Contract Contract loDate No. MnDOT No. Item Description Unit Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity To Date Amount ~W2 RECONNECT WATER SERVICE EA $575.00 14.00 $B,ll'lOOO 500 $2,875.00 15 2504,602 r CURB STOP AND BOX EA $35000 111.00 $4,90000 2,00 $70000 16 2504.602 1. CORPORATION STOP EA $248,00 14.00 $3,472,00 5,00 $1,240.00 17 2504_60-3 1" lYPE K COPPER PIPE (OIRECTlONAL I3ORED) LF $23.00 770.00 $17,71000 53,00 $1,334.00 18 2504.603 HYDfWiT EXTENSIONS LF $564W 12.00 $6.768.00 000 $0.00 19 2504.603 GATE VALVE BOX EXH:NSIONS LC $190,00 16.00 $3,040.00 ',00 $0.00 20 2504.604 2'POlYSrYRENE1NSULATtQN SY $2400 36.00 $864.00 000 $DOO 21 2504.608 WATERMAIN filliNGS LB $8.00 948.00 $7,584.00 566.00 $4,52800 Schedule C - Waermain SlJblo1al S240,016.OO S95,496.00 :;CHEDULE D - SANITARY SEWER 2021501 MOEIllI2ATION lS $30.00000 006 $U:lOOOO 0.v6 $1.800.00 LF $3!J40 40 {Xl $1,:;1600 000 $D,OQ u- $-':'6.80 ?025DQ $.'>,l,no.oo \.U00.00 $50.9:2(100 EA $6.014.00 200 $12.028,00 2,00 $12,028,00 Schedule 0 - Sanilary Sewer Subtotal $69,674.00 $64,746.00 2 2503.60..1 4'PVC SANITARY SERVICE 3 2503.60:'1 6" HOPE SANHAR'{ FORCEMAIN IDlRECTIONAlBOREDI 4 2504.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING SANrT ARY SEWER MANHOLE AND FORCEMAIN tit OR!G!!'!AL (:0NT~.(l,CT AMOUNT SUBTOTALS $1JJoa,5114.32 ~78e.en.~ SCHEDULE E - CHANGE ORDER NO.1 ,HANGE ORDER NO.1 - ROADWAY COMMON EXCI),VATlON Cy $1234 1910.00,1 ($11,229.40) 0.00 $0.00 2 DlJLKHEADPI?E EA $52000 (2,OO) 1$1,04000) 0,00 $0.00 Schedule E - Change Order No.1 Roadway S\lbiotal (St2,269AO) $0.00 -. 80110 Contract Contract To Date No_ MnDOT No_ Item Description Unit Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity To Date Amount CHANGE ORDER NO.1 - STORM DRAINAGE - COMMON CHANNEL EXCAVATION C' $1453 :;7800 $8,42/ 24 000 $0.00 2 29"X1S"RC PIPE APRON EA $1,46('.00 {3.001 ($4.380.001 0,00 $0.00 3 2S"Xl0" TRASH GUARD fA $506 (X) 1:200) [$1,012.00) 0.00 $000 4 12" RC PIPE LF $34.00 (20000) ~$6.80000) 000 $0.00 29"X10" RC ARCHPtPE LF $78.00 (11100) ($8,658.00) 000 $0.00 2 10" HOPE PIPE SfWfR LF $1~)4 DO (230.00) ($35,42000) 000 $000 3 3D" RC PIPE LF 56300 1;>800 $8.064.00 000 $O.CO 4 46" DRAINAGE STRUCTURE LF $2!,OOG (10.00) 1$2.500,00) 000 $0,00 flOATING SILT CURTAIN LF $l?OO (1Q()OO) ($1,20000) 000 $000 2 UMESIONI:: ROCK WALl SF 524,00 (81.00) ($1,944001 000 $000 Schedule- E - Change- Orde-r No. 1 Storm Drainage Sublotat ($45,422.76) $0.00 ~HANGE ORDER NO.1 - WATEflMAIN 2 REMOVE GATE VAlVE AND !:lOX EA $520.00 (3,001 ($1.560,00) 0,00 Hl-:MOVE HYDRANT AND VALVE [^ $780.00 (7.00) ($5.460.00) 0,00 F&IHYDRANT AND GATE VALVE EA $3,52000 (7.00i ($2<1.640,00) 000 S"C-.ATE V,!,LVF;: AN080X - -$;.:GO,")() \.~.'-N; {$3.300.{Xl) 0.00 Ir GATE VALVE AND BOX EA $1,660CXJ {2.00) ($J.32000) 000 6" WATERMAIN DIP Cl52 IF $3140 (lS0.00j ($5,61000) 000 8"WATERMAIN DIP CL52 LF $41.20 (700.001 ($8.:'.40(lO) 000 HYDRANT EXTENSIONS L> $564.00 (f.(XJ) ($:3,38400) 000 GATE VALVE EXTENSIONS LF $19000 (10.00) (SI.900.00i 000 WATt'HMAINFmINGS LB $800 (44800) ($3,58400) 000 3 4 2 3 4 2 $000 $0.00 - $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $000 '000 $000 $0.00 $0.00 SChedule- E ~ Change Order NO.1 Watermain Sublotal ($60,998_00) SCHEDULE F - CHANGE ORDER NO. 2~ WATERMAIN TEMPORARY WATER SYSTEM $U.420.00 !.S $13,420(}() 1.00 0.00 $0.00 Schedule F - Change Order NO.2" Walermarn Sublot.1I $13,420.00 CHANGE OAUER SUBTOTALS ($1C>5,27D.16) GRAND TOTAL $1,703,314.16 90110 $Doo ,"00 .- $786,673.38 --. ... . Application for Payment: Itemization Summary Contract To Date Amount of Schedule Amount Work Completed A - ROADWAY $999,105.91 $392,082.16 B - STORM DRAINAGE $499,788.41 $234,345.22 C - W A TERMAIN $240,016,00 $95,498,00 D - SANITARY SEWER $69,674,00 $64,748,00 E - CHANGE ORDER NO, 1 -$118,690,16 $0,00 F - CHANE ORDER NO, 2 $13,420.00 $0.00 Grand Total: $1,703,314.16 $786,673.38 100t 10 ~ Prepared by: KG ~' Dept: Engineering Council Mtg. Date: 9/11/06 Final Action Needed By: ~ '1'\.~!-IILLS City of Arden Hills Request for Council Action Agenda Item .~.~ Motion to adopt resolution 06-46- 1&1 spend inn in 2007 Budgeted Amount: $100,100 Actual Amount: $100.100 Funding Source: Sanitary Sewer Fund Council Action Request: Motion to adopt Resolution 06-46: Resolution authorizing City Funds for the Development and Implementation of an Inflow and Infiltration Reduction Program in 2007. Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 06-46: Resolution authorizing City Funds for the Development and Implementation of an Inflow and Infiltration Reduction Program in 2007, Advisory Commission Action: Commission Planning PTRC Date Action Not Applicable Not Applicable Not applicable Supporting Documents (which are attached to this Action Form): _ 0 Memo/Leiter: i2<'J Resolution (No. 06-46) o Ordinance (No. i2<'J Engineering Recommendation: Staff has been informing Council of the current inflow and infiltration (I&I) problem and the Met Council's surcharge program, In an effort to avoid paying the surcharge to Met Council, the City may submit a request for a surcharge adjustment by dedicating an equivalent amount of funding within Ihe City in an effort to reduce 1&1. One of the requirements for this credit application is a resolution adopted by the City Council authorizing such spending, o Attorney Recommendation: o Other: Financial Implications: In preparing the 2007 budget, staff has allocated $100,100 from the Sanitary Sewer Fund to be spent on 1&1 reduction, in anticipation of the request for a surcharge adjustment Administrator/Staff Comments: - Page 1 of 1 ~ ~HILLS CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO, 06-46 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY FUNDS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF AN INFLOW AND INFILTRATION REDUCTION PROGRAM IN 2007 WHEREAS, the City has been identified by the Metropolitan Council as a community with excess inflow and infiltration flow into thc sanitary sewer system and, WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has adopted an Inflow and Infiltration Surcharge Program to reduce the impact of inflow and infiltration on wastewater capacity and to insure that the wastewater capacity of the system is available for future development and, WHEREAS, the preliminary surcharge amount fOTlhe City is $ 100, I 00 for 2007, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and the City Council do hereby authorize spending $100,100 from the Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund in 2007 to develop and implement a program to reduce inflow and infiltration in the City. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL Of? THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS lIth DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2006. ATTEST: - Beverly Aplikowski, MAYOR Michelle Wolfe, CITY ADMINISTRATOR \\Metro-inetus\ardenhills\AdminICounciIIResolutil)ns\2006\O6-46- CommiHing funding for 1&1 in 2007.doc ~ - - ~ --A~HILLS City of Arden Hills Request for Council Action .::a Prepared by: MO -fi/lV .. Dept.: Public Works Council Mtg. Date: 9/11/06 Final Action Needed By: Agenda Item lIl,;'!1 '~k~ Motion to approve Pavment to Ramsev Countv Parks and Recreation for the Tonv Schmidt Underpass Proiect Budgeted Amount: 32,000.00 Actual Amount: 32,000.00 Funding Source: Park Fund Council Action Request: Motion to approve Paymenllo Ramsey County Parks and Recreation in the amount of $32,000.00 for the Tony Schmidt Underpass Project. Staff Recommendation: Approval of Payment to Ramsey County Parks and Recreation in the amount of $32,000.00 for the Tony Schmidt Underpass Project. Advisory Commission Action: Commission Date Action Not Supporting Documents (which are attached to this Action Form): . {gJ Memo/Letter: Letter dated August 28, 2006 from Gregory Mack, Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Director. o Resolution (No. ) o Ordinance (No. ) o Engineering Recommendation: o Altorney Recommendation: o Other: Financial Implications: $32,000.00 was budgeted from the Park Fund. Administrator/Staff Comments: The railroad underpass is complete. Trail work on either side of the actual underpass still needs to be completed. . Page 1 of 1 - Parks and Recreation Department Gregory A. Mack, Director 2015 N. Van Dyke Street Maplewood, MN 55109-3796 Tel: 651-748-2500 Fax: 651-748-2508 \VW\V.co.ramsey ,ffill ,us August 28, 2006 Ms. Michelle Wolfe City Administrator City of Arden Hills 1245 West Highvvay 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112-5794 Re: Tony Schmidt Regional Park Railroad Underpass Dear Ms. Wolfe: - After a lengthy delay, due to negotiations with Canadian Pacific Railroad, we are pleased to say that the trail underpass under the tracks in Tony Schmidt Regional Park was installed on August 23, 2006. In February 2002, the City of Arden Hills committed $32,000 toward the construction of the trail underpass. The enclosed letters from Mayor Dennis Probst, dated February 14,2003 and City Administrator Joe Lynch, dated March 7, 2002, document the city's intent to contribute. We request that the City remit $32,000 payable to Ramsey County. Please send the check to me. Additional work needs to be completed to make the trail connections on either side of the underpass, however, the majority of the project is now complete. Thank you for the City's commitment to this project. The connection will greatly improve the connectivity within Tony Schmidt Regional Park and various neighborhoods within the City of Arden Hills. :tS' O~ Gregory ~f Director GAM/jh cc: Commissioner Tony Bennett Enclosure -. Minnesota's First Home Rule County print.ed Oil rr;::)\'Ir.d papl~r with a minimum of 10% post-cQnouml'r contenl '^ii\'~') ~. ~~HILLS. . February 14, 2002 Mr. Tony Bennett Ramsey County Commissioner Ramsey County Board 220 Courthouse 15 West Kellogg Blvd. SI. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Tony, The City of Arden Hills was very pleased to learn that the Ramsey County Parks & Recreation Department had moved the construction of a pedestrian underpass connection to Tony Schmidt Park to their number one Capital Improvement Project in 2003. This has been something the City of Arden Hills has been interested in and anxiously awaiting an opportunity to be involved with for some time now. Tony Schmidt Park is a great county resource and contributes greatly to the quality of life in Arden Hills. - We are absolutely committed to this project. As a demonstration ofthat commitment, the City Council has authorized an expenditure of532,000 of City Park Funds to be committed to Ramsey County for the construction ofthis pedestrian underpass. ] cannot thank you enough for your support of this proj ecl and your willingness to bring this forward to the County Board for financial support, as well as physically to enhance a wonderful County resource and community treasure at Tony Schmidt Park. DP/jg cc: Ramsey County Board Arden Hills Mayor and City Council Greg Mack; Ramsey County Parks & Recreation Larry Holmberg; Ramsey County Parks & Recreation Tom More, Arden Hills Parks & Recreation Director Terry Post, Arden Hills Accountant - City of Arden Hills . 12-l5 West Highway 96 + Arden Hills, l\L\' . S5112.5-79-J Phone 6.51.63..1.5120 . F;:n: 651.63-t5137 . www.ci.arden-hiUs.mo_u5 . - ~ ~' 'of;. ~i , - ~~ILLS March 7, 2002 Mr. Greg Mack, Director Ramsey County Parks & Recreation Department 2015 Van Dyke Avenue Maplewood, ,/;1N 55109 Dear Greg, ] am writing on behalf of the City of Arden Hills to express appreciation to Ramsey County for moving the Tony Schmidt Park underpass construction project to the top of their C.l.P. list in 2003. Previously we sent a letter to Mr. Larry Holmberg expressing our appreciation for considering such a move and indicating that Arden Hills would financially support the construction, if possible. ] am pleased to announce that through a special donation, along with a matching contribution from the City of Arden Hills, we are able to financially support your efforts for this much anticipated and needed improvement to our city. We would like to give you 532,000 in support of this project. Please let me know when.you would like to receive this money and if ".e can be of further assistance to you or your department on this proj ect in the future. ~ cc: Tony Bennett, Ramsey County Commissioner Larry Holmberg, Ramsey County Parks & Recreation Arden Hills Mayor and City Council Tom Moore, City of Arden Hills CityofArdenHills" 12.t3\restHigllway96. Ardt:nHills.i\I~" 55112.S7Y-f Phone 651.63..L:, 12:0 . Fax 651.63..1.5137 . \H\\Lci.3rden-hills.mn.us . Prepared by: KG Dept.: Engineering Council Mtg. Date: 9/11/06 Final Action Needed By: ~ ~HlLLS City of Arden Hills Request for COlmcll Action Agenda ltemfi,A 2006 PMP-RidQewood NeiQhborhood- Assessment HearinQ Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: Council Action Request: Continue and conclude the public hearing for the 2006 PMP- Ridgewood Neighborhood Special Assessments. Adopt resolution 06-47: Resolution adopting special assessment roll for the 2006 PMP- Ridgewood Neighborhood Improvements. Staff Recommendation: Continue and conclude the public hearing for the 2006 PMP- Ridgewood Neighborhood Special Assessments. Adopt resolution 06-47: Resolution adopting special assessment roll for the 2006 PMP- Ridgewood Neighborhood Improvements. Advisory Commission Action: Commission Planning PTRC Date Action 'Supporting Documents (which are attached to this Action Form): Not Applicable Not Applicable Not applicable !8l Memo/Letter: See attached memorandum !8l Resolution (No. 06-47) D Ordinance (No. D Engineering Recommendation: D Attorney Recommendation: D Other: Financial Implications: Administrator/Staff Comments: -- Page 1 of 1 . - - ~ ~ EN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: September 7,2006 AGENDA ITEM 6.A TO: Mayor and City Council Michelle Wolfe, City Administrator Kristine Giga, Civil Enginccr .~ FROM: SUBJECT: 2006 PMP Improvements- Ridgewood Neighborhood- Continuation of Assessment Hearing BACKGROUND On August 28, 2006, thc City Council held a public hearing for the purpose of establishing special assessments for the 2006 PMP Improvements in the Ridgewood Neighborhood. Council continued the hearing and final action to the September II, 2006, mceting. DISCUSSION Six oral testimonies wcrc provided at the hearing and two written testimonics were receivcd; one ofthc written testimonics was also provided orally at the hearing. Copies ofthc writtcn tcstimonies have becn attached. The following is a description of each of the objcctions or conccrns raised, followed by a staff analysis and rccommendation. l) Oral comment: 3511 Ridgewood Road, Esther Dant Ms. Dant askcd a question regarding paymcnt options for the assessment. If the assessment is certified to Ramsey County, would the property owners receive a separate statement, or would the amount be on their tax statement? Also, if the property owner's property tax statement is sent to their m011gage company, would the assessmcnt also be sent there? City Attorney Jerry Filla answered the questiou at the meetiug, stating that if the City certified the assessment, it would appear on the property owner's tax statement as a separate line item, and would therefore also be sent to the mortgage company. Recommendation: No action or change is needed. \\Metro-ineLus\ardenhills\PR&PW\Engineering\2006\CouDcil Actions\9-07-06 Memo 2006 PMP Assessment Hearing.doc 2006 PMP 9/7/2006 Page 2 . 2) Oral comment: 3475 Siems Court, Steve Nelson Mr. Nelson voiced a concern regarding the proposed retaining wall along the west side of Sicms Court and asked the rationale for the cost being included in the total assessable costs. He stated that the original wall was built by the previous homeowners in order for the privatc driveway to be constmcted and that the wall was not a benefit to the entire neighborhood. In order to properly support the new street and utilities and prevent failure, the retaining wall needs to be reconstructed. The City has the obligation to make everyone whole in the reconstruction process, providing access to each property. If the retaining wall and private driveway were to be removed, the City would spend an equivalent amount of money regrading the area and reconstructing each of the driveways, each of which would need some amount of retaining wall. These costs would have also been included in the total assessable costs. No information was found in City files regarding any kind of agreement between the City and the previous homeowner for construction of the retaining wall. Mr. Nclson also askcd how property owners with double lots werc being assessed. The assessments were calculated ou a per uuit basis based ou the number of existing homes in the neighborhood. The assessment policy states that the City reserves the right to recover an assessment if a property is divided, creating additional lot units. - Recommendation: No change in thc assessment. 3) Oral comment: 3550 Ridgewood Road, Mike Aamoth Mr. Aamoth voiced concerns that residents are receiving incorrcct infonllation about the construction schedule, which is causing a great inconvenicnce to the residents. Staff is working to better coordinate scheduling with the contractor and provide the best available information to the residents. Mr. Aamoth asked ifhe could review the bids submitted for the project. This information is available at City Hall and was provided to him via e-mail. Mr. Aamoth also asked if there was an assessmcnt mceting held earlier in the summcr. He expressed concerns about the increase in the amount of the assessment from what the neighborhood had bcen previously told. The feasibility report listed an earlier date for the assessment hearing, which had been discussed as a tentative date at neighborhood meetings in the spring. The assessment rate ended up higher than what was discussed at the neighborhood meetings due to the higher bids aud the end result regarding total assessable units. Recommendation: No change in the assessment. 4) Oral and written comment: 3511 Siems Court, Lisa Abraham Ms. Abraham provided a written objcction about the projcct in relation to her driveway. She feels that thc proposed improvements will decrease the value of her property ifthc grade on - . ~ - 2006 PMP 9/7/2006 Page 3 her driveway becomes steeper. She has requested the following: that her driveway be straightened for better access to Siems Court, a blind driveway sign, to replace her entire driveway, establish a no parking zone on Siems Court by painting the curb yellow, provide a heated driveway if the grade cannot be improved, and a waived assessment. Staff does not believe that Ms. Abraham is being adversely impacted by this project. We have had a number of discussions with her regardiug driveway coucerus. Attached is a memorandum from URS outlining the many different alternatives that were investigated earlier this year to try to address Ms. Abraham's driveway concerns. To summarize the memorandum, in the course of our investigation, it was determined that accommodating her request to realign her driveway and holding or lessening the existing grade would significantly increase project costs and negatively impact other property owners. As a result, we were left with two alternatives; rebuild the driveway as is, leaving the slope unchanged or realign the driveway, as the resident reqnested, and increase the slope. Neither ofthese alternatives met the property owner's expectations. Both of these alternatives are still available to Ms. Abraham. In regards to the remaining concerns, staff makes the following recommendations: . Installation of a blind driveway sign would cost about $150 and is possible as a part of the project. . Replacing the remaining four feet (4') of the driveway will increase the cost of the project by approximately $200 and allow for smoother transition. . Staff does not recommend painting the enrb yellow. In addition to the initial cost, we wonld need to refresh the paint on an annual basis. This would create an ongoing maintenance cost for the City. . Staff does not recommend having the City pay for and install a heated driveway. If the resident is interested in doing this with their own funds, we can facilitate the coordination of the work with the City's contractor prior to the proposed driveway being constructed. Ms. Abraham also provided objections regarding the assessment of the Beach Club property. She believes that these parcels have value and should be assessed. The assessment policy states that the City may reserve the right to delete land within the assessable area from the assessment roll if it is the opinion that the land cannot be developed or the improvement does not provide benefit. Staff has looked into the history of the Beach Club and the parcels owned by the Beach Club. The following information was retrieved: . The Beach Club is a non-profit organization with a minimal operating budget. . The Beach Club property was purchased as two parcels from the previous landowner(s). · There are 60-70 parties who are eligible to be members; however, there are currently only about 50 members in the Beach Club. Eligible members are essentially rcsidents of the 2006 PMP neighborhood, aloug with a few homes along Old Suelling. 2006 PMP 9/7/2006 Pagc 4 . One of the parcels owned by the Beach Club is predominantly a wetland area. A City owned and operated Lift Station (#4) is currently located within this area, and two sedimentation ponds have been constructed in this area in conjunction with the project. Once land has been delineated as a wetland area, restrictions arc imposed by the Wetland Conservation Act and uses of the arca bccome limited. With the construction of the sedimentation ponds and associated drainage easements, any potential buildable area has been significantly reduced. The second parcel owned by the Beach Club is the island. While this parcel has not been delineated as wetland, there is uncertainty whether the area is developable. Based on the City's shorcline setback requirement, it appears there would be approximately one acre on which to develop, however, the DNR or other governing agencies typically have stricter requirements. While the soils on thc island have not been evaluated, it is very likely that the soils are not snitable for construction, based on the island's proximity to the lake. Recommcndation: No change in thc assessment. 5) Oral comment: 3436 Siems Conrt, Jennie Michels Ms. Michels cxpressed a concern that evcn though the Beach Club area equates to only two lots, the area is quite large and not everyone in the neighborhood uscs the Beach Club, therefore, should not be paying for it. As mentioned before, the two parcels owned by the Bcach Club were not included in the assessment role based on the fact that these lots are not devclopable. ~ Ms. Michels also stated that it was her undcrstanding that the City would pay for the differcnce in cost between the estimate and the bid, yet the assessment rate has increased. The bid increased the costs for all parties involved, including the portion to be paid by the City. Recommendation: No change in the assessmcnt. 6) Oral comment: 3530 Siems Court, Tom Mulcahy Mr. Mulcahy requcsted an explanation as to why the construction costs came in significantly highcr than what had been previously discussed. During the planning process we do our best to estimate, based on past projects and inflation, what we believe a project should cost. Unfortunately, this is subject to market fluctuations. Construction costs have increased significantly in the past year due to risiug energy costs. Our August 2005 estimates did not account for this unanticipated 20-30% increase in cost. Rccommendation: No change in the assessment. ~ . ~ tit 2006 PMP 9/7/2006 Page 5 7) Written comment: 1465 Skiles Lane, Wayne Henquinet Mr. Henquinet submitted a written objection regarding the timing of the assessment. He feels that the property owners should not be assessed until the completion of the project. Per the assessment policy, the assessment roll is typically adopted prior to the beginning of construction. However, with the high bids raising the lluestion of whether the project would even proceed, the assessment hearing was delayed to allow staff to investigate possihle savings in the project to reduce the overall cost. Mr. Henquinet also exprcsscd a concern regarding the proposed interest rate on the assessment. Hc fcels that the proposed rate of prime plus two percent is high and is not a fair rate. The assessment policy states that the interest rate used for the assessment shall be designated at the prime rate plus two percent. However, the assessment policy also states that Council may deviate from the policy as it deems proper. The Council must discuss and set this rate at the adoption of the assessment roll. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The assessment policy states that the interest rate shall be designated at the prime rate plus two (2) percent. The prime rate currently is 8.25%, which would mean a 10.25% interest rate for the assessment. Some residents have expressed concern that this rate appears rather high. Staff researched that a lO-year home equity loan can be obtained at a rate of7%, and would suggest that Council consider a 9% interest rate for the assessments. The additional two (2) percent would cover administrative costs. Council must set the interest rate when the assessment roll is adopted. Schedule: The following is a proposed schedule for 2006 assessments: September II Council adopts assessment roll Sept. 12 to Oct. II Assessment pre-payment period at Arden Hills City Hall (30 days) Oct. l2 to Oct. 30 Tally of final assessment roll October 31 Certification of final assessment roll to Ramsey County RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION It is recommended that the Council approvc the attached resolution which adopts the assessment roll for the 2006 PMP improvements. Ridgewood Court Pavement Program - Issues Page 1 of3 Kristine Giga . From: Abraham, Lisa [Lisa.Abraham@ecolab.com] Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:22 PM To: David_Grant; aplikowski@aol.com; holdenbj24@aol.com; frank_ticknor@urscorp.com; Greg_Brown@urscorp.com; Gregg Larson; Kristine Giga; Vince Pellegrin Subject: Ridgewood Court Pavement Program - Issues To: City of Arden Hills and URS 1 am writing regarding the Pavement Management Program that is being done this summer in the Ridgewood Neighborhood. We are located at 3511 Sicms Court. Wc have a driveway that is shared via an easement with 2 (+ I lot) other houses. I have several concerns regarding my existing driveway and proposals for our driveway due 10 the changes proposed for the area. The bottom line is that the changes proposcd by the city will decrease the value of my property and make a dangerous situation worsc. I have voiced conccrns rcgarding my driveway on several occasions to Frank Ticknor at URS, the city engineer, at a neighborhood meeting at city hall, and at the May City Council Mecting. I have done all that I can to urge thc city to reducc thc dangcrous situation my driveway presents and to look at changes to the road that would improve this situation including lowering the road and moving it to the East. They have rcsponded with a proposal that will make the situation worse stating that it would not be favorable by the 2-3 residents on the opposite side of the street since it would affect their trees and make their driveway steeper (although it would not likely affect their property value since they will still not have driveways that are prohibitively steep or dangerous like mine!) All of the trees on my side of the street have been removed due to the construction; the street will be tilted toward my property which will increase the potential of additional water damage to my property; my property value will be lowered due to and even more prohibitively steep drive\vay. ~ My first question is why does my property have to be the only one that is affected adversely by the changes? My properly already has a dangerous situation and it will cost me about 80K to fix the current water damage to a large wall due to street runoff. The following is a description of my concerns with the proposed changes, and items I would like the city to incorporate into the plans for redevelopment as well as. Improvements with the proposed road and driveway changes: o The final proposal straightens out my driveway so that it will allow us to go straight onto Siems Court (instead of needing to make a turn to get out). Concerns regarding the proposed road and driveway changes: My steep driveway will now be steeper! It is very steep to begin with. In order to exit our driveway in the winter, we need to start from inside our garagc and go as fast as we can to get up the hill. During this, we need to pass thc adjoining driveway and into the street. To further complicate our exit, there is no visibility from the street into our driveway. - 91712006 Ridgewood Court Pavcmcnt Program - Issucs Pagc 2 oD . I The final time that the engineer and URS mct with us they told us that tlley would not be able to make any improvements regarding the steepncss of our driveway. In fact the proposal that they showcd us will make our situation worse. Thcy have not incorporated altematives that would improve our situation. Our current drivcway is dangcrous due to blind entrance to the shared driveway. We have no visihility to the oncoming cars in the joint driveway. Our neighbors frequently park right next to our lot and block the view of the driveway. I It is even more dangerous due to blind entrance to Siems Court. Cars on Siems Court cannot see us exiting and we have no visibility to thc oncoming cars on Siems Court. There are trees and bushes and cars parked on our side of the street that block visibility. This is cspecially an issue in thc winter when we need to start inside our garage and gun it to get out of the driveway. 2 We asked them to look at moving the road east to decrease the slope and increase the amount of space to stop between the sloped driveway and the road. Their reasoning is that it would requirc trees on the lot across the street would be affected and the neighbors don't want that (although they have no problem taking out all thc trees on our sidc of the street!). They also said that it would require moving the road bed and that would increase costs. Thcy refused to consider lowering the road. It would make the neighbors driveway too steep. The measurements that they us cd for thcir drivcway only looked at the first 6 feet and not the overall grade ofthc cntirc driveway. Why is it OK to make our already unacceptable situation worsc and , unacceptable to affect othcrs in thc ncighborhood? I Thc road is being tilted toward our house. While this has a good effcct on lowering our side of the road a couple of inches, it sends all thc water toward our house. This along with the proposal to have a 5 foot apron that will slant up 2 degrees instead of thc originally proposed 7 degrees will potentially cause water problems for our property. 2 The proposal replaces all but 4 fcct of my driveway with new surface. I would like the city to incorporate some additional changes: I would likc a sign on the road to the nOlth and south of my drivcway that notifics drivers on Siems court that 1 cannot see when 1 leave my driveway. Blind Driveway). 1 1 would like my entire driveway paved instead of leaving the remaining 4 feet with old pavement. 2 Reduce thc width of the driveway apron Irom 5 feet to 2 fcet. 3 Since my driveway will be steeper than it is currently, I would like my driveway heated to eliminate the ice issues in the winter and make it possible to get out of my driveway without starting inside my garage. . 4 Establish a no parking zone on the west side of Siems Court for 150 fcct north of my driveway including painting the curb yellow. till. It is often used as access to propelties further down Siems Court. Because the driveway goes all the way through (has 2 entranccs onto Sicms Court), there are often cars that are not associated with either the property owners that utilize the driveway. This is especially an issuc whcn cars on Siems court are parked on both sides of the strect so that cars cannot pass. They then use the driveway to get 9/7/2006 Ridgewood Court Pavement Program - Issues Page 3 of3 through. o The assessment for my property to be waved due to the lowering of my property value for the bctterment of the neighborhood (duc to the negativc impact of my driveway). A precedent for this has becn set by the city when it waived assessing 2 other private property parcels (Island Beach Club) and passing the costs onto the other homcowners in the area. There were several opportunities for the city to maintain or improve my driveway that would have affected other people's driveways in the neighborhood. Since my property is taking the burden in order to not affect others, it makes sense that I should have a benefit. In addition, the city has presented a proposed maintenance agreement to us as homeowners to maintain the shared portion of the road that is in the right of way. I have voiccd concerns regarding my driveway on several occasions to Frank Ticknor at URS, the city engineer, at a neighborhood meeting at city hall, and at the May City Council Meeting. 1 have done all that 1 can to urge the city to reduce thc dangerous situation present. The major development planned is possibly the only opportunity to address this and the city has chosen not only not to address my concerns, but to further degrade thc situation. Since the city has refused to satisfactorily address the situation, I have bccn forced to contact legal council to detennine a course of action. Please contact me by August 30, 2006 regarding the contents of this letter to prevent action against the City of Ardcn Hills. Also, if there arc any accidents or injurics associated with the dangerous situations outlined in this letter, 1 will take legal action against both the construction company URS and the city. Sincerely, Lisa Abraham 35l 1 Siems Court Arden Hills, MN 55112 H: 651.697.0760 Lisa Cell: 6]2.669.7390 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE, This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain proprietary and privileged Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and 9/7/2006 . - - . - - URS MEMORANDUM Thresher Square 700 Third Street South Minneapolis, MN 55415 Phonc: (612)370-0700 Fax: (612)370-137R To: Kristine Gigal Arden Copy: Hills 31809837.00l01 Michelle Wolfe! Arden Hills Deb Bloom! Arden Hills File: From: Frank Ticknor P.E.! URS Date: May 31, 2006 Subject: 2006 PMP, Ridgcwood Ncighborhood Siems Court Shared Driveway Design Timeline Kris, Provided is a summary of the research, meetings, and design options administered by URS and the City of Arden Hills for the three properties along Sicms Court that utilize a shared driveway: 3511 Siems Court owned by Lisa and Curtis Abraham, 35 1 7 Siems Court owned by LoAnn Crepeau, and 3535 Siems Court o\vned by Dave and Lisa Carlson. . Open dialogue with the three residents that share this driveway stm1ed at the end of January, 2006. . Our first meeting to discuss thc cxisting conditions and to gather information on the history ofthe driveway was scheduled for February 3, 2006. LoAnn Crepeau, Dave Carlson, Lisa Abraham, Kris Giga, Mark Lynch, and Frank Ticknor were present at this meeting. URS provided mapping with spot elevations and grades for the existing conditions of all three properties. This information was gathered from the topographic survey performed in the fall of2005 for the feasibility and design aspects of this project. Also provided at this meeting was an example of a separate driveway per lot design in order to gauge their interest for this type of scenario. . Gathered from that meeting were mixed feelings toward the shared driveway concept, 3535 and 3511 wanted separate driveways but 3517 did not. 3517 then indicated that they believed thcrc was a 15 foot pcrpetual casement along all of these properties for the purpose of ingress and egress which is why the shared driveway was initially built. 3535 indicated that they preferred the driveway design that URS provided. 3511 preferred a separate driveway but did not like the alignment that URS initially provided because it spanned a slightly larger area of her front yard to the south. . The City then directed URS to investigate all property infonnation to see if there were cxisting driveway easements. Also, per request from 3511, the City directed URS to design somc additional alignment options that did not traverse the front yard to the south which it currently docs today. The main concern from 351 1 was the alignment of thc driveway and the fact that thc drivcway should not get any stceper. The existing driveway has a grade that varies throughout but the steepest grade is 1 1.8% adjacent to the garage apron. The preference from 351 1 is that the driveway be extended straight out of the garage in order to intersect the roadway pcrpcndicular although this is the shortest distance to the road and makes for the steepest drivcway. So, the additional options URS was directcd to investigate were one which extended straight out of the garage and another which was in-betwccn that and the original alignment. · As part of the roadway design at this time, URS was pcrforming an analysis of the profile of Siems Court. The options were to raisc, lower, or maintain the profile of the road. Raising the ccnterline of the road would help driveways to the east but negatively impact the gradc of the driveways to the west (the shared driveway is on the west side of Siems Court). Vice versa, if the roadway centerline were lowered, driveways to the east would have steeper grades while driveways to thc west would bc improvcd. The City directed URS to maintain the existing profile of Siems Court as well as provide a constant 2% cross-slope from east to west in order to hest maintain existing driveway grades. Although, hecause of the introduction of curb & gutter and the concrete aprons some challenges would sti]J he apparent. . February 23,2006 URS completed the analysis ofthree options for 35l 1. The original proposed option which angled to the south had a gradc of7.8%, the perpendicular option produced a grade of 15.1 %, and the middle option had a grade of 12.l %. This information was provided to 3511 and none of these options were acceptable. 35 1 1 again indicated that they prefcrrcd the perpendicular alignment but was not happy that it significantly increased grade of the driveway. It was pointed out that all these options included an apron that cxtended behind the curb 5 feet with a 7.5% grade, a 5 foot tangent section, and then a 10 foot vertical curve to transition from positive grade to negative grade. 35l I thcn requested that the City investigate a 5 foot road shift to the east as well as a lowering of the road to help out grade. It was pointed out that lowering the road was not an option based on our previous analysis but the apron gradc, thc 5 foot tangent section, the 10 foot vertical eurve, and a 5 foot road shift could be investigated. · February 24, 2006 URS completed the property research which indicated there are perpetual driveway easements for four properties in this area including the lot to the south of the 35l I. With this easement in place, the only way to create the separate driveway scenario would be if the four property owners agreed to remove the easement. 35 1 7 then indicated that they still prcfer the shared driveway and would not agree to rcmove the driveway easement. The City then directed URS to design improvements in this area which included the shared driveway with improvements to the retaining wall and stairs. · March 29, 2006 URS completed the analysis of the 5 foot road shift as well as the adjustments to the apron grade and removal of the 5 foot tangent section. A]J this information was presented to the City and it was apparent that the 5 foot road shift had too many impacts on the east side of Siems Court. The property across the street from 351 1 would have three mature trees impacted, the need for a retaining wall, a much longer rcmoval ofthe driveway as well as an increased driveway grade, which was not acceptable to that resident. The City concludcd that thc 5 foot shift was not an option, although, the adjustments to thc apron grade and the removal of the 5 foot tangent section are good options for improving thc driveway grade for 351 l. . - - . . -. · April 13,2006 thc City and URS presented this information to 3511 explaining why a 5 foot shift east was not an option but adjusting the apron grade and rcmoving the 5 foot tangent section are viable options. Two alignment options were presented, the perpcndicular aligrunent and an alignment which had a slight curve to the south. With no 5 foot tangent section and a 7.5% apron, the perpendicular aligrunent has a grade of 12.85% but if the apron grade is lowered to 2.0% then the grade is 11.99%. For the southern alignmcnt with no 5 foot tangent scction and a 7.5% apron, the grade is lO.31% but if the apron grade is lowered to 2.0% then the grade is 9.68%. The perpendicular option was still the version that 35l 1 preferred, although, even with the improvements, still increased the driveway grade slightly from 1 1.8% to 1 1 .99%. The resident seemed encouraged with the fact that they would be getting a new driveway surface all the way to their garage apron, their front yard would be expanding because of this alignment, and they would have the perpendicular alignment they prefer. Page 1 of 1 Kristine Giga From: Wayne Henquinet [whenquinet@newmech.coml Sent: Wednesday, September 06,20067:45 AM To: Kristine Giga Subject: Assessment I do not believe it is right or smart to have to pay for the road improvement or any capital improvement before the work is complete. That is why home owners get in trouble with contractors who do not complete the job: they paid the contractor before the work was complete. I assume the city is not paying the contractor before the work is done and tested. I expect you will not be paying the contractor until 30 days after the job is commissioned. I would expect that to be in December or January, we therefore should also not have to pay the city before the work is completed and tested and accepted by the city. Also, the option of paying it over time is not really an option when you are charging 2% over prime. With prime at about 7.33% we would have to pay 9.33% or higher when real estate loans are about 6%. We are not being treated fair. 917/2006 . ~ ~ . - - ~ ~HILLS CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 06-47 RESOLUTION ADOPTING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE 2006 PMP- RIDGEWOOD NEIGBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, thc Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the improvement ofthc City of Arden Hills 2006 Pavement Management Program improvement of Siems Court bctween Lake JohaIma Boulevard and thc cuI de sac of Siems Court, Arden Place betwccn Siems Court and Snelling Avcnue, Ridgewood Road between Lake Johanna Boulevard and Arden Placc, Skiles Lane between Arden Place and Snelling A venue, for the reconstruction of the street by the installation of asphalt paving, concrete curb and gutter, storm sewcr, utility repair, landscaping and necessary appurtenances, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and the City Council that: l. Such proposed assessmcnt roll, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hcrcof, is hcreby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be bcncfited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the asscssment lcvicd against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 10 ycars, unless prepaid, the first of the installments to be payable with general taxes levied in 2006, collectible with such taxes during the year of 2007, and shall bear interest at the rate of _ percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment rcsolution. To thc first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from thc date of this resolution until Deccmber 31,2006. To each subsequcnt installment when due shall be added interest for one ycar on all unpaid installments. 3. lf the adopted assessment differs from the proposed assessment as to any particular lot, piece, or parcel of laIld, thc City Administrator shall mail to the owner a notice stating the amount of the adopted assessment. The administrator must also notify affect cd owners of any changes adopted by the Council in interest rates or prepayment requircments from those containcd in the notice of the proposed assessment. 4. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessmcnt to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, to the \\Metro-ineLus\.-,rdenhills\Admin\Coullcil\Resolutions\2006'.06-47, Adopting Proposed Special Assessment Roll 2006 PMP.doc City Administrator, no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of the assessment. He may at any time thereafter, pay to the County Auditor the entire amount of the assessment rcmaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made beforc November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. . 5. The City Administrator shall fOlihwith prepare and transmit a certified duplicate of this assessmcnt to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the county. Such asscssmcnts shall be collected and paid over in the same mmmer as other municipal taxes. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS 11th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2006. Beverly Aplikowski, MAYOR ATTEST: Michelle Wolfe, CITY ADMINISTRATOR ~ - \\Metro-inetuslardenhills\AdminICouncil\Reso!uticns\2006\06-47, Adopliog Proposed Special Assessment Roll 2006 PMPdoc . - - <D o o '" " o o .<:: ~ o .0 .<:: Ol ... Z " o o ~ ..J '" ..J 010 " a:: ii': >- z w :;; en en w en ~ r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- <-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- "' "' oo oo "' "' '" '" oo "' '" '" "' "' "' '" '" '" '" "' '" oo '" oo '" oo "' oo oo "' ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ~ ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; "'''' '" ro ro '" '" "'- ro. '" "' '" '" '" oo "' ro oo oo oo "' "' '" "' oo "' "'- oo ro "' "' '" '" "'. co_ex::. oi oi oi '" '" c;, oi oi oi oi oi oi oi oi oi oi oi ",- oi oi oi oi oi c;, oi oi oi oi '" '" '" "'''' WtI7WtA-tB-~WtF)-1JJ tI7WWtA-WWWWWtI7WWWWtI7WWWWWWWWWIJJ """ r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- '" "' ro "' ro '" "' '" '" "' '" "' "' '" "' '" ro '" ro "' '" '" "' '" oo ro "' ro ro ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; "' ro oo "' "' '" '" "' "'- "'- "'- ro '" '" '" "' ro ro ro ro "' ro '" "' ro oo "' "' '" '" '" oi '" oi oi oi oi oi oi '" '" '" '" oi oi oi oi oi oi oi oi oi oi '" oi oi oi oi oi oi oi oi DOq~O~qooooooq~qoooqqqqqqqqqoooqo WWm0WWWWV7WWtB-tB-WW~WtB-WWWWWWtB-WWWWWWtA-tB-tB-tB- c:l o o ~ , Z 00:: (/)Ww O::NO:: >-W......JS (DO We:> U)Z2U O<:{Q2 E5~U)J r--l f= <(;3 ~>-~~z n:::a::o:::a::W <(<(IOn::: ~2UOIJ) oo w > ::0 ~(/)z (/)-,0 r-:W(I) (/)I'" IO~V5 l-~o::W ::0 w- O:::-I,,<::::Z <(w..::() 5Z>--2 ---IZO::W >-w<::(w (1)-:>2---1 z w z ~ ill ZZO oo 00> z2S U)E2~U) WZ(l)~<(I~ 0::O:J..JwI~ <(....J 0... 0:::: ICO<(2-..JWW ,Z~<2W~>- >-Sa::::JzOO::: :;;~~~:'f>~ <(OU)...JOW2 z W (/)z c:l~ 0:;; Ow ~z 'Z "'0 ~(/) O~ CZw >-:J ~::o (L, z oo 0:::0 ~ w(/) W -'s W -'~ I i'500s 22---1<( wZ;;:;~ W~wI U(I)Zt- >--[(<(2 QSZo0 -' -' :;; zO I"' wt;; ::00 "'z ",W ~~ CZw 00 -':J 0~ >- w (/) w ::0 >- 0:: ~ ~ z ~~ffio::: ~ I (I)~ ~~(I) ~ ~~~&~~~~ W 1-~~b~~~~~~~~~I-~ U)o...OZ<(<(OOgUDzU22WIl-o::r-:I()O~OO O::~>Wa::>2U)-~W<:(<(w~I-WU)O(l)O~2~~2 5 -lICOWSSs,>-o'z (I)~0Z...J~W~ss<( ~ m~~>-...J ~U)(I)O.....J05(1)(I)~m~(I)~I~U)LLZ <(2 2IWW Q~zo:::l- ...JU)S ~w~ ~ >- > .....J,O"'<((I)<(0<(l-w0w...J...JIwa::U)~<(Wm(l)...J.....J~wn:::W--l ...J<(<(~<(wZO::J~Z~Ozn:::z00wIWOI2O::ZWO::~>O::wZO O:::Z<(o:::~r<(~...JI--lO:::00W~::J...Jl-mOOOOI2<(ZW~00~OO O>w-OO::<(5050~w~OO~WO~-IZO~I~~W I~ ~>~~~m,>,>0000000W~r~r~"UO~,~~U z w oo rrrrrrrl- n:::o::~n:::~o:::o:::o::OOOOOOOO ::J::l::J:J:J:J:J:J<{<(<{<(<{<{<{<{ 0000000000000000 wwwwwwwwwwUUUUUUUU~o::n:::o::~n:::O::O::rrrrrrr uuuouuuuuoooooooooooooooooOo::o::o::o::o::~~n::: 555555555550000000000000000::0::0::0::0::0::0::0::0 ~~~~~~~~~~~oooooooooooooooooooooooo SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOO zzzzzzzzzzzwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww~w~w~www wwwwwwwwwww00~00000~0000~00~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~gQQgQggQQQQgQQQQ~~~~~~~~ <{<{<{<t<t<t<(<(<{<{<tO::O:::O::O::O::~~~O::O::O::O::O::O::O::O::wwwww~~w ~~~8~~~~~~~~N~~~~~~~~g~~Rro~g~~~~~~~ vvv~~'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~mm~~~m~mvvvvvvvv ~ ~~nn~~~~~~M~~M~nnn~~M~MM ::;: N 0 '" ~ '" 0 co '" " '" r-- '" co " '" r-- '" c;, " '" co co " '" co ~ "' "' c;, co 0 N co co co N " co " co co N co N N N co " '" co '" '" co " 0 0 0 0 0 co co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 00 0 9 0 ~ '"' '"' '"' '" '" ~ '"' ~ '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N '" '" c0c0 '" '" '" 'i' N 'i' N N N N N N N N N N N N 'i' N N 'i' N N N N N N N N N 'i' 'i' NN N '" '"' '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '"' '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '"' '" '"' '" '" Mc0 '" N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" 00 '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '? '? '? '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" " " ,;. " ,;. ,;. ,;. " " ,;. " ,;. ,;. ,;. ,;. ,;. " " ,;. " ,;. " " " ,;. ,;. ,;. ,;. ,;. ,;. ,;. ,;. " '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" 1:l o o .<::. ~ o .Q .<::. Ol .0; Z 1:l o o ~ ...J '" ...J OlO 1:l '" Ii: ,... Z 0.. w :!: ~ 0.. en U) w o en o en '" <( i1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~oo~~~~~~~~~~~rorooo~~~~~~~~~ M~M~~~~M~~MMM~M~~~M~~MMM~~ oororororooooororooooororooooorooooororooooooooorooo mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmcimmmmmmm ? w~~ww~~~wwoowwoowwwwwwwwwwww : , , '~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ " '" "'''' ~c:oro maim ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~oo~~~oooo~~ro~~oooo~~~~~~~~~ M~M a) """ mmo) ;;~;:;;;;C;;;;;('")(0M~ 00 coooroc:o rorooo 00 co al almaiOl-O)-crim-crim~ ;:;;;(0(");;;;;;:;;:;;;M 00 co COOOOOCOro coco ro mmmm-oicricricricricri mwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww qoooooooq~oqqoooqqq~qqq~o '" OJ '" '" 0 0 Z ';:: ~ 6~~et:~ i':: tg>-(I) ~UZW~~ ,'.' o<(@ffiww 0 ~ ;;:: r:r 0:.( > Z:::.:::: ZO~O~OI ZZU~20::: Ie:.( <(w-a:::: o::{W:2:I-O::: ,> :>"'>(L~U>-<(<(;j! -;. <(W:><("'C::i!I<(<( ,: >-W<(ZIWLLif)a:::: > O::ZI---<tI-Zu.[(COo:.( /i:':;;:,: ~ ~ ;:5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ riil~~ !jLIILI~ >- 0 ~ogw >-W>U WZ>- (J)a5wg: ---l~O"""') Z<{D:::w O~:\:J et:W---l....J :::Q~~ . , o :\ '" LL <( W ~ <( <( '" ;ii '" <( OJ W W f- W ::0 '" f- 00 Uz ZZ::o W>-~ OUC9 >-~<( ;20I ",3;:<( LL>Z --1~lli >-"'~ "'OI W-'f- IW<( wO,", "'Z W<( 0", 0", :>w "'OJ 0:> Wz "'<( Ow ~::o :>w W IW U-' Wf- of- ]-1- 00<.( wO:: ZCO ZW wO::: :::l~ OW aC9cc~fri a:iu~>~ I:r5<((I) ~tD~~~ ~cozCt::W >-;S<(I'" ~:Jgs~!jo! :>W(/)~I- UJ W f- W W UJ ::0 f- '" W f- ii! 0 f- U o is O>-I Z:':J Z ~ I-~~ z~O~ Z N(/) OOC~ Z~~~~ wOZW~wz~l-wl-~l-~ (/)02 ~IWmOZO~~~ ~V~ ~WZI- ~ZO~O~~~~OrO~I00~~W~~~ Z6~~~m~~~~~$~~~ffi~~~>~~ ~O~~G~U~OC~O~I~~m~~ao~oc ~w~O~~m~WUOrrO~I-OC~WS(/)(/)O IWr~~~Z~~~r~wzoc(/)~I ~~~ ~2OC~~I-Z~~ OCZU~Ww~~I~2~ w~W~~~~ZO~OCoc~~m~~~~OOZ I-~IO>~O~I(/)~WOC~O~>~WIIO (/)WOOC>U~OI-~~mm~oc,>~~I-I-O 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-]-1- n::::o::: n::o:::o::::n::: 0:: n::::er:: 0::: o::a::::cr:: 0::: a::: a::: ::l::;l:J:J::l:):J::):J:J:J:J::J:J:J:J 0000000000000000 OUUOOUOOUUUOOOUO (/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)~~ :>:>:>~:>:>:>~:>~:>:>:>~:>:>-'~ ~~~~~~~WW~WWW~~~2~ (/)(/)(/)(/)~(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/) v~o ~m~~o ~oo~roNO~ mm~~~roGO~~~N~~~ro~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~MM~~~M~MM~~MMM~~~~~ N N ~ 0 00 00 rhrh N N rhrh NN 00 "'''' ..}.q. "'''' wwwwwwwwww ZZZZZZZZZZ :\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\ (f)(f)U)(/)U)(/)U)(/) WWWLUWWWW -l..J---l-l-l..J-l-l S2S2S2S2S2~S2S2 (f)(f)(f)(J)CI)U)(j)CJ) LDCONlD(!)...--IOO l.lJl!)I.D<.Oc.Dr--f'-CO vvvv"<to:::to:::t"<t '" ~ ~ 0 00 00 rhc0 N N rhrh <';'1";/ 00 '" '" ...t.J. "'''' ..,--0.100) ooog 0000 ~NNN NNNN rhrhrhM NNN(",I 0000 ~~J~ ("')("")('")C") r--oomN(")l.O.q-mco '<l"O'<l"NNONNN 000000000 000000000 NNNNNNNNc>? ~~~~~~~~~ NNNNNNNNN 000006000 ("")(")(")<(<('?'?'?(") ..J...J.+"<t"<t"<t'<l""<t+ ("")(") (')C'){")(") (,,)Mcr) ~ '" <0 N '" N 000 000 r0r0r0 SJSJ'i" "'''' '" NNN 000 '" "'''' +.J..J. "''''''' It)'<l"''<t(0 N C') N (") 0000 ~~~~ ~~~~ N N N N 0000 ("")(") (") ('") ++++ (")(")(")(") N N '" N 00 99 "'''' N N c0r0 N N 66 "'''' ++ "'''' ... 0> '" ~ '" ai o <0 . '" - I- Z w :!: en en UJ en en <( o w en o 0.. o cr: 0.. ...J <( I- o ,... - 'Prepared by: JL Dept.: C m. Dev Council Mtg. Date: 9/11/2006 Final Action Needed By: 10/8/2006 ~ --A~HILLS City ot Arden Hills Request for Council Action Agenda Itemlt~ PC #06-025: Site Plan Review: AMT Inc.; 1300 Grev Fox Road Budgeted Amount: $0.00 Actual Amount: $0.00 Funding Source: n/a Council Action Request: Consider a motion to approve Planning Case 06-025 for a Site Plan Review to add 36 parking stalls to 1300 Grey Fox Road based on the submitted plans, the eleven findings of fact, and the eight conditions in the planning case report. Staff Recommendation: Approve the Site Plan Review. Advisory Commission Action: Commission Planning PTRC Date Action Approved. Not Applicable Not applicable .. Supporting Documents (which are attached to this Action Form): . [2J Memo/Letter: Report to the City Council Draft Planning Commission Minutes Report to the Planning Commission with attachments o Resolution (No. ) o Ordinance (No. ) o Engineering Recommendation: o Attorney Recommendation: o Other: Financial Implications: Administrator/Staff Comments: - Page 1 of 1 -. - - ~ c 6 ~: ~ ~ ~ :fJ ~ l ~ ~ .,0 ~ ~,3 '2~ 8 ~ f c; 1il:~~~2~~Z 3i~g:s&L5.'t~ <: ;; ~ < 1) ~ ~ q ~ f:: ~ ?~ "'- ~ tIJ ~ o 8 1]' '\"\ \ '" ~ M C C . C c. -I till .! ifclJr w ~ :~ =1L , : c oC '~.i-:-;:: E~3: ~~: "-:$2ro ""C'-o -] E.~ ~ g'~ c::~.g "" ::: j L;.w 'e- - gJ;~ ~,::w::m7/Ai'l ,,:m.-' ,c :::: I ::: . g ~-ii rllll u'lil j V P :::,'::> g g ~ FI" tllli 1 .... ......,!::: . >,llll. "n. I::: t'"""" ;: ~;: I h;D,::: I. ,'i"1 :., gli~] OJ) g 1.'J l~m!i,~'\, ~!f ~::,I,lillll : ~ ~ ,,~~: i, ~ i~ ;3: - ~ 1'\.Wlj~" il. ~~\I"'0j; ,Ui i i..... . ~ ~ ~ ~':,' I ...... }~,J:1!f=\:i~ ~ H ~ ]. I' /lIlm 11:'i::: I 11 ~ i ~ r=- Iii' I~m 'H''2, v lP~)b E~ ~ i ~mlim.m:m'-i/)I\~ 'j~'IJllta. ~ U) '1 -.'* i' t\~ 1 nl c...... // I'I .'c-. m ill ill\..! .;: ~ ~ ]':~., /~($n Ii < . ~:;:~ >if ill 0lJ !B ~ 2 \~:::--- ---;:;~--- ~ 8 ~ :::: W: --v-\Y.J.;:r;r; ~::~ ~ 1; ra ::: is :? .-LI1;! -Q+it m: 0 - "" =lli";- ~ c C ~ //\. t~1~11i')iJ'.J my' 'U! "" '/T ",0 ., I ~1pi. o~~ 2~~ ,- ~ g,. \ "0 a. a. ~ ~~'~ 1"""- i; ..! -;; 5" g .0. .5 .ij ~ lU 1m ,X\ (---'-'m" , j' ~:;~ .1 1m >' :ilf~jJm~:~ ,""'''ll, .,,~(\~r, i j 3 ;:::>: i <:~_ -I ."- 'i; ~ ~ · >y is ::: - .- u == :::I o U ~ .... .- U 1.0 o I .... .... I 0'1 I . I' ....;~~ Ul~,'cl::. ,__,,,_LI \ vr; , ~ V1 ~ '.) !'C. ~ . - - ~ ~~.}-IILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: September 7, 2006 CC Agenda Item 7.A TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Jamcs Lehnhoff; City p]an~ SUBJECT: PC #: 06-025 Site Plan Review AMT Inc. 1300 Grey Fox Road Backl!round AMT Inc. is rcquesting a site plan review to add 36 parking stalls to the property at 1 300 Grey Fox Road. Although AMT Inc. owns the building, J.J. Taylor Distributing, formerly known as East Sidc Beverage, is the tenant. .J..T. Taylor Distributing also occupies the building at 1260 Grey Fox Road, which is immcdiately east of the 1300 Grey Fox Road property. Grey Fox Road was rccently reconstructed, and all on,street parking was eliminated. Prior to the reconstruction, J.1. Taylor Distributing had been using Grey Fox Road for a portion of their parking needs. With thc loss ofthe on'street parking, J.1. Taylor Distributing has been short on parking and had vcry crowded parking lots. This request is meant to provide adequate parking for all employees and visitors on the property. The applicant is proposing to increase the number of parking spaces at 1300 Grey Fox Road by 36 from the current 3 1 stalls for a total of 67 stalls. The existing parking area will be re,striped to accommodatc a thirteen of the new stalls, and twcnty,three new stalls will be created by removing the grassy peninsula in the parking area. Although the submitted plans indicatc that there will be 69 stalls on the site with the cxpansion, the applicant has opted to not include two proposed stalls in the northeastern part ofthe property due, in part, to a potential cncroachment on the 20 foot parking setback from the front lot line (Attachment 3AA of the Planning Commission report). Currently, J.1. Taylor Disl1ibuting is sharing parking between the two properties that it is leasing. In terms ofnse, the two properties are used as one. The l260 Grey Fox Road property has 87 parking stalls. With the requested site plan rcview, there would be 154 parking stalls betwccn the two properties for the 140 employees at the two sites. The applicant has submitted a shared \1,Metro-inel.usinrdellhills"PlnnningIPlm1l1ing CasesI2006',06-025 AAITlnc -./J Fay/or Site Plan Revie.v (PENDING)W90606 CC Report -AMT Jne sile plan rel'if'w.doc Page] of3 parking agreemcnt between the owners of ] 300 Grey Fox, l260 Grey Fox, and J.J. Taylor Distributing. Recommendation The Planning Commission reviewcd Planning Case 06-025 and unanimously recommends approval of the Site Plan Review to add 36 new parking stalls based on the submitted plans and the following eleven findings offaet. On the Zoning Ordinance Lot Requirements: ]. The proposed modifications arc in confonnance with the lot requiremcnts in Section 5.F of tbe Zoning Ordinance. On the Parking Regulations: 2. The size and location of the proposed parking is in conformancc with Section 6.F of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The proposed parking stalls meet all required parking setbacks. 4. The applicant is providing 67 parking spaces on the property wherc at least 81 would be rcquired based on building sizc. The applicant currently has a shared parking agreement with 1260 Grey Fox Road, which is also occupied by J.J. Taylor Distributing. If additional parking is needcd on the 1 300 Grcy Fox Road property, there is sufficicnt space on the property for more parking. On the Special Use Permit Evaluation Criteria: 5. The propos cd use will increase parking and make the property more conforming to the Zoning Ordinance. Thc increase in parking will eliminate the need for on-street parking. 6. The proposed use will not produce any significant additional noisc, glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid or solid wastc, or any other nuisance charactcristics. Therc may be temporary dust or odors during construction. 7. The proposed use is unlikely to significantly affect drainage. This proposal may need Rice Creek Watershcd Approval. 8. The proposed usc will not affect the population density ofthe neighborhood. The parking lot expansion is for cxisting employees. 9. The proposed exterior modifications to 1300 Grcy Fox Road will likely have a neutral or positive impact on adjoining propel1ies. lO. The park dedication fee does not apply to this project. 1 l. The proposed modifications are in conformance with the rcquirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Thc proposed modifications are not in conflict with the Comprehcnsive Dcvelopment Plan. Recommended Conditions: The Planning Commission and Staffrccommend that the approval be subject to thc following eight conditions: IIMctro-inet.us\ardenhiflsIPlanningll'io/J/linR ("rrscsI2006',06-025 A,HT [nc JJ Taylor Site Plan Review (PENDING) 1090606 _ CC Report AMT luc sire plan review.doc Page 2 of} . - - 1. ~ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The project shall be completed in accordancc with the plans submitted. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by thc City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission. The applicant shall obtain and submit a copy to the City all necessary permits from Rice Creek Watershed before a building permit is issued and before construction begins. All of the parking stalls shall be striped. Any damaged parking blocks shall bc replaced in all parking areas. The trees along Grey Fox Road shall be retained. If feasible, the trees in the median that will be removed shall be relocated to another portion of the property. The applicant shall comply with the memo from the City Engineer dated August 28, 2006. The applicant shall provide at least three ADA accessible parking stalls that are subject to review and approval by the Building Official. Resident Comment: Options Staff has not rcccived any public comments regarding this application. l. Approve the proposal as submitted. 2. Approve the proposal with conditions. 3. Deny the application with reasons for denial. If the City denies the petitioners request, "... it must statc in writing the reasons for the denial at the time it denies thc request." 4. Table for additional information. - Deadline for A!!encv Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completcd application for this request on August 8, 2006. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statue, the City must act on this request by October 8, 2006 (60 days), unless the cjty provides the petitioner with written reasons for and additional 60 day review period. The City may, with the consent of tbe applicant, extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. Attachments 7A-l 7A-2 Draft Planning Commission Minutes Report to the Planning Commission -- Online at: http://www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us e 1,',Melro-ineruslm'denhills'Pianning\Planning Cases',2006'I06-025 AMTlnc - jj Tl7ylor Size Plan Review (PENDING)1090606 - CC Report - AM]' fne sile plan review. doc Page 3 on - Attachment 7 A -1 Draft Planning Commission Minutes - e Septembcr 11, 2006, City Council Meeting . ,....., I.L.. ~ e ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMlSSlON -SEPTEMBER 6, 2006 2 A. PLANNING CASE 06-025 - SITE PLAN REVIEW, AMT INC., 1300 GREY FOX ROAD Mr. LelmholT stated the applicants were requesting a site plan review to add 36 parking stalls to the property at 1300 Grey Fox Road. Staffrecommended approval based on the following conditions: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted. Any signi ficant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission. 2. The applicant shall obtain and submit a copy to the City all necessary permits from Ricc Creek Watershed before a building permit is issued and before constmction begins. 3. All of the parking stalls shall be striped. 4. Any damaged parking blocks shall be replaced in all parking areas. 5. The trees along Grcy Fox Road shall be retained. 6. If feasible, the trees in the median that will be removed shall be relocated to another portion of the property. 7. The applicant shall comply with the memo from the City Engineer dated August 28, 2006. 8. The applicant shall provide at least three ADA accessible parking stalls that are subjcct to review and approval by the Building Official. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if the parking agreement was a signcd agrecment. Mr. Lelmhoff rcsponded there was a signed agreement. Commissioner McClung askcd right now how much were they deficient in parking. Mr. Lehnhoff responded they were deficient by approximately 20 spots. He indicatcd if this was approved, thcy would have sufficient parking. Commissioncr Larson asked if the new parking would have curb and gutter. Mr. Lelmhoff rcplied the existing parking did not have curb and gutter and the new parking would also not have curb and gutter. Commissioner Larson askcd if there would be any drainage issues onto Grey Fox Road. Ms. Giga respondcd there should not be any drainage problems as therc were catch basins near by with sufficient capacity to accommodatc thc slight increase in runoff from this proj ect. Commissioner McClung moved, seconded hy Commissioner Zimmennan to recommcnd approval of Planning Case No. 06-025, Site Plan Review, AMT Inc., 1300 Grey Fox Road subject to the eight conditions as outlined in staff's August 29, 2006 report. Commissioner Zimmennan stated hc believed for the future it would be pmdent for the City to push for curb and guttcr and upgrade them to City standards, but he was not in opposition to this request. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). DRAFT . Attachment 7 A - 2 Report to the Planning Commission Available online at: http://www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us - - September 11,2006, City Council Mceting . . . . ~ ~HILLS City ot Arden Hills Request for Council Action Prepared by: J Dept.: C m. Dev Council Mtg. Date: 9/11/2006 Final Action Needed By: 10/14/2006 Agenda Item~~a PC #06..026: Preliminary Plat: Arlene Boutin: 1600 Lake Johanna Blvd Budgeted Amount: $0.00 Actual Amount: $0.00 Funding Source: n/a Council Action Request: Consider a motion to approve Planning Case 06-026 for a Preliminary Plat to create three conforming lots at 1600 Lake Johanna Blvd based on the submitted plans, the six findings of fact, and the seventeen conditions in the planning case report. Staff Recommendation: Approve the Preliminary Plat with the recommended conditions. Advisory Commission Action: Commission Planning PTRC Date Supporting Documents (which are attached to this Action Form): !:81 Memo/Letter: Report to the City Council Draft Planning Commission Minutes Report to the Planning Commission with attachments o Resolution (No. ) o Ordinance (No. ) o Engineering Recommendation: o Attorney Recommendation: o Other: Financial Implications: Administrator/Staff Comments: Action Approved . Not Not Page 1 of 1 . . . ~ /]'\~ILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: September 7, 2006 CC Agenda Item 7.B TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: James Lehnhoff, City Plmmelf SUBJECT: PC #06-026 Prcliminary Plat Arlcne Boutin 1600 Lake Johanna Blvd Backl!round OvenJielV The applicant is requesting a preliminary plat for l600 Lake Johanna Blvd, which is located at the southwest corner of Lake Johanna Blvd and Siems Court on the northeast side of Lake Johmma. The eastern two-thirds of the property were originally platted as three separate lots with access to Siems Court; howevcr, these lots were combined with a lot to the west at some point in the past. This proposal would re-plat the one combined lot into three conforming lots: Proposed Lot Size & Dimensions Lot Size (sq_ ft.) lot Width (ft.) ! lot Depth (ft.) R-1 Zone 14,000 95 (1 05 corner Jot) 130 Lot 1 32,527 146 259 ~. 33,985 151 246 Lot 3 45,680 158 240 All three lots meet the minimum requircments of the Zoning Ordinance and Shoreland Ordinance. Proposed lots land 2 would be able to accommodate one new dwelling and garage without a variance. Lot 3 has an existing dwelling and two accessory structures. Lot 3 would retain all of the 133 feet of shoreline. Lots land 2 would not be adjacent to the shoreline. The eastern two-thirds ofthe property are vegetated and a wctland occupies the central portion of the property. The eastcrn portion of the property adjaccnt to Siems Court is very steep but is within the setback and will not be developed or have the vegetation removcd by the applicant. 'liMetro-inel.uslardenhills\PlanningIP/anning CnsesI2006',06-026 Bou/in Pre!imillal)' Plat (PENDING) 1090606 - CC Report Boutin preliminn.ry plat. doc Page] of 4 Wetlands & Storm water Management The City has a preliminary agreement with the applicant to incorporate the wetland and a proposcd storrnwater treatment pond into the stonnwater management system for the Ridgewood ncighborhood pavement management program. The wetlands and treatment pond would be included in an easement that would be dedicatcd to and maintained by the City. Much of Lot 2 and a portion of Lot 3 would not be buildable due to thc cascments placed on the property; however, there would be sufficient room at the northern parts of cach lot to accommodate a single family homc and garage. Plan Cl in the attachments to the Planning Commission report show the proposed easement lines. Plan G 1 shows the proposed building pads. To create the building pads shown in Plan Gl, approximately 834 square feet of the n0l1hernmost segment of the wetland and two small segments at the northeastern part of the wetland are proposed to be fillcd. To mitigate the wetland loss, thc City will expand the wetland along the southem edge to compensate for the loss ofwetJand on the northern side. For every one square foot of wetland removed, thcre will be at least two square feet replaced. Additionally, approximately five thousand cubic yards of excess fill from the road reconstruction project will bc used for fill in the wetland and to provide a more stable base outside that is well above a potcntial flood area in the buildable area for thc future homes on Lots 1 and 2. The preliminary agrccment with the property owner for the easements and storrnwater management docs not obligate the City to approve the preliminary plat proposal if the proposal is unable to meet the requirements of the Subdivision Code. The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) is the responsible governmental unit for reviewing wetland filling and grading. The applicant, with assistance from the City, has submitted the required documents to the RCWD. Due to the timing ofthe RCWD review process, the decision on the permit was not available in time for the rclease of this packet. The applicant will necd to submit a copy of an approvcd pemlit from the RCWD before the Final Plat is approved. Since the wetland filling is, in part, related to a City project that involves treating stormwater before it entcrs Lake Johanna, it is quite likcly that the application to thc RCWD will be approved. While wetland filling is usually a causc for concern, this project will help improve the overall storm water situation in this neighborhood and will increase the quality of the water that enters the lake. Recommendation Thc Planning Commission reviewed Plmming Casc 06-026 and unanimously recommends approval of thc preliminary plat based on the following six findings of fact: Zoning Ordinance Findings: I. The preliminary plat proposal meets or exceeds all of the requirements of the underlying R-l Zone, including minimum lot size, lot width, and lot depth. ',Vdetro-inet.lIsl11rdenhillsIPlrmning',f'/mming CasesI2006\06-026 Boutin PrelimiMIl)' Plat (PENDING)I090606 - CC Report Boutin preliminay} plautoc Page 2 of4 . . . . . . 2. The two new lots in the preliminary plat are capable of accommodating a dwelling that meets all requircd setbacks and coverage limits without a variance. 3. The existing dwelling and an accessory structure on Lot 3 were legal-nonconforming structures prior to the preliminary plat application. The structures will continue to be legal, non-conforming structures with the proposed plat. Subdivision Ordinance Findings: 4. With the proposed wetland modifications and grading, the Lots I and 2 meet or exceed all of the requirements of the City of Arden Hills Subdivision Code. 5. All three lots are adjacent to the public right-of-way and capable of supporting separate driveways. 6. A park dedication fee will be required for this plat proposaL Recommended Conditions: The Plalming Commission and Staff recommend that the approval be subject to the following seventeen conditions: l. The applicant shall comply with applicable provlslOns of the City Code and related ordinances. 2. Thc applicant shall submit the final plat and application to the City of Arden Hills within three months of the preliminary plat approval date or the approval shall expire unless an extension is granted by thc Planning Commission. The final plat shall reflect all applicable changes in the conditions of approval for the preliminary plat. 3. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans snbmitted as part of the preliminary plat and final plat applications. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Plamler, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission. 4. Thc applicant shall include a l2 foot drainage and utility easement centered on all common lot lines, and a 12 foot drainage and utility easement along the right-of-way. 5. The applicant shall pay a park dedication fee as detennined by thc City Council at thc time thc final plat is approved. 6. The applicant shall amend the final plat to be in conformance with all of the comments from the August 28th, 2006, memo from the City Engineer. 7. Any extension of City services for the new lot shall be subject to rcvicw and approval by the City Engineer and all associated costs shall be the responsibility ofthe applicant. 8. Erosion control measures shall be installed before any grading or construction begins and shall bc maintained and remain in place until groundcover is reestablished and construction is finished. 9. Any changes to the grading or erosion control plan shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer. lO. Lot I shall use Lake Johanna Blvd as the official access point to thc property. 1 1. The applicant shall submit an approved road access permit for Lots land 2 from Ramsey County before the final plat is approved. I,V\4etro-inel_us'LanlenhillsIPlnnningIPlannfng Ca.>csI2006106-026 Bou/in Preliminary Plat (PENDINGji090606 - CC Report - Bmllin preliminary pllll.doc Page 3 of 4 12. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits, including the wctland fill permit, from Rice Crcck Watershed District before the final plat is approved. 13. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all other necessary permits from Ramsey . County, the State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and any other governing agencies where applicable prior to approving tbe final plat. l4. Trees shall not be removcd within the f0l1y foot setback from Siems Court without approval from the City Planner and City Forester. 15. Except for the drivcways to Lake Johanna Blvd, trecs shall not be removed outside of the proposed trce removal area without approval from the City Plmmer and City Forester. This provision shall not apply to trees removed by the City for City related projects. l6. Thc applicant shall provide an as-built survey upon completion ofthc project. 17. The applicmlt shall provide soil borings or other proof that the buildings pads are buildable prior to filing the Final Plat and subject to City Engineer approval. Resident Comment: Staff has not received any official public comments regarding this application. Options l. Approve the proposal as submitted. 2. Approve the proposal with conditions. 3. Dcny the application with reasons for denial. Ifthc City dcnies the petitioners request, ".. .it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at thc time it denies the request." . 4. Table for additional information. Deadline for Agencv Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on August 14, 2006. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by October l4, 2006 (60 days), unless the City provides the pctitioner with written reasons for an additional 60 day review period. The City may with the petitioners' consent extend the review period beyond the 120 days. Attachments 7B-l 7B-2 Draft Planning Commission Minutes Report to the Planning Commission - Online at: http://www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us 11Melro-illet.us\ardenhills'IPlanningIPlanning Cases',2(}06106.026 Boutin Pre/iminar.v Plat (PEND/lY'G)I0906D6 CC Heparr - Boutin preliminary' plai.do( Page 4 of 4 . . Attachment 7B-l Draft Planning Commission Minutes . . September I l, 2006, City Council Meeting . l- LL <t Ck: .0 . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION -SEPTEMBER 6, 2006 3 B. PLANNING CASE 06-026 - PRELIMINARY Pf,AT; ARLENE BOUTIN, 1600 LAKE JOHANNA BOULEVARD Mr. Lehnhoff stated applicant was requesting a preliminary plat to re-pJat l600 Lake Johanna Blvd. into three conforming lots. Staff recommended approval of thc Preliminary Plat, subject to the following conditions: I. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City Code and related ordinances. 2. The applicant shall submit the final plat and application to the City of Arden Hills within three months of the preliminary plat approval date or the approval shall expire unless an cxtcnsion is granted by the Planning Commission. The final plat shall reflect all applicable changes in the conditions of approval for the preliminary plat. 3. The project shall be complcted in accordance with the plans submitted as part of the preliminary plat and final plat applications. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Plamler, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission. 4. The applicant shall include a 12-foot drainage and utility easement centered on all common lot lines, and a I 2-foot drainagc and utility easement along the right-of-way. 5. The applicant shall pay a park dcdication fee as determined by the City Council at the time the final plat is approved. 6. The applicant shall amcnd the final plat to be in confomlance with all of the comments from the August 28th, 2006, memo from thc City Engineer. 7. Any extension of City services for the ncw lot shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and all associated costs shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 8. Erosion control measures shall be installed before any grading or construction begins and shall be maintained and remain in place until groundcover is reestablished and construction is finished. 9. Any changes to the grading or erosion control plan shall be subject to approval by the City Engincer. lO. Lot I shall use Lake Johanna Blvd as the official access point to the property. 11. The applicant shall submit an approved road access pcrmit for Lots 1 and 2 from Ramsey County before the final plat is approved. 12. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits, including the wetland fill permit, from Rice Creek Watcrshed District before the final plat is approved. 13. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all other necessary permits from Ramsey County, the State of Minncsota Department of Natural Rcsources and any other governing agencies where applicable prior to approving thc final plat. Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. Chair Sand invited anyone for or against the request to come forward and make comment. Steve Nelson, 3475 Siems Court, stated he was not for or against this. He stated he had lived 20 years down the road from this property. He noted this was the lowest point in the entire neighborhood and he was concerned if they filled this in it would flood the neighboring properties. He asked where the watcr would go if this was filled in. He did Is- LL, <( 0::: C ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION -SEPTEMBER 6, 2006 4 not believe there was sufficicnt pondage in this area. He asked the City to think this . development through to ensurc there was sufficient pondage. Ralph Oliver, 3505 Siems Court, asked for elarification regarding the east parcel. He asked what the elevation from Siems Court to the east property was. He noted Siems Court was a very steep road. He believed the topography on the east side would be very extrcme. He asked who would maintain that edge and would the trees remain. He stated the existing landscaping was very nice to screen the neighborhood from the road. Mr. Lehnhoff respondcd the elevation was 892 on Lot 1 and the road's highcst elevation was 910. He indicated the trees on the hillside would not be removed. He stated the trees were within the 40 foot setback from the lot line and were important for maintaining stability on the hill. Ms. Giga stated no large scale trce removal was being requested for the PMP, but somc trec trimming might be necessary for utility access. Cindy Wheeler, 3576 Siems Court, stated she was not excited about this development. She expressed concem about the amount of fill to be brought in. She asked if there was a charge to thc landowner for that fill the City was going to provide. Ms. Giga responded there was no charge and that was one of the negotiations with the landowner for the City easement. She noted the fill is excess from the PMP project, and the City is not paying for the easements on the property. Ms. Wheeler stated shc was not sure it was right to give City fill to a private landowner for development. If the City wants to do a separate negotiation for an easement, that would be fairer. She noted the fill being given could have been used for community projects rather than giving it to a private development. Chair Sand noted the City Councij would have to address this issue and the planning Commission's role was to make surc it met the zoning requirements. . Tom Mulcahy, 3530 Siems Court, stated he was "delighted" by this development. He statcd he lived down thc road from this property. He stated in his opinion, a wonderful dcal has just been made by an owner with the City in a timely fashion because of the improvements on Siems Court and Ridgewood. He stated the residents would benefit from thc proper handling of a great deal of water with this development. Bob Binzer, 1600 Lake Johanna Blvd, stated his wife owncd the property. He noted the problem was simple; they had a lot of water coming with one place to put it - on their land. He indicated they were not happy about this and in exchange for this they were asking for some fill. He noted they wcre giving a lot of wetlands to the City, as wcll as a pond, for some fill and the ability to build on two of the lots. He noted right now the watcr ran into Lake Johanna and with this proposal, the water would not run directly into the lake and would bc trcated properly. Diane Pearson, 1556 Arden Place, stated she was concemed about whether this land adequately dcals with the amount of ponding there needs to be to preserve in the best . possible way the water quality of Lake Joharma. She believed this land was always a wetland and she believed they needed to be careful because a wetland wants to be a wetland. . . . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION -SEPTEMBER 6, 2006 5 Chair Sand closed the puhlic hearing at 7:48 p.m. Commissioner McClung asked if the County was comfortable with two driveways onto Lake Johanna Boulevard. Mr. Lehnhoff responded the County did request the two driveways. Chair Sand askcd how far down or up Siems Court did this stormwater improvement work extcnd. Ms. Giga responded lOO or 200 feet north of Arden Place, which was approximately what flowed there right now. Chair Sand asked if the driveway cuts had been designated at this time. Ms. Giga responded the driveway cuts would be put in when the property was developed. Mr. Lchnhoff stated that Ramsey County would dctcrmine the location of the driveways. Commissioner McClung asked if they wanted this to meet the NERP standard, how much more squarc footage would be required. Ms. Giga responded she did not have that information and she would need to chcck with URS. Commissioncr McClung stated he would support this because he believed this was in the best interest of the City and the neighborhood. Hc bclieved thc City Engineer had taken a lot of time to ensure this would work. He statcd this was an improvcment for this area. Mr. Lehnhoffrequested a Condition l7 to state: The applicant shall provide soil borings or other proof that the building pads arc buildable prior to filing the final plat and subject to City Engineer review. Commissioner Larson moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman to approvc Planning Case No. 06-026, Preliminary Plat, Arlene Boutin, 1600 Lakc Johanna Boulevard, subject to the sixteen conditions as noted in staffs August 30, 2006 report and condition 17 as added by staff. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). <<~ ~ Q~ e Attachment 7 B-2 Report to the Planning Commission Available online at: http://w.Nw.ci.arden-hills.mn.us . . September 1 1,2006, City Council Mceting . Prepared by: Michelle Bruley Depl.: Finance Council Mtg. Date: 9/11/2006 Final Action Needed By: 9/11/2006 ~ ~HILLS City 01 Arden Hills uest for Council Action . Agenda Item ~~I Preliminary levies & Truth in Taxation Dates Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: Council Action Request: 1. Adopt Resolution 06-43 which establishes the preliminary operating levy for taxes payable 2007 in the amount of $2,675,161 - a 6% increase from the 2006 levy. 2. Adopt Resolution 06-44 which establishes the preliminary levy for the Karth lake Improvement District for taxes payable 2007 in the amount of $13,782.67. 3. Adopt Resolution 06-45 which establishes Truth in Taxation hearing dates for proposed taxes payable in 2007. The dates established are December 4th and December 11th, 2006. Staff Recommendation: 1. Adopt Resolution 06-43 which establishes the preliminary operating ievy for taxes payable 2007 in the amount of $2,675,161 - a 6% increase from the 2006 levy. 2. Adopt Resolution 06-44 which establishes the preliminary levy for the Karth lake Improvement District for taxes payable 2007 in the amount of $13,782.67. 3. Adopt Resolution 06-45 which establishes Truth in Taxation hearing dates for proposed taxes payable in 2007. The dates established are December 4th and December 11th, 2006. Advisory Commission Action: . Commission Date Action Not Supporting Documents (which are attached to this Action Form): IZI Memo/letter: IZI Resolution (No. 06-43, 06-44, 06-45) D Ordinance (No. D Engineering Recommendation: D Attorney Recommendation: DOther: Financial Implications: . Administrator/Staff Comments: Page 1 of 1 ~ ~~ILLS MEMORANDUM . Agenda Item 7.C DATE: September 6, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Michelle Wolfe, City Administrator Michelle Bruley, Accounting Analyst SUBJECT: Establishing 2006 Truth in Taxation Dates and Adoption of the Operating Payable 2007 Preliminary Levy and Karth Lake Improvement District Special Levy BACKGROUND: By September 15, 2006, the City is required to adopt and certify to Ramsey County a preliminary levy and Truth in Taxation dates for the upcoming dates. . DISCUSSION: OperatiDl! Levv: At the August 21,2006, Budget Work Session, the Council discussed the preliminary levy options. Based on the discussion, staff is recommending certifying a 6% increase in levy to the County for a proposed amount of$2,675,161. This is a preliminary levy and a final certification will be made in December 2006. Due to the resignation of the City's Finance Director, staff has not completed all work on the proposed 2007 budget. A first rough draft of the budget has been completed and staff is fairly comfortable that a 4% levy increase would cover anticipated 2007 expenditures. However, staff is concerned that a 4% levy increase does not provide any ability to put money aside for future capital expenditures. Our draft five-year Capital Improvement Program and proposed Pavement Management Program anticipate significant expenditures for road maintenance and reconstruction, utility improvements, equipment replacement, and public safety capital. During the August 21 Work Session discussion it was noted that once adopted, the preliminary levy can be decreased when the final levy is adopted, but not increased. If a 6% increase is adopted for the preliminary levy, it can be lowered when the final levy is adopted in December. Prior to December, Council will have the opportunity to review the proposed 2007 budget. In addition, staif is undertaking a project to analyze the City's current fund balances, projected . Memo City Council 2006 - Setting the Preliminary Levies page 2 revenues, and projected expenditures, which will help assess the need for additional levy. Staff is committed to a fiscally conservative approach to the City's budget and tax levy. . Karth loake 1m rovement District S ecial Lev : In 2003, the Council had approved a special levy for the Pumping Project to be charged to the homeowners surrounding the lake. Based on the cost estimates provided in 2004, the Council approved a levy for this project in an amount not to exceed $49,350. The Council had made a decision to spread this levy over a period of three years. In September 2004, the City received the final cost figures from Our Engineers in the amount of $4l,348. The amount to be levied each year would be $]3,782.67. In 2004, the Council adopted a levy for the first year. In 2005, the Council adopted the same levy for the second year. This year, the Council needs to adopt a levy - year three and final year, for certification purposes. The amount of special levy is $l3, 782.67. Truth in Taxation Dates: The Tmth in Taxation hearing dates are established as follows: Monday, December 4, 2006 - 6:30p.m. _ Initial hearing date Monday, December] 1,2006 - 6:30p.m. - Continuation hearing date It is anticipated the Council will adopt the final payable 2007 levy and the 2007 Budget on December 1 1, 2006. . RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff requests the Council consider approving the fOllOWing: 1. Adopt Resolution 06-43 which establishes the preliminary operating levy for taxes payable in 2007 in the amount of$2,675,l61 _ a 6% increase from 2006 levy. 2. Adopt Resolution 06-44 which establishes the preliminary levy for the Karth Lake Improvement District for taxes payable 2007 in lhe amOunt of$l3,782.67 3. Adopt Resolution 06-45 which establishes Truth in Taxation hearing dates for proposed taxes payable in 2007. The dates established are December 4th and December 11, 2006. . , . . . ~ ~HILLS CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 06-43 A RESOLUTION SETTING TilE PRELIMINARY LEVY FOR TAXES PAYABLE IN 2007 BE IT RESOLVED by the Arden Hills City Council that the following proposed sums of money be levied for levy year 2006 payable in 2007 upon taxable property in said City of Arden Hills for thc following purposes: LEVY AMOUNT BEFORE HACA HACA CERTIFIED LEVY AMOUNT Gcncral Fund $2,675,161 $-0- $2,675,161 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY TilE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS 11 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2006. BEVERLY APLlKOWSKl, MAYOR ATTEST: MICHELLE A. WOLFE, CITY ADMINISTRATOR ~ ~HILLS CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 06-44 A RESOLUTION SETTING THE PRELIMINARY SPECIAL LEVY FOR THE KARTH LAKE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PAYABLE IN 2007 BE IT RESOLVED by the Arden Hills City Council that the following proposed sums of money be levicd for levy year 2006, payable in 2007 upon taxable property in the Karth Lake Improvcment District for the installation of the pumping station to maintain and monitor the water level of Karth Lake. CERTIFIED LEVY AMOUNT $13,782.67 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS 11" DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2006. BEVERLY APLlKOWSKI, MAYOR ATTEST: MICHELLE A. WOLFE, CITY ADMINISTRATOR < . . . . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 06-45 RESOLUTION ADOPTING TRUTH IN TAXATION PUBLIC HEARING DATES FOR PROPOSED TAXES PAYABLE IN 2007 BE IT RESOL YED by the Arden Hills City Council that the following Truth in Taxation Public Hearing dates, time and placcs for proposcd propcrty taxes payable in 2007 be certified to the Ramsey County Auditor and that notice of the Public Hearings be published in accordance with Minnesota Statute. Public Continuation Hearing Hearing (If Needed) Adoption Hearing Date: December 4, 2006 December 11, 2006 December 11, 2006 Time: 6:30 P.M. 6:30 P.M. 7:00 P.M. . Place: Council Chambers Council Chambers Council Chambers 1245 Highway 96 1245 Highway 96 1245 Highway 96 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS TIllS 11 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2006. BEVERLY APLIKOWSKI, MAYOR ATTEST: MICHELLE A. WOLFE, CITY ADMINISTRATOR . , . -tt~ Prepared by: Jl - - Dept.: Com. Dev Council Mtg Date: 9/11/2006 Final Action Needed By: ~ ~~HILLS City ot Arden Hills Request for Council Action l Agenda Item 'l\~~ PC #01-25: SiQn Review: Boston Scientific: 4100 Hamtine Avenue N Budgeted Amount: $0_00 Actual Amount: $0.00 Funding Source: n/a Council Action Request: Review the water tower signage proposal from Boston Scientific to determine if it is a significant change from the existing water tower signage. If the change is significant. Boston Scientific would need to go through the site plan review process. Staff Recommendation: Advisory Commission Action: Commission Planning PTRC Date 9/6/2006 Action Reviewed Not Applicable Not applicable . Supporting Documents (which are attached to this Action Form): [g} Memo/letter: o Resolution (No ) o Ordinance (No. ) o Engineering Recommendation: o Attorney Recommendation: o Other: Financial Implications: Administrator/Staff Comments: . Page 1 of 1 . . . ~ /]'\~ HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: September 7, 2006 PC Agenda Item 7.D TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Jamcs Lehnhoff, CitYPlanne~ SUBJECT: Boston Scientific Water Tower Signage Background With the reccnt acquisition of Guidant by Boston Scientific, they plan to replace the Guidant signage with Boston Scientitic signage. Based on a preliminmy review of their wall and monument sign proposal, no special permits will be needed becausc the new signagc will not exceed the sign area or dimensions of the old signage (a regular sign permit will still be required for eacb sign that is visible ti.om the public right-ot~way or neighboring properties). However, Boston Scientific is considering changing the dimcnsions and possibly the color ofthe signagc on thcir water tower. Discussion In October 200 I, the City approved a sign variance lor Guidant to put their company name/logo on the water tower at their campus (PC# 01-25). According to the documents fi'om that approval, it appears that the proposed dimensions for the <'<'Guidant" name was 2 feet by 31.5 feet, and the name would appear in thosc dimensions on the east and west sides ofthc water tower. When Planning Case 01-25 was approved for the water tower signage, the following two conditions were included: I. The color of the letters on thc water tower being painted black, and the towcr being non- illuminated. 2. The exterior appearance of the water towcr being maintained. If thc new signage lor thc water tower is deemed signilicantly different from the signage approved in PC!! 01-25, a new site plan review lor thc signage may be required. Staff is requcsting the City Council to review the Boston Scientific proposal and determine if a new site plan review is required or if the new signage is within the Spilit of the previously approved sign variance. Should Boston Scientific decide to submit a sign proposal that docs not exceed the area and dimensions of the existing water tower signage and meets the conditions of Planning Case 01-25, the Sign Code would only require a sign permit lor replacing thc sign copy. The Planning Commission informally reviewed the proposal fi.om Boston Scientific and eame to a City of Arden Hills CiO' Counei/lvleetingjor September 6. ]006 \\;\1elro-inel_lIs\ardenllillsIPlannillg\Planning CommiSSlon\Nc\v-Old Business'2006\090706 - BosScie water tower signage.doc Page 1 of 2 consensus that the change to the water towcr signage was not significantly different. An official motion was not madc. Councilmember Grant requested the proposal be brought to the City Council meeting. Boston Scientific will bc bringing their water tower signage proposal to the meeting. Procedural Note: Deviations horn the recently approved sign regulations follow the site plan review process instead of thc variance process, whieh was also the case in the previous sign regulations. Ilowever, Planning Case 01-25 was approved under an even older sign ordinance that required a variance to deviatc from the sign standards. ff deemed necessary, the City would follow the site plan review process for changes to the water tower signage. Cily of Arden Hilts Cily Caunell Meeting}or September 6, 200n \\Mctro-ineLus\ardenhiJls\Planning\PJ8nning Commission\Ncw-Old Busincss\2006\090706 - BosSe-it: waler tmver signagc.doc Page 2 on . . . Prepared by: KCB Dept.: CD Council Mtg. Date: 9/11/06 Final Action Needed By: 9/25/06 ~ ~HlLLS City ot Arden Hills Request for Council Action Agenda Item 84 Consideration of a requested extension of the closinQ for the sale of the Old City Hall/Public Works Site to Roval Oaks Realtv Budgeted Amount: $0.00 Actual Amount: $0.00 Funding Source: N/A Council Action Request: Consideration of an extension of the closing for the sale of the Old City Hall/Public Works site to Royal Oaks Realty to on or before October 30,2006. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested extension of the closing for the sale of the Old City Hall/Public Works site to Royal Oaks Realty to on or before October 30, 2006. Advisory Commission Action: Commission Date Action Not applicable . Supporting Documents (which are attached to this Action Form): X Memo/Letter: Staff memo dated 9/8106 o Resolution (No. ) o Ordinance (No. ) o Engineering Recommendation: o Attorney Recommendation: o Other: Financial Implications: Administrator/Staff Comments: The purchase agreement requires both parties to agree to a request for an extension of the closing date. . Page 1 of 1 ~ ~ EN HILLS . MEMORANDUM DATE: Septcmber 8, 2006 Agenda Item: 8A TO: Mayor and City Council Michclle Wolfe, City Administrator , A.v-x. Karen Barton, Community Development DirectoP0J U FROM: SUBJECT: Requcst to extend elosing date for the sale of the Old City Hall/Public Works site to Royal Oaks Realty Dne to the time involved in obtaining a permit from Rice Creek Watcrshed, Royal Oaks will not be able to receive a final plat approval for the proposed redevelopment of the Old City HalllPublic Works site until October. . Therefore, Royal Oaks is rcquesting an extcnsion of the closing date on or before October 30, 2006. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending Council approve the requested elosing date extension for the sale of the Old City HalllPublic Works site to Royal Oaks Realty to on or before October 30, 2006. . . -nxf)ry!I Prepared by: MO & KG Dept.: Public Works Council Mtg. Date: 9/11/06 Final Action Needed By: ~ ~HILLS City of A.'tlcn I1ills Relluest for COlIncil Action Agenda Item.aa County Road E Sidewalk Discussion Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: Council Action Request: Staff is requesting one or more of the following motions: 1. Direct staff to prepare documents to apply for the MnDOT cooperative agreement for funding in 2008. This action is needed by September 25, 2006 in order to submit the application by the October 11, 2006 deadline. 2. A motion to approve one of the four options as outlined in the attached report. If this decision is delayed, direct staff to apply for the north side option with sidewalk, with the understanding that Council may change that decision at a later time prior to plan submittal. 3. Defer the discussion to the September 18, 2006 Work Session or September 25,2006 City Council Meeting. Direct staff on what additional information is needed for this discussion. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of a motion to apply for the MnDOT cooperative agreement for funding in 2008. Advisory Commission Action: .' Commission Planning PTRC Date Action Not Applicable Not Applicable Not applicable Supporting Documents (which are attached to this Action Form): I2'l Memo/letter: Memo dated September 7, 2006 from Michelle Olson - Parks and Recreation Manager and Kristine Giga - Civil Engineer. D Resolution (No. ) D Ordinance (No. ) D Engineering Recommendation: D Attorney Recommendation: DOther: FinanciallmpJications: . Administrator/Staff Comments: Staff is looking for direction on additional information needed. Page 1 of 1 . . . ~ ~~HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: September 7, 2006 AGENDA ITEM: 8B TO: Mayor and Council Michelle Wolfe; City Administrator Kristine Giga, Civil Engineer IW Michelle Olson, Parks and Recrcation Manager 1'~E' FROM: SUBJECT: County Road E Sidewalk Discussion BACKGROUND At the August 21, 2006 City Council Work Session, the City Council rcquested staff to prcsent a history of the County Road E Pcdestrian Sidewalk Improvements at tonight's mecting. A number of options have been discussed at ncighborhood informational meetings and City Council meetings over the past three years. The Parks and Trails Master Plan adopted in 2002 indicated that expanding the trail network was a high priOlity. The County Road E bridge over TH51 is considered a weak link in the system and poses a dangerous condition for pedestrian traffic. Currently, very narrow walkways exist on both sides of the bridge, crcating potential safety issues for pedestrians. On Octobcr l2, 2004, City Council passed Resolution 04-056 requesting MnlDOT consideration of a cost sharing cooperative agrcement for pedestrian improvements to the County Road E bridge over Trunk Highway 51. URS submitted a rcquest to MnDOT to be considered for the 2006 cooperative agreement funding cycle. At the November 15, 2004 Work Session, City Council was presented with additional inlcmnation regarding the project. This information was presented to assist Council in making a decision on which sidc of the road to put the sidewalk. The following items are included in your packet: I. Feasibility report dated March, 2004 2. Mcmo from Michelle Wolfe dated Novcmber 9,2004 that includes: a. Pros and Cons of north side vs. south side b. Traffic Engincering comments from Ramsey County c. Accident Data from Ramscy County Sheriffs Department d. Trallic Engineering Review by URS 3. Updated Cost Estimates for improvcments 4. Cooperative Agreemcnt Submittal dated October 15,2004 5. Minutes from October 12,2004 Regular City Council Meeting 6. Minutes from November 15,2004 Work Session \\Metro-inct.us\ardenl1i1ls\PR&PW\Parks\Mcmos\Mc1l10 to CC re - County Road E discussion 06-4.doc County Road E Sidewalk Discussion September 1 I, 2006 Page 2 of 4 7. Minutcs from Novcmber 29, 2004 Regular City Council Meeting 8. Minutes from January 24, 2005 Work Session 9. Exhibits/photograph of3609 Pascal driveway lO. Current 2006-201 I CIP spreadsheet . The City Council passed a rcsolution at the Novembcr 29, 2004 mecting approving thc sidewalk for the north side of County Road E from Old Highway lO to Connelly A venue. Thc project was rcviewed by Mn DOT with thirty five other projects and rankcd fourteenth in priority for funding. A total oftcn projects were fundcd with the next four listcd as alternates. CURRENT STATUS As discussed at the July 17, 2006 Work Session, the City Council is contemplating the County Road E pcdestrian improvements as a 2008 project. Mn/DOT is again accepting candidate projects for the 2008 Municipal Agreement Program. Project proposals for the cooperative agreement need to be submittcd by October] I, 2006 to be considered for the 2008 program. It is anticipatcd that the actual project selection will occur in early January of 2007 with the funds becoming available July 1,2007. Staff requests direction from City Council to apply for the agreement by the City Council mceting on Monday, September 25, 2006. While it would be advantageous to make a decision on which side of the bridge to have the walkway at the time of application, there is time to discuss this further. Staff has spoken with Mn/DOT reprcsentatives, who have indicated that a . change in location on the project is permissible after the application is submitted. What cannot change is thc scope of the project, for exanlple, thc length of the proposed improvcments. Thc City could submit the application to include the north-side option (most cxpensive). This amount could then be lowered if the City decides to proceed on the south side. If this project is selected, the City will have to prepare plans and submit them to MnDOT for review and approval, as is typical of any project receiving Mn/DOT funding. The final decision for the location of the improvements will be needed for plan submittal. The cooperative agreement would fund the bridge improvements only; any sidewalk improvements to the west of the bridgc would need to be funded through other means, such as City funds or Municipal State Aid funding. Thc options available to the City Council for the pedcstrian sidewalk on County Road E are as follows: (All bridge options include ornamental railing, concretc pilasters, and form lincr surfacc treatmcnt as requcsted by the City Council in earlicr discussions.) A. Proceed with a 7.5 foot width sidewalk on the north sidc of the bridge with no sidewalk connection to Old Highway lO. The estimated project cost of this option is $376,700, which includes a cast in place retaining wall on the west side of the bridge. B. Proceed with a 7.5 foot width sidewalk on the south side of the bridge with no sidewalk conncction to Old Highway 10. The estimated project cost of this option is $346,000. . County Road E Sidewalk Discussion Scptember 1 I, 2006 Page 3 of 4 . C. Proceed with a 7.5 foot width sidewalk on the north side of thc bridge at a cost of $376,700 and extend a 6 foot concrete sidewalk with 2 foot paver strip down to Old Highway 10 at a cost of $302,900. Total project cost estimate is then $679,600. The funding for the sidewalk cxtension would be MSA eligible. D. Proceed with a 7.5 foot width sidewalk on the south side of the bridge at a cost of $346,000 and extend a 6 foot concrete sidewalk with 2 foot paver strip down to Old Highway 10 at a cost of$148,300.00. Total project cost estimatc is then S494,300. The funding for the sidewalk extension would be MSA eligible. If the improvements occur on the north side, there will be a driveway conflict at 3609 Pascal. Attached is a figure showing the existing conditions (attachment 9), as well as a possible solution to the conflict. The new sidewalk would impact the parking and turnaround area available on the property owner's driveway. The proposed option introduccs a horseshoe driveway with an additional tum around area west of the garage. . Thc bridge is not cunently scheduled for rchabilitation or reconstruction by either Ramsey County or MnDOT. The bridge is listed as bccoming eligible for funding in 2009, but according to Dan Soler of Ramsey County, just because projects are listed docs not mean that they will actually be completed. Ramsey County has indicated that they currently have no limding available. If the County were to apply for federal funds for this project, the earliest they would receive any is 201 l. If MnlDOT or Ramsey County do schedule improvements to the bridge at some point in the future, the improvements constructed by the City would bc replaced in kind. Future bridge reconstruction would be funded by Ramsey County and MnDOT with no expectation of funding participation from the City. FUNDING DISCUSSION The maximum award available lor any individual project through the cooperative agrcement program is S550,000. The agreement, however, only funds 8% of engineering and constmction administration costs. The following table shows the breakdown of funding bctween the cooperative agreement and Municipal State Aid funding. Costs have been updatcd to reflect the recent increase in construction costs. As has been discussed at previous City Counci I Meetings and Work Sessions, staff has earmarked MSA funds [or the sidewalk improvements that could be included with this project. , Total eligible for i I Construction coop-agreement Balance funded Option costs Engineering costs Total costs funding b State Aid Bridge only- north S 303,000.00 $ 73,700.00 $ 376,700.00 $ 327,000.00 $ 49,700.00 Bridge only. south $ 277,000.00 $ 69,000.00 $ 346,000.00 $ 299,000.00 $ 47,000.00 . Sidewalk. north $ 256,700.00 $ 46,200.00 $ 302,900.00 $ 302,900.00 idewalk- south $ 124,200.00 $ 24,100.00 $ 148,300.00 $ 148,300.00 County Road E Sidewalk Discussion September 1 I, 2006 Page 4 of 4 REQUESTED ACTION Staffis requesting one or more ofthe following motions: l. Direct staff to prepare documents to apply for the MnDOT cooperative agreement for funding in 2008. This action is needed by September 25, 2006 in ordcr to submit the application by the October 1 1, 2006 deadline. 2. A motion to approve one of the four options as outlined in the attached rcporl. If this decision is delaycd, direct staffto apply for the north side option with sidewalk, with the understanding that Council may change that decision at a later time prior to plan submittal. 3. Defer the discussion to the September l8, 2006 Work Session or September 25, 2006 Council Meeting. Direct staff on additional information needed for this discussion. . . . . FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FOR -, ...- ."-- -- .... .. - '--'. .. .' .. .. .. ,', -,.'''.. - ...... .. - ^ '. '..' .." _' ........ .. '." ,-"0 .... _. _ ~ . I,! COUNTY ROAD E PEDESTRIAN , IMPROVEMENTS . I j I I 1 I j I I , j MARCH, 2004 -,- 'H ;"~hE" 'DO fflli'j SI,'02- :vl,nr'5~pr)k; iy\~_j 5;:;4 ~5 5-'23:'J 'C'(;I :3 '23' ':' b c- ~( . FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FOR . COUNTY ROAD E PEDESTRIAN IMPROVMENTS CITY OF ARDEN HILLS RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA MARCH, 2004 . MinneJpolis, Minnesota 55415 URS, INC 700 Third Streel South I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that] am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota Section 326.02 to 325.15 :;:? j) A y() . ~~y~}/, /)1y--v'~- f ./ .. II Gregory s.jroY';J1, FE f hie: 3795 I .0057001 Date: )/i2h;!i MN Lie No. 22814 . fli"4il ,5 . March 8, 2004 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Cily of Arden Hills 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Htlls, MN 55112 ATl'N: Michelle Wolfe City Administrator RE: Peasibility Study and Report County Road E Pedestrian Improvements Honorable Mayor <JndMembers of the City Council: . The enclosed feasibility report has been prepared examining the proposed pedestrian sidewalk improvements along County Road E as authOlized at the January 26, 2004 Council Meeting. The general scope of the improvements mcludes widening of the pedestrian walk along the existing County Road E bridge across 1'1-151 and construction of an at-grade sidewalk from the signalized interscction easl of the bridge to the intersection of County Road E and Old Highway 10. This repon will evaluate the feasibility of the proposed improvements including a number of altematives and options as directed by the City Council. Information utilized in the preparation of this rep0l1 includes field survcys, as-built plans, GIS propcny mformation, and photos of the existing site. We are of the opinion that the improvement options as outlincd in this rcpon are feasible and would greatly enhancc pedestrian movement betwecn the neighhorhoods west and east of Trunk Highway 51 while greatly improving pedeslIian safety. A number of options werc considered to enhance the crossing which provide incrementally wider sidewalks at additional investment. All of the bridge improvements require the reconstruction of the existing south rail/wall. This provides an opponunity for the City to improve the bridge aesthetic for a relatively minor additional investment if done in conjunction with the pedestrian improvements. We have prepared visualizations of design treatments which could be included with the project for the Council to review and consider. Sincerely, URS Corporatinn /) /// /' /_ ' I '-~, / /a /, '/ / / t / / i I /(~'~(Li / 1}//tY~4-- .u(;reg&y Sf Brn, PE, URS Inc. Arden IllYls y1ty Engineer I/ii', <':1'.: '-')1) T/'ud .5.'n,'1 .\r'iir/i ,)i){) l.iiirt.:c'rji. '! ,", -~ -~-'i .i -~ TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction_........... ..................... ....... 4 11. Existing Conditions......... ... . ................. ......... 5 III Proposed Brjdgc Improvements. .... ............ 8 ^ Option A...................................... 8 B. Option B. ......................................... 9 C. Option c....... ................... .......... ............ 12 IV. Proposed Sidewalk lmprovements............ ........ ... 13 V. Potential Bridge Enhancements.... _............ .... ...... 16 VI. Project Cost and Funding Sununary..................... 19 VII. Summary and Next Steps............ ........... .......... 20 APPENDIX A: Detailed Construction Cost Estimates '!f.m1~~~ ~dF,.-,",~ . . . . . . I. Introduction On January 26, 2004, the Arden Hills City Council authorized the preparation of a feasibility study for the construction of pedestrian improvements along County Road E, The general scope of thc improvements includes widening of the pedestrian walk along the existing County Road E bridge across Tmnk Highway 5 I and constmction of an at-grade sidewalk from the signalized intersection east of the bridge to the interscction of County Road E and Old Highway 10. Exhibit I shows the project location. The County Road E right of way is owned and managed by Ramsey County Public Works. The bridge over Tmnk Highway 51 is also owned by Ramsey County however, any modifIcations to the bridge require review and approval hum the MnDOT Bridge Engineer. Arden Hills is allowed to construct improvements within the right of way and to the bridge per the approval of Ramsey County Public Works and MnDOT. We have discussed the project in general terms with Ramsey County staff and anticipate that the proposed improvements will mcet their approval. This report will evaluate the fcasibility of the proposcd improvements and is organized in three general sections focused on the potential improvements, a summary of project costs and funding and concludes with summary and recommended next steps for Council. Thc proposed bridge improvements discussion includes three options for reconfiguring the existing bridge which provide progressivcly greater widths for pedestrian movement. The sidewalk improvements discussion includes options regarding width and matcrials of the sidewalk. The bridge enhancements discussion details and illustrates a numbcr of potential design treatments which could be incorporated into the project. The appendix includes detailed cost estimates for all of the options discussed in the report. -C~'.~I; ,,~,'.,., ..;c~~S( --,;": ,,- ~-_'I,["'!lrtW~."C."- ..,; .. en , :==: < -:;: , \. \ o ry.~ co. Rn.f: --- HNI>Y~ .- \ __ PROPOSED SlOE WALK RECONFlGUII[ ur~IDG[ u/ Exhibi[ 1 4 URS II. Existing Conditions . TIle project area is generally defined by the Interchange between County Road E and Trunk Highway 5l on the east end and a residential neighborhood on the west end. There are seven single family homes located along County Road E west of the interchange along the south side of County Road 10. Freeway Park and undy's Park arc also located in the project area on either side of the residential properties. County Road E provides a major cast-west connection in the City of Arden Hills and is the only crossing of Trunk Highway 51. County Road E also provides a connection from the neighborhoods west of Trunk Highway 51 to the commercial center of the City located along County Road E east of Trunk Highway 51. For these reaSons both vehicle, pedestrian and bicyclc trafflc are significant on the roadway. The roadway is generally 52 feet wide and is located within 86 feet of right of way. Near the bridge location, the roadway narrows to 30 feet. The existing bridge includes highway type guardrails with 2 foot wide concrete walks on both sides. These walks are not intended for pedestrian use however, they have been used by residents as there are no other options to cross other than walking in the roadway. Retween Old Highway 10 and the western signalized intersection, County Road E is striped with 8 foot shoulders whieh have been used by residents to travel along the roadway. . --'.,.if AI_-C J. SO/./fhem Boulevard ofCounry Road E, IAJoking WeST Existing Sidewalk ___--------- Begins 2. SOl/them Bou/cnlnl of County Road Eo' Facing East . 5 URS . . . The northern boulevard of County Road E includes relatively steep slopes (up and down) and overhead utilities. The southern boulevard is relatively flat and generally free of private utilities. 3. Northern Boulevard of Counry Road E, immediate!.v l-Vest of Bridge 4. Northern Boulevard (~f County Road E, Near Arden Oaks Drive 6 URS . , f".'~ \ .& '.". >ll v_'. '~\:';"~ "1.'. t~\" :,~!";t:I ?f~:,:,;';;~l~I~:~ , -:;~!! . .I~~. \:',: i;\,~, I;,j, lrA ' ,;;~:~. 4ji,; {~:Z~;~:;:~ J~~{,;r<"";:.'\' , 5. Looking West along County Road F. . -'~~iW"t~ \:t..' ,- -:}:; . .....~1/;;:;~, " -' :~~- ,,~--, , ;.>.~;".~:{t~~ 6. SOl1th Bouln'ard of Cormr:>, Road E approaching Lin.ry's Park (Near Western Tern/inous of the Project) . 7 URS . . . III. Proposed Bridge Improvements We have evaluated three options to provide a wider sidewalk across the bridge ranging from 6.5 feet to 10 feet in width. The following arc brief descriptions along with illustrations and estimated cosls. A. Bridge Option A: 6.5 Foot Sidewalk This option is intended to crcatc a wider sidewalk along one side of thc bridge without expanding the width of the existing bridge. This is accomplishcd through doing the following: . Replacing the nOJ1h hridge rail system (currently 3.67 feet wide) with a newer F-typc rail design (1.67 feet wide). . Shifting the centerline of County Road E 3 feet - This would requirc rcstriping with some curvature on either side of the hridgc to move traffic back to the propcr alignment for the signalizcd intersections. . Narrowing thc traffic lancs from l5 fect to J 4 feet in width (Ramsey County has agreed to this in eonccpt)Rernoval of the south hridge rail system and constmction of a ncw 6.5 foot sidcvy',dk and outside barrier made of concrele and fencing. 15' Bridge Roil & walk to 15' be removed (both sides) 7. Existing Cross Section of Counry Road E Brfdge Vinyi cQoted chain fink fence (72") 6.5' 14. 14' I Cone. Roiling 11.. r--~ Co. Rd. E Type P-l i (Shifted) , 1 I ~ R Jr]iR lr Cone. Roiling Type F 8. Proposed Cross Section of CO/.lnry Road E Bridge- Option A The Estimated Project Cost for this Option is $60,000 Ii URS B. Bridge Option B: 7.5I<'oot Sidewalk . This option is intended to create the maximum width sidewalk along one side of the bridge through the use of structural modifications to the south beam (cantilever supports). This is accomplished through doing the following: . Replacing the north bridge rail system (cunently 3.67 feet wide) with a newer F-type rail design (1.67 feet wide). . Shifting the centerline of County J{oad E 3 feel - This would require restriping with some curvature on either side of the bridge to move traffic back to the proper alignment for the signalized intersections. . Narrowing thc traffIC lanes from] 5 feet to l4 feet in width (Ramsey County has agreed to this in concept). . Removal of the south bridge rail system and installation of cantilevcr supports to the existing south beam. . Reconstruction of the south bridge rail over new cantilever supports to include a 7.5 foot sidewalk and outside barrier madc of concrete and fencing. 15' '"' ,~ Bridge Roil & walk to be removed (both sides) RTI ~ . Ii. FxiIfing Cross Sf!crion of County Road E Bridge Vinyl coated chain link fence (12") Extended deck support '~I- T 14' 14' Conc. Roiling Type P-l L , ~ Co. Rd. l I (Shifted) Cone. Railing Type F 12_ Proposed Cross 5CUI011 (~rCounr.' Road E Bridge -- Option B The Estimated Project Cost for this Option is $80,000 . 9 URS . . . 9. E~isrinr; Cmmr} Road F Bridge, Facing Easr lO. County Road 1:: Bridgf' Option B 10 URS ,:: }> 15. Existing County Road E Bridge. FZlcing ~orth .~'. ~d~,- 16. County Road E BrIdge. Opljon n 11 URS . . . . C. Bridge Option C: 10.0 Foot Sidewalk This option is intended to include the necessary modifications to the bridge structurc in order to create a 10.0 foot widc sidcwalk without shifting thc roadway tramc, narrowing thc lanes or modifying the north hridgc rail. This is accomplished through the following: . Rcmoval of thc south bridge rail system. . Constmction of a parallcl bcam crossing Tmnk Highway 51 including new pier and abutment su pport construction. . Constmction of thc south bridgc rail over the new beam support to include a 1 0.0 foot sidewalk and outside ban-icr madc of concrele and fencing. 15' Bridge Rail & walk to 15' be removed (both sides) _i. JJ -! A .A f( I .-- ---- ..,-. I R I ' /3. Elisting Cross Section of C aunrr Road E Bridge . Vinyl ~~~j~e~lnI< .1 fence (7~.'~ Cone. ~cuurl- Type P-l 10' I i I 15' North ro.it -to reMQin I ~i Co. Rd. E r (No change) , 15' J4. Proposed Cross Section of Counry Road t.: Bridge - Option C The Estimatcd Project Cost for this Option is $200,000 . 12 URS IV. Proposed Sidewalk Improvements . The proposed improvements include the construction of a sidewalk along County Road E between the Connelly Avenue Signal and Old Highway 10_ The sidewalk would be constructed within existing MnDOT and Ramsey County Right of Way along its entire length. Based upon our Held review of the corridor, wc propose that the walk be built on the south sidc of County Road E I()f the following reasons: . Gradcs on the south side arc gcnerally flatter thim the north resulting in fewer walls, less excavation. etc. . Existing ovcrhcad utilities would complicate installation of a walk along the n0l1h sidc of the street. . A southern alignmcnt provides direct conncctions to Freeway Park and Lindy's Park. . Greater Numher of residents livc south of County Road E (in the general vicinity of the bridge - not city wide) The following is a summary of thc characteristics of two types of surface materials and two potential \.vidths of the side\valk. Surfacing . Bituminous surfacing providcs a bettcr facility for cyclists and rollcrhladers (smoother finished surfacc) . Bituminous is generally less expensive than concrctc (50% of concrete unit cost) . Concrete has more of an "urban feel" to it, generally more regular due to construction methods, ie edges are vcry straight and don't dctcrioratc. . Bituminous life cxpectancy is less than concrete . Existing walk east of Connelly A venue is concrete . Width . 6 foot width less expcnsivc but also less attractive to bicyclists and rollerbladers . 6 foot width will have slightly less visual impact than 8 foot width . 6 foot width will have less extensivc grading in front yards vs. 8 foot width . 8 foot width more easily maintained by City equipmcnt (as,>uming City staff clear snow) At this time, we have not developed a recommendcd surfacc or width. The characteristics of these items should be considered by the Council and rcsidents before a decision is made. We have preparcd visualization drawings of each and cost estimates for each of the four options. Although it is possible to includc hituminous and concrctc in the project (ie. bituminous on the west end, concrete on the cast) we recommcnd that the council select one surface type and width to be consistent throughout thc project area. . l.i URS . . . 8' - ...~.':;~--"-': .. ..A_'_" All.!: .. }-:.~ " . \'"dnmlk 8' Bitummou,~. I 14 URS . "~," I".'. ~-" i;, . 'ij;,~' ~ ,",..,..r.'.... ~ -",~., ''\,)'''. _', I ~ 'I... , If' ... ~,... .0 (,' (. _Of/erne sed _ J nmlk . . /5 URS . . . v. Potential Bridge Enhancements The Council may wish to include aesthetic cnhaneements to the bridge in conjunction with the project. All three of the bridge improvement options include a short concrete wall with safety fencing on the outboard side of the sidewalk. Additional enhancements could include the following items: . Omamental Railing in lieu of the chain link safety fencing . Decorative Treatments to the outboard concrete wall such as: · Coloring -- integral to the concrete or painted aftcrwards . Patterned reveals . Form lining trcatmcnts (simulated rock, brick etc.) . Additional vertical pilasters to thc top of railing height . Decorative Lighting (one light standard at either end of bridge) Costs associated with enhancemcnts vary widely depcnding on the particular details of the enhancement however the following costs represent typical costs for the typcs of enhancements listed above: · Ornamental Railing: Approximate Cost $2.'i,000 . Concrete Painting (new barrier walls and outside faces of existing beams) : $.'i,OOO . Concrete FOIn) Liner and Surface Treatment(banier walls only): S 1 0,000 . Six Pilasters: $5~OOO . Decorative Lighting: SIO,OOO 16 URS c; ~< ~ 17. Omamrnta{ Rail & Brick Enhanceme!l7 (Form Liner Swfw.'p TreoTmenr) 18. . . . 17 URS . . . 19.Painted Conane & Ornamental Railing ; ...~...."'....:' ,~:/ 20. Decorative Lighting & PaintNl Concrete and Ornamental Railing /8 URS VI. Project Cost and J.;'unding Summary . Preliminary project cost cstimates have been prcparcd fix thc proposed improvements and the alternatives discusscd in this report for the consideration of the Couneil. Projeet costs shown below include costs for engineering and construction inspection and administration. 20% is included in the pathway costs and 25% for bridge costs (due to high eomplexity of bridge construclion). The following is a summary of the estimated project costs for the reconunended improvements and altematives. Item Description Bridge Improvements Option A Bridge Improvements Option B Bridge Improvements Option C Proiect Cost $ 60,000 $ 80.000 $200.000 Sidewalk Improvements (6 foot Binlminous) Sidewalk Improvements (6 foot Conerete) Sidewalk lmprovements (8 foot Bimminous) Sidewalk Improvements (8 foot Concrete) S 54.400 S 78.700 S 69.1 00 $101,500 Bridge Enhancements - Ornamental Railing Bridge Enhancements - Decorative Ughting Bridge Enhancements - Form Liner Surface Treatment Bridge Enhancements - Painting Bridge Enhancements - Six Pilasters 525.000 $10,000 $10.000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 . Sample Total Proiect Cost: Bridge Option A+ 6 ft bit walk Bridge Option B + 6 ft concrete walk + [{ailing Bridge Option C + 8 ft bit walk + Railing + Lighting + Form Liners $114.400 $183.700 $319,100 Proiect Fundilll! All of the improvements described in this report are eligible to be funded OUI of the City's State Aid account since County Road E is designated as a County State Aid Highway. The current State Aid fund balance for Arden Hills is approximately $500,000. The project is proposed to be funded entirely from the City's Stale Aid funds however, the Council may elect to utilize other funding sources such as the non-assessable street fund or the general fund. Since the proposed improvements benefit the City as a whole to a greater degree than the abutting residents, the use of residential assessments to fund the improvements is not recommended. The costs shown above do not include annual maintenance costs sllch as snow removal and potential maintenance of bridge improvcments. The Council may consider requesting Ramsey County to maintain this facility (especially bridge improvements) and requesting abutting residents to rcmove snow and mow along the sidewalk in lieu of City staff. . 19 URS . . . VII. Summary and Next Steps ]f the Council wishes to procccd with thc development of this project, we recommend that a public meeting be held to solicit neighborhood input and finalize the scope of the proposed improvements. Once the scope of improvements is determined, the City Engineer wi11 prepare final plans and specifications for the construction of the project. The following schedule has becn prepared based upon City Council receiving this feasibility report on March 8, 2004: Neighborhood Meeting(s) Approve Plans and Specifications/ Authorize Advertisement for Bid Bid Opening Begin Construction Complete Construetion* April-May, 2004 June, 2004 July, 2004 August, 2004 October, 2004 *Construction period may be extcndcd due to lead times on specialty items such as railing, lighting etc. depending on the options Council selects. The time of disruption of residential yards would be limited by the contract language to minimize any inconvenience !o residen!s. 20 l:1RS . APPENDIX - A DETAILED CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMA TES . . . 311/2004 crn Or: ARDEN HILLS COUNTY ROA.D F PEDESTRIAN WALK PREUMINARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS 6' Bituminous Walk Item No. Item Units Quantity Unit Price Amount 1 6' Bit Trail (includes base) SF I l250 $ 2.50 $ 28,1 00.00 2 Sod LS I $ 4,00000 $ 4,000.00 3 Grading (6' wide) LF 1875 $ 2.50 $ 4,700.00 4 Ped Ramp EA 4 $ 500.00 $ 2,000.00 5 Striping Changes (E) LS 1 $ 2.000.00 $ 2,00000 6 Mobilization LS I $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 7 Concrete Curb (hand formed) LI- 80 $ 2500 $ 2,000.00 Construct Subtotal $ 45,300.00 20% Engineering & Construction Administration $ 9,100.00 . T alai Project Cost $ 54,400.00 . 3/112004 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY ROAD E PEDESTRIAN WALK . PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS 6' Concrete Walk Item No. Item Unil~ QlIilllti t)' Unit Price Amount I 6' Concrete Trail (includes base) SF 11250 $ 4.30 $ 48,400.00 2 Sod LS I $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 3 Grading LF 1875 $ 2.50 $ 4,700.00 4 Ped Ramp EA 4 $ 500.00 $ 2.000.00 6 SlIiping Changes (E) LS I $ 2,000.00 ]; 2.000.00 7 Mobilization LS I $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 8 Concrete Curb (hand formed) LF 80 $ 25.00 $ 2,000.00 Construct Subtotal $ 65,600.00 20% Engineering & Construction Administration $ 13,100.00 Total Project Cost $ 78,700.00 . . . 311I2004 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY ROAD E PEDESTRiAN WALK PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS 8' Bituminous Walk Item No. ltcm Units Quantitv Unit Price AmOJlIlt ] 8' Bit Trail (includes base) SF ]5000 $ 2.50 $ 37,500.00 2 Sod LS 1 $ 4,000.00 $ 4.00000 3 Grading LF ]875 $ 325 $ 6.100.00 4 Ped Ramp EA 4 $ 500.00 $ 2.000.00 6 Striping Changes (E) LS 1 $ 2,00000 $ 2.00000 7 Mob L5 1 $ 4.00000 $ 4,000.00 8 Concrctc Curb (hand formcd) LF 80 $ 25.00 $ 2,000.00 Constmct Subtotal $ 57.600.00 20% Engineering & Construction Administration $ 11,500.00 . T ota I Project Cost $ 69,100.00 . 3/112004 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY ROAD E PEDESTRIAN WALK . PRELTMlNARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS l)' Concrete Walk Jtem No. ltem Units Ouantitv Unit Price Amount I S' Concrete Trail (includes base) SF 15000 $ 4.30 $ 64,500.00 2 Sod LS I $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 3 Gradmg LF ]875 $ 3.25 $ 6,1 00.00 4 Ped Ramp EA 4 $ 500.00 $ 2,000.00 6 Striping Changes (E) LS 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 7 Mob LS ] $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 8 Concrete Curb (hand formed) LF 80 $ 25.00 $ 2,000.00 Constmct Subtotal $ 84,600.00 20% Engineering & Construction Administration $ 16,900.00 Total Project Cost $ 101,500.00 . . County Road E Pedestrian Improvements - Bridge Improvements eption A Cost Estimate ITEM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mobilization Type F Railing Concrete (3Y46) Type P-l Railing Concrete (3Y 46) Sidewalk Concrete (3Y46) Vinyl Coated Chain Link Fence Expansion Jt. Device (Type 4) Concrete Wearing Course (3U17A) Reinforcement Bars (Epoxy Coated) Traffic Control - Striping Subtotal Construction UNIT t.S LF LF SF LF LF SF LB LS QUANTITY 1.00 154.00 154.00 1,155.00 154.00 18.00 700.00 500.00 1.00 Engineering and Construction Administration (25%) Total Estimated Option A Project Cost Option B Cost Estimate 1 .~ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . ITEM Mobilization Structural Concrete (3Y36) Type F Railing Concrete (3Y46) Type P-1 Railing Concrete (3Y 46) Sidewalk Concrete (3Y 46) Vinyl Coated Chain Link Fence Expansion Jt. Device (Type 4) Concrete Wearing Course (3U17A) Reinforcement Bars (Epoxy Coated) Traffic Control - Striping Subtotal Construction UNIT LS CY LF LF SF LF LF SF LB LS QUANTITY 1.00 12.00 154.00 154.00 1,309.00 154_00 20_00 700.00 5,000.00 1.00 Engineering and Construction Administration (25%) Total Estimated Option B Project Cost UNIT PRICE $3,000.00 $55.00 $55.00 $10.00 $15.00 $100.00 $3.00 $0.70 $10,000.00 TOTAL $3,000.00 $8,470.00 $8,470.00 $11,550.00 $2,310.00 $1,800.00 $2,100.00 $350.00 $10,000.00 $48,000.00 $12,000.00 $60,000.00 UNIT PRICE $3,500.00 $500.00 $55.00 $55.00 $10.00 $15.00 $100.00 $3.00 $0.70 $15,000.00 TOTAL $3,500.00 $6,000.00 $8,470.00 $8,470.00 $13,090.00 $2,310.00 $2,000.00 $2,100.00 $3,500.00 $15.000.00 $64,000.00 $16,000.00 $80,000.00 County Road E Pedestrian Improvements - Bridge Improvements Option C Cost Estimate . ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Mobilization LS 1.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 2 Structural Concrete (3Y36) CY 29.00 $500.00 $14,500.00 3 Structural Concrete (3Y 43) CY 24.00 $350.00 $8,400.00 4 Structural Concrete (1 A43) CY 12.00 $310.00 $3,720.00 5 Type P-l Railing Concrete (3Y46) t.F 154.00 $55.00 $8,470.00 6 Sidewalk Concrete (3Y46) SF 1,720.00 $10.00 $17,200.00 7 Excavation LS 1.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 8 Vinyl Coated Chain Link Fence LF 154.00 $15.00 $2,310.00 9 Expansion Jt. Device (Type 4) LF 20.00 $100.00 $2,000.00 10 Prestress Concrete Beam 45M LF 150.00 $130.00 $19,500.00 11 Diaphram for Type 45M Prestress Beam LF 40.00 $57.00 $2,280.00 12 Remove Concrete CY 38.00 $300.00 $11,400.00 13 CIP Concrete Piling Delivered LF 800.00 $16.00 $12,800.00 14 CIP Concrete Piling Driven LF 800.00 $2.00 $1,600.00 15 Bearing Assembly EA 4.00 $500.00 $2,000.00 16 Reinforcement Bars (Epoxy Coated) LB 26,000.00 $0.70 $18,200.00 17 Reinforcement Bars LB 1,500.00 $0.60 $900.00 18 Concrete Slope Paving SY 46.00 $11000 $5,060.00 19 Traffic Control - Stripin9 LS 1.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Subtotal Construction $160,000.00 Engineering and Construction Administration (25%) $40,000.0. Total Estimated Option C Project Cost $200,000.00 . . . . @) ~ ~~!iILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: AGENDA ITEM: 2F November 9, 2004 TO: Mayor and City Council Michelle Wolfe, City Administrator A;ula/il FROM: SUBJECT: Connty Road E Bridge Enbaneement and Sidewalk Project In response to Council's request for additional inlonnation, the lollowing have been prepared for your review at the November 15 Work Session: . Report 11-OIn URS with additional infomlation regarding the costs, pros, and cons of building on the north side of County Road E, along with some other additional updated infonnation; . Repol1 Irom Ramsey County Sheriffs Department regarding accident data for the intersection at County Road E and Connelly. . Repol1 from a URS Traffic Engineer regarding varions safety and traffic engineering Issues. City Council had requested the first lWG iteITIS listed above. \Vhen \ve requested the data and analysis from the Sheriffs Department, they mdicated (as is stated in the report) that the data should also be reviewed by a traffic engineer. Therefore, I requested that additional work Irom URS. In addition, I asked that their traffic engineer take a look at the project as a whole, as best as possible with time and information available, so that Council would have the best infonnation available in making a decision. A few key points should be noted: The application for Cooperative Agreement funding has been submitted. fn the document, it is indicated that the City still needs to makc a linal decision about which side of the bridge to build the sidewalk. The submitted document includes a request for enough funding to build the nOl1h~side option; this amount can be lowered if the City decides to proceed on the south side. MnDOT had requested that we make a final decision regarding north vs. south by the end of November or early December. To meet this timcline the item is planned for the November 29 City Council meeting agenda. There has becn some confusion due to information reported in a local newspaper article. With regard to MnDOT Cooperative Agrcement lunding thc following should be noted: . MnDOT officials have indicated that they believe the bridge enhancement project will score well for this funding program. While encouraging, this is an indication and not an abso lute. Pagc 2 of2 . The sidewalk portion of the project west of the bridge, whether north or south, is not eligible for the MnDOT Cooperative Agreement funding. This is why we did not includc that p0l1ion of the project in the resolution or application for funding. However, it would be eligiblc for MSA funding, which was the original funding plan in thc CIP. . The MnDOT official quoted in the newspaper was indicating his view that thc bridge project would score higher if it connects to a trail systcm (existing or futurc). Greg Brown followed up on this with MnDOT, and his report indicates his findings. Essentially, it is possible that the projcct could score higher if it connects to a trail systcm, but not a givcn. Rcgardlcss of whether this happens, thc sidewalk portion from thc bridge to Old Snelling would not qualify for this particular funding sourcc. . MW \\lEarthlAdmin\Cily AdminislratoTtMemo\2004111-J.5-04 Work Session ClL E.docc . . . URS Agenda Item 2F 'Ibresher Square 700 lllird Street South MtTmeapolis, MN 55415 Phone, (612)370-0700 Fax (612) 370-1378 To: Michelle Wolfe/Arden I-!ills City Administrator File: 31809363 From: Gregory S. Brown Arden IIi lis City Engineer Date: November 9, 2004 Subject: County Road E Pedestrian Sidewalk Improvements . llackgr-ouud The Council directed staff to look into improving the pedestrian crossing and sidewalk options in along County Road E between Connelly Avenue and Old Highway 10_ A number of concepts have becn discussed at neighhorhood inforrnational mectings and council meetings over the past 12 months_ On October 12,2004 Council passed Resolution 04-56 rcqucsting Mn/DOT consideration of a cost sharing coopcrativc agrccmcnt [or pedestrian improvements to the County Road E bridgc over Trunk Highway 51. The city engineer subsequently submitted a request to rv1nDOT to he considered for the 2006 cooperative agleernent funding cycle. Based upon the discussion at the Octobcr 12, 2004 council, the requestcd funds were based upon sidewalk improvcments to the north side of the bridge as this is the most expensive option. The funding request indicated that a tinal dctcrmination on north or south side would be made by thc Council in Novcmber and would be communicated to MnDOT staff with a rcvised estimate if necessary, . As noted above, the Council has exprcssed a consensus to proceed with Bridge Option B outlincd in the feasibility repOli for the project (albeit north/south side has not been determined). Based upon council discussion to date, staff believes that if Council elects to continue the sidewalk west of the westCn1 TH 51 access ramp to Old Highway 10, a 6 foot wide concrete walk with 2 foot cdgc strip would be the prefcn.ed dcsign option to minimize impacts to adjacent residents whether built on thc north or south sidc. The intcnt ofthis memo is to present the pros and cons of constructing sidewalks on the nOlih and south sides o[thc strcct to allow the Council to make the following decisions: . Whether a sidcwalk should be constructed bctwcen the west TH 51 ramp and Old Highway 10 . If a sidewalk is agreed to, whether to construct it on thc north or south side of the strect To assist Council with this compruison, I have allempted to provide a comprehensive list of pros and cons related to the 1l00ih and south sides from informalion gathered prcviously and recently collected infon11ation requcsted by council. I havc attached a memo from Tony Winiecki of our officc who rcviewcd the projcct area and the intersection ofConnclly and County Road E County Road E Pedestrian Sidewalk Improvements November 9, 2004 Page 2 . specifically from a traffic engineering/safety point of view as requested by Council. South Side Sidewalk (6' Concrete, 2' decorative edge strip) . Estimated Sidewalk Cost (west ofTH 51 ramp): $ 80,000 . Estimated Bridge Improvement Cost: $ 136,000 . Estimated Sidewalk Cost (between TH 51 ramps): $ 34,600 . Total Estimated Project Cost: $ 250,600 . No Private Property Acquisition . 8 Proper1ies fronting sidewalk . Minimal utility conflicts (no anticipated cost) . Allows Connection to Frecway Park, Lindeys Park . Serves residents south of CR E well (not necessary to cross CR E) . Requires residents north of CR E to cross at Old Snelling or Freeway Park Signal . Requires sidewalk users to cross both signalized ramp intersections . Minimal amount of grading, no retaining walls anticipated . No adverse private driveway impacts North Side Sidewalk (6' Concrete, 2' decorativc edge strip) . Estimated Sidewalk Cost (west ofTH 51 ramp): $ 195,000 . Estimated Bridge Improvement Cost: $ 136,000 . Estimatcd Sidewalk Cost (bctwecn TH 51 ramps): $ 130,000 . Total Estimated Project Cost: $ 461,000 . No Privatc Propcrty Acquisition . II Properties fronting sidewalk . 2 privatc drivcway slopcs will bc adversely affected by thc sidewalk . I private garage (westem end) is approximately 20 feet from curb which would preclude residcnts from parking vehiclcs in driveway . Bituminous curb between west signal and bridge would need to be replaced with concrete . Requires concrete retaining walls with railing adjacent to both sides of bridge . Requircs modular block retaining walls along approximately 60% of property frontage . Requires areas of significant grading (reflected in cost) . Some modular wall may require safety railings . Scrves residents north of CR E well (not necessary to cross CR E) . Requires residents south of CR E to cross at Old Snclling or Freeway Park Signal . Sidcwalk uscrs avoid crossing signalized frceway ramps . Requires sidewalk users to cross N. Han11ine, Ardcn Oaks Dr, and Pascal Ave . Minor utility conflicts - telcphonc pcdestals, guy wires ($5K reflected in cost) . . . . . County Road E Pedestrian Sidewalk Improvements November 9, 2004 Page 3 Northern boulevard of County Road f: RenderifJgs of potential County Road E sidewalk improvements on soulh side (left) afJd north side (right) MnDOT Cooperative Agreement Update Recent discussions with Suc Zarling ofMnDOT confimlcd our understanding that the sidewalk improvements west of the Freeway Park ramp entrance would not be eligible for cooperati ve agreement funding. When asked if the bridge funding would scorc higher based upon a sidewalk extension to the west, Sue indicated that no specific grading criteria addrcsscd that possihility howcver some graders may grant higher scores to a project with a hroader impact to the communities sidewalk/trail network based upon their personal view of thc project. County Road E Pedestrian Sidewalk Improvements November 9, 2004 Page 4 . Anticipated Pl'Oject Milestone Schedule: . Council selects north or south side, sidewalk scope - November 29'h, 2004 . MnDOT selects project for cooperative agreement funding - January 14th, 2005 . MnDOT rejects project for cooperative agrecment funding - January 14, 2005 o Project would be entirely fundcd by state aid funds in this case . Final Design Period - February - April 2005 . Bid Opening - June, 2005 . Begin Construction - August, 2005 . Complete Construction -- October, 2005 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the 6 foot wide sidewalk with 2 foot decorative strip be constructed west to Old Snelling in accordance with the City's Parks and Trails Master Plan and to enhance the safety of pedestrians currently utilizing County Road E and those who will use it in the future. Based upon our revicw of thc north and south sides, we recommcnd that the sidewalk be constructed along the south side due to lower cost, fewer residential impacts and to allow for convenicnt connections to Freeway Park and Lindeys Park. The existing County Road E intersections with Old Snelling Avenue, TH 51 ramps at Freeway Park and Connelly Avenue all provide standardized, controlled safe crossings for pedestrians choosing to cross the corridor between north and south sides. . Recommend Council Actiou Staff requests that Council provide direction on the following: I) Whether the sidewalk improvements should extend west to Old Snelling and if so which side of County Road E should the sidewalk be constructed. 2) If no sidewalk is to be built west of TH 51, which side of the bridge should the sidewalk improvements be constructed on improved. . .URS MEMORANDUM Thresher Squ3re 700 nlird Street South [\.hnncapolis, MN 5541 S Phone (612) 370-0700 F", (612) 313-6526 To: Greg Brown, PE Infrastructure Engineering Copy: File: From: Anthony 1. Winiecki, PE, PTOF Traffic Engineering Hate: Novcmber 9,2004 Subject: County Road E Pedestrian Sidewalk Improvements The purpose of this memorandum is to briefly prcsent comments concerning pedestrian access for alternatives considcred for adding a pedestrian crossing along Ramsey County Road (CR) E ovcr Trunk Highway 5 I (Snelling A vcnue) and along CR F to Old Highway 10. . Existing Conditions Snelling Avenue 1Il(erchallg(~ The Snelling A venue and CR E interchange is a folded diamond interchange on thc south sidc of CR E, with CR E crossing over Snelling A vcnue. This design configuration includes both entrancc and exit ramps at one leg ofthe intersections for the east ramp intersection (north bound Snelling Avenue exit ramp and entrance ramp) and thc west ramp (southbound Snelling Avenue exit and entrance ramp)_ This is a typical and often constructed interchange design. CR E Bridge Currently there arc no pedestrian sidewalks/trails across the bridge. The bridge is a two lanes bridge consisting of 30 feet from face of curb to face of curb with two driving lanes. The bridge includes bighway type guardrail with 2 foot wide raised eoncrete walks on both sJdes. These walks arc not intended for pedestrian use. However, because of the narrow roadway and hridge, pedestrians either walk in the roadway or use the narrow walkway to cross Snelling A venue along CR E. . East Ramp Illtenel"tiol1 The cast ramp intersection is a four-legged intersection. CR E is the east and west legs, ex it/entrance ramps are the south leg and Connelly A venue is the north leg. There are pedestrian walkways on the north and south sidc of CR E from this intersection to the east. This intersection is controlled by a full traffic-actuated signal and includes pedestrian indications and pcdestrian push buttons. When activated, the pedestrian pushbulton wi II prompt thc signal controller of a pedestrian waiting to cross the strecl. In addition, therc are pavcment crosswalk markings to guide pedestrians across all four legs of this intersection and curh cuts to allow access out ofthc roadway. This is a typically dcsigned and operatcd intersection with no inherent concerns. . 'Vest Ramp Interseetion The wcst ramp intersection is a threc-Iegged intersection. CR E is the east and west legs and the exit/entrance ramps make up the south leg. Thcrc arc no existing permanent pcdestrian walkways leading to any part of this intersection. This intersection is controlled by a full traffic-actuatcd signal and includes pedestrian indications and pedestrian pushbuttons. Whcn activated, the pedestrian pushbutton will prompt the signal controller of a pedestrian waiting to cross the strcet. ]n addition, therc are pavcmenl crosswalk markings to guide pedestrians across all three legs of this intersection and curb cuts to allow acccss out of the roadway. There is a cuI-de-sac roadway on the north side of CR E betwecn the west ramp interscction and the bridge. This roadway serves 7 residential homes and docs not appcar to negatively impact the operations of the interscction. This is a typically designed and operatcd intersection with no inherent concerns. In addition thcre are two residential driveways very ncar this intersection. . CR E - Old Highway /0 to Snelling Avenue This section of roadway is 52 fcet wide. It is striped as a 2-lane roadway with 8-toot shoulders on each sidc. Pedestrians currently use this shoulder to travel along CR E. Thcrc are several rcsidential driveways on the north and south side of CR E and three local residential streets on the north side of CR E. Traffic Volumes Traffic data and turning movement counts were not performed for this cursory review. The average daily traffic along CR E is 11,300 vehicles per day west of Snelling ^ venue and 16,300 vehiclcs per day east of Snelling Avenue. General guidelines would indicate that the 2-lane roadway west of and including the bridge has periods of poor levels of servicc. The 4-lane segment east of Connelly A venue likely experienccs acceptable levels of service. Traffic Accidents Attached is the summary traffic accident report from thc Ramscy County Shcriffs office datcd October 27,2004. ]n summary, there have becn a total of twelve crashes on the CR F roadway from Connclly Avenuc wcst to Snelling Avenue for the past 22 months. Nine of the 12 crashes were attrihuted to inattentivc drivers and no crashes involvcd pedestrians~ The Ramscy County Sheriffs office docs not see any roadway design flaws that might lcad to crash tendencies. . . . . Pedestrian Destinations Designated trail systems in thc City of Arden Hills include Irails along Old Highway 10 and CR F. Cun-ently thcrc is no sidewalk along CR E from Old Highway 10 to Connelly Avenue. Therc are three small parks in the area that are destinations. They include Lindy's Park located in the southeast comer of Old Highway 10 and CR F. This is an open plot of park land with no parking or parkland amenities. Arden Oaks Park is locatcd in the ncighhorhood bound by Arden Oaks Drive. It has chi Idren' s play equipment, a haskethall cOUli, and opcn area. H appears to serve as a small local playground serving the approximate 42 residential units in the immcdiatc arca. Freeway Park is located on the south side ofCR Ejust west of the wcst ramp intersection. It has childrcn's play equipment and a hockey rink. It serves the local residential neighborhood south of CR E. Seasonal use of the hockey rink may bring additional users to the park. Proposed Pedestrian Crossing Recommendations The proposed improvements include the construction of a sidewalk along CR E between Old Highway 10 and Connelly Avenue. Although there is negligible overall operational difference in locating the pedcstrian sidewalk on the north or south side of CR E, the south side appears to have more benefit for the following reasons. . Thcre are a greater number of residential units south ofCR E between Old Highway 10 and Snelling Avenue that would have access to the new pedestrian sidewalk. !! Pcdestri,ir1 access [lOl11 areas north and livest of the intersection at Old Highway 10 and CR E havc access to the new pedestrian sidewalk via that fully controlled interscction. . There is existing and adequate traffic control and pedestrian amenities for the safe crossing of pedestrians at the Snelling A venue ramp intersections for a sidcwalk on the north or south side of CR E. . <'Countdown" pedestrian indications could be added to trartic signal systems as an addcd safety feature. Countdown pedestrian indications visually give pcdestrians actual time remaining to cross thc roadway. BOB FLETCHER RAMSEY COUNTY SHERIFF . 425 Grove SI. SI. Paul, MN 55101-241B Telephone: (651) 266-9300 Telelacsimile: (651) 266-9301 October 27. 2004 Tom Moore, Operations and Maintenance Director City of Arden Hills 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112-5794 Dear Tom, Per your request, I had the calls for service, for the reported crashes, for the area of County Road E from Connelly west to Hamline, from 2003 to October 2004. I asked U_S. Altendorfer, Ll Salter, and Deputy Entner to review the crash reports as well. In summary, for the past twenty-two months, we have had a total of twelve crashes Oil the reviewed stretch of road. The crashes included the following causes: . . Inattentive Driving 9 . OWl I . Speed I . Car v Deer I We did not have any crashes that involved pedestrians. Please find the enclosed crash reports As we reviewed these figures, we considered the thousands of cars that use this stretch of road cach day. We didn't see any glaring flaws in the makeup of the road that might lead to crash tendcncies_ As f spoke about earlier, the inattentive driving is the most common cause for most traffic crashes, as with this stretch of road. If there is anything else we can review, please don't hesitate to call me at 651-248-2438 Sinccrcly, r-; ~~~ t0c,,-,fA J.ieph Paget, Lieutenant J-hunan Resources Development . C: US Altendorkr, Ll. Salter, and Deputy Entner ADULT OE1ENTrON DIVISION (651) 266-9350 . CIVIL PHocrss (651} 266-9330 . PATROL DIVISION (65l) 481-1317 . WARRANTS (651) 266-9320 f3~: arden hills <WYnn. w ~ 01 :~f ~~+ \,}\JY~..~ ffi.l~ ~4 NJVHE"" OMv,OU"",,, .sn>fC'l 1085 THO . liVE Y, 01 ur'/s....f(J'Jo> ~ .~ ST Pf1lJL 5SJ 04 (.~l 6H II _p--"O..-"-"-"'-...."J DIlT.{U-">< ."Y( 1 [J HHf 11 10 2W,O 93RO AVE NE -0<1;""<)< Rf He. C ~, 02 c>n."'"n.w''' BLA1NE 55449 16J 792 lOB -= ~ <~" 05 [~ ~" roy.":' ~~:'n~l ~E04 ~- "~ 01 T~-tM:=J'1l4~ ~]06 . l:;::::~'65} 63J 8285) --mro~~;~'; [David Miller (651 493 ~~~----+-jw-tJ 2~~~~ M 198(. Kay}" Brown (763 ]SO 1070) "- _ -.:::; f - ---~~l---~- ;:ffl~~f . - II NB Snelling hits .2 rightside & leaves road into watery ditCll_ Us now enteL'5 li- sTdesw-l'pes'f l-l:hich is_.stopped ,in. leftlane_ lJ:l..How.di_sdRlg.;t.i lefllane dlso. j4 southbound ~trikes debris an< i-5 disabled~ Dr.iver 1t1. found.DWl iJnd arrest.eeL. Vch's 1,2 ~ ) towed from sccne_ Heavy Fog ~~~ -, 04015553 "~r};' fl 02 do . ~~ ~ l<Oom: ...-" OR :>Tfl:UT........- _ Highway 51 ~J8~!1l0 - 9,gT'M ,\1 rrf"l ~'04 I~ 1loolT000_'" , I N, ~~ .~ :' 1 ,~, 98 ~~ N -,. "T;" 1:(I4'T~6'fnlo6 ~ 7634241408 f ~98--rr f551486901S BROOKLYN PARK 55443 . ...."""'-"""~~ =-m-' 1).10."'0(-_ so: ~ndY I.uongvan [7(34243408) =- 02 03 5;(,1 -- n~ n=-~-W ,~ """ t'-'I't:.- ....~v f<)M< F 04 N. fn I-F~r _T.-'~~~J_"""~==::..;c_'~_",_""",:,,-___ ~ ..v~hicle ~ driving S/6~_~y_ 51 In _~~e passing lane Driver 1 e$timates speed at 65 rnph. Drive~ s,ays saw:__yehicle 2 t.urn.ing and qat. .P.ervo.\!s~. Vehicle 2 turning into closest lane to go SiR Ill..., 5] ~ Saw vehicle] in LH h.'ft lane and estimated vehicle 1 speed at 65-70 mph. Both wearing 'S(i<:ftb"e1 ts. . 04015553 fI ~~ -- ~ n~ ~ .N' N 02 80 -<- ROU'E~<"".s'"",,-"_ Highway 51 8:: 0110 ~ . 1 \./ "'1J + r' ~r'i~oqBl"llR-3,- ~.~- --:t:L2ill)JLn!i).. .w~. l! ~ "'~'~~j'~~~'~'~ ,~ II :~ lid j ~ 6S148(,901S ~ ~'J~~ ~ 1l '"1 aN.."'-"-TE..:iY -i BROOKLYN PARK 55443 3~r- 1li'64:] ~04 - I 04 26~ ....~. ~lJI:l No 01 ~t t~ ~ l~_-~~] ~04 [06 '9;--YN ~ 76)-4243408 ~ [06- 98 -= N . """",=,~ 1t~~* ++H Vandy Luongv~n (76342434081 . Vehicle 1 driving SIB Hwy 51 in the p.assirrq lane- 'Dr:l.ve-r 1 - estimates s'p~-d' at 65' aij5ti:: -'"'Ddver 1 .sayssaw..vehi.cle..2 turning .al)d go.t. .fler,vo1,.ls_. Vehicle 2 turning int.o closest lane to qo SIB Hw~ 51_ Saw ve-hicle 1 in far left. lane and estimat.ed vehicle- I speed .'Of" 6')-70 mph. Both we<ldng se'a:ttH~lts. -, !,L~;~;7oB8 """"...>U 1'1 ~- ~- ~~ ~ ,- ri N 01 do '00 Y I~~~-- -+ -- HWY ~-)l '-]8:: Arden Hills -I~~ B:f>>'\ . ROlJff"""""'ROR-o;.m~",.........:: RO<JrFsn~..S>REn~tNT'O>l'U.~"-- 07 I RAMSEY COUNTY ROAD E ., NN.oEt>~""llOlL.u.:;-T} rm~~l~ I!!L.l~. ~ , ~~ 180& IGJHL .. '" n aN.~_ MAPLE GROVE 55369 ~~- _1A'lS1.~lH>IJ .1- '--.-.. D>oTEOF....-n-o D 3 ~-- ~~.=- .~l N, -r76J-424-JI15 -~u.c,r~~ OT(.ST..,"-.ZW ~~ n- I~d't. ~(o~ ADORl'''3 ~. , SAf"U>>>l = _a~ ~ r~ u<-'r~- . .....';:;Jf~~,""'l1'M:""'"s ,-, ~n~_~ m.; ~ ~;:.o ~~ ro~ ---H=r-+rR-l-+ ,).~.^~m " -,~ No diagram - vehicle not on scene descr:ibed~ "Drive-r was 'NB nwy 'sf smlt.h of County Roild f. arId :S,truck,deerhead-oll. .caus.ing IDoQel;'ate .front damage. Deer ran into woods east of collision -dr-.iver continued--.t.o ex.i_t.__at. County Road E .iOd.. called Sheritf for report trom Shell gas station . ."/i7 "}7 ~o"<'~u ]~ '~< lOUTT ';YSlf" "01111' N'lMflE'l:OA'i.m:€E1 ~ . ~~Eu./~ / .--c =' U' . J"h /1 . ,L . mu~-r"'~'~~ ~ rt..:LJ. . IT/US - _ + _ .__ - . - . - - \ P<1S"1OM VOlIVE:Rlla:""<;"""-"'"&:R_1 J I f_. ~_......._ _ ~ ,a-./ n ~~:"~:~ 'IB;:/'i>i 8:.... ROO-lis-y~ 11~;~r~~~;~ 6~- ~ - .~, j~ Vf'l'VU<llU1"SfN<IM8O!_] ~ f ~-.1 ..r.r70~'-" __ Y IYlrr-t.f' i..:. .;__ .'z. ~~ ~ !-~, ~"ti,{~.j~v UTY."T,,'I'.ZIP 51. I'~ ~. 55117 '=~IT~~ ~~ 1:4''1 n ,~~ ~-""",,I_~'"Mc, Q1L L nR;J~ :-- -.------ t--==.2... t 1 AI.lDfU'SS -~-'~VRvlOl ? . ._.~ orysr....!l'IV> -- __ ~.~ b.. Tr>i,~ J~~"~h'.' -, .. .OO:;-J-- ~GT __(~. ~ _ ~a~) TY1"l: ~~- ~':;:->tOSf> lR""'-~:"H _.~:;..........-.., - ~~~/ ~~ . -'""',. " SH'(;(R:".IW<'N!'ssrs -~'----"'- ~((>~I<TYf'l'nlOY . ""'"""'" _:ttL7&tvE?I/::'-8~_2d!(LL/~~ - _t!..&/CL~ ~&&;;J &!ctlrSLL!...4't _]JL5/4S""y~~&=P<:.(L --~C7?_&._,.yz€c-~<;&q:,. _"L~tdUf /'?:k>i"'PZ~_L7~<7?"/'}". F(5'77f7IV:J /Ie 5d~vUa 70 .:f1rj;(oi.-&~-6i~:;;.c7'...~m . A.iYi-G-2.-YjATl>_t7~_4J'i'--c_ /. &",2$;<"/1&/-1--1 ~ :5'Z7l7lU1__$ -mik_.::>~ -~5,_A_;['e-'4<<-__&0 .6!&cm=~ ~L' ..t2f:S):&'f>J7n---l-.. ~X'_" ./_ L:/)_ __ /l -9.3 r( ~~ KllllO i3 .LU1 N ~LQ 0.3 h-JL,;>J/; J ~"O' O::,;:"'c~ !/d'._ -M~ j;l: 8: />I h~~um GRUE~-KiWI---.----- --- s--..o....: IlOUfEsysrnoOS-'<lFrlCORPUI>J,rOAFu.n'RF __ 1B-::-:r/1..J...'" ~/i,I. . --~+-'----:- I ~~~><, ~c/. E ~~~~ - ~~_~ ~-~-~..11~~ -{SVSlo.o f<\.>UlE""-""'lI[H:QRSlrn:f'f1'>lAMl:" _,~,"",..~"-L"""I J~j~'~ r ~- ~ ., ~~.-;' ~- 7 .o.DOflE:SS ~, ~S-S- (Jr(STAl1.'..",," ClTY.srArr.rIP '<oSLv/ltf fit.;J ~~ 1~---p~~~~;;r 6 /"J,y SS1/9 I~~~ .~ u~ T" SAfEE-'::lPT "'4 EJf(:l fHJSF _c -, /'> .,..,..""",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-,,,---l-.'~..'~:::.:i~~ NGl'=.<:':'::';"""S_~" Rf. ~,~...." "'J<'~ \IS(' IYIlRI\(; fXct .....Sf'" T. _._-~--- . .----. -~. [ " 1\ ~ /, f . I.J .;).i-$) . - , .. .:}I . n - .~ -'- ... I Lj h S- '" '~~:~'~~ii7~"~~,*~~~*O..~~%~_~- .<ll.' DMOA~[>P><OP'ERTY(lU1OW' ,:;. _ ~:{:>-:,;.,....~..... <"-~~ I_;u<;~ ~.~ 1I~7 S~tO~V'd~ S/ /~ L~r:-=-r .L+~e- ~+ . . ;!;ty;; /7.c',.u.e~ ....__ -CX'Crtc'l' ?-.,< X. N"~,,-{;; A1:.-4-#{L- W~.N 7.> 7/-1' ,.+...,J S:N- v<,(: .L> V-J. V~I V-;t .j,jJ . / ^'" /". Or,~L. lj. S/.5/4/-"</ 64<..oL :T"'..} 7 - Of,vt~ ( ~~cJ h r L..r-,........;/V-. .;, Vd,c~;A-: O--jJ-L....,..,r4~-v /./L.JJ//~0 F~ +,..v -.J-""-7- ..~ "-',:":' . . . ,~j::;l;~~.,J;o~...' "", .b~._~"',;g; ~, . . County Road E .. ~= - Ard~~l~~l~--r-na;---I~mE-'a-f<J: - 1 n "'_10ll~ 1_,_____ _tFln:>""<.>.coolf.'''''ll ~ 06 - -Ofioio ,;, DIi:\tJC4.T><<l~ 4045 HODGSON HID N 02 ";;;~';:VIE:VI 5 512 6 _-I:' 1-<83 ~ 5 ~ rM r~4~~O:; r-gg ~'"'o~-~ ~~ J~~~~~.,---_ . L" ~lflR:i.t..lo'IODtE..iASll -~ Dl\SINA SlV HOCH -"~-"==--::~__ " .L "''''OI'-lH JOHN AUGUST SCHMID ~ 01 ~~--_.__.._----- ]027 BECKMAN AVE ~~.o.: N::..J~ (JTV_"T"rr~---'--'____,~ ::c-.:> 01 ARDEN HILLS 551]2 fi.Sl-63S-948! .....OO.:-~" ISBI ~:Cl f,;' jS.'S~tQPT rwF~-I= nrfLl 1.J.,~{)..1 n" ~---;--l""'~'f" . L..--------,-""""-.._.""..._.y...==~._~" I-:"=(~R$.'~""'~S__.._._. ________ J..."'".,tt... M"J:Y""D Sc,"""irl !L~1-4Bl-an~) j~---- ---- . ~'CP"'O" 'oc~.:'"~" '",'~"'~~__ j ~~t"~~-~a~'l:-~'I-~o 1>o1S<;:; DIO-J1(;/l;:-jF-,04 10-;106:-05 C ; 040~;;0$=j~*6$S N1 . . ~:. ~~~~= ~~L"-===-,~_,~v -~'-' "'","""",v< !G J;::~~ I Veh l I.IdS edstbound 00 County Road E: dttemptlO< to turn left {north) on Connelly AVf'lluc. Veh. 2 was westbound on Co~nty R.oad E. Eilst/We:::;t traffi had a green light. Veh. 1 never sa~ Veh. 2, $t~t€d several vehicles Jo./.ere tuu~iDg teft..onto northbound Hwy. 51 and thru Lme was clear. Veh. 2 .statei.":! 'she' was travelling 'about -30- MPR, and"sh saw Veh. J Jnd honked at them. passengf:>( of Veh. 1 had recent shoulder SUu]ery, larm in 51 ingL may have sustained fu(ther Injul'ydue to seatbelt. She was t(ansported to United Hospital .via Allina Ambulilnce~ No at_her apparent_ injuries Both vehicles towed_ "~0"rl'l:1- ~=~ ..~ IV . ~ KiUI€S'rSn:.. ROt.JTE:~EJlVflSTRrEl~.. .--4... ~ C h .el - :;~~c:~l'~_".' 8 8 8' ~ .~ .... r:, J ^ '~ ~ 't:.".. .. ,.... "' ~...... _ w _ ~ : ~ ~~~~l~,~;;~~'~~~..,.:::;~~~~:~~~~El;:~~~y~ ..'. > r. - '-" -I'. .-..,,> .L,/ _ _ .,L,j "-"../..--0 . . p ~~ n. ia iI r ~~ =..... ;;:{'V~~':' lG'i 011 ;r.:1'-I;~ E ~~r;, IVJ\ C1rv.SI"TJO..Z1P ~ 1-' /.., l~. 1. ~ ___ - m;Rf_<.s "'~2~ ar<. -s.YATf_VY 4~ 'lL /J{..L)' (...fYV'{ ~""" ~, !/!'I.r/ 15'(/3 ~d L - I v) ". 81 '~H,C~J.~ ~ ~~" ft! /-1 1..- ~ 5 5~. 5 rJo ,.. ~ll .; COM' : " ( ~ ,~ I' ::'Al.0<t ~-'~f) J ~ ,., IEVV ACCIDENT REPORT . -~---r-'-J1-H' ." _' i .....-..~.....~.."~~<.,~'""~,_-.,,. .fr'.'M".""" I. ..... ..E f'R 01' O'>fl'fI o......-.f""O PflOPOUYI'.NI)(JESCPIPTlON Of (t"""'Gl:DPf.lOPE"l"Y ANO'OR Tl'uo.. 'M;NlJMD,F1I{S, J ~f(~t-;,{~ SI &fJl..;.- tj4.___ f/\_". {.<- t-I-! ~.r~." ' j"" - :..Jt:,/-L(" .:. (..v...) r..,-1 pk(LA'I - L,--1--~ 2. v t.. '!fv-:.- If y~"- , ..J. ~ . y-C..:....- '-L ; ',""."':-.- _ i __ ....:. -";iJtA~- -rL..c. (~A_{" (i::: {.:-',( i---.~.U U l , o rl J-\..rG F i.../ cf-u ';.u -g f u.....d..-<...-s -:.. ~C .s. f---<.. ~LS C- -t- t/-( k/t .f_L -(2- '- ..'fl , d l..'\ t:..kL-~/-f~ .T t - .,.~. !.-,' r::. c.. r G._A-~! t/.l-(....it. L~ Lifr:<...fr{c rU-vt-n-(5 (~i .).)j" l'hE",I..",,!: livc S, i'JliJv'f.- "n,V , . _:::-z: /11--l~ - I'~ . C' !/5(-- b\~) /s&uz ,,,,,., ,0 -- . ,---c-r;:"".."." ':"'-'.'-'.':-.s::c_';;.~2~~~,',.:c,;~---:-:",:::~.'",~';"",'v.,~",,,,,,'~:..l:';.,-.i",,~---:;' . . TPAT><Ol.Sl.AnoN 1::0 -S>Aq:P"'JROt. [ /_,(1 --1..-- -,-.----. ", .- ~ w - \ - ~ ~ w '" r " > " 0 r~ > [: . z 0 0 . fl . P- . I " '" 0 . ~ . '" . r 0 , > F' P- . .. " , 9"~ > < ~ , , 0 1'1 < .- 11t~ J 0 ~ , > . , J cr . " " 0 I" 0 < ~ ~ ~ o o J f% ? ~. ~ .:v Jf 1> ~ ;I '" r > . ~ z > , " , . . , > I h o 0 o z ~ 0 :>: > r ~ o Z Q' . . " . . " o . > ~ . " . > . . , ~ ~ :u fl.~ ~ ___ Ul '" -< o o c z ~::;l " ~ , o o r " ~ '" 1'1 Z 1'1 '" ,. r ;1J ... " o '" .. > o -0 . ~ < . " ---i) 'S ,S- O o , 0 .. . ~ . ~ ~ , " , Ul r PI :u .,. .,. ~ -V ::: J j;l /<l . ~ . c r ~ . J> 0; 5~ . . . , , " , z o c > . . N o > I rOO ~ 0 ;{ ( . flJ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ a r o . 0 . .. o z . " : . < " < x . . o r o > , z . z o z o . c . . I '00 > . Z - " r n . o o Z -I Z C :-. -~ I < ... :xc ... :u '" . . . . < ..... ~ < ~ (/Jf...; ....l"J ....l~ ::ai:::l z~ r.J..J ~~ ~~ U.;~ O~ >--~ Ci:::I u:,,: o ~ ~ r,.. ~ 8 '-0 o o C:' t- O; (/J f-" (/J o U Z o 1= u >--, >-' pe: f-" (/J Z o u >-- pe: ~ z ~ ::; r.J..J pe: ~ ~ =00000000000000000 ~OOOOMOOOOOOoooooo Oacimci~0ociooociociocio Sg~go~g~~~~~gg~~g~ ~M~mO~M~Nmoo~~~rn~w ~~*~~~W~~N~~~~~ro~ {f} U)w Y7W f:l7Y}-f:flfIT '" - OJ E ;:: '" '" ~ooooooooooooaoooo O~~O~~~rnMOOOO~OOO ~ci~ro~~m~~~o~ocimoooo O~~ill~~mf:l7W~~DOWO~O O~flTWwwu) ~NMO ~fIT~ ~Mf:17 f:l7Y7~~ m m ~~ f:I7~ ~ f:fl - '" o U JOO '';:; q ~ C~N " ~ :> 00 00 ~ 0 <0 "" N 00 00 -~ ~ 00 o C> """" "' "' 00 00 0>'" 0", '" ~ o C> o C> o C> NO r- o C> 00 0"" o to o ~ en 00 00 "' <0 r- ~ Qj E '" .. o .... "'I (I) >- l.L. .--::: --1 t) --1 C ;::; LLLLLLLLlLOJLLLL<((I)LL(J)LL(j) --1(1)...J-l(/)--.J....J.....JW--1C1)---l(J)-l 'e .;: co ill 0) " -;:: ---u _ OJ -- <( (l) ro ...... m I'---ro ~ 0 Ui CD)!: Q.l ..-- 0 OJ 00 ill ~ ~ g:;;~ 0 c Q.l S -M'h Q)Q)"'-'>.IDC S c6 <o,---,~..-..<ol1.. 0..11) X 0)"- (") ID >,U) 0-0 CU 06 +-' >- .2 .... ""'" ~ I- .... 0..._ 1i3 0) U) (") (]) u >- _~ - :3 W m n:: U5 "~ ti3 -b Co~---1 (])OO_-- w"'-Q.-~ me c"~ ~O)rn -oU2->O)cucc~c-';::;ro ~uO)mro(])Cm== (])~{f)> () c.... ..c 0"- "- "- m E ro . > - crn=go "roc~~(j)+-'>orne o "~ "m 0 "'0 .:=:; Q) Q) _ _ ~ cu > .... c c ~~~~u2c~ESS~~2E'EO ~cu~~~rooQ)(])ccQ)~Q)o"~o 00.... l-o"-_o(])Q)+-'(])bU~c .~2l1..~;U~~~EE~ucomo ~1~ommm~ro()~roro()~O~~"~ a3 05 ~~:!2"~ ;Z25"(j) E E 25:3() roD... 0 ~~ml-l-~>wo~OOUW~~UW o Z E E 0..- _"'-N(")VLn<Dr--CO(J)~~ N (") VI.!) to ~ ~ o o o o o ,.: r- N Y> c o t5 2 1;; c o o '" (5 :E :> (I) C> C> o C> C> 0> <0 Y> ~ "' ~ c o ~ 1;; c E " <( c o t5 :> ~ 1;; c o o " c '" .~ '" '" c 0) c W o o o o o <D '<t M .... 000 0 000 0 ggo 0 000 0 r--:0oiO 0 ~ ~ 0) t'- y> 0> '<t N .... .... .... Vl o tl c: o :;::; ::l ..c 'i: C C g..-..o g U "" I- ~ 0 8co - w c: S ,-0 :i! o o~ >-00-0 ~ Ql C C .... o 0 Vl :g:g! .o.o~ ~ ~ 0- - - Ql 660:: oO-l >->-< 001- 'E'Eo :;;::;;:1- .... <) Ql '0' L- a.. lD c: o :;::; a. o -0 Ql .... <U E :;::; Vl W <U .... o I- Q) c o +- ::l .0 E c o o Vl J: c OJ " ~ <( 9/7/2006 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS . COUNTY ROAD E PEDESTRIAN WALK PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS 6' Concretc Walk - South Side of County Road E Item No. Item Units Quantity Unit Price Amount I 6' Concrete Trail (includes base) SF 11250 $ 5.59 $ 62,900.00 2 Sod LS 1 $ 5,200.00 $ 5,200.00 3 Grading LF 1875 $ 3.25 $ 6,100.00 4 Ped Ramp EA 4 $ 650.00 $ 2,600.00 5 Striping Changes (E) LS I $ 2,600.00 $ 2,600.00 6 Mobilization LS 1 $ 3,250.00 $ 3,300.00 7 Concrete Curb (hand formed) LF 80 $ 32.50 $ 2,600.00 Construct Subtotal $ 85,300.00 20% Engineering & Construction Administration $ 17,100.00 Total Sidewalk Costs $ 102,400.00 . 8 2' Edge Strip SF 3740 $ 10AO $ 38,900.00 18% Engineering & Construction Administration $ 7,000.00 Total Edge Strip Costs $ 45,900.00 Total Project Costs $ 148,300.00 I . . 9/7/2006 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY ROAD E PEDESTRiAN WALK PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS 6' Concrete Walk - North side of County Road E Item No. Item Units Quantity Unit Price Amount I 6' Concrete Trail (includes base) SF 11250 $ 5.59 $ 62,900.00 2 Sod LS 1 $ 7,800.00 $ 7,800.00 3 Grading LF 1875 $ 4.55 $ 8,500.00 4 Ped Ramp EA 8 $ 650.00 $ 5,20000 5 Striping Changes (E) LS I $ 2,600.00 $ 2,600.00 6 Mobilization LS I $ 930.37 $ 900.00 7 Concrete Curb (hand formed) LF 160 $ 32.50 $ 5,200.00 8 Relocate Private Utilities LS I $ 6,500.00 $ 6,500.00 9 Culvert LF 30 $ 39.00 $ 1,200.00 10 Retaining Wall SY 450 $ 260.00 $ 117,000.00 . Construct Subtotal $ 217,800.00 18% Engineering & Construction Administration $ 39,200.00 Total Sidewalk Costs $ 257,000.00 8 2' Edge Strip SF 3740 $ 10AO $ 38,900.00 18% Engineering & Construction Administration $ 7,000.00 Total Edge Strip Costs $ 45,900.00 Total Project Costs $ 302,900.00 I . 9/7/2006 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY ROAD E PEDESTRIAN WALK PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS Retaining Wall West of Bridge for North Side Item No. Item Units Ouantity Unit Price Amount 1 Retaining Wall SY 100 $ 260.00 $ 26,000.00 Construct Subtotal $ 26,000.00 18% Engineering & Construction Administration $ 4,700.00 T ota I Costs $ 30,700.00 . . . . 9/7/2006 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY ROAD E PEDESTRIAN WALK PRELIMINAR Y CONSTRUCTION COSTS 8' Concrete Walk - South Side of County Road E Item No. Item Units Quantity Unit Priee Amount I 8' Concrete Trail (includes base) SF 15000 $ 5.59 $ 83,900.00 2 Sod LS I $ 5,200.00 $ 5,200.00 0 Grading LF 1875 $ 4.23 $ 7,900.00 -, 4 Ped Ramp EA 4 $ 650.00 $ 2,600.00 6 Striping Changes (E) LS I $ 2,600.00 $ 2,600.00 7 Mob LS I $ 5,200.00 $ 5,200.00 8 Concrete Curb (hand Conned) LF 80 $ 32.50 $ 2,600.00 Construct Subtotal $ 110,000.00 18% Engineering & Construction Administration $ 19,800.00 . Total Project Cost $ 129,800.00 . . . . (i) October J 5.2004 Ms. Sue Zarling Metro State Aid Engmeer Mn/DOT Depanment of Transportation 1500 West County Road B2 Roscville. MN 55 J 13 Re: fY2006 Cooperative Agreement StlbmJttal Bridge over Tl-JS J Sidewalk Jmprovements CIty of Arden Hills Dear Ms. Zarling: The City of Arden Hills is requesting funding within the FY2006 Cooperative Agreement Program for management and safety improvements for the sidewalk along the County Road E bridge over THSI. The narrow sidewalk along the bridge and significant volume of pedestrian traffic creates a safety concern. The bridge is the only pedestrian crossing over THSJ between Lydia Avenue in Rosevillc and 1-694, a distance of approximately one and a half miles. The sidewalk accommodates a significant amount of the pedestrian traffic from Moundsview High School, 13ethelllniversity and neighborhoods in the surrounding area. The bridge is considered a gap in the Arden JJills sidewalk and trails system and is a high priority improvement for the City Council and City's Parks & Trails Recreatjon Committee. The proposed improvements involve widening the bridge deck to facilitate a 7.5-foot wide sidewalk. This would be accomplished by slightly narrowing the traffic lanes, extending the bndge support along the north side and replace the railing system along the south side. Additional improvements would include construction of a 6' wide concrete sidewalk, extending from the bridge through the signalized intersections, pedestrian ramps and construction of cast in place wall to address grade issues near the bridge. The City of Arden Hills is requesting funding of $230,000 within the management / safety category of the FY2006 Ci)operative Agreement Program. lhresher Sq!((1r(!. 700 Third Sfreet South ~ JlJinnf"opo/is. kiN 55115. Phone. (612) 370-0700. Fax: (612) 370-1378 Ms. Sue Zarling October J S. 2004 Page 2 The attached information includes a project location map. project description, proposed Improvements and estimated COSI for the proJect. i\ resolulion for cooperative agreement is also included in this submltlaL If you have any questions or additional mformatJOn you may conlac! me at612-3736479. . Smcerely. URS Corp. ! ~! -1 /() / / !< C~()/J ;/ .;(/ h Grego!y SjBrown, PI: Arden Hif!s City Engineer '-C_ CC: MIchelle Wolfe I City of Arden Hills Tom Moore I City of Arden Hills Dan Soler I Pamsey County . . @Y Ql @./' - ,.- ECTLOCA ~_.~) 1 ~ ' c . @ ) ~ (; ID V C S (. 2 I ~ /-- -\~~, l(ll _@I.~~ - @,,~.'kl: " ;" ~~?J:~' @ ; Jo/.;a,nnPIJ @" L'oKe LO(J! Lo ' I~- ..'/ V @ l I I , . .11.. T CRADE CROSSING L YllIA "'o9lIJE ~OOPERATIVE AGREEMENT SUBMITTAL ~Y2006 - SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT ALONG ;.TY ROAD E BRIDGE INTERCHANGE WITH TH51 l~'u~M S<lu,,~ 700 TM..d Sit...., SO..,~ loolIt>nupDlla._56""5 1111.JI0.0lO0-hl ll'1.J10.'lJrnFu ! i I I I r I I @ lA @ @ @: ~ I{) iE zj ~ ~~HILLS Executive Summary The Crty of Arden J Iilfs is requesting funding wlthm the management I safety category of the FY2006 Cooperatrvc Agreement Program to improve the dangerous pedestrian eondilious along the existing County Road E bodge over TH51. The existing bridge has two I r lanes with a 3' reaction on either side of the road and a narrow 2-foot pedestrian sidewalk. Due to the SIgnificant amount of pedestrian and vehrcular traffic along the bridge, the Crty considers Jl a safety concern and rs proposing to improve the pedestrian condition. The bndge is the only crossrng of TH51 within approximately 1.5 miles and is a vit~,] link between commerciaL rcsidenti~']. park systems, anel schools. The Improvement to the bndge SIdewalk will make pedestrian crossmgs ofTHSI safer and more effrcren!. . Description The City of Arden Hills has developed a Parks and Trails lV'laster Pbn, which outline improvements for parks and trails throughout the City. The Plan was adopted in 2002 after a resident survey and indicated that expanding Ihe trail network was a high priority. The Plan aims to connect the Arden Hills' community through an efficient and safe system of trails and SIdewalks that wdl proVide reSIdents with transpoJ1ation options and an opportunity for healthy exefCIse. The County Road E bridge over TIJ5] is consrdered a weak hnk 111 thIS system and poses a dangerous condition for pedestrian traffic. Currently, very nanow walkways exist on both Sides of the bridge creating potenlJal safety Issues for pedestrians attempting 10 cross TH5 I. The project area is located between the freeway ramps at the interchange between County Road E and TH5]. The bridge over TH5] accommodates a significant amount of traffic connecting the commercial, residential, schools and parks. TH51 is currently classified as a pnncipal al1erial and County Road E represents the sole TH51 pedestrian crossing for a dJStance of over J.5 miles, from Lydia A venue in Roseville to 1-694. For these reasons, vehrcle, pedestrian and bicycle traffrc are SIgnificant along County Road E. The roadway west of the interchange is generaHy 52 feet wide with 86 feet of right of way. From the Il1terchange to the bridge, the roadway narrows to two ]2' lanes with 3' reaction on either side of the road. The existing bridge mcludes guardrails with 2-foot wide concrete sidewalks along both sides. The speed limIt of County Road E is 30MPH with an ADT of ]] ,300. . Proposed Improvement The City Council SUppOI1S pedestrian improvements that involve widening the bridge to facilitate a 7.5-foot wide sidewalk. The Clty is also considering construction of a sidewalk from the western ramp signal to Old Highway ]0 as part of a separate project. The City Engineer anticipates a deciSIOn on the sidewalk improvement in November 200,1. The bridge sidewalk improvement is intended to create the maximum width sidewalk along the north side of the bridge through structural modifications (cantilever supports). 11re proposed improvements will be accomplished through the following: . . . . . Replacing the south bridge rail system (currently 3.67 feet wide) with a newer F-type rail design (1.67 feel wlde) . Shiftmg Ihe centerline of County Road 10 3 feet This would require restriping of Ihe roadway on eJlher slde of the bridge 10 move Iraffic back 10 the proper alrgnment pnor to the slgnaJized intersections. . Narrowmg the traffic Jane widths from IS feel to J4 feel m width (Ramsey County has agreed to this in concept). . Removal of Ihe north bridge rar! system and conslruction of cantilever suppons at the eXIstlng north beanL . RcconSlructlon of the north bridge rail over new extended suppons 10 include a 7.5- foot sidewalk and a 12 inch wide bamer concrete fencing. Due to Ihe significant grade west of the blidge, it has been estimated that approximately 1800 square feet of concrete relammg wall and ,,"ling wi II be required. Project Cost The estimated cost for the bridge improvemenls is $266.000. The City is requesting $230,000 from MnDOT as pan of the management! safety calegory of Ihe Cooperative Agreement funding. This contrihution includes constf1lction costs and 8% of the estimated engineering cost for the project. The City of Arden llills will fund the remaJnln9 balance. c '< ..... - .' :::= < ~ - uoi:: :j'" ~kl :r;Cl z2;: r.J..Jkl i2CJ <8 (1,<0<; O<:Q >--~ CCl U~ () <0<; :>.. f-" ;> ;S () v vo ~ vo o u z o ~ u ;::; pe: t- V) Z o u >-< pe: <( ?i ..,.. ~ ::; ~ 0-. . 0 00 0 000 00 C> 0 0 0 DO 0 0 0 0 0 o C> 0 0 0 00 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 C> 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 c 0 00 0 o C> 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 E '" C) (') C) <Xl ~ 0 0 0 0 '" '" 0 00 0 0 0 C> 0 DO 0 0 <( 0 l{) Q) r--.. ,- 0) H) ~ 0 ," H) 00 C00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 ~<or- ~ (" ," "' en CO C> ('J LO <D V1 0) 0) 0 "'r- 0 0 -fAfhfn -U7fAtAfFf '" Y7 ~ <D Y7 to to 0 CD U) U) l;I)(j) U}U)&<)tA '" Y7 N Y7 W to Y7 (") (') N N tfi II> W " ~ " E ':::; '" '"" 80000 .~ c:> 0 0 0 (Lg~'!i~ 0(") if) (J)- ciw ~ 'oF> 0000.0000 C'OOC)ooo 0 OOOC)L{)OOO OcOOOfAOtDO 00 OiAO (J'-}lf:l-.,.--O l() tf) Y7~ <A <A m 00 00 0> '" <A ~ '0 000 o C.) 0 l.J) ('")...-- t-mw U) ~ ~- U ~> 0 'C 0 ;:: ,.c '" ~ ~ 0000000 0000000 OOO"1"Lf)(O...-- Noau,/,- t-O H) o C) 0 000 o <0 " N C~C)c:)OO 0000-0 N"1' -.::t m..q Lf)lOOlD (0 ~ ~ ~ c.c E '" ;> c .... n '" ~I U) >- LL .~ ---.J O-l '" --' LLLLLLtLl.LroLLLL<t(I)tL(f)LL (/) -.J(j)-l..J(fJ-.-J....-l-lW....J(j)---.J(/)-l E -0 .;: CO '" 0> D ." ...--.-0 _ ro ill ~2 m '0 m'<::t Ql -.-- ~ s If) ~ :;:~ ~~z.so__g ill S (") illQ)'-'>'a>c S oij CD ____ 2 .--. LL 0.. ill X 0)'- - (")<l.lQ)~-Y>-~&:Q~ ~~U) >-......."->-cC::.5w.......ID u:.;C:~cU ~ ~ g ('"):..:::i ill 0 --- co [[ <;tl .- w o 0 -- (.) 0 <J) ---- ---- w .9-- ~ -2 6 0 2 .S: S OJ ~ ~ i? ~ c ---- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 ~ .~ ~ :~ ~ ~ E g ~ S e o c.- '- -- I}) rr: '-'- 'u co > e g> c 3o~~82~sE~m~~2cco ~~rr~~~.Qw~~~2~~8g~ _~2~~mo~~tEE~Ucumo EI--- U ID m 5: - ro u"""" m m 0 ro 0;;:: IT: 1Il .o::J,.., r-._<D>.o..c.!;:.---..... c't:o-n ~O~~~"Q_~XOID~~O~ ~~o ~~oo~~w>worrooooo~~B~ r. i co .~ 0 ~..--N(f)-.;j'lJ)(()f'-..COo) N('")-qU")([) c o ""G 2 <n c o o ro o o => (I) ;f'. to N C o ~ Vi .c E D <( c o 1) 2 Vi c o o " ;:: " c W ~ '" o () r: o :;::; :> .a .;: C - o r: TI"~ 8 2 - U)Q)~ c~o o 0 OCr: <ijW::2: o<f >-00" ~ CIl ;:: c- o 0 <II ..,.., CIl .5.5 ::J "C";::: C" C C Q) 00 a:: 00..... >->-~ OO~ ~~ 0 22~ - o CIl .0' ~ a. lD r: o ~ a. o -0 CIl - <0 E ~ '" W <0 - o ~ . c o ::l .D .C C o o (f) I r: (]) -0 ~ <t: . . . . Fxisling conditions along bridge Propoc,ed cOl1dilions .i~ ,c:ti~~~f: Proposed sidewalk on bridge deck Concept Renderings CL- \5' Bridge Rnit & wulk to be reMoved (both 15' .~) -~367' . EXISTING BRIDGE CONDITIONS OrnoMental Ro.iling 2' Extended deck support 7.5' 14' ]4' 1.67' P-j with reotME"nt -I[ Co. Rd. [ (Sh;f ("d) J[ Cone. Ro.iUng Typ" F ".. 1(T1( rr PROPOSED BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTION . 42' nrnoMentol RO:Hing 02') Cost in ploce re lo.ining wuU (Height varies) ------------ -- - - - - _"_ - _ _____ ____..__._.m_~__."_M.___ PROPOSED RETAINING WALL TYPICAL SECTION ~OOPERA TIVE AGREEMENT SUBMITTAL -Y2006 - SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT ALONG ~OUNTY ROAD E INTERCHANGE WITH TH51 fhlac.b.e-' Sq~.... lOo.T""dSt......tS<><oth MlhnnpDll., loiN '5~1!1 ~'1.)10.0TlIO hi ~'1.)70.nra F... ~ ~~HILLS . . . . ~ /~HIllS CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 04-56 REQlJESTlNG MNIDOT CONSlDERA TION OF A COST SHARING COOPERATIVE AGREEMF:NT FOR PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS TO COUNTY ROAD E BRIDGE OVER TRUNKHIGIIWAY 51 WHEREAS, the City of Arden Hil]s proposes 10 make pedestrian improvements to the County Road E bridge over TH 5 I in Arden Hills; and AND, WHEREAS, the improvement will benefit both the City of Arden Hills and the Minnesota Department ofTnmsportation; and AND, WHERF:AS, the City of Arden Hills is requesting financial participation in the project from the Minnesota Department of Transportation through the Municipal Agreement program; and AND, \VHEREAS, the City of Arden Hills is committed to providing the 10ca] share of the costs ifthe project is selected as part of the FY2006 MlIllicipa] Ag,reement Program; and AND, WHEREAS, the City of Arden Hills is committed to completing the project if selected and funding is provided as part of the FY2006 Municipa] Agreement Program. NOW THEREFORE, BF~ IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA: that the City of Arden Hills is requesting funding from the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the pedestrian improvements to the County Road E bridge overTH 51 and is committed to completing such project and providing local share of funding. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council hereby selects Bridge Option 1, as outlined in the Engineer's memorandum dated October 7, 2004, as the scope of the pedestrian improvement to the County Road E bridge over TH 51_ ADOPTED by the Conncil tllis 12th day of October, 2004. B:;f;;J1:w~. MvJ URS Agenda Item 6A Illrcsher Square 700 Third Street SotHh Minnc;Jpol1s. MN 55415 Phone: (612) 370-0100 .hl\: (612) 370- 1378 . To: Michelle Wollc/Arden HlII, City Administrator File: 31809368 From: Gregory S. Brown Arden Hills City Engineer Date: October 7.2004 Subject: County Road E Trail Improvements Background The City of Arden Hills developed a Parks and Trails Master Plan, which outlines the improvements for parks and trails throughout the City The Plan was adopted in 2002 after a resident survey was conducted and indlcaled that expandmg the Irml network was a hIgh priority. The Plan aims to connect the Arden Hills' community through an efficient and safe trarl system that will provide residents an opportunity for healthy exercIse and mter-community connectedness. Currently there are very narrow walkways on both sides of the bridge. These inadequate walkways along the County Road E bridge over THSl are the only crossing hetween Lydia j\venue in RoseviIle and 1-694. This drea is considered a weak link in the trail system and a "choke point" for pedestnan traffic. for these reasons, the Council directed staff to look into improving the pedestrian crossing and sidewalk options. The proposed plan would extend the trail system across County Road E bridge to Lindcy's Park. future trail plans include a trail that will connect Lake Johanna to Lindcy's Park and another trail that will traverse north and south from Lindey's Park along Snelling A venue and Old Highway 10. . . Exi:Hing Condirions on County Road E Bridge . . . County Road E Trail Improvements October 7, 2001 Page 2 Public Process In an attempt 10 sohcit public opmion and communicate the proJect 10 the residents, a neighborhood meeting was held on Thursday, Apnl 1,2004. As a result of comments and questIOns ra,sed at that meeting, a second neighborhood meeting was held on Thurscby, May 6, 200,1. Meetmg notices were sent to 257 residents l1vmg Oil i\rden Oaks Court, Arden Oaks Drive, j\rden Place, County Road E (from the bridge to Old Snclhng), Forest Lane, Glen Arden COUJ1, Glen i\rden Road, Hamlme A venue, Lake Johanna Boulevard, Oak A venue, Pascal A venue N, Ridgewood Court, RHlgewood Road, SIems CouJ1, Skiles Lane and Snelling Avenue invltiog them to both meetings. Approximately 17 residents altended the first meeting and nine residents al1ended the second meeting. The response was generally very positive with the exception of a few residents Jiving along County Road E who are directly Impacted by the potentIal sidewalk. The project and feasIbIlity study were presented to the Council on March 8, 2004. On JanJl3ry 26, 2004, the City CouncIl authorized the preparation of a feaslhlJity s1lldy for pedestrian Improvements along the south side of County Road E between the TH 5 I bridge and Old Snelling A venue. At the Febnlary 17, 200,1 CouncIl Work Session, the Clly Council was prcsented wrth three different bridge options. The Council reached a consensus to proceed with Option B. At the May 17, 2004 Work Session, the Council was presented with a recap of Ihe two neighborhood meetings. The Council reached a general consenSllS to move forward with the improvements, however staff was asked to come back with options with regards to the layout of the sidewalk, such as sidewalk next to street with and without a boulevard. At the August 23, 2004 Council Work Session, the Council indicated to staff that they would hke to proceed with the Option C and to seek funding from the State of Minnesola. If thc City does not receive funding from the State of Minnesota, the Council would like to proceed with Option B. In addition, the Council agreed to have this project placed on a future CityCouncil Meeting. The following options will be given to the residents affected by this project: J) 6-foot sidewalk with 2-foot concrete maintenance strip (i.e. Highway 96 median) and 2) 8-foot sidewalk. As a resul1 of feedback from public meetings, staff evaluated an alternative route for a trail. This included a trail that would connect Lindey's Park to Freeway Park via Arden Place. This route would be favorahle to those traveling from the south, but would be less attractive for pedestrians from the west or north. For those corning from the west or north, it would provide them a sidewalk, hut would be "out of lhe way" and would stil] result in pedeshian traffic along County Road E. The steep slopes at Freeway Park would not meet ADA requirements and, due to the additional length of sidewalk, would result in a project cost approximately $120,000 greater than a sidewalk along County Road E. A trail constmcted just through the Freeway Park area ending at Arden Place would cost approximately $60,000 County Road E T rail Improvements October 7,2004 Page 3 . \Ve hove had cOIllmunicatlOn wnh Ramsey County staff regarding the projecL Dan Soter, Ramsey County TraffIC I:ngineer, and Undersheriff George Altendorter concur that the proposed improvement to the County Road I: bridge would allow for safer movement of pedestnans and bicyclists, regardless of pbns for a sidewalk. ;Vlr. Altendorfer 1Il(!Jcated that the County 1$ concemed over the safe passage for pedestrians based 011 the number of Mounds View High School and Bethel Uni vcrsity students who walk across the bridge. The City has received requests to provide safe faclhties for pedestnans and cyclists along Lake Johanna Boulevard and Old Highway 10, Both of these roadways are also owned by Ramsey County. Sldewalk or trail improvements along Lake Johanna Boulevard are constrained by limited right-of-way and the lack of curb and gUllcr along the roadway to provide a safe separation for pedestrians and vchicles. Old Hlghway JO includes several meas of steep slopes and also lacks curh and gUller to provide a safe separation for pedestnans and vehicles. In addition, the existing CP Rail blidge provides a significant obstacle to a separate trail or sidewalk along Old Highway 10, Staff has investigated the feasibility of improvements to the CP Rail briuge and has deterrmned that the bridge condition IS too poor to make modifications necessary for a sidewalk lmprovemenl. The City has relayed this concern to CP Rail and Ramsey County offieials_ City staff is aware of the eoncems for safer walklllg faeditles in both of these areas and will pursue potential improvement opportunities as they arise. Feasibility Study On January 26, 2004, tlie Arden Hills City Council authorized the preparation of a feasibility study for pedestnan Improvements along County Road E, between the TH 51 bridge and Old Highway 10. The feasibility report was presented to the COllneil on March 8, 2004. The report outlined three options for providrng additional bridge width. Optioll A proposed to reconfigure the lane width and spacing of the roadway to create a 6.5-foot WIde sidewalk along one side of the bridge without expanding the width of the existing bridge. The estimated cost of Option A was $60,000, Option B proposed extending the deck SIlppOl1 along the southern side of the bridge as well as narrowing the Jane widths to facilitate the construction of a 7_S-foot wide sidewalk along one side of the bridge. The estimated cost of Option B was $80,000. Option C proposed a JO- foot wide sidewalk that would require the construction of a parallel beam across TH 51 to widen the bridge deck. In this option, the roadway would remain the same, only one side of the bridge extended for sidewalk eonstruetlon, Option C would allow for the construction of an interior raiJIbuffer between the sidewalk and the traffic lanes for additional level of safety. The estimated cost of Option C was $200,000. Several options were also presented 10 Council eoneeming additional bridge enhancement options, such as omamental railing, decorative surface treatments and lighting. . . . . . Counly Road E T rail Improvements October 7, 2004 Page 4 Painted Concrete and OrnamaaaJ Railing The existing roadway, west of the freeway ramp intersection, includes a 6-loot shoulder delineated by a solid whlte stripe. The shoulder is frequently used by pedestnans and cyclists. ]t is unlawful for vehicles to enter the shoulder except for cmergeney purposes, driveway access or mail delivery. It is common for vehicles to violate the law and drive into the shoulder while passing a vehicle waiting to tum left. The high volume of traffic on County Road E and potential for vehicle encroachment onto the shoulder creates a potentially dangerous situation for pedestri ans. The feasibility study also included proposed sidewalk options along County Road E connecting Snelling Avenue and the bridge. Widths of 6' and 8' were considered and surfacing of concrete and bituminous were considered as options for a sidewalk. The south side of Count Road E is recommended as the most practical option due to its relative flat grade and the fact that it is free of conflicting private utilities. The estimated project cost for a 6-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the south boulevard was $78,700. A 2-foot wide edge stlip (colored, stamped or exposed aggregate concrete) between the concrete sidewalk and back of curb would add $36,000 to the sidewalk costs. County Road E Trail Improvements October 7, 2004 Page 5 . Nonhern boulemrd of County Road E A sidewalk along the north side of the County Road E was considered as it would eliminate pedestrian crossing at the two freeway ramps alihough crossings of Nonh Hamline, Arden Oaks Drive and Pascal would be required, The nonh side would require utlJJly reJocalion, culvel1 construction and retaining walls due to the sleep boulevard grades. These factors would result in impacts to J I residential propenies (more significant than the south side) and would cost approxImately $] 30,000 mOle than the SJ(lcwalk along the south side of County Road E. The bridge is not currently scheduled for rehabilitation or reconstruction by either Ramsey Counly or MnDOT in the next 5 years and 10 years respectiveJy. At the pomt where the bridge does get reconstructed by MnDOT or Ramsey County the improvements conslfllcled by the City would be replaced in kind. Current bridge design practice would include pedestrian improvements on both sides of the bridge regardless of whether a sidewalk connecls to them. Future bridge reconstruction would be funded by Ramsey County and MnDOT with no expectation of funding participation from Ihe Cily. . Funding Opportunity During project development, the City Engineer looked into the potential for soliciting MnDOT Cooperative Agreement Funding for the project. The Coopcrative Agreement could fund as much as 100% of the project construction cost plus approximately 30% of the engineering cost and the initial response fTOm MnDOT has bcen positive and encouraging. In order to be considered for MnDOT funding, it is imperative that the Councd confirms the scope of the projcct and passes a resolution on October 12. The deadline for project proposals to be submitted for the July 2005 funding cycle is October 15,2004. . County Road E T rail Improvements October 7, 2004 . Page 6 6' Conunf' 5Id!'h'fllk 2 (df.(' .\Irip /llong .\Ourh side o/Counl)' Road E . Scope Outline Based on discussions at the August 23 work session, the following is staff's understanding of the Council's remaining decisions regardmg project scope. The intent of the proposed resolution is to confinn the scope and to proceed with our funding request from MnDOT: Bridge Option J: . Option B Bridge Improvements . Omamental Railing . Concrete Pilasters . Surface Treatment . 6' Concrete Walk (between ramps) Total Estimated Project Cost OR Bridge Option 2: . Option C Bridge Improvements . Omamcntal RaiJing . Concrete Pilasters . Surface Treatment . 8' Concrete Walk (between ramps) Total Estimated Project Cost . Bridge Option Notes: $ $ $ $ 10,000 $ 24,000 $J60,000 90,000 30,000 6,000 $224,000 $ 30,000 $ 6,000 $ 10,000 $ 30.000 $300,000 I, ApproximateJy $ J 20,000 of Bridge Option I and approximately $225,000 of Bridge , County Road E T rail Improvements October 7, 2004 Page 7 . Option 2 project costs are eligible for cooperatIve agreement funding. 2. Some of the estimated costs of the bridge options above arc hIgher than those listed in the feasibility report in order to account for recent sIgnificant increases in the cost of steel. 3. Option C estimate includes intenor safety rail between SIdewalk and roadway (not in OIigmal feasibility estimate). 4. An eight.foot wide walk is included in Bridge Option 2 vs. six.foot walk in Bridge Option 1 for compaJison. Sidewalk Option I: . 6 Foot Concrete Sidewalk . 2 Foot Edge Strip Total Project Cost :]; ,)'1,700 5; 25.000 <5 79,700 OR Sidewalk Option 2: . 6 Foot Concrete Sidewalk Total Project Cost :]; ')4.700 $ 54.700 . Sidewalk Option Note: 1. Preliminary discussion with MnDOT indicate that the sidewalk pOJ1ion of the project would not score high for cooperative agreement funding however, state aid funds could be used for these improvements. Recommend Council Action Staff requests that Council provide directiou on project scope and take 3ppropri3te action on the attached Resolution 04-56. In terms of the bridge, staff believes that this is a significant safety concern and major "choke point" for the City. The bridge improvement is recommended. Staff supports the concept of the sidewalk as a connecti on to an overall City trail system as outlined in the Parks and Trails Master PIau. However, recognizing the intrusiveness into existing residential yards, staff would recommend the le3st intrusive, yet viable option available. Most likely this would be the option with a 2-foot set, back (colored p3vement or brick) with a 6- foot sidewalk. Trail linkages 3nd pedestrian safety 3re the primary reasons for supporting the sidewalk concept. . . . . ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 12,2004 @ 2 8, under Councilmemher Holden's Council Report, second sentcnce should read: "She stated on Wednesday night there g; a Precinct 2..." Pagc 8, third sentence, change District to Precinct. Councilmcmber Grant requested the following changes: None. Councilmcmber Larson requested the following changes: None. Mayor Aplikowski requested the following changes: September 20, 2004, City Council Worksession, Page 5, th paragraph, should read: "Mayor Aplikowski was wondering if the school district is considering redistricti.llg." Ms. Wolfe requested the following changes: None. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to approve the September 20, 2004 City Council Meeting Work Session Minutes as amended and the September 27, 2004 Couneil Meeting Minutes as amendcd. The motion carricd unanimously (4-0). 3. CONSENT CALENDAR a. b. Claims and Payroll Final Paymcnt - Lift Station #7 Payment Requcst 113 for 2004 PMP.Arnt Construction Resolution No: 04-55, Approve City Administrator's Performance Evaluation c. d. MOTION: Councilmcmber 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 unanimonsly (4-0). 4. PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INI<ORMATIONAL None. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. County Road E .. Bridge and Sidewalk Improvements Resolution No. 04-56: Requesting MN/DOT Consideration of a Cost Sharing Cooperative Agrcement for Pedestrian Improvemcnts to County Road E Bridge Over Trunk Highway 51 ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 12,2004 3 Mr. Brown stated the City developed a Parks and Trails Master Plan, which outlined the improvements for park and trails throughout the City. The Plan was adopted in 2002 after a resident survey was conducted and indicated that expanding the trail network was a high priority. The Plan aims to connect the Arden Hills' commuuity through an efficient and safe trail system that will provide residents an opportunity for healthy exercise and inter-community connectedness. Currently, there are very narrow walkways on both sides of the bridge. These inadequate walkways along the County Road E bridge over TH5] are the only crossing between Lydia A venue in Roseville and 1-694. This area is considered a weak link in the trail system and a "choke point" for pedestrian traffic. For these rcasons, the Council directed staff to look into improving the pedestrian crossing and sidewalk options. The proposed plan would extend the trail system across County Road E bridge to Lindey's Park. Future trail plans include a trail that will connect Lake Johanna to Lindey's Park and another trail that will traverse north and south from Lindey's Park along Snelling Avenue and Old Highway ]0. Mr. Brown indicated staff requests Couneil provide direction on project scope and take appropriate action on the Resolution. Mr. Brown noted in terms of the bridge, staff believed that this is a significant safety concern and major "chokc point" for the City. Hc indicated the bridge improvement was being recommended. Mr. Brown statcd staff supported the concept of the sidewalk as a connection to an overall City trail system as outlined in the Parks and Trails Master Plan. Howcver, recognizing thc intrusiveness into existing residential yards, staff would recornn1end the least intmsive, yet viable option available. Most likely this would bc the option with a 2-foot setback with a 6-foot sidewalk. Trail linkage and pedestrian safety were the primary reasons for supporting the sidewalk concept. Mayor Aplikowski clarified the reason for the Resolution was because they were asking for funds from the State. Mr. Brown replied that was correct Mayor Aplikowski asked what was the difference between the Option B bridge and the Option C bridge. Mr. Brown replied the width of the sidewalk was a factor. He noted the sidewalk would go from 7 feet wide to 10 [eel wide and there would also be an interior rail. lIe noted with option B, the roadway would need to be made narrower. Mayor" Aplikowski noted the Council had already made the bridge decision, but they had not decided what type o[bridge they would be putting in. . . Dave Webster, 3529 Suelling Avenue, stated they have lived in their neighborhood for 25 years and they had always wanted a wider sidewalk across the bridge. He noted a car on the bridge hit his son who was on a bike a few years ago. He stated he approved of this project and it would be . an improvement to the neighborhood. e . e ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 12, 2004 4 Howard Kern, 1400 West County Road E, stated he was confused about the issues tonight because they were told at the neighborhood meeting that this projcct could not go forward unless the bridge and sidewalk were done at the samc time. He stated he had suggested at a previous meeting that a bcrm be placed at Freeway Park and was told it was not possible to do that because of cost, but now he noted they already had one planned. He indicated he was not against a trail system in Arden I Ii lis or the bridge, but he had proposed at a couple of different meeting to have a cOllilection from the ovcrpass on the ncw bridge to a berm that would continue down through Freeway Park ending on Arden Place, travcling down Arden Place and connecting to Lindey's Park. He noted this would give good access to the trail system for the people who lived on County Road E and good access to the residents who lived west of Old Snelling. He asked what would happen to thc snow in the wintertime on the sidcwalk if they put a sidewalk in. He stated Bethel students also ran along the north side of County Road E and felt that if there were a sidewalk, the runners would still be running in the road. Charles Roach, 1600 Oak Avenue, stated thc wcstbound County Road E Old Snclling interscetion was an accident waiting to happen, as well as thc intersection with the bridge. He stated when the cars came up to the east end of County Road E to turn south on Highway 51, there was no room for pedestrians or bicyclists at that intersection and he believed it would be advantageous if thcre was some continuation for the pedestrians and the bicyclists. He noted he was in favor ofthis proposaL Jim Crassweller, 1661 Lakeview Court, stated he was a member of the PTRC and he was in favor of this proposaL He indicated he had attendcd most of the meetings regarding the bridge and sidewalk. Hc stated he understood thcre was a consensus from Council at one of their Work Sessions that the Council was in agreement with the bridge and sidcwalk. He stated he was surpriscd to learn later that there probably was not enough support among the Council for the sidewalk. He noted the PTRC recommended the entire project be considered in its entirety. He indicated the PTRC did not fecl it was wise to put in a bridge without a connecting sidewalk. He stated it was a safety concern for the pedestrians as well as bicyclists if they did not put in the sidcwalk. He noted the whole projcct was a part of the long-tern] plan of the City. He stated the City needed to lind the funding for this project. Ms. Wolfe stated if this was considered as one project, thcre was a funding aspect and for the State funding of the project, the bridge p0l1ion would probably score high and would be eligible for the funding, but the sidewalk funding would not score as high and might not be eligible for State funding. Mayor Aplikowski stated Council had to decide if they wanted to put a sidewalk in at this time or sometime in the future. She noted any sidewalk that would be put in would be placed in the right-of-way. She indicated they were trying to be sensitive to the residents along County Road E. Lee Kern, 1400 West County Road E, read a letter to the Councillrom residents along West County Road E. The letter was given to staff to place in the City's records. She stated the plan being proposed did not follow the stated goals of the City and noted the project leads to more ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MlNUTES OCTOBER 12, 2004 5 e traffic, more congcstion, as well as more recreational traffIc into a dangerous location. She noted they have had to replace their mailbox and to get the post in the ground with sidewalk around it would not be easy. She also noted snow would be piled up along the sidewalk during the winter which posed a hazard. Mayor Aplikowski asked if the neighborhood had spoken with other residents in the area to see ifLheywould agree to the resident's proposaL Ms. Hass, 1420 West County Road E, stated they had spoken with the neighborhood and she believed they were in agreement with the letter Ms. Kern read. She also noted if this was a sidewalk, she understood that it could not he used by bikers, only pedestrians. She stated she was for the bridge, preferably the more expensive bridge, but recommended the Council consider the resident's proposal for a redirected sidewalk. She asked the Council to consider this project as two different projects. She asked the Council to vote for the bridge and against the sidewalk. Mayor Aplikowski stated she believed the residents that were west of this area would not be in agreement with the West County Road E resident's proposal. Mary Rains, 3521 Ridgewood Court, believed the primary responsibility of the Council was the safety issues. She stated the idea of looking at this as a path solely trom park to park was not . speaking to the uses that the residents had. She stated she liked to walk and she did not need a direction in which to go, but she wanted safety. She noted walking along the road was not safe. She stated safety needed to be a primary vision of the City and recognizing that the City had walkers, riders, bikers, etc. who used the streets for other uses than park connection. She indicated she understood the residents concerns, but their concerns did not balance the residents in the City as a whole. Mayor Aplikowski asked Ms. Rains on which side of the street did she walk. Ms. Rains stated she walked against the trame, but if there were a sidewalk, she would utilize the sidewalk. Leon Hass, 1420 'West County Road E, stated there was not really much pedestrian traffic along County Road E and if safety was really a concern, why didn't the residents walk one block away. Ms. Rains replied she was concerned about the safety of all of the residents in the City and she did not believe they needed to justify the volume of pedestrians on County Road E. Roger \ViIliam, 3450 Seims Court, stated safety was the issue and he believed it was the Council's job to ensure the residents' safety. He stated he had been on a previous city council in another city and every time there was a sidewalk being put in, there was opposition to it. He stated it was the Council's job to go with the majority of what the residents wanted. He stated if there wcre a sidewalk put in, it would be used because there was a safe place tor the residents to walk. He stated he was in favor of the bridge and side\valk. He believed the sidewalk would link the residents on the west side to the shopping center. He asked the Council measure and weigh their decisions and asked them to serve the most residents. He stated only nine homes would be e . . . ARDEN I1ILLS REGULAR CITY COUNC~ MEETING MI!\TUTES OCTOBER 12,2004 6 affected by a sidewalk being put in, where all of the residents in the City would be affected if a sidewalk was not put in. Bruce Kunkel, 3452 Glen Arden Road, stated he was in favor of the bridge and sidewalk. He noted when the new bridge was put in he believed more residents would use it because it was safer. He requested Council be concerned about the safety of the residents. Mayor Aplikowski stated this was not an easy decision and the City needed to plan for the future. She stated the one concern she had was the connection of the two parks. She noted the most direct route, was the route that pedestrians wanted to take. She stated they could not put in a sidewalk on the north side because there were utilities in the right-of-way which would need to be moved and this was not going to happen financially. She indicated she had taken everything into consideration. She noted whatever they decide had not been an easy alternative and they had weighed the pros and cons, but noted they could not make everyone happy. Councilmember Grant stated one of the reasons they were looking at the sidewalk on the south side was because of the terrain and cost. He noted he was not sure this was the safest decision. He stated on the south side, pedestrians would have to cross at both the clove and the diamonds on the bridge, while on the north side, they would not have to do that. He indicated it was more difficult for the residents driving on the south side to exit into the traffic. He noted if the sidewalk were on the north side, it would be farther away fi'om the homes than ifit were on the south side. He indicated the north side seemed to get more pedestrian traffic, which he believed was because Bethcl College was on that side of the road, as well as McDonalds and other businesses being on that side of the road. He expressed concern about people using the double dri veways on thc south side to make a "U" turn. He stated while a sidewalk on the south side might be tlnancially cheaper, he was not convinced it was the safest. He stated there were redeeming qualities having the sidewalk on the north side. He indicated this was not the only place in the City that was not safe. He believed they should discuss this more and he was also concerned that Councilmember Rem was not in attendance tonight for her opinion. He asked the Engineer if they needed to specify which side the sidewalk would be put on. Mr. Brown replied the application did ask this, but he was not sure if it would make much of a difference if the sidewalk was on the north or south side, but the Council would want to request funding for the most expensive proposal, which he believed would be a sidewalk on the north side, He stated he would eheck with the State if this would make a difference. Councilmembcr Holdcn stated each time they discussed the bridge and sidewalk, something changed, including tonight with the grant information being presented. She stated when she first started discussing this, she wanted the sidewalk for the bikers, but since that time, she had spoken with bikers who used County Road E, who indicated they would not use a sidewalk because of the curb cuts. She stated she had also contacted Mounds View High School and was informed that Mounds View High School Cross Country runners would not use the sidewalk cither because of the curb cuts. She noted the bikers she had spoken to indicate their greatest fear was residents backing up into them and not riding in the street with trafflc. She asked if people were going to take the most direct route, should the City put in sidewalks/trails everywhere, She indicated instead of a community tight, this has turned into a neighborhood fight. She stated ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETmG MINUTES OCTOBER 12,2004 most of the residents outside of this specific area would not use the sidewalk. She expressed conccrn about a lack of communication with the ncighborhoods. She noted the City might not get the grant and they had to take this into consideration. Shc stated she was not in favor of any sidewalk nntil they dealt with the intersection east of the bridge. She noted she was not comfortable voting for a sidewalk and invited rcsidents to walk along the sidewalk when that intersection was so unsafe. She stated she was in favor of the bridge, but not the sidewalk until they addressed that intersection. CouDciImembcr Larson statcd he supported this and there were good reasons to support it including the pedestrians and public safety. He stated a primary duty of the Council was to protect the residents' safety. He stated they had a park plan approved by the PTRC and Council, and the top Pliority of the residents was they wanted trails which were rated highest. He stated he believed people wanted to have options for moving around the City and not always having to be in an automobile. He noted they had no connection between the east and west side of the City and this was the one place where they had the one opportunity to make an east/west connection. He stated this was on the public light-of-way and they were not taking anyone's property. He noted there was nothing they were doing that was different than what any other city would do. He indicated this was not unusual and it was something most cities did. Hc asked if they did not put in a sidewalk here, whcre would they put one in. He stated he was a biker and he probably would not use the sidewalk, but that did not mean there aren't othcr people, including children, who would want to bc up on the sidewalk. He did not believe bikers not using the sidewalk should be an influence as to whether they should put in a sidewalk or not. He noted there would be an increase of traffic on County Road E and he believed there would also be an increase in pedestrian traffic and they needed to ensure their safety. He stated the benefits of having a sidewalk was a better alternative than leaving them in the street. He stated the Citis goai was to put in trails that would keep people off the streets. He stated they needed to provide some off- road alternatives for the residents. With respect to a north side sidewalk, he believed the grade was such that if a sidewalk was put in, retaining walls would also be needed and it would not connect the park. There are also utilities in the right-of-way and a very short driveway at 3609 County Road E. If a car should be parked in that driveway, it would block the sidewalk. He stated the Council could not base their decision on resident destinations, but the Council knew the residents crossed the bridge to use the businesses On the othcr side. Be asked what they would gain by delaying this decision. He noted traffic would only get worse on County Road E and he did not know what they would learn later that they did not already know. He noted just because some homeowners opposed the sidewalk did not mean the Council should ignore the remainder of the neighborhood. He stated they had tried as a Council to be sensitive to the homeowners and they had come up with a compromise that would address the residents concerns that included a sidewalk up to the road and a nalTower sidewalk than originally proposed. Hc stated the Counei I has a history on how they proceeded on this and every step of the way they were in support of this and the only new ingredient now was the opposition of some of the homeowners. He believed it was time for the Council to show some vision and some leadership. He stated it was impOltant to him to represent the entire City, and for that reason he was going to support this because he wanted to protect thc public safety of all of the residents. He also expressed concern if they did not go forward with this project, it would be more difficult in the future to put in trails and sidewalks into other ueighborhoods throughout the City. 7 . . . . . . ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 12,2004 8 Mayor Aplikowski read the Resolution the Council was considering. Couneilmember Larson stated it made sense to vote 011 the larger issue first and if they could not agree to go forward with a bridge and a sidewalk, then they needed to make a decision to go forward with the bridge itself. Mayor Aplikowski stated they were already in agreement with the bridge, but they needed to decide which bridge option they wanted. She stated she did not believe a sidewalk on the north side was financially feasible for the City, even ifmost ofthe pedestrians now walked on the north side. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Grant authorized Resolution 04-56: Requesting MN/DOT Consideration of a Cost Sharing Cooperative Agreement for Pedestrian Improvements to County Road E Bridge Over Trunk Highway 51 and insert Bridge Option I into the Resolution. Councilmember Larson noted he had a difficult time voting on this before they knew if the sidewalk was going to be approved. lIe suggested they deal with the sidewalk issue first and then take up the bridge issue. However, if the sidewalk failed, he hoped a future Council would have the vision and courage to address this in the future. Mayor Aplikowski stated she heard Councilmember Holden say she would not support a sidewalk untii the intersection on the east side of the bridge was taken care of. She stated she heard Councilrnember Grant say he was in favor of the sidewalk on the nOJih side, but wanted fmiher discussion regarding this proposal and also wanted C:ouneilmember Rem's opinion. CouneiImember Larson stated he would not vote in favor of this. He stated he did support the bridge, but if the sidewalk would not be put in at the same time, he could not support the bridge project. Council member Holden called the question. The motion carried (3-1) (Nay - Councilmember Larson) MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Mayor Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve a six-foot sidcwalk cOilllection from the bridge to Old Snelling on the south side ofthe street with a two-foot colored/stamped stripped. CouneiImemher Grant stated hc had brought up his comments regarding the sidewalk on the north side for discussion purposes. Mayor Aplikowski stated she did not want the sidewalk on the north side duc to the financial expense. ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETrNG MINUTES OCTOBER 12,2004 9 Mr. Brown stated there would be a significant grading issue, as well as a utility relocation issue on the north side. He indicated they could try to get the utilities moved for free, but it was rare a utility company would be willing to move their utilities for a sidewalk or trail at no cost. He stated there would also be a significant expense Jor retaining walls if the sidewalk were located on the north side. . Councilmember Larson stated he had addressed the issues of a sidewalk on the north side, ineluding utilities, grading, and the sidewalk not connecting to the parks, as well as one resident's garage sitting close to the curb and cars parked in !Tont of that garage would block the sidewalk. Councilmember Holden stated she did not understand Couneilmember Larson's concerns regarding the garage being too close to the sidewalk on the north side. Councilmember Larson clarified that that resident would not be able to park in ti-ont of their driveway because a car would block the sidewalk. Councilmembcr Grant noted while there would be an increase in money needed if a sidewalk was put on the north side, he believed a sidewalk on the north side would be used more. The motion failed (2-2) (Nay -.. Councilmembers Grant and Holden) Mayor Aplikowski suggested they take a break from the discussion and requested this be revisited. She asked when the Engineer needed an answer. Mr. Brown replied he would check with the State, but he suggested they go with the higher figure for a sidewalk, which would be on the north side and if necessary, they could reduce it in the future if the sidewalk went on the south side. . Mayor Aplikowski asked the Council if they were in favor of a sidewalk, whether it be on the north or the south side. Conocilmember Holden stated she wanted an answer on the intersection before agreeing to a sidewalk, but if the intersection were addressed, she would be in favor ofa sidewalk. Mayor Aplikowski noted Council was in favor of a sidewalk, whether it be located on the north or south side of the street. She stated at least the bridge was underway and there would be a sidewalk put in with the location to be determined at a future date. Councilmcmber Larson thanked the PTRC for working hard on this issue. He stated this was exactly what the PTRC should do was to advocate for the parks and trails. Mayor Aplikowski thanked the residents for their opinions also. Mr. Crasswcllcr clarified that the Council had agreed to a sidewalk and a decision would be . made in the future as to which side. He asked if they could do a motion to this effect. Mayor . . . ARDEN lULLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 12,2004 10 Aplikowski stated this was being taped and she was not sure she could get Council to do a motion tonight. MOTION: Mayor Aplikowski moved and Couneilmember Larson seconded a motion to agree that there will be a sidewalk on either the north or south side of the County Road E after further study was done on the safety of the intersections and the feasibility of it bcing on the north side. The motion failed (2-2) (Councilmernbers Grant and Holden). Couneilmember Grant stated he would like Councilmember Rem's opinion also as well as further infonnation on the feasibility of the sidewalk being put on the north side. Councilmember Holden statcd she wanted infonnation regarding thc intersection. Mayor Aplikowski inquired if thcy wanted this to be tabled to a future meeting once stafl had obtained the rcquested infonnation. MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to postpone the discussion of the sidewalk on County Road E to a future Council meeting once additional infonnation was obtained on safety concerns at the intersection and the application process at the State. Ms. Wolfe stated the City Engineer had suggested they make a recommendation to put the sidewalk on the nmih side and he would check with the State as to how difficult it would be to changc it to the south side, if necessary. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). Mr. Filla arrived at 9:20 p.m. B. Agreement for the Economic Development Commission to Prepare an Economic Development Assistance Studv Mr. Clark stated on September 29, 2004, the first Economic Development Commission (EDC) meeting convened. The main discussion centered on the first charge of the group. It was decided that the preparation of a position paper to the City Council regarding economic development assistance to the TCAAP project would be appropliate based upon consensus by the CounciL Mr. Clark outlined the tasks to be perfonned by the EDC. He noted the EDC was prepared to begin work immediately and it was assumed the EDC would need alleast three to four months to complete thc assignment as prescnted with all mceting being scheduled from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. MOTION: Couneilmember Larson moved and Mayor Aplikowski seconded a motion to allow the Economic Development Commission to prepare a study paper . . . @ ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION November 15,2004 9 City Administrator Wolfe reiterated that the owner of the Super 8 was not sure how the tax dollars would be allocated or used. Once the Super 8 owner understood how the moncy would be allocated, he was agreeable to implementing the tax. Mayor Aplikowski noted that the convention and visitors bureau otfers its participants additional advertising opportunities. Mr. Bob Musil stated that the Super 8 has scnt a letter of support of the Minneapolis Metro North Convention and Visitors Bureau and that the North Metro Mayor's Association has also wrote a letter of recommcndation for his organization. This item will be brought torward to the City Council at the November 29th mccting. County Road E Update City Administrator Wolfe provided a brief ovcrview of the proposed County Road E bridge enhancement and sidewalk project for members of the City CounciL In previous meetings, the City Council requested a report from URS with additional information regarding the costs, pros, and cons of building on the north side of County Road E. City statf also requcsted a report from the Ramsey County Sheriffs Department regarding accident data tor the intcrscction at County Road E and Connelly. The Ramsey County Sheriffs Department reported that there were 12 accidents at the intersection of County Road E and Connelly since 1999. Ten of the accidents at this interscction were traffic light violations. The twelve accidents at this location did not involve any pedestrians. City Engineer Greg Brown noted that the intersection layout at County Road E is not deticient. Councilmember Grant asked if a railing would be required if the sidewalk was installed on the north side. City Engineer Brown stated that there were more grading concerns on the north side, but a railing woutd not be required. In his opinion, the north side would be the safest option for locating the sidewalk. Although there are other factors such as funding that must bc considered in making this decision Councilmcmber Holden noted that the additional cost is worth it to improve the safety along County Road E. She mentioned that the Twin Lakes trallic is expected to increase along Fairvicw A vcnue in the future. This may result in morc traffic along County Road E. City Engineer Flrown stated that a "No'Right Turn on Red" sign off of Snelling A venue may be an option at this intcrsection in the future. Councilmember Larson indicated that the cost factor and the number ofresidents that are being atfected by this project does not justifY placing the sidewalk on the north side. He stated that he has a hard time coming up with the rationale to spend $200,000 or more for a north side sidewalk. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION November 15,2004 10 . City Administrator Wolfe mentioned that concerns regarding a few of the driveways on the north side would have to be addressed. There are no issues with driveways on the south side of the street. Couneilmember Grant stated that the residents on the north side of County Road E have a traffic light that assists with traffic movement. The residents on the south side of the street experience a steady traffic flow that is not impacted by a traffic light. Couneilmember Rem staled that the north side would be a safer option for a sidewalk, but questioned if the City can justify the costs associated with this proposal. City Engineer Brown noted that the City is requesting $230,000 in MSA funding. The project is state aid eligible. Mayor Aplikowski stated that she believes a sidewalk on the north side is the be51 way to move pedestrian traffic. Looking at practicality and safety issues, the north side of the street would be the best way to go. Councilmember Larson stated the sidewalk on the north side would end at Carroll's Furniture. A number of residents also use the south side of County Road E. A decision needs to be made that benefits the residents of Arden Hills as a whole. Mayor Aplikowski asked if the PTRC had ever considered placing the sidewalk on the north side. . Recreation Supervisor Michelle Olson stated that the PTRC knew that placing the sidewalk on the south side would he more financially feasible. A number of the residents along County Road E expressed concerns regarding backing-up and winter driving. They feel that if the sidewalk is installed on the south side of the street it would create more safety problems for the residents and pedestrians. Citv Administrator Wolfe mentioned that a decision has to be made by the City Council reg~rding the sidewalk at the November 29'h meeting. Couneilmember Larson stated that the City may have to explore other options to make County Road E safer. Mayor Aplikowski asked City staff ifthe City Council chooses to place the sidewalk on the north side of County Road E would it impact the City's CJP and MSA funding balance? City Administrator Wolfe stated that a few projects may be impacted. Couneilmember Holden stated that she thinks the State of Minnesota Cooperative Agreement Program typically funds 6 to 8 projects per year. . . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION November 15,2004 II Councilmembcr Grant asked the City Engineer ifthis projcct would have to be resubmitted to the State for approval. City Engineer Brown stated that the City docs not have to resubmit the project. The State of Minnesota will review the mcrits ofthc projects and thcn rank them in January of2005. There was no further discussion. Mayor Applikowski asked Council to consider the information presented tonight as they prepare to make a decision at the November 29'h meeting. Gatewav Sil!ns City Administrator Wolfe stated that at the Committee Summit on November 3,d, there was a discussion regarding how to proceed with the Gateway Signs project. It was noted that the Planning Commission and PTRC have discussed this issue in the past, including most recently at their joint mccting in July. At the summit, it was agreed that the two committees would work together and come-up with design options that would be presented to the City Council. One of the gatcway sign options should include the excess stone that was purchased when City Hall was built. This group is also being asked to come up with a recommended plan for sign purchase and implementation. Mayor Aplikowski believes that the City Council should hand pick a sub-committee of the two groups to explore the gateway sign project. Community Development Director Clark suggested that the Planning and PTRC Committees have a meeting to discuss four different gateway sign options. Each gateway sign will have to be developcd based upon the land topography. City Administrator Wolfe stated that City staff will come back with the gateway sign parametcrs to the City Council in January 2005. Council Reports Councilmember Lois Rem: Councilmember Rem infonned staff members that she received a call trom a resident rcgarding a possible chcmical spill behind Valentine Hills Elementary School. The emergency contact list was very useful. She recommended that the emergency contact list bc inscrtcd in the utility bills for all Arden Bills residents. Councilmernbcr Rem reported that the No Lcft Turn sign and stop sign have been vandalized numerous times on Lake Valentine Road. Should the City contact Mounds View High School and the Sheriffs Department when thc new signs are installed? Operations and Maintenance Director Tom Moore stated that he would contact Mounds View High School and the Sheriffs Department when the new signs are installed to monitor the situation. CounciJrnember Brenda Holden: Councilmcmber Holden asked about thc stalus of the building inspector position? . . . fJ) ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 29, 2004 3 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 6. NEW BUSINESS C. County Road E Sidewalk Ms. Wolfe stated the Council needed to make a decision regarding the construction of the sidewalk on the County Road E bridge. This decision was needed so it could be provided to MnDOT as part of the application for Cooperativc Agrecmcnt Program funding. Specifically, the Council needs to decide on which side of the bridge to construct the sidewalk (north or south). The City Council might also choose to detcrminc whcther or not to proceed with construction of a sidewalk west ofthe bridge to Old Snelling. Ms. Wolfc noted staff had received some e-mails and messages from residents with their comments and those have been provided to Council for their review. Ms. Wolfe stated in discussions with the traffic engineers regarding safety; they indicated that basically it would be safer to not have pedestrians cross at the freeway ramps. The degree of increased safety, however, might be marginal to significant depending on other information that that they did not have, such as the number of pedestrians and final destinations. Ms. Wolfe requested the Council indicatc whether to build the sidewalk on the north or south side of the bridge and authorizc staffto notifY MnDOT of that decision and to detcrminc whcther or not to proceed with the construction of the sidewalk west of the bridge and to authorize staff to proceed with plans and the funding application process. Mr. Brown statcd he had nothing further to add, but would answer Council's questions. Councilmember Rem asked what caused the project cost to increase from the original estimate. Mr. Brown replied the initial feasibility report had a cost ranking from $60,000 to approximately $180,000. Hc noted there were a number of add-ons, such as railings, painting, pilaster, which added approximately $50,000. He stated the north/south sidewalk had also added costs to the project. He presented to Council the various improvement options that were available and the costs of such improvements. He indicated the cost of steel had also skyrocketed and the estimates had been increased to reflect that material cost increase. Councilmember Holden asked for an explanation of the state's grant process. She noted it was her understanding that one side ofthe street was more favorable in the state's opinion and the City could get grant funds if the sidewalk was put on that side of the street. Mr. Brown summarized the grant process. He indicated he had not heard anything from the State that they would prefer a sidewalk on one side or the other. ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 29,2004 4 . Councilmember Grant stated he understood if the sidewalk goes all of the way to Snelling Avenue, it would score better. He also heard if they chose not to do a sidewalk, it would also score better. He asked which was correct. Mr. Brown stated there was an article in the newspaper that if the sidewalk to Old 10, it would score better. He indicted he had checked into this and found out this was a subjective decision and it would not be necessarily affected by any type of a rule. Conneilmember Holden asked ifthey would also get points for an 8-foot shoulder. Mr. Brown replied she was correct and they would probably weigh on the merits if it were wise to havc an alternative route for pedestrians in this corridor. Mayor Aplikowski statcd she has been challenged this week to think to the future and she believed it would make sense to put sidewalks on both side ofthe bridge - north and south. She stated she had spoken with the City Engineer if this was feasible and he has indicated it was. She asked Council if they would be interested in considering this option. Couneilmember Rem stated shc believed the safest side to put the sidewalk in was on the north side, but she realized the north side was more expensive than the south side, but believed this was a better option for safety reasons. Couneilmember Holden stated she was not sure they would get the pedestrian volume to put sidewalks in on both sides, even 20 years from now. . Mayor Aplikowski noted this was a connection to the retail part ofthe City and the hvo different parts of the City. She stated she had heard from the residents if the path were safer, they would walk or bike to the retail section. She stated she did not know about the pedestrian volume. Ken Birk asked if anyone had every considered a pedestrian bridge instead of modifying the existing bridge. Mr. Brown replied the cost increase for a pedestrian bridge was extensive. Jean Lumberg, stated she had just heard about this sidewalk this past week. She stated fi'om past experience, one State Department did not necessarily know what other State Departments were doing. She asked ifthey had explored if the State and County together were thinking about making a four-lane bridge. She noted this was an entry into the retail area and she belicved a four-lane bridge might be in the futurc somewhere. Mr. Brown stated he had checked with both the County and MnDOT and a four-lane bridge were not being proposed in the foreseeable future. Howard Kern, 1400 West County Road E, stated he appreciated the Council's comments tonight. He believed this came down to a choice between cost and safety. If cost were the only CDncern, they should only put the bridge improvement in and not put in a sidewalk. However, if safety was a concern, then they shDuld put a sidewalk on the n0l1h side because it wDuld eliminate the mixing of pedestrian traffiC and vehicle traffic. He noted they could eliminate the crosswalks entirely on the south side of the bridge so pedestrians would not cross across the bridge on the south side. Hc indicated all of the homes on the north side, except for tWD, had . . . . ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 29, 2004 5 turnaround driveways, which may be safer for pedestrians. He stated there were also breaks in tmffie on the north side. He indicated if they were looking forward and looking outside of the box, the logical path from the tunnel at Tony Schmidt Park would to have a sidewalk on the north side. He statcd there would also be less homes impacted on the north side comparcd to thc south side. He indicated the areas pedestrians could cross the street could be at the bowling alley or McDonalds. He noted the biggest issue when it came to safety was that no one would have to cross over trafflc if the sidewalk was on the north side ofthe street. He requested they make their decision based on safety issues. Councilmembcr Larson stated they needed a sidewalk and it made the most sense to put the sidewalk on the south side of the street. He stated he understood thc logic of pUlling the sidewalk in on the north side of the street, if all things were equal, but all things arc not equal. He indicated the south side had fewer homeowners than the north side; the south side had no utility conflicts; if the sidewalk was on the south side, it would connect two City trails; it could connect the crossing of the bridge to the only trail which runs the length of County Road E; there would be minimal grading and no retaining walls ifthc sidewalk was located on the south side; it would not have any bomeowners prevented from parking in their driveway if the sidewalk was located on the south side; there were no adverse private driveway impacts; the PTRC, City staff, and City Engineer had all recommended putting the trail on the south side; and the north side would cost considerably more to put in a sidewalk. He stated there were crosswalks at the existing ramps and Council had not been givcn any acknowlcdgemcnt that there was a significant safcty concern. He stated if all things were equal, they would not locate this on the south side of the street because of the ramps, but all things were not equal. He stated he had looked at other freeway bridges within the community that had this type of a situation and in most cases, pedestrians were crossing freeway entrance and/or exit ramps. He indicated this had been done rrequently in the City as well as other Cities. He stated they had no evidence that it might bc safer to put the sidewalk on the north side versus the south side. He noted this was all speculation. He staled it did not make sense to spend $2] 1,000.OOmore on a hunch. He stated the Fire Department would soon be coming to the Council for money for a new fire truck, which amount would be less than what they were proposing to spend on this sidewalk. He indicated they did not have a good basis for deciding to spend this additional amount. He stated as long as he has been on this Council, he believes the Council has been fiscally conservative and this is what the residents wanted. He indicated they did not have the information that told them that they should spend this type of money on a project simply because pedestrians were going to cross the on and off ramps at Highway 5 I. Councilmember Graut stated he was not speaking for or against the north side. He stated he had wanted for a long time to solve the Snelling bridge trusses. He indicated with respect to other crossings in the City, there was no other choice because there are turning radiuses on both sides of the street. lIe agreed they were fiscally conservative and the question here was balancing all of the various priorities - cost versus safety. He stated there were times that they wanted safety. lie stated he would not be interested in a sidewalk on both sides. He asked if lhey did option B, would Council come back at a future time and add a sidewalk on the other side, or where they essentially blocked in to one side. Mr. Brown replied tbey would generally ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 29,2004 6 . be locked into thcir decision. He noted if the bridge were replaced in the future, a walk\vay would probably be put on both sides at that time. Councilmember Holden stated she understood the City Engineer had recommended building on the north side of the street. Mr. Brown replied the north side of the street was preferahle if money was not an object, and if some solution could be made for the garage that would be too close to the sidewalk. Mayor Aplikowski asked Council make a firm decision on this tonight and to look into the future before any final decision is made. Councilmember Holden asked if they could spend MSA money on a fire truck. Councilmember Larson replied he was not implying they could use MSA money for the purchase of a fire truck. He was simply using it as an example of what $211 ,000would buy. Lee Kern, ]400 West County Road E, asked how much ofthe money was the City responsible for. Councilmember Grant summarized what the State would be contributing and what the City would be contributing. He noted howcver, this was a grant application and there was no guarantee the City would receive this money. Ms. Kern asked if they were putting the cart before the horse hecause they did not even know what the funding from the State was going to be. Mr. Brown statcd thc City had applied for the $266,000 for a sidewalk on the north side and depending on what happencd tonight with thc Council, they could amend their request. He stated they were asking for the full amount and the State might pay for everything, except for possibly five or ten percent of the total for engineering costs. . Ms. Kern she understood the concern about the house on Pascal, but this driveway had a 40-foot parallel driveway, which would allow them to be off of the street. Troy Fields, ]404 County Road E, stated he had the only children that lived on the south side of County Road E and he would prefer the sidewalk be located on the north side of the street. He noted there were more children located on the north side of the street and he did not want to see all of those children cross County Road E to get to the sidewalk on the south side of the road. He stated he did not see any more children moving in on the south side of the road. He noted County Road E was a big detriment and parents would not want to raise children on this road. He indicated they needed to look forward and attract families with children and not make it so families would not move in this area because of safety issues. He stated the trail from Lake Johanna could only be put in on the north side of the road and so the only choice here was the north side of the road because this was the only place were it made sense for safety reasons, no matter what the cost. Keith Gilbert, 1466 Skiles Lane, stated he did not believe either side of the road was safer than the other sidc. He noted in order to get to the other side of County Road E, a pedestrian would . . . . ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 29,2004 7 need to cross the road at an intersection. He indicated he believed this discussion should be about connectedness. He stated it made more sense to have this sidewalk on the south side. Mayor Aplikowski stated she believed there should be a sidewalk on both sides of the street, but she did not believe she had the support of the rest ohhe Council. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to approve the building of the sidewalk on the south side of the bridge and have a sidewalk continue west of the bridge on the same side and to authorize staff to proceed with plans and the funding application process and to notifY MnDOT of that decision. The motion failed (1-4) (Councilmembers Grant, Holden, Rem and Mayor Aplikowski). MOTION: Councilmember Rem moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to approve building of the sidewalk on the north side of the bridge and have the sidewalk continue west of the bridge on the same side and to authorize statT to proceed with plans. Councilmember Larson stated he was going to vote against this because there was no evidence that there would be a safety increase and also because Council did not have a plan for the garage that would be in the way. He noted his main concern was with the increased cost of putting a sidewalk on the north side. Colleen Hoffman, stated she knew the resident who lived in the home with the garage and she believed that resident would not have an issue ifher garage would be moved. Mayor Aplikowski stated she understood Couneilmember Larson's concerns about the money, but it appeared the remaining Councilmembers wanted to spend the money to get this resolved. The motion carried (3-2) (Couneilmember Larson and Mayor Aplikowski). Mayor Aplikowski requested statT come back to the Council with a proposed solution to the garage issue on Pascal. B. 2005 City Council/Citv Staff Retreat Facilitator Ms. Wolfe stated staff recently contacted a number of neighboring communities to compile a list of potential retreat facilitators for the 2005 City Council/City Staff Retreat. After reviewing the list of potential retreat facilitators, City staff contacted Barbara Strandell, James Prosser, and Carl Neu and requested they submit a bid proposal to the City for the January 2005 retreat. City staff checked the references on the three candidates. Staff requested the City Council's input regarding the selection of a retreat facilitator. Mr. Johnson stated most of the costs were very similar, except tarNeu & Company, who would need to come in from out of State and there would be travel costs involved. . . . TC1rlL4Clry 2~ 2iJ05 b/ork-sessiDn !v1,VlUH's @ Mayor Aplikowski stated that she is looking for a landscaping plan that is fairly inexpcnsivc with very little maintenance. Councilmember Holden suggested that perennials be planted on the City Hall propcrty and not in thc median area. Councilmembers requested that IJRS crcatc a new set of landscaping plans for CSAH 96 that incorporates the alternative one and group B planting arrangement for an estimated cost of $135.000. Countv Road E Pedestriau Brid11"e and Sidewalk Improvements City Engineer Greg Brown reported to the City Council that the City was not awarded grant funding by MnDOT for the proposed County Road E sidewalk improvement project. The City Engineer received vcrbal notification from MnDOT that the County Road E project was reviewed along with 35 other projects and was given a priority ranking of 14'h The top ten projccts were approved for MnDOT grant funding with the next four being considered as alternates for funding if one or more of the top tcn projccts arc not completed or cancelled. According to MnDOT staff, it is very unlikely that the County Road E sidewalk project will receive funding at this time. The following options were reviewed by the City Council: 1. Proceed with the north sidewalk along the bridge to Old Highway 10 using state aid funds for construction ($350,000) and local funds for engineering/inspection ($115,000). 2. Proceed with the north sidewalk along the bridge only using state aid funds for construction ($200,000) and local funds for engineering/inspection ($66,000). Construction in later 2005. 3. Wait and see if other projects drop out of the program allowing this project to be partially funded by MnDOT. Reapply for next year's program and begin construction in 2006. 4. Proceed with the south sidewalk along the bridge to Old Highway lOusing state aid funds for construction ($190,000) and local funds for engineer/inspection ($60,000). Begin construction in late 2005. This option would require a new resolution by the City CounciL 5 Proceed with the south sidewalk along the bridge only using state aid funds for construction ($130,000) and local funds for engineering/inspection ($40,000). Construction would begin in late 2005. Ibis option will require a new resolution by City CounciL City Engineer Brown noted that state aid is scheduled to be used as a funding mcchanism for the Rcd Fox/Grey Fox and Lexington Avenue projects in 2005. The City would have to change its funding Sources for a number of othcr projects in order to utilize state aid funding for this project. Mr. Brown stated that URS has contacted the residents on the north side of County Road E. Three residcnts have responded back to URS regarding the proposed project. 3 Tanuory 7L/ ~'I 7/'''C .-__l..J......) ,:J I'Ve r l(sessl en MI'nu+Cs Operations and Maintenance Director Tom Moore noted that anum ber of the residents expect to be reimbursed for their loss of landscaping if the sidewalk is constructed on their property. The residents were also wondering why they were not contacted regarding this project earlier. . City Engineer Brown said that the proposed sidewalk would be installed within the right-of-way tor most ofthe atkcted properties. Councilmember Larson asked if the City could do beller as a second time applicant next year. City Engineer said that it depends on the availability of state funding and the project compctition. Councilmember Larson asked the City Engineer what is the City's solution to the property problems at 3609 Pascal if the sidewalk is installed. Mr. Brown stated that the housc is not impacted by thc proposed sidewalk, but the City may have to create a new garage door and drivcway. Councilmember Grant mentioned that a possiblc solution to this problem may be to movc the garage door and driveway to the rear of the property accessing Pascal. Council member Holden stated that the property owner at 3609 Pascal uses the on-street parking in tront of her home quite frequently. City Engineer Greg Brown said if the property owner is agreeable, the City could move the garage door to the north side and have the driveway accessible to Pascal. . Councilmember Larson said that the garage is currently attached to thc south side of the house. The bottom line is that the City must tlnd out what is agreeable to the property owner and what will bc thc cost to the City. Councilmember Holden recommends that the City proceeds with option C (apply for ncxt year's program) and move the railroad path to the top of the project list. Councilmcmbcr Grant approves option C. Councilmember Larson is comfortable with option C, but would like to have City staff explore the feasibility of this project and the projected cost. City Council agreed to pursue option C and will continuc to have City staff explore the fcasibility and projected cost of County Road E sidewalk improvement project. 2005 PMP-Red Fox/Grey Fox Feasibility Rellort On January loth, members of the City Council were given copies of the Red Fox/Grey Fox feasibility report. A public hearing for this project is schcduled to be held at the February 14th City Council meeting. . 4 . . . ~. or ,e o :e;o<l s~ 2g ,t~ " .." .Q " ~ , -.:JsnOlj l'J Z ~ f- (/) ~ X W I "~...I(J51 ~- t:.'. n 5u....u6 i :.:. i , I ., 1 I I J dQ_q.O " ., " . " < o " Q u ~ ~ Q , . n , ~ Q 0;; ~ +'(]) Ld ;c< u . U _!:fa n <I D (L >- f- Z ::J D U .~ " " " " , " . o Q OM'''"'''' "",W '00""',<', ~~ <(0 ~I= (L wO OW <(" 0<( <l:~ >-" >- Z<l: :::JW 0-' u=" " 0 C; U Q ~ n n Z V) n -1 , -1 0 on - Ou ~:r:. i/I~ Q' W .~ 0 0(.., ~ 'N -!'fn <=l <=l <J lJJ D (/) (L ~ D Q. > D ? f- rY .0 Z Q. Cj:i" ::J ~ " 'M 0" ["::'J , m 0" '1 C< u 0 ~ 0 :;::;"" n, ci' no 0 ~o Un ,n ,," " " 0 u" ,0 n" " >3! ;-;>0 ,tt " " . . . 0 <:lS H , " , Q " u e : Q 0 H " o u '0 uo ,'.,..\) (~N\'- ~''''n"d j~3~""~\~O':L',"'(\ ~ It ,,) J~VN ]lIJ ~"G 'C'",',"',o>'< $1"01O'd q, ~ 100::~. "ci ;--('"1 "".~'.'J<<. ';' '~~: . -~ :-,~- .,d-'..''''' .. .;;. I J~ .,ll ,~".i1, . >I<~ ,',~ . . . . . ~ , , , [ , , o ~ c: 'I'::;:' Cl p_~ ~ if~ ~ ~Lw,g,~~[ , ~ ..\1, ~ ~ ~ L~, ~ i .... ~ '" ~ >. ~J~~ f ~-,F; ~ Wi i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ E R o o ~ ~ , .f , , , , , , 3. j , o > , , , , , i , ~ g , , ,~ , , , 1 , " ~ ~ "'''", f! n n' ., ~ ~ ~ ~, " , - ~ E " g' ~ iq. I , , [ ] ~ , ~ Jrl,""" UU~I nUllr ~ ~I~ Iflg ~ 3,.. 'll" U ~i ~ f :; ~ ~ I ' I'-I~$'C ~ ~ g,v (:: ~ ~;:~~I~ 11' ~ ~ ~ ~~;' ~~~;;:i '" ;I~ ;-11;' ." ~r'[~I~ ~ [~i r i ~ !I; ~ ! ~ ~ ~ I II ; i I , , ! ' , I ',"1 ~f~ 00 8 g~ ,s 8! o g ,0 is i ~ "' .~ :0 I I: ~ I ~ o o o 3* 9::- ~ :n ~~ ~ [ .:~, i~ 3' [ Hi ~~; : ~ g', '" 5' ~ g ~ I 1l. if ~ ~I I: ~ !, II J ! i ~ : ~ ; " l I ~ I [ I i iH'! '!!' [ l" ;! ' ~, '1 c.F ' ~i ~ rr ~ ~ , ~ , ~ i I , , it , , ~ . , ~ , i e ~ , 1 , , -F- (/> 6 ,0 ;~ ~ . [il~l! " il1fl !'\:<l5' Ul,il! 11'1 i "I e~, '1 ' 81,6 ~ 10 ~ g, ""hi'" !~: N~ :;, ?l8 ,U ~?8 " b I iE .9 m I i , i , I Ii , . ! P 1'81 g ], 15 . ~ <r ~ ,~ g is . ~ , , 'I ~ !~I , , I 0 i", i i ,. '" '" '" '" w '" ,. Ie o ;", ~ ~ i~ - i '" '" 'U'1. ,,' "I ~ '" '" ~' o !, c in c-; '" '" '" '" '" o '" '" o '" I'" ,~ ''" :., '" " ~ ' "'''' ~ <0 W " " " ~ i:- , o IS !~' I;' " ~ * S ! II II~I I w~'i~ (/l~.~0~: :0' ~ '''' (; 1i 1-- "'1-: ~~;~}~~:I 1 "ig! ~. (') ! ~ i~ ;: ~ .g ~ ~ @ K I:: 3 i ~ii ~ ~r ,,' Ol g ~ , 21 ~. . , ,! 2 , ". o ~" - (i cO '~, lw = i~;::: ,"" 0 ~ ,'" '-" 1_'" ,17, 3 i8 g 158 ~ t g;~8~i8~~' "',,' E c 10 . 000 '" c, 0 S '" ,-" ~" _' '-' is " , ~ is! . 80 , 8 g , . : 8 ~ : ~ ~ "," .~ 80 : "'-&'/ , .. 8!~ ~ ':" S:~: "'''':<(Aj '" 8 :s 8 8 ~ 00 " , II : , 1 i! i ! I ,I I , I , U JlfUI~un ~~., p 'IH ~~~ ! g ~ 1 n.,'~ :.,1'10';;11 ~ ~ ??:~ ~ ~! :; !i! ~ ~;'! '$ ',,- 0. " i"~' " () g I !!!. 1 - ; '" , , ~ ~ i" ~ ~: :. , ~ o Co N :; " o , , , l , i '". ' ,0. W ~ '0 W. . . Co.~w~ r:;o i;;: ~! ~ i c'>-o ;:::;:;; 1<:: "" U; :: :l 83 8 8 8 8 8 ~ 8g.~~_@5gig g "' 8 o U",~ I", ." ,'; 0 60 '" ~ '" , T'" w " ;:,; ,J;.. g w '" '" '" "" ,n,,"Vlo ~8in o c, ~? is , '" ,. ~ " '" '" "", " ~ 8 ~I '" , ;;;, 0' 8' f_. (/>jlj, " , " , i . '" - W W '" '" .. L ~o .~ .", 00 8 ? ~ -;:;; !~ 8:8 ~r8 ,",,'M , , , ,,! I " 13' 8 ! .s 8 8 . " i~ 0 ; ~ :] ~, I~ * " 0 ~ ~, ;- 0', ~ ~; ~,,; " ,,~: ~ 8. "-0, ;f':!:'i ; ~ i 'Ii '" .0, ~ : '" ~I~ it I'" ~I [ " [! 0' ~I I I . ~ :; Q ~ :; Q '" ,. '" " '" "'I ,'" g. 81 , 0' o '" .", '" .. oW ~~ 8'" ....:'*"" ., "" 0.'" g'l..r1 00 8'" .", ,. o '" i'g ~ " "", ~ "~ ,,, 8-< "' 00 ~~l -.;; ~ N" g~ ~r ;1 , ." "":J)'" ~I[ 1 ~ ~ '11 = or ~ ~ ~ ~ i :: I' 'I! I! Ilr ; " ,~ , o 8 I! ~ " , , . l . lj'I'A"'!'''I''':'''I'A'A 1_, i , ~ ~. rg 'b ,Hn~ ~B o ~ " c,g 91 ~ ~ ~ 18 S: '0 ." !w ,0 'S ~ o . ,. g I , ...1", , -~ o o ,"C I " ~ 1 . " . i 8 o ~'~ ~p gla . , I : il! ~ii !rlf!\I;i: ~ '" 0 ;;: ~ ,.;0 ;, 8' It ~ ~~? 'Il H~; ~~ Z "1' ! i'i! ~~ n ::. ." ;0 ~ ~ r,.. ..,., ~: ; OF:~ ~ ~ ~ i~ g ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ .... '" ';;;'.... , '" Q Q ~ i "~C~ . ~ I~ 8 g 18 ~ '''i(ll , "'''''U'i .,. ,,:i~-::::; ~ ~I~ :!I~' ~ t. 1 "C~' i 8~ilg~: '" . " ~u Cog "'0 "'0 , ~ : 0' (Il"''''' I -iA"'''' ~~ .'1 ",.,,'" -" 0 i:Q 1'J 0 00 Ng8 .."'-&'/...'" ~lQ 8 ~ 00 , "'". "'-I ~I ~ ~ ~ .00 ! u.Vlo"'''' i ~I~-:; ~!~Cl ~ i g'~ ~ 0 ~:'N E ; "'~..."" rg 8 " W 0> "'. "8 ~ ~:::: ] N 8 5, , [ [ il ~ o ~. "- ~ c, ~ 00 ~ ~ "5 :~ R i! ~ !~ ~ ~ ~ . Q-g 1J ~I ~ if' I o " , ! [ . g , I' " ~ 8 . . ~ N Q Q 00 ~I " 8 , ~~ .: 8 co '0 g ""'.'T I '.. I =(0 1>.:1" _ ~~ I}-J t >-0 '" ill'~ ~ ~_ :3;01 E c ;5 ~...'" . ,,- o~ Cog 0>0 '" '-"~....'" 1 ~ ~ 8 ~ o $' ,*",,""'-" , , i .~ ~ 8 ",' . ! 15..., " 0 881' ~ 8 '" ~ to W 0 "'. 0 '" 8 0 '"" th .. (A Igj , \S o i .;: O'l N g .C'i ~' ~ t k'~ g ~ ~ i'~ 8 "''*''''....'' '" o '" 8 '" ~:.: ., ' 8'" $ ....,~...(/> W ~:;Z~ 8 ~.~ '" 8 l.O ~ "" I~ [ ~ ~ ~ > ~ 'I w' 8 ~ o C 0: _ " p'? fS !~ is 'I ~ 8 .' o 8 , " j il" ~ [I > ~ l , , , ~ > f > o , I' ! I, ! e I : I~ Ii! I' ' ~.~ n n n~dll~~ ~II f ~,I i f:l ~ _ '" _ I~ ' -, -+,~ ~ ~ ''- '" 'S ~ ,c -. ~ !~ ! i~ ! ~ ~:; ! ! ,~ ~ Ii i1r; li ~ ~ '" ~ '- ,(!' ~ ~ 0 ~""'::, ,8 ,.. 0:' '" Q) ~IS' l::!l i,'f Co 1;1 '" '~' a :i ;'::] c~, ~ '0 .{ I~ "" ~ I~ ~ . " ~ c ~ = '" ~ :5 if ::: ~::J~~~fr'"l'I =3'~~~~~':tiS.'" . " c.lt 3" f,,; !,C ,,~ '~ il.. ~ :~ ~ - ';;0 C :~Itia~[;a ~8'~fit~~~a ,(0 '!: :0.; !! s:Ct1 n ~ "il ,,, OJ if~. ' g";~ ~5 & 1;;0;; 1: 1 ~ "'I~ iP, ; l~ g ~ 'i q ('g ~ ~ ;; (to ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 II~ ~ 1 ' ~. ~ I'~,i V I I I~ ! I' , "-I I! ! I -1"- ~~ 0, Qi~. ~h~ ~I~i :f , n o S , ~- . , , =1 ,. ~I ", ~ I 0_ ~ ~' ~ " . ~ 8 : I I .e ~. ? i~ I i (/>(/>(/>u,(/>;",(/>", ~ 8 o ,8 ~ L 88 ~ :::~:~R~~ _~1'8 ~'gl~l~ ~ ~ ::i g; 8@''" :5 ,C V'~"'VI'^'" "", .~ W ~:~ B =~ ;;-:....Z; ':;';;; . co.. .~ 1"-' Q) <2> t;: ~~ , i I - ~ i'~ w.~ ::i ~ ... c' Q '" . " i . '" ~ ..... TIg co ~ c; ."'-1 ~~ ,Q;! i Q I~ ~ g o - '" ~ g8 '" . T 8 @ "' " ..; gi si, gi ~ I'" ~ '~ r . ~...v, I' , , '" ." '" 0' o ~ g '" Q >.0", '" 0 0 'N1:ns (J\ ~ <., Q gig Won ,~ ~~ Iv ~ ~ '" o "tt't"'''' "", 8 I:: .0.:1:: ji,_, 8 g: ~ SlOE "' 8 Ui{03 I" ~ 0 ,':;3 v, ,~ ~ .. .sO <~ ~"'-" '(F, ~ ? .... " lJ: ~ ~ v, ~;~ '" ~ o '" '" ~i;j "' o.;'"co a. 15:Q) i.'J co g!Q) .. ....~..(/> no", "0 - . ~ ~ ~ Q <0' 0.. <> giN o @ W ~~~ ,0 N.... g Ul ~ '" ~ .... 0 " _ 0 ~ !8 ~ " , ~ ~ z "" 1(1 m c 2. ~:g ; 1ft i,' '5 -""it a. ! ~ ails 5 ~ ~ a " ;i 0;; ~ 3 E" n L!f:t ' Ii 8 I If I ^r ~ . ~ ! ~ ; ~ i !~ ii I~ , w ,* oi l " ! o " , ~ , ~ " o ~ t , o ~ o i , , ~ '-!~ , , " ;0 " ;om mZ :SO: !Q? ~~ oj; ~:E mo< .. " <I>~ . - >l~ . ~ 3 ;0 0-0 ~ ~ .~ ~ Nm oz Qo< ~<I> ~ ;0 o '" ~ " ~ '< m -< m ,. ;0 <I> c: ~ " " ;0 ~ N Q o ~ ~ :; 6 ;0 " ~ 0< co ., IH ~j < "e, 8 0 I"" - " " " , o " o " , o j , ~ @ . ~ --A~HILLS City ot Arden Hills Re uest for Council Action Prepared by: JL Dept.: C m. Dev Council Mtg. Date: 9/11/2006 Final Action Needed By: 9/26/2006 Agenda Item ~:~~ PC #01-05: Master PUD Extension: Chesapeake Companies: NE Quadrant of 1-694 & 1-35W Budgeted Amount: $0.00 Actual Amount: $0.00 Funding Source: n/a Council Action Request: Consider a motion to approve a one year extension for Planning Case #01-05, Master Planned Unit Development. Staff Recommendation: Approve the requested one year extension subject to the 14 conditions of approval as stated in the attached report Advisory Commission Action: Commission Planni~g PTRC Date Action Not Not applicable . Supporting Documents (which are attached to this Action Form): [2J Memo/Letter: Report to the City Council Letter from Chesapeake Companies Supporting Documents o Resolution (No. ) o Ordinance (No. ) o Engineering Recommendation: o Attorney Recommendation: o Other: Financial Implications: Administrator/Staff Comments: . Page 1 of 1 . . ~ ~~HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: September 5, 2006 Agenda Item 8. C TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: James Lehnhoff, City p]annff SUBJECT: Planning Case #0] -05, Chesapeake Companies NE Quadrant ofI-694 and I-35W Extension for Master Plan PUD NE Quadrant/Interstate Crossing Requested Action The applicant has requested an additional one-year extension for their Master Plan POO. Background . On March 26, 200], the Arden Hills City Council approved a Master Plan pun application from Chesapeake Companies for the property ]oeated at the northeast intersection Interstates 35W and 694 subject to 13 conditions. This is the fourth extension request from Chesapeake for this Master Plan POO. It was recognized in 2001 that this project would not be ready for development within the standard PUD framework, which normally requires review of the Fina] POO within six months of the Master PUD approval. Therefore, condition 13 was included in the original approval to provide the applicant with additional time to acquire the necessary land and market the property to potential occupants. However, due to the decrease in demand for office space from late 200 I until fairly recently, the City granted three extensions to the PlJD. In 2004, the City Council reviewed Chesapeake's second request for an extension and added eonditionnumber 14, which reserved the City's right to require an updated traffic study or EA Wand would also require Chesapeake to comply with new development regulations if substantia] changes to the City's development regulations are made. Condition 14 would still apply with the current extension request. It is important to note that there has been progress made on the project. The former A TS building was removed earlier this year; however, during preparation for the demolition it was discovered that the soil beneath and alongside the building was contaminated. In cooperation . \\Metro-inel.us\ardcnhills\Pbnning\PJanning Cascs\2001 \0 1-05 Chesapeake\090506 CC Memo 0] -OS.doc Page 1 of4 with the City, the applicant has applied for and received a number of grants to assist in the cleannp of the site. It is expected that most of the cleanup will take place in September or Octobcr of this year. The rails on the property will also be removed in September or October. . The applicant is continuing to actively market the property. Thc Chesapeake Master Plan PUD provided for a few different plan renditions, one of which included two eight story office buildings. This type of development is prominent at major interstate junctions in the metro area and will likely lead to a higher quality project than the underlying Gateway Business Zoning would otherwise produce. The Gateway Business Zoning District is geared toward modem office/warehousing users and was intended to redevelop the land on the west side of Round Lake. Granting an extension to the Chesapeake Master Plan PUD makes it easier for Chesapeake to plan and market the property and it gives the City of Arden Hills better chance of securing a high caliber development that is built within the parameters established through the 2001 PUD. The letter from Chesapeake Companies indicates that a summary of their marketing activities is attached. The updated summary was not available in time for the rclease of this packet; however, a representative from Chesapeake Companies will be at the meeting to address the ongoing marketing ofthe property. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested one-year extension to allow Chesapeake Companies to submit a Final Plan PUD no later than September 26,2007, subject to the following thirteen . conditions from the original PUD approval and condition 14 that was added in 2004: 1. Revisions to tbe Proposed PUD Design Standards. The proposed document "Gateway Business Center..Arden Hills, MN, Proposed Planned Unit Development Design Standards", revision dated March 7,2001, be amended accordingly (additions are shown in CAPS, language removed is stricken): a) Page I, Purpose and Intent, third line of the first paragraph should read, ". ..consist of A PREDOMINATELY office DEVELOPMENT and supporting ancillary uses..."; b) Page I, Permitted Uses, strike #1 relating to antennas and add it under Permitted Accessory Uses; c) Page I, Permitted Accessory Uses, #1 should read, "Any incidental assembly, repair, processing, CLASS I manufacturing..." d) Page 2, Permitted Accessory Uses, #7 should read, "Day Carc Nursery WITH LESS THAN TEN CHILDREN"; e) Page 2, Lot Area, Lot Width, and yard Requirements, #1, should read, "Lot Area: One acre minimum, NOT TO EXCEED TWO LOTS OF THIS SIZE" f) Page 4, Building Design and Materials, #4, last line of the paragraph, should read, ". ..of the fayade. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS SHALL MEET THE SAME BUILDING MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS AS PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS. Allowable materials... "; \\Metro-inet.us\'afdenbillslJ'lanning\Pl:lnning Cases\2001 \0 1-05 Chcsapeake\090506 CC Memo OI-05.uoc Page 2 of4 . . . . g) Page 4, Building Design and Materials, #4 B, should read as follows, "Secondary exterior building matelials may be decorative block (LIMITED TO SINGLE STORY STRUCTURES), integrally colored stucco, or heavy gauge aluminum or prefinished architectural metal panels OR EITS (TO A MAXIMUM OF 10% OR THE STRUCTURE); h) Pagc 5, Building Design and Materials, #4 C, should read as follows, "Synthetic stucco er ElI'S (E)[terior Insulation and Finish Systems1 may be permitted as a secondary material on upper floors only"; i) Page 5, Building Design and Materials, #4 F, should be stricken completely; j) Page 5, Building Design and Materials, #10 should be stricken completely; k) Page 5, Building Design and Materials, #11, second line, should read as follows, "... submitted for staff PLANNING COMMISSION review AND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL at the time of submittal for buildiHb permit(s) FINAL PUD"; 1) Page 6, parking Requirements, #3, second line should read, ".. .shall be screened with a decorative wall OF COMPATIBLE MATERIALS..."; m) Page 6, Loading Docks, third line, should read, "... by means oflandscaping which is at least 80% opaque within two years er AND by a screen wall..." and n) Pages 8 and 9, Signage, be removed in its entirety from the document for review during the final PUD process, with the exception of#2 J, which should read as follows, "Temporary leasing signs and marketing signs will be allowed AS RECOMMENDED TO CITY COUNCIL BY STAFF". 2. Maximum Office Component. Maximum office component requirement be increased from 50% to I 00% as per the "Variance Requests and Findings, (a)" section of the staff memorandum; 3. Minimum Building Size. Minimum building size be reduced from 20,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet, as per the "Variance Requests and Findings, (b)" section of the staff memorandum, allowing no more than two structures ofthis size on the property; 4. Maximum Building Height. Maximum building height be increased from 35 feet to eight stories as per the "Variance Requests and Findings, ( c)" section of the staff memorandum; 5. Parking Rampsillecks within Front and Side Yard Setbacks. Parking ramps/decks be permitted within the front yard setback and the side yard/comer setback as per the "Variance Requests and Findings, (d)" section of the staffmemorandum; 6. Side Yard Interior and Corner Setbacks. Side yard interior and comer setbacks for the principal strueture(s) must meet the requirements ofthe Gateway Business District and are not permitted as proposed to be decreased to 10' on the interior (where 20' is required) and 20' on the comer (where 50' is required); 7. Reduced Landscaping Requirements. Reducing the specific landscape requirements (caliper inches) outlined in Appendix A, Zoning Ordinance, relating to the square footage of floors of a building and building height to reflect the proposed requirements in the applicant's Design Standards as per the "Variance Requests and Findings, (f)" section of the staff memorandum; 8. Landscape Performance Bond. A landscape performance bond at 125% of the cost of materials and installation must be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit; \lJ...ktro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cascs\200 1 \0 1-05 Chesapeake\090506 CC Memo Ot-OS.doc Page 3 of 4 9. Satisfaction of Park Dedication. Park land dedication will be required as part of the final plat, not [0 exceed ten percent of the area of the property or, if providing cash in lieu ofland, the fair market value of the property at the time of approval; . 10. Permits from Rice Creek Watershed District. A permit from Rice Creek Watershed District will be required following City approval; 11. Monument Sign for the Development. A monument sign at the corner of Highway 96 and Round Lake Road (City property) would need to be reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to construction; ]2. Extension of Time to Submit Final Plan PUD. Due to the time requirements ofland acquisition and securing major tenants, the time requirement for the final plan to be submitted no more than six months after the date of the City Council's approval of the Master PUD be changed to eighteen months for this proposal; and 13. Acquisition of All Properties within the Proposed Development. Approva] of the master plan is contingent on the applicant's acquisition of all properties shown in the proposaL ]4. Traffic Studies, EA W's, Significant Changes to Development Regu]ations. At the time of application for the Final POO the City would reserve the right for an updated traffic study, EA W, or other supplementary documents as necessary. ]fthere are additional development regulations that change significantly prior to the application for the Fina] Plan PUD, the City would reserve the right to have Chesapeake eomp]y with those new development regulations. The Final PUD will set the final design and layout ofthe property. Attachments 8C-1 8C-2 August] 0, 2006, letter from Peter Carlson of Chesapeake Companies Supporting documents . \\Mt:lro-ineLus\ardcnhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2001\Ol -05 Chesapeake\090506 CC Memo OI-OS.doc Page 4 of4 . . Attachment 8C-l Letter from the Applicant . . September II th, 2006, City Council Meeting . . . -__.._~",..._~"~,;..~,_c .,,--..,.--_._.....-..- _._----~._=..."...-~~,~ . -. --"'-~"""- CHESAPEAKE COMPANIES August 1 0, 2006 Mr. James Lehnhoff City Planner City of Arden Hills 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112-5794 RE: Interslate Crossing - Arden Hills Dear Mr. Lehnhoff We respcctfuily request an extension to the Master POO for an additional twelve months. Since last year, we have demolished the A TS building. During due diligence for the demolition of the A TS building, the consultant discovered contaminated soil beneath and alongside the building. With the City of Arden Hills cooperation, CMK applied for grants and have been awarded the various grants to assist in removing the contamination from the site. CMK is working closely with Arden Hills City staff to coordinate the use of the grants for the remediation. The removal of the contamination and rails will be condueted sometime in September and October of2006. T. Status of A TS and Rail Properlv A TS Propeliy - Purchased property March of 2005 demolished building July 2006. Rail Property - Executed Purchase Agreement. Rail and tie removal scheduled Sept 2006. IT. Status of Proiect a) Market is slowly improving with more activity seen by larger companies planning for consolidalions and new facilities. b) We retained Cushman Wakefield/Northstar Par1ners to market the sile for us. They are one of the top national firms in the Twin Cities and have been vcry active in marketing the property throughout the Twin Cities. See attached for a brief summary of their activities. TIT. Master PUD Extension Request Purpose for having Master POO in place: I a) Modify the limitations of the current Gateway Business District zoning. The current Gateway zoning limits the use and quality of potcnlial users to not less than 25% nor more lhan 50% of the projects total floor area and a maximum 35 foot building heiglit restriction. The Master PlID increases the height to allow for up to an eight story office building, 100% ottice use, and other changes that provide more flexibility for a higher quality development. POO in place reduces uncertainty for potential corporate user. Faster approval process for corporate user. 601 C:\RI.SON P..\R}0:\'AY. SLUE 900. MINNETONKA. l\llN::\'ESOTA 55305 TELE.PHONE (952) 847-2444 . FAX (952) 595-8247 b) c) Me. James Lehnhoff August 7, 2006 Page Two . d) POO defines the development and building guidelines for corporate user. c) We have prepaid for the EAW and other entitlement POO expenses which reduces the predevelopment expenses to a potential corporate user. l) Competitive advantage over most sites in competing cities. Our strategy is to continue to aggressively pursue quality companies when thcy come to the market By having our approvaJslzoning in place, we eliminate a significant uncertainty in the analysis from the prospective company, In light of the current economy, most corpordte executives are very risk adversc. They do not want to spend time or money pursuing a site that has any uncer1ainty or risk. Therefore, they frequently reject sites If they posc any risk of zoning problems. If vou approve the PUD extension, it assists the site and the City of Arden Hills efforts to secure a high Quality tenant in a very conmetitive marketplace. Conversely, if thc site does not have the currcnt PUD m place, it will put Interstate Crossing at a substantial competitive disadvantage. We invested a lot of time and money to make the site as marketable as possible to the best potential users. At our expense, many of the essential issues have been completed such as wetland delineation, civil engineering, survey, topos, environmental, EA W, and Master POO. . We appreciate your continued support of our efforts to develop Interstate Crossing into the highest and best use, quality campus which will provide substantial jobs and economic benefits to the City of Arden Hills. Extension of the POO approval places Interstate Crossing in an ideal situation to capture business growth opportunities as soon as possibic in a manner that advances the specific policies and goals statcd in the City's comprehensive plan. Sincerely, 'ter C. Carlson Chief Executive Officer PCC/dlf ce: Diane Fredeen . . Attachment 8C-2 Supporting Documents . . September 11th, 2006, City Council Meeting f Q ~ ~ ~ _ O! .:g .0 s1 lfi.so ~ W.5 ~ :", i I }5 . ~ 'ii!i ~ Z ~~ :!J ~ ~ ......:8- v n.::: 1:7 " ;, z: dlc-g~~<::~tB.;f,~a; ~:fgb~8~~.s !S~E5 __ l1'l 0.. :::.:: L~ <: D~ \.~~\ " ~ ~ " " " o Q u "' ~ ~ ;; 25 c N 2 .00" ~2:':-::: E 5 ~ <2"'< .~ 8 4' "'E'" "E::>- c O,<<! 2 ~'5 '02] ___- 3<t e ,-~~IT .~~-g ......f \ \ ;-,/ 'I ,"0" I .~,\ \y~.-" ;~ E':;o;; \ -----J~~~y~-;: ;( - ~ 0 ~.~ ~:lr(~\(\~. .". ~ HI \-l;:rl'j\~)~~~;4 . H~ LG......;~-...:~'~'<:.... ../...;./;\,-~.I, I g:;<:: ~_ h'~ ,:..: 1')1'>'\/)<~' ~ ~ 8 uti Ir~J 'i'j I~~ _.," /l>(~/~---" ~.s.g I-jl//:,&,,)"/ /11 ~ gf~ ')) ..,f'.<1i""/'''' 11._ .....--..... I..... I" r.."'#",./,.,I'" ."." 0 ~-:-i. ~-ll'ff:7l-f:?-;~_--_::-'~ ] ~ ~ I~,'{f: mil --~--~ ~~5 rHtnij-l g @ ~ t~L~ftN H ~ /z I' " .1'1 ~ ~ ~ ,:i ~2 3 I .il' ~~8 1.'.1 CO" . I; E.g~ !~7~11 11; I /i .?,E8 ,"/ ~.:;~ ~'I -"5^ ,L, ~82 \ .s.ff~ ~ .~uu ~ :~@ \'{'" ";.g ~ , ~ ~o-J '1:. - <:: u '\ <1:._"::: 1'L ~'"2r" ___________~..OJ'_O ",00 ~.2o ;,:.N .......(;IN ~-O<;;; o 0 '" 0 - <: " ~ '" ~ .- == I:': C. S o u ~ .:.:: I:': ~ C. I:': '" ~ ..::: U o ~ " "' Vi CJ U "' ::J o '" o "" u ~ .,fiiiM J .. I ~cr'lr- .,1 l-c .... I.. 1>_lJI1l_~--iir ~~t"'''"'Ylil /~ J \/'\ .. '~'<>9 r I~' // ~- ~ ,\ "'~ /,,('-.....I~V-/ / i --r--~ \ Z" "'~~~,y 11"" ,.. b 'I \ "'::J>~ I fie.. k~1 \ 1- i2 u iI: ~ ~ ~ ~ ifJ o Cl 8 !"l '"' ~ ~ ~l ~ ~ ~ ffi ;g~~~~~ ~ "iiil :I " U ~ 0 ~"''" :I ~ <;l >-' ~ ~ !'; B ,"~~d2 ~i" g, ~ ~ <l~ ~ ~ ....... 14. ~ o : , , , , , , , , , / ,// ,//'. I: ,// .' , ~,~ ,--/,/ ~:" .<0 . 1: I$ c- - 2-' ___n ~ j ~ ~ U ifJ ~ ~:<t: !i~b !l"1 ~~ W~ o~;1 ::E"'~ U~I . . ~ ~ ~ ~ . '" e . . ...... l.L. <(' ~