The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003_0922_packet..�.. N' 8 Nunn 'City Council Agendd Monday September 22, 2003 Note Meeting Location: Fireside Room Roseville Skating Center 2661 Civic Center Drive Roll Call (Voting Order ): Maschka, Schroeder, Klausing, Kough, Kysylyczyn I. Public Comment fi:DO p.m. II. Review Agenda III. Presentations Schwartz A. Presentation of Final Bid Groups and Selection of Some Alternate Bids for Building Project Gary Boyum B. Consider Changing the City's Residential Recycling Policy and Existing Recycling Contract with Waste Management IV. Communication T-.00 p.m. +.r V. Recognition 1- Public Hearings VII. Land Use Welsch A. Approving Scott Santanni"s Request for a Variance and Council Use Permit (CUP) at 9019 Sherren Street (PF3512) Be a park of the picture ... get involved with your City... Volunteer! For more information, feel free to stop by City Hall or call Carolyn of 651 - 490 -2209. You can also check -out our websife at www.cftyofroseville.com Volunfeering, a Great way to Get Involved! Vill, Reports T Recommendations Welsch A. Report on Nuisance Code Violation at 2147 Rice Street Welsch B. Report on Nuisance Code Violation at 2199 Cohansey Boulevard IX, Organizational Business M. Kysylyczyn A. Confirmation of Housing & Redevelopment Authority Appointment X. Ordinances &Resolutions XI. Consent Agenda Schwartz A. Approving Summary of Ordinance 1294, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 7, Section 703,05 of the Roseville City Code Concerning Bus Benches Schwartz B. Approving Change Order #1, Bid Package #1, for City Center Renovation Curti C. Authorizing Staff to Advertise for Planning Commission and Human Rights Commission Vacancies Welsch D. Approving Charles Anderson's Request for a Variance at 303 South Owasso Boulevard (PF3516) Welsch E. Approving Michael Davis' Request for a Council Use Permit (CUP) at 2730 Griggs Street (PF3518) Welsch F. Approving the Electronic Proprietary Database License Agreement with Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department Miller G. Approving Payment of Bills Minutes Stowell A. Approval of September 75, 2003 Minutes XIIIIII, Other Businesz XIV" Adjournment DATE. 09/22/03 ITEM. M. A. Department Approval: Manager Reviewed: Agenda Section: INCAoi Presentations Item . City Center Building Project Update Approve Contract Awards for Certain Bid Groups within Bid Package ##3, City Hall and Public Works Maintenance Facility Project Construction continues on the City Center building project, with walls starting to appear. The project is only slightly behind schedule at this time. we still anticipate enclosure before extremely cold weather sets later this fall. On June 2,, 2003, the Council approved the first bid package for the City Hall addition and the Maintenance Building project. Bid Package #2 was awarded on June 30, 2003, and certain bid groups from Bid Package ##3 were awarded on August 18, 2003. Additional bid groups ftorn Bid Package ##3 have been evaluated by our construction manager Mc Gough and are now recommended for award. DISCUSSION OF BIDS: Bids received for these bid groups were within the expected range of the construction managers estimate. Four bid groups will remain to be awarded as no bids were received in three categories, and modular casework is being evaluated. These groups were specialty items that are not available through many vendors. Our construction manager is soliciting quotes for these bid groups, and we will present them to the Council at a future date. Based on the apparent law bids and other work approved to date, 'is well as estimated costs for furniture, fixtures, signing, and equipment, we are within the project budget, with a necessary contingency for unforeseen items. (See estimated project budget below.) We recommend award of the following bid groups at this time Did Group 9 Ornamental Metal Fence Anchor Fence ... S26,625 Bid Group 10 Landscaping yalleygre!t ,. $1682t750 Bid Group 13 Miscellaneous Metals Metro Manufacturing, Inc. $1 49,960 Bid Group 14 Millwork Heebink Architectural Woodwork $93,,130 Bid Group 15 Carpentry Iellington Construction $104.600 B id Group 17 Caulking Rigjjt-Wgy Caulking $44,800 Bid pup 18 Alunum Panels M. G. McGrath 19�., $ o Bid Group 19 Roofing oleo Roo fin & Sheet Metal $358,321 Bid Group 21 Detention DoorsfHardware Bid Group 29 Painting telnbrecher Fainting, Inc. $x'1,735 Bid Group 31 Toilet Partitions Ba�a Sales $4,152.. Bid Group 32 Flagpoles Construction Supply $4,766 Bid Group 33 Lockers Mid - America Business Systems $38,j 148 Ken-dell Doors & Hardware $18.250 Bid Group 22 Door/Hardware Installation D ellington Construction $37,800 Bid Group 23 Overhead Doors Twin CLty GaraRre Door $54,647 Bid Group 25 Windows and Glazing Harmon, Inc. $232,800 Bid Group 26 Ceramic Tile Twin City 'file $68,000 Bid Group 27 Acoustic Ceilings Twin City y Acoustics $205,600 Bid Group 28 Carpet and resilient Flooring Spectra Contract Flooring $115,384 Bid Group 29 Painting telnbrecher Fainting, Inc. $x'1,735 Bid Group 31 Toilet Partitions Ba�a Sales $4,152.. Bid Group 32 Flagpoles Construction Supply $4,766 Bid Group 33 Lockers Mid - America Business Systems $38,j 148 Bid pup 34 Fire Extinguishers & Cabinets Iardini Fire Equipment CgAMM $2,074 Bid Group 35 Miscellaneous Installation Iellin ton Construction $16,9140 Bid Group 37 Operable Panel Partitions W.L. lull Company V5,480 Bid Group 38 Toilet Accessories Earticy Sales $7,390 Bid pup 39 Projection Screen Construction Supply $1.969 Bid Group 40 Detention Equipment "SI $50qOOO Bid Group 41 Floor Mats Bartley Sales $43340 Bid Group 43 ;elevator Equipment Schindler Elevator $60,200 We also recommend authorization of the following alternates at this time. Alt. 5C Alternate to construct a 6' -wide concrete sidewalk from Civic Center Drive to the entry of the skating center. This Will allow pedestrian access and connectivity between City Hall and other sidewalks and trails in this area without conflicting with vehicles in the parking lot. The hid arnount for this alternate is $5,800. Alt. 8 Alternate to add skylights to the vehicle garage in the Public Works Facility. This will allow natural light into the facility and will reduce future energy costs. We will receive some energy design rebate dollars from Xcel Energy for this alternate. The bid amount is $36,735 for the skylights. Alt. 19 Alternate to add additional power receptacles for holiday lighting along Civic Center give. This work will begin this fall in conjunction with the street lighting. The cost for this alternate is $15,235. Current Estimated Project Budget Summarl General Conditions ........... b w E. a m a m m a E. a r■■ria 5755000.00 Architectural Fees $ 158475000.00 Construction Manager Fees Furniture Fixtures Signing Equipment Miscellaneous Work Contingency ......... ........ as .■ ■a ■ ■ ■ ■!! ■ ■ ■Ft ■i ■ ■ ■■■ f 2268 F■00 Bid Package #I . Contract Work . ■ ■ . r r . ■ ■ ■ ! . , ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ i r . ■ ■ ■ ■ 460, 000.00 Bid Package # Contract Work ........... @@ON*4-11odbUmmFm$ 1 6079033 ■00 Proposal Request #1 for Bid Package # .... ! ! ! ! ■ i ■ i , . 32)592.00 Proposal Request #2 for Bid Package # ... ■ , ■ . ■ ! • . ■ ■ 1i 85000.00 Proposal Request #3 12,000.00 Harris Mechanical Work (Water Line) ..... f l o w n ■ ■ ■ 145470.00 Bid Package #3 ■•■■■■.■■■■• a■■ r■■■■ a■ ■t!■ ■rir ■ ■ ■ ■.• ■ ■••i•a ■rr ■ ■ ■ ■■ +■ 610035123 ■00 Bid Package #3 — For Work Not Bid** ...... ■ i ■ ■ a ■ ■ a ■ ■ 150)000.00 Requested Altemates..............&E. MEN Ems 'PON Its io-WE EmEmmomms am 573770.00 Approved Alternates 1M328.00 Total„*r* ■*w @ta■rfi10 VOL CON a■ r.;s " *a *aI alp *■f■ -e. *.*81.11■y1P a■ * -p■aaU%Uwr ■. ; alp qrs. $604 F,.; . ToW Project 18Udget + rimer■■ aaae■• Mt ■f ■ ■f■i ■ats■ififf ■Yaait■yaaar! .,• - ** alt/Sand Storage Building Roof, Display Boards, Mesh Curtains, other Misc. Iterm FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The bids received fall within the estimated budget for the project. We are cornmitted to delivering this project within the overall amount approved by City Council. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTIONS: Motion to award the following bid groups and authorize listed alternates and adjustment of appropriate contracts: Bid Group 9 Ornamental Metal Fence Anchor Fence $26,625 Bid Group 10 Landscaping Vallecrest 5168,750 Bid Group 13 .Miscellaneous Metals Metro Manufacturing, Inc. 149 X60 Bid Group 14 Millwork Heebink Architectural Woodwork $91,130 Bid Group 15 Carpentry Kellington Construction $104,600 Bid Group 17 Caulking Right-Way Caulking $44,1800 Bid Group IS Aluminum Panels M.G. McGrath_ $194,8o z Bid Group 19 l oo fmg Dalco Roofmg & Sheet Metal 5358,321 � Biel Group 21 Detention Doors/Hardware Mendell Dears & Hardware_ .... _ $18,250 Bid Group 22 Door/Hardware Installation ellin town Construction S37,800 Bid Group 23 Overhead Doors Twin City Garage Door $54,547 Bid Group 25 Windows and Glaring Hannan, Inc. $232,800 .rn. Bid Group 26 Ceramic Tile ., ",'win City Tile - _ .._..$68,000 Bid Group 27 Acoustic Ceilings Bid Group 33 Twin pity Acoustics 2052600 Bid Group 28 Carpet and Resilient Flooring $38.148 Bid Group 34 Spectra Contract Flooring 11 5 3 4 Bid Group 29 Fainting $2,074 Bid Group 35 Steinbrecher Painting, Inc. $ 7 l Bid Group 31 Toilet Partitions $16,140 Bid Group 37 Bartley Sales $4,525 Bid Group 32 Flagpoles $15.480 Bid Group 38 Construction Sul3ply $4,766 Bid Group 33 Dockers Mid- America Business Systems $38.148 Bid Group 34 Fire Extinguishers & Cabinets ardini Fire Eguipment CoLapgDy $2,074 Bid Group 35 Miscellaneous Installation ellin on Construction $16,140 Bid Group 37 p erahle Panel Partitions W.L. Hall Companv $15.480 Bid Group 38 'Toilet Accessories Bartley Sales $7,1390 Bid Group 39 Projection Screen Construction. Sgpply $1,1969 Bid Group 40 Detention Equipment VMSI $50,000 Bid Group 41 Floor Mats Bart1gy Sales - - $4,340 Bid Group 42 Modular Casework Cosney Corporation $66,309 Bid Group 43 Elevator Equipment Schindler Elevator 200 •4 7 Alt, 5C Sidewalk from Civic Ctr to Skating Ctr $5,800 Alt. 8 Skylights for vehicle garage $36,1735 Alt. 19 Power receptacles for holiday lighting $15,1235 Prepared by: Duane Schwartz City Center Contract Awards Bid Pkg #1 Imperial Developers Midwest Asphalt Bid Pkg #3 I eilington Construction Steen bu rg-Watrud Anchor Fence Ile l leycrest Adolfson & Peterson Olympic Wall Systems Metro Manufacturing, Inc H eeb in k Architectural Woodwork Iellington constriction Brent Anderson Assoc Right-Way Caulking M. G. McGrath Dalco Roofing & Sheet Metal Mend ell Doors & Hardware Pendell Doors & Hardware lellington Construction Twin City Garage Door Net Awarded Harmon, Inc. Twin city Tile Twin City Acoustics Spectra Contract Flooring teinbrecher Painting, Inc. Not Awa rd e d Bartley Sales Construction Supply Mid - America Business Systems BEld Work Contract Group Amount I & 3 Sitework 334,000 itework 101,1 oo Excavation & Demolition $ 1489900 4 Cast -in -place Concrete 4789000 Pre-cast Concrete 690,000 6 Structural Steel Fabrication $ 192,795 7 Steel Erection 97,338 7 Miscellaneous Demolition 1481.900 8 Concrete 146,000 9 Ornamental Metal Fence 26,625 10 Landscaping $ 168,750 11 Masonry $ 445,270 12 Drywall 440,500 13 Miscellaneous Metals 149,960 14 Millwork 93,1 0 15 Carpentry 104,600 16 Waterproofing $ 58 ,0000 17 caulking $ 44,800 18 Aluminum Panels 1 949828' 19 Roofing 358,321 20 Hollow Metal Doors/Frames $ 138,582 1 Detention Doors /Hardware $ 18,250 Door /Hardware Installation 371800 3 Overhead Doors 54,647 4 Security Mesh Curtains 5 windows and Glazing $ 2329800 6 Ceramic Tile $ 68,000 7 Acoustic ceilings $ 205l6OO 8 Carpet & Resilient Flooring 115,384 9 Fainting 71 ,735 o Display Boards 1 Toilet Partitions $ 49525 Flagpoles 41766 Lockers 38,148 Page I of 2 Nardini Fire Equipment Company Iellington Construction Not Awarded W.L. Hall Company Bartley Sales Construction Supply Dl Bartley Sales Not Awarded Schindler Elevator Northern Air Corp Collins Electrical 4 Fire Extinguishers & Cabinets 2,074, 5 Miscellaneous Installation 16j140 36 I nt. Wire flesh Part. 7 Operable Panel Partitions 1 5,480 8 Toilet Accessories 7,390 39 Projection Screen 11969 40 Detention Equipment 50,000 41 Floor Mats 4.9340 42 Modular Casework 43 Elevator Equipment 60,200 44 Mechanical 1,485,1 O9 45 Electrical 949,450 Total Awarded to Date $ $,004,2o6 Page 2 of 2 R**1L9HWH+_-4 Request for Council Actiol Date. 09/22/03 Item. Ill. B. Prmntafions Recycling Contract Dale: September 15, 2003 Item umber %�* A. Department Approval Manager Approval Agenda Section Item Description; Consider Changing the City's recycling Contract with Waste Management Bach round At your August 18 meeting, you asked that this item be placed on the September 15 meeting agenda. Some of you had questions you wanted Waste Management to answer about changing the contract. I sent Waste Management a letter asking those questions. See Attachment 1. Waste Management responded with a letter. See Attachment 2. In addition, the City has received phone and e-mail messages regarding recycling. See Attachment 3. DkenmRIMM Our current contract with Waste Management continues our existing tiro -sort recycling service in most of the City, but provides for a single - stream pilot project in part of the City. The contract addendum suggested by Waste Management proposes that the City begin citywide single- stream recycling this winter. (At your request, the City Attorney has also drafted a contract addendum in case you decide to move to single- stream recycling immediately. That addendum is attached as well. The City Attorney can deseribe the differences between the addendum Waste Management proposes and the one the City Attorney drafted.) Financial Impact. Single - stream recycling is more expensive than two -sort recycling. Council Action Requested: uested Either: 1. Take no action, which leaves the existing recycling contract ` in place (meaning we continue two -sort recycling in most of the City, but we have WI conduct a single - stream pilot project in part of the City), or 2. Approve a motion adopting the Waste Management contract addendum or the addendum drafted b y the City Attorney (meaning the entire City changes to single - stream recycling this printer). Fi 4) ff; i Friday, August 22, 2003 Mr- Gary Boyam Municipal Marketing Manager Waste Management 12448 Pennsylvania Avenue South Savage, Minnesota 55378 Re: Roseville Single-Strewn recycling Contract Dear Mr. Boyurn: I'm writing to follow up on the City Council directives from Monday night's Council Meeting regarding renegotiating our recycling contract. I heard Councilmembers ask for pricing information frorn waste Management on two itcros : 1) ouncilmember Dough's proposal for a three -year fixed rate contract, with a provision to extend for another three years with an annual rate increase of 3% or the CPI whichever is less, 2) Mayor I ysylyczyn}s proposal for pricing options on cart ownership. In other words, what will the rate be if at the end of the contract if Waste Management owns the carts compared to what the rate will be if the City of Roseville owns the carts as they do in the City of l obbinsdale. In addition I would like your thoughts on the proposed addendum that was included in the Council informational packet. (I am including a copy of that addendum with this letter.) I heard Councihnembers discuss deleting specific paragraphs. In order for our attorneys to put a signable contract together, I need to know which paragraphs you want removed or added and a short description of the reasons. Please note that the addendum has already been modified to include the Councl 1's apparent desire and your offer at the Council Meeting to match the "Most Favored Nation" clause in Waste Management's contract with Brooklyn parr and HR G. It was also brought up in the course of Council discussions on this subject that Waste Management includes profit shaping provisions in contracts with other rnum' cipalities. Our City Attorney is working on proposed language, and we request that you share with Roseville your preferred language for a profit sharing provision in the addendum. 66 ivic Center Drive ^. Roseville Minnesota * 55113 651-490-2200 4* TIT 651- 490 --2207 *:� www.oi.aro oville.mmus 0 Gam, in order to sham the above information with the City Council we need your Witten materials by noon on Wednesday} September 1 Oth. Of course, I would also appreciate the opportunity to meet with you before September 10, 2003 to review the materials requested above and the proposed addendum. I think that might make the September 15'h Council Meeting go more smoothly. Please call Margaret at 651-490-2206 to arrange a time. Thank you, Nary. Sincerely, Deal J. Beets City Manager Enc. cc: Rat ik Roszak & Maloney, P.A., Roseville City Attorneys Effective September _, 2003 This Addendum dated as of September , 2003 is made by and between the City of Roseville, a municipal corporation, ("City") and Waste Management of Minnesota, ("'Contractor"). WHEREAS, the parties entered into that certain Agreement for recycling Collection dated January 1, 2003, which expires, December 31, 2005; and WHEREAS, the parties now wish to extend the term of the Contract pursuant to the terms and conditions specified herein, IOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree that effective as of September , 2003, the term of the Recycling Agreement shall be extended through December 31, 2008, subject to the following terns and conditions: A i ® Definitions: Ike ects: Means non - recyclable items that are not acceptable or contaminated to the point of being unsuitable for recycling, that are placed in recycling containers by residents and delivered to the processing facility. Process Residuals: Deans non-recyclable materials remaining after processing that do not meet end market specifications for quality. 'May include residual grit, fines, film plastic and contaminated paper items that remain as "tailings" off the end of the sorting conveyors. process residuals do not include clean, separated products that are normally processed and prepared for shipment to markets as commodities but are of relatively lour -value because of depressed market demand conditions. 2. Transition Effective upon delivery of the recycling caTts the recycling service shall be switched from the current two (2) sort system to "single a sort" (commingled in a ,. single recycling cart). 3. rec clip Carts Each Residential Dwelling Unit CRDU") will be required to receive a 64 gallon cart. After ninety (90) days use, this cart may be upgraded to a 96 gallon or down graded to 32 gallon cart at the resident's request. The City shall retain ownership of all carts in use at the termination of the Recycling Agreement. Initial delivery of 64 gallon carts to all RDUs shall be made within ninety (90) days of the date of the agreement. The entire costs of the cart, cart delivery, cart repair and cart replacement skull be the responsibility of the Contractord 4. Purchase of 18-Gallon Bins The Contractor agrees to purchase the remainder of the City's 18-gallon blue recycling bins and lids. The Contractor will coordinate the pick up of the bins with the delivery of the new carts. The Contractor will reimburse the City at a rate of $5.50 for each bin and $3.25 for each lid. 5. Promotion and Public Education The Contractor and the City shall work together ' in the preparation and distribution of educational materials to insure accurate information and program. directions. The Contractor shall submit a draft of any public education literature for approval by the City, at least one (1) month prior to printing and release of any such literature. The Contractor shall mail to each RDU a letter alerting residents to the change in service and to the program for pick -up of the recycling bins. That mailing will include a direct phone number that will be answered by a live Person(s) who will be responsible for answering questions about the change in service. The Contractor shall provide a twelve-month calendar With the weep of recycling collection highlighted to be included in the informational packet that will be delivered with the recycling carts; and provide a calendar to each RDU for each contract year thereafter. The Contractor shall famish to the City's cable channel an educational video on (.9single sort" recycling for airing during the startup period. 6. Disyosa1 oft ecyclables and Process residuals Contractor shall use its best efforts to assure that all recyclable materials received Y for processing are not placed in landfills or incinerated and are distributed to thy¢ appropriate markets for reuse. The Contractor shall dispose of no more than % of material (by weight) as process residuals or as waste residuals as part of 0) recyclable materials processing operations. The Contractor shall report actual percent process residuals disposed, and the disposal facility or facilities utilized for disposal, with each monthly billing statement. If the process residuals ma irnurn is exceeded for any month, the report shall include the types and amounts of materials landfilled or incinerated, the reason for the landfilling or incineration, and the steps being taken by Contractor to avoid landfill or incineration. 7. process Residuals Characterization The Contractor shall provide at least quarterly reports to the City that characterizes the composition of process residuals from the contractor's processing facility or facilities. The Contractor shall provide such individual quarterly reports for all facilities that process City rec ycl ables . At a minimum, these process residuals composition reports shall include: name and location of facility; qualitative description of all sources of residuals from the facility; date of samples; number of samples; total weight of each sample; method of selection; percent residuals (by weight) of total material processed, percent by weight of the following commodities: paper by sub -type, glass by sub -type, metal by sub -type, plastic by sub -type, and other miscellaneous. Attachment A contains the detailed process residuals sampling, sorting, weighing and analysts protocol and is incorporated by reference into this contract amendment. [Protocol details to be negotiated with Waste Management to determine the most feasible approach for process residuals.] 8. Estimating Materials Composition as Collected The Contractor shall provide at least quarterly reports to the City that characterize the composition of rejects collected from City residents. This composition shall be based on a percentage by weight dei'ved from sorts and weights of actual material as collected from the City. At a minimum, this rejects composition report shall include: location of sampling/sorting; date of samples; number of samples; total weight of each sample; truck route sampled; method of selection; percent rejects (by weight) of total load; and, percent by wei ht . of the following owin g g commodities: paper by sub -type, glass by sub - -type, metal by sub -type, plastic by sub -type, and other miscellaneous. Attachment B contains the detailed rejects sampling, sorting, weighing and analysis protocol and is incorporated by reference into this contract amendment. [Protocol details to be negotiated with Waste Management to determine the most feasible approach for rejects.] 9. End Market ertif xcation The Contractor shall provide at least quarterly written certification to the City that all recyclable commodities identified are indeed recycled and not disposed. Such written certification shall identify all end markets used for each of the recyclable 3 commodities. The Contractor shall attach written certification from each end market. 10. Contract Term and Fate PayMent The term of this contract agreement is for five -gears from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 008'. The Contract rate of $2.36 per month per household is fixed for gears, 2004 and 2005, with an option on either parties' part to open the contract in the third, fourth and fifth years to review contract costs lased on the Consumer Price Index "CH". Cost increases would be capped at a maximum of 3% per year and agreed to by both parties. The rate includes all collection costs, carts, materials processing and marketing expenses. 1 l . Penalties The Contractor agrees the City may withhold payment from the Contractor in the amounts specified below as a penalty for failure of the Contractor to fulfill its obligations; A. Failure to report changes in location of rec yc l abl es processing operations - $5o per incident. B. Exceeding the maximum process residuals rate 4 $ 1,000 per incident (defined as a monthly total by weight over the specified maximum rate). C. Failure to conduct composition analysis - $504 per incident. D. Failure to provide wTitten description of the means to estimate relative amount of process residuals derived from the City's re c cl ables - $500. 12. Profit Sharing Contractor and City shall divide all proceeds from sale of recyclable materials at a rate of fifty (50) percent for each party. Contractor shall on a monthly basis 'F itemize the amount of revenue received from the sale of processed recyclable material. Contractor shall submit, with the itemization, and on a monthly basis, actual market sales receipts. Contractor shall endeavor to sell recyclable materials at the prevailing market price. The City's share of revenues shall show as a credit on the monthly statement submitted by Contractor. 13. Terms and Conditions FA ., Terms and Conditions shall continue as set forth in the original Recycling Agreement that apply for single sort with the exception of the Single Stream Pilot Program which is hereby moot. To the extent that the provisions of this Agreement are in conflict with the requirements of the October 1, 2002 RFP, the RFP shall prevail. The Contractor agrees that, if during the term of this five -year recycling contract, any other contractor implements a single -sort cart system service at a lower contract rate that meets all of the specifications included in this contract, to any metropolitan area municipal agency that contracts for recycling collection service ONLY, the Contractor agrees to match that rate. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement on the dates set forth below. City of Roseville, Minnesota Waste Management of Minnesota Mayor City Administrator Dated: IN u*W-3. QUM51 �1 Division Manager Mr. Meal Beets City Manager City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville,, MN 55113 Re.- Fetter of August 22, 2003 Lear Mr. Beets, This letter is in response to your letter dated August 227 2003. AttlLchment #2 IN50 Naples St. NE Bkalne, MN 55-449 05 2) 890-11 ea (763) 783 -5477 Fax 1) As per Council member ough's proposal for a 3 year fixed rate contract witho 3 year extension the rate would have to be greater then the HRG rate for 2006 as specified in their favored nation clause. (2003 rate of $2.25 x PI -U for 2004 x PI -U for 2005 x PI -U for 2006 crate) It therefore is impossible to compute. 2} The Mayor's question on ownership of the carts (like the l abhinsdale agreement). Their contract is over $ l million annually and with extension is a 10 year agreement. If the City of Roseville lle wants to eater into a 1 million contract for years I am sure we could work out the cart ownership issue. It was my understanding after the meeting that the contract would reflect the satire language as HRG matching their rate for 5 years. The rate would he upon deliverer of carts this fall $2.25 with a PI -U increase January 1,2004. This rate would be adjusted annually on this date by P I -U. The existing agreement contained "single sort" collection as an option. It is our recommendation we exercise this option rather then rewrite the entire contract! Profit sharing wasn't included in your l F P specifications and is a hereby moot. I have included the addendum to the contract that works for Waste Management. ;Since y, ary ovum Municipal rketing ager N City of Roseville, Nflnnesota Addendum to Agreement For Recycling Collection Effective September _, 2003 This Addendum dated as of September _, 2003 is made by and between the City of Roseville, a municipal corporation, ('16 City") and Waste Management of i Minnesota, ( "Contractor "). WHEREAS, the parties entered into that certain Agreement for Recycling Collection dated January 1, 2003, expires, December 31, 2005; and WHEREAS, the parties now wish to extend the term of the Contract pursuant to the terms and conditions specified herein. Now, THEREFORE, the parties agree that effective as of September , 2003, the term of the Recycling ling Agreement shall be extended for five gears through December 311 2008, subject to the following terms and conditions: Agreement f. Transition: Effective upon delivery of the recycling carts the recycling service shall be switched from the current two (2) sort system to "single sort }' (commingled in a single 32, 64, of 96 gallon cart). 2+ Recycling Cam: Each Residential Dwelling Unit ("RDU") will be required to receive a 64- gallon cart. After (90) days use, this cart may be upgraded to a 96 gallon or down graded to 32-gallon cart at the residents request. 3, Deliverer: Initial cart delivery of 64- gallon carts to all RDU's shall be made within ninety (90) days of the date of ` the agreement_ The entire cost of the cart7 cart delivery, cart repair and replacement shall be the responsibility of the Contractor. 4. Promotion and Public Education: The Contractor and the City shall work together in the preparation and distribution of educational materials to insure accurate information and grogram directions. The Contractor shall submit a draft of any public education literature for approval by the City. 5. alendar: The Contractor shall provide a twelve -month calendar with the weeks of recycling collection highlighted to he included in the informational packet that will he delivered with the recycling carts; and provide a calendar to each RDU for each contract year thereafter. The Contractor shall furnish an educational video on "'single sort}} recycling for airing during the startup peno . 6. Contract Term and Rate: The terra of this contract is for five years from .January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2008. The Contract rate of $2.25 per month beginning the first full month after deliverer of the carts and an annual adjustment by CPI ^U on January 1, 2004* This ICI- -U adjustment shall he made on 111 /04,1 / 1 /051,11 l /o 6, 1 / 1107 and I / l lob. 7. Terms and Conditions: Shall continue as set forth in the original agreement that apply for single sort with the exception of the pilot program which is hereby moot. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,, the parties have executed this agreement on the dates set forth below. City of Rosevillea Minnesota Waste Management of Minnesota Mayor City Administrator Dated: Division manager Attachment "'All Rates for "Single Sort" Services for 2003 v taxes apply) 9303 single family units Curbside Service every other week 64gallon cart $2.25/ U month 6756 multifamily units 96- gallon carts weekly service $1.06/ DU This rate shall be adjusted on January 1, 2004 by the CPI -U and January I of 2005, 200692007, and 200$6 Message Page I of I AftwkMwt #3 1 IM0,01 - - - — -- --- ------------ - - - -- Original Merge---- - From: GLENN POSER [rnailto,-.4111INIMENINNIM] Sent: Wednesday, September 03 2003 8:55 PM To: dtY.council@ci.roseviIle.rnn.us Subject: RE:Recycling I do not want to change our recycling program. The idea of single sort does not make economical sense or environmental sense. I am a Roseville resident and do not want this to pass. Glenn Poser 3006 No Asbury St Roseville, MN 55113 9/10/2003 Message ----- Original Message----- From: lj56 [mailto Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 6:36 ■ To: council@d.rosevillenn.us Subject: recycling Page I of I 1 am a 27 year resident of Roseville and I just want to say that we should keep our present recycling system. I think it would be a shame to change something that works and really takes no effort on our part to separate the items. 9/10/2003 Message - - - ;- Original Message---- - From: Diana Lieffri ng [mailtojlollolllMMIMMM] Sent; Thursday, September To: RoseviileCityCouncil Subject: Single fort Dear council Members, Page 1 of I Please do not force us to go to a single sort trash /recycling system with Waste Management (or anyone). I have a vary good relationship with my current garbage hauler, Walters. They respond to any needs and questions I have quickly and satisfactorily. The owner has even returned our inquiries over the years, 3 times now. Their service is excellent for trash and branch pick up. I do net want to lose them. I cannot believe at this time of expanding population and growth that anyone would even consider the option of single sort, which is known to add more to trash and less to reuse. No one wants a landfill in their back yard. Hoer can you guarantee that decomposition will keep up without starting more landfills, when we start adding extra trash? our energy - producing trash - burning plant is running at its capacity now, and is not keeping up with the trash sent there today (these are words directly from my garbage hauler)l Separating my recyclables allows me to contribute to the preservation of my environment.,,free of charge. I want to do it. It is one way I can give back to the earth for sustaining me and letting me enjoy its beauty. It gives me satisfaction. Separating my recyclables shows me what types of things can be reused. This directly impacts my buying and consumption practices (l check the bottoms of plastic bottles, I use paper bags, I give clothing and household items to charities... ). Separating my recyclables, and composting, lets us get by with one of the small trash cans per week. I feel good about that. I've lived here since 1 977 and have yet to replace my bin. The cost of bins cannot be a factor when it is spread over 26 years. i have called waste Management twice about their trucks throwing garbage all over the road (each truck has a truck number). It flies out of the top of their trucks. They don't portray a very environmentally conscientious establishment. I intend not to use waste Management haulers, and I plan to sort my recyclables and take them to a center myself if this comes to pass. I then believe I have the right not to be charged for the single sort service if it goes into effect. Regards, Diana Lieffring 9/10/2003 Joel Murray, 651 Go Rd 132,411111111111111111111111111 Mr. Murray called to say that he supports keeping the recycling sort as is. He noted that there are five voters ® in his household that all feel the same way. Message - - - -- original Message-- R BRUCE NELSON [ Sent: Thursday, September 8:0 To: city. coundl ci. rosevi l Subject: Recycling Page 1 of I I don't have to watch video of the city council Fleeting to know that something is not right. I was at the meeting and since when does a company that does business in the city, tell the city what it is going to do? Oh boy - - -a new recycling bin for a higher monthly charge - - -my old ones are in great shape. And ghat about competion? I wrote to you all a couple of weeps ago with the following paragraph. And after the meeting, it still holds logic. "And on the subject of curbside recycling----next time the council has the opportunity to re- negotiate the contract -- -lets change it so that we (Roseville) get something back. The companies are making a tidy profit and Roseville and its residents are getting nothing. I recycle my aluminum cans, and when I get 3 very large garbage cans full, I tale them in. Seldom, have I ever received less that $30 dollars for those. Multiply that by the volume that the recycle company turns in, and you can see we are missing out on ,money that should be either returned to those that recycle or to the city itself." Bruce N. Nelson 2887 W. Owassso blvd. since 1979 9/10/2003 Message -----Original Message - -ff- From: Mayor John i ysylyczyn [mailtoejohnk@us�rnily, net] Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 3:01 PM To: 'Jeanne Branby`; city.council@ci.roseville.mn.us Subject: RE: Single sort recycling Page I of Jeanne, The council has studied recycling issues in great detail for many years. We have signed long contracts in the past and nobody has said anything about it. Single sort does not cause a problem for paper. I have toured the plant. If you have an interest, a tour of their sorting plant is being conducted next Saturday. I was told that there was going to be some type of advertisement in the Review this week. You ask why they can't offer double sort so we can compare apples to apples? Maybe you are not aware, but we already have double sort, and it is from baste Management! Cost is only an issue if you have a problem paying less than a dollar a year for using a cart that costs five times more than the current bias the city provides. As I have figured it out, I would probably have to use the cart for about 50 years to break even versus buying it myself. I don't plan on living that long. The garage issue is interesting, since no one has ever raised it. Also, there is no law that states that you have to put it in the garage. You can put it behind the garage, in the shed, behind your home, or behind a fence. Who told you that it had to be in the garage? While you may prefer stacking crates, the crates we provide are not stackab l e, and we only give you one. How did you get more than one, and how are you stacking them? Are you implying that we have residents buy thousands of their awn bins? You did miss one of the biggest issues which is workman IS comp. I think that all of your concerns have already been addressed Thanks, Mayor John I ysylyczyn 3033 victoria Street Roseville, IVIN 55113 johnk@usfamily.net Home Office: 651 - 434 -1384 Cell: 651 -308 -5337 - - - -- original Message----- Flora: Jeanne Bra Sett: Sunday, Sep To: city.councI1@c1.rosev11le.-mn.us Subject: Single sort recycling Council members, I am opposed to single sort recycling. Roseville needs to take a closer look at such a service, especially because of the long contract. Public feedback is also important. We have always recyled and do not mind sorting. It would be easier to just sort containers from 9/10/2003 Message Page 2 of 2 newspapers than our current system for many people. However if single sort creates a problem for paper recycling, it is not good enough. Why can't the company offer double sort if that is a problem? Perhaps we can compare apples to apples then. Then the issue would only be cost. Of course the container size can also he a problem for many residents with small garages. I really prefer my stacking crates for container recycling, they fit in a comer and take up very little roam. Jeanne Granby 9/10/2003 --- Otiginal Mewage ---- lFrom: Drill, Margaret Sent-. Morday, September 08, 2DO3 1:44 PM Tea Beets., Neal SubjecLm Resident Phone Call re: Recycling Contract Ruth Hovey, ea � N it Ms. Hovey called to say that she would prefer the City not make any charges to the recycling program. . I -----original Message_ From: Charlene Ethen [ Sent: Tuesday, September 11:02 AM To: oity.counei1 @ci.ro subject: recycling & compost please leave recycling system as it is. it is such a good feeling knowing we are reducing some of the hugs amount of waste we all generate. please do not do away with the compost site. this is gold for our gardens ! Thank you, Char Fthen --Original Message-- --- From; Drill, Margaret Sent: Tuesday, SepbLlcnber 09, 2003 2:06 PM To: B ks� Neal Subject: Recydyng James Bangle, 2103 Avon St NAINOM Mr. Bangle called to ask: Why are they trying to fix something that isn't broken? The only thing that will change is the price going up. We seniors don't need the price increase. - - -- Original Message - - - -- Arm: Drill, Margaret Semi Tuesday, September D9., 2G03 2:10 PM To: Beets, Neal 5ubjet: Recyding Vivian Rarnal ingarn, 2182 Acorn Rd,4111M Ms. Ramalingam called to say that to change would be an ill - advised plan. When recycling began residents were told that if they sorted their items the cost would be lower. Now, if they don't sort, not all that residents put out for recycling will he actually be recycled. This is wasteful and yet the rate will go up. -----original Message-- From: Now To: neal.beetsfti.roseville.mn.us Sent: 9/9/03 6:05 PM Subject: recycling please add our voices to those who do not want to twitch to single sort recycling. Jim and ann kelly 1695 w cty rd c2 I --Original Message-_- erom: j alms ona [ma ilto:000MMOMMMEMMI Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 7:39 PM TO: city .council@ci.rosev'llle.mn-us Subject: Recycling Do not touch our recycling options. Please leave alone. 1 ----- Originat Message -- - -- From: Driscc011., Margaret Sent: Wedresday,, Stemma 10, 2003 10:13 AM To: Beetsr Neal SLlbjea: Recycling Sharon Bowen, 2021 Autumn StANINOW Pals Bowen called to say that she has been recycling since 1 976 and that it would be a sad day if the City went to single sort, . .................... i i .- Original Muggy -- .°'f+ = Cu r , Carolyn Seat: Wednesdayr September 10, 2GO3 12:21 PM To: Driscollr Margaret bjech Re ding citizen called to say that she wants the City's recycling to continue in the current manner two sort. She thinks the other way would actually reduce the amount that is recycled. Carolyn Curti Communications Specialist City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, IVIN 55113 651/490 =2209 r w r 0000mm�mmnmmnmmnmmnmmurorrrrmi. �. n�marrv,' d' lu' vrlim�iiiiiiiiiiirrmr .;...JvlrvYy�y�y�y�y »,, �r�oi�i�rriioum ,»,�;mv,rn,u�n »,u ,' r�»rrta�nraR, rr�»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»» �, rv��mm�wumuauwuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu m� xrr«««««<. nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnni�uu „lr .N Umu' m�Urw, xmrnmm�wmumrmnm�mumimtt ,�yiyry»y�y��mim�u w. um�mw�wimimmmm�mmou,ri�mrm, »» � rrr nnlm - - - -- original Mime-__- - From: Dfiscolli Margaret Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 124444 PM To: its, Neal Subject: Rodent one Call - Recyding Dorothy Manke: 3032 Simpson St, Ms. Manke called to say that she grants the recycling to continue as it is. She mentioned that she has Waste Management for trash hauling and that they are the most expensive hauler. - - - -- original Message ---_ From: Mayor John Kysylyc zyn [ma i 1 to : i ohnkQu s f ami ly . rye t 1 Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 12:27 PM To: 'colleen Sheffler'{ city.councileci.roseville.mn.us Subject; RE.- Recycling Colleen, Do you know why we are even looking at instituting single sort? What proof do you have that it is less effective? Mager John Kysylyczyn 3053 Victoria Street Roseville, MN 55113 johnk@usfamily.net Home office: 651-484-1384 Cell: 651 - 398 -533' - - - -- original Message- From: Colleen Shef f ler [mailto -111NOMMENNENNOW Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 12:04 PM To: rcity.councileci. ' Subject: Recycling Please do not vote to swatch our successful and effective recycling program to Taste Management's pet project - single sort. Listen to your constituents: Roseville residents sort. We're happy to do so. Leave it he. Allow further study if necessary (or listen to the advisory groups who've already studied the single -sort system) , but don I t impose this less - effective method of recycling on responsible Roseville residents. Colleen Shef f ler Message Page I of Pratt, Tim - - - -- Original Message -, -_- From: Schroeder [mailto:gregoryschroeder@comcast.net] Sera: Wednesday, September to, 2003 10:52 PM To: Tammy Punt; • city.council@ci.roseville.rnn.us Subject: Ike: Recycling William - I am sorry to.hor someone is giving you WRONG information, as I roust assume since you stated no reason why you are against single sort! with a single sort it will be easier to recycle and more people will participate in recycling, thus less garbage going into the dumps. You will still have to look at what you recycle as you do now, and it sounds like you are very good at it. we are trying to encourage more people to recycle as you do, and the easiest way to do this is to make it easier for everyone to recycle, i.e. one sort (or all recyclable are put in one container). I myself was concerned about how much could be recycled if we went with the single sort system, so I toured the recycle plant and saw first hand that very little is actually sent to the garbage dump. The item that were being sent to the garbage dump were actually garbage and should NOT have been placed in the recycle bin in the first place. I was also amazed at the high quality of recycle material that was leaving the plant and going to places that use recycled material. I hope this helps clear up the confusion brought abort by a flyer floating around that is giving residents WRONG information. If you have further questions} please let nee know and I will answer them to the best of my ability. r want residents to know the CORRECT facts about one sort recycling, before they go making any decisions on the issue. Flcase attend the tour and see for yourself: ff 'nil c in 1,-.7ve%..,y I -�-g C1, ter Opcn 110 Notice is hereby given that waste Management, Incorporated w i11 host an Open House at their Recycling Center, 1 800 Broadway Street NE, Minneapolis,- Minnesota on Saturday, September 13, 2003 beginning at 9:30 a.m. Members of the City Council may be ` in attendance. Council Member Greg Schroeder From: „ip` /I'', ' "roll!! nil! a! Ilrli! lilr1! 'rlrrrl�r;;drrr;,, „;,,��m11�M, rr �� ■ September 101 2003 12 :55 PM Subject: Recycling Roseville City Council Members: 9/11/2003 Message Just to inform you that we do not want to be forced to switch to single sort from our present recycling system in Roseville. William and Barbara Simon 1709 Millwood Ave. Roseville, MN 9/11/2003 Page 2 of 2 ., 1ltlY0Yl ! . WWIYYlY77YlYlJJJJYliJJJJJJJJ , I � lllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll ! �' r�rr� Subject: FW: Single Sort recycling Mattsell - Why are you against single sort ??? without a reason(s) I have nothing to base your opinion on!! With a single sort it will be easier to recycle and more people will participate in recycling, thus less garbage going into the dumps. You will still have to look at what you recycle as you do now, and it sounds like you are very good at it. We are trying to encourage more people to recycle as you dot and the easiest gray to do this is to make it easier for everyone to recycle, i.e. one sort (or all recyclable are put in one container). I myself was concerned about how much could be recycled if we went with the single sort system, so I toured the recycle plant and saw first viand that very little is actually sent to the garbage dump. The items that were being sent to the garbage dump were actually garbage and should NOT have been placed in the recycle bin in the first place. I was also amazed at the high quality of recycle material that was leaving the plant and going to places that use recycled material. I nape this helps clear up the confusion brought about by a flyer floating around that is giving residents WRONG information. If you have further questions, please let me know and I wi11 answer them to the best of my ability. I want residents to know the CORRECT facts about one sort recycling, before they go making any decisions on the issue* My I suggest you attend the tour and see for yourself Recycling Center open House Notice is hereby given that Taste Management, Incorporated will host, an open mouse at their Recycling Center, 1800 Broadway Street ME, Minneapolis, Minnesota on Saturday, September 13, 2003 beginning at 9:30 a.m. Members of the City Council may be in attendance. Council Member Greg Schroeder • This i s to let you know that our household DOES NOT SUPPORT Single • sort recycling. We have enough issues with the City of Roseville as it > is. Please be aware this issue is one of the most important issues to us and we > will Be watching what you decide to do very closely. We would like to } see Roseville be a better place to live politically, but I've not seen any evidence • of it since we moved here two gears ago. please try and get this one • right. I Thanks Your Matthew Q Sell 3052 Avon St N. . Roseville, 1N 55113 EM Message -----Original Message---- - From: doris fisher [mailto-AMNINNEWMI Seat; Tuesday, September 09, 2003 7:55 PM To: city.courtcil@cl.roseville.mn.us Subject: Fir+ Don't Trash our Recyling ----Original Message From: Boris fisher To: `ems fart Y_.net Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 7:35 PM Subject: Don't Trash our Recyl ring Page I of 1 Please de not go to single-sort recyl i rig . This is not a geed idea. Mp I s and St Paul have also rejected this system. Why should we have this ? ?? D Fisher F Leuyer Sr 9/11/2003 llllllllllllllllll111111111111111m ' OF O - --- -- Original message--- From: Dressellr Barbara K Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 B:19 To: city. council @c i . rosevi subject: Rosevi lle' s Recycling I absolutely do not want waste Management to force us to switch to single sort recycling. It's working just fine the war it is and we don't need to be paying 15% to 30% more on our monthly bills. Please don't let Waste Mangement talk us into signing a long-term contract so they can jack up our recycling charge. Thank you for your consideration. Barbara K. Dressell 1108 lose Place Roseville, MN. 55113 1 --original - - original, Message- - -- - - )rom : Mayor John Kysy l yc zyn [ma i l to : j ohnk @us f ami l y .net ] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 1: 2 7 PM To: 'Gretchen Asmtis s en ' Cc: craig0456 @attbi_corn; tom.trough @ci.roseville.mn.us+ dmaschka @gwest.net; gregoryschroeder @comcast.neti city.council @ci.roseville.mn.us Subject: RE: dissapprove single sort Gretchen, I sat through a dozen meetings on this issue over the past 2 years + have probably spent 25 hours on this. I have heard the presentation at least 6 times, and could probably repeat it from memory. I even toured the facility, spent 3 hour in Brookl Park, talking to city employees, driving around the city following the recycling truck, and talking to Brooklyn Park residents. It appears that all you have for information is an unsigned flyer, I will not waste my time debating some unsigned neighborhood flyer. On the bid issue, it is riot hyperbole, it is fact . The water contract is due next January, there is only one source for water. I guess that means that we will have to issue $100 million in bonds to develop a second water source, so we can have two to pick from. In the mean timer I guess we will have to settle for bottled water as we wait a least a year for the second source to be built. Today I will call up council. member Pat. Farris in Saint Paul, who sits on the water board, and tell him to turn off the water in January. Mayor John Kysylyczyn 3083 Victoria Street Roseville, MN 55113 ;.,ohnk@usfamily.net .bme Office: Cell: 651 - 484 -1384 651 - 398 -533' - - - -- original Message- From; Gretchen Asmussen Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 12:53 PM To: Mayor John Kysylyczyn Cc: craig0456 @attbi.com; tom.kough @ci.roseville.mn.us+ dmaschka @gwest.net; greporyschroader @comcast, net+ city,council @ci.roseville.mn.us Subject: RE: dissapprove single sort Dear Mayor Kysylyczyn: I really just wanted to mare my opinion known to you. But you invite me into an exchange with you. With all due respect: You're *my* mayor, you tell me the source of your information for your statement: >Al so "I have been informed" that the majority of the > waste consists of items that should have never been placed in the >recycle bin in the first place. claims that 30% is thrown out with > single sort is hogwash. I'll not be intimidated by your hyperbole about competing bids. The point is: it's a bad practice not to have competing bids. gincerly, Gretchen Asmussen 1798 Lydia Avenue West 1 Roseville >Gretchen, >My information states that there is absolutely no difference in waste >between the two systems. Also I have been informed that the majority >of the waste consists of items that should have never been placed in the >recycle bl.n in the first place. Claims that 30% is thrown out with > single sort is hogwash. Interestingly enough, flyers making these >claims have been unsigned and do not have a phone number or address. >Any recycling vender is an exclusive vendor in that we sign a contract >with one company, and they carry out the service for the contracted >time. At the end of the contract, we either retain them or get someone else., >The reason we have them buy the carts p rsua us buying them is so we can easil y switch providers. >The claim that you need two competing bids in order to purchase > sompthing works fine provided that the service is offered by multiple >companies, or that the service or item is not copyrighted or patented. >This is not always >the case. There is absolutely no problem with signing a contract for a > service that does not have a direct competitor at the moment. We >simply base the value of the service off of similar options and make a >j udgment call. If we tabled every bid for a service that did not have >a competitor, then you would have no water, sewer, or about a dozen or >more items that you probably would not want to do without. >I don't know where you have received your information, but I would Challenge the source and demand proof to back up their claims. >Thanks, >Mayo r John Ky syl yc zyn >3883 Victoria Street >Roseville, MN 55113 >johnk@usfamily.net >Home office: 651- 484 -1384 >Cell: 651- 398 -533' w >----- Original Message---- - > From ; Gretchen Asmus se >Sent : Wednesday, September r 2003 12-ROB PM >To: Mayor John Kysylyczyn >Cc: craig0456 @attbi.com; tom.kough @ci.roseville.mn.usr >dmaschka @gwest.net; gregoryschroeder @comcast.net{ > city.council @ci.roseville.mn.us >Subj ect : RE: dissapprove single sort. >Dear Mayor: >In keeping with your request for the basis of my opinion, allow me to >be more specific about why I am opposed to changing the current >Rosevi lle recycling grogram to a single sort system: >As I understand it in the single stream recycling program more of the >waste is excluded from recycling whereas in the current arrangement of >two sort system only about 5% is last_ So, effeciency of recyclying is >one element that ought to be considered. If the single sort program >cannot best the current program them it should be rejected. >As I understand it, only one company, Waste Management, is offering to >become an exclusive vendor of single sort recycling to the City of >Roseville. Good business would suggest that a competing vendor be >found. Standard business bidding practices require at least two > competing bids. Without competing bids the City Council should table >the matter, PA >Thank you for asking me to explain myself >Gretehen Asmussen >1798 Lydia Avenue West Roseville, MN 55113 > >1 am against changing the Roseville recycling program to single sort > sirs t em . > >Gretehen Asmussen 3 >1798 Lydia Avenue West >Roseville, MN 55113 C Message - - - -- Original Merge ---- - From: Schroeder [mailto:gregoryschroeder@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 10:47 PM To: Tammy lust; city. cound1@ci.rosev1lle.mn. us; Subject*. Re: No to single sort recycling! teve- Page 1 of 1 Why are you apposed to single sort?? Sounds like you are getting some really bad info. With a single sort it will he easier to recycle and more people will participate in recycling, thus less garbage going into the dumps. We are taring to encourage more people to recycle, and the easiest way to do this is to make it easier for everyone to recycle, i.e. one sort (or all recyclable are put In one container). I myself was concerted about how much could be recycled if we gent with the single sort system, so toured the recycle plant and saw first band that very tittle is actually sent to the garbage dump. The items that were being sent to the garbage dump were actually garbage and should NOT have been placed in the recycle bin in the first place. I was also amazed at the high quality of recycle material that was leaving the plant and going to places that use recycled material. I hope this helps clear up the confusion brought about by a flyer floating around that is giving residents WRONG information. If you have further questions, please let me know and I will answer them to the best of nay ability. I want residents to know the CORRECT facts about one sort recycling, before they go making any decisions on the issue. Please attend the tour and see for yourself: PUBLIC NOTICE Recycling Center Open House Notice is hereby given that Waste Management, Incorporated will Most an Open House at their Recycling Center, 1800 Broadway Street NE, Minneapolis, Minnesota 9n Saturday, September 13, 2003 beginning at 9:30 a.m. Members of the City Council may be in attendanbe. Council Member Greg Schroeder --- Original Message -- From: Steve To: ci .council ci.roseville.mn.us Seat: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 1:37 PM Subject: No to single sort recycling! I am a Roseville Citizen and I am opposed to the single sort recycling proposition'. 9111/2003 - - --- original Message- - f: Dismilf Margaret nt-. Thursday, September 11, 2003 8:45 AM To: Beets, Neal 5ubje : RecVding Stave Murray, 1433 Iry Rosalav , 41100M ® Murray called to say that he is opposed to single sort recycling. -- -- Original Message ----- Curd, Carolyn Sent: Thursday,, September 11} 2003 2:02 PM To: Beets, Neat Subject: Recydlng Ruth Kunzie., resident since 1952. Prefers that the recycling stay the moray it currently works. As a City we must properly dispose of recycling. Need to think of future generations, not just ours. Carolyn Curti Communications Specialist City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, VIN 55113 651/490-2209 From: Pratt, Tim Sent: Thursday, September 111 2003 3,47 PM ro: Beets, Neal Subject: Recycling call Connie B riol called. She wants to beep the present system of recycling. She views switching to single stream as a step backward. Tire Pratt Communications Specialist City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113 (Phone) 651 -490-2299 (Fax) 651- 490 +2276 tI m . pratt @cI.roseville. m n. us Visit our website http-://www.cityofroseville.com Message -----original Message ----- From: Mayor John Kysylyczyn [rna11to-.johnk@usfamily-net] Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 2:00 ■ TO: M1111��Illlllll ; c1ty.cauncil@ci.roseville.mn.us Subject: RE: Recycling program Shelley, that are you talking about? Page I of I The city wants to increase recycling by 25% like has been done in other cities. Are you against increasing the amount of material that is recycled? Did you get one of those mystery unsigned blue flyers? Are you giving credibility to something that is unsigned? Mayor John Kysylyczyn 3083 Victoria Street Roseville, MN 55113 qt jphnkausfarnily.q ._ .. Home Office: 651-484-1384 Cell: 651-398-5337 02=0 From: h 0000[mailto Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 130 PM To: city. council @cl. roseville. rn n. us Subject: Recycling program LEAVE THE RECYCLING ALONE PLEASE. I LIKE THE PROGRAM WE HAVE NOW. I FEEL THAT IF I DO MY PART, THE CITY SHOULD DO THEIR PART TO KEEP OUR CITY AS CLEAN AS POSSIBLE, AND NOT POLLUTE OTHER AREA'S OF OUR BEAUTIFUL STATE. THANK YOU, SHELLEY CRISTELLO 9/12/2003 jr ii / /Jy - - - -- Original Message---- from: Curti, Carolyn Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 10:32 AM To: fits,, Neal Subject: Recyding James Burket 965 West Counter Road C2 Wants to keep the two sort recycling. Carolyn Curti Communications Specialist City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, IVIN 55113 651/490 -2209 -----original Message -- _ � _ , From : Schroeder [mai lto : gregoryschroeder @comcas t . net] Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 6:38 PM To: Amy Ihlan; Tammy Pust; city. council@ci.roseville . m.n.us; Subject: Re: Recycling Poly- Why do you not support single sort??? With out a reason I have no justification for your opinion. All I can Conclude is that someone is giving you WRONG information or just told you to reply and say no. With a single sort it will be easier to recycle and more people will participate in recycling, thus less garbage going into the dumps. You will still have to look at what you recycle as you do now, and it sounds like you are very good at it. We are trying to encourage more people to recycle as you do, and the easiest way to do this is to mare it easier for everyone to recycle, i.e. one sort (or all recyclable are put in one container). I myself was concerned about how much could be recycled if we went with the single sort system, so I toured the recycle plant and saw first hand that very little is actually sent to the garbage dump. The items that were being sent to the garbage dump were actually garbage and should NOT have been placed in the recycle biro in the first place. I was also amazed at the high quality of recycle material that was leaving the plant and going to places that use recycled material. I hope this helps clear up the confusion brought about by a flyer floating around that is giving residents WRONG information. If you have further questions, please let rye know and I will answer them to the best of cry ability. I want residents to know the CORRECT facts about one sort recycling, before they go making any decisions on the issue. Please attend the tour and see for yourself: Recycling Center Open House Notice is hereby given that waste Management, Incorporated will host an Open House at their Recycling Center, 1800 Broadway Street NE, Minneapolis, Minnesota on Saturday, September 13, 2003 beginning at 9:30 a.m- Members of the City Council may be in attendance. Council Member Greg Schroeder Original Message From VENIMMEEMMEMMMINNOW To.- <c'lty.counc3'Ll@ci'.rosevi'lle.mn.us> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 1:45 PM Subject: Recycling > Please note that we do NOT support 'single sort" recycling. > POD, ly & Marc STephany > 3016 Pascal ,St. No. > Roseville, MN 55113 > 651 638 -9264 > Polly Stephany > Sr. Underwriting Analyst > 651 310-2759 (tel) > 651 310 --6137 (fax) 1 Message --Orloginal - (mailto:]'ohnk@usfamily.net] Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2003 9:44 PM TOM ' c1ty.counciI@c1i.rosev1lle.mn.us Page I of 1 Mystery Person, Don't waste yours and our time sending a -mails unless you have the guts to put your name to it. Also, if you actually believe that blue unsigned flyer that you probably got in the mail, I've got some swampland in Florida that I would like to sell you. Let me know, I will give you the deal of the century. Mayor John Iysylyczyn 3083 Victoria Street Roseville, MN 55113 jPhnK uSfarnily rcpt Dome office: 651- 484 -1354 Cell: 551- 398 -5337 .g- ��7 %, /a /aj� � %�� /p /r� MPMMM Thursday, September council To: city. Subject: Recycling To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to weigh in on the side of retaining our recycling program as it is in Roseville. I would like to keep the two sort system and the current competitive pricing structure in order for citizens to get the best value, and to keep as much of our recycling out of landfills. Thank You. 9/12/2003 r / � ,.... , w uu um» iumiouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuwuriwi; wuuwuiwiwiuw, iuuwwwwiwuuuuwuwuuuuwuuwuwuuuwuriuuwiwuuuouuwuw: uuuuwwwwwwwivv, H' H, H' u�uwwulnuuuuuullWlln i7Y�ri »ti'n�IlnnnluuuuVmWRX(l�i uwmui PiKlamm�miMwwwmoinnmmnnlluwuovhliNNYrn 7l/ ��/ h�YNNN�nWh» Wlu»» t1ri 'Wiim»mmwoiYWrWkmWu�o�owma�oi�� gg c ��D , ,r�ro�vrm�dYa�l� / /l /11rrrr��rlr " o�, �, yv„ rr mw�lm��ul�ln�ww�mmo�ml�fw�o��mn��r» I�I�I�I�m��mm��ir�w�w�m��ACUrwlrmrrn », r�n��mDAN ;unNluluINININININIUIUUm »uII ----Original Message - -- Fr : Drill., Margaret Sent: Friday,- September 12� 2003 3:14 PM To: tetsr Neal SFub jech Recyding Darlene Barron, 965 W Co Fed C-2 Ms. Brown called to state that she is not in favor of single ,sort recycling. Message - - - -- Original Message---- - From: The Campbells [mailto-.41MMINIONNIEW] Seat: Friday, September 12, 2003 4-946 PM To: Mayor Roseville Subject: Recycling Pao I of I just returned from a business trip I don't care for the decision making process currently being exhibited by you and the council. I request that you Grote no for the single sort system. Anything done by public officials has to have full disclosure and you have again demonstrated the opposite. Thank God you were defeated. Sam Campbell 9/15/2003 Message Page I of -----Original Message---- - From: Mayor John l ysylyczyn [mailto: johnk usfam ily. net] Sent: Saturda . September 13, 2003 9:15 PM To* city.council cL roseville.mn.us Subject: RE: Recycling Program Ralph and Shirley} Thanks for your opinion. When you can supply Just one piece of verifiable evidence to support your position, I will consider your opinion. Otherwise, I will gate yes for the switch. Please get informed! Don't get baited by some mystery flyer. Roseville residents are much brighter than this. At least i hope. Mayor Jahn Kysylyazyn 3083 Victoria Street Roseville, MIN 55113 Dome Office: 651 - 484 -1384 Cell: 651 - 393 -5337 !, � II !111 „I,1!Ii!, '`'t'`', "iii i f t++ (( I f11,1,1r,, rlr,',1I'r]yy{{i i P{St 'r�rrr li � Y,1 fl IIPY, Y r Y rt,er „r r rt r,, e,Y Yt �� 111111111111.'1. III��I�(I�I �II yIMI,'rl�rl��l�fll. +rlr tofl,I!��I�I ` �!� �II I I I`II� �,I.tf , llt lt�uiuV�lii��llil�ttll��lllr� rir( I�� 1 ��I,ul�Ylrr'i�l��liiil'l lll�lll l��lll�ll�ll � 1 �IIIIIIIIII��V�I,II }I lf(i�ii uo ;Ill iirliiiiil�ililili I II I��I�� ilY'ir�iY��ll�' "f° IiIIIIYIi�l l.��l�,� '� I III iii v i ��,�'�ir of r�i�biliiil �Ill!II I „�ri�r'�'lIIM��M��i�Y Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 71-949 PM roseviille.mn.us . Recycling program Mayor and Council Members, We are satisfied with the current recycling system. We have no problem with placing materials in separate bins. The advantage of a "single sort" system is insignificant for us. We have concerns about contracting with a firm that is the sole provider of the service. e 9/15/2003 Message -----Original M essag a - - - -- Fmm: Mayor John Kysylyczyn [mailto:johnk@usfamily.net] Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 9 :13 pNf To: city.cDunci11@d.roseville.mn.us Subjects. RE: Recycling Page 1 oft L D551139 E think that you hit on the crux of the issue with your first sentence. You should pause and thing about that first sentence a I i#tle longer. Let's think about this brochure for a minute. Flow credible is a flyer that is signed by no one, has no address, and has no way to verify information. What comes to my mind is that only a scam artist would publish something like this. The author is probably one of those people who probably scams senior citizens in to roofing and driveway scams. Why would you give this flyer credibility? Thinly about it, would the State of Minnesota allow someone to claim that they are running a recycling operation where they throw away 30% of the items" Does that sound logical to you? Don't you think that an operation like that would have been sued or put on the front page of the newspaper or TV station investigation report? Do you think that the mystery flyer person was the first to discover th i s? Think about it. Now, let's do some more thinking. Do you really believe that people would jump for joy for a 15% increase in anything? Or is it that maybe that it is not really 15%, or that we are getting something in return that we are not getting now? What do you think is more likely? Don't you think that there is more to it than simply sorting into two piles? Think about it for a minute, If they pick up in two piles, a worker gets out of the truck and picks the stuff by hand and throws It into the biro. If it is picked up in one cart tike your garbage cart, the driver presses a button and the arm on the truck does the work. I presume that you have heard of the word "workman's comp" right? Which method do you think would logically lead to more workmen's comp claims? Couldn't that be a source of savings? In the 20 other suburbs this is used, recycling has gone up. Don't you think that would happen here, or are Roseville people different from everyone else in the Twin Cities" Now here is the biggest question that I have. Why would you write a letter to your elected officials, which by sending it to the city makes it public information, and offer a strong ❑pinion, of� yes or no based upon the information that you have' Do you think that you are making an informed opinion? Mayor John Kysylyczyn 3083 Victoria Street Roseville, MM 55113 johnk, .usfamily.net [dome office: 651-484-1384 Cell: 651-398-5337 Message-- Saturday., September 10 9/15/2003 Message Too. city.counc'll@cl.roseville.mn.us Su bj : Recycling Page 2 oft have received a brochure about the proposed recycling change. I realize that it only presents one side of the issue. My husband and I have tried and tried, but can't think of any reasons why this plan would be better. I strongly favor recycling. 1 bring some items to work that aren't recyclabie at home. I bring items home that aren't recyclable at work. With the current state of the environment, and of the landfills, why would anyone propose, or consider, a plan that causes 0 -30% of the recycled items to be ruined and Put in the trash instead? They must have some persuasive salesman... That is the additional benefit that merits a 15% increase? Combining all the recycling categories would be very slightly more convenient. The current system, only requires two divisions. That is certainly not a burden to anyone. Please do not switch to the single sort recycling plan. Thank you. 9/15/2003 Message - - - -- original Message-__- - From: Mayor John Kysylyczyn [mailtom'ohnk@usfamity.net] Seat: Saturday, September 13, 2003 8:29 AM To: ' ma ry.shields' Cc: city .council ci.rosoviIle.mn.us Subject: FEE: Recycling Page I of 1 Mary, If you believe something that is sent to you in are anonymous brochure, I have some swamp land in Florida that I could sell you for a really good price. What you have is a political attack brochure that appears to have been funded by a business. So far, I estimate that $3000 -$5000 has been spent by these people. It is hardly the sum of money that some sort of neighborhood do- gooder would spend. Nothing in the brochure is true. 100% of it is lies. As far as the friends you discussed this issue with... l have Florida swampland to sell them also. Mayor John Kysylyczyn 3083 Victoria street Roseville, MN 55113 fohnK@.0 #amily_nt Home Office: 651-484-1384 Cell; 651-398-5337 - - - -- Original Message-- From: mary.shields [mallto4ININJUNIJIMINIMM Sera* Saturday, September To: city.counciI@ci.roseviI1e.mn.us Subject: Recycling Dear Council Members, I have been made aware that a different system of recycling is being considere'd for use in Rosevibe called single sort. As I understand it, this new system would cause a much larger portion (30 %) of the materials to be thrown out versus about 5% with the present two sort system. Seems to me that if two advisory groups and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul have rejected it, and other cities who use it need to throw out as much as 20 to 30% of the recycled material, the new system should not be adopted. I have discussed this situation with several friends and neighbors in Roseville who agree, and so I urge you to vote against the single sort system. Yours truly} Mary Shields 9/15/2003 Message Message-- [mailto- Sent: To: craigO456@attib.com; tom.kough@ci.roseville.mmus; johnk@usfamily.net; dmaschka@qwest.ne Subject: on Single Page I of PLEASE VOTE No ON THE SINGLE SORT. We need to look at other companies who are willing to provide us the same service at lover costs instead of allowing one company to (MONOPOLIZE) the services. Why is Roseville not bidding out services as business do to keep costs lower and vendors on the up and up and competitive' aoing Qn undff the table m i ? ?? Maybe we need to investigate private meetings our Mayor holds with Vendors such as Waste Management. 9/15/2003 ................................................................................................................. • -- original message----- Prom: Roger Brethorst [mailto-GNOMENENNOMENNOWN Sent: Sunday, September 1 t : PM To: city.counc11 @ci.rosev Subject: recycling Dear Roseville mayor and City Council members, Allow me to voice my objection to "single sort." recycling. When I was at hone on one recent occasion when the recycling truck came by, I noted that the metal, glass, and plastic was all being dumped into a common bin. I asked the individual who had so disposed of my recyclahles as to why he had just tossed every- thing into the same bin. He informed me that so it was now being done. Because I questioned his veracity, I called the Civic center, only to be told that the man who collected my recycling items had in fact disposed of them in the "new way ". Nell, stuff and nonsense to your the collective bozos who have initiated this sorry practice. Objection, your "Dishonor,''. I'm certainly prepared to pay more for the proper recycling of trash that I generate. For those ignobly opposed to what is the only sound and environmentally responsible course to tape, please keep in mind that you will not receive support or endorsement, i.e., my vote, at any time in the span of your sojourn on this earth, either in this lifetime or the next. (And may all you 'bozos" be reincarnated as worms....) Sincerely, A concerned citizen (Mr. Roger L. Brethorst ) Message- From: [ ma 11 to AGIRIM121111111MM I Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 9-218 PM ro: colty.councll@ci.roseville.mn.us Subject: Recycling LEAVE THE RECYCLING AS IT IS,,! Curtis H. Broz - 293G Aroma St. Roseville, MN 55113 Message i --- - -orlag i nal Message---- - Fronn: Amy Inlan [ Sunday, September 14, 2003 9:22 PM To: city. couneil Ile.mn. us Subject: Report From waste Managment open House Page I of 2 I attended the open house at the waste Management recycling center on Saturday. learned some interesting facts that might be useful to the council. Here is my report: A group of residents from St. Louis Park also attended the open house. According to the manager of the WM facility, St. Louis Park is in the process of adopting a - stream recycling system. Luring the presentation before the tour, someone asked the WM manager which is better, 2 strewn or single stream recycling? He said that neither one is better - It is a matter of what customers prefer, and what works hest for a particular community. 2. The WM facility processes both 2 stream and single stream recycling. Thus, there is no need for Roseville to switch to single stream to have our recycling processed at the new, state-of- the-art facility. Presumably, it is already. 3. During the tour, the manager said that the recycling facility pays for itself from the proceeds WM gets from selling the recycled materials it recovers. (He also indicated that the facility is already making a profit.) A Roseville resident then asked what our monthly recycling fees pay for. The manager responded that our monthly fees pay for the costs of hauling our recycling to the facility. This suggests that the single - stream alternative should actually be cheaper than 2 stream, instead of more expensive — if WM can dump the recycling loins into one truck mechanically, as it does with garbage, then the single - stream hauling process would be quicker, and less labor- intensive than our current system, where a person has to dump individual bags and bins into the hauling truck by hand. So we ought to be getting a decrease in rates for going to single stream, rather than the increase that has been proposed. 4. Though. WM is currently the only local provider of single - stream recycling, there is still competition in the recycling services market. 'There are other recycling service providers (including BFI and Eureka Recycling, a non - profit corporation that handles St. Paul's program) . There are other materials recovery facilities besides W ' s . Maulers other than WM use wM ' s recycling facility. Although the WM facility is impressive, and single stream recycling may turn out to be a viable option to consider in the future} the tour did not provide any factual information supporting an mediate switch to single stream recycling on an extended contract at a higher price than w� now pay WM for two stream recycling. If WM has reasons for wanting Roseville to switch to single- stream recycling immediately, then it should offer us market incentives to do so, otherwise, we should continue to study single stream recycling and consider it when our contract comes up for 9/15/2003 Message Page 2 of renewal, in the context of a competitive bidding process including other available alternatives. Array Ihlan 9/15/2003 -----original Message- - - - - From: Frank J Rog [mailt o -. IMSEENENEMJ010m] Sent: Monday, September i To: city . counc i l ft i . ro s e Subject; Fw : Recycling we see no positive reasons for the recycling plan which is being proposed. Why in the world would Roseville switch to a plan which 1) cuts the percentage of materials actually recovered and 2) casts us more? Please do not vote to implement this new plan without allowing a good amount of time for citizen discussion and input. The recycling companies are paid for their services and we should be able to buy the kinds of services we want. Have the citizens of Roseville been asked about their preferences? It is the residents of Roseville, after all, who do the work of recycling. We learned about this proposal less than a week ago, and are told that it will be voted on today, September 15. Please postpone this vote until the residents have time to learn about it (publicity, please, from the city!) and voice their opinions. Frank and Janet Rog ............... - ----- Original M i - --- From: D-iwdl, Margaret sent: MAY. Sepbember 15, 2003 10:01 AAA To: Beets, Meal Subject: Recycling Jahn and Maria Houle, 2758 Lakeview Av, 483 -3893 Ms. Houle called to say that she and John are opposed to single sort because we all have to recycle and we would he crazy to lose 30% with single sort. - ---- Original Mugs---- - From: Prat4 Tim Send Monday., September 15,, 2003 12;13 PM To Beets, Neal Subject: Recyding call A resident called to say he was familiar with single sort recycling from when he lived in California. He sees no benefit to switching. He believes sorting by residents will save money and make the cost of recycling less than under a single sort system. Tim Pratt Communications Specialist City of Roseville 2650 Civic Center Drive Roseville, IRAN 55113 (Rhone) 651 -490 -2299 (Fax) 651 - 490 -2276 tim.pratt ci,roseviIle.mn.us Visit our website htti)://www.cit freseville.cem Message -Original Message ----- F rn: [mailto Seat: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 7:33 APB To: citY.counciI@ci.rosevIIle.rnn.us Subject: Dear Mayor and Council Dear Mayor: Page I of 1 tossed and turned all of last might after watching your behavior at the September 15th council meeting. I was trying to come up with just the right words or phrase to let you know how I feel about your antics. But than I was reminded of what I tell my children when they see kids in their elementary school misbehave in such a way. I tell them that many children put other people down to make themselves feel better. Usually they have a very low self - esteem and this is the only way they know hew to feel good about themselves. We should feel sorry for therm. 9/16/2003 Message - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Lois Monf is [ Seat: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 9kA1 AM To: Torn Kough; Craig Klausing; ` Mayor John Kysylyczyn Subject: Single Serve Page I of t Please make it easier for us oldsters to recycle by establishing the Single Serve in Roseville. Roseville is becoming more progressive and this is one sure way to demonstrate that. Those who circulate flyers are out to make trouble. Otherwise, why wouldn't they identify themselves? Don't let anger at Mayor John K influence your judgement. Being apolitical year makes it difficult to keep feelings under wrap but please don't take it out on those of us who would will find it easier to recycle with Single Serge. Lois Monfils Roseville Senior House 487 -2304 9/1712003 Message *- rns� / /�� /� % / % %%/ From: BRUCE NELSON [mailtoA11111111111111111",M ; Tuesday, September t To: Roseville City Council Subject: Recycling etc. Page I of I endured the long city council meeting the other night and came away wondering about several things. One of which is why the city has to change its recycling program when it still has 2 plus years on a contract. Does that mean that the current program is not working? If there still is 2 years left, why then is the city not soliciting bids for a new program -, similar to how street repair is done? Is competition bad? I remember hearing that the increase recycling fee was going up from around $2.08 or something. Well, I just paid my current city fees and this is what I paid: water $18.80 sewer $18.00 storm $ 4.60 recycling $ 5.50 Are I missing something Mere? paying $5.50 now, then I must really be getting a deal. Y a year of fiscal budget cuts without raising taxes, how come you want to vote to raise a fee, when you don't have to? Arid what's wrong with negotiating a deal so that the city gets something bank for citizen participation in recycling? Yes, I did not tour the plant because the announcement was not in the newspaper of record (Saint Paul pioneer Press) _, and I did not receive the paper it was in until Thursday night -- -and had other plans for Saturday. But I would like to know, how the recycling is sorted. If by machine, then there must be some very sophisticated machines out there, but I'm thinking that it is done by minimum wage labor. Something Roseville may or may not be proud of. Why can't Roseville take the more effective and efficient approach and be like the majority of the recycling cities and stag with the 2 stream process? I think it is also time that you bestow credit on those city employs"that do the work that you ask of there. They should be the ones that get the credit for holding the line. Some side notes: Mr. Schroeder -- -you did not answer all the emails regarding recycling - at least not mind from 9/04/03. Mr. Sch roeder- - -good job with the compassion statement with regards to the Moog land use issue. Mr. Dough - -- thanks for speaking with compassion about wanting to waiting on the recycling issue. Mr. I ysylyczyn -- -since you agreed with Mr. Schroeder's remarks, why couldn't you show compassion and treat Mr. Dough with some respect for his views? M r. Kysy lyczyn --- you mentioned that it costs the city $500 per hour for a city council meeting- - thanks for taping an hour to rehash the same recycling theme and keep questioning Mr. Klausing and Mr. Doug h . 9117/2003 Message Thanks for listening, Bruce N. Nelson Resident since 1979 9/17/2003 because I certainly listened to you an Monday. 'Page 2 of Message - - - -- original Message---- - From: Mayor John Kysylyczyn [mailto.-johnk@usfamily.net] Seat: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 2:24 PM To me Cc: city.cou ncil ci. roseville, m n. us Subject: : recycling contract Page I of 2 Judy, We could get you in touch with approximately 200,000 or more users of the program in our part of the Twin cities. They would have used the program for a year or more, which is longer than you would get with any pilot program. We are talking about people that live in neighborhoods just like ours. I did contact regular homeowners that I saw out in their front yards in these communities to gather the information I have on this issue. These were people I did net personally know. They fulfy supported single -sort. I don't just read brochures, I spent at least 12 hours gathering information on the issue. I have spent more time gathering information on this issue than the other 4 council members combined. We are already in a contract with Waste Management for recycling pickup and that will not change. The length proposed for this contract would only be 6 months longer than our current contract. With a Roseville pilot program, it is doubtful that any of your friends or neighbors would have tried it because the pilot area would be small. The only exception is if your neighborhood was the area selected. The crux of the issue is `What will we discover that we cannot gather from the other 20 cities that use this system ?" Doing a pilot test for the sake of doing a test only wastes time and money. That is what we would be doing here. It is great to hear that you could easily fi l I up a 190 g a I Ion Gan. In other cities, most only need one go gallon container. I called Waste Management today and they stated that many people have two cams and it does not cost there one penny more. If you need a second can, or want two smaller cans, all you have to do is call them and it will be taken care of, no additional charge. The goal is to get all recycl ables in the can if it is physically possible. With your 3x3 bundles, Waste Management told me that there is absolutely no problem. They even told me that some of their drivers are skilled enough to use the robotic arm to grab the bundle and throw it into the truck. The only difference between the current two -sort and single -sort is that you get a better can, and you get an increase in the amount of tonnage that is recycled in the community. This is-- proven, and accomplishes our recycling goals in Roseville. ' Does this answer your questions? I would be happy to answer any additional questions. Thanks, Mayor John Kysyiyczyn 3083 Victoria street Roseville, MIN 55 113 Home Office: 651-484-1384 Cell; 651 -398 -5337 -----Original Message From: [ma I Ito: Sentr. Wednesday, September 17, 2003 1:49 PIVI 9/18/2003 Message To: johnk@usfamily.net Subject: recycling conbac Page 2 of 2 Message -----Original Message-- From: Jackie Schroeder [mailto1N�111�J1111l111M Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 9:25 AM To: Subject: Single Sort Recycling Mayor and Council Members - I support the single sort recycling for many reasons: Page 1, of 1 1 ) Easier to combine all recycle materials into one container. Sure two sort is easy, but single sort will even be 4 easier. 2) Single sort containers will have a lid on them, so on windy days we will not have recycle materials blowing all over the city. Therefore, we will have less trash laying around our city. 3) The single sort containers will have wheels on them, so all we will have to do is roll the container down to the curb. No more bending over and picking heavy containers when there is a lot of paper in a container. 4) It has been seen by the Mayor and Council Members who have toured the recycling plant, that the waste is minimal. 5) 1 don't believe we need a pilot program to prove the single sort will work. I find it hard to believe that people do not want to make their lives easier and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know single sort is easier than two sort. Recycling is an educational issue anyway, it has nothing to do with how many containers we use. So, let's rake it easier for those of us who do recycle and educate those who don't. Selling them on a single -sort should be easier than a two sort. A pilot program for a select area would not show how the entire city would benefit for a single sort. An area may be picked that doesn't: tend to recycle now, or an area may be picked that most recycle now. Whose to say that would be a good sampling to base a decision on. 6} The cost is minimal to implement the single sort. Sometimes you as a council just need to make a decision on are issue. You don't always have to study an issue to death, and I mean that literally. Some issues just die due to the fact they are studied until no one makes a decision and they just seem to disappear and later we wonder whatever happened to it, Don't let this one of those issues, it is too important. Don't frustrate those that are thanking about recycling and are hearing all this controversy and saying maybe I won't give recycling a try afterall. I feel it is tiTe to implement this program, educate residents about recycling, and get on with other business. It really has blown me away that so much time is being spent on this issue and I think it is time to move on. Jackie Schroeder Roseville Resident 9/18/2003 From: Emle " Sent. Thursday, September 18, 8:38 AM To: i i ` Subject: recycling . To: Roseville council: I have nothing against a container with wheels for recycling but I doubt it would increase the amount though We and most of our neighbors recycle everything possible already. our garbage can normally contains two grocery bags of trash. Recycling is heaped in the blue container plus we use up to three of our own containers if needed. I would guess that our trash is about one fourth of our recycle volume. I have noticed that the younger generation is less prone to recycle than their parents. 'beaching of environmental concerns seems to be falling on deaf ears. Ernest Melby Roseville 0 From: Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 9 :24 A To: . a L Cc: i Subject: . Your efforts to increase recycling are noble, but here is ghat I do not litre about it. I have a single -car garage. Its hard enough finding room for snore blower, lawn mower, the existing garbage container. I do not have room for another 3- gallon b -n! Currently my recycle bins fit under a cabinet in the garage -- - unless you offer a bin that is 3 feet high, I'd have no place to aocomodate your efforts to increase recycling. I have no problem with a small increased fee. It is a small price to pay for smaller landfills and renewable resources. Kai Perry Driscoll, Margaret - - I From: Kathleen Casson Mickelson ANINNINNOMM Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 11:46 AM To: Mayor John Kysylyczyn Cc: ri'ty.rouncli@cl.roseville.mn-us Subject: Re: Plan to increase Recycling 'M MI This information on single-sort recycling from Council Member Schroeder is pretty intriguing. I would be interested in a presentation by the recycling company for the citizens of Roseville. Any program that gets people to recycle more is well worth looking at and contributes to the long-term health of all of us. Thanks for sending me this. Kathleen 1 Driscoll, Margaret To: Beets, Neal subject: Recycling Phone Call Pat Lyons, • 11W Ms. Lyons called to say that she watched the City Council meeting last Monday right. She was so disgusted with hoer the Council handle the recycling issue, she would have called if she would have had a number to get through to the Council hampers. She stated that she normally goes along Frith the Mayor, but he really turned her off on Monday night. She would like the recycling program to remain as it is. Driscoll, Margaret ."""77 1 From: Mayor .John Kysylyczyn Bohnk@usfamily.net] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 12 :46 PM To: c7ity.council@ci.roseville.mn.us Subject: : Plan to increase Recycling Mayor John Kysylyczyn 3083 Victoria Street Roseville, Mid 55113 johnk@usfamily. net Home office: 651- 484 -1384 Cell.: 651- 398 -5337 Message- From: /i / / m , % lm1 Sent: Thursday, September ■ Subject: To: johnk@usfamily.net Plan to increase Recycling John. Thanks for this update. I agree that this new system seems to be a better fit for Roseville residents and are easier way for residents to continue to recycle items that they may normally discards in the garbage. I also like the idea of having a lamer cart with wheels and a lid to prevent the recyclables from blowing away!! I think this is worth the small cost and mostly importantly- an investment into our future environment. I support this new recycle option. Feel free to add my name to the list of supporters Thanks. Jen Jackson Millasovich > >> "Mayor ,John Kysylyczyn" <johnk @usfami1y net> 09/18/03 02:30AM > >> From Council Member Greg Schroeder: 'ass this on to all you know! 1 believe that recycling whatever materials we can, is very important to ensure that our children will have the needed resources and a safe environment to live in and enjoy. That is why I believe it is very important as a city Council Member to encourage and help Roseville residents to recycle as much material as possible and reduce the amount of material going to our landfills. Roseville residents are currently using what is called a two sort recycle system at a cost of $2.05 per month.. This system appears to be working well{ however, it has not enabled Roseville residents to recycle to a higher potential volume of material that they are capable of and further reduce the volume of material going to our landfills The city council is looking at a single sort recycle system at a starting cost of $2.25 per month in 2003. This system is based on the principal that you only have one recycle container and this container is larger than your little blue bin. With the larger container you will be able to put more recycle material in it (thus you will be able to recycle more) . In addition since you only have one container, you do not have to separate your recycle materialx you place all recycle materials in the one container (thus it is easier to recycle). yes this system will cost you 20 cents more per month or $2.40 more per year. But, if it enables you and your neighbors to recycle more wouldn't it be worth it!!. You could end up recycling enough material that your garbage container could be reduce in size thus offsetting this nominal increase in cost. In addition the containers have wheels enabling easy transportation to the curb and a lid that will reduce the amount of recycle material blowing around our neighborhoods. Here are some important facts to consider: Two sort System Single Sort System Cost in 2003 $ .05 /month $2.25/month cost in 2004 $2.11 /month $2.32 /month Cost in 2005 $2.17/month $2.39/month Cost in 2006 '?? Rebid $2.46/month If we wait for the pilot study to be completed and we can not implement single sort until 2005, the cast in 2005 will start at $2.49 /month. Why pay more? Why loose all that recycled material to the dump ?? Council is looking at a � year contract with an option to renew for an additional 2 years. Single sort convenience to residents: All recycles go in one container. Container has wheels on it. Container has lid. Three Different size containers (32, 64, and 96 gallon) . Company owns containers not city (easier for city to go with any company at renewal),, 2 Studies have shown proven increase in participation and recovery rates with single sort. Single sort processing plant produces high quality recycled material. Only 5% of material collected is thrown out (same as Two Sort),,,. Please support me in thi-s effort® Please have your friends, neighbors{ and of course yourself, send e -mails to the city council at <mailto: city. council @ci.roseville.mn. us city.council @ci.roseville.mn.us or call city hall at 651.490.2206 and voice support for the single sort system. Council Member Greg Schroeder - - - - -- http://UsFamily.Net/info - Unlimited Internet - From $8.99 /mo! - - - - -- ------ http: / /USFamily.Net /info - Unlimited Internet - From $8.99/mo! - - - - -- 3 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION DATES 09/22/03 ITEM EM i O: VII. A. Depar=ent Approval: City Manager Approval: Agenda ecdon: TP /UPW LAND USE Item Description: bequest by Scott Santanni for a VARLkNCE to Section 1004.OW of the RoseviRe City Code to allow construction of a 1,007 sq. ft. detached - - — - - - -- - - - accessory b"11 a the rear hard at 10 19 herren Street (PF3512),, CALCUIATIONS HAVE BEEN REVISED BASED OIL APPLICANT SUBMITTAL OF ACCURATE SITE INFORMATION. 1.0 REQUESTED UES'TED ACTION; 1.1 Scott Santanni, 1019 Sherren Street seeps approval of a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT and a VARIANCE to Section 1 004.01 A (Overall Area of Accessory Buildings) of the Roseville City Code to allow the construction of a second accessory building 1,007 sq. ft in size and located in the rear yard. PROJECT REVIEW HISTORY Application submitted on July 31, 2003. Determined complete on August 22, 2003. 60 -day review deadline on October 21, 2003. Staff Review & Recommendation: Approval w/Conditions — Sept. 3, 2003. Planning Commission Action: Denial Recommendation (6-0 w/ 1 abstentions). Anticipated Council Action: September 22, 2003. 2.0 SUMMARY F RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 The Planning Commission recommended that the request by Mr. Scott Santanni, 1019 herren Street, for a 309 sq. ft. VARIANCE E to Section 1004.01A5 of the Roseville City Code be DENIED. The Conit lunity Development staff supports the recommendation. 3.0 SUGGESTED ACTION: 3.1 Denial of request w /Endings (see Section 8 for detailed action). PF35 I2 - RCA 092203 - Page l of 4 4.0 REVIEW of REQUEST: 4.1 Scott Santanni has submitted a proposal to construct a detached accessory building on his lot. The structure, a 30 foot 6 inch by 33 foot ( 1,007 sq. ft ) storage building would be located just north of the existing attached two -stall garage. The City Code scats the sum of the area of an attached garage and detached accessory building cannot exceed the size of the house. In this ease, the proposed 1,007 sq. ft. detached accessory building when combined with the existing 440 sq. it. attached garage, creates 1,447 sq. ft. of combined accessory building square footage, which requires a variance. 4.2 The antanni hone was constructed in 1951 and lies on a 28,072 square foot (87 feet by 323 feet) parcel. The home 1-1/2 story home has a footprint of 1,030 sq. ft and the breezeway a footprint of 108 sq. ft. for a total of 1,138 sq. ft. The parcel has a rear yard accessory building allowance of 1,053 sq. ft. and an impervious coverage allowance of 8,422 sq. ft. 4.3 The existing conditions and the proposed accessory building fall well below the maximum impervious surface area allowed on the parcel. Likewise, the proposed detached accessory building is below the size allowed by the Code. However, when combined, the attached garage (440 sq. ft.) and proposed detached accessory building ( 1,007 sq. ft.) exceed the footprint size of the home (1,138 sq. ft) by 309 sq. ft. 4.4 Variance Conditions Proposed; (also see attachment of applicant's analysis) SECTION 1004 *01A5 Existing Condition Proposed Condition variance Requested Overall Area Size of Principal 1,138 sq. ft. house 1,138 sq. ft. house Garage + Accessory Structure Footprint 440 sq. ft. attached garage 440 sq. ft. attached garage 1 007 sq. ft■ access b1 ft building 309 sq. ft. 5.0 STAFF COMMENTS/FINDINGS: 5.1 Section 1004.01A5 reads: "Overall Area: The overall area of attached garage and detached accessory building(s) shall not exceed the exterior dimensional footprint of the principal structure, excluding any attached garage footprint." 5.3 The City Planner reviewed the proposal and determined that it was difficult to justify a departure from the strict application of the City Code allowing the applicant to construct the proposed detached 1,007 sq. ft detached accessory building. The City Planner offered an alternative, a reduced size from that requested by the applicant. PF3512 — RCA 092203 - Page 2 of 4 5.4 on September 3, 2003, lair. Santanni addressed the Planning Commission, providing them revised numbers that were based on exact measurements of the structures on the parcel. Specifically Mr. Santanni explained that his home and breezeway are a combined 1,138 square feet in size, which would allow him to construct a 698 sq. ft, detached accessory building_ without a variance, However, Mr. Santanni desired a larger structure. 5.5 The original recommendation by the City Staff was to support a variance for a detached accessory building that did not exceed an overall size of 24 feet wide by 26 feet deep or 624 sq. ft., which size reduced the requested variance by 379 sq. ft. However, in light of the information presented by Mr. Santanni, there would be no need for a variance or conditional use permit if a detached accessory building was constructed up to 698 sq. ft. (see 6.2) 6.0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: : 6.1 On September 3, 2003, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing regarding the Santanni request. At the hearing no citizens were present to address the Commission. The City Planner stated the he did receive e-mail from adjacent residents that supported the Santanni request. 6.2 Mr. Santanni addressed the Commission explaining that the information included in the project report (based on his original submission) was inaccurate. He then provided the Commission with the accurate 1-1/2 story douse and the breezeway footprint sizes ( 1,030 and 108 sq. ft.) stating that at a minimum he could construct a detached garage up to 690 square feet (the City Code only tales into account the first level footprint and not the second level square footage). 6.3 Mr. Santanni explained his needs and was willing to reduce his original proposal from 1 ,007 sq. ft. to something less than 864 sq. ft. to eliminate the need for a CUP. The City Manner indicated that a reduction to 728 sq. ft. (26 xc 28) would require a variance of 30 sq. ft (1,138 sq. ft footprint less the 440 attached garage. 6.4 The Planning Commission recommended (6 -0 -1) DENUL of the request by Scott antanni for a variance to Section 1004.0 1 A5 of the Roseville City Code, based on the following findings: a, There 16s no unique physical hardship present to support a detached accessory building size variance greater that the code allowance of 698 sq. ft. Such a structure is typically a 2.5 to 3 stall garage. b, A detached accessory building of sufficient size (698 sq. can be built without the need of a variance. c� No Conditional Use Pest is necessary. PF35 I2 w RCA 092203 ,+ Page 3 of 4 f *0 SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTION: ADOPT A RESOLUTION DENYING the 1 by Scott I I f 4 Sherren Street, I I I Section 1004.01A5 I the Rosevifle City Code based on the foRowing findings I f f in Section f' of the project 1 dated September 2003, 1 Prepared her; Thomas Paschke (651-490-2236) Attachments: Location map, narrative, site plan, aerial photo, PC draft minutes, resolution. FF3512 — RCA 092203 - Page 4 of August 2, 2003 To: City of Roseville Community Development Department RE do, Conditional Use Permit Application From: Scott and Renee Santanni 1019 Sherren St. W. Roseville, Mn 55113 Dear Thomas Paschke and City of Roseville? The proposed structure at 1019 Sherren St. W. Is a detached garage at a total of 1007 square feet. The said pro j eet is a permanent structure that will remain on site. We would like to 'increase to the maxitnum size allowed by a conditional use permit. The garage will be used solely for storage. The existing garage will only bold our two vehicles and no other at nenities. The new detached garage will be large enough to store our lawnmowers* snow blowers, motorcycles, trailer, and other household tools. Also, we are planning for future events and aspirations of purchasing a boat and having children. we would like to be able to store the boat and the children's outdoor toys within the new detached garage. We believe it is important to store these items inside a structure so that we do not create sprawl or convey to the neighborhood a homeowner that does not care for their house and property. we strongly feel it is important to use our two - thirds of an acre to its capacity to benefit my wife and h and anyone who follows, as well, those around us. It is our priority to maintain a beautiful and peaceful neighborhood. Sincerely, r- Scott S anni P- -2 We do not wish to pursue the variance for 10 foot exterior walls. we wifl abide by the code and hollow the nine foot exterior wall height. -NI-40N 4fleg" s�u.r�r W � c8 �V C� 4� r ID19 i Ca�IIC�Y��i � t 3316V _ ot w 5% IS l- I,glnwa1.1 -�(v cl a • ■ A lu F d) 0 irr j ii ii i% i j r �[t / Ir J /n /iii %/ /�� i i i i i i i✓ v 1 W cl, wq � >.., � � ! �s « ; . ; w� � « � y �y � S \ � / \ � % ��. I � � � _ :} ® \7 I-- LL M. ri .4 d) I-- ILL � Z , 2 win 7�� M,77,77777777 LIL U- 1 a. ,Planning Tile 3512: Request by Scott Santanni, 1019 Sherren Street, for 3 a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with Section 1004.01A4 and a 4 Variance to Section 1004 *01A5 (Overall Area) and Section 1004.01A6 5 (Maximum Total Surface Area) of the Roseville City Code to allow the 6 construction of a 1,007 sq. ft. detached accessory building. 7 8 Chairman Duncan opened the hearing and requested City Planning Thomas Paschke to present 9 verbal summary of the staff` report dated September 3, 2003. to Scott Santanni, 1019 Sherren Street, has submitted a proposal to construct a detached accessory 12 building on his lot. The proposed structure, a 30 foot 6 inch by 33 foot (1,007 sq. f1) storage 13 building would be located just north of the existing attached two -stall garage. The sum of the area 14 of an attached garage and detached accessory building =not exceed the size of the house. In this 15 case, the proposed 1,007 sq. ft. detached accessory building when combined with the existing 440 16 sq. ft. attached garage, creates 1,447 sq. ft. of combined accessary building square size, which 17 size is 458 sq. ft greater than the 898 sq. ft. home. 18 The Santanni home was constructed in 1951 and lies on a 28,072 square foot (87 feet by 323 feet) 19 parcel. The home has a foundation size of 989 sq. f1.; a rear yard allowance of 1,053 sq. ft.; and 20 an impervious coverage allowance of 8,422 sq. fl. 1 22 The existing conditions and the proposed accessory building fall well below the maximum 23 impervious surface area afforded the parcel. Dike wise, the proposed detached accessory building 24 is below the size afforded by the Code. However, when combined, the attached garage (440 sq. ff.) and proposed detached accessory building 1,007 sq. ft.) exceed the footprint size of the home 6 (989 sq. ft) by 45$ sq. ft. 27 28 Section 1004.01 A5 reads: "Overall Area: The overall area of attached garage and 9 detached accessory building(s) shall not exceed the exterior dimensional footprint of the o principal structure, excluding any attached garage footprint. 31 32 Section 1 004.01 A4 requires a conditional use permit for an accessory structure exceeding 864 3 square feet in size, up to a maximum of 1,008 square feet, subject to meeting criteria. 34 35 City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the proposal and explained that it is difficult to justify a 36 departure from the strict application of the City Codc allowing the applicant to construct the 37 proposed detached 1,007 sq. ft detached accessory building. Howev , there is justification for 38 reduced sized detached accessory structure, one that is more in beeping with a double stall 39 structure than the triple stall size proposed. Specifically, a detached accessory building 24 feet 40 wide by 26 feet sleep or 624 sq. ft in size would reduce the variance by 379 sq. ft, but more 41 importantly, would afford Mr. Santanni ample storage space for the items stated, and would be in 42 beeping with the structures in the neighborhood and no Conditional Use Permit would be required 43 for a 624 square foot building. 44 45 City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the development proposal with regard to the criteria in 46 Section 101 3.01.1) (Conditional Use Permit) of the Roseville Zoning Ordinance and concluded 47 the proposal meets these criteria. Specifically, a detached accessory building is a permitted use in 48 an R- X (district. The proposed detached garage will not create additional traffic or the need for 49 additional public facilities. with proper exterior building treatment, drainage, and landscaping, 50 the building will not have an impact on surrounding property or values. There appears to be no 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 19 20 1 23 4 5 6 27 8 9 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 4 49 50 impact on general health, safety, and public welfare. In addition} the project complies with the Comprehensive plan designation as low- density residential uses. Mr. Paschke stated that the Community Development Staff recommends approval of a 75 square foot variance to Section 1004.01A5 of the Roseville City Code for Scott Santanni to allow the construction of a detached accessory building in the rear yard at 10l9 Sherren Street, subject to the following conditions: a. The detached accessary building being limited to a size of 24 feet by 26 feet or 624 s.quare feet. b. The parcel being limited to a maximum impervious coverage of 8,422 square feet or 30%. c. The detached accessory building being limited to the storage of residential (not commercial) equipment, material, seasonally used recreational vehicle or a seasonally driven vehicle or collectable. d. Submittal of a scaled site plan indicating existing and proposed conditions consistent with the above variance conditions. e. windows being placed on the east and west building wall to break -up the building wall. f. Gutters installed along the eves of the detached accessory building and directed to the parcel's interior yard to reduce impacts to the adjacent residential properties. g. The review and approval of a building permit must be consistent with the approved plans and variance. Chair Duncan asked ghat the 1 Y2story house upstairs square foot area of the house was (700 square feet for a total of 1 600 — 1 700 square feet). Member Mulder asked what happens if the building (home) changes size? (More accessory structure could be added). Chair Duncan asked for a definition of a standard garage. City planner indicated that no true standard exists; however general axle 24 feet by 26 feet is a good sized two stall garage. Scott Santanni explained that his house has a footprint of 1,030 sq. ff., a breezeway of 108 sq. ft., for an overall size of 13 138 sq. ft. He explained that a 700+ sq. ft. garage should be allowed based on the size of the house. There is no visual impact to the neighbors and not visible from the sides or street and that the building will be the same height as the' existing garage. The main reason for this garage is storage and for a boat, trailer, snowmobile, tractor. Mr. Santanni added that his proposal is well below the 30% coverage (7 %) and less than the 40% rear yard building ( 1,053 sq. ff.), but the homes footprint is too small at this time. Chair Duncan asked if 1,138 sq. ft. was accurate. The City planner indicated that the numbers appeared to be accurate, adding that the information he used in the report was based on Mr_ Sanntanni's submittal. The City planner also indicated that Mr. Santanni could construct an accessory building that was up to the maximum 690 sq. ff. or in light of the desires of the applicant, the Planning Commission could support a 728 sq. ft detached accessory building with a 30 sq. ft variance. Member Stone asked for details of the survey calculations. I Motion: Member Mulder mowed, second by Member Traynor, to reconunend denial because a 2 hardship is not present and a 698 s.f. second garage can be built without a variance. 3 4 Member Mulder said staff found a variance, but new larger housing and garage square footage 5 numbers were provided by applicant, making a variance less necessary. Member Traynor said he 6 did not see many large detached garages in the rear yards within the neighborhood. 7 8 Ages: 6, Wakeman, Feper, Stone, Mulder, Traynor, Ipsen 9 Nags: None 10 Abstain: 1, Duncan (Duncan did not agree with square footage calculation of two -story building). 11 Motion carried: 6-0 -1 1 13 b. Planning File 516: Request by Charles Anderson, 303 South Owasso 14 Boulevard, for a variance to Section 1012.02B (Certain Structures Not 15 Considered Encroachments) & C (Fences) of the Roseville City Cole to 16 install and extend the height of and existing back yard fence to 9 feet{ 17 18 Chainnan Duncan opened the hearing and requested City Planning Thomas Paschke to present 19 verbal sunmary of the staff report dated September 3, 2003. 20 1 City planner Thomas Paschke explained that Charles Anderson, 303 South Owasso Boulevard, seep a Fence Height variance to Section 101 2.02)30 (Side or rear Yard Only) of the Roseville 3 City Code to extend the height of the existing back yard fence to 9 feet, including the new 24 construction of 57 lineal feet south of the home. The proposed plan is to extend from the existing 25 5 foot fence to 9 feet in height. The code allows 6 feet 6 inches, therefore this proposal requires a 6 two foot six inch variance to Section l012.02133 (Side or rear Yard Only). The need for the fence 7 height is caused by deer (the property backs up to Ladyslipper Park). One mature apple tree and 28 several Crab Apple trees (attached photo) have been killed or suffer extensive deer damage. 9 Among other things destroyed on the property include (4) North Star cherry trees, (2) fruiting 30 plums, and many (at least 25) roses. -31 32 Charles Anderson submitted a proposal to extend two existing fence types north, south, and 33 southeast of his home (4 -board and wire) to 9 feet in height, of which, 57 feet (4 -board type) will 34 be of new construction located south of the home. roughly 777 feet of existing 4 -board and 3/4 35 inch T post wire fence is located on the property. The purpose of the fence is to exclude deer 36 from the yard and maintain landscaping aesthetics. The proper has a,zoning designation of r -1 37 (Single- Fanm'ly residential District) and a Comprehensive Land Use' of LR (Lover Density 38 residential). 39 40 Fencing will be constructed using two methods. The first will use 9 feet in height sections of .114 41 inch galvanized pipe posts, with a 3/4 inch electrical conduit tog rail and a 3/4 inch galvanized 42 bottom rail. Fence fabric consisting of concrete reinforcing 6 inch by 6 inch heavy gauged wire 43 mesh will be stretched from the top of the rail to the base rail (galvanized). Metal piping is much 44 less visible than wood or vinyl fencing (much smaller than wood/vinyl). The second will use 45 already existing 5 foot tall 4-board fencing to extend to 9 feet in height and use fence fabric that 46 consists of concrete reinforcing 6 inch by 6 inch heavy gauged wire mesh which will stretch from 47 the top of the 9 foot galvanized rail to the top of ` the 5 foot tall 4 -board existing fence. 48 49 Mr. Paschke explained that the staff recommends that this is a unique site and variance request 50 and recommends approval of a 2 foot 6 inch fence height variance to Section 101 2.0213 of the Page 4 of 9 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVIi,T,F Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was held on the 22nd day of September, 2003, at :30 p.m* The following members were present: and the following were absent: Council Member adoption: introduced the following resolution and moved its x�soLUTiorr No. A RESOLUTION DENYING THE REQUEST BY SCOTT SANTANNI,1019 SHERREN STREET, FOR A VARIANCE TO SECTION 1004.01A5 (OVERALL AREA) OF THE ROSEVILLE CITY CODE (PF3512). WHEREAS, Scott Santanni requested a Variance to Section 1004.01A5 (Overall Area) of the Roseville City Code to allow the construction of a 1 ,007 detached accessory building in his rear yard; and WHEREAS, the Santanni residence is located at 1019 Sherren Street and legally described as: Lot f a 1 11-29-23-33-0010 WHEREAS, Section 1004.01A5 of the Roseville City Code limits the combined square footage of all detached and attached accessory building to be less than the footprint of the principal structure; and Vv'HEREAS, the existing Santahni request seep to constWt -a.n 1,007 sq. ft. detached garage that when combined with the attached garage (440 sq. ft) creates 1,447 sq ft of accessory building square footage, an amount that exceeds the footprint of the principal structure 1,13 8 sq. it.) by 309 sq. ft.; and WHEREAS, The Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing regarding the antanni request on September 3, 2003, recommending (6 -0 -1) DENIAL of the variance request based on the following findings: L There is no unique physical hardship present to support a detached accessory building size variance greater that the code allowance of 698 sq. ft. Such a 4 structure is typically a 2.5 to 3 stall garage. 2. A detached accessory building of sufficient size (698 sq. ft.) can be built without the need of a variance. 3. No Conditional Use Permit is necessary. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Roseville City Council, to DENY the request by Scott Santanni for a VARIANCE to Section 1004.01 A5 (Overall Area) of the Roseville City Code based on the following findings: 1. Where is no unique physical hardship present to support a detached accessory building size variance greater that the code allowance of 698 sq. f1. Such a structure is typically a 2.5 to 3 stall garage. 2, A detachcd accessory building of sufficient size (698 sq. ft.) can be built without the need of a variance. 3. No Conditional Use Permit is necessary. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: and the following voted against: WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. K Resolution — PF 351 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )Ss COUNTY OF RA.MSEY ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 22nd of September, 2003, with the original thereof on file in my office. WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 22nd day of September, U114191 State of Minnesota - County of Ramsey Signed or Attested before me an this day of by: Neal J. Beets Notary Public 2003 Neal J. Beets, City Manager �� 1 MOM ICY 10 C1 U Vwr III I. 1-7 ARM "o UNt V, V101 co III IEO LOW i(D p6ma le'AW Imp; mow, mll ',I Fir Tea yi i 10 HOMO C. z cel I. %.Apo, Sit. I I A"mr, v jj . . . . ... . Yr ir I III 1! M a "Mill iL X., L3 JI Illilu INe 44 I; IIIII a R 10 1E, 1111, lik" 46 CL LZ c; ILL § E" -0 .2 ,'I iV � �� ~ 1 �� ;;; ,r �IYII /l% //, /r „j�// //� ,r � �� r/ � � , a r.. 'y /, : ✓, /, /; / / /.. i ,// rii fl�� /, /,,,,.,. , / / / / /�j //j � „� �'1 // � //� /aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaai /, l I �u�l / /V'i' nil UIV 1 /(��!��iiii � /��' / / Ili ✓l /� i 1� lF i I I�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii %� /// � y ru REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 09 /22/03 ITEM! No:IIL A. Department Approval: M ge pproval Agenda Section: DPW/RT qQ�,� REPORTS Item Description: Report on Nuisance Code violation at 2147 Rice St N+ 1.0 REQUESTED ACTION: Council action is necessary to resolve a nuisance violation to clean up outside storage of household items and car parts, and to -remove an unlicensed vehicle at 2147 Rice St Na The property is owned by Mr. William pierce. The staff has been working on this case since Apri 1 of 2003. The owner has been notified of this agenda item and Council meeting. 2.0 Project History 2.1 The home at 2147 Rice St N. is owned by Mr. William Pierce. It is unknown if he actually lives in the home. 2.2 Code compliance items on the property include: I . outside storage of household items such as appliances, bins etc A violation of City Code Section 407.03H. 2. outside storage of automobile parts scattered in the rear yard and driveway. A violation of City Code Section 407.02D and 407,02M.2. 3. outside storage in an uncovered boat (car parts, suitcase, etc). A violation of City Code Section 407.02D and 407.03H. 4. An unlicensed vehicle in the driveway. A violation of City Code Section 407.0204. txl�_1111crjla "116 3.1 Community Development Staff offers three alternative actions. Staff recommends that the Council approve the issuance of a Ramsey County Court Citation for continuation of a A public nuisance (City Code Sections 407.02 D, l l and , and 407.03H). 4.0 SUGGESTED COUNCIL ACTION 4.1 By motion, direct the staff to work with the city prosecuting attorney to cite (Ramsey County Court citation) the owner for violation of the Code. See attached details, RCA — 2147 Iii ee St. N. Page 5.0 BACKGROUND: 5-1 periodically the Community Development staff reviews Code violations relating to property maintenance to detennine whether there are properties in disrepair for an extended period. The staff spends time attempting to gain compliance during this time on these properties. Generally they have not met the Code because the owner has been unable (physically or financially) or unwilling to comply with the Code. .A Ramsey County Court Citation is one remedy. It allows an impartial third party (Ramsey County judge) to assess the situation and make a ruling. The Community Development Department anticipates the judge will require the property owner to do the clean up and to l icense or remove the vehicle. 5.2 This process has been successfully used in previous gears to resolve long - standing nuisance complaint violations. 5.3 The staff attempts to work with property owners to bring the structure into compliance (and continue to encourage property owners to repair properties up to the time of a Council hearing). 6.1 The Council has requested that each time a County Court Citation is considered to resolve a long standing nuisance case, the Council review the case and provide direction prior to authorizing the City prosecuting Attorney to proceed. 6.2 The City goals within the Comprehensive Plan are to protect and improve property values (Goal 3, 4 and 5; page 6 and, Section 3) and to adhere to performance standards which protect the integrity of the housing units and the neighborhood (policy 6, page 8, Section 3). i1 -1 M MIM �L Staff recommends that the Council direct the staid' to work with the city prosecuting attorney to cite (Ramsey County Court citation) the ownerfor the specific violations of the Code. 7. 2 other options include: 1) Do nothing — allow the violation to continue. ) Proceed with ,o, City Nuisance Abatement Dearing and clean up the site with city funds, which is slower and tales more staff time. Also, in this case, the removal and disposal of property could result in a claim for compensation by the property owner. 8.0 SUGGESTED C01JNC11L ACTION 8.1 By motion, direct the staff to work with the city prosecuting attorney to cite (Ramsey County Court citation) the owner for violation of the Code. %kVictoris CommDevlPermits omplaintsRCA _2147RiceSt_092203.doc RCA — 2147 Rice St. N. Page 2 August ., 200 Reinspection today reveals property in worse condition today than before. One unlicensed truck, many auto parts scattered about, shopping cart and sundry junk. Ticket has been issued and ignored. This property has history of chronic noncompliance. I reeomrnend that City move to Court Citation. 2 147 RICE ST N 8. 6.0 mu d a iu rtI mill I" �i� u a w� u 9 S 114 w LIP 1 AJ , y 2 147 RICE ST N $.26.03 ,funk and debris 40 x.02 D & 407.03 H ,all IV , rf pli-vaitet 407.02 0 1� "I I t; C., 111011 131' eXii I � 2147 RICE ST N 8.26 0,1" �� P 7 R"Ill S111" Pq �8.26.03 Juak and debn-s on boat 407.02 D & 407.03 H Ilk' 2147 RICE ST' N 8. 26.03 Auto parts, gas can; 407.02 D & 407.03 H 21471"ZIC"I'T ST N 8.26.03 Auto artsl,, and idlebri"i's 41011111,171111.102. D., -� 1& 407.03 H J c, 0703 H 2p' "N" 8626.03, �,,,,�unk and debi-fis 407j.f,),,,,, D N?��,. 4,, ill m zt� "T,.0-1 & 407.03 H �S"T'N 8.2161.,103 Ati,tio "Piarts'. i il .1kc, ;,anld, debfis 10 2 J."..) n IN10141 play stove in center of pic (no "R K ',�E� S"I' 114 181-d2616.0i'3 A � hw-tce bil, e 1 `7 pp Y giar,"i,ig, v io lation), j u nk and diebri �s 4,1017 .10"OL, m m ■ 2147 RICE ST N 8.26.03 Auto Parts: junk and debris 407.02 D & 407.03 H Fr f DATE- 09/22/03 ITEM NONIU. F Department Approval: I ger A proval Agenda Section: DPW/RT REPORTS Item Description: Report on Nuisance Code I J at 2199 Cohansey i i N. lwl� fa_�� &I u Oki V DI Im"T" I Council action is necessary to resolve a nuisance violation to repair a dilapidated fence located along the rear property line at 2199 Cohansey Blvd N. The property is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Michael Turne. The staff' has been working on this case since March of 2003. The owner has been notified of this agenda item and Council meeting, 2.0 Project History 2.1 The home at 2199 Cohansey Blvd is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Michael Turne who live in the home. 2.2 Code compliance items on the property include: 1. The fence along the rear property lime, which abuts Sandhurst Drive, is dilapidated and in a state of disrepair. The fence originally fell over and was then propped -up by the property owner. This repair was deemed inadequate as a permanent repair and is a violation of City Code Section 407.0 J . 3.1 Community Development Staff offers three alternative actions. Staff recommends that the Council approve the issuance of Ramsey County Court Citation for continuation of a public nuisance (City Code Sections 407.02 J K). 4.0 SUGGESTED COUNCIL ACTION 4.1 By motion, direct the staff to work with the city prosecuting attorney to cite (Ramsey ou my Court citation) the owner for violation of the Code. See attached details. RCA -2199 Cohansey Blvd. Page 1 5.0 • F 5.1 Periodically the Community Development staff reviews Code violations relating to property maintenance to determine whether there are properties in disrepair for an extended period. The staff spends tine attempting to gain compliance during this time on these properties. Generally they have not met the Code because the owner has been unable (physicalIy or financially) or unwilling to comply with the Code. A. Ramsey County Court Citation is one remedy. It allows an impartial third party (Ramsey County judge) to assess the situation and make a ruling. The Community Development Department anticipates the judge will require the property owner to repair or remove the dilapidated section of fencing. 5.2 This process has been successfully used in previous years to resolve longstanding nuisance complaint violations. 5.3 The staff attempts to work with property owners to bring the structure into compliance (and continue to encourage property owners to repair properties up to the time of a Council hearing). & 1 The Council has requested that each time a County Court Citation is considered to resolve a long standing nuisance case, the Council review the case and provide direction prior to authorizing the City Prosecuting Attorney to proceed. 6.2 The City goals within the Comprehensive Plan are to protect and improve property values (Goal 3, 4 and 5; page 6 and, Section 3 ) and to adhere to performance standards which protect the integrity of the housing units and the neighborhood (Policy 6, page g, Section 3). 7;1 Staff recommends that the Council direct the staff to work with the city prosecuting attorney to cite (Ramsey County Court citation) the owrter for the specific violations of the Code. 7.2 Other options include; 1 ) Igo nothing — allow the violation and complaints to continue. 2) Proceed with a City Nuisance Abatement Hearing and repair the fence with city funds, which is slower and takes more staff time. Also, in this case, the property owners could repair the fence at minimal cost by doing the work themselves. If the City were to contract for the repair (and assign costs to the property taxes) it would be much more costly to the property owners. ra # I I IMI 411 MI 8.1 By motion, direct the staff to work with the city prosecuting attorney to cite (Ramsey County Court citation) the owner for violation of the Code. % \VictoriakComm \Perrnits�ComplaintsRCA _2199 Cohanse+ Blvd 092203.doc RCA-2199 Cohansey Blvd. Page 2211 COHAS EY BLVD N 9.9.03 rrr ;i% 2193 COHANSEY BLVD N 9.9.03 Date: 09122103 Item: IX. A. prgamizational Business gRA Appointment - #- -, Pursuant to clue call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was held on the 2"d day of September, 2003, at 6;00 p.m. The following members were present: and the following were absent: ouneilmember introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption which was duly seconded by Councilmember 8A1�ffe 1, RESOLUTION APPROVING IA OR' S APPOINTMENT OF JEN JACKSON MILLOSOVI H TO THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR HE CITY OF ROSEVILLE FOR A 5 YEAR TERM BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the"'Council") of the City of Roseville, lle, Minnesota (the 'City"), as follows: 1. On September 23, 2002, the Mayor submitted for the Council's consideration the appointment of Jennifer Jackson Millosovich as Board Member of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority, in and for the City of Roseville ("TH6V ). 2. The Council approved the appointment of Jennifer Jackson Millosovich to a one -gear term ending September 23, 2003. 3. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.003 Subdivision 6, all tenns after initial staggered terms shall be for 5 gears. 4. The Mayor has submitted for this Council's consideration the reappointment of Jennifer Jackson Millosovich to a 5 -year terra ending September 22, 2008. Adopted by the Roseville City Council this 22d day of September, 2003. Resolution — HRA appointment STATE OF MIlVNESOTA } )SS COUNTY OF RAMSEY } I. the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 22nd day of September, 2003, with the original thereof an file in my office. F1411 WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 22nd day of September, Neal J. Beets, City Manager 469.003 City housing and redevelopment authority. 5ubd. 6. Appointment; approval{ term; vacancy. The commissioners shall be appointed by the mayor, with the approval of the governing body. Those initially appointed shall he appointed for terms of one, two, three, four, and five years, respectively. 'Thereafter all commissioners shall he appointed for five-year terms. Each vacancy in an unexpired term shall he filled for the remainder of the term for which the original appointment was made. Any member of the governing body of a city may he appointed and may serge as a commissioner of the authority for the city. The council of any city which appoints members of the city council as commissioners may set the terns of office of a commissioner to coincide with the commissioner's term of office as a council member 07/30/20e`2 09:27 6512926608 PUBIC HE]ll5EYNG PAGE 02/03 ]d�.ci.rose�ilie. mks City of Roseville, Attn: Mayor Kysylyczyn • 2660 Civic Center Drive . Roseville MN 55913 Fax: 651_490.2831 • a ar ' ros Irin.0 Questions may be directed to stall member Cathy Bennett at City tiaA e1651.490-224 Applidation for Housing & Redevelopment A th Ity .r A l40us*1g and Redevelopment AUthofity (HRA) is q• separate legal authority under state siatufes 489.00 1 to 469.047 that directs redevelopment projects with the sp$cific purpose of removing blight and promoting affordable, safe and decent hou$ing. The esiabfis ant of an HRA was approved by the Roseville City Council an June 17, 20028 The Roseville City Mayor makes the appointmanis to tfte HRA wi#h GiiyCouncil approval. Nawe ,.ddb`s 0 L J + Education r F J 110-17AI A,, 1j 111 15, r { W) ra��Ci %O. i; FJ, 14 r } T 4 :161 � ff• � e za r +t Ale S MAI r L f r �Cm r�nu�is: aird'r F Y ~ Ff f ■ �i Z�2% R. r r kr ------------ r ',,�/.,7�Alll Ar--7— ' "' "--" X- 40 b �� W---- Illol. 07/30/2002 09:27 651292GGBS PUBLIC USEING P "GE 03/e3 g to ftrve. ISS a member of the n) er oum R eve)OPment uthor' (Please 6e- 016 s c Bible - use additional • What is Joar view Of the role of it member of t .101:� 11 Mg & Redevelo Ment Authoriq • 9 J11il. r lop if ......... . .... *2 &2 1 z0Ci - { Other Commeo : (tne-Jude a r• r r'r � 1 .� o� you o d like. t o Ci c)unc • t1' { veeking. ever are H)t>uld dike the Council to c rd r, .� (A rX'ennessen ��a�k�i�� - 0rt1e or all the in.forrna�on that you are asked to provide is Qlassifled by state ] �. as either private or confidential. Pri�rate data is i��e��eti�r� �t �ener�lt� eg�tti�t �� i�re� t the do�. Confidential data is infarrn�atior� �at � � the p�b�� bu#� he ��ver� #� the s�hj�et �� et��ra�� cannot be- to either the pIjc or the subject of the data. Tile City of Ros ev ffle is oollecting thq information to deter � . You are not Ie ail required •4 determine �tia cations to serva on a Citizen Advise omWs ion. .. � ,� � �r � t�,r��e this ��a.f�rrna#ion. I3ov,�e,rer, if you do not supply � i � � on a Cithen Advisory ,Co xRploa. �� ' information, you �� t sere Other persons or, twes authored by taw to receive this ose~ i f rma On f,re City COU0eil members, staff, residents of �-lt1�� interested ors. undo tartd: This application is pubhe infom3ation. I may be invitektQ QA � -v i .e City Ouncf I that may . t 1 1s apph6a i _ dig R t OW.0 at a p0lip Teetip , 2)02- t71rL:rV D a4co) f pplication IIIIIIIIIIIIM Date: 09/203 Item: XI. A. Comet Summary of Onfinance 1 294 1 01 1 - 0 [Q FIAL V LIr L' �L I 0 1 DI 9 111, 1 0MIJ K lye DIL"A 8 Ell V 113 DES111 � M 3 Wf N%'101 011% On September 15, 200 3, the Roseville City Council enacted Ordinance 1294, which is summarized as follows: The Roseville City Code is amended by adding and changing provisi l ons relating to the siting and operation of bus benches. Among other things, signage on bus benches shall not exceed 11 square feet, the bench shall be located parallel to the street served by the bus stop, and bras benches as well as the area around such benches shall he maintained to certain standards. The ordinance takes effect upon the publishing of this summary. A printed copy of the ordinance is available for inspection by any person during regular office hours m the office of the City Manager at the Roseville City Hall, 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113. A copy of the ordinance and sunimary shall also be posted at the Reference Desk of the Roseville Branch of the Ramsey County Library, 2160 Ham fine Avenue North, and on the internet web page of the City of Roseville (www.ci.roseville.rnn.us . Attest: Neal Beets, City Manager Date: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 0f /03 ITEM NO.: X1. B. Department App rova : Manager Reviewed: Agenda Section: wr Consent Item Description: Approve Change Order # 1, Bid Package # 1, City Center Redevelopment Background: The proposed change order is for additional site and utility work on the City Center Redevelopment project. The changes increase the amount of the contract of Imperial Developers by $2,998 and are as follows: 1. Install an additional 360 LF of silt fence. (add $900) 2. Install 6" watermain stub for fire protection equipment for Fw facility per 06/1 7/03 memo. (add $1,730) 3. Furnish and install insulation for waterrnain connection in woodhill Drive. (add $260) 4. Install two (2) additional valley gutters per quote of 06/23/03. (add $1,836) 5. 50 feet of additional sanitary sewer and relocate manhole due to the actual elevation of the existing pipe being 2 feet higher than expected. (add $2,716) 6. Charge to Imperial Developers for Muska Electric to repair the broken conduit and to run new phone wire from the public works building to the I Ic ough trailer. This charge also includes the cost of the splice lit phone cable. This damage was caused by Imperial Developers. (deduct $1,294) 7, Charge to Imperial Developers for Master Technology Group emergency repair of the damaged conduit, copper cable and fiber optic cable. This damage was caused by Imperial Developers. (deduct $3,150) Financial Implications: The net cost for Change Order # 1 is $2,998. Contingency funds have been reserved within the project budget for unforeseen conditions and additional work necessary to complete the prof eet. RECOMMENDED OUN IL ACTION: Motion approving Change Order # 1, Bid Package #1, Imperial Developers Inc. in the amount of 998 for the City Center Redevelopment sitework and authorizing the City Manager to sign change orders for the project under $5000. Prepared by: Donna Koontz k*L9HYff+E B-tequest for Council ActioT. Date: September 22, 2003 Item Number: Xj. C. Department Approval Manager Approval Agenda Section Consent. Item Description: Planning Commission and Hurnan Rights Commission Appo intments Background: Human Rights Commissioner Martha Hardesty resigned because other time commitments. The Human Rights Commission provides a method of citizen input concerning human rights issues, promotes a positive human rights climate in the community through public education and addresses human rights complaints. Commissioners are appointed to three year terms and are eligible to serve up to three consecutive terms. This is the second vacancy on the Commission. The City advertised a vacancy in early summer but no residents applied. One Commission term expires March 2004 and the other expires March 2006 In addition, Planning Commission Chair Troy Duncan resigned because of other time commitments. The Planning Commission provides a forum for input into the City's specific planning applications and development plans and policies. The Commission identifies significant issues and makes recommendations to the City Council. The Commission term expires March 2007. Comrriissioners are appointed to four year terms and are eligible to sere up to two consecutive terms. Council Action Requested: Direct staff to advertise for applications to serve on the Human Rights Commission and Planning Commission with applications due to the City by November 7. Staff would bring forward names for the November 17 Council meeting. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION DAB: 09/22 /03 ITEM NO: X1. D. Department Approval: City Manager Approval: Agenda Section: TP /NB CONSENT Item Description: bequest by Charles Anderson for a VARUNCE to Section 101 ,0 B& of the Roseville City Code for property located at 303 South Owasso Boulevard F3516). 110 REQUESTED ACTION 1.1 bequest her Charles Anderson, 303 South Owasso Boulevard, for a Fence Height VARLkNCE to Section 1012. o B (Side or bear Yard Orly) of the Roseville City Code to extend the height of the existing hack yard fence to 9 feet, including the new construction of 57 lineal feet south of the home. Application submitted on August 1$, 2003 Determined complete on August 22, 2003 0 -day review deadline on October 219 2003 Staff` Review /Recommendation: Approval w /conditions, September 3, 2003 • Planning ornrnission: Approval (7 -o), September 3, 2002 • City Council Action — Approval w /conditions, September 22, 2003 a ■ IL 2.1 The Community Development Staff & Planning Conumission recommends approval of a Fence Height VARIANCE to Section 1012.02E (Side and Rear Yard Only) of the Roseville City Code for Charles Anderson to extend the height of the existing hack yard (777 ft.) fence to 9 feet in height. A new fence section (57--ft.) that consists of 5 feet in height 4 -hoard fencing will he constructed south of the home. Additionally, fence fabric made of concrete reinforced 6 inch by 6 inch heavy gauged wire mesh will stretch from the top of the 5 foot 4 -board section to a height of 9 feet at 303 S. Owasso Boulevard, subject to conditions. 3.0 SUGGESTED ACTION: 3.1 ADOPT a RESOLUTION approving a VARIANCE w /conditions (see Section 8 for more detail). PF3516 - RCA 092203- Page 1, of 4 a F" ,P9 *TJ I DVAW 0 P9 &$III- 4.1 Charles Anderson has submitted a proposal to extend two existing fence types north, south, and southeast of his home (4 -hoard and wire) to 9 feet in height, of which, 57 lineal feet (4 -board type) will be of new construction located south of the home. Roughly 777 feet of existing 4 -board and. 3 4 inch T -post wire fence is located on the property. The purpose of the fence is to exclude deer from the yard and maintain landscaping aesthetics (see attached picture). 4.2 The property has a zoning designation of R- 1 (Single - Family Residential District) and a Comprehensive Land Use of LR (Low Density residential). 4.3 Fencing will be constructed using two methods. The first will use 9 feet in height sections of 3 4 inch galvanized pipe posts, with a % inch electrical conduit top rail and a % inch galvanized bottom rail. Fence fabric consisting of concrete reinforcing h inch by 6 inch heavy gauged wire rncsh will be stretched fforn the top of the rail to the base rail (galvanized). Metal piping is much less visible than wood or vinyl fencing (much smaller than wood/vinyl). The second, will use already existing 5 foot tall 4 -board fencing to extend to 9 feet in height and use fence fabric that consists of concrete reinforcing h inch by 6 inch heavy gauged wire mesh which will stretch from the top of the 9 foot galvanized rail to the top of the 5 foot tall 4 -board existing fence (see attached diagram). 5.0 STAFF COMMENTS/FINDINGS 5.1 In accordance with Section 101 2.02C 1 (Location) where fencing meets adjacent (north south) property lines, said fencing will be located in such u way that the entire fence shall be on the property of the builder thereof. Posts and framework shall be placed within thepreperty fines of the owner and the actual fencing material such as wire, lumber, ,pickets, etc., shall be placed on the side of the fence which faces the street or the adjacentproperty, 5.2 The proposed plan is to extend from the existing 5 foot feene to 9 feet in height. The code allows 6 feet 6 inches; therefore this proposal requires a 2 foot 6 inch variance to Section 101 .02B (Side or Rear Yard only). 53 The section 10.12 02B& C of the Roseville City Code states; Fences or walls not to exceed a height o. f six and one -hal feet (6-112) above the grade except that in B (Business) or I (IndusfHal) Districts* 5.4 Section 1013-02 states: Where here are practical d� cuities or unusual hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions o. f this code, the city council shall have the dower, in a specific ease and after notice andpubiic hearings, to wiry any such provision in h arm ony with the general purpose and intent thereof and m4 impose such additional conditions as it considers necessary se that the public health, safety, and general welfare may be secured and substantiai justice dare. PF3 5 1 6- RCA 092203- Page 2 of 4 5.5 State Statute 462.. 57, subd 6 (2) provides authority for the city to "hear requestsfor var iancesfrom the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship " as used in connection with the granting of variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under condi ons allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, is f granted, will not alter the essen 'af character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship rf reasonable use for the proper& exists under the terms of the ordinance.... The board or governing body as the ease may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect" 5.6 Staff` analysis of undue hardship factors is as follows; A. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use r: used under conditions allowed by the official icial controls: The Community Development staff has reviewed the existing (immediate) site conditions to determine whether there is a reasonable altemative/solution that warrants positive support for the variance requested. Based on our review of the Anderson situation it is difficult to distract or keep out deer with a fence of only a 6' -6'} height. Thus a 2 foot 6 inch variance is required to allow an extended 9 foot high fence. Staff has concluded that the proposed fence, 9 feet in height is a practical and reasonable solution to the uniqueness of the parcel to prohibit deer from entering and damaging Mr. Anderson's flowers and vegetables. The Anderson house lies adjacent to Lake Owasso open space and Ladyslipper park where wildlife habitat congregate. Based on our analysis of the situation the Community Development Staff has determined that the property can be protected from continued destruction, made more hospitable, and can be gut to a reasonable use under the official controls, if a variance is granted. B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the properly not created by the landowner: when initially constructed the fence met all applicable codes and ordinances, and was constructed below the required side or rear yard fence height of 6 feet 6 inches. However, the plight caused by deer over the years has become increasingly severe. One mature apple tree and several Crab Apple trees (attached photo) have been Filled or suffer extensive deer damage. Among other things destroyed on the property include (4) North Star cherry trees, (2) fruiting plums, and many (at least 5) roses. That being said., Mr. Anderson has only one reasonable and practical option, extend the existing fence to 9 feet in height, two feet six inches above the six foot six inch maximum. The Community Development Staff has determined that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. PF3516 - INCA 092203- Page 3 of 4 The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential charmer o� f `the loca/ : The Community Development Staff has determined that this variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality, nor adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare, of the city or adjacent properties. 6.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Based on the information provided and the findings in Section 5 and 6 of this project report, staff` recommends approval of a 2 foot 6 inch height VARIANCE to Section 10 1 .0 E C of the Roseville City Code to allow constructi on of a 9 foot high fence at 303 S. Owasso Boulevard, subject to the following conditions: A. The extended fence be a maximum of roughly 828 feet in length and 9 feet in height to exclude deer and protect landscaping as illustrated in site plans. The review and approval of a building permit consistent with the approved plans and variance. C, The Fencing material used for the proposed fencing must be installed within the property owner's parcel in accordance to Section 101 .o 1 (Location). 7.1 On September 3, 2003, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing regarding the Anderson variance request. The Planning Commission voted (7 -o) to recommend approval of a VARIANCE to Section 10 1 2.02B &C (Side or Dear Yard Only) of the Roseville City Code, based on the findings of Section 5 and conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated September 3, 2003. 7.2 Marliss Ustad, 3058 Farmington Court, adjacent neighbor, said there are so many deer in the area it has become difficult to keep the deer away. The fence wlli divert deer and increase property value of adjacent homes. 7.3 Member Traynor asked if the fence could be screened or beautified. Mr. Anderson said that if the deer problem can be solved or removed, he would take the fence down. 7.4 Member Ipsen asked where the fence is currently located (around the entire yard). 8.0 SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 8.1 ADOPT a RESOLUTION approving a fence height VARIANCE to Section 1012 *02B (Side or bear Yard only) of the Roseville City Code, based on the � findings of Section 5 and conditions of Section 6 of the September 22, 2003 project. Prepared bar: Nathan Bouvet, Planning intern, Thomas Paschke (651- 490 -2236) Attachments: Location inapt narrative, site plan, aerial photo and PC minute extract. PF3516 - RCA 092203- Page 4 of 4 NARRATIVE, IN SUPPORT of VARAINcE APPLICATION PURPOSE of REQUEST. This is a request for a variance to the Roseville city code which limits the height of a fence to 6 feet 6 inches. I wash to extend an existing fence around the back part of our property from approximately 5 feet in height to g feet, to keep deer from entering. The 6.5 foot maximum fence height currently allowed in Roseville is not adequate to contain deer, according to both my experience and the university of Minnesota Extension service.. Theg foot nominal height and construction methods are as recommended by the University of Minnesota Extension service, Our property is about 3 acres in size, of which about an acre in the back of the property is currently fenced. This is the existing fence which will be extended to g feet. Repairs will be nude to the existing fence if and as needed, and one new section will be added so that the g foot fence does not extend beyond the front of the house. Ordinarily this fence will not be visible from south Owasso Blvd and will be visible only from a small section of the Farrington court cul -de -sac. I have completed the extension around my vegetable /annual flower garden, as I was unaware of the 6 feet 6 inch code limitation. This does, however, give me an opportunity to show what the completed fence looks like and to confirm its effectiveness. JUSTIFICATION. Horticulture for me has become a serious hobby, into which I have invested a lot of time and money. It proved to be almost a lifesaving aversion from the pain and fear of cancer when I was recovering from that in 1999 -2000. 1 have grown fruit trees, raspberries, and an extensive vegetable and flower garden since the mid 1970's. At one point I had one of the largest hardy Rose collections in the state, and would still if it were not for deer damage. I have won at least one blue ribbon at the Minnesota state Fair in one or both of vegetables or flowers for the last several years* However, I do not sell any vegetables and flowers, because I give the vegetables to individuals and food shelves and flowers to our church to decorate the church and to distribute there to shut -ins. Last year I found a couple who could not afford wedding flowers so I gage them the flowers for their wedding. I consider this opportunity to share the results of my shills and hobby with the community very important, as much a justification for my growing as my own personal rewards for doing so. In the last several years the damage caused by deer has become increasingly severe. This started in 1995 with the construction of the Owasso Hills development on the school District property. Among the things I have lost to deer damage are (4) North star cherry Trees, (3) apples of various types, (2) fruiting plums, and many (at least 5) roses. As the trees average $4o apiece, and the roses about $15 apiece, this is significant economic hardship that I have suffered. Many other fruit trees* shrubs, and roses have been damaged and parts of the vegetable and flower garden has been decimated. That damage was so severe in 2002 that it would have been futile to plant any vegetables and flowers this year without the extended height deer fence. In addition to the economic loss there is personal anxiety and heartbreak of watching the trees and plants that I had purchased and tended, destroyed by the deer. There is nothing that did to cause this problem, nor could I have prevented it in any gray. At the same time I am concerned about my safety. Last summer a deer that I was attempting to frighten away from some roses turned and started to approach nee. Increasing the shouting volume eventually frightened that deer, but I! have heard of serious injuries from deer. There is also the problem that deer introduce deer ticks, which carry Lyme disease. CONSTRUCTION DETAILS. The existing fence was extended in height with 4 foot sections of % inch galvanized pipe w h a/4 inch electrical conduit top rail, and fence fabric consisting of concrete reinforcing mesh hanging from the top rail (so that the fabric would not have to be stretched). The connectors at both the the bottom and top of the pipe extensions I fabricated myself from square steel tubing. This fence has been successful in keeping deer out of the flower and vegetable garden, where it is completed. There are several advantages of the all metal fence extension such as I have used . It is much less visible than any kind of wood or vinyl fence (the pipe is much smaller than a wood post or rail of similar strength). A second benefit is that the metal does not impede air circulation and thus is lass vulnerable to wind damage. of course the fence extension must be sufficiently strong so that dear cannot break down. It is harmless to people, pets, and even the deer. A child could climb the fend without danger of its collapse (with grandchildren, one thinks of these dangers too). None of my neighbors have objected, to my knowledge. Photographs of the completed section of the fence are attached. OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED. clearly needed a method to control deer in the hack part of our property,, The deer generally stag in Ladyslipper Park and came onto my property to feed. The options were an electric fence, continuous spraying with repellents, and the tall fence. of these there really was only one reasonable option, which was the to extend the existing fence to 9 feet. The tall fence seems more reasonable in a suburban area than an electric fence, which the D N R also recommends. I have used frequent spraying with an insecticide- deer repellent combination, but it is not completely effective* and the spray area is close to water which drains to Lake Owasso. The fruits and vegetables could not be sprayed themselves, of course Another option would be to petition Roseville to remove the deer from Ladyslipper Park, as has been done in other cities, but this probably would take some time and probably there would be some opposition as well as considerable expense to the city. SUMMARY request an approval of this variance to permanently extend the height of the fence around the back of my property to 9 feet, nominal. There are no changes to any structures, grading, drainage, or landscaping caused by or needed for this fence extension. There are several attachments to this request: 1. Legal description of the 303 S. Owasso property. 2. Photographs showing deer damage, and showing completed sections of this fence (the part around the vegetable and flower garden. 3. Two publications from the university of Minnesota Extension Service, and part of a long article from Colorado State university, stating the best options for deer control. 4. Site maps showing the fence locations, as prescribed by the Roseville parlance Request process. I am requesting a city - provided list of adjacent property owners list'.l:would like to have a copy of this list so that can send each owner a letter explaining exactly what the variance request is for and why 1 any making it. Sincerely, Charles E. Anderson 03 S. Owasso Blvd Roseville M N 5511 ' . . \� ^ ./ to sE 1� yvll Ir, ~ / / 03yr" to IL vie -:�cm�;' ''»`° ' ~~~ y.0 vIDIxm, %% // i ,,,, € € € €fi% � %%� I b. Planning , ,File 3516: Request by Charles Anderson, 303 South Owasso Boulevard, for a variance to Section 1012.02B Certain Structures Not 3 Considered Encroachments) & C (Fences) of the Roseville City Code to 4 install and extend the height of and existing hack yard fence to 9 feet. 5 6 Chairman Duncan opened the hearing and requested City Planning Thomas Paschke to present 7 verbal summary of the staff " report dated September 3, 2003 8 9 City Planner Thomas Paschke explained that Charles Anderson, 303 South Owasso Boulevard, seeks a Fence Height variance to Section 101 2.02B& (Side or Rear Yard only) of the Roseville City Code to extend the height of the existing back yard fence to 9 feet, including the new 12 construction of 57 lineal feet south of the home. The proposed plan is to extend from the existing 13 5 foot fence to 9 feet in height. The code allows 6 feet 6 inches, therefore this proposal requires a 14 two foot six inch variance to Section 10 12.02B3 (Side or Rear Yard only). The need for the fence 15 height is caused by deer (the property backs up to Ladyslipper Park). One mature apple tree and 16 several Crab Apple trees (attached photo) have been killed or suffer extensive deer damage. Among other things destroyed on the property include (4) North Star cberry trees, () fruiting 18 plums, and many (at least 25 ) roses. 19 0 Charles Anderson submitted a proposal to extend two existing fence types north, south, and 1 southeast of his home (4 -board and wire) to 9 feet in height, of which, 57 feet (4 -board type) will 2 be of new construction located south of the hone. Roughly 777 feet of existing 4 -board and 3/4 3 inch T -post wire fence is located on the property. The purpose of the fence is to exclude deer 24 from the yard and maintain landscaping aesthetics. The property has a zoning designation of R -1 (Single - Family Residential District) and a Comprehensive Land Use of LR (Low Density 6 Residential). 7 8 Fencing will be constructed using two methods. The first will use 9 feet in height sections of 3/4 9 inch galvanized pipe posts, with a % inch electrical conduit top rail and a % inch galvanized 30 bottom rail. Fence fabric consisting of concrete reinforcing 6 inch by 6 inch heavy gauged wire 31 mesh will be stretched from the top of the rail to the base rail (galvanized). Metal piping is much 32 less visible than wood or vinyl fencing (much smaller than wood/vinyl). The second will use 33 already existing 5 foot tall 4 -board fencing to extend to 9 feet in height and use fence fabric that 34 consists of concrete reinforcing 6 inch by 6 inch heavy gauged wire mesh which will stretch from 35 the top of the 9 foot galvanized rail to the top of the 5 foot tall 4-board existing fence. 36 37 Mr. Paschke explained that the, staff` recommends that this is a unlgfie Site and variance request 38 and reconunends approval of a 2 foot 6 inch fence height variance to Section 1012.02B3 of the 39 Roseville City Code to alloy construction of a 9 foot high fence at 303 S. Owasso Boulevard, 40 subject to the following conditions: 41 42 aF The extended fence is a maximum of roughly 828 feet in length and 9 feet in height to 43 exclude deer ai.nd protect landscaping as illustrated in site plans. 44 b. The review and approval of a building permit consistent with the approved plans and 45 variance. 46 c. The fencing material used for the proposed fence must be installed within the property 47 owner's parcel in accordance to Section 1012.0201 (Location). 48 49 Member Mulder asked if ` neighbors had commented. (Thomas described the calls received). 50 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 23 4 Mr. Anderson said in 1 995 when Owasso Hills began, the deer shifted to l adyslipper Park. He has last many hybridized, specialized plants to the deer. He said there were three styles of fence including a four hoard fence, a screen fence, and a mesh fence. He explained the new fence proposal. He said he talked to neighbors and NfN DNR regarding catching the deer. A deer hunt would involve many cities in the area. He can fend no other method to prevent damage. Marliss Ustad, 3058 Farmington Ct., adjacent neighbor, said there are so many deer in the area it has become difficult to keep the deer away. The fence will divert deer and decrease property value of adjacent hones. The wire fence would go on top of the wood fence. Member Traynor asked if the fence could be screened or beautified. Mr. Anderson said that if the deer problem can be solved or removed, he would tale the fence down. Member Zpsen asked where the fence is current located (around the entire yard). There being no further public comment, Chair Duncan closed the hearing. Motion: Member Peper moved, second by Member Bakeman, to recommend approval of a fence height Variance to Section 10 l 2.02B3 (Side or Dear Yard Only) of the Roseville City Code, based on the findings of Section 5 and conditions of Section 6 of'the project report dated September 3, 2003. Ayes: 7, Bakeman, Peper, Stone, Mulder, Ypsen, Duncan, Traynor Nays: o Motion Carried: EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVII,T,F Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was held on the 22nd day of September, 2003, at 6:30 p.m. The following members were present: and the following were absent: Council Member introduced the following resolution and moved its .. �vmmavn��miaamoorc�rmi�i�i�i�i�i�iwrc�rtrc�rtrc�rtrc adoption: RESOLUTION No. A SOLUTION APPROVING A VARLkNCE To SECTION I0I2.02P & C of THE oSEVI E IT'S" CODE FOR CHARLES ANDERSON, 303 SOUTH O ASSO BOULEVARD (PF3512). WHEREAS, Charles Anderson requested a Variance to Section 1012.02B (Fence Height) of the Roseville le ity Code to allow the installation of a 9 foot tall fence around a portion of his yard; and WHEREAS, the Anderson residence is located at 303 South Owasso Boulevard, and legally described as: The South 500 feet of Lot 18, Map of A.K. Barnum's Garden Lots, except the South 1 acr.; of that pa of r Barnum's Garden Lots lying North of the North Une of South Lake i Boulevardt PIN: 01-29-23-12-0026 WHEREAS, Section 10 12.0 B & C limits the height of fences within side and rear yards to a height of 6-1/2 feet and in front yards to a height of 4 feet; and WHEREAS, Mr. Anderson has requested a Variance to allow the installation of a 6 inch by 6 inch heavy gage wire mesh fence to a height of 9 feet to deter and or, eliminate deer from entering his flower and Vegetable garden; and WHEREAS, Mr. Anderson has tried a number of reasonable and costly methods for deterring or distracting the deer that enter and damage his flowers, trees, and Vegetables; and WHEREAS, The Roseville planning Commission held the public hearing regarding the Anderson request on September 3, 2003, recommending (7 -o) approval of the Variance request *x based on the findings of Section 5 and conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated s September 3, 2003; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Roseville City Council, to APPROVE the request by Charles Anderson for a VARIANCE to Section 1012. 02E & C (Fence Height) of the Roseville City Code, subject to the following conditions; 1. The extended fence be a maximum of 828 feet in length and 9 feet in height to exclude deer and protect landscaping as illustrated in site plans. The review and approval of a building permit be consistent with the approved plans and variance. 3, The Fencing material used for the propose fencing must be installed within the property owner's parcel in accordance to Section 10 1t021 (Location). The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: and the following voted against: VMEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 0 Resolution — PF 3516 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )Ss COUNTY OF R.AMSEY ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 22nd of September, 2003, with the original thereof on file in my office, WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 22nd day of September, 2003. State of Minnesota - County of Ramsey Signed or Attested before me on this play of by.- Neal J. Beets Notary Public 2003 Neal J. Beets, City Manager li�ilillill 06 Fs, I rd I0 Y IGJ Y Vi ti,4, .. )J fr ; X� LO U— ^f ? ? t�v�1 1JalyJ� Tt ,u y' )J fr ; X� LO U— ^f Z ca 4r {2 9 r c F ir k �r - u du I a ®m J t�v�1 1JalyJ� Tt y' l ? k i IaP, Z ca 4r {2 9 r c F ir k �r - u du I a ®m J 9 1 "two � � � � � � � � , ; �� \ «, iffi prmg, W \� » \ « } 0 di� I S; oils" y \ \ ` � \ ^ / . \/� . d d } . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . in � h � lq' ,. � '� "..� ' � °m� �" W+ � r �� "�r�ir III ��'rc � i '' ig s �Y �';!,h z ry� w�,y�� i '� ..fur m 1� � ut�a.. ....... ....... REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION 110 REQUESTED ACTION: Michael Davis? 2730 r'ggs Street, seeks approval of a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT and a VARIANCE to Section 1 004.01 A3 (Detached Accessory Building Size) of the Roseville City Code to allow the construction of a 1,020 sq. ft. detached accessory building in the rear yard for secured garage, workshop, and kernel. PROJECT REVIEW HISTORY Application submitted on August 12, 2003. • Determined complete on August 19, 2003. • 0 -day review deadline on October 18, 2003. Staff Recommendation: Approval w /conditions — September 3, 2003. Planning Commission: Hearing econmmendation, September 3, 2003. City Council Decision: Approval w conditions, September 2, 2003 2.0 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: 2.1 The Community Development Staff & Planning Commission recommend approval of a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT and 60 sq* It. VARIANCE CE to Section 1004.01A3 (rear yard coverage) and a 560 sq. ft. VARIA.NCE to Section 1004.01A (impervious coverage) of the Roseville City Code for Michael Davis to allow construction of a 960 sq. ft. detached accessory building in the rear yard at 2730 Griggs Street, subject to conditions. 3.0 SUGGESTED ACTION: 3.1 ADOPT a RESOLUTION approving the request w /conditions (see Section 8 for detailed action). PF3518 -- RCA 092203 - Page 1 of 6 4.0 REVIEW of REQUEST: Michael Davis has submitted a proposal to construct a detached accessory building on his lot. The structure, a 3 o foot by 34 foot (1 1020 sq. ft) detached garage would be located in the general location of the existing detached garage on the prerr'ses. The City Code limits detached accessory buildings to a maximum size of 1,008 sq. #t. and impervious coverage to 30% of the lot area. In this case, the proposed 1,020 sq. ft, detached accessory building is 12 sq. ft. more than allowed by the Code with a Conditional Use Permit, and the total impervious surface coverage for the parcel upon completion of the proposed improvements is estimated at 3,534 sq. ft. or 530 sq. ft. above the parcels allotment. 4.2 The Davis home was constructed in 1 954 and lies on a 10,013 square foot (75 feet by 133.5 feet) lot. The lot has an impervious coverage allowance of 3,004 sq. ft and a rear yard allowance of goo sq. #I. The parcel currently includes a house foundation size of 1,091 sq. ft; are existing detached accessory building side of 572 sq. ft.; existing driveway of 1,423 sq. to all totaling 3,086 sq. ft or 82 sq. ft, more that the City Code allows for the Davis parcel. 4.3 Variance Conditions Proposed: SECTION 1004.01A3 Existing Condition Proposed Condition Variance Requested Detached Accessory Building Size 1,008 sq, ft. 572 sq. ft. 1,020 sq. ft. w /DI' 12 sq. ft. SECTION 1004.01A6 Impervious Coverage 3,004 sq. ft. /30% 3,086 s . W31 % 3,534 sq. ft.l35.5 % 530 sq. ft. /5.5 � a 5,0 STAFF COMMENTS/FINDINGS: 5.1 Section .01A3 reads: "Detached Accessory Building size Limit: Total detached accessory building area shall be limited to 40 of a rega �d rear yard area up to a maximum size of 864 sq. f t. (1, 008 sq. fit. under CUP - Section 1004.01A 4). The 40 rear yard limitation is calculated by taking the width of ~the subject lot or parcel and multiplying it by the required rear yard setback depth of `3O eet, then multiplying that number by. 4 or 40%. The Davis parcel, with a width of 75 feet, is calculated to have a rear yard allowance of goo sq. ft. 5.2 Section 1004.01 A6 reads: "Maximum Total Surf ace Area: Including detached accessory buildings, principal structures, pavement sauces (asphalt, concrete an or beck, store or other paver), the total impervious surface on a residential lot or parcel shall not exceed 30 of "t the total lot or parcel size." The Davis parcel is 10,013 square feet to size, affording 3,002 square feet of impervious coverage. PF3 518 - RCA 092203 - Page 2 of 6 53 Built before the 30% surface coverage requirement, the existing improvements (principal structure — 12091 sq ft., driveway -- 1,423 sq. ft., detached garage 572 sq. ff.) exceed the requirement of the Code by 82 square feet* 5.4 Section 1004.01 A4 established the criteria for reviewing conditional use permits. In the case of the subject request, the review considers specific impacts the proposed 1,020 sq. ft accessory building creates. Said criteria are listed below: a. Impact on traffic Impacts on parks, streets and other public facilities C, Compatibility of the site plan, internal circulation, landscaping and structure with contiguous properties Impact of the use on market value ofcontiguous properties e. Impact on the general public health} safety and ire dare f Compatibility with the City s Comprehensive Plan 5.5 The City Planner has reviewed the development proposal with regard to the criteria ` in Section 1013.01.D (Conditional Use Permit) of the Roseville Zoning Ordinance and has concluded the proposal meets these criteria. Specifically, a detached accessory building 1s a permitted use in an R -1 District. The proposed detached garage will not create additional traffic or the need for additional public facilities. with proper exterior building treatment, drainage, and landscaping, the building will not have an impact on surrounding property or values. There appears to be no impact on general health, safety, and public welfare. In addition, the project complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation as low - density residential uses. 5.6 The City Planner has reviewed the development proposal with regard to variance standards and detenninedi that it is difficult to justify a departure from the strict application of the City Code allowing the applicant to construct the proposed detached 1,020 sq. ft detached accessory building. However, there is justification for reducing the size of the replacement garage to a size closer to the goo sq. ft rear yard maximum afforded the parcel. 53 Specifically, a 32 foot by 30 foot (960 sq. ff.) detached accessory building designed with attic trusses would reduce overall impervious coverage by 60 sq. ft. and be nearer to the rear yard allowance, but more importantly, the design would still afford lair. Davis a three car garage with ample interior storage area for the items indicated. 5.8 Section 1013.02 states: where there are practical difficulties or unusual hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this code, the eity council shall have the power, in a specific case and after notice and public hearings, to vary any such provision in harmony with the general purpose and intent thereof and may impose such additional conditions as it considers necessary so that the , public health, safety, and general welfare may be secured and substantial justice" done* FF3518 — RCA 092203 - Page 3 of 6 5.9 State Statute 462357, subd. 6 (2) provides authority for the city to "hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in beeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance.... The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect' 5.10 The property in question cannot be pot to a reasonable use x� f used under conditions allowed by the official controls: Currently Mr. Davis is unable to construct any improvements that expand impervious coverage without a variance. He is also unable to realistically reduce impervious coverage through design. Specifically, the ability to attach the garage becomes a complicated structural design challenge, as well as a costly venture. Attaching a garage would also require a variance to the side yard setback. The proposed detached garage could be placed closer to the home, eliminating some of the existing impervious coverage, but the subsequent iocation would caseate a difficult back -up maneuver to the narrow driveway. The only other option is to require the detached garage size be reduced to the required 900 sq. ft size. However, staff` supports a reduced accessory building size of 960 square feet that meets the needs and desires of the applicant and is practical for the parcel and a reasonable design. The Community Development Staff has determined that the property can be made more livable and put to a reasonable and practical use under the official controls, if a variance not to exceed 470 sq. ft+ is granted. 5.11 The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner* The Davis home was constructed in 1954and an average parcel for that era. However, the parcel is narrower (75 feet) and smaller ( 10,013 sq. ft.) than the current code prescribes. In addition, current improvements pre date accessory building and lot coverage requirements that have been established to balance impacts. That being said, there are limited options offered to Mr. Davis to resolve his storage space needs. The Community Development Staff has determined that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner (modest Dome on large parcel). 5.12 The variance, if granted, will not alter the essendal character o. f `the locality: Although a large detached accessory building (garage) is not a design feature of the late 1950's, there appears to be a need for similarly sized structures in the neighborhood. Most of the homes that lie adjacent to veteran's Park on the east side of Griggs Street have detached garages in the rear yard with sized ranging from 572 sq. ft. (Davis) to near Boo sq. ft. The PF3518 — RCA 092203 - Pug 4 of 6 , reduced size proposed by staff (960 sq. ff.) can be designed to be compatible with the neighborhood with a roof design and windows that minimize massing impacts. T � � p ts. he Community Development Staff has determined that a 470 sq. #'t variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality, nor adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare, of the city or adjacent properties. 6.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Based on the information provided and the findings in Section 5 of this project report, the Community Development Staff recommends approval of `a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (garage size) in accordance with Section 1004.01A4; approval of a 60 sqb ft. VARLkNCE (rear yard are) to Section 1004.01A3; and a 470 sq. ft* VARIANCE to Section 1004.01A6 (impervious coverage) of the Roseville City Code for Michael Davis to allow the construction of detached accessory building in the rear yard at 2730 Griggs Street, subject to the following conditions: A. A maximum detached accessory building size of 30 feet by 32 feet or 960 sq. it. B. A maximum impervious coverage of 3,564 sq, ft. or 35.6 %. C. A maximum accessory building height of 15 feet to the mid -point of the roof truss. D. The detached accessory building being limited to the storage of residential vehicles, lawn and garden items, seasonally used recreational vehicles or items (snowmobiles), household items, and a dog fennel. E. Submittal of a scaled site plan indicating existing and proposed conditions consistent with the above variance conditions. F. Windows being placed on the north and south building gall to break -up the building wall. G. Gutters installed along the eves of the detached accesses. - building and directed to the parcel's interior yard (northeast) to reduce impacts to the adjacent residential properties. H. The review and approval of a building permit must be consistent witb the approved plans and variance. PF3518 — RCA 092203 . Page 5 of 6 7.0 PIANNING COMMSSION ACTION: 7.1 On September 32 2003, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing regarding the Davis CUPNariance request, at which hearing no citizens spore in opposition of the request. 7.2 Mr. Davis did address the Cone �ssion indication that his desire was for a slightly larger detached garage and paved area due to his profession as a Saint Paul l -9 Police Officer and because he has two vehicles and hone and garden items. 7.3 The Commission asked the City Planner why the garage was reduced from the proposed size and the City Planner indicated to reduce lot coverage and mitigate that impact and that a 960 is a fairly good sized 3 stall garage. 7A The Conunission asked the Planner whether a dog fennel was considered an accessory building. The City Planner indicated that a reasonable stand -along fennel would not be considered an accessory building, but that one similar to the existing fennel of Mr. Davis, would qualify. 7.5 The Manning Conunission recommended approval (7 -0) of a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT allowing the construction of a 90 sq. ft. detached accessory building (garage) in the same general location of the existing detached accessory building; recommended approval (7 -o) o f a 60 sq. ft. VARIANCE to section 1004.01 A3 (Rear Yard Coverage) o f the Roseville City Code; and reconm ended approval (7-0) of a VARIANCE to Section 1004.01A6 (Lot Coverage) of the Roseville City Code, all based on the findings of Section 5 and conditions of Section 6 (as modified by the Commission's actions) of the project report dated September 3, 2003. 8.0 SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 8.1 ADOPT a RESOLUTION approving a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (garage size) allowing the construction of a 960 sq. ft. detached accessory buiiding at 2730 Griggs Street, based on the findings of Section 5 of the project report dated September 3, 2003, and conditions listed on the resolution'. 8.2 ADOPT a RESOLUTION approving a 60 sq. ft. VARLkNCE to Section 1004.01A3 (Detached Accessory Building Size Limit) of the Roseville City Code, based on the findings of Section 5 of the project report dated September 3, 2003, and conditions listed on the resolution. 8.3 ADOPT a RESOLUTION approving a 560 sq. ft. (5.6 %) VARLANCE to Section I004.01A6 (Maximum Total Impervious Surface Area) of the Roseville City Code, based on the findings of Section 5 of the project report dated September 3, 2003, and conditions listed on the resolution. Prepared by: Thomas Pasch a (651-490-2236) and Dennis Welsch (651-490-2232) Attachments: Location map, narrative, site plan, draft minutes, and resolutions. PF3518 — RCA 092203 - Page 6 of 6 ilk, A t '� A" MY DAME IS NDKE DAVIS AND I MOVED TO 2730 GRIGGS ST. IN APRIL 1 994. HAVE MADE MANY FRIENDS IN MY NEIGBBORHOOD AND PLAN ON STAYING I MY HOUSE AFTER I RETIRE. I HAVE BEEN A POLICE OFFICER IN ST. PAUL FOR THE LAST 191/2 YEARS AND AM CURRENTLY ASSIGNED TO THE K-9 UNIT. THIS ENTITLES NE TO A TAKE HOME SQUAD CAR IN WHICH I AM CUR.RENTLY PARKING IN MY NEIGHBORS DRIVEWAY TO DEEP IT OFF THE STREET. MY CURRENT GARAGE IS A 26X22 FT BUILDING WITH NO ATTIC SPACE FOR S T RA rE . IT WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT AS A 1 1/2 STALL GARAGE AND AN ADDITIONAL SLAB AND ADDITION WAS ADDED LATER., MAKING IT A 2 1/7. STALL GARAGE. THIS WAS WELL BEFORE I BOUGHT TIE HOUSE. THE SLAB IN WMCH IT WAS BUILT UPON WAS NOT BUILT UP HIGH ENOUGH, WHEN IT RAINS OR WHEN THE SNOW ALTS, I HAVE WATERS RUNNING INTO THE GARAGE, WHICH THEM FREEZES IF THE WEATHER IS COLT] ENOUGH, THE WATER HAS ALREADY CORRODED THE ELECTRICAL DES THAT RUIN UP THRU THE SLAB. I HAVE HAD TO MAKE REPAIRS TO THE WBRJNG. THE ORIGINAL SLAB HAD A DRAIN HOLE IN THE MIDDLE. WHATEVER THE BUILDER HAD USED AS A TRAP UNDER THE SLAB HAS DETERIORATED CAUSING THE SOIL UDDER THE DRAIN TO COLLAPSE. THE AREA UNDER THAT PORTION OF THE SLAB IS HOLLOW UNDERNEATH. THIS WILL ONLY CONTINUE TO WEAKEN. THE STUCCO SIDING IS ALSO DETERIORATING, CRACKING AND FALLING OFF. SOS OF THE INNER WOOD HAS ROTTED DUE TO THIS. I AM PROPOSING A. 30X34 FT. BUILDING, 1020 S• FT., 'UCH WILL BE SIMILAR TO THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. IT WILL PROBABLY HAVE VRqYL S IDIN . IT WILL HAVE ATTIC SPACE FOR STORAGE SO I CAN FREE UP MY BASE NT SPACE. I AM PLANNING ON PARKING MY 2 PERSONAL EI IDLES AND MY SQUAD CAR IN IT. IF I HAVE TIC SPACE, I WOULD -ALSO LIRE TO BE ABLE TO STORE MY 2 SNOWMOBILES SO I OULD "T HAVE TO PARK THEM OUTSIDE IN MY YARD. I WOULD ALSO LIFE EXTRA SPACE TO BE ABLE TO PUT MY DOGS HOUSE INSIDE FOR EXTRA SHELTER AND WARMM. THIS IS ALSO FOR SECURITY FOR MY DOG AND MY SQUAD CAR AS PEOPLE HAVE USED MY YARD TO WALK BACK AND FORTH TO THE SOFTBALL FIELD(VETERANS PARR), THE VEW AND AMOCO STATION. I HAVE HAD SUBSTANCES ES THROWN ON MY SQUAD WHEN IT HAS BEEN OUT OIL THE STREET. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, SPT ERELY MIKE DAVIS L-M 62 ia�S S7. /yll�f J4V1s �75a �:arc,�s ;r `/8i x/35 I Planninir File 3515: Request by Michael Davis, 2730 Griggs Street for a 2 Conditional Use Permit in accordance with Section 1004.01A4 and a 3 variance to Section 1004.01A3 Detached Accessory Building Size) and 4 Section 1004.01A6 (Maximum Total Surface Area) of the Roseville City 5 Code to allow the construction of a 30 foot by 34 foot (1,020 sq, ftj detached 6 accessory building. 7 Chairman Duncan opened the hearing and requested City Planning Thomas Paschke to present 9 verbal summary of the staff report dated September 3, 2003. City Planner Paschke explained that Michael Davis, 2730 Griggs Street, seeps approval of a 12 Conditional Use Permit and a Variance to Section 1004.01A3 (Detached Accessory Building 13 Size) of the Roseville City Code to allow the construction of a 1,020 sq. ft. detached accessory 14 building in the rear yard. 15 16 Michael Davis has submitted a proposal to construct a detached accessory building on his lot. The 17 structure, a 30 foot by 34 foot (1,020 sq. ft) detached garage would be located in the general 18 location of the existing detached garage on the premises. The City Code limits detached 19 accessory buildings to a maximum size of 1,008 sq. ft. and impervious coverage to 30% of the lot 20 area. In this case, the proposed 1,020 sq. ft. detached accessary building is 12 sq. ft. more than 1 allowed by the Code with a Conditional Use Pennit, and the total impervious surface coverage for the parcel upon completion of the proposed improvements is estimated at 3,534 sq. ft. or 530 sq. 3 ft. above the parcels allotment. 4 25 The Davis home was constructed in 1954 and lies on a 10,013 square foot abet by 133.5 feet) 6 lot. The lot has an impervious coverage allowance of 3,004 sq. f1 and a rear yard allowance of 7 900 sq. f. The parcel currently includes a house foundation size of 1,091 sq. f1; an existing 8 detached accessory building side of 572 sq. f1.; existing driveway of 1,423 sq. f1; all totaling 9 3,086 sq. ft or 82 sq. ft. more that the City Code allows for the Davis parcel. The Davis parcel is 30 10,013 square feet in size, affording 3,002 square feet of impervious coverage. Built before the 31 30% surface coverage requirement, the existing improvements (principal structure — 1,091 sq f1., 32 driveway — 1,423 sq. ft., detached garage 572 sq. f1.) exceed the requirement of the Code by 82 33 square fee (currently 31 %). 34 Mr. Paschke reviewed the development proposal with regard to the criteria in Section 1013.01.D 3 (Conditional Use Permit) of the Roseville Zoning Ordinance and has concluded the proposal 36 meets these criteria. Specifically, a detached accessory building is a permitted use in an R -1 37 District. The proposed detached garage will not create additional tram b or the need for additional 38 public facilities. with proper exterior building treatment, drainage, and landscaping, the building 39 will not have an impact on surrounding property or values. Where appears to be no impact on general health, safety, and public welfare. In addition, the project complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation as low - density residential uses. The City Planner reviewed the 42 development proposal with regard to variance standards and determined that it is difficult to 43 justify a departure from the strict application of the City Code allowing the applicant to construct 44 the proposed detached 1,020 sq. ft detached accessory building. However, there is justification for 45 reducing the size of the replacement garage to a size closer to the 900 sq. ft rear yard maximum 46 afforded the parcel. Specifically, a 32 foot by 30 foot (960 sq. f1.) detached accessory building 47 designed with attic trusses would reduce overall impervious coverage by 60 sq. ft. and be nearer 48 to the rear yard allowance, but more importantly, the design would still afford Mr. Davis a three 49 car garage with ample interior storage area for the items indicated. 50 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 1 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 0 1 23 24 5 26 7 8 29 30 31 3 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4 43 44 4 46 47 4 49 50 51 Mr. Paschke advised he has received calls from neighbors supporting 1020 s.f.. He stated that staff' recommends approval of a Conditional Use Permit (garage size) in accordance with Section 1 004.01 A4; approval of a 60 sq. ft. Variance (real- yard are) to Section 1004.01 A3; and a 470 sq. f1. Variance to Section 1 004.01 A6 (impervious coverage) of the Roseville City Code for Michael Davis to allow the construction of a detached accessory building in the rear yard at 2730 Griggs Street} subject to the following conditions: a. A maximum detached accessory building size of 30 ft. by 32 ft. or 960 sq. ff. b. -A maximum impervious coverage of 3,474 sq. #f. or 34.6 %. c. A maximum accessory building height of 15 feet to the told -point of the roof truss. d. The detached accessory building being limited to the storage of residential vehicles, lawn and garden items, seasonally used recreational vehicles or items (snowmobiles), household items, and a dog kennel. e. Submittal of a scaled site plan indicating existing and proposed conditions consistent with the above variance conditions. f. windows tieing placed on the north and south building wall to break -up the building wall. g. Gutters installed along the eves of the detached accessory building and directed to the parcel's interior yard (northeast) to reduce impacts to the adjacent residential properties, Ii. The review and approval of a building permit must be consistent with the approved plans and variance. Mr. Davis distributed a garage plan and explained the proposal. The old garage is .a 1 '/2 car garage, and then it was added to make it a 2 Y2 car garage (shoddy work) which would be torn down. The hardship is that he brings a police work car home which roust be secured in a neighborhood with many cut - through walkers and children The dog kennel would be attached to the garage. The police dog has been teased. He asps for room for three cars, two snowmobiles and bench/dog house. He will store materials in the garage attic trusses. Member Traynor asked for clarification on the 30' x 32' garage (960 versus 1020). He asked staff` ghat the rational was for reducing size of the garage [(I) mitigation to reduce yard coverage, (2) no more than size of garage for three vehicles plus storage] . Member Mulder asked if the kennel was considered an accessory building (no). Member Stone asked if a dog kennel has a cover, is it an accessory b -gilding (no, but it could be in a gray area). Thomas Paschke said the replacement proposed is near the same size as the existing garage plus kennels. A new slab will be created outside the proposed garage. There being no further public comment, Chair Duncan closed the hearing. Notion: Member Mulder moved, second by Member Stone} to recommend approval of a Conditional Use permit (960 sq. ft. garage size) based on the findings of Section 5 and conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated September 3, 2003. Ayes: 7, Bakeman, Peper, Stone, Mulder, 1psen, Duncan, Traynor Nays: 0 Motion carried 7.0. ry 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Motion; Member Mulder moved, second by Member Bakeman, to recommend approval of a 60 sq. ft. Variance to Section 1004.0 1 A3 (Detached Accessory Building Size Limit) of the Roseville City Code, based on the findings of Section 5 and conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated September 3, 2003. Ayes: 7, Bakeman, leper} Stone, Mulder, Ipsen, Duncan, Traynor Nays: 0 Motion carried 7 -0. Motion: Member Mulder moved, second by Member Bakeman, to reconnmend approval of a 560 s.f . garage and dog nun, or 3,564 s.f. total 35.6% Variance to Section 1004.01 A6 (Maximum Total Impervious Surface Area) of the Roseville City Code, based on the findings of Section 5 and conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated September 3, 2003. Ares: 7, Bakeman, leper, Stone, Mulder, Ipsen, Duncan, Traynor Nays: o Motion carried. EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVIT.i F Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville, County of mosey, Minnesota, was held on the 22nd day of September, 2003, at 6:30 P.M. The following members were present: and the following were absent: Council Member introduced the following resolution and moved its G11VW4iM11141WIIIIIIII�1111�1111�1111�1111�1111�1111�1QIN114 \YflNi @II((((((((((((ll llYfAfMNHHHHHHHRI�ii ................................ n.,. adoption: RESOLUTION NO, . RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ITT ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 1004.01A4 OF THE RO EVILLE CITY CODE FOR MICHAEL DAVIS, 2730 GRIGGS STREET (PF3518),, WHEREAS, Michael Davis requested a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with Section 1004.01A4 of the Roseville City Code to allow the construction of a 960 square foot detached accessory building in his rear yard; and as: WHEREAS, the Davis residence is located at 2730 Griggs Streeet, and legally described Lot 8, Black 2., North Ridge .flat I, P1. 03-29-23-44-0008 WHEREAS, Section 1004.01 A4 establishes the criteria for reviewing conditional use permits, which is as follows: a+ Impact on traffic Impacts on parks, streets and other public facilities C, Compatibility o, f the site plan, internal circulation, landscaping and structure with contiguous properties Impact of 'the use on market value of contiguous properties e. Impact on the general public health, safety and we are Compatibility with the City's Comprehensive Plan WHEREAS.; it has been determined that the proposed request by Michael Davis meets the criteria stipulated in Section 1004.0 1 A4 of the Roseville City Code. Specifically, a detached accessory building is a permitted use in an R -1 District. The proposed detached garage will not create additional traffic or the need for additional public facilities. with proper exterior building treatment, drainage, and landscaping, the Building will not have an impact on surrounding property or values. There appears to be no impact on general health, safety, and public welfare. In addition, the project complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation as low - density residential uses; and WIIEREA, The Roseville Planning Conunission held the public hearing regarding the Davis request on September 3, 2003, recotnrnending (7 -0) approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a 960 square foot detached accessory building in the rear yard of propel located at 2730 eggs Street based on the findings of Section 5 and conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated September 3, 2003; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Roseville City Council, to APPROVE the request by Michael Davis for a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT in accordance with Section 1004.01 A4 of the Roseville City Code, subject to the following conditions; 11 A maximum detached accessory building size of 30 feet by 32 feet or 960 sq. #t. 2. A maximum impervious coverage of 3,564 sq. ft. or 35.6 %w 3. A maximum accessory building height of 15 feet to the mid -point of the roof truss. The detached accessory building being limited to the storage of residential vehicles, lawn and garden items, seasonally used recreational vehicles or items (snowmobiles), household items, and a dog kennel. 51 Submittal of a scaled site plan indicating existing and proposed conditions consistent with the above variance conditions. 6. Windows being placed on the north and south building wall to break -up the building wall. 7. Gutters installed along the eves of the detached accessory building and directed to the parcel's interior yard (northeast) to reduce impacts to the adjacent residential properties. The review and approval of a building permit must be consistent with the approved pans and variance. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member. and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: and the following voted against: VV"HEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Resolution — PF 3518 (1) STATE OF MIlVNESOTA } )ss COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manage` of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that l have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 22nd of September, 2003, with the original thereof on file in my office. WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 22nd day of September, P4111 M Meal J. Beets, City Manager State of Minnesota -- County of Ramsey Signed or Attested before the on this day of 1 2003 by; Deal J. Beets Notary Public EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILI,F Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville, Counter of Ramsey, Minnesota, was held on the 22nd day of September, 2003, at 6:30 p.m. The following members were present: and the following were absent: Council Member adoption* introduced the following resolution and moved its RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARLkNCE TO SECTION 1004,01A3 OF THE RO EVIi,LE CITY CODE FOR MICHAEL DAVIS., 2730 GIUGGS ST ET (PF3518)8 WHEREAS, Michael Davis requested a 'variance to Section 1004.0 1 A3 (Detached Accessory Building Size Limit) of the Roseville City Cede to allow the construction of a 960 square foot detached accessory building in his rear yard; and WRI WHEREAS, , the Davi's residence is located at 2730 Griggs Streeet, and legally described Lot 8, Block 2., North Ridge Plat I, PIN, 03-29-23-44-0008 WHEREAS, Section 1004.01 A3 reads "Detached Accessory Building size Limit: Total detached accessary building area shall be limited to 40 of a required rear yard area up to a maximum size of 864 sq. ft. (1, 008 sq. fit. under CUP - Section 1 004.01 A 4). The 40 rear- yard limitation is calculated by taking the width of the subject lot or parcel and multiplying it by the re r fired rear yard setback depth of 30 feet, then multiplying that number by. 4 or 40 . and VMEI EA , the Davis parcel, with a width of 75 feet has been determined to have a rear yard accessory building allowance of 900 square feet; and WHEREAS,, the request by Mr. Davis for a 960 square foot detached accessory building exceeds the rear yard limit by 60 square feet, thus a variance is necessary; and WHEREAS, The Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing regarding the Davis request on September 3, 2003, recommending (7 -o) approval of the 60 square foot Variance to Section 1004.01A3 of the Roseville City Code allowing the construction of a 960 square foot detached accessary building in the rear yard of property located at 2730 Griggs Street, based on the findings of Section 5 and conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated September 3, 2003; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Roseville City Council, to APPROVE the request by Michael Davis for a 60 square foot VARAINCE to Section 1004.01 A3 (Detached Accessory Building Size Limit ) of the Roseville City Code, subject to the following conditions; A maximum detached accessory building size of 30 feet by 32 feet or 960 sq. ff. A maximum impervious coverage of 3,564 sq. ft or 35.6%. 3, A maximum accessory building height of 15 feet to the mid -point of the roof truss. The detached accessory building being limited to the storage of residential vehicles, lawn and garden items, seasonally used recreational vehicles or items (snowmobiles), household items, and a dog kennel. 5, Submittal of a scaled site plan indicating existing and proposed conditions consistent with the above variance conditions. 6, windows being placed on the north and south building gall to brew -up the building gall. 7, Gutters installed along the eves of the detached accessory building and directed to the parcel's interior yard (northeast) to reduce impacts to the adjacent residential properties. g. The review and approval of a building permit must be consistent with the approved plans and variance. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: and the following voted against: WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 0) Resolution — PF 3518 (2) STATE OF MIlVNESOTA } )SS courrTY of RAMsEY ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Mate of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 22nd of September, 2003, with the original thereof on file in my office. WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 22nd day of September, 2003. Deal J. Beets, City Manager State of Minnesota - County of Ramsey Signed or Attested before me on this day of 2003 by: Deal J. Beets Notary Public EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVI�.TR Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville, Counter of Ramseur, Minnesota, was held on the 22nd day of September, 2003, at 6:30 p.m. The following members were present: and the following were absent: Council Member adoption: introduced the following resolution and moved its RESOLUTION loo. A RESOLUTION "PROVING A VARIANCE To SECTION 1004.01A6 of THE ROSEVI CITY CODE FOR MICHAEL DAVIS, 2730 GRIGGS S'I' (PF3518)4 WHEREAS, Michael Davis requested a Variance to Section 1004.01A6 (Maximum Total Surface Area) of the Roseville City Code to allow the construction of a 960 square foot detached accessory building in his rear yard; and as: WHEREAS, the Davis residence is located at 2730 Griggs Streeet, and legally described Lot 8, Block 2, North .ridge Plat 1, Pl . 03-29-23-44-0008 WHEREAS, Section 1004.01A3 reads "Maximum Total Surface .r-ea: Including detached accessory buildings, principal structures, pavement surfaces (asphalt, concrete andlor brick, stone or other paver), the total impervious surface an a residential lot or parcel shall not exceed 30 of the total lot orparcel size. "; and WHEREAS, the Davis parcel is 10,013 square feet in size, affording 3,002 square feet of impervious coverage; and WHEREAS, Mr. Davis has an existing impervious on coverage the parcel of 3,086 square feet, or an existing overage of 82 square Feet or I%; and WHEREAS, the proposal by Mr. Davis to construct a 960 square foot detached accessory building, small paved kennel run, and driveway replacement would create a total impervious coverage of 3,564 square feet or 35.6 %; and WHEREAS, The Roseville Planning Comrmssion held the public hearing regarding the Davis request on September 3, 2003, recommending 7 -0) approval of the 560 square foot Variance to Section 1004 ,,01 A6 of the Roseville City Code allowing the construction of a 960 square foot detached accessory building, small paved kennel run, and driveway replacement `in the rear yard of property located at 2730 Griggs Street, based on the findings of Section 5 and conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated September 3, 2003; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Roseville City Council, to APPROVE the request by Michael Davis for a 560 square foot VARAINCE to Section 1004.01A6 (Maximum Total Surface Area) of the Roseville City Code, subject to the following conditions; A maximum detached accessory building size of 30 feet by 32 feet or 960 sq. ft. 2. A maximum 'impervious coverage of 3,564 sq. ft. or 35.6 %. A maximum accessory building height of 15 feet to the mid-point of the roof truss. 4+ The detached accessory building being limited to the storage of residential vehicles, lawn and garden sterns, seasonally used recreational vehicles or items (snowmobiles), household items, and a dog kennel. 5, Submittal of a scaled site plan indicating existing and proposed conditions consistent with the above variance conditions. 6. Windows being placed on the north and south building gall to break -up the building wall. 7. Gutters installed along the eves of the detached accessory building and directed to the parcel's interior yard (northeast) to reduce impacts to the adjacent residential properties. 81 The review and approval of a building pernuk must be consistent with the approved plans and variance. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: and the following voted against: WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i x; N Resolution — PF 3518 (3) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) 55 COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that Y have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 22nd of September, 2003, with the original thereof on file in my office, WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 22nd day of September, 2003. Neal J. Beets} City Manager State of Minnesota - County of Ramsey Signed or Attested before me on this day of 2003 by: Neal J. Beets Notary Public I III, WI, ! rem 1 , »,,avJw l��f� '" �,IluiurvM• I� iN^' .grimy. 'l�lWpiren ��I4'"nm� I�:id4' p MR ''nl• y ",;µ 'Imai�� MN,MI" �� " I "m CA I I� Ili �_■ II d I II v! i (I v � ; ch Ili � gp�gpyy x R a ti I; � ry. m pry��Ipp 611 II II .JI I "� �w Ilmm I�»a I I� pl II I ��y III Ilry II I IIMw II�;. Vlrrll I Nina � I� lu lun If R1V II �» I �w II hull r Imm II � IIIor' WWW�WWmS.� 'jyl I�!'m„ ��,.,,ni'N, �M!tl I'�., "'�#Fm.�; I VIII �, I�INIU° 'IM1 '4 ITM IIIhV„ ''hill o IA41ulX Illlm i I II Ida'' 1I6m:. I IV uu�I ��, II n III Iro �I111N In'.nr I 'lliuq, I�I" I� Ir� Iii ; „,I�irc "Iry Iflrwn I ° Ica III'' '' � ski 15 ' *� III lllli dI III I I �I�Irc IIIN � I I 6� I� Dili u u ' III I � IIPIIII ��GI III,II Ifs �� I III.'. ' 'Inll SIN N i0 Iu IL IM Isla° I^� Ilnlii Vu u Jt I� I '� III ulrll �"yp Im,w In°� lu�r IN I II I ro ^. r I,,m1 r I lY m�. m"� I I IIR �� 1✓ W 'm 'w i � I u'IV s wi Ivr IV I Iww uil�l�l�l�l�" olarcllll�lulnnaN'� m� 7,7 II��nlu�pw NI NNwnm "... IIIIIIIIIII Ica mu a Al II II I 7 I II II I Y iY�m , a 1 1 Iluuu II I 1 v 'L H . "^ III '.I 7 rr r ,. ! ! � m 7 �� '� �� a IIII�IIIII�IS a 1 ��. if I ' I 1. i� » �� 1•': � �� IIII ,', ", , .: .., . M 1� a IIIIIIIIINUUUUU CA 1 Iw 1 .I f. I � �yuum II I P ✓� 1. wY �, 1 r4.. r +r � I. i � 1 1!. ��.V ��' �» I,J-!�� I III I IIII a .��r ,:�lu W"' � I M %�' I IIiJ Nla �)M,'rJl"J �,I,„ II 16 "'m�Iy'�t�J�'� �'�r" �I�� d��J`ly i, il•��9r' I tl� '•r'V�I�� xd:.' �Iwww " "i....:wr wg,r rr »,�j V�'I. J'�S r..I.J7. r7w a V.�, III' ,�rr y, Ia)J"�,r, .::I{ Ism � f ��w � " � 6" ✓� �� a ✓�� :a ,w 'rr ° ' l rrll rr' J aari »j7 jll 1 .' N V V,SIMr., r :I ,wamnmrvlmmulu .,I rrl7 r l , Nwu JurJ�r �(Y'W� il�1'�:� S ",fir+ �r ! I! rr »'i,. », Hrrwt S, Own YrJJ' ;~ Jf iilq . . ,. ...."I » p Wd f 1 r 1 1» rx �Ir J :, 1 Jv: k r Y Ji 1 f ,��1 "✓YJr IY 1Y!%� IYY y �� ,f� ° �I ,ry � "�' I, i'Y�/ �YI, I 1I� { +SI 716 I{. ^IV v II'y" IIJInVUy {'Jr �f /f / /ii /,, i , �I I. i I I IIII °" °I IIII I� " IIII I 1 IIII I Iill I I „ v r i IiIN' II II I 7 I II II I Y iY�m , a 1 1 Iluuu II I 1 v 'L H . "^ III '.I 7 rr r ,. ! ! � m 7 �� '� �� a IIII�IIIII�IS a 1 ��. if I ' I 1. i� » �� 1•': � �� IIII ,', ", , .: .., . M 1� a IIIIIIIIINUUUUU CA 1 Iw 1 .I f. I � �yuum II I P ✓� 1. wY �, 1 r4.. r +r � I. i � 1 1!. ��.V ��' �» I,J-!�� I III I IIII a .��r ,:�lu W"' � I M %�' I IIiJ Nla �)M,'rJl"J �,I,„ II 16 "'m�Iy'�t�J�'� �'�r" �I�� d��J`ly i, il•��9r' I tl� '•r'V�I�� xd:.' �Iwww " "i....:wr wg,r rr »,�j V�'I. J'�S r..I.J7. r7w a V.�, III' ,�rr y, Ia)J"�,r, .::I{ Ism � f ��w � " � 6" ✓� �� a ✓�� :a ,w 'rr ° ' l rrll rr' J aari »j7 jll 1 .' N V V,SIMr., r :I ,wamnmrvlmmulu .,I rrl7 r l , Nwu JurJ�r �(Y'W� il�1'�:� S ",fir+ �r ! I! rr »'i,. », Hrrwt S, Own YrJJ' ;~ Jf iilq . . ,. ...."I » p Wd f 1 r 1 1» rx �Ir J :, u. 2L rm; T I I wO 4A, Im 1, A2. Ik� 4c, Ray" II III ;, .......... � ' I i I �.. , ml�i � �' 41"., Nye 44 ry IT ............ ..... Mon.9 I AVON Jw- Ov 9�� W6 u e rrc MOVIES clam m 'u I!; NWH Ing 'k, oil PON ad log ny, . i� gi Rmw A a I woo 7� A INNNII, a II ZOO& r IN ON, Kew nif 5- 4 yx QN F.Tr Asp gy 10, INN NW! AN M WW j R � W I dal.:. tq ... + I u •I� .��I', r a, u7•V"x"w, �mulw Iw'^' � r�,Vr ! .. ICY I IN ' Ilkm�� a If lu � IR b ul� I 1 I �§ Imo, dll iry u� w 1. I I� .. a 1 I ti r .r� k � f! d n II Iq i' . 1 r �f rV 1, I p 1 kkl I p a t V / J �rii G✓ fe�� /� ik� �JxUJ 11 r t �V I✓� I 1 Ir �� ✓i��f/ � � Y 1 // / %f1� OJI f I I � f7uW� / �� r %fi/ / J1Y,i N N/l ➢ � �If �� i rl �P /�/ ��/ �� , i r 1191 ✓1 /ly V�(� r1 J �J MIN 1 r �f rV 1, I p 1 kkl I IFAM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION 1 .10 BACKGROUND: The City of Roseville desires the use of GIS parcel -level data from metropolitan county data providers for the purposes of data analysis. There is significant value in the city gaining access to this level of data. It enables the city to perform numerous comparative studies with like first -ring communities such as analysis of housing supply. An agreement already exists for use of Ramsey County data by virtue of the City's membership with the Ramsey County GIS Users Group. All other metropolitan county data sets except Hennepin County, can be accessed through MetroGI (the Metropolitan Council GIS initiative that fosters data sharing and access in the region). The data for these counties are at our disposal. Hennepin County requires a separate data agreement to be authorized by the city for access to its information. Their agreement is known as the Electronic Proprietary Database (EPDB) License Agreement. 2.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 2.1 After review of the agreement by the City Attorney and subsequent approval, staff recornnlends that Council authorizes the City Manager to sign the agreement on behalf of the City. There is no cost to the City. 3.0 SUGGESTED COUNCIL ACTION: By resolution, approve entering into a separate Electronic Proprietary Database (EPDB) License Agreement with Hennepin County and authorizing the City Manager to sign the agreement. Prepared by: David windle (651-490-2219) Attachments: Resolution and Hennepin County EPDB Agreement. 11Victo ia\cummdev\P1anning Files13500- 3549 \3520 — Ramsey County_GIS_User Gr'aup_JPA Renewal\PF3520 RCA 092203.dcc PF3520 ^ RCA 092203 - Page t of 1 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF NMETING OF THE CITY CODICIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Mm' nesota, was duly called and held at the City Hall on Monday, the 22nd day of September, 200 at 6:00 p.m* The following members were present: Dough, Schroeder, Mausing, Maschka, ysylyczyu and the following were absent: None Member _ ,I introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION Not CITY of ROE ILLE, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING YID ENTERING A DATA LICENSE AG EMENT FOR GIS DATA WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER To SIGN SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF of THE CITY FOR 2003 WHEREAS, the City of Roseville utilizes GIS metro -wide parcel level data for purposes of city comparisons and analysis, and WHEREAS, City uses such data for comparative studies with other first ring suburbs on issues such as housing supply, valuation, land use, and demographics, and WHEREAS, while the City has an agreement to use Ramsey County and Metro I data (5 metro area counties), Hennepin County requires a separate Electronic Proprietary Database License Agreement (EPDB) and a designated signatory. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Roseville hereby requests a separate Electronic Proprietary Database License Agreement from Hennepin County for 2003 and authorizes the City manager to act as signatory to enter into such an agreement. The notion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: and the following voted against the same: ^��ww W ��u��u��u��wNryyy�; �miuwnr�eiouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurereeeeeemi�w= WHERE UPON, said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. WictoriaCommDevTlanning Files\3500 -3549 5201\Iennepin Counter EPDB Res(092203).dac Resolution — GIS STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) L the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, Counter of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 22nd of September, 2003, with the original thereof on file in my office. WITNESS officially as such Manager this 22nd day of September, 2003. State of Minnesota - County of Ramsey Signed or Attested before me on this day of by: Neal J. Beets Notary Public 2003 Neal J. Beets, City Manager t 11=1 ! M .. i -4 Survey D'i'vIsIon - Suite A -703 Hennepin County Government Center ` Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 David Windle City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, IVIN 55113 A =, ly1 ralei l 612.348.3131 Phone 612.348.2837 Fax www.co-hennepin.rnn.us TT by administration f the return * to you. Because contracts require original signatures, do not return the Agreements by fax. Because nature consultant(s), also enter Into separate "'Conditional Use Agreement" with Hennepin County. Once the Agreement process has been completed by all parties, a Fax will be sent to MetroGls to acknowledge your agreement. If you have any questions, please call me at (612) 348-261& yqiA r Robert Moulder Supervising Engineering Technician Agreement No. HENNEPIN COUNTY CONDITIONAL USE LICENSE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, T, made by and between the COUNTY OF HE NEPI , Taxpayer Services Department, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County ", and City of Roseville, hereinafter referred to as the "Entity". For purposes of this Agreement, the address of the County is A703 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0073 and the address of Entity is 2660 Civic Center D rive , Roseville, Minnesota 55113. WITNESSETH YMEREAS, the County has developed electronic forms of certain data bases and an electronic proprietary geographical digitized data base hereinafter referred to as "EPDB"; and W'HEREA , the Entity desires to use the County's EPDB in the course of conducting the Entity's business; and WHEREAS, in acknowledgment of the Entity's above - stated purpose, the Counter is agreeable to provide to the Entity the EPDB, and WHEREAS, the parties agree that the execution of this Agreement is necessary in order to adequately protect said EPDB; and WHEREAS, the County exclusively owns the EPDB which; is the subject of this W Agreement and has the authority and legal right to grant Entity a license to have and use the EPDB as provided in this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the EPDB is trade secret or confidential information under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and is governed by Minnesota Statutes sections 375.86 and 13.03 as well as other applicable state and federal law. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, as well as the obligations herein made and undertaken., the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows: Form 1 (09/00) Section I - OPE of AGREEMENT This License Agreement shall apply to the EPDB, which Hennepin County will provide to Entity, after a specific request has been made to County. Section 2 GRANT OF LIMITED LICENSE 2.1 The County hereby grants the Entity a non - exclusive, nontransferable and nonassignabl e limited use license to use the EPDB which includes self developed computer software under Minn. Stat. § 375.8. Said license shall commence on the date of approval of this Agreement by the County and shall extend throughout the term of the Agreement unless terminated sooner, in accordance with the provisions hereof. Section ACKNOWLEDGMENT of PROPRIETARY INFORMATION RESERVATION of TITLE 3.1 The Entity acknowledges and agrees that the EPDB is the exclusive property of the County, including, but not limited to, any and all indexes, and includes commercially valuable information which reflect the efforts of spilled development experts and required the investment of considerable amounts of time and money, and that the County has treated the EPDB as trade secret and confidential information, which County entrusts to the Entity in confidence to use in the conduct of the Entity's business. The Entity further acknowledges and agrees the EPDB is a creative selection, coordination, arrangement and method of arrangement of data which is identified as being subject to copyright protection; is self - developed computer software under Minn. Stat. § 375.86 and is an entire or substantial and discrete portion of a pattern, compilation, method, technique, process, data base or system developed with significant exiwditure of funds by County under Minn. Stat. § 13.03. The Entity agrees that the County owns and reserves all rights, protection and benefits afforded under federal copyright later in all EPDB furnished to the Entity as unpublished works, as well as all rights, protection and benefits afforded under any other law relating to confidential and/or trade secret information respecting said EPDB,, and that the Entity will abide by all relevant laws, rules, regulations and decisions which afford protection to the County for its confidential and trade secret information and said copyright. This Agreement does not effect any transfer of title in or to any EPDB of the County. The Entity acknowledges that it is granted only a limited right of use of such EPDB:, which right is not coupled with an interest, and the Entity shall not assert nor cause or cooperate with others to assert any right, title, or interest in any EPDB of the, County. 0) Section 4 PROTECTION of PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 4.1 Obligations of Confidentiality, Limitations of Use* The Entity shall neither disclose, furnish, sell, resell, transfer, duplicate, reproduce nor disseminate, in whole or in part, the EPDB of the County and its unique design, arrangement or method of arrangement in its electronic form furnished to the Entity to (1) any other person, f inn, entity, organization, or subsidiary, except as expressly authorized hereunder* or (2) any employee of the Entity who does not need to obtain access thereto in connection with the Entity's exercise of its rights under this Agreement. The Entity may have and use the EPDB on a corporate -wide basis and shall have the rights to use the EPDB on a limited number of sites, provided the equipment on which the EPDB is maintained supports only equipment operated by the Entity and the EPDB is used only for the conduct of the Entity's own internal business by Entity employees. All employees having access to the EPDB shall be informed of the requirements contained in Section 4 herein. The Entity shall not otherwise copy or reproduce any EPDB of the County. Under no circumstances may the entity disclose or disseminate any EPDB to any other public or private entity. The obligations of the Entity to protect confidentiality which are established by this Agreement apply to the EPDB itself and not to any graphic representation or products produced by the Entity while using the EPDB. Any authorized consultants, contractors or agents of Entity must properly execute and file a separate EPDB Conditional Use License Agreement with Hennepin County. The Entity expressly agrees to use the County's EPDB in the ordinary course of its business and all such use shall bear a notice of copyright by Hennepin County. 4.2 Secure Handling. The Entity shall require that all EPDB be kept in a secure location at 60 Civic Center Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113 and maintained in a manner so as to reasonably preclude unauthorized persons from having access thereto. The Entity shall devote its reasonable efforts to ensure that all persons afforded access to EPDB protect same against unauthorized use, dissemination or disclosure. Entity agrees it will not knowingly or negligently allow its employees, agents or indgpndent contractors to copy, sell, disclose or otherwise make the EPDB available to others. Entity agrees to immediately notify the County by telephone and in writing if Entity becomes aware of any unauthorized duplication, sale or other disclosure. Entity further agrees to prevent unauthorized disclosure by taking appropriate security measures including, but not limited to, providing physical security for copies of the EPDB and taking all steps Entity takes to protect information, data or other tangible and intangible property of its own that Entity regards as proprietary, confidential or nonpublic. Except for of -site backup, the Entity shall not remove or cause or allow to be removed from the Entity's place of business any EPDB or any copy thereof without the prior written consent of the County, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. 3 4.3 Assistance of the Entity. At the request of the County and expense of the Entity, the Entity shall use good faith and reasonable efforts to assist the County in identifying any use, copying, or disclosure of any EPDB by any current or former Entity personnel -- or anyone else who may have come in possession of said EPDB while the same was in the Entity's possession ^ in any manner that is contrary to the provisions of this Agreement so long as the County shall have provided the Entity with information reasonably justifying the conclusion of the County that such contrary use may have occurred. 4.4 Survival of Confidentiality Obligations. The Entity's obligations respecting confidentiality of the EPDB shall survive termination of this Agreement for any reason and shall remain in effect for as long as the Entity continues to possess or control any EPDB furnished by the County. In addition, the County shall remain entitled to enforce its copyright and propriety interests in all EPDB P Section 5 TERM, TERMINATION 5.1 The Entity and the COUNTY agree that this Agreement is in effect during the period commencing September 5, 2003 and tenating unless terminated rnn sooner. This Agreement shall commence from the date hereof, unless sooner terminated by either party with cause upon three (3) calendar days' written notice to the other. The expiration or termination of this Agreement shall automatically and without further action by the County terminate and extinguish the license. In the event of any such expiration or termination, the County shall have the right to tale immediate possession of said EPDB, and all copies thereof wherever located, and without demand or notice. within five (5) days after expiration or termination of this Agreement, the Entity shall return the EPDB and all copies thereof to the County, or upon request by the County, the Entity shall destroy all of ` the same and all copies thereof and certify in writing to the County that the same has been destroyed. 5. 1. l It i s agreed that any right or remedy provided for herein shag -riot b e considered as the exclusive right or remedy but shall be considered to be in addition to any other right or remedy hereunder or allowed by law, equity or statute. 5.1.2 The County's failure to insist upon strict performance of any covenant, agreement or stipulation of the Agreement, or to exercise any right herein contained shall not be a waiver or relinquishment of such covenant, agreement, stipulation or right, unless the County stipulates thereto in writing. 4 Section 6 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 6.1 The Entity acknowledges and agrees that unauthorized disclosure or use of the IEPD]B or any part thereof could cause irreparable harm and significant injury to the County, which may be difficult to measure with certainty or to compensate through damages. Accordingly, the Entity agrees that the County may seek and obtain against the Entity and/or any other person or entity injunctive relief against the breach or threatened breach of the foregoing undertakings, in addition to any other equitable or legal remedies which may be available. Section 7 OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS 7.1 o Agency. The parties hereto are independent contractors, and nothing herein shall be construed to create an agency, joint venture, partnership or other form of business association between the parties hereto. 7.2 No waiver. No delay or omission by either party hereto to exercise any sight or power occurring upon any noncompliance or default by the other party with respect to any of the terms of this Agreement shall impair any such right or pourer or be construed to be a waiver thereof unless the same is consented to in writing. A waiver by either of the parties hereto of any of the covenants, conditions, or agreements to be observed by the other shall not be construed to be a waiver of any succeeding breach thereof or of any covenant, condition# or agreement herein contained. All remedies provided for in this Agreement shall be cumulative and in addition to, an of, any other remedies available to either party at law, In equity, or otherwise. 7.3 Governing Lave. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Mate of Minnesota. 7.4 Entire Agreement. This License Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties, and there are no understandings or agreements relative hereto other than those that are expressed herein. No change, waiver, or discharge hereof shall be valid unless in writing and executed by the party against whom such change, waiver, or discharge is sought to be enforced. 7.5. No Assignment. Neither party shall assign, sublet or transfer this Agreement, either in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the other party, and any attempt to do so shall be void and of no force and effect. 7.6 THE ENTITY AGREES THAT THE COUNTY IS FURNISHING THE EPDB ON AN `SAS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT ANY SUPPORT WHATSOEVER, AND WITHOUT REPRESENTATION OR ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED 5 WARRANTIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT IN ANY MANNER LIMITED To, FI'T'NESS FOR PAR'T'ICULAR PURPOSE, MERCHANTABILITY OR THE ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS OF THE EPDE. THE COUNTYS SOLE LLkBILITY AND THE ENTITY'S TITY' EXCLUSIVE REMIEDY FOR ANY SUBSTANTIAL DEFECT WHICH IMPAIRS 'I'I-IE USE of THE EPIIE FOR THE PURPOSE STATED REIN SHALL BE THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT. THE COUNTY DOES NOT WARRAJNT THAT THE EPUE ARE ERROR FREE, THE E PIKE WERE DEVELOPED FOR THE COUNTY'S OWN INTERNAL BUSINESS PURPOSES AND THE COUNTY DOES NOT REPRESENT THAT THE EPIIB CAN BE USED FOR NAVIGATIONAL9 TRACKING OR ANY OTHER PURPOSE REQUIRING EXAC'T'ING MEASUREMENT OF DISTANCE OR DIRECTION OR PRECISION IN THE DEPICTION of GEOGRAPHIC FEATURES. THE COUNTY DISCLAIMS ANY OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, RESPECTING THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT ENT oR THE EPDB. 7.7 In no event shall the County be liable for actual, direct, indirect, special, incidental, consequential damages (even i f the Counter has been advised of ` the possibility of such damage) or loss of profit, loss of business or any other financial loss or any other damage arising out of performance or failure of performance of this Agreement by the County, The County and the Entity agree each will he responsible for their own acts and omissions under this Agreement and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the vets or omissions of the other party under the Agreement and the results thereof. The parties' respective liabilities shall be governed by the provisions of the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466, and other applicable law. This paragraph shall not be construed to bar legal remedies one party may have for the other party's failure to falfill its obligations under this Agreement. �0 7.8 Notice. Any notice or demand shall be in writing and shall be sent registered or certified mail to the other party address as follows: To the Entity: City of Roseville lle 2660 Civic Center Thrive Roseville, Minnesota 55113 To Hennepin County: Hennepin County Administrator A-2300 Government Center (233) Minneapolis, NIT 55487 -0233 Copy to: Hennepin County Chief information Officer A -1 900 Government Center (190) Minneapolis, MN 55487 -0190 Copy to: Patrick H. O'Connor Director, Taxpayer Services Department A -boo Goverrjiment Center (060) Minneapolis, NIN 55487 -0060 7.9 Whereas Clauses. The matters set forth in the "Whereas"' clauses on page one of this Agreement are incorporated into and made a part hereof `hy this reference.. 7.10 Survival of Provisions. It is expressly understood and agreed that the obligations and warranties of the Entity under Sections 3, 42 51, 62 7.6, and 7.7 hereof and the obligations and warranties of the Entity and the County which by their sense and context are intended to survive the performance thereof by the Entity and the County, shall so survive the completion of performance and termination or cancellation of this Agreement. 7.11 Authority. The person or persons executing this License Agreement on behalf of Entity represent that they are duly authorized to execute this License Agreement on behalf of Entity and represent and warrant that this License Agreeme t. is a legal, valid and binding obligation and is enforceable in accordance with its terms. 6 COUNTY T ADMINISTRATOR ATO APPROVAL ENTITY, having signed this agreement, and the County having duly approved this agreement on the day of ___j 2003P and pursuant to such approval, the proper County officials having signed this contract, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the previsions herein set forth. Approved as to form and execution Assistant County Attorney Date: Form 1 (09/00) COUNTY OF HENNEPI STATE OF MINNESOTA I� Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator CITY OF ROSEVILLE I�i (Title) Date: DATE: 09/22/03 Item Number: X1. G. Department Approval: !!Manager Reviewed: Agenda Section: Consent Agenda 11M I Action Requested; The following claims and payment of the total amount he approved 27103 — 27161 27162 — 27163 379452.91 5929266,72 TOTAL S 629,719.63 C4 00 (W.; in �.Cr vi CAM CNI •n i 44 C%49 ad vi .46 � � C�1 %Q � � 41 � M, Cd ci � � (i 6 rq C4 � (+� ,-- Ctrl ,..r N Ct 00 rn (D C) rn en tn r j in tn M m m tn tn — ... ..� C� . Y • w. LA CL u Q Li 0 u W s m u U u u u M _ Z rj -� �r. = E P.-ft 1.6m U3 t03 � '.W ca ti � va � � Ln CL zL) i� . Yy i Y i•i ; T LV -A � � 0 � ; �� u u 90.6 < m a ca c. to vi En vi cm ed 4.0 Li � � C u .,., w 4a C C C R,,, > > Q ' ` • L4 L; ��.+ �.+ i..+ ,� +�+ L6 � L4 W EM ti.. L C 4" C W} LM aj a, �. ar � " a a a ° o C at a. � a 0 � �� + t� + Q� tOC 6. L" M 0 0 C C C Cr.� C C� C C `�7 'D 'C� C C C 7 > > C C C C fl a C C~ Lr 0 0 C� • � � � L:. L:. F.L. fw � C � a d U od M V LL, m U U ti ca co C13 "try IX a v m � 0 C) = C) 0 0 C� C� C> <D 0 0(D 0 C 0 00 00 0 C> 0 0 0C) C� 0 0 C> a C� p Cl 0 0 C� CD C� Cl CD 0 CD 0 Cl CD Cl C� C) CD CD Cp C) C� C� C) Cl CD Cat N e! N r4 C41 C 1 C4 tw r..' U CD CD CD C3 CD <D CD CD CD CD C:p c) C:) C) C C) C) C) C) CD � C) CD CD Cl E C� CD CD CD C� CD � CD CD CD C� C C� C) C� C� m � � ' `0 [� [� C� C Cl C3 C� CD C� CD <D ,--+ V- W- [� L i [� k- t"- t-- C%- r— V- C- Tim l- , 1 N f i C114 C;1 IrA rq i4T (N C Cq C' 1 d� u f''i m � �-e+ ��'1 � 0% � ODD 00 00 wl m C P. tn L) V M Cam,, IL w VI cn u � Q.� w �� w C. C C Q} s at 06 c.� b v CL L) 2 as •` C) � cu a -� -E w as - - a� cm 9 M� V3� - CdCdCd �<0 Ia.. �, H w�-u N> 10 C aa. U 8 41 � fs. L c Ct, d.t., tt. � � Fes.. Li. � � � � � �, �:.. L L 4� �• � c . a a of [ 0 0 iM 4 +.d Lo A, V►1 W l 7= W ¢,�� e U U Li r4 C ad 68 0 u "^' 6' LT-4 C4 C4 ro 1 1 N 1 l 1 I ! 1 R C%4 ! F4 cu fq N N c"I cq N IN C4 C%4 N C%1 tV N cq N (N (%4 IN rq C4 [%i CSI cq i4 L: Lai V u ::) = A t%t en m � % � wl Wl UPI .--+ I x'1 to "" -,-R � m N rq N !�1 re C C C C C 0 C C C C C C C c.� 0 u � rd o c u u �- ran � � � � _C C � E F Q cis >- u CLObu vi • ,-1 6. Ln � A 9L F -- > �? C6 42 CL t03 C � C En w LA En In 73 E = . 1 C Q Cr od ��,. C. 4u G ' .:. cq CL 0 Cu C. ,� C $i C 0 .-� C+ i.:. v aj = 4' C. a 0 -b .1-4 &A .�... E -� = r. L ° � � r y�} ��4G.y[I 03 •� L i� L �..+ p��y[ y � L�r L 1�.. � LY.•n � 1�. � � L�. Lim {, 0� � � O-d {=� i sir cc CO C� CD CD C� C� 0 CD Cl 0 CD 0 g 0 C C 0 C C� 0 C) CD C7 C> C� Cl O CD 0 CD C� C5 C� C� C� j r j � -1 .-- � . f = ,--� ,--� ,--� .--! w 0-M ,... ..ter .. .r .. ii. 7r Yrr A T W-y � rrt Fir 'b C) C� C) CD C� Q 0 C� La F� r- a, E0% cm � -� N rn � � in N D r- 00 as Ck CD fn � tn � qzr � 414- � � rn en m rn M fn en en m en mrn � Nt qw � � � eq C64 N rq rN C%4 (4 C14 cq cq CN rq C%4 N N C144 eq rq N rq rNI v 0% IND kn �D C� Ctrl +--� f'"1 �06wi Q��tn' Lr; [-:adC�CS 6 LAkncc *a (D Co Cq C�1 666 tn wi qti4 ci666 � � cal � � 00 00 �a L r■ � � a �s 3 3 p �. C� > .� G • �. 6. C Q 0 0 ` ` C C u v cr J c Li C 0� G � c e � � � C C D z 0 Q 5 ' '� y Gi a Vi li it r' F+ 41 i ' as I W 4 Vf 0 a. W E E E as Cl Q CD Cl 0 C3 Cl 0 C> C) <> 0 C> 0 C) C� 0 C� C) 0 CD Cl C� CD 0 0 c 0 CD a CD C> 0 CD C> Cq Q Ln CA CA I ri ri TI a y ■••. . ■r. [ rl r w +. ry rl F t Y I..I IN .@ �r ,� w w ..ter CLO 00 � � r++ � � � T r rr 1L-q ■ -a C) C) C� CD C) C=) C) CIL a; C=) tD to Z CL a. c Li. a GL C) 0 r4 '� 'Q G %D �c +•a LL LL--' OCR C:h �•' ._. .ny g N Cq {' cq cq cq N N N Cq eq t*7 N rq cq N C%1 C%1 N N 62 � d.i w C!i u u c CL CL < C� 4? c u u CA v u v 2 u 0] = w= a a. gu CL t w w rr w rd ca CL '0 C { ff] C 00_ K .� C 0 C cl v 42 � � p C� > .� G • �. 6. C Q 0 0 ` ` C C .Q J c Li C 0� G � � � '�" � � C C D z 0 Q 5 ' '� y Gi a Vi li it r' F+ 41 i ' as I W 4 Vf 0 a. W as Cl Q CD Cl 0 C3 Cl 0 C> C) <> 0 C> 0 C) C� 0 C� C) 0 CD Cl C� CD 0 0 c 0 CD a CD C> 0 CD C> Cq Q I ri ri TI a y ■••. . ■r. [ rl r w +. ry rl F t Y I..I IN .@ �r ,� w w ..ter w w � � r++ � � � T r rr ■ -a C) C) C� CD C) C=) C) CIL a; C=) tD 00 Cc OQ C;s C) 0 r4 t7 %D �c +•a C, OCR C:h C� -- .ny g N Cq {' cq cq cq N N N Cq eq t*7 N rq cq N C%1 C%1 N N 62 � d.i w C!i u u � Nr Ln DO CD �D .r C 4 a C. �¢ K40 u 0 �C) t{7cl�C►C�0" tn � � ri M a ft & rn m [ +--- CD � ^. ... N7 u u U U PC U Ln lu > 0 b W r u� Os u a U U 6m &m E u LN r� V u Ri cu d] 91 lu oil 0 c M M cl C) eq rq C%4 eq Date: 09122!03 Its: XiI. A. ke.ffl V JL12= Minutes of 09/15/03 Meeting City Council Minutes DRAFT — Regular Council Heeling - -DRAFT Monday, September 15,2003 Mayor Kysylyczyn and Councilmembers Schroeder, Klausing and 6:03 p.m. Kough met in the City Council Chambers on the above date. Roil Call Councilmember Maschka had previously advised he would not be in attendance at tonight's meeting. City Attorney Jay Squires was also present. Roll Call: (Voting Order): Schroeder, Klausing, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Call to Order Call to Order Mayor Kysylyczyn called the regular meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. and welcomed everyone to the Roseville City Council meeting. I. Public Comment Public Mayor Kysylyczyn called for public comment by members of Comment the audience. No one appeared. U-0 Review Agenda Review Mayor Kysylyczyn called for any comments or discussion on Agenda the Consent Agenda. Mayor Kysylyczyn advised that agenda item IX. D, entitled, "Consider Adopting a Tentative, Not -to- Exceed City Tax Levy and City Budget for 2x04," should have been listed under Item XIlI., Other Business. City Manager Beets advised that City Attorney Squires had an addition to the draft language prepared for Consent Agenda Item XI., D. entitled, "Waiving the First Reading and Holding the Final Reading and Enacting an Ordinance Authorizing the Roseville Police Department to Perform. Certain Criminal Background Checks, and Approving a Summary Thereof to Publish-"' but that the language addition was minor and should Regular City Council Minutes — 9/15103 DRAFT Minutes - Page 2 not require the item to be removed from the Consent Agenda. City Manager Beets also advised that a clarification of the monopole agreement, Consent Agenda Item XI., L, entitled, "Approving a Lease Agreement with Sprint PCS to Occupy Space on the Civic Center Campus Monopole," should state that the Sprint antenna would be located at eighty feet (80'), rather than the stated sixty -five feet (6S'). City Manager Beets clarified for Mayor Kysylyczyn that the pole height would be built at one hundred feet (100'), with the ability to add an additional fifty feet (50') if and when warranted. There were no public or Council comments on the remainder of the Consent Agenda items; nor in the Land Use items fisted. Presentations A. Update on County's Dale Street Improvement Project Ramsey County Traffic Engineer Dan Soler was present to update the City Council and citizens on work being performed by Ramsey County on Dale Street, specifically traffic signal and geometric improvement options available at the intersection of Dale Street and County Road B. Mr. Soler reviewed three (3) options for lane configurations and the advantages and disadvantages of each option. 1) Four (4) lane configuration, leaving a shrigle phase signal as existing; 2) Leaving the Lane configuration as it currently exists; splitting the signal phases for separate north/south avows (similar to that at the intersection of County Road C and Rice Street); 3) Four (4) lane road striped to move everyone to the right lane, introducing a 1e$ turn lane and arrow, with protected deft turn phasing (similar to that at the intersection of Count y Road C and Hamline Avenue). Mr. Soler discussed the various safety and delay issues Presentations Update on County's Dale Street Improvement Project Regular City Council Minutes — 9/15103 DRAFT Mm' utes - Page 3 with each option; reviewed afternoon peak hour demographics and the existing level of service considered at a "level B" with an average delay of thirteen {13} seconds per vehicle; and reviewed the accident history at the intersection, with the majority of those accidents occurring prior to 2001 when the County had reconfigured the lanes. Mr. Soler advised that Ramsey County anticipated incorporating the preferred option in the Spring of 2004 by Ramsey County staff; and recommended that the signal equipment be modified to accommodate the split phasing option, dependent on traffic volume. Mr. Soler advised that his purpose this evening was to I. the Council and public of the County's intentions and to solicit feedback prior to completion of the intersection work. Mr. Soler responded to several other areas of concern and projects to -date within Roseville for the benefit of the Council and public, including the Alta Vista and Dale Street areas. No Council action was required. Mr. Schwartz advised that the changes reflected in the revised ordinance, "Attachment B," addressed Ordinance 1294 Bus Bench Ordinance Regular City CouncH MM* rtes — 9/15!03 DRAFT Minutes - Page 4 maintenance issues and the distance between bus benches and shelters. Discussion ensued regarding the differences in the ordinances under consideration related to the parallel placement of benches and their location on the right -of- way and respective to the curb. Substantial discussion among Councilmembers and staff, as well as Mr. Rollie Danielson of U.S. Bench Company ensued related to the co- location of bus benches and shelters related to convenience of riders and maintenance responsibilities. Mr. Schwartz advised that maintenance issues would be addressed with Outdoor Promotions and any other shelter companies within the context of the City's Franchise Agreement; and that U.S. Bench Company pemu'ts for bus benches were renewed annually, allowing any maintenance issues to be addressed on an individual basis time prior to license renewal. Mr. Schwartz advised that this same avenue would be used for any relocation issues related to bus benches not meeting minimum distance requirements from shelters. Regular City Council Minutes -- 9115/03 DRAFT Minutes - Page 5 of his firm, as well as potential shelter franchisees. Further discussion ensued regarding snow removal situations and maximum time frames; distances for shelters and benches; rider protection and accommodation being dictated by rider preference; and other considerations. City Manager Beets commented that staff didn't envision issues developing between whether to locate a shelter and/or bench on a first come, first served basis, given the recently- adopted Franchise Ordinance framework and guidelines; and past cooperation by U.S. Bench Company. Mr. Beets further commented that Outdoor Promotions anticipated a potential of twenty (20) possible locations within the City, and the discretion of staff to remove potential conflicts within the franchise and permit processes. Further discussion addressed having one standard for both benches and shelters to make review and enforcement by staff less cumbersome. Kysylyczyn moved, Kough seconded, First Reading and waiving Second Reading of Ordinance No. 1294 (Attachment B) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 7, Section 703.05 of the Roseville City Code Concerning Bus Benches;" as amended to amend Subsection D, for placement within fifteen feet (15'), rather than the suggested twenty-five feet (25' ); and Regular City Council Minutes — 9/15/03 DRA FI` Minutes - Page language in Subsection G be revised to allow for removal of ice and snow within seventy-two (72) hours, rather than the suggested twelve (12) hours. Roll CaH Ayes: Klausing, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: Schroeder. Kysylyczyn moved, and the Chair ruled the motion seconded„ to direct staff to return with an amendment to the Franchise Ordinance with Outdoor Promotions adjusting the agreement with adjustments similar to those in the bus bench ordinance adopted tonight, related to adjusting the twelve (12) hour snow removal clause to seventy -two (72) hours. Councilmember Klausing appealed action of Chair; and Mayor Kysylyczyn defended his action by reference to Robert's Rules of Order. Councilmember Schroeder opined his lack of support for allowing seventy -two (72) hours, opining that it was too bong for shelter users to wait, and maintenance needed to performed in a timelier manner. Mayor Kysylyczyn concurred, but opined that a double standard was cumbersome. Councilmember Klausing advised he would not be supporting this motion and quoted Mr. Danielson's statement that, "To whom much is given, much is expected;" and opined that the greater revenue reflected from shelter advertising should warrant greater maintenance expectations by the City and shelter users. Mayor Kysylyczyn reasoned that, since the benches were less expensive to maintain, the shelter companies needed to compensate for construction and maintenance of these more costly fixtures,, Regular City Council Minutes — 9/15/03 DRAFF Minutes - Page 7 1 1 rom Ayes: Kysylyczyn. Nays: Schroeder, Klausing and Kough. Mr. Schwartz advised that the individual franchise agreements for each specific site for Outdoor Promotions would be site - specific in identifying areas of concern and would each be brought forward for Council action. Mr. Danielson identified another concern of U.S. Bench Company related to Subsection G related to architecturally complementary trash receptacles; advising that this was sometimes cost-prohibitive, depending on the site; and requested that language be retained under the discretion and direction of the Public Works Director. Schroeder moved, Kough seconded, amendment to the previous motion under Item 703.05, Subsection G, to insert the language as follows: "G., Structure Maintenance: When directed by the Public Works Director as necessary to address refuse and litter issues, bench sites shall be equipped with an architecturally complementary trash receptacle to be emptied as frequently as necessary by the vendor to comply with the City's health, safety and welfare concerns. Ayes: Nays Rolf Call Schroeder, Klausing, Kough and Kysylyczyn. None. Recess Recess Mayor Kysylyczyn recessed the meeting at 7:2$ p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:41 p.m. IV. Communication 7:00 p.m. Communication A. Communication from Roseville Resident Janet Communkation Delmore from Roseville Ms. Delmore had requested time, as a concerned citizen, Resident Janet to address the City Council Agenda relating to an incident Delmore Regular C i t Council Minutes — 911 5103 DRAFT Minutes - Page 8 concerning a Roseville Police Officer and a minor; and subsequent ongoing investigation of a formal complaint filed by Ms. Delmore for alleged officer misconduct; her outrage and opined racial profiling by the officer. Mayor Kysylyczyn confirmed with Police Chief Sletner that the incident is being investigated and expressed the Council's appreciation for her comments. V. Recognitions A. Roseville's Fire Explorer Post: Winners of the Gold Roseville's Fire Medal in the Explorer Challenge for the Third Year in Explorer P a Row! Winners of the Fire Chief Rich Gasaway summarized recent participation Gold Medalin the of five (5) Roseville Fire Explorers in metro -wide 2003 Firefighter Explorer Challenge competition, under the mentorship and advisory direction of Firefighter Andy Chandler. Fire Chief Gasaway read a letter written by a participant that s��mrr,arized the categories of competition and challenges met through this learning experience by the participants. Chief Gasaway recognized the accomplishments of the Post in their first-place placement in this year's competition among Fire Explores Post, at which- time he introduced the Post's Captain and event participant, Jim Chandler. Mr. Chandler outlined the nine (9) competition events, and introduced the other dour (4) participants: Mike Hartman, Joe Euwell, Christy Caroll and Brian Eckerl and displayed the awards received, which had been presented by the Boy Scouts of America. Fire Chief Gasaway advised that the Post had also participated in the Governor's Fire Prevention Day at this year's State Fair. Explorer Challenge -For the Third Years .6 m a Row! Regular City Council Minutes — /15/03 DRAFT Minutes - Page On behalf of the Council and Roseville residents, Mayor Kysylyczyn recognized the Post's achievement; and each were congratulated by individual Councilmembers and staff present. Fire Chief Gasaway further recognized the efforts of Greg Peterson, who had served as the Post's lead advisor and was the creator of the Post. C. Hispanic Heritage Month Proclamation Hispanic Heritage Mayor Kysylyczyn proclaimed the month of September 15 Month — October 15, 2003 as Hispanic Heritage Month in the Proclamation City of Roseville, recognizing and honoring their contributions to the community. D. Accept Donation from Presbyterian Homes for the Are Accept Donation You OK? Program from Presbyterian Police Chief Carol Sletner reviewed the Are You OK? Homes for the Are program and its concepts in providing a computerized You OK? Program phone check of the City's senior citizens. Chief Sletner advised that the rationale for the donation was due to the need for replacement of the orig'irial D05 computer system to continue this worthwhile program. Kough moved, Klausing seconded, City Council acceptance of a $500.00 donation for the purchase of a new computer for the Are You OK? Program. Roll Call Ayes: Schroeder, Klausing, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. VI. Public Hearings Public Hearings Regular City CouncH Minutes -- 9/15/03 DRAFT Minutes - Page 10 A. Public Hearing Regarding Peter Obland's Request for Public Hearing a Subdivision Plat at 544 Ryan Avenue (PF 3506) Regarding Peter 8.1 Ohland's Request Schroeder moved, Kough seconded, approval of the Final for a Subdivision Plat of Smith Lakeview Addition by Peter and Maureen Plat at 544 Ryan Ohland for certain property located at 544 Ryan Street, Avenue (PF 3506) subject to the conditions outlined in Section 6 (A through D) of the project report dated September 15, 2003. City Planning Consultant Thomas Paschke advised that this item had come before the City Council on August 18, 2003, for Preliminary Plat approval; and advised that staff recommended support and approval of this division of Land. Mayor Kysylyczyn sought clarification as to why this issue was being brought before the City Council, rather than addressed at the Planning Commission level. Mr. Paschke advised, and City Attorney Squires concurred, that Council action was required according to City Ordinance, not State Law, Mayor Kysylyczyn directed staff and City Attorney Squires to note the need for amendment of City Code to defer to State Statute. Mayor Kysylyczyn opened and closed the Public Hearing at $:04 p.m., with no one appearing for or against. Roll Call Ayes: Schroeder, Klausing, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. B. Public Hearing Regarding Gary Weldon's Request for a Minor Subdivision at 910 County Road S (PF 3522) 7.0 Kough moved, Schroeder seconded, approval of the request to Gary Weldon for a two (2) lot minor subdivision of property located at 910 County Road B, subject to the findings and conditions listed in Section 3.1 Public Hearing Regarding Gary Weldon's Request for a Mlifor Subdivision at 910 � County Road B (Pf 3522) I■ g Council Minutes 1 11 through 3.5 of the Report for Council Action dated September 15, 2003. City Planning Consultant Thomas Pasehke advised that the minor subdivision met all requirements of City code; and staff recommended approval of the request. Mayor Kysylyczyn again questioned why a Public Hearing was being held at the Council level and not before the Planning Commission; with Mx. Paschke advising that City code had been amended in 1999 allowing that minor subdivision requests of this nature be addressed at the City Council level. Mayor Kysylyczyn opened the Public Hearing at 8:07 p.m. Mr. Cox opined that, while Mr. Cox will not be affected by future development of the property, it dogs adversely affect those property owners remaining adjacent to the parcels due to projected reduced property valuations and proximity to adjoining properties. Mr. Cox further addressed the work done to -date by one of the neighbors on the natural area adjacent to the subject property, and the Regular City Council Minutes — 9/15/0 DRAJFT Minutes - Page 12 destruction that would occur during a future construction project. Mr. Cox expressed his preference that the property be sold as one parcel, with a new owner intending to live on the property determining the future use. The applicant, Gary Weldon, was not present at the meeting; and Mayor Kysylyczyn closed the Public Hearing at 8:11 p.m. Mr. Paschke and City Attorney Squires responded to Council questions related to utility locations and easements and potential costs associated with hook -up and/or relocation; specific home designs related to the Building Permit process; City standards and consistencies with code; and Council discretion for denial through findings only if a health, safety or welfare concern were evident. Further discussion ensued regarding potential impacts to the neighborhood and limitations of Council to deny the request; and rationale as the Council allows due process and considers the request from a density perspective with the information before them. Further discussion ensued, with Councilmembers concurring that, while they sympathized with the neighbors, the law was straightforward as to rationale allowed for denial. Regular City CouncH Minutes +- 9/15103 DRAFT Minutes - Page '13 Roll calf Ayes: Schroeder, Klausing, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. C. Public Hearing Regarding HeafthPartner's Expenditures in Roseville Kough moved, Schroeder seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10139 entitled, "Resolution Giving Host Approval to the Issuance of Health Care Facilities Revenue Bonds,, Series 2003 (Group Health Plan, Inc. Project)." Finance Director Chris Miller provided a summary of the request. Mayor Kysylyczyn opened and closed the Public Hearing at 8:44 p.m., with no one appearing for or against. Roll Call Ayes: Schroeder, Klausing, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. V11. Land Use Resolution 10139 Public Hearing Regarding HealthPartner's Expenditures in Roseville I IFTSi110 A. Ramona Mogg Planned Unit Development {PUD} Ramona Mogg Proposal at 474 West County C Planned Unit $.1 Schroeder moved, Kough seconded, approved the Preliminary Plat and the General Concept Plahfied Unit Development (PUD), creating a six (6) unit residential PUD development, which will include three (3) structures with two (2) attached owner - occupied units, each undivided common areas and common maintenance, as illustrated in the application (plan set), based on the findings and comments provided in Section i and 5 of the project report dated September 15, 2003. Environmental Concerns Planning Consultant Thomas Paschke reviewed previous request of Council to review environmental issues and presented comprehensive information related to review of Development (PUD) Proposal at 474 West County C Regular City Council Minutes — 9/15/03 DRAFT Minutes - Page 14 environmental impacts, and their rationale in determining whether or not an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was required for development projects. Mr. Paschke reviewed his subsequent findings related to environmental impacts and potential damages to the wetland; presented additional comment from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR); and advised that the Grass Lake Watershed District would review the proposed development and provide several options for design related to drainage issues. Mr. Paschke provided additional written comment related to the proposed development, and reiterated staff s recommendation for Council approval of the Preliminary Plat and General Concept Planned Unit Development. There were no public comments. Councilmember Kough opined his support of the project. Councilmember Schroeder apologized to the developer; opining that the Council had done an injustice to Mrs. Mogg to delay approval of this request; further opining that politics were at work at the previous meeting, causing the delay in Council action. Mayor Kysylyczyn concurred with Councilmember Schroeder's comments. Roll Cali Ayes: Schroeder, Klausing, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. Schroeder moved, Kough seconded, holding First Reading of an ordinance entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Title 10 of the City Code, Changing the Zoning Map Designation of Certain Real Property at 474 County Road C from R -1 Single - Family Residency District to a Planned Unit Development with Underlying Zoning of R -1 Single- Family Residence District and R -2 Two - Family Residence Regular City Council Minutes — 9!1 5/03 DRAFT Minutes - Page 15 District." Roll Call Ayes: Schroeder, Klausing, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. Mayor Kysylyczyn suggested that Councilmembers regain the environmental impact information provided by Mr. Paschke for future reference. VIII. Reports and Recommendations Ik-leports and N I �I # + A. Consider Changing the City's Residential Recycling Consider Changing Policy and Existing Recycling Contract with Waste theCity's Management Residential Mayor Kysylyczyn and Councilmember Schroeder reviewed the Council packet, seeking to identify the specific contract addendum they preferred to move consideration of action at tonight's meeting. City Manager Beets attempted to provide the relative document to Councilmember Schroeder; who expressed concern that he was not comfortable moving action on a document he had not had an opportunity to review prior to being provided at the meeting,. Mayor Kysylyczyn expressed his disapproval of the document provided by City Manager Beets, and continued his attempt to identify, with City Manager Beets' assistance, the document that would address moving from a two -sort to one -sort method of collection. After fi,�ther debate, City Manager Seets determined that the document sought by Mayor Kysylyczyn was part of the Request for Proposals RFP), and had been included in the Council packet as it was referenced in portions of the Waste Management contract. Mr. Beets explained that the Council packet included an Addendum to the current contract as drafted by City Attorney Squires, as well as an Addendum drafted by Waste Management personnel, both Regular City Council Minutes — 9/15/03 DRAFT Minute~ - Page 16 provided for Council consideration and staff direction., Kysylyczyn moved, Schroeder seconded, approval of the simplified Addendum to Agreement for Recycling Collection between the City of Roseville and Waste Management, identified as the document starting at Page 7 of the Staff Report dated September 15, 2003. Councilmember Kough opined that, after his review of the current contract, he recommended continuing the existing contract for two -sort collection for the remaining 2-1/2 years. Councilmember Kough farther opined that accelerating the cost of the program, didn't appear to serve the citizens of Roseville well; and encouraged Waste Management to pursue a pilot single stream collection system for future reference. Councilmember Kough opined that residents should receive some type of compensation for their participation in a recycling program and effectively lowering costs for Waste Management if a single -stream collection system were implemented., Mayor Kysylyczyn expressed disappointment with Councilmember Kough's point of view, opining that a single- stream collection system had been utilized and proven effective in twenty (20) other metropolitan communities, and would also succeed in Roseville.. Councilmember Kough clarified that his concern wasn't that it wouldn't work, but that residents needed to be indoctrinated into a new system, and it could be considered in the future, when additional providers could offer competitive bids for single- stream collection. Councilmember Kough expressed his support of the Waste Management firm, and their operations to -date. Further debate continued between Mayor Kysylyczyn and Councilmember Koughm' an attempt to gain consensus. Discussion items included container purchase, Regular City Council Minutes — 9115/03 DRA I' Minutes - Page 17 maintenance and long -term ownership; alleged misrepresentation and misinformation in a recent anonymous mailing to residents; current contract costs versus an amended contract; education of residents; and majority opinion. Councilmember Klausing repeatedly attempted recognition by the Chair to no avail. Upon recognition, Councilmember Klausing recommended that no action be taken on this item tonight; and denied knowledge of the flyer's origination, expressing a preference that his direct work phone number had not been provided, and that the person responsible for the flyer had identified themselves. Councilmember Schroeder opined that the written comment received represented a vocal minority; and that in his responses to the comment he received, and his clarification of the facts and disclaimers of the misinformation on the flyer, those respondents had been convinced of the advantages of asingle- stream collection system. Councilmember Schroeder expressed his support of an addendum allowing for asingle- stream collection system and that the advantages would offset any additional costs for implementation. Councilmember Klausing adhered to the provisions of the original contract, and following the pilot prograin prior to committing to a multi -year, single stream collection contract. Councilmember Schroeder adhered to the need to forgo the pilot program in an effort to capture as much material for recycling by making the process as user - friendly as possible, which would be achieved with asingle -sort system. Discussion ensued regarding the recovery rate achieved with a single -sort system and residual rates; and facility tours recently provided by Waste Management for Regular City Council Minutes — 9/15/03 DRAFF Minutes - Page 18 residents and Councilmembers. Gary Boyum, Waste Management Mr. Boyum attempted to negotiate with Councilmember Kough at the bench on a preferred contract germ and price. Councilmember Kough opined a desire to see the City participate in the profits realized by revising the current contact from atwo -sort to a single -sort collection, and eliminating the pilot program, currently part of the existing contract. Mx. Boyum expressed an apparent lack of concern of residents when only ten (10) people attended the recent facility tour, even though four hundred invitations, in addition to advertising, had been provided. When highlighted by Mayor Kysylyczyn as to the accuracy of the recovery of materials addressed in the anonymous flyer; Mr. Boyum advised that over ninety percent (90 %) of materials were experienced by their facility in asingle- stream process. Amy IhIan, X776 Stanbridge Avenue Ms. IhIan spoke of her attendance at the tour and review of single -sort processing in St. Louis Park, opining that the system that worked best was related to the preferences in context of the specific city's residents. Ms. IhIan observed that the dour had been very informative, and the facility operated on revenues from the sales of materials, with costs of hauling and collection reflected in the monthly cost to residents. Susan Hubbard, Eureka Recycling, a Non - profit Providing Recycling Services in the City of St. Paul Councilmembers Kough and Klausing encouraged Mayor Kysylyczyn to allow Ms. Hubbard an opportunity to comment, even if she was a potential competitor of Waste Management. Ms. Hubbard expressed her appreciation of the Council's Regular City Council Minutes — 9/15/03 DRAFT Minutes utes - Page 19 and community's passion for this issue. Ms. Hubbard, in her context of managing a "hot line" for Ramsey County, and recognized numerous calls from Roseville residents concerning this issue in their attempt to research additional information. Ms. Hubbard opined that the City had negotiated a good contract with Waste Management in their current contract and that they were a good provider of recycling services; and recommended, as a seventeen (17) year provider of recycling services in the City of St. Paul, that the City take advantage of the current contract language to pursue a pilot program to test overall city -wide interest in single- sort collection. Ms. Hubbard opined that Waste Management already had available the carts to perform the test program without purchasing new carts for the quantity needed in a pilot program. Ms. Hubbard volunteered her company's expertise and assistance to the City and its residents as appropriate; advising that their firm had no interest in, and was not in a position to, offer competition to Waste Management. Councilmember Klausing reiterated his position that he wanted to pursue the pilot program under the current contract. Steve Mathison, Waste Management Mr. Mathison expressed confusion at the aeon under consideration at tonight's meeting; opining that he thought a motion to accept the. single- stream sort system had been approved at the August 18, 2003 meeting, and tonight's action was simply to negotiate the contract. Mr. Mathison stated that, at the time the current contract was drafted, Waste Management was willing to pursue the pilot program, but following the implementation of single -sort collections for over 100,040 residences, a pilot program was no longer warranted. Councilmember Klausing clarified, with City Attorney Squires concurring that Waste Management was Regular City Couneff Minutes — 9/15/03 DRAFT Minutes - Page 20 contractually obligated to provide a pilot program under the current contract. Mr. Mathison addressed the 6,700 multi- family units not being billed by Waste Management for collection, which is allowing them to renegotiate the contract mid -term; if the City is willing to forgo the pilot program. Mayor Kysylyczyn, in reviewing the draft August 18, 2003 Minutes, on page 24, read the motion taken at that meeting approving an addendum to the current contract on a 312 vole; with staff directed to return to tonight's meeting with a contract addendum for two options, one with a - in back of 8/18 -draft minutes -page 24 -read motion three (3) year contract with a two (2) year option, and one for a straight three year contract, as soon as feasibly possible. Discussion continued with no consensus reached. Kough moved, Klausing seconded, tabling action on this issue to a future meeting. Roll Call Ayes: Klausing and Kough. Nays: Schroeder and Kysylyczyn. Mayor Kysylyczyn reviewed' the previous August 18, 2003 action once again. Kough moved to reconsider previous August 18, 2003 Council action. Mayor Kysylyczyn noted that a motion was already on the table, and Councilmember Kough's move to reconsider another action was not appropriate; at which point Mayor Kysylyczyn withdrew his anginal motion. Kough moved to reconsider the previous action taken on August 18, 2003 related to this matter. Regular City Conned minutes — 9/15/03 DRAFT Minutes - Page 21 After further discussion, Kough withdrew reconsideration of the previous Council action, City Attorney Squires, at approximately 10:20 p.m., by Point of Order, alerted Mayor Kysylyczyn to the lateness of the hour and the need for Council action related to adopting resolutions related to the 2004 Tax bevy and Budget for submission to Ramsey County by 12:00 midnight to avoid negative ramifications. While Mayor Kysylyczyn recognized this concern, discussion on the Recycling Collection system continued. Councilmembers reiterated their positions related to the curbside. recycling program and current contract, and potential pilot program to consider a single -stream sort system. With no apparent consensus available, Mayor Kysylyczyn tabled further discussion until the September 22, 2003 regular Council meeting. B. Applewood Pointe (Aroma Project): 1} Use of City Land Sale Proceeds; 2) Use of City Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Proceeds from Existing City TIF District No. 12 and Consider Amending the City's Financial Plan for TIF Distinct No. 12; and 3) Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Request for Funds to Support Affordable Workforce Musing at Applewood Pointe. Community Development Director and Economic Development Specialist and HRA Executive Director Cathy Bennett provided several diagrams in an attempt to outline and obtain a more definitive decision on the direction to pursue for revenues generated from the Arona site. Ms. Bennett outlined available land and tax increment proceeds, and a potential process to amend the TIF plan for future development costs fro housing or other tax increment options, with several suggestions of staff. Applewood Pointe (Arona Project) Regular City Council Minutes -- 9115/03 DRAFT Minutes i Page 3.0 Schroeder moved, Kysylyczyn seconded, directing staff, related to the use of the Arona Proceeds, to follow the proposal by staff including, an estimated $1.1 Million for Arona development costs; an estimated $.09 Million in uncommitted TIF; $1.28 Million in land sale proceeds of which $275,000 would be earmarked for HRA use and $1.05 Million for the Parks improvement program. Councilmember Klausing sought clarification on the intent of the motion as it related to the total 2004 proposed funding for the HRA with $200,000 Levy Authority and an additional $275,000 allotment of proceeds. Councilmember Schroeder confirmed his intent to provide $200,000 Levy Authority, in addition to the $275,004 from the land proceeds. Further discussion ensued related to the proposed HRA Levy for 2004. Ms. Bennett reviewed the Master Plan objectives of the HRA and lot sales at the Arona site through anon -profit housing organization to provide housing for first time home buyers identified as reduced work force affordable price housing. Community Development Director Dennis` Welsch reviewed the initial direction received from the Council to the HRA related to affordable, inter-generatimal Ob neighborhood housing in the Arona project. HRA Chair Bill Maj eras was also available for comment. Further discussion ensued regarding future use and restrictive conditions available to the Council to use related to land proceed revenues. Ms. Bennett advised that the original proposed levy request had been reduced by the HRA in case the Council Regular City Council Minutes -- 9/15/03 DRAFT Minutes ` Page 23 would approve only a $204,000 HRA levy and not the maximum levy. Schroeder moved an amendment, Kysylyczyn seconded, the motion to reduce the $275,000 HRA allotment from the Arona land sales proceeds to $94,000; and included an allotment of $500,000 toward the proposed Community Center project. Councilmember Klausing recommended the motion allow more flexibility and not provide explicit specificity as to the allotment of funds, simply stating the funds were set aside for future city use. Further discussion ensued, without consensus, on the allotment of the future use of city funds. Schroeder moved an amendment, Kysylyczyn seconded, for consensus purposes, to provide for $94,000 in Arona land sale proceeds for use by the HRA in developing affordable workforce housing at Arona; and the remainder of the land safe proceeds allotted for future city use. Kough moved an amendment, Kysylyczyn seconded, earmarking $1 Million of proceeds for a future Roseville Community Center. Councilmember Klausing expressed his lack of support for Councilmember Kough's amendment. Ayes: None, Nays: Schroeder,, Klausing and Kysylyczyn. Abstentions: Kough Mayor Kysylyczyn repeated the original motion, as amended for $2 Million in Tax Increment Financing (TIF) proceeds; $1.1 Million for development costs; $1.28 Million for land sale proceeds; $94,000 transferred to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) for affordable workforce housing at Arona; with the Regular City Council Minutes — 9/15/03 DRAFT Minutes - Page 24 remainder of the land sale proceeds set aside for eligible city use to be determined by the City Council. While supporting the concept of the motion, Councilmember Kough spoke against the motion without specifically identifying funds for a proposed Community nity Center. Roll Call Ayes: Schroeder, Klausing and Kysylyczyn. Nays: Kough. Recess Mayor Kysylyczyn recessed the meeting at 11:37 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:40 p.m. IX. Organizational Business A. Consider Approving a Tentative, Nod -to- Exceed 2004 Tax Levy for the Roseville Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Kysylyczyn moved, Schroeder seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10140 entitled, "A Resolution Submitting a Preliminary Housing and Redevelopment Authority, in and for the City of Roseville Special Property Tax Levy on Real Estate to the Ramsey County Auditor for the Fiscal Year of 2004," in the amount of $200,000. Councilmember Kough requested that the HRA involve the City Council in their decision - making process with more detailed communication in the future. Councilmember Klausing commented that the City Council, upon creation of the HRA, had provided the authority for their actions. Sill Majerus, HRA. Chair Mr. Majerus assured Councilmembers that the HRA would take the initiative to improve communication with the City Council to confirm their direction in future decision - making processes. Recess Organizational Business Resolution 10140 Tentative, Not -to- Exceed 2004 Tax Levy for the Roseville HRA Regular City Council Minutes — 9/1 5/03 DRAFT Minutes - Page Mayor Kysylyczyn confirmed the intent for appointment of energetic and capable appointees to the HRA. Roll Cali Ayes: Schroeder, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: Klausing, D. Consider Adopting a Tentative, Not to Exceed City Tax Levy and City Budget for 2D04 Kysylyczyn moved, Schroeder seconded, adoption of a draft resolution distributed as a Bench Handout by and identified by Mayor Kysylyczyn as "Resolution No. 1," and entitled "Resolution SubMI'tting the Preliminary Property Tax Levy on Real Estate to the Ramsey County Auditor for the Fiscal Year of 2004," outlining a total tax bevy of $9,652,$84, plus the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Levy as previously adopted in prior action at tonight's meeting. Councilmember Klausing sought clarification of the intent of Mayor Kysylyczyn and Councilmember Schroeder in submitting this proposed action, which I. represented less than the previously- agreed -upon zero percent levy increase of an additional approximate $100,000. Councilmember Schroeder and Mayor Kysylyczyn proceeded to clarify and defend the math ire- achieving their net levy figures. At approxzmately 11:45 p.m., Councilmember Klausing sought comment from Finance Director Chris Miller as to the ramifications of the proposed 2004 Levy resolution. Mayor Kysylyczyn refused comment from Mr. Miller, stating that, "The Finance Director is an employee, not a policy maker," and continued debate with Councilmember Klausing relating to the rationale for considering the proposed action. Resolution 10141 Resolution X0142 Resolution 10143 Adopting a Tentative, Not to Exceed City Tax Levy and City Budget for 2004 Regular City Council Minutes — 9/15/03 DRAFT Minutes - Page City Manager Beets requested clarification from Mayor Kysylyczyn and Councilmember Schroeder on what the reduction represented; with Councilmember Schroeder confirming that the reduction represented the operating expenses of the newly- constructed Public Safety and Public Works facilities. Councilmember Kough sought clarification from staff as to why funds were being budgeted in. 2004 for a building not yet completed. Finance Director Miller advised that staff had recommended the including funds in the 2004 budget that represented the incremental cost of occupying additional facilities for that period of time during 2004; with staff anticipating that the buildings would be operational sometime during the summer of 2004, with $107,400 in anticipated maintenance costs. Mayor Kysylyczyn questioned the need to adopt and subsequently submit the 2004 Preliminary Budget resolution to Ramsey County. City Attorney Squires responded that, while adoption may be option to perception, it was state law, and was being followed by staff in their submission of appropriate documents, pending City Council adoption. Schroeder moved withdrawal, and Kysylycz}m` seconded, withdrawal of his original motion. Kysylyczyn moved, Schroeder seconded, adoption of a resolution entitled, "Resolution Adopting the Preliminary 2004 Annual Budget for the City of Roseville," in the amount of $35,172,120, minus the $107,120. Councilmember Klausing reiterated his willingness to compromise and concur with a 2004 zero percent levy increase, but opined that he was feeling "ambushed" in the face of this new proposed Preliminary 2004 Budget, particularly given the time remaining for adoption. Regular City Council Minutes — 9/15/03 DRAFF Minutes - Page 27 0 Schroeder withdrew his last motion and move, with Klausing seconding, adoption of Resolution No. 10141 entitled, "Resolution Submitting the Preliminary Property Tax Levy on Real Estate to the Ramsey County Auditor for the Fiscal year of 2004," in the amount of $9,760,674. Roil Call Ayes: Schroeder, Klausing and Kough. Nays: Kysylyczyn. Schroeder moved, Klausing seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10142 entitled, "Resolution Adopting the Preliminary 2004 Annual Budget for the City of Roseville," in the amount of $35,172,120. Roll Cali Ayes: Schroeder, Klausing and Kough. Nays: Kysylyczyn. Klausing moved, Schroeder seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10143 entitled, "Resolution Directing the County Auditor to Adjust the Approved Tax Levy for 2404 Bonded Debt," for a combined amount of $390,204. Roll Call Ayes: Schroeder, Klausing, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. Ordinances and Resolutions XI. Consent Agenda Consent Agenda A. Adopting a Resolution in Support of Efforts to Maintain a Suburban County Court Facility Schroeder moved, Kough seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10144 entitled, "Resolution in Support of any and all Efforts to Maintain a Suburban Court Facility." Roll Call Resolution 10144 Support of Efforts to Maintain a Suburban County Court Facility Regular City Council Minutes — 9115/03 DRAFT Minute - Page 28 Ayes: Schroeder, Klausing, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. B. Approving the Acceptance of 2003 Bureau of Justice Assistance Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Schroeder moved, Kough seconded, authorizing the City Manager to accept Local Law Enforcement Bureau of Justice Assistance 2003 Grant monies in the amount of $10,322. Rolf Call Ayes: Schroeder, Klausing, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. C. Approving the 2003 Sergeants'/Teamsters' Contract Schroeder moved, Kough seconded, approval of the proposed terms and conditions for the 2003 collective bargaining agreement with the Teamsters, and directing staff to prepare the necessary documents for execution, as outlined in the staff report dated September 15, 2003. Roll Call Ayes: Schroeder, Klausing, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. D. Waiving the First Reading and Holding the Final Reading and Enacting an Ordinance Authorizing the Roseville Police Department to Perform Certain Criminal Background Checks, and Approving a Summary Thereof to Publish Schroeder moved, Kough seconded, a motion waiving the First Reading, holding a Final Reading, and adopting Ordinance No. 1295 and adopting Ordinance Summary No. 1295 entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 104 of the City Code Relating to Background Checks on Applicants for City Positions," as amended to include authorization for the Police Department to conduct criminal history background checks on license applicants as required by City Code and/or State law. Roll Call Ayes: Schroeder, Klausing, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Approving the Acceptance of 2003 Bureau of Justice Assistance Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Approving the 2003 Sergeants' 1 Teamsters' Contract Ordinance 1295 Authorizing the Roseville Police Department to Perform Certain Criminal Background Checks, and Approving a Summary Regular City Council Minutes — 9/15/03 DRAFT in utes - Page 29 Nays# None. E. Approving David Torgersen's Request for a Minor Approving David Subdivision for Property Located at 1965 — 1981 Torgersen's County Road C -2 (PF 3511) Request for a Schroeder moved, Kough seconded, approval of the Minor Subdivision request by David Torgersen (on behalf of Scott W. for Properly Roberts Trustee) for a Minor Subdivision — Correction, Located at 1965 allowing the legal description of Lots 2 and 3. Block 1, 1981 County Road Congdon Lake Industrial Park to be corrected, subject to C -2 (PF 3511) the condition indicated in Section 3 of the project report dated September 15, 20032 Roll Call Ayes: Schroeder, Klausing, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. F. Renewing the Ramsey County Geographic Renewing the information Systems (GIS) Group Joint Powers Ramsey County Agreement (JPA) Geographic Schroeder moved, Kough seconded, adoption of the Joint Information Powers Agreement (JPA) among members of the Ramsey Systems (GIS) County Geographic Information Systems Users Group; Group Joint and authorized the Mayor and City Manager to execute Powers Agreement the document. (JPA) Roll Call Ayes: Schroeder, Klausing, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. G. Approving a Progress Report for Seth Egessa Approving a Property at 1992 Cleveland Avenue Progress Report for Schroeder moved, Kough seconded, continuance of the Seth Egessa abatement review to October 13, 2003 for a final report Property at 1992 with Mr. Eggessa to assure that remaining improvements Cleveland Avenue are completed. Roll Call Ayes: Schroeder, Klausing, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. H. Renewing the Minnesota State College and Renewing the Universities Training Contract Between the City of Minnesota State Regular City Council Minutes — /15/03 DRAFF Minutes - Page 30 Y. Approving a Burn Permit for Ramsey County at Approving a Burn Woodview Marsh Permit for Ramsey Schroeder moved, Kough seconded, authorizing the Fire County at Marshal to issue a burn permit to the Ramsey County Woodview Marsh Department of Public Works for the period of September 1 through September 15, 2003 to burn the 4 to 5 acres of wild vegetation within the Woodview Marsh; and require that said party notify the Roseville Fire Dispatch twenty- four (24) hours prior to the burn, as a condition of the issuance of the permit. Roll Call Ayes: Schroeder, Klausing, Kough and Kysylyczyn, Nays: None. K. Establishing a Public Hearing Date of September 23, 2003 for Consideration of an Off -Sale Liquor License for G & C Liquor at 1744 Lexington Avenue Schroeder moved, Kough seconded, establishing a Public Hearing on Monday, September 29, 2003 to consider G & C Liquor application for an Off -Sale Intoxicating Liquor Establishing a Public Hearing Date of September 23, 2003 for Consideration of an Off-Sale Liquor Regular City Council Minutes — 9/15/03 DRAFT Minutes - Page 31 License at 1740 Lexington Avenue. License for G & C Liquor at 1740 Roll Call Lexington Avenue Ayes: Schroeder, Klausing, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. L. Approving a Lease Agreement with Sprint PCS to Approving a Lease Occupy Space on the Civic Center Campus Monopole Agreement with Schroeder moved, Kough seconded, approval of the Sprint PCS to Lease Agreement with Sprint PCS for leasing space at the Occupy Space on City Hall Campus Monopole; and authorized the Mayor the Civic Center and City Manager to execute the document, for Campus Monopole installation of antenna equipment at eighty feet (SO'). Roll Call Ayes: Schroeder, Klausing, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. M. Approving a One -Day Gambling License for the ApprovingaOne- Central Park Foundation Day Gambling Schroeder moved, Kough seconded, approving the License for the Roseville Central Park Foundations' request to conduct a Central Park raffle on October 3, 2003 at the Roseville Skating Center Foundation located at 2261 Civic Center Drive. Roll Call Ayes: Schroeder, Klausing, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. N. Approving Business Licenses Expiring June 30, 2003 Approving Business Schroeder moved, Kough seconded, approval of the Licenses Expiring following business licenses expiring Tune 30, 2004: June 30, 2003 ApplicantlAddress Type of License MME Entuprises, d/bfa Massage Therapy Estabhshment Ladies Workout Express 1085 Dionne Street Salvatore Salerno} at Massage Therapist American School of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine 1925 West County Road B-2 KChang, at Massage Therapist American School of Acupuncture and Regular City Council Mmutes — 9/15/03 DRAFF Minutes - Page 32 OrienW Medicine Item/Description 1925 west County Road B -2 Software House Int' l (SHI) Shinders, Inc. CigarcttetT'obacco products 2480 Fairview Owasso Ballfield Clean-up Rocco Altohelli Salon & Day Spa Massage T` wrapy Establishment 1 655 County Road B- 7 }542.00 Roll Call Ayes: Schroeder, Klausing, Kough and Kysylyczyn,. Nays: None. O. Approving Business Licenses Expiring December 31, 2004 Schroeder moved, Kough seconded, approval of license application for the year ending December 31, 2004 for New Hong Kong Wok, 2216 H West County Road D (On -Sale Malt Liquor Beverage ). Roll Call Ayes: Schroeder, Klausing, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. P. Approving Payments/Contracts in Excess of.$5,000 Schroeder moved, Kough seconded, approval of the list of general purchases and/or contracts for services. Vendor Item/Description Amount Software House Int' l (SHI) Renew network server /client licenses $14,1 75.15 Daily Corn anies Owasso Ballfield Clean-up 121,443-00 Daily Companies Evergreen Concession Stand Clean- _� 7 }542.00 Daily C2Manies Rosebrook Pathwa 171999.00 Daily Companies Acorn Pathway 5179o.o� Roll Call Ayes: Schroeder, Klausing, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. Approving Business Licenses Expiring December 31, 2004 Approving Contracts and Payments in Excess of $5,000 Q. Approving Payment of Bills Payment of Schroeder moved, Kough seconded, to approve the Bilks payment of bills., 1442 -1445 $ 3,521.65 26800 -26803 2621006.70 Regular City Council - i - Page 26804 -26871 26872 -26922 26923 -26982 26983 -26994 26995 -27014 27015 -27082 27083 -27102 81,980.87 584,461.98 22,793.48 154,76138 8,690.83 159,194.65 17,996.01 I I Vr, VwI ' f Roll Cali Ayes: Schroeder, Klausing, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. XII. Minutes Minutes A. Approving Minutes of the August 18, 2003 Regular Approving the Council Meeting Minutes of the Kough moved, Schroeder seconded, approval of the August 18, 2003 August 18, 2003 Regular Council meeting minutes as Regular Council presented. Meeting Roll Call Ayes: Schroeder, Klausing, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. B. Approving the Minutes of the Executive Session of the Approving the City Council on August 26, 2003 Minutes of the Kough moved, Schroeder seconded, approval: of the Executive Session August 2b, 2003 Executive Session of the City Council as of the City Council presented. on August 26, 2003 Roll Call Ayes: Schroeder, Klausing, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. IX. Organizational Business, continued Organizational Business, continued B. Consider Establishing a Motorcycle Patrol in the Police Consider Department Establishing a Kough moved, Klausing seconded, tabling discussion on Motorcycle Patrol consideration of a Motorcycle Patrol for the Roseville in the Police Regular City Council Minutes — 9/15103 ]DRAFT Minutes - Page 34 Police Department Department Roll Call Ayes: Schroeder, Klausing, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. C. Consider Fire Truck Repair or Replacement Consider Fire Kysylyczyn moved, Kough seconded, to direct that Truck Repair or contingency funds be used for necessary repairs on Replacement Engines 31 and 32 respectively by December 31, 2003. Fire Chief Rich Gasaway, at the request of Councilmember Klausing to Mayor Kysylyczyn, and concurrence by Councilmembers Schroeder and Kough, reviewed his report on the department's vehicles, their manufacture date and age. Chief Gasaway reviewed the 20 -year depreciation standards for useful life utilized by the department, depending on wear and tear; and stated the safety of firefighters depending on the equipment was a major consideration. Chief Gasaway reviewed the vehicle repair costs over the last five (5) years, in addition to the $1 3,750 estimated for current repair costs for Engines 31 and 32. Chief Gasaway's recommendation was for replacement of the two (2) vehicles with one (1) new vehicle. In response ' to Council questions, Chief Calaway identified external body repairs performed in 1991 on Engine 32; and other equipment options available for the Council's consideration. Councilmember Klausing questioned the prudence of continuing to repair the unit, given it's age and condition, suggesting it may be more fiscally responsible to purchase one (1) new vehicle. Mayor Kysylyczyn expressed disagreement with this rationale. Councilmember Schroeder expressed similar concerns to DRAFT Minutes - Page 35 those expressed by Councilmember Klausing related to continuing to spend money on odd equipment; but opined it was a quick fix until it was deten-nined in which direction the department would be going in the future, with overall decisions pending by the City Council. Roll Call Ayes: Schroeder, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: Klausing. X. Ordinances &Resolutions XIYI. Other Business Roll Call Ayes: Schroeder, Klausing, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. Kysylyczyn moved, Kough seconded, directing staff to designate several parking spaces in the City Hall lot for emergency vehicle parking. Other Business Regular City Council Minutes — 9/15/03 DRAFT Minutes - Page 36 Roll Call Ayes: Schroeder, Klausing, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. XiV, Adjournment Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at I2:24 p.m. ATTEST: john Kysylyczyn, Mayor Neal J. Beets, City Manager