Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC_Minutes_2003_0428 ~ City Council Minutes Regular Council Meeting Monday, April 28, 2003 Parks and Recreation Commission Interviews 4:00 p.m. Mayor Kysylyczyn and Councilmembers Klausing, Maschka, and Kough interviewed seven (7) applicants to the Parks and Recreation Commission as follows. Note: Councilmember Schroeder had previously advised of his inability to attend the interviews due to his work schedule. 4:00 p.m. Kathleen Cassen Mickelson 4:58 p.m. Gerald Freeman 4:08 p.m. J an Vanderwall 5:18 p.m. Melissa Lawlis 4: 19 p.m. Joseph Smith 5:42 p.m. Michelle Kruzel 4:47p.m. Mark Kamrath The interview panel interviewed until 5 :23 p.m., at which time they recessed until 5 :42 p.m. and completed their last interview of Ms. Kruzel, ending at 5:47 p.m. Councilmembers held an informal discussion time and recessed at 5 :50 p.m. Mayor Kysylyczyn and Councilmembers Klausing, Maschka, 6:08 p.m. Schroeder and Kough met in the City Council Chambers on the Roll Call above date. Roll Call: (Voting Order): Klausing, Maschka, Schroeder, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Mayor Kysylyczyn introduced Sara Corrine Kysylyczyn, 44 days old, as the newest addition to the Kysylyczyn household. Sara "sort of' gaveled the meeting to order. Call to Order Call to Order Mayor K ysylyczyn called the regular meeting to order at 6:08 p.m. and welcomed everyone to the Roseville City Council meeting. Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 2 I. Public Comment Mayor Kysylyczyn called for public comment by members of the audience. Public Comment A. Richard Verhagen, 176 Owasso Boulevard South Dr. VerHagen opined how Council meetings should be conducted. II. Review Agenda Review Mayor Kysylyczyn called for any comments or discussion Agenda on the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Kough indicated that he would have questions about Consent Agenda Item XI., A., "Accepting a Bid to Replace the Air Conditioning for City Hall and Authorizing Installation." No other comments were forthcoming. III. Presentations Presentations A. Internet Protocol Phone System Briefing Internet Protocol Finance Director Chris Miller overviewed the issue, Phone System the nature of tonight's presentation and tonight's Briefing presenters. Lou Gallagher, of Haigh Todd and Associates, reviewed the telephone study his firm had performed for Roseville, New Brighton, Shoreview and the North Suburban Communications Commission (NSCC). Ms. Cor Wilson, Executive Director of the NSCC, spoke about the history and advantages of IP telephony. She specifically mentioned Commission cities' interest in joining a scaleable IP telephone system and the reliability of the NSCC institutional network. Kysylyczyn moved, Maschka seconded, authorizing staff to prepare and distribute a Request for Proposal Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 3 (RFP) to replace the City's telephone system with an IP Telephony-based system, as recommended in the staffreport dated April 28, 2003. Roll Call Ayes: Klausing, Maschka, Schroeder, Kough, and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. B. Service Club Logos on City of Roseville Welcome Signs Councilmember Kough presented a summary of the meetings he has held to-date with Roseville service clubs regarding "Welcome to Roseville" signs. He displayed several examples of such signs in other communities; and answered questions regarding maintenance and cost of such signs. Mayor Kysylyczyn spoke in favor of having Councilmember Kough meet several more times with interested clubs to more accurately define the cost of each sign, the financial commitment of organizations wishing to participate, and any proj ected taxpayer cost. Councilmember Kough encouraged other interested parties to attend the upcoming meetings. Service Club Logos on City of Roseville Welcome Signs Recess Recess Mayor Kysylyczyn recessed the meeting at 7: 17 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Given a considerable number of people in attendance at tonight's meeting, Mayor Kysylyczyn polled the audience members as to their specific interest items, and amended the order of the agenda to accommodate their interests. v. Recognitions Recognitions Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 4 A. Administer Oath of Office to Citizen Advisory Commission Appointees Mayor Kysylyczyn called forward applicants for each respective Commission and administered the Oath of Office to the following Commission appointees: Human Rh!hts Commission Phillip J. Crump Stephen L. Smith Jacqueline LeMay, Student Representative Police Civil Service Commission Linda Lange Plannin!! Commission Troy W. Duncan Miriam Stone VII. Land Use B. Qwest Wireless Conditional Use Permit (CUP), 1800 West Highway 36 (PF 3461) Kysylyczyn move, Kough seconded, adoption of a Resolution entitled, "A Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Qwest Wireless to Erect a 54 foot PCS Monopole and Install Associated Equipment Cabinets in the Northeast Comer of the Frank's Nursery and Crafts Parcel (PF 3461)," based on the information provided in Section 6 and conditions of Section 7 of the proj ect report dated April 28, 2003. Community Development Director Dennis Welsch overviewed the purpose of the request to augment cellular service to the Roseville area; the location of the equipment and monopole in the northeast comer of the Frank's Nursery parking lot at 1800 South Highway 36 Service Drive; unavailability of adjacent City property to accommodate another location for the monopole; that the pole would serve a dual Administer Oath of Office to Citizen Advisory Commission Appointees Land Use Resolution 10089 Qwest Wireless Conditional Use Permit (CUP), 1800 West Highway 36 (PF 3461) Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 5 purpose in providing additional lighting; and that the equipment would be adequately screened. Mr. Welsch advised that both staff and the Planning Commission (on a 6/1 vote) were recommending the proj ect as presented. Initial discussion items included screening materials (i.e., vegetation and wooden fencing); revenue- generating status of the pole; and potential location of the pole and facilities within a central area (i.e., water tower). Mr. Welsch introduced Larry Coleman representing Qwest Wireless, the applicant. Mr. Coleman advised Councilmembers that their firm had considered the water tower location, but it was not suitable during peak holiday seasons at the Rosedale mall to eliminate their coverage gap. Mr. Coleman advised that their company's other pole, in the Cleveland Avenue and County Road C area would be so close to the water tower site, coverage would overlap, yet leave a coverage gap along Highway 36 where it was most needed. Mayor Kysylyczyn sought clarification from staff regarding FCC rules regarding municipalities granting requests for cell phone towers and regulations regarding placement; and potential additional applicants on the proposed monopole. Mr. Coleman advised that other applicants would be able to attach below Qwest on the monopole even though it is a low site, as it has natural elevation in the area. Mayor Kysylyczyn discussed other potential sites (i.e., office buildings) that the applicant could use. Mr. Coleman cited rationale for the other locations Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 6 not being viable for consideration for a cell tower due to height or size of the buildings. Mr. Welsch reviewed preferences of the City for monopole use as functioning light poles for a dual purpose. Mayor Kysylyczyn expressed his preference for consolidation of the towers. Mr. Coleman addressed Mayor Kysylyczyn's concerns and Qwest's first choice preferences for placement on water towers. Mr. Coleman further advised that their original plan was to put the equipment behind existing natural screening, as per the original agreement Frank's Nursery. However, the Planning Commission had requested the revised plan as presented, to preserve a tree that would have needed to be removed during the construction process. Qwest had redesigned their plan, in accordance with the Planning Commission's request for cedar fencing, but Frank's Nursery's lender was not in favor of removing any existing parking places and had requested the equipment to be located in the grassy area and screened on all sides by trees. Councilmember Maschka asked for clarification regarding the type and size of the planned replacement tree(s). Mr. Coleman advised that only one Evergreen tree would need to be removed in order to allow servicing of equipment; and that in order to install the coax cables, the roots would probably be damaged and it wouldn't survive anyway. It was the applicant's intent to replace that tree with a tree of a similar size to the adjacent trees on the site. Councilmember Maschka sought further clarification regarding the screening fence materials and color; square footage of proposed equipment and future Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 7 equipment upgrades on site; orientation of the equipment cabinet; and preference for screening from the frontage road and neighboring property, or from the parking lot. Councilmember Maschka expressed his preference for complete screening or relocation of the equipment box. Maschka moved, Schroeder seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10089 entitled, "A Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Qwest Wireless to Erect a 54 foot PCS Monopole and Install Associated Equipment Cabinets in the Northeast Comer of the Frank's Nursery and Crafts Parcel (PF 3461 )," with an amendment to the report dated April 28, 2003 to change the axis of the box from the north/south side to the east/west side; and to provide screening around the facility, with a preference for trees; and to remove the facility from the parking lot, and facilitate required changes outlined by staff and subject to final staff review; with a revised Site Plan diagram (Exhibit Z-4) to be provided as part of the permanent record for this project. Roll Call (Maschka Amendment) Ayes: Klausing, Maschka, Schroeder, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. Roll Call (Main Motion as Amended) Ayes: Klausing, Maschka, Schroeder, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. VI. Hearings A. Potential Changes to the Senior Utility Discount Program Public Works Director Duane Schwartz briefly reviewed additional information researched by staff to further analyze the approximate potential number Hearings Potential Changes to the Senior Utility Discount Program Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 8 of participants at various income levels, as referenced by previous Public Works and Transportation Commission and City Council discussions. Mayor Kysylyczyn opened the Public Hearing at 8:05 p.m. Maschka moved, Klausing seconded, an extension of the utility discount program to those under age 65 meeting federal poverty guidelines with annual reapplication; and to continue the existing senior discount program. Doug Wilke, Chair of the Public Works and Transportation Commission Mr. Wilke spoke in support of the extension of the under 65 needs-based program and the continuation of the existing senior discount program. Polly Frank, 1233 County Road B Ms. Frank spoke in support of a continuation of the senior citizen discount program. Amy Herrera, 2258 Fulham Street Ms. Herrera spoke in favor of continuing the senior citizen discount program; opining that, in these economic times, the City should not consider cutting any services to its senior citizens. Mayor Kysylyczyn clarified several comments with Ms. Herrera as to her opinion of the income-based option, or the current practice. Al Sands, 2612 Aldine Mr. Sands provided a historical background for the senior discount program; opining that in the mid- 60' s, property owners were assessed for private wells and drain fields; and then were assessed for sanitary sewer and water installation when it became available. Mr. Sands opined that the senior utility Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 9 program had been initiated as an accommodation for those purposes, and was not a significant issue from a financial point of view, but provided a psychological factor that the Council should recognize. Mr. Sands encouraged Councilmembers to leave the system as it is for seniors, and add those under age 65 who meet program poverty guidelines. Mayor Kysylyczyn advised that the Council had initiated a review of the existing discount program due to a citizen inquiry approximately nine (9) months ago. Joan Bean, 701 West Eldridge Avenue Ms. Bean expressed confusion regarding the motion's intent; but encouraged leaving the senior discount in place on behalf of the senior citizens in the community. Doug Wilke Mr. Wilke addressed other government entities that offer senior discounts for programs. Richard Verhagen, 176 Owasso Boulevard South Dr. Verhagen opined that "I'll take any break I can get," as an upcoming senior citizen. Mayor Kysylyczyn closed the Public hearing at 8:23 p.m. Mayor Kysylyczyn read two (2) written comments received regarding the senior utility discount. Councilmember Kough expressed his appreciation for continuing this item from the previous meeting to further analyze information. Councilmember Kough proceeded to review his research on the issue and spoke in favor of continuing the existing senior discount program. Councilmember Schroeder opined that, while from a Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 10 financial standpoint this may be an insignificant issue, in looking at the overall picture, he was supportive of providing assistance to those in need, no matter their age. Councilmember Schroeder spoke in favor of the portion of the motion that would address a demonstrated needs-based program. Councilmember Kough spoke in favor of continuing the senior discount program as recommended by the Public Works and Transportation Commission. Mayor Kysylyczyn spoke against the motion, opining that he didn't believe in reward programs for mandatory services nor did he believe that local government should provide social service programs; and that while the dollars were insignificant, he questioned whether the discount program was making a lifestyle difference for any residents. Mayor Kysylyczyn concurred with Councilmember Schroeder's comments regarding a set amount for Adjusted Gross Income. Kysylyczyn moved, Schroeder seconded, an amendment to the original motion to limit household adjusted gross income (AGI) for all parties, regardless of age, at approximately $50,000 per year. Councilmember Maschka spoke against the amendment due to administrative expenses exceeding program benefits or program savings realized. Councilmember Klausing spoke against the amendment; and spoke in support of the main motion as a symbolic statement that will benefit those people most in need. Councilmember Kough spoke against the amendment, as he questioned the number of people who would actually come forward and take advantage of it. Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 11 Councilmember Schroeder sought staff clarification regarding the approximate number of households affected if the AGI were raised to $50,000. Finance Director Miller, in reviewing 2000 census data, attempted to estimate the number of households that would be eligible. There was some dispute among Councilmembers and staff regarding the projected households represented with the data. Roll Call (Kysylyczyn Amendment) Ayes: Schroeder and Kysylyczyn. Nays: Klausing, Maschka and Kough. Kysylyczyn moved, Schroeder seconded, an amendment to provide a one-hundred percent (100% ) discount for those under federal poverty guidelines. Roll Call (Kysylyczyn Second Amendment) Ayes: Kysylyczyn. Nays: Klausing, Maschka, Schroeder and Kough. Kysylyczyn moved, without a second, an amendment to provide cap for AGI at $100,000. Kough called for a majority vote to close debate and return to the original motion. Mayor Kysylyczyn withdrew his amendment. Further discussion ensued regarding the maIn motion. Councilmember Klausing concurred with several comments made by Mr. Sands and Ms. Frank; expressed his appreciation for the discussion held up to this point, the historical perspective provided, and Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 12 for the opportunity for the Public Hearing; and spoke in favor of the main motion. Mayor Kysy1yczyn spoke against the motion as it stood, citing the few people that would be assisted at the poverty level income AGI, and spoke in favor of sending the issue back to the Public Works and Transportation Commission for further review. Counci1member Maschka spoke in favor of the original motion without amendment. Roll Call (Original Motion) Ayes: Maschka, Klausing and Kough. Nays: None. Abstentions: Schroeder and Kysy1yczyn. Counci1member Kough asked for the reason for the abstentions; but following consultation with City Attorney Scott Anderson, neither chose to respond. VII. Land Use C. Whitehouse Senior Apartments Planned Unit Development (PUD) at 563 West County Road B (PF 3460) Community Development Director Dennis Welsch reviewed the requested Council action; stating that the existing building is in the process of being razed, with rebuilding planned on the same side, but with a 3-story building and a different footprint. (10.2) Schroeder moved, Kough seconded, approval of the preliminary plat for Good Samaritan Society, creating one lot, with easements and right-of-way dedications as required by the City of Roseville's Public Works Department, Ramsey County, and Land Use Whitehouse Senior Apartments PUD & First Reading of Rezoning Ordinance at 563 West County Road B (PF 3460) Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 13 Capital Regions Watershed. Roll Call Ayes: Klausing, Maschka, Schroeder, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. (10.3) Schroeder moved, Kough seconded, approval of the General Concept Planned unit Development (PUD) plan for a three (3) story, 50-unit senior housing complex with underground and surface parking, and associated site improvements; subject to the conditions listed in Section 8 of the project report dated April 28, 2003. Mayor Kysylyczyn requested staff review of the proposed lower level parking, main entry turnaround and visitor parking area; and the revised location of retaining wall. Counci1member Maschka requested a definition of the synthetic stucco proposed and the lifespan of the material. Community Development Director Welsch responded to Council questions accordingly. Roll Call Ayes: Klausing, Maschka, Schroeder, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. (10.4) Schroeder moved, Kough seconded, approval of holding the first reading of an ordinance rezoning the subject property from B-1 (Limited Business District) to PUD, with an underlying zoning of R-3 (General Residence District); with final approval of the rezoning occurring at the City Council's pending approval of final plans and documents. Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 14 Roll Call Ayes: Klausing, Maschka, Schroeder, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. In a related note, Councilmember Maschka addressed the number of seniors being added to the community, with recent approval of this project and the Hamline and Arona sites, and questioned rationale in how such action related to increasing availability of housing for younger families to increase the city's tax base and school-age children. Community Development Director Welsch concurred with Councilmember Maschka's observations, opining that a discussion needed to be held soon on where the city achieves a balance regarding the City's demographic profile. D. Brian Bean's Request for a Variance, 1760 Dunlap (PF 3459) (8.1) Schroeder moved, Kough seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10090 entitled, "A Resolution Approving a 16 foot Variance to Section 1004.01E (Exception) of the Roseville City Code for Property Located at 1760 Dunlap Street (PF 3459)." Councilmembers Maschka and Klausing commented respectively on internal schematics and the exterior architectural style and amenities to lessen the visual impact. Councilmember Kough expressed concern in the deviation from the City's standard setback requirements; and the difficulty of making a determination on this case due to the differing views of the applicant and their neighbor. Community Development Director Dennis Welsch provided a historical perspective on homes in south Resolution 10090 Resolution 10091 Bean Variance 1760 Dunlap (PF 3459) Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 15 Roseville and the number of deviations in setbacks due to original township and county zoning acts prior to Roseville becoming a city; with exceptions to those homes built prior to the City's incorporation. Mayor Kysylyczyn concurred that the decision before the Council was a difficult one, but addressed the duties of the City Council in making these determinations. Councilmember Klausing addressed the Council and audience from the podium to display a proposed alternative site plan in an attempt to alleviate the proposed building's mass on the north side. Jill and Brian Bean, applicants, came to the podium and expressed appreciation for the idea, but that it had been eliminated due to the load-bearing walls on that side of the home, and the increased impact to the proj ect' s overall cost. Mr. and Mrs. Bean reviewed numerous informational materials in support of the project as proposed and other options that they had investigated to lessen the visual impact and setback issues. Discussion items included other location options for the garage, whether attached or detached; screening options to break up the view; and the flexibility of the applicants to viable solutions other than that presented. Mayor Kysylyczyn called for the comments from the neighboring property owner and other audience members. Daniel Gruntner, 1768 Dunlap (directly north of the variance site) Mr. Gruntner provided a bench handout listing what he opined were the negative and positive impacts of the proj ect for the Ci ty, Precinct 9, the Dunlap Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 16 neighborhood, and his personal property, if the Council were to approve the variance request. Mr. Gruntner's "positives" with the variance included increased property values; improved home brought up to or above minimum standards; and the Beans remaining in the neighborhood and retaining their backyard, with the addition of a workshop, boat storage and family room. Mr. Gruntner's "negatives" included setting a precedent for long variances and reducing his property value; disruption of good neighborly relations and change in the neighborhood's character; blocking his southerly view, sunlight, and air flow; drainage issues; damage to existing trees; noise from workshop; and the huge, overwhelming, two and one-half story brick wall. Mr. Gruntner presented several alternatives for the Bean family to consider including a double-wide driveway; retaining the house as is; buying another appropriately-sized home in the school district; construction of a double-deep garage on the south side; or a detached garage behind the house plus other improvements. Mr. Gruntner concluded by reviewing code language and disputing the property meeting 8 of the conditions for setback permits; encouraged rejection of the variance request; or tabling of the variance request to allow the staff, applicants and himself to continue to find an option that was agreeable to all parties. Mayor Kysylyczyn sought clarification from staff regarding the roof angles and pitch; and spoke in favor of granting this variance in the City's continuing efforts to update this style of home to increase sales. Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 17 Mayor Kysylyczyn questioned the need to allow the 2' variance to continue from a prior surveying error; and encouraged a jog in the north wall, to provide a visual break in the expanse. Mayor Kysylyczyn opined that if a five foot (5') line were preserved, it would address sightline, drainage, and tree loss concerns. Councilmember Klausing complimented the Beans and Mr. Gruntner for their presentations; and spoke in support of the motion, based on the overall, long- term benefit to the City. Councilmember Klausing recognized the concerns of Mr. Gruntner, the recommendation of staff and the Planning Commission after considerable review; and suggested additional windows or something to make the mass less imposing to reduce the impact on Mr. Gruntner's property. Councilmember Schroeder thanked the applicants, Mr. Gruntner and the Planning Commission for their work on the project to-date. Councilmember Schroeder spoke in support of the motion; but expressed concerns regarding the drainage and the need to break up the mass of the building. Councilmember Kough expressed his difficulty in making a determination on this project, speaking to the concerns of the Beans and Mr. Gruntner. Mr. and Mrs. Bean commented that Mr. Gruntner's car port roof currently drains onto their property. Councilmember Maschka expressed concerns regarding the garage and setting a precedent regarding the setback; but spoke in favor of what the Beans were attempting to accomplish on the property . Further discussion included the actual right-of-way requirements, with Planning Consultant Thomas Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 18 Paschke providing clarification. Councilmember Kough spoke in support of continuing the item until a future meeting. Mayor Kysylyczyn opined that his philosophy of government was that he was not elected to be a mediator, but was elected to make decisions; and stated his intention to move forward and called the motion. Roll Call (8.1) Ayes: Klausing, Schroeder, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: Maschka. (8.2) Schroeder moved, Kough seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10091 entitled, "A Resolution Approving a 2 Foot Variance to Section 1004.02D5 (Dwelling Dimensions - Side Yard Setback) of the Roseville City Code for Property Located at 1760 Dunlap Street (PF 3459)." Mayor Kysylyczyn spoke regarding Minnesota State Statute 462.367 related to hardships regarding the 2' vanance. Mr. and Mrs. Bean spoke to the proposed garage width, which brings it within inches of the home entry, affecting load bearing walls, and creating additional main floor remodeling and moving of walls; stating that the error was created in the original survey, and was unique to the entire block, not just their property. Mayor Kysylyczyn deferred to City Attorney Anderson for comment regarding State law regarding hardship conditions. City Attorney Anderson addressed the legality of the variance hardship related to whether the application was reasonable, not to determine if there were other Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 19 options available; and advised of developing case law to support the perceived definition of the hardship, including three (3) cases currently before the court related to practical difficulties vs. hardships. Councilmember Maschka opined that if would seem that practical difficulty without the 2 feet would be that the project doesn't work, as it affects the size of the garage and bearing walls. City Attorney Anderson opined that economic conditions alone didn't constitute a hardship, but they do come into play, they just couldn't be the only thing. Further discussion between Councilmember Maschka and City Attorney Anderson involved setting a precedent for other properties or the uniqueness of each property. Discussion ensued among staff and Councilmembers regarding the test of the variance as a hardship and the determinations by Council and staff. Roll Call (8.2) Ayes: Klausing, Maschka, Schroeder, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. A. Gerald Voerman's Request for a Variance at 1251 Roma Avenue (PF 3462) Community Development Director Dennis Welsch reviewed the request. Mayor Kysylyczyn asked why the item was not included on the Consent Agenda; with Mr. Welsch responding that it had simply been a staff oversight. Klausing moved, Schroeder seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10092 entitled, "A Resolution Resolution 10092 V oerman Variance at 1251 Roma Avenue (PF 3462) Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 20 Approving a 503 Square Foot Variance to Section 1004.01A6 of the Roseville City Code for Property located at 1251 Roma Avenue (PF 3462);" based on the findings in Section 5 and conditions of Section 6 (A through E) of the project report dated April 28, 2003. Councilmember Schroeder asked that staff include more graphics with the packet information and staff reports in the future. Roll Call Ayes: Klausing, Maschka, Schroeder, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. VIII. Reports and Recommendations A. Request from VSI Construction for Livable Communities Grant Funding for Improvements in the Right-of-Way at 1929 Lexington Avenue North (southeast corner of Roselawll and Lexington) (PF 3324) Kysylyczyn moved, Kough seconded, adoption of Resolution No.10093 entitled, "Resolution Approving a Livable Communities Grant to VSI Construction, Inc., for Boulevard Landscaping, Sidewalks, and Brick/Iron Ground Monuments at 1912 Lexington Avenue;" approving the grant request by Brent Thompson of VSI Construction, Inc. for development site improvements at the SE comer of Roselawn and Lexington. The grant funds are to be distributed after submission of actual expense receipts for the work identified. Staff responded to several questions regarding the grant request. Roll Call Ayes: Klausing, Maschka, Schroeder, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Reports and Recommendations Resolution 10093 VSI Construction Livable Communities Grant Funding Improvements in the Right-of-Way at 1929 Lexington Avenue North (southeast corner of Roselawn and Lexington) (PF 3324) Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 21 Nays: None. C. Consider United Properties Purchase Agreement for City-Owned Arona Site Kysylyczyn moved, Schroeder seconded, approval of a Purchase Agreement between the City of Roseville and United Properties, 3500 West 80thh Street, Minneapolis, MN; with an earnest money payment of $10,000 and a sale price of $1,300,000 from United Properties for the 13.7 acre city-owned Arona site; subject to final density for Phase II and review and comment by the City Attorney and City Manager. Community Development Director Dennis Welsch provided a bench handout consisting of an updated Purchase and Sale Agreement; and noted that United Properties had already signed the document. Mr. Welsch addressed Council questions, and advised that the closing was anticipated within sixty (60) days; and a full accounting of dollars would be provided to the Council in the near future, including the costs to construct the road, extension of Terrace Drive, as well as pond and pathway improvements. Roll Call Ayes: Klausing, Maschka, Schroeder, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. D. Accepting Street Light Feasibility Report for a portion of Oakcrest Street west of Fairview and Ordering a Public Hearing on June 2, 2003 Kough moved, Klausing seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10094 entitled, "Resolution Receiving the Feasibility Study and Providing for Public Hearing on Improvement UL-03-11, Installation of Street Lights on Oakcrest Avenue, from Prior Avenue to Fairview Avenue." United Properties Purchase Agreement for City-Owned Arona Site Resolution 10094 Accepting Street Light Feasibility Report for a portion of Oakcrest Street west of Fairview and Ordering a Public Hearing on June 2, 2003 Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 22 Councilmember Schroeder expressed concern regarding several proposed assessments to properties; and city expense for intersection street lights. Public Works Director Duane Schwartz reviewed the proj ect process and the notification requirements for the public hearing; as well as the standard light fixture at city expense, with upgrades assessed to the property owner. Mayor Kysylyczyn advised staff that, as part of the June 2, 2003 Public Hearing, he would be anticipating discussion similar to that held regarding special service districts and the preferences of minority or majority property owner participation. Roll Call Ayes: Klausing, Maschka, Kough and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. Abstentions: Schroeder. IX. Organizational Business X. Ordinances and Resolutions XI. Consent Agenda A. Accepting a Bid to Replace the Air Conditioning for City hall and Authorizing Installation Councilmember Kough addressed his concerns regarding a new air conditioner versus parts for the obsolete units now installed. Councilmember Kough recommended that the new construction include provisions to allow interconnection with existing buildings in case of breakdowns. Councilmember Kough also requested that staff ensure that the units are on a regular preventative maintenance schedule. Organizational Business Ordinances and Resolutions Consent Agenda Accepting a Bid to Replace the Air Conditioning for City Hall and Authorizing Installation Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 23 Councilmember Kough requested that staff review and make a recommendation, as part of the project management process, that the architects and mechanical engineers coordinate alternatives and maintenance agreements for the updated equipment. Maschka moved, with the Chair declaring no recognition of a second for authorization for staff to receive proposals from at least three (3) mechanical contractors for the installation of the roof-top cooling units, including all piping, accessories, electrical, and structural work needed to accommodate the new system at a cost not to exceed $50,000. Roll Call Ayes: Klausing, Maschka, Schroeder, Kough, and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. B. Approving North Heights Lutheran Church's Request for a 60-day Plan Review Extension for a General Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Rezoning for the Property on the Northwest Corner of Rice and County Road C (PF 3449) Maschka moved, with the Chair declaring no recognition of a second for adoption of Resolution No. 10095 entitled, "A Resolution Extending the 60- day Review Period Regarding a Request by North Heights Lutheran Church for a General Concept Planned Unit Development and Rezoning in the City of Roseville (PF 3449)." Roll Call Ayes: Klausing, Maschka, Schroeder, Kough, and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. Resolution 10095 Approving North Heights Lutheran Church's Request for a 60-day Plan Review Extension for a General Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Rezoning for the Property on the Northwest Corner of Rice and County Road C (PF 3449) C. Approving Agreement for Supplemental Law Approving Enforcement on Lake Owasso Agreement for Maschka moved, with the Chair declaring no Supplemental recognition of a second for approval of an agreement Law Enforcement Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 24 between the City of Roseville and Ramsey County on Lake Owasso for supplemental law enforcement services on Lake Owasso at a cost not to exceed $1,900 to be funded from the 2003 Lake Patrol Budget; and further authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the agreement upon final review of the City Attorney. Roll Call Ayes: Klausing, Maschka, Schroeder, Kough, and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. D. Establishing a Public Hearing on May 12, 2003 for a Water Ski Jump and Water Ski Course on lake Owasso Maschka moved, with the Chair declaring no recognition of a second for establishing a public hearing for the regular City Council meeting of Monday, May 12, 2003 to consider the Lake Owasso Safe Boating Association's request for approval of placement of a water ski course and jump on Lake Owasso. Roll Call Ayes: Klausing, Maschka, Schroeder, Kough, and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. E. Approving a One-Year Lease Extension for Parks and Recreation Space at Fairview Community Center Maschka moved, with the Chair declaring no recognition of a second for approval of a one-year lease extension between the City of Roseville and Roseville Area Schools; and authorized the Mayor and City Manager to execute the document for lease of space at the Fairview Community Center in the amount not to exceed $44,771.60; in addition to an amount not to exceed $22,000 in direct services to the Fairview Community Center; with funds to be taken from the Parks and Recreation Department. Establishing a Public Hearing on May 12, 2003 for a Water Ski Jump and Water Ski Course on lake Owasso Approving a One- Year Lease Extension for Parks and Recreation Space at Fairview Community Center Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 25 Roll Call Ayes: Klausing, Maschka, Schroeder, Kough, and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. F. Establishing a Public Hearing for an Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for New Owners of Network Liquors, 2727 Lexington Avenue North Maschka moved, with the Chair declaring no recognition of a second for establishing a public hearing on Monday, May 12, 2003 to consider Network Liquors application for an Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License at 2727 North Lexington A venue. Roll Call Ayes: Klausing, Maschka, Schroeder, Kough, and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. G. Approving Parkview Gambling License Maschka moved, with the Chair declaring no recognition of a second for approval of Parkview Center School's request to conduct a raffle on April 29, 2003 at the Parkview Center School located at 701 West County Road B. Establishing a Public Hearing for an Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for New Owners of Network Liquors, 2727 Lexington Avenue North Center School's One Day Approving Parkview Center School's One Day Gambling License Roll Call Ayes: Klausing, Maschka, Schroeder, Kough, and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. H. Approving Purchases/Contracts in Excess of Purchases and $5,000 Contracts in Maschka moved, with the Chair declaring no Excess of $5,000 recognition of a second for approval of the list of general purchases and! or contracts for services. Roll Call Ayes: Klausing, Maschka, Schroeder, Kough, and Kysylyczyn. Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 26 Nays: None. I. Approving Payment of Bills Payment of Maschka moved, with the Chair declaring no Bills recognition of a second to approve the payment of bills. 24599-24612 24613-24621 24622-24685 24686-24693 24694-24725 24726-24731 24732-24737 24738-24795 TOTAL $ 14,540.91 137,800.01 28,832.63 1,052.67 26,452.03 414,646.42 4,861.56 23,110.50 $651,296.73 Roll Call Ayes: Klausing, Maschka, Schroeder, Kough, and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. VIII. Reports and Recommendations Reports and Recommendations 2004 Budget Kick-off B. 2004 Budget Kick-off Finance Director Chris Miller introduced staff s initiation of 2004 Budget discussions and sought Council direction for the initial process regarding budget goals, process and timeline. Mr. Miller encouraged Council input as soon as possible, to allow staff to mirror the City Council objectives; and keep on track in staff reviews of department budgets in mid-May. Discussion of Goals, Process and Timeline Mr. Miller sought Council direction as to spending priorities; spending freezes; budget decreases or increases; resource allocation to programs and services; spending targets and objectives; shifts in spending priorities to provide staff with general direction; and preferences for revisions to fees or Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 27 servIce programs. Mr. Miller summarized those items highlighted in the staff report dated April 28, 2003, to initiate discussions. Mr. Miller further sought Council direction as to the meeting format, frequency and preference for the amount of detail provided for Council review. Mr. Miller anticipated that staff was attempting to have a preliminary document to Council by mid-July to allow for timely review prior to the preliminary levy adoption in September of 2003. Councilmember Schroeder expressed his disappointment in the budget information he received from staff last year, and requested more line-item detail for the 2004 process. Councilmember Schroeder personally requested that he receive two past year actual budgets; the current budget to-date; projected budgets for the next two years; as well as a five year Capital Improvement Fund (CIP) budget as a separate document. Councilmember Schroeder further addressed the numerous unknowns in projecting a 2004 budget at this time, until legislative action is completed; and expressed his desire for additional public input regarding service levels, use of contingency funds and state impacts. Mayor Kysylyczyn provided a reprint of a recent article by Governor Pawlenty entitled, "Living within our means." Mayor Kysylyczyn opined that local government should also live within its means, and expressed his concern that staff had still not provided the detailed budget information he had requested in November of 2002 for the 2003 budget; and questioned the Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 28 public's ability to obtain budget information, if Councilmember requests were not addressed. City Manager Beets asked Mayor Kysylyczyn the process he would like staff to follow. Mayor Kysylyczyn responded that he was getting to that; and expressed concern that special interest groups appeared to be taking over and encouraged different groups to come forward with budget comments regarding service levels; programs; and allocation of funds. City Manager Beets asked Mayor Kysylyczyn to give staff a target or a process. Mayor Kysylyczyn stated he wasn't sure right now; but opined that what the majority of the City Council wanted last year was zero, but staff didn't comply. City Manager again asked Mayor Kysylyczyn to share a process with staff. Mayor Kysylyczyn stated that he wanted a detailed line- item budget. City Manager Beets stated that staff had provided that to Mayor Kysylyczyn last December, but had heard that it didn't meet Mayor Kysylyczyn's needs. Mayor Kysylyczyn alleged that the detailed budget hadn't shown up; that was his issue. Ci ty Manager Beets advised that each department, each program, and each project is different and analyzed differently; and that was the information that had been produced by staff for Council's benefit last fall. Continued discussion between Mayor Kysylyczyn and City Manager Beets ensued. Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 29 City Manager Beets commented on Mayor Kysylyczyn's criticism of the excessive use of paper by staff in duplicating information to the Council; questioned how Mayor Kysylyczyn was able to approve the budget without being provided with the information requested; and asked Mayor Kysylyczyn if there was a record of a motion and a vote providing staff with direction of the majority of the Council. Mayor Kysylyczyn responded negatively to City Manager Beets' question regarding a motion and vote; at which point City Manager Beets asked how staff could be provided with a target if there was no formal Council action to provide that direction; asked how staff could proceed with a 2004 budget process when told by the Council that even preliminary discussions are premature. Councilmember Schroeder sought to bring some calm to the discussion; and stated his preference for a zero percent levy increase. Mayor Kysylyczyn questioned why the 2004 budget was being discussed at this point; with City Manager Beets responding that staff was seeking Council direction and a preferred process for discussion. Mayor Kysylyczyn opined that the requested documents identified as detailed, line-item budgets, did not require a vote of the City Council; it was City information under the law; and that his personal target was a zero percent levy increase, but since the voters had approved the referendum, he could be talked into compensating for additional facility operational costs, but that he would consider that outside the balance of budget discussions. Mayor Kysylyczyn further discussed the unknown legislative impact, which will be unavailable until Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 30 mid-May and the 2003 - 2005 biennium legislative initiatives will also affect discussions. Councilmember Kough opined that he appreciated staff attempting to initiate 2004 budget discussions now; and that City Manager Beets' concerns as to the budget process was valid, but that he had received some direction tonight. Councilmember Kough further opined that he didn't know if it was realistic to anticipate a zero levy increase for 2004, given the construction project; but that it was his goal to work with Finance Director Miller on some items to solve the budget crunch in a reasonable amount of time. Councilmember Schroeder stated that he looked to staff to determine best how to provide anticipated service levels and staffing; but the Council needed additional information from the public and the State to define the budget further; further opining that his preference was for the most reasonable budget available for consideration. Mayor Kysylyczyn opined that staff should be prepared to look at reductions, rather than expansions, of government at a maintenance level or reduction mode. City Attorney Anderson spoke to his experience in working with counties and school districts in their budgeting process; opining that given tonight's discussion, if he were staff he didn't know if he would have clear direction. City Attorney Anderson further opined that the normal public entity budget process started in the previous June, with a budget document presented by Finance to each Department Head, and usually included last year's approved budget, current year actual approved budget and expenditures to-date; and a blank line for each Department Head to anticipate the upcoming year's needs related to overtime, supplies, training, Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 31 equipment and CIP. Mr. Anderson opined that, following the Department Head's preferences, the philosophical part of cutting and making decisions as to service levels and staffing refinements ensued. Mr. Anderson further opined that he would anticipate the Council needing to meet with each department over several full days to determine where allotments would need adjustment. Mayor Kysylyczyn concurred with the scenano outlined by City Attorney Anderson. Mr. Anderson further stated that it was normal for counties to put together a separate \ Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) budget document each year for a five-year period; at which point the Council could fine tune that document. Mr. Anderson advised that he would anticipate a "huge" book coming to each Councilmember with each department highlighted; and opined that it appeared that there needed to be reconciliation between Council and staff as to the process in who was responsible for making the cuts. Councilmember Klausing concurred with City Attorney Anderson's comments and the defined process; and opined that he was satisfied with the documents provided by staff to Council last year, and further opined that it was up to Councilmembers to make the decisions; and alluded to the Council not providing clear direction to staff until the end of the process last year. Councilmember Klausing expressed his frustration regarding the process and an illusive solution. Mayor Kysylyczyn opined that by law, the City Manager was responsible for producing a budget; so he had no philosophical disagreement on that point. Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 32 Councilmember Klausing opined that, while the City Manager produces the budget, Councilmembers can't just criticize the document without providing adequate direction. Mayor Kysylyczyn quoted Statute 412.71, with additional comment by City Attorney Anderson. Mayor Kysylyczyn again opined that, until the legislature recessed in mid-May and public input was received, there was no further direction the Council could provide to staff. Mayor Kysylyczyn summarized his personal position to keep taxes even, zero or reduced, depending on state cuts; but was open to the idea of adjusting income for maintenance needs at the Public Safety and Public Works buildings, as supported by the public vote. Mayor Kysylyczyn stated his preference for the budget format presented as a chart showing the 2002, 2003 approved and expenditures to-date; and 2004 proposed budget. Mayor Kysylyczyn opined that members of the Council had personal preferences in the amount of detail they preferred, but was concerned about hearing the rhetoric of micro-managing. Councilmember Schroeder asked for comment from Councilmembers Maschka, Klausing and Kough. Councilmember Klausing opined that he looked to the professional staff to provide the best numbers possible; and that he has always been provided with the information at his level of expectation; and looked to the professional staff to guide him as a citizen legislator; at which point he would review the material and make a decision. Councilmember Klausing stated the only unknown for him was the state legislative issue. Councilmember Schroeder opined that staff was Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 33 asking for a target point. Councilmember Klausing opined that staff was probably feeling "burned" from the 2002 budget process, and were attempting to seek how Council would like the process, since the 2002 process wasn't well-received. Councilmember Kough concurred with the request for a line-item, department by department budget, with their anticipated increases and justifications. Councilmember Kough opined that if, after his review he agreed that it was fair and equitable, and after his personal discussions with the Department Heads, at that time he would make his decision. Councilmember Maschka concurred that a zero to two percent (2%) increase was realistic, with the $500,000 anticipated to come out of reserves; and $800,000 above and beyond for the Public Safety Building bond issue as part of the increase. Councilmember Maschka opined that the City was not in a position to cut the budget during current economic difficulties. Councilmember Schroeder concurred with Councilmember Maschka's comments, given the health of the community with its contingency monies and current obligations. Reserve Fund Status Finance Director Miller reviewed the staff report identifying the reserve fund status as previously requested by Councilmembers; highlighting those restricted and unrestricted reserves and applicable policy implications. Councilmember Schroeder expressed his appreciation to Mr. Miller for providing that information. Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 34 Mayor Kysylyczyn sought to clarify the reserve fund balances and numbers previously quoted by staff. Finance Director Miller responded that the numbers are estimates; and that staff tries to provide as much accuracy as possible in the fund balances mid-year. XII. Approval of Minutes A. Approval of Minutes of April 14, 2003 Kough moved, Schroeder seconded, approval of the April 14, 2003 Executive Session and regular Council meeting minutes as amended. Corrections: o Item III., Presentations, A., Early Retirement Plan, Page 4, 3rd paragraph from bottom (Schroeder) Amend to read, "Kysylyczyn moved, Maschka seconded, , replacing the word "approval" with "delay" and to amend the motion to direct staff. . ." Roll Call Ayes: Klausing, Maschka, Schroeder, Kough, and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. XIII. Other Business A. Commission Appointments Kysylyczyn renewed his motion of the April 7, 2003 meeting and moved, Schroeder seconded, appointment of Kathleen Cassen Mickelson, Michelle Kruzel, and Mark Kamrath to serve as commissioners on the City's Parks and Recreation Commission. Councilmember Kough spoke in favor of the motion, concurring with the Mayor's appointments and opining that the Mayor has the right to appoint Approval of Minutes Other Business Commission Appointments Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 35 applicants during his term of office; and noticed the excellence of all candidates who had applied. Councilmember Klausing spoke against the motion, opining that as he understands State Statute and City Rules of Procedure, he thought it was the Council's duty to appoint. Councilmember Klausing further opined that those providing service to the community on a Commission, and wishing to do so, should be allowed to continue their service providing for consistency within the specific Commission. Roll Call Ayes: Schroeder, Kough, and Kysylyczyn. Nays: Klausing and Maschka. IV. Communication A. Public Workshop Regarding our Construction Proj ect Councilmember Kough advised of discussion he had with staff regarding recent misinformation regarding the City's Public Safety and Public Works construction projects. Councilmember Kough suggested that the public be informed of specific dates and times when staff would be available to meet with them to review the plans and architectural drawings, and any comments or questions they had regarding the project. Councilmember Kough advised that, unless the City Council voice concerns, staff had readily agreed to make themselves available with City Manager Beets volunteering to chair any meetings held if necessary. Councilmember Kough encouraged Council support to ensure the open communication. Mayor Kysylyczyn opined that he had no problem with anyone meeting, but wanted to ensure that no false impression had been given in a recent editorial; Communication Public Workshop Regarding our Construction Project Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 36 and proceeded to review the numerous meetings at which the proj ect had been discussed, the public hearings held, the various venues used in communicating with the public about the project; and that as the Project Manager, Public Works Director Duane Schwartz is always available to the public. Mayor Kysylyczyn further opined that the public, through the bond referendum, had endorsed the proj ect. No further action was taken. B. Anti-Litter Campaign Councilmember Kough commented on the recent City clean-up day, commended staff for their participation, and opined that, given the amount of litter, the Council endorse a strict enforcement program; and suggested that police officers issue citations to obvious littering. No action taken. XIII. Other Business A. Commission Appointments Mayor Kysylyczyn reviewed demographic statistical information regarding commission appointments related to gender and age balance from the 1990's to current. IV. Communication C. City Clean-up Day Communications Specialist Tim Pratt reviewed the recent city-wide clean up day and expressed pleasure with its success and reduced wait times for residents. Mr. Pratt recognized the excellent staff and volunteer involvement, and the numerous favorable comments from the public. Anti- Litter Campaign Other Business Commission Appointments Communication City Clean-up Day Regular City Council Minutes - 4/28/03 Page 37 Mr. Pratt provided several pictures taken during the day, and estimated that 5-600 vehicles were received with loads of discards, and that 40 - 50% will end up being recycled. Discussion ensued among Councilmembers regarding the successful day; and Mr. Pratt and staff was commended for the superb organization evidenced that day. D. Corrections to Pioneer Press articles; E. Clarification to Roseville Review articles and editorials Mayor Kysylyczyn clarified errors in a recent editorial alleging that the public had not been heard regarding the Public Works and Public Safety construction projects. XIII. Other Business B. Referral of Minnesota Statutes 471.572, Infrastructure Reserve Fund, to Public Works and Transportation Commission No discussion transpired regarding this agenda item. XIV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 12:404P,.m. ATTEST: Corrections to Pioneer Press articles; Clarification to Roseville Review articles and edito rials Other Business Referral of Minnesota Statutes 471.572, Infrastructure Reserve Fund, to Public Works and Transportation Commission Adjournment May 11, 2003 Roseville City Council Menlbers Dear Council Members: I understand there is SOlne review underway for water ski course on Owasso set for Monday May 12. I anl traveling for business this week and am unable to attend the May 1 ih meeting, hence this letter. The families involved with the slalom ski course on Lake Owasso provide a lot of benefit to the overall safety and conduct on Lake Owasso. I have been a resident on Lake Ow as so since 1993, and have been using the lake and the water ski course since ahout 1985. There are some 14 families on the Lake that make use of the slalom course, along with various boats that are trailered onto the lake. The users of the course consist of boys and girls frmn age 9 to adults up to age 73. In an age where there is sometimes a disconnect between youth and adults, waterskiing is an influential tool to reach out, bridge gaps, and develop our youth. There are not many sports that exist where the participants are a fanlily unit. The A WSA has presented data indicating that waterskiing is the fastest growing family sport in the U.S. In the case of Lake Owasso, you will even find one fanlily where this activity spans three generations. Although there is a skill development and competitive aspect associated with the use of the course, the nlost dominant practice regardless of the age or gender is SAFETY. One of the characteristics of the families using the course is that they will generally be associated with the American Water Ski Association (A WSA). The A WSA was started in 1939 and is the official governing body for sanctioned water ski events, and overall leadership in waterskiing. There is something about A WSA affiliated skiers that set thenl apart from the average recreational "Sunday afternoon skier". This is in no way to say that there is any thing wrong with the occasional skier, only that the A WSA skier sets an excellent exmnple when it comes to issues of family fun and safety. I have been an A WSA member since 1969. Since that time I cannot tell you how may articles on water and boating safety I have read published by A WSA through its monthly journal subscription. The individuals using the course are the single best role nlodels you could ask for with regard to safety practices and follo\ving proper lake conduct. The A WSA is the same organization which organizes group insurance that is maintained for the facilities on Lake Owasso, which is duplicated by the A WSA at similar sites all across the Nation. Most of the families using the ski course are also part of the Lake Watch group where they are the eyes and ears for the occasional incident e.g. someone breaking the speed limit on the lake or boating without personal flotation devices, etc. This information is of 1 Beets, Neal From: Peggy & Gary Sparr [info@mnhouses.com] Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 2:54 PM To: neal.beets@ci.roseville.mn.us Subject: Opposed to Bus Shelters I understand that the council will be considering licensing bus shelters with backlit advertising in them. I have looked at them in St. Paul and Minneapolis and find many of them to have objectionable advertising. I have seen ones with garish colors and some with scantily clad women (advertising clothing!?). They really are small billboards masquerading as bus shelters. I respectfully ask you to not license them. Thank you. Gary Sparr 1185 Ruggles Roseville MN 55113 05/08/2003 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 05-12-03 ITEM NO.:XI. E. Agenda Section: Consent 1.0 Backqround: 1.1 City Code Section 307.01 requires that all construction work in the City be done by licensed contractors. 1.2 City Licensing is required for all residential and commercial building and remodeling contractors (including sign contractors) with the exception of contractors who are licensed by the MN Dept. of Commerce. 1.3 Licenses are renewed on an annual basis. The City currently has 258 licensed contractors at $25.00 each. ($6450.00) 1.4 Attached is a list of contractors who have requested 2003 contractor's licenses. 2.0 Alternatives: 2.1 Approve the list of contractors as listed. 2.2 Deny licenses of any or all of the attached licenses. 3.0 Policv Objectives: 3.1 The licensing of contractors insures that contractors have proper state or local licenses, carry required proper insurance, and complete their work in conformance with State and City codes. The City can deny or revoke a City license for noncompliance. 4.0 Financial Implications: 4.1 Fees are obtained for each contractor license issued. 5.0 Staff Recommendations: 5.1 It is recommended that the City Council approve the issuance of contractors license for all the contractors shown on the attached list. 6.0 Council Action Requested: 6.1 Motion to approve the issuance of contractor's licenses for those contractors on the attached list. Staff Report by: Merrilee Smith, Senior Office Assistant, 490-2238 Q:\General Correspondence \MerrlieeL \LETTERS\RCAcontr.d oc 1 contractor _ disp&sub _2003 05/07/2003 Dis 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 3003 Page 1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 05/12/2003 HetTI No.: XI. F. Departn1en.t.A-pproval: ( C ~I)} "--~/- Manager R~yiewed .' ....~lLi~)lG{ ') 1__ ._~ Y...}(J '~{r'?:1 Agenda Section Consent Description: Business License Renewals for 2003-2004 Background Chapter 301 of the City Code requires all applications for business licenses to be subn1itted to the City Council for consideration. The following list of applications for license renewals awaits council action. Inter City Oil Co., Inc. 1681 Rice Street Gasoline Station Cigarette/Tobacco Products HARK'S Inc. ba Roseville Winner L-163 N. Snelling Ave Gasoline Station Cigarette/Tobacco Products Dr. D.L. Sin1e Dba Suburban Anin1al Hospital 2581 W. Cleveland Veterinary Hospital Tobacco Tree Inc. 1734 Lexington Ave N. Cigarette/Tobacco Products S1. Francis Anin1al & Bird Hospital 1227 Larpenteur Ave VV Veterinary Hospital Shinders Read More Book Store Inc. 2480 Fairview Ave Cigarette/Tobacco Products peedway Superan1erica LLC Dba Superan1erica #4520 2295 Rice Cigarette/Tobacco Products Gasoline Station Speedway Superarnerica LLC Dba Superarnerica #4502 "'80 W. County Rd D '-..-igarette/Tobacco Products Gasoline Station Speed\vay Superanlerica LLC Dba Superan1erica #4210 21 72 Lexington Ave Cigarette/Tobacco Products Gasoline Station Speedway Superan1erica LLC Dba Superan1erica #4115 2785 N. Han1line Ave Cigarette/Tobacco Products Gasoline Station Byerly's, Inc. 1601 \Vest County Road C Cigarette/Tobacco Products Id Chicago 2100 N Snelling Ave Cigarette/Tobacco Products Pool/Billiards Han1line Liquors 2825 Harnline Ave N. Cigarette/Tobacco Products Sara Lee Baking Group 2745 Long Lake Road Gas })UlllpS- Private TOlll'S Service 1935 N. Rice Gasoline Station NAMCO Cybertainn1ent Inc. Db at Fuddruckers 2740 N Snelling Ave Anluseluent Device .:>alon Cheveux 2459 N Rice St. Massage Therapy Establishment Roseville Aninlal Hospital 2630 N Snelling Curve Veterinary Hospital vas Plus 12 1583 W County Rd C Cigarette/Tobacco Products Gasoline Station Gas Plus 9 2815 Rice Street Gasoline Station Cigarette/Tobacco Products N etv/ork Liquors 2727 N Lexington Cigarette/Tobacco Products Jordan Stop 2154 N Lexington Gasoline Station Cigarette/Tobacco Product Dianlond Lake 1994 LLC T)ba Cub Foods .00 N Snelling Ave Cigarette/Tobacco Products Walgreen's # 1804 1739 W Lexington Ave Cigarette/Tobacco Products Walgreen's #2002 1611 W County Rd C Cigarette/Tobacco Products \Valgreen's #2936 2635 Rice Street Cigarette/Tobacco Products Theisen Vending Co. At Conlfort Inn 2715 Long Lake Rd Anlusenlent Device Theisen Vending Co. , t Ground Round _100 N Snelling AnlllSelllent Device Theisen Vending At Radisson Hotel 2540 N. Cleveland nuselnent Device Theisen Vending Co. At Hal' Mar Mall 2100 N Snelling Anlusement Device Stuart Anderson's Cattle Conlpany 2750 N Snelling AUluselnent Device B-Dale Club 2100 N Dale Pool/Billiards AI11USement Device FinanciallInplications 'rhe conect fees were paid to the City at the tin1e the applications were l11ade Staff ReC0l11I11endations The City staff has reviewed the application and has detenl1ined that the applicant nleets City requirenlents, and is reconmlending approval of the application contingent on a background check. Council Action rv'1otion approving the above license applications for the year ending June 30, 2004 ~('2g/(r3 Ben.ch Date: [tem: PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT &. A.rona PUl'ChilSe By as of 4/28/03 THIS AGREEMENT is n1ade and entered into by and between the City of Roseville, herein referred to as "Seller" and United Properties Investment LLC, 3500 W. 80th St., Minneapolis, MN 55431, herein referred to as "Purchaser" with reference to a certain parcel of land located in the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, and State of Minnesota more fully described as: See Exhibit A In consideration of the mutual covenants herein set forth, the parties agree as follows: 1. AGREEMENT TO SELL AND PURCHASE: Seller covenants and agrees to sell, and Purchaser covenants and agrees to purchase the above described property, herein referred to as the "Property," together with any improvements, fixtures, and equipment situated thereon ("Improvements") together with (i) any and all rights, titles, powers, privileges, easements, licenses, rights-of-way and interests appurtenant to and which benefit the Property and the improvements, (ii) all rights, titles, powers, privileges, licenses, easements, rights-of-way and interests, if any, of Seller, either at law or in equity, in possession or in expectancy, in and to any real estate lying in the streets, highways, roads, alleys, rights-of-way or sidewalks, open or proposed, in front of, above, over, under, through or adjoining the Property, (iii) and all rights, titles, powers, privileges, interests, licenses, easements and rights-of-way appurtenant or incident to any of the foregoing and the purchase, and the conveyance contemplated herein will be contingent on and subject to the terms, covenants, conditions and contingencies herein. 2. PERMITTED ENCUMBRANCES: The sale of the Property is subject to the following encumbrances (herein referred to as the "Permitted Encumbrances"): building and zoning laws and ordinances, local, state and federal, regulations, easements, covenants and restrictions of record, reservation of mineral rights by the State of Minnesota, and Purchaser's contingent obligation to pay increased Purchase Price funds under Section Eight hereof. 3. CONTINGENCIES: Provisions to the contrary herein notwithstanding, closing of this transaction is contingent upon satisfaction of all of the following conditions: (A) Purchaser, at Purchaser's sole cost and expense, obtaining all necessary zoning classifications and variances and the issuance of all necessary permits and approvals to allow construction and operation upon the Property of Purchaser's proposed development. (B) Purchaser, obtaining geotechnical reports, based upon soil borings and tests, which disclose soil conditions satisfactory to Purchaser for 1 the proposed development of the Property. Seller shall pay the costs of soil borings. (C) Purchaser, at Purchaser's sole cost and expense, inspecting the environmental condition of the Property prior to closing, including environmental, habitat, wetlands and archeological assessments if deen1ed appropriate by Purchaser. If Purchaser's inspection discloses conditions which, in Purchaser's sole discretion, are unacceptable to Purchaser, Purchaser may terminate this Purchase Agreement. (D) Purchaser, at Purchaser's sole cost and expense, obtaining all necessary approvals for a legal subdivision of the Property from county, local and state authorities to subdivide the Property in accord with Purchaser's development plans. (E) Seller and Purchaser executing, at or prior to closing, a mutually agreeable Development/Subdivision Agreement, and PUD Agreement, and mutually agreeable site plans, grading plans, utility plans, and landscape plans. (F) Seller shall extend Terrace Drive to serve the site at Seller's sole costs and expense. However, Seller may request in writing that Purchaser construct the road in conjunction with its planned development of the Property, in which case Seller shall pay Purchaser the costs incurred by Purchaser. (0) The Purchaser's responsibility for construction and extension of utilities, stormwater management, and construction of public parks and trails in conjunction with the proposed development shall be as provided in the Development/Subdivision Agreement and PUD Agreement referenced in paragraph 3(E) hereof. (H) Purchaser's satisfaction with the condition of title and satisfaction with easements, covenants and restrictions of record. 4. FAILURE OF CONTINGENCIES: Seller and Purchaser both agree to make a good faith effort to satisfy the aforementioned contingencies and conditions. In the event any of the contingencies and conditions have not been met by the closing date or extensions thereof, or in the opinion of Purchaser will not be met, Purchaser (or Seller in the case of Contingencies (E) and (F)) shall have the right and option to waive any contingency or condition, or to declare this Agreement terminated and have the earnest money paid by Purchaser to Seller, along with any accrued interest, returned to Purchaser forthwith. If Purchaser does exercise its option to declare this Agreement terminated and 2 to receive a return of the earnest money paid by Purchaser, or if this Agreement otherwise becomes terminated, both parties shall have no further obligation or liability under this Agreement. In addition, Seller and Purchaser shall each be solely responsible for and shall hold the other harmless for any expenses, costs, damages, claims, lawsuits and judgments, including and not limited to expenses and attorneys fees, incun-ed by each of them respectively as a result of this Agreement. Alternatively, in the event any of the contingencies have not been satisfied as of the scheduled closing date Purchaser (or Seller, in the case of Contingencies (E) and (F)) shall have the right to extend the contingency period and closing date for two (2) sixty (60) day periods beyond the scheduled closing date. s. DUE DILIGENCE ITEMS: Within ten (10) days following the date of last execution of this Agreement, Seller shall deliver to Purchaser copies of the items listed below, to the extent they exist and are in Seller's possession (the "Due Diligence Items"): (A) The most recent survey of the property. (B) The written results, if any, of any environmental site assessments, engineering reports, soil boring tests or other inspections done at or on the Property. (C) All permits issued by governmental authorities for the Property. 6. SELLER'S REPRESENTATIONS: Seller and represents as follows: (A) That Seller has and will have at time of closing good and marketable title to the Property, subject only to the Permitted Encumbrances (B) That Seller has and will have at time of closing full right and authority to convey the Property, and in regard thereto to execute this Agreement and to execute and deliver all documents required of Seller for the consummation of this Agreement. (C) That the persons signing this Agreement on behalf of the Seller are duly authorized to do so and their signatures bind the Seller in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. (D) That the Property shall be free of tenancies on the date of closing. (E) That no person, firm, corporation or entity has any option, right of first refusal or similar right to acquire the Property, or any part thereof, from Seller. 3 (F) That Seller has no knowledge of any condemnation proceedings having been instituted or threatened against the Property. (G) That Seller has received no notice of, nor has Seller any knowledge of, any violations of any federal, state, county or municipal laws, ordinances, orders, regulations or requirements affecting the Property. (H) The Seller is not a foreign person within the meaning of Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC"), i.e., the Seller is not a nonresident alien, foreign corporation, foreign partnership, foreign trust or foreign estate (as those terms are defined in the IRC and Income Tax Regulations). (I) The Seller represents that it knows of no wells or septic systems on the Property. The representations contained in this section shall be true and correct on the date of closing and shall survive the closing and continue in full force and effect notwithstanding the closing and consununation of the transaction contemplated herein, and the obligation of the Purchaser to close this transaction is expressly conditioned upon said representations. 7. SURVEYS: Seller, at Seller's sole cost, shall procure and provide to Purchaser an ALTA Survey of the Property. 8. PURCHASE PRICE: The purchase price for the Property shall be One Million Three Hundred Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($1,300,000.00). The purchase price, less the earnest money below, shall be payable in full on the date of closing. This purchase price is predicated on Purchaser's development of the Property with up to 130 units of density. In the event the number of units constructed exceeds 130 units, then the Purchaser shall be responsible for paying an increase in the Purchase Price in the amounts as follows: 1) $8,000 per condo unit; 2) $20,000 per townhome unit. The increased Purchase Price funds shall be paid in total prior to the issuance of any building permits for the additional density units. The increased Purchase Price shall only apply to those units in excess of the first 130 units to be constructed on the Property. 9. EARNEST MONEY: The sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), the same representing earnest money, will be paid into an interest-bearing escrow account to be established by the Purchaser's title insurance company within ten (10) days after last execution of this Agreement. 4 In the event this Agreement is consumlnated, the earnest money shall be applied to and credited against the purchase price on the date of closing with the remaining balance to be paid in cash at that time. If this Agreement terminates for failure of satisfaction of a contingency, all earnest n10ney shall be returned promptly to Purchaser. 10. REAL ESTATE TAXES, ASSESSMENTS AND TRANSFER FEES: Seller agrees to pay, at or prior to closing, all real property taxes on the Property due and payable in 2002 and prior years and a pro-rated share of the real and personal property taxes due in 2003. The proration shall be made on a daily basis using the actual real and personal property taxes levied for the current year, if known, otherwise on the net taxes for the preceding year. Seller shall pay any and all special assessments that are levied or pending as of the date of this Agreement, or in respect to all or any part of the Property and/or any building improvements thereon, including but not limited to, any assessments relating to sewer and water and any streets or highways. Seller shall not be responsible for any assessments which arise as a result of the United Properties project. 11. EVIDENCE OF TITLE: Within ten (10) days from the last execution of this Agreement, Seller shall furnish and deliver to the Purchaser for examination a commitment for title insurance with extended coverage in the amount of the purchase price set out herein, naming the Purchaser as the insured, as its interest may appear, written by a responsible title insurance company licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota, which policy shall guarantee the Seller's title to be in the condition called for by this Agreement. In addition, Seller will also within thirty (30) days deliver to Purchaser any prior title evidence it may have, such as a current abstract or title policy, to expedite further examination of title. If the report on title, binder or commitment discloses any objections to title, Seller shall have sixty (60) days from the date of Purchaser's notice of such objections to make a good faith effort to cure such objections and to furnish a later report showing the objections cured or removed. If such objections cannot be cured within sixty (60) days after the date of Purchaser's notice of such objection, Purchaser may declare this Agreement null and void, and in such event receive a refund from Seller of all earnest monies paid, or may, at its election, take the title as it then is (without a right to deduct from the purchase price). All costs relating to the issuance of the title policy, including, but not limited to, policy premiums and the cost for the required endorsements shall be paid for by Purchaser. 12. POSSESSION: Legal possession of the Property shall be delivered to Purchaser on the date of closing, except as herein provided. 13. CLOSING: Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, this transaction shall be closed at the offices of the title company insuring the Property. Closing of the transaction contemplated hereby shall be held thirty (30) days after last execution df this Agreement (unless extended pursuant to Section 4), or in the event the thirtieth (30th) day falls on a weekend or holiday the next business day thereafter. Closing may be held prior to such time at the agreement of the parties. Closing costs and escrow fees, if any, 5 charged by the title company to close the transaction, shall be divided equally between the parties. At closing, Seller shall deliver or cause to be delivered to Purchaser, at Seller's sole cost and expense, each of the following items: (A) A Warranty Deed, in recordable form, duly executed and acknowledged by Seller, conveying title to the Property to Purchaser, free and clear of all liens, taxes, restrictions, tenancies, occupancies and encumbrances of every kind and description except: 1) Permitted Encumbrances specified in Section 2 herein; 2) General real estate taxes and assessments which are a lien but which are not due and payable on the Closing Date, special assessments levied or pending after the date of this Agreement, and special assessments caused by Purchaser's activities or improvements; (B) such evidence or documents as may be reasonably required by the Purchaser or the title company evidencing the status and capacity of Seller and the authority of the person or persons who are executing the various documents on behalf of the Seller in connection with the sale of the Property, (C) All additional documents and instruments as in the opinion of Purchaser's counsel are necessary to the proper consummation of this transaction. (D) An Affidavit of Corporation warranting that no outstanding mechanic's lien rights exist, that the Property is not subject to any unrecorded interest or encumbrances, adverse claims, possession or occupancies and is not subject to any leases, oral or written, and that all assessments, utility charges and taxes have been paid to the date of closing. (E) Development/Subdivision Agreement. (F) Planned Unit Development Agreement. 14. REAL ESTATE BROKERS AND BROKERAGE COMMISSION: Seller and Purchaser each hereby represent and warrant to the other that this Purchase and Sale Agreement is made and entered into as a result of direct negotiations between the parties hereto without the aid or assistance in any fashion of any broker or other 'agent and each of the parties hereby represents and warrants to the other that they have entered into no agreement or made any undertaking of any kind or character whatsoever as a result of which any claim could properly be brought against the other for any 6 commission, finder's fee or other form of compensation of a similar character as a result of this transaction. Each party hereby agrees to indemnify and hold the other harnlless as a result of any misrepresentation or breach of the warranty contained in this section. 15. SURVIVAL OF COVENANTS: Any representation, warranty, covenant or agreement herein of either party to this Agreement whether to be performed before or after the closing date shall not be deemed to be merged into or waived by the instruments of closing, but shall expressly survive closing and shall be binding upon the party obligated thereby. 16. PARTIAL INV ALIDITY: If any provIsIons or portions of this Agreement, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement or the application of such provision, or portion thereof, to any other persons or circumstances shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 17. NOTICE: Any notice, demand, request or other communication which mayor shall be given or served by the Seller to or on the Purchaser, or by the Purchaser to or on the Seller, shall be deemed to have been given or served on the date the same is deposited in the United States Mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, sent by facsimile transmission or given to a nationally recognized overnight courier service for next business day delivery and addressed as follows: If to the Seller: City of Roseville Attn: City Manager 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113-1899 With a copy to: Jay T. Squires 300 U.S. Trust Building 730 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55402 If to the Purchaser: United Properties Brian Carey Vice President of Development 3500 W. 80th Street Minneapolis, MN 55431 With a copy to: John Bowden 4200 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-2205 7 The above addresses may be changed at any time by the parties by notice given in the manner provided above. Seller and Purchaser agree that electronically reproduced signatures such as by facsimile transmission are valid for execution or mnendment of this Agreement and that electronic transmissionJfacsinlile is an authorized form of notice as that term is used in this Agreement. 18. AGREEJ\tIENT BINDING: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. This Agreement may be executed in two or n10re counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 19. CHOICE OF LAWS AND SUBMISSION TO JURISDICTION: This Agreement shall be deemed to have been made in Minnesota, and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. All actions or proceedings relating, directly or indirectly, to this Agreement, whether sounding in contract or tort, shall be litigated in a district court located in a court of competent jurisdiction for Minnesota. 20. REMEDIES: If Purchaser wrongfully fails to complete the closing as provided in this Agreement, Seller may pursue all remedies available at law or in equity including specific performance. If Seller fails to complete the closing as provided in this Agreement or otherwise comnlits a material breach of this Agreement, Purchaser shall be entitled to the prompt return of all Earnest Money and may seek all remedies available at law or in equity including specific performance. 21. HEADINGS: The section titles are for converuence only and do not define, limit or construe the contents of such paragraphs. 22. EMINENT DOMAIN: If prior to the date of the closing, Seller acquires knowledge of any pending or threatened action, suit, or proceeding to condemn or take all or any part of the Property under the power of enlinent domain, then the Seller shall immediately give notice thereof to Purchaser. Within ten (10) days of receipt of such notice Purchaser, at Purchaser's option shall have the right to: (A) Proceed to closing, in which case Purchaser shall be entitled to any condemnation award; or without a reduction in purchase price. (B) Ternlinate this Agreement as to the entire Property, whereupon the earnest money shall be paid to Purchaser and all parties shall thereupon be relieved of all further liability hereunder. 8 23. ASSIGNMENT: Any assignment of this Agreement by Purchaser is subject to Seller's written approval. Purchaser may assign this Agreement to any wholly- o\vned subsidiary of United Properties LLC, however, in the event of such assignment, Purchaser shall remain liable for Purchaser's obligations hereunder. 9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument. EXECUTED ON: SELLER: CITY OF ROSEVILLE This _day of , 2003 By: Its: WITNESS: By: Its: EXECUTED ON: PURCHASER: UNITED PROPERTIES INVESTMENT LLC This _day of , 2003 By: Its: WITNESS: By: Its: 10 A CKNOWLED GEMENTS STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) On this _ day of , 2003, before me a Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid, personally appeared , and , who are personally known to lne to be the san1e persons whose names are subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and who acknowledged that they signed, sealed and delivered the said instrument as theirlherlhis free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes therein set forth. Notary Public County My Commission: STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF ) On this _ day of , 2003, before me a Notary Public within and for this County and State, personally appeared and , to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn did say that they are the and of United Properties Investment LLC, the limited liability company named in the foregoing instrument, and that this instrument was signed on behalf of the limited liability company corporation and that, , and acknow ledged this instrument to be the free act and deed of United Properties. Notary Public RRM: #46320 Arana Purchase Agr. Rev4 (JS-DW-BC 042803) 11 04/28/2003 15:20 UNITED PROPERTIES ~ 96514902931 t'lO. 053 va] (A) Proceed to closing. in which case P'urcnnst}r shrd] be entitled to any condemnation award; or without a reduction in pL1rchase price, (B) Temlinate this Agreement as to the entire Property, whereupon the earnest money s'hall be paid to Purohaser and all parti~s shall thereupon be relieved of all further liability here1.lnQyT. ~3. ASSIGNMENT: Any assignnlent of this Agreement by Purchas~r is: supject to Seller's written approval. Purchaser may assign this Agreement to any wholly- owned subsidiary of United '~roperties LLC, howeverl in the event of sucb assignment. Purcha~er shall relnain liable for Purchaser's obligations hereunder. [N WITNESS WHEREOF, t1)e parties hereto have executed this instrument. EXECUTED ON: SELLER: CITY OF ROSEVrLLE This ~day of , 2003 By: Its: WITNESS; By: Its: E:X:ECUTEP ON: PURCHASER: UNITEP PROPERTIES INVESTMENT LLC This&41lY Df~, Z003 By: 1 ~ . . '" -'./ . . . ~~~, &Cj(? Its: WITNESS; By: Its: 9 lii::il ,j i I ;:;m ii~ ~ll~ ij~i,ih~ . i, I J ~ U ,1;1;::: n ;;J,j" ... I j. I .. ii ' II 84/28/2003 15:20 UNITED PROPERTIES ~ 96514902931 f'O. 053 904 A ~ KN 0 \V LED G E IV1 EN T S 8T A T5 OFMINNESOT A) , )~~. COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) On. this day of , 2003, before l'ne a 'NotAry Public ill and for the COlJnty E1nd State afar~s&id, personany appeared , and , wh~ are personally known to me to b~ the same persons whose names are ~ubscribed to the foregoing instrument, EU1d wbo acknowledged that tl10y signed~ sealed and del lvered t~e said instl11ment as theirlher/his free and voluntary act for the use~ and p~lrpases therein -set forth. Notary Public County My Commissi01i1; ST ATE OF MINNESOTA) ~ )ss. COUNTY of:. _ ~o~~.~ On this~day of .~ I 2003, before me u Notary Public within fUld fQ~ this County ~nd Stat., personally appeared ~1A./. ,~~ cmd Cd . ' ~.' to me p~rsonuny kno~n, W(lO, bei!l~bY me d1.iff'swom did s.ay that th~ are the ~ t-R.y --j,U~~f and t lee-" I v.<.~ '-(~. of Umted Properttes Investnl,ent LLC, the limited liability company nalned in the foregoing instrum~n.t, and that this ir\stnnnent was sign~d on behalf of t1~ limited liability compMY COrpoflltion and thut~ cYA.U-lt . and ~ ~~'('k.., acknowledged this instrument to be the free act and deed 0, United Pr:operties. 'jI ..'" ~ tx~ 'IE Uft lllJ.nr~ U:;"j:::'l"~ In Jf { ~ S "lOT.l Pj.tilrl'J\i~lnd ^~Vj.qN ~~ ' t ~ r-IWNVl-! '3 ;jJA08\f'~ ~ "'HY"~. ~f,O{Jf4l~~ Notary Pub,'c R.!U\.1: 1I4Qj~O I 101 ,-- , ..-. .' '" AE\[}YCE' a HANemN i NQT^ftY ~~!q:~I.~~ij9T^ . ~,~~~kltJ~ ~l"m , ,) III 10 ;+"1 /., \ .ld'.i. ~ i .. '1 I .: 1-1.- ;111; , ,. it il;. : :it: ;i~ ~ ~11~dr; ~i ~ 9/6/2002 08:03 Land Title, Inc. ie Hondo-+Cathy 2/5 Chicago Title Insurance COllI pan)' Issued by its Agent, Land Title, Inc. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A Case No. 209424 1. Effective Date: April 11, 2002 at 7:00 A.1\11. 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: (a) ~ ALTA Homeowner's Policy - 10/17/92 Proposed Insured: United Properties Amount $1,300,000.00 (b) 0 AL T A Long Form Loan Policy - 10/17/92 Proposed Insured: N01\TE Amount - 0 - 3. Title to the Fee Simple estate or interest in the land desclibed or refelTed to in this Corrunitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: City of RosevilIe, a ?\1innesota municipal corporation 4. The land refelTed to in the Commitment is described as follows: The N0l1hwest Quarter (1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (1/4) of Section 3, Township 29, Range 23, Ramsey County, Ivlinnesota except the \Vest 651.6 feet thereof, except the North 412.5 feet thereof and except that part described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest comer of said above-described school site, thence East along the North line thereof to the Easterly line of Arana Street, Sun Realty's Centennial Terrace; thence South SL'Xty feet (60') along the East line of Arona Street extended to a point; thence paralleling \Vest to the West line of the above-described tract; thence North along the \-Vest line of said above-described school district site Sixty feet (60') to the point of beginning. 2800 Arana Street Roseville, Ivlinnesota 55113 Abstract Property, Ramsey County This commitment is invalid unless the Insuring Provisions and Schedules A and B are attached. Schedule A consists of 1 page(s) US Census 2000 for City of Roseville - Wage Data Population 33,690 Households 14,630 (average household size = 2.20) Working Age (18-64 years) 20,721 (61.5%) Income (1999) - note: based on a 15% sample With earnings: 11,300 Mean earnings (77.0%) $60,233 Those with Retirement income: 3,124 Mean earnings {21.4% } $22,260 Those with Social Security income: 4,589 Mean earnings (31.4%) $14,044 Those with Supplementary Security Income: 297 (2.0%) Mean earnings $7,828 Those with Public Assistance income: 244 Mean earnings (1 .7%) $2,990 Per capita Income 1999: $27,755 Earnings: Less than $10,000 Less than $15,000 Less than $25,000 Less than $35,000 Less than $50,000 Less than $75,000 3.9% of households 9.4% of households 19.1 % of households 32.2% of households 48.4% of households 70.4% of households Households with income above poverty level: Population with income above poverty level: Ratio of income to poverty level: 2.00 and over 13,996 (95.7%) 30,826 (95.8%) 28,026 (87.1 %) Created on 01/1312003 3:24 PM \CommDev\Demographlcs\Census 2000 and Trends\US Census 2000 for City of Roseville Wage Data.doc Table DP-l. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000 Geographic Area: Roseville city, Minnesota [For Information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see text] Subject Number Percent Subject Number Percent Total population. . . . . . " .. .... . . . . . . ... .., 33,690 1 ao.o HISPANIC OR LATINO AND RACE Total population. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . 33,690 100.0 SEX AND AGE Hispanic or latino (of any race) . . 664 2.0 Male.. . 15,675 46.5 Mexican. . 409 1.2 Female. 18.015 53.5 Puerto Rican 30 0.1 Under 5 years . 1.542 4.6 Cuban B 5 to 9 years 1.676 5.0 Other Hispanic or latino 217 0.6 10 to 14 years . 1.798 5.3 Not Hispanic or latina 33.026 98.0 15 to 19 years . . . 2.161 6.4 White alone. 29.831 88.5 20 to 24 years . 2.705 8.0 RELATIONSHIP 25 to 34 years 4,177 124 Total population. . ....................... . 33,690 100.0 35 to 44 years . 4,836 144 In households. 32.048 95.1 45 to 54 years . 4.473 13.3 Householder 14.598 433 55 to 59 years . 1.860 5.5 Spouse . 7.183 21.3 60 to 64 years . 1,634 49 Child. 7,692 228 65 to 74 years . 3.112 9.2 Own child under 1 B yoars 5.846 17.4 75 to 84 years 2.651 7.9 Other relatives 803 2.4 85 years and over 1.065 32 Under 18 years 197 0.6 Median age (years) 41.0 (X) Nonrelalives . 1.772 5.3 Unmarried partner. 647 1.9 18 years and over 27,549 Bl.B In group quarters. 1,642 4.9 Male 12,582 37.3 Institutionalized population 702 2.1 Female. 14,967 44.4 Noninslitutionalized population 940 28 21 years and over 25.943 77.0 62 years and over. . 7,784 231 HOUSEHOLD BY TYPE 65 years and over 6,828 20.3 Total households. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . 14.598 100.0 Male. . 2,654 7.9 Family households (families). . 8,600 58.9 Female 4,174 124 With own children under 18 years 3,247 22.2 Married-couple family. I 7,183 49.2 RACE With own children under 18 years 2,525 17.3 One race 33,133 98.3 Female householder, no husband present 1,054 72 While . 30,150 89.5 With own children under 18 years 565 3.9 Black or African American 945 2.8 NonfamiJy households 5.998 411 American Indian and Alaska Nalive lOB 0.3 Householder living alone. 4,912 33.6 Asian. . 1.646 4.9 Householder 65 years and over. 2.024 13.9 Asian Indian . 303 09 Chinese. . 572 1.7 Households with individuals under 18 years . 3,393 23.2 Filipino.. . 56 0.2 Households with individuals 65 years and over . . 4,473 30.6 Japanese. 78 0.2 Average household size. 2.20 (X) Korean. 168 0.5 Average family size. 2.82 (X) Vietnamese. 229 0.7 Other Asian 1 240 07 HOUSING OCCUPANCY Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. 28 o 1 Total housing units. . . . . . . . 14,917 100.0 Native Hawaiian. . .............. . 4 Occupied housing units . 14,598 97.9 Guamanian or ChamoITo . 3 Vacant housing units. . . 319 2.1 Samoan. .... 4 For seasonal, recreational, or Other Pacific Islander -; 17 0.1 occasional use. . 78 0.5 Some other race , 256 0.8 Two or more races 557 1.7 Homeowner vacancy rate (percenl) 0.5 (X) Renlal vacancy rate (percent) 2.3 (Xl Race alone or in combination with one or more other races: J HOUSING TENURE White .. 30.622 90.9 Occupied housing units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,598 100.0 Black or African American. 1,168 35 Owner-{)ccupied housing units . 9,848 67.5 American Indian and Alaska Native. 252 0.7 Renter-{)ccupied housing units. . 4,750 32.5 Asian. 1,829 5.4 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. 56 0.2 Average household size of owner-occupied units. 2.44 (X) Some other race . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ -. 364 1.1 Average household size of renter-occupied units 1.69 (X) - Represents zero or rounds to zero. (X) Not applicable. , Other Asian alone. or two or more Asian categories. 2 Other Pacific Islander alone, or two or more Native Hawaiian and Olher Pacific Islander categories. . 3 In combination with one or more of the other races listed. The six numbers may add to more than the total population and the six p~rcentages may add to more than 100 percent because individuals may report more than one race. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. u.S. Cen,u, Bureau Table DP-2. Profile of Selected Social Characteristics: 2000 Geographic area: Roseville city, Minnesota [Data based on a sample. For information on confidentiality protection. sampling error. nonsampling error. and definitions. see text) Subject Number Percent Subject Number Percent SCHOOL ENROLLMENT NATIVITY AND PLACE OF BIRTH Population 3 YfillilrS and over Total population. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,757 100.0 enrolled In school. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,090 100.0 Native. . 31.560 93.5 Nursery schoot preschool. 673 6.3 Born in United Slates 31.398 93.0 Kindergarten. . . . . . . . . . . . . 353 4.4 Slate of residence 22.3n 66.3 Elemenlary schoo! (grades 1-8) 2.730 33.7 Different state. . . . . 9.021 26.7 Hlgh school (grades 9-12) 1.494 18.5 Born outside United Slates. 162 0.5 College or graduate school 2.840 351 Foreign born...... 2.197 6.5 Entered 1990 to March 2000 . 1.130 3.3 EDUCATIONALATTMNMENT Naturalize-d citizen. 1.080 3.2 Population 25 years and over. . . . . . . . . . 23,740 100.0 Not a citizen. 1.117 33 Less than 9th grade . B07 3.4 9th to 12th grade. no diploma. 1.232 5.2 REGION OF BIRTH OF FOREIGN BORN High school graduate (includes equivalency) 5.150 21.7 Total (excluding born at sea). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,197 100.0 Some college. no degree 4.942 20B Europe 338 15.4 Associale degree 1.578 6.6 Asia 1.300 59.2 Bachelor's degree 6,276 26.4 Africa . 146 6.6 Graduate or professional degree 3,755 15.8 O<:eanla . 6 0.3 Lalln America . 329 15.0 Percent high school graduale or higher 91.4 (X) Northern America 7B 3.6 Percent bachelor's degree or higher 423 (X) LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME MARITAL STATUS Population 5 years and over. . . . . . 32,136 100.0 Population 15 years and over. . . . . . . . . . 28,6.43 100.0 English only 29.119 90.6 Never married . B.147 2B.4 Language other than English . 3,017 9.4 Now married, except separaled . 15,365 53.6 Speak English less than "very well" 940 2.9 Separalad . 299 1.0 Spanish . 698 2.2 Widowed. . 2.497 87 Speak English less than ~very well" 232 0.7 Female. 2,129 7.4 Other Indo-European languages B54 2.7 Divorced . 2,335 B.2 Speak English less than "very well" 144 0.4 Female. 1.534 5.4 Asian and Pacific Island languages 1.276 4.0 Speak English less than "very well" 522 1.6 GRANDPARENTS AS CAREGIVERS ANCESTRY (single or multlple) Grandparantllving in household with ona or more own grandChildren under I Total population. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,757 100.0 18 years . , . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . 244 100.0 Total ancestries reported. 44.260 131.1 Grandparent responsible for grandchildren . 91 37.3 Arab. 123 0.4 Czech' . 618 1.8 VETERAN STATUS Danish 645 1.9 Civilian population 18 years and over. . 27,559 100.0 Dutch. 520 1.5 Civilian veterans . . . . 3.873 14.1 English. 2.790 8.3 French (except Basque)' . 1,445 4.3 DISABILITY STATUS OF THE CIVILIAN French Canadian' . . 429 1.3 NONINSTITUTIONALlZED POPULATION Gennan . 12.665 37.5 Population 5 to 20 years. . . , . . . . . . . . . . . 6.101 100.0 Greek. 57 0.2 With a disability . 364 6.0 Hungarian 124 0.4 Irish 1. 4.482 13.3 Population 21 to 64 years. . . . . . . . . 19,109 100.0 Italian 973 2.9 With a disability. . 2.055 10.8 Uthuanian . 24 0.1 Percent employed. 65.4 (X) Norwegian. 5,026 14.9 No disability . . . . . 17.054 B9.2 Polish. . 1 .703 5.0 Percent employed. . . B6.2 (X) Portuguese . 60 0.2 Population 65 years and over. . . . . . . . . . 6,216 100.0 Russian. 233 0.7 With a disability. 2,046 32.9 Scotch-Irish 440 1.3 Scottish . 576 1.7 RESIDENCE IN 1995 Slovak. . . . 72 0.2 Population 5 years and over. . . . , . . . . . . 32,136 100.0 Subsaharan African. 190 0.6 Same house in 1995.. . ..... . 19,118 59.5 Swedish. 4.045 12.0 Different house in the U.S. in 1995. 12,335 38.4 Swiss . . . . 261 0.8 Same county ... . 6.002 18.7 Ukrainian. . 118 0.3 Different county. . 6.333 19.7 United Slates or American. . . B21 2.4 Same state. . . . . 4.132 12.9 Welsh.............. ...... 186 0.6 Different state. 2,201 6.8 West Indian (excluding Hispanic groups) . 32 0.1 Elsewhere in 1995. . . . 683 2.1 Other ancestries ..... 5.602 16.6 -Represents zero or rounds to zero. (X) Not applicable. 'Tha data represent a combination of two ancestries shown separately in Summary File 3. Czech in dudes Czechoslovakian. French includes Alsa- tian. French Canadian includes Acadian/Cajun. Irish includes Celtic. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census 2000. 2 U.S Census 8ureau Table DP- 3. Profile of Sehdlld ~..Mk: ~tk$: 2OGO Geographic area: Roseville city. Minnesota [Data based on a sample. For information on confidentiality protection. sampling error. nonsampllng error, and definitions. see tex!) Subject Number Percenl Subjec1 Number Percent EMPLOYMENT STATUS INCOME !IN 11fi Population 16 years and over. . . . . . . . .. .. I 28.319 100.0 Houuholds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.630 100.0 In labor force 18,549 65.5 Less lhan $10.000 576 3.9 Civilian labor force 18,520 65.4 $10,000 to $14,999. . al0 5.5 Employed . . 18,075 63.8 515,000 to $24.999 1.425 9.7 Unemployed. . . . . . 445 1.6 $25.000 to S34.999. . . 1.920 13.1 Percenl of civilian labor force. 2.4 (X) 535,000 10 $49.999. . . 2,364 16.2 Armed Forces. . . . . 29 0.1 S50.000 10 $74.999 3.220 22.0 Not in labor force . 9.770 34.5 $75.000 to $99.999. . . . 2.007 13.7 Females 16 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.327 100.0 $100.000 to $149.999. . 1.571 10.7 In labor force . 9.167 59.8 $150,000 to $199.999. . 444 3.0 Civilian labor force 9.149 59.1 $200,000 or more . . . . 293 2.0 Employed . . . 8.964 58.5 Median household income (dollars) 51.056 (X) Own children under 6 yaars. . . . . . . . . 1.967 100.0 With earnings. 11,300 77.2 All parents in family in labor force 1.3971 71 0 Mean earnings (dollars)' 60,233 (X) I Wilh Social Security income 4.589 314 COMMUTING TO WORK Mean Social Security income (dollars)' 14,044 (X) Workers 16 yoars and ovor . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17,761 100.0 With Supplemental Security Income 297 2.0 Car, lruck, or van - - drove alone 14.389 810 Mean Supplemental Securily Income Car. truck, or van - - carpooled 1.659 93 (dollars)' . . 7,828 (X) Public lransportalion (including taxicab) 453 2.6 With public assistance income 244 17 Walked.... . 533 3.0 Mean public assistance income (dollars)' 2,990 (X) Other means. 143 0.8 With retirement income 3,124 21.4 Worked at home 584 3.3 Mean retirement income (dollars) I 22.260 (X) Mean travel time to work (minules)' 20.0 (X) Famlllos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.679 100.0 Employod civilian population Less than $10.000. 129 15 16 years and ovor. .. .... .. . . . . . . . ... .. 18,075 100.0 $10,000 to $14,999. 171 2.0 OCCUPATION $15,000 to $24,999. 465 5.4 Managemenl, professional. and relaled $25,000 to $34,999. 740 8.5 occupalions .. 8.762 48.5 $35,000 to $49.999. 1,210 13.9 Service occupations . 1,854 10.3 $50,000 to $74,999. . 2,319 26.7 Sales and office occupations 4,916 27.2 $75,000 to $99.999. 1.642 18.9 Farming, fishing. and forestry occupalions. 16 0.1 $100.000 to $149,999. . 1.384 15.9 Construction, extraction, and maintenance $150,000 to $199.999. . 365 4.2 occupations . . . . . . . . . .......... . 871 4.8 $200.000 or more. . . . . 254 2.9 Production. transportation, and material moving Median family income (dollars). 65.861 (X) occupations 1.656 9.2 Per capita income (dollars)' 27.755 (X) INDUSTRY Median earnings (dollars): Agriculture. foreslry, fishing and hunting. Male full-time, year-round workers. 41,765 (X) and mining . . 64 0.4 Female full-lime, year-round workers. 32.389 (X) Construction . . 663 3.7 Manufacturing. . 2,155 11.9 Number Percent Wholesale trade 573 3.2 below below Retail trade. . . 1,945 10.8 poverty poverty Transportation and warehousing, and ulilities 816 45 Subject level level Information 566 3.1 I Finance. insurance, real estate, and rental and POVERTY STATUS IN 1999 leasing. . . . . . . . 1,546 8.6 Families. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 2.6 Professional, scientific, management. adminis- With related children under 18 years 193 5.6 trative, and waste management services 2,149 11.9 With related children under 5 years 117 9.1 Educational. health and social services . 4,844 26.8 Arts. entertainment, recreation, accommodation F~~~~:~:~~e~:::,I~.~~~.~~~~~~~~..~~.... .1 and food services 1.053 5.8 144 13.3 Other services (except public administration) . 761 4.2 With relaled dlildren under 18 years. . . . .. ..... 141 23.5 Public administraUon. . . . 940 5.2 With related children under 5 years. 84 36.7 CLASS OF WORKER Individuals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,353 4.2 Private wage and salary workers . 13.897 769 18 years and over. 1,030 4.0 Government workers. . . _ . 3,405 18.8 65 years and over. . 180 2.9 Self-employed workers in own not incorporated Related children under 18 years . 276 4.5 business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 746 4.1 Related children 5 to 17 years. . 1,66 3.5 Unpaid family workers . 27 0.1 Unrelated individuals 15 years and over. . . 740 9.8 -Represenls zero or rounds to zero. (X) Nol applicable. 'If {he denominator of a mean value or per capita value is less than 30. then lhat value is calculated using a rounded aggregate in the numerator. See text. Source: U.S. Bureau of !he Census, Census 2000. 3 u.S. Census Bureau Table DP'4. Profile of Selected Housing Characteristics: 2000 Geographic area: Roseville city, Minnesota [Data based on a sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see text} Subject Number Pereant Subject Number Percenl Tolal housJng units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,924 100.0 OCCUPANTS PER ROOM UNITS IN STRUCTURE Occupied housing units; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 14,605 100.0 1-unil. detached 8.443 56.6 1.00 or !ess... ., 14.377 98.4 1-unil. aUached 1.062 7.1 1.01 10 1 50 . 76 05 2 unils 120 0.8 1.51 or mare. 152 1.0 3 or 4 units . 49 0.3 5 to 9 units . 215 1.4 Specified owner-occupied units. . . . . . . . 8,646 100.0 10 to 19 units. . 1.160 7.B VALUE 20 Of more units 3,775 25.3 less than S50.000. . 32 0.4 Mobile home 100 07 S50.000 10 S99,999. 702 8.1 Baal, RV. van, ele. $100.000 to S149.999 4.224 48.9 $150.000 to $199.999. 2.472 28.6 YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT S200.ooo to $299.999. . 888 10.3 1999 to March 2000 . 73 0.5 5300,000 10 $499,999. 270 3.1 1995 to 1998 . 554 3.7 5500,000 to $999.999 37 0.4 1990 to 1994 . . 686 46 $1,000,000 or more. 21 0.2 198010 1989 . 1,094 73 Median (dollars) 143,400 (X) 197010 1979 . 3,175 21.3 1960 to 1969 . 3,592 24.1 MORTGAGE STATUS AND SELECTED 194010 1959 5,188 34.8 MONTHLY OWNER COSTS 1939 or earlier 562 38 Wilh a mortgage . 5,542 64.1 less Ihan $300 6 0.1 ROOMS $300 to $499 . 108 1.2 1 room. . 249 1.7 $500 to $699 . '1 320 3.7 2 rooms. I 815 5.5 $700 to $999 . . .. . 1.428 16.5 3 rooms. I 2,045 13.7 $1,000 to Sl.499.. 2,448 28.3 4 rooms. I 2,098 14.1 $1,500 to $1,999 834 9.6 5 rooms. I 2,342 157 $2,000 or more . 398 4.6 6 rooms 2.423 16.2 Median (dollars). 1,155 (X) 7 rooms 1,805 12.1 Not mortgaged. . 3,104 35.9 Brooms 1,593 10.7 Median (dollars) . 352 (X) 9 or more rooms . 1,554 104 Median (rooms) 55 (X) SELECTED MONTHLY OWNER COSTS I AS A PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD Occupied housing units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i 14,605 100.0 INCOME IN 1999 YEAR HOUSEHOLDER MOVED INTO UNIT Less than 15.0 percent - . . . . . . . - . . 3.931 45.5 1999 to March 2000 . 2.605 17.8 15.0 to 19.9 percent. 1.713 19.8 1995 to 1998 . 3,773 25.8 20.0 to 24.9 percenl . 1,180 13.6 1990 to 1994 . 2,107 14.4 25.0 to 29.9 percenl . 622 72 1980 to 1989 . 2.272 15.6 30.0 Lo 34.9 percent. 400 4.6 1970 to 1979 . 1,617 11.1 35.0 percenl or more . 774 9.0 1969 or earlier. 2.231 15.3 Not compuled. 26 0.3 VEHICLES AVAILABLE Specified ronter-occupied units. . . . . . . . 4,757 100.0 None.. . 1,003 6.9 GROSS RENT 1 .. 5,760 39.4 Less than $200 . 117 2.5 2. 6.026 41.3 $200 to $299 112 2.4 3 or more 1,816 12.4 $300 to $499 . 366 7.7 $500 to $749 . . 2,528 53.1 HOUSE HEATING FUEL $750 to $999 . 775 16.3 Utility gas . 12,084 82.7 $1,000 10 $1.499. 539 11.3 BotUed. tank, or LP gas 121 0.8 $1,500 or more . 244 5.1 Electricity. . . . . 1,869 12.8 No cash rent. . . 76 1.6 Fuel oil, kerosene, ele 227 1.6 Median (dollars). . 68B (X) Coal or coke. 6 Wood... 11 0.1 GROSS RENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF Solar energy. . HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1999 Other fuel . . . . 14B 1.0 Less than 15.0 percent. 596 12.5 No fuel used. . . 139 1.0 15.0 to 19.9 percent. . . 842 17.7 20.0 to 24.9 pereant . . . . 744 15.6 SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS 25.0 to 29.9 percent. . 652 13.7 Lacking complete plumbing facilities. 27 0.2 30.0 10 34.9 percent. 370 7.8 Lacking complete kitchen facililies. 38 03 35.0 percent or more 1.421 29.9 No telephone service . . . 53 0.4 Not computed. . . . . . 132 2.8 -Represenls zero or rounds to zero. (X) Not applicable. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000. 4 u.s. (w,u, Bureau ~ Fe:Jeral Poverty Level, effective February 14,2002 ){' DHS o.r~~ u{ H.u..UI Sl.'n-k t"l Last updated February 22.2002 Federal Poverty ev I Federal Poverty level (FPL) effective Feb. 14, 2002 IColumn A /I Column B IIColumn C I 1# in family II 1000/0 II 1330/0 1\ 1700/0 I I 1 II $738 /I $982 II $1,255 I I 2 II 995 II 1.323 II 1.692 I I 3 II 1.252 II 1,665 II 2.128 I I 4 II 1,508 II 2,006 II 2,564 I I 5 II 1.765 1/ 2,347 II 3.001 I I 6 /I 2,022 II 2,689 " 3.437 I I 7 " 2,278 II 3.030 II 3,873 I I 8 II 2,535 /I 3,372 II 4,310 I Page 1 of 1 _ fnO\\\f"\\'i \ f\c.of'&,e c~ . Click here to go to OMAP's home page. http://www.omap.hr.state.or.us/ohp/fp10202.html 1/21/2003 Income (SSl) 5 CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE 96.006: Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Popular Name: SSI Objectives: To ensure a minimum level of income to persons who have attained age 65 or are blind or disabled., and whose income and resources are below specified levels. MAIN TOPICS: .. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS [ Applicant EliKlbiIiJy I 8eneficiary_Eligibility I Credentials and DOqlmentation ] It APPLICA.IIQI~L~D A WARD PRill&SS [ Preapplication Coordin.-a1ion I Application Procedur~ I Award Procedure I D~liJJes I R~!.lee QfApPfQval!Disapprov(lj Time I App~s I Renew~ls I Criteria for Sel~ctiogProp{)~S I Examples Q[EJ.ll1ded _Projects I Range of Assistance.Given ] lit RELATED PROGRAMS . PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS · fINANCIAL AND AOMINISTRATI\CETNf.o. [ Federal Agency I Type of Assistance I Obligatiom~ I .ausJ~LAg;ount NllIIlberl Authorization I Regulations. Guidelines. and Literature ] . INFORMATION CONTACTS [Regional or Local Office I Headquarters Office I Web Site Address] . ASSISTANCE CONSIDERATIONS [Formula and Matching Requirements I Length and Time Phasing of Assistance I ]) ses ~dJJ:~_R~Jri~ti9.IlS ] . POST ASSISTANCE REQUIRElvlENTS [ Reggrts I Audits I Rec;QXQs ] 96.006 ELIGffiILITY REQUIREMENTS: Applicant Eligibility: The eligibility of an individual who bas attained age 65 or who is blind or disabled is determined on the basis of an assessment of therindividual's monthly income and reSources, citizenship or alien status, U.S. residency, and certain other eligibility requirements. In determining a month's income, the first $20 of Social Security or other unearned income is not counted. An addiflonaI $65 of earned income ($85 if the person had no unearned income) received in a month plus one-half of http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/cfdaJp96006 .htm 1/27/2003 (SSI) 2 5 the remainder above $65 (or $85) also is not cmmted. If, after these (and other) exclusions, an individual's countable income, effective January 2002, is less than $545 per month ($817 for a couple., both of whom are ~ blind or disabled) and countable resources are less than S4000 (53,000 for a couple), the individual may be eligible for payments. The values of household goods, personal effects, an automobile, life insurance, and property needed for self support are, if within limits set out in regulations, excluded in determining value of resources. Burial spaces for an individual and immediate family and burial funds, up to $1,500 each for an individual and spouse, are excluded from resources. The value of a home which serves as the principal place of residence is also excluded in resource valuation. Beneficiary Eligibility: Individuals who have attained age 65 or are blind or disabled, who continue to meet the income and resources tests, citizenship/qualified alien status, U.S. residence, and certain other requirements. Eligibility may continue for beneficiaries who engage in substantial gainful activity despite disabling physical or mental impairments. Credentialsillocumentation: Proof of age, marital status, income and resources, establishment of blindness or disability, proof of residence in the U.S. and citizenship, or alien status is required. 96.006 APPLICATION AND AWARD PROCESS: Preapplication Coordination: None. This program is excluded from coverage under E.Q,12372. Application Procedure: Call toll free at 1-800-772-1213 or phone or visit the local Social Security Office. Award Procedure: The individual (and representative payee, if any,) will be notified by mail of award or denial. Deadlines: None. Benefits are not paid prior to the month following the month of application. ~owever, an emergency advance payment may be available in the month of filing the application. Range of ApprovallDisapproval Time: Not applicable. Appeals: Call toll free at 1-800-772-1213 or phone or visit the local Social Security Office. The appeal process ranges from a case review or field office conference to a review by the Federal Courts. An appeal must be requested within 60 days of the date on which a written notice of SSA's initial determination is received by the applicant. The 60 days start the day after you receive the notice. Renewals: A redetermination of a person's benefit amount and continuing eligibility will be made on a scheduled basis at periodic intervals. Unscheduled redeterminations are made when changes in circumstances are reported. The length of time between scheduled redetermination varies depending on the likelihood that the beneficiary's situation may change in a way that affects payment amount or eligibility . Criteria for Selecting Proposals: Not applicable. Ex.amples of Funded Projects: Not applicable. Range and Average of Financial Assistance: Monthly Federal cash paYments range from $1 to $545 for an aged, blin<4 or disabled individual who does not have an eligible spouse, and from $1 to $817 for http://aspe.os.d.hhs.gov/cfdaJp96006.htm 1/27/2003 CFDA: Income 3 5 an agetL blind, or disabled individual and an eligible spouse. These rates became effective January 2002. The average Federal monthly benefit for January 2002 is $374. 96.006 RELATED PROGRAMS: . 93.560 Family Support Payments to States: Assistance Payments (AFDC); . 2U1R Medical Assistance Program (Medicaid); . 2QJKll Social Security: Disability Insurance; . 96.002 Social Security: Retirement Insurance; . 2QJHl3 Social Security: Special Benefits for Persons Aged 72 and Over; . 26JHM Social Security: Survivors Insurance; . 96.005 Special Benefits for Disabled Coal Miners. 96.006 PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS: In fiscal year 2001, an average of6,385,000 persons per month were Federal Supplemental Security Income recipients. It is estimated that in fiscal year 2002, an average of 6,436,000 recipients will receive monthly cash benefits. During fiscal year 2003, the average number receiving payments is estimated to be 6,501,000 per month. Not included are those persons who receive only State supplementary payments, some of which are administered by the Social Security Administration for the States as part of the SSI program. 96.006 FINANCIAL AND ADl\fINISTRATIVE INFO: Federal Agency: SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (H.Qm~_P.a~) Type of Assistance: Direct Payments with Unrestricted Use; Direct Payments for Specified Use. Obligations: (Benefit Payments) These figures represent benefits actually paid, or expected to be paid. FY 01 $27,430,000,000; FY 02 est $31,252,000,000; and FY 03 est $32,384,000,000. Budget Account Number: 75-0406-0-1-609. Authorization: Social Security Act of 1935, Title XVI, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 1381-1383f. Regulations, Guidelines, and Literature: Code of Federal Regulations, Title 20, Parts 401, 416, and 422. "SSI for Aged, Blind, and Disabled People" and other publications are available from any Social Security Office without charge. The Social Security internet address is http://www.ssagov and it includes copies of all disability-related laws, regulations, rulings, and :free publications, as well as other information about Social Security programs. 96.006 INFO CONTACTS: Regional or Local Office: Consult Appendix IV of the Catalog. Headquarters Office: Office of Public Inquiries, Room 4100, Annex., Social Security Administration, Baltimore, MD 21235. Phone: (410) 965-2736. Use the same number for FTS. Web Site Address: http://www.ssa.gov http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/cfdaJp96006.htm 1/27/2003 - ECCl10mic Community Supports: Program Information: Page 1 3 . I;CS MaiD_ Page . Ch i hLSYQ12QI.t SeXY i c;..es . Q~i)J& .tfQntplJ::t~grir1g SgIYJ~~? . PrO-ID"arn.lDfQIm.Qtioo . Regulatioll.s..qnd PrQ.!;~d UIe~ . W~Jf.qJ~ R~form -lntQrOIQtiQD..5.y.s.tems . R~Qr:t?a nd.S~a.tistics . Fe.~dbg!';:k Global Navigation . How. DoJLW~~. ~ . A .to Z.-Ippi ~s. . fAQs (7) . Calendar .. N.~w..srQQnJ .. Documents .~.E-<:~.rms . Grant~.8t.RtP.s. . .6.!JJ I etto..s._~.f'J1 a n u a 15 . Publicati.Qn~~ Bep_QID . C.ounties & Re9iona~ . Em.pJQ.Yrn~f1t . AboLLt_DHS Food Support Program Topic ti.Qm.e.. ~arch_ Help Contact Us E.~.__.___.___mi~_ and.tom.mY-,~lty SU(lports The Food Support Program (formerly called Food Stamps) Program Description The Food Support program started in this country in 1939. However, the program as we know it today began in 1977. The goal of the program is to assist low-income persons and families 50 they can purchase food and better meet their nutritional needs. The program is not intended to supply all of a person's or family's food needs. Instead, it supplements those needs while the person or family makes an effort to become self-supporting. Funding and Operations The United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services provides states with the funding needed and the policy governing the Food Support program. Minnesota's Department of Human Services supervises the program on a state level, clarifies policies, reviews county performance, and distributes monthly benefits. In accordance with state and federal directives county human services agencies accept client applications, determine eligibility and determine benefit levels. The Food Support program is available in all 87 Minnesota counties. Participation Requirements Monthly benefit levels are based on income and the number of persons in the household. Usually, if the household's net income is around 130 percent of federal poverty or below, the household will qualify for Food Support assistance. If all the persons in a household qualify for General Assistance (GA) or the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, they would also qualify for food support. Households exiting the MFIP program may still qualify for food assistance from the Food Support program. Monthly Benefits http://www.dhs.state.mn.usIECSlProgramlFoodSupport.htm 1/21/2003 ECOnomic and Community Supports: Program 2 3 All 87 counties distribute food benefits through Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT), a card system similar to a debit card. At the beginning of the month, recipients' EBT accounts are credited with the amount of benefits they are eligible for. During the month, recipients use their cards to purchase food at enrolled grocery stores. The EST card is then swiped through a "point of sale" terminal and the purchases are deducted from the account balance. SFY Program Outcomes During state fiscal year 2002, in Minnesota, the Food Support Program served 99,700 households and 212,000 people. The average issuance for each month was $16 million. Total issuance for the year was $196 million. Each household received an average of $164 per month and the average issuance per person was $77. Coordination with MFIP Families who receive benefits from Minnesota Family Investment program (MFIP) will have their food assistance needs met through MFIP rather than the traditional Food Support Program. Other adults and families that do not receive MFIP benefits will have their food needs met through the Non-Public Assistance (NPA) Food Support program. For More Information For more information about this program contact Pakou Ly, Income Maintenance Program Consultant at (651) 297- 1426, or toll free at 1 (800) 657-3698. You may also write to Food Support Program, 444 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, MN 55155-3837. To apply for the Food. Support prograrrLYou must contact your local .c~hu.rnan ~~Lyice agency. You may also access county information at the SJate'sNocthStaL web site. PeoQle We Serve Programs & Contacts Topics A to Z Minnesota Department of Human Services" TItle: 'Economic and Community Supports: Program Information: The Food Su!Wort Program' URL: http://www.dhs.state.mn.us/ECS/ProgramjFoodSupport.htm File last modified: 11/26/2002 11: 24: 26. http://www.dhs.state.mn.usIECS/ProgramJFoodSupport.htm 1/21/2003 b~(~) M edica1 Assistance can help people pay for their medical care who arc either blind. Dver age 65. or disabled. If you are eligible, Medical Assistance will pay for your current and future medical bills. (In some cases, MedicaJ Assistance will pay medicaJ bills for the three months before the month you applied.) Medical Assistance is often c.aIled by it's initiaJs, MA. Another term llsed is Medicaid. How can I show that I om disabled or age 65 or over? You can show rhar you are certified as blind or disabled if you receive Social Securiry Dis- abiliry (SSDI) or Supplemental Security Income (S5I) checks. If you do nor receive SSDI or 5SI checks and believe that you may get MA because of a disability, your county agency can ask the State Medical Review Team (SMRT) to assess your disability. You can show thar you are 65 years old or older with a birth certificate or orher birth records. How can I get MA for my disabled child (under age 18) without counting my income? Only the disabled child's income is counted when deciding if a child is eligible. MA does nor count the income of the parent(s) if: .. your child is certified as disabled by eirher the SociaJ Securiry Administration or the State Medical Review Team; and .. your child would be able to get MA if he or she were in a medicaJ institution; and .. the home care [hat your child needs compares to the kind of care given in a medical institution. such as a hospitaL nursing home. or intermediate with mentaJ retardation. or relared condirions; and " the cost to MA for your child's home care is not more man MA would pay for his/her care in a medical . . . mS[Itutlon. Parents are required to pay a contribution toward the medical bills paid by MA for their child, if their income is above certain limits. This information is available in other forms to people with disabilities by contacting us at (651) 296-8517 (voice), toll free at 1-800-657-3659 or through the Minnesota Relay Service at 7-1-1 or 1-800-627-3529 (TDD) or 1-877-627-3848 (speech-to-speech relay service). How do I apply for MA? Call, write. or go ro [he county human services agency in the county where you live and ask for MA~ A written request for MA mat is received by [hc county agencf' sets the date of application if it is followed by a complctcd formal application within 30 days. What are the MA Income Limits? If your income. after certain disregards and deductions. is not more than the MA income limi[S, you can get MA See your county financial worker for information about these disregards and deductions. See the table below for income limits. Table 1 MA Income Umits For Persons Who Are B~nd, Over Age 65, Of" DisabkKf EIfediw July J, 2002 Annuallncome Monthly Income $8,868 $739 11,940 995 15,024 1,252 1 B, lOB 1,509 21,180 1,765 24,264 2,022 27,3..a 2,279 30,420 2,535 33,5<M 2,792 36,5BB 3,049 3,084 251 Family Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ~tioool If your income is more than the MA standards. MA may still be able ro pay part of your medical bills with a spenddown. A spenddown is like an insurance deductible. You will be responsible ro pay parr of your expenses, and we will pay the rest. - If you are above the income limits in Table 1, you must spend your income down ro the income limits in Table 2. Table 2 MA Spenddown Umits For Persons Who Are Blind, Over Age 65, or Disabkd fffectiw.t July J, 2002 Use only if income is above limits in Table 1) Family sw, Annual Income Monttdy Income I $6,6.(8 $55.( 2 8,964 747 3 11,268 939 4 13,584 1,132 5 15,888 1,324 6 1B,204 1,517 7 20.506 1 ,709 8 22,824 1,902 9 25,128 2,094 10 27,444 2,2B7 Additional 2,316 193 What are the MA Asset limits .AssetS are what you own including cash. savings and non-homestead property. A person living alone may own $3000 in assets and have a $1500 prepaid burial fund. A married couple or a family of 2 may own $6000 in as.5Cts plus $200 for each additional person. Each person and each MA eligible child may have a $1500 prepaid burial fund. Some: assers that do not count arc: · Homestead property, · Mobile home used as your primary home. · Burial space items. · One moror vehicle under certain conditions. For More Information The information above can hdp you decide if you wish ro apply for MA. It does not cover all of the pro- gram rules. Your county agency will need all the factS abour your situation before they can determine if you are eligible. For more information abom MA, read Minnesota's Health Care Programs (DHS-3182). or contact your county agcncy. You can check our our websirc at: www.dhs.srare.mn.us/infocenter or www.dhs.sratc.mn.us/ hlthcare ~rl\OfS a~cr WJ m\ ~~ S\am\B You can have m re ney This information is available in other forms to people with disabilities by contacting us at 651-296-0190 (voice) or toll free at 1-800-651-3698. roo users can call the Minnesota Relay at 111 or 1-800-627-3529. For the Speech-to-Speech Relay, call 1-871-627-3848. If you are 60 years of age or older, answer the following questions to see if you can get help. Do yon and e"f'tt}"One who I..iveI with you get Supplemental Security Income (55!)? o o Yes No Hyoo an.nrcred yes, you. may qwilify for Food Support. To find out how to apply, contact your county human service office or call 651-296-0190 or toll-free 1-800-657-3698. If you answered no, then answer the questions below. . Do you live with a spouse or children under 22~ o o No If yes, how many people~ _(a) Yes . Are your household assets (cash on hand, money in a checking, savings or an Individmd Retirement Account) less th:m $3,OOO? o o Yes No Use the number of people you entered. on line (a), plus yourself. Is your monthly income below the income :unounts listed? Net income is your income after subtracting expenses like shelter, uriliry and medical costs from your gross income (income before taxes). o o No Yes Net monthly Number of people 1 2 3 4 5 Income $739 $995 $1,252 $1,509 $1,765 Note: Income guidt'lines are updated each year. These guidelines are Jar October 1. 2002 - September 30. 2003. If you answered yes to the fast two questions, yon may be able to get Food Support. To find out how to apply, contact your county human service office or call 651-296-0190 or call tolffree 1-800-657-3698. DHS-3530-ENG (12-02) ,sY ()~ \ ! ~."" J;\I r' t\ f- t\ c/ ~~~~ G ros...c; L\\<:'O'C\\l:- ~ ~ffi(:.TS \d,SOG S\'(\~e.. /' \ LD ,(;) \ ~ T~e.P'nO(\t:. OSS\STC\\\CC ~. ~I rt"l(J. ~ T ,\-('\TI 0S / \\Vc.. / G)-IS - ~C:):3(j-Cflc:.. O\\S S\-Cl ~. () \'f\\\ e60c.s . [pd~ ~?\C- O-Je..\ LbD \-0 I' ~'OC)(.~ S\uf\\PS >f- \\\\\ <-'_Of\:- ?\C~((nl\ 0,,\V\ ~ /0:> ~ e?P _~ . /~- ./ /__//"~/ ",<::c'0f0 'd> e' ;,\;' \ C:> 0'0 ' /" ....."'-' ,'L- " ,:\0' \' 2660 Civic Center Drive +:. Roseville, MN 55113 .:. 651-490-2200 FAX: 651-490-2276 .:. Printed on reclaimed office paper means challenging Government should also means. common-sense principle the heart proposed get We have a spending prob- lem Minnesota:-= a rev- enue problem. Revenues are projected to grow by 6 percent in the two years. This a faster rate of growth than infia- consistent with his- torical revenue growth over past two decades. However, I inherited a' budget that was scheduled to increase by an as- tounding 14 during the upcoming two-year budget cycle. paychecks of Minneso- tans aren't going up anywhere near 14 percent during next couple of years. State gov- spending shouldn~t fast either. My mes- 't spend more than you have and don~t hard\'Vorking Minneso- tans with tax increases. PAWlENTY ooM2 l)- state. tra- dition been an integral our social, community political fabric for a long time. I am mindful traditions and history. I not proposed a fundamental in course. proposal increases bv rnore the previous simply seeking to rate gro\'Vth of to about the rate of is a request in these times. Even if Iny budget were wholesale. remain one , taxed, spending states the nation. I\1y comrnon-sense ap- proach has been met near hysteria by saIne, including !nany newspaper ,editorial boards. Meanwhile, the senti- lTIent of' the silent majority of rvHnnesotans agree with approach has largely ignored in the budget discus- sion, UsHent majority" tends not to protest, show up at staged town meetings or nlake lunch political noise . In an attack on common sense, last week DFt legislative leaders responded to the bud- get crisis by proposing one of the largest tax increases in Minnesota history. ' To make IDatiers worse, tax increases DFLers propose to fall the hardest on aver- age- and !uodest-income Min- nesotans. Part of the DFt plan m- increasing taxes on Min- nesota businesses. SOfie Minnesota's most promising and valued job providers have these types of changes would be job killers. At a time when thousands of Minneso- tans are losing their jobs, at- tacking those who create jobs is moving in exactly direction. We need more paying jobs Tax increases will also alle- viate pressure for government to reform There is a great need for such reform, and the I G-ovem- ment Aid program was origi- nally designed to help cornrnu- nities did not have dent population or tax capaci., ty to pay for their own services locally. Over the decades, it has been politically Iuanipulated, and we now have state taxpay- ers routinely paying 20-70 per- cent of many city operating budgets. This takes place even in successful cities. This is sim- I" ply not fair. Spending in many of these dties escalates in part because someone else is pay- ing the bill and local taxpayers are insulated from the conse- quences of the spending deci- sions. We can't afford the pro- gram at its current level or in its current fonn. Both of these exam.ples highlight a fundamental truth: We can't afford to keep doing all the things we have done in the same way we have always done them. The world has changed and Minnesota gov- ernment needs to change as welL like most organizations in these changing state government needs to be more innovative, creative effi- cient with taxpayer donars. Minnesota's private sector has demonstrated ability to streamline operations and still provide quality service. is no reason government can't do the same. Mi~esota's past can be a guide to our future. We re- main a high-government-'ser- "rice state. However, it has to \vithin reason and our means. P .. .f". 24' f · d 2'.d 'f\~C6{6:?J oSItIves J.or a ront varIance an a SI e varIance. April 28, 2003 Roseville City Council Meeting Positives for Roseville · Property value goes up Positives for Precinct 9 · New good looking house · House up to minimum standards Positives for Dunlap · Beans get to stay · Beans get to keep backyard · Beans add a workshop, boat storage and family room Negatives for a 24' front variance and a 2' side variance. April 28, 2003 Roseville City Council Meeting Negative for Roseville · Setting a precedent for long variances · Reduces valuations of properties to north Negatives for Precinct 9 · Disrupt good neighborly relations · Change character of neighborhood Negatives for 1768 Dunlap · Entirely block southerly view · Block sunlight on major proportion of property · Block existing air flows · Drainage cannot be contained · Four existing trees will be severely damaged · Noise from workshop · Huge, overwhelming, two and a half story brick wall Alternatives to a 24' front variance and a 2' side variance. April 28, 2003 Roseville City Council Meeting · Double wide driveway · Do nothing and enjoy the house "as is" · Buy appropriate sized house in school district · Double deep garage on South side · Detached garage behind house + improvements Dear l\1ayor Kysylyczyn and Roseville City Council, T e would like to start by saying that this variance process has been an emotionally exhausting experience for all uIvolved. Having said that, we need to clarify some points about POTENTIAL IMP ACTS made by our neighbor Dan Grundtner. Our family has outgrown our small bungalow and even smaller I car (barely) garage. We came up with a plan we thought would give us the needed space but still keep the essence of our house. We called the city to find out setback rules and made our neighbors aware of what we had planned. Knowing that we needed the space, they were receptive to our project. We hired a professional to transform our drawings into blueprints and refinanced our mortgage to take out the necessary funding. It was at this point that we found out the information from the city referred to new construction and not to OUR HOUSE and that we would need a variance. Then, much to our dismay, our neighbor Dan started having reservations about the project that he hadn't voiced on the previous occasions during our discussions with him. We were devastated. We have enjoyed a good neighborly relationship in the past, but we do not agree on the potential inlpacts on Dan and his property. The following is our assessment of the points Dan brought up at the April 2, 2003 Planning Commission nleeting. * Sun and view to the South of Dan's property Dan stated that our proposed garage addition would block the sun and his view to the South. Dan built a carport approximately 10 years ago on the South edge of his property. There are also 7 pine trees averaging approximately 25 feet high lining this edge of his property, which already obstructs Dan's view. (see photos #1, 2, & 3) Also, for about 10 YEARS, Dan parked a 30 'li ft., approximately 12 ft. high commercial Mack truck in his South driveway. (see photos #4 & 5 ) However, last fall the City required it to be removed. He constructed this driveway so he could park this truck off the street. This truck was parked there daily and blocked most of the uth view and sun from the front of Dan's house, until it was removed. It also blocked out view to the north during the same 10 year time frame. Additionally, even with the 24 foot variance there will be an additional 24 feet PLUS a 13-13 'li ft. boulevard for a total of almost 40 feet from the front of our garage to the street for sun and airflow. We feel our 24 foot deep, ] story garage would not block Dan's South view, sun or airflow any more than a 30 12ft. Mack truck didfor the past ]0 years. On a sinlilar note, Dan brought up some smaller points such as he liked to look out his front window at the neighborhood. He liked to watch for his father to drive up so he could start putting on his shoes and be ready to leave when his father arrived. He insinuated that because of our addition he would no longer be able to do this. The granting of this variance would in no way alter his ability to watch for people to drive up to his home. With Garden being the main thoroughfare and our neighborhood constructed in a "U" shape with Dionne and Lindy, almost all traffic approaches from the North traveling South. This is the opposite direction as the addition we are proposing. Also, he mentioned to us that he put a window in his carport (see photo 6) so that when the sun is in just the right position, about 1 month a year, about 1 hour a day, on sunny days, he enjoys sunshine in his bathroom. And that he likes to see his house as he walks home from Rainbow. He can still see his house ifhe simply stays on the West side of the street instead of crossing to the East side. Tf'e do not feel our proposed garage will have an adverse impact on Dan concerning any of these issues. Mold problems in the roof Dan has had a problem with mold in his roof and is concerned that our addition would make it worse. By his own admission Dan has had this problem for years and has been working to remedy it. We feel the proposed -+tached garage will not impact this existing problem. Furthermore, the City Staff has strict drainage /quirements for such improvements and will require gutters to properly disburse rainwater. We also feel the pine trees shade his roof much more than the single story 2 car garage, given their height and conlpactness. IS as (#7) shows, drainage onto our property. only portion of the proposed addition that would drain to 24 foot garage portion - \vhich \vil1 have gutters to drain rain\vater properly. IS side of our property is the Concerns about the character of the neighborhood Dan is concerned about how this addition would change the character of the neighborhood. We would state that our neighborhood, a predominantly 1940's early 1950's neighborhood, is already experiencing character change. Dunlap Street south of Garden Avenue (where we live) is only a block long consisting of a rambler with a 2 car attached garage on the comer of Dunlap and Garden and a 3 story apartment building (see photo # 8) directly across from our property on the West side. There are 8 houses facing Dunlap on the East side. Of those 8 homes, the house 2 doors to the South of our property was constructed with a garage out in front similar in size and setback to our proposal. (See photo # 9) The property owner immediately South of our property has indicated that she plans to expand into her front yard. The houses on this block are almost all small bungalows similar in design with extremely small attached garages. Because of how these houses are situated on the lot, there are nlinimal options for expansion. Additionally most, ({not all/he homes on our street, because of what we think was a surveying error in J 940 are encroaching on the north neighbor's 5 foot sideyard setback. TVhen our street l-vas recurbed and repaved approximately J 0 years ago, each of us went to our north side neighbor to have a driveway variance signed. Therefore, those of us that need to add more living space and/or create a usable garage will need a sideyard and possibly afront yard variance. Also, in designing our addition we have taken great care to assure that our house will be aesthetically pleasing and will fit into the neighborhood. We have even added a front porch to help conform. * Concerns about the large wall on the North side Dan is concerned about having to look at a large continuous wall. This wall will vary from a 2-story house on e East side to a one story garage on the West side. Windows have been placed to help break up this wall. We uon't feel that this will have an impact, major or minor, because of the row of approximately 25 foot tall Pine trees that are between Dan's carport and our house & garage. Dan raised concerns about the need to trinl branches to nlake room for construction. These trees are approximately 2 feet north of the property line and our addition would be 3 feet to the south. Most of these branches have already been trimmed simply to enable us to drive into our driveway. FACTS * A standard 2 car garage is 20-24 feet wide x 24-26 feet deep. *The proposed garage is 20 feet wide x 24 feet deep. This proposed width will not be any closer to Dan's property than the existing garage and will bring the side of the garage to within inches of the existing front entry. This is the minimum size possible to still be useable. *There is 18 feet on the South side of the property. DAN'S OPTIONS FOR US (From the April 2, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting) Front yard turnout This option does not address the issue of the desired 2 car garage, an amenity that is standard on most new homes built today. Being a family of 6, we have already determined the need for the proposed garage to increase livability and for storage. We feel this is not a reasonable option. Build another 1 car garage on the South side of our house The South side of our home is bedroom area with no point of entry. We would have to walk from the South side of the house to the North side of the house to enter. This would mean that we would have 2 driveways and 2 "attached" garages that could not be used as such. We feel this is not a reasonable option. to remove a current storage) concrete slab, remove mature shade tree rear livability of the rear yard, and greatly lengthen the driveway. We feel this vl/ould decrease the general livability, not increase it and there would still be an impact on the surrounding neighbors, including Dan. _ A( the Planning Commission Meeting, Dan n1entioned a neighbor to the North who detached a small garage and constructed a 2 car garage with an attached 3 season porch a few years ago. There was no construction to add living space to their home. This neighbor's desires were different from ours and because of newer, current impervious coverage and accessory structure codes, a similar structure most likely could not be constructed today without 1 or more variances. We feel this is not a reasonable option. Eniov house as it is As a growing family of 6, after many hours of discussion, we concluded that this is no longer possible. We wouldn't be willing to commit thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of work if it were not necessary. We feel this is not a reasonable option. * Move Even though this was Dan's first option for us, this would be the least desirable option for us. We were raised in this area and wanted to raise our children in Roseville. We purchased our home 18 years ago as a newly married couple. Today, 4 children later, we desperately need more room. We are hoping to expand and add some of the amenities that are standard on most new houses, such as more living space and a 2 car attached garage. We love our neighborhood and our neighbors and we would like to stay for many more years, but without this variance we fear we may be forced to leave the community that we love, to look for a house lllore suitable to our family's needs. Our children attend Roseville schools and we are active in Roseville area community recreation programs. Jill is employed by the Roseville Area Schools. This option would be very difficult emotionally and financially for us and would be a great hardship. We hope it will be unnecessary. ~cause of the way our house is situated there are few reasonable options to add more living space. If the necessary variances are not granted, we will be unable to expand outward and we feel this also would be a great hardship to us. Our home was constructed before city codes and homes have changed dramatically in the past 6 decades, therefore, creating conflicts with current codes. We did not in any way cause these conflicts and feel variances were created for circumstances such as this. Variances enable residents like us to stay in our homes and communities. We feel our proposed home design will not affect the essential character of the neighborhood. We have put a lot of time into designing this proposed addition to assure our home will be aesthetically pleasing and still keep the essence of an older home. There have been some major remodeling projects in our immediate area, such as the home on Lindy Street. Our next door neighbor has expressed an intent to expand and improve her living area needs also. We feel that our project, like theirs, will improve our aging neighborhood and not adversely impact our neighbor to the north nor the neighborhood. We urge you to grant this variance and help homeowners like us stay in our homes and revitalize our community. Thank you for your consideration. Res e~tfullY~ . ~R'vt~ Brian Bean Jill Bean