The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004_0329_Packet�J� � City Council Meeting Monday, March 29, 2004, 6:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 2660 Civic Center Drive _ �.� � � � � �x � �� } 5 �� au��l �ex�x�e�r �i�y Ihla� �o�n�il ll+��e� �"orn �ou�� .; . `� �:� � r �.i'��1�01' �rai� l�l�u s�� .�{ � .� . r ��X.l�'1C�� N��rnb�r ��an �ou��il �I�s�hka Me�nbe�' �xeg ��hra�d�r Contact Information: Councilmembers can be contacted in many ways. To set up a personal meeting or to obtain their phone numbers, please contact Margaret at 651-792-7023. E-mail addresses for Councilmembers are avail- able on the city's website, www.citvofroseville.com Purposes of this Meeting: Hear from citizens. Conduct city business. Desired Outcomes of this Meeting: Informed, thoughtful Council decisions that serve the best interests of all Roseville residents. Meeting Guidelines: Please treat people the way you would like to be treated - • Be Fair and Open-Minded about Other People's Views. • Separate the People from the Problem. • Be Respectful to Everyone, Especially if You Disagree with Them or They Aren't Present at This Meeting. Be a part of the picture...get involved with your City.... Volunteer.i For more information, feel free to stop by City Hall or call Carolyn at 651-792-7026. You can also check-out our website at www.cityofroseville.com Volunteering, a Great way to Get Involved! � Over, please.] COUNCIL AGENDA 1. Call Roll, Approve Agenda, Receive Public Comment about City Issues. Possible Timeframe: 10 minutes. 6:00-6:10. Welcome! If you wish to comment about a particular item on this a�enda, please approach the podium when the Mayor calls that a�enda item . If you wish to comment about an issue that is not on this a�enda, please come to the podium under this item, Public Comment, provide your name and address for the record, and let us hear from you. Thanks! 2. Approve Minutes. Possible Timeframe: 5 minutes. 6:10-6:15. 2.a Council Meeting of March 15, 2004. 3. Consider Consent Items. Possible Timeframe: 10 minutes. 6:15-6:25. 3. a Approve Check Register. 3. b Approve Contracts/Purchases in Excess of $ 5, 000. 3.c Approve Business Licenses. 3.d Approve Renewal of Roseville Bingo Hall License. 3. e Adopt a Resolution to Approve a request by the City of Roseville for a 60 -day Plan Review Extension regarding a Variance for Steve Hanon at 2458 Sheldon Street (PF3554) . 3.f Approve Bids for 2004 Public Works Maintenance Utility Materials. 3.g Award Bid for 2004 Contract B. 3.h Approve Qwest Easement on City Property at Victoria Street and County Road B. March 29, 2004 Ro�eville City Council Agler�a� Page 2 of 5 3.i Approve Purchase of Litter Trash/Vacuum Machine. 3. j Approve Burn Permit to allow Open Burning of the Prairie Restoration area at Harriet Alexander Nature Center. 3. k Approve Burn Permit to allow a Burn of the Wild Grasses surrounding the Storm Water Retention Pond at Concordia Meadows Townhomes, east of Dale Street between County Road B2 and Highway 36. 3.1 Approve Burn Permit to allow a Controlled Burn of Wild Growth on the South side of Lake McCarrons Ramsey County Park. 3.m Approve Tent Set up, Summer Drama Camp and Perform- ance Of Thee I Sing at Central Park Dale Street. 3.n Establish a Public Hearing April 26, 2004 to Consider Lake Owasso Safe Boating Association's Request for a Water Ski Course and Water Ski Jump. 3. o Approve the Application for the United States Department of Homeland Security Assistance to Firefighters Grant Pro- gram . 3. p Adopt a Resolution to Authorize City Participation in Joint Application for a GIS Technical Opportunities Program (TOP) Grant for Community Development and Economic Development Projects. 4 . Recognitions, Donations, Communications . 4. a Approve a Special Joint Resolution Against Terrorism and Racism in Mounds View Schools. Presenter: City Manager Neal Beets. Possible Timeframe: 5 minutes. 6:25-6:30. 4. b Poppy Day Proclamation . Presenter: City Manager Neal Beets. Possible Timeframe: 5 minutes. 6:30-6:35. 4.c Keep Roseville Beautiful Proclamation (see also #5) . Presenter: City Manager Neal Beets. Possible Timeframe: 5 minutes. 6:35-6:40. March 29, 2004 Ro�eville City Council Agler�a� Page 3 of 5 5. Update on the Ad-Hoc Litter Committee Plans. Presenter: Ad-Hoc Committee Coordinator Patty Hoag. Possible Timeframe: 15 minutes. 6:40-6:55. 6. Consider Adoption of a Resolution Approving Chris Olson's Request for a Variance and Conditional Use Permit at 2940 Old Hwy 8 (PF3549). Presenter: Community Development Director Dennis Welsch Plannin� Commission Recommendation: Approval with Conditions, 5-1 Vote. Staff Recommendation: Approval with Conditions. Possible Timeframe: 20 minutes. 6:55-7:15. 7. Consider Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment, Pre- liminary Plat, Rezoning & General Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Meadow View Homes to allow the Redevelopment of 2550 Hamline Avenue N(PF3546). Presenter: Community Development Director Dennis Welsch Plannin� Commission Recommendation: Approval with Conditions, 6-0 Vote. Staff Recommendation: Approval with Conditions. Possible Timeframe: 40 minutes. 7:15-7:55. 8. Twin Lakes Development Presenters: Community Development Director Dennis Welsch, Jim Casserly and Todd Stutz. Possible Timeframe: 30 minutes. 7:55-8:25. 8. a Consider Resolution on Twin Lakes Contract for Exclusive Ne- gotiations with Rottlund Homes (PF3543). 8. b Financing Concerns for the Twin Lakes Development. 9. Approving Change Orders for the Building Project. Presenter: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz. Possible Timeframe: 15 minutes. 8:25-8:40. March 29, 2004 Ro�eville City Council Agler�a� Page 4 of 5 10. Consider Authorization to add a 50-foot Extension to the City Hall Campus Monopole. Presenter: Finance Director Chris Miller. Possible Timeframe: 15 minutes. 8:40-8:55. 11. Consider Amendments to the 2004 Calendar of City Council Meetings. Presenter: City Manager Neal Beets. Possible Timeframe: 10 minutes. 8:55-9:05. 12. Adjourn. A Look Ahead: Some Upcoming Public Meetings of Interest April 3, Saturday 9:00 a.m. Council Town Hall Meeting Fairview Commu- nity Center April 6, Tuesday 7:00 p.m. Parks & Recreation Council Chambers Commission April 7, Wednesday 6:30 p.m. Planning Commission Council Chambers April 13, Tuesday 7:00 p.m. Human Rights Commission Council Chambers April 19, Monday 6:00 p.m. Council Study Session Council Chambers TBD Housing & Redevelopment Council Chambers Authority April 26, Monday 6:00 p.m. City Council Town Hall Parkview Center School April 27, Tuesday 7:00 p.m. Public Works & Council Chambers Transportation Commission March 29, 2004 Ro�eville City Council Agler�a� Page 5 of 5 Date: 03/29/04 Item: 2.a Minutes of 03/08/04 j�i � City Council Minutes Council Study Session Monday, March 15, 2004 1. Call Roll and Adopt Agenda Call Roll and Mayor Klausing called the Roseville City Council Study Session Adopt Agenda to order at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers on the 6:00 p.m. above date and welcomed everyone. City Attorney Jay Squires was also present. Roll Call (Voting Order) Roll Call Councilmembers Ihlan, Maschka, Schroeder and Mayor Klausing. Councilmember Kough was absent due to a scheduled athletic competition. Agenda Approval Agenda Approval Mayor Klausing called for any comments or discussion on tonight's Agenda. There were no comments. 2. Public Comment about City Issues Public Comment Mayor Klausing called for public comment by members of the about City Issues audience on any non agenda items. A. Bruce Kennedy, 1416 Skillman Mr. Kennedy spoke about the defeat of the Instant Runoff Voting Bill in the State House of Representatives earlier today. B. Tony Solgard, President of Fair-Vote Minnesota Mr. Solgard thanked the City Council, the Roseville legislative delegation, and the five candidates in the Special Election scheduled for April 20, 2004 for considering instant runoff voting. City Council Study Session — 03/15/04 Draft Minutes - Page 2 C. Fran Hesh, a former Councilmember from Hopkins, MN Ms. Hesh thanked the City Council for its bravery in pursuing the idea of instant runoff voting. D. John Kysylyczyn, 3083 N Victoria Street Mr. Kysylyczyn spoke about the defeat of the instant runoff voting bill. 3. Approve Minutes Approve Minutes Maschka moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of the March 8, 2004 regular Council meeting minutes as presented. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan, Maschka, Schroeder and Klausing. Nays: None. 4. Consider Consent Items 4.a Approve Check Register Maschka moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of the following claims and payments. 33336-33386 $90,281.06 33387-33395 60,082.20 33396-33456 1,065,169.70 33457-33493 529,832.70 Total Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan, Maschka, Schroeder and Klausing. Nays: None. $1,745,365.66 Consider Consent Items Approve Check Register 4.b Approve Contracts/Purchases in Excess of $5,000 Approve Contracts Maschka moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of general & Purchases in purchases and/or contracts for services for the following: Excess of $5,000 Vendor Item/Description Amount Landmark Concrete Inc. Replace concrete $18,968.00 Commercial Oval compressor 9,250.00 City Council Study Session — 03/15/04 Draft Minutes - Page 3 Refrigeration cleaning Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan, Maschka, Schroeder and Klausing. Nays: None. 5. Hear a Progress Report on the Twin Lakes Stakeholder Panel (PF 3552) Community Development Director Dennis Welsch asked if the Twin Lakes agenda items could be shifted, inasmuch as Mr. Shardlow was not present for Agenda Item No. 5 yet, however all presenters for Item #6 were present. Without objection, the Council approved the agenda change. Community Development Director Welsch gave a brief background about the City's efforts to redevelop Twin Lakes. Mr. Welsch identified some critical tasks and issues facing the City. Hear a Progress Report on the Twin Lakes Stakeholders Panel (PF 3552) 6. Consider Resolution on Twin Lakes Contract for Exclusive Consider Negotiations with Rottlund Homes and Hear a Report on Resolution on Twin Progress to-date on Financial Strategies (PF 3543) Jim Casserly of Krass Monroe, legal and financial consultants to the City; Todd Stutz of Rottlund; and Dennis Welsch discussed the model for a Master Redeveloper and the Master Redeveloper's obligations under the contract. Mr. Casserly spoke about the redevelopment challenges at Twin Lakes. Mr. Casserly spoke about the use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF'). Some increment could be used for City administrative fees, fiscal disparities purposes ; thus, not a11 tax increment in a TIF' District goes for project expenses at the redevelopment site. Discussion ensued about the ramifications of the 2001 — 2002 state property tax changes. Councilmember Ihlan asked about the circumstances under which TIF inay be appropriate and when TIF was not appropriate. Councilmember Ihlan asked about funding, other Lakes Contract for Exclusive Negotiations with Rottlund Homes and Hear a Report on Progress to-date on Financial Strategies (PF 3543) City Council Study Session — 03/15/04 Draft Minutes - Page 4 than TIF, for environmental remediation. Mr. Casserly and Community Development Director Dennis Welsh responded that the City has a$500,000 revolving Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant for environmental remediation at Twin Lakes. In addition, more clean up grants would be sought. Mr. Casserly then summarized the preliminary financial pro forma for Twin Lakes Redevelopment. Mr. Casserly noted the financial challenge is due in large part to the large disparity between the acquisition and other costs incurred in redevelopment, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the value of the redeveloped land to redevelopers after acquisition. Then Mr. Casserly discussed a variety of fmancial gap strategies for addressing the gaps in the preliminary pro forma. Councilmember Maschka asked about the contract for Exclusive Negotiations with Rottlund. Discussion ensued about the main purposes of the Agreement and how costs are allocated between Rottlund and the City. John Shardlow, President and Director of Planning with Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc., and consultant to the City of Roseville, was introduced by Mr. Welsch. Mr. Shardlow addressed the Council about the purpose, role, and operation of the Stakeholder's Panel. Mr. Shardlow spoke about the desired outcomes of the PaneL Mr. Shardlow then presented information about each step of the Stakeholder's Panel, including the next meeting of the Panel this coming Thursday, March 18, 2004. Mr. Shardlow noted that, at each step of the process, there will be updated information on the City's website. Mr. Shardlow noted that the Panel would not make a recommendation about the Project, but its input would be recorded for the benefit of the Developer and City Council. The Council discussion turned toward a more detailed consideration of the Contract for Exclusive Negotiations. Mayor Klausing asked why the City should exclusively work with City Council Study Session — 03/15/04 Draft Minutes - Page 5 Rottlund during the next year. Councilmembers and presenters discussed a timeline for action; with staff anticipating that a Resolution would be brought forward at the March 29, 2004 regular Council meeting. If the contract were approved, then September 30, 2004 becomes a key date for the City and the Redeveloper. Councilmember Ihlan asked for modified terms regarding paragraphs 16 and 14, providing more balance between the City and Rottlund. General discussion among Councilmembers and participants included the complexity of the redevelopment area and process; the exposure for the City and the developer during the process and the exclusivity of the proposed contract; termination provisions being para11e1 for the City and developer; development chaos and speculation relative to property values and availability creating additional project increases; and policy perspectives. It was the consensus of Councilmembers to direct staff to bring the item back for discussion and consideration at the March 29, 2004 regular Council meeting. Mayor Klausing announced that no public comment would be heard tonight, but would be heard prior to the Council voting on the issues; and encouraged the public to contact Councilmembers and/or staff in the interim. Mayor Klausing and their participation. No action taken. Councilmembers thanked participants for 7. Hear a Report About a B-2 Pathway Project Public Works Director Duane Schwartz reviewed the 1999 federal grant received, and administered by the Metropolitan Council, providing for $2 Million in funding for a regional trail along County B-2. Mr. Schwartz noted that he had been recently contacted by the Minnesota Department of Transportation Hear a Report About a B-2 Pathway Project City Council Study Session — 03/15/04 Draft Minutes - Page 6 (MnDOT) to determine the City's intent prior to the sunsetting of those funds later this in 2004; and the need to prepare plans and specifications for the 2005 construction season. Mr. Schwartz reviewed the background of this proposed pathway segment; noting that it was the highest priority of the Pathway Committee; B-2 was designated as an activity corridor by the Parks and Recreation Infrastructure Committee; and a B-2 pathway was adopted as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Discussion ensued on linkages to other pathway networks; funding sources and opportunities; proposed scope of project and design criteria; right-of-way acquisition; drainage issues; and residential and commercial properties along the pathway corridor. Further discussion related to safety issues; upgrading of existing infrastructure for the entire 5.25 mile pathway segment, of which approximately 2.5 miles was existing pathway; estimated construction and annual maintenance costs for the 3.0 miles of new pathway construction; lighting improvements; and the nature of the roadway being rural section, rather than urban section, and related drainage and safety issues. Mr. Schwartz reviewed the projected financial implications with an estimated $2.25 Million range of which the City would be responsible for an estimated twenty percent (20%) or $450,000 of the construction costs in addition to ongoing maintenance; with 80% of the total project estimate being available through federal funding. Mr. Schwartz noted that the City would also be responsible for any right-of-way acquisition and for engineering costs. Mr. Schwartz anticipated engineering costs could be absorbed in-house by staff within existing budgets with the exception of any soil testing requirements. Further discussion included potential funding sources as outlined by Mr. Schwartz; ongoing pathway maintenance; depreciation; Schedule - reaffirmations of various commissions and their respective recommendations. Mr. Schwartz sought Council direction to proceed, upon which City Council Study Session — 03/15/04 Draft Minutes - Page 7 he anticipated completion of a Project Memorandum in late April for Council approval and forwarding to MnDOT for approval by June of 2004; appraisals completed for right-of-way needs by mid-July; negotiated easements completed in July and August; and final plans submitted to MnDOT by September for approval; and construction anticipated during the 2005 construction season. Mayor Klausing clarified that the requested action tonight was to proceed with a feasibility study, not approval of proceeding with the proj ect itself. Councilmember Maschka spoke in support of moving ahead with the feasibility study. Councilmember Schroeder expressed his concerns with proceeding, citing existing right of-way along County Road �2 and width variations in residential and commercial areas; impacts to properties within the corridor; drainage issues due to the nature of the rural road section; condition of and lack of Ramsey County commitment relating to future improvement plans for County Road �2; safety issues with the deep ditches in some areas of the corridor; and pathway maintenance funds required. Councilmember Schroeder further commented on the time commitment required of staff in the design and maintenance of additional pathway segments; and noted the Council's previous action in declaring a moratorium on future pathway construction in the 2004 budget; questioning why the Council was even considering moving forward with a feasibility study of the project at this time, given the existence of that moratorium. Councilmember Schroeder relayed concerns expressed to him prior to the meeting by Councilmember Kough related to this item; noting that Councilmember Kough had expressed concern regarding why the project was under consideration given the major budget shortfalls at this time due to cuts in Loca1 Government Aid (LGA); with Councilmember Kough opposing any new trails at this time. Councilmember Schroeder further noted that Councilmember Kough would be returning on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 and could relay his concerns City Council Study Session — 03/15/04 Draft Minutes - Page 8 personally. Councilmember Schroeder concluded by opining that while it sounded like a good idea to utilize these federal funds, he could not support taking additional funds from the City's budget at this time while reducing or eliminating funds for other items; and recommended that we pass on this round of federal funding and after regrouping, perhaps pursue funding at a future date if it's determined that pathway construction is a priority. Councilmember Schroeder reiterated his previous comments regarding his lack of support for any new trail construction until we were able to maintain existing pathway segments with acquisition of additional staff and/or equipment. Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of utilizing these federal grant funds as an opportunity that shouldn't be passed up and would be advantageous to the City and region, citing public health concerns and encouragement for more pedestrian facilities for exercising. Mayor Klausing concurred with several of Councilmember Schroeder's concerns, as he had noted when the issue came before the Planning Commission, noting specifically funding sources and design issues. Mayor Klausing re�erated his clarification regarding the requested action for a feasibility study only, and not approval of the proj ect itself at this time; noting that engineering examination may prevent the project's construction. Mayor Klausing noted that he was willing to move forward with the feasibility study, and continue discussion regarding his other concerns at a later date; noting that is was an important infrastructure improvement that would benefit the community for a long-time, and that it would be prudent to take advantage of the federal funds. A brief discussion ensued regarding timing issues and the status of and process for lifting a pathway construction moratorium. Mr. Schwartz clarified that staff's request to Council for direction tonight was to : • Authorize staff to hold public information meetings along the proposed pathway corridor City Council Study Session — 03/15/04 Draft Minutes - Page 9 • Authorize staff to proceed with necessary fieldwork to assemble feasibility drawings, alignment and costs for Council action/approval • Explore burial of electric distribution lines City Attorney Squires and staff were directed by Mayor Klausing, with Council majority consensus to review past Council meeting minutes and information to determine the existence, the status and conditions of the "moratorium" on pathway construction previously considered by the City Council. Councilmember Schroeder addressed the moratorium that he believed had been enacted during the 2004 budget discussions. City Attorney Squires noted that his office could review past action of Council; the status of any moratorium on pathway construction; and options for Council to change their previous action. City Attorney Squires recommended that following his review of that information, he inform staff directly on whether they should proceed as directed. Public Works Director Schwartz sought clarification regarding the Council's direction; with the majority of Councilmembers concurring that staff be directed to proceed as requested. Councilmember Schroeder requested that the proposed directive to staff for proceeding with a feasibility study on the proposed County Road �2 Regional Trail project be recorded in motion form. Maschka moved, Ihlan seconded, authorizing staff to hold public information meetings, proceed with necessary field work to assemble feasibility drawings, alignment and costs for Council action/consideration; and to explore the burial of electric distribution lines; pending recommendation of the City Attorney related to the moratorium. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan, Kough, Maschka and Klausing. Nays: Schroeder. City Council Study Session — 03/15/04 Draft Minutes - Page 10 John Kysylyczyn, 3083 N Victoria Street Mr. Kysylyczyn spoke to several issues related to this project, including funding sources and budgeted expenses; staff time to prepare the feasibility report; and opined his lack of support for expending public funds for this project and his belief that there was an existing moratorium on pathway construction. Mayor Klausing reviewed the Council majority's consensus and direction to the City Attorney and staff prior to their proceeding; and requested that Mr. Kysylyczyn limit his public comment related to this project until it was brought back before the City Council. Mr. Kysylyczyn continued to speak to this issue; citing differences in the staff report and referring to the "Vista 2000" report. Mayor Klausing requested that Mr. Kysylyczyn respect the ruling of the Chair regarding desisting further public comment. Councilmember Ihlan sought recognition of the Chair regarding a Point of Order that the discussion was not relevant to the agenda item under discussion and was not appropriate for public comment at this time. Councilmember Maschka concurred. Councilmember Schroeder opined his willingness to a11ow Mr. Kysylyczyn to continue his comments, as per his understanding of the Council's current policy for public comment. Mayor Klausing and Councilmembers Maschka and Ihlan requested that Mr. Kysylyczyn yield the floor. Recess Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at 8:57 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:06 p.m. Recess 8. Hear a Report about a New Proposed Police Records Hear a Report Management System and Field Reporting Capability about a New City Council Study Session — 03/15/04 Draft Minutes - Page 11 Police Department Administrative Analyst Karen Rubey was introduced by Police Chief Sletner and proceeded to review record management system requirements and processes for internal and external agency communication; and hindrances due to the City's current DOS based system. Ms. Rubey reviewed the history of a consortium of agencies (i.e., Roseville Police Department, Ramsey County Sheriff's Office, Cities of Moundsview, New Brighton, Maplewood and North St. Paul Police Departments); research and costs for various options and record management systems; and new technology considerations. Ms. Rubey requested authorization for the Roseville Police Department to negotiate a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the City of St. Paul to provide for conversion to wireless field reporting and purchase of a new records management system. Ms. Rubey noted that the negotiated JPA would come before the Council for approval at a later date; that the Cities of New Brighton and Moundsview had already entered into such an agreement with the Cities of Maplewood and North St. Paul approaching their respective City Councils for approval to enter into such an agreement. Mr. Rubey reviewed financial implications and anticipated costs, not to exceed $81,470, which was a 2004 budgeted item and funds would come from the City's equipment replacement fund. Maschka moved, Ihlan seconded, approved authorizing the Roseville Police Department to negotiate a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the St. Paul Police Department for the purchase of a Records Management System and Field Reporting Capability; including specific City modifications, installation and training. Ms. Rubey noted that the City's Information Technology staff had participated in the software review and selection process. Ms. Rubey further noted that the St. Paul Police Department would load the City's historical data into the new system. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan, Maschka, Schroeder and Klausing. Proposed Police Records Management System and Field Reporting Capability City Council Study Session — 03/15/04 Draft Minutes - Page 12 Nays: None. 9. Presentation about Information Technology Business Partnerships Finance Director Chris Miller sought Council direction to expand business partnerships with other organizations for Information Technology Business Partnerships with other cities and/or agencies in addition to the current list of nine organizations. Mr. Miller advised that expansion of the partnerships would require the City to hire additional IT staff, but additional hiring would be financed entirely through the other cities. Councilmember Maschka observed that the IT Support Services operated similar to an Enterprise Fund; had progressed profoundly from the initial perceptions for the program initiated in 1998; and enjoyed a successful customer service reputation to those cities served, and those interested in pursuing a partnership. A brief discussion included the status of the Ramsey County Information Technology Initiative; financial implications and benefits; and staffing issues. Maschka moved, Schroeder seconded, authorizing staff to pursue continued discussions and bring forth new Joint Powers Agreements (JPA's) for Council approval at a future meeting for expansion of cooperative agreements for information technology support services. Councilmember Schroeder sought clarification from City Attorney Squires regarding his participation in voting on the matter, given his employment with the City of Little Canada, a participant in the IT program through a Joint Powers Agreement. City Attorney Squires advised Councilmember Schroeder that he obtained no personal financial interest in the service; noted that Councilmember Schroeder should abstain if he felt more comfortable in doing so to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan, Maschka and Klausing. Presentation Information Technology Business Partnerships about City Council Study Session — 03/15/04 Draft Minutes - Page 13 Nays: None. Abstentions: Schroeder. 10. Consider a Volunteer Coordinator and "Senior Fellowships" City Manager Beets recommended that consideration of adding these new positions or programs be put on hold until the budget picture becomes clearer; with consideration being given to the Volunteer Coordinator and Senior Fellowship proposals during review of the 2005 budget, in light of the City's overall financial picture and competing budget requests. Councilmember Maschka noted that, during the interim, he would be contacting a focus group to get their input on whether a senior fellowship program had validity; and opined his willingness to wait before proceeding with further consideration of implementation. Councilmember Schroeder concurred with City Manager Beets' recommendation; noting that it had not been his intention that the Volunteer Coordinator position be considered immediately. However, Councilmember Schroeder did request additional information from staff prior to the 2005 Budget discussions. These requests were part of a memorandum on this subject that is attached to these minutes. Basically, he sought a listing of a11 tasks volunteers currently perform for the city, another listing of additional tasks that volunteers could perform, and an estimate of the potential savings to the city in cost or time through use of additional volunteers. Mayor Klausing expanded on the requested additional information from staff to include a review of equivalent positions (i.e., Volunteer Coordinator) in other cities; how they're used; how the process works; experiences; advantages and disadvantages; expressing concern that a Volunteer Coordinator may impede on the personal relationship volunteers currently enjoy with the specific departments and staff with whom they interact. Staff was so directed by Council consensus; no motion required. Consider a Volunteer Coordinator and "Senior Fellowships" City Council Study Session — 03/15/04 Draft Minutes - Page 14 11. Approve Purchase of Police Department Work Stations Public Works Director and Construction Project Manager Duane Schwartz noted that it was anticipated that the Police Department would be moving into their new area in May of this year, necessitating the purchase of some furniture to facilitate that move. Mr. Schwartz advised that the overall construction project budget had reserved approximately $300,000 for furniture and fixtures; and that it was anticipated that an estimated 90-95% of existing furniture would be reused. Mr. Schwartz noted that most of the existing and proposed workstations consisted of refurbished Hermann Miller brand workstation units with related filing storage available from Alternative Business Systems under an existing cooperative state contract. Mr. Schwartz noted that this would represent the first batch of furnishings from the allotted $300,000 budgeted amount. Maschka moved, Schroeder seconded, approval of the purchase of refurbished workstations, including installation from Alternative Business Systems in an amount not to exceed $99,533.00. Councilmember Maschka noted that this item did not need to go out for public bid, as it was a state contract. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan, Maschka, Schroeder and Klausing. Nays: None. 12. Hold First Reading, Waive Second Reading, and Enact an Ordinance to Provide for Ranked-Order Voting in the April 20, 2004 Special Election; Contingent Upon the State Legislature Enacting and the Governor Signing an Authorizing Bill There was no discussion of or consideration given this item, due to the State Legislature's action earlier that afternoon. Approve Purchase of Police Department Work Stations Ranked-Order Voting in the April 20, 2004 Special Election; Contingent Upon the State Legislature Enacting and the Governor Signing an Authorizing Bill City Council Study Session — 03/15/04 Draft Minutes - Page 15 10. Adjournment Adjournment Maschka moved the meeting adjourned at 9:42 p.m. Roll Call Ayes: Ihlan, Maschka, Schroeder and Klausing. Nays: None. ATTES T : Craig Klausing, Mayor Nea1 J. Beets, City Manager REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 3/29/2004 Item No: 3.a Department Approval: Mana er Approved: Agenda Section: '� � � Consent �� 1 � Item Description: Approval of Payments Introduction State Statute requires the City Council to approve a11 payment of claims. The following summary of claims has been submitted to the City for payment. A detailed report of the claims is attached. City Staff have reviewed the claims and considers them to be appropriate for the goods and services received. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of all payment of claims. Council Action Requested Approve payment of claims as submitted. M � O � O � N M O '� N �"r .� � �"' l� �O � N �O 00 l� l� O� N M v1 N N O� �O 00 O O O M 00 M M M 00 � O� O� M� N O l� �--i ,'�� M M lO l� �--i M�--i 0� 0� M M l� 0 01 �� lO � Vl 00 0 0 0 l� O� 00 M M M OO M �O lO 00 lO Vl �--i �O vl Q O O 00 v'i v'i � v'i M l� l� l� � l0 op O� vi v'i l� O l� M M O l� �-+ 00 O� O� O� N O � N �O �O O� O� 00 fy �� M O� M O� M l0 �� N�-+ �O M�--� Vl N N ul � Vl �� Vl l0 l0 l0 Vl N N N� M O N �j M lp N N� 00 �--i M N� N l� l� M �--i N �--i �--i l0 Vl ai Vl 00 Ua (U+ H � r � � � � � � � �--� � . `� � � � � � � � � � � � � �� " �" � P, P, . c� `� �C � w w ,y� ,y� ,y� � � � � � � � � N�V� V� }.i Y 7-U-I N � 'b la � O O i-i i-i i-i U U U � C� C� C� C� 3-r 3-r � V� V� N bA 3-r y Vi Vi O O O N N N�" N N N N N bA � O O O O N i cC cC N N O � � � � � U U � U U � � � �" O � � � � vi vi vi � � � � � "~.J' "~.J' . "~.J' "~,-I' � o o � � c� c� � � . o � � � �. � � � � a� a� a� �l �l �l �l �'�o o,� ,� �� o�-' o 0 0 0 Z�.�. �.�.r" �titiww0 � �c� 00. �, �, �, � a� a� � � � �� -'�:a:a�a:aa�a�a�a� s� s� ��' �' a� +� U a� .'� '� P. P. o o v� v� v� o a� C C� C C s� �. s� �. s� a� a� a �� g �f�f� a�i d�v�v�� p;p;p; s� s� s�U � a� a� a� a� -°a °�°�.� oUU ��.,��w v� o o�." w�� o o�-a-a-a a� a� a� w�� on on ��'� ��'a'a �ai�i ? � � � � � 0��3�3 � � o�� o 0 0 � �� >c�c��c�c�3�r��waQxx��x��c�c�c�x� c�c�c�c� � Q � � � � �Y � � a �� ,� ,� ,� ,� � � � � � Q O � 4y v' �� U U U ,� �� '� N vi N x x r�i U � vi � vi vi vi U N p� vi vi .U. �� V� � � U vi vi vi vi vi U U U� vi vi vi vi vi � � � �� °'� � �w � � �. . . � � � � � � � � � � � . � Y Y Y 0 � � Y Y � � � . . � . . . � � � � � . . . �--I . . �--I � � P. P. N. U U. .. �,� ,�,�,�,� N N UN. . P. P. � P. P. P. N N N+� ... P. P. P. P. P. .. .. � � � � �y„ N N �y„ ,��. cC cC cC � O ,��. � � �c� ,��". ,��"'. �% �% � �% �% �% V� V� V� . � � �% �% �% �% �% �+ � �+ -�-� bD bD 0 � ' ' � � ,� � � � "a Q. � � � G � � bD bD � bD bD bD G G G � � bD bD bD bD bq � °'� � Y � �. Q.� Q.� Y Y Y � Y Y O �--! �--! �--!�--!�--! O O O Y �--! �--! �--!�--!�--! � �y y � � � �� I U U U � � � U U �� 'a .a .a .a .a ""� ""� ""� U � 'a .a .a �a �a � � � � � U � � U U �"'� � � � . 7--I U � � � U U � � O � C� C� � V� C/� �C Y Y Y Y Y � p s� s� a� o k� k� k� o k� k� a� . s� s� s� s� s� a� a� a� k� °��°'-a ° c"i °' °' °��' �' �� o 0 0 0�� i� � o o�� a� a� � a� a� a� o 0 0 0� a� a� a� a� a� �� 8'8'��N�� a w � O .� � � U� � M O � O N N � O '� . '� '� '� '� '� '� '� '� '� '� � � � "a "a "a "a "a "a "a "a "a "a "a "a � � � � � � "a � � � N b�A „a � � � � "a P."a '� �w � � � � � � � � � � �-a � � �y � � � � � � �� °3'�� w � �� owwwwwwwwww � ww o�.o 0 0 ow o o� �� w � o 0 0 ow �w w � ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� o � �� . � �� w w ,� o �,� �,� �,� �,� ,� � ,� � � `� � � � � � � '� '� '� '� U w '� '� � � � � � � � � � s� �' s� � U � � � � � : � � �� a�i a�i a�i a�i a�i a�i a�i a�i a�i a�i a�i o� a�i a�i a�i � a�i a�i a�i a�i a�i a�i a�i �� a�i o a�i a�i a�i a�i a�i � a�i 3�rxc7c7c7c7c7c7c7c7c7c7c7ac7c7rxwrxrxrxrxc7rxrx�3��3c7c7rxrxrxrxc7wc7 s��.��s��+ N + a^I }-, -y rx � r-� ri c+c rv rvi ri rw ry rv ri +�t ry ry �: �ry ."� � �� Cy �i 6C 00 �� i� i� 4G GdC� �+i c�i �i �iE i-;i ,G s¢ s r7 r4 ��- �y a� 4C 06 OGOG Nl 40 "' � — --[{ --- —�� ., � �...�_ —��-- -- ��. �. �' � � �i ri � ri r� � � ri rvi r� �� i� � r� y ��G ��S � � � � �� "i `i �_ ' ri �--i ++i ++i ri n � �c ��c �� - ��_ ��c�y oo•'oo�o ��Lo��•� ��o�o � o� r' �� 3�� 1�= �� c� oo� o0 00 000 ��o� o��c�� N bq � � M (� O � O � N O 'O N � .� � O� "'i �1 Vl �O l� O� � O� O N M O l� lp O O� Vl �O � M� M M 00 N 0� M O O� M vl 0"'� M l0 �� l� �O O O N �O O� O� O N v'i l� 00 O� l� vl � 00 N l0 v'i O v'i l� � 00 � l0 � O� N N N� N N M M �O l� p N O� M 00 N v'� c+� �� v� N O �O N Vl O� O O v'� O� 00 N� � O� M l0 M v'� 00 � O� � v'� O� l� O 00 �OOO�v'i l��v'i��VO ' � � N�MM,�,�OOO�OI� v'iv'iv'i ��,�,� ,�,� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � U U U U U U U U U ,`��, ,`��, � � � � `� `� `� `� `� `� `� `� `� `� `� `� `� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a.a. .x.x.x� xxxxx xxxxxxxx � � � � � � � � � � � a a a � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 0 0 � � � � � � � � � � � � � a� a� a� a� a� a� a� a� a� � -o -o ,�,�-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-oa� �� 33333 33333333 w w �3 �3 �3 �3 �3 �3 �3 �3 �3 �" � � y y y °' -o -o -o -o -o -o -o -o -o -o -o -o -o � � -o -o -o -o -o -o -o -o -o � U � � � � o 0 0 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� . �. �. �. �. �. �. �. �. � � � �� .� �� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v� �,� � � a� a� a� > � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � y y P� P� .� .� .� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Z�� a� a� a� a� a� a� a� a� a� a� ;v ;d o o p. p. p.� r'-' .°n.°n.°n.°n.°n,� .°n.°n.°n.°n.°n.°n.°n.°n s.• s.• s.• s.. o o c> c> c> c> c> c> c> c> c> r�'—j �� s.• s.• s.• a� a� a� a� a� ,., a� a� a� a� a� a� a� a� �. � � � �aa �. �. �. �. �. �. �. �. �. aa � � � �� o cn cn cn cn � � � � � � � � � � ,� ,� � � � � � -b o .� .� .� .� .� °�°.� .� .� .� .� .� .� .� -� ��.� .� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � '� '� '� '� > > .� .� .� .� .� .� .� .� .� � a� � � W W W �'' >, � � � � � '� � � � � � � � � �C7C7C7C7QQ�� P-�P-�P-��"U��C7�� o � � � � a' o '� '� �� U x U x x N � � O x vi vi vi vi � vi vi vi vi vi vi vi vi vi vi vi � vi vi vi vi vi vi vi vi U �J N N � � N y N �, y� N N N N N N N N N N N V'N N N N N N N � �.� � a, a,.� .� a, U�� a, °�' U U a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, � a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a. � �� U � � � �� ' ' �� v� v� �� v� � p. p. p. p. p. p. p. p. p. v� �� v� v� v� v� v� v� � v� v� v� v� v� v� v� v� v� v� v� v� v� Z �� . � �� .��.�Q,v�v�v�v�v�v�v�v�v�.��p,p,.;.�� .�� Y �Y Y Y � Y �Y �Y �Y �Y '� Y �Y �Y �Y �Y Y �Y �Y �Y �Y �Y �Y Y � C� C� U U C� '� �� N N N N C� y �� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� p s.. s.. s.. Uj U U U U U U U U U s.. Uj Uj s.. s.. s.. s.. s.. s.. s.. s.. s.. s.. s.. 'O s.. s.. s.. s.. s.. s.. s.. s.. N N,�' ,�' N �� w�� ' N N N N N N a N N N N N. N N N N N N N N �00»O�OOOOOOOOOOU ��' �� '�'000000�00000a00000000 W � 5 °x� w �O ." � � U � M O O N � O .� "� "�' �. �. "� "� "� "� "� � �, � � '� 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O � y 'O 'O 'O 'O '� '� '� '� '� � 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O ¢.'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O �' G' '� '� '� '� '� '� '� '� '� '� '� N N '� '� '� '� �' �' �' �' �' � "� '� '� '� '� '� W '� '� '� '� '� '� '� '� 0 owwwwwwwwwwwUUwwww o 0 0 0 0� �wwwww �,wwwwwwww �� y � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� .�.� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ry, ry, C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 ,� ,� C7 C7 C7 C7 ry, ry, ry, ry, ry, v� '� C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 w C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 �� -��_�� -�1 � N N � S+ �+ +^+ C'� C+ [+ ra rv r,� r�i rv r,i rv rv --i r-i rv �v rli {K' C� 00 � � � � 5d �'$� � 10 � � +O +d x � f-7 {� +� ad od o�S af}c-7 �7i �i o� ad� m � � � � � � 03 � � ~ i�G �. ��G �� i �+5 ��5 'i n++ti a� r� r� rr an i�i r� T�. rR r� i� fi ati r� r� y. rn i�G �� ii ri rG � Q� fl Q G�� 4�� 4� � 4� G 4 4 7 �.� 4�� O O O 4 O O fl 4 L� � ,? �? 4 � v Q Q � Q Q Q Q Q Q � Q � � 4 � � � � � O � � G � � Q � � � 4 � � � 4 N b�A � � M � O � �O � N M O '� N F"r .� � r"' � M v� O OO v� O� � O l� M v� �p O l� a0 O� O l� O O O O � O O N� N� �� O O O O O �I v� � v� O��O � OO M O O� O�O 00 O� v� �t � 00 00 N O O O O l� M� O� �p M l� � O O O O O p 00 N�O l� �� l� ��O M O O O O� v� M 00 O M �(V O� v� l� �O l� �O O�O N M O 00 pp v� uj O p v� � N M� l� � 00 M vl � O��O � O 00 l� l� N 00 O�O N l� M��O vl N v1 vl l� �� vl l� O l �' v� � M�� v� �O O� N l� N v� O p �� N M N l� M N O V �� V V � � � � � � � � � � U U w w � '� '� N N N N N N N N N N �� Q Q � ,�, QI QI `� � � � � � � � � � � U U T T ,�,i � V� V� '� "a7-� "a7-� "a7-� "a7-� "a7-� "a7-� "a7-� "a7-� "a7-� v� O ..r ..r N N .c� � O ca ca ca ca ca ca ca ca ca �� U-�+ -�+ �� + � Q' C� C� � � � � � � � � � � N � V� V� y � � p�q � N O �°'�� +`a� �:� �� ,�� a �' a�'i � � � ,�,�,�,�,�,�,�,�,� ��pp � � ��5�5 ��o �C� � �� v�v�� b4 b4 b4 b4 b4 b4 b4 b4 b4 p„i t� cC cC V Z� ai � a� � a� � a� � a� � a� � a� � a� � a� a� '—' '—' ,� '+-� 3 Q Q� U U U f� �.� P� �� ' � � � � � � � � � � '" °� °� � � T � �, a, a, -a a� � x � � � � a�i o swwv�c7F�--�-�w � °' °' ,� � �ww � � � � '� '� '� '� '� '� '� '� '� � o � � � �� o � � . � � a�i � � F b �, . � . � i i � ��C7c��f�tiQP�P�F-�f��UCGC7ti W o4F-�F-�F-�F-�W �� W W W� W W �, ¢' a� � � � '� '� '� � � '� � w� ��a�� y � � � � r�T, � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � w � � � � � � � � � � V � � � � � � � � � 3.-I � � .r 'ti � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � . . . � � u� u� u� u� u� u� u� u� u� �� U c� � �� P. P. P.. � U £ �' �' �' �' �' �' �' �' �' ur ur U U U � U U � � `i' ° o .o v' ur ur ur � u u u u u � v� v� v� v� v� v� v� v� v� a a � o '� �� '� r� r� r� � Z a4 a4 a4 a4 a4 a4 a4 a4 a4 �� x x x Q x x�� a4 a4 a4 � � � � � � � � � � � � p � cn.� o o .� � � � � '� '� '� '� '� '� '� '� '� ,� � N N N m N N � ° � � '� '� '� ,� � a�i a�i a�i a�i a�i a�i a�i a�i a�i � � ;� ;� � � � °� °� °� � � � � o � � � o � a�i a�i a�i ;� u P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. a� a� a� a� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� �, s� s� s� s� s� o P. P. P. a� QJO00000000�!�!��cucucucucucv� -�-�F-�p..,F-�F-�F-�p..,p..,000� W � � � � ¢' w � O .� � � -a -a .� w w o o `� �-I 'y 'y � � � � � � � � � 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 3 � 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a � � 'a � 3 3 'a � .o 0 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � wwwwwwwwwc� owwwwwwww o ow �c�c�w o w w � � � � � � � � � �? � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �? �? � � o o � � � � � � � � � � � � � �, � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �, � � � � � G' G' G' G' G' G' G' G' G' � c> G' G' G' G' G' G' G' G' ;� ;� �'�v, c�i c�i �'' c> ,� ,� �,' '� �' � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � H H � � � � � O O H H ,� ,� U U ,ii ,ii U U ,� � b�A y0 � QI �¢ � � .� � � � 0 .� � w 0 p, � w � � � � F"r O .� .� � U �q ¢ � .� � � � � � > � w � � � � � O O H H ,� ,� U U ,ii ,ii U U � 'a ¢� `� � � � .� � � � 0 .� � w 0 p, 0 .� .� � � N H y a � � F� � � .� � � � 0 .� � w 0 p, 0 .� .� � � N H �� N�++ a',i [a �v iv iv iv rv rv rv r�i ra ru iv � y r�i rv rv ?'+1 �4 �?Y ?'+1 {�� y+ �� o�o ,)+% �4 {4 +rl i� ib +d bd ab a� �S �� a3 r-i � vo- rti r7 r7 � r-i r-i �+d r� r� � rh rl r r,l — ---- --!� y—[M--r+a—ryrvr-��— f'� r=K �5 rR 'i n an an ri T i*s ri ri r� ati aR ri ri +�. +� rR r� rr ati n ir. v� � r� LJ��'1�g�'��44oTr��44G444�r�g44Gg � � 4 g ti O � � O U � = � � � � � � � � � 4 G G 4 � � � � 4 G � 4 � G � � � � � � � � �, M N � � � M [� � � O � N O '� N � � �� P; � �' O � w �U U � � W .� � � w 0 ,^ � � U � �0��040��f+1�� G��rv��M1�rn� ��4�'Sr��4 O� � � � � � � � � T � I� � � ~ I"- � � � Y'1 � �Y. � Y'1 � � Y. O � '� +� O O F M1 � T- � M1 � � r � � r-� — � � � � � {'� � 5R � � r- S- .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U � .� � � N N � �" '�"'�" '�"'�" � n., n., � w° 3 �� , � � � R � Z �� .� �� r�r� � ��1 � aaa o � �+ � p �� cC N �� 7�r f,j Q aj '—' V � � � � � � �v i � � C� C� C� o "° � o Z w � v� v� A � C7 � � � � a x � °, �;' s. � i'' � � � w ,� � ° a� ° � '� '� ro � � � ,�? U � ��, � � U � � � � U a � � O O o � � � v� � > � U UU � � � � a � � a � aaa � � � � Z � o � � � � �. py v� v� v� v� v� v� v� v� v� v� v� v� v� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � y.l U U U U U U U U U U U U U '� U .� � � '� '� '� '� '� '� '� '� '� '� '� '� '� � � '� a� � Q. � a� a� a� a� a� a� a� a� a� a� a� a� a� � �23 a� �' o �" a, �' v� v� v� v� v� v� v� v� v� v� v� v� v� � � v� �e �� ur � '� '� '� '� '� '� '� on '� '� '� '� '� '� � Q.' '� u � � � � v' o 0 0 0 0 0 0 �� o 0 0 0 0 0 � '� o Q. a� g �� °� �� w w w w w w w ,°�j w w w w w w � w g, � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -a o 0 0 0 0 0 � a� o Q F� U � cv P, P, P, P, P, P, P, � P, P, P, P, P, P, P, -�-i P, O O O O O O O O O +� .a � � � � '� � '� � '� � � � � � � U U U U U U U �� U U �r" w � � �� .� � � w � o � o o �' �'' � o o � � � �i ° �i �i a��i a��i a��i � � � ,� � ,� � � � ,� ,� � � a�i c� H c� c� H H H� H� H� H 3�� H H c� �� S � �� S S � � � �� _ , _ � — — � , � , � — � � � ri m m m m m ri +n r3 � rn r+� +n r� � n r in r+� ++ti � � � g � � a � � � a � � � � o � c � � � 4� O � 4 Q � � O � � � � C � � .: .. �i .�-. � .�-. � -'' r+1 � r. v} �r. v7 � v7 �• v7 � v7 �'7 �� '7 +l �'7 �. m m fi rr � m en m . rz m m m m � +n r� ry r+� +r. r•} . r� . r; Y, r� � ri r. r} r� M r� r, r� . � N bD � M l� O � O � N M O '� N � � � � � p o � � � � P, � +� O � � O � U V U � U +"' O O O O O O 0 O 0 O� �O O O� O� O O M M O M M O O l� l� � O O O 0 O Q O �O �p O p O � O O O O O O 0 O � v� Vl v� O O O p O O �O �O ��--� v� O O �� O� p O p O O v O N N O p � p O O v� v� O O � v� O O M M O O�O �p v� Vl v� v� l� �O M� v� O O ��O � Vl � v� vl v� 00 00 O O O � Vl Vl l� l� � Vl l� l� �� v'1 Vl l� l� M M N N M M OO M N� l� �� l� l� l� N N Vl Vl ��--i �� l� � � O p N N N M�p N N^' � � N N � � � O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U ,i: ,i: ,i: ,i: ,i: ,i: ,i: ,i: ,i: ,i: ,i: ,i: ,i: ,i: ,i: ,i: ,i: ,i: C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� � � N� �-I y O '� -��-I Vl � � U U U �j O H H H U � � '�.3 b4 b4 b4 � b4 � � O ¢i N N � .� .� .� � 0 m O p N r�i� r�i� Y� � � '� '� U �' �' �' p U a N ;� 'Z '� �"i �+-' p 7-r 7-r o � a� c�C c�C C. �i �i �i �r ,-. -a N i. L^ � U �' QI QI pN� �' � � 7°�-� 7°�-� d , r, r , r � 3 � � 0. C� ^°� � c� � � a�i a�i O' '�e a! � �' �' rn a� a� a� [� a� y •C � � a�i c� � m � � � ' C ��q � � � `� � c� c� c� o � °� � � ° � U � N ti P, P, W r� ti v� v� v� � F-� F-� F-� F-� � a � � P� � o � .� � � U T ,r�-I P-i O � � � � � � � � �� y � � � � � � � � O p�/y � � � � 'r-� � � � � � a� a� a� a� a� a3 a� a� a� � C7 � � u� u� � a� a� a� o � v� v� v� v� � v� v� v� �� v� a a� v� v� v v� � � � � � ¢, � � � ;� � � � � � � � � Z� � � � cn � � � u+ � o � v� v� � � � o � � � � � � ;� � � � P. � � � � � � � � �, . o 0 0 0 ��, � o 0 0 � 0� o °�° °�° � o o � � o � � r�i� r�i� r�i� r�i� �-r p r�i� r�i� r`"i� N O N � cy~C cy~C p � � � ."~-a' r�i� p V O O O O � N O O O � � �' O �� O O � � O � � s� s� s� s� � s� s� s� `�-� � s� Q• Q• p s� s� O s� s� � Q� P-i P-i P-i P-i � � P-i P-i P-i 0 Q� P-i 0 0 N P-i P-i P-i 'r� P-i LT� F"r N 0 0 0 O � �� Q � � � � �� w � � � � � � [� [� [� U C7 � '� � � � � 8 W �' � � � � � l W �] ~ I�'7 iV f�i _v f+i 5 � � '� Q w� o� N U F"r � '-a '-a O �N o w w o 0 0 � � � �U � y.�y y,�y U U V � y `� w � � � � -a -a -a �� o � w -a o � � U o o � w w w � � � o o w �,� � �, w w '� '� '� � � c� �y � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � a� a� � " � o o a� a� a� a� � � ° � a� a� P! U F� �l P, P, F� U U U F� F� '� P, P! U � � � � �� x .� ,� L � � �..1 '�` �l � L} � � G y I"' P'1 i�l ~ - � � � � � � � �d r- �o- q� � — r„ ,+� +F � sD +O '' � ub aS � � s+ r,i n � �� 1 •i M ri iv rv s-. r-i r-i rv rvi r-� ^z r� w � �+5 Ty vi n v} M vi r� vy r. uti v, vy Y �ry �. �:y ,n O Z'+� r� t*} m r-� �� r-� .� � -z � � �� rt ri �• r� +� r� +*�. �.� y� rv-. . r� . �i —• � ;*} � +} rr rti r� rr rti r� rv-� � rti r� � U � � N � � M t� O O � N M O '� N W �� o �� p; �� o � w o �' U U U � U � � � � �w 0 .^ � I-�-� U I--� �"'OOVI V�MM0�00000000 0000�0� OOOOOOOOOOp000 Q0000 �� OOONNO��O QOQOOO�O`pO�O�OpO�p� OOOOOOOOOOpOOV'i v'iOp p O O � O� � v'i �� O p v'i v'i O O m M� �� O� l� [� 00 00 M M O O v'i v'i v'i v'i p l� O N O� O� O� � �AO o0 ,� VO � m � v'i l l l l 00 pp O� O� O� O� O O �� v'i v'i N N N N p v'i AO �O l O O � �--i N \O \p � �--i �--i �--i �--i .r �--� �--� M M �--� �--� �--� �--� v� N N N l� \O lp .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � C� C� C� C� C� C� � C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� � S UUU o � on � �� o � � � � � � � � ' U � y U O cC cC cC �--� N � � � � N P-i P-i P-i � � ►� � � � � � � c�C U � � � � � � � � � �' � "a�" � +-' vi s�-� ,�i�. ,�i�. ,�i�. Ns-� � p �`-� �`-� �`-� �`-� � rUi� "' � � O . "'�,-I' r�i� � , � � � � ' N �� -a-a-a-a o � a � a � � � � �� v�v�v� � � � o 0 0 0 � U °�' � � � � 0.�1 a�i '� � o 0 0 0 �a �a �a °�' o p P-� P-� P-� P-� � � � � U � '-' � � � � a�i a�i a�i a�i U U U � �� ' A °�' � � � `� � � � � �� > w c� c� c� c� c� c� � w w � Q � a a � � � � � � a a a � � � x y `� ,��• `� ,��• `� +� � ,�' �" a�' �" a�' .� �� ' on �' on �' +� on � °o � °o � °o � : � u � � � � � � cC � O �O �O � � o �., o 0 0 y W -a -a -a � � Q � Q Q Q y � � � � � ' � � �ww Q � � � � � � � � 0 � � � � � 0 � .� � .� ,� � � .� .� .� � � a ° �j � � � �� .� o U � o � � . � on , � � . � on on on on � � � � � .� � �°o � � .� .� .� :� o 0 0 � p�.� cC O p cC cC cC cC 0 F-� U (� U s� � ,� ,� s� s� s� s� ,� .-� ,� F-� F"r-i N N � F-� F-� F-� F-� N N N `� .-. � Oy ¢ � N � '� '� '� '� '� '� '� � � '� '� '� '� � '� '� '� '� � � � � � � � � �� -a � � -a � � � � � � � w w w w w wwww w w c� � � w w � w w o � � � � � � � � Q w � � w � � �� N N N N N N N +� N N +� N N �. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U �i � N N � N N N �� N N N N c� c� c� c� c� c� c� a� a c� c� a c� c� x 3 3 3 3 c� c� c� c� o �� c�n rr rti rti r ri m r �� -� �G � � � .�r4 .:5 � :!ti � � O � ,�. � {} ti � Q Q Q Q � � � t3 _ � L � � � � � � � �+5 �'+ �� i L r• �u tr � — r,. N �5 ' 7 �- r- F F {{ 7D CD � M M I�. � �� r• � Vl lr Y1 V1 L'l YF1 Y IFI � 'f� �I '� 'fl '�I { Y'1 Y. Y Yl Yl n n Yl cn ��i � �: � +++ rti rti rr r� i� �+� r. r� rry r . �y �. ry �y M fT 1�'1 I+1 fr 1 r. �. rl �' �1 �1 .. �"1 . 1"1 +T 1�'1 T +T 1�'1 1�'1 +r. +�'1 1�'1 � � � i� � O � O � N M O '� N � � �� a� �o � w" o ,� U U � U � d � '""' � � w 0 ,^ �%"' i-i C� i-�- � C O� W O O O O M M M N� 1� O p� ti ti�� <D <D <D <D <D O 1��, 1� O� VM'1 V. M ti� ti O 0 O Q> O Q> Vl N O� �j Q> Q> N<D 00 O p � � �<D <D �O Q> <D <D <D <D <D O OO Q> Q> O� V1 .-+ � N� N �<D �D 00 Q> M O 00 N M N N <D 00 � N N 1� 1� 1� �� Vl �� <D OO � �� N N••• � � � � M M O 1� � ��O �D 1� 00 � 00 00 � � � Q> <D l� N M Q> N � M � O H U ,si U � � O O H H U U U U � � O O H H U U U U � O H U ,si U � O H U ,si U U � � � � � � � S �°' 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 � �� xxxxxxx �� xx �� V� p O O � � � � � � � � � � � � �` � � � � � � Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y � � � � � � � V � � � � � � � � � � � � � � .� � � � � � � � � � �� aa � �� o � � ?????� �,, � w � � � � � � � � ��++ � � � � � � � � � U U U U U� W'�" r � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � C/� C/� C/� C/� C/� 7-0- a ,� "a p� C% C% C% C% C% C% C% Z� ��°�Q-, P,�. � �� ononononononon � . o on on on on on � � a� o � � � � � � � � � � � � � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o U� .�.�.�.�.�.�.� � �J �J �J �J �J O 0 rv'i� S"-. S"-. S"-. S"-. S"-. S"-. S"-. S"-. S"-. S"-. S"-. S"-. S"-. � F� Y Y Y Y Y Y Y p 4� "a "a "a "a "a N +� � ¢, W � � � � � � � � � � � � � � N N N N N N N N U� '� '� '� '� '� �" N �,.Cr.� � N N N N N N N N N N N N N �" cC �+ �+ �+ P+ �+ P+ P+ ¢a 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.� r� NW a HHHHHHHHHHHHH Uv� c�c�c�c�c�c�c� � w 0 .� � � M O U U U U U U U U O O O O O O �� N N N N N N N yN yN yN yN yN �,N yN yN � O O O O O O � � � � � � � � �� -a � � -a-a-a��-a�� 3 3 w�wwwww x x x x x x � �� wwwwww �� o w o o w w w o 0 o w o 0 0 0 0 �� o 0 0 0 0 0 °' °' °' °' °' °' UUU UUUUU o �� a�i a�i a�i � � � � � � � � � w `� `� � � � � � � � �� 23�3a3 ��l�23�2So23 23 0 � � � o a�i a�i a�i a�i a�i wwwwww r� c7r� r� c7c7c7aaac7aaaaac7 v�v� r�Ur�r�r�r�r� �� rv� � rz rG ��t � �,7i r�-i r�-i � fi ir. i� iN ir. r�-� r� r� a%ti r� � a� ��c � Q� � � O � � � �4��44 ,�400 gO O O �� 6 O � r. r-� a� .ti I'Y i�'1 i�'7 4 Y1 Y1 Ll ia V7 Ll 4'1 �. �� l+l �I ��I �'�Q L4 L� �"� �"� R R R �i Y�1 Y1 'ri ri Y1 Y1 ri Y1 �1 li 1 �' 1�' I� ^f' `'7 '�I YI 7'� h'� 11`I 11`I '1 a Y'1 11'I Ya 11'I 11'I Ml M'1 51'I 51'1 M'1 �ii Y'1 L'1 �1 Y1 Irl w: wl 1�1 V�1 Y1 Y1 ri Vl Y. Y'1 V1 V1 �1 1/'1 Y'1 YL 11'1 VL �fl ��1 ��fl ✓1 rt1 �") ��+1 r+i n T m � m r-i m rn M� r. �r ��, ��.,•. r.y .��, .r r+� � rti r� n r+� ati M r� r+� � r� r-i r+i �+� .�n ++. �i r� n �+� r� r� n^ti r� r-i r� +r. r� r+� r r+� r� r} r� r� r� +� ti bq � � M � � 0 N 0 '� N � � �� P; � �' o � w U � U � � W ,. � � � w O .^ U � �°,° �'-r��w,��4�r*o,�r-a� �#+� :��rr�r.,ra�¢��r--� a��-R ry�� M V1 M1i � a � li � iri 1'1 I'Y {�j — � � 1`-I � � � � � � � LT � 4 I"- �4 1'} � M1I N � � M1 R � �i � � � �I �$ m V`I 4IL _ _ _ _ � � � � ^ � M1l O O O O O O O O O O O O O H H H H H H H H H H H H H ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� N N N N N N N N N N N N N U U U U U U U U U U U U U 'C ci � � � � � � � � � � � 333 � � � '� � �. -a -a -a � on � cj � � � o �� U � �, o, � � � � ,N � bA U �1r N � U y �" °� °� °� � .�, � ,� Q.' �' � � �� .� z�� ,�� H � � � '� � � � � � � �, �? aa a� � o � � � � �� 3� a a � �� ' Q O O O O U U U U ,si ,si ,si ,si U U U U �� a' v� � W W � °� ,� �� r� Q Q w www � o ° o � � �� a� � � a�i a�i � a�i a�i � � U �� --� �--� �--� � �� -I � � � � � �� J3�-I � � . � � . � � QI � QI � Y � QI QI � � � � � QI � � � � � � �� Q, � � � � � � � Q" � � Q" o" .�'� .� N U '� � .� �� 'vi � 'vi 'vi � .� O O N � �� 'vi � W � 4� � , r � 4� . � � � 4� N c�N 4N U c�C � � , r � � w � � �� U � H � � � � � � � � H H � � � � � � y �--� Vl � � � W� � � � � � � � � � � �� w q� w w � w o w o o w � w o o w o � w �� w � � U � � � � �� S � C7 �,° C7 C7 C7 v°� C7 � C7 � � C7 U C7 � � C7 � v� C7 cg oG C7 �� p�� C � � o '" ri +i r�-i +� rti rr r�-� +r +ti ri r�-� r+� � r�-� r+� � � � 4 � 4 � � � ? O 4 O 4 7 � Vl h'� 1'Y 'f7 � W 1d '� � '�G 117 +1'S Y'1 � � �� M1 M1 M1 M1 M1= Vl MI �1 �� 1 � �1 �1 �fl h'1 Y Y� Yl Y'1 V1 4'� 1I1 Y�l M 1�'1 1�'1 1�'1 1�1 n'1 n'1 +�'1 � 1r. I+. �. ' 7 �" F`7 ��• �I ' 7 � ��"7 �'S M v. M v� r� r5 fi � �--i T. r� . r� . � +� � r� r� r_ rn rti r� � � � QI fn � � n � � 4 +'zt � � � � �! � ? � � � � t- � +D v�i � � 4 � � � � � � 4 � +�'� fi � � � r tY � � � N Y� ']C M1 {�'C �G � � 'fF MI � � 4 I"7 P17 4 � � � � � '} � � � � � � r� � � � �' � � � Q' � �1 N -f O �.� r 1 IT VI �. �— T� � 5��. � — N M O 'O N � .� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H ,x' ,x' ,x' ,x' ,x' ,x' ,x' ,x' ,x' ,x' ,x' ,x' ,x' ,x' ,x' ,x' ,x' U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U � � h � � � � � � a 0 � � U U U s.. s.. � � � � � '--��-' '--��-' '--��-' � � � � U ° � � � °�'°�' �� H �° �1 .� °��. � �,, � �,, a� a� a� � � � o o � � �. �. ryi� ryi� ryi� FJ V V � � � �. vi y, � �' �' v� v� v� � '�-�- '�-�- � b4 b4 � � � F-� � � � � � W W .� .� .� � 3 3 . � w >, �. `'-' � � � � � � � a� a� � � w w ; � � .� � a. -� � � � � � `� � � C7 � � � � � ,°� � v� � � Q s� �°,° �°,° � � � c�i � � � � � ' � ' � �, °a�° � o2j W � � � � � � �� . �. � �� U �� > w w w w w � C7 C7 P� H �� a � � C7 � � b � ° � c�n �' � �, � � � � -o � � � a' o .� .� � � Q" c� o � � � � � w '�`�' '��' �' � �' � a�i a�i U �' a�i a�i a�i o � P� � o,� m m � U� o o m -o � o 0 0 ,., o � c� � � P, � � � a� a� � � � v� . y � � � � i � � � � w � o � i o �,� a> ¢, ¢, U U � a� a� ¢, c� s� � a� a� a� p a� � Y U � �, �, � � O � . � . � v� v� � � w, > v� v� v� ' � � v� � U � �e � � � � � p" � � � � v� P� � ° � � � a�i � � � � o Z � � �� o o °�° � � � o 0 0 � � � o � � �' a, a, a, a� � � '� '� �, o � '� '� '� � � '� o � � � � � � � � � � i i � � o � i i i a, o o � o � o �� v� v� v� � �� w w � a� ° � w w w i :� y '�°� � � u a, a, � o 0 0 0 �,, � � o 0 0 � � a� o ° o d' O O �' ��' � U U aa aa O v� c� O aa aa aa O � � aa c� U � � � � w �0 .^ r�' i; F-� � � C� � � � C N a � -� � w � � � o U � � � �� U � � �- -� -� -� -� -� -� -� -� -� -� � �� 3 �w w w ww � w www w � w w w � w o 0 0 0 o w o 0 0 0 o w � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� N N N � N N N N N N N N N N N N N � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � >, � 3 � � � � a, � 3 w � � v� o �, o �� v� � C7 Z � � � � � � O � � � � � � � � � � O � � � � � I"I I�'I I�'7 M■�. M :�. �+i � � �i �i � P'1 �"I � P'1 P'1 P'1 � � � � rv Q � Q '� G L' � '�' �` '�` � � � C T �T � '.Tr � �n ,a � � r- �c �a r� — — �. M1 M1 r- rv r- F � I' �r0 ac a�a � �� q � n s � ✓� �i Y� v} �n v} r. � �r. �. v} �r• �"7 �7 �• �7 w7 4l �fr y'� �f: ti'� v: rti m r-� r-� � �n � . � rt. �i �• rti r. r�. r� r-i rti r� rti rr r+ti r+� r. �i � ri � rti . rti r- rz r� rr �. rw r'Y �� r7 �: �i �: ?} N: � N b4 � r"' O p l� l� � O N N O p v� v� O O O �� 00 O O� � O O O M M O p O O O p N l� O� Op O <!1, � O p O� M M�O �� O p� � O O O 0 O O �O �p �O �O l� l� v� O O� � 0 O O O O p O N 00 .r O � �� N N N� N 00 00 l� l� O 1� n�� 00 00 00 �� 00 00 l� Ol Ol 00 00 � M M M M�~�~ r O � l� �O � �O �O �--� .r �--i �--i N Vl Vl M M � � Ol „'i „'i �--i M O Vl l� 00 p � M M �O �--i 00 �--i �--i �--i �--i (V �--i �--i Vl Vl 00 pp �--i Vl �O fn N �t � � N Ol M M .-r O N M O '� N � 4r � .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H "�U ,�U ,� ,� "� ,� ,�U ,� ,�U ,� ,� ,� ,� ,�U ,� N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ,s-"" ,sr' ,sr' ,sr' �-r"" ,sr' ,sr' ,sr' ,sr' ,sr' ,sr' ,sr' ,sr' ,sr' ,sr' U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U �S x � � c� c� �� a a Y Y � � � N N � � � v�i � 4r �r � � ,��. ,��. C'7 C'7 Q °� °� N � � �C � � N °� >, W W � �23 � � U U � °� � � P. a�i a�i a�i � ,� ,� � �� a��i v� v� � a�i a�i U 0.�1 U U � � � �� a a a o Z � f� f� �" ,� N � � � � ,� ,� � U � � � � v v v g, o C ,� � � � �� [� ry "� .� :� -a �� v�--,I cd e� U U � a� a� a� . v, V� a� a� a� a�i a�i a�i P4 S� � hy � �� VJ C/� C/� C/� � � � Y Y Y � � � N �� Z� w w cF�' a.� a i� i� a°' w�' w�' w�' � v� H �� i ��i H � � � � � � � �� w� �� ,o 0 0 � � ¢.� ¢.� m b4 � rn � V � � W W � N � � � � � � � � � � � Q�-r"" � Pr Pr �� Pr � Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr � � ri ri W W '� cn w � �' � � ri cn cn '� ri ri ri ri ri ri � cn cn a a o .�� o o v� cn .�.� � cn cn cn cn cn cn °° .�' .�' � o ��, .� � � � � � �' .� .� .o �' .�' a4 a4 a4 �' .�' .�' .�' � � � ° ,� � � �,'' i-�� i-�� ° � � � � � � �� . � � $� �� w � � . . � � � � � '� � � o o � a �a ra o a a �, �� a a a a � O O c� c� w � v� O D U � O �� w O O H H H O O O O � � � � w O .� � � � � .. a ¢� �,, a a a � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � -a � � � -a � Q Q Q -a -a -a � w � � � � w w w w .� � � w w �, w � w �, �, �, � � � w � � � � � � � � � � � � o ww ww o 0 0 0 �Q w o o� o w o �� www o �� Q � � �� j �� c7 c7 c7 c7 � �� F-� v� c7 � � c7 � c7 � U U U c7 c7 c7 � �� M n an r� r's r i iti � iti �� n � an rG a� YG �. �� C .��i .� rc O �� 4� 4 � G � Q 4 � Q 4 � Q 4 4 � Q � � �� ri �, n �. � � � � �, � �, � �� +* m r+`- m rr m r� r� rz rr rz r� m r� m r� rr. m � x. m r+� r� � r-i r-� rv-. . r-. � rvti r� rr. M r� t+y r� �-�, r� �. �y r. 'y �� .r� 'S O b�A � � M l� O � O � N O '� N � � � O O�� N N N N�� O p O O O p O O�� O O O O O O �� Q O O O � ONO O O�� O OOOOOO�O�p,�,�v'iv'i�0�0 NNV'iv'i00d'�00 NNV'iVl��v'�v'i�'.-i��00 ��O�O�O ��et'� OOOOI�h h��O�ONNMM�� OO VlV'1�0�00000'�..rMM ^'i Vl VI�O�O Vl �N ,�NNI�I 0000 AOVO l � ,� OOOOV'i� NN ��OO M M �O \O N N M M � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O H H H H H H H H� H H H H H H H H H H H H ,�' ,�' ,�' ,�' ,�' ,�' ,�' ,�' ,�' ,�' ,�' ,�' ,�' ,�' �E, ,�' ,�' ,�' ,�' ,�' � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �i � � � � � U U U U U U U U� U U U U U U U U U U U U � � � � � � � � � � � o � � � � � � � � � � g o � � � � �� " g � a z � �" � ° `" '' � � °' ,� ,�� w � O � � � a�i U `� d ,� � � ,� i� � o Z o � � o � U � � � � � � U � � � � � ,� U � � � r��j _Q� a�i � � � � C„) y . � � � `� x o ti � �+� O � � � ,�' � 3� � .� .��' 0 � U O � V C � U � ca b � F-� � -�-i � �C m � ti -�-i Qa -�-i U U � f�. .`�` �' �� N �� i N ;� O N N W O N N N � �� w '� °�' w � '� � � � °� � � � � � � � � � � g,� � �, � � ; � � � � � � � � � , � � � � �,� a� a� ? w Q. � � Q. � o � � � p., o o °y' v� � � �. �. � �, v� v� v� �. � 5�n U � � Y Y � � c� � � v� U v� �Q-' � x � � � v� a�i a�i `� x °�3 � -7-� O Uj 'a bA v, � bA s.`i'. � i O O O � � � �, � � � � � . . ' p N U U � � � � � � � N N N c�d cC cC � O � N � � � � s� U -{--� � y� N ;--� N � � � � W W -{--� N N N ,r_." � � c� ¢ a" > � b' � b' H � � N a" a" a" b' �� N 3 � � � W� � � w 0 ,� � � U � � � � � � � o � o � � "~'� "a � � U "�� '-a O � � r�i� �" '� �" �" � �" � U �" � �" �" �" � � � � w w � o w o o � o w � o � o 0 o w w � w � � U � � �� U o �� ,� �� a�i a�i o a�i a�i a�i °� � a�i a�i � a�i � a�i a�i a�i a�i a�i � a�i c� c� c� x c� x�, H x c� � x � x x x c� c� 3 c� �� x � � � � ^; '; m m � m � r�, � r�"�. � � i� �+ f# O � � � � o � 4 � 4 G 4 � � � O O O rJ �1"- 7G � � {�'� J � wl +T M � � � � Ir�yi Rry7 � wryl +r�y � �f "1 � �D � ',D �8 +d +8 �" � +d � +L` d •L' �O +C m rr m � � � r} � +n � r, � � rry � r� rti 'ri v} r. rti µ r-i r-i r-. r+� rti r-� +� r-i _ � � r-i . N bD � M l� 0 � 0 � N M O '� N �--� .� �I � � � � � � � � V� � � � �' � � ^ r. � � � � � � �"- M1 � � 1�'1 � � � � � +a �"- � � � � 4 � O 5O � p� fl��+� p� r- - vi � ri s+l G� n �^QQ {'y .y{ v P� 4� dj �} 4d £ Q� � � YI � Yy M1 � �-0 � N � � I!'1 fi y � � � � r-� � m � � � � � � ++ � � � w +d � � Yl S'� � �G ^� { 3 N i'�i 11'I r'1 — � Y1 � li} � � � � � � � � � � � � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � U U U U U U U U U U U U fr" ,ii ,ii ,ii ,ii ,ii ,ii ,ii ,ii ,ii ,ii ,ii U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U � � � � N N N N � � � � � � � � vi vi vi vi a" � � � � � � � O O O � N �� zzzz � � � � o �� c�c�c� � � �� z �� .�.�.� � o o � � � � `�' �� y :� c7 c7 3 3 on o�n o�n o�n o�n o�n o�n o�n c� � w �� .d P,P,P, '� �� viv� � � � � � � � � r� o �o 0 � � � � � C� � �p�p�p a�i a�i a�i a�i � (�j �� v Q'� ,�,� W zl zl W W W zl zl � '� � c°C c°C c°C ',� �,� �� ,� � `e� e� c� �' � �� ' N� N N N N N N N N N > a� ��aa aaaa a�� x � zz �� xxxxxxxx � � ° w � w � �a � � � � � (1� � U U U � y �. '� 'a '� P-i �r0 N N N � � � �' � � � � � N N N N cC � V � y„i � N � � �� .Ur . V a� N Q� ,sJ � Pr � � Qr � � � � � N N c�C c�C � � � � � � T T U � � � U 0 � � U U � � � � � � �an p" . � . � . � . � x � �an a � � °� °� � � � P, P, +. . � � cn cn cn v v v v ' � cn . � � ' � � ° ° v � � v v v s� � a� �' . �' . �' �� c� � F-� c� c� � � � � � � � o o a� a� a� � � � ' � a� a� a� a� o a� . � � � o o � � ��; v, a � � � � � � � �� a� c� �� a� a� � � � � o o � Np..,p..,�� O v� HHH �� N� w0� N N ww ww �N�� a� w O .,� � � � � 0 0 � � � -a � � � � � �� -a -a -a w -a � � � Q -a Q -a -a �a �� a -a w w -a -a -a -a w � -a -a -a -a � � °�'°�'°�d' �� °�� a�i � a�i a�i a�i o 0 o a�i a�i �� a�i a�i a�i a�i � w a�i a�i a�i a�i c> G' xv, '�v, '�v, �' �' �' �' ,� ,� � G' G' c> c> G' G' G' G' c> G' G' G' G' z c� �� c� � c� c� c� H H H c� c� z z c� c� c� c� z c� c� c� c� c� � � �� .� � �� .�� r- 1�{ O� O� R O C} �� -� ra rn c*} �,-, Q ts � r- r � m m�� m m � f+l r,� r-i c-i r� �� r� rn Y} +'a ry t,�y r� � � .�� ., r-. � � � � � � � � � '" � � fi �. �, � � r, .n .•, � � �� r �r,m ��+,�� QI M I� 0 � �O � N M O � � � N � � O � � � � � O � � U Q ,� C� � 5 w� � a w O ,� � � U� +"' ��O ��O � O vl O M� � O O O ,� � M v'i N� l� l0 v'i lp c+� AO N� O O � p 00 O� O� \O M O� �--i M �O O� M�� I� Vl Ni M 00 00 00 O� V'1 M M M O� M M N �� O�o �o N o� o� �n �o p o � M ul N �O M O �--� N �p ^ � � T T T T T T T T T T T T Z b�A b�A b�A b�A b�A b�A b�A b�A b�A b�A b�A b�A i. F"r F"r F"r F"r F"r F"r F"r F"r F"r F"r F"r F"r .� W�� W W W W�� W W W :." N N N N N N N N N N N N � � � � � � � � � � � � � N � � � � � � �' �' ZC� C� � � +' vi vi vi vi vi vi vi vi vi vi vi vi C." N N N N N N N N N N N N p .� � � � � � � � � � � � r.i +� �+� �+� �+� �+� �+� �+� �+� �+� �+� �+� �+� � � � � � � � � � � � � � CC� cd Q N � � � � � � � � '� � . � �--i CC �www o o cc�� ,�� '� U•� � �w o o Q s� s� s� � Q� s� U U ��" N N N N°� y.V ��j� O O� W � � � � � i1�i � V� i� � � L/J A � O � � � O � � � O � � � N N N N N N N N N N N� V M�\+1 M M M M M M M M M M y N N N N N N N N N N N N � M M M M M M M M M M M M �000000000000 �, � �� M M M M M M M M M M M M y� � � � � � � � � � � � � F-i M M M M M M M M M M M M � M M M M M M M M M M M M u � � U � r.., O O � H H � O ,i: ,i: Q�i C� C� � � � � ,� �" ti N N � � O O F"r N�+ �J � � � 0 � w 0 � � � a� � M N b4 � � Department Approval: �,� �= �� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Manager Approved: �} Date: 3/29/2004 Item No: 3.b Agenda Section: Consent Item Description: Request for Approval of General Purchases and/or Contracts Exceeding $5,000 Introduction On April 15, 2002, the City Council established by ordinance, the requirement that all general purchases andlor contracts in excess of $5,000 is approved by the Council. City Staff from various departments have submitted the enclosed items for Council review and approval. Funding for all items is provided for in the current operating or capital budget. The items include the following: Roseville Area Senior Software House Int'1 Superior Ford Wick Ford Wick Ford Americana Fireworks Krass Monroe 2004 City Contribution Software licenses renewal(a) F-350 pickup for park maintenance F-150 pickup for park maintenance F-150 pickup w/hitch for street maintenance Fireworks display for July 4,2004 (b) Twin Lakes renewal assistance a) Includes Microsoft licensing for 1�� network devices. b) Donations will account for $3,000. The n�ts�,�.t to the City is $7,000. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council approve the submitted items. Council Action Requested Approve submitted list of general purchases and/or contracts for services. $6,000.00 27,722.77 19,096.52 12,581.91 15,248.67 10,000.00 $ ll,652.40 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 3/29/2004 Item No: 3.c Department ApprovaL Manager Ap�roved: Agenda Section: � � �� r. �� Consent Item Description: Approval of 2004 Business Licenses Introduction Chapter 301 of the City Code requires a11 applications for business licenses to be submitted to the City Council for approval. The following application(s) is (are) submitted for consideration. Massa�e Therapist Kara Lynn Toews Doing business at Roseville Lifetime Fitness Center 2480 Fairview Avenue North On-Sale Intoxicatin� OutsideTemporarv Endorsement Courtyard by Marriott 2905 Centre Point Drive Financial Implications The correct fees were paid to the City at the time the application(s) were made. Staff Recommendation Staff has reviewed the applications and has determined that the applicant(s) meet all City requirements. Staff recommends approval of the license(s). Attachments A copy of the license application(s) is attached. Council Action Requested Motion to approve the business license application(s) as submitted. CTTY OF ROSEVILLE Finance Department, License Division 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville, MN 55113 (651) 490-2212 ON-SALE INTOXICATING OUTSIDE TEMPORARY ENDORSEMENT New License �; or Ha�e Previously Applied Business Name � a��x�+l� � bV m�ff ► o-� � • �� r� � � �b 4 �� i 1�� ■ _'_ �� xit�r�u ph��E � � � } �J '1 � � � � �� i� Contact person � 4 �, � �� Pnone � � 3 6 7 � � � � � Location of Event .��+. �� Date of Event � �� Time of Event � � — The undersigned agrees to �c by all the laws of the State of Minnesota and the Ordin�nces of the City of Roseville. � � Signature License fee is �� Make checks payable to City of Roseville �� * Contact Community Development. Requires temporary event permit REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 3/29/2004 Item No: 3.d Department ApprovaL Manager �p�r«k�ed: Agenda Section: �� r� J�� 5 � � Consent �: Item Description: Request for Renewal of the Roseville Bingo Hall License Background Capitol City Investments LLP, has applied for renewal of their bingo ha111icense to host lawful gambling activities at 2525 Snelling Avenue, in Roseville. The following organizations are currently licensed to conduct lawful gambling activities at the bingo hall: . Roseville Area Youth Hockey Association • American Business Women's Association � Midway Speedskating Club This renewal is for a one-year period, and has been approved by Council in prior years. New legislation by the State of Minnesota has changed the terms of a bingo ha11 license from a two year to a one year period. Staff Recommendation Staff has reviewed this application and is recommending approval for a one year period. Council Action Motion to approve Capitol City Investments LLP's request for renewal of their bingo hall license to host lawful gambling activities at 2525 Snelling Avenue. �� : �Jg,� Current �icense E�c�� 6/30/2004 m e w e d I icense T�rm: 7/1 /2004 �� Bingo Hall: Capitol C�y Investments LLp dba Roseville Bingo Hall Phone: (612) 781�184 BusinessAddr�ess: 2525 N Snelling Ave, Roseville, MN, 55113 Fax: A separate personnel information form for each emptoyee listed below is induded witf� this aaplicadon. All i��::� +rl forms must be signed by the applicant i n the presence of a notary. Personnet forms are attachments to the bingo hall renewal application and must be ��OGdertne�, FrankMichael Gaertner r� � �� +�� Miley , Mary Jane Tanl . 'Fd�S� Description of Duties: Owner Description of Duties: Owner DesCription of Duties: Owner [7�fidb��i �f i�.14�; �vii� 1 dedare thatthis application is correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. 1 will familiarize myself with the laws of the state of Mlnnesota and rules of the Board governing gambling and agree, if licensed, to abide by those laws and rules, including amendments to them. 1 declare that 1 am qualified under the terms within Minnesota R�.le, to be licensed as a bfngo hall and will abide k� the restricdons set forth in Minnesota Rule. 1 dedare that any lease agreements befinreen the bingo hall licensee and lawful gambling organizations will spedfically identify any goods or services that the organization is requlred to purchase from the lessor or a third party vendor, and that all goods and services furnished as a part ofthe lease agreementwill be valued attheirfair marketvalue. . Changes in the informatlon submitted in this application will be submitted in writing to the Board� and local unit of government within ten days atter the change occurs. Printed Name of Chlef Executive Officer �d� dA��C '�•N.�/ `'� ■ Signature of ChiefExecutivepfficer �� Date Signed ��_�� 1 �_�_ � Y�� k dxbN ar�5�a+►.t �n tY�e renewal application, a resolution of approval from U�e local unit of government (aty or county) having jurisdictlon overthe bingo hall. Complete and submit the endosed Lw3G��4 Hall qccasion Ust. Rotating Schedules must be provided in a dear legible format (i.e. calendar) forthe entire license period. The Information requested on this form w{a be used by the Gambling Corrtrol Boazd (Board) to determineyourqualKkatlons to be InvoNed in lawful gambling actfvides In Minnesota, and to assist Uie Boazd In conducting a background investlyatlon � you. You haw a tight to refuse to supplythe Infortnation requested; however, If you refi.ise to supplythk IM`omiatfon, the Board may not be b� to deiermine your quallflptions arrJ, � a oorisequenoe, may refuse to reqister ynu. I f you supplyihe ir�formatlon requested, the Board wlll be ableto registeryou. You are requlred to provide your 5oclal Secu rny number on �� forrn. Your Soaal Securtty number will be used to determine your compllance with the tax I a m of Minnesota. Authorization for requlring your Sodal Seartty number Is found at 42 U. S. G 405 f:YO. '�r fiinis and address wlll be publlc Information wfien received by the Board. All the other InformaUOr► that you provide wll be pr�vale data about you urrtil the Board approves your registration. VUien the Board approves your reylstratlon, all of the Informatlon that you have provided to the Board In the process of registering yy{I become public except fa your Sodal 5ecurfty number, whlch remains private. If the Board does mt approve your registratlon, all the informatbn you ha,�v provided In the process of regis0ering remalns prlvate, wtth the exceptlon of your riame and adrLe�,+�Fldi wlr r�n+ti publk. Prfvate data about vou are ava�lable only to the followinp: Board menWers, staR of the Board rrf�rrru'k �nmeR • requlres that they have a� to the Infnrtrwtlon; the Minr�esota Department of Publk Safety; the Mlnnesota �ta-rr� General; the Minnesota Gommissloners of Administratlon, Finar�, and Revenue; the Mlnnesota LeylslaUve Audttnr; nadonal and internatlonal gambliny regulatory agencies; ariyaie pursuantto court order, other Indalduals and agendesthat are spedfically authorized by state or federal law to ha✓v acoess to the Ir�fomiation; indivlduaLs and aflendes for whkh law or legal order authorizesa new use or sharing of Information afterthis notice v�as given; and anyone wttt� your written consent Obtaln a,rrent GC8 forms �x vlsfting us a't www.pcb.atate.mn.us _._ Licensing Contact: Ro�e Rolph Phone: (551)639�079 Fax #: (651)639-4073 E-Mall �i� Qf �IirnmYB#i Gamblin� Control Board 1711 W Co R.d B#300 SoWi Rosevtlle, MN 55113 mn.us Printed on: Monday, March 08,2004 Page � of 1 REQUEST FOR CITY COLINCII_, ACTION Department Approval: TP � �tk�il�� r r� DATE: 03/29/04 ITEM NO: 3.e Agenda Section: CONSENT Item Description: Request by City of Roseville for a 60-day plan review extension (from the end of the current period of April 10 to June 10, 2004), regarding a Variance application by Steve Hanon, 2458 Sheldon Street (PF3554). 1.0 REQUESTED ACTION: 1.1 The City of Roseville is seeking an e�ension to the 60-day review deadline (from April 10 to June 10,2004) for the Steve Hanon application seeking a Variance to Section 1004 of the Roseville City Code. 2.0 BACKGROUND: 2.1 The application was submitted to the Community Development Department on February 11,2004, which date was after the deadline necessary to forward to the Planning Commission for review and consideration at their meeting of March 3,2004. 2.2 The City Planner completed a review of the application, determining that it was complete and could be forwarded to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. However, given the time lines establishedto properly give notice to the public and the deadlines established by the Planning Division, the Hanon application was unable to be forwarded to the Zoning Board until their Apri17 meeting. More importantly, should issues arise before the Zoning Board meeting or at the Zoning Board meeting there would be no time available to e�end the 60-day review period. 3.0 SUGGESTED ACTION: 3.1 ADOPT A RESOLUTION approving up to a 60-day e�ension from April 10,2004 to June 10,2004. Prepared by: Thomas Paschke, City Planner PF3554 — RCA Page 1 of 1 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE Pursuant to due ca11 and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the Cit� of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was duly held at the City Ha11 on Monday, the �� day of March, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. The following members were present: and the following were absent: Council Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE 60-DAY REVIEW PERIOD FOR THE STEVE HANON VARIANCE REQUEST FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2458 SHELDON STREET (PF3554) WHEREAS, an application was submitted by Steve Hanon for three Variances to Section 1004 of the Roseville City Code on February 11,2004; and WHEREAS, the application was reviewed and determined complete by the City Planner on February 12,2004; and WHEREAS, said application was submitted after the deadline has passed (February 6, 2004) to place items on the March 3,2004 Planning Commission agenda and provide legal published notice and notice to property owners within 350 feet of said request; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has determined that it would be appropriate to request the City Council e�end the 60-day review deadline an additiona160 days, from Apri110 to June 10, 2004, to allow proper time for review, recommendationand action by the Zoning Board. NOW THEREFORE BE TT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Roseville, (the "City"), Ramsey County, Minnesota, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 15.99, the time line for agency review of the application by Steve Hanon, 2458 Sheldon Street, for three Variances to Section 1004 of the Roseville City Code be e�ended from Apri110 to June 10, 2004. The motion for the adoption of the foregoingresolution was duly seconded by Council Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: and the following voted against: WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Department Approval: L REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 1��oa�r R�}�i�w�d- �� U Item Description: Award 2004 Street Maintenance Material Bids DATE: 03/29/04 ITEM: 3.f Agenda Section: Coaaest Background: Annually, the Street Department receives bids for materials, which are used for street maintenance operations. Materials bid include aggregate for seal coating, bituminous materials for road repair, asphalt emulsion for seal coating, and Class 5 gravel for base repair. Policy Objectives: Each year city staff uses the competitive bid process to secure maintenance materials that fall within budget guidelines. This allows maintenance programs to be completed as planned with quality materials at the lowest possible cost to the city. Financial Implications: Street maintenance materials are financed out of the General Fund. The combined bids received are within the budgeted estimates. Maintenance programs will need to be reduced slightly to stay within budgeted amounts due to a reduction in this line item in the 2004 budget process. Discussion of bids: Bids were received and opened on March 15,2004. Some items increased in price while others decreased. These materials are impacted by the fluctuation in the oil markets. With the exception of asphalt, materials are typically delivered to the Public Works Department. The attached bid tabulation summarizes all bids received and shows the comparison with 2003 prices. C �� : Class 5 crushed limestone Aggregate Industries Bryan Rock 2003 pric�'�cl ��, ��I�n + tax FA-2 Class A A�gre�ate Martin Marietta Aggregate Midwest Asphalt Dresser Traprock 2003 pricc��iel S� �.�B�T�n L7NIT PRICE DELIVERED � �� S I 8,9;� �L.f�l ��,�� BIDDER T��e 32B Bituminous Schifsky & Sons Midwest Bituminous Roadways Commercial Asphalt 2003 price will call $26.SOton Tvpe 41A Bituminous Schifsky & Sons Midwest Bituminous Roadways Commercial Asphalt 2032 price will call $26.75/ton Tvpe 41B Bituminous Schifsky & Sons Bituminous Roadway Midwest Commercial Asphalt 2003 price will call $26.75/ton CRS-2 Asphalt Marathon Ashland Koch Materials 1999 priceldel $.52801ga1 2000 price/del $.7687/gal 2001 price/del $.6727/gal 2002 price/del $.6727Jga1 2003 price/del $.7750/gal L7NIT PRICE L7NIT PRICE WILL/CALL DELIVERED S�'�.�� $_5-[� ��_� ��_� � ��.6� ��_7� ��.� ��,�� i �i� ��•W ��. �� . �� , ?�'�'� �. �� Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the council award to the low bidder in each case for 2004 material bids. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: Motion accepting the following bids for Street Department materials: 1. Class 5 Aggregate Industries 2. FA-2 Class A Aggregate Martin Marietta Aggregates 3. Type 32B Asphalt T. A. Schifsky 4. Type 41A Asphalt T. A. Schifsky 5. Type 41B Asphalt T. A. Schifsky 6. CRS-2 Asphalt Marathon Ashlat�d Prepared By: Steve Zweber, Street Supervisor REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 3/29/04 ITEM NO.: 3,g I�ep�rl #�lppr�+�al: Manag�r Reviewed: Agenda Section: � ' �� i i Item Description: Award Bid for 2004 Contract B Background: At the January 26,2004 meeting the City Council approved the 2004 Public Works Work Plan. All of the work included in 2004 Contract B was discussed at that meeting, with the exception of the Victoria Street sanitary sewer repairs (SS-03-14: N18). In Mid- February Ramsey County notified the City that they would be resurfacing Victoria Street between County Road C and County Road D. As is our practice with all constructionprojects, Staff reviewed the condition of the City utilities within the project limits. We determined that a substantial portion of the sanitary sewer required replacement. We have included the Victoria Street sanitary sewer replacement as a part of this year's Contract B. The 2004 Contract B consists mainly of underground utility reconstruction projects. Bids were solicited during the month of March. The bids were opened on Friday, March 19,2003. Based on the bids received, staff recommends awarding the following work: �T��- I� E�r�i ��e Neighborhood 18: Valley Park, east side of Avon St, south of Improvements Coun Road D Neighborhood 56: Sherrenl Dellwood St. intersection ST�D2-�D� I�]at� C�nter Neighborhood 36: Nature Center southeast of Dale St. and Storm Sewer Im�rovement County Road C SS-03-14 Sanit Sewer Nei hborhood 18: Easement south of Millwood Ave. Re�airs Nei hborhood 73: Easement south of McCarron St. Neighborhood 18: Victoria Street, between County Road D and Millwood Ave. Policy objectives: Based on past practice, the City Council has awarded the contract to the lowest responsiblebidder. In the case of 2004 Contract B, the lowest bidder is Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc., of Ramsey, Minnesota. Financial implications: This contract is proposed to be financed using a combination of storm and sanitary utility funds. We received six bids for 2004 Contract B. The low bid submitted by Dave Perki�s Contracting, Inc. at $296,785.00, is 21.5% lower than the Engineer's estimate of $378,116.50. The following is a list of the bids received: �[.�L��k ��rl�C�i'1 E��v� P�rkir,� ��r��;n , �s�.. ��,��5_�{] Penn Contractin 317 149.25 Fried es Contractin Co. LLC $359 927.31 Burschville Construction, Inc. $399 135.70 RoSo Contractin , Inc. $448 716A0 F.F. Jedlicki, Inc. $524 359.00 RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: Approval of a resolution awarding bid for 2004 Contract B in the amount of $296,785.00 to Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc., of Ramsey, Minnesota. Prepared by: Debra Bloom EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROSEVILLE RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was duly held in the City Hall at 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville, Minnesota, on Monday, the 29th day of March, 2004, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. The following members were present: , and the following were absent: none. Council member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RESOLUTION AWARDING BIDS FOR 2004 CONTRACT B WHEREAS, pursuant to advertisement for bids for the improvement, according to the plans and specifications thereof on file in the office of the Manager of said City, said bids were received on Friday, March 19,2004, at 2:00 p. m., opened and tabulated according to law and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: BIDDER AMOUNT � ��ve �eelEins �'�ni�ac�ir� . ln�. ��6,��5.� P�r� �'��an �� , t ��_� � Fried es Contractin Co. LLC $359,927.31 Burschville Construction; Inc. $399;135.70 RoSo Contractin , Inc. $448,716.00 F.F. Jedlicki, Inc. $524,359.00 WHEREAS, it appears that Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc., of Ramsey, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder at the tabulated price of $296,785.00 and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Roseville, Minnesota: The Mayor and Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contractwith Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc. for $296,785.00 in the name of the City of Roseville for the above improvements accordingto the plans and specificationsthereofheretofore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Manager. 2. The City Manager i s hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids except the deposits of the successful bidder and the ne� lowest bidder shall be retained until contracts have been signed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Roseville, Minnesota: The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof and the following voted against the same: none. Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. � STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss COLTNTY OF RAMSEY ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 29th day of March, 2004, with the original thereof on file in my office. WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 29th day of March, 2004. Neal J. Beets, City Manager REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 03/29/04 ITEM NO.: 3.h D��rt�eat A�pr�+�al: M�►o�er ]��}�i�++��1: Agenda Section: �- . � � �� Consent �, . Item Description: Approve Qwest Easement on City Property at Victoria Street and County Road B Background: The City of Roseville is the owner of the property on the southeast comer of the Victoria Street/ County Road B intersection. This property is used for storm water retention and treatment purposes. Qwest has approached the City with a request to locate a telephone cabinet in the northeast corner of this property, directly adjacent to public street right- of- way. Qwest is expanding their DSL service (high speed internetconnections) throughout the City and is upgrading existing facilities to accommodate this additional service. They have an existing telephone cabinet in the right- of- way of Victoria Street. The existing cabinet is not large enough to accommodate the DSL equipment. The proposed cabinet would be located directly behind the existing cabinet. We have field verified the proposed location and determined that it will not interfere with the e�sting use of the City Property. It is also outside of the sight triangle required for the safe operation of the intersection. We have had the City Attorney draft an easement that addresses insurance and liability issues, a copy of this easement is attached. Financial Implications: Qwest has agreed to pay the City $1000 for the 20 x 20 foot (400 square feet) easement. This is consistent with other residentially zoned easement acquisition that the City has negotiated in the last year. RECOMIV�NDED COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Qwest Easement on City property at Victoria Street and County Road B. Prepared by: Debra Bloom EASEMENT AGREEMENT This Agreement is made this day of ,2004 by and between the City of Roseville ("City") with its principal address at 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113 and Qwest ("Grantee"), with its principal address at 1801 California Street, Suite 5200, Denver, Minnesota 80202 RECITALS L City is the fee owner of the following described properiy in Ramsey County, Minnesota (the "Property"): The East two hundred forty-five (E.245) feet of the North twenty (N.20) rods of the Northeast quarter (NE 114) of the Northwest quarter (NWl/4} of Section fourteen (14), Township twenty-nine (29), Range twenty-three (23), according to the Government Survey thereof. 2. City desires to grant to the Grantee an easement, according to the terms and conditions contained herein. TERMS OF EASEMENT 1. Grant of Easement. For good and valuable consideration in the amount of $1000, receipt of which is acknowledged by City, City grants and conveys to the Grantee the following easement: SEE EXHIBIT "A" 2. Scone of Easement. The perpetual easement granted herein for the purpose of the construction and operation of a telephone cabinet includes the right of the Grantee, its contractors, agents, and employees to enter the premises at all reasonable times for the purpose of locating, constructing, reconstructing, operating, maintaining, inspecting, altering and repairing within the described easement area a telephone cabinet, or other public utilities or improvements that are not inconsistent with this easement. 3. Warrantv of Title. The City warrants it is the owner of the Property and has the right, title and capacity to convey to the Grantee the easement herein. 4. Bindin� Effect. The terms and conditions of this instrument shall run with the land and be binding on the City. S. Pavment of Costs. Any and all costs related to the locating, constructing, reconstructing, operating, maintaining, inspecting, altering and repairing of the telephone cabinet within the easement area shall be paid by Grantee. Grantee shall indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all costs, expenses and claims relating to the locating, constructing, reconstructing, operating, maintaining, inspecting, altering and repairing of the telephone cabinet including those costs and expenses resulting from mechanic's liens. 6. Indemnitv and Hold Harmless A�reement. Grantee hereby agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all claims, lawsuits, disputes and allegations by third-parties arising out of Grantee's construction, maintenance, or operation of the telephone cabinet within the easement area. 7. Propertv Damage. Grantee shall repair all damage to City's real or personal property outside of the easement area that is caused by Grantee's construction and maintenance of the telephone cabinet within the easement area. 8. Insurance. Grantee shall insure against loss or damage to the City's Property and its contents against fire and other casualty in an amount equal to replacement value. Grantee shall maintain or provide public liability insurance with limits not less than those specified in Minn. Stat. � 466.04 for claims of personal injury, death, and property damage occurring in connection with Grantee's use of the Property or due to Grantee's telephone cabinet. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent Grantee from self-insuring the Property for the amount of the coverages required herein. 9. Assi�nabilitv. The parties' rights and responsibilitiesunder this Easement are assignable with written consent from the other party, and said consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreementthe day and year first written above. QWEST � Its: CITY OF ROSEVILLE By: Its: By: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY On this day of the behalf of the corporation. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) ss. � ,2004 personally appeared before me of Qwest, who executed the forgoing instrument on � ) ss. } Notary Public Onthis dayof ,2004personallyappearedbeforeme the of the City of Roseville, who executed the foregoing instrument on behalf of the municipal corporation. Notary Public This lnstrument was drafted by: Eric J. Quiring Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, P.A. 300 U. S. Trust Building 730 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 339-0060 RRM: #60020 ..� � �� EHG�ERB, �. �F� 5201 EAST RNER ROAD �ww.�+l#�i�.��rn � �, SU�TE 308 � MINNEAPOLIS, MlNNESOTA 55421 PHONE (763) 571 2500 FAX (763) 571 � I I�� EXHIBIT A SHEET I OF 2 SHEETS Certificate of Survey for: QWEST CORPORATION � Job Number: 31 MK$44� � ° Location: City of Roseville. Romsey County, Minnesota � See sheet 2 of 2 for legal descriptions SCALE: 1" = 6(�' NORTH LINE NE 1/4 SEC. 14 � ��NTY- ROAD �B f Q 0 � 2�' � 2�' � - � EASEMENT AREA �� r , r� r %F '�SOQ� � L ` � y � 4zl ��• r �� k r '� . _ � y � ' , i �y' }v , � ��eN� � —Denotes Monument Found —Derao�tes Monument Set w/Cap � 14-889 JOB NO.� 204.39 SEG. 14, T. 29 N., R. 23 W. �Q.: R�41►�$E�" � � _ r' "� F y / y' J � �� . ' � � � ' �Ly • � � i � �r t ` i. - �r I � W � � � � � � � I � F * � � � � � � � � � �� 1 HEREBY CE'RTIFY THAT THIS SUR1/EY, PLAN, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT 1 AM A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LA WS OF THE STATE OF MI NNESO TA, WALTER J. GREGORY UC. N0. 14889 DATE � � �� * �� +tis � 5201 EAST RIVER ROAD www.ultetg,corr► SU�TE 308 MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55421 PHONE (763) �7 i�2SQ0 FAX (763) 571-- I I 68 EXHIBIT A SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS Certificate of Survey for: QWEST CORPORATION Job Number: 31MK844 Location: City of Roseviile, Ramsey County, Minnesota Description of �pertv: The East 245.00 feet of the North 330.00 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest C?uorter of Section 14, Township 29 North, Range 23 West. Ramsey County, Minnesota. Subject to roads. Description of Easement: -- An easement for telecornmunicotion purposes over, under and across the southerly 20.00 feet of the northerly 80.00 feet of the westerly 20.00 feet of the easterly 55.00 of the herein before described property. Contains 400 square feet, more or less. ,I� NO.: 204.39 SEC. 14� T. 29 N., R, 23 W. CO.� RAMSEY TOT� P.�3 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ��TE ��D� CT��I; 3�i Department Approval: 14�I�n�ger ��ie�ed: Agenda Section: � - � +�� CoHaent � Item Description: Purchase of Litter Trash/Vacuum Machine Background: The maintenance of City right of ways and facilities is a high priority for our maintenance staf£ We included in the 2004 budget the purchase of equipment to facilitate the collection of trash and debris from pathways and streetscapes. The budgeting for this machine was in part driven by Council and citizen concerns on keeping public areas free of litter. The goal was to purchase a machine that could be used for both trash pickup and pathway and streetscape sweeping. Upon further study and through demonstrations by the vendors, it was found that a dual sweeper/vacuum that performs to the desired level of service does not exist. The trash vacuum machine works well at vacuuming but not sweeping. The small sweepers don't do an adequate job at vacuuming trash. Policy Objectives: This is a one operator trash/litter vacuum machine to be incorporated into the regular litter cleaning schedules for City road right-of-ways, streetscape areas, and the City Civic Center site. This machine would also be available for other City departments such as Park and Recreation for cleanup after events in parks, parades, or other special events. Financial Implications: The total purchase cost of $25,560 will be split equally between the Street Maintenance budget and the Storm Utility budget. $40,000 was budgeted for this sweeper /vacuum machine. Staff is exploring options for the purchase of equipment to assist in the sweeping of pathways and sidewalks. Staff Recommendation: We are recommending purchase of the Tennant Litter Vac for its ease of operation, and high maneuverability. Staff recommends purchase from Tennant Company using the Minnesota State Contract bid pricing. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: Motion authorizing purchase of a Litter Vac machine from Tennant Company at a cost of $25,560. Prepared By: Steve Zweber, Street Supervisor ��+�� •. r�� _`�I�A �'JC�i6f.� 'J�.� . {� ��. �•t•+ , • � � � � � +�� '* � f�. �� ` ' •" - �.��.FF ��L+1�� — ••�� .r.�7. � a��+ • +�� `` M1 � • �' �• d(•� .. , • ••�� • :1��,�+�f*��r �rfr�IL ' 7�:L`�'.�•I�� Y'��p+,��,�T �,y. . . , .' • ��r , .-#�-�•� '; fL"�►• �y__ _ ,�y�. '`;,d'J�iy�� r.' r. a.��M �'��+' �.3�.- . :,yf_ �� _� _�.�. _ ^. �.�.� �4 r ��,�: ._. �_- ` . 7 � ft ,�t+ ti � '�-.�" r-ri�.��.hy..+ i t' ''.:' �';• ' _ ' . _�'�'�_ � •~i - T . . � . i +;• + : �. � ',� k� � �1 x�5'7t1 � � ='�4 .�� # � '+�� .. .� y�' • �•�'. :�, �v' ' � � �' �'� �` , . a' ' •' i f+J — � • ' • . - �_ . . • � ,� . . � � #:. � .. . r �r �F 7�.. , ~��r'•y , .�� • "�'k- �� F ��: . {4�i'�c, ' ' . . ��".'�'}�� , r'r�4�i1��ti�{ __�,� . • # ' , _ ' ' ". . ,�.,m�� •• r. a,' � ' �'�� ,�,• _ _ '. ~ - � • r y � r� .;. '� r • � Y: • �_ , ' .. � ' _ �. . , • ayjt� , �� t '� � '.� �.� —{� --� `�`.'i• � � .. . �ti' . , • , � J . �� * •.L-. �+.y� .i�... ' . ;i.: i� • • ' •..�� ' � • v�l, ' .��:�r . ir ;� ' '•T r� , .i� f'•Fr�. . !•ti '� { +� � i . • � i • •i1:. . _ f �_'�� • . :1 Ji�� +a T _ � ••� �,{iS � v M1.�yti�.., � _��•i� � � ��f�, . � ' . ' . r � . rr' '-! � ��•�L X� y _ . � �r•ri. '. t t. _�� + - ..� �1 # . • _ '� r. `'•' ,,�,�," . : - {: Y+.;+'� �_. ��h,� - _' �f.-. . : �!,��r��' L....��:�-•r+f ir'��;�� r �} .i . '� •' - a�, � - .� v � . •.Y �'. - " 7 �. � .r �r+: f� . �: , �,`iTl ' � ' r.� � L , - . � , ° ' �r�'. • f;,'� • . _� ��F�L � .'�. ' - ... . . _ y.y�,r�i�•,• • : • • '•� ay _ ��. ;P�' �C' �F � ,.� .��+` } r� S � � -� w. �. ..t . _ . r . .. . . • .-�c• � � ' M• y ' _ ' ' ' �i ` �'a{ r , �.'-�y•_• `'�`�M!#�" � -• . , � - :.L� - _ . 1 . ., . .. .�:�_ �� ,.�x� . ��,��" _ �r "�� . . _ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 3/29/04 ITEM NO: 3,j Department Approval: ��r��g��r I��ri�w��: Agenda Section: �� Consent � Item Description: Harriet Alexan er Nature Center Prairie Burn BACKGROUND As a part of an ongoing maintenance program for the 80' x 90' prairie restoration area at the Nature Center it is necessary to burn a minimum of every other year. This not only rids the weeds but also enriches the prairie plants. The burn is considered controlled and done by experienced individuals. This year the Roseville Fire Department will be coordinating the burn. The burn is scheduled to take place on Tuesday April 6, 2004 weather permitting. If not on the 6th, then the first weather conducive day after. POLICY This is consistent with the adopted open burning policy of the City and the prairie management plan. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the need for a continuing maintenance program the staff recommends that the Nature Center prairie restoration area be burned on Tuesday April 6, 2004 or the first weather conducive day after. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Motion authorizing the Fire Marshall to issue a permit to allow open burning of the prairie restoration area at the Harriet Alexander Nature Center on Tuesday April 6, 2004 or the first weather conducive day after. D e p a r��jnt�p �r��ral � Request for Council Action ManagerApproval .�� a�t�: ��+ Item Number: �:� Agenda Section ��'�-[' It��n ��$�r�pt��n: � Concordia Meadows Townhome Association: Request for Approval of Burn Permit �.� Requested Action Concordia Meadows Townhome Association is requesting City Council approval for a burn permit to burn the wild grasses around the storm water retention pond within their development. �.� Background J.� �,� 2.1 2.2 The City Council has approved the request in 1997,1999,2000,2001,2002, and 2003. Concordia Meadows Townhome Association hires Applied Ecology, a company who specializes in conducting these burns, to conduct the bum. In order to get proper weather and wind conditions, Concordia Meadows Townhome Association is requesting that the permits be valid for a period from April 1 to Apri130,2004. Staff Recommendation 3.1 It is the Staffs recommendationthat the City Council authorize the Fire Marshal to issue a burn permit to Concordia Meadows Townhome Association. The permit would be for the period of April 1,2004 throughApril 30,2004. Suggested City Council Action By motion, authorize the Fire Marshal to issue a burn permit to Concordia Meadows Townhome Association to burn the wild grasses surrounding the storm water retention pond within their development located between County Road B-2 and Highway 36, east of Dale Street, said permit to be issued conditioned upon compliance with the following stipulations: a) b) c) The effective date of the permit sha11 be from April 1,2004 through Apri130,2004; The bum shall be conducted by acknowledged experts from Applied Ecology; and Concordia Meadows Townhome Association shall notify the Roseville Fire Department at least two days in advance of the date and time of the bum. Attachments: Letter of request from Concordia Meadows Townhome Association. Prepared by: Doug Johnson, Acting Fire Marshal r'iqR-i5-��4 1$;'14 CITY-OF-ROSEUILLE-FIDMIN uan ducno t a ��`�� s�� a� � =��r� -a�� , j GQNCORDtA MEADOWS ATRIIiM T4WNHQME ASSQC. BOX 131053 ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA �113 651,484-5684 March 15,2004 Mr. Neat Beets Manager City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Rnseville, 1�1N 55113 Dear Neal: RE: Request For Burn Permit Around Association Pond Our tpwnhome association wishes to request that the city council, at their upcoming meeting, approve an April 1-30�' bum permit. The city has approved our request in 1997,1999,2000,21101,2002and 2003 to bum the wild grasses around our storm water retention pond. In the past, we retained the services of Applied Ecology, who specialize in cond'ucting professional bums. It is �u� desire to hire them again this year. We will also notify the Roseville FG� Department � the burn da�a. It is our desire to conduc� the bum around April 5�', weather permitting. However, in case our weather does not cooperate, vve request fhe permit to give us a 30 day windowto conductthe buming. Thank you for your assistance. Please let us Imaw which council meeting date this agenda item will appear. Sincerely, 1 ,.�-^---- �� Bucr# Assatiation —� cc: Board of Directors 7�or� � � � Date: 03/29/04 It�; 3.1 Can�rdia Meadows Burn Pern�t REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTI�ON � � Item Description: Request for burn permit to burn wild growth at Ramsey County Park located at Lake McCarrons. Site is four acres in size, located on the south end of the park. BACKGROLJND: 1. Ramsey County is requesting a bum permit for the purpose of burning the natural area on the site for the purpose of restoring the native vegetation. 2. Ramsey County will conduct the controlled burn and provide adequate equipment and trained personnel. 3. The request is for a period of April 1 through May 10 to a11ow for a fle�ble schedule for the proper weather conditions. STAFF RECO�NDATIONS: 1. Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Fire Marshal to issue a bum permit to the Ramsey County Department of Public Works for the period of April 1 through May 10,2004 to burn the 4 acres of wild vegetation on the south end of McCarrons Park. 2. Staff further recommends that the Ramsey County Public Works Department be required to notify the Roseville Fire Dispatch (651 �84-1267) 24 hours prior to the burn, as a condition of the issuance of the permit. Prepared by: John Loftus, Fire Marshal � 1 �r�r �+_�h�f+r. Parks and Recreation De�rtment GregoryA. Mack,Director 2015 N. Van Dyke Street Maplewood, MN 55109-3796 February 27,2004 Mr. John Loftus Fire Marshall City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113 Re: Bum Permits Dear Mr. Loftus: Tel: 651-748-2500 Fax:651-748-2508 www.co.ramsey.mn.us The Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department requests a permit to conduct a controlled bum this spring at Lake McCarrons County Park. The area to be bumed is the four acre natural area around the ponds at the south end of the park. The bum is necessary to manage the prairie vegetation. The bum will be conducted on a day with a southeast wind so that smoke blows toward the lake and away from nearby residential and commercial areas. Ramsey County will provide adequate equipment and trained personnel to accomplish the burn as we have in the past. Please issue the permit for a period from April 1— May 10 to give us a flexible schedule to have proper weather conditions. Please call me at 651-748-2500, ext. 330, if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, I.•�rr�+ . Fi�l�n�r� Directorof Planning and Development L�i�h ��g� �� p u ra aF r,rye,er pa}w w u.�,. �, �s ��.rer+r. rr� � Department Approval REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Manager Re�iewed: � �� 4 � DATE: 3/29/04 ITEM NO: 3.In Agenda Section: Consent Item Description: Authorization to Erect the City of Roseville Tent in Central Park off Dale Street to conduct the annual Summer Theatre Performance "OF THEE I SING" and a youth drama camp from approximately July 8 through the first week in August, 2004. BACKGROUND For the past four years the Rosetown Playhouse Community Theatre in cooperation with Roseville Parks and Recreation has produced an outdoor summer theatre performance in various locations. The 2004 summer performance is "OF THEE I S IN G and it is anticipated that the performance tent will be set up in Central Park off Dale Street from July 8 through July 31 st for the performance and remain up to conduct a youth drama camp during the first week in August. Staff will work with the Rosetown Playhouse Community Theater Committee to be sure all operations are addressed such as: � Sanitation • Parking � On-site supervision • Security • Traffic management � Noise control POLICY OBJECTIVE The plans for the summer theatre performance and the youth drama camp are consistent with other community events. STAFF RECONIN�NDATION Staff recommends approval of the tent set up in Central Park off Dale Street from approximately July 8 though the first week in August to produce the annual Community Theatre Performance "OF THEE I S IN G and to conduct a youth summer drama camp. COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED Motion authorizing the tent set up in Central Park from approximately July 8 through the first week in August, 2004 for the purpose of producing the annual summer Community Theatre Performance "OF THEE I S ING, and to conduct a youth summer drama camp with staff review and approval of the final operations plan. ��i�i7� Ti 7 7 i� Requestfor Council Action Date: March 29,2004 Item Number: ,�,g ��r��Approval ManagerApproval Agenda Section �� ConsentAgenda Item Description: Lake Owasso Safe Boating Association Request for Placement of Water Ski Course and Jump on Lake Owasso Backnround: The Lake Owasso Safe Boating Association requests approval for placement of a water ski course and jump in the same locations-as in past }��rs. Attached is a letter from the Association and a map showing the locations. In 1997 the Lake { The Council, in the the City to provide Lake. )wasso Task Force presented a series of recommendations to the City County. resolution taking action on the recommendations, agreed it would be the policy of for public comment at Council meetings regarding requests for permits on the Staff Recommendation: It is recommended the Council establish a public hearing for the April 26, 2004, meeting to consider the request. Affected residents on the Lake will be notified. Council Action Requested: Motion establishing a public hearing for the City Council meeting of April 26, 2004, to consider the Lake Owasso Safe Boating Association's request for approval of placement of a water ski course and jump on Lake Owasso. � Request for Council Action Date: March 26,2004 Item Number: 3.0 D�pa��n� �ippr�n�ai Manager �pp �i Agenda Section ��. � �, [#�rrr �� t A�p ra,r � t tr� to Firefighters Grant Program Back�round: f�, e the United Stat�s Department of Homeland Security Assistance The United States Department of Homeland Security's office of Domestic Preparedness is offering the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. The program is intended to make grants directly to fire departments of a State for the purpose of enhancing the department's ability to protect the health and safety of the public as well as that of firefighting personnel facing fire and fire-related hazards. The grants will be awarded on a competitive basis. Congress has made $750 million available for the fiscal year 2004. To be eligible, grant applications must be received at the FEMA offices by Apri12,2004. The grant program has three different categories an applicant can choose from. Each applicant is limited to grant request in only one category. We have chosen to apply under the "Operations and Firefighter Safety Program" category for the purchase of 800 Megahertz (MHz) mobile and portable radios. ��li�� Emvli��ti��s: 800 MHz Radio System: The State of Minnesota has invested millions of dollars into building the backbone for a state-wide 800 MHz radio system to improve interoperability of public safety services throughout the state. In 2003, the Hennepin County system became operational. The Ramsey County system is scheduled to be operational in 2005. This will mean that communities who wish to participate in this radio system will need to purchase or lease radios. The funding source for the backbone has been identified through federal grants and other county sources. The conversion to the 800 MHz radio system will allow Roseville Fire Department to talk to other communities, via radio, during critical emergencies. The ability to communicate across community boundaries is known as"interoperability"and is among the highest priorities in this year's grant program. Financial• The federal grant has a 10% matching requirement for communities with populations under 50,000. The grant application for the radio equipment will be for $351,000 with a required match of $35,100 from the City. The City's match will be paid from fire department's capital budget. In the capital budget schedule dated October 11,2000, the fire department identified the need to transition to the new radio system and has included it as a capital funding item each year. The current capital improvements schedule has $350,000 for upgrading the fire department to the new radio system in 2005. Obtaining the federal grant would allow for the upgrade using only 10% of the originally anticipated funds. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the application for grant funding for the purchase of 800 MHz radios.. Council Action Reauested: Motion to authorize the fire department to apply for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program in the amount of $351,000 for the purchase of 800 Megahertz radios. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURIT'Y Office for pomestic Preparedness, U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) Assistanceto FirefghtersGrantProgram • AGENCY: The Departmentof Homeland Security (DHS), Off�ice for pomestic Preparedness (ODP), Boarder and Transportation Security Directorate. ACTION: Notice of Funds Availability. SUMMARY: We, DHS, are publishing this Notice to announce the availability of grant funding for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program (AFG program) for fiscal year 2004 and to provide the details and guidance regarding the 2004 program year. The program is intended to make grants directly to fire departments of a State for the purpose of enhancing the departments' ability to protect the health and safety of the public as well as that of fuefighting personnel facing fire and fire-related hazards. A portion of this year's grants will be awarded on a competitive basis to the applicants that best address the program's priorities as described in this Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA), then demonstrate financial need and maximize the benefits to be derived from the grant funds. AUTHORI'I'Y: Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, 15 U.S.C. 2201 et seq. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: C. Suzanne Mencer, Director, Office for pomesticPreparedness, 810 Seventh Street, N.W.; Washington, D.C. 20531 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: Appropriations For fiscal year 2004, Congress appropriated $750,000,000 to carry out the activities of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program (AFG program), and transferred the program's authority from USFA to the Office for pomestic Preparedness (ODP) within DHS. We are authorized to spend up to $37,500,000 for administration of the AFGprogram (five percent of the appropriated amount). In addition, we may set aside as much as$27,500,000 of the funds available for the Fire Prevention and Safety Grant Program in order for us to make grants to, or enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with, national, State, local or community organizations or agencies, including fire departments, for the purpose of carrying out fire prevention and injury prevention programs. This leaves appro�mately $680,000,000 for competitive grants to fire departments. We have until September30,2005, to obligate the appropriatedfunds. Background The purpose of the AFG program is to award grants directly to fire departments of a State to enhance their ability to protect the health and safety of the public, as well as that of firefighting personnel, with respectto fire and fire related hazards. We will award the grants on a competitive basis to the applicants that first address the AFG program's priorities then demonstrate financial need and adequately demonstrate the benefit to be derived from their proj ects. For the purpose of the AFG program, "State" is defined as the fifty States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U. S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The Alaska Village Initiative, a nonprofit organization incorporated in the State of Alaska, shall also be considered eligible for purposes of receiving assistance under this program on behalf of Alaska Native villages. We will provide the chief executives of the States with information � concerning the total number and dollar amount of awards made to fire departments in their States. Applicants may apply for any number of activities within one grant proposal that address all of their needs within a programmatic or functional area. Each eligible applicant is limited to one application per application period. The programs, and associated activities are as follows: (a) Operations and Firefighter Safetv Pro�ram. Eligible activities under this function are Training, Wellness and Fitness, Firefighting Equipment, Personal Protective Equipment, and Modification to Fire Stations and Facilities. Please note that requests for emergency medical services training and equipment are available under the appropriate activities in this program area. Also, note that requests for equipment, personal protective equipment, and training to prepare for response to incidents involving chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosive (CBRNE) are available under the appropriate activities in this program area. (b) Fire Prevention Pro�ram. Eligible activities under this function include, but are not limited to Public Education and Awareness, Enforcing Fire Codes, Inspector Certification, Purchase and Install Smoke Alarms, and Arson Preventionand Detection. (c) �'ir�Fi� � Acauisition Pro,_r�am. �� apparatus r�n� thi� program include, but are not limited to, pumpers, brush trucks, tankers, rescue, ambulances, quints, aerials, foam units, and fireboats. Applicants seeking funding from this grant program in fiscal year 2004 may apply for assistance in only one of the three programmatic areas listed above. Applications with requests from more than one program area will be deemed ineligible. Within the � selected programmatic area, applicants may develop a comprehensive program and include in their application as many of the eligible activities as necessary to address their needs. For example, if a fire department determines that it has needs in the area of operations, that fire department could apply for any one of the activities, or any combination of activities, or all of the activities listed within that program. If a department wants a vehicle, it would apply under the vehicle program. We anticipate 20,000 to 25,000 fire departments will apply for assistance. Of these, we anticipate awarding approximately 9,000 grants. However, due to the length of time that it will take us to make these awards, we anticipate that approximately half of these awards will be made before September 30,2004. We anticipate the balance of the awards will be made before March 31,2005. We will select a sufficient number of awardees from this one application period to obligate all of the funding available this year. Awards will be announced over several months as the decisions are made. Awards will not be made in any specified order, i.e., not by State, or by program, or any other characteristic. The law requires a certain distribution of grant funds between career departments and combination/volunteer fire departments. Specifically, we must ensure that fire departments that have either all-volunteer forces of firefighting personnel or combined forces of volunteer and career firefighting personnel receive a portion of the total grant funding that is not less than the proportion of the United States population that those departments protect. According to a 2003 survey by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), volunteer and combination departments protect 55 percent of the population of the United States and career departments protect 45 percent of the population. Therefore, we will ensure that no less than 55 percent of the funding available for grants will be awarded to volunteer and combination departments. Assuring this minimum level of funding for volunteer and combination departments has not been a problem in the past as over 90 percent of our applicants are volunteer or combination departments. In order to fulfill our obligations under the law, we will make funding decisions using rank order after the panel evaluation as the preliminary basis. We may deviate from rank order and make funding decisions based on the type of department (career, combination, or volunteer), size and character of the community the applicant serves (urban, suburban, or rural), and/or the geographic location of the fire department. In these instances where we are making decisions based on geographic location, we will use States as the basic geographic unit. Geographic location of an applicant may be used primarily as a final discriminator, i.e., in cases where applicants have similar qualifications, we may use the geographic location of the applicants to ma�mize the diversity of the awardees. Fire Prevention and Safety Grant Program In addition to the grants available to fire departments in fiscal year 2004 through the competitive grantprogram, we will set aside as much as $27,SOO,OOOof the funds available under the Assistance to Firefighter Grant Program in order for us to make grants to, or enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with, national, State, local or community organizations or agencies, including fire departments, for the purpose of carrying out fire prevention and injury prevention programs. � In accordance with statutory requirementto fund fire prevention activities, our supportto Fire Prevention and Safety Grant activities will concentrate on organizations that focus on the prevention of injuries to children from fire. In addition to this priority, we are also placing an emphasis on funding innovative proj ects that focus on protecting children under fourteen, seniors over sixty-five, and firefighters. Since the victims of burns experience both short- and long-term physical and psychological effects, we are also placing a priority on programs that focus on reducing the immediate and long-range effects of fire and burn inj uries, and primarily those affecting children. A separate Notice of Funds Availability will be issued to announce the pertinent details of the Fire Prevention and Safety Grant portion of this program. Applicant Eligibility Eligible applicants for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program are limited to fire departments of a State. Under the existing interim final rule, a"fire department of a State" is defined as an agency or organization that has a formally recognized arrangement with a State, local or tribal authority (city, county, parish, fire district, township, town or other governing body) to provide fire suppression services to a population within a fixed geographical area. For the purpose of this program, "State" is defined as the fifty States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U. S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The Alaska Village Initiative, a nonprofit organization incorporated in the State of Alaska, shall also be considered eligible for purposes of receiving assistance under this program on behalf of Alaska Native villages. 6 A fire department can apply for assistance for its emergency medical services unit provided the unit falls organizationally under the auspices of the fire department. Airport fire departments and port authority fire departments are eligible, but only if they have a formally recognizedarrangementwith the local jurisdictionto provide fire suppression services, on a first-due basis, outside the confines of the airport or port facilities. Airport fire departments and port authority fire departments whose sole responsibility is suppression of fires on the airport grounds or port are not eligible for this grant program. Fire departments that are Federal, or contracted by the Federal government, and which are solely responsible under their formally recognized arrangement for suppression of fires on Federal installations, are not eligible for this grant program. Fire departments or fire stations that are not independent but are part of, or controlled by a larger fire department or agency are typically not eligible to apply on their own, but may be included in the larger agency's application. Fire departments that are for-profit departments (i.e., do not have specific non-profit status or are not municipally based) are not eligible to apply for assistance under this program. Also not eligible for this program are non-fire based EMS companies, ambulance services, rescue squads, auxiliaries, dive teams, urban search and rescue teams, fire service organizations or associations, and State/local agencies such as a forest service, fire marshal, hospitals, and training offices. Each eligible applicant is limited to one application per application period. In instances where more than one application is submitted on behalf of any one applicant, all applications for that applicant will be deemed ineligible. Two legally independent fire departments sharing facilities should submit only one application. For our purposes, we consider this to be one departmentthat should be able to address all of their operational � needs in one application. If separate applications are submitted for departments that share facilities, we will deem the applications ineligible. Discovery of incorrectinformationin an applicationregardingthe type of the applicant (career, volunteer, combination), the legal status of the applicant (for-profit, not a recognized fire department), or any other material misstatementof fact may result in the removal of the application from consideration or the cancellation of an award, and any other action that may be appropriate. Application Process Eligible applicants will be able to access the application on USFA's e-grant system. This system is accessible from the USFA Internet homepages. The application will only be available during the applicationperiod. Although we do not encourage the use of paper applications, paper applications will be available for applicants that do not have access to the Internet. If an applicant does not have access over the Internet to the USFA website, the applicant may contact us directly to request a copy via mail. Although we do not recommend it due to inherent delays and relatively short application period, those fire departments interested in receiving an application in the mail must call our toll-free hotline at 866-274-0960. Applicants applying via paper application rather than the automated e-grant system should complete and submit their applications to us at Grant Program Technical Assistance Center, 16825 South Seton Avenue, Emmitsburg, Maryland, 21727-8998. Faxed applications will not be considered. We will not be responsible for applications sent to any other address. � The application period for the 2004 Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program is Monday, March 1, 2004, to Friday, Apri12, 2004. Complete application packages must be submitted electronically or otherwise received by us on or before the close of business (5:00 �.m. EST) on Friday, April 2, 2004. Applications submitted by mail must be post- marked by March 30, 2004, or received by us on or before close of business (5:00 p.m. EST) on April 2, 2004. We will not accept late, faxed, or emailed applications. The automated grant application system has features built into it that will guarantee that the application is complete when submitted. We will not accept incomplete applications submitted by mail. We will evaluate each application in the preliminary screening process to determine which applications best address the program's established priorities. This preliminary screening is based on the applicants' answers to the activity-specific questions. Each activity within an application will be scored and applications that have multiple activities will have the scores prorated based on the amount of funding requested for each activity. The best applications as determined in this preliminary step will be deemed to be in the "competitive range." All applications in the competitive range will be subject to a second level review by a technical evaluation panel made up of individuals from the fire service including firefighters, fire marshals, fire training instructors, etc. The panelists will assess the application's merits with respect to the clarity and detail provided in the narrative about the project, the applicant's financial need, and the project's purported benefit to be derived from the cost. � Using the evaluation criteria included herein, the panelists will independently score each applicationbefore them and then discuss the meritslshortcomings of the application in an effort to reconcile any major discrepancies. A consensus on the score is not required. The assigned score will reflect the degree to which the applicant: clearly relates their proposed proj ect; demonstrates financial need; and, details a high benefit to cost value of the proposed activities. The highest scoring applications resulting from this second level of review will then be considered for award. In order to be successful in the panel evaluation, the narrative should include a detailed description of the planned activities, uses for the grant funds including details of each budget line item. For example, if personnel costs are included in the budget, please provide a break down of those costs. The narrative should also e�plain why the grant funds are needed and why the department has not been able to obtain funding for the planned activities on its own. A discussion of financial need should include an explanation of any Federal funding received for similar activities. Finally, the applicant's narrative should detail the benefits the department or community will realize as a result of the grant award. In addition to describing the cost effectiveness of the grant request, an applicant can demonstrate cost benefit by describing, a licable, how the grant award will (1) fit in with a regional approach, i.e., is consistent with current capabilities and requests of neighboring fire departments or otherwise benefits other fire departments in the region, (2) promote interoperability of equipment/technology with other fire departments and local, state and Federal first responders, and (3) allow the fire department to respond to all hazards. In addition to fire prevention/suppression, all hazards includes incidents involving seismic (earthquake), atmospheric (tornados, L� hurricanes), and technological (i.e., chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosive (CBRNE)). In addition to the proj ect narrative, the applicant must provide an itemized budget detailing the use of the grant funds. If an applicant is seeking funds in more than one eligible activity within a program, separate budgets will ha�e to be generated for each activity and then an overall or summary budget would have to be generated. For those applicants applying on line, the summary budget will be automatically generated by the e-grant system. Applicants that need assistance in formulating the justificationor narrative statement required by this program may contact us for technical assistance. We will also be conducting grant workshops in each State. We will place the information regarding the workshops on the ODP and USFA websites. Our Technical Assistance Center's toll free number is 866-274-0960, our email address is fire r,_�cnie,dhs.�, and our website addresses are www.ojp.usdaj.gov/odp and www.usfa.fema.eov, respectively. We will select a sufficient number of awardees fiom this one application period to obligate all of the available funding available. Awards will be announced over several months as the decisions are made. Applicants that are not to receive funding will be notified as such throughout the process, but as soon as feasible. Awards will not be made in any specified order, i.e., not by State, or by program, or any other characteristic. Eligible Activities Specific activities that are eligible for consideration for each program area are provided below under the descriptions of this year's eligible programs. Each department may only submit one application per application period. Applicants may only apply for l] one program area per application but they may seek funding in as many activities within the program area as they need. The specific activities eligible for each program area are delineated below. Applicants that submit multiple applications within one application period or in instances where more than one application is submitted on behalf of any one applicant, all applications for that applicant will be deemed ineligible. Applications submitted under this NOFA do not preclude submitting applications under subsequent NOFAs (such as the NOFA for the Fire Prevention and Safety Grant Program), though multiple awards in one Federal fiscal year may be limited. Oberations and Firefi�hter Safetv Pro�ram. Appropriate activities under this program area include: Training, Wellness and Fitness, Firefighting Equipment, Personal Protective Equipment, and Modifications to Fire Stations and Facilities. Please note that requests for emergency medical services training and equipment are available under the appropriate activities in this program area. Also, note that requests for equipment, personal protective equipment, and training to prepare for response to incidents involving CBRNE are available under the appropriate activities in this program area. You can apply for as many eligible activities under this function as necessary to meet your operational needs. There are no bonuses or penalties for applying for only one activity or for multiple activities. The purchase of any equipment (communications systems and equipment or personal protective equipment or firefighting equipment) under this program should have the intent and/or goal of solving your interoperability problems, as applicable. Any applicant seeking funding for equipment herein should provide details 1� in the narrative section of their application regarding their local plan to enable interoperability for their jurisdiction. (a) Trainin� activities: DHS may make grants for the purpose of training firefighting personnel. Examples of training activities include, but are not limited to, firefighter I and II certifications; first-responderEMS; driver/operator; fire officer; hazardous materials response; incident command; supervision and safety; CBRNE awareness, performance, planning and management; or train-the-trainer courses in any of these areas. Eligible uses of training funds include but are not limited to tuition, exam and course fees, certification and/or re-certification expenses, purchase of training curricula, training equipment (including trailers and simulators), training props, training services (such as instructors), attendance at formal training forums, etc. Tow vehicles or other means of transport may be eligible as a transportation expense under this activity if adequately justified in your grant proposal, but we will limit transportation expenses to $6,000 per year per application. Compensationto volunteer firefighters for wages lost because of attending training under this program is an eligible expense if justified in your grant proposal. Overtime expenses paid to career firefighters to attend training, or overtime expenses paid to firefighters to cover for colleagues while the colleagues are in training, are eligible expenses if justified in your grant proposal. Even though compensation is an eligible expense, proposals that contain such compensation expenses may be less favorably scored than similar proposals without compensation expenses due to the cost-benefit element in the evaluation process. l� Activities that are ineligible in this area include construction of facilities, such as classrooms, buildings, towers, etc. Modular training units that are not trailer-mounted are not eligible. Grant funds cannot be used for modular training units if the units are to be permanently fastened to the ground. No grant funding can go toward site preparation to accommodate any training activity, facility, or prop. The purchase of real estate is also not eligible. Renovations to an e�sting facility that are necessary to accomplish training activities are allowable if the renovations are minor and comply with the definition in the Final Rule and published in the Federal Register (i.e., limited to minor interior alterations costing less than $10,000). ODP offers a variety of CBRNE training courses free of charge; visit the ODP Web site for details (www.ojp.usdoj,gov/odp/docs/coursecatalog.pd� or call the ODP Helpline at 1-800-368-6498. (b) Wellness and fitness activities: DHS may make grants for the purpose of establishing or e�panding wellness and fitness initiatives for firefighting personnel. Applicants will not be eligible for funding under the wellness and fitness activity unless they currently provide entry level physical examinations, immunization programs, and periodic health screenings, or intend to use grant funds to provide these three benefits to all their active firefightingpersonnel including EMS staff. Eligible e�penses in a wellness and fitness activity for firefighting personnel may include the procurement of inedical services to ensure that the firefighting personnel are physically able to carry out their duties (purchase of inedical equipment is not eligible under this category). E�penses to carry out wellness and fitness activities may include costs such as personnel (i.e., health-care consultants, trainers, and nutritionists), l� physicals, equipment (including shipping), supplies, and other related contract services that are directly associated with the implementation of the proposed activity are eligible. Transportation expenses and fitness club memberships for the firefighters or their families are not eligible under the wellness and fitness activity. Other expenses that are not eligible in this area include construction of facilities to house a fitness program such as exercise or fitness rooms, showers, etc. Renovations to an existing facility necessary to accomplish wellness and fitness activities are allowable if the renovations are minor and comply with the definition in the final rule and published in the Federal Register (i.e., limited to minor interior alterations costing less than $10,000). (c) Firefiehting eauinment acauisition: DHS may make grants for the purpose of acquiring additional firefighting equipment, including equipment needed directly for fire suppression ar to enhance the safety or effectiveness of firefighting, rescue, and EMS functions. They may also make grants for equipment necessary for preparedness for response to CBRNE incidents. Small boats (13 feet or less, withoutfixed fire pumps), jet-skis, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), and appropriate trailers may be considered under this activity if properly justified in the narrative section of the application. Other vehicles, as defined in the Final Rule and published in the Federal Register, are not eligible under this activity but would be eligible under the Firefighting Vehicle Program. Eligible expenses include those expenses necessary to acquire equipment, including communications and monitoring equipment. Compressor systems, cascade systems, or similar self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) refill systems are eligible expenditures in this area. Renovations to an existing facility to accommodate such �5 equipment are allowable if j ustified in the narrative and if the renovation is minor as defined in the interim Final Rule and published in the Federal Register (i.e., limited to minor interior renovations costing less than $10,000). Traffic signal preemption systems are eligible. Individual communications equipment (portable radios) and/or mobile communications equipment (including mobile repeaters) are eligible. Mobile data systems are eligible. Integrated communications systems such as base stations, computer-aided dispatch, fixed-site repeaters, wireless and broadband mobile data systems, etc., are eligible under this activity. The cost of shipping equipment purchased under this program is also an eligible e�pense. We will limit funding for portable radios to the number of seated positions based on the applicant's firefighting vehicle fleet unless otherwise j ustified in the narrative. The purchase of any communications systems and/or equipment under this activity should have the intent and/or goal of solving your interoperability problems, as applicable. Any applicant seeking funding for equipment herein should provide details in the narrative section of the application regarding their local plan to enable interoperability for the jurisdiction. Equipment used in response to CBRNE incidents is also eligible. Equipment exclusively designed for use in CBRNE incidents that is eligible this year includes special monitoring equipment (biological, radioactive, etc.) and CBRNE-related pharmaceuticalsfor first-responders,such as auto injectors. AFG program funds cannot be used to supplant other funds for CBRNE preparedness that are available through other Federal programs. l�r This year, requests for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) equipment are eligible in this activity. Eligible expenses for EMS equipmentin this activity can include, but are not limited to, defibrillators, basic and advanced life support equipment, universal precaution supplies (i.e., one-way masks, latex gloves), computers, e�pendable supplies (but not medications), and infectious disease control and decontamination systems. Thermal imaging cameras are eligible, but the number of cameras that can be purchased with grant funds will be based on the size of the population served by the department applying for assistance. Departments that serve communities of less than 20,000 people can purchase one thermal imaging camera with grant funds if awarded a grant; departments serving communities between 20,000 and 50,000 can purchase two cameras with grant funds if awarded a grant; and departments serving communities of more than 50,000 people can purchase three cameras with grant funds if awarded a grant. No grant funds can be used to construct facilities such as buildings, sheds, or towers to house communications equipment. Telephones and cell phones are not eligible. Bomb disposal equipment and robots are not eligible. Signage and outdoor warning sirens or systems are also not eligible. Personalprotective equipment, including clothing for structural and wildland fire suppression, such as "turnout gear" or "bunker gear" (including boots, pants, coats, gloves, hoods, goggles, vests, helmets, coveralls, and fire shelters), SCBAs, spare cylinders, and personal alert safety systems, are not eligible under this activitv. however, they are eligible under the Personal Protective Equipment activity detailed below. 1'� (d) Personal protective eQUiument acauisition: DHS may make grants for acquiring PPE required for active firefighting personnel by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and other PPE for firefighting personnel. Eligible PPE includes clothing for structural and/or wildland fire suppression, such as "turnout gear" or "bunker gear" (including boots, pants, coats, gloves, hoods, goggles, vests, helmets, coveralls, and fire shelters), SCBAs, spare cylinders, and PASS. We will limit funding for SCBAs to the number of seated positions based on the applicant's firefighting vehicle fleet unless otherwise justified in the narrative. Each SCBA request will be limited to one spare cylinder unless adequately justified. Protective clothing for response to hazardous materials incidents and other specialized incidents is also eligible under this activity. Protective clothing that is designed for EMS activities or for response to CBRNE incidents are also eligible in this activity. Eligible PPE for CBRNE incidents includes SCBAs that have been certified for use in CBRN atmospheres and PPE that is nationally certified for use in CBRNE incidents. It is not necessary for every SCBA request to be CBRN-certified. We will not fund CBRN- certified SCBA unless such a requestis adequately justified in the narrative and directly related to the State's homeland security plan. Eligible PPE for EMS activities includes PPE ensembles (coats and trousers) that afford universal precautions against exposure to infectious diseases, etc. The purchase of three-quarterlength rubber boots is an ineligible expenditure under this activity since it precludes the effective use of the eligible PPE cited above. Uniforms (formaUparade or station/duty) or uniform items (hats, badges, etc.) are also ineligible expenditures under this activity. Personal communications equipment such as �� radios and pagers are not eligible under this activity but are eligible under the Equipment activity. (e) Modificationsto fire stations and facilities activities: DHS may make grants to modify fire stations, fire training facilities, and other facilities to protect the health and safety of firefighting personneL (Please note that activities that involve modifications to facilities are subj ect to all applicable environmental and historic preservation requirements.) Eligible measures under this activity are limited but focused on promoting fire and life safety in fire stations and facilities. We believe that each of the eligible measures, if incorporated, would make any facility safer for firefighters. Measures that are eligible for funding are the installation of sprinkler systems, installation of vehicle e�aust extraction systems, the installation of smoke andlor fire alarm notification systems, and the installation of emergency facility generators. We will not fund any other requests for modificationsthan the initiatives listed herein. Any vehicle e�aust extraction system obtained should be extensive enough to extract all to�c vapors and particulates emitted from internal combustion engines and meet all applicable Federal, State, and local standards. Some e�aust extraction systems may meet standards for removal of certain carcinogens, but not others; therefore, it may be necessary to utilize more than one system to fully protect your firefighters. The grant funds are to be used to retrofit e�sting structures that do not have the eligible safety features or to upgrade facilities whose features are dated. The funds are not to be used to supplement new construction. Many of these modifications may require environmental review, which may delay an award. J� There are no monetary limits on the individual initiatives under this activity such as vehicle e�aust systems, sprinkler systems or smoke/fire alarm systems, but no applicant can request more than $100,000 in the modifications per fire station under their jurisdiction. Fire Prevention Pro�ram. DHS may make grants for the purpose of establishing or enhancing a fire prevention program. Appropriate activities in this program include, but are not limited to the following: public education, public awareness, enforcing fire codes, inspector certification, purchase and installation of smoke alarms and fire suppression systems, and arson prevention and detection activities. Applicants can apply for funding for as many fire prevention initiatives under this function as necessary. Eligible e�penses to carry out these activities would include costs such as a fire education safety trailer, personnel, transportation, equipment (including appropriate PPE), supplies, and contracted services that are directly associated with the implementation of the proposed activity. Tow vehicles or other means of transport may be eligible as a transportation expense if adequately justified in the proposal, but transportation expenses will be limited to $6,000 per application. Physical mitigation or hazard abatement activities, such as prescribed burns are not eligible activities under this program, but mitigation planning, awareness and education are eligible. Construction as defined in the Final Rule is not eligible under this program. Real estate is not eligible under this program. Renovations to an existing facility are allowable if j ustified in the narrative and if the renovations are minor as defined in the Final Rule and published in the Federal Register (i.e., limited to minor � interior renovations costing less than $10,000). Renovation expenses should be included in the budget as an "Other" line-item e�pense and explained in the narrative. A safety village that is not transportable may be considered construction, and therefore, not eligible. Sprinkler systems for residential or commercial uses are not eligible unless the installation is specifically implemented as a critical element in a demonstration or awareness proj ect. Firearms are also not eligible. Firefi,_�g Vehicle Acauisition Pro,_�. DHS may make grants for acquiring new firefighting vehicles, used fire apparatus, or refurbished apparatus. The funds may also be used to refurbish a vehicle the department currently owns. New vehicles purchased with AFG program funds must be compliant with current NFPA 1901 or 1906 standards. Used apparatus must be compliant with NFPA 1901 or 1906 standards for the year the vehicle was manufactured. Refurbished apparatus must meet NFPA 1912 standards. Applicants may apply for only one vehicle per year under this program. Requests for more than one vehicle will be deemed ineligible. Applicants that have been awarded vehicle grants from the AFG program in previous years are not eligible for a vehicle award in this program year. Eligible expenses under this program would include the cost of the vehicle and associated equipment necessary to conform to applicable national standards (NFPA 1��1 or 1906). New, used, or refurbishedvehicles are eligible; however, any used or refurbished vehicles must conform to the national standards that were in effect the year the vehicle was manufactured. An allowance for transportation to inspect a vehicle under consideration or during a vehicle's production would be eligible if reasonable and justified in the grant proposal. Also eligible would be the additional costs associated with �� the purchase and installation of a vehicle-mounted e�aust filtration system for any vehicle purchased with grant funds. Additionally, operator training may be eligible for any vehicle award if j ustified in the narrative. As stated above, vehicle recipients from previous AFG program years are ineligible for a vehicle award in this program year (FY 2004). Applicants will not be allowed to modify the scope of work of a vehicle award, i.e., change the type of vehicle requested after award. Vehicles contracted for or otherwise purchased prior to the end of the established application period are not eligible for funding. Aircraft, bulldozers, and construction-related equipment are also not eligible. Other Eligible Costs. Administrative Costs. Administrative costs are allowable under any of the program areas listed above in accordance with ONIB Circular A-87 or OMB Circular A- 122, as applicable. (For more information about Circulars, go to www.whitehouse.�ov/omb/circulars.) Applicantsmay apply for administrative costs if the costs are directly related to the implementation of the program for which they are applying. Administrative costs are identifiable costs directly associated with the implementation and management of the grant. If you are requesting administrative expenses, you must list the costs under the "Other" category in the budget and explain what the costs are for in your proj ect narrative. The administrative costs should be based on actual expenses, not a percentage of the overall grant. We will reimburse actual expenses only. Examples of eligible administrative costs would be shipping, office supplies, computers associated with the NFIRS reporting requirements, etc. The cost of a grant writer (if specifically listed on your application), is eligible and can be charged to � the grant as administrative costs in accordance with the provisions outlined below [see section on grant writers below]. We will assess the reasonableness of the administrative costs requested in each application and determine if it is reasonable and in the best interest of the program. Indirect Costs. Applicants that have an approved indirect cost rate may charge indirect costs to the grant if they submit the documentation that supports the rate to us. Indirect cost rates must be formally established and approved by the applicant's cognizantFederal agency. We will allow the rate to be applied as long as it is consistent with its established terms. For example, some indirect cost rates may not apply to capital procurements; in this case, indirect cost rates would not apply for a grant to purchase equipment or a vehicle. Audit Costs. Some grantees with large awards may be required to undergo an audit in accordance with ONIB Circular A-133. Specifically, recipients of Federal funding that spend in excess of $500,000 of Federal funds m a year must undergo an audit. (For more information about the Circulars, go to www.whitehouse.�ov/omb/circulars.) The costs incurredfor such an audit wouldbe an eligible expenditure if included in the proposal's budget. You may wish to consider including anticipated costs of such an audit if you are applying for a significant level of funding. We will allow you to charge a prorated share of the costs of the single audit to the grant. For example, if you received $100,000 from the AFG program and $400,000 from the Forestry Service, we will allow you to charge one-fifth of the audit costs to the AFG program grant. We do not require any other audits; therefore, you cannot charge any other audit expenses to the grant. � Grant Writer Fees. Fees for grant writers may be included as a pre-award or pre- application e�penditure (as provided in section 1��,�� of the Final Rule). But fees payable on a contingency basis are not an eligible expense that can be charged to the grant. For grant writers' fees to be eligible as a pre-award expenditure, the fees must be specificallyidentified and listed in the application and the fees must have been paid prior to any contact with grants management staff or award, i.e., paid within 30 days of the end of the application period. Applicants may be required to provide documentation to support these pre-award expenditures. Be advised that the hiring of a grant writer or use of any other third parties in the preparation of the application does not eliminate the applicant's responsibilities for assuring that the information contained in the application is true and correct. Reasonableness of Costs. The panelists will review the applications that make it into the competitive range and judge each application on its own merits. The panelists will consider all expenses budgeted, including administrative and indirect, as part of the cost-benefit determination and may recommend appropriate adjustments. Regardless of eligibility of any costs requested, we reserve the right to reduce any requests for assistance, in whole or in part, that we deem to be excessive or otherwise contrary to the best interests of this program. Pre-award Costs. Generally, fire departments cannot use grant funds to pay for products and services contracted for, or purchased prior to the effective date of the grant. However, we will consider requests for reimbursementfor these on an exception basis. Expenses incurred after the application deadline but prior to award may be eligible for reimbursementif the expenses were justified, unavoidable (i.e., urgent and compelling), �� consistent with the scope of work, and specifically approved by the assistance officer. Expenses, obligations, commitments or contracts incurred or entered into prior to the application deadline are not eligible to be included as an expense with the possible exception of grant writers' fees as detailed above. Excess Funds. Occasionally, due to successful competitive bid processes, some grantees have funds remaining after the completion of their obligations outlined above. Grantees that complete the approved scope of wark prior to the end of the performance period and still have grant funds available have three options for the use of the excess funds: 1) Grantees may unilaterally use as much as $5,000 to continue or e�pand the activities for which they received the award. For example, if a grantee received an award for personal protective equipment, the grantee may use up to $5,000 of the excess funds to purchase more personal protective equipment without seeking our approval. 2) Grantees may use excess funds to create or e�pand a fire prevention program in accordance with the guidance provided herein. Grantees will need to obtain approval from the AFG program office to use excess funds for this purpose. Excess funds in excess of $5,000 must be used for fire prevention or option number three (3) below. 3) Grantees may return excess funds to the AFG program office. To exercise this option, a grantee must closeout their award and state in the final performance report that the remaining funds are not necessary for the fulfillment of the grant obligations. The grantee must also indicate that they understand the funds would be deobligated and unavailable for future e�penses. The deobligation of the excess funds may affect the Federal portion of the grant and the amount of the grantee's match. �� Any uses of excess funds would have to be disclosed as part of your reports, i.e., mid-term performancereport and/or fi�nal closeout. Program Priorities Specific rating criteria for each of the eligible programs and activities follow below. These rating criteria will provide an understanding of the grant program's priorities and the e�pected cost effectiveness of any proposed proj ects. (1) Fire Operations and Firefi�hter Safetv Program. (i) Training Activities. We believe that the most benefit is derived from training that is instructor-led, hands-on, and leads to a nationally sanctioned or State certification. Training requests that include Web-based home study or distance learning and the purchase of training materials, equipment, or props are a lower priority. Therefore, applications focused on national or State certification training, including train-the-trainer initiatives, will receive a higher competitive rating. Training that involves instructors where the students must demonstratetheir grasp of knowledge of the training material via testing and is integral to a certification will receive a high competitive rating, but not to the extent of the trainings that would lead to national certification. Training that is instructor-led but does not lead to a certification, or any self-taught courses, are of low benefit, and therefore they will not be afforded a high priority. We will rate more highly those proposed programs that benefit the highest percentage of applicable personnel within a fire department or those proposed programs that will be open to other departments in the region. Training that brings the department into statutory (or OSHA) compliance would provide the highest benefit relative to training that is not required, therefore receive the highest consideration. Training that �� brings a department into voluntary compliance with national standards will also receive a high competitive rating, but not as high as the training that brings a department into statutory compliance. Training that does not ha�e statutory compliance or voluntary compliance with a national standard will receive a low competitive rating. Due to the inherent differences between urban, suburban, and rural firefighting characteristics, we ha�e developed different priorities in the training activity for departments that service these different types of communities. However, CBRNE awareness training has a high benefit and will receive the highest consideration regardless of the type of community served. For departments serving rural communities, we believe that funding basic, operational-level firefighting, operational-level rescue, driver training, or first-responder EMS, EMT-B, and EMT-I, (i.e., training in basic firefighting duties) has greater benefit than funding officer training, safety officer training, or incident-commandtraining. In rural communities, after basic training, there is a greater cost-benefit to officer training than for other specialized types of training such as mass casualty, HazMat, advance rescue and EMT, or inspector training for rural departments. Conversely, for departments that are serving urban or suburban communities, we believe there is a higher benefit to be gained by funding specialized training, such as mass casualty, HazMat, advance rescue and EMS, or inspector training than the funding of officer training, safety officer training, or operations training, which in turn has a higher benefit than basic-, operational-, or awareness-level activities. Training designatedto enhance multi jurisdictionalcapabilities will be afforded a slightly higher rating. 2'� (ii) Wellness and Fitness Activities. We believe that to have an effective wellness/fitness program, fire departments must offer periodic health screenings, entry physical examinations, and an immunizationprogram. Accordingly, applicants for grants in this category must currently offer or plan to offer with grant funds all three bene�ts to receive consideration and funding for any other initiatives in this activity. After entry- level physicals, annual physicals, and immunizations, high priority is given to formal fitness and injury prevention programs. Lower priority is given to stress management, injury/illness rehabilitation, and employee assistance. We believe the greatest benefit will be realized by supporting new wellness and fitness programs, and therefore, we will accord higher competitive ratings to those applicants lacking wellness/iitness programs over those applicantsthat already employ a wellness/fitness program. Finally, since participation is critical to achieving any benefits from a wellness or fitness program, we will give higher competitive ratings to departments whose wellness and fitness programs mandate or provide incentives for participation. (iii) Equipment Acauisition. The stated purpose of this grant program is to protect the health and safety of firefighters from fire and fire-related hazards. As such, we believe that this grant program will achieve the greatest benefits by providing funds to fire departments purchasing basic firefighting equipment before any other non- firefighting equipment. Equipment that has a direct effect on firefighters' health and safety will receive a high competitive rating over equipment that has no such effect. Equipmentthat promotes interoperability with neighboringjurisdictions may receive �8 additional consideration in the cost-benefit assessmentif the application makes it into the competitive range. We believe this grant program will achieve the greatest benefits if we provide funds to fire departments purchasing basic firefighting, rescue, EMS, and CBRNE preparedness equipment that they have never owned prior to the grant or to replace used or obsolete firefighting equipment. Our second priority will be to fund departments that are seeking to e�pand into new mission areas, and therefore those departments will receive a lower competitive rating than departments seeking reserve equipment. Additionally, among departments that serve similar types of communities, those that have high call volumes will be afforded a higher competitive rating than those that have low call volumes. The purchase of equipment that brings the department into statutory (or OSHA) compliance will provide the highest benefit and therefore will receive the highest consideration. The purchase of equipment that brings a department into voluntary compliance with national standards will also receive a high competitive rating, but it will not be as high as for the training that brings a department into statutory compliance. Equipment that does not have an effect on statutory compliance or voluntary compliance with a national standard will receive a lower competitive rating. (iv) Personal Protective Eauivment Acauisition. One of the stated purposes of this grant program is to protect the health and safety of firefighters. To achieve this goal and maximize the benefit to the fireiighting community, we believe that we must fund those applicants needing to provide PPE to a high percentage of their personnel. Accordingly, we will give the highest competitive rating in this category to fire �9 departments where a large percentage of their active firefighting staff does not have any PPE. We will also give a high competitive rating to departments that wish to purchase enough PPE to equip 100 percent of their active firefighting staff, or 100 percent of their on-duty staff, as appropriate. We will also give a high competitive rating to departments that are purchasing the equipment for the first time as opposed to departments replacing obsolete or substandard equipment (e.g., equipment that does not meet current NFPA and OSHA standards), or purchasing equipment for a new mission. For those departments that are replacing obsolete or substandard equipment, the condition of the equipment to be replaced will be factored into the score with a higher priority given to replacing equipmentthat is damaged, tom, andlor contaminated. Due to safety benefits afforded firefighters, for applications that include a request for personal alert safety system (PASS) devices, we will only consider funding applications that are requesting equipment that meets current national standards, i.e., integrated andlor automatic, or automatic-onPASS. Finally, the number of fire response calls that your department makes in a year will be considered with the higher priority going to departments with higher call volumes, while applications from departments with low call volumes will be afforded lower competitive ratings. The call volume of rural departments will be compared only to other rural departments, suburban departments will be compared only to other suburban departments, and urban departments will be compared only to other urban departments. (v) Modifications to Fire Stations and Facilities. The stated purposes of this grant program is to protect the health and safety of firefighters, as such, eligible proj ects under this activity that are designed to directly protect the health and safety of firefighters. We � believe that more benefit would be derived fiom modifying fire stations than would be realized by modifying fire-training facilities or other fire-related facilities. Facilities that would be open for broad usage and have a high occupancy capacity would receive a higher competitive rating than facilities that have limited use and/or low occupancy capacity. The frequency of use would also have a bearing on the benefits to be derived fiom grant funds. The frequency and duration of a facility's occupancy have a direct relationship to the benefits to be realized fiom funding in this activity. As such, facilities that are occupied or otherwise in use 24-hours-per-day/seven-days-a-weekwould receive a higher competitive rating than facilities used on a part-time or irregularbasis. Fire Prevention Pro r._� We believe that programs that are based on a formal analysis of a community's risk should be afforded the highest competitive rating over fire prevention programs that have no such basis. We also believe that the public as a whole will receive the greatest benefit fiom fire prevention funds directed to fire departments that currently do not have a prevention program. Also, we believe the public will benefit more from long-term fire prevention programs than fiom limited efforts. Therefore, we will give a higher competitive rating to programs that will be self-sustaining after the grant period. Because of the benefits to be attained, we will give a higher competitive rating to programs that target one or more identified high-risk populations (e.g., children under 14 years of age, seniors over 65, firefighters, and/or other high-risk populations) and programs whose impact is/will be periodically evaluated. We believe proj ects that provide long-term benefits to the entire community, such as public education programs and programs that develop and enforce codes and standards, and/or arson prevention and detection programs provide the greatest benefits. �] Therefore, such community-wide activities will be afforded the highest competitive rating. Programs where the focus is on the purchase and installation of residential and public detection and suppression systems achieve positive benefits but not the highest competitive rating. The purchase of public information materials and presentation aids and equipment achieves the least benefit; therefore, these types of activities will be afforded the lowest competitive rating. Firefi�htin� Vehicle Acquisition Pro�ram. Due to the inherent differences between urban, suburban, and rural %re�ghting conventions, we have developed different priorities in the vehicle program for departments that service different types of communities. The following chart delineates our priorities in this program area for each type of community. Due to the competitive nature of this program and the imposed limits of funding a�ailable for this program, it is unlikely that we would fund many vehicles that are not listed as a Priority One or a Priority Two this year. �� Vehicle pro am Priorities Priority Urban Suburban Rural Communities Communities Communities Pumper Pumper Pumper Aerial Aerial Brush/Attack Priority Quint (Aerial � 76') Quint (Aerial � 76') Tanker/Tender One Quint (Aerial 76' or'} Quint (Aerial 76' or >) Quint (Aerial � 76') Fire Boat Fire Boat Rescue Brush/Attack Command Command HazMat HazNlat HazMat Rescue Priority Light/Air Rescue LighdAir Two Rehab Tanker/Tender Aerial Fire Boat uint Aerial 76' or > F� rr� Truck Foam Truck Foam Truck ARFFV ARFFV ARFFV Priority Brush/Attack Rehab Rehab Three Tanker/Tender Light/Air Command Ambulance Ambulance Ambulance Regardless of the type of community served, we believe that there is more benefit to be realized by funding fire departments that own few or no vehicles of the type they are seeking than there would be by providing vehicle funding to a department with numerous vehicles of that same type. When we assess the number of vehicles a department has within a particular class, we will include all vehicles with similar functions. For example, we consider the following to be classified in the "pumper" category: pumpers, engines, pumperltankers, (with less than 1,250 gallon capacity), rescue-pumpers, quints (with aerials less than 76 feet in length), and urban interface vehicles such as Type I, II or III. Pumpers with water capacity in excess of 1,250 gallons would be considered a tanker/tender. �� We will give a higher competitive rating in the apparatus category to fire departments that own few or no firefighting vehicles relative to other departments serving similar types of communities. We will also give higher competitive ratings to departments that have an aged fleet of firefighting vehicles, and to those with old, high- mileage vehicles. We will also provide a higher competitive rating to departments that respond to a significant number of incidents relative to other departments servicing similar communities. No competitive advantage has been assigned to the purchase of standard model commercial vehicles versus custom vehicles, or the purchase of used vehicles versus new vehicles in the preliminary evaluation of applications. It has been our experience that depending on the type and size of department, the technical evaluation panelists often prefer low-cost vehicles when evaluating the cost-benefit section of the proj ect narratives. Panelists may be provided with guidance for use in their evaluation of the reasonableness of vehicle costs. We also reserve the right to instill funding limits on requests for vehicles whose costs we deem excessive or otherwise not in the best interest of the program. Finally, we believe that it would be more beneficial to the nation's fire service if we gave these vehicle awards to as many fire departments as possible, therefore, we will allow each fire department to apply for only one vehicle per year. Reporting Requirements The grantees may be required to submit a progress report regarding the financial and performance status of their proj ect after six months of performance and at the closure of the grant. The due dates will vary from grantee to grantee, based on the performance �� period as indicated in the Articles of Agreement. These performance reports should provide us with a comparison of actual accomplishmentsto the obj ectives approved in the grant scope of work Any issues that may affect a timely close out of the award should be reported at this time. The mid-term progress report is due within 30 days of the end of the first six- months of the performanceperiod. All grantees will be required to submit a final report within 90 days of completion of the grant performance period or the closure of the grant, which ever comes first. Grantees must also agree to provide information, through established reporting channels, to the U. S. Fire Administration's national fire incident reporting system (NFIRS) for the period covered by the assistance. If a grantee does not currently participate in the incident reporting system and does not ha�e the capacity to report at the time of the award, that grantee must agree to provide information to the system for a twelve-month period commencing as soon as they develop the capacity to report. AFG program grantees fr�m previous years will not be allowed to closeouttheir grants until they demonstrate that they are complying with this requirement. Failure to closeout your previous years' grants may affect the consideration of future awards. Excess Funds Occasionally, due to successful competitive bid processes, some grantees have funds remaining after the completion of their obligations outlined above. Grantees that complete the approved scope of work prior to the end of the performance period and still ha�e grant funds available ha�e three options for the use of the excess funds: �� (1) Grantees may unilaterally use as much as $5,000 to continue or expand the activities for which they received the award. For example, if a grantee received an award for personal protective equipment, the grantee may use up to $5,000 of the excess funds to purchase more personal protective equipment without seeking our approval. (2) Grantees may use excess funds to create or expand a fire prevention program in accordance with the guidance provided herein. Grantees will need to obtain approval fr�rm the AFG program office to use excess funds for this purpose. Excess funds in excess of $5,000 must be used for fire prevention or option number three (3) below. (3) Grantees may return excess funds to the AFG program office. To exercise this option, a grantee must closeout their award and state in the final performance report that the remaining funds are not necessary for the fulfillment of the grant obligations. The grantee must also indicate that they understand the funds would be deobligated and unavailable for future expenses. The deobligation of the excess funds may affect the Federal portion of the grant and the amount of the grantee's match. Any uses of excess funds would have to be disclosed as part of your reports, i.e., mid-term performance report and/or final closeout. Reconsideration As provided for in the Final Rule (§44 CFR 152.9 Reconsideration), we will review our decision with respect to an initial grant award decision only when the applicant asserts that we have made a material technical or procedural error in the processing of the application and can substantiate such assertions. As grants are awarded on a competitive basis, in accordance with the findings of an independent panel of experts, we cannot consider requests for reconsiderationbased upon the merits of an 3� original application. We will consider requests for reconsideration of decisions other than those related to the initial grant award on their merits. Similarly, we will not consider new information provided after the submission of the original application. In the case of new information, we encourage applicants to incorporatetheir changed circumstances into their applications for future grant cycles. We will accept requests for reconsideration for applicants whose applications were denied solely on the basis that their applications contained items that were not compliant with national standards. In such instances, if it is determined that the application was denied solely on this basis, we will allow the applicant to submit a new application with items that are compliant with national standards. These new applications will undergo a special panel, following the application process described above, to determine whether or not they are worthy of funding based on the established evaluation criteria. We must receive a request for reconsideration under this section within 60 days of the date of the notice of the decision for which reconsideration is requested. Requests for reconsideration should be directed to: Director, Grants Program Office, Office for Domestic Preparedness, Room 640, 800 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20531. 3'� REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: DJW/DPW DATE: 03/29/04 ITEM NO: '�•P ��3�� 8� �RR��al Agenda Section: , CONSENT Item Description: Adopt a resolution to authorize City participation in joint application for a�� Technical Opportunities Program (TOP) grant for community development and economic developmentprojects 1.0 1.1 2.0 3.0 �FF��Q�. STAFF RECOMIV�NDATION: Staff recommends that Council supports a Technical Opportunities Program grant application of which the City is a stakeholder. SUGGESTED COUNCIL ACTION: By resolution, to support a Technical Opportunities Progra9n grant application of which the City has involvement by virtue of its membership with the Ramsey County �I� Users Group (a letter of support on behalf of tde City will be included in the grant application). BACKGROUND: Census 2000 data on population and economic decentralizationheightened concerns over metropolitan development patterns and their implicationsfor the majority of families to live out the American dream. The opportunitiesfor middle and working class people in urban and suburban communities in the Twin Cities region are being circumscribed by the disorderly mix of housing and jobs. For instance, a majority of a11 commutes in the region now begin and end in the suburbs, with more workers driving alone. At the same time, while job growth is faster in the suburbs, central city minorities are more likely than their suburban counterparts not to have access to a vehicle to take them to those j obs. Indeed, the lack of growth in the cities' middle class during the 1990s may highlight a shortage of minority families moving up the income ladder. The data available to neighborhoods and local and state governments to guide development decisions around housing, employment and transportation i s uneven and disconnected. For example, the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency accounts only for access to bus lines when evaluating multi-family affordable housing proj ects, which concentrates housing initiatives in the central cities. At the same time, 93% of transportationfunds are being invested outside of the suburban expressway ring, therefore the links of opportunity are further stretched out. PF3520 — RCA 032904 - Page 1 of 2 A solution to this problem could be through the creation of a set of geographic information systems (GIS) tools that integrates housing, employment, and transportation information for the neighborhoods, central cities, suburbs, and counties of the Twin Cities metropolitan region. This would: ■ Leverage wark completed in both Minneapolis and St.PauURamsey County Encompass the metropolitan area Expand community and public/government capacity The City of Roseville uses �IS data from metropolitan county data providers as well as from many other sources for the purposes of data analysis. It is a charter member of the Ramsey County User Group, which is an alliance formed in 1995 between public agencies interested in using �'rI� and data that has been created and maintained by Ramsey County. Each member organization adds its own unique data to that supplied by the County as part of the agreement to create a rich and powerful tool to assist in organizational decision-making and day-to-day procedures. The Users Group is seen as a model in the metropolitan area in how units of government can wark in collaboration to effectively exchange and utilize � data, services and knowledge. In this spirit of cooperation comes an opportunity for the City to partner with an even broader range of stakeholders in creating an innovative set of tools to assist in community planning. The Ramsey County Gl� Users Group will partner with the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs at the University of Minnesota (CURA), The St. Paul Community �'rT5 Consortium, The Minneapolis Consortium for Community Development, the Minneapolis Neighborhood Information System and MetroGIS in a Technical Opportunities Program grant application to develop these tools. Access to information at this level would assist in targeting community development and economic proj ects through evaluation of factors related to housing, employment, employee income and transportation. Collecting, integrating, maintaining and disseminating data from multiple sources over such a scale requires a significant effort both in funding and staff commitment. The City has been a leader in �� efforts over the years and wishes to continue this approach through the involvement of its �� Coordinator in the planning for this grant and hopefully for the implementation of tools into the City's � operations should the grant be successful. Prepared by: Da�id Windle (651-792-7075) Attachments: Resolution. \\Victoria\cormndev�PLANNING AND ZONIlVGWLANNING �fLE3ti�S4�J�#9'a5�0 T�rt�e�r_�'durK�•_G1� l�s�er_Cma.�p',PF4S�#.� RCA 032904.dac PF3520 — RCA 032904 - Page 2 of 2 � � � � . �� : :� March 29,2004 Mr. Kris Nelson Center for Urban & Regional Affairs University of Minnesota 3330 HHH Center 301 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 Dear Mr. Nelson, The City of Roseville is pleased to be able to collaborate with a broad array of organizations in the support for the application for a Technology Opportunities Program (TOP) Grant from the United States Department of Commerce. Roseville has been involved with geographic information systems {GIS) since 1993 and has produced many maps, reports and �5 applications to assist our decision-makers in understanding the complex issues witl�in our community. �i� technology has also allowed us to streamline many processes and provide better service to our public. From the outset, it became clear to the City that we could gain greater efficiencies in utilizing this technology if we collaborate with others in the quest for obtaining data, knowledge and other shared resources. These shared resources cover a greater array of characteristics as well as represent a larger geography than just our community. It has always been apparent to us that we do not and cannot operate in a vacuum: We understand that applying this technology in appropriate ways can provide us with opportunities to gain an insight into the nature of our communities. Roseville is excited to be able to be part of a j oint effort to collect, maintain, integrate and update information that can assist in enhancing community development and economic development. Faced with the reality of shrinking budgets, we are enthusiastic about the potential for developing an information system that describes communities consistently so that we can compare our world with our neighbors and help to better interact with them from a range of housing, employment and transportation perspectives. Roseville brings a significant degree of �L� experience to this collaborative effort. We have been able to not just create �i� products but importantly have taken the vital ne� steps of applying the results in a wide array of scenarios in order to make a positive impact on our City. The City �T� staff and its Community Development Director ha�e been recognized by MetroGI5 among a group of exemplary volunteer leaders in metropolitan ��5 development. Page 1 of 2 The City will commit a significant amount of in-kind contribution over the life of this grant, if successful. We would estimate that approximately 20 hours per month could be directed to working with our partners in this collaborative effort as well as applying the resultingproject resultsto our enhance our own community planning. This contribution would translate to approximately $36,000 over the course of the grant. Roseville is committed to working with organizations both within our community and externally in making this proj ect a success and then applying it to make positive impacts on our neighborhoods. We are excited about this opportunity and wholeheartedly support its aims and objectives. Sincerely, Nea1 Beets, City Manager Page 2 of 2 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was duly called and held at the City Hall on Monday, the 29th day of March, 2004 at 6:00 p.m. The following members were present: Kough, Schroeder, Klausing, Maschka, Ihlen and the following were absent: None Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. CTTY OF ROSEVII.LE, MIlVNESOTA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZINGA LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR A TECFIINICAL OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM (TOP) GRANT FROM TFIE i1NITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMIV�RCE WHEREAS, the City of Roseville utilizes geographic information systems (GIS) for purposes of more effective city planning and analysis, and WHEREAS, the City would benefit from access to metro-wide �i.�r data and tools that would assist in targeting community development and economic projects through evaluation of factors related to housing, employment, employee income and transportation, and WHEREAS, while the City has been an active member of the Ramsey County C"L� Users Group and MetroGIS collaborative efforts to date, supporting an even broader cooperative effort through a joint project that is requesting a Technical Opportunities Program grant that would reach across multiple jurisdictions and multiple organizational layers could provide benefitto the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Roseville hereby supports the application for a Technical Opportunities Program grant through a letter and hereby authorizes the City Manager to act as signatory. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolutionwas duly seconded by Council Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in fa�or: and the following voted against the same: WHERE UPON, said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. \\Victorialcommdev�PLANNING AND ZONINGWLANNINGFILES�3500- �5�1�+�4�r3G_R,�ar�rx•_�'cwnlp_{;f�_I',�rr_i�wp'�T�1P_�4_"wp�xi(��4� doc ��I�.ti7�I �.l� �� J 1 J �� u � ��- �� r�c��: �r� ri. � ��rr�� Date: March 29,2004 Item: 4.a Department ApprovaL• Manager Reviewed: A�enda Section: �� Item Description: Resolution Against Terrorism and Racism in Mounds View Schools Background: Earlier this year some serious racial threats were made at the Mounds View High School. As a result of those threats, Superintendent Jan Witthuhn invited the Mayors and City Managers of the seven cities that are part of the Mounds View School District to discuss what happened and asked for ways that the Cities could work together to challenge this behavior. Roseville Human Rights Chair Thelma McKenzie and Neal Beets attended the meeting. The attendees discussed activities that the school district and the cities could undertake to speak out against racism and terrorist threats. Participants agreed on the importance of sending a unified message that terrorism and racism are not accepted in our communities. Council Action Requested: Motion to direct the Mayor to sign the Mounds View School District Board and the City Councils of Arden Hills, Mounds View, New Brighton, North Oaks, Roseville, Shoreview and Vadnais Heights resolution against racism and terrorist threats. RESOLUTION MOL7NDS VIEW INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, CITY OF MOL7NDS VIEW, CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON, CITY OF NORTH OAKS, CITY OF ROSEVILLE, CITY OF SHOREVIEW, AND CITY OF VADNAIS HEIGHTS JOINTLY: Whereas representatives of the above-named cities (the Cities) and the Mounds View School District share an interest in human rights' challenges within our respective communities, including threats of terrorism and racism; and Whereas the recent bomb threats and racial slurs in the Mounds View School District illustrate the challenges facing a11 of us; and Whereas the Cities commend the Mounds View School District (the School District) for taking swift and sustained action in response to these acts of terrorism and racism; and Whereas the Cities and the School Districtmust continueto unite and jointly speak out against such acts of terrorism and racism. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Mounds View School District Board and the City Councils ofArden Hills, Mounds View, New Brighton, North Oaks, Roseville, Shoreview and Vadnais Heights that we are committed to individual, j oint, constructive, and peaceful responses to these acts of terrorism and racism in our communities; That, while there are no easy formulas to eliminate both terrorism or racism, we will continue to work together and with appropriate law enforcement agencies to protect the well- being of every person subj ect to such threats; and We hereby commit ourselves and our honor to the effort to eliminate terrorism and racism and to protect the freedom and safety of each person at the Mounds View Schools and in our communities. Dated: ,2004 Mayor, City of Arden Hills Mayor, City of Mounds View Mayor, City of New Brighton Mayor, City of Roseville Mayor, City of Shoreview Mayor, City of North Oaks Chair, Mounds View Independent School District 621 Mayor, City of Vadnais Heights Date: 03/29/04 Its�n: 4.b PoppY Day Proclam�tion • roc ama lon May 21,2004 ��T �� in Roseville Whereas: The American Legion Auxiliary, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars Auxiliary have adopted the Poppy as their commemorative symbol; and Whereas: The memorial Poppy, assembled by disabled veterans, pays respectful tribute to those killed in war and also benefits living veterans and their families; and Wlzereas: Public donations for Poppies fund rehabilitation programs within each local community that benefit veterans and their families; Now, Therefore Be It Resolved, that the City Council of the City of Roseville does hereby proclaim May 21,2004 to be Poppy Day in the City of Roseville. Iiz Witness Wliereof, l have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Roseville to be affixed this 29th day of March, 2004. Craig D. Klausing, Mayor ,�.ntr�tr�tn � �� n � ,Z�u�tli�r� Rosetown Memorial Unit No. 542 700 W. County Rd. C Roseville, MN 55113 Donna M. Miller Public Relation Chr. Aux. 1671 Nevada Ave. E. St. Paul, Mn. 55106 771-0445 March 12, 2004 The Rosetown Memorial American Legion Auxiliary are requesting that Poppy Day 2004 he added to the Roseville City Council agenda, proclaiming Friday, May 21, 2004 as Poppy Day in Roseville. Giving the ladies of Rosetown Auxiliary permission to distribute the poppy. The memorial poppy was adopted by the American Legion Auxiliary in 1920, this program is one of the oldest traditions of the American Legion Auxiliary. Our next meeting will be April 13, 2004 and if possible I would like to report the councils decision to the members. THANK YOU, ��-�� DONNA M. MILLER (651 �'7�i-��5 ■ Date: 03/29/04 Item: 4.c Keep Roseville Beautiful Proclamation Roseville Proclamation Keep Roseville Beautiful Apri12004 Whereas: The City of Roseville offers amenities that make the City a beautiful place to live, work and play; and Whereas: Litter detracts from the beauty of a community and research shows that people litter more often where litter has already accumulated; and Whereas: Clean communities instill pride, deter vandalism and attract businesses; and Whereas: Governments spend millions of dollars annually picking up litter along streets and roadways, in parks and from waterways and wetlands; and Whereas: The citizens of Roseville generously donate time and support to make this City great; and Whereas: The City of Roseville established an ad hoc litter control committee to raise awareness about litter and to recruit volunteers to pick up litter. Now, Therefore Be It Resolved, that the City Council hereby declare Apri12004, to be Keep Roseville Beautiful Month and urges a11 citizens to do their part to pick up litter and to preserve the beauty of our community. In the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, U.S.A In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Sea1 of the City � �� f��i I1 � to b� �fti xed �hi.� ��''� �a� �f ?��r��, �U�� y �.� �1��r€�r �: e:�i� �. i�l�u�ing Let's work together to "Keep Roseville Beautiful." The Roseville City Council will proclaim the month of April as "Keep Roseville Beautiful" month. Spring is a time of year when the litter that has accumulated over the winter months begins to reveal itsel£ Therefore, the City will concentrate on picking up litter throughout the month of April. You play an important part in Roseville. We hope you will j oin us in proclaiming April as "Keep Roseville Beautiful" month, and we ask you to take an active part in keeping Roseville beautiful. Here are some ways that you can help. i} Pick up litter and debris around your property. Keep dumpsters closed, and trash receptacles accessible. �} Sign up to be a litter picking volunteer. Call Roseville City Hall at 651-792-7028with your name, address, phone number and availability. These volunteers will be organized and asked to clean up in areas such as city and county right-of-ways, open spaces, parks and city grounds. Safety and - litter-picking supplies will be provided. Tentatively planned dates and times are: - AprilSth 9-11 April8th 9-11 April 13th 1-3 April 17th 9-11 or 1-3 Apri121st 9-11 Apri125th 1-3 Apri128th 1-3. �} Invite your neighbors to help. Organize a neighborhood group to pick litter around your neighborhood. Bags can be provided. �� If you or your business wants to pick litter along a state roadway, contact the State's "Adopt-A- Highway" program at 651-582-1718. If you are already a volunteer, please join us and pick up your adopted area in April. �� If you want to adopt a Roseville Park, contact 7eff Evenson for the "Adopt-A-Park" program at 651-792-7107. �} Do not litter, and if you see litter when you are walking around the City, do your part and pick it �p. Whatever your involvement, let us know what you are doing to help "Keep Roseville Beautiful" by calling 651-792-7028 or emailing pattv.hoa�(a�cr.roseville,mn,us. We would like to recognize your efforts. Thank you for your commitment to the Roseville community. Sincerely, Ad-Hoc Litter Control Committee AD-HOC LITTER COMMITTEE FOR ROSEVILLE Member Phone Represents Tom Kough 639-8268 City Council, Chair Stephanie Tyree Churches Wayne Andersen Ed Obeda Kay Thorpe Carolyn Curti Patty Hoag Tim Pratt Michael Bilski Laura Larsen Denny Harris 792-7026 792-7028 792-7027 Churches Private Citizen Private Citizen City of Roseville City of Roseville City of Roseville Business Schools Service Organizations . � � -:_ 1��rr� � Report for City Council Date: March 29,2004 Item Number: 5. Department Approval Manager�Approval Agenda Section r� L Item Description: Report on Ad Hoc Litter Control Committee Background City staff spend considerable time on litter control. Some of their efforts include: + Coordinate biannual street sweeping of a11 City streets and pathways # Regular grass trimming along certain boulevards and streets and in City parks � Identify and pick up trash in problem areas � Coordinate Clean Up Day where residents can bring items that can't go in the regular trash � Answer residents' questions on how to dispose of items that can't go in the trash • Place trash cans on City property with hea�y pedestrian traffic � Coordinate Adopt-a-Park program where groups adopt City parks and regularly pick up trash and report problems or needed repairs to the Parks and Recreation Department * Host Earth Day activities to provide public education about protecting the earth and litter prevention � Work with area businesses and individuals to pick up litter and to address code violations � Dredge City lakes or ponds, as needed These efforts take considerable time and money, but well worth the effort to keep the City clean and to protect the environment. However, citizens have come forward requesting additional work and offering to help pick up litter, particularly in spring when litter becomes more visible after the snow melts. In late January the City Council approved creating an ad hoc litter control committee and allocated $2,500 to fund the project. The City hired Patty Hoag to coordinate a city-wide litter pick up effort in April. Patty pulled together a committee of 11 people from businesses, churches, Roseville Area Schools, service organizations, employees and the community. Representatives from each of those groups are responsible to recruit additional volunteers. The committee discussed several ways to promote litter pick up during the month of April. These include: Proclamation declaring April as Keep Roseville Beautiful month, letters to the editor, news releases, Roseville Wrap, information on the Web and Cable Channel 16 and letters to area businesses, churches, civic organizations and neighborhood watch participants. The committee purchased 50 reflective vests and 201itter grabbers. City staff also made several "pick-up sticks" for spearing trash. Both Ramsey County and MN-DOT have agreed to provide as many bags as the City needs for our effort. The Committee has spent approximately $1,000 of its budget. The majority of the expenditure is spent on staffing. The Committee is seeking financial support from a civic organization to help cover additional costs. Volunteers Students from Northwestern College and Roseville Area Schools and participants in the Adopt a Park programs will pick up litter in April. Although the Committee has conducted several outreach efforts, the City has not heard from many volunteers, although, several people said they will pick up litter when walking. North Heights Lutheran Church is planning a clean up day. They will pick up along the streets around their church, and they will contact other Roseville churches to do the same. RAS will increase their litter control efforts in April. The Committee will continue to promote the pick up days on the following days: . Monday, April 5, 9-11 � Thursday, Apri18, 9-11 . Tuesday, April 13, 1-3 . Saturday, Apri117, 9-11 or 1-3 . Wednesday, April 21, 9-11 • Sunday, April 25, 1-3 • Wednesday, Apri128, 1-3 Requested Council Action The Ad Hoc Committee hopes that all Council Members and all residents select a day to help pick up litter. Please contact Patty Hoag at 651-792-7028 with the times that you can volunteer. March 2004 _ ._ ... . Tuesday •I March 2004 S M T W T F S 1 I � t 5 � � B 910111�� F �� 16 1F i� 1� 2� �i�2]�75�d 27 � 6 2�M 3� � � Wednesday � Thursday_--- T � t�• ...- --- — � April 2004 S M T W T F S i � � � i 6 � 8 414 11 1� 13 14 15 16 iF 18 14�.O�i �� 37�4 �5 �6 �� B �9 30 � I � la f� —� � ` 7:OOam Regular '� 7:ODam Re�llar . . Street 5kr�sk i t sweeping ' sweeping � � .� ' J- i � 2� 2� Z y 7:QOam Regular ' 7:OOam Double shift • 7:OQam Double shift 7:OOam Double shift : 7:OOdm Double shift street street street street street sweeping sweeping, sweeping, sweeping, . sweeping, Park and Rec Park and Rec , Park and Rec Park and Rec . pathway pathway pathway � �attrv+aY _ sweeping . sweeping . sweeping • s�� . � I i � � 7:OOam Double Shift � 7:OOam Double Shift �Sentenceto serve - pick� street street i:00am Double Shift : sweeping, I sweeping, street Park and Rec Park and Rec sweeping, pathway pathway � Park and Rec '. sweeping � sweeping pathway � �� I . � [Litter Contol Activites 1 3��UD�I �_��i �N1 City of Roseville] Apri I 2004 April 2004 S M T W T F S M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 'I'I 121 3 14 15 1617 18 192021 22 2324 25 26 27 28 29 30 Tuesda Wednesda Thursda Frid� , °r_ � _._ , � �tio 5erv_e - plds . ntence to s � F�.30�m IkF��Sk � College � 10-12 � � _ � students pick ' up along Ciiy right-of-ways I ' . � ��Oern �d h�vc 4#l�r ' �� ' i I . . .. � � I 9:OOam Ad hoC litter ' f pick up � r I � I .. a �. 1 _ � 1��', 1:OOpm Ad hac litter : pick up : I � , _i _ � , �1: �;�O�n�k �;G�++� � Md� . �� E]e�lon �� .- -� �� i T 2 1:OOpm Ad hoc litter pick up • • ' I � May 2004 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 9:OOam Ad hoc litter pick up 1:OOpm Ad hoc litter pick up 8:OOam dean up Dau 12:OOpm Earth Day Celebration at HANC 1:OOpm Ad hoc litter pick up [Litter Contol Activites � �� $'� � Ciiy of Roseville] May 2004 � ��;��s � �,� �� I � _. J � May 2004 June 2004 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S a 1 2 3 4 5 � 3� 5� 7 B 6 7 9 91011I� �� ii i� i3 i� 15 i� i� i� i� i� ie �� 7 !� l� �� 1 �� 0 �i �� 3 � �5 �fr �3�353fr37�� 7�8�3{] 3� 31 . i . .. , -- •— -- [Litter Conto) Activites 3 City of Roseville� .__...... .�!' ��O,am ��dqtt�rn �al � �rr�n La _ � I I 3/24/2004 826 AM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: TP � Item Description: DATE: 03/29/04 ITEM NO: 6. Agenda Section: Request by Chris Olson for a VARIANCE from Section 1004.O1A7 and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT in accordance with Section 1004.O1A4 of the Roseville City Code, for property located at 2940 Old Highway 8 (PF3549). 1.0 REQUESTED ACTION: 1.1 Chris Olson, 2940 Old Highway 8, seeks approval of a 54 foot VARIANCE to Section 1004.O1A7 (Location) and a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT in accordance with Section 1004.O1A4 of the Roseville City Code to allow the construction of a 980 sq. ft detached garage in the front yard. PROJECT REVIEW HISTORY � Application submitted & determined complete on January 16,2004. • 60-day review deadline on March 16,2004. � 60-day review deadline extension to May 15,2004 on March 8,2004. • Staff Recommendation: Approval wlconditions, March 3,2004. • PlanningCommissionAction:ApprovalRecommendation(5-1)wlconditions,March3, 2004. 2.0 SiJMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 At its March 3,2004 meeting, the Roseville Planning Commission recommended approval (5-1) of a VARIANCEto Section 1004.O1A7 (35 feet) and a 3 foot VARIANCE to Section 1004.02DS of the Roseville City Code for Chris Olson, 2940 Old Highway 8, subject to 11 conditions. 3.0 3.1 SUGGESTED COUNCIL ACTION: Adopt a resolution granting approval w/conditions (see Section 8 for detailed action). PF3549 — RCA 032904 - Page 1 of 8 �.� ��.�+�x��[.rESTa 4.1 Chris Olson has submitted a proposal to construct a 980 sq. ft. detached accessory building in his front yard. The structure would lie approximately 14 feet from the front property line and 10 feet from the side yard property line (per submitted drawings). The structure location would be on the north side of the parcel, adj acent to the existing driveway and attached single stall garage. 4.2 The Olson home was originally constructed in 1940 and lies on a rectangularparcel approximately 100 feet wide by 247 feet deep or 24,770 square feet in size. The lot has an impervious coverage allowance of 7,431 sq. ft, of which approximately 3,689 sq. ft. is being utilized. The existing principal structure is approximately 1,150 sq. ft. and includes a single stall attached garage that is approximately 230 sq. ft. The existing principal structure is set back an estimated 66 feet from the front property line adjacent to Old Highway 8. 4.3 The proposal seeks approval of a 980 sq. ft detached accessory building that would increasethe impervious total on the parcel to approximately4,669 sq. ft. However, more importantly, accessory building square footage exceeds the size of the home. Staff has calculatedthe home to be 1,150 sq. ft., the attached garage to be 230 sq. ft., and the proposed detached accessory building to be 980 sq. ft. This gives the parcel a proposed total accessory building square footage of 1,210 sq. ft. or 60 sq. ft. over the parcel's allowance. Staff does not recommend a VARIANCE to allow the overage. 4.4 Variance Conditions Proposed — Detached Accessory Building: SEC1"IONf 1004.O1A7 Existin� Condition Proposed Condition Variance Location — Accessor� Not Allowed in Front Yard must be behind front building line SECTION 1004.02D5 � �i�i� �'��# �e��a�k �Q €�ci irom pr�p�rt�r �Ine principal structure setback from property line 66 feet �� Applicant Proposal � Applicant Proposal 12 feet Staff Proposal 30+ feet Staff Proposal 7 feet 54 feet Staff Proposal 35 feet Staff Proposal 3 feet PF3549 — RCA 032904 - Page 2 of 2 5.0 STAFF COMMENTS/FINDINGS: 5.1 Section 1004.O1A7 (Location) reads: "No accessory building or garden shed shall be erected or located within any front yard. Accessory buildings and/or garden shed shall be located behind the front building line of the principal structure. On through lots, lakeshore lots, accessory buildings and/or garden shed may be located between the road right-of-wayline and the principal structure, provided they meet the required front yard setback of 30 feet". The proposal by Mr. Olson, to construct a detached 980 sq. ft. accessory building (garage) in the front yard, would place the structure approximately 12 feet from his front property line. With the existing principal structure located approximately 66 feet from the front property line, the detached accessory building would require a variance (54 feet) to be placed in the fron yard 12 feet from the front property line. 5.2 Section 1004.01A4 (Requirements for Increased Size) reads: "The size of detached accesso�y buildings may be inc�eased f�om a total of 864 sq. �r. to a maximum total size of 1, 008 sq. ft. A public hea�ing and app�oval of a conditional use pe�mit in acco�dance with 1013. 01 of the title, and p�ovided all applicable p�ovisions of this section a�e met, is necessa�y. The proposed 980 sq. ft. detached accessory building requires a conditional use permit. 5.3 Section 1004.01 AS (Overall Area) reads: "The overall area of attached garage and detached accessory buildings shall not exceed the e�erior dimensional footprint of the principal structure, excluding any attached garage footprint". The Olson principal structure has been estimated at 1,150 square feet in size and the existing attached garage estimated at 230 sq. ft., which leaves 920 sq. ft. of useable accessory building square footage. The proposal to construct a 980 sq. ft. detached accessory building exceeds the maximum amount allowed by the Code by 60 sq. ft., an amount that is not supported by staff. 5.4 Section 1004.O1A8 (Minimum Setback) reads: "A garden shed and/or accessory buildings shall be set back a minimum of 5 feet from a side or rear yard lot line and a minimum of 6 feet from any other building on the same lot or parcel." The building code would prescribe special requirements (specifically increased fire rating between walls) for those structures closer than 6 feet to one another. The recommendation by the Community Development Department seeks a 3 foot variance to the code section to allow the detached accessory building to be placed 7 feet from the north side yard property line. 5.5 The Olsons have options available to them for increasing accessory building space on the parcel. Specifically, the Olsons could build a detached garage in their rear yard, but this structure would be challengingto construct and difficult to access, especially given the steep slope to the rear yard and the e�remely long/steep driveway. The Olsons could also construct an attached garage adj acent to the existing attached single stall garage. This structure would require excessive footings or a basement due to steep rear yard PF3549 — RCA 032904 - Page 3 of 3 slope. Depending on the attached garage's size, one or more variance might be necessary. An attached garage at the size proposed would be difficultto place on the parcel unless the existing attached garage stall was removed. Such a garage may preclude vehicle access to the rear yard. The City Planner has determined these options to be impractical and unreasonable given existing conditions on the parcel. 5.6 Although the principal structure was constructed in 1940 and prior to the adoption of a City zoning ordinance, the land was not subdivided until 1976. This action, as determined by the Community Development Staff, places a 10 foot side yard setback requirementon the property for a principal structure versus a 5 foot side yard setback requirementfor most lots and homes platted and constructedprior to May 1959. 5.5 The Community Development Staff has reviewed this proposal and determined that it is difficultto justify a departurefrom the strict application of Section 1004.O1A5 (Overall Area) of the City Code allowing the applicant to construct a 980 sq. ft. detached accessory building. The Communitv Development Staff also o�oses the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. 5.6 However, the Community Development Staff has determined there is justification for reducing the accessory building to 26 feet by 32 feet or 832 sq. ft., which eliminates the need for a Conditional Use Permit and eliminates the need for a Variance to Section 1004.Q1A5. It does, however, require a Variance to Section 1004.O1A7 (allowance in front yard). 5.7 In the fall of 1999 the City, through the Community Development Director, approved a Setback Permit for this property that would have allowed the construction of an attached 2-1/2 stall �ara�e on the north side of the home 4 feet from the side vard pronertv line. The initial Setback Permit approval was appealed to the City Council. The Council directed staff to re-notify the Setback Permit hearing and have the Development Review Committee (DRC) hold another hearing on the subj ect request. The DRC approved the Setback Permit adding two conditions, increasing conditions of approval from 3 to 5. However, the proj ect was never completed because the property owners moved from Roseville. 5.8 In Section 1013 the Code states ..... Where there are practical difficulties or unusual hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this code, the Variance Board shall have the power, in a specific case and after notice and public hearings, to vary any such provision in harmony with the general purpose and intent thereof and may impose such additional conditions as it considers necessary so that the public health, safety, and general welfare may be secured and substantial justice done. PF3549 — RCA 032904 - Page 4 of 4 5.9 State Statute 462357, subd. 6(2) provides authority for the city to "hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance....The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect" 5.10 The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use f used under conditions allowed by the official controls: The Olson's home is set back approximately 66 feet from the front yard property line and the parcel slopes from the northwest to the southeast, which slope begins near the front of the home. Constructing into the slope can be achieved, but is difficult and costly, and would possibly impact the parcel's drainage pattern and vehicle access to the rear yard. The option to construct a detached accessory building in the front yard becomes the most reasonable and practical solution. Given the current site conditions the Community Development Staff has determined that a detached accessory building is a reasonable and practical request. However, the location and size of the accessory building must be changed. The structure must be set back a minimum of 3 0 feet from the front property line (northwest) and 7 feet from the side yard (north) property line, and the size must be reduced to 832 sq. ft. so that total accessory building square footage is below the size of the house footprint. The Community Development Staff has determined that the property can be made more livable and put to a reasonable and practical use under the official controls, if variances are granted. 5.11 The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not crecr�ed by the landowner: The Olson parcel has a unique slope that complicates the construction of structures on the parcel. Those additions constructed directly adj acent or attached to the existing home will require special care, unique design, increased cost, earth removal and drainage pattern changes. The Olson home was originally constructed in 1940 and lies approximately 66 feet from the front property line (similar to most structures along the south side of Old Highway 8 from County Road C2 to Troseth Road). New home construction or an addition to the Olson home would be required to meet a 40 foot front yard setback (does not apply to accessory buildings) The City Planner has determined that locating a detached accessory building in the front yard is a reasonable and practical solution to the Olson's unique situation. The Community Development Staff has determined that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner (change in type of lot and setback application because of frontage road). PF3549 — RCA 032904 - Page 5 of 5 5.12 The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality: Although a large detached garage (in a front yard) is not a design feature of a 1940's home, nor a design feature similar to neighboring properties, the reduced size recommended by the Community Development Staff (832 sq. ft.) can be designed to be compatible with the existing home and neighborhood (hip roof, windows that minimize massing impacts, building material). Similar projects recently approved by the City Council include Gutierrez; 421 CrescentLane; Gisvold, 970 Transit Avenue; Strub, 1275 Burke; and Norris, 1547 Se�tant Avenue. While an attached garage (even to within 5 feet of the property line) may have been more visually appealing, the Community Development Staff has determined that a 26 foot by 32 foot (832 sq. ft.) detached accessory building, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality, nor adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare, of the city or adjacent properties. 6.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 The Community Development Department recommends approval of a VARIANCE to Section 1004.O1A7 (Location) and a 3 foot VARIANCEto Section 1004A2D5 (Dwelling Dimensions— Side Yard Setback) of the Roseville City Code for Chris Olson to allow the construction of a detached accessory building in the front yard at 2940 Old Highway 8, based on the findings in Section 5 and the following conditions: a. The attached garage being limited to a depth of 26 feet, a length of 32 feet, and an overall size of 832 sq. ft. b. A minimum side yard setback not to encroach closer than 7 feet to the side yard (north) property line. c. A minimum front yard setback of 30 feet. d. Impervious coverage being limited to 7,431 square feet. e. A scaled and detailed site and grading plan (including property lines) being submitted with the building permit application indicating the exact grades and dimensions of all buildings and hard surfaces (driveway, sidewalk, patio) and the proposed detached garage and additional driveway design. Should this site plan be too difficult to create, a property survey will be required in its place. f. The detached accessory building (garage) shall be limited to the storage of the owner's vehicles, lawn and garden items, seasonally used recreational vehicles or items (snowmobiles) and household items. Operation of a home occupation is not allowed within the garage. g, Windows, similar in design to the home, being placed on the north, northwest and southeast building walls to break-up the facade of the structure. PF3549 — RCA 032904 - Page 6 of 6 h. Gutters installed along the eaves of the detached accessory building to direct roof drainage to the front and rear yards, specifically away from the adjacent residential property to the north. i. The design of the detached accessory building not exceeding a maximum height of 15 feet (midpoint of roof truss) and an e�terior wall height of 9 feet. The detached accessory building being constructed with similar materials to those of the principal structure and having a similar roof line and materials. k. The review and approval of a building permit must be consistent with the approved plans and variance. 7.0 PLANNING COMMSSION ACTION: 7.1 On Wednesday, March 3,2004, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing regarding the Olson variance request. At the meeting the property owners (Chris & Noelle Olson) and the adjacent property owner were present to address the Commission. 7.2 Mr. Olson addressed the Commission stating he and his wife had no issues with the conditions recommended by the City Planner, but that he desired to keep the structure as far forward (towards the front property line) as possible to appease the neighbor. 73 Keith Hauer-Lowe addressed the Commission indicating his objections to the staff recommendation. Specifically, he indicated that his bedroom lies directly adjacent the proposed accessory building and that the staff proposed location would create a greater amount of noise reflection and that that the required garage windows were not a concern. He also expressed concern over access to the rear yard via the side yard between his property and the back (north side) of the proposed garage. 7.4 Ms. Dorothy Ohnsorg (2523 Maple lane) stated that she was not opposed to the applicant's request and noted that garages should not be used for anything but a residential use. 7.5 The Planning Commissionvoted (5-1) to recommend approval of a VARIANCE to Section 1004.O1A7 (Location) and a 3 foot VARIANCE to Section 1004.02D5 (Dwelling Dimensions — Side Yard Setback) of the Roseville City Code for Chris Olson to allowthe construction of a detached accessory building in the front yard at 2940 Old Highway 8, based on the findings in Section 5 and Conditions listed in Section 6 of the project report dated March 3,2004. PF3549 — RCA 032904 - Page 7 of 7 8.0 SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 81 ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING a VARIANCE to Section 1004.O1A7 (Location) and a 3 foot VARIANCE to Section 1004.02DS (Dwelling Dimensions — Side Yard Setback) allowing Chris Olson to construct a 26 foot by 32 foot (832 sq. ft.) detached accessory building in his front yard at 2940 Old Highway 8, based on the findings of Section 5 and the conditions of Section 6 of the proj ect report dated March 29, 2004 (SEE ATTACHED DRAFT RESOLUTION). Prepared by: ThomasPaschke (651-490-2236) and Dennis Welsch (651-490-2232) Attachments: Location map, aerial photos, site plan & narrarive. PF3549 — RCA 032904 - Page 8 of 8 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE Pursuant to due ca11 and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was held on the 29rh day of March, at 6:00 p.m. The following members were present: and the following were absent: Council Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO SECTION 1004.O1A7 (LOCATION) AND A 3 FOOT VARIANCE TO SECTION 1004.02DS (DWELLING DIMENSIONS— SIDE YARD SETBACI� OF THE ROSEVILLE CITY CODE FOR 2940 OLD HIGHWAY 8(PF3549). WHEREAS, Chris & Noelle Olson have requested a VARIANCEto Section 1007A1A7 (Location) of the Roseville City Code to a11ow the construction of a detached accessory building in the front yard of their parcel; and WHEREAS, the Olson home is 2940 Old Highway 8, and legally described as: Lot 1, Block 1, Marinelli Addition PIN: OS-29-23-23-0055 WHEREAS, Section 1004.01 A7 (Location) reads: "No accessory building or garden shed shall be erected or located within any front yard. Accessory buildings and/or garden shed shall be located behind the front building line of the principal structure. On through lots, lakeshore lots, accessory buildings and/or garden shed may be located between the road right-of-way line and the principal structure, provided they meet the required front yard setback of 30 feet"; and WHEREAS, the proposal by Mr. Olson, to construct a detached 980 sq. ft. accessory building (garage) in the front yard, would place the structure approximately 12 feet from his front property line; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended that the accessory building have a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet; and WHEREAS, Section 1004.O1A8 (Minimum Setback) reads: "A garden shed and/or accessory buildings sha11 be set back a minimum of 5 feet from a side or rear yard lot line and a minimum of 6 feet from any other building on the same lot or parcel"; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has determined the any accessory building allowed in the front yard should meet the 10 foot principal structure setback require on the parcel; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department seeks a 3 foot variance to the code section to allow the detached accessory building to be placed 7 feet from the north side yard property line. WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing regarding the Olson request, recommending (5-1) approval of a VARIANCE to Section 1007.O1A7 and a 3 foot VARIANCE to Section 1004.02D5 of the Roseville City Code, based on the findings of Section 5 and conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated March 3,2004; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Roseville City Council, to approve a VARIANCE to Section 1004.O1A7 (Location) and a 3 foot VARIANCE to Section 1��.�� (Dwelling Dimensions— Side Yard Setback) allowing Chris Olson to construct a 26 foot by 32 foot (832 sq. ft.) detached accessory building in his front yard at 2940 Old Highway 8, based on the findings of Section 5 and the following conditions: 1. The attached garage being limited to a depth of 26 feet, a length of 32 feet, and an overall size of 832 sq. ft. 2. A minimum side yard setback not to encroach closer than 7 feet to the side yard (north) property line. 3. A minimum front yard setback of 30 feet. 4. Impervious coverage being limited to 7,431 square feet. 5. A scaled and detailed site and grading plan (including property lines) being submitted with the building permit application indicating the exact grades and dimensions of all buildings and hard surfaces (driveway, sidewalk, patio) and the proposed detached garage and additional driveway design. Should this site plan be too difficult to create, a property survey will be required in its place. 6. The detached accessory building (garage) shall be limited to the storage of the owner's vehicles, lawn and garden items, seasonally used recreational vehicles or items (snowmobiles) and household items. Operation of a home occupation is not allowed within the garage. 7. Windows, similar in design to the home, being placed on the north, northwest and southeast building walls to break-up the facade of the structure. 8. Gutters installed along the eaves of the detached accessory building to direct roof drainage to the front and rear yards, specifically away from the adj acent residential property to the north. � 9. The design of the detached accessory building not exceeding a maximum height of 15 feet (midpoint of roof truss) and an e�erior wa11 height of 9 feet. 10. The detached accessory building being constructed with similar materials to those of the principal structure and having a similar roof line and materials. 11. The review and approval of a building permit must be consistentwith the approved plans and variance. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: and the followingvoted against: WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 3 �� 6b. Plannin� File 3549: Request by Christopher & Noelle Olson for a ? Variancefrom Section 1004.01A7 and Conditional Use Permitin accordancewith 3 Section 1004,O1A4 of the Roseville City Code, for property located at 2940 Old � Highway 8. � Chair Mulder opened the hearing and requested the City Planner present the verbal � summary of the staff report dated March 3,2004. � � Thomas Paschke explained that Chris/Noelle Olson, 2940 Old Highway 8, seek approval � of a 54 foot Variance from Section 1004.01 A7 (Location) and a Conditional Use Permit l U in accordance with Section 1004.01 A4 of the Roseville City Code to a11ow the I L construction of a 980 sq. ft detached garage in the front yard. I� I� 1� �5 �� I� I� !9 �� I �� 3� 3� �3 �� JS �� ] �� 3 �� a The applicant seeks approval of a 980 sq. ft detached accessory building that would increase the impervioustotal on the parcel to appro�mately4,669 sq. ft. The accessory building square footage exceeds the size of the home. Staff calculated the home to be 1,150 sq. ft., the attached garage to be 230 sq. ft., and the proposed detached accessory building to be 980 sq. ft. This gives the parcel a proposed total accessory building square footage of 1,210 sq. ft. or 60 sq. ft. over the parcel's allowance. Staff did not recommend a Variance to allow the overage. Thomas Paschke explained setbacks allowed within the front yard for a principle structure. Staff reviewed this proposal and determined that it is difficult to justify a departure from the strict application of Section 1004.O1A5 (Overall Area) of the City Code allowing the applicantto construct a 980 sq. ft. detached accessory building. The Staff recommended not issuing a Conditional Use Permit. The Staff determined there is justification for reducing the accessory building to 26 feet by 32 feet or 832 sq. ft., which eliminates the need for a Conditional Use Permit and eliminates the need for one Variance to Section 1004.Q1A5. It does, however, require a Variance to Section 1Q04.O1A7 (allowance in front yard). The Staff recommended approval of a Variance to Section 1004.O1A7 (Location) and a 3 foot Variance to Section 1004.02D5 (Dwelling Dimensions— Side Yard Setback) of the Roseville City Code for Chris/Noelle Olson to allow the construction of a detached accessory building in the front yard at 2940 Old Highway 8, based on the findings in Section 5 of the proj ect report dated 03/03/04, and the following conditions: a. The attached garage being limited to a depth of 26 feet, a length of 32 feet, and an overall size of 832 sq. ft. b. A minimum side yard setback not to encroach closer than 7 feet to the side yard (north) property line. c. A minimum front yard setback of 30 feet. l � 3 � � fi � � I �] IL �� 9 .� �� ]� �� r�, Impervious coverage being limited to 7,431 square feet. �. A scaled and detailed site and gr�ding plan (including property lines) being submitted with the building pernlit application indicating the exact grades and dimensions of all buildings and }�ar�� surfaces (driveway, sidewalk, patio) and the proposed detache� �e �ci �dd�t��nai driveway design. Should this site plan be too d i fl'«u]t [o cre�[�, � pr�p�rt� survey will be required in its place. � F. The detached accessory b�rl�i i ng (garage) shall be limited to the storage of the owner's vehicles, lawn an�i gat�l�n items, seasonally used recreational vehicles or items �sn«wm��b�l�s � ancl household items. Operation of a home occupation is not all�� itE��n �h� gar��c. g, Windows, similar in design to th� home, being placed on the north, northwest and southeast building walls t� I�reak-up the facade of the structure. ]� 11. Gutters installed along the �ve� of the detached accessory building to direct ]�} roof drainage to the front and reaa yards, specifically away from the adj acent �� residential property to the naet�. �] �� 3 �� 3] 3� �3 �� 3� �� S �� I �� 3 � �� i The design of the detached acce ory building not exceeding a ma�mum height of 15 feet (midpoint of r f truss) and an exterior wall height of 9 feet. j_ The detached accessory I�ui �di n� �� i r�� constructed with similar materials to those of the principal �rr��.turG �r�d fn�4� i n�, a similar roof line and materials. k. The review and approval of a bualding permit must be consistent with the approved plans and variance. Member Bakernan asked where the door was on the proposed garage (south side, adjacent to the driveway. There is enough �r�r�ri�r�� s�r�a� on the site to support this use and driveway.) Member Peper asked for a sketch or elevati� of the garage. Windows should be on the sides of the garage. Thomas Paschke said th, neighbor does not require windows on the north. Chris Olson said he has no issues with the sl�tff proposal, except to keep the structure as far toward the street as possible to appease the adjacent neighbor. Member Ipsen asked why in the front yard r ther than attached garage? (The cost and slope were significant obstacles, according t� the Olsons.) Keith Hauer-Lowe, 2948 Old Highway 8, ex�l ain� his obj ections to the attached garage proposal (too large, could not get car in back 3�ar��. There is a stair adj acent to the house ] complicating backyard access without rna��in� th� ga�ag� further from the house. He � expressed concern with sound r�tl��ian, �ie�dows are not a concern. Will there be eaves � along all edges, they should l� Sls�e� �v�s. Mr. L�w� expressed concern about access to � rear yard from the north �td� �t�th� s��r�. � �r Mrs. Dorothy Ohnsorg, 2523 Maple Lane,'�d not object, but noted garages should not be � used for anything but residential uses. She''�id cars and trucks at C2 and Old Highway $ 8, located at another variance site, have bees� a problem. � I�J Member Blank noted costs and locations (slope) are challenges. The garage is almost the f I size of the house. � 1� 13 Member Peper asked if there could be a set �ck compromise along the front of the ]� property line — could there be an alternate s��ack? Thomas Paschke stated the staff is not 1� opposed to other alternatives which can be § pported by hardships. I� 1T r 1� l� �� 1 �� - �� Member Bakeman expressed concern about fron� yard garages and setbacks along Old Highway 8; she prefers a consistent setback �'h� possible and 30 feet in this proposal. Chair Mulder expressed concern about the visibility of the garage — it should be back as far as possible and use gables and awnings. The hardship is the lot and slope. Member Stone said the structure should use ��mi9�r materials and design whereverl possible. Mr. Olson said the design and matcri�Ls �•a I E be similar to the house. Chair Mulder closed the hearing. ��} Motion: Member Stone moved, second by t+�[�m�er Bakeman, to recommend approval 3� of a Variance to Section 1004.O1A7 (LocatEOr+� and. a 3 foot Variance to Section 31 1004.02D5 (Dwelling Dimensions — Side Yard Setback) allowing Chris Olson to 3� construct a 26 foot by 32 foot (832 sq. ft.� detachc�d accessory building in their front yard �� at 2940 Old Highway 8, based on the findine� of ��ction 5 and the conditions of Section 3� 6 of the project report dated March 3,2004. 3� 3� Member Peper will not support the motion. �he garage should be closer to the front �� property line. 3#� Motion: Member Peper moved, second by �'Iember Blank, to amend the motion to 3� support a variance of 6 feet to allow a 24 fe� fro�,t yard setback, rather than 30 foot �� setback. �L �� Member Ipsen said he will oppose the �mendment; the garage should be back as far as possible. Ayes: 1(Should this have been 2, �cp�r and l�lank, tr� ��? Nay s: 5 1 Motion defeated. 3 Vote on original motion: 4 Ayes: Bakeman, Stone, Ipsen, Traynor, Bla��+k, Mulder 5 Nays: 1, Peper 6 Motion carried. � � � w • Q �1 � t• ,; . !� � . ti� f „ } _ •.. � ;`• ,� _ �' �� 2 � {+ � � ' � _ . � • �— . •, � i_- � �- �•. �� . ' � I � t' � �.��ai �� ff �� .. •r � � k, , , �. ; � � < r r _� � ... �. .i�� '�k • ,_ J .. �Y� . t �� - � � 1. ._ � . ..��' . • • ' • — i � }. ! - � _ = , 4 M1� � I - sr.� _ �� k' � t. � L' � � r_ ia u J ,, . :�5�� 'i4� . _,i. :,- � �L ;yy' ti � • .''��J � �aEY ,_sT�; : •,', ..a'. —, .; �� . - -;; P; - _, a� '_•,,�, •+- :' �� :'� ': ! C� ' ;: d}�; �5 - �;�2�� ?:iaa:+ . { :�Ir- � 'J ' } i ;� � �� ' �� • �� ' � -�- �'�� . � �iT � •� i ,' },• • _ _ + = =; .,. � ,� :�1i i � _ 3 1' � _� }i`� . . � . . � . . � . � . � � � � f � .. �� r i �� "" ' '�; . � F � •+ ' y– — - . � — F ' �1� � � � • . - � � J� ' � • -� • � � =-�..� . � ,tti . _ �_ ' � ,:: - � � � - , �� . . L.. '-� �• • F, �-� + I ' + ' # -� � : '� _ �. } r . _ � :i _ ._ _ . � _. .--- • • - - - • - � � - _ _a _.1a_ � - L L a . a �a '} _�_ . . � _ _ �� - } � �� .- w ,- . � . _ � •- _ �.� � � • L � . T�. �� -� �r • # ' � .. . �. � � � ' / ' �' • �n" �i • f ' i . � 1 r. ' f ..��.- .�• . � � � . .� �4 � - . '_ `. . � �+� . � � �� . --- _ � ••ir �r . � � .{ ' ' � � f - -'' � - � - - � ; ,� • r� . _ 4 . �T . _ .. . . ,:� � n " L _ . ._` _ y •� - Tr — ,Y.• �' � _. _. r � . . . �' . �: r � F �' - I .. �� . . _ � � '�- �� r �. . . �•� � ^�� T , a • yFJ . � � afrf . _._� _ ��.�• __ _ - . ' '_' 3 ' _ ' � _ —.� ' _. .i _ � - '�y _ �. ti � .� -��+.�. � � - � .- �- :,, . : ",' _ ' :� ' �� '�.." _ . . _ �::� . ,i:..�. '.t:�. '� , � � � ' �' . .:�'�'. . . _ z � __ .� .�� iv �� .. . a�� ,�� ' y.'. �� . �� t �i� . �',. �� r_` a " " : � . �' ' . .� ' _' �f . � � � . � ' �� . - ti �� _ �a� _ ~�= I — � . _ � . _ � _ � — o — � _� _ 9 , 4 • "" �r_� J '..Ty . � .y_�t? •- '�z-" .. �.�._ . ... :�j: . �i� =LY, _ .�� . '•S. .. ., �4 ' ' �ki' �:2 . - :;_• �3 ,T• '�� ..:Q�: �}�� * i t # � • --S •�� •__'_' _ � L � � � •� F�I '_ �f'� � " * , '`_�� J ' �' = 1 . =R� .� •�r� _ ��•��r • ,= ' t 7 ,. ''• �_ :4 � � - �, ! i � S ' � _� � � � _ �� J ' � i � � � ; � �J � � k � 4 Y ,�'.. � � � { r �'.• � - _ U r t � � � � _ _ J J � } y � �' _ ��` -- _. � - _ = � �+�� r . • _ �* •� fl ' v W � • — fl � _� � �� _. Y� �' - � _� _ . -* � " � . ��,� _. - . : � ;� ', � � _ - � T — , • _. ,4_ .._} • - � � � r _ L� ' _ � � . Y C tir. � L r T .��.� - i } _ �_y i k� � +� � �'�� : �� Y �l' � � � � • ti w ' r, � � w. • � L ; • . �� F .{��' 4,� k'� � '�_ .� �' • i�� _ _ � . _� ' � _ _ i..: - � rf �l � .� � � �,, *- � ' �� "-R` � : til i�; Yi. �• �~.— �� + . ., r _ �„r • '� -� _ , � �' '� �,�-�' fti j;; • +• Fa � � ' Ft � � � } h r � � 1 ti' ti.l• � �� i . y _ . �. • ,ti ' ' • � � � _ : + �,�. � _ , � ,.t � � ' � �� ' •�.•' •� '' .•� _ • r �, � � � � _ � F�r�� . L Y. ��; � M1 • _ '�.��, � � �`�.� � " R , �'� + �� • . � � + f • Y - ' +� � •'+ � -' . -�� r �. � k `r ' i_'. r � 9a 5r� _ a . . � }}z . . r ��y ., . . � , � � i .' � '� ' ' - ,. �y � •s,., .,��r*�� +� , , y. • �..•, �:� �'. _ 'ti�j ' '� � _ � l � �bl�� y � �� ' � _ � � �, � �f . � �- � � i_ +. _ i .�2 .tc,r y _ � � � } TL74 _ r r � �',�.,,r • • Ll ' . 5 * ��k_ ' � N � �� 3 �� { �r �• ' ,� ��.� 4' � F.,F� h _ — . h•� . ' ' '�� ' Ji �. •�'�� . �F..� � �4 , �. : .� �' � . ,, • q . ;� ,�� .� _r �r-� _ L . ! � �'�* . �#,�� "� l� } - , � — � � 4 ��, � r4�. ' , �� . � r . . : r . . , : � �� . •,. � '�.�-}' �� . , , ..� �. • k • r r ? ' j � ' y•.� �' . i r • �' ,� �{� � - ± 5 � rti �, . ' • � .'.t � y �4 w� _ � . ' ��. �� •�" � � � • t - �* r i � _ � I 4� �� , f . 4�� r �•� . ' r � I I L �� ti •.� r t r: . � � � ��.F ti E, ' •� � '� t �. � � �. '� : �� '�y� � . �F- � .�•'� ��y. �� ' - � � '� - � � F � _ • � �• 1 •' � . � ? _ Y � • ' ~ # l� I � r � � , �� ; ' �' � :�, ' ° . =r�� .f I r � � � , 4 ; �; ��++--��. LL�, k M1L �: �� • ' �T a L ��' _ a � i 4� : ` . F � ' ,i � � #r t � � ��- � ' �# .; � � �_ � � � r ,� , . �ti � �� 3�. 4 � ' ` ';. , l F � . . . . . . � M1 } — T � _ . � � � `l� � � ' J � � �. �# ,}{ ~i� �. +��, � i + +. � � � � �. �• k : � �� . �� +� f � . � u ' �. � ��+ S 5 � � �y4 '. � . � .�4 _ � k�� L .� ' �� T � . _� 1 • ��• ��a � R ��r J'J -•� � �k � , - 't.��` � . 1� . _ �� 4 :. . � r � �' '- 1� — +� k k • • � � �� . � . �� " .l� � = t y� ' ' � � f '� F� F��'. r ., ,. . r� � }' � � . T r, � ' . �� T . � � ��+ � � . � .� �� • �J • ' ` � � * ry i� � '� f�k F _ � �, �,l i� � - . t .':� �,,� ''+'� � � _ �� . ' 4 ��ti4_iMgt'� � Fr1r�'� +r� •�. 1 ', � . � � R . k • � � r, y '�:� . ��.y,. ,_ � ��. �.y� '.� �: � � . � .. r � :.�� .: . .,.�.� + ._� ,.. Y t... , '� { Y . � -. � �; � ' , ' � ' � ��,� � L = LF � � � .F , �.�� . �. _ � 4 . _; - f? � '�;� '��. �� , � �-.r xf.� . � �rt � � . � �:��. � J r` �t: t * s ,. � i � . r-rE - t ".. ��• I �'}-�. � � .• y, +:. �'F _ _ �r� y'�r ,t� . .4. _ - ��I� -� 'Z��d` .ti.� . *., ki � s4+F r '� �� • �� • • . - ,l4ik � � >' . . . 1 1:. . �� , , �. � � - .k � � �� . i � f . .� � '�� •� y�� • _ � . •�� ` . .�.� 1 . � f r'� �-r �� . r. } F� F Y � ' J�;� -� �++ry�, 'i '.F ,,7 � ��. _ . �, f ' Y '� � • 1 � � ' L ! � f T , F _i�_ .. � , . , �• __ t. � :�{ ' ' r � L. • p �� r; .� w # , - ''. 'l' ' ' �'. �•' 4 � � �r. ` � ^�1�� ' • �,r T ir . • - �' y { �.-..� •h . f:} {,�:.s�k : �� 5... � �.� +. �� '� �'�■ � s .��`.� � �• � �i }F}•I r w . �f� ' �� ..Y,;• .. � t .5 . . �� IF ..7M ' F'' k� . : ��: _ ` .� ' f�. '- -- •+. �• ' • � �f � t 3 Y . � � �I 1 �� . ��y' +�4 • k:+ � . 'i. •�� k � � – � '�� . I �J . ��I . r •'+ ' � ��' �� -4}� � 5'.4 ; F _ -�� . I.� �� I �!� '- � � L�• I � �� . �� ;��. k re �� - L� 7t• . y F�} � ry . �+` ' �y � + �� .�. � +�■' _ ��F�'� . r� - ' .. � } x- •�... :�. r �- !� -� �r�`-, r�' � . �� - . �- �_ .' _i ' � '--' ' : �j� � � � ..�� 2� h� . ��• .' � �- � u i 1 : � ti� ~ • L �� r T ' . � � . � • . ' �'.� ��y� ' •� - o_i � � � " � .''+� �' �{I..r.y . .� �� `r�;� i � � �'••F-4- . � ' �' tM i ' • - L � : r � . � , �'�•' •� � '�-� � • ' �� , , :-� " ��y . �,� . � �: _ . � ,�`'. ; - .i''�'� ��. y . • yti: �• � x� ' y - . f � ��, , _ a . F � .+ �. . �� : � •� j . . ,i 1� � - . , . {� " � �:��:t • 'F r �} }'� _ .` . . '':;_. . } _ •• Y. _ J }'tT _ , �� ,• • +-� � k . - y' r �vL �; i. .� � • .��'; .� .�� {F; { rt ' 4� �•� � - r � � , y lsq � - ��.. �r� y � �y �i _ .. _ ' _.�• . rt , _ ' 1 r �i-r . , 1 _ „ _ �' ' . .�, � �}. � f ' ' � _ 'i' 'yr�• ,�"� � ;' � ' .' • -- � � . �,. � R .� Y � Ti , �1�� " ' .� � . ., - 5�u � ' � l .�� •,. #F �_, ! -` ti"_ 5_ ;��, 4.,r r �� J • � � 'f ��+ �� + Y , 1 � . �• * �y� r _ � �i,. '� t" +� � � • y..' ' � �- �� . �� ! C�� . , ' � • y�� _ �� 1� � i l � . �,,� � �.� � �- � � � . � ��'� . � , �. . { �r ' �. . .. � '� ��. � . � : r,�. ..��__ .� � �. �' . , . �,�•-,• ', �'r .•� '�• � � •.4•• �i• �� . '•� ""� - . ��. � � � ��- L � f• ; — .af�x. � � : '� r ' • .� .- � y' +, �. •y ti ',�.•� ..� �_� � i•• F •'� + •�, _ ..._ _ �•' `� . ��1. " Y . � � '1• Y ��. .r L + ��" . � , •,.� �;+•� � �. � { - � r � �� . � �. ;� � " ��-�� , �$�� Y r m, .� ��: � ', . ' : • . R , � - ,t. � �, ' "4�� , � ,' • �'.. _ _ • � - d,,�''� , , 4 .7 :-� � � ~ ��: '�. � n :r• �. •- �r' •! F ,_'� •' • -L � f1�., +r �. � � � .* .� — , c _ /L ��'� �� . F �" � � + %'� `.. A ' �L �}�ti � � = � 1 {' • r ,� , • . • J 1 � � � v • . F • � ' � .:} ._�� t. � � �F� r. � � y . � � � iy �' �_.: ,�.�� . � .. . ��'� + t� � } �� T ' , � _ _ 7 � I�� •+ :� { . � R ` � { " ,� '� r r ' � f ��' � .'� : '+r '-G' i • � • � • i '� � � '� ! �, �'• � �: . .. �.* • � ' �# � � �� . _ , • r �}' • . !� . . ,� ' � �� • i • • w ` � -.+I � Ft� .� � � � . �f �� • . ��1�� ' � � t �� • , .-�. # �� '�� , �� y*r ��y ` '+ �� I . k r � r}�r L { L : � ' .�k � �:. �:. � ��'a I { ' ', 1 i y � ' ' . _ � �� }L + � i � , � � F �.�_ ' '�-. � � ;. �'" .' • - �; '� , . � � . � �: ,:irr�. �. � � � * � . � � , 'i�,.�� r..' , 'S "i ..{ }' - � � +�.: ,��fr . � _ • Y�'� L i � •i - — - . � � - � � ' �� • '�. F . � � � M1 � � � � •� _ � 1 � y �� r •�*� �_• i • � � � i . . � hM� . � . ,�� k � �2, h � � i+�ti r ! � •� � � -� .,�` � r � . ' �.. ; : ; � .. �* , ¢ ti � F • , • ' � ��. 'f' '��:' h � '` �' M� _ ■. �.r • � + � � � � ' 4 ` �i ',�� ' _� t +�• ` '� . .y�� + �i �r. , � �, '�� . :ti'• _ • `� � .: i +. �� ■ � - ` I'� �F = a"' �' .� � d+''." ' _j r , �' �� • ` '.� . � , ' ',y �•k ,� . .� _ _ . . � � �� i �y _ � _ 2 � � ' • * � " �� wr ' ,� i � � ' I - ' �. . � r � i _ ,• - '�+�L � _ ' � � ! • ' _ � + i � J - � ' 1 . � � � � �J Y � �7 .'� � I ' ' ��.�� . � . F� � � �, .� . *ti •. �� --• -F � y -�i �� i i 5. '�Y, � � . • �Lg} . + �s � S 5 �s ■ , 2' — �R N . � 1F • � • {4 � � y t �� ;�' . �*'- *. � .T�� . �+,•'." *�. �' • � � j r . � , y�_��'� •'� �- , � r- � �- - �� ' -f �+� �'� + J � � r 4Y i. F'� r '� � + � � ' � � i —3r , �� •� �#Y # � . � � � # � ' � r � � .� � • �� r f .{ • ti F � J � �'• ■: �.� i� � • # � 1 � '�� ' - �. 4 ' � '� � • _ , . �' .r �' � �".� t '��. ,'�� , i ' ' . - _- , � , , '�; ��, � � �+�,' �� _ . {� �! '_ _ •I •, '•� ' ,_ • -F'./�. *� �� , � � � + �. 294Q �d Hwy. 8 �k.� �tN 55113 F�r�+ �4 � ��+ o�f �vll� �� 0 Gi�ic C�r D�e R�'Ik,1�+� �� 3 To� �.�am.a �� i�m�und�t�r �� m�� T�c }�� Fq � � �-�o � �r�ea #aars, � i� #� �id�iv�l Fn�m�tl� t�t �u req�te�d. -I � d�m�e�d th� t�e pria��■1 �+�,� �r� i� � � � ■qo�a� �ia�. •�re �ad �st�e i� ��0 �� f� -'Ihe � aeta�#�# rod �� w�ll �a�� t� b� �+od �r �� u�d mir�lLenp�u* at�r� �� -'The �c oftt� proposed �uQkm�e w�lll be �4 �# � � �, �mce the bc�io� �nd there� f�e st�r]e. of the ��e i� �ep� � � � �d � � � � � �a �'�e � y�et � � w� �a a� �� nat �a�e �o p.�+ f'rrr tvyo d� � a�pla��- �a would, of course, #�y within the �on� �f the v�c�,pc� �o�d � ua� �r�t, 9�no��l�. � ��- ��ti � �phar E. aad L�lo�eilc }L �i� �1��1� �5M7-I��r � -�'ou �rdir.�ed th■t �he �� +e3e�rp�ent � disCO�sa�eQ a +�rr� � w�i�� th� pr�pa� �u� � t� �� r� hi� �► ilrr�df � t�rla � �� i�t�� p+��+d �. a�aa u�ar� �v� � � � �a�p �ur p�a �rnr i�e �w �.,w�+�.,F 1� � � �. �.��f*. � �'1�� i Y� �7m1� �[i�10�t�e e� �3e, -[n o� k�er d�c� �ba ��t �0#3, v�e �ta� t�¢ w� wo�tid be r�qnat�g ��rc �x the ��r �,�de in ord� f�r Ua �a h�tE1d ��e�ed �v�e t� wou�ld be bet�a tha f�t pr�' li� r��d thG ��rot �f t� ha� N�t � w�uld t� r�e � i� �#s �d�rl �� a � r�m-��'�hl�� hn� ttia ►�u`t�n�► +�e'a�'�ou� b�a �+�[1 to build 'm 11�e bac�tyazd. '[be existing steep �pc � tt� �t }�rd �v the �■�q�md wou�d be very �I�u� to ove�nco�pe. We have �al� �d i� t�i� �o+d� � Sapeemt� �0,2003, but v� bave beent�ld by ne#ghbor� � a'�o�oti� e�t" c�usad b� ua�tcr n,�-o#i ocxurs in our beckyard, especislly in the �� aa�ll�r �uc � � d� ��+�� t�ra� w�aul� �ed � t� �� n�� p� �b��y the living quarters of our �� neighbor. -Otu home and existing garage has gabl� roofs, We plan to keep the proposed structure similar in nat�u+e to the existing stcwcture�, Tl�ough we curreutly � aot have spoci�flc p� �s�rm �r th� r�ew ��a �ot �nresce a aee� fqr a variance in the city code �°� the heigirt of the proposed stn�a�, �� mcfu�dad a3dition.l ��r�++��+ � the drawingslh� were � with the �.+er �, �003 �. Y�� t t�e latter' �d tbe l�tter �ed � �. Z�(3� � e�d� � �ju�s � ihe tav �lications. Plsasr ]� us �� you � in a� ��r add�o� m�vrm�i�n. r}11.L7� T.1J i � Cl�opher E. and Noelle A Olson {651) 697-1626 �� . �� 2940 Old Hwy. 8 Roseville, MN 55113 ��`�+ I S' �QO� City ofRoseville (Community Develop�em De�rn): �4 �i+►i�€ ��er�r �� Roseville, MN 55113 To: 7'h�m� Paschke (Commwuty D�eveiaP°re� ��e�� 1�: It�a�t m Detached �r�r �uild�(c,�ar�ge) . Thank you f�r y�xar quick r�a�rts� t� ��r request Enclosed are the applications for a variance and far a conditlonal use �ami�. In �� your commeats, here is our information: -You noted that based upon o�r lot b�ir� ��F7#�D square � aur ]ct � 7,422 square feet of ;*+�ri� � coverage. I�c�d� th� driveway, watkways, current �� of the house a�d attach�d garage an�d �he �o�tpri� �fthe prc�posed �, the impervious c�v��e � r�ed t� be �,'�� t� This is below the ��+d amow�t of 7,422 squsre feet. Therefore, we wi71 nat be requesting a variance from ti�s secfion of the city code. �ur pr��d �.+,�� +►ill � Qv�r � �qu� � �k le� t�m � �� #, �� will be �que� a comditional t�e p�� !� 1� t� � tt�c �dit�1 ua� g�r�a � ��l �. � i� �ur r�aae; a l�t � T�ic�ir pe+a�poe� ��a• w� a�t �ly b� �� Ir�si 3� i�# �rvm th� ��ab {t�a will !ae �iat�cr d�sr�e�d w� �ha �� f' �� '1`� a�t� wi11 m�t interfere v�a�htra�c ar the �e�d-�f- � �f'd�`iE+� �mg �o � di'ivewQ�r �r o�o Old Hwy. �. h 1�� . qr� �d �#� g�ti� �i�-We do ntrt foresee any i�ac,�t on any of the above. �� t■a �a u�iq� thr existit� �. �d � c� �t �c�. t� � �� t�e �w �.,�� , Cos�i'lrilit3► ofthe � plan� „=�Ye pl�n �n �� tba �re similar in n�u� i� th� � ��e �d �rLod �r�. �r�t �� r� �� v� ��d 1� pr�p�} �� e home, both inside and at. 9�� sa I� �dd � �1r� �u� �c �f �r,� h�4�. �t, ��I t,�et ��m �n� t� th�s �p�y will �dd to the m�rket value. �, 'I�r� �hvu�d �e aa or�rir� i�p�rs on the g�nexal public heahh, �Y and welfare. f. We hope that �m�ra�rae�t u�stux,� in a�'s praperty and ta� pride �, homc �wrr�eT�i� �ue ell p�t �fthe city of Roseville's Comprehensive P1a.n. , � � � � � � � �� • � � �� 4 � �5 � � _ • � �� _ - . _ � � � � � �� } • �r � { � � ._ . �� = � � `� � - �� ., � � � � �� • � -� . �� _ �� k . _ . � �' �ti �� + � � � � � � .� . � � ..- -- ` � . -- � -.. - � � _.�� -=� , �� y� ' �• } � _ LT,. � � � � � � � � � I � r � � � � � , � {��f��' • I � -.- . . . . - -��- - - -� r� , y ' I � � I I ¢, I I r . ' � � I I � i � � � I I y I ' � ' � � � � } � � � �� ,� ! � F � � � � �� I,� .I =-:' �� ,�._; _�. � : � ,� �= � - ' ��II '� � � ��;�� - �- i� i . i �� , .�,_. i � ,,� _� ��,;� ,, --. - - . __ ------ . . � .- � _., _ :� � , . , -. ��; � _ �� . � �� F'µ - � {{ ' • ' •*• • � �;} • y � W �{ �� . Jr` _ � y ..+ . �� 'r � - I I I �-' �,''�f•. I .�F �II�� I �� I /� i- � � .+r •:;M{� • � � � � a _ �- •. � _, �� - �� .� . J . • i.� y - L � . T �.� � +' � �� .�� I �� ,.. .. � �� , � , �- �� i �� ,.., , � � ; � �I '�� -�� . � � �� _ �.. �.� . s �� ' � '� � � �� 4� � �� k� !�� . L •� � � ' '. �� } � I I � � �� ` � � i�� . � � � � � � # �:�j�� ..�;�� I f � ��.. .t�� ..�� I I . r ' y � S 5 / '� { '�' . � •a # I ' � 5 � ' �+ �� r I� � }.h.k�' � ' I � ��'ij � ,1 ~ � �Y C * � � ��__' _' r — _ . _ ._ � � � � � i � � � � �F� � � � iJJ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � i � � � � ��}� � � �_ � � � � � � � � � � � � �� . � � � � � �� ..+ � � � � � � � ■ �� ■y �� S � � �� • • k � � k t s � " F �� .� 'k �� s k ! F f ' ' � �� -- �� kk ��.�� s `� � � %�� S � ��_ � � � ��-� �� -__ Jf � �� I � �s� ��T�_1 . s � � . �I ��+'��`. �f�� --�� . rt � �� 1� '� � � � _� i — � � � -- � � .L ■ � i. � �.., ; : ., � ti�� `.�'- � . .. { :_ i': �� , . �'�I rv 'r�= . � + � _ �'� � - }� T— � � # ��.. � � P# �� I � �- -- , � k I � . �k � ' ! i � � � � , " � �ti� -�_�� I � J�f i�f-�� _� �� , � � � � � � � i � j 8 4,� �� , � I� �� ,�� r �Idtl��i #�{�� If�fl�� d'� �� s��l .�� . a� � {� ��;�`�e� j �� 1 � � �� ;�F� ,�� ! ��i S � ti � �� S ;�i� yjf' *■ ��31�1�3� � i �� 7 � �i!` � • � � F � ��r�� k �� .�� I — � �� _ �. _ � � d � � � � � I � � � � � � l� REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Cii�r �+1al�a��r :+�pp:�avaL TP t° � DATE: 03/29/04 I�M Na 7. Agenda Se�.tion: ��- - Item Description: A request by Meadow�i��• Homes for a CONIPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN��IY�?l4iE�lJlJr PRELIMINARYPLAT, REZONING and GENERAL �N �. [''1' PLAN NED UNIT DEVELOPMENT to allowthe redevelopmentof 2550 Hamkne Avenue (PF3546). 1.0 SLIMMARY of REQLTEST: 1.1 Meadow View Homes, owner/develop�'r, seeks approval of a Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment changing the designa�ion from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential; a Preliminary Plat �for eight town home lots and one common area lot; a Rezoning of property from R-1, S�ngle Family Residence District to Planned Unit Developmentwith an underlyingzonin#� of R-6, Townhome District; and a General Concept Planned Unit Development for eight town home units (four structures — two units attached) on 1.44 acres located at �2550 Hamline Avenue. �.� 2.1 3.0 PROJECT REVIEW HISTORY Sketch Plan Review of project on J�nuary 7,2004 . Applications Determined Complete�— February 17,2004 60-day review deadline on April 1�, 2004 • Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions — March 3,2004. Planning Commission Action: App�joval Recommendation (6-0) w/conditions — March 3,2004. ��i�iARY �t �.E �C�I�1ME.l��A�t��l : The Community Development Staff recpmmends approval with conditions. SUGGESTED ACTION: 3.1 Recommend approval of the request by Meadow View Homes for: a. ComprehensiveLand Use Pl Amendment from LR, Low Density Residential to MR, Medium Density Resid tial (Requires Super-Majority Vote). b. Preliminary Plat creating 8 to n home lots and a common area lot (Requires Simple-Majority Vote). c. Rezoning to Planned Unit D lopment with an underlying zoning of R- 6, Townhouse District Zoning ch�ge effective only after all approvals (Requires Simple-Majority Vote). d. General Concept Plan (planne� unit development) with conditions (see Section 10 for more detail) (Requires S�lnple-Majority Vote). PF3546 — RCA 032904 Page 1 of 12 4.0 REVIEW of PROJECT: 4.1 The project area consists of approxima�ely 1.44 acres (62,644 sq. ft.), of which 11,392 sq. ft. lies within a dual easement (over h��d electrical and underground gas pipeline). If developed as a single family detached }�ousing development with 11,000 sq. ft. minimum lots, 5 homes could be constructedwitY� a public or private cul-de-sac at a density of 3.5 units per acre, while the proposal seeks8 lots averaging 4,375 sq. ft. and a common lot of 2�,612 sq. ft. for a density of 5.5 units �er acre. 4.2 To the north, south, and east of the red�velopment site are single family residences and to the west is Rosepointe Senior.�pa�n�r�rs (190 units). To the northwest lies the Hamline Office Plaza and to the southwest are si�igle family residences. 4.3 Roseville's policy has been to use site-$pecific Planned Unit Development (PUD) zones and development contracts in redevelopment areas/parcels to allow flexibility and creative design. The Meadow View Hdmes proposal of eight residential town home units will be a PUD zone, specific to the 1.44 acre site. 4.4 In January 2004 the Planning Commission provided Meadow View Homes comments and direction regarding a sketch plan pr'pposaL Meadow View Homes also held a well attended neighborhood meeting regardi�g the proposed development at the community room within Rosepointe. Since the �k�s�li Plan Review in January, Meadow View Homes has refined the floor plan desigr� of the units and developed conceptual elevations for the proposed town home units. 4.5 The proposal for this town home dev�� ment does not require any new public infrastructure. However, the site has �xisting well that must be properly capped. Sanitary sewer and water lateral exter�§� ns to serve the eight town home units have been designed to adequately serve these str� �res. City easements for the sanitary sewer and watermain will be required for extens� s into the site. 4.6 The utilities, such as electricity, ca�[c, t�[e�har�er and natural gas, will be designed and coordinated through the Public �4' �rk� L��par�rn�n� to be underground, and utilize a j oint trenching system where ap�li�a�l�. Furth�r, �il tr-ari�C�rm�rs must be identified on a plan, prior to final approval, �� ESai ��L��,s��ri�l, l� tn pr��ed [ra�atiois� can be evaluated in order to eliminate p�ss��J� uns i ght]y �ocati�ns_ 4.7 The town home proposal seeks approva� for four, two unit (eight total units) structures, four on either side of a private road �� + extending into the parcel from Oakcrest Avenue. Double stall garages are pr �� or each unit, with the center four units garages being side loaded versus facing the private road. Staff and the developer are researching whether the pipeline easem�nt can accommodate visitor parking. PF3546 — RCA 032904 Page 2 of 12 4.8 Section 703.04C reads: "On properties ltaving frontage on both maj or and minor roads, access shall be provided via the minor r�a� where feasible in order to reduce the number of curb cuts on majorthoroughfares". 4.9 Similar to the Owasso Ridge proj ect (aohansey Circle) setbacks are identified in two ways, from the protect propertv boundalrvv line and from the individual town home lot line and specific to the principal structure a�d porches, decks, and patios. The minimum "General Concept Plan" has established setbacks as follows: Front Yard: A minimum principal stru�ture setback of 10 feet from the front lot line. Rear Yard: A minimum principal structure setback (including covered porches) of 10 feet from the rear lot line or a minimutrl setback of 26-1/2 feet from the rear yard (east) property boundary line. Rear Yard — Street (Hamline Avenue)j: A minimum principal structure setback (including covered porches) of 10 feet Frr�m the rear lot line or a minimum setback of 26- 112 feet from the rear yard (west) paxt�rt� buu„�d:�r�� Lin�_ Side Yard — Street (Oakcrest Avenue�= A minimum principal structure setback (including covered porches) of 10 feet �om the north side corner lot line of Lots 1 and 8, Roseville Twinhomes, or a minimum se�tback of 20 feet from the north property boundary/Oakcrest Avenue right-of-way line. Side Yard: A minimum principal structlure setback (including covered porches) of 10-112 feet from the south side yard property li�ne or a minimum setback of 52 feet from the south property boundary line. Side Yard — Interior: A minimum prin ipal structure setback (including covered porches) of 10 feet from the interior sid� yard lot line or no less than 20 feet between structures. Decks and/or Patios: A minimum �Sd� �^ard, side yard — street, rear yard and rear yard — street setback of 5 feet from the pr�p�rt�• �in� (not the property boundary line). 4.10 Town home units will be a single story $�ambler design with full basements. The four structures will have a nominal height to' mid-point of 28 feet and a height of 34 feet to the roof peak. Units currently do not incluc�e decks, patios or porches. However, Staff suggests that accommodations be madefor such additions. 4.11 Each structure will include stone and m�intenance free lap siding as the predominant material. Asphalt shingles are proposed, for roofing and the soffit and fascia will be protected by a maintenance free alumin�m. Shuttered windows and planter boxes below windows are also proposed. PF3546 — RCA 032904 Page 3 of 12 4.12 The applicant's propose a six foot tall privacy fence along Harnline Avenue and a portion of Oakcrest Avenue. Staff does not oppose the use of a fence. However, its style, location and the need for integrated landscaping to complement the fence is necessary (i.e. not simply a straight, board-on-board wood or stockade fence). 4.13 The proposed grading and utility plans are being reviewed by the Public Works Department. However, the grading plan does not currently indicate how storm water management will be addressed on the site. The applicantmust contact the Grass Lake Water Management Organization (GLWMO) to review storm water management requirements and work with Grass Lak� and the Roseville Public Works Department to achieve compliance. Residential development sites less than 2 acres in size within the GLWMO do not require on-site ponding. However, all drainage from hard surfaces and roofed areas must be directed to Hamlimg Avenue and Oakcrest Avenue, away form the residential properties on the east and south of the subj ect site. 4.14 No sidewalks are proposed for the dev�lopment, either along Oakcrest Avenue of Hamline Avenue. The City currently maintains a trail that lies along the west side of Hamline Avenue and extends from County Road C to County Road B2. The Community Development Staff suggests that access to the comer via a sidewalk be included in the proposal along the north side of lot 1 from the private access drive to Hamline Avenue. 4.15 The proposal calls for most interior treas to be removed from the parcel. However, trees located along the west, north, and east boundary property line will be preserved. A tree removal/preservation plan has been created by the applicant, which identifies those trees to be removed and preserved. This plan must be modified to include the measures to be used to protect all preserved trees, such as staking, fencing, and colored boundary. The applicant has also proposed landscaping for the development. This plan will need to be revised to include screening, berming and/or landscaping screening of parking areas, and proposed buildings from adjacent residential properties to the north, south and east. 4.16 If approved the 8 town home units a�1d the associated land will be rezoned to Planned Unit Developmentwith an underlying zoning of R-6, Townhouse District. 5.0 POLICY (Comprehensive Plan Consistency) & FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: 5.1 The ComprehensivePlan Goals and Policies include the following direction: From the Roseville ComprehensivePlan (2002) — Goals and Policies - Page 7 of 21. The review of these portions (below) of the Comprehensive Plan is necessary to determine if there is policy direction to change the Plan's map of future uses to allow a moderate or higher residential density designation. Policies not indicated do not apply to the proposed development. C. RESIDENTIAL POLICIES The Cfty will: PF3546 — RCA 032904 Page 4 of 12 Adopt flexible standards for n`+'� single family and multi-family housing developmentsto allow for inn��tive development and more efficient densities. It is not the goal of the City to si��ificantly increase overall residential densities. �� Encourage innovative h h quality planning and design in residential developments that cater o the life style/life cycle of present and future residents. Higher quali development may include such improvements as masonry exteriors, high r window and wall insulation packages, underground parking, r�:are usable open space than normally required, porches, landscaping, und�e�un� parking, and amenities packages within each unit. The Meadow View proposal will create iif�y�cl� �ousing at a slightly increased density (5.5 units per acre) than the current Low D��t�� a�e�ti�a (4 units per acre). The current R- 1 zoning would single family c#ets�h�d u n{� t� be built �n the site on 11,000 sq. ft lots. The structures will be high qu a��ii�� t��+�n h��4� u ni ��r�i#h �u��a r�� stone, maintenance free siding, energy efficient wind��s, and ia�r�lating p�act��e� eur��i�l�n�with the Energy Code. Porches may be �dd�d� �s �+r�lt �s ��I�s �nc� ��tE��, �r�d i��r�� s�r�h �s fireplaces, built in csbinets/book��, rna�l�r bedruom �uites aad lar�� r�al��ia eia�cFls �r� all proposed interior amenities. 7. When approving a residential Platu�d Unit Development, require better quality with established criteria for ��p�oe� a"sense of place", and quality materials. The Meadow View proposal, through the �ll] i��iU� of the planned unit development, will require a better quality development, ��ith ��aaJl s��l� "sense of place", greater open space (some used for storm water rnar��g�ment�, �nd q��lf� materials. Encourage the development of �-ell-designed multiple family dwelling proj ects which are compatible with adj a�nt uses. The following criteria should be considered when reviewing prcp�sals for multiple family dwelling construction within the City: � a� Structures should have a cess to at least one collector level street so that traffic generated by the omplex will not exceed environmental and traffic thresholds of minor resi ential streets described in the Transportation Plan. The Meadow View proposal will have a�in�n�� traffic impact on Oakcrest Avenue (local street). Traffic from this project will e��r Ham]in� Avenue at Oakerest Avenue. The average peak vehicle trips per 24�� gx� ��[�q4�C�d to range from 55 to 88, which will not exceed environmental or traffic thre�hr�ld� fqr I��1 an� collector streets (such vehicle trips include mail delivery, garbage gi�k-upt �nd #er�ri�� ,r�hl�I� stops at each house). PF3546 — RCA 032904 Page 5 of 12 b� Adequate usable open space s�iould be provided on the site or public park/open space should �ii��sl� adj oin the site. The Meadow View proposal includes sd�u$te open space for an 8 unit development on 1.44 acres, and four neighborhood p�rl� � within walking distance (1,320 feet). c) The floor area standard ��i��ld define the amount of required open space in comparison to the densit� c, ��r,itfi . The City has not established a policy that r�quir�s open space premised on floor area ratio of a residential development. However, the I��a��+� View proposal has structure (unit) footprints that occupy 28% (17,888 sq. ft� o� th� ��rc�l and common space occupying 44% (27,612 sq. ft.) of the parcel. ilt�p�r��i��1� ��v#�� drE��w��} private road, and sidewalk) is estimated at 41% (25,808 sq, ft,�, d� Adequate access to adjoining or nearby (within'/a mile) retail/service areas should be provided. The Meadow View proposal has adequate ��cess (roads and trails) to nearby retail and service areas, including Rosedale Center, l�o��l� Square Shopping Center, Hamline Shopping Center, and Lexington Shoppes. � Impacts on adjoining ��ngl� family areas should be limited by increased side yard setbacks xn� �capi��; front and rear separation by streets, commercial or ind��ria] ��xr�l�ap:�f�nt; or parks and open space. The easement along the southern 40 feet of th� Meadow View proposal creates a substantial buffer as do the existing trees and sh rubs � I�a� the adj acent residences rear property line. Setbacks are consistent with $irnil�r d�+rel�pmeat and attempt to provide design fle�bility, adequate separation from �dJ��t r�i��ti�l and adequate space for landscape screening and enhancement where �� s�p��. h� Building design standar s should be used which contribute to neighborhood openness communication, and interaction. The Meadow View proposal is designed to aff��rd its residents internal town home area openness, communication and interaction, whil� $I�� affording the ability to interact and communicate with neighboring residential gr�up�7��+�. i) Design and ��rf�rrrra„c� �t�r,dat�d� should provide adequate height and seil�ack �a,xl�ir,a#i�r�s �`or s�ruataons where taller multi-family units are �p�S�d � i n�ilJ J�j ��L� �dj ��it to single family areas. Such infill $i��Ul�l � I�TMti�xt tr� rri�lium r��r,��i�r (or lower) projects. PF3546 — RCA 032904 Page 6 of 12 The Meadow View proposal is a single le+�e] �wr� home in a mixed one and two story single family neighborhood. Over 80% of �� m�s t� the east are rambler homes, while those directly south and southeast of the �it� ar� �r�d� rr�i n�t�l� two story homes. The proposed town home structures will be in �:e�p9ng ��ith th� m.ass� heigh� and style of the e�ting homes. 9. Require fair housing practices. isperse types and scale of housing units within the City for all ages, in all stage of the life cycle. Discourage high concentrations of low and modest cost housinglin any portion or neighborhood. a� Provide quality, low den'�ity rental and owner-occupiedresidential units, particularly one level. The Meadow View proposal will be a quali�}' development of the single level design that offers the neighborhood and this Planning �I�tri� l(8) a life-cycle housing option. Residents in this neighborhood could r��r� ��+�r� s��g�� detached housing to single level, maintenance free housing and still rematn �n t�e aAm� o��h��rh�d_ c) Consider senior $�u�in� in areas with nearby amenities such as shopping, medical, ��itttr�ur,ii� �n� church facilities, and volunteer programs. The Meadow View proposal caters to retired and empty nester individuals, some of whom will be seniors (probably from the ucigh��r�ood). Parks, shopping, churches are a11 in close pro�mity to the site. 52 The following is the Demographic Pra�J� for Planning District 8, in which the project is located: Housing Type: g 429 single family homes (52%) ■ 6 duplex/triplex (.7%) . 58 condominiums(7%) 8 107 mobile homes (13%) ■ 12 town homes (1.5%) . 60 garden apartments (7%) 148 apartments w/elevator (18°/d) Acreages: ■ 149 acres of single family reside�tial land (33%) ■ 9 acres of multiple family (2%) ■ 9 acres of manufactured housin� (2%) 8 9.5 acres of single family attach�d (2%) 8 59 acres of institutional (13%) ■ 59 acres park/open space (including golf course) (13%) PF3546 — RCA 032904 Page 7 of 12 Density: R Less than 2 units per acre (total'�land area in District) ■ 4.65 units per acre of residentiallydesignated land Demographics: R 65% of the households have no children R 60% of households occupied by 2 persons or less R 47% of heads of household age 55 or older � On1y 100 persons under the age of 14 R 60% of the housing units are over 50 years old ■ 294 homes were constructedin the 1950's or earlier (60%) 8 71 homes were constructedin tl�e 1990's (14.5%) ■ 490 units are owner occupied (510.6%) ■ 332 units are renter occupied (40.4%) The Staff estimates that the 8 units proposed in this development will have a similar demographic profile. That is, few children, empty nesters, 2 persons per household, and the majority over 55 years of ag�. 5.3 Increase in Property Tax: The propo�ed town home developmentwill provide an increase in the property taxes. It is estit�iated from the Meadow View Homes proposal that the proj ect will be valued at $2.8 td $3 million (average 375,000/unit) and generate roughly $37,720 in new property taxes, of which Roseville receives between $6,800 and $7,500 annually (18 to 20%). 5.4 Residents: The Community Developmlent Department estimates there will be 16 to 20 new residents when fully built out. Bec�use of cost, size, and design, staff estimates that most units will be occupied by empty n�ster professionals or retirees. 5.5 Willow Pond Park (nearest to subj ect sire) is located to the southeast; Pocahontas Park is located to the west; Howard Johnson Pa�rk is located to the north; and Central Park is located to the east, and all are within w�lking distance (3 to 6 blocks) from the subj ect site. City trails are also nearby. Specifi�Cally, a City trail is located along the west side of Hamline Avenue; within Willow Pond park; within Howard Johnson Park; along both sides of County Road C; along both sid$s of Lexington Avenue; and an extensive system within Central Park. 6.0 PROJECT IMPACTS: 6.1 Traffic generation (Source: Institute of Traffic Engineers — Traffic Generation Manual) is estimated to be from 7 to 11 vehicle trip�s (in or out of site) per housing unit or a total of 56 to 88 trips which will enter or leave �his residential developmentfrom Oakcrest Avenue to Hamline Avenue or to Lexin on Avenue during a given 24 hour day. The peak PM hour should range from 3 to S�ehicle trips (5% of total trips per day). This includes vehicles such as the mail truck and garbage pick-up. Oakcrest Avenue (Local Street) with 520 Average Daily Traffic �ADT) (2000) trips per day in this location and PF3546 — RCA 032904 Page 8 of 12 Hamline Avenue ("B" Minor Arterial)1�vith 9,000 ADT (2000) are not at capacity and can easily absorb the added trips (a "trip" is defined as one vehicle entering or leaving a lot). It is estimated that Hamline Avenue wi 1 have 17,770 ADT by 2010 and a maYimum of 21,450 ADT by 2020 (Source: Ramsey CountyTransportationPlan). This is similarto Lexington Avenue. 6.2 The placement of inechanical equipme t can create visual and noise issues. Given the proposal it is assumed that air conditio�ing (AC) units for the town homes will be placed on the ground. 6.3 The City Code requires off-street parking to consist of two spaces for each dwelling unit, of which 1 space will be within a gara��. In the case of the town home proposal, 2 sta11 garages are included with each unit, wi�h an additional 2 vehicle spaces behind each garage. Visitor parking is limited to 3�roposed stalls on the south end of the private drive. Visitor parking must total 8 spa�� which can be accomplished by redesigning the private drive to include parallel or 90 �e��e parking adj acent to each unit or selected units. 6.4 The City has adequate sanitary sewer, ��m water, and water mains in place to support the development project. The Public ��orks Department and the Grass Lake Water Management Organization (GLWMO)� prior to Fina1 DevelopmentPlan consideration, must review and approve all of these d ailed plans. Should the GLWMO require substantial site modifications,the staff nd applicantwould return to the Planning Commission for further review. 6.5 The Community Development Staff h� nat reviewed a site lighting plan and will work with the Developer on an a��x�p��G �� an� layout. The developer may want to discuss options with Xcel Encr�} f�r r�si�cnkia� street lighting within the development site. 7.0 STAFF RECOMIVIENDATION: 7.1 On March 4,2003, the City Planner pre�ented the proposal to the Planning Commission, recommending approval of all four asp�cts (ComprehensivePlan amendment, preliminary plat, rezoning, and General Concept PUD) of the Meadow View Homes proposal, subiect to 9 conditions. 8.0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: 8.1 On Wednesday, March 3,2994, the Rosleville Planning Commission held the public hearing regarding the Meadow View Hdmes town home proposal. At the meeting a number of adjacent property owners voiced their opposition to the redevelopment proposal. Specifically, adjacent/area residents indicated a concern over the additional traffic generated from the eight town home units, the increased density on the parcel, and site amenities such as building design a�d screening. PF3546 — RCA 032904 Page 9 of 12 82 Ms. Antoinette Long, 1335 Oakcrest A��enue, submitted a petition from her and the surrounding neighborhood opposing thc town home development. The petition, signed by 94 residents, opposes any change to kh� existing zoning or designation of the property as medium density residential (see �i[�c:h�� p�li �i�fn }. 8.3 Thirteen neighbors addressed the Plan ng Commission asking questions regarding the proposed town home development and roviding comments regarding the proposal (see attached minutes). 8.4 The Planning Commission voted �6�� recommend approval of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendmentfrom Law Dcrt�ii}� Residential (LR) to Medium Density Residential (NID) as consistentv�'ith lL�e R�s�wi�l� ComprehensivePlan policies as identified in Section 5 of the pn�j ect r��r1 da�s�d I�i�r� h 4,2004; voted (6-0) to recommend approval of the patieli�ir�ar�r plan �neatir�g �i�it town home lots and a common lot, subj ect to the �c�ndi �i�,n� �,��c�l i n��i�n ? u �f the proj ect report dated March 4,2004; voted (6-0) to r��omm�r�r� a��ro+r�a �f th� r��ni ng from Single Family Residence District �R- I� I,a Y�ann� �.�nit �cu��opm�Rk ��UL�� with an underlying zoning of Town Home l7istri� t��-��; �nd �o� ��] t�o r�cr�eramcnd app��al of the General Concept �'1 �nr��d U n is C�c��cl o�mc�i ��i n,cl�a�ivc� of al� �lan�] seeb�c�t to tC�c �a I �o,�+fi ag conditions: a Sidewalk (to the comer of �okcre�� and Hamline Avenues form the private drive) must be included in the F��s�� ti��m�n� Plan stage, which location depends on the supported private ro��i �ccss, b. The design of the town homes n��zst be compatible with the general context and human scale of the neighborho°� for both architecture design and building materials, including a hip roof �� lower overall height (if possible) and other architectural elements to furthE� knhance each structure and reduce the visual mass of the building, especiall� an the back side elevations.. c. The Public Works Department inu�t complete the review and approve of the �-�di r�g, clr;�i�$g,�, �r� utili�� gf�s pr�po�c� with the General Concept and Final Pl�n .�u�m��tal, �l l�lar,�, �n�Judir�� t�:� ]�ti.��i�n of fire hydrants and utility services connections, rc�quir� r,hc �p�r�,r�] �, � tY�� Public Works Department. The Grass Lake ��s�rs�sed �slw� re4� ie�� .�nd st�pp��t storm water management for the development. d. Eight visitor parking spaces i7i �� be included in the developmentproposal, which spaces can be a��arnniadated through the redesign of the private road, to include }�ral le] parkin� ar 4� �i��r�e p�r�cin�. ��em��r Stone added to the motion: A aar6c�r,� �l�n wlsi�E� wii] ir��mi�e �rkin� and reduce street pavement is to be approved by the staf£) PF3546 — RCA 032904 Page 10 of 12 e. On lots 2 and 3, 6 and 7, air con�litioning (AC) units must be placed between town home units; on Lots 4 and 5, ,�� units must be placed on the south side of the town home; and on Lots 1 and 8j, AC units must be placed on the north side of the town home. AC units located an Lots 1, 4, 5, and 8 must be screened from view and include reduced noise levels. f. Site lighting (pedestrian scale carriage style) must be downcast and not shed glare at adj acent properties (subj ect to staff approval). (as/Member Bakeman) g. The existing water well must be properly capped and all buildings, tree branches and roots, debris, and any soil contamination (subj ect to MnPCA requirements) must be removed from the site (�ot spread, buried, or burned on the site) prior to the issuance of a building permit. h. Park dedication is required. Staff recommends for this development a cash payment in lieu of land dedication because the Park System Plan does not require additional park land in this area of the community. The payment amounts to $1,000 per unit or $8,000. The Park and Recreation Commission will review this before final Council approvals. i. Review and support of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment from LR to MR by the Metropolitan Coumcil. j. A landscape plan must be completed in cooperation with the neighbors, with screening along the south edge af the proposed road (as/ Chair Mulder). k A Homeowner Association must be completed, filed with the City and the PUD (as/ Member Stone). 1. Patios between units (except sidewalks) are prohibited (as/Member Bakeman). m. No additional outbuildings may be placed on the site (as/Chair Mulder). 9.0 DEVELOPER MODIFICATIONS: 9.1 As a general rule, a General Concept Planned Unit Development is a set of plans that are a"work in progress". These plans receive modifications throughout the process until the Final Development Plan is approved by the City Council. 9.2 Since the March 3,2004 Planning Commission meeting the developer has made a number of modificationsto this proposal, which reflect staff comment and the recommendation of the Planning Commission. 9.3 The revised submittal includes on site parking for the eight vehicles recommended by staff and the Planning Commission. However, staff will also work with the developer on other possible parking options. PF3S46 — RCA 032904 Page 11 of 12 I 9.� A proposed grading and drainage plan has been submitted and discussed with the Public Works Department, which plan requires a slight modification before it will meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Stonn Water Management Plan and Section 1012.069 of the Roseville City Code. Specifically, all roof and hard surface drainage will be designed to drain toward either Oakcrest Avenue or Hamline Avenue. No additional storm water management improvements (such as ponding) are necessary. �. � A revised landscape plan has been submitted that indicates coniferous tree screening along Hamline Avenue, a deciduous hedge screening the south end of the private drive/parking area, and proposed installation of a deciduous shrub screen within the frant yard of the property at 1323 Oakcrest Avenue. This plan is also a work in progress and will require greater detail if the "Generail Concept' is supported by the City Council. Specifically, boulevard trees (ash/honey�locust) spaced 40 feet on center must be proposed (not within southern easements) along Hamline Avenue; additional landscaping should be proposed along the eastern property edge (especially adjacent to the neighboring home); screening at the southwest corner of the proposed developmentmust be expanded; and screening of the drive lane/parking (south end) will require being located outside of the easement, or be of a limited height or fencing approved by the easement holder. 9_�i A revised set of plans has been submitted along with the initial plan set for review and consideration of the City Council. 1�.0 SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTION: I+�. L ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING a COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT for the 1.44 acre parcel at 2550 Hamline Avenue from LR, Low Density Residential to MR, Medium Density Residential(town homes), as consistent with the Roseville Comprehensive Plan policies, as discussed in Section 5 of this report, subject to the Mertopolitan Council's review and support. !�?.`? BY MOTION, APPROVE the PRELIMINARY PLAT, for the parcel at 2550 Hamline Avenue creating 8 town home lots and a common lot. ]�.3 BY MOTION, APPROVE FIRST READING of a ordinance REZONING the property at 2550 Hamline Avenue from R-1, Single Family Residence District to Planned Unit Developmentwith an underlying zoning of R-6, Townhouse District. ]�.� BY MOTION, APPROVE the GENERAL CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, for the parcel at 2550 Hamline Avenue, subject to the conditions listed in Sec�ions 8 and 9 of the project report dated March 29,2004. Prepared by Thomas Paschke, City Planner (651-792-7174) Attachments: Narrative, concept plans for site and units, site photos, aerial photos. P�3546 — RCA 032904 Page 12 of 12 � EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regul�r meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was Iheld on the ��` day of March 2004, at 6:30 p.m. The following members were present: and the following were absent: Councilmember introducedthe following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUT�ON NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN �lE I�I�ME �lT' T O THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION FROM "L:�"a LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO "MR" MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENT$AL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2550 HAMLINE AVENUE (PF3546). WHEREAS, the Planning Commission� at a public hearing held on March 4 2003, pertaining to the request they received from M�adow View Homes for a Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment on property commonly known as 2550 Hamline Avenue; and WHEREAS, the proposed Comprehens�ve Land Use Plan Amendment requires a map designation change from " L R(Low Density I�esidential) and " M R(Medium Density Residential); and WHEREAS, said property is legally de$cribed as: The South 220 feet of the West %z of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Sction 10, Township 29, Range 23 West of the Fourth Principal Meridian. Reserving, however, a perpetual right-of-way e�asement to erect and maintain a line of towers and wires over and across said premises granter to Northwestern Trust Company, Administratorwith the will annexed under the last will and testam�nt of Horace McDougall, deceased, which deed is dated October 21, 1917 and was recorded October 27, 1917 in the office of the Register of Deeds of Ramsey County, in Book 74 of Miscellaneous, Page 350. WHEREAS, after required public hearings, the Roseville Planning Commission recommended approval (6-0) of the request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, indicating support for the residential development; and WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council at their meeting of March 26,2004, was presented with the proj ect report from the Com�nunity Development Staff regarding the subj ect request; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council hereby approve the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan from "LR" (Low Density Residential) to "MR" (Medium Density Residential) for property generally ]��ted at 2550 Hamline Avenue (legally described above), subject to the following conditions: a b. The review and comments of Passage and publication of an subject parcel. The motion for the adoption of the and upon vote being taken and the following voted against the same: Metropolitan Council. properly and consistently rezoning of the g resolution was seconded by Member the following voted in favor thereof: WHEREUPON said resolution was declared cUd�ly passed and adopted. �� T4� IY�I�? fLk L�1..f'LVJ1 L YLT 4i. LYLLs.YlULJ�J �,:ir '� n r" �VJir�rl `�• �' �- �3,1� L1v�LJ�R-iL FROM: strBJECr: Da�: ' �5 THOMAS PASQ�KE, CITYf']�7VE� � �.� _. � __ 2550 I��MLINE AVENUE - PF3�� MEADOW VIEW HOMES 03/23/2004 k�L: �i'Ll.s 11LL�y k1�� lTi�11 Y��L IX On March 19,2004, Dr. Sadek Yousset sub�tted a letter indicating that the Gty Planner was dishonest and unethical in a response gi en to Mr. Yousset regarding the development/use potential of 2550 Hamlinel Avenue. Because I will not be in attendance on March 29,2004 to answer questions r�eg�rsiir�� this letter and others pertainingto the Meadow ViewHome town home �r�pos�l, � is necessarythat I provide you with the following: Over the past two years I ha�e received a rtwYi,'nw-� of �� nc��iries �r: t�e propert�' loc�4ed at 2550 Hamline �ve nuc_ ��llc m�5t ��5[i�� h.z�� 5�L7C �w�nt ��ning �� t�ic pcar�cl and the p��tral ��r crea� �,d�diu��a1 residrri�i�l fo�r�, oehers ��x�� s�ug�it rnore in•dep�h ir.f�t-�nation �e�ardi� the �a�iprehensi�e Lar�d L'�+e Pl�r� �esi�t4on �nd por,errtia� f�r r�ed�k�l,�prr�nt, �_��r. �ra��r ��suo�� w�ere �ener�] � r�aru��u�t �oeeif"�c r�,� vraa�s�l tl�at ��u,ld 6� r�� i��e�ci l�v �taff, _ ,__,^ My response to those seeking information and has been the same. Specifically, the property has a current zoning of R 1, Singl� �milyResidential, a Comprehensive Land Use Plan designation of LR, Low DensityReside � tia1, and based on the configuration of the parcel could accommodate up to four single �nily lots under a subdivision plat. This response is neither dishonest nor unethical. Planning Division does not design subdivisions for individuals interested in de �6ping land in Roseville, but rather is reactive t� su�h pe�p��ls, If ��rn�� n�d t� �� L*�r��h the effort of designing single family �f de+�I�p� t�t ��ed � s�rt �d�-sa� road and five residential lots on the s�b� p�r��l, L and �riembers �F �l�e L�e�ebpment Review Committee would ha�e reviewed il�c Fr�� a�uZ rr�por�d�d ac��r�iin�l�'. Hu��Y�r} no such proposal was ever received for review and comment. Similarly, the CommunityDevelopmentDep�txniei� does not offer its views on a comprehensive land use plan amendment or rc�n i� without first understanding a particular proposal. Providing such personal;rie�� ab�en� a proposal in neither appropriate, nor professional, and is opposite the policy �� fae �ep�f�rreee.r, My support for the Meadow ViewHomes pr�posal is neither dishonest nor unethical. It is based on a professional review conducted k�+� r}�i� Development Review Committee and based on the facts provided to ��u in the �micc� report dated March 29,2004. � � S � � k � I� IE �� E�ract of Draft Minutes: Planning Commi�sion Meeting March 3,2004 a. Plannin� File 3546: Request b Meadow View Home for a Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment fro LR Low Density Residential to MR Medium Density Residential, P�l�minan�r Plat for eight town home lots, and a General Concept Planned �'ri� t��1�pr't'r�� rezoning the property from R-1, Single Family Residence, to R-6 Town Home District, for property located at 2550 Hamline Avenue. Chair Mulder opened the hearing and requ�sted City Planner Thomas Paschke to present the verbal summary of the staff report dated March 3,2004. I� Thomas Paschke indicated that Meadow Vi�ew Homes, owner/developer, seeks approval a� of a Comprehensive Land Use Plan .�m,�tt�ment changing the designation from Low ]� Density Residential to Medium Density Re�idential; a Preliminary Plat for eight town ]� home lots and one common area lot; a Rezc}ning of property from R-1, Single Family !� Residence Districtto Planned Unit Develop�ment with an underlying zoning of R-6, 1� Townhome District; and a General Concep� Planned Unit Development for eight town ]� home units (four structures — two units atta�hed) on 1.44 acres located at 2550 Hamline �� Avenue. He illustrated the site location and aerial photos and illustrated the proposed � 1 setbacks. There are four structures and eigh{t total units �� 7 �� 3� 3L He described the generalized site plan of tf�c site, including the architecturalplan and materials for the units. Porches andlor ��ck� need to be included in the plan. The homes proposed are consistent with architecture n�arby. A storm water management and landscape plan are not completed at this tir�e. The landscape plan should include boulevard trees on Hamline Avenue. Lowed level shrubs can be planted on the south within the utility easements. Berms, fence �nd landscaping could be included. A fence along Hamline is proposed, but it may be b�tter to screen vehicles with berms and landscaping. 3� Thomas Paschke explained the impact of tr�ffic on this site, at a rate of 7-11 trips per �� day/per unit up to 88 total trips. The peak t�ips will be three to five per peak hours. 3� Oakcrest currently has 550 ADT, could eas�ly handle 88 additional vehicles. Hamline 3� Avenue, 9,000 ADT, is not at capacity and �an accept more vehicles. 3�a 37 3� �� L �� 3 �� The Townhomes HVAC impacts (sound an�i visual) must be located in between units and/or screened. Off street parking needs (4 are proposed per unit) should include eight guest spaces throughout the site on the private street. Utilities are available to the site and have adequate capacity. No street lighting1� lan has yet been proposed, but that should be done with Xcel. Sidewalks should lead of I�amline Avenue. Thomas Paschke illustrated current housing value, noting that the new units value will be $350,000 or more, similar to those homes ��i Willow. Thomas Paschke explained the concerns an4 support for the project and advised that the E � .� � � proj ect is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Based on findings included in the project report dated March 3,2004, the staff recommended approval, subj ect to conditions. Chair Mulder asked Thomas Paschke to explain the conditions: ; a, Sidewalk must be included in the Fina1 Development Plan stage, which location S depends on the supported private raad access, but illustrated along Oakcrest to � Hamline. 1 i� ]] 1� 1� l� 1� I� L'� 1� G �� l �� ? �� 3� b_ The design of the town homes must be compatible with the general conte� and human scale of the neighborhood for both architecture design and building materials, including a hip roof to lower overall height (if possible) and other architectural elements to further enhance each structure and reduce the visual mass of the building. �, The Public Works Department must complete the review and approve of the grading, drainage, and utility plans proposed with the General Concept and Final Plan submittal. All plans, includin� the location of fire hydrants and utility services connections, require the approval of the Public Works Department. The Grass Lake Watershed must review and support storm water management for the development. d, Eight visitor parking spaces must b� included in the development proposal, which spaces can be accommodated throu�h the redesign of the private road, to include parallel parking or 90 degree parkin� (a portion of the pipeline easement could be used for parking.) �. Site lighting must be downcast and not shed glare at adjacent properties. 3 l F. On lots 2 and 3, 6 and 7, air conditioning (AC) units must be placed between town :�� home units; on Lots 4 and 5, AC units must be placed on the south side of the 3.� town home; and on Lots 1 and 8, ,�� units must be placed on the north side of the �� town home. AC units located on L1�ts 1, 4, 5, and 8 must be screened from view �� and include reduced noise levels. 3� 37 3#� �� l �� 5 �� , The existing water well must be properly capped and all buildings, tree branches and roots, debris, and any soil conta�nination (subj ect to MnPCA requirements) must be removed from the site (not burned on the site) prior to the issuance of a building permit. }�. Park dedication is required. Staff reaommends for this development cash payment in lieu of land dedication. The payment amounts to $1,000 per unit or $8,000. The Park and Recreation Commission will review this before final approvals. i. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment from LR to MR conditioned � � � � 1 �h ]] 1� 13 l� « upon the review and support of the Metropolitan Council. Member Bakeman requested details of the setbacks within the proposal, especially along the east side property line. She asked wheae the decks/patios may be placed. Chair Mulder asked for details of the PUD process from Thomas Paschke. Member Stone asked if site lighting will be reviewed by staf£ (Yes, prior to building permit). A site lighting plan should be required. Member Stone asked that the landscape plain be included. She asked what/where the City's 2,600 + future homes to 2030 will be located. Thomas Paschke explained locations of such proj ects (medium density) and design density. Chair Mulder noted he lives in such a development. t�5 Member Peper asked about hours of operation on week days and week ends. What is the l� penalty for working outside the hours permitted? (The final regulations are placed in the � � Planned Unit Development Agreement.) l9 �� 1 �� r �� 3� 3L �� 3� 3� �� 3� �� 3� �� L Chair Mulder asked if screening could be placed on the outer end of the private road and on the pipeline easement. Greg Stull, designed for Meadowview Homes, said the screening plan suggestions by the staff are acceptable. At the neighborhood meeting, traffic was the primary concern. In terms of screening, he proposed more coniferous pine trees. Site lighting will be addressed. Member Stone asked why there is no association. Mr. Stull said there will be a homeowners' association. The association will be directed by the builder until the proj ect is completed. Member Ipsen asked if Hamline Avenue access was considered, south of the townhomes along the easement. Mr. Stull explained the reasons for Oakcrest entry because of pipelines. Chair Mulder asked if the developer will work with neighbors on the landscape plan (yes). Mr. Stull also will work on residential street lighting. Member Peper asked how many were at the neighborhood meeting with the developer (estimated at 28-30 residents). �� Dr. Sadek Youssef, 1319 Willow Circle, asked if there is a hypothetical plan for five to �� six houses. Thomas Paschke explained that four lots could be built without a road. �4 However, with a cul-de-sac it could create a five-lot subdivision. Dr. Youssef asked if �� storm water has been studied, the easement fills with water during heavy rains. Thomas � Paschke noted that the proj ect must meet the water management requirements. Debra f Bloom, Assistant Public Works Director, e�Cplained that storm sewers will be needed and � will improve the site, and will carry water �o Willow Pond. Dr. Youssef asked if the huge 3 evergreen tree would be torn down. Thom�s Paschke said the trees along the periphery � will be preserved if possible, but in the cenjter of the site, most trees will be removed. Mr. 5 Stull said they will preserve as many trees as possible. � � � � L� L1 �� L� �� I� I� I� Mrs. LindaNeilson,1349 Brooks Avenue �V., asked if there are requirementsfor subdivision of the land. She asked if the Cbunty must approve (only if there is an access on Hamline). She asked what the setbacks ��r porches or decks would be from Oakcrest or Hamline. Thomas Paschke explained sejtbacks. Mrs. Neilson asked for an explanation of the difference between a variance and P�SI) setbacks. Mr. Stull explained that porches are incorp�rated into the structure and that porches/decks could exit off two sides of tl�e house, to a ten foot limit. Mrs. Neilson asked if 26 feet is less than t�e Code of 30 feet, and would the 26%feet be a PUD requirement (yes). �� Jim Dare, 2456 No. Hamline Avenue asked, if a corner lot has two front yards or one. �{] Thomas Paschke explained the setback is tl�e same 30 feet from the street front and side. � I He asked what the development will look l�ke from the Hamline and Oakcrest sides of � � the homes. �� 9 3� 3] 3� �� Chair Mulder asked for elevations of the r��r of the home. Mr. Stull explained the rear elevations and garages. Member Stone ask�d if hip roof lines will be added. What will the massing look like from the end wa11s? 11�r. Stull said he was open to either gable or hip roo£ A gable is simpler to construct. Todd Guerrero, 2474 Hamline Avenue, ask�d what authority the Planning Commission has over the proj ect once approved. Thoma�s Paschke explained the PUD binding agreement, noting that it runs with the docu�nient that is recorded. Citizens can then notify the City staff of perceived violations or modifications. 3�4 Member Stone asked what procedures wou�d be used to gain compliance while under �� construction. Thomas Paschke explainedp�rformance bond and stop work tags. The �6 City could withhold the Certificate of Occupancy or withhold the next housing permit. �� 3� �� 4] �� .� � Mr. Guerrero asked, what isNlife cycle h�using?RThomas Paschke explained. Mr. Guerrero asked why $375,000 per unit? Thbmas Paschke explained City history with townhomes values. Is the homeowner asso�iation regulated by the City? (No). The City requires a completed, signed homeowner's �ssociation agreement be filed with the City. Alan Deutsch, 1288 Oakcrest Avenue, asked how much closer than existing homes are the townhomes to Oakcrest. (a minimum of 3%Zfeet, depending on the house being compared) � � � ]� Joe Lolle, 1227 Oakcrest, expressed concern about traffic on Oakcrest. Could one unit be removed, and a roadway be constructed to ��amline. Thomas Paschke explained that traffic increase will not be dramatic. Mr. olle asked if Hamline could better absorb the traffic. Assistant Public Works Director D bra Bloom explained that access on busy arterial streets makes them less safe. �� is better directly across from the Rose Pointe driveway or on the MSA Oakcrr�� whi�h has a capacity of 2,000. Mr. Lolle asked the square footage of the ujnits (1,700 first floors, 1,500 downstairs, a total of 3,000 + square feet). i I David Becklin,1357 Brooks Avenue, aske� how many other similar developments have ]� the developers done (12 years of experience). How close is the foundation to the pipeline ] � easement (52')? 1� 1� Tim Grother, 2566 Hamline Avenue, asked for an explanationof comments from L� Comprehensive Plan regarding easements tp Willow Pond. He asked if there are 1� regulations regarding owner vs. rental units�. l� I� �� 1 �� 3 �� 2� �� 2� �� 3� �1 �� ;�3 �� 3� Patrick Lone, 1335 Oakcrest, asked how eig.IhE unats �� b� p�a��c� on this site. The valuation cannot be understood, compared I� exislir�g h�rn�a, Gordon Marten, 1312 Willow Circle, supp s Oakcrest entrance because of traffic hazard on Hamline Avenue. Why create a�azard? Exit on Oakcrest reduces starts and stops near pipeline. Antoinette Long, 1335 Oakcrest, opposed t� rezoning and submitted her opposition in the form of a neighborhood petition. Mrs. Linda Neilson noted she sent a letter t� the Commission. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as LDR Many people invested in this LDR neighborhood. She explained the pipeline easements. A tree v�'�� removed by William Brothers Pipeline from her yard. She is concerned with headl��hts from the development. She also had concerns with Rose Pointe lighting. This p��ject acts as higher density development; the neighborhood is becoming more dense. Tr�ffic stacks from Hamline at County Road C. �� Member Peper noted parking will not be pe itted, but may allow turn arounds. Corner 37 screening will not be effective for Mrs. Nei son's higher property. There will be no 3� increase in the value of her home from this project and traffic. The size of the 3� development and density is not appropriate. Hamline Center redevelopment will not �� compliment her property. Traffic will add tb non-safe conditions. �l �� Dr. Yousset, 1319 Willow Circle, asked tha� grass be mowed properly within the �3 easement and on lot. � �� Dave Becklin,1357 Brooks Avenue, explai�ed that he has water in his back yard. The �� new pavement and shingles will add to the �vater in basements along Willow. The � � � � pipeline company clear cut the pine trees it� his backyard. The pipeline company will not allow trees. Lorraine Macheck, (neighbor directly acro�s Oakcrest at 1323 Oakcrest Avenue) expressed concern with lighting. How wilt headlights be handled from the new driveway; she was concerned about the ali�nment of setbacks. � Todd Guerrero said the development intere'�t is private, not public. He asked that the 9 Planning Commission identify the public i nteres�_ The Council members should not I O rubberstamp the project. Traffic does not �8,r�r a�rpro�ra� of the project. E1 C� Sandy McGiffin, 1379 Brooks, asked for d�tails of the drainage plan. Debra Bloom E 3 explained drainage policy. She asked, bas d on the drainage plan, what will happen to �� the storm water under the power lines? Ho many vehicles will there be during peak !� hours ;( less than 8 per hour) adding more t affic creates problems. f� I� i8 I� �� I �� 3 �6 �� 1 �� $ �� l �2 �3 �� Chair Mulder closed the hearing. Member Ipsen asked for details in the �ompreh�nsi�r� Plan. Thomas Paschke explained the goals and policies. Thomas �a��c� ��pRa�n�d �+� ��}�. Chair Mulder asked for conditions or amendments. Member Peper explained the gaps in the pr�l�osal (porches, decks, screening, landscaping, and storm water) should be c��sYpleted and worked out with the neighbors. Member Bakeman noted the landscaping ca�n also be done on adj oining property to solve the screening. Mr. Stull said he would hav� another meeting regarding landscaping and screening. Member Bakeman asked for details on pati�s and decks. They should not be between the units. How large should a patio or deck h�� Chair Mulder said the integral porch is the only porch that should be accepted. Thomas Paschke explained the porch is best as proposed. may allow for pathway and small deck �re�s . A 10' or evE usable. Pro�mity to the boundary line i� rnost important. enclosed. The deck/patio between units n 12' deck is the minimum Decks and patios cannot be Member Blank said new design should be b�etter than this, higher quality, and better aesthetics. Big, long roofs are disapp��nlang. Break up roof lines from back side of units, especially on Hamline ,�k��nue, �c�n�ici�r wa}�� to add e�erior designs. Member Peper asked for details regarding tl�e fire safety vehicles. Thomas Paschke explained it has been reviewed positively by the Fire Marshal. Access is from both streets and the shallow length of the private street, allows front in drives, with a back out I in emergencies. � � Chair Mulder suggested the developer meet and work with the property owners to the � north on Oakcrest. 5 � Motion: Member Beckman moved, seconded by Member Stone, to recommend approval � of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment fro� LR, Low Density Residential to MR, � Medium Density Residential(town homes)� as consistent with the Roseville 9 Comprehensive Plan policies, as discussed in Section 5 of the proj ect report dated March 9 � 3,2004. �E 1� ]3 ]� 9� i�r ]� �� ]� �� ] �� Ayes: Bakeman, Peper, Stone, Ipsen, Blank, Mulder Nays: None Motion carried 6-0. Motion: Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Peper, to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat, creating 8 town ho�e lots and a common lot, subj ect to the conditions listed in Section 7 of this report. Ayes: Bakeman, Peper, Stone, Ipsen, Blanlq, Mulder Nays: None Motion carried 6-0. � Motion: Member Stone moved, seconded �y Member Bakeman, to recommend approval �� of the Rezoning from R-1, Single Family R'�sidence Districtto Planned Unit �� Developmentwith an underlying zoning ofR-6, Townhouse District. �? �� Ayes: Bakeman, Peper, Stone, Ipsen, Blanl�', Mulder Nays: None Motion carried 6-0. �I � f Motion: Member Stone moved, seconded l�y Member Bakeman, to recommend approval �� of the General Concept Development Plann�d Unit Development Plan, subj ect to the �� conditions listed in Section 7 of the project �eport dated March 3,2004, as amended by 3 � the Planning Commission: �� 3'� �$ �� {� �# I �� 3 � �5 � A. Sidewalk must be included i� the Final Development Plan stage, which location depends on the supp�orted private road access. B. The design of the town hom s must be compatible with the general conte� and human scale of t�ie neighborhood for both architecture design and building materials, inclu�iing a hip roof to lower overall height (if possible) and other architectutral elements to further enhance each structure and reduce the visu�l mass of the building, especially on the back side elevations.. � 3 � f� � � � l [i 11 1� l� I� l� 1 f� L� l� C� �� [ �� 2� �� 2� �� 3� �� 3� �� 3�i 3� 3� 3� �� l �� 5 �� The Public Works Department must complete the review and approve of the grading, drainage, and utility plans proposed with the General Concept and Fina1 Plan submittal. A�l plans, including the location of fire hydrants and utility services connectii�ns, require the approval of the Public Works Department. The Grass Lalde Watershed must review and support storm water managementfor the development. I�. Eight visitor parking spaces must be included in the development proposal, which spaces can be accommodated through the redesign of the private road, to include parallel parking or 90 degree parking. (Member Stone added to the motion: A parking plan which will maximize parking and reduce street pavement is to be approved by the staf£) F. Site lighting (pedestrian scale carriage style) must be downcast and not shed glare at adj acent properties (subj ect to staff approval). (as/Member Bakeman} F, On lots 2 and 3, 6 and 7, air conditioning (AC) units must be placed between town home units; on Lots 4 and 5, AC units must be placed on the south side of the town home; and on Lots 1 and 8, AC units must be placed on the north side of the town home. AC units located on Lots 1, 4, 5, and 8 must be screened frQm view and include reduced noise levels. �, The existing water well must be properly capped and all buildings, tree branches and roots, debris, and any soil contamination (subjectto MnPCA requirements) must be removed from the site (not burned on the site) prior to the issuance of a building permit. H. Park dedication is required. Staff recommends for this development cash payment in lieu of land dedication. The payment amounts to $1,000 per unit or $8,000. The Park and Recreation Commission will review this before final approvals. !. The Comprehensive Land G S� Plan Amendment from LR to MR conditioned upon the review and support of the Metropolitan Council. J. A landscape plan must be completed in cooperation with the neighbors, with screening along the south edge of the proposed road (as/ Chair Mulder). K. L, A Homeowner Association must be completed, filed with the City and the PUD (as/ Member Stone). Patios between units (except sidewalks) are prohibited (as/Member Bakeman). 1 M. No additional outbuildings x�ay be placed on the site (as/Chair Mulder). 2 3 4 Ayes: Bakeman, Peper, Stone, Ipsen, Blanl�, Mulder 5 Nays: None 6 Motion carried 6-0. 7 8 9 10 11 12 . . . ��. ... . .. . .. .. PETITION CONCERl�TING 2550 HAMLINE AVE. We, the undersigned Roseville residents, are opposed to the proposed development of twin homes by Meadow View Hom�s at 2550 Oakcrest (comer of Hamline and Oakcrest). We are opposed to any char�ge in the existing zoning or designation of this property as low density residential in Roseville's Comprehensive Plan. We urge the members of Roseville's Plann�ng Commission and City Council to protect the character of our neighborhood and disapprove any attempt to change the city's comprehensive plan or the zoning of this parcel. PETITION CONCERI�TING 2550 HAMLINE AVE. We, the undersigned Roseville residents, are opposed to the proposed development of twin homes by Meadow View Homes at 2550 Oakcrest (comer of Hamline and Oakcrest). We are opposed to any cha�ge in the existing zoning or designation of this property as low density residential in Roseville's Comprehensive Plan. We urge the members of Roseville's Planning Commission and City Council to protect the character of our neighborhood and disapprove any attempt to change the city's comprehensive plan or the zoning of this parcel. PETITION CONCERNING 2550 HAMLINE AVE. We, the undersigned Roseville residents, are opposed to the proposed development of twin homes by Meadow View Homes at 2550 Oakcrest (comer of Hamline and Oakcrest). We are opposed to any change in the existing zoning or designation of this property as low density residential in Roseville's Comprehensive Plan. We urge the members of Roseville's Planning Commission and City Council to protect the character of our neighborhood and disapprove any attempt to change the city's comprehensive plan or the zoning of this parcel. PETITION CONCERNIING 2550 HAMLINE AVE. We, the undersigned Roseville residents, are opposed to the proposed development of twin homes by Meadow View Homes at 2550 Oakcrest (comer of Hamline and Oakcrest). We are opposed to any change in the existing zoning or designation of this property as low density residential in Roseville's Comprehensive Plan. We urge the members of Roseville's Planning Commission and City Council to protect the character of our neighborhood and disapprove any attempt to change the city's comprehensive plan or the zoning of this parcel. � P�T'17"I��i �'��i� �� f,�I��II�E ��E. We, the undersigned Roseville residents, are opposed to the proposed development of twin homes by Meadow View Hom$s at 2550 Oakcrest (comer of Hamline and Oakcrest). We are opposed to any change in the existing zoning or designation of this property as low density residential in Roseville's Comprehensive Plan. We urge the members of Roseville's Planning Commission and City Council to protect the character of our neighborhood and disapprove any attempt to change the city's comprehensive plan or the zoning of this parcel. �. � . . � .�� f��.�. ��. �. �� ~ . � � r�i _' ��J��'�� !.� �� y l�j � r r � . F� �! �� - � t �� Petition Opposing Meadow View Homes development at 2550 Oakcrest at the comer of Hamline. When we see the plans for the propos�ed units (84 ft. long and 30 A. wide), two units together for a total of 4 double units or 8 single units on this small plot of land, it would look like a glorified trailer park with a different roof line. The property is not zoned for this. With Applewood Point, the Hamline Center, and the updating of County Road C, all will have the potential for increased traffic on Harnuline Avenue. It is haxd to turn onto Harnline Avenue from Oakcrest or fr�rr, Rose Point now. We the undersigned Roseville Residents are opposed to any change in the existing zoning and hope the Planning Commission and City Council will protect our neighborhood. Print Name �_ �� t� � � r i � � �• � '�� r� r ��F .r }� ��L� � �� .� • �� r,�� ,��`� �;,��r Sinnature r�� »� ��/�.i„ r� tL /--t �_ . . � � Address �� w- �� r � y��r � — _ ��-��.+�ra.�r�t-� �� ..�.i , �� PETITION CONCERNING 2550 HAMLINE AVE. We, the undersigned Roseville residents, are opposed to the proposed development of twin homes by Meadow View Homes at 2550 Oakcrest (comer of Hamline and Oakcrest). We are opposed to any change in the existing zoning or designation of this property as low density residential in Roseville's Comprehensive Plan. We urge the members of Roseville's Planning Commission and City Council to protect the character of our neighborhood and disapprove any attempt to change the city's comprehensive plan or the zoning of this parcel. February 24,2004 Planning Commission and City Council Members City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113 Dear Planning Commission and City Council Members I am writing concerning the proposal by Meadow View Homes to build eight twin homes at 2550 Hamline Avenue North. I realize you have received communicationfrom other Roseville residents conceming this proposal; however, I too, would like to state that I am opposed to this project and any rezoning of the property at 2550 Hamline Avenue North or in any change in Roseville's comprehensive plan to accommodate this proj ect. Until recently, there was a single family home on the property. The stated goal of Roseville's Comprehensive Plan is to provide direction on city development decisions. That plan characterizes this property as low density residential. Many of my neighbors and I made decisions to buy, remodel, or stay in existing homes based on this plan. To follow the comprehensive plan and to keep in the character of the rest of the neighborhood, this property should remain low density residential. I am opposed to the proj ect for the following reasons: • Higher density than warranted in the predominately single family neighborhood. The area is already saturated with higher density development on the west side of Hamline from near Oakcrest and north to County Road C. The west side of Hamiine has Rosepointe, office condos, and an office building. • Additional traffic load on Hamline Avenue. Currently, many afternoons the traffic backs up to the south beyond Brooks Avenue to get through the traffic light at County Road C. In addition, traffic attempting to t�nn onto Hamline from Willow Circle, Sextant, Brooks, Oakcrest, and Christy Circle as well as that coming from individual driveways on Haznliz�e already has a difficulttime accessing Hamline. Many times I have to wait until a l:ind driver will let me through to t�nn into my driveway due to the back log of cars. Developments already planned for Hamline Center and Arona sites will also negatively impact Hamline Avenue traffic. Parking concems. Presently parking is only permitted on the south side of Oakcrest. There is little visitor parking within the proposed development. Homeowners living across from the proposed site will need to be extra careful when exiting their driveways due to both the traffic bottlenecks and the extra parked cars. • Planned entrance to the property from Oakcrest is too close to the comer and also will be almost directly opposite the driveway of a single family residence on the north side of Oakcrest. � Concerns about snow remove and where it will be deposited as well as water n� of£ Will it be melting and running off onto abutting properties. Under the planned design, there will be massive roofs and impervious surfaces for the roadway and driveways. • Concerns about the proximity of the proposed development to pipeline and utility easements and the fact that screening cannot be located on the easements, nor can neighboring property owners screen the views of the proposed development from their properties because they also cannot plan screening materials on the easements. . Concerns about headlights negatively impacting surrounding property owners. If screening with trees cannot be done because of the pipeline and utility easements, existing residents will be subjected to headlights from vehicles entering/exiting the property and turning into driveways/garages. � Concern about the inexperience of the developer, Meadow View Homes. It is my understandingthat this would be the first twin home project ever built by this developer. . Concerns about the operation of the development. The developer stated at a neighborhood meeting that prospective owners of the twin homes would own their respective units and property parcels. He said establishment of a town home association would be up to the respective homeowners. Without an association and establishment of operating guidelines, there may be no uniformity in property upkeep. Things like lawn care, snow removal, trash removal, and property maintenance may be noticeably different between the units. Without association bylaws, owners also would be free to use the units as rental properties that could negatively affect upkeep of the units. I urge the members of the Roseville Plamning Commission and City Council to protect the character of our neighborhood and disapprove any attempt to change the city's Comprehensive Plan or zoning of the parcel. If you have any questions or would like to discuss the project, please contactme. Sincerely, � 1� - � � �� Carol A. Grotheer 2566 Hamiine Avenue North Roseville, MN 55113 Email: grotheer@comcast.net Home: 651.633.7136 Work 551.604.5337 Cell: 651-271-$287 � In�� +, _� , �� -�� . ��,�� .�� Sincere� � ' , �� r �� Joseph & Darlene G�.iy 1305 Oakcrest Av�ue Roseville, MN 55113 March 16,2004 Mayor Craig Klausing Council Member Arrry Ihlan Council Member Tom Kough Council Member Dean Maschka Council Member Greg Schroeder RE: Planning file 3546, petition to rezone property at 2550 H,amiline Avenue from low density single family residenceto medium density townhouse district. Dear Mayor and Council Members: We are writing to urge you vote to reject this rezoning request. We do so in hope so that you will see fit to retain the current single family residential designation and support the preservation of our neighborhood. First, we would like to point out that the proposed developer and owner has already clearly demonstrated his lack of commitment to his new neighbors. The lawn was left unattended for the entire summer. The weeds and the grass grew waist high and eventually was cut and cleared by the city. The developer let us know that being a good neighbor was not part of the plan. Were suspicious of the developers stated intentions to work with the neighbors and provide solutions. In this letter we will provide you with several reasons why denying the request to modify the comprehensive plan for this property makes sense for the city and does indeed support a stated goal of the city's comprehensive plan. One of the Goa1s of the comprehensive plans states this: "Identify stable single family areas and protect them. Preserve the integrity of existing single family neighborhood by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible uses. " (Page 6 Goals and Policies III. Residential Areas B. RESIDENTIAL GOALS 2.) This is a stable single family a�. Look carefully # the current zoning designations for the homes immediately adjacent and around this property, tl� are ALL without exception zoned LR/Rl . The homes to the east of Hamline are single family residential homes. Changing the designation of this property will set the precedent and make it easier for the next developer to continue the change from the existing single f,1r��J�� neighborhood to a higher density and encourage additional developments of this nature. The land the developer purchased is one of the original Raseville homes and it is not unique for ti�is stretch of Hamline Avenue. The properties just north on Hamline could easily follow this pattern. They are very large lots and older homes. When those homes are sold, similar development projects could occur and change a very attractive single family residential neighborhood into a neighborhoodthat will be surrounded by higher density housing developments. Oakcrest Avenue between Hamline and Lexington is all single family homes with large yards and wallcing distance to Central Park and the High School. It is a neighborhood in transition with many of the current homeowners at or reaching retirement age. The homes are gou►g to turn over in significant numbers. 'ltris should be a prized single family area of the city. Families with children will be attracted to this area, whais not to I�1ce for raising a family, large front and back yards, a street lined with beautifW trees and parks and walking paths a11 right here. Convenient � �- t�'Y� `� � ' '�? � r�'F�Lk � 4/''. Page 2 Joseph & Darlene C�y 1305 4akcrest Av�ue Roseville, MN 55113 access to both downtowns for young professionals. Start adding high density homes and it will no longer be attractive to young families starting out. 'Il�e sta�ted goal of preserving and p[�t� existing single family neighborhoods is not met. An additional goal stated in the Roseville Comprehensive Plan is as follows: "3. Preserve residential areas (as currently designated on the City land use plan) which have at least 4 of the 6 items listed: a) adequate lot sizes for current homes; b) an average building value for the area equal to or above the city average per unit value; c) meet or exceed the structural requirements of the building and maintenance codes; d) required public infrastructure (utilities, roads and sidewalks, and storm water drainage and ponding systems in place and functioning; e) an identifiable residential neighborhood unit of 20 or more residences defined by physical boundaries (streets, railroad or utility right-ofways, etc.) or landmarks (schools, libraries, churches, parks, openspace, etc.); and fl a common architectural design or aesthetictreatment." (Page 7- Rosevillc Comprehensive Plan 2002 Update Goa1s and Policies) We believe that this neighborhood meets all of the stated requirements and qualifies to be preserved as a residential neighborhood. It is clearly a neighborhopd of single family homes. The residential section of the comprehensive plan also speak of goals to achieve a flexible balance of the different type of housing alternatives. We would say that the balance has already been achieved and the higher density housing across Hamline and on Lexington is enough for this neighborhood. Add to the higher density and it will soon become a neighborhood that gets developed for higher density housing and the single family homes will become history. We strongly urge you to visit our neighborhood on Qakcrest and take a walk down the street to Central Park We think this statement made # the Planning Commission, "it is hard to see how this change in density impacts the neighborhood given what is across Hamline" could not be futther from the truth. We can only guess that the person speaking was referring to Rose Pointe in this statement. Come and visit and you will see ti�t the impact is considerable and it will change the characterof the neighborhood. You will see that there are homes a71 set back from the street line aot least 30 feet, only single mailboxes and on trash day there are no large trash bins to be picked up. Add a 8 unit townhome and we will have a large shared mail station and a large shared trash bin marring the boulevard. There are also no sidewalks anywhere on Oakcrest Avenue, yet they are going to be required � build cne on Oakcresk to Harnline Avenue. We think this will look a bit strange, 30-40 feet of sidewalk that will end on the new private road. The "view" in this neighborhood will certainly be dramatically changed. Our neighbors who live right across the street from the new road will ha�e a brand new view in their frant bay window, car headlights. We don't really see any effective way that they ean use any type of cover to block those li�us without creatmg additional hazzards for drivers. We also believethat constructing a road on Oakcrest Avenue so close to Hamline Avenue is creating a dangerous intersection. Par�ang on Oakcrest is only permitted on the west side of the street. Building a road on Oakcrest wi I I reduce the parking available to visitors and create additional haz.zards for residents. During peak travel times, attempts to turn left from Oakcrest on to Hamlin� can be very dangerous. The trafficon ��amline Avenue is often backed up and cars often block access to the side streets now. Add to this traffic congestion and create another intersection will make a bad situation worse. Page 3 Joseph � Darlene C�y 1305 Oakcrest Avenue Roseville, MN 55113 One pf�nnin� commission member �r�d i� �� n�aGl}� in hi� �� "�rr�be'r $�aak said a€� de.sign should be b�ter than fl�is, higher quality, and bc�rr ��. Big, laqg roo� a� disappointing. Break up roof lines fran back side of im,its, especa�]!� � 1�� A�avc, �+d�r +�a3�s to add exterior designs." We still don't underslandwhy ir� �� f�r �hc !�-�.,�,��. Please note the above slatemerrt was taken from the draft minutes t�t yet appt�+� b� 1� ��irtg �an�� °° �� of the m�rr$. We wge you to vote against this rezoning and do si�cerely hope tYrat you have an apport�aiity to drive down Oakcrest to see f�sst hand this neighborhood. �F ��.�� .�-�'� Joseph & Darlene Guy 1535 Sextant Avenue West Roseville, MN 55113 March 17, 2004 Mayor Craig Klausing and Members of the City Council City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113 Dear Mayor Klausing and City Council Members: I am writing as a current resident and lessee of a single family dwelling in Roseville to draw your attention to conditions within this city that are producing unsafe and substandard living unit conditions that I have discovered, in conversations with your fire chief and one of your building inspectors, that create not only unsanitary living conditions but also the potential for serious accidents including tragic fires, and therefore warrant your immediate attention. When I signed a lease in July 2003 for my current single-family unit owned by Jim Cox, owner of Cox Insurance at 2469 University Ave., St. Paul, MN, the home was substandard but I was assured that these conditions would be corrected immediately. What I found when I moved in was a house with no smoke/fire detectors, electrical outlets that were inoperable because the receptacles were filled with paint, old, worn, filthy carpeting, dead mice in the cupboards and stove, toilets, bath and shower that were plugged, and a faulty furnace. Subsequently I had to resolve the most pressing conditions, including fixing a11 the plumbing myself and purchasing my own, new kitchen stove. But it took until January 2004 for the furnace to be fixed and the smoke detectors to be installed, all of which was finally accomplished when I threatened to withhold my February rent and place it in an escrow account pending the repairs. As a result of my experience I have spoken to Fire Chief Richard Gasaway and one of the city's building inspectors and discovered that they seemed frustrated, (my opinion) by the lack of any effective means of requiring landlords to maintain a safe and healthy interior environmentwithin their properties. These Roseville officials explained to me that current ordinances allow them to inspect only the exterior of rental homes, thus allowing potentially hazardous conditions to exist that produce dangerous conditions for the residents. Therefore, I am contacting you to determine what the City Council can do to remedy the situation. Specifically, I would like to call upon you to work with your Fire Chief and Building Inspectors to draft an ordinance requiring owners of rental properties in the City of Roseville to maintain safe and sanitary home interiors as well as exteriors. As the Fire Chief explained to me, current ordinances allow the City to inspect the exterior, but not the interior, of housing units. To assure compliance without requiring additional city inspectors, the city could require a11 rental unit owners to obtain from their lessees a signed document confirming that their rental units are up to code standards established by the city. Such an annual review would assure that renters are living in safe and sanitary conditions and that conditions do not create a habitat at risk for fire. It will be interesting to read about or hear how the process moves forward to alleviate these unsafe and unsanitary conditions within the city of Roseville. Thank you for your attention to this immediate concern. Sincerely, _ _��_ - �� . Dan Buckley �-�- 1� v� A, �� - �� - �� : � ��, � � � � � � �' �� Linda Neilson 1349 Brooks Ave. W. Roseville, MN 55113 March 22,2004 City Council Members City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113 Dear Sir or Madam, I am again writing to you concerning the proposal by Meadow View Homes to build eight twin homes at 2550 Hamlinie Avenue (comer of Hamline and Oakcrest—Planning File 3546.) 1 sent a letterto you in February enumerating my reasons for opposition and will not restate all of those points here. Several of my neighbors and I attended the Planning Commission meeting on March 3, 2004, at which this project w�s discussed. All Roseville residents who spoke at this meeting were in opposition to rezoning the parcel from R-1, Single Family, to R-6, Town Home District, amd changing the current designation of this parcel in the City's Comprehensive Pl�n from Low Density to Medium Density. To accommodate this project, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the reques�ed changes with some conditions. I am extremely disappointed and appeal to you to follow the wishes of many of the neighbors of this property and vote no on the proposed changes. I have reviewed the draft minutes from the Plianning Commission meeting and also ask that you review a videotape of the me�ting to appreciate the discussion there. Please note that over 90 Roseville reslidents signed petitions of opposition that were presented to the Planning Commission and that are to be included in the packet forwarded by that Commission to you. The Executive Summary for Roseville's Comprehensive Plan states in its Preface that it "...is the City's officially adopted policy document used by citizens, elected and appointed officials and staff to provide background and direction on City development decisions. The City has updated the Plan in 1959, 1969, 1979 and annually since 1994." City staff, in their report to the Planning Commission on this project, stated this projectwas c�nsl��rrkwith the Comprehensive Plan. I do not think that it is. It may or may not meet the parameters established in the Plan for town home or planned unit developments, but it definitely does not meet the established use of this parcel dictated in the Plan. A number of years ago, I considered moving. I decided to stay and put a sizeable addition on my home based partially on the contents of that Plan for my neighborhood. The current Plan and its predecessors have continually characterized the property at 2550 Hamline as low density residential. I am not the only neighborwho made a decision to buy, remodel or stay in an existing home based upon this Plan. Please considerour plight. To follow the Comprehensive Plan and to keep in the characterof the rest of the neighborhood, this property should remain low density residential. Statistics in the staff report conceming lot coverage are cause for alarm. Impervious coverage is estimated at 41 % of the lot and 28% would be floor area of the units themselves. The footprint of the buildings on the Oakcrest side would be appreciable closer to Oakcrest than the neighboring properties to the east. This is predominately a single-family neighborhood that has reached the saturation point with present and planned development and traffic. Adding eight units may not seem like a lot to you, but this is an area of single-family homes that has already has had its share of development. Near Oakcrest and north to County Road C, the west side of Hamline has Rosepointe, office condos and an office building. It is importantto consider high-density developments already planned for the Hamline Center and Arona sites that will also negatively impact our neighborhood, even though they are located in Planning District 3, just north of District 8, where the subject parcel is located. Traffic statistics used by City staff and relied upon by the Planning Commission are from 2000 and outdated. Traffic on Hamline and on Oakcrest has definitely increased in the past four years. Ask any of the residents in the area about their difficulties tuming from side streets or driveways onto Hamline. During peak traffic times access is challenging, to say the least. Many mornings, traffic stacks to the north past Brooks trying to get through the light at County Road B-2. Many evenings, traffic stacks from the light on County Road C to the south past Brooks Ave. At the very least, the project should be tabled until a traffic study is performed that would evaluate present traffic on Hamline and Oakcrest as well as take into effect the impact on Hamline from the planned developments on the Arona and Hamline Center sites. Planning Commission member statements that Roseville has made a commitment to the Metropolitan Council to increase density with the inference that this project is necessary to achieve that goal without regard to the desires of and daily impact on the people who live in the neighborhood— were particularly disturbing. The staff report to the Planning Commission states that 5-6 single-family homes could be built on the property. Only one could be built without subdivision. To say that 5-6 could be built, given the size of the lot (approximately 1.44 acres), is misleading. On this lot, almost 20% of the area is covered by pipeline and electrical utility easements. If this project is to go forward, please consider how the homes directly across from the project on Oakcrest can be screened from invasive headlights of cars �entering/exiting the project. Also, consider how my home, located to the southwest from the property and at a higher elevation that the project, can be screened from headlights, interior street and outside lighting. Most of my back yard contains easements from V�(Iliams Brothers and BP Pipelines as well as Excel. I cannot plant trees in my back yard to screen this project and the lights from view. Three bedrooms in my horme are located on the Hamline side and would be directly impacted. Consider the view of these four huge structures on this parcel after the planned removal of almost all of the present tre�es. (The PDF file site plans included in the Planning Commission packet on Roseville's web site were unreadable, therefore I did not comment on the planned structures themselves at the Planning Commission meeting.) Commissioner Robert Blank expressed his disappointment at the design views and encouraged the developerto improve the design. From Hamline Avenue, �Y�G massive, flat walls broken by four windows in each building would be visible. From the south, huge rooflines and blank walls would be visible. Trees to screen the project from homes on the south cannot be placed on the easements and there is not enough space to place trees in many areas on the parcel. Shrubs would not provide effective screening. If the project does go forward, please consider adding a condition that any electrical, cable or other service connection needing above ground equipment have that equipment located on the subject property. (I already have some type of electrical connection equipment on the Hamline side of my property and would not want more located there.) In summary, I urge you to oppose the change in zoning from single family residential to town home and the amendment of Roseville's Comprehensive Plan to allow this property to be reclassified from low density residential. It is not just this parcel that affects the quality of living in our Roseville neighborhood. This area is at its development and traffic saturation point. The addition of the Arona and Hamtine Centerdevelopmentswill negatively affect our neighborhood and additional density should not be considered. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this issue further, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. In addition, I invite you to come to my property and see first hand how visible this project would be and its negative impact on the enjoyment and value of my home. Please call me on (612) 370-3255 or on (651) 636-'l986 after 5 p.m. Sincerely, � �i�--� ��-`-� � Linda Neilson �� M � �/ � � � a � .� � i � N � �a � � O 2 � � � � � ` L � �a 0 � L � I � � � � �� i - - • � �. i � a i _ I . � � �'- � 'r` � �� +� � - * � � � � '� — .� — � � � - �ti � � � � � Y � � �� n . � x r �'- ' - - �, � -.` •.i �,� ___ 3 �"- � -- — -� � ~ t � : FEAf�M'� �i � �.- T`�,. , 5 _ __ —� ' . � y � : �� ti ' . � � _� � I � I �'}�--•� � � . _� � �_� '_�I r i � -• � i, ■ ��w�oan 5r � � . . � � , ' } _ r r— • - '— � I" '_ � ~�� f � �' I �_ 'r � � � t I :� � , � ; ' .L� ti�ri� . f �. �, i ' yl� _ ��' � �� '— —.c ;� _ �i � J i �� '- ' � � � +� �� '-� " � --, � 4. � I � i • � � � �'' �f ��j r � � � I � ^- � � I r .� � � 4 � � `� ' - � • 'i � •`�- ti = � ,� �'- ,�*,�� ' + I��r k �— � � �� . � �'� � �� . . s� . � ■ s � � .- - F ' �' � ,. - -- • # i � - �S � , , : - � ��''•,.��FLL kR00� S T N . _ ___� I � �. .*� �r I ' _ �� . � ��'� s � �� . � - -- . � � � , �•, � � �;� 5� s _. .. � � .� � ,�-� � - — �` � �_ � � ��, �—�� ,_ .. �, � . � _ � � � � J�_ r �-� � , _�. ; -� .� � � . :rl'� ,. . t � �� ; --� �� - - . � � . � �. I � �' � Y ��'��`��' �-� _ , , 1 ��°� _ � ; �— �. _J � ' i , — � � �•- �] � ■ , i� � � ��; _ � � I�,, _.�� -- s � � � !-� -�* � �� . ' ��.� . �� - � T � _ —' -�--� � � :i�� , � � �i � ' � � � I �I ; ��, � �. k �'� � _. �.. _ . � �, I x•y f I � _I I -r . I � � r: ■ � � - L _�, ' _ . � � � I�I� � �j ` � i � . � � t . - � I � ' 3 � ' i• � .. � —; I �� .. � �- _ . --� t . � �_ � � � : . —'�� . � - �_ � _. ' � ` � �� I _ �, k � � � . 1 � � ; �� .�„� � . � ��.� �T �I � e . � _ r � � Y � � � � +� � , �. � � i _ �• . i I � , �� }�� R�� :��#�� ; � .i�,�, � i� �� t �� 1�, yp }��I�;1 i9��#! r9��lA.'!� �� i�� F i #j�i � �� '- ��t� i ��; �� rM�� fi � �k12��Z�� ` — — T — -- - � � �� j��l �� s '� �. _ �� `� -� r �i�� -�� - - -- . - �-�- � �� . � � sr±E��dusr sf � , � � � � � �� ; � � I " ' � ! . _1. � �� wk �' . I _ -� - — � I ..-'- I � i � � ,�t�E�FTST� �� h, • - � • . � �.��'�� —I - r ' � � ��il�� I;� � - �_ I i��_.L_ _ a Y �� f � � I ��I��j I � �' � c ._ . .� ._�. . _ � � ,� � � � ', � �1�1�� I �� . � = � ti, _L _1 � _ _i �!. � � � � �,�rx . � s i• T-- � ■ {" � _ � . °•i� y�� ' . . � -- � ' .i - _ G� �•I� C ■,��IY _ � M _ R �_� _ . ., • �� Y� � � l � � �� , �� • � . -. � � �. ,, ti � �� #� -�� { L �L � J fl I , � • � • • � . �r' _�� :,� `~ " " " r _ �� * • � '. . � �' I • I _ ; - � y� � � . � �� .. � i. rt _ . �i�r � _ i - ' .. � �� • _. . -. r� r': �. • . � �`- � � � ;�� -��' . � . Ji �'�� . ` . ' : � +� . � �� ' � ' r L - . _ _ _' � y �� __ � � � • .. U. ' { '"' + ` ` • �• . : '� i�4 `�� ' �. � x:r.� . : . . �, _ - . �r +� � � ' � _ � � � � T � � ` � . � � �. �" � . - � . - � .. �: _ .�,. � � -� . .. - . � � � .;- � L � � r 7 ' , i' • . I �, +� ' - -. . + � : � � � � � - • � t �_r � _ ��. �� r� • .. � • . {F;t • � � . - 5 , . i � * �` _ ir � , . . �- � � � � �.� ' � : � . • , �` � ' - _�4 ' : ; ; � . �' i y � � " _ • " � : ' � -' : �J' rl o ' � ` , � �_ L , • 4 - � �� y ' � � � � �1 � � � �' . . a : � i ..� � � � - . ��_ ' �� .. �� t ' _ . . � ... � { ��'� �� .. • ' -�.�•� � u � �� {' � 4 � � . -�4 '�` � �� " t � � � ti'� '. �,��* - y . � � � . �� . � � . • F•, � � ti ,,: Y L � �-F7ie • : + �. � . . �. � �� ' ' �F � • � • �' � � • � • • Ir � •'� �. . � F r l � �� 1 y — � 4 �1 .��' � ��_ ' i '. � � _ F � � ' " ' S� '� �' � 'y '} r �'y � �r f , ' d ti „ �� ':� }�, �!' � - r � k � , • • � f ,r �''+ =�ti�.. �� _ r� .�� .�.� • '- _ *'-• � � - �� '�� i � - , ,•d-... .' , �* � . , ��• _ �`i-�- _ � - ._"?�� T � �y�. �r � . � . . � _`� �+ � T _ � _ y� . • .+ � � .��+ � ~L ��Q �' � � � ,� f ' y4 - � -z�� ' - �d � _. . J � '�I � ?f � � �� . � � . �._ . , ,f"!'� • y .� . �� 1 � I I r � � { i•ii- I ti � � � y _'_"' ' � - ' ��T�� ar+ � '.. � � ' � _ � � . �r 'i =I � .� � ' �_ , � � I _ � , r �. ., � � ��• - ~ I . � � •-I � � l� � � � � i r �r ? - �' � � # � . •� � � � • ; . I - � �-• �, _= � - .- � � � .� � �� „ � y � ,. � � � • T � ,y � , � ,.F � � �. _ � . . 7 r. i �` , : �, . �A� � � i .� . r v � '� ;, _ , ,. �� {.' .. � • �i :.�. � � • � � � 2 •� ' ' � � ;f — � �� [ = � . . ' -.'� - . i �� { � -- �, � ' � . . - � rJ+ir { ' �'2 -..� i •�- �� _ �f� x , . . � �y��+� - � .. . � �-. ; �`"#�� **'�'�� -��`'-.. � f� w��_._..._� ��.�� -- , � � ��-•�*-- � � �. r � ' �� Y , �_�� , . ' �� . � ,;: .. . �' i � �� I � � ,� � � _ � � _� � =V O � � \�/ � � � � 0 _ _ � � � d' J � � M � _ � � =�a �aZ L � � � °3 = C) � O O � UUa � L L ,_ � � _/�� //� W � � � � � � rl/ 0 _ � N � � � >a O � � �^ � �= G � � L � �� W V I.L i �� ' � �� I. . IF-�� - — � .? •� ��7f�4i�� ST �4�, �f � . �� .. i �� i� , . • , � ,. � Y � . • �� L 4+{��l� �� .. Y�' . � ..� .� � .� � � = � ; �' #�,� •��- � � '� . Ir � ' '- •-- . ' '� ••y: .�, `r � � I . � • ' - —"---- , -- - ' '� .....�.�.� � ��,._: F: _ - � �� _� . � ✓y. c 4 1+'M1 �' — . M1.. � i. r . '�} � . .. i• �-• r '., �� t�� s'� G G} 4 7 4 �� :�� . � .Q � � K 4M t- � � � � � � � � � � 4 �� Si � � Q � � �f'j hG � �� fl GO ri} ii} Vi L �� I�� I-- I� - :� :; � 'r ' : i � � � � � � � ti � 1 �! � �'�� a I 3 ' � � � � � � � g I � ' R � � I� � �'�`�"��e y��}�ir ��1�:4�_ � �;sa{{� �Z , �I. }-_� �;�;�r�� , ��t�=; ��:-4-'� h��ajt�� {�!illsr :;;��; �: �;3�,F�1 � ��+it�s � �3�ii�� E �rR'� �{I S�' � �; , ; �� , ;� � � � ��i;l ��e��; :;��r �� , �f;k��1 � �� o-$ � � � F �� o� � � � � �� R � � �� r� � � 5 2L� �� Y 4 � U � � � � 0 J � �} E � � Q N � � N �� Q� O W � �. w tr'��.��. ap_ � = � � � - �r E U , �� } � , . �C � '' . � � "4� - '* - -- �;'_ ' t ' .• ��v ' - ��'•� l ' � � •�� `��r� +� } , F �� : ��- ti/ r yY � x " �� ,_ � � . ��n•+•I r� ��•,�� ' � }., � i ' S�• � ._" �}; ��R -�; � � �'•a � � �� -�� — f• �1 �R � 4 , _ 1 '.T - . � • �.'. �yu �• �r` - �� r � �:�- , .�--, .� �� . _ .r• " �� 7 � � � C' t � ' �� , ' � � � � � � � � , a� • i � � . � � . � �. _� r� 1 � .I �''��A �, . �� 5 �� ,. ' I� e .� � � . w � � �L � ,}�r �� 4 �- � 4' � 1 �. .•� • t f'f .' .i Y� a�f �. �, ��, ,, , L� � � + � �� . � �+, � � � �� {�* .�. •+, �.y .. , ti �-t- .- �� . w _ � � �- . �• � �''_ � A �, a �=� �� . � � �k�� r' �' �� t �: � � .� � +� � �''j1r .t � i ,•��*. . .'��.. •`�++Jw t ��Y � s �; �� _ f +� s _ * • . -�� ti�; - . '' ��..� � • • � . �+��"�`�J�� *��.�: � ��R � ��,: -� _ ��y �w r : � � �� . . . �L � �'+,� � � .f,� ,.w . � _ -~� `,. T•� � •: � ��• ; i '�. ` . i , .. � '�• - .� �•• - .. , �, � ti: I c � �5 I � ._ ' �. � � . ' r 4. 'F � � ,� �� k + � �� { ' ti aJ { � � P '''; � il � �� I� � �� y a w' � .� ' . ��R i ��Y _ ��7 # `� � '��* �_ �� 8 � ''R � � �� r ��4 �+�� 1 4 ��*�� `__ —� s'. * �� 1�� : _ � , _.# . } �� . . �f. t� ., ��.. � � ,.; �� " � �� f. . . �� .� � y =� -.'E; Y � . } � : r �� ` . ,� �-' .� wy�� L• . •Iti'" : x �.� * g• �,r_, � � . -.�� ''� � �{ -{ � � ,S - t' 'I .` .� It o- � r�2 ti . " �.rt� . 'r � • i +�` `' � � _. � �r� • .��,4. . �� , . �� • _�' • � � f� �:� � �,Y ' � y �• � ��• � �� J � - �'��'= -� __ � � �i S. _� ❑ � � ii � � �� ' J � � �- K • . '� � f � � � �RtFr �r " •S � � � . � � - � � � + �� a ::L;�. �.�.�..��. + � ��••�, � y� 4 � �� . -'�i � � ±� f; � � ti . '•�� k��i�� « � ;r = •� q1 h';ti'r � y � til� k I� ��F . _ =��- �+s�V � �� .;��.: ' } y �•++� y{ � �a : �� ' T � • . ;�� . 4 �� T ; - �.�r} � � � J � �� ' r .�� ' � � -. �r- ' . � � . 3 � , �� 1 .�T' � .� �� ti _ f� 'y�� , � • -- � � .� � k i e I.I r �; �� I � �� I�. �_ � � � � ' ��ti �� a_ _,�� ;�� '� � ' �� #� �5� �ti#��r��k��1 ��`�� ;� � �� i�� e � � � �� Y�� ..#M+7f¢#I�•I �� r A � $_ N ' �- � _ V a• �, j° W � 'y � � o V = a Z � J --�7 � . N 0 a � � I � � � � �� +��a�� a ; ! ! t �. � ; - i ■ �� . � ?_�, •��... �f �� , , , • �� ? i -'— — ` #� ? � � -�+,�� .rf'' : � l ,. � � ��'. i � ' � ' — � � — • ■ �, . 'c�r. � • � - - • �C'] F i' _ ' ' ° ; � � r • „ ' '� ' ' , �;' . �:.^ , � FT �� ; ;' � ' � �i '� ; , � ; � �� J 'S � ,1• •� _ _ ' ' y � � ?�� ` — � 'i � ;*' w� ' . �, � � �� I I'. � [ 5 ' �;i a, , . ti . —� . '�+ • �x �, 5 , x �4 I _ i �� ■ f} -� � � ti _yk _' 1 � •'• ' I . cti � ; �+� i [ • �I . 5 � .� F � - 1 ,` • � , � F + . , . . .. _ �. � � � K � ;�� € � • �� ; • ;� *' . �� ' � � F ' i °• � i� � • i � ;�'' �, i • . " � � �F• i � . r I I y -' j � �s � ~ # � ^ � 4r i *�' - � � � �5 4 $�, x � - •,. I � � � r ! r � r ` — i �� I . . _� � i '�r � . �� y � �� . � . .. y � � Y i . J �� *` � t , . ' � i � 5.� �� f � � � � . y � _ _ � J • � iS: : 1 � _y � ' r : . �i * +j �.� � ,�. � 5 � . I ' �� v � x I �� i � , �F . : . � �� . � . , ; . . ; ` ; f' = 1 . ; � � . . i ; ; �{ � ' ' , � � ■: � � �r i } � � � �� _ � . � �, . • , ,' , _ � � _ J � i � �+� " � - � — • } L_ti + 1: r. �� r� : ! �� —� . — _ _�._�ma •• ' - — - '• . . , � . � �� r . .- ---t •• --- ----�--------- ------...�... y � � • -� •---- • • - - ' y� • --- ' �� 'k 3�7 �4��iti � �1l7J1' YA : __ .. 1 � ` � � � �'p[� a I � , rl,+i�r_,Sa�� • �� ' � : y � � � � .'. ' � 3 ' : : ' . : = ' ' I �'— • • ---• - �`''---'+Y+i3'- =�--- ' ' � ' � �----- - -----�---- -- . � - -------�-�. ,-,�� .- 1 � 'r''" ��'r" - •-v � '�v�' : ��1� . �_ �•; ��.�v�l � _�:.�'St �r �� Z 0 � 0 0 U U z F w � S �3 I� I� �l �, lj �; �7� ti�� j�i � �` i �ir,, � i� a�,�� f y � t •++ F { 1 I 1 I I I I I:..... J I I I I I I 1 4......... I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I..- y �. i r r. ' F y � V� �� y � � r .,+ o � �� - i•�i �� : � � r � � � , i, i� i� � I I �i a• a Id� �': � �le .� . � E� p _ _ _- ^— � � i'_ _ L �� a � � � �� i ,i �I f � � � .� � I � *t � � � � � � , � � � � :� -� � � I �� .:_�� I � � . Si � ,� ! � � -� � � �, � ' � � i � - . .. � , a; .' � t �� _.� n r � +� �� ° i [��'� — R � ��p� M ' ��7 ��l� �� - �. _� +�i�d� * ��Y� �� g_��, �� r , ; k�*-rrryy o � �7tj � � �R4 � � #'Ri .c �E�� a ��a, �tr�� }��i �pi�� : ��i �� ; � � y: � E� ` � ti�y �� Y�� '�y I �� k• �� L �S �� -� :i C�i I � I �� sq � -� °c +� }'� tti � � � I � ' �I' � C�� •1 �� ' � : �� g ��S _ ��q � E"}�� l �� g��*��$�� - �i�� l�ti �� t � $ �� ra �� 9�_.,,. �� : , ,� ��' �#, �.t _ _� . .:,.. , �� , , �,� �� .�. , : :•'.� r ,�� ' i i � , .� , �,..a... F i r - .xoa� I � R �� k 1 ' � ` J � } � � 4T � . -�� - � � o . .J: ,s.. .. � ' - -- -- � . c i � °' � . ' � i 1*� �F i =4 i� ...�. •n I �i � � � � � � � ' �� L ' t� I jir � � T i 2 r�, � 1�1 r 1■ { � .7 � � t+' 7 ` - �� ! ��i 4'J .- , ,. � � � ��; - - ti �e .,, �� I ,x` +_� :,- ' , .. ,.. " _. � '� � ' .. ct �i' � �WpA7 i 3U'+lY� _ ¢ �'�! � ' t � �4I � • IF �r � r_� � � ,._ � , �� a:; � . �� y� i � Y R + .i .�t; r r � . � � � � y . . Y rt . . :� .� � .�. - - - - " ' ' � t} '` � , " � �ii CJ � � • �� T � I � , � . 3 { _ { J r . ■ � a r �+ � `� � � � � # � � * r •n I � �I � �I t�� r � � � I j� � ��, — _ ' ai .... .� _ ,� � _,�` ... �� 11 t " � � ; : f _ • � L •,�_ _ ai ;. r, ��. a�� • N a,��a� w �Ni��rfy - ��J � 1; . r�in�� . - �- 1� � . _ F.pr.. . ...�,...�-.w � M �- ... h i . � ,. 3 '� =� . � 3 „ . 1 '� :' F� � �� r . � � � � � � � �'i L� _ _ _ _ a� ' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - ' SR� 4 � I � .. • . � .J � - . ' �' • . . a . _ ! � � �'. � � ,. �l I .'. }'.I ° a . _ I _ f • •• � � . , �� :: �� = ��; _ :�� { } t! � �i ; � ;*i�,., � � �s � : �� ; , � ■ II ` � — _ � 9 � a� � �; � � _ �� i� � �� _ � � k �� — I �� - � 11. _ �� _ -�� - . � � . � � � � — I r� ' ' � — 1' — � � �I � ��'�ti �'� � C� ■ — � �'ll I �� r � � . ��M1 � 7 i. � � � - ',�.� � ' I �; � . �f P�� - . �,� , , - -,��I k � I� �; 6 - ��..,-- j I ' = , : _ - � :° � +k �� :� � � . 9 , _ I ��I ' F � e. � _ _ � ' I� _ i ' � �r i�. i� ' � _ �� i ! r' • � t - — � i • i i ' � � , . p I ' ' ; �'� I� � � � � I � ` . � � I ' ' '�k�� +�� +� T i � �� 4•� _ ��-•—• �•---' . � - I E _.. . � L� ; - . . - �- � - ' . � . �ti I 5 . —, � . �� . � � , � � � _ � �i � � . . . ' i , ' �. �s � � � ..i � , ; .. . � � i ��,•--f-- � � :I � I ,� � - - � � ; � ; j :i � - � � ; - � ' �� i .�. ; � ' : ° � � �� , � � � = 'S i �7 � � _ � � �ti y _ _ , —__ _ �f . . rtti ' - .�_�� _ � --�;�•�-�`..-�_--__.__.-._'_ _ �, �, _ - . � �- ° =_ - - -- .__ .�.... . - ��- ��---._�.. v. ...._. _:��._,.. r — �7�]r•= �vnM,r �. �� . � . � �` - �� . � � �� ,! � �� . . 5 � � � � _, �� ' � � � u } �; if �� tl 11 , i� � I, 71� il� i�� k '� a : Ffi� � 0 � , • + ■�.. .�.�-r+�........�ak� t��.....:.. y � �� - - �� i- s� � � �'_` i ; � . � � 'Y r I r � , � . � - ' � I , � � - M � W � � . . . F I � �, • - i � � � � -0 � + � ��--• fi -..,...; � � o � I . � � � � e � � �� J � I �' 4 {� { � F �� ' r ; � � � y . . i • � ■ � �: r I�I , • " i I � : � ■ . � � � ■ ■ .. ' �� = I � � ,� '�ti:� —' �� . --- — —•— �• . ■ � - � .,� ..�;' r�} .- - � . . , , , '� ., � - . � � � ;� ' �I �� - . # ; ' y�� , I• - , vbr �.... �� . i I r I' � � � � + � ■ : R - :� �� . �� '�'� . �� r 1 W w � � �� i I � #i �� ,5j�1, ; � : � � �� -- ' � i '� - o. — �� 3 � � ' �� I� ' . Y� � �, � � - -------• � � � �`' I � a�: �, — —L — — � �`�. � _ � L , I ,�, - ' � � --- -- --� -- �� `� �� _ e � � � .�i' ____ '�i MI" � 7f+N3�Y 7ra"rhFF ` �- � '`�4� � � 1 � �- i �I �. � � } .i � � � �• � � i I *I il I � � . _ �� . � • l 4 � � , `� � :* � � '� �' I � '• �* *; � ,� � � � ys� �[ . �� } � �� . 4�•-- � *i +� - . � �� J 1 �� i , � � , � J : ;I � • f � � � . . �r . ' I . *� �� f7Y3+.� :N�7MfH � r � � , I -.�Y � � � 4' � I� . � _ {_. I� � IF I �; ,I II � �� .� .I � :7 r= � r � x sy � � i �` � � f_ �� ` �' . � � � i� i � ■* r t� � � � � � si 1J �� k� E� +iS j•S ,,� �ai �,°; i�] �j= iT � ,+ � �� a, � a .� � ��Y � • �� ' � � � J '� I : � I IM--. .� I • I � • ' I � � � ; 'I � �: i � i a �� y i�� —� 5 —'�-i'� � �.. ..; � �. � � � j � � • y S � 7 � y � F � 4 4 � F� � �� , E ��'� , , � -� �� i y il � •,j M � R ' z Y T St �� I � ts s � 0 } a t R i � � Y 0 lf i �� r� �� , ;;. i�l � r, a�� +�� I� "i . h � ��' '. I I i I �^lO ..r..�., �ti��a � .- E�,i� -� L-i ii �- r � � � � � ■ � �— �' � F Y � '� � i It i � � � }` � 'I ' � I� il � ��' � . - �� iI � �r� �N{� M1�E�f � �E �11�� a� �li�� I� q ��;��! � - ;�;�; ��'�fi �� ,�;�� F�i�� . �a: ��,:�� : �� !�� s�,��. � W � � i L4 �iil iF '� � � � �,^ � � � '� �� .��—�T- � � � ,`�. ;� � n� � W,- � .° _ i'�� - �� '�� : � �-' +1F�•#• � ' �+Y '��I , �, � I I � } jf� }.e . �� , � t� � „ �.�. �� ti � j = r� , ; �.a fi, j - . � ,'. v @ � �: , � I' � .,_� __ I � � . �.��I • L� � ' . - '�' I ' ' . . .... . .....` ' ' i - � •. � ' "�' , ' '' � ' ~ - � � ; i ■ � `i I; i � i �• i � + I' � __ } I 1 �+ .� _ J � . I� � � • � � - i_ g i i �� • i � - i ' � � �� a � ; i I _ � 4 d � •� � 1 � r � W �� 1 _ W¢ � � � ..�.�... � � } � �; � ��- - _ _ '� : � � . � � u , �� I �� :' , � � � �. -_�. -, _'._ —.. � , � T -' y� } — i � i • . -- � � .� �} , , . � • � � - w �. � ' • �'i•' � I � •----- !, ��, � �F4 . �r. I � ' I ..__, - i • i _... � �' I � � - I � FI . , , , - �; 1 . �;: . ; ,� � � ; ., � -- , i � , , i- i ' � � � I • F ' i � „ � � . .� � J � . I'' � # � I ' I� � � ; : i i _�, ,_ , ... ' ': I .� � , ; . . � � � �.�---, „ �' -----• —° � T �_ ra •rl ' . � I �� I . � i , 5 � � .� ' '� k ,' .� --- � � �� --•- • �� -- -- - - --_�_* .. . _ _ . --. . . _ � .. .. . -.--� � ti � , �, � ,. � � ' ' ------- ----- ��! - ---r i . � � i �� _ . _.�.,.. —_._�� _ - �w- - - � •-- _ , _ _ _ �'� �',l i f �•- ;li.0 r� S � i ri. F• t F �� I � � � � � � i ---, 5 � i I I i � � �� .„, . :� � � � . ��i � : �;i . ;�, - - '�� . !i � :I � 4• - , } �i ' �� . � � i� 'I . �I � I � � I I � ' � I .I� � ;i ! I I i I � .� J --;-•CF# --,_.�, � � , ; � �; ; ,�� F 4 ,3 .� �� F�w 3�'� ., 7��? }�� r " �'r �rC� � �� I I - - ; - . � �� ; � i F i i � � � I � � I, � 'I I � I � � � I ' _ . ' � Y I ti IY i - � il _ L _ 1 - � 4 '' ` �� , , G� � _ T�I � � � ��' � � • • � �� Y�� I L r ! � I I� � I il� � � � i r� � �y I � � � � � � � - -- - � Y •� -- — — - =3.— ■ . � --- — . � +•- • • -- - •-- • • �--- •-----�- • -- I -----• -�- � �ny�� .w'n4�� - I 0 w � � _ �� a 8 � ir I� I� �� i; �;I i r1 i, i � �� ': L7� � 'ry 4 W 7'�i r� , 1 � � ±� �� -: w �� r~ �� t� � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� 4 � 41.J �p � � � � � � � � W7 Jj� � �I � r - �� 4 � � � � � � � � � � �� ~ . � �� . � �i ��_ a � � ---- I �__I �i� ;III!I II ��! I' F � .' ' ,� '� '�;� : � iA� �i�l �i aiiFL��ai li 111 IH �� . . ,,:. ,, -I �I - i I I I��• klll ;I':II�'�I�� ; � ; ; � , � � � � � � 5.J__I � � � �� . � � �� r � � � � . � w � � � � � �illllllfid� �� , �� _ , ; ;�_ � _�. , - � � �,� � � ., . - �--- � � � I I F� � �� + : � � � , � i . � �� .; I� �� r.�r: ��s I I -----� . �� _1 � raa��a�•� I I _ _ _'_��. �� , a �� : �1+ ' I i ; �� i — ' �� .� : i � � i I 0 1� � i T ,,�. i , .� ��I�� ■ � � � � \ � � � �k5 � Y� � � +,�� ■ ■ ■ � � 1 � � �� C �� J � 1� �� J � H � � � � � � � � � I ■ � �I � � � � � 1LJ� � � • � � � � � �` � e� � � t � � � � �• �I � � � �� i � �• � �- � � TM � � �� i � �� `�� ,�� . �- - � �� -- � � � �e�,T� br�au,:i �,— — --- �� 1 �� r � � � i � BF�AT R� � � 1�� ' f �u ' s � � R � � I� � I � � _ � � � � ,u�ci �w �'.__.� �� _ ....--------------•• '�' �4� �� r' k ,�i �_ . � ..� � ' f'�� a ' I' � � t� �, � � ��, � r I l� I ,� -- --- ----° I • � l� I t _ _l . , '�� I i i I I ' ��----•' '•------ . rrw� Mn _ � � � � I � . � '' �+ �� ,� � .� � �� r. 7MYLT I I� � � � � �;� � � .--.-. �--- � ��ER;;,.�■■■■■ � ,� � � � ,� � � � T��° I F]Y4/I I �_,4 C *� . � J � � � � � I �. . � � i� C� . 13i14fiFY I Ir fR 14 � �V4 r�� { � . �� o 1� ii�F �49�� i• „"'_'_"_'_'_""'_""""_' ' � II�9VII IIF�1! Rf�� I ' f I ��?k"f�,� � I i ' - '_ � �IP� }vI I I i I . � rtf _ _.. __ r � �' � �� I � 1 � I � - -�+ _ �I � � i � I � � J � F �5' � �1 �� r� � ti- � � � � �� ,�� I �� I � � � � I � � I I - — � � . � � , � � � .• � � � � �' � � , ----- . � , �� `� - � �; �� I . � � � , � � . � ; � �.. � � '�� ' �� i � ,�� i � � � � . - ��— �� a � -------.�,��--------- .-- � �,, - -- � � � , � � � � �� . �� }� � il �I i � � � -------�'• � -- � �� i �� 1��[1l1�� . iare , r�wn � �r� r� � tf.__�1 _ �-- ••• - — � F. r �.� � i �� i` � _� i L � i � ; . ,� I � � � i �i ��; � 'DYrJS �r � i�r' i • � � �4� � � +� � 1 . � - : � ="� -- �-•- - "'�f �� I �I � � cr�n.r� �a� � ' . 1 �� ' � ' � ri"L� r ; �t �, r�. . . . . ,. _—±w. � ; rr hr-� . — . . 1 �.. .� . . � „} �� ri11 � T 4� S � _ � �{I �� ,]� �� 4j�� y � _ � ��a ;�x� +� 1� LI � � � � � � � � � � � � � � J � � d� �� Z 0 � � � > W J �W � �} � � � � �� r � � I' �� I ;,�; �� '�INII �! � � ��u��,i.�;■.��;, � I.._... ._ _ • �� :�� 1111� � i � �'u `� 'N:ll�i :.'�i.,t. � , - •� i I - I ' 1111 ' .��M �� ,�W ��-�.- ��.__ �� F �I � � � � - � I � -� - � � �.�.. � � � � �� r � � � � I � ,+ �� -- � � � � � � , �� i` ` � � f�� t " , �, � �'� � � � � . ��w � t, � � w . ., m � w , � ��- � � � i' � � � �� — � •* � r. I � ,rr►i �,�w --- � - - - J � I ^ k �� - ------•'------•- _. � 4 0' .. � ` �� . � � � ------ � � � � �------ �-�� ,� �� i � ' �� i - , c' � � �� - �� -'� �� . � I � ' i'` - � �� r, � _ � ��; I '� �.� � 1 ��4 � , � - � �� ; . ; `;,� ��- -��-� � l ��. � .� �� ; *�� - ;�� F � � �• i �!, �r �� I . ��` �I1�` � � � � � � �_ � i � I • � � i�lY. �i7 1 iil R'4 I R��=rr .'Y F!'i �.��ti� ■4r rA+s� �ua . . � - � � � • ' � If Lr. � r �i � �� PIIR�11 � . . .""" ' "" �hv' oa w� vml � � � ��.__.. - --�-- - . � :�es: � r�_ +ar . , � � �� G� �� F Rf�� i � �14� ' � I � � �x---• , � I . . � _�., � � k.�� I . ��; � � � I � � -- � � �- �� ' � �" � �9 � . �� . �� ;� � � � . �j '� � � , �„� � ; 1� � . � I � � i � � 6k 7 � � � f I � �� • ' --------' - -%51LT11� � "--- � � �� - • --- ---....--- � �� i �� .�.. 5v � :� �� + � � '. � ��` f � �, � �_ rt� ._ � � I �� — � -- � � � aR n■ � � i �' i' � � �� yr� � �� . �, � � ,�,�.... . �. ��, � � 1�� , � . ;� . � d X�1 � � � �� , i � � � � ��. � � � + . �#��::»�t: - _ � �,;,;� c F..•�.�i I L � �•� h ym i � �._ _,, �Mi41FFIF LIL� ' L f 1 . ' _ i 'a'iG.� "' � ._ _ �� C � -- _. _ � � � � co�dl Wci L� - �°------ - ° °�-- � I � � � M � rir�lodi � — I � i � - ---------�� - -- � - �� . , - _._.. �-- �, . .. ..,�_ � tr. .__ �r----- �'* � — — � LI � _, � � � �� ; ��~� � ��i } �- �� Department DPW REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION � �i n on '1'win Lakes (;ontract Ne�otiations with Rottlund Homes (PF3543). l,� BACKGROUND: DATE: 03/29/04 ITEM N0: g•� Agenda Section: 1,1 In December 2003 the City Council chose the "Master Developer" concept for Twin Lakes Redevelopment and established a StakeholdersPanel process to work with the selected Master Developer on a refinement of the master concepts. This decision provided for a longer term, coordinated view of the proposals by the developer, sub-developers, and stakeholders. With more consistent, planned development, higher quality projects can be expected. Such new coordinated investments need assurance that more than a blighted truck terminal will be their adj acent neighbor in the foreseeable future l.� The Council directed Rottlund Homes to review the conditions of Twin Lakes and return with an answer as to whether they (Rottlund) would enter into an exclusive developer contract with the City. Rottlund (Michael Noonan and Todd Stutz) as well as Jim Casserly and city staff have been working on this agreement for the past 3 months. Consultants and staff are recommending approval of the one year exclusive agreement with Rottlund to enable the more detailed site costs analysis to occur. Without such an agreement, Rottlund will likely not make the 1 year investment (with their consultants) that will help to determine the costs and timing associated with a master plan implementation. 1..� On March 15,2004 the Council provided further comment and direction to refine the agreement providing for termination by either party. The revised, black lined contract is attached as is a draft resolution approving the contract. I-� Because of the uniqueness of the Twin Lakes Brownfield Redevelopment Area and the costs of cleanup, contamination removal, new roads, interstate ramps, utilities, and ponding as well as more typical development costs, all participants are taking an in-depth look at the possible costs, funding sources, and gap strategies necessary to proceed with the redevelopment. In e� terms, there is an imbalance (a "gap") between revenues (TIF is already included as a revenue) and costs of redevelopment. Some public agency "gap" strategies have been identified for further discussion and analysis. The Council will need to determine whether to proceed with these: • Twin Lakes Parkway to be paid for by city or others (MSA funds?) • Special assessmentsto be used as needed • G.O. Bonding (in addition to revenue bonds) Condemnation and moratoriums will be needed • Fiscal disparities spread community-wide, not carried entirely by project • Developerto pay above market higher land payments Brownfield remediation grants; reduced contingency and admin. fees Off site improvements (ramps, ponding, etc) paid by State or County Hazardous Substance cleanup districts needed 1.5 If enacted, the gap between the sources of funding and the high costs of redevelopment could be reduced. Council directionis needed. There is a significantamount of wark to be done and many City Council policies that must be amended (sooner than later). If the Council decides to proceed, a one year exclusive contract is proposed. After completion of the City's Stakeholderprocess and the financial feasibility along with policy changes (by September 30, 2004), appro�rnately 6 months is necessary to negotiate a development contract. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS: Hear from Todd Stutz, Rottlund Homes and city staff. Provide staff and consultant direction on which gap strategies the Council can support, so that further financial feasibilities can be done efficiently. If the Council wishes to proceed, adopt a resolution approving a one year exclusive development agreement with Rottlund. 3.0 SUGGESTED ACTION: By resolution, approve the Twin Lakes Contract for Exclusive Negotiations with Rottlund Homes. (draft resolution attached) Note: Council should also consider the altematives. If the Council cannot support using all or even some of the "gap" strategies, it could change the need for doing further financial feasibilities and Stakeholder meetings. What may happen if there is no exclusive negotiation agreement of Master Developer? Staff prepared a comparison (attached) of Twin Lakes master planned vs. un-coordinated market driven development. Report Prepared by: Dennis Welsch, Com. Development Director (651-792-7071) Attachment: Contract, Resolution, Charts, Rottlund/Bernard Letter, Comparison \\Victoria\CommDev�PLANNING AND ZONINGWLANNINGFILFS�3500-3549�3543 Twin Lakes Implement-Rottlund�RCA- ?I3 �1 � �tntilundmne-rc�G��ij.dr� � a;'19r0� CONTRACT FOR EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATIONS THIS AGREEMENT executed effective as of the day of , 2004, is between the City of Roseville (the "City"), having its offices at 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113, and The Rottlund Company, Inc., a Minnesota corporation( "Redeveloper") with its primary office at 3065 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113. RECITALS WHEREAS, the City's TwinLakesBusinessParkMasterPlan (the "MasterPlan"), adopted on June 26,2001 as an amendmentto the City's ComprehensivePlan, sets forththe City's plans to redevelop the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area (the "Redevelopment Area") into a business park to include multi-story offices, one- to two-level high-tech flex space, service industries, service retail and multi-family housing. WHEREAS, in its preliminary proposal to the City dated November 14,2003, Redeveloper proposed to work with the City to acquire, itself or through its affiliates or other specialized developers, all property in the Redevelopment Area, refine a plan (the "Implementation Plan") to implement the Master Plan, coordinate specialized development firms, coordinate transportation, storm water and other infrastructure improvements, provide accountability and responsibility for implementingthe Master Plan and complete environmental remediation (generally referred to herein as the "Redevelopment" of the Redevelopment Area). WHEREAS, the City, by resolutiondated December 8,2003, designated Redeveloperas the Master Developer of the RedevelopmentAreaand agreedto negotiate exclusivelythrough March 22, 2004 with Redeveloper for the redevelopment of the Redevelopment Area. WHEREAS, due to the complexityof determining the feasibility of the Redevelopmentand acquiring site control, Redeveloper has requested, and the City has agreed, that the period of exclusive negotiations be e�ended until March 31, 2005 so that (i) the Redevelopment and site acquisition may be adequately studied and designed, (ii) the StakeholdersAdvisory Tasl�orce can provide its input, and (iii) Redeveloper may further refine its proposal and negotiate with the City concerning public participation in and approval of the proposed Redevelopment. WHEREAS, the parties acknowledge that Redeveloper will expend substantial time and effort, and incur substantial expense, in analyzingthe feasibilityof the Redevelopment, and the City wishes to cooperate with Redeveloper's initial efforts in analyzing the potential and feasibility of the Redevelopment and are willing to proceed as described in this Agreement. �/■I : �_ .� �- •.r - � -�� • .�, �- -. • �► • . . -. • �- '-.- - •.�i-� : •� �- �- •� -� , •� • •� • �- u • � �• -..-. .- . a - � • •� WHEREAS, the City is willing to negotiate exclusively with Redeveloper until March 31, 2005, provided certain deadlines and obligations described below are met. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows: Re�resentations b� Redevelo�er. Redeveloper represents and warrants that: (a� Redeveloper is a corporation organized and in good standing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, is not in violation of any provisions of its articles of incorporation and bylaws or the laws of said State, has power to enter into this Agreement and has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by proper action of the board of directors. (b� There are no pending or threatened legal proceedings ofwhich Redeveloperis aware which, if successfbl, would threatenthe economic viability of Redeveloper or the validity or enforceability of this Agreement or which would restrain or enj oin the transactionscontemplated by this Agreement. (�� Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement, the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, nor the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement is prevented, limited by or conflicts with or results in a breach of, the terms, conditions or provisions of any corporate restriction or any evidences of indebtedness, agreement or instrument of whatever nature to which Redeveloper is now a party or by which it is bound, or constitutes a default under any of the foregoing. 2. Re�resentationsbv the Citv. The City represents and warrants that: (a� The City is a public body corporate and politic with all the powers of a city and a port authority duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota. The City has the power to enter into this Agreement and carry out its obligations hereunder and has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by action of its City Council. (b� The City shall use reasonable efforts to obtain all federal, state, and regional land use, environmental or other regulatory approvals necessary to implement the redevelopmentof the Redevelopment Area. (�� There are no pending or threatened legal proceedings of which the City is aware which, if successfbl, would threaten the economic viability of the City or the validity or enforceability of this Agreement or which would restrain or enj oin the transactionscontemplated by this Agreement. 3. Preliminarv Nature of A�reement. (a� The City and Redeveloper agree that this Agreement is intended to be preliminary in nature. Before the City and Redeveloper can make a decision on whether to proceed � with the Redevelopment, it will be necessary to assemble and consider informationrelative to the economics, site assembly, phasing, environmental remediation and other aspects of the Redevelopment. The purpose of this Agreementis to a11ow Redeveloperan opportunityto assemble such necessary information, to refine its Redevelopment proposal and to negotiate with the City concerning the execution of one or more contracts for private redevelopment (collectively, the "Redevelopment Agreement") which, if executed, will set forth the rights and responsibilities of the City and Redeveloper with respect to such Redevelopment. �b� It is the intention of the parties that Redeveloper will proceed with the developmentactivities necessaryto permit Redevelopmentin a manner, and on terms and conditions, which are mutually acceptableto Redeveloper and the City. The parties acknowledge that in order for Redevelopment to occur, Redeveloper may at some point need financial and/or site assembly assistance from the City. This Agreement does not, however, constitute either approval or such financialor site assembly assistance, nor does it obligatethe Cityto provide such assistance, but the City sha11 cooperate with such efforts to obtain and will reasonably consider requests for financial and/or site assembly assistance. 4. Undertakin� bv Redevelo�er. During the term of this Agreement, Redeveloper intends to undertake and pursue certain activities with respectto the Redevelopment. Redeveloper's activities will include the following: � i� development of an Implementation Plan for the Redevelopment that is substantially consistent with Master Plan guidelines, or the advising of modifications for consideration by the City to the Master Plan guidelines, � i�� determination of costs of Redevelopment, including site assembly and preparation of the land for construction, �iii� analysis of necessary govemment approvals that will be required and the likelihood and timing of the same, �ik�� review of sources of financing, analysis of the feasibility of the Redevelopment, and �� such other activities as would be customary and necessary to determine whether to proceed with the Redevelopment. City's Undertakin an�d A�reement. (a� The City agrees to cooperate withRedeveloperin Redeveloper's undert�l�ings, and specifically agrees that during the term of this Agreement the City will not (i) provide or enter into an agreement for provision of financial assistance to any third party in connection with any proposedredevelopmentwithinthe RedevelopmentArea, (ii) negotiate with any otherparty for any redevelopment within the Redevelopment Area or (iii) except as may be necessary in connection with the provision of public improvements not related to new development or redevelopment by a third pariy within the Redevelopment Area, condemn or agree to proceed with the condemnation of any property within the Redevelopment Area to assist or facilitate development within such area by any third party. The City acknowledges that Redeveloperhas, duringthe term of this Agreement, the exclusive right to deal with the City on matters relatingto the redevelopment of the Redevelopment Area, and the City will do nothing which is inconsistentwith that right. Redeveloper understands, however, that much of the real property in the Redevelopment Area is owned by third parties and that the City cannot preclude the development thereof by its owners; provided, however, the City agrees to consider implementing an interim ordinance pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 462.355 as necessary for the protectionof the planningphases of the RedevelopmentArea, andprovidedfurther that the City reserves the right to seek the Redeveloper's written consent to modifications or exclusions from this paragraph on a case-by-case basis, which the Redeveloper agrees to consider and determine in its reasonable discretion and within a reasonable timeframe, and to inform the City of its decision promptly in writing. �� The City agrees to promptly process a11 applications relating to the Redevelopment. The City shall take reasonable steps consistent with its statutory authority and legislative discretion, where applicable, to initiate and complete or cause to have completed on a timely basis all necessary and appropriate govemmental actions needed to redevelop the RedevelopmentArea, including, but not limited to, those actions set forth in Section 11. 6. Phased Development. (a) Redeveloper and the City acknowledge that the Redevelopment Area may be redeveloped in non-contiguous phases over a number of years. The redevelopment of the Redevelopment Area, including the scope, nature and location of phased redevelopment, will be subj ect to such priorities as Redeveloper and the City, in their reasonable judgment, deem consistent with the Master Plan and market conditions, taking into consideration the following variables: timing, geographic areas withinthe Redevelopment Area; the scope of necessaryimprovements; and the type of development to take place (for example, residential or commercial). �� As a result of the phasedredevelopmentof the RedevelopmentArea, the City anticipates that it will enter into a Redevelopment Agreement for the Redevelopment Area with Redeveloper which may provide for separate Redevelopment Agreements with Redeveloper for certain phases of redevelopment of the Redevelopment Area. The terms and conditions of such Redevelopment Agreements shall be subject to the provisions of this Agreement and the mutual agreement of Redeveloper and the City. 7. Redevelo�er Actions. Redeveloper shall take the following actions: (a) By September 30,2004: � Complete wark with an Advisory Stakeholder Task Force to be appointed by the Council (to include property owners, residents, neighborhood groups, business owners and developers) in formulating the Implementation Plan. � • Identify all real property that must be acquired to undertake and complete the Redevelopment, including preliminary appraisals and relocation costs for representative parcels in the initial phases of the Redevelopment. • In coordinationwith the City, prepare a preliminary financial feasibility analysis identifying costs and sources of revenue, including tax increment and other potential sources of public assistance, to determine the necessary public investment in the Redevelopment, assuming the City Council shall have approved the Redevelopment Area identified for the Phase I of the Redevelopment, and the City and Redeveloper have agreed in principle on a strategy to close the gap in financing the Redevelopment. ati 1. 1' F. 1 �. I 2�� , sj �, :, _� :3U,;�,-' 1" 1" , • 1' ►-�- - ��" �1 r �� . ' � :• 'll"1 � . 1'� � • 1" • 1' �_ -i ' '1 �— • � "' 11"1 1. •" •11" 1 . .1� • � ,11 • 1• 1 r 1- � ' • . • " •. ' • . • (b) By December 31,2004: • Submit to the City a preliminary site plan for the Redevelopment showing the size, nature and location of the proposed minimum improvements, including parking, landscaping and other e�erior improvements. � Complete or finalize necessary feasibility, marketing and financial analyses, including the timing and phasing of the proposed Redevelopment, preliminary pro forrnas and likely revenue sources for the initial phases. • Review and comment upon the adequacy of existing ordinances, including zoning ordinances, to facilitate the Redevelopment. • Ascertain what approvals will be required from governmental agencies for the Redevelopment. • Investigate adequacy of utilities and streets and identify required infrastructure changes; also review existing transportation plan to determine adequacy. • Review existing environmental reports and determine if additional environmental investigationis necessary. � (�� At least every other month, commencingon June 1,2004, Redeveloper shall provide the City with written reports as to the Redeveloper's progress in assemblingthe information and analyses necessary to comply with this Agreement and proceed with the Redevelopment. Upon reasonable request of the City, Redeveloper also agrees to present verbal reports to the City Council about progress under this Agreement. 8. Determination to Proceed to Redevelopment Aweement. Upon receipt of all information and documentation required to be provided hereunder, and any additional information the City may require, the City shall review the same and determine whether it desires to proceed to work with Redeveloper to negotiate a Redevelopment Agreement relative to the Redevelopment Area. Such determination sha11 be in the sole discretion of the City. Unless sooner terminated pursuant to Section 14, if the City determines that based upon the information provided or based upon a failure by Redeveloperto providerequired information, to make satisfactoryprogresstoward the implementation of the Redevelopment or to otherwiseperform its obligationshereunder, it is not in its best interests to continue to work with Redeveloper, it shall so notify Redeveloper, whereupon this Agreement shall terminate upon the expiration of the Term (as defined in Section 14) and, neither party shall have any rights or obligations, including, without limitation, any obligation for reimbursements for costs incurred hereunder, to the other party or to a third party under this Agreement. The parties agree that the execution of a RedevelopmentAgreementshall be subjectto: (i� A determination by the City, in its sole discretion, that its undertakings are financially feasible and in its best interest, and (ii) A determination by Redeveloper, in its sole discretion, that its undertakings are financially feasible and in its best interest. 9. Redevelopment Agreement(sl. Assumingthe completion of the work described above and the resolution of any other issues contemplated by this Agreement, then by March 31,2005, Redeveloper and the City intend to execute a Redevelopment Agreement (or the first of a series of Redevelopment Agreements). The Redevelopment Agreement will include all of the terms and conditions for the redevelopment of the Redevelopment Area and it will be necessary for Redeveloper and the City to address, among other issues, the following: (i� Type, quantity and quality of the minimum improvements. (ii) Timing of the acquisition by the City and Redeveloper of parcels for various phases. (�ii� Timing of construction of the minimum improvementsof the intended phases or portions of the phases. (iv) Payment by Redeveloper for the Redevelopment Area. � �r�j Security to be fumished to the City by Redeveloper to protect the City's financial investment in the Project, which may include letters of credit or similar guarantees and assessment agreements. ��i� Timing and payment for public improvements, including the use of special assessments. �r��; � Responsibility for the application of grants, particularly from the State and Metropolitan Council. {�iii } Responsibility, cost and timing of soil correction. {tx� Responsibility, cost and timing of pollution abatement. {x� Redeveloper's use of specialized developers to redevelop portions of the Redevelopment Area or construct part of the minimum improvements. �xi � Issuance of tax increment bonds for the acquisition, environmental remediation and the redevelopment of the Redevelopment Area. ��€i i� Permits and approvals, including but not limited to: � , Minnesota Pollution Control Agency � . Minnesota Department of Transportation 3. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources �. Minnesota Department of Health 5. City zoning, planning, vacations, plat approvals, permits for demolition, utility and building, developmentprogram modifications,tax increment district approvals among others �. Watershed District �, Metropolitan Council $. Ramsey County 10. Effect of Awrovals. No approval given by the City hereunder shall be deemed to constitute an approval of the Redevelopment for any purpose other than as stated herein. The process outlined in this Agreementshall notbe deemedto supersede any conceptreview, conditional use permit, vacation, subdivision, or other zoning or planning approval process of the City. 11. Citv Actions. Redeveloper understands that further and separate action is required with respect to the Redevelopment. City agrees to take reasonable steps consistentwith such actions necessary to facilitate the Redevelopment. Those actions may include, without limitation: (1� In coordinationwith the Redeveloper, preparation of a preliminary financial feasibility analysis identifying costs and sources of revenue, including tax increment and other potential sources of public assistance, to determine the necessary public investment in the Redevelopment. �ii� Establishment or modification of the Proj ect Area and tax increment districts, or utilization of tax abatement. �ii i� Review of the AUAR to determine conformity with the Master Plan. �iv� Zoning, subdivisionandlor any other planning approvals. �v) Acquisition of land within the Redevelopment Area by voluntary purchase and/or condemnation. ��i � Construction of public improvements to serve the Redevelopment. �� i�� Approval of the Redevelopment Agreement for the redevelopment of the Redevelopment Area. ��•iii � Recommend changes to City ordinances to facilitate redevelopment consistentwith the MasterPlan. 12. Discretionarv Actions. Redeveloper understands that many of the actionswhich the City may be called upon to take require the reasonable discretion and, in some instances, the legislative j udgment of the City. Such actions may be made only following established procedures and the City may not, by agreement, agree in advance to any specific decision in such matters. 13. Reimbursements. The parties agree that it shall be a precondition of the City to signing the Redevelopment Agreement that the Redeveloper reimburse the City for the following (a) the lesser of (i) one-half of the cost incurred by the City for the Stakeholder Advisory process, or (ii) $35,000; and (b) the lesser of (i) one-half of the costs incurred by the City for the TIF districting (including costs incurred for blight studies), or (ii) $25,000; and (c) the costs incurredby the City for preparing and negotiatingthe Redevelopment Agreement in an amount not to exceed $50,000 (any costs in excess of $50,000 for this item (c) shall be paid by the City). In the event the City and Redeveloper determine to abandon the Proj ect prior to signing a Redevelopment Agreement then each party shall be responsible for its own costs and Redeveloper will not be responsible for any reimbursementsto the City set forth in this Section 13. 14. Term of �ee��t.-� Subiect to the last narasranh of Section ��a�, this Agreement for exclusive negotiations sha11 be binding upon the parties until March 31,2005 (the "Term"). This instrumentmay be e�ended by the mutual consent of both parties. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and their respective successors and assigns during the duration of the Term of the exclusive negotiation period. Redeveloper may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days' written notice to the City in the event that Redeveloper determines that the Redevelopment is not feasible. The City and the Redeveloper may mutually agree in writing to terminate this Agreement prior to the expiration of the Term in which event this Agreement shall � become null and void and of no further force or effect as of the date of such written Termination signed by both the City and Redeveloper. 15. Citv Use of Work Product. Redeveloper shall make available to the City for its unrestricted use at no cost to the City all non-proprietary work product, including market analyses, soil and engineering reports, geo-technical reports, infia-structure construction budgets (but excluding construction budgets specific to proposed improvements), research materials and other documentation produced specifically for the Redevelopment Area. 16. Third-Party Inauiries. The City shall refer all third-party inquiries regarding use, availability, and redevelopment potential of the Redevelopment Area to Redeveloper. 17. Notices. Any notice required or permitted under this Agreementby either party to the other sha11 be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certifiedmail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, transmitted by facsimile, delivered by a recognized overnight courier or delivered personally to the following addresses: If to Redeveloper: The Rottlund Company, Inc. 3065 Centre Pointe Dr Roseville, MN 55113 Attn: Todd Stutz, Executive Vice President With a copy to: Winthrop & Weinstine 225 S Sixth St, Suite 3500 Minneapolis, MN 55402-4629 Attn: Beth G. Timm, Esq. If to the City: City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, NIN 55113-1899 Attn: Dennis Welsch, Community DevelopmentDir. With a copy to: Krass Monroe, P.A. 8000 Norman Center Drive, Suite 1000 Minneapolis, MN 55437-1177 Attn: James R Casserly, Esq. (signature pages followin� G:\WPDATA�R\ROSEVILLE\05�DOC\CONTRACT EXCL NEGOT V4$.DOC � Date: ,2004 THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA By Its By Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) �� COUNTY OF On this day of , 2004 before me, a notary public within and for County, personallyappeared . and to me personally known who by me duly sworn, did say that they are the and respectively, of the City of Roseville, Minnesota, and acknowledged the foregoing instrument on behalf of said City. �� Notary Public City Signature Page - Contract for Exclusive Negotiations 1� Date: ,2004 THE ROTTLL7ND COMPANY, INC., a Minnesota corporation : STATE OF MINNESOTA ) �$ COUNTY OF } Todd M. Stutz Its Executive Vice President On this day of ,2004 before me, a notary public within and for County, personally appeared Todd M. Stutz to me personally known who by me duly sworn, did say that he is the Executive Vice President of The Rottlund Company, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, and acknowledged the foregoing instrument on behalf of said corporation. �� Notary Public Redeveloper Signature Page - Contract for Exclusive Negotiations ll i�►:�:ii,��r_� Redevelonment Area �� Council Member introduced the following resolution, the reading of which was dispensed with by unanimous consent, and moved its adoption: CITY OF ROSEVILLE COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT FOR EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA AND THE ROTTLUND COMPANY, INC. FOR THE TWIN LAKES REDEVELOPMENT AREA (PF3543) BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Roseville, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section l. Recitals. 1.01 On December 8,2003, the Council approved a resolutionfor an exclusivenegotiation period until March 22, 2004 with The Rottlund Company, �,nc. ("Rottlund") relating to redevelopment of the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area ("Twin Lakes"). 1.02 The resolution contemplated that Rottlund would be designated as the Master Developer of Twin Lakes on March 29,2004 if the City and Rottlund could reach agreement upon a memorandum of understanding which would become the basis of a Master DeveloperAgreement or an Agreement for Private Redevelopment. 1.03 Since December 8,2003, Rottlund and City staff have worked diligently to meet this goal, but have determined that the Twin Lakes redevelopmentproject is sufficientlycomplexthat a longer period of study and analysis is needed. 1.04 Rottlund has requested that the City enter into a Contract for ExclusiveNegotiations, to expire on March 31,2005 and in substantiallythe form attached hereto (the"Contract"), providing for the performance by Rottlund of several activities during that period, including: (a) Work with the Advisory Stakeholder Task Force to formulate an Implementation Plan to implement the Twin Lakes Master Plan, (b� Analyze redevelopment costs, including site assembly, relocation and environmental remediation, together with sources of revenue, to determine the feasibility of the redevelopment, amount of necessary public investment and necessary phasing, (e� Submit a preliminary site plan for the proposed redevelopment, and �{� If a11 of the above actions have been successfully concluded and if approved by the City, execute a Redevelopment Agreement relating to all or a portion of Twin Lakes. Section 2. Findin�s. 2.01 The City hereby finds that execution of the Contract promotes the objectives outlined in the Twin Lakes Master Plan. Section 3. Authorizations. 3.01 The Council hereby approves the Contract and authorizesthe Mayor and City Clerk of the City (the "Officers") to execute and deliver the Contract substantially in the form on file in the office of the City Clerk, with such additions and modifications as the Officers may deem desirable or necessary as evidenced by the execution thereof. Adopted by the Council of the City this day of 2004. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member , and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by City Clerk. � Resolut�on - Rottlund Homes Contract ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor CERTIFICATION I, , the duly qualified City Clerk of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the City Council on the day of ,2004. City Clerk \\Victoria\Commpev�PI,ANNINGANDZONING�PLANNINGrfLCS•35�Oa•7S;Y•35�3 Tw��LakesImplement-Rottlund�ResolExclusiveNegotAgree(031504).doc � TWIN LAKES REDEVELOPMENTAREA SOURCESAND USES Areas 1-12 HousingUnits 1,352 Building Sq. Ft 1,121,300 Acres 169. i � SOURCES TI Bonds Revenue Bonds 6.50% � 3�, ��, ��0 TI Revenue Note 6.50% �1 �, 2��0_�0� Grants - Other � � Land Payment � � �9�1��17� ' T�TA �1.�00,� U�E� � - � �- ILand and Building Acquisition 1�5.3�,�oa Relocation 3,3��,�OU Site Preparation (grading, demo, eng., soil correction) ��,7��,��a Site Preparation - Environmental t �,��a,�� Landsca in TLP � Lan ton Lake im rovements ��,�OQ Streets Twin Lks P , Prior Ave, Off Site 5,��0,�� ' Contin enc � 10.00% � 5,��, O�Q ��o� of Issuance {% of T.I. Bonds) 2.50% ��, �� T�TAL I��$ 1$�,6�Q.U'a� * p��FI�IT� �,B�,O�] —��— - � , Twin Lakes 15d.xls Prepared by Krass Monroe, P.A. �'1��2�0� TWIN LAKES REDEVELOPMENTAREA SOURCES AND USES SOURCES �T� Bonds Revenue Bonds �T� Revenue Note � I Grants - Other /LandPayment E TOTALSOURCES �se� : � -- _� Land and Buildin� Ac uisition �� ... _ ; RPl�r.ati�n�r �Site Preparation (grading, demo, eng., soil correcti I�i4o Dror»r�4in�n�nrnnmon4�l : 5treets I win LKS Pkw , Nri �Contin enc�r Costs of Issuance (% of T.I. � ' T�TAL ��E� � Units Sa. Ff. 6.50% 6.50% �7 �-r . : 13,600,000 5,500,000 0 19,7.AA�00 1 38 800 000 I 37 700 000 � 1,100,000 �6,200,000 7,300,000 ; � � 5 700 000 - - �- 10.00% 6,000,000_ 2.50% _ �nn nnn �fi,1Q�,�Q� Gap Strategies Twin Lakes Parkwa not aid b develo ment ' 2 S ecial Assessments 3 Reduce Contin encies Reduce Cit Admin Fees E Off-site road im rovements d b State/Coun � 6 Obtain Environmental remediation rants 1 7 Issue G.O. Bonds ;. 8 Higher landpa r�ments I 9 � Hazardous Substance Subdistrict ] __i� Fla�al al��ri�0utsideDistrict � � �� i i��n�de�,�ataa�r 8 Moratorium on develo � ment . . —1 �T�tal From Ga Strate ies � � r vaq 5trateaies � � � � Twin Lakes 15d.xis Prepared by Krass Monroe, P.A. 3�10�0[�4 � � J � .� H � .� N � � � � U L � 0 � � � � H � � � � � Q � O � � � O C3 � � a 0 � 'O � �� V W O a L I � � � o � � ��° �o � � � Q � � � N N O � � � � c� � � .� ,� � � � C � � O � � c*� X� rrt F"' � � � N N L.L � � � � Q � � L �� N U � L.L o `� � � � � c � � �o � w � � t�j M � X •� c� � � a ai 0 � 0 � � � � � � � � a� � Q N a � � i H � a� .; N � �C � 0 �' U �.� L � 0 � � � � � OC �� o~ �� V 0 O a � � ,O $ +� Q v 0 Q � � � � � �--� •L U � Q� � � � oU� X � � � a� � �� >�o � N op � `N N c� � � � � � L:� � � •� � � N � U L � � � � � � � � L � � � � � , � � �� 0 � X O � � M � � � 0 Q° N O � � � � �� L � � 0 � 0 � � � Y � � � � � Q � � � � � J � .� H � .; N � � 0 �+' U L � 0 0 � � � L � � � � � � O � � � i � '� 4± � � = a � L 0 � � ,o a � ca t� O a (� � � • � �--� O� o U� � X � � � �" N � � � c� � � o �"' � � � �N o0 c� � � � �} �} ��.. �� .; � � �� O � � � � � � � � �\ � w N ti � U � — N � O �� a a� 0 � 0 � � � Y � � � a� � Q N � � �� ; � �� 9 Lf �� D E F7 5 � D E Y E L O P E Er � A �IVISION OF THE RO7TI.UND ODMPANY, I NC November 14,2003 City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113 Re: Twin Lakes Coordinated Implementation Plan (TLCIP) Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of Council: The Rottlund Company, Inc. doing business as Da�id Bernard Builders and Developers, respectivelyrequest your considerationin naining our company as the designated master developer for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. Over the last year David Bernard has worked closely with Mr. Daniel Commers of Roseville Properties and Mr. John Johannson of Welsh Companies, in an effort to move forward the redevelopment of the Twin Lakes area. Based upon our experience in coordinating redevelopment projects of this nature and fmancial ability, Mr. Commers and Mr. Johannson support our request to be named as the master developer. Given the current proposed plans, which indicate residential as the largest development component, we feel we are unic�uely qualified as the master developer. Builder Magazine currentlyranks us as the ��' largest developer of attached for-sale housing in the country. (Attached for your reference, a brief summary of Master Developer e�erience.) On Monday, November 17,2003, the City Council will be asked to consider a number of items concerning the Twin Lakes redevelopment area. One of these items is consideration of options for implementing the redevelopment plan. Five basic organizationtypes are discussed by staff including the master development approach "wherein the City selects one develo�m�nt company to coordinate a11 specialized redevelopers, the streets, utilities and contamination clean-up, based on city plans and with city assistance." For a number ofreasons, we consider the master developer approach to be preferred over the other four organization types. The reasons are as follows: As the master developer, we would be responsible for negotiating privately, the acquisition of all property within the Twin Lakes redevelopment area. This is by far the most cost-effective approach and may help avoid the use of eminent domain by the City. (As you may be aware, Roseville Properties already has made a significant investment in acquiring properties with Twin Lakes.) 3065 CENTRE PpINTE DRIVE ROSEVILLE, MN 561'13 TEL: (651 ) 638 " 0500 FAX: (65'I ) 638 - O50'I Twin Lakes Page 2 November 14,2003 2. As the master developer, we would be responsible for the preparation of a master plan, reflective of the aspirations of a number of parties and stakeholders, but most importantly, reflective of the vision of the City. 3. As the master developer we would be responsible for coordinating the efforts of specialized development firms such as Roseville Properties, Welsh Companies and the Ryan Companies. Given the complex nature of infrastructure improvementsrequired to support the development such as transportation improvements, storm water management facilities, etc. a master developer is required to balance these costs to insure a11 parties contribute fairly to the overall development. Specifically, we are currently working with the Welsh Companies and the Ryan Companies in other developmentprojects throughout the Twin Cities. 4. Someone has to accept the responsibility and burden for insuring the implementation of the long-term master plan of Twin Lakes. The master developer provides the City with direct accountability and responsibility for the realization of the vision, goals and objectives of the City's plan. 5. Significant environmental clean-up work is required to allow the development to go forward. Since this environmental clean-up work does not follow property lines currently or as part of the Twin Lakes plans, one entity such as the master developer is best equipped to complete this work on a timely efficient and economical basis. In the interest of moving the Twin Lakes Redevelopment forward, we would ask the Council to designate The Rottlund Company, Inc., doing business as Da�id Bernard Builders and Developers, as tentative master developer, pending the completion of a formal development agreement consistent with the objectives of the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area Plan. If you ha�e any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at 651-638- 0500. president, Da�id Builders and Developers DAVID BERNARD BUILDERS A� DEVELOPERS . REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT EXAMPLES �'��fP�E� ��.�.��Pl�P] " �'7'� MASTER DEVELOPER 1. Renaissance on the River, City of Minneapolis, 2001 Best RedevelopmentNew Construction as presented by the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission. 2. Wesley Commons, City of Golden Valley (with Brookstone Development and Common Bond Communities), a 2003 1000 Friends of Minnesota Smart Growth Award recipient. SPECIALIZED HOUSING DEVELOPER 3. Bayhill Condominiums and Westridge Market (with CSM Corporation), City of Minnetonka. First recipient of a Livable Communities Grant from the Metropolitan Council and 2000 Smart Growth Award winner. 4. Pointe West Commons (with CSM Corporation), City of St. Louis Park. l�.��L L � , r_ MASTER DEVELOPER 1. Rivers Pointe, City of Anoka 2. Arbor Pointe, by The Rottlund Company, Ina (with Ryan Companies and others), City of Inver Grove Heights. SPECIALIZED HOUSING DEVELOPER 3. Upper Landing (with Centex Multi-Family and Ryan Companies), City of St. Paul 4. Metropolitan Lofts (with CSM Corporation), City of Minneapolis PLANNED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS MASTER DEVELOPER 1. Quodion Properiy, City of St. Louis Park SPECIALIZED HOUSING DEVELOPER 2. Bloomington Station, City of Bloomington 3. Port River Wa1k, City of Coon Rapids 4. Northwest Quadrant (with Sherman and Associates), City of New Brighton All of the referenced proj ects have a measure of comple�ty that pressed David Bernard to arrive at the most innovative solutions possible (combination of novel site planning and unsurpassed architecture), while being sensitive and responsible to the local environment and community. Master Developer Redevelopment verses Uncoordinated Market Based Redevelopment {03/29/04) (Source: Council/Staff discussions, December 2003 & Can Dev. staff reports) Roseville's adopted current comprehensive plan calls for a mixed use business park in Twin Lakes. Most land is n�v zoned either general industrial {I-2) or light industrial (I-i). Changes in zoning would have to comply with 6-6 zoning, which requires a PUD to mitigate the findings in the AUAR. This works for a master developer and a refinement of the master plan. Alternatively, an owner/developer who continues to use the I-1 or I-2 zone for an existing permitted use, or a n�v but permitted use, may not be required to change zoning and mitigate. A. Why a Master �eveloper Exclusive Negotiation Agreement? 1. Exclusive Negotiation Agreement sends a strong public/private partnership message to the market and other public partners. . Master developer is bound to use the Council's adopted plan and refine it; then mitigate the impacts through the conditions by a PUD. . Non-master developers must work through master developer rather than making speculative land offers which over inflates purchase price by owners. . Property owners have more comfort working with the master developer when there is an exclusive negotiation agreement in place - demonstrating the city is serious about moving forward. .��k will see a local commitment to making the project work and this will provide comfort that their $350,000 worth of invested funds will see a return. Currently, they are skeptical and will pull $500,000 in loan funds if a plan is not presented for its use within 6 months. . Met Council and other public funding agencies will see a strong commitment that is critical in the grant process. City has made applications in the past fo r Twin Lakes and they were not funded due to no developer identified and committed to the project. They too, like EPA, want to be able to show a return on their investment usually within 24 months. 1 2. Cost of Land purchase born by the Master Developer . City has control of fair market price for site acquisition when eminent domain is requested as a last resort. Master Developerpays the City in advancefor that effort. . The City does not have the resources to purchase land in Twin Lakes. 3. Proposals for Land Use are planned and presented by and paid for by the Master Developer . City has control through the land use approval process. I f proposal does not meet master plan, an amendment request must be put forth by Master Developer with City choosing to support or not support. 4. Master beveloper (Rottlund) is already invested in the public process . Participated in Twin Lakes Stakeholder Process from beginning to end. . Understands the land, financial and neighborhoodchallenges. 5. Master Developer (Rottlund) has support from other specialty developers . The City will not lose a good prospect by forwarding inquiries to the Master beveloper. Rottlund has support from key developers in the Twin Cities and will seek to work with others that bring value to the area. . Any office use that comes forward will be pursued by Rottlund because this commercial use is the most intense land use, can have the highest quality, can meet the master plan and can provide the most in return on high land investment. 6. What additional review needs to be made under an exclusive negotiation agreement? . More detailed acquisition, financial, environment and market reviews are necessary to get to a point of entering into a specific committed development agreement. � . This more detailed review will demonstrate the costs to the master developer; a good developer will not enter into a development agreement\contract without a time for due diligence. . Assuming the Council still wishes to proceed with redevelopment, but without this agreement, more speculative land inquiries will continue and increase the price of the land, therefore making the project even more difficult to achieve. B. What could occur by deciding to let Twin Lakes develop based upon a non- master planned uncoordinated market driven concept? 1. Re-Use and Redevelopment may occur sooner. There are developersand speculators interested in the easily developed individual parcels (with Fairview, County C, or Cleveland existing frontage) for trucking sales, repair and terminals, warehouse, and restaurant uses based on the existing industrial zoning. (Lodging would require a rezoning.) For some proposals, building permits and site clean up are all that is required for construction to begin. 2. End the Stakeholder Panel • The stakeholder panel was enacted to provide input to the refinement (an implementation plan) of the adopted master plan. Since there would be no developer's implementation plan to review, would that end the stakeholder process? (Approximately ��,�'� of the $77,000 contract has been expended t o date.) I n addition, legal and financial consultant services would be terminated. 3. Loss of federal funds -$500,000 . EPA has indicated if there is no activity in Twin Lakes within 6 months that these funds will be used elsewhere. . I f not used, it is very unlikely that the City would ever be awarded these �� funds again. I f the funds are used, the repayment of the loan comes back to the City without federal requirements, basicallyas money without red tape for the City's use. � 3. Spot Development will be the Alternative. . I f redevelopment occurs without city assistance, it will be with lower valued fast food restaurants, hotels, high tech flex buildings or truck related activities on a site by site basis, depending on zoning. Housing will not occur on a site by site basis because of the uncertainty of adjacent redevelopment. The owners in Twin Lakes have indicated that they will pursue a parcel by parcel redevelopmentapproach if this master developer plan does not move forward. On difficult or contaminated sites, owners (or buyers) may still request development assistance {TIF and Special Assessment Bonding) on a project- by-project basis. 3. Housing Development will be very difficult . Developing th e Twin Lakes area as housing will likely not occur in a pure market driven concept. Or, if it does, it will be specialized and public financially assisted rental housing that can absorb the high cost and uncertainty of adjacent parcels. . The public infrastructure costs are too high to extend only to the housing locations. The market for housing declines as the housing gets closer to areas where truck terminals still remain. The value of the entrance to the n�v housing neighborhood is just as important as the housing. 4. Existing terminals/industrial buildings will be leased again Most of the current Twin Lakes owners have their buildings currently either vacant and/or on short term leases. .�fFiis Twin Lakes reverts back to a non-master planned, market based development, land owners will sign longer term leases for their existing buildings, thus retaining the truck terminals and industrial businesses. (This is allowed under the current industrial zoning.) . Filling these buildings with longer term leases will impact the costs of redevelopment (if proposed) in the next 2 to 3 years because the cost of relocation and lease pay-off will significantly increase redevelopment costs. � 5. A corporate headquarters facility will be difficult to attract . A"Medtronic" or other large corporate user needs site control and a master plan being implemented in the area. One of the reasons Medtronic chose the New Brighton site is because the City has site control and is working with a master developer on the redevelopment plan for the area. . Allina would not have considered the Twin Lakes area if it were not for the coordinated master plans fo r redevelopment. \\Victoria\CommDev�PLANNING ANDZONINGU'LANNING F�C5�3i00�3_�35+13 Tvrn Lakes Implement-Rottlund\Why a Master Developer Exclusive NegotiationAgreementneeded(032904).doc � . � " �i �i Memo To: Mayor and City Council Nea1 Beets, City Manager From: Chris Miller, Finance Director Date: March 29,2004 Re: Discussion on the Financing Concerns for Twin Lakes Date: 03/29/04 Item: 8.b Financing Concerns for T w h Lxkes Introduction On March 15, 2004 the Council received a report and heard a presentation from Jim Casserly, from the firm of Krass Monroe, who has been in the process of developing a proforma on the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. The report was a culmination of two years of study and analysis of various development scenarios. Contained within the report was the most recent estimate of financing sources and uses based on the Twin Lakes Master Development Plan. A copy of the proforma is included as Attachment A. The report identified a financing gap of $75 million for the entire redevelopment area. These gaps are assuming that the City captures the maximum allotted tax increment revenue. It has been known for many years that the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area is financially challenged. This is evidenced by the fact that the area has seen little redevelopment in the past decade, despite its prominent location. The current financing gap, as recently reported, raises strong concerns over the viability of the project in its current form. In fairness to citizens and potential developers, the Council is advised to address the financing gap sooner, rather than later. This should not place any less value on the Twin Lakes Stakeholders Panel Study. The Stakeholders deserve to have their thoughts, suggestions, and concerns heard and documented for future consideration. In the report, a number of potential strategies were identified that could potentially reduce or eliminate the gap. However, these strategies would require a significant policy shift on many fronts, which leads to a number of financial concerns. These policy shifts and related concerns include: a� The proposed use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is substantial and requires a change in policy. �} Funding for Twin Lakes Parkway outside of the project is problematic. �.j The proposed use of special assessments may require a change in policy. �} Reducing monies set aside for contingency purposes is ill-advised under circumstances which are at great risk for cost fluctuations. c� Issuing large amounts of debt, places the City's credit rating and overall financial strength at risk The type of debt scheduled to be issued would require a change in policy. f� Taking Fiscal Disparities outside the TIF District would require a change in policy. �p Condemnation may be necessary, but it carries risk, and might require a change in policy. The remaining portion of this memo addresses these policy shifts and related financial concerns in greater detail. At the conclusion of this memo, I have added some comments that attempt to place these concerns in the proper perspective. General Financial Concerns Before looking at specifics concerns, the Council is advised to consider the general philosophy in providing financing assistance. In other words, under what circumstances will the Council participate in assistance programs? These circumstances might be somewhat broad based, such as ensuring that all redevelopment areas have a"level playing field". Or it might be more specific, such as only allowing public assistance if certain housing objectives are met. Identifying a general philosophy adds integrity and credibility to the process, and also sends a clear message to citizens, developers, and other interested parties as to what types of circumstances should be present before consideration is given. Use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF') For the past several years, the City has limited its use of TIF to pay-as-you-go agreements. With pay-as-you-go, the City agrees to turn over the captured increment to the developer up to a certain amount. Under this arrangement, it is the developer that bears the risk that the captured increment may fall short of proj ections — not the City. By contrast if the City issues TIF Bonds, the risk of tax increment shortfalls shifts to the City. Issuing T�' Bonds will require a change in policy. The overall plan ca11s for the capture and use of $50 million in tax increment revenues. By contrast, since 1982 when Roseville first began using TIF, it has captured a cumulative total of $86 million. Setting aside for the moment the derived benefits of using TIF, the Council is advised to consider whether it's prepared to use TIF to this e�ent. Secondly, the Council is advised to consider whether it's prepared to provide $75 million in financing assistance in addition to the capture of the tax increment revenue streams. This would be an unprecedented amount of assistance, far outdistancing any other financing package seen to date. On a combined basis, the total amount of City-facilitated assistance is $125 million. Certainly it's fair to point out that the TIF revenues would not materialize "but for" the presence of the new development. However, the use of TIF is highly scrutinized by State Regulatory Agencies, the State Legislature, and the general public, and should be used only after careful consideration. Funding Twin Lakes Parkway The current proforma ca11s for the construction of Twin Lakes Parkway at a cost of $7.5 million including right-of-way, landscaping, and related costs. Funding this parkway outside of the project area would require some form of borrowing, with an identifiablefunding source to repay the debt. The City's MSA and Infrastructure Replacement funds are specifically designated for the renlacement of existing roadways and are committed to previously identified projects for the next 5-7 years. The mere issuance of debt also is somewhat problematic and is addressed in greater detail below. The City could look for alternatives such as seeking federaUstate/county monies, creating a transportation utility, etc., but the reliability of these monies are uncertain at this time. � Use of Special Assessments The use of special assessments to fund infrastructure costs, have always been a consideration within the project area. The City's current assessment policy ca11s for the development to pay for 100% of the applicable infrastructure costs. Consideration should be given whether the added infrastructure, including Twin Lakes Parkway, should be included in that calculation in part or in whole. This will necessitate a discussion on whether the infrastructure serves a need outside of the project area, and depending on the outcome, would certainly have a financial impact on the overall costs that are attributableto the project. Reducing Contingencies As was noted above, reducing monies set aside for contingency purposes is ill-advised under circumstances that are at great risk for cost fluctuations. Take for example, the current construction of the expanded City Hall and Public Works buildings. A contingency level was determined with great confidence because there were relatively few unknowns about the site, and there was an abundance of similar projects from which to draw experience from. In contrast, within the Twin Lakes area, there are challenges in obtaining site control, environmental concerns, etc. A redevelopmentproject is far more unique, with greater unknownsthan a typical City Hall construction project. Therefore it warrants higher contingency amounts, although it should be commensuratewith the size of the project. Debt Issuance Concerns The current profoma assumes that the City will issue at least $35 million in tax increment bonds. This would tri�le the City's current debt load, and will significantly restrict the City's ability to issue debt for other purposes. Even if the additional debt excludes the City's "general obligation to pay", the new debt nonetheless gets included for purposes of determining the City's credit rating and overall financial strength, and would arguably translate into a"moral" and "professional" obligation to pay the bonds. Issuing debt of this kind will require a change in policy. Fiscal Disparities With respect to creating a TIF District, the City has traditionally paid the fiscal disparities within the district itsel£ Transferring this obligation outside the district does indeed free up more money for the project, but it would increase property taxes for all other properties. The impact would vary depending on the size of the project. Taking Fiscal Disparities outside of the district would require a change in policy. Condemnation/Eminent Domain Certainly site control will play an important role with any development in Twin Lakes. However, like TIF, the use of condemnation and eminent domain has received heightened scrutiny in the past few years. The Council is advised to proceed cautiously in determining the "public purpose" and assess the risks of becoming a landowner, however temporary that may be. � Final Comments To summarize the financial concerns: ❑ The proforma assumes an unprecedented amount of financing assistance, including $50 million in TIF. ❑ Even with $50 million in TIF, the project still shows a financing gap of $75 million. ❑ The "gap strategies" require significant changes in City policy and past practices. ❑ TIF Bonds, condemnation, and the "gap strategies" create significant fmancial risk to the City. These concerns should be considered in the conte� of what potential benefits are derived if the Twin Lakes area is redeveloped. Successful cities make considerable effort to assess the risk/reward relationship that e�sts with redevelopment proj ects, and the potential financing tools that are available. City Staff, along with assistance from the City's advisors including; Springsted, Krass Monroe, and Briggs & Morgan, are in the process of developing a guide of economic development and financing tools. Within the ne� month, a presentation will be made before the Council that will not only include an overview of the available tools, but as importantly, help guide the Council in their decision-making process and in striking a balance between the risks and rewards that are associated with redevelopment. The Council may want to consider whether this joint-presentation should precede any further decisions involving development rights, financial analyses, etc. for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Proj ect. [Attachments — Twin Lakes ProformaJ � L � !7I ,1�5 RED��+EI�RNE�V1 �0�lRCE� ,41�� U��$ . Housing Units . euN�'rh� 5�, Ft. � Acres r � 50URCES � .TI Bonds Revenue Bonds �I Revenue �u�1� ,Grants - Other � Land Payment� TDTAL S�UR�� 6.50% � ��470 � LISES � Land and Building Acquisition " ............... � � Relocation � Site Preparation (gradin�c .demo, eng., soil cQrr�kion� �Site Preparation• Environmenfal � .Landscaping(TLP); Langton Lakeimprovements : Streets (Twin Lks Pkwy, Prior Ave, Off Site) ,Contingency Costs of Issuance (% of T.I. Bonds) T�FA� USES � � ��i �� Y� � : � 1.�_�4°� 2.50% Attachment � � 1,121,300 r �sg. � 35,700,000 14,200,000 0 41�900 0,�� 91,800,000 � nti ;��1, ,(L 3,300,000 17,100 000 1 FL"��. 1,800,000 5,700,U00 _.15�200�000. . �,� . .�,� 167,660,000 Twin Lakes 15d.xls Prepared by Krass Monroe, P.A. �1 ��p,� SOURCES �URCES 71 Bonds Revenue Bonds 'TI Revenue Note Grants - Other Land Payment TOTAL SOURCES )PMENTAREA USES Housin� Units &�ur�rt� Sq. Ft. �Acres �.�0°� 5 �°l4 � USES Land and Building Acquisition Relocation Site Preparation (grading, demo, �ng., soil correction) Site Preparation - Environmental Landscaping (TLP); Langton Lake improvements . Streets (Twin Lks Pkwy, Prior Ave, Off Site) Contingency Costs of Issuance (% of T.I. Bonds) TOTAL USES � �E�� IT] p Strate�ies 1 Twin Lakes-Parkw� not paid by development 2 �Special Assessments 3 ,Reduce ��nklr�enG-�� . 4 .Reduce Gne�? �dm�n Fe$s . . 5 Off-site road icnpr�u}rsmen�s �d �y �ty� - . 6 Obtain Environmental remediation grants . 7 �issueG.O.�Bonds� "'��' . .S .H�her4�rrd�� . 9 Hazardous Substance Subdistrict 10 Fiscal Disparitie . � 11 'condemciati.on & Mo.ratorium,on_deyelo.pment T�1� I Xrorn � �p �1�$hegaes 14,444'. z,�o� 290 �8�,� ��_� 1 �,$�d.fl�] �,�,� D 19F�04�� B�BQO,OiGO �F,�00.� f ,�C�O.� �,�OQ.�ii� }� �00,� � 8qo,0a� �?vo,�oo �.�.�4a _ �aa^oao ��, � oa,n�a t��.30�.� ... _ . .. _ ��7�3�0 Twin Lakes 15d.xls Prepared by Krass Monroe, P.A. 3i1 �0�4 � Page 1 of 2 Driscoll, Margaret From: ESANDS2612@aol.com Sent: Monday, March 15,2004 10:11 PM To: city.council@ci.roseville.mn.us Cc: neal.beets@ci.roseville.mn.us; dennis.welsch@ci.roseville.mn.us Subject: TWIN LAKES AREA SOURCES AND USES PROJECTION Everyone was so intent on discussing the Developer Contract, no one took up the issue of the huge, and probably insurmountablefinancing gap that your consultant, Jim Casserly talked about. In my view, until that financing "gap" is filled, there is no point in proceeding; and we are doing the prospective developers a disservice by egging them on. Please look at your handouts. No use talking about the 170 acre projection. That is too large a gap to be even possible. A $75,800,000 GAP AFTER APPLICATION OF $50,000,000 OF TIF spells a dead duck. The 67.8 acre project, ( the Area 1-5) projection is also dismal, and unless some major decisions are made quickly, probably won't happen either. That projection shows a shortfall gap of $27,300,000 AFTER APPLICATION OF $19,100.1A0 OF TIF. I assume that the $19,100,000 million of TIF proceeds is the maximum amount that can be reasonablyforecast to occur because of the development. That means the city has to find other sources of financing for $27,300,000, even assuming the Council is willing to use TIF. That is a huae nut to crack. All I can suggest to all of you is that Jim Casserly be hired to get going and provide the council with a menu of options to fill that gap. I don't see where he can come up with that amount of money. But lets ask him to try. SOON. Until the City finds a way to finance this 70 acre project, I think we are doing a disservice to the developers to hold out hope to them. Jim's analysis shows that it will cost the city /developers $12.76 per Sq. ft. to acquire the land, $4.94 to relocate and do site preparation, and $4.67 for landscaping, streets, etc. That totals $22.38 cost per sq. foot, with only $6.67 a sq. ft. from land resale. That is a whopping $15.70 per sq. ft. shortfall. TIF will only cover $6.46. Leaving a shortfall of $9.24 per sq. foot, or a total shortfall of $9.24, or $27,300,000. I don't think TIF was ever intended to take care of this large a shortfall in the difference between purchase costs and resales of land. It is just too much, even for TIF. �� 16�'�� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 03/29/04 ITEM: 9. Department ApprovaL• Manager eviewed: Agenda Section: Item Description: Approving Additional Change Orders to the City's ConstructionProject Background: The building project continues to progress with an expected move in date for the Police Department in mid-May. The Public Works vehicle storage area, maintenance offices and vehicle maintenance area are now occupied. The remodel of the locker rooms and Park Maintenance area will be completed in approximately two weeks. We continue to identify unforeseen constructability issues and some inconsistencies and omissions in the drawings and field conditions. Some of the changes are due to conditions encountered tying into the existing City Hall. Staff has also identified changes necessary for efficient future operations as we see the new spaces develop. Please note the deducts included in these change orders as we continue to look for ways to value engineer the proj ect. We have written appropriate change orders to contracts to reflect such. We are also requesting the Council consider concrete paving outside the lower entrance to City Ha11 and adj acent to the Maintenance Lunchroom. Discussion: The following are the change orders we are requesting at this time and a brief description of each. These changes are necessary to construct the proj ect under e�sting building codes and to result in a project that is functional for the users and have the longevity expected of a public building. The following change orders are recommended for approval at this time. Snectra Contract Flooring Deduct $3.246 Deduct to change from the Johsonite "Tightloc" base to standard vinyl base. Deduct $3,246 Twin City Acoustics Deduct $18,720 Deduct to delete the K-13 protective spray coating over the sprayed thermal insulation. Determined to be unnecessary due to ceiling height. Deduct $18,570 Deduct to remove ceiling tile / grid as called out in PR #21. Deduct $150 Bartlev Sales Co. Add $198 Add six (6) detention mirrors at the detention area. Add $198 Twin Cit_y Gara�e Door Add $825 Add to increase the size of the overhead doors (#1140B & 1140G) per PR #S and ASI #3. Required to eliminate ADA concerns. Add $660 Add to change the tracks for overhead doors #1141 C, E, F and #1140 E, G to form a standard track to a high-lifttrack This change increased the overall height of the garage in these areas. This change was called out in PR #5. Required to keep heat tubing high enough to prevent damage from truck boxes. Add $565 Deduct to remove one detector loop as directed in PR #11. Deduct $400 Kellin�ton Construction Add $27,000 Add for wood blocking at salt / sand storage building roof. This work was part of a proposal request to complete the roofing at the salt / sand storage building. Add $2,389 Furnish and install additional window blocking as indicated in ASI #5. Add $710 Furnish and install a new tarp at the clearstory area of the e�sting Public Safety Building. The e�sting taxp had numerous burn holes in it from the ironworkers. Also, install ice & water membrane at the precast deck The existing membrane had been removed by the ironworkers to anchor their beams. This item is a general conditions cost. Add $572 Add to remove the roof edge, roof inembrane, built-up blocking, insulation and steel decking at the South elevation of the existing North Public Works garage. This work was required to tie the e�sting building into the new building but not indicated on the drawings. Add $4,987 Add to remove the roof at the Public Safety entry area where the new building connects to the e�sting building. This add also includes cutting in three (3) beam pockets into the concrete. This work was required to tie into the existing building. Add $4,853 Add for PR #5 Revision #3 to install the added bath accessories. Add $342 Add to furnish and install additional wood blocking at detail9/A17.0 per PR #12. Add $908 Add for the door hardware revision as called out in PR #14. Add $650 Add for removing of an e�sting door and frame and the reinstallation of the new door, frame and hardware per PR #17. Existing door not sound for future use. Add $978 Add to have Kellington build temporary walls in the basement of the e�sting building where the windows had to be removed. General condition item. Add $2,054 Add to have Kellington build a temporary enclosure at the main entry doors. This enclosure had to be moved and rebuilt for Harmon. This will be a backcharge to Harmon General condition item. Add $312 Add for numerous door and hardware changes relatingto doors 112A, 1130A, 1130B and 2241C as called out in PR 22, PR #22 Revision #1 and PR #22 Revision #2. These changes are staff requested for operational functionality. Add $1,341 Add for additional wood blocking at the bump-outs as shown on detail 10/A8.1 in PR #21 Revision#l. Add $227 Install wood blocking and trim at the pocket door as called out in PR #28. The original design did not include this blocking and trim. Add $93 Add to furnish and install additional blocking for detail7/A3.5 as called out in ASI #21 Revision#l. Add $136 Add to Kellington's contract to install the wire mesh partitions provided by others. This is an add to Kellington's contract, but NOT an add to the project. It was known that this work would need to be completed, so a budget had been kept in the contract for this work Add $5,984 Furnish and install fiber reinforced panels (FRP) around two janitors mop sinks as directed in PR #36. Add $461 Alternate SA Concrete Paving: We would also propose approval of Alternate Number SA to construct concrete paving at the lower entrance to City Hall and outside the Public Works lunchroom area to a11ow for tables and chairs either for staff to use these areas on their lunch break in fair weather or for informal outdoor meeting space for the staff or public. This is an excellent value for the amount of concrete paving for $2,800. Financial Implications: A contingency budget was reserved within the project budget for unforeseen conditions, design problems, and construction complications. The approximate contingency remaining is $230,000 after all potential changes are considered at this time. This amount would also need to cover any additional alternates the Council desires to complete the proj ect. We anticipate some additional unforeseen conditions as we begin the remodel of the e�sting city hall in May. We feel this amount is adequate to completethe project at or below budget. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: Motion to approve the following change orders to the contracts of: Spectra Contract Flooring Twin City Acoustics Bartley Sa1es Co. Twin City Garage Door Kellington Construction And: Deduct $3,246 Deduct $ 18,720 Add $19 8 Add $825 Add $29,732 Alternate #SA concrete paving at a cost of $2,800. Prepared By: Duane Schwartz REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 3/29/2004 Item No: 10 Department ApprovaL Manager ,�ppe�k��c� : Agenda Section: �� l�: J�r� f �� Staff Reports Item Description: Consider Authorization to add a 50-Foot Extension to the City Ha11 Campus Monopole Introduction On June 16, 2003, the City Council granted approval for a 150' monopole to be located on the City Ha11 Campus, for the purposes of allowing wireless phone antennae. The City receives rental payments from the wireless phone providers. At the time, the City Council allowed for the immediate construction of a 100' monopole to accommodate the needs of Sprint PCS, with an option to add a 50' extension should new wireless phone providers desire to locate at this location. During the past few months, discussions with both Verizon and T-Mobile have been ongoing. Lease agreements for both providers are nearing the final review stages. At this time, the City has received assurances that these providers intend to locate on this site. In order to meet their customers' needs, they have requested that the City add the 50' extension. Discussion Items It is estimated that the additional costs for the 50' segment will be appro�mately $15,000. The City will recoup these costs through future lease payments, which are projected to be nearly $45,000 annually from the two additional providers. Co-locating wireless phone providers on the same pole is consistent with the City Code and far more preferable than having multiple poles at scattered sites that serve only one entity. The City Ha11 site is shielded by surrounding buildings and trees, and is a far more desirable site as compared to a residential neighborhood or park. To date, City Staff are aware of only one complaint to the presence of the existing tower. Although an additional 50' segment will likely draw more immediate attention, we believe the added height will eventually blend in with the existing structures in the area including the transmission lines located just to the south, and the Skating Center light poles to the west. A copy of the original staff report, along with photos depicting a 150' monopole is attached. Attachments a) Staff report, dated June 16,2003. b) Photos depicting a 100' and 150' monopole. Council Action Requested Motion to authorize Staff to proceed with a 50' addition to the City Ha11 Monopole; and continue lease negotiations with Verizon and T-Mobile, to be formally approved by the City Council at a future date. Date: 03/29/04 Item: 11. City Council Schedule � 2004 City Council Meeting Schedule The Roseville City Council will meet at 6:Q0 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of Roseville City Hall, 2660 Civic Center Drive, on the following dates. January 5 Regular Meeting 12 Study Session 20 Special Meeting (Interview Applicants for City Council Vacancy) 26 Regular Meeting February 9 Regular Meeting 23 Regular Meeting March 8 Regular Meeting 15 Study Session 29 Regular Meeting April 19 Study Session 26 Regular Meeting �� 10 Regular Meeting 17 Study Session 24 Regular Meeting July 12 Regular Meeting 19 Study Session 26 Regular Meeting August 9 Regular Meeting 16 Study Session 23 Regular Meeting September 13 Regular Meeting 20 Study Session 27 Regular Meeting October 11 Regular Meeting 18 Study Session 25 Regular Meeting November 8 Regular Meeting 15 Study Session 22 Regular Meeting June December 14 Regular Meeting 6 Special Meeting (Truth in Taxation 21 Study Session Hearing) 20 Regular Meeting 1 - Organizational City Council Minutes Page 10 Lillie News, Roseville Review as the City's le newspaper for 2004. / Mayor Klausing opened the floor for public John Kysylyczyn, 3083 Victoria Street N Mr. Kysylyczyn challenged the #l�or�u�hn�� f- s[af�t,� research in determining whether tka� �u�l�c:a � r� �tu�J�+ met legal requirements, citing th� p�� f i�is understanding that the Sun Focu3�, ��s� �ur�t� �dit�� circulated their publication as �eci�� -off �ites, an� did not deliver to individual housch�] . �� Mr. Kysylyczyn also �.ha� I�n��.d � honesty of the staff �� reporting showing �i �tribu tiai� ��ur� � provided by the �x �� Pioneer Press, E��t �� i�i�n �nu' whether they � represented ��k�� {�t' �k�n� �ir�u7�ai�n numbers, — opining that tl� i s v��ul i mpa�t haw.r m�r�� t�s ir�i r� r��i r� �� ul�f i� n�� rrt�ti�r� in th�ir h�m��. � �`��nc3 �m�n,b�r � r igh noted the e-mail received by �'r��ncilrn�'mE�r� tated to the Review's delivery to ��r�rncnt com�ex��_ �� Roll Call ��: ��h e��r, 1+��chka, Kough and Klausing. [�$��: ne_ ��w� �ir��t�� t� work with the Review on their �� ri}�ut��n t� i3�kt3 t� �I�-housing facilities it the City. �' D. City Manager Beets reviewed the staff's draft of a potential Roseville City Council meeting calendar for 2004 as included in the Council Agenda packet. Mr. Beets advised it was intended to provide a start for discussion, and provided for approximately three meetings per month; with the second and fourth Monday's serving as business meetings, and the third Monday serving as a work session for more detailed discussion and consideration of various issues coming before the City Council. Mr. Beets noted that the work session could be flexible, and dependin� on � �� x Discussion of City Council Calendar Organizational City Council Minutes —1/5/04 Page 11 pending issues, could be reformatted to a business meeting if required; noting that all meetings would be posted, published and open to the public. City Manager Beets noted that the format of the work session could be as formal or informal as the Council desired; could receive staff and public input, and could be used for action items or simply for discussion, with action items processed at the second and fourth Monday meetings. Mr. Beets noted several exceptions to accommodate holidays and in an effort to provide balance in the meeting schedule, and meet statutory requirements (i.e., zoning issues). Councilmember Schroeder sought clarification of the Council's intent for using the work sessions, voting on action items or not, and the actual number of business meetings proposed. City Manager Beets reiterated that the work sessions could take on various formats, at the discretion of the Council and the issues before the Council; noting that normally they were for further discussion and study of a smaller number of policy issues (i.e., five issues); and while he didn't anticipate voting other than to provide staff direction, it provided an opportunity for staff and the public to hear more Council feedback, and for the Council to hear more input from the public and staff as applicable. Councilmember Maschka wholeheartedly endorsed the work session format; opining that it made for better and more productive business meetings, when discussion could take place prior to action being taken; allowed for more consideration and open discussion of issues; and ultimately allowed for a more process-driven and shorter business meeting, with more information being made available to the public and the Council. Councilmember Schroeder sought further clarification on whether voting would be done on various topics and/or consent items at a work sessions; and how many actual Organizational City Council Minutes —1/5/04 Page 12 business meetings would be held during the year. Mayor Klausing noted that, while the work session would not generally be used for voting purposes, if necessary and due to the fact that it was a duly-noticed public meeting, it could be used for voting if time-sensitive issues were apparent before the ne�t scheduled business meeting. Further discussion ensued regarding the formats followed by neighboring communities in utilizing work session formats; consensus that the work sessions be televised for community-wide public information; and noting that the work sessions could be cancelled if there were no pending issues, or reformatted into a business meeting if required. Mayor Klausing opined his preference for receiving public comment and input in the informal atmosphere of the work sessions at the floor level; and to allow Councilmembers to dialogue more effectively that at the Council bench. Mayor Klausing noted that the work sessions could be a work-in-progress, and could be tweaked and changed as they became evident in the future. Councilmember Maschka concurred with the ability to make revisions as they became apparent to make the work sessions as effective as possible. John Kysylyczyn, 3083 Victoria Street N Mr. Kysylyczyn opined that the proposed schedule was a "train wreck;" and that the rationale for eliminating the work sessions on the floor were due to continual audio problems for the audience and for those viewing at home. Mr. Kysylyczyn also sought clarification from Mayor Klausing regarding allowing public comment at all meetings, whether business or work session meetings. Mayor Klausing reiterated that it was his understanding that general public comment would be heard at all meetings. Mr. Kysylyczyn further challenged why the first Monday Organizational City Council Minutes —1/5/04 Page 13 of each month had been eliminated from the meeting schedule. At the request of Mayor Klausing, City Manager Beets noted that with a three meeting per month schedule, there was no rationale for eliminating the first Monday, other than his having done so arbitrarily. Mr. Beets noted that, the purpose of the staff-drafted calendar was to initiate and facilitate discussion only and staff awaited further direction from Council. Councilmember Kough noted, and Councilmembers concurred that by eliminating meetings on the first Monday of each month when possible, allowed additional time for Planning Commission decisions to be processed for Council information before requested action at a business meeting. Mr. Kysylyczyn further challenged the rationale for dropping business meetings to 21 meetings per year, rather than the 30+ held in the last several years; and sought clarification by the City Attorney on state statute differentiation between regular and work session meetings of City Councils. At the direction of Mayor Klausing, City Attorney Anderson responded to the current discussion, opining that as long as the City Council was receiving information within the meaning of State law, there was no difference legally in a regular business or work session meeting; further noting that the Council was in fact proposing holding 32 meetings in 2004, with the intent to provide due public notice prior to those meetings, whether the focus of the meeting were action votes or receiving information; and further noted that the Council had the discretion to revise their schedule as dictated by circumstances or issues, as well as changing the format of the meeting, as long as the meetings were noticed in accordance with Open Meeting Law requirements. Mr. Kysylyczyn further challenged the advantage of Organizational City Council Minutes —1/5/04 Page 14 holding work sessions, opining that staff would "make up" items to put on the agendas, and further opined that Councilmembers would have a difficult time retaining their attention to those issues at hand. Dan Roe, 2100 Avon Street N Mr. Roe suggested that Councilmembers set the dates for their meeting schedule, but allow themselves the flexibility for holding work sessions or regular business meetings by using the standing rules or expanding the business portion of the work session as dictated by issues at hand. _ � � _ ^ _ r```Maschka moved, Kough seconded, approval of the 2004 �� City Council meetin� calendar as presented by staff; a � ��p}� attached hereto �n� made a part of this record; with q� �staff directed to bring the calendar forward at the end of �� _.r March 2004 for review. � ��,f - - � -- --�� . _ : .�_ � _ _-�-- -� �. Councilmember Schroeder concurred with the review in three months to determine how well the schedule and work session process is working. Mayor Klausing noted that the schedule itself, and the mechanics of conducting meetings, were two separate issues; and directed staff to look at the technical aspects of the work session room and audio configuration. Mayor Klausing further opined his appreciation of those comments provided by the public, and that several deserved further consideration once the full Council was on board. Roll Call Ayes: Schroeder, Maschka, Kough and Klausing. Nays: None. E. Appointment of Planning Commission Chair City Manager Beets briefly reviewed Section 201.04 of the City Code providing for the Planning Commission Chair's annual appointment by the City Council. Mr. Beets noted that Jim Mulder currently served as the Planning Commission Chair and when approached by staff, had � Appointment of Planning Commission Chair