HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000_0522_packet�
City Council Agenda
Monday
May 22, 2000
6:30 p.m.
Roll Call -(Voting Order: Mastel, Maschka, Wiski, Goedeke and Kysylyczyn)
A. Communications and Public Comments
(For matters not on Agenda - public comments will be limited to two minutes for each person)
Staff Updates:
Brownfield Revolving Loan Fund Award, Wheeler Hardware and Data Practices Inquiry
B. Approval of Minutes
l. Regular Meeting of May 8, 2000
C. Consent Agenda
l. Resolution for Acceptance of a State of Minnesota Regional Trail Initiative
Department of Natural Resources Grant for Assistance .with the City's Portion of
Dale Street/Reservoir Woods Trail ISTEA Grant
2. Recommendation for Langton Lake Property
3. Resolution in Support of Ramsey County Making Application for HUD Brownfield
Economic Development Initiative Grant for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area
4. Second Amendment to Ramsey County HRA Cooperative Agreement
5. Resolution Requesting Dissolution of the Minnesota Police Recruitment System
and Payment of Assessment of Operating Expenses
6. Acceptance of $125,000 COPS MORE Universal Hiring Program Grant
7. Relocation of Precinct Five
8. Resolution Requesting a Variance for State Aid Approval, City Project P-95-12
9. Knights of Columbus, 2555 Snelling Avenue, Renewal of Bottle Club License
10. Approval of Bills
D. Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
E. Organizational Business
F. Reports and Recommendations
l. Approval of Relocation of Roseville Activity Center Programs and Offices
2. Safe Gun Storage Campaign 2000
3. Rej ection of Bid and Authorization to Re-bid-Larpenteur Avenue Streetscape; City
Project P-SW-99-14
4. Resolution for Award of Bid for 2000 Contract C, Pathway Paving; City Proj ect M-
00-03
5. Resolution for Award of Bid for 2000 Street Maintenance Materials
G. Recognitions
l. Police Department Recognition of Citizens & Officers
H. Hearings
1. Lake Ridge Nursing Home, 2727 Victoria Street North, Parking Lot Excavation
Permit (PF322 1)
I. Land Use
l. Roseville Lutheran Church, 12 15 Roselawn Avenue, Variance (PF3209)
2. US West Wireless Conditional Use Permit to Install a 67' Monopole at 285 1
Snelling Avenue (PF 3207)
3. Tim & Tina Honigschmidt, 1378 Sandhurst, Request for Conditional Use Permit
(PF32 12)
4. Kenneth Weiden, 2125 Dale Street North, Variance (PF3211)
5. Steve & Kristen Youngquist, 39 1 Owasso Boulevard, Variance (PF32 10)
J. Ordinances and Resolutions
l. CSM Courtyard Hotel (Ordinance Amendment) (PF3208)
K. Reports and Recommendations (Continued, if necessary)
L. Items Tabled
M. Other Business
�
N. Adjournment
�
Staff Update
���i
��
I nteroffice Memo
To: Steve Sarkozy, City Manager
From: Cathy Bennett, Economic Developmen�
c c: Dennis Welsch, Community Development Director
Date: OS/18/00
Re: Brownfield Revolving Loan Fund Award
It was announced today that Roseville was awarded $500,000 to provide loans for contamination clean
up in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment area over a 5-year period. Attached is a press release from EPA in
Washington regarding Vice President Gore's announcement of awards for funds to revitalize
contaminated properties.
Roseville made an application in February for the funds to provide loans for environmental clean up in
the Twin Lakes redevelopment area. These loan funds can be provided to property owners, developers
and the City itself with very flexible terms and conditions. As part of this process, the City will set up a
loan review committee consisting of staff from finance and community development, city attorney,
environmental consultant, local banker and local resident. The committee will be responsible for
preparing loan criteria and reviewing loan requests. The City is eligible to retain 10% or $50,000 for
administration fees in connection with issuing the loans.
There were a total of 30 grants awarded under this category by EPA and Roseville is the only community
is Minnesota. Hennipen County received the funds last year and the State of Minnesota received one in
1997.
Once the initial round of dollars are loaned, the Cii may use the payments for other projects outside of
the Twin Lakes area. These dollars will provide a long term source of funding for environmental clean up
in the community.
• Page 1
Page 1 ofZ
°�° Previous�� °`� N
�/ ��Uniie� States
�r�vi rc�n rr�n#�� P�at�ct�on Ag e n cy
Headquarters Press Release
Washington, DC
`Date OS/18/2000
Published:
Title: VICE PRESIDENT GORE ANNOUNCES OVER $35 MILLION IN
BROWN-PIELDS GRANTS TO REVITALIZE CONTAMINATED
PROPERTIES
FOR RELEASE: THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2000
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Vice President
For Immediate Release Contact:
Thursday, May 18, 2000 (202) 456-7035
VICE PRESIDENT GORE ANNOUNCES OVER $35 MILLION IN
BROWNFIELDS GRANTS TO REVITALIZE CONTAMINATED PROPERTIES
Washington' D.C. -- Vice President Gore today awarded over $35 million in grants to 102
communities across the country to clean up brownfields - abandoned, lightly contaminated
properties often found in economically distressed areas - and return them to economically
thriving, community hubs.
"The success of this Administration's efforts to revitalize brownfields clearly demonstrates
that economic progress and the protection of our nation's environment work hand-in-
hand"' said Gore. "The grants that I am announcing today will provide even more
communities with the tools they need to create new jobs and new opportunities, while
preserving the environment for future generations."
The Clinton-Gore Administration today awarded 56 Brovmfields Assessment Pilot Grants
totaling over $12 million to help these communities evaluate the environmental
contamination of brownfield sites. With the help of these grants, state and local officials
compile information that is then used to attract pc �ential developers for the location. In
addition' this year's assessment grants also include provisions for the evaluation'
protection and preservation of "green space"-- parks, playgrounds, trails, gardens, habitat
restoration' and open space -- on revitalized brownfield sites.
Today's announcement also includes �4-�i��ioi�t in �`rownf elds Cleanup Revolving Loan
� p�lo#s'ft�r 30 �tees suppt�rting 54 communities. These grants allow communities
http://y.osemite.epa.gov/opa/admp.../ae40b4306054a3cc852568e3005571e3?OpenDocumen OS/18/2000
Page 2 of 2
to establish revolving loan funds to provide businesses with low-interest loans to leverage
funds for the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields. Awarded on a competitive basis,
this funding allows communities that have demonstrated a commitment to the
revitalization of brownfields through the use of a brownfields assessment grant to build
upon their past successes.
In addition, 16 communities will receive job training grants, approximating $200,000
each, for the implementation of environmental training programs. Totaling $2.8 million
this funding provides for the creation of workforce development programs to teach job
skills in the field of environmental clean �p to individuals living in low income areas in the
vicinity of brownfield sites. The majority of participants who successfully complete the
trammg program go on to pursue careers with environmental firms and organizahons.
"The Administration's brownfields revitalization efforts are experiencing unprecedented
success," said U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Admimstrator Carol M. Browner.
"With these new grants, even more communities will have the opportunity to experience
economic growth and prosperity in areas where they need it most, while cleaning up the
environment at the same time."
Since 1993, the Clinton-Gore Administration has taken significant steps to clean up
brownfields and return them to productive use, awarding over $157 million in grants to
cities, counties, tribes, states, non-profits and educational mstitutions nationwide.
According to an independent study conducted by the Council for Economic Development,
the revitalization of brownfields has created over 22,000 permanent jobs, and leveraged
$2.48 in private investment for every $1 spent by federal, state, or local governments.
Today's announcement marks another step in the Clinton-Gore Administration's
lon�standing efforts to promote economic vitality, while protecting our nation's
environment and safeguarding public health. With today's selechon of recipients in
Arkansas and Hawaii, brownfields revitalization efforts are now active m all 50 states for
the first time ever.
R-74 ###
��PA � Email A
Hcrrr� i��+� C o m m rnt
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admp.../ae40b4306054a3cc852568e3005571e3?OpenDocumen OS/18/2000
05/18/oOTHtT 09:28 FAX 2025011544 OC,IR EPA
United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
Weshington, D.C, 20460
Shcd Waste EPA50o-F-00-158
and Emergency May 2000
Response (5101) www,epa.grnr/browntields!
.��EPA Brownfi�ids C lean u p
Revolving Loan Fund Pilot
Roseviile, MN
Outreach andSpeclal P�oje�,q Staff (5105) �uidc Helerence Fact Sheet
EPA'sBrownfieldsEconomicRedevelopmentln+liativeis designedto empowerstates, communities, and otherstakeholdets
m ecanomic redevelopment to work together in a timely manner to prevent, assess, safely clean up, and sustainably reuse
brow�fields. A brov�mfleld is a site, or portion thereof, that has actual or percelved contamination and an active poien6al for
redevelopment or reuse. EPA is fundii: assessment demonstration pilot programs (each funded up to $200,000 over lwo
years), to assess browrifields sites and to test cleanup and redevebpmeM models; job training pilot programs (each funded
up to $200,000 over two years), to provide training for residents of communities affected by brownfiildo to fac�itate cleanup
ofbrow�fieldssftes and prepare t�au�aeaforfuture employment in the envlronmentalfield; and, cleanup revdving loan fund
programs (each funded up lo $500,000 over five years) to capitalize ban iunds to make loans for the environmental cleanup
of browniields. These pilot programs are intended to provlde EPA, states, tribes, municipalities, and communities wlth useful
information and strategies as they continue to seek new methods 10 promote a unified approach to site assessment,
environmental cleanup, and redevelopment•
BACKGROUND
Roseville is situated at the northdn borders of St. Paul
and Minneapolis. In this area, appro�mately 13 pericea�
of the residents live below the poverty level. Federal
deregulation of the trucking industry in 1980 resulted
in trucking terminals located in Roseville reducing or
moving their operations. In response, the City set up a
tax increment financing district to help fund
redevelopment The redevelopment area of Twin Lakes
includes 168 acres of underutilized and deteriorating
industrial properties. To date, 58 sites (or 113 acres)
have been redeveloped. The City of Roseville is a
Brownfields Assessmen� Pilot.
BCRLF OBJECTIVES
The BCRLF goals are t0:
Provide incentives for remediation of
contamination;
. Develop funding strategies to encourage lending
institutions to pattioipate in environmental
cleanup projects;
• Create a funding source for cleanup;
PI LOTSNAPSHGT
Rosev�7la, MiMesots
Comacis
Roseville Community
oeveloprr�ent oepatiment
(651 �90-2241
DsleofAnnouncement:
May 2000
Amount 5500,000
BCRLFTargetArea:
Twln Lakes Redavcbpm�t Area
Hagion 5 BCR�F
Caordinator
(312)886-7576
ViSiIIhC E PA Region 5 BrowmieldS wab Slle at:
www.ep'.govheQioeQ5/wastelbrowMnd�x.htm
For lurlhu inlortnalion, inckrdi�g specitic p�W conlads, addillonal
Pilot�(crtnalion,brownlieldsnewsaaileve�ls,and publiCfllions
and lii, �isit fhe EPA Brownfields web sile at:
htlpJMrww.epa.govlbro�nfields
� 002
05/18/00 THU 09:29 FAX 2025011544 OCIR EPA
. Provide a funding option for cleanup of the Twin
Lakes Parkway right-of-way; and
. Provide a funding mechanism to access
Minnesota Depamnent of Trade and Economic
De�elopment grants.
Roseville's BCRLF will target the Twin Lakes
Redevelopment Area with priority given to those
properties that affect the proposed Twin L iltes
Parkway'sright-of-way.
FUND STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS
The City of Raseville will act as lead agency and fund
manager. Working clocely with the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency through its Voluntary
Investigadon and Cleanup Program, the City of
Roseville also will save as site manager•
LEVEAAGING OTFIEFI RESOURCES
The City of Roseville is cuaendy warking with the
following organizations to idenrify ap�opriate sources
and uces of funds fori+edevelopment in Twinl.akes: the
US nePartment of Housing and Urban Developmenr,
Ryan Companies; the Mea'o'politan Council; the
Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic
Development; the Ramsey County Economic
DevelopatientDrpartment; and the MinnesotaPoltadois
Control Agency. The City of Roseville also is
facilitating private sector involvenxnt [hrouih a tax
increment financing district.
Use of BCRLF Pilot funds must be in accordance with
C�C1A, Ntd al� CERCU restrictfpnS on u.s'E Of fwfding
also apply to BCR[F fiends.
B�wr�etds CManup AerbNing Loan F�x►d Raor Aosevp�e, Mimeao►a
JIVy2ppp EPA 50aF-00-158
C� oos
Staff Update
� , N I
' �1
I nteroffice Memo
To: Steve Sarkozy, City Manager
From: Cathy Bennett, Economic Development
c c: Dennis Welsch, Community Development Director
Date: OS/18/00
Re: Wheeler Hardware Request for TIF Assistance — PF3216
Based upon the sma11 amount of available tax increment funds that could be provided to the
proj ect, Wheeler Hazdware has withdrawn their interest in making an application for TIF
assistance from the City of Roscville for the redevelopment of 2655 Fairview Avenue.
Wheeler is still very interested in the site and will be exploring the construction of a joint
driveway between 2655 Fairview Ave and the Lidustrial Equities project to the South. The joint
driveway would reduce the curb cuts onto the heavily traveled Fairview Avenue and provide an
alternate entry to the businesses to the west.
Staff will be reviewing altemate funding sources, such as special assessments, to assist in the
construction of the joint driveway and will work with Wheeler to access a Ramsey County
business loan to reduce the costs of redevelopment.
• Page 1
e...:,•:x
Staff Update
DATE:
T0:
MEMORANDUM
May 17, 2000
Steve Sarkozy, City Manager
FROM: Chief Paul L. Wood ��
SUBJECT: Data Practices Inquiry (Don Dame)
A complaint was brought to the Regular Council Meeting of May 8, 2000, by Mr.
Don Dame.
The complainant stated that his legal request to obtain an arrest report from the
Roseville Police Department was denied.
I have attached for your perusal a copy of a report prepared by Karen Rubey, the
Department's Administrative Analyst at my request to address Mr. Dame's
complaint.
The report is self-explanatory and should answer your questions regarding the
Department's Data Practices Policy and Procedures at least with relevance to the
aforementioned complaint. In recent months Karen Rubey, Tom Alleva and
myself have attended several days of training on Minnesota's Data Practice Act
and Information laws.
I would not presume to tell you that we know everything about these laws, but
our office staff has been advised that if they don't know they should ask. We
have, on a number of occasions, called the City Attorney, the City Prosecutor
and even the State Department of Administration to clarity data practices
questions. In other words, we put a lot of effort into doing it right.
interoffice
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 17, 2000
To: Chief Wood
From: Karen Rub
SUBJ: CUSTOMER ERVICE
The Roseville Police Department is committed to community policing-not only on the street but
in the front office as well. When candidates are interviewed for police department front office
positiins, proficiency in dealing with customers is sought for and stressed. In fact, it is the
primary area of responsibility of all employees in the front office.
Front office employees are required to be courteous and helpful to all customers-whether
customers contact the police department by phone or in person.
It is not unusual for a police department to have customers who come to or call the station on a
regular basis with often unreasonable requests or what they consider to be valuable or "hot" tips.
We, at the RPD, treat these "regulars" with respect and listen to what they have to say. Front
office staff have been taught that the customer is priority, and there is no excuse to be rude;
however, the front office staff is not expected to tolerate personal attacks or vulgar language.
If a customer should become that difficult, and it does happen, front office staff are instructed to
get the administrative analyst or the deputy chief to help them. Should a customer become
extremely agitated, front office staff know to call Dispatch and have an officer brought in to talk
with the customer.
Even though front counter hours are clearly posted to be Monday through Friday, 8:0,0 a.m. to
4:3�J p.m., employees of the Roseville Police Department regularly assist customers who wme to
the window "after hours."
The Roseville Police Department does charge $5.00 for a copy of a police report. Charging for
copies of police reports is a standard police procedure. Please note that the Maplewood Police
Department charges $10.00 for a report, the New Brighton PD charges 88.00, the St. Paul PD
charges 88.00, the Ramsey County Sheriffs Office charges $5.00, the Brooklyn Park PD charges
$5.00, and the Bumsville PD charges $8.00.
Arrest records are Indeed public data as stated by MN Statute 13. But, the Statute also states
that information regarding a juvenile is private and shall not be made available to the public. That
same Statute also states that arrest data is private while the case is still under investigation.
I am aware that Mr. Don Dame appeared before the Roseville City Council on May 8, 2000, and
made a formal complaint about the quality of customer service he received from the Roseville
Police Department. I further understand that Mr. Dame stated that the Department is in violation
of Minnesota law by not releasing an arrest report to him on April 2Q, 2000.
I first met Mr. Dame the afternoon of April 19, 2000. Mr. Dame came to the front counter of the
police station at 4:40 p.m. Even though the front window was closed, Mr. Dame was repeatedly
offered the opportunity to receive assistance from the Roseville Police Department and Dispatch.
Memo-Chief Wood
May 17, 2000
page two
Mr. Dame declined because as he stated, "he was not going to stand in a public lobby and
discuss his personal business." Even though CSO Philaphandeth and I spent 20 minutes with
Mr. Dame that afternoon, we never did find out what Mr. Dame wanted. The session ended with
Mr. Dame leaving me his business card so you could call him to set up a brief ineeting.
The morning of April 20, Mr. Dame was informed by the city prosecuting attorney's office that the
police report he wanted appeared to still be under investigation. Mr. Dame was instructed to
contact the Roseville Police Department's Juvenile Officer, Maureen Sikorra, to verify the
availability of the report. Instead of calling Officer Sikorra as instructed by the city prosecuting
attorney's office, Mr. Dame came directly to the Roseville Police Department front window and
asked for a copy of the report.
At that time, Mr. Dame was informed by Investigator Hawley that the report could not be released
because the case was still under investigation and involved juveniles. Investigator Hawley,
however, did take the time to explain the circumstances of the case to Mr. Dame. Mr. Dame was
concerned about the seventy of the charges against one individual in the report (not a juvenile).
Investigator Hawley explained to Mr. Dame what the charges were, and it appeared to
Investigator Hawley that Mr. Dame was satisfied with that explanation.
Later that same day, Officer Sikorra left a phone message for Mr. Dame informing him that the
case was now charged out, and there was now a copy of the report available for him at the police
department. Mr. Dame did not return her call or come in for the report during normal business
hours.
Mr. Dame did contact me by phone at 4:30 p.m. that same day. He wanted me to fax the report
to him. i informed Mr. Dame that the Roseville Police Department did not fax reports. I also told
him that there would be a$5.00 charge for a copy of the report.
Mr. Dame then said he would come to the police department to view the report-for which he
could not legally be charged. I informed Mr. Dame that he had that privilege. He then told me he
would be at the Roseville Police Department in about 20 minutes. I told Mr. Dame that the
window was now closed, and he would have to come to the station between the hours of
8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. the next day (Friday) to view the report. To date, Mr. Dame has not
come to the station to view or purchase the report even though you also called and left a
message for him to Jet him know he could call you or come in for the report,
Given the above facts, it is my belief that the Roseville Police Department made every reasonable
effort to provide exemplary customer service to Mr. Dame.
� � Item: B-1
` `
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 8, 2000
The City Council met on the above date with the following members present 6:30 p.m.
(voting order): Mastel, Maschka, Wiski, Goedeke & Kysylyczyn. Absent: Roll Call
None.
A.
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
B.
Communications and Public Comment
Ken Hansen & Denny Harris: Rosefest 2000
Kate Thompson & Mary Harris
12,000 Athletes
Mary Bakeman: Lexington Park
Don Dame: Police Report
Mayor Kysylyczyn
Congress
Approval of Minutes
Star of the North — 10,000 —
Vietnamese/American Unified Buddhist
B-1 Maschka moved, Mastel seconded, that the minutes of the meeting
of Apri124, 2000 be approved. Roll Call, Ayes: Mastel, Maschka,
Wiski, Goedeke & Kysylyczyn. Nays: None.
Minutes
c. Consent Agenda Consent Agenda
Mastel moved, Maschka seconded, that Items C-1 through C-4 be
approved. Roil Call, Ayes: Mastel, Maschka, Wiski, Goedeke &
Kysylyczyn. Nays: None.
C-1 Mastel �moved, Maschka seconded, to proclaim May 12, 2000 as Proclamation
Fibromyalgia Awareness Day in the City of Roseville. Roll Call, Fibramyalgia Awareness
Ayes: Mastel, Maschka, Wiski, Goedeke & Kysylyczyn. Nays:
None.
c-2 Mastel moved, Maschka seconded, to proclaim May 19, 2000 as Proclamation
Poppy Day in the City of Roseville. Roll Ca11, Ayes: Mastel, �oppy Day
Maschka, Wiski, Goedeke & Kysylyczyn. Nays: None.
City Council Minutes - OS/08/00
Draft Page2
c-3 Mastel moved, Maschka seconded, to approve the waiver of the TSE, Incorporated
25% carry-over requirement for TSE's license renewal. Roll Call, P�mises Permit
Ayes: Mastel, Maschka, Wiski, Goedeke & Kysylyczyn. Nays: Renewal
None.
Mastel moved, Maschka seconded, to approve TSE's request for a
renewal of their Premises Perm_�. for th� next two year period,
ending, June 30, 2002. Roll Call, Ayes: Mastel, Maschka, Wiski,
Goedeke dt Kysylyczyn. Nays: None.
C-4 Mastel moved, Maschka seconded, that the claims and payment of Approval of
the total amounts be approved. Bills
1048-1063 $363,965.49
3244-3399 $165,541.04
3400-3546 $287,304.96
$816,811.49
Roll Ca11, Ayes: Mastel, Maschka, Wiski, Goedeke & Kysylyczyn.
Nays: None.
D. Items Removed from Consent Agenda
E. Organizational Business
E-1 Mastel moved, Maschka seconded, the appointment of Mark Battis Advisory Commission
to the Ethics Commission for an unexpired term ending March 3 1, Appointments
2001. Roll Ca11, Ayes: Mastel, Maschka, Wiski, Goedeke &
Kysylyczyn. Nays: None.
Mastel moved, Maschka seconded, the appointment of Dennis
LeMay to the Police Civil Service Commission for a fill term
ending March 3 1, 2003. Roll Call, Ayes: Mastel, Maschka, Wiski, �
Goedeke & Kysylyczyn. Nays: None.
F. Reports And Recommendations
Wiski moved, Kysylyczyn seconded to move F-1 and F-3 to Section MoveAgendaItems
K of Agenda. Roll Call, Ayes: Mastel, Maschka, Wiski, Goedeke F-1 & F_2 to
8c Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. K-1 & K-2
F-1 Item moved to K-1 Joint Powers Agreement
City of Arden Hills
City Council Minutes - OS/08/00
Draft Page3
F-2 5.4 of Report: Amendment to
Goedeke moved, Wiski seconded, to approve the site plan Memorandum of
amendments and utility building demolition for the Suburban Cable Understanding
Commission including one box truck parking space, subject to parking at
current City Codes and permits, and subject to review and 934 Woodhill Drive
requirements of the Grass Lake �'ater Management Organization, �F315'7)
with language of 3.1 in staff report memorandum. Roll Call, Ayes:
Mastel, Maschka, Wiski, Goedeke & Kysylyczyn. Nays: None.
5.2 of Report
Wiski moved, Maschka seconded, to approve the site plan
amendments for MediaOne [employee parking improvements
including] for 29 additional parking spaces [and 7,353 s. f. of new
pavement], subject to the [current City] Codes, permits and
landscaping plan, and subject to review [and requirements] of the
Grass Lake Water Management Organization, [ deleting 2.g of the
report "Along the south side of the southeast entry drive for the
southwest van parking area, 12 additional van parking spaces are
proposed. This proposal adds approximately 2,475 s. f. of paved
surface to the site]. Roll Ca11, Ayes: Mastel, Maschka, Wiski, &
Kysylyczyn. Nays: Goedeke .
5.1 of Report
Wiski moved, Goedeke seconded, to authorize the [City] Manager
to sign the amended agreement for the Year 2000 Memorandum of
Understanding (MOLn � ' ,
[Roseville School District 623, MediaOne, the Suburban Cable
Commission, and the City of Roseville], �[setting forth
amendments for] passenger car (MedioOne) and box truck
(Suburban Cable Commission) parking as contained in Sections
2.O,h and 3.1 of report, excluding Section 2.O,g of the report, and
other provisions on a site commonly known as the Lake Owasso
School, 934 Woodhill Drive, Rosevilie. Roil Ca11, Ayes: Mastel,
Maschka, Wiski, Goedeke & Kysylyczyn. Nays: None.
5.3 of Report
Wiski moved, Goedeke seconded, to deny tke�- i�pNav�a��s
�s� [the site plan amendments for MediaOne truck parking
improvements] including the 12 truck parking spaces [and 2,475 s.f.
of new pavement] based on the analysis of the functionality and
capacity of the site for truck activity. Roll Call, Ayes: Mastel,
Maschka, Wiski, Goedeke & Kysylyczyn. Nays: None.
City Council Minutes - OS/08/00
Draft Page4
F-3
'�
G-1
Item moved to K-1
Recognitions & Announcements
2 6 6 8 Lexington Avenue
(PF320Z)
Staff presented the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Award for Ezcellence
Financial Reporting Award to the City CounciL In Financial Reporting
G-2 Greg Peterson, Deputy Fire Chief of Training was recognized as the Fire Instructor
recipient of Instructor of the Year Award by the Fire Instructor Of the Year
Association of Minnesota.
H. Hearings
I. Land Use
J. Ordinances and Resolutions
J-1 Final Reading was held. Maschka moved, Wiski seconded, to
approve the Ordinance amending Section 1009 and Section 1014 of
the City Code concerning definitions, signs and administrative
procedure, said Ordinance to become effective upon its passage and
publication. Roll Call, Ayes: Mastel, Maschka, Wiski, Goedeke &
Kysylyczyn. Nays: None.
J-2 Fina1 Reading was held. Maschka moved, Mastel seconded, to
approve the Ordinance amending the City Code, Section 1007.O1E,
regarding building height, said Ordinance to become effective upon
its passage and publication. Roll Call, Ayes: Mastel, Maschka,
Wiski, Goedeke & Kysylyczyn. Nays: None.
K. Reports and Recommendations (Continued, if necessary)
K-1 (formerly F- 1)
Goedeke moved, Mastel seconded, to approve the Joint Powers
Agreement with Arden Hills and authorizing the Mayor and City
Manager to sign. Roll Call, Ayes: Mastel, Maschka, Wiski,
� �oedeke & Kysylyczyn. Nays: None.
K-2 (formerly F-3)
Wiski moved, Goedeke seconded, to approve the sale of 2668
Lexington Avenue to George Reiling at an agreed upon appraised value
and with the contingen�cy that the land be used as part of a Proposed
senior housing development. Roll Call, Ayes: Mastel, Maschka,
Wiski, Goedeke & Kysylyczyn. Nays: None,
Ordinance 1240
Amendments to
Sections 1009 & 1014
Sign (Flag) Reguiations
(PF3190)
Ordinance 1241
Amendments to
Section 1007.O1E
Building Height
(PF3201)
Joint Powers Agreement
Sharing of Services &
Resources
City of Arden Hiiis
City of Roseviiie
Request to Seii
2668 Lezington Avenue
(PF3202)
City Council Minutes — OS/08/00
Draft PageS
Wiski moved, Goedeke seconded, to authorize staff to hire an appraiser Z� Lezington Avenue
from the City's consulting pool to complete a market appraisal of the lot. (continued)
Roll Call, Ayes: Mastel, Maschka, Wiski, Goedeke & Kysylyczyn.
Nays: None.
L. Items Tabled
M. Other Business
M-1 Discussion of North Suburban Cable Commission.
. Channel 98 rebroadcast of City Council meetings region-
wide.
. Cable attorney.
N. Adjournment Adjournment
Wiski moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:43 p.m.
ATTEST:
Steven R. Sarkozy, City Manager
John Kysylyczyn, Mayor
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: May 22, 2000
ITEM NO: c-1
DepartmentApproval: Manager Reviewed: Agenda Section:
���1�-- Consent
Item Description: Resolution for Acceptance of a State of Minnesota Regional Trail
Initiative (DNR) Grant for Assistance with City's Portion of Dale
St./Reservoir Woods ISTEA Grant.
BACKGROUND
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has notified staff that they have granted
$50,000 to the City of Roseville to assist in off setting the local funding requirement s for
the ISTEA grant for the Dale St./Reservoir Woods trail project. The grant is from the
Regional Trail Initiative Grant Program of the DNR.
POLICY OBJECTIVE
The grant acceptance is consistent with the policy of partnering with other agencies or
organizations to obtain funding to offset the costs of development.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no additional funding requirements for the City. The City has met all grant
matching requirements through the commitments made in the ISTEA grant.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the authorization from the City Council to accept the ISTEA grant, staff
recommends the acceptance of the State of Minnesota Regional Trail Initiative (DNR)
Grant for $50,000 to assist the City in covering the matching portion of the ISTEA grant for
the Dale St./Reservoir Woods pathway.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Approval of the resolution accepting State of Minnesota Regional Trail Initiative (DNR)
Grant for $50,000 to assist the City in covering the matching portion of the ISTEA grant for
the Dale St./Reservoir Woods pathway with no additional matching requirements from the
City of Roseville.
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 held on the 22nd of May 2000, at
6:30 p.m.
The following members were present: , and the following were absent: .
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION
ACCEPTANCE OF A STATE OF MINNESOTA REGIONAL TRAIL INITIATIVE
(DNR) GRANT FOR ASSISTANCE WITH CITY' S PORTION
OF DALE ST./RESERVOIR WOODS ISTEA GRANT
WHEREAS, the goal of the Dale St./Reservoir Woods (Waterworks) Trail is to provide
a safe and convenient link between the local and regional trail networks
that allow users access to numerous area amenities; and
WHEREAS, the regional significance of this linkage makes it highly valuable to
recreational and commuter cyclists, in-line skaters, walkers and runners;
and
VVHEREAS, because it passes through a conservancy area it is ideal for nature
enthusiasts, bid watchers and hikers, and
WHEREAS, the City of Roseville needs has committed to the acceptance of an ISTEA
grant to construct the Dale St./Reservoir Woods (Waterworks) Trail; and
WHEREAS, the City of Roseville is committed to maintain and make the trail
accessible to the citizens of Minnesota;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Roseville
does hereby accept the Minnesota Regional Trail Initiative (DNR) grant for assistance
with the City's portion of Dale St./Reservoir Woods ISTEA grant.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member
, anr� u�on a 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.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
J SS
COUNTY OF RAMSEY }
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville,
County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared
the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council
held on the 22nd day of May, 2000, with the original thereof on file in my office.
WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 22nd day of May, 2000.
Steven R. Sarkozy, City Manager
SEAL
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DAT E : 5/22/00
ITEM N0: c-2
DepartmentApproval: ManagerRevi�wed: Agenda Section:
Consent
Item Description: Recommendation for Langton Lake Park Property
BACKGROUND
In 1987, the City of Roseville approved the master plan for Langton Lake Park, which
included the acquisition of several properties around the lake. During the past 13 years, 7
parcels have been acquired. There are still 4 remaining properties on the east side of the
lake needed to complete the plan. Staff was recently contacted by the owners of the
property at 2959 Mildred Dr. that the parcel is up for sale. As staff presented at the Council
Work Session, the intent is to continue to recommend that the plan be completed when the
opportunities to purchase the remaining parcels matches with available resources.
POLICY OBJECTIVE
The proposed project is consistent with the policy of acquiring master plan designated
property acquisitions when the opportunities to purchase the remaining parcels
matches with available funding resources.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATION
The estimated cost for the property is approximately $160,000. After considering all
options, staff has concluded that there are no available financial resources at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the lack of resources, staff recommends that the property not be acquired at this
time but that the City study the issue of developing a long-range plan for funding these
types of property acquisitions. Staff also recommends that the master plan for Langton
Lake Park be maintained and that future opportunities to acquire the designated parcels be
considered when available.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion authorizing staff to notii the property owners of 2959 Mildred Dr. that, because of
the lack of available resources at this time, the City of Roseville declines the offer to
purchase their property.
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
D A T E: 5/22/2000
ITEM NO: �— 3
Agenda Section:
Consent
Resolution In Support Of Ramsey County Making an Application
For The United States Department Of Housing & Urban Development
(HUD) Brownfield ':conomic Development Initiative (BEDI) Grant
for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area
1.0 REQUESTED ACTION
1.1 Adopt a resolution in support of Ramsey County's application for HUD BED1 funds on behalf of the
City of Roseville for redevelopment in the Twin Lakes Area.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 The Twin Lakes Redevelopment Plan was completed in the mid- 1980s and incorporated into the
City's Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this plan is to guide future development in the area
generally bounded by County Road C West on the south, Cleveland Avenue on the west, County
Road C-2 on the north, and Fairview Avenue on the east.
2.2 Over the past several month staff has been working with a funding committee in developing a
strategy to help finance the costly redevelopment of the Twin Lakes area. The funding committee is
comprised of US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HCTD), Ramsey County
Community & Economic Development, Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Pollution Control District,
MN Department of Trade & Economic Development and the City of Roseville Community
Development staff and consultants.
2.3 As part of that process, several sources of funding have been identified that would be eligible to
assist with the public construction of the Twin Lakes Parkway, environmental cleanup and
redevelopment of the brownfield sites.
3.0 SUMMARY OF HUD ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
3.J There are funds available from HUD such as the 1081oan program and the BED1 grant. Since
Roseville is not an entitlement community for CDBG funds, we are unable to apply for these funds
directly but must go through Ramsey County's HRA.
3.2 There is a limited capacity for the HUD 1081oan funds based upon the amount of CDBG funds
provided to Ramsey County. In dis�assion with Ramsey County staff it was determined that $2
million in loan funds could be applied fcr based upon an eligible project in Twin Lakes that would
meet the HUD federal objectives of sl �ns and blight and benefiting a low -moderate income
population. By participating in a HUD 1081oan, public entities become eligible to access grant
dollars (BEDI) to help make the projects feasible. There are appro�mately $25 million appropriated
for these BED1 funds by HUD.
RCA HUD BED 1 Grant (5/22/00) - Page 1 of 2
3.3 Based upon the review of other applications in the nation it was determined that Ramsey County, on
behalf of the City or Roseville, could apply for $1.5 million in BED1 funds.
3.4 The goal of the BED1 funds is to assist cities redevelop abandoned, idled, or underutilized industrial
and commercial property where redevelopment is complicated by environmental contamination.
Many of the sites in the Twin Lakes area are contaminated which severely complicates and increases
the price of redevelopment.
3.5 The BED1 funds cannot be received without a commitment to apply for HUD 1081oan funds. Upon
notification of award of the grants, the City must commit to a HUD 1081oan, through Ramsey
County, within 60 days. It is not expected that an award for the BED1 will be until sometime in
August, 2000. Staff will provide additional information to the Council regarding the commitments
for a HUD loan through the summer months. If the Council chooses not to apply for the HUD loan
there is no obligation to accept the BED1 grant dollars.
3.6 Projects that are eligible must meet the HUD federal objective to increase economic opportunity for
persons of low-and-moderate-income and provide economic revitalization in connection with
brownfields. Redevelopment within the Twin Lakes area can meet these objectives with the addition
of a hotel, daycare and fitness center. These types of services will provide a magnet for the
remaining redevelopment in Twin Lakes for high tech office and medical users.
4.0 STAFF RECOI�II�IENDATION
4.1 Staff recommends that the Council support the Ramsey County application, on behalf of the City of
Roseville, for HUD BED1 funds in the amount of $1.5 million for the redevelopment in Twin Lakes
to add a hotel, daycare and fit,�ess center.
4.2 If the funds are awarded, the Council will receive additional information regarding theHLJD 108 loan
program and final approval of the BED1 grant.
5.0 SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
�
5.1 By Resolution, support Ramsey County, on behalf of the City of Roseville, in making an application
for the United States Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) Brownfield Economic
Development Initiative (BEDI) grant for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.
5.2 It is understood that the Council and staff will again review details and HUD responsibilities the City
must accept regarding the proposed project and the City's obligations in connection with the BED1
and HUD 108 Loan program prior to making a final commitment to accept the BED1 grant.
Attachments: Draft Resolution
Prepared by. Cathy Bennett (490-2241)
RCA HUD BED 1 Grant (5/22/00) - Page 2 of 2
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF A MEETING
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROSEVILLE,
RAMSEY COUNTY, STATE OF MINNESOTA
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, was duly held in the City
Hall at 2660 Civic Center Drive, Rosevil:e, Minnesota, on May 22, 2000
The following members were present:
and the following members were absent:
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF RAMSEY COUNTY MAKING AN
APPLICATION FOR THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING &
URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) BROWNFIELD ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT INNITIATIVE (BEDn GRANT FOR THE TWIN LAI�S
REDEVELOPMENT AREA
WHEREAS, the City of Roseville is located in Ramsey County and is a member
of the 7 City North Metro I-35W Corridor Coalition; and
WHEREAS, the City of Roseville has approved a redevelopment plan for the
Twin Lakes Business Park which is included as part of the economic and redevelopment
section of the Comprehensive Plan amended and adopted in December, 1998; and
WHEREAS, Ramsey County is especially interested in working with the City of
Roseville on Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area because of the potential to create
employment opportunities in an area accessible to residents of the core city, St. Paul, as
well as to residents of the I-35W Corridor; and
WHEREAS, the HUD's BED1 funds are used to improve the viability of a
project financed with a Section 108 loan designed to help cities redevelop abandoned,
idled, or underutilized industrial and commercial facilities where redevelopment is
complicated by the environmental contamination; and
WHEREAS, Ramsey County must be the applicant for the funds on behalf of
-he City of Roseville for implementation cf redevelopment in Twin Lakes; and
WHEREAS, the City of Roseville has the institutional, managerial and financial
capability to ensure adequate project administration of loan and grant funds.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council is in support of
Ramsey County's application on behalf of the City of Roseville for HUD's Brownfield
Economic Development Initiative funds in connection with the redevelopment of Twin
Lakes.
NOW BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that final agreements for distribution and
administration of any grant or loan funds upon receipt will be further approved by the
City Council under the advise of the City Manager and City Attorney.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
and upon vote taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COLINTY OF RAMSEY ) ss
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
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 the regular meeting of said
City Council held on the 22nd day of May, 2000, with the original thereof on file in my
office.
Adopted by the Council this 22nd day of May, 2000.
Steven R. Sarkozy, City Manager
SEAL ;
Q:\EPA�BEDI�BIDI Support Resolution.doc
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
D A T E: OS/22/00
ITEM NO: C-4
Approval: proved: Agenda Section:
������� � CONSENT
Item �escriution: Second Amendment to Ramse� Countv HRA Cooaerative Asreement
1.0 BACKGROUND
l.l Ramsey County's Community Development efforts are supported by HUD Entitlement
funds. These funds, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment
Partnership Act (Home), have been used in Roseville for housing preservation, housing
energy conservation and business revolving loans.
1.2 In order to continue eligibility for these funds through Ramsey County's entitlements, the
City must adopt a resolution amending the original participation agreement.
2.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION
21 The staff recommends approval of the second amendment (July 1, 2000) to the 199 1 original
Joint Cooperation Agreement with the Ramsey County HRA, as amended in 1997. This
Agreement allows the City to continue its participation in the Ramsey County CDBG and
HOME programs. �
3.0 SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
By motion, authorize the City Manager to sign the second amendment (July 1, 2000) to the
original 1991 Joint Cooperative Agreement with the Ramsey County I-IRA (Draft Resolution
attached).
Attachment: Second Am�ndment, Ramsey County HRA Joint Cooperative Agreement
Prepared by: Dennis Welsch (490-2232)
- Q:�Iiousing�RCA052200_RsmCoHUDAmend.doc
PF3 197 — RCA052200_RsmCoHtTDAmand Page 1 of 2
. ��'1;� `
Office Of the COnnty Manager
Paul L. Kirkwold, County Manager
260 Court House
16 West Kellogg Boulevard
St.Pau1,MN55102-1614
April28, 2000
Steve Sarkozy
City of Roseville
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, MN 55 113
Dear Mr. Sarkozy:
D���°a�-
� NAY ' ,� 200Q
� i
Te1:661-266-8000
�ax:661-266-8039
Fifteen years ago, the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, hereinafter referred to
as HUD, determined that Ramsey County would be eligible to become an Entitlement Urban
County and receive an annual allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) dollars
in excess of one million dollars. This money would be used to undertake housing and community
development activities primarily benefiting the residents of suburban Ramsey County. In 1992, the
Home Investment Partnership Act (HOME) program was also added as a resource for the County.
Seventeen suburban communities have chosen to participate in the agreement process over the past
fifteen years, thus, ensuring that a guaranteed annual allocation would be earmarked for the County
and those suburban municipalities that desire to actively participate in the program.
Recently, HUD has notified us that we remain eligible to continue our participation in this federal
program. Our eligibility and the actual dollar amount we receive is based upon the population
accumulated through the number of jurisdictions that join with us.
Our r�ords show that since 1985 your community has signed cooperation agreements with the
County to ensure our eligibility.
This year it will be necessary to execute a second amendment to our Joint Cooperation Agreement,
due to HUD requirements. A copy of the amendment is attached to this letter. Please have it
approved by your City Council or Town Board and return a fully executed copy to us no later than
June 2, 2000. The County Attorney's Office has advised us that the first two paragraphs of this
amendment are clarifications of existing language in our existing Cooperation Agreements but have
been included to satisfy the local HUD office. The third paragraph may be a new requirement for
your municipality. It requires that you have adopted certain policies that are clearly set out in the
amendment. You may have already adopted one or both of these policies as a condition of some
other program or agreement, but if you have not they must be in place by the time the amendment is
executed.
Miiuesotab Flret Hare B�le Coaty
prinfed an reqcled paper wltb a mtnimum d I0X pat-0wuumer aontent
�
As has been the case in the past, federal regulations require that we advise you of your opportunity
to "opt out" of the County's Entitlement and compete directly with other cities in the State's Small
Cities program. We, of course, hope that you will not choose this route, as we feel that the County
program is your best opportunity of receiving an allocation for an eligible proj ect.
If, however, you do choose to "opt out", please be advised that you may not have an opportunity to
participate with us for the next three years. "Opt out" notification must be made to both the County
snd the local HLJD office no � tl�an June 2, 2000.
INGI.USIQN II�T TSE CAIINTY ENTITLEMENT D4ES NOT REQUIRE THAT YOU
A-Y PA;RT�CFAT$ 1N TEE PROGRAM. IT DOFS PROVIDE TEE COUNTY
VV`ITH Tf�$ NE�;DE�! FOPULATION TO QUALIFY AND INFLUENCES OUR ANNUAL
ALLOCATION.
We are pleased with the active participation of a number of our municipalities over the past several
years. Our suburban communities, as a group, have set county-wide priorities the past six years for
use of CDBG and HOME funds. These priorities have resulted in the creation/retention of over 200
jobs, and over 900 low-income, suburban homeowners receiving rehabilitation funding.
The HOME funds, which are utilized exclusively for affordable housing, have resulted in the
addition of several large-scale rehabilitation proj ects, many new rental units, and expanded
homeownership opportunities in suburban Ramsey County for families and senior citizens.
We would like to see more communities that believe they have an eligible proj ect contact us about
the possibility of funding.
Should you have any questions, or need assistance, please contact Judy Karon, Director of
Community and Economic Development, at 651-266-8006. She will be happy to assist you.
Sincerely,
aul Kirkwold
County Manager
cc: Commissioner Weissner
SECOND ANIENDNIENT
TO RAMSEY COUNTY HOUSING AND REDEVELO NT AliTHORITY
.�OINT COOPERATION AGREE T -"
The Joint Cooperation Agreement between the County of Ramsey and
("MLTNICIPALITY") commencing August 31,1991,
and the First Amendment to that Agreement, effective July 1, 1997, (collectively
"AGREEMENT") is further amendec as follows:
The effective date of this Second Amendment is July 1, 2000.
2. The AGREEMENT is amended by the addition of the following language:
A. By executing this AGREEMENT the MUNICIPALITY understands �t it:
May not apply for grants from appropriations under the Small Cities
or State Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Programs
for fiscal years during the period in which it participates in the
AUTHORITY's CDBG program; and
2. May participate in a Home Investment Partnership Act (HOME)
Program only through the AUTHORITY. Thus, even if the
AUTHORITY does not receive a HOME formula allocation, the
MUNICIPALITY cannot form a HOME consortium with other local
governments.
B. Both the AUTHORITY and MUNICIPALITY are obliged to take all
actions necessary to assure compliance with the AUTHORTY's
certification required by section 104(b) of Title I of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, including Title VI of
the Civil Bights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, section �109 of Title I of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and other
applicable laws. The AUTHORITY is prohibited from funding for
activities, in or in support of, any cooperating unit of general local
government that does not affirmatively further fair housing within its own
jurisdiction or that impedes its actions to comply with its fair housing
certification. This provision is required because noncompliatice by the
MLTNICIPALITY may constitute noncompliance by the AUTHORITY
which can, in turn, prov`'e eause for funding sanctions or other remedial
actions by the Departme�it
C. The MLTNICIPALITY has adopted and is enforcing:
A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement
agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in
non-violent civil rights demonstrations; and
9
2. A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against
physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location
which is the subject of such non-violent civil rights demonstrations
within jurisdictions.
3. Except as expressly modified herein, the AGREEMENT remains in
full force and eff°:t.
RAMSEY COUNTY HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTH ORI T Y
:
Paul Kirkwold
Ramsey County Manager
Dated:
RECONIN�NDED FOR APPROVAL
Judy A. Katoq Director
Community and Economic Development
This Document Drafted By:
Office of the Ramsey County Attorney
St. Paul, Minnesota
MUNICIPALITY
By:
Its:
Dated:
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Harry D. McPeak
Assistant Ramsey County Attorney
Specific CDBG-Funded Projects in the City of Roseville since 1996
Business Loans:
Media Workshop $60,000
UV Color (2 loans) $149,000, $400,000
Cryogenics $250,000
McCarron's Lake Park
$150,000
Ramsey County Job Training — Fsirview Community Center
Workforce Hub
$29,000
Pilot Technical Assistance Rehab Project
$25,000
Twin City Housing Development Corporation — Resource Center for Calibre Ridge
$25,000
Approved for 7/U00
Rice StreetNeighborhoodLink Sidewalk-$55,000
In addition, Ramsey County has used some CDBG administrative funds to support the I-35W Corridor
Coalition, a total of about $25,000 over three years.
priority Use of Ramsey County CDBG/HOME Funds for FY 2000
1. Rehabilitation of Owner-Occupied Single Family Houses
(including energy efficiency improvements)
2. Removal of Dilapidated Structures
(single family homes, cornmercial buildin;s, both requite eligible ie-use of the property,
limited to benefitting low andmoderate income persons.)
3. Rehabilitation of Rental Property Large and Small
4. Neighbarhood Revitalization
(combination of eligible activities)
Note: due to the atatutoty restrictions on the use of CDB('aA-IOMEfunds, not all projects in
these categories are elig ible. This category is narrowly focused to d irect re-use benefitting low
and moderatei ncomepersons.
. 5. Job Creation
(may incl�e business relocation, business loans to purchase eqtripment/machinery, acquisition
of land forbusiness/industry, commercial building rehab
6. Homeownership for First Time Homebuyers who are low to moderate income
7. New Affordable Housing Construction — Families and Seniors
(may include multifamily, townhouses, assisted living and acquisition of land for low-
income single family home ownership)
8. Infrastructure Improvements (limited to eligible low/mod areas)
9. Provision of new or expanded social services.
Communities Responding to Priority Survey
Falcon Heights
Lauderdale
Little Canada
Maplewood
Mounds View
North St. Paul
Roseville
Shoreview
St. Anthony
Vadnais Hts.
White Bear Lake
White Bear Twnship
�_ ._ :_�, . _ ., _ . ,
RAMSEY COUNTYHRA
CDBGJHQME PROGRAM BUDGET FOR 2000-2001
• B r ram Fundin
F'�scal��Year .�`�caaon .
'%�''NA4,R. ��`ir�� ��k��� �- �. - . . � .
At�;�Pro�rrt 1r�ome - Business Loan Program
A
` r Re�idenbal Rehab. And Weatherization
, At���:: ;. ��
.
TatAL A�' . .
. . . . . .F . .. . .�. . ..
� Cfl� Q��itw�n of F u n ds
S�bufb�n,�i�te Own�i� Educaaon .
Sh�re-A-Harr�e
Mob�e Home ParkRevitalizaUon Initiative
Lauderdale Utilitylmpnovecr�nts
Residential Rehabilitation (Program income oniy)
Wea�herization and Emergency improvements (Program �ncome oniy)
Arden Hilfs Water Main Extension
Arden Manor Park Improvements
, Rice Street Neighborhood Link
. Le�ar�gt� Yllage MiXed-Use Development
= WAN D �r-l�ddering
Ramsey County Business Loan Program (indudes S2o5,o0o Pi)
� C09CAdminisb�a�`(�a+�,aess2o,000businessbanprogramincome)
� _. `, TOT�►L ; `_ _
Source of Fundinq: HOME Investment Partnershi�
Ham�.Program Al�ocation FY 2000
Antic�ated Program income from prior HOME loans
HOME Previous Year Unspent
Program Inc;ome on Hand
TOTAL .
��
�� � �� -
CHd� � ,'. :
�° �klpM�,�?
Una{locat�
' TOTAL
�,�g,nt P�ttnersn�p o�s�utian ot t-unas
�d it�`iv�ion = . - �
r X� .
�Or Nu�anity �an� Acqui�ition _
��_- }�t� ;
t:�stance
,�,
��� < . - . <-� ,
> >
ATTACHMENT A
1,425,000
20,410
225,000
150.Q00
a�,s�o;a�o
29,500
24,000
100, 000
80,000
100, 000
50,000
200,000
.40,�0
55,000
284,000
24,000
528,910
305.000
�1,820�410
521,118
60,000
1,566
74,848
657,532
70,000
� � , . _ - � � � 125,flQ(1
.-: �2,�74
- ��: E�,172
� 40,�fi
� .��
: . 651,532
�
�
ATTACHMENT B - 1
PROPOSED USE OF FY 2000
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTALLOCATION
Decent, Safe and Affordable Housing
New Initiatives
Family Service, Inc. of Saint Paul Home Ownership Education and Counseling.
Family Service is proposing to expand its successful homeownership workshops and
one-on-one home purchase and credit counseling to suburban Ramsey County by
offering 6 workshops to first-time buyers. The workshops are expected to reach 210
participants. Prospective buyers who complete the 9 hour training successfully become
eligible for a number of entry cost assistance products, including Ramsey County's
FirstHOME Program. Family Service has requested $29,500 of a total delivery cost of
$42,765.
Recommended CDBG funding $29,500
Home of the Good Shepherd Building Conversion and Renovation. The Sisters of
the Good Shepherd have renovated a former pre-school facility into 12 units of living
space for women in critical need of housing and supportive services to deal with
probtems associated with chemical dependency, mental health and sexual trauma and
to provide them with skills to live safely and indspendently. The Sisters are requesting
funding of $70,000 in order to install and elevator so that women with physical
disabilities are not prevented from participating in the transitional housing program.
Ramsey County participation will leverage an additional $23,000 needed to complete
the project.
Recommended HOME Funding $70,000
Continuation Proaramminq
Twin Cities .Habitat for Humanity Property Acquisition. Habitat is requesting
$125,000 to enable the construction of 5 more ownership housing units in suburban
Ramsey County communities. TCHFH has previously built single family detached
homes in New Brighton, Mounds View, North St. Paul, Maplewood and White Bear
Lake. However due to decreasing availability and increasing price of vacant land,
Habitat will be looking for sites where multiple units may be built. Twin Homes, Four-
Plexes, and other types of multi-family housing options enhance the affordability of
home owners hip.
Recommended HOME funding $125,000
CDBG and HOME 2000 1
�
ATTACHMENT B - 2
Lutheran Social Services Share-A-Home. Lutheran Social Services (LSS) will
continue its program of matching those Low and Moderate Income households who
have more housing than they need with those that need housing. Efforts will be focused
on elderly/handicapped persons, single parent families and low income persons who
are being squeezed out of the rental housing market. LSS has requested $24,000
toward a total program cost of $193,000. A minimum of 30 matches (60 persons) will be
served in suburban Ramsey County and 20 more individuals will receive housing
information and referral assistance.
Recommended CDBG funding $24,000
Ramsey County �irs#HOME Home Purchase Assistance. Ramsey County has
initiated a first-time buyer program for suburban Ramsey County. Approvals to combine
the Ramsey County program with Minnesota Housing Finance Agency and Fannie Mae
products have been given and financial institutions will be using the program this
Spring. Up to $20,000 in HOME funds may be used to reduce the purchase costs for
suburban Ramsey County homes. FY2000 allocation for this program includes new
HOME funds of $205,860, plus previous year unspent HOME funds of $1,566, plus
program income on hand of $74,848.
Recommended HOME funding $282,274
CHDO Set-Aside. The HOME Investment Partnership requires that at least 15% of an
allocation be dedicated for use by an approved Community Housing Development
Organization. Ramsey County has three approved CHDOs; however there are no
proposed projects at this time.
Recommended HOME funding $80,172
Neighborhood Revitalization and Infrastructure Improvements
New Initiatives
Mobile Home Park Revitalization Pilot Project. Mobile homes continue to be one
solution to the need for affordable housing in suburban Ramsey County; but mobile
home parks are often a source of chagrin for their communities. Some parks are not
maintained to local community standards and frequently mobile home parks are not
considered a part of the community. Over the years, Ramsey County has received
requests for assistance to improve the conditions of mobile home parks and for
programs to rehabilitate individual mobile homes. The County has declined
participation due to private ownership of land leased to owners of individual units.
At the request of the I-35W Corridor Coalition jArden Hills, Mounds View, New
Brighton, Roseville and Shoreview), Ramsey County proposes to design and implement
a pilot Mobile Home Park Revitalization Prolect which will address the neighborhood
and housing needs in one of the Count, ''s mcbile_horrte parlcs. GEd sfaff will work with
the Committee"s housing task force to identifya suitable rriobite horfie park and to
design a public/private revitalization scheme that will benefit park residents and the
community overall. The Design Center for the American Urban Landscape of the
University of Minnesota has also expressed interest in participating in this unique
COW and HOME WOO 2
�
ATTACHMENT B - 3
initiative. Due to other funds being used by the 135 W Corridor Coalition, this pilot
project is limited to those corridor communities listed above. Ramsey County proposes
an allocation of $100,000 in CDBG funds for the new project.
Recommended CDBG funding $100,000
Lauderdale Neighborhood Utility Improvements. The City of Lauderdale has
requested $80,000 in CDBG funding to reduce the local costs of capital improvements
in the eastern area of the city. About 200 low ar�d moderate income households will
benefit from improvements to underground lines (water, sewer, storm sewer) and
streets. Total project cost is $709,900.
Recommended CDBG funding $80,000
Arden Hills Wate� Main Extension. The City of Arden Hills, a new participant in the
CDBG Program has requested $200,000 to install water transmission lines and fire
hydrants in the last remaining area of the City not served by municipal water. The area
is one of the few low and moderate income census tracts in suburban Ramsey County.
There are 18 households located along Old Highway 10 who will directly benefit from
the project; most of whom are low and moderate income long time residents.
Recommended CDBG funding $200,000
Arden Hills/ Arden Manor Park Improvements. Arden Manor Mobile Home Park is
home to 284 households (621 people) all of whom are low and moderate income. The
city has invested $167,000 in improvements to the park area (3.61 acres) and now has
fee title to the property, which was originally park easement. The city is requesting
$40,000 in CDBG funds to complete the imprc�ement project.
Recommended CDBG funding $40,000
Roseville/Rice Street Neighborhood Link. The City of Roseville will construct a
sidewalk/pathway along the west side of Rice Street between Minnesota Street and
County Road B. Residents of the area are primarily families with small children,
including residents of the Calibre Ridge Townhomes, and the sidewalk will allow them
to walk more safely and easily to reach basic commercial services. The City is
requesting $55,000 of a total estimated cost of $65,000.
Recommended CDBG funding $55,000
Shoreview/Lexington Village Mixed-Use Development, The City of Shoreview has
requested funding to help acquire property at the northeast corner of Lexington Avenue
and County Road D at the southern boundary ��f the City. Two declining commercial
pr�perties currently occupy the site. The ,�roperties are more than 30 years old, have
petroleum contamination, do not meet zoning requirements, and generally negatively
impact the surrounding residential neighborhood. The City owns the adjacent vacant
parcel and proposes a 4 acre redevelopment that will include a mix of housing,
CDBG and HOME 2000 3
'J
�►TTAC H M E NT B- 4
neighborhood retail, new public space and improved transit. The City is requesting a
seed loan of $284,000 to facilitate the $1�500,000 revitalization.
Recommended CDBG funding �284,000
Employment OpportunitieslJob Training Services
ContinuationPros�rams
Women Achieving New Directions (WAND), a Division of Employment Action Center.
The WAN D Pmgratn h�s been serving suburban Ramsey County for several years and
has mod'�'ied its progremming to better coordinate with public programming. with
welfare reform, WAND is uniquely positioned to help those women who are going off
TANF to gain skills, tools and confidence to upgrade from entry level jobs and to
achieve self-sufficiency through career laddering. Comprehensive employment
services will be provided to 16 working poor women from suburban Ramsey County.
The project"s goal is to enable 60% of the low income women served by the program to
increase their earned income by an average of 30% through career advancements with
their current employers, or through a job change. As of February 2000, 62% of the
women completing the program increased their incomes by 32% (salaries rose from an
average of $15,560 to $20,600.)CDBG funds of $24,000 will contribute to the overall
anticipated project cost of $60,000.
Recommended CDBG funding $24,000
Ramsey County Business Loan Program. The Ramsey County Housing and
Redevelopment Authority provides gap financing for new or expanding businesses
primarily for purchase of capital assets: real estate or machinery and equipment.
CDBG funds will be used to retain and create jobs in Ramsey County. At least five (5)
full-time equivalent jobs must be created and more than half of the jobs must be
available to low and moderate income workers. Due to increasingly higher costs for
property acquisition and more expensive, technology-driven equipment, the maximum
CDBG business loan will be increased to $300,000. Loans are typically made at 2
percent below the prime rate with terms consistent with private financing. Repayments
are recycled into new loans. Ramsey County expects to receive $205,000 in program
income and fees to apply to the business loan program in FY 2000. Additionally,
$20,410 of unspent prior year CDBG money is available, and $303,500 of FY 2000
money is recommended.
Recommended CDBG funding $528,910
CDBri and HOME 2000 4
/
A-I-t-ACHMENT g - 5
Planning, Administration and Monitoring
CDBG. Entitlement Communities are required to set aside an amount equal to 20% of
their CDBG allocation for administrative costs. Ramsey County uses only CDBG funds
to meet this requirement. Many communities use local resources. Administrative costs
include legal, financial management, planning, monitoring and program compliance,
technical assistance and program administration. Ramsey County will manage the
imptemen#ation of the program and coordinaie the use of CDBG funding in` adherence
with fedem! laws and regulations. Specific line items reta�ted to the administrative
bud�t hava been prepared and submitted for lntemal review. Th i i adminis#rative
ailocsttion is�aludes FY2�0 funds of $285,000 plus $20,090 of business loan program
income. This is the first year that staff has recommended using any `program income
towards administratiie costs. This recommendation would permit the Community and
Economic Development Department to remain totally self-sufficient, independent of tax-
levy funds, for aN of its needs ranging from salaries to office space to supporting other
county-provided services such as Budget and Accounting and the County Attorney%
office.
RecommendedCDBG�funding$305,000
HOME. Dakota County, lead agency for the four-county consortium, provides overall
administration of the HOME f+�nds on behalf of the member counties. Ramsey County
HRA staff provide oversight, management and coordination of the HOME funded
projects in Ramsey County. The Consortium is permitted by law to spend up to 10
percent of the Consortium allocation for administration and program delivery costs.
Ramsey county contributes 2.5 percent ($13,362) of its allocation to the lead agency
and retains 7.5 percent ($40,086) for local administration.
Recommended HOME funding $40,086
CDBG and HOME 2000 5
�I
•
�� •
� �
�
• �
� � I I
� �
.
. :
; I
��
���
� � �
�, � �
�
�
M
�
�,
b+
�
�`
�
�`
�
�w
�
�+
�
��,
���
M
�" �
� �
� O ~ j�
� � �
� ��
�
O ~
M �
�
�
�
r � ti
C� �
1� o
r � N
�� �
�
� r �
pp g 0p
p 't" o
� r o
� � � M
� r
r
g N
O � �
� O
�
r �
r
M
� �
N � N
o� ai
� �
� � �
�
� � �
a� �
� � �
�
� �
•r ib
� \
� � o
�
r' �;
� �
� �
�
� _
�
�
� �
� �•••�
Ramsey County.
Rehabilitation P�ojects
.,
� • •. � .•� •
�.to - wHrr�a�n z�ow.rus�t�• .
.t �►
• NORTH OA�S � *► • �
• •
• � ' �, � �� � � ` �' �:�
• � �• • • � �
� SFIORE[�IEW � � �
�� ARDFVHILLS � + �
• •
• � � 4 �� �
NEWBRIGHTp� • �� � • •
• � VADNAISHE�iHTS �E � •~i� +
•• � �
� � � . ii�ff LA1 �E
•
S7' ONY • • • � � � • • � •
•• A . N
•
! � i w,
. •� . a � • . �'
� � � r.rr�c�vaoA � � � • w •�'«
• RosEV�� � ' b �l .: •A
� • � N H ST. PAU�1�
•j •� �J � ��� � 4�i�
� ♦ • �M � � i • � rM • '�r � �_�
� 4 • • :»' � � � � � •� • � '
r __ •
NH
MAP D
• �
1
�
s •�
S7: PAUL �
�
� �
I i
• Energy Rehub
• Other Rehab
0 Cities
N
�
W E
S
1 0 1 2 Miles
ProducedBy: Ramsey County GIS
April 11.2000
H
� p_
j � � �@� ���
, ,� ,� 1 � �. N
� �J�: �
� !f? ..� �: i �yyY rs � � .- � N
F �" } � 1� r N
. .. �'� S`u � .�..
� �
_ � A� �� p � r> n�` ��
r r r
� � � �
��
�� � � �
� � �������s����
� x �x��xa ;x
�
�� o a R a� w w n u� � n n
� � � W � N � � � � � � �
�o � �o ��� O C� Y► 10
�. Cp Op Op O O O O O{v� O O O O
� 1n O IA � Q�tj � � 1A � Q�lj
N N M N N N � N�
O
J
� � ���,��������
� �a�n � � "�
O M M N y N N-r! N N N M
a x ���A$��$$���
o � � � � ��
J
W �� ���88��������
Z � A� F� � � r�� O
r T r'
v+
� N M M M N N M N N N N N
m � ���a�
� �� ��� �� �
Z r N al � �
o � � � g ���
�
C) 2� • � �
�
W � � � �
� ���
� � �
� �: s =
0
�
�
�
�
� s i°
r �
i
�.
� A O � b
r
� � � ��
r
w
�
N
�
�
N
�
�
N
�
A
»
�
0
"L
�
N
�
�
�
r
�
�
M
�
�
�
�
�
O rf 1�
T
O � �
�
O O O G �
��3�� �
N N N N
N
� $��
N N N
a��$
�
G���
����
M w A »
�
� � �
�
�
� ��
�
�
�
.-
S
z
�
$
�
�
�
a��g�
�� �
a�
�
�
V
�
�
�
ATTACHMENT A
Priority Use of Ramsey County CDBG/HOME Funds for FY 99
1. Rehabilitarion of Owner-Occupied Single Family Houses
('including energy effic iency improvem ents)
2. Removal of Dilapidated Structures
(single family homes, commercial buildings, bothrequire eligible re-use of the property,
limited to benefitting low and modecate income persons.)
3. Rehabilitation of Rental Property Large and Small
4. Job Creation
(may include business relocation, business loans to purchase equipment/machinery, acquisition
of land for business/industry, commercial building rehab)
5. Neighbarhood Revitalization
(combination of eligible activities)
Note: due to thesratutory restrictions on the use ofCDBG/HOMEfiuids, notall projects in
these categories are eligible. This category isnarrowly focused to direct re-usebenefitting
low and moderate income persons.
6. Homeownership for First Time Homebuyers who are low to moderate income
7. New Affordable Housing Construction — Families and Seniors
(may include multifamily, townhouses, assisted living and acquisition of land for low-
income single family home ownership)
8. Infrastructure Improvements (limited to eligible low/mod areas)
9. Provision of new or expanded social services.
10. Removal of architectural barriers to handicapped accessibility.
Communities Responding to Priority Survey
Arden Hills
Lauderdale
Little Canada
Mounds View
Roseville
Shoreview
St. Anthony
Vadnais Heights
White Bear Lake
White Bear Township
�i
Attachment B
PROPOSED USE OF FY 99
COn�In�ILJNITY DEVELOPn��NT BLOCK GRANT FLJNDS
ecen Safe. Affordable Housing
Weatherization and Energy Conservation Improvements $300,000
Program Income $40,000
The Environment and Energy Resource Center (EERC) implements a deferred repayment loan program for energy
conserving home improvements including window replacement, insulation, and water heaters. Suburban households
with incomes less than 80 percent of the median income ($47,800 for a family of four) in the metropolitan area may
qualify for up to $7,000 in financing. EERC funding is also used for emergency improvements such as when a
furnace must be replaced in the middle of winter. Funds are c�mbined with MN Housing Finance Agency, NSP, and
projected program income of about $40,000 to efficiently address improvements designed to reduce fuel and other
housing costs, maintain property values and stabilize neighborhoods. Since 1986 when the program was started,
EERC has performed energy audits and made weatherization improvements to 507 homes in suburban Ramsey
County. Recent marketing efforts have resulted in increased demand for this program. FYPS -$300,000
Residential Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation $150,000
Reprogrammed $50, 000
Program Income $80,000
Ramsey County, through a contract with Saint Paul PED, will make approximately 30 deferred loans available to
very low income ($3 1,800 for a family of four) single-family homeowners in the suburban area. Rehabilitation loans
may be made for up to $15,000; however since the program began in 1988, the average loan has been $9,950. This
includes $150,000 from FY99 Allocation, $50,000 unspent from an earlier allocation for small multi-unit suburban
properties rehabilitation projects, and $80,000 in anticipated Program Income. Since 1986 when the program was
initiated. PED has inspected and rehabilitated more than 232 homes in Suburban Ramsey County. Recent marketing
efforts have resulted in increased demand for this program. FY98 -$247,410
Technical Assistance for Rehabilitation: Pilot Project (New) $20,000
Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Mounds View and Roseville would like to participate in a pilot project, which provides
technical assistance to homeowners wishing to rehabilitate their homes. This funding will allow the establishment of
a pilot program, including a"One Stop Shopping" phone number, staffed by EERC, which will provide callers with
information on all rehabilitation programs available county-wide including the City of St. Paul. (The City of St. Paul
will collaborate with Ramsey County on the phone resource.) These communities have expressed a willingness to
participate financially in order to ensure the success of the project.
Share A Home �21,000
Lutheran Social Services will use the allocation in combination with other sources of Funding for staff who match
elderly, handicapped, single-parents and other low income families with housing and those who need it. This enables
older homeowners to remain in their homes. A minimum of 26 matches are expected which prevent the unnecessary
placement of individuals in nursing homes, aid the progress of single parents toward self-sufficiency and reduce
potential for homelessness.. FY98 - $16,000
Northeast Residence-Respite Care Home (New) $50,000
CDBG funds will be used to help Northeast Residence, a non-profit corporation, acquire a lot in Little Canada in
order to build a new respite care facility for developmentally disabled children and adults. The facility is expected to
serve approximately 100 persons per year, and will be a national model.
Neighborhood Revitalization/New Proiects
Multi-Family Housing Crime Prevention- Mounds View/I`.ew Brighton $25,000
The Cities of New Brighton and Mounds View are collaborating on a Crime Free Multi Family Housing Program.
CDBG funds will be used to provide incentive assistance for crime-preventibn exterior improvements, such as
lighting or landscaping. Incentive grants are estimated at $10 per unit, $50 per building, with a maximum amount of
S 1,900 per building. Although the cities of Mounds View and New Brighton will not provide direct funding to the
pilot project, various city departments will contribute time and expertise including property inspections and technical
assistance, certification training, promotion and management.
.--�
�
Attachment B
Pilot Replacement Housing Project — Mounds View $75,000
Mounds View, working in conjunction with Habitat for Humanity, will, through voluntary acquisition, purchase and
demolish blighted and/or substandard houses to be replaced with affordable homes though Habitat for Humanity.
The City will provide an anticipated $60,000 in Tax Increment revenues and is seeking funding from the Mimlesota
Housing Finance Agency to expand the program.
Emdovment Ouaortunities/�ob Traintne Services
Ramsey County Business Loan Program 5434,591
Progrumincome $190,000
The Ramsey County Housing and Redevelopmen� Authority provides gap financing for new or expanding businesses
for real estate and/or purchase of capital equipm..nt. CDBG funds will be used to facilitate the creation/retention of
jobs in Ramsey County. At least five full-time jobs must be created or retained for each loan and at least 5 1% of
those jobs must be available to low or moderate income workers. Loans are repaid a� below -market interest rates
and terms consistent with private financing. Fifteen loans ha�e been made resulting in over 150 new/retained jobs.
Reinvestment of an additional $190,000 in program income will bring the estimated funds a�ailable for new loans in
1999-00 to $624.59 1. With this level of funding, the Ramsey County HRA expects to be able make 3-5 new loans.
FY98 - $350,000
Job Training - Women Achieving New Directions $24, 000
The Employment Action Center will provide comprehensive employment training to 12-15 working women in
suburban Ramsey County who are eligible for welfare benefits (MFIP) and are the sole support of their children. The
project, in partnership with the Ramsey County Welfare-to-Work projects at the Roseville Workforce Center and the
North St. Paul Workforce Center, is designed to enable at least 60 percent of the participants to increase their earned
income by 25 percent through career advancement. Participants attend a series of warkshops, receive one-on-one
career assessments, and benefit from mentoring relationships with other women in similar fields. With Ramsey
County CDBG, WAND has helped 46 women who have increasing their earnings by an average of 30 percent.
FY98-$20,000
Miscellaneous
Residential Family Service Center
Transportation for Children (New) $40, 000
Ramsey County will provide resources to help acquire a van far the transportation of children living in the family
service center to school in either the Maplewood/N. St. Paul School District, or the previous home district.
Developmental Resources (New) $65, 000
Ramsey County will provide age-appropriate play and learning equipment for a range of ages. This will include
some outdoor play equipment and equipment for an after-school tutoring resource center for children living in the
Family Service Center.
Planning, Administration, and Monitoring $286,200
Entitlement communities are required to have to set aside an amount equal to 20% of their CDBG allocation for
administrative costs. Ramsey County uses CDBG funds to meet this requirement. Many communities use local
resources. Administrative costs include legal, financial management, planning, monitoring, technical assistance and
program administration. Ramsey County will man..i,e the implementation of the program and coordinate the use of
CDBG funding in compliance with federal laws and regulations. Specific line items related to the administrative
budget have been prepared and submitted for internal review by the Board of Commissioners, the County Manager,
and Budget and Accounting. FY98 -$284,000
�l
�L�
Priority Use of Ramsey County CDBGJHOME Funds for FY 98
1. Rehabilitation of Owner-Occupied Single Family Houses
(including energy efficiency improvements)
2. Rehabilitation of Rental Properry Large and Small
3. Removal of Dilapidated Structures (single family homes, commercial buildings, both require eligible reuse of the
PFOPertY)
4. Job Creation
(many include commercial building rehab, business relocation, business loans to purchase equipment/machinery,
acquisition of land for business/industry)
5. . New Affordable Housing Construction — Families and Seniors
(may include multifamiLy, townhouses, assisted living and acquisition of'land f'or low-income single f'amily home
ownership)
6. Neighborhood Revitalization (combination of eligible activities)
Note: due to the statutory restrictions on the use of CDBG/HOME funds, not all projects in these categories are
eligible.
7. New or Expanded Social Services
8. Infrastructure Improvements (limited to eligible low/mod areas)
S:�CDBG-HOME�Commmities�Connty Wide Priorities.doc
CJ
�
�
�
�
i
� �
O
� A , �
W
� O
� �
��� �
� V �
� � •y
�O =
U oU
� U �
�� W o
�
� _ �
�Q ci
� �
�� O
�
� �
0
� U
�
�
�
�
�
O�
�
�
�
�
�
N
L�L
�
N
�
�
�
�
O
�
�
�
�
�
�
Q
�
�
U
�
'o
�
�
�
.�
Q
�
_
�
�
u
m
�
_
�
m a
Q O
U �
�
_
�
�
�
U
�
O
O
O
�
c�
cra
L
�
�
N
�
N
�
0
�
�
�
�
O
O
�
0
(''i
�
� �
W } �
Q� ��
�� �Z
o ���
�}
�
Q`r' � �
� U ��
O � � a�
� O��
U U oO �
�
.�
O
�
N
�
�
�
N
�
�
� }
N�
N
ci N
��
> °o
��
� �
�
� •�
�
� �
� N
N
��
0
��
° o
o ��
� Q
a� �
��
� U
��
� �
O �
� �
� �
N �
� n`
�~ W
N
�n` �
W �
� p
� N
�}
a� �
Q�
— N
� �
� •—
� �
. �
� O
� O
� �
�
U
� �
� �
� �
� �
O �
��
U �
��
��
� �
O
O
O
�
C�
N
0
_
Q
a�
�
�
�
�
N
N
�
�
N �
W �
U �
� �
N� N
J � �O�
O
O�Q"�
N pp � z
Z •• ��
Q (}j O_
W �U �
� ���
�UN�,
N
— � �
3 •�
U 0 �
� N
� �'�
�� �
�� �
U :� O
� � �
� � .N
� � �
� � �
> �
�-�
�
�� v
�
���
� � o
N � �
.� > �'
> �
� � U
� �
� � �
��
��a�
��
����
0
� ��
a� �
���
N � N
N
� � �
0
N O �
� .�
� � �
rn � �
� � ,�
�[ N �
� � • �
�� ��I`
� N �
� � �
�
.� � �
��
� � �
�
N � O
�U �
�� o
cn � � N
p��� N
'U � � �
O 0 � N
�� O �
� N �
N
��� o
� .N p �
J � N O
O
O
O
O
N
�
�
�
.�
N
�
U
�
N
O
�
�
W
�
Z
W
U
Z
O
a
�
Z
W
�
�
a
�
cYi
�
�
0
U
N
�
N
Z
N
c�
N
�
N
�
� 0 N
S� Z �
� a� �
��Z
N��
� � N
� O
U N �
�� N
�
0�.�
U cN �
0���
� •— �
� Q � �
�
� N � �
O L
�� O O
� � Q}
U
� � �.�
o � � o
� �� a �
o 'a� L a�
Q� U z
�
� � . L �
� � � .�
���N
� �� U
� � Q
O � � �
����N
N � � �
U � � 0
.� ���
� � N �
�QO}
��'�O
II� �N
Q� p �
�
U '�
O � ��
��
.� � � �
�
� � N �
N _`" � �
�
QU��
� � �
O 'p � .�
Q�
����
o � �
a�
U
O � �U
�� ��
��� o
� U p
� � L �
N�N N �
�} N�
_ � � � �
� O U� �
� •�
�o��Q
�Q�_°
� Q� j Q
����II
� ��—
O
O
O
O�
N
�
�
�
�
� �
N
� Z
� +
O �
� O
w�
N �
� L
� O
Q N
��
�
�
Z
�
O�
U �
N � O
� �
Q ���
� � � Z
c� °�'�
Z � C�
a U 0 �
� � � N
m � � �
� � � �
�U��
�
� U
II �
� �
� Q
� �
�
� �>
� �
L U
Q.} �
`'� �
Uo
� a�
�Q
��
� �
N �
�
N �
N �
� �Q
� �U
N �
� �
� U
� �
o °
�N
� �
II �
O �
II �
U �
�
� �
Q�
N �
� �
QO
'� �
��
N �
a� �
� o
U ,�n
Q �
o �
��
� N
N�
� O
— �
�� �
N �
O
�U v
���
a� �
� N�
m � .N
N
U� �
I 0
O
O
O
�
N
�
a�
�
N
U
N
�
�
O
�
N
�
N
��
� �
� L
Q
� p
. �
�
U o�
N
O
a N
� N
O
z �U
N
a � �
O�
��o
�
o� ��
U' m Q Z
Z
H } � �
� U _ �
� �
O � �
2 O 0 �
�U°�,
�ri
��- �
�� N � N
� � � �
� L �
� 0 � �
�
� � Q �
N � p �
� O �
p � � O
� �„ O� O
o a� � �,
����a�
} � a� �
� � °� o
o� � � \
� � � �
N� � �
� L��
} � .N �
� �� �
� �
� �� �
� � O �
p� N=
�� O �
� � U
� 0 p �
��� 3
� � � �
N� � �
U �� �
� O p U
� �
� � � L
� � �
� � � O
� � O �
� � i �
� � � N
a����
o � � �
��
Q� � �
���N
N �
O •� .� �
� Q� �
� � N 0 �
� � O � �
� � � � �
� � U
�.—,�
'� � ` � �
N o�� �
�����
� � o
� � � � U
'
�
�
�
�
O �
O =
O •
o a
r� y
�
v, o
a
+
�
�
a�
�
>
O
� �
N �
w �
� �
N �
� N
� �
�U
�
�
w
��
� �
O °�°
� N
� N
C� �'
� �
Z �
w �
� � �N
Q � �o
� �Q�
W J � C
<
Z vU �
O ���
� � .
iZU�ci
�.9
� � �
� � �
O � �
� �n`.O
�L % �
� � �
} � �
� � •�
� � �
O � O
cn � •�
� ��
o �� �
� a�
a�
� � 3
� O �
� � �
� � �
� O.�
N � O
� � U
> � O
O •��
Q'� �
N � �
� � �
O
U � �
w O .
w � � �
� N N
� � O N
����
U "' �� N
� }
�
U � �' 3
� N 'U �
O � � �
� � Q�
� � � �
�
� O � �
N } � O
�N ��
� U �
O N .� N
. � i,.�
w > � N
O .0 �
� � Q�
� �— � �
� � � ��
� U p �
� U
� �
0
w �� N
� c�'> �U
N � �g �
� � .N �
�
�
O V
_
� �
�
a
� o
a
+
�
.�
�
�
N
�
�
�
�
�
� �
� �
�
� �
� �
m
Q
_
w
� �
0
� �
��
��
U N
U �
� �
� �
Z �
O�
m
� .� �
� � �
0�=
U .. �
w U O
� �U
O �
�UN
�
� } �
� � �
� � O
� � �
� .�
�
t •� 0
��o
� �o
N � �4
� � �
} � �
� � �
� W N
�
� } a�
� �.
� � �
o Qo
� O � �
O � � �
O � � �
� � � O
� �
�'U � �
O � � }
Qpap O
� U � �
�w�` p
O �
� p � �
O �cn•�
— � } N
��� ��
N � � }
L � O �
��U v
� � �.N
� � � �
����
�}��
> .� � �
.0 `n � �n
N N � �
— � N �
� ��,>
� � O �
���a�
o}°>
} p O �
� N � �
Q � � �
o���
Q��a�
�— �
� O � �
� �
� � N �
w.-�cv
�
O U
O �
o �
� �
�y o
a
+
�
�
.N
� ^
O N
_ �
� �
N �
� �
� �
� O
� �
� �
� w
v� ---
�
N
0
m�
Q �
w N
� �
Q �
� �
Z w
W �
� O
� J �
� � o
O�?
W � O
� �U
O
� U iy
ao
��
�n` � �
� } 0
� �X �
� � •�
� p O �
�
� } � �
����
� � Q .
.� � �ci
N � �n O
N p_ }
� �> �
�.� a� }
° �� N �
��� �
— �� �
° �� � �
� U
N � ��
� � • � v�i
N�� �
����
� N • �
��
O� � �
� � � �
��o�
O<n OO
�� �
O� ��
N }
N'� �,�
�� � O
O � Q�
N U 0 �
� O Q�
� �
N O �,n
� } O .�
� � p �
O} NQ
� � ��
.Q�� �
� � �
� = � O
� � ��
� } � Q
N
�a�°�o
�
� � U u�
� > .N �
.3 � N O
����
����
� ~ '�
� �N O
����
� O � �
UU ��
�
O V
O �
0 �
� a
� o
a
+
�
a�
�
�
a�
�
.N
�
m
�
�
�
�
�
Q
x
w
�
N
Z
z ,o
ao
O�
N �p
w N
Z
�
� O
m �
�
�
� � �
O�=
U}�
� U �
� �U
O�
�UN
o�
N — �
N
�
� � O
�� �
.� � �
� N �
Q
�O >
� �
���
�o
QU �O
N
N � � O
� U.�c�
��O`�
����
� � � �
o�}�
a�
� O � �
� QO•
� � � �
O � � O
N � U
� � �.�
'� � � �
N N � �
O� � �
U � � �
�� p U �
�U p.�
� �� �
O � � }
�� �
� O �
� �O U
�
�
O � � �
o�°n�
�
�.�� O
Q� —
� � �
O � O �
�� � �
N O � �
�
�a�o�
QQ`'?O
���o
� Q� �
Q� ��
N � N �
�
�
� Q� �
� � �
C� � �` N
m}�` N
U�.�O
�
c
c
�
c
c
�
c
,- r�v�u i i�a r vn �,Lavintvt�a� r ul�ua r vfi
� � : ���: = ; ; : ; : . ,
..> .
� � � � �_ - .,
Priorities set by�the cominunities for FY97-98 were:
l. Rehabilita,tion of owner-occupied property;
2.' Rehabilitation of rental property; . �
3. Removal of dilapidatedstructures; �
4. Job creation, home ownership;
5. New construction;
6. Neighborhood revitalization; and
7. Social services.
_. ___ _ _ _ _ __
�;;
PROPOSED USE OF FY 97 �
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS
Decent. Safe. Affordable Housin�
Weatherization and Energy Conservation Improvements $35gp0p
The Environment and Energy Resource Center (EERC) implements a deferred repayment loan prOgram for energy
conserving home improvements including window replacement. insulation, and water heaters. Suburban households
with incomes less than 80 percent of the median income for the metropolitan area (543,500 for a family of four) may
qualify for up to 57�000 in financing. EERC funding is also used for emergency improvements such as when a furnace
must be replaced in the middle of winter. Funds are combined with MN Housing Finance Agency, NSP, and projected
program income of about $13,000 to efFieiently address improvements designed to reduce fuel and other housing costs,
maintain property values and stabilize neighborhoods.
Since 1986 when the program was started, EERC has performed energy audits and made weatherization improvements
to 380 homes in suburban Ramsey County. This allocation will bring the total funds made a�ailable to weatherization
improvements to 52,22 1,000.
Residential Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation $166,643(FY97�l�nds)
$291,570 (FY 96 �lmds)
Ramsey County through a contract with Saint Paul PED will make approximately 40 deferred loans a�ailable to very low
income single-family homeowners in the suburban area. Rehabilitation loans may be made for up to S 15,000; however
since the program began in 1988, the average loan has been $9,950. The program witi also be using $291,670 in
previously allocated funding plus program income of an estimated $20,000 resulting in a�ailable funding for the fiscal
year of $450,000.
Since 1986 when the program was initiated, PED has inspected and rehabilitated more than 225 homes in suburban
Ramsey County. This allocation will bring the total funds committed to maintaining and improving the e�sting housing
stock to $2,115,866.
Affordable Housing - Share A Home $15,000
Lutheran Social Services will use the allocation in combination with other sources of funding for staff who match elderly,
handicapped, single-parents and other low-income families who have housing with those who need it. This frquently
enables older homeowners to remain in their homes. A minimum of 26 matches are expected which prevent the
unnecessary placement of individuals in nursing homes, aid the progress of single parents toward self-suffkiency and
reduce potential for homelessness.
Safer Homes - Burn/Fire and Carbon Monoxide Prevention $ I5,000
Ramsey County Public Health will use funding to educate families served by the WIC Program about the dangers of fire
and scalding and carbon monoxide. Families will receive smoke detectors, hot water gauges, and/or CO detectors and
instructions on their use at the 12 suburban clinic locations. About 10001ow income families arc expected to benefit from
this intensive home safety effort.
n:Uva�projsumm.wpd 1
�
� 1 1!! '! ��� 1 ti 1 1 4 I I'
Ramsey County Business Loan Program
`p`i`i`�f"`rv
i� ' The Ramsey County Housing and Redevelopment Authority provides gap financing for new or expanding businesses
for real estate and/or purchase of capital equipment. CDBG funds will be used to facilitate the creation/retention of Jobs
in Ramsey County. At least five full-time jobs must be created for each loan and at least 51% of those jobs must be
I. � available to low or moderate income workers. Loans are repaid at below -market interest rates and terms consistent with
� private financing. Nine loans that have been made resulting in 200 new/retained jobs for Ramsey County reside , and
4� repayment of $235,000. Reinvestment of an add�i:onal $145.000 in program income will bring the estimated funds
available for new loans in 1997-98 to $745,000. With this level of funding, the �ms�y County HRA expects to be able
I � make 35 new loans.
Job Training - Women Achieving New Directions $17,4(p
The Employment Action Center will provide comprehensive employment upgrading to 10-12 working women in
suburban Ramsey County who are eligible for welfare benefits and are the sole support of their children. The project is
designed to enable at least 60 percent of the participants to increase their earned income by 25 percent through career
advancement.
Participants attend a`series of workshops, receive one-on-one career assessments, and benefit from mentoring
relationships with other women in similar fields. With Ramsey County CDBG funding, WAND has helped 46 women
who have increasing their earnings by an average of 30 percent.
Job Development - Ramsey Co. Jobs and Training/St. Paul Urban League $20,000
Funding made available to Ramsey County Jobs and Training will be used to help fund a pilot reverse commute job
development program into suburban Ramsey County. Saint Paul Urban League staff will work with major employers in
suburban Ramsey County, employment centers, and residents from selected census tracts to determine employment
opportunities and transportation/child care requirements to design a workable reverse commuting program. Community
Development Block Grant funding will be combined with approximately $68,000 from several other public and private
sources.
1Vfiscelianeous
Ramsey County Parks
$ �,�
Many of the fiYtures in the Ramsey County Tony Schmidt Park located in Arden Hilfs were installed at a time when there
was less sensitivity to the recreational needs of severely disabled residents. The Ramsey County Department of Parks
and Recreation will receive CDBG funds to remove architectural barriers preventing handicapped citizens frem
participation. Improvements to existing circulation, toilet/shelter facilities, andpark equipmentwill be made thatwiil
enable disabled individuals and their families to use these public facilities.
Program Administration and Monitoring $?94,000
Ramsey County will manage the implementation of the program and coordinate the use of CDBG funding in compliance
with federal laws and regulations. Specific line items related to the administrative budget have been prepared and
submitted for internal review by the County Manager and Budget and Accounting. The approved budget will
subsequently be included in the 1998 County Budget which will be distributed later in the Fall.
n:lhra�projsumm.wpd 2
�0
��
Request for Council Action
Date: May 22, 2000
Item Number: C -5
Department Approval Manager Approval Agenda Section
Item Description:
.
. �
Resolution Requesting the Dissolution of the
Minnesota Police Recruitment System (MPRS)
Consent
Back�round
Since 1980, the City has been a member of the Minnesota Police Recruitment System (formerly Suburban
Police Recruitment System), a joint powers organization formed to recruit candidates for entry-level police
positions in cooperating governmental units and to assist the cooperating governmental units in evaluating
candidates for these positions. On September 26, 1996, the MPRS Board of Directors voted to cease all
recruitment and testing activities. MPRS is now requesting member approval of the dissolution and payment of
$176.40, an assessment for operating expenses incurred since September 26, 1996.
Financial
The City of New Hope loaned MPRS funds for operating expenses incurred prior to the official dissolution of
the System. The City of Roseville's assessment is $170.40 (5.68% of the $3,000 total).
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends adoption of a resolution for the dissolutioii of the Minnesota Police Recruitment System and
approval of the payment of the $170.40 assessment for operating expenses of the MPRS since September 26,
1996.
Council Action Requested
Motion adopting a resolution for the dissolution of the Minnesota Police Recruitment System and approval of
the payment of $170.40 assessment for operating expenses of the MPRS.
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING
OF Ti�
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 hPld on the 22nd day of May, 2000,
at 6:30 p.m.
The following members were present: Mastel, Maschka, Wiski, Goedeke and
Kysylyczyn, and the following were absent: None.
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION
Requesting Dissolution of the
Minnesota Police Recruitment System
WHEREAS, the City is a member of a joint powers organization known as the
Minnesota Police Recruitment System (MPRS) created by a joint powers
agreement (the "Agreement") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section
471.59; and
WHEREAS, the MPRS no longer serves the purpose for which it was formed, and the
MPRS Executive Committee has recommended to MPRS members that
tlie organization be dissolved; and
WHEREAS, Section XIV of the Agreement provides that the MPRS shall be dissolved
when its Secretary-Treasurer has received certified copies of resolutions
adopted by the governing bodies of two-thirds of its members requesting
such dissolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that dissolution of the MPRS is in the
best interests of the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby requests
dissolution of the Minnesota Police Recruitment System (I1�iPRS) in
accordance with the Agre�ement and that the City Manager is authorized
and directed to transmit forthwith a certified copy of this resolution to the
MPRS Secretary-Treasurer in care of Daniel Donahue, City Manager, City
of New Hope, Minnesota.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member
, and upon a 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.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville,
County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared
the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council
held on the 22nd day of May, 2000, with the original thereof on file in my office.
WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 22nd day of May, 2000.
Steven R. Sarkozy, City Manager
SEAL
MINNESOTA POLICE RECRUITMENT SYSTEM
Suite 125 . 13911 Ridgedale Drive . Minnetonka, M
Phone (612) 593-2666 . Fax (612) 593-2501
11�V�t�'I'Ot
F1Z�M:
SUB3�EC'I':
May 2, 2000
�ad�In
MAY � 4 2�0
— f...
�
....r-----
City Managers/City Administrators in MPRS Communities
Larry Thompson, Consultant to the MPRS
Proposed Dissolution of the MPRS;
Enclosed Assessment for Operating Expenses
As was indicated in an earlier memorandum, the MPRS Executive Committee has
investigated the steps which are necessary to dissolve the System. At this point a11
pr�lun�inary steps have been taken, and the final step remains members' approval of
the dissolution. The Committee recommends that this step now be taken.
Enclosed is a copy of a sample resolution approving dissolution of the NIPRS, for
consideration by your City CounciL If your City Council approves this resolution, a
c�8�i:+�opy of it shpuid be sent to Dan Donahue at the City of New Hope. Once
resolutions have been received &om two-thirds of MPRS members, the System
offii�a1y�! �dissolved. Dan will notify you when this occurs. In lieu of a final
audit o�`tlie System by an independent audit firm, the Executive Committee has voted
to appoint a committee of three municipal Finance Officers to conduct such an audit.
Al�.�nclosedis an assessment for MPitS operating expenses. On September 26,
k� #� Mi'RS B�ard of Directors voted to c�ease aU re�ntitment and testing
ac�it�s #�jr tiie System, and it disrussed how to meet the System's operati�ng ,
eupe�ns�si �+v� �ttime and official dissolutien of the System. The City of New
�+aff"�� loain tl� System funds for this purpose, and the Bo�rd of Directors
agt�ati tt�-�ii�;�Tew Hope for all such funds. '�'he amount now owed Naw!Hope
is S3,t�(}0,_; !
�`1� . _ � . _ . . _ _ .
p�l�
�
� ��!
If�rO�t:
t7C3=5
�}{ Of 1 9y.•¢:_iifl� �,fi.�� �_, .1
►o�. �[d it is
� a�ny qi�estions in �is mattsr, feo
»S tfl0) or tn�e {753-444-0515}.
co�t�ct
s.:
�
� �o.��� �cRVrr�rENr s�sr��
Suit� 1�25 :* �3911 Ridg�xlate Drive • Mittnetonka; .MN 5�3a5
� P[�wr�e (6121593-�2�d • Fa� E612) 393-��Sd1 , '
�, � _
, . .
. : : ,
,,
� .. � . , :
�:, ,
$
�� � � ,� �� M2y 1, 2UQQ _ -�� ,
`?� rCyP ^J,� 1 - fi
� 2 � {'s .' . 1 : .' F =
l� 4 l'
[ !
��� �j� � � � � `c� t 5 .
�� �!-` Y' � j. h j. _ _
� r � i
S i y t,;• : � 4..h.::` , . . . � , e ,�'�
�{ ,� � . . . , . . .
., �_ . .. - .. . ; __.
,
�i �i� �.. , }
,N ` +i�o
. '
'"d
p� ,,.,-� �.:�t' #1��{1Si:"i►1��G ,
_. .
��0 �i'V'1C �" �t'lYC :
' '. . I�088'V'�,1�I� ��1 �3 _
STATEMENT
� Ass��t of �uIP'RS oPeratin8 �xpensea (repaym�nt of.loan to the City of -
. .
:
� _ � ��r I�t�pe): : , ,
� -
, �, �
�` � -� ��,DOO x 5.68% =
, � ._ ,
�1'�L.4Q :
, . ;
� s�� :� '
. . , ., � � � ,. . . � � �
. . .. �
��_ ��� � � PI� �ita1� p�ym�t to The City of New Hope � � �� � � � �
P-1+�ase � t�:
- The C�ty ofl�'e�+' �p�'_ -
� .
, ,.
, At� IV1r Ilai�tl
_ . . S�u�l,#�a'
r,•': i�Y t+ �..: r. �� � .
�
�441 X�On A� �1� �
� ' � - New �I+� � �,��� �� a { a �
J � '4 u t `
� '(� �' 8t � � � " .
.�.. . e ..". ,
t
� . .:. : _ �� .
_ i+'.r T - 5 i ; Z .
} a y ? x i s
� � � � a
. a� x �� s 7 � i�. .
, : : E .; '�' 4 - d .. '�. J �
' S .fi� . `r . .� � . ' ` � .. �� � t� ,s��� �-�,�,z �, � i �.
' � . � ..�. . _ ' �L � ?�,^ { � F
,
.
t - i i,� ar �' Y� r� e'�rG`4 ��tt �`^�.�. � R� i' .+ ._
f
-' � �� ,gt : Y , .: � �� 9. �� �` � � . y r �tr ��L
� � , . , r+� �: : _ r �� k�' �,; „��r�'�T'�� � � "F�� . �^ �-
� � � , � �- : . . � ,,� � y y 5 � �. : ,+ '�' E �
ir
,�y
r " ,� p � + r , � �- { i . � :� C x
� _ .3nx3 �` ixAx7� � �, t.�� .
_ �' k . d 't+ '.:;t ,�, �. .
.
' k �; 4W .1 y `S -h' .
i F da' � W �
-,. , . . . �:. : .,r. - ; .. , �
:. , .. : ... , �^ . . . .� � :.
ik'.' F �. ,� , z � s�; x���p � . �3. .
— �.;` A
, t � ��� �*5
�. ' . - . 5 ,l"+'� 3 ...
� •." ' ;- . ' _ . . �.: , : . �.� � '� } _.\ .
. . . . . .. : . .
. . . . .. _ �: � ,:: . ..
..: . . . .. ' " '!S Y ' ,
�
1
s�
S
i
. �
4 J
♦
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 5/27/00
Item No.: C-6
Department A roval: Mana�proval: Agenda Section:
,8. Consent
ItemDescription: Approval for COPS MORE Universal Hiring Program
For Law Enforcement Agencies Seeking to Hire Officers for
Community Policing (COPS In School Grant Program)
� - � _ � � 3 : ( � 3 : Z � 1 � 1► I � �
The Roseville Police Department is currently budgeted for one full-time school liaison officer and
has one, full-time Roseville Police Officer deployed as a school liaison officer in the high school
only. During summer months, when school is not in session, this same full-time school liaison
officer is temporarily assigned to patrol.
Due to the increased violence in schools around the country in the last twelve months, the
Roseville Police Department proposes that with funds awarded from this COPS Hiring Program,
another full-time officer be deployed as a second, full-time school liaison officer for the community
of Roseville.
� � : Z � ] 1 � b� � � 1 _ � � � [ � ] ► �
The new, full-time school officer will be positioned in middle schools and elementary schools--
Brimhall Elementary, Central Park Elementary, and Parkview Center School. There are 1,748
elementary students and 152 7�' and 8�' grade students in these three schools.
The second Roseville Police Department school liaison officer shall assume the following duties:
• Follow-up to referrals provided by the police department and school administrative
Staff
• Counsel and advise students on legal offenses
• Serve on school crisis teams
• Serve on administrative teams
• Serve on student support teams
• Visit and get acquainted with the students
• Assist and intervene in cases of criminal law violation
• Initiate juvenile crime prevention programs
• Educate and advise parents in the areas of student behavior that do or could
potentially bring juveniles into the juvenile court system
• Assess, advise, and assist school administration with security practices to create a
safe and secure school environment
• Make presentations on relevant issues to individual classrooms
• Arrange for and schedule outside speakers to address relevant issues in the
classroom
• Participate in school events and activities
• Assist in reporting and follow-up of child abuse/neglect cases
The Roseville Police Department has taken the initiative to meet with representatives from the
school district and is in possession of an informal, signed agreement with the district school
superintendent supporting the addition of a second school liaison officer.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
COPS MORE Universal Hiring Program
page two
FINANCIALOBLIGATION
The COPS More Universal Hiring Grant that the Roseville Police Department has been awarded
will allow for the salary of a full-time, entry level officer for a period of three years. The grant
money awarded shall not exceed $125,000 with the balance of the entry level officer's salary
provided by the City of Roseville.
Upon acceptance of this grant, the City of Roseville will be responsible for a portion of the entry
level officer's salary. That amount (over a three year grant period) would be $12,110. Matching
city funds will be allocated from the existing police operations budget. Should there not be
sufficient funds in the police operations budget, the shortfall will be covered by the use of
contingency funds.
A requirement of this grant is that the agency awarded the grant commit to retaining the school
liaison officer for twelve months after the date of grant expiration. The officer's salary breakdown
per year follows:
Year One: $39,450.00
Year Two: $46,200.00
Year Three: $51,460.00
Year Four: $56,600.00
Total $193,710.00
Less Grant $125000.00
COST TO CITY $68,710.00
The above salaries indude FICA and benefits.
The total cost to the City for a full-time officer for four years of service would be approximately
$6�,710.00.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the acceptance of the grant under the terms and conditions described herein.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Authorize the City Manager to accept the COPS MORE Universal Hiring Program (COPS in
School Grant) funds of up to $125,000.
y��
Request for Council Action
Department Approval
� � 'b
C�
Item Description:
Relocation of polling site for Precinct #5.
ManagerApproval
�-
Date: May 22, 2000
Item Number: �_7
Agenda Section
Consent
BacWzround
Due to the Roseville Activity Center' s(Precinct #5 polling site) possible closing this fall, a new polling
sibe needs to be determined. Ramsey County's deadline for establishing new polling sites is
Wednesday, June 14, Z000.
Policy Objective
Establish new polling site for Precinct #5 by deadline established by Ramsey County. (June 14, 2�0;
90 days before election — 204B.16, subd.3).
Financial
None
Staff Recommendation
MoHon to approve the relocation of Precinct #5 polling site, from the Roseville Activity Center to the
Mounds View District Center, for the Primary and General Elections. The Mounds View District
Center would be used for the next two years unHl redistricting, which will go into effect the fall of
2002.
Council Action Requested
Approve or deny Precinct #5's new polling site as Mounds View District Center.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: OS/22/00
ITEMNO.: C-8
Department ApprovaL• Manager Reviewed: Agenda Section:
� ��--"p'� � Consent
Item Description: Resolution requesting a variance for State Aid approval pertaining to City
ProjectNo. P-95-12.
Background: In April of 1995, the City received bids to mill and overlay Prior Avenue, from
County Road B2 to Oakcrest Avenue, and Oakcrest Avenue, from Snelling Avenue to Fry Street.
Prior to the bid opening, the City had forwarded a set of plans and specification to the State Aid
Office for State approval of the project. On February 13, 1995, the City Council awarded the
contract to Central Landscaping for the mill and overlay work for both Prior Avenue and Oakcrest
Avenue. The resolution awarding the bid did not have the statement "This award of bid is subject to
the State Aid approval of the project". This statement is required if the award of bid is approved by
City Council before the approval by the State Aid Engineer occurs. The State Aid Engineer gave
State approval for the project in May of 1995. At the time, he was unaware that the City had already
awarded the contract to Central Landscaping without the required statement of State Aid approval.
Policy objectives: Based on past practice the City Council has awarded the contract to the lowest
responsible bidder. In this case, 1995 Contract B, Segment 2 was awarded to Central Landscaping.
The resolution in 1995 did not have the statement of State Aid approval. The resolutions have been
modified to include that statement for all future awards.
Financial implications: By adopting this resolution, the City of Roseville is eligible for $5,416.51
which would be paid from the State gas tax fund.
Staff recommendation: S� recommends the Council approves the resolution requesting a
variance to the procedures required in awarding contracts when the project has State Aid funds
eligible.
RECOMMENDED COLTNCIL ACTION: Approval of a resolution requesting a variance in
awarding 1995 Contract B, Segment 2 for S.A.P. No. 160-228-06 and S.A.P. No. 160-234-03.
Prepared by: Doug Strong
�
�
�
�
I,,, 1 I,I„ I
," ' " �„ ''
,,, , „ ,,,
11� � „ 11�
��� � „ ���
,,, , „ ,,,
" 1 „ ,1,
, 11
1111„1,�
��1� „ ♦i�
A � �� .
N p
� �
� �
� N
a d �,
��e
oZ �
�
?� a ,`o
�? h 4
� O
� o� �
� N �
� G
4 � Q
�O 2 m
aa�
U v� O
�
�
.O
�
�' N
� �
� �
��
O�
�
�
�
�
.�
�
sNil�`
. �� q
�h
v
a
��+'1 °.�
� Q,
�'`9�i»
�
d
��
R
Q
0 N
�o
c �+
R
a°�i �
c
.�
w
�
N
�
�
O�
a
t
�
�
�$
ON
�o
z �
��
a
c
W
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING
OF CITY COUNCIL
OF 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,
Minnesota, was held in the City Hall in said City on Monday, May 22, 2000 at 6:30 o'clock p.m.
The following members were present: and the following were absent:
Council member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION x:XXX
RESOLUTION REQUESTING A VARIANCE IN
AWARDING 1995 CONTRACT B, SEGMENT 2 FOR
S.A.P. NO. 160-228-06 AND S.A.P. NO. 160-234-03
WHEREAS, the City of Roseville, Minnesota, awarded 1995 Contract B, Segment 2 to Central
Landscaping on February 13, 1995;
AND WHEREAS, the resolution awarding the bid for mill and overlay did not have the required
statement "This award of bid is subject to the State Aid approval of the project";
AND WHEREAS, the State Aid Engineer gave State approval for the project in May, 1995;
AND WHEREAS, the State Aid Engineer was unaware that the City had aLready awarded the
contract to Central Landscaping without the required statement of State Aid approval;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville, Minnesota, that
the Mayor and City Manager approves a variance request in awarding 1995 Contract B, Segment 2
for S.A.P. No. 160-228-06 and S.A.P. No. 160-234-03. Also, all future award of bids will have the
following statement, "This award of bid is subj ect to the State Aid approval of the proj ect".
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member , upon a
vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: , and the following voted
against the same:
WHE::EUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
2
STATE OF MINNESOTA �
� ss
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, Minnesota, do
hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing e�tract of minutes of a
regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on the 22nd day of May, 2000, with the original
thereof on file in my office, and the same is a fi.ill, true and complete transcript.
Adopted by the Council this 22nd day of May, 2000.
(SEAL) City Manager
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Department Approval:
'
Manager Reviewed:
���w
DATE: OS/23/00
ITEM: C-9
Item Description: Renewal of Bottle Club License - Knights of Columbus
BACKGROUND
Agenda Section:
Consent
In 1998 the Knights of Columbus organization changed from a private liquor license to a Bottle
Club License. The organization is applying for the renewal of that license.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The revenue generated from license fees collected is used to offset the cost of police compliance
checks, background investigations, enforcement of liquor laws, and license administration.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The City staff has reviewed the applications and has determined that the applicant meets City
requirements, and is recommending approval of the application.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion approving the Knights of Columbus Bottle Club (set-up) License at 2555 North Snelling
Avenue, expiring March 3 l, 2001.
� a,,,�� Minnesota Department of Public Safety
ALCOHOL & GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT DIVISION
� 444 Cedar St., Suite 133, St. Paul, MN 55101-5133
(65 1) 296-6439 TTY (65 1) 282-6555 "
'�a� www.dps.state.mn.us/alcgamb/alcgamb.html � ���*.. . '
RENEWALOFCONSUMPTION&DISPLAYPERMIT
Permit Fee $150 (Renewal Date: April 1)
MAKECHECKSPAYABLETO: ALCOHOL & GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT DIVLSION
1285
Nazareth Council Inc.
DBA Knighte of Columbus 4021
2555 N Snelling Ave
Ros�ville �IN 55113
PRIVATE
Worker's Comp Ins. Co. �i �....ws. �y r_. � Policy Na "'`-�
ity/County where permit approved: y� p S�.y ���,�- �����
Permit Name:^/'� Z A/? E' T�-f �a �tJ�° <<--
Trade Name: K�,� c� � � �,
Location address: �,.�-r� ��
City, State, ZIP Code: �a,sr �,` � a ,�,�
Business Phone%'�� , � �- 3 � �
,g/FL - 7�O>
Policy P
� s.r • J _____ — _ _.
By signing this renewal application, applicant certifies that there has been no change in ownership, corporate officers,
bylaws, membership, partners, home addresses, or telephone numbers. If changes have occurred during the past 12
months, please give details on the back of this renewal, then sign below.
A�nLicant's s mtatare on this renewel coc�ffrms the followia�: Failnre t� report ag� o! the followinQ wW result ;,, Bnes.
� 1. Applicant confirms that it has never had a liquor license rejected by any city/township/county in the state of
Minnesota. If ever rejected, please give details on the back of this renewal, then sign below.
� 2. Applicant confirms that for the past five years it has not had a liquor license revoked for any liquor law violation (state
of local). If a revocation has occurred, please give details on the back of this renewal, then sign below.
v 3. Applicant confirms that during the past five years it or its employees have not been cited for any civil or criminal
liquor law violations. If violations have occurred, please give details on back of this renewal, then sign beiow.
----
�. A p�3"i'ica�i t con-`f'�ms iCiai�Workers'Compensa[ion ins6rance is in� e`�i�ec���or t}ie�alITicense period. �
, 3. Applicant confirms, no club on-sale intoxicating liquor license is held.
� 6. Applicant confirms business premises are separate from any other business establishment.
Applicant Signa Date ;, / �''�"• "' ���"'� �
(Signature certifi all above infonnation to be correct and permit has been approved by city/county.)
�City Clerk%County Auditor Signature Date
(Signature certifies that a consumption and display permit has been approved by the city/county as stated above.)
PS09097 (O1/00)
Date:Sl23/00
Department Approval:
��
Action Requested:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Manager Reviewed:
��
That the following claims and payment of the total amounts be approved:
3548-3705 788,108.66
3706-3849 207,475.36
995,584.02
Item Number: �-10
Agenda Section:
Consent Agenda
CITY OF ROSEVIL Accounts Payable
irenem Computer Check Register Totals Printed:05/04/0012:09
CHECK NO CHECK DATE VENDOR NO
3 5 4 8 OS/04/2000 2879
3 5 4 9 OS/04/2000 3065
3 5 5 0 OS/04/2000 2021
355 1 OS/04/2000 2849
3 5 5 2 OS/04/2000 1028
3 5 5 3 OS/04/2000 1044
3 5 5 4 OS/04/2000 1606
3555 0510412000 1047
3 5 5 6 OS/04/2000 1051
3 5 5 7 OS/04/2000 1600
3 5 5 8 OS/04/2000 1390
3 5 5 9 OS/OM2000 1059
3 560 OS/04/2000 2049
3 561 OS/04/2000 2878
3 5 6 2 OS/04/2000 2078
3 5 6 3 OS/04/2000 2044
3 5 6 4 OS/04/2000 2472
3 5 6 5 OS/04/2000 2023
3 566 OS/04/2000 1711
3 5 6 7 OS/04/2000 1780
3 5 6 8 OS/04/2000 1083
3 5 6 9 OS/04/2000 1862
3 570 OS/04/2000 2850
3 5 7 1 OS/04/2000 3061
3 5 7 2 OS/04/2000 1656
3 5 7 3 OS/04/2000 1863
3 5 7 4 OS/04/2000 1104
3 5 7 5 OS/04/2000 1107
3 576 OS/04/2000 2851
3 5 7 7 OS/04/2000 1803
3 5 7 8 OS/04/2000 3047
3 5 7 9 OS/04/2000 1116
3 5 8 0 OS/04/2000 2667
3 5 8 1 OS/04/2000 1794
3 5 8 2 OS/04/2000 1127
3 5 8 3 OS/04/2000 3006
3 584 OS/04/2000 3011
3 5 8 5 OS/04/2000 1243
3 5 8 6 OS/04/2000 1148
3 5 8 7 OS/04/2000 1149
3 5 8 8 OS/04/2000 1150
3 5 8 9 OS/04/2000 2097
3 5 9 0 OS/04/2000 1154
3 5 9 1 OS/04/2000 1158
3 592 OS/04/2000 1574
3 5 9 3 OS/04/2000 1162
3 5 9 4 OS/04/2000 1163
3 5 9 5 OS/04/2000 1776
3 5 9 6 OS/04/2000 2852
3 5 9 7 OS/04/2000 1170
3 5 9 8 OS/04/2000 1172
3 5 9 9 OS/04/2000 1899
3 6 0 0 OS/04/2000 1178
360 1 OS/04/2000 1179
VENDGRNAME
A E M CONSTRUCTION LLC
ACCRA
ADVANTAGE PAPER
LYNNALLE N
ALPHA VIDEO
AMERIPRIDE
ANFANG JILL
A1�II SAFETY & SUPPLY
AT dr T BUSINESS SERVICE
ATOM
AUTO GLASS SPECIALISTS
HOLLYBAUMAN
BARONBEHNING
BELAIRBUILDERS
CATHYBENNETT
DEBRABLOOM
BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERLM
BRADLEY REAL ESTATE,INC
BRAUN BUILT CORP
BSN
BUMPER TO BUMPER
CAPITOL CITY WELDING SUPPLY
KARENCARRIER
CEMSTONE
SITHYVONCHAU
CH�F SUPPLY
CITY 8c COUNTY CREDIT UNION
CITY OF ST PAUL
JIMCLEMENT
COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS FUND
CONCRETE FORM ENGINEERS
CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN
CUSHMAN MOTOR COMPANY INC
CUSTOM FIRE
DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIP
DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
METROPOLITAN COUNCILENVIRONMEN'I'AL
FACILITY SYSTEMS INC
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS
FEDEX
FIRE INSTRUCTGRS ASSOC OF MN
FORTIS BENEFITS
GARCEAU'S HARDWARE
GAUGHAN EN'I'ERPRISES
GENERAL TIRE SEK ,'ICE
GENUINEPARTS-NAPA
GERLACH SERVICE
GOPHER ELECTRIC CONTRACTORS
GRAINGER INC
GREAT WEST
HHLIM
HAR MAR LOCK 8c KEY
HEALTHFUNDOFMN
PAYMENT AMOUNT
19,000.00
465.00
7.75
181.50
56.06
35.80
37.75
56.75
74.02
800.00
35.00
350.00
120.00
24,944.00
615.40
27.01
8,800.00
25.00
12,290.00
3,351.83
709.88
84.87
350.00
1,105.92
144.00
193.94
14,149.00
1,446.82
688.64
10.00
1,331.25
347.20
106.69
5,038.26
644.08
531.16
3,440.00
SERVICES 33,759.00
30,09'7.61
711.66
48.88
90.00
2,182.07
2,927.69
2,000.00
904.79
54.46
466.81
883.88
1,396.26
6,596.69
2660.00
11.66
23.00
Page 1
CHECK NO CHECK DATE VENDOR NO
3602 OS/04/2000 1180
3603 OS/04/2000 2853
3604 OS/04/2000 2854
3605 OS/04/2000 1188
3606 OS/04/2000 2099
3607 OS/04/2000 1879
3608 OS/04/2000 1193
3609 OS/04/2000 1195
3610 OS/04/2000 2855
3611 OS/04/2000 3010
3612 OS/04/2000 1198
3613 OS/04/2000 2856
3614 OS/04J2000 2654
3615 OS/04/2000 2857
3616 OS/0412000 2656
3617 OS/04/2000 1539
3618 OS/04/2000 2077
3619 OS/04/2000 1207
3620 OS/04/2000 1425
3621 OS/04/2000 2882
3622 OS/04/2000 1632
3623 OS/04/2000 1215
3624 OS/04/2000 1221
3625 OS/04/2000 2655
3626 OS/04/2000 2858
3627 OS/04/2000 1226
3628 OS/04/2000 2859
3629 OS/04/2000 2860
3630 OS/04/2000 1409
363 1 OS/04/2000 1239
3632 OS/04/2000 1242
3633 OS/04/2000 2605
3634 OS/04/2000 2861
3635 OS/04/2000 1245
3636 OS/04/2000 1246
3637 OS/04/2000 1771
3638 OS/04/2000 1255
3639 OS/04/2000 2827
3640 OS/04/2000 1356
3641 OS/04/2000 1412
3642 OS/04l2000 1260
3643 OS/04/2000 2210
3644 OS/04/2000 1271
3645 OS/04/2000 1272
3646 OS/04/2000 3074
3647 OS/04l2000 1278
3648 OS/04/2000 1279
3649 OS/04/2000 2862
3650 OS/04/2000 1280
3651 OS/04/2000 1505
3652 OS/04/2000 2079
3653 OS/04/2000 1637
3654 OS/04/2000 2863
3655 OS/04/2000 1199
3656 OS/04/2000 1285
3657 OS/04/2000 2864
3658 OS/04l2000 1287
3659 OS/04/2000 1288
VENDORNAME
HEALTHPARTNERS
MARYHGGLUND
ALICEHORTON
HYDRO SUPPLY CO
I.A.C. V.BFOUNDATION
I.T.L PATCH COMPANY,INC
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 457
INDOFF
INTEGRATED CIRCUIT SERVICES
J CRAFT
JEANE TI i � )RNE INt :
]II/SPA INC
JULIAN M JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION
CHARLESJUNGMAN
KELLINGTON CONSTRUCTION INC
KERN, DEWEN'I'ER, VIERE, LTD.
A1�iIi'KOLASA
KONICA BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES
LELS
GREGLEVBNDOSKI
LILLIE SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS
LOCAL UNION 49
M & M HYDRAULIC
MAERTENS-BRENNY CONSTRUCTION
MAGUIRE AGENCY
MARATHON ASHLAND PETROLEUM
HELENMAY
McDONALDS-ARDENHILLS
MCES
METRO FIRE
METROCALL
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO
METROPOLTTAN STATE UNIVERSITY
MEYER, SCHERER & ROCKCASTLE
MICRO AGE
MIDC ENTERPRISES
MII�INCOMM PAGING
MIlVUTEMAN PRESS CENTRAL
MISTER CAR WASH
MN BENEFIT ASSOCIATION
MN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CTR
MN OFFICE OF TOURISM
MN PIPE 8t EQUIPMENT
MN POLLUTION CON'I'ROL AGENCY
MN POLLU"'ION CONTROL AGENCY
MN TEAMS IBRS #320
MN UC FUND
JEFFREY'1�IORRIS
MTI DISTRIBUTION
MUNICILIT.
DONMUNSON
MUSKA LIGHTING
NATIONAL CITY BANK
NCPERS GROUPL LIFE INS 7258500
NEEDLES JANITOR SUPPLY
NORBLGM PLUMBING
NORTH HEIGHTS HARDWARE
NORTH METRO INSPECTION, INC
PAYMENT AMOUNT
44,193.22
80.00
21.00
3,937.94
250.00
67.30
5,471.80
3,179.95
216.20
88,160.01
1,335.60
222.76
43,205.50
63.66
2,'726.50
7,000.00
193.00
346.13
1,122.00
225.00
301.74
837.65
261.31
131,972.25
533.00
25.55
21.00
48.00
150,024.00
585.48
7.52
162.70
30.00
9,615.40
603.72
34.15
2.34
500.48
181.44
844.32
- 854.04
87.51
561.04
240.00
85.00
395.00
9,034.72
75.00
1,116.20
68.00
15.00
53.44
23.00
108.00
177.24
28.50
84.07
2,596.00
Page 2
CHECK NO CHECKDATE VENDOR NO
3660 OS/04/2000 1773
3661 OS/04/2000 2866
3662 OS/04/2000 2867
3663 OS/04/2000 2868
3664 OS/04/2000 1295
3665 OS/04/2000 1471
3666 OS/04/2000 1729
3667 OS/04/2000 1380
3668 OS/04/2000 1429
3669 OS/04/2000 1296
3670 OS/04/Z000 2869
3671 OS/04/Z000 1642
3672 OS/04/2000 1375
3673 OS/04/2000 1553
3674 OS/04/2000 2870
3675 OS/04/2000 1691
3676 OS/04/2000 1313
3677 OS/04/2000 1681
3678 OS/04/2000 1475
3679 OS/04/2000 1645
3680 OS/04/2000 1323
3681 OS/04/2000 2880
3682 OS/04/2000 2636
3683 OS/04/2000 1530
3684 OS/04/2000 2871
3685 OS/04/2000 1328
3686 OS/04/2000 2072
3687 OS/04/2000 1856
3688 OS/04/2000 2881
3689 OS/04/2000 1682
3690 OS/04/2000 1337
3691 OS/04/2000 1482
3692 US/04/2000 2080
3693 OS/04/2000 1339
3694 OS/04/2000 2872
3695 OS/04/2000 1557
3696 OS/04/2000 2076
3697 OS/04/2000 2217
3698 OS/04/2000 1345
3699 OS/04/2000 1349
3700 OS/04/2000 2875
3701 OS/04/2000 1655
3702 OS/04/2000 2876
3703 OS/04/2000 2873
3704 OS/04/2000 2874
3705 OS/04/2000 3073
VENDORNAME.
NORTH STAR TURF
NORTHSTAR IMAGING
OAKDALERENTAL CENTER
OLD DUTCH FOODS
ON SITE SANITATION
P. E. RA
PAGENET
PARR EMERGENCY PRODUCT SALES
PERA
PERSONNELDECISIONS
KYLEPETF R.SON
PROFESSIONALALT'Fp1�iATTVES, LLC
PROWIRE
R A MORTON
RICHRAAEN
RDJ SPECIALTIES, INC
ROSEVII.LE AREA SCHOOLS
ROYAL SHADE 8t AUNING CO.
KARENRUBEY
PAMItYAN
SAVOIE SUPPLY
SIMONSONLUMBER
SIRCHIE
L. CAROLSLETNER
SMOKE-EATER
ST PAUL STAMP WORKS
JOLINDASTAPLETGN
ST �T'E TREASURER
KARENSTENER
SUBURBANPROPANE
TAHO SPORTSWEAR
m •T "THEISEN
ANTHONYTHiJRY
TRACY-TRAPPFUEL
TRAVEL INDUSTRY ASC OF AMERICA
UNIFORMS UNLIIvIITED
UNITED ELECTRIC co
UNITED HOSPITAL
UNITED WAY OF ST PAUL
US POSTAL SERVICE
JIlvIVIVIAN
WEST GROUP
SUEWOLTER
SUSANWONG
PAULWOOD
YOU 8t ME TEES
PAYMENT AMOUNT
18.70
135.79
CHECK TOTAL:
326.97
892.16
69.30
17,409.59
837.66
10.60
13,677.59
130.00
110.04
1,470.75
135.82
19,129.65
45.00
134.86
198.00
203.00
222.19
50. 70
180.35
12,190.45
128.75
33.44
40.50
23.38
961.55
1,815.22
120.68
221.90
5,356.01
56.55
235.00
4,141.04
845.00,
1,020.39
70.94
540.00
73.00
3,009.50
12.00
290.24
9.32
27.00
227.66
650.00
$788,108.66
Page 3
�
CITY OF ROSEVIL
irenem
Accounts Payable
Computer Check Register Totals
CHECK NO CHECK DATE VENDOR NO
3706 OS/1 1/2000 2896
3707 OS/11/2000 2897
3708 OS/11/2000 2898
3709 OS/11/2000 1044
3710 OS/11/2000 1045
3711 OS/11/2000 2899
3712 OS/11i2C�00 3070
3713 OS/11/2000 1051
3714 OS/11/2000 1052
3715 OS/11/2000 1401
3716 OS/11/2000 2461
3717 OS/11/2000 2883
3718 OS/11/2000 2884
3719 OS/11/2000 1062
3720 0$/11/2000 1527
3721 OS/11/2000 1072
3722 OS/11/2000 2085
3723 OS/11/2000 1077
3724 OS/11/2000 1444
3725 OS/11/2000 1900
3726 OS/11/2000 1085
3727 OS/11/2000 1714
3728 OS/11/2000 1099
3729 OS/11/2000 1103
3730 OS/11/2000 2886
3731 OS/11/2000 1421
3732 OS/11/2000 1400
3733 OS/11/2000 1107
3734 OS/11/2000 1108
3735 OS/11/2000 1109
3736 OS/11/2000 1901
3737 OS/11/2000 1111
3738 OS/11/2000 1119
3739 OS/11/2000 1902
3740 OS/11/2000 1615
3741 OS/11/2000 2887
3742 OS/11/2000 1124
3743 OS/11/2000 1129
3744 OS/11/2000 2624
3745 OS/11/2000 1134
3746 OS/11/2000 1583
3747 OS/11/2000 2053
3748 OS/11/2000 1397
3749 OS/11/2000 3062
3750 OS/11/2000 3009
3751 )5/11/2000 1140
3752 OS/11/2000 1903
3753 OS/11/2000 2888
3754 OS/11/2000 1145
3755 OS/11/2000 2487
3756 OS/11/2000 1904
3757 OS/11/2000 1155
3758 OS/11/2000 1159
3759 OS/11/2000 2889
VENDORNAME
AAA STRIPING SERVICE CO
VALERJEALEXANDER
ALLINC
AMERIPRIDE
AMERIPRIDE
ARRIGOIJI BUILDERS CO
ASPEN EQUIP? �NT
AT & T BUSINESS SERVICE
AT 8t T CONSUMER LEASE SERVICE
AT dt T WIRELESS SERVICE
DENISBACKSEN
BARBER CONSTRUCTION CO INC
BATTERIES PLUS
BEARCOM INC
BFI WASTE SYSTEMS
BOYER FORD
BRITE-WAY
BROCK V�IITE CO
LONNTEBROKKE
KAR1vIITBiJI.MAN
BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE
BUI'TERFIELDCONSTRUCTION
CENTRAL LANDSCAPING
CHANHASSEN DINNER THEATER
CITIZEN'S LEAGUE
CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON
CITY OF ROSEVII.LE
CITY OF ST PAUL
CLAREY'S SAFETY EQUIPMENT
CLARY BUSINESS MACEIINE
THOMASCOFFIN
COLE PAPERS
COPY EQUIPMENT INC
BETHCOWAN
CUB FOODS
CURB MASTERS INC
DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW & URBAN
DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT
CORRIEDAVIS
DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
DMX MUSICMINNEAPOLIS
DOORWAYS
DUANE NIELSEN CO
EHWACHSCO
EGGHEAD.COM
ELECTRO WA''. CHMAN
ENVIROBATE METRO
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES INC
ESS BROTHERS 8t SONS
FOREST LAKE CONTRACTING INC
JOHNFOSTER
G 8t K SERVICES
GARTNERREFRIGERATION
GENERAL INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO
Printed: OS/11/0013:47
PAYMENT AMOUNT
18.50
33.00
186.30
241.62
76.26
25.00
411.88
26.28
11.69
29.67
32.00
25.00
63.88
976.00
863.26
57.54
84.50
43.58
1,001.80
33.00
20.00
3,620.75
25.00
100.00
50.00
9,621.10
6,689.96
54.00
1,063.00
3 18.44
10.00
222.33
798.42
120.00
150.00
18.50
11,196.23
549.51
11.58
100.00
105.00
72.00
239.50
1,389.36
898.96
143.78
360.00
18.50
943.34
18.50
7.00
62.74
2,149.81
22.27
Page 1
CHECK NO CHECK DATE VENDOR NO
3760 OS/1112000 1162
3761 OS/11/2000 1163
3762 OS/11/2000 1165
3763 OS/11/2000 1585
3764 OS/11/2000 1170
3765 OS/11/2000 1174
3766 OS/11/2000 1905
3767 OS/11/2000 1178
3768 OS/11/2000 1918
3769 OS/11/2000 1194
3770 OS/11/2000 1198
3771 OS/11/2000 1628
3772 OS/11/2000 1906
3773 OS/11/2000 2824
3774 OS/11/2000 1202
3775 OS/11/2000 2890
3776 OS/11/2000 1205
3777 OS/11/2000 1907
3778 OS/11/2000 1211
3779 OS/11/2000 1212
3780 OS/11/2000 1908
3781 OS/11/2000 1222
3782 OS/11/2000 1223
3783 OS/11/2000 2891
3784 OS/11/2000 1229
3785 OS/11/2000 1233
3786 OS/11/2000 1816
3787 OS/11/2000 1909
3788 OS/11/2000 1268
3789 OS/11/2000 1427
3790 OS/11/2000 1283
3791 OS/11/2000 2895
3792 05/11/2000 1546
3793 OS/11/2000 2865
3794 OS/11/2000 1848
3795 OS/11/2000 2892
3796 OS/11/2000 1468
3797 OS/11/2000 1603
3798 OS/11/2000 1910
3799 OS/11/2000 1565
3800 OS/11/2000 2619
3801 OS/11/2000 1387
3802 OS/11/2000 1471
3803 OS/11/2000 1429
3804 OS/11/2000 1911
3805 OS/11/2000 3004
3806 OS/11/2000 1304
3807 OS/11/2000 1679
3808 OS/11/2000 1642
3809 OS/11/2000 1375
3810 OS/11/2000 2800
3811 OS/il/2000 1439
3812 OS/11/2000 3038
3813 05111/2000 1306
3814 OS/11/2000 1823
3815 OS/11/2000 1693
3816 OS/11/2000 1323
3817 OS/11/2000 3075
VENDQRNAME
GENERAL TIRE SERVICE
GENLTINE PARTS-NAPA
GOODIN CO
GOPHER STAGE & LIGHTING
GRAINGER INC
GREEN VIEW INC
GREENIMAGE
HAR MAR LOCK & KEY
HUGOHENDRICKSON
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
JEANE THORPE INC
JENSEN, BELL, C01V�7ERSE, et al
TERRANCEJOHNSON
K & K SALES, INC
KATH
KILLMER ELECTRIC CO INC
KNOX LUMBER
LISALANE
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES
LEE LINES INC
DAVIDLINDGREN
MA ASSOCIATES
MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT
MATHEWS ENGINEERED PRODUCTS
MAUTZ PAINT
McMASTER-CARR
MARIANMILBDRIGE
RACHELMIXER
MN GFOA
MONARCH GRAPHICS
NATIONAL CAMERA EXCHANGE
NORTH STAR BANK
NORTH STAR INTERNATIONAL
NORTH SUBURBAN COMM FOUNDATION
NORTHERN TRAFFIC SUPPLY INC
NORTHWEST ASPHALT INC
NOW CARE MEDICAL CENTER
NSP
NYSCA
OLD LOG THEATRE
PERA
P J ENTERPRISES
P. E. RA
PERA
BLANCEPETTBRSSEN
PINNACLE SIGNS
PRIMARY TEACHERS BOOK CLUB
PRINTERS SERVICE
PROFESSIONAL ALTERNATIVES, LLC
PROWIRE
PUMP & METE�2 SERVICE INC
QUICKSILVER
R 8t B LOCK AND KEY
RADIX CORPORATION
NORMROLANDO
SAFEASSURE CONSULTANTS, INC
SAVOIE SUPPLY
SCHERER BROTHERS LUMBER
PAYMENT AMOUNT
351.67
36.73
136.13
1,546.92
778.16
173.60
16.81
7.99
100.00
5,636.79
1,545.74
2,196.75
25.00
102.10
209. 78
25.00
714.92
285.00
40,306.00
361.00
120.00
119.34
1,514.74
25.00
141.75
399.11
38.64
36.00
70.00
34.04
73.32
25,000.00
71.30
16,299.43
25.00
25.00
258.00
228.61
180.00
967.50
292.85
82.69
17,586.03
13,757.63
11.00
85.20
18.75
112.00
1900.00
66.34
298.22
323.26
336.40
164.89
2,356.90
1,569.00
156.56
251.96
Page 2
CHECK NO CHECK DATE VENDOR NO
3818 OS/11/2000 1440
3819 OS/11/2000 1779
3820 OS/11/2000 1912
3821 OS/11/2000 1913
3822 OS/11/2000 1762
3823 OS/11/2000 1914
3824 OS/11/2000 1915
3825 OS/11/2000 1916
3826 05/11/2000 1327
3827 OS/11/2000 3067
3828 OS/11J2G00 1650
3829 OS/I1/2000 1379
3830 OS/11/2000 2893
3831 OS/11/2000 3069
3832 OS/11/2000 1694
3833 OS/11/2000 1332
3834 OS/11/2000 1336
3835 OS/11/2000 2076
3836 OS/11/2000 2639
3837 OS/11/2000 1484
3838 OS/11/2000 1438
3839 OS/11/2000 2010
3840 OS/11/2000 2894
3841 OS/11/2000 1485
3842 OS/11/2000 1351
3843 OSI11/2000 2807
3844 OS/11/2000 1353
3845 OS/11/2000 1354
3846 OS/11/2000 2043
3847 OS/11/2000 2876
3848 OS/11/2000 1917
3849 OS/11/2000 3066
VENDORNAME
RICKSCHULTZ
SEARS COMMERCIAL ONE
GARYSEILER
STEVESHIELDS
SHUTTLEPRIlVT
SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER co
CINDYSMITH
CHRISSNYDER
ST CROIX RECREATION
ST PAUL VISITORS BUREAU
STARTRIBUNE
STEICHENS SPORTING GOODS
STEPANIAK CONSTRUCTION CO
STEPPMANUFACTURING
CHUCKSTIFI'ER
SUBURBAN TRUEVALUE
TA SCHIFSKY
UNITED ELECTRIC co
UNITEDRENTALS
US WEST
USPS WINDOW
VAN PAPER COMPANY
ALLISONVAN SLOOTEN
MAXEENVASHRO
VII.LAGE PLUM BI NG
TIlVIWARD
WARNING LITES OF MN
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF MN
MARY LOUWII.EY
SUEWOLTER
CHERYLZACCARDI
ZARNOTHBURSH WORKS
PAYMENT AMOUNT
42.25
90.88
CHECK TOTAL:
150.00
175.00
86.85
87.80
25.00
40.00
163.90
350.00
614.04
15.75
25.00
1,103.40
134.23
45.95
1,449.49
62.75
189.90
239.46
424.98
18.64
40.69
200.00
128.00
9.04
163.53
15,732.00
10.00
12.51
33.00
648.43
5207,4'�5.36
Page 3
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: 5/22/00
ITEM N0: F-1
DepartmentApproval: Manager Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Reports/Recommendations
Item Description: Approval for Relocation of Roseville Activity Center
Programs and OfFces
BACKGROUND
The Roseville Activity Center has been a vital part of the community serving over 52,000
citizen occurrences on an annual basis. The building, which was originally the Ralph
Reeder School of the Mounds View School District, was constructed in 1962. As a result of
the age and types of construction materials used, there are now several health and safety
issues relating to the continued use of this space. Staff has researched other sites for
relocating the community activities, parks and recreation offices and the storage of city and
community equipment. Using the criteria of a) finding the most usable space, b) the most
accessible and compatible space and c) the most affordable temporary space, staff
believes the best site for the temporary relocation of space is the Fairview Center owned
and operated by the Roseville Area Schools. Staff has negotiated for approximately 6,603
square feet of space at Fairview for offices, community meeting space and storage.
Initially only 5,115 square feet will be available but it is anticipated that the remaining 1,488
square feet will become available by the end of this year or early next year.
POLICY OBJECTIVE
The proposed relocation of activities and offices from the current Roseville Activity Center
to the Fairview Center is consistent with passed policy of providing the best community
space and staff office accommodations within the affordable budget.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The regular leased cost of approximately 6,603 square feet according to the Districts rental
scale is $80,950. Staff has negotiated an annual cost of $58,950 per year for three years
with an annual escalation of 3% per year. In addition there would be site-remodeling costs
of $18,000 and inkind services in the amount of 84,000. Either party may terminate the
lease with 90 days written notice. There is also a cost of approximately $55,000 for
furniture and equipment for the 10 staff inember offices. There are no other major costs
anticipated that are directly related to the relocation project. Staff will be developing a
report for the Council pertaining to the demolition and/or temporary boarding up of the
Roseville Activity Center after the October 15 relocation takes place.
STAFF RECCOMMENDATION
Based on the several health and safety issues relating to the continued use of the
Roseville Activity Center, staff recommends the authorization to enter into an agreement,
reviewed by the City Attorney, with the Roseville Area Schools for space at the Fairview
Center in the amount of $58,950, and approval for site improvements in the estimated
amount of $18,000 and for the purchase of office equipment and furniture in the amount of
$55,000.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to sign the lease agreement with the
Roseville Area Schools for space at the Faitview Center in the amount of $58,950, and the
approval for site improvements in the estimated amount of $18,000 and for the purchase of
office equipment and furniture in the amount of $55,000 with the moneys for the lease to
be taken from the approved Roseville Activity Center budget and the moneys for the
equipment and furniture to be taken from the Plant Fund and the moneys for the site
improvements to be taken from the Improvements Fund.
Real Property Lease Agreement Between
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT N0. 623
Roseville Area Schools
and the
City of Roseville's Park & Recreation Department
This lease agreement made and entered into by and between INDEPENDEN'P
SCHOOL DISTRICT N0. 623, Roseville, Minnesota, a political subdivision under the
laws of the State of Minnesota, whose address is 125 1 County Road B-2 West, Roseville,
Minnesota 55 113, hereinafter referred to as "Lessor", and the City of Roseville, a political
subdivision of the State of Minnesota, whose address is 2660 Civic Center Drive,
Roseville, MN hereinafter referred to as "Lessee".
In consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein and other
good and valuable consideration, the Lessor hereby leases to Lessee, and the Lessee leases
from Lessor, the premises hereinafter described, for the period, at the rental and upon the
terms and conditions hereinafter set forth:
Description of Premises: The Lessor hereby leases to the Lessee, and the
Lessee leases from the Lessor, those certain premises located at Fairview
Community Center, 1910 County Road B W, Roseville, MN 55113(hereinafter
referred to as the "lease premises" or "premises") described in Exhibit A-1 & A-2
attached identified as rooms 201 A& B, 204, 206, 120 & storage.
The lease premises consists of approximately 5,115 square feet, not including the
parking area. The real property upon which the leased premises is situated is
described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference and
entitled "Lega1 Description of the Property".
2. Lease Term: The term of this lease shall be for a period of three years,
commencing on the first day of October 1,2000, and expiring on the last da of
June, 2003, except as extended under the renewal options, if any, provide�herein.
3. Rent: The Lessee covenants to pay rent to Lessor, without demand, at Lessor's
office hereinafter designated, or at such other place as Lessor may from time to time
designate in writing, the sum of $23,925.47 for year one which consists of the (9)
nine month period from October 1,2000 through June 30, Z001 and a 3% increase
per year for full (12) twelve month periods for years two and three startin� in July
of each year of the remainder of the lease term, plus $22,000 per year in direct
services to the Fairview Community Center. The rental payments will be absolute
and unconditional in all events and will not be subj ect to any set-off, defense,
counterclaim or recoupment for any reason whatsoever.
Rent shall be paid in monthly installments during the full term hereof payable in
advance of the first day of each and every calendar month, as described in Exhibit
B. Monthly installments shall be payable and delivered to:
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT N0. 623
Attention: B. Anderson, Accountant
1251 County Road B-2 West
Roseville, MN 55 113
Page 1 of 13
4. Utilities and Other Expenses: 0perating and utility costs are included and are
part of the rent costs mentioned m Section 3.
5. Renewal Options: If Lessee desires to renew this Lease Agreement for an
additional term, Lessee sha11 give written notice to Lessor of Lessee's desire to
renew:
A. Not less than ninety (90) days pric.r to the expiration of the current lease and
B. In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 20 (E).
Lessor may respond to this notice of desire to renew the lease in one of the
followmg manners:
A. By offering to agree to a new lease with the same provisions, except the
rental rate which shall be increased by the larger of:
(1) The change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI-Ln, as established by
the U S Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics for the
Minneap olis-St. Paul area as measured from January of t�ie year in
which the lease begins to January of the year in which the lease
ends, or;
(2) 5% of the current rental rate.
B. By requiring a renegotiation of the lease agreement, or,
C. By refusing to re-lease the premises.
Lessor sha11 noti� Lessee of its' decision in this matter within thirty (30) calendar
days of receipt o Lessee's written notice of desire to renew.
Should Lessor choose to require negotiation of a new lease, the current lease sha11
expire on its designated expiration date and Lessee sha11 vacate the premises at the
end of the lease, unless a new lease is fully executed prior to the expiration of the
current lease.
6. Termination:
A. If this Lease is terminated early under any provision of this lease agreement,
and Lessee has aid rent for any time beyond the date of early termination,
Lessor sha11 re�und such overpayment to Lessee.
B. Either party sha11 have the right to terminate this lease with or without cause
upon giving not less than sixty. (60) day s written notice of termination to the
other, i. e. said lease shall tcrminat� � at the end of the second full month
following the month in which said notice is given.
In the event of such termination, Lessee sha11 have no further obligation to
make further rental pa�ments, except as to such unpaid tents as accrue or
accrued during Lessee s occupancy of the premises.
Page 2 of 13
C. It is further understood and agreed that in the event that reimbursement to
the Lessee from state and federal sources is not obtained or continued at a
level sufficient to a11ow for the continued operation of the Program, the
Lessee sha11 have the right to give written notice to Lessor of such
condition, in which case the obligation of each party hereto sha11 be
immediately canceled, other provisions of this lease agreement
notwithstanding.
In the event of such termination, Lessee shall have no further obligation to
make further rental payments except as to such unpaid rents as accrue or
accrued during Lessee's occupancy of the premises.
7. Permitted Use: The premises shall be used by the Lessee solely for the
following purposes: General office plus community meeting space for the City of
Roseville's Park andRecreaton Department.
The Lessor shall not use nor permit the use of the premises or any portion thereof,
for any other purpose whatsoever, without first obtaining the Lessor's written
consent.
8. Applicable Codes, Ordinances and Conditions:
A. At its own expense the Lessee agrees to comply with all codes, ordinances,
rules, regulations and conditions applicable to the leased premises.
B. The Lessor makes no representations or warranties that the leased premises
are zoned for the use contemplated by the Lessee. The Lessee shall have the
sole responsibility for and shall bear the cost of obtaining such permit or use
classification as is required by law for Lessee's intended use of the leased
premises. The Lessee agrees that the premises will be used only for the
purposes specified in Section Seven (7) of this lease agreement.
C. The Lessee shall not keep, permit or allow any non-prescribed drugs nor
any liquors or beverages of any intoxicating nature or tendency to be sold,
kept or tolerated on the leased premises.
D. The Lessee expressly warrants and agrees:
(1) that it will comply with a11 applicable federal and state environmental
laws and regulations in connection with its use and occupancy of the
property
(2) that it will not store, treat, refine, or dispose of any toxic or
hazardous suhs�ances above or below the premises during its
leasehold
(3� that it will indemnify and hold harmless the Lessor against any
claim, liability, damage, costs, penalties, or fines which Lessor may
be subj ected to as a result of the Lessee's use of the properry in
violation of applicable federal or state environmental laws and
regulations; provided, however, that Lessee shall not, in any event,
be responsible for any discharge, disposal, or storage of any toxic
Page 3 of 13
or hazardous substances which occurred prior to Lessee's
possession of the premises.
9. Rules and Regulations, Build Out, Alterations, Repair and
Maintenar_ce:
A. Rules and Reg��lati�ns� The Lessee shall at all times during the term of this
lease, at its sole cost and ;xpense:
(1) Furnish, install and maintain in the leased premises all of �essee°s
property necessary for Lessee's use;
(2) Maintain the leased premises in a clean, neat, sanitary and orderly
condition �
,
(3) Lessee sha11 not, without the prior written consent of a11 insurance
companies which have issued any insurance of any kind whatsoever
pursuant to any provision of this lease, sell, or suffer or permit to be
kept, used or sold in, upon or about the premises any substance or
material of an explosive, inflammable, radiological or toxic nature,
in such quantities which may be prohibited by any such insurance
policy, or which may endanger any part of the premises or its
occupants, business patrons or invitees;
(4) Comply with all governmental rules, regulations, ordinances,
statutes, and laws now or hereafter in effect pertaining to the
Lessor's use of the premises;
(5) Refrain from burning any trash, papers or garbage of any kind in or
about the premises;
(6) Store a11 trash and garbage within the leased premises in containers
so as not to create or permit any health or fire hazard.
(7) Refrain from using or permitting the use of the leased premises or
any portion thereof as living quarters, sleeping quarters or lodging
rooms;
(8) Refrain from bringing or harborin� any dogs, cats birds or other
animals in or upon the premises wrth the exception of any animal
that provides functional assistance to any employee, business
patrons or invitees, unless properly caged or contained so as not to
contarninate or effect waste on the prermses.
(9) Refrain from committing or suffer to be committed any waste upon
the premises.
B. Alterations: Lessee shall not make or suffer to be made any structural
changes, aterations, modifications or additions to the leased premises or
any part thereof without the express written consent of Lessor. In the event
Lessee desires to make any change, alteration, modification or addition in or
to the leased premises, Lessee shall submit to Lessor complete plans and
Page 4 of 13
specifications regarding such change, alteration, modification or addition.
Lessee agrees that no change, alteration, modification or addition in or to the
leased premises shall be commenced until such time as the complete plans
and specifications have been submitted to the Lessor and Lessor has
provided Lessee with written consent to said change, alteration,
modification, or addition. Any changes, alterations, modifications or
additions in or to the leased premises shall be at Lessee's sole cost and
expense and, except for Le:.s�'s trade fi�tures, equipment and furnishings,
shall become at once a part of realty and be the sole property of Lessor. If,
during, the term herein, any change, alteration, modification, addition or
correction shall be required by any law, rule or regulations or any
governmental authority to be made in or to the leased premises or any
portion thereof, Lessor shall be given notice thereof and any such change,
alteration, modification, addition or correction shall then be made by Lessee
at its sole cost and expense.
C. Re�air and Maintenance: The Lessee's acceptance of the leased premises
shall constitute evidence that the premises were, as of that date, in good,
clean and tenantable condition, and as otherwise represented by Lessor.
The Lessee shall maintain the premises and the property furnished under
this lease in good repair and tenantable condition.
D. Lessor Services• Lessor agrees to provide to Lessee as part of
the base rental consideration the following services:
(1) Minimum custodial services in respect to the lease premises. Said
custodial services shall be limited to basic dusting, trash pickup and
vacuuming.
(2) Maintenance of the outside grounds.
(3� Snow removal.
(4� Parking facilities.
(5) The leased premises contain window-mounted air conditioning units
or central air conditioning. These units will be maintained by
Lessor. Lessee must notify Lessor by telephone (the provisions of
paragraph 20 (E) notwithstanding) of window units which must be
repaired or replaced.
If Lessee desires to increase the capacity of the air conditioning in
the leased premises that are provided with window-mounted units,
Lessee may request the installation of additional air conditioning
units.
At Lessor's option, these additional units may be installed by
Lessor's staff. The cost of additional units, wiring, window
treatments, time and labor, and any other costs, shall be paid to
Lessor by Lessee within 30 days of installation.
Page 5 of 13
Lessor sha11 determine the specifications of additional units to be
installed. Any additional units installed under this provision shall be
and shall remain the property of Lessor.
E. Additional C'onditions: Subject to the rules and regulations of Lessor, the
following may be available to Lessee:
(1) Classrooms, boardrooms, gymnasium and/or multi-purpose rooms
may be available to the Lessee on a scheduled basis at no cost on a
space available basis.
(2) Additional custodial services in respect to the lease premises beyond
the minimal custodial services described in Section D above may be
made available by Lessor to Lessee at the sole cost and expense of
Lessee. Lessor shall bill Lessee for any such additional custodial
services at rates established by Lessor from time to time and
pay ment sha11 be due from Lessee within thirty (30) days after
billing.
10. Abandonment and Surrender of Premises:
A. Surrender �f Premises: Upon the expiration or sooner termination of the
term of this lease, Lessee shall, at its sole cost and expense, remove its
interior and exterior signs and all of its movable trade fixtures and
equipment, and other items which are hereinafter referred to as "Lessee's
property" from the premises and repair all damage thereto resulting from
such removal and Lessee shai: thereupon surrender the premises in the same
good and clean condition that they were on the commencement date,
reasonable wear and tear excepted.
Lessee shall remove Lessee's property from the premises in the manner
aforesaid immediately upon expiration or sooner termination of this lease
agreement.
In the event Lessee shall fail to remove any of Lessee's property as
provided herein, Lessor may, but is not obligated to, at Lessee's expense,
remove all of Lessee's property not so removed and repair all damage to the
premises resulting from such removal.
B. Abandonment: Lessee shall not abandon or vacate the premises at any time
during the term hereo£ If Lessee shall abandon, vacate or otherwise
surrender the premises, or be dispossessed thereof by process of law or
otherwise, the same shah constitute a default under this lease on the part of
the Lessee.
1 L Hold Over: In the event Lessee shall hold over or remain in possession of the
leased premises after expiration or termination of this lease agreement without the
written consent of the Lessor, Lessee shall be obligated for the rent which Lessee
was obligated to pay for the month immediately preceding the end of the term of
this lease agreement for each month or any part thereof of any such hold over
period.
Page 6 of 13
In the event of any unauthorized holding over, Lessee shall indemnify the Lessor
against all claims for damages by any other Lessee to whom the Lessor may have
leased a11 or any part of the leased premises covered hereby effective upon the
termination of this lease agreement.
12. Quiet Possession: The Lessor agrees that the Lessee upon paying the rentals
and other payments herein required, and upon Lessee's performance of all of the
provisions, covenants and conditions of this lease on its part to be kept and
performed, may quietly have, hold and enjoy the premises during the term of this
lease.
13. Nuisance: Lessee agrees to conduct its business and operations and control its
agents, employees, invitees and visitors in such manner as not to create any
nuisance, or interfere with, annoy or disturb any other Lessee or the Lessor in its
operation of the premises.
14. Fire or Other Casualty: In the event of a fire or other casualty in the leased
premises, Lessee shall immediately give notice thereof to Lessor. If the leased
premises, through no fault of Lessee, its agents, employees, invitees or visitors,
shall be partially destroyed by fire or other casualty so as to render the leased
premises all or partially untenantable, the rental herein shall be proportionately
abated thereafter until such time as the leased premises are made tenantable.
In the event of the total destruction of the leased premises without fault or neglect of
the Lessee, its agents, employees, invitees, or visitors, or from such cause the same
shall be so damaged that Lessor shall decide not to rebuild, then all rent owed up to
the time of such destruction shall be made by Lessee and this lease agreement shall
terminate.
15. Hold Harmless: Lessor, its agents, and representatives shall not�be liable to
Lessee, or Lessee's agents, servants, employees, customers, invitees, or visitors
for any damage to person or property caused by any act, omission or neglect of
Lessee, and Lessee agrees to hold Lessor harmless from all claims for any such
damage.
16. Insurance and Liability:
A. �;, At all times during the term and renewal term of this lease, Lessee
shall keep in full force and effect at its expense a policy or policies of
liability insurance, with respect to the leased premises, or a state approved
self funded liability insurance program that meets or exceeds state statutory
requirements.
If not using a self funded program, coverage required will be as follows:
(1) Not less than Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000) for
injury or death to any one person;
(2) Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($750,000) for injury
or death to more than one person resulting from one occurrence.
Page 7 of 13
As of January 1, 2000, this amount shall increase to One Million
Dollars ($1,000,000);
(3) One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) for damage to property.
B. �pertv Insuranceo Lessee shall be responsible for obtaining insurance on
its trade fixtures, equipment, supplies, fi�tures, furnishings including
furniture, carpeting, wall coveri.zgs, drapes and other personal property
owned by Lessee and located upon the leased premises.
C. W a i v e r o�f = To the e�tent such waiver does not void or
diminish the coverage under any policy, Lessor and Lessee hereby waive
any rights each may have against the other on account of any loss or damage
occasioned to Lessor or Lessee, as the case may be, or their respective
property, to the e�tent such loss or damage is covered by insurance by
either Lessor or Lessee property insurance policies.
D. C;ertificates of Tnsurance; A certificate issued by the insurance carrier for
each policy of insurance required to be maintained by Lessee hereunder
shall be delivered to the Lessor on or before the commencement date hereof
and thereafter, as to policy renewals, thirty (30) days prior to the expiration
of the term of each such policy.
Each of said certificates of insurance and each such policy of insurance
required to be maintained by Lessee hereunder shall expressly evidence
insurance coverage as required by this lease and shall contain an
endorsement or provisions requiring not less than ten (10) days written
notice to Lessor prior to the cancellation. Said Certificates of Insurance
shall meet statutory requirements.
E. Nothing in this lease agreement shall constitute a waiver by the Lessor or
Lessee of any statutory limits or exceptions on liability.
17. Eminent Domain:
A. Fntire Premises: If all or substantially all of the leased premises shall be
taken by any public authority under the power of eminent domain, then the
term of this lease shall cease as of the day possession shall be taken by such
public authority.
B. Partial Taking: If there is a partial taking of the leased premises under
eminent domain, both Lessee and Lessor, at the sole option of either, shall
have the right to terminate this lease. Either party shall notify the other in
writing within ten (10) days after such taking of their election to terminate.
If neither party elects to termmate pursuant to this section, all of the terms
herein provided shall continue if � effect, except that the rent shall be reduced
in proportion to the amount of the premises taken and Lessor shall at its
own cost and expense make all necessary repairs or alterations to the basic
building and interior work so as to constitute the remaining leased premises
a complete architectural unit.
Page 8 of 13
C. Damages: If the leased premises or any portion thereof shall be taken
condemned for any public purpose to such an extent as to render the leased
premises untenantable, this lease agreement sha11, at the option of either
parry, forthwith cease and terminate. It is agreed that all proceeds from any
taking or condemnation of the leased premises sha11 belong to and be paid to
the Lessor.
18. Default by Lessee: If default shall be made in the payment of any sum to be
paid by Lessee under this lease agreement, and default sha11 continue for thirty (30)
days, or default shall be made in the performance of any of the other covenants of
conditions which Lessee is required to observe and to perform, and such default
shall continue for thirry (30) days, or if the interest of Lessee under this lease
agreement shall be levied on under execution or other legal process, or if any
petition sha11 be filed by or against Lessee to declare Lessee as bankrupt or to delay,
reduce or modify Lessee's debts or obligations, or if any petition shall be filed or
other action taken to reorganize or modify Lessee's capital structure if Lessee be a
corporation or other entity, or if Lessee be declared insolvent according to law, or if
any assignment of Lessee's properry shall be made for the benefit of creditors, or if
a receiver or trustee is appointed for Lessee or its property, or if Lessee shall
abandon the leased premises during the term of this lease agreement or any
renewals or extension thereof, then Lessor may treat the occurrence of any one or
more of the foregoing events as a breach of this lease agreement, provided that no
such levy, execution, legal process or petition filed against Lessee shall constitute a
breach of this lease agreement if Lessee sha11 vigorously contest the same by
appropriate proceedings and shall remove or vacate the same within sixty (60) days
from the date of its creation , service or filing and thereupon, at Lessor's option,
Lessor may have any one or more of the following described remedies in addition
to a11 other rights and remedies provided at law or in equity:
A. Lessor may terminate this lease agreement and forthwith repossess the
leased premises and remove all persons or property therefrom, and be
entitled to recover forthwith as damages a sum of money equal to the total
of:
(1) The cost of recovering the leased premises
(2) The unpaid rent owed at the time of termination, plus interest
thereon from due date at the maximum rate permitted by applicable
law
(3) The balance of the rent for the remainder of the term less the fair
market rental value of the leased premises for said period
(4) Any other sum of money and damages owed by Lessee to Lessor; or
B. Lessor may terminate Lessee's right of possession (but not the Lease
Agreement) and may repossess the leased premises without demand or
notice of any kind to Lessee, and without terminating this lease agreement,
in which event Lessor may, but shall be under no obligation to do so, relet
the same for the account of Lessee for such rent and upon such terms as
shall be satisfactory to Lessor. For the purpose of such reletting Lessor is
authorized to decorate or to make any repairs, changes, alterations or
Page 9 of 13
additions in or to the leased premises that may be necessary or convenient,
and
(1) if Lessor sha11 fail or refuse to relet the leased premises; or
(2) if the same are relet and a suff'icient sum sha11 not be realized from
such reletting after paying the unpaid gross rental due hereunder
earned but unpaid at the t:.ne or` reletting plus interest thereon at the
maximum rate permitted by applicable law, the cost of recovering
possession, and all of the costs and expenses of such decorations,
repairs, changes, alterations and additions and the expense of such
reletting and of the collection of the rent accruing theref'rom to
satisfy the rent provided for in this lease agreement to be paid;
then Lessee sha11 pay to Lessor as damages a sum equal to the amount of the
rental reserved in this lease agreement for such period or periods, or if the
leased premises have been relet, Lessee shall satisfy and pay any such
deficiency upon demand therefore from time to time and Lessee agrees that
Lessor may file suit to recover any sums falling due under the terms of this
article from time to time on one or more occasions without Lessor being
obligated to wait until expiration of the term of this lease agreement; and that
no delivery or recovery of any portion due Lessor hereunder shall be any
amount not theretofore reduced to judgment in favor of Lessor, not shall
such reletting be construed as an election on the part of the Lessor to
terminate this lease agreement unless a written notice of such intention to be
given to Lessee by Lessor. Notwithstanding any such reletting without
termination, Lessor may at any time thereafter elect to terminate this lease
agreement for such previous breach.
19. Waiver: Failure of Lessee or Lessor to declare any default immediately upon
occurrence thereof, or delay in taking any action in connection therewith, sha11 not
waive such default, but Lessor or Lessee shall have the right to declare any such
default at any time thereafter.
20. Miscellaneous:
A. � Assi ment ��ibletting: The Lessee shall not assign,
mortgage, pledge, or encumber this Lease of the leasehold estate hereby
created or any interest therein, nor sublet the premises or any portion
thereof, without the prior written consent of Lessor. In the absence of the
express written consent of the Lessor, which consent shall not be
unreasonably withheld, no assignment, mortgage, pledge, encumbrance, or
subletting shall be deemed to be binding upon Lessor nor act as a release of
Lessee from any of the provisior.s, covenants and conditions of this Lease.
B. Lessor,� g� Assi ment �jg� It is agreed that Lessor may at any
time assign or transfer its interest as Lessor in and to this Lease, or any part
thereof, and may at any time sell or transfer its interest in the fee of the
premises, or its interest in and to the whole or any portion of the premises.
Page 10 of 13
Provided however, any such assignment or transfer shall be subj ect to this
lease.
C. Right of Access. Lessor, and its authorized agents and representatives,
shall be entitled to enter the premises during regular business hours
following notice to Lessee for the purpose of inspecting the premises,
repairing the premises or building and for such other purposes as the Lessor
deems appropriate. Tl �. Lessor shall, in connection with the exercise of the
foregoing right of access, use due diligence to cause as little inconvenience,
disturbance or other damage or loss to Lessee as may be reasonably
possible under the circumstances.
In addition to the foregoing, the Lessor, and its authorized agents and
representatives, shall be entitled to enter the premises for the purpose of
exhibiting the same to prospective purchasers or lessees following notice to
Lessee in such manner as will not unreasonably interfere with Lessee's use.
Access to the premises will be provided to the Lessee during normal
operating hours and for special activities as arranged with Lessor.
D. Esto��,Certificate �gd Subordination_ The Lessee agrees at any time(s)
during the term of this Lease, and within ten (10) days after demand
therefore by Lessor, to execute and deliver to Lessor or to any proposed
mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary or purchaser, a certificate in recordable form
certifying that this lease is in full force and effect and that there are no
defenses or offsets thereto, or, stating such defenses or offsets as are
claimed by Lessee, and the dates to which a11 rentals have been paid.
The Lessee agrees upon request of Lessor to subordinate this lease and its
rights hereunder to the lien of any mortgage, or other encumbrance, together
with any conditions, renewals, extensions, or replacements thereof, and to
execute and deliver upon request by Lessor, such documents as may be
required to effectuate such subordination; provided, however, thatLessee
shall not be required to effectuate such subordination, unless the mortgagee
or other encumbrance sha11 first agree in writing, for the benefit of the
Lessee, that so long as Lessee is not in default under any of the provisions,
covenants or conditions of this lease, that neither this lease nor any of the
rights of Lessee hereunder shah be terminated or modified or be subj ect to
termination or modification other than as �rovided for in the lease, nor sha11
Lessee's possession of the premises be disturbed or interfered with, by any
action or proceedmg to foreclose said mortgage or other encumbrance.
E. ��, Any and all notices and demands by or from Lessor to Lessee, or
from Lessee to Lessc:, shall be in writing and shall be validly `given or
made if served either personally or if deposited in the United States ma�l,
certified or registered, p� ,.:tage p.epaid, return receipt requested.
If such notice or demand be served personally, service shall be conclusively
deemed made at the time of such personal service. If such notice or demand
be served by registered or certified mail in the manner herein provided,
service shah be deemed conclusively to have been made forty-eight (48)
Page 11 of 13
hours after the deposit thereof in the United States mail addressed to the
party whom such notice or demand is to be given.
Any notice or demand to Lessor shall be addressed to Lessor at:
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT N0. 623
Roseville Area Schools
Attention: John : hein
125 1 County Road B-2 V�':,��
Roseville, MN 55 113
Any notice or demand to Lessee shall be addressed to Lessee at:
City of Roseville
Parks and Recreation Department
F. Work Notification; The Lessor agrees to notify the Lessee of any work that
could cause harm to the Lessee's employees or anyone else who may be on
the premises due to the Lessee's occupancy of the lease premises. In
addition, Lessor agrees to disclose to Lessee all known information
regarding the location of asbestos or other hazardous substances on said
premises as well as, without limitation, any plans to abate or manage the
same in a timely enough fashion so that Lessee may take steps as it may
deem necessary to protect the health and welfare of its employees and
invitees.
G. - Assigns: The terms, provisions, covenants and conditions
contained in this lease shall apply to, bind and inure to the benefit of the
heirs, executors, administrators, legal representatives, successors and
assigns (where assignment is permitted) of Lessor and Lessee, respectfully.
H. Severabilitv: If any term or provision of this lease agreement, or the
application thereof to any person or circumstances shall to any extent be
invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this lease agreement, or the
application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those
as to which it is invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby, and
each provision of this lease agreement shall be valid and shall be enforceable
to the extent permitted by law.
�av^ I�i This lease agreement shall be governed by and construed
in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. All rights and
remedies of Lessor under this lease agreement sha11 be cumulative and none
shall exclude any other rights or remedies permitted by law. Any legal
action related to this lease shall be venued in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
J. �,Qrney's Fees: If an action is brought by either party to enforce this lease
agreement, or any part thereof, or to collect any payments hereunder, or to
become due hereunder, or to recover �ossession of the lease premises, the
prevailing party shall be entitled to reimbursement from the other party for
all reasonable costs and expenses incurred, including but not limited to,
reasonable attorney's fees.
Page 12 of 13
WHEREFORE, the parties hereto have executed this lease agreement on the respective
dates set forth below.
LESSEE:
City of Roseville Park & Recreation
Depamnent
I:
Dated: _. 2�_
I:
Dated: , 20
LESSOR:
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
N0. 623, Roseville Area Schools
BY
Chairperson
Dated: , 20
Clerk
Dated: , 20
Page 13 of 13
�I
�' of ��et�ille Park & Recreation Deoartment
located at Fairview Community Center, 1910 County Road BW, Rosevilie, MN
FAIl�T.IIIV FIIZST F�R
_�
141 140
],�3
145 1�
147 146
�
� ��
149 148 �
� �s�� ��
251 1.5�
Me�
Kit
� _
iao
��
�— —
L ( �A6 �08 � ����
L
�
1(i3 u6 114 112
105
118
107
109
133 Bav.
I--Ii _
�a �2 � I 12a ,
0
J
,
�. l �� ��� 1
�' Rmm
�
�
Exhibit A-1
2000/O1
Exhibit ��
�y Q� vi �,� � Recreati�n DeQ$rtment
located at Fairview Community Center, 1910 County Road BW, Roseviile, MN
�': �i� _Ial _ ��I�N � _I_• ;�
'03 �.� �2018
�� I
�. L 1 I f
Z00
Z�
8
205'
206
207
209 I � �on
216
214 I I �
B'7�rs
Z�OGI4
�
�.1 GU?7Y
P�L
Exhibit A2
2000/O1
�
�
N
.�
N
�
O
�
� �
N r3
� � "�
� � O
�Q�
�
� '�^.�J �"
�
� � o
�ao
��
���
a S'�-- a�
� �
�a a�
� �' U
� ���
�� �
� O �
W �v
Uu
.�
w
�
�
$ti
6)
�.+
S.
CC
�
�
i--�
.M..i
�
w
�
�
0
�
�
o �
s,
w y
o�
M �
� �
h�
ce
� �
bA �
� a�
o �
w w
,-� �
� �
� �
h �
C =
� �
�e ^�
� �
o -�
�i" „��
� �
� �
��
�
�o
�
w �
c..
o �
'.� ;�
o �
'� �
�. �
��
� �
��
� -�
� �
ce 4=
� w
ce �
� :�
� �
w �
� w
� �
��
� �
� �
��
� �
��
ce r..,
� o
r.., �
a� r..�
� o
4. r..,
a� �
"� y
o '�
.� �
4d y
� Wi
ce
u� �
�
� �
w y
c.. S'
o F,
� ti
� �
��
��.. �
� �
F� O
_
.i�i
-I�
ir
�
a
�
�
.--� �+
��„ O
w �
O �
'.�." �."
00 �
� �
n �
M
C� O�
O� C�
:/�! tr9
� O`�a'OO
r �
�
CC '� '� �
N � h N �
� e+1�0^"" � �
0 h N � � � M
A H 4�9 H b�9 � K
�I
C
�
�,
°" ����o
� �;NNNo
� � � � � M
U �ss �ss �ss �ss H
� o � o 0 0
L pp r N N N
Q �O N l� l� l�
.-� .-�
0
0
�
"�
0
.�
C�
C
w
� �
� �
o��� o
N o 0 o w
�c�c�c��
g
N
M
�
O
M
4, N
O ..i �
� � r�.+
�
� o �
� O °�
�,
w
�
U
�
.�
�
�
�
0
U
N
.�
�.
w
w
�
.V.
.�
�
r..�
U
s°�,
^'�
N
�
�
�
� �
�' O
� �
�--I C".
�--I 4�.
...� ,�
C� M
� �
� �
69 H
8 CNp N N N N
� � ONO O�0 � �
cnnaa
N �-+
!A H b�4 H H �
�
����o
�;NNNo
M M M M M
����
�����
o � o 0 0
pp r N N N
�O N l� l� l�
.-� .-�
� �
� �
o����
N o 0 0 �
� e� e� e� �
8
N
�
C
.'i
M "�
W A
Oa
N N
�:
�,
� �
� 7
�,
�
�
U
�'
�
�
�
�
0
U
u
�
0
r..,
c.°��
.�
a�
�
r..�
C.J
�
:�
�
�
�--.
�
� r,,,
� �
� O
� �
�--I C".
� �
M K1
� �
V1 V'f
ir9 H
�1Q � C C � ,�_',
h�.N-�.N.� � M
00
�[�CO� � N
fAKb9H 6R �
����o
�NNNo
M M M M M
����
�����
o � o 0 0
pp r N N N
�O N l� l� l�
.-� .-�
� �
� �
o��� �
N000 �
�e�e�e��
M
0
0
N
0
M
�
M �
W
�
M N
� �
� �
� 7
�.
�
�
U
�
.�
�
�
�
0
U
u
�w
0
�
�
.�
�
r.+
c�
s°�,
:�
�
�
� O
O
O
� N
� �
CC
W �
• .._ ..
Department Approval
�
,
Item Description:
Back�round
i�
Request for Council Action
Manager Approval
_i�
Safe Gun Storage Campaign 2000
Date: May 22, 2000
Item Number: F _ 2
Agenda Section
Reports/tiecommendations
Attached is a resolution for the Safe Gun Storage Campaign 2000 for Council consideration.
Council Action Reauested
Approval of the attached Resolution for the Safe Gun Storage Campaign 2000.
EXTRACT OF MINUTE OF MEETING
OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
*****************
Pursuant to the due call and note thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville,
County of Ramsey, Minnesota was duly held on the 22nd day of May, 2000 at 6:30 p.m.
The following members were present:
and the following were absent:
Member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION
AUTHORKING THE ROSEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO PARTNER WITH THE RAMSEY
COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AND THE ST. PAUURAMSEY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
HEALTH TO BUILD AND TO DEVELOP A PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN TO EXPAND THE SAFE GUN
STORAGE CAMPAIGN THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY OF ROSEVILLE.
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
Approximately 1,500 children each year are rushed to hospital emergency rooms with
accidental gun injuries; and
Nearly 40,000 people are killed and more than 100,000 injured with firearms annually in
the United States; and
Every day in America, sixteen children, age 10 and under, are killed in gun homicides,
suicides, and unintentional shootings; and
Hospital and emergency rooms treat four children for gunshot wounds for every child
killed by gunfire; and
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention asserts that the cost per person of
firearms fatalities are the highest of any injury related death; and
Guns are present in 51 % of Minnesota households, with an average of four guns for
each of these households; and
53% of gun owners surveyed did not lock up their guns; and
Gun owners in Minnesota report their primary usage as hunting (75%) other recreation
(14%), other (8%), and self-defense (3%); and
Gun locks, also known as child safety locks, act to prevent injury and death because
they prevent a gun from being fired; and
WHEREAS, United States' gun manufacturers: Smith & Wesson, Strum, Ruger and Co., Glock,
Beretta, Taurus Firearms, Heckler and Kock, H&$1871, SigArms, and O.F. Mossberg
and Sons, have recently begun to include trigger locks with their new guns,
representing 80% of new handgun sales; and
WHEREAS, New gun sales account for slightly more than one third of the guns acquired by
Minnesota residents, with the remainder being obtained as gifts, inheritance, private
sale, and gun shows, all of which do not require that a trigger lock or other safety
device be included; and
WHEREAS,
RESOLVED,
RESOLVED,
RESOLVED,
Smith 8� Wesson and Master Lock research found that 83% of gun �wners are
concerned about the safety and security of their firearms when they are not in use; and
That the Board of Ramsey County Commissioners and received donations of $5,500 to
help defray the costs of purchasing gun locks and provide educational materials to the
public emphasizing the importance of Safe Gun Storage; and Be It Further
That the City Council of the City of Roseville supports the expansion of the Safe Gun
Storage Campaign services to include not onlv the City of St. Paul but also these
suburban Ramsey County cities that wish to join as partners; and Be It Further
That the City of Roseville has the opportunity to partner with the Ramsey County
Manager's Office and the Saint Paul/Ramsey County Department of Public Health to
expand the Safe Gun Storage Campaign;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roseville City Council authorize the City of Roseville
Police Department to partner with the Ramsey County Manager's Office and the Saint
Paul/Ramsey County Department of Public Health to build and to develop a publicity
campaign to expand the Safe Gun Storage Campaign throughout the community of
Roseville.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member and upon a
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.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
)
) SS
)
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualfied 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 CI Council held on the "' day of , 2000, with the original
thereof on file in my office.
WITNESS MY HAND officially as such manger this
�y�_1�
"' day of , 2000.
Steven R. Sarkozy, City Manager
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: 5/22/00
ITEM NO.: F- 3
Department ApprovaL• Manager Reviewed: Agenda Section:
� Reports/Recommendations
Item Description: Re�ection of bid and authorization to re-bid -- Larpenteur Avenue Streetscape,
City Project P-S W-99- 14
Background: On December 13, 1999, the City Council approved plans and specifications and
authorized the advertisement for bids for the Larpenteur Avenue Streetscape proj ect. This proj ect is
being built in conjunction with the reconstruction of Larpenteur Avenue by Ramsey County. Bids for
this project were opened on Tuesday, May 16, 2000. Only one bid was received.
Jay Brothers, Inc. $2,167,750.05
(Engineer's estimate = $2,400,000)
While the one bid is within the price range expected for this project, staff is uncomfortable with the lack
of additional bids. Considering the large size of this proj ect, it is desirable to have multiple bids to
compare between contractors and to ensure that the proj ect was bid within a competitive environment.
The proj ect specifications limit the amount of contractor mobilization to 5% of the total proj ect amount.
Jay Brothers' bid does not conform to this provision of the specifications and includes mobilization of �'
approximately 9%.
The bulk of this project is expected to be constructed after the State Fair (September 5, 2000). Therefore
time is available to m-solicit bids. Considering the lack of multiple bidders, accommodating proj ect
schedule and the small discrepancy in the one bid received, staff recommends that the Council rej ect all
bids and direct staff to re-advertise for a new bid opening on June 20, 2000.
Project schedule: If approved, the following schedule is proposed:
May 22
May 23, June 13
May 26, June 16
June 20
June 26
September 5
Council rej ects bids and orders re-advertisement for bids
Advertisement for Bids in Roseville Review
Advertise. .ient for Bids in Construction Bulletin
Open bids at 11:00 a.m.
Council considers award of contract
Bulk of Construction to begin (same as old schedule)
Financial implications: Estimated project costs include Engineering time and contingencies.
Source � Estimated Cost
City of Roseville Cost Assessments $278,300
General taxes $99,668
TEA21 Grant (Federal) $1,983,415
Cit of SaintPaul $118 885
Total Estimated Proiect Cost $ 2,479,268
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Adoption of a resolution rejecting bids for project P-SW-99-14 and ordering the re-advertisement for
bids for a bid opening on June 20, 2000.
Prepared by: Karl Keel
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING
OF CITY COUNCIL
OF 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,
Minnesota, was held in the City Hall in said C�ty on Monday, May 22, 2000 at 6:30 o'clock p.m.
The following members were present: and the following were absent:
Council member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION XXXX
RESOLUTION REJECTING BIDS AND ORDERING RE-BID FOR LARPENTEUR
AVENUE STREETSCAPE, CITY PROJECT P-SW-99-14
WHEREAS, on December 13, 1999, the City Council approved plans and specifications and
authorized the advertisement for bids for Larpenteur Avenue Streetscape project;
AND WHEREAS, the bids for this project were opened on Tuesday, May 16, 2000;
AND WHEREAS, only one bid was received from Jay Brothers for $2,167,750.05;
AND WHEREAS, the project specifications limit the amount of contractor mobilization to 5% of the
total project amount, Jay Brothers, Inc. bid includes mobilization of approximately 9%;
AND WHEREAS, the bulk of the project is expected to be constructed after September 5, 2040;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Council rejects the bid from Jay Brothers, Inc. opened
on May 16, 2000 and;
BE IT FURTHUR RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Roseville, Minnesota:
The City Manager shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the Roseville Review, the official
newspaper, and in the Construction Bulletin, an advertisement for bids. The advertisement for bids
for this project shall be published as required by law, shall specify the work to be done, shall call the
bids on the basis of cash payment for such work, �hal1 state that the bids will be received by the City
Manager and Public Works Director as follows:
Larpenteur Avenue Streetscape June 20, 2000, at 11:00 a.m.
at which time they will be publicly opened in the City Hall by the City Manager and
subsequently be considered by the Council; and that no bids will be considered unless sealed
and filed with the Manager and accompanied by a cash deposit, certified check or bid bond
payable to the City of Roseville for ten percent of the amount of such bid.
2
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member , upon a
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.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, Minnesota, do
hereby certify that I have carefvlly compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a
regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on the 22nd day of May, 2000, with the original
thereof on file in my office, and the same is a full, true and complete transcript.
Adopted by the Council this 22nd day of May, 2000.
(SEAL) City Manager
Department Approval:
1�
Item Description:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Manager Reviewed:
�� - .:
DATE: 5/22/00
ITEM NO.: F-4
Agenda Section:
Reports/Recommendations
Award of 2000 Contract C- Pathway Paving; City Proj ect M-00-03
Background: The City maintains about 44 miles of off- road pathways. The Public Works staff has
put together a Pavement Management Plan for the maintenance of these pathways. As a part of this
inventory the condition of each path segment basin was rated. 2000 Contract C consists of the
rehabilitation of the pathways in Materion & Oasis Park, as well as part of the Lexington Ave Pathway.
Bids were solicited during the last part of April and first part of May. The bids for 2000 Contract C-
Pathway Paving Project were opened on Wednesday, May 10, 2000.
Policy objectives: Based on past practice, the City Council has awarded the contract to the lowest
responsible bidder. In the case of the 2000 Contract C- Pathway Paving Project, the lowest bidder is
T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. of North St. Paul, Minnesota.
Financial implications: We received 8 bids for this improvement. The engineer's estimate for the 2000
Contract C- Pathway Paving Project was $25,75U.00. The low bid submitted by T. A. Schifsky & Sons,
Inc is $23,615.50 or 8% lower than the engineer's estimate. The following is a list of the bids received:
Contract costs for the 2000 Contract C- Pathway Paving Project are part of the approved 2000 budget
and will be funded using the pathway maintenance fund.
Staff recommendation: Staff recommends the Council accept the bid and award 2000 Contract C-
Pathway Paving Project to T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. of North St. Paul, Minnesota.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Approval of a resolution awarding bid for 2000 Contract C- Pathway Paving Project in the amount of
$23,615.50 to T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. of North St. Paul, 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, Minnesota, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was duly held in the City Hall at 2660
Civic Center Drive, Roseville, Minnesota, on Monday, the 22nd day of May, 2000, at 6:30
o'clock p.m.
The following members were present: and the following members were absent:
Councilmember introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION XXXX
RESOLUTION AWARDING BID FOR 2000 CONTRACT C-
PATHWAY PAVING PROJECT
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
Wednesday, May 10, 2000, at 11:00 a.m., opened and tabulated according to law and the
following bids were received complying with the advertisement:
BIDDER AMOUNT
T.A. Schifs & Sons Inc. $23,615.50
Ace Blackto Inc. $25,742.50
TowerAsnhalt $26.625.00
Barber Construction Co. Inc. $26,993.49
Hat-drives Inc. $28,470.00
Frattalone Pavin . Inc. $28.650.00
DMJ Cor oration $33,436.00
As halt S ecialties Co. 38,262.00
WHEREAS, it appears that T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. of North St. Paul, Minnesota is the lowest
responsible bidder at the tabulated price of $23,615.50; 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 contract with
T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc.for $23,615.50 in the name of the City of Roseville for the above
improvements according to the plans and specifications thereof heretofore approved by the
City Council and on file in the office of the City Manager.
2. The City Manager is 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 next
lowest bidder shall be retained until contracts have been signed.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by and upon a
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.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, County
of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby �ertify that I have carefully compared the attached and
foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the22nd day of May,
2000, with the original thereof on file.in my office.
WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 22nd day of May, 2000.
Steven R. Sarkozy, City Manager
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Department ApprovaL• Manager Reviewed:
�' C�-
��
Item Description: 2000 Material Bids
DATE: OS/22/00
ITEM: F-5
Agenda Section:
Reports/Recommendations
Background: Each year the Street Department receives bids for materials, which are used as
part of the maintenance operation. They include FA-1 sand for ice control, FA-2 aggregate for
seal coating, bituminous materials for road repair, asphalt emulsion for seal coating, and Class 5
gravel for base repair.
Poticy 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 higher than the budgeted material costs proj ected for 2000.
Discussion of bids: Bids were opened on May 17, 2000. All materials were bid higher than
1999. The greatest increases were reflected in seal coat oil and bituminous materials. The
substantial increase is due to higher crude prices in the oil markets, as well as materials that are
delivered due to trucking prices which rise as pump price for diesel fuel increases. FA-1 sand for
snow and ice control will be bid at a later date. The following is a comparison of the bids
received and the 1999 price comparison.
BIDDER
Class 5 crushed limestone
Camas
Bryan Rock Products
1999 price/del $7.85/ton
FA-2 Class A Att�re�ate
Meridian Aggregate
Midwest Asphalt
DresserTraprock
1999 price/del $15.75/ton
L7NIT PRICE
WILL/CALL
$ 5.25
5.67
$10.40
17.00
16.70
L7NIT PRICE
DELIVERED
$8.17
8.82
$16.65
19.80
21.45
Tvne 32B Bituminous
Bituminous Roadways
Commercial Asphalt
Midwest
1999 price will call $21.25/ton
Tme 41 A Bituminous
Bituminous Roadways
Midwest
Commercial Asphalt
1999 price will call $21.75/ton
TYpe 41B Bituminous
Bituminous Roadways
Commercial Asphalt
Midwest
1999 price will call $21.75/ton
CRS-2Asphalt
Koch Materials
1997 price/del $.5255/ga1
1998 price/del $.4880/gal
1999 price/del $.5280/gal
$23.50
27.35
25.95
$25.95
25.95
28.60
$24.25
27.35
25.95
$0.75 $0.7687
Staff Recommendation: With the exception of`he Type 32B, Type 41A, and Type 41B
asphalt, the materials are normally delivered to the City.
The bids received vary from a 4-5% increase for aggregate material to 19-45% increase in costs
for asphalt materials. Overall, they represent an increase in cost for maintenance materials for
2000. The bituminous materials and oil markets have increased this past year. Historically, this
market is very volatile. Acceptance of the low bidder is recommended in each case, maintenance
programs will be reviewed to try to keep overall costs within budget.
Bituminous materials are picked up at the mixing plant by City staff with City trucks. This
makes location of the asphalt plant very important when determining lowest overall cost to the
City. The location of the Bituminous Roadway plant was evaluated and�vvill be under scrutiny to
ensure lowest overall cost when labor and trucking is added to material cost.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Motion accepting the following bids for Street Department materials:
l. Class 5 Camas Aggregate Division
2. FA-2 Class A Aggregate Meridian Aggregates
3. Type 32B Asphalt Bituminous Roadways
4. Type 41A Asphalt Bituminous Roadways
5. Type 41B Asphalt Bituminous Roadways
6. CRS-2 Asphalt Koch Materials
Prepared By: Duane Schwartz, Public Works Superintendent
�
Request for Council Action
Date: May 22, 2000
Item Number: G-1
Department Approval Manager Approval Agenda Section
Item
���� Recognition
Citizen's and Police Officers recognized for their actions.
Backround
The Roseville Police Department would like to acknowledge the actions of six citizens who assisted
us in various and sometimes life-threatening situations and a number of officers who performed
above and beyond the call of duty.
The following citizens will be recognized and awarded with a certificate of appreciation:
Steven Grossman, John Grabrick and Robert Branch
On 9!6/99 a vehicle driven by an elderly male accidentally drove down an embankment and into a
small pond at 2045 Rica St. Civilians Grossman, Grabrick and Branch witnessed the vehicle enter
the water. They immediately came to the man's aid by forming a human chain and pulling him from
his quickly sinking vehicle. According to witnesses, the elderly, confused driver was trapped in the
vehicle by his seatbelt and would not have had the strength to save himself. One of our responding
officers, upon his arrival, had no doubt that the elderly man would have drowned if not rescued by
these three men.
Bia Vang
On 6/22/99 Bia Vang of 655 Larpenteur Avenue awoke to the sound of glass breaking outside her
apartment. She looked out and saw two people breaking into cars in the parking lot. Vang called 911
and stayed on the phone line, updating the dispatcher as to what she was witnessing and giving the
location of the suspects. Officers arrived and arrested two adult suspects who had broken into a total
of 8 cars and had attempted to steal one. Investigators determined that the two suspects had been
involved in similar incidents in Roseville in the recent past. Without Vang's alertness and assistance,
the suspects may have been able to elude arrest.
Would like to remain anonymous
On 6/2/99 a Roseville resident witnessed suspicious activity at her neighbor's address of 204
Minnesota. She observed two juvenile males slowly cruising past her neighbor's property and then
park down the street. The juveniles walked onto the neighbor's property and walked back to their car
moments later, apparently concealing stolen items. She then called 91 1, giving dispatch a complete
description of the suspect and their vehicle. Police arrived and apprehended both suspects who had
Request for Council Action
Page 2 of 2
indeed just committed a burglary. This resident was instrumental in the capture and arrest of the two
suspects by her prompt and immediate action.
Linda Tally
On 1/9/00 Linda Tally of 776 Parker Avenue witnessed a neighbor string a heavy-duty extension cord
over a tree limb and attempt to hang himself. She immediately called 911 and then ran to the
neighbor's assistance, talking him out of the suicide attempt. She stayed with him until squads
arrived. Without Tally's alertness and willingness to help her neighbor, this individual may have
succeeded in tragically taking his own life.
The following officers will be recognized and awarded with letters of commendation:
Offic�r Mike Holtmeier
On 5/12/99 Officer Mike Holtmeier was working off duty at 1640 Hwy 36 when he witnessed three
suspicious males walk into the elevator of the apartment complex. After determining that the males
did not go onto a residential floor, Officer Holtmeier called for assistance from working squads in
searching the underground parking area. Officer Holtmeier found that the lock on a door leading to
the garage had been freshly damaged in a burglary attempt. Officers found and arrested the three
suspects and found burglary tools on their person. The suspects admitted to the burglary with the
intention of breaking into cars. If not for Officer Holtmeier's alertness and follow up, the suspects may
have gotten away.
Officer Kevin Johnson
On 12/2/99 Officer Kevin Johnson was responding to a prowler call at 405 S. Owasso Blvd. He
noticed a suspicious vehicle leaving the area and made a traffic stop. Officer Johnson saw two
crowbars in the vehicle and detained the suspect while other squads checked the location of the call.
Officers determined that the house had been burglarized. Officer Johnson arrested the suspects and
obtained a full admission that the suspect had broken into one home, and attempted to break into
another. Officer Johnson's alertness and decision to stop this car ended in the arrest and clearance
of two home invasion burglary cases.
Officers Kevin Johnson, Matt Marshall, Butch Perkins and Sgt. Christensen
On 5/19/99 Officers Kevin Johnson, Matt Marshall, Butch Perkins and Sgt. Christensen responded to
a criminal damage to property in progress at 1850 Chattsworth. Two adult suspects fled the area on
foot and were arrested by officers after some effort. The suspects had smashed 5 vehicle
windshields, with damage estimated at $8,348. Both suspects were interviewed and admitted their
crime. The great teamwork and investigation by these 4 officers led to two arrests and subsequent
charges of 1't degree criminal damage to property.
Officer Matt Marshall
On 7/1/99 Officer Matt Marshall was working off duty at the Super 8 Motel, 2401 Prior Ave. While
walking the hallways, he noticed a strong smell of marijuana coming from room #227. Officer
Request for Council Action
Page 3 of 3
Marshall spoke with the occupants and recovered a small amount of marijuana. While talking with
the occupant, he found a room key to #215. He received a consent to search and recovered 161bs.
Of marijuana. Four suspects were arrested and the information was passed on to Minneapolis SIU.
Minneapolis PD served a search warrant based on Officers Marshall's information and recovered
another 151bs. of marijuana and $7,000 in cash. Officer Marshall's alertness and willingness to follow
up on a seemingly minor incident yielded four felony drug arrests and the seizure of 311 bs of
marijuana and $7,000 in cash.
Officer John Jorgensen
On 8/23/99 Officer John Jorgensen stopped a vehicle at Co Rd D and Hwy 35W for a minor traffic
offense. While talking to the driver, he smelled the odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle. The
suspect was placed in the squad and a search of the vehicle yielded 230 grams of marijuana
packaged for distribution. The suspect suddenly kicked out the squad window and a violent fight
ensued when Officer Jorgensen and his backup officer attempted to gain control of the suspect.
Officer Jorgensen was injured, but managed to keep fighting until several officers arrived and brought
the suspect under control. It was found that the suspect had a loaded handgun in the car and was a
felon on parole for federal drug charges. He was charged with several felonies and will go back to
federal prison.
DWI arrest and mock fatality — May 4, 2000 at 0800 hrs
Officer Joe Spark from the Roseville Police Department planned this event, coordinating efforts with
fire, paramedic and police personnel. The event involved a mock traffic fatality and DWI arrest, with
local Roseville Area High School students role-playing as prom attendees, and later as victims and a
suspect in a DWI arrest.
This event was well planned and well received by the local students and faculty,
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
D A T E: OS/22/00
ITEM NO: H-1
Approval: Manager Approved: Agenda Section:
��c�., HEARING
Itefn Description: Lake Ridge parking lot expansion - approval of excavation permit and
planting/fence design - 2727 Victoria Street N(PF 3221)
Request Summar� Lake Ridge Nursing Home originally (S/11/9"� requested approval of an
excavation permit to create new parking space along the north side of their building.
Excavation would exceed 10 to 12,000 cubic yards, requiring a hearing. A revised site plan for
the August 25,1997 hearing was submitted but later withdrawn to allow time to redesign the
site. Lake Ridge has now submitted a revised plan for the parking lot.
1.0 REqUESTED ACTION
l.l Lake Ridge Nursing Home is requesting approval of an excavation permit to allow the
excavation of approximately 13,000 cubic yards of material and approval of a planting and
fence design for the expansion of an off-street parking area on the north side of its property.
This would provide a total of 123 spaces.
2.o BACKGROUND
2.1 Over the past 15 years Lake Ridge Nursing Home has reduced the number of patients from
220 to 140. However, because of new State care standards and other internal operations, the
Nursing Home has added new nursing, health care, and office staf£ There is in need of
additional off-street parking and improved emergency vehicle access to the building. Lake
Ridge has been working with the City for several years on ways to address the parking on the
site. Woodhill Drive was posted as no parking several years ago to address the employee
parking concerns of the neighborhood. In addition, Lakeview Avenue is currently
experiencing Lake Ridge employee car parking. Lake Ridge also had a cooperative
arrangement with MediaOne's predecessors (Meredith Cable) for several years for off-street
parking on Meredith's property; however, MediaOne has recently requested Lake Ridge to
make alternative arrangements since MediaOne needs the off-street parking spaces for its
employees.
2.2 Representatives from Lake Ridge have met with planning and engineering staff to discuss
the proposal for a parking lot expansion on the north side of the Lake Ridge property which
will add approximately 60 spaces. A City Cour.� cil excavation permit hearing and action (as
per Section 705) is required because the property is located in a commercial developed area
(B 1 Limited Business District) and more than 10,000 cubic yards of material is proposed to
be removed from the site.
2.3 In the past (and again on May 17) the applicant and the staff, as well as the neighbors have
discussed alternatives such as: 1) placing street parking back on Woodhill Drive (adds 7 to
Lake Ridge PF3221 — RCA(052200) - Page 1 of 3
10 spaces); 2) placing parking along the east face of the building, adj acent �o Victoria (adds
25 to 30 spaces but puts parking adjacent to resident rooms and requires a State waiver); 3)
constructing a parking ramp — considered too expensive; 4) sharing parking with adj oining
institutional uses. (MediaOne site no longer as excess space; nor does Rosewood complex.)
2.4 A building permit application for the parking lot expansion and other site improvements was
submitted on May 9, 2000. The applicant provided information including a landscaping
plan, a lighting plan, storm water runoff calculations, and an explanation of how the slope
would be ��egetated. Surface water w`I be retailed on site, on the surface of the new parking
lot which will be slightly lower (1 foot) than the existing lot.
In the past, residents were concerned about the removal of trees on the Lake Ridge property,
which provides a visual and sound barrier between their properties and the nursing home.
They also expressed concerns with the proposed slope between the property line and the
parking area (2H: 1V). Such a steep slope is only advisable if it has a soil erosion plan and is
planted with naturalized plant material which does not need mowing.
2.5 The proposed grading plan and landscaping plan were reviewed by the City Engineering staff
and have previously been reviewed by the Ramsey County Soil and Water Conservation
District. Crass Lake Water Management Organization must also review and approve of the
plans. A Landscape Architect has been hired by Lake Ridge to complete a naturalized
landscape and to review the methods (including retaining wa11s) for protection of large trees
that may be saved.
2. 6 Section 705.O1B(6) of the City Code states that a permit for excavation and grading is
required from the City Council for any filling or excavating on developed
commercial/industrial property where the site is greater than 2.5 acres and the proposed
fill/excavation exceeds 5,000 cubic yards. The Lake Ridge parcel is 5.6 acres in size and the
proposed excavation is estimated at over 13,000 cubic yards. Section 705.03 states, "all
permits required to be issued by the City Council will be issued only after the appropriate
notices have been sent to the adj acent property owners whose land might be affected by the
excavating, grading, surfacing or filling, and a hearing held. The City Manager or designee
will determine who the affected adj acent landowners are."
2.7 Section 1005.011 of the City Code states, "Where a business district abuts a residence
district, any new development sha11 include a buffer zone. There sha11 be a protective strip of
not less than ten feet (10') in width. Thi� protective strip sha11 contain no structures, sha11 not
be used for parking, off-street loading or storage and shall be landscaped. The landscape
treatment sha11 include a compact screen wa11 or fence but sha11 not extend within fifteen feet
(15') of the street right of way. The planting or fence design must be approved by the City
Council as being in harmony with a°sident .al neighborhood and providing sui�cient
screening of the commercial area. The hedge or fence shall be no less than six (6) nor more
than six and one-half feet (6'/i ) in height. " In Lake Ridge's case, the terrain slopes down
and away from the neighbors, reducing the impact of a 6 foot fence. The neighbors au3 the
applicant have agreed that an 8 foot fence in most cases will have more of a positive affect as
a screen for the parking lot. The staff concurs.
Lake Ridge PF3221 — RCA(052200) - Page 2 of 3
3.0 STAFFRECOMMENDATION
3.1 Based on the amount of material to be excavated from the site and the size of the parcel, the
City Code requires City Council approval of an excavation permit. Staff recommends
approval of the plans and issuance of the excavation permit, subj ect to completion and
review of he final landscape plans; Gr �.ss Lake Water Management Organization approval;
and emergency access site plan approval.
4 0 COUNCIL ACTIONSUGGESTED
4.1 The Council should open the scheduled a public hearing for May 22, 2000 and receive
comment from affected property owners. (Note that notice was given to property owners
within 350 feet.)
4.2 By motion, approve the plans submitted for permits on May 9, 2000 and authorize the
issuance of an excavation permit subject to: completion and review of the final landscape
plans by staff; approval by Grass Lake Water Management Organization; and approval of the
emergency access tr�c plan within the new parking lot configuration by the Fire Marshall.
Attachments: location map/e�sting parking area; site plan; information on run-off calculations; engineering staff
comments; notice of public hearing; landscape plan; letter from Tom Petersen, Ramsey County Soil and Water
Conservation District; and photographs of property.
Application Submission: May 9, 2000;
Decision Deadline: July 9, 2000, unless specifically extended for an additiona160 days by the City Council.
Prepared by: Dennis Welsch (490-2232) and Engineering Staff
\\Victoria\CommDev�Planning Files�3221_Lakeridge Nursing Home\RCA(052200).doc
Lake Ridge PF3221 — RCA(052200) - Page 3 of 3
;t
r j�We are committed to work as a team with other city departments
And our community to provide innovative, effective and
E�cient se►vice which will improve the quality of life in the City of Roseville.
interoffice memo
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
5/4/00
SteveSarkozy
Tom Alleva 1
On-Street Parking Request by Lake Ridge Health Care
From time to time citizens and businesses call and request
temporary permission to park where there are No Parking signs.
Requested times are usually short and specific - garage sale,
birthday party, resurface an apartment parking lot or a company
event for example.
Lake Ridge has requested permission to park on Victoria and on
Vl/oodhill for about 30 days; May 15 to June 15, while they construct
an expanded parking lot on the north portion of their property. There
will be numerous vehicles involved, staff and visitors. In the past I
have granted parking on Woodhill for a one day or partial day event
at Lake Ridge. I am aware the neighbors on Woodhill requested the
street be signed No Parking some years ago, I believe in response
to on-street parking by Lake Ridge employees and visitors.
I asked Travis Palmquist, Lake Ridge Executive Director to give me
a written request in this case since I felt there would be complaints if
I allowed on-street parking for such a long time. Doug Strong feels
the same way, from his experience with the neighborhood and their
request for the No Parking signs.
I would like to help Lake Ridge, but believe I should not allow such
long term on-street parking.
y - .
�r B� L T�RLY
May 3, 2000
Tom Alleva
City of Roseville Police Department
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
Dear TomAlleva:
I am writing this letter to ask your permission, for our staffand visitors, to park on
Woodhill and Victoria Street during our parking lot construction. we need the street
parking fram May 15, 2000 until June 15, 2000 (approximate dates). Our goal is to keep
as many cars as possible on-site each day during the construction.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Please feel free to contact me
if you have any questions or concerns at 651/483-5431 e�. 107.
Sincerely,
� L�
Travis Palmquist
Executive Director
Lake Ridge Rehabilitation and Specialty Care Center Y�R
2727 North Victoria . Roseville, MN 55 113 �A��Y
(651) 483-5431 . FAX (651) 486-2461 �i�ME
�
- y ' '" �
�\: �_-:_���
. ' :°.; .. -� �e
_ — ztis� oal.,
. ��-
�
n
�4�
�
7��
��
�
2
W
�
�
0
+
Qi
�
_ ._ �
i
�
�
���
c: n'LL'1': �3i'�
�9,2i1f ff1 •3iti 11LL 3Q
Z \ �
��
�auoa�
! 1 � -
���.1���1
�
� �z
� ' �
3
i
�� x
��
N A
. •
S
.
t
t
� `
� \ �'.
� �
J�
� �
� �
o� S
���
U��
�' -
�1
.
0
�
�
.
E.'
�
� �
��
N
� �
� �
�
�
.�
3
�
�a �
�
�
�
�
� �
• �
�
h
�' �
�
�
t �
�
�
$
�
��
�
,�
.,
�.
.
�
`
`
` `
COMMUNITY DBVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. PHONB:651-490-2238: FAX:651-490-2931
C011IMF.RCIAL BUILDING P�'RMIT APPLICATION
WORK PROPOSED: N�`" Addition
r ing aee supplerr�nt Demolition
�:PPLICATION DATE:
SITE : `°"
t.oc:
APPLICANT:
"�' 3� �
OWNER �
Addreae:
CONTRACTOR
a�a� �-� u�
TENANT/SUITE #:
/'iit t7�irt�c�. e
�ct •
�
.J4�
VALUATION (labor & materials)
WORK DESCRIl'TION:
STRUCTURE TYPE: Commercial
,.. i ... � �
. . . .;1 ♦
Alteration
MN Ss-N9
� �r �
s�l .,/ .rw � s�-ia�
'�►l�i �4I�L �P��'/ on
, on
$ a IS o�rw . � v
���1�,.�
Industrial
� �.��J'
�SS-i y�'y - o��-r
Mul
Yes No
Roof
�� 4��-�-� �'`�4�
- �3 -3 -� /
Public
AC�QLOVV�eIIt 8II(� $1�1�tU!@:
The underei�ed hereby makes application to the City of Roaeville to perform the work as herein described. The undersigned further states, under penalty of
law, that the work will he performed in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code. this application, and any approved p� and/or apecifications.
PrintName: ��""'�� � '6'�'�'� Signature: ���'� ' `'
Contractor Owner Architect � : f; � • �� � �'
Phone•
��f"/� S%J'S� O�d'� Da�: �°�ae�
SEPARATE PERMITS REQUIRED: ����
Sewer
I� t g �, l,(03� �5"
State Surcharge $ I07 � SD
Plan Check $ �5`�'
Cert. of Occupancy $
Metro SAC $
Mechanical Plumbing
FireSorinkier Alarm
Water Meter (#
Construction Deposit
Contractor's License
Assessments
Park Dedication
Sidewalks
Other:
) �
$
$
$
$
$
$
Water
WARNIIVG: Be aure to contact public utilities for location of underground cables, Total Fees: $
conduits,pipes,etc.beforedigging. Receipt #:
Call Gopher state On� 651-454-0002 Receipt Date: I
�
CITY' OF
� N I
I ' � Il I7
2 6 6 0 Civic Center Drive . Roseville, Minnesota . 55 113
Phone: 65 1-490-2200/Fax 65 1-490-2275
Directions: Please type or print information on permit. Submit with appropriate bonds, permits from
other agencies (County, State, City Utilities) and information.
1• Name of Applicant(IndiVidual, Partner&ip, Corporation, Association, orPropeztyOwner):
Chad W. Nel son' DBA Frattal one Paving, Inc.
2, BusinessName: Frattal one Pavi ng, Inc.
3, BusinessAddress:3230 RiceStreet, St. Paul , MN 55126
4, Phone: 651-484-0383
5 , Type of Permit:
X Removing, excavating, or material storage
Fillin or raising existing surface grades
Subdivision grading prior to final plat approval
6, Legal description and/or address of praperty: L a k e Ridge Health C a r e C e n t e r
2 7 2 7 N o r t h Victoria, St. Paul, M N 5 5113
7, PurposeofremovaUfitl: Expand Parking-:Lot �
8, Estimated time of work to complete: 2 5 w o r k i n g d ay,g� ���Sh ��; 5-11- 0 0 t h r o u g h 6-14 - 0 0
9, Amount of material to be movod on the site and/or amount to be rcmoved from the site: 13 ,140 C. Y.
removed f rom site
1�, prop��W��; Lexington South `to Hwy 36, south on 36 to Maryl and
11. Nlethod and schedule of erosion control: Silt f e n c e d n d h d y bales
12 . Restoration plan and schedule: N o n e n e e d e d
13 , Attach a map of pro�osod site indicating pre and post grading cantours. Affxts on surrounding
pcopetties, drainage patteins. Any utility lines/structures on site, fill limits.
14, Proposed vegetation removal/protection plan.
15. What prior approvals by CouncillPlanning Conunissionhavebeengrantedtothepmperty?
� Z
h
�
• o
�
_
%
�
�
�
�
�--- 'Q'
�-�— ..
�� �
� �
� ,�_.
/� `
h
/� 1`
, �; ` . i �
' � 1
i � �
�
� �•'� \
'' �� ` � t
. � �� ... �
•' � � � �•�'•: �
� `@ '•:::i. �
. ` • � � � 'c ::•:�
� �e { .: 1
ti • �� , ` �:.�•: �
• � . �p c.:}: �
,� •, �� ��\ ' a
�
;�� � ���� �
� � � i . � � �
� �
,� � 4 � I b l � I
�� �,I � � � � I �
`1 ;� 1� 1 I I � �� I
�`a I`1 ' � � � I I
%�
b��� I��i
��;� �ir��ii
�� iii�t���.i
i.,. ., �; I I� ' r
IF� � �f I ►���
���l I�iN
� � � I ; ' I :
(i�� �!//l�,�
�� � �� dlS�/ �/ f
II , l� �:�:• �Ig
r � 9 :� � -
� f.� �
� ✓��r,' .i.:! �:
i{, r � , '��'�� . i
� �f.�
%
��
a''
�3���"l
�u�3�y Z
_ �d� }'F
� i r , t.x.. , ,
� �`'. � � io i�.i.: i€ --- -- .
i � � i
i
ji�l��. P�ii: —
� � I � k � I 1 ? .
�I 1 I I I 1 ' �, f.
II�11 ���I(=
i I i 1' �� � --- -
�� �� _ -
II �•.I� �� - --- -
li � I� � I_ _
a
� �' p I I � 1 -- ._.—_
�r%�I�iI�:.:_ �I= __ � —
:i i � p � �{ �� � €
'�" ` '
�!I 1 I 1 � .•i.'1 � --
1 I � a � '•:k: i � .. ---�
� � �� � z
I I � � t.
I1 �I�� � �. :�;.
I� 1� 1 �
�� i �di�� �
�
i:i' ��� —�
'' � '
� I I j}'. � I � � fl a< ..
1 I I� I �
I I�� � � �� � � . c�...�-�
1\;1\��\���\ ; �
`����... ;'�� ' t ' 4 �
� n���•�� �
� �. � . � �
� � � - � .� _ :.::� ,= =' — —
, �� � � -- '':-� ''.—a—..�
� `
\� \� �_ --�e— ----
\ �� __ ___.___I
�\ ` __� � � _� ._.y '"
� �
� •
�
�
�
/
�
� ��
„.,...a. 1 �
, -� :I
- t�' 3
��.._
� ��: .
�. _
��,
- Y. \
� _ . i
n
�
�
�
�
�
�
Z
�
'� g
�
OD
� �
�
P-
v
Damon Farber Associates Landscape Architects
and
Site Planners
Match 9, 2000
David Kotrba
Lake Rii Health Care Ce��ter
2727 No�th Vidoria
St Paul, Minnesota 55113
M: Landscapa Plan ModMfcation
DFA No 97-1�4
Dear David:
Based u pon ou rc�nversation I am enclosi ng spectifications that will al low for the su bstitution
a� native grasaea with an erosion control mat to be inatalled in place of the areas identified as
'sod' on the plan dated7-31-97.
I would recommend using the sha�t graas seed formula as opposed to the tall grass seed
mix. There is no need to irtigate tlx� aroa to be seeded. You may, however, want to consider
irtigstlr�g tl�e pls�rtinga within tl�e parking lat.
Please have yau ooMractor review the sp�ons and propose the schedule and order of
p{aMing he sugpssts wiN albw for the best stsu�d of grass. Aa I mentioned when we spoke a
rewwee� ago, you sna�a aE � m� ��a� �� a�u,� o�y�� �o �oome
v� es�blisnea and even tfw� the�r ero not manicxmea in n�eir aesthetic, wf�� require «,-
�oing maintenanoe. N the landscape installer has arry question at all fhat might impad the
estat�l�hment of the slope, or if he has any concems, ptease ask him to �all us.
Ifyou would like ourfirm to assistin oversightoperationsofinstallation ofanysite
devebpment aspects, I hope that you will feel free to contact ma.
RespecxfuNy,
on FarbNAssociat�
Dernon F FASLA
Prlrx;ipal
DF:d
End: sped�ions
253 ThirdAvenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 (612) 332-7522 fax (612) 332-0936
03/09/00
SECTION 02935 - NATIVE GRASSES AND WILDFLOWERS
PART 1 - GENERAL
1.01 SECTION 1NCLUDES
A. Seeding
B. Preparation
D. Mulch
E. Maintenance
1.02 RELATED SECTION
A. Conditions of Contract and Division 1' General Requirements govern provisions of this
section.
B. Section 02900 — Landscaping.
1.03 REFERENCES
A. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Standard Specifications for Construction, 1995
Edition and Supplement dated November 20, 1995.
1.04 QUALITY ASSURANCE
A. Testing Agency: Independent testing laboratory shall provide complete seed analysis and
germination tests if the supplier's Independent Testing Lab results are over 3 months of age.
1. Contractor shall submit information on testing laboratory to be used.
2. Contractor shall pay for all testing.
B. Installer Qualifications: Engage an experienced installer who specializes in the establishment
and restoration of native plant communities similar to the design and extent indicated for this
project and with a record of successful in-service performance.
1.05 SUBMITTALS
A. Certificates:
�
1. Growers Certification:
a. Compliance with State and Federal quarantine restrictions.
b. Data showing grass and wildflower species and location of field from which seed and
seedlings were harvested.
2. Manufactuit�tfs certification of fertilizer and herbicide composition.
3. current seed tests.
B. Contractor to supply a seeding/seedling schedule, including dates and method of seeding to
be approved by Landscape Architect prior to installation of any seeding.
NATIVE GRASSES & WILDFLOWERS 02935-1
03/09/00
1.06 PRODUCT DELIVERY, STORAGE AND HANDLING
A. Seed and fertilizer to be kept dry and protected from the elements.
B. Seed sources used shall not exceed a 250 mile radius from Windom, Minnesota. Seed
sources from outside this region must be approved prior to bidding.
1.07 JOB CONDITIONS
A. Begin seeding after preceding related wark is accepted.
B. Environmental Requirements: Seed between end of spring construction and July 25, or
September 20 and freeze, for dormant seeding. Dormant seed only if directed by Landscape
Architect or Owners Representative.
PART 2 - PRODUCTS
2.01 SEED
A. The site specific seed mix for this project shall consist of the following species and
amounts:
SHORT PR;��][RIF/WILDFLOWER SEED MIX
MNDOT 20A
With SE Forb Mix
RATE OF APPLICATION (Truax � native grass drill) : SO lbs. � acre
(lbs. per acre for forbs and pounds of Pure Live Seed (PLS) per acre for the
S��)
TALL PRAIRIE/WILDFLOWER SEED MIX
2 , MNDOT 1SA
With SE Forb Mix
RATE OF APPLICATION (Truax� native grassdrill) : SO lbs. � acre
(lbs. per acre for forbs and pounds of Pure Live Seed (PLS) per acre for the
grasses)
2.03 PACKAGING:
A." Sealed, stitch sewn, heavy weight bags.
B. Seed tag attached shall conform to the requirements listed in MNDot Standard Specifications
3876
1. Pre-delivery storage history of location and temperatures maintained, if requested.
NATTVE GRASSES & WILDFLOWERS 02935-2
03/09/00
2.04 MULCH
A. Straw Mulch:
1. Delivered and stored to be kept dry.
2. Mulch shall conform to MNDot Specification 3882, Type 7B
PART 3 - EXECUTION
3.01 INSPECTION
A. Verify that soil preparation and related preceding work ha�e been completed.
3.02 SITE PREPARATION FORNATIVE GRASS/WILDFLOWER SEEDING
A. Prior to beginning exca�ation activities for this project, e�sting vegetation within the properry
boundaries should be treated with a tank mix of RoundUp� Herbicide at a rate of 5 pints per
acre and Ammonium Sulfate at 3 IbsJacre to eliminate exotic competition. In lowland areas or
any area that may negatively affect an e�sting wetland community through the use of this
herbicide mixture shall be sprayed with Rodeo@ herbicide at the manufacturer's recommended
rate. This work shall be done as soon as e�sting vegetation begins active growth, in the spring
of the season around May 15. After treatment wait seven days before excavation and
construction activities begin.
B. Following the completion of final grade wark and prior to seeding, clear, any growth of
volunteer weeds within the seeding areas with a solution of RoundUp� Herbicide at 3 pints per
acre and Ammonium Sulfate at 31bsJecre. . In lowland areas or any area that may negatively
affect an e�sting wetland community through the use of this herbicide mixture shall be sprayed
with Rodeo@ herbicide at the manufacturer's recommended rate. Following the spray
application wait a minimum of 7 days before disturbing the site with other procedures.
C. All holes, depressions and rivulets shall be filled in and brought to a smooth finish grade.
D. The areas to be seeded shall be worked with a tillage implement (disk, field cultivator, pre-
seeder) to a depth of 4 inches. Tillage should be followed by packing or harrowing to create a
firm fine textured seed-bed.
3 .03 SEEDING
A. Native plant community seedings during two periods of the year. The first is spring from the
time site preparation work is concluded in the spring, until approximately July 20. In the fall
dormant seeding between September 20 and Freeze-up. Dormant seedings do not germinate
until the following growing season when soil temperatures reach approximately 65 degrees F. If
the final grade wark is completed during a period of time between July 20 and September 20, a
temporary cover crop of oats or winter wheat should be sown to stabilize the site until an
acceptable time arrives when native grasses and wildflowers can be safely seeded.
B. All native grass seed should be sown using a Truax � Native Grass Drill. In areas too tight for
equipment, grass seed can be broadcast by hand or with a mechanical spreader.
NATIVE GRASSES & WILDFLOWERS 02935-3
03109100
C. Following the installation of native grass seed, wildflower seed should be sown in a separate
procedure by hand or with a mechanical spreader. The specified seed mixes should be sown
evenly throughout the specified areas.
D. Cultipackiig should follow wildflower seeding to press the tiny seeds into the seedbed.
3.04 MCTLCHING
A The planted areas should be mulched with clean oat, wheat or little bluestem prairie straw at a
rate of 2 tons per acre.
B. Mulch material shall be anchor disked immediately after being applied to depth of 1 inch.
3.05 PROTECTION
A. Erect temporary barricades and warning signs against pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
3 . 0 6 CLEAI�IING
A. Immediately, clean spills from paved and finished surface areas.
B. Remove debris and excess materials from project site.
C. Dispose of protective barricades and warning signs at completion of general contract.
D. All areas disturbed by seeding operation shall be restored to original condition or to the
desired new condition.
3.07 MAINTENANCE
A. First Growing Season
Seeded areas shall be mowed as needed to control annual weed development. Cutting
height should be between 5 and 8 inches, but not less than 5 inches.
2. Hand weed to eliminate invader no�ous weeds.
B. Second Growing Season
During the spring (April) of the second growing season, all areas seeded with prairie grasses and
wildflowers should receive a controlled burn. This should be done using all necessary
equipment, permits and trained personnel to conduct a safe and affective controlled burn. In
addition to spring burning the prairie areas should be monitored and cared for throughout this
second growing season.
C. Subsequent Growing Season -Not in Coatract
In years following the first and second growing seasons, management services might include
controlled burning, and possibly some additional spot spraying, spot mowing and hand weeding
as needed. It is of great importance to monitor and care for a native plant community restoration
during its development period. Ongoing management activities beyond the first two growing
seasons should be contracted sepatately from the installation contract
NATIVE GRASSES & WILDFLOWERS 02935-4
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION.
Date: OS/22/00
Item No: I-1
��r�va�: er Approved: Agenda Section:
LAND USE
Item Description: Roseville Lutheran Church. 1215 Roselawn, Roseville, is requesting a
variance for a off street parking variance. (PF3209)
1.0 Requested Action
l.l The Roseville Lutheran Church has submitted an application for a variance from the zoning
code to allow completion of the 300 seat area in their worship center balcony. In order to
meet City Codes, the Church must also add 85 off-street parking spaces to handle the
expected additional attendees at Sunday services. This would require expansion of the
existing parking lot to the edge of the adjacent park property or in other locations at the
church site at 12 15 Roselawn Avenue. The Church is requesting the variance to retain green
space rather than pave the remaining green space on this portion of the site. The Church held
a neighborhood meeting on this topic on May 1, 2000.
2.0 Background
Minnesota Statutes 462.357 provide variance requirements which the City has adopted in
City Code Section 1013.02. The applicant is required to provide the burden of proof that a
variance from the existing code is necessary. The applicant must demonstrate a unique
physical hardship on the site; that no practical alternative e�sts to resolve the issue; that the
variance request is not based solely on economic reasons; and that the need for the variance
was not created by the applicant.
The Church is located in an R-1 Single Family residential zone and as such is a permitted
use, with a parking ratio of 1 space to 3.5 seats at capacity in accordance with Section
1005.O1D2p of the City Code.
The Church currently has a 10,000 s.f. worship center (1996) and proposes to complete the
seating within 3,700 s.f. along the north and west sides of the balcony. There are currently 194
spaces in the south lot and 82 spaces in the north lot for a total of 276 spaces. The site plan also
has enough space to pave an area for a11 new, required 52 spaces (actually proposed 56) in a
double row directly adjacent to the west property line of Bruce Russell Park. (There remains
some question whether the letter and intent of the original agreement and approved site plan
allows further movement eastward toward the properry line of Bruce Russell Park.) This
parking expansion would add approximately 16,000 s.f. of new pavement to the area. Since the
original application, the Church has amended its request to avariance for 25 spaces, the number
of spaces proposed not to be built. Under this proposal, the Church would have a total of 303
spaces.
PF32909- RCA (OS-22-00) - Page 1 of 3
Comparison of Church Parking and City Code Requirements
Parking/Seat Spaces -Main FI. Spaces - Balcony Total Spaces
R.t..ceurce 1 space/3.79 seats 276 spaces 27 spaces 303 spaces
25 space variance
City Code 1 space/3.5 seats 243 spaces 5 spaces 328 spaces
Note: The Church originally proposed constructing no additional parking spaces, but amended
its Proposal to include 27 new parking spaces near the south east comer of the building.
The Church notes that they now host 4 services; 1 on Saturday and 3 on Sunday morning. The
two later morning services are at 80% or more of capacity. Currently, when the church is at or
over 80% capacity, the parking lot is full and parking occurs on nearby streets.
3.0 Staff Comment And Findings
3.1. From a photographic and on-site review of the parking areas, it is clear that the Church already
has a large paved area within a residential neighborhood. In the past the Council has found that
such large pavement users can deteriorate neighborhood aesthetics, air quality, landscaping and
green space, and neighborhood sense of place. , The Council has asked the staff to work with
such large one-time "surge" parking needs to prepare "proof of parking" plans and find other
existing parking spaces to supplement their needs. The additional on-site parking could be a
community physical hardship since the hard surface would take away green space and increase
surface water management issues in the area.
3.2 As an alternative to the variance request, the Church could pave a portion of the green space in
the southeast comer of the parking lot adjacent to Bruce Russell Park or near the tennis court to
the north and east of the Church. This is the "pave paradise.. .put in a parking lot" solution.
3.3 Impervious Surfaces. Churches are known to be one of the most inefficient land uses in terms
of "at capacity" hours of use per week. The parking demand peaks for 4 to 5 hours on Sundays
only, less than 3% of the entire week, and less than 25% of the weekend daylight hours. In
addition, staff estimates that 25% of a typical residential neighborhood is now impervious
surfaces; 50% to 80% of commercial sites are impervious; and nearly 10% of all land within
the community is impervious road surfaces. Recently the City adopted Best Management
Practices for surface water quality and storage. One of the ways of improving water quality and
reducing man-made storage pond needs is to reduce the needs for minimally used impervious
surfaces. In urban areas, 55% of the precipitaticn leaves the site. Over 15 times the amount of
precipitation leaves a parking lot as a grassed landscape. (Rice Creek Watershed's motto is
to..." keep water as close to where it fa11s as possible" in order respect the environment and the
budget.)
PF32909- RCA (OS-22-00) - Page 2 of 3
3.4 Because of the limited, but "surge" parking demand and the policy to reduce pavement where
possible, the Church should — as part of the record - supply site plans for future on-site parking
(if determined to be needed and required by the City). Shuttle and shared ride management
plans should be required. A parking plan by the Church should also include nearby streets
(within 4 blocks), nearby intersections, adjacent driveways, and existing "higher density"
parking and valet areas. A"proof of parking" permit should be considered, showing where
future parking would be placed, if needed, and descrihing the thresholds that would instigate
the need for construction of addition�l parking on the Church site. Such a permit could be
reviewed annually by the City, after a neighborhood meeting. Such thresholds might include an
annual inventory of on-street Sunday parking use within 4 blocks of the Church, an annual
neighborhood meeting by the Church to determine if there are issues; review of the number of
tickets and/or accidents within 4 blocks of the Church on Sunday mornings; painting of "no
parking" curb lines in critical areas; monitoring parking capacity for other events, especially
weeknight social events.
4.0 Staff Recommendation
4.1 Based on the State Statute and City policy described above, and the fact that the site can be
put to a reasonable use under the terms of the existing City Code and that an alternative plan
is available, a variance does not adequately address the issues. Rather, using a variance
alternative, a"proof of parking" permit for the 25 spaces (as described in 3.4) should be
approved and recorded. To implement such a permit, the Council would be requested to
adopt a resolution with findings, parking thresholds, and construction conditions. The
resolution would then be recorded against the County property record.
5.0 Planning Commission Recommendation
51 On May 10, 2000, after the required public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended
that a"proof of parking" permit for 25 spaces be required as part of the variance approval,
based on the findings in Section 3.0 and the recommendation in Section 4.0 of the project
report, dated May 10, 2000. Residents did comment on this proposal and suggested that a
better solution would be to not expand the parking at alL (See the attached Planning
Commission draft minutes excerpt. One letter of opposition was received.)
6.0 Suggested City Council Action
By resolution, approve (deny) a"proof of parking" permit for 25 spaces as a part of a
variance to the required parking, based on the findings in Section 3.0 and the
recommendations in Section 4.0 and 5.0 of the proj ect report, dated May 22, 2000.
Application Deadline Schedule: Accepted 0426.00; 60-day review time limit 0626.00
Attachments: Draft Proposed Resolution; Location Map; Application packet
Prepared by: Dennis Welsch(490-2232)
Q:�Planning Files�3209_Ros Luth Church \3209_RPCA(051000).doc
PF32909- RCA (OS-22-00) - Page 3 of 3
EXTRACT OF MINUTES
OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCII,
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 held on the 22nd day of May 2000, at 6:30 p.m.
The following members were present:
and the following were absent:
Council Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
Resolution No.
Resolution Approving a Variance for Off-Street Parking
Roseville Lutheran Church, 12 15 Roselawn, Roseville (PF3209)
WHEREAS, Section 10 13.02 of the Roseville City Code provides for variance requirements
in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.357, and
WHEREAS, Roseville Lutheran Church has requested a variance from the zoning code to
allow completion of a 300 seat area in their worship center balcony which would necessitate 85
additional off-street parking spaces; the Church has 33 additional spaces and proposes to construct
another 27 spaces. The Church is hereby requesting a the variance to not construct 25 parking spaces
(which would be used less than 3% of the avialable hours during a week), but instead to retain the
remaining green space on the site;
WHEREAS, the Church is located in an R- 1 Single Family residential zone and as such is a
permitted use, with a required parking ratio of 1 space to 3.5 seats at capacity in accordance with
Section 1005.O1D2p of the City Code; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted Rest Management Practices for surface water quality and
storage. One of the methods of improving water quality and reducing man-made storage pond needs
is to reduce the needs for minimally used impervious surfaces, and
WHEREAS, the Church currently has 276 spaces and is requesting the variance to not
construct 25 parking spaces, but to retain approximately 7,500 s.f. of green space on the site, and
WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the request
on Wednesday, May 10, 2000, and recommended approval (7-O) of the requested variance
contingent upon approval of a City "proof of parking" permit for 25 parking spaces; and
WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council received the Planning Commission's
recommendation on Monday, May 22, 2000; a�. �
WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council has made the following findings:
1) From a photographic and on-site review of the parking areas, it is clear that the Church
already has a large paved area (estimated at over 90,000 s.f. or over 2 acres) within a
residential neighborhood. The City has found that such large pavement uses can deteriorate
Page 1 of 2
neighborhood aesthetics, air and water quality, landscaping and green space, and the
neighborhood sense of place.
2) The City Code does not address church "surge" or peak hour parking in residential
areas. Adding on-site parking to serve minimal peak times can be a community physical
hardship since the hard surface reduces green space adj acent to public park space and
increases surface water management issues in the e�sting residential area. The City Code
does a11ow the City Council to determine parking needs for any use when not adequately
described in the Code and to approve dev:ces such as "proof of parking" plans to
supplement needed parking.
3) As a condition of approval of the variance request, the Church agrees to construct 27 paved
spaces, and to not pave at this time, a portion of the green space equivalent to 25 spaces
(7,500 s.f.) in the southeast comer of the Church lot adjacent to Bruce Russell Park, as shown
on exhibit "A".
4) The Church sha11 prepare and file with the City Community Development Director a"proof
of parking" plan as a condition of the variance and supply site plans for future on-site parking
of 25 vehicles (if determined to be needed and required by the City). Shuttle and shared ride
management plans shall be attempted by the Church. A parking plan by the Church shall
include nearby streets (within 4 blocks), nearby intersections, adjacent driveways, and e�sting
"higher density" parking and valet areas. The plan shall describe the thresholds that would
instigate the need to construct additional parking on the Church site.
5) To retain the "proof of parking" permit, the Church shall submit by June 1 each year a
report which includes a count of on-street Sunday parking use within 4 blocks of the Church
taken at 4 peak Sundays throughout the year. The report shall contain a comparison to the
established thresholds in the plan. The Church sha11 also report on on-street parking counts for
other events, especially weeknight social events. The Church is encouraged to hold an annual
neighborhood meeting and report on new neighborhood parking issues.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Roseville,
Minnesota, herein approves a variance for 25 required parking spaces, for Roseville Lutheran
Church, 12 15 Roselawn, based on the aforementioned findings and conditions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the "proof of parking" permit, as a part of a variance, is
approved contingent filing the plan and annually submitting a report.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council
M e m b e r, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor:
and the following voted against the sam�:
WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Q:�Planning Files�3209_RosevilleLuthChurch�Resolution_052200.doc
Page 2 of 2
�-.. .,�y �.
-+.e��.���-
a
'-�
�-.
�� 'll�
�
�� �
...,,, !t y,
~� z'.;...
r ;��
} �I
,
I . �.r�
�
I�
� r ,;
. ,�
I
�
\ ��rl
�JI
� I I, �
�
��
�h1
t .��„
� •;
,
u -_ � ,�
' � J
• �
r'°� � �;
��� � �
��
. `;�� T �
,'�I `�.
4 'i�
r� j ^-. a_
B1
t �i
L +f l
�
`�r
_�.�
•��A �".1 .✓ �
� ��� ,`.�y1
f �� �� A �
3��1 c�� A�� �� A
��
A
�r'' ' i:�`'.�,
•� , y�
`� fs3
1Tl_I . i ;��
m;;
i�
?r,
♦
�' -''` � T
•
'� —
��..� �.
� �
!� ' �
� � :
1��Y. �
■■
} _ #:�.� ..,�i
� 'i - v':�',
�, "� �':�
�. �. ,:_,_
�i�
,
..�� ' �
�
■ `_ �
� �
, �
.
. . �
_ �: . �
. �
.
. . . _ . . . -. � .. . � -, �?
� �! ��
� n ���
°- ,���,���.;ri ii I��' �;1�
��� .�_�._4�►�� �, t� .�
��\" �t11IN��• I , �
\ �\� 1 LJ
l
\ � ' �i
�t�.l
�;
T+i� �
6 . �� 4'. 'Vlvi
� � 4�,:
�
� . � �
� � �
r �� �
❑
� — �11'— . T � �.•T—
- --
"� i� i � � � � � , � � �- - - -- -:: - _
., � tL �' i ��„ r � ' � � � � � ��� ��µ.�1t � . 1� �r i �r+ �T �� vZ
� '�� � A� � � �
, ■ .. i ♦ : � , �...�r. ■■ �
' ! ' ; � ',. i ,�, re"'� Nl...... i �■ �
:; '• �.
_---_._...._..... - - ... xH-- - -., w
� ', �:QXFORDSTlV---.-:-,__::::_::� --- , _ - -
� �� �i � � � �', �"' �*■� t� _ �
■ ■ •
. ' 7 �Q� B B � �' �. �
. ; ! �r '� � � e e : : �� � ,w i' $
i r'
'; i �i �'"'
�j .. �
i �. / t � , " �� � � � y ` `�
`I�i i � : : ■ � � � :
� � ■
�' � � ii■ �; �,1+ � � ;; = ; �':.. „ � � �i i; �
4� ;:
, , ; �., : , ,
G ---- - - -...... - - - -- _.. . ... _
...-- -- ..._. -
-- -� -� -� - - - - - ..__ �vo �nnx�-r- - -- � --....._
. ; - - ------ Y - -- - -- ...
� � �� ; � � ......
,� � � ■ � � .�. . , � � 1 �, .. .. � .�
� ' • .� , � � � .
■ � 1 �
C� v ��' � � ''� F � � .• � 1
� N , � � � , i � 1 �
� �., .`' 1 ! � � 1 �
� M � � � : � � '� � i 1 �
o �k .� � ■ ; ; 1 i ,� ��
�� � � � � � � M �
� �,.. �.■ � � � � 3 '� � .
_ F. i � i� �
�, � � �.. -.i �- � ■ � j � f i � � '�
� � � � � �, � 1 � �: � � � ; � �
►� y� s ■ �r � �� �� �". ■'
� ? � � ■ � � �' $ � ■ L '�L � o
�
� ,
,� .
. . .
� .
.
� ■ ■ . i ; ; � i� ; ; �os i .i � .. � �
- - _- - - - - -' '�- ..._... - .._: . _--• ,':.. '
►S' ,�`� ;...... .._.. . --._. ..- , .- - - .... ,FERNWr00D:ST ... ,�, �., � . : i�i � j. � .._. ...... �
U � � i � ■ � � ■ � � ■ ■ i ' ; � � . � .�l ���' ■ ' � � � � � UO
■
� �i .� s� �,�■ � � � "�'" ''� �� ��' W
� a i
� o s 'i � . � ■ � '� ■ „ � � � i• .� i. �t w ■� �
� � � � . _ --- .
� �. .
-- ... .. . .
� . � � .- .
� � � j � i � a � .E � � ', � .i i1•� � � � ;
� ~ �
N ; '� i ` •� � � ' ` � : :
: � ; , .
-- -��.L - � �' ri �M� � �w � `'
4� ti � ; _::::-�►t�flQViYtt�i��::::_:.::::�.:_:.:.:� :::::; :
� � : � ;; �_ � ;; i.■ : ■■ � ViY
''� � �� � � � � '� *' �'• � � �� �■r��� �rF � :?
� ,; � ��■ � ��' ■ �� � : � �.
� ;� :'� s� ■ � � � � � �'■ i � ' � � �. �■I �..� � '; �
i : ',
� ; � : , . . � . . ....... ... ....... . .. .: .:
: .. ..... .... ..
,' : ; E , :
: : . ;
� � : � � ti � � 7 : � ' �� � � �._� .._.._ ..�
� ,� ■
�,.�� � �i'� � w !■iw�� �■ ■
� 9
: :: ::
., ,. ;.
�: : -- �I.iAMLlNEAIi�:N - - ::_::::-::--::�1�ML:1NEAa?E-A� - - - :::::. ,;.`:=: :::.= .: ' -: �:�.:::-::.�.:�.,R���=:. �
r � � .� .� �• �' � �
■�:;�1 �:; . d
,� • � � .rt � "� ; I: o
: �: �
:�, `i;`. ' i � ' : � :I: w Q
�' ° �
i � 1� � � 1 :r �' �
' ` ` ., � � � ' � . � ., '1� � ' :�: `��j �
;::
'3 ,�' � ti : � � i : ! ' � I � F�i c�
Page 1 of2
Welsch, Dennis
From: John Sha�dlow [jshardlow�dsuplan.com]
Sent: Monday, Apri110, 20006:47 PM
To: dennis.welsch�ci.roseville.mn.us
Subject: Roseville Lutheran Church Parking Variance Narrative
ROSEVILLE LUTHERAN CHURCH
APPLICATION FORA PARKI NG VARIANCE
Roseville Lutheran Church (RLC) began a major expansion project back in 1993. The process was difficult
because the church needed to acquire land to accommodate the expansion of its worship center. Although the
agreement between RLC and the City of Roseville is lengthy and multifaceted, in very simple terms, the church
purchased land at Co. Rd. B and Lexington Avenue and exchanged it for land in the adjacent Bruce Russel
Park.
Churches are permitted uses in the R-I District. When the land was asembled, RLC constructed a 16,000
square foot worship center (main level) which has a seating capacity of 850 people. That main worship center
was opened in 1996. The construction plans also included 3,700 square feet of balcony space along tl�e north
and west sides. The balcony seating was deferred pending church growth. The site plan contained parkin� to
serve the entire expansion, but, one double row of parking (66 spaces) was not built until the balcony seating
was added.
1►1���17�7:7�:1�_1►6'�[�7►
Roseville Lutheran Church hosts four worship services: 5:00 p.m. on Saturcbay and 8:00, 9:30 and 11:00 a.m.
on Sunday. The 9:30 a.m. and 1 I:00 a.m. services are reg ularly at, or exceeding 80% capacity. Thisls�fhe
po int at which church planners say that visitors feel crowdEd and unwelcome. Dunng these times the parking
lots and nearby on street parking �s full.
The RLC Board has adopted a Long Range Ministry Plan that calls for adequate seating and parking to
provide a welcoming atmosphere for visitors. The Board recently voted to proceed with the Phase II balcony
seating installation.
EXISTING PARKING SUMMARY
The church currently has 194 spaces in the main south lot and 82 spaces in the north lot, for a total of 276
04/11 /2000
Page 2 of2
parkin spaces. The Roseville Code requires one space per 3.5 seats (1:3.5). Currently the church provides a
ratio 03 1:3.1. The addition of 56 spaces to the east of the south lot would result in a total of 332 parking
spaces.
��:1�:7�_F'��7►6'�-3�:11►1�j�:I��:Z�]l�b'���]V_1:7/_1►[�3�
When the proposed expansion was presented at a recent congregational meeting there was general
agreement about the timliness of installing the balcony seating. There were a number of inembers who
expressed concern about the prospect of takin� additional open space for parking. After considerable
discussion the congregation voted to review th�s matter with the City of Roseville and the neighborhood and to
explore some strategies that might delay, or avoid the need to pave over additional open space.
An Adult Forum was held at 9:30 and 11:00 a.m. yesterday to review these ideas with the con gregation and a
neighborhood meeting has been scheduled for Monday, April 24 at Roseville Lutheran's SocialHall to review it
with the surrounding neig hbors. Churches are wonderful candidates for shared parking arrangements when
thgy are located near office buildings, or other businesses that do not need their parking on Sundays.
Unfortunately, no such opportunity is available to RLC. We have utilized some shuttle vans from commercial
properties along Lexington Avenue on major religous holidays.
The question for the City and the neighborhood is simply this -will you work with us to see if we can
accommodate our growth without having to pave this ope n space? We would like to approach this matter as a
con regation with a number of strategies. First, simply by raising awareness we believe that some of several
fam8 ies that come to church in two or more cars wifl ride t�gether. We also want to promote ride sharing with
our senior members and the church will exp lore ways to facilitate this effort. We will also identify members
who are willingto park on the street away from the church and walk a block or two. We will direct employee
parking onto tf►e driveway of the adjacent home owned by the church and operated as a day care facility. We
will explore ways to encourage bike riding and walking for those members who live close enough. We are also
anxious to hear what ideas the City and neighbors may have.
In closing, it is important to note that there are a number of church leaders who believe that Roseville Lutheran
Church needs this parking and it should be built. The church acquired the adjacent land at considerable cost
and they feel we may simply be delaying the inevitable. We must respect this viewpoint, but, the majority voted
to give this approach a try. It is important that the record reflect the fact that Roseville Lutheran Church owns
the adjacent land and has the right to build the 66 spaces on this land if this alternative approach does not
work.
Wth all of this background in mind we respectfully request you support for our application for a parking
variance to allow 300 balcony seats to be added to the Ros :ville Lutheran Church worship center without
adding parkin� spaces. We will be present at the Planning Commission and City Council meetings to discuss
this request with you and we thank you in advance for your consideration.
04/11/2000
i Excer�t of Minutesf Plannintt Commission meetin� of Mav 10, 2000:
2
3 6d. Planning Fil� A request by Roseville Lutheran Church for a
4 variance from Section 1005.O1Dp covering the off-street parking
5 requirements for churches. Roseville Lutheran Church currently
6 provides a ratio nof 3.1 off-street parking spaces. City Code
7 requires a ration of ?.� off strE et parking spaces. The requested
8 variance is associated with the church's desire to add 300 balcony
9 seats in the Church located at 1215 Roselawn Avenue.
l0
1 t Chair Klausing opened the hearing and requested staff to provide a verbal
12 summary of the request as described in the project report dated May 10, 2000.
13 Dennis Welsch provided background information and explained the
14 process.
15
16 John Shardlow, DSU, representing Roseville Lutheran Church, explained
17 the original proposal and the parking (56 spaces) originally proposed.
18 The Church proposed 27 spaces adjacent to the tennis area and park. He
19 described the concepts and programs necessary to reduce paved surfaces.
2o He explained that the Church held a neighborhood meeting on May 1,
21 2000 in which there was support for preserving green spaces. The Church
22 will use vans, reduce family multi-car trips and designate families for on-
23 street parking.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Mr. Shardlow noted that the Church would install the parking in the
future if needed or required.
Member Mulder asked if a permit was required to add the parking spaces
(a building permit). No hearings are necessary.
Chair Klausing asked if there was an expansion plan for the future of the
Church building (no).
Member Cunningham asked if parking on the green space itself would be
permissible (no). There are many on-street parking spaces that go unused.
Member Egli asked if there was a parking system for on-street parking,
more than one block from ute Church.
Chair Klausing asked if therE were comments/questions from the public.
42 Todd Kerkow, Roselawn Avenue, lives south of the Church, asked for
43 clarification. He commented on the Church ownership and retention of
44 green space, recommending adding no new spaces and retaining more
1
2
3
4
6
7
g
9
lo
ii
12
13
14
1S
16
17
green space. He suggested removing planting islands in the parking area
and thereby creating 18 parking spaces.
He asked the Church to consider parking even further away, car pool,
vans to e�end the variance to add zero spaces. (The Church did consider
this and decided to add 27 spaces).
Heather Hawkens, 1144 W. Ryan, sta}=� the park and open space should
remain; it is a valuable neighborhood asset.
Chair Klausing clarified issues as to whether the Planning Commission
recommends that the Church deviate from the standards.
Member Mulder stated that an interesting part of this issue is that the
petitioner (the Church) could install all 50+ spaces with only a building
permit.
1 s Motion: Member Mulder moved, Member Rhody seconded, to
19 recommend approval of the variance, based on findings as included in the
2o staff report dated May 10, 2000, as follows:
21
22
23
24
25
26
2�
2s
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
1) From a photographic and on-site review of the parking areas, it is clear that
the Church already has a large paved area within a residential neighborhood. In
the past the Council has found that such large pavement users can deteriorate
neighborhood aesthetics, air quality, landscaping and green space, and
neighborhood sense of place. . The Council has asked the staff to work with
such large one-time "surge" parking needs to prepare "proof of parking" plans
and find other e�sting parking spaces to supplement their needs. The
additional on-site parking could be a community physical hardship since the
hard surface would take away green space and increase surface water
management issues in the area.
2) As an alternative to the variance request, the Church could pave a portion of
the green space in the southeast corner of the parking lot adjacent to Bruce
Russell Park or �ar the tennis court to the north and east of die Church. This
is the "pave paradise...put in a parking lot" solution.
3� Impervious Surfaces. Chu� are known to he one of the most inefficient
land uses in tenns of "at capacity" hours of use per week. The parking
demand peaks for 4 to 5�ours �n Sun�days only, less than 3 96 of tl� entire
week, and less than 25% of the weekend daylight hours. In addition, staff
estimates d�at 25 96 of a typical residential neig6borhood is now impervious
surfacES; 50% to 80% of commercial sites are impervious; and nearly 10% of
ail land within the community is impervious road surfaces. Recently the City
adopted Best Management Practices for surface water quality and storage. One
io
11
12
13
14
1S
16
1�
Ig
19
20
zl
22
23
24
25
26
27
of the ways of improving water quality and reducing man-made storage pond
needs is to reduce the needs for minimally used impervious surfa�ces.
4) Because of the limited, but "surge" parking demand and the policy to reduce
pavement where possible, the Church should — as part of the record - supply
site plans for future on-site parking (if determined to be needed and required
by the City). Shuttle and shared ride management plans should be required. A
Paz'�8 Plan by the Church should also include nearby streets (within 4
blocks), nearby intersections, adjacent driveways, and exisdng "higher
density" parking and valet areas. A"proof of parking" permit should be
considered, showing where future parking would be placed, if needed, and
describii the thresholds that would instigate the need for consauction of
additional parking on the Church site. Such a permit could be reviewed
annually by the City, after a neighborhood meeting. Such thresholds might
include an annual inventory of on-streetSunday parking use within 4 blocks of
the Church; an annual neighborhood meeting by the Church to determine if
there are issues; review of the number of tickets and/or accidents within 4
blocks of the Church on Sunday mornings; painting of "no parking" curb lines
in critical areas; monitoring parking capacity for other events, especially
weeknight social events.
And further, that the variance be conditioned upon submission to the City
of a proof of parking plan.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
RLC
Mr. Thomas Paschke
City Planner, Roseville
Dear Mr. Paschke:
I do NOT support the variance allowing off street parking requested by Roseville Lutheran Church.
Page 1 of 1
I live at 12 10 W. Rose�awn Ave. and have many times experienced parking on our front lawn by attendees
of services at the church.
When we have asked individuals not to do so they have frequently told us it was their right to park off the
pavement. When we have contacted the church officials they have been gracious and said they would
announce a request that members respect the property of church neighbors. However, the church is
composed of individuals who often do not get the message.
This street parking problem is confounded by the fact that Roselawn Ave. is a County Road and perhaps
then out of your jurisdiction. Perhaps you could disallow church parking on Roselawn or put some pressure
on the county to help out by installing curbing.
Sincerely yours,
George R. Ruth
3 � April 2000
file://C:\TEMP\edt2.htm OS/O 1/2000
Dear Neighbors,
i•
,� �1 _ �� � � l /1 _ � L � �1 � �l . �t 1
It has been nearly four years since Roseville Lutheran Church opened it's new Worship Center.
During the planning of the new Worship Center we included plans for appro�mately 300
additional seats in our balcony and the additional on-site parking required for the balcony seating.
We chose to defer the construction of the balcony seating and required parking until such time
that the seating was needed. Our attendance has continued to grow quickly and the time has
come to implement our second phase, constructing additional seating in our balcony.
It is the Church's desire to preserve as much of the Church's green space adjacent to Bruce
Russell Park for as long as possible. Therefore, we ha�e requested a Variance from the City of
Roseville to allow us to construct the additional seating, while deferring the construction of some
of the parking spaces required by the City's Parking Ordinance, until the Church determines they
are needed. We are inviting you to a meeting to discuss the Church's plans and, in particular,
options to increase parking without expanding our south parking lot to the east, into the Church's
open green space adjoining Bruce Russell Park One option would be to have church members
park on the street up to two blocks from the church during the 9:30 and 11 a.m Sunday services.
Church officials have had preliminary conversations with city staff and ha�e been encouraged to
explore these alternatives. We would like a chance to meet with�you, to share our plans and get
your feedback before any decisions are made.
We value your thoughts and ideas! So please join us Monday, May 1, at 7:00 PM, in the Church
Social Hall.
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Date: OS/22/00
Item No: z—�
Approved: Agenda Section:
B- LAi�1D USE
Item'Description: Request by US West Wireless for a Conditional Use Permit to install a 67 foot tal�
monopole (single pole anten r:a) in the rear yard of the Countryside Restaurant, 285 1
Snelling Avenue. (PF 3207)
1.0 REQUESTED ACTION
l.l US West Wireless requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to install a 67 foot tall
monopole (single pole antenna) and an equipment area of four feet by ten feet in the rear (west
side) yard area of the Countryside Restaurant. US West proposes to replace the existing parking
lot light pole with the monopole and reinstall the parking lot light onto the monopole.
1.2 Section 10 12.1 OA4 of the Roseville Zoning Ordinance states: Commercial receiving or
transmitting antennas and towers not located on a City tower site shall be a conditional use.
Commercial receiving or transmitting antennas and towers may only be located in "B" Business or
"I" Industrial Districts. The City may establish permit review periods, tower termination, time
limits or an amortization schedule specifying the year in which the tower shall be taken down by
the applicant or its assignee. A performance bond or other surety may be required by the City in
order to assure removal of the tower at a specific date.
1.3 The conditional use permit process (Section 1013 of the City Code) for this request allows the
City to consider:
9 Compatibility with adj oining properties.
9 Impacts on traffic and public facilities.
9 Impacts on property value.
9 Impacts on general health, safety, and public welfare.
9 Compatibility with the Roseville Comprehensive Plan.
1.4 The process also allows the City to impose those conditions it considers necessary to protect the
public health, safety, and welfare. In addition the City Code (Section �1004.O1A) establishes
performance standards for the accessory building.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 The site is located in Comprehensive Plan District 10, between Snelling Avenue and Lincoln
Drive, one lot south of County Road C2. Room & Board furniture store lies directly north; the
Edina Realty office building lies to the southwest; the health clinic lies to the south; Oasis Park
lies to the west; and single family homes lie to the northwest across Lincoln Drive.
PF3207 RCA (052200) - Page 1 of 4
2.2 The site is zoned "B-2", Retail Business District; the Comprehensive Plan designates this site "B"
for business uses. In order to construct a private commercial monopole, the Zoning Code requires
a conditional use permit.
2.3 In conjunction with the application for a conditional use, the following documents have been
submitted and reviewed by staff in preparation of this report:
. narrative — April 6, 2000
. investigation for pole location — April 21, 2000
. site plan — April 6, 2000
. graphic photo representation — April 6, 2000
3.0 STAFF COMMENT & F1NDINGS
3.1 The applicant proposes a 67-foot tall monopole in the rear (west side) yard area of the Countryside
Restaurant. An associated four-foot by ten foot area is required for equipment storage (cabinets)
and is also a part of the conditional use permit application. The equipment supports the monopole
and would not exceed five feet in height. Section 1012.10A4 of the Roseville Zoning Ordinance
regulates private commercial antennas and towers.
3.2 Section 1013.01 .D of the Roseville Zoning Ordinance lists the criteria reviewed when considering
the issuance of a conditional use permit. The criteria are as follows: impact of parking; impact on
parks, streets, and other public facilities; compatibility of site plan, internal traffic circulation,
landscaping, and structures with contiguous properties; impact of the use on the market value of
contiguous properties; impact on the general public health, safety, and welfare; compatibility with
the City's Comprehensive Plan.
3.3 Staff has reviewed the development proposal with regard to the criteria in Section 10 13 .0 1.D of
the Roseville Zoning Ordinance and concludes the proposal meets these criteria. Specifically, the
proposed monopole and associated equipment structure will not create additional traffic nor the
need for additional public facilities. With proper screening and landscaping, the equipment
facility will not have an impact on surrounding property or values. There appears to be no impact
on general health, safety, and public welfare. In addition, the proj ect complies with the
Comprehensive Plan designation as a business use.
3.4 The applicant has provided information indicating the technical dead reception space surrounding
the C-2 at Snelling location and a brief description of the proposed coverage area of .75 mile
radius.
3.5 The proposed monopole is comprised of galvanized steel and has the antenna located in a cylinder
on the top of the pole.
3.6 The monopole will be located in the same location as the current rear parking lot light pole. This
location is near a sizeable stand of mature deciduous trees approximately 40 to 50 feet in height.
PF3207 RCA (052200) — Page 2 of 4
3.7 There are no City poles or private multi-tenant poles in this area of the �community.
3.8 The proposed location of the monopole and supporting equipment cabinets meet the required
setback of 30 feet from property line.
3.9 Conditions may be attached to the CUP that would mitigate the impact on adj acent properties
including such items as increased setbacks from property lines, landscape screening, architectural
color and design/materials details, drainage provisions, and limiting additional exterior storage.
4.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION
4.1 The staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow construction of a 67 foot
monopole tower and associated equipment area for the purpose of providing wireless
communication services, based on the findings in Section 3 and with the conditions listed in
Section 4 of this report.
5.0 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
5.1 The maximum height above grade at the monopole base shall be 67 feet. One antenna at the size
specified in the application may be installed on the monopole.
5.2 A prefabricated set of equipment cabinets may be installed near the base of the monopole. All
utility wires or lines leading to the monopole shall be buried.
5.3 The area surrounding the ground equipment should be used to screen the equipment cabinets from
view. Specifically, plant material should be installed on the north, west, and south sides of the
equipment area having a minimum height of five feet (except accent shrubs); 75% of this plant
screen should be coniferous. A complete landscape plan must be prepared as part of the building
permit application and approved by the City prior to issuance of the building permit.
5.4 The monopole is to be limited to the single user/applicant (US West Wireless). Future antenna
additions will require a revised CUP.
5.5 The monopole shall not be lighted. Electric and phone wires serving the equipment and monopole
shall be buried. The reinstalled parking lot light shall serve as security lighting.
5.6 The 67 foot tall monopole and supporting equipment shall be completely removed from the site by
the applicant (US West Wireless) after operations cease; the equipment is damaged or unsafe as
determined by the Roseville Building Official; th � CUP elapses or is determined to be in violation
by the Community Development Director. The City may require the applicant (US West
Wireless) to post a bond to assure timely removal of the monopole and supporting equipment.
5.7 Parking of maintenance vehicles shall occur in an off-street parking space directly adj acent to the
monopole location.
PF3207 RCA (052200) - Page 3 of 4
5.8 The color of the supporting equipment cabinets shall be of a similar color to that of the principal
structure.
5.9 Prior to issuance of a building permit, and within 60 days after approval of the conditional use
permit, the applicant must record the conditional use permit with the Ramsey County Recorder.
5.10 This conditional use permit shall expire 6 months after approval if a building permit has not been
issued. (Section 10 13.03)
6.0 PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION & RECOMMENDATION
6.1 On May 10, 2000, the Roseville Planning held the public hearing regarding the request by US
West Wireless's for a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 67 foot monopole and four
(w) by ten (1) by five (h) equipment area at 285 1 Snelling Avenue North. There were no citizens
present, other than the applicant, to address the Commission regarding the request.
6.2 The Commission asked only a few questions regarding the monopole, site landscaping, and
wireless communication device interference (see attached minutes).
6.3 The Commission voted (7 — 0) to recommend approval of the request by Us West Wireless for a
conditional use permit to allow construction of a 67 foot tall monopole and associated equipment
units for property located at 2891 Snelling Avenue North, subject to the findings listed in Section
3 of the proj ect report and subj ect to the conditions listed in Section 5 of the proj ect report.
7.0 SUGGESTED COUNCIL ACTION
7.1 By resolution approve (deny) the request be US West Wireless for a conditional use permit to
allow construction of a 67 foot tall monopole and associated equipment units for properry located
at 2891 Snelling Avenue North, subj ect to the findings listed in Section 3 of the proj ect report and
subj ect to the conditions listed in Section 5 of the proj ect report.
Attachments: narrative, site plan, location map, and coverage study.
60-Day Schedule: Application accepted on Apri128, 2000. Decision deadline is June 26, 2000.
Prepared by: Thomas Paschke
PF3207 RCA (052200) — Page 4 of 4
DRAFT
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 held at the City Hall on
Monday, the 22nd day of May, 2000, at 6:30 P.��'�.
The following members were present:
and the following were absent:
Council Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR US WEST
WIRELESS TO CONSTRUCT A 67 FOOT TALL MONOPOLE AND
ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT UNITS AT 2851 SNELLING AVENUE NORTH.
WHEREAS, US West Wireless has requested approval to construct a 67 foot tall
monopole (single pole antenna) and associated equipment units on property addressed at
285 1 Snelling Avenue North; and
WHEREAS, Section 10 12.1 OA4 requires commercial receiving and transmitting
antenna not located on a City tower to receive and conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, the proposed monopole would be a maximum height of 67 feet and
the equipment area would encompass an area four feet by ten feet and be five feet in
height; and
WHEREAS, the site, located in Comprehensive Plan District #10 (with a
Comprehensive Plan designation of B) is zoned B-2, Retail Business District; and
WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on
the request on Wednesday, May 10, 2000, and recommended approval of the requested
conditional use permit (subject to conditions); and
WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council received the Planning Commission's
recommendation on Monday, May 22, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council made the following findings:
The applicant proposes a 67-foot tall monopole in the rear (west side) yard
area of the Countryside Restaurant. An associated four-foot by ten foot area is
required for equipment storage (cabinets) and is also a part of the conditional
use permit application. The equipment supports the monopole and would not
exceed five feet in height. Section 1�12.10A4 of the Roseville Zoning
Ordinance regulates private commercial antennas and towers.
Section 1013.O1.D of the Roseville Zoning Ordinance lists the criteria
reviewed when considering the issuance of a conditional use permit. The
criteria are as follows: impact of parking; impact on parks, streets, and other
public facilities; compatibility of site plan, internal traffic circulation,
landscaping, and structures with contiguous properties; impact of the use on
the market value of contiguous properties; impact on the general public health,
safety, and welfare; compatibility with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The Roseville City Council concludes the proposal meets the criteria specified
in Section 1013 .O 1D of the Roseville Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the
proposed monopole and associated equipment structure will not create
additional traffic nor the need for additional public facilities. With proper
screening and landscaping, the equipment facility will not have an impact on
surrounding property or values. There appears to be no impact on general
health, safety, and public welfare. In addition, the proj ect complies with the
Comprehensive Plan designation as a business use.
4. The applicant has provided information indicating the technical dead
reception space surrounding the C-2 at Snelling location and a brief
description of the proposed coverage area of .75 mile radius.
5. The proposed monopole is comprised of galvanized steel and has the antenna
located in a cylinder on the top of the pole.
6. The monopole will be located in the same location as the current rear parking
lot light pole. This location is near a sizeable stand of mature deciduous trees
approximately 40 to 50 feet in height.
There are no City poles or private multi-tenant poles in this area of the
community.
8. The proposed location of the �onopo ,e and supporting equipment cabinets
meet the required setback of 30 feet from properry line.
9. Conditions may be attached to the CUP that would mitigate the impact on
adjacent properties including such items as increased setbacks from property
lines, landscape screening, architectural color and design/materials details,
drainage provisions, and limiting additional exterior storage.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Roseville, Minnesota, a Ramsey Count„ Minnesota, that a conditional use permit for US
West Wireless to allow the construction of a 67-toot tall monopole and associated four
foot by ten foot equipment area (cabinets) in the rear (west side) yard area of the
Countryside Restaurant, 285 1 Snelling Avenue North, be approved, subject the following
conditions:
l. The maximum height above grade at the monopole base shall be 67 feet. One
antenna at the size specified in the application may be installed on the
monopole.
2. A prefabricated set of equipment cabinets may be installed near the base of
the monopole. All utility wires or lines leading to the monopole shall be
buried.
The area surrounding the ground equipment should be used to screen the
equipment cabinets from view. Specifically, plant material should be installed
on the north, west, and south sides of the equipment area having a minimum
height of five feet (except accent shrubs); 75% of this plant screen should be
coniferous. A complete landscape plan must be prepared as part of the
building permit application and approved by the City prior to issuance of the
building permit.
4. The monopole is to be limited to the single user/applicant (US West
Wireless). Future antenna additions will require a revised CUP.
5. The monopole shall not be lighted. Electric and phone wires serving the
equipment and monopole shall be buried. The reinstalled parking lot light
shall serve as security lighting.
6. The 67 foot tall monopole and supporting equipment shall be completely
removed from the site by the applicant (US West Wireless) after operations
cease; the equipment is damaged or unsafe as determined by the Roseville
Building Official; the CUP elapses or is determined to be in violation by the
Community Development Dir: ;tor. The City may require the applicant (US
West Wireless) to post a bond �o assure timely removal of the monopole and
supporting equipment.
7. Parking of maintenance vehicles shall occur in an off-street parking space
directly adj acent to the monopole location.
8. The color of the supporting equipment cabinets shall be of a similar color to
that of the principal structure.
9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, and within 60 days after approval of the
conditional use permit, the applicant must record the conditional use permit
with the Ramsey County Recorder.
10. This conditional use permit shall expire 6 months after approval if a building
permit has not been issued. (Section 10 13.03)
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.
1 DRAFT MINUTES
2 City of Roseville
3 Planning Commission Minutes
4 Wednesday, May 10, 2000
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
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
l.
2.
3.
4.
Call to Order:
Chair Craig Klausing called the h;ay 10, 2000 regular meeting of the City of
Roseville Planning Con�n�ission to order at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers of the City Hall.
�� ,i� i���, �i
Present: Chair Craig Klausing, Ed Cunningham, Doug Wilke, Peggy Egli,
Janet Olson, James Mulder, John Rhody
Absent: None
Staff present: Deb Bloom, Thomas Paschke, Dennis Welsch
Avvrovalof Minutes:
Motion: Member Cunningham moved, seconded by Member Wilke, to approve
the minutes of the Apri112, 2000 meeting of the Planning Comn�ission, with the
following amendments: page 3, line 5, "neighbors were not consulted", page 3,
line 21, "substantive", not "substructure'.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Communications from the Public:
Chair Klausing noted Member Janet Olson will be recognized by the Gavel Club
for her volunteer work and leadership contributions in Roseville. Amongst her
many activities Janet has worked for several years to preserve open space in
Roseville.
5. ConsentAQenda:
None
6 . Public HearinQS•
6a. Plannin¢ File 3207: A req�iest by U.S. West Wireless for a
Conditional Use Permit to install a monopole, for the purpose of
providing PCS services, in the rear yard area of the Countryside
Restaurant. The subject property is located at 2851 Snelling
Avenue North.
Planning Commission Minutes,l��lay 10, 2000 Page 1 ofl7
1 Chair Klausing opened the hearing and requested the City Planner
2 Thomas Paschke to provide a verbal summary of the project report dated
3 May 10, 2000. He explained requirements of the City Code for commercial
4 antennas. The site is zoned B-2. The proposed monopole replaces an
s existing light pole. He displayed a photo graphic rendering of the pole.
6 Staff determined that the pole meets criteria in the Code and
7 recommended approval.
s
9
lo
11
12
13
14
1S
16
17
18
19
20
21
Chair Klausing asked for the specific height of the pole (67'-68') with the
antenna. What are the violation criteria? (blow down, accidental damage).
Member Egli asked what the City policy is for towers. Council direction
was discussed.
Member Mulder asked if companies have been required to post bonds.
Member Egli asked if there are interference issues in adjacent areas.
Ken Neilsen and Dave Mitchell, representing U.S. West, explained the U.S.
West Wireless services for mobile phones and data connections.
22 Mr. Neilsen distributed illustrations of the monopole proposal. He noted
23 the proposed site is a"fill-in" site. He illustrated the 4' high antennae,
24 atop the monopole. The ground equipment was described. No utilities
25 other than electricity and phone lines are required.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Mr. Neilsen stated there has been no interference from U.S. West site.
Member Olson asked if trees would be removed. (No, trees will be added.)
Member Olson asked if multi-users could use this pole.
Mr. Neilsen said the pole could be removed and replaced with a multi-
user tower. What would it look like? (standard mono pole or lattice
tower).
Member Mulder asked if the height of the pole was for reception or to get
above the trees. (Antennas must be above tree cover.) If the pole was
moved to another site, would the height be the same? (yes).
No public comment was offered.
Chair Klausing closed the hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes. Ma� 10.2000
Page 2 of 17
lo
11
12
13
14
1S
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Klausing reviewed the Conditional Use Permit considerations in
Section 1.3 of the project report.
Motion: Member Mulder moved, seconded by Chair Klausing, to
recommend approval of U.S. West Wireless's request for a conditional use
permit to allow construction of a 67 foot monopole and four (w) by ten (1)
by five (h) equipment area at 2851 Selling Avenue North, based on the
findings in Section 3 and with the conditions recommended in Section 4 of
the staff report of May 10, 2000, as follows:
1) The maximum height above grade at the monopole base shall be 67 feet. One antenna at the
size specified in the application may be installed on the monopole.
2) A prefabricated set of equipment cabinets may be installed near the base of the monopole. All
utility wires or lines leading to the monopole shall be buried.
3� The area surrounding the ground equipment should be used to screen the equipment cabinets
from view. Specifically, plant material should be installed on the north, west, and south sides
of the equipment area having a minimum height of five feet (except accent shrubs); 75% of
this plant screen should be coniferous. A complete landscape plan must be prepared as part of
the building permit application and approved by the City prior to issuance of the building
permit.
4) The monopole is to be limited to the single user/applicant (US West Wireless). Future
antenna additions will require a revised CUP.
5� The monopole shall notbe lighted. Electric and phone wires serving the equipment and
monopole shall be buried. The reinstalled parking lot light shall serve as security lighting.
6) The 67 foot tall monopole and supporting equipment shall be completely removed from the
site by the applicant (US West Wireless) after operations cease; the equipment is damaged or
unsafe as determined by the Roseville Building Official; the CUP elapses or is determined to
be in violation by the Community Development Director. The City may require the applicant
(US West Wireless) to post a bond to assure timely removal of the monopole and supporting
equipment.
'7) Parking of maintenance vehicles shall occur in an off-street parking space directly adjacent to
the monopole location.
8) The color of the supporting equipment cabinets shall be of a similar color to that of the
principal structure.
9) Prior to issuance of a building permit, and within 60 days aRer approval of the conditional use
permit, the applicant must record the conditional use permit with the Ramsey County
Recorder.
10) This conditional use permit shall expire 6 m�nths after approval if a building permit has not
been issued. (Section 1013.03)
49
50 Ayes:7
S 1 Nays: 0
52 Motion carried.
Planning Commission Minutes, May 10, 2000 Page3 of 17
� ^.. --. _' - . . - ." _. . . . �—T i •. 'i".. " J `. . ' � - . .-- . . �.
1� � � � ■ .
I . n"'K ` j' ' ' +� �.�
� . � '�� f'N � � %�.i t � : . . . � 4 i j , ... �- � .-.. . �
, .;
� -:,
L._' !:� ` ' ' ;:i �.�._. ..� . '+r��,
� ... i1. •. � ; . _ �, '^ _ ' . ,. i ;' . • � � _�
1 i
' E . . .. �.�..: '� . �
i rr ,. ` : � ,.,.:; �, . ' ; .- j _
; � ''
, � �"l ,' + ::� � . ` i• t _ ;` L� .. ' . ..... -j (
1 � J. �'
�, ' _
J : . ,���';� � . . � . ! � ( • � , �
�. - -�.._ ° , .- , `� �
;
_ � . ,�`� i• ',,,,�_s
� ! �`1 ` . _ ��. � - ��, .; � �..--w.�,.�,..�
� , � :.� � � 4_ �.�� ,_ � , �� . •
• � :.J�- !:: .
, � w d �' . .. :,... •. ..f i /j `
, : � ; .i �u.�'� �;� .,�.
J �� ' �� , . ,� � . . '
� - . � , , _ _ , _ I
, . �:.. ' •. i !:
• ,� ,� , . •
'--�, � 1 - , � � .
.� � � . �-`,t ' '. �i � , • �. !i
' � i • a . �.. ` -� ,
t � �t _�►y� . - _ , , Sl�J�Li_1NG �ltF_ t=Rfi f�C7G4D
,�. .� . _ _ .
_. . _ .,._
�cs � � � _.�.i: . � _ . , . _ _ .
-. .
_ _ .., : ---- _ _ . _ ..
______- _, . _ l �
3N�L7.7n7G AVE M - _ U ..... . . . .
, _
__ ... . __ —�.._...s� + • �.�_._,. _.._. _..:��..,.�.. _ ..�:,.
- _.
,.�_...._..._.....„r....,._.._.�.�_ �._�..�,. .
_ ..___. _
.�- - g ' +. — ..:- « ' , _ ,
_ . .
,._ -" � _..., s - - .
. �--. _ .. . ' _
- � r i'.. ` �•-•�..�
��� ' � �tt,�
• n; ' P; i ' �� �
^' �' �i f .` �------ � � � �'r
� 'p �•� �, � y, } d.' _ i � !q � � '�
i ,
�� __ � � � . _ -
��t � ! . t �E` � t. � • .-! ' r • — ' �� I _' � t
�p �.. � � z `� .�,.... � y ,, � - . - . .. - �'
, � 1 � .. �.�
: � �a _ � . � I : ... .7r.. �'• i` . •� '11�
J j + t • +. �� �
�. % : � 1 ' . : • . •
H-�.:,;, 'i� i . ,
n :�
�Y k +�?.. � ` , ' . . . � .1 .y i! � , . . �.
�
� . ._ � , . . � "
•` ;. .�': �,i �
..
•,
�C:a..��.. . _ � .. - _ .
PC , � , , ,� a �
�. �� ..�, .. .
--.coc... �- _-,.--- �"_
. �+�... , • '�_ `.:,;, ._. � __ __ . . _.__.... .. . ., �
, . . , .
,,� _. __ --_ , _.__ . . . --�-
, ---�.
v. .'�i _ , � ' � . ' -
I , � ' =,;. �.. '` - , � � .
' �,,� ' � •
�. _ �. '' �� t
� .: r i. - �j
. }, '! ^,
�_ „� ,, �.' " . ', � ' .
� -. - - - ,
� - , . . __. . � . � - .
M� a . , . � ;:i
' ..��.. , _ :i. �• f �� � r
` , • . . ,. < � , t ; f I � � ',
,t^� - • _ � - � , .
W''y� ` .: . , . � � , �� . - .' . � _ . . . , . ' .; ..- _ ` +. P r'If' .. , . . :
�. (. • � . - ." � . . . . - . �L� _ , _ . , . .. � - ,- - - � -
� C, . ' �� ' �' :"'' .�. " � I.' 4�,;:,.,.::
, � � .. ,y`�• ; � . .
'�� , . , , , ." .� {` .., �.��: ` ' . . . .
"''� t
� , _ . . . . � �i.�.�lii���a�{ � � } �� � - - , .
.-., r� �? �; �
. _ (; I � � ��- •• i , j � �� . Y ...:.!..
;,, �. , {,, i _ .
;� r - 1 -�. _ _ ' � ' � t .. . . . €� .. � � _� .�►. _ _
_�,,. . .. �.:.. � � ' i 1
e��. � � Zt '3; ; o
r�- � _�- -#..�.��
�( � �_.��� 3
_ ` � zi.w � NW � �... '
. •1--r,_. y �- �
L -r� l � 1 ..:
; ��� � �i �... E ���._�'
' Q� � aj �i1�STNW
''� �; � iTMl�� . � �
��� w � a a
�•�� . .�r.._ : �r ��
Z" ` D �NW� 1
1 � ' �
� r�._.._
W ��,, ' t � .
< Z 15TSTNV
3 �j ,f `;�� ��. � . . ..`�' `.
!- �� � t �D - '-
. ?�� ��y�is�-__..._..- 1 ST ST 3V1
! � � ,
:t�
.. Cp�SW
�r--� �, ,T � { ��I/�J
MPEf�� �' � i
-r^ ' �
; ..�..�.. ,t
i��� �' l�s'�F1 STSW
4 ' '�
�}�
�
p , � �_._�
:�
�' f •.�°� _�-----.-_.�.
; 88
� .
� �
F ��}, � .._ , -
r",.".
( .
w
�.Jniversity
Fatm
Z�.� LLi.�...._��' � �r';::
o � � ��
� ` :,:e
� `�._�, lT
i M�Pf�,
Perry �ark p�,���
� . ' f.
i..M�r�iF� • ■
��
,' IGYI�YInL �
; �
.._.. i lc
�� .
� Z F
. � i J��
1
_ .__ t- •L..i�.�.�
�tos ale � mmons ^
��
,....... �.r._ _. ..... i .� .
r' '.j�:'....__�.
__. .�_� �_...._ tG
;�: �L `�...,.__._l RAN
; _. �� . ,
�i,'.
r••��� � i1LLER LN „� T,.,_ , _.._....�..._.,_.......
� Y � ARL Oi'I,.��L`�t":,1'' � �
10 �i .._' A �.R .. �.NNBER
.� ���� _ r
NII 348 overage bjectiv R� f`�� n i
,-�, . ._____ =:��- ,�
.�.;
, : t;; ,.�:,;=` ,a` _ �t(l�' ENHILI�.�RD =S/ � �%
i �'c .t4 ,^� i M� � � �, e,
�.� �; ,'�4 ��`.� �t C,LEN PAE � �� ; f 3�
4 ti ���;� "� i �� O i
, 1 c� � i� . .�,1
�� �j � �r ___�o �N- �� , �
�d(le�g h�� gt�: � � ..,.�.�.. _�� lf,
�+ -' �`E ` ` '
� �� ,R « .V.�, ', �; LYDi'A`f 1 �Ir
:st site i�'��� ��-`"�°� i y.• ry`
'� �.._ _,�-�� �'
! f Y ILL � j �'
!•, {,,,,�� .s
� N R �C2 W CR G��`^ V
4^._S`�`��Y i.....,i.. --��_.;..r..�'.HARD N
� s : , � � --�-�'= _ � �
1 f ! y
�� 1 � l � a
NTH� F�..._�.. i r � •✓/r, ,
RRA � i- W y r� J�
i �,�
t""' 1 i y w� } �> �,'��; ��V e
� � Z.,� . . } ��..,�.'� . { l.�.��'
M � � m�__ �v M1 � ..,.1 � ! r ro r
?.n�1�.: � .....� � J �Y
1
: �,;��
� ;=:� c�ot�
r--�-'~"""�'�T—
M`"T�'� +
,�-lar-M�
L-
� -
F�___��..�..�1 _. Y....��1__ .co
w �
tR T '"� �-�"
� �—��. �.,.Mt�
10
1......_ B .�.._. _._... _ _._..
._..�..�._..._... �i �i . �
/E W PARI�R.._...�� <! \�¢.-� .
J ._ .... . p
'E W � � �'RYE�2 i
..,._._C...,. -
'� ��rw , . _- ��i
f �[j�..�
. 1 , Z . ��
S
�_ j v
� �� �� � i�
� �
�.
� � _ _�
0
� � �
. . . . . . :� - _ . �
S
!
.^ � � . . . . . $� � . � . . .
�
. . . . , - .:: j ' . . . �
.. � � .'' _ , ' �.
� , ', S ` .j,
• ,� r' � .� ' � " � + ' � d
s J y�4 � f� ' + 4 15 '' C
— . .. . ..� r � s �' y ��ifi��C� i `' � ti �� >
- � T, � 1-" , v�,, fx �i� i'+rs' rjq
' �' `: ��a. { � 4'� I.,T`r.s �Q �:k T!iK
'i 4" J ��`. �C � y T.
, _ i.�Y i' �' :rI s..�7s i�}�� i'. .tff,���
.' ^ - � `T��° � 1�i4.��� � ��SSr}}.+4, ���ti �.� .t•fii'�'.
., �.' .l. �Y ,]� :ip• � ��L �� `� �fe�� !
. . a _ 't�,�.s_. i � yf O- ?.l?, j .: . ..
�. � L� i''� �w
.� � � � li : � 7� �,
s'
. �; .N :��.` . .- --s�r ._� .t .
:.t .' . _' ?. �`_ - . :'� 7 . �� � ?•� � . � ' ..
_ f'e� ..�i�l
�� � �
�
� , . - �- , .
. ' ., . � �-
� �; . . :
., . �, . . �
,,
- - � : :.';: _ :�
. _ . ,. :�
. _ . . i..R ; •, ,. .-s
� • . . • ' '� ! � ly?►ti .,: ��4
� , • , . -1 . _..i . , . . � 2 �.<
• � 1 i 1
.
• . , . . ' . . . - ; � . • ♦T'�'^r, �) ..
`> .: ti • ti � �
�.. . � , . . � :� :. ' .� rr:1`�, � JS % w iT-+��..^tL �.
_. . ' �y , �1 it� 1F• ��•
.. . . h � !� h, '� K �.1
. . - � • . . .'� . � . r �_ „ . i r�
� . � � • . � . �.:/�� . � � . - � ,�'1- • ,, � '. ���� ��'�
. .. .. � .,'w+ '°� ♦ i+►''i,`'���'� . ,ir.
::,. �'► r •�'�
.. � '' �' ` - �: � _,.,, � ;.�
- ..::.. �' �,�: =1�".
. _ . . ' . - ,r � �.. ! .
I �
�
i �
.. - ' . . . .. . . . . � . . . � . � _:��.. � . � . . . . � .
' i-.�' _
. , � . . . ,� � . � . � - � . . .
F. , _ . s . . _ . . . . . . . . . .. . . � - . . . . . .� . . . . � . . . . . _ I
. � . . � * . . . '��. �... , .. . • . , . � . . � . � ' �
`
. ' ... , . _ .. - . '.� - . � . � . . . , , .
.. f - .
. . f , - -. ; - � :
_ .. � : � �.�. '`- _ � - .
. ,.
, . : .. : ,� �' k i : � � ! � .
, � � - .. .. .
_ : � �
- � _ . . . . , '
— �. . ,- � . � � �f�. � � �l � � �.� . � � � • ... ' � �- � ._ - + � , � � � . � � � � . -. �.. ',,
� . _ . . � �� "i ..
� - � . . . � .. � . . . .. , .. . , , . .. . .. .. . . , � , .. ,
r'. _. , . . . . � - - . . � _ � . � � . � _ � . . _.
� �
� ,
I�� � . ' � . . , : . . � . . . . . . . . _ , _ . , � . �
F
p
� _� _. . . . . . . . . _ _ _ . _ .. . - . . � .
Approval:
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Date: OS/22/00
Item No: T _ -�
Approved: Agenda Section:
A-- LAND USE
It�'m Description: Request by Tim Honigschmidt, 1378 Sandhurst Drive West, for a Conditional
Use Permit to construct an accessory structure 1000 square feet in size.
(PF3212)
1.0 REQUESTED ACTION
l.l Tim Honigschmidt, 1378 Sandhurst Drive West, requests approval of a Conditional Use
Permit to construct a 26'x 32' (832 square feet) two stall detached garage with work
space (shop area) and a 12' x 14' (168 square foot) screened (three-season) porch on his
11,775 square foot residential lot. The building would be used for storage of personal
vehicles and residential equipment. One double overhead door, two vehicle parking
bays, shop space, and three side pedestrian entrance/exists are proposed.
1.2 The conditional use permit process (Section 1013 of the City Code) for this request
allows the City to consider:
9 Compatibility with adj oining properties.
9 Impacts on traffic and public facilities.
9 Impacts on property value.
9 Impacts on general health, safety, and public welfare.
9 Compatibility with the Roseville Comprehensive Plan.
1.3 The process also allows the City to impose those conditions it considers necessary to
protect the public health, safety, and welfare. In addition, a new change to the City Code
(Section 1004.0 lA) establishes performance standards for the accessory building.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 The site is located in Comprehensive Plan District No. 13, between Hamline Avenue and
Albert Street. Single family homes surround the property in all directions. The site is
located in the Rice Creek Watershed.
2.2 The site is zoned R-1(Residential); the Comprehensive Plan designates this site "L-R"
for low-density residential uses. In orde.• to construct a detached garage larger than 864
square feet in a residential district, the Zoning Code requires a conditional use permit.
2.3 The homes in this area are 1,000 to 1,600 square foot ramblers, story and half, and two
stories, built during the 1940's, 50's and 60's on 1/4 to 1/3 acre lots (approximately 75
feet wide by 157 to 178 feet deep).
PF3212 RPCA (051000) - Page 1 of 4
2.4 In conjunction with the application for a conditional use, the following documents (dated
04/28/00) have been submitted and reviewed by staff in preparation of this report:
. site plan
. building plans
3.0 STAFF COMMENT & FINDINGS
3.1 Mr. Honigschmidt proposes an 832 square foot detached garage and a 168 square foot
screened three-season porch that requires a conditional use permit (CUP) as per City
Code Section 1004.O1A.12.
3.2 Section 10 13.0 1.D of the Roseville Zoning Ordinance lists the criteria reviewed when
considering the issuance of a conditional use permit. The criteria are as follows: impact
of parking; impact on parks, streets, and other public facilities; compatibility of site plan,
internal traffic circulation, landscaping, and structures with contiguous properties; impact
of the use on the market value of contiguous properties; impact on the general public
health, safety, and welfare; compatibility with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
3.3 Staff has reviewed the development proposal with regard to the criteria in Section
1013.0 1.D of the Roseville Zoning Ordinance and concludes the proposal meets these
criteria. Specifically, the proposed detached garage and screened porch will not create
additional traffic nor the need for additional public facilities. With proper exterior
building treatment, drainage, and landscaping, the building will not have an impact on
surrounding property or values. There appzars to be no impact on general health, safety,
and public welfare. In addition, the proj ect complies with the Comprehensive Plan
designation as low density residential uses.
3.4 Conditions may be attached to the CUP that would mitigate the impact on adj acent
properties including such items as increased setbacks from property lines, landscape
screening, architectural color and design/materials details, drainage provisions, and
limiting additional e�erior storage.
4.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION
4.1 The staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow construction of a
1,000 square foot detached accessory building, based on the findings in Section 3 and
subj ect to the conditions listed in Section 4 of this report.
5.0 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
5.1 The existing principal structure and proposed detached accessory building with driveway
and sidewalk area is limited to 30% of the lot area or 3,532.5 square feet.
PF3212 RPCA (051000) — Page 2 of 4
5.2 The proposed detached accessory building and hard surface driveway expansion shall be
set back a minimum of five feet from the side (east) property line..
5.3 All roof drainage created by the new structure must be collected in gutters and channeled
to the natural drainage way within the applicant's property.
5.4 The exterior of the building must be of similar materials and color of the home.
5.5 Because of the size of the new structure (1,000 s.f.) no other accessory building or tool
shed may be permitted on the property.
5.6 The maximum height (as defined in Section 1004.01) shall be 15 feet.
5.7 The existing detached accessory structure must be removed from the site.
5.8 Prior to issuance of a building permit, and within 60 days after approval of the
conditional use permit, the applicant must record the conditional use permit with the
Ramsey County Recorder.
5.9 This conditional use permit expires 6 months after approval if a building permit has not
been issued. (Section 1013.03)
6.0 PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION & RECOMMENDATION
6.1 On May 10, 2000, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing regarding
the Honigschmidt conditional use permit request. No neighboring residents addressed
the commission regarding the proposal. The Commission had a number of questions for
staff and the applicant. Specifically, some Commissioners were concerned with the size
of the accessory structure and its proposed location. These Commissioners felt the size
was too large for the area and would possible look out of place. The also felt the
accessory building should meet the required five foot side yard setback (see attached
minutes).
6.2 The Planning Commission voted (5 — 2) to recommend approval of the request by Mr.
Honigschmidt for a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 1,000 square foot
detached accessory building (garage and screened porch) at 1378 Sandhurst Drive North,
based on the findings in Section 3 subject to the conditions recommended in Section 5 of
project report.
63 The Planning Commission also voted (5 — 2) to recommend an amendment to condition
5.2 (above) requiring the accessory structure be set back a minimum of five feet from the
side (east) yard property line.
PF3212 RPCA (051000) - Page 3 of 4
7.0 SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
7.1 By resolution approve (deny) the request by Mr. Honigschmidt for a conditional use
permit to allow construction of a 1,000 square foot detached accessory building (garage
and screened porch) at 1378 Sandhurst Drive North, based on the findings in Section 3
and subj ect to the conditions recommended in Section 5.
Attachments: Site survey and building plans.
60-Day Schedule: Application accepted on Apri128, 2000. Decision deadline is June 26, 2000.
Prepared by: Thomas Paschlce
PF3212 RPCA (051000) — Page 4 of 4
DRAFT
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 held at the City Hall on
Monday, the 22nd day of May, 2000, at 6:30 P.M.
The following members were present:
and the following were absent:
Council Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 1378
SANDHURST DRIVE WEST (TIM HONIGSCHMIDT) TO CONSTRUCT
A 1000 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
WHEREAS, Tim Honigschmidt, 1378 Sandhurst Drive West has requested
approval to construct a 26' x 32' (832 sq. ft.) two stall detached garage with work space
(shop area) and a 12' x 14' (168) three season porch (all attached and encompassing
1,000 sq. ft.) on his 11,775 square foot residential lot; and
WHEREAS, the proposed structure (1,000 sq. ft.) exceeds the maximum allowed
rear yard coverage of the 40%, and further, on this lot the 40% detached building area is
calculated as 75 feet in width x 30 feet in depth (900 sq. ft.), and therefore requires a
conditional use permit as per City Code Section 1004.O1A.12; and
WHEREAS, the 1,000 square foot detached accessory structure would have two
parking bays, shop space, storage are for personal belongings, and a screened three
season porch; and
WHEREAS, the site, located in Comprehensive Plan District #13 (with a
Comprehensive Plan designation of L-R) is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential
District; and
WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on
the request on Wednesday, May 10, 2000, and recommended approval of the requested
conditional use permit (subj ect to conditions); and
WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council received the Planning Commission's
recommendation on Monday, May 22, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council made the following findings:
The project will not create additional traffic nor the need for additional public facilities.
With proper e�erior building treatment, drainage, and landscaping, the building will not
have an impact on surrounding property or values. There appears to be no impact on
general health, safety, and public welfare. In addition, the proj ect complies with the
Comprehensive Plan designation as low density residential uses.
The addition of the 1,000 square foot detached accessory structure on the site complies
with the total allowable coverage of the site requirement (30% or 3,532.5 sq. ft.).
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Roseville, Minnesota, a Ramsey County, Minnesota, that a conditional use permit to
allow the construction of a 26' x 32' (832 sq. ft.) two-stall detached garage with shop
area and an attached 12' x 14' (168 sq. ft.) screened three season porch on property
located at 1378 Sandhurst Drive West, be approved subject to the following conditions:
The existing principal structure and proposed detached accessory building
with driveway and sidewalk area is limited to 30% of the lot area or 3,532.5
square feet.
2. The proposed detached accessory building and hard surface driveway
expansion shall be set back a minimum of five feet from the side (east) yard
property line.
3. All roof drainage created by the new structure must be collected in gutters and
channeled to the natural drainage way within the applicant's property.
4. The exterior of the building must be of similar materials and color of the
home.
5. Because of the size of the new structure (1,000 sq. ft.) no other accessory
building or tool shed may be permitted on the property.
6. The maximum height (as defined in Section 1004.01) shall be 15 feet.
7. `The existing detached accessory structure must be removed from the site.
8. Prior to issuance of a building permit, and within 60 days after approval of the
conditional use permit, the applicant m zst record the conditional use permit
with the Ramsey County Recorder.
9. This conditional use permit expires 6 months after approval if a building
permit has not been issued. (Section 1013.03)
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.
�
.��
�
�
�
�
� �
O M
� � _.;._
� �
��
� ��
oA
��
� �
��
� �
w�
;� �
� `�'
c� "'`'
.�o
�
�
0
� �s
.�
�
� ��
� �
� �m
� �
����9�
�
�, .��e:�e
�n --
v ��0�
- v 8���l�
�
_ pa����i���
� �`� ��— �
. �
�� . � �� ,�. B
�m o� c�� �
, e� �...
�� �� 0� 0
�Q�� p
5��� �� �� �v o
____ .�� ��v � �
.
�
��� � � � �0� � d
. o.:v o
�6� n �Q..� r�i� Q
� ,. ���
I��O���IO °� �e �
���i■.��ii�l�1..7 � ��
' �� Ov
{ � 0
� ��
'�' .. ° �oA o�o
e� 8�
:��I - �° v� �
= � .ao - °,� o� �
. � �� � "`� [>L_'1 �
� . �2l� — �. � 0� �__��
!� � 0� ' ''- — Ot3
C�:1 L�B a � t��� �; �p
��..7 � 1_.�E7 -_
�ail�' 0�.7 � [�i.�
�t..7 ., 0� -1_.i�E�
� �� 0� � ��
� � 17� I
0�
-` Q
�s �-� - "�
��..
� p
� ■
�I �
i I
0
�
Qz
w
�
�
�g
�
0
�
�
M
�
�
�
�
�
U
�
�
0
�
�
�
�
�
��QQ
� Sa G
EN
O N
� 'C
o �a
� �
� W �
!
I
I
Eitabll.hed In 1982
LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC.
LAND SURVEYORS
REGISTERED UNDER TliE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA
7E01 7'3rd A��au� Korth Eii-6E0-�00�
r.x „o. aeo-saze
lllnnNpoll�, YlnaHOle 66166
�►urveynrs t�rrtif iratr
TIM NONIGSCFRIIDT
Address: 1378 Sandhurst Drive
9AN�HUR�,�'
_ ca�u
fnARC
-- - °'�G�', /r
I
�
�
1
(
I
0:���� U�
2 8 �000 D
rd-
;�
�� V �
N '
�
0
�2.0 � 1�'c�/r- �
���'G"`✓ �� � s, c
ri° nn � � , i .�
S
��.v �.o � �
_ � r f y..
o p � ►"=d' � % .
�d- �-' J �o
12,0 � I
•�
r --i4 �,�
��--- � � � � �'
i cN i
��`�Y �� '4 d I --
Iry a,.
� ;QN �^� I�✓.�� �
---- -� � �
� i ,�
� o �E�ar�,v,n � ''�•
�__ s�z --.. I
�---
r,
`
�
7 I
�/�+M-��[J yy�flv � " .
- •-r r �-
^y M I� f�.
— IS.W- � -� � � �
Lot 5. Block 2. IiOEHRLES ADDITION, Ramsey County, Minnesota
INVOICE NO 54586
. F.B.NO_ 840-31
. SCALE: 1" _ ��
0 o«wt•• kon Mo�.rnmt
O p�nnt�� Wood Hub S�l
lor �rewotio� oNy
xODO.n D�rat« Exhtlrq ENvotfon
000.o DMOIw Propo��d ENvotlon
— o.�,oa. s�,►r�. o��.
►arE: Rropo..e �aa.. o.. .ueHec
lo nw/h o1 w1 b�tti
Prapo��d buW�q kAormotlon
miwt M clwoMW dtA approvW
Mid�q pm aod d�vdopmnt a
� plo��M� . �reavatbn
Propw�d Top of Bock
Pr�o�W Oaeq� floor
Propowd lo�nt Floor
Ty�. or e,r�erq
'M oNy amemenls •hown ar� Irom plals ol record m M�IwmnlMn 1 �
'ovldsd br cN�nl. 1 % / � /! I
e herwhy c�rNly lMt U�i* i� n Ir�N urwl eorreet repreamNolMin ol /�'�j+ �'�I/ �►/
s�RVwy ol Ihw Mn�Morl•e nt Ihs above de�crAeA MM oM Ilue � V�%. I%
ealinn e1 n� MaNNnpn onA vi�ibM erwrooelmanl■. II a�y.lrom m or Slpnd �l� %���y�
�riA IonA.
1�
�. ._ .LCLLCI'ldVYrL ..—_.. -_._.___..--�. _...—.-ry r ...
�.� , 8 � .—... _ � .. �` `--`,.. ..
� ..*� � � � . ' ,�.
— r �, ..
� `�, � � e.. , � „
� � , .. _� �i �i� ''�''� � ;� — „�.. �1 ��,
,.
''` - �,� � _ . s: . � i � } .._ _ . ' .
: f
� •
. � � .idi .. . .
�� P
�. . .p�
�
' � — -� L �== � � �- �� � . z �
; —.— _ , �
` � � . � 4� �
� .S . i9 i �
� � •- I • - '"� , g'
�„•� ��'�# !t - �. , ` . �.
� - s, � �: �
, .... __— �
� _ � . �::
_.. __.�� __ ___._._.___
_____.
,,�..
_ .._ �._ _.: ;�. , �— _
�.
, :. , . . _
::r �:, ::. - —
.,.,._
. ,,, �
,� -
.. _ .: _,:..: _ � � .- _:._.,_..�,::..
. . _ � ..�. . � � ��;�
, . ,.
. .
.� . �< � ,�. � . �, i ' . -- -�
_ ,� �, D � , r�
� , M1• _ i� . . ..� , ' , i .. ...� �
�� . . . • � �� � .� ' . . ' , ' '- . � _ . 1.. � � .��� ..,
, +` - . t . ' . - . -� r
A '� _� � � . >. �
�` � y •' � `
'�"_-.:.�:. ,�_ �, ' � :. ' , {
_ .. - . - . � _� .,,,i . `_# _ � � ;� -� ` �
� � :� L
. ' . s ', � . s,u � - - f _ ��
� .
. , - .�
. .� ..n!
, - � y _ -
. r k � . �yS. . �� � ` � � . � .
� ;
- � • � . - ._ , . � � �
, ' „. €. ' _ . +.�� . .
T_ c �
, � �
. ,, ,� �, _
• � � . �
� � � -
. . .
+r . �
.
�. . . , , � .
_
,
. , . '. - . '
. , �, .� .. _,
_._..... ° . f ... � � � � ... . . .
- . . . . , _ .- _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ .
, ,. . .: -, ,._ ' - . .
,,
' _�+ , ?o . - . ;� � _. �3 ;. '
,
�., , � � .� ,_ ,.. �
--- _
, _ l__ _ _ , ,.3ti _ .
�
� ,. � , — � � � �t�� —
�
�— � � �x: --. � :� � � t,, �
,� . � . .��. . . .
.. _., � _
• _ ... _ � M1 � .�ik� �' ' 1�
, . •, . .
_ - - ._ , _ �,
.'� ;t, --__ ` ' � � ro
_ , . . a . � . . � �;�
. . f ` . . , . �,.:., . . . _ i
. . 'r'.uf.� ' - . - � . . . . . . . , . � ' __ _ -
d � � � - . - � -.
-. i . �.'°"�."'a, ; •..._ . .� . � . . . ,;
�, ' �: —�
, ' :..t.� � � 'g.. �ry y ,. �. ^ . . ,
j . .. --..'-' �` . , + .r%� ib�'' , . . � . . . . . . .. .
i e �.
�' � 1 _ 1 1.�, , + , ''� _ ' , '
, , . . . . . � , . � r r . .. ,. �1
I- � . . ". ' . ' _ ' ' ,.. T ��,
i a
� � ' _ � ." ,
. , ,.
. ,� .� : . _
� . -- — ,�e� — ,r '- �"Tr�. '�' - . _
- . • • �.. _._ __,� . �.�.
�.. � . . . �r . .
— - � � - - � - . . , . - . , . . . � . . '
_ . : . `. ,O ,j � . ° ��..., _ � � � .. � . .. . " -
•. , ; • �� � 4�.�. � ,'�l.�, � .,. � �
p. F
p x?'.'� � A'- f '1 � Vd ��
, n _ ' . � � fv t ���*t �;.l;f /
,�( - . �' �_ �'
�,, ; .���: i '
• 1�` . ' � '.. F���l,� l.1'��4iJ
.� •' ' .:� » f�y �� wpi 'a\ .�.:4 •A) • � � .
, i �z '�s.`��; i.s�t � .7�
ti��,,.r :.t�. �.` �- ; # j, e
. � �ti �� � ,� , �.
; 7 - �
� r ti'.L �tir&j !�r ',,;
� �> �'� t
♦ � # yR'��7 �''1 /.1 S �•��,' �A� �-.
_�.yc p.•a v
�, `� ,�%ip`'��`- t .�a,�� �--. �. � �Cr� �,-�•��
:�, ~ � & � �; �`' �, � ' , �
, .� ��,� _ ,: '� �� �� ��
- ;:, _ ,��� �� ..�
-�.;- : . _ , ,� I ,
,,� _ ;
. . � � `� ��
_ r, �� � + .,
, �j�..
, - 1 �� �.
. , �.. . . ,����
. . , _ , �,, :� �
. ����
�__
,
• •. ,r , ���� �
, r_----w, : _ . j .._... -._.,�-._
� � � � �:.�, ;�`�'
- i
r .
.
_ _ _ _--. -
y, I
. . ' -�,�
. — -- --__r-.--
• - • � �_ ! - _ _ _�
_ i _ `� .
,. 1. ( _ . .. , , - �
�
, _ _ •, • , , .� •1. e- � ,_ , , ,�..
_ . , ,; � . _ . . . . ..
.� .
�,.-=. �
� rT'i
� �
I
,�
. � -. : �
Iltlt��� �� �': � i �
.�� ��= �
,,
� , �, �� _ �;,h � � , � : , . ' .
- -_ ` � . . �..
, - . ,� ,
i -- . � > '
- ...__� `'� � ± . ..
. �-_ .I " �.
��__
.; .
� . , . . � . . , , -
,�,
s�;�,
. _ � �� ���"�'.
�=�'
�- �„3t� _ .
r� � �"'�-=
: �� c
��— _�,i,�� t,
7
�
.. �_�a �� � �1 .
�^ r �j ��Li . _a � "�
�� �, � _ :, , i
�i � ! i `�_� �I I � � 1
� � � R :� Y 1 . v . �. e � � . _ . � r .. . - • . ._.
0
t a 1��11���.�.�I�,':
� � �. � �. # �. �. � �. �. �. � �- , , .
�� � 1 : . !:.� I
. �i :,i �•' ` , � ; , ; �
; � .
•. ,
�I ' fi', .
j' ��ii� i
;i _ _'' . t. -
_ . �:.
� - ;; . _
. - ,. . ,., . ,
: .s, � f tf e�:.t� �r ..` .. . .
r � �� r, �,+Ifs�3t' a��'� f f� �
; i `t; � , tt'` � '���9A � `1' .:�il���Fs�TS l� �`�f�.r ,, ` •.
. � a ,r i t ��.� r : t �Jw�i�, � e' . . J �. �J�r -♦ Lr1�': ; �. . • <
f. 't � t atis �'i fit �!�r ��;}� r "i�At�ti?�����I . r"' �i � .. �,•3�� '•1
Y � .. y*4^...�� � '-g � r��+� ;,j i =�, lr:i�:��y^�( ♦� �s t k � y �.�,�,7 . '��:: -'� .. �
� �,' � �� \- f ( .. .st - :a�1.�`+»er{� 5���� 1J'� ...� �> � ���Sl��� �� � � �� �•11 `
j -� � i.•'" yi ;' �_4s�LR �E�.-S+ <I'.-r�l,?L^ [_�✓> G:�� '} tf
r` •: \*� i 1 1 fd' � t!/ `^�`�.�,� ��St�, ? a a d i.s} ll t�,� _ -t -�,� �',
..- y� ,� ��!�f - , {��.
f �l � i e ' � �� 0��. �R ,`/i��-`. '°'� lj� 5���' _ t i� i � 'iac �. ;r, '� �'i';`
� L �'' �. ~•�'J j�/ Q+/f ���` .•��C-�'�f �9s,�i �1��� �5�4 �t 'T.;�. .�•�
1_'���� �� � � �j ��f� ,,y� ��j.�"�''`-�+,+►��/ f,f� °�' Yr: �J��
� ± � r1. ' 1 � .'}%,�'/!G.I17,• }�' �,r.r .�.13� .M�s�..�_• ��' �' 1�+[,� • a r ,� i• ' .[�4
� �� � �. �f. ���� < ...y �/ �,�.�Ir�J ,,5 r Y
�4 , : � `� . , r "�ur �► � . .. .
_`t�y�, r�' ��` :��� �
ti�� �. �. ,. •3`".
_ ,�; . •' ' � �;; tt.:��t ji ; �� ' • _
�I , . f ,��� ' s •�
� .t' � ��- �� C..� � ' .
-�,' i . ! ' � � �j �'•�
,,.
. _, - � .; ,, . .: -.
. -� � = , - � ..�_�_:_
. � � _. � - �-� . �
- - t � , - . , . _ � "" . . . e . . < - a,
"p - � ' M. ,f.r,� . _ . . � . . . .. .
�^_�� �.���`�� ., w,� . . . = . . . - .. - ._ . ' ' ' ', �
�'4 wt'�� � � ��� . _ ' . M1 - "' ' . ' . .
�-. ' � � _r� --..� _�. - - '`_ .. � .�_ . ..
� �� `.¢��g hr� '.��, �_�Y �-'_i.�„�yl �t�7"�-
_ ,.... .. . . .�....�..., .:`�'�'ae��`?�.. - ---`_ -.��:`+i7.�� `�-`s,it.�.''_"3c:�, � �.. _
z .-..` - _.�"�"'rrp
r a � ,k�
� .3 W ... 4 �._
_.., . -. ... . � '
- ` ..,
�J.-� t�j . `..:_.n..,r--- . • . .
'..:._. , .., • ;:• .
-• -- . . . .
:� . .
, _ � ,
::_.� r ` � - -
1' '� .� �'�'� � � 4 0= � ,r,� �
, ' {d.�.— 4 . � �. • .
� •�+�v ' .. . - � � . R'. . . �' . [ �
�� -- . .r
a
. �
�� . .. . � . �•
1. .� . ..; ,
• -__ � _ , ��; �'f
' ' , ' jr � ■
/
' , :.1 ,� ' /
.__ �.1 �, 1
�
: r � - . , M► • _ , . :
: � , _ _ :s ,_ . . . . . , ,
..
i�: . _ � . Y' . .. � . �. - - , . ' � ' . �. , ' . . ' . • . ' . � - � ' _ ' . , .
i e f -0,.: . � � -
: ,-
t' _*' , , � ��j �` ___ . � _
� � �` � --
.: ,-.``""� '
. , . ��
� .
� . _ ._, : ,,. .. ,_ _ �-- . �_ _ -
� , �� �,���� �j��1E: �4 i��;�7��,�� y� - ; c .;*ax'°�' ,,� v.�' y�. � ' ��_
� � . �, J � ,� r
��„ 4 S P'� �,' •�Y'.�'T i: � ti; f t /::
' - � r. t Fk;.��}.♦ �, i� .✓ ;'�,,. ...♦� `S! -�� ��. , " �i�'
. . t� Ir} w r . � `� �,,,7 ` - / Y ,..; �� f � � .
� t� 1�� � � ��� . ��� � +��•� ���i'l't . � - �,.� � . • r . '•/
, t. „�r
' ; '•'.�, �j� 3� �„ �t¢��f� � �ft �'h� �i � `9 . . _ .
1,� '� r r � �!�
4•. ._(4�t'..'fti� Cil�%'�„�-�'i� I:; ����,{.' t /Af.i.. t � � i� � . . . ��
, � ,�r, �`a?°�'`':Ey,q:gt+;�• �:.: �' v �``Y`' } r . � , i .
�, .�...- - �i �? ' -�:. `� , ►
r�
�t1 ��r` �•r• � i'R�h, ar, `�.� T � '' � � . t t �' '� � . � • / r♦1 �. ! ��
� ��i���, !'J �.rs 7 ��`- - ..� l ' ; -
• .� ,f• � '� �/{1�2` � � L� :E+a:� 7<�.r`�,�: ! . . .
� � `' '� i;t � ' � �:f� -� �Z :�y � -s. a i
:� 7r �� � �YI•r�~� � � � \�,Si? w! �.'�. .♦ , • , . . . .r '
�; yi� t 'ri.l•`(,� l •�i.5� !':� .��y% , . , i 5� . .
�� � '��� � 7 " ��prr `/`q.' �i � � , � � / t > S
[�{� # � � �
• ` #. j���, ` fF'�� .1�� t \;�• � - � �' ' r 1
ti'i� 7N((' . . • � ,
� � �� � � �
. � . .�,i � � . _ �=i. r y.�`� s� j��": .. • ; .A' _ ��, �
. , ' . • _- . '� . „ . . i':._Y'y�j ;���.
. 1 , —•'� ���
_ — - —� -- �--- - -- --
� �,
, � '
�w . .. :.� :'-- . - _ �.r�-�---. . � � � � �-- - . . '_ , .
"�_ .1 �
- - , .�, �
— , .. � �
� �5 '
� : � ' -� � r ��s � , ,�. �r�� �� � � � : � r s - , �--.,.
k . t., � . �
3 t+. �1. �' �',r �r'���' i t �k`t i �;e at ''"� r: �"�*g`�.',t'� �srvR #�� r,���,� < 5;,� _:r sr it ��.'�2.'' � .
� t "l�: ''� �"! � '�'s-' � '' _x?k t " J Yr.� a.�..;€'-.� t e �� � � t T �� � . � y ' � ;
�R ,.1�. 'Y'+isa. i �C! hi� 1'M`ah-.4� i � n" s y��� ��a �: _.y� X'iv �f` ���'" : �'°f..�°.<� � .,�
�•'l� � I r { 'yy-�i�R t i '�"'f ,U� - �'� '�, '?r4l,y��.°y -t1e'. + � S . t+
' �-w �� `IC
. . . . . . . _ � ' � . .. � - ,,�•
' . r '-' . �. � � ,, • � - ' , .
o =
•i;•..�� •'�i• . ,
rk E � � � . . . . . . - .. . . ..
: . - _ .•` r� -. , . . . ' � .
' � "
� ~ � --�_ —'-- � —
� (n . . . . - ---- -. .. . .
, .. -
� ��ti . ' � . � . --'. �� . .
� . � �
Fw, ! ' i � iis '-� � � - �'
_ , y �; I .
� . , - - _-- _ _ � � _
.� _ , �� :� __�
� % � l � _. t - ,
. . . � . .
, � , �,._j.r � _ .
� � �
. f _ . _ , � � � .- _
1 Excer�t of Minutes, Planning Commission meetin� of Mav 10, 2000:
2
3 6b. Plannin� File 3212: A request by Tim Honigschmidt for a
4 Condtional Use Permit to allow construction of a detached garage
5 and three season porch 100 square feet in size on property located
6 at 1378 Sandhurst Drive.
8 Chair Klausing opened the hearing and requested City Planner Thomas
9 Paschke to provide a verbal summary of the project report of May 10,
l0 2000. Paschke reviewed the dimensions of the proposed garage and three
11 season porch, replacing the existing garage. He noted that the driveway
12 will be modified to allow for access to the new garage. Staff recommended
13 approval.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Chair Klausing asked for details of the setback permit process.
Member Wilke asked for clarification regarding adjacent structures. (How
close?)
Member Cunningham noted in project report, Section 4.2, why the
applicant cannot meet the 5' setback.
23 Member Egli asked how many other nearby houses and garages would
24 exceed 40% coverage of required rear yard. Is this structure a garage,
25 work area and porch? Thomas Paschke noted that all of these are
26 considered as one accessory building.
27
28 Member Olson asked if the house was as large as the proposed garage and
29 porch. Member Mulder noted the accessory building is larger than the
3o house footprint.
31
32 Member Rhody also asked for clarity on placement and size.
33
34 Mr. Honigschmidt,1378 Sandhurst Drive, explained the size of the
35 structure in relation to the house size. The building would store lawn and
36 garden equipment and two vehicles. There is no room to attach the porch
37 to the house. The porch is already attached to the existing garage.
38
39 Member Cunningham asked w'_ 'v not meet the 5' setback? Mr.
4o Honigschmidt stated the garage would encroach on pavers, garden and
41 patio. Along the property line there is no useful space. The garage
42 extends 10 feet to the east. The neighbors have agreed to the setback as
43 proposed.
44
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
lo
11
12
13
14
Member Egli asked if trees will be endangered by the proposal. (No)
Member Olson asked how tall the structure will be (15 feet). The home is
approximately 22 feet.
Member Cunningham asked if there are plans for other development of
the house (none). Would this impact the developable area?
Chair Klausing asked about the principle structure in the rear yard
coverage. (The size of the principle structure is not affected by size of
accessory buildings.)
There was no public comment. Chair Klausing closed the hearing.
1 S Member Mulder expressed concern regarding the three foot setback. (The
16 structure would have to be shifted south and west to meet code.) The
17 building, at 32 feet in width, should be set back five feet because of its size.
18 The driveway should be extended.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Member Rhody stated that this proposal was exactly what the housing
improvement program strives to do. The screen porch is not the same
impact as a shed. He noted the neighborhood appears to be accepting of
the proposal.
Member Wilke asked the applicant to respond to the five foot setback.
The driveway would have to move closer to the house; it would encroach
in the garden and block a view of the yard.
Chair Klausing expressed concern about size of building and coverage of
the rear yard, and has a detrimental impact on neighbors.
Chair Klausing closed the hearing.
Motion: Member Rhody moved, Member Wilke seconded, to recommend
approval of the conditional use permit to allow construction of a 1,000
square foot detached accessory building, based on the findings in Section
3 of the staff report dated May 10, 2000, and subject to the conditions
listed in Section 4 of this report, as listed below:
1) The existing principal structure and proposed detached accessory building with driveway and
sidewalk area is limited to 30% of the lot area or 3,532.5 square feet.
2) The proposed detached accessory building and hard surface driveway expansion, if not five
feet from the property line, must either comply with the five foot setback or the applicant
must apply for a setback permit.
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
3� All roof drainage created by the new structure must be collected in gutters and channeled to
the natural drainage way within the applicant's property.
4� The exterior of the building must be of similar materials and color of the home.
5� Because of the size of the new structure ( 1,000 s.f.) no other accessory building or tool shed
may be permitted on the properry.
6) The maximum height (as defined in Section 1004.01) shall be 15 feet.
�� The existing detached accessory structure must be removed from the site.
8) Prior to issuance of a building permit, and within 60 days aRer approval of the conditional use
permit, the applicant must record the conditional use permit with the Ramsey County
Recorder.
9) This conditional use permit expires 6 months after approval if a building permit has not been
issued. (Section 1013.03)
Motion: Member Rhody moved, Member Egli seconded, to amend to substitute
4.2, to maintain a 5'0" setback from the property line.
Member Egli stated her concern for th elarge structure and water run off, more so
than existing landscaping.
Member Rhody asked why the discussion has moved from a conditional use
permit to a variance.
Member Mulder noted there are other options available for the setback and there
is no physical hardship. The future adjacent neighbors should also be protected
from a building of this size with a long wall.
On the amendment vote to maintain five-foot setback.
Ayes: Cunningham, Egli, Olson, Mulder, Klausing
Nays: Rhody, Wilke
Carried 5-2.
On the original main motion, as amended.
Ayes: Cunningham, Egli, Mulder, Klausing, Wilke
Nays: Olson, Rhody
Carried 5-2.
Member Olson stated her vote was because the accessory building is larger than
the house and sets a poor pattern for future and may decrease the properry value
of the home.
' _� �_ _YG4�[l.L�v✓ �4 �.. _�. . � . _.._ _._�. . . � _ � `.. . _�
1. '. � � ' . ,� �1 { � + ' s... . � .. �
1'S , � ,*,� 'Ty " . . , . �� t �
� � "� A° _— �; � �` �� �'�
• �
,
� , �._ r: ...,�,� .
� . .� -� � _ _ _, .
� �: � 1
� �x
t'"_�
.rV p�
� F •
�
� --.— j-� ' � ��' ' �. _. , y,
l • .� ,
. _�� . = . � tic ��
` ,,, f - � � , . � �. � W" ?� ' �'
�,
� � —, ,
�. ' F � __ � �"��-, _ .
.
�
' i _ � .,
-c,,o.. . __..._i_ _. _..._.._____—___ _
.. ._ .
.: , -
s� __., _. _. �
_ �.- _ � _
� � ,i <<,. ii . _� _ � ,� � -� "
,.... . �. ; •- `'�"' , . - "�` . � �� !0�
� • 3t`. + - .;�1, . � ; ` ' • Y
. - - � �_
�, �
,� L `'a�
.. ,� ...� .� ; cr----
_ ' ?�-
�. � . ' _ "�` . , . � . . . � - .. _. . . . .. . f - '. _ � : .c. � ' . :y � �
� . . �� .. �s§� . . . _ . y �. - w •
f . �,yq'' �� � . T • "
. _ .-r.ii�.�- . . #1 � ... . . � - '� , _�� . � .
-s � .. � . ., z � .
.- . : . ��,....r �� , � �. -
, .� '' ; .;::� . ` � .�
�' , � 'v � ' � 1k _�
� - • � . � f . . S � .
9 � �
. . _. . . ' . . . . � � � _.._ ..� � � � ' �� .
� � . . . • � ,. , i • . , . '�.._
`[ "
�' .. - � ' , . � �p - � - - � . ' . ' � .
�F,L� � � �-� Vi� '�
b"S .� . .� . 3
` . . . . - .. � . . :' �•..� � . .. . . !�, � � { .
. . ' Y:.� . � � �' .. . . .i_ . � 9 . . .
' • J � ��. . , � � ' - � . �:. . �i a' . . . _ � _ y� Y��" , • .. , . _ �
. . ' •. � � : - . " 1 �. � . , .i
. . . . .. .. . . . . � . � - . � � . . � - _ � . . . . . ` ' �' , . .
- .�- i;=:.:-i.•:� ;�i i;;:. � :!� _ A1�,=Fi�;7.ST.Af �
� � . _ � i _?
.
; � "�...� � - ` f }�� ,� ¢ •,:{ + ,j
� ... _ `., I " " � ; � , ' �� . _
` .. '- � ,`�. . � ` � f
. �'� R ` . _ ` - �' _
,� ` _ f' � � . � :� �. : - -�
� - , _ "Z' r -a
i. . __.� i�� r ��.� •. = . � . .. �. �' j�
.5+��' . , � . -_ . �. . ' . � . � � � .._. . . � ,. . �
. ' .. . �I. � . ' 1 . �
� � a..a. . r .. ��, . . . . . .. ,_ , � � � . � . . . ..
. . . � .. �� . _ . _ - _. �_ . , .� � _ . _ . , ..'- _` �� -
_. _ _ _ ` . . . . , ; _ , _ �, - _ _ - '. .
� ".a4 _..?F . .!a _ . __ - - -.._. r . . : _f - � . __ . . , _.' d .
. ._.,...-'- --... _ .. ._� ... _. . . . . „
�. . ... .� . . . ._ . . . . ... ...... . : , . , . , . . . � . .
�.1 ,.. �- .��._-.--Y:'ti,$�.,X�4 i�-�e- - ...... .._,— . � - - � . �
. ` . � _ � � � . . � � � � � - - . . � �.,�.
I_ � '�r •a ;i - . � _ . - '• • ' '
. .. . ., ' ` / .+.�. � . . . � �8.
� i 1 Y+ 1
. . i • ���� � I
. � '
• . � ��° �� �� � � ��'� °��, �; � ,
, � ;, i
A r` ' R�,::,t., /
. ,a �1'�'�'' a -�`t'�� �,i` � �'� ' = i
' �< �r�{ t, a c L �L e . . .
� r' i
. . � ��`*" x'� s '�.^''��°� 1 �t;i}- � � ,� > � • �..
`. �'`°�' �:. �•' '� = •�.i � / t.�' 7 �.i .�
1 I �.,�.� ���.,'* i L�, r � ., ` - ,
i . . .-'�,e, 1��f +'��y`�� .� ;A •�!�
�� ' �y;aa�°�A%, - *� 6x >.�7, ef3� .••9
;1/ d ��S�.t � .. . ' . ':e_• �' i :%r. . i
� 1��:'� /�.
�� � � � '����A ^ � �
� � �, . :!1/� �_
'� �'� � � t
i
� • ; i;-
! — '� C , �'" '¢
. i _
_ � + /' . � - ' ��
_. . , . � � �7 .
. ��.. _ ,. � - �����
. - ,' r i� �
- c------�.; = _ 1a. . _.
. , � ..�� 1 � �4
_ _ -- . - . - -- _ �_ �`� . i � �
_ . . ___ _
�� .
�.
.. . . .
- _ . �_ _
-
� __ �_ -= -=�
_, ___ ----
� ; �' _ = � � :
. ► _ _�
-; .
. . s. . , . . . . �
� - 'j .
` ' _= 1 , . . . � � � , . . ° �`K
_ ' ,1 , ' . � . . '�`' ,.
�
•,. �
tktt.� ` � . . � � ; . : . � : ; �
,�,. _
4 �
..
,_- �,�.�- .,� ' •:'', ,
, . - - � _ .,. . �
.� � --. -- - .
,�
, �,,.. .� .
, �x:. .,.� - -- � :._ =�, , � . , ; .
�„�„"`r`�=i — ------=.�s. , .
-_ . i
;i; � , _ . � � - ,
� .� �
�
. ,
. . F __ , . , . .
t,
�. . .
�_
�, .
. �s����' . ,
. . �-:� �.. , , �� . .
_ , .�� -��� , , _ �
_ �;►i� µ,� � f � i
� .c �
' ' _ . .. ` � ' .�==�'� �. �
.. . . _ . . ,. .. ,.
� � � � � f .�.�.�.�..�..� �. ` �:
��.i� ��.�..�,�.���,�.�,� ; , ,
�!�1 � �.�� ,
�' n<�� t,�' �; � � _ _ ' ' . t ' `. , ; ,
. �. ,
, � , .
. r,, � .
1 �+- . ��_ �
i`� �� i!i`I�
t. �
, ,
. :I ' �:? . � �-
, . � � , . � ;:_
. 4y }�ti-' ,�t; s- }. . _
� �;��t' r t <� '..� x�, t . ' - `- : • .
�, ,, n.- �� -r�� . _
. � � � ,�. . �: • - . � ,:. �
;��, � ,; , r ` s �: � �x� t'�,� ^ �3� ����� � �'�, f,'' ' �::
.�� : � ''' � ,r , . �tnr:, r}+r!�r.�� {� r a •. �, x ♦. � ^ S� ` L��a��'- � . r� ' ,� . . , .. .
, "� � F , r �' , jds3s� t �— .{^i _ � �.�Y `t lt� � r . i ; - . • r
�M r � . � y . * 6 '` � 9� • ,. � � `+4��'Jf �i � t S � s ' . t.,, .T � � i'� �.lA�, � +�� ++ � ; � � •) ' � �� p ' � � : v•' � 1 !
. �� � �5 .4,.
� . �. i , x jr.r ..s .-�Yra � - ��. �����:1 �1Sa'l �:i} . ,+. �� }.�� .�
..� f.. ti \. t" , .., : -s ' y'f�'+.y r� f - �` fy . ` F �'� �; I IY✓ i.� � s� rr r �4' i� '�i '~ - a
j,�y � ' .m ''t� 1 l� � 1 r,v-S �! ��:� �� .3�r�4�G t1� � �9=�tG.'�d � i1' .'.1 -�� ' � .
[ a \ x � A f ps�� *�/f {"`�'"�i�1'�i ry; itit �,�} ii��'•��jGi�t"� «�r� T: H '
'� F G • t : •:� �, e°�Y 1�i� - � i ' . � � g?- i 1 � � r � �! �� � - .
,. r � ��/ 3 � ... � a •• t,,,•- :� �✓y,�,, -,� '�.`� ~
''� 2 ` .` y�. �� } �fj1j4 � . / f���i"�{, "% :.�� , t`�" �+�'�� 7� ;s3"�� 'j' . ?+. P.. :+.
ti, a j?C � r �, �. r :.s �+. Ct r r• �: � ,
! L � �i ' j.'=� t _� ,p�� � � _. :►�� ' � i�� . .+�.a'� "'�'-s�"� L y"3,i'r��. ' :�`� -
� �' ' + . �'�-'' . : �I•:�- +�, � k'. r `.
- s;w;? . ! , �• 1i�s .
�� �� � �r! �� � i . . . t ;t-�4. `,�,,. ,J•
_ ���� I�� ..t�
+�'' ° f ' . � . , . � •� �r, 3 ,�? ,. •.
' ... ... �Y� . ` �j— �. ., . •, _ ��:Y J� ' �- = aa�
I
' � �� .
,J � � , � ��_ �; ; . .
,, r ,� �,, .� = _
__ - , -I _ ,:� !j ... . `�
. ` � � - � , � �. _-� ___ .
r t , -� - ,
, __
�^� . __�_ t , r : _ " . , - �.�
_ _ ,�, .,. � , -
�'__ _—`-.c'�. -.,-� . _ - - - _ - . . �
--.�. ' .� - ��. - - . . -
.�-. _ J ,� _ _ , - -
`�.-_ � - -- --�-- _
'� _ '.. _ �. - .
-- ► ._
._..., .,,,.., _� - _ - = `+ y _�_ #_ _ . .
_�,,e�`�.�...__"biY4`'_-�.:.es .�
, ,. �
` - . ,
� .
1 1 . � ��
' � �.," . � � � . . .
. �r, _ _'." � •�. . .
. . .�;' ! „ . . �_ _ ,...�.+� ' � . .
, � , _. • . .. .�..,. .
. � R :�, � � � ' �• •, .•
t .; � : i'� -. � _ .
. . r, . � � ��. . t. r�a � r - , �, . . .
� � ��I� �... •`� - ' � . '�� ��;�, y��..4Ti .�.ii�.' .. ..=����'• � � � .
. • � �' � � �. . .r, . f �. r .
,� . � . ..r ... � . . t� .
s � � �
1 'S.-K� �� , .. .��. _. _ . �. . . _ ' . . . . . . .; � � ,.
. .... ' i i . ..
� . � . � . , ���, ,� � I
� ,•r �
..... 1,+I.:�.� . ;� 1/
. � ' � � �. , �, }
: � 1 �
. . . - - . �. - . . .. . _ , - . . . � , . _. . " . ' " .. � ; - . _ . ` ' ' . ..- II
..M
, --
-....._. �- .
....,_.._...-' `. . , .. _. � . . . . . . . I
. . . - . � - _'. . . . . . _ . .
.
. _ . �, _ . . . _ . .. . . , . . . _ . �'I
� . ._ � � . � . . � . � . . .. . . . � , . .
�. • • .' _ . .. . . � ... . , .. . - - - .
.f. . .. ._ . " . . . . . .
�: �r'. -4�. . . . ... ' � _. . . . . , . . . . � ._ _ . . ..
� . .
.. � � � .. �:• . . . . .
. � � � . .. . . . . _ . . . .
� � . t i' ' - i � . ' _ - . . �. _ . . . . . . . . . .
i � +:a; . . . �. � _ . � . . � .
` f j � �. . . - ' � ;� {Y . . � . _._ . � . .' � .. ._ . - , . f _ ' -
-+ � f � ..._ _ —. - � . . � - ,
. . ..,. - � . � . .�. _ _,. _ � . . . . . . - � . -. . . �
• .. . - '�. � ' . -
� - . A. . . . . . . _ _ , .- .�"'i • . • , . _ , . . . . � - .- ��.. ' -
. . . _ . . `� . . _ . . � . - - ..-
. .. , . . .. . . , � . � ^�� � _ c ..�- ' -.:.. .- - -. . .. ..
.. � - , . , . . _ � - - . . .. . , �,-.._ - - - . � - : . �. , _ � . . .. �. �►-- _ ,-
� , �. , - : . - , .__ , . . �_ � _. _ . - .. . . - . .
' - : � � �_ . - - - � - - . - - - - - - � � � . , . . . .- �� .
i. .. .. _ . , . . . . . . . - _ - , . _ . . - . . . _ , . . _ . .
� � .. . . .. . . � - . . . -. . . . . -. . . � . . . _
�►(� ' s � ' - [ '- .a . w �.� '� _ .. � i . i
11 5 l � /
' . ,, ' `. ';1" ' �' : ,a ._ ;-. 7�R i i! ✓ , ;' � .
. � }. .
,. ��r .. `�'S� .�7tt t a.'} b%��� �Tj s- {� A�'.-j t". i ��+�^. .
. iS�..: .± `*'� �t' 9�g����'�+��4 r, �f l..J� J.`�� � �� � . ,
� . j.�F.a�.! ,� ..��' _ �, _Aa.,�t'.U* `} \ �.;i�ii� ��y",'��',"ti , .� � � ' . . / r . ••/
.. Y � . ry, . ±i �"`r..+;� ry��7�� . .
, . `�y a.��s,.� �L�F}�.�'Y �s• '��� ��.1 t' � �� � .T• • �- . . _. _ .
4 �i. t �i I �.1
� ` � ri`�'..i.°f U � : �� j �;;: � �, � 1 �t . � ' t' '
. � i 'y^,,s� ' ��'�' � � ♦tr � . , . ; .
E ' �t t
;s ��t , r°'�"�' � � •.,, ��. ' �,• . i �
t .�! i �r� �. .�". �; ts f'�j ��c' � �' -� _ , t , � ' � ` f
. . ��' . . � � , ��t't���'�'.�F . �4�j ' (1 : 1 yt�t ' � f i
:e ��-Y::��!Pi, �. r �`) , �at=T���.� A� � � ., . r . . . ' �
� .y'"' _
' ' y � � "t'� 5 `` c 1 r J - -�'s t� 4,q J . . . ' '
t • � L' y �S
`:� , .�•l�'�_' � 3i.� F' • �� 1/�1Lr,� : . . . . � r� . 1 � . �,
T
, � S w)• i{ � .
,'�.• i'.� � ( f f>. � .� " . �-r� �'1 .
� f ' � r } ` ', �,��± '°; �, . . . � . � . � �:. ' ¢
, . + • . 1'r . � - , ;,►;. ij•,'�!
� � . . ' � . . • ~-•^t N, �, ,
.�� 1 , . 1 •
_ .£.f`
.. _ —' —� ----- - ____ _-----.
k, '�
r
� _. . . . � : - � . . ._ . � . ,�� . , . . . . . .. .
. , � . . • , `�i' ��
_ ' . � . .- . . • ' � . , . . . � , � y.
_ , . � • ' .�„"T�
��" �.,Lr'''� °-• '�s ...* �,'?,., ,.,n'� 'j*.k � �sS� -. . : .L � �L�j,�. �t�� �•
x
�1i4T d '� �{-1.'� � Y.�` i� �y� �` f s «��S . ' �
�` � � rtt 'g" 3.' � {��f . t��. 5 '_t 'P` ' "'°y� 1'H y � ^ '� 's 4 f � ..
z�,�-^�aP����..���'�a' �'+� ,� _s���'� 'x�, �..r `.�,K � �4`-"i�r��i'iNrr"�' ��L;� '�� r�} .. r : -.
r-
y� � �� � � i � •x .�r� � +.�„ a• -. � �r.� "i +�y -k � `.y�2.th« ' �� ,." +v.; � r �.w Y K r ....
. �r'
x�.���."g��sr'c-.+-�_ Y� � ..�1'. ;.o; ^R�' '�' �rt�. �n.:.,r • �' L�;t`,G"�rY�`vp'3�°4�
_ • `6
�. ' - •� `. , • '
.: i_�t. •
�.. -' . .
r ' • ,�..
�'� E
- .,•"� :, ;: _
.. �� .- •
� _�. _ �_..__ __ --- -- - _ . .
��
? =�s , . i __�
�:�� . .� (�� �
� ;'� �
J � I
�...`�V i -+-._...� __ .� 1 r
�i - 1 ..r; ' �,,, ��-_�, ��., ,
. .
i � ; : .-:: � -
_...__ � ��, f i� � �' L
. . . . .. , ___ .
. , . . . �. ... , .�' . r ..� ..-. . , . .
. ' . ' . � . � . � .. . . . . ._ . .. . . . . f : - . .
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
D A T E: OS/22/00
I'TFM NO: I — 4
Approval: Ma ager1� proved: Agenda Section:
\�-?'��'Sa LAND USE
Item Description: Ken Wieden request for a variance from Section 1004.02D5 (Minimum
Yard Requirement) of ��e Roseville Citv Code. (PF32 11)
1.0 REQUESTED ACTION
l.l Ken Wieden, 2125 Dale Street, is requesting an 18.5 foot variance from Section
1004.02D5 (Minimum Yard Requirements) of the Roseville City Code to allow the
construction of an attached double stall garage in his front yard adjacent to Eldridge
Avenue.
1.2 Mr. Wieden has been working with the Roseville Engineering Department for the past
year in an attempt to solve some site access dilemmas. Last year the City acquired a
construction easement for the purpose of trail construction along Dale Street. In return
the City offered to slightly reduce the grade of Mr. Wieden's drive access to Dale Street
and add a turn-around.
1.3 The existing garage is located adj acent to Dale Street and has a 16% to 19% grade
making it difficult to access during the winter months. The proposal calls for an attached
garage located along south side of the home at the location of another site access. The
proposed garage is 20 feet wide by 24 feet deep (480 square feet) and would be located
approximately 18 to 19 feet into the corner lot setback of 30 feet.
1.4 The driveway adj acent to Eldridge Avenue does not allow for complete off-street parking
of a vehicle in front of the garage (variance required) and the applicant is proposing an
additional stall on the west side of the garage.
1.5 The proposed site improvements will not exceed the allowable 30% maximum threshold
for impervious area required by the Roseville Zoning Ordinance.
2.0 REVIEW of REQUEST
2.1 Section 1004.02D5 requires principal str�ctures to have a minimum front yard setback of
30 feet. Mr. Wieden proposes to place r�_� garage 18 to 19 feet into the required front
yard setback, thus requiring a variance. The portion of the lot where the setback variance
is requested lies on the south side of the lot, facing Eldridge Avenue.
PF3211 — RCA (052200) Page 1 of 4
2.2 Attachment 1 indicates three proposed "Plan" locations where a garage could be
constructed. Plan 1 would require the removal of a very large maple tree and a side yard
Setback Permit. Plan 2 would allow the structure construction, but would not eliminate
the steep slope. Plan 2 also requires a turn-around that eliminates two large coniferous
trees. Plan 3 requires the removal of a small deciduous tree and a variance.
2.3 In review of the three plans, staff has determined Plan 3 provides the most practical
approach to solving access issues, whil ° affordi.io the least amount of loss to the existing
vegetation on the parcel. Plan 2, with removal of �i►e existing mature tree, may be the
most workable solution if the owner/applicant agrees to the loss of the tree.
2.4 Mr. Wieden seeks the variance to allow him to rectify a serious access issue along Dale
Street during the wintertime and allowing him to keep his mature trees.
2.5 Mr. Wieden will make the appropriate modifications to the existing driveway on the
south side of the lot to accommodate the new garage. Mr. Wieden will renovate the
existing garage adj acent Dale Street and will be required to remove the existing access
and driveway.
2.6 Applicable Code Requirements:
3.0 STAFF COMMENT
3.1 Variances may be granted where the strict enforcement of the literal provisions of the
ordinance would cause "undue hardship". The granting of a variance shall only occur
when it can be demonstrated that such an action will be in keeping with the spirit and
intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting a
variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under
conditions allowed by the official controls, the nli�ht of the land owner is due to
circumstances uniaue to the pronertv not created bv the land owner, and the variance, if
granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Conditions may be attached
to a variance that mitigate the impacts on adj oining properties.
3.2 The Comprehensive Plan encourages recc ��struction and upgrading of residential
structures (and neighborhood) throughout the community. Specifically, Section II
(Community Wide — General) and Section III (Residential) list Roseville's goals and
policies. (see attachment)
3.3 The City does not allow driveway access (slope) greater than 10%. Mr. Wieden's current
driveway slope is between 16% and 19%. Plan 2 would not eliminate or reduce the grade
of the slope.
PF321 1— RCA (052200) Page 2 of 4
3.4 The property is uniquely situated as a corner lot fronting Dale Street and Eldridge
Avenue. The garage and main access is off of Dale Street, while a secondary access was
installed along Eldridge Avenue to deal with the complexities and safety of accessing
Dale street in the winter and vehicle congestion periods.
3.5 The Dale Street Pathway Proj ect has triggered this variance request and the need to
provide a reasonable location for access ��� the site.
4.0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION & RECOMMENDATION
4.1 On May 10, 2000, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing regarding
Mr. Wieden's variance request. The adjacent property owner (west) addressed the
Commission supporting the request. However, Mr. Wieden addressed the Commission
indicating hesitancy to proceed through with the construction of the garage given the
constructions bids received.
4.2 The Planning Commission asked Mr. Wieden and Staff a number of questions regarding
the three proposals and had mixed concerns and findings regarding the selection of
option (Plan) 3.
4.3 The Planning Commission failed to recommend approval of the request on a 3— 4 vote.
5.0 SUGGESTED COUNCIL ACTION
5.1 It is recommended the City Council develop findings to determine whether there is an
"undue hardship" significant enough to recommend approval of a variance. The
following is a possible guide for these findings:
a. The hardship situation was not created by the applicant (Wieden) and existed
prior to the applicant ...(existing tree removal and safety issues with driveway
access to Dale Street)
b. The unique physical features or situations within the proposal that could justify a
variance include safety, topography ...(no reasonable place to construct garage
except south side of home�
c. The economic issues that may (in part) justify a variance include ...(may not
apply)
d. The alternative designs that allow use of the site but do not require a variance
include ...(Plan I: existing conditions with substandard driveway; Plan 2:
construct garage at southwest corner of lot removing existing mature tree)
PF32 1 1— RCA (052200) Page 3 of 4
e. The impacts of the proj ect, if the variance was issued, would (would not) create
significant community impacts on the health, improved safety, or general welfare
including ..,(Plan I does not reduce pedestrian-vehicle safety)
f. Other findings deemed appropriate by the City Council
5.2 By resolution, approve (deny) the 18.5 foat front yard variance request by Ken Wieden, 2125
Da1e Street North, to a11ow construction of an attached two sta11 garage on the south side of
his home adjacent to Eldridge Avenue, subject to the findings in Section 5 of this report.
Attachments: properry location map; aerial photo; site plan; house plan; and narrative.
60-day Time Limit: Application accepted on Apri128, 2000; Decision deadline is June 26, 2000.
Prepared by: Thomas Paschke (490-2236)
Q:�Planning Files�3211_Wieden, Kenneth�RCA (052200).doc
PF3211 — RCA (052200) Page 4 of 4
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 held on the 22nd day of May 2000, at 6:30 p.m.
The following members were present:
and the following were absent:
Council Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
Resolution Approving a 18.5 foot variance to Section 1004.02D5 (Minimum Yard
Requirements of the Roseviile City Code for property located at
2125 Dale Street North.
WHEREAS, Section 1004A2D5 (Minimum Yard requirements) requires principal structures
to be set back a minimum distance of 30 feet from property line; and
WHEREAS, Ken Wieden has requested a variance of 18.5 feet to allow the construction of
an attached two stall garage adjacent to Eldridge Avenue (south side of home) 11.5 feet from the
front yard property line; and
WHEREAS, Ken Wieden has a unique corner lot situation that precludes complete
conformance with the Roseville City Code without damaging certain existing conditions of his
parcel; and
WHEREAS, the proposed site improvement would allow safer access to and form the parcel;
and
WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the request
on Wednesday, May 10, 2000, failing (3 — 4) to recommend approval of the variance request; and
WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council made the following findings:
a. The hardship situation was not created by the applicant (Wieden) and existed
prior to the applicant ...(existing tree removal and safety issues with driveway
access to Dale Street)
b. The unique physical features or situations within the proposal that could justify a
variance include safety, topography ...(no reasonable place to construct garage
except south side of home)
Page 1 of 3
c. The economic issues that may (in pat?) justify a variance include ...(may not
aPPIY�
d. The alternative designs that allow use of the site but do not require a variance
include ...(Plan L• existing conditions with substandard driveway; Plan 2:
construct garage at southwest corner of lot removing existing mature tree)
The impacts of the proj ect, if the vari<<nce was issued, would (would not) create
significant community impacts on the health, improved safety, or general welfare
including ...(Plan I cbes not reduce pedestrian-vehicle safety)
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of
Roseville, Minnesota (the "City"), Ramsey County, Minnesota, 18.5 foot variance to Section
1004.02D5 (Minimum Yard Requirements) allowing construction of an attached two stall garage
20' x 24' (480 square feet) 11.5 feet from the front yard property line adjacent Eldridge Avenue, for
property located at 2 125 Da1e Street North (PID # 142923 11008 1) be approved.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council
Member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor:
and the following voted against the same:
WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Page 2 of 3
�eeeeeo q.�..� 0�0 ������ <
a : i • G i�.� �, br�� .,�� � e
. � ��
. QO0000� o ��, � .
��� .
n a�e���� ����, �� . � . _
r � �v�� �
• � ��
�����
� , �.:
��
� '
� �M
\ �n
� �E
� � i
-
q� �
_ o : � � : � ,o
_
. o� m � ■ o p
_ - � o� �[� �� 1� �� �
e
.. ..
. o �o� D� �0 � �
. � .�
, .
� ['-'��''' ��� !'� t -
� �� t��p ��� _ � E
. � �� :�� m i :
. � 4�,,� �4
` , � s►� �� - ■�� �
' , _ �° v� ,��0' ■��' . !
_���0�1 �
�, v �� !
. �1: �� � o �
� �
♦ o� � `v ■
�� �� ����� .
y Y ���
\ � � `��;`+ �
�T �` � < `
� . t
N'...'., �" �.,tS�
� ����� � 's�;;':4,..
. � L,."S'x �. ..
I � .:,��. ..,.�... .n ixv��-:a- z�: ���.
� o �Q�� ���
�• � : �.
ao o � ������m�
�'� a � .�,v �' • �� �
�,,� � �a�o�i0�9 A -�
� ::�
�� �m
,� ::�,.� � ; .�
���
� "�� � ��
��1.:f3� � � oe
� F �� � �
� �
�
� ��
� ��
� �
�
a
tl s�
� �
� ° �a
�� �
W � � 0
yC U
Date: April 11, 2000
To: Thomas Paschke
City of Roseville
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, Minnesota 55 113
From: Deb Bloom, Assistant Public Warks Director
RE: Variance Application for 2 125 Dale Street
We acquired a temporary easement from him for the construction of the Dale Street Trail. This easement
would allow the City to reconstruct the current driveway and add a turn around. (As shown on the plan)
We had discussed the possibility of constructing a 2 car garage on the south side of the house with him
during these negotiations, he was not interested in moving forward with the addition at that time.
The properry owner has had the winter to think about his properry and is now interested in pursuing the
addition of a 2- car garage on to the south side of the house. In our discussions with him he indicated that
he had looked at three different plans to achieve this end.
Plan 1: Add the 2-car garage on to the west side of the house (20' x 24')
1. 45 year old maple tree would have to be removed.
2. 10 years old maple tree would have to be removed.
3. Would have to relocate air conditioner unit, heat and air return vents, and electric and
water meters.
Would only be 3' from property line, it would reduce the backyard. It would also require
a variance. (30 foot backyard setback required)
Plan 2: Add one stall on to the e�sting garage.
This would be an add-on to the garage (21' long x 1C�' wide) with a 16' door.
1. Least costly option
2. There is heavy traffic on Dale Street and the traffic gets hea�ier each year. It is difficult
to e�t the driveway.
3. Many problems with Mueller- Bies Funeral Home across the street at times. Traffic
conflicts during funeral processions.
4. E�sting grade of the driveway ranges from 16-19%, average grade 16.5%. Current
driveway steepness does not meet code (10% max.)
5. Winter problems with snow and ice. Cannot get up driveway sometimes.
6. Will have to cross new City pathway to get to Dale Street.
7. Safety problem that e�sts today would still e�st after the addition.
Plan 3: Add the 2-car garage on the south side of the house (22' x 24')
1. Better selling point and value with garage on south side. Access onto Eldridge Ave.
2. No tree removal necessary.
3. South side of house, snow and ice less of an issue.
4. Manageable grade on driveway.
5. Requires an 19.8 foot variance for w�c�t side and 18.5 foot variance for east side.
6. Eliminates conflicts with the City pathway.
After weighing these options, Ken Wieden is interested in pursuing Plan 3. This would require a request
for variance to the front yard setback on Eldridge Avenue. Please see the site plan for more details.
::
1N1�
1M�
1N
1N1
2�311f
�
0
J
�
1/'�
� �
�
9C
�
�-.
�
3
�
�
�
�-
� �v
� �
�
J
¢
Q
N
�
�
N
II. Community-Wide (General)
A. VISION STATEMENT
Roseville shall be a community wt'.,;h has aa its highest priority the quality of life - both
for those who live here and for those who w.,� :c here. Roseville shall be committed to
preserve, promote, and improve the beauty, vitality, safety, and serenity of the total
environment in which its citizens live and work Further development of business and
industry, shopping, transportation, housing, entertainment, leisure and recreation
opportunities shall be in harmony with the commitment Roseville has made to its
environment and quality of life.
B. GENERAL LAND USE GOALS:
1. Maintain and improve the community character and identity; encourage
projects which strengthen our children, families, and neighborhoods.
2. Maintain the existing residential areas of the City as designated on the land use
plan. Identify and maintain approximately the same balance (or same
percentages) of the various land uses throughout the community, allowing for
some flexibility.
3. Eliminate blight and prevent deterioration of buildings and infrastructure.
Strive for better aesthetic appeal.
4. Maintain and continue development of a strong economic base and create a
favorable climate for the operation of responsible free enterprise systems.
5. Encoura�e opportunities for a diverse population with respect to a�e, ethnicity,
and economic composition.
6. Provide active and passive open space for the enjoyment of Roseville residents.
7.. Protect and enhance the natural ecological systems within the City.
8. Enable the convenient movement of persons and�goods within the City in a safe
manner by motorized and non-motorized means.
9. Provide the services and facilities essential for the protection, operation, and
use of public and private property in the City in a cost effective inanner.
� - ,
RosevilleComprehensive Plan-1998 Update Goals and Policies - Page 3 of 20
B. GENERAI. LAND USE POLICIES
The City will:
1. Continue to be developed in accordance with a Comprehensive Plan for land
use, housing, transportation, and community facilities. Where possible, all
future development will reflect the major proposals of the Comprehensive Plan.
Where possible, the plan will be relate�' to plans in neighboring communities
and to the Metropolitan area as a whole.
2. Maintain a Comprehensive Plan to reflect the maximum potential of
undeveloped properties consistent with good planning and development
practices. This includes the following activities:
a) Review and amend the Comprehensive Plan as necessary to ensure its
usefulness as a practical guide to current and future development (but at a
minimum every 10 years);
b) Adhere to the Plan as closely as possible to ensure consistent development
policy;
c) Consider changes to the official zoning map based on the Plan only after
submission of a Commission special study or 'aft�r appropriate review of a
specific development proposal; and
d) Establish time frames for accomplishing major actions identified in the
Comprehensive Plan.
3. Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, environmental protection and
aesthetic appeal in community development through the adoption and use of
site design standards and other appropriate criteria.
4. Create adequate transitions and buffering between incompatible land uses by
strengthening or establishing standards in the zoning ordinance.
5. Plan for balanced land use development of the community to maintain and
improve Roseville's image as an attractive place in which to live, work, and play.
6. Encourage quality business and industrial development where such business
and industry contributes to the high social, economic, and aesthetic level of the
community.
7. Encourage the use of energy saving devices and energy efficient buildings and
construction techniques.
Roseville Comprehensive Plan -1998 Update Goals and Policies - Page 4 of 20
8. Consider adoption of a solar access protection ordinances as more guidelines
become available.
9. Encourage development and planning of land to provide necessary public
access to surrounding properties.
10. Enforce City ordinances to ens�ire: a) protecticn of lives, health, and property;
and b) development consister t with thr Comprehensive Plan.
11. Promote a balanced tax base by: a) encouraging quality residential development
in established neighborhoods; and b) encouraging intensive quality
development of non-residential projects in appropriate areas as guided by the
Comprehensive Plan.
12. Where economically feasible, cooperate with other governmental agencies and
the private sector in planning and developing joint services or facilities which
avoid unnecessary duplication.
13. Provide for maintenance and adopt standards for further protection and
enhancement of natural ecological systems including lakes, natural and man-
made storm water ponding areas, aquifers, and drainage areas. Consider using
the Model Ordinances and Best Management Practices published by the State
or designated area-wide planning agencies, whichever is more protective of the
resource, especially in redevelopment situations.
14. Encourage aesthetically pleasing utility systems and public structures to
minimize adverse visual impacts on the City. Require new utility systems to be
placed underground where possible, and screening of utilities which must be
located above ground.
15. Encourage underground drainage systems in existing fully developed areas;
require on-site treatment ponding where prudent, and regional ponding
elsewhere. Establish a management plan that establishes standards.
16. Provide for and encourage opportunities for citizen participation of all levels of
planning and review. Encourage balanced representation on the Planning
Commission.
17. Consider the use of a Planning Study moratorium only as a last resort to reduce
potential land use conflicts.
18. Protect and enhance lakeshore i.d wetland within all development and
redevelopment projects:
Roseville Comprehensive Plan - 1998 Update Goals and Policies - Page 5 of 20
Itl. Residential Areas
A. VISION STATEMENT
Roseville shall be a community with an appropriate balance of attractive, safe, well
maintained housing alternatives. The.: altern..�ives shallbe available without
discrimination in appealing, well kept, crime dC�erring neighborhoods. Each
neighborhood shall have appropriate City services, parks, and open space located in an
environment that provides adequate educational, occupational, and spiritual
opportunities.
B. RESIDENTIAL GOALS
Achieve a flexible balance of different types of housing alternatives that will
meet the life cycle needs of residents Through careful use of the little remaining
land in Roseville identify and maintain the existing balance (or at least the same
percentages) of the residential land use acreage throughout the community.
2. Identify stable single family areas and protect them. Preserve the integrity of
existing single family neighborhood by prohibiting the intrusion of
incompatible uses.
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-of-ways,
etc.) or landmarks (schools,''Sraries, churches, parks, open space, etc.); and
fl a common architectural design or aesthetic treatment.
Roseville Comprehensive Plan - 1998 Update Goals and Policies - Page 6 of 20
4. Promote neighborhoods. Maintain and develop close knit neighborhoods for
single and multi unit dwellings. Create neighborhood and community identity
and scale; and improve community visual/aesthetic effect.
5. Encourage maintenance of existing housing and property. Upgrade current
homes and property to meet "move up" housing needs. Consistently upgrade
residential amenities, infrastructur�:, and other necessities to maintain and
improve property values.
6. Park and open space are valuable assets to our residential areas. Guide
residential development locating it adjacent to the City Park and Open System.
C. RESIDENTIAL POLICIES
The City will:
1. Adopt flexible standards for new single family and multi-family housing
developments to allow for innovative development and more efficient densities.
It is not the goal of the City to significantly increase overall residential densities.
a) Encourage higher quality mixed developments by allowing planned unit
developments as guided by the goals, policies, and performance
standards of the community with more dedication of park and open
space.
b) Where feasible or practical, integrate neighborhood oriented retail/
service businesses (within walking distance) into the mixed used project.
Consider such mixed use developments in areas where change is already
underway such as the Twin Lakes and Center Pointe area, the Lexington
and "B" area, and the District 623 redevelopment site along Owasso.
c) Encourage innovative high quality planning and design in residentiai
developments that cater to the life style/life cycle of present and future
residents. Higher quality development may include such improvements
as masonry exteriors, higher window and wall insulation packages,
underground parking, more usable open space than normally required,
porches, landscaping, underground parking, and amenities packages
within each unit.
2. Encourage neighborhood interaction programs including community policing,
neighborhood watches, and maintenance associations. Prepare neighborhood
welcome or starter meetings to recognize the people who live in the
neiglihorhood. Encourage neighborhood residents, including youth, to work on
"Pride in Otu` Neighborhood" clean-up projects.
Roseviile Comprehensive Plan-199s Update Goals and Policies - Page � of 20
3. Establish one citywide interdisciplinary "Neighborhood Action Program or
Ombudsman" to coordinate and facilitate each neighborhoods responsibilities
on social, and educational issues as well as physical improvements. This could
also be done through a Commission on neighborhoods.
4. Convert unused/underused commercial lands to residential uses. For example,
in underused strip centers, encoura,;e redevelopment with multi-family housing
uses.
5. Identify evolving neighborhoods that are least resistant to change. Consider
redeveloping entire neighborhoods to meet current and future needs. If this is
not feasible, offer all homeowners in the neighborhood individual incentives to
upgrade their property.
6. To protect the integrity of all housing areas, require strict adherence to all
performance standards.
a) Undertake appropriate actions to ensure the safety and security of residents
in their neighborhood.
b) Maintain the quality of existing residential areas through comprehensive
enforcement of all codes.
c) Adopt appropriate ordinances to ensure property is maintained in order to
prevent deterioration of residential neighborhoods.
d) Where higher intensity uses are located adjacent to existing residential
neighborhoods create effective land use buffers and physical screening.
e) Consider ordinances (including setbacks) to allow for easier expansion or
upgrading of existing residences. For example, establish a percentage of
each lot which may have impervious cover; establish expansion standards
consistent with the majority of adjacent or nearby structures; or, with both
property owners agreement, change side property line setback requirements
to side yard setbacks between structures.
7. When approving a residential Planned Unit Development, require better quality
with established criteria for open space, a"sense of place", and quality materials.
8. Encourage the development of well-designed multiple family dwelling projects
which are compatible with adjacent uses. The following criteria should be
considered when reviewing proposals for multiple family dwelling construction
within the City:
Roseville Comprehensive Plan -1998 Update Goals and Policies - Page 8 of 20
a) Siructures should have access to at least one collector level street so that
traffic generated by the complex will not exceed environmental and traffic
thresholds of minor residential streets described in the Transportation
Plan.
b) Adequate usable open space should be provided on the site or public
park/open space should direcr,.y adjoin the site.
c) The floor area standard should define the amount of required open space
in comparison to the density of units.
d) Adequate access to adjoining or nearby (within �/4 mile) retail/service
areas should be provided.
e) The use of underground parking (with adequate safety measures) should
be encouraged to reduce the volume of outside parking and separate
garages as a means of improving the general residential character of
multiple family development.
� Impacts on adjoining single family areas should be limited by increased
side yard setbacks and landscaping; front and rear separation by streets,
commercial or industrial development; or parks and open space.
g) Higher density development should be required including such
improvements as masonry exterior, higher window and wall insulation
packages, underground parking, more usable open space than normally
required, porches, landscaping, underground parking and amenities
packages within each unit.
h) Building design standards should be used which contribute to
neighborhood openness, communication, and interaction.
i) Design and performance standards should provide adequate height and
setback combinations for situations where taller multi-family units are
proposed as infill projects adjacent to single family areas. Such infill
should be limited to medium density (or lower) projects.
9. Within the Capital Improvement Program, when available, add or match funds
for proactive residential improvement loans and grant programs.
10. Require fair housing practices. Disperse types and scale of housing units within
the City for all ages, in all stages of the life cycle. Discourage high
concentrations of low and modest cost housing in any portion or neighborhood.
Roseville Comprehensive Plan -1998 Update Goals and Policies - Page 9 of 20
a) Provide quality, low density rental and owner-occupied residential units,
particularly one level.
b) Create affordable and/or subsidized congregate rental units for seniors
and others with special needs.
c) Consider senior ho: �,ing in a: eas with nearby amenities such as
shopping, medical, commun�.,y and church facilities, and volunteer
programs.
11. Provide an appropriate amount of low and moderate cost housing and
opportunities for rehabilitation of the existing housing supply through:
a) the use of Federal, State, !ocal, and other financial resources; and
b) working with State agencies and Metropolitan Council and Ramsey
County HRA.
12. Encourage year-round landscaping of public and private space, including
planned development of boulevards and medians. Review the development and
landscaping plans for parks and municipal facilities.
13. Add and integrate sidewalk or pathway system requirements in ordinances and
in design standards for new development.
IV. Commercial Areas
A. COMMERCIALPOLICIES
The City will:
Encourage the development of a wide range of retail sales and services in the
community. Concentrate these uses in existing retail/service areas.
Encourage the development ��r expansion of existing and future retail shopping
centers as a means of achieving maximum efficiency of land use, adequacy of
vehicular movements and parking areas, and maximum aesthetic
consideration.
Restrict commercial develop�nent tc specific areas in accord with the
Comprehensive Plan and avoid strip commercial development. Restrict further
commercial/industrial land expansion, encourage concentrated medium aize
office development in areas currently designated for such uses.
Roseville Comprehensive Plan -1998 Update Goals and Policies - Page 10 of 20
1 Excerpt of Minutes, Planning Commission meeting of Mav 10, 2000:
2
3 6e. Planning File 3211: A request by Kenneth Wieden for an 18.5 foot
4 Variance from Section 1004.02D5 (Minimum Yard Requirements) of
5 the Roseville City Code to allow construction of an attached garage in
6 the required front yard setback on property located at 2125 Dale Street
7 North.
8
9 Chair Klausing opened the hearing and requested Tomas Pashke to
10 provide a summary of the project report dated May 10, 2000. He
11 explained three alternative alignments for the garage and driveway.
12
13 Thomas Paschke explained the Dale Street Pathway which will be
14 constructed in year 2000 and the impacts on the Wieden comer lot. There
15 are few alternatives.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Staff recommended approval of the variance with findings to support the
variance.
Member Mulder asked if Dale Street access and impervious surface is to
be removed when a new drive and garage is constructed (yes).
23 Chair Klausing asked what mechanism is possible to enforce the
24 conditions of the variance (removal of driveway). Deb Bloom explained
25 the work with Mr. Wieden to date.
26
27 Member Mulder stated that one condition of the variance should be
28 removal of drive and curb cut.
29
3o Member Olson asked if the turnaround could be placed closer to the
31 house. Deb Bloom reported on the design and need for radious and slope
32 of drive.
33
34 Member Wilke asked if Plan 2 improved the slope (16% would not meet
35 Code). He supported Plan 3 as the safest alternative.
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Member Egli asked if there are safety concerns with "sight triangle" on
alternative 3(no sight problem). What will happen to the existing garage
on Dale Street? (Applicant undecided!.
Member Rhody asked if there was off-street parking on Eldridge.
1 Ken Wieden, 2175 N. Dale, explained the history of the project. The
2 Eldridge difference will add $12,000 to the cost (from $9,000 to $21,000).
3 He is supportive of plan #2 because of cost.
4
5 Member Mulder asked if a variance is needed for plan 2(no).
6
7 Member Cunningham asked why grading of the site and current
8 driveway floor was not considered. What is slope of drive on Eldridge
9 (141% to 2%). If plan 3 was built, would entry be through the existing
l0 house. The existing garage would not be converted to living space.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Public comment included:
Elso Hohnquest, 637 W. Eldridge, asked how/why the city will not
support the south side project, with the difference in cost to be applied to
Eldridge. (The city is willing to work with applicant.)
Chair Klausing closed the hearing.
Mr. Wieden stated he was not withdrawing the variance request. The
difficulty is the cost at this time.
Member Wilke said that the existing driveway must be addressed in any
variance (especially plan 3).
Thomas Paschke explained the six-month variance time requirement to
begin construction. Mr. Wieden will have to commit to one or other plan
by July when the trail paving begins.
Member Olson asked about the drive crossing the path. Deb Bloom stated
that there is visibility to the public right-of-way, more concerned about
road right-of-way.
Chair Klausing stated he is prepared to recommend a variance because of
the hardship.
Member Mulder asked if plan 1 was to be considered, what would be
needed beside setback variance (side-yard). He did not like plan 2 or
plan 3. He objected to the aesthetics/look of the project.
Member Egli asked if plan 2 is expanded for a driveway, is a variance
needed (no).
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
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Member Wilke asked if a variance expires in six months if no action is
taken by the owner.(yes)
Chair Klausing felt the back yard tree could be moved; the plan 3 garage
creates a buffer to the neighborhood — he would support it.
Member Cunningham supported plan 3 or plan 1.
Member Egli supported plan 3, but did not want existing driveway to
remain.
Member Rhody stated he felt that the applicant should withdraw.
General discussion ensued.
Member Cunningham asked that if plan 3 did not proceed after being
approved, it should be at Mr. Wieden's expense to change the driveway.
Motion: Member Klausing moved, Member Wilke seconded, to
recommend the granting of the variance to allow the construction of an
attached double stall garage on the Eldridge Avenue side of the property
at 2125 Dale Street subject to the following conditions:
1) The west side of the garage be screened to minimize the visual
impact of the garage to the property to the west, and if the
applicant chooses to pursue plan 2, the variance for plan 3 is then
void.
The planning commission recommends the granting of the variance based
upon the following findings:
1) The unique physical features of the property (i.e., the slope of the land
running toward Dale Street, the traffic levels on Dale Street, and the
pathway crossing the applicant's property) create a physical hardship;
2) The hardship is not the applicant's creation; and,
3) If granted, the variance will not impact the health, safety or general
welfare of the community.
Member Mulder noted that other alternatives could be done without a
variance. The findings are stretch�d. The variance is too intrusive to the
Code.
Member Olson agreed with Member Mulder. The pathway does not make
this driveway non-conforming.
� . � ,.� ,,,� .�n,, �� ,�,...,T_.. �,
s. � �- —. _.. �� � � � :� . �,t!y .
��� --'-- — '' � . ., , -
�, `_'_. _i •� j.' . .. .. .i .� . . � �
1
!�,- � �. . ., . ' ' . � t' • .
G � ' � . , K�`�`
r _. �-,�+
� . . „i.c
L-_ ...... � ' � �•'""�-- � i
�_ . ,
' � "
�. . � `� � . �.; j ..
..; � _ .
,
_ - � '
� ;,.
. ' . ,
�:� I ; �i , -
, . • .: . - . ..
,, �<; _
_ . . _ - .• . �.� . ...y . . . - . . � . . - . .. .. ._ �. .
. f -, `• � _. �I
,I _'�� . �� . . . _ � � _. , . .. .. i '�
�.•• r �.'. j : y -�- � ._.►... . _ _ �,.,C' ' 4' � � -': �II
._. _I�. �. w.i' . - � . . � - . , . - � _ � ' � . � ,�.. -•iyl _ . . . ' '� . '
� . t �
�� � �. : ...v.... .�,�._.., ,- ,..� . � . . ,I',
_ ,f,
, - . .:.'.,r' , ... .,a_.�_
. . _. _ ,
, ... ,s i .�. ,�. _...
, • , . , � -
. . t • .
� . ,� — .
. - : ', � i .� � —� rt ' �
� � �
. - . .. . . � . � � � � - � - �
- , . . ...ri • .. _ . � _ :l'Y . � v . . � � �,
. . . . !� �+ ~ � ' � : i�
, _ . , �.�� �_ ' . . . �- . . , . . � . . _ :"�i�. . V .
. L�
� . , � y � '`�-' • ' �1 . � ` '
, . . i ',
. , .�
�- . '"_ ._ _ ,_� ,
- � . . � � . . . . , . . � � . . ->� . -. � �. ._ � �. � . �• � � . . . ' ��� ` . �� l !1
. , . . - , � _ . . • � . .. . ,t , ��-:
.., � � . � , ;,�
, - � _ .. � � . +"' ' :,� ":-� � ,
-; . ' �_ . ,.� ,..
_ � , ��
_ . , . . .� _ -L : . � ; � _ �� . l .
. .. . . . � . . _. _'� , . � '�1_ - ' �, _.� .
. ` .'�f' ^ � ` _ � •\� "' ' ` `u:
� _ . . � � � . . . � ' �. . � ' � -. -' . � ' .
.. . . � .. � � � u+ . .., . �� � . L _ . . , . ,
I ! yX '" !
, ,. . . � ' ��,' . • � " '.
. • � , � .� +
.. �I , _ , . ; f �.. ;'�_ � � _ '_
r • . � . f: - " r�'� �� 1 . . � y; , . � � .
.. �- . . �"y ( • . - . - .`
_ '•�, �
�� - � • �
r � , . . -. . , . .-. . . . � � —. '� i , � i �. � ' . / : �'� . . � , . . . �
E, . . - � ; � �i .
.— - I. . . . . , .�} I, . . .
. � . - „ _ _ _ . �'.. .
� F'20POSED UMESTONE RETAINING WALL
DALE STREET
�.
�
s. .
•- , ' A
�
_�..r��as -.r t
- E:.. _ f ,
�. � �
I
. �yf �.' �
_ -�'�. � . _ ,� . - .
_ ��^
w�ayy �. ". � . . . . . , ..
~
- - _ � � � . '. . . . — �• . . .. _
:. 1 _ sr��E , � � • _ �' '
� _ . . _. - � � 'Y �-�J
i � �`F
' . r. r. � ��.�--^--�— . � ,;� � . �/ .. . .. . � .. . .. - � . .
'• ' . . � _.. _ .-, . - . _ _ _`4'� _, _ . .
•' S
. � � , . ,� , ,_ . . - �. . � �. � .. . � . ' .. � .. '� . ` .
' � . � _ . . . . _ . � . - : � .
�
4�` � , +�.J�. ' � _
�t _ ;��
i� .�-o�-�..
L_. w
r`1i
'��� .� ��
�
a
{i ~
j., t
-'
n
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
D A T E: OS/22/00
ITEM NO: 1- s
epart nt Approval: M a er Approved: Agenda Section:
�-- LAND USE
Ite Description: Steve and Kristin Y�ungquist request for a variance from Section
1016.22A1(Non-Conformities) and Section 1016.26.B 1(Storm Water
Mana�ementl of the Roseville Citv��(PF32
1.0 REQUESTED ACTION
l.l Steve and Kristin Youngquist, 391 Owasso Boulevard South, are requesting a variance
from Section 1016.22A1 and Section 1016.26B1 of the Roseville City Code to allow
redevelopment of the parcel with a single family residential home.
1.2 The Youngquist's former home and detached garage (dating back to 19 10) were removed
from the site to make way for a new 28 foot by 53 foot single family home (1,484 s.f.
footprint). The new structure would include a tuck-under garage, deck, and 2,400
finished square feet, all meeting the applicable setbacks for residential shoreland
structures.
2.0 REVIEW of REQUEST
2.1 Section 10116.22A1(Non-Conformities) stipulates that non-conformities can continue
but are subj ect to applicable State Statutes and City Ordinance regarding alterations,
repair after damage, discontinuance of use, and intensification of use. The Youngquist's
propose to redevelop the parcel with a new single family home. A buildable pre-existing
non-conforming lot of record must have a minimum lot width of 70 feet (70% of the
standard 100 foot wide shoreland lot). The Youngquist lot is a pre-existing lot of record
with 40 feet of frontage along Lake Owasso and does not meet the 70% requirement and
requires a variance.
2.2 Section 1016.26B 1(Storm Water Management) requires all single-family lots within the
Shoreland Management District to ha re no more that 25% impervious site coverage.
Impervious area is considered as roof, sidewalk, patio, and driveway areas. The
Youngquist lot is 6,690 square feet in size that allows for an impervious area of 1,672
square feet. The former home and sitP had an impervious calculation of 2,617 square feet
or 39%. The proposal indicates an i�:,�ervious calculation of 2,160 square feet or 32%
and required a variance.
2.3 The Youngquist's seek the variance to bring their non-conforming lot into conformity
with Roseville's Shoreland Ordinance and a variance to allow an additional 7% (456.63
square feet) of impervious area.
PF32 10 — RCA (052200) Page I of 4
2.4 lot coverage percentages:
3.0 STAFF COMMENT
31 Variances may be granted where the strict enforcement of the literal provisions of the
ordinance would cause "undue hardship". The granting of a variance shall only occur
when it can be demonstrated that such an action will be in keeping with the spirit and
intent of the ordinance.
3.2 "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting 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 land owner is due to circumstances unique to the
property not created by the land owner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the
essential character of the locality.
3 3 Conditions may be attached to a variance that mitigate the impacts on adj oining
properties.
3.4 The construction of foriner home dates back to 19 10. Mr. Youngquist inspected the
home with an architect to determine whether the structure was worthy of an
addition/modifications. The inspection determined the home was not structurally
conducive to alterations.
3.5 The City Code would not have allowed any alterations or modifications to either the
house or the garage without a variance. The removal of the former home and garage, and
the redevelopment of the property based on the proposed site survey, creates a parcel that
complies with setback and height requirements of the Roseville City Code.
3.6 The Comprehensive Plan encourages reconstruction and upgrading of residential
structures (and neighborhood) tbroughout the community.
3.7 The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the initial proposal and
provided staff with their comments/co► .:erns (letter attached). Staff has made every
attempt to address the concerns indicated by the DNR. However, given the location of
existing homes on either side of the Youngquist property, staff determined it to be
problematic moving the structure closer to the front property line. Shifting of the
structure would require a front yard setback and reduce on-site vehicle parking
capabilities for the already tight parcel. A copy of this report has been submitted to the
DNR for their consideration.
PF32 10 — RCA (052200) Page 2 of 4
4.0 SUGGESTED FINDINGS
4.1 Staff recommends use of an outline, similar to the following possible findings, for
determining whether there is an "undue hardship" significant enough to approve the
variance.
a. The proposal (does/does not) constitute a reasonable use of the property.. ..
b. The hardship situation was (was not) created by the applicant (Youngquist) or
e�sted prior to the applicant.. .
c. The unique physical features or situations within the proposal that justify a
variance include . . .
d. The economic issues that may (in part) justify a variance include ...
e, The alternative designs that allow use of the site but do not require a variance
include.. .
f. The impacts of the project, if the variance was issued, would (would not) create
significant community impacts on the health, safety, or general welfare
including.. .
g. Other findings deemed appropriate by the City Council.
4.2 Staff recommends approval of the request by Steve and Kristin Youngquist for a variance
to Section 1016.22A1 and 1016.26B 1 of the Roseville City Code allowing redevelopment
of the parcel located at 391 Owasso Boulevard South with a single family residential
home.
5.0 PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION, FINDINGS &
RECOMMENDATION
51 On May 10, 2000, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing regarding the
variance request by Steve and Kristin Younquist. The hearing was attended by a number of
adjacent property owners who addressed the Commission supporting the variance request.
5.2 Commissioner Egli asked about the bh�ff setback and reduction in impervious area and
Member Olson asked whether any trees would be removed and if any plantings will occur
along the lakeshore. Staff answered the questions regarding the bluff and impervious area,
and Mr. Youngquist answered the questions regarding trees and plantings (see attached
minutes).
PF32 10 — RCA (052200) Page 3 of 4
5.3 The Planning Commission voted (7-0) to recommend approval of the variance to allow
redevelopment of the parcel at 391 South Owasso Boulevard West based on the following
findings:
L The unique physical features of the property (i.e. shape and size of lot) create a physical
hardship.
2. The hardship is not the applicant's creation.
3. The property cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions permitted by
the ordinance.
4. If granted, the variance will not impact the health, safety, or general welfare of the
community.
The Commission also recommended approval of the variance subj ect to the following conditions:
l. The home to be constructed has a footprint not to exceed 1,500 square feet.
2. The impervious surface is not to exceed 32% of the lot size and the applicant sha11 work
with staff to attempt to reduce further the impervious surface.
6.0 SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTYON
6.1 By resolution, approve (deny) the variance request by Steve & Kristin Youngquist, 391
South Owasso Boulevard West, to a11ow redevelopment of their parcel with a single family
home subj ect to the Planning Commission's May 10, 2000, findings and conditions.
6.2 In accordance with Section 1016.19B of the Roseville City Code (Shot-eland Ordinance) the
City shall notify the Department of Natural Resources within 10 days of Council's action.
Attachments: Properry location map; aerial photo; site plan; house plan; and narrative.
60-day Time Limit: Application accepted on Apri128, 2000; Decision deadline is June 26, 2000.
Prepared by: Thomas Paschke (490-2236)
\\Victoria\CommDev�Planning Files�3210 Youngquist,Steve�RCA (052200).doc
PF32 10 — RCA (052200) Page 4 of 4
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 held on the 22nd day of May 2000, at 6:30 p.m.
The following members were present:
and the following were absent:
Council Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
Resolution Approving a variance to Section 1016.22A1(Non-Conformities and Section
1016.26B1(Storm Water Management) of the Roseviile City Code for property located at
391 Owasso Boulevard South.
WHEREAS, Section 1016.22A1(Non-Conformities) stipulates that non-conformities can
continue but are subject to applicable State Statutes and City Ordinance regarding alterations, repair
after damage, discontinuance of use, and intensification of use; and
WHEREAS, Steve and Kristin Youngquist propose to redevelop the current parcel with a
new single family home; and
WHEREAS, a buildable pre-existing non-conforming lot of record must have a minimum
lot width of 70 feet (70% of the standard 100 foot wide shoreland lot); and
WHEREAS, the Youngquist lot is a pre-e�sting lot of record with 40 feet of frontage along
Lake Owasso and does not meet the 70% requirement; and
WHEREAS, Section 1016.26B1(Storm Water Management) requires all single-family lots
within the Shoreland Management District to have no more that 25% impervious site coverage; and
WHEREAS, impervious area is determined by calculating the total square footage of roof,
sidewalk, patio, and driveway areas; and
WHEREAS, the Youngquist lot is 6,690 square feet in size that allows for an impervious
area of 1,672 square feet; and
WHERBAS, the former home and site had an impervious calculation of 2,6 17 square feet
or 39%; and
WHEREAS, the proposed site improvements would create impervious area of 2,160 square
feet or 32% of the parcel area and a 7% variance; and
Page 1 of 3
WHEREAS, the Youngquist's have requested a variance to a11ow construction of a home on
a per-existing non-conforming lot or record and a variance to a11ow a 7% increase in the impervious
area of a lot located in the Shoreland District; and
WHEREAS, the variance will create a structure that is conforming to the Roseville City
Code and a11ow Youngquist's to construct their 2,400 square foot (1,484 square foot footprint) home
without other special or variance approvals; and
WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commis:�ion conducted a public hearing on the request
on Wednesday, May 10, 2000, and recommended (7-0) approval of the requested variance, subj ect
to the following findings and conditions:
Findings:
L The unique physical features of the property (i.e. shape and size of lot) create a physical
hardship.
2. The hardship is not the applicant's creation.
3. The property cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions permitted by
the ordinance.
4. If granted, the variance will not impact the health, safety, or general welfare of the
community.
Conditions:
l. The home to be constructed has a footprint not to exceed 1,500 square feet.
2. The impervious surface is not to exceed 32% of the lot size and the applicant sha11 work
with staff to attempt to reduce further the impervious surface.
WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council received the Planning Commission's
recommendation on Monday, May 22, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council made the following findings:
1 Section 101 6.22A1 (Non-Conformities) stipulates that non-conformities can continue but are
subject to applicable State Statutes and City Ordinance regarding alterations, repair after
damage, discontinuance of use, and intensification of use.
2 The Shoreland Ordinance requires lots to have a width of 100 feet adjacent a shoreline and
is I5, 000 squat'e feet in size.
3 The former home, initially constructed in 1910 prior to the establishment of the City of
Rcseville, is situated on a lot 40 feet in width and 167 feet in depth, encompassing 6, 690
square feet
4 A variance requires the applicant to prove physical hardship and to demonstrate that no
practical alternatives exist that would reduce the need for a variance.
Page 2 of 3
S The unique physical features of the property ('�.e. shape and size of lot) create a physical
hardship.
6 The hardship is not the applicant's creation.
7 The property cannot be put to a reasonable use f used under the conditions permitted by the
ordinance.
8 Ifgranted, the variance will not impact the health, safety, or general welfare of the
community.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of
Roseville, Minnesota (the "City"), Ramsey County, Minnesota, that a variance to Section 1016.22A1
(Non-Conformities) and Section 1016.26B1(Storm Water Management) allowing redevelopment
of the parcel with a single family home and allowance for 32% impervious land area for property
at 391 Owasso Boulevard South (PID # 0129232 10005) be approved.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council
Member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor:
and the following voted against the same:
WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Page 3 of 3
�
V
�
�� O
N
� N
M
� �
O �
�
� �
� �
� �
� �
�
_1 �
•� �
� �
� O
O �
� fi�
�J
� �
�� �
� �
� M,
�
�
.
3
.�
�
h
�
�
V
r
� I �
f � �Qi
� ��
�
� �
?: i�
�
����� `
�vov�
.,,
=.���z .
i �� .�� � � ��`�
� ,� .�
��
� �
��:v� t�� �
,:��. � � �. ♦ , ♦
'r�€", �+�� � �.CA, `'r ��
���' � � � ��� `� ° `,^
�s �� � � �,' `
�
.. y ••,V � ~..
��da�„� :'¢ �is� .
'� & vf ��
$� � p � �
,$..��C�"i+ e..�?:`�r.. � �' S.�
�
�� ,
•
.\� .'
� �.
�
�
� �:
� i
�"
; �
.� ,�'
� 1� I�.
�
�
�
QZ
w
�
�
u
�g
� N
O
�
�
M
�
�
�
�
U
�
`�
0
d
—
� 1
�
�
�
� �
��
0
�
o �
.Y ��
[-� � U
Stephen & Kristin Youngquist
391 South Owasso Boulevard
Roseville, MN 55113
(651) 592-5115
April 21, 2000
The Explanation of Physical H.;.rdship that Makes a Variance
Necessary and Our Intent to Improve the Property which does not
Conform with the City Code:
We have lived at 391 South Owasso Boulevard for nine years. The
"existing" house is located on a 40' X 360" lot, deemed substandard.
Portions of the house are over 85 years old. There is dry rot on main
support beams and the basement has leaked profusely the entire
time we have lived there. The "existing" side yard set back on the
eastside of the house is 2.5 to 3 feet from the property line, which
does not meet current codes. The "existing" garage is 2 feet over the
property line — actually in the street.
With the "existing" house and garage the impervious site is over 35%
of the total lot size.
Our new house plans call for centering the structure in the middle of
the lot, thus conforming to all codes and regulations concerning
setbacks for a lot this size. The new garage will be attached and
located 30 feet from the property line, also meeting current codes.
The impervious site percentage will be reduced to less than 32% of
the total lot size.
Please see appropriate certificate of survey and building plans for
detail.
EXISTING SITE PLAN
CERT�ICATE O F SLTRVEY
� ��t7B.�9 r1 0 /
���a � a�
� ^�
�
��„�,-- /�1 For: Kristin Youngquist
�'� z.�S 391 South Owasso Boulevard
78'� �°`� ��' Roseville, Mn 55113
�ry������
'a, /��,� � e,.eo +e�.�. DES(�2�PT�ON:
x-
� �, THE EAST y0 FEE�f OF THE WEST 160 FEET OF LOT 3. A.K.
t ��� }lB.q BARNUM GAR�EN LOTS ON Fae AND OF �CORO IN THE
� OFFICE OF iHE COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE. RAMSEY
QS.� COUNTY, MINNESOTA
j $IUBJECT TO EASEMENTS OF RECORD IF ANY.
+eo.st �t � pLEGAL �ESCRIPiION PRONDED BY CLIENT)
��.� 30
�B7.7B
+s�.o� • Denotes iron monument found
+ �� 0 Denotes iron monument set
m.�o
MOTE:
' � t80.Y1 91 23 Elewtions are assumed
P� �t� t89.58
Z �T`y 95.�3
8g.18 Rl.
7C� t9E.tE
�O !(� dLr.
��`�� Y 99.f0 ��
(J� �� � � .92.20 .^
tBE.14 OG ! 1.45 � P 4-� ��'�,j,
T
. Js tl f� � �
� �� �
��' ��Os
�y 9�.94 • � �
�� ��n '(J �
ig�`. � `iL '' �,� � f. i��f
�h
� .✓' t99.38 t100.58
xg
J • 1�'
,,f��s �� .
'�V ,` . t99.E0
+�oo.a
96.05 � 98.12 �2� t99.62
I 1 �6 � yt� 3S
( 9r' � � �� N
SOUIHERLY R1tl1T-OF-wAY UNE Of SWT1 OwA550 �� 1 �� /�9A6!
BLVD W/S OEFNlm BY IIOtDINC A. UNE PARALLEL YNiM c ' �� 99.41 yg.}� �
AND 90 FEET NOR7HrE57FALY OF 7ME CEN1ERLINE OF � �
RNLROAD iRACKS AS f'�LO IOCATEO. �.��
+ �l� 9&7
\ tY6.51 0 � � 9E.9B
� . `� 40
� .� �.,� �388 31 �j�
\ � / 97.88 R � 0�0 35 $L
y , 97.82 �o� �sso
87.24 O
/ + 99.i6
�� 96.e9 �
so�
�O ' hereby certify that this s�rvey, plan or report Was prepared
I�D �R��T � '�G�G , me or uider my direct supervision ond that � am o duly
����Y � D licensed land survtyor under the lawa of the state of Minnesot�
rn�� enruo� Hm�rm�orr� ssui
'[ffi. 4Q� 7lfbm2 PA7L 7I66-092 Dote t' � ar o %� 2000
.10b NO. 464:00! 9Celo- i�20' ey. .
I �gym�/:,J� Surveyor. Minnesota License No. 17765 �
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
CERT�TCATE OF SURVEY
t70.4Y O
� w �� �e
� ��
�+�c ��f''
1
sg
�� Oenotes direction of � I
proposed surtace droinage.
� Denotes proposed dewHon �
: 935.0 Denotes exiatfng devatlan'I'
1
Top of Block = 100.33
Carage floor = 100.00
Basement floor = 92.00 I
Walkwt Elev. = 9 2. 0 0
,—
For: Kristin Youngquist
391 South Owosso Boulevard
Roseville. Mn 55113 I
+e�.,+ DESCRIpT10N;
THE EAST 40 FEET OF iHE WEST 160 FEET OF LOT 3, A.K.
BARNUM GARDEN LOTS ON F7LE AND � RECORD IN THE
OFFlCE OF THE COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE, RAMSEY
\ COUNTY, MINNESOTA
SUB.�CT TO EASEMENTS OF RECaiD IF ANY.
1 a ( L E G A L DESCRIPAON PROVIDED BY CUENn
�J9.20
�� +e�.oi • Denotes iron monument found
� 0 Denotes iron monument set
NOTE
Elevations ore assumed
SOUTIERIY RNi1T—Oi—MAY IYiE OF Sq17H OWA550 \
BL4D WAS OEFRIFD BY NOLqNf A LNIE PARALLEL YN1N
AND 90 FEET NORTIN67ERLY OF 7HE C011E1MAE OF
RAlAOAD iRAdCS AS FELD LOCIIIED. 98.�3
t
NO FlELD STNMG WAS OONE FOR PROPOSm Hp15E {'98.51
NOTE: ELEVATIONS ARE ASSUMED
� �
�
/ 97.88
�- '
/ 97.62
97.24
,� t
� %.�
/��., -33g8 31
���40 3 SD $���
o� �'s �.,s
so�z�
lru'+in� I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared
�� �G ��G��J by ma or under my direct supervision ond that I am a duly
�ii ��Y �D D licensed land 5urveYOr under the laws of the state of Minnesotc
�$ '��� �A �i
� pgp � g� 7�pgt Da his �� da of 2000
Job No. 464.001 Scela T-20' ey.�
prgym py: �� Surveyor. Minneso a License No. 17765
Aprill3, 2000
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Metro Waters, 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793
Telephone: (65 1) 772-7910 Fax. (65 1) 772-7977
City of Roseville
Mr. Thomas Paschke, City Planner
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, MN 5 5113
Re: Redevelopment of Property Located at 391 South Owasso Boulevard, Lake Owasso (62-
56P), City of Roseville, Ramsey County
Dear Mr. Paschke:
DNR Metro Waters has received (April �, 2000) the information on the redevelopment proposal
for the Youngquist Property (39 1 South Owasso Boulevard) in Roseville. This properiy is riparian
to Lake Owasso (62-56P) and subject to the Floodplain and Shoreland Regulations of the City of
Roseville. Therefore, the DNR has following comments to offer concerning this proposal:
The City of Roseville Shoreland Management Ordinance, Section 18075.1 states that a
variance is required for non-conforming lots of record that do not have 70% ofthe standard
lotwaterfrontagerequirement. The lot width requirement of riparian lots on Lake Owasso
is 100' and the lot width of the Youngquist property is approximately 40'. Therefore, a
variance must be required for this proposal.
2. Section 18.065 of the Roseville Shoreland Ordinance requires variances to be issued in
accordance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462. The Ordinance further states that
conditions may be imposed by the City Council to protect adjacent properties and the public
interest.
We recommend that one of the conditions that is listed in Section 18.072.2 of the Roseville
Shoreland Management Ordinance be required for the Youngquist Proposal. The
Youngquists should be required to preserve the trees on the lot. In addition, additional
natural vegetation should be planted near Lake Owasso.
4. We have concerns that the proposal will exceed the 25% imperviouscoverthat is required
in Section 18095.2 of the Cii of Roseville Shoreland Management Ordin�u�ce. We
recommend that the Youngquists and the City of Roseville attempt to reduce the amount
of impervious surface that is located on the property. It may be possible to consider using
non-impervious surfaces for portions of the driveway and the sidewalk. Of course, this
impervious surface limit may be exceeded if the water is being conveyed to stormwater
ponding facilities as recommended by the City of Roseville Shoreland Ordinance.
DNR Information: 651-296-6157 . 1-888-646-6367 . TTY: 651-296-5484 . I-800-657-3929
An Equal Opportunity Employer I� Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a
Who Values Diversity ��1� Minimum of 10% Post-Consumer Waste
Mr.Thomsa Paechke
Aprill3, 2000
Page 2
5. The 41' heiglrt of the sduc.ture soans to be Quite luge w�il it becomea c,le�r tbat the DNR
n�ethod £or detacmiaing the height of �ures di�ers Erom the nwti�od of tba City. Using
the DNR nnethod tUe propoaod �u�re v 2S' in heig� �d well undex the 30' haghrt limit
required bY the City ofRpeCVille S�orel�nd Ordinence.
6. Tha�e wsa no topographic infonnstic�n on the plans for the Youngquist Property.Should
thec� be Wuffa or �p alopa an the property, tlren the provisiona list�d'w Section 18.050.6
of the Shordand Ordinu�ce siiould be foUovved by the City of R�scviik.
7. According to DNR records, the 1% flood for Lake Owasgo (100-year flood) is at an
elevation of 888.97 feet (NGVD,1929). Section 18.050.1 of the Roae�viUe Shordand
Ordinance requires ne�vv sduc,tures to hsve lowe�st kvds at least 2' above the 1% 800d.
1'herefore, tlx: home proposed by the Youngquist's must be above an elevation of 890.97
(NGVDj 1929).
Ttwnk you for asldng the DNR to review these pl�nr. You m�y have noticod tlwt the comments
on the Youngquist Propdty are based upon the Shoreland Ordinance of the City of Ros�ville. The
DNR cau use nwre atxingait atandarda to rCVi�w plana should y�ou cver explicitly roquest a atringent
rtviCw. In additioq the DNR would be happy to he�p the City of Rosoville anra�d the Shonaland
o►�inancx of the City of Rosaville if you wish to tighten up section� of the Ordin��ce.
Aa you roquested, the pl�ws for the Yowigquist Project are e�closed with t6is �. Pleasecontact
me at 651-772-7910 should you have any questions concerning thesecomments.
��
�_ �
Joseph Ric,hter
Hydrologist
Enclosure
c: Grass Lake Water Manage�na�t d�z�tio-�
Roseville Planning Commission-5/10/00
RE: 391 South Owasso Blvd.
Members of the Planning Committee, Kristi and I are here to ask for your support by
recommending that the City Council approve of our request for a variance. We feel
that Mr. Paschke has provided a comprehensive report, which addresses the Cities
concerns, for which we are grateful. I would, however, like to take a couple minutes
and address 3 issues:
1) Unique physical features that could justify a variance:
. Previous house was rotten, the foundation leaked & basement was
moldy
. The requested action cites `a new 28' X 53' single family residential
home' - this is a bit deceiving, it includes the garage — the 1 S` floor
and basement are really only 28' X 30'
. Our proposal looks to save all of the trees
. 7% improvement of impervious ground cover
2) Economic concerns that may justify a variance:
• 3 children now living outside the school district - no bussing & 3
different school schedules —1gt Grade, Kindergarten 8 ECFE
• House plans have been re-drawn to meet city code
requirements, we have worked with the City Planner,& staff since
January of this year �,
• Our family is paying additional monthly rent •'�`R'�0i �`vs�1D B cv.�sr, Lv.�-�
• Approval of this variance will increase the cities tax
revenue the day we move in
3) Community Concerns
#�1"'8u� Nt�w �tt�-
. Improve� safety by moving the garage off the street 30'
. Neighbors within 350' of our lot have all been supportive
. Our new house plans upgrade our lot by improving the overall
Ka�sTr � t" �tR� aesthetic value
�un,'n�o �seKir rw� PWri�►t.t" • was' ARa" 9��K8�4. a"'o te�i��.
� e�� that the agenda is full this evening so I'd like to turn the floor back to the
Planning Commission Chair, Mr. Klausing for further discussion and motion for
recommended approval of our proposed variance.
Planning Commission:
Chair, Craig Klausing — Ed Cunningham — Doug Wilke � James Mulder — Janet Olson — John Rhody — Peg Egli
II1. Residential Areas
A. VISION STATEMENT
Roseville shall be a community with an appropriate balance of attractive, safe, well
maintained housing alternatives. These alternatives shall be available without
discrimination in appealing, well kept, crime deterring neighborhoods. Each
neighborhood shall have appropriate City services, parks, and open space located in an
environment that provides adequate educational, occupational, and spiritual
opportunities.
B. RESIDEIVTIALGOALS
1. Achieve a flexible balance of different types of housing alternatives that will
meet the life cycle needs of residents Through careful use of the little remaining
land in Roseville identify and maintain the existing balance (or at least the same
percentages) of the residential land use acreage throughout the community.
2. Identify stable single family areas and protect them. Preserve the integrity of
existing single family neighborhood by prohibiting the intrusion of
incompatible uses.
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-of-ways,
etc.) or landmarks (schools, libraries, churches, parks, open space, etc.); and
� a common architectural design or aesthetic treatment.
Roseville Comprehensive Plan -1998 Update Goals and Policies - Page 6 of 20
4. Promote neighborhoods. Maintain and develop close knit neighborhoods for
single and multi unit dwellings. Create neighborhood and community identity
and scale; and improve community visual/aesthetic effect.
5. Encourage maintenance of existing housing and property. Upgrade current
homes and property to meet "move up" housing needs. Consistently upgrade
residential amenities, infrastructure, and other necessities to maintain and
improve property values.
Park and open space are valuable assets to our residential areas. Guide
residential development locating it adjacent to the City Park and Open System.
C. RESIDENTIAL POLICIES
The City will:
1. Adopt flexible standards for new single family and multi-family housing
developments to allow for innovative development and more efficient densities.
It is not the goal of the City to significantly increase overall residential densities.
a) Encourage higher quality mixed developments by allowing planned unit
developments as guided by the goals, policies, and performance
standards of the community with more dedication of park and open
space.
b) Where feasible or practical, integrate neighborhood oriented retail/
service businesses (within walking distance) into the mixed used project.
Consider such mixed use developments in areas where change is already
underway such as the Twin Lakes and Center Pointe area, the Lexington
and "B" area, and the District 623 redevelopment site along Owasso.
c) Encourage innovative high quality planning and design in residential
developments that cater to the life style/life cycle of present and future
residents. Higher quality development may include such improvements
as masonry exteriors, higher window and wall insulation packages,
underground parking more usable open space than normally required,
porches, landscaping, underground parking, and amenities packages
within each unit.
2. Encourage neighborhood interaction programs including community policing,
neighborhood watches, and maintena :zce associations. Prepare neighborhood
welcome or starter meetings to recognize the people who live in the
neighborhood Encourage neighborhood residents, including youth, to work on
"Pride in Our Neighborhood" clean-up projects.
Roseville Comprehensive Plan -1998 Update Goals and Policies - Page 7 of 20
3. Establish one citywide interdisciplinary "Neighborhood Action Program or
Ombudsman" to coordinate and facilitate each neighborhood's responsibilities
on social, and educational issues as well as physical improvements. This could
also be done through a Commission on neighborhoods.
4. Convert unused/underused commercial lands to residential uses. For example,
in underused strip centers, encourage redevelopment with multi-family housing
uses.
5. Identify evolving neighborhoods that are least resistant to change. Consider
redeveloping entire neighborhoods to meet current and future needs. If this is
not feasible, offer all homeowners in the neighborhood individual incentives to
upgrade their property.
6. To protect the integrity of all housing areas, require strict adherence to all
performance standards.
a) Undertake appropriate actions to ensure the safety and security of residents
in their neighborhood.
b) Maintain the quality of existing residential areas through comprehensive
enforcement of all codes.
c) Adopt appropriate ordinances to ensure property is maintained in order to
prevent deterioration of residential neighborhoods.
d) Where higher intensity uses are located adjacent to existing residential
neighborhoods create effective land use buffers and physical screening.
e) Consider ordinances (including setbacks) to allow for easier expansion or
upgrading of existing residences. For example, establish a percentage of
each lot which may have impervious cover; establish expansion standards
consistent with the majority of adjacent or nearby structures; or, with both
property owners agreement, change side property line setback requirements
to side yard setbacks between structures.
When approving a residential Planned Unit Development, require better quality
with established criteria for open space, a"sense of place", and quality materials.
8. Encourage the development of well-designed multiple family dwelling projects
which are compatible with ac"acent � ises. The following criteria should be
considered when reviewing proposals for multiple family dwelling construction
within the City:
Roseville Comprehensive Plan -1998 Update Goals and Policies - Page 8 of 20
a) Siructures should have access to at least one collector level street so that
traffic generated by the complex will not exceed environmental and traffic
thresholds of minor residential streets described in the Transportation
Plan.
b) Adequate usable open space should be provided on the site or public
park/open space shou'� directly adjoin the site.
c) The floor-area standard should define the amount of required open space
in comparison to the density of units.
d) Adequate access to adjoining or nearby (within 1/a mile) retail/service
areas should be provided.
e) The use of underground parking (with adequate safety measures) should
be encouraged to reduce the volume of outside parking and separate
garages as a means of improving the general residential character of
multiple family development.
� Impacts on adjoining single family areas should be limited by increased
side yard setbacks and landscaping; front and rear separation by streets,
commercial a: industrial development; or parks and open space.
g) Higher density development should be required including such
improvements as masonry exterior, higher window and wall insulation
packages, underground parking, more usable open space than normally
required, porches, landscaping, underground parking, and amenities
packages within each unit.
h) Building design standards should be used which contribute to
neighborhood openness, communication, and interaction.
i) Design and performance standards should provide adequate height and
setback combinations for situations where taller multi-family units are
proposed as infill projects adjacent to single family areas. Such infill
should be limited to medium density (or lower) projects.
9. Within the Capital Improvement Program, when available, add or match funds
for proactive residential improvement loans and grant programs.
10. Require fair housing practices. �isperse types and scale of housing units within
the City for all ages, in all stages of the life cycle. Discourage high
concentrations of low and modest cost housing in any portion or neighborhood.
Roseville Comprehensive Plan -1998 Update Goals and Policies - Page 9 of 20
a) Provide quality, low density rental and owner-occupied residential units,
particularly one level.
b) Create affordable and/or subsidized congregate rental units for seniors
and others with special needs.
c) Consider senior housing in areas with nearby amenities such as
shopping, medical, community and church facilities, and volunteer
programs.
11. Provide an appropriate amount of low and moderate cost housing and
opportunities for rehabilitation of the existing housing supply through:
a) the use of Federal, State, local, and other financial resources; and
b) working with State agencies and Metropolitan Council and Ramsey
County HRA.
12. Encourage year-round landscaping of public and private space, including
planned development of boulevards and medians. Review the development and
landscaping plans for parks and municipal facilities.
13. Add and integrate sidewalk or pathway system requirements in ordinances and
in design standards for new development.
IV. Commercial Areas
A. COMMERCIALPOLICIES
The City will:
1. Encourage the development of a wide range of retail sales and services in the
community. Concentrate these uses in existing retail/service areas.
2. Encourage the development or expansion of existing and future retail shopping
centers as a means of achieving maximum efficiency of land use, adequacy of
vehicular movements and parking areas, and maximum aesthetic
consideration.
3. Restrict commercial developme.i t to specific areas in accord with the
Comprehensive Plan and avoid stip commercial development. Restrict further
commercial/industrial land expansion, encourage concentrated medium size
office development in areas currently designated for such uses.
Roseville Comprehensive Plan - 1998 Update Goals and Policies - Page 10 of 20
i Excerpt of Minutes, Planning Commission meeting of Mav 10, 2000:
2
4 6c. Planning File 3210: A request by Steve and Kristin Youngquist for a
5 Variance from Section 1016.22A (Non-conformities) and Section
6 1016.26B 1(Storm Water Management), of the City Code, to allow the
� redevelopment of the parcel with a single family home located at 391
8 Owasso boulevard South.
9
lo Chair Klausing opened the hearing and requested City Planner Thomas Paschke
11 to provide a verbal summary of the request as described in the proj ect report dated
12 May 10, 2000.
13
14 Thomas Paschke explained the lot size (6,690 s.f.) as a pre-existing, non-
15 conforming lot of record. The lot is 40 feet in width. The proposed structure will
16 be set back 80 feet from the shoreline, meets the side yard setback of five feet and
1� front yard of 30 feet. The structure was constructed in 19 10. The proposed
18 building will have a 1,440 s.f. parcel. Staff recommended approval.
19
2o Member Egli asked about details of bluff setbacks (none) and if there are pervious
21 surfaces for drives and patios. Staff felt one way to reduce impervious surface
z2 (not recommended) was to move structure closer to the road.
23
24 Steve Youngquist stated there are unique physical features of the site (the old
25 home was damp and mildewed). The proposal is to retain all existing trees. The
26 new structure reduces impervious surface by 7%.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Approval will increase property values and public safety, moving the garage will
improve safety. Neighbors have been supportive.
Chair Klausing asked for comments from the public.
Mr. Joe Rowan, 381 Owasso Drive, encouraged approval of the variance. The
neighborhood is supportive.
36 Member Olson asked if trees will be protected (yes). She asked about planting
37 additional natural materials near the lake (no more space). Member Olson also
3s asked how tall the house is. DNR report is 25 feet; City report is 41 feet. The
39 DNR is supportive of the height.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Member Wilke asked if the house to the west is of similar height. (taller)
Member Egli asked for window access details from bedroom windows which
allows sidewalks. She asked for details of the drainage to either side.
Lorraine Kline, 389 South Owasso Drive, said the neighbors (Mr. & Mrs
Youngquist) are most helpful.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lo
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Thomas Paschke explained the height and measurement differences.
Chair Klausing explained the variance and requirements and his support for the
project because of undue hardships and that the project is an improvement to
health, safety and welfare.
Member Rhody explained the risk of tearing down structures.
Motion: Member Mulder moved, Member Wilke seconded, to recommend
granting of the variance to allow the redevelopment of the parcel at 391 Owasso
Boulevard South with a single family residential home subj ect to the following
conditions:
1) The home to be constructed has a footprint not to exceed 1500 s.£;
2) The impervious surface is not to exceed 32% of the lot size and the
applicant shall work with city staff to attempt to reduce further the
impervious surface;
The Planning Commission recommends the granting of the variance based upon
the following findings:
1) The unique physical features of the property (i.e., the shape and
size of the lot) create a physical hardship;
2) The hardship is not the applicant's creation;
3) Property cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the
conditions permitted by ordinance, and,
4) If granted the variance will not impact the health, safety or
general welfare of the community.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
� Y- � • ��.i' ++� � j ?Awf J •� � �.;G;; '--
� � � _ . � �'.� Y .� . t ..
1'' � - - ' � ti'., 1
� ^ . �� � . . : � � �.�' ,t ]� .
i � . � *.:Q � � .� . �� . , F r .
.-` { ' �� . '� _ . � `� .
�? •:� � t ' �s . i � �'1,� 11((� �J�(l�l�t! pj ' ` - k'��c � r . . �
• a � • � ° , ' `� ' �' �1„ .
,i r ' { k�" `� {
^� ` , '7
Y� o.. . � � �`` .. -��
� `J ° � ,Y • ��� � . . � . � Y�
s'� � � . . " . � . - � � :��
��.��, �
� `'�- "�
t'�� . ' . .. . . y �o
x ..s:� i � � ' �� y .y�
n � ,� .
�• � ' . � c ,� t � �,
,� �.. ' . � . . . �.;: � , �. .. .. .i �. y
� ' � Y4:. .,;a ��?'�r:;-- � •.i .,
. ,�. S. 'L!' �: • '. . . . _ ..�. .. . ,
� . J'.. . . . 7��." "Y.
_ . � .) . � , ♦ ' .
� , _� '�.� . .
` �.d+/�" � �fi;' .
_ .. : �"� .� i`,i.�'�VF�, , .
. � . ��1 .'� . � , � � .a_ � . . . _ ' , - 4S , . . � "� iy,�,+'
; �� ? ` " ' r � _
+t � .. t � . ' • �Llt , ; % .., � �
� :�s~ � � � � -� �►J
�''' "'
- �` -'M.z,,�' _ �
. ..�. - . _ . . � �= '
ti�! ' �� �" � �''� . � � ; a' - -=�,, . .
_.�. ,:- .
. �.;� .. ; �►�, a ' .
_ ,,.� .
� , . .. . �;, r
. � „ . . a
. :1 � .�4•� L f ,,. .,
. . ! tf :'s, � � -� � y ,�' y , `� . `' \y
`rt- - . �� �' S�i '-
•��� : .' .y •. �� •� . .s:� : . . f .;
. , � ~• ' • ,. ` �� :`,� ' �,
w,
. � �7�� • � � • .+�:.: • � � ,�
� '. '. ' . ' . _ f,I� . . . _ �:. . " . .f
. . . , . . - . . �" > '"� 1 �I� .
���^ �j ,•�i
� .. � . . . .. . � . . ' I•� • � � � � y �� �+_ ' ��• . j . � . . . .. � . .
. . . . . . �1 • 4 .i t i�
�• ,\•'
. ' f t,.w.."� r�• t `� ' ' .. � - '
. _ .. . . . . . . _... -:'.. �_. . �� t: , ... 1 .
. . .. . , . . . � �' . , .
• ,�.' '. �r, _ �
_ . . , ' �. . �
. . . _ r,�{-. ". - -
. � �.
_ .� , ,
.. . . .. � � . _ - .. . w � . . ��,:` � ,
. F
. _ . � � . . . . . . �,.•�lt,. .. . .' . . �- � - . �ti. �� ,, f.
, , t�y i .� ,���. . �;�]'_
_ - � � _"� • , - . _ , ni
.�'
d
, _ ` '� - . ,. . . ,. .
. '� '' .'� ,�
. � `� t
����� .
� � � "�'n ' `� �''� w�
. �T�.,t�' � . r �.%. 1
: i.,�". � y� 4
�� .. y4 r� ' ' �,� . -.
�
..1 . t . r",..IiiF:
, ' -��� • . . ...L.�-
; . __ . -, r ��'� _ _ �� �ti1 . y�l� ,
�•� - _ ,.- �
j { iY�r-r . . . _ . .
. _. . SG��, . �5�, . . �. _ .. � \ ,{♦i
z,;� S�J�3������_ �j \ , -
F, ' �� , �� r �.. ' •i � �.
. . , , .� � _ �� �. .. _ . . . . ~ � _ .
� • �i�fr� --__, �.1: � �.'� _. _ �.. . �:. S..
, . ,R .�.-
. ' +�; _;
� � r�;'
� ���r � � i` � � � ,� � � �
,`
�.
,:` ,. . .
_ �
; , ,
�i ,� r,, _ -ti - _ .
� � .
. _
, _ . .
� .. ., _ ', . . .
. '� . .
�
r.
1 , - - -
�=� � � �� -�� _-
�.-
�.` . - - , F - �
i .;�� . . F'. . , . .� _. -. � . . s � � � .. _. . .
Yii "---:� �� - � . < - .
e'r. f j � �� � � :_i I ' _ . , . .` -
i •�-, ---_ Z—. .. � f r - '
. ' t" , , : . . . _ .
i . ` _ . . � . . •- � _�
. ' '� -
^ � x t "s'.)��"�." ����'}i�� � �J -' 1 ,5' ��/'1,F'��
p ` ¢�; ,►� ` . r���
• � '¢� �+ � � Y �M' !� h4' b y �` ,ji7�, 1 .1�; ' r: 1
�" �E, ' "� �S^�Y�� .T ,. �\
[ � r "'.,i +e �' .'�• � � a ' � a'� � ,'R
� � ..s✓-� *� Xd ls�t��-;���,�s'�.�! .. � : ��.�". ��� ='hl
! C��� � ti � K �� � �
!!�� � Jf ?��� � ,
�. �
; � r �►
� �` ; '
� ' a,+�„i,,,,,u a . . ,,•� . ► P '
� � ��� � , ���~� ���
� i a-- i; � f�i �". -. � `� �r
. . _ ,r ..- _.r %s r � �,�"°' ��� /,�.�t i j n� ,� ,/ �: �� $ i �, !r !
� � ��,
x � :�r � ��f���-�:�� ��� � ���.,�,;�� � �
', .• � �: i� . .? ,. `;, !F� � �,,, �� �
.�..�a 1 � r ' '' � .�
"' � �; `�" � . . � + _' . ♦ ' r .�
.• �+
�. �'�� , t .� . �, �. :�
t �` �'"+i ' " � � � ► `
' t+� •'t ��;:�"� ' �. V } �{�
� ; �-� , ,
�;,.� ;� ' .
�: , ���r ,�•
�� .-,�
�l��'� f� y
� `�`�� J
�
��:
�
'� � �t f'���i
J�` •*"r'' .
C•
�f�
.
s 1!f;
•°J� f ` . . �. �
.! 7
1
.`
l ./��
�:l I .•,�
��J:. .
,� : ,
t,_ ,
�.
'i t.f�: ' �
� �:.
��`� • ! ;
-� 3 � i
� .�. � �
� �
-. -' _ - �=-�+;:- --r:.c..:...., . . '__1�_ . . -= _ - . _ - . - .
, . . "w •Y• ',.. i,�r_����
. ' . � ��� .� � " ^�'"� �: .
• .� .. �. T . :•\ ,
� . . .�.�" ,
y . �_
. d. *
.. � . •.. � ,'; . . . � '• ' � • ' '
ti�i�1�+ , ^.�`�i 2 f �r , � \ " . �n�. o �'':�t��w��!`?.^ � � i r
� `�,, `^. , 1� � 3� /� � 3
� a! ♦�. � ����'� �� s �i � ,M !b.. °_, _ ,'� ; � _
t_' , . r .r��ri'o < - � . �' `-' -� . -
•:�• J��. ;, ; k.„`.7..0 : , �. C :i - I . .. .. . ' •�
( . .. `� �i t Jt.� 1.� _ .' . � ' .
. � _ r
,:� �`', F�, y=. � �y � � ? , ,� �', �:. � ,� . _
� + l-;� � +v�`� ` '�' '` ' �r�ri . . � •
� �. i + /,�,1"., � � �ti � `� i__ : �, �. s' i� * � . '�
� ` �....,� :: �. Jy�' � �3 , . ,_. ',� h ' L�', j �.s- � fi'�l r � � ti. t � : r "��i � �
�_.",a ��� I ' 3 � '. a9 /. R�+ f S�` 1� r f
�� � .l !c � ,,.� � �� � � _ � ! � � ` ^��'' �� �.; f S',�� �� f,'" � i � ,
�� ; `, , � /.� / � Y',� � 3 . yy � �• i �.,'r � ,���,i1 � {f� �,.� / � ` _ : - ' ', t
t4'fi ,�,•, � .. ,I� r,�'t: , �; ' �..a}� � .r , i .� � ��� t„� ; � � ' �` r�.-� ,.:� - '
�.;�= � .,_-J .r,'.� ���,�- s:1�?�, , '� at �N 7 ' �� ��i�l j� . � �^' -
`�k.� � ' �+ � � o � `� �. � � � !' -'i r� l � 1� � : i,� ��'�C..�t
� � � Z
`'-.. ' �> „?rL� ��..��,* S � I ♦ 1 � h' 1 � .
,r��, .1 I�.�� - . .� .: ; �� �' .� �� �. ._ .,
� �r � 7 '� � � •�1. �'y � i
^. i. r �,. � .4a) � � i%�
_ �� . _' . " f�'� � . � ,1 t •S t � ', �� . . .
R s'� . ' � , . � . . , '�r t � � . . � _ '
. . . ., .
/ .. � _ . .
' ' �s`� . v _ .
,. . ,- - _ - ' �
. . - ' . . . . � . � . , . . F � . . . � . . . c . , . .
�:�r'•.r^ 7L-: �, ,.-?iYyP,',w— _ _ . . .. _ . ,. c .r. . ..�,� . _ _. ' - — - —
� _ - � � ,. f���[ . • ' '�—. _�. � . .. . .' . .. ' . - .
. � ' . � _ , R ^ ,n r+� r -• • — - � . . . , , . � . - , . . .
� � .' � � � •~wi/ i' , � , t.• i �i. �—_ ,�'"�e�_� . ._ . . _ . . . -
S �: i �� . , �. . . _ - _ , . .
.' '.. �� • . �71r% �. j �' � !. . , � L � , . � � , � ��11 , • - -- � . . - . . . - . .
�F
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
pproval:
Item: J-1
DATE: OS/22/00
Agenda Section:
ORDINANCE
Item Description: CSM request for approval of a PUD Amendment to PUD# 1177 to
construct a third hotel (Marion Courtyard) within the Centre Pointe
Business (PF 3208�
1.0 BACKGROUND
l.l CSM Corporation, St. Paul, representing GSH Lodging, L.L.C, has requested an
amendment to the Centre Pointe Business Park Planned Unit Development # 11771ocated
between I-35W and Cleveland Avenue, south of County Road D and north of County
Road C. In the proposed amendment, CSM requests that the Planned Unit Development
be amended to allow construction of a third hotel complex — a three story Marriott
Courtyard facility with 120 rooms and meeting, dining, and bar facilities primarily for
guests of the hotel. The original PUD AGREEMENT # 1177 is specific, two hotels were
permitted in the original approvals; additional units require public hearings with the
Planning Commission and City Council approval, similar to a rezoning.
2.0 HISTORY of LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS
2.1 In December of 1985, the City received a proposal by Woodbridge Properties to develop
647,080 square feet of office and garden office/service space on the 56.4 acre Centre
Pointe Business Park site. Specific approvals included a comprehensive plan
amendment from low/medium density residential to business, rezoning from I-1, R-
1, R-2, and B-3 to B-4, platting, special use permit for a planned unit development
(PUD), and tax increment financing. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EAV� and an Indirect Source Permit (ISP) were also completed. The City determined
that the EAW sufficiently addressed environmental issues and that an Environmental
Impact�Statement (EIS) was not necessary.
2.2 Woodbridge Properties cleared the site, completed construction of streets, utilities,
stormwater ponds, pathways, and other infrastructure in accordance with the approved
plans. Woodbridge Properties subsequently constructed a total of 110,000 square feet of
space on the site in one office building and two 1-story of&e/service buildings on two
parcels.
23 The site was reviewed again in 1994 as part of the Comprehensive Plan revisions. A
Business ("B") use designation was retained for the entire business park area. Comments,
in part, included:
The Centre Pointe area ...has taken longer than normal to develop and has numerous vacant garden
The Centre Pointe area ...has taken longer than normal to develop and has numerous vacant garden
office/warehouse and office parcels which could also be used for office/industrial uses. Staff
recommends retaining office, garden office/warehouse, and office/industrial use in lieu of other
commercial/retail uses on the site, which would create additional heavy traffic demands on
Cleveland. (Source: Land Use-3)
The southern portion of Centre Pointe planned unit development...could be developed as light
industrial, office/service areas consistent with the uses east of Cleveland...The planned unit
development for Centre Pointe should be : ralusted t � determine whether an amendment is
necessary. It is clear, however, that no retail activity was anticipated in the Centre Pointe area.
(Source: Landuse-18)
In 1997 on the remaining vacant parcels Ryan Companies proposed and received
approval to construct 619,000 s.f. of additional buildings. This added an additional
80,000 s.f. of space in comparison to the original Woodbridge proposal. Building heights
range from one to three stories. The south end of the site could have taller buildings.
Exterior building materials are to include brick, and glass with stucco and decorative cast
stone concrete accents, similar to or matching the materials in the first two buildings.
Approved uses on the site included 2 business oriented hotels, 1 freestanding sit down
restaurant, office, office/manufacturing, and office/showroom. After reviewing the site
plans, the Planning Commission's most significant change from staff recommendations
was to recommend reorientation of the hotel/restaurant area to the south of Lydia, west of
Centre Pointe Drive. (The current proposal by CSM is south of Lydia.)
2.4 No major changes to the existing infrastructure on the site were proposed in 1997.
Existing streets, street trees, and streetlights were maintained. Some modifications to
deepen or expand the existing stormwater ponds were done to comply with Rice Creek
Watershed District requirements. Portions of the existing pathways were repaired and/or
rerouted to accommodate the proposed development. The 8-foot pathway was on a
dedicated public easement to allow the public to use the path.
2.5 There is a master landscape plan for the entire PUD, meeting city design guidelines.
Heavy landscaping and screening were extended along the entire Cleveland Avenue edge
of the site to soften the visual impact as seen from the residential neighborhood to the
east. Each individual lot was to be landscaped to enhance the architecture of the
buildings. Down cast site lighting was designed on each site to not disturb the residential
neighborhood, highway or businesses adjacent to the site. HVAC was to be screened on
the roo£ Where possible, trash was hel i within the buildings, otherwise trash was to be
placed in enclosures.
3.0 1997 EAW Review and Imuacts of Marriott Courtvard Proiect
31 A second EAW was prepared for the proposed Ryan development and submitted to the
Environmental Quality Board (EQB). The public comment period expired on February
26, 1997. Comments received concerned traffic, vehicle emissions, air quality, noise,
impact on infrastructure and public services, and related developments or cumulative
2
impacts. The City Council on March 24, 1997 made its findings on the second EAW —
that there were no additional significant environmental impacts requiring an
Environmental Impact Statement.
3.2 Additional staff and consultant analysis were completed to address traffic and other issues
raised in the EAW comments and from the Planning Commission meeting, While traffic
was proj ected to increase on the site and adj acent to the site as the PUD was completed,
the road system had the capacity to handle the traffic.
3.3 Traffic volume and capacity were studied as pa.r� of the Ryan project and within the
EAW. The study concluded that Cleveland Avenue (4 lanes), County Roads C(4 lanes)
and D(2 to 3 lanes), and the I-35W ramps had the capacity to handle the expected 8,000
vehicle trips per day. BRW recommended establishing thresholds for future
improvements (as needed) after the developments are in place, including turning lanes,
entry/exit ramps, and possibly new stoplights at Lydia and Cleveland Avenue.
3.4 In the 1997 traffic study, and again in the current proj ect review, staff found that hotel
traffic tends to do the reverse of Centre Pointe Business Park employees by entering the
site in the late afternoon or early evening and leaving the site by mid-morning. While
peak PM trips for the entire PUD may increase by 35 to 50 vehicles when the entire PUD
is completed, the overall daily volume may be down by 500 or more vehicle trips. CSM
projects 909 daily trips from the hotel project (7 trips /room). By comparison, an office
building of 70,000 s.f. would generate 560 to 630 trips (between 8 and 9 trips per 1,000
s.f. of office space similarly sized office facility). However, many of the business hotel
trips will be to or from hotel to businesses and/or restaurants within the PUD not on the
adjacent county road system. Because of the complete pathway and sidewalk systems,
staff expects further internal trip reductions because of pedestrian trips.
3.5 Ramsey County's Year 2000 Transportation Plan (completed by tr�c consultant SRF)
estimates the following volumes on roads near Centre Pointe.
Road Ramsey Cty. Ramsey Cty BRW EAW Ramsey Cty
counts 1997 Estimated (97) for trips Estimated
and 1999 Trips 2010 in 2011 Trips 2020
Cty Rd. ": 10,400 (99) -11,300 13,500 12,000
Fair: Clevel'd 11,200 (97)
Cty Rd. ��C": 18, 700 (99) 16, 600 17, 700 17, 400
Fair.-Clevel'd 16,450 (97)
Cty Rd. "C": 17, 700 (99) 18, 500 19, 000 20,100
Cleve: I35W 15, 700 (97)
Cleveland : 7, 500 (99) 9, 500 13, 300 10, 800
Cty Itd D to 7,900 (97)
c-2
Cleveland : 9,100 (99) 8,200 9,500 12,000
Cty Rd C-2 7,400 (97)
To C.
The capacity of County Road "D" as a two-lane road is 10,000 to 12,000 trips per day,
depending on turning movements and stoplights.
The capacity of Cleveland Avenue (4 lanes) is estimated to be 16,000 to 20,000 trips per
day, depending on turning movements and stoplights.
The capacity of County Road "C" (5 lanes) as proposed for reconstruction in 2001-2002
is estimated to be 18,000 to 24,000 trip, per day, depending on turning movements and
stoplights.
3.6 At the original hearings on the PUD, the impact of landscaping and building mass on the
I-35W noise volume, especially as is related to residential areas east of Cleveland
Avenue. Building mass, especially 3 or more story buildings, can definitely baffle and
reduce the sounds from the freeway. Landscaping can add some sound baffling but is
more of a visual screen and auditory mask. Placing buildings walls parallel to the freeway
creates the most effective noise baffles.
3.7 Utility systems capacity have been reviewed by city engineering staff and have capacity
to serve the project, except for a higher capacity pump within the sanitary system, if
needed, the cost of which is to be borne (and currently agreed to) by the developer.
3.8 The two hotels on the site cater to business lodging and have been very successful with
higher than normal occupancy rates. Hotel occupancies in the St.Paul market have had
occupancies in the mid-60% or higher. Roseville facilities (approximately 1,000 rooms)
traditionally have done better than this, based on business trade magazines reports. New
facilities have reported occupancies over 80%. Veritas expects to need additional
business hotel space as it opens the three phases of its new campus to the south of the
proposed Marriott Courryard site. The Roseville Hotel and Visitor Association estimates
that each occupant of a hotel in Roseville spends an average of $129 per day on food,
lodging, and fuel in the community.
3.9 The applicants for this proj ect request no city financial assistance.
4.0 STAFF COMMENT ON THE SPECIFIC PUD AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
4.1 Planning staff has reviewed the PUD currently in place. If the CSM Marriott Courtyard
amendment to the PUD is to occur, all final site, building, landscaping, signage, lighting,
and utility plans will become part of the standards for hotel development. The written
PUD amendment language should have a consistent set of development and design
standards to that of the original PUD.
4.2 In the PUD amendment, the uses proposed will be restricted to a hotel and guest support
services within the structure as specified in the site plans and supporting documents
4
including 120 hotel rooms, recreations facilities, eating, drinking, meeting and parking
facilities meeting the criteria in the PUD for the existing hotels. No accessory structures
or exterior trash collection areas will be allowed. Where not superseded by more
restrictive requirements of the PUD, the standards of the City Zoning Code still apply.
The building does not exceed the 1997 EAW thresholds, in fact, it may reduce PM peak
traffic impacts from a similar sized office building. The site planning and architecture
meet or exceed the Centre Pointe PUD requirements. The use is compatible and
complimentary to the buildings in the Business Park.
4.3 The green space with trail areas will be 27% and the building height 3 stories ma�mum,
except that buildings south of Lydia may be up to 8 stories.
4.4 The lot size for the CSM proposed amendment is 129,434 s.f. (2.97 acres) and building
setbacks will be met in this proposal (B-4 allows for 30 feet of front setback, 10 feet of
side setback, and 20 feet of rear setback).
4.5 Building materials will be at least brick on a minimum of 65% of all vertical exterior wall
surfaces visible from any public right of way. The brick is earth tone browns and dark
browns, similar to the Residence Inn. No more than 35% of any vertical exterior wall will
be a combination of color impregnated rock face block stucco or EFIS/Dryvit, primarily
for trim or accent and sign banding.
4.6 All HVAC will be roof mounted and screened from view as measured/viewed from any
adj oining right-of-way line. If ground mounted, HVAC must be screened.
4.7 Parking requirements have been established by the City in the original PUD and apply
here. No semi tractor or trailer parking on streets, landscaped areas or parking lots, or
loading areas, except while delivering materials, is allowed in the business park.
4.8 Parking setbacks of 15 feet from the front property line are proposed (and required) with
80% opaque year-round screening and berming to a minimum height of 30" above curb
height.
4.9 Planting areas with shade trees cover a minimum of 5% of the parking lots. All
landscaped areas, including planting islands will be irrigated to protect the turf and
trees/landscaping materials.
4.10 Sidewalks are required along all interior streets. Connections will be required between the
sidewalks and the pathway system along the south side of the lot. The exterior 8-foot
pathway (along the north, west, and south side of the business park) was dedicated for
public use through an access easement.
4.11 Parking spaces (155 in the CSM amendment) and size requirements must meet the City
Code parking standards. In the CSM amendment, the developers are pursuing additional
5
shared parking and access space from the adj oining Veritas building so that visitors to the
Veritas complex can leave their vehicle parked (if necessary) in the Veritas lot and walk
next door through the Marriott Courryard lot to the hotel.
4.12 Off-site ponding has been reconstructed and is maintained as per City of Roseville and
Rice Creek Watershed requirements and permits. No additional ponding is necessary for
the CSM amendment.
4.13 Lighting (downcast) for parking lots, and lighting for exterior building areas and signs is
proposed to be of one consistent type as applied/installed uniformly throughout the
Business Park on all lots.
4.14 The building has a signage plan; it will be submitted at the time of building permit
application, identifying the sign band area and entry detail. The total exterior building
wall signage may not exceed 10% of the front face area of the building, but sign
placement may have some latitude for hotels and restaurants.
4.15 The applicant is requesting one monument sign. Freestanding 2-sided monument signs
may only be placed on Centre Pointe Drive. Such signs may be a maximum of 10 feet in
width and 6 feet in height and be constructed of the same background material (brick) as
the adjoining building. Signage per side will be limited to 16.5 s.f. per side. The setback
from any property line will be 10 feet. All sign messages must be on a sign background
and must have a similar type style and raised letter heights, and not extend closer than 6"
to the edge of the sign background. Landscaping of the base is required. Signs may be
front lighted or backlighted.
4.16 The applicant has requested a freestanding sign along the interstate frontage, limited to
one 2-sided sign for each two lots (i.e. each building will be limited to sharing a sign
backboard with the adjoining Veritas property). The freestanding sign shall be a
maximum of 20 feet in height 14.5 feet in width, and constructed of the same background
material (brick) as the adjoining building. Signage per side is limited to 150 s.f. per side.
The setback from any interior property line is 15 feet, from the Interstate, it must match
existing signs. All sign messages must be on a sign background and must have a similar
type style and raised letter heights, and not extend closer than 6" to the edge of the sign
background. Landscaping of the base is required. Signs may be front lighted or
backlighted.
4.17 All new and replacement street trees will meet the requirements of the City Street Tree
Master Plan.
4.18 Communications equipment for the private use of occupants of the buildings (such as
antennas and dishes) may only be installed on roofs, or south lawns for hotels. Parapet
walls must visually screen such devices from any abutting right-of-way lines.
4.18 Business hours for restaurant operations will be required in licenses approved by the City
G
Council. Bar area is limited to 10% of restaurant floor area, and no commercial bars are
allowed outdoors.
5.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION
51 The staff has concluded that the building does cause the Centre Pointe Business Park to
exceed the 1997 EAW thresholds, in fact, it may reduce traffic impacts from a similar
sized office building. The site planning and architecture meet or exceed the Centre Pointe
PUD requirements. The use is compatible �iid complimentary to the buildings in the
Business Park and will serve as an amenity and support for business travelers within the
community.
5.2 City staff recommends approval of the CSM Mariott Courtyard Hotel PUD amendment
with the same or similar standards as applied to the first two hotels .
6.0 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On May 10, 2000, after the required public hearing, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of the amendment to PUD #1177 for Centre Pointe Business
Park, to allow a third hotel, with a set of findings and standards in Section 3 and 4 of the
project report. (Two residential neighbors spoke in opposition; one businessperson also
spoke in opposition. See the attached excerpt from the draft Planning Commission
minutes of May 10, 2000.)
7.0 SUGGESTED COUNCIL ACTION
7.1 Hold the first reading on the proposed ordinance amendment.
7.2 Establish June 12, 2000, for the second reading and a final decision on the amendment to
PUD ordinance # 1177 for Centre Pointe Business Park, to allow a third hotel. The draft
amendment ordinance is attached.
Submitted by: Dennis Welsch 490-2232.
Application Accepted: April XX,2000 Decision Deadline: June XX, 2000
Attachments; Site Plans, Elevations, Draft Ordinance
Q:�Plsnning Filesl3208_CSM Corp HotcI�PF3208 RPCA(OS 1000).doc
DRAFT
ORDINANCE NUMBER
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE #1177, BEING THE
ORDINANCE CHANGING ZONING OF PROPERTIES WITHIN CENTRE
POINTE BUSINESS PARK FROM B-4 TO A PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT, BY ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION
OF A THIRD HOTEL BUILDING
[PF3208]
The City Council of the City of Roseville does ordain:
Section 1. Pursuant to Section 1008 (Planned Unit Developments) of the City
Zoning Code of the City of Roseville, the Planned Unit Development #1177, being for
properties generally located between I-35 W and Cleveland Avenue, south of County
Road D and north of County Road C, known as Centre Pointe Business Park, is herein
amended (from allowing two hotels) to allow as a permitted use, the following facility:
A third hotel within the Centre Pointe Business ParkPUD, consisting of a three-story
building with 120 rooms and meeting, dining and bar facilities primarily for guests. The
hotel shall meet or exceed all site planning requirements and all hotel requirements
within the original PUD ordinance and agreement.
The proposed hotel shall be located on property legally described as: Portions of Block
1, Lot 4, Centre Pointe Business Park, PIN: 05293140028.
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance amendment to the City Code shall take
effect upon passage by the City Council and publication.
Passed this day of , 2000.
Q:�P'lanning Files�3208_CSM Corp Hotel\Draft Ordinance_052200.doc
�
�
�
4
�
�
�
N
�
A
�
�
� � �. .•
�o :�_
� ..............
ilD:�11%E.k .............
� ...._... .;�... _....._.
� �� .
� �-•• '�
� .... ..............
� ,-
�.'.��"5�:�'. �
:I �
:i
i L.�
` ���� ' c •, �.�*'
. ,
,�A " �i
.
,
, .
� � ��
� -
�
.
� �
,
r:
Ff �9 �,��) -
y� �Y5
W Y�
;� _
�
0
�
c
a
� � ��
�..
��
�`+:�! ;��i
� � .
�
��
QZ
w
0
�
�
v
u
�g
u N
�
�
O
�
c
M
e0
�
�
�
�
�
V
�
�
z
0
�
�
�
a
H
�
�
�
�
�
� ��
O N
� 'C
o �a
• � 3�
I �� �
� � U
I
n ��ieering
KUUSISTO ' LTD
�BT. 1959
May 12, 2000
Cityof Aos�ville
Community DeveYopmeirt Department
D�veto�p� Review Ccimmittee
2660 Civic Ce� Drive
Roseville, MN 55113-1899
Planning . Surveying . Landscape Architecture
RE: Centre Pointe Buaiaeaa Park
Minor amendment to tbe Centre Poiat Business Park
Planned Unit Ihvdopment #1177 Agreement
RLK Kuusisto, LTD. File No. 99420
Dear Development Review Members:
On behalf of CSM Corporstion (CSlv�, RLK-Associates is pleased to presem this
submittal psclrage requesting an amendment to the Centre Pointe Business Park Planned
Unit Development (PUD)1177 in order to accommodate a development proposal by
CSM.
CSM Coxporation proposes to construct a three-story, 120 room Courtyard Hotel on an
approximately t.lg'ee-�3) ac�g site. The site is located within the Centre Pointe
development in the n�E�west quadr�m of thc City. The site is one of the last r�ining
parcels in the development that has not been developed. The parcel is situated between
Ce�re Poi�e drive on the e� and Insterstate 35W on the west. Its neighbors on the
north woutd be �n office building occupied by VeFti�s Software and to the south is the
recently approved Verit�s SoftwarG corporate cam�pus; �lY unde� con�udion. The
Courtysrd Hotel would jc�in two other hotels cw�r�ently in the development; 'I"he Fairfield
L�n owned by the Tharsldson Carporation, a�i the Residence Inn owned by the CSM
Corporation (the applicant). �
Courtyard ia � full staevice Mertiott brand hotel tlw� c,sters to the uPPer' modErat� lod8�8
s�nent to both businesa and lae�ue travelo�a. Tbe hotd�inch�des a roata�s�,
barllounge, ccc��ifexence �ooms, indoor �wimn�ing povl and. s�% e�ce�ci9e room and �n
a�oor �rtioJc�xilty�rrd: Tha �nt snd kxtnp�e, c;sters to tha l�tel gue�$ imd offce
us�rs .vvit�in immatiate �vattd�g dis��nc�e. T'6ere �s no. sigt�e 4� th� ixitaide that
indic� t� tliaz i� any: n� wlthie tbe ha►tel. '�'herre. s�e c�ne sad tw�o bed hatel
rvama p�s raoma with at�aci�ed con�f'dnnce roo�aa, outidcior b� �nd/or jacuzzis.
Tbia hotd will iill a niche that is not currently aff�rod within the der+elopmeat.
Offices: Hibbinq • Minnetonka • St. Paul • Twin Ports
(952) 933-0972 • 6N0 Blue Circle Drive • Suite 100 � Minnetonka, MN 55343 • FAX (952) 933-1153
May 1Z. 2000
Pa�ge 2 oj4
The site will have two driveway access points. BothdrivesareoffofCentrePointe
Drive; �e on tbe scxrth, and one on the north tb�t is a shued drive with the office
building on t6e noith. T6e site co�ains a paved siufa�e p�rlung lot with 15b spaces. The
front �e has a cowed porto-cochere for guest drop-off and pick-up. ��site
sidew�tics wiU cc�rnnax to both t6e street sidewalks �i t6e wslking p�tfis within the
pr� dCVelopment. The courtynrd within tbe l�kyud of the building is a scrmened
with a wsil and co�uns fenced a l�uge pstio snd hesvily laadscaped ,grounds. The rest of
the site is.�l;ao besvily landscaped sgd mlintsine� as well.
Tha atcu� i� drae �bor� ia l�eight with � pitched ro� E�t�ior n�ariats �►i11 include
brick, EI�S;, �asa, a�h thingll,a � t4e high r+ot� aud �cbng s�aa me�ttal on tl�c low
roo�: The bei�� �ed'B� � will be simi}u aad c�a�apli�► to th� a�n�ounding
b�ilding� withie �e etevebpmtnt.
If the proja;t is spproved uid a11 �es as P1aar►ed, it ia anticipated thst con�truction would
stut this :� and would be open in late spring of 2001.
cora�uy,
iu.x-x�t�, �a.
V�.
Joseph M. San�uel, P.�.
Pro�nal Engineer
H y 5.12.00 Vaitas�-Raeevilladoc
May 12, 2000
Pqge 3 of 4
DEVE�,OPMENT SI;f1VIIVIARY
DeveHopment
setbul�: Fr�ty�r+d
S#�ley�i
Materials
Padcing
, �
30
1D
60,000 sq. ft.
8 atories
Buiiding
mAterials must be
a combinstion of
brick, natural
stone, m►asonry tile,
arcbitcctural steel
aad glass on a
minimum of 65%
of al vertical
Consiste�rt vvith
City staadards.
�c1ca of 15 feet
fram the frart
prope�ty line. A
minimum of S% of
the parking area
shsll be green vvith
Proposed
30
10
20
129,370
3 �ories
Building materials
will meet or �c,eed
thesesta�dards.
1 S' minimum from
pmpaty lines is
provided. A
minimum of 5%
interior landscaping
is provided.
Loading sreas Scroe�ued fram tU� loading areas
public view, will be sixowed
�:no wider from public vie�w
th�d 28 f�et
May 1Z, 2000
Page 4 of 4
CONTACTS:
�. ���.��
CS1�I Corporation
2575 University Ave. West
suite #150
St. Paul, MN $5114-1024
(651) 917-31$U
Fax (651) 646-2404
D�cr►+�e W "rs�ews�f, �lIA
! :.K_.�._ i s v_ �.. _ i ! :-�K
Tuehie MoutgomeryAssociates,��•
3300 Edinborough W ay
Suife 601
IViinncs�polis, MN 55431
(612)�30-8208
Fax (612) 830-8215
Dan Pell3ncat, A U
pl�nn�ng �na En�eerinQ
RI..K �ato,LTD.
6110 B�C Circle Drive, Suite 100
I1�nnetoei�a, MN 55343
(612)933-0972
Fax (612) 933-1 153
Briavi Sultivian, RLrl. AICP, Project Mcmager
,doe Sa�tuel, Cfvil �gineer
�-
KUUSISTO L`I'D )
�T. 19'S9
7
Apri110, 2000
Engineering . Planning . Surveying . Landscape Architecture
D� Vl�e�ch
C:om�q4unity Dev�lopment Ditoctor
City ofRoaev�tlte.
2660 Civic Ce�tex Drive
Ros�viUe, MN55113
.���'��r
Re: M Corporation — Courtyard Hotel
Centre Poiate Business Park
Dear Mr. Welsch:
The following is a brief summary of the key development issues for the above referenced
site and how they relate to the original environmental assessment worksheet (EAW}.
�RLK-Ktwsisto, Ltd (RLK) prepared the original EAW and in March of 1997 the City
Council made a"negative declsration" on the EAW. This decision indicated that the
Centre Poit�te Business development did not have the "potential for significant
en �wonmct�al �". The intent of this letter is to assure the.City of Roseville that the
proposed development ofLot 4, Block � of the Centre Point Business will be in
accor�danc�e � t�� ,origit►al EAW and the anticipated changes in land use will result in
no potential for �nificant environmental effects. Substantially, the context of this letter
will focua on the "Scoping Decision" section of the original EAW.
Traffic Analysis
A ttaffic study �vas cot�ducted as part of the original EAW for the Centre Point Business
Park. Tbe study �on+ch�tded that Cleveland Avenue could effectively accommodate the
traffic generated by the developed Business Park. The original development did not
assume a development such as the proposed hotel site.
RLK has ro�viewed the orignal traffic study prepared by BRW. The following is a
comparison o�th� ptroppsod Centre Pointe Business Park development with the BRW
base line trs�'ic study condueted `March 24, 1997 for Cleveland Avenue. Attached are
tables that cwnpare.the BRW traffic generation estim�tes to the proposed hotel
development.
Proposed changes that differ $om the BRW study include; an increase in General Office
space, elimination of'the Showroom/Warehouse use, a decrease in the size of the
Of�ces: Hibbing . Minnetonka • St. Paul . Twin Ports
(612) 933-0972 . 6110 Blue Circle Drive . Suite 100 . Minnetonka, MN 55343 • FAX (612) 933-1153
restaurant, and an additional hotel. The development changes differ from the estimates
within the BRW study by the following amounts:
. The proposed davelopment has increased by 52,973 square feet compared to the
BRW evaluation. This is an increase of 8.5%.
. The proposed development is expected to generate 6,823 daily trips. This represents
a decrease of 566 trips per day &om the BRW estimates for a decrease of 7.7%.
. The proposed development is expected to generate 824 PM peak hour trips. This
�'epr�e�ats aa�int�r�sse of 36 trips during the PM peak hour from the BRW estimates
for an iactt,as� of 4,6%.
The BRW sfudy vo�tunes were u�ed as the base line to measure the anticipated impacts
fram increased te�tffic;s�ssociat�d with the development along this section of Cleveland
Avenue. Their study fiit�g was, "there are expected to be no significant traffic impacts
associated with the proposed Centre Pointe development, The minor impacts identified
in this analysis are attributed to background conditions and would be expected to occur
with or without the Centre Pointe development."
Since the proposed Centre Pointe Business Park development is expected to generate
slightly more PM peak hour tra�iic than was estimated by BRW for this site, it is
anticipated that the operation of the surrounding intersections not change.
In conclusion, we offer the following:
The proposed businesses are expected to generate slightly more traffic during the PM
peak hour, but l�ss daily tr�c, than the BRW study had estimated and evaluated for
this site on Clevel�d Avenue within their study.
It is anticipated that the proposed development will not adversely impact the
intersections in the area and they will operate within the ranges indicated by the BRW
report.
A'trl�Toise ��
As�part of the original EAW a study of potential impacts of vehicle related air and noise
emissions was contacted by Braun Intertec. Based on the above tr�c analysis and the,
reduced traffic volumes outlined in the original EAW, RLK concludes that there will be
no advei'se�ig►paCt to the existing air and noise quality in the area. The Mr'CA will make
a final determination during the reyiew of the ISP.
The proposed site wilt be developed with apprQ�>imate�y 7,g%o impervious surface. The
de�ielopment of the � wilt.be consistertt with the original `design data prepared by RLK
as part of the master grading andstorct�water managcment.
The overall drainage patterns will be consistent with the original design calculations. The
proposed design will collect stormwater discharge into an existing retention pond to the
north and directly into storm sewer pipe in Center Pointe Drive. The existing storm
sewer eventually ctischacges into a City retention pond adj acent to DNR wetland 62-50.
Sanitarv-Sewer/Water Demand
S�anitary� sewer has been e�tended to the site from the existing sewer main located in
Centre Pointe Drive.
Sanitary sewer will be handled by the City of Roseville system. It is estimated that the
�ropose�i,improv� will contribute a peak flow of 20 gpm to the sanitary sewer-
sy►stam. .� 8 inC� and 10 inch sanit�y sewers exist in Centre Pointe Drive, Lydia
Avenue and Cl�!�1� Avenue. These gravity lines flow to a lift station located about
6�0� foet t�orth of Lq ��iia Avenue on the west side of Cleveland Avenue. This lift station
was upgraded in 1987 to handle all flows from the Centre Pointe development. The
s�we�r lines are locatod such that they will handle most or all of the site. All the sewers
ultimately reach the trunk sewer line in Iona Lane then onto the Metro Treatment Plant in
St. Paul.
The Cii of Roseville municipal water supply will be used to provide domestic water
supply to the city. Ros�vilie receives its water from the City of St. Paul. Assuming a
daily consumption rate of 800 - 1500 gallons per acre per day for commercial uses, total
consumption for the site would be 2,376-4,455 gallons per day for the 2.97-acre site.
According to the St. Paul Water Utility, the maximum capacity of their water supply
facility is 168 million gallons per day and their current average utilization rate is 52
million gallons per day. There is svfficient capacity to accommodate the estimated
maximum demand of 4,455 gallons per day for the site.
Baaed on the above, �e, believe there is no need to prepare a new RAW. The March 1997
RAW still adequ�teiy analyzes the effects of the proposed development. Please feel free
to contact RI.K with any questions pertaining to the above information.
Sincerely,
RLK-Kuusisto LTD.
ry1.
Joseph �M. Samuel, P.E.
Professional Engineer
H:1ADIvIIN-DOCSV�iy Docvmel�ts\99-423-M�Memo to Deanis Welu3�.dx
C�� AL
Veritas, Center Point Traffic Review �
BRW Traffic Generation Estimates
Generator �TE Sq. Ft. Daily
ref # Rate
General Office "' 710 342,322 10.39
Showroom/Warehouse 156,565 4.88
Business Hotel "'' 312 113,128
Hi h Tum Over Rest. 832 14,100 177.87
Subtota/
Minus 10% reduction
Totals, � 62fi,115,
NOTE: * Rate derived from equation.
.* 190 Rooms with 100% occupancy assumed.
RLK Propos48 ��erators
Gene�ato� �TE Sq. Ft. Daily
ref # Rate
Existin GeneralOffice 710 230,311
Proposed Gen. Office 710 260,345
Subtotal'** 710 490,656 9.176
Existing Business Hotel 312 112,404 7.27/rm
Proposed Business 312 70,028 (7.27/rm
Hotel "'*
Proposed Hotel Rest. 831 (85 Seats) 0.16
Quali Restuarant. "
Proposed High Turn 832 6,000 130.34
Over Rest. *
Daily PM Pk Hr Hourly
Volume Rate Volume
3557 1.34 459
764 0.74 116
1381 118
2508 12.92 182
8210 875
-821 -87
7,389 ` � 78 i
Daily PM Pk Hr Hourly
Volume Rate Volume
4502 1.283 63(
1374 (.62/rm) 11;
909 (.62/rm) 72
14 0.3 2f
782 10.86 6;
Subiofa/ 75g 1
(�NR�,�1 3 Minus ?0% reduction -758
�� � Totals 679,088 6,823
NOTE: ' ITE average rates used for the traffic generation rates in these calculations.
.* 189 rooms existing with 100% occupancy assumed, (square footage shown).
125 rooms proposed with 100% occupancy assumed, (square footage shown).
Rate used for generation was from BRW estimates.
**" Rate derived from equation.
995
-92
Difference in Traffic Generation
Daily PM Pk
Generation Estimates Sq. Ft. Volume Hourly
Volume
RLK Pro sed 679,08� 6,�23 824
BRW Estimates 626,115 7,389 787
Change in Totals 52,973 -566 36
April 10, 2000
�;,� w�. W w.'r ve w nn -� yy YYY
"uN �ii � w� � -
=�w� .w.�
� �J +...�...:r--�..'.'�`..%.,a�
ti���4w1Yti�Y��
�
i
�\.
.\ ��.`, ,
,�� ��; ;
.'\ ".
��`�. �
�
�...� ��
.
. �.�
�, � .�
.
,, ,
>, ,
�.;
, ',;
. ;� �\ ;
�. ,.4
�� c;.-, �
'�' ; i
� -1,'� �
� ,
� i. ,
� _ � I� ,
- ,�i
:� _; , � �
�- ! $I
.. _. , ' �
� � ...._I: � . '
,
/:. � / . �
; �.% ��
,
> �, �,
, \,'i /
- --�
-:�� % �.'
.
� � !� ;� .
� /
i,
j� .% ,
f�i
�' [
.�.�
'�
'I �
: '!
�
�
i ---- �
�
�
�� �
�
�
: '
� � �
; F
�1 �
rrrr� ,
' 3
,i
,
;i � �
i�
��� � �
'I �� �
' I� �
�
, �
i I 5
�*�� �
�
; , � g D
1 �
I I � �
1 �
1 I
�
1 �
1
' jl
�
��
�
� I,
� i�
�b 3►6 AYrlYYi91d w�
KZfN
J/�L.S'.�� rlocs1�17iMSDtl S/
.�.
uo�vw xe aavuanoa
. �
�
�a � �
f1�N NY. �
�� ��� � a
<'
� �� o � � ��� �p�
� gg• RgR
� Z
y � -� ��� � � ���� ����
_�, a. �.
���: ���� ����
: �
� ��ga�� �a : : ° �� � �
a � $� �R � � g� � �
� �i �� �� z g �� �L�
� � �
� ������� �� � � � �� a� ��x
� � � ���R - yti w��
� � � � � � �e �-�r�
� � R �� ��� � � � ���
� �� ������ �� �� �� � �� �� � �
v�—i 3� ������'� ��� �� �� � �� �� l���
��.
i-.
�
�
� �
� �
��..
�I� I! _.
_
...,_ �___
�; � ,_ -
�` �� i5 �
����° .�..
i 1i �; I�1
���1: ��.
� i :I�1
•. ��.
i � _ I�:
�
�.
i i ��I ii
�
�
�
�
1• �_ I�
� - �.
� _�--
: ,�:
:)
; ��.
�
� ;) �
■�1= � �
1i 'i=
���: ��.
1� "I �
� ': �
■�1: ��.
� �
IC I �-'
. �_
' ��.
' � i
����—•
�� �� �
■�� ��.
�
�
�
�
�
�
_
I-
�i
� � I: --
� �� �: ■1
■■�1= ��.
i i :I■1
; ��.
� : o��
� = '_ �_
-=11��==
._ .�.
.- �.
-
�
�
. ._,
_:._:
' ^�-
� ,�.
�
� ;��
w'�_-W. I�i '� -� n.�s w w.e . It �q wiI wr�w wT�T ........ w. w ww
�1 '+�� � I I+� M�w SR �Em LI�Z�L.I��O� Y�5�� V1K�l�1 �IiN� /
�� ���rT�MY�hn• � �
�•= " a.:s� �,...•:.:� �+� � .r.. uo�aavn aa aavuano� "'
: �
� ` !�6
�- � - - , . .�:
����
Li5 —_�,� „�--�_�' � ' K
�
�
�
�
�� �
Q �
w �
k
, �
�
� �
� �
�
1�1 unn1U1
hh0 66�dtltltl
��� �������
m�II l��1111
s„ ,ss.,.ti
l�� �ii����
- m!imn�
�n��miiii
� m mm�
�iiiliiiiin
��� i��nq
• r�� ;.. ,;.
iii 1�11111
�
� � g
:�� _ � �s � � ���
@ R
��� �� � �� � @ @ i1�
�J]�II�� � � � A�p(
� � n i R � '✓ iOC
il�1 I �'
Z II ;
W „ � 1 � o ,�3
� �� _ _ {
J �II 1 I ,•
w�
Oj
Za
��
$�
o�
a�c ��
.� �
z
��
���_
� ��f
� : 2
� � ��
ee �
��,�
�: � ��`
�� �
., � i
�� �� �
� �
�S = � s
8 �
�� sR �� �
� �����
�� �
�� �� �
� _
� �
� ��
������ �
A �
�i� ��
� �
� �
ao
�[j
�z
�
�^
.�� ;Eo� ii "��g r;�3
V�I `� '�gi ?asa
�p u� ea Ea� �y•
i� is %.�^ TY��
��
��
� �j8
�
Y�
�8
�tg
x�
� �
� ��
9�
�
k�
��
Y�
� ��
��
��
��
�
� �� �� �� Y� _� � ���
��
�B
�tg
�9
�
�
��
�
Y�
�8
��
8�
��
��
��
�
�����
y�
d
�
�, ' '
i ,
j � .�I� —
it1_.'��� �. �.��_�C] �
� I $� I �� I � �� �o
�
�
J
_ . . . . •� Tn ., - ;:-�-
.- -� �, -�,- � -; ,
. . ' _ �s,, _ . -_ �
t . . . . . w . -.il,' .• � .���_� �,
�; _ ,�; � '� � � _�, I
�n �, ,��
. • • r � a. �
�.`�" . . r � N,�'•s � '
" . � . � �t V. � ..
� . . .
� , �.
. ' . . . . . �-1 s..Fr X. � .�.L�.d . � � r ^''���� . ��.
. ... . � � y;' . � �, � �m �
� � � ' � .. �. ''�. i � � �� �`� �. ,s," ' �J � �! ��� �'�
. , � . � � - _ ,� � � r __�
� �., 1 �1� , . .�r .. .
; _ . "�,, , ,.y..•m ._ � �� •
_ �
.._�.. _ , .:.
- � #. : _ _ ,
. ,.�r�,:
:.�,�*
- . '�.,�
��Y� :
-� _:�
:,' `
�..�_ �-.�
CElJ7'RE POfNTE €3F�
:.
- . , . �. .,
._ _ . � . . � ,.�,ti �,: i
��"� z�� Y^+ :��
-� �c i - . .. �. . . -,t �..� , �.,.�..�s ; i
. .... : ,r , -
.. ' .,. �� - s"`".;: �.ti..,�r�'���a. _� ,.. , :x .. ,. . .._ _ _...
!1V'TERSTATE 35W
. , - -
:. - , . , . , ,.. -.. _ _ .. .: _ -�„�''►�- �'----�-
. �a!"�"h n5� �iM,. 3 '�� � rt �N.M�'
r'.N�w •i6�:.�W :5.�. S�.A`••••` 4+ fPVl�'�'
� '--
�
......�..� .. . . .,. . . ... . . ._. .. _ ._ . _ ..,_..�..�.._. . .
� , k i t :i Yq..'..s . . .. . - '.. . - � w .L"'� , .. . -w. . - � . ... �. .
_ . , � � � � �� �r •�.'��� i1!',.�:t,y ••,r �!�•. �� . .�'..
� �, 7,}'• � � � ' w ' _.� �� ■� .N. ��
\ 4 . �.• . . ,"'�" �.Di�� + . '. .
. . � y ' ••/` ►. . • '�, Y11 : �
. .�t. �'_•.��.-. � - :. +.' ' ' �:�tt: .-t• -
- ` �Y ' � . -�. � �� ' �� y'��.. � , . . . .r � ,- �� �, � , , .
���.�� �», �r. . :'. . ' . . -,.. ',.. _, . .' .,' '' . _ � _ .. ... ..
� . � l;� • � . .
. `.�;,I � _ '. 4 ' ,�1 �tt7� � .. ' .� • . .
- • `-h ��, . � . w� � ' � -. �� . � ° . - _ .
�'� 'i'% �,� � � + . . ^ .
. �t �-
� _ < � . � ; �. ,- �. .
� _ - - , . , . • . - :: ',,,;,r,. ..:;� � �
� .__ ' "' ' '
_ , . , ,. . _. -,-
...
��'•,;�j . .: .: _�._______ �,�'r.,.�?�r"r� _ .•�; ` __
�,_ � _ �r,r�'; � _ _ .__ _.. �sPi , q
r � a :/rF�s s! � .
' , � X� .� ,� C ' `.', ' �.�i
x � �� � �p � � � � R- ' �
. •� ` �� . � � �!!� .. � , � : �,� . i��.
; � ., �, � � �` - � -' � �� ���°'� �� �,;;, � ' �i, ,
Ordinance Number 1177
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE, CHAPTER 10 (ZONING), BY
CHANGING THE ZONING MAP DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES
WITHIN THE CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK FROM A"B-4" BUSINESS ZONE TO
A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS ZONE.
The City Council of the City of Roseville does ordain:
Section 1. Pursuant to Section 1015 (Zoning Amendments) and Section 1008
(Planned Unit Developments) of the Cit�r Zoning Code of the City of Roseville, and after
the Planning Commission held a public hearing with due notice for Planning File 2880 on
March 12, 1997, the following prope�ties are hereby rezoned from B-4" Business to
Planned Unit Development Business Zone No. 1177:
All lots within Centre Pointe Business Park 2nd Addition and all lots within the
original Centre Pointe Business Park Addition except Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 2,
Blodc 2 of the original plat, Ramsey County.
Section 2. The Planned Unit Development standards adopted for this site shall be
in addition to all other applicable zoning requirements for this site.
Sectfon 3. Effective Date. This ordinance amendment to the City Code shall take
effect upon passage by the Cii Council and publication.
PASSED this 1 Ith day of April, 1997
Daniel II, Mayor
ATTEST:
Steve North, Assistant City Manager
�:�rrr�tan� m.oRo
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Special meeting of the City Council - Friday, April 11,1997.
The City Council met on the above date with the following members present: Wiski,
Maschka, Mastel, Goedeke, and WaIL Members absent: None.
The Council took one 10 minute break during the discussion of
Item A-1 from 4: 15 p. m. to 4:25 p. m.
2:0o P.M.
ROLL CALL
H. HEARINGS
H-1 Wislci moved, Goedeke sxonded, that the Ryan PUD amendment proposal RYAN
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan business designation and the COMPANY
business/PUD zoning in the area Roll Ca11, Ayes: Wislci,ll�schka, Mastel,
Goedelce, and Wall. Nays: None.
Maschka moved, Wiski seconded, that Ordinance 1177, Rya� Company's ORDINANCE
request for au amended PUD with attached PUD standards of the Ryan 1177
proposed amendment, inclusive of the modifications made on the record by the
Council prior to the making of this motion, to the Centre Poiite Planned Unit
Development, be adopted. The effective date of the ordinanG: is upon
publication. Roll Ca11, Ayes: Wiski, Maschka, Mastel, (3oedcke, and Wall.
Nays: None.
Goedeke moved, Mastel seconded, that the m�nor subdivisior.s be approved to MINOR
allow for administrative approval for minor lot line reconfiguration (move the SUBDMSIONS
lot lines to fit the design of the buildings) as the applicant applies for building
permits. No new lots or roadways would be created. Roll Crll, Ayes: Wiski,
Maschka, Mastel, Goedeke, and Wa11. Nays: None.
H-2 Wiski moved, Maschka seconded, that CSM/Ryan Company' s request for CSMIRYAN
prelimhary and final plat approval for a portion of the Centr� Pointe proj ect COMPANY
to be known as Centre Pointe Business Park Second Additior. be approved,
directing the Mayor to sign the official plat, creating Centre F'ointe Business
Park Second Addition with four lots from a three lot portion �>f the original
Centre Pointe plat subject to:
Easement vacations and/or relocation to conform withr�ew lotlines.
2. Execution of a Subdivision Development Agreement for the Second
Addition plat.
For park dedication, acceptance of pathway easements long the west
side of the site � cash in lieu of a portion of the park dedications (as
part of the Subdivision Development Agreement).
Roseville City Council Miuutes
April11,1997
N.
4. Dedication of sidewalk easements (as necessary) and construction of
sidewalks along Centre Pointe Drive.
Roll Ca11, Ayes: Wiski, Maschka, ��Iastel, Goedeke, and Wa11. Nays: None.
Mastel moved, Goedeke seconded, that the City Manager and staffbe directed
toprepare a Subdivision DevelopmentAgiument forapprov.�land sigaatures,
after review by the City Attorney. Roll Ca11, Ayes: Wiski, M�schka, Mastel,
Goedeke, and Wall. Nays: None.
Mastel moved, Goedeke seconded, that Resolution 9400, vac.�ting any
unnecessary easements by a standard vacation resolution, wi•h the legal
description to be provided by the applicant, be adopted. Roll Ca11, Ayes:
Wiski, Maschka, Mastel, Goedelce, and Wa11. Nays: None.
ADJOURNMENT
Page 2
SUBDIVLSION
DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT
RESOLUTION
9400
Mastel moved, Goedeke seconded, that the meeting be adjowtted at 5:45 p.m. ADJOURNMENT
Roll Ca11, Ayes: Wiski, Maschka, Mastel, Goedelce, and Wa11. Nays: None.
ATTEST:
�
Steven Sarkozy, City Manager
Excer�t of Minutes, Plannin� Commission meeHn� of Mav 10, 2000:
6f. Plannin� File 3208: A request by CSM Corporation to amend the
Centre Pointe Planned Unit Development Agreement (No.2880) for
a modification allowing a third hotel within the PUD limits. The
parcel is located south of the existing Veritas Software structure.
8 Chair Klausing opened the hear= �g and requested Dermis Welsch to provide a
9 verbal summary of the request as describea m the staff report dated May 10, 2000.
lo Dennis Welsch provided background and explained building, parking and traffic
11 issues.
12
13 Chair Klausing asked for details for the amendment process.
14
15 Kent Carlson, Ryan Companies, explained the proj ects completed to date in the
16 Centre Pointe Business Park. He explained the Veritas growth plan for the site
17 and Veritas' request for additional hotel space to house their trainees and business
18 clients.
19
2o David Carland, Vice President CSM, explained the proposal, noting that CSM
21 also owns the adjacent Residence Inn. Veritas has pre-negotiated to reserve
22 rooms. Marriott Courtyard is a first class hotel for business users. He explained
23 the site plan and the shared spillover parking with adjacent Veritas Building 1.
24 Elevations of the Hotel were described.
25
26 Member Rhody explained that his firm does work for CSM's Consultant, RLK,
27 and noted that his firm may run some copies. It is not a major financial issue. He
28 has found that this relationship will not impair his judgment on the issue. The
29 Planning Commission agreed with Member Rhody.
30
31 Chair Klausing asked why the change in circumstances. Kent Carlson explained
32 the original buildings on the south side were office showroom buildings. The
33 change to Veritas has created a demand for a business class restaurant. The hotel
34 site was first considered as an office site.
35
36 Member Wilke asked about the added value generated in the community.
37
38 Member Cunningham asked for Veritas plans — a total of four buildings in the
39 Business Park.
40
41 John Zavada, Ramada 1M Genera' Manager, stated that the 40 jobs will be a
42 break even, a loss at one hotel is a gain at another. He stated that the Roseville
43 Visitor's Association (RVA) has figures for occupancy. In 1999 the revenue
44 dropped 4% in Roseville. Why is there no restaurant in the Business Park?
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
�
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ls
19
20
21
22
Member Cunningham agreed with Member Mulder's reasoning.
Motion: Member Wilke moved, Member Egli seconded, to table
consideration of Planning File 3211, request by Kenneth Wieden for
Variance, to the June 14, 2000 Planning Commission meeting.
Ayes: 3, Wilke, Egli, Klausing
Nays: 4, Cunningham, Rhody, Gl�on, Mulder
Motion defeated 3-4.
Vote on ori�inal moHon to recommend granting of the requested
variance, based on findings and conditions outlined.
Ayes: 3, Wilke, Egli, Klausing
Nays: 4, Cunningham, Rhody, Olson, Mulder
Motion defeated 3-4.
The report to the Council, on May 22nd, is that the Planning Commission
did not approve a recommendation. The motion failed 3(ayes) to 4
(nays).