HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001_0122_packeti \
`
City Council Agenda
Monday
January 22, 2001
6:30 p.m.
Roll Call -(Voting Order: Maschka, Goedeke, Mastel, and Kysylyczyn)
A. Communications and Public Comments
(For matters not on Agenda --Note: The time for comments may be limited out of respect for other
citizens on the agenda.)
B. Approval of Minutes
1. Regular Meeting of January 8,200 1
C. Consent Agenda
1. Authorization to Advertise for Citizen Volunteers for Various Commission
Openings
2. Approval of 2001 State Pay Equity Report
3. Communication with Roseville Legislative Delegation
4. Setting Dates for Council Work Sessions
5. Contractor Licenses for 200 1
6. Renewal of Business Licenses for 200 1
7. Approval of Payments
D. Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
E. Organizational Business
l. Appointment of City Council Member to Fill Vacancy
2. Appointment of Task Force Members - County Road C Urban Design Master Plan
3. Administration of the Oath for New Commissioners
F. Reports and Recommendations
1. Receiving Feasibility Reports and Scheduling Public Improvement Hearings for
2001 Pavement Management Program (PMP)
2. Application for a Minnesota DNR Metro Greenways Planning Grant
3. Announcement of 200 1 Housing Fair
4. Acceptance of Two Ramsey County Soccer Partners Program Grants
G. Recognitions
1. National Night Out Award for the Year 2000
H. Hearings
I. Land Use
1. Charles Kadrie & ATP Minneapolis, Inc. Request for Conditional Use Permit to
Allow Installation of Antenna on the Roof of Roseville Professional Center, 2233
Hamline Avenue North (PF3284)
2. RyaniVeritas Amendment to Planned Unit Development and Review of Voluntary
Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Office Campus Expansion (PF3283)
3. Capital City Investments LLP Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Bingo
Ha11 to Operate at 2525 Snelling Avenue North (PF3282)
4. Peter Vesterholt Request for a 5 and 23 Foot Variance to Allow Construction of an
Attached Garage at 699 Heinel Drive (PF3280)
5. Robert Witt Request for Variances at 353 Owasso Boulevard (PF3279)
6. McKinley Companies Request for Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment,
Rezoning and Consideration of a Combined Planned Unit for Redevelopment at
2330 Le�ngton Avenue North (PF3277)
J. Ordinances and Resolutions
l. First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Section 1004.O1A — Accessory Buildings
in Residential Districts (PF3270)
K Reports and Recommendations (Continued, if necessary)
L. Items Tabled
1�I. Other Business
l. Joan Growe Video Regarding Election Changes
N. Adjournment
ITEM: B-1
_��
Draft Copy - City Council Minutes -Draft Copy
Regular Meeting of January 8, 2001
The City Council met on the above date with the following members present 6:30 p.m.
(voting order): Maschka, Goedeke, Mastel and Kysylyczyn. Absent: None. Roll Call
Note: One seat vacant.
Item G-1, Recognition of Donn R. Wiski was moved to the beginning of the Agenda Change
meeting.
The City Council presented a porcelain rose under glass to DOnn Wiski Donn Wiski
along with a proclamation recognizing his service to the City of Roseville.
A. Communications and Public Comment
A-1 Dick Lambert and Ernie Willenbring:
Council Applicants Disclosure of Campaign Contributors
A-2 Mayor Kysylyczyn:
US Census Bureau Certificate
Mayor to speak regarding trip to Cuba at LWV, Tuesday, 7:00 p.m.,
1/16i01 at Little Canada City Ha11
City Council application deadline 4:30 p.m., Wednesday, 1/16/O1
Ethics Disclosure/Workshop
B. Approval of Minutes 1�Iinutes
B-1 Goedeke moved, Maschka seconded, that the minutes of the meeting
of December 11, 2000 be approved. Roll Call, Ayes: Maschka,
Goedeke and Mastel. Nays: None. Abstain: Kysylyczyn.
B-2 Goedeke moved, Maschka seconded, that the minutes of the special
meeting of December 18, 2000 be approved. Roll Call, Ayes:
Maschka, Goedeke, Mastel and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None.
C. Consent Agenda Consent Agenda
Mastel moved, Maschka seconded that Items C-1 and C-4 through
C- 10 be approved. Roll Ca11, Ayes: Maschka, Goedeke, Mastel and
Kysylyczyn. Nays: None.
n
City Council Minutes -
Draft Copy Page 2
Gl Mastel moved, Maschka seconded, authorizing the City Manager to
send letters requesting support for Volunteer Recognition Banquet,
Winterfest, Spring Celebration, Rosefest, Taste of Roseville,
Halloween Event, Holiday Event and the New Year's Eve Event.
Roll Call, Ayes: Maschka, Goedeke, Mastel and Kysylyczyn. Nays:
None.
c-2
c-3
Item moved to D-1
Item moved to D-2
Seek Donations
Parks & Recreation
Special Events
Sign Permits
Legislative Policies
c-4 Mastel moved, Maschka seconded, to approve January 22, 2001 at Setting Date
6: 15 p.m. as a date and time for the meeting of the Roseville Loca1 Local Development
Development Corporation. Roll Ca11, Ayes: Maschka, Goedeke, Corparation
Mastel and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None.
c-5 Mastel moved, Masclika seconded, to approve the 2001 Service Electrical Inspection
Agreement with North Metro Inspections, Incorporated and Service Renewal
authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the Agreement, after
review by the City Attorney. Roll Call, Ayes: Maschka, Goedeke,
Mastel and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None.
C-6 Mastel moved, Maschka seconded, by resolution, to adopt the 2001
land use permit and user fee schedule of the Community
Development Department for services rendered by the Department.
Roll Call, Ayes: Maschka, Goedeke, Mastel and Kysylyczyn. Nays:
None.
c-7 Mastel moved, Maschka seconded, to authorize the
Acting City Manager to sign the Fire Dispatching
renewal with the City of St. Paul, upon final review
Attorney. Roll Call, Ayes: Maschka, Goedeke,
Kysylyczyn. Nays: None.
Resolution 9853
Permit &
1�Tiscellaneous Fees
(PF3185)
Mayor and Agreement with
Agreement City of St Paul
by the City Fire Dispatch
Mastel and
C-8 Mastel moved, Maschka seconded, approval of a resolution Resolution 9854
authorizing the Public Works Director to reapportion assessments in Apportionment of
2001. Roll Call, Ayes: Maschka, Goedeke, Mastel and Kysylyczyn. Assessments
Nays: None.
c-9 Mastel moved, Maschka seconded, to approve the a�e� license Business Licenses
applications. Roll Call, Ayes: Maschka, Goedeke, Mastel and
Kysylyczyn. Nays: None.
City Council Minutes -
Draft Copy Page 3
o- 10 Mastel moved, Maschka
amounts be approved:
1280-1290
7737-7835
7836-7949
7950-7963
7964-7983
7984-8 129
seconded, that the following bills and total Approval of
Payments
Roll Ca11, Ayes: Maschka,
None.
1,321.06
61,341.26
775,39 1.09
122,553.87
34,483 .0 1
427,944.51
$1,423,034.80
Goedeke, Mastel
D. Items Removed from Consent Agenda
and Kysylyczyn. Nays:
D-1 (formerly Item C-2) Kysylyczyn moved, Goedeke seconded, to City Event
approve the 2001 sign permit � for city uses and promotions as Sign Permits
listed and corrected [in report]. Roll Call, Ayes: Maschka, Goedeke, (pF3286)
Mastel and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None.
D-2 (formerly C-3) Maschka moved, Goedeke seconded , to approve the Legislative Policies
adoption of the Legislative Policies of the LMC, MLC, and the By Reference
AMM by reference. Roll Ca11, Ayes: Maschka, Goedeke, Mastel and
Kysylyczyn. Nays: None.
Maschka moved, Goedeke seconded, as a major portion of the
City's 2001 legislative program along with the goal of protecting the
rebroadcast rights of Commission interviewees. Roll Call, Ayes:
Maschka, Goedeke, Mastel and Kysylyczyn. Nays: Kysylyczyn.
E. Organizational Business
E-1 Maschka moved, Goedeke seconded, a��e� [adoption of the Resolution 9855
resolution designating the attached list as official city depositories Offkial Depositories
for 2001.1 Roll Ca11, Ayes: Maschka, Goedeke, Mastel and
Kysylyczyn. Nays: None.
E-2 Maschka moved, Mastel seconded, to reject the bids and direct staff Of�icial Newspaper
to resubmit. Roll Call, Ayes: Maschka, Goedeke, Mastel and
Kysylyczyn. Nays: None.
E-3 Mastel moved, Maschka seconded, to approve Howard Wagner, Appointment of
Rita Stanoch and Philip Crump to be appointed to the [Roseville] Commission Members
Human Rights Commission for the unexpired terms ending March
3 1, 200 1, March 3 1, 2002 and March 3 1, 2003, [respectively]. Roll
Call, Ayes: Maschka, Goedeke, Mastel and Kysylyczyn. Nays:
City Council Minutes -
Draft Copy Page 4
None.
Maschka moved, Mastel seconded, to approve Troy Duncan to be
appointed to the Roseville Planning Commission for the unexpired
term ending March 3 1, 2003. Roll Call, Ayes: Maschka, Goedeke,
Mastel and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None.
Maschka moved, Goedeke seconded, to approve Richard Jacobson
to be appointed to the Roseville Parks and Recreation Commission
for the unexpired term ending March 3 1, 2001. Roll Call, Ayes:
Maschka, Goedeke and Mastel. Nays: Kysylyczyn.
F. Reports And Recommendations
F-1 Maschka moved, Goedeke seconded, to adopt the Roseville Housing Housing
Improvement Plan for 200 1, as amended. Roll Call, Ayes: Maschka, Improvement Pian
Goedeke, Mastel and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None.
G. Recognitions & Announcements
G-1 Item moved to beginning of ineeting. Donn Wiski
H. Hearings
I. Land Use
I-1 Public comment was invited on the Twin Lakes Master Plan Resolution 9856
Renewal Strategy Comprehensive Plan amendment. Twin Lakes
1�Iaster Plan Renewal
Maschka moved, Kysylyczyn seconded, to offer a resolution (draft �F3232)
attached) concurring with the Planning Commission, #�-�e���
approve and adopt the business park strategy and the mix of
scenarios as [the] concept amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, to
be used as the basis for t�-[an] °�*°�°*���° [Alternate] Urban
[Area]-Wide Review (AUAR), final Council adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment will occur only after review of the
AUAR, findings and contingencies review and approval of the
Metropolitan Council. Roll Call, Ayes: Maschka, Goedeke, Mastel
and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None.
Maschka moved, Goedeke seconded, to direct staff to prepare a
work plan for an AUAR study of the recommended concept"
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for Twin lakes as presented
(area map attached) with final approval of a work plan and costs
associated with the process to be considered by Council at a meeting
City Council Minutes -
Draft Copy Page 5
in late January.
Kysylyczyn. Nays
Roll Ca11, Ayes: Maschka, Goedeke, Mastel and
None.
Maschka moved, Mastel seconded, to direct staff to expand the
AUAR work plan to include a separate study scenario for the Regan
parcels located in the southeast sector (area across hatched on map)
that would review the impacts of the `Big Box Retail" use based
upon the 1988 master plan that included this area as retail. Roll
Call, Ayes: Maschka, Goedeke, Mastel and Kysylyczyn. Nays:
None.
I-2 Maschka moved, Mastel seconded, to offer a resolution to affirm the Resolution 9857
2000 changes and revised reformat, officially include the changes in Comprehensive Plan
the Plan, and adopt the 2000 Comprehensive Plan. Roll Ca11, Ayes: Revisions � Declaring
Maschka, Goedeke, Mastel and Kysylyczyn. Nays: None. C� (PF3271 &3276)
J.
K
L.
N.
Ordinances and Resolutions
Reports and Recommendations (Continued, if necessary)
Items Tabled
Adjournment Adjournment
Mayor Kysylyczyn adjourned the meeting at 10:07 p.m.
ATTEST:
Edward L. Burrell, Acting City Manager
John Kysylyczyn, Mayor
Department Approval
�(�
REQUEST FOR COUNCII, ACTION
Manager Reviewed
�j
Date: 10/22/O1
Item No.: C-1
Agenda Section
Consent
Description: Authorization To Advertise For Citizen Volunteers For Various Commission
Openings
Background
There are a number of terms which will be ending on March 3 l, 2001, as well as the expansion of the
Ethics Commission from 3 members to 5. So that the process can begin, it would be appropriate for
staff to have the authorization to begin advertising in the near future for citizen volunteers.
Policy Implications
The Council has always depended on volunteer citizens to provide advice and guidance in the various
committees and commissions of the City. In 2001, the Council approved a specific policy regarding
community participation and consultation. (copy attached)
Financial Implications
There are no direct fiscal impacts regarding this action other than the advertising expenses, which
included in the 2001 budget.
Staff Recommendations
Staff is recommending that the City Council authorize staff to prepare and advertise for citizen
applications for the Council to consider in filling vacancies in the various City Commissions
Council Action
Motion to authorize the staff to advertise in a timely manner, for citizen volunteers for the City
Council to consider in filling vacancies on the various commissions.
Communitv Participation and Consultation Polic
PURPOSE
While the City Council is elected to represent the community in making choices of public safety, public
works and the providing of general governmental services, the Council will make a every effort to involve
the community in the decision-making process where major community interests are concerned and
where state and local statutes permit.
It has been the practice of the Council, and will continue to be, to appoint commissions, task forces, and
other work groups from the community to explore and present ideas and alternatives with regard to issues,
which are of importance to the community.
In addition, any expenditure of funds in excess of $3 million of local property tax dollars and which
involves community facilities, will be brought to the community in the form of a referendum.
SCOPE
The scope of the policy is to actively involve the community in those major facilities issues which include
the addition of parks, pathways, public facilities, zoning, neighborhood development issues, and any other
areas deemed appropriate.
POLICY
The City of Roseville will endeavor to involve representative citizen groups, including student
representation, in the discussion and advising on issues which require more input as to the wishes and
needs of the community than can be provided by staff, consultants, or the City Council. It is the intent
of the Council that all study groups, commissions, and committees will consist of at least 5
members unless otherwise specified by statute.
INIl'LEMENTATION
The City Council will work with staff to assist in defming those issues which require more community
guidance and input. Those issues will be presented to representative community work group to assist in
the ascertaining the need, fact-finding, and determining feasible alternatives, before the City Council
deliberates a final resolution of those issues.
II-6
���G�
Request for Council Action
Date: January 22, 2001
Item Number:C— 2
Depart nt Ap roval Manager Approval Agenda Section
� �� Organizational Business
Item Description:
2001 Pay Equity Report
Back ro�
Minnesota State Law requires that public jurisdictions file a Pay Equity Report with the Department of
Employee Relations pursuant to the Local Government Pay Equity Act, M.S. 471.991-471.999 and
Minnesota Rules, Chapter 3920. The City must file a report on a rotating basis of every three years. The
City of Roseville filed the required reports in 1998. A copy of that report is attached. The ne�t report is due
on or before January 3 1, 2001 presenting data from the year 2000 to ensure compensation equity among
gender classes at the City. Staff will provide that information to the City Council on January 22, 2001.
The 2001 Pay Equity Report shows that the City of Roseville is in compliance with the requirements of the
law.
Financial Implications
There are no financial implications associated with approving the report.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council approve and submit the Pay Equity Report to ensure continued
compliance with Minnesota State Law.
Council Action Requested
Motion authorizing the Mayor and the Acting City Manager to sign the report, indicating the approval of the
City Council.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: 1/12/98
ITEM NO.: E-8
Department Approval: Manager Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Organizational Business
Item Description: 1998 Pay Equity Report.
BACKGROUND
Minnesota State Law requires that public jurisdictions file a Pay Equity Report with the
Department of Employee Relations to remain in compliance with the 1984 Local
Government Pay Equity Act. The City of Roseville is required to file this report by January
31, 1998. Preliminary statistics compiled from the report indicate that the City of Roseville
is in full compliance with the Act. Only the Department of Employee Relations can make
an official determination of compliance.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no financial implications associated with approving the report.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends Council approval and submittal of the Pay Equity Report.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion authori�ing the Mayor and City Manager to sign the report, indicating the approval
of the City Council.
Send completed report to:
e
0
i
�
M
r
�
Q
ti
�
d
C
O
a
u
�
i
0
�
O
C�
�
m
i
e
Z
Pay Equity Implementation Report
Pay Equity Coordinator
Department of Employee RElaiionS
200 Centennial Building
658 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 551551603 (612) 296-2653 (VoiCe)
(61212s7-2oo3 (TDD)
Name ot Jurisaiction
City of Roseville
$1 City ❑ County
0 School C� Other:
Address
2660Civic Center Drive
Contact Person
Karen Kurt
Q The job evaluation system used measured skill, effort,
responsibility and working conditions and the same
system was used for all classes of employees.
Check the system used:
❑ State Job Match
0 Designed Own (specify)
Q ConsultanYs System (specify)
PDI Focus
❑ Other (specify)
0 Health insurance benefits for male and female classes
of comparable value have been evaluated and:
[� There is no difference and female classes are not
at a disadvantage.
X� There is a difference and the maximum salaries
reported include the monthly amount paid by the
employer for health insurance.
� Information in this report is complete and accurate
0 The report includes all classes of employees over
which the jurisdiction has final budgetary approval
authority.
Clty
For Department Use Only ''�
,
o s t m a r k D a� e o f R e p o r t ;
� Jurisdiction ID Number
Roseville MN
Phone
( 612 ) 490-2203
� No salary ranges/performance differences.
�ip
551 1 3-1 899
❑ Check here if both of the following apply; otherwise, ledve
blank.
a. Jurisdiction does not have a salary range for any job
class.
b. Upon request, jurisdiction will supply dacumentat�on
showing that inequities between male and female
classes are due to performance differences.
Note: Do not include any documentation regarding
performance with this form.
Q An official notice has been posted at
City Hall Notice Board
Iprominen tlocationl
informing employees that the Pay Equ:ty Implementation
Report has been filed and is available to employees upon
request. A copy of the notice has been sent to each exclusive
-representative, if any, and also to the public library. The report
was approved by:
Rosevill e Ci t3 c'oLnci ]
f9vveming bodYl
Daniel G. Wall
r��er erecred off���ai, prinU
Mavor
(chief elected official, signature)
�titlei (dateJ
� Result from Salary Range Worksheet
� � � � 103.60
a�� F % is the result of average years to salary range maximum for male classes divided by the
d y� average years to salary range maximum for female classes.
+�� 3 Results from Exceptional Service Pay Worksheet
� o �� �
����� ❑ 20% or less of male classes receive ESP.
d W=,. � °Yo is the result of the percentage of female classes receiving ESP divided by the perCentagF
�=� of male classes receiving ESP.
'� q o
�«� $i6, 8�"�7 �a�i��al payroll for the calendar year just ended December 31.
� �4 �
(Part f- on Back)
�.��
�. m,,` .
City of Roseville
(Name of Jurisdiction)
2660 Civic Center Drive
(Address)
Roseville, MN 55113-1899
(City, Slate. Zip)
A B
Number of
Male
Class Title Emplovees
I. Fari 1 1 t� G�+��Zii Snr TT 1
z. Communitv Service Officer 4
� Facility Supervisor III 3
4, State Locator �
_...:.� _�
5. Fr��i nPPr� nQ �nt.Prn l
6 Groundskeeper �
Seasonal Laborer 1
�.
$, Instructor II 3
9. Building Maintenance Worker 1
io. Custodian 1
i i. $p,f' P x t- i n n i� fi �
�z
Golf Course Mechanic 1
�3 Instructor III C
�4 Data Assistant 1
�s Office Assistant � C
16 Naturalist C
PART F: Job Class Information
Contact Person Karen Kurt
Phone (612) 490-2203
To convert an hourly
rate to a monthly rate.
multiply hourly ralt by 173.3
C D E F
Number of Class Comparable Minimum
Female Type work value Monthly
m 1 ��. Job � 8$ �erv
2 � �� s 953
1 M 38 $1, 300
0 M 38 $1, 040
_ 1 _ F 38. S
l �— �0— 3__ �„
1 F 43 S 953
0 M 45
� s
4 B 46T sl, 38�,._„
0 M 49 5
_ 0_ M 49 sl, 759 _
i � n4 s�•7�9 _
0 M 49 sl, 723
1 F ��_ S,L,_Z33__
1 B 52 s1, 790
1 F 52 s1, 79p r„
1 F 54 sl, 901
Please make additional copies of this form as needed io allow space for all the job classes in your jurisdiction.
Return to: Faith Z�y���� p�P��nt of Employee Relations, 200 Centennial Building, 658 Cedar Street. $I. Paul, MN 55155-16Q3
(luestions: C'g�� (612) 296-2653 (voice)
(s t 21297-2003 (Tpp)
Report Date
G
Maximum
Monthly
Salarv
s�,213
s l, 386
S 1, 560
s1,473
S��,
sl, 126
sl, 911
51,99�
S2 393
s2, 376
$2,376
s2, 334
S'� , d � � ,_,_
s2.�41 6
s2, 416
s2, 546
H i
Years # Years
t0 Q[ of
� Service
, 50
� —��_
3.00
3.00
3.00
�..�„�
�_nn_ �
3.011
3.00
d
Exceptional
Service
Pay
paycyuiUgcncral/97p1f
c; tv �f Ros�ville _ _
(Name of Jurisdiction)
2,fi�(1 � vi r Cent_er 1�rj,jjP
(Address)
�toseville MN 55113-1899
(City, Stale, Zip)
A B
Number of
Male
ClacsTille m��1Qy�;
i. License Clerk _ 2 _
2_ Customer Service Assistant 0
� Senior Office Assists�nt _ 0
4 Senior License Clerk 0
5 Public Information Officer 0
6 Maintenance Worker II 21
Police Secretary 0
1. - -
Department Assistant 2
s.
Publications Specialist 1
9.
��. Maintenance Worker III 2
ii. Mechanic 1
�Z Administrative Secretary 0
13 GIS Coordinator 1
Data Coordinator �
14,
�5. Ice 2
�b, Workina Foreman 1
PART F: Job Class Information
Contact Person Karen Kurt
.
phone (612) 490-2203
To convert an hourly
rate to a monthly rate,
multiply hourly rate by ��).�
C D E F
Number of Class Comparable Minimum
Fem31e TyPC Work Value Monthly
EIfID�OVCCS M• F• B_ ) Points eS 1�Iv
8 F 54 s� .9n1
4 F 54 $1.901
7 _F _ 55 $1,975
2 F 55 $1,975
1 F 57 s2,314
0 M 59 s2,149_
1 k' � 59 2, 256
S- . -
3 B 59 s2, 142
0 1� 59 52,142
0 M _ 60 _ S
0 M _ 60 _ S
1 F 62 2 696
S_ ! . _
0 M 63 s2, 187 --
1 F 63 $2,187
0 M 63-.- S
0 M 63 S
Please make additional copies of (�1j5 form as needed to allow space for all lht job classes in your jurisdiction.
Return io: Faith �wemke, Department of Employee Relations. 200 Centennial Building. 658 Cedar $1fCel, St. Paul, MN SSI55- 16U3
Questions: Call (612) 296.2653 (voice)
�2) 297-2003 (TDD)
Report Dale
G
Maximum
Meo�n1tnh^ly'
HW�1
S-� --, � d ti -
S.•54F
S2 _533—
52,633
53,033_
$3,107 _
2.818
5---
2,830
s-- —
S2. 830
S3L208
s3, 208 _
S3, 570
s2, 882
s2. 882
S • '� 4 l
�3, 315
H I
Ytafs �1 Years
lo ar o(
Max Service
–�9-8-
��,n n
�._ n n_
3•f0_
_ 3.00_ �
7.00
_3.00 _
3.00 �
7.00 _ _
3.00
3.00
Exccpliunal
Service
Pay
�-"^'TM`�au iUgcncr.iV')7p� f
City of Roseville
([`iAIM of Jurisdiction)
2660 Civic Center Drive
(Address)
Roseville, MN 55113-1899
(City, State, tip)
A B
Number of
Male
Rlasst I e EI1ID�OYCCS
i. Administrative Analvst 0
Z. Police Officer 31
;. Police Investigator 1
4, Community Relations Coord. 1
5 Parks Project coordinator 1
Recreation Program Super. 1
s.
�. Fire Inspector 1
g. Enqineerinq Technician 1
9. Police Sergeant
�o. License Bureau Supervisor 7-
Code Enforcement Officer 2
��.
Maintenance Supervisor 2
� z.
13. Proqram Marketinq Coordin. .1
14 Fire Marshal 1
is Engineering Supervisor 1
�6 Engineering Project Coord. 1
PART F: Job Class Information
Contact Person Ka r e n KU Y�t
Pnone ' ( 612 ) 494-2243
C
Number of
Female
�IIIDIOYCCS
1
3
C
C
C
1
C
C
C
C
0
C
0
_ 0
0
0
D
Class
Type
M.�.g
F
M
M
M
M
B
_M _
M
M
M
M
_M _
M
M
� _
M
To convert an hourly
rate to a monthly rate,
tnultiQly hourly rate by 173.3
E F
Comparable Minimum
work Velue Monthly
IJob Points) $alarv
65 S 2, 645
66 S 2 � 407
66 s 2, 542_
69 S 2, 830
72 S 2, 560
_ �2 _ S 2, 560
�5 S_2, �-43 -
_�e _ 52,887
�8 $4, 013
- �8 - 5-3,098 _
�8 $ 3, 248_
80 S 2, 981
80 $2,981
82 S 3, 538
83 S 3, 538
_ 83 _ 33, 246 _
Please make additional copies of this form as needed io allow space for all Ihe job classes in your jurisdiction
Return to: Faith ZwCtilk[, DeParlment of Employer Relations. Z� Centennial Building. 658 Cedar Strcel, St. Paul. MN ?5�55- �bQj
Questions: G�� (612) 296-2653 (voice)
(612) 297-2003 �Ti)D)
Rcpon Date
G
Maximum
Monthly
$818rv
S 3.926
S 3, 702_
s3, 837_
$3, 641
S 3, 324
S 3, 324
S 3,769
$3,709
z 4, 524
$4, 175
s 4, 133
s4,372
54�372_
s4,_728
s4,728_
$4, 133
��
H I �
Years N Years EXCCpduna{
�o gf of Service
� Service pay
1�-� - -
3�00 �naevity
-3.-Oo- Lonqevity
_'3.0� _ _
3.00 _ _
3.00
3.00 -
3.00 _
� nn. Longevity
7.00
3.00
10.00 _ _
10.00
7.00
7.00 _ _ _
3.00 _ _
paycyuiUgcncraU�)7pii
Citv of Roseville
(Name of Jurisdiction)
2660 Civic Center Drive
(Address)
Roseville, MN 55113-1899
(City, State, Zip)
A B
Number of
Male
Class itl E ovas
I. 1r�lf Course Superintendent
z. Ice Arena Manager 1
3, Recreation Superintendent �
a. ���� R sor Di�ector �
S. �,�Gi �t-ant Ej nancP Director - 1 -
s -Citv Planner �
z. Assistant Department Head 2
a. Economic Development Spec. 0
9 Public Works Superintendent 1
10. Rui lr� i nrt ('nC3P�S�.n�3 oY' 1
ii. 'c� 0
�z. Der_,utv P�1 i r.P Chi Pf 1
�3. Assistant Citv Manaaer 1
14, Department Head 5
15 City Manager 1
16. _ _
PART F: Job Class Inf'ormation
Contact Person Ka r e n Ku r t _ _
Phone (612) 490-2203
C
Number of
Female
E.11�.oy�
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
C
C
C
0
D
Class
ry�
M• F• g
M
M
F
F
M
F
M
F
M
-M -
F
M
M
M
M
To convert an hourly
rate to a monthly rate,
multiply hourly rate by 173.3
E F
Comparable Minimum
work V81ut Monthly
Job ' $algry
84 S 2, 981
g6 z 3, 354
87 $3,354
_ 92 _ $3,354
92 $3,354
95 S 3,354
9�' $3,790
9� z 3,790
9� S 3.► 790
9'1 $3,790
9�' S3,790
104 $4,317
104 4 , 317
S—_�
113 $4,944
124 56,098
s
Please make additional copies of this fomi as needed io allow space for all the job classes in your jurisdiction.
Return io: Faith Zwcmke. DePartment of Employee Relations, 200 �qltfl111� Building, 658 Cedar Street. St. Paul, MN 55155-1603
(Jucslions: Call (612) 296-2653 (voice)
�,612} 29�•?Q�3 (TDD)
Report Date
G
Maximum
Monthly
s��,
s4.372
S 4, 926
s_4, 926 _
s_4, 926_
$4,926
S 4, 926_
s5,544
$5,544
$5,544
$5,544
$5,544
S 6, 416
s6,416
s7,389
$9,207 _
S
H
Years
to gs
M�x
l0.00
10.00
10 .00
1.0.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10 .00
10.00
10.00
10.00
�
p Years
of
Cervirr
d
Exceptional
Service
�
— ._.........�..�...
r*t?at�9uiUt cncr.�U'17pi f
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: Ol/22/Ol
Item No.: c- 3
Department ApprovaL Manager Reviewed Agenda Section
��� `,J� Consent
Lt
Description: Communication with Roseville Legislative Delegation
Background
The League of Minnesota Cities has approved a policy (SD-27) that opposes any proposal which
increases youth access to alcohol and tobacco products. That policy was adopted by reference by the
City Council at its January 8, 2001 meeting.
The Mayor has asked that a letter be prepared and sent, with the Council's knowledge and approval,
to our legislative delegation regarding a proposal in the 200 1 legislature extending the sale Of WiI12 to
grocery stores in the seven county metro area.
A letter has been drafted and is attached.
Policy Implications
The request is within the current adopted policies of the City Council.
Financial Implications
There are significant fiscal implications for law enforcement, should the number of alcohol outlets be
expanded.
Staff Recommendations
Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the communication with the Roseville legislative
delegation stating the Council's opposition to expanding the potential access
Council Action
Motion to authorize a communication to the Roseville Legislative Delegation conveying the
Council's policy position that limiting potential alcohol access to youth be supported and that
expansion of alcohol outlets be opposed.
DRAFT
January 17, 2001
Senator John Marry
Mary Jo McGuire
Mindy Greiling
As you are aware there is a strong push at the current legislative session, to extend the sale of wine within
the metro area to grocery stores.
The Roseville City Council has long been active (Mayor's Commission On Drugs and Alcohol Abuse) in
combating drug, tobacco and alcohol abuse as well as concern about the accessibility of such products by
our underage population. In accordance with those concerns, the City Council adopted the League of
Minnesota Cities Policy No. SD-27, a copy which is attached, that essentially opposes any legislation,
which could increase the risk of youth access to alcohol.
On the basis of the best information available at this time, the Roseville City Council, on behalf of its
citizens, ask that you be supporkive of the City's position and not expand potential youth access to alcohol
products. Please oppose any effort to extend the sale of such products to any outlets other than those that
are licensed under current state and local statutes.
Sincerely
John Kysylyczyn
Mayor
� —�
tin
+C1
��°° � Grocers to push winewith dinner
Andrea Stearns
Adopting a "consumer convenience"
sales pitch, the Minnesota Grocers'
Association has launched a concerted
effart to convince the state Legislature
to authorize grocery stores located
within the seven-county metropolitan
area to sell wine. Mimlesota law
currently allows grocery stores to sell
only 3.2 beer. In an attempt to garner
grassroots public support, the Grocers'
Association has developed a web site
(wwwwinewithdinner.net) and has
placed information in the checkout
lanes of inetro-area grocery stores.
Several interested parties, includ-
ing the League of Minnesota Cities,
have voiced strong reservations with
this proposal. Possibly the most
notable area of concern is that an
i:m� expansion of the venues where
January 10, 2001
alcohol is available might increase the
ability of underage persons to obtain
these products.The �'iroce[S'Assotia-
tion has developed a"Grocer Code of
Conduct" in an attempt to address the
youth access concern. Grocery stores
selling wine under this Grocer Code
of Conduct would agree to:
. Comply with all related state and
local laws;
. Post age restrictions;
. Card everyone under age 30;
. Guarantee that all employees who
sell wine are at least age 18;
. Educate newly hired employees;
. Require annual trairung;
. Welcome law enforcement con-
ducted compliance checks;
. Conduct internal compliance
checks; and
. Adopt internal disciplinary policies
with strict consequences.
City officials participating in the
League's policy development process
this past summer and fall identified
youth access to both alcohol and
tobacco products as an issue of
significance. In light of the discussions
of several potential proposals. includ-
ing the idea of authorizing grocery
stores to sell wine, committee mem-
bers crafted a new policy that was
embraced by the full League member-
ship at the Policy Adoption Confer-
ence last November.The policy,
entitled "SD-27.Youth Access to
Alcohol and Tobacco," states: "The
League opposes any proposal that
could result in increased risks of youth
Continued on page 9
�, � � b � -°; � � °' $ °' Cj u
� � � � � � u°. � � '3 ;� ��„ a a i� � o � a ' .�e 'N � �
� � � � � � � � N y � � � � � .� � �y Q O 'V u � ii � y � y �
/''� " ''' � o '^ � ' �G ''� aa a� N � �y �t"'' � O � O � Q 'r G+ �
� �% .�' 4�1 V Qi � .�i vf Q% U Y.ti � CI w b V �i Ir ' V aJ p ii ftl I.d
u � .� •� o � � � ; " Q °�,' � o on o o �. � � o -d 3 � �� o � v
O. � - -o � o
�a t,�, . v � � a, -o ,� -o o N � G �
O�� �� � ie v� v y�' 3 v: w` ~ C' N a� i.~ a�i `y �:; � O p+ v ey `�'
� `� � S U ' 3 c " a a o � H ;; o �. � '� •X �, � .Y°c � �' '� .� .n � �, � ;: o
-C � �s 4, , a, � „ a ea v �
y" � c � O � � � � � � G. � � � � O O � a� � ai ,�y u � c�i O w � � � ��j �
`� � y A. `� C p �. 3 "(�C.� � O, 6A �...� O" O� O w v w'ti N
� O � V 'b Q .i�i 0 � �,[ (y � �.i U � "a � ` � N i+ � �n Q y ' 1-� �+ �"y
� 'CS � `� i3� '� .I' y ,'� �� S�y" O •..`�i .� � M L 'i�' � "D � � � .� N � V "L; � O^ � �
.3 V r�� y a� OA .� u bA � i. � u N y a� �+ „C �j` C �"� cV
= t� C � N .L �'y' � �. ' � � � '�. ... �. � � 0 �, � w C) U" � H SL"• • � O T � OU ^
+� o � O1 �J � ed � � v `" � � G � �." 3 � O � � � � � � �'�'' � C�'� � ~ � `� v Wi
C � � a, ,�'� n � a a °u u °' � �° � o -� ° � 3 on .°' .H 3 ° N ° .� ° a � o
� C �V!( � I �,�
� G
�//� /o�
Page 5
� � -
Response: The League opposes the
legalization of fireworks.
SD-24. 911 Funding
Issue: As cities struggle to afford to
maintain and improve the hardware,
software, and training to provide 911
services, costs continue to rise, and many
cities are forced to choose between bearing
all costs ar making incremental
improvements to their systems.
Response: The League supports
an adequate state funding source for the
upgrades and modifications of 911 and
related systems that will allow cities to
provide effective, reliable emergency
communications services.
SD-25. On-Sale Liquor or Win�e
Licenses to Performing Theaters
and Cultural Centers
Issue: Performing theaters and
cultural centers are not one of the qualifying
entities to which municipalities may issue
on-sale liquor or wine licenses. Several
theaters have received special legislation
that allows their municipalities to issue on-
sale liquor or wine licenses to them. This
practice interferes with the ability of
municipalities to control the placement and
operating manner of these entities.
Response: The Legislature should
authorize municipalities to issue on-sale
liquor or wine licenses to performing
theaters and cultural centers subject to
restrictions imposed by the municipality.
SD-26. City Use of Credit Cards
Issue: Minnesota Law currently
provides implied authority for city use of
credit cards. During the 2000 legislative
session, the Legislature granted explicit
2001 City Policies
statutory authorization for county boards to
authorize officers or employees otherwise
authorized to make purchases to use credit
cards.
Response: The Legislature should
clarify state statute to explicitly authorize
city councils to authorize city officers and
staff otherwise authorized to make
purchases to use credit cards.
SD-27. Youth Access to Alcohol &
Tobacco
Issue: The minimum age to
purchase tobacco in Minnesota is 18. Cities
have an interest in preventing their youth
from obtaining these products. To this end,
many cities operate compliance check
programs in an effort to discern the current
level of youth access and to reduce youth
access.
Response: The League opposes
any proposal that could result in
increased risks of youth access to alcohol
and tobacco products and expanded off-
sale venues for the sale of such products.
The League supports statutory changes
that assist in reducing youth access to
alcohol and tobacco products. The
League supports mandatory alcohol
compliance checks with state funding
initiatives to support locally-determined
compliance efforts.
SD-28. Library Funding
Issue: Many community libraries in
Minnesota are city owned. Although
located in an individual community, city
libraries serve a much wider area. Local
libraries need to be improved in order to
provide access to both written and electronic
media to enhance the educational capacity of
both adults and children.
27
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date:01/22/Ol
Department ApprovaL Manager Reviewed
��// ���
,
Description: Setting Dates for Council Work Sessions
Background
Item No.: c- 4
Agenda Section
Consent
Jerry Oldani from the Oldani firm would like to meet with the Council on February S, 2001 at 6:30
p.m. to discuss the City Manager recruitment process.
The regular Council work session date of February 19 is the President's Holiday. The Council
normally re-schedules the meeting to the following evening, in this case February 20, 2001, at 6:30
P.M.
Council Action
Motion to approve establishment of a Council work session for February 5, 2001 at 6:30 p.m.
and to reschedule the February 19, 2001 work session to February 20, 2001 at 6:30 p.m.
REQUEST FORCOUNCIL ACTION
DATE: 01-22-01
ITEM N� �-5
Iterfi Description: Application for 2001 Contractor's License
r�yc� iva oC�uv� i.
Consent
1�0 Background:
1.1 The City requires that all work in the City be done by licensed contractors.
1.2 Licensing is required for all residential building and remodeling contractors who provide onlv one
service, with exception of residential roofing and manufactured home installer contractors who
must be licensed by the MN Dept. of Commerce. Commercial building and remodeling
contractors are also licensed by the City. The City currently has 171 licensed contractors.
1.3 Licenses are renewed on an annual basis. The licenses cost $25.00 per contractor.
1.4 Attached is a list of contractors who have requested 2001 contractor's licenses.
2.0 Alternatives:
2.1 Approve the list of contractors as listed.
2.2 Deny licenses of any or all of the attached licenses.
3.0 Policy Objectives:
3.1 The licensing of contractors insures that contractors have proper state or local licenses, have the
proper insurance, and complete their work in a workman like manner in conformance with all
codes. The City can deny or revoke a license for noncompliance.
4.0 Financiallmplications:
4.1 Fees are obtained for each contractor license issued.
5.0 Staff Recommendations:
5.1 It is recommended that the City Council approve the issuance of contractors license for all the
contractors shown on the attached list.
6.0 Council Action Requested:
6.1 Motion to approve the issuance of contractors license for those contractors on the attached list.
Staff Report by: Merrilee L'Allle�, Senior Office Assistant, 490-2238
Q:\General Correspondence\MerrlieeLILETTERS\NEWFORM.doc
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
�
�'
�
�
�
�
�'
��
�
�
�
�
�
'�
�
�
�
�
01
01
01
01
101
101
101
01
01
01
01
Asphalt 102
Excavate 100
Excavate 608
Excavate 654
Excavate 66
General 130
General 15
General 169
�General I1 75
General 191
IGeneral 219
General 225
226
�General 2 3 3
General 247
General 251
General 252
General 392
IGeneral 0
�General 47
General 489
General 493
iGeneral 496
�General ` 3
IGeneral 533 --
General 55
General 571
General 581
�General 611
!General 62
General 659
General 60
IGeneral
iGeneral
I�General
lGeneral
IHVAC
HVAC
HVAC
HVAC
HVAC
HVAC
HVAC
HVAC
F
10
104
105
108
113
116
120
13
133
contractor-disp&sub
FRATTALONE PAVING INC.
F. M. FRATTALONE EXCAV. & GRADING
JULIAN M. JOHNSON CONSTR.
EARTH WIZARDS
CARL BOLANDER & SONS CO.
KRAUS ANDERSON CONSTR. CO.
ALBRECHT COMPANIES, INC.
.. ---._.....
NBC INC_
OPUS NORTHWEST, L.L.C.
QUALITY DRYWALL INC.
RYAN COMPANIES � �
RETAIL CONSTRUCTION SERV., INC.
'RAYCi3 CONSTRUCTION INC.
QWE;T W�.RELFSS I I_C.
WALLMASTER HOME IhAP.
ZEMAN CONSTRUCTION CO.
ELSH CONSTRUCTION C01 . Rp
FLANNERY CONSTRUCTION INC.,
BUILDING & PROPERTY SERV. CO.
RAM WEST CONSTRUCTION INC.
CARD CONSTRUCTION
,VIKING CONSTRUCTION INC.
DELLY CONSTR., INC.
BOR-SON BUILDING CORP.
WATSON-FORSBERG CO.
(CARLSON-LAVINE, INC.
�ALLIED ALUM.MFGRS.. wc.
UNITED PROPERTIES
DESIGN 1 OF EDINA, LTD
CY- CON INC._
TECH BUILDERS
FISHER DEVEL�PMENT 1NC,
PATIO TOWN
RENEWAL By ANDERSON, INC.
IL. S. BLACK CONSTR. INC.
- . .�.'•-. �SMAN CONSTRUCTION
VALON BUILDERS
DONLAR CONSTRUCTION CO. �
�F \DVANCED ENERGv SERV., wc.
�FORE MEGkaANJICAL, INC.
�FOUR SEASONS AIR SPECIALISTS
jG.R. MECMAl��CA!
GILBEIRT ,MI
HORWITZ IN
�H. CONTR. INC.
HOFFMAN CORNER HT�G.&A/C
AIR cow,iNC.
KATH HEATING & A/C
Page 1
01/17/2001
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�'
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
ri
�
HVAC
HVAC
HVAC
HVAC
jHVAC
HVAC
! HVAC
HVAC,
HVAC
I, HVAC
HVAC
HVAC
�HVAC
I HVAC
HVAC
HVAC
HVAC
HVAC
I HVAC
HVAC
HVAC
HVAC
HVAC
HVAC
HVAC
IHVAC
� HVAC
�HVAC_
I HVAC
'HVAC
HVAC _
HVAC
HVAC
HVAC
HVAC
HVAC
I HVAC
'�HVAC
HVAC
HVAC
IHVAC
HVAC
! HVAC
134
136
141
146
152
153
157
167
17
�7s
183
186
187
197
20
207
216
'224
229
238
'249
275
287
3
300
3�
'341
356
/360
1364
369
381
386
418
425
460
14�7
500
509
52
520
56
565
578
contractor-disp&sub
KRINKIE HEATING & A/C
LBP MECHANICAL INC.
WENZEL HTG. & AIR COND. INC
METROPOLITAN MECHANICAL CONTR.
MCQUILLAN BROS. PLUMBING & HTG.
MCGUIRE & SONS PLBG. & HTG.
MASTER MECHANICAL
NORTHVVEST SHEETMETAL CO.
APOLLO HTG. & VENT. CORP. �
O°KEEFE MECHANICAL INC.
P.R.S. MECHANICAL INC.
P& H SERVICES CO., INC.
STANDARD HEaTiNG & A/C co.
ALLANIVIECF�HANICAL INC.----
SUPERIOR CONTRACTORS INC.
ST. MPIIRIE�FIEET METAL INC.
�ROUSE MECHANICAL INC. __m _
�IRON'S MECHANICAL INC. �
�
RICCAR NEATING & A/C
�THERMEX CORPORATION
1TWIN CITY FURNACE CO., INC.
�1(ALE INCORPORATED
ROYALTON HT�. & coo�iNc
-- -- - --- - - -- — -
�MASTER GAS FITTER
ALLIANCE MECHANICAL SERVICES
SNELLING COMPANY, THE
AIR CONDITIONING ASSOC., INC.
FAIRCON SERVICE
`TOTAL MECHANICAL SERVICES, INC
SCHADEGG MECHANICAL INC.
IALBERS Sl-iEET 1�UETAL � V�L�T INC.
IRIVER CITY SHEET METAL INC.
�AIR MECHANICAL INC~� �
__ _ _ _- —. . �
;FOREMOST MECHANICAL CORP.
EXCEL AIR SYSTEMS INC.
FISHER SHEETMETAL CO., INC.
IOUTDOOR COOKING STORE, THE
'H1MEC
�CUSTOM REFRIGERATION INC.
iWHITE BEAR MECHANICAL
BONFE'S PLUMBING & HTG.
SOUTHTOWN REFRIGERATION
�CONTROLLED AIR
ENZ-RYAN PLBG. & HTG.
ST. PAUL PLBG. & HTG.
�LOFGREN HTG. & A/C
Page 2
01 /17/2001
contractor disp&sub 01/17/2001
101 HVAC 60 CENTRAIRE IiTG. & AIR I�VC.
101 HVAC 648 TOTAL AIR SUPPLY INC
101 HVAC 656 FIRE WORKS FIREPLACE INSTALL
101 HVAC 658 METRO SHEET METAL INC.
101 HVAC 664 ARNE'S ENTERPRISES, 1NC.
101 HVAC 67 C.O. CARLSON AIR COND. CO.
101 HVAC 676 WHELAN-DAVIS CO.
101 HVAC 679 ALLIANT MECHANICAL
101 HVAC 681 LITTLE IGLOO HVAC INC
101 HVAC 7 �ASSOCIATED MECH. CONTR. INC.
101 HVAC 87 jDEPENDABLE INDOOR AIR QUALITY
101 HVAC 94 EGAN MECHANICAL CONTR., INC.
101 Masonry 200 STEENBERG-WATRUD CONSTR. LTD.
101 Masonry 246 WAYNE CONCRETE
101 Masonry 296 FLOYD E. ANDERSON CEMENT
101 Masonry 97 E. L. BULACH CONSTR. CO., INC
101 IPlumbing 132 KRAMER MECHANICAL INC.
101 Plumbing 148 MID CITY MECHANICAL CORP.
101 Plumbing 16 AL'S MASTER PLBG. INC.
101 'Plumbing '199 SEITZ BROS. INC.
101 Plumbing 2 AAA-ABBOTT PLBG. & HTG. INC.
101 Plumbing 204 SWANSON & SCHIAGER PLBG. CO.
101 'Plumbing 217 ROSEVILLE PLUMBING & HTG., INC.
101 IPlumbing 218 RANDY LANE & SONS PLBG. & HTG.
101 Plumbing 222 RAYMOND E. HAEG PLBG., INC,
101 �Plumbing 241 VOSON PLUMBING INC.
101 Plumbing 301 BOB'S CIRCLE PLUMBING
101 Plumbing 304 STEINKRAUS PLUMBING INC.
101 �Plumbing 353 SOUTHTOWN PLUMBING, INC.
101 Plumbing 362 MR.ROOTER
101 �'Plumbing �371 �TSCHIDA BROS.
- -_ - --
101 Plumbing 377 JERRY'S PLUMBING
101 Plumbing 429 MIDWAY MECHANICAL
101 ;Plumbing 44 BUCHMAN PLUMBING CO., INC.
101 Plumbing 473 PLUMBING PLUS
101 Plumbing 492 KELLY PLUMBING
101 ;Plumbing 515 STATE MECHANICAL INC.
101 IPlumbing 522 PEAK MECHANICALL
�o� IPlumbing 550 iPIPERIGHT PLUMBING
101 ;Plumbing �585 'iLEVAHN BROTHERS INC.
101 Plumbing 591 JOHN MEYERS PLUMBING
101 Plumbing 592 NORTHRIDGE PLBG. CO.
101 Plumbing 661 GEEHAN PLUMBING COMPANY
101 iPlumbing 669 SCHADER HOLE PUSHING & PLBG.
101 Plumbing 671 A. R. E. PLUMBING
101 Plumbing 675 IKISSNER PLUMBING & HTG.
101 IPlumbing '71 COMMERCIAL PLBG. & HTG., INC.
Page 3
contractor-disp&sub 01/17/2001
101 Plumbing 74 CENTURY PLUMBING INC.
101 Plumbing 85 DAKOTA PLUMBING
101 Roofing 154 MCPHILLIPS BROS. ROOFING C0.
101 Roofing 185 PETERSON BROS. ROOFING
101 Roofing 253 B& B SHEET METAL & ROOFING INC.
101 Roofing 38 BERWALD ROOFING
101 ;Roofing 59 CENTIMARK CORPORATION
101 ISew/Wat 195 SCHULTIES PLUMBING INC.
101 Sew/Wat 235 UNITED WATER & SEWER CO.
101 Sew/Wat 240 VILLAGE PLUMBING INC.
101 ISew/Wat 466 CARLSON SEWER & WATER CO, INC
101 Sew/Wat 483 VALLEY-RICH CO., INC.
101 Sew/Wat 63 C. W. HOULE,
101 Sew/Wat 677 HUSNIK SEWER SERV.
101 Sign 127 JONES SIGN COMPANY
101 iSign 164 ,NORDQUIST SIGN CO.
101 �Sign �193 SUBURBAN LIGHTING INC.
101 Sign 205 SCHAD-TRACY SIGNS, INC.
101 �Sign 208 SIGNART COMPANY
101 jSign 327 'LAWRENCE SIGN ACQUISTION, LLC
101 'Sign 358 UNIVERSAL SIGNS
101 �Sign '375 CROSSTOWN SIGN, INC.
101 Sign 383 ARROW SIGN CO.
101 ,Sign 465 LACROSSE SIGN CO., INC.
101 iSign 653 STILLWATER SIGN CO.
101 !Sign 76 CONTACT SIGNS INC.
101 '�Tree 184 IPRECISION LANDSCAPE & TREE
101 ;Tree �196 S& S TREE SPECIAUSTS INC.
101 ___+T•A .� 25 _ ai cN itir _
101 'Tree 518 /CENTRAL MN TREE SERVICE
101 ��Tree 678 IRAINBOW TREE C0. �
101 Water 544 RITE-WAYWATERPROOFING
Page 4
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: Ol/22/O1
Item No.: C-6
Department ApprovaL Manager Reviewed Agenda Section
� � Consent
Description: Renewal of Business Licenses for 2001
Background
Chapter 301 of the City Code requires all applications for business licenses to be submitted to the
City Council for consideration. The following applications await council action.
Fuddruckers
2740 N. Snelling Ave.
Amusement Devices (8)
Metro Disposal, Inc
Solid Waste and Recycling
Financial Implications
The correct fees were paid to the City at the time the applications were made.
Staff Recommendations
The City staff has reviewed the applications and has determined that all the applicants meet City
requirements.
Council Action
Motion approving the above license applications.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: 1 /2212001
Item Number: C— 7
Department Approval:
�
1�Ianager Reviewed:
Description: Approval of payments
Action Requested:
The following claims and payment of the total amounts be approved:
1291-1292 $1,023.75
1293-1296 768.80
8130-8169 279,734.53
8170-8317 544,510.13
8318-8416 493,219.45
8473-8527 120.95420
Total $1,440,210.86
Agenda Section:
Consent Agenda
CITY OF ROSEVILLE Accounts Payable Printed: O1/03/O1 11:15
User: bdavitt Checks for Approval
Check Number Check Date FundName
1291 Ol/03/2001 General Fund
1292 O1/03/2001 General Fund
Account Name
Miscellaneous
Training
Vendor Name
Halleland, Lewis, et al
I 1 I►■ Z I I►` y r C � I��: � I]
Check Total:
Check Total:
Report Total:
Yage 1
Amount
933.75
933.75
90.00
90.00
1,023.75
CITY OF ROSEVILLE Accounts Payable Printed: O1/16/O1 16:23
User: bdavitt Checks for Approval
Check Number Check Date FundName
1293 Ol/OS/2001 Municipal Jazz Band
1294 O1/09/2001 General Fund
1295 fll/12/2001 Firstar Loan Program T.I.F.
1296 O1/12/2001 Recreation Fund
Account Name
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Advertising
Operating Supplies
Vendor Name
Champp's
UPS
BARNES & NOBLE
TROLLHAUGEN
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Report Total:
Page 1
Amount
620.45
620.45
7.07
7.07
37.28
37.28
104.00
104.00
768.80
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
User: �"r
Check Number Check Date Fund Name
8130 O1/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8131 O1J05/2001 General Fund
8132 O1/OS/2001 Roseville Visitors Association
8133 O1/OS/2001 Municipal Jazz Band
8134 01/OS/2001 General Fund
8135 O1l0512001 General Fund
8136 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8137 O1/OS/2001 Community Development
8138 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8139 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8140 O1/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8141 O1/OS/20Q1 Roseville Visitors Association
8142 Ol/OS/2001 Recreation Facilities
8143 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8144 Oj/0S/2��1 General Fund
8145 01/05/2001 General Fund
8146 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8147 O1/OS/2001 Sanitary Sewer
8148 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8149 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
Accounts Payable
Checks for Approval
Account Name
Insurance
Memberships & Subscriptions
Rental
Operating Supplies
Memberships & Subscriptions
Worksession Expenses
Memberships 1� Subscriptions
Memberships & Subscriptions
Memberships $ Subscriptions
Memberships & Subscriptions
Operating Supplies
Conferences
Payment to Owners
Memberships & Subscriptions
Memberships & Subscriptions
Training
Memberships & Subscriptions
Metro Waste Control Board
Memberships & Subscriptions
Memberships & Subscriptions
Vendor Name
Acordia
Check Total:
Assoc of Metro Municipality
Check Total:
Bradley Operating Ltd Partners
Check Total:
Lonnie Brokke
Check Total:
City Business
City of Roseville
Dispute Resolution Center
EDAM
Fue Engineering
GASB
Douglas Hefti
Heritage Clubs International
Martha Houle
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
InYI Assoc of Chief of Police
Check Total:
Int'1 City/County Mgmt Assoc
Check Total:
Law Enforcement Opportunities
Check Total:
M.A.U.M.A
Check Total:
MCES
Check Total:
MCPA
Check Total:
Metro Chief Officers Assoc
Check Total:
i
Printed: U1lO5J01 14:26
Amount
1,522.60
1,522.60
i,n1.00
7,721.00
1,264.21
1,264.21
620.45
620.45
85.00
85.00
150.00
150.00
500.00
500.00
175.00
175.00
99.7 5
99.7 5
128.00
128.00
70.00
70.00
575.00
575.00
22,SQ0.00
22,500.00
100.00
100.00
480.00
480.00
325.00
325.00
30.00
30.00
159,335.40
159,335.40
30.00
30.00
100.00
100.00
Page 1
CITY OF ROSEVII,LE
User: KaraT
Check Number Check Date FundName
8150 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8151 O1J05/2001 General Fund
8152 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8153 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8154 O1/OS/2001 Water Fund
8155 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8156 O1/OS/2001 License Center
8157 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
815 8 O 1/05/2001 General Fund
8159 01/05J2001 General Fund
8160 O1/OS/2p01 General Fund
8161 O1/OS/20Q1 Water Fund
8162 O1/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8163 O1/OS/2001 Community Development
8164 O1/OS/2001 Water Fund
8165 O1/OS/2001 Roseville Visitors Association
8166 O1/OS/2001 Roseville Visitors Association
8167 O1/OS/2041 General Fund
8167 O1/OS/2001 General Fu[�d
816 8 O 1105/2001 General Fund
8169 O1/OS/2001 Recreation Facilities
Accounts Payable
Checks for Approval
Account Name
Training
Conferences
Memberships 8� Subscriptions
Memberships & Subscriptions
State surcharge . Water
Memberships & Subscriptions
Memberships & Subscriptions
Memberships & Subscriptions
Memberships & Subscriptions
Professional Services
Training
Contract Maintenance
Operating Supplies
Memberships & Subscriptions
Memberships & Subscriptions
Memberships & Dues
Memberships & Dues
Training
Conferences
Memberships & Subscriptions
Payment to Owners
Vendor Name
Millersville U of Pennsylvania
Check Total:
Minnesota CLE
Check Total:
Minnesota Taxpayers Assoc
Check Total:
MN Chiefs of Police ASSOC18t10
Check Total:
MN Dept of Health
Check Total:
MN State Fire Dept Association
Check Total:
NADSC
Check Total:
National League of Cities
Check Total:
Natl Volunteer Fue Council
Check Total:
Northwest Youth & Family Serv.
Check Total:
ProSource Educational Serv.
Check Total:
Radi� Corporation
Check Total:
Roseville Area Schools #623
Check Total:
Sensible Land Use Coalition
Check Total:
Dana Stevens
Check Total:
Tour Minnesota Association
Check Total:
Travel Industry Assoc of Amer
Check Total:
University of Mn
University of Mn
Check Total:
Wall Street Journal
Check Total:
Hemian H Zuettel Jr
n
Printed: O1/OS/O1 14:26
Amount
295.00
295.00
185.00
185.00
125.00
125.00
150.00
150.00
12,987.23
12,9A'i.23
275.00
275.00
55.00
55.00
2,575.00
2,575.00
50.00
50.00
42,658.00
42,658.00
218.00
218.00
189.89
189.89
1 .00
1 .00
200.00
200.00
19.00
19.00
250.00
250.00
525.00
525.00
245.00
245.00
490.00
175.00
175.00
22,500.00
Page 2
CITY OF ROSEVILLE Accounts Payable Printed: O11p5/O1 14:26
User: KaraT Checks for Approval
Check Number Check Date Fund Name
Account Name
Vendor Name
Check Total:
Report Total:
Amount
22,500.00
279,734.53
Page 3
CITY OF ROSEVIL,LE
User: KaraT
Check Number Check Date Fund Name
8170 Ol/OS/2001 Community Development
8171 O1/OS/2001 Permanent Improvements
8172 O1/OS/2001 Water Fund
8173 O1/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8174 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8175 O1/OS/2001 Water Fund
8176 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8176 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8177 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8177 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8178 O1/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8178 Ol/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8178 O1/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8179 Ol/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8180 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8180 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8181 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8181 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8181 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8182 Ol/OS/2001 General Fund
8183 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8183 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8184 O1/OS/2001 License Center
8185 U1/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8185 Ol/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
Accounts Payable
Checks for Approval
Account Name
Professional Services
Fire Station # 3 Restoration
Operating Supplies
Transportation
Training
Operating Supplies
Telephone
Telephone
Training
Training
Fee Program Revenue
Non Fee Program Revenue
Fee Program Revenue
Transportation
Contract Maintenance Vehicles
Contract Maintenance Vehicles
Office Supplies
Office Supplies
Office Supplies
HCMA • Medical Exp. Deductions
Day Care Expense Deductions
HCMA - Medical Exp. Deductions
Contract Maintenance
Non Fee Program Revenue
Fee Program Revenue
Vendor Name
A-1 Walsh Inc
Check Total:
Aero Drapery and Blind
Check Total:
American Water Works Assoc
Check Total:
Anfang Jill
Check Total:
A.noka County Sherrifs Office
Check Total:
Astro Controls Inc
Check Total:
AT & T Business Service
AT & T Business Service
Check Total:
Augies Catering
Augies Catering
Check Total:
Thomas Bachelder
Thomas Bachelder
Thomas Bachelder
Check Total:
Gerald Barriault
Check Total:
Bearcom
Bearcom
Check Total:
Jerome Beck
Jerome Beck
Jerome Beck
Check Total:
Baron Behning
Check Total:
Cathy Bennett
Cathy Bennett
Check Total:
Brite-Way
Check Total:
Jan Brudvig
Jan Brudvig
U
Printed: O1/OS/O1 16:51
Page 1
Amount
798.75
798.75
3,391.13
3,391.13
43.75
43.75
57.20
57.20
479.25
479.25
1,010.56
1,010.56
3.10
3.24
6.34
93.08
97.98
191.06
5.00
87.00
5.00
97.00
23.40
23.40
300.00
190.00
490.00
5.31
43.51
2.75
51.57
544.33
544.33
597.75
61.52
659.27
19.50
19.50
87.00
5.00
CITY OF ROSEVIL,LE Accounts Payable Printed: O1/OS/O1 16:51
User: KaraT Checks for Approval
Check Number Cheek Date Fnnd Name
8186 Ol/OS/2001 General Fund
8186 Ol/OS/2001 General Fund
8186 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8186 Ol/OS/2001 General Fund
8186 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8186 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8186 01/OS/2001 General Fund
8186 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8186 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8186 Ol/OS/2001 General FUtld
8186 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8187 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8188 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8189 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8190 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8190 01/OS/2001 General Fund
8191 Ol/OS/2001 Water Fund
8192 O1/OS/2001 General Futtd
8193 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
Sanitary Sewer
Water Fund
8194 Oi/OS/2001
8195 Ol/OS/2001
8196 O1/OS/2001
8196 Ol/OS/2001
8197
8197
8198
8198
ovosizooi
O1/OS/2001
O1/OS/2001
O1/OS/2001
Charitable Gambling
Charitable Gambling
Larpentuer Ave. Streetscape
Larpentuer Ave. Streetscape
Sanitary Sewer
Water Fund
Account Name
Vehicle Supplies
Vehicle Supplies
Vehicle Supplies
Vehicle Supplies
Vehicle Supplies
Vehicle Supplies
Vehicle Supplies
Vehicle Supplies
Vehicle Supplies
Vehicle Supplies
Vehicle Supplies
Employee Recognition
Vehicle Supplies
Contract Maintenance
Vehicle Supplies
Vehicle Supplies
Operating Supplies
Training
Vehicle Supplies
Sanitary Sewer
Water -Roseville
Professional Services . Bingo
Professional Services - Bingo
Professional Services
Professional Services
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Vendor Name
Check Total:
13umper '1'0 13umper
Bumper To Bumper
Bumper To Bumper
13umper '1'0 13umper
13umper '1'0 13umper
13umper '1'0 13umper
Bumper To Bumper
Bumper To Bumper
13umper '1'0 13umper
13umper '1'0 13umper
13umper '1'0 13umper
Check Total:
Byerly's
Check Total:
Capitol City Welding Supply In
Check Total:
Capitol Communications
Check Total:
Catco
Catco
Check Total:
CDS/NEDCO
Check Total:
Century College
Check Total:
Chesley Truck Sales
City of Maplewood
Check Total:
Robert Clobes
Check Total:
Cornell Kahler Kosbab&Shidell
Cornell Kahler Kosbab&Shidell
Check Total:
Dahlgren Shazdlow and Uban
Dahlgren Shatdlow and Uban
Check Total:
Davies Water Equipment
Davies Water Equipment
Amount
92.00
-63.83
-119.42
-311.54
133.20
73.86
31.94
89.41
118.43
163.43
24.23
82.98
222.69
64.99
64.99
20.40
20.40
62.87
62.87
22.96
80.51
103.47
383.32
383.32
786.66
786.66
55.16
55.16
8,672.23
8,672.23
8.65
8.65
465.44
290.90
756.34
2,677.76
1,449.18
4,126.94
81.04
81.04
Page 2
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
User: KardT
Check Number Check Date Fund Name
8199 O1/OS/2001 EPA Grant Twin Lakes Pkwy
8200 O1/OS/2001 Water Fund
8201 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8202 O1/OS/2001 Sanitary Sewer
8202 O1105/2001 Sanitary Sewer
8203 O1/OS/2001 Police Auto The$ Grant
8204 01/05/2001 General Fund
8205 O1/OS/2001 Water Fund
8206 01/05/2001 Recreation Fund
8207 Ol/OS/2001 Water Fund
8208 O1/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8209 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8209 O1/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8209 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8209 01/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8209 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8209 O1/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8210 O1/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8210 O1/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8211 O1/OS/2001 Water Fund
8212 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8213 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8213 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8213 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8213 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
Accounts Payable
Checks for Approval
Account Name Vendor Name
Check Total:
Professional Services DPRA
Check Total:
Water - Roseville Atthur Eggum
Check Total:
Contract Maintenance Vehicles Emergency Apparatus MalAteAaI1C
Check Total:
Miscellaneous Revenue Metropolitan Council Envuonmental Servi
Sewer SAC Charges Metropolitan Council Envuonmental Servi
Check Total:
Furniture � Fixtures Featherlite E�ibits
Check Total:
HCMA . Medical Exp. Deductions Dean Findell
Check Total:
Water - Roseville Thomas Fish
Check Total:
Professional Services Kay Foster
Check Total:
Water . Roseville Dawn Foster-Hartnett
Check Total:
Operating Supplies Fra-Dor
Check Total:
Clothing G � K Services
Rental G � K Services
Clothing G & K Services
Rental G � K Services
Clothing G $� K Services
Rental G & K Services
Check Total:
Clothing G� K Services Team Wear
Clothing G� K Services Team Wear
Check Total:
Water - Roseville Carol Garman
Check Total:
HCMA . Medical Exp. Deductions Michael Garvin
Check Total:
Vehicle Supplies Genuine Parts-Napa
Vehicle Supplies Genuine p�-Napa
Vehicle Supplies Genuine Parts-Napa
Vehicle Supplies Genuine Parts-Napa
Printed: O 1/OS/O 1 16:51
Amount
162.08
6,028.86
b,028.86
7.97
7.97
860.96
860.96
-902.00
90,200.00
89,298.0(}
2,523.95
2,523.95
77.35
77.35
73.77
73.77
615.36
615.36
63.44
63.44
170.00
170.00
14.57
14.57
14.57
14.57
14.57
14.57
87.42
247.50
134.35
381.85
143.88
143.88
300.00
300.00
5.95
21.66
38.40
5.95
Page 3
CITY OF ROSEVIL,LE
User: KataT
Check Number Check Date Fund Name
8213 0 1/OS/2001 General Fund
8213 Ol/OS/2001 General Fund
8214 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8215 O1/OS/2001 Water Fund
8216 011OS/2001 Water Fund
8217 O1/OS/2001 License Center
8218 O1/OS/2001 Water Fund
8219 O1/OS/2001 Plant Fund
8219 O1/OS/2001 Plant Fund
8219 O1/OS/2001 Plant Fund
8219 O1/OS/2001 Plant Fund
8219 O1/OS/2001 Plant Fund
8219 O1/OS/2001 Plant Fund
8219 O1/OS/2001 Plant Fund
8219 O1/OS/2001 Plant Fund
8219 O1/OS/2001 Plant Fund
8219 O1/OS/2001 Plant Fund
8219 O1/OS/2001 Plant Fund
8219 O1/OS/2001 Plant Fund
8219 O1/OS/2001 Plant Fund
8219 O1/OS/2001 Plant Fund
8219 O1/OS/Z001 Plant Fund
8219 O1/OS/2001 Plant Fund
8219 O1/OS/2001 Plant Fund
8219 O1/OS/2001 Plant Fund
8219 O1/OS/2001 Plant Fund
8219 O1/OS/2001 Plant Fund
8219 O1/OS/2001 Plant Fund
8220 O1/OS/2001 Water Fund
8221 O1/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8221 O1/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8221 O1/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
Accounts Payable
Checks for Approval
Account Name
Vehicle Supplies
Vehicle Supplies
Vehicle Supplies
Water .Roseville
Water �Roseville
Transportation
Water Meters
Rental - Copier Machines
Rental • Copier Machines
Rental . Copier Machines
Rental - Copier Machines
���] . Copier Machines
Rental - Copier Machines
Rental . Copier Machines
Rental . Copier Machines
Rental • Copier Machines
Rental - Copier Machines
Rental - Copier Machines
Rental . Copier Machines
Rental - Copier Machines
Rental . Copier Machines
Rentat • Copier Machines
Rental - Copier Machines
Rental . Copier Machines
Rental . Copier Machines
Rental � Copier Machines
Rental . Copier Machines
Rental - Copier Machines
Water -Roseville
Non Fee Program Revenue
Fee Program Revenue
Fee Program Revenue
Vendor Name
Genuine p�_Napa
Genuine PArts-Napa
GOA Co
Robert Gramstad
Michelle Grell
Terre Heiser
Hydro Supply Co
Ikon Office Solutions
Ikon Office Solutions
Ikon Office Solutions
Ikon �ce Solutions
Ikon Office Solutions
Ikon Office Solutions
Ikon Office Solutions
Ikon Office Solutions
Ikon Office Solutions
Ikon Office Solutions
Ikon Office Solutions
Ikon Office Solutions
Ikon Office Solutions
Ikon Office Solutions
Ikon Office Solutions
Ikon Office Solutions
Ikon Office Solutions
Ikon Office Solutions
Ikon Office Solutions
Ikon Office Solutions
Ikon Office Solutions
A Johnson
Camille Johnson
Camille Johnson
Camille Johnson
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Printed: O1/OS/O1 16:51
Amount
7.63
16.70
96.29
403.17
403.17
33.69
33.69
25.86
25.86
40.30
40.30
1,875.78
1,875.78
549.84
931.88
1,519.23
479.35
592.50
592.50
875.00
1,430.85
172.00
107.44
441.29
592.50
875.00
1,658.88
172.00
918.13
592.50
875.00
1,696.50
172.00
-7,048.11
8,196.28
26.43
26.43
87.00
3.00
5.00
Page 4
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
User: KataT
Check Number Check Date Fund Name
g222 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8223 O1/OS12001 Recreation Fund
8223 Ol/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8223 O1/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8224 O1/OS/2001 P1antFund
8225 O1/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8225 O1/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
g22( O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8227 Ol/OS/2001 General Fund
8228 O1/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8229 O1/OS/2001 EPA Grant Twin Lakes Pkwy
8230 O1/OS/2001 Water Fund
823 1 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8232 O1/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8233 Ol/OS/2001 Water Fund
8234 O1/OS/2001 Water Fund
8235 Ol/OS/2001 Risk Management
8235 O1/OS/2001 Risk Management
8236 Ol/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8237 Ol/OS/2001 Water Fund
8238 Ol/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8238 O1/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8238 Ol/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
Accounts Payable
Checks for Approval
Account Name
HCMA � Medical Exp. Deductions
Non Fee Program Revenue
Fee Program Revenue
Fee Program Revenue
Other Improvements
Furniture & Fi�tures
Furniture 8c Fi�tures
HCMA • Medical Exp. Deductions
Professional Services
Advertising
Professional Services
Water . Roseville
Day Care Expense Deductions
Rental
Water - Roseville
Water . Roseville
Community Development Claims
Police Patrol Claims
Transportation
Water • Roseville
Non Fee Program Revenue
Fee Program Revenue
Fee Program Revenue
Vendor Name
Check Total:
Doug Johnson
Check Total:
Mary Johnson
Mary Johnson
Mary Johnson
Check Total:
K2 Corporation
Check Total:
Kaiser Manufacturing, Inc.
Kaiser Manufacturing, Inc.
Check Total:
Karl Keel
Check Total:
Kern, DeWenter, Viere, LTD.
Check Total:
Key Enterprises LLC
Check Total:
Jana King
Check Total:
Bob and/or Pat Koehn
Check Total:
Amy Kolasa
Check Total:
Konica Business Technologies
Check Total:
G. Kurt Kramer
Check Total:
Kurt V. LaBresh
Check Total:
League of MN Cities Insurance
League of MN Cities Insurance
Check Total:
Lee Lines Inc
Check Total:
Kevin Lettengarver
Check Total:
Shyang-Yun Lin
Shyang-Yun Lin
Shyang-Yun Lin
Printed: O 1/OS/O1 16:51
Page 5
Amount
95.00
220.00
220.00
87.00
3.00
5.00
95.00
475.00
475.00
601.73
685.86
1,287.59
399.08
399.08
600.00
600.00
424.00
424.00
250.00
250.00
38.14
38.14
200.00
200.00
346.13
346.13
45.20
45.20
15.45
15.45
4,392.64
300.74
4,693.38
457.00
457.00
3.37
3.37
87.00
3.00
5.00
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
User: KataT
Check Number Check Date Fund Name
8239 O1/OS/2001 Water Fund
8240 01/OS/2001 General Fund
8240 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8241 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8242 O1/OS/2001 Golf Course
8243 O1/OS/2001 Water Fund
8244 Ol/OS/2001 Sanitary Sewer
8245 01/OS/2001 General Fund
8245 O1/OS/2001 GeneralFund
8245 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8246 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8246 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8247 O1/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8248 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8248 Ol/OS/2001 Sanitary Sewer
8249 O1/OS/2001 GeneralFund
8249 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8249 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8249 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8249 01/OS/2001 General Fund
8249 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8249 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8249 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8249 Ol/OS/2001 General Fund
8249 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8249 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8250 O1lOS/2001 Storm Drainage
8250 01/OS/2001 Storm Drainage
Accounts Payable
Checks for Approval
Account Name Vendor Name
Water . Roseville Nathan and or Trent Luger
Vehicle Supplies MacQueen Equipment
Contract Maintenance Vehicles MaCQueen Equipment
HCMA . Medical Exp. Deductions Ron Matilla
Operating Supplies MaUtz Paint Co
Water . Roseville Christine McClure
Metro Waste Control Board MCES
Vehicle Supplies MCMaSteC-Cari' Supply Co
Vehicle Supplies McMaster-Carr Supply Co
Vehicle Supplies McMaster-Catr Supply Co
Contract Maintenance Metro Garage Door Co
Contract Maintenance Metro Garage Door Co
Professional Services Metro Volleyball Officials
Telephone Metrocall
Operating Supplies Metrocall
Vehicle Supplies Midway Ford Co
Vehicle Supplies Midway Ford Co
Vehicle Supplies Midway Ford Co
Vehicle Supplies Midway Ford Co
Vehicle Supplies Midway Ford Co
Vehicle Supplies Midway Ford Co
Vehicle Supplies Midway Ford Co
Vehicle Supplies Midway Ford Co
Vehicle Supplies Midway Ford Co
Vehicle Supplies Midway Ford Co
Vehicle Supplies Midway Ford Co
Operating Supplies Minnesota Glove Inc
Operating Supplies Minnesota Glove Inc
Check Tota1:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Printed: O 1/OS/O 1 16:51
Amount
95.00
73.46
73.46
438.54
455.99
894.53
115.3 8
115.3 8
10.86
10.86
26.49
26.49
159,440.00
159,440.00
92.54
48.25
97.00
237.79
1,015.00
242.74
1,257.74
43.00
43.00
8.60
7.52
16.12
508.62
15.40
42.62
5.67
101.24
169.06
48.19
-94.67
94.67
47.89
22.49
961.18
15.23
-4.27
Page 6
CITY OF ROSEVIL,LE
User: KaraT
Check Number Check Date Fund Name
8251 O1lOS/2001 General Fund
8252 O1/OS/2001 Water Fund
8253 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8253 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8254 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8254 Ol/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8255 O1/OS/2001 Water Fund
8256 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8257 O1/05/2001 General Fund
8258 O1/OS/2001 Internal Service . Interest
8259 O1/OS/2001 Roseville Visitors Association
8260 O1/05/2001 Recreation Fund
8261 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8262 O1/OS/2001 Community Development
8263 Ol/OS/2001 Risk Management
8264 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8265 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8266 O1/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8267 O1/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8268 01/OS/2001 Water Fund
8269 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
Accounts Payable
Checks for Approval
Account Name
Memberships & Subscriptions
Water . Roseville
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Vehicle Supplies
Operating Supplies
Water . Roseville
Contract Maint. . City Garage
Vehicle Supplies
Investment Income
Memberships & Dues
Operating Supplies
Contract Maint.- Old City Hall
Electrical Inspections
Police Patrol Claims
Operating Supplies
City Manager Search
Transportation
Rental
Water .Roseville
Vehicle Supplies
Vendor Name
Check Total:
Mn Fire Service Certification
Check Total:
Pat Mogren
Check Total:
Morton Salt
Morton Salt
Check Total:
MTI Distribution
MTI Distribution
Check Total:
Jefirey Mudge
Check Total:
Mulcahy Inc
Check Total:
Nardini Fire Equipment Co, Inc
Check Total:
National City Bank
Check Total:
National Tour Association Inc
Check Total:
Sheila Neuschwonder
Check Total:
NewSCOpe Technologies Inc
Check Total:
North Metro Inspection Inc
Check Total:
0'Leary Auto Body
Check Total:
Office North
Check Total:
The Oldani Group
Check Total:
Bill Olein
Check Total:
On Site Sanitation
Check Total:
Harry Opel
Check Total:
OSI Environmental Inc
Printed: O1/OS/Ol 16:51
Amount
10.96
175.00
175.00
16.10
16.10
1,354.99
656.38
2,011.37
143.44
15.44
158.88
12.70
12.70
795.00
795.00
20.29
20.29
79.25
79.25
550.00
550.00
10.00
10.00
3,075.11
3,075.11
10,559.04
10,559.04
2,254.94
2,254.94
13.72
13.72
6,630.00
6,630.00
46.15
46.15
15.16
15.16
4992
4992
50.00
Page 7
CITY OF ROSEVIL,LE
User: KaraT
Check Number Check Date Fund Name
8270 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8271 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8272 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8273 O1/OS/2001 Golf Course
8274 O1/OS/2001 Community Development
8275 O1/OS/2001 Water Fund
8276 O1lOS/2001 Recreation Fund
8277 O1/OS/2001 T.LF. District # 13
8278 Ol/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8278 O1/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8279 O1/OS/2001 Water Fund
8280 O1/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8281 O1/OS/2001 Special Assmt. Construction
8281 O1/OS/2001 Special Assmt. Construction
g2g2 O1/OS/2001 Water Fund
8283 O1/OS/2001 Water Fund
8284 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8285 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8286 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8287 O1/OS/2001 TIF Economic Development
8288 O1/OS/2001 License Center
Accounts Payable
Checks for Approval
Account Name Vendor Name
Check Total:
Other Improvements Papco Inc
Check Total:
HCMA . Medical Exp. Deductions Thomas Paschke
Check Total:
Vehicle Supplies Peterbilt North
Check Total:
Contract Maintenance Petroleum Maintenance Co.
Check Total:
Professional Services p��sig}l�, LLC
Check Total:
Water . Roseville Kathleen Pope
Check Total:
Professional Services Precision Tree Co
Check Total:
Payment to Owners Presbyterian Homes Of Mn
Check Total:
Professional Services Prowire
Professional Services Prowire
Check Total:
Water . Roseville AnonaRaas
Check Total:
Transportation Eric Razskazoff
Check Total:
Operating Supplies Ritz Camera Centers
Gperating Supplies Ritz Camera Centers
Check Total:
Water . Roseville Harry E. Robinson
Check Total:
Water . Roseville Dawn Rogers
Check Total:
Employee Recognition Rosetown American Legion Post
Check Total:
Employee Recognition Roseville Bakery
Check Total:
HCMA . Medical Exp. Deductions Gerald Ruettimann
Check Total:
Payment to Owners Ryan Companies
Check Total:
Transportation Pam Ryan
Printed: O 1/OS/O 1 16: 51
Amount
50.00
1,810.50
1,810.50
233.31
233.31
7.11
7.11
81.30
81.30
960.00
960.00
51.35
51.35
3,743.48
3,743.48
143,279.18
143,279.18
65.01
65.01
130.02
38.83
38.83
47.45
47.45
9.57
63.31
72.88
57.47
57.47
47.99
47.99
1,399.65
1,399.65
157.44
157.44
699.92
699.92
16,830.OQ
16,830A0
16.25
Page 8
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
User: KaraT
Check Number Check Date Fund Name
8Z89 O1/OS/2001 GeneralFund
8289 Ol/OS/2001 Golf Course
8290 Ol/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8291 01/OS/2001 License Center
8292 Ol/OS/2001 General Fund
8292 Ol/OS/2001 General Fund
8292 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8293 Ol/OS/2001 Community Development
8293 O1/OS/2001 Community Development
8294 Ol/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8295 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8295 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8295 Ol/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8296 O1/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8296 O1/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
8297 Ol/OS/2001 General Fund
8298 Ol/OS/2001 General Fund
8299 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8300 Ol/OS/2001 Recreation Donations
8301 Ol/OS/2001 Water Fund
8302 O1/OS/2001 Golf Course
8303 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8304 O1/OS/2001 Recreation Fund
Accounts Payable
Checks for Approval
Account Name
HCMA . Medical Exp. Deductions
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Miscellaneous
Employee Recognition
Employee Recognition
Miscellaneous Revenue
Building Surcharge
Operating Supplies
Day Care Expense Deductions
HCMA . Medical Exp. Deductions
Transportation
Transportation
Operating Supplies
Professional Services
Memberships $� Subscriptions
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Water . Roseville
Merchandise For Sale
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Vendor Name
Check Total:
Dave Schletty
Dave Schletty
Check Total:
Rick Schultz
Check Total:
Aaron Seeley
Check Total:
Simple To Grand
Simple To Grand
Simple To Grand
Check Total:
State Treasurer
State Treasurer
Check Total:
Steichens Sporting Goods
Check Total:
Charles Stifter
Charles Stifter
Charles Stifter
Check Total:
Karen Stimpson
Karen Stimpson
Check Total:
Doug Strong
Check Total:
Success In Recruiting & Retain
Check Total:
Mark Sulzbach
Check Total:
Superior Products
Check Total:
Paul Swanson
Check Total:
sysco Mn
Check Total:
T A Schifsky
Check Total:
1'arget
Check Total:
Printed: O 1/OS/O1 16:51
Amount
16.25
199.94
30.88
230.82
17.07
17.07
73.78
73.78
409.05
63.90
63.90
536.85
-86.02
4,301.06
4,215.04
36.11
36.11
384.62
300.04
81.58
766.24
177.00
85.09
262.09
375.00
375.00
96.00
96.00
8.56
8.56
308.85
308.85
29.95
29.95
108.21
108.21
166.99
166.99
21.50
21.50
Page 9
CITY OF ROSEVILLE Accounts Payable Printed: O1/OS/O1 16:51
User: j{�aT Checks for Approval
Check Number Check Date Fund Name
8305 O1/OS/2001 License Center
8306 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8306 O1/OS/2001 General Fund
8307
8308
8309
8309
8309
8309
8309
8309
8309
8309
8310
8310
8311
8312
8312
8312
8313
8314
8315
8315
8316
8317
O 1/OS/2001
Ol/OS/2001
O1/OS/2001
O 1/OS/2001
01/OS/2001
Ol/OS/2001
O1/OS/2001
O 1/OS/2001
O1/OS/2001
O1/OS/2001
O 1/OS/2001
Ol/OS/2001
O1/OS/2001
O 1/OS/2001
O1/OS/2001
Ol/OS/2001
O1/OS/2001
O1/OS/2001
O1/OS/2001
Ol/OS/2001
O1/OS/2001
O1/OS/2001
Water Fund
Water Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fun d
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
Sanitary Sewer
General Fund
General Fund
Water Fund
Water Fund
Solid Waste Recycle
Solid Waste Recycle
General Fund
Water Fund
Account Name
Transportation
Day Care Expense Deductions
HCMA - Medical Exp. Deductions
Water • Roseville
Water . Roseville
Op Supplies . City Hall
Op Supplies • City Hall
Op Supplies - City Hall
Op Supplies . City Hall
Op Supplies . City Hall
Op Supplies » City Hall
Op Supplies . City Hall
Op Supplies . City Hall
Vehicle Supplies
Vehicle Supplies
Contract Maintenance
Clothing
Clothing
Clothing
Water . Roseville
Water • Roseville
Professional Services
Professional Services
HCMA • Medical Exp. Deductions
Water » Roseville
Vendor Name
Jill Theisen
Check Total:
Kara Thomas
Kara Thomas
Check T'ptxl;
Alice Thome
Check Tota1:
Gary Tunsky Sr
Check Total:
Twin City Janitor Supply
Twin City Janitor Supply
Twin City Janitor Supply
Twin City Janitor Supply
Twin City Janitor Supply
Twin City Janitor Supply
Twin City Janitor Supply
Twin City Janitor Supply
Check Total:
Twin City Oxygen Co
Twin City Oxygen Co
Check Total:
Twin City Transport & Recovery
Check Total:
Uniforms to You
Uniforms to You
Uniforms to You
Check Total:
P Vadlamudi
Check Total:
Traci Washburn
Check Total:
Waste Management
Waste Management
Check Total:
Dorothy Wrzos
Check Total:
Leonard Yoch
Check Total:
Report Total:
Amount
42.90
42.90
384.62
76.72
461.34
31.00
31.00
52.15
52.15
109.63
57.75
-72.46
160.21
141.57
80.94
56.63
84.14
618.41
60.35
7.20
67.55
35.00
35.00
185.79
189.18
98.38
473.35
27.52
27.52
8.36
8.36
15,732.00
15,732.00
31,464.00
220.21
220.21
30.15
30.15
544,510.13
Page 10
" CITY OF ROS�VILLE Accounts Payable Printed Ql/12(O1 09:42
User: KaraT Checks for Approval
Check Number Check Date Fund Name
8318 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8319 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8320 O1/12/2001 Recreation Improvements
8321
8322
8322
8322
8323
8324
8325
8326
8326
8327
8328
8328
8328
8329
8329
8329
8329
8329
8330
8330
8331
8332
8332
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
01/12/2001
01/12l2001
O1/12/2001
01/12/2001
01I12/2001
O1/12/2001
oinzi�oot
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
01/12/2001
Ol/12/2001
41/12/2001
O1/12/2001
0111212001
oinzi2oot
O1/12/2001
41/12/2001
O1/12/2001
01/12/2001
O1/12/2001
Recreation Fund
General Fund
Community Development
Community Development
General Fund
General Fund
Grass Lake Water Mgmt. Org.
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
Recreation Improvements
Recreation Improvements
Recreation Improvements
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
F'l�St1l' Loan Program T.LF
Fitstar Loan Program T.LF
General Fund
Community Development
Community Development
Account Name
Contract Maintenance Vehicles
Operating Supplies
Professional Services
Operating Supplies
Clothing
Clothing
Clothing
Telephone
Training
Operating Supplies
Contract Maint • City Hall
Contract Maint.- Old City Hall
Transportation
Professional Services
Other Improvements
Professional Services
Professional Services
Professional Services
Professional Services
Professional Services
Professional Services
Payment to Owners
Payment to Owners
Professional Services
Building Permits
Building Surcharge
Vendor Name
Advanced Graphix lnc
Check Total:
Aggregate Industries
Check Total:
American Engineering Testing
Check Total:
Arden Hills Park & Rec
Check Total:
Aspen Mills
Aspen Mills
Aspen Mills
Check Total:
AT & T Business Service
Check Total:
Augies Catering
Check Total:
Barr Engineering Co
Check Total:
Belde Building Maintenance Crp
Belde Building Maintenance Crp
Check Total:
Debra Bloom
Check Total:
Brauer & Associates
Brauer & Associates
Brauer 8t Associates
Check Total:
Brighton Vet Clinic
Brighton Vet Clinic
Brighton Vet Clinic
Brighton Vet Clinic
Brighton Vet Clinic
Check Total:
Carl Bolander & Sons Co
Carl Bolander & Sons Co
Check Total:
City of St Paul
Check Total:
Classic Roofs
Classic Roofs
Amount
194.75
194.75
385.65
385.65
2,800.00
2,800.00
154.62
154.62
31.50
151.65
68.50
251.65
4.67
4.67
78.38
78.38
2,2b7.89
2,2b7.89
340.45
170.75
511.20
26.65
26.65
7g.67
5,568.00
1,100.00
6,746.67
490.00
445.00
475.00
430.00
430.00
2,27o.oa
so,�so.oa
3,016.25
83,766.25
70.00
70.00
88.25
1.75
Page 1
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
User: KataT
Check Number Check Date Fund Name
8333 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8334 01/12/2001 Recreation Fund
8334 Ol/�Zi2001 Recreation Fund
8335 01/12/2001 Community Development
8335 O1/12/2001 Community Development
8336 O1/12/2001 Roseville Visitors Association
8337 01/12/2001 Juvenile Accountability Grant
8338 O1/12l2001 EPA Grant Twin Lakes Pkwy
8339 O1/12/2001 Community Development
8340 41/12l2001 Recreation Fund
8341 Dl/12/2001 General Fund
8341 Ol/12l2401 General Fund
8342 01/12/2001 Storm Drainage
8343 O1/1212001 Recreation Fund
8344 O1/12/2001 Recreation Fund
8344 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8345 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8346 O1/]2/2001 General Fund
8347 O1/1212001 General Fund
8347 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8348 U1/12/2001 Community Development
8348 Ol/12/2001 General Fund
8349 O1/12/2001 General Fund
Accounts Payable
Checks for Approval
Account Name Vendor Name
Check Total:
Operating Supplies Commission on Accreditation
Check Total:
Operating Supplies CrownTrophy
Operating Supplies CrownTrophy
Check Total:
Building Permits Custom Remodelers Inc
Building Surcharge Custom Remodelers Inc
Check Total:
Staff Expenses Corrie Davis
Check Total:
Operating Supplies Kusten Dawson
Check Total:
Professional Services DRPA Envuonmental Inc
Check Total:
Professional Services Eide Bailly
Check Total:
Clothing G&. K Services Team Wear
Check Total:
Clothing Galls Inc
Clothing Galls Inc
Check Total:
Operating Supplies Gateway ACG Inc
Check Total
Vehicle Supplies GCR Truck Tue Centers
Check Total:
Operating Supplies Grainger Inc
Operating Supplies Grainger Inc
Check Total
Op Supplies - City Hall Great Lakes Lighting
Check Total
Operating Supplies Har Mar Lock & Key
Check Total
Motor Fuel Hermann's Mobile Service
Motor Fuel Hermann's Mobile Service
Check Total
Professional Services Jeane Thome Inc.
Professional Services Jeane Thome Inc.
Check Total
HCMA . Medical Exp. Deductions Randy Johnson
Printed: Ol /12/01 09:42
Page 2
Amount
90.00
130.00
130.00
4.97
4.98
9.95
139.25
3.36
142.61
31.30
31.30
75.00
75.00
8,686.53
8,686.53
1,665.40
1665.40
19.80
19.80
239.85
47.97
287.82
210.61
210.61
155.71
155.71
47.61
17.08
64.69
76.68
76.68
10.65
10.65
52.00
56.50
108.50
856.00
348.00
1,204.00
392.44
CITY OF ROSEVII,LE
User: KaraT
Check Number Check Date Fund Name
8350 O1/12/2001 Juvenile Accountability Grant
8351 01/12/2001 General Fund
8352 OU12/2001 General Fund
8353 01/12/2001 Community Development
8353 OU12/2001 EPA Grant Twin Lakes Pkwy
8354 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8 3 5 5 O 1/ 12/2001 General Fund
8356 O1/12/2001 Recreation Fund
83 57 O l/ 12/2001 General Fund
8358 O1/12/2001 Recreation Fund
8358 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8359 01/12/2001 General Fund
8360 O1/12/2001 Community Development
8360 Ol/12/i001 Community Development
8361 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8362 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8362 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8362 O1/12/2�01 General Fund
8362 01/12/2001 Recreation Fund
8362 �1/12/2�01 Recreation Fund
8362 O1/12/2001 Community Development
8362 Ol/12/2001 Community Development
8362 O1/lz/��01 Community Development
8362 O1/12/2001 Community Development
8362 01/12/2001 License Center
8362 01/12/20Q1 Sanitary Sewer
8362 O1/12/2�01 Golf Course
Accounts Payable
Checks for Approval
Account Name
Operating Supplies
Motor Fuel
Day Care Expense Deductions
Professional Services
Professional Services
Operating Supplies
Contract Maintenance
Rental
Training
Operating Supplies
Employee Recognition
Fire & Volunteer Banquets
Advertising
Advertising
HCMA . Medical Exp. Deductions
Telephone
Telephone
Telephone
Telephone
Telephone
Telephone
Telephone
Telephone
Telephone
Telephone
Telephone
Telephone
Vendor Name
Check Total:
John Jorgensen
Check Total:
Kath Fuel Oil Service
Check Total:
Karl Keel
Check Total:
Jana King
]ana King
Check Total:
Kinko's
Check Total:
Knox Lumber
Check Total:
Konica Business Technologies
Check Total:
Law Enforcement Resource Cntr
Check Total:
Lebens Flowers and Greenhouses
Lebens Flowers and Greenhouses
Cheek Total:
Lido's
Check Total:
Lillie Suburban Newspaper Inc
Lillie Suburban Newspaper Inc
Check Total:
John Loftus
Check Total:
MCI Worldcom Network
MCI Worldcom Network
MCI Worldcom Network
MCI Worldcom Network
MCI Worldcom Network
MCI Worldcom Network
MCI Worldcom Network
MCI Worldcom Network
MCI Worldcom Network
MCI Worldcom Network
MCI Worldcom Network
MCI Worldcom Network
Printed: 01 /12/O 1 09:42
Page 3
Amount
392.44
99.75
99.75
8,229.64
8,229.64
3,164.06
3,164.06
2,041 .00
50.00
2,091 .00
205.55
205.55
91.86
91.86
39.41
39.41
1,072.48
1,072.48
68.87
153.19
222.06
1,298.39
1,298.39
195.20
195.20
390.40
399.88
399.88
1.37
4.45
5.86
3.08
1.13
0.64
2.22
10.26
3.82
4.58
1.21
0.24
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
User: KarAT
Check Number Check Date Fund Name
8362 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8362 O1/1Z/2001 General Fund
8362 01/12/2001 General Fund
8362 Ol/12/2001 General Fund
8362 011l2(2001 General Fund
8362 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8362 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8363 Ol/12/2001 General Fund
8364 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8365 O1/12/2001 Recreation Fund
8366 O1/12l2001 General Fund
8367 01/12/2001 Recreation Fund
8368 O1/12/2001 Community Development
8369 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8369 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8369 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8370 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8371 O1/12/2001 Water Fund
8371 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8372 O1/12/2001 Plant Fund
8372 O1/12/2001 Plant Fund
8372 O1/12/2001 P& R Contract Mantenance
8373 O1/12/2001 Recreation Fund
8373 O1/12/2001 Recreation Fund
8374 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8375 41/12/2001 Roseville Visitors Association
Accounts Payable
Checks for Approval
Account Name
Telephone
Telephone
Telephone
Telephone
Telephone
Telephone
Telephone
Operating Supplies
Contract Maintenance Vehicles
Professional Services
Contract Maintenance
Transportation
Printing
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Vehicle Supplies
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Other Improvements
Other Improvements
Electrical Service
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Contract Maintenance
Special Projects
Vendor Name
MCI Worldcom Network
MCI Worldcom Network
MCI Worldcom Network
MCI Worldcom Network
MCI Worldcom Network
MCI Worldcom Network
MCI Worldcom Network
Check Total:
Midwest Children's resource
Check Total:
Mike's Truck & Trailer
Check Total:
Marian Milbridge
Check Total:
Mister Car Wash
Check Total:
Melinda Moe
Check Total:
Monarch Graphics
Check Total:
Morrco
Morrco
Morrco
Check Total:
Municilite Co
Check Total:
Murphys Service Center Inc
Murphys Service Center Inc
Check Total:
Muska Electric Co
Muska Electric Co
MUSka Electric Co
Check Total:
Muska Lighting
Muska Lighting
Check Total:
Nardini Fire Equipment Co, Inc
Check Total:
NewSCOpe Technologies Inc
Check Total:
Printed: O1/12/O1 09:42
Amount
0.05
0.06
32.83
38.11
30.68
203.25
9.18
353.02
42.24
42.24
37.05
37.05
38.64
38.64
103.68
103.68
112.78
112.78
28.58
28.58
143.85
24.99
25.00
193.84
33.55
33.55
9.85
11.18
21.03
175.44
69.95
332.70
578.09
44.86
16.57
61.43
11.15
11.15
28,762.36
28,762.36
Page 4
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
User: KaraT
Check Number Check Date Fund Name
8376 O1/(2/2001 Recreation Fund
8377 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8378 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8379 O1/l2/2001 Community Development
8379 O1/12/2001 Community Development
8380 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8381 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8382 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8383 O1/l2/2001 Water Fund
8384 01/12/2001 Recreation Fund
8 3 8 5 O 1/ I 2/2001 General Fund
8385 O1/12/2001 Roseville Visitors Association
8386 01/l2/2001 General Fund
8386 Ol/12/2001 Community Development
8386 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8386 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8387 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8387 O1/12/2001 Recreation Fund
8387 O1/12/2001 Recreation Fund
8387 O1/l2/2001 Community Development
8387 01/l2/2001 Community Development
8387 �j/1z/20�1 General Fund
8387 OU12/2001 Golf Course
83 87 O1112l2001 General Fund
8387 0�/l2/i�01 General Fund
8387 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8387 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8387 01/l2/2001 General Fund
8387 O1/l2/2001 General Fund
Accounts Payable
Checks for Approval
Account Name Vendor Name
Rental On Site Sanitation
Check Total:
Contract Maint ■ City Hall Owens Services Corp
Check Total:
HCMA . Medical Exp. Deductions Thomas Paschke
Check Total:
Building Surcharge Paul Stai%rd Electric
Electrical Permits Paul Stafford Electric
Check Total:
Operating Supplies Greg Peterson
Check Total:
Advertising Pioneer Press
Check Total:
Professional Services Professional Alternatives
Check Total:
Contract Maintenance Profix
Check Total:
Contract Maintenance Prowire
Check Total:
pERp Employee Deductions Putnam Investment Fiduciary Co
Employer Pension Putnam Investment Fiduciary Co
Check Total:
Professional Services Quicksilver
Professional Services Quicksilver
Professional Services Quicksilver
Professional Services Quicksilver
Check Total:
Telephone Qwest
Telephone Qwest
Telephone Qwest
Telephone Qwest
Telephone Qwest
Telephone Qwest
Telephone Qwest
Telephone Qwest
Telephone Qwest
Telephone Qwest
Telephone Qwest
Telephone Qwest
Telephone Qwest
Printe d: O l/ 12/O 1 09:42
Page 5
Amount
60.65
60.65
1,433.89
1,433.89
61.52
61.52
0.50
110.00
110.50
69.04
69.04
1,266.45
1,266.45
2,304.84
2,304.84
243.92
243.92
180.00
180.00
290.00
180.00
470.00
14.25
12.25
14.25
25.00
65.75
35.34
17.15
36.23
68.50
36.22
45.65
40.34
17.20
64.03
43.40
488.48
267.16
8.71
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
User: KaraT
CheekNumberCheckDate Fund Name
8387 O1/12/2001 Sanitary Sewer
8388 O1/12/2001 General Fund
g 3 g 9 O1/12/2001 TIF Economic Development
8390 01/12/2001 Community Development
8390 fll/12/2001 Community Development
8391 O1l12l2001 General Fund
8391 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8391 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8392 Ol/12{2�1 T.LF. District #16 (IDS #623)
8393 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8394 Ol/12/2001 Singles Program
8395 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8396 O1/12/2001 Charitable Gambling
8397 01/12/2001 Juvenile Accountability Grant
8398 Ol/12/2001 General Fund
g399 01/�i/20�1 Special Assmt. Construction
8400 O1/12/2001 GeneralFund
8401 O1l12/2001 Juvenile Accountability Grant
8402 O1/12/2001 Plant Fund
8402 O1/12/2001 Plant Fund
8403 01l12l2001 General Fund
8404 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8404 01/12/2001 GeneralFund
Accounts Payable
Checks for Approval
Account Name
Telephone
Operating Supplies
Payment to Owners
Heating Permits
Building Surcharge
Vehicle Supplies
Vehicle Supplies
Vehicle Supplies
Payment to Owners
Contract Maintenance
Operating Supplies
Clothing
Professional Services
Operating Supplies
HCMA - Medical Exp. Deductions
Professional Services
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Other Improvements
Other Improvements
Day Care Expense Deductions
Advertising
Advertising
Vendor Name
Qwest
RDJ Specialties Inc
George Reiling
River City Sheet Metal Inc
River City Sheet Metal Inc
R03�a�e Chevrolet
Rosedale Chevrolet
Rosedale Chevrolet
Roseville Area Schools #623
Roseville Radio
Roseville Senior Center
Steve Routhe
Sands, Lee and Anderson Ltd
Marc Schultz
Rick Schultz
SEH
Shaw Lumber Co
Carol Sletner
Springbrook Software
Springbrook Software
Jol'1tId8 Stapleton
Star Tribune
Star Tribune
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Printed: O1/12/01 09:42
Amount
35.07
1,203.48
180.00
180.00
168,602.00
168,602.00
35.00
0.50
35.50
181.49
164.18
-10.13
335.54
133,931.59
133,931.59
31.15
31.15
30.00
30.00
39.20
39.20
1,200.00
1,200.00
121.00
121.00
111.49
111.49
70.33
70.33
73.70
73.70
69.32
69.32
1,000.00
�,soo.oa
2,soo.oa
769.24
769.24
187.50
418.50
Page 6
CITY OF ROSEVILLE Accounts Payable Printed: OU12101 09:42
User: KaraT Checks for Approval
Check Number Check Date Fund Name
8404 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8405 O1/12/2001 Non Motorized Pathways
8405 O1/12/2001 Non Motorized Pathways
8406
8407
8408
8408
8409
8409
8409
8410
8411
8411
8411
8411
8411
8411
8411
8411
8411
8411
8411
8411
8411
8411
8411
8411
8411
8411
8411
8411
8411
8411
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2041
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
01/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
01/12/2001
Ol/12/2001
O1/12/2001
01/12/2001
01/12/2001
Ol/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
pl/12/2001
O 1/12/2001
O 1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
General Fund
General Fund
Telecommunications
Telecommunications
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
D.A.R.E. Program
D.A.R.E. Program
D.A.R.E. Program
D.A.R.E. Program
D.A.R.E. Program
D.A.R.E. Program
D.A.R.E. Program
D.A.R.E. Program
D.A.R.E. Program
D.A.R.E. Program
D.A.R.E. Program
D.A.R.E. Program
D.A.R.E. Program
D.A.R.E. Program
D.A.R.E. Program
D.A.R.E. Program
D.A.R.E. Program
D.A.R.E. Program
D.A.R.E. Program
D.A.R.E. Program
D.A.R.E. Program
D.A.R.E. Program
Account Name
Advertising
Professional Services
Professional Services
Vehicle Supplies
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Vehicle Supplies
Vehicle Supplies
Vehicle Supplies
Professional Services
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Vendor Name
Star Tribune
state of MN
State of MN
Suburban Tire
Systems Supply Inc
Tape Co
Tape Co
Tousley Ford Inc
Tousley Ford Inc
Tousley Ford Inc
Trans Union LLC
TtC&dway Graphics
Treadway Graphics
Treadway Graphics
Treadway Graphics
TTeadway Graphics
Treadway Graphics
Treadway Graphics
Treadway Graphics
Treadway Graphics
Tresdway Graphics
Treadway Graphics
Treadway Graphics
Tresdway Graphics
Treadway Graphics
Treedway Graphics
Tresdway Graphics
Treadway Graphics
Treadway Graphics
Treadway Graphics
TeCadwsy Graphics
Treadway Graphics
Treldway Graphics
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Page 7
Amount
229.50
835.50
231.78
111.51
343.29
127.14
127.14
146.96
146.96
392.24
359.12
751.36
351.85
173.06
-214.42
310.49
37.50
37.50
180.00
487.50
39.00
16.00
4.00
13.00
26.00
75.00
53.25
59.96
30.00
20.00
15.00
9.00
9.00
7.75
4.50
16.00
16.00
11.50
15.00
5.00
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
User: KaraT
Check Number Check Date FundName
8412 O1/12/2001 Storm Drainage
8413 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8413 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8414 O1/1?J2001 General Fund
8414 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8414 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8414 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8414 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8414 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8414 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8414 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8414 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8414 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8414 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8414 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8414 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8414 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8415 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8416 O1/12/2001 Warkers Compensation
Accounts Payable
Checks for Approval
Account Name
Contract Maintenance
Clothing
Clothing
Office Supplies
Office Supplies
Office Supplies
Office Supplies
Printing
Printing
printing
Printing
Printing
Printing
Printing
Printing
Office Supplies
Ot�ice Supplies
Contract Maint • City Hall
Police Patrol Claims
Vendor Name
Tri State Pump & Control Inc
Uniforms Unlimited
Uniforms Unlimited
Unisource
Unisource
Unisource
Unisource
Unisource
Unisource
Unisource
Unisource
Unisource
Unisource
Unisource
Unisource
Unisource
Unisource
Village Plumbing
Walgreen Co
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Report Total:
Printe d: O 1/ 12/O 1 09:42
Amount
1,112.46
360.00
360.00
41.95
1,931.11
1,973.06
1,362.50
2,611.20
76.68
189.22
218.24
205.63
58.02
2,184.46
779.21
459.71
1,763.26
216.39
-9.00
681.49
10,797.01
171.25
171.25
111.34
111.34
493919.45
Page 8
CITY OF ROSEVILLE Accounts Payable Printed: O1/12/01 15:27
User: KaraT Checks for Approval
Check Number Check Date Fund Name
8473 O1/12/2001 Roseville Visitors Association
8474 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8475
8476
8477
8477
8477
8477
8477
8477
8477
8477
8477
8478
8479
8479
8480
8481
8482
8483
8484
8485
8485
8485
8485
8485
8485
8485
Q1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
01/12/2001
01/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O 1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
Ol/12/2001
0l/12/2001
01/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O 1/12/2001
01/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
Plant Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
Recreation Fund
Recreation Fund
Recreation Fund
Golf Course
License Center
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
Recreation Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
Telecommunications
Account Name
Contract Maintenance
Memberships & Subscriptions
Computer Equipment
United Fund Deductions
Contract Maint . City Hall
Contract Maint . City Garage
Contract Maintienace
Contract Maintenance
Contract Maintenance
Contract Maintenance
Contract Maintenance
Contract Maintenance
Contract Maintenance
Contract Maintenance
Vehicle Supplies
Vehicle Supplies
Contract Maintenance
Operating Supplies
Credit Union Deductions
United Fund Deductions
Operating Supplics
Employer Insurance
Employer Insurance
Employer Insurance
Employer Insurance
Employer Insurance
Employer Insurance
Employer Insurance
Vendor Name
A-1 Contract Cleaning
Check Total:
Association of Training Office
Check Total:
Automated Environments
Check Total:
Holly Bauman
Check Total:
BFI Waste System
BFI Waste System
BFI Waste System
BFI Waste System
BFI Waste System
BFI Waste System
BFI Waste System
BFI Waste System
BFI Waste System
Check Total:
Brite-Way
Check Total:
Bumper To Bumper
Bumper To Bumper
Check Total:
Capitol Communications
Check Total:
Chanhassen Dinner Theatres Cor
Check Total:
City & County Credit Union
Check TOtal:
Community Solutions Fund
Check Total:
Copy Equipment Inc
Check Total:
Delta Dental
Delta Dental
Delta Dental
Delta Dental
Delta Dental
Delta Dental
Delta Dental
Amount
154.43
154.43
25.00
25.00
15,000.00
15,000.00
350.00
350.00
65.32
81.90
40.95
23.40
40.95
252.72
47.97
372.06
23.40
948.67
19.50
19.50
73.23
156.53
229.76
58.33
58.33
3 1.00
31.00
14,399.00
14,399.00
13.00
13.00
226.85
226.85
54.75
409.20
20.85
20.85
75.60
20.85
10.43
Page 1
CITY OF ROSEVIL,LE Accounts Payable Printed: O1/12/01 1527
User: KaraT Checks for Approval
Check Number Check Date FundName
8485 01/12/2001 Recreation Fund
8485 O1/12/2001 Recreation Fund
8485 O1/12/2001 Recreation Fund
8485 O1/12/2001 Community Development
8485 O1/12/2001 Community Development
8485 01/12/2001 Community Development
8485 01/12/2001 License Center
8485 O1/12/2001 Charitable Gambling
8485 O1/12/2001 Water Fund
8485 O1/12/2001 Golf Course
8485 O1/12/2001 Storm Drainage
8485 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8485 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8485 O1/12/2001 Wireless Communications
8485 01/12/2001 Cops in School Grant
8485 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8485 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8485 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8485 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8486 O1/12/2001 License Center
8487 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8488 01/12/2001 Recreation Fund
8489 O1/12/2001
8490 O1/12/2001
8490 O1/12/2001
8490 O1/12/2001
License Center
Roseville Visitors Association
Roseville Visitors Association
Roseville Visitors Association
8491 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8492 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8493 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8494 O1/12/2001 Recreation Fund
Account Name
Employer Insurance
Employer Insurance
Employer Insurance
Employer Insurance
Employer Insurance
Employer Insurance
Employer Insurance
Employer Insurance
Employer Insurance
Employer Insurance
Employer Insurance
Hospitalization Deductions
HCMA Insurance Deductions
Employer Insurance
Employer Insurance
Employer Insurance
Employer Insurance
Employer Insurance
Employer Insurance
Contract Maintenance
Memberships $ Subscriptions
Rental
Rental
Conferences
Conferences
Conferences
Deferered Compensation
United Fund Deductions
Deferered Compensation
Rental
Vendor Name
Delta Dental
Delta Dental
Delta Dental
Delta Dental
Delta Dental
Delta Dental
Delta Dental
Delta Dental
Delta Dental
Delta Dental
Delta Dental
Delta Dental
Delta Dental
Delta Dental
Delta Dental
Delta Dental
Delta Dental
Delta Dental
Delta Dental
Check Total:
Electro Watchman
Check Total:
FBINAA Norwest Chapter
Check Total:
G & K Services
Check Total:
Gaughan Properties
Check Total:
Governor's Conference on Tours
Governor's Conference on Tours
Governor's Conference on Tours
Check Total:
Great West
HeAIthFWtt� of MN
ICMA Retirement Trust 457
Independent School Dist #623
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Page 2
Amount
41.70
20.85
91.05
20.85
41.70
20.85
54.75
10.43
20.85
20.85
28.50
268.50
2,337.90
41.70
20.83
75.60
10.43
41.70
10.43
3,792.00
143.78
143.78
60.00
60.00
30.18
30.18
2,000.00
2,000.00
139.00
139.00
139.00
417.00
6,227.69
6,227.69
16.00
16.00
5,705.96
5,705.96
1,993.79
1,993.79
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
User: K8T8T
Check Number Check Date Fund Name
8495 O1/12/2001 Recreation Fund
8496 Ol/12/2001 General Fund
8497 Ol/12/2001 General Fund
8498 O1/12/2001 Risk Management
8499 OU12/2001 General Fund
8500 O1/12/2001 License Center
8501 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8502 Ol/12/2001 General Fund
8503 O1/t2/2001 General Fund
8504 01/12/2001 General Fund
8505 Ol/12/2001 General Fund
8505 Ol/12/2001 General Fund
8505 Ol/12/2001 General Fund
8506 Ol/12/2001 Recreation Fund
8506 Ol/12/2001 Recreation Fund
8507 Ol/12/2001 General Fund
8507 Ol/12/2001 General Fund
8507 Ol/12/2001 General Fund
8507 01/1z/2001 General Fund
8507 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8507 01/12/2001 General Fund
8508 Ol/12/2001 General Fund
8509 Ol/12/2001 General Fund
8510 Ol/12/2001 General Fund
Accounts Payable
Checks for Approval
Account Name
Operating Supplies
Printing
Union Dues Deduction
Community Development Claims
Union Dues Deduction
Memberships & Subscriptions
Memberships & Subscriptions
Rental
Minnesota Benefit Deductions
Memberships & Subscriptions
United Fund Deductions
United Fund Deductions
United Fund Deductions
Memberships & Subscriptions
Memberships & Subscriptions
Memberships � Subscriptions
Memberships & Subscriptions
Memberships 1� Subscriptions
Memberships 1� Subscriptions
Memberships 1� Subscriptions
Memberships 1� Subscriptions
Union Dues Deduction
Memberships & Subscriptions
Advertising
Vendor Name
Johnson's Garage Door service
Check Total:
Kinko's
Check Total:
L.E.L.S
Check Total:
LMC Finance Dept AC
Check Total:
Local Union 49
Check Total:
M.D.R.A.
Check Total:
MEMA
Check Total:
MinnComm
Check Total:
MN Benefit Association
Check Total:
MN Chiefs of Police Assoc
Check Total:
MN Child Support Payment Cntr
MN Child Support Payment Cntr
MN Child Suppart Payment Cntr
Check Total:
Mn Dept of Agriculture
Mn Dept of Agriculture
Check Total:
MN GFOA
MN GFOA
MN GFOA
MN GFOA
MN GFOA
MN GFOA
Check Total:
Mn Teamsters #320
Check Total:
MPELRA
Check Total:
MRPA
Check Total:
Printed: fl]/]2J0115:27
Amount
119.82
119.82
159.75
159.75
1,254.00
1,254.00
17,164.85
17,164,85
755.00
755.08
500.00
500.00
30.00
30.00
45.26
45.26
1,006.23
1,006.23
150.08
150.08
241.50
373.54
239.00
854.04
10.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
180.00
395.00
395.00
150.00
150.00
75.00
75.00
Page 3
CTTY OF ROSEVII,LE Accounts Payable Printed: O1/12/O1 15:27
User: KaraT Checks for Approval
Check Number Check Date Fund Name
8511 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8512 01/12/20A1 General Fund
8513 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8 513 01 /12/2001 General Fund
8514 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8514 01/12/2001 Water Fund
8514 O1/12/2001 Storm Drainage
8514 O1/12/2001 Sanitary Sewer
8515
8515
8515
8515
8515
8515
8515
8515
8515
8516
8517
8518
8518
8519
8520
8521
8522
8522
8523
oi/t2i2ooi
O1/12/2001
Ol/12/2D01
O1/12/2001
O1/12/20(11
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
oti12/200�
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
01/12/2001
01/12/2001
01/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
O1/12/2001
Roseville Visitors Association
Roseville Visitors Association
Recreation Fund
Recreation Fund
Water Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
Recreation Fund
General Fund
Municipal Jazz Band
Recreation Fund
Recreation Fund
License Center
General Fund
Roseville Visitors Association
Recreation Fund
Recreation Fund
General Fund
Account Name
PERA Life Ins. Deductions
Paging Services
PERA Employee Deductions
p�Rq Employers Share
Telephone
Postage
Postage
Postage
Telephone
Telephone
Other services
Telephone
Telephone
Telephone
Telephone
Telephone
Telephone
Memberships & Subscriptions
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Operating Supplies
Contract Maintenance
Memberships & Subscriptions
Magazines
Spectator Admissions
Spectator Admissions
United Fund Deductions
Vendor Name
NCPERS Group Life Ins#7258500
Check Total:
Pagenet
Check Total:
PERA
PERA
Check Total:
Poshnaster
Poshnaster
Poshnaster
Poshnaster
Check Total:
Qwest
Qwest
Qwest
Qwest
Qwest
Qwest
Qwest
Qwest
Qwest
Check Total:
Ratrlsy Co. Chiefs Police Assoc
Check Total:
Richfield Bus Company
Check Total:
Steichens Sparting Goods
Steichens Sparting Goods
Check Total:
Strategic Technologies
Check Total:
Tallen & Baertschi
Check Total:
Telcom Directories
Check Total:
Twin City Suburban Conf
Twin City Suburban Conf
Check Total:
United Way of St Paul
Check Total:
Amount
132.00
132.00
�.si
7.81
15,626.98
20,186.62
35,813.60
2,250.00
209.10
209.10
209.10
2,8'17.30
506.50
82.33
59.32
117.90
57.82
173.46
57.82
253.24
317.94
1,626.33
20.00
20.00
484.00
484.00
20.85
20.84
41.69
798.75
798.75
98.00
98.00
152.50
152.50
196.50
593.50
790.00
113.00
113.00
Page 4
CITY OF ROSEVILLE Accounts Payable Printed: Ol/12/Ol IS:Zi
User: KaraT Checks for Approval
Check Number Check Date Fund Name
8524 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8524 O1/12/2001 General Fund
8524 Ol/12/2001 General Fund
8525 Ol/12/2001 General Fund
8526 Ol/12/2001 General Fund
8527 0111212001 General Fund
Account Name
Memberships 8c Subscriptions
Memberships 8c Subscriptions
Memberships & Subscriptions
Conferences
Telephone
Operating Supplies
Vendor Name
University of Minnesota
University of Minnesota
University of Minnesota
University of Mn
US Postal Service
VARDA Silent Alarnt
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Check Total:
Report Total:
Amount
10.00
10.00
10.00
30.00
210.50
210.50
3,009.so
3,009.50
48.33
48.33
120,954.20
Page 5
REQUEST FOR COUNCII, ACTION Date: O1/22/O1
Item No.: E-1
Department Approval: Manager Reviewed Agenda Section
�'l� �� Organizational Business
Description: Appointment of Council Member To Fill Vacancy
Background
On December 1 1, 2000, Councilman Donn Wiski, submitted his resignation. In accordance with the
Council action, the City has completed the notice to the Community of the vacancy, prepared
application forms and has accepted a total of 9 applications. There were two withdrawals leaving a
candidate pool of 7 applicants.
Applicants were interviewed on Thursday, January 18, 2001 beginning at approximately 5:00 p.m.
Council Action
Motion to approve the appointment of to the City Council position
vacated by Donn Wiski with the term to run through December 3 1, 2001
Department Approval:
�
Item Description:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
1�Ianager Reviewed:
DATE: l l22/0 1
ITEM NO.: E- 2
Agenda Section:
Organizational Business
V'
Appointment of Task Force Members - County Road C Urban Design
Master Plan
Background: As part of its capital improvements program, Ramsey County plans to reconstruct
County Road C, from I35W to O�ord Street (just east of Le�ngton Avenue). This project is
proposed to be constructed in two segments -- I35W to Snelling Avenue in 2001 and Snelling
Avenue to O�ord Street in 2002. This project is partially funded with federal transportation
monies that must be encumbered no later than 2002 and 2003.
In anticipation of this project, the City Council authorized the preparation of a master plan for
County Road C from I35W to Rice Street to investigate upgrades to the urban design and
streetscape. At the October 23, 2000 meeting, the City Council selected Dahlgren Sh�rdlow and
Uban, Inc. to work with a citizen task force to prepare this master plan. The purpose of this
Request for Council Action is to ask the City Council to appoint the members of the citizen task
force.
Staff has solicited interest in the County Road C Task Force from adjoining properties and the
general public. The following people have expressed an interest in serving on this Task Force:
Adiacent to Counv Road C
Barbara Swadberg
Mark Rankone
Sean Regan
Tim Krenke
Duane Albrecht
Sheila Chamberland
Maureen Sikorra
Vonda Rankin
Perrie Heitler
Dan King
Burger King
Roseville Properties
Reco Real Estate
Roseville Animal Hospital
Albrecht Landscaping
2655 Sheldon Street
2651 Huron Street
2630 Le�ngton Avenue
459 West County Road C
396 West County Road C
iz�s a r � e
k and Rec Commissioner, Scott Higbee 42 1 Glenwood Ave.
Johnson 2986 Mildred Drive
ni Stone 28 18 Galtier Street
� Thorpe 441 Woodhill Drive
As shown on the attached map, the above list of interested citizens represent a fairly even
distribution along the County Road C corridor. In addition, the above list represents both
commercial and residential properties. Considering that 14 people have expressed interest and
that the ideal size for a group of this type is between 10 and 15 people, staff recommends that
City Council appoint the entire list to serve on the task force.
Financial implications: In October, the City Council authorized up to $60,000 to complete this
project. $40,000 was allocated from the 2000 Contingency Fund and $20,000 from the approved
2000 budget. The cost to work with the task force is included in the original project allocation.
Policy implications: In 1997, the Council adopted a policy for the appointment of advisory
commissions and other citizen groups. The policy sets a formal selection procedure for all
standing advisory commissions. The policy allows fle�bility in the appointment procedure for
other task forces and citizens groups. Most recently, the Council appointed the TH 36
Landscaping Task Force following a procedure similar to the one proposed for the County Road
C Master Plan Task Force. This process was discussed with the City Council at the October 23,
2000 meeting.
Schedule: It is expected that the task force will meet monthly beginning in February. It is
expected that work will be completed by approximately September 1,200 1 at which time a draft
County Road C Master Plan will be presented to the City Council for consideration. The master
plan work will be done in conjunction with Ramsey County's planning for roadway
improvements and will allow streetscape improvements, if approved, to be constructed with the
County road proj ect.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Motion to appoint the 14 citizens listed in this report to the County Road C Master Plan Task
Force.
Prepared by: Karl Keel
.
. .
°�"`■�'� � 111; 1
.. _ _ � - -� __ �
� .._ _ .__, � - _
[� � �-� �� ��..��.� �*z�i��i ' � �/
���,�� � — � °� �
� - - . - - �-r1_
�111�� - .. _. .a
... ! r■
� �� ��r.�. .. '� �r■r..
.
� �
-
/-
��
! , �
�/
Johnson �
0
�
l� ,
� �
. - . � �
,
._
. —
�
-
.n
�
�
�
.
I I� r. � y � � �
Th� City of
�� \ ' 1
�...y- COUNTY ROAD C URBAN DESIGN
Minnesota
Engineering Department MASTE R P LA N TAS K FO RC E
January 17, 2001
Perrie
Heitler
s
�
�
�.
N
Remi II I
?�
..
�
.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Department ApprovaL Manager Reviewed
� i� �1�
Description: Administration of the Oath for New Commissioners
Background
Date: O1/22/O1
Item No.: E-3
Agenda Section
Organizational
On January 8, 2001, the City Council approved the following citizen volunteers to fill various
Commission vacancies:
Troy Duncan Planning Commission
Richard Jacobson Parks and Recreation Commission
Rita Stanoch Human Rights Commission.
Howard Wagner Human Rights Commission
Philip Crump Human Rights Commission
As part of the appointment process, the Commission members have been asked to be present for
taking the official oath for fulfilling their respective duties.
Department Approval:
Item Description:
REQUEST FOR COUNCII, ACTION
Manager Reviewed:
�"'
DATE: 1/22J0 1
ITEM NO.: F-1
Agenda Section:
Reports/Recommendations
Receiving feasibility reports/scheduling public improvement hearings
2001 Pavement Management Program (PNIP)
Background: On September 11, 2000, the City Council selected neighborhoods for the 200 1
PNIl' and ordered the preparation of feasibility reports for these neighborhoods. The
neighborhoods selected are as follows:
P-ST-O 1-02 Neighborhood 10
P-ST-SW-01 -09 Neighborhood 18
Asbury Street, Snelling Avenue to City Limits
Ridgewood Road, Asbury Street to City Limits
West Owasso Boulevard, Victoria Street to City Limits
`- P-ST-S W-0 1- 10 Neighborhood 15 Josephine Road, Hamlirie Avenue to Le�ngton Avenue
An informational meeting was held with Neighborhood 10. At this meeting staff reviewed the
overall PNIP, the City's assessment policy, and an overview of typical street reconstruction.
Residents provided input to staff regarding specific neighborhood concerns.
City staff has held meetings with the Design Committees from Neighborhoods 18 and 15 since
the end of October, 2000. The design committees and staff ha�e worked closely to develop an
overall concept for each project. The proposed plans will be reviewed by the entire
neighborhood at open houses held on January 25, and February 1, 2001.
In accordance with City Council direction, a feasibility report has been prepared that details the
proposed design, neighborhood impact, and estimated cost of the proposed 2001 PNIP. Copies of
the completed feasibility reports are enclosed. The ne�t step in the process is for the council to
accept the feasibility report and to schedule public hearings.
Policy objectives: The various recommended street improvement projects are being considered
as part of the City's 2001 PNIP. The projects are consistent with the policies originally
established for the PNIP summarized as follows:
1. Roads will be reconstructed based upon pavement condition and reconstruction will be
done by neighborhoods.
2. Maximum annual PNIP contract expenditures will be appro�mately two million dollars
per year.
3. Petitions for street improvements will be considered along with projects evaluated based
on pavement evaluation score.
4. Project costs will be assessed consistent with city assessment policy.
5. Public hearings will be held consistent with state statute to consider all PMP projects.
Financial implications: These projects have major financial implications for the city including
the following:
Sale of appro�mately two million dollars of general obligation bonds annually to
finance the improvement costs.
2. Expenditure of utility fund dollars to pay for the repairs needed to the e�sting utility
system.
3. Use of Municipal State Aid (MSA) dollars to fund the majority of the West Owasso
Blvd and Josephine Road projects.
4. Assessments levied in accordance with assessment policy.
Staff recommendation: The size of the proposed 2001 PMP is slightly less than previous years.
Although resident input is expected at the public hearing, staff feels that all the hearings can be
completed in one evening. It is recommended that public hearings for the 2001 PMP be
scheduled at the regular City Council meeting on Monday, February 12,200 1, at 7: 15 p.m.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Adoption of a resolution receiving the feasibility report and scheduling public improvement
hearings for 2001 PMP projects for February 12, 2001, at 7:15 p.m.
Prepared by: Debra Bloom
EXTRACT OF NIINUTES OF MEETING
OF CITY COUNCII,
CITY OF ROSEVII,LE
RAMSEY COUNTY, NIINNESOTA
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was duly held in the City Hall at 2660 Civic Center
Drive, Roseville, Minnesota, on Monday, the 22nd day of January, 2001, at 6:30 p.m.
The following members were present: and the following members were absent:
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 7�:XXX
RESOLUTION RECEIVING FEASIBII,ITY REPORTS ON
2001 IMPROVEMENTS AND ORDERING PUBLIC HEARINGS
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville as follows:
l. By resolution adopted September 11, 2000, the Council directed the City Public Works
Director to prepare preliminary reports as to the feasibility of the proposed
improvements:
P-ST-01-02 Neighborhood 10
P-ST-S W-01-09 Neighborhood 18
P-ST-S W-0 1- 10 Neighborhood 15
Asbury Street, Snelling Avenue to City Limits
Ridgewood Road, Asbury Street to City Limits
West Owasso Boulevard, Victoria Street to City
Limits
Josephine Road, Hamline Avenue to Lexington
Avenue
2. The Public Works Director was also directed to include in the report the estimated cost of
the proposed improvements and as to whether such improvements should best be made as
proposed or in connection with some other improvement. The preliminary report and
cost estimates have been submitted and considered by the Council and are hereby
approved and directed to be placed on file in the office of the City Manager. The
improvements proposed to be made in the general manner set forth in the report are
designated as Improvements P-ST-O 1-02, P-ST-S W-O 1-09 and P-ST-S W-0 1- 10.
3. The Council shall meet at the City Hall, 2660 Civic Center Drive, in said City, on
February 12,200 1, at 7: 15 p.m. for the purpose of holding a public hearing on the
proposed improvements under and pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 429, and the Manager is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of the
time, place, and purpose of that meeting to be published twice in the official newspaper,
Roseville Review, which publications shall be a week apart, and the second publication
shall be not less than three days before the date of the hearing.
4. The notice shall be in substantially the following form:
(see attachments).
2
5. The general nature, estimated cost and area proposed to be assessed for Improvements
P-ST-01 -02, P-ST-SW-01-09 and P-ST-SW-01-10 are determined to be as stated in the
foregoing notice, as fully as though the same were separately set forth and resolved
herein
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by and
upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereoi and
and the following voted against the same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
3
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 Nlinnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the
attached and foregoing e�tract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on
the 22nd day of January, 200 1, with the original thereof on file in my office.
WIT'NESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 22nd day of January, 2001.
Edward L. Burrell, Acting City Manager
(SEAL)
STATE OF NIlNNESOTA
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
)
)SS
)
CERTIFICATE OF MAII,ING
NOTICE OF HEARING
I, Edward L. Burrell, Acting Manager of the City of Roseville, Ramsey County, NTinnesota,
hereby certify that I am the duly qualified Manager of said City, that I am a United States citizen,
over 21 years of age; and acting in behalf of the City of Roseville, I have reviewed the records of
the City and these records reflect that a representative of the City deposited in the U. S. Post
Office at Roseville, NTinnesota, on Friday, February 02, 2001, 142 copies of the attached Notices
of Hearing on the following improvements:
P-ST-O 1-02 Neighborhood 10
P-ST-S W-0 1-09 Neighborhood 18
P-ST-S W-0 1- 10 Neighborhood 15
Asbury Street, Snelling Avenue to City Limits
Ridgewood Road, Asbury Street to City Limits
West Owasso Boulevard, Victoria Street to City
Limits
Josephine Road, Hamline Avenue to Le�ngton
Avenue
postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to each property owner within the area proposed to be
assessed as revealed by the records of the County Data Processing Division of Ramsey County.
I further ascertained that there was delivery service by U. S. Mail between the place of mailing
and the places so addressed and the names of each properiy owner as shown.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and seal this February 12, 2001.
Edward L. Burrell, Acting City Manager
(SEAL)
Department Approval
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Manager Reviewed
��
DATE:01 /22/01
ITEM NO�_2
Agenda Section:
Reports
Item Description: Application for a Minnesota DNR Metro Greenways Planning Grant.
BA .K �RO 1ND
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources initiated a program in 1999 to assist local
agencies in their attempts to better manage natural resources and to coordinate efforts
throughout the metro area. The Parks and Recreation staff and Commission have
identified significant issues in the management of natural resource areas within the
Roseville parks and recreation system. These areas include:
■ Invasive plant species
■ Need for cleaner water in lakes and ponds
■ Urban forest maintenance practices
■ Protection of wildlife habitat
■ Coordination of storm water related issues with other departments within the
City
■ Reducing maintenance costs through better management practices
■ Educating the community on the need for natural resource management both
by the City and private individuals and groups
Staff has interviewed three planners who specialize in this area: a)Bonestroo, Rosene and
Anderlik, b)The Kestrel Design Group and c)Barr Engineering . BRA was selected as the
group best suited to develop a plan for Roseville. They have agreed to submit the grant to
the DNR without compensation unless the grant is awarded to the City of Roseville.
The grant application is for $24,230 that will be used for the Roseville Natural Resource
Inventory and Management Plan. Specifically, the plan would include:
■ An inventory and management plan for;
✓ Acorn Park
✓ Villa Park
✓ Reservoir Woods
✓ Central Park
✓ Langton Lake Park
■ A detailed natural resources inventory of these sites
■ Step by step management strategies for each site
■ Identification of greenway corridors within Roseville and connecting to
neighboring cities.
■ Water quality assessment of lakes and ponds within each site
■ Invasive plant species identification and a resource plan for control and/or
eradication
■ Graphic representation of inventory and management issues using GIS
■ Lake and watershed assessment including the MLCCS cover type for all of
Roseville
The attached project outline has more details of the items to be included in the Roseville
Natural Resource Inventory and Management Plan. Additionally, the Ramsey Soil and
Water Conservation District would be partnering with the City of Roseville in the grant
application to complete the MLCCS for Roseville.
The attached proposal is consistent with the policy of leveraging other public and private
resources to obtain funding to offset the costs of development. It is also consistent with the
Roseville Parks and Recreation System Plan and the City's efforts as outlined in the Vista
2000 goals to improve our environment through the protection and improvement of our
natural resources. It is also consistent with our efforts to partner with other agencies.
FINANCIAI IMPI I(:ATI(�NS
The City must provide matching funds of $24,230 if the grant were approved and accepted.
There is $29,000 included in the proposed 2001 Park Improvement Program (PIP) for this
item.
, 'A�F R CnMMENDATIC�N
Based on the recommendation of the City of Roseville Parks and Recreation Commission,
the Parks and Recreation System Plan, the Roseville Vista 2000 Plan, the numerous
natural resource issues identified by citizens in the last several years, and the opportunity
to accomplish these goal by leveraging the additional funding from the State of Minnesota,
staff recommends that the City submit a grant application to the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources Metro Greenway Program for a Metro Greenways Planning Grant for
$24,230 for the development of a Natural Resources Inventory and Management Plan.
�O 1NC11 ACTInN RFfll IESTFD
Adoption of the attached resolution for application to the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources Metro Greenway Program for a Metro Greenways Planning Grant for the
development of a Natural Resources Inventory and Management Plan for Roseville.
Matching funds of $24,320, as authorized by the City Council at such time as the grant is
awarded to the City, would be taken from the 2001 PIP.
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 January, 2001, at 6:30 p.m.
The following members were present: Maschka, Goedeke, Mastel and Kysylyczyn and the following were
absent: None.
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION
METRO GREENWAYS PLANNING GRANT
WHEREAS the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has matching funds available for natural
resource inventories and natural resource and/or greenways plans through the Metro Greenways Planning
Grant Program, and
WHEREAS a need has been identified to conduct a comprehensive natural resources inventory or natural
resources plan for local planning purposes,
BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Roseville is applying for a Metro Greenways Planning Grant and has
the legal authority to apply for financial assistance, and has the institutional, managerial, and financial
capability to ensure that all aspects of the proposed project will be completed;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Roseville and its partner(s) will share in the costs of the
proposed project with the DNR by providing a cash or in-kind match totaling at least 50% of the proposed
project cost;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon approval of its application, the City of Roseville may enter into
agreement with the State of Minnesota for the above project and that the City of Roseville cerkifies that it
will comply with all aspects of the grant agreement.
NOW BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the grant
agreement as necessary to implement the project on behalf of the eligible applicant.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
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 January, 200 1, with the original
thereof on file in my office.
WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 22nd day of January, 200 1.
Edward L. Burrell, Acting City Manager
SEAL
/'roJect Understanding and Approach
❑ Project Understanding
Situated midway between Minneapolis and St. Paul, Roseville is a city
that is essentially fully developed. As the city has grown, leaders have
had the foresight to set aside land as city parks, trails, and natural areas.
Protecting these natural features and providing compatible recreational
access so residents can appreciate them is an important part of both the
cultural and natural heritage of the city. The effort can be challenging
and rewarding.
Most communities' citizens recognize the inherent value in planning and
protecting their parks, open spaces and natural areas. Preserving natural
communities helps improve everyone's quality of life, and can help
attract and keep businesses and residents. Such areas provide
opportunities for active and passive recreation, and for viewing and
learning about wildlife, ecological relationships, and natural history. In
many cases natural areas serve as landmarks or distinguishing features
for the local community, and have important historical associations. It
has also been shown that property values increase in close proximity to
natural open spaces. These areas can also serve important functions for
the community in stormwater management and maintaining the quality
of wetlands, lakes and streams.
A detailed natural resource inventory of five city parks in Roseville will
help the city to further understand the quality, value, and significance of
these areas. The inventory will serve as a foundation for creating step-
by-step management strategies for protecting and improving the health
of natural communities, as well as integrating recreation and education
where appropriate. The inventory will also identify potential Greenway
Corridors that can connect these natural resources and increase their
long-term health and value. The Natural Resource Inventory and
Management Plan project will include the following parks:
► Acorn Park
► Central Park
. Langton lake
. Reservoir Woods
► Villa Park
❑ Project Approach
Our approach to the Roseville Natural Resource Inventory and
Management Plan emphasizes an ecosystem-based perspective
combined with a practical, implementable approach designed to serve as
a foundation for natural resource and land management efforts.
This approach stresses the importance of viewing the entire ecosystem,
including people, as one interconnected unit rather than as independent
parts. This means that the inventory, evaluation and management of
natural areas will consider such factors as connectivity between natural
!�ll City of Roseui//e Natural ReSOU/Ce IINNanagement 1
� Bnnestro� Rosene, /indei6k andASSOC'Idles, /���
areas, regional land use context, compatible recreational uses, and
coordination with governmental entities.
Our approach is also practical. The management plans and
recommendations need to be feasible from technical, financial and
political perspectives. We believe our experience completing similar
inventories and management plans, and implementing them with local
communities, will bring essential skills to make the project successful.
�1J City of R05eV%lle Natural Resource Management 2
� Bonestro� Rosene, Andcvlik dndAsSOC%dles,l/H•
Proposed Scope of Work
❑ Task 1 - Project Initiation
July, 2001
We will meet with City Staff and other involved parties, such as the
Ramsey County Parks, local watershed districts, and MN DNR, for a
Project initiation Meeting to discuss and review project goals, objectives
and the schedule.
Public/Agency Participation
Roseville Park and Recreation Department staff recognizes that the
involving local citizens, advisory committees, environmental groups, and
natural resource agency staff is critical to making sound natural resource
policy decisions.
Our experience in similar projects has shown that strong public
involvement leads to greater stakeholder ownership and more effective
implementation of natural resource management goals.
We suggest the work plan include at least two public meetings in the
early stages to inform public officials and city residents about the project
and management plan recommendations. Bonestroo staff will participate
in up to two meetings during the project's early stages, to assist city staff
in providing information and interpreting the inventory and
management plans.
❑ Task 2- Assemble Existing Information
July 200 1
All existing pertinent natural resource information will be gathered and
organized to enable effective use of resources and to target areas for
field visitation. In addition, the most recent infrared stereoscopic aerial
photography will be obtained for the project area. Infrared photos will
be used to map vegetative cover types. The following information will be
collected, where available:
. DNR Natural Heritage data bases and maps on rare features,
including natural communities and endangered plants and animals
. National Wetlands Inventory
► DNR Protected Waters and Wetlands Inventory
. DNR Fisheries information for Langton and Bennett Lakes
. Lake depth profile, drainage basin, and water quality information for
Langton and Bennett Lakes
► Ramsey County Soil Survey
. Surficial geology data from the MN Geological Survey
► Other applicable surveys and studies
The information above will be shared with the Roseville city staff. We
recommend, where possible, the above information and databases be
placed in or converted to a standard GIS coordinate system compatible
yJ City of Rosevr!le Natural Resource Management 3
�I Bo/m.y4�oU Rosene, AR[1e/lik andAzrociates, lnC.
with the Roseville Parcel Base Map (Proposed to be completed by GIS
Technicians at the Roseville City Staff).
❑ Task 3— Aerial Photo Interpretation
July — August, 200 1
During this portion of the project, we will interpret color infrared aerial
photos to delineate natural communities and all non-manicured areas of
the Acorn, Reservoir, Central, L�ngton Lake, and Villa Parks. Mylar
overlays created during photo interpretation will then be used during
the detailed field inventory portion of the project. As field work and data
entry is completed, these mylar overlays will be transferred to the
Roseville City Staff's GIS technicians for digitizing, or used by Bonestroo
staff to digitize natural communities.
G Task 4- Field Inventory
July — October 200 1
During the field inventory portion of the project, we will use
methodologies employed by the DNR Natural Heritage Program County
Biological Survey to collect detailed species lists and determine natural
community type and quality.
Upland and Wetland Inventory
Within upland and wetland natural communities, dominant tree, shrub,
grasses, and forbs composition will be documented along with a relative
abundance for each species. Particular emphasis will be placed on
identifying plant species that indicate the natural community's quality.
Examples of indicator species would include invasivelexotic species,
those considered "conservative" for the community type, or rare and
endangered species found only on good quality sites. In those areas
with mature tree cover, the age of at least one representative tree will be
determined to aid in understanding past land use and relative age and
condition of the canopy members.
In addition to conducting detailed plant community inventories in
wetlands and classifying and ranking them using Natural Heritage
Program methods, each basin will be evaluated using the BWSR
"Minnesota Rapid Assessment Method"" /MnRfiM/ Version 2.0. MnRAM is
the best available method for assessing impacts to wetland basins and
provides a foundation on which sound management strategies can be
based for maintaining or improving wetland quality and function.
In large wetlands where there is a significant change in the
characteristics and quality from the National Wetlands Inventory mapped
type, depending on location, the wetland may be broken into
management units.
Pond Assessment
The field assessment of the ponds will potentially include collecting
information relating to flooding problems; locations of dumping;
condition of inlets and outlets; secchi disk reading and/or other water
quality information; vegetative and habitat condition; current aesthetics;
depth; and photos. The MNRAM floral diversity section will be used to
/� City of Rose�i/le Natura/ Resource Management 4
T'�I Bonest�oo, Rosene, Anderlik andAssociates, /nc.
determine the quality of the vegetative community and aggressive
species infestations to develop a ranking (exceptional, high, medium,
low) for each pond's ecological integrity.
Based on the results of the Lake and Watershed Assessment, certain
ponds that have been labeled as critical areas for removal of phosphorus
prior to reaching the lakes will have additional data collected to
determine their phosphorus removal efficiency. This information will
potentially include the pond surface area at the normal water level; inlet
and outlet locations and sizes; locations of skimmer structures; and pond
storage.
The information collected for the ponds will be used to determine
appropriate measures for aesthetic and wildlife habitat improvements to
increase the enjoyment of these natural features for park patrons. The
information collected for the ponds within the parks, identified as critical
for phosphorus removal to protect downstream fakes, will be used to
establish an appropriate improvement and management plans for
improving their phosphorus removal efficiency while enhancing their
aesthetic and wildlife habitat values.
The pond assessment and resulting recommendations within the parks
can be utilized as a guide to develop a similar program for the remaining
ponds in the city. An example of a potential resulting project or projects
for similar settings in the fully developed City of New Hope and
predominately developed City of Woodbury is presented in the project
sheet labeled Quebec Pond Improvements and Dorchester Pond
Restoration included with this proposal.
Inventory of Langton and Bennett Lakes
For L�ngton and Bennett lakes, there are three options. The first is a
one-time field survey of each fake to characterize the aquatic plant
community (emergent and submergent) and-for Langton Lake-to
compile a bathymetric (lake depth) profile of the lake (Bennett lake
already has one). The cost for this field alternative is estimated at 5600.
A second alternative includes Alternative 1 above, plus a limited in-lake
sampling program (sampling carried out three times during the summer
in late May, early July and late August in the deepest part of the lake) for
L�ngton Lake. (In-lake data is available for Bennett L�ke.� This data
would be used to characterize the lake's condition for recreational and
aesthetic purposes, and to provide a basis for matching the
watershed/lake model that would be developed in Task 5 to actual
conditions. The additional cost for this task is S 1,260 (total cost for both
alternatives is S 1,860).
The third alternative includes sediment sampling to estimate the
significance of pollutant recycling from lake sediments within the lake
relative to the watershed pollutant loads that would be estimated by
modeling. The additional cost to complete the sampling, lab analysis,
and data interpretation would be 5 1000 per lake.
For each natural community field surveyed, notes and observations on
wildlife habitat and sightings will also be recorded for inclusion in the
�`� City of Rosevi//e Natura/ Resource Management 5
�Il Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, /nc
overall natural resources evaluation. Additional field notes will be
gathered on related natural resource management concerns such as
erosion/sedimentation, land use concerns, and stormwater runoff.
u Task 5- Natural Resource Evaluation
November 2001 -� January 2002
Classification of Natural Communities
Minnesota "s Native Vegetation, A Key to Natural Communities
[Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1993) will be used to
classify natural communities. This key is the best available statewide
guide for classifying native plant communities. For "human created
areas," common descriptive names such as "old field" or "conifer
plantation" will be used.
Each identified natural and human created community will also be
classified using the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS).
MLCCS coding will be to Level 5(greatest level of detail) and entered
into a G8�compatible database.
Ecological Ranking of Natural Communities
Each natural community that meets the criteria for classification under
the methodology of the MN DNR Natural Heritage Program will be
assigned an ecological ranking, ranging from A to D. An "A" community
is the highest in ecological quality; "D" the lowest. Standard ecological
criteria used to evaluate the health of natural communities will be used
to determine the quality rankings. These criteria include degree of native
species diversity, age of trees, and amount of disturbance.
The rankings reflect how closely the community area being studied
resembles an intact or "pristine" community of its type in the regi0n—
"A" quality communities are most like intact natural areas; "D" quality
communities have been highly altered from this standard. Due to the
high level of human activity in urbanizing landscapes, "A" quality
communities are rare.
Lake and Watershed Assessment
Based on available data, Bennett and Langton Lakes will be evaluated for
their ability to support the uses designated by the City. Using existing
information on sub-watershed size and land use composition, a
watershed and lake response model will be constructed to estimate the
pollutant loading entering each lake from its watershed. MLCCS
coverage for the areas of concern could be valuable for this task if it is
available, since this database would contain vital information on
impervious coverage that forms the basis of a good watershed modeling
effort. Lacking this data, existing land uses data from the City of Roseville
will be used and impervious coverage estimated.
❑ Task 6 - GIS Mapping
September 2001 • October 2001
Information gathered in the field inventory portion of the project can
best utilized if it is available in a Geographic Information System (GIS�
format. GIS provides accurate, detailed mapping of natural resource
� Cllj� o/ Rosev%//e Nawral Resource Management 6
�i Bonest ioo, RoSP�P, .9/)de/lIk and Associates, lnc.
features and the ability to make alterations to data when on-the-ground
changes occur. We propose that GIS technicians at the Roseville City Staff
perform natural community polygon digitizing as part of Roseville's cost-
share for a Metro Greenwdys/ConServ�tion Partners Grant. If the city
chooses not to complete polygon creation, it could also be completed
by Bonestroo staff.
An optional service that could be included in GI$ mapping is the creation
of MLCCS coverage for the entire city of Roseville. This land cover system
was developed by the MN DNR along with other partners and is
strongly recommended by the DNR to grant recipients. Although it will
have no real bearing on the quality of the Natural Resource
Management Plans we will create, including this activity in a Metro
Greenways Grant application could improve the project's appeal to the
review committee responsible for deciding which projects are funded.
MLCCS Cover Typing for all of City
Additionally, the creators of MLCCS envision that their cover types can
be directly fed into stormwater models to estimate things such as runoff,
and nutrient and sediment export. This may increase the activity's
importance in the eye of the city if an update to the city's
Surface/Stormw�ter Management Plan is expected in the next few years.
We estimate our cost for performing this task to be $3,000.
❑ Task 7- Management Plan and Report Creation
November 2001 — March 2002
Management Plans for Individual Parks
With the detailed information gathered in the field inventory portion of
the project, we will provide detailed management recommendations for
uplands, and wetlands and ponds. Included in the Management Plans
created for each of the five parks will be specific integrated
recommendations for activities such as:
► Problem species control, timing and methods
. Species and amounts of plant material recommended for
reintroduction
. Prescribed burning, seasonal timing and methods
. Stormwater/surf�ce water runoff management
► Appropriate recreation
. Public education/involvement
. Infrastructure management, such as roads in L�ngton Lake Park
Our Management Plans will provide implementable recommendations
with associated timelines, as well as potential funding sources and
project partners.
Based on the watershed and lake response modeling completed under
Task 5, as well as field data collected, opportunities to reduce watershed
pollutant loadings will be identified for L.angton and Bennett Lakes and
an estimate of their projected impact on lake water quality will be done.
Load reduction alternatives would then be listed based on cost-
effectiveness. The alternatives will be analyzed in enough detail to
establish preliminary feasibility and rough costs, with the idea that
�'! City of Roseville Natural Resource Management 1
�v� &�nesfrov, Roserle, A�er/ik andAssocia[es, /���,
detailed feasibility studies and cost estimates would be prepared at a
later time if the City is interested in pursuing the improvements.�ln-lake
(alum treatments, aeration, barley straw to inhibit algal growth, limited
dredging to create deeper water zones, free emergent vegetation, etc.)
and shoreland management alternatives will also be discussed and
evaluated for their potential benefits atld costs.
Along with previously gathered data, resources analyses and GIS maps
created by county staff, these management recommendations will be
incorporated into a series of reports. These reports will be defined by
previously identified geographical boundaries, such as watersheds,
townships, or other natural or geopolitical areas. The report will include
by-community information regarding community type, quality,
restoration potential, and other pertinent information. Also included will
be appendices that include species lists for individual communities that
were field visited.
Problem Nonnative Species
Several of the parks have nonnative species present. Some of these
include European buckthorn, tatarian honeysuckle, purple loosestrife, as
well as others. Managing these problem species requires they receive
separate treatment in planning.
We propose to assess the infestation level within natural communities
among the five parks, including analysis of population density, land area
coverage, and the risk these populations pose to native plant
communities. Our staff will then create a priority treatment list based on
this information to provide park managers with a clearer picture of
where to focus physical and financial resources to receive the greatest
benefit. We will also provide the most up-to-date information on
methods of treatment on a per-area basis, as well as their expected
costs.
Also included in the report will be current information on:
► Biological implications of management activities, from genetic to
landscape scale
► Review of relevant issues regarding management of natural areas in
suburban settings
The reports will be supported by GIS maps potentially created by
Roseville City Staff, as well as other appropriate supporting graphics. In
addition, natural community polygons created in ArCView by Bonestroo
staff will be provided to Roseville staff for their future use.
❑ Task 8- Presentation of Findings
Spring 2002
Following final report completion, two Bonestroo staff inembers will
participate in up to two meetings to present the results of the inventory
to city officials and the public.
��'ll Ciry of Rosevi//e N�tura/ Resource Management 8
1'�IBonestrW RUSE/7E; Ai>der/ik ai�dAssor-iates, lnC
ITEM: F-3
.spowsored br� the citr� o f�sev�ue,
�eoseviCCe Area schools covycvycuwltrJ, �ducat��, and wells �argo gav�.f� �sedaCe �qlrview grawch
Saturday, February 3, 2001
10 a.m. to 3 p.m.
Fairview Community Center
1910 West County Road B
' VarietV of Home Imnrovement and Landscane Exhibitors!
i�.C.T. Asphalt specialties 4�3 �dV6v�t Cov�structi,ow Co., iwc �,�asew�.ewt Egress w�wdow co. ���dget Exteri.ovs, IItiC. y�e
capital S�di,wr� � windows i�3 GOWLVLL�tV6�tl� National gGiw'�Z � COYVL2YStOVt.0 COVLS�YU.G�LOI�. 4� COX �wSUYGi�n.Ce Associates, iv�c �
CuStOvu. REvu.od21.Cr5 �3 Dave's Fteqtl.v�Gj � �}i,Y '�, D�scouwt wj,wG{OWS � Waves, Iwc. � EastWooc{ Ccwstr�ccti.ow, Iwc. �
EV�,VI.YDwtM.ewt � EwCYG�I� R,e50uYCe CCVLtBr ���oors by steve, tv�.c. �, C.�Rtes R.00 f6v�G� � Si,di,wc� �wc. i�3 c�va� hawk gui,I,dCrs �
c,r?at Plqw�,s RestoratLov�. iwc � HedrCc� pesCgv�. � fz.evwoolel�v�,g d�, t-terv�,es c�ardew Cew�er � Irvw�ter Cowtractors ��u��ders �,
�aws�cl�, Iv�.G. � LAwols�aPC Alternatives, iV�c d�, �ebews � NtastercrR f� Exter�ors iwc � nnodeew covwpaw� ��p � n�owarch
�awdscapes � Mon-Ray, Inc. i�i' New E'rGl �I,Vt,qvi,Cl,Gl� C1YDUp � NOVth EwG{ COVi.tYGiCti.vi,G� `i�' NOV't�II,G1N.d siding � Itn,SUI,G1tI,OV�.,
Iwc. �, Novthstar �-}ov�,�g Ivu.Provevu.ewt, iw� f� orf�e�d pesi,c�w � Cowstvuct�ow, �wc � out Bach Nurs2r�, iwc. � pqtCo
�wc�osures, iwc. � R.i,c� goscl�ee �+o�.es, iwc. � sea� c,uard s�stew�.s, Iwc. � Se�A Roof�wG� i�SMRftrGl��teCts �, Y�taw
cowstr�ct�ow � �tw�ted w�wdows � Doors, iwc � weits �Arr�o �seda�e �a�vv�ew �rAwch � westerw R.ew�.odelers �,
Wi,chser � F+2rre�d �trchi.tCCts �' W�wdows by Mqr�Z
Informative How-To Seminars!
10:30a. m. ROOrt1100 -"5i�adc Gar�"- Lebtt'�s � Room 102 - i`iaw to L�w�ee a Rartarldii� --- I►miFtr Lonhactors �,
Roorn►OS -" Wiindow Riplarenxni- Grrat Plair�s Reabraiion Inc
11:30 a.m. (ZOOm loo -"Tips on /zcsidential Gonstruction" �<<�y of /ZOSeville Building lnsputinns � �ZOOm 102 � Creatiny
a�lace of Sanctuary'- Monarch Landscaping �, {ZOOm �08 �"Kambler Remo�leling and 1he vesign process" -
SMR Architects
I:00 p.m. IZOOm loo -"Now t� Ghoose a Gontractor" - Northstar Nome Improvement $�3 Room 102- "Lreative Nome
Desi9n"- Wichaer Narried Architects �, �zoom ios -"Nom� Improvement Yrograms"- City of Roseville,
Housing �68ouP�e Center
2:00 p.m. ROOm 100 -"Seleating �Zeplacement Win�lows"- Western R�modalars � �Zoom 102 - DecK Rcpair and
Maintenance"- Cornerstone Construction �, jZOOm �OS -"Landscaping with Native plants - Out68cK Nursery
� Refreshments �, Door Prizes � Face Painting and Clowns �, Supervised Gym Activities
- �s
��
Free and Open to the Public
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE:1/22/01
ITEM NO: F-4
DepartmentApproval: Manager_Reviewed: AgendaSection:
' ' �!
Reports/Recommendations
Item Description: Acceptance of Two Ramsey County Soccer Partners ProgramGrants
:� . :• ►�
In 1999, Ramsey County initiated a grant program to increase the opportunity for increased
soccer play. The program was formulated based on an inventory of available soccerfields
in Ramsey County. The analysis demonstrated a shortage of soccer venues. A similar
inventory during the process of updating the Roseville Parks and Recreation System Plan
also evidenced the shortage of fields in Roseville based on current and projected demand.
This is being intensified with the loss of the two fields at the former Roseville Activity
Centersite.
The grants are from the Ramsey County Soccer Partners Program. The grant approved
for Lexington Park is for $50,000 and the grant approved for Rosebrook Park is $92,000.
The first grant is for assistance in developing a soccerfield as part of the recently approved
Lexington Park Master Plan and development program. This field would be developed in
2001. The second grant is for the redevelopment of Rosebrook Park that would include
the construction of �ern new soccer fields in replacement of two adult softball fields. These
fields would be developed as part of the 2002 PIP. Please see the attached applications.
�• •:
The grants are consistentwith the policy of leveraging other public and private resources to
obtain funding to offset the costs of development. It is also consistent with the Roseville
Parksand Recreation System Plan.
\�► � II' � �\
The City must provide at least matching funds. Moneys are included in the approved
development of Lexington Park and for Rosebrook Park in the 2001-2005 Roseville CIP.
' : •u►i ►��, •�,
Based on the recommendation of the City of Roseville Parks and Recreation System Plan,
staff recommends that the City accept two grants from the Ramsey County Soccer
Partners Program for Lexington Park for $50,000 and for Rosebrook Park for $92,000 for
the development of one new soccer field at Lexington Park and two new soccer fields at
Rosebrook Park.
• ► � •► : � �
Authorization for the Mayor and City Manager to sign contracts for acceptance of grants
from the Ramsey County Soccer Partners Program for Lexington Park for $50,000 and
for Rosebrook Park for $92,000 for the development of one new soccer field at Lexington
Park and two new soccer fields at Rosebrook Park with moneys taken from the PIP
program.
RAMSEY COUNTY SOCCER PARTNERS PROGRAM
GRANT CONTRACT
This grant contract dated as of December 19, 2000, and amendments and supplements hereto, is
between the County of Ramsey (hereinafter COUNTY) and the City of Roseville (hereinafter
GRANTEE), witnesseth that:
WHEREAS, The COUNTY has established and funded a Soccer Partners Program to accelerate the
acquisition and development of youth soccer facilities within Ramsey County; and
WHEREAS, GRANTEE represents that it is duly qualified and willing to perform the services set forth
herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, ITISAGREED BYAND BETWEEN THE PARTIESTHAT:
GRANTEE'SDUTIES
The GRANTEE will construct one (1) full-size soccer field at Lexington Park as further described
in the Development Project Grant Application, attached hereto as Exhibit I. The specific elements
of this project include demolition, grading, drainage system, topsoil, seeding, irrigation system,
water service and soccer goals, with a total estimated cost of $120,000. GRANTEE is
responsible for all costs in excess of the eligible grant amount.
II. CONSIDERATIONANDTERMSOFPAYMENT
A. Consideration for all services performed by GRANTEE pursuant to this grant contract shall
be paid by the COUNTY as follows:
Compensation for the full value of the costs incurred by the GRANTEE for direct costs to
construct the PROJECT.
The total obligation of the COUNTY for all reimbursements to GRANTEE shall not exceed
$50,000 (Fifty Thousand Dollars).
B. Terms of Pavment
Single reimbursement payment based upon proof of payment for 200% of the grant amount.
Any unused grant funds will be retained by the COUNTY for reappropriation.
No reimbursement for construction costs will be made after two (2) years from the Contract
Date. The COUNTY will require evidence of substantial completion of the facility and the
Project prior to reimbursement of construction or development costs.
III. CONDITIONS OF PAYMENT
All services provided by GRANTEE pursuant to this grant contract shall be performed to the
satisfaction of the COUNTY, as determined at the sole discretion of its authorized representative,
and in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and
regulations. GRANTEE shall implement the project in accordance with the plan incorporated into
Exhibit I, attached hereto. GRANTEE shall not receive payment for work found by the COUNTY
to be unsatisfactory, or performed in violation of federal, state or local laws, ordinances, rules or
regulations.
IV. TERMS OF CONTRACT
This grant contract shall be effective on February 1, 2001, or upon the date that the final required
signature is obtained by the COUNTY, whichever occurs later, and shall remain in effect until
February 1, 2003, or until all obligations set forth in this grant contract have been satisfactorily
fulfilled, whichever occurs first. GRANTEE understands that NO work should begin under this
grant contract until ALL required signatures have been obtained, and GRANTEE is notified to
begin work by the COUNTY's authorized representative.
V. CANCELLATION
This grant contract may be cancelled by the COUNTY or GRANTEE at any time, with or without
cause, upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. In the event of such a cancellation,
GRANTEE shall not be entitled to any reimbursement payments unless, in the sole judgment of
the COUNTY, the work performed by the GRANTEE resulted in a usable product, consistent with
the goal of the Soccer Partners Program.
COUNTY may cancel grant immediately if the COUNTY finds that there has been a failure to
comply with the provisions of this grant contract, that reasonable progress has not been made, or
that the purposes for which the funds were granted have not been or will not be fulfilled, the
COUNTY may take action to protect the interests of the COUNTY, including refusal to disburse
funds.
VI. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES
The COUNTY's authorized representative. for the purposes of administration of this grant
contract, is Gregory A. Mack, `Director, Parks and Recreation Department. Such representative
shall have final authority for acceptance of GRANTEE's services and if such services are
accepted as satisfactory, shall so certify on each invoice submitted pursuant to Clause II,
paragraph B. The GRANTEE's authorized representative for purposes of administration of this
grant contract is Robert Bierscheid, Director, Roseville Parks and Recreation Department. The
GRANTEE's authorized representative shall have full authority to represent GRANTEE in its
fulfillment of the terms, conditions and requirements of this grant contract.
VII. ASSIGNMENT
GRANTEE shall neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this grant contract
without the prior written consent of the COUNTY.
VIII. AMENDMENTS
Any amendments to this grant contract shall be in writing, and shall be executed by the same
parties who executed the original grant contract, or their successors in office.
IX. INDEMNITY
GRANTEE shall defend and indemnify COUNTY, its officers, agents, and employees from all
claims and causes of actions relating to or arising from GRANTEE's land acquisition, construction,
development, or operation of the SoCCer facility under the Project. This provision shall survive any
termination of this agreement.
X. COUNTYAUDITS
The books, records, documents and accounting procedures and practices of the GRANTEE
relevant to this grant contract shall be subject to examination by the COUNTY's auditor.
XI. DATAPRACTICESACT
The GRANTEE agrees to comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act as it applies
to all data provided by the COUNTY in accordance with this grant contract and as it applies to all
data created, gathered, generated or acquired in accordance with this grant contract.
XII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Upon PROJECT completion, the GRANTEE shall post a permanent funding acknowledgment
sign at the entrance to the PROJECT site, or at an alternative, conspicuous location on the site.
The sign will state that the site was cooperatively developed by the Ramsey County Parks and
Recreation Department.
XIII. WASTEREDUCTION
The GRANTEE shall participate in a recycling program for at least four broad types of recyclable
materials and shall favor the purchase of recycled products in its procurement processes. All
reports, publications and documents produced as a result of this grant contract shall be printed on
both sides of the paper, where commonly accepted publishing practices allow, on recycled and
recyclable paper using soy-based inks, and shall be bound in a manner that does not use glue.
XIV. SETOFF
Notwithstanding any provision of this grant contract to the contrary, the GRANTEE shall not be
relieved of liability to the COUNTY for damages sustained by the COUNTY by virtue of any
breach of this grant contract by the GRANTEE. The COUNTY may withhold any payment to the
GRANTEE for the purpose of setoff until such time as the exact amount of damages due the
COUNTY from the GRANTEE is determined.
XV. EQUALEMPLOYMENTOPPORTUNITY
The GRANTEE agrees to comply with all federal, state and local laws, resolutions, ordinances,
rules, regulations and executive orders pertaining to unlawful discrimination on account of race,
color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance,
sexual preference, disability, or age. When required by law or requested by the COUNTY, the
GRANTEE shall furnish a written affirmative action plan.
XVI. ACCESSTODOCUMENTS
Until the expiration of three years after the furnishing of services pursuant to this grant contract,
the GRANTEE, upon written request, shall make available to the COUNTY, the state auditor or
the COUNTY's ultimate funding sources, a copy of this grant contract and the books, documents,
records and accounting procedures and practices of the GRANTEE relating to this grant contract.
XVII. WORKPLACEVIOLENCEPREVENTION
The GRANTEE shall make all reasonable efforts to ensure that GRANTEE's employees, officials
and subcontractors do not engage in violence while performing under this grant contract.
Violence, as defined by the Ramsey County Workplace Violence Prevention and Respectful
Workplace Policy, is defined as words and actions that hurt or attempt to threaten or hurt people,
any action involving the use of physical force, harassment, intimidation, disrespect, or misuse of
power and authority where the impact is to cause pain, fear or hurt.
XVIII. WORKFORCEDIVERSITY
GRANTEE shall make good faith efforts, throughout the term of this grant contract and any
e�ensions thereof, to employ persons of color for all classifications of work under this grant
contract, and shall, when requested by COUNTY, submit a written report to the COUNTY
regarding the efforts and results of such efforts, including employment by job classification.
XIX. INTERPRETATION OFCONTRACT:VENUE
This grant contract shall be interpreted and construed according to the laws of the State of
Minnesota. All litigation regarding this grant contract shall be venued in the District Court of the
County of Ramsey, Second Judicial District, State of Minnesota.
xx. ENTIRECONTRACT
This grant contract shall constitute the entire grant contract between the parties and shall
supersede all prior oral or written negotiations.
XXI. LONGEVITY OF FACILITIES
GRANTEE agrees that facilities funded under this grant contract will be used primarily as youth
soccer facilities for a minimum of 20 years from the date of project completion.
XXII. OPERATIONSANDMAINTENANCE
GRANTEE agrees to operate and maintain the soccer facilities funded under this grant contract
throughout the life of the facilities.
XXIII. ACCESSTOFACILITIES
GRANTEE agrees that facilities funded under this grant contract will be available for use by
Ramsey County youth regardless of race, gender, economic background or national origin.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this grant contract to be duly executed intending to be
bound thereby.
APPROVED:
GRANTEE
By
%tle
Date
Bv
Tile
Date
Approved as to Form and Execution:
ey
Tit � �
Date � / � _ � �
RAMSEYCOUNTY
Recommended by:
Director, Parks 8 Recreation Department
Date
By
Chair, Ramsey County Board of Commissioners
Date
sy
Chief Clerk-County Board
Date
Approved as to Form and Execution:
�y
County Attomey
Date
Funds are available:
By
Budgeting & Accounting
Date
RAMSEY COUNTY SOCCER PARTNERS PROGRAM
GRANT CONTRACT
This grant contract dated as of December 19, 2000, and amendments and supplements hereto, is
between the County of Ramsey (hereinafter COUNTY) and the City of Roseville (hereinafter
GRANTEE), witnesseth that:
WHEREAS, The COUNTY has established and funded a Soccer Partners Program to accelerate the
acquisition and development of youth soccer facilities within Ramsey County; and
WHEREAS, GRANTEE represents that it is duly qualified and willing to perform the services set forth
herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, ITISAGREED BYAND BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT:
I. GRANTEE'SDUTIES
The GRANTEE will construct two (2) full-size soccer fields at Rosebrook Park as further
described in the Development Project Grant Application, attached hereto as Exhibit !. The specific
elements of this project include demolition, grading, drainage system, topsoil, seeding, irrigation
system, water service and soccer goals, with a total estimated cost of $185,000. GRANTEE is
responsible for all costs in excess of the eligible grant amount.
CONSIDERATIONANDTERMSOF PAYMENT
A. Consideration for all services performed by GRANTEE pursuant to this grant contract shall
be paid by the COUNTY as follows:
Compensation for the full value of the costs incurred by the GRANTEE for direct costs to
construct the PROJECT.
The total obligation of the COUNTY for all reimbursements to GRANTEE shall not exceed
$92,500 (Ninety-Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars).
B. Terms of Pavment
Single reimbursement payment based upon proof of payment for 200% of the grant amount.
Any unused grant funds will be retained by the COUNTY for reappropriation.
No reimbursement for construction costs will be made after two (2) years from the Contract
Date. The COUNTY will require evidence of substantial completion of the facility and the
Project prior to reimbursement of construction or development costs.
III. CONDITIONS OF PAYMENT
All services provided by GRANTEE pursuant to this grant contract shall be performed to the
satisfaction of the COUNTY, as determined at the sole discretion of its authorized representative,
and in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and
regulations. GRANTEE shall implement the project in accordance with the plan incorporated into
Exhibit I, attached hereto. GRANTEE shall not receive payment for work found by the COUNTY
to be unsatisfactory, or performed in violation of federal, state or local laws, ordinances, rules or
regulations.
IV. TERMS OF CONTRACT
This grant contract shall be effective on February 1, 2001, or upon the date that the final required
signature is obtained by the COUNTY, whichever occurs later, and shall remain in effect until
February 1, 2003, or until all obligations set forth in this grant contract have been satisfactorily
fulfilled, whichever occurs first. GRANTEE understands that NO work should begin under this
grant contract until ALL required signatures have been obtained, and GRANTEE is notified to
begin work by the COUNTY's authorized representative.
V. CANCELLATION
This grant contract may be cancelled by the COUNTY or GRANTEE at any time, with or without
cause, upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. In the event of such a cancellation,
GRANTEE shall not be entitled to any reimbursement payments unless, in the sole judgment of
the COUNTY, the work performed by the GRANTEE resulted in a usable product, consistent with
the goal of the Soccer Partners Program.
COUNTY may cancel grant immediately if the COUNTY finds that there has been a failure to
comply with the provisions of this grant contract, that reasonable progress has not been made, or
that the purposes for which the funds were granted have not been or will not be fulfilled, the
COUNTY may take action to protect the interests of the COUNTY, including refusal to disburse
funds.
VI. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES
The COUNTY's authorized representative, for the purposes of administration of this grant
contract, is Gregory A. Mack, Director, Parks and Recreation Department. Such representative
shall have final authority for acceptance of GRANTEE's services and if such services are
accepted as satisfactory, shall so certify on each invoice submitted pursuant to Clause II,
paragraph B. The GRANTEE's authorized representative for purposes of administration of this
grant contract is Robert Bierscheid, Director, Roseville Parks and Recreation Department. The
GRANTEE's authorized representative shall have full authority to represent GRANTEE in its
fulfillment of the terms, conditions and requirements of this grant contract.
VII. ASSIGNMENT
GRANTEE shall neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this grant contract
without the prior written consent of the COUNTY.
VIII. AMENDMENTS
Any amendments to this grant contract shall be in writing, and shall be executed by the same
parties who executed the original grant contract, or their successors in ofFce.
IX. INDEMNITY
GRANTEE shall defend and indemnify COUNTY, its o�cers, agents, and employees from all
claims and causes of actions relating to or arising from GRANTEE's land acquisition, construction,
development, or operation of the soccer facility under the Project. This provision shall survive any
termination of this agreement.
X. COU NTYAU DITS
The books, records, documents and accounting procedures and practices of the GRANTEE
relevant to this grant contract shall be subject to examination by the COUNTY's auditor.
XI. DATAPRACTICESACT
The GRANTEE agrees to comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act as it applies
to all data provided by the COUNTY in accordance with this grant contract and as it applies to all
data created, gathered, generated or acquired in accordance with this grant contract.
XII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Upon PROJECT completion, the GRANTEE shall post a permanent funding acknowledgment
sign at the entrance to the PROJECT site, or at an alternative, conspicuous location on the site.
The sign will state that the site was cooperatively developed by the Ramsey County Parks and
Recreation Department.
XIII. WASTEREDUCTION
The GRANTEE shall participate in a recycling program for at least four broad types of recyclable
materials and shall favor the purchase of recycled products in its procurement processes. All
reports, publications and documents produced as a result of this grant contract shall be printed on
both sides of the paper, where commonly accepted publishing practices allow, on recycled and
recyclable paper using soy-based inks, and shall be bound in a manner that does not use glue.
XIV. SETOFF
Notwithstanding any provision of this grant contract to the contrary, the GRANTEE shall not be
relieved of liability to the COUNTY for damages sustained by the COUNTY by virtue of any
breach of this grant contract by the GRANTEE. The COUNTY may withhold any payment to the
GRANTEE for the purpose of setoff until such time as the exact amount of damages due the
COUNTY from the GRANTEE is determined.
XV. EQUALEMPLOYMENTOPPORTUNITY
The GRANTEE agrees to comply with all federal, state and local laws, resolutions, ordinances,
rules, regulations and executive orders pertaining to unlawful discrimination on account of race,
color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance,
sexual preference, disability, or age. When required by law or requested by the COUNTY, the
GRANTEE shall furnish a written affirmative action plan.
xvi. ACCESSTODOCUMENTS
Until the expiration of three years after the furnishing of services pursuant to this grant contract,
the GRANTEE, upon written request, shall make available to the COUNTY, the state auditor or
the COUNTY's ultimate funding sources, a copy of this grant contract and the books, documents,
records and accounting procedures and practices of the GRANTEE relating to this grant contract.
XVII. WORKPLACEVIOLENCEPREVENTION
The GRANTEE shall make all reasonable efforts to ensure that GRANTEE's employees, officials
and subcontractors do not engage in violence while performing under this grant contract.
Violence, as defined by the Ramsey County Workplace Violence Prevention and Respectful
Workplace Policy, is defined as words and actions that hurt or attempt to threaten or hurt people,
any action involving the use of physical force, harassment, intimidation, disrespect, or misuse of
power and authority where the impact is to cause pain, fear or hurt.
XVIII. WORKFORCEDIVERSITY
GRANTEE shall make good faith efforts, throughout the term of this grant contract and any
e�ensions thereof, to employ persons of color for all classifications of work under this grant
contract, and shall, when requested by COUNTY, submit a written report to the COUNTY
regarding the efforts and results of such efforts, including employment by job classification.
XIX. I NTERPRETATION OF CONTRACT: VEN U E
This grant contract shall be interpreted and construed according to the laws of the State of
Minnesota. All litigation regarding this grant contract shall be venued in the District Court of the
County of Ramsey, Second Judicial District, State of Minnesota.
xx. ENTIRECONTRACT
This grant contract shall constitute the entire grant contract between the parties and shall
supersede all prior oral or written negotiations.
XXI. LONGEVITYOFFACILITIES
GRANTEE agrees that facilities funded under this grant contract will be used primarily as youth
soccer facilities for a minimum of 20 years from the date of project completion.
XXII. OPERATIONSAN DMAI NTENANCE
GRANTEE agrees to operate and maintain the soccer facilities funded under this grant contract
throughout the life of the facilities.
XXIII. ACCESSTOFACILITIES
GRANTEE agrees that facilities funded under this grant contract will be available for use by
Ramsey County youth regardless of race, gender, economic background or national origin.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this grant contract to be duly executed intending to be
bound thereby.
APPROVED:
GRANTEE
By
Title
Date
BY l
Title
Date
Approved as toFoRn and Execution:
���-'1l��.�--- �
_ i` �'�- .
�. : i �
.
RAMSEYCOUNTY
Recommended by:
Director, Parks 8 Recreation Department
Date
By
Chair, Ramsey County Board of Commissioners
Date
By
Chief Cle�lc-County Board
Date
Approved as to Form and Execution:
gy
County Attomey
Date
Funds are available:
By
Budgeting & Accounting
Date
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Department A
Item Description
BACKGROUND
Mana�er Aqproval:
Date: I/l 6/2001
Item No.: G-1
Agenda Section:
Recognitions
NATIONAL NIGHT OUT AWARD FOR THE YEAR 2000
The 2000 Award for the National Night Out program was presented to the Roseville Police
Department by the National Association of Town Watch.
This Award is given for cooperative participation between a police department and the community
it serves.
The Roseville Police Department competes with other cities in the United States that have
populations between 30,000 and 99,999. The Roseville Police Department ranked 17"' in its
assigned category of 50 cities.
The 2000 National Night Out was the largest ever including 32,500,000 people in 9,620
communities from all fifty states, U.S. territories and military bases worldwide.
PROPOSED ACTION
Not applicable.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Allow the Roseville Police Department to accept and display the 2000 National Night Award.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Authorize the City Manager and the Chief of Police to accept the 2000 National Night Award on
the behalf of the Roseville Police Department.
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Date: O1/22/O1
Item No: I-1
Approved: Agenda Section:
LAND USE
Itetn Description: A request by Charles Kadrie and ATP Minneapolis, Inc. for a conditional use permit
to allow the installation of a wireless telecommunication antenna on the roof of the
Roseville Professional Center, 2233 North Hamline Avenue (PF 3284)
1.0 REQUESTED ACTION
1.1 ATP Minneapolis in conjunction with VoiceStream Wireless are proposing to install wireless
telecommunication antennas with accompanying equipment on the roof of the Roseville
Professional Building, owned by NIr. Charles Kadrie.
1.2 The roof top antennas are proposed in the southeast, southwest and north side of the building
roof and an equipment cabinet is proposed on the east side of the building penthouse.
1.3 Section 1012.10A4 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.
1.4 The conditional use permit process (Section 1013 of the City Code) for this request allows the
City to consider:
% Compatibility with adjoining properties.
� Impacts on traffic and public facilities.
➢ Impacts on properiy value.
% Impacts on general health, safety, and public welfare.
➢ Compatibility with the Roseville Comprehensive Plan.
➢ The process also allows the City to impose those conditions it considers necessary to
protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
2.0 BACKGROiJND
2.1 The Roseville Professional Building is zoned `B-1", Limited Business District, is located in
Comprehensive Land Use Plan Planning District 13, with a land use designation of "LB",
Limited Business.
PF3284 RCA (012201) — Page 1 of 4
2.2 North of the parcel is the O'Halloran and Murphy Funeral Home and the Dayton's Home Store
with a zoning of B-l; east is vacant residential land, zoned R-1 and the Ramsey County
Library, zoned PUD; west of the parcel is the Rose Mall Apartments, zoned B-l; and south of
the parcel is single family residential, zoned R- 1.
3.0 STAFF C01�I1�IENTS
3.1 The applicant proposes installing three antenna units, each holding up to four separate antenna.
The antenna units are proposed at the southwest corner, southeast corner and northeast of the
penthouse. The proposal also calls for the installation of a multiple unit equipment cabinet on
the east side of the building roof. Section 1012.10A4 of the Roseville Zoning Ordinance
regulates private commercial antennas and towers.
3.2 Staff has reviewed the development proposal with regard to the criteria in Section 1013.O1.D of
the Roseville Zoning Ordinance and concludes the following:
A. The proposed antenna units and equipment cabinet will not create additional traffic nor
the need for additional public facilities.
B. The antenna units cannot be screened. However, the equipment cabinet must be
designed in a manner to be consistent with the adjacent penthouse. When complete,
neither the antenna units nor the equipment cabinet will ha�e an impact on surrounding
property or values.
C. There appears to be no impact on general health, safety, and public welfare.
D. The project also complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation as a business use.
3.3 The applicant has indicated that the APT (Voice&earn) site will provide optimal coverage in
Roseville and provide in-building coverage to the ma11s, businesses, and residential
neighborhoods surrounding Highway 36 and 51. The proposed antenna units will solve weak
in-building coverage that e�st in the area and solve capacity issues ATP (VoiceStream) is
currently experiencing in the area due to high customer usage.
3.4 The proposed antenna units (three) are comprised of structural galvanized steel framing and
ha�e three initial antennas attached to each unit. One unit will face north, while the other two
will be located in the southwest and southeast corner of the building roof. The antenna units
are structural support units that sit on top of the roof and are weighed down by blocks of
concrete. Each antenna unit will rise a height of ei�ht feet above the roof or seven feet above
the roof parapet. The north-facing antenna cannot be mounted onto the facade of the penthouse
nor the building but must be placed on a roof mounted support structure. Because of the signal
direction (directly in the corner of the building) the antenna in the southwest and southeast
comers also cannot be mounted to the building or penthouse facade (see attached photos) and
will be placed on roof mounted support structures.
PF3284 RCA (012201) — Page 2 of 4
3.5 The equipment cabinet, to be located directly north and east of the penthouse, is also
constructed on a galvanized steel platform. This platform rests on the rooftop and is held in
place by large weights. The platform rises approximately three feet above the roof and has
galvanized steel "fencing" around the platform and the equipment cabinets. Each equipment
cabinet is appro�mately five feet tall and comprised of inetal and weather sealed. The
equipment platform and cabinets rise approximately eight feet above the roof or seven feet
above the building parapet (see attached photos).
3.6 There are currently two other telecommunications providers (Metricom and Implex Systems)
that are located on the roof of the Roseville Professional Building. One is a whip antenna and
the other is in the form of multiple flush mounted antennas on the penthouse facade. No City
poles or private multi-tenant poles that could serve this provider are in this area of the
community.
3.7 Conditions may be attached to this CUP that would mitigate the impact on adjacent properties
including such items as architectural color and design, materials details, and limiting additional
external storage.
4.0 PLANNING CO�I�IISSION CONSIDERATION
4.1 On January 10, 2001, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing regarding the
ATP Minneapolis request. At this meeting a number of adjacent property owners were present
to address the Commission on concerns regarding the new antenna and its effect of television
reception.
4.2 The applicant, ATP Minneapolis answered the question by indicating that antenna are regulated
by the FCC and that they have not experienced a conflict from their antenna in the past. Staff
indicated that they would research the adjacent property owner's concerns and report back to
the residents Planning Commission and City Council.
4.3 The Commission had additional questions regarding the antenna, equipment platform, and
cabinets which ATP Minneapolis answered (see attached minutes).
4.4 The Commission voted (5-0) to recommend approval of the request for a conditional use permit
for ATP Minneapolis, subject to the following conditions:
A. The maximum height of the antenna support units and antenna located in the southwest
and southeast building corners and north side of the building, upon full installation,
shall be eight feet above the roof height.
B. The maximum height of the equipment platform and cabinets, upon full installation,
shall be eight feet above the roof height.
C. The ATP request, on behalf of VoiceStream, sha11 be limited to three antenna support
units, each having a maximum of four antennas.
PF3284 RCA (012201) — Page 3 of 4
D. The equipment platform shall be limited to six equipment cabinets. Five will be 30
inches wide by 40 inches deep by 5 feet tall and one cabinet will be 2 feet wide by 2
feet deep by 5 feet tall.
E. The antenna support units and equipment cabinets shall be limited to the single user
(VoiceStream) and the applicant ATP NTinneapolis. Future antenna additions will
require a revised CUP.
F. The antenna units and equipment cabinets shall not be lighted. Electric and phone
wires serving the equipment and antenna units sha11 be mounted to the building roof.
G. The antenna units, equipment platform, and supporting cabinets shall be completely
removed from the site by the applicant (ATP Minneapolis) after operations cease, or if
the equipment is damaged or unsafe as determined by the Roseville Building Official,
or if the CUP elapses or if the use is determined to be in violation of the CUP or City
Code by the Community Development Director. The City may require the applicant
(ATP Minneapolis) to post a bond to assure timely removal of the antenna units and
supporting equipment.
K Parking of maintenance vehicle(s) shall occur in an off-street parking space of the
parking lot affiliated with the Roseville Professional Building.
I, The color of the antenna, antenna support units, equipment platform, and equipment
cabinets shall be of a similar color (white) to that of the principal structure.
J. This conditional use permit shall expire 6 months after approval if a building permit has
not been issued. (Section 1013.03)
5.0 SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
5.1 By motion, approval (approve with modifications or deny) a resolution granting ATP
Minneapolis a conditional use permit to a11ow the installation of three wireless communication
antenna (one on north building facade and two free standing on the building roof at the
southeast and southwest corners) and an associated equipment platform and cabinet area
VolceStream, at the Roseville Professional Building 2233 Hamline Avenue North, based on
the findings in Section 3 and with the conditions A— J in Section 4 of this report.
Prepared by: Thomas Paschke
Attachments: narrative, site plan, location map, aerial photo, draft PC minutes, and draft CC resolution.
60-Day Schedule: Application accepted on December 12, 2000. Decision deadline is February 9, 2001.
PF3284 RCA (012201) — Page 4 of 4
w
�
.w
�
�
� �
.
.
:
�, :..:.......................
�
��
� °c
O M
'�: �
�
��.
U
��
��
��
�?
��
�
��
��
��
�
� M
� N
� N
e�
�
.�
�
�
�
.
�
�0�i
�O�i
���i
� �. ...
� ����0�
� e�e���
��
on���O�Q
°� ����l�e
i • � O i f
65.�i'?r;a � � ��{;
�� � ��
�� = ��
�� - 0�
�� ��
�
, �1
°� ; ����.��
�
�� �� <
�� o�
�� ao
�� ct� -
...
�L! �� -
�� �a� _
�� =�v _
��, :�o �;o�
�� . �� ��v
�� �� ��
. ���
.: � Q � �� ��
� �� ��
e� �
���
�i� �� "
�� ��
�� 0
a� ��
, .:
� ° �0�
��� �
- .. ���o:000• -
: �� o.
�� �o �.�� v� ,.
�-a�.��� _o� ..
:
� ��� ,� .o�
.
�..: ��,�. �
��..�
�_
00 �
00 � 3
�� �'
; ;: !r�`.l �
�
„ ��
F �
. ,
.
, —�.�,
w
, w ■ '
��
0
�
�
a
�
�
�
� �
�
� N
b
LL N
O�
>
O Q
� �
U �
�� �
� _ � I � ,I M � � . � F .E - ±�� ; � I `� ' �-"r -- � � -�-�:
� � - — -�� r � � - �. � I�Y 1 �'-. �� ! ��� p� "' `
.. j .- ,�� � �- I��.� ���'�,. I�. -� �lfs',w 'A1� ry`,.r��'�. ��. �- �� �._ {�. S
, � '\w ' � -s ,1
I
! . � ; . ` � � - �� :� I�
. . , .j �4 '�[ _}� � ��,—' —�-- — � - I � ___
�
� I
, . }e - -- J - -- F . S � I . - -
� s �
r , - ' - ..e. �L'�':` _ ��1,"sr! �' -
� � � i ,` .� � Q i t� .
1• �� �, l �� �II'-, } { �Y� i � z . ,.�?` �l I ".ii .� � i � � I I �
i �I � - - K � � `� � 1 � ! , . � ` �� - - � _ . .
� –���� � - �— _.�, . � I i� � . � �(� _� .
=� 1 , _ ; � ,-1 ' �y? , � f _ _
,�I,_ - _ I' k"�'� I �iii .. '� , i .,�.,ri �- � r,. � i ( � i' il_. — `_ �
�• � � .
.. �. � � � I 'i 1 . � i �±i � - L ,� i "+�
L. 1,�_ .� _ � �_ __ _'—. -� �_' -�- J ,�- ► — o—� - -
� 3 t . ..� _ --_ � � •, � "�'.. _:AELLI�00. -__._ �. _� '� -. a ,��!�' - -v°
. ,I y � .� ��. -P - ������- .'� � �� � � I '
. � r a� � �� ' ,I �r .-I � �,.I ,� ,�: .
� � �
>
� I
ro 9 �I � � �I ����il � �
� I
�� � 3 � �' � � , � � ��; i ��. I . — . :�
� �f . _ - ! ° �I _ ,.� �7 � fi i � �li � .-. _ _ � . � �.S'�. L�_' i �� � �. . I s - �-���r -
� � ' .,L-- � . . � �_ ! � '�. I � I=-F.: ., •'-_ Ix -
� � r� � . K y'�.l �I �, , .Y i i > ! ;
t � " `` �� � � ' � �� `�^ ( 1 ' I � . "`� i �' � I _ i_ I � ' � � +. � "
� i ' � � �' � t � � , j _
I-=. _� —� ;� °q � f-__
�; .," � -I�-1� �� �. I ..I�� *r �`'',�� .�� � �'� � .�,1� � �fr .
� . �, ! r�a ,� �- i ' . I� � - ' a ,�,, �. }�,�a� �'__ � , r � . ,�
� i� �_ � �
I � ��. �S� ' � . F � � � ' � j a _
� � , ` �_,� � � �� i !� ._ti �_E , 'j fi
J� ' ' - -, � I �� � � ' �� I � � y �t i � � S, r�_ '
� i
- - -,�� �.:. i y `� - �h � T �I� i t���--� �1 l ^ r �� �.�� v _ � .E �. _— -
�- I . - L'� � � �� � �� - �
r� � —^="� , � ��ai��F. . _ ��c ��. '�
,. : � --. - -- ���-� -- y �� - 3 � � �� �. � � � �� , ti - ��,�* '�' ',r.'��
:�.p i� � . _ �� I .. .. ,.r ' � y-� ' r, � . "_ _ , - . .— I �.� . s
�`: '' � - ' . . I �.: � � � t � . . � � ..
�.� i. �- s� � €.".r f �..-, - �.. � ,.� t
�
.
-
; �
� ,
'�T ' �' - i � � � I -� i " � . C t i i � 3 .—�j� :—
� , i: � _ � , w� _ c. �, . � � � �� _ �, � -- � � 1: _
�,% t [ 4, '� I
,m` .. ` �1, �� _ ,�s - ���. �11. * �- eh , I � �y _ —'�� �—�s�
.. �. .:� � "� ' t K I �I � � r � � '
- � � i .� - i . �� 4�4� � � '� 1� � � � . _ � K � � �3 I. -..,- i � —
.._ t � � . .„ � � � �
r
�' �' , � � ` li � �i '��°� J{y� �� _ � F�,� , 's � � � � i �
a . - , - ' � � � h I , i�- j �
,, _� . � I� � ' ,..� �1 # � ` 6� � i QI . � �-, m- � � � . t
�� � � f! `� �aa "� "L :l �' � �
� {'7 i� � ��,- '� ,� �. � f 'i _ � ` � �°' �
� � �` � ` ' ��. � �. . , ; , 1
� � - � �-.� �.. _-�.. - � ; - �
' � � _ + % �. _�,s�a�r - —����- �3a�Flirsr� � , >t� j
� �
I� � , ` � � ' ' T � �'"' �t�`-` I�� � �a '�
� .' �r� � � j �`., � �
� �, ,,,� � s � .� ,�+� �... � 1� i � ��
� �� � � ,I /� .�
, � �� .,� i .. �
, �� �ms
� � � '� � 3 i ' _ _ _,- ,,,` k ,� � � ;�'- �A � 4 = I � �.
, �y ;� � , � 7.��`�' � � ` �� �
�,�T :� . "� �•..� � L�.�� `� � F . � � _
� _
— .. .
I , i
. . � - i ^ . . i ..--
„
' ��, . �� �5 °�' � �' � �� �
,
_ �'- \ -' °�—
1 '
_ , - i : � \ . � _ . ., .
� `'� , �t - - K�, ; �✓ � . Y 3 '
�j �I _. ... .� � _..� 4t � ; � W. 4 _. �i � . y �! _ r _
.1 '^. } •� �� � � � •
���.� � �.. ' � •i ' , .�� � •�� �i✓�� � � +��
I� . : . �+`� �I - ...ara"` � � _ _ i� �_ - j _ t �'� - -~7. � � � �I
, ,-
-, _ °.
� � k �i.s
.
I `.. i f� � .� � __ � � � ���_ � � 347 _ .sz� �-'.- �
"rt ' . . . ...
I wF. ' �.. � ��-r.t�'�i�@"��i�. � �Y 31 t '-�,� .�"`�. .� �� _ _..
F •�
� . ' � .. • . � � ��.y � �. � y ._ � . 1# �� � f
�:.�� � .� iF Ii� _ . � , i �i .. .
♦
� j{ �
I � . � .g: � �, � ��' � ' I� •�������.,�y,j ��,��'F� � '. � _ . 1(d �-� `ii;-�...
� - `� � �� ___-_... _ _ . � � - +�'r'T`_ "�. .__ ... __�. � f$-�� _
� � � �.:. f ..� ��. 9� , . � :I� . __
.r. .
r
� p �
� � � ' � r . ' ��i �, � �r. - } � 9 1 � I rI
` ., s� — � � Ei 9'`�e �:; , .. � � - - - J ! �
� �
y � � L. .t � .' !1, . �_ � Q r�
t ` �.
�;- � _ `� �: � . ' , ti h'Aw<-.e�+ =;iF:.y � � ..,.- , ......._ � � 'i-�
< -StA7EF i.: ��y_
� � 1 _ -:,_� � _ ��-- -... :
, �� `_ - I - . _ �-=-� `�
ti --
�. � ; �Ty��. ,_ . �` ,
� ., -� �� `. — . �I i� . -.
, ��a � ., , • �t . ,
,1 � ,.,4 " � i • � � ;
.
, ; . � , t �" � _ � � i
>f ,- � \\i� -�� _�"-�' I ° t � � . •. +,"
3 . ", . ,. _ i= _.._�,_
emoran um
pa��e 12/11 /w
Ta Sfieve Ka�cav, R� Estabe and T_arinny Manag�, American Porl�ble Teleoom(AP�
Cc AlanRoberts,RFEngineeringManager,APT
� BrandonJohnson,RFEngineer,APT
1� Bii Jt�stific�tion for Roseville Sauth- A1N517
As the Radio Frequency Engineerassignedto design and analyze the proposedtaw�erin Roseville,
MN, I haveperforrned evaluations considering thefdlawingfac�ors:to�w�er height, terrain,fdiage,and
coverage connectivitywith existing sites. All ofthe previously mentioned factorsane important in the
design pno0ess. Bef�or+e a�I�' loc�tion is d�o�en as the �ea vrhere w�a wish bo btdld, we first look
fior arry eoci�ing �,�u+� (i.e. roo�op�, e�ting tiow�ers, e�c.) ttra� rr�eet ota' ayverage ebjecxives and
thet are Sv�leble for c�o-loc;'ation. In this p�tic.ular c�se, an eodgting struchme was ideMified and
d es ig n ated as o u r pri ma ryc�ndidabef�r thisparticular �t ri n g.
The proposed site, which will belocatedon the roof oftha Roseville Professional Canter,willenable
APT to pronride optimal coverage in Roseville and provide in- building conrerage to ihe malls,
businesses and residential neighbort�oods sun+ounding Highuuays 36 and 51. Our prepoaed bwer will
fix the wisak in- b�l�ng ooverage th� exists in this p�ticx�lar area and sdve tl�e capaat�r is�ues we ar�e
currentlyexperienanginthisareaduetohighcustomerusage.
The frequencies used willberestrictedto the PCS B Band asfol(aws:
Ttansmit RCS B Blodc (1950 to 19B5 M Hz)
Receive: PCS BBlodc (1870 to1885 MHz)
This band was allocated to APT by the FCC. These frequencies are wetl isolated from other
frequencies used by public safety communications systems. Wecurrentlyhaveover250sitesonthe
air, and noincidencesofinterferencewithpublicsafetysystemshaseveroccumed.
8N8fio
! im
f;r
Zamsey �
Covnty
�rj i��1,'0�
1
Administratinie Offices 1 45�o North Victoria Street � Shoreview, Minnesota 55126-5863 �(651) 486-2200 � FAX(651) 486-2Z20
January 9, 2001
Thomas Paschke, City Planner
City of Roseville
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
Dear Mr. Paschke:
This letter is in reference to the Public Hearing Notice we received in December. The notice
refers to Planning File #3284.
Although we do not feel that the antenna installation/use would pose problems to the Roseville
Library, located at 2180 North Hamline Avenue, we feel it prudent to make our concerns
known.
The Roseville Library currently maintains a highly used, critical network and phone system
upon which we rely seven days a week. Future plans include the installation of a wireless
network to overcome some current building limitations. We would like assurance that the
proposed antenna installation/use would not interfere with current operations or future plans.
If unforeseen interference occurs, what mechanism would be in place for a timely resolution of
any disruption affecting the services to our customers?
Please contact me with any questions or concerns regarding our response. As always, Ramsey
County Library appreciates the time and effort you have extended to us on this project, helping
us to continue our success in the Roseville community.
Sincerely,
���� G�?�
Alice-Jo Carlson
Ramsey County Library Director
Cc: Chuck Wettergren, Automation Manager
TO. THE ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM � HOME OWNERS, NORTH SIDE OF 1300 BLOCK OF
RE: PLANNING FILE #3284, ATP MINNEAPOLIS, INC.
DEAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS:
REQUESTv
INC. T
R06F o
AVENUE.
MERCIAL
OWNERS
VARIETY
REQUEST
TO ASK.
,TANUARY / r 2 0 01
SANDHURST DRIVE
E ARE IN RECEIPT OF YOUR DECEMBER 2�� Z O O O CARD REGARDING THE
OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY CHARLES KADRIE & ATP MINNEAPOLIS
0 ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF A TELECOMMUNICATION
F THE ROSEVILLE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, LOCATED AT
UNDOUBTEDLY, THIS IS MUCH THE SAME REQUEST FOR
ASKED APPROVAL IN MARCH OF 1 9 9 7. AT THAT TI
OF FAMILY DWELLINGS REPLIED TO THAT REQUEST N1
OF REASONS. THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS WE HAD
THAT WE FEEL WERE NOT ANSWERED, SO WE STILL
ANTENNA ON THE
2233 iiAMGINE
WHICH C B COM-
E SOME OF THE HOME
GATIVELY FOR A
FROM THE 1997
HAVE SOME QUESTIONS
NO MENTION IS MADE AS TO THE HEIGHT OF THIS ANTENNA--IS IT TO BE
ONE STORY HIGH-- TWO STORIES HIGH--WHAT? WILL IT BE INSTALLED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF THE ROOF WHICH IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE YARDS AND THE
FAMILY HOMES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF OUR BLOCK OF SANDHURST DRIVE? WIT H
THIS IN MIND, AND MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL, �j,A� THERE REEN A HEALTH STUDY
MADE T� D E T E R M I N_E . IF SUCH AN ANTENNA W 0 U 1 D HARM THF w� E q I T H_ E N V I R�N Ni E1.V L
OF ALL �F nc NEIGHBORS_ wun I TVF TN 4iiCN CI OSF PRf1XTMTTY Tf1 iT� A�JLi
A CONDITIONAL PERMIT ALLOWS T00 MUCH LATITUDE TO THE APPLICANT. ANOTHER
NEGATIVE WOULD BE THAT THE TELEVISION RECEPTION IN OUR HOMES WOULD BE
ADVERSELY AFFECTED. THEREFORE, WE ALL FEEL THAT THERE MUST BE ANOTHER
TALL BUILDING IN ROSEVILLE THAT IS NOT LOCATED IMMEDIATELY NEXT TO
FAMILY DWELLINGS THAT COULD HOUSE THIS ANTENNA. WHY CAUSE UNNECESSARY
PROBLEMS FOR HOME OWNERS AND THEIR FAMILIES? PLEASE EXPLORE OTHER NON-
RESIDENTIAL LOCATIONS FOR THIS ANTENNA AND THEREFORE NOT ALLOW THIS
REQUEST O F A T P MINNEAPOLIS, INC.
WILLARD AND ALICE JOHNSON
1371 WEST SANDHURST DRIVE
RESIDENTS SINCE 1955
BECKY ENGELBY
2199 HAML I N E AvE.
RESIDENT SINCE �`���
LORRAINE GILBERTSON
1363 WEST $ANDHURST DRIVE
RESIDENT SINCE jq.�.3
�'� KEVIN AND KARLA MOSELEY
1377 WEST SANDHUR�DRIVE
RESIDENTS SINCE
� TAM DZU
1373
RESIDENTS
�SEE NEXT
AND M A I CAO
WEST SANDHURST DRIVE
SINCE ,�
PAGE ALSO, PLEASE)
RESPECTFULLY YOURS,
U/� �!•
�O.n/L Ol.,��v�-A,. �.,�%�2���L�i.d �"'{�-
` ��� ;��
� / % / Il�l/ll!'� .... �,
� �
�
��� f, i�<�� I �1�
%��i!�_ -
�
PHIL AND MYRA TOCONITA
1391 WEST $ANDHURST DRIVE
RESIDENTS SINCE 1�i71
SCOTT AND MARY ERB
1397 WEST $ANDHURST DRIVE
RESIDENTS SINCE �
COPY T�: ROSEVILLE CITY COUNCIL
I
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
l0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1g
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
so
51
Extract of 1�Iinutes from Planning Commission meeting of Januarv 10, 2001:
f. Plannine File 3284: A request by Charles Kadrie and ATP Minneapolis, Inc. for a
conditional use permit to allow the installation of a wireless telecommunication
antenna on the roof of the Roseville Professional Center, 2233 North Hamline
Avenue.
Chairman Craig Klausing opened the public hearing and requested City Planner Thomas
Paschke to provide a verbal summary of the staff report dated January 10,200 1.
Thomas Paschke explained the City Code requirements for commercial receiving or
transmitting antennas. He noted the Roseville Library expressed concern for fear of
interference (letter of January 9, 2001).
The proposal would add more support for existing antennas operated by VoiceStream
Wireless. The installation includes equipment cabinets on the roof of the building. Each
proposed antenna support unit could hold up to four antennas. (E�sting antennas are
attached to the penthouse walls instead of separate antenna structures.)
Thomas Paschke noted the uses do not create or hinder traffic; the units and cabinets can
be painted to match the e�sting building color; there appears to be no health, safety, or
welfare impacts and the use complies with the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff recommended approval to allow installation of the antenna.
Chair Klausing asked if the "leasing sign" on the penthouse was legal. Staff has worked
with the owner to reduce the size to meet the Code.
Wendy Metchnek, APT representative, explained that condition #4.1 must be changed or
removed to be installed on a structure support apparatus placed on the rooftop rather than
on the north wall of the penthouse.
Chair Klausing asked why the antenna structure could not be set back from the edge of
the building (the building blocks a part of the reception area).
Member Wilke asked if antennas could be placed on the roof of the penthouse. Chair
Klausing said he preferred white painted surfaces nearer the e�sting walls.
Member Cunningham asked for comment from applicants regarding Ramsey County
Library interference. (The frequency is designated per carrier and should not be a
problem).
Ms. Metchnek said eventually there would be si� (up from four) equipment cabinets on
the roo£ They will not be seen at grade from the property line. All units (30" wide, 40"
long, 5 feet high) should be painted to match the e�sting building walls.
Member Cunningham asked if the roof could hold the additional weight. An APT
structural engineer will design the load to meet roof capacity.
Willard Johnson, 137 1 Sandhurst Drive, asked for detailed information. He noted other
CUPs on this site have created problems. Are there other buildings that could be used?
The antennas now in place have affected the use of televisions in the adjoining blocks.
2
3
4
5
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
51
The 10hnsons stated they have not had a good relationship with the building owner in the
past.
Chair Klausing asked if other sites have been reviewed and if there is interference. David
Weggley, APT, noted APT is licensed by FCC. Ms. Metchnek said there are only two
buildings available: The Roseville Towers (they are not interested in antennas), and the
Roseville Professional Center.
Thomas Paschke noted the City could investigate signal interference remedies with the
FCC. Member Cunningham suggested the City contact the regional office of the FCC to
test the interference issue.
Mr. Johnson asked that interference be resolved prior to establishing another permit.
Chair Klausing felt this was beyond the Planning Commission's ability to address.
Karla Mosley, adjoining property owner, said nothing is done to resolve issues of existing
CUPs (PF 2882-Sprint PCS & PF 2887-US West). The neighbors feel "pushed aside".
Thomas Paschke asked that the neighbors call staf£ Chair Klausing noted that the
proposal couldn't be tied to past problems in the neighborhood.
Chair Klausing closed the hearing.
Member Rhody said he was concerned about health and interference issues, but there was
no direct evidence. The company is following FCC guidelines; no basis for denying the
permit.
Member Olson asked staff to check with FCC regarding interference and how they are
regulated.
Chair Klausing noted the applicant must comply with all e�sting FCC laws in addition to
the CUP.
Member Olson noted that the e�sting antennas might not be complying with FCC or
their CUP.
Thomas Paschke noted that there are two providers on the building. APT was given an
FCC frequency. Member Cunningham noted FCC monitors e�sting providers. When
are they recalibrated? The Planning Commission asked for details by staff follow-up.
Motion: Motion by Chair Klausing, second by Member Wilke, to recommend approval
of the ATP Minneapolis's request for a conditional use permit to allow the installation of
three wireless communication antenna (one on north building fa�ade and two free
standing on the building roof at the southeast and southwest corners) and an associated
equipment platform and cabinet area by VoiceStream, at the Roseville Professional
Building, 2233 Hamline Avenue North, based on the findings in Section 3 of the project
report dated January 10, 2001 and with the following conditions:
1) The north facing antenna(s) shall be installed on the roof of the Roseville Professional Building
(not penthouse or penthouse roof�.
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
2) The maximum height of the antenna support units and antenna located in the southwest and
southeast building comers, upon full installation, shall be eight feet above the building roof height.
3) The maYimum height of the equipment platform and cabinets, upon full installation, shall be
eight feet above the roof height.
4) The ATP request, on behalf of VoiceStream, shall be limited to three antenna support units,
each having a ma�mum of four antennas.
5) The equipment platform shall be limited to siY equipment cabinets. Five will be 30 inches wide
by 40 inches deep by 5 feet tall and one cabinet will be 2 feet wide by 2 feet deep by 5 feet tall.
6) The antenna support units and equipment cabinets shall be limited to the single user
(Voice&earn) and the applicant ATP Minneapolis. Future antenna additions shall require a
revised CUP.
7) The antenna units and equipment cabinets shall not be lighted. Electric and phone wires
serving the equipment and antenna units shall be mounted to the building roof.
8) The antenna units, equipment platform, and supporting cabinets shall be completely removed
from the site by the applicant (ATP Minneapolis) after operations cease, or if the equipment is
damaged or unsafe as determined by the Roseville Building Official, or if the CUP elapses or if
the use is determined to be in violation of the CUP or City Code by the Community Development
Director. The City may require the applicant (ATP Minneapolis) to post a bond to assure timely
removal of the antenna units and supporting equipment.
9) Parking of maintenance vehicle(s) shall occur in an off-street parking space of the parking lot
affiliated with the Roseville Professional Building.
10) The color of the antenna, antenna support units, equipment platform, and equipment cabinets
shall be of a similar color (white) to that of the principal structure.
11) This conditional use permit shall expire 6 months after approval if a building permit has not
been issued. (Section 1013.03)
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
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 held on the 22°d day of January 2001, 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.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERIVIIT FOR ATP
1�'IINNEAPOLIS (VOICESTREAi�'� ALLO�'VING THE INSTALLATION OF
TELEC01�'Ii�'IUNICATION ANTENNA ON THE ROOFTOP OF THE ROSEVILLE
PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, 2233 HAMLINE AVENUE NORTH.
WHEREAS, ATP Minneapolis in conjunction with VO1CeStCeam Wireless are proposing
to install wireless telecommunication antennas with accompanying equipment on the roof of the
Roseville Professional Building, owned by NIr. Charles Kadrie.
WHEREAS, Section 1012.10A4 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 "T' Industrial Districts; and
WHEREAS, Section 1013 of the City Code stipulates criteria for approving conditional
use permits requiring the City to consider:
➢ Compatibility with adjoining properties.
➢ Impacts on traffic and public facilities.
➢ Impacts on property value.
➢ Impacts on general health, safety, and public welfare.
➢ Compatibility with the Roseville Comprehensive Plan.
➢ The process also allows the City to impose those conditions it considers necessary
to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
WHEREAS, The Roseville Professional Building is zoned `B-1", Limited Business
District, is located in Comprehensive Land Use Plan Planning District 13, with a land use
designation of "LB", Limited Business; and
WHEREAS, the following has been concluded regarding the proposal and the criteria in
Section 1013.O1.D of the Roseville Zoning Ordinance:
A. The proposed antenna units and equipment cabinet will not create additional
traffic nor the need for additional public facilities.
B. The antenna units cannot be effectively screened given their proposed size and
location, as well as creating a disruption of use. However, the equipment cabinet
must be designed in a manner to be consistent with the adjacent penthouse. When
complete, neither the antenna units nor the equipment cabinet will have an impact
on surrounding properiy or values.
C. There appears to be no impact on general health, safety, and public welfare.
D. The project complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation as a business use.
WHEREAS, on January 10, 2001, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public
hearing regarding the ATP Minneapolis request and voted (5-0) to recommend approval of the
conditional use permit, subject to the following conditions:
The maximum height of the antenna support units and antenna located in the
southwest and southeast building corners and north side of the building, upon full
installation, shall be eight feet above the roof height.
2. The maximum height of the equipment platform and cabinets, upon full installation,
sha11 be eight feet above the roof height.
3. The ATP request, on behalf of VoiceStream, sha11 be limited to three antenna support
units, each having a maximum of four antennas.
4. The equipment platform shall be limited to six equipment cabinets. Five will be 30
inches wide by 40 inches deep by 5 feet tall and one cabinet will be 2 feet wide by 2
feet deep by 5 feet tall.
S. The antenna support units and equipment cabinets sha11 be limited to the single user
(VoiceStream) and the applicant ATP Minneapolis. Future antenna additions will
require a revised CUP.
6. The antenna units and equipment cabinets shall not be lighted. Electric and phone
wires serving the equipment and antenna units sha11 be mounted to the building roof.
7. The antenna units, equipment platform, and supporting cabinets sha11 be completely
removed from the site by the applicant (ATP Minneapolis) after operations cease, or
if the equipment is damaged or unsafe as determined by the Roseville Building
Official, or if the CUP lapses or if the use is determined to be in violation of the CUP
or City Code by the Community Development Director. The City may require the
applicant (ATP Minneapolis) to post a bond to assure timely removal of the antenna
units and supporting equipment.
2
Parking of maintenance vehicle(s) sha11 occur in an off-street parking space of the
parking lot affiliated with the Roseville Professional Building.
9. The color of the antenna, antenna support units, equipment platform, and equipment
cabinets shall be of a similar color (white) to that of the principal structure.
10. This conditional use pennit sha11 expire 6 months after approval if a building permit
has not been issued.
NOW TI�REFORE BE TT RESOLVED, by the Roseville City Council, to approve of
the conditional use permit granting ATP Minneapolis a conditional use permit to a11ow the
installation of three wireless communication and an associated equipment platform and cabinets
area on the roof of the Roseville Professional Building 2233 Hamline Avenue North, based on
findings and conditions 1 through 10 indicated above.
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.
Resolution - 2233 Hamline Av
STATE OF NIlNNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville,
County of Ramsey, State of NTinnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared
the attached and foregoing e�tract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council
held on the 22nd day of January, 200 1, with the original thereof on file in my office.
2001.
SEAL
WIT'NESS MY HAND of�kially as such Manager this 22nd day of January,
Notary Public
Edward L. Burrell, Acting City Manager
,_._ �_
Y ' !-, � - � �
_.__ -, °;�
=�. . .,,,
__� ,�, ,:
�
_ - . �,- r. , -
� ,�`r= '�;3
--- — — ��. '-
r� �
�- - b
� =� ,� 6�
i —. ' � �£" �` �'� .�
--, =-t � - - - - � .'�,c ,-�--�Y� � �
--F _ {T ���
:�+�'
!F _ -� _ - {' ��
a _ () � �t�
i .tf ..` � P -� �a .' �
�� � '—we.+t l k i � �_ � E A
, � � � -� �'- x�
� `. ` i � ._ y=,�w
�: c- � � — � F�
r—i = � + �
��� �+ '"'��. .,-,y-. } f `
�_ j i
�
�..__� �. � _� _�, �
�� �a �_ $ �
rw-� , . _,__'` . � _ �,
_ }: r' � -; � ' �;
� - �..� � �, � � �;_,:
� � E- --�= � � �
a f,= ' .
` ±� � ! ' i�'` � ;s= � �.+
+-� ., � �-:.»
k= 1� � '. f�—F _ 4
, �. ,
� i ' P�. ._..�,C -�. t � �:
, ' �__"-€, t '�°r_. �...� � ,
r"��k`: #".` �' : ;� 4
�� ' .r.-��y � t' I
�� .,�� .���� �f �� �
�' ''...�'�� ''°_� ' p:
;��, !.T_t '��k , � _iT_ �;.'� ��',i
f�—�.�:� ,f • :'�
g �� ,� ;;---� ,, � �� .
�..��� i =..,�._ �� � . . . # � -
- —a-a�: t: `�'E _
s ���� : �� �� � �'�':
;~ � ----� �
--.� ,-,s.--- � +:
��'—"=—'� ` =� j �
x 1
�k + _, .a`.�t . � i � y � I
�� ��- ..� � 1 r,
�,.� � a_ t��- j. T+ _..._ � 1 ,�..
�:_ ._* r, �} -1
=, : —�+ -�-, 3 f:;- � � . � ,
_. _ � �
.�: — _ __� � s.
� _ ` . �• '�, ,
� � �,-. .
- ■ s �.� ,��
:A.� : = t'. } r �� _ ; `
� _� �M� �$ � �t �
�� . _.
�� , � �i �
�•s*^ t - � r j
- . �r- '� ..a
-`' =� 1 a
I ' __ ' ji� t 'i
,L. __ i . � 'i
«� � �r �` �
. . . �� �-i = . � � _ . - � �i A
- ib'�♦ � ' � .
.w�`= • . ..'.• -
F... - �, _
� , ���
_ - �� �
'�C�� ' � ��„ }�+` � �,�' "
"'�.` � ;. Yi �' ' ��
� : . h ". , . . t
'�'_ ' _ . k. ' �� — ,
�� � .
'�i� r� ` `� ,
� :�'.
F: '�
—
1,
•� �
{
��
,�
1
�—
�� � - I .I i. �� ., .
� � ;`, J _
� j � TS ���F�,
�� `� � ' � i' � �, `_ ` . - . _ —..{
I � ,+`
�� \ , �� 1 '�, i ..1 a■. _
'�.,�� !,t .�� - --� � � ��_
r . �,1 � � - �
�� y /'/ ' � � } : � — _' .
� f � � i_�` ,4 � f '_. �� � � - .� � �: ' ? � 4 — e
/ I , �. ,f `'� '1'.,� ? � 'r-{ E � ! . � � — - �__�
i� � ' � f � � -`
� � � f .. ! ~r i _ � � � �� _ _
� ,� % , i ,; � ', � � �—.
�1' ., - � =. - - - .�
� l Jf . * .-.,Y ": ' - _" � j' _. � �� � � �
� T � � �� .�
;:. r ,� �:f i i #.. _
r ,i
� ° k � r -'-i " .�� -- — -
�` �-- � � t /.�� _ � � ��� A �
i s`�ti I �
.'j I � -- '�+ � '3 ,�.—
i. r % / N i � �� - -
3
.\ _ • ' ' I��� _
1
I i � . Y �I . • � ' - f � � *. . � ��J �r � .V � -
� 1��- , '�'� s`� �,/ � _ . J-� � � _ � .
'~ �J 1 ;' I. % -- -
}�i f � _ r ;��-� �r /� _� ._ �
/'r .,� ` a• `, � ,�l ' 1� � l` � �� ��-'�-
� fr � �' � ; � -'� �`�._ '
_ . _ ' -" _
; _- - -''� ,� �_
_ � � � _
'_ `" - _ r. - � `�- '�i. P"'�
.�:� � rF ; i , - � , �'' �
', ir } � 1 i . � � -
� ! r yX ~ �-t � � ` � - -
�- j ,� l� — ` `1 / � . {
_ti� �� _` � -f, r i��_�„ ^1 � _ ' .ry
I� \ � � '
t.f � �, /` - ..ti� - '
�� �� �- t .�f ' - �`�� �4� _ _—�
_� ! �
! � , . `. f� •� - `-!''.
�����?
-- � - �
: —'f� - I
a.^,. ; .�,
� > " ''� ,
r' , 7' `f`� � �.+ � L .
�• `. \. , �- ,�� � `_ ` i�
-� � �-,y �_� s � � _
:�
%-�=-,' „1�
��. �
` ��' 'l.
��.�r`:� �
x<� �
`�������� �s{�
a• _;� ��' .
Y ��. ���
�� �1' '�
r
�" �
-- x
�* 3
�[�
�''' ,i
�� i
— � �_r,
�
�_�
'�i
i:- � :
`—.' .. si
�
f ' '
,
��=f
� `
: _..
.�e+ `
�
t
� 4-�
�'' �. . -
�"��x-4
��_ _ _
"
t _::
_ ��
� � �.
t?� �
-� �
t . ;�t �
, i' - ♦ �
� �`�w
-a • 4 s
'+ t
��l,f
,' �
�. ;..
_. � I
� ' I � rl
i���
� ;. � ' � E'- ]
_ r .I
,r F ;
�`
� �
�- (� �
��� �
'- �'�- y'ti.w�.��c �;'�-."� � �.� yt���, �y. . .
' ' `,�-�7 `�, .,� r�.i e � - _ . .
_ - - �i� :4 __ Lz �:.i . • � . . - ' ..
, .e :.
. :.�_ � . i ' " ', . . ' - .
��... . �_- . .. •�: �,.�4�. a ' _., . , . � - � � .. � . �
, ` .
�' - ' - A... . _ . � ' . . . � �, � '
� ' .. � - . ' ' . ' . , ' .� . .
't � �
_ �' ti '�� i � �
�
- {: R -
� � 4�� � � _ . .
,sr� -- . �. � _ _ � .. - r � � -
's.� w _._ .-�^'^'�� � . ` � '"k' ' '
r � � b + _ ' ' . . . . ' _ � - , . < , . .
. :.{ ' -_ � - . .. � . . -
� � �� �
� �r" ° + �' / �f � ' . � . .
_ � � ��P .. 1'. ',, 1 .. . . . �_ . . ' .
.! d � A , . � . ,Ir
� r �- .; . . _ � � .
T�T �� ✓�f` � ��+ft4: r � �, r�e; ' '
; a-=r ,c. r f _ :' + - �
;.a'° _r' :r =, r' : r', _- - � . '
=- � > f _ f.,_ - _ � _ ,
s� f�lf "' �-� ` - - . �
k �.
,_ +f f� j�` �° s� _f , •� ( ' __
r�'� �� s .F". . �* :✓ . .r _ . , _ . . _ 4
�.u. �{ �i i
� P -� . - �, . �
r."r _ . ` � �-�c -: �'" f � . _ _ . . ` -
_ .�:
� � .. ' ¢ :�-,` , � _ ; . -r � .
f4 ax r ` � �
�S. . 1 _ !� J � .� .f �IC �,' � . .
. fi' . ' L 1'y " C } ��l � q . -' y . i �. � I j �� f
t � I y «i � T ,� .
J�� , i. .
,.
, , -
, -{ � , . `- � _ . �� ;
+ :, ; �1 ' �, t r ; _ -
_ •� - � , �� .�
. ,, . . ..
r,.. .�
, . �, , , ,
..
_ . - -
. , . ._.
� �._
� ,' . r ;
.: . ,- ,r
. <•. . ; � : _. r
-. '�. ..�._..; . .. . .�,. l. � - •:::
. . - �., .r.�'�"�S(y A � -
. - - _ � �F .. �' ��
1 ��,=' - �'- 3
� - � �
f � �.' t�
-. -_. ._ .`y �� �_-� . . '� Y 3L�¢
� - �._,{y-. J . _. --_" .__--. `Sf _�
1 k � � T (
' --�
j }y
, ., e _ [ - -.,. ,
__ -
..: T . . - ,._---. �_ .. .' __ �
„� ` - ' � -- - � �:�
.. , _ , .-� _ i �
i
. ---
„ � .,, _.__ --__ + ,�
� - _ � ��
�. -- � � . {. I i ' � .;�
,
,� , � , — --- -
,___ _ . _ �
' + -- 4 -- – — + ��
--� �
; -� ` -- ` !
.� � :� # : 3. = - - -- ---- -- - - __ ��
ia � { �
' � -'����� � �1 ^-°�•-a �._- - . �� . . .. � . _.
' ' _.- � J� . ��_ ,�-.: � . -'— -�� --- ---'- ��
I � '
� � �.
-^�:� .. _ ��� � - - � � . - - -
' �� ..._---� -_..__.. .. ._ � . ' �' --
' -" � -
� _ �
-�- : ���� .... . ,
� �s= � �� r � . = i - � -- � _ � 'I
� , • �{; -- -- - - -
��� ��� `
, ��t .
�`��� , ,. ,1 _ _ { � I i
� `�:-�{ • - - - _ -
, ��-�.Y � i � ! � • � � - � -�
� �
r ' �' �� � � �� i � i � �
� ;' , � � � ��
� ; �. � .`
�; _ �" `3 ��
� � f � � -� 1 � �
�� ��
�.. � �:4 � �� � �. _ . ' .
�� � �
'�s - - � �i'� -
� 'c _ '�` � . . _ . r
�ti _ - - . . � . . �
♦. �:-- . � . . _ . ., : . . -�. .
� �i-� . . , .. . .. . . . . . . ` . -.
�
r:
��'
. �tP
�
i
k _ '
}
�
� �'.
�- = �
� , ;a
_����:'
.z.�-.� J �44�
� �� �
.+ �
0
��.
�
�..
s
+��
�
�w
� �e
�
4
r
�
�
�r �
1�1
{
��
i
'�
�
i
...�.�
r.��n��
i
��
;
��
��
��
�Z
�
mi�
�r
�
W
�
���
�
I
:��
y
��
�
r�
x��
� _ - � } �' F �- —� � ` � `4�i �`J `��;`4 � + "
� �
1 F�g ����
�.
�
�
5 ._ .. . . ' � ' �: - � > __. . .. :.
- � �. . . . . . ,. : �e ` , -
� ` .i '. . .. . '.. ,�- .._. . �. .:_.�_ ` ... .� .�-.
I�
F- _ � � ' .� - "
, , - _ - - s�' _ '
- _ - �t .- j - .
}
r�' -r - t �.� :-
- . . � .. . .:���
� �� .� �,�a �'!�aa+'y�,�� �£ R--
t � £ ' _ - � � _ � � .�.��„_-^�3 f '
q- �-� �'� ,-r,� rR
_ � _ � ,- ' .. . . � �� �, -
- _ � < � r ? � � � � -'� `� 5�
G � � � �.,si3- �.'� .)':
� � �d+ '�� f -"'� +� -
� _ - �s` ;# t �'�
F " •-;
; . ,' '`_ . _ ,.., ,� :s � �
. . _
'� , �� t'- `��
_ _ .
- , . ; . ,` ' ' ° " ..-,.
� s , } _-
- {_�� .a�cs�� � .` � �#'= IIr�� . T .
����.�'�'.`5""^°s�• t
......� } :! " .3 i
� �
- �s = "f � } � � ,
r= • �. � �. ��• � ;
1 k3 _
3� r� ; �
�� t : � :�
� �����`
. - �-
�
_ - `� ': � �� � '�*-� •'-�+ -
� °� ,t� _
.` ` • � -
�, -�
4 , �
_, ; ° �a �_�'�='
. � _ ° _ �_ rt
� �_ = 3 , �,'`
� ° � �� � �� ��� �
� ' ' � � � ' � . =€%�i�' a..+.+.i:� �` �° _ -�+�'
t _ x-
} ;� _ �� . _. ' , . ,
�• - �: �
� r_ £ �
� _ _
� ����
� ' ,x � �
_ _ #�_ r _ '�f: _ _
- °� � ' - i.-= _ �f .
=t � = _ ��-
� � M � - _ _ ��e -,.��,� '-n - z�-
I i - ��-:
z
r ' fi'_ .� � �'. r .
E t � �� �a �� �
� - �_ E �� � -- • ., �� :
i ,
# 3 � r�+- -� -Y�
�� _ s? 4 � �.tr P �`. a. t �'_� �.." '
c - �-= �.{�_�. � S .,xV,u�.� ' �
�t- � " �-3� e. . - :.
$
� ��' �{ �� �� � " � } ��_
�' , k .'-e�- T � ra�s� - -'S s -
��� � � " �`��'�-- ,� � �� 4 ,.�.� _
� � '
� � � -.� i , , . , �.", � f �.��-i��� �_ �� a�� .. . � .
� �����.�.--:- �
a � Y
�
.'� �. rh-- .- �� :t � �.
�y � x : � �� �,.� �. _--� _
�� � � �� � � �
s� � . � �` � g�" � _. � �
_ ..� � ._ �__�._. . .. �- ,�--3, ���_:. __ � . ..�.
. ,,•.� �`�M
. . - - . �` x•° �-�.*`
'�
...,..--E ..,�
-�;�_:
� �
, ;�
.r -
4x
��
'. w 7
_ ,�
� S
« ���..
. . _ . �� y�' � � ! . �
. - - � . . � .'^* ��. . -' A
_ " i�Pa . " _ {
�
'-1 .:'-� ° _ � ., �. h� i �` . . � €
�. �� +"t°' „»; • ' < °
�.. .t � T" ��� '�a f" 1 '.r" " . ' '
_� „,�.
, � t�'e �L� � �b'� ar� � i t� - ° � q� �� 1
�-.i�.^ ,� a iTr� i�4_ . � .
� �i� .s� i -ti _ a' .+4. a . f 3 r f � -
4- _
`�$..�f , r���: rA ���r'.l�.: �� i '��� -
'!� �! - • "-. • i= �# ,ti. ��_.
t .t �'� �S �. t �
.. r P f s�� � 1 �� .� ,;��-
� _ , _ _'�. � �" . • - --s � � .#�� �f
- . ' `� �'k . � 5,J y,� =� -
�.�„ �3t' , s ,: :T, y . � . tew
♦ t � i� � __, +P _
> ~' , .i' �..� `r iP.} `�'�� �?w' .�� . �4
' � ...�M s * � w�; R..Q � , � 7 .
, � �_ . � � ��►° ; s• •
��
r'. 't �!',•j';, .i ,� r,
` �+. � � �'i�..� .�. .. ♦
� - � \e
-_.., _ .: . . �•j, ' ., , z ' - `1 l �' I
_ •. 3_. - •_.� ' �` {5 i
t. . . .._ .,"; .
-. �_ -�i - . � . �- _ . � .
,,y .' : y+' . _
`; a;:.
r ..� ' .* � � � _ • . � , `• �
' � ` , l t . I - � ., . . .. .
. � � ♦._�. , � t � . - •. . � , . 4'' . _
�
�
• � -
.� _
���-
F ,�•
`� F_
� � r J
�� :.#_:
3 ad�
0
S _
t. , . . - - . � �
_ . _ � , - S�. . . : �-, :
. . � - : x - . . f-.
. .
, . .
_ z=
_ R - , 3r
. S � � k ' ` M . • � �
.. '- . . ` '�J
, � - . ,. . . 'w �1 7
. . .� Y. . � . • *. - �
` . 'i. i§ - �+� . y ' ��1�� t
' . '~. ��}, �
, .. ' !'._ ' � . .
-• _ _ • ,S� . . _ �'.
- � . , � . ' ' -- � i.
. • ' -t � '. p:
*� " �
1 - •
i ' • " � 1��.�'
� ��' • -j}��t� �� `�
f :�
{
_ � . . �- •_" �
4 i�, �, ` 3 �� �,
. at .:
�;'-..� I3;° .�i 'k4. �'•�"
�.�� .:l t Y$ � ..- �.
� �o-.$ 3 F � �, . � •
� � �_
.�fa r .�� � i t `' i � . _
1. 6 i ; f� � ��� � .t
i a� 1 r � .. �-. . ` �d ': �3.�� ? T .
_ � �
.!� � � i . • : + 6 �R 'Oj'# �
1" •'•� �. ''r ��:'#� -
. f �. Kt-.
. . � 1 - Y' ' _ ���}.� ^:. !y. �.
s
g�.\1�,i. 4 �•, �"Y4�.
_ � . � ;�,.�, � _ - ° � s .. �L
♦ ` �♦'i ' • , , . � �
� ��• �' � fi ' �i�' ~ ~ �"��
.� y rs i , �� _ ' _ � �, � ''� '�
°:, { . . .
�� a� } .•���-R`� 'ti •
', � � � . � r y � .
t.
� . • . a
• � �•
�r.� .� ' . � .
�� _ � ; j � .���
F , "'�'��r�..�. —
ti� . � t
. - .. -. :
�� _,.
.,�+ti , . . � _� .• � .
'
�;-
♦y�
7
�j
:w�
��,
��
_ ��,� - z z �
�:
_ - - � ia��f
r � jf �� �
� � � .:�. i ",
- �-�' ` �
� � .
) . t i Y'
i � - �'� S . } �.
� � � j _ � . J � � �,4 : y�
.. ;. ' � } -. :� � y*
- i `s`�
: ' � G •- ,�, .
k 1{ :. �'��-- � ` '��'94 m� ���.
� � �. ; �� �. ,
;, ;. ►�R,
� _ � _ � . ,. , .� �
.4� • _.�
� � ��
- �. � { .�-
��.,., ��:
� _ �� - i=. . �.
� �,.= . t , � �:�r . �
P �� - . ,,,,;
" � "� �� __ : _ � �`` '. � f i i
�� �, ,� , �} �, �_•� ;
_ �. ,e '� � +' '!}�,. �,� "►
-- �{3� -�._. _._.��_�-��_��r► �. �4., f �*.• '�'°��� :e�,
- � = f � = t +� tif �; - �:-?
: � � � , �i , �,,
._ � � > � • � :� , a
''�•�� _i , � �" ` �` �, �• � � �•
- + ' �'. t � • d
�� � _ � , �. • r �►L" • : ,' s�. :.
��� ', . s .`-f -... . -.3 }, g� a ..
,
s ��� ,, ,� . 4 • ;
i ¢ � '-`,�
- � ;• * � , `
. � ` � , �
� ��: � � ` R ; ,, � � ��
_ . . . . _ ._, , . . � f � � � • '� .
�' . _ ��� R � ,� �lyv � �,
.� _ ; . � � ; . �. • . r. ,t ; . � :
�� _ � , l. - s-.
i ��, ` '• '�,: - c
- '�� . , � . 3 �l y , - .
� _� � a;�` ' --
� 1 ��`... �
-- � { � �
� s �_.
S_ �. t ` '`p , �.. \ \ �� . .
�: - __ - � -� ��:'_
� . ��*` : �
■ ° . � � a� s. w .,
� ��:r� � , . �
_� . i , � -.. # { ,a�; . ~� ��t "�
� � - aF - ���f �`� .
�' �;�. � , • �
_ •' i. � � o
� ; � �, �.� � "- •
' - t, � ,� � � .
� � -
�r �
� �� . d a
� � _- ;� st . �.. L�
� � � �� f , : � � � p
` f i . ? , ���� "3t� � _ .. _ _ ,t � -. � '! e .,�. C
Y
�L:' - �. _ �,r � � - ` � • _ �
. � + � � �a f � ! ,{ ._�'� � �f,,��,` `���'�y�
:� x � y . �- � i
a �r'� , ' t� ,M ! '
� �y , �_�# y _ t �..:
. ' � •, � � ��,t� �y�.
- , . . -, :
iV - :. . �.
�: �.�! A i _ .�-`�`.� �:�t
�� _ -<� ,__. e � a ' s 4 •.�
� .. .. , _. .. . ,.ti.
a� i � ��` � � � . i� a
0 .. . �.
� _ A` �� My� ti+ '..
a ° �
W ° ` #"� ' i —� � � � , i
ti � - � �Y� ' `ti
C � °•
Gl .�� , '``
-
<� -�
..I - 1
.
<
- .
� ' � ,���'�,��,. l� . � � �j ' .y� °t •a •t
.. � �� ! �. i
C � - ` _� ��' .s _• ` `' L' 4 ►` i,, �.
.
. � y R
�S� � . . --�- ... ...._ _ #i
� Y � •
� 1'
i � �€:< ,
, . . : . . , �iC..= �. • �+ ± ` •,.
' � '� .. eF.r..a�, • .� � � � 'f�
s � • . .
.��r� .. __—� . .
� � �'�1• _.-a.-.s �-a r . � S `
a --A .,.°� �`.y"�:.. ,�� _ �r } a�� � ia� � r {.
T J` � � �:i � ��1} �' r �.�� �
P
'G ■• _ � w� i
.
��
6� � : - �
.
a� t;� � �' � _ � �,��� `�:t' ��
C �I '� ����
�o ,3 � . 4�. i "1 t . �; `�
a =� � �4� "- �'.���•_ - ��
� �� •. .• 3 � +'�� ,�'� �
� �1 �` �.i t.'
.�r . -----�� - � + ;E ' �� � t �
C.1 ' �' + - � � ' • � '
. 3 - . � � 1�i��
Page 1 of
file://C:\TEMP\cab-2.jpeg O 1/03/20(
Page 1 of
iile://C:\TEMP\CAB- 1 .jpeg O 1/03/20(
REQUEST FOR COUNCII, ACTION
Date: O1/22/O1
Item No: I-2
Department ApprovaL Manag� Approval: Agenda Section:
� � LAND USE
Item Description: Ryan/Veritas Amendment to Planned Unit Development and Review of Voluntary
Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Office Campus Expansion (PF3283)
1.0 REQUESTED ACTION
Veritas, through its development partner Ryan Companies, has proposed PUD amendment of
122,000 additional square feet to the total building area of the 47-acre Centre Pointe Planned
Unit Development. If approved, this PUD Amendment would a11ow Veritas to complete its
campus with 2 additional floors on each of 2, two-story buildings. Each of these two
previously approved buildings would expand from 2 stories and 61,000 5.f. to 4 stories and
122,000 s.£ A Voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet has also been submitted to the
City for publication, comment, and action by the City.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 The current total permitted square footage of building area in the Ryan Centre Pointe PUD
is 680,000 s.f. (as originally approved in 1997 and amended in 2000); with the new proposal
the total Ryan PUD building area would be appro�mately 802,000 s. f. Also, Woodbridge
previously developed 120,000 s.f. of building area prior to the current Ryan Planned Unit
Development.
Centre Pointe Planned Unit Development Stages of Approval
Woodbridge PUD 647,0000 s.f. .
Woodbridge —Built 120,OOOs.f. 120,000 s.f. 120,000 s.f. 120,000 s.f.
Ryan PUD 619,000 s.f. 619,000 s.f. 619,000 s.f. 619,000 s.f.
Adm. Amendment (10%) 61,000 s.£ 61,000 s.f. 61,000 s.f.
CSM Hotel PUD Amend. 3rd Business Hotel
(no signif. s.f. added)
Veritas Exp.PUD Amend 122,OOOS.f.
Approved PUD 647,000 s.f. 739,000 s.f. 800,000 s.f. 800,000 s.f. 922,000 s.f.
2.2 The original master plan for Veritas showed similar footprints to the current proposal. However,
the new proposal would allow Veritas to add 2 floors to each of the previous approved 2 story
buildings. Therefore, no new office building coverage of the land would occur. Finally, to reduce
parking lot coverage of the land and allow for more green landscaped area, a parking structure
PF 3283 — RCA (O1/22/O1) — Page 1 of 4
would be built where single level parking was previously planned. As proposed, construction
will occur over 3 years from 2001 through 2003.
2.3 The Planning Commission was also requested to review and comment on the proposed
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAU� that identifies any changes in
environmental impacts based on the Veritas 122,000 s.f. proposed changes. While the EAW is in
process and the staff expects no major environmental impacts, the most significant issue will be
traffic volumes. The draft EAW is attached.
3.0 CONIPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLICATIONS:
The City of Roseville Comprehensive Plan designates the entire Centre Pointe development as
a business area. No specific maximum square footage is stipulated or required in the Plan. The
guiding document is the Planned Unit Development for Centre Pointe, adopted in 1997. A copy
of this document is attached.
4.0 EAW SUNINIARY
4.1 The City will expand the capacity of the sewage pumping system In the EAW, the proponents
explain that the level of disturbance on the site has been high and the uses are a11 urban
developments except for the storm water catchment areas. There are no occurrences of
endangered species.
4. 2 The proponents note that there is adequate water capacity on the site but that the sewer capacity
is limited by the pumping systems. The City has been aware of this situation since the review
and approval of the Couriyard Hotel PUD amendment and is studying this issue. Eventually a
new pumping system with added capacity will be installed to meet the needs of the Business
Park when fully occupied.
4.3 Runoff from the site will continue to be handheld by a series of filtration areas and ponds. Silt
screening and hay bale erosion interception will handle construction erosion. Storm water will
be pretreated in infiltration areas and ponds before it reaches the wetlands areas, in a method
previously approved by the Rice Creek Watershed. Centre Pointe has a requirement of retaining
25% of the site in green space. With the proposed configuration of the buildings (adding height,
not surface area) approximately 3% more green space will be added to the site.
4.4 In terms of generation of to�c or hazardous materials, the site is clean; the Veritas offices will
produce none of these materials. Solid waste (trash) would be collected by private haulers and
delivered to landfills or processing plants.
4.5 Traffic and parking are important issues in Roseville. The new facilities (122,000 s.f. of offices)
would create a need for 460 new Veritas parking spaces and a total of 1,277 Veritas spaces and
2,380 spaces throughout the business park Veritas proposes a"proof of parking" parking ramp
wherein 2 levels would initially be built, with the possibility, if needed, to add two additional
levels of parking. An Indirect Source Permit, analyzing vehicle e�aust levels, will be required
PF 3283 - RCA (O1/22/O1) - Page 2 of 4
by MnPCA. The EAW states that none of the intersections will exceed the MnPCA guidelines
for carbon monoxide levels.
4.6 In total, the Centre Pointe Business Park is estimated to generate 7,369 vehicle trips per day,
with appro�mately 900 trips per peak p.m. traffic hour (244 entering 686 lea�ing the site). The
proponents state that no signalized intersection will ha�e service difficulties based on the
proposed Veritas development, even with growth in the background traffic by 2% per year. Only
one intersection will change its level of service, the ramp from Cleveland Avenue onto 35W
North will change from a service level of "B" to a service level of "C", which is still very
functional.
4.7 Unsignalized intersections will continue to function the as today, except the North Centre Pointe
Drive intersection with Cleveland Avenue, where cars will queue up in Centre Pointe Drive
while attempting to make a left turn to north bound Cleveland Avenue. A solution at this
intersection could be a signaled intersection. Signalizing could also help reduce straightway
speeding along Cleveland Avenue. (The 1997 PUD and planning process planned for a signal
further south at Lydia and Cleveland in order to reduce traffic noise and congestion close to
residences and to provide a 4 way intersection into the industrial/park area east of Cleveland.
Staff and city traffic consultants will be reviewing this issue during the 30-day review and
comment period.)
4. 8 The proponents state that the additional 122,000 s.f. of office area will ha�e little negative impact
on the traffic and in fact will remain similar to past proj ections for the Business Park, in part,
because of the changing nature of the work force (more hi-tech than sales and clerical) and work
hours (longer and varied).
4.9 E�sting noise levels have exceeded historically exceeded state noise standards for residential
areas near County Road "D" and Cleveland Avenue. The added traffic from the proposal will not
significantly increase or decrease noise levels. However, construction noise may ha�e a
temporary impact, but only during weekday daytime construction hours. Construction for the two
buildings is estimated to take 12 to 14 months, during which noise and construction dust will be
managed to reduce impacts as much as possible.
5.0 STAFF RECONIN�NDATIONS
S.1 The staff recommends that the Council review the amendment to the Final Development
Agreement for the Centre Pointe Planned Unit Development and provide direction on: 1) the land
use consistency of the added building space proposed in the PUD (122,000 s.f. of office) and, 2)
approve the distribution of the Voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the public
review and comment period.
5.2 Staff has found the proposed office use is similar to and consistent with other permitted uses in
the PUD. Conceptual land use approval should be given by the Council to a11ow the EAW
process and agency and public comment period to commence, with the condition that the
PF 3283 — RCA (O1/22/O1) — Page 3 of 4
Planning Commission and Council review the PUD amendment again when the EAW and
comment is complete, prior to the City Council decision on the EAW.
5.3 In late March, the City Council would then review additional Planning Commission
recommendations; receive comment on the EAW and decide on the Council's declaration of
EAW adequacy and impact. Assuming there are no additional significant environmental
impacts, the Council could then also approve the amendment to the Final Planned Unit
Development documents.
6.0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
6.1 The Planning Commission after a hearing on 7anuary 10,200 1, recommended that the proposed
land use (business office) was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Centre Pointe
PUD intent. They recommended that the Voluntary EAW be completed based on the proposed
uses. The Commission agreed to review the EAW and comments at their March 14, 2001
meehng.
7.0 SUGGESTED COUNCII, ACTION
7.1 By motion, the Council finds the land uses proposed within the Veritas amendment (122,000 s.f.
of additional office space) to the e�sting Planned Unit Development to be consistent with the
comprehensive plan and the intent of the 1997 Centre Pointe PUD and approves the distribution
of the Voluntary EAW for review, with notice to be published concerning its availability.
8.0 FUTURE STEPS:
On 7anuary 22,200 1, assuming that the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission,
the Council must then approve the distribution of the Voluntary EAW for review. After the 30
to 45 day period in which state, county, local agencies and the public review is completed, and
subsequent Planning Commission comments added, the Council must then determine whether
there are any significant new environmental impacts. If there are no significant impacts, the
Council action may be to provide a"negative declaration" — which means there are no
significant impacts that would require further environmental analysis and additional mitigation
than what is proposed.
Report by: Thomas Paschke (65 1-490-2236); Dennis Welsch (65 1-490-2232)
Attachments: Partial EAW; Site Plans
60-Day Time Limit: Not applicable.
Q:�Plaz�ning Files\3283_Veritas\RCA (012201).doc
PF 3283 — RCA (O1/22/O1) — Page 4 of 4
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
45
46
47
48
49
50
Extract of 1�Tinutes from Plannin� Commission meetin� of JanuarV_10. 2001:_
c. Plannin� File 3283: A request by Ryan Companies to amend the Centre Pointe
Planned Unit Development for the allowance of an additional 180,000 square feet
of office building floor area and consideration of a voluntary Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) specific to the Veritas site.
Chairman Craig Klausing opened the public hearing and requested Community
Development Director Dennis Welsch to provide a verbal summary of the staff report
dated January 10,200 1.
Dennis Welsch presented the background and a series of diagrams explaining the
impacts.
Da�e Hohn, Veritas Senior Manager, explained the Veritas business and growth concepts
for "contiriuously a�ailable software", focusing on large corporate customers. The
company partners with (but does not manufacture) large international manufacturers.
Veritas had 5,000 employees in 2000 and will ha�e 7,500 in 2002 worldwide. Currently
Veritas has over 2 million s.f. being developed worldwide.
Currently there are 150 employees, with 75 more engineers to be hired, with 180 sales
and tech support by the end of 2001. Visitors to the site will increase dramatically and
will use nearby hotels, walking from the hotel to Veritas Campus. About 50% of the new
staff comes from existing employee referrals.
Kent Carlson explained the detail of the new request, noting the change from two floors
to four floor buildings, more green space and a better parking ramp.
Member Cunningham asked what the ma�mum height (in stories) that the new buildings
could be expanded to (4 stories).
Member Rhody asked whether two or four stories of parking would ultimately be needed.
Kent Carlson explained the buildings are not densely used; the people per 1000 s.f. of
space is lower at four or 3.5 people per 1,000 s.f., A two-story ramp will be built; he
does not expect a four-story ramp (A proof of parking condition in the PUD).
There were no public comments. Chair Klausing closed the hearing.
The Planning Commission (at the March 14th Planning Commission meeting will review
the EAW and comments.
Chair Klausing explained he wished more comment and detail on the traffic impacts.
Motion: Member Klausing moved, second by Member Cunningham, to find that the
land uses proposed within the Veritas amendment (122,000 s.f. of additional office space)
to the e�sting Planned Unit Development to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
and the intent of the 1997 Centre Pointe PUD.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
1 Motion carried.
3 Motion: Member Klausing moved, second by Member Cunningham, to establish a
4 meeting date of March 14, 2001 when the Planning Commission final recommendation
5 will be made based on Planning Commission review of the final EAW and comments and
6 mitigation plans of any environmental impacts discovered through the EAW process.
8 Ayes: 5
9 Nays: 0
10 Motion carried.
11
�
4
i
�
�
3
�
�
J
�
.�
r
- " d�
-;�,
ENVIR.4NM�NT�, ASSESSMEIVT WORKSHEET
CENTRE pp,�TE BUSINESS pA.�
VER.ITAS SOFTWARE
ROSEVILLE,IV�N
�e�,�,
. �°�� e��
, o�-���� e a�'�_ —J�
o�Qy • an� �'= -_
etie C • �a�1; % . -
Co��� �1��5 ��, =->>
.,��,c�: ,
,.���e 1 _. ,--- �
January 4, 2001
_ '
Approval:
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Date: O1/10/O1
Item No: I-3
Approved: Agenda Section:
� LAND USE
Item Description: A request by Capital City Investments LLP for a Conditional Use Permit to
allow a bingo ha11 to operate at 2525 Snelling Avenue. (PF3282)
1.0 REQUESTED ACTION
1.1 Capital City Investments, LLP, requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a
bingo ha11 to operate within the structure located at 2525 Snelling Avenue, formerly
occupied by Lyndale Garden Center.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 The parcel of land at 2525 Snelling Avenue is zoned B-1, Limited Business District, has
a Future Land Use Designation of LB, Limited Business, and the property lies in
Comprehensive Planning District 9.
2.2 On December 4`�, 2000, the Roseville City Council approved a te�t amendment to the
Roseville City Code to establish zoning districts in which bingo would be allowed and to
determine whether bingo would be permitted or a conditional use within a given zone.
2.3 Based on the City Council action, 2525 Snelling Avenue, with its B-1 zoning designation
requires a conditional use permit to a11ow a bingo hall operation.
2.4 The conditional use permit process (Section 1013 of the City Code) for this request
allows the City to consider:
% Compatibility with adjoining properties.
➢ Impacts on traffic and public facilities.
➢ Impacts on property value.
➢ Impacts on general health, safety, and public welfare.
➢ Compatibility with the Roseville Comprehensive Plan.
2.4 The process also allows the City to impose those conditions it considers necessary to
protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
3.0 STAFF COMIV�NTS
3.1 The 14,750 square foot structure, constructed in 1969, sits on a 1.8 acre parcel. Oakcrest
Avenue lies to the north, Snelling Avenue to the east, the undeveloped section of Fry
Street to the west, and Rainbow Foods and Crossroads of Roseville to the south.
PF3282 RCA (012201) Page 1 of 4
3.2 A site plan of the existing property indicates 123 off-street parking spaces with three
access points from Oakcrest Avenue. Handicapped parking will be provided adjacent
the one way parking lot adjacent to Snelling Avenue. The remaining parking is located
west of the building with two two-way access points onto Oakcrest Avenue. The parking
lot is paved and has a curbed perimeter. Parking for the site should not be an issue.
Previous information regarding parking for the former Knights of Columbus site
indicated that each vehicle averaged 1.2 to 1.3 customers (see attached graph). With an
anticipated attendance of 120 customers, the bingo ha11 would require 92 to 100 parking
spaces. The Roseville City Code requires a total of 80 off-street parking spaces for the
proposed bingo hall use. (1 space for every 3 seats or 60 parking spaces; 5 spaces for
every 100 square feet of office use or 15 parking spaces; and the basement storage area
requires 5 parking spaces)
3.3 The properiy does not include ponding for storm water management no ponding is
proposed because the site will not increase impervious surfaces.
3.4 The structure is a single story building with a partial basement and has a masonry
exterior that will not change. The structure has an entry from the east and an entry from
the west.
3.5 The proposed bingo ha11 will seat approximately 180 people with average attendance per
session anticipated at 120 people. Bingo will occupy approximately 3/a of the he main
level (northeast), while offices will be located to the north, restrooms in the southwest
comer, and concessions and storage to the south.
3.6 Because of the nature of the request, use inside of an existin� buildin�, Capital City
Investment LLP has not submitted the usual development plans, such as including site,
drainage, landscape, floor plan, and building elevations. They have submitted a site plan
for the properiy and a floor plan indicating the specifics of the remodeling necessary for
the bingo ha11.
4.0 PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION
4.1 On January 10, 2001, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing
regarding the Capital City Investment LLP request for a conditional use permit to allow a
bingo ha11 operation at 2525 Snelling Avenue. At the meeting not citizens addressed the
Commission regarding the proposaL The Commission only had clarification questions
for staff.
4.2 The Planning Commission reviewed the criteria listed in Section 1013 of the City Code
and concluded the following:
A. Compatibility with adjoining properties: The Planning Commission has
concluded that the use of 2525 Snelling Avenue as a bingo ha11 is a compatible
use with the adjoining properties. The former Knights of Columbus structure,
directly north of the subject site, existed as a primary bingo ha11 use since
PF3282 RCA (012201) Page 2 of 4
1989l1990 and did not appear to present any major issues for the adjacent
residential neighborhood. The subject properiy is consistent with its neighbors to
the north and south, while there is no immediate impact of compatibility to the
east due to Snelling Avenue. In the case of the single-family residential
neighborhood to the west and northwest, surge traffic is the main concern,
especially as bingo participants lea�e the site.
B. Impacts on traffic and public facilities: The Planning Commission has
concluded there will be no impacts to any public facilities except for traffic safety
concerns at both ends of Oakcrest (Oakcrest @ Fairview needs a signal light and
Oakcrest @ Snelling may someday not ha�e a median cut). The applicant has
indicated that e�ts from the parking lot are clearly marked.
C. Impacts on property value: The Planning Commission does not anticipate
properiy values dropping due to the use of 2525 Snelling Avenue becoming a
bingo hall and a 14,000 square foot commercial building ha�e been in the area for
at least 20 years.
D. Impacts on general health, safety, and public welfare: The Planning
Commission has concluded there are no anticipated impacts to the general health,
safety, and public welfare of neither the neighborhood nor the City due to the use
of the site as a bingo ha11. (Police records did not indicate any significant activity
in past operations. The typical bingo participant is female, over age 50.)
E. Compatibility with the Roseville Comprehensive Plan: The Planning
Commission has concluded the use of the properiy as a bingo hall is a compatible
business use to both the Roseville Zoning Code B-1 zone and the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan Business designation.
4.3 The Planning Commission voted (5-O) to recommend approval of the request by Capital
City Investment LLP for a conditional use permit subj ect to the proposal meeting the
conditional use permit criteria and subject to the following conditions:
A. Capital City Investment LLP successfully obtaining the only bingo license in the
City of Roseville.
B. Replaced roof top mechanical units must be screened per Section 1010.07 of the
Roseville City Code.
C. Parking lot lighting must be brought into conformance (foot-candles and
downcast lighting) with Section 1010.12 of the Roseville City Code.
D. Any signage for the bingo ha11 must meet the requirements of Section 1009.03 of
the Roseville City Code.
PF3282 RCA (012201) Page 3 of 4
5,0 SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
5.1 By motion, approve (approve with modifications or deny) a resolution granting Capital
City Investment LLP a condition use permit to operate a bingo hall at 2525 Snelling
Avenue, based on the findings and conditions outlined in Section 4 of this project report.
Prepared by: Thomas Paschke
Attachments: Property location map, aerial photo, site plan, and narrative.
60-Day Schedule: Application Accepted on December 2$, 2000; Decision deadline is February 26, 2001.
PF3282 RCA (012201) 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 22"d day of January 2001, 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.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERIVIIT FOR CAPITAL CITY
INVESTi�'IENT LLP ALLO�'VING THE OPERATION OF A BINGO HALL AT
2525 SNELLING AVENUE
WHEREAS, Capital City Investment LLP is proposing to operate a bingo hall in the
building at 2525 Snelling Avenue, formerly occupied by Lyndale Garden Center; and
WHEREAS, on December 4th, 2000, the Roseville City Council approved a te�t
amendment to the Roseville City Code to establish zoning districts in which a bingo hall would
be allowed and to determine whether bingo would be permitted or a conditional use within a
given zone; and
WHEREAS, based on the City Council action of December 4'a', 2000, 2525 Snelling
Avenue, with its B-1 (Limited Business District) zoning designation requires a conditional use
permit to allow a bingo hall operation; and
WHEREAS, Section 1013 of the City Code stipulates criteria for approving conditional
use permits requiring the City to consider:
➢ Compatibility with adjoining properties.
➢ Impacts on traffic and public facilities.
➢ Impacts on property value.
➢ Impacts on general health, safety, and public welfare.
➢ Compatibility with the Roseville Comprehensive Plan.
➢ The process also allows the City to impose those conditions it considers necessary
to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
WHEREAS, on January 10, 2001, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public
hearing regarding the Capital City Investment LLP request for a conditional use permit and made
the following conclusions regarding the proposal meeting the criteria in Section 1013.01 .D of the
Roseville Zoning Ordinance:
A. Compatibility with adjoining properties: The Planning Commission has
concluded that the use of 2525 Snelling Avenue as a bingo ha11 is a compatible
use with the adjoining properties. The former Knights of Columbus structure,
directly north of the subject site, e�sted as a primary bingo ha11 use since
1989/1990 and did not appear to present any major issues for the adjacent
residential neighborhood. The subject properiy is consistent with its neighbors to
the north and south, while there is no immediate impact of compatibility to the
east due to Snelling Avenue. In the case of the single family residential
neighborhood to the west and northwest, surge traffic is the main concern,
especially as bingo participants lea�e the site.
B. Impacts on traffic and public facilities: The Planning Commission has
concluded there will be no impacts to any public facilities except for traffic safety
concerns at both ends of Oakcrest (Oakcrest @ Fairview needs a signal light and
Oakcrest @ Snelling may someday not have a median cut). The applicant has
indicated that e�ts from the parking lot are clearly marked.
�. Impacts on property value: The Planning Commission does not anticipate
properiy values dropping due to the use of 2525 Snelling Avenue becoming a
bingo ha11 and a 14,000 square foot commercial building have been in the area for
at least 20 years.
D. Impacts on general health, safety, and public welfare: The Planning
Commission has concluded there are no anticipated impacts to the general health,
safety, and public welfare of the neighborhood nor the City due to the use of the
site as a bingo ha11. The typical bingo participant is female, over age 50.
E. Compatibility with the Roseville Comprehensive Plan: The Planning
Commission has concluded the use of the properiy as a bingo hall is a compatible
business use to both the Roseville Zoning Code B-1 zone and the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan Business designation.
WHEREAS, ha�ing concluded that the proposal met the necessary conditional use permit
criteria, the Planning Commission voted (5-O) to recommend approval of the request by Capital
City Investment LLP for a conditional use permit subject to the following conditions:
A. Capital City Investment LLP successfully obtaining the only bingo license in the
City of Roseville.
B. Replaced roof top mechanical units must be screened per Section 1010.07 of the
Roseville City Code.
2
C. Parking lot lighting must be brought into conformance (foot-candles and
downcast lighting) with Section 1010.12 of the Roseville City Code.
D. Any signage for the bingo ha11 must meet the requirements of Section 1009.03 of
the Roseville City Code.
NOW TI�REFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Roseville City Council, to approve of
the conditional use permit granting Capital City Investment LLP a conditional use permit to
operate a bingo hall at 2525 Snelling Avenue, based on findings and conditions indicated above.
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 fa�or:
and the following voted against the same:
WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed motion, approval a resolution.
R3
1
2
3
4
6
7
9
10
11
12
14
1S
16
11
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31
32
33
34
36
37
38
40
41
43
44
46
47
49
50
51
52
53
55
57
Extract of 1�Tinutes from Plannin� Commission meeting of Januax'v 10, 2001:
a. Plannin� File 3282: A request by the Capital City Investments LLP for
consideration of a conditional use permit to allow the operation and
establishment of a bingo hall at 2525 Snelling Avenue.
Chairman Craig Klausing opened the public hearing and requested City Planner Thomas
Paschke to provide a verbal summary of the staff report dated January 10, 2001.
Thomas Paschke described the request to establish a Bingo Hall, identifying the location
and adjacent uses. The applicant would be the only licensed bingo hall operator in the
City for which a conditional use permit is necessary in a`B- 1" zone. He explained the
requirements for a conditional use permit.
The structure is 14,750 s.f., built in 1969 on 1.2 acres, and would require 92 to 100
parking spaces for 120 customers. There are 123 off-street parking spaces provided. No
new ponding is required. The exterior site will remain as is.
The use is a compatible use and has been in the neighborhood for ten years. Traffic surge
and safety may be the only concerns. Staff estimates no impact on property value, safety,
public welfare, or health. Staff recommended approval.
Chair Klausing asked for details regarding parking surveys done on previous locations
(Knights of Columbus) in which customers exceeded vehicles on the site by 1.2 to 1 or
more.
Member Wilke asked for details on parking, based on improvements to the site from
Lyndale Garden Center (previous tenant). He asked for details on one-way entry and the
three accesses and handicapped parking. There are two entries to the building.
Chair Klausing asked for staff comment on traffic impact and flow. Deb Bloom
explained two roads, which allow access to the site. She explained that lower traffic
volumes from senior housing and bingo are expected in comparison to other uses. Chair
Klausing asked for details on the Oakcrest/Fairview intersection. Deb Bloom explained
the alternatives at Oakcrest/Snelling and Oakcrest/Fairview.
Chair Klausing asked if the hours of operation should be stipulated in the CUP. The staff
had not included this requirement, but conditions could be added. The City annually
reviews the license for changes or impacts in Bingo operations.
Patrick Fisher, Manager for Capital City Investors, which owns the building, noted that
the traffic and parking has good circulation. The use fits the size of the building.
Chair Klausing asked for details of the bingo operation traffic control with security
guards directing vehicles to Snelling.
Member Olson asked for details of the hours of operation. (Very similar to those at the K
of C during the day).
Karen Olson, representing the four non-profit Gambling Managers, noted the following
starting times for Bingo sessions: Sunday: 1:00-3:OOpm and 7;00-9:OOpm; Monday 7:00-
9:OOpm; Tuesday 10:30am-9:OOpm; Wednesday 7:00-9;OOpm; Thursday 10:45am-
9:OOpm; Friday 1:00-1 1:OOpm; Saturday 1:00-1 1:OOpm. All late sessions are over at
12:30am. A security person follows the proceeds to the bank.
There was no public comment. Chair Klausing closed the hearing.
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
1�
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Chair Klausing expressed concern about traffic and suggested further review.
Member Rhody reported that property owners along Oakcrest appeared not to be
concerned about traffic.
Member Olson expressed concern about the screening along the west side of the property
(There is a si� to eight foot fence along the west side).
Member Cunningham stated that the site might be a good fit, virtually neat door to the
old facility. The neighborhood has grown up with this use.
Motion: Member Cunningham moved, second by Member Wilke, to approve the
request by Capital City Investment LLP for a conditional use permit to operate a bingo
hall at 2525 Snelling Avenue, based on the findings outlined in the project report dated
January 10, 2001, and based on the following conditions:
A. Capital City Investment LLP successfully obtaining the only bingo license in the City of
Roseville.
B. Replaced roof top mechanical units must be screened per Section 1010.07 of the Roseville
City Code.
C. Parking lot lighting must be brought into conformance (foot-candles and downcast lighting)
with Section 10 1012 of the Roseville City Code.
D. Any signage for the bingo hall must meet the requirements of Section 1009.03 of the
Roseville City Code.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
w
.�
N
�
�
�
�
�
w �
.
� M
►O �
� �
�
���
4�
� �
� ?
� �
� �
� �
� �
�
� �1
� N
� h
? N
�
�
.�
J
V
1�
Ai
�
J
�
ri
�
0
o „�
� �
0 �
�
, �
� •-------- �--------------------
� ' ; -------- - - -- - -
--1lO�T.DN�7---= - ------ --
---- ----� ---
� o � �jZ
ra � v
� 0. ��
� �
; '' .
, „ ;� w
; ,, ;
� ------------------------------P1#�AL:S�JfI-----::::-::------------�--�,, ;----PA;SCA�:STN.:: �; r---�---- �--PASCAC::Sl''N.------ o �
�
� ° � ;�.,� o
� f . � � '' ..
N
� $ � � t ; ... ��`j...."- """'-••-.,..,, �
. -'-- "_----
� ; . ......-•-••.
...
; � i � '"� �'--•...,"- ...
,. ; i
� �"` a'y� �
_ - --------------
_ _ .: ��
: �--�_..,, ;.-- } o
-�----:.S7il�LUNGCIIRVE:-:� --�---,-. y
-= ��,
� ;
., ,• .
g'� ``...---- ' _�_-------�--
�, �,, ��: -; �,�
-- ---------------- - . ��a
�, �
;,� & N
,- .
�� ° � o
,.
. �.-.-�• ..-
.
.
.; .
. ,..- �
. • .. . .,
- — ------ ------- - -�-- -.-- , .. �
-- - -
------�--�....... -
-------------------�-�-- ----------------::_.:::'::_::_:: _:::::.:::::� :-::: _-:-:::::_ :::::-::-_ :-:::--::: _:"- -- - - ----�:::::_:::::------------ ----------�------------. ..-- ..,.
----- --�-- -°---...-----------..__ � �' ai
�. ,..
•. --�----� ----
._
s�tEia€;.-,� . .. ::::::::::::.:::::.::::.:::.::::.::::::::.::::::::::.:.:.:::,::._::::::::::::::-
- ---- - ---------------- ----------- �
---=---------------------------------�--------:::...
------------------- ------- ----------------�- --------------...------------------- ---------------------------....-..._
--�---------------- -�- .
..
• �--------------------------------------------- .
� -, �, -----
-------------------------- ------------------� -, � -
_ �
�
. �
�€� ` �
y¢ � �
p ��� „ �
� y
�
�
0
� �
� �
�
� �
�1 �
_ �""�1
0
��
�
� ;\
�
�4'
�
�
�
�
o�
�A�
� N
p�, N
O �
� .D
� � �
� � �
U
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 held on the 22°d day of January 2001, 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.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CAPITAL CITY
INVESTMENT LLP ALLOWING THE OPERATION OF A BINGO HALL AT
2525 SNELLING AVENUE
WHEREAS, Capital City Investment LLP is proposing to operate a bingo hall in the
building at 2525 Snelling Avenue, formerly occupied by Lyndale Garden Center; and
WHEREAS, on December 4�', 2000, the Roseville City Council approved a text
amendment to the Roseville City Code establishing zoning districts in which a bingo hall would
be allowed and to determine whether bingo would be a permitted or conditional use within a
given zone; and
WHEREAS, based on the City Council action of December 4�', 2000, 2525 Snelling
Avenue, with its B-1 (Limited Business District) zoning designation requires a conditional use
permit to allow a bingo hall operation; and
WHEREAS, Section 1013 of the City Code establishes criteria for approving conditional
use permits requiring the City to consider:
➢ Compatibility with adjoining properties.
➢ Impacts on traffic and public facilities.
➢ Impacts on property value.
➢ Impacts on general health, safety, and public welfare.
➢ Compatibility with the Roseville Comprehensive Plan; and
➢ Where the Code also allows the City to impose those conditions it considers
necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
WHEREAS, on January 10, 2001, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public
hearing regarding the Capital City Investment LLP request for a conditional use permit and made
the following conclusions regarding the criteria in Section 1013.O1.D of the Roseville Zoning
Ordinance:
A. Compatibility with adjoining properties: The Planning Commission has
concluded that the use of 2525 Snelling Avenue as a bingo hall is a compatible
use with the adjoining properties. The former Knights of Columbus structure,
directly north of the subject site, existed as a primary bingo hall use since
1989/1990 and did not appear to present any major issues for the adjacent
residential neighborhood. The subject property is consistent with its neighbors to
the north and south, while there is no immediate impact of compatibility to the
east due to Snelling Avenue. In the case of the single family residential
neighborhood to the west and northwest, surge traffic is the main concern,
especially as bingo participants leave the site.
B. Impacts on traffic and public facilities: The Planning Commission has
concluded there will be no impacts to any public facilities except for traffic safety
concerns at both ends of Oakcrest (Oakcrest @ Fairview needs a signal light and
Oakcrest @ Snelling may someday not have a median cut). The applicant has
indicated that exits from the parking lot are clearly marked.
C. Impacts on property value: The Planning Commission does not anticipate
property values dropping due to the use of 2525 Snelling Avenue becoming a
bingo hall and a 14,000 square foot commercial building have been in the area for
at least 20 years.
D. Impacts on general health, safety, and public welfare: The Planning
Commission has concluded there are no anticipated impacts to the general health,
safety, and public welfare of the neighborhood nor the City due to the use of the
site as a bingo hall and taking into consideration the demographics of site uses.
E. Compatibility with the Roseville Comprehensive Plan: The Planning
Commission has concluded the use of the property as a bingo hall is a compatible
business use to both the Roseville Zoning Code B-1 zone and the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan Business designation.
WHEREAS, having concluded that the proposal met the necessary conditional use permit
criteria, the Planning Commission voted (5-0) to recommend approval of the request by Capital
City Investment LLP for a conditional use permit subject to the following conditions:
A. Capital City Investment LLP successfully obtains and maintains a bingo hall
license to operate in the City of Roseville.
B. Replaced roof top mechanical units must be screened per Section 1010.07 of the
Roseville City Code.
C. Parking lot lighting must be brought into conformance (foot-candles and
downcast lighting) with Section 1010.12 of the Roseville City Code.
2
D. Any signage for the bingo ha11 must meet the requirements of Section 1009.03 of
the Roseville City Code.
NOW TI�REFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Roseville City Council, to approve
granting Capital City Investment LLP a conditional use permit to operate a bingo ha11 at 2525
Snelling Avenue, based on the findings and subject to the terms and conditions indicated above.
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.
3
�
�
2
.
i
i
�
!
��
�� y I !II�I� i
,
�
----- - - - - ---'' r
� t t .�
. r � r
~ f
o - 3 �
�----- � --1�
i �f` o ---
� m ,
� �
• ❑�
0
W}
o � �,
��
I
�
��
�
<
.„,,,
���
_ �.
_ t�r
1 - -
��
� I�I�J � 1 � 1 I 1 I/� '
� � � �—,GG'y51
.�?�14 a�j
��IZ
_ �
�
�
4
�
�
a
;
7
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�v
y:"
0
�
�
w
W
� ?
� �
o �
0
� ,J
� {�
0
1U
e
31�
�
F�
��
* L
`II
�
o�
b
�
�, �
� M
s
u i �:
r�� �
� w� c,'.
r��p u.
� ��i
u o., a �• �
O W i�
< N � �I` �
S " 0.
� Q
� �� � w 4�
Z g � w U
N LL _
� � � �
�
a
r
�
Q
0'
�
r
J
�
J
�
r"
�
O
Y
.
_
i
a
a.+
�
L
U
_ -
I
. �
� ,
- � ,. , ,
� - -=' - - -
r�
o c° i i
_ o
_��.. � �-. , �. � . i i .. . - - � .
N' •�r - -
. . �.. . I I " .. .
i� � i
�
I r` i i, i. ,
� -
, -_ ,
_
0
rn , �
�
� � . i �_ . _ _- �
� �N O a�0 c�o � N
s�uno� a�� pue saauao�sn�
C
�
�
�
O
�
�
�
L
c�
�
O
L
�
O
2
O
N
�+
ca
�
N
�
�
�
O
U
L
a�
O
�
N
�
U
�
�
m
�
�
�
0
U
L
�
U
O
�
�
`"" o
o �
� �
� � o
� o
� � y �
�° �° � �
� �� �
� � �
� � � �
� •� � �
o � � �
� � �
� � � �
�
� °�
� ���.
� � � o
Q�' � n°n o
bA � � �'
� o �q �
...
�
� �
r..i
V1 CL � �
�
� o � �
�
c�v � � .�
� � o a
� �
� � � �
.....;��
� -a a �
� �, � o
� � � �.
� � � �
�. � � �
V � � ��.y
OO N i..l
� �
,S�" 6� r"i �
b�A 1 � v�
�� O �
�.�•�
� � � �
H v � O
�
� �. �
� �o ,o
o �, �
� � �
� o � v'
M � � y
� � � �
° �o°'
cv ~ � �
� � y O
o �
� ����
`~ �� �
� � �, ...
� � �
•� ... .� �
��-��
�. � � �
� � � �
� �
� � �
� �'�,o
y O � �,
� o �
•����
�
� � � �
� � o
�
�
� y �" o
v � � �
� �� �
� � � �
� � ��
�',�v� �
� N �,
O �' � ,�
,�,�" 0 � ..�.i
�
� � � �
� O
C�C � y �
bn
�.
� � o �
� � � �
� CL v �,
_
0
_
�
�
i
O
�
i
�
0
�
�
�
�
i
�
iT�� - ��j � _ . � /1 '
_T �y .e. .. .. �
— T� _ � - � .��: . r :+'�
� • _
� . 1 5
e
Z �
F . .... ._ _ . -.
# t
;} , ' 'i �;� �f I��•
:_ f -_� .._'.7iK,� by. � . � t- � - ..
1
� � . ~ � � � f ._�„_. � } ����. - - �'.ib _ _' ' .
'L.-._� . u" I � � ':j . '�: � _. . - �f '� .
.i.� � S uh�� � •�. :" � 'y� � •..!' _
- �i-� i.1 '4e`�`.i.' :� �:,��:wr,. � . . . r � � r� . '. �.
._. b� _ �- �.sd �-+� � •
i � ,t � ,_ , I . � 3 � ��="-
�'' � � . , =
, .�. _ i i ,�
� ", � � � • �--' �
_ � ;'�e. �. � xj� �
� ' � � ,,�j�� `.f 3 t r ��._
� , s --�
�- • � � �`o;� � 3��` ,z'r s`�a !f , .
? � �f��� � ,��• F -.� �� ; -
- w"'�.1 . r—^�' -r�.r'^ $-
yf ,� _�� J°�a ��- �
w 'r-a � . v
r _ � - � i ���y . . t „ �. s '} _ j . - i � y+,,'y� , T e�e
. � . � i aR :.n > �s4� � � 3- }
>� +t_ - � ` _ �``i _ ���Z„� �' ." 1
� - -: . �� � -. � .
_ '� � ' �!. � y�f . J
� � �Y" l�� t�, �� � rf' ,
� '� � �� y � � ; ��.
; ., _ , . - � �,�� �
� 1 ~ . � � , _ � j w�"� y.
.. ^_ _ :-•�s:-�:'� R =r.A .e .:. J .-. .' ii! - ... p . -� �-,i( _ l..�
:_i � "'_ . . � .. . n . __ . -. -
...-;. _��. . . - . . - '_" . ._ .._
�
�� , --,--N _.: -.-�-' .� n_.:�'�.:...�.�s---..._..� . . _ -*-
'
�
�_:�,_v:..� _ .�.. - ...r r e �.
.. . R,:q�. .�� t z�
. . _ -�.. �' �_.. .. ' "_'_T ". . . _. . . t _ ... , ._ '"_ ' .i.-
_. . . ... ... . " . . � � -, ��.�..�___ . d_� . _ "
=� p„ _�
_ _. �.. ; -: ,�a
�..�.�.,.��. , �.. . _ .. _ s�v�cnw� av�,� � _ ° - �-� �:� �
� � ��
_. --_=-r-=- _ s__ , _. _ _ : . _ - . .� .___ , �� �� _ � ,�...�.�. �
- . . _. . - - - -,. � :� -
._� � ' ? �., -� � �r � z-��� s �.'..
��---- - " � � � Z" � � �•r� •
g_: � �� , . � ±� . ! , . ,. F"" ! ` , a 1r -
�.�� ' .,_� �i �� � � � 1 ��, ,. � `�� � � � °o
e � # � I � I �-s'
.� � ��•
. .'�-- ! � !` ' �� ��, t
� . � ; � �_ ____. — � i� j ` t�. -
t , . � � . _ : I t �. � �-i. � � ,..� '. �
',� + . �' �� - � �L�` ! - �� - +' .
-- � � ��Fl� � �� �. � - r""v���_
•�� ' � €�� � f � ! r� ( -� ��,,��
: _ t _ �� e r � 4 ,
— —. _ ��,— �, „� � ,,,, �'s �� ' �c �,,..;
� - _
' � � � I i � w � �'
' ., :* -, i I � =�", �► �r _ _: -
.
. , : ( i ?
.. F + _
, . ,S 1 � �`_v _. k ` �- 1 r�# � � _
� . _' ��. _ � # � 1 r � � ,��
' � � �, -� a i ' � � � � '.d� I . f i� �� � � t i
: p �• . 7 �.�_ - �I � ��= y�4. � _ _ .1
' . , ,.� �.'; � _ _ ► .
.' w �- _ '� ` � :�
' � . ''.�+�� ��`�` � . . �, ' � � ' _ _.... _._ . � rk" �_ � �1 .
� � �- ' L� 4 � J � - �_ . w� !
� . � � � � .$.. - �.,� ,'�q,; � Er
�
�
.�... _ - ..'� . am-�-- t 1 _ . _ • �. .
i t ` ,� � _ `, .' , � ,�, w �_ t q
� � ' �, �: , -F , � ��-'—_ -----_ _ __ - - -.. _.. ___
� • • � , � � s
� f ` ' � � � a' �:1 � � � � � �� � � � �
: , . : • :
. -
t , �c.. , _ ' ; . ; , � �� � : � . f R � � . �.�
� ` � �; �3 �
_-: � t - c�t �� '9 _ ,/ `. -_
`
.� •
1 �' sr �� t' rr
_ :� _ � ' : '. ; �
'•5:,� , _� , �,� s � a . :y. �� �
:' �, i -' T� -s � � I 1 rT :' ;
s..'- p . . ��'� ♦ �: ` r�.�"
` _ . _ c . 1 � ..'' .� - ��� �Yi!'._.' � . i � �, �a . .
M' 1:� '(T -'fa! ' .a �� • : ° � . � , r • y � y,, ti ,
�_'' `+. � 'F_ ' � °.I ;. i >�.� a �/�j 'j \��uh
'�� � �. ,1(�1 � . � `�1 , � ' � -:
�'�,� E�,�t �� � s�`y '� `i � ��;'��3 ���*
- � � _ '� � � �{ �,� 'i . � �''�°... .
� _ � •�,` � ��, �~�, � T - ��� � � �J� �s�` -
. � � /�£" -
-- :� - - � + � r
� .- ] 11F� -�
� . � _ " %4 t � � , 1� �� . �.��5 'j j' ��� � � ���.i.
, %� ' / �' � 3 � '� j ; � .
MJ
� 7' � � � ' ��� - - � � �, �
'1 C y ., 6 ,�.r:
.s, 4. � �"n- �1 ��;-!� .' ' � ;� � ���
- - -r � � -'��� � ; `� �`ct�_�
t��r�_- �'�I ��lE t� � . .- - .� R�— �_��� � . _
�efF.M� ..,'• ' .r -
( : ., � c � `k. � • ,., - s�.^ � .. ��'
7�-'1M .�� ,_ ,ii t v�'�..+ ' C > �ti ;�� w � ��� _. ' � e I�:a.� li�� '�� #�'s�' L y. - ',
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
DATE: O ll22/O 1
I�M N0�-4
D�ep�;�ent Approval: Manag�;�proved: Agenda Section:
/�� LAND LT�SE
Tte'm nescription: A request by Peter Vesterholt, 699 Heinel Circle, for a 5 and 23 foot variance
from Section 1004.02D (Mmimum Yard Requirements), 1016.22A1 (Non-
Conformities), and 1016.16 (Structure Design Standards) of the Roseville
Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of an attached garage into the required
side and front vard (street side) setback (PF3280).
1.0 REQUESTED ACTION
1.1 Peter Vesterholt, properiy owner of 699 Heinel Circle, has requested variances from Section
1004.02D5, 1016.16, and 1016.22A1 of the Roseville City Code to allow the construction a
527 square foot garage addition. The proposed garage addition would encroach into the
required lo-foot side yard setback (5 feet) and the required 30-foot front yard setback (23 feet).
2.0 REVIEW of REQUEST
2.1 Section 1004.02D5 (Dwelling Dimensions and Appearances and Height, Frontage, Yard
and Lot Area Requirements in R-1 Districts) requires a front yard setback of 30 feet for
the Vesterholt property adjacent to Heinel Circle. Mr. Vesterholt wants to eliminate an
e�sting (unsightly) shed and construct an addition onto his e�sting garage to improve
handicapped accessibility for his wife. The e�sting garage, 19 feet wide by 21 feet deep (399
square feet) lies appro�mately 15 feet from the front yard (east) property line. The proposal
would place the garage approximately 7 feet from the front properiy line.
2.2 Section 602.06 (Parking on Boulevard Prohibited) states no vehicle shall be parked on any
boulevard adjacent to a public street. If a front yard setback variance is approved for the
additional garage encroachment a variance from this section in necessary to a11ow vehicles to
be parked within street right-of-way. Section 602.06A2 would a11ow an encroachment if the lot
undertakes a substantial improvement to the home, garage, or driveway.
2.3 Section 1004A2D5 (Dwelling Dimensions and Appearances and Height, Frontage, Yard
and Lot Area Requirements in R-1 Districts) also requires a side yard setback of 10 feet
for the Vesterholt property along the northeast property line. Mr. Vesterholt proposes to
e�tend the garage towards the northeastern side yard property line to create an additional sta11
and enclosed storage area. The design and additional area will offer accessibility to stored
items and greater movement around vehicles. However, the proposed addition would encroach
five feet into the required lo-foot side yard setback.
PF3280 — RCA (012201) Page 1 of 5
2.4 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. The Vesterholt house has
been determined to be a pre-existing non-conforming structure that was constructed prior to the
City adopting Shoreland, Wetland, and Storm Water Management regulations. The specific
non-conformity is the distance the principal structure is setback (56 feet) from the Ordinary
High Watermark A variance is necessary to bring the house into conformity with the City
Code, which requires a 75-foot setback from the OHW.
2.5 Section 1016.16 (Structure Design Standards) requires structures to be set back a
minimum of 75 feet from the ordinary high watermark (OAW). The northwest corner of
the Vesterholt house is set back 56 feet from the OHW. The Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources has commented that although the proposed garage addition does not increase or
affect the current non-conforming setback, it is in the best interest of the properiy to seek a
principal structure setback variance from Section 1016.16 of the Roseville City Code. The
variance would be for a 19-foot setback deviation and if granted, would eliminate the non-
conformity and potentially the need to receive additional Council approval for future
improvements.
2.6 Chart to review required variances:
Code Re uirement Existin Condition Pro osed Condition Variance Condition
Lot Width at Shoreline 100 feet 160 feet Same NA
Lot Area 15,000 s. ft. 19,134 s. ft. Same NA
Im ervious Covera e 25% (4,784 s. ft.) 21% (4,095 s. ft.) 22% (4,275 s. ft.) NA
Shoreland Setback 75 feet 56 feet Same 19 feet
Front Yard Setback 30 feet 15 feet 7 feet 23 feet
Side Yard Setback 10 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet
Vehicle Parked in ROW
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 sha11 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 properiy 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 adjoining properties.
PF3280 — RCA (012201) Page 2 of 5
3.4 The structure at 699 Heinel Circle is a rambler that was constructed in 1957. The house has a
full basement walkout and is comprised of appro�mately 1,958 square feet of main floor living
area. The attached garage is located on the northeast side of the principal structure. A patio,
deck and hot tub lie to the north west of the garage and are terraced towards the lake. The
parcel if relatively flat from the street curb to the house, then slopes appro�mately 10 feet from
the southwest comer of the house to the lakeshore. The parcel is 160 feet wide at the lakeshore
and 140 feet at the street right-of-way.
3.5 The Vesterholt request was forwarded to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for
review and comment. The DNR has indicated support for the variance for the garage
addition and for the pre-existing non-conforming principal structure setback. Their letter
to the City regarding the proposal is attached and requests that trees be planted between Lake
Owasso and the home to further screen the structure view from the lake.
4.0 POLICY & FISCAL IlVIPLICATION
4.1 The Comprehensive Plan and the Roseville Housing Improvement Plan encourage maintaining
and improving residential properties and infrastructure, as well as reconstruction and rebuilding
of residential structures (and neighborhoods) throughout the community.
4.2 There are no additional fiscal implications.
5.0 STAFF DETERMINED FINDINGS
5.1 Staff has reviewed the merits of the four variances necessary to allow Mr. Vesterholt to
proceed with his proposed garage addition plans. Staff offers the following findings:
a. Mr. Vesterholt did not create the hardship. The lot division occurred and the structure
was constructed and improved many years before the Vesterholt's purchased the
properiy. City records indicate the existing structure was constructed in 1957 with
municipal sewer and water being installed in 1964. The Roseville City Code was
adopted in 1959 and the Shoreland Ordinance adopted in 1974.
b. Like many home build prior to the Shoreland Ordinance being adopted, the Vesterholt
structure does not comply with the established 75-foot setback from the Ordinary High
Watermark Requiring a setback of 75 feet from the OHW would be unworkable and
require removal of e�sting living area.
c. The new construction (garage addition) can be justified as added livability, accessibility
and by providing necessary space for maneuvering vehicles and provision of accessible
storage for Ms. Vesterholt who has a disability.
d. The addition, though within the required ten-foot side yard setback, is consistent at five
feet with the other lots within the cul-de-sac and neighborhood. However, according to
City records, the Vesterholt lot and the adj acent property at 705 Heinel Circle are
considered ten-foot side yard setback parcels.
PF3280 -RCA (012201) Page 3 of 5
City records indicate that the right-of-way for Heinel Circle was dedicated with the
original Oak Point plat in 1949, but do not indicate why the e�sting home infringes 15
feet within the required front yard setback. With the additional eight foot requested
encroachment into the required setback the proposed garage will set within seven feet of
the street right-of-way line. The distance from the proposed addition to the street curb
will be appro�mately 37 feet and will be visually consistent with 695 Heinel Circle.
Within this 37 feet a vehicle can be completely parked off of the street pa�ement.
There appears to be no adverse impacts to the surrounding properties.
f. The curb line of the cul-de-sac is situated appro�mately 30 feet from the properiy line,
thus allowing ample area between the new garage addition and street curb line to park a
vehicle, which does not create any significant impacts on the minimally (mostly
adjacent residents and mail delivery) traveled Heinel Circle.
g. The impacts of this redevelopment project, if the variances were issued, will not create
any significant community impacts on the health, safety, or general welfare.
6. 0 PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION
6.1 On 7anuary 10,200 l, the Roseville Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the
Vesterholt request. At the meeting no adj acent residents were present to speak on the subj ect.
Mr. Vesterholt explained the expansion and benefit of removing the front storage shed and was
a�ailable to answer questions from the Planning Commission.
6.2 The Planning Commission voted (5-O) to recommend approval of the Vesterholt request for
multiple variances necessary to construct a garage addition at 699 Heinel Circle, based on the
findings in Section 5(see attached resolution) and subject to the following conditions:
A. The parcel sha11 be limited to a maximum impervious area of 4,784 square feet or 25%
of the parcel size and the garage addition shall be limited to 527 square feet as depicted
on the proposed survey of 10/17/00 and the proposed floor plan of 1 1/27/00.
B. The proposed principal garage addition shall be set back a minimum of five feet from
the northeast (side) properiy line and set back a minimum of seven and one half feet
from the southeast (front) properiy line.
C. All roof drainage created by the addition and e�sting attached garage must be collected
in gutters and channeled to the natural drainage way within the applicant's properiy
(northeast).
D. Because of the size of the variances being granted, no other accessory building or tool
shed may be permitted on the property.
�'. The property owner shall provide the City with a landscape plan that addresses the
interests of the Department of Natural Resources.
PF3280 -RCA (012201) Page 4 of 5
7.0 SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
7.1 By motion, approve (approve with modifications or deny) a resolution granting Peter
Vesterholt, 699 Heinel Circle, a variance from Section 1004.02D (Minimum Yard
Requirements), Section 602.06 (Parking on Boulevard Prohibited) Section 1016.22A1 (Non-
Conformities), and Section 101616 (Structure Design Standards of the Roseville City Code to
construct an attached garage addition.
Prepared by. Thomas Paschke (65 1-490-2236)
Attachments: Property location map, aerial photo, site plans, site photos, narrative, DNR letter, draft PC resolution, draft
PC minutes, and draft CC resolution.
60-day Time Limit Application Accepted on December 6, 2000; Decision deadline is January 26, 2001.
PF3280 -RCA (012201) Page 5 of 5
�
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
Extract of 1�Tinutes from Planning Commission meetin� of Jalluat'V 10, 2001:
e. Plannin� File 3280: A request by Peter Vesterholt, 699 Heinel Circle, for a 5
and 23 foot variance from Section 1004.02D (Minimum Yard Requirements) of
the Roseville Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of an attached garage into
the required side and front yard (street side) setback.
Chairman Craig Klausing opened the public hearing and requested City Planner Thomas
Paschke to provide a verbal summary of the project report dated January 10,200 1.
Thomas Paschke provided a description of the garage expansion project. He explained
the 10' setback requirements and the MnDNR support for granting the variance.
The applicant did not create the hardship; the use is pre-existing; the garage adds
livability and accessibility; the setback is similar to other setbacks in the area. Platted in
1949, the lot is non-conforming with the house so close to the front property line (15
feet). The street was reconstructed and moved further from the house lea�ing a large
right-of-way boulevard. City Code Section 602 requires parking on private property, not
in boulevards without a variance or permit. Staff recommended approval with conditions
A through E of the project report dated January 10, Z001.
Mr. Vesterholt explained the expansion and the benefit of removing the front storage
shed.
No further public comment was offered; the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Member Klausing moved, second by Member Rhody, to recommend approval
of Resolution #3280 with amendment to add Section 602 and conditions A through E of
said Resolution (an executed copy of which is attached).
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
D RAFT
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION No. 3280
A Resolution Recommending Approval of Variances for Peter Vesterholt for the
Construction of a Garage Addition onto to the Existing Home at 699 Heinel Circle.
WHEREAS, Peter Vesterholt, property owner of 699 Heinel Circle, has requested variance�
from Section 1���.02�5 (Dwelling Dimensions and Appearances and Height, Frontage, Yard and
Lot Area Requirements in R-1 Districts), 1016.16A (Structure Design Standards), 1016.22A1 (Non-
Conformities) of the Roseville City Code; and
WHEREAS, Section 1004.02D5 (Dwelling Dimensions and Appearances and Height,
Frontage, Yard and Lot Area Requirements in R-1 Districts) requires a front yard setback of 30 feet
for the Vesterholt property adjacent to Heinel Circle; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Vesterholt wants to eliminate an existing (unsightly) shed and construct an
addition onto his existing garage to improve handicapped accessibility for his wife. The existing
garage, 19 feet wide by 21 feet deep (399 square feet) lies appro�nately 15 feet from the front yard
(east) property line. The proposal would place the garage approximately 7 feet from the front
property line. This front yard setback variance also requires a variance from Section 602 allowing
vehicles to be parked within street right-of-way.
WHEREAS, Section 1004.02D5 (Dwelling Dimensions and Appearances and Height,
Frontage, Yard and Lot Area Requirements in R-1 Districts) also requires a side yard setback of 10
feet far the Vesterholt property along the northeast property line; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Vesterholt proposes to eatend the garage towards the northeastern side yard
property line to create an additional stall and enclosed storage area. The design and additional area
will offer accessibility to stored items and greater movement around vehicles. However, the
proposed addition would encroach five feet into the required lo-foot side yard setback; and
WHEREAS, Section 1016.22A1 (Non-Conformities) stipulates that non-confarmities can
continue but are subject to applicable State Statutes and City Ordinance regarding alterations, repair
after damage, discontinuance of u8e, and intensif'ication of use; and
WHEREAS, The Vesterholt house has been determined to be a pre-existing non-
confarming structure that was constructed priar to the City adopting Shoreland, Wetland, and Storm
Water Management regulations. The specif'ic non-conformity is the distance the principal structure
is setback (56 feet) from the Ordinary High Watermark. A variance is necessary to bring the house
into conformity with the City Code, which requires a 75-foot setback from the OHW; and
WHEREAS, Section 1016.16 (Structure Design Standards) requires structures to be set back
a minimum of 75 feet from the ordinary high watermark (OHW�; and
WHEREAS, the northwest corner of the Vesterholt house is set back 56 feet from the OHW. The
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has commented that although the proposed garage
addition does not increase or affect the current non-conforming setback, it is in the best interest of
the property to seek a principal structure setback variance from Section 1016.16 of the Roseville City
Code. The variance would be for a 19-foot setback deviation and if granted, would eliminate the
non-conformity and potentially the need to receive additional Council approval for future
improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the proposal and has
indicated support for the garage addition and concluded that the existing home given the
circumstances, warrants a variances; and
WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission, on January 10, 2001, conducted a public
hearing regarding the Witt request and made the following findings:
a. Mr. Vesterholt did not create the hardship. The lot division occurred and the
structure was constructed and improved many years before the Vesterholt's
purchased the property. City records indicate the existing structure was constructed
in 1957 with municipal sewer and water being installed in 1964. The Roseville City
Code was adopted in 1959 and the Shoreland Ordinance adopted in 1974.
b. Like many home build prior to the Shoreland Ordinance being adopted, the
Vesterholt structure does not comply with the established 75-foot setback from the
Ordinary High Watermark. Requiring a setback of 75 feet from the OHW would be
unworkable and require removal of existing living area.
� The new construction (garage addition) can be justified as added livability,
accessibility and by providing necessary space for maneuvering vehicles and
provision of accessible storage for Ms. Vesterholt who has a disability.
d. The addition, though within the required ten-foot side yard setback, is consistent at
five feet with the other lots within the cul-de-sac and neighborhood. However,
according to City records, the Vesterholt lot and the adjacent property at 705 Heinel
Circle are considered ten-foot side yard setback parcels.
e. City records indicate that the right-of-way for Heinel Circle was dedicated with the
original Oak Point plat in 1949, but do not indicate why the existing home infringes
15 feet within the required front yard setback. With the additional eight foot
requested encroachment into the required setback the proposed garage will set within
seven feet of the street right-of-way line. The distance from the proposed addition
to the street curb will be approximately 37 feet and will be visually consistent with
695 Heinel Circle. Within this 37 feet a vehicle can be completely parked off of the
street pavement. There appears to be no adverse impacts to the surrounding
properties.
�
f. The curb line of the cul-de-sac is situated appro�nately 30 feet from the property
line, thus allowing ample area between the new garage addition and street curb line to
park a vehicle, which does not create any significant impacts on the minimally
(mostly adjacent residents and mail delivery) tra�eled Heinel Circle.
g. The impacts of this redevelopment project, if the variances were issued, will not
create any significant community impacts on the health, safety, or general welfare.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Roseville Planning Commission, to recommend
approval of the variances to Sections 1004.02D5 (Dwelling Dimensions and Appearances and
Height, Frontage, Yard and Lot Area Requirements in R-1 Districts), 1016.16A (Structure Design
Standards), and 1016.22A1 (Non-Conformities) of the Roseville City Code, regarding the request by
Peter Vesterholt, for property at 699 Heinel Circel, subject to the following conditions:
A. The parcel shall be limited to a maximum impervious area of 4,784 square feet or
25% of the parcel size and the garage addition shall be limited to 527 square feet
as depicted on the attached proposed floor plan.
B. The proposed principal garage addition shall be set back a minimum of five feet
from the northeast (side) property line and set back a minimum of seven and one
half feet from the southeast (front) properry line.
c. All roof drainage created by the addition and e�sting attached garage must be
collected in gutters and channeled to the natural drainage way within the
applicant's property (northeast).
D. Because of the size of the variances being granted, no other accessory building or
tool shed sha11 be permitted on the properry.
E. The property owner shall provide the City with a landscape plan that addresses
the interests of the Department of Natural Resources.
Signature: . this 10th day of January, 2001
Craig Klausing, Chair Roseville Plamling Commission
Attest: this 10t� day of January, 2001
Dennis I?. WelsCh, Community Development D1I'eCtOI'
DRAFT
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Pursuant to due ca11 and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville,
County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was duly held on the 22"d day of January 2001, 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.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FROM SECTION 1004.02D5 (DWELLING
DIMENSIONS AND APPEARANCES AND HEIGHT, FRONTAGE, YARD AND LOT AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN R-1 DISTRICTS), 1016.16A (STRUCTURE DESIGN STANDARDS),
AND 1016.22A1 (NON-CONFORMITIES) OF THE ROSEVII,LE CITY CODE FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 699 HEINEL CIRCLE.
WHEREAS, Section 1004.02D5 (Dwelling Dimensions and Appearances and Height,
Frontage, Yard and Lot Area Requirements in R-1 Districts) requires a front yard setback of 30 feet for
the properiy at 699 Heinel Circle; and
WHEREAS, the properiy owner wants to eliminate an e�sting (unsightly) shed and construct
an addition onto his e�sting garage to improve handicapped accessibility for his wife. The e�sting
garage, 19 feet wide by 21 feet deep (399 square feet) lies appro�mately 15 feet from the front yard
(east) property line. The proposal would place the garage approximately 7 feet from the front property
line. This front yard setback variance also requires a variance from Section 602 allowing vehicles to
be parked within street right-of-way.
WHEREAS, Section 1004.02D5 (Dwelling Dimensions and Appearances and Height,
Frontage, Yard and Lot Area Requirements in R-1 Districts) also requires a side yard setback of 10
feet for the properiy along the northeast property line; and
WHEREAS, the property owner proposes to e�tend the garage towards the northeastern side
yard property line to create an additional stall and enclosed storage area. The design and additional
area will offer accessibility to stored items and greater movement around vehicles. However, the
proposed addition would encroach five feet into the required lo-foot side yard setback; and
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, the principal structure has been determined to be a pre-e�sting non-conforming
structure that was constructed prior to the City adopting Shoreland, Wetland, and Storm Water
Management regulations. The specific non-conformity is the distance the principal structure is setback
(56 feet) from the Ordinary High Watermark; and
WHEREAS, Section 1016.16 (Structure Design Standards) requires structures to be set back a
minimum of 75 feet from the ordinary high watermark (OHW); and
WHEREAS, the Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the proposal and has indicated
support for the garage addition and concluded that the e�sting home given the circumstances and
warrants the approval of the proposed a variances; and
WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission, on January 10, 2001, conducted a public
hearing regarding the Vesterholt request and made the following findings:
Mr. Properiy owner did not create the hardship. The lot division occurred and the structure
was constructed and improved many years before the current property owner purchased the
properiy. City records indicate the e�sting structure was constructed in 1957 with
municipal sewer and water being installed in 1964. The Roseville City Code was adopted
in 1959 and the Shoreland Ordinance adopted in 1974.
2. Like many homes built prior to the Shoreland Ordinance being adopted, the 699 Heinel
Circle structure does not comply with the established 75-foot setback from the Ordinary
High Watermark Requiring a setback of 75 feet from the OHW would be unworkable and
require removal of e�sting living area.
3. The new construction (garage addition) provide added livability, accessibility and space for
maneuvering vehicles, and the provision of accessible storage for Ms. Vesterholt who has a
disability.
4. The addition, though within the required ten-foot side yard setback, is consistent at five feet
with the other lots within the cul-de-sac and neighborhood.
City records indicate that the right-of-way for Heinel Circle was dedicated with the original
Oak Point plat in 1949, but do not indicate why the e�sting home infringes 15 feet within
the required front yard setback. With the additional eight foot requested encroachment into
the required setback the proposed garage will set within seven feet of the street right-of-
way line. The distance from the proposed addition to the street curb will be appro�mately
37 feet and will be visually consistent with 695 Heinel Circle. Within this 37 feet a vehicle
can be completely parked off of the street pavement. There appears to be no adverse
impacts to the surrounding properties.
6. The curb line of the cul-de-sac is situated approximately 30 feet from the properiy line, thus
allowing ample area between the new garage addition and street curb line to park a vehicle,
which does not create any significant impacts on the minimally (mostly adjacent residents
and mail delivery) tra�eled Heinel Circle.
7. The impacts of this redevelopment project, if the variances were issued, will not create any
significant community impacts on the health, safety, or general welfare.
WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council received the Planning Commission's recommendation
on Monday, January 22, 2001; and
2
WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council made the following findings:
Section 10116.22A1(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, �S'ection 101 6.16 (Structure Design Standards) requires structures to be set back a minimum
of 75 feet from the ordinary high watermark (OHW).
3, Section 1004. 0205 (Dwelling Dimensions and Appear�ances and Height, Frontage, Yard
and Lot Area Requirements in R-Z Districts) requires a front yar�d setback of 30 feet and
side yard setbacks of 10 feet.
4, Section 602.06 (Parking of Boulevard Prohibited) does not allow parking of vehicles in the
street right-of-way (boulevard.
5, The property owner did not create the hardship. The lot division occurred and tl�e
structure was constructed and improved many years before the current property owner
purchased the property. City records indicate the existing structure was constructed in
1957 with municipal sewer and water being installed in 1964. The Roseville City Code was
adopted in 1959 and the Shoreland Ordinance adopted in 1974.
6, Like many homes built prior to the Shoreland Ordinance being adopted, the Vesterholt
structure does not comply with the established 75 foot setback from the Ordinary High
Watermark. Requiring a setback of 75 feet from the OHW would be unworkable and
require removal of existing living area.
The new construction (garage addition) can be justifzed as added livability, accessibility
and by providing necessary space for maneuvering vehicles, and provision of accessible
storage for Ms. Vesterholt who has a disability,
8, The addition, though within the required ten foot side yard setback, is consistent at five feet
with the other lots within the cul-de-sac and neighborhood.
City records indicate that the right-of-way for Heinel Circle was dedicated with the
original Oak Point plat in 1949, but do not indicate why the existing home infringes 15 feet
within the required front yard setback. With the additional eight foot requested
encroachment into the required setback the proposed garage will set within seven feet of
the street right-of-way line. The distance from the proposed addition to the street curb will
be approximately 37 feet and will be visually consistent with 695 Heinel Circle. Within this
37 feet a vehicle can be completely parked off of the street pavement. There appears to be
no adverse impacts to the surrounding properties.
10. The curb line of the cul-de-sac is situated approximately 30 feet from the property line, thus
allowing ample area between the new garage addition and street curb line to park a
vehicle, which does not create any significant impacts on the minimally (mostly adjacent
residents and mail delivery) traveled Heinel Circle.
�
11. The impacts of this redevelopment project, if the variances were issued, will not create any
significant community impacts on the health, safety, or general welfare.
NOW TI�REFORE BE TT RESOLVED, by the City Council, to approve of the variances to
Sections 1004.02D5 (Dwelling Dimensions and Appearances and Height, Frontage, Yard and Lot Area
Requirements in R-1 Districts), 1016.16A (Structure Design Standards), and 1016.22A 1(Non-
Conformities) of the Roseville City Code, regarding the request by Peter Vesterholt, for properiy at
699 Heinel Circel, subject to the following conditions:
The parcel sha11 be limited to a ma�mum impervious area of 4,784 square feet or 25% of
the parcel size and the garage addition sha11 be limited to 527 square feet as depicted on the
attached proposed floor plan.
2. The proposed principal garage addition shall be set back a minimum of five feet from the
northeast (side) property line and set back a minimum of seven and one half feet from the
southeast (front) property line.
All roof drainage created by the addition and e�sting attached garage must be collected in
gutters and channeled to the natural drainage way within the applicant's properiy
(northeast).
4. Because of the size of the variances being granted, no other accessory building or tool shed
shall be permitted on the property, except that a water oriented accessory structure could be
allowed per Section 101617C of the Roseville City Code.
The properiy owner shall provide the City with a landscape plan that addresses the interests
of the Department of Natural Resources.
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 fa�or:
and the following voted against the same:
WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
4
�
�_ /
�' �'
� ! /
�
4�
�}y �
',i O
�� N
� �
� � �
O � �
� �
`N M� �
�
� �
� ,� ��
w
V
4 � �� ,.
� •N
� �
�
� �
'����,.;,
� � � .,
w � �� �
� � $
,,, ��
�"�
� : �
� �� �
- i/fC
�� f,
� ��
�
�'
�
�
� � �
� y
� � 4
/ � �
R�
I
� ',�
�
� �
�
� ��, � z � s a � Q
,� � Z
� � �� � �
� ( �� "� ��� 4 � w
��,��, ^� ��a �
0
Q :� �
�
I� o
;�, '',a --.KEN-T.-ST_. �� r�
��. � �� � o
�'� � W, , n���
� B � ., �.,�� ���
q
s
�� , ..,, . ��� �
�
;� a��:�:sr�r =_ " -- - � II o
�� ----
_ .. . _ , • - - � � �AtE ST N .. - - - - - � ���o��
-- - - :- �9�5 �a
i � �„ ,� � �ag�b��� i
����a��
�� � � o _ ����y�� ��
°"� �, . . � . ��� ���
-- �
E �
;�,�.
� \, �
, ,
��'� �
�`Q� ``� �,�,
.�� �
� '�
� ��
� � ��
� �
� ��� � �:
� � -
� � � -- �
_. _ .._.. . -- o
- - - o
� �?� N
�
. -sr�a��rs . �
m
.� �� w �
c�
U
a
a>
�
'o
�
o,
' z
�' o
H
� � U
� O
, H
� �; �. �
� � ��,,�
� �
�
� �
o a
� A
�
� �
0
>
o A
� �
.�
x�� �
�'" U
Bev and Peter Vesterholt 699 Heinel Circle Roseville Minnesota 55 113
(65 1) 765-0678
November 27, 2000
NIr. Thomas Paschke, City Planner
City of Roseville
Community Development Department
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville MN 55 113
Re: Variance Request Application for 699 Heinel Circle
Dear NIr. Paschke:
We have tilled out the Variance Application Form and attached the other required
documents for the proposed garage addition project at our property at 699 Heinel Circle.
Background/Narrative:
We purchased our house in the summer of 1999. The house was built in 1957 for a lady
who had Polio. Therefore, it was designed without any grade transition from the outside
to the inside. My wife, Bev, has Multiple Sclerosis, so we were excited about the house
because it provides a reasonable level of handicapped accessibility. However, it is
e�tremely difficult for Bev to get in and out of her car because the garage is very narrow
(at 19 feet). The potential that she will eventually need to use a wheelchair to get around
is very rea1. In this event, it will be impossible for her to gain access to her car in the
garage.
Primary Reason for the Request for Variance
The primary reason for our request for a variance from the City Code is that we need to
improve handicapped accessibility to the garage by increasing the size of the garage.
Specifically, we are requesting permission to build five feet (5'- 0") from the northeast
properiy line and seven feet (7'- 0") from the front properiy line. It is noted that our
house is located fifteen feet (15'- 0") of the front properiy line. It is further noted that our
neighbor's house and garage are located closer than five feet (5'- 0") from our northeast
property line and that our neighbor's garage is located seven feet (7'- 0") from the front
property line. Therefore, there is precedence for our request.
Other Reasons for the Request for Variance
Our storage shed, which came with the house, is unsightly. It is located very close to the
northeast properiy line, and thus our neighbor's properiy. The storage shed was built by
the previous owners to alleviate space limitations in the garage. The shed is elevated
appro�mately twelve (12") inches off the ground making it impossible for my wife to
access it or use it. Neither we nor or our neighbor are pleased with the appearance of the
storage shed, which our neighbor refers to as a"chicken coop". Please refer to enclosed
pictures.
We would like to consolidate the items stored in the storage shed in a larger garage. This
will not only improve handicapped accessibility to the garage and the items currently
stored in the storage shed. It will also improve the functionality of the house, and a11ow
our son to park his vehicle in the garage rather than in the driveway. In addition, it will
improve the looks of our house and our properiy (and our neighbors' properiy) by giving
it a more unified, and less cluttered look.
As part of the project, we intend to replace the e�sting wood fence located along the
northeast properiy line with a new wood fence. Budget permitting, we would also like to
add on to the family room, and potentially change the materials on the street side of the
house. In addition, we intend to relocate the front walk and enhance the landscaping in
front of the house. (Please refer to the enclosed plans and elevations).
Other Alternatives
We have not explored other alternatives, because we do not believe there are any feasible
alternatives to achieve the primary objective of the project, which is to improve
handicapped, accessibility to the garage.
Explanation of Site Conditions
The proposed project will enhance handicapped accessibility of the house. The
functionality and livability of the house also will be improved significantly. Furthermore,
we believe that the project will enhance the value of our properiy and the properties of
our neighbors by giving our house and properiy a less cluttered look.
The proposed building and driveway addition cover approximately 604 square feet. The
e�sting house, driveway, sidewalk and patio cover an area of approximately 4,890
square feet. The lot is appro�mately 19,134 square feet. Thus, the e�sting
improvements along with the proposed project retains a minimum of 70% of the pervious
surface and green space of the lot, as follows:
E�sting lot size: 19,134 square feet
E�sting impervious surface 4.890 square feet
E�sting pervious surface 14,244 square feet
Proposed additional impervious surface 604 sauare feet
Pervious surface after proposed improvements 13,640 square feet
Percent of pervious surface retained (13,640 SF: 14,244 SF x 100): 96 %
We understand that the front and side yard setbacks are affected by the proposed project.
We do not believe that other setback or variance conditions are affected by the proposed
proj ect.
The proposed project will be constructed in the same materials as the e�sting house. The
front of the proposed addition will be faced with brick and wood siding. The north gable
will be faced in stucco. The entire roof will receive new asphalt shingles.
The final building mass will be consistent with that on the contiguous properties.
Essentially, the basic style of the existing rambler will be retained and enhanced by the
proposed proj ect.
The proposed building and driveway addition does not place more vehicles adjacent to
living quarter first floor bedrooms of our neighbors. (All of our current vehicles will be
parked under one roof whereas one of our vehicles is parked in the driveway at present).
The drainage and roof gutters of the proposed project will guide water away from the
proposed structure and adj acent structures.
The roof of the proposed addition is properly proportioned. It will integrate e�tremely
well with the roof of the e�sting house.
Setback Considerations
The proposed addition will not reduce the side yard setback by more than 50% or be
closer than seven feet (7'- 0") to the front properiy line.
Our house is closer than 30 feet to the front properiy line. We presume that the front yard
setback requirements were different when our house was built than they are today.
Further, we believe that our neighbor's house and garage are located much closer to the
property lines than is allowed by current City Code. We believe that the proposed
addition will not materially affect the "visual pro�mity" of our house relative to the curb
line of the cul-de-sac.
Our proposed driveway expansion will be no closer than 5 feet to the northeast property
line.
Submittal Requirements
a. Application fee of $200 and fee for mailing labels of $45: Enclosed.
b. (2) Sets of proposed plans: Enclosed.
c. Narrative: Enclosed (refer to beginning of this letter).
Please call us if you have any questions. Also, please advise us when the Planning
Commission public hearing will take place. We are e�tremely interested in attending this
meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
�����
PETER VESTERHOLT
(612) 874-4110 (w)
(65 1) 765-0678 (h)
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Metro Waters, 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, NIN 55106-6793
Telephone: (65 1) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 772-7977
December 28, 2000
City of Roseville
Community Development Department
Mr. Thomas Paschke, City Planner
2660 Civic Center �rive
Roseville, NIN 55 113
Re: Peter Vesterholt Variance Request, Garage and Family Room Addition, Shoreland District, Lake
Owasso (62-56P), City of Roseville, Ramsey County
Dear Mr. Paschke:
DNR Waters has received (December 22, 2000) the December 20, 2000 letter requesting comments from
the DNR concerning the construction of additions to a garage and a family room at the Vesterholt
Residence that is located at 699 Heinel Circle on a home that is a nonconformmg structure that is located
within the 75' setback from Lake Owasso. If the variances are approved, the proposed additions will
expand the e�sting structure toward a side lot line and toward Heinel C�rcle, but not toward Lake Owasso.
Even after the proposed additions ha�e been constructed, the lot will ha�e less than 30% impervious
surface coverage. In addition, the lowest levels of the proposed additions and e�sting structure will be
well above the 1% flood elevation of Lake Owasso.
Given the above conditions, DNR Waters will not object to the approval ofthe variance request. However,
we recommend that the following conditions be attached to the approval of the variances:
That additional trees be planted between the existin home and Lake Owasso. These trees will
serve to aid in screening the view of the house from �e lake and additional trees will also help to
improve the water quality of Lake Owasso. The Vesterholts should be told that it is possible to
trim the lower branches from the trees in order to preserve the view of the lake from the house.
That a portion of the shoreline of Lake Owasso be planted with a buffer of native plant species (the
rest of the shorehne to be used for swimming and boating). Enclosed with this IetteC are pictures
showing an example of yards landscaped with native vegetation. A plant species list is also
included with the letter. The native vegetation helps to prevent shoreline erosion, removes
nutrients from the lake, prevents additional nutrients from entering the lake, and attracts wildlife.
Properly planned, planted and maintained the buffer/garden can be a very attractive amenity.
Thank you for giving the DNR the op�ortunity to comment on the Vesterholt variance. We look forward
to reviewmg future variances and condit�onal use permits for the City of Roseville shoreland and floodplain
ordinances.
Please feel free to contact me, or Molly Shodeen, at 651-772-7910 should you have any questions
concerning the Vesterholt variance.
Sincerely, �
�, ��A��- ���`�
`� Joseph Richter
Hydrologist
Enclosures: Plat and Lakescaping Information
c: Lake Owasso (62-56P) File
DNR Information: 651-296-6157 . 1-888-646-6367 . TTY: 651-296-5484 . 1-800-657-3929
Au Equal Opportunity Employer �'� Printed on Recycled Paper Containing �
r
Who Values Diversity ��`,� Minimum of 10% Post-Consumer Waste
�f�% J/�'% ��/��/,�^,� �� � v - �
� / ( / �✓(/VCi(/ �' �r/v��i � 88 i'. 28 / �
�7 // �
I � I ��'�i � i� U -J' $�O �� j � � .�
� �� 8 7,�12 �
���I��OC% y��' 8 � �b�°� � ` \
o � / x �� ��,89.6Ci �
/ D�1 � 889.47 1
i�6 - � � T � , ��� t
O 8�7. � g �/ g�` r �
�� Op / ��`�,� i$ � � ��
�+1 -�/ 2
LP � ^°�' � ) ��,,, / 8`a6' . �
� ha , �tv � ����5�05 �'� �'1
�• a o�� � � I
�� ��87.58 � � o�� �6�0 � HOU . , �
�' , � , FE�VC�'"--. �' �`, SE g� 8 �
Q � x � ,�.� � HO �95. •� � �6l ,.
� h°` a9� � � X TU8 xc5,5 ���i �
��. �28 � � � '
� - - ��� 89s �. 9�
� 88�.6� �'o�' � � cb •8j F` 896.1
��j � p 1� *�/ ��� J �� 89�3�
I�S` ^ ^ � ��893.89 QP '� o�
�. d"- 2»
. tL, ° � � �� � 896. 7 ,�p•°� � oP`�
�� � � ��� _ G ,� � � 2 �
' /� Y� � r� ,��'�` � �'' � Q � F � 8
�.� � � .y� � G 1` •� .7,�RC�,y��
�o g a ' � �,c�\� � ►'F
��Z� � I ��� � � *o� $�,9
, 1 b ` 894.42 66• ,� �6 �4
a �
� �$���. o r�j, 6 0 � o�,� �C R.
� � \` \ � 1 / �
4-5� �-' � / '
k-�}� 888.25 ���� g� 9� 1
.
� � ,-�� ��• �,`� �,�° � .� �
�c�� N6 -� g9 '�`� ,o� `��
.S �-' • �ti
�' f.--� 8�6,�{1, �r� � k o � O
ti � � —
O � ,46 � ,eJ +�� �� r1� �c�
O S
O' / �,�L"� / �h��o�
O � �0���+�`�r
/ . / �^�y
�
/ > � ag1 •�� �
..
..
I � � lA
�, �.y.f �� .i
�z � � �
t,� --� � � �SN'LY, �. � _ p�
�LY. ` � ~ —.._ u� lg �'OT e
� / l\
�T � �' L�T 8 �� � � _ !/ / `WIY. Mp�T �- W
�� I.oTg
� �
�
-•_.
_ -- _ �.. _
'�.
a
� �� ..�
.l, 1.. ��'
�
� ''� _� �- v __ _ _- --- - �
�
�I
i
° I
�l
i
I
� �
I
� �
� I
�I
I
i
I
I
�
� �
�� '/
� ,�---<;
u� \ .
�
� ,�ir
��
� �
�1 ��
_ ���\\ .
� , .
,
a-�,
_��,,
,,
i \
I �
I �
I
I
� , ��
� ��
'�}.- '�l.
�
, �
•-----�
�
� ^
� ���
�h
�..
� �
I �
� I
I I
j � I
t � ' --�
� � i
I'� '� �'� j
i ' �
�- -� I
[
.
1� I \'� �
> j � `_.�
l� i ��� -
� E � H
� f
I �
� � I
� I � �
� � I
� I
� ! I
��� I I �
� �� � i �
I °
� I -------------- I �
a-------- --� �-
�
�
/ �
�
�
`
I
� o
�
� �
� � �
�
� � �
�° Z,,�
�� o
��� ��
����
�
�y
� �� i
7r �if
d� �
� .� r ll
J - .. �-� " �
-��. -.. �
�-�'" - � �
I '
��
�I
a�
��
��
��
y
I
)
I
I
I
I
�
J
�
ti
�, r�—�...—s��
. �
��
� �ppI�
v il f �
I� � �
_.,_ _ �---� � �
°
�
�
�
o �
N �,
� '
v !�
�I � `b
v �
-,
�U ~
� 0.2 �
�,.� � �
v� 1�
o � i� �
�J � l�
4 , • �: `i�l�`. • . . y. ^ µ 1` , .��.4... .
-. ,� �~ ° �` �� �; 4 �' �'�'.. ��e"�..�.,;%-s
� 4- �` . � � ,a,",1f�r�=�. v' rq� �'' { `�����-''��
� � �j ��� ,��� �,, �,��, :
� � „ �: A� y`��� .; � a, � �,
�. •� �-� ;. �„ •�.. • �� ' � ���,�.{ „� ,,,� �x�y��
,���.Y :� + I i x YY�� . , LJ �Yv°� .� � ,' ,�.''-.�j:
�� a .-� �}�' :$! `�oc L �' .''� '� .. �'4
�; -T.. ii ' - �?'�'n u.6 �„p'' .
1'
�--}' �� �,a � � � " , °�,:: I ,
W# '�� �I�� ��7CY �� _
� � � , �. �. �rJC L �
'y' � ., ' .st� �!i - -E 1 �` -_
i� , f _.�" •�' - -�� .'
�' '�4! . �� ���;,: ,. - . _ _ _ -�'`�. •. _ ,�
._ , _ �
, .y,;�� ,
.� � s ' �,� � � _ � . '� �-- - � ��
� ej � � � , , `�' � t - ) -Y4
� � :e
� � �' °J �-3 '� .. � . w�
� ` _
� .` -.��" . .� .. � - ! • F-�. � � r..� �`�_ ..�� - -
� � l ��.,;�..'
� ° � �r,�- ,. -� , 1 'c�'
:.. �::�--._ :
' 4. e� � -"' ,
��� iVt '.' �+'.r1Y� �� '�t. . _
!�- �
.. ' .{��, � � �. ✓' � , , �')
. 4 1 �1 �1-r` � '.s � .._a7' �r:.
� i � r' �.i9
, " ti� .�a�, ; �
�� r _ o�
:�; �„ y�: :,.�� � -, -�'.
_ � ..-.. �.rtrti� � �':: , � . ^�" . x:`�'s��`:� � s- -%��:'':�
F a- - .�.. K_' �� f . . •, .. '� y � ;.'\ . ' 'T" _ '
�t � � �T , � �3�.��`�l', �i' f' . ��r•� ' �;r, . .. ,` `
� � '�� , _ �( _ s , _ _ �
��S '.� '��a; �� } ._L � �.+ � ' . �l :�Ld ii �\ . :' �
ti�. �iy� y�r � , . '�'n � �'y�� _ , _ `� �' .
�`` • ' � dr �. � y ' Y �'�� .�t �' _ �
' ` p�4. „ a•{ .�.�' . . , :� 1� '� �
,� . � � . . • .. . . T }"�' . ��� �'I .. �. �I.
ti'4 e� . ..�,,i/�C t� . f � � ti11�� � � � ' . �� ..� , s, � . ' ~ � . �.
�.' '.�'%,� � � � +� '�t ��� .�� ' r� ,r, .'. . �S/ L •,`- �
`, r�'v >.� �' - ;� �• �:) . _ 'F;' • , . , 1 :'�--�:, �.vt e�Oj' � t �
-.. i r �
,.:i`R�S- ,w►_ a _ �_- � > . k ' �, ` r�� ,t ; �!ti a _ �.
. .
'a� ` • .. -- - c{ - � � J' .."'_. � .. .V�.,�".i
�.�'• _i�.l . . � � .,._ __ ��--r � tq,. . J
,_ _. • �� �e �
s�,-� - � i - . � - ~ � ['� '
��j_ � _ � � a- j `�°S�+' .i.
_ `� ��� _ _ `t► � =`�
1� ,-� l, � _ _ ,� f�-;•:� ,�,-
'I `� .._ _ „-.- $ .. , • �. -�"�
� _ ^���
- - — --����- . . .
_ _ - _ :�-:�.�. - -
_ - - -�s, _ �,
$ '����wK:t�. �.�' -'
"; .=,z
,
: • . n;, y `�s` ..
i;, ` +' ! 1 k.��e�. �
♦ ���:y.;-.
. �,�. `�� �•.����1
�.T' .?.. , � . +fzv ` �Lw��
c,�°s"' , � �'''' �.����
�j�y ��"���'� ;�C�
r� " +..-� �,�'ll
7� � ��..
, �a�Y� ` i� �* `
�' � , _ ���� � � - � `
�w_ `�` -�-y��;' '
`a-...o��i� ... .
t— -- i� - � ",� Y
�--- — _--�'_ -^=�<< �
,� � 'jM� .�'
� �t�,��__�
� .�
�� ,k
{„
�
�
r.
1 �
� ��
z,
i �� } t ; � `'? ..� � _,�" �'� •"
�..� ' � ��:]��j'j�'7,,'� r.�y1-,
� . ' "3? . 1 t�;l,:'���'�'' � . � .
�� ';• � _ - � �. .w �`. .
,: ,� :
r�, "�''' y �'' ;*- � s � � ,�- 4� .�
� '2•y;,I,.J ��' 1� .. ,'j�Jy,���•' _ ��r •+4
,S'� .. ( �Cnr �
�^,� ,`�� .�. �� . . •.�.y `'� `�
�Fl ��� 9. ~.x �� �� � � '
� ' �- \�
� � sJ F , 1 " �
y ij�.r, � � �, .� . . __ � -
`, l` � +i` �� -_
I � �' _ '-
, 'a y d� � . -- / / I
- � , '� . r.. �� � ,
� ' I i
�j �✓ ^.q., �_�i
�„i"��G— - �
_ _
�..►_ �,- -.. ..
- - .
��- ' _ ,_ _. _ -=`�'- y - 1l -
� ;� r� 1 +M������� -- ,� y •rsJ�.
r Y
" �' ,, �Slf`^� � � A �,•' p, , jg �� +. -5'a, . ��
. r.
. . . .^., A -_ �. A K.• : : �,. ... � r
��Y'•� � . � ' `` �.;� � ,� � �
� . ti,> _r • .,�• ,��;.j�•'�,iy�,j'.�r..L. �, _ �� ..
�
s
:j� �:��• :.L �i:�.v /� '► �f•` =s�
• .:.:• i _
:;�;�.� �A:: ���,
_ ,, . ,, :�+:
„ " : Ra `r
�t� . ; ;;;�.
t. �;J 7-` _ I � �C . '
. ��
. ,
• �
i
rt �
. �
i:. � I s' .,'�, � � � .
� '.' ��i:� '' � � -�_.
� �� � � � ���
� -y►��. =.` ��^: ` I . I
� '�".`� s�^^�. � � �� i �
,,.-:-^�'.`' '"y�,;-.;_-'-r�-1 I y� .
, l
—'- .�q � s�.
_ _ _ ;, I; ,'�
- ,-,.:.:,
; ,_; , :, , „,
Approval:
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: 01/22/O 1
ITEM NO: T — S
Agenda Section:;
LAND USE
It�m Description: .A request by Robert Witt for variances from Sections 1004.02D5 (Dwelling
Dimensions and Appearances and Height, Frontage, Yard and Lot Area
Requirements in R-1 Districts), 1016.16A (Structure Design Standards),
1016.22A1 (Non-Conformities), and 1016.26.B1 (Storm Water Management).
(PF3279)
1.0 REQUESTED ACTION
1.1 Robert Witt, properry owner of 353 South Owasso Boulevard, has requested variances from
Section 1004.02D5, 101616A, 1016.22A 1, and 1016.26B 1 of the Roseville City Code to allow
the construction a 2,204 square foot full basement rambler with attached garage. The variances
include:
A. An e�sting garage to be less than 30 feet from the front yard properry line.
B. A structure to be placed less than the required 75-foot shoreland setback.
C. A lot to be less that the required 100 foot wide width.
D. A greater impervious coverage than the required 25%.
2.0 REVIE�V of REQUEST
2.1 Section 1004.02D5 (Dwelling Dimensions and Appearances and Height, Frontage, Yard
and Lot Area Requirements in R-1 Districts) requires a front yard setback of 30 feet for
the Witt property adjacent to South Owasso Boulevard. Mr. Witt has indicated that he
wants to keep the e�sting detached garage and use it as a storage building. The e�sting
structure lies 6 to 10 feet (angular) from the front properiy line and requires a 29-foot variance
to keep the structure.
2.2 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. The Witt lot is a pre-
existing non-conforming lot with a width of 37 feet along South Owasso Boulevard, an average
depth of 172 feet, 51 feet of frontage along Lake Owasso, and a lot size of 8,716 square feet. A
buildable pre-existing non-conforming lot of record must meet 70% of the lot width and area
requirements. The Witt lot does not meet these requirements and requires variances in order to
update the e�sting structure.
PF3279 — RCA (012201) Page 1 of 5
2.3 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.
Impervious area includes roof, sidewalk, patio, and driveway areas. The Witt lot is 8,716
square feet in size which allows for an impervious area of 2,179 square feet. The existing
home, drive, sidewalk, and detached garage has an impervious area of 3,005 square feet or
34.5%. The proposed home, storage building existing and proposed driveway will have an
impervious calculation of 3,305 square feet or 38% and requires a variance to allow
redevelopment to occur on the parcel.
2.4 Section 1016.16 (Structure Design Standards) requires structures to be set back a
minimum of 75 feet from the ordinary high watermark (OAW). The proposed home will
be setback 49 feet from the Ordinary High Watermark (OHW). This setback is appro�mately
the same as the e�sting structure (48 feet) and is consistent with the adjacent homes. Because
the new home is proposed to be placed less than the required 75-foot setback a variance is
required.
2.5 Chart to review required variances:
Lot Width at Shoreline
Lot Area
Shoreland Setback
Front Yard Setback
Code
100 feet
15,000 sq. ft.
25%
75 feet
30 feet
70% Requirement Existing
Condition
70 feet 51 feet
10,500 s. ft. 8,716 s. ft.
NA 34.5%
NA 48 feet
NA 6 feet (garaQe
Proposed
Condition
Same
Same
38%
49 feet
6 feet
Variance
Condition
49 feet
1,784 sq. ft.
11.8%
26 feet
29 feet
2.6 The City discussed with NIr. Witt the option of constructing an addition and completing a
major remodeling. However given the age of the structure and its dated structural components,
Mr. Witt has determined that razing the structure and starting over is the best and most cost
effective solution.
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 sha11 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 properiy 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 properiy 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 adjoining properties.
PF3279 -RCA (012201) Page 2 of 5
3.4 The structure at 353 South Owasso Boulevard is a rambler, most likely developed initially as a
cabin. It is located on a platted lot of record (Lake Owasso Villa, Lot 2) and was constructed in
1934. Permits were issued in 1961 for sanitary sewer and plumbing and in 1964 for municipal
water and a foundation/basement.
3.5 The parcel lies appro�mately eight feet lower than the roadway and the lot slopes from a high
point at the road appro�mately 20 feet to the lakeshore. The parcel is long and narrow and has
topographical challenges such as access, slope, and mature trees. The existing structure is
aging and does not meet current building code standards and the parcel does not meet a number
of zoning requirements.
3.6 The Witt request was forwarded to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for review and
comment. The DNR has indicated support for the redevelopment of the parcel and
concluded that the difficult site has certain hardships that warrant variances. Their letter
to the City regarding the proposal is attached and requests that two conditions be included in
any approved variance. Specifically, the DNR requests that trees be planted between Lake
Owasso and the new home to screen the structure from view of the lake and that the lowest
floor elevation be at least one foot higher than the flood elevation of the lake.
4.0 POLICY & FISCAL IlVIPLICATION
4.1 The Comprehensive Plan and the Roseville Housing Improvement Plan encourage maintaining
and improving residential properties and infrastructure, as well as reconstruction and rebuilding
of residential structures (and neighborhoods) throughout the community.
4.2 There are no additional fiscal implications.
5.0 STAFF DETERMINED FINDINGS
5.1 Staff has reviewed the merits of the four variances necessary to allow Mr. Witt to proceed with
his proposed redevelopment plans. Staff offers the following findings:
a. Mr. Witt did not create the hardship. The lot division occurred and the structure was
constructed and improved many years before the Witt's purchased the property. City
records indicate the existing structure was constructed in 1934 with sewer, water,
foundation and a basement being installed in the early 1960's. The Roseville City Code
was adopted in 1959 and the Shoreland Ordinance adopted in 1974.
b. The economics of constructing an addition and remodeling versus constructing new are
quite different. The e�sting structure does not meet most building codes. In so doing
there would be a need to gut the structure and start over. New construction can be
justified by providing a modern structure that meets all current building codes and the
purpose and intent of the Roseville Comprehensive Plan.
PF3279 — RCA (012201) Page 3 of 5
c. Requiring a setback of 75 feet from the OHW would be overly restrictive and out of
character with the adjacent homes. The parcel has a sharp (vertical) transition from the
road inward creating a unique physical feature that provides difficulties for
redevelopment and direct access. Access is currently (will remain) via a private
easement with the west property owner. The narrow width of the parcel limits the type,
style, and design options for a new home. Adjacent homes are located 38 feet (east)
and 60 feet (west) from the OHW suggesting the Witt home to be placed 49 feet (the
average of adjacent lots) from the OHW and in a similar line to the lakeshore.
d. Given e�sting conditions (parcel depth, width, and slope), the pro�mity of adjacent
structures from Lake Owasso, limited structure design options, and a requirement to
meet current side yard setbacks, there appears to be no alternative site designs that
would allow Mr. Witt to comply with the City Code and eliminate the need for
variances.
e. The impacts of this redevelopment project, if the variances were issued, will not create
any significant community impacts on the health, safety, or general welfare. To the
contrary, the proposal removes a dilapidating structure (modified cabin) that is in dire
need of improvement and provides added value to the neighborhood.
6.0 PLANNING CO�I�IISSION CONSIDERATION
6.1 On January 10, 2001, the Roseville Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the
Witt request. At the meeting no adjacent residents were present to speak on the subject. Mr.
Witt was present to answer questions from the Planning Commission.
6.2 The Planning Commission was concerned with the access and the e�terior of the salvaged
garage. In answer to their concern, Mr. Witt indicated that he would seek the proper
agreement/easement from his neighbor and that the e�sting salvaged detached garage would be
resided to match the new home.
6.3 The Planning Commission voted (5-0) to recommend approval of the Witt request far multiple
variances necessary to reconstruct the home at 353 South Owasso Boulevard, based on the
findings in Section 5(see attached resolution) and subject to the following conditions:
A. The redeveloped principal structure (home and attached garage) shall be limited to
2,204 square feet with a full basement.
13. The proposed principal structure shall be set back a minimum of five feet from the east
and west property lines.
C. The proposed principal structure shall be setback a minimum of 48 feet from the
Ordinary High Watermark of Lake Owasso.
D. 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.
PF3279 — RCA (012201) Page 4 of 5
E. The parcel is limited to a ma�mum impervious are of 3,305 square feet or 38% of the
parcel size.
F. Because of the size of the new structure, e�sting accessory building, and the amount of
impervious area, no other accessory building or tool shed may be permitted on the
property.
G. The e�sting accessory building shall be limited to the storage of personal belongings
not to include the storage of vehicles.
H. The property owner must obtain and record a perpetual access agreement with the
adjacent property owner. The City must review said agreement/easement prior to
recording and will require verification said agreement/easement has been recorded prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
L The property owner shall provide the City with a landscape plan that addresses the
interests of the Department of Natural Resources.
7.0 SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
7.1 By motion, approve (approve with modifications or deny) a resolution granting Robert Witt,
353 South Owasso Boulevard, a variance from Section 1004.02D5 (Dwelling Dimensions and
Appearances and Height, Frontage, Yard and Lot Area Requirements in R-1 Districts), Section
1016.16A (Structure Design Standards), Section 1016.22A1 (Non-Conformities), and Section
1016.26.B1 (Storm Water Management) of the Roseville City Code to construct a new 2,204
square foot home with an attached garage.
Prepared by. Thomas Paschke (65 1-490-2236)
Attachments: Properiy location map, aerial photo, site plan, DNR letter, draft PC Resolution, draft PC minutes, and draft
CC resolution.
60-day Time Limit Application submitted on November 21, 2000; Accepted on December 5, 2000; Decision deadline is
February 3, 2001.
PF3279 — RCA (012201) Page 5 of 5
I
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
�3
44
45
�6
48
49
50
Sl
Extract of 1�Tinutes from Planning Commission mCetlll� of Januarv 10, 2001:
d. Flanning File 3279: A request by the Robert Witt for a variance from the
Section 1016 (Shoreland, Wetland, and Storm Water Management) to the
construction a 1,576 square foot walkout rambler with attached garage on
property located at 353 South Owasso Boulevard. The specific variances are: to
locate the structure within the required 75 foot shoreland setback; allow a greater
impervious area than the required 25%; and a 23 foot variance from Section
1004.02D (Minimum Yard Requirements) to allow a pre-e�sting detached
garage to be located in the required front yard.
Chairman Craig Klausing opened the public hearing and requested City Planner Thomas
Paschke to provide a verbal summary of the project report dated January 10, 2001.
Thomas Paschke explained the details of the site development and the history of the site.
The structure is not modem and does not meet current Codes. The parcel is six feet lower
than the road. There is a shared driveway with the owner to the west. He explained staff
findings; the owner did not create the hardship; a new structure can meet the current
building Codes; the shoreline setback would be 49 feet which is consistent with adjacent
properties; no alternative design could meet e�sting Codes; there appears to be no health,
safety, welfare issues.
Thomas Paschke explained the
of the footprint and the safety
feet, up to eight feet).
details of the proposal. Chair Klausing asked for details
concerns regarding side yard setbacks (minimum of six
Member Olson asked for details on the e�sting garage. The exterior will not match the
new home and will increase impervious surface. Thomas Paschke suggested re-siding
the structure to match.
Mr. Robert Witt stated the existing garage would be resided. To remove it would require
removal of trees. He does propose removal of the boathouse.
Chair Klausing asked for details of the shared driveway. Mr. Witt said a new shared
driveway would be constructed.
Member Olson noted that the MnDNR asked that trees be placed between the shore and
house (five new trees will be planted).
Member Wilke asked the height of the house (1 �/z stories).
There were no comments from the public. The hearing was closed.
Motion: Chair Klausing moved, second by Member Olson, to recommend adoption of
Resolution #3279 (an executed copy of which is attached), with findings and conditions
A through I, as outlined in said Resolution.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
DRAFT
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION No. 3279
A Resolution Recommending Approval of Variances for Robert Witt Allowing the
Reconstruction of the Existing Home at 353 South Owasso Boulevard.
WHEREAS, Robert Witt, has requested variances from Sections 1004.02D5 (Dwelling
Dimensions and Appearances and Height, Frontage, Yard and Lot Area Requirements in R-1
Districts), 1016.16A (Structure Design Standards), 1016.22A1 (Non-Conformities), and 1016.26.B1
(Storm Water Management) of the Roseville City Code. The variances include:
A. An existing garage to be less than 30 feet from the front yard property line.
B. A structure to be placed less than the required 75-foot shoreland setback.
c. A lot to be less that the required 100 foot wide width.
D. A greater impervious coverage than the maximum allowed 25%.
WHEREAS, Section 1004.02D5 (Dwelling Dimensions and Appearances and Height,
Frontage, Yard and Lot Area Requirements in R-1 Districts) requires a front yard setback of 30 feet
for the Witt property adjacent to South Owasso Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Witt has indicated that he wants to preserve the existing detached garage
and convert the structure to a storage building. The existing structure lies 6 to 10 feet (angular) from
the front property line and would require a 29 foot variance to keep the structure; and
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, the Witt lot is a pre-existing non-conforming lot with a width of 3'7 feet along
South Owasso Boulevard, an average depth of 172 feet, 51 feet of frontage along Lake Owasso, and
a lot size of 8,716 square feet. A buildable pre-existing non-conforming lot of record must meet
70% of the lot width and area requirements. The Witt lot does not meet these requirements and
would need variances in order to update the existing structure, 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.
Impervious area includes roof, sidewalk, patio, and driveway areas; and
WHEREAS, the Witt lot is 8,716 square feet in size which allows for an impervious area of
2,179 square feet. The existing home, drive, sidewalk, and detached garage has an impervious area
of 3,005 square feet or 34.5%. The proposed home, storage building, existing and proposed
driveway will have an impervious calculation of 3,305 square feet or 38% and requires a variance to
allow redevelopment to occur on the parcel; and
WHEREAS, Section 1016.16 (Structure Design Standards) requires structures to be set back
a minimum of 75 feet from the ordinary high watermark (OH�; and
[1
WHEREAS, the proposed home will be setback 49 feet from the Ordinary High Watermark
(OH�. This setback is approximately the same as the existing structure (48 feet) and is consistent
with the adjacent homes and requires a 26 foot variance; and
WHEREAS, the Depariment of Natural Resources has reviewed the proposal and has
indicated support far the redevelopment of the parcel and concluded that the diff'icult site has
certain hardships that warrant variances; and
WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission, on January 10, 2001, conducted a public
hearing regarding the Witt request and made the following fmdings:
a. Mr. Witt did not create the hardship. The lot division occurred and the structure was
constructed and improved many years before the Witt's purchased the property. City
records indicate the existing structure was constructed in 1934 with sewer, water,
foundation and a basement being installed in the early 1960's. The Roseville City
Code was adopted in 1959 and the Shoreland Ordinance adopted in 1974.
b. The economics of constructing an addition and remodeling versus constructing new
are quite different. The existing structure does not meet most building codes. In so
doing, there would be a need to gut the structure and start over. New construction
can be justified by providing a modern structure that meets all current building codes
and the purpose and intent of the Roseville Comprehensive Plan.
G. Requiring a setback of 75 feet from the OHW would be overly restrictive and out of
character with the adjacent homes. The parcel has a sharp (vertical) transition from
the road inward creating a unique physical feature that provides difficulties for
redevelopment and direct access. Access is currently (will remain) via a private
easement with the west property owner. The narrow width of the parcel limits the
type, style, and design options for a new home. Adjacent homes are located 38 feet
(east) and 60 feet (west) from the OHW suggesting the �(11tt home to be placed 49
feet (the average of adjacent lots) from the OHW and in a similar line to the
lakeshore.
d. Given existing conditions (parcel depth, width, and slope), the pro�nity of adjacent
structures from Lake Owasso, limited structure design options, and a requirement to
meet current side yard setbacks, there appears to be no alternative site designs that
would allow Mr. Witt to comply with the City Code and eliminate the need for
variances.
a. The impacts of this redevelopment project, if the variances were issued, will not
create any signif'icant community impacts on the health, safety, or general welfare.
To the contrary, the proposal removes a dilapidating structure (modif'ied cabin) that
is in dire need of improvement and provides added value to the neighborhood.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Roseville Planning Commission, to
recommend approval of the variances to Sections 1004.02D5 (Dwelling Dimensions and
2
Appearances and Height, Frontage, Yard and Lot Area Requirements in R-1 Districts), 1016.16A
(Structure Design Standards), 1016.22A1 (Non-Conformities), and 1016.26.B1 (Storm Water
Management) of the Roseville City Code, regarding the request by Robert Witt, for property at 353
South Owasso Boulevard, subject to the following conditions:
A. The redeveloped principal structure (home and attached garage) shall be limited to
2,204 square feet with a basement.
B. The proposed principal structure shall be set back a minimum of five feet from the
east and west property lines.
C. The proposed principal structure shall be setback a minimum of 48 feet from the
Ordinary High Watermark of Lake Owasso.
D. 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.
E. The parcel is limited to a maximum impervious are of 3,305 square feet or 38% of
the parcel size.
F. Because of the size of the new structure, existing accessory building, and the amount
of impervious area, no other accessory building or tool shed may be permitted on the
property.
G. The existing accessory building shall be limited to the storage of personal belongings
not to include the storage of vehicles.
H. The property owner must obtain and record a perpetual access agreement with the
adjacent property owner. The City must review said agreement/easement prior to
recording and will require verification said agreement/easement has been recorded
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
L The property owner shall provide the City with a landscape plan that addresses the
interests of the Department of Natural Resources.
Signature: this 10th day of January, 200Il
Craig Klausing, Chair Roseville Planning Commission
Attest: , this 10th day of January, 200�
Dennis P. Welsch, Community Development D1reCtor
�� ;7_1 � �
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, Nlinnesota, was held on the 22°d day of January 2001, 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.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FROM SECTION 1004A2D5, 1016.16A,
1016.22A1, AND 1016.26B1 OF THE ROSEVII,LE CITY CODE
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 353 SOUTH OWASSO BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, Section 1004.02D5 (Dwelling Dimensions and Appearances and Height,
Frontage, Yard and Lot Area Requirements in R-1 Districts) requires a front yard setback of 30
feet for properry at 353 South Owasso Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the owner has indicated that he wants to preserve the existing detached
garage and convert the structure to a storage building. The existing structure lies 6 to 10 feet
(angular) from the front properiy line and would require a 29 foot variance to keep the structure;
and
WHEREAS, Section 1016.22A1 (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; and
WHEREAS, the lot is a pre-existing non-conforming lot with a width of 37 feet along
South Owasso Boulevard, an average depth of 172 feet, 51 feet of frontage along Lake Owasso,
and a lot size of 8,716 square feet. Under the City Code a buildable pre-existing non-conforming
lot of record must meet 70% of the lot width and area requirements. The lot does not meet these
requirements and would need variances in order to update the existing structure; and
WHEREAS, Section 1016.26B 1(Storm Water Management) requires all single-family
lots within the Shoreland Management District to have no more that 25% impervious site
coverage. Impervious area includes roof, sidewalk, patio, and driveway areas; and
WHEREAS, the lot is 8,716 square feet in size which allows for an impervious area of
2,179 square feet. The existing home, drive, sidewalk, and detached garage has an impervious
area of 3,005 square feet or 34.5%. The proposed home, storage building, existing and proposed
driveway will have an impervious calculation of 3,305 square feet or 38% and requires a
variance to allow redevelopment to occur on the parcel; and
WHEREAS, Section 1016.16 (Structure Design Standards) requires structures to be set
back a minimum of 75 feet from the ordinary high watermark (OHW); and
WHEREAS, the proposed home will be setback 49 feet from the Ordinary High
Watermark (OHW). This setback is appro�mately the same as the e�sting structure (48 feet)
and is consistent with adjacent homes and requires a 26 foot variance; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the proposal and has
indicated support for the redevelopment of the parcel and concluded that the site has hardships
that warrant variances; and
WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission, on 7anuaty 10, 2001, conducted a
public hearing regarding the request and made the following findings:
The properiy owner did not create the hardship. The lot division occurred and the
structure was constructed and improved many years before the current owner
purchased the properiy. City records indicate the e�sting structure was constructed
in 1934 with sewer, water, foundation and a basement being installed in the early
1960's. The Roseville City Code was adopted in 1959 and the Shoreland Ordinance
adopted in 1974.
2. The economics of constructing an addition and remodeling versus constructing new
are quite different. The e�sting structure does not meet most building codes.
Remodeling would be costly and difficult. New construction would provide a
modem structure that meets all current building codes and the purpose and intent of
the Roseville Comprehensive Plan.
3. Requiring a setback of 75 feet from the OHW would be overly restrictive and out of
character with the adjacent homes. The parcel has a sharp (vertical) transition from
the road inward creating a unique physical feature that provides difficulties for
redevelopment and direct access. Access is currently (will remain) via a private
easement with the west properiy owner. The narrow width of the parcel limits the
type, style, and design options for a new home. Adjacent homes are located 38 feet
(east) and 60 feet (west) from the OHW suggesting the proposed new home be placed
49 feet (the average of adj acent lots) from the OHW and in a similar line to the
lakeshore.
4. Given e�sting conditions (parcel depth, width, and slope), the pro�mity of adjacent
structures from Lake Owasso, limited structure design options, and a requirement to
meet current side yard setbacks, there appears to be no alternative site designs that
would allow the proposed construction to comply with the City Code and eliminate
the need for variances.
S. The impacts of this redevelopment project, if the variances were issued, will not
create any significant community impacts on the health, safety, or general welfare.
To the contrary, the proposal removes a dilapidating structure (modified cabin) that is
in dire need of improvement and provides added value to the neighborhood.
2
WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council received the Planning Commission's
recommendation on Monday, January 22, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council made the following findings:
Section 1011 b.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. Section 1016.16 (Structure Design Standards) requires structures to be set back a
minimum of 75 feet from the ordinary high watermark (OHW).
3. 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.
4. Section 1004. 0205 (Dwelling Dimensions and Appearances and Height, Frontage,
Yard and Lot Area Requirements in R-Z Districts) requires a front yard setback of 30
feet and side yard setbacks of IO feet.
S. The property owner did not create the hardship. The lot division occurred and the
structure was constructed and improved many years before the current owner
purchased the property. City records indicate the existing structure was constructed
in 1934 with sewer, water, foundation and a basement being installed in the early
1960's. The Roseville City Code was adopted in 1959 and the Shoreland Ordinance
adopted in 1974.
6. The economics of constructing an addition and remodeling versus constructing new
are quite different. The existing structure does not meet most building codes.
Remodeling would be costly and difficult. New construction would provide a modern
structure that meets all current building codes and the purpose and intent of the
Roseville Comprehensive Plan.
7. Requiring a setback of 75 feet from the OHW would be overly restrictive and out of
character with the adjacent homes. The parcel has a sharp (vertical) transition from
the road inward creating a unique physical feature that provides di�culties for
redevelopment and direct access. Access is currently (will remain) via a private
easement with the west property owner. The narrow width of the parcel limits the
type, style, and design options for a new home. Adjacent homes are located 38 feet
(east) and 60 feet (west) from the OHW suggesting the proposed new home be placed
49 feet (the average of adjacent lots) from the OHW and in a similar line to the
lakeshore.
3
8. Given existing conditions (parcel depth, width, and slope), the proximity of adjacent
structures from Lake Owasso, limited structure design options, and a requirement to
meet current side yard setbacks, there appears to be no alternative site designs that
would allow the proposed construction to comply with the City Code and eliminate
the need for variances.
9. The impacts of this redevelopment project, if the variances were issued, will not
create any significant community impacts on the health, safety, or general welfare.
To the contrary, the proposal removes a dilapidating structure (modified cabin) that
is in dire need of improvement and provides added value to the neighborhood.
NOW TI�REFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Roseville City Council, to approve
variances to Sections 1004.02D5 (Dwelling Dimensions and Appearances and Height, Frontage,
Yard and Lot Area Requirements in R-1 Districts), 1016.16A (Structure Design Standards),
1016.22A1 (Non-Conformities), and 1016.26.B1 (Storm Water Management) of the Roseville
City Code, regarding the application by Robert Witt, for property at 353 South Owasso
Boulevard, subject to the following conditions:
A. The redeveloped principal structure (home and attached garage) shall be limited
to 2,204 square feet with a basement.
B. The proposed principal structure sha11 be set back a minimum of five feet from
the east and west property lines.
�, The proposed principal structure sha11 be setback a minimum of 48 feet from the
Ordinary High Watermark of Lake Owasso.
D. All roof drainage created by the new structure must be collected in gutters and
channeled to the natural drainage way within the applicant's properiy.
E. The parcel is limited to a ma�mum impervious area of 3,305 square feet (38% of
the parcel size).
F. Because of the size of the new structure, e�sting accessory building, and the
amount of impervious area, no other accessory building or tool shed may be
permitted on the properiy.
G. The e�sting accessory building sha11 be limited to the storage of personal
belongings other than the storage of vehicles.
H. The properiy owner must obtain and record a perpetual access agreement with the
adjacent property owner. The City must review said agreemenbeasement prior to
recording and will require verification said agreemenbeasement has been
recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit.
4
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the properiy owner shall provide the
City with a landscape plan that addresses the interests of the Department of
Natural Resources. The landscaping must be completed before the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy and the may require a landscape security (bond or lettel'-
of-credit).
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 fa�or:
and the following voted against the same:
WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Resolution - 353 Owasso Bv
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 January, 2001, with the original thereof on file in my office.
2001.
SEAL,
WIT'NESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 22nd day of January,
Notary Public
Edward L. Burrell, Acting City Manager
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Metro Waters, 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, NIN 55106-6793
Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 772-7977
November 22, 2000
City of Roseville
Community Deveiopment Department
Mr. Thomas Paschke, City Planner
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, NIN 55 113
Re: R.C. Witt Construction Variance Request, Placement of New Home, Shoreland District, Lake
Owasso (62-SSP), City of Roseville, Ramsey County
Dear Mr. Paschke:
DNR Waters has received (November 15, 2000) the letter requesting comments from the DNR concerning
the replacement of an e�sting home with a new house at 353 South Owasso Boulevard. The new house
is proposed to be located in the same location as the e�sting house, which is located 45 feet from the
Ordinary High Water (0� level of Lake Owassa The required setback for the lot is equivalent to the
a�erage of the e�stirig setback for the homes located on the lots adjacent to 353 South Owasso Boulevard,
and the setback is 47 feet from the Ordinary High Water level of Lake Owasso. In addition, R.C. Witt
Construction has requested a variance to allow the amount of impervious surface on the lot to remain the
same as the e�sting amount of impervious surface. While we would prefer that the new home be
constructed in conformance with the required setback from Lake Owasso, the DNR will not object to the
approval of the variances as it is proposed. In addition, we recommend that the following conditions be
placed on the approval of the variance:
The City of Roseville should require RC. Witt Construction to plant trees between the new home
and Lake Owasso in order to screen the house from view from Lake Owasso. The trees may be
trimmed of the lower branches to a11ow a view of the lake from the home.
The lowest level of the new house must be constructed at least 1' higher than the 100-yeat flood
elevation of Lake Owasso.
Thank you for giving the DNR the opportunity to comment on the RC. Witt Construction variance. W e
look forward to reviewing additional variances and conditional use permits for the City of Roseville
shoreland and floodplain ordinances. Please feel free to contact me, or Molly Shodeen, at 65 1-772-791 0
should you ha�e any questions concerning these comments.
Sincerely,
� �.�v�
7osep h Richter
Hydrologist
Grass Lake Area WMO
DNR Information: 651-296-6157 . 1-888-646�367 . TTY: 651-296-5484 . 1-800-657-3929
An Equal Opporbxnity Employer ��'�+� Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a
� "R;;t;
Who Values Diversity ���+e' Minimum of 10% Post-Consumer Waste
/������/����� ��/ ������
�'or: R. G �Vi�t Construct2on
-------- �..z
----- �__ 888..5
+889.25 +BB . � �
+889.6/ }Bg9.y9 9p7.8
+l88.83 F
EEB.39
8%.69
�B%.68
+900.74 +893.06
894
IY V I C:
Elevations are assumed
. Denotes iron monument found
o A,9sv��s,��cnn,��rtr+ti�raflz+s�et
x 93.0 Denotes existing elevation
_
_
i
+en.�a e9s.zs �
+ �
896.55
�,.� + -�1_
_,,_..
`
�� ze
�1
899'311..• -_
��,
.9oo.ss " . _
I 897.07
�.�
�1 -'.
y
��
•soi.i3 ��t�'�
897.Ot �0�4„O
���
���o
a�
il �
897.85 N
I �
�
898.75
� 902.81 gpi.79
0 0�
',' �ry �
1� '��
�:`GARAGE�,' ,��
i
t f
yu..m
905.89
C
����
� ��
�.zZ Y �� w �, �
`\``` �� ��
� � . eae.za
� / � � 888.86 �1 ��
/O EB& _ \ ` \ �� w
�7 ' \e�, � ���i
�O +B89.H
`� ' �'� w,�
, 893.91y � � ��� �!'ip
+ � 890.J �' � ��� 'lS �
/ q ^ .� BJ� . 'H �. �'1
1 + : . ��.^ � I ��.�/o
1 e9s.9 ��� e.J!„ ,� owi ��� �ot�b
,. a- Fi� �a_ � �1 . . 888.91
89�.
yn.��� q,�; ,.
ess.ia ,�o.i� `,.
�ess. eas.
�eos.ss s.t§
�
� 893.28
i
� +eazza es+ a�
�
893.�0
IREE �
+B95.J7 89+53�
on�
U
ie.2 �.
COPlp��r •J �A7
�9. ' ,.' �12i
7.43
19l.2
41 3�
+89�.4D V-Up���8��E
B94.ej.�/1 s:'^!�
-"TROl6X
�'�''
,� y F �
;\��ah
, d, EXISTING CONDITIONS
i �'��o��
,�com�
' ,. � O
�' i �
\ '
t`' a9�.EE
�.� � Existing Buildings Area = 1600 Sq.Ft.
�, 3 Impervious area = 1.405 Sq.Ft.
�� Total Impervious area = 3,005 Sq.Ft.
,� Lot Area from OHW = 8,716 Sq.Ff.
Percent Impervious Area = 34%
� �82
137
iz.ae
\��ta'��
+.w��`* E9 .27
C1Y�l�E'�
w
'..i5li`f1'1`�U��' i
i
1s
1
� �9vb..s.) 906.3 - _'_ '�M 1
R,�
,1, Q�� B�MMWS ROAD - �5.88 �
A 5O Y
�� O� H� '- �.{2 905.76 �� ) 903.89 �� �} 9Q5.42 903.73
L�
�1 - � 905.17 j Pou n- Ia0.N
1 11 1� �
-�- ,, s�.as �, RAILRp �,
,,� T�ERN ,;
' NOg
T pN', �- ` a n�o�D "5 TM�c,s �s �a�ho �a/os/�
� 1RLIN G ,___�„��
LOT 2 LAKE OWASSO VILLA
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Subject to easements of record, if any.
METRO IAND SI]RVEYII�IG 8c FdVGIIVEEItiNG I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared
by me or under my direct suoervision and thot � am a(�U�V
412 COUMY ROAD D licensed lond surveyor under the lo of the stote of Minnesota.
LITfIE GNAUA, I��1N�PA S5ll7
'1ffi. (�'AS64R1 FUC756d�i PAfAB�survey�metraA4.�L13r nnte ��� day of �C �C� 200�
,�� ue. a2eooa �.�,..r �us� BY
prsyy�by:,�g S rveyor, Minnesota License No. 77765
�� ���/��� �/� � �/ � �� �� �
� �
,�'or: R. G 1Nit� Construction �
1[MPREVIOUS AREA CALCULATION �
1Proposed srrucrure s�Ze 2,204 s�. ft. �Oip� ���
]Remaining Accessory Building Size 37G sq, ft. Y y�� ��
]Remaining Pavement 261 sq. ft '��� k'�1 ����
]Proposed Driveway 464 sq. ft. � � � � � VHF,� ��
I `�+/
jp \�\• % �' �
�rOt� Impervious Area Proposed 3,305 sq. ft. ^ � �1.� J
]Percentage of Lot (8,716 sq. ft.) 38% ��O �-'
h� h �� �
i
I �r
I I
Il�
�x�snr+� �ou�F
I� . . .. �P(MCH
• —
•
G�RACE
�i
h�
�O �
�
O �
��
3
�
0
�
s
�
�
\
`�'s,°y��►.2
s�„
� �
o z4. o0
0
�.50� y
!
�
0 0
� �
� a
9,50 s.tt q ey
'��'---W W i
7ftEE �
I
&
����w��F
� �� R�S[
ao°j/ \�� ��
�� �� � ��/
i � � OZ,�
��w'�< i 1
5 conrc.
—' _ '�1 P�no
I _� �� �
�.
�� . � PROPOSED REDEVELOPEMN'P
Cp .' Rt
CO � I
�
1 �
° � 3 iPr000sed BUl�dl�4 Area = 2.204 $p.Ft.
o° � ,� iimpervious area = 611 Sq.Ft.
22.0 � ', = Total Impervious area = 2.815 Sq.Ft.
0
- ,5 � ,Lot Area from OHW = 8,716 Sq.Ft.
�� W Percent ImPervious Area = 32%
�N I� Oenotes 10 ft. offset hub
i� Denotes direction of
proposed surface drainage.
� 935•� Denotes proposed elevation
1
CARA�
�--8. ._ X 35.0 Denotes existing elevation
CARACE � �"
^ �0' • Denotes iron monument found
� �m
� j1OCARACE� 0 Denotes iron monument set
1$S i 1
� .
� To of Block Elev 899 00
�
� . .
�`,3%•43 5 i Garage Floor Elevation = 898.67
o R_3 �91,38�+ '�S Lowest Fioo� Elev. = as�.00
1
- - �`MOAll80% ��i�eox � SEE TOPO DRAWING FOR
� EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION
� '�O R^�� 1
1
11 O �T _� BINMINq�s ROAD — T '
Y — � SANOMM
;�o��.ss — ,
,
1 -� � 1 flIN El� IOB.71
� — i \ lo �
� ' ' OA
';� '�, gAILR
�, T�EgN �,
' OR
TO 1• 111 � NE pF RApR�AD �S 1R��T5 AS IOCATEU t0/02I�
t1RLIN G ___�N��
B
LO T 2 LAKE OWASSO VILLA
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Subject to easements of record, if any.
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared
M�'I'RO LAND SURVEYING dt ENGINEERING by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly
412 COUNfY ROAD D licensed,prtc� surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesolt
... .. . . . . ... .............,.,.I.,. . ,, .. r i
�' , :ii �
�' �i'"��� .
' - �+`'' ,
(`� �ej t
;
� '� � � -
♦ , � ", '' . t
� `� � .
` �' k r ^ , r ��.
� .
� � �
; } _ �i . .KlY :
� � �
� i . .- '��.-�+r �
I '�=
� i v.;
� � �
r �
, , ..� �
�-- � �
� N . .'
� � ti ;
� :^
` _ 1
` '-��
. ` � .,
� : . �:
• - 4.
` �'`_
�
.`` �•
� �. � .
� '.� ' .
. `
.{r�, + �.•.
1 I�
' �4 �( . . 6 - .� :
t '� ��`�. �-Y �Z
��Zy� - � ���� . � � �
<^1_ - i �
�^y ,t � �:r S � �: w
�r ��z g
`�='.`L.Y� � _ cU
�: a. � �
t - • � ��} �� �y� � I I p
_^�� '�'r I� O
�rt - rT �`2 " j.t � ` a _
.-,. 'v. � : - :'si., _1 '� ,-?j�`-!�"�•,,.� � ~
.�' - 2 F �> ir s
�:�.� � �y�':si. '�... ..r�'�' - �.:,� c�
�. 'I�-�.:4 �1' - -� �i � � � o
a • � ` � , �
� i � �
�, i k �
n
� .. „ �,�g'�4 . ^1_ � 'Z.��
�fl q -� •�3i�,- - � bgh� :$'�
$ j( C
q- '� __ �''b � Q. S�sb $Fe
i ri � �' �b S�u3�E
� - � _ � f� G � _ N 95�����.�
_ _ _ - ���4 _ R �9mh33�k
`�' ��" - � �.�. _ `�� ? 0 �=:�a�;$'
' =,j � - � � m �om �°�36
. .' ,�- y w � - y "'�` ��T , a �g��,'�€�e
� �' �x : �� �r°��� S '�� O Y3�k��i�
F�: - '+' .� '� ,t �E' .p, � -- N 8h5go �b
i � +�'� '� ,�'F' ti.. � +� 'S ' � � o ° 9 `d �
' � �LiE$i � �� ��:d�.di�_ .J� __Y�� � s ��5.' ��E'
.., x , � �� �5,
� • r�� _ _ �t`�?`. y +ti,�� _ � �"��s�a
, Y'#_ � ' _ ti �+ _ Q- go��
�•-� r, F ���i � � i. �,E . � � � a x�.�
�� � � _ • , .
:� ��- a
� " �
��.�� st{i., �� � - ����� ' R ag��h�g�
�,, . �� � mt ��,..
� r K f is'�:- _' � r- �"'-- -.. N 3-5
^+ ''°�•' � . � g Sd
�3 a
R # �-, _ i` :-t' = U' o�����''�b
���^ .--' � �. . a �3 2g�ii�
y.' f� �.w-+�_�-.-:. s��•_ ' � _ i � �a�a������
�'t ` 7 x _�� - p� d� x
� � . � '.� >, ���g ����
;:� i � � f: m a ��
�� � ;����; ��
-' .����' � ����8���
� ` i\ � ;. _ �, a ��'a�3�,���
'� �- � �" - ` �a��� o
_ �'°��- � iL. .:� - A`,'��y- j � " _ +. �.� o '���m$�",
� z '� � t _��S e .a � �� -` N ��$�EmRe$��
� `e�� �:�� �� cM �
a -
�' �� �� � �I: .:J "�'� � � 't °'�i
_ ._�, � �- ;� �,��� > � ��;�_' p
� ; = zY" . `> `� � .�,� � �
� � � - _ _ ���� - �
r• � ;,
�
✓ � � `� • � � " '�� f �' _ y- -• y' ' ' � Q
- , � ! `�r `� Y, ��`� �. R �
� �
�� +� � .:i��7�� � : � _ �
�- � , - � ������� �`'� yy,,.�r
t % f WL
�'.� '.� f;�•� +' � _ , •'r • }�a'�'4 ;��n��r � �:y' L .
/ � "... ,� .3R ` h g.,,'�� ��' *. I�I
_-�.-�,�� ,��f y � • '�,� � ��. �„ ��. __ �
� ��'' " � �4 � -.�_.�- �s : ��,� '��'
.'=... � � �� �+�. �° r'.: �-�'��'2�� y.•,+ �. �
� : ,� ' ���s t 3ufI ' . . � �
�a' ���. -,,�� -��� a u N
�• • lA . �� , �� . !•:� Y �
'.�� _ .a 4�N
s � �� `�- •`.r=. u �� �
\ +•Y .(�
z (i
_����. ' �� ,,� N _ - _ �.'�' �' .. �
� ' �
h��i � •�"'a�.r'�" : � S{
, . - ; ��, „ - r • ;�. � - - o A
� �. y�>
1 1 ' g ' � U
_ i. ,�._i,��yr• . ,s��s � .Yi
"i^r f 'Cer . � r"-7� 0
iI' �'•.� �1 �� (%t
� � '�`� �.A' t: �
, ��,� - � `- � �._ Y�iI
Y1 ` a 'e �; �
���iY . _ . ...� r .- _
�lj� _ .K.`� � 1 � ' - ` �7
+� j ° ,f `'�'' pr�#
�y`'=� '�' � �' s -� `"' {1 `'9
� � �: �< o �`
f .z '- - �� � ' � :
�� : � �-�'� ���.
r , ���y2?'. i ' C7 \y�
.,�,-. H�
. .. �
i� e
�.
0
�
'� �' i�� ��'� '�.�+ -
�..���, � �, -�f. .
ta� �3� •�: ;
�„�,� ~`.-�"+�h' , � .
+. "{���`? �„ra'i,� . • , . '
♦ � . _
�7 �',i �+�°._-�'_��. i�.�r f-.
i _: r,z'�' y�;°l4 ,-y•: F -
= +.s -� =�C. �°. � �ei
L�w. �
Cd�i.t `V �`�. � .-�+ �ts,
��c��••-� �.-, � �;
i3.L� ��v'��f.�c, �.ti. �,
'' i �.�,� "° R `"�E:
�������\ ~ 1� . �y7 ,..
rh E, '�-�`' �'�,-,'.J>'
� ••�..;�,��� � . , r�
�,..� �f-'�t� ��?$p`•�`�'��" -
�t ��'.��'�a �. ° {,�� � .
���_-_��n�► � .,� �:� �ry� �
� '��� r' 4,• � Sr � �� R
. �* z
i i
,� �'�'�3 ��6�'���'�-Y���",.'� �
,� , � � � . P
�+��t)t=t 2�:�31' �� [r �.� �,i'����i � .�ti
' �.V t � \;sf 2,��T `�� �Iq ���1 y�f��y�t';�
� �:.1 � �'?.�+� .� ° !�1., ���s ..[ . 4 ��'}'
�`�:4.���`1 `1'4�{��..`�'l+•g �I-."'�, �1.; '
��ltg �,�i? � �r►j � ��,� �`t >�~ i},��_J,'� ; �
,S �����1 �''1r� i � � �r;L:�a� -.
���i�ti7lat`.;�Ml��j�Tb:.� �F .�
--i�
Y LT�B• � ����.+� 1�% �y � �- "
�. .� eJ� Li:Sf��r-- � . �.�`� r 'r' ' _�
R T
r 1 ' �rs~' i •T%�-u ',��/t��If - �
��J.r�� G � /aF��i�/� f�-��� � � .
, i�� .�
F
� f o.�.' t,R�� �F ;, 4' ,_:,;�= i
F � ,� ci � ` .
:��' �',�`� r�f� ���.�.4T,
��'f �' � ��r �'� i��h�.a �;�.��
�[� ' �����` ��i ' �t►,�, : �
,. ���
r ���rr, �.�# `� i���4
r1. �F s� t/ � \ � �_.4
� �J� ��'�� %f+���� w���,,� ���
,�� � !�
'���°��������� { ` ,'
� �� � � �':
��- f '' ';
`'�`` i�'�; � � y�
. Sroi�. � i�
�,� �I ' � • 'r! ,l l
� t�` ♦ ,YF, Si
Fs , r r.��
`a' �f ��L!r/���,±'�
' � � �� ',''?��% 1`r ��
e�r:��3e�,�'' ,,��Y
4'
� �
: ��� � ' _
�•�.`
�.���i�1. .��`^_ -
�.:�,E���
� '
' �— '�,���
�..-;
'� ���
"�" : �',
3
��
e
rs�,a . ,
1.
�l/ � .
� �ab �- �
�.
„.'';
-t..�.
�r `?
� _.r
5.
9i-. �r
�i� . i
y
.��. . �.. ...
'�A1 j' f .:
rY' t °
3�F,� �-
� s�
fE��
�r � -
/� r '
� �, �� �
� ��� .
� S t�� �.:�
� � `�� .
��:
�� r - -
a,,
�=
�-
�� � �� -
�� _ _ ,
�; -
� ' f
_,
t � `
� ' _
t : i:
1.;,� . >. _'
� F_ ,
ti (, y'� ,
:t +r ,�+
, ., _ _
�. ; ''� � r
�,
� �� FJSt � � r
i �1��
� �
, �
_ ���
� , �%�
_,��',
��.
�� �
�' �
�
. �.
1 � i
. � 7.
• a � _,,w
3r .r
4 : '�-��
�
�
i 1
�
,
��Y�-_
� �� i,
t°" � t.
� iti�; -
t ����
+;,..',ti . . i � -
= �L���, .�. i_
A
_ - y:. - ,:1 �� �� ?� �
t 'f ? ' — ; ri
n �' . J� �� __ ..
�` � , ��.
,r,�-- : _ ,_,
� �. � _
�
"� q _`.�
�� �� Z � "�'�a
� ;. � ..�•
Y.
j "�' ��.:., . -: � �� �+ "
� �r+"^ "'o�r.'�► i�i . c .'.
� -�-..r� "�-'�'z-��.`s.'�'= : Ai � ; ,- :
j. 4�g"' . .: �:.. -f{-�" ►'— . . .
� h;��'�i. � I
� �aLi"/i°�. . � . k �.'p` " .. . .
r �i.y�i,r. �-�'� - . -� . � 4��, � . , ...
.' .� L .. � �. G— �
i��-,.`"`. .+ Fi �} : r5
` ( � �r} �.� -
-� � y�� '' tf . .
� 9 1,
��� ,,,
i k� 3
t� ' � . �� ;
� � `
__ �� ir " !�Y��: � �
'� .:
, �,:
� � �� � � ;
� �� .
;�
� ..� �
� -
�
_� ;�
� -
r "t
' :
+ � _' - � � 'i �r . � t . .
•��-� j � �"��
� � ,r
( • �
E- _
�� ' � ��` .. . . . � .
r
l- � F,'.- . .
e'_. P"'.�_ . . . � . .
�! } �''.i `i �_ � ��.
.i!
��4�� � �
� �� � �.% ' _ ' . .
-'�t - �r- '� .
.�r� - r �-i - � '
GC� :' �d "�'` !:':
��- �-..�
i �; '� } r E _
_ � [
, .�
i{ , � � � .
,i�; �
�`'
�__r _�.
;
-.-. �__.__��. , . �. �
�� � :�' �
� �' 1 � - — ' .
��_� � � ,'
� }� 1
' -� 6
qli,- a . . . '4.� �� �
i i �. r � � • '. -, r �+�� .
ti :
f , .^ . _ �} €� �
• ._ -
. t- ;t .
�` . � � �'✓ 9 }'t 1 �'.k.4+
, . <�� ;`,. #�,;
�'t�.� .;:: - L . . "� ���.
S; :�.. � * :.i�; . -. - � +ti, . � ` � -
� `�, . �� .h ..s��-I �♦
. ��•� ' �': . ~ ,�• .,�T.
•_ . _ • ` . + ' . �. . - - �°�►�, i+:
1 r `�.� . . . _ _. y.,..
ar•'.•�+' .�-i . . `. � . . , , ; -'��.
� 7 a. . � ^ ` -, . ` , ..- ` .
��i1'i�+'�: t'» ._/'S�, ._. ' -'. , �6 .'� •�
j����j.� � . - ' , �,.-
��-1 - •" , � � • � !i
t . f� • ��.-�'' �-�`,
�� . * r 'I-'L`� - � `� t
��� • ���~ � ' _ . . • _
i,s��`..�,�=�''' - � �. - -'� .' ' . -_
. �r,.,
��-��� ..-, , _ � --
�����.r . � *'1 ^ #ti ti � �� .:� : � . .
t• � -+ '1� ` 2 •� �
�,� �4�� �' 3 � �
���_r"rY�.'3�~� ' w;�a..'C ,�ay
t,c.�+��..�.��'!ir.aw4: • � � ^ � ..�
�G..±i �.�c�y� ... °ir ' . ''s' .
' ` , r✓! - :.-re. �" �t �
���r/ -r'r� :.i � •��,.. . • a � � - -
/'`i snr;�'- rJ_ 1'r . ' :-�iyat
� '-�"���s 'r' '� : f "*I z '
���� A • �', R-4 ... . _ .
n/�r ��� �,J , � _. .'�� + -.. . _
/�• �• �' �.� • �ti�� � , • --
� •�.,�. _ , ^-
��i� � el - __ - _ - -
% ,
_ _- • --....�.I��-.• -
+�� ��� �� ; '*�v :.:r`T+ �. - � .
'� ♦,-rl- f � ` ' . :r a�
• _ 't ` -_'�•s w' .
wr, - : s:. _��,, __ �' - - .
• x�'.. - � . 4:Y-.��.�
��� � •' ' -
•J j�.
;-.:.�'- . ' .
�•
i- • � . . . . - il
� _ r;
t�' �
�.
�►� �� .� . .
,.iC: :.
- • - ���+��� .
_a_
.a�f� �;�,F.r ,� . � �
.�tir-���, ,
:Cs;��.� �- -�• . '
�� .�'ti �'�� °,r
4
�. -� � ��
��,.. . � � �
�
� _' ��� , r �'�,� �+
� � �� a i`
� r i i ti��y � �Ci i-.�'yy i
. , � 'fJ�~}r, �L'� �� t• i�; +' ' .
_ '� Y � � j `� �i. � � `� �
J •
} r._ \. �
1 �l ' ' � l
� 5 t4�
�' Y•h �_ '..' t t � �� .yS � '�k
� �•�
r' r I } �
,' M �: iail� r ��,~\
. . r Y. �, - � .r}Z_.;�; '
, r��' '�,' _ '�`�' � 1 _
af`'.:�t...t4'CY,=��!. ��! ���r�.�Y�_y
��ii
lt`• �,���-� '�,•� .,.t•t�i�"��'+.l'.!�,�y!a2� - �
J � .��� ;. �:��i 7'��'.•1�' K.,f �t'� µa .�
��Y � � Z �y z�:..�11 I�+7,� � �
��.• - � �' �
��� •�` ,,.._ _ =°_'. .�rr;c�ti+"?'sli '•1w
r1� � . .S � r.. — •y. �' A�
�. '.� :.,lti`�� lr� . .�' y •.�t� -
'e '� e �!T �r ??
.4 � y Z Z �j�1 _ � £� K . . ti
� ��1�•:.+'�i _'r..1,4 • ; • -:_:� - ' =.
' • � `~ ��[��fn.�• .'� �I � r` ��.
y •:
� ti!` � �4 M ^!i� �� � � ' . �.
� ��',�'ya.+'7��"���Mi�.I� 4�ir;. � ~ �
�.���.3\� �� ,�. ` , �
�- -�. -- --w.�n. • �i��.
r�. � .. , 4�-..-�ro' ��. .
_''-7rJw.�..��_.�`s�r�°Sr�•#,� ,. .. ���� t���
i'��!'�'i�i-!`-vr � ��� ���.w'�� •r• �!�[ . n �1 .4 ..
� S i'a� ♦
• �.�+ti 4 � ' - . �t. s�:
� t������s�'� � �.�l:�Y1Qi:'a:
� �*° 4. ,.�,�~���•�������
•
��..• �� 4;�A ��."���.�?Zt`•r� Jl��'� _ �`.
- •- . 7. •M - � � ..- • -r'.! .
- � � :� �r 4.�-i 74 � a w .
i' • 1'i �,�a 'aL , N.\ ��I i�ML� -
' -r�,y'.��.i�. �L ":+'.t• 1'_ '.fr.' r
.3:r=+-- : - � � ' ?
�!�+• ; .�t'� :*?` .��' � �.i.�,.� � °
� �� � • ' - sa� �. ri_ ? �.
� � 4 l� -� �
A1 i� 7� . ' ' ,• '���.�� t��= ►
r �� � � � �� . � � � � :�' � � .
•��Z�l�' t �. .�- ?+� .�s , ��
.� �, • ti� . �` '_�,
�� � �• �� + - - ` f..!
�'r: ; • � .,._.,..
. �� �. s,� • x -- �, " �
,.�� +�`� ��� ..� ..ti _ :�'-� ,
� -.f •�`a.�;
�i'�` �. .� � F � • � ti iZI
� � ` - ; � r•_ "� �� . � �
y� �`k�'. t ' , � ' ' • `. _ r -� a
� •� L w!� � �`•y ' ','t�,. . . n� ^.i �..
w
��� � . . . _ � • • ��. .! 5��� �ie=�
ii*�3,.�ii �. . " . - 1 � � •���
����� �� r 4 �.�-: `� �
A •- �y3 �
� 'fi.�� • , . `' �. . � _ �. r ���
. . �+`.� ���:
,�s`_.'. ,+�
� � ►�- . . _ -
.,� . , � _ �
� "r. � . . _ _ � ,
�. . �=
�i'. �_ :'_ � �� r :�Q�
.` � �t � { `.. c � � �t� ����
� _ � - �.
4 . �, .. - � i .1 . �t i ` '..
t �.4 • � ! -!"
.`� � � �'� �. ;�_ t • •+ i .
•� ! -' ts� l �,
_ � i`� 1 ,•
i•!:< < , �;:
• .�t, * .. . . . 1 .
r _�' � --�'!• i � J`'. -
�� �� � -
4- � {��' •�t .
+�
- +.
}'11 ��j� � -.� , . . . -
.4�� • •' ±s l i
�i� j ��•; r � � ' 4 -
v�f.��; �.1. ! _
����r.• �• ,
� � �'�!_ 9�� :{ a . �
t** � � ;.�•l ' i
<.,� �� l;,;��t,'# _
. �I
� �' ? ��' l
i
�' � f'
. �':" . Kr.',
�� _,..�
�!�^ ' .�•
'p` � �, �,�
�.� ;����.��r��� _ _
�:� ► �•;.a+"r 'n -'y '� ~� � "1
� y.
• • � r.
��. ���; 1 .,�; � , * �
i;,,, � . � ,. •, i
- •; ,,tr ' ,� �
i' ` . A - ' " �
� �. .�
�� �.
J
i s �`.�
�f
3 2 _6
`.
;t
�
.'
� f7'
' � f 'Li�.
� ��a }�, �. � f y i
r. .,��` r, ��:
� � � - �r �*i '� �, f
�F� �
_ . . -� � .� `''� � ..
�.r�rf t
�t-
�• ���� �r�1 X -
.t � : ,�_ � � .
�, � ' ds �j ��� -
f � - g j `
� r .
¢ ��.TT
{ f� �
j f ��
- "- ' .� . �'f�' t . '
t
�� F;°�'� - 1 ;
� �- -
�f 3 E~
J� � '}r 3
- �- r���ji ti; . d. 3 i
�. ;; - -�
:�: ��y� � � � � a
��� :
, � .i �:
i `ii
+ '�
��.
_ k ��"`, "_ � _
i . � i't °
;� 1: � - t
t 'i f' i ��
:'' k � ,'',
.,G.:i. ,.��:yi i*; � yr'" _ t.s.�
, �� i-: - * •'•3•;: ttf 9�_
t '�. t � I £ � '� v�
F � � ;
Y �
� E �
� :
� e' e;
. 1
t: t
£� �� 1 ,.
,� 4
¢ ti
z '� �i: �' �
� �� -
i � i'
� �.
f . _ .4 t��y r,.
t , . .. � _ . - . ��.
T ` ; ' `,
� �L
I ; `\.f
�� � ' �
' �,��� �_�' ,
� . a, �' [ .°.cal�t �..�I �� . . . .
�
; ,
�:
�
i
�'
',
, ,.��
;� .
-��. .
_F�:
�� =c�
. k� •
.s. �f
- � •��: �-��- -
t _ -
_ `�
,...
� �
��`
�
� � � �, �
��:� � .� _- _ �� t `��.� �' i
,�
,
�
s
�
�`
�
;,
- - -�
�i'-� '
'--{\
:�
�
�
�
:.�
�
_;
i
� ` !.
—_� � _ _
_ ' -
—� -
,:
' _ �, .- ,.r . .
--�ai. . . . .
--��—, � a � . . �
� aGl� �, � �`
--- y I I A -
.,�� .f�:
—7� �. '
� .
.
, r t ,
� . h,F �
�S �
T Z {{{ +�
�� . � j ��� �� � . . . .
�.
� ?`� � � A� k �� '+..e _y�� �' . �
� { �
$� S it � �: ��� �. .
s",x�`yt'� t -s { 4 - k# � 'a'-k. . - - ��� d - ' . . . .
S - �—� 7"� �� '�s �3 � .
� � -
.��r �F'=� ."_+. � .
�-4t� y; �£��'�`� t
�y � _ ���##��„�q� .. �, . . . . . .
� .�. �� ' �� ,�� ��. . � . .
���' �
� l -. � € �. ��` _ .. ' �''r.
� _.�r _ �` °gk�t. � � . . ._
- .a`� �� �'""�� � €„�� . J t:
�'-� - d _�' ' i' b �y�+�i.�. � . . ' � . - -
'} �t'd' # t . p : _ '4� �'� t � ..
�. .
�i _ _ � '��" � � �� . t c�' � .
� '� �} y . :
�:`�{ � _ -t u �?` � .� m-�'�.�y� ' , . . . . .
� i� § - - � E a.- -t%i $T f . 1• : . .
� e - � � S . -.s 'f . . . . . . .
` �f� P
�4' � � t t`� 3 �� � �'a'> : k .
'��-•�. -. � + s�' ����..� t � �` � _ . � . . .
�
�-:� � - ��- � � ���' - ; y' ' � .
�
�,�� L i�'�r'} � a+ � � �i � r
��.s � _ � f ��� -i� #- � 1 . _' i , � .
�
�` t— 3' -_ �Y � � � ' _ . . .
� = �� t :� � ��� �5, �f . �l . .
��gyl� .1= .y.2 � - 1 j�a��. . i .. �
'"- - _.yy4 s# . � � 4 ���e� ?.� ,; � f,- � �s � i = . .
� � �� �
�
`�.� ._ '� �' t+-� � .�¢. 3 . � '° . . .
L; _ �.'4 ���L .s� �t��� �� � , � L ��
''r� ��,�� �� � j 1 � �'tit�' . . .. .
-T�z � t .. ��_ � . . '
t
a�,��� ° �� T� �� - I �. ' � ' . �
a� y� f �
�����y - _ _ :. s.. ��
� '�
�-? x * LT' _ -„�,�,i '�. ,
� � �--{`�� ' - �` �- � _
1�._ ; �� ��
� � ; r � ��.;.�^ _ '.1.. ���a, .
�,- - r ,
� - } � a� � � � '��i � � . .
F � - ' - 1 ,,�.`� � `,�,�,r � i .
_ . . � .�.� '�.��� ,, . � . �
,� �_
4
� � � �.c�: n � ` - . � .
. � � � ;� � �� a � .. �
'__ 't _.. -i F�� � ;� - . .
' � Yr� �. a � Y } A " f,. � F . . .
. y , t-
- " � �j }�. I 1 �r I-0 �+ � 1 � � 4 - � �'� '
. . ' 'ia1�� �� -.:�L . y _ -
r t '� � �'�
�� �. r rr4}v� 1^ � 1 t_.
. . . sl''� p�e �:�'3 � �3 ; ����
- . . _ �Y .. �� � 4 �r . � ,'.�9 `
t ar�+v �. q � � S� ���
. � `:;� �M I,_ � . - '� �, r � y�".
.. . _ . i,L.-,' Y�h'��i!'I _ _ e— _ . T,�_. . . .- .
,.
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
D A T E: O 1/22/O 1
ITEM NO: I-6
Approval: Man�ge��proved: Agenda Section:
% LAND USE
Item Description: A request by the McKinley Companies for a Comprehensive Land Use
Plan Amendment, Rezoning and consideration of a combined Planned
Unit Development "General Concept/Final Development Plan" for the
redevelopment of property at 2330 Lexington Avenue for use as a five-
unit office condominium (PF #3277).
1.0 REQUESTED ACTION
1.1 The McKinley Companies ha�e proposed a five unit office condominium development
on a half an acre that requires a Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment from High
Density Residential (HDR) to Business (B), a rezoning from R- 1 Single Family
Residence District to Business-Planned Unit Development District (B-PUD) with an
underlying zoning of B- 1, Limited Business District, and consideration of a combined
General Concept and Final Development Plan for the proposed redevelopment project.
2.0 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND
2.1 A planned unit development (PUD) is a zoning district which may include single or
mixed uses, one or more lots or parcels, and is intended to create a more flexible,
creative, efficient approach to the use of land.
2.2 Roseville has used a PUD as the primary zoning tool in redevelopment projects. In so
doing the City considers all standards and purposes of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
to achieve a maximum coordination between the proposed development and the
surrounding uses, historic landmarks, the conservation of woodlands, ponding, wetlands,
and the protection of health, safety and welfare of the community.
2.3 The PUD process also allows the City to consider the location of buildings,
compatibility, parking areas, and other features with respect to the topography of the area
and existing natural features. The City also reviews the efficiency, adequacy and safety
of the proposed layout of internal streets and driveways, green space areas, location and
screening of parking areas, and such other items the City may find to ha�e a material
bearing on the stated standards and objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
2.4 The staff had determined, given the limited scale of the proposed five unit office
condominium project, that the general concept and final development plan stages are can
be combined as stipulated in Section 1008.1OD of the Roseville City Code.
PF3277 -RCA (Ol/22/01) Page 1 of 6
3.0 PROJECT REVIEW
3.1 The McKinley Companies propose to redevelop the •56 acre former residential parcel
(two homes used to occupy the parcel) into a five unit (attached) office condominium
site.
3.2 The vacant parcel has a number of mature trees that border the property lines adjacent to
Le�ngton Avenue (west), State Trunk Highway 36 (south), Lovell Lane (north), and the
townhouse development (east). The homes have -been removed and all services
disconnected at the property line.
3.3 The parcel is appro�mately 213 feet (north/south) by 185 feet (east/west) and contains
39,477 square feet, or .56 acres.
3.4 The proposal locates the five attached condominium office units towards the rear (east
side) of the parcel in order to preserve 10 e�sting mature trees. End units (north and
south) will contain 2,688 square feet while interior units will contain 2,304 square feet.
The center three units are offset to create character and dimension. The trash enclosure is
provided on the north side of the structure with a direct access to Lovell Lane.
3.5 Access to the site is provided from Lovell Lane. This roadway was created as part of a
previous planned unit development that initially included a daycare (Kinderberry Hill
Child Development Center), an office complex, and senior housing. A subsequent PUD
was approved that created the Grandview Townhomes in place of the senior housing and
a slightly modified the private roadway. The office site was never developed and is the
same parcel McKinley Companies seeks approval. Four lots were platted with the PUD
that established access for each lot. In the case of the McKinley site, the parcel has direct
access to both Love ll Lane and Lexington Avenue. There are no known roadway
easements or agreements regarding the use of the private roadway.
3.6 The structure has a gross floor area of 12,288 square for which 35 off-street parking
spaces (two handicapped) have been proposed. If needed or required by the City,
additional (seven stalls) can be provided along the north side of the building and the
parking lot.
3.7 The proposed office complex would have a front (west) height of 19 feet, with a 5/12 and
6/12 roof pitch. The rear (east) of the complex offers each unit a walkout and a total
building height of 28 feet. Building materials incorporate asphalt shingles on the roof
and a mi�ture of brick, cedar, and maintenance free siding on the building facade. The
soffit and fascia will be aluminum and the structure will be outfitted with gutters to
properly remove roof drainage. Each unit has front and rear doors, front, rear, and side
(end units only) windows and an entry overhang.
PF3277 - RCA (O1/22/Ol) Page 2 of 6
3.8 The storm water retention pond is proposed in the northeast corner of the parcel.
Landscaping comprised of shrubs and perennials, is proposed in the southeastern corner
of the parcel and adjacent to the entry (street access) and front of the structure.
3.9 Utilizing the standards listed in the B-1, Limited Business Zoning District, the following
requirements would apply to the site:
Floor Area Ratio
Front Yard Setback Structure
Side Yard Setback Structure
Rear Yard Setback Structure
Front Yard Setback Parkin�
Side Yard Setback Parkin�
Rear Yard Setback Parkin�
Building Height
3.9
3.10
4.0
Code Requirement
1.0 (100%) or 39,477 sq.
30 feet
10 feed30 feet (street side
20 feet
30 feet
10 feet/30 feet street side
20 feet
Three stories
Proposal
ft. .56 (56%) or 22,304
102 feet
) 18 south/35 north
47 feet
25 feet
5 feet south/31 north
NA
Single story walkout
B-PUD Difference
ft. Less density proposed
Greater setback than required
Greater setback than re uired
Greater setback than required
5 feet less than re uired
5 feet south less than re uir�
NA
NA
The proposed General Concept Plan, including site, grading/drainage, utility landscape,
and building elevations have been provided for the Commission's consideration.
Section 1008 of the City Code outlines the requirements and procedures for a planned
unit development.
STAFF CO�I��NTS & FINDINGS
4.1 The zoning of the site is R-1, Single Family Residence District. This zoning designation
is the residual zone from when single family homes used to occupy the area. In 1995
Good Value Homes received approval for the development of 54 townhomes. The
development was approved as a planned unit development, however, it did not
incorporate the 2330 Le�ngton Avenue parcel.
4.2 The future land use for this parcel, as identified in Roseville's Comprehensive Plan,
indicates that this parcel should develop as High Density Residential (�ID). Currently the
lot is vacant, and over the past two years the Community Development staff has
discussed the sites potential for townhouse development with interested individuals.
However, none of these discussions ha�e ever been submitted for review.
4.3 Two hea�ily tra�eled roadways, State Trunk Highway 36 and Le�ngton Avenue, lie
adjacent to the parcel. Each roadway has an increasing volume of traffic that produces a
level of noise that is difficult to screen or block and peak hour traffic volumes that are
complicated to maneuver given the limited site access to Le�ngton Avenue from Lovell
Lane.
PF3277 — RCA (Ol/22101) Page 3 of 6
4. 4 Staff has determined that the parcel does not ha�e the size or access necessary to create a
high-density residential development and that a low traffic generating, neighborhood
friendly, job producing office condominium use is an appropriate zoning buffer for the
adjacent townhomes to the east.
4.5 Additional off-street parking can be provided (seven spaces) on the north side of the
building and parking lot should the City determine it necessary do to demand.
4.6 Staff has also determined that the proposal to construct five office condominiums is
consistent with the B-1, Limited Business District, especially when regulated by a PUD
overlay zone.
4.7 A draft Planned Unit Development Agreement has been created to identify the
parameters under which the office condominium development must abide (see attached).
4.8 During the Sketch Plan review (November 8, 2000), the Planning Commission requested
more architectural relief or variety in the front (west) and rear (east) facades of the
proposed condominium structure. The applicant has submitted a detailed set of
development plans including a site, grading landscaping elevation, and building floor
plans, for the Commission's consideration. These plans may need minor revisions prior
to final approval by the City Council.
5.0 POLICY & FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1 The Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies (Section 3) and the Vista 2000 report
discourage further commercial or industrial expansion into e�sting residential areas.
Each year the staff accounts for the changes in types of land use by zone. In 2000, the
City actually converted a business and industrial zoned properiy to residential uses;
Mendota Homes converted a two-acre industrial parking lot to 10 townhomes and
Sunrise Assisted Living is converting the 3.42-acre Knights of Columbus site into 27
assisted living units. Also in 2000 residential and park land designations increased by an
estimated 5.5 acres, reducing previously designated or used commercial/industrial
properties by a like amount. The proposed project would return 0.5 acres to a
commercial zoning designation, still maintaining the appro�mate balance of 55%
residential zoned acres to 20% commercial industrial acres.
5.2 The proposed project continues the City's effort to diversify the tax base and will add an
estimated 15 new full time jobs. It is estimated that the proposed redevelopment will
increase the market value of the property and generate over $15,000 in property taxes.
The current property produces annual taxes of $665. The City policy for needed
infrastructure improvements required by the new development will, as much as is
feasible, be the financial responsibility of the developer. In this case there are no added
costs to the city for improvements to public infrastructure such as roads, stoplights, or
utilities.
PF3277 RCA (Ol/22/01) Page 4 of 6
5.3 The proposed redevelopment of the parcel into five office condominiums does not
require expansion or e�ension of City infrastructure such as utilities and streets.
6.0 STAFF REC01�I1�IENDATION
6.1 Based on the findings outlined in Section 4 of this report, staff recommends approval of
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Planned Unit Development
General Concept and Final Development Plan, and Planned Unit Development
Agreement for the McKinley Companies proposed development of five office
condominiums and associated site improvements on property located at 2330 Lexington
Avenue.
7.0 PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION
7.1 On January 10, 2001, the Roseville Planning Commission held a public hearing to seek
citizen comments and to make a recommendation regarding the McKinley Companies
office condominium development. At the meeting a number of residents of the adjacent
Grandview Townhome Association were present to support the development and to voice
their concern regarding pass-through traffic (draft minutes attached).
7.2 The Planning Commission directed staff to review two items to be included in the final
Agreement, should they be determined appropriate by staf£ These items included
preserving a large evergreen tree in the pro�mity of the southeast property corner and
designing an outlet from the office site that encourages a left turn movement toward
Lexington Avenue. The Planning Commission also added a condition requiring
installing a board on board fence and landscaping along the east property line.
7.3 The Planning Commission took the following action:
A. By resolution (attached) recommended (5-0) approval of the Comprehensive Land
Use Map Amendment to change the designation for the .56 acre parcel from High
Density Residential (HR) to Business (B).
13. By motion recommended (5-0) approval of the rezoning from Single Family
Residential District (R-1) to Business-Planned Unit Development (B-PUD) with
an underlying (base) zoning of Limited Business District (B-1).
C. By motion recommended (5-0) approval of the combined General Concept and
Final Development Plan of the Planned Unit Development.
D. By motion recommended approval of the "Draft" Planned Unit development
between the City and McKinley Companies stipulating the terms and conditions
of the development of the .56 acre parcel located at 2330 Lexington Avenue (final
draft attached).
PF3277 — RCA (O1/22/O1) Page 5 of 6
8.0 SUGGESTED COUNCIL ACTION
8.1 By resolution and with findings, approve (approve with modifications or deny) the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment modifying the future land use designation for the .56
acre parcel at 2330 Le�ngton Avenue from High Density Residential (HD) to Business
(B);
8.2 By motion approve (approve with modifications or deny) the rezoning from Single
Family Residence District (R-1) to Business-Planned Unit Development (B-PUD) with
an underlying zoning classification of Limited Business District (B-1) for the .56 acre
parcel at 2330 Le�ngton Avenue;
8.3 By motion approve (approve with modifications or deny) the combined Planned Unit
Development "General Concept Final Development Plan" and the "Draft Planned Unit
Development Agreement" that establishes the design standards and development
parameters under which the McKinley Companies must develop the .56 acre parcel at
2330 Lexington Avenue.
8.4 By motion approve (approve with modifications or deny) the "FINAL" Planned Unit
Development Agreement between the City and McKinley Companies, stipulating the
terms and conditions of the redevelopment proposal for property located at 2330
Le�ngton Avenue.
Prepared by: Thomas Paschke, City Planner (490-2236)
Attachments: Location map, site, landscape plan, floor plan, building elevations, and aerial photo.
Application submitted on December 13, 2000; Accepted on December 29, 2000; Action Deadline February 29, 2001.
PF3277 — RCA (O1/22/Ol) Page 6 of 6
2
3
4
S
6
1
8
9
l0
11
12
13
14
1S
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2�
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Sl
Extract of 1�Tinutes from Planning Commission meetin� of Januarv 10.2001:
b. Plannin� File 3277: A request by the McKinley Companies for a
Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment, Rezoning and a Planned Unit
Development "General Concept Plan" for the redevelopment of property at 2330
Lexington Avenue for use as a five-unit office condominium. The proposal
would require rezoning from R- 1 Single Family to Planned Unit Development
with a base zoning of B- 1, Limited Business District and a Comprehensive Land
Use Plan Amendment from High Density Residential (�IDR) to Business (B).
Chairman Craig Klausing opened the public hearing and requested City Planner Thomas
Paschke to provide a verbal summary of the staff report dated January 10, 2001.
Thomas Paschke explained the proposed five-unit office condominiums, with 12,288 s.f.
of total space. The office will face west with parking also on the west side. The building
will be vinyl siding, asphalt roofs, trees will be preserved. New coniferous trees will be
planted on the east side. The staff received a letter (January 9, 2001) from Steve Pfeiffer
who expressed concern with the traffic (attached). Thomas Paschke noted the staff
recommended approval.
Chair Klausing asked for an explanation of the parking and proof of parking. Thomas
Paschke explained that there are additional spaces that could be added if needed. Thomas
Paschke noted that this type of restricted small office development would not generate
high traffic.
Member Rhody asked about the impact of the five-foot south setback from the Highway
36 right-of-way (no apparent impact).
Member Wilke asked about the ownership of the private driveway known as Lovell
Drive. There are no private easements recorded with the City.
Thomas Paschke explained the past history of development on this site.
Deb Bloom explained that the access to Le�ngton crosses this property and the Day Care
properiy.
Brent Thompson, applicant, explained needs for proof of parking on Hamlin� Avenue,
and on Rice Street in Vadnais Heights. A typical floor plan will ha�e three offices, with
a need for five to seven parking spaces, primarily for attomeys, accountants and other
low impact professionals (There are 35 parking spaces on the site).
Member Cunningham asked for details of rear side of the building in order to create
walkout units (There is a ten-foot drop in some areas). Member Cunningham asked for
details of parking to the east of the project by townhome owners.
Steve Thornley, President of the Townhome Association, asked for details of preserving
the trees along the southeast comer of the property (pine trees). NIr. Thompson will
review the trees on site.
Bob Zakaris, 1060 Lovell, asked if the outfall from the detention pond is connected to the
City storm sewer (yes).
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
l.S
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
37
38
39
40
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Brenda Himrich, 1082 Lovell Ave., noted the east side would be the front yard of her
ho m e. What type of lighting would be placed on the rear of the building? (downcast).
She asked for details on the fence. (There is a State highway chain link fence on the south
side. A fence on the east side would be up to 6'/z feet in height, board-on-board wood
fence.) She preferred having a fence and landscaping. She asked for details of the
pathway along Lexington Avenue. Deb Bloom explained the pathway plan and
requirements of the developer to contribute to the fund.
Brenda Himrich noted there is an open well on the site that should be capped (Staff and
developer will review). Could the pine tree be saved?
Stew Thornley, neighbor adjacent to the proposal, expressed concern about through
traffic from the business. Such through-traffic speeds excessively. It is now posted as
private property with no through-traffic. The Day Care traffic is a problem (safety,
speed, wear/tear on roads).
Chair Klausing noted that customers to the business are more likely not to be there daily
and would use Lexington Avenue. Mr. Thomley said employees would learn the
"shortcuts". Chair Klausing asked what condition should be placed on the development
(Staff will review the site plan and entry designs).
The architect and owner explained curb channelization to reduce through traffic. The
fence should match e�sting fence, and, should extend to the northeast comer to reduce
hazards.
Member Wilke asked if the townhome access could be closed access to Lexington
Avenue. Thomas Paschke explained the history of the road.
Chair Klausing asked if there was reason for curb cuts. Deb Bloom explained how the
parking lot could be designed with entry access encouraging use of Lexington Avenue.
There were no further comments. Chair Klausing closed the hearing.
Chair Klausing said the change to the Comprehensive Plan was a good change; it is a
good use and would be a good neighbor. The City still retains the same balance of
residential to commercial.
Motion: By resolution, Member Klausing moved, second by Member Cunningham, to
recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment to change
the designation for the .56-aCre parcel from High Density Residential (HR) to Business
�B)•
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
Motion: Member Klausing
of the rezoning from Single
Development (B-PDD) with
(B- 1).
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
moved, seconded by Member Wilke, to recommend approval
Family Residential District (R- 1) to Business-Planned Unit
an underlying (base) zoning of Limited Business District
�
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Motion carried.
Member Olson asked if ponding must be fenced (No, it is a property owner decision.
Deb Bloom explained pond details to 4' depth). Fencing on the north may not be needed.
The well must be capped prior to issuance of a building permit. Thomas Paschke said a
condition relating to additional curbing, the fence and trees for preservation can be added
to the PUD after staff review and design.
Motion: Member Klausing moved, second by Member Cunningham, to recommend
approval of the combined General Concept and Final Development Plan of the Planned
Unit Development and recommended approval of the "Draft" Planned Unit Development
between the City and McKinley Companies stipulating the terms and conditions of the
development of the .56 acre parcel located at 2330 Le�ngton Avenue, with the condition
that there be further review of the curb cut, trees, fences only on the east side (the
Commission suggested a m� of vegetation and fences).
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
DRAFT
EXTRACT OF MIl�IUTES OF MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Pursuant to due ca11 and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was held on the 22°d day of January 2001, 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.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN A1�TENDI�TENT TO THE COI�TPREHENSIVE PLAN 1�TAP
DESIGNATION FRO1�T HD, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO B, BUSINESS FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2330 LEkINGTON AVENUE (PF #3277).
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a public hearing held on 7anuaty 10, 2001,
received a request from McKinley Companies, Inc., for General Concept and Fina1 Development
Plan consideration of a Business Planned Unit Development (B-PUD) to redevelop the half acre
parcel located at 2330 Le�ngton Avenue into a five unit attached office condominium; and
WHEREAS, the proposal requires a Comprehensive Plan Map Designation Amendment
from HD, High Density Residential to B, Business and a rezoning (change in the zoning map
designation) from R- 1, Single Family Residential District to B-PUD, Business Planned Unit
Development with an underlying zoning of B-1, Limited Business District; and
WHEREAS, said properiy is legally described as:
Lot 4, Block 1, Rose of Sharon 2°d Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota (PID # 12923320050).
WHEREAS, after the public hearing the Planning Commission recommended approval,
by the City Council, of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, based on findings as
outlined in the staff report dated 7anuary 12, 2000, as follows:
The future land use for this parcel, as identified in Roseville's Comprehensive Plan,
indicates that this parcel should develop as High Density Residential (HD). Currently the
lot is vacant, and over the past two years the Community Development staff has
discussed the sites potential for townhouse development with interested individuals.
However, none of these discussions ha�e ever been submitted for review.
2. Two hea�ily tra�eled roadways, State Trunk Highway 36 and Le�ngton Avenue, lie
adjacent to the parcel. Each roadway has a high volume of traffic that produces a level of
noise that is difficult to screen or block and peak hour traffic volumes that become
cumbersome to negotiate given the limited site access to Le�ngton Avenue from Lovell
Lane.
3. The parcel does not ha�e the size or access necessary to create a high-density residential
development and a low traffic generating neighborhood friendly, job producing office
condominium use is an appropriate zoning buffer for the adjacent townhomes to the east.
NOW TI�REFORE, BE TT RESOLVID, the City Council, based on the findings listed
above, hereby approves and adopts the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan from HD (High
Density Residential) to B(Business) for property located at 2330 Le�ngton Avenue, subject to:
1. Review and comments of the Metropolitan Council.
2. Proper rezoning of the subj ect parcel.
3. Approval of the Fina1 Development Plan regarding the Planned Unit
Development.
4. Approval, signature, and recording of the Planned Unit Development Agreement.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in fa�or thereo£
and the following voted against the same:
WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Resolution - 2330 Le�ngton Av N
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 January, 2001, with the original thereof on file in my office.
2001.
SEAL
WIT'NESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 22nd day of January,
Notary Public
Edward L. Burrell, Acting City Manager
DRAFT
ORDINANCE N0.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, OF THE CITY CODE, CHANGING
THE ZONING 1�IAP DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AT 2330
LEXINGTON AVENUE R-1, SINGLE FAI�IILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO
B-PUD, BUSINESS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOP��NT, �VITH AN
UNDERLYING ZONE OF B-1, LII�IITED BUSINESS DISTRICT (PF #3277)
The City Council of the City of Roseville does ordain:
Section 1. Real Property Rezoned. Pursuant to Section 1015 (Zoning
Amendments) and Section 1008 (Planned Unit Developments) of the City Zoning Code
of the City of Roseville, and after the City Council consideration on PF3277, the
following properiy, generally located at 2330 Le�ngton Avenue, City of Roseville, is
hereby rezoned from R- 1, Single Family Residential District, to B-PUD, Business
Planned Unit Development, with an underlying zone of B-1, Limited Business District:
The property located at 2330 Lexington Avenue, is legally described as:
Lot 4, Block 1, Rose of Sharon 2nd A(I(IltlOri, Ramsey County, Minnesota
(PID # 112923320050).
Section 2. Planned Unit Development #. The Planned Unit
Development standards and conditions of approval adopted for this property sha11 be in
addition to a11 other applicable zoning requirements.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance amendment to the City Code shall
take effect upon:
1. The passage and publication of this ordinance.
2. The execution of the Planned Unit Development Agreement by the City
and McKinley Company, Inc.
3. The recording of the PUD document with Ramsey County.
Passed this d a v o f , 2001.
DRAFT
CITY of ROSEVILLE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT #
This AGREEMENT, dated , 2001, is entered into between the City of Roseville, a
Minnesota municipal corporation (herein referred to as "CITY"), and McKinley Companies,
Inc., 300 South Owasso Boulevard East, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55117(herein after referred to as
"DEVELOPER').
1.0 EFFECTIVE DATE of AGREEi�'IENT
This agreement shall be effective upon completion of the following:
A. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment.
B. Passage and publication of Ordinance #(Rezoning of Properiy to B-PUD).
C. Publication of the ordinance in the Roseville Review, the CITY's official newspaper
D. Execution of this agreement by the CITY and the DEVELOPER
E. Recording of this agreement with Ramsey County.
2.0 REQUEST for PUD APPROVAL
The DEVELOPER has requested the CITY approve a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
(PF#3277) that redevelops the former .56 acre residential parcel (two homes used to occupy the
parcel) into a five unit (attached) office condominium site. The properiy is described as follows:
2330 Le�ngton Avenue North (PID 1129233320050) City of Roseville, Minnesota,
legally described as follows:
Lot 4, Block 1, Rose Sharon 2nd Addition, City of Roseville, Ramsey County,
Minnesota.
3.0 PUD APPROVAL
The CITY hereby grants approval of the final development plan far McKinley Companies,
subject to the DEVELOPER's compliance with the terms and conditions of this agreement. The
CITY agrees to approve applications for building permits, provided that said plans are consistent
with the e�ibits listed in Section 4 below.
For any improvements proposed thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the
contrary, the CITY may require compliance with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive
Guide Plan, official controls, platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date of this
Contract.
4.0 APPROVAL by the CITY
In approving the Final Development Plan for the McKinley Companies, Inc. Planned Unit
Development, the CITY hereby incorporates the following e�ibits:
Exhibit A Certificate of Survey of the e�sting property including all land features,
dated
Exhibit B Site development plan that includes property boundary, building setbacks,
structure location (including the trash enclosure), curbing, parking
setbacks, sidewalk, and landscaping, dated
Exhibit C Grading plan illustrating existing grades and those proposed after
completion of the proposed construction, drainage directions, spot
elevations, catch basins for surface water catchment, dated
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
Exhibit F
Exhibit G
Exhibit H
Exhibit I
Exhibit J
Erosion control plan, dated
Utility plan indicating sanitary sewer, watermain, gas, electric, and storm
sewer connection, dated
Site lighting plan including specifications and lighting calculations for
parking lot, dated
Landscape plan including materials list, sizes, and locations of all plant
materials, dated
Building floor plan with dimensions of the facility, dated
Building elevations, with dimensions and materials identified, dated
Commercial condominium by-laws.
Exhibit K Anticipated site development schedule with estimated date of construction
start, construction completion, utility, curb, gutter and landscape
installation, and tentative occupancy date.
The DEVELOPER shall develop the subject property as described or shown in these e�ibits. If
the e�ibits vary from the written terms of this Agreement, the written terms shall controL In the
event the e�ibits address items not specifically addressed in this agreement, the e�ibits shall
govern with respect to those items.
5,0 REZONING
The CITY conducted a combined hearing on January 10, 2001 (Planning Commission - hearing
on Concept Development Plan, Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment) to consider
various aspects of the Planned Unit Development, including the rezoning of the subj ect properiy
from R- 1 Single Family Residence District to Business-Planned Unit Development (B-PUD).
The CTTY agrees to rezone the subject properry to B-PUD, subject to the DEVELOPER's strict
compliance with the approved plans, and the terms and conditions of this agreement.
Minor variations from the approved final development plans, which are consistent with this
agreement and the underlying Limited Business District (B-1), may be approved by the CITY's
Development Review Committee, under the direction of the Community Development Director.
Substantial departures from the approved final development plans will require an amendment to
the Planned Unit Development in accordance with Sections 1005, 1008, 1010, 1012 and 1015 of
the Roseville City Code. Where not superseded by more restrictive requirements of this PUD,
the standards of the underlying Limited Business District (B-1) shall apply, as stated in Chapter
1005 of the Roseville City Code.
6,0 DEVELOPI�IENT of PROPERTY
Failure by the DEVELOPER to commence development activity, in accordance with the final
development plans, within one year of the effective date of this Planned Unit Development, will
necessitate the approval of an e�tension of the development schedule by the City Council prior
to the expiration of the one year period. If an e�tension is not applied for, the Council may
instruct the Planning Commission to initiate rezoning to the original R-1 zoning district. For
purposes of this provision, development activity sha11 be defined as obtaining a building permit
and beginning project construction on the site.
Development of the properiy and installation of improvements sha11 be in accordance with the
development schedule provided by the DEVELOPER and approved by the CTTY (Exhibit �.
7,0 C01�IPLIANCE with LA�VS and REGULATIONS
The DEVELOPER represents to the CTTY that any site improvements pursuant to the proposed
Development will comply with all City, County, Regional, Metropolitan, State, and Federal laws
and regulations, including but not limited to the Roseville Subdivision Regulations, the Roseville
Zoning Regulations, and a11 other applicable environmental regulations. The DEUELOPER
agrees to comply with a11 such laws and regulations.
8,0 SITE DEVELOPI�IENT REQUIREI�IENTS
To ensure that the proposed development meets the CITY' S requirements and standards for site
development, the following provisions sha11 apply:
3
8.1 Final Grading Plan. The final grading plan for the properiy must be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Public Works prior to any permits being issued for the parcel.
All grading sha11 comply with the approved grading plans and sha11 be the responsibility
of the DEVEL,OPER. The DEVELOPER' S engineer shall provide to the CITY a letter
certifying that the grading project was constructed and was completed as depicted in the
approved grading plan (Exhibit C�.
8. 2 Final Utility Servicing Plan. The final utility servicing plan for the properiy must be
reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works prior to any permits being issued
for the building (Exhibit E).
8.3 Erosion Control. Prior to site grading and before any utility construction is commenced
or building permits are issued, an erosion control plan must be submitted for approval,
and a11 erosion control actions shall be implemented, inspected and approved by the
CITY (Exhibit D).
8.4 Clean Up. The DEVELOPER shall clean dirt and debris from streets that has resulted
from construction work by the DEVELOPER, its agents or assigns. The CITY will
determine whether it is necessary to take additional measures to clean dirt and debris
from the streets. After 24 hours verbal notice to the developer, the CITY may complete
or contract to complete the clean up at the DEVELOPER' S expense.
8.5 Street Trees. CITY policy requires the planting of street trees in conjunction with
development or redevelopment throughout the community. The DEUELOPER shall
install street trees in accordance with the City's Street Tree Master Plan (as provided and
approved by the CTTY' S Landscape Architect) (Exhibit �.
8.6 Pedestrian Walkways. CITY policy, as part of the landscape plan, requires the
installation, replacement, or payment in lieu of the provision of a pedestrian pathway
(sidewalk), no less than six feet in width, within the public right-of-way in conjunction
with commercial development. McKinley Companies, Inc. must provide the CITY with a
cash sum totaling $3,195 for payment in lieu of constructing a six-foot wide pedestrian
path along Le�ngton Avenue.
9. 0 PUD STANDARDS and CONDITIONS of APPROVAL
To insure that the proposed development meets the CITY' S standards for the approval of a PUD,
as set forth in Section 1008 and1015 of the Roseville City Code, the Development sha11 also
comply with the following specific PUD standards:
9.1 General Development Standards. The certificate of survey, site development plan,
landscape plan, grading and utility plan, building elevations, development schedule, and
final land use designations sha11 be part of the standards for development of the
McKinley Companies, Inc. PUD.
4
9.2 Uses - Permitted. The permitted use of properiy within the PUD sha11 be limited to the
redevelopment of the site into a five-unit office condominium totaling 12,288 finished
square feet. The parcel redevelopment shall be restricted to the dimensional
specified in the site development/landscape plan, building elevations, and supporting
documents submitted by the DEVELOPER. Where not superseded by more restrictive
requirements of this PUD, the standards of the underlying B-1 (Limited Business) zoning
district shall apply, as stated in Chapter 1005.02 of the Roseville City Code. The parcel
may be reused and/or redevelopment for any use or conditional use allowed in the
underlying B-1 (Limited Business) zoning district, except that the following uses sha11 be
prohibited: medical or dental facilities or offices, bingo ha11, hospitals, sanatoriums, and
rest homes; private clubs or lodges; greenhouses; motels and motor hotels; mortuaries;
churches; public or private schools; furniture stores; dog kennels; any use which reduces
the amount of a�ailable required parking; or any use deemed by the Community
Development Director to be substantially similar to these uses based on potential noise
generation, visual impact, and/or parking demands.
9.3 Building Setbacks. The minimum front yard setback from the properiy line shall be 30
feet adjacent to Le�ngton Avenue (west). The minimum side yard setback from property
line shall be 3 5 adj acent to Love 11 Lane (north) and 18 feet adj acent to Trunk Highway 36
(south). The minimum rear yard setback from properiy line (east) shall be 47 feet
(Exhibit B).
9. 4 Off-Street Parking Lot Setbacks. The minimum front yard setback shall be 25 feet
adjacent to Le�ngton Avenue (west). The rninimum side yard setback shall be 3 1 feet
adjacent to Lovel l Lane (north) and five feet adjacent to Trunk Highway 36 (south).
Given the location of the office condominium, a rear yard setback does not apply to the
parking lot; no parking sha11 be allowed on the east side of the building (Exhibit B).
9.5 Building Height and Design. The attached condominium units must be architecturally
designed to ha�e the scale and massing of the adjacent residential parcels to the north and
east. The office condominium structure sha11 be limited to a single story with a lower
level walkout with a height 19 feet on the west side and 28 feet on the east side of the
structure (Exhibit I).
9.6 Building Materials. E�terior building materials shall include asphalt shingles on the roof
and a mi�ture of brick, cedar, and maintenance free siding on the building facade. The
sofft and fascia sha11 be aluminum and the structure sha11 be outfitted with gutters to
properly remove roof drainage. The color scheme for the building sha11 be reviewed and
approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of any building
permits (Exhibit I).
9.7 Mitigation of Impact on Adjacent Residential Uses. All e�terior mechanical units shall be
adjacent to the building screened from view. For the purpose of this PUD screening shall
consist of a decorative wood or masonry fence or a mixture of deciduous and coniferous
shrubs. Outdoor or e�terior storage sha11 be prohibited.
9.8 Tree Preservation. All e�stin�; trees indicated on the site development plan as e�stin�
must be �reserved and �rotected during construction. As well. the large everereen tree in
the southeast corner of the parcel must be preserved, if possible, and protected durin� site
development and buildin� construction (Exhibit G).
9.9 Site FencinQ. The eastern propertv line (rear yard) must be screened from the adiacent
townhouse development with a combination of board on board fencinu�. six feet in hei�
and landsca�in�
9.10 Site Landscaping. Landscaping for the project sha11 be comprised of shrubs and
perennials at the site entry and along the front (west side) of the condominium complex.
Coniferous and deciduous trees sha11 be installed along the rear (east) properiy line to
screen the development from the e�sting townhouse development. The landscape plan
shall include screening (plants and/or berm) of the parking lot to a height of 30 in ��
above the parking lot curb height. The site must be irrigated. The final landscap�
be�re�ievr+ed by 's :landscape architect (Exhibit G). �
��ntcQ ct.. � ?�y c �qo L- cc� �x.4 Sec-ft �rc lo�Q ,d�j �4/ �y �i
9.11 Landscape Letter of Credit. Prior to the issuance of a grading exca�ation, foundation,
and/or building permit, the DEUEL,OPER shall provide the CITY with a landscape letter
of credit, bond, or other security acceptable to the City, in an amount equal to 150% of
the full cost of a11 landscaping irrigation, and site restoration (Section 1010.14E). The
specific amount of this letter of credit or other security sha11 be determined by the
Community Development Director, following approval of plans.
9.12 Trash Handling. Trash handling shall be in accordance with Section 1010.11 of the City
Code, which requires trash collection areas to be within a roofed enclosure or inside the
building. Trash collection activities shall be restricted to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday
through Saturday.
to the office condominium parcel sha11 be provided from the private
desi�ned. if possible, to accommodate a left turn out only movement.
9.14 Off-Street parking. Off-street parking areas shall be improved as shown on the approved
site development plan (Exhibit B), and shall include hard surfacing (bituminous),
concrete perimeter curbing and a drainage plan. The site plan shall provide 35 off-street
parking stalls, including two handicapped stalls. No semi tractor/ trailer, recreational
vehicle, or trailer parking (daytime or evening) sha11 be allowed on the site, except while
delivering materials. Additional off-street parking must be provided (seven spaces) on
the north side of the building and parking lot should the City determine it necessary do to
demand.
9.15 Signage. Signage for the office condominium shall be consistent with Section 1009 of
the Roseville City Code, except that prior to the issuance of any sign permits, a sign plan
sha11 be provided to the Community Development Director for review and approval.
Said sign plan sha11 include a uniform sign plan incorporating signage type, style, font,
and color. All owners and tenants within the condominium sha11 be bound by the signage
plan as part of the association by-laws as well as this agreement.
9.16 Lighting. Parking lot lights shall be downcast, cutoff (shoebox) style, that are recessed or
conceal the light source from view and prevent glare. Lighting sha11 be consistent
throughout the development and meet the lighting requirements of Section 1010.12 of the
City Code (Exhibit F).
9.17 Association By-laws. The developer must provide to the City a copy of the approved and
recorded Association By-laws.
10. DEVELOPER DEFAULT
For purposes of this Agreement, the failure of the DEUEL,OPER to perform any covenant,
obligation or agreement of the DEUELOPER hereunder, and the continuance of such failure
for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof from the City (or such longer
period of time as may reasonably be necessary to cure any such default, if such default is not
reasonably curable within such thiriy (30) day period) shall constitute a DEUEL,OPER
default hereunder. Within the thiriy (30) day period after notice is given, a request may
made for a hearing (by either pariy) to be held before the Roseville City Council to
determine if a default has occurred. Upon the occurrence of DEVEL,OPER default, the City
may withhold any certificate of occupancy for improvements proposed to be constructed.
Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the developer may convey a parcel or
parcels of land within the PUD to a third pariy, which conveyed parcels shall remain subject
to a11 of the terms of the PUD specifically relating to said parcels. In that connection, the
parties agree as follows:
A. A default by the DEVELOPER, or its successors in interest, in the performance of
the obligations hereunder, will not constitute a default with regard to the conveyed
parcel and will not entitle the CTTY to exercise any of its rights and remedies
hereunder with respect to such conveyed parcel, so long as such conveyed parcel
otherwise complies with applicable provisions of the PUD.
B. A default with regard to a conveyed parcel will not constitute a default with regard
to the parcels retained by the DEVELOPER or other conveyed parcels, so long as
such retained or other conveyed parcels otherwise comply with applicable provisions
of this Agreement.
1L MISCELLANEOUS
A. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors or
assigns, as the case may be.
B. Breach of any material term of this Agreement by the DEUEL,OPER sha11 be
grounds for denial of building permits, except as otherwise provided in Section
10.
C. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase of this
Development Agreement is for any reason held invalid as a result of a challenge
brought by the DEVELOPER, their agents or assigns, the balance of this
Agreement sha11 nevertheless remain in full force and effect.
D This Agreement sha11 run with the Subject Properiy and shall be recorded in the
Ramsey County Recorder's Office by the CITY.
E. This Agreement sha11 be liberally construed to protect the public interest.
12. NOTICES
Required notices to the DEVELOPER shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to
the DEVELOPER, their employees or agents, or mailed to the DEVELOPER by certified or
registered mail at the following address:
Brent Thompson
McKinley Companies, Inc
300 South Owasso Boulevard East
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55 117
Notices to the CITY sha11 be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the Community
Development Director, or mailed by certified or registered mail, in care of the Community
Development Director at the following address:
Community Development Director
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, MN 55 113
8
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties ha�e hereunto set there hands the day and year first
above written.
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
:
John Kysylyczyn, Mayor
By:
Ed Burrell, Acting Manager
This document conforms to the City requirements for form and content.
:
7oel 7amnik, City Attorney
McKINLEY COMPANIES, INC.
I�
Brent Thompson
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this
day of , 2001. �
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
)
) SS
)
The forgoing instrument was acknowledged before me this o day f , 2001, by
Brent Thompson, the McKinley Companies, Inc.
� �. �- ---- ----� -- - ----- -
- -
,
� � , � ; 19�e �
� � � ; ;' � � � ' NALYCY_P1r4C
� � �
�' ~ � � � � � '� � 3;' � ����
•� �' � _ � � r� ;
� �' � ■ ■
,�" � � � � � � � � � 2: � � � #I� r1 ■
� ,; �
, �
t� � . '�. �, � ❑ � � ; � � � � �r�:r.ccz�v:�T::::
i _
� ` � �
..� ; '' !� � ' � � � � �
:- � , • . J -� /
� � �
� � � a �� �� � �� � � �
w� N �ll I� � � � � � � � b �
� M � � i� � � ' � � � � � �
� � �
� � � � � �� �� � :� $ �
� � ,� • � ! ' � � � ; � �� ' ' " �'
i_srN, � . , , :
crtarswo � #
y �trtt_�r � : - � 9�
�
� � �� �r � �� �� � ; ��
Qy � ' � .�e � ! ;� ■
� � �� ■'". � � . �� � �
,V � -- - +� � � � � w � �
. ;� i
.
y � i . � � y � � �� !°' �
� � � �� � �� _ - _ -_
o�� � ,��s _. �
� � � �' � � 1 / . �, .. ..,. r __
,� � � i �i � .� a . �
� w = - -��aRO-sr_�r� �� � � 3 � � � o
� '� �
� � ��� � �� d ■ � W' ! � �
� • N C � � `—`_"�3 � ' � w m
� � � � F � �f� � �� � � � �
� ~ ;j � � `� � � � • (�
� � � r '.. -- r� ;� � � _ � � � • a
--� ''- �
� `�,-, . m � � ,% ,
� � '� � � �
M „ .�r �► o �, �
.
- ---- -
"� ■ >
� M '° �` ° � � � ,� � � � � E
"� N � � � F � � � • �
�i
o� +� ' -
,
� C; - - - � = '� - � -- - �_- -- _. __ ---_- - ---- - -_ �
�1 - - - --
_---._..---.----------LEX/MGT�N-AVE_N = ,
� •1�i _ _ 1 � .I �- ,;; _ _ �' j"--- - 'o
' ;.
,
(
� � ; l i � � I � � � �'�i i �
,� 0� � � � � � � I� ' j�; it
� � � i � ' � � \\ r
.� -„ I
� ,� .
� ,�
0
e
�
..
_
� c ' � � � � ��\ i � �
w � ti � � 1��; �
� �
� 'i
°� A � '°� , ; �` "' � ` �
�� r,� I 4r��t�sr. � � i � i
� � �r ,� j � � ' l � � �' �
� � ."�j�� � � —� � i�" ;
� � I� �-�.. � �6 • � 7
�l � � � ■ � � � �
� �l � � �
� � � ��,�
�z
�
w
S
S
u
�S
U
�
0
0
H
V
0
H
�
�
o � — � -:�nrwz� ` �
�
J � , � � � r�,.�. ■ �' v �,
�� �� � � � � � ���
v � ��!" 1� �4 ■� p, N
, �
� , ' _ -- = � --- :::- - `., , � � W.. -- --- d y
� � - - " - �RRI�:�:: w v E
� � � � �`�~~1■ �, �'A
�j ' � ' � ,t/! . U �
�i E
� I � '. � � �it� 11�� � ■ raw � � �°
ys�s-e��-�t�
�stnsmnamn •H�vur�nunmQrrec
�ss�aiix�xv�
sazvtaoesv aaxtxHV:'xaNna
,�
.
•
n
n
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
n
n
��
r
� n
� ii
0
� � F
� � �
� �
� � \I
�
�
Qa
1�[�A �q��tlK'�[
�d�0�
eswa
��
�
M
�i
�
�
�
�
Q
y
��
�
�
�.
�
�
�
�
1�
N
r`�
�
�
� �� �
� �
�Q ❑
�� � �
�
�g a�
� � �
a �
� �
�� ,
r
�y�
O1 Y
�
�
�
�
�
�
O
��
�
�
�
�
Y
✓
N �
O
`►� �
�
�
.-r O
y, O
� w
�
�
�
�
�
� �
H �
a
U � �
O �
�
� I � Y
V
� ^ N
� F z e
z F" � �
Hx
z � �~
� a ��
'� � �
a �C �
z
�
V
�
�
W �
a �
� �
� �
9
�
�
AG �
� � $
- �
� �- �-
� �� �
� �� ��
�s�rec�-sa� t i J - M[�R �qI�7fR+�
wraia wvnnmwx��nrw�xuer� I es�
� 1
� ii�i�l� �•,[�ao=m�
� siaa,ttx�xv� lj �•
[tr't +
Y6,LY[DO}tY19NIENYf'1QNI1J •�,j�i�� f �
� t
f :
,E �� �,
����:��!�
� m
�
----------------------------
, ,
,�
„
„
�,
�,
„
� � N
� .ti � ■ 'I a 1 �
1
� � �-='�:=a i' ii
� � r �_ ,�
i i ir , i�- i J:
�i i
u ii . i
� -�---------- i
-------------------° r
ss i
I �
1 I
I
1
1 �
1
�i '� j � '
� �
i � _-
i i � - � i ;i
� _i
i
j j R � 1�� �i
1 j � I
l! I L______'__ �
- - — i �-=-----------=-----=- �
i�
i�
I ii
i�
�i
i�
� Z .a � ; �
5 ;
�' �--i � �i
� '1 J
i
� i R • 1�_ i_''
��
`t� LJ � `V ' ------- � i
� �-------'-
rl i ' ' i
� i T� �
1 � �4 � t 1
� I � LJ -�I
� i r i � - ��
` � --
r r � �
�
I N �
� � � �
I � I
1 �
I �
1
� ____________ L_
ri � ------- ---- �
ii i
�i �
i i �� ' 4 �--
i i ii� i' i
i
i i e�-�== � i �i
i ==�
� i� i
i i
i � i
x�d `; p
ii
ii
��
ii
ii
i i
R'- r -�---------------1 � � m
i i m i � i : <
i i �
� ~ �
� �,
4s �
� � �j �
� � �
�
� � �
1CYf•1{f•[if
srawrrenaw�xvumn�xoto�tKtc , i lw�'� �y�qK=�
� 1� t�j� I ^� aorc
..��.
� szoa,cixonv� {�jF' � Es � �d�aRl� «�«.
esavi�oeov i 9NI1pY9 'aauna 1 `_ �
_t�s�i �� � �pp�p�
� t t
i ` `
. j
� � !�
� �t
tl����j 1�i � �i �� � �
��r �!1 �� � �. � � � � 1�
� � ��
��
��
,�
��
�, --� �;
�, �� „
ii � o �` ii '�
u u
ii " ii
ii . �� ii
i� o �� ii
ii �� n
ii �� n
�� �� ii
11 �� 11
11 O �� II
'(r �� II II
— — —� � — — o ------- i i
II ��
� � 11 � li
_ } . ii o yi O
/ �f f ! � ° ii �
i i i ;; �
f
�� �
1��� , � ;; �
� � ;; ;; �
„
�� o �� �
� ;; �� �
;' � �
� � , �� �
_ ' Z ��
' � ii �
i � ii
o �� �
ii
' ; ii
o ii �
t � — •-- � � r
�� " n
� ii
� o
� ii
1 �� ;
� 11 �
II � � �� 1
� 11
� � 11
� . _ � —' t � . �' 11
11
O 11
� � � 11
� 11
II
11 � II �, � k
11 $
�� l
�� T
��
� il
II p ___� _.r
II
II + II
� O 11 i � II
_ � 11 II
II O 11
_ � � 1 _ i '�. II
� •� ! II ��
� �� 11
� o
� ii ii
� �i � ii ii
�� o jj 11
�� �� 11
� �� 11
� �� 11
I O �� 11
� � II 11
II 11
+ II 11
} �� 11
II
11 0
—iJ �
., : o ��� i �
.�. < i � � '� I �
1� � �i ! i �� i � � � � l j � ,
� �� � � • � � � � �
r � , �
.
� � �
� � �
G�fz���
T0:
FROM
Grandview Townhome Association Residents
Stew Thornley, President, Grandview Townhome Association
January 3, 2001
Some of you received a notice about this from the city already, but we wanted to make sure all
residents were aware of what is happening with the vacant lot along Le�ngton Avenue, just to the west
of our development. Officially, it is the property at 2330 Le�ngton Avenue: Lot 4, Block 1, Rose of
Sharon 2°a Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota (PID: 1129233200050).
An outfit called McKinley Companies has requested a"Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment
(High Density Residential to Business), a Rezoning (Single Family to Planned Unit Development with
a base zoning of B-1, Limited Business District), and Planned United Development `General Concept
Plan review of a five-unit office condominium development.`°
The city sent me a copy of the application, which includes a narrative description that gives us a little
better idea of what to expect. Here it is:
The proposed site as seen in the site plans preserves the existing trees, making
landscaping in character with the existing conditions. Drainage on the site goes to the
northeast corner of the lot, which is the low point of the lot where the natural run-off
occurs. The architecture is in likeness to Kinderberry Hill pre-school and the multi-
family project (Grandview townhomes) with gabled roof trusses, wood material siding,
asphalt shingles, and brick. The new office/condos will be complimentary to its
neighbors.
The traffic being created enters into the same entrance as Kinderberry Hill. The
building will have a maximum of five different businesses creating a potential of seven
personnel per unit, making a small impact on traffic compared to Kinderberry Hill.
Because the office/condo complex is office use, the noise impact will simply be car
traffic and waste management at the north end of the building. The parking lot will
have five proposed lights that will be designed in such a way to avoid interference with
traffic on Lexington Avenue.
The demand for this type of office/condo project is great. Considering the research,
this type of product has been successful in municipalities, including Roseville on
Hamline Avenue and Little Canada on Rice Street. Many small firms like attorneys,
accountants, marketing groups, financial consultants, and internet companies find that
owning their own space is an asset to the bottom line.
Overall, this doesn't sound too bad, although there are still a lot of issues to be addressed and questions
to be answered. .
One deals with drainage so that we don't end up with additional run-off in our development. A bigger
issue involves traffic and the possibility of getting more unauthorized vehicles cutting through our
development, especially since they plan on using the side road off Lexington Avenue, as the daycare
center now does. We've already had a big problem with people from the daycare center cutting
through our development, and we don't want to see this made worse by the new office complex. W e
will strongly suggest that the new development have their entry drives configured to direct all their
incoming and outgoing traffic west to Lexington Avenue. We will also suggest that this configuring be
done for the daycaze center, as well, so that its employees and customers would be deterred from using
our development as a shortcut. If this happens, we will actually come out ahead since it will greatly
reduce the problem we now have with the daycaze traffic.
There's a lot of other issues that will affect our development as a whole and certain residents in
particular. My wife and I are among those who live right across from the vacant lot, so we are very
interested in what happens with the property. We encourage others to get involved and express your
feelings.
There is a hearing about this at a meeting of the city's Planning Commission on Wednesday, January
10 at 6:30 p.m. It will also be discussed at the City Council meeting on Monday, January 22 at 6:30
p.m. Both meetings will be at City Hall (northwest quadrant of Le�ngton and County Road C). You
may also send a letter before the hearing to City Planner, 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville,
Minnesota 55 113. Or you can fax it to 490-293 1 or e-mail: thomas.paschke@ci.roseville.mn.us
If you have questions, call the Community Development Office at 490-2279 and refer to Planning File
#3277.
i
January 9, 2001
GASSEN COMPANIES
Mr. Tom Paschke
Roseville Community Development Office
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, NIN 55 113
Via E-1�Iai1: thomas.paschke(a�ci.rosevitle.mn.us_
Dear Mr. Paschke:
Original to Follow by US Mail
�.�,= � �Z �a�
���.
I am writing to you on behalf of the Grandview Townhome Homeowners Association
(GTHA) as the Property Manager representing that Association, pertaining to the
proposed office/condo project in the discussion stages for 2330 Lexington Avenue.
Although in principal members of the association and myself are acceptable to a
professional building being developed on the vacant lot, my main concern with the
proposed development is the increase in traffic, as it will impact the homeowners who
live within GTHA. As a brief history to our concern is the ongoing problem(s) we have
experienced with the traffic from parents dropping off and picking up their children from
the Kinderberry Hill Daycare facility located directly to the west of GTHA. On a routine
basis numerous vehicles enter the daycare through the Association private property by
way of turning off Grandview Avenue to the south and proceeding through the
association property to the daycare. Often times cars leave the daycare through the
reverse route, out to Grandview through the association property and turning onto
Le�ngton.
This increased traffic through the association property accelerates deterioration of the
roads, causes increased noise and congestion and has in several instances been a hazard. I
have personally received numerous complaints regarding cars from the daycare travelling
at speeds estimated to be 30 miles per hour "cutting through" the townhouse
development. As an association, we have adopted Rules and Regulations governing the
common areas, including streets which prohibit speeds in excess of 15 mph. I can
regulate speeds at which Grandview homeowners drive by fining sanctions as authorized
4501 MINNETONKA Bou�EVARD /� MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55416 /� (952) 922-5575
by the Rules and Regulations. However, I have no authority to assess fines on those who
do not live within the association. Residents of GTHA who have been out walking,
biking or roller blading on their streets have actually had to dive out of the way to avoid
being injured. I have contacted the Manager of the daycare center to ask if they could
instruct their clients to please e�t to the west directly out to Le�ngton, to no avail. We
now see this proposed development as potentially adding to the severity of the problem.
We do not wish for this matter to be a contentious one but I would respectfully request
members of the Planning Commission and City Council take this concern under
advisement and require the developer take the necessary steps to insure all traffic entering
and or exiting the new development only be allowed access directly to Lexington to the
west. I believe members of the GTHA will be attending the Planning Commission
meeting on Wednesday, January 10 to personally voice our concerns in this matter.
Please feel free to contact me directly should you require any additional. information on
this matter.
Very Truly Yo ;
Steve Pfeiffer
Properiy Manager
Gassen Company
cc Grandview Association Board of Directors
Stew Thornley and Brenda Himrich
1082 Lovell Avenue
Roseville, Minnesota S S 113 -44 19
January 2, 2001
City Planner
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, Minnesota 55 113
Re: Planning File #3277
2330 Lexington Avenue, Lot 4, Block 1, Rose of Sharon 2°d Addition, Ramsey County
PID# 112923320050
I am writing regarding the request of McKinley Companies Land Use Plan Amendment and Rezoning
for the project noted above.
We live at 1082 Lovel l Avenue in the Grandview Townhome Development. Our unit is directly
adjacent to the planned development, so we are greatly concerned about what happens with this
property.
First of all, we are pleased to hear that an office development may go on this property. Depending on
the type of businesses that would occupy it, we would prefer this to residences on this properiy.
However, we have a lot of questions and concerns that we would like answered.
What kind of businesses is McKinley Companies proposing for the development? Would they be retail
businesses that would generate a lot of traffic and would be open in the evenings and on weekends?
Obviously, our feelings toward an office development, and our subsequent acceptance or opposition,
will depend largely on this question.
What happens if the zoning is changed but McKinley Companies then does not buy the properiy?
We're concerned that another developer might come in with vastly different plans for the properiy and
would like to know the types of businesses that would or wouldn't be allowed under proposed zoning.
Where would the parking lot be for the office development? Would it be entirely on the front, along
Lexington Avenue? Where would the garbage be? We would be concerned about the unsightliness of
dumpsters, `along with the noise when they are emptied, if they would be on the back side of the
building. Also, what would be the status of deliveries to these businesses? Would they be made on a
regular basis with large trucks that would require loading docks?
The amount of noise associated with the operation of the development is a big concern. However, we
are also concerned about the brightness from lighted signage and parking lot lights. Our bedroom
window overlooks the development and we would have a problem with bright lights shining into our
bedroom at night.
Thornley-Himrich letter
Page 2
Where would the entrances of the development be-only along Lexington or would there be an
entrance on the side road (Lovell Avenue)?
How ta11 will the building be?
What are the plans for landscaping and fencing of the property?
There is a pine tree on the back side of the lot. Would this remain in place? Not only is it a beautiful
tree, it provides visual screening between our townhouse development and the proposed office
development.
We plan on being present at the January 10 Planning Commission meeting and at the January 22 City
Council meeting, but we thought we would send these questions and concerns in advance of the
meeting anyway.
Sincerely, ,
_, , ���., � �
Stew Thomley and Br�a Himrich
1082 Lovell Avenue
Roseville, Minnesota 55 113-4419
651-415-0791
E-mail: thorn0 17@tc.umn.edu
(I am also the president of Grandview Townhome Association. Our development has some general
concerns about the planned development. I am noting those in a separate letter. Stew Thomley)
January 2, 2001
City Planner
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, Minnesota 5 5 113
Re: Planning File #3277
2330 Le�ngton Avenue, Lot 4, Block 1, Rose of Sharon 2"d Addition, Ramsey County
PID# 112923320050
I am writing on behalf of the Grandview Townhome Association regarding the development have
noted above.
The biggest concern we have deals the traffic that will be coming into and leaving the development.
Will the entrances/e�ts into the development be only along Lexington Avenue, or will there also be
access on the side road, Lovell Avenue, across from the Kindercare Center?
If it is the latter, we would want to know what will be done to ensure that people leaving the business
development can turn left only. We are concerned that many people leaving the businesses will try to
avoid the traffic on Lexington by turning right and then going through our development to get to
Grandview Avenue to the north.
We are already having a lot of problems with people using the daycare center who are cutting through
our development. Our development is private property and is supposed to be used only by residents
and their guests. We have it posted as such, but that has done little to deter interlopers from the
daycare center. In addition, we've found that people cutting through the development often drive at
unsafe speeds.
There is no question that this problem would become even greater if there is an entry/exit to and from
the business development on the side road, unless there could be some type of physical barrier to keep
people from using our development as a shortcut into and out of the development.
This is a serious issue for our townhouse development. There is no way we can tolerate a situation that
will cause additional unauthorized and unsafe traffic through our private development.
Sincerely,
Stew Thor�nley U
President
Grandview Townhome Association
1082 Lovell Avenue
Roseville, Minnesota 55 113-44 19
651-415-0791
E-mail: thorn0l 7@tc.umn.edu
Y
I
V V
z
x
a
a r
� Q
z�
r
s
X
W
___. _ __ _ _ _ . _ __ _
-- ----_ - -- ,_ . - _ ,_ __ _
_ _. _ .
�>^iZ Wyrr
0
�
U
m
I� ,,c-t�� ,ai 1
I � ,�
, , -' .._
� , .,, �
_. _.�..__ ._._,._ '�..__...._ _�. _.� -,.,. � ,=
i,-
��1'i 1.;2i3doad ---. � , rEEir
\� r u� r�
i
�`, u u �
�.
u`' ' .
�
\,
\ � � � ,�„" �,r�
,,, .,
. � _._ _
.._ _---- _„�__u.�_.��:-
_ , , _ ... ,�, __,,� _ _
� _.�.�...�.� __
N �
W m `n �
Y
�
�1���L� �" ��Z��il ��1�
�it�;-� `' a � "� �-- r'-$'. � �"�., �� � r f '-�" -- � � -( '+`� = i ' _ . _
,�� � !- �' � E. "� " �
��° � r � �� � � � � .
-`�A .." .�-Y.�` . . • � � .'.5� _ '� �K- z,� �, ; � 1 . y � _ ��.
� �` - :
�� ,a "+ � >-,. �' ._ - - s� . , — :��r._ - � � � r3µ ��,n.
� . ��� ` , i . _ `' - _ � ..�'r�;.t -. �`� � � � _ r;-�^- .
_ ,___� �.. _ � I ! ' � �- �'` � .s` : � .. �� � ; �.
r'- � ` f I � , �~: ; . ` �� �'t'� r � i � µ .
� � J•��,�` f � �.�� -.f ��/' �--` ' � i �3 �e:
�_ r; k � I _ _ r : r-..��/ � � � I � i E . . k
�� : � �� i » � � x ' "'' �t i ��� �'t i � � _ + _' ' ,,
�
� �
� ti�►. .: � � f - ' � *�� �' �j ± �-
:. . -�'�— -�" � � < � k } � � _..�
yryr`� " � t- ''' ``� �, i- i3 4
� � J s
ji � � � ' � � .'.:y �' - � ��� � � � . .�,r� �f 1� � �� � .. �
:r_ _ / :R� _� ; '. . _ ..�. Y s yz . ( I }� ,� `t-�'_�.
� ��j�� � �:� �! _ . � �� T �
�� �� -�- �a . {!� y,l ' �� _ �.' _ . .
Y � { ., L� _ '� —.�� 'E� �� ��`s tS 4 �s,i� � � � �i � ,� � t ;
� �%s..�_ _�`� � j � � * :k
�i �� �
V�^; , t,s-- � — .l� � ' - �,� —
� � �.� � !- �' 1 � f � � - �;
.
� --�--- - , . , ,t, t . �,�
_ ._— � —�_, �.c E,� - � :� � _ . i:�, { � ; � � _
` � c:�i. ^ � � � — �--� ' � ' � � . � � 3 ' ,
� _} �i _ �' � � � :.
� . � ��� # t � _j � }i �: � � r,
— f t .� , - �
'"s`�`� , ,�, ; � � �
'� " � �` . �. � � , ,
� " � � _ �� �t=���i 'r ; � � � � ,_,_.,
_ " � � _3 —' f "
� �. �2� � � {y .. " r:;� ��.�� �
=•F �...� ��' i �'� `.� ` '�. ;. ; g �- �`� � , � � _ 'i �
r , '! r �
w .. �', F', -._ � ._ _. ftl . ` � � � �` �
t,�;s, 5� S � � . �.'= � ' .
, i } �" '� 4 • —j�; -- r � ' ► � �' � '' �
i '
�__�. —�I x_:. ;��:.w„' �`. �:�.° ' ` ; �� � a
(; �:� � f�, '^�",� .. t� � # � 4 i ' � �
F ' � ,,. � \ . 1 • ` -
.
F 3 , • �
E .►'i � , _ � -' F � . . i _ .. �sKa
a - -; . �, �. � - � ! 4 :
i
. � � . ��% � � � : � � � _ �3 .
_ _ ' t.r' �8: . _ %:, � • � _ . . _ � �i' � � �--y� � �����i
� ?�L .. j � ' �\ �- � _�a� �jE-�
� � . ,,,,.,. ,� .�.: � _
s•
� .�' a \ � .._� ;��` ��: �F '�' I � ; � �� r
n� :� 4� r S .� 5 I ,�'. � �,.
��• {5��, �_� "_.) �. . t -; �� y,d �-'�-ali'
•+t
� i ti "`-*�-z': � �"
' f ���� �i t ,� � � � � _ . t �.� t � ,� �..�
{ ,r �ie1 . � f. � ,. ; � -:�.
/4 .q :.�"_-_i } N � � � _ , � � j �w a _) . � _- �
� � �.� � � I 1 � �r"i _ �. .� - �i �' S � . � ' ' _ 3 � # '.
I • F� t, flj t; :�-° � �
� � -.. ��. - � - . -- _. � �'�J' - � =[ _';, - ' .._ . � 3 f' --
l�s _� � . �- �� � ��
_ � � i
. , _ , � : _ � �. T°-t,r--�---�-^�
�yrz -',..:t +�s �,,.a . ,f s a r-•�v . _ .�."'y '
�.� __ k " _,. _ ..;:�= __ �`�` ; -- _ • � ,j � � — -..
�-�-- __ -- — ' ;` — - NGTOM'A'6�E11F- -�` �� :� r
� . = L.- — - - . �. �;:�.� ,-� "� � � i ` � ' �1; � �`
" �� i���{ � {:;
� � •� rs � 3��
: .. . .
� � � ti'� � � �� � � ;� ' � _- l� -..� J
; t _ � �.�_ '''i � � � � ��
,� `� . � � �, i' ;, .�.
_ r a = �, g! { � �
_ � _ :;���-; ��� - . � ,�
� _; -�. , _,� � -'+ ,:,y � 1 �, _';
F� . _ _ ._ , _— �� .a �� � � � T�
--�. � 1�� - � _ ' . a,, �� * _� ;
�� ' ,
: �. !!! ,
. , - . \4 i� • -
. �
� � � ' ' .i
,: ,
� ��
,.F � _.. ' ' �� � � ' ,
1 � � �
.w
,y'�.� . ; � �� � _ � ! �
,, . 1 > j� �. � �:e�+
� � � � �
i • �: r �y' ;� Mi ���
,� I � � !`. E +� �.
�.�' � ., �� � . .. ��;� rl � Ss � � ' � ( k . �e
. , . � .. . .. � � . � . �.l � �y .. ..
�� :._ .. ' ' ',� , ' � ; � `�r....:
�
+� '�'`� ' � E'� € �' � � i' i ��.`
. � - , � s � j4 �
, ' � .�t,
� " � ' �
V...s — - : : '�" ' `r� ; �. 1 � r!=
� �. _. � �._ � x �' � �'
��
f, __ � _ i t _ � .. '. _ __ _ '__ �,._ ����°•� . r E�� °: x. � t - ..
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
D A T E: O1/22/O1
ITEM NO: J-1
Department ApprovaL• Manager A proved: Agenda Section:
� ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
It escription: First Reading of an ordinance amending Section 1004.O1A . Accessory
Buildin�s in Residential Districts. (PF 3270)
1.0 REQUESTED ACTION
1.1 The City of Roseville, through the Community Development Department, has requested a
number of amendments to Section 1004.O1A of the Roseville City Code pertaining to
accessory buildings in residential districts. Although staff has modified most of the
Section, specific changes to Sections 1004A1A1 Number Allowed, 1004.O1A5 Size
Limits, 1004.01 A8 Driveway Required, 1004.01 A 11 Overall Area, and 1004.01 A 12
Requirements for Increased Maximum Size attempt to provide clarity to language that is
confusing or ambiguous to the citizens of Roseville.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 Since the last amendment in December 1999, the accessory building ordinance has been
met with many questions from residents unable to determine what it is they exactly are
allowed. Staff has also been confused when it needed to interpret specific sections.
2.2 In an attempt to resolve some of the problems associated with the current ordinance, staff
embarked on a revision process that involved the Zoning Committee, the Planning
Committee, various members of the City staff, and the City Attorney.
2.3 It was determined through the revision process that the language in the proposal should
be clear and direct, and that the various subsections should be organized in a manner that
flows more appropriately and understandably.
3.0 SPECIFIC SUBSECTION CHANGES
3.1 Section 1004.O1A1 Number Allowed: It has been determined that clarification should
be made as to the type of structures allowed, such as detached garage, accessory building
and shed, as well as the total number allowed. The city policy and operating procedure is
to a11ow a single family parcel or lot one attached garage, one detached garage or
accessory building and one garden shed. However, the code is not clear on whether a
property owner can have an attached garage, detached garage, accessory structure and/or
shed. Line 14 through 16, page 1, attempts to clarify this confusion.
PF3270 .. RCA (012201) Page 1 of 3
3.2 Section 1004.O1A5 Size Lim its: It has been determined that language needs to be clear
on whether an allowance over the 40% rear yard calculation requires a variance or is
included as part of a conditional use permit process and what encompasses the 40% rear
yard area. The city policy and current procedure is to allow those requests over 40% to
be included as part of the CUP process. Staff has also had to explain to citizens how to
calculate a parcel or lots square footage. The Zoning Committee concluded that a
properiy owner should be afforded a larger garage under certain circumstances and that
the CUP process would be the mechanism for determining the validity/appropriateness of
such a request. The Zoning Committee further concluded that language could be included
that explained how to determine a lot's allowable rear yard area. Line 41 through 43,
page 1, attempts to clarify the 40% requirement. A modification to Section 1004.01Al2
has been proposed that provides for an increase of the 40% rear yard area allowance.
3.3 Section 1004A1A8 Driveway Required: It has been determined that the current
language is not clear as to whether recreational vehicles seasonally stored or seasonally
stored vehicles or "collectibles" require a pa�ed surface to a detached accessory
structure. The city policy and operating procedure has been to not require the additional
pa�ed surface if the accessory building is used primarily to store these vehicles versus
ha�ing a detached garage with regular vehicle use during the non-winter months. Line
37 through 39, page 4, attempts to provide clarity on this issue.
3.4 Section 1004.O1A11 Overall Area: Currently, main floor living area is calculated by
determining the living space occupying the main level of a home. However, staff has
found that computerized records are not always accurate, nor typically identify main
floor living area. The issue, in this instance, is to regulate overall accessory building
square footage by limiting it to main floor living area of the principal structure (home) as
a means to limit or differentiate between the massing of all the structures on the site.
Thus, using the e�terior dimensional footprint of the home (excludes attached garages
and covered porches) would be more effective in determining living area. Line 38 and
39, page 2, attempts to clarify this issue.
3.5 Section 1004.O1Al2 Requirements For Increasing Maximum Size: It has been
determined that the code is clear as to what is a permitted process and what requires a
conditional use permit process. However, it is unclear whether additional conditions
need to be developed other than those in Section 1013.01 of the Roseville City Code.
The Zoning Committee determined that the current conditional use permit process should
remain and that no new conditions be created. The Committee also suggested including
the conditional use permit criteria stipulated in Section 1013.O1D as a means to clarify
what is necessary to support a conditional use permit application. Line 8 through 23,
page 2, attempts to provide clarity to a number of issues surrounding the requirements for
maximum size of accessory structures.
3.6 In addition to clarifying the sections listed above, the ordinance has been renumbered to
provide a clear format.
PF3270 — RCA (012201) Page 2 of 3
4.0 PLANNING CO�I�IISSION CONSIDERATION
4.1 On September 13, 2000, the Roseville Planning Commission held a public hearing
regarding the proposed amendments and examined the initial modifications. The
Commission determined that the proposed modifications should be further refined and
forwarded to the Zoning Committee for their review and comment. The Commission
continued the hearing and action on the request.
4.2 From October to December, the Roseville Zoning Committee reviewed proposed
modifications to the accessory building ordinance and suggested a number of
modifications to the language contained within the ordinance.
4.3 On January 10, 2001, the Roseville Planning Commission re-opened the public hearing
regarding the proposed ordinance amendment. At this hearing no citizens addressed the
Commission, however, the Commission did ha�e a few questions of staff. The City
Planner answered each question with most pertaining to specific proposed language and
modifications that were not included.
4.4 The Planning Commission voted (5-O) to recommend approval of the staff initiated
request to amend Section 1004.01A of the Roseville City Code as presented by staff
(ordinance attached).
5.0 SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
5.1 By motion, approve (approve with modifications or deny) first reading of an ordinance
amending Section 1004.O1A of the Roseville City Code.
Prepared by: Thomas Paschke (490-2236)
60-day Time Limit: Not Applicable.
PF3270 -RCA (012201) Page 3 of 3
DRAFT
� ORDINANCE NO.
s An Ordinance Amending Title X, Section 1004.O1A, of the Roseville City Code
4 Regulating Accessory Buildings in Residential Districts
6
7 TI� CITY OF ROSEVII,LE DOES ORDAIN:
9 Section 1. Section 1004.O1A is hereby amended to read:
10
11 A. Accessory Buildings In Residential Districts:
12
13 1. Number Allowed: Each residentially zoned or used parcel sha11 be allowed ub to 2
14 detached accessorv buildin�s and 1�arden shed_ based upon certain maximum limitations
15 identified in this section.
16
17 2. Garden Shed: The size of the allowed garden shed sha11 be limited to a maximum area
18 of 120 square feet, a maximum height of 12 feet. The one allowable �arden shed sha11
19 not be considered an accessorv buildin�.
zo
21 3. Detached Accessorv Building Size Limit: Total detached accessory building area shall
zz be limited to 40% of a required rear yard area, up to a maximum size of 864 square feet.
z3 The 40% rear vard limitation is calculated bv takin� the width of the subiect lot or parcel
z4 and multi lb vin•°�y the reauired rear setback depth of 30 feet� then multiblvin�that
25 number bv .4 or 40%.
26
27 4.
z8
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Reauirements For Increasing Maximum Size: The size of detached accessory
buildings may be increased from a total of 864 square feet to a ma�mum total size of
1,008 square feet, A bublic hearin'° a�nd a�roval of a conditional use �ermit in
accordance with Section 1013.01 of this Title. and provided all other a�licable
brovisions of this Section are met. is necessary. Conditions mav be attached to the permit
to miti�ate the impact on adlaCeilt properties. includin�. but not limited to. increased
setbacks_ landsca�e screening; architectural color and detail reauirements. draina�e
provisions, and limitin� additional e�terior stora�e. When reviewin� an a�plication for a
conditional use permit, the Plannin� Commission and Citv Council sha11 consider the
followin�. criteria:
38 L Impact on traf%ic.
39 2. Im�act on �arks. streets and other �ublic acilities.
40 3. Compatibilitv of the site plan, internal traff'ic circulation, landscapinQ and
41 structures with contiguous �ro�erties.
42 4. Impact of the use on the market value of conti�uous properties.
43 S. Im�act on the general �ublic health, safetv and welfare.
44 6. Compatibilitv with the Citv's Com�rehensive Plan.:
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
5. Overall Area: The overall area of attached garage and detached accessory building(s)
shall not exceed the e�terior dimensional foot�rint of the �rinci�al structure_ excluding
anv attached �ara�e footmint.
6. Maximum Total Surface Area: Includin� detached accessory structures, principle
structures, pavement surfaces �asphalt, concrete and/or brick stone or other �averl_ the
total impervious surface on a residential lot or parcel shall not exceed 30% of the total lot
or parcel size.
7. Location: No accessory building or �arden shed sha11 be erected or located within any
front yard. Accessory buildings and/or a garden shed shall be located behind the
established front building line of the principal structure. On through lots and lakeshore
lots accessorv buildin�s and/or a�arden shed may be located between the road ri�ht-of-
wav line and the principal structure, provided the� meet the required front yard setback.
8. Minimum Setbacks: A�arden shed and/or accessory buildings shall be set back a
minimum of 5 feet from a side yard or rear yard lot line and a minimum of 6 feet from
any other building or structure on the same lot or parcel.
9. Prohibited Location: Accessory buildings and/or a�arden shed shall not be located
within any public or private utility or drainage easement.
10. Heisht: Accessory buildings sha11 not exceed one story or 15 feet in height and the wa11
height sha11 not exceed 9 feet in height. The overall height of an accessory building sha11
not exceed the overall height of the principal structure on the parcel (Buildin� hei�ht is
determined from Section 209 of the Uniform Buildin� Code).
28 11. In-Ground Gara�es: Where the natural grade of a lot at the building line of a house is 8
29 feet or more above the established curb level, an accessory building for vehicle storage
30 (garage) may be erected within any yard, provided that 1/2 of the wall height or more is
31 below grade level. Such an accessory building shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet
3 2 from any right of way.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
12. Accessorv Building & Garden Shed Color, Desi�n And 1�Iaterials: The exterior color,
design, and/or materials of an accessory building sha11 be similar to the principal
structure. Corrugated metal siding and corrugated metal roofs sha11 be prohibited.
13. Drivewav Reauired: Any accessory building capable of storing one or more motorized
vehicles shall be provided with a hard-surfaced driveway to an adjacent public street.
However, if the primary purpose of the building is for residential (not commercial)_
equipment, material, seasonallv used recreational vehicle or a seasonally driven vehicle
or collectible. a hard surface is not required.
14. Reauirements For Residential Districts Other Than R-1 and R-2: Accessory
buildings in residential districts other than R-1 and R-2 Districts sha11 be placed in the
rear yards and must meet the same principal structure side and rear setbacks, height, and
2
�
2
3
4
5
6
�
s
9
10
exterior finish regulations as a principal structure for the zoning district in which it is
located, in addition to these requirements.
15. Buildin� Permit Reauired: A building permit shall be required for all detached
accessory buildings and a garden shed. A building permit application must include a site
plan establishing all property lines and reauired dimensional setbacks, roof and surface
drainage plan and building elevations.
Section 4. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect on passage and publication.
3
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: O1/22/O1
Item No.:�-1
Department ApprovaL Manager Reviewed Agenda Section
/ i i /'/l Other
Description: Video From Joan Growe Regarding Election Changes
Background
Mayor Kysylyczyn has received a copy of a video made by former Minnesota Secretary of State,
Joan Growe regarding election changes and reform in Minnesota.
The video is approximately 5 minutes in length and because of the high interest in both national and
state election procedures, it seems appropriate for the Council and the Community to view it.