Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-25-2004 Council AgendaLITTLE CANADA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 25, 2004 CALL TO ORDER — Regular Meeting — City Council — 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Mayor Mr. Michael I. Fahey Council Member Mr. Jim LaValle Council Member Mr. Matt Anderson Council Member Mr. Bill Blesener Council Member Mr. Rick Montour City Administrator Mr. Joel Hanson City Attorney Mr. Tom Sweeney City Planner Mr. Steve Grittman Cable TV Producer Mr. Brandon Rickert Deputy Clerk Mrs. Kathy Glanzer APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES August 1 I, 2004 Regular Council Meeting ANNOUNCEMENTS Historical Society $10,000 Donation Toward Building Fund * *This agenda is subject to change by additions and deletions. ** H: \KathyG \Agenda- Hearings \Agenda. doe AGENDA CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 25, 2004 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Property Division subdividing a parcel of property into two single- family lots — 761 LaBore Road — Patricia Erickson 2. Conditional Use Permit allowing two garages on a property, one detached and one attached to the house — 782 Allen Avenue — James Kulousek Amendment to Conditional Use Permit to allow alcohol sales as part of the Coliseum Billiard operation as well as 3.2 Intoxicating Malt Liquor License and 2 a.m. Liquor License — 2900 Rice Street — Mike Melloy Liquor Licenses — Sheriff's Department Background Check is satisfactory, Liquor Liability Insurance is pending. Variance from the Shoreland District setback to allow replacement and extension of a retaining wall — 1 -43 Round Lake Trail - Round Lake Trail Townhome Association Property Division allowing a lot line adjustment and a Variance to allow a building on a lot with no direct public street frontage — 3069 Arcade Street — Oscar Lane Concept Review for Rezoning to Medium Density Residential (R -2) and townhome development concept — 75 Old County Road C — James Construction Text Amendment to the Zoning Code to expand the list of permitted uses in the B -3 District and to clarify allowable accessory uses 2 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 25, 2004 CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Temporary Liquor Licenses for Little Canada Recreation Association Satisfactory Sheriff's Background Checks and Liquor Liability Insurance have been received. 9. Award of Proposal for Parking Lot Striping to Interstate Pavement Maintenance. 10. Approval of 26th and 27th Rider Agreements with Board of Water Commissioners 11. Approval of Tree Inspection Services STAFF & CONSULTANT REPORTS City Attorney 12. Fire Arms Sales with Delivery at Remote Location City Planner City Administrator 13. Engineering Transition Plan 14. Engineering Contract with Elfering & Associates 15. Call for Budget Workshop AGENDA CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 25, 2004 DEPARTMENT REPORTS Economic Development /City Council Public Safety /Gaming Public Works Building /Zoning /Code Enforcement Parks & Recreation Adjourn 4 Little Canada, Minnesota APPLICATION FORM /y PAID !( -6, Rec. No. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Zoning District Amendment Variance Text Amendment Subdivision Other Planned Unit Development Plan Review Applicant PA ---f- Y' 1 d / A tTn 1 C/( Ai / (y ,ft`L- rly, „it ✓ ! (Name) (Address) (Phone) Owner {�- i'vf�' /k� �GtICXSa N %!,�l l,A.yd, "— r- 7- �;_S � `// - -- (Name) / (Address) Property Location (Street Address and Legal Description): Lit2/`-c_ br- e -c fi,,I1 r 1 -ev Description and /or Reason for Request (Cite Ordinance Sections): YJ c7 %6 G 2 n signing this application, I hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the Zon- no and Subdivision Ordinances and current administrative procedures. I further acknowledge the fee explanation as outlined application procedures and hereby agree to pay all statements received from the City pertaining to additional applica- tion expense. (Signature of Applicant) VHITE— Office CANARY— Customer PINK—File GOLD — Planner (Date) 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117 -1600 (651) 766 -4029 / FAX: (651) 766 -4048 tAA /c..v.ci.little- canada.*nn us CITY OF LITTLE CANADA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPERTY DIVISION MAYOR Michael 1. Fahey COUNCIL Jim LaValle Matt Anderson Rick Montour Bill Blesener ADMINISTRATOR Joel R. Hanson PROPOSAL: A request for approval of a Property Division subdividing a parcel of property into two single - family lots. The property in question is zoned Single- Family Residential (R -1). APPLICANT: Patricia Erickson 761 LaBore Road Little Canada, IvN 55117 PROPERTY LOCATION: 761 LaBore Road Little Canada, MN 55117 PLANNING COMMISSION: The Little Canada Planning Commission will be reviewing this matter at their regular meeting scheduled for Thursday, August 12, 2004 meeting. The meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. and will be held in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. CITY COUNCIL: Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council to review this request at their regular meeting to be Held on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as parties may be heard, in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. All persons with reference to this matter will be heard during the Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, August 12, 2004 and the City Council meeting on Wednesday, August 25, 2004. Sign language interpreters for hearing-impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request, The request for this service must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call to make the necessary arrangements. Joel R. Hanson City Administrator NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC, 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 56422 Telephone: 703,2:31.2555 Facsimile: 78:3.231.2 561 ;aanners@nacialanning.cem MEMORANDUM TO: Little Canada Planning Commission FROM: Bob Kirmis / Stephen Grittman DATE: August 9, 2004 RE: Little Canada - Erickson Lot Split NAC FILE: 758.10 - 04.23 BACKGOUND Patricia Erickson has submitted a request for a simple lot split of her 22,048 square foot property located north of Labore Road and east of Greenbrier Street (761 Labore Road). The applicant is proposing to subdivide the parcel into two lots, one of which would overlay her existing residence. The subject property is zoned R -1, Single Family Residential. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Certificate of Survey ISSUES ANALYSIS Lots. Proposed Parcel 1 measures 12,047 square feet in size while Parcel 2 measures 10,001 square feet in size. Both proposed lots exceed the minimum area requirements imposed in R -1 district (10,000 square feet for an interior lot and 11,000 square feet for a corner lot). Likewise, both lots exceed the minimum width requirements imposed in the R -1 District (75 feet for an interior lot and 80 feet for a corner lot). Existing Structures. The subject property is presently occupied by a single family home and a detached garage. The existing home lies within proposed Parcel 1 and is intended to remain. The home has been found to meet applicable R -1 setback requirements. The detached garage is located within proposed Parcel 2. As located, the garage fails to meet applicable R -1 district setbacks, lies within a drainage and utility easement and presents orientation problems (if associated with future Parcel 2 home construction). As a condition of subdivision approval, the existing garage should be removed. Future Garage Construction. Recognizing that the removal of the existing garage (within Parcel 2) will leave the existing home without a garage, it is important that some forethought be given to future garage construction. As a condition of subdivision approval, the applicant should demonstrate how a garage (attached or detached) may be constructed upon Parcel 1 without need for variance. It is not clear from the current survey how this might be accomplished. Drainage and Utilities. Appropriately, utility easements have been shown on the certificate of survey. Issues related to drainage and utilities should be subject to further comment by the City Engineer. Park Dedication. The applicant will be required to pay a per lot cash contribution (in lieu of land dedication) for park for the newly created lot as determined by the Parks and Recreation Commission and approved by City Council. RECOMMENDATION Based on the preceding review, our office recommends approval of the proposed lot split subject to the following conditions 1. The existing garage on the property be removed. 2. The applicant demonstrate how a garage (attached or detached) may be constructed upon Parcel 1 without need for variance. 3. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard drainage and utility issues. 4. The applicant pay a cash contribution (in lieu of land dedication) for park for the newly created lot as determined by the Parks and Recreation Commission and approved by City Council. 5. Comments of other City staff. 2 158.4 158.4o .32ac. i-rr4is.111 0.55 m. ICI b./ Q lk 1i 130, G') o(4bl • LLl 17 Lic:' 4E51 IQ jai 1 z9,7q 199.1° (k ) (74) "0 0 1.0z6,, 4 041 ox 1 224 .t t 1.24oc 1.69ac• 2 01 47ac1- ry 00� l 95.7 ncs+wxsd )c?4 ues- 1wm:3/04(1 vtce3MM •1Cu*ya OSHEVH ONI '00 NNOf S IHI a o�D cr N ¢ Z 6 Y II U N S al E5 — U a a 0 z a a« dfish.k o F5 b�s3a:dd ' • 11 II it Secidose 11 11111 L� ,, -1 1V 1 L_ r r L 1- ll\1'ln1 V -V :1(-1\) N \_J I VAJI -11LIV V ,1N iLl -l'Yl -3 ■ -7 443i0 API.. 1 -1, N 00 06' 7 _J .J ;1.100.2 ) I N PROPOSED DPAiNAGF I, 4- • & ILI EASEmENTS cc, X' so T r, I-1/V N 8901'16" W 100.00 , 958:1. / 8 IwIllfc10!■))$t: 99 9)11 ■ n / DECIILI It 110 x)5 •0,41:DuCUS)10 /524 ■xX 1I U14110I01:S)10 5 8j ° ] c•') 5. LINE Of r•! 241,)54. rel rr;t0E LOT I?, ALIO ?lieme 7 / cIng' m DKr II:4\8 nrce[OI,OI.I:C 8 A:I) t ? • I ).Cp4 4 I • I, ' Ryr, 5,-■;.1.1NOIA F 0 • r/ C' CD III- PARCEL 2 .) OE As,a 5 i P 7 I I, rX ) ) )), o/,[ U0LI1IO. /00 „FA' INISHEO FLOOR 1 1 PROPOSED ,, . 1,2,. ,GAPACE )) 'N ,- SET Inc)0 " ) it.. /cm 9YED1/212,'", (I: 4‘)Oun, r 2 -I))/ I ) 1, I,(,;',:r,r )7, / °,; ° `11 N x 8901'16 )51,1. 100.00 RrErR.wrr — <)- — S. LINE OF N, 100.00 Go'scria G 7 -- FIND. (0 5 Ai r0-liPET) I”.11 I-1 N )?' L 3. I _ _ —7 Li I 1:K 100.3 1 000>4 0 6,011)001JI 116 -71,c5 lot '<FINISHED 11.00P/ E1.EV.,.(04.19 t.11.111,r1,0,, 12 rrn 83 3,1 n c '1% mu. t48 PARCEL' cal r. n GREEN AREA X S.LJNE „c9 LOT 12 •.‘ DEOIDUOUS))0 6 L.- - FT/0 --- 5 1 1 • cbc,- x?2 g4,ouoty..; cr- rc, - XI00.8 ) N voo 7X xlcuz 0 In !Os 1 6 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION LITTLE CANADA, MINNESOTA AUGUST 12, 2004 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of Little Canada, Minnesota was held on the 12th day of August, 2004 in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. Vice Chair Dan Knudsen called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and the following members of the Planning Commission were present at roll call PLANNING COMMISSION: Mr. Scott Barraclough Mr. Tom Duray Mr. Dan Knudsen Mr. Gary Rheaume Ms. Kathy Weihe Mr. Tom Wojcik ABSENT: Mr. John Keis ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Steve Grittman, City Planner Mr. Brandon Rickert, Cable TV V[s. Kathy Glanzer, Deputy Clerk MINUTES The July 8, 2004 Planning Commission minutes were approved as submitted. PROPERTY Patricia Erickson, 761 LaBore Road, appeared before the Commission DIVISION — requesting approval of the division of her property into two lots. 761 LABORS Erickson indicated that the existing garage on the property would be ROAD — removed since it is currently located on what would be the new lot. ERICKSON Knudsen pointed out the City Planner's recommendation that the site plan show the ability to place a garage on the lot being retained by Mrs. Erickson. Mrs. Erickson indicated that she does not plan to rebuild a garage, but will have a small storage shed on her property. The City Planner indicated that the Code requires that single - family properties have space for a garage. The Planner indicated in order to meet this requirement, Mrs. Erickson's surveyor should provide a sketch showing the ability to place a two -car garage on the property. MINUTES PLANNING COMiMISSEON AUGUST 12, 2004 CUP FOR TWO GARAGES - 782 ALLEN AVENUE- JAMES KULOUSEK Mrs. Erickson indicated that she would provide the sketch showing the ability to place a garage on her lot. Barraclough recommended approval of the Property Division subdividing a parcel of property into two single - family lots at 761 LaBore Road as requested by Mrs. Patricia Erickson subject to compliance with the recommendations of the City Planner. Motion seconded by Weihe. Motion carried 6 -- 0. Mr. James Kulousek appeared before the Commission requesting approval to construct a detached garage on his property in addition to the attached garage. Kulousek indicated that his total garage square footage would be under 1,500 square feet. Kulousek presented a diagram that indicated how driveway access to the second garage would occur. The City Planner pointed out that the only outstanding issue was driveway access for the second garage, and that issue has been addressed by the diagram presented. Kulousek reported that the second garage would be constructed to match the house. Kulousek indicated that the second garage would be under the 15 -foot height maximum specified in the City Code. Knudsen asked the intended use of the second garage. Kulousek reported that he owns some classic cars. The garage would be used as a place to restore and store these cars. The garage would not be used for business purposes. Rheaume asked if there would be electrical service to the garage. Kulousek replied that he would be running electrical to the garage as well as plumbing for a small sink. Debbie Lancette, 791 LaBore Road, noted that she and her husband own the adjacent property which has the potential for ten home sites. Lancette expressed concern about a second garage for a property that already has a 3 -car attached garage. Lancette was concerned about the potential for the development of more garages in the area than houses. Lancette pointed out that there are mini - storage facilities that people can rent to store equipment and materials than building garages. Lancette felt that the garage would detract from the area as it develops. She was also concerned Little Canada, Minnesota APPLICATION FORM Comprehensive Plan Amendment X Conditional Use Permit / A 3-s- ie° 1024 PAID X350 Rec. No Zoning District Amendment Variance Text Amendment Subdivision Other Planned Unit Development Plan Review James and Dawn Kulousek -a2 n eeA pp licant (i' >R — 26, $5.--2c1 (Name) (Address) (Phone) C Dv ?�C4'h'd' MA JJ IJ1 Owner Same As Above (Name) Property Location (Street Address and Legal Description): 782 Allen Avenue (Address) (Phone) Description and /or Reason for Request (Cite Ordinance Sections): Construct a second garage. •n signing this application, I hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the Zon- nn and Subdivision Ordinances and current administrative procedures. I further acknowledge the fee explanation as outlined le application procedures and hereby agree to pal statements received fro. jilt-pertaining to additional applica- tion expense. j (Date) (Signature of Applicant) MITE— Office CANARY— Customer PINK —File GOLD— Planner @ 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada. MN 55117 -1600 (651) 766 -4029 / FAX: (651) 766-4048 ww w.ei.little- canada.mn.us CITY OF LITTLE CANADA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MAYOR Michael 1. Fahey COUNCIL Jim LaValle Matt Anderson Rick Montour 13111 Blesener ADMINISTRATOR Joel R. Hanson PROPOSAL: A request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit allowing two garages on a property, one detached and one attached to the house. The property in question is zoned Single - Family Residential (R -1). APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER: James and Dawn IZulousek 2664 106th Lane NW Coon Rapids, MN 55433 PROPERTY LOCATION: 782 Allen Avenue Little Canada, MN 55117 PLANNING COMMISSION: The Little Canada Planning Commission will be reviewing this matter at their regular meeting scheduled for Thursday, August 12, 2004 meeting. The meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. and will be held in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. CITY COUNCIL: Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council to review this request at their regular meeting to be held on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as parties may be heard, in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. All persons with reference to this matter will be heard during the Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, August 12, 2004 and the City Council meeting on Wednesday, August 25, 2004. Sign language interpreters for hearing- impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The request for this service must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call to make the necessary arrangements. Joel R. Hanson City Administrator To the council of the City of Little Canada: This statement and attached documents will outline the proposal for a detached garage, that will be exceeding the total allocated 1,000 Sq. Ft. deemed by the city. The total Square footage however, will NOT exceed 1,500 Sq. Ft. The Main purpose for this extra garage space would be to house a few classic cars that I own, with future repair work for restoring these vehicles. Not having this space would bring cause for me to leave vehicles, parts, materials, etc. outdoors and leaving this in an unattractive manner. I feel this would be in the City of Little Canada's best interest to keeping the neighborhood look more attractive, and to approve the conditional use permit. Thank you for your time I look forward to meeting with the council. Regards, James and Dawn Kulousek 782 Allen Little Canada, MN 55117 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite. 202. Golden Valley, MN 55422 T &ephone: 703.231 .2555 Facsimile: 763,231.2 61 planners @nacplanning..QOM PLANNING REPORT TO: Little Canada Planning Commission FROM: Bob Kirmis / Stephen Grittman DATE: August 9, 2004 RE: Little Canada - Kulousek Accessory Building CUP NAC FILE: 758.09 - 04.25 BACKGOUND James and Dawn Kulousek have submitted a proposal to construct a 672 square foot (24' x 28') detached garage in the rear yard of their property located at 782 Allen Avenue. To accommodate the proposal, approval of a conditional use permit to allow more than one garage structure (attached or detached) on the property is necessary. It is the intention of the applicants to use the proposed building primarily for storage and associated restoration of their "classic" automobiles. Presently, an attached 828 square foot garage represents the only existing accessory storage space on the property. The subject property is zoned R -1, Single Family Residential. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Garage Floor Plan ISSUES ANALYSIS CUP Evaluation Criteria. In consideration of conditional use permit requests, the ordinance states that the Planning Commission must consider the possible adverse effects of the conditional use. The ordinance specifically states that the applicant must demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, the following: 1. That the proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 2. That the proposed site is or will be compatible with present and future land uses of the area. 3. That the proposed use conforms with all performance standards of the ordinance. 4. That the proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the aggregate property values in the area in which the conditional use is proposed. 5. That the proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the City's service capacity. 6. That the development of the conditional use shall reflect the architectural character of the buildings in the surrounding area in regard to the following: a. Proportion, scale and roof line; and b. Architectural style; and c. Exterior finish materials Area Requirements. According to Section 903.020.D.5 of the zoning ordinance, each single family lot within the City is eligible for the following accessory structures: 1. One garage structure, whether attached or detached. 2. One recreational accessory building of no more than 160 square feet, and with no horizontal dimension or more than 16 feet in length or width as a permitted use. For the purposes of this ordinance a recreational accessory structure shall be designed for temporary and seasonal occupancy, but shall not include permanent storage of materials. Examples of such structures shall include gazebos, detached porches, or similar buildings. 3. One accessory shed (not exceeding 120 square feet). In addition to the preceding requirements, Section 903.020.D.5 of the ordinance states that in no instance shall the total floor area of a garage and an accessory building(s) exceed 1,500 square feet in size except by conditional use permit. 2 In total, the existing garage and proposed detached garage would comprise 1,500 square feet of accessory storage space. The need for the conditional use permit relates to the desired construction of a second garage on the property. The fact that the proposed building is of a size which can accommodate a motor vehicles distinguishes it from a storage shed (for which a CUP would not be required). Setbacks. As shown on the submitted site plan. The applicants are proposing to construct the garage in the rear yard of their property. According to the ordinance, accessory buildings may be no closer than 10 feet from a side or rear lot line or within 30 feet of a public right -of -way. To be noted is that a future public street is planned on the east side of the subject property. With this in mind, the proposed garage should not be closer to the east property line than the existing residence. This setback, as well as the 10 foot rear yard setback, have been satisfied. Access. The submitted site plan does not illustrate a driveway to the proposed accessory building. Considering that a public street is anticipated on the east side of the subject property at some future point, it is recommended that the site plan be revised to illustrate both interim and long term driveway locations. Such site plan modification will avoid questions regarding the need to process a CUP amendment (to address the driveway location issue) at some future point. Building Materials. The applicant has not submitted any information regarding the appearance of the proposed garage. As a condition of CUP approval, the design of the garage should be similar to the existing house, replicating some of its architectural details (i.e. roof pitch). Additionally, the finish materials (i.e. roofing, siding, facia etc) and color of the garage should match the principal building. Building Height. According to the ordinance, the proposed accessory building may not exceed 15 feet in height. As a condition of CUP approval, the proposed building must meet this requirement. Building Use. As previously indicated, it is the applicant's intent to use the proposed building primarily for storage and associated restoration of their "classic" automobiles. 3 As a condition of CUP approval, no commercial of home occupation activities may be conducted on the property. RECOMMENDATION Based on the preceding review, our office recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: 1. The site plan be revised to illustrate interim and long term driveway locations. 2. The design of the detached garage be similar to the existing house, replicating some of its architectural details (i.e. roof pitch). 3. The same or similar quality exterior building material be used on the detached garage as the principal building. 4. The color of the detached garage (siding and roofing) match the color of the principal building. 5. The detached garage not exceed 15 feet in height. 6. No commercial of home occupation activities be conducted on the property. pc. Kathy Glanzer Greg Schroeder Steve Westerhaus James and Dawn Kulousek 4 1-216 /A 43101 84) ah.', .1 .� ,n I Vat 15.'49 (ice) tn 1475 11) . 88)'4 ? 11 +•r11 1 ,3 (COO ▪ 1/7.73 `- y Coll /30.201 • (q•1) o Jr1- (501 • 0 0 0 cc So 10 DRAIN 123 D•a F2420512 $r 7,� (so) 15. 7 9) 33d3 79) a 75 11(36) 5031 0 0 (37) .' e> 33 13,g(38). Sta- cy?) 3015 (100 ES too •/ 50 • N 1 • • M . a 5 N (22) I /o 1 ni 91 0.9 03 ( "4) 4 '7 ) 5) 3 • (21) (20) 1 s• I.32 t IS 25 25 X63) J 51611 7 9.OA 17 -1/7"I (43, ,035 (71)45.10w y9) J NCI) 2 (0) Nr (eS) •N 121 55 100 G - 5483 • 158.4 I'5) 13 (- 1314.54 158.40 4.32>c. 118.07 `- 12y, 7$ (48�, to (49 0 1.02 ° - i 0. 1 (54) (•9) P 7 0' 2- s5 5 0 cc 1- (57� 2411 9 9 (�) 0 221,95 5 r 1 6 ,� *Z 12 1i{ 1�°�o- -1 I (Bo) 0 `� 1 d. ZI s, • 14V 02_ /„ �y so X32 • .5 5322 02o 20 20 47 ac m 07 5.4. AV E. • NN 70 _ • • • Y i4 J 0 N0 W W rt w W S 4 N • 121.53 012-) 12 1.3°.iL loo a (a:) o ( c` .c2) trZer74,, .1 2;11. 'NP 154. .52ac 555. (141 coes, 0 224.1 t 1.24152 (13) •2410.541 135 .52ec. 140 12 >5•= y0 y4 \ (78) Zi 7 0 0 !Y a 'd� a• op N 3 01 N -"4ac. ° 10 an 52 ac. 120 .5115c. ,41ac• N 0 19z�. N • N D (9) 29. .315 66 t 1515.4 0 0 -mar 9.811 0.55 o.c. 3 ) (73 ie 1549.&'' 1 p 156, (74)) 3) 65u1 1914' - -a I-20°32i 1ey )) 02099.01) '7;) (-21999 N - 2229.11 13") 0 .59.�i1! 400 0) 9 1 15 • 61 33 33 0 9 �1 •b4 �A4 u 175.25 a. m 10 9N 11 2 •1' 55.7 145 3 5 � ZA >a T. ?Sr t! J z 0 0 0 co 0 0 ALLEN AVE. 1 71 341 1 1 1 epoer Vitt t -F {).14I 1 1 trio 1 1 1 1 1 lb. tIR 9 4 510 2 "W 133.41 -7- c 0 • • • ft L.4 00 0 0 U4 0 Cn 7, 'NJ "W e A r. [_ J 8 :• -• KE: MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2004 CUP FOR TWO GARAGES - 782 ALLEN AVENUE - JAMES KULOUSEIK Mrs. Erickson indicated that she would provide the sketch showing the ability to place a garage on her lot. Barraclough recommended approval of the Property Division subdividing a parcel of property into two single - family lots at 761 LaBore Road as requested by Mrs. Patricia Erickson subject to compliance with the recommendations of the City Planner. Motion seconded by Weihe. Motion carried 6 — 0. Mr. James Kulousek appeared before the Commission requesting approval to construct a detached garage on his property in addition to the attached garage. Kulousek indicated that his total garage square footage would be under 1,500 square feet. Kulousek presented a diagram that indicated how driveway access to the second garage would occur. The City Planner pointed out that the only outstanding issue was driveway access for the second garage, and that issue has been addressed by the diagram presented. Kulousek reported that the second garage would be constructed to match the house. Kulousek indicated that the second garage would be under the 15 -foot height maximum specified in the City Code. Knudsen asked the intended use of the second garage. Kulousek reported that he owns some classic cars. The garage would be used as a place to restore and store these cars. The garage would not be used for business purposes. Rheaume asked if there would be electrical service to the garage. Kulousek replied that he would be running electrical to the garage as well as plumbing for a small sink. Debbie Lancette, 791 LaBore Road, noted that she and her husband own the adjacent property which has the potential for ten home sites. Lancette expressed concern about a second garage for a property that already has a 3 -car attached garage. Lancette was concerned about the potential for the development of more garages in the area than houses. Lancette pointed out that there are mini - storage facilities that people can rent to store equipment and materials than building garages. Lancette felt that the garage would detract from the area as it develops. She was also concerned MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2004 about additional run -off from added impervious surface and roofs. Lancette noted that additional garage space increases the potential for home occupations. Ed Inman, LaBore Road, pointed out that the Lancette's have both an attached garage and a detached garage. Inman indicated that the Kulousek lot is large at 210 by 135. Inman felt it was better to store equipment inside a garage than to have it stored outside. A property owner on Valento .Lane expressed concern about their house overlooking the proposed garage. Barraclough asked about the development of the remainder of the Lancette and ,Inman properties. The City Planner noted that the City's thoroughfare plan for the area shows typical -sized lots. it this point, however, the City does not know the lot sizes that will be developed on this property. The Planner guessed that they would be smaller than the Kulousek property and closer to the City's standard lot size. Duray indicated that in reviewing the City Planner's report it appears that the proposed garage would fit into the area. Knudsen agreed noting that the total garage space is less than 1,500 square feet. Wojcik recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit allowing two garages on a property, one detached and one attached to the house, as proposed by Mr. James Kulousek for 782 Allen Avenue, subject to compliance with the recommendations of the City Planner. Motion seconded by Duray. Motion carried 6 — 0. CUP FOR Mr. Mike Melloy, Coliseum Billiards, 2900 Rice Street, appeared before ALCOHOL the Commission requesting an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit to SALES — allow for alcohol sales as part of his billiard hall operation. Melloy COLISEUM indicated that he would like to sell 3.2 beer at the billiard hall. Melloy BILLIARDS indicated that some time in the future, he may expand his snack bar to a restaurant, which would then allow him to add a wine license and expand alcohol sales to strong beer and wine. However, this request is limited to a 3.2 beer license. Little Canada, Minnesota APPLICATION FORM Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zoning District Amendment Text Amendment Other Applicant Owner PAID Rec. No. Conditional Use Permit Variance Subdivision Planned Unit Development Plan Review Cot) 5ct,(_rn 75/Lt/,32f ,XNC. '/ o glee ST2&ei 651. Lk15. /110 (Name) (Address) (Phone) /Y ICOMEL /2. nl ELLC/ (Name) 5 ksv 5u4 /2/:)-E- Die /flPt5 Property Location (Street Address and Legal Description): (Address) (lc o (21c 2EcT LITTLE 67RIA I) IY1kl S5))3 (Phone) )escription and /or Reason for Request (Cite Ordinance Sections): 940 (N .ALE- P? > r bl evyuc2 /EGAD E n signing this application, I hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the Zon- ,nd Subdivision Ordinances and current administrative procedures. I further acknowledge the fee explanation as outlined 11. a application procedures and hereby agree to pay all statements received from the City pertaining to additional applica- on expense. (Signature of Applicant) 2.2 -65/ (Date) 'HITE— Office CANARY — Customer PINK —File GOLD — Planner • -iio1 at 9 9da 7jLIYi a 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada. MN 55117-1600 (651) 766 -4029 / FAX: (651) 766-4048 www. ci.little- canada. mn. us CITY OF LITTLE CANADA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MAYOR Michael I. Fahey COUNCIL Jim LaValle Matt Anderson Rick Montour Bill Blesener ADMINISTRATOR Joel R. Hanson PROPOSAL: A request for approval of an Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit to allow alcohol sales as part of the Coliseum Billiard operation. The property in question is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD). APPLICANT: Mike Melloy Colesium Billiards 2900 Rice Street Little Canada, MN 55113 PROPERTY LOCATION: Colesium Billiards 2900 Rice Street Little Canada, MN 55113 PROPERTY OWNER: Market Place Center LLC 6440 Flying Cloud Drive 4203 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PLANNING COMMISSION: The Little Canada Planning Commission will be reviewing this matter at their regular meeting scheduled for Thursday, August 12, 2004 meeting. The meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. and will be held in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. CITY COUNCIL: Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council to review this request at their regular meeting to be held on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as parties may be heard, in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. All persons with reference to this matter will be heard during the Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, August 12, 2004 and the City Council meeting on Wednesday, August 25, 2004. Sign language interpreters for hearing-impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The request for this service must be made at (east 96 hours in advance. Please call to make the necessary arrangements. Joel R. Hanson City Administrator NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4300 Oh-son Memorial S- Ilgt-swey, Suite 202, Golden 'Valley, MN 05422. Telephone: 763.231 .255x5 Fecsairnile: 763.231.2551 planner o;iinacplanning.corn MEMORANDUM TO: Little Canada Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: August 10, 2004 RE: Little Canada — Coliseum Billiards CUP Amendment FILE NO: 758.09 - 04.26 Coliseum Billiards is seeking an amendment to its Conditional Use Permit to allow the addition of alcohol sales to its current billiard hall use. The zoning ordinance allows these uses by CUP as follows: F. Commercial Recreation. Those establishments serving alcoholic beverages, pool hall, bingo, golf, indoor firearms /archery ranges, and amusement centers as a principal use, provided that: 1. If located within a shopping center, the use has its own exclusive exterior access. 2. Any and all applicable local, state and federal laws, permits licenses and operational regulations are complied with. 3. The use is located and developed so as not to create an incompatible operation problem with adjoining and neighboring commercial and /or residential uses. 4. The hours of operation shall be subject to City Council control and change as a means to maintain compatibility of uses and activities. 5. The provisions of Section 921.010, C of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. This issue does not raise land use issues, however, the purpose of the CUP is to permit the City to evaluate whether the addition of alcohol sales would be incompatible with other uses in the immediate area. Planning staff does not have a specific recommendation in this regard. pc: Kathy Glanzer Steve Westerhaus Lee Elfering Greg Schroeder Mike Melloy, Coliseum Billiards, 2900 Rice Street, Little Canada, MN 55113 1 Form 281 — Application for License to Sell Cigarettes at Retail. (Chapter 382, Laws of 1951.) BUSINESS RECORDS CORPORATION State of Minnesota, 1.'a \ . County of .. I -iij) :C / of Application No Application for License to Sell Cigarettes at Retail The undersigned resident.... of the .1 ! 7 of .. r / LE C `} L' in the county of .(Y� ' C , State of Minnesota, HEREBY MAKE.�:.APPLICA- TION FOR LICENSE to be issued to... =.. '.' ?S= C . %l.. i 'l.-(. 0/.2 -0 , L/\(C to sell cigarettes and cigarette papers and wrappers at retail at V ° /2 /(±c: -)172c731: in the J 7 of . t -: / %7 LE-1 .r `t, �1'l:.. in said county and state for the term of , beginning with the day of 9 IL L. .Y9 . , subject to the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances and regulations of said of pertaining thereto, and herewith deposit... in payment of the fee therefor. Date , 19. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST I2, 2004 CUP FOR ALCOHOL SALES — COLISEUM BILLIARDS about additional run -off from added impervious surface and roofs. Lancette noted that additional garage space increases the potential for home occupations. Ed Inman, LaBore Road, pointed out that the Lancette's have both an attached garage and a detached garage. Inman indicated that the Kulousek lot is large at 210 by 135. Inman felt it was better to store equipment inside a garage than to have it stored outside. A property owner on Valento Lane expressed concern about their house overlooking the proposed garage. Barraclough asked about the development of the remainder of the Lancette and Inman properties. The City Planner noted that the City's thoroughfare plan For the area shows typical -sized lots. 11 this point, however, the City does not know the lot sizes that will be developed on this property. The Planner guessed that they would be smaller than the Kulousek property and closer to the City's standard lot size. Duray indicated that in reviewing the City Planner's report it appears that the proposed garage would tit into the area. Knudsen agreed noting that the total garage space is less than 1,500 square feet. Wojcik recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit allowing two garages on a property, one detached and one attached to the house, as proposed by Mr. James Kulousek for 782 Allen Avenue, subject to compliance with the recommendations of the City Planner. Motion seconded by Duray. Motion carried 6 — 0. Mr. Mike Melloy, Coliseum Billiards, 2900 Rice Street, appeared before the Commission requesting an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit to allow for alcohol sales as part of his billiard hall operation. Melloy indicated that he would like to sell 3.2 beer at the billiard hall. Melloy indicated that some time in the future, he may expand his snack bar to a restaurant, which would then allow him to add a wine license and expand alcohol sales to strong beer and wine. However, this request is limited to a 3.2 beer license. MINUTES PLANiNING COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2004 Molloy reviewed the restaurant floor plan indicating his plans to expand restroom facilities at the billiard hall and also pointing out that there are currently two separate billiard areas that are separated by a half wall. After considerable discussion relative to monitoring alcohol sales and controlling alcohol consumption, the Commission and Melloy agreed that alcohol sales and consumption would be limited to the back billiard area. Mellow indicated that he would likely use a portable bar in this area that would be locked down and put away. Melloy indicated he would be requesting a 2 a.m. liquor license, but would plan to have last call at 1 a.m. with the bar locked down and put away after that. It was noted that Coliseum has a closing time of 4 a.m. Molloy indicated that he would plan to raise the height of the half wall to a minimum of 6 feet so that beer could not be passed over the wall to under aged customers. The entrance to and from the back "21 and over" portion of the billiard hall would be monitored and controlled. Duray stated that given he owns and operates a competing business in the City, he would refrain from discussing and voting on this matter. Barraclough noted that Melloy had demonstrated due diligence in running his business, and felt that the request under the conditions discussed was acceptable. Rheaume agreed and stated that he supported the separation of the two areas, one area for the 21 and over crowd where beer would be served, and the other where there would be no alcohol sales or consumption. Barraclough recommended approval of the Amendment to Conditional Use Permit to allow alcohol sales as part of the Coliseum Billiard operation at 2900 Rice Street as requested by Mike Melloy subject to compliance with the recommendations of the City Planner, and subject to the separation of the billiard areas as discussed by a minimum height wall of 6 feet with the entrance into the billiard area where alcohol is to be served and consumed to be monitored and secured. Motion seconded by Wojcik Motion carried 5 — 0. Duray abstained. VARIANCE- Beverly i- Iotfman, Round Lake Trail Townhome Association, appeared FROM before the Commission requesting approval of a Variance from the SIIORELAND Shoreland District setback requirement to allow the replacement and SETBACK — extension of a retaining wall. Hoffman reported that the existing wall ROUND LAIQ? in front of two of the townhome buildings is rotting and needs Little Canada, Minnesota APPLICATION FORM ° J.io2- PAID C-3.51% Rec. No Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Cc.nditiona; Use Permit Zoning District Amendment Variance ".4, 3 S C.i Text Amendment Subdivision Other – — Planned Unit Development - - - -._ Plan Review DGth Lo- Yet` ■ C'Llr A mil can t OUr\\f‘0'M S/ (Name) i GC) (Address) (Phone) -- Owner J <.jCj {o Tin (N e) — �'h� 4_ C)�] c �5Sa1. �ie5�c�e>;� (Hddress) (Phone) Property Location (Street Andress and Legal Descriptions: 613 I :It. t �d CE E 5' �f5 3 �Ti 1 Gr1 Description and /or Reason for Request (Cite Ordinance Sections): hrNir>Nz)L4- — Lk Uv;5\ AT, -1-1.e DOA) its \ Cyrncebrt -- re' we.IL S C 1 eJ11. In signing this application, I hereby acknow edge that l have read snd fully understand the applicable provisions of the Zon- ing and Subdivision Ordinances ana current administrative procedures. I further acknowledge the fee explanation as outlined he app:ication procedures and hereby ag "ee to pay all statements received from the City pertaining TO additional a-ppiice. expense, illL . nHire )tr,x Sign ature or A pJ1 (.$ it) `—GOLD—Planner Cat_ -=� es CANARY..,useomer 0NK_; IF, 111. .,1 ^ l Ol'9 :L )1;3 g9:CaT `faf�:,. T� 'll 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada. MN 55117 -1600 (651) 766 -4029 / FAX: (651) 766 -4048 www.ci.little-canada.mn.us CITY OF LITTLE CANADA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING VARIANCE MAYOR Michael 1. Fahey COUNCIL Jim LaValle Matt Anderson Rick Montour Bill Blesener ADMINISTRATOR Joel R. Hanson PROPOSAL: A request for approval of a Variance from the Shoreland District setback to allow replacement and extension of a retaining wall. The Property in question is zoned High- Density Residential District (R -3). APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER: Round Lake Trail Townhome Association 1 -43 Round Lake Trail Little Canada, MN 55117 PROPERTY LOCATION: 1 -43 Round Lake Trail Little Canada, MN 55117 PLANNING COMMISSION: The Little Canada Planning Commission will be reviewing this matter at their regular meeting scheduled for Thursday, August 12, 2004 meeting. The meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. and will be held in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. CITY COUNCIL: Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council to review this request at their regular meeting to be held on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as parties may be heard, in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. All persons with reference to this matter will be heard during the Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, August 12, 2004 and the City Council meeting on Wednesday, August 25, 2004. Sign language interpreters for hearing- impaired persons are available for public Bearings upon request. The request for this service must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call to make the necessary arrangements. Joel R. Hanson City Administrator Round Lake Trail Townhome Association August 26, 2004 Little Canada Planning Commission 515 East Little Canada Road Little Canada, MN 55117 Re: Variance Request — Shoreland District, Ordinance No. 917 Dear Sirs: The association for the Round Lake Trail Townhomes seeks your approval and recommendation to the City Council of Little Canada for a variance relating to shoreline setback. We seek a variance of the Code to enhance the safety of those who live, visit and work on the property, to maintain the integrity of the shoreline, to prevent further erosion of the soil on our lakeside, and to replace rotting timber currently in place with more permanent and natural boulders. We request that you put this on your agenda for the August 12, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. For your review and consideration, we have enclosed the required Application Form for variance, copies (one 8 '/ x 11 and one 22 x 35) of the recent survey of the town homes' lakeside property, which was prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering Co. and certified by James Parker, two (2) sets of photographs labeled A through Q, a signed and notarized Agreement Between Owner /Applicant and the City of Little Canada as to Costs, and a check in the amount of $350 to absorb the costs of services relating to our application. In addition, we provide the following explanation for our request for a variance of Ordinance 917: Currently, there are timber retaining walls behind (on the lake side) units 1 -15 and 21 -29 of Round Lake Trail ( "existing walls "). These walls were constructed in 1985 -86, and they are rotting and coming away from the ground which they were built to restrain. (See photos A -C, G -J) Because of the steep terrain between the town homes and the lakeshore and the proximity of the town homes to the lakeshore, it is imperative that we have retaining walls in order to prevent ground erosion. Therefore, we need to replace the existing walls. Since timber walls typically rot away after a period of years and need to be replaced, we would like to replace them with boulders, which would never require replacement. Installing a permanent boulder retaining wall now would save our lake and Lakeshore area from undergoing future assault and pollution from construction equipment, erosion, etc. It is our understanding that even though these would be replacements for the existing walls, because we would be tearing down the existing walls and using a different material for the new walls, the new walls would not be grandfathered in. Therefore, we are requesting a variance of the Shoreland Ordinance. During the process of replacing the existing walls, we believe that it is necessary for human safety to build up and increase the amount of flat terrain between the buildings and the retaining walls. For example, the yards behind units 21 -27 measure approximately 5 feet between the buildings and the existing walls, and the elevation of those yards goes from between 921 and 922 to 919 in that short 5 foot space of ground. (See elevation figures on survey.) These yards are very unsafe. We are aware of numerous occasions where people have slipped down the banks while merely walking behind these units. Luckily, we have not yet had any serious injuries (only scrapes and bruises), but we are very concerned about what could occur (broken bones or worse). In addition to being dangerous, these yards are not usable for either pleasure or maintenance. As just mentioned, it is risky to simply walk behind the units, let alone attempt to fill a bird feeder or tend to plants or flowers. It is not at all possible to sit on a lawn chair in those yards. As for maintenance, it is extremely dangerous to use a ladder for window cleaning or gutter cleaning, since the space required to erect a ladder does not leave adequate space for a person to safely get onto and off of the ladder. We also do not have adequate space for lawn care. Therefore, for safety reasons, we are requesting a variance of the shoreline setback ordinance for the replacement walls. As you can see on the enclosed survey, the engineer has increased the back yards in those areas to a safer distance of approximately 10 feet between the buildings and the proposed retaining walls. In addition, the space between the existing walls behind units 1 -15 has been increased from one foot to approximately 5 feet, which will add stability to the wall. For both erosion /environmental and safety reasons, we believe it is crucial to construct new retaining walls behind units 17 -19 and 39 -43. The slope of the land behind units 17 -19 is such that erosion has begun to take place. A drop -off of the land begins about 3 feet from the building, which does not allow ample room for safely walking in that area. (See photos D -F) As a matter of fact, lawn maintenance people and their lawn mowers have gone down that embankment several times. Advance Surveying proposes constructing a boulder wall approximately 10 feet from those two units. The area behind units 39 -43 has the most severe problem. (See photos K -Q) The land begins to drop off so closely to the buildings that the residents of unit 43 are not able to step off their patio without fear of falling down the embankment. The entire strip of land behind these units is so narrow, that a person walking there feels the necessity to place their hands on the walls of the building for stability, especially when trying to walk around the air conditioning units. Many people have slid down that hill, including people who were there to find solutions for this situation. Again, we have been very lucky that no one has yet been seriously hurt. In spite of the fact that we have attempted to correct the problem with bringing in earth and planting/seeding the area, the erosion problem continues to get worse, and the narrow strip of land becomes narrower. We fear that without a retaining wall, we could end up with the earth being eroded from under the patios and building, which would have disastrous results. Advance Surveying has proposed a two -tier wall to correct this serious problem. For these reasons, we ask for a variance of the shore impact zone. We ask that you carefully review and consider the enclosed documents, that you agree with our proposed retaining wall plans, and that you pass this along to the City Council members with a positive recommendation for a variance. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Very truly yours, -Beverly 'in. Board ;resident 1( en; Board Vice President Mary Jo FlY 3oard Member Enclosures Rose Pinomaki #1 Round Lake Trail St. Paul, MN 55117 -6014 Phone:- 481 -0331 SI To: 1/4- . ----Lt. //,,,,c a uL • , From: i. ,/_0/2_.f2..d .4_ (/Y Date: 62,w ,t. 5, ,-q0 0 Y- Re: "Zia.- -, -�e—Q_ �iC? �' ALd- ee�e�� r}- Cs' Z. �'�Gla..l' pp / C -(%7L:_c,e fL i ;- izc.e, ,,;«_. � � , wvv z G O-0-,\_, /ie%[ a_z_-,_ ,_z, -G _,L.,0x -c. -p- -Gc.A,z2- c4.IL�.�% �%-z, 'G'_C� � -tom LLi{ �:c�C .L, y� ., -' l 0_4- e 'ti -,`.Lc,c t ,.._, 4.7 (.2c c<_2_,_ C.k:,- -Lu.�e, 4-(72--c- by (- a ` ... -ri � %�/ ( j c.� .v ' -o.. 171761--z-; t L. _. -.t_e.,--pw 2. 26941 fLe/"A 7f z ti tic - LLi?C <, ✓rte , 4- cZc- e.,9C,,_.y:5; �� G, �(--- cam. ;+�, T H W E S T ASS O 9r t A t E D CONSULTANTS, is NC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 "telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 plannere@nacplanning _ cfrrs MEMORANDUM TO: Little Canada Planning Commission FROM: Bob Kirmis / Stephen Grittman DATE: August 10, 2004 RE: Little Canada - Round Lake Trail Townhomes - Setback Variance NAC FILE: 758.10 - 04.24 BACKGOUND Beverly Hoffman, on behalf of the Round Lake Trail Townhome Association, has submitted a request to construct /reconstruct a retaining wall on the townhome property located at 1 -43 Round Lake Trail. Specifically, the applicant wishes to replace a rotting timber retaining wall located between Round lake and the townhome buildings with a more permanent retaining wall constructed with boulders. In addition to replacing the existing retaining walls, the applicant wishes to increase the height of the wall in some areas to provide additional rear yard areas for the adjacent dwelling units. Because the retaining wall lies within the 25 foot shoreland impact zone of Round Lake (and is to be completely reconstructed), the processing of a setback variance is necessary. The subject property is zoned R -3, Multiple Family Residential, and was approved as a Planned Unit Development about 20 years ago. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Site Plan ISSUES ANALYSIS Existing Conditions. According to the applicant, the existing timber retaining walls are located between Round Lake and townhome units 1 -15 and 21 -29 (see site plan). The retaining walls were constructed in 1985 -86 and have been rotting for some time. This decay has consequently threatened the stability of the terrain. The applicant is concerned that failure to address the existing retaining wall condition could eventually threaten the structural integrity of townhome decks and patios along the lake. Setback Requirements. Round Lake is classified as a "General Development Lake" which imposes a 50 foot structure setback from the ordinary high water level. Within the shoreland overlay district, a "shoreland impact zone" exists, The "shoreland impact zone" is defined as the area of land located between the ordinary high water level at a setback that is 50 percent of the structure setback. The applicant has indicated that the retaining wall in question lies within 25 feet of the ordinary high water level (the specific setback has not been indicated). The placement of a "new" retaining wall within the 25 foot shoreland impact zone requires the processing of a variance. Variance Evaluation Criteria. The shoreland provisions of the ordinance state that variances to may only be granted in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462. In this regard, a variance from the terms of the ordinance should not be granted unless it can be demonstrated that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved. (1) Special conditions may include exceptional topographic or water conditions or, in the case of an existing lot or parcel of record, narrowness, insufficient area or shape of the property. (2) Special conditions and circumstances may not be primarily economic in nature. b. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance, c. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. 2 d. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the ordinance to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. e. A genuine hardship exists in complying with the literal terms of the ordinance. The townhome development was approved in accordance with applicable ordinance requirements in place at the time of project processing. This includes the location of the existing timber retaining wall. The construction /reconstruction of the retaining wall is believed to be necessary to ensure the structural stability of the development. In this regard, it is believed that special circumstances unique to the subject property exist which can justify approval of the setback variance. Practically speaking, the proposed retaining wall construction /reconstruction is viewed as essentially a maintenance matter. Retaining Wall Plan. As a condition of variance approval, the applicant should submit detailed retaining wall plans subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. RECOMMENDATION Based on the preceding review, our office views the requested variance as a maintenance matter necessary to ensure the structural stability of the townhome development and usability of yard areas. As a result, we recommend approval of the variance request subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant submit detailed retaining wall plans subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. pc. Kathy Glanzer Greg Schroeder Steve Westerhaus Beverly Hoffman, Round Lake Trail Townhome Association, 1-43 Round Lake Trail. Little Canada, MN 55117 3 0_5. /25 I4 ), jj (1') Aj.C.S ADD (IV 2 a) A, (s) -to? N 32,3 0 .3S,9 yr. • - 4.?"--f �5° 5 „4\ '17 (.6 79 - A 9 o'- ea at oRodie I- log 1/ cc ,- , ,1 1 15 , .. 6 t• I 4 12-9;7?.3---St.7440 ,Onr(B)-I l"))1 ....)1'... 0 1 a IF 'If X\ '4 t) , -*I $ --,- 4: 1 “0* ti \ I DINN6 (0) 02) .,,cn 5 6 5 a Gl 1 th sipc 4/ 11 pe) j 50 12 1-11 (CI) 1 ((9) Lci K: IPP :ex p.) -'12 ern 949 75 , 7 tie 7N 9 .,\ 1, 4 30 j 9 (1S) (2.0) • 1 o “1" 30 I0 (G) OM ROUND I • LAKE .,./ 225, 6.5' SEE PLAT COPY / -.0 FOR DE Till :.„ s 709 / ,c,p),. e i; Lij / „At' ,c t2„„. I k- ,-.,., ...... 'Cl\)\-. #c::Vel /7111: wos istet.— c $ , P" , ---/ ,c. -, T . ) " ec r / 4‘44s el •' 9 /5,, .0, c ?. aiwav" i CP V \ Wj .t e..,.., Kit • 5 4 E30 "S 56 41 90 e'/.1 ,) 1C7‘. a. 0 (33) 01° Y 1'3 2 Iv OUTLOT 9 9. (34,) ' 1(753 rieti 1_217C17 06) 4, 0 4 ,3) (-at jA(T) " 9. 6/ - 6 .9 03) 1,5Z 0 73) .0 frcr-051 s‘c,'‘ °LID "Z, ‘a 7;0 `3:-. is. 5- (n) zs>. 10• 6 ■5 (24) 0 st.pis.) • 3 -0( 40 21-4, (7a) -0 7 80.03 130.02 860 35 1.23 TW r't1. , 73 brt 097) tp I-14,400 ... 242 27 • 0 >, 60 9 40 e 271' Coo) 0 .38a4. 5.59 75 346 P,‘,1 c PART cif +_Dv-_)(100) ..5tCRLO. 467 f o r Lt(s105 UMW g- .fSSO(I41TtS August 20, 2004 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Little Canada 515 Little Canada Road East Little Canada, MN 55117 -1633 RE: ROUND LAKE TOWNHOMES RETAINING WALLS Dear Mayor and Council Members: TAUT: hO M As requested we have reviewed the topographic survey and wall site plan. The plan was prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering Company. Based upon our review we would have the following comments. 1. The maximum wall heights shown on the plans indicate that no walls we be constructed over 4 -feet high. Therefore, it is not required that the walls be designed by an engineer or that any fence be placed on the walls. In talking to Ms. Beverly Hoffman, it is our understanding that the retaining walls will be constructed of boulders and will be installed by a professional contractor. 2. The space between two tiered walls must be atleast as wide as the height of the tallest wall. Based on scaling of the plan it appears that in areas where two walls are utilized there will be a minimum of 4 -feet between the walls which willId meet this requirement. 3. To prevent sediment into the Round Lake, silt fence should be installed on the lake side of each wall construction area. The silt fence should be placed outside the construction area terminate at a point that is higher in elevation than any disturbed area. The silt fence should be inspected after each rain event and sediment removed as necessary. 4. Due to the location of the disturbance we feel restoration should occur within 1- week of each wall being completed. Erosion blanket should be used on any slopes over 3:1 (H:V). These are our comment based on the review of the submitted documents. If you have any questions please feel free to call. Sincerely, Elfering & Associates Lee Elfering, P.E. cc: Joel Hanson, City Administrator Beverly Hoffman, 29 Round Lake Trail C: \windows \TEMP \Ltr - 082004 -CC (Retaing Wall Plan Review).doc MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2004 Melloy reviewed the restaurant floor plan indicating his plans to expand restroom facilities at the billiard hall and also pointing out that there are currently two separate billiard areas that are separated by a half wall. After considerable discussion relative to monitoring alcohol sales and controlling alcohol consumption, the Commission and Melloy agreed that alcohol sales and consumption would be limited to the back billiard area. Mellow indicated that he would likely use a portable bar in this area that would be locked down and put away. Melloy indicated he would be requesting a 2 a.m. liquor license, but would plan to have last call at 1 a.m. with the bar locked down and put away after that. It was noted that Coliseum has a closing time of 4 a.m. Melloy indicated that he would plan to raise the height of the half wall to a minimum of 6 feet so that beer could not be passed over the wall to under aged customers. The entrance to and from the back "21 and over" portion of the billiard hall would be monitored and controlled. Duray stated that given he owns and operates a competing business in the City, he would refrain from discussing and voting on this matter. Barraclough noted that Melloy had demonstrated due diligence in running his business, and felt that the request under the conditions discussed was acceptable. Rheaume agreed and stated that he supported the separation of the two areas, one area for the 21 and over crowd where beer would be served, and the other where there would be no alcohol sales or consumption. Barraclough recommended approval of the Amendment to Conditional Use Permit to allow alcohol sales as part of the Coliseum Billiard operation at 2900 Rice Street as requested by Mike Melloy subject to compliance with the recommendations of the City Planner, and subject to the separation of the billiard areas as discussed by a minimum height wall of 6 feet with the entrance into the billiard area where alcohol is to be served and consumed to be monitored and secured. Motion seconded by Wojcik. Motion carried 5 — 0. Duray abstained. VARIANCE Beverly north-ran, Round Lake Trail Townhome Association, appeared FROM before the Commission requesting approval of a Variance from the SIIORELAN1 Shoreland District setback requirement to allow the replacement and SETBACK — extension of a retaining wall Hotlnnan reported that the existing wall ROUND LAKE in front of two of the townhome buildings is rotting and needs _4_ MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2004 TRAIL replacement. The plan is to add another section of wall at the north TOWNIIOME end of the third building. The new wall would be constructed with ASSOCIATION boulders. Duray asked how much higher the new wall would be. Hoffman indicated that the wall would be the same height or else slightly higher and the terrain behind the wall would be leveled. Hoffinan described the steep terrain behind the townhomes and indicated that this work will provide for a safer and more level backyard area. Weihe recommended approval of the Variance from the Shoreland District setback to allow replacement and extension of the retaining wall at Round Lake Trail Townhome Association subject to compliance with the recommendations of the City Planner. Motion seconded by Rheaume. Motion carried 6 — 0. PROPERTY Mr. Oscar Lane, 3069 Arcade Street, appeared before the Commission DIVISION & requesting approval of a Property Division allowing a lot line VARIANCE — adjustment and a Variance to allow a building on a lot with no direct 3069 ARCADE street frontage. Lane reported that he is selling the house and the lot, STREET — and the new owner would like a larger back yard for the house at 3069 OSCAR LANE Arcade Street. Barraclough pointed out that this property already exists as two separate parcels, and the request is to make the back yard larger for the existing house, thus move the property line back about 50 feet. The vacant lot in the back has street access via a 20 -foot easement. Even with the lot line adjustment, the rear lot will more than exceed the City's minimum lot size requirements. The City Planner noted that the existing lot does not have full frontage at the street, but is a lot of record. In considering a building permit for this parcel and to ensure that there is no confusion, the survey should be drawn to reflect the setbacks with the east and west being considered as the front and rear of the property and the north and south as the sides. The Planner noted the letter that was submitted from a neighbor questioning whether variance criteria is being considered as part of this request and the application of this criteria to other properties in the City. The Planner indicated that it is his opinion that the issuance of a Variance For this property does comply with the appropriate criteria given this is a Applicant Owner ( i):SCP \,t r:4 Ale (Name) /® .26 Little Canada, Minnesota PAID �c APPLICATION FORM Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zoning District Amendment Text Amendment Other rTh Rec. No. Conditional Use Permit XVariance SCIO Subdivision '>6 706 Planned Unit Development Plan Review (Name) (Address) Property Location (Street Address and Legal Description): ��C 7 4C),2FA:D E $, t �JI (Phone) (Address) (Phone) ipLi tt D ■V i 5 iCti Ne 4:& :7 c VT; 57 g '2n7 rr o4, 1a', F, J1( 4 4 :3 e— r9S 1,ci.13 Description and /or Reason for Request (Cite Ordinance Sections): ifl n'r.4fr i? J R n'4) /7 r` r SO ' o y rte% J io t .,yA ,q-ve 5 L K s b f Fg%, t1 R l /mil ,i i ;9 Ne I" »M ire F 79 R rc7 sr? 0 p c R i rn L.7, i ;7 i i i C.,C'E 11 C l OF KM r n/ / cry' 0 A/ E. co R f-rz P, R F X o -5 . 'n signing this application, I hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the Zon- ng and Subdivision Ordinances and current administrative procedures. I further acknowledge the fee explanation as outlined Ir • application procedures and hereby agree to pay all statements received from the City pertaining to additional applica- tiL.. expense. (Signature of AoplicantI (Date) VHITE- _Orrice CANARY— Ce4tOmcr PINK —File GOLD — Planner :o 397d 1G *1Mt:n ?71.1 T7 ;. Tfl R1,174hQCUi TCCI 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada. MN 55117 -1600 (651) 766 -4029 / FAX: (651) 766 -4048 w\vwr. ci.little- Canada. mn. us CITY OF LITTLE CANADA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPERTY DIVISION AND VARIANCE MAYOR Michael L Fahey COUNCIL Jim LaValle Matt Anderson Rick Montour Bill Blesener ADMINISTRATOR Joel R. Hanson PROPOSAL: A request for approval of a Property Division allowing a lot line adjustment and a Variance to allow a building on a lot with no direct public street frontage. The property in question is zoned Single - Family Residential (R -1). APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER: Oscar Lane 3069 Arcade Street Little Canada, MN 55117 PROPERTY LOCATION: PIN No. 05- 29 -22 -11 -0008 PIN No. 05- 29 -22 -11 -0009 Arcade Street Little Canada, MN 55117 PLANNING COMMISSION: The Little Canada Planning Commission will be reviewing this matter at their regular meeting scheduled for Thursday, August 12, 2004 meeting. The meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. and will be held in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. CITY COUNCIL: Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council to review this request at their regular meeting to be held on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as parties may be heard, in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. All persons with reference to this matter will be heard during the Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, August 12, 2004 and the City Council meeting on Wednesday, August 25, 2004. Sign language interpreters for hearing - impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The request for this service must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call to make the necessary arrangements. Joel R. Hanson City Administrator NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CO i' SLILTANTS, INC. 4000 C3ison Nterrmorlal Nlghw ay, Suite 202, Golden 'Volley, MN 33427 Telephone: 763.231.2555 F csirnile: 763.231.2561 piun.ners@neeplsnning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Little Canada Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: August 10, 2004 RE: Little Canada — Lane Subdivision and Variance FILE NO: 758.09 - 04.27 Background and Analysis The applicant owns two parcels along Arcade Street. The current home is on a parcel of about one -half acre. The second parcel is behind the first, and is approximately 1.1 acres is area, and is served by a 20 foot wide easement to Arcade Street. The applicant is seeking two approvals. The subdivision would move the dividing line between the two lots 50 feet farther to the west, increasing the front lot and decreasing the back lot. The variance is required to permit the use of the second lot as a building site. The Subdivision Ordinance requires that all single family parcels shall have direct frontage on an improved public street. The back lot is a lot of record, but does not have the required frontage. As a result, a variance from this provision is required. The applicant has proposed the subdivision to add approximately 50 feet of additional rear -yard depth to the front lot. This would move the rear lot line into the trees that form a buffer between the existing and new building site. The subdivision does not create any new non - conformities, and both lots will continue to have a lot area that is greater than the minimum R -1 requirements. The front lot will be approximately two - thirds of an acre after the resubdivision, and the back lot will be .95 acres in area. One of the considerations would be whether it is possible to correct the non - conforming lack of access to the rear parcel. The entire frontage is 147 feet, not wide enough to create two conforming R -1 lots. In addition, the existing detached garage would interfere with the relocation of the lot line. As such, staff recommends the subdivision as proposed. As noted above, the variance is required to permit the construction of a home on a parcel of land without street frontage. With regard to the variance, the City is required to consider whether or not a hardship exists in putting the property to reasonable use. In this case, without the variance, no use is possible. A hardship is clearly present. It should be noted that it is the existence of the lot of record, already separate from the current home site, that distinguishes this variance from a new "flag lot" subdivision. The current parcel has an existing expectation of a building right, whereas an attempt to create a new lot would be viewed differently by the zoning and subdivision regulations. At issue is what setback requirements would apply to the new building site. The new house would be built behind the existing home at 3069 Arcade, and would abut the NSP power line easement to the south, the side property line of a deep single family parcel to the north, and rear lot lines of single family parcels to the west. Planning staff would recommend the application of the following setback requirements: 30 feet from the east property line (the rear line of the existing home site). 30 feet from the west property line (the rear line of the lots to the west). 10 feet from the north and south property lines. 5 foot setbacks for a new driveway over the 20 foot road easement. As a part of the subdivision, restrictive covenants or restrictive building easements should be added that will establish these setbacks of record. Staff's concern is that over time, the setback issues could become unclear, since the parcel is not typical of conforming single family lots. A notation of the building setbacks should be made on the certificate of survey that would be required to record the subdivision. Summary and Recommendation Planning staff recommends both the subdivision and variance, based on a finding that the existing lot of record could not be put to reasonable use without the variance, and that the subdivision does not affect the zoning conformity of either parcel. The subdivision should include the following conditions: 1. Setbacks are shown by restrictive covenant or restrictive building easement as noted above, according to review and recommendation from the City Attorney. 2. The applicant prepares and files a certificate of survey with new legal descriptions as proposed. 3. The City Engineer should review the subdivision to address required drainage and utility easements. 4. The City Engineer should review the subdivision to address utility service issues to the new building site. 5. The Fire Inspector should review the proposal for address signage on the property. 6. Comments of other City staff. pc: Kathy Glanzer Steve Westerhaus Lee Elfering Greg Schroeder Oscar Lane, 3069 Arcade Street, Little Canada, MN 55117 ga. y 3 1ccli ST Es-. a & k7 4v°/.3 tT D'r L,0 /,3 \A, t R eR FRciJE, AR i i 1 G 7 5 ce , 5 27 r i4) i /0 C i17 ,:.• .' :( »: :/ A •_ _.- (7 Efz IHCATE OF SUfRYEY ) Tor: USC -t'2 i_1:NIE � 1 N89 °,2. „E 1 2r. 001 - -- i .:RNiu. I o . E%ISING - I :, c. i. HOUSE . I_,: ..✓ 'I p PARCEL A =-. �' ” 1 PARCEL B ' , d PARCEL C c: I, q 0) t ° a I G.: f : 7 se<,r 1 f 1 s 200: , :. -'eau"\ S 1- -1 - oca d, $89°52[55"W / ) .508 2 P Q DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED *' I - - _ DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL B I; i o the : h dlt LEGEND ir2 Y of - i -t -I ;re _--_t - DL feet al u Souln 1 r et c! the ,, 1- =f 5c ca eon number 40, < , r_ ;, _ °LI_ to w __sere .s .v record if one of Lot 13. r.udilors S_bd;- nsiorn. ririrrrner 43, Rurr,sey C.:::ft.:.i.y, f r1 S.uLlucl Ic .. ET eosern Ys - record a any 44, L " '' DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL A - _ DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL C 47 feel hf tire frorrn Irv; or got I, u4:000. _, . -.. I Jcr 43. f ., uu H. E =c , t l U lose The Eo_1 207 Tee. cf Jc Shull I_ :7 Ieci ot iire hlor0tr Sr 5 feat :,I 1 , 15 - 3..:d:tors 67 fet or the Hoyt, 127 (.thi an; l the rifest 50 feet subdr7rsrorr nunr.Lehr b,.. Srrnherrrt Is errihr:rerrls 4,1 record it tiny o f tr.e Lost 2537 fect ht thy Suriii, 127 hisl h! _ rhLrir, 54. iryet ▪ Llec1 to a5i> 30 -,'U 11 - , .. . -_ 1:01! J, c pro:: i J lI 1 J )d 'III�1 ILILIU�I l YlEI'RO r u, :e. I c L Isc0, _ t _ ,ICi_ _scla LAND SURVEYING �, f.. 8 5361311 Wtw - _ _ i_. v. r_ I - r..-r _.. -_ _ ..f .. _ �, _ pv 01111(15 °° 3- f e" Job No. 1296001 Scale: 1' -30' Drawn by JMA 0:0 -07 .7 „!r'L-A�Y/�. 6779c.?00$ " A, �711V DQ q7 Way o Std. Cana% MAYOR Michael 1. Fahey COUNCIL Jim LaValle Matt Anderson Rick Montour Bitl Blesener 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117 -1600 ADMINISTRATOR (651) 766 -4029 / FAX: (651) 766 -4048 Joel R. Hanson vv-WW . ci.little- canada.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and members of the City Council FROM: Greg Schroeder, Public Works Director DATE: August 18, 2004 RE: Lot Split 3069 Arcade Street I have visited the site and reviewed the survey drawing for the proposed lot split at 3069 Arcade Street. The following comments /recommendations are provided for your information: 1. Parcel C has two water and sewer services as shown on the attached sketch. A sewer service is located within 10 feet of the water service. Based on field observations, it appears that the house on Parcel C is using the northern water and sewer services. 2. The existing driveway and parking area for the house on Parcel C are located on the easement to Parcel A (flag lot) should be relocated. Relocation should be done in a way not to adversely impact the existing southern water service. 3. Parcel A (flag lot) does not have either a water nor sewer service. Connection to the southern services may be possible provided an easement on parcel C would be obtained. If not they would have to be connected to the mains. The sewer main is on the west side of Arcade Street and the water main is located on the east side. Cc: Mr. Oscar Lane 1- 1:AGregsVCorrespondenceVGreg S 2004 \3069 Arcade Street.doe August 12, 2004 Dear Mayor, City Councilmen & Planning Commission, Please Accept This Letter As Part Of The Record In Regard To The Planning Commission Slated For Thursday August 12, 2004 Line Item # 8 Property Division Allowing A Lot Line Adjustment And Variance To Allow A Building On A Lot With No Direct Public Street Frontage — 3069 Arcade Street — Oscar Lane - Correspondence 17 —19. It Is My Understanding That A Variance Is Requested To Reduce The Required 75' Minimum Direct Public Street Frontage Required By The City Of Little Canada's City Zoning Ordinance And City Design Standards Section 1006.020. (A) And To "Allow A Building On A Lot With No Direct Public Street Frontage." In Reviewing The Variances , Planning Commission Recommendations , Standards Section 1010.010 Findings, I Respectfully Submit The Following Questions For Record: Question # 1 In Considering A Variance For Above Property Does The Commission In Its Opinion Recommend A Variance Because Of Undue Hardship Resulting In Requiring That A Minimum Of 75' Be Required Per Zoning Code? Question # 2 In Considering A Variance For Above Property Does The Commission In Its Opinion Prescribe Any Conditions That It Deems Necessary To Or Desirable For The Public Interest? Question it 3 In Considering A Variance For Above Property Does The Commission In Its Opinion Feel That There Are Special And Highly Unique Circumstances Or Conditions Affecting This Property And Are Not Common To Other Properties In The City? Question It 4 In Considering A Variance For Above Property Does The Commission In Its Opinion Deprive The Applicant Of The Reasonable And Minimum Use Of This Land? Additional Questions: Question # 5 As You May Well Know There Is A Flooding Problem In The Area, Has The Commission Considered The Impact In The Water Drainage And Flooding Problem Both In Vacant Lot And Lots Adjoining On Greenbrier Street? Question # 6 In Reviewing The "R- -I" Single Family Residential District, Section 905.050. — Has The Commission Considered The Following Statement That The Following Minimum Requirements Shall Be Observed In An R -1 District Set Forth In The City's Ordinance? Question # 7 Are There Any Other Properties In Little Canada That Have Had This Frontage Zone Requirement Amended And If So, What Were The Special Circumstances Applicable To This Property? Question # 8 If This Variance Is Approved By This Commission, Is The City Of Little Canada Going To Change This Lot Requirements And Set Backs Section ( 905.050.) So All Residences Can Benefit From This Variance? Question /4 9 Is There Any Reason Other Than Profit This Commission Feel Warrants The Approval Of This Variance? Closing: It Is My Opinion That By Granting This Variance It Will Be Injurious To Other Property's In The Neighborhood, Increase Flooding And Impact The Wild Life Currently Living In The Area. Thank You For Your Consideration Of This Letter. Respectfully Submitted, Timothy .I. Packer 3066 Greenbrier Street Little Canada, Mn 55117 I Apologize If Submitting This Letter By E -Mail To Above Is Incorrect Please Advise Of Appropriate Submission Of This Letter Along With Required Forms And Fees. Thank You Again For Your Review Tim MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2004 TRAIL, replacement. The plan is to add another section of wall at the north TOWNHOIME end of the third building. The new wall would be constructed with ASSOCIATION boulders. Duray asked how much higher the new wall would be. FIoffnan indicated that the wall would be the same height or else slightly higher and the terrain behind the wall would be leveled. Roffman described the steep terrain behind the townhomes and indicated that this work will provide for a safer and more level backyard area. Weihe recommended approval of the Variance from the Shoreland District setback to allow replacement and extension of the retaining wall at Round Lake Trail Townhome Association subject to compliance with the recommendations of the City Planner. Motion seconded by Rheaume. Motion carried 6 — 0. PROPERTY Mr. Oscar Lane, 3069 Arcade Street, appeared before the Commission DIVISION & requesting approval of a Property Division allowing a lot line VARIAiNCE— adjustment and a Variance to allow a building on a lot with no direct 3069 ARCADE street frontage. Lane reported that he is selling the house and the lot, STREET — and the new owner would like a larger back yard for the house at 3069 OSCAR LANE Arcade Street. Barraclough pointed out that this property already exists as two separate parcels, and the request is to make the back yard larger for the existing house, thus move the property line back about 50 feet. The vacant lot in the back has street access via a 20 -foot easement. Even with the lot line adjustment, the rear lot will more than exceed the City's minimum lot size requirements. The City Planner noted that the existing lot does not have full frontage at the street, but is a lot of record. In considering a building permit for this parcel and to ensure that there is no confusion, the survey should be drawn to reflect the setbacks with the east and west being considered as the front and rear of the property and the north and south as the sides. The Planner noted the letter that was submitted from a. neighbor questioning whether variance criteria is being considered as part of this request and the application of this criteria to other properties in the City. "fhe Planner indicated that it is his opinion that the issuance of a Variance for this property does comply with the appropriate criteria given this is a MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2004 CONCEPT REVIEW — TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT — 75 OLD CTY. ROAD C — JAMES CONSTRUCTION lot of record. Without granting the Variance the applicant would be deprived of the use of an existing lot. The Planner pointed out that the applicant submitted a survey for the property today which shows that the existing driveway for 3069 Arcade Street crosses the 20 -toot easement for the vacant lot as well as encroaches on the neighboring property. The Planner recommended that the driveway be straightened out so that it does not encroach on the easement or on the adjoining property. Knudsen asked about drainage issues. The City Planner indicated that the Building Official will consider drainage as part of his construction review when the property is developed. The Planner stated that, in summary, the Variance criteria for this property is met due to the uniqueness of the property and the fact that it is an existing lot. Knudsen recommended approval of the Property Division allowing a lot line adjustment and a Variance to allow a building on a lot with inadequate public street frontage as requested by Oscar Lane for 3069 Arcade Street subject to compliance with the recommendations of the City Planner and subject to relocation of the existing driveway to eliminate encroachment onto the adjacent lots. Motion seconded by Duray. Motion carried 6 — 0. Jeff James, James Construction, appeared before the Commission presenting a concept for the Rezoning to Medium Density Residential (R -2) and a concept townhome development for property located at 75 Old County Road C. The City Planner indicated that in reviewing this concept proposal surrounding land uses were considered. While there is sorne R -2 development in the area, the majority of the land uses are R -1. The Planner indicated that he then looked at whether attached housing would be appropriate for the area, and noted that the density proposed is not out of line with R -1 zoning. However, it is typical that R -1 development is served by public streets. Given the concept proposes a private street, there is more land available for development. Factoring in the development of a public street, the available developable land is reduced; therefore, the density would be reduced to approximately 5 to 6 single- family lots. The Little Canada, Minnesota APPLICATION FORM Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zoning District Amendment Text Amendment Other Applicant Owner m6" (Name) 1ML NC) 1023 PAID Rec. No Conditional Use Permit Variance Subdivision Planned Unit Development Plan Review Co c yoS n (Address) M, Ss-661 ^t 0 (1 c„ (Phone) (Name) Property Location (Street Address and Legal Description): 7.5- 07/ 6 r (Address) (Phone) Description and /or Reason for Request (Cite Ordinance Sections): (7: Ai 6- cioi /r ✓•'Key ZEvc /6/,.•,e /c ".'VF 7 /cJ_,...'/ Am, 0 r / In signing this application, I hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the Zon- and Subdivision Ordinances and current administrative procedures. I further acknowledge the fee explanation as outlined ie application procedures and hereby agree to pay all statements received from the City pertaining to additional applica- tion expense. ^ /ILit (Signatr,o Applicant) (Date) WHITE— Office CANARY — Customer PINK —Ale GOLD — Planner ,/2 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117 -1600 (651) 766 -4029 / FAX: (651) 766 -4048 wa^.v. ci.little- Canada. mn. us CITY OF LITTLE CANADA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CONCEPT REVTEW MAYOR Michael I. Fahey COUNCIL Jim LaValle Matt Anderson Rick Montour Bill Blesener ADMINISTRATOR Joel R. Hanson PROPOSAL: A request for approval of a Concept Review of a Rezoning to Medium Density Residential (R -2) and townhome development concept. The property in question is zoned Single- Family Residential (R -1). APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER: James Construction P. 0. Box 576 North Branch, MN 55056 PROPERTY LOCATION: 75 Old County Road C Little Canada, MN 55117 PLANNING COMMISSION: The Little Canada Planning Commission will be reviewing this matter at their regular meeting scheduled for Thursday, August 12, 2004 meeting. The meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. and will be held in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. CITY COUNCIL: Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council to review this request at their regular meeting to be held on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as parties may be heard, in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. All persons with reference to this matter will be heard during the Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, August 12, 2004 and the City Council meeting on Wednesday, August 25, 2004. Sign language interpreters for hearing- impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The request for this service must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call to make the necessary arrangements. Joel R. Hanson City Administrator NORTHWEST ASSOCCATED CONSULTANTS, INC. $5OC1 4van Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden 'Valley, MN 65422 Telephone: 763.231 .2555 Facdirnile: 763.231 .2561 piafner6avnacplanning.corn MEMORANDUM TO: Little Canada Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: August 10, 2004 RE: Little Canada — James Construction Townhouse Concept FILE NO: 758.09 - 04.28 Background and Analysis James Construction is seeking review of a concept plan for 11 townhouse units (a combination of attached and detached units are proposed) on a parcel between Old and New County Road C, adjacent to the west side of the CP (Soo Line) railroad. The parcel is approximately 2.3 acres in size, and is currently zoned R -1, Single Family. The proposed use would require a rezoning to R -2, and a PUD to accommodate townhouses served by a private street. Access to the project would be from the south via a private drive to Old County Road C. The site is adjacent to R -1, Single Family land to the west and north. An area of R -2 zoning lies to the south Old County Road C along Ruth Street. A few attached townhouse units are also located on a triangular plot of land to the west of the site at the intersection of Old and New County Road C. The Planning Commission should review the site with regard to general land use first, then provide discussion on the site plan, density, and unit styles. Following is a discussion of each topic: 1. Land Use. As noted above, the site abuts the railroad, and is adjacent to single family housing along its only common property line. Single family housing also is present to the north (across County Road C), and to the east (across the railroad). To the south, a block of attached housing is located between the railroad and Ruth Street. Planning staff would be concerned that the only abutting property is single family , and the proposed use may not be characteristic of that land use. It is also noted that due to the configuration of the property, it would not be possible to construct a public street on the property and subdivide into standard single family lots. To develop the property, a private street would be necessary. One option to the R -2 design would be a single family PUD served by a private street. A typical single family subdivision in Little Canada would have an average density of 2.0 to 2.5 units per acre, resulting in a unit count on this parcel of 5 to 6 units. An alternative design that decreases the detached unit count to this range would be consistent with the current zoning. A second option would be to provide for 5 or 6 units, but allow them to be attached. This design would be able to conserve open space on the site. 2. Site Planning. If the City believes that the 11 unit density is appropriate, the site plan would be the next issue to address. The proposed plan relies on a private street that would run north from Old County Road C, with each unit having a driveway off of the central spine. The plan provides for nine units along the east side of the street, with two additional units on the west side where the property is slightly wider. A small pond is shown along County Road C to the north. The unit plans are two - bedroom rambler units with basement space. Each unit has a small two -car garage. The units are approximately 1,450 square feet on the main level. A deck is shown on the unit plans, and the basements may accommodate walk -out access, depending on grading. The plan is simple, given the configuration and size of the property. The only apparent way to alter the design in any significant way would be to reduce the number of units, or attach units into larger buildings, creating more open space. Summary and Recommendation At concept level, the City does not typically offer a specific approval or denial. Instead, the opportunity for comment and feedback to the developer is intended to help the applicant decide whether to proceed with a project, or alter it and return with more detailed plans. Planning staff believes that attached housing on this site could be appropriate, however, a density of about 6 units would be consistent with the single family neighborhoods in the area. A PUD design that preserves a significant amount of open space could be attractive on this site, and provide for the ability to utilize a private street for site acess. pc: Kathy Glanzer Steve Westerhaus Lee Elfering Greg Schroeder James Construction, PO Box 576, North Branch, MN 55056 =1111111111111121 gill 1111111111111 -a gill 11111111■011.0.• WFAIWIeZ 01112386415; ROUND LAKE 389.7E • , zl, 5 A':37,4' ,�0, SEE PLAT GOPY / / �5 /.1 ^\Sa PoPo DETA1 LS - P` 7 ( / gh4OV "S'CF r*PC)/ :/ f;J c S / e. fe•c• A 6'C f/ Q iQ Cl /J) ©es� .�S r P �'.rd. Qa Dkgiry c,MOI�11 n%. 404 14 15'16 9I '5 1)1. (05,; �I a1 2i m J e 6 00) (I I) 6 \Vv 38a OUTLOT 1( 23.41 4) 5 15c) 71 05) za:u (72) (70) 80.00 ✓ l u - r bb) 131 (73) (i1) 735; (01 tz 1_ 15 y 242 27 5'".i.R9b T4r0 ct C - PART OF -i C:Rc y'T ",µ- .3 (too) `fD _ for DCta':s 0 NOLLVA373 iNOdd , \ /-'' '"Z 1 I /ni \\ -0 . 0 Z Z V \ /1 0 zaZ /v \,,), , ) • 0 NORTH OVERFLOW PARKING (7 SPOTS) is I . te \:::: :' :T„ \'\' .s" ,:,,,,,::\\,.‘t sfti \>>„-''` \\F: '„ \ I 4 156I-1" OLD COUNTY ROAD C ?r, - 7,- 8 a _ JAMES CONSTRUCTION _ - 75 OLD COUNTY ROAD C - - 0 0 LI I I LE CANADA, MN nosy, n# o 4 - 4#1» . . . ,� & 1 > +#4#S 0 OLD COUNTY ROAD C AYM d'IMP'S OtlON71NU �' /)0` ® \ -JAMES CON\TkUCT ON \\ 3 7aCOUNTY �� c } LITTLE CANADA, \ \ \/ \/ . / 0 0 NV7d 2/007d 1 53tr 4 0 N PI a h 0 MES CONSTRUCTION 4A 75 OLD COUNTY ROAD C '33 -6 LITTLE CANADA, MN .Z. All WORK COMPLETED BY i.ax •IUCEfSE DOE5IDuEP. 1 8 8 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2004 CONCEPT REVIEW — TOWNHOM.E DEVELOPMENT — 75 OLD CTY. ROAD C — JAMES CONSTRUCTION lot of record. Without granting the Variance the applicant would be deprived of the use of an existing lot. The Planner pointed out that the applicant submitted a survey for the property today which shows that the existing driveway For 3069 Arcade Street crosses the 20 -foot easement for the vacant lot as well as encroaches on the neighboring property. The Planner recommended that the driveway be straightened out so that it does not encroach on the easement or on the adjoining property. Knudsen asked about drainage issues. The City Planner indicated that the Building Official will consider drainage as part of his construction review when the property is developed. The Planner stated that, in summary, the Variance criteria for this property is met due to the uniqueness of the property and the fact that it is an existing lot. Knudsen recommended approval of the Property Division allowing a lot line adjustment and a Variance to allow a building on a lot with inadequate public street frontage as requested by Oscar Lane for 3069 Arcade Street subject to compliance with the recommendations of the City Planner and subject to relocation of the existing driveway to eliminate encroachment onto the adjacent lots. Motion seconded by Duray. Motion carried 6 — 0. Jeff James, Jaynes Construction, appeared before the Commission presenting a concept for the Rezoning to Medium Density Residential (R -2) and a concept townhome development for property located at 75 Old County Road C. The City Planner indicated that in reviewing this concept proposal surrounding land uses were considered. While there is some R -2 development in the area, the majority of the land uses are R -1. The Planner indicated that he then looked at whether attached housing would be appropriate for the area, and noted that the density proposed is not out of line with R- I zoning. However, it is typical that R -1 development is served by public streets. Given the concept proposes a private street, there is more land available for development. Factoring in the development of a public street, the available developable land is reduced; therefore, the density would be reduced to approximately 5 to 6 single- family lots. The MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2004 Planner indicated that it was his feeling that this is the appropriate density for this property versus the 1 1 units proposed. He noted that there may be some advantage to developing the property with a private street and clustering the units. Duray asked how much grading of the site would be necessary. Mr. James indicated that the development would work with the natural slope of the property and he did not believe a tremendous amount of grading would be necessary. James indicated that it would not be economically feasible to develop the property with only 5 or 6 units. He felt that clustering the units would not gain anything. James noted that the proposed townhomes would likely be occupied by empty nesters and seniors and would all be owner - occupied. As a result, there would be very little traffic generated from this development. Knudsen asked if the City Planner was recommending 5 to 6 units of townhomes or single- family homes. The Planner replied that either would be possible. The Planner indicated that in considering the area, he felt it was the density issue that was most important. John Wheaton, Ruth Street, questioned why access for this development is proposed at Old County Road C versus County Road C. Wheaton pointed out the traffic concerns in the area of Old County Road C and Ruth Street. James replied that access onto County Road C would be too close to the railroad tracks. Greg Saiko, Stark Street, agreed that there were traffic problems at Old County Road C and Ruth Street and felt that access was more appropriate at County Road C. The City Planner stated that it was his understanding that Ramsey County would not allow access via County Road C. James again noted that empty nesters and seniors will generate little traffic. Steve Davison, resident of the area, agreed that there were traffic problems at Old County Road C and Ruth Street and felt that the intersection would have to be upgraded if access from this development is directed toward Old County Road C. Wally Tereau, 75 Old County Road C, indicated that the traffic problems are coming from the 4- plexes on Ruth Street, and that the traffic from this proposed development would not worsen the existing condition. Tereau suggested that Old County Road C could be made a one -way road. 7 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2004 Wayne Wood, County Road C, felt that the access for this development was more appropriate via Old County Road C versus County Road C given the railroad bridge and the curve in the road. Barraclough indicated that he has concern with the concept development as proposed. Barraclough stated that he would not be opposed to a single - family associated living concept that proposed upscale housing. Barraclough noted that the townhomes proposed consist of approximately 1,400 square foot per unit. Barraclough stated that he is opposed to rezoning the property to R -2 and, again note that he would to see a more upscale development single - family home development. James indicated that there would have to be variances available to develop the property with more than 5 or 6 units on a public street. However, 5 or 6 units would be Feasible on a private street. James stated that he was not sure the neighborhood would support the upscale development suggested by Barraclough. Knudsen stated that the density proposed is too high and out of character with what he would be comfortable with. Duray stated that he did not support the rezoning to R -2 and felt there were options for laying out a single - family development on this property that would work. James asked if the City would entertain the installation of a public street. The City Planner pointed out that there would be additional right -of -way width as well as additional setback requirements relative to developing with a public street. The Planner noted that under a PUD proposal, the City may consider reductions in setbacks, etc. in exchange for some gain to the City such as increased common open space, the clustering of units, etc. Knudsen pointed out the concerns expressed by the neighborhood about traffic, and noted that the higher the density, the more traffic. Wojcik stated that he supported an R -I, owner - occupied development. Weihe noted that the City's Comp Plan indicates that the goal for this area is to prevent over intensification of land use development. Weihe stated that 11 units would not achieve that goal. Duray asked if the City would look favorably on a PUD which would allow for some movement in the setbacks. The City Planner indicated that a PUD would seem reasonable given the configuration of the land does not lend itself to a standard development. The Planner explained how a PUD S MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2004 allows for negotiated setbacks, etc. in exchange for added benefits to the City. The consensus of the Commission was opposition to the concept of rezoning this property to R -2 as well as opposition to the concept of the density proposed. Knudsen informed the developer that he could present the concept to the City Council as is, or could revise the concept lowering the density to a lower number. This matter will be presented to the City Council at its August 25th meeting. TEXT The City Planner presented a Text Amendment to the Zoning Code which AMENDMENT expands the list of permitted uses in B -3 to include sporting goods stores PERMITTED as well as clarifies that accessory firearms sales are permitted or AND conditional uses in the 13-3 District to a maximum of no more than 15% ACCESSORY of the sales area of the principal use. The City Planner indicated that the USES IN B -3 Text Amendment is a clarification of current City policy. ADJOURN Knudsen suggested that the Text Amendment as proposed be modified to read, "sales floor area" in Section 912.020.B. Knudsen recommended adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 912 of the Little Canada City Code, known as the Zoning Ordinance, by providing for permitted and accessory uses in the B -3, General Business District, with the change suggested relative to "sales floor area ". Motion seconded by Weihe. Motion carried 6 — 0. Wojcik recommended the meeting be adjourned. Duray seconded. Motion carried 6 — 0. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, j� / / i Kathy Glanzer Deputy Clerk - 9 - 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117-1600 (651) 766 -4029 / FAX: (651) 766 -4048 www.ci.little-canada.mn.us CITY OF LITTLE CANADA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TEXT AMENDMENT MAYOR Michael L Fahey COUNCIL Jim LaValle Matt Anderson Rick Montour Bill Blesener ADMINISTRATOR Joel R. Hanson PROPOSAL: The City of Little Canada is proposing a Text Amendment to the Zoning Code to expand the list of' permitted uses in the B -3 District and to clarify allowable accessory uses. PLANNING COMMISSION: The Little Canada Planning Commission will be reviewing this matter at their regular meeting scheduled for Thursday, August 12, 2004 meeting. The meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. and will be held in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. CITY COUNCIL: Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council to review this request at their regular meeting to be held on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as parties may be heard, in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. All persons with reference to this matter will be heard during the Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, August 12, 2004 and the City Council meeting on Wednesday, August 25, 2004. Sign language interpreters for hearing-impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The request for this service must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call to make the necessary arrangements. Joel R. Hanson City Administrator City of Little Canada, Minnesota Ordinance AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 912 OF THE LITTLE CANADA CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY PROVIDING FOR PERMITTED AND ACCESSORY USES IN THE B -3, GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. The City Council of the City of Little Canada hereby ordains: Section 1. Section 912.020.GGG is hereby amended to read as follows: GGG. Variety stores sporting goods stores, and stores of a similar nature. Section 2. Section 912.020 is hereby amended to add the following: B. Accessory firearms sales to permitted or conditional uses in the B -3 District, provided that such sales and display occupy no more than fifteen percent C15 %h of the sales floor area of the principal use. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and publication. Michael I. Fahey, Mayor ATTEST: Joel Hanson, Administrator AYES: NAYS: MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2004 allows for negotiated setbacks, etc. in exchange for added benefits to the City. The consensus of the Commission was opposition to the concept of rezoning this property to R -2 as well as opposition to the concept of the density proposed. Knudsen informed the developer that he could present the concept to the City Council as is, or could revise the concept lowering the density to a lower number. This matter will be presented to the City Council at its August 25th meeting. TEXT The City Planner presented a Text Amendment to the Zoning Code which AMENDMENT expands the list of permitted uses in B -3 to include sporting goods stores PERMITTED as well as clarifies that accessory firearms sales are permitted or AND conditional uses in the 13-3 District to a maximum of no more than 15% ACCESSORY of the sales area of the principal use. The City Planner indicated that the USES IN 13-3 Text Amendment is a clarification of current City policy. esseasnomonglafse ADJOURN Knudsen suggested that the Text Amendment as proposed be modified to read, "sales floor area" in Section 912.020.B. Knudsen recommended adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 912 of the Little Canada City Code, known as the Zoning Ordinance, by providing for permitted and accessory uses in the B -3, General Business District, with the change suggested relative to "sales floor area ". Motion seconded by Weihe. Motion carried 6 — 0. Wojcik recommended the meeting be adjourned. Duray seconded. Motion carried 6 — 0. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9 :35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Glanzeq� Deputy Clerk J✓ LA- Minnesota Department of Public Safety LIQUOR CONTROL DIVISION 444 Cedar St. /Suite I00L St. Paul, NEN 55101-2156 (612)296 -6439 TDD (612)282 -6555 APPLICATION AND PERMIT FOR A 1 TO 4 DAY TEMPORARY ON -SALE LIQUOR LICENSE (Organization or location limited to 3 permits in a 12 month period TYPE OR PRINT INk ORMATION NAME OF ORGANIZATION Z, file E l �n i a4 F � e STREETADDRESS S75 z-i f`i'r -c -u C /}ni. pri, A- '2-n NAME F PERSON MAKING APPLICATION CL-K 3C SS 0n 4450 DATE': rr TInn "ITT r RE SOLD t]ito 4 days) z r o ORGANIZATION OFFICERS NAME 'Rick 73655 Cr MEW DATE ORGANIZED TAX EXEMPT NUMBER �uv1e I (i4^a a <<�aG CITY STALE 02 CODE Li i 1� (� �� %%4 /ti S S Il 7 BUSINESS PHONE HOME PHONE (lsl) 7(», - 4-1 c2cl (6,st) '190 -3 /Gs TYPE OF ORGANIZATION C CLUB 0 CHARITABLE ❑ RELIGIOUS OTHER NONPROFIT ADDRESS ORGANIZATION OFFICER'S NAME ADDRESS �rctt`E. Soc—H- a_ . ;2. C.3b At_ 1 g✓t % ! L, /E =_.. cda /lt, 5. I7 ORGANIZATION OFFICERS NAME ADDRESS N/hJG/ Ko-ff--/< r Afl 5 CE Location where license will be used. If an outdoor area, describe fiCTnce.r fc r K L!.I11c r 4 1a7n L_r7 4 bPk 4„. ci /1t C 57f 7 Will the applicant contract for intoxicating liquor services? If so, give the name and address of the Liquor license providing the service. Will the applicant carry liquor liability insurance? If so, the carrier' s name and amount of coverage. (NOTE: Insurance is not mandatory) 711N :Ft „ { ((a .e r icr j i! /}S; ac ._ F at. r APPROVAL APPLICATION MUST BE APPROVED BY CITY OR COUNTY BEFORE SUBMITTING TO LIQUOR CONTROL CITY /COUNTY CITY FEE AMOUNT DATE FEE PA rD SIGNATURE CITY CLERK OR COUNTY OFFICIAL DATE APPROVED LICENSE DATES APPROVED LIQUOR CONTROL DIRECTOR DOTE: Do not .separate these two parts, send both parts to the address above and the original signed by this division will be returned as the license. Submit to the City or County at least 30 days before the event. PS- 09079(8/95) MINNESOTA LIQUOR LIABILITY ASSIGNED RISK PLAN MINNESOTA JOINT UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION PIONEER P.O, 130X 1760 ST. PAUL, MN 55101 -0760 (651) 222 -0484 or 1- 800 -552 -0013 CERTIFICATE OF' INSURANCE FOR LIQUOR LIABILITY COVERAGE THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THE CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE CONTRACT LISTED BELOW. POLICY NUMBER: LL04 -0735 CONTRACT PERIOD: 12:01 A.M. 9/25/2004 TO 12:01 A.M. 9/26/2004 CONTRACT HOLDER AND ADDRESS: LITTLE CANADA RECREATION ASSOCIATION 515 E LITTLE CANADA RD LITTLE CANADA, MN 55117 SCHEDULED PREMISES: PIONEER PARK, LITTLE CANADA THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CONTRACT OF COVERAGE DESCRIBED HEREIN I -IAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE CONTRACT HOLDER NAMED ABOVE AND IS IN FORCE AT THIS TIME. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN TO THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE CONTRACT DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH CONTRACT. TYPE OF COVERAGE LIMITS OF LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE LOSS OF MEANS OF SUPPORT ANNUAL AGGREGATE 5 50,000 S 100,000 S 10,000 S 50,000 S 100,000 S 300,000 EACH PERSON EACH OCCURRENCE EACH OCCURRENCE EACH PERSON EACH OCCURRENCE ANNUALLY SHOULD THE ABOVE CONTRACT BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE PLAN WILL MAIL 60 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE BELOW NAMED CERTIFICATE HOLDER, HOWEVER, IN THE EVENT THE CANCELLATION IS FOR NON PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE PLAN WILL MAIL A 10 DAY WRITTEN NOTICE. CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAME & ADDRESS: CITY OF LITTLE CANADA CITY HALL LITTLE CANADA, MN 55117 AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF ISSUE: 8/18/04 Minnesota Department of Public Safety ��°% �,a -SST , LIQUOR CONTROL DIVISION t . 444 Cedar St. /Suite 100E 1 (�/�, �' St Paul, NIA 55101 -2156 L'�' '� „r” y l - -k, (612)296 -6439 fDD (612)282 -6555 cc APPLICATION AND PERMIT FOR A 1 TO 4 DAY TEMPORARY ON -SALE LIQUOR LICENSE (Organization or location limited to 3 permits in a 12 month period TYPE OR PRINT INFORMATION er b1A lit NAME OF ORGANIZATION L.t ff-I� lt�ho,,�0. R.Q c-re „I,,,•v t 50Cc.i-io,1 DATE ORGANIZED Tuvl-el. I`i 6k TAX EXEMPT NUMBER qz /)C, ISTREET ADDRESS 71S L, %"t/{ C'.'.r,_'.,:e. re2., CITY L jI / /C. do..,C5.,4 e■ STALE 111, A) ZIP CODE ,j 1%-7 NAME OF PERSON MAKING APPLICATION RtcK -15c5S BUSINESS PHONE (.65)) Ps:•Qo2.9 HOME PHONE (65I) clyv 31 ( a 5 DATES LIQUOR WILL BE SOLD (1`Po 4 days) 0 C T . '3c ., ."., 2.co <i TYPE OF ORGANIZATION n CLUB ❑ CHARITABLE ❑ RELIGIOUS ❑ OTHER NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OFFICERS NAME i c f< ADDRESS 7,2 6 )31'y<<.‘ ST Lr ff %r lti „,rl„ lII >c, 5-5-i1 7 ORGANIZATION OFFICERS NAME _4(ft +i.- 5c -c_kac ........ , ADDRESS ' .z. 530 41/e, The ,,e ;,,.y , L, r{ /r. CA „v,dei fib., 5c Il'7 ORGANIZATION OFFICER'S NAME Ai rtv \e.Y IC,; MINNESOTA LIQUOR LIABILITY ASSIGNED RISK PLAN MINNESOTA JOINT UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION PIONEER P.O. BOX 1760 ST. PAUL, MN 55101 -0760 (651) 222 -0484 or 1- 800 - 552 -0013 CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE FOR LIQUOR LIABILITY COVERAGE THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THE CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE CONTRACT LISTED BELOW. POLICY NUMBER: LL04 -0734 CONTRACT PERIOD: 12:01 A.M. 10/30/2004 TO 12:01 A.M. 10/31/2004 CONTRACT HOLDER AND ADDRESS: LITTLE CANADA RECREATION ASSOCIATION 515 E LITTLE CANADA RD LITTLE CANADA, MN 55117 SCHEDULED PREMISES: 2621 MCMENEMY, ST JOHNS SCHOOL -HALL THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CONTRACT OF COVERAGE DESCRIBED HEREIN HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE CONTRACT HOLDER NAMED ABOVE AND IS IN FORCE AT THIS TIME. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN TO THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE CONTRACT DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH CONTRACT. TYPE OF COVERAGE LIMITS OF LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE LOSS OF MEANS OF SUPPORT ANNUAL AGGREGATE S 50,000 5 100,000 S 10,000 $ 50,000 100,000 8 300,000 EACH PERSON EACH OCCURRENCE EACH OCCURRENCE EACH PERSON EACH OCCURRENCE ANNUALLY SHOULD THE ABOVE CONTRACT BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE PLAN WILL MAIL 60 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE BELOW NAMED CERTIFICATE HOLDER, HOWEVER, IN THE EVENT THE CANCELLATION IS FOR NON PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE PLAN WILL MAIL A 10 DAY WRITTEN NOTICE. CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAME & ADDRESS: CITY OF LITTLE CANADA CITY HALL LITTLE CANADA, MN 55117 AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS DATE OF ISSUE: 8/18/04 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE �rief' Wan a %a MAYOR Michael I. Fahey COUNCIL Jim LaValle Matt Anderson Rick Montour Bill Blcsencr 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117 -1600 ADMINISTRATOR (651) 766 -4029 / FAX: (651) 766 -4048 Joel R. Hanson www. ci. iit tle- canada. mn. us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and members of the City Council FROM: Greg Schroeder, Public Works Director DATE: August 18, 2004 RE: Parking Lot Striping On Thursday August 12, 2004, the City of Little Canada received and opened the proposals for striping our parking lots. Sixteen companies were sent a request to submit a proposal and we received five proposals as shown below. Company Amount Asphalt Maintenance Co. $1,400. Gopher Striping Co., Inc. $1,750. Interstate Pavement Maintenance $1,365.37 Reliakor Services $1,751.38 Stripe Right $1,668. The 2004 budget included $1,500 for this parking lot striping work. We requested proposals to stripe 10 of our 12 parking lots. However, based on the above favorable proposals, it was determined that we may be able to accomplish all 12 of our parking lots. Therefore, we have requested Interstate Pavement Maintenance to provide proposals for the two remaining parking Lots. We have not received these two additional proposals as of this date, but feel we will be within our budget amount. Recommendation The Council direct staff to enter into a contract with Interstate Pavement Maintenance, for our 2004 Parking Lot Striping. II: \GregS \Streets \ Stripping \2004 parking lot striping memo.doc ceicit 74 C-eaanen 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117-1600 (651) 766 -4029 / FAX: (651) 766 -4048 www.d.little-canada.ron.us MEMORANDUM MAYOR Michael I. Fahey COUNCIL Jim LaValle Matt Anderson Rick Montour Bill Blesener ADMINISTRATOR Joel R. Hanson TO: [Mayor Fahey and Members of the City Council FROM: Joel Hanson, City Administrator DATE: August 20, 2004 RE: 26"' and 27`l' Riders to Agreement with Board of Water Commissioners Attached are the 26th and 27'h Riders to the City's Agreement with the St. Paul Board of Water Commissioners relative to the City's 2004 improvement projects. The 26th Rider relates to the Twin Lake Area watermain project as it crosses Water Department property. The 27th Rider relates to the City's trail projects as they cross Water Department property. Staff would recommend approval of these Riders as submitted. TWENTY -SIXTH RIDER TO AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this 4th day of June, 2004, by and between the BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIOiNERS OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL ("Board"), and the CITY OF LITTLE CANADA, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, ("City"), being the Twenty -Sixth Rider to that certain Agreement made by and between the Board and the City the 13th day of July, 1966, and by this reference incorporated herein and made part hereof and with the same intent, purpose and effect as if said Agreement were set forth herein verbatim. WHEREAS, the Board is owner of a one - hundred and seventy -foot (170') wide right -of -way located in the SW quarter of Section 31, Township 30 North, Range 22 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota, from Twin Lake Boulevard to Country Drive, under I -694 in the City of Little Canada, collectively the "Premises' ; and WHEREAS, the City desires to enter upon certain portions of said Premises to construct a eight -inch (8") water main, within a steel casing tube; and WHEREAS, the Board is willing to grant said permission to the City consistent with the requirements and safety of the works of the Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AGREED, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements of the parties hereto, that subject to all teens and conditions contained in said Agreement between the parties hereto made and entered into the 13th day of July 1966. the Board hereby grants to the City permission to enter upon portions of said Premises and to there within install, maintain and carry out all Board approved operations in respect to the following and as indicated in Exhibit attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference: -2- Nr9 rum LutfluC. tioARDA4GRLrA9E :.6 U4 Do 1. Permitted Activity Install and maintain an 8-inch water main, within a steel casing tube as shown on Exhibit A. 2. Conditions All work shall be performed in accordance with good engineering practices and in accordance with City of Little Canada `2004 Street and Utility Improvements' attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. 3. Notification City or City's contractor shall notify Board's Vadnais Supervisor at least 48 hours in advance of permitted activity to schedule inspection and coordination of work. Board's Vadnais Supervisor may be reached between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. at 651- 766 -4150. 4. Insurance Section 30 of the July l3, I966 Agreement is hereby amended to require public liability insurance in minimum amounts of $300,000 for bodily injury or death to one person and $1,000,000 per accident, and $1,000,000 for damages to or destruction of any property. This Agreement is made and executed pursuant to and under the authority of resolution number 7/ adopted by the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Saint Paul on the ey- day of 74/77'1 — , 2004, and resolution adopted by the Council of the City of Little Canada on the day of , 2004, copies of said resolutions being annexed hereto and by this reference made part hereof the same if set forth herein verbatim. - 3 - LV<I) AC F amr.v S \RIDI'R,JjE Flk .AN v26u00B04 Doc IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed these presents in triplicate the day and year first above written. CITY OF LITTLE CANADA, By Mayor By City Manager BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS APPROVED: OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL By Stephen P. Schneider, General Manager Patrick Harris, President APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant City Attorney r>- rca�r =�uI RI By Janet Lindgren, Secretary By Matthew G. Smith, Director Office of Financial Services einriev ir xna nL)(' So • So in BOARD OWNED ROW 8 '42‘ .27 28 19e0-1-t 6 17 fe, 19 /N6,9 COUNTRY DR NI 0 Una • r-- V) a.100° 13' 4ttqen4- #o Ew Wit 90" a-S- P. I/ P/ TWIN LAKE BLVD ( /4 36.S. _Ell_ -E3 adi c9 se)._ 29*ci,4 c 22) 3L54 PROPOSED 8" WATER MAIN IN CONDUIT 15 14 13 12 f. La .0 .-: S2Z7 32 N ST. 131 1111111111 *le 1.7 Se 2b. 2r 22 23.2425 2G 27 6! xXx j • : Jib S eL: 40 31.1 Li!! t lop .1093765 44 3 2. .1h 1 tI '44415.• SG S-7! <12,o1211 Z2,2 2.'4 2S 1 ?IF ex 5 : / ; • r IK ,v( if cC • / 1 -No 60 � .\\I l i i IT a a m ffi m "' �: , mgl= r_I \� ..arm- ,, \ ",' - �-�.��N -`- ,{ f \..kA i .'^ice {�\ c N I `1 e a 1 1 •. j I I {i II it II r _ i ffl5 ., «a 0. \ ST— 'vim — J \ S \\ r li x n e � 5a 0 ID 5c �V 1 o Jw �e va ��_.. ��` 3" 1Y �\ I-4 ,r .� ��, A J, A vv vv U vv vv N. 1 rr■ d BEd Zf a ag. av 1 � {. : 8 �i. / ✓ i 'S' as o Rj. o 1 o fli n, 011 „ , � .\\I l i i IT BOARD OP WATER COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION — GENERAL FORM No 4971 'ESENTED BY MMISSIONER Zanmilier DATE June 8, 2004 WHEREAS, the Board of Water Commissioners is owner of a 170 -foot wide right -of -way located in the SW quarter of Section 31, Township 30 North, Range 22 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota, from Twin Lake Boulevard to Country Drive under 1-694 In the City of Little Canada, collectively the "Premises ", said Premises containing the Board's 90 -inch Vadnais Conduits; and WHEREAS, the City of Little Canada having entered into an Agreement with the Board of Water Commissioners dated July l3, 1966, for the purposes of locating certain public works within the Board's right -of -way in Ramsey County; and WHEREAS, the City of Little Canada desires to construct and maintain an 8 -inch water main, within a steel casing tube; and WHEREAS, staff has prepared a Twenty -Sixth Rider to that Agreement ofJuly l3, 1966, which sets forth the conditions of construction and access over the Premises and which protects the Board's rights, interests, and facilities, and the General Manager recommends that the Board approve said Twenty -Sixth Rider; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Board of Water Commissioners does hereby approve the Twenty -Sixth Rider to Agreement with the City of Little Canada and that the proper officers of the Board are hereby authorized and directed to execute said Twenty -Sixth Rider on behalf of the Board. Water Commissioners Yeas Anfang Kleindi Montgomery Thune vic • President Zanmiller 'resident Harris n _avor Nays Adopted by the Board of Water Commissioners June 8, -+O 04 Opposed ) 7 i ECV. TWENTY - SEVENTH RIDER TO AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this 1.0th day ofAugust, 2004, by and between the BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS of the City of Saint Paui, Minnesota ("Board"), and the CITY OF LITTLE CANADA, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, ( "City), being the Twenty- Seventh Rider to that certain Agreement made by and between the Board and the City the 13th day of July, 1966, and by this reference incorporated herein and made part hereof ancl with the same intent, purpose and effect as if said Agreement were set forth herein verbatim. WHEREAS, the Board now possesses title to a one - hunched (100) foot wide strip of land located in Section 6, Section 7, and Section 8, Township 29 North, Range 22 West, Ramsey County. Minnesota, southeasterly from I -694 to 1 -35E ( "Premises "); and WHEREAS, the City desires permission to enter upon certain portions of said Premises to thereupon to make surface grade modifications and to construct and maintain an 8 -foot wide hard surface trail ; and WHEREAS, the Board is willing to grant said permission to the City consistent with the requirements and safety of the works of the Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AGREED, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements of the parties hereto, that subject to all terms and conditions contained in said Agreement between the parties hereto made and entered into the l3 th day of July 1966, the Board hereby grants to the City permission to enter upon portions of said Premises and to there within install, maintain and carry out all Board approved operations in respect to the following: L histall and maintain an 8 -foot wide hard surface trail. as shown on attached Exhibit A, and in accordance with City of Little Canada 2004 Trail Connections. Blacktern Pond v v cnnc!t rrau.*rr,; d:mra v rrrI : :,'-rrrI nxuvi n Trail. Country Drive Trail Connection and Fire Fighters Memorial Trail, plans and specifications, as approved by Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS), incorporated herein by reference; copies of which are retained on file at the offices of the Board and City. 2. [nstall and maintain a suitable means of traffic control, location and design subject to prior approval by Board representative, whereby all but approved vehicles will be prevented from entry. 3. Any trees in the premises that pose a potential safety hazard for operation of the trail, shall be removed by City. or City's contractor. The Board's representative will assist in identifying these trees. 4. The City or its contractor shall notify the Board's representative at 651- 766 -4150 a minimum of 48 hours prior to construction or maintenance work for location information and inspection. 5. Section 11 of the July 13, 1966 Agreement is hereby amended to require public Liability insurance in minimum amounts of $300,000 for bodily injury or death to one person, and $1,000,000 for damages to or destruction of any property. This Agreement is made and executed pursuant to and under the authority of resolution number $97V adopted by the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Saint Paul on the l0 te /' day of l,G4-y2�,4.- , 2004, and resolution adopted by the Council of the City of Little Canada on the day of . 2004, copies of said resolutions being annexed hereto and by this reference made part hereof the same if set forth herein verbatim. - The remainder of this page left intentionally blank - :17a:vr,:r'i!uu'.•.1 iu>auI /,(∎WI N.11,NrsvRJIWRU.yn](' .VJ anni0■;100n)Cx' IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed these presents in triplicate the day and year first above written. CITY OF LITTLE CANADA By Mayor By City Manager BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS APPROVED: OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL By Stephen P. Schneider, General Manager Patrick Harris, President Saint Paul Regional Water Services Approved as to form: By Janet Lindgren, Secretary By Assistant City Attorney Matthew G. Smith, Director Office of Financial Services - 1 0 - RIA;I' PRI(' v I `.1 (}ARID U;RPRbtPv ITV21111 =1:AI I. l (' 1N u'7rII (IMroc)f I}(H' Me NE RIM Vial .ws\ I/ II� iiil NIL .IIIIU/ � III1111i1 rte. BOARD ROW - RGUN0 `®I#it� is: mi �� •I, f 11111111 �xnu �F , 1111w1m1 : r 1111111 P 111111�1u m1 g ,�� !!!!1111111117 °I' <" I- ,...III I SR WWII — I inn J _1MI !lulr�,,� = {� et a so ME I M M I i4 it .. -. l Illtliu i ' 1 1 m Mall ! C 111111111011111 iiuuiwuw !!{{ {III! HMO 11 111111111111 rug • L1{ i1uhi" Imlll MUM 11 11111111111 kl MIA c C C Wei i Al J X131 1E UIO —� 1®i S ore NUN a, Pim am Nam Ile �j Nip s; -- kt 1 MIS UMW 1� MIN =C Min NMI NOM mullIMI NMI Award aMINS at AI 111 re, at Irit tfir 1 { 1 -4 NM ZS .MI a1 • P 4 IT 1;J 1 SENTED BY A MISSIONER BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION — GENERAL FORM No 4974 Anfans DATE August LO, 2004 WHEREAS, the Board of Water Commissioners does possess fee title to a one - hundred (100) foot wide strip of land located in Section 6, Section 7 and Section 8, Township 29 North, Range 22 West, Ramsey Co' inty, Minnesota, southeasterly from 1 -694 N to I -35 E (`Premises "), said Premises containing. the Board's 90 -inch Vadnais Conduits; and WHEREAS, the City of Little Canada having entered into an Agreement with the Board of Water Commissioners dated July 13, 1966, for the purposes of Locating certain public works within the Board's rights -of -way in Ramsey County; and WHEREAS, the City of Little Canada desires to construct and maintain an 8 -foot wide hard surface trail within the Premises; and WHEREAS, staff has prepared a Twenty - Seventh Rider to that Agreement of July 13, 1966, which sets forth the conditions of construction and access over the Premises and which protects the Board's rights, interests, and facilities; and WHEREAS, the office of the city attorney has reviewed and approved said Twenty - Seventh Rider as to form, and staff recommends that the Board approve said Twenty- Seventh Rider; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Board of Water Commissioners does hereby approve the Twenty - Seventh Rider to Agreement with the City of Little Canada and that the proper officers of the Board are hereby directed to execute said Twenty - Seventh Rider on behalf of the Board. Water Commissioners Yeas Anfang Cardinal Kleindl V =e President Zanmiller Nays in Thvor Oppose i Adopted by the Board of Water Commissioners - 1 2 - August 10, 20 04 SECY. 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117 -1600 (651) 766 -4029 / FAX: (651) 766-4048 www.cLutue-canada.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Fahey and Members of the City Council FROM: Joel Ranson, City Administrator DATE: August 20, 2004 RE: Tree Inspection Services MAYOR Michael 1. Fahey COUNCIL Jim LaValle Matt Anderson Rick Montour Bill Blesener ADMINISTRATOR Joel R. Hanson The City's tree inspection services had been performed by Greg Hoag as part of his Parkkeeper position. As a result of his recent resignation, the City is without a tree inspector. As you may know, there has been an outbreak of dutch elm disease in the metro area. Given the need to address this issue, we have contracted with Mandy Musielewicz to perform tree inspection services on an as- needed basis at a rate of $35 per hour. Ms. Musielewicz currently serves as tree inspector for the City of Maplewood and Isanti County. I would recommend that Council ratify Ms Musielewicz's appointment as City Tree Inspector. EXHIBIT C ENGINEERING TRANSITION PLAN The City of Little Canada is hiring Elfering & Associates, PLC to serve in the capacity of City Engineer effective August 25, 2004. Howard R. Green has been the City's engineer up to the point of this change. A number of projects or assignments are already in progress. The purpose of this plan is to assign responsibility for the completion of the work in progress. IL Howard R. Green will complete the following assignments. It should be noted that in the case of these projects, the continuity of inspection services is the key factor in keeping said projects with Howard R. Green. Specifically, the continued assignment of Lyle Splittstoser is essential to the completion of the projects in progress. Howard R. Green represents that it will continue to assign Mr. Splittstoser to the completion of the Little Canada projects in a manner to which Little Canada has become accustomed. In the event that Howard R. Green does not make Mr. Splittstoser's services available to Little Canada, then Little Canada reserves the right to modify this transition plan as it deems appropriate. Compensation for services rendered by Howard R. Green shall be determined via a Master Agreement to be executed in the near future. The projects to be retained by Howard R. Green are as follows: 2003 Improvement Projects 2004 Improvement Projects Hamel Court Subdivision Project Inman Subdivision Project The Villas at Little Canada Infrastructure Ins_pectioi Mendota Homes Town Office Complex IIL Howard R. Green shall also continue to assist the City of Little Canada in its analysis of infiltration and inflow. Said work will include, but may not be limited to, evaluation of sewer metering data, placement of flow meters in new locations, analysis of new flow data generated, roof drain inspections, and other duties as may be assigned. A work scope and budget shall be prepared by Howard R. Green for approval by Little Canada to govern this on -going relationship. IV, Elfering & Associates, PLC will take over all fixture projects unless otherwise directed by the City of Little Canada. It shall also assume responsibility for the following projects in progress. Those projects are as follows: Hidden Acres Subdivision Project North Star Estates Storm Shelter Project Gervais Hills Subdivision Project The Preserve Subdivision Project 2004 Trail Improvements (May be Assigned to Park Consultant) V. In completing the transition between firms, on -going coordination between the two firms may be necessary. All contacts between the firms shall occur with Brian Johnson of Howard R. Green or Lee Elfering of Elfering & Associates respectively. Agreed to this day of August; 2004. Howard R. Green BY: Elfering & Associates, PLC BY: 9 7% Cea9iaa' MAYOR Michael L Fahey COUNCIL Jim LaValle Matt Anderson Rick Montour Bill Biesener 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117 -1600 ADMINISTRATOR (651) 766 -4029 / FAX: (651) 766 -4048 Joel R. Hanson www.eLlittle- canada.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Fahey & Members of the City Council FROM: Joel Hanson, City Administrator DATE: August 20, 2004 RE: Engineering Contract with Elfering & Associates Attached is the draft contract with Elfering & Associates; PLC for engineering services. This document incorporates the provisions discussed with Mr. Elfering at out fast meeting. It also addresses a number of standard terms and conditions we have had in past engineering relationships. Mr. Elfering is reviewing this draft, as is the City Attorney. Subject to any revisions made necessary by their respective reviews; I would recommend approval as presented. cc: Lee Elfering AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES This Agreement is made this day of , 2004 between: The City of Little Canada, Ramsey County, Minnesota hereinafter called "THE CITY" and Elfering & Associates, PLC a professional corporation with offices at: 17562 Dunkirk Street Ham Lake, MN 55304 hereinafter referred to as "THE ENGINEER ". WHEREAS, THE CITY is authorized and intends to employ the services of THE ENGINEER from time to time in the construction of public works and in providing general engineering services for THE CITY, and WHEREAS, the services will include, in some instances, construction projects comprised of a full project sequence to include the development of reports, public meetings, plans and specifications, bidding documents, contract administration and construction inspection, and WHEREAS, in other instances the work may vary and not include the full project sequence, and WHEREAS, it is intended that this Contract shall govern the terms of employment of THE ENGINEER and all the conditions thereof, and THE CITY desires to engage the services of THE ENGINEER in connection with said work: NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants of this Agreement as set forth herein, IT IS AGREED BY and between the parties as follows: Section I. THE CITY hereby employs THE ENGINEER to furnish and perform the professional services hereinafter specified, subject to the conditions noted herein below; and THE ENGINEER agrees to render and perform any and all engineering services in connection with any of the above - mentioned work, in the manner and subject to the conditions noted herein. Section 11. THE ENGINEER, upon direction of THE CITY, agrees to perform the following Engineering Service for Projects: 1. General: THE ENGINEER shall serve as THE CITY's professional representative in the planning, design, and general review of construction of Improvement Projects, and shall give consideration and advice to THE CITY during the performance of his services. 2 2. Basic Services of the Engineer on Improvement Projects: a. Feasibility Report: THE ENGINEER shall meet with THE CITY staff and /or developer(s) to discuss the proposed Project and the scope of the report. THE ENGINEER shall then perform or arrange for the necessary research, field surveys, and analysis. Based upon the information gathered, THE ENGINEER shall write a draft report detailing construction conditions, issues, and options. Said report shall also include sufficient project sketches, costs estimates, and preliminary assessment rolls to aid in the evaluation of the contemplated project. The report shall also identify the need for the acquisition of any easements (temporary and /or permanent) that may be necessary to construct the options presented. Following completion of the draft report, it shall be reviewed by THE CITY staff and developer(s), if any, and modified as directed by the City Administrator. THE ENGINEER shall make a presentation to affected property owners at a Neighborhood Informational Meeting. After the Neighborhood Informational Meeting, a final report shall be prepared, including any modifications made necessary by comments made at the Neighborhood Informational Meeting. Said final report will be bound and an adequate number of copies (at least 10) provided to THE CITY. THE ENGINEER shall make a presentation to the City Council and at public hearing(s) scheduled by the City Council. b. Construction Documents: From the approved feasibility report, THE ENGINEER shall prepare detailed construction drawings, specifications, construction agreement forms, proposal forms, and any other necessary documents completely describing the material and workmanship required and procedures to be followed for the construction of the Project. THE ENGINEER shall incorporate all pertinent utility locations in to the plans as provided by the respective utility companies or agencies. (Note: It is understood that the information provided may only give the general location of said utilities. Their exact location is to be determined in the field by the utility company or agency after a construction contract has been executed.) THE ENGINEER shall adjust the feasibility report construction cost estimate to include changes in the scope of the Project, THE CITY's requirements, and market conditions. Contract documents shall include alternate proposals when requested by THE CITY. Construction Documents shall be reviewed by THE ENGINEER, City Staff and developer(s) of the property(s) where applicable. THE ENGINEER shall present or send plans and specifications including required applications forms to various agencies for approval and or permits as necessary, -3 including Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Ramsey /Washington Metro Watershed District, Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation Board, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Health, Ramsey County Public Works, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Railroads, and others. THE ENGINEER shall present plans and specifications to the City Council for their approval. c. Bidding, Receipt of Proposals, & Award: THE ENGINEER shall prepare advertisement for bids incorporating times and dates set forth by the City Council. THE ENGINEER shall furnish drawings and specifications, as directed by THE CITY for the use of bidders in submitting proposals. THE ENGINEER shall assist THE CITY in securing proposals from bidders, in issuing any addenda, in analyzing such proposals, in making recommendations to City Council for award of the contract, and in preparing the construction contract for execution by the Contractor. d. During Construction: THE ENGINEER shall provide general review of construction to check the contractor's work for general compliance with the drawings and specifications and shall endeavor to protect THE CITY against defects and deficiencies in the work of the Contractor, but THE ENGINEER does not guarantee the contractor's performance. THE ENGINEER's general review shall include furnishing a qualified Project Inspector, and shall also include the following services: i. Preconstruction Construction Meeting: THE ENGINEER shall organize, attend, and conduct a Pre - construction conference with the successful bidder, affected utilities and /or agencies, City Staff, THE ENGINEER'S designated inspector, and any other parties, bodies, or agencies that have an interest in the project. During said conference, THE ENGINEER shall also be responsible for compiling accurate minutes of the meeting including an attendance listing, The minutes shall be submitted to all attendees within seven (7) days of the meeting. U. Project Schedule: THE ENGINEER shall take appropriate steps to obtain an accurate construction schedule from the contractor that is in compliance with contract provisions and is of sufficient detail to enable the monitoring of key project components. THE ENGINEER shall also ensure the proper enforcement of said schedule in accordance with the Contract Documents and shall keep THE CITY informed as to any deviations that may arise. -4 iii. Public Notification: THE ENGINEER shall assist THE CITY in providing advance notice to the public for the purpose of informing them as to the timing of the project, impact upon their property, traffic or parking restrictions, and any other pertinent information necessary relative to the project. THE ENGINEER shall also ensure that the Fire Department, Sheriff's Department, School District Transportation representative, and any other appropriate agency or party are informed of key project information to enable them to provide on -going services to the impacted area with minimal disruption. iv. Project Inspection: THE ENGINEER shall provide for on -site inspection of the project, as necessary, to ensure construction by the contractor is done in conformance with the approved construction documents. The Project Inspector shall also be responsible for documenting material quantities used on the project, providing contact for neighborhood questions, for recording pertinent information relative to contract administration, and for detailed field notes to permit the creation of accurate as -built drawings. v. Project Staking: THE ENGINEER shall arrange for all necessary staking and surveying necessary to complete the project as designed. vi. Additional Instruction: THE ENGINEER shall issue such additional instructions to the contractor as may be necessary to interpret the drawings and specifications or to illustrate changes required in the Contractor's work. vii. Contractor's Submittals: THE ENGINEER shall check shop drawings, samples, equipments, approval data, and other data submitted by the contractor for compliance with the drawings and specifications. viii. Change Orders: THE ENGINEER, after consultation with THE CITY, shall prepare Change Orders for work not covered by the Contract Documents or for substantial over -runs of estimated contract quantities. Change Orders shall be processed as soon as practical after written approval has been received by The ENGINEER from THE CITY. ix. Contractor's Requests for Payment: THE ENGINEER shall review the Contractor's request for progressive payment, and based upon on -site observations, advise THE CITY as to THE ENGINEER's opinion of the extent of the work completed in accordance with the terms of the Construction Contract and issue a Certificate for Payment in the amount owed the Contractor. The issuance of Certificates for Payment shall constitute a declaration by THE ENGINEER to THE CITY, based upon on -site observations, review and data accompanying the request for payment, that the contractor's work has progressed to the point indicated; that to the best of THE ENGINEER's knowledge, information and belief, the quality of the contractor's work is in accordance with the Construction Contract Documents (subject to subsequent tests and review required by the construction Contract Documents, to correction of minor deviations from the Construction Contract Documents and to qualifications stated in the Certificate for Payment); and that the Contractor is entitled to the amount stated. x. Visits to the Site: THE ENGINEER shall make periodic visits to the site to check the Contractor's work for general compliance with the contract documents and to determine the extent of work completed for checking of Contractor's requests for payment. xi. Progress Meetings: THE ENGINEER shall meet periodically with the City Staff during the construction of the Project to discuss progress on the Project, change order, or problems which may have developed. THE ENGINEER shall also keep THE CITY informed as to the potential for over -runs of contract quantities. xii. Special Performance Tests: THE ENGINEER or his agent shall arrange for, witness and fully report the results of all performance tests required during the normal course of the Project. xiii. Claims Administration: THE ENGINEER shall make recommendations to THE CITY as to all claims made by the contractor or others relating to the execution and progress of the construction work. xiv. Work Deficiencies. THE ENGINEER shall notify THE CITY, in writing, of any work that does not conform to the standards and specifications of the construction contract. THE ENGINEER shall also be responsible monitoring the performance of corrective work. xv. Final Acceptance: Upon completion of all construction, THE ENGINEER shall arrange for final inspection of the Project. Inspection shall be made jointly by representatives of THE CITY, THE ENGINEER, and the Contractor. Upon completion of inspection and correction of any noted deficiencies, THE ENGINEER shall certify his recommendation for acceptance to THE CITY giving the date of final completion, date of substantial completion, and contract completion date, liquidated damages where applicable, and his approval of the Contractor's final request for payment. xvi. Instruction to the City: THE ENGINEER shall arrange for detailed instruction by the Contractor and manufacturer's representatives of THE CITY or his delegated representative in the proper operation and maintenance of the equipment furnished and installed for the Project. THE ENGINEER shall certify and transmit to THE CITY two (2) copies of all necessary drawings and operation manuals for all equipment, as required by the Project construction plans and specifications. e. Assessment Hearing: THE ENGINEER shall prepare summary of project costs and an assessment roll pursuant to THE CITY'S assessment policies for presentation at the assessment hearing for the project. THE CITY shall complete the assessment hearing notice process. f. Record Drawings: Record drawings shall be furnished to THE CITY within ninety (90) days after THE ENGINEER submits the Contractor's final payment to THE CITY for processing. All field information gathering shall be construed as Basic Services of THE ENGINEER. 3. Additional Services of the Engineer shall include the following when authorized by THE CITY: a. Revisions to drawings and specifications that have previously been approved by THE CITY and are the result in a change in project scope requested by THE CITY. This provision does not include any revisions to Contract Documents needed as a result of errors or oversights made by THE ENGINEER which shall be corrected by THE ENGINEER at their expense. b. Assisting THE CITY in arranging for continuation of the work should the contractor default for any reason. This service only contemplates the time expended to arrange for another contractor to take over the project. Once a new contractor is secured, project oversight shall continue as a "Basic Service ". Should it appear that extraordinary time will be expended in overseeing the project by THE ENGINEER beyond what would be reasonably expected had the project not defaulted, then THE ENGINEER shall immediately notify THE CITY of said condition and they shall work out an acceptable arrangement for compensating THE ENGINEER prior to the additional costs being incurred by THE ENGINEER. c. Work performed in connection with acquisition of easements beyond the drafting of the geometry on the plan sheets. d. Providing services as an expert witness for THE CITY in connection with litigation or other proceedings involving the project. e. Additional neighborhood meetings, improvement hearings, and feasibility report revisions beyond one cycle for each area made necessary by THE CITY's decision to delay the potential project until another project cycle. 7 4. Special Consultants: Special consultants may be utilized by THE ENGINEER when required by the complex or specialized nature of the Project and when authorized by THE CITY. Special consultants would exclude surveying but would include testing services. Section III. THE ENGINEER agrees to perform the following work as General Engineering Services. 1. General: THE ENGINEER shall serve as THE CITY's professional representative in performing engineering functions as directed by the City Administrator for work including, but not limited to, the following: a. Subdivision /Planning Reviews related to engineering issues b. Special engineering services c. Research for and preparation of technical correspondence. cl. Participating in meetings and conferences involving engineering questions not associated with work done under Section II. Section IV. THE CITY agrees to provide THE ENGINEER with complete information concerning the scope of the Project and to perform the following services: 1. Access to the Work: THE CITY shall guarantee access to and make all provisions for THE ENGINEER to enter upon public and private lands as required for THE ENGINEER to perform such work as surveys and inspections in the development of the project. 2. Consideration of the Engineer's Work: THE CITY shall give thorough consideration to all reports, sketches, estimates, drawings, specifications, proposals, and other documents presented by THE ENGINEER, and shall inform THE ENGINEER of all decisions within a reasonable time so as not to delay the work of THE ENGINEER. 3. Legal Requirements: THE CITY shall promptly hold all required special meetings, serve all required public and private notices, receive and act upon all protests and fulfill all requirements necessary in the development of the Project, and pay all costs incidental thereto. 4. Proposals: THE CITY shall advertise for proposals from bidders, open the proposals at the appointed time and place and pay all costs incidental thereto. 5. Replacement of Markers: THE CITY shall protect, to the best of their ability, all stakes and other markers set by THE ENGINEER prior to the assumption of such responsibility by the contractor. Replacement of markers or stakes which have been damaged, moved, or removed shall be paid for by THE CITY as extra services of THE ENGINEER upon authorization by THE CITY. 8 6. Standards: THE CITY shall furnish THE ENGINEER with a copy of any design and construction standards they may require in the preparation of contract documents for the Project. 7. Owner's Representative: The City Administrator of THE CITY of Little Canada shall act as THE CITY's representative with respect to the work to be performed under this Agreement. The City Administrator shall have complete authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret and define City's policy and decisions, with respect the materials, equipment, elements, and systems pertinent to the work covered by the this Agreement. Section V. The City's Compensation to the Engineer for Project Related Services. 1. Projects: a. Progress Payments: Within thirty days of invoicing by THE ENGINEER, THE CITY shall pay THE ENGINEER for professional services performed under Section II of this agreement in proportion to services performed during the period. THE ENGINEER shall furnish to THE CITY payroll data including name of individual, hours worked, and hourly rate of pay broken down for each project. b. Payments Withheld from Contractors: No deduction shall be made from THE ENGINEER's compensation on account of penalty, liquidated damages, or other amounts withheld from payments to the Contractor. c. Abandoned or Suspended Work: If any work performed by THE ENGINEER is abandoned or suspended in whole or in part, THE ENGINEER shall be paid for any services performed on account of it prior to receipt of written notice from THE CITY of such abandonment or suspension, together with any terminal expenses resulting therefrom, all as shown on Schedule B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. d. Basic Services of the Engineer: THE CITY shall pay THE ENGINEER for the basic project services described in Section H of this Agreement up to a maximum fee as depicted on Schedule A based on a percentage of the total construction cost. Progress payments made up to the maximum shall be based upon the hourly rates provided in Schedule B. 2. Payment for Additional Services of the Engineer: For additional services defined in Section 1L3 THE CITY shall pay THE ENGINEER on an hourly salary basis as noted on the attached Schedule B. 9 3. Payments for Engineer's Reimbursable Services: THE ENGINEER shall be reimbursed, at cost, for the work of special consultants, as described in Section 11.4 and for other items when authorized in writing by THE CITY. 4. Extra - ordinary Conditions: Upon completion of the feasibility phase of an improvement project, THE ENGINEER shall immediately notify THE CITY when the scope of engineering services required to complete the Project will exceed normal expectations. If agreed to by both parties, a revision to the percent of construction cost used to establish the maximum fee shall be negotiated and approved by the City Council of Little Canada prior to award of the project. Section VI. The City's Compensation to the Engineer for General Engineering Services. 1. The costs for those services described in Section III shall be billed according to Schedule B. 2. THE ENGINEER shall bill THE CITY monthly and shall provide THE CITY with an itemized billing statement for work performed during the billing period. Section VII. THE CITY and THE ENGINEER further agree to the following conditions: 1. Ownership of Documents: The completed drawings and master specification sheets shall remain the property of THE CITY. THE CITY may use information provided on the drawings and specifications sheets as basic as -built information for purposes of additions or expansions of the Project or utility system. Such use by THE CITY shall not encumber any liability on the part of THE ENGINEER. THE CITY agrees to hold harmless THE ENGINEER in any case where THE CITY's use of record drawings leads to a civil suit or legal action. 2. Insurance: a. Worker's Compensation: THE ENGINEER shall secure and maintain such insurance as will protect him /her from claims under the Workmen's Compensation Acts and from claims for bodily injury, death, or property damage which may arise from the performance of his /her services under this Agreement. b. General Liability Insurance: THE ENGINEER shall, at all times during the term of this Agreement, have and keep in force a general liability insurance policy that will provide coverage for claims made against THE ENGINEER. The limits of said policy shall be at least $1,000,000 for personal injury and $1,000,000 for property damage. c. Professional Liability Insurance: THE ENGINEER shall have in effect, with an insurance company in good standing and authorized to do business in Minnesota, a professional liability - 1 0 - insurance policy. Said policy shall insure payment of damage for legal liability arising out of the performance of professional services for THE CITY, in the insured's capacity as Engineer, if such legal liability is caused by an error, omission, or negligent act of the insured or any person or organization for whom the insured is legally liable. Said policy shall provide minimum limits of $1,000,000 for each occurrence. d. Certificates of Insurance and Cancellation Provisions: THE ENGINEER shall provide THE CITY with certificates of insurance evidencing the required coverages outlined in Section VII.2 (a, b & c) with a thirty -day notice of cancellation of said policies and also naming THE CITY as an additional insured. e. Transition Plan: THE ENGINEER agrees to fully insure all work assigned to its firm pursuant to the Transition Plan attached as Exhibit C to this Agreement. 3. Termination: This Agreement may be terminated by either party for any reason by thirty (30) days written notice, in which case THE ENGINEER shall be paid for services performed where documents are furnished to the date of termination, including reimbursements then due, plus terminal expense, but less reasonable costs for necessary corrections. Should termination be initiated by THE ENGINEER, THE ENGINEER shall complete all outstanding assignments and projects based upon the terms and conditions of this Agreement, if so requested by THE CITY in writing. It is further understood that termination of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any claim THE CITY may otherwise have arising out of this Agreement. Section VIII. Successors and Assigns: This Agreement and all of the covenants thereof shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon THE CITY and THE ENGINEER respectively and his /her partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives. Neither THE CITY nor THE ENGINEER shall have the right to assign, transfer or sublet its interest or obligation hereunder without written consent of the other party. Section IX. Special Provisions: THE CITY and THE ENGINEER mutually agree that this Agreement shall be subject to the following special provisions which shall supersede other conflicting provisions of this Agreement. 1. Upon request, THE ENGINEER shall furnish to THE CITY copies of design calculation sheets for all projects covered by this Agreement. 2. All change orders shall be approved by THE CITY before they are issued to the Contractor. 3. It is understood that changing conditions may warrant a change in budget for any engineering work which may only be made with THE CITY's approval on a timely basis. Any consideration for adjustment of a budget must be brought to the attention of the City Council for approval. 4. It is understood that all engineering projects may only be initiated by THE CITY. THE ENGINEER agrees to work on a budget basis for the preliminary study phase of engineering projects even though the project eventually may be completed on a fee basis. The preliminary study fee in this case shall be fully credited to the final fee. Any phase of a project may be initiated by THE CITY. 5. It is understood that special meetings with City Officials and Staff or City Council meetings attended in conjunction with project shall be included in the fees for those projects. THE ENGINEER shall furnish a representative to attend other City Council meetings at the request of THE CITY at no additional cost. 6. The hourly rates listed in Schedule B are for 2004 and 2005. Starting January 1, 2006 and each January 1St, thereafter, rates will be increased at a rate of three (3) percent per year. 7. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any portion hereof is, for any reason, held by a Court of competent jurisdiction, to be contrary to law, such decision shall not affect the remaining provisions of the Agreement. 8. THE ENGINEER shall promptly notify THE CITY if it or its principals secure any interest in any real estate or development proposals or accepts a contract with any client owning real estate or having a development proposal in the City of Little Canada. 9. THE ENGINEER shall allow THE CITY, or its duly authorized agent, reasonable access to such of THE ENGINEER'S books and records, documents, accounting procedures and practices as are pertinent to all services provided under this Agreement. 10. THE ENGINEER is an independent contractor. No employee of THE ENGINEER and no other persons employed by THE ENGINEER in the performance of its activities as provided for under this Agreement shall be considered employees of THE CITY. No employees of THE CITY or no other persons employed by THE CITY in the performance of its activities as provided for under this Agreement shall be considered employees of THE ENGINEER. 11. This Agreement may be amended by mutual written agreement of the parties hereto. 12. THE ENGINEER shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless THE CITY, and all of its officers, employees, elected officials, and agents from and against any and all costs, suits, liability, penalties, damages, demands, expenses, and claims of damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees, which may arise by reason of any act, negligent or otherwise, done by THE ENGINEER arising out of or relating to this - 1 2 - Agreement or for work done under pretended authority of this Agreement. 13. THE CITY shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless THE ENGINEER, and all of its officers, employees, directors, and agents from and against any and all costs, suits, liability, penalties, damages, demands, expenses, and claims of damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees, which may arise by reason of any act, negligent or otherwise, done by THE CITY under this Agreement or for work done under pretended authority of this Agreement. 14. This Agreement shall be controlled by the laws of the State of Minnesota. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties here to have executed This Agreement the day and year first above written. CITY OF LITTLE CANADA By Michael I. Fahey Mayor By Joel R. Hanson City Administrator ELFERING & ASSOCIATES By: Kristina Thompson President By: Lee Elfering Vice President - 1 3 - Schedule A City of Little Canada Project Rate Schedule Project work shall be completed at the hourly rate shown in Schedule B up to the following: Construction Cost Below $100,000 $100,000 - $250,000 $250,000 - $500,000 Above $500,000 Hourly Hourly / maximum 25.0% of const Hourly / maximum 22.5% of const Hourly / maximum 20.0% of const cost cost cost Project work would include one informational meeting, feasibility preparation, improvement hearing, design, construction inspection, construction staking, and construction administration. The need for right -of -way would be identified within the hourly /maximum cost, but the actual cost of assisting in the acquisitions and preparation of the easement descriptions and exhibits would be at an additional hourly cost. Subconsultant work such as geotechnical services and other reimbursable expenses would also be in addition to the maximum not to exceed and billed at cost. - 1 4 - Schedule B City of Little Canada 2004/2005 Hourly Rate Schedule The following schedule of positions and hourly rates details billing rates for 2004 and 2005. These billing rates would be used for engineering services. City Engineer Project Manager Project Engineer II Project Engineer Staff Engineer II Staff Engineer I Engineering Technician CAD Technician Field Inspector II Field Inspector I $100.00 $100.00 $ 90.00 $ 82.00 $ 75.00 $ 70.00 $ 75.00 $ 80.00 $ 60.00 $ 70.00 $ 75.00 $ 65.00 Reimbursable Expenses 1. Subconsultant expenses will be billed at cost. 2. Auto mileage will be reimbursed on the basis of $0.37 per mile. Inspector mileage will be reimbursed on the basis of $0.65 per mile. 3. No materials or supplies will be billed. - 1 5 - EXHIBIT C ENGINEERING TRANSITION PLAN The City of Little Canada is hiring Elfering & Associates, PLC to serve in the capacity of City Engineer effective August 25, 2004. Howard R. Green has been the City's engineer up to the point of this change. A number of projects or assignments are already in progress. The purpose of this plan is to assign responsibility for the completion of the work in progress. H. Howard R. Green will complete the following assignments. It should be noted that in the case of these projects, the continuity of inspection services is the key factor in keeping said projects with Howard R. Green. Specifically, the continued assignment of Lyle Splittstoser is essential to the completion of the projects in progress. Howard R. Green represents that it will continue to assign Mr. Splittstoser to the completion of the Little Canada projects in a manner to which Little Canada has become accustomed. In the event that Howard R. Green does not make Mr. Splittstoser's services available to Little Canada, then Little Canada reserves the right to modify this transition plan as it deems appropriate. Compensation for services rendered by Howard R. Green shall be determined via a Master Agreement to be executed in the near firture. The projects to be retained by Howard R. Green are as follows: 2003 Improvement Projects 2004 Improvement Projects Hamel Court Subdivision Project Inman Subdivision Project The Villas at Little Canada Infrastrucnue Inspection Mendota Homes Town Office Complex III. Howard R. Green shall also continue to assist the City of Little Canada in its analysis of infiltration and inflow. Said work will include, but may not be limited to, evaluation of sewer metering data, placement of flow meters in new locations, analysis of new flow data generated, roof drain inspections, and other duties as may be assigned. A work scope and budget shall be prepared by Howard R. Green for approval by Little Canada to govern this on -going relationship. IV. Elfering & Associates, PLC will take over all &tore projects unless otherwise directed by the City of Little Canada. It shall also assume responsibility for the following projects in progress. Those projects are as follows: Hidden Acres Subdivision Project North Star Estates Storm Shelter Project Gervais Hills Subdivision Project The Preserve Subdivision Project 2004 Trail Improvements (May be Assigned to Park Consultant) - 1 6 - V. In completing the transition between firms, on -going coordination between the two firms may be necessary. All contacts between the firms shall occur with Brian Johnson of Howard R. Green or Lee Elfering of Elfering & Associates respectively. Agreed to this day of August, 2004. Howard R. Green BY: Elfering & Associates, PLC BY: - 1 7 - 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada. MN 55117 -1600 (651) 766 -4029 / FAX: (651) 766 -4048 www.ci.little- canada.mn.us MEM ORANDUM TO: Mayor Fahey and Members of the City Council FROM: Joel Hanson, City Administrator HATE,: August 20, 2004 RE: Call for Budget Workshop Meeting MAYOR Michael 1. Fahey COUNCIL Jim LaValle Matt Anderson Riek Montour Bill 6lesener ADMINISTRATOR Joel R. Hanson The City Council is required to certify the preliminary 2005 Budget to Ramsey County by September 15, 2004. Therefore, Staff would recommend that either a workshop meeting be called for Wednesday, September 9, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. or Council review the preliminary budget at its regular meeting that same evening.