Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-14-1981 Council AgendaAGENDA REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LITTLE CANADA,MINNESOTA JANUARY 14, 1981 1. Call to order 7:30 P.M. Tape no. 2. Roll Call Mayor Mr. Raymond Hanson Councilman : Mr. Michael Fahey Councilwoman: Mrs Beverly Scalze Councilman : Mr. Dennis Forsberg Councilwoman: Mrs Mugs Nardini Attorney Mr. Clayton Parks Engineer Mr. Donald Carley Clerk Mr. Joseph Chlebeck Recording Secretary Mrs. Kathleen Glanzer 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Tape no. to Approval of Minutes of December 10, 1980. Motion by 2nd by Ayes Nayes Abstaining: Page -1- Agenda Little Canada City Council Meeting Jan-14-1981. Continued. PUBLIC HEARING 4. Richard Demont Lot Variance SEE CORRESPONDENCE: Page -1- Notice of Hearing Page -2- Mailing List. Pages -3- thru -4- Planners report. Page- -5- Page-6 - Objectors: Map. Survey of Property. MOTION TO CLOSE HEARING: Motion by 2nd by Ayes Nayes Abstaining MOTION TO : APPROVE , DENY Motion by 2nd by Ayes Nayes , TABLE REFER TO Tape no. to Abstaining. Page -2- Agenda Regular Meeting Little Canada City Council Continued. 5. CONTINUATION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF PARK ST. FROM DEMONT TO CO. RD. C. BY: Road Imp. Wtr.Swr. -Storm Swr. TAPE NO. TO SEE CORRESPONDENCE: Page -7- Preliminary report on project as proposed. Page -B- Map showing improvement as proposed. Page -9- Mailing list property owners Page -10- Letter from Mr. F. Frattalone, objecting. Pages -12- thru -13- Cost report for other methods of making the improvement. Pages -14- thru -17- Maps showing the other methods. Objectors: Rush Johnson F. Frattalone. MOTION TO: DENY IMPROVEMENT AS PROPROSED ALTER IMPROVEMENT AS PROPOSED , BY: TABLE IMPROVEMENT AS PROPOSED , Motion by: 2nd by Ayes Nayes Abstaining Page -3- Agenda Continued City Council meeting January -14 -1981 IDEMS BY PERSONAL REPRESENTATION: 6. MINNESOTA MINI STORAGE Tape no. Mr. Bruce Hubbard. SEE CORRESPONDENCE: Pages- 18- thru -20- Planners report. Pages- 21- thue -22- Maps Page -23- site plan Page -24- Letter from Mr. Hubard Pages -25- thru -26- Engineer report. Mr. Hubbard is requesting the City approval for Industrial Revenue Bonds. Motion to call for a hearing for Feb. 11, on Industrial Revenue Bonds. Moton by 2nd by Ayes Nayes Abstaining. There are additional idems to be added to the site plan before city can approve Plan and a new PUD AGREEMENT must be approved. Page -4- Agenda Regular meeting City Council Jan -14 -1981 Continued IDEMS BY PERSONAL REPRESENTATION. 7. FIRE SIDE HOMES: Tape no. to Mr. Vince Douglas. SEE CORRESPONDENCE Pages- 28 thru 29, Planner report. Page 29, map of proposal. MOTION TO: 8. Ryan Proposal Tape no. to Building permit approval. SEE CORRESPONDENCE: Pages -30- thru -31 -, Planner's report. Page -32- Site Plan Page -33- Map of area. MOTION TO: APPROVE, DENY , TABLE REFER TO: MOTION BY 2ND BY AYES NAYES ABSTAINING. Page -5- Agenda Regular Meeting City Council Jan -14 -,1981 Cont. IDEMS BY PERSONAL REPRESENTATION. 9. Waite Proposal. Four plexes and duo plexes. ( Land zoned R -3 -) SEE CORRESPONDENCE Pages- 34 thru -36 Planner report. Page- 37 Map of area Page- 38 Proposed iste concept. Page -39- Copy of application. MOTION TO CALL HEARING ON FEB. 11 1981 FOR: Motion by: 2nd by Ayes Nayes Abstaining Tape No. to 10. Frank Frattalone Proposal Tape no. to 11 Bids for Tree removal. ( Bid pending from Tree inspector. Motion to accept the bid of: Motion by 2nd by Ayes Mayes Tape no. Abstaining Page -6- Agenda Regular Meeting City Council Jan -14 -1981 Cont. 12. IDEMS FROM THE FLOOR: Tape No. to Page -7- AGENA REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL JAN. -8 -1981 CONTINUED COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE MATTERS 13. TAX FORFEITED LANDS : SEE CORRESPONDENCE: Page -40- Map of area. Page -41 Legal description. Page -42 Clerk's memo. REPORT PENDING FROM PARK COMMISSION. PLANNING COMMISSION HAS TABLED MATTER. NO ACTION NECESSARY AT THIS TIME. Tape no. to 14. APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS: UPON THE MOTION OF 2nd by Tape NO. to VOUCHER ARE HEREBY APPROVED FOR PAYMENT. AYES NAYES ABSTAINING. 15. ATTORNEY REPORTS: Tape NO. SEE CORRESPONDENCE Page -43- letter from Schafer's insurance Co. pertaining to Frattalone claim. OTHER REPORTS: Page -8- Agenda Council Meeting JAN. -14 -1981 CONTINUED COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE MATTERS: ENGINEER REPORT. Tape no. 16. Report from St. Judes concerning Drainage caluations. See correspondence pages 44 & 45. Tape no. to 17. Assessment reapportionment Div. No. 56136. ( Jespersen property) See correspondence page -46 -. Motion by 2nd by Ayes Nayes Abstaining 18. Halverson Property Assessment. Imp. 78 -12- Brooks Watermain. Aud. 1834 -D /P 1834. Tape no. to Mr. Halverson was assessed: $ 1,889.00 for 110 ft of property. He is of the opinion that he should only be assessed 80 ft. SEE CORRESPONDENCE PAGE 47. Mr. Halverson owns lots -l0 and W. 30 ft of lot 9. ( Arnold Anderson Addition) Motion to: 19. Engineer other. Page -9- Agenda Regular Meeting City Council Jan. -14- 1981 Continued. COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE MATTERS PUBLIC SAFETY MR. HANSON 17. SEE CORRESPONDENCE. Pages- 48 thru -51. Method evaluating Police cost. 18. Other report. Tape NO. to PLANNING AND ZONING & BUILDING: MRS NARDINI 19. Reports Tape No. to UTILITY : MR. FORSBERG 20. Reports if any. PARKS & RECREATION: MRS SCALZE TAPE 0 TO 21. Parks report: Concerning St. Judes Medical Park Charge. 22. Other reports. ADMINISTRATION LIAISON : MR. FAHEY. 23. Auto Repair License for Fast Service Corp. Tape no. See correspondence page -52 -. Sin -Clair is leasing part of their station to this corp. Sin -clair sell gas. Motion to approve license: Motion by _2nd by Ayes Nayes Abstaining. to 24. Recreation salary guide -line. Tape no. to See correspondence page -53- 25. Letter from Metro Council concerning our Comprehensive Plan. (Tape no. to ) see correspondence pages 54 thru 58. This may be discussed at the meeting of the 28th of January. 25. Other reports: Tape No. to 26 Adjourn. Motion by 2nd by Page -10- CORRESPONDENCE TO AGENDA REGULAR MEETING LITTLE CANADA CITY "COUNCIL JAN. -14- 1981 PAGES CONTENTS 1 thru 6 Reports concerning Richard Demont Lot Variance 7 thru 17 Reports concerning Park St. Imp. 81 -3- 18 thru 26 Report concerning Minnesota Mini Storage, Bruce Hubbard. 27 thru 29 Report concerning Fire Side Homes 30 thru 33 Report concerning Ryan's industrial building. 34 thru 39 Reports concerning Waite Proposal. 40 thru 42 Reports concerning tax forteited lands 43 Letter from Schafer's Insurance Co. concerning M. Frattalone's claim. 44 thru 45 Report concerning St. Jude's Drainage Calulation. 46 Assessment reapportionment. 47 Map showing Halverson property concerning assessment. 48 thru 51 Report concerning method of Evaluating Police service contract. 52 License application for Auto Service Station. (Fast Service Corp) 53 Report Concerning Recreation salaries. 54 thru 58 Letter from Metro concerning our Comprehensive Plan. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CODE VARIANCE Notice is hereby given that the Council of the City of Little Canada will bold a Public Hearing on,Wednesday January 14,1981, at 7:30 o'clock P.M.,in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. PETITIONER REQUEST Richard Demout 177 Demont Little Canada Mn. Approve a zone code variance. Construct a dwelling on a corner lot with 10,109 sq ft. Code requires corner lot area to consists of 11,000 sq ft. LOCATION S W corner of Ruth St and un-improved Lake St. ALL PERSONS DESERING TO BE HEARD WITH REFERENCE TO THIS HEARING WILL BE HEARD DURING THIS 8E&DING, Joseph G. Chlebeck Clerk ?]- gIurD° Nr , '^/�+�` x���;��/ r;o' � �.�c Notices sent Re: Richard Demont variance. Marc A & Jacqueline A. Brandt 2573 Stark St. Little Canada, Mn. 55117 Dennis D. Davison & Elizabeth A. D 2589 Stark St. Little Canada, Mn. 55117 e . er�:.� . clig.si �i a►�e an A e. Mn. 55117 Richard Demont 177 E. Demont Little Canada, Mn. 55117 Kleven L. Downs Darlene K. Downs 2549 Stark St. Little Canada, Mn. 55117 Mabel F. Erickson Parkview Re /T Muellner Sr. 1345 Arcade St. St. Paul, Mn. 55106 John & Vickie Howard 296 Lion Lane, St. Paul, Mn 55112 Catherine Jansen 2590 Stark St. Little Canada, Mn. 55117 Darrell K. & Mary K. Johnson 2597 Stark St. Little Canada, Mn. 55117 Louis H. & Lena M. LaCasse 2605 Stark St. Little Canada, Mn. 55117 Terrance R. & Roberta N. McTeague 2565 Stark St. Little Canada, Mn. 55117 George L. Ostrand 1695 Ames Ave. !:St. Paul, Mn. 55106 Gregory & Joan Saiko 2615 Stark St. Little Canada, Mn. 55117 State of Mn. Real Estate Management Division Administration Bldg. St , Paul, Mn. 55155 avison Soo Line Railroad Minneapolis, St. Paul, & Sault Ste Marie 105 S. 5th St. Mpls, Mn. 55401 Arthur E. Thom Inc. Pioneer Bldg. St. Paul, Mn. Rockne R & Elaine M. Waite 2651 Lakeshore Ave. Little Canada, Mn. 55117 Scott N. & Mary Barraclough 2570 Stark St. Little Canada, Mn. 55117 Carlus Espejo & Darlene M. Espejo 2558 Stark St. Little Canada, Mn. 55117 James C. & Kimberly Ann Strouth 2548 Stark St. Little Canada, Mn. 55117 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. MEMORANDUM TO: Little Canada Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 5 January 1981 RE: Demont, Richard - Lot Size Variance FILE NO: 758.09 (80.28) BACKGROUND Mr. Demont has requested a building permit for a single family dwelling in the south- west corner of Ruth Street and Lake Street. The property in question currently consists of three lots - Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 12 of North Heights Addition (see Site Location Map attached). The reason this request comes before the City is that the property in question is con- sidered to be a corner lot for which the Zoning Ordinance requires 11,000 square feet of area (Section 905.050, A). The property as it now exists only contains 10,109 square feet, necessitating an area variance of nearly 900 square feet. EVALUATION 1. Lot Area Upon review of the request, we explored the possibility of having the applicant acquire additional land (i.e., Lots 4 and 5 to the west) in order to avoid the variance. Lots 4 and 48 (Lot 48 is south of the property) are owned by one individual who has expressed an interest in selling them. Lot 5 is separately owned, and it is not known whether or not it is for sale. It must be realized that Lots 4 and 5 are currently unbuildable even if combined. While it is felt that the variance may be justified without the lot combinations suggested, the City should attempt to resolve the issue at this time if at all possible so that Lots 4, 5 and possibly 48 are not left as unbuildable lots. In discussing this problem with the applicant, he has expressed some interest in the possibility of combining lots. 4820 minnetonka boulevard, st ;; DI s, mn 55416 612/925 -9420 Little Canada Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council 5 January 1981 Page Two 2. Setbacks. Exhibit B shows the proposed building layout on the applicant's survey. Since the property in question is a corner lot, setbacks of 30 feet are required (and have been provided) from both Lake Street and Ruth Street. A problem arises, however, in determining side and rear setbacks. By definition the narrowest frontage on a street is considered the front yard on a corner lot. Thus, in this case the south side of the property is the rear yard. As shown on Exhibit B the setback to the building is 25.65 feet, while 30.39 has been provided on the west side. If 30 feet is maintained on the south side (the rear by definition), it allows an expansion area to the west (within 10 feet of the western lot line). In discussing this with the applicant, he indicated that the drawing was a general building layout and there would be no problem with maintaining a 30 foot setback on the south side of the building. 3. Resubdivision. If the request is approved it is recommended that the applicant be required to legally combine the lots into one parcel . If this is not required, the possibility exists of some future owner selling off Lot 3, leaving the remaining structure and land as substandard. 4. Lake Street. Lake Street is currently undeveloped, and some question exists as to the necessity of ever developing it as a city street. However, a number of narrow (25 feet) lots front on Lake Street. While some of these are owned in groups, others appear to be individually owned (e.g., Lots 4 and 5, Block 12 - see Exhibit A attached). If Lake Street were vacated, the potential exists for a few or more lots to be left without access. Simultaneously the lots are for the most part unbuildable. While resolution of this problem is not considered to be the responsibility of the applicant, it is recommended that the City give the area further study to see if a solution can be found which will eliminate the problem of unbuildable lots. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the preceding analysis, the lot size variance appears to be justified, especially since three grossly substandard lots are being combined to create a more standard lot. However, it is considered very important that the City pursue the resolution of the un- buildable lots in the surrounding area as well as exploring the possibility of vacating Lake Street between Stark and Ruth Streets. Much of the background for such study could potentially be handled during our monthly staff hours. cc: Joe Chlebeck Clayton Parks Don Carley Larry Squires Richard Demont 100' 50' (R.> 30; 249 .U_3 0.c 100' 1 200' z,3Sac. Exhibit A PROPERTY LOCATION Richard Demont - Lot Size Variance "I • 3, '- COUS_► y Y-c) c 0I 9118 7] 5I4�i3dA2L .11 , k u �1 48 13 I • — 141 .• -4. . 15 11 « 1 .1... r._45 1,_ 1 ._ . 13 40 • -I- i2 N • 23 l• -1 r, 25 iv. I)311:5:5Ixi 311323) 13hr `41101.1 -I..I - 1 4 -I211J • g' 6-r. by„ I.I . I ..I. i - I.,rI 0119119117116 51141131211: r. T. T, r rjI 1 r a , � _C4:. ' arlelt O11(..,.r..) s CENTRAL (cno.r.) 2 0 in 4 U-3 1 3 n 5I C. r SPRUCE 44 • 43 • _2 •1 .1 4 0 _ _J 39 Z 38 • 22 23 23 25 2r • • 4 4 • y 43 . _B j 41 _ 3 -{ '3 • i— 21 1 -- it H 36 YYYYYY l >- —' I, = 1 51124:I2y '013'1 ,k1 N I. • H.11•.11H PROPERTY IN F10 13 3 !77 6" 14 5 113 112 i '-c i -\ 12- � 48 - 41 • • 13 I 46 • 20 21_ 22 23 24 ITT ( 75 Nk DEIANU AC PILAT o 3 b 1 3 II 1 1s 0 123.6 LAK 85 II 6{ c. N 0 4 I -co "° a2 ; 211 ." • N -� 3 r• � Qq Z " 'r3,47.4.1t 0 e t 2 p 2 122.63 ger.n(11E51 ST. • 14 • • 10 16 17 1B • 19 1 2.3 24 • 25 (1) • zc 21 2N -1 44 43 _ • 42 12 • 13 I 14 16 19 40 20_.12 315 22 23 36 24 75 • 25 34 2G_ 33 • • 27 FFF 32 • 2A 3, 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 315 3i 8 2.91 ac 143 .39 .1- :•3 •,•L. .Y APARTMENT OWNr CANA o .. PLAT OF SURVEY R. C. WOLFGRA.M. REGISTERED LAND S ST. PA t •l. '1IXA'HSr,7,1 1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct plat of a .sur•ry of the land that any m07111 7)1ent5 or markers indicated hereon hay(' been placed as shown, and conduions indicated hereon are as shown. Surveyed Sept. Z6 /9Y8 Plat Scale - 1 in.- — 20 ft. • Indicates Iron Mont Exhibit B PROPOSED BUILDING LOCATION shown and described hereon, and that any improwynents or physical Description -.toes f,2, ditdi B/ocf /2, ,4&, -/» /1/e//Ns. -- -8449 - -- ST. — 13.4.-49 - -- i1 2996 2996 T 3¢S7 30.0 Sao V. % N \\ k 3 P • / a NN 7 { // / 30.49 1c z4 1' --> 25.65 24..96 24.96 1 39-x`7 — 13.4.-49 - -- i1 500 West Highway 96 St. Paul, Minnesota 55112 4843301 400 E. St. Germain St. St. Cloud, Minnesota 56301 251.7751 PRELIMINARY REPORT City of Little Canada Improvement 81 -3 314 Oak Street Sauk Centre, Minnesota 56378 352-3664 Oct. 8, 1980 LOCATION: Park Street from Demont to County Road "C" NATURE OF IMPROVEMENT: R.O.W. Acquisition, grading, sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, gravel base, bituminous surface, concrete curb and gutter INITIATION: Petition R.O.W.: Acquisition of R.O.W. is necessary. EASEMENTS: Some temporary construction easements will be needed. FEASIBILITY: This improvement is feasible and should be combined with other 1981 Improvements in the City. FINANCING: Estimated Cost Construction $ 152,300.00 Contingency 15,200.00 Legal 3,000.00 Fiscal 3,000.00 Administration 1,500.00 Engineering 25,000.00 Easements* 30,000.00 TOTAL ESTIMATEDCOSTS Capital Interests 10% $ 230,000.00 23,000.00 $ 253,000.00 I! ri-rna 0V t2$ 6 4. __.,,.. .,...,.._.___..._..._ r--1'Itit-±‘A.II-••• • : , • : , : -", 1 I ; ; ---.7, ,+-------,---.--,--,,-,, i .1 • 4:!,. ,- "... rt- r :,,-74 42?,,n4z,.,,,,,H,...,,-; ■C• ' ''-:,A-. • 4;'?' • 1;4.461;14 l• ; 52i C15 - I, _ _ L. • 1,-.' i 1 , , '14 i 1 1 , ]; sak ; ; ; ti i•-41143.1; .. -; "ffrjs...m. 1,At9pata,,,,..4.$ :47-4ff.k.1•411414.1;:4 lk In ;ssraki,‘C 1 ;;;;-; -i57,7 • • -; 1 ;',;;;- , , ; ; : I ■ ;'...f., I ; 2 - II i 1.,24272.1L2 2 .2. li. I ; 1' ;‘1:4:Th)-ri:Cl:':rje4;01" a:4LE94.."1 " 1 ..N.I. ...1 2422 .2.7__Rama 4.0 gill IT? Hi tC. 16 Di YIP rod 1.4 " 2 4-6 It ' •7 Let,„4 43 4 a Is • KO .3e 2 1-5 L.,. Ur f-7-7-71 ; ;7II L lit s,IL, 7-1id A LIST? -1 4.-„H ,... L A P./E „11./ rp----.24.--7-- ; 1.(;;;; • ; i k !" ; khe • 1" ! • ; k . : ' , : ' ■ • ' ; 1 I i j ; 1 4-- — ---L. ,<...1,It .1ti Sil N. IS 1 4 ; 3 a ; / LL I " •: i / I ' / ' -1-- -f- t -J- r I TM tc!bitaizs,/.0/3,p4.4,W1.3 Izsis j-4-I -fo the Acquitsp •4-- — - - t 1 a4 W. •*- f • < 7 - Ii- c--r--- ,,r: , 36 , ) - - t E+ .-■ ? _ _ _ ._ H .... 4- s' as 1-. . az, ;•• 1r _ r __. -_ V) --- ...._," L.— _IC s; 3:? .. 4 - ---, 1 a 1 . t A 6C4, 24 51 4 it c 10 5 3, T I - -Z2 Z■ A s -■-/ I.' - ■ -_L_- — — . — - -_ _ _ 7 c 8 23-,: , ■c, Zi_it. 9 _j a a ; -1 — zo 1 IS • I? t6. 1.1 _ — --- VI ' IQ .1.• I S — —I • — V4644•4 va.c.A. • r s - IA • , I CO 50 -11 1 Ct-- 9 ' t hZ-Ti, —117 < 77 72, 100 • CS- •,L 4__ __L-.1.. _i -- ---4--4—: — -I [ ,..3c. I • ! I --r< ; ,.._i__.„.40,..___-I--fi - 1 . i 'ICI 611-rn fr.° , , I --104--... <IC,,11!.61it' H,t1 iiPHIL4 Y.S-12-OHI66;,2141WA • i I It 1 I )4, ji I COi )(I) _ 1, 0; ..., , , ■H I 1 ; i iil 'ttic-..., f ,,, [ . ..- 1 1 • i; - , 4- 7.----i -I-4'r I ' 1 esi!i4 iisra II. Io 5 t 7 :G i 5 4 1 6 i 2 ;1 I ?I l i ; i ' , I 1 1 1 • 1 .__1 1 ; 1-1ti. 1 1 DAY AVE. 0 i I 'ICI lislititoi asksjyrItsles h, oi • 16 7 41S141 & t , • LL 1 1 1 i ANSIT AVER . 2 No. Name 1 Lehmann 2 Bickham 3 Schultz 4 Buche 5 Ray Ray Ray Ray Ray Ray 6 North Investment 7 Harstad& McCulloch 8 Behr (Pearson) Behr ( Pearson) Behr (Pearson) Behr 8 Burkgren 9 Conway 10 Johnson 11 North Inv. & Frattalone 12 North Inv. 13 E. Anderson 14 Veilleux MAILING LIST IMP. 81-3 - PARK ST. Address 64 W. Co. Rd. C. 2626 Park St. 2617 Spruce 298 Rose -1- Apple Tree Rd. ft n II 2200 Silver Lake Rd. 2191 Silver Lake Rd. 2557 Spruce 2557 Spruce 2557 Spruce 2557 Spruce 2558 Rice Lino Lakes 45 Hepont 102 W. Co. Rd. C. 2129 Rice 2550 Rice 57 Demont Parcel no. 53- 55000- 100 -05 53- 55000- 141 -01 53- 55000 - 581 -05 53- 55000- 223 -01 53- 55000 - 230 -01 53- 55000 - 240 -05 53- 55000- 250 -05 53- 55000- 080 -09 53- 55000 - 090 -09 53- 55000 - 100 -09 53- 55000 - 071 -06 53- 55000- 564 -o6 53- 55000 - 010 -07 53- 55000 - 020 -07 53- 55000 - 030 -07 53- 55000 - 160 -09 53- 55000 - 010 -08 53- 55000- 200 -09 53- 55000- 290 -09 53- 55200 - 073 =02 53- 55200- 075 -02 53- 55200- 090 -02 53- 55200 - 101 -02 Snow P1osw Sc Removal FRATTALONE EXCAVATING & GRADING COMMERCIAL el RESIDENTIAL 102 W. County Road C November 11, 1980 Council of the City of Little Canada 515 Little Canada Rd. St. Paul, MN 55117 RE: Improvement 81 -3 Park St. From Demont to Co. Rd. C. Dear Sirs: 4840448 I hereby oppose the above improvement 81 -3 Park St. From Demont to Co. Rd. C. Please accept this as an absentee opposition. Thank -you. FMF: amf CC Respectfully, rank M. Frattalone President F.M.FRATTALONE EXCAVATING & GRADING, INC. SSOCIATES IN S ` Conteging Engineers Eund Surveyoif S` PAUL SAUK "CENTRE :3t"CLOUD ;=$ 500 West Highway 96 St. Paul, Minnesota 55112 4843301 400 E. SL Germain St. St. Cloud, Minnesota 56301 2517751 FEASIBILITY REPORT City of Little Canada, MN Improvement 81 -4 314 Oak Street Sauk Centre, Minnesota 56378 3523664 Dec. 10, 1980 LOCATION: Park St. from County Road "C" to cul -de -sac Lake Street from Rice Street to Spruce Street IMPROVEMENT: Right -of -way acquisition, grading, sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, gravel base, bituminous surfacing and concrete curb and gutter. INITIATION: Petition and City Council R.O.W.: Acquisition of right -of -way is necessary for construction of the cul -de -sac. EASEMENTS: Temporary construction easements would be required. FEASIBILITY: This improvement is feasible and should be combined with other 1981 Improvements. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: A hearing was held on Nov. 12, 1980 for an improvement on Park Street from Demont to County Road "C ". Opposition was expressed by the owners of property fronting on Demont. An alternate was suggested to construct a cul -de -sac as shown on Plan A which would not involve these two owners. A second alternative was suggested to construct Lake Street from Rice Street to Park Street and also Lake Street from Park Street to Spruce Street so as to reduce the length of the cul -de -sac. We are, therefore, presenting these alternates in various combinations. Feasibility Report SPECIAL CONDITIONS cont'd: : -2- Impr. 81 -4 Mention was also made at the previous hearing that because the property on the west side of Park Street is zoned B -3, while that on the east side is zoned R -1, that the business property be assessed at a higher rate because it requires a 9 ton street as opposed to a 5 ton normally required in R -1 districts. This same reasoning can be applied to the storm sewer because more runoff can be expected from the business area. FINANCING: Estimated Cost - Park Street from County Road C to cul -de -sac: Construction $ 135,440 Contingency (10 %) 13,500 Legal (1 %) 1,350 Fiscal (1 %) 1,350 Administration (1 %) 1,350 Engineering 20,500 R 0 W 2,000 $ 175,490 Capital Interest 17,500 TOTAL $ 192,990 Estimated Cost - Lake Street from Rice Street to Park Street Construction $ 172,000 Contingency (10 %) 17,200 Legal (1 %) 1,700 Fiscal (1 %) 1,700 Administration (1 %) 1,700 Engineering 26,000 Easements 2,000 $222,300 Capital Interest 22,200 TOTAL $244,500 Feasibility Report FINANCING cont'd: -3- Impr. 81 -4 Estimated Cost - Park Street - County Road C to cul -de -sac Lake Street - Park Street to Spruce Street Construction $ 157,000 Contingency (10 %) 15,700 Legal (1 %) 1,600 Fiscal (1 %) 1,600 Administration (1 %) 1,600 Engineering 23,500 Easements 2,000 R.O.W. 2,000 $ 205,000 Capital Interest 20,500 TOTAL $ 225,500 SUMMARY Total Estimated Costs: Lake St. - Rice to Park Park St. - County Road "C" to cul -de -sac Lake St. - Park to Spruce $ 244,500 175,500 50,000 GRAND TOTAL $ 470,000 Frontage: Park St. R -1 = 750 ft. B -3 = 750 ft. Lake St. (West) = 1100' Lake St. (East) = -0- CC. EN G. HAS PRINT 4. ESMT 0R O:T CH OVER LOTS ,r5 lo 6,5 11-1_ C- OU - -N-T Y // 1.1.I.. rl..ri -i -i; -111711, 1 "1 144 ,tcI 1 I I { s d "0 1 zd1Y 1l G 151141191 1211 Ic' >•; 1 4 5 1 ■ rtI P Ta —^ 13g-Ia D� Iht±l tHistt q 074 QC 1`1 'x141 -� I I III I Far ,ITT r I I ?' .v -T �I19 ID Iy II I.I CII >114I1 >I12I qiT; ? I D I l I G XL / oGY5'�'714 .I 1. 1 . I•.1 I i 1.41 e_e 4/3- .1� l t.LL1� �1. . 1 A } V4j4T T5 SSA PE41. • T-y A •'1 et, Dn RMUF8 .4-7-0-657 vJ 1 --T21,557-Fa 587.42'+ 1.29..E 1 .9aao. pPRK 4°OZ) CC-7` C2. .33 3 LAKE 242 2.2.7_.. __R -OA D OIDI8I1IG 5I4I812I to 1II11`}1 H I 4D 12 1 47 4 • 10 1. ? 15 IG II Y hG • 45 44 it vs'»y IB i 9 40 41 t 2t St 19 40 z4 35 20 39 • RI 38 v III 22 1 37 • 2.5 -1 B6 24 /55 SI 1 1 1 1111 1 1 25 I2c12i12.5125 M1 j1132,53 I„ II. I•, 2212 54 . 5 ° °4 7-7 4I9a,.I.I,i.,I..I' I.1..1..1.I1 2; J Il 1 15 +_ 1-j 1211/11611817 7 G 4.115 ae. __150 .aa1/11 • 10.1 GO 3•S I���1 100- Go Ft 3e 1101 •. •• •• `•1LSI •. /0191611 IG15141312I 1 d as 111 12 415 • 47 15 14 I_ 46 1 1 45 t 44 15 la 1C. 45 a 17 k�• 4 42 1e. { _ --1 41 i 9 40 20 u 55 2t St 22 37 231 I S 56 z4 35 as -. 34 26 53 27 32 26 III 31 2S 41 3 1 101916 1C 1.(Th 11 15 .�� ` 15).Gr 1 4Ib . n 4E IL .■ 47 Ij ■ 4E 4 45 13 1 4-4 16 45 17 42 Ib 41 11 40 eo 39 21 -1— 38 22 S7 43 94 2I- A., 55 251LGI21IVj1E'?#+III31- 35!251, ___' -1- -- H tr l'-^_ 11.1 1,1,15]‘4, w CC N GO 1111.I2;- ..01£111171615I4131211si • v 1 j - 11 •4D 12. 47 12 46 14 -1 4 45 IS 44 10 45 17 42 ID 4141— 19 40 t0 3> 21 35 u 27 23 • 5G t4 35 25 34 2G 35 e7 32 25 31 1 I C , I l 1 1 6 1 10 12O 121 1 2221 25 124 1 2 5 1 2612.712 B 12 150 1 1 1 1 1 1101•le GA +(D SIT 1: I� 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 I i 1 1 1 r -- 2 S 4 5 6 CO . ENG. NAS PRINT 4 ES MT FOR DlTC4 twee. Le/ S 6,5,4 r V Y U N 24 22.27 1 I I II I I r11 ICI 1 I I1 l h nr ;;11 I I -H 1 1 1 1- l ti-I I I-f-- T -' 1, [ 11 1 1 1. 1 1 111 Z'3,c 2b',I1P.It11G 15141 °. 12111101 `y`'�E II IC -4j�1 14:x• ell G 5.4 9,2 1� y 4 G� 4iIiti1� 6_4_ Ili is <,, pl L', 1 30 :� 1 i -T^ 1 11 mo) g +I I3 t 3`h+�I �[j`1 - S/1GI l SC1 IS2yI I 15Li . _ g_ I I I I ��, Ill I� I I 1 z f 1 Lt , �—. it 4 riv -1 4 P1_L�L.I ..141.1 - I2 T 5 T55F9FP46 y� 3 55.33 1w 1.'.9ac ,A Or- .71;:.? 2 .0 T t n'tac Via. ,� _z .._III I I 1 f 11 !II I I 11 i N � � — '191 16 1117 lice I1 011i1DI1x1ih i 1Jd 817 (GL.5141 2,1 2.1,A • r 90 2 \ /5 -1771717i .1717.t-1717, _ 074 02 0 f LAKES — —0 -5 `.__ 11 n__ 4t 12 1, 47 / Y 4G 14 Y 15 15 44 I4 Zii} 1 i 18 4= 7 19 a 4o c 39 • 22.1 I 97 2.3M 1 i 3G z:. _. 29 i s... N. i u F- T TT l 1 I' TT 1 ;to 115 1%-c1271Zt129 iu13113Z 331344^ �T 77 wc. iE �[, I I � I 1 1 I I T 11,. l e l . � ., .. I � . a .. - ' ! 1 1J 16__1J_ kit; I 1 1 1 1'v Jb1 I I I I r1 I 140.10' 1 9 _ ca- TROWBRIDGE 4 ION so (• J5 a 60 z ADD M CD -'I , IF°_. _ .. 150 _,2.1,,.Jat . --4,..,..01,0,445 , -1 .- - ... -_ t m'---D-E-Nterti7- V 3 any.15 110.1 4C _^ 4 291 ITI2 28 1 ^_�; 3 �n 1 3 27 I tot -Y-- 24 ii-r—' 5 ,0 -, V A - I rsT' )f r�i a Th'' I 1 SF II 1` IN}.G I I II aI91611IfG 1-. 1413 t b n� IjjI v / L 111 4i N (0 15Ias1'. 20 la' ..I ..I.. I. lz -- I .2. 4h12 8 1lGIs1 11 5,, `a 1s 11 I2 t� 48 N 47 13 Ih 'Sae 46 45 15 44 th, ; 16 43 i 1,42. 4 IBI 1 4. 7 19 a 7 4> 20 j�� 39 21 t l M. 22.1 I 97 2.3M 1 i 3G 24 35 es 3.4 2G 39 27 Z 2 28 Sl 2a 30 M 40 14 ''\ 5 T LL4 I I 15I2c'2ilu�r 31311.32.3 i31 . 5015Isli1G 514131211 1 "• 11 'Sae 12 47 1a 4c 4 1 7 45 15 A 44 10 4_ 1- Ii II142 18 41^ 1_ 40 20 35 21 3P 21 ai z3` J 54 24 P35 ZS LM LG 35 !7 32 28 1 ai •I{y (n0 30 11 �11- 1 nlll 29 bI 2.8 1'4 34 27 11 2G �!1 25 I 24 1 7 22 (SI e 221 9 2\ I I to it 19 12 3, 15 16 W1 U 1G I D"j 14447 r !- 13- 47 +o30 0 —a1 L1,14D —1 '-jp - --1 -- r -3i 1l 1181 10 1201 tt 1221 291 24 1251 281 27 1 281 29 GO 1 Io- --1 F- 1 5 1 9 1 115114+1121H' G S DAY AVE. g 2 3 S \NSIT q AV E� 1 1 1 y y 1 1 �TTT1 8 1 CC ENG. HAS PRINT 4. ESE7T. FOR. O77-CN OVEt LOTS 8,9410 MiLm 1. 1.. 7 71..I.I,.I1-- 1 611 6 1I I I. 32Im; s an s so 3431 6 6k%9N01 1 114 I I f <�'1 a a pi+ �521t s 11 < is_ /21 y`, I :e.,'"'e� d f 1 . _13 - ddd 366.33 --12t? - -tea '. 5-i Z ( ) c LAKD wit ,�, .. I . I.1., I ..1., I . i ..1.. i l .___ —L —ii YYy -H LL°c R 6_�1cI1 ID 131111 j918 7 IC 6 1 41 31 211 C >;I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III •I 1 11 0191611 16161413121 1 , 11111 a I I D y 44 at 14 Y 45 6 p 4-4 16 ■ 11 sl 3 +1 B17 40 0 !9 • 21 38 22 37 89 8c 2 111° 11 °1 l , 151261221231251a0 1132133 54 t 140.55 . ' 1 R O Wa RID :.lE ry . .1 TiY4' -yo-. `- n i'� 5 n o 'S0 156 'O *i ° ! ADD 3 102 41°,; o 1c1 2 02 10 l__.Sf.- °. .– _ . - . _150 __..¢.4...I nO y 9:..: 100 1QV re O I 1 1-1 1 _� I 4D E M V r { V � 1 S Ito :15. 40 u.. GO r -A M 38 •I 60 35IL.1.. .. 11 I ..1. 1. 1251 AS 1019191'1 615141812 It 0 =111 I _` =. II .4. 4e it • I2 r 41 --. 15 • 46 14 , 44 s 15 2 44 IC 45 17 1 42 6 41 c 19 ' 40 C 20 99 c 3C 22 37 25 34 2.4 35 L___ i 26 I 34 c 2G 1 83 c 27 32 26 31 Y" 11\29` 11530 .4 sp 1 • cµ„ 131916111 514131 1 Iii 'm4 11 48 13 Me 47 13 ■■ 44 4 4, 45 15 44 14 s 43 17 42 IS 41 ti as 22 37 - C3 ..I 24 Is 35 1511412+.3123134511.321 31 34 40 E .ts • 25 c 101'131' (615141'121 1- e ,■ 12, 47 13 46 14 4 45 15 44 t0 43 17 42 18 41 13 40 20 .r 35 21 a 38 22 a) 23 3C 24 35 25 3-4 EC 33 27 32 28 SI IC 1'1 118119120121 12212812 51261271281 2 DAY AVE.3 21.1 22.12-512.4-12.5 281271Mita n 1G oocc.. -1 ao_41" 11 , 140.55 . ' 1 R O Wa RID :.lE ry . .1 TiY4' -yo-. `- n i'� 5 n o 'S0 156 'O *i ° ! ADD 3 102 41°,; o 1c1 2 02 10 l__.Sf.- °. .– _ . - . _150 __..¢.4...I nO y 9:..: 100 1QV re O I 1 1-1 1 _� I 4D E M V r { V � 1 S Ito :15. 40 u.. GO r -A M 38 •I 60 35IL.1.. .. 11 I ..1. 1. 1251 AS 1019191'1 615141812 It 0 =111 I _` =. II .4. 4e it • I2 r 41 --. 15 • 46 14 , 44 s 15 2 44 IC 45 17 1 42 6 41 c 19 ' 40 C 20 99 c 3C 22 37 25 34 2.4 35 L___ i 26 I 34 c 2G 1 83 c 27 32 26 31 Y" 11\29` 11530 .4 sp 1 • cµ„ 131916111 514131 1 Iii 'm4 11 48 13 Me 47 13 ■■ 44 4 4, 45 15 44 14 s 43 17 42 IS 41 ti as 22 37 - C3 ..I 24 Is 35 1511412+.3123134511.321 31 34 40 E .ts • 25 c 101'131' (615141'121 1- e ,■ 12, 47 13 46 14 4 45 15 44 t0 43 17 42 18 41 13 40 20 .r 35 21 a 38 22 a) 23 3C 24 35 25 3-4 EC 33 27 32 28 SI IC 1'1 118119120121 12212812 51261271281 2 DAY AVE.3 21.1 22.12-512.4-12.5 281271Mita n 1G oocc.. -1 ao_41" 11 , sp 1 • cµ„ 131916111 514131 1 Iii 'm4 11 48 13 Me 47 13 ■■ 44 4 4, 45 15 44 14 s 43 17 42 IS 41 ti as 22 37 - C3 ..I 24 Is 35 1511412+.3123134511.321 31 34 40 E .ts • 25 c 101'131' (615141'121 1- e ,■ 12, 47 13 46 14 4 45 15 44 t0 43 17 42 18 41 13 40 20 .r 35 21 a 38 22 a) 23 3C 24 35 25 3-4 EC 33 27 32 28 SI IC 1'1 118119120121 12212812 51261271281 2 DAY AVE.3 21.1 22.12-512.4-12.5 281271Mita n 1G oocc.. -1 ao_41" 11 , 40 E .ts • 25 c 101'131' (615141'121 1- e ,■ 12, 47 13 46 14 4 45 15 44 t0 43 17 42 18 41 13 40 20 .r 35 21 a 38 22 a) 23 3C 24 35 25 3-4 EC 33 27 32 28 SI IC 1'1 118119120121 12212812 51261271281 2 DAY AVE.3 21.1 22.12-512.4-12.5 281271Mita n 1G oocc.. -1 ao_41" 11 , IC 1'1 118119120121 12212812 51261271281 2 DAY AVE.3 21.1 22.12-512.4-12.5 281271Mita n 1G oocc.. -1 ao_41" 11 , J CC ENG. HAS PRINT g. ESMT. MGR DITCH OVER TATS 9.9610 -.� - O-U -Nt -T Y 95 S3r�yf.'Y A x >�.. t 11� 1# 2a,', II2g14V417 •4 1.5.14115 \L II 11c15/1 101 b l C S 3 Z 2.7 • 4 1 I/ 4.2 Go ADC II 1 •. –"34�j59 43298' __ i �.� I t I i�f.l ' 1 missi l,.l 1,141.14. �1.1, j 1 °D.� n co .44. 1• . 94ac. ' i� �,. ' n v.�.4 r N 33 j56.33 { .flat Loth d 074 02 - • 14• 4IIII 2: v'-1:9IID1111.1 6119114113 ire n 140. G. 0 • LAKE se` 07 2 0- LI 1.�. e�•aI •1 •4 1151,41131 121111 I ° I9111 G�5I4I 3I z11� >Ivl••I., I.. 242.2.27 Q-,!"1 n n OI3IB1l 73 - C. •• 5-1412L12.1 2415. 1141 48 12 47 19 I / 44 are 44 IS 45 41 1G 1 t 177 11 5 45 _ 41 15 es 1 40 i 55 • tk to 4z 2.1 ' 38 It 22 23 a 37 36 I 4 x121111 131 2512.12712E12937131 d LLL. 324553 54 l 3: I11111140'311 t 1.1 S 0c.. 139.53 T 160 0 N 4°23 Oj 3 02 1102 100 190 1 GO "rill' /019191114 1. I,{.. ILS 1S 141ST, 1111 ] t • 11 48 12 11111 47 47 13 13 / 46 15 14 , 45 4-4 15 t 44 tk 16 4z 45 ' 17 } It A 4Z a 12,1 I 4 7 19 40 38 22 20 59 57 a9 21 Be 4 24 22 37 35 —27 3G LG 24 25ILCIZ7IL3I2+ 35 e7 as ■- 94 2G 31 53 27 A 32 29 S 91 29 ,. 5 pk kill It 151413 •11, --- • 11 48 li 11111 47 13 a 4 44 I 15 45 IS 44 4-4 IG 43 17 4z ID 41 It 40 ao 4o s 39 21 * 39 38 22 57 a9 56 4 24 35 35 SOb1Ij2133134' 34 LG 25ILCIZ7IL3I2+ i GO 4.1O1915111C as 51411211. 4b 1 It 47 . I3 4G K 45 15 44 1G 43 42 11 9 13 41 a 4o s 20 21 * 39 30 a 22 37 23 36 e4 25 35 34 LG 93 3) e7 2S 31 29 1- 2 2.8 - YI - 4_ 21 —61 1 ;1 15 2.5 t G 24 1 7 2.a (hi � t 2JL.✓✓I I a ti. 1 ; Ib 20 ; ; 11 19 I I It 1B —ff't 15 —04_- 41 eel 44 IC I ; 15 Dot. 14 GG1 GO S-13- G7 ? 3O_� 1--- 401.__-1 2 3 16117118 It 1E01 2112212512A-125 28127128129130 I12111IIbI 111.11 r2ANSIT rrnrirrn7 ITT 11 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. .MEM' )RANDUM TO: Little Canada Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 7 January 1981 RE: Minnesota Mini - Storage - P.U.D. FILE NO: 758.09 - 80.30 BACKGROUND Mr. Bruce Hubbard of Minnesota Mini - Storage has submitted plans for an industrial planned unit development (P.U.D.) for property located in the northwest quadrant of the County Road B /Jackson Street intersection (see attached exhibits). As you recall, this site was previously processed as a P.U.D, under a different developer. Since this proposal is very similar to the previous request, it is suggested that the City review the "Cameron Develop- ment Company - P.U.D." staff reports dated 4 June and 10 September 1980 which were submitted by our office. These reports provide the necessary background and address a number of planning issues related to the development. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Although, as mentioned, this project is similar to the Cameron Development, a number of issues need to be addressed and /or reiterated. 1. The Developer. Whereas the experience of the previous developer had never actuallyo been established, Minnesota Mini - Storage, by comparison has a notable amount of experience in the type of project being proposed. This is seen as an advantage to the City for the following reasons: 1) the developer has existing projects which the City_ can review in evaluating the request; 2) past experience has resulted in the developer addressing problems which someone with less experience may not have realized and 3) since mini - storage is the applicant's primary business, the operation is viewed as a more long term investment than if it were developed for speculative purposes.: 2. Site Drainage. A critical issue which was never fully resolved in the previous request-;• was stormwater runoff and site drainage. The applicant has submitted drainage plans .: -;- and has indicated that he has met with the City Engineer and the Minnesota Department 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite Little Canada Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council 7 1981 Page Two of Transportation. Since MnDOT drainage has a considerable impact on the site, it is recommended that some sort of approval or agreement with them should be acquired and submitted to the City prior to final approval by the City. Also related to drainage k the issue of grading. Given the existing topography of the site, it is assumed that extensive site alteration will be required. The information submitted thus far is not adequate for an accurate evaluation. It is recommended that a more detailed grading plan be submitted and subject to approval by the City Engineer. 3. Staging. Unlike the previous proposal which was to be developed in stages, this request is proposed to be done all at once. As a result, it is felt that all aspects of the P.U.D. requirements should be in order prior to approvals by the City. 4. Site Access. Access to the entire mini - storage is proposed via a single driveway from County Road B. The office /warehouse building which fronts on County Road B has one access from the County Road and two from Jackson Street. Considering the size of the mini - storage area, a second access may be desirable, even if only a crash gate device for emergency access is provided. Although not dimensioned, the driveways have been drawn at 24 feet in width. The southernmost driveway on Jackson Street is located 45 feet from the County Road right -of -way. Section 903.050 D. 8, e. requires a minimum of 60 feet. Perhaps the major issue related to access is the question of how or if Jackson Street" is to be developed. It currently exists as a 33 Foot wide right-of-way., Since the property in question and the parcel to the east both require access From Jackson Street, it is recommended that a 60 foot right -of -way be acquired by the City The and design of this road should be determined by the City Engineer. in the event the additional right-of-way must come from the subject property, it may require some redesign of buildings on the east end of the site.- 5. Parking. Although the parking for the office /warehouse at the south of the site appears to be adequate, without floor plans for the building no recommendation is made at this = time. Little Canada Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council 7 January 1981 Page Three 6. Landscaping. General landscaping has been shown on the proposed site plan. However, a more detailed plan should be submitted (including sizes of plant materials and a cost estimate) prior to final approval of the P.U.D. This need not be handled until the development stage of the process. RECOMMENDATION In view of the issues which remain to be resolved, it is recommended that Concept Stage approval be withheld until these issues have been addressed, especially since some redesign may be required. Once the City has decided how these items will be resolved, the developer should submit the remaining information required for the Concept Stage and any changes to the plans already submitted. In order that the project be processed as efficiently as possible, it is suggested that the developer may wish to prepare the entire Concept Stage and Develop- ment Stage plans prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. cc: Joe Chlebeck Don Carley Clayton Parks Larry Squires Bruce Hubbard prepared by NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. 4 g) This map is for planning purposes only and should not be used when precise L' measurement is required. PROPERTY IN QUESTION Exhibit A SITE LOCATION MAP Minnesota Mini - Storage P.U.D. 00 1 001 I 2401 OL 000 1600 No111 4C AINJdONd ONIaNf1ON; S% 40 4i /` � - 14 0 ' 34 cxe ;r.. PROPERTY IN QUESTION 0 z4 T (4.4.) S -.a: 9 20 'III 21 11 1RV 4 jA'ttAatte /� ^tea 4 _i"j 1409 47374 Svxi >I \V/'Z LJ 2409.7 Y VAC4T(O ,u S( 4 • ■ r - • r t r i1 Ay SITE DATA �'j .. �.... Tani. SITE /OW A: .v3&t- 24: /LSt1 J• rat.UA?G Au :A : 1-{5N (%a• .-.) ll(t✓A�nO Ah ArC.A: \).)[n r �(it` •"--) G, r va r•e (v ._.._.) w \ NY14 311S Q3SOdOad S n nd raj. t k r C Ill "ir111ium)li4i14,iiiiIui 4•‘.-, � -� • t CQUNTY Hatoo it I \.4QY-cl ra -Y'.r. 1 to-.+ K r .......w •••••• .0 (p,VYY MCAT, e 1.1771,G CANADA niPJuE30TX e, .u., • t yr. +'w .,a +' MINNESOTA P0. SOX 186 • WAYZATA.MINNESOTA 55391 • 612/473 -9591 December 29, 1980 City Clerk City of Little Canada Little Canada, Minnesota Dear Sir: Attached are the plans, legal description, sample lease agreement, check for %100.00 as you requested. Our intended us of the property, as indicated on the attached plan, is to operate a Minnesota Mini- Storage facility on the site. We propose to have eleven buildings of mini storage units, an office /caretakers apt. and an office /warehouse rental building. The mini storage facility will be operated in the same manner as the three facilities we presently own in Crystal, Plymouth and Edina -Eden Prairie. We do not permit businesses to operate there business out of our facility. We rent storage space and that is the only function to occure in the units. Half the units do not have lights and the other half just one light bulb. Our managing couple live in the apartment that is attached to the office and they patrol the property at least twice a day to see that everything is in order. We fence the facility for security purposes and lock up each evening. The office /warehouse building facing County Road B is a multi tennant facility like the one on the front of the Crystal facility. I have met with the city planner, city engineer and the state highway department. The proposed watershed and drainage plan is the result of these meetings. there may be a need for more input to reach the final approved plan, but I feel we are on a course of cooperation. We look forward to developing our project and operating a good business operation in your community. Respectfully your Bruce Hubbard • SSOCIATES, IN Comet ling Engineers —Land Surveyors SI PAUL SAUK CENTRE ST. C101,10_- 500 West Highway 96 St. Paul. Minnesota 55112 484.3301 City Council City of Little Canada 515 E. Little Canada Rd. St. Paul, MN 55117 RE: Minnesota Mini Storage 400 E St. Germain St St. Cloud. Minnesota 56301 2517751 314 Oak Street Sauk Centre. Minnesota 56378 3523664 Jan. 8, 1981 Gentlemen: We have reviewed the plan of Minnesota Mini Storage on County Road "B" and would make the following comments: 1. Pondin_g_ Areas Pond "A" appears to be in the right -of -way of Highway 36. However, we understand that the developer has been in contact with the Highway Department and this may be agreeable with the Department. Pond B is designated to be filled to a depth of 8'. This would cause it to reach an elevation of 873 which is higher than Jackson Street as it now exists. If Jackson Street is raised to elevation 880 as shown, then the manholes should also be raised. The lift station slab is 875 which is only higher than the proposed high level in the pond. Both ponds, while adequate in so far as capacity is concerned, should be provided with an overflow. 2. Dedication of Jackson Street The plan is unclear to us as to whether the developer is proposing to dedicate the other half of Jackson Street from his property or is contemplating tththe eexexisting half street which is dedicated from the property on Part of this confusion may lie in the fact that this plat which extends from Rice Street to Jackson Street is about 49 feet short of the recorded dimensions when measured on the ground. The Highway Department determined that this shortage should be borne by the property bordering Jackson fences accordingly. Consequently, the less than that actually shown on the plans. 4� City Council Jan. 8, 1981 Page 2 3. Hydrants There are two hydrants serving the property, both on County Road "B ", which is a dead end line. These hydrants are almost 600 feet from the north property line. Our general standard is that this distant should be no greater than 300 feet. 4. Slopes The preliminary plans indicate some severe slopes on the west side of Pond "B" and along the north property line. We would recommend that when this concept plan is accepted, that final plans be prepared to address these items. Yours truly, MIL W. CARLEY dASICIATES, INC. Donald 0. Carley, Vice President DOC:bj NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. MEMORANDUM TO: Little Canada Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 8 January 1981 RE: Fireside Homes FILE NO: 758.09 - 80.20 Based upon their meeting with the Planning Commission, the representatives of Fireside Homes have resubmitted plans for development of their property on the south side of County Road D (see NAC staff report dated 30 October 1980 for background). The attached exhibit is a reduced copy of the site plan submitted. In a phone conversation with Vince Douglas, he indicated that they are now proposing a density of five units per acre. Although not specified on the site plan, it is assumed that the structures being proposed are two - family dwellings. Given the details of the plans, it is further assumed that the developer is attempting to gain additional input from the City prior 10 preparation of specific site plans. While we do not feel an extensive review is necessary at this time, the following brief comments are presented: 1. The cul-de -sac street is shown as 660 feet in length with a turn - around radius of 40 feet. The Subdivision Ordinance requires a maximum length of 500 feet and a minimum turn - around radius of 60 feet. 2. Only half a street has been provided. It is assumed that the developer is working with adjacent lard owners to provide a full width street. 3. The lot detail appears to provide parking spaces in excess of three spaces per unit. If garages are to be included, the actual amount of pavement may be able to be reduced. 4. Driveways are shown at 30 feet in width. The Zoning Ordinance requires a maximum of 24 feet. 5. Twenty -seven structures are proposed, resulting in a total number of 54 units (9 lots x 3 structures = 27 x 2 units = 54 units). 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite Solis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 Little Canada Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council 8 January W81 Page Two Depending on the input from the Planning Commission, it may be advisable for the developers to now approach the City Council on an informal basis to receive additional direction. cc: Joe Chlebeck Clayton Parks Don Clarley Larry Squires Vincent Douglas 274' 13 —�3 PVIKinG. c-- 49' -+ p44K,x6 PARKING 4_ 3] Mgr' a - -- 38' —t -n mN V J III T 0 m 3no' NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. MEMORANDUM TO: Little Canada Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Bradley Nielsen DATE: 6 January 1980 RE: Ryan Industrial Park, Lots 7 and 8, Block 4 - Building Permits FILE NO: 758.09 - 80.29 BACKGROUND Art Ryan has applied for building permits for the above - mentioned two lots (see Exhibit A attached). Access to both lots is proposed by a single driveway between the buildings. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS 1. Buildings. Upon review of Section 914 of the Zoning Ordinance, the proposed buildings meet lot requirements and setbacks. It should be noted that both buildings are designed to maximum width, leaving exactly the minimum setback of 15 feet on the side yards. Exhibit B illustrates the site plans for the two buildings. 2. Parking and Access. Parking space has been provided at the rear (east side) of the lots in question. The number of spaces proposed as shown on the site plan for each building is eight, which conforms to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Access to both lots is to be provided by a single driveway. While this is considered to be an acceptable design, it is recommended that the applicant provide the City with a copy of an agreement which would be signed by any future property owners. Since the Zoning Ordinance requires driveways to be located at least 40 feet apart from one another and no closer than five feet from the property line, the proposed plans could not conform to Ordinance requirements with the buildings at the size proposed without use of a common driveway. For this reason, joint use of the single driveway should be handled as a conditional use permit. This will ensure that the joint use agreement is established and that the single access is maintained. This agreement should be subject to review and comment by the City Attorney. ns"l:D 4820 minnetonka boulevard, sui' japolis, mn 55416 612/925 -9420 Little Canada Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council 6 January 1980 Page Two 3. Perimeter Curbing. Although the driveway and parking areas have been delineated on the site plans, no construction details have been provided. As per Section 903.050 D, 8, p of the Zoning Ordinance, a perimeter curb barrier is required around all metal building, at least five feet from the building. This may require a slight reduction in the driveway width to accommodate the required curbing. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the preceding analysis, it is recommended that the City approve the requested building permits with a conditional use permit for joint use of the entry drive. Further, the joint use agreement suggested in the preceding discussion be subject to favorable review and comment by the City Attorney and also recorded against the titles of the two lots. Finally, the plans should include a perimeter curb on the driveway sides of the metal buildings. cc: Joe Chlebeck Clayton Parks Don Carley Larry Squires Art Ryan r tti - 6:1J q), -4-- t1/41n Exhibit B PROPOSED SITE PLANS 24.5. ' 3 G TON NOR I --x—c—e—pL7-7-074 / \ 460 Y A N " - - ---- ° A ' 5 • 01, /co - y .4)712:772L•TrIC)±:").±..,_. 3 ,-AMCO 11 g 'CIA, /A A e nir AA, A • - • .V47 1:4 • • Exhibit A LOCATION MAP Lots 7 & 8, Block 4 - Ryan Industrial Park 3 ; NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. MEMORANDUM TO: Little Canada Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 6 January 1981 RE: Waite, Rockne - Request for Resubdivision, Lot Size Variance and Rezoning FILE NO: 758.09 - 80.27 BACKGROUND Mr. Rockne Waite has proposed to develop Lots 5 -23 and 36 -48, Block 13, of the North Heights Addition (see Exhibit A, attached). According to his application, Mr. Waite wishes to build three fourplexes and two duplexes on the property in question. The property is currently undeveloped and zoned R -3, High Density Residential . Surrounding and uses and zoning are as follows: North - East - South - West - Lake Street, platted but not constructed, then undeveloped, zoned R -3 Soo Line Railroad right -of -way Undeveloped, zoned R -3 Ruth Street then undeveloped, zoned R -1 (Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 12 are currently proposed for a single family dwelling - see Demont variance request) The property contains approximately 81,400 square feet of area or 1 .87 acres. Exhibit B is a sketch provided by the applicant showing the proposed resubdivision and general location of proposed buildings and parking. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS The applicant has not requested building permits at this time. Rather, based on our dis- cussion as to his proposed development, he has requested actions by the City which will enable him to apply for building permits. 4820 minnetonka boulevard, s: IS, mn 55416 612/925 -9420 Little Canada Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council 6 January 1981 Page Two 1. Resubdivision. The property in question has previously been platted into very narrow and unbuildable lots (as narrow as 25 feet). Although these lots have been combined under one ownership for tax purposes, the potential exists for the lots to be sold off individually without the knowledge or approval of the City. Regardless of how the property is to be developed, it is strongly recommended that the lots be legally combined (preferrably replotted) prior to any approval by the City. 2. Rezoning. Two - family dwellings are not listed as a permitted use in the R -3 District. While they are included as a conditional use, one of the requirements for such housing style is that "two or more two - family dwellings shall not abut one another ". Thus, if the applicant wishes to build two in a row, a rezoning of those parcels to R -2 is required. The advisability of this rezoning will be discussed further on in this report. 3. Lake Street. In reviewing the property dimensions shown on the sketch provided, the total length of the property appears to be 30 feet longer than that shown on City section maps. Apparently, although not specified on the application, the applicant is requesting vacation of Lake Street between Ruth Street and the Soo Line Railroad right -of -way. As a result, the City will have to address the street vacation as part of this request. 4. Lot Size Variance. Assuming approval of the street vacation, the applicant has requested variances for the lots which are to contain fourplexes (shown as 1, 2 and 3 on Exhibit B). The lots as proposed are 100 feet wide, while the Zoning Ordinance requires 125 feet. Although it was explained to the applicant that variance requests involve certain criteria (i.e. physical hardship, etc.) and that the request, as proposed, does not meet the criteria, he wishes to pursue the variances based upon his feeling that he is actually developing the site at a lesser intensity than it is currently zoned for. A major concern with granting the requested variances on this basis is that the City has no assurance that ultimate development would be limited to fourplexes. While the applicant may intend to build fourplexes, another owner may wish to recombine lots and build larger structures. One solution to this problem is to rezone the entire property to R -2, Medium Density Residential . This would automatically limit develop- ment of the site to single and two - family residential, while allowing fourplexes as a conditional use. The City would then have better control over any development more intense than two - family dwellings. While this could potentially leave the developer with no assurance that he could build fourplexes, it is felt that such '0J Little Canada Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council 6 January 1981 Page Three assurance could be drafted into a development agreement between the developer and the City. It should be noted that lot width variances would still be required in order to allow fourplexes. A final approach to the problem might be to process the request as a planned unit development. While the proposed development does not contain all the elements typically desired in a PUD, the PUD process would allow better control of the project for the City, as well as a degree of assurance for the developer. A major advantage of the PUD approach is the elimination of variances. Additionally, the resubdivision need not take place until there was some guarantee of what would be built on the site. 5. Site Plans. The site sketch provided by the applicant is obviously not adequate for review or approval . However, either of the approaches suggested above would provide for final site plan review by the City. RECOMMENDATION Although the Comprehensive Plan has suggested low density residential use for the property in question, it is felt that the City must also recognize the existing R -3 zoning. In this light, the proposed development may very well be a good compromise, especially since the property immediately across the street has yet to be developed. If the proposed development is agreeable to the City, it is strongly recommended that one of the two approaches mentioned in 4 above be pursued by the City. finally, the City must decide on the acceptability of vacating Lake Street between Ruth Street and the Soo Line Railroad right -of -way. cc: Joe Chlebeck Clayton Parks Don Carley Larry Squires Rockne Waite i X09 W rI �N 2. 3 4I s1 k / 1 1' 9 1. • -1•11°.' 3 CENTRAL 500 r_ 4 1 / Y. 3.C-nut",4_T'y K �G cam)— _._____ - -- I• 4 4 ;7% 1 1-L1- 1..i.,µ,• OO jal9181)Pb n1312Li po,s �flly �6 511312 1g 10 9.8 )!6 5 �13 12 �� p i rye,. - i b I_�+ I I 1 1 17TI F^�i /.� _ r —__ ___ Ls 4 n 4 as 5! 44 • •13 1.2 • 41 13 Y+.. I_ n6 45 � a I) 39 38" -- _ 37 3i• • 3.3 /' T1 ! L5 I/611)I:8JZ3 b131 37 L/3 J3. 1'— 13 40 0 I :o 10i 4 Q. 5r. L 'I 3, 4 =)-1 . .1'1•I•r 3 15 lt1vI4T 4413 .'�In' ! 6 514H21 %�1. ylti Flu :r F _LH Lit __ f p( ✓. �- `__ 4 14 1 1 745 Y: ' 14 ---1--- 45 PROPERTY IN QUESTION R - ©..s 80 -uO I- srON — 1___1_r4d ._ -_ 1c._'- ;__//13 __f: 1 I6 n3 • IB J al Itl ,1 41 1� - — —_ _ 0 1 41 I� _ _w_i__i��.in —: z o s_.11 -_ 39 _ II - -n _12 3./_ 7.1 U CC '-_ 23 .___ 21 3, J - - -- 5 ' 3C, 31 2,3 33 - .. -2i._ - -_ 3 . "a •11: -5 - - -` '-'x3 -T - _79. y1 ., t/ 1ccr_4-)'__ 33 32 ' Exhibit A t PROPERTY LOCATION MAP Rockne Waite - Ruth Street Development AD 3 LA K o �u Q 4- I 0I T za ;''414 'r'2 ppV 127.63' n °OAnCRETI ST. 8 2.914K. 32 31 60 6 _. 1433394 W- ee o a..,_ r.- ,1 t:: - • .19 o 1 0 .,.I. APARTMENT OWNC CANA i . . ) > la., I/, I) rl • r)0 .r.r v;vt ve •v.I, • LL ...1> 17. li. 1N, :j pIQr, Jy JvlaYUy•v), M16 ri II ...L e041 A P A../3 Yr.. �,� C1. 11, ./ Ls, 7, 1., ), I, 7 a -r tJ 37.,k e) ). b :..n> 7. I it ../4 r, r, L 1 S,5 od ip/dhaF tl S. • ...., •• 1 1- �)t 1! I 1. 17th >11' I l.lrh! Si-rcc / r7,u ,lr •i Clt >r•••rl j7 4 ••• IV) 6 ICU cel S CITY OF LITTLE LE CANADA, MINNESOTA. APPLICATION FORM Comprehensive Plan Amendment -Conditional Use Permit Zoning Distr ct Amendment Text Amendment Appilcant Fnn'rna ''aito 74C1 -,aka S flora 41ra, (Name) (Address) Owner Rockne ::cite 2651 Lake Shore Ave XXX Variance XYy Subdivision Planned Unit Development LR2 Gi c7 483 6152 (Phone) (Name) (Address) (Phone) Property Location (Street Address and Legal Description): Lots 5 through 23 and 36 through 48, Lying Westerly of the Soo Line right -of -way, Block 13, North Heights Addn. • Description and /or Reason for Request (Cite Ordinance Sections): This property is now zoned R -3, High Density. I wish to limit the amount of units to approx. 1/3 of the allowable amount by the construction of three four plexes and 2 double bungalows. The 4- plexes will be 54 X 34 and the doubles will be CO Y. 32. I wool l' - • •• r ,• - 2'- 1 300 feet of the property and the doubles on the North 174.6 -feet. This request conforms to all rquirements except the front footage for the l.=niexes. Also, oue to tne coniuslon of tne City Oroinance and after a discussion with ICr. Brad Nielsen, a request is also made to rezone the 17rth 1'7);_6 to P. 2 to al._. ' -t. .. _ '-__.. r ... and a subdivision the the south 300 feet of the property into 100 foot lots. c'.. — .. >..... 0 C h In signing this application, I hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the . oppiicable provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and current administrative: procedures. I further acknowledge the fee explanation as outlined in the application procedures and hereby agree to pay all statements received from the City pertaining to additional application expense. (S is. (Please attach supportive do-Gun plicant) 1'% • OOZ6 Clerk's exhibit no• i plans) Heeting- 2 -8 -78 S 1/2 SEC. 31 T. 30 R CLASSIFICATION LIST Iecember 1, 1980 Page 1 of 1 NOTICE NO. SUBDIVISION CITY OF LITTLE CANADA Unnlatted Lands - Township 30, Range 22 "TOWNSHIP RANGE 0I< OR LOT BLOCK Past of the Southwest Quarter North of the center line of Owasso Boulevard North and East of the Water Works right -of -way and Westerly of a line running Northeast at an angle of 82 degrees 57 minutes with said center line at a point thereon 556 feet West from the East line of said Southwest Quarter (subject to boulevard and highway), in Section 31, Part of the Southwest Quarter North of the center line of Owasso Boulevard North and Easterly of a line running Northeast at an angle of 82 degrees 57 minutes with said center line at a point thereon 556 feet West from the East line of said Southwest Quarter (subject to boulevard and easements), in Section 31, T30 R22 53- 03110 - 020 -55 T30 R221 53- 03110 - 030 -55 7-107)1 fbc ?csh or JOSEPH CHLEBECK Date: 1 -5 -81 SUBJECT: TAX FORFIETED LANDS PARCELS -53- 03110- 020 -55 & 53- 03110 - 030 -55 Location Twin Lake Blvd. I. Parcel can be acquired for senior citizen housing provided that the City pay all Federal and State leins againts property. A. Ask County to appraise. B. What Federal and State leins against property. II. If property acquired for Park and Open Space, No Payment necessary. "I'111: 1 !( ) \I C'. ( \KL N \M:1: ('O \11'.-A \1 -;-a_e; • .... ;:.Prou _.,..■_sou. TEl_r- 612 1,3I -55O December 11, 1980 Mr. Mike Frattaione 2939 Centerville Road Little Canada, I'II' 55117 Dear Nr. Frattalone: Reference is made to: A. Claim Number D -2 E. Insured Schafer Contracting C. Occurrence Date 9/9/80 We have received your claim for damages due to debris being put on your property from construction work Schafer Contrac- ting was hired to do by the City of Little Canada. However, your agreement with the City of Little Canada,to have the excess material on the property you sold to the City pushed onto your property, was an agreement strictly between you and the City. Our insured merely carried out the City's request as a favor, and was not contracted to do this. Therefore, if you have any claims or questions regarding your agreement and the way the City carried out your agreement, you should contact the City for any compen- sation you may feel you have coming. RQ/lg cc: T. C. Field & Company Sincerely, Ruth Quaife Claim Service Representative ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INCORPORATED ARDEN HILLS, MN COMM. NO. 8012 DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS ROBERT D. BUROW ARCHITECTS, INCORPORATED 750 SOUTH PLAZA DRIVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN DECEMBER 11, 1980 ASSUMPTIONS: - Assume complete Phase III development of site. -100 year rain or ultimate rain is 4" /hour. - Formula Q = A C i (Q= Quantity, A =Area, C =run off factor, i= intensity). AREAS: CALCULATIONS: SITE WATER CONTRIBUTED OFF SITE POND AREA 1.5 A.C. TOTAL POND AREA 3.6 A.C. Water contributed by building roof area in 100 year rain: 84,952 S.F. x 4/12 = 28,034 FT3 Water contributed by hard surface parking and drives: 352,000 x 4/12 = 116,160 FT3 Water contributed by green areas: 734,812 x 4/12 x .25 = 60,622 FT3 Total on site pond contribution - 204,816 FT2 BUILDINGS PARKING /DRIVE ON SITE PONDS GREEN PHASE I 21,952 S.F. (175) 91,000 S.F. 91,476 S.F. (2.1) 1,058,812 S.F. PHASE II 30,600 S.F. (315) 110,250 S.F. 91,476 S.F. (2.1) 1,008,962 S.F. PHASE III 32,400 S.F. (430) 150,750 S.F. 91,476 S.F. (2.1) 734,812 S.F. TOTAL 84,952 S.F. (920) 352,000 S.F. 91,476 S.F. (2.1) 734,812 S.F. 1.95 A.C. 8.08 A.C. 2.1 A.C. 16.87 A.C. CALCULATIONS: SITE WATER CONTRIBUTED OFF SITE POND AREA 1.5 A.C. TOTAL POND AREA 3.6 A.C. Water contributed by building roof area in 100 year rain: 84,952 S.F. x 4/12 = 28,034 FT3 Water contributed by hard surface parking and drives: 352,000 x 4/12 = 116,160 FT3 Water contributed by green areas: 734,812 x 4/12 x .25 = 60,622 FT3 Total on site pond contribution - 204,816 FT2 POND CAPACITY: -3.6 Acres x 43,560 = 156,816 FT2 CONCLUSION: -A 100 year rain or 4 of rain distributed over the entire undeveloped site would raise the pond about .67 feet (8 inches). -29 x 43,560 x 4/12 x .25 = 104,217 FT3/156,816 = .67 feet. -A 100 year rain or 4" of rain distributed over the entire, totally developed site would raise the pond about 1.31 feet (1' -4 "). - 204,816 FT3/156,816 = 1.31 feet. -The net increase effect on the pond elevation contributed by the max- imum developement of site for a 100 year rain is about .64 feet or 72 inches. -1.31 feet - .67 feet = .64 feet or 71/2 inches. -The lower floor elevation (910.0) is located nineteen feet above the existing pond elevation of 891. The pond will naturally spill out to the South -east if the surface elecation reaches elevation 897. A culvert will be placed below the main entrance drive allowing the sur- face run -off over the 897 elevation to reach the existing culvert which extends under State Highway 36 to the South -east. -The 897 spillway could be equiped with a run -off control device if required sometime in the future. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am duly registered Architect under the laws of the state of Minnesota. DATE: DeAinr 1 -WAS 44. IP Is SIGNATURE: REGISTER NO. 10239 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA Resolution No. Name of Assmt: Impr. 79 -1 REAPPORTIONMENT OF ASSMTS. Division No: 56136 D/P No: 1886 Aud. No: 1886 ORIGINAL TOTAL A. 53- 03700- 260 -02 $ 64,753.12 REAPPORTIONMENT 1. 53- 03700- 340 -02 2. 53- 03700- 350 -02 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA Resolution No. Name of Assmt: Sanitary Sewer ORIGINAL A. 53- 03700- 260 -02 REAPPORTIONMENT 1. 53- 03700- 340 -02 2. 53- 03700 - 350 -02 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA Resolution No. Name of Assmt: WM 77 -1 thru 6 $ 7,212.60 57,540.52 REAPPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENTS Division No: 56136 D/P No: 0032 Aud. No: 0425 TOTAL $1,110.00 NONE $1,110.00 REAPPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENT! Division No: 56136 D/P No: 1814 Aud. No: 1814 ORIGINAL TOTAL A. 53- 03700 - 260 -02 $1,548.81 REAPPORTIONMENT 1. 53- 03700- 340 -02 NONE 2. 53- 03700- 350 -02 $1,548.81 M E T R O P O L I T N C O U N C I L Suite 300 Metro Square Buildinc, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 To: Mr. Gary Dickson, City Manager, Shoreview Mr. DeWan B. Barnes, Clerk- Administrator, Falcon Heights From: Bob Scarlett, Manager, Crime Control Planning Program Subject: Suggested Method(s) for Evaluating the Cost- Effectiveness of Police Patrol Services Contract Date: December 4, 1980 At our meeting on Friday, November 21, 1980, you said a number of cities served by the Sheriff's patrol in Ramsey County are eager to find out : 1. What services are the contract cities receiving ? 2. What standards apply to the delivery of these services ? 3. Are these services cost- effective, compared with services provided to other similar cities ? 4. Are these services cost - effective, compared with other alternative means of providing police patrol services ? 5. Is the present level of service adequate, or do we need more services ? 6. If we need more services, what is the most cost - effective way of getting them ? In summary, you feel these cities would like to know whether or not they are getting a good deal for the money. If the cities agree they're getting a good deal, you feel they will want to take measures to keep it that way. If they discover they are not getting cost - effective services, you feel they will want to find a better way to provide themselves with police patrol services. You asked me to come back to you with some preliminary suggestions on how to get the answers to these questions. Here's how I see it: Assumptions a. The cities of Shoreview, Falcon Heights, Arden Hills, Little Canada, Vadnais Heights are interested in getting the answers to these questions. b. This evaluation can be conducted with the full cooperation of the Sheriff's Department. c. Cities would like to have all these questions answered well in advance of the 1982 local budgeting cycle. d. Interested cities will commit staff and Mayor /Council time to a reasonable amount of local fact- finding and reviewing. 8 Sui,ested Methods_ December 4, 1980 Page Two Methods 1. Request joint study with the Sheriff; using Department staff su pervised by city managers group. 2. Seek funds, prepare consultant contract for study. 3. Request study by Ramsey County C.J. Departmen 4. Request study by Metropolitan Council's 5. Request study by Crime Control Planning 6. Assign city personnel assisted by local, regional or state staff. The Challenge t (Justice Advisory Board). Crime Control Planning Program. Board (State). How do you get just the information you need period and at the lowest cost ? Costs & Time and nothing more in the shortest time I figure that an independent evaluation will consume a maximum of cost of $ 35.00 per hour, that would come to $ 8,120.00 for all Spread over 16 weeks, that comes to about 14 or 15 hours per week to 5/31/81). 232 hours. At a time and materials. (e.g., from 2/01/81 Who Pa vs for the Evaluation It is highly unlikely that federal funds would be available for this kind of effort. That means the effort would have to be paid for out of state, regional -local or local -local funds. Services of this kind provided by any of the planning units without direct charge, as long as the work can be performed budgeted and paid for. are generally provided with resources already Suggested Methods December 4, 1980 Page Three Examples of Evaluation Detail Effectiveness of Services - Crimes reported to police - Clearance data - Traffic accident records Level of Service or Efficiency - Personnel strength - Activities: * Average arrests per sworn officer * Average parking and non - parking citations per sworn officer * Average overall activity per officer # Motorists aided # Warnings issued # Accidents covered # Suspicious vehicles checked # Suspicious pedestrians checked # Open doors /windows reported # Fires or other emergencies covered // Citizen complaints covered # Miscellaneous - Effective patrol strength * Total manpower assigned * Average patrol strength per: #shift #day i /capita in service area #square mile of coverage area #mile of roadway in service area #population served * Size of patrol beats * Hours of service provided each day or week * Vehicle miles driven - Nature of personnel * Average hours of basic training completed * Average hours of additional in- service training completed * Average amount of formal education * Average years of patrol experience * Average years with department (or in area). f Su tested Methods December 4, 1980 Page Four - Cases filed * total adult and juvenile cases filed * percent of cases filed which are actually prosecuted * percent of prosecuted cases resulting in convictions - Comparative increase or decrease in expenditures - Comparitive costs for specific law enforcement activity - Organization and management of services Public Opinion or Agency Acceptance - peers (other law enforcement agencies) - local elected officials - citizens who have had contact - the local media CITY OF LITTLE CANADA RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA OFFICE OF CITY CLERK OF LITTLE CA ADA New APPLICATION FOR (tom '�'` lz-c( r•' LICENSE Renewal Transfer License Fee A. Name l if 1 4' L /CH . 6 c• {1 .) Address S5 Z---7- ,- 1/ /le. it- ff��,�1 l� .Jt City 7 7 « / State .1i Zip Phone e%, . ' 5 7S. hereby apply for a license for the term of One Year in the City of Little Canada, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota. B. Business Address City '"_'J .j ,<1 L t . ' .-t State //11f Zip Phone e �' _ 5/S‘ 7S C. Have you been engaged in this business before? Yes x No D. Where? � ./ 2. c [ E. If a Firm or Corporation, names and addresses of the officers. Name of Firm f/4 c ( 7;2( 'i G e _ (6 lZ 4 Address -7 / / / (Cc, xi"1 /0 °C/ /¢ Officers <'�474 A ` -J/ 4.' C ti/ Address ;1-/ // A IC /->/I R/t2 /C'46/ / 1 z -;c' // * vec:S F. List all licenses currently held (municipal or state) G. Well Drilling No. Plumbers' Master No Electricians' State No. Heating Competency No The undersigned applicant makes this application pursuant to all the laws of the State of Minnesota and such rules and regulations as the City Council of the City of Little Canada may from time to time prescribe. �, Date / �LL 7 19 � Signed µ :.�.■((f- CL L - Z� / APPLICANT DO NOT FILL BELOW THIS LINE. Approved for license this date Remarks .49) ed By /G, 05 /96/ /,1,4K5 I- /i'C-c (1. re; / -/` 5/2 /'/! 9,-('Err I. 4,47 (Ey': //% ,'.'Eu /n,v/<- /u.�TK o.✓�Y) 'S C0 17.0 / (-K 8a 5 5 _fa CW/NTE.(' o.VL y - S, //ocR/NTENDA,vf /P /Nit /) &Y /cic F/7 .2.6-6/M40 ( " �U /LL .13 5E,✓E ,(' (/{'Ecij'E/97 /O,v / /N /Fo/PM 5 <4,04 0 /45-tTp ^' ) % 7s ,1 /M N avXEt/fn/ JAN G fAGZYt / Pe-i' DOSS (Exce/4/- s0 /✓ ✓TE/F)V SrCOL' C/ -/1 ' exceyr /04 cn. /v4A'4j 5'i/9 :z /ET t o c[) 72' N1 5i:10464 V 74-K //r7E.fA <d (Es Ce,ar 7 v. ao / ✓ OAi'E Si_ E5ENE,f —7ono ar,m - 7'oEc .7c ELA,v.c 2.7a to6D Bo53 ✓ /P /c/{ So$s ✓ Jeff Ate < s c,✓ 444' 59/1'0 7 ith4/455/ 74 /KO D5vv'5 ArA,L5ro,,+Are �3S K{ / r// 97v3E/ /✓ DAve S9/five r 77E24 �7LFi OeMce An/ ,vE<J ceN //54c9 P E 5 60/1i44wr /o5/r /o,✓0 oP/YE9 /o,v5.fi<_ /TY 3r/r/fr /,✓c //irc4 0,4f, // /99/ ^ loll F /4f5,r /ra..t.fo/trevf -' rHen' 3. 7a /f /o9/1'/f4,vfso /N-5 r.c'ac 74,41.5 S atee/c/Ac 5 /41 fo dL .0eren'ai/.Yee /C/¢re4 ,Cfoar 61.90c!< /.re. rw9ai5 5ey 6Y //rDivrou9<. .c n e, J' MAFces..00,0 "cc. Ge /f. /C/M L/✓/ /<nr Asset- c of ri /E 7A.'rf A'Ca/it /.v r.vC'4 Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh Street and Robert Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 291-6453 w December 29, 1980 Mr. Joseph Chlebeck, Clerk City of Little Canada 515 Little Canada Road Little Canada, Minnesota 55117 Re: Review of Little Canada Comprehensive Plan Review Commenced on December 2, 1980 Metropolitan Council District No. 4 Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 8595 -2 Dear Mr. Chlebeck: Office of the Chairman The Metropolitan Council staff has completed a preliminary review of the comprehensive plan submitted in response to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. There does not appear to be sufficient infor- mation as specified in the Act to enable the Council to complete its review. The particular items required by statutes which staff needs in order to complete the review are outlined below. Land Use Plan The plan must contain existing and 1990 location, intensity and extent of land use, and it may, if desired, go beyond the 1990 date in five -year incremental development stages. As presented, the plan shows existing and saturation level development location and intensity. It does not adequately show the location, intensity and extent of development planned for 1990, or intermediate dates (five -year stages) between 1990 and the date when saturation would be realized. The plan must also show the extent of existing and future land use, which the Council defines as land use acreages by type and intensity of development. The attached memorandum from Tom Caswell provides details on the land use figures desired by the Council. Comprehensive Plan Report No. 1 on pages 17 and 18 identifies. the various protection elements that the plan should address. The report, written as it was in 1977, does not show an additional element added by the legislature in 1978 dealing with solar access protection. The plan as submitted is inadequate for review because it does not identify wetlands (Council records indicate the existence of major wetlands in several areas shown as suitable for development), historic sites (the historic site discussed in Report No. 2, page 5, should be shown on both the existing and future land use maps as mentioned in the city's policy plan), and the plan should contain an element for the protection and development Mr. Joseph Chlebeck - 2 - December 29, 1980 of access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems (Minnesota Statutes 473.859, Subdivision 2, as amended). Public Facilities Plan The airports element, although adequate for review, should be changed to include specific reference to Minnesota Department of Transportation Rule 14, MCAR 1.3015 "Determining Obstructions to Air - Navigation," particularly subsections (C) "Notification" and (D) "General Obstructions." The transportation element is considered adequate for review. However, the city should address either in the plan or in a separate document its response to the letter it received from the Ramsey County Highway Department. The sewer policy plan is considered inadequate for review for the following reasons: 1. The comprehensive plan refers to the 1976 CSP and states the sewer system was designed to serve a population of approximately 18,000. On the other hand, the comprehensive plan states that saturation development of the city will be approximately 12,836. No sewage flow projections for 1990 are provided to determine if the city's planned sewage flow will have an impact on the metropolitan sewer system. 2. Changes in saturation development sewage flows from the original 1976 CSP are not provided to determine what effect these changes will have on the several metropolitan interceptors running through Little Canada. 1990 sewage flow projections are an essential part of the comprehensive plan. Planned growth for the next five years is an essential item of the Sewer Policy Plan. 3. Little Canada has not stated what their policy is with respect to on -site sewage disposal systems. If these systems are prohibited, the plan should state this. If these systems are allowed, the city should describe the standards, permitting process, licensing requirements, maintenance program and provide a map showing soil problem areas. In addition, the plan should address the issues raised by the Metro- politan Waste Control Commission (see attached letter). The parks and open space plan is considered adequate for review. Implementation Plan The Housing Plan and Capital Improvements Program and Zoning Ordinance discussion are considered adequate for review. However, the plan does not adequately address subdivision regulations and Mr. Joseph Chlebeck - 3 - December 29, 1980 how they can be used to implement the plan, particularly for protection of solar access. The plan should also address implemen- tation mechanisms designed to protect historic preservation and environmentally sensitive areas. Finally, the plan should contain a schedule for adoption and effectuation. The Council and its staff are anxious to work with you to resolve this matter as soon as possible. However, until sufficient infor- mation is provided, the review will be suspended. In the next few days your staff contact will be in touch to arrange a meeting to explain the needed information in more detail. After meeting with Council staff, if you disagree with the basis for the suspension, your local governmental unit may appeal the suspension to the Land Use Advisory Committee as provided in Council Plan Review Procedures. Appeal requests must be filed within 30 days of the suspension. A request must be authorized by action of the governing body of your jurisdiction, and it should be directed to the Chairman of the Council. Upon receipt of the request by the Council, the Land Use Advisory Committee will contact and advise you on further appeal procedures. Sincerely, Charles Weaverl✓-� Chairman CRW:im Attach. cc: David Licht, Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. Stanley Kegler, Metropolitan Council District 4 James P. Uttley, Principal Reviewer (291 -6361) Chauncey Case, Airports Margaret Johnson, Transportation Sherri Buss, Housing Arnie Stefferud, Parks Michael Munson, Research Norman Werner, Finance Lowell Thompson (Karl Burandt, Water Quality Marcel Jouseau, Environmental, Paul Smith, Solid Waste) Ray Odde, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission December 9, 1980 Mr. Charles Weaver, Chairman Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 55101 Subject: City of Little Canada Comprehensive Plan Review - M. C. File No. 8595 -2 Dear Mr. Weaver: The subject plan has been reviewed against the requirements for a comprehensive sewer policy plan as outlined in the Water Quality Management Plan. The following comments and recommendations are offered by the Commission: 1) The comprehensive plan does not indicate if the City allows the development of homes using on -site sewage disposal systems. If such systems are permitted the plan needs to be revised to include a complete section on on -site systems. The present plan does not include any policy on this subject. 2) The sewer map as included in the plan is not large enough to be useful. A map using a larger scale should be attached, along with a table on the design capacity versus ultimate needs for each drainage area of the local trunk sewer systems. 3) The plan should project the number of sewer connections and /or residential equivalent connections to be made by year for the next five years. It is requested that if a meeting is scheduled with the City of Little Canada to discuss the sewer element of the comprehensive plan that the Commission be notified of the date, time and place. George W. Lusher Chief Administrator GWL:DSB:hw cc: Lowell Thompson, MC Bayton, MC :S0 [rJ ( /0J E ELDG. ➢ nL: : ;? "T /Tf5ET/ IPA"( [.;.1 Mil 55101 G'2 S2•E423 M E T R O P O L I T A N C O U N C I L Suite 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 July 9, 1980 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Principal Reviewers FROM: Tom Caswell SUBJECT: Land Use Figures When reviewing comprehensive plans, please fill in this form with the acreages given in the plans for each of the categories listed below. In some cases the information will be not available (N /AV), or not applicable (N /AP). In other cases the information may be in more detail than we need for our purposes. For example, if a community lists six categories of industrial, some judgment will have to be made by the reviewer whether the industries are basically "light" or "heavy." These forms will be maintained in a file and will prove valuable in comparing each community's anticipated land uses with that of other communities. Also, when all the plans are received and approved, aggregate figures will be used in updating the Development Framework. Acres Acres City Name Existing, Land Use 1990 Land Use Single - Family Multifamily (4 -Plex or Larger) Total Residential Commercial Office Commercial Retail Total Commercial Light Industrial Heavy Industrial Total Industrial Public Open Space & Parks Airports Streets & Alleys or Rights of Way Commercial Agri. (1 Unit /40 Acres) General Rural (1 Unit /i0 Acres) Rural Residential (Larger than 2.5 Acre Lots & Less than 1 Unit /10 Acres) RETURN TO TOM CASWELL )C7